a testimony concerning our dear friend and brother george watt. who was a tender man toward the lord and his truth, and upright in his life and conversation; and had a care of god's glory, and shown forth an example and testimony in plainness, against the pride and vanities of this world; and all manner of lasciviousness and looseness: a man of integrity, fervency and sincerity, for the lord's honour and the truth, and would have all that profess truth, to walk in it; where any did not, it was to his grief: he had a sincere testimony for the lord, both in life and power these several years, both in meetings here in england, and in holland, and in friezland, who traveled with me; and i had a sincere love for him, for his true and honest upright-heartedness to the lord, who strove to walk inoffensively, both to the church of christ and to the world, in his tender life and conversation; and the lord had greatly blessed him in outward riches, and he so lived above it, that he did a great deal of good with it, setting many poor widows, fatherless and servants to work, that they got a good livelihood under him. and g. watt said to me, that he paid a thousand pounds a year to poor widows, fatherless and servants wages, which was a great help to poor people, so that he has been the helping and making of many; and he kept very good order in his family, and amongst his servants and work-people. and besides his christian charity, he was always ready to help other poor widows, fatherless and families of the church of christ, that profess the same truth of christ with him; and not only so but as the apostle saith, do good unto all, but especially those that are of the household of faith, for such poor families or widows as were not of his religion, and faith, he hath sought out, helped and relieved them in the cold winter season, with coals and other necessities. and this he did not only to the poor natives about london, but also handed several sums of money to the poor french protestants, that left their native country for their conscience-sake, besides the relief he gave several of the poor french weekly at his house. much i could write of such things of the fruits of his christian generous spirit, whose bowels were not straitened from the good works of faith, and practice of pure religion. and i do not know that any one can spot his clean life; he was a man compassed about with many infirmities, but exercised in the word of patience, in which patience he run his race, to obtain the life and crown immortal. and also he was many times very much exercised in the lord's power and spirit, by which he was sometimes moved to go to steeple-houses, and other places, to declare god's truth to the people, which exercise few knew, but who had gone through the same; and several times he had been taken, and carried before justices, and sometimes cast into prison; but the lord by his eternal arm and power carried him over all, and over all gave him dominion, for his name and truth's sake, and in it preserved him to the end of his days, a harmless innocent man, a peacemaker, a true believer in the light of christ, and a child of the same; a living member of the church of christ, who is the holy and heavenly head of the same: and as christ saith, he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live; and he that liveth, and believeth in me shall never die; and in this belief, and in this life is our dear brother george watt; i do see him and feel him; and so, blessed are all they that die in the lord, they rest from their labours, as he hath done, and their works follow them, as his do him. and this was upon me to write concerning our dear brother george watt. though outwardly weak, yet strong in the lord; g. f. london, the 6th of the 9th month, 1688. the end. a just and necessary apology against an unjust invective, published by mr henry burton in a late book of his, entitled, truth still truth, though shut out of doors. by edmund calamy b.d. and pastor of aldermanburic. exod. 20. thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour. mat. 5.22. but i say unto you, that whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause, shall be in danger of the judgement: and whosoever shall say unto his brother, racha, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire. london, printed for christopher meredith at the sign of the crane in paul's churchyard, 1646. truth, no longer truth, but turned into gall and wormwood: or, an answer to a late pamphlet written by m. burton, and entitled, truth, still truth, though shut out of doors. it was the law of the areopagite judges, that those that pleaded before them, {non-roman} {non-roman} {non-roman} {non-roman} {non-roman} should plead without prefacing, and without passion. m. burton quite contrary to this law, first begins with a preface, and then writes a book so full of passion, as that whosoever reads it will acknowledge, that at least when he wrote it, he was not only {non-roman} {non-roman} {non-roman} {non-roman} {non-roman}, (as he confesseth of himself, pa. 2.) but (if i may invent a word to express that which cannot be expressed by any word now in use) {non-roman} {non-roman} {non-roman} {non-roman} {non-roman}, a man, not only of like passions with others, but made up all of passion; and that whosoever will contend with him, shall be loaded with dirt, rather than with arguments, and forced not so much to answer objections, as to wipe off aspersions. for my part, i will not defile myself, nor my answer with reckoning up all the opprobries and calumnies that are cast upon me, not only collaterally and obliquely (as the supposed penman of the pamphlet, as he calls it, to which he frames his reply) but directly and by name. only i crave leave to present this true, but short character of his book. his words are swords and spears, rather than words. he fights with his heels, rather than with his head, and kicks, rather than argues, and whips, rather than answers. scarce any man since montague's appeal hath written with more bitterness. i may say of him, as d. rivet doth of bishop montague, non potest vir ille s●ne con●iti●● quenquam a quo dissentit vel in levissimi●●o minare. rivet. apol. this man cannot mention a man from whom be differs, though but in slight matters, without a reproach. and as plato said to diogenes, when he trod upon the pride of plato, thou treadest upon my pride with greater pride: so doth m. burton tread upon me, and whatsoever is blame worthy in me, with a pride more than episcopal. and surely, if to be railed upon and reviled be sufficient to bring a man into discredit, then must i be esteemed as {non-roman} {non-roman} {non-roman} {non-roman} {non-roman}, as the dung, offscouring, and filth of the world. but to all his bitter invectives, i will return the same answer that austin did, who when he was told that his adversary was too hard for him in railing, he said. it was an easy thing that way to conquer austin; but the reader should perceive it was, clamore, non veritate, by loud crying, not by truth. and what hierom said against helvidius, arbitror te verita●e convictum ad maledicta converti. it is a sign of a man not able to stand before the truth, when he betakes himself to reproachful language. non eget veritas mauri jaculis, nec arcu. non taliclypeo, non defensoribus isti●. neither is it my purpose to meddle with the controversy between m. burton and aldermanburic; i say, between m. burton and aldermanburic. for though m. burton saith, that his quarrel is only with four men in aldermanburic, yet, if the reader will lose so much time, as to look into his narrative, he will find that he calls upon all aldermanburic to be ashamed and confounded for shutting him out of doors, as he phraseth it. but i will not make this quarrel mine. for as i was never thought worthy by m. burton to be desired to give leave to his first admission; so also i was not at all made acquainted with his dismission, and therefore am not at all concerned in the business. and although i shall be willing to open, not only the doors of the church, but the door of my heart, in admitting m. burton in a brotherly and christian compliance; yet, notwithstanding i shall for ever shut the door of my lips from speaking any more about t●is controversy. and the rather, because that whereas in the book to which he answers, there are these words, and that all men may be fully convinced of aldermanburies' love and good affection towards m. burton, we do here profess to all that read these lines, that if m. burton will be pleased to forbear preaching his congregational way amongst us, and preach such things, wherein both sides agree, we will readmit him with all readiness and cheerfulness, and will promise to endeavour upon all occasions to come and hear him; which offer, if m. burton refuseth, let the worldjudge, whether m. burton shuts himself, or be shut-out of the church-doors of aldermanburic. to this friendly invitement, he answers not a word; which makes me for ever despair of his brotherly correspondency with us in our churches. and truly, if m. burton will not only refuse to take a pastoral charge in our congregations, but condemneth our churches, as having inseparable corruptions in them (for so he saith, p. 13. and repeats it twice) i say inseparable, till the very frame of them be made new; wherein he sideth directly with the brownis●, and denieth our churches to be true churches, as wanting a right foundation, and constitution, pag. 14. in which, i am assured our dissenting brethren will be dissenting brethren from him also) and refuseth to give us the right hand of fellowship, as it is, p. 13. and saith, that people cannot with a safe conscience communicate with us, as it is, p. 23. nor acknowledge our ministers to be their pastors truly, as it is, p. 23. and will not forbear to preach those dangerous errors in our churches, no wonder that any conscientious presbyterian should be shy of admitting him to preach to their people. neither is it my design to answer this book of 33. pages, in all the particulars, aulus g●llius, {non-roman} {non-roman} {non-roman} {non-roman} {non-roman}? nam quis leget hac? as one said to a philosopher, that in a great tempest at sea fell a asking many trifling questions, are we perishing, and dost thou trifle? so say i to m. burton, is the ship of england a sinking, and are there truths of the highest concernment now in agitation, and shall i stand trifling away my precious time in long replies? i cannot do this, if i would; neither would i, if i could. and besides; this truth is now grown stale and threadbare, especially to this new-truth-itching age, and by this last book is so drowned in gall and wormwood, as that it may well lose: its name, and be called gall and wormwood, as that star is, which fell from heaven, revel. 8.11. and as clothes when died receive the name of those colours into which they were died. and therefore i will not abuse either myself, or the patience of the reader, or an athenian eye so much as to frame an answer to every particular. but that which makes me put pen to paper, though most unwillingly, is, because i am in this bitter pamphlet painted out to the world in all my worst apparel, and rendered as blackamore-like, and as odious as the pen of an angry scribe could make me. now although, i thank god, i can say with the apostle, non aesti●o humanum diem, with me it is ● small thing to be judged of men; and no new thing to be misreported and misrepresented: yet notwithstanding, because this report comes from so reverend a man as m. burton, and some may possibly believe it for the authors sake: i am bound in conscience not to be so cruel to my good name, as to see it murdered in my life time, and by my silence to consent to the murdering of it, or to suffer such a picture to go uncensured, when a few words will discover the maliciousness and falseness of it. and besides, i am twice challenged by name to answer him, and throughout his whole book he speaks very undervaluingly of the reformation begun in our churches, and layeth stumbling blocks in our people's way, which necessity calls to remove. all which i shall {non-roman} {non-roman} {non-roman} {non-roman} {non-roman}, in few words endeavour to do. to begin first with his index expurgatorius of my life. i read of a painter, that being to paint king antigonus that wanted an eye, painted that side of his face only that had an eye, that so his deformity might not appear. but m. burton quite contrary labours to set me out in all my deformity. page 5. he saith, i have not under pretence of enjoying my ministry, abased myself to the superstitious innovations of the prelates, and thereby caused many both ministers and people thorough my example to fall into the same snare. let the guilty apply it. and let some of aldermanburic remember edmundsbury, i say no more, verbum sapienti. here m. burton sets out himself in all his embroidery, that so my picture might be the more ugly. but m. burton may remember that there was a time when he did abase himself to the superstitions of the bishops, as hundreds in this city can witness. and when he was appointed by a prelate to satisfy the consciences of some that did scruple that wicked oath, ex officio, which he did endeavour to do, as i am credibly informed. all which i relate to show that that which he saith of himself is not true, and what little cause he hath to accuse others for things done 12. years ago, that not many years before was guilty of as bad things himself. and whereas he bids some of aldermanburic remember edmundsbury, i would have him to know, that if it were lawful to boast, i could tell him, that for 10. years i preached at edmundsbury faithfully and painfully thrice a week. and that there are many now in heaven blessing god for my ministry there; and that i can have the testimony of all the godly people and ministry in bury, and thereabouts, in a larger manner than is fit for me to desire; and that i refused offers of 400lb per annum to tarry with them; and that i have been often called to return to them, with expressions of their unhappiness in my departure: but i am a fool in thus boasting, let the reader pardon me, since i am constrained unto it. one thing more i will add, that had not bishop wren put in his foul feet, to defile those clear waters, i should have lived and died with that people, whom i still love and bear in my heart, and am assured that if m. burton's book come amongst them, they will abominate it, because it makes use of edmundsbury to make me odious to aldermanburic. but m. burton, pag. 7. bids the scribe put m. calamy in mind how one at edmundsbury or rochford, that he might not suffer for the truth, did prostitute his ministry to all those superstitious and idolatrous innovations of the prelates in those days, whereby he became a snare in mispeh, both to ministers and people: and that for so doing, according to divine canon, he was to be barred from his ministry as ezek. 44.13. and he bids him tell me the example of origen, &c. the reader may perceive by these words, and those that follow, pag. 7. and pag. 8. that the indictment is drawn in very high language, and that i am charged as guilty, not only of superstition, but idolatry, and idolatry as bad as that of origen, when he offered incense to idol-gods; and that for so doing, i am for ever to be debarred from my ministry: which accusation is so high, as that i cannot but say as the archangel faith, jude v. 9 the lord rebuke thee. in answer to this black bill of indictment, i say, that so far as it holds forth to the world any thing that is true, i shall be willing to own it. of all austin's works, there are two books of his which i have ever most prized, and desire most to imitate, his book of confessions, and his book of retractations. who doth not admire david in his psalms, which we call penitential, or psalms of spiritual restitution, wherein he labours to satisfy the church for the scandal he had given? and solomon also for his ecclesiastes, or his book of his spiritual retractations? chrysostom observes it of paul, as his greatest honour, that although he had obtained pardon of god for his sins, yet he is not ashamed to reckon them up to the world, 1 tim. 1.13. and therefore, i hope, none shall show more willingness in confessing or retracting any thing wherein i have erred. and if i have wanted the fore-wit of innocency, i will not be wanting in the afterwit of godly sorrow and true repentance. thus much i answer in general. but in particular to m. burton i answer. 1. that whereas he calls himself, pag. 11. my elder brother; he deals in this, not as a brother, much less as an elder-brother, that should have less passion, and more discretion. and whereas he calls me, pag. 9 a christian, he deals with me in this, not as with a christian. for suppose i were guilty of all he writes, yet i would answer him, as beza did the papists (who, because they could not answer his arguments upbraided him with the vices of his youth) hihomires invident mihi gratiam christi, these men envy me▪ the free grace of god that hath pardoned these in me. and as austin answered the donatist (that separated from all the christian churches in the world, and affirmed, that there were no true churches to be communicated withal but theirs, and were also divided amongst themselves in minutula frustula, as austin saith) who not being able to confute his arguments, reproached him for his former life, when he was a manichee, the more (faith austin) you blazon my sins and spiritual diseases to the world, the more will i commend my physician that hath healed them all. 2. but i answer in the second place, that this indictment is drawn with a blacker coal t●●n the truth will bear, and is as false as odio●. and herein m. burton deals with me, just as christopher dow dealt with him. this christopher dow was one that undertook to answer m. burton's book, called an apology, or an appeal, and spends all his second chapter in ●ipping up the life of m. burton; he tells us that. but i will not off●r s● much injury to m. burton, or discover so much malice in myself, as to copy out that foul picture that is there drawn of m. burton: i abhor such dealing. i believe not the things to be true: because i soppose them spoken out of malice, to render his adversary odious. ●re●ate the story, only to manifest to the indifferent reader, that m. burton takes just the same course with me, raking up from the dead what he conceives was done by me 12 years ago at least: which things, though they should all prove true, yet, i hope, the impartial christian will no more justify m. burton's practice against me, than they did christopher dows against m. burton. but when they shall perceive the charge to be false, they will conclude, that m. burton hath committed such a fault, which a sea of water will hardly wash off. first, he saith, let the scribe put m. calamy in mind, how one ● edmundsbury or rochford, &c. it shows than he cannot tell at which of these two places this idolatry was committed, whereby the reader may perceive upon what slender information he builds his heavy accusation. but let m. burton take notice of that, which thousands will attest beside myself, that i left bury (a place for situation and wholesomeness of air, so excellent, that camden saith, sol no● vidit ●rbem s●t● elegantiorem) to go to rochford, where i got a quartan ague that continued many years, and s●ffered as much misery, i dare say, as any of our dissenting brethren did in their banishment into the unwholesome air of the low-countries, merely and only to be free from conformity to bishop wren's innovations. he saith, that at edmundsbury or rochford, i did prostitute my ministry to all ●hose superstitious and idola●rous innovations of the prelates in those days; and i did this, that i might not suffer for the truth, and that by this i became a snare in mispeh to ministers and people, and that for so doing i am to be debarred from my ministry, and that in this i did as bad as origen, or the christian soldiers in julian's days, that offered incense to idol-gods. to all which, let not m. burton be offended, if i answer in his own words, p. 1. find me a man that hath sharp teeth, &c. but i will not answer railing with railing. only, i say, this is a high breach of the ninth commandment: for can m. burton prove that i did prostitute my ministry to all those superstitious and idolatrous innovations, &c. i say, to all, &c. surely, i never bowed to; or towards the altar, to, or towards the east. i never read that wicked book of liberty for sports upon the lord's day. i never read prayers at the high altar, placed at the upper end of the church, where the people could not hear. i have often preached against innovations, and once i did it at a public visitation, and was called in question for my labour, and should have been sent for to the high commission, had not god raised up a special friend to prevent it. i never justified the oath ex officio, nor ever prosecuted any man or woman at the high commission. i never (to my best remembrance) at any time preached for the justification of any of the innovations. in some few things i did, i confess, conform according to the light i then had, out of the uprightness of my heart, not to avoid suffering for the truth (the lord knoweth) though m. burton sitting as lord over my conscience is not ashamed to judge of my intentions, as well as my actions, and to say, i did it that i might not suffer for the truth: which cannot but be a rash, if not a most unjust censure. and for those particular things wherein i yielded, i had the consent of the godly people in bury, who did profess unto me, that if my conscience would give me leave to yield to those things, they would not be offended with what i did, nor like my ministry any whit the worser; and how then could that that i did be such a snare to ministers and people? but how will m. burton prove that that which i did was idolatry, and to be paralleled with the idolatry to the heathenish gods, like that of origens, and of the christian soldiers in julian's time, and for which i am to be debarred from my ministry? surely, when he wrote these words he consulted more with machivil, then with his bible: i will answer in his own words, pag. 16 calumniate boldly, and some reproach will stick, by this time our stomach being accustomed to the poison under his tongue, hath learned to digest all. but let m. burton ask his own conscience how far in former times he hath been guilty of that which he accuseth others. and if i should be so wicked, i could name some of his brethren of the congregational-way, that have yielded far more to the prelates innovations than i have done. but i abhor to practise that which i condemn in others. but that which followeth is (if any thing can be) more oftensive and scandalous, and renders me more odious and abominable. pag. 7. but you will say, you have repented: would god it were a repentance not to be repented of. for were it so, how could the old spirit of bondage still remain, only turned into the spirit of domination? or how could there be such an antichristian spirit in man to oppose the kingly government of jesus christ over consciences and churches, and to persecute all those of this way? or how could men be still so ignorant of the ways of christ, and stand out so stiffly against them, had they truly bewailed their former superstitious abominations? they clamour on us to show them a model, a pattern of what we hold. we call upon them for sound repentance for their superstitious practices, in subjection to an antichristian hierarchy, according to that, e●ek, 43.10, 11. if they be ashamed for all their iniquities, then show them the pattern of the house. thus far m. burton. the plain english of these words is this, that none ever repented of their conformity to prelatical innovations, but independents. and that there is a spirit of domination in all ministers that are not of his way: and that the government which he m●intains is the kingly office of jesus christ; and that they are all of an antichristian spirit that oppose it: which words savour so much of that spirit of domination and antichristianism, which he condemns in others, as that i wonder m burton is so blind as not to see it. but i perceive by this very pass●ge, that let the presbyterian ministers meet never so often to humble themselves by prayer and fasting for their former conformity (as they have of●en done) yet, if they will not turn independents they must still be accounted amongst the number of those, that as m. burton saith, pag. 7. have been vassals to antichrist, and defiled themselves with doing the drudgeries of lording prelates, and without any more ado, when occasion is offered, with dry eyes to pretend for christ in a way of reformation. surely such kind of language will never gain proselytes to the congregational-way. for my own particular i crave leave to declare to all that shall read these lines what i have done to manifest my repentance, and let m. burton then judge whether it be a repentance to be repented on, or no. first, i went to bury, and there made in a sermon, a recantation and retractation of what i had done, in the hearing of thousands. and this i did before the times turned against episcopacy, not out of discontent, nor because i was disappointed of my expected preferment at court. secondly, after my coming to london at the beginning of this parliament i was one of those that did join in making smectymnuus, which was the first deadly blow to episcopacy in england of late years. thirdly, my house was a receptacle for godly ministers in the worst of times: here was the remonstrance framed against the prelates: here were all meetings. i was the f●●st that openly before a committee of parliament did defend that our bishops were not only not an order distinct from presbyters, but that in scripture a bishop and presbyter were all one. i blush to sp●ak of these things, but the judicious reader will consider how i am provoked to it, and will pardon me. the lord knoweth i did these things to make reparation to the church of god, for what wrong i had done her. for my conscience was at last fully satisfied, that the bringing in of those innovations was but a shoing-horn to draw in, if not the pope, yet popery, and it was the grief of my soul that i had had the least hand in ushering in either the one or the other. but what is all this, as long as i turn not independent? this will not satisfy m. burton. and therefore he brings that plac●, ezek. 43.10, 11. if they be ashamed for all their iniquities, then show them the pat●rn of the house. but may we not be ash●med of our iniquities, and yet continue to hold the discipline of the reformed churches? hath god showed the pattern of his house to none of the reformed churches in geneva, fr●nce, scotland, & c? this is a bold assertion: m●st we comply with m. burton in his model (which i perceive by what is in his book, is far different from the judgements of his brethren) or else we shall never see the pattern of god's house? but what will m. burton say to those presbyterian ministers that never conformed either to the old or new ceremonies of the prelates? what will be say to old m. dod, m. hildersham, m. ball, &c. m. rathbane, and many others? did not those reverend ministers see the pattern of god's house? and yet it is well known that they wrote many books against those that refused communion with our churches, and were their greatest enemies. but m. burton goeth on to cast abroad his wildfire, and addeth, that all the reformation here and there pretended to be set up in parishes, hath rather cam●lion-like received its form from the fashion of the times, then from a real, intrins●cal change wrought in the heart by the spirit of christ. the best way of answering this pass●ge would be to rake a little, and but a little in m. burton's dunghill, and to bestrew him with two or three of his own dirty flowers, that he may tell others how sweet they smell, but i dare not, nobis non licet esse tam disertis, i mu●t follow the apostles rule, rom. 12.21. be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good. but how dares m. burton say, that all the reformation set up here and there is but pretended to be set up, and that it hath no real, intrinsical change, & c? the lord give him a heart seriously to consider the rashness and uncharitableness of this speech. but he adds, pag. 8. that such as now glory most in their new reformation, were they not among the very last that held up the service-book, a● loath to lay it down, till very shame left it? here the reader may perceive that m. burton doth antiquum obtinere, and resolves to like no reformation, but what ends in separation. and why may we not glory in our new reformation, which in some places hath as much scripture purity, as the best of theirs, and is joined with unity also, which theirs want? and what is m. burton's church, and his new reformation, that it must lift up itself above all other churches, and other reformations? if i may believe reports, there are divisions not a few among his people, and— but i must not believe reports: yet notwithstanding, if m. burton takes leave in a bitter manner to s●y, pag. 13. doth he not bewray his gross or wilful ignorance, if not insolence, in asking what defilements are still in their churches? i hope he will give me leave in a mild manner to demand of him, whether there be no defilements in his church? and whether his church be purified according to the purification of the sanctuary? and whether, if a church be not purified in every thing according to the purification of the sanctuary, a man cannot with the comfort of a good conscience communicate in that church? for so he seems to say, pag. 23. which is a doctrine, as fa●re from truth, as it is from peace and unity. as for the service-book, let m. burton know, that at a meeting at my house, it was resolved by above a hundred ministers, after a long debate upon divers weighty considerations, that all that could in their judgements submit to the reading of some part of it, should be entreated for a while to continue so to do. to this our dissenting brethren, then present did agree, and one of them made a speech to manifest his concordance. this is enough to give any man satisfaction for the late laying of it down. and if m. burton means that aldermanburic was among the last that held up the service book, he is exceedingly mistaken in this; as he is in many other things, as hundreds can witness for me. and thus i have endeavoured to answer so much of the book, as relates to my former life and conversation. as for my answer to the other particulars, which amounteth to another sheet, i will condemn it to perpetual silence; and the rather, because as jacob's cattle by looking upon the rods, when they did conceive, brought forth cattle speckled and spotted, gen. 30.41. so my fear is, left by conversing too much with his bitter invectives, i should also bring forth as angry a pamphlet as his is, contrary to my genius, and natural temper. for as the painter engraved his named so artificially into the picture of min●rva, that whosoever should undertake to deface his name should be forced to deface the goddess also: so hath m. burton so interlaced and interwoven his scoffing and railing speeches throughout his whole book, that it is impossible to answer one, but i shall be necessitated to answer the other also, which will ill become a presbyterian, nor well become an independent; and therefore i draw a veil over the rest. epist ad nepotianum, only i will put m. burton in mind of a saying that hi●rom relates of domitius an orator, cur ego te, inquit, habeam at principem, cum tu me non habeas ut senator●m? if he exp●●ts that i should account him as a brother, and as an elder brother, let him not account me as an heathen, and as a publican; let him not so bitterly inveigh against our assemblies, if he looks to preach in our assemblies. and if he would be accounted as a confessor and martyr, let him not expose my good name to martyrdom, and therein make me a martyr, and himself a persecutor: for it will always be accounted as great a persecution to be branded in our good names, and stigmatised for idolaters and time-servers, &c. to all posterity by m. burton's pen, as to be pillored and lose our ears by an episcopal hand. finis. falshood unmasked, in answer to a book, called, truth unveiled which vainly pretends to justify the charge of m r standish, against some persons in the church of england. by a dutiful son of that church. london, printed for james magnes, and richard bentley at the post-office in russel-street, in covent-garden, 1676. imprimatur ab. campion. novemb. 3. 1676. to the author of the vindication of mr. standish's sermon, etc. sir, being at this time not far from london, i have met with a little pamphlet, called the truth unveiled, etc. (which you pretend to be a vindication of mr. standish's sermon) a great deal sooner than otherwise i should have done. the pamphlet itself, doth not seem to me to be worthy of any regard: but to yourself who seem to be much concerned for the safety of our religion, there is a great one due, and therefore in mere charity to you, i have once more set pen to paper, briefly to demonstrate that you wrong yourself exceedingly in employing your time about works of this nature; for which you are not at all fitted. you are a person of quality; i make no doubt, because i have your word for it; but i must take the boldness to tell you; that whatsoever other qualities you have, you are not qualified (to imitate a little your way of writing) to pass a censure on men, and on books, as you have taken the liberty to do, you will be apt, it is like, by this blunt beginning, to make the same judgement concerning me; but i trust i shall evidently show, it is no rashness or presumption in me, to undertake this task; which is so easy, that it requires no great abilities to make good this charge, viz, that there is a notorious defect, either in your will and affections, or else in your mind and judgement: either of which make you unmeet to meddle with these matters. the former of these i dare not suspect, because you profess downright honesty, though no arts; and in many passages speak very piously. though i cannot forbear to say thus much, that the constant affectation of little strains of the lowest and poorest sort of witty reflections, is no good sign of that serious inside piety, whose heartblood, you say, is now letting out by a generation of men, for whom you cannot find a name bad enough. who can read without some disdain, such pitiful punns as you have made upon the names of several persons: which i doubt you would not allow in another, while you take a great liberty this way yourself. you would call it, i have reason to think, flirting and fleering, or lightness and vanity, if not jeering and abusiveness in those whom you take to task; which you practice without any scruple, from the beginning of the book to the end. mr. bull comes first with his horns, and eager bushes pag. 33. having lately pushed apiece into the world. p. 37. then mr. baxter is described by the character of one, who hath spoiled in his time many good baking. and elsewhere dr. heylin, passes under the name of st. george his champion, and you doubt his dragon too. and there is another, i am confident you aim at, when, upon the mention of dr. owen, and mr. jenkins, you tell us of the grovelling outcries that are made. nor can i devise any other reason, why you contracted the name of your book in the entrance, with an &c. (when it stands at length enough in the title page) but only to bring in the far-fetched conceit of the oath, etc. sure, sir, this trifling is not to be a practitioner of piety in baley's way, nor to watch over your actions according to brinsley's rules, and as you direct us, p. 30. if it be, those books, and the rest you commend to our use, do not surpass so far as you would have the world believe, the labours of the new speaking gentlemen. so you call the writers you oppose, though that excellent man dr. hammond (after whom follows bishop taylor) leads the van, as you speak, and was the forelorn hope. who deserved sure to be treated with more reverence, especially by a person of quality, who ought not to have stooped to so low, so paltry, a way of writing, nor to have comprehended so great a divine, and so holy a man, under no better name, than that of a new-speaking gentleman. but you do not deny, but there are abundance of excellent, useful, seasonable, well-said things in his practical catechism. and therefore, notwithstanding all this, i doubt not but you are (though i know not who you are, no more than the man in the moon) a pious, serious, honest gentleman, or person of greater quality) who intends to do service to religion; though you are not well skilled in the business you go about. for that there is an exceeding great defect in your judgement, it is apparent from hence, that pretending a vindication of mr. standish his sermon, you have not writ one syllable to the purpose. for the men whom he informs against, and whose names i desired we might know, are such as impiously deny both our lord, and his holy spirit: who make reason, reason, reason their only trinity: who preach up natural, and moral religion, without the grace of god, and faith in christ: and in effect say, there is no such thing as supernatural grace. that is in plain terms, rank socinians; or worse, (if worse can be) for the socinians do not advance natural religion against the christian, nor deny all supernatural grace. now i did not, nor do believe that there is a man to be named among our clergy, who is guilty of these foul detestable heresies. yes, say you (or you say nothing) since you call so loudly and importunately, for a bill of particulars, you shall have it. and the first names you give in, are dr. hammond and bishop taylor. who must therefore be the ringleaders of those deceitful workers, those false apostles mr. standish speaks of; or else (to speak mildly, in one of your own phrases) you have missed the quishion. choose you which of these you will; it is certain you will be found, to be an incompetent person to interpose yourself in those differences; though i doubt not you are, as in humility you style yourself, p. 34, a well-meaning scribbler. do you really intent to charge those great men with the crime of socinianism? is the practical catechism in effect but the cracovian, in which mr. standish feared we might live to see our youth trained up? hath any one more effectually established the doctrine of the holy trinity, than the ever memorable dr. hammond, upon the 1 epistle of s. john, the fifth chapter, and the sixth verse? i believe i may answer for you, that you did not mean to impute any such heresies to either of them. and therefore it remains, if you acquit them, that you condemn yourself of the grossest impertinency, and heedlessness, in naming these, as the heads of that black faction. for if you can lay things together, you will see that this must be your meaning; or you did not mind what you wrote about: but having something in your head, concerning innovations in our religion, regarded not how you applied it. look over the earnest request to mr. standish; read the character of the men, a list of whom i desire him to communicate; and then apply it to dr. hammond, and bishop taylor, and you will very hardly hold (to speak your own language again) from ask yourself that question, which you observe p. 29. sir john sucklin asked, when he found sir toby matthews in the session of poets, what do they here? perhaps, you will as earnestly reply, have i not alleged a strange passage out of one of bishop tailor's prayers? what do you say to it? i say i have taken notice of it myself, and do not know what he meant; but i am sure he was no socinian, and that there is no socinianism in the words you quote, whatsoever there be else; and therefore i know not what you meant to thrust them in here; where they have nothing to do. there is no man of the church of england, i believe, that will answer for every word in that great man's writings: but no more will any discreet man of your way, answer for all the hard say that are in mr. calvin's. i am sure i find in my small reading, the greatest men, who have undertaken his defence, absolutely disclaiming their being bound to make good every thing that he said; and therefore had it been more pertinent than it is, you might have let it pass, and not have disturbed dr. tailor's ashes (as they speak) but suffered a person of his merit, to sleep in peace. but some of those that follow, perhaps may be of the racovian stamp; though these two be found as innocent, as all you have said about them, is impertinent. let us try if you please, what you have to say to st. george champion, who next follows? if we should allow him to have been, as you doubt, his dragon too; we shall never find him spitting any such venom, as that mentioned in mr. standish's sermon. you yourself cannot charge him with any such thing; but detain your reader only with along tedious reflection (in xvii. particulars) upon his cyprianus anglicus, or, the life of our great archbishop laud, which still shows that you are beside the cushion, and without question, expert (as you say of him) that readers should rest upon your dictates, without any searching whether you writ to the purpose or no: or else you would never have so determinately called your book, a vindication of mr. standish's his sermon, which in truth is far otherwise. it would have saved you a great deal of needless pains, if you would but have minded the last words of my request to him (which are not mine, but the wise son of syrach's 11 ecclus. 7.) understand first, and then rebuke. you would not have troubled us, if you had heeded this good counsel, with a story of his arminianism, strutting through all the pages of his book; which is no more to the vindication you undertake, than the mysterious agency of panzani and con (which you talk or afterward) and that which was a doing (i know not when) at clerken; well, and behind drury-lane. nor hath the ghost of tilenus, whom you bring in next, any thing to say about the business. it is only a dumb apparition; and we have nothing but your word for it, that it makes very irregular glances, and would let out the heart's blood of sundry truly protestant doctrines, all that follows it likewise is but wind, against parker, hickringale, and sweet mr. sherlock (as you are pleased in much civility to term him) whose writings you say, contain not much more than sophistical harangues, perspicuous calumnies, and prodigious drolleries. what that much more is, you will not let us know; it is like that, as little as you think it, it contains a confutation of your accusations. for one of those persons whom you rank with them, georgius bull, i am acquainted withal, and know him to be both an holy▪ and a very learned person, who hath in his last book thrown off this charge of socinianism, with as much indignation, as you can do the writings of any of the new speaking gentlemen. and there is no body that knows him, but is assured, he most sincerely declares his inmost thoughts: and would not for a world embrace any doctrine, contrary to what hath been taught by the catholic church; with which he is certain the church of england is not at odds. but why do i make so many words about this sort of writers? our books of devotion will not down with you neither; but, upon this, that is no occasion, fall under your lash. if they do but omit any thing, which you would have in them, straightway you quarrel, and think it a sufficient reason for your displeasure at them. the method and direction for private devotion, is not for your tooth. and which is more, the whole duty of man, is not secure from your impotent assaults, p. 29. and 32. we must use no other books but such as you like; or else quit our title to the name of the right sons of the church of england. instead of the excellent book last named, we must buy the practice of piety (though far more liable to exceptions in many wise men's judgements, than any book of devotion you have mentioned) or else you will not be in a good humour. what an imperious, dictating spirit is this (which rules in men of this strain) who will not allow us so much as to speak out of their phrase? is this the spirit of true genuine calvinisme, which you so highly commend, p. 28? are those that carp at every thing, and can relish nothing, but what is of their dressing, nor fancy any body, but those that are exactly of their own cut, the rightest sons and fathers of the church of england?— why (will you here, i fancy, interrupt me, and be apt to say) what have you to object against what i have writ, that an episcopal calvinist is the rightest son, or father of the church of england, the best protestant; and (if a good man) the best christian? p. 28. i answer, if you will not count me impertinent for meddling with that, which was not my present business with you, i have very much to object. and first i say, that no right son, much less, father of the church of england, will endure to be called, or thought, either a calvinist, or an arminian: for our church follows no particular man, though never so great; neither calvin, nor luther, nor arminius. none of these are the founders of its faith: which is not taught by calvin's or any other institutions; but by the holy scriptures interpreted by the church of christ, in the best ages of it. or (to give it you in the words of an once father of this church) interpreted, not according to the fancies, and most what presumptions of some one man, delighting commonly to oppose and thwart the stream of antiquity; but according to the sense and meaning of those times, that drew water nearer unto the wellhead; that is, to the apostles, and their successors immediately. upon which score it is certain, that the doctrine of this church cannot be calvinian. for the first and purest ages, by which it is guided, you yourself are sensible was not so; only you think it sufficient to smile at those who pretend their authority, and say, it is little less than ridiculous to talk of the fathers before st. austin's time, in reference to those questions. p. 25. why so, i beseech you? because they lived, say you, before the controversy was started; and so did not, nor could intent to speak appositely to the points of original sin, the power of grace, &c by which reason we must not appeal to them in the points about popery; for then the pretences of st. peter were not on foot, etc. and then they could not intent to speak appositely to such matters. i should think those great lights of the church, ought not to be thus slighted, in a matter of such moment. and an indifferent person would, for your reason, conclude the quite contiany; that they are the more to be heeded, because they are the more likely to have delivered purely their sense without any bias, when they were not engaged among themselves in the heats of controversy; which too oft pervert the understanding. and those doctrines which subvert mr. calvin's systeme, were so certainly believed by them, that they made no controversy of them: but with one consent rejected the doctrine of fate, which was then no less rife among the pagans (against whom they were careful no doubt to write appositely) than the absolute irrespective decrees are now among christians. but besides this, i am also certain, that the sons and fathers of the church of england, have opposed this doctrine long before mr. hoord appeared; who you say, was the first that ventured to give our british world, new notions of god's love to mankind. this is so palpable an untruth, that bishop hoopers' works show these notions which you call new, are as old as the reformation, and a sermon preached at st. paul's cross, see mr. bull. on the 27 of october (as the title page informs me) anno reginae elizabethae 26. by samuel harsnet, is such an illustrious testimony against you, that there cannot be a greater. he was then but fellow of pembroke-hall in cambridge; but afterward promoted to be one of the fathers of the church, in king james his time, and at last advanced to be one of our primates; for he died▪ archbishop of york. i suppose, sir, a person of your reading, who undertakes to trace the crooked muddy stream, as you call it, to its first weak ebullitions, cannot be ignorant of the strong efforts (to use your own word) made by this preacher; who expressly makes the doctrine, which mr. hoord long after opposed, a daring enemy risen up against our israel. for he expressly calls it a goliath, which was grown huge and monstrous, reviling not the host of the living god, but the lord of hosts. and mentioning those words of st. paul, [god would have all men to be saved] tells that numerous auditory the genevian conceit hath dealt with this gracious bounty of god, and this blessed saying [god would have all men to be saved] as hanun did with the ambassadors of david. he cut off their garments to the hips; and this hath curtailed the grace of god to the stumps: for it saith, it must not be meant that god would have every living soul to come to heaven; but one or two, perhaps, out of every order and occupation. but the spirit of st. peter (a great deal wiser than that of geneva) saith plainly, god would not have any one perish, etc. i trust we shall have grace to believe him; since himself can better tell what himself would have, than the men of geneva can. what think you now after this downright declaration (which i have transcribed a small scrap of, out of that sermon, on 33 ezek. 11.) was mr. hoord the first man that ventured to teach god's love to mankind, in a way quite opposite to that of the calvinians? is not here a man that boldly tells the british world in the greatest assembly it had, that your beloved doctrine is a stranger, nay an enemy to our church: strutting indeed about at that time, and bearing itself high (as you speak of dr. heylins' arminianism) so that men trembled and shaked at it; but by him resolutely endeavoured to be cast down, as a foreign conceit, which ought not to be admitted here. we know very well, how it came to spread and grow so huge and monstrous; but it was then no more the sense of the church of england, than arianisme was the sense of the church catholic, when all places were overrun with it. there were still more than one who had the same resolution with athanasius, to bear witness against it; as i could show out of good authors. and i can see no cause why bishop montague (whom, as becomes a true course calvinian, you call bare montague, and therefore the rest, by the way, need not take it ill they are no better treated) should be quite struck out of the number of those, from whom we may learn the notions of our church in his days. for i can find no state-politicks in his book (which you pretend for his rejection) but as he assures us, the proper, true, and ancient tenants of the church of england; such as be, without any doubt or question, legitimate and genuine, such as she, will both acknowledge and maintain for her own: so he avows in his epistle dedicatory, to his late majesty, before his apello caesarem. and there is no reason to think him partial in this case; since dr. francis white, than dean of carlisle (no mean champion sure of our church) testified as much, after he had been authorized by king james, to read that book over duly, and give his judgement of it, which is this, as you may see in his approbation, or licence of it for the press, 1624. that having diligently perused it, he found nothing therein but what is agreeable to the public faith, doctrine and discipline established in the church of england. now mark what this writer saith to those that informed against him. you would make the world believe (as you, sir, endeavour also to do) that the church of england calvinizes': show me good warrant for it, and i yield, i may rather say that the church of england hath opposed this doctrine, because that many of the learned (your selves will not deny) in that church, and most conformable unto the discipline and doctrine of the church, have mainly opposed it. you may find this lively testimony against you, in the first part, the seventh chapter: towards the conclusion of which, he further adds, i am sure it hath been opposed in the church of england; otherwise taught and professed in the schools, when i was an auditor there. it hath been prohibited to be enjoined, and tendered, or maintained, as the authentical doctrine of our church, by supreme authority; with sharp reproof, unto those that went about to have it tendered, than when those conclusions or assertions of lambeth (which you mention) were upon sending down to the university of cambridge. this is sufficient sure to convince you of your error; or if it be not, let me add, that bishop davenant himself (who you do but hope, reduced mr. hoord to a sounder mind, for i can prove the contrary) in his lent sermon before the king, and the last i think that he preached, declared his opinion to be, as for universal redemption, so for universal grace within the church. which i doubt, the calvinians will-not allow; i am sure those that are called arminians, desire no more. you may find this, if you please, in dr. hammond's letters to bishop sanderson, concerning god's grace and decrees, p. 27. and i hope you will take his word in a matter of fact, for a greater thing than this. but if all this will not be regarded, yet i presume the church itself will be allowed to understand its own sense, which hath directly, and in express words (saith the forenamed bishop montague, in that book, licenced by the king's authority) overthrown the ground of calvinisme, in teaching thus: that a justified man, and therefore predestinate in your doctrine, may fall from god, and therefore become not the child of god, p. 59 which he repeats again p. 73. the church holdeth, and teacheth punctually (and that in the opinion, and with the dislike of the learnedest of your side) that faith, true, justifying faith, once had, may be lost and recovered again: that a man endued with god's holy spirit, may lose that holy spirit, have that light put out, become like unto saul and judas, etc. how can the church of england then be thought, even in your own understanding, to be calvinian; which teaches things so cross to mr. calvin's hypothesis, that they utterly overturn it? and it had been very happy if they that endeavoured to bend some other articles of our church to his sense, had rather studied, as they ought to have done, to frame their sense in all other things to this article, which is directed so expressy against what he teaches. this church than would have been in a better condition than it is; being now in danger to be destroyed by those, who were never quiet, till with the doctrine, they had brought in the discipline too of mr. calvin among us. those are memorable words of bishop mountagues (whom if he had been yours, you would have gone near, upon such an occasion, to have styled a prophet) which we meet with in the fifth chapter, of the first part of his appeal, where he charges those that informed against him, with waving the doctrine of our church, preaching against it, teaching contrary to what they had subscribed, that so, saith he, through foreign doctrine, being infused secretly, and instilled cunningly, and pretended craftily to be the churches; at length you may wind in with foreign discipline also, and so fill christendom, with popes in every parish for the church, and with popular democracies and democratical anarchies in the state. if you please to reflect upon our late confusions, and compare them with this prediction, perhaps you may hereafter love bishop montague better, as a person of some judgement and sagacity in other things, as well as in this. but i list not to trouble the reader with any unpleasant reflections upon those dismal times, i will rather upon this occasion, refresh him with a tale, as king james called it, in the conference at hampton court, p. 82. there was a time, saith he, when mr. knox writes to the queen regent of scotland, telling her, that she was supreme head of the church, and charged her, as she would answer it before god's tribunal, to take care of christ's evangel, and of suppressing the popish prelates, who withstood the same. but how long, trow ye, did this continue? even so long, till by her authority, the popish bishops were repressed, he himself, and his adherents, were brought in, and well settled, and thereby made strong enough to undertake the matters of reformation themselves. then lo, they began to make small account of her supremacy, nor would longer rest on her authority but took the cause into their own hand, etc. i will apply it thus, and then putting his hand to his hat, his majesty said, my lords, the bishops, i may thank you, that these men thus plead for my supremacy: they think they cannot make their party good against you, but by appealing to it; as if you, or some that adhere unto you, were not well affected towards it. but if once you were out, and they in place, i know what would become of my supremacy. with the like reason i may apply it again to our present business; there are certain men that ring perpetually in our ears, the doctrine of the church of england, the doctrine of the church of england: as if they were the most afraid of innovations in it, and were the most zealous assertors, and strongest supporters of it. whereas the truth is, they are beat from all other holds, and hope to shelter themselves a little by appealing to it: as if some among us were not well-affected towards it. but if once their opponents were out, and they in their places, with a power to settle matters among us; i know what would become of the doctrine of the church of england; which they would no more value than an old almanac quite out of date. but i intent not to make a book of this, and therefore have said enough to demonstrate the first part of your assertion is not true that an episcopal calvinist is the rightest son or father of the church of england. as for the second, that he is, if a good man, the best christian; i have far more to say, than i am willing to print. it is sufficient to tell you, that i have known indeed sundry good men of that way, who i verily believe would have been much better, if they had not been of it. and others i have known, who have stained their goodness, with such irregular actions, and sinister practices and deal, as i believe they would not have been guilty of, had not their principles betrayed them into them. and lastly, i am apt to think that you yourself would have been more charitable in your censures, more indifferent in your judgement, concerning men and things, more civil and courteous in your treatment of those you oppose, less captious, less partial, and not so peremptory as you are in many places of your book, if you had not been a calvinian: but i will not dispute on which side (would to god we could use no such word, but as we are one body, so were indeed all one) the best christians are, nor which principles are apt to make the best. let us all sincerely endeavour to excel in virtue, and be glad that any can outstrip us, though they be not in all things of our mind; which will be far better than contending about precedency, or about any thing else whatsoever. here now we might fairly part; but that i believe you will be apt to think, either i have nothing to say, or dare say nothing, of that about which you make so many sad complaints, if i should wholly pass by the points of justification by faith, and the imputed righteousness of christ. with the same provision therefore, that you will not accuse me for meddling with. that which did not concern me, i will add a few words about those matters. and i assure you, i abhor the man, as much as you can do, who shall teach me otherwise, than our church doth, artic. xi. that we are accounted righteous before god, only for the merits of our lord and saviour jesus christ, by faith, and not for our own works or deservings. and therefore it is a most wholesome doctrine, and full of comfort, that we are justified by faith only. but i verily think, there are: none that teach otherwise; but you have wholly mistaken those persons, whose writings have given you the trouble of making this book. for though we are justified by faith only, yet you acknowledge p. 37. that all christian virtues are connate with that faith. which grants all that mr. bull contends for; whose position is, that the faith which justifies contains in it a sincere purpose of a new life. o but none of those virtues (you add) pass into the cause of justification, no, nor is faith itself any cause of it; not so much as an instrumental cause; and therefore you ought not to have quarrelled with mr. bull about this matter; who detests any such thoughts as you impose on him, that our good works are required casually, and antecedently to our justification, p. 39 no such absurd notion is to be found, i will stand to it, in his book; nor lies i am sure, in his head. he is not so weak, so unstudied a divine, as to make any thing that we can do, the cause of that, which god alone can bestow upon us. he doth not so much as require good works antecedently to our entrance into the state or justification; but only the purpose of them: which you yourself acknowledge to be included, together with all christian virtues, in that faith which justifies. and indeed bishop davenant, whom you deservedly applaud, affirms, as he shows, that those internal good works are necessary to our justification, though not as efficient or meritorious causes, yet as concurring or previous conditions. there is but one clause which can bring you off, and excuse you in this business, which you wisely insert, when you speak of mr. bull's doctrine [if at least, say you, i can understand him.] i know not what you can do, but i am sure you do not understand him. and therefore aught to have suspected also, that you did not rightly understand bishop nicholson's books; rather than have said so confidently as you do, doubtless mr. bull imposes very far upon the bishop, when he saith, the bishop read, approved, commended his book, and wished him to publish it. this is very uncivil, and hardly to be reconciled with christian charity, which teaches us to think no evil, to believe all things, and to hope all things, when the contrary doth not evidently appear. it would have been but bare modesty in you, to have thought you did not apprehend the meaning of a writer, in matters of controversy about faith; rather than have accused a divine (of no mean credit, i assure you in his country) of falsifying so impudently in a matter of fact, which he avows to the world, and to the bishop himself (to whom he dedicates his work) to be a most real truth. when you consider it, you will acknowledge, i hope, between god and your own soul, this was too rash and peremptory (to speak gently) and not becoming one of the best sort of christians. which if you, and i too, will both of us study to be, i think verily it is best for us not to trouble ourselves with nice disquisitions, about these matters, wherein we find divines cannot well agree, about the way, i mean, of faith's justifying us. it may suffice us, i should think, to know, what our liturgy teaches us plainly in both the absolutions, that god pardoneth and absolveth all them that truly repent, and unfeignedly believe his holy gospel (as it is in the absolution pronounced every day) having promised forgiveness of sins to all them that with hearty repentance, and true faith turn to him; as it is in that at the holy communion. let us receive this glad tidings upon our bended knees, and with most joyful hearts, thankfully devoted to his service; and leave those that list to dispute about the particular act of faith that justifies; and how it is instrumental, as they speak, in the business of justification; and whether there be such a thing as a passive instrument, and what repentance hath to do in this matter. no body shall ever persuade me, but we shall have the benefit of the absolution, though we be not able to resolve these questions, or though we never think of them, if we truly repent, and unfeignedly believe christ's holy gospel; or, which is the same, with hearty repentance, and true faith turn to him. and in like manner (to speak a word or two in the other point) we are sufficiently instructed in our litanie, as i understand it, to expect to be delivered (from our sins, i suppose, and the punishment due to them) by the whole humiliation, and exaltation of our lord jesus christ: when it teaches us to pray, by the mystery of thy holy incarnation; by thy holy nativity and circumcision, by thy baptism, fasting and temptation, by thine agony and bloody sweat; by thy cross and passion, by thy precious death and burial, by thy glorious resurrection and ascension; and by the coming of the holy ghost, good lord deliver us. it is plain, that whosoever minds what he prays, trusts to be delivered by christ alone; who impetrated this mercy for us, and bestows it on us, by his incarnation, nativity, circumcision, and all the rest now mentioned. but what hand each of these hath, distinct from the other, in procuring our deliverance, and how each of them merits for us, and makes us to be accounted righteous before god; and wherein the merit of his life differs, from that of his death and passion, and is applied to us by his resurrection, ascension, and coming of the holy ghost; we need not, i hope, very solicitously inquire. for justification is not a blessing that belongs only to scholars and subtle wits, but to the plainest countryman of us all; who pray, and hope to be delivered, by all that christ hath done and suffered for us; whose righteousness in both regards, was so pure and perfect that god in consideration of it (or for its merits) was pleased graciously to grant us forgiveness of sins, and him a power to bestow it on all those that believe on his name: which is as much as to say, that we are accounted righteous for the sake of christ's merits, or for the merits, if you will, of christ's righteousness; the effects and fruits of which we are made partakers of by faith. so the church teaches us to understand christ's imputed righteousness (which all good christians rejoice in.) for righteousness imputed, is our being accounted righteous before god, though we are not so in ourselves, and we are accounted righteous before god, saith the 11 artic. only for the merits of our lord and saviour jesus christ, by faith; and not for our own works and deserving. if you will trouble yourself with notions beyond this, you may; but do not trouble others with them, who profess they cannot understand how the righteousness of christ can be so accounted ours (which is the modern notion of it) as if in him we had performed perfect obedience to god. he performed perfect obedience for us; (that we believe and hope to be saved by the merit of it;) but we did not perform perfect obedience in him, (that is contrary, i have been taught to the very principles of christianity.) for if we did, then by that perfect obedience performed in him, we become perfectly righteous; free, that is, not only from all punishment, but from fault; and then we have no need of pardon, nor of any inherent righteousness, and we have merited a reward. for my part i believe the honest people of the church of england, who devoutly say the litanie, never think of any such thing, but humbly address themselves to god for mercy, through the merits and mediation of jesus christ, who hath purchased pardon for penitent sinners, by the entire righteousness of his life and death. they mean no more, when they pray to be delivered by his wonderful condescension, in being incarnate for our sake (which was the beginning of his humiliation) and by his bloody death and burial (in which it was finished) but that they may be freed from the guilt of their sins, and the punishment due to them, by the merits of these, and all other parts of his humiliation: which they know, by his exaltation into the heavens, and the coming of the holy ghost, was highly acceptable to god; being the fulsilling of all his will, in what he required for our redemption; and having obtained for our saviour, all power in heaven and earth, to dispense the blessings which he purchased. and thus other churches understand this business, the french for instance, who say; we believe that our righteousness consists in remission of sins, etc. and therefore casting away all opinion of our own virtues and merits, we rest only in the obedience of christ jesus; which is imputed to us both, that all our sins may be covered, and also that we may obtain grace before god. here they plainly tell us, that their righteousness (which is procured by christ's obedience) consists in remission of sins; and therefore that obedience of his, is imputed only in this sense; that for its sake we may obtain remission of sins, and be accepted with god. i beseech you, sir, do not accuse me of heterodoxy, if i do not jump with your thoughts in these matters: for i protest i have no inclinations to fasten a sense upon the church's words out of my own head; but would most gladly receive it from those that can inform me better about it. and i have a great respect also, for all good men that are of a different mind in these matters: and reverence mr. calvin very much, though i do not think myself bound to follow his opinions. all i desire is, that neither you nor any body else would keep a pother and a stir, as if christianity were in danger to be lost by i know not what new notions; when mr. bull, and all that i have heard of his way, preach the grace of god, in such a manner as i have declared: which makes me confident our religion and the church is safe, if they have no worse enemies than he. but i much fear they are none of the church's friends (though they may design its good) who make such a noise, as if all our ancient, most fundamental doctrines were subverted. for the love of god, sir, let as hear no more of this from your hand, if you bear any good will to it. let us have no more discourses of innovations in our doctrines; no more truths unveiled (though you think yourself never so well acquainted, with them) no more vindications, nor mention of mr. standish: who being the only person concerned, hath as became an honest and good man, acknowledged his error by silence. i pray, sir, do not you therefore revive that, which he thinks fit should die, and be no more heard of. i dare say for him, he will give you no thanks for your kind intentions to serve him; and therefore do not study how to oblige him any further in this matter. he honours several of those persons, i make no doubt, as true sons of the church of england; whom you have loaded with the reproach of departing from its doctrine. you have done him a great deal of injury in endeavouring to make the world believe, that he struck at dr. hammond, bishop taylor, or bishop montague either. nothing i am confident was further from his thoughts, and he wishes, i am of opinion, that he had been as far out of yours. for it was untowardly done to bring him upon the stage again, right or wrong; when he had no mind to persist in making a breach among us, as he had in an heat begun to do. but he will take it kindly, i am apt to think, if you will not seek to make him any reparation for this wrong: but leave him to justify himself his own way. he may well forgive you all that is past, for one considerable service you have done him (and the only one that i can find) which is, that i hope you have opened his eyes to see, that i was in the right when i told him (in my request to him) what sort of men he would gratify by those passages in his sermon. even such as accuse our late great archbishop of canterbury, for being an incourager of the romish faction (as you do in express terms, p. 28.) i. e. betraying his trust, and this church; which he so affectionately served, that it cost him his life. it was not enough it seems, that they brought him in his life time, under the prophet's affliction (as he complains to our late martyred sovereign in his epistle before his admirable book against fisher) between the mouth that speaks wickedness, and the tongue that sets forth deceit, and slandered him as thick, as if he were not their own mother's son: but he must still be persecuted with the same calumnies, now that he is laid in his grave. but it is no wonder that pen should do it, which bestows such commendations on him, who reproaches, not only our bishops, but the most famous persons of that order, which have been known in the christian world, i mean the facetious and candid marvel (as you praise him, p. 34.) with whom honest mr. standish (as you there truly term him) will not take it well to be joined in the very same breath; as if he carried on the same design with that gentleman. he is an honester man, i dare say, than you would have him; and hates that which you applaud with all his heart. what? do you really think a son of the church of england can be in love with him, that laughs at the primitive times, and makes a jest of the venerable council of nice, and drolls upon the bishops assembled there, as if they were a company of pitiful dunces, whose understandings were sequestered, and knew not what to believe, but as they were every day instructed by their chaplains. p. 58. call you this facetiousness? and is it candour too, when he tells us in his rehearsal transprosed, that the highest pinnacle of ecclesiastical felicity, (for the clergy still have most of his kindness) is to assuage their lust, and wrack their malice. p. 10. and when in the conclusion of his last work, we read, that the bishops have induced his majesty to more severity, than all the reigns since the conquests will contain, if summed up together? what? not queen mary's reign excepted? no, nor the late reign of the presbyterians and independents? were the flames in smithfield, and all the sequestration— (i am loath to mention all the rest of the dreadful sufferings) which our times have known, mere gentleness, in comparison with the present rigours? when with so much lenity also, as was never known in any reign, such books as these are suffered, to confute their own accusations? good god how partial are the best sort of christians grown (if you may be believed) who can swallow all this glibly and merrily, with a great deal of smuttiness to boot (which i have observed in the rehearsal transprosed) but keck at dr. hammond, and the whole duty of man. etc. which will by no means down with them? what an odd kind of conscience is this, which cries out, how long o lord, how long? (p. 35. as if you wondered at his forbearance) because some men speak of justifying faith in other terms than you would have them: and can, not only suffer, but countenance him, who directly strikes at a main principle of christianity; viz. that our saviour is the eternal son of god, begotten before all worlds, of one substance with the father. for he saith the council of nice imposed a new article or creed upon the christian world: when this was the very thing they stood upon, that they only declared the ancient belief, which had always been from the beginning, concerning the son of god. what outcries would you have made, had any person of our church been guilty of such a fact? how profane, how impious would you have thought it, to call that explication which they made of the ancient faith, a gibberish of their own imposing: a cant, wherein they forced others to follow them? how oft would you have repeated, your facinus ante hoc inauditum? p. 35. and reiterated your hen! in the next pages, whereas you can read this in him, and be as calm as a lamb; nay, entertain him with the friendly compliment of the facetious and candid marvel. well, i see by this what the care is, which some most zealously pretend to have, lest there should be the smallest innovation in the doctrine of the church of england, which expressly declares in the 8 article, that the nicene creed (together with that of athanasius, and the apostles) ought to be thoroughly received and believed; for they may be proved by most certain warrants of holy scripture. and in the second article it asserts, in plain words, the son to be the very eternal god, of one substance with the father, etc. such is the gibberish of the church of england (as he (and you too in effect call it:) for which, if you were indeed as much concerned as you imagine, and did not deceive yourself with an unequal zeal; you would so reason upon this occasion (as you fancy you do upon another) to beblur your paper with tears more than ink. for you cannot pretend that any of those whom you trouble yourself so much withal, have affronted her doctrine in so audacious a manner, as this writer hath done; whom you can read, not only with dry eyes, but with a merry heart. there would have been no end of your complaints, could you have found any thing so black in our books, we should have had our ears filled with clamours from all parts of the kingdom; and nothing sounded in them, but that christianity was betrayed, the name of our lord blasphemed, etc. by an impious innovator. you yourself, though now you be silent, would have joined with them, and said that he had outdone all others in scurrility, calumny, and profaneness; as you accuse others that deserve a better character; you would have sobbed and sighed, and sat down full of marvel (you must give me leave to fancy, how you would have spoken) and in deep astonishment that such a thing, such an inauditum facinus, should be committed in our israel. and truly i am so astonished at it, and at your partiality, that i am able to go no further; but must here break oft abruptly: after i have told you, that i am notwithstanding so charitable (looking upon you in an ill fit when you writ this book) that as you take me for an honest country gentleman, so i take you for no less; which of us is mistaken, let the world judge, without giving it any further trouble by either of our scribble about this business. it had not been troubled with mine, i assure you, but that i thought it was necessary you should see, your zeal cannot be so great for one way; but there are men in the church of england who will equal it, and are as much concerned, and can say as much for the other way. and now that this is done, let us betake ourselves to our prayers, which is the best employment, that god would enlighten all our eyes, to see the way of truth and righteousness, amen. octob. 20. 1676. finis. a modest survey of the most considerable things in a discourse lately published, entitled naked truth. written in a letter to a friend. imprimatur, g. jane. may 26. 1676. london, printed for moses pitt at the sign of the angel in st. paul's churchyard. 1676. sir, you have made use of your authority over me in a particular, that nothing under that absolute power you have with me, could have prevailed: to give you an account of my sense of that discourse that has of late made so much noise, entitled naked truth, chiefly in what he says, concerning bishops and priests. if i were only to discharge my thoughts into the bosom of so generous and worthy a friend, i could easily have resolved on it: but you insinuated a design of making a more public use of what i might write about it, and this raised a mutiny in my thoughts, which could not be soon subdued into a compliance with so uneasy a task. others have already animadverted upon that discourse with great advantages of wit and learning; but i not being born under such happy stars, do expose myself much, in hazarding to write, both after such pens, and about a book that has had the luck to be much read, and by some no less commended. it may therefore seem great presumption in me to interpose in such a matter: i know what i say will be received with all possible disadvantages, that may arise, either from the great partiality many have for that discourse, or from the just disdain others may conceive, that a person unknown and undesired should engage in it. yet after all this, i am so entirely at your disposal, that i shall resist no longer, but deliver my sense very plainly, in that blunt freedom that must be allowed my breeding, and way of converse, upon some of the most material things in that paper. i cannot but acknowledge the writer seems a person that is in good earnest, and does sincerely desire the peace of our church; that so we being at one among ourselves, may both carry on the common designs of true piety, and resist the inroads popery is making on us. he writes gravely, and like a man that has deep impressions of religion upon him: and so i am heartily sorry so good a man, as i verily believe he is should have been prevailed on, to have done so unadvised a thing, as was first the writing, and then the publishing such a discourse. we do already groan under too many divisions, and we need no new attempts to increase them: or make parties among ourselves. and therefore the rule of our saviour ought to have been followed, if he had thought his fathers and brethren had trespassed against the laws of charity, order, or edification: he should first have proposed it to his ordinary, and the right reverend bishops, and have hoped that either they should have satisfied him, or he them. but to begin at publishing such papers, cannot be reconciled with the rule of the gospel: for if he owed that precaution in dealing with his brother, it was much more due to his mother the church, and the spiritual fathers of it, and he should not have attempted as cham did, to expose any supposed nakedness of his ghostly parents. there was another thing he ought to have considered, that christ has said, woe unto him by whom offences come. by offences or scandals are meant such stumbling blocks, snares, and gall-traps, as may occasion our brother's fall. i wish he had considered this well, and then i suppose, he would have seen that his labours in that discourse were like both to encourage those that do unreasonably separate from us: and make some of these who adhere to our communion stumble, and shake, when they see such things said by one, who seems to be of our church, and yet studies very industriously to blame us in every thing. if he had minded these things more, and the heats of his breast, and head less; he had not gone so far, nor trusted himself so much in a matter of such high concern. for i am confident, had he showed his papers, during all that time they lay by him, to any man of learning or judgement, they had so clearly convinced him of a great many mistakes, that this issue had turned abortive, and died before the birth. after all the horrid abuse has been made of the supposed returns of prayer, which has turned away the minds of many from those sacred exercises, either in private, or public; looking on all secret wrestling with god, as the heat of fancy, and all public worship, as the compliance with that form or party we cleave to; it appeared strange to me, to find a man that seems▪ inflamed with a zeal for devotion, own his publishing this upon returns of prayer: which to some will be thought to patronise enthusiasm, and by others will be made a scoff to jeer at all piety and devotion. god answers our prayers, when he bestows on us those graces, and blessings, we ask of him: but if any body that is fond of some composure of his, which he has a great mind to publish, prays for direction what to do; and if he take measures from the temper or heats, he feels after such prayers, he exposeth himself to the greatest dangers imaginable. for, he ought to examine what he is about, not by his own liking, or disliking it, but by the rules of the gospel, of doing all things to peace, edification, and order: by the rules of humility, and modesty, not over-valuing himself, nor putting himself forth, but as he is called and directed by a good warrant and authority: and by the rules of the church and state where he lives. and if any man on a pretence of following the answers of prayer, will supersede any of these rules, he sets up one of the worst principles that can be imagined, which must needs subvert all religion and government. i do not deny but in matters purely indifferent, and that relate only to myself, when i cannot see wherein god has bounded my liberty; many directors of consciences, think it is a safe rule to pray to god for direction, and after that to follow what makes the strongest impression upon my mind, but this must only take place where the thing in all its circumstances is absolutely indifferent, and in my choice, for if i carry it farther i cannot stop till i have run into all the precipices of the worst kind of enthusiasm. now sure the author of that discourse could not be such an ill discerner, as not to see that he was not left to his free choice in this matter: and therefore there is too much ground to suspect that he made his prayers, having this idol of his beloved book in his heart: and praying in such a manner, if god left him to his idols, to be deceived, and misled by them, it is nothing but what the prophet threatened to all that should so ezek. 14. ver. 7, 8, 9 pray to god. from which i hope i may safely conclude, that if this author had examined what he was about, rather by these sure and constant rules before hinted, than by the unstable and fallacious illusions of an inflamed brain, he had weighed things in juster balances. but i shall now enter into the re-tail of the particulars he suggests; having thus viewed it in gross. and to begin with what he says about articles of faith, there are two things i wish he had considered when he wrote it. the first is, thanks be to god, there is no need of any canvasing about these in our present case: for the greatest parties of the non-conformists have not departed from us, for any articles of faith: there being none of the articles of our church, that relate to faith so much as contested by them. this being on the contrary, the great thing they boast: that they do in all things agree to the doctrine and belief of our church. so that i cannot imagine why fifteen pages were written on this subject, when the writer designed union. for the church of england is so far from being taxed by them for imposing and dogmatizing, that they rather judge our articles too slack and large: and therefore when they went to compile a confession of faith, how positively they determined in many points, in which the articles of our church leave us to the freedom of our thoughts, is apparent to all. it cannot be denied but the articles of our church were compiled with the highest discretion, and moderation that ever was used by un-inspired men. where questions were so subtle, and intricate, that there were great grounds of doubting on both hands, as about predestination and the efficacy of grace, they laid down the doctrine of the church in such general expressions, as left a freedom to every one to choose in so difficult a point; where the questions were metaphysical, as about the manner of our justification, they did not impose any subtlety on the consciences of the clergy; who only are obliged to subscribe them. and this temper is the more to be wondered at, since we know by their other writings, and the accounts of that time, that the chief compilers of these articles, were in their private opinions positive, and determined about those things; yet they thought it very unreasonable to establish controverted points as articles of faith, and to make their private judgements the standards of church-communion. so that as it is a most unreasonable charge on the church of england, to say she has tyrannically imposed many unnecessary conditions on her members in points of faith and doctrine; it is also a very strange complaint from one that expresses a great zeal for reuniting the dissenters to the body: for any relaxation that way would be so far from bringing them nearer, that it would rather drive them farther from us, upon new and more justifiable prejudices. what occasion would be given them to insult, and say we had changed the boundaries and landmarks our predecessors had left us: and were making a new hotch potch of a church, to take in all heresies? how would the church of rome triumph, and say that our faith was indeed temporary, and changed with the fashion? and let the wit of man devise such an engine for propagating popery, as to disclaim the doctrines and practices of the primitive church. this were indeed to fortify the prejudices of novelty and schism, with which the emissaries of that church, study to asperse us to the highest degree possible. for i speak it knowingly, we should by so doing shake, if not wholly scandalise and drive from us, the greatest part of our most devout communicants: who are all apt to say of those first ages, let my soul be with theirs. and this carries me farther on this head, into a just wonder and astonishment, to see one that is but of yesterday, (i shall not add the other part of that character) assume such a confidence to judge those great worthies, who came out of the fire of the persecution, with so many trophies of an honourable victory about them; having lost their eyes, and other members in the conflict: who sat in the council of nice to determine in a point of no less concern, than the glory of the son of god, by whose cross and spirit they had triumphed over all the powers both of earth and hell. i remember when i lived in holland and conversed with the disciples of episcopius and curcelleus, we often discoursed on this very point: they usually said, why should we not accept of scripture expressions without imposing new ones for tests? and often did they entertain me with discourses of the simplicity of the first christians, and the most ancient creeds. to whom i always answered, as long as the christians did retain that simplicity of believing, it had been very ill done, to have introduced new expressions or subtleties into our faith or creeds: but when it is apparent that men have invented corrupt glosses for scripture expressions, and use the scripture phrases only with a reserve of these meanings: it was necessary to find out such tests as might discover their double dealing. for to accept of general expressions, from one that i have good reason to believe uses them in an heretical sense, is plainly to accept money that i know is of a false alloy because it hath the right stamp. nor can it be said, the difference was small and about a speculative point, for the difference was both about a matter of great weight, and about a practical point. i suppose no body can be so shallow as to think it was about a letter, the one being for the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the other for the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for then the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 differed but in another letter, that made christ totally unlike the father. the controversy was, whether the word that dwelled in the flesh of our blessed saviour, was a being truly distinct from the substance of the father, and created by the father; or as others did moderate it, made by the father? so that there was a time, wherein he was not? or if he was the increated word, that was from all eternity with the father. in short whether he was god or a creature? and when the arians pretended that they believed the word was god, the fathers thus argued with them: either he is god by his nature and substance, or not; if he was not god by his nature, than it was but a cheat, and a false title, they gave him: but god's honour was not so to be given to another. if he was god by his nature and substance, than he must either be of the same substance with the father, or of a different substance: if of the same substance, they gained what they desired: if he was of another substance, than there were more gods than one; if there were two different substances, that were both truly gods in substance which was gross polytheism. i must acknowledge i shall very much suspect any man's reasoning faculties are not sound, that sees not a necessary series of truths hanging closely together in this contexture. so that it is plain the arians and our modern plotinians (who are indeed more ingenuous than the arians were) did not think the word that was made flesh, was truly god. and now let any man judge if there can be a greater and weightier matter, than whether jesus christ were god by nature, or only a creature. nor can a mistake rise higher than to believe him to be a mere man who is the eternal son of god, or him to be the eternal son of god, who was only a mere man. this controversy was not only speculative but practical, for our apprehensions and belief must direct our acts of worship, and adoration: if christ be only a man, we cannot have that veneration for him, that confidence in him, or love to him, which we offer to the great god. for there can be no idolatry in the world so great, as the worshipping a mere man, with the same adoration both inward and outward, that we offer up to the father. this is, sure if any thing can be, the giving god's glory to another. on the other hand if he be the great god and of the same substance with the father, it is the most irreverent, irreligious and ungrateful thing in the whole world, not to offer that adoration which is due to him, equally with the father: he having so signally commended and expressed his love to us. so that this is a matter not only of speculation, but of practice. this may suffice to satisfy any body, how just, reasonable, and necessary it was for the council of nice to make their definition in this matter, that so a test might be found out, for discriminating the catholics from the heretics. i am as far from a desire of multiplying new creeds and subscriptions as any man alive, but if there be not some in the church, how soon may a conspiracy be laid and form within the bosom of it, that lying secret under general expressions, till it be ripe and strong, at length as out of a trojan-horse shall burst forth to ruin and subvert religion. it is indeed a high tyranny of the church of rome, that has added anathemaes to her canons about lesser and disputable points; but except there be foundations laid, on which all the builders of the church must edify, we shall soon grow worse than a babel, for we shall build with divided languages and tongues. for what he says about ceremonies and all other controverted heads among us, i shall only offer you one or two considerations. the first is, that in all such rents as are now in our church, it is a very unreasonable demand to desire any thing that is established should be changed without a very great cause: for to love changes for changes sake, is an argument of a light unsettled mind. and mutations in things external, work much on the vulgar: who seldom looking beyond what they see, and hear, are apt to be much startled at any visible alteration. this made our blessed saviour in his new dispensation alter outward things as little as was possible. therefore he sanctified two rites that were familiar to the jews, to be the two great sacraments of his gospel, that so the jews might be as little startled as might be. but if there did appear great and just causes to change things that are indifferent, there is no doubt but the fathers of our church and our legislators, the king and his two houses of parliament would examine them very deliberately. if then the author of that paper offers any reasons for a change, he must take care they be very good and material ones: i hope he will not insist on the so often baffled objections against them. there is but one new reason can be offered, and that is an agreement of a considerable body of our dissenters, to desire such concessions, upon which, they being granted, they would enter into the communion of the church; when this is once done then such a step were made, as must needs set all men to very deep and serious considerations, to balance the evils of schism, the danger of popery, the relaxing all order, and the abounding of all impiety among us, which those who have made the schism are deeply guilty of. it is the duty of all men to lay these things home to the consciences of such as separate from us: that they may not stiffly keep up a breach, through which so much mischief flows in upon us, but may in colder blood review what is past: and come to make such offers, as may encourage those who love peace and moderation, to drive on so desired a work. but to expose the dignity of a church, and of constitutions settled by so long a prescription, to the scorn of every bold dissenter, can have no other effect, but to encourage them in their schism, and heap contempt upon ourselves, when we prostitute law and authority to such affronts. then do those that divide, boast, as if we disinherited our cause, or were afraid either of the strength of their reasons, or of their party: and they stand their ground the more firmly, because they see us quitting ours; and are confident, that if they can weather out a few more blasts, we will leave the field entirely to them. this makes their pride swell, and their demands become endless and unsatisfiable. but if their stomaches were so far down, that they had the humility and honesty to confess they had been mistaken in some things, and were now resolved to go as far towards the repairing our breaches, as their consciences could allow, and did propose a clear scheme of what they would submit to, and on what terms they would again enter into the communion of the church, than i am confident such candid dealing will find an entertainment beyond what they can justly hope for. and that upon very good reasons: for we ought to make another account of the modest scruples of such as are indeed tender consciences, than of the presumptuous demands of insolent sectaries. and it is most just that propositions this way ought to begin from them: they are subjects, and the laws are settled: and they gave very just cause both to church and state to be displeased with them and to distrust them, and so they ought to address for favour upon such reasonable terms, that the insolence of their demands may give no new grounds of irritation and offence. and till then all that is incumbent on us of the church, is; first to live and labour so, as to outdo all these appearances of good among them; which have wrought so much on the vulgar; then to pray the god of peace, that he would of his infinite mercy and compassion to these divided churches, pour down a spirit of love and peace on all men: and in fine, to do all that lies in us to convince those that separate of the evil of their courses, in making such breaches in christ's vineyard and sheepfold, that lets in the foxes and wolves: and to be disposing our own minds into such a gentle temper, that notwithstanding all past provocations, and all the advantages we have from the laws and lawgivers, yet we may be willing to yield even to the peevish weakness and unaccountable scruples of these that separate from us: as far as can be without giving just occasions of scandal on the other hand. but to give them such advantages as this discourse does, is, that which i cannot reconcile to the common rules of prudence and edification. i wish this writer had also considered, how unjust a way of reasoning it was, to argue from the indecencies and abuses any may be guilty of in the use of some of the ceremonies, that they ought to be taken away. alas! at that rate, the most sacred and solemn things shall not escape: since all things when they fall into the hands of mortal men, are subject to such abuses. he did also very much forget himself, when he reckoned, the bowing to the altar one of the ceremonies of the church, which has never enjoined it, neither by canon nor rubric: for in it all are left to their freedom. so that this can furnish none with so much as a pretence to excuse their separation. for his long discourse about churchmen and their qualifications and labours chiefly about preaching, i● certainly deserves great consideration, and in it we cannot steer by a better rule, than those most excellent constitutions antiquity has left us: which are indeed so divine and pure, that if this age could bear such a reformation, i know no greater blessing could befall us. but it is more to be wished than hoped for, to see plato's commonwealth built upon the ruins and dregs of romulus. we ought to converse much with the writings the ancients have left us concerning the qualifications and employments of the clergy, such as nazianzen's apollogetick, chrysostome's books of the priesthood, and gregory the great's books of the pastoral care. but whatever defects we may charge ourselves with, this is so far from contributing to our schism, that it is rather the effect and consequence of it; for where there is bitter zeal and strife, there is confusion and every evil work: and so it was not needful to put this in a book concerning union. nor have these that divide from us any reason of insulting over us, whatever we may have to humble ourselves for those things, and least of all for preaching: which perhaps is at this day come to such perfection, that if all our other defects were as much mended as these of preaching are, we might on all accounts be esteemed the best and most excellent church that ever was since the ages of miracles. in a word to end all that needs be said on these heads, the grounds of our communicating with any church being chiefly the purity of their doctrine and worship, and that their order and rules are such that they hinder the exercise of no christian virtue, but very much advance it: no personal failings or defects how public and gross soever, aught to make any to separate from such a society. for till i be involved in some guilt, (which no other man's faults can do) by joining in communion with a church; i ought still to abide in it. this must either be laid down for a principle, otherwise schisms and rents shall be endless, for as long as men are men, personal failings and corruptions are unavoidable. and now having thus far examined the most considerable parts of that discourse, except what relates to bishops and priests, about which you desire chiefly to be satisfied; and upon which the author has laid out his utmost strength: i come at last to consider that: which i shall do with that candour and calmness i have carried along with me hitherto. his opinion is. that the bishop's precedency over the rest of the clergy with authority to ordain, to exhort, to rebuke, to judge, and censure as he found cause, is of apostolical institution, and hath been continued in the whole church of god ever since, so that nothing but necessity, if that, can excuse those that set up another▪ form of government: therefore this government ought to be still kept in the church. but after all this he thinks the bishops and priests are one and the same order; so that by their ordination they have no more power conferred on them, than presbyters have, this he studies to prove: 1. from the silence of the scriptures that do not mention two such orders. 2. because he finds but one ordination, which he thinks cannot confer two characters. 3. because the apostles call themselves presbyters, and no where bishops. 4. because st. clement in his epistle speaks only of bishops and deacons. 5. justin martyr calls the bishop only precedent. 6. st. cyprian calls himself praepositus. 7. because the form of ordaining elders, is the same with which christ ordained the apostles, receive ye the holy ghost, whose sins ye forgive, they are forgiven them. 8. the bad consequences of admitting this difference of order are great, for it will condemn all the other reformed churches. upon these reasons he rejects the difference of order, and instead of that says, the apostles ordained all equally to be bishops or presbyters, but some having more eminent gifts than others, the apostles did by commission empower and constitute these to be overseers and bishops over the rest, from which beginning this practice has been kept up in the church ever since. therefore he thinks priests ought not to ordain other priests, but yet having done it, it is valid, and may without a crime be done by a priest that were by shipwreck or any such chance cast into a country where no person can be had that is thus commissionated to ordain. this is a full and clear account of his opinion, and of the reasons that led him to it. i shall now examine both, and first, let us see what all this will amount to. this must signify little or nothing to the composing differences among us: but will rather inflame them. for a presbyterian may upon this supposition, very reasonably plead, that since by his order he has the same authority that a bishop hath, he ought not to be obliged or limited in the exercise of it. that any such commission the apostles gave some extraordinary men, must have been but temporary, for their lives; for if they had judged this a thing needful to be kept up in the church; they had given such lasting directions about it, constituting it a distinct order, as might have preserved it still in the church; but since they did not that, we have no reason to acknowledge any such power now. and therefore if priests see their bishop doing what they think amiss, they may assume that power their order has given them, and judge and depose him too if need be. i am confident that author will not allow of this, and yet it is visible that it arises naturally out of what he has set down. but suppose he could avoid that, what does all he has said contribute to the reuniting our dissenters, and us again: somewhat he may say, as to the foreign churches, and yet i hope to show that may be done another way. a little may be also said, to such as were ordained before, by priests in the time of the late usurpation; who are now but a small number: and yet even these, by his principles did a very ill thing, who out of no necessity, but in a wanton sedition against their bishops, threw them off by the strength and force of a prevailing army. and if such persons ought not to be marked by some censure, or at least not admitted to any sacred employments, till they have been sensible of their fault, and repent of it; i leave it to every body to consider. but for the rest of our dividers, as long as the bishops have such an authority over their priests, by what title or conveyance soever they possess it, it is all one to them. and indeed the weaker their title is, they will think they have the stronger plea: so that this notion were it ever so true, cannot go a great way towards the settling matters among us, but on the contrary will rather widen the breach. i go next to examine his opinion in itself: that there are many contradictions in his discourse, is apparent. for if bishops have authority to ordain, to exhort, to rebuke, to judge, and censure as they find cause, and if this authority was given by the apostles. is not here a distinct order? all ecclesiastical functions are but so many commissions from god, of which the conveyors were the apostles, for what is the order of priesthood, but a commission from god, which was first issued out by the apostles: giving such persons authority to preach, and to administer sacraments? and can any think that the apostles could have given any such commissions, but 1. they must have had the direction of the holy ghost, that assisted them in all they went about. 2. they must have conferred such a measure of the holy ghost, as was necessary for the discharge of such a commission, for they that conferred the holy ghost on all they laid their hands on, would have done it much more on those they did commissionate for so high a trust. 3. this must have been done by imposition of acts 13 ver. 2. 3. hands, so we find they laid hands on paul and barnabas, when they were sent to the gentiles, though they were endued with extraordinary power before, and were apostles; according to what st. paul says of himself in the beginning of his epistle to the galatians. god had also by name marked them out for that service, yet hands were laid on them, and so they were sent out by the holy ghost. 4. if these persons commissionated with such authority were empowered by the apostles, than all the rest of the priests were bound to submit to that authority, and whatever power they might have pretended before that; then, since latter deeds do vacate and invalidate former ones, that power being conferred on another, who is acknowledged vested with the authority, the former must be supposed divested of it, and bound to subject themselves to it. nor could they, except in cases of simple necessity, reassume it, without rejecting the authority of the apostles themselves: according to that maxim of our saviour's, he that rejecteth me, rejecteth him that sent me. 5. either the apostles did declare this was only temporary, that for the present exigency, such extraordinary persons were vested with such authority, or that this constitution should continue still in the church. he cannot choose the former, for then that order must have determined with these men's lives, in whose hands it was entrusted: which is against what that author pleads for. so that he must say they declared that such commissions must continue to the end of the world, otherwise there were no obligation lying on the church to continue them, which yet he acknowledges. 6. after the apostles were dead, either these commissions were to be renewed on the account of what the apostles had appointed, or only by a voluntary delegation of the priests and people; if the former, than our bishops at this day act by virtue of a commission from the apostles. if the latter be true, then. 1. this delegation may be given, or not, as they please, and so the order may vanish. 2. they may limit or enlarge it as they please, and so may very much change it. 3. those who are ordained bishops without such commissions, cannot be bishops at all. for if that power be only a commission, than it cannot be seated in any person that has got no such commission: therefore there being no such thing asked as a delegation of such authority from the priests, (for the election of the dean and chapter relates only to the person, but not to the power and office;) none are now truly bishops; since they have no such commissions: nor does the metropolitan, and the other consecrating bishops, give any such commissions, but only ordain a bishop to the work and office so committed to him, by the imposition of their hands: in which it is clear, as also from the whole office of the consecration of bishops, that they suppose there is a standing power and authority in the office, and therefore do believe it does not depend upon any commission they can give, all they do being to ordain him to the office to which the authority is necessarily annexed. so that it is clear, that either we have no bishops at all, or the commission for this authority is annexed to the office, and the church does not constitute the office, but only admit or ordain a person duly elected and qualified unto an office already constituted. from all these particulars which necessarily follow upon that author's hypothesis, i may well assume, that by his principles bishops were empowered for ordination, and jurisdiction by the apostles, they being directed in it by the holy ghost; and laying their hands on them, and conferring the holy ghost by such imposition of hands: upon which all the rest both clergy and laity were bound to submit to them: and that the apostles intended this order should be still continued in the church: so that all succeeding bishops, act by that power then conveyed by the apostles to the first bishops, and continued with their successors to the end of the world. and if this does not state the distinct office of bishops and priests, let every reader judge. there is a different power lodged with the bishops, another commission, ratified by an imposition of hands, which is to continue in a succession for ever. so that, that hypothesis destroys itself, establishing so many different things that contradict one another. but before i go to answer his arguments, i shall premise somewhat of the office of bishop and priest as it appeared in its first origination. when christ sent out his apostles with an universal jurisdiction, as they gathered and planted churches, there was a necessity to fix some to have the charge of them, and to labour in the conversion of others. now the apostles having observed, that christ had in the institution of the sacraments, and many other things, followed such customs as were received by the jews: they must certainly have likewise followed the same rule, for as the gospel was first offered to the jews, so they raising their new superstructure on the foundation of moses and the prophets, could not change the customs that were among the jews, and instituted by moses, further than was necessary for emancipating the gentiles from that yoke. therefore every church of christians coming in place of the temple of jerusalem, in which living sacrifices were offered up to god, instead of the dead ones that were then antiquated: it was natural for them to take their model from the temple of jerusalem, as the synagogues had also done, in which there was one high priest, a company of priests and levites, and this even st. jerome who is in no small esteem with that author, in that epistle to evagrius, confirms to us in these words. and that we may know the apostolical traditions were taken out of the old testament: what aaron and his sons, and the levites were in the temple; that the bishops, presbyters, and deacons are to claim to themselves in the church but where the number of the christians was small, they made only one bishop, who as his charge increased might ordain others to assist him: this epiphanins tells us he had from the most ancient or profoundest histories, and in a matter of fact to distrust history where it is strengthened with high probabilities from the nature of things is unreasonable. there were two ranks of christians, the one was the neophites or novices, who had lately received the faith; the other were the first fruits of the gospel who as they had at the first preaching received the faith, so had continued longer in it, and these naturally must have been called the seniors, elders or presbyters. there is one great error that vulgar observers fall in, of which though all critics have often given notice, yet most people are still guilty of it, which is to judge of all words and appellations, according to the more received customs in or near their own time, not examining how they were used in former ages, and till this caution be minded, we must fall into frequent mistakes every hour. so at first these names of bishop and presbyter were not used in that sense, they came afterwards to be appropriated to; any person that was of great and long standing in the faith, would have esteemed it an honour to have been called a presbyter, hence it is that there was not, that nice and choice distinction of the terms which use did afterwards bring in. upon which i shall with all modesty suggest to you one thing, which is not so much considered: that though those who were chosen to look after the poor be called deacons in the 6. of the acts, yet we find that term in the new testament is not at all restricted to that sense, even after that appointment. st. paul calls christ a deacon, rom. 15. 8. he calls also the civil powers the deacons, or as we render it the ministers of god, rom. 13. 4. he calls all churchmen in general the deacons of righteousness, 2 cor. 11. 15. he calls the apostles deacons frequently, 1 cor. 3. 5. 2 cor. 3. 6. and 6. cap. 4. v. and cap. 11. ver. 23. and eph. 3. 7. and col. 1. 23, 25. he calls tychicus a deacon, eph. 6. 21. and col. 4. 7. he calls epaphras a deacon. so also timothy, 1 thes. 3. 2. so that we see this term is used in a great many other senses, than that of a distributer of charity among the widows. therefore there is no reason to think that when st. paul wrote to the philippians, to the bishops and deacons, and when in his epistle to timothy he gives rules about church-offices, passing immediately from the bishop to the deacons, that by deacons we are only to understand the distributers of charity, which was not an office of such importance, that they must have such extraordinary qualifications but that he is treating of some other standing ministry in the church, in which all christians were more concerned; and therefore though the subsequent use of the church appropriating the term deacon to the other function, these places in the epistles of st. paul were generally applied to these deacons, and the translations of the new testament as well the vulgar latin as other modern ones into the vulgar languages, rendering the greek of deacon by the term minister in all the other places i have marked, this was less observed therefore there being so good ground to think that st. paul in these epistles is treating about priests, whom he calls by a common name deacons or ministers; we have the disparity between these offices clearly set down in the scriptures. another thing is observable, that as long as the extraordinary effusion of the holy ghost continued, there could not be such a critical distinction of functions, as came to be settled afterwards, when that ceased: for even the laity were by these inspirations qualified to many things, which can be no precedents, when that effusion of the spirit is ceased. so though while that extraordinary assistance continued, there were not such clear traces of the several offices in the church, yet if as soon as that began to fail, we find this distinction of orders appear clearly; we have reason to conclude it could be no other way settled but as the apostles had at first appointed: though while every one was so full of the holy ghost all these limits were not observed, for any extraordinary emission of the holy ghost being above positive and constant rules, it is not to be wondered if we have no such clear account of a formed and regulated society, at the first planting of churches in all offices and functions. and yet we see the new testament full of evidences that christ and his apostles intended there should be an eminence of power, committed to some pastors beyond others. so christ gave that universal authority over all, to his twelve apostles, so the apostles had some assistants, whom though they employed on other commissions, yet their chief residence and work was in some particular churches, over which they were set. and to such the apostles write, as to persons that had the charge and were accountable for these churches. and the reason of this was, that since there could not be found such numbers of men sufficiently fitted for the work of the gospel, especially in those trying times; therefore it was to be depositated in a few hands, who were of more approved sufficiency and worth, the rest being to be directed and subject to them. this did very much compense the defects of other churchmen, who though not so well qualified to govern, yet being willing to obey, and able to follow directions, they might by that means become very useful in the gospel. now there are two things that must be annexed to that superior inspection without which we cannot imagine that it could be managed or have force: the one is, that all to be ordained should receive their orders from such bishops: otherwise obedience could not be expected from them, nor could the superior be any way accountable for them, if he did not convey their authority to them. it was also necessary that in all matters of indifference the superior governor, or bishop, must be looked on as having authority to rule and command, and so the inferior judge himself bound to obey. and indeed if in those days of persecution, when the church had no assistance, but all possible opposition from the civil powers, there had not been very positive rules of obedience and order, left by the apostles, it had not been possible for them to have been kept in any order, or under any government. but the rules of superiority and subjection were without doubt formally left by the apostles. thence it was that the whole precinct of a bishop's charge was called his parish: in which he had the care of souls, and for his assistance did choose out and ordain some of the more eminent and ancient christians, to assist him in teaching the flock, and administering sacraments, who were in all things directed by him; and upon his death one of these was presented by the election of the clergy and people to the superior bishop of the province, who did ordain him. now though the writings of the first ages are for the greater part lost, yet there are abundant evidences to show this authority was set up by the apostles. i need not take pains to prove it against this author, for he acknowledges it. but because some may perhaps read this letter, that have not studied this point in the larger and more learned works of the asserters of this order, i shall say as much on this subject as i think may very justly and reasonably satisfy any man, and shall wave st. ignatius his epistles, though the authority of those is made good with the astonishing labours of the incomparably learned bishop of chester. but being to give a short hint of the uncontested authorities that may be brought to prove this, i shall begin with ireneus to whom we may very well give credit in a matter of fact, he knew st. polycarp and was instructed by him, and he iren. lib 3. cap. 3. et apud 〈◊〉 lib 4. cap. 13 tells us that he was constituted by the apostles bishop in the church of smyrna. so that we find from him that st. polycarp was ordained by the apostles bishop of the church of smyrna. now that great saint and martyr, must have taken his notion of a bishop from no other original, but that which he saw in his first instructor: and yet we clearly see, he judged the bishop was more than the precedent, for he reckoning the tradition of the faith, counts it by the lib. 3. advers. heret. cap. 3. bishops that had been in rome from the apostles days: from whence it appears he considered them as the chief depositaries of the faith. and in his epistle apud euseb lib. 5▪ cap▪ 24. to victor bishop of rome, wherein he condemned his severity in excommunicating the eastern bishops for observing easter on the 14. day of the moon, he lays the whole blame of it upon victor, though damasus tells us it was done upon a consultation victor held about it with his presbyters and deacons. now the blame was not to be laid on victor, if it had not been the received practice of the church at that time, for the bishops to have the jurisdiction chiefly in their hands. so that we clearly see what ireneus understood a bishop to be, and if that had not been consonant to what he knew in st. polycarp who had instructed him, we cannot in reason imagine he would have consented to such a tyrannical excess of power. tertullian a de prasc. cap. 32. cont. martion lib. 4. cap. 5. reckons the origine of the bishop's power from the apostles, from whom they derived their succession. the same writer also tells us, * de bapt. that neither priests nor deacons had right to baptise, but upon a power from the bishop. he also says † de cor. milit. they received the sacrament from no hands but their precedents (or bishops) firmilian that was st. cyprian's contemporary tells us * epist. 75. inter epist. cypr. the bishops (whom he there calls majores natu, and from the other parts of that epistle it is plain he means bishops) did preside in the church, and had the power of baptising, confirming and ordaining; and even * cont. lucifer. jerome himself tells us, that neither priest nor deacon had a right to baptise without the bishop's command. and st. denis of alexandria, apud. euseb. lib. 6. cap. 44. who was undisputed one of the greatest persons in his age, in his letter to fabius' bishop of rome tells him, that upon the difficulty was raised, how to deal with those that died, before they had completed their penitence, he had given a command that the peace of the church should be given them. where it is clear the authority of commanding and not only presiding rested with the bishop. and in fine, when the christian church came out of the fire of persecution, she decreed in the council of nice, that the ancient customs should be in force, concerning can. 6. the power of metropolitans and patriarches, we must acknowledge there were many very ancient men in that council, so that they, who were within 200. years of the apostolic time, and among whom we may reckon many that were 80. years of age, or near it, could not esteem any thing ancient, that had not been derived from the apostolical institution. i shall not insist on any thing that was decreed afterwards, where we may suspect power, and cunning, might have gone a great way to have east the church into such a mould, as might best agree with the constitutions of the empire. there might be also other political reasons, to have made the bishops after that time aspire to power and precedence. but i have only vouched the writers of the former ages, witnesses in a matter of fact, wherein we have no just cause to suspect them, to depose to us what was the successive government of the church from the apostles days. upon all which i desire, that you and every honest man will in your consciences consider a few particulars. 1. whatever we find generally received in those ages about a thing that was visible, and in which none could mistake, we may safely think it came from the apostles days. we may indeed imagine that when some of the apostles, to gain upon the jews did observe the christian easter on the 14. day of the moon, others might have mistaken this compliance, as if the apostles had judged that the 14. was the right day: we may also reasonably enough think, that when they heard st. john mention the thousand years, that were represented to him in his visions, they might have thought that had a literal meaning. but in a matter of government, we cannot fancy how such mistakes could have been taken up. 2. in things that were external and related to government, there were many concerned, and so an innovation could not be easily brought about. the people all looked on, and were obliged to know, to whom they owed obedience in things sacred: the clergy we may reasonably think were not so meek, as to have submitted to any unwarranted authority over them. and if they had known they were equal to their bishomps in order, we cannot think but either out of a just zeal for asserting their freedom, or out of an indignation at the miscarriages and insolence of some bishops, or out of an unwillingness to submit and obey, which is natural to most people, they had asserted their equality. 3. where different churches among whom we see no commerce, especially in the times of persecution, do agree in any constitution, we must suppose that came to them, from some persons, from whom they received common instruction. this is an argument thought very convincing against atheists, when we show many things wherein all mankind agree, which we cannot imagine how it should have been brought about, if they had not common parents, who had derived these things to all their posterity. so how can it be imagined that from the churches of armenia and persia in the east, to those of spain in the west, from the african churches in the south, to our british churches in the north, that had little or no correspondence together, this constitution of the church should have been universally received and submitted to. this was when no general council could meet to appoint it, and there was no secular prince to set it forward, upon any political account. now it cannot be imagined, how this could have been brought about, if their common spiritual fathers the apostles had not agreed upon it: when they first scattered to go over the world. for we have no reason to think they did ever meet all together again. 4. no men do an ill thing, or desire a change but upon some advantage, or at least the prospect and hope of it. and if the worst of men, are to be measured by this (i except hectors in vice) what must we judge of those, whom we ought justly to pronounce the best of men. their being bishops exposed them to the sharpest fury of their persecutors, they were but poor and mean, excepting the bishops of the great cities, they commonly were begun with, in every new storm that was raised against the church; their labours were great, for the care of the flock lay on them: and they were unwearied in the discharge of their pastoral care. can we think any man would be fond of such a station, to that degree as to violate the institution of christ, to arrive at it. but with what face can any man suspect those ages, of such foul dealing upon whom the impressions of the lowliness of their great master, were so deep, and who were daily looking for a cross, and some cruel death: with what assurance could they have prepared for such trials, if out of pride and ambition they had been invading the rights of the other churches, and aspiring to an unjust domination over their brethren. 5. suppose we could be prevailed on, to think the whole church was so abandoned, the bishops to their pride, and the priests to an heedless simplicity, yet how can we reasonably think none of her enemies were so sharp-sighted, as to discern and object this to them? they had malice enough, and if the orders of bishop and presbyter were one at first, but afterwards the episcopal ambition had subdued the priests under them; some memory of it had been certainly preserved; otherwise how should st. jerome and the pretended ambrose be supposed to have heard of it. but if any such thing had been known, is it possible to imagine that among all the heretics and schismatics that were in those ages, none should have charged it on the church, but on the contrary all of them had bishops of their own? and in the end when one arose that did condemn the order, he had very few to follow him: nor did his own party the arians, receive this at his hands. therefore we have all reason to conclude that there was no such change made after the apostles days, for st. jerome himself acknowledges, the apostles set this order up, though he seems to insinuate, it was not in the beginning of their planting the church. and it is very clear that pseudo ambrose gives us his own imaginations for canonical histories. so from all these things put together, i dare appeal to any man to say upon his conscience, if he is not persuaded the episcopal authority over the flock and the clergy, is clearly derived from the apostles. all this i have said more fully than perhaps seemed at first view needful, but when i consider that though this author does confess the episcopal function to be of apostolical institution; yet over his whole discourse there are many things said, that do very much detract from that very acknowledgement, which the force and evidence of truth drew from him in the beginning of that chapter; so that some suspect these words were only set down, that upon such an introduction he might seem a friend, and so wound both more securely, and more mortally; since also many who read and magnify that discourse, do with open mouth declaim against this order, i hope none will judge it impertinent, if i have taken some pains to lay such things before them, as may give new and fresh impressions of the divine and apostolical origine of this holy office. all that remains yet to be considered is, what answers to make to the objections that author lays in our way. his first objection is, from the silence of the scriptures, to which, the answer will be easily gathered from what has been said, for if what i do suggest about the sense of deacons in st. paul's epistles be true, than the case is most clear; but besides that, there are manifest hints of a disparity, or superiority in scripture, and these are expounded by so authentical and clear a tradition, that we are not more sure of the change of the jewish sabbath, into the christian lords day, or of the baptism of infants, or of the canon of the scripture than we are of this apostolical institution. it was necessary that all supper natural revealed truths, should have been clearly and fully expressed in scripture, and none of these left to the mistakes and misrepresentation of every age, but for matters of government it was enough, if general rules were given, which the platform of the churches then gathered did so explain, that we have no reason to have scruples about it, though a full and formal account of it be not left us. the second objection is, because he finds the apostles gave but one ordination, which he cannot conceive, how it could confer two distinct orders or characters. this is founded on a great mistake, for prey cannot the same great seal, that affixed to one writing, does only confer the honour of barronage, when affixed to another writing, confer the dignities of duke, marquess earl, viscount, and baron? so it is plain the apostles when they were to send out any with a sacred commission, by the same outward rite, they might have conferred whatever authority they intended to confer. for they declaring on what errand, and with what power they sent out a person, and imposing hands upon him, that imposition confirmed the mission and authority committed to such persons. so there was no need of their ordaining church men through several degrees, but as they saw men qualified, they did ordain them, and i do not question but with the ●ame imposition of hands, and the same prayers and words, they might have ordained two persons at once, the one a bishop, the other a priest. for we are not to consider in an ordination the outward rite and prayers only, but the preceding declaration made, and the public intention of those that ordain. it is true, we find by the ancientest ordinals we have, that there were some differences used in the consecration of bishops that were not used when a priest was ordained, which may be reasonably judged were very ancient, they held the book of the gospels over his head and shoulders, and all the bishops laid their hands on him, one pouring out the can. 2. con. carth. 4. de eccles. hier. cap 5. blessing. and denis the areopagite, tells us, that besides the imposition of hands, and laying the book of the gospels on his head, and the prayer, he was marked by the sign of the cross, and faluted by the bishop and all the holy order. and in the ordination can 3. carth. and dion. ibid. of a priest, the bishop and the priests with him only laid their hands on his head, and blessed him. by which simplicity of their forms we may on the way observe, how unlike the primitive church was to the roman church: that abounds in so many superstitious fopperies, with which their pontifical is full. there was also provision made, that none should be made a bishop, till he had passed through inferior degrees, not from any such subtleties as schoolmen have since devised: but that none might arrive at the highest order of the church, till he gave a sufficient trial of his faith and manners, by his deportment in all the inferior steps in which they intended he should stay so long, that all might be well satisfied about him. and in or a little before st. cyprian's time they appointed some inferior steps, which were not sacred orders, nor pretended to be apostolical, but degrees of probation through which those who intended to serve the church, should pass, before they were made deacons. and this furnishes me with a very considerable remark, to show the fidelity of those ages in the accounts they give us of apostolical institutions: for they do every where tell us, there were but three sacred orders, deacon, priest, and bishop, and no where study to make us believe these other degrees of porters, readers, acolytes, exoreists and subdeacons were apostolical: now if the episcopal superiority and power was a device of that age, or of the former, why should they not have called all apostolical, as well as some parts of it. but it is plain they were careful and conscientious in delivering punctually to us, what was apostolical, and what only ecclesiastical. his third objection is, because the apostles call themselves sometimes presbyters, and no where bishops; this sure if it prove any thing must prove more than that writer intends, even that presbyters are above bishops. he should also have considered that the apostles do call themselves much oftener deacons than presbyters. so if this argument be of force, than the deacons must be likewise of the same order with the bishops. but the true account of this is, that the name presbyter was used for any ancient person of authority, and among the christians it signified a christian of a long standing. so upon both these accounts, the apostles being then both ancient men, and of great authority, and those that were the first fruits of the world unto christ, might well be called presbyters, though not in that sense by which the following ages understood that term. for i do not question but the names of bishops and priests, were at first promiscuously used and continued so even to ireneus his time, who in his letter to victor calls the bishops of rome, that were before him presbyters, but afterwards those two terms were appropriated to that sense we now understand them in. or if you will stand upon the apostles being called presbyters, to prove an equality, or superiority of presbyter over the bishop; let me desire you to observe, that st. peter, who calls himself an elder, yet puts us in mind that bishops are above presbyters, for he tells us in that same epistle that christ was the bishop of our souls, and in that subordination i acknowledge the apostles were but priests, which perhaps gave occasion to ignatius to resemble the bishop and presbyters to christ and his apostles. besides it is as unreasonable to build any opinion concerning these orders, upon such humble expressions of the apostles, as if because a prince or a general will ordinarily call his soldiers, fellow soldiers, that therefore they and he are of the same order. the fourth objection is, because st. clement in his epistle to the corinthians speaks only of bishops and deacons. it is true in one place he does say, that the apostles did ordain the first fruits of their labours, having first tried them in the spirit, to be bishops and deacons. but if what was before observed about the use of the term deacon, be well grounded, then st. clement's words may be also very justly understood of bishops and priests, but because this has the prejudice of novelty against it, let us look further into that epistle, and we shall find it no less clear by other expressions, that there were different orders in the church, though in that place he comprehends them under that common name, for he commends them because they were subject to their governors, and gave all decent honour to their presbyters, and again says, let us reverence our governors, and honour our presbyters, and clearly applies the subordination that was in the temple of jerusalem, of highpriest, priest, levite, and layman to the ecclesiastical constitution, as will appear to any that will consider that epistle. from which i conclude, that though st. clement did comprehend bishops and priests under the common name of bishop, yet he shows us evidently, there were governors in the church that were superior to the presbyters, and to whom there were higher degrees of honour due: and particular ministrations proper, as were to the highpriest. the fifth objection is, that justin martyr calls the bishop's only precedents. this is of no force, for that father had no occasion given him to reckon up the several functions in the church when he was writing an apology for the christians to the roman senate, in which he gives a plain and simple account of their faith and worship, but it had been to very little purpose for him, to have told the roman senate, what were the several orders of church-offices among them. and it is not improbable that both he and tertullian might have used the term precedent, the rather because it would be the more easily understood by the romans than either bishop or priest▪ the sixth objection is, from st. cyprian, who calls himself praepositus or president. but neither does this signify much, for we are to consider the sense of authors, not so much by some terms or words they use, as by the formal accounts they give us, when they come to treat expressly on any subject. therefore when we would examine that father's opinion in this matter, we are neither to consider what in modesty he writes to his flock or clergy, nor what terms he makes use of, but the sure way is to see what his sense of the episcopal authority was, when he formally treated of it upon its being questioned and to this we have reason to appeal; st. cyprian's counsel was asked by rogatian another bishop concerning epist. 65. the censure of a deacon, who had carried himself insolently toward him, to whom st. cyprian writes, that by the vigour of his episcopat and the authority of his chair he had just power to have avenged that insolence instantly. and toward the end he says, these are the beginnings of heretics, and the rise and attempts of ill meaning schismatics, that they may please themselves, and despise their bishop, with a swelling pride. so men separate from the church so a profane altar is set up without, and so men rebel against the peace, of christ and the divine ordinance and unity. these words st. cyprian writes like one that prophesied of the age we are born in, and if he does not assert the power of jurisdiction to the height i leave to every one's eyes. and the same saint in another epistle, challenging epist. 10. the insolent presumption of some priests, hath these words. there is no danger which we ought not now to fear, our lord being thus offended, when some of the priests, who neither are mindful of the gospel, of their place, or of the judgement to come, and consider not that there is a bishop set over them, do assume all to themselves, to the reproach and contempt of him that is set over them, which was never at all done by any that went before us. and another of his epistles which is about the epist. 27. same subject, concerning the lapsed that had fallen in the persecution begins with these words. our lord whose commands we ought to fear and observe when he was settling the bishop's honour (or authority) and the rule of his church says to peter: i say, thou art peter, and upon this rock will i build my church, etc. from thence through the revolution of times and successions, the ordination of bishops and the account of the church hath run down, that the church should be constituted upon bishops, and every act of the church should be governed by these precedents (or praepositi as that author would have them called, though he seems not to have considered that by this saint they were not bare overseers, but had the whole power lodged with them.) since then this is founded by the divine law, i wonder at the bold rashness of some that wrote to me as they did, since the church is made up of the bishops, the clergy, and all that stand (i. e. in the faith, or stand in the worship) and if in all these places, st. cyprian that lived within 140. years of the apostles does not very formally assure us, that both the full authority was in the bishop and that this was settled by christ, so that there remains no room for any shift or answer i appeal to you and every unprejudiced reader. but there is yet a clearer and less suspected testimony ep. 31. in st. cyprian's works, in an epistle which the clergy of rome wrote to him, when their see was vacant after fabian's death, from which we may judge, what sense the priests of that age had of the episcopal office: these are their words, after the death of fabian of most noble memory, there is no bishop yet constituted among us, by reason of the difficulty of affairs and the times, who should regulate all these things, and must consider the case of the lapsed with authority and advice: can any thing be more evident, than at that time which was but 150. years after the apostles were dead, it was acknowledged by the priests that they had no full authority to govern the church when they wanted a bishop. now if the difference between bishop and priest, be only by commission, they being both the same order, then certainly in a vacancy the priests have a full power. but here we see the greatest company of priests then in the christian world, did not think they were of the same order, or had the authority of a bishop, even in a sede vacant. the seventh objection is, that presbyters are ordained in the same form, in which christ ordained his apostles, receive ye the holy ghost, whose sins you forgive, they are forgiven them. this must either prove nothing to the purpose, or too much, for if there be any strength in this consequence, it must amount to this, that all presbyters are of the same order the apostles were of, which certainly that author will think is too much. the answer to it is given by st. paul, that there are diversities of operations, administrations, 1 cor. 12. v. 4. 5. etc. and gifts, but it is the same god, the same lord, and the same spirit, for all these worketh that one and the self same spirit. and since it is both by the authority and assistance of the holy ghost, that all these offices are derived and discharged, it is no argument to prove the offices are the same, because we pray that all may receive the holy ghost, it being necessarily to be understood, that every one receives it in his own order. nor do the following words of forgiving of sins, prove any more, but that both these offices are empowered to that equally. for it is acknowledged that a priest gives absolution as well as a bishop: but from their being both authorised equally in one thing, it is somewhat a strange kind of inference, to conclude, there is nothing else which a bishop has authority to do, that is not competent to a priest. the last objection is, from the inconvenience that must needs follow on our asserting bishops and priests to be of different orders, since this must condemn and un-church all the foreign churches; which were indeed a very severe and uncharitable censure. i know this is very popular and taking, therefore i shall study so to clear it, that i hope no scruple shall remain about it. there are some conditions that are simply necessary to salvation, without which, no man shall see the face of god, and these do indispensibly oblige all without exception. there be other positive precepts which are of obligation to all who possibly can obey them, so that the contempt or voluntary want of these is a high provocation, they being both means of grace, and symbols of christian fellowship instituted by christ, and to continue for ever in his church. yet few are so severe as to deny a possibility of salvation without these. i know st. austin was of this severe side, but in that he is generally censured, as having exceeded; it is an hard doctrine to condemn all infants that die without baptism, at least to exclude them from the kingdom of heaven, as st. austin did. for if the child die in the belly or birth, it is not conceivable that it should be punished for the want of that which god himself made impossible. and the primitive church did generally believe, that such as being converted to the faith, did suffer martyrdom, even though they were not baptised, were certainly saved. in like manner if in some northern and poor countries where wine can scarce be had, and goes at excessive rates, if persons be so poor, that they cannot get wine, and so either die without the other sacrament, or offer some other liquor in the chalice, it were a strange degree of hardness to deny salvation to the people of such a clime. so also the offices of the church are necessary by a divine appointment, even in the principles of most of the non conformists, and yet neither this author nor they will deny but even a laic if cast upon an island, where he upon learning their language came to instruct them in the christian faith, and could have no commerce with any church; under such a necessity he might perform all divine functions; for all christians are a royal priesthood, and absolute necessity supersedes all the rules of order, decency and government. and the presbyterians who acknowledge as great difference between a presbyter and a laic, as we plead is between a bishop and priest, yet acknowledge these to be true churches, which began upon no orders at all, where some persons that understood the scriptures, did gather churches, and administer the sacraments; and they can say nothing for justifying such churches, which is not applicable to us in this case. therefore when the western churches were so corrupted that none could any longer with a good conscience receive orders in them, or submit to the terms upon which only their communion could be had; if any priests seeing these errors, did instruct the people in the truth, and finding no other way possible to propagate or preserve that purity of doctrine, did ordain other priests, though this was irregular and defective yet we are not so uncharitable as to judge people under these circumstances, but acknowledge that absolute necessity supersedes all positive precepts. i know some have been severe on this head, because they judge they are under no absolute necessity. but that is a great mistake, those that live under a prince of a different religion, as the protestants in france do, could not with any security come over hither to receive orders. for can it be imagined that princes who are always jealous of their authority, and chiefly of such of their subjects, as differ from them in religion, would suffer them to come and be ordained in another prince's dominions: they would certainly use that as a pretence to justify their severities against them. nor would they permit them to come under such a strength and compacted unity, as this constitution of the church would bring them to. therefore these are to be pitied, helped, and prayed for, and not insulted over. and for those other churches, that are under princes or a government of the same religion, they are in no less captivity to their superiors, who will never suffer them to go to another church for orders: and they would think it a thing inconsistent with the peace of their states, to let any ecclesiastics get into so calumniating a power, where the constitution of their policy is democratical. it is to be regretted that at first their bishops were stubborn, and would not receive the reformation, which the chief of the reformers did very much lament. nor is it to be wondered, if these churches being thus form under these necessities, and not according to the ancient and apostolical constitution in their ordinations, have since that time studied to justify themselves upon other accounts, than bare necessity. in that we think them in an error, but it being no fundamental one, and the necessity that at first forced that disorder, lying still over them, we dare not be so severe, as to deny them to be true churches. though we hold there is still such defects among them, that they are not complete and perfect in all their constitutions. but after all this charity to those under such hardships, we have great cause to conclude much more severely against those, who being born in a church that had no such defect in its first reformation, but was exactly moulded after the primitive pattern, and continued in so flourishing an estate that it was the just glory of the reformed churches, and the chief object of the envy and hatred of the roman, was at first separated from, and then subverted by some hotheaded schismatics. therefore the disparity being so great between our dissenters, who are such out of choice, and in opposition to all laws both of church and state, and the foreign churches who are irregular out of necessity, our judging tenderly and favourably of the one, does no way oblige us to relax and forego these excellent primitive constitutions, on the account of the others among ourselves. and thus far i think i have given you a satisfactory account of all that this author says on this head. you know me and my circumstances better, than to suspect, either interest, design, or obligation, has engaged me to these persuasions, since by all these i am rather biased another way. i have written nothing but that about which i am so well assured, that i know i am able to make good every particular i have set down. and therefore though i do not allow you, to let my name go with this paper, if you make a more public use of it; it is not that i fear either the censures of engaged and partial zealots, or the replies of a contentious disputant, so he abstain from railing and fooling, in neither of which, my genius, which was born for severer exercises, will permit me to engage. but now to wind up all after so tedious a letter, i must conclude with my 〈◊〉 regrates, that we are brought to such a pass, that discourses of this kind find such acceptance among us. the patient is in a high distemper, when he loathes wholesome food; and longs after every fantastical quelque choose he hears of: so it is indeed to be lamented, that the best composures that do either inform or edify the reader are neglected, and if any thing gets vent, that tends to make the most sacred things grow cheap, and fall in contempt, it is bought up at any rate, and read with an insatiable itch. i wish the author of that discourse may with serious and deep reflections, consider what he has done in this work of his: he has made all the enemies of peace triumph, and has put some popular things in the mouths of his readers, with which they think themselves sufficiently armed to baffle both the articles and rules of our church. i am confident he is so serious and so sincere a man, that when ever he is made sensible of this, he will be very ready to take out of the way any scandal which these his conceptions have brought forth. in fine, i pray god teach us to know the things that belong to our peace, that so our animosities and heartburning being laid aside we may all study to seek the things that belong to peace, and the things whereby we may edify one another. if i have wearied out your patience with a long epistle, i was forced to it, by the subject you commanded me to write about. and yet i have done it as short as was possible: which has made me overlook many lesser errors in that discourse, which were not of such general concern, but discover how easily that writer takes many things upon trust. it was needless to amuse the world with these particulars, and i am more a friend and honourer of that author, than to engage with him merely out of humour, to contend with him, or to expose him, lest of all to make a needless show of reading. but i will make an end. london, may the 23. 1676. advertisement: a conference about religion, held in london, april 3. 1676. between edward stillingfleet, d. d. and gilbert burnet. with some gentlemen of the church of rome, octavo, price 2 s. 6 d. sold by moses pitt at the angel in st. paul's churchyard. finis. man in paradise: or, a philosophical discourse vindicating the soul's prerogative in discerning the truths of christian religion with the eye of reason. printed at london by james cottrel. man in paradise. such is the excellency and original of man's soul, brooded and hatched by the all-enlivening breath of god, fashioned by divine artifice after the idea and most perfect exemplar, conceived first in the mind of god, whose architype it doth faithfully resemble: such, i say, is its excellency and noble extraction, that the contemplation hereof cannot choose but heighten our serious thoughts into admiration, and translate the considerate mind into an ecstasy. for whatsoever excellencies the great monarch of heaven and earth hath scattered and diffused amongst the lower species and degrees of creatures; all these hath he concentred, collected, and moulden together in man's soul; that by union, whose property it is always to add virtue and efficacy to the things united, they might become more perfect here, then in the creatures singly, and, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, superexcellent. the natural abilities, which are the meanest of the souls endowments, and as it were, the dregs of all the rest, what lustre and splendour do they show in their sweet harmony, order, disposition, and sufficiency to attain the end for which they were bestowed? no sooner hath the embryon all its parts and organs woven of fine spermatical threads, by the industry of the plastic or formative virtue, but it receives from this divine particle of air, vim nutritivam, a nutritive faculty, to maintain the substance then begun: vim auctricem, an augmentative power, to increase and bring it to a just quantity and bulk, that the palace wherein this noble prince, the soul, is to reside, may be completely built, and furnished with necessaries fit to entertain so great a majesty. these powers have other subordinate faculties, as careful and thrifty handmaids, waiting upon them; wherein you may see the oeconomy of a well-ordered house. there is an attractive faculty, as a hand, to pull nourishment in; and a retentive, to keep carefully what is gotten. a concoctive, to fit and prepare what is so retained, for the use of the whole body; which concoctive hath also a distributive faculty, as another subordinate handmaid under her, whereby there is performed a just anadosis, or distribution of matter to each several part according to its particular exigency. and under all these, there is an expulsive faculty, which serves as a drudge to carry out of the body the feculent part, or caput mortum, wherein there is no convenient chyle remaining; as also, to make way for new matter to be contained, and then concocted, as was the former. thus have we that pattern and idea which all well-ordered families, and well-composed commonwealths do imitate and follow. yet notwithstanding, the fabric of man thus kept, would in time decay, and the species utterly perish, unless to prevent this, a generative power were also implanted in him. in this the philosopher acknowledgeth, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a spice of divinity; in emulation of whose eternal continuance, nature, whose strength cannot maintain a solitary individuum to eternity, by this help preserveth the specifical unity, and so compleateth her desire. here i would ask, with what curious pencil this plastic power draws forth the lineaments & features of that body whose structure drew the psalmist into such admiration? wonderful hast thou made me behind and before. with whom doth it consult, to assign a due station and place for every member, leaving no chasm or gap unfilled, and superadding nothing superfluous or in vain? what euclid or master-geometrician doth it ask counsel of, to give a fit proportion, a just dimension, and perfect figure to every part? by what arithmetic doth it count the number of the parts, and then by certain paralellisms of extuberances behind and before, doth so counterpoise the whole body, that the countenance of man, and only man, may be erected towards heaven, there to behold his image as in a glass; whilst all other creatures look prone upon the earth, out of which their earthy souls were first extracted? pronaque cum spectent animalia caetera terram, os homini sublime dedit: calumque tueri jussit, & erectos ad sidera tollere vultus. the sensitive faculties are sublimed to a higher pitch, and may elevate our minds to a higher degree of admiration. who cannot but wonder at the swiftness of the sensible species posting with all speed to the sense, and the quickness and readiness of the sense to receive it? here you may see a vast mountain in a moment of time, contracted into a small model, and dwelling in an angle and corner of the eye. who cannot but admire the faithfulness of the sensitive organs? who no sooner receive, but transmit their respective species, sending them immediately to the common sense, as into some common-councel-house, where the busy imagination, by spelling, joining, and compounding them together, reads a lecture to the appetite to prove its assent or descent, whilst other species are commanded to their cells, and reserved in the store-house of memory till need require them? look back, and you may see the pellucid coats wherewith the eyes are covered, the clear waters wherewith they are bedewed, the winding labyrinth wherein the sound received into the ear must wander, till, beating upon that drum-like membrain which through the ingenite air propagates the continued sound, the sense, by a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, interceding, is married to the object: look forward, and you shall see the appetite no sooner awaked, but the locomotive faculty, a most obedient servant, puts the decree in execution; earnestly prosecuting that good, or flying that evil, which the affection for that time precedent shall dispose unto. in the mean time the passions, as love, joy, hope, anger, fear, grief, etc. as handmaids, are subservient, according as they are respectively concerned in the object apprehended, whether good or evil, past, present, or to come. in this sweet agreement, we may compare man's soul to an artificial lu●e, and these to be the strings of it, upon which it plays such ravishing tunes, as would drive the considerate ear to an astonishment or plain ecstasy. anima creaturarum inferiorum compendium: centrum in quod omnes perfectionun lineae concurrunt: speculum in quo suam quaeque creatura faciem, sed longè pulchriorem, contempletur: echo mirabilis, quae solitarias nudasque voces a creaturis, aliis sigillatim expressas, multiplicato & suaviori sono refert. the soul is an abstract of inferior creatures: a centre wherein all the lines of perfections meet: a glass wherein each creature may behold its face, but much fairer: an admirable echo which carries back the naked and solitary voices of other creatures, by them singly expressed, in a multiplied and sweeter sound. but what are all these, compared with the rational powers of the soul? what is the sense, which traffics only with gross bodies, and quailities from thence emergent, compared with reason, by which the soul negotiates with angels and immateriate beings, and by metaphysical and and abstruse notions, wings itself up into the arms of him who breathed it first into the body of man? in this upper room and higher loft of the soul's residence, we may contemplate the soul, as a monarch, wisely restraining or giving liberty to the misunderstanding affections according to the rule of right reason. here have we man ruling in man, dressing and cultivating man, as another paradise, wherein is all possible variety, yet no confusion, no ataxy or disorder, no passions contradicting one another, or tyrannising over reason; no disturbance of mind, no distemper of body, but a most admirable harmony of all things in the whole universe of man. reason is that sceptre whereby the soul doth rule without tyranny, the will and affections. reason is that rod wherewith the soul is kept in awe to obey without servile fear, the great monarch of heaven and earth. by reason, the soul discerns that there is a god; drawing one argument from the creation of the world, which either did exist of itself, or was produced by another: but it could not give a being to itself, seeing that it is repugnant that any thing should be the cause of itself. therefore the consequence is necessary, that the world was made by another; and; such another, as was the efficient cause thereof; not produced by any other former efficient cause, but was of himself, and by himself from eternity: which can be no other but god. another argument the soul: draws from the necessary dependence of a finite being upon an infinite: for every thing in the world is finite, both in respect of its essence and efficacy. now every thing that is finite must necessarily be limited by another, seeing it is impossible that any thing should give bounds to itself: and there being not in things finite a progress to infinity, we must at length come to some certain being which is not limited by another, but is of itself essentially and virtually infinite: which can be no other but god. a third demonstration is taken from the necessary dependence of a secondary cause upon a first: for unless we do here also grant a progress to infinity, which is absurd; in ascending the scale of subordination of causes, we must at length meet with one primary both efficient and final cause, having no other cause superior or before it; which is only god. a fourth demonstration is taken from the necessary dependence of a contingent and temporal being, upon an absolutely necessary and eternal being: for that which is temporal and contingent, was not always, but commenced in time, and had a beginning of its duration. wherefore seeing it is absurd, to grant that there was once nothing, and that which afterwards was, gave unto itself a beginning to be; we must conclude, that there was always an absolutely necessary, and eternal being without all beginning; which is only god. a fifth argument the soul useth to prove a deity, is the necessary dependence of all things that are good in an inferior order, upon some primary and chief good: for we see amongst all things in the world which are good, some are more, and others less good. now seeing that all things are such more or less, according as they do more or less participate of that which is most of all such; it follows from hence, that there must necessarily be some fountain of good, from whence all other goods do flow, as offsprings thereof; by which they are also measured: and this can be none other than only god. not only these, but many other rational arguments the soul useth, to satisfy herself fully in this truth; as, the general consent of all people and nations; the dictate of conscience, when there is none to accuse; the goodly fabric of the world; and, the continued order of all things preserved in their first station, through all the vicissitude of generation and corruption; intimating a wise rector and governor upon whose nod and direction all things depend. no sooner doth the soul by suchlike arguments thoroughly convince herself that there is a god, but this heavenly creature, winged with reason, soars yet higher, endeavouring to see god's face, and to know what god is. here she approaches: but such is the transcendent splendour of his bright majesty, that she judgeth it impossible to look god in the face, or to know a priori what god is, as cicero saith in his first book de naturae deorum, under the person of cotta: rogas me quis & qualis sit deus: auctore utar simonide, de quo cum quaesivisset hoc idem tyrannus hiero, deliberandi causa sibi unum diem postulavit: cum idem ex eo postridie quaereret, biduum petiit. cum saepius duplicaret numerum dierum, admiransque hiero, quaereret cur ita faceret? quia, inquit, quantò diutius considero, tantò mihi res obscurior videtur. you ask me who and what is god: i will use the speech of simonides, who, when king hiero asked him the same question, desired a days time to deliberate concerning it. the day after, when he asked him again, he desired two days. having in this manner divers times doubled the number of days, hiero wondering at him, asked, wherefore he did so? because, saith he, the longer time i take to consider upon this matter, the more obscure it appears unto me. and indeed, those arguments are infallible which are usually brought for this opinion, viz. that it is impossible for the soul to know god a priori. yet though she cannot see his face, she hath leave granted her to behold his backparts: though she cannot strictly define the deity, yet she may in some manner describe it: though she cannot attain to any knowledge of god by fetching arguments a priori ad posterius, from that which went before to that which follows after, from the cause to the effect, from that which is insensible to that which is sensible; yet she may argue a posteriori ad prius, from that which follows after to that which went before, from that which is corporeal to that which is incorporeal, from that which is compound to that which is simple, from that which is temporal to that which is eternal, from that which is finite to that which is infinite, from that which is natural to that which is supernatural, from the effect to the first efficient cause. by this way of argumentation the soul makes a description of the godhead, and, either by way of negation or transcendence, attributes that unto god, which can in no wise, without absurdity, be attributed to any of the creatures: as, that he is actus purus, a pure act, without all potentiality; simplicissimus, most simple, without all composition; foelicissimus, most happy: with many other. the very heathen philosophers, as cicero, aristotle, and plato, by the only light of nature, have left such sentences in their writings, as may clearly demonstrate the soul's abilities in this kind. aristotle in his twelfth book of metaphysics, saith, that god is vivens, aeternus, & optimus; living, eternal, and transcendently good: and a little after, that he is substantia aeterna, immobilis, magnitudinis expers, indivisibilis, infinita, impassibilis & immutabilis, a sensibus separata. an eternal substance, , without bulk, indivisible, infinite, not capable of suffering or of alteration, separted from the senses. plato likewise in timaeo, and in his book de legibus, saith of god, that he is genitor universitatis, the begetter of this universe: bonus, & causa bonorum omnium; good, and the cause of all good things. that very attribute which christians do, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, after a more special manner ascribe unto god, cicero hath left in his writings, saying, as we say, that god is, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the knower of the heart. he saith in * 3 de nat. deorum. one place, obscurum deo nihil potest esse: and in * 2 de divin. another place, ignorare deus non potest, quâ quisque ment sit. the same author, by the only light of nature, hath contemplated god in the most happy fruition of himself, as also in his providence towards the world, and hath expressed himself in a most christianlike manner in both these respects. as touching the fruition of himself, he saith, ea est dei vita, quâ nihil beatius, nihil omnino bonis omnibus affluentius cogitari potest: nihil enim * cicero nullus intellexit deitatem absolute nihil agere: sed nostro more non agere, sc. cum labour & molestia. agit, nullis occupationibus est implicatus, nulla opera molitur: sua potentia & virtute gaudet, habet exploratum fore se semper tum in maximis, tum in aeternis voluptatibus. such is the life of god, than which nothing is more happy, nothing in the world can possibly be thought to abound with more good things: for he doth nothing; he is implicated in no businesses, he undergoeth no labour, but enjoyeth his own power and virtue; and knoweth certainly, that he shall always be in transcendent and eternal pleasures. as concerning god's providence, he saith thus: in mundo deus est aliquis, qui regit, qui gubernat, qui cursum astrorum, qui mutationes temporum, rerum vicissitudines ordinesque conservat; terras & maria contemplans, hominum commoda vitasque tuetur. in the world there is a god which ruleth, governeth, and preserveth the course of the stars, the mutations of times, and the vicissitudes and orders of things; who beholding both sea and land, doth defend the goods and lives of men. i could produce a large catalogue of suchlike expressions from the mouths of heathens: but presuming that what i have already enumerated, may suffice to vindicate the soul 's prerogative, as touching the knowledge of god in his attributes; i shall wave all manner of enlargements, and pursue my intended brevity. to know god in his attributes, is a near approach to the deity; yet the rational soul comes still nearer: first, prying about his essence, then returning to herself, and contriving which way she should know more; at length she saith within herself, operatio sequitur esse; action depends upon being. then she busies herself in the contemplation of god's actions, which, saith she, are either immanent or transient: the immanent actions of god, are such as are performed within himself without respect had to the creatures, whereby he is said to know himself, and to love himself; as scaliger saith, deus generat ex seipso, in seipso suiipsius intellectionem, eodem modo, eandem aequalem sibi. god doth from himself begat an understanding of himself in himself, after the same manner, the same equal to himself. here the soul takes notice of a reflection of the deity upon itself, and is sublimed into the supposition of a trinity: for whereas god doth conceive and know himself, he doth beget a most perfect image of himself, from whence also proceedeth a most perfect love of himself. now seeing there is nothing in god, which is not god; both the image of god, and the love of god seem to be distinct * vocabulum graecum, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, multisariam accipitur; & inter varias ejus acceptiones aliquando sumitur pro essentia entis: quo sensu patres concilii sardiensis censuerunt, ut est apud theodoretum in ecclesiastica historia, lib. 2. cap. 8. unam esse hypostasin patris, filii, & spiritus sancti. verum enim vero 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pro supposito naturae intelligentis haud obscuri authores accipiunt: quo sensu graeci patres in divina essentia tres hypostases esse asserunt; & dionysius areopagita, qui apostolorum coaetaneus fuisse perhibetur, in lib. de caelesti hierarchia, vocat divinam essentiam unitatem, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, hoc est, in tribus hypostatibus subsistentem. hypostases or subsistences of the same essence with him from whom they do proceed, as if an eye should see itself: there is first the eye seeing; secondly, the eye seen, or at least, the image or species of that eye seen: from which action of seeing, there must necessarily proceed a desire of enjoying; for every action hath its end. this comparison of the eye doth in some sort adumbrate the trinity; yet by showing how far short the comparison is, the true notion of the trinity may be more clearly demonstated. the eye cannot see itself, but the deity cannot but behold itself; there being no object beyond it, or extraneous to it. god doth primarily see and know himself: but secondarily, the creatures, who live, move, and have their being in him. the eye doth not always see, but doth in time begin, and afterwards cease to see: but the deity cannot but always behold and know itself; and cannot but subsist in the eternal contemplation of itself. if we should grant that the eye could see itself; yet in propriety of speech, we must deny our supposition; for the eye sees not the naked essence of any thing, but a certain accident, viz. the intentional species: but the deity is essentially beheld of itself, reflecting no other species or image from it then its naked essence, whose perfection is such, that it cannot but subsist eternally beheld and contemplated by itself. from the reflection of the eye upon itself, there can proceed only an appetite of enjoying: but from the reflection of the deity upon itself, there cannot but proceed an absolute fruition. actiones feruntur in bonum, saith the philosopher: from the reflection of an eye upon itself, there can only proceed bonum desiderii, a good of desire: but from the reflection of the deity upon itself, there cannot but proceed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or bonum complacentiae; a good of complacency. after this manner doth the soul discourse freely & ingenuously within herself; i mean the rational soul not clouded with sensuality, nor straightened and girt with prejudice. then doth she conclude, that there are three necessary distinct subsistences, yet but one essence of the deity; or that the deity, which is essentially one, is subsistentially three. the deity doth necessarily subsist, first, in the eternal contemplation of itself; secondly, it doth subsist eternally, contemplated by itself; and thirdly, it doth subsist in an eternal complacency of itself: yet are there not three eternals, but one eternal; because the notion we have of eternity excludes plurality: neither do we conceive the first, second, and third subsistence, to be one before another in time or duration, because eternity is indivisible, having neither priority nor posteriority; but only by a priority of order or disposition of their relation. when we say that god is merciful, or that god is just, we speak improperly or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, after the manner of men; there being no real distinction betwixt god's mercy and his justice. but when we denominate the deity to subsist contemplating or contemplated, etc. we speak * scientia seu contemplatio proprie competit divinae naturae, & improprie tribuitur creaturis: notitia enim nostra est obscura & imperfecta, divina vero est perfecta & ●bsoluta. multo magis ab aeterno in aeternum scire & contemplari dei proprium est, quod nullo modo de creaturarum perfectissima predicari potest. properly and absolutely. wherefore, although these three subsistences be all concentred in the deity; yet they are * distinguntur ab invicem, quia ad invicem referuntur. ratio enim formalis relationis est semper supponere aliud cui unumquodque rela●orum referatur. quemadmodum aristoteles, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. et infra subjungit, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. distinct each one from the other. in that they do susibst invisible in themselves, and really distinct from each other, we may properly call them persons: † persona est substantia individua, intelligens, incommunicabilis. haec definitio a zanchic, lib. 1. de tribus elohim, & uno jehova. cap. 2. ex communi patrum latinorum consensu affertur. for a person according to philosophers, is a rational or intelligible subsistence distinct from others, and indivisible in itself. hither is the soul arrived, viz. to the knowledge of three persons in one essence of the deity; or, to the acknowledgement of a trinity in unity, by the consideration of god's immanent actions. now doth she pass from hence, unto his transient actions, which are the creation of the world, and the preservation thereof. here she doth premise, that the world was not from eternity, but did commence with time; as also, that there could be no first matter * absurdum enim esset 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, absolutam aeternitatem & essendi necessitatem ali●ui nisi soli deo tribuere. eternally coexisting with the deity. moreover, she doth presuppose that it would be absurd either to affirm or grant that the deity did act positively upon nothing; although before the creation of the world, there was besides god, privatively, not any thing. there was before the creation of the world, one only absolutely necessary infinite being, viz. god, who by reason of his infinity and absolute perfection, could perform no action absolutely transient: neither had he any object besides himself to act upon. time, and place, or finity might have then been denominated nothing, it being contradistinct to infinity, or a negation of that infinite being, which did only then exist. wherefore, time and place before the creation of the world, could never have been * nihil non est intelligibili nisi per notionem alterius de quo simplicitur negatur: sed tempus & locus ante creationem mundi nihil erant: ergo. conceived or willed by the deity; unless he had conceived and willed himself, together with time and place. so that it seems to the rational soul, that time and place had its being by the deities conception and volition of himself, together with time and place; which was the position of the word of his mind in time and place. here is also so clear a demonstration of the trinity in the creation of the world, that it seems impossible to the rational soul to have the true notion of creation without the conceit of the trinity: insomuch, that the ancients, who were more profound philosophers, did express the word create by an hebrew word consisting of three letters, viz. א aleph, ב beth, and ר resch, which signify the father, the son, and the spirit: which three letters, by addition of their proper vowels, either expressed or understood, are a verb of the preterperfect tense, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, signifying, the father, the son, and the spirit have jointly acted, or, they have conspired to act. this word, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, creavit, doth in itself sufficiently express the action of the deity, subsisting in a threefold manner: yet the ancients go farther, putting to it a word expressing the deity in the plural number, saying, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, elohím bara, the gods have created, or rather, god as he is personally three hath created. hermes a most profound rationalist, who was therefore called trismegistus, in his book entitled pimander, hath ●eft a sentence to posterity, relating to the creation of the world, as some do interpret; but as others do construe it, it doth only express the trinity. in this ambiguity, it is not difficult to decide the controversy, by affirming that mercurius trismegistus did, by one and the same sentence, primarily adumbrate the trinity, and secondarily the creation of the world. for god, who is himself a pure and most simple act in the eternal contemplation of himself absolutely infinite, doth necessarily contemplate himself, coexisting with the world, or time and place: the world being an inclusion or parenthesis of infinity. the sentence is this: monas genuit monadem, & in se suum reflexit ardorem. in 1 part summae theolog. quaest. 32. art. 1. thomas understands it to be only related to the production of the world, supposing it to be analogical to these words of his, viz. unus deus produxit unum mundum propter suiipsius amorem: but most philosophers say, that hermes by ratiocination came to the knowledge of the trinity, and expressed it after the aforesaid manner. he saith not, monas produxit monadem; but, monas genuit monadem. now the world may not properly be said to have been begotten: for in the creation of the world by his will, the world can in no wise be called verbum mentis, the word of his mind; in that the world being nothing, could not have been conceived in the mind of god, had not he conceived himself together with the world: so that god himself, being primarily conceived of himself, is verbum mentis dei, the word of his own mind; by whom all things were made, and without whom there could nothing have been made, which was made; who, as he is conceived, is personally distinguished from himself conceiving, although he be essentially the same. the soul, whose property it is to try all things, and by discourse, either to reduce her superficial conceits into impossibilities, and so pass them by as phantasms, or else to prove them necessary, and then to retain and embrace them as eternal truths, doth, by suchlike preceding discourse, prove an absolute necessity of the eternal being of one god, whose every action is but one action, and that eternal: in which eternal action, which is also himself, who is actus purus, he hath eternally subsisted personally three; in which personal subsistency, he hath eternally created the world. the soul having contemplated the world in fieri, comes now to take a survey thereof, as it doth exist in facto esse. in this place she doth not consider it, as consisting of such and such parts, or containing such and such particular creatures; but she only looks upon it as a finite being, contradistinct to infinity: and first she discourseth the nature of time, defining it, according to common philosophy, to be mensura motûs coeli per prius & posterius. but being jealous, lest she should impose upon herself, by a paralogism, and so be mistaken in the finding out of that most precious jewel, which she so earnestly seeks after, viz. truth; she rests not contented with this definition, but convinceth herself of the nature of time, by comparing it with eternity. eternity is a duration without either beginning or ending, having neither priority nor posteriority, but indivisible. time is a duration having both beginning and ending, and is in itself divisible into priority and posteriority. time, as time, whether we look upon all time, or the least particle thereof, doth consist of these two essential parts, viz. the later, and the former; which have their dependence upon a point or moment, in the midst thereof. if then; before all time, there was one only infinite being, who by the position of his word in time, caused time to be; the rational soul collects from hence, together with what is premised, that the word of god was, in the fullness or midst of all time, to impose a period to the former, and a commencement to the later time; or to constitute the essential parts of time, viz. priority and posteriority, by being in the midst thereof. and seeing it is that middle point, which doth, by disjoining duration, give a being to priority and posteriority; we must necessarily conclude, that the word of god, which is the second person in the trinity, not only in his eternal essence, but also in his existence, in the fullness of time, was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the beginning of the creation of god. now the soul comes to examine the nature of place; which, saith she, is that determinate and circumscribed ubi, wherein a body is contained; which can neither be named, nor rightly understood without the presupposition of a body; * corpus a philosophis dicitur esse in loco bifariam, sc. vel circumscriptive, quatenus ab alio corpore extrinsecus ambiente continetur: vel repletive, quatews sua m●le occupat & replet certum spatium locale. priori modo quicquid est corporum excepto caelo supremo, localitatem habet. posteriori autem modo de omni cor●ore simpliciter localitas praedicatur. omne enim corpus est, quantum, & quatenus quantum, est extensum in longum, latum, & profundum: & quatenus est extensum, habet certum situm & distantiam partium: ac proinde certum spatium locale replet ac occupat. insomuch, that it is impossible there should be a body which is not in place, as also, that there should be place which doth not contain a body: so that a body and place have a relative convertibility, the one to the other; and are so mutually reciprocated, that the one being granted, the other is necessarily presupposed. the soul from hence collects, that if the word of god did so exist in place as to give a being thereto; the word of god did assume a body, which being from eternity conceived in the mind of god, as the only idea and platform of the whole creation, must necessarily be of the nature of the perfectest of bodies; which is flesh. the soul is now arrived to the incarnation of the word. the word, saith she, became flesh and dwelled amongst us; yet in such a tabernacle as might be the pattern of the great temple, the world, as also of other living temples of the holy ghost. here she conceiveth, that though flesh in the general be the perfectest of bodies; yet not any manner of flesh could make a fit tabernacle for the word to dwell in, but such only, as should contain all the variety of the whole world; which is the humane nature. here the soul contemplates the word incarnate to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, both god and man, having a perfect humane body, and rational soul personally united with his divinity. this personal union of the divine and humane nature of the word, must necessarily be the immediate act of god; and consequently, that body which the word did assume (although, as it was perfectly humane, it should necessarily consist of flesh and blood, & other such essential parts as do constitute an absolute humane body) could not be produced by generation according to the will of man, having no need of seminality to contribute unto it its plastic or formative virtue; not only in that it was eternally conceived in the mind of god, as the idea of the whole creation; but also, in that it did exist in the fullness of time, which is the beginning of all time, according to the true notion thereof. in this moment or middle point, which gave time a being, which doth divide and couple time with eternity, and doth disjoin and unite priority with posteriority, which is in a several respect, both time and eternity: i say, in this both temporal and eternal duration was the light created; in this fullness of time, was the word incarnated; which word incarnate is both god, and man; the image of god, and the light of man; and man is the image or shadow of that light. this at the first view may seem mysterious and profound: yet after a more inward scrutiny, it squares with the humane intellect, being pure quintessentiated and sublimed reason: for time is so included in, interwoven with, and as it were strung upon eternity, that eternity is both the centre and the circumference, the poles and the axletree of all time: and according to the notion we have of time, together with its dependence upon, and connexion with eternity; we must necessarily grant some duration to be both time and eternity; wherein we imagine the first act of the creation to have been performed. which first act of the creation, the rational soul demonstrates to have been the incarnation of the word, as a cause; and the creation of light, or the angelical nature, under the notion of an immediate effect: for even as the word by existing in time and place did give a being thereto, and by assuming a most complete and perfect body, which being both elementary, vegetative, sensitive, etc. he did contribute essence to the elements, vegetables, living creatures, etc. even so by the personal union and perfect conjunction of his divine and humane nature, (which personal union is to be considered before the humane nature alone, or those other subordinate natures comprehended in it, viz. sense, vegetation, corporeity) he hath created the angels, which are a middle nature betwixt god and man: so that the whole creation seems to be a most perfect scheme, image, or shadow of the word incarnate; and all the variety thereof, in each particular, analogically received from his fullness. although, quoad nos, the word incarnate may seem to be the second adam, who may seem to us to have existed in the world before him; yet quoad deum, he is the beginning of the creation of god, and the protoplast of mankind, after whose image man was made. who by the conjunction of his divine and humane nature, is the supporter and bearer of the whole world; to whom, each creature owes its being; by whom, as an efficient cause; by whom, as a final cause; and by whom, as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the world was made: and without whom, in each of these respects, was not any thing made, that was made. who in his divine nature is ubiquitary; and in his humane nature, was, in the midst of time generally taken, conversant in the midst of the then habitable world; and in the very midst of time strictly taken, did, without doubt, locally descend, together with all the immateriate powers of the humane nature, into the bottom, centre, or midst of all circumference; which could not be, * si unum corpus per aliud penetraret, sequoretur corpus non esse corpus, sed substantiam incorpoream quantitatis expert●m: quod absurdum est, & manifestam implicat contradictionem. quemadmodum damascenus l. 1. orthodoxae fidei, cap. 3. ait, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. except he should have put off the material and corporeal part of his humanity, not reassuming the same until his assent from the infernal pit. now such must necessarily have been the * rationi consentaneum est eam fuisse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, corporis illius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, ut si omnia ossa ejus fracta fuissent, statim conglutinarentur. probabile autem est tam balsamica polluisse vi humores illius corporis; ut vulnera in exterioribus inflicta mortem non conciliassent: sed innato corporis balsamo, humoribus, sc. illuc deflu●ntibus sanari potuissent. methodum igitur isthanc frustrancam frangendi ossa ejus omniscia recusavit providentia. et ad vulnera quod attinet: previdit, ut non tantum exteriora infligerentur, sed ut ipsum cor lancea perfoderetur: ita ut ex ipso corde sanguis efflueret, & ab ejusdem capsula, sc. pericardio aqua dimanaret. exact crasis or temperament of that most perfect and complete body which the word did assume; that it is conjecturable, that it might suffer and be deprived of its form, by solution of continuity, rather than from any internal principles proceeding from a depraved habit or evil constitution: and being deprived of its form, it is probable it should be incapable of corruption, in that it is impossible it should have been produced by generation. the soul is ravished with the contemplation hereof, being not able to express a tithe of what she cannot but conceive: being so oppressed and overwhelmed with reason, that she cannot possibly utter her notions herein, except she had cloven tongues to multiply her expressions. for the word incarnate is that all in all, both of finity and infinity, wherein are all the reasons of things, together with their beings, concentred: whereby corruption hath a possibility to put on incorruption, and mortality to put on immortality. for, as his being in the world, caused the world to be; so the perfect conjunction and personal union of his divine and humane nature, which can never be disjoined, giveth an eternal precarium esse to the whole humane nature; or a possibility to all mankind to enjoy an eternal being: yet must the whole world besides necessarily return unto its first nothing, whose existence is but as a parenthesis in infinity; in which parenthesis the two extremes, viz. creation and annihilation must necessarily be equally distant from that point in the midst, wherein the word did exist, to give an absolutely finite being thereto. at the dissolution whereof, it is necessary that the word incarnate do actually exist in the world, to impose a period thereto (whose commencement did depend upon his actual existence therein) by recollecting into himself that scattered light, which is tutelary to the world, which was at first from him dispersed: before whom the whole world must necessarily be collected, together with the angelical nature, which is the next and immediate supporter thereof, and must be rolled up as a book; and then being deprived of its tutelary light, must pass away as a scheme; the glory whereof shall no sooner be reassumed into the word, then reflected upon the humane ashes, to revive the same into an incorruptible and eternal being. after this manner doth the rational soul ascribe the creation of the world to god, as the first efficient cause thereof: which one god, she doth demonstrate by reason to have subsisted personally three, in the very act of creation: but in a more special manner, she doth ascribe the creation to the word, which is the second person in the trinity, whose actual existence in the world, gave a being thereto. in the contemplation whereof, she cannot but discern with the eye of reason, that all those mysteries which the holy scriptures hold forth unto us, are not at all repugnant to reason: as, that the word was incarnated in the fullness of time, having been eternally conceived by the holy ghost: that he took upon him the humane nature: that he died by a violent death: that he descended into hell; with many others. having found out in the book of nature those mysteries which are expressed in the scriptures, she comes in the next place to observe whether those things less mysterious in the scriptures, be not also written in the book of nature. in the holy scriptures, which are the written word of god, the soul conceives herself chief concerned, as a rational creature: for there is no other creature in the whole world, except man alone, to whom the scriptures do properly belong: before whom god hath set the way of good and evil, upon the only account of rationality; having breathed into him the breath of life, whereby he became a reasonable soul: although all other inferior creatures do owe continual praises to god for their being; whereupon, they are commanded to observe the sabbath, which is by god an appointed time of thanks to him for their creation, wherein he is said to have rested; and is in the course of nature a pause, period, or full stop, wherein most actions do commonly terminate; according to the observation of philo judaeus, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. i say, although all creatures do owe continual praises to god for their creation, and do in an obscure manner perform their service therein, having also certain secret sabbatisms in all their actions; yet man, in a more especial and particular manner hath an engagement to perform an immediate service to god, being the world's high priest, to offer sacrifice not only for himself, but also for all other creatures which are subjected under him; according to that of mr. george herbert, sometimes orator of the university of cambridge: man is the world's high priest; he doth present the sacrifice for all, while they below unto the service mutter an assent, such as springs use that fall, and winds that blow. man, who is the high priest of the world, hath the scripture as a light to direct and guide his soul to the high altar, the word, who is also the high priest of mankind. now it is necessary, that there be some proportion betwixt the light and the eye; otherwise the light would rather dazzle and blind the eye, then help it in its performance. if the holy scripture were not rational, and in some sort proportionable to the humane intellect, it might rather induce incredulity, then enlighten the understanding. thus doth the soul discourse. then doth she attempt by reason, to understand the written word of god: conceiving it a contradiction, that any thing should be presented, as an adequate object of the humane intellect, not under the notion of rationality. herein she first observes the goodly order of the creation, according to the description of moses, to be much conformable to reason. as, that the elements should be created before mixed bodies; and, that out of the elements there should be procreated all mixed bodies in such an order and method, as doth correspond the logical series in the predicament of substance: that creatures more perfect should require greater time for their production out of the earth, than creatures more imperfect: that first vegetables should be produced, then living creatures, viz. those endued with sense; & last of all man, who is the most perfect of all living creatures: and that in the creation of each species, there should be also a gradual ascent answerable to the scale of nature: as of animals, first the fish, than the fowl, afterwards, the fourfooted beasts: and so of vegetables, first grass and herbs, than shrubs and trees. that man should be at first made up of such matter contained in the bowels of the earth, as is the embryon in the womb, viz. of red slime, which is analogous to blood, the thinner parts whereof are, by virtue of its innate heat, resolved into spirits; whilst the grosser are converted into flesh: and so all the diversity of parts made up answerable to the heterogeneity of the matter. after the heaven and the earth were finished, and all the host thereof, the scriptures tell us, that god saw every thing which he had made, and behold it was very good. the very same we read in the book of nature. for reason doth dictate unto us, that all things are good, not only because every thing in the whole world beareth some proportion or similitude with god, who is the original of its being; but also because there is no one thing in the whole world which is not agreeable and convenient to some other thing. wherefore seeing that goodness is defined to be the congruity of one thing with another, it follows that every thing in the world is good. there was not written, positive, or moral law given for the space of above two thousand years after the creation: then afterwards the law was given by god unto moses, and from him delivered unto the children of israel. there was reason wherefore the law should be so long omitted; and afterwards there was reason wherefore it should be then given. why it was so long omitted, may appear by the contents thereof: for he that reads the moral law, and considers all the particulars therein, may observe, that the main scope thereof, was to establish the children of israel into a commonwealth; and to preserve the same commonwealth, by defending each man 's propriety: that so they might, as a peculiar people, comfortably serve the lord, who had delivered them out of captivity. now there are three things required to a commonwealth: first, that there be a competent number of people; secondly, that this people be entire and free, neither scattered at a distance, nor intermixed with other people; and thirdly, that there be propriety of possessions, whereby one man may call something his own which is not another man's. before the posterity of jacob had these three conditions, it was impossible they should be capable of that whole law which was afterward given unto them. although, when they were in egypt they did increase, and became numerous; yet they could have no law unto themselves, in regard they were not of themselves a free people, but were strangers in the land of egypt, and consequently servants unto the egyptians, who had task masters over them, as the scriptures do inform us. and afterwards, when they were delivered from the egyptian slavery, although they were, in the wilderness, not only numerous, but also a free people, and entire to themselves; yet the whole law could in no wise belong unto them, because they had no propriety of possessions. to impose a curse upon him that should remove his neighbour's landmark, would have been nonsense to the children of israel before they had marked out their lands, and taken to themselves proper possessions: and so to impose proportionable penalties, if peradventure their oxen should hurt or gore one another, or hurt a man; would have been absurd, before they had any oxen belonging unto them. by this may appear the necessity wherefore the law was so long omitted. now although the law was written whilst the children of israel were yet in the wilderness; yet it could not be in force until their commonwealth began; but so soon as they had a commonwealth, they could not possibly be without a law; for the law is the soul thereof, which doth both constitute and preserve the same: whereby their confused multitude was digested into a republic; and their republic was continued entire without division or confusion. the multitude indeed might have been continued entire, without so much circumstance of law, whilst it did subsist as an army, and was preserved by one common food, manna, which did cost them only the taking up; yet could it not possibly have subsisted as a commonwealth, wherein there is propriety of possessions, without the law, which doth, by defending each man's propriety, preserve the whole commonwealth in the same state and condition wherein it was first established. if we look into the law, we shall find it to be nothing else but a systeme of rational precepts, commanding or forbidding upon such proportionable penalties or rewards as are agreeable to the dictate of nature, or the law of reason. here we have an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth, etc. double restitution is enjoined for theft; and murder is forbidden upon penalty of death. and in like manner for trespasses committed, we find in the law such rational proceed, as honest and understanding men would contrive for the due administration of a commonwealth: as for example: if men strive together and one smite another with a stone, or with his fist, and he die not, but keepeth his bed: if he rise again, & walk abroad upon his staff, then shall he that smote him be quit: only he shall pay for the loss of his time, and shall cause him to be thoroughly healed, exod. 21.18, 19 if a man shall cause a field or vineyard to be eaten, and shall put in his beast, and shall feed in another man's field; of the best of his own field, and of the best of his own vineyard shall he make restitution, exod. 22▪ 6. who can be so ignorant, as not to understand this to be reason? if we look into other precepts of the law, which do not concern any private controversy betwixt man and man, nor are related to the happiness of any particular commonwealth, but only to the beatitude of mankind in general; we may observe the like rationality: as for example: thou shalt not see thy brother's ox nor his sheep go astray, and hid thyself from them; thou shalt in any case bring them again unto thy brother: and if thy brother be not nigh unto thee, or if thou know him not, than thou shalt bring it unto thine own house, and it shall be with thee until thy brother seek after it; and thou shalt restore it to him again. in like manner thou shalt do with his ass, etc. deut 22.1, 2. thou shalt neither vex a stranger, nor oppress him; for ye were strangers in the land of egypt. ye shall not afflict any widow or fatherless child, exod. 22.21, 22. suchlike sentences of humanity and charity, are so sweetly intermixed with the other precepts of equity throughout the whole law, that the law of nature, and the moral law, seem both to intimate the same thing, and both to be summed up in this rational precept: quod tibi non vis fieri, alteri ne feceris: do not thou unto another, that which thou wouldst not have another do unto thee. as concerning those meats which are forbidden in the law to be eaten, they are also such, most of them, as even nature would admonish all people to refrain; of which sort are eagles, ravens, kites, hawks, owls, bats, cuckoos, etc. and on the contrary, those meats which are tolerated, are, for certain physical reasons, the wholesomest food; and also by natural instinct are suggested unto mankind as esculent: of which sort are the ox, the sheep, the goat, the hart, the ro-buck, the fallow deer, the wild goat, etc. some may object, that if the moral law be the same in effect with the law of nature, the said moral law must necessarily have been observed by other nations before it was given by moses unto the children of israel. to which i answer affirmatively: for it is not hard to prove by scripture, that almost every punctillo of the same law, though not as positive but as natural, was observed before it was given unto jacob's posterity. murder was punishable by the egyptian laws, as may appear by the second of exodus, where we read that moses looked this way and that way, and when he saw that there was no man, he slew an egyptian which was smiting an hebrew, one of his brethren: and so soon as he had done it, expecting nothing but death if he had been found out, he hide himself in the sand for his own safety: and afterwards, when pharaoh heard of it, he fled from pharaoh, out of egypt, into the land of midian, because. pharaoh sought after him; being the chief magistrate to punish suchlike offenders. adultery was also accounted an offence as heinous before the law, as it was afterwards; which is manifest by the story of abraham and abimelech in the twentieth of genesis, where we read, that abraham supposing that the fear of god was not in the land of gerar, denied his wife because he knew that adultery was so odious even in those places where the fear of god was not▪ that they would rather slay him, and then take his wife, then take his wife he being alive: they would rather do murder, then commit adultery. another example we have in gen. 39 of joseph, who would by no means sin against god in committing adultery with potiphar's wife: although there was no moral or positive law to make adultery a sin; but only the law of nature, or the rule of right reason. how severely simple fornication was punished before the law, by jacob's two sons simeon and levi, we may read in the 22 of genesis. that theft was made a crime by the law of nature, may be collected out of gen. 44. from the passage of joseph and his brethren concerning the cup which was put into benjamin's sack, etc. add to all these, jacob's vow of the tenth of all he had unto god, and his obedience to his father and mother, which is in the 28 of genesis. by all which it is evident, that the same law which was afterwards given by moses unto the israelites, had been anciently practised both by the hebrews and the egyptians: which was at first written in the heart of man, and was connatural unto him; but, by degrees being obliterated, & in process of time almost wholly defaced, it was afterwards engraven upon tables of stone; whereby it did change its property: being before, the law of nature, which did sweetly incline, and was more arbitrary; but afterwards, it became a positive or moral law, strictly commanding, and leaving without excuse. thus much shall suffice to have spoken concerning the precepts of holy writ. i come now in the last place to demonstrate the rationality of miracles. a miracle is an effect produced out of the ordinary course of nature. from the notion we have of a miracle, or from its definition, we may collect, that it is not in the power of any creature to perform a miracle: for the course of nature is a decree gone out from god; which decree it is impossible that any should have power to alter, but he that made i●: so that the exhibition of a miracle, is a rational demonstration, that he that performs the same i● sent of god, and hath hi● power from above. from the observation of the act, we come to the knowledge ●f the agent. we say, that to produce such or ●uch an effect, immediately to turn water into wine, or the like, is an action not natural, but supernatural: wherefore the agent cannot possibly be any of the creatures, but must necessarily be the creator. now when the soul is convinced in reason, that god is the agent of miracles, a miracle seemeth not strange unto her. for, saith she, he that in the beginning, by hover upon the waters, could hatch them into elements, and afterwards could gi' e power and desire to the elements to sy●●gi●e and copulate, whereby they did generate a●l other creatures: h● that without materials could erect so stately a fabric a● is this universe, may very well in reason be conceived to be able to perform suchlike actions as are recorded in scripture by the names of miracles. by this way of argumentation, which is called regression, even miracles do melt into reason, and do become so familiar to the rational soul, that when she doth consider the circumstances thereof, viz. first, that all miracles are performed by the finger of god; and secondly, that there is no miracle recorded in scripture which doth imply a contradiction; she ceaseth to admire the same: but wondereth rather, that there should be an infidel left in the world, or any soul so dulled with sensuality, or deadened with prejudice, as to lose her prerogative in not discerning the truths of christian religion with the eye of reason. finis. literato lectori. interrogas forsan, lectorum literatissime, cujus ergo publicitus ederem naucipendulum isthunc de signaturis tractatulum: quasi sagacissimos moderni seculi medicos lateret quicquid est, in re medicâ, aut notatu dignum, aut observatu insigne. nullus equidem eo inficias versatiores esse nunc dierum omnes in polydaedalae naturae latifundio, quam olim fuisse, imò lubens agnosco nunc tandem eò culminis evasisse artes scientiasque: ut, si in hâc mundi senectute in vivis superessent qui in infantiâ ejus vitam traduxerunt, mirarentur valdopere 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 prae omnibus autem, non mediocre additamentum sortita est medicina, scientiis, ex quo cumprimis aesculapius divi honorem adeptus est tradendo confusa quaedam, & incerta, procul methodo, curandi morbos programmata. o quam, tunc temporis, tenellula, & in cunis vagiens, medicina, impos erat peragendi e● quae indies hodie peragu●tur! plurima galenus & hypocrates habuêre comperta quae praecedentibus non nota fuerunt: & multa sapuêre successores eorum quae non innotuerunt illis. nonnulla nobis patesiunt quae proximum abhinc retrò seculum latuerunt. verum enim verò, non eam adhuc medicina tetigit perfectionis metam, ut ulterius perfici nequeat: sed, ut sensim & pedetentim corpora humana vacillant indies & labascunt; ita paulatim nova suppullulant, ad supplendos naturae defectus, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. sic visum est providentiae, cui mortalium neminem penes est refragarier. omnia quidem naturae sunt 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, sed non nobis omnia. circulum sang●inis, novum illud chyli receptaculum, ductus lymphaticos, & quicquid est istiusmod●; quicquid casus reperit, aut ingenium invenit, antiquitus natura tenuit: estò quodlibet naturae munus suo tempore mens humana persentiscit. ad eundem planè modum natura primitus indidit corporibus simulachra quaedam, non frustra quidem, sed ut ad vivum depingeret cui inserviunt usui, & quibus pollent facultatibus. natura primitus sanxivit ut unumquodque corpus ageret in subjectum sibi naturà proximum. omnia corpora semper habuerunt attractricem cum magnete communem, & vice versâ. natura semper fuit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; quo nomine nunquam non potis erat indigitandi quomodo edulia, quomodo pharmaca, quomodo venena vires suas exerunt: viz. eodem ipsissimo modo, putà similitudine quâdam substantiae inter agens & subjectum. haec esse, & semper fuisse, naturae munera agnoscimus; horum verò observamen quantulumcunque vocamus nostrum: quod non inexperti scripsimus: quare idem tum rationis, tum experientiae specillo audacter credimus. ad hanc posteriorem quod attinet, quae j●m pr●ma in lucem prodit, opellam: nemo asserat theologi magis interesse quam referre nostrâ: non enim rationis extravagamur terminos. quod si ratio nostra cum fide coinciderit, nihil nobis imputandum esse speramus. imò potius summae sunt agendae d.o.m. gratiae, qui animam humanam tam splendide ornavit & i●struxit, ut tam divinae quam humana sapiendi par esset. hoc unicum, literate lector, perpendas obsecro: sc. aequè absurdum esse rationem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 damnare, & rationem improbandam esse ratione probare. vale. r. b. errata. pag. 7. l. 1. for amalgamated, read amalgamates. p. 10. l. 4. for and, read that. p. 24. l. 18. for acquainued, read acquainted. p. 30. l. 3. for senicus, read seincus. p. 51. l. 6. for gatiopsis, read galiopsis. p. 60. l. 23. for figure from, read figure proceed from. p. 61. l. 1. leave out bodies. page 5. l. 8. for mortum, read mortuum. p. 24. l. 20. for separted, read separated. p. 25. l. 11. for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. 32. l. 19 (and in other places) for then, read than. p. 36. l. 6. for invisible, read indivisible. p. 58. l. 5. for assent, read ascent. a dialogue betwixt phylautus and timotheus, in defence of dr fvllwood's leges angliae: against the vindicator of naked truth, styling himself phil. hickeringill. london, printed for rich. royston, bookseller to his most sacred majesty. 1681. timotheus and phylautus. chap. i. of the author's name, phil. hickeringill. timotheus, well met, phylautus. phylautus. why, phylautus? tim. i know you call yourself, phil. hickeringill, but that dutoh-hobgoblin name, is so rugged and harsh in the mouth; and so unsuitable to the smoothness of your vindication of naked truth; that neither myself, nor a thousand others can endure it: at the first time they heard it, it brought a curse with it; and they wish, they had never heard it since, and are frighted at the very sound of it, as if it were conjuring. indeed [hickeringill] speaks ill, and hears worse, therefore as you have faced about, and changed your countenance, as to religion, or against it, i thought it not amiss, to change your name too. phil. how now tim! hast an itchy endeavour to be witty forsooth, in vindic. p. 35. spite of nature and thy stars? enough of [hickeringill] but why must phil. be added to [autus] why phylautus? thou thinkest thou hast a trick for that too. tim. to deal plainly with thee: every body perceives, that this phil. hickeringill, is the same person, that lies prostrate under the name of [edmond] at the foot of naked truth: and it is known, that phil. and edmond, are all one, that is, ned loves hickeringill; and hickeringill, is in love with himself; and for this reason, i have made bold (for the better sounds sake) to call thee phylautus. but prithee phil. why art thou pleased with that throatling name phil. hickeringill? is it not for the same reason? good wits may jump. phil. say nothing tim; and i will tell thee the naked truth; and whether i thought of thy reason or not, i am resolved, upon good reason, to love myself: for i see little in the world, that a man should be fond of; and but few that regard me as i deserve, or merit my kindness. nor can i expect otherwise, plain dealing has few friends; and that's my talon: besides, i have flown at all sorts of people, fift-monarchists, p. 35. anabaptists, quakers, independents, presbyterians, papists; and, i trow in a very civil manner, at our own churchmen too: and thus have provoked them all against me; and is it not time to take care of myself? i had once some hopes of favour from the church of england: but now i despair; for i saw little was to be got by her kindness, and occurred her displeasure: to speak the truth, she hath always been a stepmother vind p. 2. to the author of the naked truth; and he never had any thing from her, but frowns and blows; at best, but a bit and a knock: and now, alas! she is in the wane, and not worth the courting: i found her, lately, in the frontispiece of a book called, leges angliae, (a pretended answer to naked truth,) pictured in a very low and weeping posture, groaning under the cross: and i hate her in her very picture; but seeing it is so sad with her, i will pity and love myself: therefore call me what thou wilt, i am phil. hickeringill, and will be so, in spite of the world and the church too. chap. ii. of the title, leges angliae, one fullwood, a libelling pamphlet. tim. thou mentionest a book called, leges angliae: prithee, what's thy opinion of it? phil. that book, i have not patience to speak of it; it so scandalously handles my beloved, naked truth: it proves it to be all lies, and then, cloaths it with bears-skins, and all shapes of villainy: and then exposeth it, and hectors and beats, and kills it, and all that, under the detestable name of my chief old enemy, the laws of england. many years agone, these laws of england, had like to have done me a mischief; and i could never endure the name of them since; especially, when the wind blows westward: and i wonder at my heart, how these laws, can give warrant to others, in a hectoring way, to say ●ind p. 6. come— clergyman— deliver your purse, your purse. but with what title his pitiful pamphlet can challenge so swelling a title, shall be considered only by the sequel. 〈…〉. 2. tim. good phil. why so angry? the title did thee a kindness. some think, had it not been for this title, and a small jest, thou hadst had little to say to the whole book: and it seems to be true too, because thou so often makest mention, and makest so much advantage of them. but to speak my mind; a serious book, that consists chief of our laws, and vindicates a legal government by arguments of express laws, may wear this title of leges angliae modestly enough: though i must tell thee, i am well assured that that title was put to the book by another hand, and not by the authors; who knew it not certainly till he saw it in print: he hath often said he did not like it, because he had twit mr. cary for styling his lesser book, the law of england, though that seems to be a greater title. but good phil. why must thy vindication carry so much folly and rage in the front of it? scornfully calling thy adversary (one fullwood) though he tells the world both his name and his title, and dignity: if he be a doctor in divinity, and a dignitary in the church, or but an aged spectacle-divine, thou shouldest have used him with less disdain, if not with reverence. some think he honoured thee too much, in condescending to take notice of, and answer thy book, and dishonoured himself. phil. why did he not let naked truth alone then? why did he write so libelling a pamphlet against it? tim. i know thou hast betrayed thy wit as well as manners, in calling a serious book, touching lawful government, written by an ancient d. d. a libelling pamphlet. but phil. if he writ that which is true, and set his name to it, how is his book a libel? that thou, against whom his book is written were't guilty enough, was evident; because thou fled'st for it, not daring to put thy name, at first, to thy naked truth, as the doctor doth to his book. i say thou didst thus fly for it: and that out of a sense of guilt, or great fear: fear, what, the men, or the leges angliae, thou hadst offended by thy naked truth, would do with thee, should they find thee out, as thou often confessest in that book. indeed, when thou hadst got thy friends about thee, i mean the rabble, that like not the laws of england; and, as thou thought'st, secured thyself among thy abettors; then thou appearest, and showest thyself, though sneakingly, at the tail of thy book. seeing thyself then in the face of those movable waters, thou seemest to fall in love with, and pride thyself, as the author of a book so highly esteemed by the weak and disturbed populacy; and had i not given thee a name before, thou mightest well be called after thy great grandfather, narcissus. phil. methinks thy way of concluding things with verses is marvellous edifying: let me mind thee of what a noble pen hath noted to purpose: the people's love, with evil acts is won: and either lost or kept as it begun. what wind then blows poor man into this sea, but pride of heart and singularity? chap. iii. a taste of phil's rhetoric and good manners. tim. so much for thy title page. casting my eye into thy book, i find it strewed all over with such fair flowers, bestowed both on the author and his leges angliae, that i am tempted to pick them up, and dress thy self and thy vindication with them. as for the author, thou wilt not return him railing for railing, as thou assurest him, pag. 21. those wont attacks of effeminate and doting old men: but thou observest, that he is an incomparable finder, and quicksighted commentator for a man of his age, that cannot see without spectacles: and that old men can prate and scold, and so does he: thou stilest him dull fool; cursing railer; prelatical champion; despicable opponent; fibling, quibbling, fribling, fumbling, scribbling archdeacon: greedy-gut; gormandizing, unthinking black-coat; stocked with a little superficial learning: impertinent d. d. that has not his fellow amongst them all for insolence and impudence, etc. thus thou adornest the author; and his book thou hast so habited, that it looks just like the author; for, it is the insolent and the empty windy vapours of a huffing man; trifling entertainment; thin, futile and cobweb contextures and composures; insufferable and vainglorious petulancy; unparalleled shallowness of expression; extravagances; impertinences; nauseous repetitions; crazy principles; a great deal of prattle to no purpose, etc. but to be serious phil. is this thy way of answering books? shouldest thou not in all justice and conscience, instance something, either in the author, or his book, that deserves (at least in thy own singular opinion, if in no bodies else) such scoundrel, billingsgate ribaldry, which turns the stomach of all modest readers? i must tell thee phil. what sober men conclude upon it: thy despising the author and his book, without evidence, will provoke him and thy reader to despise thee; and that not without cause, both logical and moral: for 'tis observed, that when passion gins to bluster thus, 'tis an argument, that there is both need and want of reason: and that where the breath stinks so abominably, the bowels are rotten; there is rottenness within: for out of the abundant superfluity of naughtiness in the heart, the mouth utters such pestilent steams: and thus thou hast shown thyself, in the judgement of all wise and good men, both a bad advocate and an ill man: this seems to lie heavy upon thee, and how thou canst shake it off, i know not. phil. tim. art thou mr. dullman too? let me indoctrinate thee a little better. know then, that the kind of cattle that stare at, and prick up their ears to hear hickeringill, are prepared to embrace any thing that i call naked truth; and is thrown out bravely, and boldly against churchmen, especially their courts. my business is not to satisfy reason (where there is none to deal with) but to keep up and cherish prejudice, to foment and inflame passion and faction, and thus to carry on the grateful interest of the brutish populacy: and we must have engines suitable to the work we are about: and what are they, but to despise dominion, and to speak evil of dignities? and to throw dirt, with both hands, at all that are advocates for government? when a man is honoured as the head of the herd, thus engaged and led on, the enemy's reason shall never hit us; nor our rage and railing ever miss them: and the intrigue goes on. thou wilt find anon, that i grant his arguments cannot be answered; therefore, that's a work not to be undertaken in earnest (though here also i set up my colours, and entertain some slight skirmishes) but while i hector, and rant, and call names, with impudence (enough, thou thinkest) the people will find sufficient reason to cry victoria: say no more tim. i know it by experience. tim. phil. so wise and ingenuous discourse shall be crowned with a verse. thus we discern, what courses they must hold, that make this humour of applause their end: they have no true, and so no constant mould; light change, is both their enemy and friend. herostratus shall prove, vice governs fame; who built that church, he burned, hath lost his name. tim. but, phil. i am not at all satisfied, why you should fall upon the doctor without book: you do not find he serves you so; perhaps, he reflects severely enough, yet he keeps within the compass of your writing: you can have no reason to provoke to search too narrowly into what you have been. phil. what dost mean? tim. i mean to blame you, for calling him, pedagogue: you say, in his juvenile years, when he was (as indeed he was) a furious chastizing pedagogue: and, with no little scorn you add, another whipping tom, he took pleasure to lash and slash, p. 2. what confidence is this, thus to overlash, beyond your knowledge, and contrary to known truth! the doctor was never either a pedagogue, or paedagogues son: yet, you say, indeed, he was so: but perhaps you imagined this, from his lashes, they fell so heavy from an old man. phil. i confess the smart made me a little outrageous: i mean, that which i felt from the backblows, in his epistle: for the clubb-knocks of his arguments, i could have born them, and said nothing, but mum: however, thou shouldst not have made the observation. chap. iu. phil's fondness or kindness to himself, and flattery. tim. but, phil, i must observe, that thou art rude with the doctor, thou art over-kind to thy self; even to flattery and gross daubing, usque ad nauseam. doth not that sound sweetly out of thy own mouth, that, above all others, thou hast disarmed the fanatics, etc. p. 2. again, with great self-denial [it cost me not seven days, i protest, to answer the six months abortive throws of, etc. p. 36. 'tis miraculous thou couldst dispatch such a nothing in so short a time. again, how kindly dost thou aspire, when thou breathest out [if i were lord chancellor. again, 'tis meekly said, what has already (speaking of thy naked truth) got a verdict all england over; except such, etc. lastly, not to glut the reader with such luscious fair, that incomparable tang of thy humility: whereby thou intimatest, that the doctor's end in his answer, was to be taken notice of, for daring to grapple with the naked truth; thus, purchasing a name and a fame, etc. but prithee, phil. what measures dost thou use? certainly, such as others are strangers to: nor is it possible thou shouldst satisfy thyself for this silly vaunt. let me whisper in thine ear; wiser, and better, and greater men than thyself, expressed their trouble to the doctor, when they heard he was about to reflect upon thy scandalous book; (for so they called it) that he should condescend so far, as to honour it with an answer: and feared, that thou wouldst value thyself (those were the words) upon thy being taken so much notice of, by a dignitary of the church of england: which, indeed, had almost prevented the print. but at length, phil. thou art a gentleman; and will have the world know thou hast 200 l. per an. land of inheritance. well phil, be it so: but we must take thy word for both, seeing thou livest by ill neighbours. we have thy picture drawn to the life, by a modern dauber (no primitive painter) in all thy books; but, it is well, that [gentleman] is written by, otherwise, a man would swear, 'twere the picture of a cock or bull rather than a gentleman: a cock for his crowing; or a bull for his rage. chap. v a specimen of his wit: doctor's expressions vindicated. phil. what's the matter, tim. art quite lost, and turned enemy? tim. i had almost done with thee, but thy wonderful witticisms, which i lately discovered, have pretty well reconciled me: and made me amends for all together. how smoothly runs that, viz. a protestant head must have a protestant face! how ingenuous that, [the proem takes up too much room!] in another character, lest the best of puns should escape unobserved, which, without the cost of a costive anagram, more than pays the doctor for his hobby warr-hawks: but, there's no end of this topick, every line has its salt: and therefore, passing all the rest, i shall crown my observation with a little further notice of that anagram, we hinted at, which crowns thy wit at the end of thy book: 'tis this [fra. fullwood, war. dul-fool.] now, phil. let's be serious awhile: and war-dull-fool, indeed, is his name, as much too hard for thy wit, as his arguments for thy reason? what makes thee deal so barbarously with it? o phil. thy wit is cruel and short; for, war-dull fool, can reach but to fra. vlwood: and short and cruel: what, cut off the lower half of his christian name, and the head of his surname? i now find thy knack at capping of verses and uncapping of names: and am not much concerned, tho' his name thus suffers, seeing his reputation is above thy reach. phil. would any man alive beside thee have been such a fool in print? and without shame have boasted of this subtle silly anagram, as thou callest it thyself: such folly, calls for the fury of a chastizing pedagogue, and whipping tom indeed. phil. what, because it is not true to a letter! the troth is, tim, for a fancy or a humour, we wits, regard, neither truth nor sense, nor good manners. but now i am provoked, i'll expose two such instances of the doctor's wit, that are strangers enough to sense, and as much as any of mine. 1. what dost think of his rock of sand; upon which he supposeth me to triumph? i never heard of a rock of sand before. tim. it may be so phil. but i think the expression is at least pardonable: but thy reading in philosophy is hardly so: hast forgot or didst never hear of that question about the generation of stones and rocks? but cease thy wonder: he never intended a natural real and firm rock; for he knew well enough, that thou hadst none such to stand upon: but he meant such as thou hadst, and such as thy matter depended upon; a fictitious, false counterfeit rock: and such a one may easily be made of sand, mixed with the slime and dirt which so much defiles naked truth. phil. but thou canst never bring him off for his other extravagancy: for lying, envy, malice, etc. he saith, i am a very angel of light. tim. what phil. fail in thy rhetoric too? hast forgotten the figure that warrants such manners of expression? i wonder, what thou wouldst be called; for such kind of virtues: as lying, etc. or any of thy other excellencies. an angel of darkness, and confusion; the prince of the air: the accuser of the brethren: or a devil-incarnate! and in this sphere, this wilderness of evils none prosper highly, but the perfect devils. chap. vi a previous attempt of mr. phil's judgement and logic. sect. i. tim. though thou approachest towards the main battle timidè, and with deal of modesty even to despair; yet i observe thou makest some on-sets, that give tokens of some braveness in thee. i acknowledge, thou art strangely qualified: with stoutness of body, resoluteness of mind, invincible passions, haughtiness of expression, accurateness in history and law, especially against the church and ecclesiastical courts; all managed with a singular stream of wit and fancy, as i lately noted. yet to deal plainly with thee, phil. there is a small gift or two, that seem not to be altogether so complete in thee. i mean, that clearness of mind and foundness of wisdom, and that dexterous faculty of reasoning, that should crown a disput an't of thy strange adventure. phil. how man! why that's my glory: and in the knack of arguing i challenge the world. but if it should be with me, as thou sayest, yet thou mayst perceive, i am even with this archdeacon: for he lai'th out his whole strength in a little point, which i denied and indeed argued against, with all my might and skill in law and story: namely, the lawfulness of ecclesiastical government; and seems to neglect those weightier things, of pag. ● procurations, synodals, fees of courts, etc. and is not that as ill in him, as for me, to show my manhood, in those noble points of resolution, passion, fancy, story and expression; though i should be found less, and less concerned in the inconsiderable points of wisdom and reason. however, tim. i know no nakedness in my discourse, but the naked truth: if thou dost, show it. tim. this nakedness appears in the whole body of thy book; not to prevent that discovery, i shall here only instance in two of thy attempts. 1. the doctor had said, our laws exclude the purely spiritual power of the keys from the supremacy of our kings: except it be to see that spiritual men do their duty therein. here upon i am ashamed to see, how thou triumphs before the victory, and how pury like, how poorly, and fallaciously thou attack'st him. first, thou sayest k. hen. 3. preached in pulpit, ergo, etc. secondly, emperors called councils and approved their canons: ergo: thirdly, our kings are ordained priests as baker relates, therefore thou strongly concludest they have the power of the keys; but the conclusion should have been, that they have the (purely spiritual) power of the keys: dost not perceive it, phil. our laws do say that the king is mixta persona cum sacerdote: and all those ensigns at his coronation import as much: but in which of them is it said, take thou authority to preach the word of god, or administer the sacraments? here, phil. thy understanding failed thee: the political power of the keys, do in a sense belong to our kings, but not the purely spiritual power, except mediately, as at first was granted: the king is a priest in tanto not in toto. but if thou canst prove our kings to be priests in all respects: look to it mr. baxter: you are undone: for than we have a proper spiritual head of the church of england: yea, look to it phil. for, near thou hast undone thy self, in thy state religion. for if the head be properly a priest, what body can fit him, acting as a priest in making canons and governing the church, but a body of priests? is the parliament, with whom he maketh other laws, or the judges, sheriffs, justices, etc. by whom he governs the kingdom, a fit body for a priestly head? do not these act under him rather as a king? and a convocation of priests and spiritual courts, more congruously act under him as a priest (if he be, in all points, a priest, and have all the spiritual power of the keys) both in making canons, i. e. spiritual laws, and governing the church, by them? poor— ape! why art thou venturing still at this so subtle game, and play'st so ill? sect. ii. another piece of his logic against chancellors, etc. secondly, we have another such trial of thy honest logic upon a part of his proem; which, if thou hadst quite (as thou sayest thou hadst almost) forgotten, little had been lost. 'tis this: the doctor intimates that chancellors, registers, etc. are assistants by law, allowed to bishops, etc. and that in 1 cor. 12. 28. we read of helps in government, which he intimates is a general warrant to the law of the land, for such allowance. now reflect upon thy answer, phil. in stead of an answer thou very honestly imposest and intrudest another conclusion: thou sayest he would prove these inferior officers, to be all church-officers jure divino: which was the very objection he went about to remove: he doth deny them to be church-officers, strictly speaking; neither doth he affirm them to be jure divino: but he saith, and thou sayest nothing to the contrary, but a great truth (that esquire dun is so too) he saith, that if making and keeping acts of court; if managing and ordering causes aright; if serving summons and executing mandates of the judge, if these be reasonable things and expedient in government, than the persons appointed by law to perform these things, are useful in government, and agreeable to that general word and warrant in scripture: and upon the very same moral and prudential ground, deacons were at first appointed by the apostles (acts 6.) and many other things justly practised, even in the first 300. years; though not found in use in the apostles time: for the succeeding ages of the church inherited reason and prudence, whose proper use is to apply general rules in scripture with particular conveniency to times and places: but, phil. if thou hast neither reason nor prudence, how shall a man beat this into thy head? pag. 25. thou sayest, the doctor has no guts in his brains; one would think thou hadst been in devonshire, and that some body had taken out thy brains and put in whitepot. so much upon the proem too. chap. vii. a step towards the matter of the doctor's book, and the main battle. phil. these things, tim. are about the outworks only; but do not i quit myself like a man, when i come into the open field, or, at least, like a crafty combatant. tim. at present, i shall only remark to thy eternal honour, that thou preparest thyself like a man of war indeed, and viewest thy enemy in all the strength of his five propositions (in opposition to thine, pag. 5. against ecclesiastical government) but durst thou have stood to any one of them, thou hadst been a man indeed. but, instead of that, thou fliest from his and thy own propositions too; and leavest them to defend themselves: and as a man knocked o'th' head, and stun'd with the blows received before, thou staggerest and ramblest from one impertinent story to another, but always avoidest the main point. phil. perhaps i had reason, the point was sharp. chap. viii. prop. i. our ecclesiastical jurisdiction was not derived from the pope, but from the crown before the reformation by hen. 8. tim. now for the rancounter, as thy warlike word is; is this proposition true or no? if it be not true, why dost thou grant it at last? if it be true, why dost oppose it, and show all thy little wit and impertinent story to obscure or weaken it? thou art the author of naked truth. phil. i will speak plain anon; but i'll have liberty to show my parts and reading: therefore, quomodo probas, domine d. d. pag. 5. tim. the doctor gins his proof, by minding thee of the ancient constitution of the english church: and teaching thee, if thou be not too old or too stubborn to learn, that it was a known law 25 edw. 1. and 25 edw. 3. long before hen. 8. that the church of england was founded in episcopacy by our kings, etc. and not in the papacy. to this great ground of truth, how wild an answer have we, pag. 5. thou sayest with equal ignorance and scorn, i always thought (till now) that our church of england (i know not for his church of england) was neither founded upon episcopacy, nor the papacy, but on christ the rock of ages. would any man alive, beside phil. have had so many blunders in so few words? 1. the doctor saith, as the law saith, that our church was founded in episcopacy: thou provest by thy wise thought, (i always thought) that it was not founded upon episcopacy: thou art it seems a thinking black-coat: however that may pass for thy first blunder. 2. and the second is like unto it: the doctor says, our church was founded in episcopacy: thou thinkest it was founded on christ: as if the church could not be founded in episcopacy and on christ too: thy second blunder. 3. a church may be founded on christ his person, and doctrine principally, as the chief cornerstone: and yet mediately, secondarily, and doctrinally too, on his apostles and their successors, the bishops, thou wast not ware of this phil. thy third blunder. 4. a church may be said to be founded two ways: in its constitution, essentially considered, and so ours, was founded by christ, through the means of his ministers, first calling us: secondly, organically, by way of donation, endowment, investiture and secular advantages: thus, our church was at first founded by our kings, as the law saith: this not heeded, made thy fourth blunder. 5. but the heaviest blunder is, thy stumbling over the main observation, for which the doctor cited that law: viz. that seeing our church was founded by our kings, in episcopacy, therefore the bishop's power did not originally, nor in those times, according to our own laws, depend upon the pope, but upon the crown: q. e. d. which was then the sense of the laws, and all the states of the realm, long before hen. 8. as also is noted and assented unto, and insisted on, at the beginning of his reformation. to assert the contrary, is certainly to assert a popish opinion, and one of the greatest arguments, the romanists use to justify the papal usurpation in england; take it as thou canst, phil. leave off this club-way of arguing; thou wilt ensnare thyself: thy talon, phil. lies another way: thou hast no clear distinguishing head; thou art better at dividing: and more skilled in the methods of confounding than of founding the church of england. what didst mean phil. by that nonsensical cant upon a place of scripture: i know it was not thy design to stumble upon the rock of ages, and fall upon st. peter's. phil. enough of this, tim. fool: thou knowst, to escape the law, we may fly to the gospel: thou know'st phil, well enough; he is for a legal scripture and religion; except when it is against him: besides, he finds canting on scripture, tho' never so impertinently, sounds very lusciously, in some men's ears, that i have a mind to gratify. sect. ii. his other arguments against our power before hen. 8. tim. then let's see how thou prosperest with thy other arguments against this point. 1. thou sayest, the pope was head of our church before hen. 8. but 'tis evident he was not so legally, either by law or construction of law, or really so, in the constitution of the church of england: he was only so in pretence, and by illegal usurpation: he had never possession by law, but what he usurped was contrary to law, and the ancient customs of the land: as my lord coke demonstrates; tho' he is not to be taken notice of by phil. h. yea, his very possession in fact, was never undisturbed for any considerable time together. the doctor informed thee better; that it was the sense of the whole kingdom that the pope's power and jurisdiction here, was usurped and illegal: contrary to god's laws, the laws and statutes of this realm; and in derogation of the imperial crown thereof: and that it was timorously and ignorantly submitted unto before hen. 8. vid. 28. h. 8. c. 16. 2. thou sayest boldly and ignorantly, that h. 8. made himself head of the church by parliament: that's another popish opinion (the law is open phil.) and argument too, depending on the former: for both the law, and my lord coke affirm, that the statutes in that behalf, were only declarative of the ancient fundamental rights of the imperial crown of england; which alone can justify the king's title of the head of the church. 3. thou arguest subtly: that before h. 8. appeals were frequently made to the pope: and that than our courts were rome's inferior courts: what then? why then upon the pope's ceasing to be head, the courts were dissolved: i. e. just as our inferior courts were dissolved upon the dissolution of the high commission: thou ought'st to know, that our laws never allowed or required appeals to rome: and that our courts continued in their proper legal being, under the royal, as well as and better than, under the popish head. 4. at last thou questionest, whether ever a statute was made, from the conquest, or rather from hen. 3. to hen. 8. but by the consent of the popish clergy: i. e. the consent of the pope their head? art stark mad phil? were all our laws antichristian, before hen. 8.? was no law made by the nation or realm as such, but only as popish? are all our ancient statutes, the pope's laws? did the pope consent to all the provisions and premunires in the laws made directly against himself? phil. if my arguments fail, take some stories; and my free concessions: and then i hope thou wilt be pleased. 1. my stories prove there was old tugging betwixt our kings and the pope, from time to time. tim. well said, at last, phil. and was not the law on the king's side? then the pope had neither legal, nor full, nor quiet possession: thy cause languisheth in thy own hand; and 'tis time to yield to it: thy concessions are most ingenuous instances of a good nature or a baffled cause. speak out man. phil. i grant that the laws of the popish party were contrary to the sense of king and parliament: well said in part phil. therefore the king and pag. 13▪ parliament were not altogether popish: but prithee, what laws could concern us, contrary to the sense of king and parliament? who made those laws for us in england? tim. but the matter is not clear yet. speak out man. phil. 'tis undoubtedly true, that the crown of this realm is and has been before hen. 8. imperial: that is, de jure, not de facto: thanks to the wicked usurper, and his legates— it ought not to have been done— it was commonly de facto done before hen. 8. tim. this is something more, but not all: thou dost imply, indeed, by [commonly] that it was not [always] so done: and if the pope before hen. 8. was a usurper, he had not right here: and the jus, the law, was against him: for, if he had had the law on his side, how had he been a usurper? speak a little plainer phil. and all's well, so far. phil. i do ingenuously confess our ancient ecclesiastical government and laws depended upon the crown, and not upon the pope, by the laws pag. 2● of england, and in the judgement of all the states of the kingdom, before hen. 8. and so did also the execution of those laws, by those governors in the same public judgement: these are the doctor's words, and — all this is true: and the very naked truth in other words varied: which saith, that all ecclesiastical jurisdiction till hen. 8. was derived from the pope: but my meaning was, that it was not derived from the pope, before hen. 8. thus, thou seest i have no mind to quarrel. tim. 'tis well enough: but why didst not say so much at first? or excuse thy obscurity and distinguish sooner? yea, why didst contend for so many pages, against that which thou art compelled to yield at last? art thou obstinate, that thou must be pressed, before thou wilt confess? or hadst an itch upon thee to vent thy stories, as if the world had nothing to do but to hearken to thy impertinencies? if storying were arguing; thou art a brave fellow, indeed; but this way, it seems, thou art not formidable: the doctor set thee up for a shrovetide-cock (as thy phrase is) and thou hast cut thy own comb. so much for the first proposition. chap. ix. the doctor's second proposition. hen. 8. did not make void the ecclesiastical jurisdiction: neither was it void before it was restored by 1 edw. 6. 2. phil. i hope i quit myself better here. tim. much at one: first, thou opposest stoutly, by way of exception: and then thou comest off as mildly by way of concession. 1. by way of exception, thou sayest many things to no purpose. 1. thou repeatest thy illegal error; that hen. 8. was (made) when he was only declared to be head of the church by act of parliament: but had it been both a truth and law, what had that done to dissolve the jurisdiction? 2. thou recitest an impertinent assertion, viz. that the king and parliament advised about new church-laws: must we have a new government every time we have new laws? 3. thou tellest, according to thy wont, some old stories about abby-lands, as much to the business. 4. thou laughest at a resemblance which the doctor brought from a manor, where, though the lord be changed, the customs, officers, and courts may not be changed: here thou namest some particular customs, that were actually changed by law in hen. 8's. time; never considering, how thou undost thyself: for the change of those particular customs mentioned, are a clear confirmation of those customs, much more, the courts, and officers, which are left unaltered. 5. thou givest us the old crambe, that the popish convocation of q. m. thought otherwise, and that thou may'st think as the papists do. 2. phil. i see thou wilt not be convinced by reason: nothing will please except i yield the cause. tim. now thou art kind and just too: what should a man do, when he can fight no longer but cry quarter? but speak out man: for i love to hear thy concessions plain and full. phil. no body denies (as if phil. had never done so) but k. hen. 8. did enable the king's courts spiritual and temporal— but that statute 24 hen. 8. 12. limits the cognisance of matters cognoscible in the spiritual courts, to these three sorts, (reckon well, phil.) causes testamentary, matrimonial, tithes and oblations and obventions. tim. this is pretty well; for 1. thou here grantest what thou hadst denied, that spiritual courts were allowed by law after hen. 8. had renounced the pope's supremacy. 2. some matters (of moment) were legally cognizable in those courts. 3. i find no reason to trust thee, phil. for i find no words in that statute, limiting the ecclesiastical jurisdiction to those three causes. upon the whole, i conclude, that phil. is a singular disputant: some of his friends are excellent, indeed, at confuting an adversary by denying the conclusion; but phil. by granting it. chap. x. of the three other propositions. tim. it hath appeared, that the pope's headship was but a lawless innovation, a lawless and needless usurpation upon the crown, and a superinduction to the confirmation of our bishops, etc. and their power of jurisdiction, that did really operate nothing upon their efficacy and legality; and that they stood firm enough, as having their power from the crown and our own laws, without any real dependence on the pope before hen. 8. which was the clear sense of our laws long before hen. 8. and of the whole kingdom in his time, and since; as my lord coke in cawdries case, and sir john davies in lalors' case, have so fully proved, that thou durst not look them in the face, though so often by the doctor urged to it. it hath also appeared, that thus the bishops, etc. and their jurisdictions were continued and confirmed by hen. 8. and the doctors two first propositions are yielded by thee, under thy own hand: and thou hast quit thyself bravely phil. in first denying them, and long contesting them; and at last honestly yielding and granting both, with a boon-grace. but phil. where shall we find the doctor's three other propositions, that more nearly concerned thee? thou shouldst have had courage to set them before thee, as distinctly as thou didst the former, though thou hadst treated them as confusedly: but methinks, thou art more afraid of them. phil. i was in haste; and i had more important affairs in hand than to ●. ult. spend much time with such a scribbling d. d. my book is worth the reading, for my useful stories and poetry: thou wilt find upon a diligent search, that i have said as much as i had a mind to, to each of those propositions; though i am sensible enough 'tis somewhat loosely. tim. for once phil. i am content to rake among thy rubbish, though no man else would endure the scent: indeed i find something or nothing about the third proposition; and by the by a lap and away (as canis ad nilum) in pag. 16. though here i expected thy whole strength: give me leave to set it down before thee, and see how thou lookest upon it. chap. xi. the doctor's third proposition. ecclesiastical jurisdiction is lawfully exercised, without the king's name or style in processes, etc. notwithstanding the 1 edw. 6. 2. tim. the doctor thought himself concerned to prove this substantially, by giving good evidence, that the 1 edw. 6. 2. was repealed: he argued it largely, from authority, common practice, and law; showing plain statutes, now in force, to maintain his point. here, phil. the world expected thou shouldst speak to purpose, or be silent for ever: but how and where shall we find this expectation or the doctor answered? phil. i have not willingly omitted to give answer to all and every the idle cavils and exceptions in his book, pag. 26. my answer is, 1. i deny the authority of the twelve judges, that declared that 1 edw. 6. 2. is repealed, 〈◊〉. 16. (take in the king and council too) my own is better: especially having a vote of the house of commons in 1640. on my side. tim. now phil. i am afraid of thee and of thy cause: nay thou art afraid thyself: what, fly to a house of commons in 40? and to a vote of that house? and to a vote of that house that speaks not one word to the point in hand? the very words of it, as set down by thyself, disprove thee to thy face: thou knowst, that vote hath not a tittle in it, touching this statute of 1 ed. 6. 2. which is the thing in debate: nor yet, concerning ecclesiastical jurisdiction; and is only, concerning the power of the convocation to make canons, without a parliament. but thou closest the point with a sweet note: indeed none are so fit to answer the , as [such] a parliament. reflect a little phil. and see how this point stands, after all thy spite is spent upon it: thou excepts against the authority of those twelve judges; but how dost thou answer the reasons of their judgement which they honestly set down; as the doctor showed out of my lord coke, upon ja. 4.? not a word of that: what sayest thou to the constant practice, both of the crown, and all the king's courts, civil and spiritual, contrary to that statute ever since, on which the doctor enlarged? mum. phil. i am quite tired with his impertinencies, p. 26. he is such a prater! p. 16. i leave him to the parliament, and the point too, p. 19 tim. tired and sore: and art, i believe, hearty weary of the company of this same totnes ; as thou hast cause to complain, p. 35. but thou must have patience a little longer, while we make hue and cry after the doctor's fourth proposition, lest if it should be lost, pag. 21. he sue thee for damages. i have searched, phil. as for a needle in a bottle of hay: and at length i caught it by the skirts, in p. 26. and afterwards, as cast out into the pag. 14. abstract of the premises. chap. xii. the doctor's fourth proposition. the act of 1 eliz. 1. establishing the high commission court was not the foundation of ordinary ecclesiastical jurisdiction. tim. thou canst not but remember how fully and largely, the doctor both disproved and exposed thy singular notion of this point; and now, with thy wont front, taking little or no notice of the author's discourse, thou sayest the same over again. that branch which gave the queen power to settle the high commission, being repealed by 13 car. 1. 12. for my part, 'tis beyond my apprehension to find out, where the authority of ecclesiastical courts can or does consist. for thy part! it's well thou speak'st for thyself: who is the dull fool now? what, not apprehend, what every body else apprehends? is a singular nonsensical notion, and barrenness of apprehension, sufficient strength or warrant to batter government? phil. i cannot beat it into my head, who gave them that authority they pretend to. not the pope, as of old, not the common, i am sure: nor can possibly the canon-law or statute-law. ●●g. 24. tim. well far thee phil, what need of reason? thou hast done all in a word: and had not the doctor demonstrated, 1. that the pope did never give us that authority. 2. that ecclesiastical jurisdiction is established by common-law. 3. by an infinite number of statutes. 4thly, and lastly, by that very statute that takes off the power of the high-commission, we might have taken thy word: but thou hast opened a wide door; and set us in a large field: wherein we shall follow thee with patience, upon the heads mentioned; and hasten to the end of our pleasant journey. sect. i. our ecclesiastical courts not empowered originally from the pope. phil. that the pope gave them their authority of old, is evident: for the rightly notes, that, till william the conqueror, there were no bishops courts in england, but the hundred courts: but the pope made william the conqueror set up such ecclesiastical courts as were at rome; to proceed according to the canons of the pope: and was there ever any statute made from william the conqueror, or rather henry 3. to hen. 8. but by the consent of the popish clergy, that is to say, the consent of the pope their head? p. 6. tim. thou art a bold undertaker phil. but is't possible thou shouldst be ignorant, that the conqueror was not so much a slave to the pope? that he confirmed and published the laws of his predecessor, that he maintained the ecclesiastical investiture in the crown? (all which thou may'st find in selden's notes upon eadm. as also the proclamation mentioned, for the distinction of courts, seeing thou art at a loss about it.) yea, doth not that law of the conqueror suppose the preexistence of our ecclesiastical jurisdiction, tho' not in a distinct court before the conquest? yea, canst imagine, that when spiritual causes were tried in hundret, and at the civil courts of judgement, that laymen had any thing to do with them, more than to be present? quaere. however, did not the doctor rightly observe, that that very law that divided the courts, was made by the king's own power, not the pope's? and with the council of his own realm alone? tho' william the conqueror was a papist, doth it follow that he did nothing, and made no laws, but quatenus a papist, and not as king of england? do not the statutes of hen. 8. and my lord coke plainly prove, that canons and foreign laws become the king's laws, when confirmed by parliament, or made so by reception voluntary, consent or custom? must all our laws before hen. 8. and after the conquest be thus damned for popish laws, and the pope's laws, and those too that were directly made in provision against the pope himself and his usurpations? as before. was ever such stuff vented before? it's well thou hast a salvo [rather from hen. 3.] though that also gives sentence against thee. sect. ii. ecclesiastical courts by common-law. phil. but for him to say, they keep courts by common-law is the idlest of all dreams: the common-law of england is ancienter than our christianity. but bishops, much less arch-bishops and arch-deacons, as now in england, are of later date; therefore their courts can have no foundation in common-law. tim. thou art a lawyer, phil. now, with all thy law, canst thou deny this proposition, that long ancient and general use is common-law in england? as saith my lord coke: or canst thou deny this assumption, that our ecclesiastical courts are of very ancient and general use in england? if not, as thou dost not dare: what hinders this conclusion, that we keep those courts by common-law? 2. again, phil. if there was such a thing as ecclesiastical jurisdiction in england, before the conquest (as most certainly there was) how stood it then? thou grantest, not, by canon-law, (it was exercised contrary to the canons.) i grant, it stood not by statute-law, viz. before we had any statutes, than it must stand before the conquest, upon common-law. 3. and indeed since the division of the courts by the conqueror, the same ancient ecclesiastical authority, is continued in its exercise, as to its substance by common-law, tho', in that new mode, as distinguished from the civil, and in distinct courts: as matters of other nature, that have their foundation in common-law, tho' somewhat new modified by statute, continue to be common-law still, so far as they are not altered, as no man of sense will deny. 4. yea the very courts themselves, tho' divided by the conqueror, continuing afterwards so long a time in general use, in england, before statute-law, came, thereby, to be customary, and contracted the nature of common-law: and certainly there is no necessity that every particular in common-law should have its beginning before christianity in england, if it fall under the condition of ancient and general use: and phil. thou know'st that statute that limits the time, that is required to make a custom in england: and [before christianity] or [from the beginning] was never put into the definition of common-law. 5. lastly, that they were so, hath thus further demonstration; that all the statutes, from magna charta, suppose the spiritual court's pre-existing, i. e. by common law, or ancient allowed usage of the whole realm: and my lord coke is express, that spiritual causes belong to these courts by common law. but to put this crotchet out of thy head for ever; i argue thus: that which was found in general use when magna charta was first made, and was confirmed by magna charta, and is not made void by statute, stands confirmed both by common and statute-law: for the great charter is both. but the spiritual courts were found in general use, when magna charta was first made, and were confirmed among the liberties of the church in their jurisdiction, as my lord coke assures us by magna charta; and are not made void by statute: therefore our spiritual courts stand confirmed, both by common and statute-law, in the great charter of england; as more at large appears in the doctors leges angliae, hadst thou had patience to understand it. object. thou sayest phil. the doctor is an old spectacle-dreamer of idle dreams. i say phil. thou art a better seer, and seest visions, and apparitions both of things that are, and things that are not: and among the rest, thou seest the charter of england, with its pendent, ecclesiastical jurisdiction, torn all in pieces, by a thing of nothing, and thus it works, pag. 26. many things, sayest thou, that were before the rights of holy church, namely, peter-pences, first-fruits to the pope, etc. are now taken away by statute, and are not continued by magna charta. even just so, the jurisdiction of our courts which was once the right of the church, and confirmed by magna charta, and is not taken away but confirmed by a multitude of statutes since, is not continued by magna charta. 4. thus (thou art a wonderful conjurer) the apparition is gone whether thou wilt or not: how our courts are confirmed in the statutes, the doctor showed thee abundantly in his book: but i find thou hast no stomach to encounter any longer with leges angliae, or to smell to the statutes. sect. iii. more causes to be tried in our courts than mr. phil. allows. phil. grant they have authority, 'tis but in three or four things, and such, perhaps, they have cognisance of at this day. pag. 34. tim. honest phil. is at granting again, when he can deny no longer. our authority reached but to three sorts of causes in pag. 18. to three or four pag. 26. or, at most, but those ten things mentioned in 5 eliz. 23. de excom. capiend. thou goest on apace, phil. do but add those fifteen pag. 34. more which the doctor enumerates out of cawdries case, and deny thyself satisfaction if thou canst. chap. xiii. of canons; their force, and power of making them. sect. i. of the old canons. phil. though they may have authority to keep courts, and to try such causes; i cannot see how they can use that authority, or try such causes, seeing they have no canons to act by. 1. first, for the old canons; they were all made void by hen. 8. and to judge and determine, was impossible, because they had no canons, decrees, nor laws ecclesiastical, to judge and determine of them, pag. 20. 'tis evident all the old canons were repealed in the judgement of the house of commons in the 37 of hen. 8. pag. 20. tim. stout still, phil. first thou deniedst their power; that would not do: then thou wouldst limit it in its causes; that failed thee: and now thou wouldst incapacitate them to act in those, for want of canons: and here keep thy ground or thou art lost for ever. but this must be well examined; for it springs from depth of skill, or height of confidence, or extensive breadth of malice and ignorance: none so bold as blind bayard. how phil. ignorant of that plain rule in the common law? that the law doth appoint every thing to be done by those unto whose office it properly appertaineth. dost thou not know, that the common law requires and empowers the spiritual courts, to give remedy in cases belonging to them? coke inst. pag. 1. dost thou not know, that the king's prerogative is a principal part of the common law, which also flourisheth in the spiritual, as well as the temporal courts? coke, cawdr. case: and that ecclesiastical jurisdiction is part of the royal supremacy, to which thou art sworn; and that he that denieth it, denieth the king to be a complete monarch and head of the whole entire body of the realm; according to many statutes in all ages as well as the common law? ibid. and darest thou yet affirm, that the king's supremacy is cramped, and can do nothing for the relief of his subjects in any spiritual cause, which cannot be tried in the civil courts, because there are no rules or canons for such courts of the king to proceed and determine by. it is strange thou didst never heed that plain statute of hen. 8. it strikes thy notion dead: it assures us that the body spiritual having power, when any cause divine happens to come in question, the english church, called the spiritualty, hath been reputed, and also found of that sort, for knowledge, etc. (without any exterior person) to declare and determine all such doubts, and to administer all such offices as appertain to them. phil. when the pope's supremacy was taken away, vanish also did the canons, and episcopal laws, pag. 14. tim. prithee phil. how did they vanish? of themselves, like thy airy fancies; or as appendants, with the removal of the pope's supremacy? if so, tell me, why did not all our other laws vanish too, seeing the pope had so great a hand in them also, as thou saidst before? but especially, why should there be a particular solemn law made on purpose, for the rejection of any of the old canons? and why were such canons (though old ones) that were not found contrariant to the king's prerogative and the laws, why were such canons kept in force by the statute of hen. 8. as thou confessest? pag. 14. phil. the house of commons in 37 of hen. 8. gave their judgement, that all the old canons were abrogated. tim. what so soon forget thyself? certainly thou hadst said otherwise [such as were not contrariant, etc. to remain in force] pag. 14. but thou art ingenuous phil. the doctor helped thee to the objection, and gave thee its answer with it: and now thou usest the objection against him, without the least notice of the answer, or thanks to the observator. he gave thee reason, why the words of the latter statute were to be restrained to such canons, as being contrary to the king or law, were abrogated by the former statute: and not to be extended to such as were not so, and therefore were not abrogated. but what a noise dost thou keep: are not the acts of parliament, the canons of king james, and the ancient practised rules of court agreeable to the ancient canon, which are also allowed by the common law, sufficient means of proceeding in and determining all ecclesiastical causes, that are triable in our courts? phil. thou wouldst by't like a badger, but thou canst only show thy teeth: thou hadst better keep them within thy lips, lest one time or other they be struck out of thy head. sect. ii. of king james 's canons; and power of making new canons, by the statute of hen. 8. tim. dost not perceive phil. our task is almost done: we have gained three great points, easily, out of thy hard hand, and fairly out of thy foul mouth: for thou hast confessed, though sore against thy genius, 1. that our courts have legal authority. 2. that certain causes do properly belong to them. 3. that the old canons are kept in force by the statute of hen. 8. to try those causes by. i mean (with the statute) such of them as are not repugnant to the king's prerogative, and the laws of the land. now phil. thou hangest but upon one twig, and if that fail thee, thou art quite sunk: that is the denial of the force of king james 's canons: and the king's power with his convocation to make new ones. phil. 'tis false what the doctor would make the 25 hen. 8. 19 speak, as though by that statute the convocation hath power reserved of making pag. 19 new canons, provided the convocation be called by the king's writ, and have the royal assent, etc. if this be true, i do not know but the lambeth-canons (exploded and condemned by act of parliament) and those of king james, are all statute-law (i. e. law by statute or nonsense) for they were so made. tim. good phil. discover his falsehood herein, with naked truth: is not such power reserved to the convocation by the statute, seeing they used that power before, and seeing it is conceded, and not taken away by that statute? what is the meaning of reservation else? thy other paragraph is as modest as 'tis true: are the canons of king james confirmed by the royal assent, and never questioned by any act of paraliament, of no more force than those of lambeth: which are, as thou sayest, condemned by act of parliament? that is, no better than waste-paper: take heed phil. of a thing called crimen laesae majestatis. phil. but is not this doctor an honest man? when the statute only binds them to their good behaviour; namely, not to presume without the royal assent, but does not enable them to make any new (canons) with the royal assent. vid. stat. tim. meddle not phil. with the doctor's honesty, that's above thy reach: mind thy own morals and the doctor's logic: his argument is from a legal implication upon the negative in the statute: he grounds his argument upon a known rule in law, exceptio confirmat regulam in non exceptis; the statute was made on purpose to limit the power formerly abused; and can any inference be plainer, than that the statute supposeth and alloweth the power of the convocation, so far as it doth not prohibit or limit them? 'tis evident, the judges thought so, when at the committee of the lords, my lord coke tells us, they declared, that those restraints (mentioned by him) were grounded on the statute, which statute (he adds) was but an affirmance of the common law. rep. 12. p. 720. i know phil. if thou hadst been lord chancellor (and its pity thou hadst not) that thou wouldst have declared more roundly; there is no need of these limitations: the convocation has no power at all to make canons, either without, or with the king's assent. so would those judges, had they been of phil's mind. now phil. bethink thyself, what a wild-goose chase thou hast run: thou art out of breath sure, if not out of thy wits: in this venturous course, thou may'st, at length, without more heed, outrun the constable, or be caught by him, for thy running down the doctor, my lord coke, all the judges, the king's prerogative, and acts of parliament. in sober sadness phil. what wilt thou do? thou seest thou art dead in law; thy fabric is ruined, thou art lost in the rubbish, and hast written thy own epitaph. here lies phil. notorious for his pitiful descants, his silly cants, and shameless recantations: for after all his bravadoes and rhodomantades, he hath plainly allowed what he had condemned; and granted what he denied, and with all confidence argued against; namely, these five points: 1. that our ecclesiastical jurisdiction was not really or de jure derived from the pope before hen. 8. 2. that that king did not dissolve but confirm the same. 3. that our spiritual courts have authority by law, at this day. 4. that spiritual causes do belong to, and are to be tried in them. 5. that the old canons (at least) which are not repugnant to the king's prerogative or law are still in force. yet phil. hadst thou gained thy cause, i must say, thou hadst lost the credit of a man and a disputant: thou handlest the matter, the doctor, and authority itself, so scoundrelously, and so far below the rules of all logic and morality, religion and humanity, as thou art a just scandal both to thy profession and nature. chap. xiv. of procurations, synodals, canonical oaths, fees, etc. phil. spare a little tim. for though i have lost my weapons and quit the field, i have some stones to throw back at my enemy. tim. thus infects do riggle when their heads are off. phil. peace tim. i have seen the dying blow of a cock of the game, strike home. i am sure my reserve hath a sting in it; and my pebbles will fall like mountains upon their courts; at least, in the opinion of my friends and their enemies. tim. mysterious phil. speak plainly, what's the project? phil. to be plain then; the truth is, i had taken much pains to prove the unlawfulness of the spiritual courts: with this i began my naked truth; and laid it down first, as the foundation of my grievances: but the doctor in his leges angliae baffled me in that, and put me out of all hopes of doing mischief that way. now i declare boldly, that was not the main drift and design of naked truth. i declare and proclaim boldly and frequently (no matter for naked truth now) that the doctor saith not one word to my main design, namely, in answer to the vindication of the canon's authority to keep ecclesiastical courts, etc. tim. stop phil. has not the doctor one word? dost not find a whole chapter (c. 7.) to prove the canon's authority? and, doth not thy own vindication take notice of it, as hath appeared, to little purpose? besides, was it not the scope of the doctor's book, to prove their authority to keep ecclesiastical courts? is thy memory bade too? phil. or to impose oaths of canonical obedience upon the clergy. tim. that's proved with the authority of the canons: which have force upon the clergy, if any at all: besides, the statute that confirms our manner of ordering, etc. imposeth the same, upon all that are ordained. phil. or to impose oaths upon churchwardens. tim. i am ashamed of thy trifling: that's done, both by canon and common, and statute-law, as my lord chief justice hales, declared upon the bench: if the wardens be not to swear against themselves. phil. nor, one word doth he write to vindicate their unjust and unconscionable impositions and extortions upon the clergy, in procurations, synodals, institutions, etc. tim. now thou art in thy element; but thy memory is unfaithful: not one word! phil! about procurations and synodals: (the main thing wherein the is concerned in the charge.) indeed, he saith nothing in defence of unjust and unconscionable impositions and extortions; but he said enough to prove, to any reasonable man, the lawfulness of taking the usual sum for procurations and synodals: which have been ever paid, so far as our books can discover. but this charge is at the end of thy book; and it seems thou hadst forgot what thou saidst at the beginning of it: there, thou sayest, that he produceth not one reason or argument, except the statute of hen. 8. for synodals and proxies, to be granted from dissolved monasteries, etc. and, phil, the argument from dissolved monasteries to the ordinary clergy is potent à fortiori: the reason in the statute is the same, for both: the bishop, etc. pays first-fruits and tenths as well for his procurations and synodals received from the clergy, as from the dissolved monasteries: and the argument, stronger: because the clergy are visited, the monasteries are not: and you know procurations are due, ratione visitationis. but phil. i ought to have an account, why thou sayest the doctor gives not one reason or argument for procurations and synodals besides the statute: thus thou leapest like a squirrel from one twig to another, till thou fallest to the ground: first [not one word] next, [not one reason] except the statute, both alike honest and true: doth not he tell thee plainly, and in more words, that procurations and synodals are due by ancient composition, upon a valuable consideration, and by undoubted long possession and custom, which is law in england: sit liber judex. leg. an. p. 64. and, in a word, if any other fees are taken or exacted, from the clergy, or others, that are not warrantable by law or custom, take thy remedy; the law is open. chap. xv. conclusion. phil. an advocate for the courts: his reasons on their behalf: from the value of money: abuses in civil court: peace: his declaration. tim. well, phil. i find at last thou hast painted thyself too fierce for thy nature: i find some bias upon thy reason, inclining thee well; and it's pity, but ye should be friends: for, 1. thou notest, the value of money is so different from what it was in hen. 8. 's time, when a harry groat would have bought as much victuals as half a crown now, that they cannot afford to keep clarks, nor to write and to register wills at this day for the legal fees. 2. again, thou observest, and that in favour of ecclesiastical courts, that other courts are more abusive and excessive in fees: (i leave thee to make it good;) and 'twas very kindly remarked on our side, tho' severely enough against the common-law courts, according to thy manner of speaking: thus, indeed the extortions of the spiritual courts are inconsiderable in comparison of those amongst the numerous fry of common-lawyers, attorneys, clarks, notaries, solicitors, splitters of causes, etc. whose numbers are numberless: and so goes on with the cry— p. 30, 31. 3. at length thou seem'st to have studied better politics, than thou hast lately practised, for in the nature of a conclusion, thou sayest: therefore men that try, will certainly find (perhaps too late) that seldom 〈◊〉. 31. comes a better. this is very friendly indeed, phil. a little more of this nature might render thee worthy of an advocate's place in the spiritual courts: and then thou mightst go snips too: hadst thou writ, finis, here. but i find, thou canst not end, without one fling more at the doctor. phil. thou seest i can speak to thy sense: and indeed, i could say much more, to please thee, and the doctor, and the bishops too, had i encouragement, as i think i deserve: and this i had done before now, if the lady at the beginning of the doctor's book had made me a courtesy, or thanked me for my pains, upon curse ye, curse ye meroz: but no such matter, tim. too much ingratitude and envy reigns amongst a sort of unthinking black-coats. tim. no such matter, phil. the black-coats did think: and thought, that thy text was well interpreted and justly turned against the enemies of the church of england: but, they thought also, that thou playedst too wantonly with a serious subject, in an angry age: and indeed, thou actedst the part of a mountebank rather than a grave preacher. well, but what's this to the doctor, how shall he be satisfied? phil. he was severe with me, and i was rude with him: and there's an end. tim. rude! yea, barbarous and prodigiously scurrilous: and i should wonder, if thou seest not a necessity of giving both thy self and the doctor, and the church of england, better satisfaction. i have known many, that when they have taken up thy vindication, and with a cast of their eye, have perceived the mode of thy scribble, have with disdain and loathing cast it from them: and to deal friendly with thee, i think thou ought'st to do something to recover thyself with the world. phil. i am sorry to hear that: prithee, what wouldst have me do? tim. thou hast heard of an engine, called, pia fraus: but phil. if thou hast not the skill to join piety and craft together: either of them, well used, may do thee a kindness. my first advice, and my best, is this; that thou wouldst be meek and humble; and give the world a cast of thy piety in an honest retractation, and ingenuous peccavi. but secondly, if repentance be too hard a task; or thy talon lie not that way; the other part of my advice is; to use this craft. send to thy gazetteer, (he that printed the title of thy vindication) and desire him to publish this following declaration. whereas, there was lately printed a very simple and malicious pamphlet, called a vindication of naked truth, the second part, against the trivial objections of, one fullwood, under the pretended name of phil. hickeringill, that the scandalous pamphlet might go off the better: these are to give notice, that the said pamphlet, is so idle and trivial and rudely barbarous, and so insolently treats an ancient doctor in divinity, and the laws of england, and our church-government, that the true phil-hickeringill, is ashamed of it; and doth hereby disown and disavow it; as the offspring of the windy vapour of some (hot) spanish jennet: or, to speak more truly, if not so properly, some wild, english ass. given under my hand, philautos: or the true phil-hickeringill. the end. a catalogue of some books lately printed for richard royston. the established church: or, a subversion of all the romanists pleas for the pope's supremacy in england: together with a vindication of the present government of the church of england, as allowed by the laws of the land, against all fanatical exceptions; particularly of mr. hickeringill, in his scandalous pamphlet, styled naked truth, the 2d. part. by fran. fullwood, d. d. of totnes in devon. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or, a discourse of the morality of the sabbath, being an exposition of exod. xx. v. 8, 9, 10, 11. with prayers relating thereunto, humbly offered to this present age. by john gregory of gloucester. the new distemper: or the dissenters usual pleas for comprehension, toleration, and the renouncing the covenant, considered and discussed; with some reflections upon mr. baxter's and mr. alsop's late pamphlets, published in answer to the reverend dean of s. paul's sermon concerning separation. the lively picture of lewis du moulin, drawn by an incomparable hand. together with his last words: being his retractation of all the personal reflections he had made on the divines of the church of england, (in several books of his) signed by himself on the fifth and the seventeenth of october, 1680. lex talionis: or, the author of naked truth stripped naked. london, printed for henry brome at the gun at the west end of st. paul's. mdclxxvi. imprimatur. g. jane r. p. d. hen. episc. lond. à sacris domesticis. lex talionis: or, the author of naked truth stripped naked. to the chapter concerning the articles of faith. i have perused the pamphlet which you sent of naked truth, and whereas you require me to give you my opinion of it, though i might refer you to the printed discourse of that worthy person who has animadverted upon it; yet because this would look like an artificial excusing of pains, and seem only more civilly to disobey, i will trouble you with the cursory reflections which i made upon a hasty view of the aforesaid book; wherein i shall chiefly aim at two things not particularly designed in the printed answer: first, to show that this humble moderator (as he styles himself) who pretends in his title to give the true state of the primitive church, is utterly ignorant of ecclesiastical antiquity, and grossly mistaken in the representations he makes thereof. and then secondly, whereas he boldly avers to the lords and commons, to whom he has the confidence to dedicate his libel, that there is nothing therein contained which is contrary to the known laws of the land; i shall evidence that several things therein contained are as contrary to the known laws as his printing without licence confestly was: and that the book is pernicious, and tending to the disturbance of the established constitution of the church and state. as to the book considered in the gross, my first reflection about it was, whether it could be the work of the same person, several things being so well, and more so very ill said; therefore if it happened to have one single author, it either seemed the exercise of wit of some sceptic and atheistical derider of religion, who desired to make sport with holy things, and say pro and contra, all that occurred to his mind: or else that it was wrote in the different intervals of a crazed enthusiast, and therefore not unseasonably introduced by a declaration of being the product of fasting and prayer, and seeking of god, venerable words which have not left off to abuse the world: or lastly, (which seems most probable) that it was wrote by some ambitious discontented person of the church of england, who not preferred according to his merit, or what may be greater than that, his expectation, his mind being leavened with spite and anger, cavils at the present constitution of the church; and he having in ill humour left off studying, writes out of memory imperfect shreds of antiquity, and yet not able to cast away at once the principles formerly imbibed, sometimes speaks in favour to conformity, and quarrels the disobedience of dissenters. but to pass from conjectures to that which is more certainly before us. at the first setting out our author tells us, that the primitive church received the apostles creed, as the sum total of faith necessary to salvation. and then disputes, why is it not now so? which involving an intimation that in the church of england it is not thought so, can only tend to sedition, being an odious suggestion▪ and absolutely false: and it is known, that scarcely any thing is more particularly insisted on by our church against the papists than their making new articles to the creed. but it seems the fault will rather lie upon us, that with the primitive church, we think the whole creed necessary: for we are bid remember and observe, that the treasurer to candace his creed was only, i believe that jesus christ is the son of god; and no more that this purchased the kingdom of heaven, etc. that is, the articles of the death of our saviour, his resurrection, and ascension; at least, those of the catholic church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, and resurrection of the body, are if not superfluous, yet unnecessary speculations. how well this suits with the close of the athanasian creed, our author would do well to consider: if it shocks it, than he must confess that he has said something contrary to the known laws of the land: the liturgy (of which that makes a part) being confirmed by several acts of parliament, and in particular the late one of uniformity. moreover, the statute of primo eliz. which established the oath of supremacy, determining the limits of heresy to be, not only what has been ordered or judged to be so, by the authority of the canonical scriptures, but also by the first four general councils, or any of them; he may bethink himself, whether the system of what is to be held de fide, by the law of the land, is so narrow as is here pretended. but our author says, philip required no more ●of the eunuch than this short confession, that i believe that jesus christ is the son of god, and that there is no assurance nor great probability that he was more fully instructed; which is plainly to contradict the text of s. luke, who tells us, that philip (from the place of isaiah which the eunuch was reading) began at the same scripture, and preached unto him jesus; which certainly expresses a greater compass of particularities than is in the short system here proposed. yet farther, it would be considered whether our author's argument be good; philip required no more, but baptised him on this; and had the eunuch departed this life in the same instant that philip parted from him, i believe i have better assurance that thi● faith would have saved the eunuch, than any man hath that he was ever taught more; therefore that confession here required, is a sufficient summary of faith. for sure there is more required as necessary to be known of a man, than of a child in christ. such a knowledge as persuades to the undertaking the covenant and duties of the gospel, may entitle unto baptism; but yet neither involves the knowledge of the whole gospel, nor supersedes the necessity of it. as to the event of the eunuch's condition had he departed this life immediately after baptism, it is as much to the purpose as if one should say, that if an infant immediately after baptism should depart this life, he would be saved even without the eunuch's creed, therefore even that may well be spared. but after a complaint of the mischiefs arising from the establishment of new and many articles of faith, and requiring all to assent unto them: (which let them who are guilty of doing answer for it) the author goes on to say, that for his part he thinks nothing can be more clearly deduced from scripture, nothing more fully expressed in scripture, nothing more suitable to natural reason, than that no man should be forced to believe. whereby he means, or else he can mean nothing, (for what appears not is as if it were not) that no man should be forced to declare his belief of any thing. now since the scripture under the severest penalties requires the confession of christ before men, it is not sure contrary to scripture, that persons should be forced to declare their belief; and if so, will not be thought unsuitable to natural reason neither. but now let us see whether this assertion of our author be not contrary to the law of the land, notwithstanding the assurance we have from him who tells us, there is not a word in his discourse against it. the oath of sovereignty, enjoined by the statute before mentioned, primo eliz. commands the subject to testify and declare in his conscience, that the king's majesty is the only supreme governor of this realm, and of all other his highness dominions and countries, as well in all spiritual or ecclesiastical things or causes, as temporal, etc. so likewise the other tertio jacob. i truly and sincerely acknowledge, profess, testify, and declare in my conscience before god and the world, etc. and the act of uniformity commands the abjuring of the covenant, and assenting and consenting to every thing contained in the liturgy. and after this, let my author consider with what duty and good manners he concludes, thus you see how impertinent, how irrational, how impious it is to require a man to believe (that is, profess his belief of) any thing more than is clearly contained in scripture. the truth is, we, dull as we are, do not at all see this impertinence and unreasonableness, notwithstanding the beautiful illustrations of the eye and the candle, the hammer and the beating out the brains. st. paul hath taught us that heresy is a work of the flesh, and we know pride, and prepossession, and interest are of more concernment therein than want of faculties and apprehension. the thing complained of is, that men turn away their faces, shut their eyes, and will not lay their heads to consider what is set before them: and if the immorality of error be once cured, there will be a speedy account of its misadventures in speculation and theory. the will of man has an higher pretence to freedom than the intellect; tyranny can make me suffer, but cannot oblige me to approve, much less to choose: and yet it is not impertinent or irrational to require men to will, and, what is more than that, actually to perform their duty: nor can any sufficient cause be rendered, why perverse and stubborn men should not be made to learn it and consider it too; which plainly is their duty, and previous to the performance of it. the scripture indeed commands to speak the truth in love, to instruct the brother in the spirit of meekness; and the same scripture has made the greatest christian monarch, and his meanest vassal brethren; but notwithstanding that, he bears not the sword in vain; and in love and meekness, and with the greatest kindness and charity, is obliged to cut off the evil doer. the question, to what purpose is force? would indeed do well in the mouth of a ranter or anabaptist, and i might answer thereto, that it is ordained by god to punish the rebellion of such a question by sharp severities; but i shall content myself to repeat the apostles words, just now recited, the magistrate bears not the sword in vain; there is a purpose why force should be used, and all sober men understand it, though our author knows not of it. what is added of the scripture rule of faith being complete and full is seriously to be considered: but he who straitens the credenda into one short proposition of the eunuch's creed, may in likelihood be as unblamable in diminishing from it, as any can be by adding to it. though, by the way, our author is to know, that the explication of faith, is not the extending or making new articles of it. and what he says of requiring men to believe with divine faith what they add to the scripture, is to make their words equal with god●: if this refer to the church of england, first he proceeds on a false supposal, that there is somewhat added, when there is not any thing added; and secondly, it is notorious, they have never pretended that any thing ought to be believed, as scripture, or with divine faith, but scripture. so that the exaggerations of impertinent, irrational, and impious, fall to the ground, unless they may chance to rest upon the head of him who to seditious and uncharitable purposes produces them. the next paragraph desires it may be soberly considered, that the trinity, incarnation, resurrection are things far above the highest reason, yet believed, because god, who cannot lie, hath declared them: and that it is strange that any one should take upon him to declare one tittle of them more than god hath declared. but i desire to be allowed to put in a caveat, that men should not be suffered to declare several (not tittles, but) articles, less than god hath declared; that our author's direction concerning the quashing the whole debate of the omoo●sios and omoiousios' may not be admitted; and for quietness sake we may not be latitudinarian arians, and theists; pretend to admit the scripture-doctrines in our own extravagant sense, and therefore to be liable to no control▪ or farther rendering a reason of the faith that is in us. it is easy to say, that the bishops who contended in this great controversy were more zealous th●n dis●re●t: but they who have read the history of those times (which it is plain our author never did) know very well that the orthodox, if they were defective in any thing, offended in permitting by their lenity arius to infect the world and form his party, before ever they took notice of him: and the discreet advice here given by silence to prevent the malice, rancour, persecution, and war, which fell upon the orthodox▪ might as well have been given to the christians, during the ten persecutions; and doubtless might have preserved many thousand lives, and damned as many souls. the instance here mentioned of the resurrection falls very pat to the purpose; the scripture happening to afford a parallel of what our author thinks so adviseable. the resurrection (he tells us) whereby men shall rise with the same body, when one body may be eaten and converted into several bodies, is far above the highest reason and sharpest understanding; yet was believed by hymeneus and philetus, because god had declared it: yet they by keeping within the bounds which god had declared, and referring it to that which was perfectly true, the first resurrection from the death of sin, destroyed the faith of some: and it is to be hoped that st. paul was not more zealous than discreet, because he was so earnestly concerned against them. there is no arian nor socinian who professes not to believe in jesus christ the son of god, or allows him not to be god; but our author must hold us exc●sed, if we expect farther satisfaction in so weighty a concern, and examine how these gentlemen stand affected to the tenure by which he holds his godhead, and the shiboleth of his eternal generation, and the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. i am no friend to the unravelling of mysteries, and making them so evident as to forfeit their nature; yet i must not be so much a socinian, notwithstanding our author's opinion concerning the procession of the holy ghost, of i will send the comforter: or of the sacrament, this is my body: to believe every one orthodox who admits those words to be scripture, and declaratory of truth. he says indeed, that we have no other s●fe way to speak of divine matters, but in scripture l●ng●age, ●psissi●is verbis, with the very same words. how then i pray comes it about that we may speak of them in dutch, or french, or english? they are none of them the ipsissima verba, the original hebrew or greek. it were easy to show how much of our creed the socinian would have us cashier on this account, and how pestilent consequences have been drawn from these unhappy premises. nay, let us give even the socinians their due, they in their sober moods are not so extravagantly mad as is our author. volkelius in his fifth book and seventh chapter says, sacris voluminibus ob ipsorum perfectionem, nihil nec adjiciendum nec subtrahendum, hoc tamen non eo consilio à nobis dictum existimari velim quasi omnes dictiones, omnes sententias, omnesque collectiones iisdem literis ac syllabis in s. scriptura non expressas ob hoc ipsum repudi●mus. nam vel dictio aut phrasis aliqua subaudiri, vel sententia aliqua si non verbis, reipsâ tamen in s. literis contineri potest, vel denique ex iisdem colligi. id autem qualecunque est perinde habendum existimamus, ac ●i disertissimè scriptum extaret. neque enim in sola verba sed praecipuè in verborum sententiam animum intendere debemus. such is the perfection of the holy scripture that nothing is to be added to, or taken from it. this we say, not that we reject all words, sentences, and inferences, which are not there in the same letters and syllables. for many times words and phrases are to be understood; and divers things, though not verbally, yet really may be be contained in the scripture, or inferred from it. all which we take to be the same thing, as if it were most expressly written, for we must not consider naked words, but the meaning of them. thus much a soberer man (i am sorry to add, a better principled christian) is this socinian, than our pretender to naked truth▪ but he is so liberal as to give a reason of h●s opinion: if in divine matters we once give way to humane deductions, a cunning sophister may soon lead a weak disputant into many errors. truly very well urged; whose fault is it that men are weak disputants, or being so, that they will meddle with controversy? st. paul has abundantly provided in the case, him that is weak in the faith receive; but not to doubtful disputations. men of parts and learning will comprehend a deduction as perfectly as the text itself: and they who are deficient either in natural or acquired knowledge, will understand neither one or other; whereof we have an example here before us. and now a mighty heat is struck upon the sudden against school-divinity, as the greatest plague to christian religion. in which career our author, to show his learning, tells us, that the school at alexandria was the first divinity-school he reads of. he might have better told us of the school of one tyrannus, where st. paul read his lectures. certainly the angelical, the irrefragable, the subtle, and most founded doctors would have been very proud of s●ch antiquity as the age of pantenus: but peter lombard, it is likely, would not have taken it well to be robbed of his mastership; and to be made an usher, nay, schoolboy to pantenus. well, we will pass this over; the school of alexandria, we are told, was set up by pantenus. our author might more ●easonably have said, that it was set up by st. mark; had he ever heard of e●sebius his relation, he could not have been so grossly ignorant. in this very account here pointed to, he expressly says, that this school was in pantenus his time, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. there was of ancient custom, settled with them a school of the holy scriptures. now pantenus lived in the time of commodus, and what could then be said to have been from ancient times, will bid fair to be almost as old as christianity itself. our author goes on with the same ill stars, and the very next period is a new misadventure: from this school, says he, sprung forth t●at damnable heresy of the arians. what shall we say if arius were neither bred up at all, nor was a professor in this school▪ but an african by birth, and a plain parish priest of alexandria? nay farther, what shall we say i● this school was employed in an honest catechism-lecture, or exposition of the scripture, and had nothing more to do with teaching school-divinity than in teaching anatomy or mathematics? will not this gentleman, whoever he is, appear a wonderful meek writer; fitter to deal in a romance than church history? of his country and employment epiphanius informs us, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; he was of libya by his country; and being made a priest in alexandria, was preferred to the church called baucalis. and that we may be more assured of the nature of his employment, epiphanius presently reckons up the other churches of that great city, and recites the names of several of the rectors of them. that this school was for catechising, st. jerom is most express, who in his catalogue of ecclesiastical writers, says that clement, after pantenus; alexandria ecclesiasticam scholam tenuit, & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 magister fuit▪ clement after pantenus kept the ecclesiastical school at alexandria, and was catechist there. we see then what a goodly bracelet of ●alse pearls our author has hung together upon a string in hopes to adorn himself with them. one would now have the curiosity to guess what should come into his head positively to assert so many false and extravagant things. was pantenus a heretic, or noted for a great sophister and man of notions, and thereby obnoxious to have the great plague to christian religion, school-divinity fathered upon him? nothing of all this: he is by eusebius (l. 5. c. 10.) styled, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a most famous man, and said to have showed so much, and such divine zeal for the word of god, as to have gone and preached the gospel unto the indians: and that after his return he was made master of this school; where partly by words, partly by writing he expounded the treasures of divine knowledge. but secondly, had this school at any time been so unfortunate as to have bred up notorious heretics, or perverse disputers that did mischief in the church? nothing of this neither; it was the happy nursery of the most eminent propagators of the christian faith, and at this time when arianism entered the world, merited this character, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. it continues to our times, and is celebrated for persons powerful in the word, and study of divine things. what then could be the matter that should hare and lead a poor innocent man into such a maze of falsehoods? why surely no more than this: he had heard from the parson of the parish, or some other good body in discourse, that the arian heresy took its rise from alexandria; that it supported itself much with quirks of philosophy, and sophistical niceties; and that there was a divinity-school at alexandria, and a notable man, one pantenus, had been master of it; and now if this were put together, and all the heresies of the world laid upon the back of this pantenus and school-divinity, it would make a very pretty story, and look like a learned account of antiquity. just as if a stranger should have heard, that there was a mischievous fanatical rebellion, which overr●n the whole nation, and was the cause of the destruction of so many tho●sands of christians both body and soul, fomented and carried on at westmi●ster in england; and likewise that there was a famous school, and one dr. lambert osbaston, a noted man▪ had been master of it▪ and then should tack all this together, and say, that westminster school was a seminary of fanaticism and rebellion, and that dr. lambert osbaston was the first and chief promoter of it. now this ridiculous fable is far more probable than that which our author obtrudes upon us, in that several of the ringleaders in the la●e rebellion, as sir arthur haslerig, sir harry vane, scot, and others, were really scholars to dr. osbaston, and governors of that school; nothing of which nature can be truly suggested of the other. but our author goes on, and has certainly made a vow not to say one true word in this whole paragraph, and keeps it most religiously. his following period runs thus: the heresies before thi● were so gross and sensual, that none took them up but dissolute or frantic people, and soon vanished: but after this school-subtil way of arguing was brought into christianity, heresy grew more refined, and so subtle, that the plain pious fathers of the church knew not how to lay hold of it, etc. but now what will become of us, if there were refined, and spiritual heresies before? nay, in a manner if this very heresy were so? what if they were followed by men neither dissolute, nor frantic? nor did soon vanish? and that the fathers of the church were not so plain men, but that they knew how to encounter this school-divinity monster? has not our author the worst luck of any man that ever put pen to paper? as to the sensuality and grossness of heresy; no● to look higher than the confines of this age we talk of, surely neither novatianism, nor the heresy of sabellius, or paulus samosatenus, of which arianism was but an off-set, were gross or sensual: nor were novatus, tatian, tertullian, and origen, who were all very considerable men, and fell into heresy before this time, ever noted for being frantic or dissolute people. but on the contrary, their very severity of life, and zeal for virtue, were the prime occasion of their heresies. nor did their heresies soon vanish, but continued for several ages, some in their own, others under new names and titles. and whosoever reads the controversies of those times will find that the pious fathers of the church were not quite baffled by school-distinctions and evasions; nor did these sophisters, proud of their conquest, triumph and carry away a specious appearance of truth: but the advantage of arius was quite of another kind in application and address. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. he was of taking and pleasant conversation, always glozing and flattering, as epiphanius tells us; then adds, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. he addressed to each particular bishop with insinuating arts and flatteries, whereby he drew in many to be partisans with him. and, as sozom●n expresses it, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. his party finding it their interest to prepossess in their behalf the bishops of each city, they sent their agents to them, with confessions of their faith .... w●●●h practice turned mightily to their advantage. but th●●r chief advantage lay in their court insinuations, first with constantine's sister during his life; and after with constantius his sons after his death; and when the aria●s had the suffrage of an emperor on their side, we need not impute it to sophistry that they prevailed. our author, having not as he thinks fully enough discovered to us the mysteries of his knowledge, goes on, with the same auspexes of ignorance and error, to acquaint us farther: that this great bane of the church took its rise from hence: many of the primitive doctors and fathers, being converted from heathenism, and having by lo●g and great industry acquired much knowledge in natural philosophy, antiquity, history, and subtle logic or sophistry, were very unwilling to abandon quite these their long studied and dearly beloved sciences, falsely so called; and therefore translated them into christianity, etc. and now we know perfectly the true cause of all the heresies that ever came into the church. i will adventure notwithstanding all this to add one more to the number, and say, in opposition to what is here averred, that christianity received more advantage from philosophy than ever it did damage from it. it is true, as tertullian tells us, that the philosophers were the patriarches of heretics, but it is as true, they were the champions of christian truth. he must be a stranger to every thing that relates to the church, who know not how much religion owes to justin mart●r, athenagoras, ammonius, pantenus, clemens of alexandria, and (notwithstanding all his misadventures) to origen himself. the last and most dangerous attempt against christianity was the setting up heathen morality, gilded over with magic against christian ethics; laboured by apollonius tyanaeus, porphyry, jamlichus, plotinus, hierocles, simplicius, and several others: and had not the good providence of god raised up the before mentioned, and other eminent christian philosophers, to attaque them in their strengths, and fight them with their own weapons; it is to be feared our holy faith would not have had so easy, or so clear a victory over the world. but because our author has so particular a pique against sophistry, i shall desire him at his leisure to read the twenty ninth chapter of the seventh book of eusebius' ecclesiastical history, the title of which chapter is, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. how paulus samosatenus, baffled and confuted by one malchion a priest, who had been a sophister, was deposed. and sure the sophister may be allowed to have done no small service, who baffled and confuted that so considerable heretic. but the stop put to the donatists' schism, by the interposition of the civil magistrate is a great mote in our author's eye, and one way or other he will be sure to remove it. first, he tells us, it is well known the donatists were a sect very turbulent in behaviour. alas, our author has a confessors memory, and has quite forgot the unpeaceable temper of our dissenters, and how naturally conventicles mustered themselves into armies: but which way the enforcing a confession of faith comes to be our case, he will do well to interpret himself. if he speaks against the penal laws; and the tendering of the oath of supremacy to recusants thereby directed, be the enforcing a confession of faith which he speaks against; there is again somewhat contained in his book which is contrary to the known laws of the land. fearing the success of this answer, he offers another, which is, that for aught any body knows these seeming converted donatists were only hypocrites, who for the love of the world, more than for the love of the truth, forsook their heretical profession; or if their hearts were really changed as to belief, it is evident they were worldly still, and not one step nearer heaven. first, if for aught any body knows these donatists were only hypocrites, for aught any body knows they were sincere; and charity obliges to the better side. as to the carnality of their hearts, it is gods, and not our authors, prerogative to judge of them; in the mean time, it is surely of some good effect, to have set the understanding right, though a thorough reformation be not made on the aff●ctions. the ill luck is, the reasoning of our author herein, if it prove any thing, is as valid against the secular magistrates restraining immorality and vice, as well as error. for men may be hypocrites, and carnal in their hearts; may design and wish murder, fraud, and theft, though for fear they dare not act them. our author has more solutions in his budget, and is very liberal of them, for he goes on, and says, that though we farther grant the pruning of the magistrates sword did really correct the viciousness of the tree, yet we must not dò evil that good may come of it. that is, to punish heretics is in its self, and in its nature evil. this, i confess, comes home to the point, and would have superseded the former: but the proof is wanting, and must ever be; for the assertion is false, as we have showed above: and is contrary not only to all the imperial laws, made against heretics, as also the ecclesiastical of this national church; but the municipal, against which our author gave the parliament his engagement that he had not spoken a word. but the illustration of this his position is wonderfully pleasant, i mean the instance of peter's cutting off malchus his ear, for which he is sharply reproved, and threatened with perishing by the sword, etc. as if because st. peter, a private man, might not use the sword against the magistrate, the magistrate might not neither against a private man. but lastly, if none of all the answers will conclude, there is one in reserve that infallibly will do the feat, it is th● turkish and mr. hobbes' appeal to fate: they who are ordained to eternal life will believe, and the rest are hardened, the sharpest sword in this world will not enter the hard heart more than an adamant. and so farewell to all exhortations and instructions; to all threats, rewards, and punishments: nay, to all arguments and discourse. our author was predestined to talk absurdly, and the sharpest reason in this world will no more enter the hard head than an adamant. our good man recapitulates the whole matter, and would have us not mistake him. all this he says in reference to compelling men to believe or conform, reserving to the magistrate power to punish evil doers, not evil believers. i pray sir remember once more your promise to the parliament; whatever shift you will make to palliate the matter concerning there not being laws to compel men to believe, i am sure there are laws enough which would fain by penalties compel men to conform; and here you tell us, that all this long discourse is leveled against them. what pity it is that great wits, and men who speak untruth, have not better memories? whatever punishment they are worthy of who disobey the laws; they deserve much greater who stand in defiance, and dispute against them; but what shall we say of him who at once denies and boasts his guilt, robs in the midst of an assize, and while he does so, cries out unto the judge, and desires him to take notice that he does no harm? to the appendix. our author having abridged the articles of faith into his eunuch's creed, one would have hoped his comment would have boar some proportion to his text, but he has not yet showed all his learning, and profound knowledge in church affairs; and therefore we are blest with his bounty in an appendix. and first, his instances of the millenary error, infants communicating, the cro●s and chrism, have (if one mark it) a mighty neighbourhood with the articles of faith▪ and the first reformers by discarding the use of most, and taking away the abuse of all of them, have discovered their shyness, and timorousness to reject that authority which they had long reverenced: and in modesty some of them admitting the authority of the father's and councils, for three or four of the first centuries, some admitted five or six, whereby they were reduced sometimes to great straits in their disputations. a heavy charge indeed upon the first reformers, that they had a reverence for fathers and councils; and the instances brought are wonderfully proper to demonstrate the straits to which protestants are likely to be brought in their disputations, the most of them being equally rejected by all with whom they have occasion to dispute. not to waste time with such a tri●●er, i leave the question proposed to the papists, by what r●le they reject some things, and retain others? at their best leisure to resolve: and to that offered to the evangelical, by what rule they submit to the authority of some centuries, and refuse others? without his help i shall frame a ready answer. our rule we borrow from tertullian, illud verum quod primum: and add, th●t in all concerns of religion we make our resort and utmost appeal to scripture; but own also a great deference to antiquity; but by antiquity▪ mean not, as our author fond imagines (who talks of sacred things, as if he had newly put off his apron) the opinion of three or four writers of all the first ages; no● of all of any one; ●ut the uniform concurrence both of times and persons. now, why the la●er centuries should not be looked upon with the same reverence as the forme●, is in itself evident, they having not the like stamp and character of antiquity. besides, our controversies being chiefly with the papists, whose exorbi●ancies breaking in upon the world most notoriously abo●t the sixth century, we think upon the common rules of judiciary proceeding, we have all reason to decline the testimony of obnoxious persons and times. i am weary of pursuing step by step insolent impertinencies; and therefore for this time shall l●t pass the pygmy and the giant▪ the charge upon iren●us, papias, st. aust●●, and lactan●ius; with the good character of our authors own zeal, sincerity, and eminent parts, it being, as he says, possible, nay, (what you will wonder at, having seen his discoveries in the stripping of truth) probable that there may be in the world another who has more natural understanding, and more acquired learning than himself. and shall proceed to his next stage of councils, where we are told roundly, that all the evangelical doctors grant, that the later general councils have erred. i beg our author's permission to differ from him herein; and humbly conceive that he will scarce meet with a considerable number, who allow any of the later councils to be general: and if they say any have erred, they show reasons how they came to do so, without destroying the credit due to the decisions of the church; or our saviour's promise, that the gates of hell should not prevail against her. and therefore the rest of his harangue about councils, being most of it false, and all of it impertinent, i shall say no more of it. to the chapters of ceremonies. our author begins this chapter with his wonder, why any one of tolerable discretion should be so eager either for, or against ceremonies. what, in the mean time, is to be done with men of our author's kidney, men of intolerable discretion, wiser tha●●heir superiors, than the church wherein they live? le● them who are against ceremonies answer for their eagerness; there are others who find great reason to be eager for them. when a king of spain pressed a general of his to pass over a punctilio of honour which belonged to hi● 〈◊〉, saying, that it was but a ceremony: he replied smartly▪ that nothing differenced the king from him but ceremony. when our author shall have planted his levelling, quaker●gospel; and persuaded princes to relinquish their ensigns of royalty; the sages of the l●w to sit upon the bench i● cverpo; the lord mayor of lo●don with his fraternity to part with their liveries, and unaccountable formalities; nay, that his lordship should quit but his chain and great horse: or lastly, that our author, with all his self-denial, should condescend so far, that he will be pleased to sit below his kitch●n▪ maid at table, or light his plough-boy up to bed; we will endeavour to think as slightly of ceremonies in religion (where sure, if any where, there should be awe and reverence) as he would have us. not long since our neighbours of holland refused to strike sail to his majesty's flag, upon which a bloody war ensued. shall we borrow now our authors rhetorical apostrophe, and cry out, my fathers, my fathers, so much christian blood spilt, so many orphans, so many widows made, so much treasure spent, and all for a ceremony? i pray mount a turnip cart, and preach to the heathen world the spirit of the hat, and hold forth that striking sail is the same idolatry in a ship, as the putting off a hat is in a brother. certainly, there is some dismal mischief in these ceremonies of the church, else there would never have been such a loud outcry of o my fathers, my fathers, will you restrain the liberty of the gospel to the rigidity of your discipline, to lose some, to lose many, and perchance in the end to lose all, yourselves and all? be pious, be charitable, be prudent, etc. let the world judge if such a charge, as this seems to import, be not the declaring or speaking something in derogation to, and depraving of the liturgy of the church, forbidden under severest penalties in the act of uniformity, primo eliz. and if the expostulating with the governors of the church, for doing their duties themselves, and endeavouring that others should do it▪ be not contrary to the known laws of the land, which enjoins those duties, both to bishop and people. what our author would be at he plainly tells us in th● ensuing period, you will say, if you yield to some dissenters in this, you must as well yield to others in that, and so by degrees abolish all your ceremonies. to this he roundly replies, ● beseech you, is not the ●ody more than raiment, substance more than ceremony. which is plainly to say, that to gratify dissenters we ought to discard all ceremonies, and in contradiction to st. paul, who enjoins that all things should be done decently and in order, nothing is to be done decently and in order. i must have leave to say, that in this instance raiment is the body, ceremony is substance. i may put off a sca●ff, or belt, or perchance a coat in a cold winter's day; but should i throw off all my clothes, i should certainly kill myself. a ceremony, considered in individuo, or retail, may be of no great moment; but they, taken in genere, and in the bulk, are absolutely necessary. the following objection, that by parting with ceremonies, which tend to the increasing devotion, preserving order, and giving glory to almighty god, we shall displease our friends, and then lie exposed to our enemies to spoil our goods, is of more moment than to be thrown off by saying, that our goods are only faith, hope, and charity, and that these stood firm in the primitive times, when there was not one of our ceremonies to preserve it. surely, the scandalising those who do their duty, by our breaking the laws, is a greater mischief, than to displease those who violate their duty, by our keeping the law. a scandal only taken is of less moment, than one both taken and given. and if faith and hope happen to be unconcerned in this whole matter, yet charity is sure the natural product of decency and order; and the common rule, that it ought to begin at home, is here to take place, and their satisfaction be most studied who are of the household of faith, rather than the humour and caprice of the desertors of it, moreover, upon a true account it is not charity to dissenters to humour them in their disobedience towards their spiritual superiors; no more than it is, to give impunity to that of rebels, against their temporal. but were there no ceremonies among the primitive christians? what shall we say of the kiss of charity, or was there not one of ours, surely laying on of hands, kneeling at prayer, the people's answering amen after it, the having the head uncovered in religious assemblies, were more than one of theirs, and are our ceremonies. i am weary of being a scavenger, and sweeping together all the straws and dirt, which this unhappy write● scatters as he goes; and there being nothing but clamour and sedition in the rest of this chapter, or that which follows concerning church-service, which only, after a few compliments sprinkled upon discipline and order, labours to disparage the present constitution, and levels those who are concerned for their duty and obedience, with the wild rabble of sectaries and fanatics. i shall without more words dismiss the inquest, and go on to what follows. to the chapter of preaching. the chapter concerning preaching is a most unreasonable reproach of the church of england. after that the uniform vote of all our neighbours has given us the preference in this particular, the ministers of the reformed churches, germans, hollanders, danes, swedes, french, and swissers, learning our language generally to take benefit of our sermons, and many travelling hither for that end; our author, led to it by his excellent good nature, labours to show his talon in depreciating what strangers so must esteem. there was a time when nicety of division, and the flowers of a polyanthea were somewhat in fashion; but those days are long since done, a practical sober way of pressing christian duty is generally taken up, which has as little of the quid, or the quale, or the quantum, as our author seems to have in his head; or has discovered in his writings. his project for preachers is as extravagant as his character of our sermons. they must be grave elderly men, not raw novices from the university with all their sciences and languages; but rather ●ober persons of age and experience, having a good natural capacity, etc. that never saw the university, and knew no other language than their mother tongue: that is, they must be experienced farmers, illuminated cobblers, or gifted weavers; and these, no doubt, as they did twenty years since, would bring about a thorough reformation▪ these would redeem the church from that great contempt, the aristotelists, scotists, aquinatists, with their▪ knacks of quiddities, and qualities, syllogisms, and enthymems, distinctions, and subsumtions, and the handsome schoolboy exercise of the very good preachers of the age, have brought upon it. he goes on to tell us, that his heart bleeds to think how many thousand poor souls there are in this land, that have no more knowledge of god than heathens, etc. it is truly a lamentable thing, that where the gospel has been so long, and so happily planted, any should be ignorant of it. would to god all the lords people were prophets; but in the mean time let us not be so ungrateful, as not to own with all due acceptation and thankfulness that our people, generally speaking, are better instructed in all the parts of saving knowledge than any nation in the world. and we may say it with perfect truth, and therefore without vanity, that they have also the most learned and sufficient clergy: men that understand the athanasian creed much better than our author, who in his first chapter has done what his little knowledge, and violent passion could effect, toward the undermining of it. the truth is, i cannot but wonder how it is possible for a man, that did not design to put scorn upon religion, to offer such mad and unaccountable proposals, and the while talk demurely, and in scripture phrase, as if he would be thought to be in earnest. to the chapter concerning bishops and priests. the long chapter of bishops and priests is of the same strain with the former, it cries hail master to episcopacy, acknowledges the apostolical antiquity and dignity thereof; and then fairly goes about to▪ betray it: whether presbytery, or erastianism, or atheism be at the bottom of the design, it is not easy to divine: that which is obviously apparent is, that one thread of ignorance runs through the whole discourse; neither what petavius means, nor what the character of priesthood is, nor what the practice of th● ch●rch w●s, i● at ●ll understood▪ b●t a long blunder is ●ade about a. b. c▪ as if there we●e no other character● in the world besides those of the alphabet; or as if the matter were as unintelligible as the great mystery he talks of. which is to be known only in a metaphysical w●y of abstraction; that the superior species contains th● inferior genus. indeed the nature of a genus or a species, which is no more than every schoolboy understands, who has learned so much of his grammar, as to know what a noun appellative is, requires not much niceness of metaphysics; but the superior species, and inferior genus are terms of art that the dull logicians of the university stand amazed at. aristo●le said of a man that he was arbor inversa; but our author has here turned upside-down porphyr●es tree, and by it turned a man into a horse, for so he goes on in his learned metaphysic lecture. a man, a rational creature contains the animality of an ho●se, the inferior creature: but doth not contain a real hors● in his belly, nor can a man beget horses', or men when he pleases▪ nor can you truly say a man is a horse. i believe my school me● would take it in snuff, should i affirm ●ny of them to be horse●. here having mended the matter, and reform a horse from being an inferior genus to a man, and made him an inferiors creature, he says that he contains the animality of a horse. upon which hypothesis, whether he will be as ill natured as the schoolmen, and take it in snuff i know not▪ but i am sure that i can irrefragably prove him to be a horse▪ and the thin sophism▪ which every freshman learns to solve within a week after he comes to the university, will be against him an unanswerable demonstration: which, to try his patience, i propose to ●im in common form thus▪ he that says, my author is a living creature, says true; h● that says, he is a hor●●, says that he is a living creature▪ therefore he who says, he is a horse, says true. there is no denying the syllogism, and saying it has four terms. that though indeterminate animality be enunciated of the species, yet that which is determined by the contrary difference may no●: tha●● is, the animality of a b●ute c●● belong only to an irrational animal, as that of a man to a rational; for our author has precluded himself from that answer, by saying expressly that a man, a rational creature, contains the animality of a horse, the inferior or irrational creature. and now if my author be not a mere animal, let the world judge: and this comes of despising logic. let us now see whether his divinity be better than his philosophy. after this hog-shearing, where we have had so loud a cry and no wool, we will if we can pick out a little sense; the thing he aims at proving is, that bishops are not superior in order to priests; a thing, by the way, directly contrary to the liturgy of the church, and thereby the law of the land: but yet they are superior in commission, and by virtue of that can govern, exercise the power of the keys, and ordain priests and deacons, which priests, ordinarily speaking, may not. well, if this commission were from heaven, and stand upon that scripture basis, of as my father sent me, so send i you, by virtue whereof the bishops, during the first ten persecutions, governed their flocks in despite of all secular opposition, and retaining part of their administration to themselves, disposed of some to priests and deacons; which is as notorious in fact, as any thing in the world: the bishops may do tolerably well, with this new word commission, instead of the old of order. especially, since in the close it is confessed by our author: that in this order the apostles left the church at their death, and in this order their successors continued it (as in duty sure they ought) from time to time near 1500 years without any interruption wherefore for any to alter this way of government, or to take upon them to ordain, not being chosen this way to it, they would be guilty of great rashness and high presumption. nor will it be in my author's power to kick all this down again, as he endeavours in the following period, by making the orders given by priests though irregular, yet firm and valid; for if this power be from heaven, and separate from all secular authority, as to its nature and original; though limited by it in its exercise and application: no man upon any pretence can take this honour to himself or confer it on others, but they who were called of god as was aaron. but let us see how well our author confutes the distinction of order between bishops and priests? 'tis ridiculous, says he, that the priesthood which is capable to do the greatest things, to consecrate the souls of men by baptism and the lords supper, yet forsooth cannot consecrate oil and cups? i desire to know whether a deacon cannot consecrate the souls of men by baptism and the preaching of the gospel, or if they can, whether they are of the same order with priests? or whether a judge who has power of awarding life or death which is the greatest thing, may also make a knight which is a less, and if therefore a judge and a king be of the same order? this word ridiculous is very unlucky, and commonly returns on him who is most busy with it; but since we are fallen upon the instance of a king, for farther illustration of this matter let us consider the monarches of the east, who permitted the whole administration of their affairs to their favourites, as we read of pharaoh that he pulled his ring off his hand and said to joseph, without thee no man shall lift up his hand or foot in all the land of egypt, and according to thy word shall all my people be ruled; but for all this pharaoh and this his minister of state were not of the same order; for in the throne he was greater than he. though the king had stripped himself of the whole execution of his power, and put it into the hand of his favourite, yet so long as the origination of it continued with him, he was as absolute, and the other as subject as ever. 'tis true the bishop's power is in itself subordinate and ministerial; he must not lord it over the inheritance of god, but as to the dispensing of it to the inferior orders, the parallel will hold; they all act in subordination and dependence upon him. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, says ignatius. no priest or deacon for several centuries ever did it without particular leave given by the bishop, nay the lector or reader did not so much as read the gospel till first he had brought the book to the bishop, and had his permission to go to the ambo or reading pu● with it▪ and though the licence with us be not no● every day renewed, yet the dependence is still owned in th● very form of our ordination, where the bishop says to the person ordained, take thou authority to read the gospel in the church of god, and preach the same when thou art thereunto licenced by the bishop himself. but a farther argument is taken from the promiscuous use of the name of bishop and presbyter, to prove they are of the same order, which sure is one of seeblest ways of proving any thing; the whole force of it amounts to this, st. peter and st. john call themselves presbyters, but were also bishops; therefore presbyters and bishops are all one: which is as much as to say, that his majesty is king of great britain and knight of the garter; therefore to be king of great britain and knight of the garter is all one. nay st. paul styles himself a deacon, as well as an apostle; therefore to be a deacon and an apostle is all one, but if our author be not satisfied with this, let him read the thirteenth chapter of the most learned bishop of chester's vindiciae ignati● and he will see how accurate the first christian writers were in distinguishing the three orders of bishop, deacon and priest. we will go on and attend him in his talon of book learning, wherein he has been hitherto so unfortunate, and see how in his following expedition he mends the matter. and here he tells us that aerius (whom, by the way, he constantly calls arius) was not a heretic upon the account of his introducing a parity between bishops and priests, but only for being an arian. that is, epiphanius made a list not of several heresies, but a catalogue of several arians: and the 69. heresy being assigned to arius, it passes the muster again in the 75. heresy under the auspice of a●rius. it is agreed on all hands that discontent made aerius a heretic, for that eustathius whom he thought a worse man than himself, was preferred before him: and being in power, though formerly his particular friend, considered him no farther than to make him master of an alms-house. we are then to believe that out of discontent aerius turned arian; but as ill luck would have it, eustathius was of that sect, and if he had a mind to quarrel with him, nothing could have been so proper, as to have turned orthodox in spite. it is manifest he was originally an arian, and the prime part of his heresy was what his malice naturally dictated, and all writers agree it to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. he entertained a mad opinion, beyond what a man would receive, saying, what is a bishop better than a priest? there is no difference between th●m; there is but one order, the same honour and dignity. since our authors greek reading fares no better, let us go on to consider his latin; and there is no missing st. ieroms epistle to evagrius, which is so clear in the point, that without more ado it converted our author, who it seems was once an episcopal man, into that errand presbyterian that now he is. withal it makes him wonder, and if the reader understand latin, he will wonder to see men have the confidence to quote any thing out of it for the distinction between episcopacy and presbytery. well, i have read over the epistle, and, as our author says, wonder, but it is at his great confidence to say, that there is nothing to be met with in it, to found a distinction between episcopacy and presbytery, when as he expressly reserves the power of ordination peculiarly to the bishops, which is the point chiefly contested between the assertors of episcopacy, and patrons of presbyterian parity. as to the second desire, that the reader should observe the various fate of st. jerom and aerius, that the one is reviled as an heretic, the other passes for a saint: i will satisfy my author in that particular, and show him a plain reason for it. aerius set himself against the apostolical government by bishops, dogmatized, and separated himself from the church: st. jerom always obeyed his governors, and remained in communion with them, upon other occasions expressed his opinion in behalf of their authority: and here only in a private epistle to a friend, and that a very short one, being scandalised at an unseasonable opinion, which pretended deacons to be equal in dignity to priests; as it is usual in such cases, he depresses what he can the order of deacons, and exalts to his utmost that of priests, in the mean time does not so much as attempt to prove any thing more than barely saying, quid aliud facit episcopus excepta ordinatione quod non facit presbyter? what does a bishop more than a presbyter besides ordaining? and then reckoning up several actions common to both. our kindhearted author hereupon tells us, that this presently converted him; nay, as if this good nature of his were as meritorious as grace, he thereupon assures himself, that great is his reward in heaven. our man of learning with his accustomed dexterity and confidence runs down the business of colluthus his ordination of priests, and pities poor bishop hall for going about to prove from thence, that presbyters were not capable to ordain. how slightly soever our author thinks of the matter, socrates in the first book of his history puts it under the blackest character. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. he privately adventured on an action worthy of many deaths, who, having never been ordained a priest, did those things which belonged to the function of a priest. this you are to know was said of ischryas who had as good orders as colluthus a priest could give him, but yet antecedently to the decree of the council of alexandria, is declared never to have been ordained a priest. let up now see why the old man was so much to be pitied, because he had quite forgot that the famous council of nice, consisting of above three hundred bishops, had made a canon, wherein they declare, that if any bishop should ordain any of the clergy belonging to another bishop's diocese, without consent and leave had of that bishop to whose diocese they did belong, their ordination should be null. you see the irregular ordination of a bishop is as null as the irregular ordination of a presbyter: therefore the irregular bishop, and the irregular presbyter are of the same order, of the same authority; neither able to ordain. our author, according to his usual sagacity, knows no difference betwixt an act that is null and void in itself, and an act voided by law. there is no question but bishops, and priests, and deacons for their crimes may be degraded and deposed, but that is not the same thing with the never having been bishops, priests, or deacons. the council of alexandria declared the ordinations of colluthus to have been void ab initio, that of nice voids those that are irregular. surely these are very different matters. that the invalidity of the ordination in the later case was of this kind, that is, made invalid by way of penalty and sentence, we may learn from the thirty fifth apostolic canon; by which both zonaras and balsamon interpret this of nice; who decree that in case of ordaining in another's diocese the bishop 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, both he be deposed and they who were ordained by him. and truly if they were to be deposed, it is plain the orders were in themselves valid; and it is unquestionable that the ordaining bishops were so: which is not to be said, and can never be proved of a mere presbyters. and therefore the triumph which is added here of dashing out the indelible character, or that the line of a diocese is a conjurer's circle, might very fairly have been laid aside. and i appeal to the reader, and more than hope he will see how no proofs are brought for this identity and parity of order; no scripture, no primitive council, no general consent of primitive doctors and fathers; that he is perfectly out in every thing he avers, and therefore for his poor judgement he may do well to keep it to himself, and probably his judgement is so poor because he himself is rich. he in likelihood has employed his time in secular concerns, which had it been spent in study, would have rescued him from such gross misadventures, as he at every turn incurs. but though the matter stand thus plain before us, yet ●ince our author has had the confidence to cite the council of nice in proof of the nullity of irregular orders: to show with greater evidence his perpetual ignorance and mistake, i will throw in for vantage the proceeding of this very council in the case of meletius, who had usurped upon the rights of peter patriarch of alexandria, in the point here contested of ordaining within his diocese; the words of theodoret are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. he invaded the ordinations belonging to the other. now the council decreed herein, that meletius should be suspended from the future exercise of his function, and retain 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the bare name of a bishop, but do no act of his function either in the city or villages; but the orders conferred by him were as to their intrinsic validity ratified and acknowledged. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, those already ordained should communicate and officiate, but come after the clergy of each church and parish. 'tis to be wondered at, how this man who seems to have always lived in a hollow tree, came to have heard by chance that there was once such a thing in the world, as the council of nice. to the chapter of deacons. our author is resolved on all occasions to show that he thinks himself wiser than both the church and state, and therefore in defiance unto both, he attempts to prove that deaconship is not holy orders; and to bring about so generous a design, he makes nothing of straining a point with the scripture, since 'tis so unkind as to stand in his way. it so happened that petavius discoursing of deacons had said, what the contents of our english bibles, and commentators generally agreed in, that p●ilip the deacon preached, did miracles, and baptised, and converted the city of samari●, and that the history described act. 8. belongs to him. now our author is better advised, and assures us, that this more probably was philip the apostle. st. luke, 'tis true, tells us that upon the persecution against stephen, several of the brethren went through all the regions of judea and samaria, except the apostles; 'tis says our author, a gross mistake, the apostles are not to be excepted; but philip the apostle, and not the deacon went about these regions. having thus happily entered himself into the lists, he goes on and tells us, that the first we shall find of deacons▪ officiating in spiritual matters, is in justin martyr: a modest man would thing that to be competent antiquity: but it seems to him that though in greece it was then received; it was not so in afric●; for terttullian says that the christians received the sacrament only from the hand of the precedent or bishop, that is, what i said even now out of ignatius, that neither this, nor any other sacred office was to be done 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, without the knowledge or consent of the bishop; which thing our author himself hereafter confesses. and sure when the bishop consecrated both elements, and with his own hand delivered the bread immediately to every communicant, and gave the cup to the deacon to distribute after him: 'twill be a great truth to say that the eucharist was only received from the hands of the bishop. but 'tis a fatal thing to be haunted by ill luck; what will become of our authors profound learning, if it should appear that the deacon did distribute the cup in africa? st. cyprian will, i hope, be taken for a competent witness in the case, who says in his book de lapsis. vbi solennibus adimpletis calicem diaconus offerre praesentibus coepit. when the other solemnities were performed, and the deacon distributed the cup to them who were present. nay if st. cyprian be to be believed, he utterly confounds all our author's pretensions at once, saying that diaconis non d●fuit sacerdotalis vigour; there was not wanting to the deacons sacerdotal power, ep. 13. allowing them somewhat of priestly jurisdiction: and in the twelfth epistle, giving them power to release from the censures of the church, in articulo mortis, si presbyter repertus no● fuerit, & urgere exitus coeperit, apud diaconum quoque exomologesin facere delicti sui possint, ut manu ejus in poenitentia imposita, veniant ad dominum cum pace. if a priest be not to be found, and death draw on, they may make their exomologesis or confession before the deacon, that hands being laid on them as penitents, they may go to the lord in peace. our author proceeds, and according to his wont, shows his learning backward; and quoting an epistle of st. ignatius ad tralli (trallianos i presume he means) finds, and often laments that learned men go on in a track, one after another, and some through inadvertency, some through partiality take many passages of ancient authors quite different from their meaning. one would now expect some eminent discovery. the fault in short is this, that our authors good friend vedelius, bishop usher, doctor vossius, co●ellerius, and as many others as have put forth ignatius, ●ave gone on in a track, and falsely translated these words, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. the deacons, being ministers of jesus christ, are to be honoured, for they are not the ministers of meats and drinks, but of the church, and servants of god; to run thus, and to concern deacons, when as indeed the words are meant of priests. whosoever first translated this epistle of ignatius, says our author, sure this fancy of deacons ran much in his head, otherwise he could never have found them here, for it is evident the word diaconus, in this place, relates to the presbytery newly before mentioned, etc. well, we hear what you say, but for all this are convinced you are infinitely mistaken: and are sure that doctor isaac vossius, whatever became of other learned men, did not go in a track, nor by inadvertency nor prejudice (his education, if he could have been seduced, leading him the other way) but considered the place very particularly, and adhering to the translation which you despise, concludes, miror antiochum qui sermone 124. haec ignatii cit●t, it● illa mutasse, ut id quod de diaconis hic dicitur, presbyteris attribuat, modo apud illum locus sit integer, nec aliqua exciderint verba. i wonder antiochus, who in his 124. sermon quotes these words, should so change them, that what 〈◊〉 here said of deacons, should by him be attributed to priests, if so be the place be entire with him, and some words not left out. well, but our author has a mind that we should see the utmost of his skill: i do the more wonder at the interpreters mistake in this place, because by the following words ignatius here excludes the specifical deacons, saying not the ministers of meat and drink. to see the wonderful difference of men's understandings; the most learned doctor isaac vossius, from these very words concludes the beforegoing period was meant of deacons (specific deacons, since they must be called so) from whence our demonstrator proves they could not be spoke of them. it is, it seems, a scheme of speech which our author never met with, to say of things or persons you are not this or this, but that; when they are remarkably more that, than this or this. thus god says to samuel of the people, who, complaining of his old age, and evil sons, desired a king: that they had not rejected samuel, but god. all men of common sense know very well the meaning to be, that though they rejected the prophet, that was not to come into account with the rebellion and insolence wherein they rejected the lord himself. though god commanded sacrifices under the law, he expressly says, he will have no sacrifice, and delights not in, nay, abhors burnt offerings; yet this did not abrogate the divine institution, nor make almighty god contradict himself. so st. paul advises philemon to receive onesimus his servant, not now as a servant, but above a servant, a brother beloved: by which words it is not to be inferred, that he should presently manumit him, but use him with kindness. but vanity and ignorance are most incommodiously quartered together; our author had a mind to show his reading, and pick a quarrel with the translator of a father: and then, no doubt, he must be a giant in learning, and list himself with those worthies that have slain their thousands. but such is our authors hard fate that this inconsiderable p●●●od which is here so earnestly controlled, is said unquestionably almost in every page of this holy martyr. so that should he have happened once in his life to be in the right, he had gained nothing to his cause; and besides, from hence it is morally certain that our author never read a page together in ignatius. in this very shor● epistle within twenty lines he says, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; he that does any thing without the bishop, the presbyter, and deacon, has not a pure conscience. in that to the magnesians, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. i admonish you to do all things in love, the bishop presiding in the place of god, the presbyters in the place of the college of the apostles, and the deacons most dearly bebeloved of me, as those who are trusted with the ministry of jesus christ. in that to the philadelphians, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉▪ harken to the bishop, the presbytery, and the deacons. and again in the same epistle he adds, that it is necessary 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to ordain there a deacon to perform the embassy of god. one would think this a competent instance of our authors intolerable insolence, without any regard of truth or ingenuity to dictate to the world, and pretend to correct learned men. but this is not all; it is manifest he never read this very period, whose translation he pretends to mend: for so ignatius goes on there, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉▪ so in like manner let all reverence the deacon as jesus christ, and also the bishop as the son of the father; and the presbyters as god's senate, and band of the apostles; without these the church is not called. but we have not done yet. behold a piece of ignorance and impudence more inexcusable than the former; poor petavi●s is taken to task for calling st. laurence a deacon; which many hundreds before him had very innocently done; and generally all that ever heard of his grediron, or his martyrdom, or indeed the occasion of it, are of his mind; but it is our author's privilege to be ignorant of what every body else is informed of. now in the present misadventure he attempts a greater mastery, goes beyond, and surpasses himself: for in that very place of st. ambrose which he citys; the direct contrary of what he goes about to prove is in termini● asserted▪ for that speech of st. laurence, which he recapitulates, and says, that it plainly shows st. laurence was a priest, not a bare deacon, tells us that he was a deacon. the words are lib. 1. offic. cap. 41. quo progrederis sine filio pater? quò sacerdos sancte sine diacono tu● properas? etc. o my father (speaking to his bishop going to martyrdom) whither go you without your son? o holy priest whither▪ hasten you without your deacon? had it not been better for our author to have said st. laurence was an archdeacon to credit the matter; or a deacon cardinal; than thus run counter to the words he alleged? unless a man owed himself a shame, and was in dread he should never make honest payment, and therefore on purpose spoke what he knew most absurd, mere chance could never fall out so unluckily, that he should not in a whole book make one true recital of an author, or matter of fact, as he has done. yet after all this, as if he had come off with mighty credit, he closes his chapter with a quod erat demonstrandum: so i leave, says he, the deacons to their proper office of serving of tables, not finding in scripture any thing more belonging to them. our author having thus taken away, we will expect the next course, where it is to be hoped we shall be better served; and that at last the banquet will make amends for the very ill fare we have hitherto had. to the chapter of church-government. our author has a dexterity of talking extravagantly of several weighty subjects, and this he calls handling them: which being beyond his strength, he heaves them to as much purpose as if they were timber; and thinks he has acquitted himself to admiration. having therefore handled the former points; that is, talked beyond all aim and measure foolishly; now he says he comes to the authority of bishops to govern as well as to ordain. and truly if they are to do one, as they are on his principle, to do the other, their authority is likely to signify but little; being shared by every the meanest priest. but the outcry is, that the power of the keys is left to chancellors, laymen who have no more capacity to sentence or absolve a sinner, then to dissolve the heaven and the earth, and make a new heaven and an earth. and thus the good man runs on like an horse with an empty cart, exceedingly pleased with the rattling of the wheels, and gingling of the bells; but he never considers that all the proceedings of chancellors in the bishop's court are in consequence of the canons of the church which are the decrees of bishops authoritatively met together, which have defined such and such doctrines heretical, such and such actions punishable with suspension, sequestration or deprivation, and the like: now all that the chancellor has to do, is to examine the matter of fact, take the allegations and proofs, and apply the sanction of the law to them. but where that extends to the use of the keys, that is reserved to them who by christ's institution are trusted therewith. and if dr. duck did do an ill thing, the fault lies at his door; and 'tis well if in this profligate age a single instance can only be pitched upon. we have, blessed be god, a great happiness in the protection of our municipal laws, none in the world being a firmer bulwark of the prince's rights and peoples liberties; but should every clamorous person be harkened to, who complains of the exorbitance of a judge, (when if the matter be truly examined, probably the ground of the dislike, is that he did his duty) we should soon tear out one another's throats; and every man's hand would be against his brother. we know the worst of our present constitution, and desire not the hazards of a change. to the chapter of confirmation. this chapter begins with a liberal confession, that confirmation or some such thing is necessary: but 'tis a little odd that in a matter which approaches to the being necessary, a loose succedaneum of some such thing, should be sufficient. our author like a true empiric, in all cases strives to bring in aliquid nostri, his preparation of the medicine will render it sovereign: but the old, known, and received forms must by no means be taken. having then made up a narrative of matter of fact, jumbling, as his way is, true and false together, his first objection against confirmation as it now stands is. that it is not possible for a bishop of so large a diocese as some of ours are, some extended three or fourscore miles, many forty or fifty, personally to confirm half the youth in a diocese, if he duly examine each one as is fit and necessary. we see how this is performed in their triennial visitations. having put in a caveat in behalf of the present constitution, and minded my author again of his promise to the lords and commons, that there was not a word in his book against the known laws; i cannot but reflect, that surely he lives in a country where the bishop is not over-diligent in his duty, else he would never make the task to be so impossible, unless the bishop never comes into his diocese, or never stir any where abroad in it: surely a very little contrivance with the diligence of the ministers would make it possible both for the bishop and youth to meet together without much trouble to either. there is no doubt if the affair be adjourned over to the triennial visitation, 'tis not likely to be well done: but as this ought not to be the course; so thanks be to god it is not. the next inconvenience in the present constitution is the disability of the curate to fit for confirmation; and the little credit to be given, when he assures the bishop when he presents the children, that they are fully instructed for it: and therefore he concludes it necessary, to appoint some discreet conscientious ministers in the several circuits to examine and licence for the lords table: for he passes it for granted, that confirmation is no sacrament, and if it were, why may not priests, not bishops perform it? well but suppose these discreet conscientious ministers, that are to supply the place of the parochial ones, should not be better qualified, be more discreet or conscientious than them, as it may very probably happen; 'tis plain they cannot have those opportunities either to instruct the youth of each parish, or know they are instructed, as the local minister is furnished with; but then farther is it likely that the several parochial ministers will readily admit their neighbour minister, whom they may reasonably think not much wiser or better than themselves to meddle in their cures, or that the people will be contented with it? will not animosities and quarrels, and contempt of the duty certainly follow? as to the lawfulness of priests and not bishops performing it, upon the supposal that priests and bishops are the same thing, and that priests may ordain, which is the doctrine taught in one of the preceding chapters, this of priests confirming may ●easonably enough be admitted: but the falseness of that imagination being abundantly evident, the absurdity of this will necessarily follow. and therefore notwithstanding our author's project, bishops may do well to go on in the execution of their duty in this most ancient and useful right, in which from the first planting of the gospel to this moment, they have been in possession. they who of late invaded the power of ordaining priests, having been so modest yet, as not to usurp this part of the episcopal office. as to the expedients proposed about framing additions to the catechism, making paraphrases on the lord's prayer and ten commandments, regulating the minister's way of catechising, and enforcing parents and masters to bring their young people to be catechised, i shall only say that if every body in the nation, who is as wise as our author, shall be alloweed to make models for the church, we shall have almost as many schemes of government, as there are persons to be governed. in the mean time we will take old cato's rule, and be well pleased with the state of things as it stands at present. the next p●que is at the bounds of each bishop's diocese, and having told a story of rome, constantinople, alexandria, antioch, jerusalem, ephesus, corinth, and philippi, which sound big and look well in the inventory, he informs us that partly by great distances of cities, partly by the favour of former princes, several towns being cast into one diocese they became so large as 'tis impossible any one bishop should have a sufficient inspection into them; the bishop knows not the names nor faces of half a quarter of them, much less their behaviour; he may have as well a part of france in his diocese to govern. our author never considers where his argument will light, is it possible to govern three kingdoms, nay are they therefore happy, because entire and under one government? is there no manner of need why the prince should know the names of the aldermen in his metropolis, much less of the people in his dominions? and is it so impossible a thing to comprehend all the necessary interests of an episcopal diocese? the truth is, our author would make every parish-priest a bishop, and then the diocese will be little enough; and the revenues of the bishops will be needless things, and as he says, the greedy harpies will readily make use of his zealous intentions: but i pray let us make a parallel to his ecclesiastical policy in the civil state. there are a certain sort of men made judges in the several circuits of england, which circuits are many of them fifty, six●y, an hundred or more miles in compass, they know not the name or faces of half or a quarter of them▪ much less of their behaviour, they may as well have a part of france in their circuit: were it not therefore better that every lord of the leet should distribute justice in the precincts of his manor; that no man should be at the expense of seeing council, taking out writs, or of going to the shire-town, or vamping upon the hoof with shoes at back to westminster-hall; but the steward of the court who knows the name and face and concern of every one should dispatch all things, and doubtless this would make a happy world. the parish would quickly find the advantage of this new scheme; to have their estates, their lives and fortunes in ●he hand of a little attourny, and be all together by the ears, and have none to part them, but him whose interest it is to set them on. i need not set down the moral. thus mad is the ecclesiastical policy of our divinity-common-wealths-man, 'tis no very good account of time to write an utopia, a politic romance; but to play tricks in holy things, and set on foot a christian oceana, is an unpardonable fault. but our author proceeds to consider a second abuse in church government, which is exempt jurisdictions. whatever a man thought of the unexpedience of any thing established by law, surely in good manners he should not give it ill language, and call it an abuse, while it stood so authorized and supported. which should be done especially by him who has past a solemn promise of not speaking a word against the known laws of the land. but of all men in the world our author, whose business it is to make all the parishes in england peculiars, and have them straitened to the narrow limits, which admit the knowing every name and face, should not speak against exempt jurisdictions; for if the whole nation were so cantoned out, and we had ten thousand bishops in england, we had exactly the scheme which he recommends, and at the same time complains of. it seems my author may freely write against what is established in church and state, as having obtained an exempt jurisdiction from the power of both: and to say incoherent things and such as none else would say, contradictory not only of all sober men who have wrote before him, but of himself also, is his peculiar▪ and so i leave him. to the charitable admonition. this being addressed to nonconformists, i must confess does not properly concern me, and is for the most part so well said, that i heartily wish it had been the whole book: but since our author finds himself obliged in charity, to think of those misguided men, i must also upon the same principle, have a concern for him; and earnestly beg him to revise what he has wrote, and see whether he has laid grounds in it for socinianism, and all kinds of separation: and whether he has done a good office to religion, to supply dissenters, whom he decla●es to be obliged to obey the government, with all the arguments he could think of, to palliate and countenance their disobedience. surely men are not too well principled, that it should be needful to unsettle them; nor too dutiful, that ther● should be reason to check them in their duty: and in a time when, as my author himself observes, separation, and many following divisions, have caused many to abhor the church, and turn to popery: it is obvious to apprehend that the doing every thing which the maddest separatist requires, and making religion slovenly and despicable, will not probably retain those who are tempted to popery, or recover them who have revolted to it. it will not be enough to say, that the book has every where in it sober and honest truths; for so has the cracovian catechism, and the alcoran; nay, there is scarce any conjuring book which does not for the greatest part consist of devout and godly prayers, we are told by our author, that it is above two years since he had these thoughts, in which time he has read and conferred all he could to discover if he were in an error; but, for all he could yet meet wi●h, does not find it so, but hopes all he says is truth, and that it may be useful to the public, in this present conjuncture of affairs. now this is certainly a most prodigious thing, that a man in two years' time should never be once awake, converse with any good book, or man of sense; or have the least reflection upon what is either truth or expedience. i never read this book entirely over more than once; nor have i had much leisure to consider it: and yet i presume any indifferent reader will see what gross misadventures have been detected by me, and probably himself will discover many more: for, in earnest, there are every where such blots that one can hardly avoid the hitting; such flaws in discourse, that there needs no picking of holes, or looking narrowly to find the incoherence, but the passage lies wide open, and one may fairly drive a cart and horses thorough. upon the whole matter i cannot but conclude, that pride or discontent, or some other very prevalent passion has here interposed: for what else should make a man think himself fit to renverse the established constitution of the church, and give his advice to the parliament, how they should evacuate all their laws? what should make him almost in every period contradict himself; pretend to the knowledge of antiquity and religion, rant against universities, disparage the ministers and preaching of the nation: and at the same time discover the grossest ignorance and inconsideration as is imaginable? and amidst all this acknowledge obligations to submission and conformity, and whatever he has spoke against: and after two years' deliberation not to see that which is evident at the first glance, to any one that has but half an eye? all this, i say, mu●t be the product of some one, or many violent passions. let my author seriously consider where this fundamental mischief lies; search his own heart, and desire the searcher of hearts to discover it to him. he says, he has fasted and prayed, let him do so again; but with humility and earnestness; and the good god be merciful to him. finis. a conciliatory discourse upon dr. crisp's sermons, on the observation of mr. williams 's dissatisfactions in them: in which the unsearchable riches of christ in the covenant of grace, passing knowledge, is yet aspired to, to be made known. humbly presented to the preachers of the merchant's lecture at pinners-hall; to the sustainers of it, and the congregation usually assembled there. by t. beverley. london: printed for william martial, at the bible in newgate-street, 1692. where you may be furnished with dr. crisp's works: and likewise his son's book, samuel crisp, esq; entitled, christ made sin. you may also be supplied 〈…〉 the preface. i have (not long ago) endeavoured to write as a reconciler, between two persons of estimable memory; dr. crisp, and mr. baxter; now both in their spirits with christ; where they have fully concerted their seeming various apprehensions, or representations in so great points; not only by receiving those 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, those unutterable explanations of them; but in their highest enjoyments, and mutual congratulations, in those fundamental truths, and graces; wherein they were, even here, notwithstanding a seeeming discord, (and much more there) one in christ. but we, that are on this side their line, still see through a glass darkly, perceive, know and speak as children; and so express ourselves diversely, one from another, as we look to this, or that side of truth: not being able to comprehend the perfect physiognomy, or representation of it at once. and indeed in the great points, that are nearest allied to the coveant of grace, we are most unable to pronounce clearly; that first engraving upon our hearts, and the divine revelation of christ, (from faith, rom. 1. 17. having not yet attained to faith, in perfection) are ready in this our imperfect state, to enter a centest in our minds; and we cannot decide, as we ought, between the eternal law of righteousness, and the everlasting gospel of righteousness: and while we have great discourses in scripture upon both, we very hardly keep the balance of the sanctuary even in our understandings, as it is in itself: while therefore the servants of christ are, some in their ministry, inclining the beam one way, and some another; though according to the manifold distributions of one and the same spirit to both in the main; yet they are ready to find fault mutually at their so doing: it may be no injury then for a third, to endeavour to set both even, though great infirmity may appear in that also: for who is sufficient for these things? especially it is to be considered, the gospel-righteousness, or of faith, hath ever since the apostles preaching and writing, suffered an eclipse by the mystery of iniquity early working; and by degrees, from that very time, the apostle dates, 2 thess. 2. it was covered more and more. till the very state of the christian church fell into the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the dark and foul place of the apostasy, 2 pet. 1. 19 and though the eclipse be much less than it was, by the light returning in the reformation; yet it remains in part; and oh that it were not in great part! now it is very observable, that grand prophecy of the revelation, knowing upon what side of evangelical truth that black shade would most dreadfully fall, gives its divine symbols or most exquisite figures for prevention; for preservation of the witnesses of christ; for condemnation of the apostasy; for recovery out of it; in this supreme article of gospel-truth; the blood of christ. hence there are so often mentions of the lamb; of his blood; of robes washed white in his blood. the pure and perfect song of the lamb, as it was sung in the apostles days, is given, chap. 5. as the great standard. the witnesses are within the measured temple, during the whole apostasy. which temple is the known type of christ in his redemption; they are at the golden altar of incense, the pure intercession of christ in the deep of the apostasy. along the entire space of which, that new song of the lamb, chap. 5. is almost wholly lost. the apostasy is thus condemned, ch. 13. 8. all the earth worshipped the antichristian beast; whose names were not written in the lamb's book of life, slain from the foundation of the world. the difference is not very great, whether we apply the last words to the lamb slain, or names written. i prefer the first, showing the eviternity of the sacrifice of christ, above the upstarts of antichristianism. at the end of the apostasy, when the witnesses sealed on their foreheads appeared with the name written there (as i have further intimated in the following discourse) the song as it were new, because so much lost, is sung again with the voice of thunder, and to be learned, chap. 14. and is perfectly learned, chap. 15. after the preaching of the everlasting gospel. there the kingdom of redemption, in its fully glory, follows, wherein the saints are priests, not only of god, but of christ, a 1000 years, chap. 20. 6. have the name not only of god, but of the lamb, written on their foreheads. and the throne of god, and the lamb is in that city of redemption, c. 22. 3, 4. and it is most notorious matter of fact, that the most glorious ray of the reformation, was the restoration of the doctrine of justification by free grace, and faith in jesus; wherein luther, and calvin, with other reformers, however in other things they differed, yet concurred herein, as under the spirit and zeal of elijah, all in it. how much any under the profession of the reformation have declined from this; ipsi viderint, let them well look to it. i am far from esteeming the reverend persons i have to do with, dead, or living, among that sort. but this great fall of the christian church, as from heaven, in this point, would tempt any considering person to be most on the side of those, who ascribe most to free grace, and the righteousness of god in christ; except they hold the doctrine or deeds of the nicolaitans, the turning the grace of god into lasciviousness, which thing christ hates, ch. 2. 6, 15. being the other part of antichristianism; indulgences to sin: and this i never heard dr. crisp charged with; and he is particularly acquitted by his reverend opposite. i dare not pretend to justify all my own, much less another's expressions, who knew his own grounds and reasons of so expressing; and, it is most probable, thought some unusual ones necessary to alarm the thoughts and minds of men into the observation of the truths he designed to exalt, as not enough exalted. i do not pretend to enter, as they say, the lists with so judicious and worthy a person, as mr. williams; nor with the things he hath spoken, giving a cordial assent to much the most; nor shall i, i hope, appear contentious, wherein i descent; but have only considered, what truth lies on each hand, more than what he himself hath so excellently observed; and have therefore made his heads at the end of his book the line of my procedure, and so have set them at the end of this. i commit all to divine blessing, and christian acceptation, with this gladsome prediction; that if we can but for a little, a very little time, love the truth, and peace, zech. 8. 19 the light concerning these points, that hath been but as the light of the moon in the time of the 42 moons of the apostasy, not yet expired, and so still darkening the sun's light; shall be not only as the light of the sun of christ's face; ch. 10. 1. in the reformation; but the light of the sun, even since the reformation, shall be ; the light of one day, as the light of seven, all in one. then we shall rejoice, and no longer dissent. let us earnestly pray: lord, let (as it shall shortly do) thy kingdom thus come. a second conciliatory discourse concerning dr. crisp's sermons, and mr. williams' dissatisfactions concerning them. that which i would lay in the foundation and as the centre of this discourse, shall be a scheme of the doctrine of the gospel in these points. 1. the covenant of grace in all the graces and duties of the convenantees of it, god in infinite wisdom, holiness and purity hath so settled, that it is an absolute covenant, in which christ is not only the great sacrifice, and his blood the price, ransom, and purchase; but he himself is the surety, the mediator, the testator of it: so that this covenant shall never be found fault with. not only on the account of its own goodness; but not on this account, that the covenanties, or those who are indeed intended by christ to be the covenanties, have broken it, and so it hath become ineffectual to them. this is most evident from the apostle's argumentation, heb. 8, 7, etc. for if the first covenant had been faultless, there should have been no place sought for a second: the first covenant, that god made, was in itself good, had they to whom it was given, been suitable and agreeable to it; the apostle therefore changes that his word, if the covenant had be●n faultless, into those words. for finding fault with them, he saith, behold the days come, saith the lord, i will make a new covenant, not according to the covenant i made with their fathers, etc. which my covenant they broke, or continued not in, and i regarded them not. but this is the covenant i will make with them, i will write my laws in their hearts, etc. hence it follows, the covenanties according to the faultless covenant must so continue in it, that god may be for ever their god, and they his people; there need be no dispute, what covenant this was, or in what regard it is here spoken of; whether only as a covenant of moral obedience, or as a ritual ceremonial covenant; for it is undeniable, the apostle represents it herein as a covenant found fault with, that they who were under it continued not in it; and therefore whatever covenant, whether moral or ceremonial, had that fault to be found with it, god would change, and bring in a covenant, that should not have that fault to be found with it: it must and shall be effectual to the grand purpose of keeping in the people of it so within itself, as to be god's people, and that he will be their god; such efficacies of grace shall all go along with it: this is not to be eluded by any art or wit of man. 2. from hence it must necessarily follow, there is a certain number chosen and elected according to the grace of this covenant, and for them this covenant is made. for it is too evident in plain view, and as matter of fact, that the most gracious and spiritual covenant of the gospel does not thus embrace all that are under it in profession, as that god should be for ever their god, and they his people, and that they should be for ever pardoned. seeing yet, 2dly, it is god, and christ, that look to it, that this covenant should be thus continued in; and, 3dly, that scripture, speaking of those thus secured according to the covenant of grace, styles them, the election, and continually speaks of the election of grace, the riches of grace, and the glory and praise of grace, not of works, but of him that calleth. all this put together, shows a certain number elected. in respect to whom this covenant shall not be faulted for their breaking it. 3. the election is in jesus christ the head, of the adoption, the first born among many brethren, even all the sons god will bring glory through him: so jesus christ must be the supreme and chief in the whole doctrine of salvation; his blood, and death, his righteousness, and obedience, his appearance with that blood in heaven, in his melchisedecian priesthood; and there by the power of an endless life, negotiating, and transacting all for, and in his servants, as by a perpetual rotation of that power, as in a sphere of highest activity, by his spirit. these are the very powers of salvation. 4. this the scripture represents to be eternal, or from before the foundation of the world: which is the constant expression it uses to convey to us the notion of eternity by; now eternal surrounds and encompasses time, and gives all the efficacy to the motions in and upon it; for as it encircles it, so it penetrates it every where, with infinity of lines cutting it every way: so that though to us, as creatures of times, these two, time and eternity, seem most distinct, and are so spoken of; yet indeed time is supported, and in all parts and lines of it interwoven by eternity. 5. the supreme representation of god in the whole state of our salvation, is as of a father in christ; this is most demonstrative, seeing it is to the adoption of children, we are chosen, which necessarily carries the notion of a father; seeing also it is the making conformable to the image of his son; and seeing it is for the bringing many sons to glory. and so jesus christ is represented in the nearest and most intimate relations, as the firstborn among many brethren, yea, sometimes as a father, as a husband, as a root to the branches, as a head to the members. this is the most inward and intimate representation of scripture concerning our salvation. 6. but the outward, and more extern administration is by god, the judge of all, or the rector and governor of all; and by jesus christ, as lord of all, and he, as having all judgement committed to him, is made known to us. but though the elect children of god and members of christ, are comprehended in several ways of scripture-speaking under this outward administration; yet this outward administration is chief with regard to the non-elect, to clear and justify god in all his deal with them; and therefore as to the exterior part of his administration, there are the same overtures made to the one, that there are to the other; and the one are saved, and brought home to god, under the same means, the other are lost. 7. this inward grace, and the outward administration exceedingly differ; for the inward grace, is love, spirit, life; the outward administration, is (to speak nothing now of the government of christ, by the laws and light of nature, where his word is not in outward administration) where it is, by the overtures of his word upon the understanding, wills, affections and consciences, of his subjects one with another; by that ministry of his word, he presses upon all, the obedience of faith, repentance and holiness, the duties, required of us; which, according to the inward grace and love to his own, he gives the inward efficacy and almighty operation of: 8. in the inward grace, and the operations of it, there is a vesting them in the faculties of his election, and a conduct of their internal action upon their own minds and hearts; and of the principles of outward action, which flow in all conformity and agreeableness thereunto; so that the vehicle is ourselves, but the inspiration is god's and christ's. 9 from all this it is evident, that although there is on many accounts, after to be given, a large field and scope of preaching and discoursing upon, and according to the outward administration; yet it is of superior necessity, to preserve the fountains of grace and love, of power and spirit clear, the foundations sure and firm; and though there may be fault in not being large enough upon, and according to the outward administration; because it shows the necessity of, and, as a schoolmaster, brings to the inward, and manifests how it diffuses itself; yet the error and danger is greater, in not sufficiently both securing and illustrating the doctrine of the inward grace. for many more have perished in sticking upon the outward, without being led in the inward, than by applying most to the inward. for that always, when it is admired adored and received, diffuses itself into the outward. so that if eternal love and grace is christ, be so taught, as that its efficacyes are always shown to be in all holiness and purity; if it pleases the alwise spirit to carry any of the spirits of his servants, wholly upon the inward grace; seeing he balances them by many men of his servants, largely insisting upon the outward administration, therefore such his servants are not to be blamed; but god is to be acknowledged in his manifold graces and unspeakable gifts, by the one, and by the other. 10. the glorious appearance of all these, is not, till in the fullness, not only of time, as in our lord's coming, but in the fullness of time's viz. of all time in the kingdom of christ; then shall be a recollection, a recapitulation, a gathering, and a gathering together of all in christ; then shall the riches of inward grace be found to praise and glory; and the wisdom, righteousness, and admirable long-suffering and patience of the external administration and government of god and christ, as rector and judge of the universe, be admired and adored also towards, even the lost. having thus laid a general scheme, i come now particularly to make brief conciliations of the true and most enlarged apprehensions, and discourses, upon even eternal free grace in christ towards all the elect of god, according to dr. crisp, with mr. williams' weighty, and most valuable considerations upon the outward administration of the gospel covenant, according to his heads of discourse at the end of his book. head 1. to the first head: the elect are children of wrath, till effectually called; as it may be opposed to all dr. crisp hath said concerning the elect, being before faith and repentance, as much delivered from wrath, even as the believer is, or as a saint triumphant in heaven is. reconciliation. if we speak, as creatures of time, the elect are children of wrath; but why may there not be a declaration of that great and supreme truth, setting out the eternal love of god in christ to all his elect, even while they are of, and in themselves in the gall of bitterness, and under the bond of iniquity? for without relation to the having done good or evil, in the mere estate of nature, which is in fallen men a state of wrath. it is said, jacob have i loved: now what more contrary to the state of a child of wrath, than to be loved of god? so concerning reconciliation as by the death of christ, the apostle says, god commendeth his love to us, in that while we were yet sinners, christ died for the : when we were enemies, we were reconciled to god by the death of his son. rom. 5, 8, 10. here then is the case, god the supreme and eternal being beholds all things, in, as they speak, a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a just now; even dr. hammond, however so great an enemy to a particular predestination, acknowledges this view of all things by the eternal being: the question than is, whether an eternity of love and grace, an eternal duration in happiness, after the short time of life, and some parts of that short time of life rescued from wrath also, may not preponderate in giving the denomination to the elect? or why may not the preaching of god's infinite and eternal love and grace, be made an instrument of the divine spirit for the winning in the souls of his elect to himself? when god says, i have loved thee with an everlasting love, therefore with loving kindness have i drawn thee, jer. 31 3. or why should an● man hereupon presume to continue in sin? when it is agreed on both parts; electing love and reconciliation by the death of christ have most indispensable efficacious emanations into holiness; while therefore there is a black and dark side of being passed over by god, hanging over all, continuing in impurity, to work upon men by terror and affrightment out of sin; why may not the setting out that grace work every way effectually, both by the bands of love, and the goads of fear, to move persons home to christ? and we know men are naturally desirous of, and ever industrious after, whatever they account tokens, of what they call being born to good fortune; and as naturally fly from all the marks, of what is called ill fortune; i see therefore no reason, but it should strongly affect men, among whom scripture is setledly received, and so ought to be universally preached; when they hear of so gracious a choice of god, to desire with greatest vehemency, to find in themselves, any manifestations of it, (it being the surest ground of hope) and to be under the dread of any of the black marks of rejection, as being passed by of god; of which efficacious holiness, or unholiness are respectively the tokens and indications. and though it must be acknowledged, there is a point of time, in which god speaking, as in the language of time, does style his elect, children of wrath, even as others; yet speaking in the language of eternity, he calls them, vessels of mercy, vessels unto honour; and indeed whatever is looked upon as only a motion or ordination of time, must needs arise from ourselves; for all acts of grace are eternal in their spring and fountain; time therefore genders only to a covenant of works. i know not therefore, but why, as the generality of preachers enlarge most upon the one, as to unconverted elect, there may not be some stirred up and enabled of god, to triumph in the savour of the knowledge of christ, made known by them in the other; while they centre upon the eteral election, of god demonstrating itself, in calling, conversion, sanctification: but they only can do this, who have received it, as a peculiar talon. but i doubt not, the spirit of it will within short time be poured out more abundantly, and that it shall not turn to licentiousness, but overflow with holiness and purity, as also efficacy of conversion. the third head i transpose into the second place, as being more congenial, or of a kind with the first; and will join the second with the fourth and those following, to head 8th. head 2. the laying the sins of the elect upon christ is not their discharge from their sins; this is opposed to what dr. crisp hath said; all the weight, and all the burden of sin, the very sin itself is long ago laid upon christ; and that laying it on him, is a full discharge and release to that, etc. the conciliation. to an eternal being, there must needs be an eternal justification, because there is no new thing to him; the apostle therefore makes the whole chain of salvation of an eternal old style; whom he foreknew, he called, he justified, he glorified; rom. 8. 30. all in the time passed, not in the style of time, but of eternity: but when we speak in new style, style of time; there is not an actual discharge of sin, or a justification of a sinner by election; but according to the order of things fixed by god in time; even so if we consider sins laid upon christ, even the sins of all the elect in the fullness of time, as the apostle styles it, that fullness of time may be very well supposed to collect into itself all time; and as the sins that were passed were recollected, so the sins to come were foreprized into it: and all this issues into the fullness of times, that is, of all time in the kingdom of christ; for as christ died in the fullness of time, so the glory of his redemption appears in the fullness of times, eph. 1. 10. of all time, when all things, in heaven and earth, shall be recapitulated in him, which yet, we know, they are not. the offering of christ therefore is an offering once for all; and it is one offering, that forever perfects; and jesus christ is yesterday and to day the same forever; as then all time is gathered into that fullness of time, so that fullness of time redounds upon all time, and flows out upon it, till it flows into that fullness of times. now, as the lord of time, offered himself in the fullness of time; he expiated all sins in that fullness, and what was expiated in the fullness, can never be charged in the retail of time, for than it was not expiated. although therefore, when we are spoken of, and unto, as not the lords of time, but the subjects of time, we are obliged to measure it out by parts, as being inferiors to it; and below the hill to it, we see the approaches of its events, one after another only; but the lord paramount of it, being so high above it, sees all at once; we are creatures but of the parts of it; so indeed we are not discharged from sin in the discharge of christ. but from hence to conclude, we are not in highest sense discharged, but that, if the elect dye before faith and repentance, they are lost for ever, is to make supposition of impossibilities; it is to set time, the small outlet of eternity, to rise up and encounter, and lead captive eternity; even the eternity of election; and that the parts of time may be set in battle array, and subdue the fullness of time. but this can by no serious considerer be allowed; i find not then, but as there is just reason to represent to men, that till they find within themselves the efficacies of the death and redemption of christ by faith and repentance, they stand in the sight of their own consciences, as persons, who have no interest in that death, in that redemption; and that this is proper on one side, representing god and christ, therein as the rector and governor of the world, to move them to repentance; and it is that which scripture does very largely and frequently insist upon; so on the other side, it is most true, that the foundation of god stands sure and cannot shake, nor totter even under this very seal single and alone; that the lord knows who are his, and that his election shall break out with all the mighty effects he hath pitched upon, as most suitable and connatural to it; so that it shall produce in all its own the derivative stamp; let him, that nameth the name of christ, depart from all iniquity: 2 tim. 2. 19 and that christ is, in all senses, the certain and infallible sanctifier of his people by his blood; that he not only as a judge, and a lawgiver, but as a prince, giveth repentance and remission of sins; this may be as hopeful to move the spirits of men, and be as gracious a conveyance of the mighty efficacy of the divine grace and spirit; for as these are rich truths of scripture, so they have an admirable moving stroke upon the hearts and minds of men; and he that ministers them, is a minister far more immediately of the spirit, that giveth life; of that without which the evangelic law is a letter that kills. head 3, to head 8. i put these heads together, because there cannot be any difference in the main notions, but only in the different ways of expressions, and what each part may think, will most lively illustrate and make the deepest imprint of the great scripture-truths upon the heart; i say, there can be no difference in the main truths between persons sober, and reverend of god, and of christ; for who can think the filth of sin transacted on christ in such a sense, as that christ should be defiled by it? but now there must needs be a moral impurity in every sin, as it is a recess from the holiness of god, from the righteousness of the divine law; there is a dishonour, a blot, a stain and blemish, a deformity, a loss of beauty and honour, and happy conformity to goodness and righteousness. this is intended by reatus culpae, another thing from the reatus poenae, or a mere obligation to punishment. i demand then, what becomes of this obliquity, the gild of the very fault of sin resting upon the sinner? sure those acts of dishonour do not remain upon the beautified believer in christ; how then can it be removed? the acts of holiness a believer does, cannot purge it; for there is impurity in them; nor are they able to raze the records: if then they be taken off, surely it must be by the supreme obedience, righteousness, sanctification of jesus christ, by the transcendent act of holiness, and resignation to the divine will; the glory, and honour and perfection of which imputed to the believer, is able to sanctify him; as christ said, john 17. i sanctify myself, i draw up my obedience to the highest point of holiness, by that absolute, perfect resignation to the will of my father, for their sakes, that they by the communication of that very holiness might be sanctified in truth; that is the moral impurity, and obliquity and dishonour of the sins they have committed may be removed. so sanctification, thus spoken of may be something higher than a justification only in foro poenae, if i may so speak, in the court, where punishment is considered, but in foro honoris, in the court of honour, where attaints are purged off, and blood, as they speak, restored. if there be only acquittal from gild, binding over to punishment; even the blemish, the stain, taint, and dishonour sin brings and leaves, is not effaced. this the high honour of the holiness and perfect purity of christ, especially in obedience to death, even the death of the cross, fully purges off, as imputed to all his; by which they are not only delivered from punishment, but constituted righteous, rom. 5. by the will of god so fulfilled, they are sanctified, in the sense given; and he hath by one offering, perfected or consecrated, ennobled them in blood to be kings and priests, by the imputation of the honour of holiness to them that are sanctified; and that he might sanctify his people by his own blood, he suffered without the gate; he hath loved, and washed us from our sins in his own blood, to make us kings and priests, (heb. 10. c. 13.) from them all the labes, the macula, the spot of sin is taken off, and he presents his church without spot, wrinkle, or any such thing, and without blame, ephes. 5. coloss. 1. this is the highest and most honourable notion of the redemption of christ, and may deserve a rhetoric, that may seem extravagant, like david's dancing before the ark, not so grave and so solemn; that may 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 constrain, or transport rather, it being before so gracious a redeemer. now if christ takes off the stain and dishonour of sin, it must be laid upon him; on which account it is said, esay 53. he was numbered among transgressor's, as a shade of this truth; and it is spoken of christ, though he was separate from sinners, yet as if he offered for his own sins, he needed not daily, as those priests, heb. 7. 27. offer for his own sins; and god laid upon him the iniquities of us all; and he was made sin for us, who knew no sin. and he was in the likeness of sinful flesh. and it is made the distinction of his second appearance, that he appears the second time without sin to salvation, heb. 9 28. thereby signifying his first appearance was as much under sin, as it could be without inherent sin; he went as a leprous, a defiled, an accursed person, a criminal of dishonour without the camp, and without the gate; all under a divine ordination, to put him to open shame, as under the dishonour of sin. by all which it appears, christ as our surety and mediator, as our 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, every way bare as deep a share of adherency in our sin, as could consist with an unspotted purity from any inherency of sin in himself, and hereunto all scripture expression even labours. and if humane speaking, endeavouring to fathom and expound such expressions, as may most be to the capacity, and to make impression upon hearers, (for is there not a cause?) if there be something humane found, and not with the admirable exactness of scripture, it ought not to be so much exposed; for, i doubt not, our expressions fall generally more too short of the divine sense of scripture in these things, than other good men's exceed; it being always to be firmly believed, no good man, while he so spoke, could have it once enter into his thoughts; that there could the least shade of proper inherent filth fall, or enter into the humanity of the mediator, united to the eternal word; however scripture, however he might thus speak, as hath been declared. but these things cannot, since the speaking of scripture itself, if we go about by preaching to enlarge upon them, be spoken of so accurately, but we either add or diminish from speaking this thing as it is; nor shall we be able; till within a short time, that, as it were, new song be sung on mount zion, rev. 14. then i trust we shall learn it. even so, that our sins are our own, and not christ's, is most true in the sense intended; yet that they became christ's in his great offering for sin, and that they are neither believers, nor christ's when he had born them off in a sense worthy of and agreeable to the gospel; the setting out sin then as our own, for humiliation, faith, and repentance, is most evangelical; so to set them out, so christ's, in his act of suffering, as to represent him a perfect offering for them, and neither ours, nor christ's, when he had born them away; and god upon it so acquitted christ, as to cast them into the depths of sea, so that when they are sought for, there shall be none to be found, and plainly none, jer. 50. 20. this is most evangelical also, and must be the sublimest evangelical; because, abating the short moments of time, in which it may be otherwise represented, it is eternally so: so in the state of separated spirits with christ; so in the kingdom of christ, when it is granted to the lamb's wife to be arrayed in linen white, and clean which is the righteousness of the saints, rev. 19 and to each saint to appear in robes washed white in the blood of the lamb. and so in the kingdom of eternity, delivered up to god all in all; and leave is given to the preachers of the gospel to describe things, as in god's eternity, and if not to speak the most in number, yet the most important and significant of scripture words: for why should we keep ourselves and hearers so close muffled up in this thick atmosphere of time, and not let out more into the open air of eternals? this stifles and smothers nobler thoughts and elevations of mind, and the lofty considerations for holiness, as well as consolation. but to go on further; the sins of believers were in the fullness of time most conspicuously laid upon christ, as it was an act of god in time; as the very nature of the fullness of time may assure us; but it is true, they were in proper senses laid upon christ before, as he was a lamb slain from the foundation of the world, and as his blood was the blood of the everlasting covenant; and so proportionably, when he was born in so low and mean an appearance, who had as the eternal word, right to have appeared all in glory; yet still let the fullness of time have its pre-eminence; and so sure there can be no injury done, when all the aerumnae, the sorrows of the life of our redeemer meet there. i go on: that jesus christ was not abhorred by the father, is most true; for if there could be a difference, he was; even while he bore our sins (for then he was in the highest act of self-resignation and obedience) above any time, the son, in whom he was well pleased; yet that he was made a curse; that the lord bruised him and put him to grief; that he looked like a man smitten of god; that god loathing and abhorring the sins, with which he was loaden, would not show himself to him; but that, he cried out, my god, my god, why hast thou forsaken me, is also most true; in that oeconomy or dispensation christ stood under the imputation of the sins of all the elect; which sin god hates: whoever therefore bears sin, must bear that abhorrence of god, sin draws upon itself, till he hath purged it off. thus christ did, till he had overcome it; therefore he stood bearing, that god abhorred; and so must bear such an abhorrence as the sins deserved. christ, under the multitude of our sins, was so covered, that, as, i may say with reverence, he could not look up, so he could not be seen; the sins then, wherewith he was so compassed, drew abhorrence, as upon himself. and i know not what difference there is between christ made a curse, and as abhorred of god; whatever explains and reconciles the one to our thoughts, will reconcile the other also. and in no other sense, can a sober and good man be thought to speak it. and so understood, it hath its great scripture-use, to show us, how truly and really christ hath by his death devoured all that curse, hatred, and abhorrence due to us for sin, by expiating it in himself: for if it had not in that dispensation been upon him, he had not fully and effectually assured its abolition; we may humbly imitate scripture in so speaking, while we yet know christ was always the beloved son. this shows also sin's hateful nature. i still go on: christ taking us as his members, whatever unworthiness we have, must redound upon him, so, as that he hath reason to discharge himself of it; and so to atone his members: and what is his, is so far his members, each one in particular, as is necessary to us, as members: but so is not his mediatorial righteousness, nor his perfection of holiness. no word of which mediatorial righteousness i find cited; but that exchange of persons and perfection of holiness arising from it, are only exuberant representatives of two great truths. 1. that our sins were fully and perfectly taken by christ upon himself, and expiated in himself; for by his sacrifice for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, viz. in his own humane nature; and that his righteousness is so ours by his communication of it, as to his members, flesh of his flesh, and bone of his bone, and one spirit with him; that there is, and was as it were real exchange of persons. there is; for the true believer by such a reception into christ is changed into that righteous person, he is made by christ, and is, as in him. there was; for christ in the very act of expiation, did as it were put on the sinful person of every believer, made sin for them. why should we be afraid to use such full sounds as scripture hath done, however reduced by interpretation to the analogy of faith? sure it sanctified such sounds as it made. and how great exundancies of expression are found, and not blamed in the best of the ancient fathers? and had they not been pressed beyond their intentions, had sweetened and made acceptable greatest truths to hearers and readers; had no monstrous and portentous consequences been raised from them; the debtor and surety paying the debt, change persons; so does the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; christ is made our sin, and a curse for us. the church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is called the lord our righteousness, jer. 33. 16. even as christ himself, c. 23. 6. which however, i know is otherwise rendered, yet is most naturally and easily so to be understood: even as jehovah, shamah, ezek. ult. which comes very near a concionatory or popular ascribing the mediatorial righteousness of christ to believers: massy truths will endure to be beaten out so into leaf gold, while the solid bulk is preserved safe in doctrinal forms of sound words: thus scripture, representing the mighty powers of divine action and providence in god, ascribes to him the parts of body, by which men act, so well known to them: yet let no men from hence dogmatise, as the anthropomorphites, that god is corporeal; no more, that christ was indeed a sinner, or accursed, or that believers are saviour's, and mediators one to another; for so, there would be none to be saved, except christ himself by his own saved, and redeemed; which who can believe, any one not phrenetic would assert? to conclude these heads. it is most evident, that the debate concerning the perfection of holiness in believers can only rest here; whether the holiness of christ may not be imputed to make up the imperfection of our sanctification, which is indeed, but the same thing, with the imputation of the righteousness of christ; and so that in regard of the imputation of the holiness of christ to believers, they may be said to be holy, as christ is holy; of which was spoken in the last head: and that perfection of holiness can be no otherwise meant, is most undeniable by the whole stream of dr. crisp's discourse, and mr. william's his objection; particularly in that part of dr crisp, concerning gospel-marks, which he argues against upon the imperfection of sanctification, and therefore could in no other sense think believers holy, as christ. head 8. the covenant of grace hath no condition, to which is opposed; the covenant of grace hath conditions, though undertaken for, assured, enabled to, by christ. conciliation. if we consider the covenant of grace, as it is in its highest, noblest representation, it is an ectype or exemplification of the everlasting covenant, the covenant in election; and therein it must needs be, as unconditioned, as election is, and yet, as universally wise and holy, as the whole scripture frame is, even so wise and holy is the counsel of that will in election, that god worketh all things after, ephes. 1. 11. more self-consistent is therefore the hipothesis or scheme of a conditionate election, and a conditionate covenant of grace, than an inconditionate election, and a conditional covenant of grace; except we make the series and frame of the consequent disposes of election conditions, god puts upon himself for the making good his first choice; that is, he chooses upon condition, he himself will in time give faith, repentance, holiness; which we know, were both unreasonably derogatory from the divine glory; and from that order, in which scripture gives us these supreme acts of grace; for foreknowledge, predestination, election, in christ, are the fountain of calling, justification, sanctification, glorification, rom. 8. 29. whereas if sanctification were the condition of justification, glorification coming last must be the condition of all the rest; as if the sense were on condition god will glorify, he will sanctify. so justification must be the condition of calling, and calling of election. but how much more beautiful and orderly is the scripture chain? making all after, wise disposes flowing from the independent first. and so every where scripture discourses; he hath chosen us, that we should be holy, and without blame before him in love, ephes. 1. as, of god, viz. by the eternal fountain of grace and in his electing love, are we in christ, who is of god, 1. cor. 1. 31. without any condition on our part, made wisdom in calling; righteousness in justification; holiness in sanctification; all these are brought into glory in redemption; that none might glory in his presence, but he that glorieth might glory only in the lord. for if there were but one thing suspended upon us, as a condition on our part; even that single thing would turn the covenant of grace into a covenant of works; for it would be work done by ourselves, and we might glory, we have done, we have willed, we have run, we have achieved and attained; what ever indeed that might be duly demanded of us, and is not required, is grace; or whatever is given, is grace; but what is required on our own strength, is work; and though it be said, god assists by his grace, by his spirit; yet if there be 99 parts given or assisted, and but the 100th part our act, that 100th part is work, and all grace is suspended on that; for on the doing, or not doing that, all hangs: and seeing thousands do not that 100th part, if we do it, we have reason of boasting, that we were wiser, we were better than they. for how small, how little soever that nice and curious point be, on which all the vast globes, of not only eternity, but supreme grace turns; and wherein divine wisdom and holiness placed all; that is ours, and we have done it. and though in all else, we are beholden to god, to christ, to the divine spirit, yet in that which is the last hinge we are beholden to ourselves; nay if all were first given, and but our perseverance only were the condition on which all depended, the same might be said of perseverance, that it turned the covenant of grace in that part into a covenant of works. and whereas many do not persevere, we have reason to glory we persevere, and there is some thing we have not received. and so the vertical point would be ourselves, and we might glory in his presence: for that, and not christ, would be the corner stone, and to it we might cry, grace, grace. and however, there is so much to be ascribed to grace, and what would in common speaking, among men, be called the making of us, and doing all for us; yet it is to be considered, whether the glory, god will not give to another, be not parted with, and surrendered by him, if the last decisive point rest upon us; which makes me assured, it cannot be so; and so though i acknowledge with those, who most acknowledge it; the necessity of faith, repentance, holiness, and of our own action therein; yet in speaking of the covenant, as the covenant of grace, and being an ectype, or exemplification of everlasting grace; i say, these, nor any action of the elect, aught to be styled conditions, but wise and holy dispositions of god the author and founder; and of christ the mediator, surety and testator; and which he will most certainly see to, that they shall most infallibly take place in their just series, succession and order both of nature and of time. and why should we be so afraid to speak of the covenant of grace, as inconditionate? for what is there that we would single out as a condition, that is not to be ascribed to god's immediate gift? is it faith? is it the gift of god? ephes. 2. 8. to you is it given to believe? is it repentance? he hath made christ a prince to give it, acts 5. 31. if god peradventure will give repentance, 2 tim. 2. 25. is it holiness? christ is made so sanctification to us that we cannot boast; is it the laws of god in our hearts, a new heart, a new spirit, a soft heart, his fear within us, that we may never departed from him? one heart, and one way to fear him forever, to know him by his spirit? all these are assured to be given, even as pardon in sin, and by as free a gift. all by a plain absolute inconditionate grant; how many and great scriptures run in this absolute style, and yet how expressly is all this called a covenant? jer. 31. heb. 8. jer. 32. ezek. 11. chap. 36. but if it be said, how then comes it to pass, that the whole strain and stream of scripture, to which preaching aught to be conformed, speaks of these graces and all the actions agreeable to them, as conditions of the covenant of grace? there are three grand accounts to be given of it. i. it becomes the wise and holy rector and governor of the world and of his rational human creation, to treat and deal with, and give them all scope, room and business, and advantage in, and for intellectual action; men, as rational creatures, know not how to deal with one another, or to move themselves, but by the activities of understanding, conscience, will, affections; so that they must lie still, and not act at all, or be moved only, as bruits or machine's, or thus; there is therefore the continual rational breathing, and motion of doctrine, instruction, promise, threat, reproof, correction; and all kind of motion and action, suitable and agreeable to it: all scripture is therefore prepared, and profitable hereunto. besides the commands and precepts of holiness being so abundant, they show the necessity of a continual recourse to christ for strength, grace and assistance, for righteousness from him, and pardon through him, wherein we fall short; nothing moves more to run to the righteousness of christ, than the sight of imperfect grace and action, to which we are called; if by ourselves; though under divine assistance from christ. ii. now under this oeconomy, and dispensation of things; the grace of god, according to election, and according to the mediation, suretyship and testamentary grace (or the last will of jesus christ) display themselves; as if all things were carried by intellectual conditionalities, and the obedience and free compliances of those who are the election of god, of those, that are called according to purpose; while in the mean time, they are most efficaciously, and yet most sweetly swayed, and influenced by the power and grace of god in christ, and by the increated spirit, that cannot miss of the end designed; and though all be vested in the action of those, who are thus chosen and called, yet not under the incertainty of a condition; but the infallible certainty of a divine disposition, a testamentary gift of our great testator, a discharge of our surety for us, though within us; an acquist of our mediator by intercession on his own blood of the everlasting covenant, presented in heaven for us, heb. 9 12. iii. and thus also, there is a justification of god in his holiness and righteousness, as also in his patience and long suffering towards those, whom he leaves to themselves; who being applied to, according to their own nature, as creatures of reason and understanding, according to all the riches of the word of god to that purpose, are condemned in not receiving such every way sufficient applications, taking them so every way, as such rational creatures, and suited thereunto; which could not be so gloriously demonstrated and illustrated, if there were not such a fittedness of the word of god, and of the overtures of life and salvation, by way of condition. to one, mat. 13. 11. it is given, to the other, it is not given. so vain is that exposition of dr. hammond, and violent a perversion of scripture; as many as were ordained, viz. as he speaks, fitted by former discipline to receive the eternal life of the gospel, acts 2. ult. believed: as appears from, rom. 9 23. for what discipline prepared beforehand the gentiles to calling or glory? head 9 faith is not an assurance or inward persuasion that christ is ours, and that our sins are pardoned; but it is accepting, receiving and resting upon christ alone for justification. conciliation. that faith is a grace of a most large and spreading nature and action, as it is represented to us in the word of god, can be by no one, that considers it, denied. so that there may be many excellent and profitable discourses upon it, that may look very distantly one upon another, and yet meet in the jame centre: yet faith as it respects pardon of sin, and justification, cannot have a fairer and fuller proposition given it, than that saying, worthy of both belief or full assent of the judgement, and acceptation of the will, viz. that christ came to save the chief of sinners, 1 tim. 1, 15. now this proposition every one is to particularise to himself, as the apostles, in believing; and so it differs nothing from assurance, in the root at least; and that, assurance is every way most connatural to it, is evident by the apostles speaking of the full assurance of knowledge, col. 2. 2. as faith is an intellectual assent to divine revelation; the full assurance of faith, as it is an application for pardon to the blood of christ, sprinkling the heart from an evil conscience, heb. 10. 22. and the full assurance of hope, heb. 6. 11. as faith concerning our present interests in christ not yet appearing fully, or in future glory; aids itself against present low appearances of its pardoned justified state, or its future glory. thus a plerophory or full assurance in relation to faith, cannot merit any indignation, as against an error; and indeed it is so essential to faith, that there never was nor can be any true faith without the root, and seed of it; and the letting it down in the descriptions and discourses of it from this full assurance is in compassion to the low state; tempted, deserted, afflicted, doubting state, of sincere christians; it was the general doctrine of the first reformers, when the light was purest and quickest. and it is very suspitionable, the letting it down lower may have had its ill, as well as its good effects; for if christians aimed in all their ways at full assurance, it would engage them to higher aims in holiness, and closer walking; it being impossible even in the judgement of natural light and reason to separate holiness from such assurance; or that receiving christ, as lord and king, should be made to part from it, but that it would flow out into all expressions of the warmest and indearedst love to him. whereas christian's resting and thinking it a piece of modesty and humility (it were well, if it were not allied to that voluntary humility spoken of, col. 2. 18.) to be in doubt, and only flatly and deadly to hope well in general, they find not these pungent arguments to move accurate and universal obedience; but poise the one to the other, their obedience to their measure of assurance. for a rude presumption or bold saying, christ is ours, and our sins are pardoned in the midst of licentions, and lose living, is worthy only to be exploded, and hissed off the very profession of christianity; and cannot obtain the least credit, either with others or even the rational conscience in themselves. so that were it not in tenderness to the weakness of christians in general; preaching faith so, as to include assurance in it, would be undoubtedly the best; and even that taken care of, as well, as it may be; i know not whether it might not be much to the interest and glory of christianity, to wind it up in the most stated discourses of faith to the apostles plerophory; or full a●●urance of knowledge, faith and hope; from which exceptions might be made, and allowances for the weakness of christians in particular exigencies. this sure would more ennoble christianity. it was the illustrious state of the very primitive christianity, which we read of in that most admirable part of church history, the five first chapters of the acts of the apostles; to this i doubt not, it will be restored within few years, when in the succession of the kingdom of christ, and by the proclaiming, the kingdoms of this world are the kingdoms of the lord and of his christ, rev. 11. 15. the servants of god shall appear on mount zion with the lamb, having the father's name, not sealed under reserve, as yet it is; but written in capital letters, in splendid characters on their foreheads. it is the dark and foul place of the apostasy, 2 pet 1. 19 in which we are (the beasts forty two months, being though near, yet not fully expired) rev. 13. 5. that brings so low the doctrine of faith, as being not assurance. and because in the reformation begun christ appeared, making his challenge of his kingdom, and the seven thunders of highest gospel doctrine uttered their voices, rev. 10. (a chapter, on purpose, to give us the prophetic landscape of the reformation.) there was the high doctrine of faith, as assurance; yet these thunders being scaled, (now near again to be unsealed) it flatted again, as now we see: and this is the reason, the discourses of assurance, as so essential to faith, are almost as portentous, as the doctrine of the kingdom of christ in such a near appearing glory, and any aspiring to it, as presumptuous. head 10. prevailing enmity is no hindrance to our interest in christ. conciliation. this may be apprehended three ways, and be very great truth. 1. the elect sinner, in the midst of the most prevailing enmity, hath such interest in christ; that his rescue from sin, hell, and death, is so secured and deposited by the divine decree for him in christ; that the very height of enmity shall not disinterest him, but christ will break through that enmity, and seize upon him, even when it is most boiling up and raging: thus paul, acts 9 being a chosen vessel, even while he had a knife in his hand to murder christ, had yet such an interest in christ, by that electing grace, that his conversion, faith, repentance and apostleship lay treasured up in christ; and christ had such an interest in him, that an everlasting arm was about him, and he was appreprehended by chrst for that very thing, that in due time he might by faith apprehend christ. and surely this is an interest of no mean account. 2. at the very height of enmity the chiefest sinner hath that interest in christ, that he may come and apprehend christ by faith, and receive all the benefits of christ; and the very first of those benefits shall be the healing him of that enmity: he hath a right to come; if it be said, enmity and coming cannot consist; it is true; but his present enmity does not disinterest him in a right to come, if he would; but it hinders his being willing to come; yet in the moment the grace of christ abounds to the elect person at the appointed time with faith, and love, which are in christ jesus, 1 tim. 1. 14. present enmity is no more hindrance to an interest in christ, but that, as in paul, it falls flat, in what moment that grace pleases. 3. to win upon sinners to come to christ, it may be said to them, while in the preaching of the gospel, there is a probing, or endeavouring to find out the elect, and bring them to christ; it may be, i say, said to them; come, though you have the highest enmity, that is no hindrance to your interest in christ, supposed you come; for in that very moment, you turn to come to christ, your enmity shall drop off from you: it is a hindrance to the present application of interest, not to the interest itself; that is secured in electing grace, and the free promises of the gospel, intended, and designed for all the elect. and this the gospel gives right to the preachers of it to declare; but the doubt, whether this, or that particular person belongs to that election, while he is in enmity; and the certainty of enmity ceasing in the very coming; is as a drawn sword between a claim of interest in chris●, and perservering enmity. if it be said, there must be humiliation, weariness, sight of sin, and sorrow for it. the methods of electing grace, that it hath prescribed to itself, will take care for all; and so that all such affections and acts shall be raised up, excited, and carried on in the sinner himself, and even by himself under the efficacy of that grace: and thus understood, as it must be, except he that speaks so, be a person void of all holy sense, or so much as sober (and such dr crisp was not in the judgement of mr. williams, as appears in the last lines of the preface) they must therefore be understood to be spoken by way of earnest persuasion to come to christ; and to essay upon men, by proposing the largest and freest terms; so the ministers of christ, as fishers, spread the net, to catch men; as scripture says, he hath received gifts for the rebellious also, that the lord god may dwell among them, psal. 68 18. and as abraham is said, to believe on him, that justifies the : why may not the most expatiating expressions be used in so good a sense, and with so good a design, seeing scripture hath used such? and why may not as good an effect be hoped for from this way of speaking, seeing scripture hath used it, as from the severer ways scripture hath also used, according to the variety of gifts and motions of the same spirit, and both be blessed by god giving effect through christ? head 11. the elect are not united to christ, without faith; upon believing only we are related to christ, as all the metaphors of union import. conciliation. the being chosen in christ before the world began, being predestinated to the adoption of children by jesus christ to himself, cannot be without union; the first powers of regeneration, conversion, softness of heart, contriteness of spirit, faith, repentance, which the apostle expresses by wisdom or calling, in christ jesus, cannot be without union; and yet it is true, that settled union of communion, or union of communion, cannot be, till christ be received by the faith of god's elect; nor can the elect be at all known to themselves from the non-elect. so that as there is need of all the forcible and right words of scripture, to show; without faith, repentance, holiness, there can be no union of communion with christ, or of the consolation arising from it; even according to the eternal counsel of him, that worketh all things after the counsel of his own will; so on the other side, there is authority and warrant to declare that inseparable union between the head of the adoption, and all that are predestinated to the adoption of children in him; that it may be acknowledged to the praise of the glory of his grace, who hath laid his foundation so sure; and it may be also declared by way of invitation and encouragement in coming to christ; that sinners, who look towards him, may be begotten; an effect; wherein they are wholly passive; to a living hope, through his grace; who does it of his own will; and yet by the word of truth in all parts of it, as a subordinate ministry; and that they may be invited to look towards him, and that they may be encouraged to expect grace from christ for union of communion, flowing from the union of the predestinated adoption in him, at the just time appointed by god for it. head. that of justification before faith hath been already spoken to, but i will add something to it on the next head. head 12. repentance is necessary to pardon. conciliation. seeing justification and pardon include necessarily the removals of the wrath and displeasure of god in all the dreadful effects of it; and also connote as necessarily the breaking out of his favour in the most gracious effects of it; how faith or repentance can be perfectly or in full sense before either justification or pardon, but that mighty rays and beams of each must be broken out to the soul, before it enters into the beginnings of eternal life by faith and repentance; is very hard to understand; except faith and repentance are ascribed to man, as the products of his own power and will. if they are from god, his justifying righteousness and pardon are come near, , wherever he gives faith and repentance; and as it may be most necessary in some regards to preach faith and repentance, as in order to pardon and justification; so is it no less necessary to be as free, and large, that without graciousest approaches of the righteousness of god and christ brought near, faith and repentance lie for ever dead; that every unconverted person may gasp up to god and christ for that grace, that is abundant in him. the intention is not, that pardon or justification can be without faith or repentance, but whether justification doth not draw and excite its own faith, and pardon, it's own repentance; so that they are rather before faith and repentance, than faith and repentance before them: and which preaching is most to be preferred in the nature of things, without respect to the present necessity, and for the time being; that which is most abundant in ascribing to the principal, or in pressing the less principal, and subordinate; i make no doubt, the singing the new song, before spoken of, rev. 14. will in a short time determine. and yet i defer all, that aught to be deferred, to those whose spirits are both enlarged and enabled to offer to the souls of men, the things wherein god appears, as the rector of the world offering faith and repentance, in order to justification and pardon; while the secret springs of his justifying and pardoning grace give the very faith and repentance required. but surely great respect may be had to what is to be, without violating what is, even as sacrifices are debased, esa. 1. in foresight of their final removal by christ. head 13. sinners have much to do to be saved. conciliation. even the righteous are scarcely saved; for with men it's impossible, but with god all things are possible. i can do all things through christ strengthening me; my yoke (saith christ) is easy, my burden is light; i will run the way of thy commandments when thou shall enlarge my heart. the joy of the lord is strength. his delight is in the law of the lord; faithful is he that hath promised, and will perform it to the day of jesus christ; great and precious promises are given, whereby we are made partakers of the divine nature; we can do nothing againstst the truth, but for the truth. all these, with innumerable more of the like, show the certainty and the easiness of the salvation of god's elect. and yet as we look to man, and his motion and action, these things are impossible: for there is no doubt holiness and new obedience are the paths wherein, though, with many imperfections falls and weaknesses in the present state, god carries his elect to life and salvation; and the way is narrow, and the gate straight, and require striving to enter; but god is their strength, who keeps their foot from being taken, that they walk in their way safely, and their steps are not straitened; he makes their feet as hinds feet; and sets them on high places. they that wait on the lord run, and are not weary; they walk and faint not. he girdeth them with strength: by him they leap over a wall. head 14, 15. i join these two together. the gospel hath threats and promises; holiness and good works are necessary to salvation. conciliation. as upon the gracious counsels of god before all worlds began; so upon this very point, among all the disposes of god in time; the hinge of these points turns; for if the gospel be a law full of all holy and righteous precepts, to which faith and repentance introduce us; armed with its promises and threats, and so settled as a covenant; that who of himself accepts the terms of it by faith and repentance, under the assurance of the assistances of the divine spirit, are accepted, and shall have all the benefits of it; and whoever will not shall be damned, and his judgement shall be more intolerable, because he refuses such gracious terms offerred: this doth, i confess, perfectly overthrow dr. crisp's scheme; for then christ comes in as a lawgiver, and having all judgement committed to him; and there is a mediatorian law and covenant in the hand of the mediator, of more gracious condescension than that of the covenant of works; but the last result of all is into the free will of man, and his action in compliance with this covenant; thus of the law, and the covonant of works, as the first law, there is a perfect abrogation as a law; but as the holiness and righteousness of it are transplanted into this new law; so here is, as to that law, a perfect antinomianism; and all mankind are only under this law; and justification, salvation, or death and condemnation, are according to obedience or disobedience to this law or gospel-covenant, of which the conditions are faith and repentance. but if the gospel in the supreme intention of it, and in the propriety of its nature, be a covenant of grace, wherein god is pleased to be from his own free purpose of grace the sovereign covenantee; and his elect bear the analogy, or part of covenantees, as at the other extreme; and jesus christ the mediator, surety, and testator, pass between both, that all may be performed, mediating with god for his efficacious grace, in giving the divine dispositions promised in this covenant, as if performed by the covenanties; so bringing every thing in effect from god to us, and from us to god; and by his death having right as a testator to bestow the very things upon all, given to him by god to give eternal life to them, john 17. 2. then shall the gospel, or new testament, be supremely a ministration of the spirit, of righteousness, of life, according to 2 cor. 3. and in its subordinate nature, it shall be a publication of the divine grace and love to mankind in general, upon the terms of faith and repentance. the law all this time stands in its own place, as the eternal sanction of holiness and righteousness, and can never be abrogated; because it is eternal righteousness; but it is as a covenant so far mitigated, as to accept the satisfaction it requires from a mediator; and so it is in the hand of a mediator, gal. 3. 19 towards whom it commands faith, and repentance, or return to god by him; even as it is a law of eternal righteousness, requiring faith and obedience to all manifestations from god, sufficiently testified to be from him; and as these manifestations of grace are the only possibility left to a fallen nature to return into a state of agreement with god. hereupon the law becomes a standard, by which the full value of the satisfaction of christ by his sacrifice, and obedience unto justification, and the infinite grace of god in pardon is tried, and made glorious; by which the duties of humiliation, confession of sin, application to christ for righteousness, repentance, should be both understood and urged; here is the rule for holiness and new obedience, out of which all the holy precepts of the gospel are drawn; hereby the remainders of sin are discerned, and humiliation under them wrought: hereby is the infinite grace of christ towards his legatees, his redeemed, set at full light, in working an inward conformity to this holy law in all parts of it; and hereby the government of god, committed to christ, is continued with relation to all mankind, even to all not given to him; for they who have the gospel preached to them, are judged not only according to the law of righteousness, first written in the heart, but according to this divine revelation and grace; which highly aggravates their disobedience, and makes it more tolerable for sodom and gomorrah, than for them, mat. 10. 24. they who have not the gospel are judged according to that law, and light of nature, they have concerning the law; and that witness of an intention of grace, god gives to them in giving fruitful times and seasons, and all the discoveries of his patience, leading them to repentance; even as the king of nineveh, who shall rise up in judgement and condemn heathens, who have not by such a light from the forbearance of god argued to repentance, as he did: and thus are the secrets of all hearts, judged according to the apostles gospel, as he said, rom. 2. 16. some ombrage of which heathens have. thus the law is established and preserved in its full authority; and the gospel is also established as divine revelation; and in its high, purely promissory part, as a ministration of the spirit; and if the designation of the gospel be particularly singled out for the most powerful preaching of it by some, and yet in the mean time the more large, and universal motion, and doctrine of the gospel be preached more universally by the most of the preachers; whom the spirit of god, according also to the general stream of scripture, hath so missiond, commissioned, and enabled. i cannot see, but here may be the sweetest union, and as great a conspiration, as between the apostle paul, and the apostle james; while one tells us a man justified by faith without works; and the last tells us by what of faith, viz, not by the body of faith, or a confession of faith, but by the spirit of it, the vis essectrix or operatrix, the working efficacy of it; which i take on great reason to be the very true expedient of reconciliation between the two apostles; and yet in both, by the righteousness of christ by faith alone, and that faith given only by christ; so all is of grace, ephes. 2. for faith and all its works flow from the blood and righteousness of christ, drawing nigh to his elect people to regenerate, and to justify together, titus, 3. 5. etc. and surely by a close and universal compare of scripture, the day of judgement must be according to this very same grace; for when the spirits of saints are immediately with christ; and he receives them, who dye, and sleep in him; in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye made perfect; and when they are raised incorruptible, he brings them with him; and they together with christ, judge angels and the world; and it is given to them to appear in robes washed white in the blood of the lamb, and to be clothed in linen white and clean, which is the righteousness of the saints; and he presents them to himself without spot, wrinkle or any such thing; it cannot be understood that the day of judgement, in relation to the saints, is by way of trial of judgement on particular actions; but their very appearance is their absolution, and adjudgment to glory, as clad in the rich robes, washed in the blood of the lamb; all their graces, and holy duties filled up, and their sins perfectly blotted out, and remainders of corruption effaced by grace perfected in glory. on the other side, the wicked have appearances in their sins, having found them out, covering them as a garment of dishonour, and as filthy garments, that expose them immediately to condemnation: and as if their particular sins were written upon them, and the condemnation together with them. and thus each appear visibly before the throne, tribunal and judgement seat of christ, during the whole thousand years of his kingdom; one crowned with glory and honour, the other covered with shame and contempt. if any should object christ's insisting on the particular duty of visiting, clothing, feeding, mat. 25. either as performed or neglected: it is to be observed; each sort first were set, one on the right hand, the other on the left; one as sheep, the other as goats: so the trial was easy. if it be further said, god will bring every work into judgement, whether it be good or evil. this i attribute to the mighty power and wisdom of god, giving together with every person before his judgement, all the holy actions of saints washed and perfected in, and by the blood of jesus; and filled up with his grace, and by the spirit; as in a moment, an atom of time, the twinkling of an eye; and their sins so taken away, as not only not to be found, but not to be. whereas the talents of wicked men, that is, any good things they had here, not being purged by his blood, perfected by his obedience, and filled up by his spirit, are taken from them, and they appear all in their sins; and thus the order of things at that day, is according to the free grace of election, calling, justification; and sanctification, covered under justification; in that chain of salvation, rom. 8. and glorification springing from all. head 15. holiness and good works are necessary to salvation. conciliatiion. good works are so, as they are the provision and preparation of god; even of his eternal free grace, in furnishing us with them; and as we are his workmanship in christ jesus, created to them. but the number, measure, elevation of them in higher or lower degrees of excellency, so divers in saints, show, the foundation of our salvation, as well as justification, rests elsewhere. head 16. good works are profitable, and please god. conciliation. they do so, as they are the fruits of the death and resurrection of jesus christ, and the disposals of his free grace in us, and to us, and so by us; and as god is pleased to show himself, as the supreme rector and governor, according to his holy law; but yet so, that the poles on which salvation moves, are the grace of god in our election, and his acceptation of us to righteousness in christ; and if he leave any of his servants, in their service and good works to the eleventh hour, or that he fits them not to such abundant services, eminency, and exemplariness therein, as he doth other of his saints; he hath an infinite fund to supply them out of, viz. the righteousness, and obedience of christ; and power of grace to accomplish them to their measure. head 16. our good should be intended by good works. conciliation. our good should be intended by them, as they are manifestations of the grace of christ in us, and suitable to that law, he influences his servants by his spirit according to; in the want of which we have great reason to mourn, as giving fear and suspicion christ is not in us of a truth; and that he leaves us to do the things very displeasing, and offensive to his holy nature, and the rule of life and action, his grace governs his servants by; but yet they are not of themselves our title, but our evidences only of our title, which is christ alone; and if we are his, we shall certainly be born up to what, he, as our mediator, surety, and testator, hath thought necessary to our salvation; and will accept; and supply the want of by himself; yet all is, and aught so to be carried, that we may be urged, and pressed to our duty, as under the holy rectory of god, and christ, and according to all the rules of his word. head 17. assurance is by gospel-marks, and not by a voice within us. conciliation. marks are according to scripture; yet so, that they are, but few, of any of the servants of god, but have reason to fly to the witness of the spirit, and its voice, crying, abba, father; and to appeal to infinite grace; seeing in the midst of our falls, failings, and imperfections, we cannot otherwise discern, where sincerity and perfect obedience divide one from another, and what is enough in our many corruptions to constitute sincerity. besides, seeing our staple-hold is the righteousness of christ without us, our supreme testimony depends upon his spirit, witnessing within us indeed, yet from what is without us, viz. free grace. head 18. god charges sin on men, and they should repent for repeated pardons. conciliation. this is among the wise, holy, and gracious methods of god, and christ, in this present low state of the redemption, appearing; until its glory in the kingdom of christ; that sin is charged, and pardon repeatedly begged in daily prayers; but all notwithstanding is secured in the unchangeableness of electing love, of justifying grace, of the daily issuing pardon of the new covenant, immediately ready; and thus expressed, as if it issued out upon the very sin; i will be merciful to their unrighteousnesses, and their sins, and iniquities i will remember no more, heb. 8. 12. before david had said any more, than this, i have sinned against the lord, nathan said from god, the lord hath put away the iniquity of thy sin, thou shalt not die, 2 sam. 12. 13. the grace of the covenant went forward therefore in him, (as in all saints) to the composure of his heart to that great penitential psal. 51. so that in a way of consolation of saints and encouraging of all to come into christ; there may be great freedom of expression used; in which some things may need review and correction, as humane; and yet the main scope and intention preserved, as consistent with sincere design to promote holiness; most livelily flowing from the grace of the covenant, and the death of christ, into the hearts and lives of believers; there being hence much more hope, both in conversion and renewed repentance, than in any thing within men themselves; whenever they have fallen into sin after conversion, or while in an unconverted estate. head. sin may hurt believers, and god afflicts for sin. conciliation. while we look down to the present state, and to god's present government of the world, this must be acknowledged; and yet when we lift up our hearts to the consideration of the supreme grace of god in jesus christ, the very hurt sin does believers, or even the elect, is made to serve the triumphs of grace; and all their afflictions for sin are salutary dispensations. all which must needs be granted on close reasoning these points, and will bear out many amplifications of this grace in discourses declararatory of it; tho' on the other side, a very different way of speaking of them must be submitted to in this atmosphere, this dark and foul place of the apostasy, we are yet in; and it is born out by a very general way of scripture-speaking. head 19 sincere holiness is not dung; nor does the apostle include such holiness in that so great scripture concerning evangelical righteousness, philip. 3. 7, etc. conciliation. for the clearing of that great scripture, and the points dependent upon it, i must first take the freedom to assert; that the apostle doth in that context, lay down at full and at large, the two great points of justification and sanctification: in that of justification, he rises to the height, and so in that of sanctification; and these are both handled so distinctly, that they cannot be confounded. for the apostle had fallen severely upon the concision; by whom he most probably means, those who compounded the profession of christianity with the works and ritualisms of the law; as if christ were not enough without them, for acceptance with god, for righteousness in justification, and holiness in sanctification; and therefore he calls them not, the circumcision, meaning pure and perfect jews; but the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or the concision, as a peculiar brand of reproach upon them; and calls himself, and sincere christians, the circumcision, viz. the spiritual circumcision, who worship god in spirit; who hold the true righteousness of faith; of which it was the seal; rejoice in christ jesus alone, and have no confidence in the flesh; that is, in creature righteousness; in the same sense flesh is taken, rom. 4. 1. what shall we say, that abraham our father hath found, according to the flesh, viz. according to his own righteousness, not only ceremonial, but moral; for if abraham were justified by works, etc. so: but if he had no other way, but to believe on him that justifieth the . it is evident, it was not ceremonial ritual works, the apostle discoursed of, but substantial works of righteousness, opposed to ungodliness. thus the apostle reckoning up his own privileges first, giveth indeed those, which were external, and ritual, but adds moral in those words; according to the righteousness of the law, which was not only ceremonial but moral, he was blameless; which words may be expounded by those; i have lived in all good conscience before god to this day, acts 23. 1. now, upon all this, he sits as an accountant, with his tables before him, and what had been gain or riches in his account, he now writes it, all cipher; and then, by way of triumph, and in a mighty elevation of his discourse, he adds, yea, doubtless, i count not only my jewish (as i may call them) effects; but even whatever else may come into computation; even all he accounted loss, of no value: on what recompense or reparation did the apostle thus cast out every thing? on this alone, that he might be found in christ, not having his own righteousness, which is of the law; but that which is the righteousness of christ, the righteousness of god, which is by faith. to clear the apostle's doctrine; these two great doubts must be decided, query i. whether the apostle thus far, as we have gone, is upon the point of justification, or of sanctification; or so much as on sanctification joined with justification; or on justification purely, and alone, when he speaks thus? quer. ii. whether the apostle puts into this account of loss and dung, the inherent holiness, he had as a christian; looking upon it, as inherent, and in himself; whether, i say, he accounted this, as loss and dung, or only the ceremonial, ritual, righteousness of the law, together with his pretensions to the moral righteousness of it, as without christ, and separated from him? the clear decision of these two questions, will much contribute to our distinct judgement in the points we are upon. answer to query i. i assert therefore, thus far as i have gone upon this context, or till the apostle comes to those words; that i may know him, and the power of his resurrection; he is wholly and solely upon the point of justification, and not of sanctification. argument 1. the apostles does in all his solemn discourses most distinctly handle the point and doctrine of justification by itself, and of sanctification by itself; so rom. c. 3. c. 4. c. 5. he gins with justification, and so goes on to sanctification, c. 6. so gal. c. 3. he discourses of justification; and the consequences of it, c. 4. and so enters into that of sanctification, c. 5. c. 6. even in all the apostolic epistles, we may find, the lines of justification and sanctification are kept distinct, and clear, one from the other. so therefore here it is to be expected he should do; for the gospel-notions are most distinct. arg. 2. the righteousness of god without the law, rom. 3. 21, 22, etc. is the righteousness of justification. arg. 3. righteousness by faith, is a peculiar manner of speaking in the point of justification; justified by faith, and righteousness of faith, is several times mentioned in the discourse of justification, rom. c. 3. c. 4. in those great and most distinct treaties of justification, rom. 10. gal. 3. arg. 4. the expression of being found in christ, being so plain an allusion to the cities of refuge, the security from the avengers of blood; plainly shows, the apostle was upon the point of justification, our great security against gild, wrath, and condemnation, at the times when the pursuits will be closest upon us. arg. 5. the first, and fundamental riches of every man is that righteousness, by which we stand before god. arg. 6. that which is opposed to the righteousness of the law, which was according to the covenant of works to justify, is the righteousness of christ for justification; so no other can be meant. arg. 7. the apostle goes on to so solemn a discourse of sanctification; in the most proper expressions of it, source and springs of it, and to the utmost heights of it; and so consequent and dependent upon his being found in christ for justification; that it is an injury to his discourse to confound the foregoing so proper to justification, with those so proper to sanctification, as shall be presently made further out. ans. to quer. ii. i assert, in answer to query ii. there is great reason to believe, the apostle put into the account, or bill of his effects, the holiness, he had as a christian, considered as inherent in himself, but not as in christ; so that even this he accounted but as loss, and of vile account in the point of justification. argument 1. because by way of elevation and surmount, above all he had be-before said, of ritual or moral legal righteousness; the apostle says, yea, doubtless, i count all things; now what all, or any could there be in relation to god, between god and the soul, beyond what he had named, but what he had, as a christian; as in himself, but not as in christ. and hereunto agrees that venerable person, dr. tuckney, in his sermons on philip. 3. p. 42. arg. 2. that expression of being found in christ, viz. christ himself; shows; a christian cannot rest, in what he hath, though from christ; in himself, as a christian; except he be found in christ himself. arg. 3. because all the holiness of a christian, as it is in himself, and not in christ, comes under the denomination of his own righteousness, and even of the righteousness of the law; for it can be no other than the righteousness of that law, which is spiritual, holy, just, and good; and to assert any other righteousness of sanctification, as to the matter, is a greater antinomianism, or elevation of the law of god, than any other thing called so loudly antinomianism. arg. 4. the holiness, majesty, purity of god, is infinitely great; we cannot stand before him, but in the increated righteousness of christ alone. angelical righteousness is called folly, and is unclean before him; what wonder is it then, our holiness, however received from christ, is, as in us, in the midst of remaining sin, called dung, even as filthy rags, isa. 64. 6. object. but can the righteousness of holiness and sanctification from christ, be styled dross, or dung, of which the apostle, just after, desired so high attainments? answ. we ought to distinguish between the holiness of sanctification, as it is in a perpetual emanation from christ, from his righteousness, from his death, from his resurrection; and as it is in us mixed, and allayed with the remaining corruption in the best of saints: in the 〈…〉 be called loss or dung; for it is considered in christ the fountain, and so as from him to us, where it is pure and unmixed; under his sacrifice; the blood of the everlasting covenant, the power of the endless life streaming out always upon it: but as in us, if considered as separate from christ; it is as a beam clipped off from the sun, that would presently vanish, and come to nothing, or sink into our darkness and impurity: it is the great admonition therefore of the apostle to timothy, 2 tim. 2. 1. my son, be strong in the grace that is in jesus christ. and to show how earnestly christians should press to the height of these emanations from the death and resurrection of christ; he lays down that great canon never calculated for any poor, base, ritual conformity; never in the apostles thoughts; but it is fitted to that great end, viz. to attain, if it were possible, the holiness of the resurrection of the dead; and for this to forget all, that is behind; and to press according to the mark, for the prize, but not by the way of any thing we can do, but from god above, alone, viz. by the high calling of god in christ, and not by our own strength, but as apprehended of christ for it; by this canon all the perfect, perfect in regard of sincerity, walk, though they count not themselves perfect otherwise; this apostle, and therefore no apostle did so count; for he was not behind the chiefest: they all then walked by this canon; if any perfect or sincere be never so little otherwise minded, god reveals even this great pursuit, and end to them; that so far as they have attained, whatever it be, they should forget what is behind, and press forward, mind that point, the holiness of the resurrection: to raise the spirits of his saints to which, though they had not attained to it, at the going out of the body; yet in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, in an indivisible point of time, christ apprehends them; even then, and with a greater ease, in the nature of the thing, than he raises their bodies incorruptible; having hold of them for that very thing; even by the mighty power of his own death and resurrection, whereby he is able to subdue all things unto himself. this canon had never been so depretiated as to be applied to any outward form, or church-order, as it is called, if the greatness of the apostles point had been considered; and for which, there is not any ombrage here; except that the word, canon, which has been so debauched by the working of the mystery of iniquity, puts any one in mind of it; for only according to the present occasion, it's taken by the apostle from the olympic races to the great purpose of the new creation, gal. 6. 16. and here to show the christian's rule or line, is up to the highest holiness, even that of the resurrection; thus large have i been on this head, because it is of so great moment. head 20. christ does not repent and believe for us. conciliation. christ, hath yet laid the foundation of all our state in grace and glory in himself, and in his own action; wherein we are to be made like him, as from the archetype and life; he took part of flesh and blood, because the children were partakers; he was circumcised, baptised, died, rose 〈…〉 justifieth me, who will contend with me? that agony, wherein he sweat drops of blood, standing under the sense of the sins of all, for whom he died, and made supplication with strong cries and tears unto him, that was able to save him from death, and was herd, in that he feared; was, as it were, the great penitential of the redeemer in the behalf, and as in the person of his redeemed; and as for faith; it is written, heb. 2. 13. i will put my trust in him. thus all our springs are in him, and from him; and the efficacies, that work all our works in us, and for us. they are so vested in our faculties and action, that they are in us; and yet by so supreme a virtue from him, residing in him, and given us as in a line of communication from him to us, that they are wrought by him for us; and in this rightly understood sense, he may be said to repent and believe for us, though also in us, and by us. the three last heads, concerning gospel preaching, have been all along aimed to be thus determined; that it is certain; both conditional preaching, and absolute preaching, have each their respective foundations in scripture; and both tend to the same end, to show the absolute necessity of christ, and grace from him; as also the absolute necessity of holiness; as indeed, the thing is; flowing from the grace of election, through the efficacies of the mediator by his spirit; as the greatest scriptures concerning our salvation, witness; yet for wise and holy purposes so administered, that our action is all manner of ways insisted upon by the general course of scripture, as hath been declared: so that none are to be blamed in the abundance of their ministry in that part, who do more continually in their preaching, and sometimes in most solemn discourses, set out christ, the only way, the truth and the life, flowing from the eternal fountain of electing love and grace. but if we compare one part of preaching with another, seeing the life of all conditional preaching depends on the absolute grace of the covenant; that must needs be the most excellent part of preaching, wherein the life of the other is laid up, and to which the other is but subordinated; but as we find, scripture gives example of the conditional preaching, as the more general; so it seems most adapted and suited to this low state of the administration of the redemption of christ; and we find, the divine spirit, who divides to all his servants, as he will, does more generally and universally move the preachers of the gospel, more abundantly into this conditional preaching. but when that better state, that higher administration of the redemption of christ in his kingdom shall come on, as it is now very near; that, as it were a new song, which hath been so much out of use; it is, as it were, a new song; at least in its high mount zion senses; even, i say, notwithstanding so much of it recovered into use by the reformation. this song, of the redemption of christ, in more lofty airs shall be herd, and learned; as hath been already said; by all the illustrious assistants, or bystanders, and followers of the lamb on mount zion. in the mean time god does raise up some, who aspire to these truths of the highest excellency, and, as we say, of the first magnitude, and highest elevation; and such was dr. crisp, in my account; but because we are yet in this dark and low state, there are many infirmities, much rudeness of speech, want of mightiness in word and deed in such aspire; an universal want of the glory and holiness flowing from these great truths, because these truths are not come into their proper time of glory: this song cannot be sung, while the babel state yet continues, because it was the lord's song, and cannot be sung, in a strange land, to perfection; by reason of which these great doctrines are under a veil, and not only so, but under great prejudice. let us therefore earnestly prary, these mists, these shades and clouds, may fly away; and yet even the unwarinesses of expression in such, as dr. crisp are overruled by god, like the speaking of stones, to make the main preaching more notable, and to excite our research of them. these things are written for reconciliation, not exasperation; and that we may be all stirred up earnestly to pray, that the day may break, and the shadows fly away, and our beloved come on his mount of spices. some general heads. of mr. williams 's, conciliated in this discourse. the elect are children of wrath, till effectually called. the filth of sin not transacted on christ. the act of laying sins on christ, is not the discharge of the elect. men's sins their own, and not christ's sins. our sins laid on christ, before he was nailed to the cross. christ not abhorred by the father. no change of person between christ and the elect. christ's mediatorial righteousness not subjectively in us, and how imputed. believers not as holy as christ. the covenant of grace explained, and what a condition is. the covenant of grace conditional. faith not a persuasion that my sins are pardoned, etc. prevailing enmity, a hindrance to our present interest in christ. the elect not united to christ without faith. what union with christ is. justification not before faith. repentance necessary to pardon. sinners have much to do to be saved. the gospel hath threats and promises. happiness and good works necessary to salvation. they are profitable, and god pleased, etc. our own good should be intended. assurance by gospel-marks, and not by an inward voice god chargeth sin on men, and they should repent for repeated pardon. sin may hurt believers. god afflicts for sin. sincere holiness not dung. christ doth not repent, etc. for us. conditional proposals of benefits on terms of duty, gospel-preaching. to excite fear in sense of danger, not legal preaching. christ more exalted by the former truths, than dr. crisp's opinions. the free grace of god not honoured by dr. crisp, though more freeness be asserted by him, than by these truths. the end. animadversions: being the two last books of my reverend brother mr. williams, the one entitled, a postscript to gospel-truth: the other, an end of discord. conscientiously examined. in order to a free entertainment of the truth, in some momentous points in divinity, controverted among the nonconformist brethren, occasionally here determined, for the sake of those honest among us that seek it, without trick, or partiality. by john humphrey, the aged. what thy hand findeth to do, do it with thy might: for there is no work, nor device, nor wisdom in the grave whither thou goest, eccles. 9.10. london: printed by tho. snowden, for tho. parkhurst, at the bible and three crowns, the lower end of cheapside, near mercer's chapel. 1699. animadversions on his postscript. the introduction. mr. williams' having printed his book called gospel truth, with many presbyterian hands set to it, there was some heat, and several exceptions raised against it, by some of the independent brethren; whereof one of the chief was this, that he held the righteousness of christ to be imputed only in the effects. here, instead of his owning this truth, and standing to it, he denies that he held it, and for his proof, produces this passage out of his book, that besides the effects being made ours, the very righteousness of christ is imputed to believers. this passage of his i took, and gave him notice of, in a letter printed in my middle way of justification, disliking it as receding from mr. baxter: but mr. williams, to uphold himself against this accusation, is unhappily engaged, and sets his wits in his man made righteous, to from a notion that might serve him to maintain his own doctrine (which is baxterian) and yet answer the brethren, as he has, by this denial, and so satisfy his followers. a great conceit at present i perceive he took of his notion (which shows him honest) by that passage in the sheet he called an answer to my letter, where he complains of his being struck at by both extremes, when deeper thoughts (says he) would perceive the truth stated (quoting p. 77, 78, 79, 80. of that book) against the excess of both. the brethren and common protestant say, christ's righteousness is imputed in se, mr. baxter and i, that it is imputed, and can be made ours only, quoad effectus. either the brethren or we are in the right: but mr. ws. has an invention to middle the matter so, as we shall both be out, and in an extreme; and yet he hold with us both. these deeper thoughts therefore of his i took into consideration, in my book called pacification, and he offering something in reply in some other after books, i took it again into consideration in my appendix to my last book: but finding this reverend brother keeping still his course, in holding with the hound, (as the proverb is) and running with the hare, i must pursue him in his notion, till i have hunted it down: for it is a cloudy, perplexed troublesome notion, that can serve us nothing but to entangle the understanding, without any profit to others, or significancy to himself. as i have made my animadversions therefore on his books preceding, i do make these on these later books, seeing he persists in his notion, which were writ in two letters; the first to himself, the second to another, and are as follows. reverend brother, reading your postscript, i come in p. 525. to the point, whether the gospel be a law, and i turned to your defence, as you bid, for your sense of it; where you show in what sense you allow it, and in what you do not. as for the sense in which you allow it, and then maintain the same with your reasons i approve; but as to the sense wherein you do not allow it, though i except not against the rest, i make a stand at the second, to wit, the sense you say our divines fix upon the arminians, and upon that prejudice do you condemn it, when if you had not miscited it, you had as well yield to your adversaries, that it is no law at all, as to deny this sense of it. i say therefore in opposition to you, the gospel is a law in this sense, that acts of obedience to it (that is a sincere, or sound faith working by love, which it requires) is the righteousness (when performed) by which we are justified, as perfect obedience was under the law of adam. you do this harmless, honest, and right tenant, open wrong in saying [for which]. the arminians, as well as we, do all know, that it is christ's satisfaction and merit, (not ours) is that for which we are justified, but it is our faith itself (the faith which is the condition of the gospel, that is, st. jame's faith, and works also) is that righteousness (when performed) which constitutes us righteous, and by which we are justified. pray mr. williams believe it, and be confirmed, that as perfect obedience was the condition of life in the law of works; and if that condition had been performed, it had been adam's righteousness by which he had been justified: so is faith the condition of the law of grace; and if that condition be fulfilled, it does become a righteousness according to this law, so as by it we are justified. in the one (i must add, to prevent what you may allege) the reward would have been of merit or debt, because it was for the performance sake: in the other it is of grace, because it is for christ's sake that it is so accepted. i was sorry at my heart that in the letters between me and my learned, holy, humble and worthy brother mr. clark, though no man be more for conditions under the gospel than he, and that the gospel is a law, and that law by which we shall be judged; yet did he stick at yielding this, which is so open and undeniably consequent, to wit, that whatsoever it be which is required by a law, as the condition thereof before it is fulfilled, when that condition is fulfilled, it does, and must become the righteousness of that law, and if a man be judged thereby, he must be justified. it is that very righteousness is the formalis ratio of his justification: for that there must be some justitia, wherein justificationis forma does constare; there is no man's reason but must how. being a condition, it is a righteousness as to judicial proceed, by that law which appoints that condition, say you, p. 274. faith (def. p. 22.) is not the justifying righteousness, but is the condition of our being justified by christ's righteousness. by such expressions contradicting this before, what mean you? you pretend (at least one may think so) to speak as the common protestant, but do you understand as they? to wit, that upon our believing, christ's righteousness is so imputed as to be legally ours, for our justification? if you believe not this, why do you not say quite otherwise? that tho' it is christ's righteousness is the meritorious cause of our justification, and so the righteousness for which; yet it is faith is the justifying righteousness, or that righteousness by which we are justified. do not you again concur (p. 258.)? seeing the gospel is a law promising pardon and life to all such as believe (to be exercised in virtue of christ's obedience) it is faith, being the performed condition, is imputed to us for righteousness, or is that upon which god accounts us righteous, and so these benefits thereby belong to us. justification being a forinsick act (say you more fully, p. 276.) that, upon which the law a man is tried by, doth acquit him from its threatened penalty, and entitles him to is promised benefits, is so far justifying righteousness by that law. an impartial acknowledgement. p. 263. you state a difference which you have, or make with others, by the question; whether the death of christ is legally esteemed to be endured by us, and his obedience by us to be performed: or whether they are imputed to believers as their pleadable security for their pardon and title to eternal life in the right of christ? here you say the former they affirm, and you deny; the latter you affirm, and they deay. but see what it is to be fuddled with a notion, and that such as disturbs the brain more than strong drink. there is not, and never was any such question and difference broached by any but yourself. it is true, that as to the former, the antinomian maintains, but you deny, and upon reasons that are good. for if that were so, then must the believer be in god's sight as righteous as christ (as you argue) and that is inconsistent with pardon. but when you say as to the latter, that you affirm, and they deny it, i pray where is the man that ever opposed you, or once thought of the matter to deny it? who ever besides you made such a distribution? who ever before you offered this question, whether christ's performance of the covenant of redemption does afford us a pleadable security, that if we believe and repent, we shall be saved? why do you pretend a difference with any in this matter, that no body ever questioned, or perhaps thought on? how can mr. h. deny (say you, p. 269.) such a pleadable security? why mr. h. denies ●t not, and none else ● let this which you teach us, and we never considered before be granted, how does this prove the point, that the righteousness of christ therefore is imputed to us otherwise than in the effects? it is imputed to us for our pleadable security. be it so, and is not that pleadable security an effect of christ's performance? it is, we must both acknowledge it, and do we not agree in this, that christ's righteousness is indeed imputed to us in the effects? where is the difference? we both assert that christ's righteousness is no legally to be esteemed ours, and neither of us deny this pleadable security to be every true believers. how then do we differ? this pleadable security is not christ's righteousness itself, is it? it is an effect arising from it, is it not? how then does this make good your assertion, that besides the effects the very righteousness of christ is imputed, when it makes out no more, but that here is an effect, in regard to which it is imputed, or which the believer has by virtue of it? he that enjoys a benefit as merited for him by another's act, be hath that act imputed to him as his pleadable security, for his possessing that merited blessing, you say, and i say so too, that is, imputed in regard to that effect, and no otherwise than so. p. 268. the application of christ's death to believers, gods judicial accounting them the persons in whom the promise made to christ is performed, and his giving them pardon and eternal life as the merited reward of his death and obedience, gives just ground for us to say the righteousness of christ is imputed to believers. i say no, all this straining will not do. it is indeed a ground and proof that it is imputed therefore in the effects, but not otherwise. you add, they do not only enjoy pardon and such effects, but his righteousness itself is imputed to them relatively in that pardon. oh sir! are you come hither? how much more ingenuous had it been then for you to make the acknowledgement of your coming up here to me and mr. baxter, and said plainly, that though you have said, that besides the effects made ours, the very righteousness of christ is imputed to believers; you mean nothing but as we do, or your meaning is but this, that the effects being indeed made ours, his righteousness is relatively only to be said ours in regard to those effects. in my book (ult. man. p. 5.) supposing there the question, what we are to apprehend by the imputation of christ's righteousness, which is no scripture expression; i say there are these two things in it. the one is, that god did indeed account or allow of what christ did and suffered to be in our behalf, for our sakes, for us, in our stead, as to the impetration of the benefits we have by him upon condition: and the other is, our having those benefits as to the application upon the performance; and that is, the having his righteousness to be ours, really in the effects, and relatively in regard to them. in my appendix to you (p. 83.) i have the same, where ask how the very righteousness of christ is, or can be ours, or reckoned to us as ours; i answer, the effects are ours really, and his righteousness ours relatively, in regard to those effects. i do not doubt but i can find in some book of mr. baxters, words to the same purpose, or these same words. when we three then thus agree, why should not you, being put upon it, and brought into the case of confession, have acknowledged this agreement as to us, and disagreement with the brethren; for herein it is wherein mr. baxter hath broke lose from the commonly received doctrine of the protestants, who have still talked of christ's righteousness itself to be the believers, which they meant all (even the antinomian that is learned) only legally, and we say not so, but relatively only, in regard to the effects. how then comes it to pass, that in so many places in your books you bring in the charm of christ's righteousness imputed (and as it were sometimes by head and shoulders) as it seems purposely to make folks believe, as if you were one that maintained the same doctrine with your brethren, whom you oppose? how can this pass, and not appear to be without sincerity, so long as you are not of their mind? as for what you else have in this postscript that may concern me, i would say something more particularly to, if i could gather it up, and digest it. you distinguish between the covenant of redemption, and covenant of grace, or mediatorial law, and law of the gospol. of the one you say well, that christ only is the subject, and that he performed it in order to the impetration of the benefits we have by his life and death, or by his redemption. of the other we are all subjects, and are to perform it ourselves in order to the application of that redemption, or participation of those benefits he hath obtained for us. this distinction (whether necessary or no, (for i think it to be of our own late divines, and no ancient one) is good so far as thus used: but as for your notion which you so industriously build upon it, though it hath something of truth in it, it is too perplexed, over-loading, and superfluous, so that it edifies not. for why, i pray, do you trouble your self and us with this teaching, that we have a pleadable security from gods promise to christ in his covenant of redemption, that if we believe we shall be saved, when we have an express promise thereof to every one ourselves in the gospel, and is not that security enough, if this moreover had not been started by you? it is apparent, that seeing the righteousness of christ, which you count to be imputed to us, is his performance of the mediatorial law, this is a righteousness whereof we are uncapable, and consequently not that righteousness which the common protestant hath accounted to be imputed, or made ours (in their sense) for our justification. it must yet be acknowledged, that the righteousness of the law of works which we were bound to perform, is part of that mediatorial law which he performed, and i suppose the common protestant have understood that part thereof consisting in his active and passive obedience, to be the righteousness which is imputed to believers: and here it is certain, that you fall not in with them in this opinion, but hold that the righteousness of christ which you call our justifying righteousness, and that which besides the effects (as you speak) is imputed to the believer, is his mediatorial righteousness, as appears by your expression of it, when you say, it is imputed to believers as their pleadable security for their pardon and title to eternal life, in the right of christ. in the right of christ, this makes it plain, that you understand his mediatorial righteousness; but i hope you do not still mean that the same numerical right which is his, can be ours. you know the accident of one subject cannot migrate into another, so that really it cannot; and if you grant it to be legally ours, take heed lest you grant all away, for than may your brethren say, christ's performance itself is ours also in that sense, and mr. baxter and i and you are gone. but not to stop (this being only in the way) the righteousness of christ you mean being his mediatorial righteousness, you account then that there is a subordinate righteousness which we must have in order to the imputation of this to us for our justification. hereupon you set up two barrs, the bar of the law, and bar of the gospel; the creator's bar, and the redeemers bar, as you call them, insomuch as together with a double righteousness and double bar, you make us also (as any one may think) two specifical justifications: but not after this narration, if the distinction you laid down before be tied, that the law whereto christ subjected himself in order to the impetration of our redemption was the mediatorial law, and his performance of that law our justifying righteousness, according as you affirm, then can there be no creator's bar, or bar of the law of works here erected for us to stand at, seeing it was christ alone was accountable for that performance. and further, seeing christ, as he took on him our nature, did voluntarily come also under the law, (the law of works, as well as jewish law), as part of his father's commandment, and perfectly fulfilled the same, and suffered moreover for our transgressing it; he did thereby as the apostle tells us, redeem us from the law. and what i pray is this redemption from that law, but a delivering us fromits bar (if you understand the thing) so as we are not to be judged by it. though we are under the law still as a rule of living, we are freed from it as the rule of judgement, as i say in my pacification. again, i must inculcate upon this hypothesis, the law of mediation, being that law christ performed for the impetration of those benefits which we have by him, and the law of the gospel that we perform for application of those benefits; i pray let me ask, is not justification one of those benefits christ hath impetrated, merited, purchased for us? as pardon and salvation, so are justification, (whereof these are effects,) and the law of grace itself which justifies us, all of them benefits that christ hath purchased by performing the law of mediation. well, justification then itself being one of those benefits, when christ's performance of the mediatorial law is that righteousness alone which goes to the impetration of it; and in this regard that may be said ours: it is our performance of the law of grace which goes to, and is the righteousness alone which is, or can be ours in the application, or enjoyment of it. to come at last then to a full point in this matter, it being christ's performance, which we agree, hath merited, impetrated, procured all our benefits, and so is the principal righteousness (as you may call it if you please) when yet there must be a righteousness of our own to go before, as the condition which this law of the gospel requires of us to give us right to these benefits, it appears in what sense our faith or evangelical obedience is to be held a righteousness subordinate (seeing mr. baxter hath so termed it) unto christ's, which is no more than this, that our gospel righteousness of faith is prerequired in order to the having the righteousness of christ imputed, according to you and mr. baxter: but how imputed, for here is the upshot? does mr. baxter mean imputed in see besides the effects, as you speak? no, this were to make it legally ours and he allows no imputation of christ's righteousness in any sense of its being made ours but relatively in regard to the effects only: so that if the phrase of the imputing christ's righteousness was left out altogether of our books (as it is in our bibles) and our divines had said nothing but that upon our believing and repenting, we are for christ's sake, and through the law of grace made partakers of the benefits he hath purchased, and so of pardon and life (the doctrine of satisfaction wherein we agree, being first preached), the article of justification might have been explained well enough for honest people's edification. p. 279. justification by the righteousness of christ (you should say though, and not by), and justification by the righteousness of faith, are so connected and inseparable in the subject, that they are expressed as if but one only act, and yet they are very distinguishable. having laid down what precedes, i do as it were give instance in this citation, unto the which i do the more deliberately answer. the impetration of our justification by christ's performing the mediatory law is indeed one thing, and the application of it by our performing the law of the gospel is another: but justification itself is one (omneens est unum) and not two things, or acts, and consequently aught to be defined and understood as one act; so that when in one place it is said we are justified by christ's blood (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, through his blood), and in others we are justified by faith, this makes yet but one act, one justification described in one place by the meritorious, in the others by the formal cause thereof, which both are to be put together in the definition. i must confess mr. baxter, as i remember, does ordinarily speak at your rate, as if we were to be justified both by law and gospel; and furthermore does not scruple to make as many particular justifications as there can be charges laid against us, but with the assertion that there is also a justification universal, and which i apprehend the gospel alone does yield us. indeed how to reconcile mr. baxter herein to his own doctrine, i must confess i have not yet observed from him, but crave your help to find out. in the mean time i must warn you that you understand him not after the manner you writ; for if indeed there are two barrs at which we must be justified, as well as two righteousnesses that goes into our justification: if to be justified by faith is one justification, and to be justified by christ's blood be another, so that the believer must have both, as one subordinate to the other, unto which apprehension your way of expression leads; then must christ's righteousness be indeed ours in see, and not only in the effects, as you appear to maintain against me and him, for at one of these, barrs nothing less will serve, and then must we return all three to the road of the common protestant doctrine, and grant that it is not by our own works, whether legal or evangelical, no not by faith as a work, not by faith as productive of repentance and new obedience, that is not by st. james' faith and works also, but by faith only, and by faith taken objective, for christ's righteousness made ours by faith, so as to be our formal righteousness, or formally to justify us. and if so, there may be an end of controversies with mr. baxters' books (as one of them is called) which concern justification, his practical books may still be in credit, but his controversal works may be all burnt for you, who for maintaining one expression, not well advised, must forsake him, and yourself, and all almost of weight, that you have writ besides. there is a distinction therefore which that accurate man mr. baxter, who otherwise has so many, does yet want as to this point of justification, which is, that justification may be taken strictly or largely, seeing the scripture so speaks of it. if we will take it strictly, we consider only what respects the form and definition, and justification so taken, is gods constituting (by his law of grace) and accounting a man righteous upon his believing for christ's sake, or imputing his faith for righteousness: when justification largely taken, may comprehend its antecedents (as redemption) and consequents (as pardon and life) together with it. see my righteousness of god, p. 55, 56, 57 in such a large sense of it. mr. baxter and our divines may take liberty to speak of it in such a manner as they or others do, or as they please; but there are these words in that learned gentleman sir charles wolsley, his letter to me, that are more accurate to my purpose, than any that i most like in mr. baxter. the scripture (says he) that were written not with any relation to those nice and subtle distinctions which men have since used in interpreting them, do chief intent to express their plain and genuine meaning of things, and in an especial manner by various expressions of the same thing does set forth the amplitude of gospel salvation. justification is spoken of in scripture, sometimes in its cause, which is imputing righteousness by faith, and sometimes in its effect, which is pardon: therefore i am well pleased to say with you (to adjust and comprehend that matter right (that the formalis ratio of justification is gospel faith and obedience (that is, as imputed to us of god for righteousness, and taking justification passively, meaning as i) and pardon of sin as the necessary consequeent, concomitant, and effect of it. he that will give any other account of it, must (i believe) make use of some other doctor than st. paul. one thing more i will note in this postscript and have done, and that is the particular (p. 312.) wherein you say you were ready to subscribe with mr. cole. you look to yourself indeed by such words that you may not lie, but do you think your meaning and mr. coles can indeed stand in one stable? i will therefore express the truth of this sixth particular for you with little alteration. when a man believes that very faith and sincere gospel works which proceed from it is (you say is not) the matter of that righteousness whereby (you, to save your not before, put in for which) a sinner is justified, and so entitled to pardon and glory: yet is the righteousness of christ alone that for which the gospel gives the believer a right to these, and all saving blessings, who in this respect is justified through christ, or through his righteousness, though by faith: faith being indeed the matter, or material cause; and gods imputing that faith (not christ's righteousness) to us for righteousness, the form and formal cause of our justification. reverend brother, what will be the issue of this present endeavour according to my small ability, i know not: but i will end with this story. luther one day being with melancton, philip, says he, i am afraid we are gone too far in that matter of the sacrament: master, says melancton, then let us amend and retract it. no, says luther, if we do so philip, we shall be believed in nothing. alas! what pity it was, and what prejudice to the protestants cause, that luther had not harkened to melancton? it must be no wonder therefore if you harken not to me now in my farewell admonition, which is to choose (in this small matter of difference between us) not to follow luther, but st. augustine, who is so much commended by all for his book of retractations. your very respectful brother john humphrey. animadversions on his end of discord, learned and worthy sir, i wrote a sheet or two in a letter to mr. williams upon his postscript to gospel truth before this later book called an end of discord came out. i had no answer to it, nor my copy back, and therefore i wrote out of my soul papers that letter over, and sent it to you to read, and i now send you these three or four sheets more upon this new book, which shows the author a man still growing in learning and industry, a man of temper and discretion, of prudent parts and weighty judgement, as well as excellent in his faculty of elocution. i am pleased that he gave me a while ago a vis●; but especially for this, that upon his discourse with me, i came to believe hearty that he is a man sincere to god in the books he writes, and i am glad that i so believe, for i know thereby that i love him, because i am glad of it. nevertheless i am not ever the more pleased with his new-fangled invention of such an imputation of christ's righteousness in se, as no body ever thought on before, but am displeased with it, as a needless, cluttersome, perplexed, indigestible notion, that does deprave the sound doctrine of mr. baxter, and proves at last insignificant to himself. this book of his i look on, as his gospel truth, fit to be read by ministers (such as are of no higher rank than i) as well as others, as informing and profitable: but it is another work which he had to do, that is, to defend the truth, and not by such a dose to lay it asleep, and leave it wounded to heal of itself, when no party is cured. he was so well prepared for this work, that i cannot like that he has tied up his hands by this book, so as in point of ingenuity he could go no further, unless some body printed upon him to unloose them. it is but a friendly part therefore for me to print these letters, to give him occasion to deliver himself from the double fetters that are on him, this one on his hands, and the other on his judgement in that perplexed notion mentioned that must be retracted and laid quite aside if ever he will write clear, worthy himself, and profit his readers. here is this book called by him an end of discord, which if mr. lob had lived and joined with him in the composure, might have born such a title. the discord is between him and the independent brethren, and how is there an end made of it without the brethren, or some one in their behalf, and with their consent to agree to it? the imputation of christ's righteousness in se is denied by mr. baxter, and the brethren, supposing him to be of the same opinion, have been at discord with him about it. now though he be indeed of mr. baxters' judgement, so as that in the sense the brethren hold it, he opposes it as much as we, yet in a sense he hath framed by a new notion of his own, he sets himself on one side with the brethren, as holding an imputation in se, and me and mr. baxter on another. the question than is, whether the brethren approve this accommodation, and you know (as mr. lob has signified) they are so far from it, that it does but incense them the more for the show of his being on their side, when he is against them. and is this an end of discord? no, no sir, my brother williams hath been out, and the nonconformists out, in their going about at first to make an union between presbyterian and independent, by drawing up certain theses and positions in that latitude of words as all might subscribe them, and then call that union, when such an union is no union, where the tongue is one, but the mind cloven: whereas, if upon a toleration given both from the state, they had fallen in with it, by a tolerating one another in opinion (leaving the pro and con to any, as they please, and are able) and united only in practice (according to a letter of mine to them at the end of my middle way of justification) they had done their business, and it is like had never been broken; which seeing they are, what should the brethren do but begin again, and though it be late, yet do so now? upon such a bottom as this, the design of this book were abundantly agreeable to my soul. i am one that would not fall out with any for their opinion: i think generally they be wiser than i i am for unity for protestants, conformist and nonconformist, with care against the two rocks of socinianism and antinomianism. as for arminianism, or the five points, mr. baxter hath made it his business to bring the difference to so little compass, that however the synod of dort in their day, when protestants who had but newly got lose from popery, and a part of them from lutheranism, were so much engaged about it, i could wish that those names of calvinism and arminianism, as those of guelphs and gibellines, and our of whig and tory were sunk for ever. let any of us, or our brethren, preach the strongest calvinism we can, and not exceed it, when our doctrine hath been calvinistical, our use must be arminian, or we must leave preaching to the people. there is indeed a difference in the fifth point about perseverance, wherein the synodi● and arminian do really differ, and both from st. augustine, who will allow that the regenerate, the justified, the sanctified may fall away, but never the elect. now there are some scriptures to prove that the once new born of god cannot finally fall away, which the arminians cannot answer, and some scriptures to argue that they may, as the calvinist cannot answer, which makes it fit and equal that neither of them should be so fierce, but give leave to one another to make the good use (and not the bad) of their own opinions. the controversy as to the other five points, will come all to this dispute only, whether the grace of god be resistible (as they have expressed it), and when the will cannot be compelled or forced, so that it hath, and must have a power to resist, it appears hard to say it is irresistible. my opinion is this, that though it is true, that man hath a natural power still to resist, yet when electing or effectual grace once comes, it takes away the moral power of resisting, and upon that account it may be called irresistible. as the reprobate hath a natural power (or his faculties) to believe, repent, and so may be saved if he will: yet having such an indisposition (which is his moral impotency) thereunto as he has, he never will, and because he will not, he is damned: so the elect hath his natural power to resist if he will, but the grace of god does so dispose him, as that morally he cannot, and therefore he will not, and so by grace he is saved. as for the arminian, they plead for grace to prevent us, to assist us, to cooperate with us as much as we, and that we can do nothing without it in order to be saved. neither may their contending that all may be saved if they will, offend any of us, at least that hold universal redemption; for this is true, that whosoever will, may? only we do add, that when any will, that is yet farther of special grace. having said this according to charity, a little surpassing this author, i think fit to take notice of one chapter in this book that concerns me. it is the eighth, but in order to it i find in the seventh these two questions raised, to wit, how our sins were imputed to christ as to his satisfaction, and how his righteousness is imputed to us in our justification. the difference in opinion herein does spring (he tells us) from the divers conceptions we have of christ's suretyship, whereof we have mention but once in scripture, and i will say but this little about it! that, there in nothing oftentimes, so much hinders the right understanding of a text of scripture, or words of an author, as the apprehension that there is some more profoundness in it than there is: and so it is here as to this word surety, whereof i am persuaded there is nothing to be understood by it, but christ's interceding as mediator in our behalf, and undertaking the doing that in regard to his priesthood (of which the apostle is speaking in the place) as was necessary to the reconciling god to us, so as to be willing to make and as h might in justice make, that covenant, or grant the conditions of the gospel to us. as for mr. ws. and others telling us farther things of this suretyship, to wit, of christ's engaging on god's part that he shall perform what he promises, and on our part, that the elect shall perform the condition, it is gratis discourse; for on god's part he needs no such surety, and as for us, the covenant is universal; and if christ was a surety in a proper sense for our performance, then should all perform it, and be saved. let us conceive therefore of nothing intended by this word surety, for christ to do, but what is necessary to gods making, not his, or our keeping, this covenant, and let who will make the most of it. i come to the first question, how our sins were imputed to christ. p. 73. having told us what on one side we think, wherein i wish he could have cited mr. baxter to explain it, for his mind is so over full of his notion, as he is not fit to do it for us. the other side (says he) think christ came into the same bond as a pecuniary surety with us, or was our represent alive in such a sense as that we are legally esteemed to do or suffer what he did: this opinion of the brethren mr. baxter thought so dangerous, that he set himself against it, book after book, as that which does argumentatively bring in antinomianism, and according to his frequent words, subvert the gospel. but mr. ws. is so sugard here, so gracious, so mealy, as to tell them, that this would be dangerous indeed, if they did not renounce all assuming boasts as if they were as righteous as christ, or stood on terms with god, needing no more acts of mercy than that one, of appointing christ to be their mediator. but what if they be all so humble (as i believe they are) as none of them to have such boasting, yet so long as that tenent does argumentatively infer such consequences as this, and no less indeed than this, (wherein mr. ws. shows his strength) how can he daub thus with such untempered mortar as he here makes? as if the opinion, as well as the brother that holds it, was to be owned. and how many the like consequences of this doctrine, does mr. baxter show in his books? p. 75, 76. the brethren supposing (as before) that we obeyed and suffered in christ do ground it (he counts here) upon adam's being a figure of christ, in the 5th of the romans, and he is informing them, that we must not say that we obey in christ, as we are said to have sinned in adam, because we were all in adam as our root; but none of us, not the elect, not the believer, so in christ, as in him, which he has some where else also; i cannot turn to the place, but having spent some thoughts hereupon without book, i will set myself to set them down. what christ did for us in the flesh, he did for mankind, but all mankind are not in him as we were in adam, that is certain, tho' redemption be universal. the believer only is his seed, who is not thus neither, that is seminally in him. besides that, if the believer or the elect be accounted of god to have done what christ did, he must be accounted of god to have fulfilled the law in him, and so to have nothing to do himself for his salvation, which is to leap into the gulf of antinomianism, which we avoid. this notion now is not any peculiar one of mr. ws. but what others also insist upon, yet am not i contented with it. i do not see how we can be said to sin in adam (the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the text does not prove it) upon this account of mr. ws. that we was in his loins. if you prove it by that text, which says, levi paid tithes to melchisedeck in abraham, i prove the contrary by another, where it is said of the children unborn, that they had neither done any good are evil. one of these texts is certainly as argumentative, as the other. we may be said to eat of the tree, and to dress the garden, and to do all that ever adam did physically, as being in his loins, but we did not sin in him, which is a moral evil. original corruption is sin, but not his, or this sin. there is no such sin or moral good without the will. actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea, and in this sense that axiom, actiones (as to good and evil) sunt suppositorum is undeniable. what then shall we say to this chapter, which tells us, that by adam's disobedience we were made sinners, and by christ's obedience made righteous, and the like? i answer to so much as concerns our purpose, that i have pitched on this solution in my ultima manus (p. 6.) where standing to our principles, i affirm, that this imputation which is supposed here on both sides, as to adam's sin, and christ's obedience, is to be understood only in regard to the effects. we are made sinners in adam's sin, in regard to the fruit of it, for we all die by reason of it: so we are made righteous by christ's obedience, in regard to the benefits of it, as justification, and so pardon and salvation, which we have by it upon believing. we are not formaliter righteous by christ's obedience (this we carefully deny), nor formaliter sinners by adam's sin: but effective we are so, in regard to the fruit, or quoad effectus as to both. this is a solid determination, and which i stand to: see the place in that book. it may be objected, if this be so, here is a difficulty arises, we are punished, and that with death for the sin of another, how can that be just? and if god may punish us with temporal death for adam's sin, he may with eternal. i answer therefore. that though death inflicted on adam for his sin, was indeed a punishment on him; yet is death in itself no punishment on us. adam was made of the earth mortal as we, but he was put into the garden where was the tree of life, whereof, so long as he might eat, it would save his life; but upon his sin, god excluded him from it, and having not the free to eat on, when his time came, he must needs die. the sentence of death was in effect executed on him in excluding him paradise: but as for us we never had the tree to eat on, and cannot be punished by the exclusion from what we never had, but according to nature, we being mortal, and of course appointed to die, our death, as natural, is neither good nor evil in itself, but in regard to what follows it, that is the reward to come, according as out lives have been in the world, and if good, it is but a gate to blessedness. after this you may ask, what think you then of the more common doctrine, that it is not as we were in adam's loins, but as we were in adam's covenant that we sinned in him, and so were liable to the same punishment? i answer; besides that, it can never be proved, that those words, in the day thou eatest thereof; was said to you or i, when they were said to adam; this assertion is too grievous for my embrace, because it makes the constitution only of god, that is his will alone, without any of the sinner, to be the cause of man's damnation. i will yet not leave, but seeing i am fallen on the point, i will consider what original sini● is that i own. there are three things according to the common doctrine wherein original sin consists the want of original righteousness, adam's first guilt, and the corruption of our nature, from whence actual transgressions proceed. for the second i have spoke to for the first, the schools have conceived that adam was endowed with a supernatural grace, besides his natural righteous constitution, which by his fall he lost, and so we, but our naturals and remains. now i believe no such thing, as that adam had any righteousness or grace supernatural, but only nature entire; for grace is indeed a medicinal thing, or auxiliatory for fallen nature, which adam needed not, and there can be no loss of that which never was. if by original righteousness, the integrity of adam's nature be meant only, the want or loss of this is included in the third. as for which i believe that adam falling, depraved his nature, and being depraved himself he begets children with this corruption in their nature, the mind and will is infected with ignorance and disobedience, the ataxy in his faculties upon his fall, is begotten in ours, and so i hold original sin according to the article of the church of england, which speaks of this, and nothing else, though i did not therefore so take it up. omnes peccaverunt, id est, in omnes propagatum est malum, quod est peccatum (says melancthon) and so we are by nature filii ira, not upon adam's, but our own account. this, or thus much i hold with the church against pelagius; so that there is a necessity therefore of grace in order to salvation: but whether of special grace against arminius also, which i have hitherto imbibed, i leave others to their own sentiments. p. 77. mr. ws. and i do hold that christ's obligation to bear our punishment was a single obligation, or an obligation of his own, not our obligation, though our punishment. our obligation is ex delicto, his ex voluntario contractu, so that he suffered not as a sinner: but the brethren think otherwise, that our sins were so imputed to christ, as to give him the denomination and judicial acceptation of a sinner in the esteem of god and the law. this being so, what says mr. ws. to it, to end the discord? why, notwithstanding this, so long as they deny that christ bade any defilement in him, or any sin of his own, only our sins imputed to him, and he was but a legal sinner; this difference cannot justify mutual censure. what? and can it not indeed? then i promise you we must be more friendly to the antinomian also; for it is very abusive for any to think that such a one as dr. crisps or any university graduate, did ever believe that the accident of one subject could migrate into another, so that we are to take their words how broad soever (as when they account christ took on him the fault, as well as the punishment, to wit, our faults, and only legally) in the sense of those orthodox divines as have commonly said he suffered as a sinner, and luther, as the greatest sinner: yet are such say reprehensible, by, and according to us, who deny that he was our legal person, though a days-man betwixt god and us, he bore our punishment, that we might not bear it. an opinion may be of ill consequence, and he that holds it not see it; and a man may hold a tenent in the theory, which he does not in the practice, but live as free from those ill consequences as he that holds the contrary opinion. in such a case such a brother is not to be censured, but born with, but the opinion the tenent is to be censured and refuted, and such censure to be justified. p. 80, 81. the apology he makes there for our opinion (that is his, i mean, and mine and mr. baxter's) against the common protestants is so well, handsome, humble, true, clear and taking, that i cannot but commend it, ut nihil supra. the following pages are as judicious, in clearing us from popery. i thank him for them. p. 84. he speaks of the manner of imputation of christ's righteousness, and tells us the double sense thereof; on the one side, the sense of the brethren, which is the same (that god reckons us to have legally done and suffered what christ did) as before, but in more words: and on the other side our sense, which he might dispatch in two words, quoad effectus, but he clouds it so with his notion of gods adjudging that the obedience and sufferings of christ is our pleadable security for his benefits purchased, that i cannot tell what to make of it. for what an idle impertinent thing is this to talk of gods adjudging christ's obedience to be our pleadable security for the enjoyment of that, whereof he does adjudge us upon the account hereof to the very enjoyment! p. 86. by this you see (says he) that we rise ●ot so high, as to say we are accounted to do or suffer what christ did, and so to be absolved immediately by the sentence of the law of works: nor fall so low as a mere participation of the effects of christ's righteousness, but assent to an imputation of christ's righteousness itself relatively to those effects. alas for mr. ws. into what shifts for want of an ingenuous confession is he brought? do not i and mr. baxter say this? is this indeed a middle way in good earnest? have not we said the same before him? and is not mr. ws. settled judgement, and which he maintains as well as i and mr. baxter, that legally (which our former divines have still stood upon) the righteousness of christ is not imputed to us: and when he says relatively (after us) in regard to the effects, is not this it which mr. baxter and i say, when we affirm against the common doctrine, that christ's righteousness is imputed not in se, but only in the effects? you see it more fully in my letter to his postscript. alas! what a little self-denial here would have served him, to make the acknowledgement, of taking this from us, and of his agreement with it! and is this the meant between them that rise too high, and us, that fall too low, when it is the very same we say, and he takes it from us? the contradiction only excepted, for when the in se, and the effects are opposed, he will have christ's righteousness ours in its self, upon our saying it is relatively ours in regard to the effects. i come to the chapter that concerns me, the title whereof is this an attempt to accommodate the difference between such as judge christ's righteousness is imputed only in the effects, and not in se, and those of us who think it is imputed in se. these words [and those of us] i take all from mr. ws. this is that mr. lob (if we may believe his books) and i think mr. chancy took so ill from him, as to write so engagedly against him, that he pretends to hold with the brethren in maintaining the imputation of christ's righteousness in se against those that deny it, that is such as i, mr. baxter, wotton, forbs, mr. baxter names bradshaw, grotius) when yet he is fundamentally of our opinion, and so far as concerns the brethren, nothing at all for them. if he be offended at my saying that he agrees with us (excepting his new notion, which signifies not) i can't help it, for i can say no otherwise, and methinks that which is said but now should make him ashamed of it. you see there, no middle way for him. the brethren and common protestant do understand that christ in his dying for us, did suffer in our stead, which can bear no other true sense in their judgement but this, that he was our representative, so as what he did and suffered in our behalf, is in law-sense accounted of god as done and suffered by us; so that his satisfaction and obedience thereupon, is legally (i say) or in the acceptation of law reckoned by him as our righteousness; for being received by faith, it becomes ours, so as that it does formally justify us. here is most fairly that which hath been, and is to be understood by an imputation in se, to wit, such as our former protestants accounted orthodox, and have generally held: but mr. baxter (letting these brethren know in the way, that when we grant against the socinian, that christ died in our stead, by which we mean that he died to save us from dying, who must else have died ourselves, we do not understand as they, that we died and suffered in him, for to die in our room, that we might not die, and to be accounted of god to have died, or died in him, is an inconsistency that may convince them) that reverend man, and faithful servant of christ being sensible how this doctrine does argumentatively lead to antinomianism, and did hurry so many of this nation into it, as it did, before he wrote, he, being stirred up, we may believe, by god as an instrument to eradicate the antinomian heresy, did set himself, with assistance, in many books to refute this opinion, as necessary to that end. upon this true and short account given, i ask then, is mr. ws. in good earnest now of the judgement of the brethren, or of mr. baxters? he knows in his conscience, and we all see by this book, and all his others, a manifest confirmation every, where with great strength and weight, and diligent reading (which may shame those that despise him as not learned) of the doctrine taught by that profound divine, and most sincere minister of jesus christ. and shall this elisha that hath still followed his elijah go now in words (for it is no more) to cast away his mantle, and disown his master? i cannot endure that when mr. ws. makes here two sides, he should rank the brethren and he on the one side, and i and mr. baxter on the other. if any other had wrote the title to this chapter, i would have said it is false, mr. ws. and i, and mr. baxter are of one opinion. p. 104. there are some that say, the righteousness of christ is imputed in se for justification; and some that say it is not imputed in se, but quoad effectus. he numbers himself among the former. of the former then, there are belike two sorts with him, such as think the elect or believer to be accounted by god to have obliged and suffered in christ, which he disproves, and therefore tells of another sort, that is, such as do not think that god does judicially account any to have obeyed and suffered in christ (for that he stoutly denies in all his books, as well as mr. baxter and i) and yet do hold an imputation of christ's righteousness in se, which indeed is a rarity, for i believe there is not any but himself, and it is fit therefore to hear how mr. ws. single self does hold this (even in opposition to the brethren, as well as us) but that i have already canvased that new perplexed contrivance (which he invented for the sake of those tender brethren that cannot bear with the sound doctrine of mr. baxter, though there is none of them i believe that regard the invention) in my pacification, my appendix to him at large in the end of my ultima manus, and also in my letter before to his postscript; so that there is nothing left more to do, but to wonder at this reverend man, what he means thus to persist, especially in telling us of a variety among this sort in wording their conceptions, but they all come to one, which indeed is well said, for he alone in the one, and only one that ever entertained such an imagination. well, what then is this that one sense it comes to? why this, that god according to the covenant of redemption where he promises to christ to save the believer, he judicially accounts what christ hath done and suffered to be his pleadable security. this we take to be imputation. we! what we? none surely but himself. he dare not say, as they must, who indeed hold an imputation in se, that god does judicially account what christ hath done and suffered to be legally the believers (this is the doctrine of an imputation in se, which he militates against in all his books, as mr. baxter in all his) but to be his pleadable security. and what is that? is that justification? is that i say again an imputation of what christ hath done and suffered to the believer so as to be that righteousness in se, whereby he is justified? no, what imputation then in se is it? did he that wrote the rest of the book write this? did he write it when he was awake, or asleep? if he was a wake, let him tell what. that the performance of the covenant of redemption by christ does afford us a pleadable security, that if we believe we shall be saved, there is no body questions. that this pleadable security is an effect and benefit of that performance, is not to be questioned neither. that the imputation then of the righteousness of christ to us for this pleadable security (if there be any such imputation) is an imputation of it only in the effects. (or quoad effectus) and not in se●●, i have it already in my former letter: that this pleadable security arises from the promise of the gospel covenant, as well as from that to christ in the covenant of redemption mr. ws. says: and if from the gospel there arises no imputation of christ's obedience to us in se, how does it from the law of mediation? that god does impute christ's performance to us for righteousness is said by divines; but i say again, where is it said in scripture, or by any divine of note, that he imputes it to us for our pleadable security, only by himself? it is true, that we may impute or apply it to ourselves so; but where, or by whom is it said that god so imputes it, and judicially so imputes it? is this the work of judgement? and why does our otherwise very worthy brother take upon him by making such speeches for god as he does, to put him upon the saying any thing more than needs? what needs such a speech: thou believer, i judicially esteem and pronounce thee to be one that i promised to my son in the covenant of redemption to save in reward to his performance of that covenant, therefore i judicially also account what christ hath done and suffered to be thy pleadable security, that thou shalt be saved? is it not enough that god says this? thou sinner being one that haft believed, and repent, and so performed (through my grace) the covenant of the gospel, i do therefore according to my promise therein to thyself and all mankind judicially sentence thee to life everlasting. let the believer have this sentence pronounced by the covenant of the gospel he will not need, and scarce over thought of any other by the covenant of redemption. p. 107. as for those that say christ's righteousness is not imputed in se, but in the effects they oppose all this (says he) but they great the righteousness of christ to be the meritorious cause of our justification: they narrow not their opinion to a procuring only a covenant of grace or law of the gospel, but say christ purchased the benefits first which that covenant bestows: they are sound in the doctrine of satisfaction: they abhor the presenting our faith or evangelical obedience to god as any satisfaction to justice, atonement for sin, or prince of salvation. upon these accounts more at large expressed better by him, a forbearance is very charitably and commendably pleaded for these brethren by this good brother, in their behalf, who no doubt is well inclined to it himself, for this is certainly a very ingenious kind of apologizing for mr. baxter's, and mine, and his own opinion. nevertheless i have two or three things to take notice of further in this chapter. one is, p. 109. our opinion quoad effectus, he says does amount to an imputation in se, because the divine mind must apply the merits of christ to our faith to make it a righteousness. but how so? why if so, the divine mind he counts must apply his righteousness to our persons. if through christ's merits our faith is made a righteousness, than his merits must make our persons righteous. this is his sense, which he hath in divers expressions three times in the paragraph. very well now i say, that if through christ's merits god does impute our faith for righteousness, then must the imputation of christ's righteousness be an imputation only quoad, effectus, for this is a grand effect of it, that our faith, which of itself is none, is through those merits imputed for righteousness. and if the righteousness of christ be imputed only quoad effectus, it is not imputed in se for our justification. the divine mind (says he) does apply christ's righteousness to the person, which in plain words is, god does impute it to a person: but what imputation is it! is it not an imputation quoad effectus? it is doubtless, for that effect which christ's righteousness has to make our faith a righteousness, it hath the same to make the person accepted as a gospel righteous person, and for his sake to be dealt with accordingly, but not as a legally righteous person as christ is. it is thus, and no otherwise, whereas he speaks of it as if it were an imputation in se, which our opinion (he says) amounts unto, nay supposes and infers (he says) as necessary: but if it were an imputation in se, then should christ's righteousness (not our faith) be imputed to us for righteousness, which falls in (he knows) with the opinion of the brethren, and makes it the formal cause of our justification. alas that this perplexing notion should lead this considering brother into those blundering, which seeing it does, i do write this book on purpose to prosecute it (if i can) to the death, not to hurt him, but to rid him of it. that what he says is very handsome for persuading the contrary minded to bear with (if not receive) our opinion, because it hath all the conveniency as to the substantial doctrine of the protestant, which the brethren can make of theirs: yet he is short in his discernment of that very critical point, wherein the hinge of this controversy among us does turn, which is, the question whether the righteousness of christ, or of faith, be the formal righteousness that justifies us. i wonder that this very searching and judicious brother should not see here his defect. an imputed righteousness in se makes christ's righteousness the formal cause: an imputed righteousness only quoad effectus makes his righteousness the meritorious cause alone of our justification. another is p. 11. i could wish a very worthy person of this opinion, would review in his own account of justification, where he faith it is that act whereby god imputes to every sound believer his faith for righteousness upon the account of christ's satisfaction and merits, and gives pardon and life as the benefits of it. i cannot but desire to know this person, seeing as these words render him, he should be living, for what this author says is so agreeable to my mind, that if it were not, but that i know the commendation he gives him is not belonging to me, i should have thought they were my own words. the following saying he citys accordingly, though christ's sacrifice the defects of faith which is our righteousness, are pardoned, and by his merits that imperfect duty is accounted or imputed to us for righteousness, which it is not in its self. both i think exceeding well. but mr. ws. objects, how can pardon be the effect of imputing faith for righteousness (which is justification) and yet god cannot impute faith for righteousness, unless he first pardon its defects for the sake of christ's sacrifice? this objection i foresaw, and have prevented (that he adds besides is stumbling at a straw, and ought not to retard us) in my book of the righteousness of god, (p. 24.) where having defined justification after this same manner, i, ●m the concluding my explication thereof have these words. after this i distinguish this pardoning, and bearing with the defects of our faith, repentance, new obedience, which are conditions of the gospel covenant, and so our gospel righteousness, or that which is imputed for righteousness: and that general or total pardon which the covenant promises, and becomes absolute upon performing the condition. the one of these is that very grace, or act of grace itself that goes into that act of imputation, or act that imputes our faith for righteousness, when the other, i say still, is the effect or benefit following justification. i will add, the one let us note farther is dispensed by god as dominus or absolute lord (so i apprehend), and is more or less to one person than another at his will and pleasure, that hath no bounds to be set to it: when the other is dispensed by him as rector and judge to every man alike upon the performed condition. i will yet add, and this may give some more line to the assertors of freegrace than they every yet thought on for improvement, and that solid comfort i raise from hence in my pacification, p. 27, 28, 29. quoted again in my righteousness of god, p. 21. (in the margin) which i commend to the reader as my blessing while alive and dead. the lat is p. 112. the reason for our denial of an imputation in se, he renders truly (as the chief reason) to be an apprehension that there is no such imputation, unless we are accounted of god to have done and suffered what christ did, which would induce the antinomian scheme. this is so, it is the reason, and that the meaning and intent of that phrase is no other than this, i know no body like to deny unless himself. but that i deny (says he) to be the only import of that phrase; for when that righteousness itself is imputed relatively to the special effects of it, it is truly an imputation in se. here is a double deceit, error, or falsehood. one in the logic of it, the other in the matter of it. in the logic the words [it self] must not be put in, we deny an imputation of this righteousness itself (or in itself.) this itself therefore is a petitio principis, that is fallacious, which must be left out, and then as to the matter, i say, an affirming christ's righteousness to be imputed (that is reckoned or made ours) relatively only in regard to the effects, is the denial of it to be so in se, according to the received sense of that distinction. but indeed if we might coin here a new distinction between mr. ws. and i, and not do hurt by it, making an imputation in se to be either a legal, or relative imputation only: so long as mr. ws. does maintain that christ's righteousness is not imputed in see legally to a believer, and stands on the negative against the brethren herein as much as i: if i grant to him this imputation in se, which is relative only, i see not but he and i are perfectly agreed, and so all the new-fangled notion of another imputation of christ's right to us in itself, or of his obedience to the mediatorial law, for our pleadable security, instead of for our righteousness (that is, instead of an imputation in se, an imputation only quoad hunc effectum, an open prevarication) which will never be made to signify any thing, may be spared, and that clutter be quite over. but i cannot in conscience grant him the use of an imputation in se according to this sense, because an imputation quoad effectus is understood to be membrum dividens, and consequently contrary to an imputation in se according to our common understanding of that distinction. besides that, the use of the term in se, in such a latitude, may be dangerous to many, and the untrue use of it so long by him, has done (as i doubt) too much hurt already. i cannot therefore but be a little more severe herein, and must observe, that when mr. ws. does deny the brethren's sense to be the only import of the phrase, in se, he denys it upon the account of the term relatively, which term he took from me (i am confident) and had no thoughts of it, or such a meaning or evasion when he at first said, that besides the effects the very righteousness of christ is imputed to the believer. now when i, or mr. baxter (from which of us he takes it) use the term in contradistinction to that in se, while we explain our opinion thus purposely, that the effects are ours really, but christ's righteousness ours only in regard to these effects, and mr. ws. takes the term from me, without telling that, but proposing it as his own, does come so long after in his postscript and this book to give us this account of that assertion of his as aforesaid, and telling us, that if the righteousness of christ be imputed to us in the effects, than it must be itself relatively ours in regard to them, i cannot see how any one can count that there is either satisfaction or ingenuity in it. for when this word [it self] is (i say) sophistical, and must not be taken for in itself, as if we were proprietors of that righteousness whereof christ only is the proprietor, but of the benefit he hath procured us by it, which is the perfect sense and truth, and all the truth which in good earnest it contains, mr. ws. methinks should not be so shameless as any longer to persist. if he had said this at first, if indeed he had had this, and no other meaning, but this of relative at first, than could not i, or any of mr. baxters' friends, have been offended, as if he had departed from us in this bottom point of difference between the common protestant and us in the matter of justification. nor could he have been offended at the brethren, as if they wronged him, by saying he agreed with mr. baxter in this position, that the righteousness of christ is not imputed to the believer in se, but in the effects; for in the true sense of the position mr. ws. as well as i, agrees with mr. baxter: but seeing he said not, nor thought any such thing at first, (for he could not have said besides the effects, if he had meant quoad effectus) but says this now, i can say no less, but that if another had said so, it is false, absurd, a piece of plagiarism, which is boldfaced, disingenuous, not fit for any man to have said that has been university bread. i remember one axiom i learned there, membra dividentia sunt contraria, (for contraria sunt vel in dividendo, vol in inhaerendo) which infers, that if a disputant affirms a thing of one branch of a distinction, and is brought to the allowing or affirming the same of the other (as mr. ws. here is reduced) the man is brought to a self contradiction, and so nonplussed. let mr. ws. therefore set up his staff here, and come to a plain determination. if the brethren be right in their imputation in se, let him take it in their sense, and cleave to them: if mr. baxter be right quoad effectus, then let him follow us. if he will follow neither, he must halt by himself. the last chapter of mr. ws. is an abstract (as he calls it) of what helped him to avoid some perplexities (when there as no need of such, unless he had made them) concerning justification: which abstract in fine comes to this, that he takes the rule of judgement to be the gospel law in a subordinate connexion with the law of mediation, which makes the justification of a believer to be equivalent to a twofold justification, but he hopes (notwithstanding his talk of a double bar in his postscript) that none would think that he said there is a twofold justification: for the sentence is but one (he says) though equivalent to a twofold justification. this is very dainty, i must needs say, but i intent not any critical examination of the matter; only i think i can tell what is that hath helped mr. ws. into his perplexities better than he can tell what will help him out. it is this that he hath brought himself into the belief of some real truth in his notion as will bear him out to speak as the brethren, and so avoid (as he accounts) the offending the weak, and yet hold still with mr. baxter: and it is no wonder if this brings him into his perplexity, when all his new-fangled conceptions do serve only to put him upon fresh absurdities, and increase it. he is come now to let his thoughts run upon fancying a double rule of judgement comprising both the law of mediation, as well as the law of the gospel. the law of mediaion was a law we know that christ alone was under; and though a law may be norma officii, which is not norma judicii, yet cannot that law be norma judicii, which was not before norma officii: and this law being not such to any mortal, but to christ only, it can by no means be unto us a rule of judgement. but for the gospel, that the law thereof is the rule of judgement, there is no question with mr. ws. himself. we shall be judged by the law of liberty, says st. james, and st. paul, according to my gospel. as for the sentence being one, there is sententia juris, and sententia judicis, and they are one. such as is the sentence of the gospel, such will be the sentence of the judge: and such as will be the sentence of god at judgement, such is the sentence now of every man's justification or condemnation by the gospel. well, and what is sententia juris? why this, he that believes shall be saved. and what is sententia judicis? why this, come ye blessed of my father, for when i was hungry you fed me. that is, you that have believed so as your faith hath wrought by love, or performed the condition of the gospel covenant, i do declare you righteous according to that law, and i do adjudge you to thereward that i by my satisfaction and merit have procured for you, of pardon and salvation. here is the doctrine of justification according to my book of the righteousness of god made good, and here is the farther notion about the mediatorial law, being also the rule of judgement laid aside; so that i may here deliver myself in mr. ws. words (p. 121, and 122.) and take my rest. by one rule of judgement the justifying sentence is pronounced upon christ's righteousness, and that of a believing sinner, so long as the one rule of judgement is the gospel promise of the redeemer, he that believes shall be saved. hereby the justifying sentence does directly pass upon a man as a believer, and adjudges him to a right in whatsoever the gospel promises believers qua such: and considering that the chief design of the gospel is to induce fallen sinners to believe upon a supposition and assurance given that satisfaction is already made by our redeemer, and not now to be made or adjusted: i do confine my thoughts of justification to this as the alone rule of judgements, and so long also as the account of the final judgement generally states it in this manner, i declare this to be a safe and easy method, and so, i say, i might leave off. but although as to thus much, mr. ws. must consent, (for they are his words applied to myself) so far as concerns his owning the gospel's being the rule of judgement, yet in regard to his conceit of another rule also in connexion with it, i must not make an end without saying something more, and something of moment. i use the word [confine] after him, because he has it, he having this conceit, but i who conceive that conceit of his to be vain, should, instead of saying i confine my thoughts (being his words), say, i conclude with myself, that it is not only a safe and easy, but the only method, or this rule is the only rule of judgement without the other. as for his three reasons for his conceit, i take them to be such, as any man may raise for any thing, when he must say something; and all i have need to say, is, it is no matter for them. for there is this one thing to be considered to make it good which mr. ws. seems not to have laid to his thoughts, which will come in, by and by. there are indeed divines that will allow no covenant of grace but that which was made with christ, or with us in him; and if these men who will have but one covenant, and yet two conditions, so different, as that christ alone was to perform the one, and we the other, only they will have christ engaged for the elects performance; if these, i say, should have framed this notion, of one sentence and two rules of judgement, it might have appeared something agreeable: but for mr. ws. who distinguishes these covenants or laws, and yet puts them together, and connexes both into the rule of judgement, it is something monstrous, espcially seeing he hath kept such a stir about, and laid such a stress upon the distinction, not considering, as i am now to tell, that when he and others do speak of this covenant of redemption, expressing a transacttion between god and christ, as passed between them, in god's requiring of christ that he shall make his soul an offering for sin, and promising him to have a seed, and that upon their believing they should be saved (let them use as many or few words as they will), the whole frame of this covenanting is made out of the fifty third of esay, which is a prophecy of christ to come, telling what he should be, and what he should do, as if it had been already done. now when this is but a prophecy, so that there is nothing of it, but yet in the decree and determination of god, and mr. ws. speaks of this covenant, as if these matters were all transacted before, and apart from the covenant of the gospel, when the transaction i say, is but prophesied of, and was to be accomplished by christ when come, and so these matters all to be fulfilled; for then the messiah came, and was such a one, and did according as the prophecy tells, making his soul an offering for the satisfaction of god's justice, and procuring an act of grace, law or covenant, that those who should become christ's seed by believing, should be pardoned and saved (which is really the same thing altogether, and no other but what was in the prophecy:) for mr. ws. (now i say,) who seems to have had more considerate thoughts about this distinction than our former divines, and does indeed still speak so risentively hereof in his books, as if there could be no sound divinity about those two great points of satisfaction and justification, without the complete understanding and application of it, and does yet further herein lean so much to his own understanding as he does, (which leaning is such a position of the thoughts, that if the thing leaned upon does fail, his notion must be all thrown down): i say, for him to make two matters of that which is but one, seeing that which was in the prophecy, and that which is in the fulfilling of it must be the same, and intended for the same: it gives me just cause for some reprimand and admonition to him, to consider over and over all such expressions as he has, p. 133. where he is apprehensive, that the want of the consideration of this distinction, is the cause of all our disputes, when i am afraid that a distinguishing ubi lex non distinguit, and mr. ws. leaning here so much upon this distinction, which i suppose has been coined but of late by same of our own divines english or scotch, and scarce to be found one century ago, (and perhaps not come in play till after the assemblies catechisms) has given occasion of so much roving fancy, and thereby more confusion to himself, (and may do through him, if it be not prevented, to others) than ever had like to have been in those great points without it. i have set myself thus, to give him the deeper advertisement hereof, because i see not by any thing, or by all the things, which in this seeming notion of his, he is still farther devising, that the thing is proved for which it is devised. the thing he should show or prove, is an imputation in se; but how does his confounding and confounded devise prove this? where hath he laid all his conceptions together, or any of them alone, so clear, as may be an argument or medium of probation, (not to put him to syllogisms) as will evince his conclusion. when this is wanting, his whole notion is impertinent, and all his contriving abortive: and when any man writes a book, and this is wanting, so that the id quod probandum erat is not proved, that author, let him have otherwise many good truths in it, does herein need hallebore, rather than an answer. p. 120. he finds nothing (he tells us) plainer, than that on one hand we are made righteous by christ's obedience, and on the other, that we are justified by faith, citing scriptures on both sides. this now without setting the scriptures on two sides, is to be considered, for the gospel doth hold forth a double righteousness, the righteousness of christ, and the righteousness of faith, that do both go to our justification. being justified freely by his grace, through the redemption that is in christ jesus. in another place, it is of faith (says the apostle) that it may be of grace, so that our justification by faith is through christ's redemption, (which is all one as through his satisfaction and merit, or through his righteousness imputed) according to the gospel, as the law or rule of judgement. here now i must ask mr. ws. seeing there are two righteousnesses, and each a justifying righteousness, (as he speaks in his books) whether there be also two justifications? of this i perceive he is discerningly ware, and says, he hopes that none will think he holds so, for indeed, if there were two justifications by these two righteousnesses, than the one must be a legal, and the other an evangelical justification; and if a legal one, there must be a perfect righteousness to answer the law, and then christ's righteousness must be imputed in se, so as to be legally our formal righteousness, which must make mr. baxter, and i and mr. ws. to retract our books, and the currant doctrine of the common protestant run on. but seeing he does deny two justifications, you may ask what then does he mean by his two laws, the creator's law, and the redeemer's law? why, i had thought when i read his postscript, this had inferred two justications, but now he explains himself by fancying only two rules of judgements, and those not the law of works and grace, as others would, but the law of mediation (though that can not belong to us, as is said before) and the law of the gospel, when yet there is but one sentence, (according to him) and so (which is well) one justification. an admirable invention this, (which i apprehend but thought not on, till since his postscript) but how does he prove it? the scriptures mentioned prove it not, but i think the contrary. nay, and that he is more concerned to answer, i ask, what does this prove? if the mediatorial law were the rule of judgement, how would that make christ's righteousness be imputed so, as to become ours in see, or any otherwise than the gospel makes it? let this be shown, let me see how his imputation in se arises from it, and from the one more than the other. as for his pleadable security, i have spoke to it already, we will return therefore to the two righteousnesses. that there are two distinct righteousnesses is out of question, and that christ's righteousness is justifying, and our faith justifying, (by the virtue and merit of his) may be received. and if this worthy brother hereupon had first understood, and then told us, that though there be two righteousnesses apart, they make together but one justifying righteousenss, that is, these two righteousnesses are two parts of one whole justifying righteousness, according to one sentence and one justification; he had been happy, and might then have spared his making two rules of judgement. as for our faith or evangelical righteousness, we declare it merits not our justification nor the benefits of it. it is christ's righteousness alone has merited the reward. when we define justification then to be an act of grace, whereby god according to the gospel law (or rule of judgement) does account the believer righteous, and through the satisfaction and merits of our redeemer does judge him to the reward of impunity and life, it is all one as to impute christ's righteousness to him, or to adjudge him to the participation thereof; for this impunity and life being the effects of his righteousness, his righteousness is made ours (when the effects are) in relation to those effects, and can be no otherwise imputed to us. when mr. baxter then does tell us of a righteousness of ours subordinate to christ's, his meaning is, that our faith or evangelical righteousness, being the conditon of our enjoying the benefits christ hath purchased for us, the performance of the condition, or this righteousness evangelical is required, and must proceed in order to our having his righteousness quoad hos effectus; for his righteousness i have said, is had (or imputed to us) only in our enjoyment of the effects. to conclude then, our faith is justifying, or justifies us, per modum justitiae constituentis: christ's righteousness is justifying, or justifies per modum efficientis, or per modum meriti. they both of them are to be put into the definition, the one i say, (when imputed for righteousness) per modum causae formalis, and the other per modum causae meritoriae, concurring (as two-parts of one justifying righteousness) to the sinners justification. i have done, and now what remains, but that mr. ws. be persuaded to retract his notion, and that i offer him my reasons for it, which are as follow. 1. in the first place let us consider his notion, which is this, that god adjudges the believer to be one, whose absolution, adoption and glory were promised to christ in reward of his death, by the covenant of redemption; and for his actual interest and enjoyment thereof, and also acceptance and treatment, as a righteous person against all challenges, god judicially accounts what christ hath done and suffered to be his pleadable security. this we take to be imputation. the former part here is matter of fair full and proper words, but as for the latter part, where the point is touched, this seems to me strange. christ's obedience is the believers pleadable security, when he should assert it to be the believers righteousness. is an imputation of christ's righteousness for a pleadable security, and imputation of it in se? who does not see this to be contrary, and the thing we stand upon? that which christ hath done and suffered, is through god's promise (whether to christ, or us) a security which we may plead with god for our pardon and salvation upon our believing, but is christ's performance therefore imputed in se for our performance? what is that mr. ws. takes for imputation? is it not the imputation of christ's righteousness to the believer? and is the imputing of christ's righteousness to be the believers, and to be his pleadable security (that is an imputation of it to that effect) all one? my neighbour's honesty and faithfulness is my security that such a debt shall be paid me; but is his honesty and fidelity therefore in see my honesty and faithfulness? o strange that my reverend brother should be so intoxicated with this notion, even so as to be out of his senses, and take one thing for another! i pray is not the point between us and the brethren this, whether christ's righteousness be imputed in se for our justification? and is the imputation of christ's righteousness to us for our pleadable security our justification? god's judicial imputing christ's righteousness to a person in se does justify him: can his imputing it to him (if there were any such thing) for his pleadable security, and not for his righteousness, which in se denotes) justify him? how does his notion come up to the point of justification? as for what he adds, that god does judicially account what christ hath done suffered to be the believers pleadable security, it is as a man that is not only intoxicated, but plays bold pranks. this is indeed said ordinarily by some divines, that christ doth judicially account what christ hath done and suffered to be our righteousness, that answers the law, and justifies us. now for mr. ws. to invert this judicial process of god to his pleadable security, and then say, this we take for imputation, it seems to me such an audacious imposing upon his followers, such a piece of confidence (in so momentous a point) as it is not to be endured. 2. an imputation in se does necessarily infer christ to be our legal person, which overturns the whole doctrine of mr. ws. and i, and mr. baxter. it is impossible god should account christ's righteousness to be another man's in se, but legally; and if it be ours legally, then must he be our legal person, and so have acted and suffered in our stead as such. the lord christ now we acknowledge did suffer and die for us, or in our stead in this sense, that we might not die or suffer, upon our believing, but not that god should account us to have suffered and done what he did. that is, he acted only as our mediator. to suffer, that we might not suffer, and to suffer, that his sufferings should be accounted ours, are contradictory things; so that by no means christ must not be accounted our legal person in what he did and suffered for us. in this point it was mr. baxter broke lose from the common doctrine; and he that holds an imputation in se, (unless this newfangle be so with us) must break from him. an impuation in se makes the believer in law-sense as righteous as christ, and so brings in all the consequences of antinomianism, which may be seen if mr. baxter. 3. from those two reasons thus at first laid down. i argue; either there is another imputation in se which mr. ws. has found out, or, either the imputation in se which mr. ws. has made out by his new notions, is really a true imputation in se, or else an imputation in se must be denied. but the imputation in se which mr. ws. thinks he has made out by his new notion, is nothing but a mere imagination thereof, and not true imputation in se, and therefore an imputation in se must be denied. the major appears, and is confirmed by my second reason, and the minor by my first laid down. 4. it is apparent to all that are discerning, that mr. ws. does agree with mr. baxter and me in our opinion so far as concerns the brethren, that is, that in the sense of the imputation they hold, he is against them as much as we, and unless what he hath invented be another, there is no other imputation in se but theirs. 5. the going about to cover this agreement with us by his new devised notion, which none else ever had, or yet understood, and that which will never hold, must needs betray him to a deeper censure than he deserves, and lay him but the more open to any pen that shall be employed to expose him. not that i call this new notion only a cover if it prove the thing he counts it to do; but so long as it proves it not, it is no other. 6. it is not for a man of gravity to play the child, which hides its head in the mother's apron, and thinks that no body sees him; as if the veil of this perplexed conception should be a safeguard to mr. ws. against the assaults of any enemy, which it is like rather to provoke, and will afford him no more armour against them than a cobweb, which every wasp (and such he must look for) will break through, when some silly flies are entangled with it. 7. the only thing that he can say to excuse himself to good men (when they see his notion insignificant), and which perhaps does satisfy him fully now, is that by this devise he does prevent, or endeavour to prevent, the offence of the weak brethren, who are not able to digest stronger meat: but here will be the question, whether he does not herein symbolise with peter, who for fear of displeasing the jews by eating with the gentiles, did really scandalise the gentiles by withdrawing, and made paul reprove him. let mr. ws. examine this to the bottom, it concerns him, not me, for he must give an account thereof to god. 8. he does a kind of open wrong to me, and mr. clark, and mr. baxter, by giving occasion to such as have a regard to him, or his books, to account us heterodox, while he sets himself and the brethren on one side, and us upon the other, even in that wherein he agrees with us, but only that he is warped by his notion, that makes nothing indeed for the brethren, nor against us, though there were, as he thinks, something indeed in it: whereas if he did stand by us as of his party, it would hearten them, to own us also, so as it would in time render the offence insignificant, and the acknowledgement honourable, as the name christian now is, that was otherwise. 9 when the brethren accuse him for agreement with mr. baxter, and he instead of confessing the same, does say they wrong him (as peter said the damsel did in accusing him for one being with christ) and flies to his notion, which if it would hold, he should not yet do; for he agrees with us for all that: is this like a disciple of mr. baxter, who never baulked speaking his mind out of fear of loss, either of reputation, money, or life. 10. the case is brought in the contests of the present day, to a kind of case of confession, whether we are for an imputation in se, or quoad effectus; and if any that are leading men instead of a plain owning of the truth (as they conceive it) shall use any shift to save that confession (and when there is no need), i cannot but remember (i do not apply) that text. ye are they who justify yourselves before men, but god knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men, is abomination in the sight of god. 11. by mr. ws. new notion, he is not only kept himself from the confession which he is bound to make when brought to it (that is against an imputation in se) but it does keep others, though they be convinced in their judgements, and believe as we, from confessing or professing the same also: and if any will not confess the truth as they believe in their heart (if they be put to it) before men, when there is no danger but of credit, how will they confess their faith if there were danger of life? if a man does shrink at being a confessor, how will he abide the being a martyr? and how shall be that is truth confess him before god their father in heaven? not that i would have any think that mr. ws. uses a phrase against his judgement; for i believe he apprehends something verily in his notion that proves an imputation in se which i apprehend not; when yet that belief does prove him an honest man, which i do apprehend, and signify so much, to prevent my sinning against my brother, by giving occasion to any of thinking of him otherwise, from what i writ. 12. if any good christian shall say to me, i am offended that you and mr. baxter deny the imputation of christ's righteousness; i will answer, mr. baxter and i do hold the imputation of christ's righteousness as much as really can be held, that is, an imputation as to the effects. if one says, unless you grant more, he will be offended still; i will say again, there is, there can be no such thing as that christ's righteousness should be really (or in se) ours; and when we grant that it is relatively ours, that is, ours in regard to the benefits or effects (as the ransom-money is the captives in his liberty) it is all that can be said, or desired. and if any be offended for all that, than i say, is he offended? let him alone. 13. as for the phrase of imputation then, though it be not in scripture (i mean in regard to christ's righteousness) let no body mistake us, we allow it. our divines do use it, mr. ws. may use it, mr. baxter is for it; they wrong him and me if any say we are against it. but as for an imputation in se, if mr. ws. will use that please, and the brethren with others follow him, this is an offence given of another nature than that of displeasing men; for in the sense the brethren and others use it, it is an error in mr. ws'. own account, and so he does and says, that (in pleasing men, there is the danger) which gives them occasion to err, or continue in their error. this is a real and certainly forbidden scandal (which might be shown out of the eighth chapter of the first to the corinthians) unto which we must not say, let them alone. scandalum est dictum vel factum minus rectum praebens alteri occasionem ruinae. 14. mr. ws. considering how our non-conformed people stand affected, who cannot bear the open intelligible (yet more accurate) doctrine of mr. baxter, having found out something (he thinks) as may enable him to hold the truth and their affections also, by continuing the phrase of an imputation in se, which he would have thought even by us to be allowable, i cannot but take notice of these fair seemingly innocent, smooth tempting words which he has, p. 155. the contents whereof comes to this, that it is wise for him to do as he does, and has done. his words are these, that we contend with him only because he will not join with us in offending the weak, and hazarding truth by rejecting a phrase which well explaind, doth properly express what both intent: unto which words, forbearing the falseness of them (the hazard of the truth, and real offence in his notion, never to be made out, lying on his side) i must conscientiously reply these two things: the one is, that here are words indeed fair, but god looks through them. the other is, that i will therefore lay down this rule; first, that which is honest, and then that which is wise. mr. ws. by this new-fangled notion that hath intoxicated him, hath brought such a perplexity on the doctrine of justification to himself, and consequently to others (if any go to confound themselves in following him) that he hath done (or is like to do) more hurt in regard to our understanding that great article, than ever he can do good by any elucidation thereof, until he come to the purgation of himself fully and wholly of all this leaven with which he hath leavened it, and then write some new book, or books, for the clearing himself, and maintaining the doctrine he is otherwise engaged in against his opposers, without it. 16. besides what is said before in respect to the brethren, the using the phrase of an imputation in se in general, is using a phrase which is false, dangerous, as tempting to antinomianism, and the using the same still after this public notice and canvasing, cannot be justified by that which is to us an equivocation. 17. before i give my last reasons, it is fit, seeing i publish this letter, for preventing of that prejudice, by reason of our difference, which may turn to the diminution of any of that just and due esteem that myself and others have of mr. ws'. worth and writings, i do signify that the difference betwixt us is not de re, but de nomine only. there is nothing that mr. baxter or i do urge against an imputation in se in that sense as we oppose it, but he agrees to it, and presses the same: and that which he urges, or hath invented for an imputation in se in the sense which is his peculiar, it is not by me gainsaid; so that the matter is true (for mr. ws' writings are not romances) but it proves nothing, there is no imputation in se can be inferred from it. and seeing his notion proves it not, it is dictum minus rectum, and so scandalum that must be avoided. you may say, if your difference be only de nomine, why do you write this book against him? i answer, that because it is no more, he should retract it. the phrase of the imputation of christ's righteousness we allow, which he might contend for: and when i have said before that we allow this, why is not this enough? the phrase with it in se also, must by no means be allowed, for these many reasons mentioned, especially for the real scandal that is and must be in his own use of it. 18. though the difference be but de nomine, yet so long as his notion holds it not out, if mr. ws. contines to maintain his notion, and shall draw some of our friends to receive it, he will do this mischief, which he is not ware of, that is, make a division and parties among mr. baxter's true followers, who all are against the imputation in se of the brethren. he and some partial men may say that i make division by writing against his notion, but it is his notion itself (a new notion) if it be followed by any must make it, if i wrote not● i conclude then, that though th●se papers have been stopped in the press two or three months upon the desire of mr. ws' friends, to deliberate about it, they must in point of conscience get out, if it were only to prevent (so far as i can) this evil, if there were no other. 19 to knock the nail quite home, there is nothing can be said to be imputed to a man which he has, unless for another thing than what it is, as faith is imputed for righteousness: or for another end than that he should have it, as sin is imputed to be punished. it follows, that for a thing then to be a man's, and to be imputed to a man, that is, to be his in se, and to be his only to an end, use, or benefit, are two thing, so that an imputation in se is indeed an impossible; for that thing which is divers from another, cannot be the same with that from which it is divers. let mr. ws. then hammer his notion as much, as long, and how he will, he shall make nothing of it, for there is not such thing in rerum natura to be made, and this i hope will do. if i have said otherwise unawares in any book myself, i revoke it. lastly, mr. ws. therefore, i fear, hath done ill (either ignorantly or wilfully) and doth ill upon these several accounts; and i must suppose it his duty to retrieve the evil or the hurt he does or hath done by retracting this new-fangled invention of his as insignificant to the deciding any difference among our brethren, whatsoever truth it may have otherwise, in a plain, open, single-hearted confession of his mistake in it, that god may have the glory, our cause be strengthened, and his end of discord indeed fulfilled. unto this retractation therefore i do advise, admonish and call him (and call him publicly, seeing private will not do) and take my text for it out of leviticus; thou shalt not hate thy brother in thy heart (but thou salt love thy brother in thy heart, which i do) thou shalt in any wise rebuke him, and not suffer sin upon him. postscript. reader, these sheets were prepared to be printed before michaelmas term, and to come out then. i signified my intention of printing them to mr. ws. thinking that by an answer to my letter i should see his mind how he would take it. he wrote me no answer, so that about a week after i put them to the press, and thought he was indifferent, and like to be concerned no more about these animadversions than my others on his former writings: but after two or three sheets were printed, or composed, a friend of his came to one, and told me. that such and such books were coming out against mr. ws. and he cast down about it, and that it would be a cruel thing in me who was a friend to fall upon him, when he was like to he assaulted with enemies. i had moreover a letter out of staffordshire, porson of quality, who wrote, that he was informed from, some worthy hands in london, that i was about to write a book against mr. ws. and he perceived they had rather i should wave it; but he thought good to acquaint me only with what was written, and leave the matter to my prudent determination. the reason which these worthy persons (who so ever they are) did urge for this was, left the dissenters differing among themselves, should give advantage at this season to some as would (if they could) deprive: them of their liberty. i was content therefore upon mr. ws. speaking himself to the bookseller, to let the book be stopped thus long, till he, and his friend may see, there is no such books coming out against him, nor any danger of our losing any liberty; nor indeed any controversy or difference as to the main doctrine of justification, wherein mr. ws. and i agree with mr. baxter, but only in regard to a peculiar notion of his, which i do exagitate only, to get him to retract and relinquish it, which seeing i could not do by private advice, i would by public judgement. for though i could be willing to let the book be delayed, i could not yield to have it suppressed, unless upon the condition that i might have half a dozen of the whole copy printed out for my vindication, in case i should need it, as knowing that many could not choose but have a mind to see that book, which some was so earnest to have stopped, and not doubting but the most of the judicious of either party, will be ready to subscribe to the words of the forementioned person (unto whom as one so well learned, and studied in the point, a deference may be paid) which i will set down for the conviction of mr. ws'. friends (who may do more with him than i) seeing the publication can do that person no hurt, and may do mr. ws. good. his words at the end of his letter to me are these; i am of opinion mr. williams will not be able to answer what you say; he has endeavoured to go in a middle way between both, but his notion will not bold; he must come over to one side, or the other. errata. page 11 line 7 for prudent read pregnant, p. 13 l. 8 r. sydonifts, l. 33 mend the pointing, p. 17 l. 6 put the parenthesis at disobedient, l. 34 for faults 1. fault, p. 20 l. 15 for obliged 1. obeyed, p. 21 l. 12 make the fulpoint after see a comma, and l. 15 put out the fulpoint after redemption, p. 30 l. 7 for but r. he. finis. a combat between two seconds. one for obeying the present government. the other, the second part of a demurrer; undeservedly called religious. james. 1. 26. if any man among you, seem to be religious, and bridleth not his tongue, but deceiveth his own heart; this man's religion is in vain. london: printed for john wright, at the king's head in the old-bayley, 1649. a combat between two seconds, one for obeying the present government; the other, the second part of a demurrer. when a scholar of the lower form doth offend, the usher takes him into his hands for correction; and this demurrer being of the lower form, at least in regard of charity, i think i may make bold to bestow some chastisements, if not upon him, yet upon his faulty works. the wisdom that is from above, is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and without partiality. therefore to be impure, unpeaceable, injurious and partial; must be the wisdom from below, and brings him down to a very low form, that is guilty therein. this demurrer wanting strength in his arguments, or doubting of them, thinks to fortify his discourse, by laying scandalous and uncharitable suspicions, on the person of him that wrote for obedience; neither are they uncharitable only, but untrue; and such that upon the proof of them: the demurrer would hardly adventure a small sum of money, though he thus easily adventure his soul: and yet he says he sees, (and because he saith so, his sin remains, for an untruth is never truly seen) and without restitution, and reparation, he cannot expect his sin should be taken from him. he saith, he sees that it is a great snare to be possessed of great estates by that power which can divest them, if they assist not their wicked designs; and that the author he speaks of, is entangled in this snare, or else he would never undertake the patronage of so bad a cause. for answer; first, this man cannot possibly fetch any convincing proof, or demonstration of that which he saith, he sees; but fetches it wholly from uncharitableness; even a contrariety to that charity which thinketh none evil. this 1 cor. 13. is all, because the author will not comply with this man's errors and party. and whereas he calls it a bad cause, certainly it may be good still; for he hath very badly proved it to be bad. and why doth he not accuse calvin, and bucer, and paraeus, and gualther, and peter martyr, for maintaining a bad cause, and doing it for a place of profit. as for any design, the whole life of the author shows him very clear of designs; and for this, be it what design it will be, he was no actor in it, but a spectator only, until he saw a government set on foot, and that justice might be had this way, and no other. and then having a right to act, he believed that he might exercise it in just things; yea he believed that it was a duty, though the government had been taken by design, and force, that those who had taken it and excluded all other, should give justice; and if he assist in that which is good, and which should be sin if it were not done; i think it goes beyond the skill of this demurrer, justly to charge that which is good, with sin and gild. sure it is that he had the council and consent of impartial authors, (and such are the dead, not interested in our affairs) even authors to whom this demurrer is but an infant, especially if this discourse be the top of his strength, as it should be, or else he is false to his cause. for a more weak, irresolute and unresolving paper, is seldom seen; for in it there are so many [perhaps] concerning the chief points in question, that he seems unresolved himself; and how can he then resolve others? but of this more in the conclusion; and now because his matter is weak, therefore his chief strength is laid upon scandalising the author; and so his best argument is his own uncharitableness; i am therefore the larger in this point to make a plaster proportionable to the large poison of this serpentine discourse, that bites the heel, when it can not come to the head. in the mean time he may learn to construe his latin, by his own actions in english, scelere tuendum est scelus. that a false doctrine must be maintained by false slanders. and now to make manifest that the author is not so fixed to the world, as to maintain a bad cause, for a place of profit, let the demurrer first know that this author at the p●ssing of the self denying ordinance, gave his vote clearly for the quitting of his place, and did verily think it gone, (whereof he gave very good testimony) but that it pleased the houses, to declare it to be without the intention of the ordinance. so it seems he hath been able to quit such a place for the good of the public. secondly for the employments of the profits of his place. he hath so communicated them, amidst all these sales of lands, and other opportunities which are now going, that he hath not increased his estate by purchase one five pounds per annum. but thirdly, with giving maintenance to poor scholars ' in universities, fatherless and poor children in schools, distressed persons of ireland, poor in westminster, london, and the country, poor servants of the late king, poor distressed widows of soldiers, and such to whom arrears are due, and maintenance of preaching; he hath gone beyond any for aught i know, that have five times his estate. and for getting of reward or advancement by this work, it is certain he took a course to the contrary; for he was so fare from acquainting any that are eminent in power, and can give advancement, either with the work, or with the name of the author, that he communicated them only to one that transcribed it, whom he adjured to silence. and of this concealing, the stationer for whom it was printed, can give some testimony. true it is that upon conference, which he had of this subject with some persons, or by knowing his stile, some might adventure to put his name upon the work, among which mr. martial is one, who being present when the work was communicated to one of the author's nearest friends, in a close and concealed manner, and thereupon reading it, gave his judgement concerning the name of the author, though he had never any hint of it by any notice from the author. but now to the demur itself: whereas he saith, that he hears few rational conscientious men are satisfied with the declaration of parliament. it may be he converses with few men, so rational▪ and conscientious as to be free from partiality: but how unsatisfying soever it be believed, the author took his ground upon a supposed unsatisfaction. whereas he saith, a people may [perhaps] lawfully obey a government, when there is no probability of recovering their lost government. if he would leave out this word [perhaps] wherewith he much troubles his treatise, the business is near at an end. for the author believes there is no probability in sight, and therefore it seems he may have leave of the demurrer, to approve of obedience to the present government. and herein it is desired that this irresolute writer would resolve himself better out of those, that as it seems have more knowledge and judgement to resolve then himself, and particularly that in this point of probability, and possession, and others of kin to it, he would look into mr. aschams discourse, and either believe it or confute it; it is strange that these men should swallow that work of many sheets, and strain at this single one; but indeed till that book be answered, calvin, bucer, peter martyr, gualther, paraeus, confuted with the grounds and reasons of those judicious casuists (who though of the church of rome, yet in these cases of justice, not in controversy between us, cannot be rejected as partial) the cause stands good, though the demurrer in his bad language calls it bad, but leaves it good by his doubtful say, and his weak reasons. pag. 3. he acknowledgeth, when an unlawful power commands; a man, [perhaps] may obey; so [perhaps] the doctrine of obeying unlawful power may be true, and the demurrer goes about to confute a doctrine which himself confesseth may be true. and then with another [perhaps] he saith, that judah knowing none of the regal seed surviving, [perhaps] submitted to athaliahs' government. a most frivolous, and ignorant [perhaps.] for besides that god had promised, that david's seed should not fail; 2 chron. 21. 7. jehoiada the high priest knew, there was one of that seed alive: and why did not he preach this demurrers doctrine to the people, that they should not obey the present tyrrant, and that by it they established tyranny; betrayed the title of the just heir? but no such 2 chron. 22. doctrine appeared, but the daughter of ahab, and jezabel (very fare from any title to the crown of judah) was obeyed six years. besides, see here the slightness of this man, (whose doctirne generally is a perhaps and adventure) doth not the very text say, jehoshabeth the high priests wife, was daughter of jehoram and 2 chron. 22. 11. sister of ahaziah the late king; and if so, was not her title better than that of athaliah a stranger? item, pag. 3. he says, the author concludes more than he undertook to prove. but would the demurrer be offended, if a man promising to give him ten pounds, do make his gift twenty? and whereas he would gladly know, what difference between lawful and unlawful powers, if both necessarliy must be obeyed; here indeed by confessing his ignorance, he might deserve pardon, if it were not affected; for, he might know from the casuists, that the one is given as to a person commanding by right of title. the other by an interpretative consent, and pro tali rerum statu, for ●he preservation of the commonwealth; which is in such a state that it would otherwise be ruined. if i must give money to a poor honest man for charity, and to a thief for safety, is there no odds between an honest man, and a thief? as for his rejecting the interpretation of rom. 13. first, he argues from a single late writer, but shows not from him what the text speaks against obeying a tyrant that wants right, but of a tyrant that does wrong. for he writes that this tyrant, is a terror to good works: now we know a tyrant in title may be an encouragement to good works, and such there have been. it is commonly said that some of the best laws were made under richard the third. but secondly against the demurrer and his interpretation, are the judgement of these pillars of the church; who understand that this place affirmeth the present powers to be the ordinance of god, and are to be obeyed. thirdly, let one greek word be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 power or force, and the other 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 authority or magistracy; though nimrod by the former did obtain the latter; yet paraeus says that his authority gotten by power was of god. and so by virtue of that text was to be obeyed; see that place, and others alleged upon this very text, by the author in the last edition, and they will abundantly overpoyse this single doctor's opinion, both by reasons and authority. pag. 4. he comes to caudius and nero, and first saith, that the apostle might mean it of ●ny other p●wer abstractedly from the romans. so that he will have the apostle most impertinently, to tell the romans what obedience is to be given by others in another state, but not by them in their own. secondly, let him remember, that as peter martyr saith, the romans had now gotten the empire of the world; and than what was the state, this demurrer would have the apostle to mean? thirdly, he says nothing to claudius, who was set up directly against the counsels and resolutions of the senate's: neither was there following a free consent. but yet further, if the soldiers set up a governor or government, and a consent be so gotten, let this demurrer talk with his learned council, and then speak out plainly, whether votes gotten by or under force be valid. for in some cases they speak aloud they are not: yet it seems they are, when they may make for their turn. fourthly, he speaks of succeeding upon caesar's title: but was not that title interrupted by a triumvirate? and had not claudius a son when the soldiers made nero his successor? doth not this man betray his main business by yielding; that he who is not the heir, may be a lawful successor, though an heir be living? to the obedience given anciently in this kingdom and yet continued to laws of usurpers, he answers generally with doubts, and supposes according to his irresulute manner, and ever and anon, comes in which the usual burden of the song; oaths and covenants with a pair of [perhaps.] and whereas he would lay this obedience on the darkness of the times by topery; certainly there were very good lawyers in times of popery, and in those point, popery did not darken wherein it had nothing to do. our present lawyers fetch the main ground of their profession, from lawyers that were papists, or in times of popery. and it would be a weak and ridiculous answer at a bar to say; that br●cton, fortescue, or ploydon, were papists, or under the darkness of popery, and therefore their testimony must be rejected; and as little truth as law he shows, in saying that these laws have been ratified by succeeding parliaments, which he should have produced: ●ut to salve all, he concludes, that [perhaps] till than not to be judged valid in law. but were they not held valid and obeyed by the generation that made them? and that this man will not allow us to do. but secondly, let me answer him, that if he only say [perhaps] they were not valid, he leaves room for another to say [perhaps] they were valid, for one [perhaps] leaves room for another. page 5. to the testimonies of divines and casuists, and first to that of azorius. he most discretly answers, that there was a consent of all; and is there not such a one now, all men being taken for reasonable creatures. for it is supposed, every man as a rational creature should, and doth give his consent; but it is seen by his reasoning, that every man is not the facto a rational man. to the reason of the second, he with a [perhaps] saith, it is a popish nicety; but this a blunt answer to call all that popery, which he c●n not answer. and if acute reasons of pap●st, must be popish niceties, what will he leave for protestants but duncery? but in questions that concern not popery but reason and justice; why is the word popish brought in, but to cast a blemish on that truth, which he cannot otherwise confute? in rational things and not of popish concernment, it is fare more satisfactory to hear a papists wise reason then a protestants folly. besides, the term of popish, indeed doth rather give force to their reasons then weaken them, when a papist speaks against popish interest. and so doth this and other spanish authors, who speak herein against the spanish and popish interest in england, (under queen elizabeth) and in holland; so he useth the word popish to his own disadvantage. and now having added two questions, he leaves the matter in question, under questions. to paraeus who saith, usurping nimrods' power was of god, and must be obeyed; he answers, he believes nimrods' usurpation was over a people not engaged by oaths and covenants. so here hath he given up the main question itself, that usurped power may be obeyed, if there be no oaths and covenants. thus there remains now no doubt of the main position; but all the doubt is come to oaths and covenants, so that we have nothing now to do, but to clear oaths and covenants. as for bucers' testimony, he fesseth his blindness, that he sees not how it can be justified, neither do i think he will ever see as long as the web of prejudice and partiality covers his eyes. yet in this blindness, he kicks and throws at bucer, because he hardly toucheth his gall; and yet out of partial love to paraeus, he grants him the very same for nimrod, which here he denies to bucer. as for his objecting jack ●●de against bucer, why doth he not object also the usurpations of william rufus, henry the fourth, or hen. the seventh, who not having right titles to the crown, might be encouraged, as well as jack cade? but the name of jack cade he thinks may serve for a stumbling block to a blind reader, whereas he that seethe, will step over both that and the rest. this man no question hath heard, that god is the lord of heaven and earth, and disposeth all things as he pleaseth; and if he please to give a people into the hands and power of such a one, (as he hath often done) will or can this man resist and overcome the highest? or will he resolve not to obey them whom god is resolved to set over him? if ever he dan. 8. 18. 25. 35. be restored to his right reason with nabuchadnezzar, he will confess, that the most high doth rule in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will, and sets up over it the basest of men. let him pity, and not damn, the once famous, and now distressed, and oppressed churches in greece, who lie under the weight of such base and heavy usurpations, and yet yield obedience to usurpers. besides, the ground of obedience being in regard of an authority, gotten by a prevailing page 5. power; is it to be thought, that any who have an ambition to usurp authority, and have power to get it, will if there were no such doctrine, forbear usurpation, or leave it when they have gotten it, and can keep it by power? again doth not this objection lie against the demurrers yielding his purse to save his life? for doth not he here encourage a thief to go on in his thefts? but if he please, he may find an answer to both, that these consequences ratioanally come not from the one's giving his purse for his personal safety, nor from the others giving obedience for public peace and quietness. as for his preferring of satan to magistracy, when paraus speaks so much of an authority given from god to satan, in regard of power, as he did to nimrod; i will not say this demurrer [perhaps] will believe the one, and obey the other; but certainly he doth now in his false accusation (without any paraeus) obey him that is the accuser of the brethren. page 6. he finds himself in a strait when either he must obey, or else bring confusion to a common wealth. but not to obey he is resolved, and therefore by begging the question, or rather granting it to himself, he breaks through. he saith, it is a sin to obey; whereas this very argument of confusion is brought to s●ew, that it is not sin but a duty; and in nimrods' case, and else where (with a perhaps) he grants it lawful. and for his consequences of not recovering from bondage, let him give me the same leave he takes to say, he must not do evil that good may come thereof; he must not disobey to avoid these consequences: but the grand case (though the little case will not) very fairly acknowledgeth; that where lawful and unlawful are in question, convenience, and inconvenience must keep silence. neither are these consequences so near, and certain, as the confusion by disobeying. besides, there have been often remedies for such consequences; for often, usurpations having been upon this very crown, they have often been removed. and ferdinando king of naples, leaving his people (upon the very ground, and position of the author opposed by the demurrer) to obey the french, who had the present power over them, yet the french afterward were expulsed. that of the master's mate he can neither answer, nor suffer. he saith, his right must not be acknowledged; whereas there is no such thing in the question, but whether his commands should be obeyed for the safety of the ship. and then according to his use, he helps his lame answer over the stile, with oaths and covenants; with are another business. yet neither is here a withdrawing from a blessed union, but a preservation of the commonwealth from destruction, which by being destroyed can hardly preserve the blessed union; yet here somewhat bountifully, he justifies (with his usual perhaps) those that are forced to prosecute suits under the present c●urts. yea, he consents to the power that there manageth the laws with a distinction: but do not all his objections of breaking oaths, allowing usurped power, and accessary post factum, come in now against himself? for if the judges have no authority as well as power, doth not this submission encourage, approve and abet an usurped authority? and what satisfaction can this give to any man, with a quiet conscience to enjoy that which they decree to him? no more than if a neighbour meeting two that have a suit in law, should pronounce the law to be for one, and against the other; should that one satisfy his conscience in taking the others estate into his possession? therefore if he will use the word justify with sense and reason, he must allow an authroity, which in a case of usurpation is grounded on a and interpretative consent; he would have all join together in disobeying, and that indeed is the design: but first, that is unprofitable; yea, in being over powered, it is impossible to any good effect, because thus joining, it will bring indeed a disjoining, taking away all justice, and order, give up all to power, and so bring confusion to the whole. and could not the papists whom he accuseth of nicety, have found out this gross answer, in the time of queen elizabeth? yet they never urged it, and therefore were more reform in the doctrine of obedience, than this demurrer. and having walked through his discourse, with oaths continually in his mouth, now he is come to the right place of using them; for all this while his use of them hath been but generally a granting of the question, for upon the matter it speaks this, that if it were not for oaths, obedience were due. but to say that the king's person cannot die, is a matter of mirth, or if you will of nonsense; especially to be put into this oath; for it amounts to this, that i swear to preserve the king's person, which needs no preservation, because it cannot die; as for the clause of preserving the privileges of parliament, and liberties of the subjects; which is the main force, and little else said by him; i first desire an answer of this question: did this objector urge this oath out of any pulpit or press, with this vehemency and iteration against the breach of privileges by the prentices? or was it so pressed against those that sat some days, and for aught appears, would have sat till this day, if they had power, while many of the members were driven away? and here, upon this occasion let the demurrer know, that though the combination which managed that breach, were said to have many score thousands in that engagement to abet it, and were confident of prevailing, or else would never have undertaken it; yet the author (though hearing this) did not for any place of profit apply himself to that party, but (as by many witnesses can be proved) resolved to leave both his place, and any place in the kingdom, and began a journey to go out of both; but that god wrought a change. and indeed i cannot blame him, if it were abominable to him to live under such a government, it being one of the highest curses; the rule of children, and one of the basest vassalages to be ruled esa. 3. 4. by them: and yet upon their rule and law-making did this engagement, act and proceed; yea, the house itself; yet oaths then not preached as now. so by a second experiment it appears, he could part from a place of profit, if he saw reason for it. but if we look to the oath itself, doth the oath the words of the covenat are these, we shall with the same sincerity, reality and constancy in our several vocations, endeavour with our estates and lives mutually to preserve the rights and privileges of the parliaments, and liberties of the people, etc. bind us actually to preserve the privileges of parliament, or only to endeavour to preserve them? for actually to preserve them, may be, and is often out of our power, and then we should swear to do that which is impossible for us to perform. if this demurrer had received a sum of money, and had sworn that he would endeavour to preserve it safe for the owner; but a robber takes this sum by force from him, or will kill him, if he do not deliver it; is this man guilty of perjury, if having sincerely intended, and endeavoured to preserve it, yet in these cases he part from the money? thirdly, is the giving of all to confusion by disobedience, the way to keep privileges of parliament, and liberties of the people; or rather the way to lose both parliament and liberties, and to give up all to a popular confusion, or to a military power to be ruled by force, and not by laws? briefly, if obedience be a duty in regard of common good, (which is the general tenet held forth by divines, and casuists) how doth an oath bind to the breach of a duty, or to the destruction of the commonwealth, which indeed was made for the preservation of it? and let the demurrer say ingenuously whether he thinks that such a destructive sense was the meaning of the oath, and so ordinarily understood by the givers or takers. and now page 8. he goes about to prove that the heir is already a successor, and yet complains that some keep the heir from being a successor; and after (not by a popish nicety, but a popish absurdity) he maintains the incestuous title of queen mary, and calls her hei●e to the crown. and herewith another [perhaps] he speaks that which is uncharitable with it, and untrue without it; and nothing but want of charity would have spoken an untruth in a scandalous manner, though with a [perhaps.] for the gent. hath been excused by reason of age in point of attendance, and so the demurrer having taken back to himself his own uncharitableness, and untruth, (for perhaps cannot make that to have been true, which whatsoever happen was not true) he hath nothing left to help him, but confession and amendment. but to draw to an end, i wish that this demurrer would so fare know himself, that he is most unfit for dealing in controversies; being most irresolute in himself, and therefore unfit to resolve others: he hath at his back both a wall, and a backdoor, when he is beaten out of the m●ine question, than he runs to the wall, but ill daw bed of oaths and covenants; and when he is pressed not only by arguments, but his own conscience to confess the truth, he leaves open a back door called [perhaps] to shift himself out: but let him know that at this door the position which he opposeth may get out also. for example; among many [perhaps] he saith thus: a people may [perhaps] lawfully page 2. obey a government, when there is no probability of recovering their lost government. here if it be inferred, that there is no probability of recovering, he hath left a [perhaps] to get out of the conclusion. but his opposer will tell him that with the same [perhaps] his position may be true and escape also. so page 3. when an unlawful power commands lawful things, a man [perhaps] may obey: if so, then [perhaps] the author affirming the same thing, may have said true: and if so, why is this party so angry and uncharitable, without a [perhaps] for that with [perhaps] may be true? but thus it falls out, when men are resolved to fight with a truth that stairs in their faces; the truth breaks out of the mouth of their conscience, and then they put a muzell called [perhaps] upon it, that it may not speak plain. what is this, but to imprison the truth in unrighteousness, to leave people in doubt, whom they undertake to resolve, by blind guiding of the blind, to leave them in the dark, that they may not know where nor whether to go, and at last fall into the ditch? let him see the truth himself, before he undertake to teach others. let him receive the truth fully, and that shall make him fully free. free from error, free from uncharitableness, and slanders, the fruits of it. let him not out of prejudice against the truth, and the author that maintains it, make war against calvin, bucer, paraeus, gualther, peter martyr; and if he have charity to forgive them, let him enlarge it a little to forgive the author also, that says after, and with them. but indeed there is little cause for him to give, but much to receive forgiveness. for in his title, having called himself a lover of truth and peace, even in the very face of that title, and in the same page; he is not ashamed to utter such untrue scandals, that he confutes his own name, by gross evidences, showing that he loves neither truth nor peace. and whereas sundry other persons that have written on this subject, have dealt like men of religion and reason, answering matter with matter, reason with reason; this demurrers tongue being set on fire of hell, answers matter and reason with scandalous untruths. and this i charge upon his conscience, wishing that the worm of guilt may never leave biting, until by remorse it work repentance, and by repentaece forgiveness. finis. controversy ended: or, the sentence given by george fox himself against himself and party in the persons of his adversaries, ratified and aggravated by w. penn (their ablest advocate even in his huffing book of the vindication of g. f. etc. being a defence of that little book entitled, the spirit of the quakers tried. here it is manifested out of their writings, that the leadingquakers do but equivocally confess the divinity, and plainly deny the humanity of our lord jesus christ, the mediator between god and men. also, from eye and ear-witnesses, is related the divine honour some give to others of them. and no marvel; for satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. 2 cor. 11.13, 14. who is a liar but he that denieth that jesus is the christ? he is antichrist that denieth the father and the son. 1 joh. 2.22. london, printed for francis smith, at the elephant and castle near the royal exchange in corahil; and at the same sign first shop without temple-bar, 1673. controversy ended: or, the sentence given by george fox himself, against himself and party in the persons of his adversaries, ratified and aggravated by w. penn, (their ablest advocate) even in his huffing book of the vindication of g. f. etc. it cannot seem strange to any judicious man that considers the nature of the argument i undertook against the spirit of the quakers in g. f. that i should doubt of mr. penn's being able to satisfy his conscience in its vindication; because. i looked upon him as a man of some learning and judgement more than others of that party, and as conscientious as many. but behold! a book is at length come forth under his name, and bearing the title of a vindication, etc. which having considered, i must confess i find myself mistaken in the opinion i had of him, both in reference to his judgement and conscience. my reasons for such change of my mind, i shall in these papers produce. and first, his address to his reader challengeth some short remarks. 1. he will have me to be the most unjust of any that ever yet wrote against them, because (saith he) he draws a general charge from a particular failing. i answer, he should first have answered the reasons i gave why i did so. but do they not generally account g. f. most eminently filled with that spirit wherein they boast? did he not write this book in the name of the quakers? have they not defended it? and doth not w. p. here in their names undertake the defence of it? and in such a case i am justied by w. p. himself, see pag. 136. 2. he faults my generosity, because i wrote against g. f. at a juncture (saith he) when he might understand him to be at america. answ. methinks it savours of arrogancy, as if the voyages of their great prophet must be as generally taken notice of, as if he were some prince or cardinal. 3. he suggests the unseasonableness of the opposition, just when they should make the best of an unexpected toleration. answ. and would they not have cried out with more colour of reason, if it had been done at a time when they were under sufferings? and if he tells us (saith w. p.) that he had no mind to add to our troubles, he deals deceitfully: for his self-safety, and not charity to us was hindrance. answ. it's no marvel that mr. p. errs in judging men's hearts, when he fails so grossly in things before his eyes, as i shall soon show. but the bookseller can tell him, the little book was so well approved of by men of learning and authority, (persons i know not) that it might have been printed in the most dangerous times. 4. but it's a very grievous thing to them to want my name, and no simall enquiry have they made after it: which ingenuous persons would have scorned to have done: but i persuade myself, i gave satisfying reasons to all unprejudiced readers why i concealed it; and w. p's book hath justified them: for he hath at a venture given me a new name, and ascribed to me what may seem odious under it. if they set their names to their books to have praise of men, i seek it not. next, he is much offended at a quondam friend of his, who was so kind as to give away some sixpenny books to those he knew would not buy them, and yet were concerned to read them: a notable crime in another man, but a virtue in a quaker! i wish they would practise it in reference to their vindication. but he bestows some foul epithets upon g. f. as knave, puppy, etc. answ. o the blindness of self-love! that mr. p. should thus expose a man's name for words spoken in a free manner, and privately to his acquaintance, and that after he had recalled those terms, and promised to forbear them for the future; and in the mean time himself to be such a proficient in abusive terms and phrases, as if he were doctor of the chair among the satirists, save that he mixeth some billingsgate language withal. i shall here present the reader with some of his sweet language; if i should transcribe it all, i dare say, it would take up more paper than i intent to write in the whole. measure his book by the title, the spirit of truth vindicated against that of error and envy, unseasonably manifested, [as if there were a season for the manifestation of error and envy] in a late malicious libel. he designs to mischief; owl-light way of stabbing men, or deceiving people;— great injustice and deceit; mongrel-socinian; stupid or malicious; more mahometan than christian; serpentine associates; a lie, plain lie, arrant lie, palpably belie; idle boaster, indeed a very dreamer, his vulturous eye; malicious comments; his own vexed, base, murdering spirit; mere novice;— wickedly says him; weakness, folly, malice, and untruth; saturnal dreams; so overrun with the lazy, etc. left his wits behind in exchange; pseudo-linguist; brawling associate; to will mischief was present, etc. [why may not he profane scripture to abuse men? this miserable man; smaller degree of distraction: o stupendious folly! such creeping spirits; how dark and vile the man is; the poor man has an irksome way of telling his tale, etc. wont folly; so absurd— better argument out of bedlam, sacrilege and ingratitude, i almost tremble to think on; brazoned, language of brutish malice, such bats as himself, fools himself, frothy spirit, peevish, antichristian, etc. if he say that i have applied the like opprobious tenns to g. f. as false prophet, liar, impostor, falsity, forgery; i must tell him; 1. that the nature of my argument required those terms; i could not express that which was necessary to be said without them, or such like. if g. f. be a prophet, he must be either a true one or a false one. 2. g. f. supplied me with them, bestowing those, or the like, upon his adversaries upon unjust accounts. but i appeal to any prudent man, whether w. p. might not, with greater advantage to his apology, have omitted his many reproachful and virulent expressions. besides, i doubt not but to make it as evident as the sun at noon, that w. p. is himself guilty of those very crimes which he falsely charges upon me, and in those very instances. before i came to the main argument of my epistle to the quakers, i addressed myself to them by way of introduction, wherein i gave some reasons of that manner of argument which i intended. this mr. p. first falls foul upon, and by the honesty and discretion he useth here, we may judge of his performance in the whole treatise. in his first and second sections, the reader may take notice how greedily he catches at the commendations i give of some of them: i said there were honest-hearted amongst them; and he saith, he is pleased to allow us, at least a great many among us, to be honest-hearted; it may as well be understood of some few. is he not a modest man? if his neighbour say, honest-hearted, he will have it, at least, a great many honest-hearted. i said, whilst some of you excel in many things, etc. but w. p. (like a man that will rob his neighbour for praise rather than go without it) saith thus, sect. 2. if we excel in all things, as he confesseth: here w. p. has committed a double falsity. 1. he puts all for many; and 2. the quakers indefinitely, for some of them. i have looked among the printers erratas, whether he had not corrected all by many, but find no such thing: and if i should grant him that error (without good reason) yet the other piece of falsity, viz. putting we the quakers in general for some of them, will abide by him, to the gross injury of me, and the shame of himself. doth he call me idle boaster, and at the same time vainly boast of the praise i never gave them? in his third sect. he calls those praises, (which by falsifying my words he wrings out) paying them their due. in his fourth sect. he saith of me, nor doth he less than palpably belie us in telling the world, we condemn all virtuous persons whatsoever, if not of our own persuasion. and yet i cannot understand his answer to be less than an implicit concession of the charge, sure i am g. f. denies the worship and whole religion of all sects that differ from the quakers. mystery, epist. it seems i belie them with a matter of truth, which, because it is not plausible, w. p. would palliate. you may see what he's resolved on. he saith, sect. 5. christ's person (which he (meaning me) prejudicially says we deny) is, etc. my words are these, but you seem at least to deny his person. is there no difference between denying, and seeming to deny? but i shall have occasion to speak further of this matter. only the reader may take notice all along of his great honesty in quoting my words. but this is a trivial fault in comparison with that which follows. w. penn, sect. 8. but (saith he) he promiseth for the future to decline this way of proceeding, and withal, to avoid the use of both scripture and reason, etc. i will not (saith he) give him the lie, but i hope he will not say i am uncivil, if i tell him, he has already contradicted himself, and broke his word with us; for within eight lines, he that promised to relinquish all personal reflection,— lays to our charge, etc. and in p. 92. he has it up again, and gives me the lie in plain english, which he saith here he will not give me. he words it thus; first, then he has broke his word with us, which in plainer english is, he has told us a lie, in assuring us, at the beginning, he would deal with us neither from scripture nor reason, and yet undertakes both. now reader, have patience to hear my words, which run thus; but it is not my design at this time to take a full view of you: and indeed i have found it very fruitless to deal with you by way of reason and scripture for your leading men, etc. it follows in my next page, i will not therefore now deal with you so much by arguments drawn from reason and scripture, and depending purely upon the understanding and mind, but by such arguments, whose evidence depends mostly upon the outward senses. now let the sober reader judge on whom the lie is to be fixed! and whether i have not sufficient reason to tell him, he is both uncivil and unchristian. behold here the infallible minister! the censor of the world, and of other men's foul language! behold, the spirit of truth vindicated! let me beg of thee (reader) to read his book: see how he treats me, and what himself deserves! acknowledge the special hand of our lord jesus in giving up this man to these shameful failings in the very entrance of his work. pag. 15. upon occasion of my savine they look upon themselves as led by an infallible spirit, this plain englishman takes up his post, and will defend this: that god's holy an●vn-erring spirit, is, or should be, the proper judge of truth, rule of faith, and guide of life among men. i commend him for his wit: i have charged g. f. with about fifty such failures, as for which he condemns his adversaries to be perverters of scripture, and consequently, deluders and blasphemers. w. p. here in vindication of him, enters into a long discourse of two and thirty pages, to prove from scripture, reason, and humane authority, that g. f. is, or, if he is not, should be led by an infallible spirit; for his hypothesis is no other way to his purpose. 1. i do not only willingly grant, but contend for it, that there was in g. f. at that time when he wrote his mystery, etc. a conscience, which had he harkened to, he should thereby have been a law to himself, and it would not have suffered him to be guilty of such things as he condemns in others. 2. i grant also that this rule is infallible, viz. that he that judgeth another for any thing, is inexcusable, if he do the same thing himself. i grant, 3. that god is the author of this conscience, light, or knowledge. 4. that g. f. might have known the rule aforesaid by a good use and improvement of his own understanding! but i suppose he came to the knowledge of it by some outward teaching or tradition, especially by the scriptures. and so, 5. the spirit of god may in a true and good sense be said to have taught g. f. that rule, because it inspired those that preached and wrote that rule in the scriptures. 6. that the spirit of god was ready to have assisted him in walking according to that rule. 7. that it may be, god did by his power and providence work upon him toward obedience. lastly, perhaps the spirit of god did at that time when he was about to disobey, suggest to him his duty and rule: but there is little reason to think so, because that rule was sufficiently know to g. f. by the means aforesaid; and god is not wont to give that special gift, but to his humble servants and friends, or to those whom he will employ upon some special business in the world. and if he had such a suggestion, the more notoriously wicked was he to disobey so great a light. now if any judicious reader will take pains to consider the 25 texts w. p. has quoted, (and he may add 25 more to them) with their contexts, i am persuaded he will find them every one to intend some of the cases i have mentioned. now let us see if we can understand what w. p. intends by the terms of his position; for we must understand him, as he understands the scriptures, not literally, but mystically. 1. we are to know that by god's holy and vnerring-spirit, he means (if he means as the leading quakers) neither hypostasis nor person, nor any thing else, but god himself; who is the father. 2. by judge of truth, rule of faith, guide of life, he means, that god doth immediately teach g. f. and every man, to judge infallibly of all truth, what is to be believed, and what to be practised. [for otherwise it is not intelligible, that god should be the judge of truth, etc. among men.] and therefore 3. that the scripture is (as he saith pag. 38.) much like the shadow of the true rule, which may give us some ground to guests what the rule if self is. in the next page, he saith in effect, that the teachings of god, are like the knowledge of the princes will and secrets, viva voce, or immediately; which he that hath (and every man ought to have) heeds not so much the same when he meets it in print, that is in the scriptures: they are like a gazette to a privy counsellor. but he saith, that the eternal spirit, [that is, it had been to be desired, that he had not failed in his english in this place. these immediate teachings] to be superior to those writings. so that when g. f. saith, how can they but delude people that are not infallible? this is to be heeded more than any sentence in scripture, and is superior to those writings. 4. he means by his position, that men are to be guided into truth, and faith, and good life, immediately, in opposition to their endeavours, studying the scriptures, setting themselves to prayer, reasoning, preaching, and the like; that is, such of these as are performed by us, which he calls, (p. 84.) running in our own wills, poring, beating of our brains, and daily striving. now if this be his meaning, (as manifestly it is) then let any man, that has read any of those author's books, tell me whether he thinks that any one of those he mentions was of his mind, that is, tollet, or maldonate, beza, or dr. hammond, or hutchinson, socinus, selichtingius or crellius? did they not all abhor that doctrine? it comes to this, that god has made men with faculties capable of believing and understanding what the will of their earthly superior is, by the means of ministers, messengers, proclamations, writings, etc. and of obeying his will heartily without immediate assistance. but if our heavenly superior will have us to know or do his will, he must tell us immediately himself, he must go along with us, and lead us step by step, or else he must expect no service, duty, or obedience from us at all. the truth is, this doctrine of the necessity of god's immediate teaching, doth overthrow the mediatorship of the man christ jesus our lord, and quite subvert the gospel; for mediate and immediate, are directly contradictory. besides, still we have gained nothing by this doctrine; for if men do not hearken to the un-erring judge, or mistake him, or resist him against knowledge, refusing to be led by him, they fail as much as if they had no such immediate guide, but a mediate guide and direction. let mr. pen be the example; who even in the beginning of his book, has (notwithstanding his immediate and infallible guide) run into five or six such palpable falsities and calumnics, as i am confident the cobbler of gloucester would never have been guilty of; nor any man else, that had not been transported with pride, rashness, and revenge. what has he gained then by his immediate guide, which another man (that knows by nature or tradition he ought to speak truth) is not equally capable of? but why doth this apologist spend so many pages upon this point, and take no notice of my arguing in the following lines, which he saith, i had obliged myself against? must it be passed over therefore? i am persuaded (to use his words) he was confounded at it. it was to this effect; we by your own confession have the light within, or the infallible guide as well as you, why then is not our doctrine as true as yours? you answer, that we are not obedient, we are in the customs of the world, etc. and therefore not to be heeded. thus you prove yourselves to be in the truth, and us to be in error, not by divine reason, and holy scripture, but by the high opinion you have of yourselves, and your low opinion of others. and it indeed they acknowledge that there are virtuous persons that are of a contrary persuasion to them, and none but who are guided by an infallible spirit, than they are no more certain than other men, and we need still an infallible judge. i add, if every man hath, the i have a measure of infallible light, the least measure whereof convinces of sin, especially gross sins, such as malice, envy, lying, murdering-spirit, etc. which w. p. imputes to me: but i am so far from having any such convictions that on the contrary, my conscience hears me witness of a hearty love to truth and their persons, in what i have done, and am a doing: therefore, if their doctrine be true, his imputation is false; if his imputation be true, their doctrine is false. but enough of this. having now in this introduction given the reader a proof of w. p's faculty in accusing, meek language, faithfulness in representing my words and sense, modesty in praising himself and party, evading of that which is weighty confidence in denying what they are charged with, and his sense of the spirits guidance; we are pretty well prepared to make a conjecture of what we are to expect from him, in the handling of the main argument; which i think fit first to give a short account of. and i must tell you, that it is argumentum ad hominem, an argument against g. f. form out of his own words, and runs thus: he that is not infallible, in a deluder: but g. fox is not infallible, therefore g. f. is a deluder. the major proposition (as they call it) is expressly proved by that quotation out of g. f's book, where he faith, how can ye be ministers of the spirit, if ye be not infallible? and, how can they but delude people, that are not infallible? and again g. f. faith, is is not blasphemy for you to speak and preach that which ye have not received from heaven? whence i further argue thus: he that speaks and preaches that which he hath not received from heaven, is a blasphemer: but g. f. speaks and preaches that which he hath not received from heaven, therefore, g. f. is a blasphemer. it remains now that i prove the minor proposition of the former argument; namely, g. fox is not infallible: and that also i shall do out of g. f's words, thus: he that so quotes scripture, the instances of these things out of g. f's book, are to be seen in my epistle, p. 5, 6. as that he expresses the pronoun ye, where it is to be understood, or renders the greek preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, by, with, or among, or to; or puts he for we; or leaves one something that ought to be expressed, or adds to scripture words; he that doth any one of these things, or that which is manifestly equivalent, such an one is a perverter or corruptor of scripture, and not infallible: but g. f. doth some one of these things, or that which is manifestly equivalent; therefore g. f. is not infallible. the same medium proves the minor of the second argument, viz. g. f. speaks and preaches that which he hath not received from heaven: thus, he that perverts or corrupts the scripture in any of the forementioned instances, or one that is manifestly equivalent, speaks and preaches that which he hath not received from heaven. but g. f. doth so pervert the scripture, therefore g. f. speaks and preaches that which he hath not received from heaven. the minor of this, and of the former prosyllogism, namely, that g. f. doth so pervert the scripture, was proved in my epistle, by fifty instances out of g. f's book; the mystery of the great whore. and i appeal to every unprejudiced reader, whether there be not as much weight in every one of them, as in some of those, for which g. f. chargeth his adversaries with perverting of scripture? and whether there be not in many of them greater weight than in any of those? and if it should prove that but two or three of those fifty instances are full to my purpose, it would be enough to prove what i have undertaken, namely, that g. f. is, according to the true sense of his own words, a deluder and blasphemer. i have been forced to this way of syllogyzing, that mr. p's fallacious way of handling my argument may more readily appear; though i believe the common people did understand it as well (if not better) in that vulgar way, wherein i proposed it in my epistle. but to return; the evidence of all the premises, is matter of fact, obvious to the eyes of every man that can but read english, and discern one word or phrase from another, or when he finds more or less in any sentence; for what can be lighter than the adding of a pronoun to a verb, where it must be understood. but i must not go too fast; though my argument proves g. f. to be a deluder of people, and a blasphemer, and so a liar; yet it doth not prove him to be a false prophet, or impostor: therefore i added that large (and indeed blasphemous) testimony of solomon eccles, who saith, woe [g. fox] is a prophet indeed, and hath been faithful in the lord's business from the beginning: it was said of christ, that he was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not: so it may be said of this true prophet, whom john said he was not. i added also the quakers common principle, which doth not permit any one to be of the ministry, (as they call it) but him or her that hath an immediate revelation, or a prophet. now if g. f. be a prophet, and a prophet indeed, not only of the ministry, but the most eminent therein, and the patriarch of the quakers; i suppose they will not deny that writing to all the worlds, in defence of religion, is speaking, or preaching, or equivalent. and if he be a deluder and blasphemer, even when he speaks & preaches, than it follows roundly, that g. f. is a false prophet, or an impostor. this is the substance of that argument which mr. p. undertook to overthrow. let us now see, how he hath acquitted himself in that warfare. first, he doth not charge me with one word of false quotation, (that i remember) either out of scripture, of g. f's writings, so that i take it for granted, that the quotations are all true and genuine. 2. he grants that g. f. is a prophet, or sent of god, by his eternal spirit, to turn people from darkness to light, p. 67. 3. he doth not deny, at least for the most part, but that what i have ascribed to g. f. as scripture words quoted by him, is such, and consequently distinguished from g. f's paraphrases, explications, or inferences. but he doth deny, 1. that g. f. his affirming things to be true, which are false, and false which are true, * here this great linguist has forgot to write good english, that is his mother tongue. to be obvious to their eyes or senses: that is, he denies that g. f. his putting them for him, (col. 3.10.) thereby changing the antecedent, with for in, (ephess. 2.6) the corruption he blames in others; conscience for thoughts, (rom. 2.15.) god for lord, (rom. 14.9) god for christ, (col. 3.16.) and so of the rest; he denies, i say, that these and the like falsities in g. f's quotations of scripture are obvious to his senses: and yet 1. they are words written, and therefore proper objects of sense; and 2. the change of the words, (which is the falsity in this case) is in his answers, not denied, but excused. so that this his first answer comes to this, that w.p. doth deny that to be obvious to his sense, which he reads and acknowledgeth by excusing. and if this answer may serve his turn, i must confess i am nonplussed; for when i have shown an object of sight to a man's eyes by noonday light, and when he perceives it, and acknowledgeth it by manifest implication: if he still persist to deny it expressly, i cannot help it, nor i think any man in the world. i may well be said to fetch arguments out of bedlam, (as he says) if i should prosecute such a man any further.— but for the sake of some that will believe their sense and reason, i will proceed. 2. he utterly denies that such falsity, as i have spoken of, renders g. f. either a false prophet or impostor; liar he doth not deny. now, 1. i must confess i have not so subtle a wit as to put a difference between a lying prophet and a false prophet, and if my argument will serve to prove g. f. a lying prophet, i will not contend, whether the name of impostor be proper for him, but use it without scruple till i be better informed concerning it. 2. let it be considered, what it is that w. p. denies, and it will amount to as much as if he had confessed it. for he denies that such falsities or changes of words and phrases, (in citing scripture) as g. f. by his infallible spirit, calls perverting and corrupting of scripture, are such; which is all one as to say, that g. f. is not infallible, and if he be not infallible, he is judged by himself to be a deluder and blasphemer. now hath not w. p. vindicated g. f. to purpose? or, has he not, under colour of vindicating him, condemned him, and that with the most opprobious terms he could devise. this that i say is very manifest, so that if i would spend my time, or the readers, so unprofitably, i might here transcribe almost all that he saith as any way pertinent to the argument, and all his vilifying speeches on that account, and retort them upon g. f. to whom they do in truth belong, and not to me. for though i have in some instances imputed faultiness to him for small variations from scripture words, because i saw that those variations countenanced some error; yet i am confident, it would never have entered into my head so to do, unless i had first found him blaming his adversaries for perverting scripture upon far slighter, yea, and ridiculous accounts. might i not here tell g. f. as w. p. tells me? (p. 50.) had he not been void of all sense himself, and reason too, he would never have suffered so much weakness and untruth, to pass the press without correction. and (p. 21.) that no man in that compass, could have manifested more weakness, folly, malice, and untruth, (as well in defending of his own, as in opposing our principles) then g. f. hath done in his mystery of the whore. witness the quotations before mentioned, and w. p. again, (p. 52.) with a little variation; but that a man should make 22 corrections of so many texts of scripture corrupted by the translators, and twelve or thirteen of them to depend upon the rendering of the greek particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in, and not otherwise, befits no man that loves to be profitably employed, but it therefore suits g. f. which is so overrun with, etc. that on shipboard (a kind of public place, or else i should not mention it) he suffers (as the passengers inform) elder men than himself, and prophets too, to minister to him in the lowest offices, such as untying and pulling off his shoes, etc. but how should mr. pen know that i am so overrun with the lazy? did his infallible spirit reveal it to him? for otherwise he doth but guests who i am. here he scorns me with saturnal dreams: see the tender conscience of this quaker! he dare not use the word saturn, when it is a mere signification of a certain day in the week, as john or thomas is of a man; but when if serves to abuse his neighbour, he can use it without scruple. again, p. 53. i look upon it (saith w. p.) as conceited and presumptuous, for any man to undertake what he cannot prove, and not less base to affirm a man miscites, perverts, and corrupts scripture, when he renders the genuine sense of it. had mr. p. so soon forgotten what he had read in the page immediately foregoing? (epist. p. 6.) or, doth he think that destroy ye this temple, is not the genuine sense of destroy this temple? is this to vindicate g. f. to render him base? and may not mr. pen (p. 62.) confess himself troubled, [as well for g. f. as for me] not at his great skill, but folly? when he finds him ask his adversaries, so like a critic, where doth the scripture speak of humane, the word humane? and will not w. p's words, p. 6 †, serve pertinently against g. f. viz: certainly then this word humane, is not of such dangerous consequence, nor inconsonant to scripture-language, as this idle and ignorant person would render it. but i must hasten. and yet give me leave a little to borrow mr. p's pathetic figure of speaking, p. 80. thus: and that which is more to be wondered at, this miserable man, even while he denies g. f. to be a false prophet or impostor, doth manifestly assert him to be a deluder and blasphemer. i heartily pity the man, and am really afraid he has overcharged the strength of his brain; for with me such manifest contradiction is but a smaller degree of distraction. o stupendious folly! thus doth mr. p. treat his adversary. these passages, out of many more of the same complexion, i have taken out of w. p's vindication of g. f. from the first instance of scripture misrecited (in his language corrupted) taken from john 1.9. which may be by me applied to them according to truth; but are by w. p. to me, by abuse of my words and person, as may easily be perceived by any intellgent reader. but that which is matter of wonder (if any thing be so in this author) is, that he spends near two and thirty pages upon this head, and concerning the light, and not one word (that i can perceive) whereby g. f. is any way vindicated from my chief exception; which lay in this, that every man whom the light lighteth, is not of necessity or effectually enlightened: but g. f. reads it, every man that cometh into the world is enlightened. i added, for explanation of my sense, (rom. 2.4.) that the goodness of god leadeth— to repentance those that are impenitent, and not led to repentance. i added moreover, mat. 5.15. and luk. 11.33. & 36. but of this mr. p. hath deep silence. he spends near 16 pages about the translation and reference of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, coming, whether to man, or to the light; and about the translation of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, lighteth or enlighteneth; which were transiently mentioned by me in less than three lines, and not insisted on, and may be determined either way without prejudice to my chief exception. he joins greece and italy together, (calling me pseudo-linguist) to abuse me for my use of the greek-tongue, yet has not charged me with any error therein, which himself or his authors have not recanted. i said that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 coming, might refer to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the light, as well as to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, man: he wonders that a man so mean in that tongue, should undertake to thwart the current of all indifferent translators. he ostentates his skill in the oriental tongues out of the latin translations of them, what an unworthy thing is it in w. p. to intimate, p. 67. that i would have the text rendered, haec est lux illa vere, quae venientem in mundum illuminat omnem hominem? (which tongue, by the way, cannot render the greek of this text so well as our english can.) the question is concerning the greek: the arabic and aethiopick (as he citys them) are on my side: the three french, and the low-dutch translations (as he renders them) are for me. erasmus grants that the sense is ambiguous, (which is as much in effect as i say) mr. p. in translating erasmus' words, saith, too ambiguous, wherein he wrongs erasmus: — ambiguitatem sustulisset. doth he learn that of the new academy at paris? his maldonate saith, my sense is neither false nor absurd. grotius saith, i do much approve of the exposition, which is extant in cyril and augustine, that this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, coming, be referred to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the light, dr. hamond reads it so. and are not these four indifferent translators and expositors? did they not all own the eternal divinity of christ? and did not mr. p. know it? let the reader judge whether he doth not knowingly abuse me? and whether he has not abused him too, in writing so much to no purpose? as for the difference between lighteth and enlighteth, i stood not upon it; but now, after all his impertinent labour, i say, there is as much difference between these words, as between destroy this temple, and destroy ye the temple; and our translators seem to use the word lighteth, for the gospel preached; and the word enlighteth, for the gospel received and believed. w. p. deals here like a cunning lawyer, who having a bad cause, labours hard to turn off the judges from the matter in issue, to something that is not so. in order to that, another artifice he useth is, to make an hideous outcry against me, as a socinian, mungrel-socinian, bidlean, and other frightful names; as if it were a sufficient vindication of g. f. from the charge i have proved against him, out of his own writings, that i am an erroneous or heretical person. let me be all that w. p. saith i am, a turk, a jew, an anthropomorphite, an arrian or sabellian, or what he will; will g.f. his doctrine be e'er the truer, or his person the wiser or honester? away with such mercurial sleights! here he would fain draw us into the controversy of his stating, viz. whether the light be natural and created, or supernatural and eternal? into which if we should be so foolish as to follow him, i dare say we might have work enough for a full age, and be never the wiser at last; for how is it possible to come to any determination with one that is equivocating in his terms? as i shall show the quakers to be. next he falls upon my concessions concerning the light in every man, and pleases himself hugely in making me contradict myself, and give away my cause: but it's no great matter, for one that is wont to equivocate in his own words, to make his neighbour's contradictory by the same art. and, 2. if if should appear that i had failed in expressing my mind concerning that matter, yet still the argument of my book might be firm and valid against g. f. here under this head, upon my sober appeal to the light in the quakers, he falls (as it were) into an exstacy, and cries out monstrum horrendum! (as if some poetic deity had inspired him): why! what's the matter? he saith, that unto which a man makes an appeal, must be capable of giving an infallible judgement, and so a true judge, or else he appeals foolishly. answ. it seems, when paul appealed to caesar, that is, nero, that nero was capable of giving an infallible judgement, or else paul appealed foolishly. do not all men know that appeals are made to men upon the account of necessity or conveniency, not upon an opinion of his infallibility to whom the appeal is made? doth not mr. p. reason like a man in a fright? 2. he saith, that g. f. is by the verdict of that light in them, pronounced not guilty; and i tell him, that g. f. is by the verdict of the light in me, and as many thousands as the quakers pronounced guilty: on which side now is the infallible judgement? or, are we both infallible? what tristing is here with terms and words! upon the question if self, of the light in every man, i have in effect discoursed already, when we considered w. p's position touching the un-erring judge, etc. i add further, that every man that grows up to years of discretion, has a capacity, by nature or otherwise, to know so much of god's will, concerning his duty, as whereby his honesty and sincerity may be tried. 2. that he that is faithful in the obedience of that knowledge he has, shall have more. 3. that such an one (as was cornelius, acts 10.) who feareth god, and worketh righteousness, shall be accepted of him. but. 4. that such a person may be yet without the knowledge or faith of jesus the mediator between god and men. and, 5. that god did not to cornelius, neither was wont in those primitive times, nor doth he in these days (that can be made to appear) reveal unto such men inwardly by his spirit, the knowledge of christ the mediator; which was contained in those words which peter preached to cornelius, whereby he and his house were to be saved. 6. i say, that that knowledge in those words are conveyed to us by the holy scriptures, as unto cornelius by word of mouth. 7. i say, that the quakers in vilisying the knowledge from tradition, and the profession of the person of christ by tradition, and contending for an immediate revelation of this knowledge, do vilify the dispensation of the gospel by the mediator jesus, and his apostles and evangelists their preaching and writing. these things are evident, partly by themselves, partly by scripture, as acts 10. & 11. mat. 25. rom. 2. now let us look into mr. p. and his associates, their sense of that doctrine they so much glory in, and upon the account of which they sing such loud triumphs in the world, viz. the light in every man is infallible, and they that are not infallible, are deluders. for we shall deceive ourselves, if we think we understand them, when we understand the words in one sense. 1. then you must know that by the term light, sometime they mean christ; so, when they say, the light is supernatural and eternal, they mean by the light, christ, that is, god; and the sense is, see p. 68, etc. god is supernatural and eternaly, and god is infallible: who ever denied it? but, 2. when they say, the light justisies or condemns, than they mean that which we call conscience, for so g. f. expounds it, (mist. p. 11.) saying, and the light condemns, which you call cousciouce. suitable to this sense, when a man proceeds rightly in the use of his faculties, and those means which god assords him, and attains to a true knowledge, than he is infallible, and the light, that is, his judgement is infallible: but when he doth not proceed rightly, and gives a wrong judgement, than he is fallible, and his judgement fallible, but not the light. and so the sense of their position, the light is infallible, (when they do not mean by the light, god) is, that true knowledge or true judgement, is true knowledge or true judgement. and mr, p. has unhappily, (by being a little more open than their doctrine will bear) utterly betrayed both his cause and his friends: for thus he saith, (p. 82.) infallibility of persons, any further than as they are joined and conformed to the light of god, me never affirmed; and fallibility of the light, because of the fallibility of persons, we never owned. that is to say, when g. f. and w. p. preach nothing for truth, buth what they certainly know to be so, then, and in that point they give a true judgement, and are infallible; [and so is every man in the world] so are g. f's adversaries;] but when they give a false judgement, thinking it to be true, than they are fallible: he might as well have said, they that are intallible, are infallible; and on the contrary. they that are infallible, are fallible; and they that are fallible, are infallible, for there is nothing hinders, but that the same person may be infallible in some things, and fallable in many things, for nothing is more common, than for the same person to follow the light of god in one thing, and neglect it in another. when g. f. quoted scripture right, than he did conform to the light of god, which told him he ought to do so, and was infallible: but when he quoted it wrong, than he was not conformed to the light of god, but fallible. behold here the quakers doctrine of infallibility! may we not retort then g. f's words? how can he but delude people, since he is not infallible? but they have yet a third sense of the term light, when they say, it is infallible, and that is this; the light in every man, is the immediate teaching or speaking of god in every man; and that is always infallible. answ. i have spoken of this before in the introduction; and again, 1. i ask, is the mediate teaching or speaking of god, either by nature or scripture, fallible? i hope not. 2. mr. p. grants, p. 72. that men may, through their sins and infirmities, mistake, and not perceive the teaching of the light, and so not conform it; and then they are fallible like us or other men. 3. this is that which i said in my epistle, if god be pleased in a mediatory way, by such very vile means (in the quakers account) as the foolishness of preaching, and traditional scripture to reach men sufficiently; and if they despise that way, must god be bound to supply their pride and idleness by his immediate teaching? which when he has done, they are still as liable as other men to be inconformable to it. and so this their great doctrine of infallibility comes to nothing but equivocation, noise and wind. their persons w. p. in contradiction to g. f. grants to be fallible; their light within, when it is taken for the last dictate of their understanding, (which men are obliged always to follow) for whatsoever is not of faith, is sin) mr. p. grants to be also fallible. and why may not i now retort his exprobration? well! before i would undertake controversies, and thus give away my cause, nay, so woefully, yet frequently contradict myself, [and my friends] i would never write while i live. these things thus discoursed, to follow mr. p. though they are a digression from my argument, yet i hope not unprofitable to the reader. we may now proceed to his answers upon the particular instances, and show that even in those that are of least moment, his vindications of g. f. and his contemptuous speeches against me for the slightness of the objection, do all fall heavily upon his prophet george. for i have him upon this dilemma: if the instances i have produced of g. f's mis-citings of scripture, be indeed pervertings and corruptings of scripture, then g. f. is fallible and a deluder; if they be not, then also he is fallible and a deluder, because he has judged them and the like to be so in his adversaries. so that if i had hired w. p. to have wrote in defence of my argument, and in aggravation of g. f's golly, i'm confident he could not have it done more effectually, than he hath in this his book, where he denies the antecedent, namely, that such mis-citings are pervertings, which he doth almost in every instance. it would tyre the reader to pass through them all, we will try it in some few of them, that are, in his esteem of the most trivial account. and the first shall be that from ephess. 2.6. where for in christ jesus, w.p. p. 13. g. f. puts with him. here i said there might be a different sense: but however g. f. chargeth the translators for corrupting scripture, because they had translated 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (jud. 14.) with ten thousands, and not in. the like corruption he finds in the translation of matth. 3.11. with water for in water. now i appeal to any reader that understands english, whether it was not as great a corruption in g. f. to put with for in, where both the greek and english had in, as for the translators to translate the greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by with. now let us see w. p's defence retorted. first, g. f. wrongs the translators in saying, they have corrupted the scriptures, by putting with for in, since there is no difference at all in what be would fantastically have to be one.— and with such arrogancy doth g. f. charge the translators with corrupting scripture, as if he were the only master of the sentences, doctor of the chair, or grand critic of the age, who, to speak truth, shows himself a scholar much at the same rate, and by the same figure that pedlars are called merchants. save that he comes short in this, that he knows not a piece of stuff from a piece of silk, not one clause from another. next, 2 pet. 2.1 denying the lord that bought them; w. p. p. 117. where he inserts christ, and yet perhaps it may be meant of denying, the father. now is not this as great a perversion of the text, as the saying, destroy ye this temple, instead of destroy this temple. besides, this countenances their doctrine of the father and christ their being, so one, as that they are not distinct. let us hear w. p. now. we may guests at his meaning without an interpretation; but must christ be lord and not lord, [distinct and not distinct] at every turn, when this presumptions person g. f. will?— in short, if a man's expressing, ye, where it must be understood, must conclude him a perverter of scripture, and consequently a deluder and blasphemer, who is true? let all the world read, and observe of what ungodly stuff, and very trash his [mystery book] doth consist! 3. g. f. ranks it among scriptures corrupted by the translators, that they render col. 1.23. the gospel which was preached to every creature; and himself (in contradiction to him that asserted that the gospel is not first made known by the seeing within, but by hearing tidings without) renders it, the gospel is preached in every creature, where he puts is for was, and in for to. now w. p. (p. 121.) doth not deny the change; but says, that is and was are both true. he says also that in every creature, and to every creature, may be the same. what now? how can it be a corruption of scripture in the translators, to render it to, if it be the same with in. w. p. seems in this, and indeed in the sum of his vindication, to have writ by immediate inspiration, that is, what came next to his fancy, without consideration of its being for him or against him. well! what's his censure against me, which lights upon g. f? his carping there is like all the rest, malicious and troublesome. it seems g. f. is a malicious and troublesome prophet. thus i might go through all the instances, and present w. p. wounding and goring himself and friend upon the horns of my argument, but the reader will easily excuse me from that travel, and do it himself in his own mind. and yet methinks i cannot but note one more of his mercurial watchings: (he'll go near to charge me with palpable lying, (as he has done divers times in the like case) for this common phrase, because i say, i cannot, when i can). it is in my p. 33. in his p. 126. where i fault g.f. for saying absolutely, god said, for did not sin with his mouth, where the scripture saith, in all this did not job sin with his lips: now my exception lies in those words, in all this, which w. p. according to his wont honesty, leaves out, and gives out, that my exception lies in the putting of mouth for lips, p. 127. and that i charge g. f. with imposture on that account, when as he has found as great a change as that in christ and his apostles their quoting of scripture. well! suppose (what is not) that my exception had been that; is it not as great a corrupting of scripture, to put mouth for lips, as to put to for in, where mr. p. faith, to and in, may he the same; or as, destroy ye, for destroy (ye understood). thus all the foul play that w. p. can use, will not excuse his good friend; but every blow that he strikes at me, wounds g. f. mortally. but the most deadly of all comes at last; 'tis this, (without change of his argument) if christ and his apostles have not observed such exactness as [g. fox] so severely reproves [his adversaries] for the want of. it is to be hoped, that be will either retract his unworthy abuse— or else not think it hard in us to charge this blasphemous inference upon him, namely, that he makes christ jusus and his apostles perverters of scripture, and what else be wickedly concludes against professors. this inference falls with all its weight upon g. f. as the reader may readily perceive: but for me, it touches me not at all: for, first, we will suppose g. f. but equal to christ and his apostles, in changing words to the same sense, yet there will be this difference between them. 1. they testified the infallibility of their spirit by many miracles, etc. but i never heard of any that g. f. did, except the eating and making one or more meals of spidars, of which i hear not of any evidence but his own word. 2. christ never called the scribes and pharisees perverters of scripture, for such change of words as g. f. hath done professors. 3. christ did not at the same time challenge the world, and call them forth to come and have their doctrines tried by that very scripture, that is, that version, or that copy then in use among them, and which he corrects them for not following exactly in every point, without their meanings, as g. f. has done in his mystery, etc. and preface to the same. which things considered, are enough to render him (according to his own judgement) as deluder and blasphemer, and w. p. no less in making the parallel; but our lord and his apostles innocent. but, secondly, of fifty instances, there are not above three or four that have not either addition or substration both of words and sense, or an alteration of words either importing or countenancing a bad sense, or at least varying from the sense of the place, as i doubt not but will appear to any judicious reader. and w. p. himself, in most of the instances, doth not deny the various sense, only he endeavours to make that sense consist with truth in general, or some opinion of their own, which others count error. lastly, it's more than mr. p. knows, for all his skill in the hebrew, (which is very notorious among learned men) whether out lord and his apostles in their citations of scripture, did not keep to the very words of that version which was then in use, or allowed by those to whom he spoke, and they wrote. so vast a difference is there between the citations of christ and his apostles, and those of g. f. that it's a most shameful thing they should be brought into comparison. here i might transcrible much to the bitter condemnation of them out of their own mouths, but i must hasten. notwithstanding after mr. p. has writ a book stuffed with invectives, and opprobrious condemnations of g. f. his doctrine and person, under my person and cause, he comes at length, in the end of it, to say something to his purpose of vindication, if it were true and reasonable, but it proves no armour of proof, but a mere cobweb. he argues thus, professors hold the scripture to the such a sufficient, infallible— rule, as that god hath not given unto men any thing more clear and certain: but g. f. and the quakers hold, that the eternal spirit is, by way of excellency, the rule and guide of christians: therefore he was not consigned to the very express words and points thereof as his rule. could he satisfy his conscience in this apology? but i answer, 1. this arguing clearly supposes that the dictates of g. f.'s spirit, are more excellent than the scriptures. 2. it supposes that the spirit of god, or god himself, can affirm that to be written which is not written, that is, can lie: for in citing scripture, men have respect to the very express words, and upon those they build the sense. 3. it supposes that because g. f. has a less esteem of the scriptures than other men have, therefore he may honestly do that to the scriptures, which will render other men pervertors and corruptors of them. 4. it supposes that which is false, viz. that professors hold the prosent english transslation to be unalterable, for g.f. chargeth them with perverting scripture, for altering it to the very same sense, as both he and they must acknowledge. 5. g. f. chargeth the translators with corrupting scripture, for rendering it so as w. p. confesseth to be the same with the rendering that g. f. would have, as i showed upon col. 1.23. 6. it seems by this arguing, that when g. f. calls upon other christians to come forth and be tried by the scriptures, we must understand, not the form of found words contained in the scriptures, but his interpretation of scripture: but they, poor men! divinity of christ pref. must be charged, nay, commanded to give him plain scripture, printed scripture, chapter and verse. what? though g. f. his words are to w. p. of equal, yea, greater authority than the scriptures, (as proceeding fresh and new from the holy spirit, but these have passed through many foul hands); must they therefore be so to other men, that do not acknowledge him led by that spirit? when the truth of any matter in question is to be tried by a written testimony, and that writing may be produced; he that shall then, instead of the determinate words of that testimony, produce other words to the prejudice of his neighbour's cause, shall be counted forger and liar. and i nothing doubt, but that g. f. if he had dealt so with other writings of civil concern, as he has done with the holy scriptures, would by this time have lost his ears. and it would not have excused him in such a change, to have urged that his own knowledge and testimony were of greater cortainty and vilidity, than the words of that written testimony, forasmuch as party concerned acknowledged no such matter. 7. g. f. in accusing professons of perverting scripture in the instances cited, follows his own judgement and principle, and not theirs; for the makes it an argument of the quakers their being sent of god, because they speak of scripture right as it is, but professors the contrary; and tells them, they run into all absurdities that give their meanings to scripture. lastly, such is the unhappiness of w. p's undertaking in this matter, that almost all his reasonings and scorn too against me, in vindication of g. f. turn directly to his condemnation: for because prefessons do not acknowledge any other common rule of faith but the scriptures, it was necessary therefore for g. f. to confute them by express scripture, especially in that he had undertaken so to do, and dared them to go to a trial at than tribunal. see the epistle to his mystery. i have been long in the answer of this allegation, because it seems to be the only thing of weight in his whole book; but you see how it disserves him. having now seen my argument against g. f. confirmed and improved with much bitterness by w. p. under pretence of vindicating him, i might here fairly conclude; but having added to my argument (in my epistle) that he had not only done to same, or the like to that which he condemned in other, but much more, and that which was really conclemnable, and urged my instances to prove that also, it may perhaps be sit for me to say something in vindiation of them, or some of them, from w. p.'s exceptions: though indeed, if the reader would but take the pains to compare my epistle with his answer, and what i have here already written, i might well spare mine and his further labour in this matter. but because every reader may not have opportunity so to do, i will proceed. the first instance i have spoken to already. the second instance is form john 1.7 where g. f. applies that to the light, which john speaks of the baptist, vis. that all men through him might believe: which taken, as it is spoken, proves, that the preaching of john baptist, was a means of bringing all men to believe, and consequently that the true light may light every man by the foolishness of preaching or outward means; which is contrary to the quakers doctrine of the light, and is avoided by his perverting the text. the third inst. in from 2. cor. 4.6. for god who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts to [give] the light of the knowledge the glory of god in the face of jesus christ. g. f. hath it thus; when as paul said that the light which shined in their hearts, to give the knowledge of the glory of god in the face of jesus christ. 1. he puts the light instead of god. 2. he leaves out light immediately before of the knowledge. 3. the whole sentence is nonsense; and notwithstanding all this, w. p. has the face to tell his reader, he obtrudes an arrant lie upon our very senses, and call me, wretched scribbler! how idle? how frivolous, etc. the error that's couched here, is. 1. that god and christ the light are not distinct, but all one. 2. that by light here is not meant knowledge. 3. that this light is not an effect of creation. 4. inst. from col. 3.10. where g. f. reads them for him, and so takes away from us a proof, that the new man there spoken of, is created. w. p. saith, in his defence, if he did put them for himit is not false; but if we, in common discourse, say you for thou, he'll say its false. (5. rom. 2.15. g. f. puts conscience for thoughts, because conscience was more easily drawn to signify the uncreated light in every man. (6.) john 7.38. there he puts christ's helly for the believers belly, to countenance the foresaid notion. (7.) 2 cor. 2.16. g. f. applies that to the immediate word, which is plainly spoken of the apostles. p. 119. and w. p. that he may be true to his way, of abusing me falsely, saith, i undertake to prove him to be an impostor, for putting the before death and life, which the translation doth not. did ever man make less conscience of what he wrote? (8. col. 1.23. putting was for is, to prove inward preaching without outward. i have spoken of it before. (9) 2 cor. 13.5. within you for in you, to countenance (as he supposes) their doctrine of god's immediate light. (10.) 2 cor. 3.6. g.f. saith, the scripture said, the letter was dead and did not give life. w. p. blames me for referring these words to this scripture, (which is the nearest i can find) but he finds no scripture nearer, to which to resen it. how captious he is! paul saith, the letter ●illeth, (speaking of the first covenant, as w. p. confesseth) but g. f. intends, that the outward dispensation of the new covenant in the scriptures is dead. an opinion that has done no small mischief in the world. (11.) i have charged g. f. that twenty times or more (as i suppose) he denies that the scripture is called word, but saith, it is called a treatise, acts 1.1. and yet that word there rendered treatise, is the same which is rendered word, when applied to christ: but w. p. to help at a dead lift, saith, g. f. intended, the word of god by way of excellency: which of g. f. his adversaries did ever affirm it was? (12.) but w. p. can descend him in any thing, even when he obtrudes upon his reader the grossest absurdity instead of scripture, and will not have it to be any more than a trivial objection against his infallible prophet, when he saith, and so to the word christ jesus, him by whom the world was made before is was made. this g. f. puts in a scripture letter, and this he repeats in his book at least seven times without any variation; the eighth time he has it thus, by which the world was made before it was made. it's evident enough he has respect to john 1.3. without him was not any thing made that was made. what saith his chamption now? but is there no allowance to be had for curt expressions, eseapoes of the pen, oversight in compositors, and errors in the press? what! eight times after the same manner? where was w. p.'s conscience? but can be not make sense of it? yes, yes: suppose a comma at the first made, where and being understood, explaineth the sense, was maketh it more clear: that's one way. again, take the middle clause and put in last interchanging the world and it, thus: and so to the word christ jesus, before the world was made, him by whom it was made. all this stir is to make it sense, (as for scripturee, 'tis such as god's infallible spirit in g. f. wirtes) and may not a man at this rate excuse the groffest nonsense that ever was writ? go thy ways for an admirable advocate! once more let me ask the reader what he thinks of the honesty of w. p. and whether he will excuse me henceforward, if i mingle any more discourse with him? it may benefit some or other, therefore i will yet proceed a little further. (13.) who can read deut. 30.10, 11, 12, 13, 14. and not perceive that by the word very night unto them in their mouth and in their heart, is meant, the word written? and yet g. f. would have it to be the inward immediate word, and therefore in thy mouth, must be left out as not well agreeing with that notion. (14.) it's for the sake of that notion, that the power of god is said by him to be the gospel, and the gospel the power of god, as if they were convertible terms; whereas the apostle paul says only, that the gospel is the power of god (not simply and absolutely but in a certain respect) to salvation to every one that believeth: this i expressed fully in my epistle, but w. p. would not see it, but cries out, gross folly, etc. (15.) next you must know that the quakers detest the thought of christ's having the essence of a man in any place remote from their own dear hearts, and therefore when g. f. citys that scripture, luk. 24.5, 6. he must leave out of the very heart of the text, he is not here: and w. p. will have it very aptly used to express the mystical resurrection: but still he is not here must be out, for that doth not quadrate with their fancy. (16.) and g. f. citys that text (ephes. 5.30.) defectively, to prove christ not absent from his church, and w. p. avows it. indeed g. f. says, he is deceiced, who saith, christ is distinct from the saints, mist. p. 16. (17.) but upon that text, luk. 17.21. w. p. gives my chief exception a go-by, takes no notice of g. f's changing, the kingdom of god into plain heaven. but if he had, he abhors to think that heaven is a visible place to be lived in, bearing some resemblance to this visible world, p. 12. (18.) amos 3.13. there g. f's applying that to christ, which is spoken of the lord god, favours their doctrine of no distinction between god and jesus christ the mediator, and w. p. defends it on that account. (19) the like may be said of 1 cor. 15.28. where w. p. according to his usual candour, tells me of col. 3.11. but takes no notice of g. f. his citing chapter and verse, which he is not wont to do. (20. joh. 1.1. god is the word, is defended by the same perverse doctrine. (21.) so is his adding he or christ to the father, joh. 10.29. (22.) his palpable diminishing from phil. 2.11. hath the same tendency, and w. p. owns it. g. f. in his own cause, would have exclaimed here, as he doth upon the ministers of newcastle. (23. w. p. talks of brazen— but i wonder with what face he could give such answer to john 15.25. which if it be not (as g. f. citys it) an addition to scripture, i never saw one, nor ever shall. what? call for plain scripture from another, and at the same instant urge scripture with addition himself! he thinks if he can but make g. f. speak sense, and truth in his opinion, he has done enough. he may as well say, all g. f.'s book is scripture, for he believes it all as infallible as scripture, as if there were no difference between a quotation, and a comment or exposition. but g. f. has said it, christ is not distinct from the father: that's enough for w. p. though it subvert the gospel. (24.) the like ground there is for inserting christ into the text, 2 pet. 2.1. which i have mentioned. (25.) and for putting god for lord, rom. 14.9. (26.) and so he would confound god and the holy spirit by putting the one for the other, 1 cor. 2.10, 14. and why did not w. p. answer what i urged, rather than pass it by, and call me busy-body, which is very easy. (27.) add to these col. 3.16. and john 17.5. (which i am about to speak) and we have 11 texts abused to serve that goodly doctrine of the father, son, and spirit, their not being distinct but all one: a very trivial matter that doth but subvert the faith of christ, and introduce another gospel. (28.) when g. f. says, this is scripture, if we find it not there, we must say, he is mistaken, and then he is fallible. if he give us the sense of scripture in other words, and obtrude them for scripture, he corrects the scripture instead of citing it. christ saith, john 17.5. and now, o father, glorify thou me with thine own self, with the glory which i had with thee before the world was. but g. f. christ who was glorified with the father before the world began. w. p. cries out, sottish ignorance and enmity with a witness: did ever christ of his apostles, or any sober man living, chide or reprove a person, if he did leave out or put in, or change a word, not in the least perverting the sense? yes, g. f. doth it, for expressing ye, where it must be understood. it seems then g. f. is no sober man in w. p's account; and if so, i know not how he should be a true prophet. but i have showed in my epistle, that he perverts the sense, and that the phrase is to be understood of the glory which jesus had, not in possession, but in decree with the father, before the world was. here mr. p. cries out lamentably, that ever any man should undertake to correct others in that which doth not deserve it, whilst the beam is in his own eye, and is himself most guilty! this is like the rest, suitable to the honesty of mr. p. that he should compare an exposition of scripture with a quotation of it. he chargeth me (p. 61.) with driving at the divestigating christ of all right to eternal divinity! this is learned non sense; g. f's spirit could never elevate him to such a degree of jargon: besides, except he can produce some author for it, (which i am persuaded he cannot) i shall conclude him the first that ever used the word divestigate, or divestigare, in any sense whatsoever. and because the chief artifice of his book, is to render me odious and detestable under the name of socinian, mongrel-socinian, bidlean, and the like, and for that takes no small occasion from my exposition of this text; i shall show, 1. that two great authors, no socinians, are of the same mind. grotius upon those words, the glory which, i had, adds, destinatione tua, in thy decree. augstinus, et nuno clarifica me, and now glorify me: ho est sient unno, it a & nuno; sient tune praedestinatione, sie & nuno perfectione, that it, us then, so also now, as then in predestination, so also now in perfection. secondly, i shall declare the opinion of the leading quakers concerning the essence or being of our lord and mediator jesus christ, so far as the equivocation of their writings will permit. and it was as much as all the reputation of the quakers is worth to be plain in this point, therefore we must not expect it from them. first, then for the godhead or divinity of christ, in the confession whereof mr. p. and g. w. do so much glory and boast; mr. p. in his sandy foundation, hath brought many texts of scripture, and five arguments from right reason, though the word one is not in the hebrew in some texes, where he so confidently puts an emphasis. to prove that god is the holy one, not it holy there: that one is god, and god only is that holy one: he rejects there that impertinent distinction, that he [god] is one in substance, but three in persons or subsistencies. g. whitehead defends this position of w. p. in his book called, the divinity of christ, where in the name of the quakers he confesseth, that there are three that bear record in heaven, the father, the word, and the spirit, and that these three are one, both in divinity, divine substance, and essence, not three gods, nor separate beings. that they are called by several names in scripture, as manifest to and in the saints,— and are— one infinite wisdom, one power, one love, one light and life, etc. i should have given g. f. the pre-eminence, for i believe he is the author of this opinion among the quakers; he saith (myst. p. 142.) christ is not distinct from the father; and p. 199. they are not only one, but all one. hence it is manifest, 1. that when they say, christ is god, they mean nothing by christ, neither substance nor essence, person nor subsistent, (especially in the sense of their adversaries) wisdom or power, light or life, or any thing else that is really distinct from that which the jews mean by the god of israel, or the mahometans by one god. he that believes less, must be an atheist. 2. that the propositions, christ is god, and the father is god, are of the very same import and signification, even as to say, w. p. is a man, or, the author of the sandy foundation is a man. so that (respecting the time before jesus was born) the father, the son, or christ, did as much signify one and the same intelligent and happy person or hypostasis, as paul and the apostle of the gentiles, the same individual man or person. and this is that opinion which ecclesiastical writers attribute to sabellius, and they that maintain it, are called by them sabellians. the consequence whereof is that, the son of god, or christ as god, was at that time nothing but another name of god or the father, and had no more life, knowledge, power or property distinct from the life, knowledge. power or properties of god, or the father, than he that is not, has from him that is. and so all that the quakers contend for, (when they seem so zealous for the divinity of christ) is nothing in the world, (beside their own glory, and the disparagement of their adversaries) save that god, or the father, was or might be in those days called, christ, or the son of god, or the light, etc. thus much touching the divinity of christ, according to the leading quakers. now for his humanity or his being a man. and we shall find, that whatever w. p. talks of christ, as man, and as god, yet that he equivocates and deludes his reader, believing no such thing as christ his being a man, or else he dissents from his brethren, which i suppose he will not own. 1. g. f. (for it's fit he should lead) doth in an insulting manner crow over his antagonists, for using the word humane, when they speak of the nature of christ, (see my epistle, p. 37.) where doth the scripture (saith he) speak of humane? the word humane? in his epistle before the divinity of christ. is god a man? no, he is a spirit.— is the holy ghost a man? it is called the holy spirit; and christ was a man, the man christ jesus. if g. f. believed christ to be now a man, why did he not retain the present tense is, but change it into was, very roughly? but that which we find in the postscript of that epistle, will put the matter out of question, where that author, out of scripture, defines a person to be— a man or woman; sometime the body, the face, or visible appearance of either: he citys many texts out of the old testament, for that use of the word person, and saith, that in the new it is mentioned with the same acceptation as before in the old. as for instance, (saith he) thou regardest not the person of men, mat. 22.16. mark 12.14. luk. 20.21. in the greek it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, i. e. faciem hominum, the face of men; (he citys gal. 2.6. 2 cor. 1.11. jud. 16. where the same word is rendered person) and concludes, that the word persons is attributed to men. how now? if christ is a man, and a man is a person, will not christ be then a person? no such matter, according to these men's logic; for immediately he goes about to vindicate the greek text, 2 cor. 2.10. from being translated person of christ, and says, it is translated face of christ, or sight of christ; and our poly-glottist w. p. saith, p. 11. christ's person is (strictly considered) an unscriptural expression, and will needs make me manifestly guilty of perverting scripture for using it. yet eight lines after, himself confounds and abuses scripture, heb. 2.16. with rom. 4.5. but what weight there is in his friends answer to that text i see not; for if a person be a man, or the face of a man (as he defines it); then if christ be a man, he will be a person, and his face will be the face of a person: and if christ be not a person, than he is not a man; for the definition of a thing, and the thing defined, are convertible. but that they do absolutely deny christ to be a person or man, i prove further, out of g. w's book, christ ascended, p. 24. this manner (saith he) of excluding god's right hand, and christ to a limitation out of his people in a personal being, (which are no scripture terms) still implies him to be a personal god or christ; like the anthropomorphites and muggletonians conceits of his. where note, that he doth with equal contempt, reject a personal christ as a personal god, and so christ is no more a person that god, and consequently no more a man, for they deny god to be a person. again, p. 31. is the essence or being of the son of god personal? and p. 37. he challengeth his adversaries, saying. what rule in scripture hast thou for these words, [visible god, visible christ, etc.] and a little below, thou like the old heretical egyptian monks, (the anthropomorphites, and late muggletonians) art reling of a visible god, and christ remote, not in any. behold here what an abominable thought it is to this man, and the family of light, called quakers, (that's his phrase) that jesus christ should be like a man, visible, or in any place remote from men and women that live here upon earth; and if he be not, then it's certain he is not a man; for a man being in his substance, body, as well as spirit, and finite, cannot be in more than one place at the same time. and mr. p. talks at the same rate (with g. w.) p. 12. sect. 6. where he argues thus, if gods, presence make the heaven, as we have been always taught, and all have believed and confessed; [let every reader judge whether he say true or false.] do not all christians in the world (except a few) believe and confess that heaven is a certain place, (distinct from earth) into which christ ascended, when a cloud received him out of their (the apostles) sight, acts 1.9.] then (saith he) since god vouchsafes to temple and tabernacle in men, it follows, that his heaven is there also. and so the man christ jesus sits at god's right hand in heaven, when w. p. sits at g. f's right hand, for god tabernacles in g. f. and hath his heaven there, and christ is in w. p. or else there's no such thing as christ's being a man. here w. p. derides and abominates their faith, who believe, that heaven is a visible place to be lived in, etc. but we will return again to g. w's christ ascended, p. 18.— except you eat my flesh, and drink my blood, you have no life in you, saith christ,— so neither is christ, our gods right hand, so limited 20 a remoteness from them [the saints.] is seems that jesus christ is no otherwise in heaven, than he is in the saints, when they eat his flesh, and drink his blood. and indeed j. newman's design was from what appears in g. w's book to assert, that the man jesus our lord, although he is the eternal god, has in heaven, a place remote from earth, an humane body, which is not substantially in any man, nor in any place, but in that which all men call heaven. to this g. w. opposeth himself, and saith, p. 21. doth not this oppose the infiniteness and omnipresence of god and jesus christ, and bring them under the limitation of finite creatures. so that jesus christ (according to him, has no other body of a man, than what is as infinite and omnipresent as god himself. next we will see what isaac pennigton (another famous man) saith to this point; in his book entitled, a question, etc. p. 33.— the scriptures do expressly distinguish between christ and the garment which he wore; between him that came, and the body in which he came. so then christ's body, by which he means the whole manhood, was but christ's garment. a little farther he saith, this we certainly know, and can never call the bodily garment christ, but that which appeared and dwelled in the body. to this agrees our author w. p. (p. 11.) we dare not say, that the entire christ was that visible body that was crucified at jerusalem. what was then? j. pennington will tell us in his next words; now if ye (professors) indeed know the christ of god, tell us plainly what that is which appeared in the body? whether that was not the christ before it took up the body, after it took up the body, and for ever? here it's manifest, that by christ he understands nothing of manhood, body nor soul, but only that which was before jesus was born, and the same is still the christ, his body or manhood was only his garment, which he took up and laid down. and g. w. useth the word manhood; p. 14. he took upon him the manhood in time. now i may appeal to my reader, whether i have not clearly proved (as far as the nature of the thing will bear) that the leading quakers do not believe that jesus christ is a man: i say, as the nature of the thing will bear, because if they should in so many syllables deny it, (though i have had it so from some of their mouths) they must contradict express scripture, which often calls christ a man, even since his resurrection; and that would destroy their reputation among those that reverence the holy scriptures. but how they can, by an unparallelled equivecation, both confess him in scripture to be a man, and at the same time, in heart, and in their books, deny him, i shall now show you, out of the books of isaac pennington, and g. fox a forenamed. i. p. p. 20. for that which he (christ) took upon him was our garment, even the flesh and blood of our nature, which is of an carthly perishing nature; but he is of an eternal nature, and his flesh, and blood; and bones, are of his nature. here observe, that the flesh and blood of our nature, that is, the manhood which he took upon him, was a garment, and so no part of his nature; but he had flesh, and blood, and bones too before that time; which flesh, blood, and bones, were of an eternal nature, that is to say, god; for i know nothing else that was of an eternal nature. here christ is denied to be by nature a man, and yet by his eternal nature to have flesh, blood, and bones. now if any man in the world can show me a grosser piece of equivocation than this, i will acknowledge myself a very ignorant person: to speak of the flesh, blood, and bones of a man, and to intend nothing of the nature of man, but only of god. has muggleton, or the anthropomorphites of egypt (whom they so often call upon) said any thing of so gross a nature as this, if it be taken properly? and if it must be taken improperly, what horrid deceit and equivocation? but it were a disparagement to g. f. that i. p. should have a notion that was not first revealed to g. f. therefore we find that long before, g. f. had said in his mystery, p. 68— p's words may be the exposition of these, and tell us, that by man, g. f. means the eternal god, and by the flesh which men eat, and which is in them, he means the flesh, blood, and bones of the eternal god. who can read these things without horror? now let me put two or three queries to my reader, which he may resolve from these premises. q. first, of what use is or can the scripture be to these men, who do thus confound heaven and earth, god and man, flesh and spirit, man's nature, and god's nature, eternity and time, that they will understand the one, when the other is named and plainly spoken of? and for so doing, pretend the guidance of god's infallible spirit? and w. p. tells us, p. 38. 'tis their principle, that the eternal spirit, (their guide and rule) who in several generations hath revealed a great part [it seems, not all of the things contained in the scriptures to be superior to those writings; nonsense as was observed before. and below that, the scripture is much like the shadow of the true rule. i say, of what use can this shadow of a rule be to these persons? 2. whether i did not take the most proper way of dealing with these men in my epistle, showing to their senses, that g. f. in his ministry had asserted for written and spoken, that which is not written nor spoken? 3. whether any ingenuous man could express a charge more modestly than i did, when i said,— you seem at least to deny his person, seeing i have now, and could then have proved, that they not only seem to deny christ's person, but do effectually deny it, both in the sense of their adversaries, and in their own sense of that word? 4. whether mr. pen be not either a very weak man, or was not in a great rage, or both, that he should write such a book as this i have in hand, when he might know before what i could produce against them? for he might castly imagine that i could have recourse to that christian letter, wherein these things had been represented to him; which he received above twelve months ago, and takes no notice of. 5. whether he will impute it to mr. p's want of all honestly and good conscience, or to a transport of passion and revenge, that he makes such hideous out-cries of sacrileges and ingratitude toward christ jesus, against those he calls mongrel-socinians, because they will not own that god was called christ before jesus was born; and in the mean time himself to deny whatsoever of essence, substance, person, power, life or happiness is attributable to jesus, as he is the mediator between god and men? lastly, whether the reader will not freely give me, himself and all other christians, a supersedeas or dispensation from ever writing or speaking any more about matters of religion to such men that deny the conclusion, when their senses evidence all the premises; that condemn that falsity in other men, which they excuse in themselves; that palpably belie other men, to get glory to themselves; that deny christ totally under his name and pretence of zeal for his divinity; finally, that are such notorious equivocators as i have manifestly proved these men to be? nevertheless, because mr. p. has made it his great study to render me & consequently what i have said (thought 'tis inconsequent enough) odious & detestable, under the name of socinian, bidlean, and the like, although i wrote nothing but what was approved by men of learning and piety, and strangers to me, and (for aught i know) to all my friends: i will therefore present to the reader a short account of these men's opinion concerning, christ, who for distinction sake call themselves unitarians, being so called in those places, where by the laws of the country they have equal liberty of religion with other men, or because they own but one person, and one substance or essence of the most high and independent god, and to distinguish them from other christians that hold three persons, and one essence of god, and are therefore denominated trinitarians. i say therefore, that they are very zealous assertors of the unity of god, and that is the reason (as they solemnly profess) why they cannot allow of three persons in the godhead, because they think it destroys his unity or oneness; and i have showed that the quakers (w. p. especially) do also disallow them. notwithstanding the quakers, according to their equivocating manner, can call god the father by the name of christ, and the other cannot. i know not that they differ in one tittle more concerning the one god. but concerning the one mediator between god and men, the man christ jesus, 1 tim. 2.5. the unitarians willingly and heartily acknowledge, that he was foreordained before the foundation of the world, 1 pet. 1.20. that he was born of the virgin mary, by the coming of the holy ghost upon her, and the power of the most high overshadowing her, luk. 1.35. and therefore he is called [is] the son of god; likewise that he, and no man but he, ascended into heaven, and descended thence, john 3.13. being sanctified and sent into the world, into which he came, not to do his own will, but the will of him that sent him, john 6.30. that by reason of this mission and sanctification, he did, whilst he was here upon earth, deservedly challenge the name of god, or the son of god, john 10.34, 35, 36. in a far more excellent sense than either the magistrates among the jews, that were called gods, and sons of the most high, psal. 82.1, 6. or moses, who was god to pharaoh, exod 7, 8, and also to his brother aaron, exod. 4.16. heb. or than any angel, who in the dispensation of the law, did represent god, and was therefore called by his name, acts 7.35. exod. 23.20. gal. 3.19. see jud. 13.22. and that as there was but one god then, so there is but one god now, notwithstanding that jesus is god over all. unto which glorious and supreme dominion, next to the most high god himself, jesus did attain, by doing the will of god fully and perfectly on earth, the perfection of which obedience: was, that being, as is said, in the form of god, he thought it not robbery [or a prey] to be equal with god, but made himself of no reputation, etc. and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. wherefore god also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name, which is above every name; that at the name of jesus every knee should how,— and that every tongue should confess that jesus is lord, to the glory of god the father, phil. 2.6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11. that god hath made that same jesus, whom ye [the jews] have crucified, both lord and christ, acts 2.36. him hath god exalted with his right hand to be a prince and a saviour, acts 5.31. god raised him seem the dead, and set him at his own right hand, in the heavenly places, far above all principality and power, etc. for by god's exalting jesus, and setting him at his right hand, they understand that the same man jesus, that was crucified and raised from the dead, was also taken up in the sight of the apostles into heaven, a cloud receiving him out of their sight, acts 1.9. and that he is there, having not now a body of flesh and blood, (for flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of god, 1 cor. 15.50.) but an heavenly, spiritual, incorruptible and glorious body of a man, the like whereof all saints shall have in the resurrection, when this man jesus shall descend from heaven to judge the world; that in the mean time he sits at god's right hand, that is, he has all power in heaven and earth committed to him, and reigns over men and angels, as will appear by comparing 1 cor. 15.25. with psal. 110.1. they believe that the father hath committed all judgement unto the son; that all men should honour the son, even as they honour the father, joh. 5.23. therefore they worship christ, and call upon him as their lord, their king, their great highpriest, their god, that searcheth their hearts, and is perfectly able to save them that come unto god by him. and they say, it's no wonder, that they honour christ as god, whilst they acknowledge god his father to be above him, forasmuch as the author to the hebrews doth the same, (heb. 1.8, 9) saying, but unto the son, he saith, thy throne, o god, is forever and ever,— thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity: therefore god, even thy god, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellaws. finally, when all things shall be subdued under him [this man jesus], then shall the son also himself be subject to him that put all things under him, that god may be all in all, 1 cor. 15.28. now i know not any thing of all that i have said concerning the manhood, resurrection, and exaltation of jesus, wherein the trinitarians and unitarians do not agree. the only point in difference between them is this; whether this dominion, power and glory, which are conferred upon the man jesus, be conferred upon him, by assuming him into a personal union with god, so that the man and a person of god make one individual person; or whether they be conferred upon him, by god's communicating to him such a supernatural and divine power, as he never communicated, nor ever will, to any man or angel, and greater than which god himself cannot bestow. the first the trinitarians hold, the latter the unitarians. herein they both agree, that the man jesus is really invested with this power. but for the quakers, i have showed, that they really deny this person, this man jesus, and consequently all that power and glory which he is invested with. so that all that they talk of him, and all their contention for him is mere equivocation. the man jesus, the mediator between god and men, is, according to them, so far from being our king, our lord and god, our highpriest and intercessor, and from being in himself immortal, most happy, and glorious, that he has not so much being as a bat, i mean, a proper bat, not one of mr. pen's bats. so that he that shall call jesus accursed, (o horribled) (meaning by jesus, that personal being or man that was dead, and is now alive in heaven, a place remote from men on earth) he commits really no greater offence, than he that shall call the man i'th' moon accursed; for the one (as they hold) hath as much being as the other. and now let the world judge, whether i did not use a soft expresson, when i said that some doctrines of the quakers, did render them very dishonourable and dangerous to christian religion. if the deists in france should once get the quakers knack of equivocating, and meaning by jesus christ, when they speak of him, nothing but god, then what havoc might they make of christian religion? i would not be mistaken, when i charge these things upon the quakers, i mean the leading men; for i am still persuaded there are some honest-hearted among them, that neither know this that i have said, to be their doctrine, nor believe it. and perhaps there may be some that own it and profess, it, that are so silly, they neither know what they say, nor whereof they astirm. moreover, i profess solemnly, that it is not from any malice, envy or revenge, that i impute these things to them; for i do heartily believe their doctrine is such as i have said; and i hope the proofs i have quoted out of their writings, will sufficiently vindicate me in the eyes of all impartial readers; and i can easily produce more of the same kind. see the dialogue between a christian and a quaker. now as i have showed, that they do not believe the being of jesus the mediator, and consequently none of those articles of christian faith which depend upon his being; so it were not very difficult to demonstrate, that they cannot upon their principles believe any of them. i will try a little, and for example, let the proposition to be believed be, god raised up the lord jesus from the dead; it you bring them scripture, and universal tradition, to get credit with them, it's all nothing: g. keith saith, in his immediate revelation, p. 35.— the best words uttered from christ in the days of his flesh, or from any of the apostles or prophets, and yet recorded in the scriptures, cannot reveal the father, nor the son either. again, p. 37. outward revelation or discovery by words spoken from without of christ, or any of his disciples, or apostles, cannot reveal the father nor the son. it seems then that if christ himself (as after his resurrection with his apostles) should converse with us, and preach to us, that god had raised him from the dead, and if the whole college of the apostles should bear witness to what he said, all this could not work in us any true saving-faith of the proposition aforesaid, without an immediate revelation within; for that's the purport of his book, the title whereof is, immediate revelations— not ●●●si●● but remaining— of indispausable necessity as to the whole body in general, so to every member thereof, every true believer in particular. and by immediate revelation, he tells us, p. 16. they understand not only immediate supernatural influences of the spirit of god— to assist and enable or elevate the mind to know and understand savingly, but also such inward influences as are the very immediate objects of our mind. hence he saith, p. 40. the lord knoweth the thoughts of man to be but vanity, and his wisdom foolishness and enmity against god, even all that wisdom, which the carnal mind can gather into itself, whether from the words of scripture, or from the works of creation and providence. here by man's wisdom and carnal mind, mind, you must understand him of all wisdom whatsoever, which comes not by immediate inward revelation. so p. 59 all your scripture, literal, traditional knowledge and wisdom is a burden unto this [something] in you. and g. white head saith, (christ ascend. p. 28.) that [faith] that is without the divine and immediate illumination of the spirit within, which is no divine faith, but men's knowledge, faith, and religion, are but traditional, literal, and lifeless. so that if w. p. would have told candidly and plainly with us, he should have told us that the infallible spirit is the immediate judge, rule and guide to men, and so that no man can have any true faith or religion without its immediate proposing, by way of object, unto him, as was done to the prophets and apostles. therefore g. f. in the very beginning of his mystery, (as i hinted before) showing, the ground of difference between the priests and professors, and all sects in these nations, and the quakers, saith, that the controversy on their part is just and equal against them all, and that they have sufficient cause to cry against them, and to deny their ministry, their church, their worship, and their whole religion, as being not in the power, and by the spirit of the living god. compare this with what i have cited before, and then it plainly appears, that all right quakers in g. fox's sense have renounced or denied their faith, worship and whole christian religion, which they had before they were quakers, as being grounded (as ours is) upon reason, scriptures, the preaching of jesus, and his apostles and prophets, and tradition, with an assistance of the holy spirit elevating the mind; but not upon immediate objective revelation, such as the apostles and prophets had, and such as the quakers now pretend to have. for we, and those that differ from them profess those things before mentioned to be the ground of our faith; they profess the last of immediate revelation to be the ground of their faith and religion; and deny ours to be divine faith or true religion; nay, they cry out against it as foolishness and darkness, literal and lifeless. so then w. p. doth but make a fair flourish, when he faith, p. 39 the scriptures we own, and the divine truth therein contained, we reverence and esteem as the mind and will of god to men: for they cannot, according to their principles, esteem any saying of scripture, be it that god raised up the lord jesus from the dead, or any other word of any apostle, or of christ himself, i say they cannot esteem it as the mind and will of god, except they have an immediate revelation dictating the same unto them: which if they have, than the scripture is superfluous to them, and they do no more esteem it the mind and will of god, because it is written in the bible, than if it had been written in any other book among fables and lies. these things considered, i argue thus: if among the professors of religion in these nations, there be those that sincerely confess the lord jesus, and heartily believe that god raised him from the dead, upon the grounds forementioned, and not upon the ground of immediate objective revelation of god's holy spirit, then g. fox and the quakers deny, and cry out against true christian faith and religion, and consequently cannot have them. again, if men in general cannot savingly believe without hearing a sent preacher; then men cannot believe by immediate inward revelation: and then they that assert they can, and do, and deny the antecedent, cannot have saving faith. the antecedent is true from rom. 10.13, 14, 15. the consequent from the opposition between mediate and immediate, 1 cor. 1.18. they to whom the preaching of the cross is foolishness, and not the power of god, cannot have gospel-faith: but to g. f. and some quakers, the preaching of the cross, without immediate revelation, is foolishness, and not the power of god: therefore g. f. &c. cannot have gospel-faith. let us proceed now to the other instances of scripture abused, and show the tendency of it to false doctrine. (inst. 29.) next he would vindicate g. f. in correcting the translators for rendering 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, i protest by, 1 cor. 15.31. saying, there is nothing in the greek for i protest, and yet mr. p. cannot but grant that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is commonly at least a particle of swearing; and if but so, it follows, that there is something in the greek that answers i protest by; for supposing that not to be the sense of the place, which the current of interpreters say is, yet there is that word there which will bear such a translation, there is something in the greek for i protest, which g. f. denies, and therein imposes upon his reader, which is enough for my purpose. here w. p. (p. 91) that he may be true to his presumptuous way of arguing, though he venture the abusing god and men, tells us, that an oath having been made from the distrust of honesty in him that was to take it, where the cause (lies, equivocations, etc.) is removed, the effect (swearing) should cease: as if christ, or rather god himself, had disinherited his own honesty, when he swore unto christ, thou art a priest for ever after the order of melchisedec; or the patriarch abraham, the father of the faithful, had distrusted god's honesty, and therefore god swore to him to free him from his dissidence; and not because (as the scripture speaks) god [was] willing more abundantly to show unto the heirs of promise, the immutability of his counsel, heb. 6.17. (30.) next we come to that text in matth. 23. neither be ye called masters, etc. here, as his manner is, he abuses my words, as if he came out of bedlam, and then my argument must be a bedlam one. read both, and compare, for i may not now repeat. if the quakers restrain the text, where they have reason, why may not others restrain it, where they have as good reason? and that without blaming the text? or strange irreverence to holy writ? if my neighbour be a master of servants, why may i not treat him in compellation as such? and not as if he had no servant, and were himself a servant? and by mr. p's favour, i count it no sin to call another man's wife, good wife! or another man's she-servant, maid! mr. p. doth; but no sin to tell me, i have told a plain lie, when himself has made my words so, by detracting from them. and therefore the reader has no reason to believe him, when he saith, civil honour, namely of calling master, is repugnant to common truth, and christian religion. but i wonder w. p. should take so much pains to vindicate stephen in calling the counsel of the jews, men, brethren, and fathers, who yet were not his proper fathers; for he might with more ease have done it, by saying, he had a special impulse for it, as the quaker that came many score of miles (as they said) to perform his obeisance to margaret fell, at her own house; where at a solemn meeting, the man rose up from his seat, and went and fell down upon his knees (with his hat in his hand) directly before margaret fell, and made his humble address to her by the compellation of my dear mother! and beseeched her to pray for him. in like manner, on the third or fourth day after, john stubs, at another meeting, requested the like favour of her, with his hat under his arm standing, and calling her, my dear everlasting mother: the truth of these things can be proved by eye and ear-witnesses, and i suppose there are some quakers that will attest them. this is that margaret fell, who was formerly judge fell's wife, and is now g. fox's; concerning whom he gave forth a paper, that his marriage with her, was a figure of the marriage between christ and the church: likewise that his marriage was above the state of adam in his innocency, in the state of the second adam who never fell. thus i find it reported by a certain quaker in a letter (a notable piece) to his friend. the same person faith, that upon two occasions persons kneel before g. fox, though 'tis done in a very private manner, and but by a few; the one is, when he sends them forth to administer; the other is, upon some misdemeanour committed by a minister, who acknowledging his fault, upon his bended knees, george absolves him. my next argument was thus: christ saith, be ye not called kathegetai, but he doth not forbid them to be called kyrioi; and we find in scripture philip called by strangers kyrie, and paul and silas, kyrioi; and christ himself mistaken for a gardener, by a notable disciple called kyrie, and all without rebuke; therefore the compellation of kyrie, is not forbid in kathegetes: if it be, our lord jesus himself, as well as the apostles, will be brought under suspicion of conniving at sin, in a place where he had opportunity to correct it. and besides, the inspired writers giving us no notice of any failure in any of these cases, the scripture, and practice of christ and the apostles, and primitive believers, will be so far from being of example and teaching to us, that they will be a temptation to us unto evil; and, as mr. p. says, like the shadow of the true rule, that is, an evening shadow, which is five times as long as the substance itself. let the reader see now if he can pick any thing out of w. p's answer, but evasion and shuffle. he saith indeed, in excuse of our lord's silence in the case, that he never particularly checked peter for denying him; which how parallel to this case, let the sober reader judge; and how boldly our lord's innocence is called into question, and how lamely defended. and whether g. f. would have incurred that suspicion of guilt in the like circumstances? or the only scripture of his life and doctrine, wrote by the quakers, left him under it? (31.) as for his defence of women speaking in the church, it's like the rest, mere shuffle. judge what a pliant conscience this man has! who can accuse some that he had nothing to do with, pag. 68 of making john speak equivocatingly, because they do not expound scripture to his sense, and me a little before of strange irreverence to holy writ for restranining the text, which himself also restrains; pag. 92. and here behold what a sense he puts upon 1 cor. 14.34, 35. as if he were expounding one of the old poetical fables! but at length he comes to this, i permit not an unlearned or ignorant woman to speak in the church; and did the apostle permit, or do the quakers permit unlearned or ignorant men to speak in the church? i said, the apostle forbids women by sex, in those cases wherein he allows men by sex to speak in the church: where's his answer? find it that can. he tells us of woman's labouring in the lord, helpers in christ jesus? servants of the church: as if they might not do all that without speaking in the church, where there were men enough qualified for that work. he tells us of women prophesying, for among them (the quakers) any profound & vehement prattle may serve for that: but i never yet heard of a quaker that spoke an unknown tongue. and yet one would think they needed it enough, when they are sent to the indians, or to the great turk. (32, 33, 34, 35, 36.) these five instances, (jam. 3.2. ephes. 5.25. heb. 10.27. joh 2.10, 2 pet. 1.4.) the change of the phrase in the two first and last, and the defect in the third and fourth, do all favour their doctrine of perfection, which is indeed a doctrine of sin and imperfection: for he is a persect man according to them, who sins not against his immediate light or conscience, and so their persection is consistent with all manner of sins of ignorance of error proceeding from any passion, as is most manifest in these two, g. f. and w. p. who must be accounted perfect men, notwithstanding all their blasphemics against god and christ, and conrumelies against men, which i have evidently demonstrated. and then it's consistent with sins of omission in great plenty, for whilst they deny the worship and whole religson of all but themselves, they must of necessity want that love toward them, which is due to christian brethren. behold here a sort of christians, without either faith in the true christ, or love to his faithful servants! (37.) and it's not a little mischief that has been wrought by that notion of god's working all in us, and for us, which g. f. will have the apostle to say; and w. p. beings three texts, from whence he infers it, as if i had charged g. f. with a false infexence, and not false scripture. (38.) our translation hath, (isa. 8.20.)— if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them: but g. f. you that speak not according to that rule, it is because you hate the light in you. and w. p. instead of vindicating him, rails at me. who knows not what that change meant? (39) that g. f. may disparage the places wherein other christians worship god, saith, is god worshipped in temples made with hands? and would have his reader take that for scripture. w. p. saith nothing to it. (40.) i showed in my epistle, p. 27. what error of the quakers is countenanced by g. f.'s putting is for was, 2 cor. 5.19. as if there were no work done by christ for reconciling men, which he was not, and is not always a doing. i showed also that g. f. said, god was in christ, reconciling himself to the world. but w. p. takes no notice of it. he seems to have wrote his book only for the quakers, or those that either never read my epistle, or else have forgot it. upon the whole matter, (for i have exceeded my intended brevity) let the impartial reader judge of w. p's, and my performance in tals argument; and whether i have not proved by evidence of sense what i undertook, viz. that g. f. is a false prophet, a liar, or impostor? yea, whether w. p. himself hath not confirmed unawares this sentence concerning him? whether it is not horrid impiety for these men to pretend the guidance of god's infallible spirit in what they write; and to run in to such absurdities, falsities, and pernicious errors, as i have proved them guilty of? whether it will not be great folly in me, or any man henceforward to write, or indeed to speak to these men concerning matters of religion, (except perhaps further to discover their deceit) whilst they practise such unheard-of equivocation in their words, as renders all discourse vain and inessectual? or, is it possible to convince those men by reason, that will deny the evidence of sense? besides, how can there be either end or fruit of writing, where a man shall not only musunderstand things that are plain; but impute to his adversary words and sayings of his own coining, and proceed to the bitterest reproaches thereupon; and in the mean time omit to take notice of matters of moment? therefore i have entitled this discourse, controversy ended, for i am bold to affirm, that it must either be ended here, or if not, it may be continued infinitely upon the same grounds. what remains then to be done, but earnestly to beg of god through jesus christ, that he would give them repentance to the acknowledgement to the truth. o holy jesus, who wast dead, but art alive, and livest for evermore; who wast crucified through weakness but livest through the power of god; to whom god, even thy father, hath given all power in heaven and earth; who canst be touched with the feeling of our infirmities, for thou wast in all things tempted as we are; have pity upon these men, who (some of them) have a zeal of god but not according to knowledge, work in them humility, and enlighten the eyes of their minds, that they may acknowledge thee to be their lord, and the mediator between god and men; that they may no longer despise that knowledge and faith of thee, which is by preaching or tradition through the holy scriptures; but may contend earnestly for the faith, which was once delivered to the saints. tradita. have morey upon me, o lord, pardon mine infirmities, and judge whether i have not been as careful not to wrong them in this work, as i would have them, or any man to be of not injuring me? and grant that it may be foe benefit and advantage to many, and that thou mayest be glorified thereby. amen. postscript now it will appear whether there be any prudent and houest men among the governing quakers, by their dealing with w. p. for this book of his: for i appeal to the reader, whether he thinks there be any such inconsiderable society of christians in england, that would not either have required a public acknowledgement of his offence, or have disowned that member, which should have wrote in their defence a book of 138 papges, and but two of them (that is p. 130, and 131.) that have any pertinency of auswer to their antagonist's chief argument; and that also, which is there alleged, to be partly false, and altogether inconsequent, save against himself: but to contain many pages that directly confirm and aggravate the charge brought against them, and moreover, to be so stuff with palpable, calumnious, and self-praysing untruths, and virulent language, that it makes their cause and dealing odious in the sight of sober men: all which i have proved w. p. to have done in relation to the quakers. it will easily appear to the considering reader, that i have, for brevity sake, omitted to impprove many advantages which my rash adversary has given me, contenting myself to in timate them, and so proceed. and he that has diligently and judiciously read my epistle and his answer, may perceive that i have not so much as intimated divers things of much advantage to my cause and person. among those is that passage in p. 136. where he essays to answer some of my reasons for keeping my name from them, and says, very civilly, that i horribly bilie them: why? wherein? not in this, that there are some of their writers, that make it a great part of their answers to books, the reproaching the author. let this very book of w. p. be an instance, how many sheets must it have wanted, if all of that kind had been substracted? not in this, that they are very rhetorical in that point. i am persuaded w. p. could not rhetoricate so well in the praise of any person in the world, (g. fox not excepted) as he hath in reproach of me. he has taken up one of muggleton's peculiar phrases, wherewith to abuse me and my friends, calling us serpentine associates. it's like muggleton had used it in w. p's hearing, and w. p. according to his nature, was taken with it, and so bestowed it upon his next adversary. neither in this do i belie them, that if they had my name, than it must be considered what party i am of, and accordingly all that is odious, or so reputed, either in the doctrine or practice of the whole party must be raked up against me. let his book be witness whether he has not dealt so with me, even upon a suspicion of my name. but, (saith he) we never charged the infirmities of a single person, further than upon that guilty person, unless he were connived at, or justified in his wickedness by any whole party. now here lies the wit, if any part of the charge be not found apparent, all the rest, how manifest soever, must go for a horrible lie. but w. p. (kind man!) will not put me to much trouble in searching for an instance: it is but turning back to p. 7. and there i find a single person described, (as it were in a hue and cry) and his being wanting in the very alphabet of common civility, attributed plurally to him and me at least, and i think to all the party that w. p. assigns for us. has he not then raked up against me what is odious, or so reputed both in the doctrine and practice of a party, and of a particular person? which he can never prove me guilty of justifying in that case. another instance shall be of an elder date; see the epistle to g. whitehead's divinity, etc. where g. f. tells the presbyterians and independents, that when the people of god, called quakers, were gathered together in divers places to worship god, than you said, they were plotting together against oliver, (whom some of you called the light of your eyes, and breath of your nostrils) to bring in king charles. if they can make it appear (which i much doubt) that one or another presbyterian or independent did suggest any such thing against them, it can never be believed by any sober man that that person was connived at, or justified therein by one or both parties, presbyterians or independents, and yet here g. f. and j. s. impute it to them both indefinitely; and that so, as thereby to insinuace that the quakers were generally at least esteemed friends to the king, and sufferes upon that account: but the presbyterians and independents friends to oliver, and enetnies to the king and the quakers. o the candour and simplicity of g. fox! o the modesty and meekness of w. pen! again, inreference to their calling men tinker or tailor, w. p. replies, we never told the world men's trades in a way of detraction or reproach; our souls abbor it. when he has taken shame to himself in the ingenuous acknowledgement to the world, of those untruths i have proved him guilty of; then he may better be believed. in the mean time who can believe that g. w. did not call bunyan the tinker, by way of detraction, when he adds immediately, a railing envious man; and in a late pamphlet, calls railing language, tinkers-rhetorick besides, tinker is a term of reproach, and he that is such, may by stature be punished as a rogue. finis. the book entitled the spirit of the quakers tried; etc. is to be had at the elephant and castle heat the royal exchange in cornhill london. the nature of truth its union and unity with the soul, which is one in its essence, faculties, acts; one with truth. discussed by the right honourable robert lord brook, in a letter to a private friend. by whom it is now published for the public good. london, printed by r. bishop, for samuel cartwright, at the bible in duck-lane, 1641. the preface to the reader, showing what first gave birth to this discourse of truth. reader, without an epithet: for, you must expect no compliments. i am now a pleader, and so am forbid {non-roman} {non-roman} {non-roman} {non-roman} {non-roman} or {non-roman} {non-roman} {non-roman} {non-roman} {non-roman}: yet, with submission to that severe court * ariopaguses: for, such were the orders for all pleaders there: aristotel. rhet. lib. 1 lucian. in anachars. , i hope 'twill be no offence, by breaking their first injunction, to keep their second. one word then by way of preface, may perhaps not seem unseasonable, unnecessary, and so not {non-roman} {non-roman} {non-roman} {non-roman} {non-roman}. this divine discourse of truth, coming to me, from so noble an hand; i could not envy it the public light: for, what heart could endure to stifle such a beauty, at its first birth, at its first breath? nay, though cruelty should scorn to take a check, yet power itself, might plead impotent, for such an act. for, where, or who is he, that can resist the strugglings of divine truth, forcing its way out from the womb of eternity? where, or who is he that by a viperous wrea●he * with such, juno assayed to kill hercules in his cradle, as the poets say. , or other assault, can smother hercules, though yet but sprawling in his cradle? view then this newborn beauty; mark its feature, proportion, lineaments; tell me now, was its birth an object of pity? or rather of envy? at least admiration; for, envy finds no place in noble spirits. one thing yet, i must excuse (which yet indeed needs no excuse) a second conception is here first borne; yet not abortive; no, but by mature thoughts, 'tis again decreed, the elder shall serve the younger. for, that was meant the act, this but the prologue, ushering in that yet more curious concept (if such be possible) which was an embryo before this, but is yet unborn. the truth is, this noble lord (the author of this following discourse) having dived deep in those prophetic mysteries (at which his first lines glance, matth. 24. apocal. 20 in this) was even forced (by that occasion) upon a more exact and abstract speculation of truth itself; naked truth, as in herself, without her gown, without her crown. at first view, he saw her sparkle with most glorious luster; but her rays dazzled his eyes, so that he durst not, he could not, enough behold, admire, and adore, her perfect beauty, exact proportion, divine harmony; yet though dazzled, he viewed still; remembering that of the ar●opagite dionys. de divinis neminib. , earthly bodies are best seen in, and by, light; but spiritual beauties, {non-roman} {non-roman} {non-roman} {non-roman} {non-roman}, in, and by, divine clouds, divine darkness? this, this is the best perspective to divine objects; and the brightest stars shine best, sparkle most, in the darkest, the blackest night. that which ravished his soul most, and most enforced him more to pry, to adore more, was, the experience of that which plato speaks: when our souls (saith he) glance first upon divine light, epist. ad dionys. they are soon ravished, and cannot but pry more and more, because in it they see {non-roman} {non-roman} {non-roman} {non-roman} {non-roman}, somewhat of kin to themselves. and this kindred, if i mistake not, is the nearest possible; more than consanguinity; i had almost said more than identity itself. for, alas, that corporal union in materials, which we miscall sometimes identity, is at best but a cold touch in a point or two; a most disdainful embrace (at greatest distance) in those beings which have much {non-roman} {non-roman} {non-roman} {non-roman} {non-roman}, see plato's parmenid. & timeus. and but little {non-roman} {non-roman} {non-roman} {non-roman} {non-roman}, as plato's mastet taught him long ago. but in spiritual beings, and in these only, is true harmony, exact convenience, entire identity, perfect union, to be found. such, even such, is that near relation, that near kindred between the soul and truth; as will fully appear in this following discourse of truth; (which was never meant, nor now published, but as a prodromus to a future treatise about prophetic truth revealed now in scripture:) of which i shall only add this; read it; if it displease, read it again, and yet again; and then judge. it needs not my apology; if so, i might truly say, when 'twas first wrot, 'twas intended but a letter to a private friend, (not a critic;) and since its first writing, and sending, 'twas never so much as perused, much less, refined, by its noble author. one word more i must speak, and so have done. if any ingenuous reader shall dissent (in any particular of consequence) and freely, yet ingenuously, manifest the reasons of his dissent: nothing can be more grateful to this noble lord, who promiseth the fairest answer; for, his aim is only search of truth; which, his lordship well knows, is oft best found, as sparks in the flint, by much contusion. yet, if any shall wrangle, not dispute: rudely thrust, or strike not like a gentleman; his return will be, only a rational neglect. i. s recensui tractatum hunc, qui inscribitur, (the nature of truth,) per illustrissimum piissimumque dominum. robertum d. brooke editum: apprimè sanè doctum, profundisque conceptibus insignitum: quapropter dignissimum arbitror qui in summam utilitatem typis mandetur. novemb. 19 1640. johannes hansley, r. p. episc. lond. capell. domest. the nature of truth. discussed in a letter to a private friend. sir, i have according to my poor talon, essayed to find out the true sense of the spirit in these * mat. 24. rev. 20. expounded, in another treatise. two chapters, and in this inquest, have improved the labours of the piously learned; from whom i have received little other favour than this, that they have not seduced me; they not having approached so near to the truth, as to dazzle it. i confess, that reverend, that bright man, master brightman, hath clothed his opinion, with such a sirenian glory, that he had almost been to me an ignis fatuus. i had almost, in following the old, lost the young, lost the nest of lapwings. but, with all respect to his worth, (if i am not mightily mistaken) i have escaped that syrtis; and yet dare i not with the philosopher cry out {non-roman} {non-roman} {non-roman} {non-roman} {non-roman}; for, * 2 cor. 2.16. who is fit for these things? every truth is * veritas in sundo putei. democr. a myste●y; what must that be then, which is purposely vailed by the spirit? jesus christ, who is styled in scripture, the * ioh. 14.6. way, truth, life, light, (and these things are apprehended by sense, and are common) is to * 1 cor. 1.23. the jews a stumbling block, and to the greeks foolishness. may we not then justly say of him that dares pry into the ark, with hopes and thoughts clearly to unfold the mysterious, the prophetical part of jesus christ, to unknit the gordian knot; may we not say of him, what god saith of job; who is this that darkeneth wisdom with counsel? job 38.2. alas, are we not all since adam's lapse buried under the shadow of death, and lost in the region of darkness? who is there that knoweth truth? * 1 cor. 8.2 he that thinketh he knoweth any thing, knoweth nothing as he should. moral truth, which (as some think) is yet more within our reach, than those sacred mysteries, is unknown to us, both in the universal nature, and in the particular actings of it; difficilia quae pulchra. indeed truth is that golden apple, which though it hath (in some sense) been offered to the fairest; yet the most refined wits, the most high-raised fancies of the world, have courted her in vain, these many ages: for whilst they have sought, with a palsy hand, this glorious star, through the perspective of thick reason, they have either mounted too high, a double error in searching of truth. and confounding the creator with the creature, made her god; or descending too low, and deserting the universal nature, have confined their thoughts to some individual truth, and restrained her birth to several parcels within the chaos. the nature of truth. it's union and unity with the soul. chap. i. the understanding and the truth-understood, are one. truth is indeed of the seed royal, of progeny divine: yet so, as to be (for i may say of her, what the spirit saith of faith) * rom 10.8 near us, to be in us. and when she is pleased to descend into our valleys, and to converse with us, she erects her own pavilion, and doth fix it in whatsoever is lovely in us. the understanding is her throne, there she reigneth, and as she is there seated, as she shineth in that part of the soul; she appeareth to me under two notions, which are also her measure through the whole sphere of being; as will be discovered more hereafter, when these lesser streams shall have emptied themselves by progress into a larger river. first, that very being, which immediately floweth from above, and is the rise or the first and uniform groundwork in this particular being which we now treat of, the understanding or truth there, under two notions. and which under this notion we call the form or substance. secondly, those workings which breathe from thence, as all actions and sayings, which are (in our phrase) the effects of a reasonable soul. i shall first in few words treat of the first, and then very briefly conclude with a word or two upon the second part of truth. this first truth is the understanding in its essence: an argument proving the nature of the understanding to be truth. for what is the understanding other than a ray of the divine nature, warming and enlivening the creature, conforming it to the likeness of the creator? and is not truth the same? for the beauty of truth's character is, that she is a shadow, a resemblance of the first, the best form; that she is light, the species, the sparkling of primitive light; that she is life, the sublimation of light, vitaest in se reflectio. sen. epist. life a higher degree of light. that she may reflect upon herself. that she is light, none will deny; that light in reasonable creatures is the fountain of life, is manifest. for the form of a reasonable soul is light, and therefore when the soul informeth and giveth life to animal rationale, it enableth the creature to work according to light, and upon her accesses the organs can entertain light, as the eye than beholds the light of the sun; the eye by the presence of the soul made able to see light. upon her retirements they are dark and useless. thus whilst life is light, and light is truth, and truth is conformity to god; and the understanding as we yet discourse of it, is this light to the soul, the understanding and truth can be but one. chap. ii. the second argument, proving that truth is the nature of the understanding. i know the learned choose rather to style the understanding, a faculty; most call the understanding a faculty. and so institute a soul recipient; a being (scil. truth) received; and a faculty, which is the understanding, whereby the soul receiveth and acteth according to what it doth entertain. but with submission to their better judgement, i should crave leave to make one quaere. three notions requisite to the constitution of every being. are there not to the constitution of every being three notions requisite? first, the fountain communicating. secondly, the channel entertaining. thirdly, the waters imparted. i confess, we must not in metaphysical beings expect physical subsistencies; yet {non-roman} {non-roman} {non-roman} {non-roman} {non-roman} all learning doth allow of. but where shall we find these in the understanding? the understanding as a faculty affordeth not these 3. notions. whilst the intellect passeth under the notion of a faculty. indeed we may discern the last (scil.) those sweet beams of light which beat upon us continually. but where is the second which entertaineth them? the understanding is not the subject of truth. if it be the understanding, than the light which differenceth us from the vegetative and sensitive creatures, lieth in the understanding, and not in the soul; and the soul (which all men hold to be a spiritual being) is but a theca to the intellect, as the body is the tabernacle of the soul. or, if the soul hath light as well as the understanding, then are there two enlightened beings in one reasonable creature: non belle quaedam faciunt duo, marti. l. 5. epi. 53. sufficit unus huic operi. two reasonable beings in one compositum, is too unreasonable a thing. thirdly, who is it that communicateth this light? it is conveyed to the understanding either from the soul, or some other way. the understanding receiveth not truth from the soul. if from the soul, than the soul doth not find the defect of the understanding. for, if the soul can communicate light, than hath it light already; the same, or more excellent; then can it work, diffuse light, and enjoy itself; and so this faculty, the understanding, shall be in vain. if in any other way, it must either be immediately from god, or mediante creatura. if from a creature, not from any creature and not from the soul, it must be by some other faculty intervenient. for, if the soul (which by their consent is a more noble agent than the understanding) cannot, according to their doctrine, act without a faculty; how shall an inferior being work, without some such like subservient help? and thus may you excurrere in infinitum, which, according to the philosophers, may not be done; for, entia non sunt multiplicanda, nisi necessariò. if the truth come from god, not from god. then why is it not immediately, intrinsically, infused into the soul itself? but however the understanding be enriched with this treasure of truth, deus agit á centro in circumserentiam. if it be imparted to it, than is it, itself that truth, that light which i contend for. for god doth not communicate light (by light (which i take in a metaphorical sense) i understand some spiritual excellency) and such light (i say) god doth not offer but to light. for, quicquid recipitur, recipitur ad modum recipientis. cleopatra her dissolved union would have been to esop's cock of less value than a barley corn. and if the understanding have not light, in spiritual giving and receiving there must be a metaphysical union it cannot take it, unless by being turned into the nature of it. for what giving and receiving can here be, besides that which maketh both to become one and the self same? light came into the world, john 1.5. but it was refused by darkness. ignoti nulla cupido. thus the understanding and light are different in names, may be different in degrees, but not in nature. for what that reverend man i doct. of syn. dort. p. 25. lin. 12 neither a quality permanent, nor an act immanent, unless they be made inherent in the soul, and the latter also produced by it, can be said to be given to the soul. doctor twist saith most acutely of a spiritual gift, i may say of spiritual light. the soul cannot refuse a spiritual gift (i now speak in his phrase.) the soul and any spiritual being do not, as corporeal things, greet each other by the help of the loco-motive faculty; but when grace is given by god to the soul, there is, as it were (da veniam voci) an hypostatical union betwixt the gift and the soul; and the soul cannot reject it, because they are no more. two but one. to receive light is to be light. so to be in the capacity or act of receiving light, is to be light. lastly, how passeth this light from the understanding to the soul? will not here be left as vast a gulf, as they make between the understanding and the will, which make them divers; whence grow those inextricable disputes, how the the will is made to understand, what the understanding judgeth fit to be willed? chap. iii. a prosecution of the second argument, wherein these three notions are applied to the understanding, being made one with the truth. all these rubs are easily taken out of the way, if you make the understanding light, you have the three notions which make up every being. if you make that which you call the understanding, truth. for then have you, first, the father of mercies, dispencing light and truth. secondly, light and truth dispensed. thirdly, the totum existens, consisting of matter and form, of material and immaterial beings (as we distinguish them) called a reasonable creature thus informed or constituted, which we name the recipient of this light and truth. do not tell me, that i thus make the recipient and thing received all one; that is not strange in emanation divine. in scripture you have a parallel of this. 1 the 4. vial mentioned rev. 16.8. is the thing emptying and emptied upon itself. the fourth vial is poured out upon the sun (scil.) the scriptures, and the scriptures are the vial itself; the scripture is emptied upon itself, it is agent and patient, receiver and received. i know learned mede to prevent this, which to him is a difficulty, imagineth the emperor to be the sun; but in two words that is thus disproved. first, the emperor is nowhere called the sun in this book; when he receiveth a metaphorical typical title, he is called the dragon. secondly the scriptures are in the revelation divers times set forth to us by the sun. so that if you refuse the sense which i fix upon, than you do not only forsake, but oppose the scripture-phrase. but were not this truth mounted in a celestial chariot, nay in all things agent and patient must be one to him that considers. reason itself would evince it. for, consider any individual being you please, vegetative or rational, or what you will, no being but it is the thing receiving & received who is it that entertaineth this being, but the being itself which is entertained? who is it that receiveth from the womb of eternity that reasonable creature, but the creature received? the vanity of that question, whether the soul be continens or contentum, discovered the ignorance of this point, hath raised that empty question, whether the soul or the body be contentum? for if every being be its own contentum, this question will seem to be no more a difficulty. and if there happen any near union betwixt two beings, as the body and the soul, the first is not continens, the other contentum; but as husband and wife, each bringeth his part towards the making up of the compositum. thus without any violalation of reasons right, i seem justly to conclude, that the totum existens, consisting of matter and form, the reasonable creature, is the recipient of this truth. chap. iv. this argument further cleared by more objections propounded and answered. but still it is demanded, why may not the understanding supply the third place? why may it not be this recipient? to whom i give this answer; the understanding cannot be the recipient. that if they make the understanding but a quality, and depending upon some other being, it cannot, as i have proved in this discourse, course, be the recipient: but if they look upon it as this light, this truth itself, than the dispute is reconciled. some call the intellect virtus quâ. some conceive, all these difficulties are cured, if you make the understanding only virtus quâ, concluding with the philosopher, that ibi subsistendum est, without inquiry after a further progress. i could jurare in verbamagistri, i could acquiesce here, but that i desire to be convinced by reason and not by terms. i shall therefore humbly ask this question. the intellect cannot be virtus quâ. what difference is there betwixt virtus quâ and a faculty? as in a knife, the cutting ariseth from the sharpness, and this sharpness is virtus quâ, or the faculty whereby the knife doth cut. if it be but a faculty, than i repair to my former answer: but if something else than a faculty, it must either be a nominal being, or real existence. if the first, it beareth no weight. if the second, than i say, it must entertain species (for all spiritual glories do operate by the communication of their divine species) and then will you be cast upon the former rock. yet still they say, the understanding, being a spiritual being, receiveth light in some way which we know not; and so they proceed to obscure distinctions and voluminous discourses, concerning intellectus agens & intellectus patiens or passibilis. but the wiser sort of them, as the arabians, zabarell, &c. perceiving the thinness, aerialness and craziness of this spider's web, have with greater probability made god to be intellectus agens, by his influence upon the understanding. the last objection answered. respon. is not this the athenian altar, which groaned under that superscription, * act. 17. vers. 23. to the unknown god? i would i could discover with s. paul to them this light, this truth, which they know not, that they might love it and embrace it. but secondly, i dispute not against things i know not: they know not this. i know that i may better maintain the other, that the understanding is not the recipient of this light, than they aver that it is, in a way whereof they never hope to find any footsteps. chap. v. the soul and truth in the soul are one. i may yet be pressed with this objection: all these difficulties may be urged against the soul, which have been produced against the understanding. resp. are not these like the untrue mother, who will kill the child, because she cannot call it her own? if these inconveniences be justly urged against the soul, it will not deliver the understanding. but i will deal ingenuously, and confess that if you take the soul under any other notion than truth; if you deem it, first to be a being, and then to be light, as god made adam first (i mean the body) and then breathed life into him; if, i say, there be first a being, and then an infusion of light, you will be pressed with the former arguments. but if you make the understanding, the soul, understanding, truth, all but one. the soul, light, truth, one, then are you quite delivered out of all these straits, and then is it true which i aver, that, that degree of light, which we enjoy in the inward man, is the specifical difference, which distinguisheth between us and brutes, deservedly called reason, that ample sphere of truth, which is the all in us, and besides which we are wholly nothing. are not we said to be made after the image of god? an argument proving the soul and truth to be one. and if in any thing we are honoured with this inscription, it is in the most noble part? now god is unus, purus, simplex actus. for (with submission to his better learning and judgement) i cannot subscribe to d● ames his manner of expression, god and his attributes are not two. who saith, first there is god, and then his attributes are in him, * deo insunt quasi in esse secundo, ab essentiâ & inter se distinguuntur non solùm ratione rationante, sed etiam rationatâ, ita ut fundamentum distinctionis sit in ipso deo. theo. lib. 1. cap. 4. sect. 27.28. tanquam in esse secundo. if then we do bear his impress, quanquam non passibus aequis, it must be in that which is (as far as we can judge) dei formalis ratio, which is to be purus, simplex actus. in this our shadowy resemblance of the deity, i shall not challenge perfection; for though the scripture say, * 1 ioh. 3. vers. 2. we shall hereafter be perfect as he is perfect, and doth here style us, partakers of divine nature; yet all this is to be understood according to our little model. unity is that wherein we carry some touches, some lineaments of his majesty. unity is god's essence. unity is all what we are. for division being the birth of nothing, can be nothing. and thus may we raise from our microcosm, truth as it hath been described, resembleth the trinity. a passable hieroglyphic of the trinity. truth as it is in the breast of eternity intended to the sons of men, resembles patrem intelligentem; as it descends from above, filium intellectum; as it informeth the soul, enjoyeth and reflecteth upon itself, spiritum dilectum. we must not then expect, first, a being of the soul: secondly, a faculty whereby it worketh. god and his attributes, are but one; mercy and justice kiss each other in him; he and they are ens necessarium; and so the soul and the faculty is one, that divine light and truth. chap. vi. all things are this one light or truth, shining from god. but if the intellect, the soul, light and truth are (from the reasons alleged) all but one, this argument will press all things that are; then will all being fall under the same predicament. this is that which i aimed at; and why not? seeing that▪ first, all being is derived from the same fountain, scil. from him who is uniform, in all like himself. secondly, all being is the same in nature, (scil.) a beam of that excellent light, and therefore in metaphysics * unum, verum, bonum, ens, terminiconvertibiles. all being is this truth. truth and being are one. thirdly, all being is entertained in the same manner by every individual existence, which is the subject receiving this light from above: and all real true reception is alone by similitude and union of nature. yet i shall not agree to confound the names of particular beings, though i do conjoin their natures. for, all being may be compared to light; in such a body it is styled the sun; in another it is called the moon; in the third it beareth the name of a star, and under various shapes, the names of various stars, as syrius, canopus, &c. but all is light, and it is but light. the body of waters is by us called seas; when they beat upon such a coast, it beareth one name; when it coasteth upon another soil, it receiveth a several denomination. all being is this light, this truth; but contained within those circles, it appeareth to us under this name; and again, it hath another style when it beateth upon a various object. all being is but light, communicating itself to us through several crannies, some greater, some less, whilst all is light. * vide platonem in phile. in timaeo. terminus, insinitum, prima elementa, unde quin. que genera teru●. plato most excellently, most acutely, most truly hath madé all being of terminus and infinitum.: the first being appearing to us in several bounds and measures amidst the vast infinity of darkness or nothing. ficin. come. in tim●o. vide platonem ubique. the platonic philosophers do not err, omnes numeri in unitate. who reduce all beings to number, making one all and the chief, and the other more or less glorious, as they have two, three, or four, more or less numbers or degrees. whence they had this maxim, i know not; this i know, satan, that old serpent, is very learned, and can sometimes (as he doth, when he calls jesus the christ and son of god) can, i say, sometimes, tell true, that so he may even by truth entail to himself a certain interest in such disciples as refuse any other allurement than that of golden truth: and it is to be feared, that they have had too great and free converse with him. for even this sweet point of learning have they shamefully abused to charms and spells, as that of the poet, r virg. in {non-roman} {non-roman} {non-roman} {non-roman} {non-roman}. numero deus impair s quia numerus impar, numerus indivisibilis. ficin. comment. in plat. timae. gaudet. two was cursed, because it first departed from unity; three whereby unity again returned into itself, became sacred. but it may be (& spero meliora) that they received it from the egyptians, and the egyptians from the hebrews. now, if this be true, (which i submit to the judgement of the wise) than all being is but one, and all things are more or less excellent, as they partake more or less of this first being. this doctrine of platonists will not be so unfavory, if we pay unto unity its due tribute. i confess, according to true philosophy, time is but mensura motus vel ordinis, which both are the same; number, calculus temporis; one is principium tantùm numeri, and so it is hardly a part of that which is but the handmaid of circumstance. chap. vii. how unity is all in all things. but i should desire the excellency of unity. that we might consider whether it doth not carry something in it, in nature more glorious, something that may seem to inform a being. if i cannot tell what it is, you will excuse me, knowing how hard a thing it is to find out the form of any being, and how much more hard to discover the being of a form. but from this reason i do seem to collect some glimmering light of what i now propound. all being seemeth to breath and catch after unity. gravia do not more naturally incline downwards, than all being doth naturally seek for unity. of beings there are but two sorts. uncreated. created. uncreated, is god only. created, is spiritual. moral. physical. mathematical. in all these you will find unity as it were the form of their being. my thoughts, my ignorance, my no thoughts of the first, incomprehensible, inaccessible majesty, i desire to propound with fear, trembling and reverence. if john in the midst of revelation, rev. 22.9. being overcome with nothing but the glitterings and sparklings of the creature, did mistake, and worshipped one of his fellow-servants; if the jews refused to trample upon any contemptible scroll, fearing lest, in them, the nameless name of god might be included: surely we in the midst of darkness, having to do, not with the name, but with the nature of eternity, aught to clothe our spirits with much modesty. i shall therefore humbly propound this to consideration, whether unity be not all in god. i confess there are three persons in one godhead (and that is the mystery) and yet but one god. and more there could not have been; for this god is infinite, eternal, &c. and only one can be so; there cannot be two infinites, two eternity's. and again, this one cannot not be otherwise, for if he could have been something else, he had not been infinite. if then unity be such a necessary (give us leave to speak as we can) accident, as, without which god could not have been what he is: unity all in god. may it not be said that unity is coessential to him, seeing that the deity admits of no accidents? and if of his essence, than unity is in him all, for the essence of god is all in god, and god in his essence is but one divinity. ob. but so, infinity, power, &c. all attributes are in god his essence, as well as unity? answ. all other attributes are at length resolved into this of unity. of this, can be given no account, but only negative. all explications flow from this, return to this, that god is one. fie. comment. in plat. sympos. what is it to be infinite? ficinus answers, to have nothing of privation mixed, to be plenus sui; which is to be one. the power of god is the unity of all being in one point. what is this, i am that i am; but this, i am one? the same we may say of all other the names of god. unity in spiritual beings. when we survey the nature of spiritual beings, we shall find them in scripture styled one. for god reduceth all the commandments to love. and the saints, who are, quatenus saints, spiritual beings, (for their saintship is a spiritual excellency) are styled, rom. 12.5. one body; and, gal. 3.16. they are all one in jesus christ. christ and his church are but one body. now, this union carrieth certainly something with it more essential than a figure. when the three persons are united in one deity, the union is more close than a figurative union. the conjunction of the human nature, and the second person in the trinity, is a very entire conjunction; and so is that of the saints with christ. there is the union of the whole human nature with one person. here is the union of divers persons to the whole divine nature. and we may easily allow a near union to these metaphysical beings: seeing even in natural things, there is as it were an unity, even of two physical existences. for god saith, you two shall be one flesh; gen. 2.24. he saith not one, but one flesh. but these are aenigmata, 1 cor. 13.12. while we see through glasses of flesh. moral. seeing moral beings are, by general consent, of fraternal alliance to spiritual, both in nature and operation; i shall not say any thing of them, but only what is said by all, that virtutes sunt concatenatae. i shall therefore mind you but of this, unity in physical beings. how in physical beings, every thing doth delight in unity. and this is very plain in the stillicids of water, which, if there be water enough to follow, will draw themselves into a small thread, because they will not sever: and when they must disunite, than they cast themselves into round drops, as the figure most resembling unity. whence is that sympathy in nature between the earth and the adamant, but from hence, that they being of one nature, desire to improve their unity by mutual embraces? when have the sunbeams their vigour and efficacy, beating upon the burning glass, but when the glass hath gathered them all into one? where is the power of our five senses, which are in their nature so honourable, that nihil cadit in intellectum, quod non prius cadit in sensum? where is their virtue, but in communis sensus? nay (if i durst be so bold) but this i may not now dispute: i conceive all the senses are but one, and that is * i am informed that my lord castle. i stand in his book de veritate, affirmeth that there is but one sense: but i am not so happy as to have that book by me, nor do i remember it since my last reading it, so that i dare not say it confidently. tactus. for their energy is nothing till the ray from the object to the organ, and from the organ to the object touch in one. it is most happily expressed by sir john suckling; [who having drawn the breasts of wit and fancy dry, may justly now write man, must not a suckling die.] when he saith, the circumambient air doth make us all to be but one bare individual. sir john suckling in his play, act 2, scene 1. what are the mathematical sciences, but unity turning itself into several forms of numbers and figures, yet still remaining entire? harmony, proportion, proportionality, which are the subject, the soul of all knowledge here, are so many several names of the same unity. beauty is but one act of grace and sweetness, ficin. comment. in sympos. plat. which seems to us composed of various parcels. * ficin. comment. in tim. plat. music is one form resulting from many different sounds. this is that mystery, which unknown, hath confounded the schools in that question, whether quantity be divisibilis in semper divisibile. all things are certainly at last reduced to an unity; yea, all things appear to us clothed with one form; yet are we never able to search out the perfection of this, when we most accurately pursue it. the glory and majesty thereof is such, that it rendereth our minds uncapable of any more than a gross view, like that of the sun in his splendour. democritus his definition of being, is very considerable, * plato in symp. in orat. erixym. est aliquid differens à se, quod sibi convenit: and indeed, all being is but one, taking various shapes, sometimes discovering itself under one, sometimes under another, whereas it is but one being: and this is light, truth, that (as i said before) beam of divine glory, which is the spring of all beings. to close this discourse, give me leave thus to set forth that majesty, whereby unity wrappeth up all things within itself. there can be no recedence from unity, unless by addition of a new, distinct, unity. but where will you find this? a simple unity must be entirely one with the first; if you add any thing to unity, whereby it may differ, it remains no more one, but becomes a duality. nominal division of being requisite for our converse. yet do i in no wise reject that division of being left us by our masters, when they teach us, that there is first a being which is known to be, but itself in its being is insensible. secondly, another that is sensible, but knoweth not its own excellency. thirdly, that which knowing its own excellency, can reflect upon itself. for, i say, this which is called vegetative, sensitive, and rational, is all of one nature. chap. viii. the nature of habits. and whilst i affirm that the soul is nothing but this truth, i do not refuse the doctrine of habits, habits infused, acquisite. either infused or acquisite. for when the soul by virtue of its being, is clear in such a truth, it is said to be an infused habit. when by frequent action, such a truth is connatural to the soul, it may be styled an habit acquisite: though indeed all is but light more or less glorious, discovering itself frequently or rarely, and by divine appointment, at such a conjunction of time, and not any other, not that the soul is informed by its own action; for what hath the stream which it derives not from the source? what can those workings added to that, from which they receive themselves? and therefore i wholly subscribe to the platonists, who make all scientia nothing but reminiscentia; for when it appeareth not, it is not; the soul being but an activity, it must be no more than it acteth: and though we seem by frequent actings to help the soul, and so to create in it acquisite habits, yet these are but a phaenomenon. this is but the way which god discloseth to our eye, whereas all the actings are only new discoveries. our philosophers affirm thus boldly of the unreasonable creature, attributing it all to the instinct, or a new influence. why may not, why must not we conclude the same of man, seeing it is a received truth, that acti agimus, and we are in our strength in regard of god no better than the most abject creature? but if all be one; the difference between natural and supernatural habits. (soul, understanding, habits, all the same:) then neither do faith and reason differ. surely they differ only in degrees, not in nature. that reverend holy man, that dexterous cominus-pugnator, seemeth to aver the same or more in historical and saving faith * mr ball. divers sorts of faith. page 3. faith signifying belief, is used to note, first an ordinary knowledge and bare assent to the historical truth of the speaker, though sometimes holpen by experiments, and other inducements and probabilities of the things: and this is called faith historical, that is, a naked, imperfect, dead assent, without trust or confidence in the mercies of god, or adherence to the commandments. howbeit we must not imagine, that faith is reputed unsound or not salvifical, because historical (rather it is oftentimes unsufficient to save, because it is not so fully historical as might be) but the name of historical faith arose hence, that some are said to believe, who did never embrace christ as their only saviour with all their hearts, nor confidently rely upon the promises of mercy; otherwise, justifying faith doth more certainly believe the truth of the history of the gospel, and so is more historical than the faith called historical. . mr huit in his anatomy of conscience, clearly affirmeth it. * these means teach us further to make much of the least beginnings of grace, even those which divines commonly call repressing, since they prepare the heart to conversion, and in some sense be called the inchoation thereof: seeing temporary and living faith differ not in form, but degrees of perfection; there is a faith in the true convert, of no better perfection than that in the temporary, though he stay not there, as the other (being an unwise son) doth. huit anat. conscience pag. 214. the first degree is reason. a second, historical. a third, temporary. a fourth, saving faith. a fift, plerophory. a sixt, * 1 ioh. 3. vers. 2. beatifica visio, that light whereby we shall see as we are seen; these are of the same nature with that light which a reprobate is partaker of. and if any man question the truth of this, let him but consider, that the donor is the same, our good god. the efficient, instrumental, and formal cause, is jesus christ. the subject recipient, the totum existens. and the gift itself is light or truth, a spiritual being. how can it choose then, but to be one and the same, seeing (as i said before) such a recipient cannot entertain any other guest? the controversy about falling from grace. neither do i at all abet that unhappy opinion of falling away from grace. there is in the opinion a liquid nefasti, and therefore i study to shun it. the propugnators of it are unhappy; for they have not only made a rent amongst us, but strengthened a common adversary. the oppugnators also are unhappy; for they have so managed the cause, that their adversaries lie almost under invincible darkness: for the oppugnators fearing to speak plain, have called spontaneitatem, liberam voluntatem, and it is impossible to distinguish between libera voluntas contra-remonstrantium, & liberum arbitrium remonstrantium. and whilst the remonstrants find no difference in this main tenet, they weigh all the rest in the same scale, and judge accordingly. for an argument often alleged by many learned men, if it confuteth not, it doth confirm an error; and thus are they out of the reach of truth. that learned, that pious man, the first fruit of our church her resurrection, famous calvin, styled it spontaneitatem, and not liberam voluntatem: for, deus and libera voluntas are incompatible, not to be cemented by that distinction without difference, libera à necessitate, sed non ab infallibilitate. and therefore mighty * deo enim, sive scientiam ejus spectemus, quippe omnia scit; sive voluntatem, quae ad nihil creatum vel creabile est suspensa, sed ab aeterno determinata, nulla 〈◊〉 potentia disjunctiva: considerari quidem potest potentia creata, non considerato divino decreto, & in signo rationis decretum dei antecedente. said in tali chimar●●● consideratione, adversary nobis litem vitiosâ nuce ha●● emptitandam srustraserunt. ac verò actu, non est ulla potentia creata, nisi quae subest aeterno dei decreto, nisi qu●● {non-roman} {non-roman} {non-roman} {non-roman} {non-roman} divinae providentiae renuntiare velit, &c. rutter exerc. apolog. exerc. 1. c. 1. sect. 8. rutterfort affirmeth, that posito dei decreto absoluto (and all things are under such a decree) insulse quaeritur an potentia libera sub eo decreto sit indifferens. but here i am not to, i cannot, dispute this question. only i say thus much, it is so unhappy an opinion, that i hope i shall not at all abet it. for though reason and faith be one in nature: yet is not reason that degree of light, of which the spirit hath said, 1 ioh. 3.9. difference betwixt knowledge and faith. my seed is in you, and you cannot sin. and therefore men cannot lose that which they never had. and this will be a little more clear, by the answer to the next objection, which is this. if faith and reason, object. if knowledge and grace be all but one light, how cometh it to pass, that some who have less light, have more faith? and those again, who are for knowledge, as angels of light, are not partakers of that which is called saving faith? this difficulty is rather mazy, than strong; i shall therefore hope to bring the ariadnean thread. and at first aboard, i deny the proposition. i conceive it a mistake. for i do verily believe, that the weakest saint knoweth more of god, than the most intelligent of those spirits, who though once in heaven, are now in intolerable flames. all men confess thus much, that even the meanest christian, hath more experimental knowledge of god, than beelzebub the prince of the air. and doth not this convince them of what i affirm? for what (to speak in their language) is experiment, experience, collection of particular lights. but the daughter of light, gathered by frequent observation? if experiment be but light, and their experience is more than that of the greatest wits; then (if i mistake not) by necessary consequence, their light is more and greater. but i suppose, the error may be cleared by this simile. the one is as the man who hath studied the theory, the other the practice of any art of science. the first may know more in appearance; but the other indeed knoweth more. you shall find two unequally learned, knowledge, real. apparent. the first is a gnosticke, a helluo literarum▪ the other hath not read so much, but hath concocted, mastered and subdued all before him. which now is said to know more? psal. 14.1. the fool hath said (not, as some expound it, wished) in his heart, there is no god. it is true, now and then he hath some glimmering light of a deity, but anon again all is shaken, and he faith, there is no god. doth not the people of israel say, psal. 12.4. we are our own lords, who shall control us? we have made a covenant with death and hell, and none shall reach us. can these men, these beings be said to know god? if you object the devil's age and experience, it cannot help; it is but, as you call it, a collection of his own lights, and all the stars shining together make not day. i should only ask this one question, can the devils believe or know god to be all mercy? it is impossible, because they cannot believe him so to themselves. ob. but some say, neither do the best men believe him so to the wicked. resp. yes, we do, we know him in his nature to be merciful to them. besides, god, mercy and sweetness to the devils. mercy and justice are all but one thing in god; and this those miserable creatures cannot consent to, that their ruin is the effect of supreme perfection, infinite sweetness. to the confirmation of this, i shall but press this one consideration. as we know, we love. if they did know more than the saints, they must needs love more; and in this i shall have all those my abettors, who hold that the will doth necessarily follow the understanding; which whilst aristotle denieth in broad and open disputes, {non-roman} {non-roman} {non-roman} {non-roman} {non-roman}. arist. eth. lib 3. c.6. vide & c. 7. ci●ca finem. he doth in tacit terms closely yield to. i do apprehend it an undeniable truth, that what good soever i know to be good, i must love. and therefore if wicked men did know more of god, they must know him needs under the notion of good: and so seeing goodness in his nature, they must love him more. what we know, we are. i might add, what good we know, we are: our act of understanding being an act of union, which (as before) being metaphysical in the soul, must be entire. chap. ix.. the difference betwixt knowledge and affection, discussed. it may be that what hath been disputed, will be granted: but there is yet an objection which requireth solution. ob. if all being differeth only in degrees, not nature; if knowledge, affection, light, activity, be all one; whence is it that even amongst christian men, holy, spiritual men, men of largest affections, (and the affections are the activity, the main of the soul) i say men of the largest affections are esteemed to know least of god? and others, whose affections are as it were benumbed, and all activity is placed in their brain, understand more of the divine nature? doth it not appear from hence, say they, that all being is not one, differing only in degrees: but that there are even different natures, amongst which one may excel, whilst the other is depressed? sol. i could tell these men, who start the objection, that they deem the light in the head, more than the love in the heart: and then i shall say, affection handmaid to knowledge according to some. that with them the head is the higher degree, the heart the lower degree of light, and so all is but a different light; from whence, affection, being judgement in its infancy, ceaseth, when knowledge groweth mature: as the heat and blaze of fire, is but its labouring towards purity and perfection, which therefore are no more when the clear flame reacheth its element. but other men think otherwise, and they do pitch all in the affections, and the meaner light in the understanding; and so turning the table, still one shall be a parcel of, or a step to the other, knowledge a step to affection, according to others. knowledge & affection names of different degrees in the same nature. and each carry along both in equal measure according to reality: how much true affection, so much knowledge, & vice versa: as i shall show in other two answers, on which i fix the strength of my thoughts in this point. and therefore affection perfection of knowledge. secondly, i affirm confidently, and, i hope, truly, that he, who soars upon the wings of affection, and layeth himself in the arms of jesus christ, though he amuse not his head with the mystical nature of the trinity, with the procession of the spirit, with the incarnation of jesus christ, attempting to make that holy oil; touching the ark, this glory which is too high for him; losing himself, while he laboureth to see how human nature can be raised so high; divine condescend so low, as to bring forth the hypostatical union: i say, such a one knoweth more of god, than the other. it is often seen, knowledge often no knowledge, but a vain swelling. a working head is like an overhot liver, burneth up the heart, and so ruineth both: whereas sweet humble affections, are the only way to keep the poor creature in a constancy of spiritual health. and in this care the apostle to titus forbids foolish questions, tit. 3.6. endless genealogies, contentions, and brawlings about the law. this law is the rule of life; and if we know not the law, knowledge without power, even in the law forbidden. we cannot keep the law, and so we must perish; and yet we find the search of this forbidden. object. some will say, here is meant the ceremonial law. answ. i will allow it; but is not the ceremonial included under the second precept? ceremonial law included in the moral. the people upon christ his sermon, wherein he taught, that he that looketh on a woman to lust after her, mat. 5.28. hath committed adultery with her in his heart (and so he gave the law its full latitude) say, he speaketh as one that hath authority, mat. 7.29. and not as the scribes and pharises: conceiving it their duty and happiness to know the law in its utmost limits; and yet we are restrained from any brainsick, heady, nice inquiry, even into the law, scil. not to busy our heads with the knowing part, in overgreat proportion, but labour to bring our knowledge to practise. if then all such knowledge (i mean all knowledge of this nature) be forbidden, it is because it is not good; it is not knowledge, but a vain tumour in stead of real greatness or growth: and that other of the affection, hath certainly more of god in it, and so more of truth. the apostle is so great an enemy to this kind of knowledge, that having disputed such a point in disdain of gainsayers, he concludeth, if any man lust to be contentious, 1 cor. 11.16. we have no such custom, nor the churches of god. — demonstrat quaelibet herba deum. he who refreshed with the sweet odours, pleased with the various comely shapes of a flower, can say, this is sweet, this is lovely, lovely indeed; yet jesus christ is a bed of spices, cant. 2.1. as the lily of the field, the rose of sharon, sweeter, much sweeter, ten thousand times more lovely. this man knoweth god, this man loveth god, this man knoweth him indeed; and this knowledge, as it is the most pleasant here, so it will certainly prove the most profitable hereafter, and always declare itself most real. doth not the apostle, doth not he most truly, most pathetically cry out; though i had the gift of prophecy, 2 cor. 13.2. and knew all secrets, all knowledge, yea, if i had all faith, so that i could remove mountains, i were nothing; i were as sounding brass and a tinkling cymbal, if i have not charity. when all these excellencies meet in a christian, as haply they may, yet it is charity that maketh him what he is, and the other beings are but as phalerae, as trappings which give a handsome set-off, but not a being to a christian. love is lovely in god's eye, god, from whom all light cometh, is stil●d love 1 ioh 4 16. he is styled the god of love, the god love. and in another place, the scripture affirmeth that in this we have fulfilled the will of god, if we love one another; for by this we are made one with god, and so dwell in true light. the two tables are reduced to love of god and our neighbour. so that sweet affections do make the most sweet harmony in god's ears. women in greatest number truly gracious, because most affectionate. of the chorus of saints, the greatest number will be found amongst the feminine sex, because these are most naturally capable of affection, and so most apt to make knowledge real. it is true, i confess, these affections misguided, led them first into transgression; but these same affections after, carried them first to the grave, then to the sight of a saviour, gave them the enwombing of christ, who (in some sense) might have entertained our nature in another way (if he had so pleased;) and these affections will one day raise many of them into the sweet embraces of everlasting joy. amongst the church-officers, the pastor and the doctor, according to timothy, are more eminent than the rest, because they labour in the word and doctrine. 1 tim. 5.17 of these two, the doctor is always to have his sword always girt about his thigh, he must enter into the lists with every uncircumcised goliath. he must stand continual sentinel, that no heresies be forced upon the church. he must beat his brains in dissolving difficilia, and clearing obscura. he must sometimes faint away in watery cold fits, by picking up, and throwing out witless, sapless sophisms, which though they cannot hurt the strong, may seduce the weak. in the mean time, the pastor leadeth the flock into the sweet and pleasant meadows, the pastor preferred before the teacher, because the truth of truth in the heart lieth in the affection. feeding them by the little brooks of seemingly shallow affections; and yet this man shall not only receive equal honour with the doctor, but be preferred before him; as appeareth clearly in eph. 4.11. 1 cor. 12.26. as it was with the israelites, so it is here; those who keep the stuff, receive equal reward with the combatants. i do therefore conclude, he who hath the largest affections, hath most of god, most of his image, which is renewed in knowledge. thirdly, knowledge, where it is eminent in truth as well as appearance, there affection is equally eminent. sometimes it happeneth, that those who have the largest knowledge, have the most enlarged affections, even to our eye; and this is happiness indeed. i confess, it doth not so seem to an eye that would read it running; but if it be exactly looked on, if it be presented to our view in the portrait of an example, i think it will be very clear. david and solomon compared with paul. david and solomon compared with paul, will be as a thousand witnesses. the two first do seem to outstrip all men in affection, they are brimful, running over. for, david is styled the sweet singer of israel; in his psalms he is ever magnifying the rich mercies of god, singing forth the praises of god, choosing rather to be a doorkeeper in the house of god, than to dwell in the tents of mesech: making his word to be a light unto his feet, and a lantern unto his paths, placing all his delight in the law of the lord. solomon is the happy penman of that hymn, which by the spirit is styled the song of songs. yet for all this, even in this, they are both exceeded by saint paul. but some, it may be, will imagine those worthies to be endowed with higher gifts of nature and art, than s. paul: and then they will give all the glory to their understanding, and not to their affections. if it be so, i confess i have not fitly chosen my opposites; but the truth will then appear in them, without comparison distinctly. for, if in affection they exceed all, and in abilities are as saul, taller than their brethren by head and shoulders, than is it manifest in them, that eftsoon men of the most raised parts, of highest abilities, do superabound in love. but, if, in things which are not directly of faith, i could cease to be a sceptic, i should with that most reverend worthy, thomas goodwin, give saint paul for head and heart, that throne in heaven which is placed next to jesus christ. but secret things belong to god; let us only compare their eminency here below. i think it will be out of question, that saint paul was the most excellent. for, though solomon (there i suppose will be the difficulty) be said to be the wisest of men, that ever were, that ever should be; yet that is to be applied only to government, and (if it may reach so far) to his excellent skill in natural philosophy. solomon's preeminence in knowledge extended to politics, and natural philosophy only. view but saint paul, and see whether he doth not excel in every thing. he had gathered up vast learning at the feet of gamaliel; for his parts he was advanced to eminent power in church and commonwealth. he saith of himself, i profited in the jews religion above many my equals in my own nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my fathers. and after his conversion, he was judged the only man fit to contend with the philosophers at athens. for they who seemed to be somewhat, in conference added nothing to him. and therefore to him was committed the unravelling of all the difficult knots. it is he that disputes about meats, long hair, divorces, irregular partings of husband and wife. it is he that openeth the nature of prophecy, evinceth the resurrection from the dead, maintaineth justification by faith. and that he may be perfect in knowledge, god is pleased (whether in the flesh or spirit, 2 cor. 12.3 he knoweth not) to take him into the third heavens: and there he was so filled with revelation, that god was forced to put the philomela-thorn under his breast, that he might not fall into the sleep of sin, and so give himself up (as samson) into the hands of philistine enemies. and yet this man exceeds all men in affections, and in his affections surpasseth all his other excellencies. it is he that is often in journeys, 2 cor. 11.26. in perils of waters, in perils of robbers, in perils by his own nation, in perils amongst the gentiles, in perils in the city, in perils in the wilderness, in perils in the sea, in perils amongst false brethren, in weariness and painfulness, in watchings often, in hunger and thirst, in fastings often, in cold & nakedness. and as he saith of himself, who was weak and i was not weak? who was offended and i did not burn? it is he that fought with the beasts at ephesus. he is content not only to be bound, but to die for christ. good saint paul was so tender over his kinsmen according to the flesh, that for their sakes he could willingly be content to be separated from the love of the lord jesus christ. and this is greater love than that which christ mentioneth; for no man had then showed greater love than to die; but this holy saint will go one step further, he will suffer an eternal death for his friend. thus, if suffering either for the head, or members, for the church, or christ, will discover affection, i suppose he will merit the garland. and as a compliment and crown of all, if to live be most for god's glory, though death be his advantage, he is resolved to submit, making obedience to christ in life and death, his gain and triumph. i confess, when he traveleth through those briery disputes, he cannot display such sparkling vivid affections: but when he hath gotten but a little above those lime-twigs, how doth he mount on high, and there, upon even wings, disdain all things below, triumphing in the embraces of his saviour, who is to him more choice than the choicest of ten thousand? if what i have attempted to prove, be true, as i hope it is, then consider, either those who are eminent in affection, and otherwise know little; or those who, as they abound in one, are also masters in the other: true knowledge, true affection, separated from all appearances or outward advantages of the body, or the like, are one. distinguish appearances from truth; reading, memory, discourses, effects of sense or complexion, from that which entreth the soul, becometh real there, acteth, floweth from thence as a spring: and then will you conclude, that all knowledglieth in the affection; that all knowledge is but one, differing only in degrees. and lastly, that all, whether knowledge or affection, is but the truth, that spiritual ray of heavenly light which god is pleased to present to our view under several shapes, yet is but one and the same being, scil. light and truth. chap. x. that all the several and particular actings of the soul, are this one light and truth. thus have i dispatched the first discourse of the general form and nature of the understanding. apprehensions, conclusions, affirmations, &c. all one truth in the soul. now concerning the particular and various workings thereof, in conclusions, simple apprehensions, negations and affirmations, &c. which seem to be the offspring of the first and original being; even these, i hope to prove all one and the same, as with themselves, so with the former, all conjoined in one being of light and truth. that is truth in the fountain, this in the streams; and no man will deny the fountain and stream to make one river. only, sometimes it appeareth in such a shape, sometimes in another, but is still the same soul. the operations of the soul are proved one with the essence thereof. this will appear if we compare the nature of the soul or understanding (for we have proved them both one) with their irradiations, actings and several emanations. res enim dignoscendae sunt ex causis. now, we conceive the first being to be no other thing, than activity, so confessed by all. and if you would know what an activity is, you shall find it to be either potentia agendi, or ipsa actio, or rather actus primus & actus secundus. if it be actus, either primus or secundus (for primus and secundus are to me differenced only by time, and so not differenced at all, (of which i will presently speak a little more) it must be still in work, and is no longer than it acts. now, what can this act be in this subject, whereof we discourse, but the reasonable working of the soul in this or that conclusion? if it be any other than a work of reason, how can it constitute, or become the form of a rational soul and human understanding? if it be such, how differs it from thought, ratiocination or positions in the mind? the activity which is the form of the soul, not different from the actions thereof. whilst then these conclusions, sayings, actions, are the form of that truth, of that universal first truth, they must be that truth. for, forma quae dat esse, est esse, and whatsoever is the form of any thing, that is the being of it. for, being and form are but one. if the form of this activity be not these reasonable workings, it must be something either of a baser allay, or of a higher stamp. not of a higher strain. if the latter; than you speak of angels or some other spiritual being, if there be any which is more noble than the soul. and then how doth this excellency discover itself? where or what is it? how is it said that action is the perfection of all things? if the former; nor of a lower. then first you descend to some lower degree of existency; for, all being is but an activity; and according to the glory or baseness of that activity, doth the being receive denomination. or secondly; shall the cause be more ignoble than the effects? what then? if it be neither more excellent, nor lower, neither can it be various. is it various, hath it less or more of action? still you fall at the same stone. but they who approve of the distinction of actus primus and actus secundus, think they salve all by the distinction of substance and accident; so, with them, actus primus is the being, the substance itself: and actus secundus is the product of that being or accident belonging to that which they make a soul; and thus forgetting this, that omnis virtus consistit in actione, they make the soul a mere virtual being. the distinction between actus primus and actus secundus, examined. but, besides that the former reasons are not thus everted, of these men i should ask this question. what is this their actus primus? what is the form of it? what is with them the form of a reasonable soul? is not reason? can there then be a soul, till there be reason? and this reason is not potentia ratiocinandi, but ratio. for, if you distinguish between the act and power, the act must ever be first in order, dignity, and nature. so then, what is the form of this primus actus? is not some act? if it be, it must exist; else you will allow it but a bare notional being, which lieth in the apprehension. and if it doth exist, must it not be this which you call actus secundus? if it be not an act, they make it nothing but a power, a faculty depending upon something else. and if this be the nature of the first, what can the second being (which is the effect, and so lower) be, but a bare notion? the distinction between substance and accident called into question. if here were fit place, i might perhaps set upon the rack that long-famous distinction of substance and accident, whereby it should be forced to confess itself an aged imposture, at least in the general and frequent acceptance. but the activity consisting in the action, that and it shall both be proved but one; and so, actus primus and actus secundus are this same truth, this light which i plead for. chap. xi. an objection answered, in which the nature of time and place are touched. yet this doth exceedingly stumble men's thoughts; we see various actings of the soul, distinguished by the circumstances of time and place; there are several distinct actings; are there then so many several souls? first, i could justly give this answer; when these men can tell me what time and place is, i do hope i shall find both time and place to dissolve the difficulties. secondly, i shall, i suppose, both by reason and their own assertions in the like case, prove that time and place are nothing, or alter nothing in this point; and that, these similes will a little irradiate. the nature of beauty illustrating time and place. beauty (if i bring not the exact description of the learned, yet i shall remember so much as concerneth the point in hand) consists in complexion, in lineaments, and in harmony. complexion draweth his being from colour, from the subject wherein colour is seated, the spirits which give a being to this colour, &c. and these are differenced by many circumstances. lineaments as they are adorned by, so are they the ornaments of this complexion. and these again are divers from themselves, and divers from harmony. and yet, by harmony, these make up one sweet, one pleasant being, which we call beauty. a flame rising from divers thorns, is not many, is but one flame. a stream filled with various springs, is not various, is but one stream. so is it in our case. those circumstances of time and place, differencing these various beings, are something, or nothing. if nothing, the objection is answered. if something, they are a piece of the whole, they serve to make up that harmony, which we call beauty, {non-roman} {non-roman} {non-roman} {non-roman} {non-roman}. thus time and place, with all beings of the like nature, are either nothing, or else they have a share in the being, and make up the totum compositum. time and place nothing different from the essence of the soul. the soul is but one act distinguished to our notion by several apparitions; and these intervals, with all variations, either are nothing, or are of the nature of the soul, and serve to make up that comfort, that truth, that life that we now discourse of. and that this is so, i hope by this clear ratiocination to leave you assured. time and place seem to me nothing but an extrinsical modification of a thing. i cannot find that the learned have made anything at all of them. let us survey them, as they define them, when they treat of them; as they esteem them, when they meet them occasionally. how hath aristotle defined place? the definitions of time and place rejected. est superficies concava corporis ambientis; where is the truth of this in the highest heaven which incompasseth all the rest? place. hath ramus any whit advanced the cause in his definition? est subjectum rei locatae; idem per idem! are not those who propound, and they who entertain such a definition, justly compared to the constable and the country-justice? the first having received from some higher power a warrant, wherein in was this hard word, invasion, repaired to his rabbi for solution: he, that the question might seem somewhat obscure, paused a little, that it might not shame him; after he had consulted, in a stroke or two with his grave-learned beard, replied; the sense of this word is very plain, it is invasion, it signifieth invasion; with which the constable being fully satisfied, gave him many thanks and departed. locus and spatium corporis locati, is little better; what have we in this definition, of the intrinsical nature of place? so that, if i be not wholly blind, they, whilst they treat of it as scholars, make it nothing: when they make use of it by the by, it is the same. as, the soul, they say, is tota in toto, and tota in qualibet parte; whilst they spread and diffuse the soul over the whole body, from one extremity to the other, place maketh no division in the soul; it is but one soul, yet extended quite through the body. angels are definitivè in loco; that place which is within the circumference so limited, doth not at all cause them to make two in this angelical being. i may affirm the same of time, time. tempus est mensura motus; what do i know of time by this? how can i from hence guess time to have so considerable a being, as that it shall make two of that with otherwise would be but one? in the deity we are sure it can have no such effect. in the deity we have creation, preservation, redemption, decree, and execution of that decree. all these to our apprehension are distinguished by time: and yet no man will say, that in god they are two: for god is purus actus, nulla potentia. but you will say, this is obscurum per obscurius, and not to unmask and unveil difficulties: which no simile taken from the divinity can do, because that is all mystical. to which i answer, si magnis licet componere parva, we shall find the same in ourselves, we shall find that time doth not at all difference, or any way act. i suppose it is clear, that place hath lost all place and credit in this argumentation. why may not i say the same of time, seeing by all men's confessions they are twins of the same womb? but secondly, i affirm this, (and i hope truly) that if you make time any thing, all actions nothing, if time be any thing. you annihilate all the act of the creation; that is, you will admit of no one perfect action. a thought, i confess, passeth in a moment; and yet, in this moment, under this moment, are many subdivisions of time. we have in an hour, an half, a quarter, a minute, a second, (the 60 part of a minute:) & how many subdivisions will a scruple admit of? for aught i know, time and punctum physicum agree in this, that they are divisibilia in insinitum. if then you will make so many thoughts in a thought, as you have divisions under a scruple, you will have no perfect thought, no complete act. to shun this, you will confess that time doth not divide one act alone: but one act or thought comprehendeth many times. why may not i say, that if time doth not parcel out one act, it cannot act upon two, when the duality ariseth only from time? this not being well weighed, hath cast our wits upon strange rocks, hath raised this question, how doth god see things? the difficulty untied, how god seeth things. if in their existencies, than all things are coeternal with god: if in their causes only, than all things are not present with god; but you must admit of succession, a former and a latter, to eye divine; which is blasphemy. this dilemma seemeth strong; but it is because we make time something: whereas indeed all things did exist in their beings with god ab omni aeterno. for, aeternum & tempus are all one in eternity: and this succession is but to our apprehension. thus, if time and place be nothing, i hope the weight of this objection is is taken off. but i foresee another objection. object. if time and place be nothing, if all our actions are but one: how can there be evil and good? answ. i fully conclude with aristotle's adversaries anaxagoras, democritus, etc that contradictions may be simul & semel in the same subject, same instant, same notion (not only in two distinct respects, or notions, as one thing may be causa & effectum, pater & filius, respectu diversi; but even in the same respect, under one and the same notion.) for, non ens is nothing; and so, the being which it hath, may subsist with that which contradicts it. i speak in their terms. now, let us view our actions, either as many, in pieces, or, one entire act. as many; impute transgression to what you please, either to the effects in the body, or the will, and its workings: all these, so far as they have being, are good; for, all being is good. where then is the sin? certainly, sin lieth in this, that there is not so full a goodness as there should. sin is only a privation, a nonentity: but, a privation, a nonentity may subsist (according to the subsistence it hath) with being. such a coexistence of entity and nonentity, was in his faith, who cried, lord, i believe, help my unbelief. this contradiction (of entity, nonentity) must be in the selfsame act, (and not in two distinct acts:) else the act is perfect, (having complete entity, goodness, without admixture of nonentity:) and so is only the creator: or else it is more imperfect than beelzebub; for, it is bad, and no good, nonentity wholly, and no entity, and so no action. thus we see good and evil may coexist in several, in particular actions; why then not so, if all acts should be but one entire act, undistinguished by time or place? if the members composing the body, have matter and form, why then not the whole body? sin in itself is nothing, only a nonconformity to god's law. the twilight hath not so much light and so much positive darkness: only it hath not so much light as noon in clear day. here's the defect: and by this defect, light and darkness coexist in the same point of air. so, though our acts be but one, undivided by time and place: yet, to our grief, are not free from sin. thus the soul, truth, light, is always and continually one, though it appeareth otherwise to me: and this appearance ought not to dazzle the sight of the truth; for, as they say of honour, honour est in honorante: so may i say of apprehension, apprehensio est in apprehendente: the thing is still the same, let my apprehension be what it will be. the same truth taking varicus shapes in our apprehensions. i do not reject the phrases of several truths, and several actings of this truth: for, loquendum cum vulgo; yet, phrases must not mislead us. for whilst i confess loquendum esse cum vulgo, i profess that sapiendum est cum paucis. for, to our apprehension, that truth which is but one, doth variegate itself, and take divers shapes. set forth by a similitude taken from the sun. as that sun which is one and the same, is ruddy in the morning, clear at noonday; of a moderate heat early, and at midday rather torrid. various colours meeting in the same point, the same act of sense perfectly one, yet varied unto many forms. to make up one indivisible act of sense, are by it judged divers beings, whereas they all make up but one being; they are but one and the same object of sense. reason, which is exalted above sense, telleth us it must be so; because that act of life is but one, and the sense is not an ubiquitary; it cannot act upon any more than one at once. the trigonal glass paints out to us more, a similitude from the trigonal glass. and more lively colours in every object (which as a medium it presents to the eye) than are in the iris; yet, this object, may be but some duskish sad thing, in which there is no change of colours at all. sense confuted by copernicus. the three leading senses have confuted copernicus these many years; for the eye seeth the circulations of the heavens; we feel ourselves upon a stable and firm foundation; and our ears hear not from the volutations of the earth such a black cant as her heavy rollings would rumble forth: and yet now if we will believe our * capernic. kepler. gallilaeus de galil: new masters, sense hath done as sense will do, misguided our reason. when the nimble jugglers play their pranks, you see and hear, yet neither see nor hear. so your sense is no good judge. thus let the soul be raised to its supreme height of power, and it will clearly see, that all the actings of reason which seem several (be they, as we think, distinguished by time and place) are but one, a fixed entire unity. chap. xii. another objection is answered, drawn from the falsehood in the workings of the soul. but if these particular actings of truth, object. are truth; then when this being, which we have so long discoursed of, acteth not truth, it ceafeth to be: and so, where the soul entertaineth or pronounceth a false position, the soul is no more itself. grant that it is with the soul in this moment of time, when it acts upon falsehood, as when it acts not, and so is not; yet you will advance nothing, till you can prove the succession of moments to have a real being. by former discourse, succession of moments, apparent, not real. i hope it is clear, that time is but a nominal being, and then this cessation depending on that distinct moment, which is not, is likewise itself an imagination. the school never acts falsely. but secondly, i will allow it, when any man can show me that falsehood is a real being, which the soul or truth can work upon; for, in every apprehension two things are to be weighed; the agent itself, and the subject acted upon, (i speak now in other men's language; for i conceive the agent together with the subject to be one in the act.) truth is always truth, nemine dubitante; and so it must be true, whilst it acteth on a truth. if that be true, which it acts upon, than all is well; if it be false, it is a vanity, a lie, a nothing. for, if falsehood have a being, than we must either with the manichees, make two sources of being, or else god must be the author of it; which no man will affirm. if then it have no being, the soul cannot act in it, and so it cannot be the act of the soul; for, how shall the soul or truth act upon nothing? object. but the soul doth act, when it pronounceth a false position? resp. in false propositions of the soul, so far as it acts, it acts truly: where it is deceived, it is by not acting. he that in the twilight, mistaketh a man for a tree, acteth right in what he seeth; and when he raiseth a false conclusion upon the premises, he acteth not. for, how is it possible, that a man should act falsehood, a vanity, nothing? in this action, there are two things; there is the seeing a being, and the seeing it under a confused notion. or, which is the same, you may observe, first, the opining; secondly, the opining uncertainly or falsely. the opining, is a good act, none will deny; to think, let it be what it will be, is good. but secondly, the so-thinking, is that which is obscure. now certainly, the formalis ratio of this so-thinking, lieth in thinking of error, which is nothing; and in thinking of nothing, the the soul cannot act; for, nothing produceth nothing. a man, who catcheth at the shadow of a hornet, acteth rightly in catching, and stingeth not himself; because he apprehendeth only the shadow; because so far he doth not act; for to catch a shadow, to catch nothing, and not to act, are idem. and thus, whilst the soul catcheth at a false position, it graspeth but the shadow, which can be nothing, seeing evil is, nothing; ergo, it loseth not truth; for it pronounceth nothing but the truth of the position. pain hath no real being. the same may be said for pain. i conceive, it cannot act upon the soul, nor the soul upon it, because, it is but a bare privation of spirit and strength. and upon this ground, i shall subscribe to that opinion propounded by that reverend, worthy, that quick-sighted balearian-jaculator, mr dr twisse: whether it be not better to be in perpetual pain, than not to be at all. if pain be but a bare privation, certainly any being is more desirable, than, for fear of a privation (a not-being) to become no-being. hîc rogo, mart. lib. 2. epigr. 80. non furor est, ne moriare, mori? if any man shall tell me i speak against sense, i shall modestly ask him this question: whether it be not impar congressus betwixt sense and reason: and whether, in that case, sense be an equal judge. reason telleth us, that pain must either be something, or nothing; if nothing, than it is but a privation; if something, it must be either good, or evil; if good, it cannot (as hath, and will yet appear more in this pamphlet) hurt us; if evil, it is either a nominal evil, or real; if it be named an evil, and is not, it will not be disputed; but if it be a real evil, than it is nothing; for, evil, by consent of all, is nothing but privation of good. in this case shall reason or sense guide, judge you. chap. xiii. discovering the consequences of this position, that all things are one truth. sir, when you collect your thoughts, and pass sentence upon these unsheaved gleanings, your gentleness (though the papers merit no such favour) will smile upon them; and say, here our eyes indeed are pleased with the curiosity of pallas her needle: but, what hath reason to work upon? what is the usefulness of this more than arachne's web? more than to entangle empty wits withal? what fruit doth it yield better than the silkworm, which is worn only for ostentation? give me leave to plead for my own. our own (you know, though black) is comely to ourselves. if this were well weighed, the happiness of our lives advanced by this opinion. that all things are but one emanation from power divine: if this were taken fully into the understanding, that we might be said to live upon, to live in this truth; we should live more christianly, more cheerfully. non est vivere, mart. li. 6. ep. 70. sed valere, vita. i say more cheerfully, more christianly, in a few moments, than we do now in the whole course of our distracted time. and you will more easily consent to this, if you do consider that our happiness is compounded of two simples only, which are so entertwined, as that they may seem one, the first is to know. the second, to do what is right and good. of the former, the theoretical part, i shall speak hereafter. in the practic, two things are considerable, this unity the fountain of knowledge. first, that, action dependeth wholly upon knowledge. and, of knowledge, this is the wellspring and rule, that, unity is all. the spirit saith, how can you love whom you do not know? and i may say, how can you do what you know not? the not-knowledge of of what is right, with-holdeth from, and wearieth in action; if perchance we ever have any glimmering of light. action wholly depends on knowledge. for, ignorance bringeth this double evil with it. first, it leadeth into error; and error (simply in the view of it) giveth no content. seconly, in the progress it wearieth and distracteth. one who is lost in a wood, suffereth as much in seeking as losing the way. whereas, if we knew aright, how even and smooth would be the way of action, and how great our contents therein? secondly, not only all our actions turn upon this hinge; but out of this treasury issueth forth the whole complacency that we gather from, or receive in action. for, if we knew this truth, that all things are one; how cheerfully, with what modest courage should we undertake any action, reincounter any occurrence, knowing that that distinction of misery and happiness, which now so perplexeth us, hath no being, except in the brain? we should not need to check and raise ourselves with david's outcries, why art thou cast down my soul, why art thou disquieted within me? our spirits could with him wait upon god; make him our only rock, and then we should not be moved. we should not call for epictetus nor boëtius de consolatione philosophica; we might fetch our cures from our own bosoms, if from this one truth of unity we could conclude these two things. first, that misery is nothing, and so cannot hurt. secondly, that every thing that is, is good, and good to me: then we might sing with a joyful spirit, o nimium, nimiumque beati; and upon sure ground; for, whilst i being a being, am good, and that other being is good, and these two goods can fall under no other difference, but of degrees; good & good, cannot but agree, and so must be good to me. ob. if any man shall say, that the overflowing of another man's good, may be my evil; they mistake; resp. for, such a though is a falsehood; and, as i have already proved, falsehood is nothing, and so cannot hurt. that such a thought is falsehood, i suppose this will clear it. the philosopher's fancy to themselves animam mundi, and say every parcel is as a simple contributing to the existence of that compositum. but christians know, and i have (if i mistake not) evinced, that, all being is but one emanation from above, diversified only in our apprehension. how can then one piece of that being impeach the other, all things one piece. one part of the soul quarrel with the other? as the will (speaking in their terms) with the sensitive faculty; or the eye with the belly: the vanity whereof aesop hath taught us long ago. so, of necessity, if either my envy, or another's folly, lay me low, because my brother is exalted, this must be a lie, and so cannot hurt. e contrario, the good of another, being the perfection of the whole, is my advantage. if with this eye you view that scripture, you will see it in its glory, is thine eye evil, mat. 20.15 because thy brother's good increaseth? the rule, you see is, that i should rejoice at the welfare of another. now what is the reason of the rule? propriety maketh lovely. philosophy teacheth us, that it is not only {non-roman} {non-roman} {non-roman} {non-roman} {non-roman}, but {non-roman} {non-roman} {non-roman} {non-roman} {non-roman}, that is, lovely. if then i must rejoice, i rejoice because of some propriety, and this propriety ariseth from unity; this alkermes of unity, cheereth the drooping spirit, cureth the atra bilis of melancholy. the same potion easeth the heart of envyings, censurings and whisperings. so he, who knoweth that injuries, because they are nothing, cannot hurt; and good things, though another's, do serve him; cannot cherish such viperous starvelings in his thoughts. chap. xiiii. the benefit which knowledge and all sciences receive from this assertion. i have in a word shown how unity untyeth all difficulties, unites all happiness in practical things. permit me to discover what influence it hath upon that other simple, which maketh up the compound of our happiness, (scil.) theory. tully saith of epicurus, the vanity of dividing knowledge into many sciences. frangit, non dividit; the breaking of learning into so many sciences, is but making so many miles, that so the master may have more hire for his post-horse. they forget, that, vita est brevis, whilst ars est longae. it were much better if all learning were like the chain fastened at jupiter's throne, all of a piece: or the beam, which from the sun by a continual tract of irradiation toucheth the treasures of the earth. to the effecting of this, that learned, that mighty man comenius doth happily and rationally endeavour to reduce all into one. why do we make philosophy and divinity two sciences? what is true philosophy but divinity? and if it be not true, it is not philosophy. confusions from division in knowledge. do but see a little in particulars, the fruit of such like divisions. in the knowledge of beings, we must observe first, knowledge double, of beings, & of their causes. being is: secondly, what it is. there is the {non-roman} {non-roman} {non-roman} {non-roman} {non-roman}, and the {non-roman} {non-roman} {non-roman} {non-roman} {non-roman}. what a tedious work doth this very division lay upon us? knowledge of beings twofold, of their existencies, and their natures. alas, the very first, the easiest part of it, will take up all our time; and to ascend to causes before we know that there are effects, is to mount the highest round, before we ascend the first. and therefore that learned wit, sir francis bacon, in his natural philosophy, bringeth only experiments, leaving the search of causes to those, who are content, with icarus, to burn their wings at a fire too hot for them. indeed, sometimes as an embellishment of his discourse, that he may please stirring fancy, he interlaceth some causes, yet gently and modestly propoundeth them, but as for entertainment. if now our humble spirits could be content to see all things, as they are, but one, only bearing different shapes, we should according to that rule, noli altum sapere, improve in what we know, and there sit down. but our spirits are mighty nimrod's, hunting after knowledge, venturing all, to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. which curiosity of ours, is wittily reproved by sir john davies; why did my parents send me to the schools, that i with knowledge might enrich my mind: when the desire to know, first made men fools. and did corrupt the root of all mankind. and for this reason we lose with esop's dog, the substance, and get not the shadow. causes we cannot, knowledge of existencies necessary, but altogether uncertain. neither shall ever find out: the knowledge of existencies we omit; they are too voluminous, if we did attempt; and so much doubted of by men, that what to think, we know not. view all learning, and see how the very being of things, is questioned in natural philosophy. amongst the quadrupedes, we question the existence of the unicorn: inter volatilia, the phoenix, and the bird of paradise: amongst fishes, the mermaid. when we seek into minerals, we find not ebur fossil; the incomparable virtues of it we meet with in all physicians: but the subject of so many excellencies, we doubtfully hope for. of herbs and plants, books name many which gardens, meadows, rivers afford not: if they ever were, we may give them to pancirolla, that he may reckon them with perpetuum mobile, the philosopher's stone, cum multis aliis, inter inventa perdita: for every age interreth old things, and is again fertile of new births. if we were mighty men, as adam, knowledge of the natures more uncertain than the existencies. that all the creatures would come and present themselves to our view: yet (which is the second part of this first question) we could not give them their names according to their natures. for when we do know that any being doth exist, we do not know what their forms, their several qualities and temperaments are. we altogether are ignorant of herbs and plants; which are hot and cold, in how many degrees they are so. for in these, how many, how eternal are the debates? some deny the healing virtue to dictamnum. some question the nature of that killing-saving indian herb, hen-man-bane, tobacco: whose insolence is such, as to make that part of man a chimney, an outlet of her smoky birth (expressed happily by doctor thory in these words, inque tubo genitas haurire & reddere nubes:) i say, to make that an outlet of her smoky birth, by which the old romans (in this their proverb, est homo nasutus) discovered their judgements of gifts and wit. some say it is hot, and some say it is cold. few of the learned, consent about the degrees of heat and cold in any simple, and so are forced to palliate all with the gaudy mantle of occulta qualitas; yet what are all these but matter of observation? manifest effects, which sense teacheth the ploughman, the countryman, yea the bruits themselves, as familiarly, as warmth in the sunshine, and wet in the rain. i could name many questions in * as all those laws concerning slaves, whereas a slave indeed is non ens, for if any man have given away, with esau, his birth▪ right, yet he hath not lost it; because manhood and religion are not mei juris; they are talents which god hath entrusted me with, and are no more deputable, than places of jud catu●e. et sic de caeteris. politics, economics, ethics, &c. the very subject whereof are in dispute. but they will more happily fall in, when i discover our ignorance in causes. thus you see in what a maze you are meandred, in what sense knowledge of beings is to be wished. if you admit of any division. the very knowledge of the being of things, is more than we are capable of. and as yet that is necessary, so we keep ourselves still to this principle, that those things are all of one nature, variegated only in our apprehension: and this knowledge i must consent to. but if men once seek into the causes of subsistencies, i see no reason but they should suffer as rei laesae majestatis. for these are arcana imperii, which to meddle with, is no less than high treason. chap. xv. confusion in the knowledge of causes, discovered, and redressed by this unity. if we are thus at a stand, in these very beginnings, what shall we be, when we inquire after causes? two lie open to our view. two only causes received, god, and emanation from god. first, our great and good god, the fountain of all being, and this the ancients styled fatum. secondly, there is that emanation from him, aristotle's materia prima brought to light. which is the first created cause of all being, and this was aristotle's materia prima, so far as sensible things extend. which because it is the substance of all things, and the variations of it make all forms; therefore in itself, he described it to be neither quid, quale, nor quantum. all other causes are better known by name, than in the natures of them. they make many, as efficient, final, material, formal; with divers subdistinctions; as instrumental, exemplary, &c. all these have matter and form. matter & form have their matter and form, both of which meet in the emanation. for, there is a matter, and form of a material cause, and form and matter of formal causes. for in a table of of wood, the material cause is not the matter, wood: wood is the subject, upon which this material cause bringeth forth that effect, a table. it may be the material cause shall not be physical matter; we shall by and by find it another name. of the form of a material cause, i shall say nothing, and so for formal causes. faith is said to be the form of a christian, and faith hath its form. the soul is by many deemed (which i understand not) the form of the reasonable creature, and it hath a particular individual form. and thus both material and formal causes have matter and form. matter again, is either physical and substantial, or metaphorical and metaphysical. and this is the name i promised even now. forms are either intrinsical, or extrinsical: the intrinsical are logical, metaphysical, &c. now have you various and several kinds of forms; but who knoweth the least considerable part of matter or form? who will not clearly lose himself in such an inquest? may we not say of these, what one saith wittily of the soul? for, her true form, how can my spark discern, which dim by nature, art did never clear: when the great wits, of whom all skill we learn, are ignorant, both what she is, and where? do but survey the physical beings of our philosophers, with what impossible, with what unnecessary scrutinies of causes, the vain search of causes in physics. do they weary themselves, and their disciples? till numeri platonici cease to be a proverb, i must remain a sceptic, although one undertake to teach me, how and whence it is, that various rollings of the tongue, shall send forth so many articulate voices, and so many several languages. till it be known, how all numbers gather themselves into an unity, i must not give credence to another, who promiseth an account of the estuation of the sea. i know some surrender neptune's trident to the moon, and there six the reason of thetis her uncertain ebbings. others * platonici; who make the world animal magnum. vide gal. in system. ptolem. & co. pernic. kepler's harmo. give the world a good pair of lungs, and from these bellows expect the causes of what they inquire for. others take a dish of water, and shaking it up and down, think to clear this difficulty. but these their ratiocinations discover clearly, that with noah's dove, through overmuch water, they can find no ground for footing. for veritas non quaerit angulos. and if the reason were ready, they would not have disputed; and yet they are very confident; and why may not they be so, who dare venture to give (before they prove any orbs) the government of the orbs to a band of celestial intelligences? i shall not wonder, if these men everywhere find an euripus, and at its banks imitate their grandy's aristot. outcry, quia ego non possum te capere, tu me capias. how doth the spirit befool these men? first he telleth them, that they are so far from finding out the causes, that they are ignorant of the effects: knowest thou the time when the wild goats of the rock bring forth? or canst thou mark when the hinds do calve? canst thou number the months that they fulfil, or knowest thou the time when they bring forth? solomon saith, there are three things too wonderful for me; yea, four which i know not. prov. 30. 18.19. the way of an eagle in the air, the way of a serpent upon a rock, the way of a ship in the midst of the sea, and the way of a man with a maid. see aristot. de mundo, de coelo &c. how doth our great master perplex himself in the inquiry of causes? sometimes he makes the principia of natural things, to be contraria: whereas, neither the heavens, nor the stars, nor anything that is by univocal generation, is that way produced. sometimes he allows three principia, privatio, materia, & forma; forgetting his own principle, that ex nihilo nihil fit, not remembering that when he hath matter and form, he is yet to seek for the rock and pit, out of which matter and form are digged and hewed; and therefore instituteth two several authors, one of matter, another of form. i confess, his commentators do file of some rust from these tenets, but not so clearly as to make him give the right cause of being. romances and new-atlantides, i shall gladly embrace as pleasant and glorious entertainments from specious and ambrosian wits. like plato's and sir francis bacon's. but for true knowledge of causes, having no cause to expect, i will not hope. sis walter raleigh saith exceeding well, that the cheese-wife knoweth that runnet curdleth cheese, but the philosoher knoweth not how. all this while i do not reject an industrious search after wisdom, though the wisest of men saith, he that increaseth wisdom, increaseth grief. verulan: augment. scient. i do only, with sir francis bacon, condemn doctrinam phantasticam, litigiosam, fucatam, & mollem; a nice, unnecessary, prying into those things which profit not. too great exactness in this learning, hath caused our meteorologists to blush when their confidence hath proved but a vapour. too great hopes of discovering the mystery of nature, hath caused some, contrary to the authority of scripture contrary to the opinion of julius caesar, picus mirandula, cornelius à lapide, joan. barclaius, cum multis aliis, to attribute an unwarranted power to the stars over our bodies. but this ensueth, while we follow, for learning, what is not. and so, that noble comprehensive activity, the soul of man, is hindered from entertaining in its place more generous, more useful, and sublimated truths. how would the soul improve, if all aristotle's materia prima, plato's mens platonica, hermes trismegistus his {non-roman} {non-roman} {non-roman} {non-roman} {non-roman}, were converted into some spiritual light? the soul might soar and raise itself up to universal being, bathe itself in those stately, deep, and glorious streams of of unity, see god in jesus christ, the first, chief, and sole cause of all being: it would not then contain itself within particular rivulets, in whose shallow waters it can encounter nothing but sand or pebbles, seeing it may fully delight itself in the first rise of all delight, jesus christ. thus, when you see the face of beauty, you will perfectly be assured how many the several pieces which make it up, must be, what their nature, and their several proportions. so shall you with certainty descend to knowledge of existences, essences, when you shall rest in one universal cause: and metaphysics, mathematics, and logic will happily prove one, while they teach the variations of unity through several numbers. all particular sciences will be subordinate, and particular applications of these. so all shall be, according to ficinus, circulus boni per bonum in bonum rediens; and the face of divine beauty shall be unveiled through all. chap. xvi. the unhappy fruits of division, in other parts of learning, made manifest. cast your eye on moral philosophy, and see how the truth is darkened by distinctions and divisions; how our masters have set up in the same soul, two fountains of reason, the will, and the understanding. have they not virtutes intellectuales & morales? is it not a great question, utrum prudentia sit virtus moralis? utrum summum bonum sit in intellectu, an voluntate? utrum prudentia possit separari à virtute morali? utrum virtus moralis sita sit in appetitu rationali, an sensitivo? i say, these questions, especially the dividing of the soul into so many faculties enthrones many reasonable beings in the soul. many reasonable beings, placed by philosophy in the soul. for, when the will entertaineth or rejecteth the proposition of the understanding, she must do it one of these three ways: either by an instinct; and this men will not have; for, hoc est brutum. or by chance; and this many reject; for than she hath no liberty. or by discourse; and this most pitch upon; for than she doth exercise vim illam imperatricem, which i read of amongst them, but understand not. now, if they conclude upon this third way. what is this discourse, but the work of an understanding? if the will act that way, which is, or aught to be to the understanding proprium quarto modo; is not then the will an understanding? thus like an unskilful artist, they mince with distinctions; they whet, till there be no more steel: and whilst they would sharpen, they annihilate: whilst they would enlarge, they overthrow the soul. they create names, and say, with ajax, eurip. tragaed. they are ulysses, and so fight with them. they do, as one faith very well, giving passion eyes, make reason blind; raising the will, they ruin the understanding. termini nullos habent terminos. the poor soul oppressed with black melancholy, believeth some part of his body as big as a house: and no man can, in his thought, pass, unless he remove it: even so do those men. but what may not be expected from that happy inventor, and bold abetter of errors, who with much confidence maintaineth the eternity of the world, against hermes, museus, orpheus, anaxagoras, linus, &c. yet that they may insanire cum ratione, they say, that if you raise not up some faculty to contend with the understanding, the understanding seeing right, must ever do right, and that we by woeful experience know to be otherwise. i confess, whilst the understanding seeth light and right (i now discourse of the understanding, will, affections, &c. in their terms) it doth right; seeing and doing one in the soul as knowing and willing. for, seeing and doing is all one; for the act of the soul is but seeing or discerning. but that understanding, which now did see right perfectly, at the same instant is blind, even in a gross, absurd thing: and so the effect and birth of it is but darkness and folly. vanity of dispures in metaphysics. in metaphysics, with what curious nets do they entangle their hearers? certainly, that should be styled the art or science of disputes and quaere's for the very being and subjectum metaphysices, is strongly disputed. some will have ens taniùm, the universal nature of being: others, substances abstract from matter, as angels, spirits, souls of men, to be the subject of this learning; and as it beginneth▪ so it groweth into thousands of disputes. as, utrum differentiae possunt esse sub eodem genere cum illo quod differre faciunt? utrum universale sit aliquid reale, ●n notionale tantùm? unde rerum individuatio exoriatur? if i should go through logic, mediocrem artem, mathematical sciences: i should but weary you with variety of opinions. even divinity itself is darkened with mists of inextricable questions. darkness in divinity through the ignorance of unity. the questions about faith and love, are sufficient to fill the world with perpetual quarrels; faith and repentance coevall. as, whether faith precedeth repentance? which learned master pemble hath sweetly determined by making both faith and repentance fruits of semen vivisicum. whether faith be a particular application of christ to myself, or only a bare spiritual belief, that christ is the son of god? which reverend, holy, learned master cotton, hath most acutely, most truly cleared, by proving that faith can be nothing but a laying hold of that promise which god hath made. the general promise, the object of faith. now, that promise is, that, he that believeth that christ is the son of god, shall be saved. whether faith be a believing that i am saved, or depending upon god for salvation? and here bellarmine hath with mighty wit assaulted our side; for, faith he, if belief be to believe i am saved, i was saved without faith. if belief be to believe that god will give me grace to be saved, i believe before i have grace, before i have faith. which knot, i know not how to dissolve, but by opening with reverend mr. cotton that (and this is another quaere.) declaratiuè we are saved by faith, only declarativè. i am saved, not only in the eternal decree, without faith, by god's free gift (that all consent to) but even in the execution. and when god hath pleased to take me out of eternal darkness; then faith discovereth to me that i am to be saved; and so, making faith to be a manifestation of that to me, that i am saved, bellarmine's objection is answered. there are many other questions, but i dare not so much as mention them. if we should but survey the disciplinable part of divinity, we should be confounded with chiliads of disputes, all which i will wrap up in one, scil. whether there be a prescript form of church-government? the ill consequence of the division between doctrine and discipline. are not the two testaments expositors of the two tables? do they leave us any latitude in any other of the commandments? why should we then think, that that commandment which god hath honoured in the second place, should be forgotten? truly, had the learned papists so done, they would never have expunged it. are not we as unable to prescribe the manner as the matter of god's worship? if we were left to ourselves, should we not institute cringings, crouchings, all those ceremonies of will-worship, which carry a voluntary outward visible show of humility, but give the heart leave to play the truant? doctrine of mater inworship; discipline of manner, both are doctrine, both prescribed by the same god. if ever distinctions did harm, here they have been deadly poison: for, doctrine and discipline are all one. for, what is discipline but that doctrine of the manner of god's worship? wherein we ought to be as faithful, as in any point of divinity: and this will certainly appear one day, when god shall with pittylesse holy scorn, ask some, who hath required these things at your hands? the monstrous effects of division made manifest in other pieces of divinity. but, to conclude; give me leave to show you how these exorbitant wits have raised a babel, have cast pelion upon ossa; and from thence discharged the balistae of their ignorance, against the throne of eternity, against god himself. the schools for many ages, the weakness of the distinction scientia simplicis intelligentiae, & purae visionis. have looked upon the way of god's knowledge of things, under two notions; simplicis intelligentiae, & purae visionis. i confess, i see not the end of this distinction. for, if god's power and will be all one, (which i think no man disputeth) all the ways of knowledge, that can be in god, must be confined in that one notion of simplicis intelligentiae. i do seem (if i mistake not) to maintain this position by an evident demonstration, thus; is there any that denyeth god to be purus actus? doth not everybody say, that in god there is no potentia? if god then be actus, and not potentia, all things were, that ever shall be, ab aeterno under a decree; and so, what he could do, he did do, and can do no more. yet, that truths may come more clearly and easily to our apprehension, i shall allow the use of the distinction, so that they improve it only for memory, and do not expectany reality from it. but some, not content with this distinction, have found out another, which discovereth a mean parentage, by the very name, it is called media scientia. scientia maedia discussed. i will not contend with it in the power of those arguments, whereby our divines have so often left it spiritless and helpless. i shall only from this point of unity, show the vanity of it. if this sciencia be one with that which we allow, than is it but nominal and vain. if it be different, you make two in god: for, if i overvalue not my former ratiocination, i have proved it clearly that scientia simplicis intelligentiae carrieth forth as much of god as is discernible to our darkness; and making two in god, you exalt two gods; and whilst you find two gods, you lose the true god, which is but only one, an eternal unity. and thus whilst men gaze continually in search of causes, they blind themselves, and know not effects. chap. xvii. a recapitulation of former instances, with some additions of a question or two more. in what sense intermediate causes may be allowed. i confess there is a secondary intermediate being, which you may call a cause; which in our language, doth precede and produce another; the observation of which, is very fitting, so that we search and puzzle not ourselves with the grounds and reasons of this precedency. as, apply fire to combustible matter, and it will burn; and if you call (which in some sense you may call) this application, the cause of burning: i dispute not only the search into the nature of wood and fire, and how the fire doth work upon the wood, and how the wood can be both passive and active, simul & semel; for, they say, nulla est actio quin sit reactio, this is that i desire to shun; for, intus exstens prohibet alienum; whilst we entertain ourselves with these poor sophisms of wit, we lose that glory which the immortal soul thirsts after. but if our spirits, and the light of our reason be dim; let us go to the forge of the philistines, and sharpen our inventions, our apprehensions there; division the policy of the prince of darkness. let us learn from the prince of the air, who (knowing well, that, dissolve the fasciculus, and jugurtha his prophecy to his children will prove true) taught his scholars this lesson for these many ages, divide & impera; divisions and distractions, being the great road of all error. and if you long, with the israelites, to have a king, as your neighbours have; and you desire to speak in their language: when the soul entertaineth light, say it doth understand. when it doth exercise any moral virtue, say it willeth. when you see some things precede others, call the one a cause, the other an effect: but travel not far in the search of the source of this cause. do not make the will and the understanding two faculties, fratrum concordia rara; recapitulation of all. jacob will supplant esau in the womb. make therefore the several actings of the soul, as rays of this one soul; make these rays, and the soul sending forth these rays, a perpetual emanation divine: and so by these degrees of truth, mount up into the arms of eternity, and he will take care of you, that you shall not dash your feet against the stone of free will: that you shall not overthrow all faith, by starting so many nice questions in the point of faith. if you follow this rule, and see all things in the glass of unity, you will not lose all arts and sciences in the wood of divisions and subdivisions in infinitum; you shall be more substantial, than to make substance and accidents two; neither will it ever happen, that you maintain transubstantiation, by affirming that accidents can haerere in nullo subjecto. you shall not make to yourself a god of contradiction, dividing the will and power of god. both which in god, is god; and so but one. you will not maintain two covenants, one of works, another of grace, seeing grace is graceless without works, and works worthless without grace. if god shall give you to walk by this light, practical questions will be laid aside, as well as theoretical: you will not dispute whether you ought to be more holy on one day (as at a sacrament) then at other times; for, you will then know, that these scriptures express fully the rule you must walk by; pray continually; rejoice evermore: blessed is he that feareth always: be ye holy [not by fits and starts, but] as i am holy; serving me always, with all your heart, your might, your affections. so that every day, every duty, is to you an holy day, an ordinance divine. the sense of the sabbath's command. and if any man shall say, why doth god add this parcel, remember that thou keep holy the sabbath day, &c. and this strict injunction, before you approach the table of the lord, let every man examine himself, and so let him eat? you will be able to answer, that you ought not to be more holy in one day, in one duty, than in another; for, you must be all one, semper idem. and secondly, you will be able to prove, that the weight of this injunction, is not to add any other holiness to the day, or the ordinance, than a holiness of separation. for, a holiness of inherence, cannot fall anywhere , but upon a reasonable creature. the temple had no more. for, with the leave of learned and holy master cawdry, time & place are incapable of any other sanctification. but the stress of these and the like precepts, lieth here. we ought indeed always to keep a sabbath. all things ordinances. every bread and every water, aught to be a confirmation of our faith and of our graces. but god considering that we are lower than the angels (and them he hath charged with folly; the intention of special ordinances. ) that we are infirm; that we cannot always keep the bow bent: if we cannot be holy all the week, if we cannot be pure at our own tables; as who can? yet, if we will remember the sabbath, and if we will come to that feast of marrow and fatness with a wedding-garment, and at other times do our best (though weak) endeavours, he will behold no iniquity in us. we shall not be perplexed, how far we ought to mourn for the sins of others, the sins of the times, or our own lives. [and these are entangling questions to many sweet spirits.] for, drawing all things to an unity, we shall know that sorrow and joy may meet in the same subject at once; mourning and joy reconciled. they must be both in the actings of faith. we must not sorrow as without hope; we may not lose our faith in our tears; our tears must be tears of joy; we may think, that we have sinned, and so sigh; but at the same instant, we must know we have a saviour, and so triumph. and if i were now all gore blood, would i not now go to the chirurgeons? truly the greater my sin, the sooner ought to be my return, the higher my faith. but great and enlarged faith, cannot be without exultation and magnificats. thus could we lay aside foolish questions, could we seek into our hearts, according to the poet's advice, ne te quaesiveris extra, and not into the causes, and the being of causes, things too high for us; we might have an heaven here, we might see how christ is one with god, and we one with christ; so we in christ, one with god. if we cannot reach the perfection of this knowledge, yet let us come as near it as we can, for the true knowledge of god in christ, is life everlasting.⸪ a postscript. and now, sir, i have with what brevity i can, run through, what i never intended to speak of. i had prepared a little in lieu of this, upon the nature of prophecy, which i now shall reserve for a discourse upon the fourteenth chapter of the second to corinth: but it was with me in this case, as it is with the soul, prostrating itself at the throne of grace. it designs to breathe itself out in confession, but is suddenly raised up into to sweet exultation. it intends a magnificat, but by some unexpected irresistible power, it is dissolved into tears; which never did, nor ever can happen in a form, as might appear by ventilating the opposite arguments, if opportunity prevailed as well as reason. i had nothing in my resolution, but, by a word or two, to mediate in the behalf of these lines, a free and a friendly access, to your more serious and useful studies. but (quo fato nescio) i have let fall my plummet into waters too deep, that if you lend not your favourable construction in the perusal, i must suffer. i confess my confidence in your gentleness is great; i shall therefore, without any further plea, after this long parenthesis, give you a short account of what these papers bear. you have here my poor thoughts upon the twenty-fourth chap. of matth. that i was forced to, because i quote it, more than once, in sense differing from our commentators: yea, i was necessitated to run through the whole chapter. it will appear in costly robes, adorned with lofty and glorious language, sweetened by many a pleasant and clear simile, quickened by divers acute and learned criticisms: these, none of these are mine: my cabinet enshrineth no such treasure. i confess, to save the labour of contending with pareus, and others, i delivered to a friend of yours, and mine, only the substratum of the discourse, desiring him, from those principles to undertake my adversaries. in lieu of this, he returned me the chapter * matth. 24 , embellished with so much wit and learning, that i durst not call it mine, and so thought to have suppressed it; and had done so, but that from the law of friendship, you may challenge a share in what is his; and from that reason it liveth now, and is presented to your view, hoping (for his sake, not for mine) to find grace in your eyes. you have also, my thoughts, upon the twentieth of revelations, because therein i have done two things. first, according to my model, answered your three queries. secondly, various sorts of millenaries. discovered my opinion concerning the millenaries. i find that point entertained by many learned and pious men, under various and different notions. the first who were of that opinion, the first too earnall. lived immediately after st. john, as papias, irenaeus, and so on; in after ages, tertullian, cyprian, augustine, cum multis aliis: these men did a little alcoranize; for, with mahomet, they cast all the glory of it, into the outward pomp the church should then enjoy: which is but as the body of that other spiritual beauty, wherein the church of god shall at that time be more than exceedingly resplendent. yet these men have happily fixed upon the due season, expecting them at the pouring out of the seventh vial, a thousand years before the end of the world. the second only spiritual. of latter days, most famous and glorious lights, as calvin, beza, junius, tremelius, broughton, &c. have wrapped up all the glory under a spiritual notion, robbing both it and other scriptures, of that sweetness; whereon even our souls, but especially our children shall feed as upon marrow and fatness; wherewith we shall be refreshed as with wine refined upon the lees. contraries may sometimes (in some sense) be errors; the others erred because they have not the spiritual; and these have mistaken, not observing the temporal glory of this thousand years. these last men are succeeded by a generation of worthies, a third sort, in some things too literal. who have come nearer to the truth; yet (if i mistake not) have missed it; and some of these are alstedius, (who justly meriteth the anagram of sedulitas) mede, and some others; who indeed expect a time of glory, confuting the first men, because they made theirs too carnal. yet do they fail themselves, by placing the time after the burning of the world with material fire, spoken of in peter; and joining with it their opinion, of the resurrection of the martyrs, which i do not wholly condemn, though therein i am not yet so clear. lastly, we have the reverend man mr. brightman, against whom i will not now dispute, whose opinion, seeing i must oppose it, when i mention it, i will not now name. for he ought always à me non sine honore nominari. pliny saith venerabilis catonis ' ebrietas, and so say i of brightman, the very errors (if errors) of brightman have their beauty: i must confess, if god hath been pleased to discover light to me, i have borrowed from him. if there be any thing of sweet, i have gathered it from the strong. and i do seriously protest i have not with scaliger the soldier; undertaken cardan, that his ruins may be my rise. no, no, i honour his very urn, and do believe that one day i shall see the jews very zealous in raising to him some stately mausoleum, who hath been the first means of quickening the affections of christians to pray for their return. sir, i have overtired your gentleness, and your patience, therefore now give me leave to refresh your spirits; let me in a word say here, what i prove more amply elsewhere; the days are at hand; we shall see the laying of the first stone, if not the rearing of the structure to some good height. i know there is a great reader, who, though he hath lynx his eyes, yet using overmuch the septuagenary spectacles of antiquate antiquity, loseth to himself, and, by his justly-merited authority, robbeth others of, this sweet truth, of the church her approaching glory, which is in my apprehension, as blood to the veins, as life to the blood, as spirit to the life, as all to the spirit. but certainly, while he thinketh the witnesses, to be yet unburied, he doth bury two witnesses, which are as able to bring christ to his espousals, as the two post-knights were to nail him to the cross. i know there is another worthy, who hath for many years stayed christ's sainting spouse with flagons of generous and good wine, who adjourneth our happiness by expecting the sad downful of the two witnesses. but (as i have, i hope, clearly proved elsewhere) that is past. macte ergo gaudio, tune up your ten-stringed instrument: let us hear that pleasant melody of a christian hymen; o hymenaee! let your sweet spirit sing, and we will dance: for certainly ere long, all tears shall be wiped away from our eyes, and perfect fruition of love will cast out fear. and now, i commit you, and your hopeful, flourishing studies, to the expectation, and advancement of these glories which make way for the coming of our saviour. and to him alone be the glory finis. the contents of the several chapters handled in this treatise of truth. chap. i. the understanding, and the truth-understood, are one. page 1. chap. ii. the second argument, proving that truth is the nature of the understanding. p. 5. chap. iii. a prosecution of the second argument, wherein all requisites to a being are applied to the understanding, being made one with the truth. p. 13. chap. iv. this argument further cleared by more objections propounded and answered. p. 17. chap. v. the whole soul and truth in the soul are one. p. 21. chap. vi. all things are this one light or truth, shining from god. p. 26. chap. vii. how unity is all in all things. p. 31. chhp. viii. the nature of habits. p. 45. chap. ix.. the difference betwixt knowledge and affection, discussed. p. 59 chap. x. that all the several and particular actings of the soul, are this one light and truth. p. 81. chap. xi. an objection answered, in which the nature of time and place are touched. p. 88 chap. xii. another objection is answered, drawn from the falsehood in the working of the soul. p. 109 chap. xiii. discovering the consequences of this position, that all things are one truth. p. 114 chap. xiiii. the benefit which knowledge and all sciences receive from this assertion. p. 123 chap. xv. confusion in the knowledge of causes, discovered, and redressed by this unity. p. 133 chap. xvi. the unhappy fruits of division, in other parts of learning, made manifest. p. 146 chap. xvii. a recapitulation of former instances, with some additions of a question or two more. p. 160 finis. the mystery of baptism and the lord' supper; and the spirit of jesus, the guide unto both, and onely and infallible rule leading both into them, and all other ordinances and ornaments of god, and a saints life. which may serve as an answer unto randal roper's answer unto a paper written by me in the sense of the mystery of god, directed to all baptists every where, &c. given forth in god's tender love unto all that desire to know more of his spirit, power and glory of his heavenly life revealed in them: by one that travaileth in his spirit, that all the mourners for the beloved may be satisfied, and rejoice in their enjoying him for ever: who is a tender friend of all pure breathers after god. called, john perrot. london, printed for robert wilson. 1662. the epistle to the reader. friend, since the lord god almighty of his own free grace, love, and mercy, from my childhood, begot in me a true, pure, and living desire after himself, and that according to the same inclination led me in a continual earnest seeking mind,( of more of the knowledge and enjoyment of his life,) through divers dispensations; in all making me to profit more than most of my fellows, until after many things and passages, that happened in the course of my life, too tedious to be inserted here; at last i went down into the water, and that verily of an upright and pure heart, to godward; and since the forementioned having been led more into the spirit and power of god. first, through the receiving of the testimony of the everlasting gospel of jesus. secondly, through a resigned mind into the spirit of life and power, which hath lead into obedience unto the everlasting ordinances in the kingdom of life and glory. and, thirdly, through many conflicts, trials, and temptations of the enemy; extreme sufferings and oppressions, bearing the across in the kingdom of the tribulations of jesus; i have learned of the lamb of god that taketh away the sins of the world, better things than revenge, enmity, wrath, upbraidings, or rendering reviling for revilings; and therefore as contented with my portion from the hands of professors evil calling me, as from the spirits of profane, that have made my travels in the gospel the subject of a stage-play, do quietly sit down under the reviling phrases of randal roper, mentioned( in his said book of answer, called truth vindicated) in the title page., epistle to the reader, and pages 2, 8, 9, 10. yet signifying to all honest sober people who may red this, that as for high flown fancies, i am not a walker in them, nor a lover of them; but am a soul of care, that the fear of the living god may rest and abide unto the end in my heart; and am so far out of all fancies, as that i must confess i cannot prepare a substance of myself to feed upon; but whatever my soul lives by, is what is ordained of the living god; and do not assume unto myself a power of consecrating any thing, or changing anything out of its own simplo nature into another substance, nature, or being; but must confess that all good works are wrought by god, and the power of his holy heavenly life in man, and so rob not him of his glory through an imagination or a fancy. moreover i own and confess, that what i am, i am not of myself, and my standing in what i am brought unto is neither of myself, but of the almighty power of god, and i never desire to be any thing but in his spirit the eternal sustance which was life, before death through disobedience and transgression came and happened unto man, and also is the end of all things which man deems to be the oracles, which are but the shadows and figures of the one everlasting oracle, which where it's come in the life and power, must of necessity end the shadow; yea, were it the most glorious type that ever was held forth; the best of which was but the show or appearance as of a face in a glass, but was not the face it self, though the face stood nigh the shadow or figure thereof: i therefore seek that all may come to kiss the face itself, even the disolving and melting lips of the face of the pure beloved; that there may be no more a shadow seen in his temple and sanctuary but his presence the everlasting glory and light thereof, rev. 21.23. which will ravish all in the enjoyment thereof, and give them the fullness of a cause of joyful singing the hallelujahs of the most high god even for ever and ever. but in how much it remains that many tender and travelling souls there are, which are not yet come into this enjoyment, nor indeed do rightly know the path that leadeth and conducteth from the outer court into the king's palace, at whose door the fountain stands open to baptize all the enterers thereinto, that as a pure sanctified people they may sit down at the table of the lord's preparing, and eat of his supper, and be satisfied with the eternal bread and wine, which he that eateth and drinketh thereof hath life eternal, and shall not die, john 6.50, 51, 52, 53. to the end that all may have an entrance thereinto, i shall proceed in the true instruction of the holy one. first, to speak of the mystery of the baptism of christ jesus. secondly, of his supper. first, what they are as apprehended by the fleshly eye and understanding. secondly, what they are to the spiritual mind in the most everlasting and substantial part, that every soul may see and discern the difference between the flesh and the spirit, both in the judgements of the heavenly, spiritual, and carnal minds; as also the difference between the external works of the hands of men, and the invisible and internal operation of the spirit of god's power upon the soul of man; and how insufficient the visible is for the body, and much less for the soul; and how all-sufficient the invisible is for the completing of the soul in the righteousness of god, that it may possess the everlasting peace of the living god; by which all may know in the spirit's day of working life in man, the the needlesness of the fleshly parts assistance in working life for man, and so in the true knowledge choose the better and refuse the worse. and summarily shall give account unto all how insufficient man( in transgression) is to understand the everlasting precepts, commandments, and ordinances of god and christ, and the holy scriptures, which by the everlasting spirit of life and truth were dispensed unto man; that if haply any through taking notice thereof by the spirit & its breathings into bodys of death, may be made to arise out of the grave thereof unto a glorious life in god, to their perpetual satisfaction and joy which shall never determine. and my desires are, that imprejudiced mindes may red this, that where the spirit of life hath not so ardently inflamed as to carry on the soul unto the possession of the substance; yet the honest rational part may acquiesce and sit still under it, until the power ariseth in the heart to led the soul into the life of it. wherein i shall see the birth of some of the travail of my soul, which panteth and breatheth, that all souls as new born babes of one mother, begooten of one father in the spirit of life and power, may always suck at one breast, drink of one cup, and eat of one bread in the pleasantness and sweetness of life everlasting. however god knowing my heart, and beholding my intention, is so full and satisfactory an answer of my simplo heart, that in my service i find an acceptation; and therefore commit the issue to him alone, who by his alone work can perfect his righteousness, and consequently his praise in the souls of all as pleaseth himself; and therefore in the spirit of pure supplication and prayer, i rest, saying, thy will, o god, be done in earth, as it is in heaven; glorify thyself in all desirers after thee, and yet also further in thy vessel which is called, john perrot. the after mentioned are the words of that brief writing which i sent from rome, which randal roper wrote his long answer unto; the which i thought good to insert in this my second writing, that the spiritual readers may see what a groundless occasion was taken by him to make such a replication unto it as he did. though indeed had i not two inducing and pressing causes fallen on my spirit to writ, should not at all put pen to paper about such a subject as in the least might bear a show or appearance of a dispute between us in these days and times, wherein we are jointly made as birds to the fowlers snares. but seeing, first the spiritual mystery and oraculous everlasting truth, and secondly many simplo, upright, yet unsatisfied souls are found concerned in the matter. i therefore in god's spirit of heavenly love have taken occasion to offer this compendious treatise to all upright-hearted peoples view, of whom i am an affecter in sincerity; j. p. to all baptists every where, or to any other who are yet under the shadows, and watery element, and are not come to christ the substance. god dwelleth in deeps bottonles, beneath your element of water, whence he is utterly departed; for it was too shallow for him: and his incomprehensible majesty liveth and reigneth on high, far above your airy and cloudy heavens, which comprehended not but darkened his brightness; therefore he hath given them for a day of fire, and your old earth for consumption in their flames: you eat bread and drink wine as the israelites did manna and water, and yet in unbelief died in the wilderness; you rest in shadows like the unbelieving jews, though you know that in them you are but in the touching, tasting, and handling, of the things which perish with the using. we are in the true water and blood which washeth the soul and baptizeth, dippeth, and plungeth the conscience, and cleanseth it from sin, which leads into the heavens where god dwelleth; and we eat and drink the true and real body and blood of the lamb; and hereby we know it, because it nourisheth us, and gives us blessed growth in the life and innocency of the lamb, which was with god before shadows were; and henceforth we in it have passed and left them all as images of gold and silver cast to the moles and to the bats for evermore. for know ye, where god is present, there needs not a representation of him, by any thing; and where the eternal fountain of all virtue is set open, there needs not the digging of another well for waters: turn therefore to the light within in the conscience, which is able to baptize and wash your souls from all sin, and make rivers of living water flow out of your bellies: which light is the alone salvation of god; he which loveth it and obeyeth it shall know it. john perrot. from rome prison of mad-men, the 2d. of the 8th. month, 1660. the mystery of baptism and the lord' supper, &c. forasmuch as there are many people that are various in their opinions, and different in their judgements concerning the two particulars of baptism, and the lord's supper; some not discerning any further than that the natural creatures of water, bread, and wine, are the means or conduit-pipes through which the spirit of life is conveyed unto them, and therefore are glued unto it as a thing never to be departed from. others, as persons halting between two opinions, are sometimes in question whether the visible ordinances, stand not in force in this day of the breaking open of the brightness of the glory of the face of truth, as leaders into the more invisible substance, which everlastingly swallows up, and drowns all the visible shadows in its bottonles deeps for ever; and sometimes think that it should surely be otherwise, as that onely the life should be unto all souls life, and that in the appearance of it, the types and shadows thereof should be totally abolished, as that which gave not life in any state, but on which the dead and carnal part hath long fed, and as being dark in the night of death, have fixed upon the figure which maketh not the practisers pure nor perfect thereby. and others there are, who being born unto the day of god's power, in the heavenly substance of his life, through the baptism of jesus, which is of the water of the everlasting fountain of god, and of the fire of his furnace, and of the holy ghost, which is the cleansing and sanctifying virtue that purifieth the soul from the pollutions of death, and thereby makes it capable of coming to god's table to eat freely and satisfactorily of the supper of the lord, and so fixeth and firmeth upon the substance only, and cannot turn unto a figure, least by so doing he should dishonour him, who hath led into himself, where there are no more figures, types nor shadows of himself, who is the end of them all, even unto all that are in his spirit, in himself, and in his son jesus the true light of the world, which is the truest, soundest, purest and most living state. now the first of these three, is the carnal and natural man, which never came to the birth of the spirit of power and life; though divers have come to the state of emptying from vessel to vessel, and to an absolute reformation of the creature man: who being come no farther then the flesh, can red none other then the letter, which killeth, not understanding the power of the spirit which only and alone maketh alive; and therefore understands not the deeps of the things of god, according to the apostles testimony, the natural man receiveth not the things of the spirit of god, for they are foolishness unto him; neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned, 1 cor. 2.14. and for this cause, many thousands there are that this day have no more an understanding of the voice of christ, in the words which he spake unto his disciples; go ye therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the father, and of the son, and of the holy ghost; teaching them to observe all things, whatsoever i have commanded you; and lo i am with you alway even unto the end of the world, mat. 28.19, 20. nor understand they the saying of him, speaking also to his disciples, in this wise; take, eat, this is my body, &c. and drink ye all of it, for this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins, mat. 26.26, 27. than the israelites had of the statutes, testimonies and ordinances which were given to moses by the lord god. and thou shalt anoint them as thou didst anoint their fathers, that they may minister unto me in the priests office; for their anointing shall surely be an everlasting priesthood throughout their generations, exod. 40.15. and this shall be an everlasting statute unto you, to make an atonement for the children of isreal, for all their sins,( levit. 16.34.) for ever throughout their generations, levit. 17.7. and because the multitudes of men, and numbers of many peoples do still stand with their eye outward, not having an inspection into the face, or more glorious part of the commandments and ordinances of god, which are everlasting, and to be held for ever and ever throughout all generations; but are fixed upon the backer parts thereof, even that which the carnal part can see, touch, handle, feel, and taste, do therefore exceedingly err in their judgments, as to that which is really god's mind, shall abide to the end of time and generations among his pure holy and glorious spiritual minded people; who hold neither the law of moses, nor the ordinances of jesus in a mixture, viz. part in a carnal, and part in a spiritual mind and practise; but the everlasting law and ordinances given unto moses, and by the lord jesus in and by the spirit of jesus, through and by which they were dispensed unto moses and the disciples, altogether as oracles of a mysterious life and power, which the fleshly part of the israelites, nay nor the minority or weakness of the disciples thoroughly understood; as i could prove by the letter of the scriptures, where the spirit is given and received to understand them as they were dispensed both by the prophets and apostles. witness isaiah, who cried against those things, which the jews might say god commanded as everlasting ordinances, saying, your new moons and your appointed fasts, my soul hateth, they are a trouble unto me, i am weary to bear them, isa. 1.14. &c. and paul's saying, having therefore brethren boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of iesus, by a new and living way which he hath consecrated for us through the veil, that is to say, his flesh, heb. 10.19, 20. wherefore henceforth, know we no man after the flesh, yea, though we have known christ after the flesh, yet, now henceforth know we him so no more. 2 cor. 5.16. yet notwithstanding he said, when i was a child i spake as a child, i understand as a child, and i thought as a child; but when i became a man, i put away childish things, 1 cor. 13.11. and now to the end that the childish things may be put away by all that are yet in the childishness, or but in the shadows and types of the mystery and power of the substance, and yet do think that they are in the more aged growth and weighty experience, which ariseth from the weakness of the understanding of their minority, in the breakings forth of the everlasting day of glory. i come to show forth and speak something of baptism and the lord's supper. 1. what they are, as apprehended by the fleshly eye and childish understanding; that is to say, the commandment of christ in mat. last, 19, 20. by such is apprehended as an absolute commandement, and everlasting precept to endure for ever, to the end of all generations, to dip and plunge external bodies of flesh, into the external element of water, expressing the words in that work, or administration, viz. in the name of the father, and of the son and of the holy ghost; and so do deem that, to be the baptism of the lord jesus christ; and thence do make that opinion or conception of the backer part of the everlasting ordinance of jesus, the ground of their separating from others, though professing the same god, the same jesus, and virtue of the blood of jesus, which sanctifieth the souls of the true comers thereunto, and presents them pure in the sight of their maker. and for this opinion of the backer part of the ordinance( of which john baptist was the first administrator) they take up divers scriptures, which the natural man can use in the self same manner as he stands in the carnal and fleshly nature, an enemy unto god, and stranger to the mystery of the baptism of jesus, the true, living, and spiritual son of god: the scriptures used by them to the said end, are, viz. acts 2.38. acts 10.47. acts 22.16. acts 18.8. in all which, as well as the former mentioned in mat. last, 19, 20. there is not so much as one word that saith, go and baptize in the external element of water; nay, nor any where else in the whole book of the scriptures; but from the disciples practices, do infer that the said baptism spoken by christ, mat. 28. is meant the baptism with the external element of water, which is but their private suppositions and imagined conclusion: as on the other hand, the episeopalists and papists, do conclude that children were baptized, because certain were baptized, they and their housholds, acts 16.15, 33. which is not in any wise a testimony that the thing was really so; and therefore not a righteous reason why such an opinion should be concluded from such a supposition and imagination; viz. that the external is the real baptism of christ, and that also for the following, plain, palpaple, spiritual and undenial reasons. 1. because john baptist prophesying of christ, and speaking of his office in the baptism committed unto him( who was near the end of all the shadows and types of the eternal substance) said, i indeed baptize you with water unto repentance, but he that cometh after me is mighter than i, &c. he shall baptize you with the holy ghost and with fire mat., 3.11. forasmuch as he absolutely concludes, that that baptism, viz. of the holy ghost and with fire, is the baptism of christ; i conclude in the spirit of christ, that the external dipping and plunging in the element of water, is not the face of the everlasting ordinance of the baptism of christ; but at best, the backer part as it was an administration of john; and that for a time of continuance, according to his prophesy, i shall decrease, but he shall increase, &c. and therefore not to have an everlasting endurance, but was to give place to that which was before it, which at its coming was to end it. 2. because christ was, and is an everlasting minister of spiritual things, he being the everlasting love of the father, whose spirit is life to all that are partakers of it, who in his appearance of the spirit, could not do less than end the shadows and types, inasmuch as none of them did, or do make the comers unto them, or practisers of them, perfect in the sight of god; which the administration of his baptism of fire and the holy ghost can do, which not a rational man in a nation professing christ, can honestly deny, if he will but soberly confess that no work is too hard to be wrought, completed, and perfected by the spirit and eternal power, that made and completed all things in the beginning. 3. because the external water cannot be the substance it self, but at best a figure, typifying forth something of a substance, which once must be revealed, as were all the other types in moses his day, which were commanded according to the letter to be held, and kept as everlasting statutes, the glory of the face of which they knew not, nor saw in their day; as is most probable, you see not the face of the other in your day, being in and under the type and figure which is the vail of the substance, as that of moses in like manner was. 4. because the apostle speaketh expressly, there is one body, and one spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling, one lord, one faith, one baptism, ephes. 4.4, 5. where he concluding but one god, and one faith, anexing to it but one baptism according to the pure faith in that one god; and john aforesaid expressing his own baptism distincti from the baptism of christ, and telling plainly what the one and the other is; for any to conclude, that baptism to be his baptism, which was but the type or forerunner of him and his baptism, is but to turn the order of the work quiter upside down, and make him a minister of the weaker, which he was never a minister of; but according to the scriptures, is known to be a real minister of the one baptism of the holy ghost, witnessed by john, john 4.2. 5. because of the spirit's manifesting it's self by degrees unto all persons receiving it, that is to say, always manifesting its self more and more in glory in the souls of men, according as the lord prepares the heart by a full and thorough baptizing of the soul in the fire of his spirit, cleansing it from transgression, thereby making it capable to receive the glory, or more clear manifestation of the glory of his mysterious power and life opened unto them. so that whereas certain will argue thus, which indeed is the chiefest of all their arguments, to hold forth their going down into the outward element. viz. seeing the scriptures hold forth that divers received the holy ghost before they were baptized with water, and afterwards were baptized with the said element of water: hence it is, that it should remain an ordinance in force even unto us this day, and all succeeding generations. to which i answer. i. it is not thereby proved( but only imagined) that the intent of christ was, that they should to the ends of all worlds baptize in the external element of water, nay not to the end of that world in which they then were; since which there have been divers worlds, which is to say, divers ages or generations, which have quiter passed away; which simplo thing might end the discourse and contest about baptism now in this world or age, were it first an outward thing. ii. i affirm, that persons may receive the gift of the holy ghost, and find its burning baptizing work in themselves several years, and not so thoroughly baptized by it as to see the end of the transgression, which brings to see the end of the elements which are insufficient to take away the sin and transgression; but by a continuance, and perseverance in the power of the holy ghost, coming to see the end of sin, and finishing of transgression, the apostles did see the end of all the figures( in that they saw him in whom was no shadow or variableness) which were types and shadows of the spirit and its operations, col. 2.17. jam. 1.17. which shadows and figures, came in since the commencement of sin and transgression; the which being finished in them, they then could not give that in precept, nor( can any prudent man affirm) put that in practise, which was but a shadow of the substance, typifying the substance forth, before it came; nay, nor in any wise exhort people thereunto, seeing, instead of helping men onwards into the life of the spirit, by giving up all into the spirit; it might put them back so far from the spirit, that in the last manifestation of the spirit, he might say as he did in the case of circumcision; if ye go down into the external elements, the hidden power shall profit you nothing at all, gal. 5.2. * acts 16.3. yet mark, paul circumcised since the gospel dispensation; red gal. 6. v. 15. object. but whereas it's by some queried, whether then was it a will-worship in the disciples, their causing some to go down into the water as they did? answ. i say not that it was a will-worship, as a thing either invented of themselves, or wilfully practised by themselves; but rather do believe, that it was their persuasion( for a time) that it answered the mind of god; and so did the thing in fear, as moses did the like in the offerings under the dispensition that he stood, which as i have said, were called everlasting staâ��â��tes, and so according to the fear and sincerity of their hearts, found acceptance at the hands of god, seeing god could not require more from them than he gave them to understand of himself; which argues, not that when he gave more of the holy ghost than at first was given, and led through the work of it, that then they should resist the more glorious manifestation, or say, we will never go up thither to depart from this. neither doth it prove, that the elements or external dippings, or washings, are the door or gate leading into the spirit, for christ saith, i am the door, john. 10.7. whose baptism was and is of the holy-ghost and of fire, who neither ever did, nor now doth baptize with the external element of water. 2. it was possible that the apostles might baptize certain with water outward, after they had the full manifestation of the spirit's baptism inward; though not by commandment, but by permission, 1 cor. 7.6. as paul ministered certain things, who circumcised timothy, which was contrary to the gospel dispensation, acts. 16.3. and also after he had received the holy ghost himself, by which he was made a minister of the gospel; and yet this is not an argument, that now the outward water stands still as an ordinance in force, seeing the vail is broken, and breaking open, which hindered the sight, knowledge, and understanding of what was and is within it, before whose eye yet the vail standeth. yet i say, since the door of the everlasting fountain is set and setting open, in which the everlasting ordinance is to be truly administered; as on the one hand i say, here is water, what hindereth now that ye should not be baptized as well as us? so on the other hand i say, if you tie yourselves to the strength of the water, into which you are dived, and will not leave that as an insufficient thing for your souls cleansing, and come to the other which is all-sufficient to perfect the work; the evil will be yours, and remember that you were once told by the spirit of the lord through this poor contemptible earthen vessel, the burden of the evil will also one day be yours, when you shall know that all outward things cannot, nor ever could remove the least part of a burden from you; wherefore ponder these things maturely and wisely in all sobriety in your own hearts, and if you never outwardly answer me; yet answer god in your own consciences, when ye are alone in your most secret retirements. now i come to speak of the opinions of divers concerning the lord's supper, which they hold forth from the scriptures, mat. 26.26, 27, 28. mark 14.22. luke. 22.19, 20. take, eat, this is my body and drink; ye all of it, for this is my blood of the new testament, this do in remembrance of me. and 1 cor. 11.26. for as often as ye eat this bread and drink this cup, ye do show the lord's death till he come. concerning which i certainly say, a most mean capacity might fully know, that for the practise of the thing which this day( by professors and profane) is called the lord's supper, there is not found( in any of these or other scriptures) an express commandement of the lord christ, which reached further than the then present time, who only said, do this, which related to the time that was then present, not saying, ye shall do this, or the like of this, which would have spoken of or related to time that was to come; and therefore the apostle imposed it not as a constringent precept on the people( as an everlasting ordinance throughout all generations) requiring what they practised, though randal roper treats very earnest for it in his book, pages 9, 12, &c. as divers in an imagination do feed upon it at certain times and seasons which are appointed for that purpose, touching which i have the following words to express, that all tender people may understand the plainness of the matter. 1. the bread and wine must be the real body and blood of christ itself. 2. or, but a figure and shadow of the real body and blood of christ. i. now by whom the first is concluded, that is to say, the bread and wine is the real body and blood of christ, of them i could ask, how became you as god, to convert and change an earthly creature into an eternal heavenly substance? or by what power became you creators of a god or gods to your selves in your own wills, and pleasures; and afterwards to eat the god of your creating, to satisfy the lusts of your opinions and fancies? which, though randal roper saith in one place of his book, page. 9. line 18. that it is not transubstantiate, and so goes on speaking of his faith in the creatures, viz. bread and wine, which he calls the ordinance, &c. but yet to show himself as an opposer of the spirit of the lord in me, by which the words in my former paper were given forth; whereas i spake of our partaking of the real body which was not a shadow, but the substance itself, and he pleading for the shadow in contradiction of me holding forth the substance; writeth in this wise, in pag. 9. line 32, 33. to say, that shall perish, to wit, the body of christ and the blood of christ, is blasphemy: so that either the man hath lost his aim in shooting against me, and so shoots at what he knows not; or else bends his bow against himself, and makes his own breast the open mark of his own arrow; since it appears that by his own words positively denying transubstantiation, and his absolute intent pleading against my holding forth the real body and blood of christ, must in true honesty confess that he hath shot against himself, or else hath aimed at what he knows not himself; and therefore i esteem it expedient that he should rather learn in silence to know his own spirit, then in a zeal without knowledge hastily miscal and upbraid any person of sobriety and honesty, as he hath abusively miscalled me, and the lord of righteousness well knoweth it; but my spirit is of the nature of forgiveness, in which i say, father of heaven and earth, if it be thy pleasure remit him. ii. where the external bread and wine is understood and known to be but a shadow of the substance, and not the substance itself, there it cannot be spiritually, nay, nor rationally believed that the shadow is the everlasting ordinance to be partaked of, nor that which the lord christ said was his body and blood, which is the substance of the ordinance: and therefore, as many as say, or will confess that they esteem not the bread and wine as the real body and blood of christ, but receive it, believing that in the use of it, and whilst they eat and drink it, they do partake of the real body and blood by faith, whereby it becomes unto them a living ordinance, and no otherwise; to such i am desirous to reply, saying, upon due consideration of the matter, you cannot but see that you put a certain confidence in the dead creatures, so as to be ministers of life to your dead souls, which stands but in the imaginary and deceivable part, for either the souls life must be in god, and god only, or else not at all in him; and where it stands and dwells in him only, it goes not out of him for a shadow to feed upon, because his own life is to that soul faith, hope, and a perfect ground of trust; yea it's bread, wine, fatted venison, fig, pomegrannets, and the choicest clusters of the vineyard; and it's all, and fullness for ever and ever. so i may briefly sum up the matter thus. 1. because neither christ nor the apostles commanded the customary use of bread and wine, under the usual and formal denomination of a sacrament or ordinance, so to be observed and kept( as in the custom is practised both by professors and profane) as a future ordinance everlastingly to be kept throughout all generations. 2. because it's impossible for created and corruptible man, to create an incorruptible and uncreated life and substance of that which is created, or is not already created by god the eternal substance. 3. because a shadow is not the substance itself. 4. because man's soul cannot possibly be fed and nourished unto life by shadows, but only by an everlasting substance. 5. and because the external bread and wine are created things of god, and( as customarily used) but a shadow and not the substance itself. i therefore conclude( even in the knowledge and counsel of god) that it is but either in the time of the night, or but in the shadows of the morning under the clouds of the evening( this day) professed and practised as an everlasting ordinance, to continue to the end of all generations, according to the opinion of r. r. intimated in his book, pages 22, 23. but now my beloved friends, since the day is breaking, and the shadows are fleeing away; turn, turn and be ye like unto roes or young harts upon the mountains of bethel, cant. 2.17. for, why shall the shadows of the gloomy evening detain you from the sun of the morning? or, why shall a figure be as in the place of your foundation? seeing the spirit is the only salvation: arise, arise you panting souls, and breathers for the life of god; arise, arise and come away, seeing he calls and cries, come away my beloved; for i am departed from the tombs, monuments and shadows, which stand in the whole earth, though time was that i walked amongst you, whilst you were groping for the door at midnight, and when you were traveling under the clouds of the evening; yea, and there was a time when i followed you, whilst you were walking in the shadows of the morning, which was a season of refreshment unto you, and lo my end was to take you with me, but ye would not, and therefore i passed by you, and you saw me not; so that now your shadows which were[ once] your refreshments, are become as the black bands of the night clouds about you; yet because of my mercies, i am calling, and in the remembrance of my compassions i am crying, arise, come away, for yet the day-star attendeth to break forth before you; behold i am the love of your labours, the fruit which you travail for, the life which you mourn after, the beloved that can fill you, over-power, and ravish you with the sweetness of my peace and joy, which is endless and never wasting, which is fullness and everlastingly increasing. come drink, drink abundantly my beloved, for i am opening my bottles unto you, and eat ye hungry ones, for i am spreading my table before you, which is a better table than that which you tasted of in the wilderness, whilst a cry was in the land, and mourning in every habitation; though i blessed that appearance unto you, whilst you bound me not, but also blessed me in that i set you free out of egypt, and brought you into the deserts of the shady trees; but when you sought to bind me to your apprehensions, who loosed you from the apprehensions of your oppressors, you then became oppressors of me, even through your making the transitory shadows of the substance, an everlasting law, of my service, which i never required of you, which thing became a burden unto me; but that you might not always grieve me, but become a seed of my souls love, and delight unto me, i remembered my covenant, to writ my everlasting law in the invisible part, that i created, that as god in the spirit i might be for ever obeied and worshipped. now therefore friends, with the assistance of god's holy spirit, i am come to speak a little of the mystery of baptism and the lord's supper, showing, what they are to the spiritual mind, in the most everlasting and substantial part. forasmuch as the soul of man is that degenerate plant, of which the lord said, i planted thee a noble vine, wholly a right seed; how then art thou turned into the degenerate plant of a strange vine unto me? jer. 2.21. and seeing it is not the body that requires the dipping in order to the sanctifying of the soul, but it's the soul[ onely] that needs the washing and cleansing. god therefore in his wisdom, that the deep mysteries of the ways of his mercies, might be revealed and made manifest, hath prepared for the invisible and immortal poor soul of man, an invisible and everlasting fountain for the soul of man to bathe and to wash in, which according to the prophets words, zech. 13.1. is( in this day) opened unto many, and opening unto many more, whence issues the great rivers which spiritually are called jordan, aenon, and nilus, which overflow the grounds of the valleys and low lands; and so baptizeth them thoroughly, which is the true and everlasting ordinance of the baptism of our lord jesus; even the baptism with this pure washing and cleansing water of him the fuller, who so sits as to baptize in these his everlasting rivers of sanctifying water, and in this furnace of his purifying fire as a refiner, mal. 3.2, 3. bringing forth his gold perfectly tried; through which work, or administration of the mystery of the everlasting ordinance, we have knowledge both of the glory of the law-giver, and of the glory of the face of his law & ordinances given forth, dispensed & ordained of him; the which everlasting ordinances were constituted of the wisest eternal power, lastly to effect that which all outward ordinances could not do; which is to say, to take away sins and iniquities, which is the thing that the former could not do; and this as the most new, living, and everlasting baptism, is to endure and continue throughout all generations; because it is of the spirit or eternal rivers which can never change, but endure for ever and ever; in which stands the all-sufficiency of power to work, complete, and perfect that in man; and man in that righteousness of god which the external baptism is altogether insufficient to do. and therefore to this one thing which is onely needful and necessary for man's salvation, the yearnings of my soul are, that all may be truly gathered; that after each mans desiring, they may not at last lie down in the sparks of their own kindling, and waters of their own finding; or dwell in the cisterns of their own hewing, which will hold no waters( of the living substance at all.) but now if any soul puts the thing to question, saying, it's true i have been for many years a thirster after god; i have followed him as i thought, through divers dispensations, until at last i also passed under the administration of water-baptism, hoping some time to see the end of that which oppressed my soul, and weighed down my tender spirit; but though i traveled over mountains, my dayes were wholesomeness, and though i wandered in deserts, my time hath been tiresomness; so that when i thought of living, my cogitations were composed of grief and trouble; and when i thought of dying, my heart was full of horror; so that every thing was suffering, and a burden of continual disquiet; and the day is not changed now, even because of my sins; yea, the number of my numberless transgressions, which, though i went down into the water, i came up as unclean as before; for the water cleansed not my body, and much less sanctified my soul; and this my experience is greater and of more concernment than any man's fleshly notion, which men may feed fancies withal; and a light head and a merry heart may bear empty shows, and light things in their breasts, but a wounded conscience who can bear? prov. 18.14. therefore, since i believe that because sin stands in my soul, both guilt and condemnation stands in my conscience; and seeing god first created the soul without sin surely with him, there cannot be but; a way to new create, and save man from sin the which work; of mercy, cannot but bring a final end unto man's misery. this therefore is the question. quest. what is this way of salvation, baptizing, washing, cleansing, burning, and purifying man's soul from sin? signify to me, what the water is, and how my soul may be bathed, washed, sanctified, and purely purged from sin by it? answer. though the way of salvation, and the baptizing water, the refiners fire, the body and blood of christ, the anchor of hope, the rock of faith, the mercy and love of god, are divers in the denomination, whereby the excellency of his wisdom is revealed, through his spirit's diversities of operations, in and upon man, for the perfecting of his soul, in the life of righteousness; yet in the substance, it's all but one; and therefore, as that one is needful, and only needful in order to man's salvation; i make mention of this holy way, and spiritual cleansing, according to the words of our lord christ jesus, who said, i am the way the truth,, and the life, john 14.6. of which, that his disciples might have a real, true and living knowledge, he testified unto them, what he was, in plainer terms, giving them to understand how, and in what manner he was the way to life; expressing it in this wise; i am the light of the world; he that believeth in me, shall not abide in darkness, but shall have the light of life, john 8.12. of whom also john baptist bare his testimony, who witnessed him to be the true light, that enlighteneth all mankind coming into the world, john 1.9. and indeed, it could not be less, seeing that god is light, and in him is no darkness at all, 1 john 1.5. and seeing, that the spirit of the eternal father, was put upon him, isa. 42.1. yea, the fullness of the god-head,( which is the way, the life, the light, and everlasting salvation itself) dwelled in him bodily, col. 2.9. who in the eternal counsel of the father, hath shed abroad something of his saving spirit of light into every heart, that in the fullness of time, the prophesy of the prophet might be fulfilled, that was written, speaking of this saviour, way, truth, and life, who was given for a covenant of the people, and for a light of the gentiles, that he might be the salvation of god to the ends of the earth, isa. 42.6. & 49.8. therefore, known be it unto all inquirers after the everlasting way of the lord's salvation; none other do i hold forth( unto them) to be the saving path of god, the cleansing water of the fountain of god, and the refining fire of the furnace of god; but that measure and proportion of the spirit of the lord jesus, which as a light is given into their souls, in the free love and grace of god, to save their souls; and i affirm, that is the very proportion and measure of god in every soul, which as a burning candle gives a light within searching, the dark corners of the heart, and trying the reins of the sons of men; even all whose consciences are not yet seared as with a hot iron, in whom this light is utterly put out, so as it henceforth may never give life; who thereby are sealed unto everlasting condemnation; and in such the darkness is exceeding great, according to christs words, mat. 6.23. of which state i stand not now to insist. but since i am speaking to your conditions, in whom there are breathings and pantings after god; i would that you should all take cognizance of that measure of the spirit of the lord, which is given into your souls; seeing it's so plainly and clearly distinguishable from every other spirit; that is to say, being of god, is of the nature of god, and therefore makes manifest every work, word, and thought which is contrary to the righteousness of god, which another spirit cannot do: whereby god is known to be greater than the devil and infernal spirit, which thing you may all discern in yourselves. well, have you proved the many things already mentioned? have you traveled, and are still tired? have you dived into the water, and yet still do remain as drowned in corruption? have you sought peace by the works which you could work, and yet do remain as tossed by the waves of the sorest fears and doubtings? and can you believe that there is a way of redemption, though the way is not to you a way, seeing you have not entered into the way? and if the experiences of all your own works and actions have thus far failed you, come, come now a little and prove the work of another, who can work for, and in you, that which you can neither work for, nor in yourselves. what shall i say? your souls are the sinful subjects, you know it, and that outward water cannot, but that a spirit must sanctify them; i would that you should also believe and know: come therefore to this one, and not to another besides this one( viz.) the appearance of its self in yourselves; seeing the apostle witnessed, that that which may be known of god, is manifest in you, rom. 1.9. which is as impossible, that at any time, at any place, in any thing, or any case, it should ever deceive you, as it is for god to change from his nature of holiness, and become a corruptible thing: and therefore, because he hath visited you with his grace, in giving you a measure of his spirit( which in its nature is innocent, pure, and holy) which never did, nor ever could in yourselves, consent unto a thing that's unrighteous, or contrary to its nature( which in your own consciences( in gods sight) you cannot well say other ways) the ground-work is sure, and the foundation will be found to be certain, as you come to build upon it. now therefore, as this measure is clearly opened in you, knowing it to be burnings against unrighteousness( as the lord god is an everlasting consuming fire against the ungodly) you hitherto having known your souls to be as bodies composed of sin, and the best of your robes to be but the menstruous rags of your own righteousness( the which body thus arrayed, could talk of the scriptures, which point out this light( which is the spirit of judgement, and of burning) but by its words, nor by its works, could ever array its self with the royal righteousness of the spirit.) now, therefore ought you to draw near, and stand a little still to be striped of all your raiments, by this spirit, that as naked bodies, you may be cast by the same, into its own fiery and fierce burnings: yea, stand a little, and let this searching spirit of the light of jesus, the lamb of god, come over your minds, and seize upon your thoughts in the righteousness of its judgments, and then you shall know: this is jordan the great, and aenon the baptizing river; yea, and nilus, the overflower of the banks, which will not cease rolling and tumbling you in their streams, until the currents of judgement have passed over you, and utterly slain that body, which in the unrighteous nature, is alive in you; and then, even then, when that body is utterly destroyed,( which is as a sowing of the old, in a deep grave of oblivion) a new shall arise, and a fresh branch shall spring up, and the resurrection from the dead shall be witnessed, and he that kills will then be perfectly known, because he makes alive, that he may be gloriously known; and then may i ask of you, when the old man is crucified and slain with all his affections, and singular lusts, and the babe jesus( the life and resurrection from the dead) is formed in you; and when his life is brought forth unto the shining of the brightness of the day, and you no more in yourselves, but he altogether, is of god a saviour for you in yourselves; where then shall your sins be? and how then shall your sorrows be? yea, when there is not a body, nor womb of a body to conceive sin; but when the whole shall be the lord's, and the lambs, how shall that be brought to a birth, where a seed enters not, nor hath a womb to conceive nor bring forth? let therefore, these rivers run and stop them not, that with these waters you may be thoroughly washed: for lo, though their streams are as currents of fire, and dreadful burnings, which melt the rocks before them, and convert all the adamantine mountaines and hills of hardness, into a dissolvedness in you, yet to your souls that delight in their burnings, and love the appearance of their judgments( in that you would be as god is, voided of sin, pure, holy, and full of righteousness) that in truth you might glorify him, and have everlasting heavenly joy in the lord your god; to you their floods are as seas of sweet wines, which have descended from the mountain of god's holiness; and as the bathings of rivers of oil of your bodies of hardness, and joints of stiffness; come run therefore ye breathers, and hast, hast hither ye thirsters to these waters, and plunge yourselves ye panting ones, into the deeps thereof; for behold, here are places for you to wade in pleasures, and room for you to swim in solaces; in the storms, here is an ark for your salvation, and in the fire, an habitation of preservation. yea verily, verily, this( in the spirit and name of the lord) i say unto you, here is the substance of all your seekings, which can perfect that in you, which all things without you can never complete you in; this is the spirit which first baptizeth into the judgement, that as men in the flesh, you may be judged; that next it may baptize you into a justification with god in the spirit, and so plunge you in the seas and oceans of everlasting blessedness; and into the supper of the lord jesus, whose body and blood will nourish you unto life eternal; so that, whereas the baptizing is a burying in the figure, in the like manner it is a burying of death unto death; and of sin in the grave of perpetual forgetfulness, by the living eternal substance; and then after the death of the old, baptizeth the life of the new into life, first having stripped off all the vicious raiments; next clothes, decks, and attires, with all the heavenly robes and ornaments of meekness, mercy, patience, purity, truth, temperance, humbleness, chastity, charity, and all other virtues which make the life a blessedness; and in this baptism the soul becomes plunged into the belly of the great deeps, where the joys of life abound, amid the noises of the waters, which roar out the hallelujahs of the most high, and the clappings of the hands of the floods, which sound out everlasting praises of the most holy king, who is blessed for ever and ever. which puts a period to all the pangs, and makes the sighings fly swiftly away. so now in the light of god you may see that as your minds at all times, and in all places stand continually stayed, in and under the sense of this spiritual light, as you have a feeling thereof in yourselves, you must be thereby continual feeders on the substance in yourselves, and thus the cup of salvation being handed unto you, you drink of the fullness, and of the sweetness thereof, as it's manifest unto you; and hereby you knowing the lord's true and heavenly table, and seeing it spread in the heavenly place, and coming to know that it is an immortal substance which deceives not the soul, as it can be deceived by that which the body can touch and taste: and thus your souls really eating, and really drinking of the spirit of eternal life, cannot but by it be nourished unto everlasting life; and then you cannot but see the end of the shadows, which were altogether weak and insufficient for the administering of life. and again, knowing the reality of this spirit of life in yourselves, cannot so much belie the spirit as( wrongfully) to call the spirit a fancy, or fiction, or hence forth so much undervalue it, is ever in any succeeding day to exchange it for a show or â��â�¦ adeâ��. and now to sum up the matter, this i say; no man can judge aright of this which he is not experienced or entered into; though i and we all in the light can judge of that which we have experienced and passed thorough, being said from it by this which is the end of all shadows that went before it, which no man can speak aright of, but the same that hath the self same experience of it; and therefore, to such as lift up their voices against it, god's spirit( in my soul) expressly speaketh; you either wilfully resist a small appearance, or else speak the things you neither know nor understand. for which cause, a warning, a warning, a warning to all people, least at any time any should grieve the spirit of the most high god, and( in the fullness of the dispensation of time) bear the weight of his judgements for the same. and yet i would have all know, that though i cannot put a sufficient value upon the spirit and its baptism, and table; so i put not an under-value on that which once had a time of service; but as a type and shadow, had its determination by the coming in of the substance; not as if it was in no wise come in, in the time of moses, but as not so fully come in then as it was in the time of the prophets; not in the prophets so fully as in the time of john baptist; nor in john baptist's time so fully, as it was in the fullness of the manifestation of jesus, in john, in the time of his appearing to him in patmos; which ended all figures and glasses that shewed the glories of faces, being face to face in the glory of glories, in whom doubtless god was all in all; but this saying who can red it? but he who in the kingdom( where visibles serve not to feed the soul) hath his fellowship and union with the father and with the son, but it may be the weaker cannot. yet a few words remain in my heart to utter forth unto you, touching the holy scriptures of truth, to clear us of the general aspersions and slanders which by the unbridled tongues of certain misunderstanding hearts are cast upon us. the scriptures of truth we own, and witness, according to peter's testimony; who avouched on this wise, the prophesy came not in old time by the will of man, but holy man of god spake as they were moved by the holy ghost, 2 pet. 1.21. the which being spoken by the spirit, which uttereth forth mysteries and oracles, the thing spoken is not that which giveth to understand the words of the voice, but the spirit the speaker must of necessity give the understanding of the thing spoken, if ever there be a right understanding thereof; and me-thinks every rational soul might clearly and plainly perceive so open and easy a thing as this is, that the scriptures cannot make a man understand the spirit, except first the spirit gives a man an understanding of the scriptures, seeing by the spirit in a mystery they were given forth, according to the prophets words, the prophesy is become unto all as a book that is sealed, isa. 29.11. &c. and, the natural man receiveth not the things of the spirit of god, for they are foolishness unto him, neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned, 1 cor. 2.14. and therefore not intelligible without the spirit. and vers. 15. he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man, but without the spirit, judgeth nothing aright, but in righteousness is judged of the spirit of god, which, and only which spirit, gives to understand and judge all causes in equity; but in its own way and words is not understood, but as itself gives understanding of its self. and therefore because we set not the scriptures above the spirit, we are in no wise to be blamed, seeing whilst we set the spirit above the scriptures,( we according to the scriptures) are undoubtedly justified of god, in giving the spirit its due authority over all, though in so doing we undervalue not, nor lessen the weight of the scriptures, in that we confess them to be pure fruits of the holy spirit; and as all come into the spirit by which they were dispensed, may serve as doctrine, instruction, and of advantage unto them, and through faith, may make them wise unto salvation; but to the faithless and unbelieving( which put not their trust onely in the spirit, which quickeneth and maketh alive, but( as in the flesh) keep their confidence in the letter which killeth) to such they are not of the like use and benefit; and therefore under that death and slaughter they take the letter for the way and rule to life, using certain scriptures to hold forth such an opinion which stands in absolute contradiction to the mind of the spirit, which in christ spake saying, i am the way, the truth, and the life, joh. 14.6. who said, he was the light of the world, john 8.12. and said, when the spirit of truth was come, it should led them into all truth, john 16.13. as we know divers which have not the scriptures, nor can red them, have the spirit, and when they are red, they by the spirit do truly and perfectly( according to their measures) understand them; as divers there are that can red the scriptures, yet not having the holy spirit, do not understand them; certain of whom though walking in wickedness, both in life and conversation, yet take up the scriptures in certain contests to hold forth their carnal conceptions and opinions by them; but seeing not any but the spiritual man understandeth the mind of god, written forth in the scriptures: i tenderly exhort all, neither to trust their own apprehensions, not any other mans opinion concerning the scriptures, unless themselves are qualified, or such as are qualified with the life of jesus in the spirit of the father, having or giving testimony of the three by the fruits in righteousness, power and virtue. lastly, this is the sum of all. there is no truth, way, not life, but the spirit of iesus, which is an eternal light; there is no conductor besides it, into the bosom of the father; there is no everlasting ordinance, but this eternal substance; there is no perfecter but it, and it can perfect all as it did create all; and all that yield in obedience to it, and by it come out of themselves, in and by its power and virtue, may be made clean without spot, as the lamb is immaculate, and so live in it with god for ever and ever. the end. motives maintained. or a reply unto m. chillingworthes answer to his own motives of his conversion to catholic religion: jac. 1. vers. 8. a man double of mind is inconstant in all his ways. permissu superiorum. 1638. a reply unto m. chillingworthes answer to his own motives, of his conversion to cath. religion. be pleased, christian reader, to be informed, or to remember, if thou know it already, that m. chillingworth, the answerer to charity maintained, vpon his conversion from protestancy to catholic religion, set down diuers good and solid motives, which induced him to that resolution; and after diuers turnings, and returnings, to and from that religion which for so convincing motives he then embraced, now he hath published an answer to those his own motives: but such an answer as proves him to be neither catholic nor protestant for his belief. for through all his answers, catholiks are impugned, protestants abandoned, and grounds laid for a new, and wicked sect, which in this kingdom begins to be known, and spoken of, by the name of socinianism. my intention is briefly, to maintain the answerers catholic motives, against his own answers to them. the method, i purpose to hold, shall be natural and clear in itself, and easy for thy comprehension and memory; setting down in order, first, the motive; then his answer to it; and thirdly my reply. or confutation of his answer. motive i. because perpetual visible profession, which could never be wanting to the religion of christ, nor any part of it, is apparently wanting to protestant religion, so far as concerns the points in contestation. answer. god hath neither decreed nor foretold, that his true doctrine should de facto, be always visibly professed, without any mixture of falsehood. reply. the direct and pertinent answer to this motive, had been, to maintain, that visible profession was never wanting to protestant religion, so far as concerns the points in contestation. but forsaking this right way of defence( wherein he may well be excused, no man being bound to perform impossibilities) he flies from the question, and tells us, that it is not necessary, there should be always a church, visibly professing true doctrine, without any mixture of falsehood. which is nothing to the purpose, for this argument is still in force: the true church of christ must be always visible( whether with, or without mixture of corruptions, we need not consider for the present:) but the protestant church, as it is distinct from ours; hath not been always visible: therefore, the protestant church as it is distinct from ours, is not the true church of christ. the maior he grants in diuers places of his book, & even in this his answer, vpon condition that we grant a possibility of corruption in the church, as for the present we are content to do, by way of supposing a falsehood. the minor is affirmed in the motive, and not denied in his answer, nor can be denied by any man of iudgement, and learning: and so the conclusion must of necessity follow. but now, if this were a fit place to prove, that the true church must be infallible, &c not subject to any error in faith, it were easy to do it, if once that be granted, which neither protestants do, nor any christian can deny; namely, that christian faith is infallibly true, and, not only probable. for, seing this very man confesses, that we cannot know scripture to be the word of god, by scripture itself, nor by any other means except the tradition of gods church; if she be fallible, our belief of scripture, and all verities contained therein, cannot be certain, and infallible. we must therfore grant the true church of christ to be infallible, if we will maintain christian faith to be certainly true. motive ii. because luther and his followers separating from the church of rome, separated also from all churches, pure or impure, true or false then being in the world; vpon which ground i conclude, that either gods promises did fail of performance, if there were then no church in the world, which held all things necessary, and nothing repugnant to salvation; or else that luther and his sectaries, separating from all churches then in the world, and so from the true, if there were any true, were damnable schismatics. answer. god hath neither decreed, nor foretold, that there shall be always a company of men free from all error in itself damnable: neither is it always of necessity schismatical, to separate from the external communion of a church though wanting nothing necessary. for if this church supposed to want nothing necessary, require me to profess against my conscience, that i believe some error though never so small and innocent, which i do not believe, & will not allow me her communion but vpon this condition: in this case, the church, for requiring this condition, is schismatical, and not i for separating from the church. reply. i haue already demonstrated that the first part of his answer is false, for if the church be infallible, she is free from all error in faith. nay it being the common, and as it were, natural conceit, and belief of all christians, that it is a damnable sin of schism, to forsake the communion of gods church; we must of necessity infer, that she is not subject to error,( for if she were, we might lawfully forsake her) and not contratily, say, that it is lawful to forsake her communion, because she may, and hath fallen into error. and this was one of the reasons, which charity maintained brought, to prove, that gods church is infallible, & consequently, that to disagree from her in doctrine, was heresy, and schism to leave her communion. thus then, instead of vindicating protestants from schism, he yields them guilty both of schism, and heresy, in affirming that they separated from all churches, true or false, then being in the world. the rest of his answer seems to me a riddle, or an vnconsequent piece of doctrine. for, suppose a man disagree from gods church in profession of faith, refuse to participate in the same sacraments, avoid her public service or liturgy, and disobey her prelates; it seems, by this mans new divinity, that such a one is still a member of that church. he might as well persuade the world, that there is no such thing, as hitherto all christians haue called schism, at least, while a man hath leave to follow his own conscience or discourse; wherein if he be restrained, then the church, and not he must be accounted schismatical. and why? because she will not allow such a man her communion, but vpon condition, that he profess the same faith with her. and how can she do otherwise? can they be of her faith, and communion, who haue already opposed her faith, & rejected her communion, and done as much as in them lies, to make a separation? they then, who separate themselves, do that, which of itself, makes their communion with the church to be impossible, though she were silent, and did leave every man to his liberty. for, profession of the same faith, participation in the same sacraments, concurrence at the same public service and worship of god, and obedience to the same superiors, are conditions necessary of their own nature for unity in communion, whether they be required by any church, or no. and therfore, not the church, for requiring these, but they for putting the contrary conditions are to be accounted schismatical. in the mean time; doth not this man make a daungerous apology for precisians, and all sorts of refractory persons, if they be forced to observances, which to their conscience seem superstitious? for, to use his words, in this case the church, for requiring this condition, is schismatical, & not they for separating from the church. or, if this man be an arian, and the church of england should deny him her communion unless he confessed the b. trinity, and deity of christ our lord; not he, but the church of england, must be branded with the epitheton of schismatical. motive iii. because, if any credit may be given to as creditable records as any are extant, the doctrine of the catholics hath been frequently confirmed; and the opposite doctrine of protestants, confounded with supernatural, and divine miracles. answer. if any credit may be given to records far more creditable thou these, the doctrine of protestants, that is, the bible, hath been confirmed, and the doctrine of papists, which is in many points plainly opposite to it, confounded with supernatural, and divine miracles, which for number and glory outshine popish pretended miracles, as much as the sun doth an ignis fatuus; those i mean which were wrought by our saviour christ and his apostles. now this book, by the confession of all sides confirmed by innumerous miracles, foretells me plainly, that in after ages great signs and wonders shall be wrought in confirmation of false doctrine, and that i am not to believe any doctrine, which seems to my understanding repugnant to the first, though an angel from heaven should teach it; which were certainly as great a miracle, as any that was ever wrought in attestation of any part of the doctrine of the church of rome: but, that true doctrine should in all ages haue the testimony of miracles, that i am no where taught; so that i haue more reason to suspect, and be afraid of pretended miracles, as signs of false doctrine, then much to regard them as certain arguments of the truth. besides, setting aside the bible, and the tradition for it, there is as good story for miracles wrought by those, who lived and died in opposition to the doctrine of the roman church( as by s. cyprian, colmannus, columbanus, aidanus, and others) as there is for those that are pretended to be wrought by the members of that church. lastly, it seems to me no strange thing, that god in his iustice should permit some true miracles to be wrought, to delude them who haue forged so many, as apparently the professors of the roman doctrine haue; to abuse the world. reply. i could in the very beginning stop his course, by telling him with much truth, and profit too, that the miracles which were wrought by our saviour christ, and his apostles, did primarily and immediately gain authority and credit to their persons, and by consequence only to their writings, as being penned by them, who's authority was made most worthy to be credited by miracles. if he ask, to what purpose do i put in this word of consideration? i answer, that it is done in opposition to a certain vnchristian doctrine of his. for if the apostles, and the whole church, notwithstanding those miracles, may be believed to haue erred, as this man teaches (a) pag. 137. n. 21. & pag. 144. n. 31. they did, the bible can much less be said to haue been confirmed by those miracles, in such manner as nothing in it can be erroneous; because, as i said, the whole credit of scripture, is grounded vpon the authority and infallibility of the writers therof. but i need not insist vpon this point; for do not we also receive the bible? yea do not all heretics in a manner, pretend to believe it, and their doctrine to be agreeable to it? this plea then is too general, especially, for this occasion. but, says he, this book foretells me plainly, that in after ages great signs and wonders shall be wrought, in confirmation of false doctrine. what then? must we believe that no signs and wonders are true, because some are false? then, we must reject all true scripture, because diuers false scriptures haue been forged. thē may we despise those very miracles, which were wrought in confirmation of the bible: and so with this his argument drawn from scripture, he over throws scripture itself. did the apostles themselves, and apostolical men work no true miracles, after the time wherein scripture had foretold, that great wonders should be wrought in confirmation of false doctrine? neither speaks he to any purpose in these words: that true doctrine should in all ages haue the testimony of miracles, that i am no where taught. for the motive only said, that the doctrine of catholiks, hath been frequently confirmed, and the opposite doctrine of protestants confounded with supernatural, and divine miracles. now, though it were granted that true doctrine had not in all ages the testimony of miracles,( which here i do not examine, as being a thing nothing to the purpose) yet it is very true, that all doctrines confirmed by miracles are true, and that they are false which haue been confounded by them but he willingly thrust's in matter to divert the question from the true state. as here he does again in the very next words, wherein he alleges the example of some, who lived and dyed in opposition to the doctrine of the roman church( he means, as i conceive, rebaptizing of such as were baptized by heretics; and keeping of easter at the same time with the iewes; both which errors haue been condemned by the whole catholic church,( and not only by the church of rome;) and yet, says he, there is as good story for miracles wrought by them, as there is for those that are pretended to be wrought by the members of our church. all which is impertinent, unless he can show that they wrought miracles in confirmation of that doctrine, god hath appointed miracles as signs of true doctrine. exod. 4. matth. 11.5. joan. 15.24. mar. ult. 17.1. cor. 12. hebr. 2.4. wherein they disagreed from the roman church; for example, that s. cyprian proved by miracle, that rebaptisation of those who had been baptized by heretics, was lawful. this answer is clear, and fit for this occasion and intended brevity: though much more might be said, if i would descend to particulars, concerning the persons whom he allegeth to no purpose at all. his last answer is a desperate one, that it seems to him no strange thing, that god in his iustice should permit some miracles to be wrought, to delude them who haue forged so many, as apparently the professors of the roman doctrine haue, to abuse the world. which doctrine if we receive, we cannot be certain, but that the miracles of our saviour christ, and his apostles, were wrought to delude the iewes, who received so many false prophets, committed idolatry; and perpetrated other crimes, for which god in his iustice might haue permitted them to be deluded by true miracles. he should at least haue reflected that by this means, he contradicts himself, while by impeaching the authority of miracles, he overthrows scripture itself, which in this very answer, he says, was confirmed by miracles. and he also contradicts what he affirms in his book( pag. 144. n. 31.) in these words: it is impossible that the eternal truth should set his hand and seal( by miracles) to the confirmation of a falsehood. seing then the professors of our catholic religion, men known to haue been full of zeal, integrity, contempt of the world, and eminent for all kind of sanctity, haue in every age frequently, constantly, and manifestly, wrought wondrous things above all created power, whereby god hath been glorified, sinners converted, and christian religion propagated; and that many of those admirable signs haue been wrought expressly in confirmation of diuers particular points of our catholic faith, as may be seen in bellarmine (b) cap. 14. de not. eccles. and in brerely (c) tract. 2. cap. 3. sect. 7. subd. 1. who out of most credible authors bring pregnant examples of miracles, wrought in confirmation of our doctrine, concerning prayer to saints, relics, the image of christ, real presence, sacrifice of christs body, purgatory, and prayer for the dead, the great virtue of the sign of the cross, holy-water, lights in the church, reservation of the sacrament, holy chrism, adoration of the cross, confession of sins to a priest, and extreme unction; seing, i say, these things are so evidently true, that they cannot be denied without impudence, and great scandal to christian religion, to which the world hath been converted by men of our church and by means of these miracles, which therfore to question, must needs bring the world back to doubt of christianity; we must conclude, that his third motive was true and sound; that his answer not only forsakes protestancy, but vndermines christian religion; and lastly, that we catholiks to our unspeakable comfort, may humbly, yet confidently say with that devout and learned man: (d) rich. de s. vict. lib. 1 de t●… t. cap 2. domine, si error est quod credimus, à te decepti sumus: ista enim in nobis iis sig nis & prodigijs confirmata sunt, quae non nisi à te fieri po tuerunt. if we believe a falsehood, thou, o lord, hast deceived us; for the things which we believe haue been confirmed by such signs and wonders, as could not be wrought but by thee alone. motive iv. because many points of protestant doctrine, are the damned opinions of heretics, condemned by the primitive church. answer. all those were not heretics which by philastrius epiphanius, or s. austine were put in the catalogue of heretics. reply. the weakness of this answer shows, that his heart is not with protestants, nor that it is his intention, to defend them in good earnest. what if all those be not heretics, who by these three authors are put in the catalogue of heretics? there be diuers besides these who haue made catalogues of heresies. and to account any doctrine to be an heresy, it suffices, that we know it to haue been condemned by the church, by what means soever we come to that knowledge. if he had meant well to protestants, he should haue specified the particular points, wherein they are accused to agree with heretics anciently condemned; and then haue shewed, that they are not such. or if he could not do this( as indeed it is impossible to be done) he should not haue used this tergiversation in matters of religion, but either haue plainly confessed the truth, or at least not haue put himself vpon answering that, which he knew could not be answered in the grounds, which protestants will seem to maintain, namely, consent with the ancient church. but the truth is, he cares not for antiquity, and therfore with the socinians would readily grant, that opinions condemned for heresies by the ancient church, may be orthodox truths. if any desire to be satisfied, that sundry doctrines of protestants, are the same with those which haue been condemned by the ancient church, let him red (e) bellar. cap. 9. do not. eccles. bellarmine and (f) brerely pract. 1 sect. 8. subd. 2. other catholic writers. motive v. because the prophecies of the old testament, touching the conuersion of kings & nations to the true religion of christ, haue been accomplished in, and by the catholic roman religion, and the professors of it; and not by protestant religion, and the professors of it. answer. kings and nations haue been, and may be converted by men of contrary religions. reply. we haue no reason to take his bare words without any proof. means he, perhaps, that the goths were converted to christian religion by arians? but, first, this is false, as bellarmine (g) cap. 12. do not. eccles. demonstrates. secondly, it is impertinent to prove that the conversion of kings and nations is not the work of catholiks alone. for, even they who are pretended to haue been converted by the arians, were but the lesser part of the goths, most of them having been catholiks before, and therefore thirdly this example makes rather for us, in that of all the world converted to christian religion, one only poor half example, and that not of protestants, is so much as pretended to the contrary; which cannot exempt protestants from that property which tertullian (h) lib. de prescript. cap. 42. affirms to be common to novelists: their employment, saith he, is not to convert heathens, but to perucrt them who are already converted. and doubtless it must needs seem a very prodigious thing, that heretics should haue so little zeal, or meet with so ill success in converting the world to christ, if they alone be true christians; or that the prophecies of dilating the church of christ, should be performed by the endeavours of catholiks, and yet they be not true christians: or finally, that our doctrine should be false, and yet it alone should haue that power, and efficacy to convert souls, which the holy scripture ascribes to the doctrine & law of god( psalm. 18.) and might not pagans, iewes, and other enemies of christian religion, refuse, not without show of good reason, to embrace christian faith, if they could say with truth, that all they who for many ages past, and at this present labour to make them christians, are themselves no true christians? and who can oblige them to exchange one falsehood for another, which is the best they could hope for, by being converted to us, even though they were persuaded that their own sect were false? what ill success protestants haue found in their poor endeavours in this kind, may be seen in (i) tract. 2. cap. 3. sect. 6. subd. 3. brerely; who also cites the words of beza, that such pilgrimages to remote countreys, for converting of infidels, are to be left for the locusts, the jesuits, as it pleases him to speak. motive vi. because the doctrine of the church of rome is conformable, and the doctrine of protestants contrary, to the doctrine of the fathers of the primitive church, even by the confession of the protestants themselves; i mean those fathers who lived within the compass of the first 600. yeares to whom protestants themselves do very frequently, and very confidently appeal. answer. the doctrine of papists, is confessed by papists contrary to the fathers in many points. reply. in this anssvere he clearly forsakes protestants, and yields that, even by their own confession, our doctrine is conformable, and theirs contrary to the doctrine of those fathers, who lived within the compass of the first 600. yeares. but that our doctrine is confessed by us, to be contrary to the fathers, we utterly deny, and he could not hope that we should believe him affirming the contrary without any proof. motive vii. because the first pretended reformers had neither extraordinary commission from god, nor ordinary mission from the church to preach protestant doctrine. answer. the pastours of a church cannot but haue authority from it, to preach against the abuses of it, whether in doctrine or practise, if there be any in it. neither can any christian want an ordinary commission from god, to do a necessary work of charity after a peaceable manner, when there is no body else that can or will do it. in extraordinary cases extraordinary courses are not to be disallowed. if some christian lay-man should come into a country of infidels, & had ability to persuade them to christianity, who would say be might not use it for want of commission? reply. here he is so far from defending protestants, that he directly opposes their 23. article, which saith: it is not lawful for any man to take vpon him the office of public preaching, or ministering the sacraments, in the congregation, before he be lawfully called, and sent to execute the same. and those we ought to judge lawfully called and sent, which be chosen and called to this work, by men who haue public authority given them in the congregation, to call and sand minislers into the lords vineyard. but by this mans doctrine, every private christian, even by being a christian, must haue an ordinary commission from god himself( which therfore, no church, prelate, or authority can oppose) to teach and preach if need require; because, as he declares himself in his book, (k) pag. 359. it is one of the greatest works of charity, to persuade men out of a false, into a true way of eternal happiness. according to which reason of his, not only a christian, but every man whatsoever, hath commission from god to teach, preach, and do other such necessary works of charity. but certainly this doctrine tends only to the overthrow of all order, obedience, and subordination in the church of god, that socinian liberty of iudgment, may be enjoyed with all freedom. and it puts into the mouth of unquiet people an answer, whensoever they are questioned for preaching their novelties, if once they be persuaded in conscience that they are truths. neither can any such proceeding be a necessary work of charity, as he pretends: but rather, even from hence, we are to infer, that gods church is not subject to error in points of doctrine. for if she were, then every private person, might publicly oppose, and preach against her doctrine, and forsake her communion. from which true ground of the churches infallibility, we deny his supposition, and avouch. that no prelate, or private person can pretend any authority, to preach against her doctrine; neither does she intend to give them any such authority. he says, indeed, that in extraordinary cases extraordinary courses are not to be disallowed. but if every christian haue, as he teaches, an ordinary commission from god, to do such a work, how is it an extraordinary course? or if it be extraordinary, it must be proved by miracles, which ought to accompany extraordinary calling, even in the opinion of chiefest protestants, as may be seen in brerely (l) tract. 2 cap. 2. sect. 3. subd. 2. . our saviour christ says of himself, (m) joan. 15.24. if i had not done among them works that no other man hath, done, they should not haue sin: and yet scripture did abundantly witness, that he was the true messiah. neither did he oppose any doctrine received by the whole church of the iewes; and that church was not to last always. but this man speaks of a case, wherein the whole church of christ must be opposed, and her doctrine condemned; even that church which hath a promise of perpetuity, from christ her lord and spouse. which considerations require, that whosoever pretends an extraordinary calling to oppose her, ought to prove it by evident miracles. and even luther is forced to say( how directly against himself, & his adherents i leave others to consider,) (n) in loc. commun. clas. 4. god never sent any, who was not either called by men, or declared by miracles, no not the son of god himself. this man in the mean time does very unworthily, in comparing the converting of infidels by private exhortation, with preaching against christian churches, where religion is settled, and bishops( who by divine institution are appointed to govern gods church) ordained. in which case, to say that every christian hath commission from god, to preach in opposition to such superiors, is to fasten a contradiction on the ordinations, or commissions of god himself. and, even infidels are not to be converted by private persons, without due subordination, and either express, or interpretatiue leave from the lawful prelates of gods church, but never with opposition, and disobedience to them. motive viii. because luther to preach against the mass( which contains the most material points now in controversy) was persuaded by reasons suggested to him by the divell himself, disputing with him. so himself professeth in his book de missa priuata: that all men might take heed of following him, who professeth himself to follow the divell. answer. luthers conference with the divell might be for ought i know, nothing but a melancholy dream. if it were real, the divell might persuade luther from the mass, hoping by doing so, to keep him constant to it: or that others would make his dissuasion from it an argument for it( as we see papists do) and be afraid of following luther, as confessing himself to haue been persuaded by the divell. reply. that luthers conference with the divell, was no dream is demonstratively proved by (*) conolus. sect. 7.8.9.10. brerely. and though it had been but a dream, yet this eight motive is very strong; because luther conceiving it to be a real apparition, followed that which according to his conscience proceeded from the divell; and so, his action must, by reason of such his conscience( whether true, or erroneous) be sinful, and diabolical. nor could the holy ghost move to that action which the party himself believed to proceed from a bad spirit, and yet did not abstain from it. in his second evasion that the divell did but dissemblingly dissuade luther from the mass, hoping by doing so to keep him and others constant to it, he imitates his brethren, or rather progenitors, the arians; of whom glorious s. ambrose writes (o) serm. 93. de innent. sorp. s s. gernasij & protasij. thus: dicunt damones martyribus, venistis perdere nos: ariani dicunt, non sunt daemonum vera tormentae, said ficta & composita ludibria. the divels say to the martyrs, you are come to destroy us: the arians say, they are not true torments which the divels suffer, but feigned and compacted deceits. thus also, when the divels were forced to fly from julian the apostate, who frighted with the sight of them blessed himself with the holy sign of the cross, a magician told him, that the divels sled, not out of fear to the cross as they seemed to do, but in detestation of his signing himself with the sign of the cross (p) theod lib. 3. c. 3. but if men may thus be more crafty then the divell, in vain shall we persuade any man hereafter, to fly from that towards which the divell tempts him. for, it may be believed, that the divell tempts him to it dissemblingly, to the end he may fly from it: and for the same reason, in vain haue spiritual men given rules for discerning, whether or no, the motions which we feel in our souls, proceed from a bad spirit. it seems this man is resolved to spare neither god, nor the divell. he told us before (q) auswere to the third motive. that miracles, which are works proper to god alone, may be intended by him to an end contrary to that, for which they seem to be wrought: here, he charges the divell to pretend one thing, and intend another in his persuasions, or temptations. i wish that himself be free from believing, that men also, may dissemble, even in matters of faith. but because it were a sin, either to bely the divell, or deny him his due; it must be acknowledged, that he spoke as he meant, and meant to persuade luther, and others by his means, to reject and impugn the mass: and none ought to be blamed for saying, that the divell vpon this ground had a chief hand in drawing germany to lutheranism, from the ancient catholic faith, which they had embraced, by the preaching of s. boniface, and other apostolical holy men. motive ix. because the protestant cause is now, and hath been from the beginning, maintained with gross falsifications, and calumnies, whereof their prime controuersy-writers, are notoriously, & in a high degree guilty. answer. iliacosintra muros peccatur, & extra. papists are more guilty of this fault then protestams. even this very author in this very pamphlet hath not so many leaves, as falsifications and calumnies. reply. we may for our part, be content to let him leave protestant writers with the imputation of falsifiers, and calumniatours as he does. but we can give him no commission, to speak against us, more then he can prove, or hath any shadow of truth. it is strange that the director could possiblily utter so many falsifications in citing so very few authors, which, if i mistake not, are about six in all. and i am well assured, that he citeth not any one of those authors, without having first both seen, and pondered the places. and till he prove at least one of those many falsifications, he must not take it ill, if i do not believe him. nevertheless, there is a main difference between catholiks and protestants in this particular, though our writers were granted by us to be as guilty of this crime, as by him our aduersaries are. for we do not rely, either vpon our own understanding, or on the iudgment, and fidelity of any private person. but, protestants, not believing any infallible public living judge of controversy, must depend very much, on the fidelity of their prime controversy writers, whom this man affirms, to be notorionsly, & in a high degree guilty of gross falsifications and calumnies. motive x. because by denying all human authority, either of pope or councils, or church, to determine controuersiers of faith, they haue abolished all possible means of suppressing heresy, or restoring unity to the church. answer. let all men believe the scripture, and that only, and endeavour to believe it in the true sense, and require no more of others; and they shall find this not only a better, but the only means to suppress heresy, & restore unity. for he that believes the scripture sincerely, and endeavours to believe it in the true sense, cannot possibly be an heretic. and if no more then this were required of any man, to make him capable of the churches communion; then all men so qualified, though they were different in opinion, yet notwithstanding any such difference, must be of necessity one in communion. reply. the sum of his answer, is this: let a man believe the scripture, and for the interpretation of it, be guided by himself alone, and then there can be no heresy, but all must be of one communion. a paradox sufficiently confuted, only by being recited. such a church of socinians, will indeed abound with unity, or rather singularity, of every man a part by himself: but it can never hope to enjoy union, or communion of one with another. thus, i hope, the reader clearly perceaues, that, as i said in the beginning, protestants are forsaken in this mans answers, and grounds laid to introduce a new vnchristian sect. but yet notwithstanding his contrary intentions, men who haue a feeling care of their own souls, will see, both the force of his motives, and that the infallibility of gods church, & the necessity of a living guide in the way to heaven, manifestly appears, by his very answers and example, which demonstrate, that whosoever relies not on such a rock, must be inconstant in all his ways. finis. the agreement in doctrine among the dissenting ministers in london. subscribed decemb. 16. 1692. london, printed for thomas cockerill at the three legs over against stock-market; and john dunton at the raven in the poultry. 1693. heads of agreement between mr. chauncy, etc. and mr. williams, etc. whereas some differences have of late arisen, occasioned by a book written by mr. william's entitled gospel * wherein doctor crisps works reprinted are considered. truths stated, and vindicated, and by certain books written by mr. chauncy, in opposition thereto; and by an approbation of divers of us prefixed to mr. william's his book, and by a paper subscribed by mr. griffith, mr. cole, mr. mather, mr. trayle. and mr. ri. taylor, in conjunction with mr. chauncy, expressing their dissatisfaction therein. 1. it is hereby respectively declared, that neither they, who subscribed that approbation prefixed to mr. william's his book, did therein more than signify (as their own words express) that they judged he had in all that was material, fully, and rightly stated the truths and errors therein mentioned as such, without delivering their sense about the preface, explications, or proofs thereto belonging, which declaration is not to be esteemed as a disapproval of the said preface, explications, or proofs: nor they, who with mr. chauncy, subscribed the abovesaid paper, did therein offer any particular exceptions against the said state of truths, and errors, which ●et is not to be understood as an approval of that state of truth, and errors. 2. that in order to the more effectual composing of matters in controversy, we all of us, having referred ourselves to the holy scriptures, and the doctrinal articles of the church of england, the westminster, and savoy confessions, the larger, and shorter catechisms, do subscribe these following propositions, as what do most fully provide against the arminian, antinomian, socinian, and popish errors; and shall always be content, that any sermons or books of ours be interpreted by the said articles, and confessions; desiring all others, if they meet with any expressions from any of us, that are to them of doubtful signification, they would judge of them, and interpret them by the holy scriptures, and said articles and confessions. 1. of the fall of man, of sin, and of the punishment thereof. 1. our first parents being seduced by the subtlety and temptation of satan, sinned in eating the forbidden fruit. (a) gen. 3.13. 2 cor. 11.3. this their sin god was pleased according to his wise and holy counsel to permit, having purposed to order it to his own glory. (b) rom. 11.32. 2. by this sin they fell from their original righteousness, and communion with god, (c) gen. 3.6, 7, 8. eccles. 7.29. and so became dead in sin, (d) gen. 2.17. ephes. 2.1. and wholly defiled in all the faculties and parts of the soul and body. (e) tit. 1.15. gen. 6.5. jer. 17.9. rom. 3.10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18. 3. they being the root of all mankind the gild of this sin was imputed, (f) gen. 1.27, 28. gen. 2.16, 17. acts 17.26. rom. 5.12, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 1 cor. 15.21, 22, 45, 49. and the same death in sin and corrupted nature conveyed to all their posterity descending from them by ordinary generation. (g) psal. 51.5. gen. 5.3. job 14.4. job 15.14. 4. every sin, both original, and actual, being a transgression of the righteous law of god, and contrary thereunto (h) 1 joh. 3, 4. doth in its own nature bring gild upon the sinner, (i) rom. 2.15. rom. 3.9.19. whereby he is bound over to the wrath of god, (k) eph. 2.3. and curse of the law, (l) gal. 3.10. and so made subject to death, (m) rom. 6.23. with all miseries, spiritual, (n) eph. 4.18. temporal, (o) rom. 8.20. lam. 3.39. and eternal. (p) matth. 25.41. 2 thes. 1.9. assemb. confession, chap. 6. sect. 1, 2, 3, 6. ii. of god's covenant with man. 1. the first covenant made with man, was a covenant of works, (a) gal. 3.12. wherein life was promised to adam, and in him to his posterity, (b) rom. 10.5. rom. 5. from 12. to 20. upon condition of perfect, and personal obedience. (c) geo. 2.17. gal. 3.10. 2. man by his fall, having made himself incapable of life by that covenant, the lord was pleased to make a second, (d) gal. 3.21. rom. 8.3. rom. 3.20, 21. gen. 3.15. isa. 42.6. commonly called the covenant of grace, wherein he freely offereth unto sinners, life and salvation by jesus christ, requiring of them faith in him, that they may be saved, (e) mark 16.15, 16. john 3.16. rom. 10.69 gal. 3.11. and promising to give unto all those that are ordained unto life his holy spirit, making them willing and able to believe. (f) ezek. 36.26, 27 joh. 6 44, 45. chap. 7. sect. 2, 3. 3. this covenant of grace was made with christ, as the second adam, and in him with all the elect as his seed. (g) gal. 3.16. rom. 5.15. isa. 53.10, 11. larger catechism. 4. the grace of god is manifested in the second covenant, in that he freely provideth and offereth to sinners a mediator, (h) gen. 3.15. isa. 42.6. john 6.27. and life and salvation by him (i) 1 john 5.11, 12. and requiring faith as the condition to interest them in him, (k) joh. 3, 16. joh. 1.12. promiseth and giveth his holy spirit (l) prov. 1.23. to all his elect, to work in them that faith, with all other saving graces, (m) gal. 5.22, 23. and to enable them unto all holy obedience, (n) ezek. 36.37. as the evidence of the truth of their faith (o) jam. 2.18, 22. and thankfulness to god, (p) 1 cor. 5.14, 15. and as the way which he hath appointed them to salvation, (q) eph. 2.10. larger catechism. iii. of christ the mediator. 1. it pleased god in his eternal purpose to choose and ordain the lord jesus, his only begotten son, to be the mediator between god and man, (a) isa 42.2. 1 pet. 1.19, 20. john 3.16. 1 tim. 2 5. the prophet, (b) act. 3.22 priest, (c) heb. 5 5 6. and king, (d) psal. 2 6. luke 1.33. the head and saviour of the church, (e) eph. 5.23. the heir of all things, (f) heb. 1.2. and judge of the world, (g) acts 17.31. unto whom he did from all eternity give a people to be his seed (h) joh. 17.6. psal. 22.30. isa. 53.10. and to be by him in time redeemed, called, justified, sanctified and glorified. (i) 1 tim. 2 6. isa. 55.4, 5. 1 cor. 1.30. 2. the lord jesus by his perfect obedience and sacrifice of himself, which he through the eternal spirit once offered up unto god, hath fully satisfied the justice of his father, (k) rom. 5.19. heb. 9.14, 16. heb. 10.14. ephes. 5.2. rom. 3.25, 26. and purchased not only reconciliation, but an everlasting inheritance in the kingdom of heaven, for all those whom the father hath given unto him. (l) dan. 9.24, 26. col. 1.19, 20, ephes. 1.11, 14. john 17.2. heb. 9.12, 15. 3. to all those for whom christ hath purchased redemption, he doth certainly and effectually apply and communicate the same, (p) joh. 6.37, 39 john 10.15, 16. making intercession for them, (q) 1 john 2.1, 2. rom. 8.84. and revealing unto them in, and by the word, the mysteries of salvation, (r) john 15.13, 15. eph. 1. ● 8. ●. john 17.6. effectually persuading them by his spirit, to believe and obey, and governing their hearts by his word and spirit, (s) john 14.6. heb. 12.2. 2 cor. 4.13. rom. 8.9, 14. rom. 15.18, 19 john 17.17. overcoming all their enemies by his almighty power and wisdom, in such manner and ways as are most consonant to his wonderful and unsearchable dispensations. (t) psa. 110.1. 1 cor. 15.25, 26. mal. 4.2, 3. col. 2.15. chap. 8. sect. 1, 5, 8. iv of effectual calling. 1. the spirit applieth to us the redemption purchased by christ, by working faith in us, and thereby uniting us to christ in our effectual calling. shorter catechism. 2. all those whom god hath predestinated unto life, and those only he is pleased in his appointed and accepted time, effectually to call (a) rom. 8 30 rom. 11.7. eph. 1.10, 11. by his word and spirit (b) 2 thes. 2.13, 14. 2 cor. 3.3.6. out of the state of sin and death, in which they are by nature, to grace and salvation by jesus christ; (c) rom. 8.2. ephes. 2.1, 2, 3, 4, 5. 2 tim. 1.9, 10. enlightening their minds, spiritually and savingly to understand the things of god, (d) act 26.18. 1 cor. 2.10, 12. eph. 1.17, 18. taking away their heart of stone, and giving unto them an heart of flesh, (e) ezek. 36.26. renewing their wills, and by his almighty power determining them to that which is good, (f) ezek. 11.19. phil. 2.13. deut. 30.6. ezek. 36.27. and effectually drawing them to jesus christ; (g) ephes. 1.19. john 6 44, 45. yet so as they come most freely, being made willing by this grace. (h) cant. 1.4. psal. 110.3. john 6.37. rom. 6.16, 17, 18. 3. this effectual call is of god's free and special grace alone, not from any thing at all foreseen in man, (i) 2 tim. 1.9. tit. 3.4, 5. eph. 2.4, 5, 8, 9 rom. 9.11. who is altogether passive therein, until being quickened and renewed by the holy spirit, (k) 1 cor. 2.14. rom. 8.7. ephes. 2.5. he is thereby enabled to answer this call, and embrace the grace offered and conveyed in it. (l) joh. 6.37. ezek. 36.27, john 5.25. chap. 10. sect. 1, 2. v of justification, faith, and repentance. 1. those whom god effectually calleth, he also freely justifieth, (a) rom. 8.30. rom. 3.24. not by infusing righteousness into them, but by pardoning their sins, and by accounting and accepting their persons as righteous; not for any thing wrought in them, but for christ's sake alone; nor by imputing faith itself the act of believing, or any other evangelical obedience to them, as their righteousness; but by imputing the obedience and satisfaction of christ unto them, (b) rom. 4.5, 6, 7, 8. 2. cor. 5.19, 21. rom. 3.22, 24, 25, 27, 28. tit. 3.5, 7. ephes. 1.7. jer. 23.6. 1 cor. 1.30, 31. rom. 5.17, 18, 19 they receiving and resting on him, and his righteousness by faith, which faith they have not of themselves, it is the gift of god. (c) act. 10.44. gal. 2.16. phil. 3.9. act. 13.38, 39 eph. 2.7, 8. chap. 11. sect. 1. 2. by this faith a christian believeth to be true, whatsoever is revealed in the word, for the authority of god himself, speaking therein, e joh. 4.42. 1 thes. 2.13. 1 john 5.10. acts 24 14. and acteth differently upon that which each particular passage containeth, yielding obedience to the commands, f rom. 16.26. trembling at the threaten, g isa. 66.2. embracing the promises of god for this life and that which is to come. h heb. 11.13 1 tim. 4.8. but the principal acts of saving faith are, accepting, receiving, and resting upon christ alone for justification, sanctification, and eternal life by virtue of the covenant of grace. i joh. 1.12. acts 16.32. gal. 2.20. acts 15.11. chap. 14. sect. 2. 3. faith thus receiving and resting on christ and his righteousness, is the alone instrument of justification, k john 1.12. rom. 3.3. to 28. rom. 5.1. yet it is not alone in the person justified, but is ever accompanied with all other saving graces, and is no dead faith, but worketh by love. * jam. 2.17, 22, 26. gal. 5.6. chap. 11. sect. 2. 4. god did from all eternity decree to justify all the elect, l gal. 3.8. 1 pet. 1.2, 19, 20. rom. 8.30. and christ did in the fullness of time die for their sins, and rise again for their justification; m gal. 4.4. 1 gal. 2.6. rom. 4.25. nevertheless they are not justified until the holy spirit doth in due time actually apply christ unto them. n col. 1.21, 22. gal. 2.16. acts 13.38, 39 tit. 3.4, 5, 6, 7. chap. 11. sect. 4. 5. that we may escape the wrath and curse of god due to us by reason of the transgression of the law, he requireth of us repentance towards god, faith towards our lord jesus christ, c acts 20.21. matth. 3.7, 8. act. 16.30, 31 joh. 3.16, 18. and the diligent use of the outward means, whereby christ communicateth to us the benefits of his mediation. d prov. 2.1, 5. cap. 8.33, 35. isa. 55.3. larger catechism. 6. repentance unto life is an evangelical grace, a ezek. 12.10. acts 11.18. the doctrine whereof is to be preached by every minister of the gospel, as well as that of faith in christ. b luk. 24.47. mark 1.15. acts 20.21. chap. 15. sect. 1. altho' repentance be not to be rested in as any satisfaction for sin, nor any cause of the pardon thereof, c ezek. 36.31, 32. ezek. 16.61, 62, 63. which is the act of god's free grace in christ; d hos. 14.2, 4. ephes. 1.7. yet it is of such necessity to all sinners, that none can expect pardon without it. e luk. 13.3, 5. act. 17.30, 31 chap 15. sect. 3, 4. as there is no sin so small but it deserves damnation; f rom. 6.23. rom. 5.12. matth. 12.36. so there is no sin so great that it can bring damnation upon those who truly repent. g isa. 55.7. rom. 8.1. isa. 1.16, 18. 7. god doth continue to forgive the sins of those that are justified; o matth. 6.12. 1 joh. 1.7, 9 1 john 2.1, 2. and although they can never fall from the state of justification; p luke 22.32. 1 joh. 10.28. heb. 10.14. yet they may by their sins fall under god's fatherly displeasure, and not have the light of his countenance restored unto them till they humble themselves, confess their sins, beg pardon and renew their faith and repentance q psal. 89.31, 32, 33. psal. 51.7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 psal. 32.5. matth. 26.75. 1 cor. 11.30, 32. luk. 1.20. . chap. 11. sect. 5. vi of good works. 1. man by his fall into a state of sin hath wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation, d rom. 5.6. rom. 8.7. john 15.5. so as a natural man being altogether averse from that good, e rom. 3 10, 12. and dead in sin, f eph. 2.1, 5. col. 2.13. is not able by his own strength to convert himself, or prepare himself thereto g john 6.44, 65. eph. 2.2, 3, 4, 5. 1 cor. 2 14. tit. 3.3, 4, 5. ch. 9 sect. 3. 2. works done by unregenerate men, altho' for the matter of them they may be things which god commands, and of good use both to themselves and others; y 2 king. 10.30, 31. 1 king. 21.27, 29. phil. 1.15, 16, 18. yet because they proceed not from a heart purified by faith, z gen. 4, 5. heb. 11.4, 6. nor are done in a right manner according to the word, a cor. 13.3. isa. 1.12. nor to a right end, the glory of god, b mat. 6.2, 5, 16. they are therefore sinful, and cannot please god, or make a man meet to receive grace from god; c hag. 2.14. tit. 1.15. amos 5.21, 22. hos. 1.4. rom. 9.16. tit. 3.5. yet their neglect of them is more sinful and displeasing unto god. d psal. 14.4. psal. 36.3. job 21.14, 15. matth. 25.41, 42, 43, 44, 45. matth. 23.23. ch. 16. sect. 7. 3. good works are only such as god hath commanded in his holy word, a mich. 6.8. rom. 12.2. heb. 13.21. and not such as without the warrant thereof are devised by men out of blind zeal, or upon any pretence of good intention. b matth. 15.9 isa. 29.13. 1 pet. 1.18. rom. 10.2. john 16.2. 1 sam. 15.21, 22, 23. ch. 16. sect. 1. 4. these good works done in obedience to god's commandments, are the fruits and evidences of a true and lively faith. c jam. 2.18, 22. and by them believers manifest their thankfulness, d psa 116.12, 13. 1 pet. 2 9 strengthen their assurance, e 1 joh. 2.3, 5. 1 pet. 1.5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10. edify their brethren, f 2 cor. 9.2. matth. 5.16. adorn the profession of the gospel, g tit. 2 5, 9, 10, 11, 12. 1 tim. 6.1. stop the mouths of adversaries, h 1 pet. 2.15. and glorify god, i 1 pet. 2.12. phil. 1.11. john 15.8. whose workmanship they are, created in christ jesus thereunto; k eph. 2.10. that having their fruit unto holiness, they may have the end everlasting life. l rom. 6.22. ch. 16. sect. 2. 5. the persons of believers being accepted through christ, their good works also are accepted in him; u eph. 1.16. 1 pet. 2.5. exod. 28.38. gen. 4.4. heb. 11.4. not as though they were in this life wholly unblameable and unreprovable in god's sight; w job 9.20. psal. 143.2. but that he looking, upon them in his son, is pleased to accept, and reward that which is sincere, tho' accompanied with many weaknesses and imperfections. x heb. 13.20, 21. 2 cor. 8.12. heb. 6.10. matth. 25 21, 23. ch. 16. sect. 6. vii. of the perseverance of saints. 1. they whom god hath accepted in the beloved, effectually called, and sanctified by his holy spirit, can neither totally, nor finally fall away from the state of grace; but shall certainly persevere to the end, and be eternally saved. a phil. 1.6. 2 pet. 1.10. joh. 10.28.29 1 john 3.9. 1 pet. 1.5, 9 2. this perseverance of the saints, depends not on their own free will, but upon the immutability of the decree of election, flowing from the free and unchangeable love of god the father; b 2 tim. 218, 19 jer. 31.3. upon the efficacy of the merit and intercession of jesus christ, c heb. 10 10, 14. heb. 13.20, 21. heb. 9.12, 13, 14, 15. rom. 8.33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39 john 17.11, 24. luke 22.32. heb. 7.25. the abiding of the spirit, and of the seed of god within them; d joh. 14 16, 17. 1 joh. 2.27. 1 john 3.9. and the nature of the covenant of grace; e jer. 32.40. from all which ariseth also the certainty and infallibility thereof. f joh. 10 28. 2 thes. 3.3. 1 john 2.19. 3 nevertheless, they may, through the temptations of satan and the world, the prevalency of corruption remaining in them, and the neglect of the means of their preservation, fall into grievous sins; g mat. 26.70.72, 74. and for a time continue therein; h psa. 51. title, and v. 14. whereby they incur god's displeasure, i isa. 64.5, 7, 9, 2 sam. 11.27. and grieve the holy spirit; k eph. 4.30. come to be deprived of some measure of their graces and comforts, l psal. 51.8, 10, 12. rev. 2.4. cant. 5.2, 3, 4, 5. have their hearts hardened, m isa. 63.17. mark 6.52. mark 16.14. and their consciences wounded, n psal. 37.3, 4. psal. 51.8. hurt and scandalise others, o 2 sam. 12.14. psa. 89.31, 32. 1 cor. 11.32. and bring temporal judgements on themselves. p chap. 17. sect. 1, 2, 3. viii. of the moral law. 1. the moral law doth for ever bind all, as well justified person as others, to the obedience thereof; h rom. 13.8, 9, 10. eph. 6.2. 1 john 2.3, 4, 7, 8. and that not only in regard of the matter contained in it; but also in respect of the authority of god the creator who gave it, i jam. 2.10, 11. neither doth christ in the gospel any way dissolve, but much strengthen this obligation. k mat. 5.17, 18, 19 jam. 2.8. rom. 3.31. 2. tho' believers be not under the law as a covenant of works, to be thereby justified or condemned; l rom. 6.14. gal. 2.16. gal. 3.13. gal. 4.4, 5. act. 13.39. rom. 8.1. yet it is of great use to them, as well as to others, in that, as a rule of life informing them of the will of god, and their duty, it directs, and binds them to walk accordingly; m rom. 7.12, 22, 25. psal. 119.4, 5, 6. 1 cor. 7.19. gal. 5.14, 16, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23. discovering also the sinful pollutions of their nature, hearts and lives; n rom. 7.7. rom. 3.20. so as examining themselves thereby, they may come to further conviction of, humiliation for, and hatred against sin; o jam. 1.23, 24, 25. rom. 7.9, 14, 24. together with a clearer sight of the need they have of christ, and the perfection of his obedience. p gal. 3.24. rom. 7.24, 25 rom. 8.3, 4. it is likewise of use to the regenerate, to restrain their corruptions, in that it forbids sin, q jam. 2.11. psa. 119.101, 104, 128. and the threaten of it serve to show what even their sins deserve, and what afflictions in this life they may expect for them, although freed from the curse thereof threatened in the law. r ezra 9.13, 14. psal 89.30, 31, 32, 33, 34. the promises of it in like manner show them god's approbation of obedience, and what blessings they may expect upon the performance thereof, s leu. 26. to v. 14. 2 cor. 6.16. ephes. 6.2, 3. psal. 37.11. matth. 5.5. psal. 19.11. although not as due to them by the law as a covenant of works; t gal. 2.16. luke 17.10. so as a man's doing good, and refraining from evil, because the law encourageth to the one, and deterreth from the other, is no evidence of his being under the law, and not under grace. u rom. 6.12, 14. 1 pet. 3.8, 9, 10, 11, 12 psal. 34.12, 13, 14, 15, 16. heb. 12.28, 29. chap. 19 sect. 5, 6. ix. of christian liberty. they who upon pretence of christian liberty do practise any sin, or cherish any lust, do thereby destroy the end of christian liberty; which is, that being delivered out of the hands of our enemies, we might serve the lord without fear in holiness and righteousness before him all the days of our life. o gal. 5.13. 1 pet. 2.16. 2 pet. 2.19. joh. 8.34. luk. 1.74, 75. chap. 20. sect. 3. tho' we have selected these propositions, as conceiving them most accommodated to some points at this time controverted: yet we profess to have an equal respect to all other the main parts of doctrine, contained in the foremen-articles, confession, and catechisms; as judging them tioned, agreeable to the word of god. 3. that we shall always, through god's gracious assistance in our future ministry, to our uttermost, avoid all appearances of opposition to one another, so as not to hinder, or prejudice; but as far as in us lies, to promote the success thereof, and the common benefit thereby. decemb. 16. 1692. this day the brethren who endeavoured to accommodate this controversy, did with mr. williams, mr. chauncy, and those other five brethren, who with him objected against mr. william's his book, subscribe to this agreement, and these doctrinal propositions. daniel williams. isaac chauncy. samuel annesley john how george griffith matthew barker vincent alsop thomas cole edward veal george hamond nath. mather's john james richard mayo robert trayle stephen lob. samuel slater richard taylor. the concurrence of the united ministers. on decemb. 19 1692. this expedient was brought to a meeting of the united ministers, who unanimously expressed their approbation in the following words; viz. that those brethren, who at the desire of the united ministers considered some objections against mr. william's his book, having brought in the expedient for accommodation of the matters in controversy: the united ministers have weighed it, and approve of the same. besides, it was further declared by them, that whereas the united ministers collectively considered, and as such, have not been desired to approve of mr. william's his book: in like manner, they do not by any thing in this agreement imply an approbation of mr. chauncy his writings in this controversy: but yet they do rejoice that both mr. williams and mr. chauncy have accepted this offered expedient. finis. books lately printed for thomas cockerill. historical collections, the third part, in two volumes, never before printed; containing the principal matters which happened from the meeting of the parliament novemb. 3. 1640. to the end of the year 1644. wherein is a particular account of the rise and progress of the civil war to that period, impartially related, setting forth only matter of fact in order of time, without observation or reflection, with alphabetical tables: by john rushworth esq; late of lincolns-inn; fitted for the press in his life-time. london, printed for richard chiswell, and thomas chockerill, at the rose and crown in st. paul's churchyard; and at the three legs over against the stock-market in the poultry. folio. heads of agreement assented to by the united ministers. the sense of the united nonconforming ministers against some of mr. davies erroneous opinions. 1. a discourse of christian religion in sundry points; viz. christ the hope of glory. the knowledge of god in christ. christ the only saviour, the great redeemer, the only mediator, the foundation of our adoption: and, the necessity of preaching christ. preached at the merchant's lecture, in broadstreet; by thomas cole minister of the gospel in london. octavo. 2. love to christ, necessary for all to escape the curse at his coming: by thomas doolittle. octavo. 3. a short introduction into english orthography: or the method of true spelling; published for the common good, and especially for the use of a private grammar, and writing-school, in whitecross-street; by rich. mather schoolmaster. price bound six pence. twelve. 4. a week of soliloquies and prayers, with a preparation to the holy communion, and other devotions added to this edition, in two parts: by peter dumoulin, d.d. twelves. 5. instructions about heart work, what is to be done on god's part and ours for the cure and keeping of the heart, that we may live in the exercise and growth of grace, and have a comfortable assurance of glory to eternity; by that eminent gospel minister, mr. richard alleine, author of vindiciae pietath. with a preface by dr. annesley. to which is added the companion for prayer; by the same author. the second edition. octavo. 6. the exposition of the assemblies catechism, with practical inferences from each question. by john flavell preacher of the gospel in dartmouth. 8ᵒ. 7. geography anatomised; or a complete geographical grammar, being a short and exact analysis of the whole body of modern geography, after a new, plain, and easy method, whereby any person may in a short time attain to the knowledge of that most noble and useful science; comprehending a most compendious account of the continents, islands, penintula's; isthmus, promontories, mountains, oceans, seas, gulfs, straits, lakes, rivers, and chief towns of the whole earth: as also the divisions, subdivisions, situation, extent, air, soil, commodities, manners, government, religion in all countries in the world; to which is subjoined the presented state of the european plantations in the east and west indies, with a reasonable proposal for the propagation of the blessed gospel in all pagan countries, etc. illustrated with divers maps; by pat. gauden, m.a. octavo. these ten last, printed for tho. cockerill, at the three legs in the poultry, over against stock-market, london. books lotely printed for john dunton. heads of agreement assented to by the united ministers. the sense of the united nonconforming ministers against some of mr. davies erroneous opinions. casuistical morning exercises; the 4th volume. the life of the reverend mr. thomas brand; by dr. annesley. the vanity of childhood and youth; by daniel williams. the late trials of several witches; published by cotton mather. the fourth edition of the bloody assizes, with large additions. the countries' concurrence with the london ministers; by s. chandler. the mourners companion; by j. shewer. a practical discourse on sickness and recovery. early religion; or a discourse of the duty of youth. fall not out by the way; or a persuasion to a friendly correspondence between brethren of the same faith. all three by t. rogers, m. a. the life and death of the reverend mr. eliot; by cotton mather. mr. barkers flores intellectuales; both parts. mr. increase mather's sermon to a condemned malefactor. mr. quicks young man's claim to the sacrament. a practical discourse on the late earthquakes. mr. crows vanity of judicial astrology. mr. oakes funeral sermon. mr. kent's funeral sermon; both by mr. slater. mr. barlows penitentiary sermon. the celestial race; by mr. bush. mr. bush's sermon on a person that died suddenly. the first volume of the complete library, with two alphabetical tables. the entire sett of the athenian gazettes for the year 1691. or single mercuries to this time. books now in the press, and going to it, printed for john dunton. 1. an earnest call to family catechising and reformation; by a reverend divine several ministers and private christians perusing this piece, earnestly moved for its publication, which the reverend author at length consenting to, the following proposal, is now made for the more general dispersing of it; viz. that whatever gentlemen will be so public spirited, as to give fifty of 'em away, they shall have that number delivered to 'em for twenty shillings stitched up in blue paper, and ready cut; but as for others who buy lesser numbers, they must not expect 'em under six pence per book. 2. the day of jubilee; or a plain and practical discourse of the saints gathering together, and of their meeting the lord of glory at his second coming, on 1 thes. 4.17. by john brandon, rector of finchamsted in berks. 3. william leibourn author of the late cursus mathematicus, and of divers other mathematical tractates, hath now by him a missellaneous manuscript ready for the press, published for ingenious spirits, to make further scrutiny into many sublime sciences, etc. this book, when printed of a good letter, will contain above one hundred sheets, with near two hundred cutts. and to the end this curious and useful work may be published in the author's life-time, he designs speedily to print proposals about it, which will be had of the untakers; dorman nowman, richard baldwin, and john dunton. half a sheet of mr humfrey's, in pursuance of pacification. there is a book of mr williams', called, gospel truth stated, from whence occasion hath been taken for division. it is a good book, a useful book, especially for young ministers, and such of the people, who being a little learned, or bookish, turn disputative, to save them from error. i do therefore thank him for it, and especially for what he hath said on phil. 3. and that he hath abided by it. it is what i said in my sheet of justification in the first edition, so many years ago, and sir charles wolesley after me. i have read his book over and over, and considering the multitude of matters, with common allowance to human frailty, i can find few faults in comparison, and should have found none had i not already, unless this be one. that he hath got so many hands to it; or, which is worse, that when his book was sufficient for its own defence, he should, upon the writing of one against it, go to vindicate it. if he had not wrote again, he had then overcome; but is overcome now if he don't. in this book there are two expressions which the brethren would have him retract: one is, there is not a change of person between christ and the elect. the other is, the father was never displeased with christ. i will humbly motion here a drawn battle, or mutual condescension; that is, for mr williams to withdraw one of these passages they except against; and, for the brethren to withdraw the other exception. as for the first passage, whatsoever is to be understood by commutation of persons, the brethren understand thus much, that christ put on the person of sinners, for these are their words. now mr williams, i suppose, denies this, and they would have him retract his denial. by person therefore we are to consider, that two things may be signified, the person of the sinner himself, suppositum rationale; or the quality or condition of a sinner, as, when a man acts a drunkard on the stage, he personates drunkenness, if a king, he personates majesty. christ, god-man, stood in the room of us sinners, in what he did and suffered for us, quatenus he and we are supposita rationalia, and in this first sense of the word mr williams allows a commutation of persons, so as when the suffering was christ's, the benefit was ours, which is that grotius intends only against the socinians. but mr williams denies that christ took upon him the quality or condition of sinners; that is, in the second sense of the word, he denies what they affirm, to wit, that he put on the person of sinners. christ did not represent or act the part of sinners, nor was looked on by god as a sinner, when our surety: a commutatio hominum there was, no commutatio actionum. he represented us that are sinners, he represented not the sinner. a sinner is one that breaks the law of god, and christ did not so, he acted no such part, and god never accounted that he did; and there is therefore no change of * the distinction of these terms is not made ordinarily by divines. (which excuses the brethren's citation of one for the other) but i use it as peculiar for explaining mr williams' sense: if any shall still choose to confound them, and express our sense otherwise, it is all one to me, and may be to him. person, though a change of persons, according to mr. williams. when in this sense therefore of the word person he is in the right, let us consider further as to the other sense of it, (as it signifies our human nature, not our sinful nature, or sinful qualities) that tho' christ did sustain our persons (giving the brethren liberty of such words) as to what he did and suffered in our stead, yet is there nothing wherein we reciprocally sustain his person, as he did ours; nothing that we are to be said or accounted to have done what he did; and therefore do i in my late book, pacification, say, that here is only a change of person, but not of persons. a strange thing really, that when the same sense is intended by me and mr williams, the same distinction used, and both say true, yet the terms of that distinction are contrarily applied by us. i must desire mr williams therefore to consider, whether his use of the word person be not † as they speak of christ's judicially sustaining our person, for in this second sense of the word person, (or mr williams' sense) christ acted no person but the person of a mediator. foreign to our divines, and it were not better to put what he means in such terms as are easier of reception, and that may be only by distinguishing of christ's taking on him our persons, or bearing our sins, in regard to the fault, or the punishment; and to say, he sustained not our persons, or took on him our sins quoad reatum culpae (in these known words) so as to be accounted of god a sinner; but quoad reatum poenae propter culpam nostram, so only as voluntarily obliged to our punishment. here is the same thing in sense, and if so good an end as reunion might be obtained by it, he may (understanding with me) retract the words in his book [there is not a change of person] and grant a change of person, so long as he maintains still with me no change of persons, for his business is done thereby as well as by his sticking to a word. the lord jesus, in what he did and suffered for us, sustained our persons, (i give way to such phrases for peace) insomuch as we still say, that what he did and suffered for us was accounted by god as done and suffered in our room, that we might have the benefit of it; but not accounted by him as if we had done and suffered in christ's person what he did and suffered for us; and so, in that respect, is there a change of person, but not of persons; whereby i mean plainly, not such a change as to make christ's righteousness legally or in law-sence ours (or to be imputed in se, for that, let mr williams know, is all one), which whoever affirms (without shifts), let him be as great in our esteem as he will, i say, he speaks it in ignorance hitherto of what this draws after it, to wit, that (besides the consequences i show, pacif. p. 36.) he makes us to be justified by christ's righteousness, per modum causae formalis, which is an unadvised, absurd, and dangerous position, as that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of our former great divines, which gave the rise to antinomianism. be it known therefore to the deservedly-beloved dr. bates, and the deservedly envied mr. williams, (for there must be something overtopping others in the man, which is envied), and the worthy brethren th● drew, or signed this paper, that here is the point which (i believe) they have not bend the minds to search into, so far as to be willing to speak out, and tell me if i ask, when fait● which is our evangelical personal righteousness, does concur some way with the righteousness of christ to our justification, and christ's righteousness (we know) does concu●● sub genere causae efficientis procatar●ticae (and materialis also with mr baxter) per modum m●●riti, and no otherwise: what is then, let any one of them tell me, that wherein the form●● cause or reason of justification is to be placed, or can justification be, or constare, without ‖ justificationis formam justitia constare certum est: a middle w●● therefore here▪ between pr●testant and papist, desi●e●●tur. an●… for this advice now, which, according to my natural genius, i should have given mr williams, (see 1 pet. three 15.) i apprehended not prejudicial to gospel truth, if his sen●● is upheld, that is the truth of his book, while the quarrel about a word be composed it is plain, that mr. williams, and i, and they, hold the same thing; for he is no socinia●● but holds, christ died for us in the sense of in our stead; that he was our 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, importing a surrogation of christ's person in our room, when he became a sacrifice for us, which is as much (i say again) as grotius, to whom they appeal, did intent. it is nothing therefore, in my esteem, for mr. williams to withdraw an expression in that sense which offends, seeing in the antinomian sense, wherein he denies a change of person, the brethren agree 〈◊〉 the negative with him; and in the orthodox sense, which they own, mr. williams agrees 〈◊〉 the affirmative with them. it is not base here, but generous, and to be victor to give way● it being enough that they both have declared themselves. besides, if the brethren be 〈◊〉 earnest to search into the matter, and would order their words so as we might come to co●cord both in words and sense, i have chalked out here, from my late book, this accommodation: i will allow them a change of person in the orthodox sense of the word, so as 〈◊〉 grant christ did sustain our person in what he did and suffered; and they shall allow to m●● that there is not a change of persons, so, as god did look on us to have done in christ's pers●● what he did, tho' he did it in our behalf; and they shall henceforth frame their words accordingly. and that our brethren may bend to some reconciliation in this proposal, i 〈◊〉 find, since i wrote my pacification, the same conception in dr owen. we do not say, th●● god judgeth or esteemeth that we did and suffered in our persons what christ did and suffered; b●● only that he did it and suffered it in our stead. of justif. p. 295. as for the latter passage, that the father was never displeased with christ; thus much mu●● be premised and understood from what is said on the former; that in the sense he sustain●● our persons he was made sin for us, as the apostle speaks, tho' he knew no sin, that is to be understood effectiuè. he was not made sin or a sinner formaliter, but i say effectiuè, in regard to the effect of sin, that is the bearing our punishment, as before. our saviour therefore may be considered as bearing our persons (according to these brethren) and so our sin●● or in his own person. god could not be displeased with him in the one, no, nor in the oth●● consideration, because it was of his own appointment. god, in the punishment on his son (not of his son) was displeased with the sin and sinners whose person he bore, but he was never displeased with the person of his son, and much less now, when he was fulfilling th● command of his father, in giving himself for us an offering and sacrifice of a sweet-smelling savour unto him. he must have a witty invention, i think, that can find any thing to ma●● himself differ from mr. williams in this point. and what, when they and he agree in senc●● would our brethren have mr. williams retract these words? nay, it is they must withdraw here, or they may bid him next go contradict the voice of god from heaven, this is my beloved son, in whom i am well pleased. there is one thing yet i cannot but take notice of, that in their late written paper, unto which i have alluded all this while, as likewise in their printed agreement (1692) our brethren do declare their approbation of the doctrinal articles of the church of england, the assembly's confession of faith, and that at the savoy, as the rule of their preaching, so as to be liable to rebuke if they preach otherwise; which whether they understand disjunctively or conjunctively, (as in the paper, or in that agreement) it being more than any authority called them to, i would have them lay it to heart, and think, whether if this imposition which they have imposed on themselves were imposed on them by the bishops, they would not some of them stick at it? for my part, i declare, that a subscription to the 36 doctrinal articles, without liberty of explication, is the hardest part of conformity; and if there should be a comprehension with this injunction, i should repent i had sought it. but as for ourselves, why any one that can choose, should bind himself up to any rule of his preaching but the bible, i see no reason, and must propose rather to our brethren on both sides, that seeing their union is broken at present, they begin a new one, not in drawing certain theses in such a latitude of words, which all may subscribe, this being no union when the tongue is only one, and the mind cloven, (as i have formerly expressed myself) but in forbearing and bearing with one-another as to all things but what is of necessity to salvation. in necessariis vnitas, in non necessariis libertas. this i shall inculcate while i am john humphrey. ☞ this half-sheet is taken out of half a dozen sheets i have writ since my book of pacification, wherein i have something more to say, in regard to my middle way, than i had. a book will not be bought nor read, when a paper will. at this conjuncture this paper i think more needful; it may set some thoughts to work in the peaceable, and shall have such effect as god gives it. in my pacification i pray the reader that hath it, to mend a fault of the printer, and to insert the word [not] p. 35. l. 20. london, printed for the author, sep. 1st. 1696. a serious vindication of the church of england; showing the nation's happiness under the present government. being a seasonable answer to a late pamphlet, entitled, the naked truth. by a wellwisher to the nations happiness and prosperity. in this sad dissension and division of religion; the seers, (who are appointed to be the watchmen of the church,) can't but observe, that the supplanters and underminers of the church, (as is evidently seen) are daily (by papism, factions, sedition and schisms,) digging down the foundations of our church and state, as it is now lawfully established: and having by such instruments already destroyed, so are they running fiercely on again to destroy all public forms of ecclesiastical government, discountenance an excellent liturgy, take off the very hinges of unity, disgrace the articles of a pure religion, pollute public assemblies, take away all cognizance of schism, by mingling all sects, and giving countenance to that, against which our power ought to stand upon our guard, against such rebellious, self-interested, and bloody-minded people, as we have (more is the pity,) in this our kingdom. they, who have seen this our jerusalem so much involved in our late unhappy uncivil wars, and lived under the tyranny of traitors and usurpers, who imprisoned and murdered their good king of ever blessed memory; and imprisoned, sequestered, plundered, and beheaded our nobility, gentry and people, (for which many suffer to this day;) and our now dread sovereign, and the royal family forced to fly for refuge into strange nations; the ministers of the church turned out, and barbarously used; and a company of perverse and wicked wretches, (who preached nothing but sedition and rebellion against the king and government,) were put into their places, and all this done under the cloak of religion, and being thereunto inspired by a holy zeal, (as they always pretend) and thus, in short, were we enslaved under those holy tyrants, till god of his infinite mercy and providence brought home our most gracious king to his lawful throne again, and restored the true church to its former prosperity, which god preserve from all its malicious opposers, etc. and shall we forget all this? and the order of the morning and evening sacrifices, and the beauty of the temple? and be tempted to neglect so excellent a ministration? and be content with any thing that is brought to us, though it be but the very husks and acorns of prodigals and swine, so they may get money by it? we must now take care that the young men who were born under that captivity, may be taught how to worship the god of israel after the manner of their forefathers; for, never did the excellency of episcopal government appear so demonstratively and conspicuously as now under their conduct and order; for we have a church, so united, so orderly, so governed; a religion so settled; articles so true, sufficient, and confessed by all sober men; canons, so prudent, and so obeyed; devotions, so regular, and so constant; sacraments, so adorned, and ministered; churches, so beauteous and religious; circumstances, so grave and prudent, so useful and apt for edification, that the enemies of our church, (who serve the pope 〈◊〉 all things, and 〈◊〉 christ in some; who dare transgress an institution and ordinance of ●●rist, but dare not break a canon of the pope,) did despair of prevailing against us and truth; and know no hopes, but by setting their faces against us, to destroy the best of governments; which if they could, than they would triumph without having any enemy: so balaam the son of bozer, was sent for to curse the people of the lord, in hopes that the son of zippor might prevail against them that long prospered under the conduct of moses and aaron. but now instead of this excellency of condition, and constitution of religion, the people are seduced, and fallen under the harrows and saws of faction, sedition, railing, despising, drolling, impertinent and ignorant, self-interesting solemn league and covenanting preachers, who think all religion is a sermon, and all sermons ought to be libels against truth and government; who think they are saints, and none like them, when they are great hypocrites, and wolves in sheepsclothing, for by their fruits you may know them; who expound chapters, that the meaning may never be understood; and pray, that they may be thought able to talk, but not to hold their peace; who speak evil of dignities, resist the power and ordinances of god; who take up religion for a cloak, who delude silly women to cheat their husbands; who care not to obtain any thing but wealth and victory, power, and plunder; and all the people do reap the fruits thereof that are apt to grow upon such crab-stocks: they grow idle and false, hypocrites, and careless; they deny themselves nothing that is pleasant; they despise religion, forget government, and some of them never so much as think of going to heaven; and if at any time they chance to do, they think to go thither in such paths, which all the ages of the primitive church did give men warning of, lest they should that way go to the devil. but when men have tried all that they can, it is hoped they will return to the excellency and advantages of the true christian religion as it is taught by the church of england; for, by destroying it, no end can be served, but of sin and folly, faction, and death eternal: for besides that, no church that is an enemy to this, does worship god in that truth of propositions, in that unblamable and pious liturgy, and in preaching the necessities of holy life, so much as the church of england does. besides this, (i say,) it cannot be persecuted by any governor that understands his own interest, unless he be first abused by false preachers, and then prefers his secret opinion, before his public advantage: for no church in the world is so great a friend to loyalty and obedience, as she, and her sisters of the same persuasion; she preaches no rebellion against her prince, and is no councillor, contriver, or projector of plots and conspiracies, but a true lover of peace and quietness, etc. they that hate bishops, destroy monarchy; and they that would erect an ecclesiastical monarchy, must consequently subject the temporal to it; and both one and the other would be supreme in consciences: and they that govern there, with an opinion that in all things they ought to be attended to, will let their prince g●●ern others, so long as he will be r●●e●●y them. and certainly, for a prince to persecute the established protestant religion, is, as if a physician should endeavour to destroy all medicaments, and fathers kill their sons, and the masters of ceremonies destroy all formalities and courtships; and, as if the pope should root out all ecclesiastic state. nothing so combines with government (if it be of god's appointment,) as the religion of the church of england; because nothing doth more adhere to the word of god, and disregard the crafty advantages of the world. if any man shall not decline to try his title by the word of god, it is certain, there is not in the world a better guard for it than the true protestant religion, as it is taught in our church; for it is via tuta, the safe way: and certain it is, that in that day we shall prevail against all god's enemies and ours, not in the purchases and riches of the world, but in the rewards and returns of holiness and patience, faith and charity; for by these we worship god, and against this interest we cannot serve any thing else. and there is none can leave our communion, or have reason to reprove our doctrine, unless they be abused with prejudice, and suck in venom with their milk: and there is a more solid comfort, and material support to a christian spirit in one article of faith, in one period of the lords prayer, in one holy lesson, than in all the disputes of the impertinent rabble, who take more pains to prove there is no purgatory, than to persuade men to avoid hell: and that a plain catechism can more instruct a soul, than the whole days prate which some usually spit forth, to bid them get christ, and persecute his servants. it will not be unnecessary to tell you in part, (as i did at the beginning, how our kingdoms were ruined, as is too well known,) how our divines were persecuted, how our churches were demolished, and made stables by sacrilegious rebels and tyrants; and it's evidently seen at this day, that there are abundance of such saints among us, (and if not timely prevented,) may play the devil's game over again: for have they not began already to rebel in scotland? they killed in a most barbarous manner the archbishop of st. andrews, etc. what impious, devilish and hellish declarations, and covenants lately by them openly proclaimed? how many conventicles are there contrary to law? how are our orthodox divines most scurrilously slandered by them? how bold and audacious are they, daily to publish answers? joque, droll, libel and asperse our able divines? how many go under the notion of protestants, (for in discourse they say they are so,) when really they are none, for you shall have them all the week railing against the present government, frighten the people into fears and jealousies at coffeehouses, booksellers shops, private cabals and factions clubs up and down the town; and on sunday they'll run to a conventicle, and there exhort their ignorant congregation to do the like, etc. much more might be said; but i shall conclude, with my hearty prayers that all our differences may be composed, and that we may be united in one true church, and that god would save and defend us from the hands of all our enemies, and infatuate their wicked designs; that we may study peace, and not wars, strife, confusion and dissension, which lead to the ways 〈◊〉 destruction: that god would bless, preserve, defend and keep his sacred majesty from the hands of all his enemies, and to give him victory over them, and send him a long, happy and prosperous reign over us; and that we may live in god's fear, and in duty and obedience to our king: and god bless the great council of the nation the parliament; and when they shall be assembled, to direct and prosper all their consultations to the advancement of god's glory, the safety, honour and welfare of our dread sovereign, and kingdoms, that peace and happiness, truth and justice, religion and piety, may be established amongst us to all generations; and let all true subjects with me, say, amen. london, printed for a. banks, anno domini, 1680. the country's vindication, from the aspersions of a late scandalous paper (nicknamed) robert tell truths advice in choice of the next parliament. in which his popish designs are fully discovered and detected. by a lover of his king and country. respice & cave. by how mu●h designs are l●id most opposite to truth and righteousness, to much the more are those workers of iniquity active and industrious to promote those indirect interests, per fas a●●●nefas, turn every stone, never wanting the presence of public advantage. in this art of legerdemain, our old, but now most vigorous enemies, the papists, are upon their great trial of skill. in some pamphlets they throw off the plot, as visible as it is; and in a late paper ●hey undertake to advise the people of england in their elec●ions of parliament-men; and have made it their business to create jealousies amongst the protestants, thereby to divide that interest which is all little enough when entire, to resist their devilish and hellbred machinations. this sophister tells us, there has been factions in all ages playing their tricks; and that in nomine domini, i can consent with him to our sad experience, i can turn the truth upon the popish faction, and by that time i have done, lay all the devilish tricks at their own door. in the mean time tell him, turpe est doctori cum culpa redarguit ipsum: thou that teachest another should not steal, dost thou murder, and commit sacrilege? thou hypocrite, take out the beam out of thy own eye first, before thou undertake the mote in thy brothers; and ere you hope to have your advice to pass, let us examine your composition. i find your whole receipt has dangerous ingredients, reflections upon parliaments, upon all godly sober men, and upon honest countrymen. another part in the mixture, are seeds of jealousies and divisions thrown amongst us, your old stratagems! this will not do, mors in olla, we find a snake in the sweet herbs, and death in the pot; i believe you have had this recipe from sir george wakeman, skilful in the venomous art of poisoning. your design, sir, is discovered, therefore you cannot hope to succeed; your caution against the godly, the sober party, nor the honest countryman, will not divide us: i can assure you, sir, they are no papists; and for those unhappy divisions that are and have been amongst us in the church, we shall demonstrate the jesuit inforc'd 'em; and he must needs go that the devil drives; and to draw a suspect one amongst another, he tells us of what tricks, and what vizards were worn in forty-eight by puritans and others; at which time you say they lost their mask; a favour of your own bestowing, and now has reassumed it again, with which you are playing the devil in the shape of an angel of light; but what have you to do to rake up our former miseries, which i hope god has forgiven, and the king has graciously so long since pardoned? by whose wisdom and goodness he sits enthroned in his people's hearts; all your subtleties can not unsettle the favourable apprehensions his majesty has of his protestant subjects loyalty after twenty years' experience; nor any ways bring in question the duty and affections of his people; no, sir, the resentments of former evils are too fresh amongst us for any popish machinations to dissolve this union; take the holy cheat to yourself your piae frauds are the best support of your romish church; and had not your engines played amongst us, our puritan had never separated from the church of england; for i must tell you, all the sober, godly party, and puritans too, were all conformable to the decent and orderly government of the church of england; read and heard divine service, and wore the surplice, and there held steady till the fourth commandment was almost expunged the decalogue; witness the book s●t out by the archbishop of canterbury, for licensing sports, pays, and dance on the lord's day, enforcing all ministers to read it in their churches, which divers otherwise conformable out of conscience refused, for which they were turned out of their ministry, and a company of scandalous debauchees, men of any latitude, put into their places: this was a bird hatched at rome, sent to be nursed in england, knowing well it would bring to pass their infallible design to divide us; and from the same counsels came into our churches those crowds of trumperies, tapers, and crucifixes, cringing and bowings, that the service of god was turned to a popish antic; all in pretence as it was publicly asserted by some grandees then in the church, to bring us to as near an union with the church of rome as possibly the temper of the present time would bear. we do not forget what was enforced upon the peaceable kirk of scotland, where the three footed stools from the old women's tails began the war; all these were likely ways to preserve us from popery, contrary to the designs of our blessed reformers king edward the sixth, and queen elizabeth of blessed memory, who by degrees as those days would endure, drew us still further off from those fopperies; and we might have expected then when the nation was become generally protestant, to have kept a greater distance by a further reformation; and as in the church, so in the state, men of corrupt minds, and pernicious practices, to satisfy their avarice and boundless ambitions, obtruded several illegal impositions, as loan-money and ship-money, against law, (for which divers noblemen and gentlemen endured long imprisonments); customs exacted without act of parliament, with swarms of monoplies, under which the nation groaned; then came in the scotch with a formidable army to our borders, with their petitions. a parliament was called, who inspecting the grievances of the nation, discovered those wicked counsellors, and dangerous influences of the papists, impeaching and calling to account those contrivers and actors of these oppressions; some whereof fled; others for their own protection, (and the jesuits the better to shuffle in their designs in the midst of our confusion,) made the best of kings suspect his safety amongst his people, and drove us into that unnatural war; then the papist not out of affection to his majesty, but having no other subterfuge, and to carry on their designs, ran in with their arms, got into several great places of trust, military and civil; contriving and effecting an act of pacification with the bloody irish rebels, after they had imbrued their hands in the blood and murder of a hundred thousand of his majesty's protestant subjects in ireland; all which begat desperate apprehensions in the minds of most men, that arbitrariness and popery were breaking in upon us; though as we are bound to believe, never designed by that blessed prince and glorious martyr. the papist joining unfortunately in this war, heightened the confusion, and now blood and rapine know no bounds, the king is over thrown in his just cause by the wicked designs of these disturbers of the world, and enemies to mankind, who brought him also to his miserable end; and it can, and is now proved, that the jesuits had in that traitorous and horrid murder a principal hand, quis talia fando sustinet a lachrimis. after this dismal tragedy was over, and we in the height of distraction, and the land in a chaos of confusions, estranged from peace and settlement, god in judgement remembered mercy, and by his miraculous providence, our blessed prince, like the glorious sun, after our dismal nights, and sharp winter of afflictions, appeared in our horizon, to our almost distracting-joys, receiving his people with open arms of clemency, to which his people echoed with all loyal expressions of grateful affections and duty, our government of church and state established, and we now in the apprehensions of peace and safety, every man expecting to sit down under his own vine and figtree, enjoying the fruits of his labours, in which the papist had more than an equal share, through the grace and princely bounty of our king (not suspecting their designs) and they boasting themselves as his most loyal subjects. whilst they were in this unquestionable credit, and all the severe laws against them laid asleep, infinite swarms of jesuits, priests and friars, and all sorts of orders, like the egyptian plague of locusts, came in amongst us, perverting the king's subjects contrary to law, compassing sea and land to gain proselytes, in which they have proved too successful; and amongst those many hundreds seduced (to lay their foundations sure) they have robbed our nation of the most heroic victorious prince, next apparent heir to the crown. this we may remark as an infallible confirmation of their damnable plot, a treason of the deepest dye, never to be forgiven by any protestant, and a quarrel never to be reconciled; they had wounded us in our several members before, but in this they stabbed us to the very heart; and now it began to be fair day, their designs obvious, the ruin of king and kingdom, with all the artifice that hell could secretly and cunningly contrive; and had been as certainly executed, had not the infinite mercy of god taken care of us, unmasked their designs and discovered their horrid plot, by the prudent, faithful, and unquestionable informations of dr. oates, mr. bedlow, dugdale and others, who under god preserved the life of our most gracious king, and with him our lives, liberties, religion, and all that's dear to us; for which faithful important service they deserve the best of rewards here, and their names to be written in characters of gold, chronicled to posterity; and though their serious and most congruous evidences, backed with many most undeniable circumstances, have past an examination by his majesty and council, and by two parliaments successively; and lasty, by all the judges of the nation, in fair, full, and legal trials confirmed, and the conspirators justly convicted, and brought to punishment: yet such is the blinded wilfulness of many, and the malicious impudence of others, that notwithstanding all, and the murder of brave sir edmundbury godfrey to boot, they would fain wash their hands in innocency, and are still playing their game in new disguises, imposing a belief upon the world, that the danger lies in the dissenting protestants; but the devil cannot detect them for one act of disloyalty since his majesty's restauration, whilst you have been plotting all this while, and wrought your designs into treasonable acts of all kinds; and yet by the help of your principles, special merits and absolutions, as innocent as the child unborn. but, sir, these fig-leaves will not cover your nakedness, you cannot catch englishmen in cobwebs; nor can you, and all your popish masqueradoes, dance in your nets, but you must be seen, noscitur ungue leo, the devil is known by his cloven-foot, and your characters are written in the flames of london, and in indelible characters of blood, which cry for judgement to heaven against you: take heed therefore, you that forget god, christianity, and morality, lest he tear you in pieces, and there be none to deliver you: 'tis not the least happiness, that you are known to the world, you cursed jesuits; what was your behaviour when you were banished franc, when you were expelled the venetian territories, and other states, where they found you firebrands that would have destroyed their kingdoms, and commonwealths? who murdered the french kings? no puritan, no godly party, no honest country man. fanatic priests and jesuits are principled for those butcheries. you are too well known by the bloody colours; and the noble cavalier that fought conscientiously for his king, found such ill success with you in the late war, you robbing him of his laurel, and of the due rewards of his blood and sweat, will never hand with you again: all your wheadles will never g●●●●●●n from the church of england, nor make him insensible of the safety of his king, nor less car●●●● of the interest of england by well-elected parliaments; neither shall all your false insinuations prevail to make the world believe, that either our parliaments or people would put down bishops, a trick to put the design off yourselves, that you may better, without suspicion, do the wor●●; no, sir, we honour that government, and by god's grace will stand to it, and revere our grave and learned bishops, whom we look at, under god, the best bulwarks against your tyrannies popish innovations. the next thing he brings out of his box, is a new shiboleth, or a distinction betwixt the honest countryman and courtier; and, indeed, there is a great difference, for the honest countryman is for the honour, peace, and safety of the king and kingdom; takes care, and labours hard to get money to support the king and government; and this courtier detested by all, and comes under the reproachful distinction, is a pernicious piece of luxury, a drone, a too-faced janus, that has crept into the confines of the royal palace, where he fawns and flatter, till he has obtained so much countenance, as can get him into some trust; and observing how the wind blows, turns his sails so readily, that in time he dare attempt with commendatory letters, an election in some petty burrow, where he must drink away an honest country gentleman; and by the strength of a public purse he is chosen by those pitiful s●ts, that understand no other danger or advantage, than the profit of the present carowzing; he is now returned and sits, having neither honour, honesty, nor estate, necessary qualifications for the trust of others lives and estates, his work is then to make up his stake by any device. i cannot compare it better than to the practice of some knavish master of a ship, who being entrusted by his owners with a goodly ship, and fraught with a valuable cargo; he having no part in either, takes up on bottom r●● as much money as ever his credit can possibly stretch to; and having made up his market, the next best opportunity, when he can most colourably do it, runs his ship upon the rock, or shelves, where he may save himself, but undoes his merchants and owners. the metaphor will hold as well with this courtly senator, who will serve the french king for crowns, and sell his own prince, whose bread and favour supported his being, and for a pension, betray the lives, liberties and religion of the three kingdoms, and is now known to the kingdom by the name of pensioner. 'tis this treacherous crew of court-vermin we inveigh against, and that we caution against in all our elections: but for all those men of honour, wisdom, and integrity, that are faithful to his majesty, and the interest of the kingdoms (attending the court) we love and honour: therefore cease your calumnious aspersions, and pack from amongst us. the quarrel now is purely betwixt protestant and papist: since all must suffer together, of what persuasion soever, under the denomination of protestant, i think it concerns all to stand together, and unanimously provide for ourselves, by all lawful means: the chief of which, and the only remedy under god, is our parliaments; who like good physicians, purges away corrupt humours, representing our grievances to the king, providing remedies for all our distempers, and supporting his majesty against all foreign and homebred enemies. this, as it is the great privilege and birthright of english men, and is the bond of their safety, if the best of men be elected to that great trust; so if care be not taken to keep out atheists, papists, pensioners, and beggarly prodigals, that will snap at every bait, your medicine shall prove your poison, and your physicians your fatal executioners. shut not therefore your eyes, nor stop your ears, you see and understand enough by what is laid open, 〈◊〉 ●ll matter of fact; this design and devilish plot has been long a g●●wing, and now 〈…〉 is labouring in its great crisis; now is the time that all hands, hearts, p●●●●●●, 〈…〉 are all little enough to secure in this deplored calamity. parliaments would 〈◊〉 discovered the plot; offer remedies, and some think with too much hearty zeal. so that 〈◊〉 parliaments are already dissolved, to the amazement of the nation in this juncture 〈…〉 and 'tis hard and strange we cannot be thought well with parliament, be they 〈…〉; neither can we be without them; and these his majesty graciously declares shall 〈…〉. therefore gentlemen, and my dear countrymen, in the name of god, and as you value the concern of the gospel, the honour, life and safety of your prince, your religion, lives, liberties and estates, take care now of your elections, as much, or more than ever; up and be doing, and the lord that hath hitherto preserved you, will still deliver, if you be not wanting to yourselves in the use of those lawful means god has put into your hands. i shall only add this necessary advertisement, that if parliaments be frequent, your danger will be so; for by often dissolutions of parliaments, and your exp●ct●ion ●ot being answered, you may thereby be discouraged, grow negligent, and so let your watchful enemy have an opportunity to bring in their rotten hirelings, that will sell your birthright, or any things, to answer their hungry appetites. the next danger is, lest frequent parliaments, besides the trouble, will bring on a frequent insupportable charge, which those honest gentlemen that deserve so great a trust, cannot undergo the burden of, and so be forced to desert you. therefore i humbly advise, and hearty beseech you, hear and pity the dying groans of your languishing country; it is but your reasonable service, nomo sibi nascitur partem patria, partem parents, partem amici, all are concerned. i address myself first to you the electors, the principal great engine, by which this mighty work must move; let no discouragements make you weary, but faithfully and duly attend your elections, and actively strive to raise all your friends, acquaintance and relations with you, and make your choice of men fearing god, and hating covetousness; men of honour, men of honesty, and men of estates, and then miss of a good parliament if you can. next, encourage those faithful gentlemen, of whose fidelity you have already had experience; choose them, and that freely, not charging them with a penny, that they may be still in a capacity to serve you, without their ruin. and you most worthy patriots, that have immortalised your names by your faithful discharging of your trusts in parliament, let nothing discourage you, but stand to, and for your king and country; be not weary of well doing, let not your hearts faint before you have fully wrought deliverance for the kingdom; your merits can never be forgotten, for the memory of the just shall never fade. give god his due, in maintaining his truths in our established religion; give caesar his right in his royal prerogative, and keep and maintain the people's right, as a sacred relic deposited in your hands; and he that will break but one link in this golden-chain, let him be anathema, maranatha: lift up then your heads, brave english men, let nothing daunt you, mind well your elections, and then pope and devil do thy worst, nothing but our own neglects and sins can undo us: and it will be the greatest shame, that we should be less active in so good a cause to preserve ourselves, than the enemy in a wicked one, to destroy us. finis. the case of such professors. as have known the way of truth, and are turned aside from its holy testimony to save themselves; opened and lamented. with some wholesome warnings and admonitions, tending to restore and turn them again to the lord, that they may be saved by him, both from the evil of sin and punishment. dear hearts, what lamentation shall i take up for you? and wherewith shall i sufficiently bemoan you, who were visited in the springing forth of god's day, and have clearly seen the way of truth, and felt somewhat of the power of god, which once made your hearts tender, and caused the strong man to bow himself, so that you began to be pliable unto god's will, and did love his precepts, but now are turned from the light, and wandered out of that way which you know to be true, and have lost the feeling of the power of god, and have your hearts hardened with the deceitfulness of sin, and overcharged with the cares of this life, and your wills at liberty like a bullock unaccustomed to the yoke, running on contrary to that of god in you? i say again, what lamentation shall i take up for you? surely if my head were waters, and mine eye a fountain of tears, i could not sufficiently bemoan you; for i do plainly see that destruction and misery is in your way, because the lord's good spirit is daily grieved with you, and his soul takes no pleasure in you that draw back from the path of life and truth, and those to whom you fly, under whose shadow you seek to shelter yourselves, cannot at all deliver themselves not you from the wrath to come, upon all that are disobedient to the gospel of christ; neither do they at all care for you, though they flatter with their lips, yet have they an eye to see that you who are treacherous to your own principles, will easily become treacherous to them; so that your condition is exceeding sad, for in your present state, you are an abomination to god, to his saints and angels, and a scorn to fools, and a hissing and derision to the subtle adversary that hath caught you in his snare: therefore consider your state, and let me a little expostulate with you in the name of the god of heaven. what can be done for a people that he hath not done, and been ready to do for you? hath not line been upon line, and precept upon precept, here a little and there a little, that ye might understand and lay it to heart? have not god's servants and prophets been frequently sent amongst you, to whom god hath given witness by his own light in your consciences? moreover, hath he not smitten you with the word of his own mouth, and caused you to feel and dread his power? hath he not also come in the spirit of meekness, and with yearning bowels of love besought you to return when ye began to stray from him? hath he not also been ready to forgive your trespasses, and to heal your backslidings, and can you justly charge him and his servants with blame if you perish? did not he once appear unto you altogether lovely, and with him there is no alteration nor shadow of changing? o then consider what hath blinded your eye, and why do you turn aside from following him? do you not therein despise your birthright as esau, and betray the just as judas did? o woe is me for you that have let go eternal life, and laid hold on this present world, for you have made a miserable exchange; and the earth that you think to save is reserved unto fire, and that which pertaineth thereunto, and can delight therein, shall be burnt up, and where will you then hid yourselves, when the terrors of death everlasting compass you about, who (as cain) have murdered the just, and must be banished from the presence of god for ever? and what good will all those earthly treasures wherein you have delighted, do you in that day? shall not all the world's friendship then have an end, and one tempter to wickedness shall curse another, because they have been the occasion of their misery, out of which gold cannot redeem, nor all the world's riches, glory, and power, ransom one soul? therefore be ye awakened, all you who have not yet sinned unto death, but through distrust, slavish fear, or the lusts of your own flesh, are vailed, and do either stand still, or are turned away backward, for you may be renewed, unto repentance, who have any sense of your out-running, or grievous sin in back-sliding, if you be at all smitten, and do grieve for the same, there is hope concerning you; therefore hear the rod and him that hath appointed it, and if there remain any bowels of tenderness, or any spark of love to god, if it be but so much as makes you in secret to sigh for want of him, then arise and come away, linger not in darkness (where satan hath dominion) any longer, lest you wholly murder the just and join to idols, for why should you wander in the blackness of the night, till in the end yoursteps take hold on hell, out of which there is no redemption? therefore i say again, be ye awakened, and do not trifle away the precious time, lest the door of mercy be quite shut against you; and take heed of giving any more way to an evil heart of unbelief, which saith, the lord delays his coming, and thinks him slack in fulfilling his promises, for that (together with the worldly wisdom wherewith the serpent mixes) is the ground of all apostasy from the life, and the principle chain wherewith man is held from returning to god, because unbelief hinders from beholding his glorious power, and from enjoying the most precious treasures of his kingdom; and then the worldly wisdom not being capable of discerning the invisible things of god which he hath ordained to our glory, draws down the mind to save self, and lay hold of this present world, which ye can in no wise please, and have his love and friendship, but ye do displease god and lose his love and friendship: therefore seeing you cannot serve god and mammon, come forth and be ye separate from all their idolatries, profaneness, and will-worship, and if they pursue you with reproaches and persecutions, look not at them, for such light afflictions are but for a moment, and do work for us, a far more weighty crown of glory, which god will certainly give unto all them that be faithful to the end; but it is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living and long provoked god, if wilfully you disobey his light in your own consciences, and rebelliously forsake him, because be hath power to cast into hell, where the wicked and all they that forget god, shall be tormented perpetually. what can i say more unto you, but with yearning bowels of love, exhort you to search and try your ways,and turn again to the lord, who would not your destruction, but delights rather to pardon than punish you, because he loves you as his creatures, and as you return to the lord, when you see briars and thorns, grievous wolves and hungry eagles in your way to devour, be not dismayed at all, but with purpose of heart cleave unto the lord, who is a consuming fire, and he will make your way through them, and you shall see all vanish as a shadow that stands in opposition to you in god's work and way; for the end of all things is at hand; and the kingdoms of this world shall become the kingdoms of our god and of his christ; and they which have suffered with him, shall reign with him, saith the spirit of the prophet; but they that have denied him before men, shall be denied by him at, his appearing in the glory of his father, and the holy angels with him, to give a reward to every man as their works be: therefore consider, that if you for earthly things deny the truth of god, how it will grieve you in that day to stand a far off and see the lord's innocent people (who have not loved their lives unto death, but freely given up all, that they might overcome through the blood of the lamb, and the word of their testimony) receive a kingdom and crown which fades not away, whilst you are bereft of all that wherein you delighted, and are compassed about with terror, and covered with shame and contempt, which is the just reward of all who deny the lord that bought them, who have put him to open shame by distrusting his power, and turning from him in the sight of his enemies. these things bearing a weight upon my spirit, and because i do both desire to be clear of the blood of all men, and do entirely love their souls; i have in this manner communicated them, because i am a sufferer in outward bonds, amongst the lord's valiant and faithful people, called quakers, who (though we have been despised and reproached by the wise professors of this generation, yet) are not of them that draw back to perdition, but press on to the end of our race, wherein i say, fellow us as we follow christ. lincoln castle, the 16th. day of the 7th. month, 1662. john whitehead. london, printed for robert wilson, at the black-spread-eagle and windmill, in martin's le grand, 1662. a discourse about christ and antichrist: or, a demonstration that jesus is the christ, from the truth of his predictions, especially, the coming and the seduction of antichrist. to which is added, a treatise about the resurrection. by edward bagshaw stu. of ch. ch. in oxon. london, printed for simon miller, at the star in st. paul's churchyard, 1661.: insignissimis et fidaei christianae studiosissimis viris, humphredo wynch, equiti & baronetto, et johanni browne, armigero; opellam hanc, de jesus & resurrectione, religionis nostrae fundamenta confirmantem, et piis, uti sperat, omnibus non inutilem futuram author sui amoris ac observantiae ergo d. d. c. q. edward's bagshawe. the preface to the christian and candid reader. although the disputes and controversies in religion, have multiplied themselves into many large and tedious volumes, yet, i believe, christian reader, thou wilt easily agree with me, that were but one question rightly stated, and throughly believed, most other might safely be neglected by us, as useless and impertinent. and the question is this, whether the scriptures be the word of god; or, to use an expression, which will give no party offence, a full and perfect declaration of gods will. were this but once really assented to, who doth not see, that all additionals are either impious, or, else, at the best, but needless and unnecessary appendices: much like rotten and painted posts, affixed unto a stately edifice; which do not only deface the beauty of the building, but likewise make the strength of it to be suspected. since scripture, if it indeed it did come from god, doth best alone, without the least mixture of humane inventions to underprop it. this therefore is that great thing, which in this following treatise i have undertaken to demonstrate, in a method, if my reading and observation fail me not, which none have attempted before me: for whereas there are two ways, by which men ordinarily do come to be ascertained of the truth of scripture: the one, by an inward experimental assurance; the other, by an argumentative and rational evidence; the first of these i have altogether waved, because though experience be an infallible argument to him that hath it, yet it is not a demonstration that can be improved to the conviction of another; and therefore i have applied myself wholly unto the second way of proof; wherein dealing with men as men; and enlarging upon those common and known principles of reason, that all acknowledge; the unbeliever, must find some stronger arguments, than any i have yet met with, to justify himself by; or else, with me, be won over to the obedience of the faith of christ. i do not speak this, as if i thought it possible for any endeavour or art of man to persuade another to believe: but because this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or poise, to which the mind is brought by a sober and calm debating the matter on both sides, is that way by which the spirit of god in inquisitive men doth usually prepare an entrance for faith; for the strong man must first be cast out, and every objection singled out and disarmed, before a stronger than he can enter in. and this, christian reader, is the very utmost design of this small treatise, which i had never published, but that i thought it my duty, to impart unto others that satisfaction which i myself have received. if there be any that make another interpretation, and from what i have spoken concerning antichrist (wherein i have used the very language, and, so far as i understand it, the sense of scripture) will infer, that i am either for, or against any of the parties, who now contend about their several forms of worship: they will wrong me very much, but themselves more; since the misjudging of others is an uncharitable presumption which is incompatible with a christian temper. what my judgement is concerning episcopacy, and how suitable to right reason and scripture that order is, i have already asserted? and i think none are greater enemies to bishops than those who seek to establish them, by pleading a necessity of ceremonies, which whether they may at all be used, is a question: but that they may very sasely be disused, is no question at all. it is therefore liberty in small things alone that i have formerly and do yet plead for; and that upon this single argument, because i think christ came to set his church free from all unnecessary yokes; and therefore it doth not lie in the power of any man to bring them into bondage again: and let but any sober disinteressed person convince me once that the church (i.e. where the state is christian the civil magistrate) hath power to impose in religious worship, and i shall then so far alter my judgement, as instead of being troubled that we are gone thus far, be very sorry that we go no farther in our conformity. but till then, it is my constant prayer, that, if our rulers will stretch their power, to make some harmony between the christian and the civil state, all men may quietly suffer for what they cannot cheerfully submit to; without making any more noise in the world, than what a calm and dispassionate debate of truth may amount to. had this course at first been taken, we should not have had some cry down dagon, and set up baalberith, i. e superstitiously, if not worse, displace superstition; and exercise a greater tyranny than that which they complained of. but i leave this sad argument, and entreat thee, christian reader, to look upon me as one, that, by the goodness of god, can call himself a christian in the most large and comprehensive notion of the word, according to our saviour's explication, whoever is not against christ, is for him; and wherever i see the least appearance of sincerity and uprightness, though in persons differing from myself in judgement, i can preserve my own opinion, without the least prejudice to that charity i owe mankind in general, or that endearedness of affection which is particularly due to all sorts of zealous, though mistaken, christians. with this confession i close my preface, and dismiss thee to the book itself; which i desire may be read, as it was writ, with a single and unprejudiced mind. and if thou findest anything of satisfaction by it, give god the glory, who hath made use of a very unlikely instrument to do thee good by: but if in any place thou findest my reasoning doth not seem close and pertinent, let me know my error, and i shall think myself more obliged to thee for thy serious reproof, than for thy partial and unweighed commendation. farewell. edw. bagshawe. christ church in oxon. may 21. 1661. a demonstration that jesus is the christ. joh. 13.19. now i tell you of it before it come to pass, that when it doth come to pass, you may know that i am. these are the words of our saviour, spoken by way of inference or use from the prediction he had made concerning the treachery of judas; for, as we find, v. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. the devil having already put, or cast, it into the heart of judas to betray him, our saviour warns his disciples of it, even while they sat at supper with him; and first he tells them in general terms, that they were not all clean, v. 10. (to which the evangelist adds by way of comment, for he knew who should betray him, therefore he said, ye are not all clean, v. 11.) and then more particularly our saviour explains what this uncleanness was, and wherein it did consist; that it was, not a ceremonial, but a moral uncleanness; not a filthiness of the flesh, but an impurity of the spirit, for, saith he, he that eateth bread with me, hath lift up his heel against me, v. 18. i.e. shall betray me, as in express words is declared, v. 21. this crime, which had been strangely horrid if a professed enemy had done it, appeared to the disciples much more incredible, in that it should be attemped by one of them, who knew him to be the son of god, who had confessed, preached, and done miracles in his name; and now, in token of perfect amity and friendship, were all sat at an holy banquet together; and therefore that any of their number should consent to, nay, promote so great a villainy, seemed a thing almost impossible: and therefore we find the apostles did dispute and inquire among themselves, and were so much surprised with wonder, that they even questioned the truth of their master's prediction. our saviour knowing their thoughts, and being willing to appease and settle their inquietudes; in this verse he seems to grant that such a thing was scarce imaginable, that one so related to christ, should yet harbour such bloody designs against him: but yet, saith he, as strange and as incredible as it seems, it will certainly come to pass; and therefore i acquaint you with it before hand, that when it doth come to pass, you may know that i am. these words, i am, are capable of a twofold interpretation. 1. i am god. 2. i am the true messiah. first, these words, i am, may signify, i am god; so when moses enquired after the name of god, this short answer is returned unto him, exod. 3.14. tell the people, to whom you go, that i am hath sent thee. and therefore in the song which david sung for the triumphant entry of the ark this name is recorded, extol ye the lord by his name jah, i.e. i am; which implies and contains in it all the parts of successive being, apoc. 1. and therefore it is rendered by god himself, he that is that was, and that is to come, i.e. that hath one fixed, entire, immutable being. now what god by moses doth barely assert, by isay he doth challenge, and demonstrate to be his due, by those two incommunicable properties of the deity, viz. his power, and his preseience. isa. 41.23. and therefore when he disputes his right with the heathen idols, show, saith he, the things that are to come hereafter, that we may know that ye are gods. and in other places, he tells his people that such and such judgements, which he had threatened, should come upon them; and then, saith he, ye shall know that i am the lord. so our saviour here, being to take his leave of his disciples, and foreseeing how shrewdly their faith would be shaken, seems to tell them: you have indeed confessed me to be the son of god, and therein one with god the father; this, if you judge of me by my outward appearance, or by the vile and cruel usage i shall shortly undergo, must needs appear to be a strange and irreconcilable contradiction. and therefore i leave you this prediction, that when you see it fulfilled, ye may believe that i am god indeed. and thus i am is to be understood, in those words of our saviour, where he doth expressly assert his divinity. joh. 8.38. before abraham was, i am, i.e. according to my divine nature, by which i am from everlasting: of which nature it is that our saviour speaks to nicodemus, none hath ascended up into heaven, joh. 3.13. but he that came down from heaven, even the son of man who is in heaven, i.e. who is now there as god, though, as man, he be circumscribed and limited to a place on earth. secondly, these words, i am, may be rendered, i am the christ, or the true messiah, the saviour of the world; whose coming was so long ago foretold and prophesied of. this will appear by comparing two places of scripture together, acts 13.25. with joh. 3.23. in act. 13.25. the apostle paul, repeating the words of john baptist, saith, as john fulfilled his course, he said, whom think ye that i am; i am not, which the evangelist john relating, c. 3.28. makes up the sense thus: ye yourselves bear me witness, that i said i am not the christ thus i am is to be understood in those words of our saviour to the jews, if you do not believe that i am, joh. 8.24. you shall die in your sins; i.e. if you do not believe that i am that messiah who is to die for the sins of the world, you shall die in your sins, and take the guilt of them upon yourselves. and thus i take the words in this place. from the words thus explained arise two observations: doct. 1. that our saviour is the true messiah. doct. 2. that the way for us to be infallibly assured that our saviour is the true messiah, is impartially to weigh the truth of his predictions. doctrine 1 the first observation is, that our saviour is the true messiah; and this will be of easy dispatch, because it is the first known article of our faith. i shall only briefly explain it. that which in hebrew is called messiah, in greek christ, in english signifies anointed: and implies the solemn designation of our saviour by god unto that great work of redeeming mankind. for as in the old law, all that were called out unto any eminent employment, either in church or state, exod. 30.23, etc. had an oil of a peculiar composition poured out upon them, which was a sign of their inauguration and instalment from god into their office. thus saul and david were anointed to be kings; aaron and his successors were anointed to be priests; elisha and some others were anointed to be prophets; psal. 105.15. (whence is that of the psalmist, touch not mine anointed, and do my prophets no harm, where the latter part of the verse doth explain the former;) so our saviour, who was in a spiritual sense to discharge all these offices, was anointed, i.e. filled with the spirit of god, the gifts and graces of which were typified by the clearness and fragrancy of legal oil, ver. 7. whence that in psal. 45.7. he hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows, is by all the jewish, as well as christian expositors understood of the plentiful effusion of the holy spirit, which was to be upon the messiah; for that of him, and not of solomon, that psalm was written is clear from the foregoing verse, where speaking of the same person, he saith, ver. 6. heb. 1.8, 9 thy throne, o god, is for ever and ever. and therefore by the author of the epistle to the hebrews is rightly applied unto our saviour; joh. 3.34. of whom john baptist gives this testimony, that god gave unto him the spirit, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; i.e. not in that stinted and limited measure, wherein formerly it was dispensed, but suited to the largeness of an immense donor, and to the capacity of an infinite receiver; who was god as well as man; and by that near union did infuse into his manhood whatever is conceivable of power, purity, or perfection. and that this is the meaning of jesus being the christ, i.e. anointed with the spirit, two places, amongst many other, will clear, one is that of our saviour in his sermon, luk. 4.18. wherein he applies unto himself that passage in the prophet isay, the spirit of the lord is upon me, wherefore he hath anointed me; i. e. by putting his spirit upon me he hath abundantly fitted me for my employment. another place is that of the disciples, in their prayer to god, act. 4.27. where applying david's words in the second psalm unto our saviour, herod, say they, and pilate, together with the people of israel were gathered against thy holy child jesus, whom thou hast anointed; i. e. as peter explains it in another place, whom thou hast anointed with the holy spirit and with power; act. 10.38. thereby enabling and qualifying him for so great and weighty an undertaking. and so much for the first observation. doctrine 2 the second observation is this, that the way infallibly to prove that our saviour is the true messiah, is impartially to weigh the truth of his predictions. before i address myself to the proof of this, i must answer an objection, which many may be ready to make, viz. that this is a thing sufficiently believed already, and therefore it will be only lost labour to go about to prove it. to which i answer: 1. that the greatest part of those who call themselves christians are not so indeed: for as the apostle says of his thessalonians, so may we say of most in our respective auditories, 1 thes. 3.2. all have not faith. there being, in all places, many, too many, whose conversation should the apostle have seen, he would have told them, as he did the philippians weeping, that they were enemies of the cross of christ, for their belly was their god, and they gloried in their shame. phil. 3.18, 19 for let us not deceive ourselves, as if viciousness and pravity of life, could be reconciled with sincerity and truth of faith; but rather let us argue with david, the wickedness, saith he, psal. 36.1, of the wicked, saith in my heart, there is no fear of god before his eyes; i.e. when i see the actions of wicked men, i do as evidently perceive, that inwardly they fear not god, as if they did in express terms proclaim and avouch it. so may we, without any uncharitableness, conclude from the lives of most christians, that their hearts are full of unbelief: for there is so necessary, so inseparable a connexion between faith and obedience, that they can no more be severed than fire and heat. and therefore, since the fruits of unbelief are so apparent every where, it is our duty, not only to preach, but to prove jesus to be christ, that so we may root out those innate and soul-destroying seeds. 2. my second answer to that objection, is, that the firmest and best rooted faith is yet capable of an increase and progress. he that believeth a little, aught to believe much; and he that believeth much, may believe more; and therefore arguments which do enforce grounds of faith can never be unseasonable; for which reason it is, that though these disciples did believe on our saviour, had confessed him, and, in token of firm affiance, did promise to die with him, rather than to forsake him; yet our saviour thought fit to fortify and strengthen them by yet more urging this new motive, sc. the event of his predictions. having thus cleared my way to the doctrine, and shown the necessity of preaching it, i affirm, that the way to be infallibly assured, that our saviour is the messiah, is to observe the event of his precitions; because first, reason 1 this is the way which our saviour lays most stress upon, both here and in other places; here it was the very scope and design of his foretelling the treachery of judas, i tell you, saith he, before it comes to pass, that when it doth come to pass, you may believe that i am. and again, when he had told them of his own departure, joh. 14.29. and that he would send the comforter, that is, the holy spirit, to supply his room, and to make up their joys, he adds, and now i tell you before it come to pass, joh. 16.4. that when it doth come to pass, ye might believe. again, when he had told his disciples of that violent and inhuman usage they should meet with, these things, saith he, have i told you, that when the time shall come, ye may remember that i told you of them; i. e. and from thence gather a full and peremptory assurance of my truth and veracity. so in those many predictions, which we have in mat. 24. our saviour subjoins 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, mar. 13.23. but you look to it, behold i have foretold you all things. so that our saviour, so often urging and insisting upon his prophecies, seems to intimate, that he was not unwilling to venture his whole cause upon the force of that single argument. secondly, reason 2 this is the way which god himself did long before point to, and warrant us in the use of. for he foretells by moses, i will raise them up a prophet from among their brethren, deut. 18.18. like unto thee, and i will put my words in his mouth, and he shall speak unto them all that i shall command him. this prophecy our saviour hath a peculiar respect to throughout all this gospel of john, as ch. 5.46. had ye believed moses, ye would have believed me, for he wrote of me; and chap. 6.38. i came down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of him that sent me. and chap. 7.16. my doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me, which he oftentimes repeats, from whence many of the people, ver 40. who heard him, conclude, this is of a truth the prophet; i. e. that prophet, whose coming moses had foretold. so in that last prayer which our saviour made on earth in behalf of his disciples, joh. 17.6.8. he useth these words, i have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me out of the world. for i have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; wherein our saviour uses the very expressions that are in the prophecy of moses. now if any should object, as the jews did, joh. 8.13. that our saviour bore record of himself, and therefore his record was not true: at least we ought to have some more convincing arguments to prove his truth, than barely his own testimony. god hath, in that prophecy of moses, both made and answered that objection: if, saith he, deu. 18.20, 21. thou say in thy heart, how shall we know the word, or the prediction, which the lord hath not spoken? when a prophet speaketh in the name of the lord, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the lord hath not spoken. from whence it follows by the rule of contraries, that if a thing be spoken in the name of the lord, and doth come to pass, it is a certain sign that the lord hath spoken it: according unto that of jeremy, when a prophet prophecieth of peace, jer. 28.9. (and so consequently of any thing else) when the word of the prophet shall come to pass, then shall the prophet be known that the lord hath truly sent him. so that while we are upon this way of enquiry after the truth of our saviour, by seeking whether his predictions have been fulfilled or not, we are in god's way, and have his advice to warrant us. lastly, the fulfilling of prophecies is a much more sure and satisfactory proof than the doing of miracles. as in natural things, an argumentative and rational evidence is more convincing than a sensible one; for the one depends upon an alterable principle, that is, the temper of the body, which is subject to many changes and mistakes; but the other is bottomed upon an eternal and immutable principle; i.e. right reason, which never varies, but, like light, is always in every place the same. hence many philosophers have doubted whether fire be hot, or, snow be white in their own nature, or not; because were man's body less patible, or his eye of another figure, he would not feel that force in the one, nor discern that colour in the other. but none ever yet doubted, whether three angles in a triangle were equal to two right; nor, whether all lines drawn from the same centre unto the same circumference were equal; with many such like propositions, because they are capable of such a demonstration as passeth from the eye into the understanding. so is it in spiritual things, those who believe any thing merely upon the credit of miracles, have no firm basis to ground upon; because (in spite of that received distinction, that the devil can do mira, but he cannot do miracula) our saviour tells us, that antichrist should do great miracles, for sure 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, i. e. prodigies and wonders, comprehend as much strangeness in them, as the word miracle amounts to; and in the law god cautions his people, deut. 13.1, 2. that if a prophet did give a sign or a wonder, yet if he taught false doctrine, he should not be harkened to; which plainly implies, that a false prophet may do miracles; so that he who relies wholly on them, is not certain but he may be deceived. our saviour therefore though he did many miracles, yet he doth not bottom his plea to be the messiah merely upon them, luk. 16. ult. joh. 5 31. but appeals altogether unto moses and the prophets; and so did his apostles after him; and therefore the apostle peter, after he had related that he had heard a voice from heaven, 2 pet. 1.19. whereby god owned christ for his beloved son, and commanded all to hear him, yet he concludes, that we have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the prophecies recorded in the old testament, and fulfilled by our saviour, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a more firm and stable foundation of faith than that voice: because that was a transient, whereas the fulfilling of prophecies is a standing miracle. therefore as some argued about john baptist, joh 10.41. john, say they, did no miracle, but all things that john spoke of this man were true; whereupon many believed on our saviour; so now, upon supposition that miracles were ceased, (which i will never grant so long as i see daily supernatural effects of the word in working conversion, which when i was last here i did demonstrate to be as great a miracle, as the raising of christ from the dead, and the apostle paul doth every where cite that, as the greatest which ever god did) but if miracles were ceased, yet if we find that all things which our saviour said are true: that what he foretold should come to pass, is come to pass, then have we an undoubted evidence that he was the true messiah, and therefore to be believed and trusted in. the use i make of this, use 1 is to exhort all persons, that they will take this method, which our saviour hath prescribed, and by comparing his predictions with their events, ascertain themselves that they have not followed, 2 pet. 1.16. as the apostle peter speaks, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, artificially devised and well plotted fables; but that they may say with paul, 2 tim. 1.12. joh. 6.14. we know whom we have believed; we have searched and tried, and we find that this is indeed that prophet which should come into the world. and this scrutiny i earnestly recommend especially to two sorts of persons. 1. to preachers of the gospel; how unfit they are to convert others (which is the only duty and end of preaching) who are not yet converted themselves i need not mention. and therefore it ought to be presumed of every gospel minister, that he himself is abundantly satisfied with the truth of what he delivers; and that he bespeaks his hearers, in david's words, come unto me, psal. 66.16. all ye that are yet in your doubts, and i will tell you what god hath done for my soul; i.e. what means god hath used to free me from the same unbelief which is natural to all. such an one, who is thus furnished, must not only barely preach, but he must prove: he must not only instruct, but he must convince gainsayers, and leave the unbeliever without excuse, that he may have no retreat to defend his disobedience, but merely his obstinacy. act. 9.20. thus did the apostle paul, who as soon as ever he was converted, went and preached jesus in their synagogues, that he is the son of god; and again, ver. 22. says the text, the more they raged, the more confident he grew, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, arguing or strongly proving that jesus is the very christ. act. 28 23. and thus he dealt with those who came to him at rome, he expounded unto them the kingdom of god, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, testifying, or vehemently urging (as the word signifies, act. 20.21.) and persuading the things of jesus from morning until evening out of the law and the prophets. thus likewise apollo's, he taught the things of the lord, act. 18.25. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, with great exactness; and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, he convinced the jews with great earnestness, ver. ●8. proving publicly that jesus was the christ these aught to be our patterns, and it is, without doubt, one reason, why the gospel makes so slow a progress, because we do not begin at the foundation— we take no notice, that that which men's hearts most rise up against, is against jesus being the christ, and therefore here we should aim our battery, where the enemy of our souls is most deeply entrenched. for our obedience to the commands of christ cannot rise higher than our belief of the truth of christ; and according as this persuasion is more or less wrought in the hearts of men, so will their practice be. therefore as in practice, faith must precede repentance, so in preaching, the doctrine of faith must precede the doctrine of repentance: or else we build without a foundation, 1 cor. 3.11. and throw about our hay and stubble, our own idle fancies, which will never reach, much less pierce the conscience: for all the while the heart is unconvinced it is unconverted. now to convince others, there cannot be a better way than that which paul constantly used, to relate the manner, and to enforce the mediums by which we were convinced ourselves. 2. i recommend this to unbelievers, because all the while they are so they lie under the danger of many sad and dreadful predictions. deut. 18.19. he that hears not the prophet, saith god by moses, i will require it of him. and i fear the greatest unbeliever of us all would at that time, upon such a summons, be utterly unprovided of an answer. joh. 3.36. he that believes not the son, saith our saviour, shall not see life, but the wrath of god abideth on him; i.e. he shall bear his own burden, and shift for himself as well as he can, when he is to grapple with eternal vengeance, since there is nothing interposed to fence and to keep off that stroke; for me, says christ, who am ready to do it, 2 thes. 1.8. he scornfully rejects and refuses. hereafter, saith the apostle paul, christ will appear in flaming fire, to take vengeance of them who know not god, and who obey not the gospel of his son. i know very well that these will be derided by the unbeliever, but if it shall appear, that other things every whit as incredible (nay, more incredible, since men naturally have some apprehensions of future punishment) have been foretold by our saviour, and are already fulfilled; if this, i say, can be proved, than i hope the unbeliever will be persuaded to shaked out that devil which doth blind and possess him; and speedily alter his opinion, before his case be desperate, and he find by experience, that all these things were sad truths, though his lust, and not his reason, would not suffer him to hear them. to direct you in this enquiry, take notice of, and weigh especially these three predictions of our saviour, because we are all living witnesses of the truth and fulfilling of them. i. concerning the preaching and spreading of the gospel. ii. concerning the destruction of jerusalem, and dispersion of the jews. iii. concerning the coming and seduction of antichrist. the first remarkable prediction is, predict. 1 concerning the preaching and spreading of the gospel. there are two places wherein our saviour prophesies that his gospel should be preached all over the world. one is in defence of the woman, who poured a costly ointment upon his head, where ever, saith he, this gospel shall be preached, mat. 26.13. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in the whole world, there what this woman hath done shall be spoken for a memorial of her. another place is in express terms, speaking of the destruction of jerusalem: and, saith he, mat. 24.14. this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in the whole inhabited world, for a testimony unto all the gentiles, and then shall the end, i. e. of jerusalem, come. for the understanding of which prophecy we must take notice of 1. the thing which was preached. it is called the gospel of the kingdom; and what that is our saviour explains in his last words to his disciples when he sent them to preach it: thus it is written, luk. 24.46, 47. act. 13.38, 39 1 cor. 15.1, 3. and thus it behoved the messiah to die, and to rise again the third day; and that in his name should be preached repentance and remission of sins unto all the gentiles, beginning from jerusalem. so that it was a doctrine very incredible, it being, as the apostle observes, 1 cor. 1.23. unto the jews a stumbling block, (that he should save others who did not save himself) and to the greeks foolishness; who could by no means endure to hear of a resurrection, as we find by paul's entertainment at athens, as soon as ever he mentioned it, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, act. 17.31, 32. they mocked and slighted him. so that there was little hopes of the gospel's prevailing by any qualifications or innate dispositions that were in men's minds to receive it. 2. the second thing considerable in this prophecy is, the time when it should begin, viz. after our saviour's death. had our saviour sent his apostles to preach this gospel in his life-time, the reputation of his miracles, and the unexampled holiness of his person, might have given some credit and countenance to this doctrine, and have facilitated its entrance; but to stay so long, till he himself was so shamefully put to death, and while the fact was yet fresh in memory, then to send his disciples forth; this seems, to the eye of reason, a time very unseasonable. yet, to show how ill judges we are of divine proceed, and, how infinitely beyond our shallow capacities gods designs are ordered, this was the time which our saviour both chose and foretold: when, joh. 8.28. saith he, ye have lift up the son of man, then shall ye know that i am; and again, when i am lift up from the earth, i will draw all men unto me; joh. 12.32. i. e. when you have executed the utmost of your malice against me, in nailing me up to the cross, then shall i manifest, what you do not now believe, that i am the true messiah, by drawing and gathering followers unto me; whereupon he compares his death to the falling of grain into the earth, ver. 24. which doth not hear forth fruit until it die; intimating, that what course they took to extinguish and hinder his doctrine he would order for its advantage and increase. and yet in humane probability this was not a proper time to preach up the messiah, when, with the utmost of virulency and scorn, he was so newly crucified. 3. consider the manner of propagating this gospel, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, it shall be preached; he allowed his followers none but spiritual weapons; and sent them to subdue a gainsaying, resisting, contradicting world: being armed only with preaching, and with patience; and therefore what is here called, the gospel of the kingdom, apoc. 3.10. apoc. 1.9. our saviour calls in the revelation, the word of my patience; and john joins the kingdom and the patience of jesus christ together; as signifying the same thing. and yet this, how improbable soever it seems, it than was, now is, and ever will be the way wherein christ's kingdom, i. e. his gospel, is to thrive and prosper in: and whoever uses any other force, but the force of reason; or any other art, but the art of sound persuasion to gain others, he strives to set up christ the wrong way; and makes our saviour's kingdom to be that, which at his death he denied it to be; viz. joh. 18 37. a kingdom of this world; against which i have elsewhere spoken * sain ship no ground of sovereignty. . lastly, consider the great progress which the gospel made, together with the short time wherein it was to make it: for a doctrine so strange in itself, & so little advantaged by humane power, one would have thought, that an age would have been little enough to settle it in any one country; but that, in the space of forty years, it should be carried throughout the world; and in every place where it came, gather a considerable number of proselytes; this exceeds every thing, but our utmost wonder. and that the gospel was thus spread, even before the destruction of jerusalem (which was the time allotted for it) we have the testimony of the apostle paul, rom. 10.18. who ask this question concerning the unbelieving jews: have they not heard? i. e. can they lay the blame of their unbelief upon their not having heard? verily, says he, their sound is gone out into all the earth, and their words into the ends of all the habitable world. wherein he applies the words of david, concerning the sun, unto the gospel; which by the public preaching of it, was then become like the sun, in diffusive heat, col. 1.5, 6. v. 23. and universality of influence. again, in his epistle to the colossians, he minds them of the ho●e which was laid up for them in heaven, whereof they had heard before in the word of the gospel of truth: which, saith he, is come unto you, as it is in all the world, and bringeth forth fruit, as also it doth among you. the same is yet more plain from the epistles of the apostles, from whence it appears, that among all the jews, not only in judea, but throughout the world, in all greece, in rome, in asia, etc. there were churches of considerable numbers gathered to the faith of christ, and that according to our saviour's prophecy, before jerusalem was destroyed. to which i might add the testimony of josephus, suetonius, tacitus, and other foreign writers, but the cause needs them not. so that put all this together, a doctrine concerning salvation by a crucified christ, and therein contradictory to all humane comprehension. 2. a doctrine enjoining all possible strictness and severity of life, and therein little grateful or pleasant to humane desires. 3. a doctrine excluding all force and violence, and leaving its followers at perfect liberty, whether they would submit to it or not, and therein quite contrary to worldly arts and politic contrivances. 4. a doctrine, by which nothing was to be gained, but only heaven, nothing being more certain from an enraged, because unbelieving world, than the same calamity which befell the author; and therein a doctrine dangerous in profession, as difficult in practice. and yet in spite of all these disadvantages that it should run through the world, and have trophies and monuments of victory, i.e. churches behind it, in fewer years than some have taken barely to survey and travel it; this shows that the power which conducted it was as great as the prescience which foresaw and foretold it; that is, that they were both, supernatural; both, divine. use. i cannot pass over the fulfilling of this prediction, without observing that they seem not at all to understand the power and spirit of the gospel, who seek for secular arts to uphold and support it. that doctrine, which, when the world was prejudiced and armed against it, did conquer and triumph over it, needs not any encouragement from earthly motives. it is still the arm of god to salvation, and needs not the arm of flesh to back it. all the while the christians were a divided body from the men of the world, phil. 2.15. they shone like stars in the midst of darkness; and those who came not in to them, confessed it was for want of courage, and not for want of conviction. but as soon as ever god suffered the world to come into the church, and that religion grew the way to preferment: presently what it got in power, it lost in purity; and quickly was dispirited, and worn out by that, which can act a part much better, and that is, hypocrisy. to wish that religion may again thus thrive and prosper, is to pray that it may be undone: for our religion was not calculated for any thing, but to save our souls; and where ever sound convincing preaching is protected, there is religion sufficiently countenanced. isa. 49.23. for that prophecy, kings shall be thy nursing fathers, and queens thy nursing mothers, doth not signify any authoritative or imperious enjoining even of the true religion, but an humble and reverential submission to it, as it follows in the next words, they shall bow down to thee with their face toward the earth, and lick up the dust of thy feet, and thou shalt know that i am the lord. let christian magistrates do but that part of their duty, which is to punish vice and immorality; and where the gospel is planted, god will effect the ends of that without any farther assistance. the second prediction of our saviour is, predict. 2. concerning the destruction of jerusalem, and the dispersion of the jews: which is at large described by three of the evangelists in their chapters preceding our saviour's passion. and though the present posture and state of the jews, is a sufficient comment upon those chapters, and may seem to prevent any enlargement, yet to make the truth more apparent and forcible, i shall insist upon two or three particulars. 1. that the city, and particularly the temple should be laid even with the ground; concerning the city we have this prediction in luke, luk. 19.42. that when our saviour saw the city, he wept over it, for the days shall come, saith he, that the enemies shall cast a trench about thee, and shall lay thee even with the ground, and thy children within thee, and they shall not leave in thee one stone upon another. concerning the ruin of the temple, mat. 24.2. in matthew we read, that when the disciples came to show our saviour the buildings of the temple, which, according to the description of josephus, for the state, magnificence and strength of them, were the goodliest buildings in the world; our saviour replies to them: see ye not all these things? verily i say unto you, there shall not be left here one stone upon another, which shall not be thrown down. and accordingly josephus tells us, lib. 6 7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. that the first thing which was burnt down to the ground, and that utterly against the will of titus, was the temple, upon that very month and day, as he observes, wherein it was formerly burnt by nabuchadnezzar. and concerning the city, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, saith he, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, i. e. destroying the rest of the city, and digging down the walls, titus left only two towers standing to be monuments of the roman prowess. and that that prophecy might to a scruple be fulfilled, our historians tell us, socrates, lib. 3. c. 20. that in the emperor julian's time, when the jews upon his entreaty went to rebuild their temple, that they might offer sacrifice again, an earthquake in the night tore up the very foundations of it, and made them leave off their enterprise. 2. the second particular is, the terrible slaughter of most of them, and the utter dispersion and captivity of the rest. when ye shall see, luk. 21.20, 24. saith our saviour, jerusalem compassed about with armies, (which explains that, that in daniel and matthew is called, the abomination of desolation; i. e. the abominable destroying army of the romans) then know that the desolation thereof is nigh. for these are the days of vengeance. and they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations. lib. 6. c. 17. which slaughter the historian relates, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, saith he, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, i. e. the number of the slain exceeds all humane or divine vengeance; which though it be hyperbolically spoken, yet he reckons up a million and ten thousand, which were killed in that year of the siege; a number great, enough to justify his passion, at least abundantly sufficient to verify our saviour's predictions; and for the other part of the prophecy, namely, their captivity, this was partly fulfilled by titus, who carried away and sold near an hundred thousand prisoners; but more particularly by adrian, in whose time the jews rebelling, under the conduct of an impostor, who called himself barcocheb, or the son of the star, they were then most miserably slaughtered, and an edict made by the emperor, that the whole nation should be banished, that, saith my author, none of them, euseb. l. 4.6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, not so much as at a distance, might see their native country. then which a more cruel and barbarous, as well as unpolitick law, i think was never made; to dispossess a whole nation at a time, without distinction of innocent and criminal, or any provision to guard those frontiers. but the more harsh and extraordinary the proceeding was against them, the more clearly doth our saviour's truth shine forth, who had foretold that this should befall them. lastly, the last and greatest evil that was prophesied of them, that the kingdom of god should be taken from them; mat. 21.43. thus our saviour, the kingdom of god shall be taken from you, and given to a people that bring forth the fruits of it. this i call their greatest evil: for if when the ark was taken, which was but a sign of god's presence, 1 sam. 4.21. elie's daughter called her child, ichabod, saying, the glory is departed from israel; how much more may we call that nation now ichabod, for the gospel is departed from them; there is among them no vision, psal 74.9. nor in the psalmists words, none that knows how long? nay, as if they had lost their reason, with their religion, they are so miserably blinded, and given up to such ridiculous follies, as we cannot but both pity and smile at them. adu. cells. l. 2. p. 60. origen said of them long since, interpreting this prophecy of our saviour, this, saith he, we may now see verified, for all that is among the jews, is only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, tales and trifles, for they have not the light of scripture-knowledge. adu. jud. c. 13. and tertullian, now, saith he, they have left the fountain, they have hewed to themselves broken cisterns, i. e. synagogues among the gentiles where they are scattered, in which the holy spirit doth not reside, which alone is the true temple. and in this condition they now are fit objects only for our prayers and compassion; and i wish that all unbelievers would lay it to heart, that to slight the gospel is not a sin that will be expiated with a little vengeance: for i shall be bold to say, that it was not the kill of our saviour, though a murder of a most execrable composition (for that our saviour prayed might be forgiven them, luk. 23.34. who, we are sure was heard in whatever he requested) which brought down all that storm of wrath upon them; but their peremptory and obstinate neglect of offered mercy after it. this shall come upon them, luk. 21.44. saith our saviour, because they have not known the time of their visitation, i. e. they would not lay hold upon mercy while it might be had. and therefore our saviour graciously passing by all offences, after his passion, sends his disciples first to them, and bids them begin at jerusalem, and shown how ready he was to pardon all, by his acceptance of some, and waiting long for the rest. it was necessary, saith the apostle paul, act. 13.46. that the gospel should first be preached to you; but seeing you put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of eternal life, i.e. think yourselves too good to stoop unto god's method of saving you, lo we turn to the gentiles. and when their malice stopped not there, but what they refused themselves they envied unto others; who, as the same apostle observes, 1 thes. 2.15, 16. killed the lord jesus, and their own prophets; and likewise persecuted us, forbidding us to speak unto the gentiles that they might be saved; then god could hold no longer, but gave the reins to his justice, and now, saith he, the wrath is come upon them to the uttermost. so then, that i may conclude this prediction with the apostles exhortation, they were broke off by unbelief, and we stand by faith, rom. 11.20. let us not be highminded, but fear; for if god spared not the natural branches, much less will he spare us; and as god's severity to them sets off his mercy to us, so the conclusion is infallible, that unless we continue in that mercy, we shall likewise be cut off. what was their fate must needs be ours, if we consent to, and approve their sin; as all the while we continue in, or fall back into unbelief, we own and defend that crime of the jews, and publicly proclaim that jesus was not the messiah, but that he was justly put to death; and this is it which makes infidelity a sin of so deep a dye, in that it doth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, undervalue and disesteem the blood of the covenant; heb. 10.29. and conceives, that it was shed by christ not for the remission of our sins, but for the expiation of his own. he than that dares not say, that jesus was justly put to death, let him forthwith believe that he was the christ, i.e. the eternal son of god; for, for the defence, and in the maintenance of that assertion he died. and so much for the second prediction. the third and last prediction of our saviour, predict. 3. which i shall insist upon, is concerning the coming and seduction of antichrist: the words of the prediction are, then, if any say unto you, mat. 24 23, 24. lo here is christ, or lo there, believe them not: for there shall arise false christ's, and false prophets, and shall show great signs and wonders, insomuch as they shall deceive, if it were possible, the very elect. in which prediction there are these things considerable: 1. the title which our saviour gives to antichrist: he speaks of him in the plural number, false christ's, and false prophets; implying, that there should not be one single person, but a corbination and conspiracy of deceivers. and though the apostle paul, 2 thes. 2.3. speaking of antichrist, calls him, the man of sin, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that lawless one. and john calls him by a single name, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the antichrist; yet i suppose that can be no more understood of one man, than the word satan of one devil; for in those words of our saviour, mar. 3.23. how can satan cast out satan? and, if satan rise up against himself and be divided, he cannot stand; satan signifies the whole commonwealth, if i may so call it, or regiment of evil spirits, under some one chief, luk. 11.15. called in scripture, beelzebub: or as the apostle paul, in those words, for even as the body is one and hath many members, 1 cor. 12, 12. but all those members of that one body, though they be many, make up but one body: even so is christ; where the apostle called the whole church, as it contains both head and members, by the name of christ. so is antichrist, a collective body of many false christ's and false prophets, united under some one head, for the better managing and carrying on their designs; order being so necessary, that, as our saviour observes, hell itself, which is otherwise a place of confusion, cannot for the present subsist without it. but there is a twofold order, an order by force and constraint, and that is the order of hell and of antichrist; and there is an order by consent, and that is the order of heaven and of christ. 2. the second thing observable in this prophecy, is the way wherein antichrist should discover himself, viz. by being a false prophet, so v. 11. many false prophets shall arise, and shall deceive many: so that a false christ and a false prophet is the same thing; the latter word being explicatory of the former. and this name of false prophet is ascribed to antichrist by the apostle john both in his epistle, 1 joh. 4.1, 2. apoc. 19.20. 2 pet. 2.1. and revelation. it signifies in english a false teacher, and so peter expressly mentions: there were, saith he, false prophets among the people, so there shall be false teachers among you, who shall privily bring in damnable heresies, even denying the lord that bought them. in which words the apostle cannot mean, that they should deny the person of our saviour, (for then we could not have had any sufficient 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to distinguish antichrist by, since the whole jewish nation, and almost all the gentiles, both than did, and still do they deny him;) but as among the jews, those who were false prophets, pretended highly to honour god, but yet taught lies in his name, and secretly withdrew men from his service: so should these false christ's and false prophets cry up christ in words (for, saith our saviour, mat. 24.5. they shall come in my name, and he tells us that at the last day some shall plead for themselves, have we not prophesied in thy name?) mat. 7.22. but yet both in their doctrine and practice they should directly oppose him; and set up a religion, which should have nothing in it of christian, but the name. to find out what kind of doctrine it would be that antichrist should preach; and what kind of practice he should follow; the best way will be to look in scripture, what it was that our saviour and his apostles did most inveigh against; for those very things antichrist would set up and defend. 1. in doctrine, you will find these three opinions principally condemne●. first, justification by works; which the apostle paul spends almost two epistles in confuring; the sum of what he says, is contained in this position: we know, saith he, gal. 2.16. that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but only by the faith of jesus christ; and we have believed in christ jesus, that we might be justified by the faith of christ, and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh can be justified. and whereas many captious men were apt to asperse this doctrine, as if it did open a way to looseness of life, the apostle proves by his own example, rom. 6.1, 2. that if rightly understood, it had a quite contrary effect; since nothing can more effectually kill sin, than to behold it as kill christ; from thence he concludes, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, i abolish, ver. 21. or disannul not the grace of good for if righteousness be by the law, (i. e. can be attained by the observance of the law) then did christ die in vain; for what men might have got, without any satisfaction made in their behalf, that christ needed not have died to purchase: and therefore he urges again, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, ye are brought to nought from christ, gal. 5.4. i.e. christ is become vain to you, if you are justified by the law, ye are fallen from grace; i.e. ye do declare ye have no need of grace or free pardon, because you appeal to the sentence of that law, from the rigour of which nothing but christ's death could free you. so that justification by works, as evacuating the death of christ, and rendering men's salvation as hazardous, and uncertain, nay, impossible as before our saviour's coming, is a doctrine perfectly antichristian. secondly, the second doctrine recorded to us for antichristian, is the mediation of angels; this it seems, under the colour that it was too bold and presumptuous a thing for frail man, to address himself immediately unto god; some false teachers at colosse did advise them first to pray unto the angels, and make use of their mediation to be the internuncii and carriers of their requests. this, how seemingly holy and modest soever the pretence were, the apostle sharply rebukes, col. 2.18, 19 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, saith he, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, let no man lord it over you (or, deprive you of the prize,) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, being selfwilled, or wilful in humility, and worship of angels, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, thrusting or climbing into things that he hath not seen; being rashly puffed up by the understanding of his flesh; and not holding the head; where there are three reasons given against that opinion: first, that it was not humility, as they pretended, but a wilful, stubborn, and fleshly pride which occasioned that conceit; they presuming to be wise above what was written. secondly, that they rashly and without warrant entered into things, which as they had not seen, so neither ought they to have meddled with. thirdly, and chief, that this doctrine did detract from christ, and lessen the sufficiency of his mediation, 1 tim 2.5. who is the only mediator between god and men; and therefore that doctrine, which brought in angels as partners with christ, in that incommunicable prerogative, was antichristian. thirdly, the third and last doctrine which i find insisted upon as antichristian, is the abridging of christian liberty; by obtruding upon the conscience of weaker brethren, the observance of things either unnecessary, or else very inconvenient; such were the observation of days and months, and times and years, i. e. the old legal festivals, or some others like them, by way of analogy, among the galatians; gal. 4 9 col. 2.16. which the apostle sharply reproves; first, calling them weak and beggarly elements or rudiments, not fit to be always pored upon by christians of any growth or stature; and then tells them, that he fears he had lost his time and pains among them; for he preached up liberty, gal. 5.1. at another rate, which they were not to slight and undervalue, it being a part of our saviour's purchase. so when some, col. 2.21. among the colossians, began to preach up and prescribe an uncommanded strictness and singularity of life, in those words, touch not, taste not, handle not, laying a great stress of piery in outward abstinence; he blames them, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, why are ye loaded and burdened with these new rites and ordinances? which are after the doctrine and commandments of men; and therefore, as they ought not to be enjoined, so need they not to be any farther practised by you than suits with your own convenience. nay, in his epistle to timothy to command abstinence from meats, 1 tim. 4 1. and to forbid marriage; though he himself, and common experience tells us, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, i.e. it is much more convenient to be free, than bound in wedlock, yet he calls that doctrine, the doctrine of devils, and therefore i need not scruple to call it antichristian. besides these three, i do not remember that in the new testament i find any tenet branded as antichristian; for though there are many other things, as , merit, worship of images, not sanctifying of the lords day, or one day in seven; and the like, which are severely condemned as false and impious; yet i call that only antichristian which directly opposes christ in some of his offices, or in his purchase and acquisition for believers. and so much for that which was to be the doctrine of antichrist. 2. the practice of antichrist is recorded to discover itself in these three things: first, pride, whereby he opposes our saviour's humility and self-denial. for thus our saviour's stinting that ambitious strife of his disciples, concerning who should be greatest: the rulers of the heathen, saith he, do exercise lordship over them; mat. 20 25. but it shall not be so among you; but he that will be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, affect the primacy amongst you, let him be servant of all; and to enforce this, our saviour urges his own example, even, saith he, as the son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister. and as for power, so for titles of honour; our saviour forbidding his disciples, to imitate the practice of the pharisees, who were puffed up and swelled with those airy and empty names of honour amongst men. be not ye, saith he, called doctor, or master, or father, or teacher, i. e. mat. 23.8. affect not to be so called, for you have one teacher, which is christ: ye have one father which is in heaven; but all ye are brethren. and therefore take heed lest by taking upon you such glorious styles, you forget that equality which should be amongst brethren. thus christ. but antichrist thinks no power too great, no name too good for him: 2 thes 2.4. and therefore the apostle paul gives this character of him that he is one who opposeth himself (i.e. against christ) and exalts himself above all that is called god, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, (which word i take to signify the imperial stile, act. 25.21. for the emperor in latin was called augustus, in greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and then it signifies, that antichrist should advance himself above all princes and emperors) so that he shall sit as a god, in the temple of god, showing himself that he is god; i. e. assuming unto himself the exercise of divine power and honour, as if he were a god on earth; which whoever doth must needs in that be antichrist, i. e. oppose the humility both practised and prescribed by christ. secondly, the second thing, wherein the practice of antichrist was to discover itself, is pomp, as it is opposed to christian poverty. i know very well that poverty and riches are res mediae, that in themselves neither state doth make us more or less accepted to god: but yet such hath been and is the fate of true religion, that riches, most commonly, are the portion of the men of this world, out of which christianity calls its followers but disgraces, losses, and poverty are most usually the attendants on strictness and holiness: thus our saviour affirms the condition of beasts of the earth, and birds of the heaven, to be, in outward respects, much better than his, mat. 8.20. for the one, saith he, have holes, the other have nests, but the son of man hath not where to lay his head: and thereupon calls his followers to leave every thing, luk. 14.26, etc. i.e. to be in a readiness to hazard all rather than to quit their profession, or else they were not fit to be his disciples. but antichrist, quite contrary, proposes worldly wealth, and temporal rewards unto his followers; and seeks to reconcile piety and preferment, i. e. self-denial with that which doth directly contradict it. for which reason, i suppose, it is, that the apostle john, 1 joh. 2.16. having premised that the love of the world was enmity unto god; for, whatever is in the world, the desire of the flesh, (i. e. pleasure;) the desire of the eyes, (i. e. riches;) and the pride of life, ver. 18. (i. e. outward state and magnificence,) they are not of god, but of the world. to which he immediately subjoins, little children, it is the last hour, and as you have heard, that antichrist shall come, so now there are many antichrists: plainly intimating, that there were some, who, by immersing themselves in the delights and excesses of the world, did abundantly discover their antichristian temper. and accordingly in the revelation, apoc. 12. that woman, which figured the true church, as so on as ever she had brought forth, i. e. received and embraced the faith of christ, she is said to flee into the wilderness, where she was to abide for a long time in a disconsolate and afflicted condition; where it is observable, that the time, viz. of 1260. days, which is allotted unto the woman's abode in the wilderness, is the very same time, in which the witnesses were to prophecy, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, being arrayed with sackcloth; apoc. 11.3. to show their indigent and needy state, as likewise the temple, or true worshippers of god, was so long to be trampled under food, which likewise is the time limited for antichrists reign and persecution. thus the true church, like christ her head, finds no peace on earth, but is fain to seek shelter in a wilderness. but that woman, which is the emblem of the false church, rev. 17 3. is represented to sit in goodly array upon a scarlet-coloured beast: and the woman was clothed with purple and scarlet, and adorned with gold, and precious stones, and pearls; i e. tricked up and set out with the utmost circumstances of outward glory and magnificence, by which she doth allure and entice her followers; making her religion as pompous, theatrical, and specious as may be, that so it might be taking. but we have not so learned christ, who was himself poor, and his doctrine strict and severe; so that to take off from the end of religion, which is to withdraw men from earth, that they may mind heaven; and to change the spirit and purity of worship into the splendour and pomp of service, this is not of christ, therefore it is antichristian. thirdly, the third and last thing in the practice of ancichrist, by which he may be descried is persecution of all that descent from him, though never so holy or religious otherwise; which is an infallible note of antichrist, as being directly contrary to the meekness, mercy, and moderation of our saviour. for when the disciples desired that they might call down for fire from heaven, to punish those barbarous and inhuman samaritans, who would not so much as allow him a lodging in one of their villages; luk. 9.55. our saviour sharply reproves them, ye know not, saith he, of what spirit you are; i. e. the christian spirit is not a bloody, a self-avenging: but a tender, a compassionate spirit; for the son of man came not to destroy men's lives, but to save them. and again, ib. v. 50. when some of his disciples told him, that they found some doing miracles in his name, but they forbade them; because, say they, they followed not us. forbidden them not, saith our saviour, for he that is not against us, is for us. thus the apostle paul, let every man, saith he, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, rom. 14. be fully assured in his own mind, i. e. of the necessity and lawfulness of that which he doth; 16. and judge not one another, but judge this rather, that none do put a stumbling block, or a cause of offence before his brother. and again, 2 cor. 1.24. we, saith he, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, do not lord it over your faith, or conscientious persuasion in things indifferent; but if any be otherwise-minded god will reveal this to him; phil. 3.15. with many hundreds of scriptures more to the same purpose, which show, that nothing doth more savour of the spirit of christianity than mutual forbearance and toleration. and that nothing is more repugnant to it, than harshness, rigour, and imperious exaction. but antichrist, quite contrary, is all made up of cruelty and unmercifulness; the false prophets, mat. 7. saith our saviour, which come in my name, they wear sheeps-clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves; i.e. they seem mild and gentle, but indeed are furious, and bloodthirsty men; and therefore in the revelation, antichrist is compared unto a beast which hath horns like a lamb (i. e. in outward appearance seems to act for christ) but speaks like a dragon, rev. 13.16, 17. i.e. in his decrees and impositions is outrageous and bloody; insomuch, that he causeth all, great and small, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their foreheads, or in their hands; that no man might buy or sell, save he that had that mark, i. e. they were either to join with him in his public worship, and by some outward testimony manifest their conformity, or else they should not buy nor sell, i.e. not so much as exercise any civil commerce or society with men: nor is that all, that he will exclude such from the benefits of life, but, saith the text, r. v. 18.13. if men will not worship the beast, and that image which he hath set up, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, he causes that they be slain; which is the utmost expression of inhumanity: and therefore among the merchandise of the false church, here are reckoned, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the souls or lives of men, either bestained and poisoned with their inventions, or destroyed by their butchery. so infinitely different is antichrist from christ. christ would not have the least of those offended that believe on him; antichrist doth nothing else but offend them. and so much for the second thing in our saviour's prediction, viz. the way how antichrist or the false prophet is to be destroyed; in the deciphering of which, i have purely followed that method, rev. 19 10. which the spirit of prophecy, which is called the testimony of jesus in scripture, hath chalked out to me, without mingling the least of my own inventions and uncharitable presumptions with it. 3. the third thing observable in our saviour's prediction, is the time when antichrist should arise; which is implied in the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, then, i. about the time that jerusalem was destroyed; which that it was a very proper time for antichrist to arise in, will appear from these two reasons. 1. because then the apostles, and others, who planted christianity, and were infallibly inspired by god, were all dead; and therefore when these suns were set, it is no wonder if darkness and night did speedily overspread the world. this is plainly intimated by our saviour, where he tells his disciples, that before jerusalem was destroyed, they shall, saith he, mat. 24.9.11. deliver you up unto tribulation, and they shall kill you; whereupon immediately he adds, and many false prophets shall arise, and shall deceive many. as when the banks and bounds are broken down, the river presently doth overflow the valleys, so when the apostles were gone, who were to stand in the breach, and to resist the torrent, corruption and will-worship did, like a deluge, overrun the world; as hegesippus, eusebius, and other ecclesiastical writers, do both mention and sadly complain of. 2. because i take the spirit of antichrist, as i find it discovered in scripture, to consist in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, i. e. an ambitious affectation of sovereignty or dominion, or in a word, a love of primacy. this the apostle censures in diotrephes, that he was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; i. e. he loved to be first or chief, and took upon him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, i.e. the sole power to excommunicate. now while jerusalem was standing in its glory, no church could vie with that for superiority, as being undoubtedly the mother church, from whence all the rest did proceed: but as soon as ever the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, i.e. the jewish state was removed, than the biggest city laid claim to be the best church, and never rested till it had fixed in itself a spiritual, as before it had done a temporal and earthly dominion. i know very well that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, i.e. he which withholdeth, or bindeth, i.e. keepeth antichrist from appearing, is commonly understood of the civil empire of rome, apol. c. 32. & add scap. c. 2. p●ae●cr, adv. hae●c 27. so tertullian in his apology, and other of the ancients; but for the former reasons i think it is rather to be meant of the jewish state; as likewise, because the apostle in the same place saith, that the mystery of iniquity was then working; and john says, 2 joh. 2. &c 4. that antichrist was then come; whereas there was no considerable change in the empire of rome, for some hundreds of years after. but jerusalem was destroyed within few years after the apostle paul's dearn, and he seems to intimate that he saw some evident sympromes of, and preparations o it, even in his own name, in those words of his, 1 thes. 2. the wrath, i. e. threatened by our saviour, is come upon them to the uttermost. but john did survive the ruin of that city, whereupon he ●●ies, that antichrist was then come; the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, mentioned by the apostle paul, being in his time removed. having thus fixed the rise of antichrist upon the destruction of jerusalem, we must take notice that there is a threefold epoch or account of time, from whence we may date the ruin of that city: the first was in the time of vespasian, about forty years after our saviour, and then antichrist was working, being then in his seeds and beginnings. the second was under adrian, about 150 years after our saviour; and than antichrist was come to some consistence and maturity, for to pass by the false and unsound doctrines and corrupt practices of that age, as their enveighing against the marriages, especially the second marriages of ministers; their use of the cross, and counting it a kind of charm; their voluntary fasting and penance, and placing some kind of holiness in the unmarried state, as may be seen at large in tertullian, cyprian, and others. but to pass by these, about adrian's time it was, euseb. l. 4. c. 24. that victor, the bishop of rome, did take upon him to excommunicate all the eastern bishops that did not solemnize easter at the same time with him; by which irregular and presumptuous decree, he did not only take that for granted, which i think is very questionable, viz. the keeping of easter, i mean upon a religious account, but likewise he assumed a power which did not belong to him; and sufficiently shows that that church was then aiming at empire and rule rather than religion. the third and last date of jerusalem's ruin was in julian's time, when the temple was torn up by an earthquake, and that prophecy of our saviour literally fulfilled, that there should not be left there one stone upon another. and about this time, it would be endless to recount the infinite abuses and errors which were not only crept into, but had credit and countenance in the church. the doctrine of merit and justification by works; the worship of angels; the forbidding of marriage, and abstaining from meats, being publicly owned, and this last so rigorously pressed, that socrates, a learned and moderate historian, observes, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, socr. l. 5. c. 22. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. they count, saith he, fornication and all uncleanness an indifferent and dispensable fault; but about their feast and fast days, they contend as for their lives, he adds, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, quite perverting the commands of god, and giving laws unto themselves. at the same time likewise were appeals made unto rome, socr. l. 2. c. 8. etc. 17. to julius the bishop there, as the judge of civil controversies; and a decree either made or tacitly assented to, that no act of a council should be valid at which the bishop of rome was not present; which shows that antichrist, i.e. that proud, aspiring, overweening spirit was well grown, and arrived almost to its full stature. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, saith my author, i.e. socr. l. 7.11. now of a long time had the bishopric of rome advanced itself 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, beyond the sacerdotal unto a tyrannical power, and therefore would not permit those who were of the same orthodox faith with them to meet and assemble quietly in their jurisdiction. and this was written by socrates, before the stile of universal bishop was yet thought of; which within a hundred years after was challenged, and then was the mystery of iniquity complete and perfect. 4. the fourth and last thing in our saviour's prediction, is the way how antichrist should rise, together with the progress he should make; they shall show, saith our saviour, great signs and wonders, to deceive, if it were possible, even the elect. and this note either of pretending to, or really effecting of miracles is mentioned both by the apostle paul, and john in his revelation. 2 thes. 2 9 paul saith of him, that his working is according to satan, in all power and signs, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, not lying wonders in this sense, as if their miracles were all forged and false, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, wonders done in defence and maintenance of a lie, i. e. his doctrine should be so false, that it should have nothing to uphold it but merely the reputation of miracles, whether true or false. so the apostle john saith, that the beast, who had horns like a lamb, rev. 13.13. doth great miracles, so that he makes even fire to descend from heaven; what he there calls a beast, in another place he calls, the false prophet who does signs and wonders. rev. 19.20. so that our saviour and his apostles do both grant that miracles may be done by a false power; and likewise affirm, that whoever hath nothing else to allege for his religion, but merely miracles, that same is antichrist. for truth stands not in need of such outward circumstances to underprop it; and, according to the scripture, miracles are not to prove the doctrine, but the doctrine is to prove the miracles, whether they are from god or not. but yet, saith our saviour, with those arts and ways he shall so far prevail, as even almost to stagger the belief of the very elect; many shall follow their destructive doctrines, 2 pet. 2.2. rev. 13. saith peter; the world shall wonder after the beast, saith john, and he shall deceive the inhabitants of the earth, etc. all which places do note an almost universal seduction. and if any ask, how it comes to pass that corruption, so contrary to the received tenets and maxims of christianity should be so generally embraced, 2 thes. 2 10, 11 the apostle paul hath given it, because men have not received the love of the truth, that they might be saved, therefore shall god send upon them the strong working of deceit, 2 thes. 2.9. that they should believe a lie, i.e. men being unwilling to give themselves up to the guidance of truth, which shines clearly by its own light, both in scriptures, and in their own understandings; therefore shall god suffer them to be so brutish and sottish, as to quit their reason, and to be led up and down by any fond and ridiculous error, as those impostors shall guide them. i have done with the prediction of our saviour concerning antichrist, v canenes. concil. trident. and if upon your enquiry you find, that there is that religion in the world which hath espoused and embodied into their confession of faith all the opinions of antichrist: if there be that church in the world, which still pretends to do, and, for aught i know, doth real miracles, upon which they bottom their plea to be the true church; if they maintain persecution, violence, and fraud; if they have dispirited and disenvigoured religion by their worldly pomp and gallantry; and make thriving in this world a sign that god doth love and favour them, all which are antichristian tenets and practices. if there be that person in the world, who hath assumed the very stile of antichrist, who hath trampled upon kings, and trod upon the necks of emperors; who in his canon law is called god; and, like god, doth dispense with all, both divine and humane laws; then first, certainly antichrist is already come; and to deny it, is to deny as great evidence and notoriety of fact, as to deny it is day when the sun shineth. and secondly, he which foretold that antichrist should thus come, with all these circumstances that i have summed up, he was undoubtedly a true prophet, the true messiah; for to repeat the argument in my text; he told us these things before they came to pass, and we find that they are come to pass; and therefore he is. the use that i shall make of this whole discourse is: 1. to convince the unresolved. 2. to confirm those who are already settled. use 1, the first use shall be to convince the unresolved; i have already spoken something to awaken those that are resolute and peremptory unbelievers; but there are many, who may be yet in their enquiring, doubting, and disputing state; who are not unwilling to embrace the faith of christ, but they find it to be so repugnant to every thing of natural reason within them: and likely to be attended with so much hazard and danger, that they are either ashamed or afraid to own it, but yet are not fixed in positive denial of it, but through uncertainty they are always anxious and wavering. such as these aught to be tenderly and gently dealt with; and two things i shall propose to them, which may help to alleviate and to abate their prejudices. 1. that christian religion is in no part of it unreasonable; for, since the proof of it in general depends upon the clearest demonstration, viz. the fulfilling of prophecies, than the belief of it must needs be rational. i know very well, that the things contained in the scriptures, viz. the incarnation of the son of god, three persons of the godhead, the immediate acting of the holy spirit upon the heart of believers, and the like, are all mysterious, and no ways reconcileable to humane apprehension; but then we must consider, that these things are not proposed to our understandings to comprehend them; but merely to our faith to believe them; which where there is a firm and demonstrable ground of belief may be done, even to many things that we understand not. and the great hindrance that hath kept christian faith from entering into the minds of men, is want of attendance to that distinction, for many have both confounded themselves, and subverted the faith of others by pressing upon them a comprehension of what is no ways by us intelligible. and therefore all those disputes about predestination, trinity, resurrection, incarnation, and the like, are for the greatest part of them unprofitable and dangerous; because they are not content barely to assert the truth, (which is then best done when it is put into the plainest and most unscholastick language of scripture) but our arguers do over and above inquire de modo, and labour to give reasons for those stupendious and amazing mysteries, which the apostle paul cries out 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 upon, and, for the most part, ends the dispute with a reproof of the disputer. and therefore such of you as are not yet fixed in your belief; set yourselves purely upon this article, viz. to inquire whether jesus be the christ; and never give it over till it hath pleased god fully to confirm you in it. and my reasons for this advice are these three. 1. because this is the most effectual and ready way to prove unto you the divine authority of the scriptures. those who set upon this work by endeavouring to prove the scriptures to be the word of god, as they lie in gross, and in their diffused bulk, proceeding by chapter and verse, do undertake a tedious and impossible task; for there those ordinary and trivial objections of mistakes, and variations in copies, mistranslations, and the like, are never to be assoiled; but if you draw the several lines in scripture into their centre, and contract them into christ, as you use to do the sunbeams into a burning-glass, then do they cast a quick and vigorous lustre, sufficient to enlighten and warm even the most stiff and rigid opposer. he that would demonstrate the providence of god, would not, i suppose, begin with the minutiae mundi, the lesser things of the world, as flies and infects, but he would fix, as david doth, upon the sun, or some noble and conspicuous part, whose use is undeniable; and thence conclude, that if providence hath a respect to any one part of the world, it cannot be imagined but it should have an influence over all; for else it must either be finite or partial, which is absurd. so in the asserting of scriptures, begin with that which they all point at, and which if one place be questioned, thousands of the same kind will evince, viz. that the messiah was to come, which is the great design of the old testament. that the messiah is come, which is the sum of the new; and then all the other parts of scripture will be owned, as suited to the divine and heavenly nature of our messiah; who took a body, not only that he might die our price, but that he might live our pattern. and almost each line of scripture, especially in the new testament, describes either his life, or his language. 2. here the doubter must begin, because this is the readiest way to ascertain himself whether he be guided by the spirit of god, or not. so the apostle paul, 2 cor. 12.3. none can call jesus the lord but by the holy spirit; and john, 1 joh. 4.2. every spirit that confesseth jesus the messiah to be come in the flesh, is of god. they do not mean, that saying this in words is a sign of the spirit, for what is more easy? but the owning it in heart, this whoever doth, may be sure he hath the spirit. and the reason is plain, because where the object proposed doth exceed any natural power, there must be a new power given, by which that object is to be received. thus the apostle john argues concerning future glory, hereafter, 1 joh. 3.3. saith he, we shall be like him, i. e. christ, because we shall see him as he is. there will be a proportion and similitude between christ's body and ours, because our visive faculty shall be so exceedingly advanced, as that we shall be able to perceive him in his utmost radiance of glory. so in belief, since the soul when it doth it, is heightened beyond any native virtue of its own, it is a sign that god's spirit hath illuminated and enlarged its capacity. thus the apostle, we are saved by grace through faith, eph. 2.8. and that not of ourselves, it is the gift of god; i. e. that very faith, by which we apprehend christ, is as much the gift of god as christ himself that is apprehended by it. i know very well this seems harsh to many who are willing to boast in themselves; but if ever you come to believe indeed, you will find the difficulties, your natural reason doth urge and vex you with, to be insuperable, until the spirit of god, by infusing new light, doth explain and solve them. lastly, begin with enquiring whether jesus be the christ, because upon this depends the whole course of your future obedience. our saviour required no more of any that came unto him, but to believe that he was the son of god; not that he did exclude good works, but he knew that this was the only way to facilitate and expedite them. all the while we are either uncertain that our past sins are pardoned, or our present services accepted; how lamely, how untowardly do we set about our duty? but when once we believe on christ all that care is over, and the firmer our faith is, the higher and more ardent will our love be; which, like a flame, shoots through the soul, and carries it out with an heavenly quickness and ardency. therefore, saith the apostle, rom. 10.9, 10. if thou confess with thy mouth, that jesus is the lord, i.e. if thou obeyest him) and believest in thy heart that god hath raised him from the dead, (i.e. that he is the true messiah, of which his resurrection is an infallible proof,) thou shalt be saved. for with the heart men believe unto righteousness; (i.e. unto the justification of their persons,) and with the mouth is confession made unto salvation. but to think of making confession, or doing any act of religion, without faith (desire at least, and the desire of faith is faith) this is only to mock god, and to undo ourselves by our foolish and hypocritical presumptions, in presenting unto him a sacrifice which he abhors; for without faith, i. e. reliance upon him for mercy, and out of christ, god is nothing else but justice, it is impossible to please him. when the doubter hath gone thus far, as to find that if he will be satisfied, here he must begin; his next course will be to run over in his mind those arguments which our saviour useth to evince his being the messiah; such are the heavenliness of his language; joh. 8.43. why do you not, saith our saviour, know my speech? i.e. why do you not perceive, even by my manner of discourse that i am come from heaven, full of that god in whose name i speak? joh. 10.21. for, as some of the jews said, these are not the words of him that hath a devil: these are not the words of one that came to deceive the world, and to boast of himself to be that which he was not. another argument our saviour urges, is the holiness of his life; joh 8.46. joh. 10.32. which of you, saith he, doth convince me of sin? and many good works have i done amongst you, for which of them do you stone me? an holy, humble, selfdenying man, who forbade even his miracles to be published, cannot, without intolerable malice, be supposed to assume a title which did not belong to him. add to this the godlike patience and resolution of his death, dying in defence of this very tenet; unprovoked with injuries, breathing out his soul in charity to men, father forgive them, luk. 23.34. for they know not what they do; at the same time both praying and pleading for his bitterest enemies; and then giving up himself unto his father with perfect affiance. father, ibid. v. 46. into thy hands do i commend my spirit. add yet farther, the testimony of his followers, who saw him after he was risen; the success of his doctrine in spite of persecution; and above all, the fulfilling of prophecies, as i have already mentioned; truly then if he that doubted be not satisfied; if he that was almost, doth not become altogether a christian, he is strangely wanting to himself, for god is not wanting to assist those who do but begin to inquire after him: every doubt that ariseth being nothing else but a motion of god's spirit, whereby he would draw us unto himself. having thus cleared, that to believe is not unreasonable, as the unbeliever supposeth; the next thing i shall propose is this: that 2. to obey is not dangerous; for though we may lose our lives, yet sure we shall be sufficient gainers if we save our souls. and therefore let the doubter strengthen himself with representing heaven in its fullness of joy always before his eyes. that doctrine which teacheth, that we are not to have an eye to the recompense of reward, it is false and dangerous; it is false, because it contradicts the command and the example of christ, who for the joy that was set before him despised the cross. heb 12.2. thus moses, thus paul did both eye the reward themselves, and enjoin it as a duty upon others. 2. it is dangerous, first, because it begets infinite scruples, especially in young converts, whose first inducement must either be from their hopes, or their fears, and which way soever they begin they have our saviour sometime using threats, otherwhiles mingling promises, to justify their being wrought upon by either. 2. it makes the greatest and most comfortable part of the word useless, and that is the promises; and if men may live above the promises, it will quickly follow, that they may live above the precepts too; and what the end of such doctrine may be, is too apparent. i say therefore to the yet doubting christian, fetch new strength & vigour from the promises; for if thy belief be reasonable, i am sure thy obedience, though it brings suffering, is highly so; for no momentany pressure, 2 cor. 4.17. how grievous soever, can countervail that full and everlasting weight of happiness which is laid up for believers and obeyers of the gospel. and that is a theme so obvious, that i need not insist upon it. so much for the first use. use 2 the second use is to confirm and strengthen believers: he that standeth, 1 cor. 10.12: saith the apostle, and faith only is the cause of a christians standing, let him take heed lest he fall; and take heed, saith he to the believing hebrews, heb. 3.12. lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief, to apostatise from the living god. nothing doth undo the greatest part of christians, but their confidence; whereby, presuming upon their present stock of faith, they lay in no fresh recruits, and so fall, if not finally, (for that no elect person can do) yet foully, as peter did: whose security betrayed him into that which cost him many bitter tears. this kind of bread is to be begged and received new every day from heaven, or else we have no certainty that it will continue with us one moment. and therefore whatever we do, let us take care that our faith fail not; a breach there, is like a wound in the head, for the most part mortal; and if at any time there have been ruptures and intercisions made in that grace, repair them presently by quickening and feeding your faith with new arguments; new, if not for subject and matter, yet for light and for discovery. now this often reflecting upon our saviour's prediction, is the best expedient you can provide: for that was it which confirmed the apostles, who were of as slow, incredulous, and uneasy a temper to believe as any of us can be; when our saviour had told the jews, joh. 2.22. that in three days he would destroy the temple and raise it up again, meaning the temple of his body; the evangelist john observes, that when he was raised from the dead, his disciples remembered, that he had said this unto them; and, he adds, they believed the scripture, (which foretold this of the messiah) and the word which jesus had said; (who foretold it of himself,) where he makes our saviour's foretelling his own resurrection to be a medium by which the disciples did strengthen their faith, even after they had seen him risen. and when they ran to the sepulchre in the midst of their despairs and fears, as now imagining that their master was utterly gone, and all their faith ungrounded; the angels tell them, remember, say they, how he spoke unto you, while he was yet in galilee, saying, luk. 24.8. the son of man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and be raised again the third day. and, says the evangelist, they remembered his words; i.e. reflecting upon them, which their present sorrow and impatience made them to forget, they did a little moderate and appease their sorrow. by the example then of those apostles, often mind yourselves of our saviour's predictions, and they will be of great advantage and comfort to you in these three cases: 1. in case of heresies, which are already come. ii. in case of persecution, which may come. iii. in case of future glory, which though it be now delayed, yet we have a promise that it will come. 1. the reflecting upon our saviour's predictions will be of great use to comfort believers, in respect of the heresies which already are come; i know it is a sad and troublesome thing unto a true christian to see the divisions and contentions of brethren; to have the peace of the church disturbed by schism, and the unity of faith divided by error; but as our saviour said to his disciples concerning the destruction of jerusalem, luk. 21.9. when you see wars, and tumults, be not troubled, for all these things must come to pass. so say i, when you see heresy and error spreading itself, and parties, and sidings, under pretence of advancing truth, miscalling faction by the name of religion; be not amazed, for we know who hath told us, that there must be heresies, 2 cor. 11.29. that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, those whose faith is approved or tried may be made manifest. as mists and vapours serve to set out the sun, so do errors in some make the truth that is owned by others more conspicuous and apparent. i know the common cry of ignorant or self-designing men, is put down preaching, keep the people from reading the scriptures, etc. which is all one as if they should say, pull down the sun, that we may prevent the rising of clouds and mereors; the scripture is like the sun, and where it shines vigorously, the dull earth, i.e. natural ignorance in men, which conceives and apprehends it not, must needs send forth mists and vapours. but, god forbidden that the children should be deprived of their bread, because the dogs are ready to snatch it from them, and abuse it. to imprison the scripture in a dark and unknown language, is indeed the ready way to prevent heresies, for what people cannot know they will be sure not to contend about: so to extinguish the sun, is the ready way to hinder clouds, but then we shall be encompassed with the horror of eternal night: and to put out the candle, that so all colours may agree in the dark, is a device as politic as the devil himself that invented it, whose kingdom cannot subsist, unless the world do lull themselves asleep into a dull, stupid, irremediable ignorance. when the light of the scripture is gone, i am afraid the light of the spirit will go with it; and i am sure the light of reason leads us to nothing, but to atheism, or to worse, to sottish and impertinent superstition, i.e. it makes us either so cunning, as to deceive others; or so foolish, as to be willing to be deceived ourselves. therefore instead of such dismal contrivances, let heresies be suppressed by the same way by which they were raised, and that is by preaching; and in the mean while, let not the believer be troubled that many errors are commonly vented now, for he understood not the nature of his religion, nor the vainglorious and yet foolish pride of man, if he did not expect them. for the scripture is difficult, exceeding difficult and hard to be understood; and man is foolish, and so apt to mistake; proud, and so apt to presume; vainglorious, and so apt to publish his conceits; which in the end prove heresies. but convince men once that it is their duty to be humble, than they will cease to vent; that they are to be charitable, and they will forbear to contend for their singular fancies; and unto this posture of mind nothing but the blessing of god upon preaching can bring them. 2. this likewise will comfort believers in respect of persecutions which may come. that the church of christ is a ship which doth best in a storm, and that faith must, like gold, be tried in the fire, is so known a thing that i need not insist upon it. all that i infer is, that the having afflictions foretold should keep us from grieving at them when they do come. they, joh. 16.1. saith our saviour to his disciples, shall put you out of the synagogues, and when they kill you, think they do god good service. and i tell you these things, that you might not be offended, but remember that i told you of them. thus the apostle paul to the thessalonians, 1 thes. 3.3, 4. let no man be moved by his afflictions, for ye know that we are appointed unto this; and even when we were with you, we told you before that we should be afflicted, even as also it is come to pass. those who are forewarned of approaching evils, are usually armed against them: and therefore i have often wondered at that timid and abject spirit which is in many under their afflictions; which is a certain sign that their fear is above their faith, and that they inwardly distrust their cause, or doubt of their reward. if ye are reproached, saith the apostle peter, for the sake of christ, 2 pet. 4.14. 2 tim. 1.7, 8. happy are ye, for the spirit of glory and of god rests upon you. and paul to timothy, we have not received the spirit of fear, but the spirit of power, therefore be not ashamed of the testimony of christ. so that i conceive no condition is more joyous to a true christian, than to be endued with courage to suffer; for as in winter the fire doth redouble its hair, so god at that time of trial doth pour into the soul a more abundant supply of comfort. however he that suffers is on the surer side. for though one may suffer, and yet not be in the right, yet he that persecutes is certainly in the wrong, as doing a thing which he hath no warrant for. so that as the apostle peter adviseth, 1 pet. 4.19. let them who suffer according unto the will of god, not be solicitous about the event, but, go on in their duty, though the world frown, and commit their souls unto him, in well-doing, as unto a faithful creator. 3. lastly, the reflecting upon our saviour's predictions, and the fulfilling of them, will be a great comfort unto believers, in respect of future glory, which is yet delayed, but will certainly come. i make no doubt, but every serious resolved christian doth often wish with the apostle paul, to be dissolved, phil. 2. and to be with christ; which certainly is a condition much better than to struggle with the difficulties and uncertainties of life, or to be clogged with a decaying, sinful, and enticing body of flesh. we that are in this tabernacle, 2 cor. 5. saith the apostle, do groan being burdened; we would fain be stripped and disrobed of this cleg of flesh, and be put into present possession of our inheritance. but as heirs must wait patiently, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, until the time appointed by their father, so must we. let us hold fast, saith the apostle, heb. 10.23. the profession of our faith without wavering, for he is faithful that hath promised; i.e. god will be as good as his word, and he hath shown it, by fulfilling so many things already. so that, ib. v. 36, 37. as he adds, ye have need of patience, that when we have finished the will of god, we may receive the promise, for yet a little while, and he that shall come, will come, and will not tarry. life itself is but of a very short date, stretched out to its utmost span; but what a nothing is it, if compared to eternity? and cannot we wait some few years to do our master's business on earth, but we must cry out for our wages before we have done our work? and because unbelief is ready to creep in, and to make that objection which some in peter do, 2 pet. 3. where is the promise of his coming? why doth christ seem to neglect his church, as if he had no regard unto his vineyard? if these thoughts arise, as do what we can, come they will, 2 pet. 39 silence them with that of peter, god is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness, but he is long-suffering towards us, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come unto the knowledge of the truth. god hath yet some jewels to gather out of the world's rubbish, and it is for their sakes that the present frame of things is so long continued; for when their number is accomplished, the heaven shall be wrapped up, as a scroull, and the earth shall be removed as an useless scene. wherefore, that i may conclude in the apostle peter's words, ibid. v. 18. believers, ye knowing these things before, beware that ye be not led away by the seduction of ungodly men, and so fall from your own steadfastness; but grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our lord and saviour jesus christ. to whom be glory now and for ever. amen. the resurrection of the body asserted and cleared. act. 26.8. why should it be thought a thing incredible with you, that god should raise the dead? these are the words of the apostle paul, spoken by way of apology, in defence of himself, and of that most questioned and contradicted part of his doctrine, viz. the resurrection of the dead. this being in itself, & so accounted by him, the chief foundation of a christians hope, where ever that great apostle came, he first lays, and then builds upon it. at athens, among the learned greeks, act. 17.18. we find him, by their own confession, preaching but two things, jesus, and the resurrection. afterwards, when he was empleaded by the jews, he doth openly avow his faith. i am, saith he, a pharisee; i. e. act. 23.6. i do with them hold and maintain the resurrection of the dead, for, as it follows, of the hope and resurrection of the dead i am called in question. again, when he was convened before felix, the roman deputy, he insists upon the same argument; for whereas he was charged by tertullus with being an heretic (which word is still continued, act. 24.5. as that name of obloquy, whereby men are wont to disgrace all new discoveries of old truths) paul doth, in despite of that opprobrious name, own that, which they called heresy, ver. 14. and aloud proclaims, that he believed, as all the jews either did, or else had reason to do from their writings, there should be a resurrection of the dead, ver. 15. both of the just and of the unjust. and now again, being brought forth before a mixed auditory, both of jews and romans, he doth not only assert the doctrine, but likewise in these words offers to dispute the case, and to prove the resurrection by the dint of reason. the words themselves, which are proposed by way of question, contain three parts: 1. a proposition: that god will raise the dead; for these words, why should it be thought a thing incredible with you, that god should raise the dead? imply, that god will certainly raise them. 2. an opposition: that this is judged very incredible; for these words, why is it judged incredible with you, that god should raise the dead? implies, that this is ordinarily esteemed and reputed as a thing incredible. 3. a demonstration or a conviction; that though this was judged incredible, yet indeed in itself it was not so. for this question, why is it judged incredible, etc. implies, that in the opinion of the questioner, there was no sufficient reason why it should be so esteemed. and these three parts afford us three doctrinal conclusions: 1. that god will raise the dead. 2. that this doctrine, concerning the resurrection of the dead, seems to natural men very incredible and very unreasonable. 3. that the resurrection of the dead, however it be judged incredible by natural men, yet is in itself highly credible, highly rational. doct. 1 the first conclusion is, that god will raise the dead; by dead, here i mean that part of man which dies, viz. his body; for the soul dies not, but when the body returns to its dust, the soul returns to him that gave it. and fear not them, saith our saviour, eccl. 12.7. mat. 10.28. which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul; with this part of ourselves, as soon as ever we dislodge from the body, in the apostle paul's language, we do 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, i.e. 1 cor. 5.8. dwell and cohabite with the lord, as in our proper father's house; for heaven is the souls native and original home: and therefore the reunion of that at last with the body, is rather a return than a resurrection. to speak properly, the body only rises; thus our saviour: the hour is coming, saith he, joh. 5.25. when the dead shall hear the voice of the son of god, and they who hear, shall live; where, that we might not be mistaken, who he meant by dead, he adds by way of explication, the hour is coming, when all who are, ver. 28. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in the tombs or monuments, shall hear his voice. now what else are monuments but as one calls them, tertul. cadaverum stabula; the stalls or receptacles of our corrupt and perishing bodies. and therefore, when our saviour envites all to come unto him, he uses this by way of motive, that whoever came to him, he would not lose 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, i.e. any thing that belonged to him, for, saith he, joh. 6.39. i will raise him up at the last day. and again, he that believes on the son, he shall have eternal life, and i will raise him up at the last day. implying, not only that if the body were not raised, something which did essentially belong to man would be lost and perish; but likewise that without this raising of the body, eternal life would not be a state of happiness; because it would be nothing else but an eternal separation from that part unto which the soul always desires to be joined, and from which it is unwillingly severed, as the apostle argues, 1 cor. 5.1. and following verses. but doth our saviour, do his apostles say this only? say not the prophets the same? is not this article of our faith, as well as all the rest, to be proved out of the old testament? volkol. l. 2● it will concern us a little to inquire into it, that we may stop those men's mouths, who traduce our religion, when they tell us, that it is wholly new; for if our saviour had taught any thing which was either contrary to, or not eminently contained in the writings of moses and the prophets, the jews would have had juster reason to disbelieve his doctrine than as yet they can pretend. for to insist only upon this of the resurrection (which of all other divine discoveries seems to have least footing in the old testament.) it is plain that the sadduces, who denied the resurrection, are charged by our saviour with ignorance of the scriptures, ye err, saith he, not knowing the scriptures; i e. not reflecting upon those places of scripture wherein the resurrection is, though not directly spoken of, yet, plainly and by good consequence implied. and thereupon he interprets one place, which, though not minded by them, yet, did verify his assertion. the place is, exod 3. that stile which god, in his apparition to moses, did assume, mat. 22 31, 32. when he calls himself, the god of abraham, the god of isaac, and the god of jacob; this, saith our saviour, doth demonstrate the resurrection, for god is not god of the dead, but of the living; which words conclude two things: 1. that the fouls of abraham, isaac, and jacob were then living with god. 2. that the living of their souls did necessarily infer that their bodies should live too; since god is not god of this or that part only, but of the whole man. another place in the old testament which did imply the resurrection, is the promise god made to abraham; gen. 12.1. that he would bring him to a land flowing with milk and honey. but by this land, as the apostle excellently argues, heb. 11.8, 16. was not meant canaan, for there abraham had no possession, but confessed of himself that he was a pilgrim and stranger in it; which manifestly shows, that he desired a country, not that which he left, but a better, even a heavenly one; and that he looked after it, as a place of happiness not only for his soul, but likewise for his body, is plain from what the apostle saith afterwards, concerning the undaunted constancy of the primitive martyrs, i.e. such as died in bearing their witness for the truths of god, before the coming of our saviour in the flesh. they would not, ver. 35. saith he, accept of deliverance, that they might obtain a better resurrection. besides these places which do imply this doctrine, there are some that do expressly mention it; as that of job, job 19 ver. 25. whose words, however controverted by many learned men, yet out of the original, are exactly thus, for i know that my redeemer (i.e. promised messiah, unto whom this term of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is most ordinarily applied, as isa. 59.20. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, i.e. the redeemer shall come to zion, and unto them that turn from transgression in jacob, which no interpreter but must needs understand of the promised saviour) liveth, and at last he shall arise (or stand, i.e. as judge) over the dust, (i.e. either upon earth, as our english translation hath it; or, over all men, ver. 26. though now for the present they lie in the dust.) and, after my skin, when they (i.e. the worms, or the diseases he was then afflicted with) have pierced through this (i.e. body of mine) yet out of my flesh shall i see jehovah, whom i shall see for myself, and my eyes shall behold, ver. 27. and not a stranger; which doth so clearly manifest his belief of the resurrection, that, as the words cannot possibly be made sense without it, so the greek translation, by using the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which signifies, to raise up again to life, in that sense i speak of, doth plainly favour it. this likewise was the faith of david, where he says, thou wilt not suffer thy holy one to see corruption: psal. 16.11. act. 3. for though (as to the rising on the third day, i. e. before the natural humours were resolved and corrupted) it was literally fulfilled by our saviour, and so applied to him both by peter and paul, act. 13. yet it is plain, that he who spoke those words did likewise believe a resurrection of his own person, therefore he says, my flesh shall rest in hope. but most plain is that of daniel, who, dan 12.2. speaking of michael, i.e. messiah the prince, (and we know it was the charge against our saviour, that he made himself 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, i.e. messiah the prince) says, that in his time, many (i. e. the multitude) of them that sleep in the dust shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt; which is so clear a prophecy of the future resurrection, and in so express terms, that our saviour in his declaration of it seems to allude to these very words of daniel, and to have had them in his eye; only what daniel calls everlasting contempt, our saviour explains, by calling it, the resurrection of condemnation: and those, saith he, joh. 5.29. who do good, shall go forth to the resurrection of life; but those who do evil, to the resurrection of condemnation. so that from hence it evidently appears, that we christians, in this particular, do own no more than what other holy men among the jews did before us; and our apostle did very well understand what he said, when in the words foregoing my text, he tells them, that he was then judged for the promise (i. e. of future life and happiness not to be attained, but after the resurrection) made by god unto the fathers; whereupon he proceeds to make that query, why should it be judged incredible, that god should raise the dead? and so much for the first observation. doct. 2 the second observation is this, that the doctrine of the resurrection, though plainly revealed in scripture, seems to natural men very incredible; act. 17.18. so it appeared to the learned philosophers at athens, who called paul 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, prater, or trifler for preaching it: and they did so little understand what the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 meant, that they took it to be the name of some daemon; for thus some said of paul, that he was a publisher of strange daemons, because he preached unto them jesus and the resurrection; which last word should have been left untranslated, for they took 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which paul spoke so much of, to be the name of some new goddess. so likewise in this chapter, when paul makes a relation of his conversion, which yet was very miraculous, festus heard him patiently, but when once he began to mention how christ was raised from the dead, act. 26.23, 24. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. festus could hold no longer, but cried out with a great deal of impatience, paul thou art mad, too much learning hath quite unhinged thy brain, and overturned thee into madness. 2 cor. 15. hence the apostle, in that chapter where he doth most elegantly dispute it, brings in an heathen ask this question, ver. 35. but some man will say, how are the dead raised up? which is not an how of enquiry, into the manner and method of the resurrection, in what order it shall be accomplished; but an how of doubting, concerning the whole thing: joh. 3.9. like nicodemus' how, how can these things be? and therefore in the primitive persecutions, the enemies of god's people never shown more witty cruelty in any thing than in devising ways how to elude the resurrection; and that not only by mangling, torturing, and burning their bodies, but by scattering their ashes in the rivers, ●nseb. l. 5. c. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, saith mine author, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. as if they had been able to conquer god, and deprive the saints of their resurrection. neither was this only the persuasion of the heathen world, but we see oftentimes in scripture, those who owned higher principles, yet manifesting their doubts and despairs of this. c. 7.9. thus job, notwithstanding his so excellent confession, in a fit of impatience cries out, as the cloud is consumed and vanisheth away, c. 14.7. so he that goeth down to the grave shall come up no more. and again, there is hope, saith he, of a tree, if it be cut down, that it will sprout again, and that the tender branch thereof will not cease. but, if a man die, shall he live again? ver. 14. by which words he seems to conclude, that by death at least the body is utterly lost. so ezekiel, when god, to try his faith, asked him this question, c. 37.3. son of man, can these bones live? that holy man durst not affirm it, but uses an answer which shows that he was altogether uncertain and at a loss about it: o lord god, saith he, thou knowest; i.e. i am not able to resolve thee; that dry bones should live, belongs as much to a divine knowledge to comprehend, as to a divine power to effect it. thus in the new testament the apostles, though they knew their master to be the son of god, and the messiah, (which was a great masterpiece of faith) yet they did not at all understand the resurrection; mar. 9 for when our saviour after his transfiguration did charge them, that they should not tell any what they had seen, until the son of man were risen from the dead; the evangelist adds, that they kept the matter private to themselves, but questioned or disputed with one another, what the rising from the dead should mean: at which time, it seems, they were so utterly ignorant of the thing, that they scarce understood the meaning of the word. hence was it, that even then when the resurrection of our saviour had cleared the point, 1 cor. 15.12. and left scarce room for the least umbrage of suspicion to enter; yet there were some in the church of corinth, who utterly denied it; and other, 2 tim. 2.18. of the sect of hymenaeus and philetus, who affirmed, that it was passed already; so hard a matter was it for this doctrine to get ground in the world; 1 tim. 13.6. and therefore the apostle when he sums up the mystery of godliness, i.e. as it is revealed by our saviour, he makes this to be one great part of it, that christ was not only risen from the dead, but believed on in the world. the subduing of the world unto the persuasion and credence of our saviour's resurrection being every whit as miraculous as the raising him. the reasons why this appears so to incredible, to natural men, are 1. because naturally men do doubt the immortality of the soul. i know very well, that there are many excellent discourses about this in the heathen writers; and plato, phade. in a certain dialogue of his, brings in his master socrates, disputing about it, with as much strength of reason, and clearness of expression, as the wit of man can possibly invent; but after all his fine say he concludes, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; but expressly to affirm, that the matter is indeed so, as i have discoursed of, doth by no means become an understanding man. and so makes it at the best only a probable opinion, without daring to think, as our modern demonstrators do, that he had fully and satisfactorily cleared it. and therefore his so much magnified socrates, when he was now to be led unto execution, takes his farewell of the judges in these words, which discover nothing but his uncertainty, apol. i go to die, and you to live, and which of us do go unto the best estate, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, de senect. none knows but god alone. so tully, the most learned of the romans, calls immortality an error, which he will by no means part with, because he is pleased and delighted with it. wherein he discovers his wishes, de animâ. rather than his hopes; for as tertullian excellently argues, to suppose the soul immortal, it was in the heathen nothing else but a bold and vain presumption, since it always lay in his power to destroy the soul, who made it; and whether he would or not, he had not, as to them, revealed his pleasure. and indeed the words of job in his despair are the highest reasoning of most philosophers, c. 14.10. man, saith he, dieth, and wasteth away; yea, man giveth up the ghost, and where is he? and solomon, in the person of a natural man, asks a question, which he challengeth the world to answer, eccl. 3.21. who knoweth the spirit of a man that goeth upward, and the spirit of a beast that goeth downward to the earth? who knoweth? i.e. upon the principles of mere reason, and research of natural causes, who is able to resolve it? whereupon among the jews, act 23.8. the sadduces, who denied the resurrection, denied likewise both angel and spirit, i. e. the surviving of the soul, as well as the restoring of the body. so that since men do naturally doubt of the less, it is no wonder if they despair of the greater? they who are apt to give the soul itself for lost, how can they imagine that the body should ever be recovered? 2. the second reason, why natural men are so apt to disbelieve the resurrection, is, because they make a wrong estimate of god's power. we see in this world nothing better, and therefore we are ready to measure god by ourselves; and believe no more of his power than what falls within the compass of humane probability; which is the true and fixed ground of all that atheistical distrust, which in all times doth so much abound among men: who is the lord, said pharaoh, exod. 5.2. that i should let israel go? and, who is jehova, says insulting senacherib, 2 reg 18.35. that he should deliver jerusalem out of my hand? nay, not only these wicked men, but the saints of old have most stumbled, when they have been put to act faith upon god's omnipotency; gen. 18.11. thus sarah when she heard the promise of a son, she laughed, what, saith she, now i am old shall i have pleasure, my husband being old also? wherein she musters up arguments to make her distrust seem rational. so moses finds out many excuses to avoid being sent upon god's errand, i am not eloquent, faith he, exod. 4.10. but slow of speech, and slow of tongue; and at last, in plain terms, he entreats that god would find out a fit messenger to go upon his embassy, and whence did this proceed, ver. 13. but from his distrust of god's power to qualify him first, and to protect him afterwards? thus david, jeremy, zachary, nay, almost all, when a stress or difficulty hath been laid upon their faith, they have been ready to cry out, with nicodemus, how can these things be? thus it fares in the case of the resurrection; men do first confine the omnipotence of god to their own notions, and then deny what otherwise they would never have doubted of. mat. 22.29. our saviour therefore tells the unbelieving and gainsaying sadduces, ye err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of god; not knowing the scriptures, which declare the resurrection; nor the power of god, which is able to effect it. 3. the third reason of this unbelief is, because natural men are guided only by sensible impressions; what they see, that they believe, and are not, without a great deal of difficulty, carried one jot farther. hence were the jews so importunate with our saviour to show them a sign from heaven; mat. 16.1. and when our saviour told foam of his followers, in answer to their demand, that it was the work of god, (i.e. wellpleasing to, joh. 6.30, 31. and required by him) to believe on him, whom he had sent. they presently reply upon him, what sign showst thou then, that we may see and believe thee? so those scoffers in isaiah, when the prophet had denounced terrible things against them, let him make speed, say they, and hasten his work, that we may see it. that is, you speak much to us of what shall come hereafter, but we see no danger near, and therefore we will not believe you. thus those wretched pharisees, when they had nailed our saviour to the cross, let him now, say they, come down from the cross, and we will believe him. vain men as well as cruel! vain, in that they conceived it lay in their own power to believe when they pleased; cruel, in that they did insult over a man, whom they had so inhumanely murdered: both vain and cruel, in that they could imagine our saviour, after the miracles of his life, and more than miraculous patience of his death, fruitlessly shown amongst them, would now descend at last merely to satisfy their impious curiosity. we are all of the tormented persons mind; luk. 16.30, 31. though preaching can do no good upon us, yet we think, if one came from the dead and taught us, we should then certainly be converted; but our saviour hath resolved the case clean otherwise, if they, saith he, hear not moses and the prophets (who speak in the name of god with that authority, as becomes his power; and with that purity, as becomes his holiness; if these men, thus speaking, be not listened to) neither will men be persuaded, though one risen from the dead. so that our saviour (who best understood all the topics and methods of persuasion) hath left it as an eternal and experienced truth, that no miracle can convince them whom the word will not work upon; that illustrations of faith are infinitely more satisfying than impressions from sense; since the one perish presently, and decay by using, but the other soak into the soul, and grow up into a kind of connaturalness with it, moulding and fashioning the mind unto their own temper, and every day adds fresh life and vigour to them. but a natural man going not further than his eye of natural reason can carry him; having never seen any thing like to the resurrection, no wonder if he doth not believe it. 4. the last and true reason, why natural men do not believe the resurrection of the dead, is, because they are unwilling to believe it. it is harsh and severe doctrine; it lays the axe to the root of the tree of self, and cuts off all our fantastic enjoyments; it is the fan that blows away our husky and chaffy pleasures, and leaves us to fix upon nothing, but a solid and substantial good. and therefore when one comes, and presses this closely upon us, we are ready to cry out, as the woman, when she had lost her son, did to the prophet, what have we to do with thee, o thou man of god, art thou come to call our sins to remembrance, and to slay our son, i.e. to kill and destroy our pleasures, which are the darlings of our soul? hence it is, that either we fortify ourselves with objections against the resurrection, as the heathen world did, and take a great deal of pains to strengthen our unbelief; or else, like felix, act. 24.25. we run away from the sound of it, for fear it should put us into a fit of trembling. should a man come and preach, as some among the jews did, let us eat and drink, for to morrow we shall die; isa. 22.13. such an one as this we should welcome into our house, and thank him for his poison. but let them call to us to repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand; they will far as john and our saviour did; though they may scape with their lives, yet they shall not escape our censure. let a paul teach us, that now god commandeth all men every where to repent, because he hath appointed a day in the which he will judge the world in righteousness, by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead. this doctrine so sober in itself, of so great concernment to the party that hears it, and of so little to him that speaks it, will yet be entertained with scorn and obloquy; take him away, he is not fit to live, act. 22.22. says the enraged jew; he is a babbler, and an impertinent prater, says the learned athenian: a mere fanatic, says festus; in short, without enquiring whether the resurrection, thus declared, be possible or not; we hastily conclude that it is impossible; and upon that undoing presumption rashly venture upon our own damnation. and so much for the second observation. doct. 3 the third observation was, that the doctrine of the resurrection, however incredible it may seem to natural men, yet it is in itself highly credible, and may be evinced, even by that which natural men do most pretend to, and that is reason. now the credibility of it will appear from these three arguments: 1. it is possible, it may be; god can do it. ii. it is necessary, it must be; there is no providence without it. iii. it is evident and certain that it hath been; and so hath been, as withal it demonstratively proves that it shall be. the first argument, reason 1 which proves the doctrine of the resurrection credible, is the possibility of it, it may be; and this must be well weighed, in opposition to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or how of natural men, who think it implies a contradiction, that a body so scattered and dispersed (one man sometimes feeding upon another, and so confounding the integral parts of both) should ever be restored again, orig. l. 2. & 7. and thence conclude it impossible; as celsus the epicurean philosopher, and others. now the resurrection will appear possible, upon a twofold account. 1. in respect of god, who raiseth the body. 2. in respect of the body, which is raised by him. 1. the resurrection is possible, in respect of god who raiseth the body; he is able to do it; which is intimated here by our apostle, why, saith he, is it judged incredible with you, that god should raise the dead: as if he had said, did we affirm, that the body of man, like plants, did rise by any seminal and prolific virtue of its own, than none would wonder if you did deride and disbelieve us: but we teach no such doctrine, we only affirm, that god will raise the dead by an immediate act of his omnipotence: and then, why should this appear incredible to you? for cannot god do whatever he pleases? what should hinder him, that he cannot as well raise the dead, as make the living? it is with this, that god himself doth silence sarahs' scruples: gen. 18.14. is any thing too hard for the lord? with this he doth repress moses diffidence, who hath made man's mouth? or who maketh the deaf or dumb, the seeing or the blind? is it not i the lord? as if he had said, i that have done the greater, am i not able to do the less? i who have made man's mouth, am not i able to dispose and fit it for what ends i please? with this the angel doth relieve mary's surprise and wonder, luk. 1.37. when (upon the promise that she should conceive a child, without the knowledge of a man, which certainly was every whit as impossible as that i am treating of) she began to stagger and hesitate a little, with god, saith the angel, nothing shall be impossible; and for a further strengthening of her faith, ver. 45. elizabeth encourages her from her own experience, blessed is she that believeth; for there shall be a performance of those things which were told her from the lord. for, who is there that will presume to set limits to god's power? or, that dare say to an almighty agent, hitherto canst thou come, but no farther? he that dares be guilty of so bold and blasphemous an assertion, must likewise allow this contradiction, that a finite agent can conceive the utmost of an infinite and incomprehensible perfection. as therefore in the question, concerning man's freewill, and god's predetermination of future contingencies, i have by experience found it, that the best way to reconcile these two, is to deny neither, but to charge all doubts upon god's omniscience: for it is, and will be a doubt, which none but a divine and all-knowing understanding can resolve, how man should act freely, (as we are conscious to ourselves that we do) and yet not the least action we do, but was predestined by god from all eternity; which not only plain texts of scripture, but the truth of philosophy, and the bare series and subordination of causes doth clearly demonstrate. here, instead of tiring out ourselves with vain reasoning, and uncharitable reviling; the safest and most prudent way is, to shelter ourselves under god's omniscience, for it is dignus numine nodus; and we cannot better discover our own humility, or give god the glory of his knowledge, than if we confess, that there are some things which only he can understand. so in the dispute concerning the resurrection, when doubts arise, as too often they will; and the more we think of it, the stronger and the more puzzling will the objections be; here the best way will be to have recourse to god's omnipotence, and to believe firmly, that god is easily able to do more than man can conceive. thus did the apostle peter answer those scoffers, who began to question whether our saviour would make good his promise in coming to judge the world: this, saith he, 2 pet. 3 5. they are willingly ignorant of, that by the word of god the heavens were made of old. as if he had said, these men have no reason to look upon christ's judging the world, and destroying it by fire, as so incredible a thing; for when god made it out of nothing, he did produce a greater wonder. so let us not doubt but god is able to recover our scattered dust, where ever it is lodged in the bowels of the earth; who did extract this admirable frame of all things out of the womb of nothing. 2. the resurrection is possible, in respect of the body which is to be raised, for that hath already passed a greater change than the resurrection doth amount to: since to pass from nothing to something is a much greater change, than barely to pass from death to life: yet one we have already experimented, and why should we then doubt or despair of the other? this holy men in scripture do often reflect upon, c. 10.10, 11, 12, etc. hast thou not, saith job, poured me out as milk, and curdled me like cheese; thou hast clothed me with skin and flesh, and hast fenced me with bones and sinews; thou hast granted me life, etc. so that what he speaks a little before, ver. 9 remember, i beseech thee, that thou hast made me as the clay, and wilt thou bring me into dust again? may be inverted thus, god hath made us as the clay, psal. 139.14. and cannot he bring us out of the dust again? so david, i will praise thee, saith he, for i am fearfully and wonderfully made; my substance was not hid from thee, when i was made in secret, when i was curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth; wherein he eloquently describes the wonderful art whereby god had made him: and cannot he repair these buildings of flesh and blood with the same ease with which at first he reared them? let him that doubts ask himself this question, was there not a time when once i was not! as david, my members in continuance, or successively, were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them. and as god, without my taking care, without the expense so much as of a miracle did join and cement these pieces; did call for his wind, and breath life into them; did put in a portion of his spirit into them, and give them understanding: so when they are severed, cannot he recall and reunite them? especially, since the parts of our dissolved earth they are scattered only, they are not lost; thrown up and down, in a seemingly careless manner, but still they are under the eye of an allseeing providence, and laid up like sacred relics, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in god's store-house, to be fetched out thence when the heavens shall be no more; which is an answer to job's melancholy; ●. 14.12. man, saith he, lieth down, and riseth not till the heavens be no more they shall not awake, nor be raised out of their sleep. now we are taught, that the heavens shall be no more; 2 pet 3. and that is the time appointed for this resurrection. reason 2 the second argument which makes the resurrection seem credible, is from the necessity of it; it must be, there would be no providence without it. for the resurrection serves to demonstrate two prime attributes of god, without which neither god could be honoured, not the world governed. 1. it demonstrates god's mercy. 2. it demonstrates god's justice. 1. the resurrection demonstrates god's mercy: for god hath appointed this order in the world, that every thing should have a kind of resurrection. the sun, saith solomon, ariseth, eccl. 1.5, 7. and the sun goeth down, and hasteneth to the place where he arose. and, unto the place from whence the rivers came, thither they return again. thus day dies into night, and night rises into day: winter is the death of the year, and spring is its resurrection. and many more such like instances there are in nature. now it would not be suited to the grace and mercy of our god, that every thing should suos patimanes, have its turns and returns, and the noblest creature of all, man, should be altogether exempted! that every thing else should have alternate changes, and be repaired by dying, and man's body only should be huddled up in the horror of eternal night! sure that merciful father, who shown so much curious architecture in contriving this body, did not intent it should act a part only upon this short scene of life; for then certainly he would not have conjoined it with a guest which looks and breaths after nothing but immortality. our saviour, joh. 12.24. prophesying of that progress his gospel should make after his decease, compares himself to a corn of wheat, which if it fall into the ground, and die not, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit. 1 cor. 15.36. and the apostle, when that question was asked, how are the dead raised up? replies presently, thou fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened except it die; implying it to be nothing else but direct folly, to question that which in a thing so obvious as the sowing of corn, might be concluded not only possible but necessary: since man is beyond many grains, and more especially the object ofgods care and compassion: for whose instruction he hath scattered about the world so many preludiums and rudiments of a better resurrection. 2. the resurrection is necessary, because it demonstrates god's justice. were it not for future judgement, nothing would be so full of confusion and disorder as the world. this earth, in the present polity and frame of it; is nothing else but a mere chaos, where vice and iniquity thrive, as in their own soil, but virtue and piety do find neither place nor protection. it must be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that day of reckoning to be revealed in fire, which must absolve providence, and scatter those mists wherewith the beauty of it is now obscured and stained. it is this that must stop men in their carrier of sin, and keep them honest in the dark: for in that sacred irony of the wise man, rejoice, eccl. 11.9. o young man, in thy youth, and walk in the ways of thy heart. and in the sight of thy eyes: but know thou, that for all these things god will bring thee to judgement; which is all one as if he had said, go young man, sin if thou darest, for thou must hereafter come to judgement. eccl. 9.2. in this world, all things come alike to all; god scatters his good things with an undistinguishing hand, tanquam missilia coeli, as his largesses, and signs of his promiscuous bounty, rather than marks of his especial love. but future judgement is god's severing time, called by the apostle, the time 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, act. 3.21. i.e. of setting all things right; of placing every thing upon its proper basis, and giving all their due. now to this the resurrection of the body is necessary, for we must all appear, 2 cor. 55.10. saith the apostle paul, before the judgement-seat of christ, that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or evil. in the law we find, that the soul that sinneth must die; and it is most just, that the body which did join in the sin, should likewise partake in the punishment. those dear allies were not separated in their good or evil doing, and therefore there is no reason they should be distinct in their reward. i carry about me, saith the apostle. the dying of the lord jesus, (i.e. i lead a kind of dying and calamitous life for his sake) that so the life also of jesus might be manifested in my mortal flesh. in requital of all our indignities, 2 joh 8. imprisonments, fast, etc. if the soul only should be glorified, we should not have a full reward; which it is our duty to look after. and therefore this hand, this tongue, this eye, this, whatever it is, whereby god hath been either provoked or honoured, shall be quickened again, and put into the possession of a neverdying life, and fitted for the enjoyment of eternal either joy or torment. thirdly, reason 3 the last argument which makes the doctrine of the resurrection credible, is from the evidence and certainty of it, since it hath been so, as that withal it necessarily implies that it shall be. for christ is risen, and taken possession of glory, not only for himself, but for his followers. 1 cor. 15.14. now if christ be preached, as the apostle argues, that he risen from the dead, how say some among you, that there is no resurrection of the dead? v garbut. remonst. as if he had said, if you barely considered the resurrection in itself, you might then have something to plead in the excuse of your unbelief, but since christ is risen, there is no longer any room left for the least dispute about it. for christ is risen, either as a judge, or as an head; and therefore all must rise, the wicked, to be condemned; the faithful, to be saved by him. the use of this may serve to demonstrate two things: 1. the reasonableness of christian faith. 2. the necessity of christian life. use 1 this serves to demonstrate the reasonableness of christian faith: as when god would convince the heathen, that their idols were not gods, he challenges them to produce their strong reasons, and to prove their cause by arguments: show, isa. 41.23. saith he, the things that are to come hereafter, that we may know that ye are gods; yea, do good, or do evil, that we may be dismayed, i.e. if ye are indeed, as your worshippers suppose, gods, then show it by those infallible and unalterable signs of a deity, viz. your prescience, and your power. so may a christian say in this case, he may and aught to challenge the unbelieving world to produce their strong reasons to declare their cause, and to see whether they have so much to say, even in point of reason, for the most clear and un questioned part of their opinion, as we have for the most contradicted of ours. for a christian should not satisfy himself with a bare and naked faith, grounding himself either upon tradition, or the credit of his teachers, but he should labour for himself if to know both what, and why he believes. it is a general rule the apostle peter gives, 1 pet. 3.15. be ye always ready to give an account of your faith to every one that asks you. and our saviour though he did press his followers to believe on him; yet he never did require from them, orig. lib. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as the heathen falsely objected: i.e. an unreasonable and untried faith; but where ever he gives the command, he alleadges at the same time reasons sufficient to convince the most obstinate gainsayer, such are the heavenliness of his language, joh. 15.22. had i not, saith he, come and spoke unto them, they had not had sin; but now they have no cloak for their sin; for his words, by their own confession, were such as never any man spoke, and carried a clear resemblance to the body he took, as being most humble in stile, and most sublime in sense. joh. 3. and therefore he complains of them, why, saith he, do ye not know 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, i.e. discern who i am by my manner of discourse amongst you; for certainly such words could not proceed from one who came to deceive the world; as those replied, these are not the words of him that hath a devil. joh. 10.21. another argument our saviour uses to induce them to believe was his works, which nicodemus confesseth were such as never any man did. joh. 5.36. and our saviour doth often appeal to their testimony, as where he says, i have a greater witness than that of john, for the works which the father hath given me to finish, the same works that i do, bear witness of me, that the father hath sent me. and again, if i had not done among them the works which no other man did, joh. 15.24. they had not had sin. but, that which our saviour most insisted upon was the scriptures, to them he refers the jews; out of these do the apostles altogether argue; and to the search of these are all conjoined; and still we can ground our belief upon their testimony, whatever we boast of is not faith but fancy, and will not hold out in a time of trial. then the soul can only sit down satisfied, when by comparing the predictions of the old testament with the fulfilings of the new, it can subscribe probatumest, i have examined, and find it true. now, because this is a matter of very great importance, and yet too much neglected, therefore i shall press it upon these considerations: 1. this will sweeten our obedience. till we are satisfied as men, we can never obey as christians: for faith is nothing else but another kind of reason, whose basis and foundation is laid in humility: therefore the apostle calls that great action of a christian, when he doth not, as in the old law, sacrifice an ox, but himself up to god, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a service suiting us as reasonable creatures. in things of art, the hands will not do what the head doth not direct; so in spiritual things, we quite mistake our way, if we think of going blindfold and hoodwinked to duty. ignorance and implicit obedience is a fit sacrifice for the devil, whose kingdom is founded in darkness, when as regeneration is nothing else but renewed light: and the clearer discoveries are made to the understanding, the more pliant and obedient is the will, 1 cor. 14. and the more easy doth it find the yoke. for this end, is preaching and prophesying in a known tongue commanded, that there might be a race of knowing christians. and paul would not so much as sing, or pray, or do any other act of religious worship, with his spirit only, but with his understanding also. there cannot be a greater brand cast upon any one's devotion, than to worship they know not what; joh. 4.22. for that is that which our saviour doth especially blame the samaritans for. 2. this is the best way to win upon others. and this principally concerns ministers of the gospel; whom i may ask, in the apostles words: thou that teachest another, rom. 2.20. wilt thou not teach thyself? thou who commandest another to believe, wilt thou not give him a reason, why he should believe, and so leave him without excuse? 1 tim. 4.12. thus the apostle bids timothy be an example to the faithful, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, i.e. in reasoning: and gives this general charge, that a man of god must be apt to teach, in meekness instructing those that oppose themselves. there are indeed some men of diseased minds, who have quenched in themselves all principles, by which they may recover and be enlightened. but there are in the world many sober dissenters, who stand off from embracing christianity, merely from the apprehensions they have, that the tenets of it are absurd and unreasonable; act. 17.20. such as these must be won by argument. thus paul dealt with the athenians, who, when they desired to be better informed of his doctrine, he makes a most excellent discourse to them concerning providence, and clears by unanswerable reason, that their way of worship was false, because it begot in men's minds low and mean opinions of the deity, as if he were confined to place, or did take delight in outward representations. thus did our saviour deal with nicodemus. in short, ignorance in a gospel-teacher is a capital crime; for our saviour, when ever he preached, he did it with this preface, hear and understand; and when his disciples, were somewhat dull of apprehension, he sharply reproves them, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, what are you, whom i design to be lights and guides of the world without understanding. 3. the want of this, is the cause why christians stand so much at a stay, and make no better progress. total ignorance is a certain sign of perdition, ● cor. 4.3. if our gospel, saith the apostle, be hid, it is hid to them that are lost. partial ignorance is a sign of weakness, for there is that light, that evidence in our religion, that if it be followed, it will always fill the mind with fresh discoveries. they who first read the scriptures, are like such that see a glorious palace at a distance, it is wrapped up in a mist, and the beauty of it lies concealed; but the nearer we approach, & the more intently we view it, the more is the lustre of it manifested. the world, i.e. carnal men, do count the gospel 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, an idol, and a foolish thing; but paul tells us, and all true believers find it to be the wisdom of god, a plot laid from all eternity; for the effecting of which the world was made; and when the mystery of salvation, there declared, is perfected, the world shall be laid aside as an useless scene. christ, to invite our study, doth style himself the light of the world; and who doth not see, that all who are not enlightened by him are covered with darkness, uncertainty, and doubting? but john calls our saviour 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, i.e. in the proper signification of the word, reason, he being that eternal fountain, from whom true reason sprung; and by whom our lost and ruin'd reason is repaired. 1 cor. 2. the spirit, saith the apostle, searcheth the depths of god; i.e. the spirit of god in man, makes him unquiet and restless in his search, till he hath sounded those depths, which the ignorant and lazy world pass hastily over. how easily by this light would those mists, about incarnation, providence, resurrection, etc. which to this day perplex the disputing world, be all dispersed and scattered? as to this last, the apostle here is very positive, that he would venture all upon a dispute, and that the best reason should carry it. use 2 the second use is to show the necessity of christian life; and this is so clear from the premises, that it need not be long insisted on. for, if the dead rise not, 1 cor. 15.32. the consequence which paul brings in wicked men making is very natural, let us eat and drink, for to morrow we shall die. but if the dead rise, than peter hath made a rational inference, 1 pet. 4.7. the end of all things is at hand, let us be sober, and watch unto prayer. for the time is coming, when the hidden things of our shame shall be brought to light; 1 cor. 4.5. this certainly, if once believed, would keep us honest in the dark; one sermon about it made felix tremble, though, being a roman, his unbelief made him careless; and his calling valiant. did but men once give themselves leave to think of it, they would not so spend their days, as if they had nothing but this inch of time to provide for. for as our souls are always on the wing; so our bodies are not entirely our own; but hereafter to be resumed again, and made either cages for unclean, or mansions for clorified spirits. and therefore that unchangeable state, into which they shall once pass, is by all wise and knowing men most to be secured. so that i shall conclude in the words of the prophet hosea: who is wise, hos. 14.9. and he shall understand these things? prudent, and he shall know them? for the ways of the lord are right, and the just shall walk in them: but the transgressor shall fall therein. finis. errata. page 16. line 2. by yet more, r. yet more, by. p. 13. l. 24. doctrine dangerous, r. doctrine is dangerous. ib. l. 26. have, r. leave. p. 18. l. 7. regiment r. regimen p. 24. l. 34. destroyed, r. descried. p. 25. l. 13 bounds r. mounds. p. 27 l. ●. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. 32. l. 19 desire r. desired. p. 56. l. 28. still r. till. manifest truth, or an inversion of truths manifest. containing a narration of the proceedings of the scottish army, and a vindication of the parliament and kingdom of england from the false and injurious aspersions cast on them by the author of the said manifest. prov. 18. 17. he that is first in his own cause seemeth just, but his neighbour cometh and searcheth him. published by authority. london printed by m. s. for henry overton in popes-head-alley, and giles calvert, at the spread eagle at west end of paul's, 1646. the preface. though all possible care shall be taken, that this ensuing discourse may need no apology, yet the misconstruction it is liable to in this quarrelsome age, may require a preface; in which i shall not, as the author of truths manifest, go about to quicken the appetite of my reader, by a self-commendation, but (if i regarded the praise of men) should much rather choose to be commended by another, in the end of my work, then by myself in the beginning. but out of a great, and just tenderness of doing, or being thought to do any thing, which might tend to any alienation betwixt these happily united kingdoms, i thought fit to declare, as followeth. first, that a hearty union betwixt the two kingdoms of england and scotland, as it is most agreeable to religion, and the solemn covenant, so it is eminently requisite to their mutual preservation, both from the illegal entrenchments of their own king, and from the attempts of foreign princes or states; for by such an inviolate conjunction▪ they shall be kept from being instrumental to each others ruin, which hath lately been designed upon both successively by their own king, that he might become absolute lord of them both, to the prejudice, if not ruin, of religion and liberty. as also, strangers, especially the french, shall be prevented in their wonted design, which hath been to raise, and foment differences betwixt these kingdoms, and have been forward to assist scotland against england, not for love to scotland, but hatred or fear of england, which they have looked upon as a dangerous neighbour. and let me add further, that the continuation and confirmation of this union, will not prove only an ornament to the protestant religion, but a great advantage to the propagating of it, and will also make us more capable of righting ourselves, confederates, and allies against any injuries or usurpations, that are or shall be offered. and i hope these apprehensions shall over-awe my pen, that it walk very circumspectly in the ensuing discourse. secondly, give me leave to say, that this union doth not necessarily infer a confusion or mixture: but may as well, and it may be better stand, with a full reservation to each of their peculiar laws, privileges, governments, and possessions. it is hard, if not impossible, to find two persons, that shall concur to an universal compliance in their friendship, but are glad to find a correspondence in some things, and content to yield a mutual forbearance in others. this is more difficult to be found in states, who have besides their diversities of laws and government, more differences of general and particular interests, then private persons are capable of. and though through god's mercy, these two kingdoms are more happy than other confederates, who like bodies exactly spherical touch but in a point, as they have occasion, by their ambassadors, yet the nature of affairs, and men permits not they should meet, as two bodies exactly plain in every point. for, though their interests be the same, sc▪ the conservation of their liberties against tyranny, and religion the choicest fruit of their liberty, against any thing destructive to it, yet the customs and constitutions of the kingdoms, and the dispositions of the people may be so different (besides other incident disadvantages) that an universal close is rather to be desired then expected and something must be left to time, and more to him, who alone challenges the prerogative of fashioning men's hearts alike. and it may be added, that such an union is not only not possible, but not necessary; for conjunction, being but a means to some further end, is no further requisite, than it conduces to that end of mutual preservation. there is indeed, beside the benefit, a native beauty in unity: but to be violent in pressing of it, is to scratch the face that it may be beautiful, and when accomplished (as it is thought) it will be found rather to be a paint, than a natural complexion: i shall only take liberty to add further, that the pressing an exact uniformity in church, or a union of mixture in state, (the nature of persons and things not admitting it) may hinder a union of conjunction in those things, which are possible and necessary: and i pray god, it be not the design of some under the pretence of union, in things presently impossible, to promote a difference in that which is necessary. thirdly, as this discourse springs not from any principle of disaffection to the scottish nation, so i hope none will force any such conclusions from it, beyond my meaning, though without my guilt. for my part, i freely profess, that i think it may in its own nature, as well as its intent, tend more to the preservation of union, than the occasioning of distraction. upon this ground, we have patiently received and read two manifests, to which the questionist from st. andrew's hath added something, not a little reflecting upon the parliament, and kingdom of england; the first untouched produced a second, this second may bring forth, and in the close of it intimates a third, and possibly a worse, till under pretence of justification of our brethren, the charges against ourselves may grow intolerable, and occasion greater inconveniences. fourthly, i hope the distance of time intervening, betwixt the book and the answer, cannot afford an objection against it. first, i stayed to see, if somebody that was more able, or more concerned, would undertake it. secondly, it is a business of great tenderness and importance, and occasioned many thoughts of heart, which did long delay it, but could not prevail against it. for i am able truly to say, with the author of truths manifest, that not so much the love and honour of my own nation, which yet i hope shall be always dear to me, as covenant, and conscience, and consideration of the good of both kingdoms, have put me upon this work, and carried me through it, for it is found, that unequal compliances, especially with natures not so good, do but make way for greater disadvantages, which cannot always be borne. and though it be always better to suffer wrong then do it, and sometimes better to receive wrong, then require right, yet the most beaten path to peace and justice, which i think now it becomes me, and others to walk in, is neither to do wrong, nor to suffer it. for though a man may part with his own right for public advantage, yet i know no rule of parting with other men's right for my own advantage. and therefore though not without sense, yet without fear of any danger that may spring from men, impatient and mindful of oppositions, i enter upon the work, in which i shall observe this method. first, to give a true and short narrative of the proceedings of the scotch army since they came into england, wherein i shall endeavour to do them all possible right. and secondly, make some animadversions upon divers passages in truths manifest, wherein though something may be said against the manifest, yet nothing against the truth, for we can do nothing against the truth. the narrative. after that the parliament of england had conflicted for the space of a year' with the dangers and difficulties of this unhappy war (god in his wisdom and justice not seeing fit to direct us to the right improvement of our own strength,) they dispatch commissioners to the kingdom of scotland, to treat with them about the raising, and bringing in an army to their assistance against the combination of papists, prelates, and malignants, endeavouring to subvert religion and liberty; the commissioners being four members of the house of commons, accompanied with two reverend divines of the assembly, went from london towards the latter end of july, 1643. and in the beginning of august came to edinburgh, where they were expected before they came, and when they came, welcome. the commissioners upon their coming address themselves to the convention of estates then sitting, as also to the general assembly, that they would contribute their help so far as they were concerned; after few days a covenant was propounded, and agreed on by the commissioners, and a committee appointed to consider of that business with them, which was sent immediately into england for approbation, and received it with little or no material alteration, and was returned to scotland in a short time, and so was generally taken in both kingdoms; while this was in hand, a treaty also was offered and debated, about bringing an army for the assistance of the parliament of england, which was also mutually agreed betwixt the kingdoms, and is of late published. after this foundation laid, though the time of year was something unseasonable for building upon it, being winter, the estates of scotland having received 50000 l. of the 100000 l. mentioned in the treaty, bestowed their power and diligence in levying men, so that about the middle of january, an army well clothed and armed was brought to the borders of england, which they entered about the twentieth of that month, at which time lieutenant general lesley passed over barwick bridge with some troops of horse; for the town of barwick, by the care of the commissioners of parliament then in scotland, who sent one of their own number for that purpose, was happily made a garrison for the parliament; and after that, by treaty betwixt the kingdoms, assigned to the scots for a magazine, and retreat, while there should be use of their army in england. a little after the entrance of those horse and foot, that came in by the way of barwick, the lieutenant general of foot, baly, passed the water at kelsey by the advantage of a great frost, which bore the ordnance, and met the noble general the earl of leven about alnwick. the enemy commanded by sir thomas glenham made no opposition in northumberland, but retreated from the borders to alnwick, and so to morpeth, and then to newcastle; where the earl of newcastle met him with more forces; so that the scottish army had a free passage to the works and walls of newcastle, which they came to about the beginning of february. at their approach after some slight skirmishes of horse, there was an attempt made upon a strong fort at the east-side of the town, but without success; a little after, it was thought fit to dispose the army to some quarters near the town, on the north-side of the river tyne. during the time of their lying there nothing of moment fell out, but the fight at corbridge, where there was not much hurt done, but the scots had the worse, losing some prisoners, and retreating, yet not so hastily, but they took colonel brandling in their return, who after that became a proselyte; this was all that passed on the north-side tyne, saving that the castle of warkworth was surrendered to the marquess of argyle, who marched by the way of the sea with some forces to the army, of which castle he made one captain lisle governor; after some time spent on the north-side trent, the lying of the army there was found useless, and inconvenient, and a resolution was taken towards the end of february to pass the tine, leaving only some forces at bedlington, and blythesnooke, to secure that little harbour being very convenient for provisions. the enemy at the passing over tyne made no opposition, but were so kind as to let them march over newbridge, a very inconvenient passage had it been disputed, and so take possession of sunderland, a place which proved full of advantages to the army afterwards, in respect of provisions which were brought thither in great plenty from london, and other places, and exchanged for coal. during the abode of the army about sunderland, in the month of march, ending the year 1643. they fortified sunderland as well as the place was capable, and took a strong fort at southshields over against tynmouth castle, at the second attempt; in the mean time the enemy's head quarter was at durham, where were the earl of newcastle lieutenant general king, sir charles lucas (lately come from the south with a supply of horse, and a very considerable army;) they came and faced the scots army twice within two miles of sunderland, first on the south side, then on the north-side the river were. at first we heard of nothing memorable, but very cold nights, in which the scots army had good advantage of the kings, and made good use of it, for by keeping close to them many of the enemy's horses were reported to be strayed, and their soldier's courage cooled; which was found true at their next appearance. shortly after, when they drew up about hilton and bowdon, at which time also the scottish army was drawn out against them, but no engagement of consequence, each army kept its advantage, only there was some slight skirmishing amongst the hedges, where for aught i ever heard, the number of the slain was equal, or little different; but at last the king's army drew off, and being discerned so to do by the scottish army, they fell upon their rear and took some prisoners, but killed very few, not the tenth part of the number mentioned in (truths manifest) and so they parted. after this the scottish army not being well able to endure their straightness of quarters, took a resolution to march towards the enemy, and either fight with him, or enlarge their quarters; about this my lord fairefax who had been long confined to hull, took the field again, and with sir thomas fairfax (a gentleman who must not be mentioned without honour, for god hath honoured him) and sir john meldrum (whose faithfulness to this cause and diligence in it was very eminent) made their first attempt upon selby, where god was pleased to give them great and seasonable success in storming, and taking that town, and in it a number equal to those that assaulted, notwithstanding the many horse that were in it, where also was the governor of york, mr. john bellasys, who was taken prisoner. this business has hardly been parallelled since this war, save at wakefield, when general goring was taken in like manner by sir thomas fairfax, and his party rather than army. newcastle hearing this news, and fearing lest york also (the receptacle of most of the northern papists, who were not in arms, whom he had most reason to respect) should be surprised or surrendered, thought best to move southward with his army, and did accordingly, and getting start of the scots army, by a sudden march came to york about the middle of april, and lodged the remainder of his foot there, (for his northern expedition had lost him many men who were wearied out with the hardiness of the scots) and sent sir charles lucas away southward with his horse, which were followed by some scottish and yorkshire horse, but not overtaken. the scottish army followed southward, and joined with the forces under command of my lord fairfax, betwixt wetherby and selby, where after consultation they draw near to york, and if a sufficient strength could be made up by the accession of the earl of manchester's forces, which was desired and hoped, they resolved to sit down before york, which was accordingly done; general leven pitching his quarter at midlethorp, my lord fairfax at foulford, and my lord manchester at heslington, the scots quarters kept in the town on the westside of the river, the earl of manchester and lord fairfax on the east-side; and to my lord fairfax his assistance, was sent a very noble gentleman and able commander, sir james lunsdaine, with a regiment or two of foot, who lay at foulford; the horse of all the armies in the mean time were sent towards the west of yorkshire, which was the only way the enemy had to come, and interrupt the siege, the other ways by the advantage of rivers, being impassible upon opposition; this siege was carried on with very commendable unanimity, and correspondency of counsels on all sides, each acting their part. the scots took in a fort on the southside of the town, attempted another near the great fort, but held it not, and had several skirmishes with the enemy's horse, in one of which they lost a gallant gentleman, lieutenant colonel ballantine, who not content with a little honour, to gain more lost his life; my lord manchester's men made their approaches very near at bowden, and monk-barres, my lord fairfax his men at wolmsgate, where they took a church and divers prisoners in it, only major general crawfurd, a valiant and forward man, made an unhappy attempt upon the manor house, without due notice to the other forces, and was beaten out with the loss of many men. after this siege had continued two months or thereabouts, towards the end of june prince rupert comes to the relief of york, by the way of lancashire, draining garrisons and raising men with all diligence and severity, and thereto added an act of cruelty at boulton. at this time upon the importunity of lancashire, sir john meldrum (after that by his conduct, the castle of cawood, and the strong fort of airesmouth were taken, which much advantaged our provisions from hull by water) was sent with a party thither to do what service he had opportunity, howsoever to secure, if possible, the town of manchester, which had been yet inviolate for the parliament, and accordingly did so. the prince after he had strengthened himself what he could, draws near to york by the way of burrowbridge, and comes upon the north-side of the river owse, whereupon the armies resolve to join and fight him, and so the last of june, the siege was raised, the town in some measure relieved; but the prince not satisfied with that he had done, would needs draw over the river again, about three miles from york to fight our forces, upon that side the river; in which he made a desperate attempt, and as i am informed, was so told by lieutenant general king, in regard our army might fall upon him while he was passing the river. but he was resolved and gave command to the earl of newcastle, to draw his men out of york to his assistance; which was done, though not so soon as was expected, but soon enough to a bad bargain. our united armies were marching off, thinking to prevent the princes march southward, and were going towards tadcaster on the day of the fight, thinking to cross some nearer way, and meet him in his return: but he saved them that labour, and drew up in their rear in a place called hessey-moore, near long-marston, of which sir thomas fairfax (having the rear) gave speedy notice, and orders were presently given to face about to the enemy, which was accordingly done; and the prince's army being drawn up in the moor, our armies drew up into the fields adjoining, and so much of the heath as was left them; sir thomas fairfax commanded the right wing, consisting of his own horse, and some from lancashire, lieutenant general cromwell the left wing; the scots horse were equally divided, three regiments on the right wing, and three on the left: on which wing also was there then general major david lesley. my lord manchester's foot were drawn on the left wing next the horse, and the scots foot and my lord fairefax's in the body, and right wing; the battle began about six or seven of the clock in the evening, july the 2. the right wing commanded by sir thomas fairfax was disordered, for he had among other disadvantages these two especially; first, the worst part of the ground being so full of whinnes as that his horse could not march up, and was next the hedges possessed by the enemy. secondly, he had also many new raised horse which had never seen service, who did not play the part of reserves as became them, so that after his own regiment and colonel lambert's had charged, with valour and good success, for want of supplies that wing was wholly routed, himself stayed in the field, where he received a mark of honour on his face; the scots horse also on that side quit the field, and left the earl of lyndeseys' regiment of foot standing bare, which yet acquitted itself well, for sir charles lucas coming up with horse to charge them, his own horse was shot in the head of his regiment, and he was taken prisoner. but, whilst this was doing on the right, our friends on the left wing sped very well (through god's mercy) and wholly routed the enemy, and came about to the right, and at last cleared the field, became masters of the enemy's carriages and artillery, and left more dead bodies than hath been at any battle since these wars began, and had slain more, but that the shelter of night, and a near garrison hindered pursuit. the lot of the body of foot, especially of scots and my lord fairfax's, was so promiscuous, some standing, some flying, that i can give no perfect account of it. as for the passage in truth its manifest concerning lieutenant general cromwell, and their lieutenant general lesley, i should be loath to meddle in it, and wish the author of the manifest had not; but something must be said in the animadversions. thus was god pleased to use the scots army in doing its part to the breaking of the strong army of the north, and the defeating of the prince, who brought into the field that day an army very strong and well accomplished. quem dies vidit veniens superbum, hunc dies vidit fugiens jacentem. if any will make a further enquiry, and say who did best, i could wish i might be put to no other answer then (god did all;) which is the best way to decide controversies of this kind; for no man loses when he gains honour. after this happy victory, the discouraged enemy take several courses, prince rupert with his retinue (for his army was gone) marched on northward to allerton, and so by richmond back again the way that he came. the earl of newcastle with his dear confidents, widrington and carnaby, went to scarborough, and so beyond sea; and with them lieutenant general king. the government of york by this means was devolved upon sir thomas glenham, who still undertakes desperate cures. our own forces, after the generals had time to meet, and the confusion of the fight (which lasts longer than the time of it) was over, and our wounded men provided for, fall to work again, and the fight being on tuesday july 2. on thursday or friday following a party of horse were sent under the command of lesley and cromwell to follow the enemy, but they were first gotten into the dales, and became almost uncapable of annoyance. the body of the army returned to the siege of york, which about a fortnight after was surrendered to the parliament upon treaty betwixt commissioners on both parts. and thus was god pleased to bless these united forces with a victory and city, in which the scots as they had their part of pains and hazard, so deserve their proportionable share of thanks and honour. after this my lord manchester marched away towards lincoln, his forces taking some castles in yorkshire by the way, as sheffield, and tickhill. the lord fairfax remained in york, and disposed his forces to the blocking up of some castles in yorkshire. the scots army marched northward again. and that i may not omit any thing concerning that army, while general leven was employed in these services about york, the northern parts, and that part of the scots army left behind, passed some danger and hardship in northumberland. morpeth castle, held by lieutenant colonel somervill, was delivered up with the provisions and goods in it to colonel clavering. and the fort at southshields, though not gotten sine sanguine, was lost sine sudore, upon a bare summons from montrosse and clavering. at this time also sunderland was faced and outfaced by the mentioned cavaliers, who came to bishops wermouth, and plundered some of their victuals, but the town was preserved, where amongst others the english seamen being much concerned (for their ships were then in the harbour) well acquitted themselves. but the earl of callander then coming into england with an additional force; among whom the lord sinclare, montgomery, and levingston, dispelled these mists, and before the return of the scots army took in hartlepoole and stockton upon surrender, and placed garrisons in them as seemed best to him; and a little before the return of the noble earl of leven from yorkshire, he had entered gateshead, town of the southside of newcastle, parted from it only by the river, by which means the town of newcastle was wholly blocked up on the southside. after the return of the general, a bridge was made over the tine, and he disposed his army on the northside, and approached close to the town with his foot, the horse being sent westward towards cumberland and westmoreland. during this siege, which continued above two months, the enemy made frequent and sharp sallies, and the general frequent and fair offers, to which the upstart knight marlay returned very peremptory and sometimes abusive answers, which were reckoned for at last; if they be not, they may be. but at length after much diligence and patience, the general and the commanders then resident with the army, resolved upon a storm, and to that end prepared mines and batteries, and upon october 19th fell on at several parts of the town, at the breach made by cannon there was no entrance, and the most loss on the scots part was there, but the mines taking well, especially one at white-friars' tower, they entered, and both to our and their benefit took that strong and rich town. sir john marly the governor, with the scottish earl of crasurd, and others, retreated to the castle, expecting thence to make their terms, but could get none but those of mercy, which considering the persons, was too good for them, though less could not be granted. after the entrance there was little blood shed, but the common soldier betook himself to what he could, the officer almost to what he would. for herein the scots are more orderly than the english. among our armies commonly the soldier gets the greatest share of the spoil, the officers generally being not so earnest at the prey; and the english soldiers are not so easily commanded as the scots in such a case. for the scots soldiers will very orderly stand sentinel at the door they are appointed to, and for some small matter preserve a house with its appurtenances for their commanders, so that the town was not (especially the best houses) spoiled in specie, but only purged by a composition, which was fortuitous, according as the nature of the chapmen was, some good bargains, some ill. and thus was newcastle reduced, which (to speak as much truth as the manifest) was a very remarkable service, being the only thing of moment wherein that army hath been engaged apart from other forces in england these two years. and to make this good success complete, that the passage from the coale-indies might be clear, tynmouth castle, commanded by sir thomas riddel, out of a sympathy betwixt the town-clerk and the major of newcastle, was surrendered upon articles, and garrisons placed in both town and castle, by order of the scots commanders and general. after these places thus taken, and in this manner settled, and the business of fines & compositions at newcastle dispatched, it was time to dispose the scots army (which had been most of the precedent winter in the fields) to their winter quarters. to that purpose two or three regiments of horse, and a regiment of dragoons were allotted to abide in cumberland, and westmoreland; three regiments of horse sent into the north-riding of yorkshire: northumberland and bishopric of durham, were appointed to the foot, and some odd troops of horse. the horse in cumberland had by this time made some entrance upon the siege of carlisle; sir wilfrid lawson, and others cumberland▪ men being joined with them, who had raised both horse and foot for that service; of which more in the animadversions. after the army thus was disposed of, the committee also and the general disposed themselves into scotland, and left our english commanders and the soldiers to dispute matters of assessment and provision, impar congressus. during this time of winter i have not heard any thing of service from that army, only that some foot were sent to the assistance of sir john meldrum at the siege of scarborough-castle; and some also were sent to pontfract, but had not liberty to stay the end of these works, in regard of other employment. so that we have free leave to pass on to the spring; at which time the scottish committee for the army after the dispatch of their own affairs in parliament and assembly returned. the general himself being come before into england toward the end of january. in the second years service, the first thing that offers itself was lieutenant general lesleys going with a party of horse and foot to the assistance of sir william brereton, who was then besieging beeston-castle, and intending chester, but hearing that prince rupert was drawing towards him with a considerable force, sent to the committee of both kingdoms at westmoreland for aid, who desired that lieutenant general lesley might go with a party of horse to his assistance; which accordingly was done. a party of yorkshire horse being also joined with him; but of that conjunction we had no further news or fruit, but that the enemy came not far enough to fight us; and our forces stood upon the defensive. whereupon the lieutenant general shortly after returned into the west-riding of yorkshire about hallifax, where he remained for a space. about this time the parliament finding ground to new-mould the several armies under the command of the earls of essex and manchester, and sir william walter, (a course of equal hazard and necessity) which god hath since blessed with success to admiration, into one body, under the command of the valiant and victorious sir thomas fairfax; by this means, and especially by the forwardness and opposition of some, who made it their great business to cross this work, (so little did they value the public good in respect of their own conceits, wills, and interests) it came to pass that we lost some ground in the start at the spring, but through men's diligence, and god's blessing, it was quickly recovered. about this time (i say) the parliament sent to the scots army and their committee, that they would hasten the advance of that army southward with all possible speed, in regard that this change and opposition had brought their affairs into some distraction; and to enable and encourage them for their march, sent them 30000. li. and accordingly about the time that sir thomas fairfax, upon order from the committee of both kingdoms, marched from windsor westward with a piece of an army, which was the first of may; the scots army came to rippon in yorkshire, where there were several debates betwixt their committee and our commanders, about matter of provisions, the english commanders still pressing the necessity of marching southward (the king having drawn his army into the field) and promising all possible care for accommodation; but in the midst of these disputes, the king drawing northward, and the scots having intelligence out of cheshire of the king's intendment, to send a flying army over the hills through lancashire into scotland: the debate about marching southwards, and making provisions for it, was turned into a dispute which was the best way into lancashire; for the journey was resolved by the scots. the english commissioners told them, if they must go, the nearest way & passable enough, was the way that prince rupert marched from lancashire to the relief of york, which was by skippon; but they chose rather to go about by the way of stainmore (commonly called in those parts, the devil's gallary, for the uncouthness of it) into westmoreland, which had a little before resisted: some scottish officers requiring contribution (as they say) beyond their power, and beside the parliaments authority. there they stayed some time, but the flying army being not to be found or heard of, the scots march back again the same way to rippon about the beginning of june. first, having sent some more commanded men to carlisle, which was shortly after reduced by the joined forces, scots and english, which i only mention now left in the narrative i should be thought fit to omit an action of moment, but reserve the story of it to another place, at which time the parliament sent down two of their own members, to wait on the scots army, and hasten their march southwards, who accompanied the army to nottingham, and from thence the chief officers of the scots army sent a letter to the parliament, which the author of truth's manifest thinks fitter to print, though neither they that writ it, nor they that received it, judged meet to do. within two days after the date of the letter, it pleased god to honour the army under the command of sir thomas fairfax, and bless these kingdoms with an eminent, and seasonable victory over the royal army at nazeby, which was a happy foundation of the recovery of leicester within three days after, and many other successes, wherewith god hath followed their valour and diligence to this day. by this means the heat of the war was over for that year, especially in these parts, the king having no field forces left, but those under the command of goring in the west. after this the scots army with all readiness march southward through warwickshire, worstershire, and so towards hereford, whither some commissioners were sent from parliament to join counsels and endeavours with them; a field enemy not appearing they resolve to besiege hereford, the reducing which place was thought very necessary for the prevention of the king's recruits commonly fetched from those parts. the siege went on hopefully, mines and batteries were prepared, and the taking of the city (which never was accounted very strong) continually expected: but in the mean time, it pleased god to suffer montrosse with his wicked crew to give our brethren in scotland a sad overthrow (i am sure all good people had reason to account, it so) at kylsyth, where many good men were lost, and the forces of that kingdom almost totally dissipated; which occasioned the recourse of many eminent persons to barwick, and discovered a more general malignancy in scotland, then was expected. the news of this coming to the army, after some consultation had, they raised their siege, to which they were induced, as by the condition of their own country, so by the report, of the kings coming towards them with a strength of horse, which might endanger them, they having sent lieutenant general lesley away towards the north, where he stayed with respect to scotland, as also to interrupt the king's intentions northward, whither he most applied himself. when sir thomas fairfax was gone westward with his army, it was expected, that the party with lieutenant general lesley, and the english with him should have pursued, or fallen upon the enemy at that time, but the king marching southward towards huntington, and the scottish horse being bound northward, it could not be. at this time, the necessities of scotland so requiring, the lieutenant general marched into scotland, where suddenly after his arrival, he happily falls upon montrosse now divided from kilketto, and not looking for him so soon, and obtains a happy victory over him, and seasonably (through god's mercy) altars the face of things in scotland. this news meets the scottish army (marching northwards) in yorkshire, and stays their journey further, and gives them liberty to repose in the north and west ridings of that county, which by the calamity of these wars are now almost wasted, and will be brought either to utter ruin, or some dangerous way of preventing it, unless the parliament afford timely relief. while the army was quartering here, the lord digby comes with a party of horse, as is said, for scotland, he surprises the english foot, quartered at sherburne, but by the seasonable pursuit of colonel copley and colonel lilburne was defeated, lost his booty and his baggage, with divers letters of moment into the bargain; and was forced to take a hilly way to cumberland, where sir john browne got an advantage of him as his remnant was passing over a water, where the tide hindered one part from the relief of the other; and so he was forced to the isle of man, and thence hath betaken himself into ireland, from whence we daily hear from him. this passage concerning my lord digby (though his greatest blow was by the yorkshire forces) i thought fit to insert that i might not omit that action of sir john browne's, which the parliament was pleased to take notice of. after the scottish army had lain sometime in yorkshire, about november, at the desire of the parliament, and the committee of both kingdoms, they marched to block up newarke on the north-side, where they had possession given them of muskham bridge (which the enemy had intended to burn, but did it not) and the fort in the island that commands it, which makes their work on the north-side trent very easy, in regard the town, forts, and castle stand on the southside the river. since their blocking up newarke there hath not been much of action; once the enemy by the advantage of the ice fell into their quarters, killed the adjutant general of foot, but received as well as did hurts: since that the enemy made a sally upon the scots, who were making a fort in the island, but after some little loss on each part, were very well repelled and beaten in. and let me not forget the readiness of the lieutenant general, to send some foot to colonel poyntz, for the strengthening his quarters at stoake. and so have we followed the scots army, consisting now of about seven or eight thousand horse and foot, most horse, (according to a muster lately taken by the english commissioners) to the siege of newarke, where also is a committee of lords, and commons from the parliament, contributing their best assistance to the carrying on the service against newarke, who have above these three months expected a committee from scotland, to join with them according to the treaty, but they are not yet come; it is hoped (notwithstanding) that there shall be such mutual care and concurrence betwixt the forces, as that strong garrison shall in due time be reduced to the great advantage of the north, and happiness of the whole kingdom, which is very much concerned in the success of it. and thus have you a true narrative of the entrance, and proceedings of the scottish army since it came into england, where i have not willingly, nor (i hope) negligently omitted any thing material; more circumstances might have been brought in to attend the substance of this discourse, but many of them being not acceptable, it was thought best to omit them, or at least refer them to the second part, which contains animadversions upon some passages of the manifest, and other papers printed to the disadvantage of truth, and reflecting upon the parliament of england. the animadversions first, the whole book and the printing of it, to me, deserves an animadversion. who is this man that makes so bold an adventure, to intermeddle in things of highest consequence, betwixt the two kingdoms, their parliaments and armies; which their wisdom and tenderness made them forbear? me thinks their silence might have prompted reverence to the author. he calls indeed his book an answer, pag. 4. and alleges scripture for it; but to whom is it an answer? none had put pen to paper in this business, it came not into the thought of any wise man to meddle, and the very diurnals which bespatter everybody, were very modest, as to the scots and their army. therefore is the gentleman constrained for want of work to make himself an adversary, which he calls by the name of sinisirous reports in the second line of his relation. had it not been better to have suffered these reports to have vanished in the air, then to give them the advantage of an echo? i fear lest the work prove unprofitable, as unnecessary works use to do; forward vindications sometimes occasion untoward questions, and controverted things have sometimes more advantage by silence then debate. but well meaning men (as they are styled) must be undeceived; let that be put to the issue whether so, or rather whether those that have been before deceived by reports, be not now cozened in print. if it be found so, it is a double fault, the falsehood in the book is one, truth in the title another, — per amici fallere nomen tuta frequensque via est, sed via crimen habet. but to the particulars the first thing is his animadversions upon the commissioners of scotland, for not being so popular in their applications, and satisfactions to the multitude as he thinks fit; in which, notice may be taken of his expressions and of his charge; the expressions to me seem disproportionable to the honour, and employment of so honourable and worthy persons. he tells them, pag. 3, that he cannot esteem their prudence in this. pag. 4. you have mistaken the right way sirs, ibid. you are hugely mistaken. pag. 11. he chargeth them with being meal-mouthed, and with remissness, and concludes with his magisterial hopes, pag. 13. that being freely admonished, they will mend this slip: and adds a resolution, that till the commissioners did the thing he advises, he would take a commission from himself to do it. to all which i say no more then, indignus tu qui diceres tamen. for the charge i may add, neque hoc opprobrio digni sunt. men in trust and authority should take care that the people may rather have the advantage, than the knowledge of their proceedings. things that are to be done by them are necessarily to be made known to them, and to satisfy them in their obedience, the ground of the command, or something showing the equity and necessity of it, is usually premitted, as is done in the preamble of acts, ordinances and declarations. but to make known the debates, and those human passions incident thereunto, it were sometimes to discover nakedness where it ought not, to minister strifes, to make the people judges of them whom they have made so. i have heard that the custom of scotland is otherwise, where there is a diligent eye had to the press (which is not as here (which is one of our faults) prostitute to the lust of every pamphlet) and a reverend reservedness kept upon their counsels and actions: only so far as the people are concerned in obeying, things are carefully made known to them, and difficulties removed. and certainly, those that are reserved at home, will not judge it meet to be very open elsewhere: for though the proverb is not strictly to be applied, yet it carries a general equity and decency; in alien●m domum cum veneris mutus & surdus esto. the gentleman makes some objections which he answers, he that hides can find, but unawares ties some knots which he cannot easily undo. for instance his second objection, in the answer to which he affirms, that the commissioners of scotland do not sufficiently discharge their duty, in making known to the parliament and assembly to the full, the truth of all things by their papers, which he proves by an assertion, which for want of other strength he doubles, that what is de facto concerning all, must be made known to all. the sounder axiom were, what concerns all to know must be made known to all, for otherwise who will deny, but the people are concerned in counsels, deliberations, and conclusions of things to be done, they being the subject and end of them, and yet this author grants, that these things are to be made known to the trusties of state? but i have no mind to wrangle. let us see the strength of the argument, which is this. the trusties of the state and church are not lords of them, but servants: therefore the commissioners of the parliament of scotland are to impart to the people of england their papers, and proceedings. this conclusion seems to me larger than the premises, and like to have the lot of a building wider than the foundation; the true inference from the antecedent is rather this. therefore the commissioners of scotland, as good servants, should give an account to them, that intrust them so far, as is expected or required. but show me where the people of england conferred that trust upon the commissioners from scotland, or where they required any account; doubtless those honourable persons do give account, and satisfaction to them, from whom they received their commission and trust, and need not do it to any other. and though that expression of servants, as opposed to a lordly usurpation, is good as to the thing, yet the word seems to give too specious a ground for such a corrupt inference as this; if the rulers be servants, the people are masters; whereas the truth is, the magistrate serves the good of the people rather than the people, as the apostle expresseth it, rom. 13. they are the ministers of god to the people for good. ministers or servants of god, that this their appellation, to the people's good, that is their use. thus the angels serve the saints, who are yet lower than the angels, and pastors the people, whom yet they rule over in the lord. me thinks those that hate independency in the church, should not affect popularity in the state, but any thing for a turn. but let me leave this rule with my friends and countrymen, that though it be fit that all exorbitant usurpation, and arbitrary dominion of rulers have a seasonable stop, lest public liberty suffer, yet must it be done without debasing those in authority, whose honour and esteem with the people, is necessary to the order and conservation of the whole; always provided, that this tender regard need not be had to any of what place soever, that are in open hostility against the people, who make no other use of their power and reputation, then to deceive, and destroy the people; of which our instance is too near. as for the freedom of john knox, and george bucanan mentioned pag. 12. i could well consent it were revived, so it be rightly bestowed, as by them it was, sc. against the popery of the than queen, and the self-interests of great men in public works, and against tyranny in princes: king charles deserves a severer schoolmaster than ever king james had. secondly, after this expostulation with the commissioners ending pag. 14. the narration begins, in which the author lays open in the first place, the carriage of things betwixt the scots, and the king at their first entrance, which i meddle not with, only give this note on the behalf of england, that whatsoever was then done (as is alleged) contrary to justice and faith, must not be set in the least degree upon the account of this kingdom, whose proper representative is the parliament, who disclaimed the whole business, it was the work of the king, not the kingdom, of the faction, not the nation. but i rest in the thoughts of the act of pacification. thirdly, the next thing to be insisted on, is of more consequence, and will require a full clearing, which is found at the 18. pag. sc. the scots under god, are the cause of assembling the parliament, of the continuance of it, and of the preservation of it from total destruction and ruin. and to this purpose, there are divers passages, which i think fittest to sum up together, and give them some dilucidation rather than opposition. another expression of this kind is, pag. 94. the scots were in a kind the only hinderers of the kings compassing his design. pag. 99 100 for whom they have hazarded, and many lost their lives, when they might all this while have sat at home quietly. pag. 112. they make our quarrel theirs, have undergone the burden for our sakes, to free us from it. they are become miserable to pull us out of misery, a thing not to be paralleled. pag. 114. they have crucified themselves for their brethren. pag. 142. who have ventured, yea, lost themselves in a manner, with all that is dear unto men, for their sakes, to do them a double good, to help them out of trouble, and settle a reformation among them. god forbid, that i should be one of those ingrate children, mentioned and cried out on by this author. it is far from my thought or purpose, to deny, or to diminish the kindness of our brethren, whose help was desired and was seasonable, but let us understand ourselves, and how the matter stands betwixt these two kingdoms. we are indebted to scotland, i wish an even reckoning, and long friendship, but i am not yet of opinion we owe ourselves to them: and if the author of the manifest be consulted, you shall find an intimation of some other obligations then mere kindness unto us. as for instance, pag. 24. it is said, that the scots (when they began to interest themselves in this business,) they could not in conscience, and honesty sit quiet any longer, and neither say nor do: but i take no advantage of this, we are beholding to men for doing what in conscience and honesty they are bound, though they should hurt themselves more in violating conscience and honour, then in suffering us to be violated. to this you shall find a more external ground added, pag. 28. viz. now the state of scotland, seeing the common enemy come to that height, that nothing will satisfy him, but total subversion of church and state, inthese dominions, only they perhaps, might be kept for the last, though in intention they had been the first, judge it not enough for their interest in the common cause, to keep an army in ireland, but to be upon their guard at home, and to help their brethren in england with the sword, since all other means so often tried were disappointed by the malice of the enemies: and this resolution is said to have been taken, before commissioners were sent from england to desire their assistance, pag. 30. so that you may observe the enemy was a common enemy, the cause a common cause, the danger to these dominions; the scots like to suffer as deep, though not so soon, if they had sat still. but give me leave, paulo altius repetere, and to consider the ancient mutual ties, and later friendships betwixt these kingdoms, which may be a good means to continue, and confirm their present correspondence. so long as these kingdoms were under divers (especially popish) princes, their condition was like that of israel, 2. chron. 15. 3. when it was without a true god, without a teaching priest, and without law. at which time, there was no peace to him that went out, nor to him that came in, but great vexations were upon all the inhabitants of the countries, and nation was destroyed of nation, and city of city. the mutual spoils and losses of these neighbour kingdoms, being well considered by that wise prince henry the seventh, he lays a probable foundation of conjunction, in giving his eldest daughter to the king of scots, whose posterity upon the failing of the issue of his son, henry the eight, might inherit both kingdoms, which hath since come to pass. in the time of edward the sixt, it was thought fit by that prince (whose wisdom and virtue was beyond his years) and his council, to make the conjunction more sure, and therefore agreed with the kingdom of scotland for a match betwixt this young king, and the daughter of james the fifth, afterward queen of france and scotland. but the politicians of those times in scotland chose rather to marry their young princess to france then england; it may be, forecasting, upon the fail of issue in henry the eights children, that it would be more for their advantage to have a scottish-man or a frenchman king of england, than an englishman of scotland, though (if i may speak it without offence) i think they might have had more comfort in that young prince edward 6. had god continued his life and reign, than england hath had of the two kings they have had from scotland; of whom truths manifest says; pag. 23. that there hath been more christian blood shed in these latter years, under the end of king james his and king charles his reigns, by their commissions, approbations, connivences, and not forbidding what at home, and what abroad, all which upon the matter, they might have stopped, if it had been their pleasure, than were in the time of the ten roman persecutions. but although the english had received some disengagement by the non-performance of that match, which was aggravated on both parts by a fight at musselborough field; yet when the scots were sore troubled, and their religion & liberty endangered by the said queen, returned from france into scotland, who called the french in to her assistance against her native subjects; the renowned queen elizabeth, and her prudent council, though this kingdom had continual war with spain, yet feared not to provoke the french, by affording seasonable help to her distressed neighbours, sending to their relief 6000 men, which were maintained at the charge of the kingdom of england; which was then thankfully and justly called to mind by the kingdom of scotland when this last treaty was to be made. so that if we break off here, the kindness rests not on our part. but i shall as gladly proceed to repeat the good turns done to this kingdom, as by it, and rejoice in the mutual obligation. and that i may not break in too suddenly upon the late affairs of these kingdoms, give me leave as a manuduction thereto to give a brief touch of the method of reformation in this island, and but a word, for the body of the story may be had elsewhere. it pleased god at the bringing of this island out of popery, to honour scotland with a more full departure from romish idolatry and superstition, for though england wholly renounced their doctrine, yet some dregs of discipline and superstitious ceremonies remained. the scots had indeed some advantages that we had not; their queen was obnoxious, their young king in his nonage, they had some nobles and ministers zealous and well affected, so that through god's blessing they obtained a reformation in that point, though not with so little difficulty as should give them ground to expect it should be done here on a sudden. but as for england, in queen elizabeth's time, she had so much trouble for holland, with spain, and in ireland, that her council thought not fit to adventure upon the trouble of an alteration in this point, which they foresaw, and we find to be great. and besides, many of our reformers being bishops, could not so well understand the convenience of their own abolishment. in king james his time, though we might have expected to have been better, in regard he came from a reformed kingdom, yet it was far worse with us, for he came with an innate bitterness against puritans, which was fomented by our english bishops, so that he became a great persecutor of unconformity; and according to the proverb, seldom comes a better, since the reign of this king, especially since the preferment of the late archbishop of canterbury, it hath been much worse with us, for in stead of reforming, we were deforming, and, in stead of renouncing, returning to rome apace. but all this while england wanted not its honour in the eyes of god and good men; for god favoured it with men eminent in learning, able and earnest assertors of the doctrine of the gospel, against the champions of rome, bellarmine and his fellows, such were whitaker, reynolds, jewel, fulke, perkings, &c. with more practical preachers and writers, and a greater measure of the power of godliness, than other reformed churches. thus we see, non omnis fert omnia tellus. scotland had its advantages, and so had england, that neither they without us, nor we without them might be made perfect, but that we might contribute to the reformation of each other, and both to our neighbours. you will pardon this digression, i return. after king james had outgrown his tutors, hankered after spain, and was come into england, he went about to pull down what was built in scotland for matter of discipline, and interrupted the liberty of the assemblies, as at perth more especially, though his nature was to accomplish his designs rather by artifice then by violence; king charles succeeds him in his crown and intention, but drives more furiously than his father, and ventures the overturning all; and so am i come to the late troubles of scotland, about the year 1638. at which time both kingdoms had bishops, but scotland first cast them off, to which they had these advantages. first, their natural antipathy against episcopacy, which is generally remarkable in that nation. secondly, the absence of the king, who was not there to countenance them with his presence, and support them with his interest and authority, as here. it is no small advantage to have an absent king. a king prevents the factions of an aristocracy: his absence takes away the enormities of a court, and the advantages to tyranny. and as they had more advantage, so had they more reason to begin; they had a service-book put upon them against law, more corrupt than ours, which was established by a law then in force. their work was but to assert their rights against innovation, ours to enlarge our reformation, and add something de novo, which is a much harder and a more questionable work. but however it was very happy for them and us, that they had such an opportunity, & hearts to use it as they did, in standing in the breach like to be made upon the religion and liberties of both kingdoms. to come yet nearer, this dispute betwixt the king and his party on the one side, the lords and ministers of scotland on the other, grows to blows, and armies are prepared on each hand. how stood the affection of the commonalty of england in this cause? how backward were they to raise men, to pay money? the soldiers that were raised in many places fell to pulling down altars, breaking images, as a work which pleased them better than to go against scotland in that cause. and whilst some were preparing to fight against them, many were actually stirring and wrestling with god for them in prayers; such was the affection they bore to that cause and kingdom. and when the parliament was called, to which god made the scottish broils an advantage, (though the affairs of england could not long have stood in that temper they were in) how tender were they of contributing any thing to the war against them, and chose rather to adventure their own dissolution than a breach with them. and when they were the second time convened, even to this present parliament, how readily did they gratify their brethren with a competent sum called brotherly assistance, to be paid by this kingdom for the injuries done by a faction in it? and this carriage of the parliament is acknowledged to be worthy, and obliging by the convention of the estates of scotland, in their declaration premitted at their entrance. so that hitherto we were not behindhand with them. it remains then that this great obligation must arise from the present conjunction. but if we consider the grounds, the terms, and issue, it may appear not to be extraordinary. as for the grounds, if this author in his 28. pag. already mentioned, be not authentic, let me allege those that are; sc. the convention in the short declaration premitted at their coming into this kingdom in january 1643. where beside and before the law of love requiring us to bear each others' burden, you may find a law of nature mentioned, enjoining them to preserve themselves by preventing their neighbour's ruin. it is indeed a kindness for a man to help to quench a fire in his neighbour's house, though his own be next; but if his house had not been so near, it may be the man had been further off. so that it was not a sole respect to us that brought them, for that is no fiction, though it be poetry, tua res agitur paries cum proximus ardet. so much for the ground. the terms were as betwixt strangers and mercenaries, though we love and embrace the title of brethren, as appears by the treaty, wherein it is required and agreed that england be at the whole charge of paying this army, (the terms upon which they serve france and holland) and expected that this kingdom be responsible for incident charges and losses. what could be further asked? and look to the issue, if god grant it, when this kingdom will be found to have afforded all the charge and most of the force for the preservation of england and ireland directly, and scotland as really, though by consequence; for prius and posterius makes no great difference, which was the case as this author acknowledgeth, pag. 28. and thus have i given account of the true state as near as i could learn it of the obligations betwixt these two kingdoms, which afford this result; that we should love one another. as for the particular words which occasioned this discourse, which are three times repeated in the manifest, sc. that the scots were the cause of calling, continuing, preserving from ruin this present parliament, let me say thus much to them. as for the calling it, they were the occasion, but not the cause. as for the continuance of it, this is the account, we feeling the smart of broken parliaments, as also our debts and necessities calling for money, it could not be borrowed but upon public faith, this was not to be given but in parliament; whereupon a noble gentleman, mr pierrepont by name, (who was not then much acquainted with the scots) moved upon those grounds for an act of continuance of this parliament, and it passed. as for the preservation of it from ruin, this clause following immediately upon the author's discourse of the scots refusing the king's offers which he made them of the four northern counties, &c. if they would lend their hand to the parliaments ruin, induceth me to believe, he means that not destruction for preservation. but do not the publicans so? could they do less than forbear the attempt of ruining that parliament which had been so careful to hinder all means of furthering the wrong or ruin of scotland. i know not what kindness it was not to do it, i am sure it had been barbarous cruelty and injustice to have done it; but if the gentleman mean they were the cause of our preservation positively, by affording their seasonable help, it is acknowledged upon the grounds and terms already mentioned, sc. their own preservation as well as ours, and full satisfaction. the manifest proceeds in declaring the readiness of the scots for the help of ireland: i will by no means extenuate the courtesy, but that also is easily reducible to their own interest, which they had reason to regard, their labour being bestowed in ulster which lay near to scotland, and would have been a very ill neighbour in the rebels hands. as also it may be considered that they had divers scottish plantations in those parts, which it concerned them to do their best to preserve for their love to their countrymen, and to keep off the burden of their coming over to themselves. but i deny not but they have suffered something from ireland, and done something for it, and nodoubt with respect to religion, and the common good of these kingdoms. but i being not so well acquainted with those affairs, forbear to speak more of them; let the british in ulster speak. after the narration of the scots interposing with the king pag. 29. by commissioners sent to oxford, and their resolution upon the success of it already mentioned, he proceeds to the parliaments sending into scotland for assistance, and to aggravate the kindness of their coming, he reflects upon the parliament for not sending till their affairs were almost in despair, adding the danger of not calling for help till things were too low. this low condition is described by him in the same page, viz. the overrunning of the north, the beating sir william waller at the devizes, surrendering bristol and banbury castle basely (as he calls it.) toward the clearing of the truth in this, the author affords us some help, which i shall endeavour to make out as far as truth will suffer; his words that i shall make use of are these; for the parliament to try if they could do the business themselves without troubling the scots was wisdom; for what need you call for aid, and trouble your neighbours, when you can do your business alone? certainly, the hopes of compassing our business without the help of an army thence, was the ground of their being no sooner called, though this author allegeth other mystical grounds, pag. 30. but we stayed too long; not so long as the gentleman mentions, neither were our affairs so low as he expresses. we have good reason to remember the time of our sending thither, which was in july 1643. but whereas it is said, that sir william waller was ruined at the vieth, and bristol taken, before our sending. the latter is absolutely denied, for our commissioners had not news of the loss of bristol till they were in scotland. as for sir william waller's defeat, it is true he was scattered before the commissioners went from london, but the commissioners were named, and the instructions preparing, and the journey fully resolved on before that defeat, even when sir william waller had utterly spoiled hopto's army with continual fighting. and as for the subjection of the north to the earl of newcastle, except hull, it is not strictly true, for wraisell-castle likewise held out, and was never taken by the king's forces. but i acknowledge that added not much to the state of our affairs; i seek not advantages, i have too many given me. pag. 31. as also pag. 56. upon mention of the covenant for settling of the church according to the word of god, and conform to the best reformed churches, he adds, and by name to the church of scotland. this i take to be a falsification of the covenant, which when i took i understood to have no more reference to one reformed church then to another, no more to scotland then new-england; though i believe old england uncapable of that government is in new. all that is particularise (with respect to church-government) on the behalf of scotland, is that we joyno in preservation of it against the common enemy, supposed by all to be pupists and prelates; the plain intent of which to me seems to be an endeavour to preserve scotland from any relapse to the corruptions they had escaped, and not to preclude it from any further reformation, if need should be. i can hardly forbear urging you with that of job, cap. 13. ver. 7. let us allege fair and argue accordingly, especially since your title is truths manifest, and mine manifest truths. as for the relation of their passing northumberland with so little opposition, yet so much want, you are referred partly to the narrative, which is true; as for the want spoken of, it was not so great as is pretended, neither was the county of northumberland so much then wasted (for it hath endured very much since) but that it afforded many sheep, which were killed by the scots the first or second night of their entrance. if their want had been greater, the fault had been partly their own, who undertook to bring in forty days' provision, which if it had been done would have given liberty for getting provisions beforehand. pag. 35. 36. he gives a relation of the raising the siege at york, and the battle at marston moor, where the fault is laid wholly upon the yorkshire horse, which was not so, but i refer to the narrative; only, i must take notice of his extolling the service of the major general of the scotch horse, who is certainly a very able commander. but i must differ in that point, with truths manifest. for the scotch horse which he commanded on the left wing, were none of them drawn up in the front that day, nor yet the next reserve, (as i am informed) but as a reserve to the reserve, and being weaker horse than my lord manchester's, were designed rather to the chase (if god should so bless us) then to the charge. what whole bodies they charged i know not, but have made the best inquiry i can. as for the provocation which the author had to magnify the forenamed gentleman, by the unseemly appellation of the saviour of the three kingdoms, (for so i believe he means, though it be printed the savour) given to lieutenant general cromwell, for aught i hear, it was attributed to him by a scottishman, major general craford by name, which he could not help, and i hope, and think, i may say that he is angry at the expression, his modesty and piety in that respect hath been answerable to his valour and success; and upon a strict examination, you will find that he was in the field to the last, though his service might be a little hindered, after the first charge by the shot, which though it was not very dangerous, being but a rake in the neck, yet the pistol being discharged so near, that the powder hurt his face, and troubled his eyes, was a better excuse for withdrawing (if he had done so, which yet he did not) than many a gay man had that day. pag. 37. it is said that the scots upon the taking of newcastle carried themselves with such moderation, that the enemies who had been in arms against them, were constrained to speak well of them. their moderation is acknowledged as to violence, but as for the testimony fetched from the mouth of the enemies, there was too much reason for it, in regard that they, especially one of the principal of them, sir nicholas cole, a person excepted from pardon, in the propositions of both kingdoms sent to the king at oxford, was detained for some time from the justice of the parliament of england (who sent a warrant for him) by the general of the artillery (then commanding in chief, in the absence of the noble general,) who kept him company frequently, let him live in all freedom and jollity, and would not part with him, till by an order from the parliament of scotland, procured by a commissioner sent thither, he was constrained so to do: and for other enemies they sought and found protection in some regiments of the scottish army, which occasioned their speaking well: but i have no mind to aggravate, but must add, that the excuse he makes of military order in the next page, satisfies not; for as i take it, our military force serves for nothing, but the establishment of civil power and peace; i know no military order could keep the party above named, from being disposed according to the will of the parliament, from the 20. of october, till the february after, and till the parliament of scotland very justly, and honourably interposed their authority. pag. 38. and 39 he makes a digression to set forth the malignancy and poverty of the north, thereby to prejudice many of their just complaints, and to make the stirring of the westmoreland-men the more inexcusable. i shall give you as true an account as the manifest of the north, both in general, and with respect to the particular mentioned of the rising in westmoreland. first, as for the malignancy of the north, it had three disadvantages, first, its distance from the parliament and city of london. secondly, the want of good ministers, which i wish the parliament and assembly would heartily consider of, there being not above four ministers in the four northern counties capable of persecution by the enemy, when these wars began. the people are destroyed for want of knowledge; if some of that strength which hath been spent at london in endless debares about discipline, had been bestowed in doctrine in the north, and such like barren places, heu quantum terrae potuit pelagique parari, hoc quem civiles, &c. i wish ministers were more of the temper of that holy apostle, who laboured more abundantly than they all, who strived to preach the gospel, not where christ was named, lest he should build on another man's foundation. but the warmth rom. 15. 20. and accommodations of the south, and principles of self-love in men too suitable to them, are fundi nostri calamitas. this hath been the principal means, how the northern parts both of england and scotland, have proved so disadvantageous to this cause. and lastly, the nobility of these parts, who were well affected, lived out of the country, and the gentry, (through the want of the powerful preaching of the gospel) were not so sound, which hath made the north in the condition it was: but yet give me leave to say, that for aught i ever observed or heard, the commonalty of these parts were never so ill affected, but if due care had been taken to engage them, they had been as serviceable to this cause as any other, northumberland, as norfolk. but more particularly for cumberland and westmoreland, they have showed themselves the least disaffected of any other, for first, though they were arrayed, by sir philip musgrave, under the pretence of the defence of their own countries, yet they never would be persuaded to go out of them, to the prejudice of the parliament, (for aught i have heard) they were willing to agree with laneashire, and when they were in arms, and might have resisted the scotch horse, (for they had that strength, which the horse thought not fit to force,) yet upon a letter from mr. barwis, they gave way for the scots to come in among them. and the county of cumberland raised 1800. foot, and 400. horse at their own charge, under the command of sir wilfred lawson, for the reduction of carlisle. and these counties were not so poor, but that in the space of six months, or little more, the scottish horse and dragoons had from thence about the value of one hundred thousand pounds, in money and provisions, more than ever the earl of newcastle had from them, which argues they were not so poor, and spent, as that they were sensible of the least thing could be demanded. and to speak more particularly of westmoreland, where the resistance to the scots was, though i know no man justifies the action, for they should have addressed to the parliament, yet these things may be considered. first, they had expended for the entertainment of the scotch army, 40000. l. or thereabouts: as much as they could well endure without intermission, so that now indeed they began to be sensible. secondly, the general had so far resented their charge, that he had under his hand forbidden his soldier's levies of money. thirdly, the parliament had also made an ordinance for the entertainment of the scottish army, dated february 20. laying the charge of it upon all parts of the kingdom, in their power, that the north might be eased, (which for aught the scottish officers than knew, might be effectual for their pay.) fourthly, the scottish horse there quartered, had so full pay for the winter, that the necessities of the county were beyond the necessity of the soldier. these things considered, will make the westmoreland men's resistance, though (it may be) not justifiable yet not wholly inexcusable, seeing their ground was necessity, and their end the vindication, not only of the authority of parliament, forbidding arbitrary impositions by armies, and ordering other ways of provision for soldiers: but of the scottish general who had strictly forbidden the continuance of the assessment. there is added, pag. 39 a bitter, and i think unjust reflection upon the commissioners, employed by the parliament in the north, who were sir william armyne, mr. hatcher, mr. robert goodwin, mr. barwis, mr. darley, mr. fenwick, who put too much power in the hands of wicked malignants, as recusants, prelaticks, men lately in actual rebellion, who spoil the country, oppress honest men, &c. a high charge: but no proof except the assertion, he says indeed that men without exception (and that is strange, seeing mr. musgrave the chief of them is a sectary) are sent up to the parliament, to acquaint the houses with the state of business. these mentioned gentlemen were troubled, that they had no more, or better choice to make committees in the north, but certainly, they did to their apprehension choose the best and most serviceable, and they challenge you to name the professed recusants. as for prelaticks and common prayer-booke-men, in that country where they knew no other government, or service, it's no considerable exception: as for men that have been in actual rebellion against the state; it may be granted, that they employed men, who according to ordinance of parliament had been delinquents, though not active against the parliament, for want of other; and for this; besides their necessity, they had such examples on both hands of them, in england, but especially scotland, for the employing of neutral, and not so well affected men, that it may be they passed over this rub with the less difficulty. and as for the spoiling the country and oppressing honest men, the committee are willing to join issue, whether they or the scottish army (for you put me to it) have most spoiled the country, and oppressed honest men. as for the men deputed from cumberland, to complain of mr. barwis and the rest; some of them may be honest, as i hope mr. musgrave and his partner are, but certainly they are inconsiderate in this point, they find faults, and 'tis easy so to do, it's like, in that, and other committees there are too many, as covetousness and partiality (of which who ever are guilty, for their own sake and the kingdoms, let them amend it) but to go about to disgrace and displace men in authority, faithful for the main (as they have showed it) and not to be able to name men fit to succeed, is but to give advantage to the destruction of their country by the division of it, and to make a gap for some body else, who it may be will less mind their good, to strike in. i much suspect the drift of this author, when he would go about to possess us, that all our affairs in the north are in ill hands, but i will not insist upon suspicions. and that gentleman with some other well-affected to the public, viz,. have been too forward in charging the proceedings of parliament, and their committees, pleading magna charta, and the liberty of the subject: alas, our ancestors never made provision for such times as these, and if all the laws which are to have free passage in times of peace, should now be urged, we could have no martial law, no pressing men, fortifying other men's houses, cutting through their grounds to make works, and so should lose our liberty, whilst we are defending known laws (which was the king's old snare) cannot serve for dangers unknown, when the laws were made: i hope the parliament will be as careful to countenance law and liberty as may be, but we must not expect, but that in many cases it should be broken, and only that it may be preserved. as the case stands with us, it may go for malignancy or high indiscretion, to oppose and quarrel with the proceedings of the parliament; god hath made them instruments of much good, and i hope will of much more. the reader is desired to pardon this digression, the discontents fomented by some against the authority of the houses, is so dangerous, that it hath enforced it. from the 41. to 44. pag. the author of the manifest gives an account of the advance of the scottish army southward in the spring, where he tells of their march from newcastle to rippon, and from rippon into westmoreland, and so to rippon again, and then to nottingham, and casts in the story of the printed papers called the manifest. the excuse of the scots, and the fault of the countries is declared to be in the slack providing of draughts, and provisions. but let us examine the true state of the business, concerning their marching or not marching southward, that is, over the trent, till the later end of june. the parliament upon the grounds mentioned in the narrative, sent for their speedy advance southward in march, and sent them 30000. l. in money, their desired proportion of arms and ammunition to fit them for service. the manifest says, that the delay of the march from newcastle to the first of may, was from the unreadiness of draughts. the losses and wants of the parts about newcastle sustained in the siege, and by assessments all the winter, had made them, though not so able, yet very willing to forward the advance of the scots, knowing their ease by it; and it will be proved, that in the midst of the complaints for draughts, divers of their officers, took money of those that brought them in, and released them: but that is a small matter: they came to rippon, or at least part of them about the beginning of may, how comes the stop there? it's alleged to be want of draughts and provisions. first, for draughts, certainly the county of york could not so little understand their own condition (of which their suffering could not but make them sensible) if they had not had an apprehension of the public service, as not to afford them all possible requisites to their march southwards: for as for the county, it did undergo ten times the charge by their stay there; and as for my lord fairefax, and the committee, they were so apprehensive of the inconveniences of their not marching, that they saw besides the disappointment of the parliament, their own forces in danger of ruin by the quarter and assessments of the scottish army. concerning draughts, i add this further. the not relieving draughts by the way, and not restoring them when they served their proportion, and exacting money for freeing them, makes the people more backward than they should, or otherwise would be. for it's certain, that the heresordshire men were some of them at northallerton in yorkshire seeking their draughts this winter, and the yorkshire, cumberland, and westmoreland men, were forced to give money for releasing their draughts, and some to sell their oxen at under rates, and leave their wanes behind them. and truly i am not satisfied, how the scottish army should come by draughts so easily to march back into westmoreland, as to be ready on a sudden, without further trouble to the committee to march thither, but could get no accommodation for marching southward. if they used the same rigour for draughts for service (which is more reasonable) as they do for money for subsistence, they would never want them long: will you give me leave to say, that was not the only reason, but that time was not the season of their marching. for when our commissioners came to a rendezvous at bramham-moore, lieutenant general lesley upon their appearance, came galloping up with this expression, i have it, i have it, and tells them he had received intelligence from sir william brereton, that the king was sending a flying army through lancashire into scotland, but the letters were not produced to our commissioners, who therefore moved for surer intelligence, before they marched toward westmoreland, and went away with that expectation: but the next news they heard was, the scottish army marched early next morning, and were gone twenty four miles before they heard of them: and thus went they back into westmoreland, where they were when the king took leicester. and since the manifest adds, they had come sooner from westmoreland, but that they also were slow, and unwilling in providing draughts and provisions: give me leave to say this for truth; that when they were to march back from westmoreland, the yorkshire draughts which brought them thither were not gone back, and thereupon mr. barwis and the committees there, (to spare the pains and hazard of their own draughts) would have agreed with the yorkshire men for a sum of money, to let their draughts be employed back again, which was refused by the scots under pretence of trouble to the yorkshire men. so that westmoreland draughts must needs go, and warrants were granted for 75 by the committee of cumberland & westmoreland, which came in so well that the general of the artillery gave a very good testimony to the readiness of the committee and county, notwithstanding all their pretended disaffection: and so much for the business of draughts; unless i should add the story of that officer who at the siege of newcastle sent for draughts to barwick, and then sold the oxen. now for provisions, let me add something. first, it was expected that the scottish army upon the receipt of 30000. li. to enable them to advance, should have made some provision of victuals to be carried along against a time of necessity, for in their ordinary marches not near an enemy the country would afford it. secondly, the scottish general sent to the committees of york only to cause provisions to be brought to the places where the army should lodge from night to night, and not the provision of a magazine, which they would have done rather than have occasioned their stay in yorkshire, to the prejudice of the public and themselves. thirdly, when they came and demanded provisions, the committee used all possible diligence to procure them, only they desired a full resolution for their march southward, before they delivered them. and when the army was marching into westmoreland, the provisions were going toward brambam-moore, and those parts. fourthly, why could not they as well march southward toward nottinghamshire, a very plentiful country, without such a stock of provisions, as over stainemoore, a most barren place, and go into westmoreland, a country which the manifest says was so spent, that they were sensible of the least demands? and for provisions when they came from westmoreland, in a very short space, they had four or five days' provision, according to their demand of 18000 weight per diem, made ready for them, by the special diligence of mr barwis, to whom i cannot but give the testimony of a very honest and faithful man to the public, and one who hath deserved better at some men's hands than he hath found. and so about the beginning of june they began their journey southward again, and passed speedily through yorkshire, without any of those difficulties which hindered (as is said) their march before. and in the mean time lieutenant general cromwell being a man not acceptable to the scots, and excepted against as one whom their army would not join in service with, was called back, and colonel vermuden sent with a party of horse to strengthen their army, but he not finding them, being gone into westmoreland, he marched back, not without hazard, and came and resigned his regiment before naseby fight. i have no more to add in reference to this part of the manifest, but to remark his observation on the yorkshire horse, which he saith were not a third part of the thousand armed. give me leave to answer; the yorkshire-men had been better horsed and armed both, had it not been for the very great burden upon that county, by reason of the scottish army, which was one reason of the distraction of those forces. as for what he saith about publishing the papers delivered in to the houses of parliament, by the scottish commissioners, under the title of the scots manifest, by i know not whom. if the commissioners hand was in the printing, sure they would not have disclaimed it, as this author saith they did, if their hand was not in it, it was printed underhand, contrary to the passage of play underboard and clandestine dealing, pag. 51. as also the letter from nottingham, signed by the chief officers of the army, which was sent to the parliament and not to the people, and i think ought not to have been published without the consent of them to whom they were written: i suppose them that wrote it knew as little of the printing it as they that received it; but if printing letters be so convenient, you may soon have enough of that work. in the 46. & 47. pag. he adds a word or two about moneys received by the scottish army, provisions made for, and the behaviour of the army. to which first he gives an assurance in the name of the scots (which i know not what authorlty he hath to use) that they desire an universal trial of all things, it may be so, but his warrant is not sufficient. to these he gives brief answers (scil.) short of money, scant of provisions, of their carriage indifferent. give me leave to add something more. first for money, it cannot be denied, but that the proportion of money allotted them by the treaty was not paid monthly, neither doth the treaty undertake it shall exactly, for (knowing the want, and distractions of the kingdom) there is an addition made of public faith, for the part unpaid; but i add these things. first, that the parliament hath not been able to give them their expected pay, for all the counties of this kingdom, except london, and the association for the maintenance of the english army, have either wholly or in some part been under the enemy, or been constrained to maintain a force for their defence; so that they could not afford much (especially through the wast, and depopulation following the war, the estates of delinquents which was principally intended for the way of their maintenance being made little of) and whether the parliament should so dispose the part left free, as not to have some maintenance for an english army, for the service of england, let reasonable men judge. secondly, though they have not had so much as might be expected in an orderly way, yet some way or other, by their own unwarranted assessments and otherwise they have had no small sums: the particulars must rest till the account: and they were so vigilant (let me not say violent) in making provision for themselves, that it gave occasion to many to remit their care and endeavour in providing for them. and lastly, although the foot soldier doth not abound, for he is kept to his four pence a day in provision, yet the officers and horsemen have not felt any want this long time, as appears by their very liberal expenses in clothes and drinkings, which every market-town near their quarters can witness. if the parliament could have paid them duly, and did not, they have been very ill husbands, for certainly it were far better for this kingdom they received money to disspend here, and pay their quarters, then to refer to the confused reckoning for quarters, and sending money into scotland. i could wish that this kingdom were not so forward in their promises and undertakings, for no man looks at our willingness in promising, but reflects upon our weakness in performing. as for their pay comparative to other armies, we can affirm that in other armies there is as much want among their foot, who sometimes have neither money nor provisions, and not so much excess among the horse: we know forces in england, that have had as little pay as this author saith this army had, a month in seven, and yet never assessed the country without leave from the parliament, nor used violence towards the people, but were content with free quarter, who have yet done very good service too. as for provisions, the instance of hereford shall be satisfied in its place: as for other places i am sure there are many have been very glad to give what they could, or had, and be glad if they might so escape; and as for that foul imputation of some men's detaining provisions, that so the army might be disenabled for service; certainly those men as they are no friends to the scots army, so are they enemies to the parliament and good of the kingdom; and this author is bound to discover them by his covenant; we have had more need of their service, especially before naseby, then to hinder them from it: as for the disorders of the army, the author is in some measure ingenuous, and confesses the necessity of some miscarriages which will be in an army, especially unpaid, but i may say safely i know armies better ordered; want of pay is some excuse for free quarter or pillage, but for rapes, murders, violence, swearing, drunkenness, i know none, neither do i believe them to be punished, according to ecclesiastical and military law, as is pretended. and take it not ill, that i say, if you love the presbytery, reform the army, for it is very scandalous. pag. 51. he proceeds to the constitution of the committee of both kingdoms; and pag. 56. & 57 to the corruptions of some of the english of that committee, let us consider of both. it's true, the parliament out of their earnest desire of a most arct union with their brethren, desired a conjunction not only of forces, but of counsels, which so long as both kingdoms do earnestly and entirely promote the common interest of both in the same way, hath its advantages; but giveme leave to say, that as the matter is ordered, the conjunction is not equal in every point, for scotland hath besides their committee joined with ours for the regulating their army in our service, commanders interested in the knowledge of our especial affairs, and the ordering of our english forces, we have not so in scotland, but are mere strangers to the business, and armies of that kingdom, notwithstanding the great dependence that our affairs have upon theirs while we have a common enemy. and further, they have committees joined with ours for the raising and receiving money, as at goldsmith's hall, and at newcastle, where at first a lock was set upon the customehouse-door by the appointment of the scottish committee, with an intent solely to administer the money-business there, afterward they were content with a mutual key, of so ill credit are our english officers (i know not the reason) but we have no joined muster-master nor paymaster of that army to take account how the money is expended, but these are things i have little to do with, yet they are manifest truths. the constitution of the committee, i know none disallows when the parliament hath consented to it: but let us look to the corruption where it is found, that contrary to the order of that committee where the scots have a negative voice, and nothing is done, or at least ought to be done, without their knowledge and consent, concerning peace, or war, publicly or privately, directly, or indirectly, &c. two things have been foully carried on the english part. first, the naming and assembling a sub-committee without knowledge of the scots, this was in my lord savil case, who came with overtures of getting oxford delivered to the parliament, and goring's horse brought over to us, where it seems the lord say, mr. solicitor, and mr. crew were appointed to speak with him, which they had like to have paid dear for, in regard that a minister of london, unadvisedly being set on by a scottish minister, and commissioner, went to the exchange, and misreported the business, that some men of special note in our parliament, were treating with the enemy about delivering our towns to them, to the amusement of the city, and the danger of the gentlemen. let the reader consider the time, and circumstances of this accusation, and judge whether it were not a design fitted for the ruin of the new-modeled army, and those who had been active in it. but they that knew the order and, practise of that committee, affirm this was not unusual, nor had been before excepted against, to appoint a sub-committee all english without a scottish commissioner. and the house of commons after solemn hearing the whole business, adjudged that the sub-committee had done their duty, and ordered mr. cranford to acknowledge his fault, and pay 500 l. to each of them, though i believe they regard no pecuniary benefit. as for the latter concerning pat: napar, i am informed the case was this, the lord lauderdaile told the committee, there was a scottish man had business to impart to them concerning oxford, a sub-committee was appointed (the committee sitting) whereof the said lord was one to examine the man, and receive his information, which was concerning the forces and provisions in oxford: but his information being only coincident with intelligence formerly received, it was the less regarded: but as for that secret of the easy place, it is easier to say then to prove it, for the gentlemen of that sub-committee knew of no such advantage, and therefore could not disclose it, and therefore let patrick lay his hand upon his heart, &c. as is advised, pag. 57 but why will you give me so just, nay so necessary occasion by the mention of these deviations (as you make them) of the english members of the committee of both kingdoms, from the rule, to put you, and others in mind of the carriage of things betwixt the scots committee, joined with the english commissioners in the north, for ordering the scots army, where the english have been so far from having a negative in any thing, that in many things they have had no vote at all? how often have those forces been disposed of, diminished, increased, removed from place to place, from england to scotland, and back again, without the knowledge and consent of our commissioners? how are some garrisons put into english towns and castles, without their consent required, others without their consent obtained? for there is no scottish garrison in any english town, or castle, which hath the consent of the parliament, except berwick, where a governor was placed with the approbation of the english commissioners, to whom equally with the scots, the disposal of the army is by treaty committed, and this hath been done, or at least not altered, by the scots committee of themselves without sending to the parliament, or convention of estates in scotland, as we are constrained to the parliament of england, in case of the dissent of the scots, so that there we have no negative, or to no purpose, which is here so strictly expected; i am sorry you have put me to this discourse. pag. 54. 55. as also 59 60. you will pardon my going backwards and forwards, i must follow my leader; the manifest gives an account of the divers correspondencies of the scots commissioners, sometimes with one sort of men, sometimes with another: i suppose the gentleman may be bolder with them than i: they are men in public employment, and should not be bandied by a private pen, i shall say nothing to their disadvantage, they notwithstanding any alteration of their company have kept constant to their principles, and counsels, which have been to set up the presbyterial government in england (which is their declared business) and that in full power and virtue, without connivance at sects, schisms; this could not be done till the common enemy was weakened, and therefore both the scots and independents might well join, for they both had hopes: but when the scots saw the sectaries not altered in opinions, but expecting the liberty of their own practice, the grow strange to each other, as being bound several ways, and to supply their place another party strikes in, partly out of concurrence with the scots in church-government, and partly out of envy and opposition to the independents, who as they thought had supplanted them: but since those men who were most averse to the coming in of the scots, greatest strangers afterwards, most forward to have them gone, are so handsomely come about to an intimate conjunction with the scots, quid non speremus? the world may turn once again, and the old friendship may be renewed, let us not be too much prejudiced. and the author reduces this mistake to the church-government; as i do; only he speaks of a stipulation given from the english commissioners to the scots when in scotland, to go heartily along with them in settling church-government, i know no private stipulation, as for the covenant, which is the mutual public stipulation, i hope we shall all stand to, to endeavour reformation according to the word of god; but if my observation fail me not, the distances (though i desire not to meddle with them) have been also kept with men like affected with them, for the main of church-government, and was occasioned also by the business of the new model, of which more by and by. pag. 57 58. there is mention made of the unreasonableness of the siege at oxford, while the enemy was ranging abroad, and calling back the party that followed the king, both being against the advice of the scots, and how fit it was, rather for sir tho: fairfax his army to follow the king at that time, than the scots, and herein refer to the condition of each army. and since we are called upon to try these things, and not suffer them to be carried away in hugger (as the word is) let it be tried. first, for the siege at oxford, of which i think this a true account, it is well known how earnest endeavours there were almost on all parts, to hinder the new moulding of the armies, how when seven thousand horse and foot were got together about redding, and windsor, they were dispatched into the west, and when they had marched as fair as blairford, which is about seventy miles from windsor, they were by order from the committee of both kingdoms divided, and sir thomas fairfax with 3500. commanded back towards oxford, where the king had joined his horse, and almost completed his army for the spring, so that sir thomas fairfax with his party could not march through wiltshire, but was constrained to go through hamshire for safety; before his return the king marched from oxford, lieutenant general cromwell, and major general browne followed him as near as they well might, with another part of the army, so that, that army was already in three parts, far distant from each other; the desires of the parliament were sent down to the north, for the speedy advance of the scots army, which was fitter for the field then sir thomas fairfaxes, for they had twelve or fourteen thousand men in a body, in yorkshire, and besides the yorkshire horse, a party of the new model (which makes another division of the army) was sent under colonel vermuden to join with them, so that they wanted neither men, money; (for 30000. l. was sent them in order to their advance) arms, nor ammunition, which also they had received in good proportion: as for draughts and provisions we have said enough before: but sir thomas fairfax's army, when joined with cromwell, rosseter, and when vermuden not finding the scots army, which was gone into westmoreland, was returned, and when he had the accession of some association, and northampton horse, was but eleven hundred, or thereabouts, and therefore was it thought but reasonable that his army should have a little time to gather together; and that the pretence of sitting still might not be made against it, it was appointed rather to lie upon the enemy's quarters about oxford, than our own, that the reduction, and recruiting of it might be perfected. as for the calling back the party following the king, they were too weak to follow him, because too weak to fight him, for they were but equal (when joined with the other part of the army) at naseby fight. and besides if they had advanced, it had been under the command of lieutenant general cromwell, with whom the scots had no mind to join, and so the service might have been prejudiced. and so have you the story of the siege of oxford, in which you think there is so much disadvantage to the public on our part. pag. 62. we have a story of the treaty at uxbridge, wherein this author (as if he meant division) is not content to extol the faithfulness, resolution, prudence, knowledge of the scottish commissioners, which never was questioned: but he reflects unworthily upon the english commissioners in these words. the king's commissioners feeling the pulse of the parliament commissioners, did promise unto themselves, upon what ground they know best, or at least should know, that they could carry all things to their minds, if it were not for the rude and stiffnecked scots, (it's his own language) who were so firm to their principles, and resolved rather to follow on the work with honour and conscience, then to yield to a base agreement to the prejudice of church and state. consider here, first the charge, that had it not been for the scots, distinct from the english commissioners, the court commissioners had compassed their ends, which were certainly very disadvantageous, if not destructive to the parliament and kingdom, which without straining amounts to thus much; that the parliament sent commissioners to the treaty, that were either so unwise, or so unfaithful, as that, had it not been for the scottish assistants, the cause of the parliament and kingdom, had been through them prejudiced, if not betrayed. and to this in opposition to the english, he makes an addition of the firmness, honour, conscience and resolution of the scottish commissioners. i wonder at this in stead of answering it. let us consider who were employed, men we always had an honourable opinion of, and shall have, notwithstanding any such unjust and unworthy suggestions, which have no proof nor can have, to whom we must give this testimony, that in that, as in other our affairs, they carried themselves with all diligence and faithfulness, so that the treaty ended without our prejudice, and there an end of it. pag. 63. the next thing in order is the new model, wherein the parliament is a little beholding to him, for he justifies that action of the parliament, by the necessity of it, in regard of the faults of some who were employed in the armies, which the parliament had attempted to amend in a fair way, but to small purpose. to which let me add another reason, that by the reduction of the armies, the officers were abated, especially the most costly ones, as general officers, and the charge lessened, that the parliament might be the better able to pay other officers in their service. we are told of the interposition of the scottish commissioners in that affair, advising the parliament by their paper put in to that purpose, to choose (as this author says) men of ability and experience, and faithful to the cause, which latter he expounds to be men, not inclined to sects, and schisms; i remember that paper of the scottish commissioners, was then wondered at, but now it is not; if their counsel were followed, as this author confesses in some degree it was, there is the less reason to complain, but who ever complains, i thank god for the new model. and before we pass from the new model, two exceptions must be cleared, which this author makes concerning it. first, concerning the covenant, pag. 64. where he wonders and doubts, he wonders it should admit any debate in the parliament, whether the armies should be put to the oath; and then why the common soldiers should not be put to it: and then doubts that the order for the taking of it by the commanders is not so well observed. for the debates and orders of the parliament, i do not use to debate them over again, especially when satisfied in these two things, that a common soldier that hath not taken the covenant, may do very good service to the kingdom, and that there is not the same reason why it should be pressed upon them as upon the enemies coming in, because we doubt them more than we do these, and therefore offer them a discovery and engagement. but for the covenant i have taken it, and approve the taking of it, though i have neither power nor will to compel it. as for the doubt that the officers take it not, i cannot satisfy it, but i am sure they do the things that it obliges to, better than many that have taken it, and to me a covenant not taken is much better than a covenant not kept. to which i add, novimus & quite, we can tell you when and where, the scottish army hath in articles of treaty and surrender agreed to an article in these words; that the national covenant shall not be enforced, either upon officer, soldier, gentleman, or clergyman, as in the capitulation for tinmouth-castle, and to the like purpose at carlisle, though our armies have always (for aught i ever heard) refused to accept of any such article, as at bristol; but require a subjection to all ordinances of parliament. so that notwithstanding this exception, it seems our commanders either love the covenant better than they, or castles not so well. as for the reason of some men's backwardness to the covenant, which is alleged to be their averseness to the presbyterian government, i see no reason why that should be a reason, because there is no mention of the presbyterial government in the covenant, nor (for aught i know) any intention of it any further, than it is found agreeable to the word of god, which we all profess a submission to. and it is well known that learned and godly men, though not satisfied in the presbyterial government, have taken the covenant, as knowing that no particular government, but the word of god, is set up as the rule of reformation. it may be your interpretation of the covenant to reach so far, and your addition of the church of scotland, may discourage men from taking it, lest not interpreting it as you, they should give you the scandal of covenant-breaking. here comes in the ●●rned dispute of active and passive obedience, where it is affirmed that passive obedience is a great absurdity; that is only an absurdity in language, which is an absurdity in use, for use makes propriety; but this expression being very common (and that among scholars) is not absurd. and therefore this author gives so much respect to divines, as not to except against their use of this expression, with respect to christ. obedience is taken either positively, for performance of the command; or privatively, for not resistance or submission, as phil. 2. 8. he became obedient unto death; which is ordinarily called passive obedience. he saith all virtue consists in action, moralists say so, but yet they allow silence and patience to be virtues, which cannot be said to be actions, but rather forbearances of action; though some intimate act of the mind belongs to them, as also to this submission; it is accounted a great virtue or rather grace in christ, that being reviled, he reviled not again, yet there was no action. but your principle makes well for the new model, if all virtue consists in action, sir thomas fairfax his army being active, must be concluded, virtuous, notwithstanding independency. before i come to the second exception about the new model, scil. the leaving out the scottish officers, notice must be taken of a loose discourse, pag. 67, 68, 69. occasioned by a speech uttered publicly, by one to this purpose, that the main quarrel the parliament stood for at first, and thereafter, did take up arms for, was not religion, nor the reformation of the church, but the freedom and liberty of the subject. which saying he pleads to be injurious, but handles it injuriously; for he makes the sense of that speech to be this; the parliament did not from the beginning intend a true reformation of religion, which it affords not, the parliament may intend reformation, and yet not fight for it. and without prejudice to the parliament, let me declare my opinion. the parliament (i doubt not) did look at religion as the foundation and perfection of the kingdom's happiness, and had it chiefly in their eye. some indeed have thought them more intent to liberty, upon a mistake they could not be earnest for religion, unless they were for liberty, (which is the fence and preservative of the practice of it;) but yet if i were asked the ground of the parliaments taking up arms de facto, i should not answer the reformation of religion, (for i make some question whether religion, especially the reformation of it, be so proper a quarrel for the sword) but that seeing the king instead of suffering justice to be executed upon offenders, prepared violence against the parliament, and in it against our liberty, with all the fruits of it, (of which the enjoyment of religion was the choicest) they raised an army to defend us and themselves, that they might sit with freedom and liberty to perform their trust, for the preservation and reformation of the kingdom, which they have attended as much as the difficulties and distractions of the times would permit. and to that end called an assembly of divines, that they might from them receive some light to direct them in the execution of their power in matters of religion. he spends some further time in discussing that position, whether liberty were the main quarrel. i answer, they looked at liberty, primò, but not primarion, religion as the furthest end, but liberty as the next means: the infringement of liberty gives advantage to corruption in religion, as our adversaries well know, when they with equal pace brought on slavery and superstition. here the author takes a needless ground to tell the people that which is not true, that they are in a worse case in respect of liberty then formerly, by paralleling committees with the star-chamber, and taxes with ship-money. this sounds more like sedition then truth; for howsoever committees may be guilty of partialities and miscarriages, yet their main intent is our preservation, not our burden, as the other courts were. and we have now a better appeal from a committee to the parliament, than we had from the star-chamber to the king. injury may be done now as well as then, but not so professedly, or with so little remedy. and as for taxes heavier than shipmoney, i wonder either at your face or at your judgement. in the beginning of the 70 pag. you make a plaster of the necessity of taxes, but it is not so wide as the wound: the wiser of the people see and discover your fallacious dealing, and see a great deal of difference betwixt the kings destroying their right in ship▪ money, and the parliaments preserving their right notwithstanding taxes, which i hope will not last long. i pass to the second exception against the new model, pag. 72. 74. which is led up by a story of the kings courting the scottish officers, and his success, which i meddle not with. the exception is, that at the making of the new model, were cashiered of the scots in one day above two hundred brave fellows. i answer, the parliament were entering upon a way of good husbandry in reducing their armies, and it may be, they thought these brave fellows would be too chargeable. but in earnest, you say two hundred of the scots were cashiered, you should have used a milder term, and said reduced. cashiering implies a fault, reduction none. as two hundred scots, so sour hundred english were at that time put out of employment, and brave fellows too for aught i know. it's strange to me that the parliament of england should not (without exception) form an army as seems best to them for their own defence and the kingdoms; especially when the scots had so great an army in england, and another in ireland, where employment was to be had. but the parliament to show they had no national respect, named four colonels of the new model, and some captains, besides a lieutenant colonel, who is adjutant general of their foot, a place of great trust; who all except the last refused to serve. the grounds of their laying down are said to be three: first, because the rest of their countrymen were not employed; there was no use of them, if we had men of our own nation, they were, in reason, to be preferred, ●eteris paribus; and it is not without its exception, that they will not serve unless so many together. secondly, they were nominated to inferior employments, that is a question, they were but major generals to major generals, and commanders of parties, but i stand not upon that; let the earl of manchester, & sir william waller be generals, yet those gentlemen knew, that in the places they came from beyond sea, if they returned they must accept of such employments as these, or lower, and i hope we shall not have a perpetual war in england. sudden risings from a lieutenant colonel to a lieutenant general must have fudden falls. thirdly, men unacquainted with war and averse to the covenant, should have been employed with them, from whom they could not expect true sellowship or obedience to orders. the men have consuted your exception for military virtue, by their diligence and valour; and though there be in the army men that have taken the covenant, and make conscience of it, yet if there be any that have not, there is no discord, but all unanimously prosecute the ends in the covenant, so far as they are matter of war. as for your question, whether the parliament in leaving out some, or the officers not left out, in laying down their commissions were more in the wrong? it's answered, neither of them in the wrong. me thinks he that considers how faithful and how successful the army under sir thomas fairfax hath been, and reckons up naseby, leicester, langport, bridgewater, sherborne, bristol, basing, winchester, barkley, and other honour which god hath put upon that army, should be well content with the new model. but an objection follows; but god hath blessed the honesty and piety of some men extraordinarily in the new army, so that great things are done by it. this is a sad objection: but you answered it by acknowledging the good done, but no thanks to the profession of holiness of this, or that man; they will join with you, and say in the apostles language, acts 3. 12. neither their own power or holiness, much less the profession of holiness hath done any thing, but the name of christ, in which they have trodden down their enemies. as for the passage concerning the general, that he is little spoken of for doing much; he sees the hook and neglects the bait; god and all good men love and honour him. he proceeds in this 76. page, to show how fit it is to employ fit men, lest god be tempted; it's granted, and was practised; the gentlemen employed were fit men, they were many of them godly men: slight not that, godliness is profitable for all things. they were, and have approved themselves diligent men. another special requisite in a soldier; they were, as hath often appeared, stout and valiant men: but what shall we do for experience? i answer: some men gain more experience in two years, than others in ten, because they are more advertent, and have better parts. and for our english wars, our english experience is as good as any, and we have had more experimental service in these three, or four years' war in england, then falls out in other parts in a far longer time. but we desired men of foreign experience, and they refused, therefore we must take english. let me here add an advertisement to my countryman (for i suppose i am taken to be an englishman;) it hath been, as the usual disposition▪ so no small fault of this nation (contrary to the good example of their neighbours) to depress one another, admire and adore strangers for unknown virtues, which hath kept this kingdom lower in its reputation than it deserved: i shall not doubt to deliver it for a position, that you have at this time (especially for our english affairs) soldiers of your own nation, so able and active in service, that if you go further, for aught i know, you may fare worse; and if god give us but grace to embrace union instead of faction, we may do him a great deal of service, and ourselves and neighbours right. a word more, pag. 77. the author accounts it a misery, why in the framing an army, there should be more regard had of the piety and honesty of the officers, than the soldiers. this mystery is very clear in scripture, and reason. first, god looks more at commanders than inferiors, ier. 5. 4. 5. lo, these are poor tnd foolish, i will get me to the great men, if they break the bands, a lion out of the forest comes in. secondly, in reason; good officers may reclaim and restrain soldiers by authority, and example, and so cannot good soldiers ill officers. but i have done; a business of moment follows concerning carlisle. pag. 77. the author of the manifest enters upon the business of the siege and reduction of carlisle; and to make this business clear, since i omitted the relation of it in the narrative, i must add it here. carlisle was in the possession of the enemy, when the scots entered. after york was taken (it being thought a considerable place, to hold footing in the north) sir thomas glenham was sent thither to command the town. in september, about the beginning of it, the commonalty of cumberland and westmoreland, laying down their arms, upon the desire of mr. barwis, sir wilfrid lawson, and others, the scots horse being six regiments, and one of dragoons, commanded by lieutenant general lesley, went into those parts, yet went not direct to carlisle, but stayed at penrith, in which time carlisle was further victualled; after that they draw near, and with the assistance of sir wilfrid lawson (who had raised some strength of horse and foot) blocked up the town. after this in the latter end of october, some regiments of the scots horse were removed, and only two and the dragoons remaining, which with the forces of the county, were thought sufficient for the service, and as many as the country could well bear; thus was carlisle straightened, in which service the english kept five and sometimes six posts, and the scots but two all that winter. toward the beginning of april, those two counties of cumberland and westmoreland, having lain under heavy burdens, amounting to 80000. l. or thereabouts, which the scots horse had received (besides the charge of maintaining their own forces) began to grow impatient of their burden, and after they saw that (notwithstanding the ordinances of parliament (forbidding all arbitrary assessments, and appointing a way of provision for the scots army) and the order of the general, to forbid all taxes from the first of march) their oppressions were still continued, the westmoreland men resisted the collection of them, thereupon the committee of both kingdoms at newcastle, sent a letter to the committees of those counties, dated april 21. 1645. subscribed leven callander, william armine, declaring that, if those two counties would undertake to raise, and maintain sufficient forces, to keep in the garrison of carlisle, the scots horse should be removed; hereupon the committees of cumberland, and westmoreland consulted, and agreed to undertake the service, and gave notice thereof to the committee at newcastle, and the scots general in a lotter, dated april the 25. 1645. and provided three thousand foot and six hundred horse, which with the advantage of the works, they had made, were sufficient to the work: but in stead of removing the scots horse, a regiment of foot were sent to carlisle, with three pieces of ordnance, when the scots marched southward from newcastle, and sir john browne sent word to the westmoreland men, coming up according to agreement, to the service against carlisle, that he would fight with them if they came on. after this, the whole army marches into westmoreland, and sends more commanded men to carlisle, and impose seven thousand pound a month upon these two counties, for the maintenance of their force before carlisle; (besides the maintenance of their own) and that, after declaration made under the hands of the earl of leven, calandar and armyne, dated april 25. 1645. that no tax should be laid upon them, but by authority of parliament. about this time the lord kirkbright, who commanded the scots force therefore that present, sent orders to lieutenant colonel beecher, sir wilfrid lawsons' lieutenant colonel, to quit a fort which he had made at bockerby mount, and to resign it to three hundred commanded foot of the scots army; the lieutenant colonel refused unless his colonel gave consent; thereupon the noble lord replied, he desired no better occasion to cut them all in pieces, and said he would command my lord fairfax, if there, and sent his foot and some horse to beleaguer the sconce, instead of the town, which was not well. after this (about the middle of june) when the time of carlisles surrender drew near, the english commissioners, having received instructions from the parliament, concerning the place, and the government of it when it should be reduced, went thither, but no scottish commissioners to join with them, the english and scots were both desirous to be possessed of the town, the english thought it but reasonable, to be trusted with carlisle on the scots borders, as well as the scots with barwick on the english, especially, they having garrisoned newcastle, and four other places besides: the english commissioners (no scotch committee being there to join with them) sent to sir tho: glenham, that if he would surrender the town, they would propound him conditions, and the security of the parliament for performance. the lord kirkabright meets the drum, examines his business, and gives way to his going in; sir thomas glenham desires the security of a general, for the performance of articles, and thereupon, a messenger of his own, one captain philipson is sent to my lord fairfax and the earl of leven to know their pleasure, having a pass from the english commissioners, and the lord kirkabright, and being accompanied with an english captain from the commissioners, and a scotch officer from the lord kirkabright; he goes to my lord fairfax, but finding my lord of leven to be gone out of yorkshire, and the time for his return well-nigh expired, he durst not adventure to go into nottinghamshire, to the earl of leven, his pass being limited only to yorkshire, and therefore he returned to carlisle, and my lord fairfax writes to the earl of leven about that business. david lesley in the mean time, was sent with all speed towards carlisle, he comes thither before the messenger returns and forbids his going in, whereupon sir thomas glenham seeing his messenger stopped by the scots commander, notwithstanding the pass of the english commissioners, and the lord kirkabright, he supposes they had most power, and falls to treaty with him, which lieutenant general lesley never acquainted our commissioners with, but notwithstanding their minding him of the treaty, and covenant, their protestation against his proceedings without them; he concludes the treaty, set guards of horse upon the english, enters the town, and puts a garrison in it, where it yet remaineth. this is a true and brief account of the siege and taking of carlisle. some annotations must be made upon the narrative in truths manifest. first, he chargeth the english soldiers, that lay there, of being false to the service, in shooting powder, suffering provisions to go in, entering into combination with the enemy, to fall upon the scots, and promising not to help them. these accusations are as false, as foul; it is strange these things were never questioned, nor complained of, till now the town is taken. we can assure that a scottish officer being desired to relieve colonel cholmleys' men, when the enemy sallied out, he refused to stir being at the next post, and near at hand, and suffered the men to be lost, show us such a carriage of the english. if want of orders be pretended as it was by him, either the orders were defective or the man. the english desire also to put it to the issue, who let most provision go in, captain philipson indeed sallied out with a party of horse, on the scottish post, and fetched forty head of cattle, or thereabout, and two pieces of ordnance out of their sconce; parallel that act also; as for the point of the treachery, they disclaim it and defy it; why should you compel me to say that on the scottish side, sir james lesley and his lady with her sister, who were both papists, had ingress, and regress into carlisle, by their means, that sir timothy fetherston was suffered to come to penrith, and there drank the parliaments confusion, and yet was afterwards suffered to come forth again, at which time he broke his parole, and went either to ireland, or the king; that denton and carleton, notorious malignants, were suffered to go up and down, and disaffect the people, and rail upon the parliament; and when sent for by the english commissioners, were protected against their power and justice? the foulness of your imputations hath forced from me these things, which no slight occasion should, but by this you may judge who favoured malignants most. it is further charged, that those double minded leaders enter into a private treaty with the enemy, and offer him great conditions. this was a mistake or worse, there was no leaders meddled, but the english commissioners who proceeded no further, than the narrative relates, and never offered any conditions at all; as for the scots offering reasonable conditions, less advantageous to the enemy than the english. you have heard the english offered no conditions; let us see what the scots offered, they were such as they would never impart, neither to our commissioners nor the parliament: but a copy was obtained which they deny not, wherein was granted almost what was asked, as liberty to go to any garrison they should name, to have a convoy▪ as they had to worcester, above a hundred miles distant; the immunities of the church and churchmen, freedom to take the covenant or not, liberty to go with what they would, (except town and ordnance) whither they would, and to have free quarter; in a word, never so high articles given to any town, never any town had less reason to expect it, had things been fairly carried: for they were eating dogs and horses, and could not subsist three days. what follows is almost wholly false, that the enemy took the scots conditions, because he could not trust the english officers. the english officers meddled not in the business, because a committee was present there of english; scil. sir william armine, mr. darley, mr. barwis, whom the general would not, much less should the lieutenant general have dealt so with, as not to acquaint them with the treaty. and as for the commission given to lieutenant general lesley, to take in the town, upon what conditions he thought fit, he showed no such in writing; if he had, it had been unjust, we having commissioners upon the place: and he concludes this strange story of carlisle, with the pretended reasons, why the scots put in a garrison into carlisle, (scil.) because they had found base, and wicked dealings, by some of the chief men in the northern counties, and to keep it out of the hands of malignants; and especially, sir wilfrid lawson, who under the name of the chief commander, is no better than railed on; consider the condition of this gentleman, it's true, he cannot be justified throughout; he lived in an ill air, and was infected with it, but never stirred out of the county, to do any prejudice to the parliament: but suffered imprisonment for his not ready compliance with the commissioners of array. when it was to any purpose for him to appear on the behalf of the parliament, he raised a regiment of horse, and another of foot, for the service of the parliament, which he applied himself to with all diligence, and can produce testimonies of his care and fidelity, under the hands of those you say disinherited him; and was of very good reputation with the scots, till the time of the surrender drew near, and then his appearing for an english garrison, and refusing to quit his fort, caused all this bitterness. is it possible that the scots should distrust him, so little guilty of delinquency, in respect of them they have upon all occasions embraced, as major craister, and procured to be employed, as colonel brandling in northumberland, and their own urrey? and are not there now divers whom they trust in their army, who have served against the parliament? so that it may appear, their enmity to malignancy was not the cause; but what need we sec further for a reason then the letter of general leven, dated at mansfield, june 20. 1645. wherein he informs our commssioners, then upon the place, that he had sent lieutenant general lesley, with full power and instructions, in such things as concern the interest of the scots nation, and desires their compliance with him, which he never asked; the interest is there declared to be the business, a word that troubles all the world. and hereto i might add a letter from two scottish ministers, (one a commissioner at london) to our commissioners (it seems the kirk also is concerned in this garrison) in which are these words; we interpose our earnest desire to you, that there may be a cheerful condescending to lieutenant general lesley, so far as that the town of carlisle may be delivered into his custody, until the further declaration of the parliaments pleasure. hereby as you shall preserve your reputation of being good friends to our nation, so we verily believe you shall do good service to the parliament and kingdom, and shall never have cause to repent it. these are the words of the letter transcribed here from the originals; i was loath to trouble the reader with the whole, the treatise being already grown into a bulk beyond intention; only this; it is said that the forces there had starved, had not the general sent part of the money to them which was sent to newcastle, to enable the scots to take field; because a double use may be made of this, as not only in this place, but also to excuse the scots, being no better provided in their march, which caused them to stay in yorkshire for provision, when they were expected southwards; it is answered, those two counties of cumberland, and westmoreland, had been so pressed, that general leven, the earl of callander, & the english commissioners had under their hands acquitted them of further burdens, and therefore offered them to undertake their siege at their own charge, with their own force. and if the general had according to agreement recalled his men, he needed not to have parted with the money to carlisle: but enough of carlisle, and more then enough. pag. 83. the gentleman puts to sea, and finds fault with the parliaments ships not doing their duty, by reason of which divers ships of the well-affected were taken, and the coasts of scotland not guarded, to their great prejudice; and in the issue reduces this fault, not only to neglect, but secret connivance, that is, unfaithfulness: for the imputation of unfaithfulness, let those that were employed answer it, if this author will plainly accuse them. as for the mischances, we know we daily suffer at land, the sea is more hazardous. but i observe men deal not so well with our mariners, as they do with fortune-tellers, and almanac-makers; for if they tell you but one thing that falls out accordingly, you admire them, and almost adore them, but take not notice of twenty lies; here on the contrary, let our seamen do many good turns (as divers of them have done) (let me name the noble earl of warwick, vice-admiral batten, capt. moulton, &c.) they are never thought of, but any misfortune is sure to be set upon their score. as for the guarding the coasts of scotland, i believe it hath not been so well as was expected or intended, the multiplicity and distraction of affairs with us hath been such. but there is no reason to lay the damage of scotland upon the want of that guard; for the irish were but very few hundreds, as this author acknowledgeth, pag. 90. that came over, and the passage is so short, that notwithstanding ships upon the coast, men might easily be transported from ireland to scotland, or the isles, as appears by divers ships, who have got into our english harbours with arms and ammunition, notwithstanding all our guards. pag. 84. he proceeds, as he saith, to another business, and such a one as if he had not wanted business, he would have omitted, the business is to cast all possible odium upon independents, where for want of a good argument, he loads them with ill words, calls them factious and fantastical headstrong ones, men without love to the peace of the church of god. pag. 84. seekers, (scil.) such as seek themselves under the pretence of truth, and set up their own fancies, men that will not settle upon any thing, unless it be in continuing in phrenetical fancies. and as if he were not content to weary men, he provoketh god also, and saith, god knows they are destitute of all charity. sir, where is your charity the while? he that loves the smell, may have a bundle of these flowers, pag. 86. all the corn in this chaff, the charge in this clamour, beside general invectives, is; that those men will not absolutely and positively profess what they would be at, but they have manifested the contrary, declaring the things wherein they would be forborn, in their paper at the committee of accommodation. i have nothing to say to this, but that unless you give better words, or better arguments, you will by such language and carriage make men independents. they are further charged with abominable lying, in persuading the people of the rigidity of the presbyterian government, and the diminution of christian liberty thereby, and confutes him with the lenity of the churches of scotland and france. i do not say that both are true, but both may. it is possible for a church to be too strict in their principles, and too loose in their practice. but why should the man be so angry, since the business concerning church-government, as himself acknowledges pag. 89. is concluded maugre independents? in the same page the author goes on to mention and remove two rubs in the way to a completing presbyterial government: the first is that some will not allow it to be of divine right; the second, that some are willing to reserve the power of excluding from the sacrament to the civil magistrate. these are so tender points, in which others of greater ability are engaged, that i dare not meddle, though me thinks i could deal with this author: first, he saith it is demonstrated to have its ground in scripture so clearly that it cannot be denied, and practised by the apostles, and their successors. for the demonstrations, they are not so clear for all the parts of the government, but that they may be (as they are) denied. that of lay-elders was found in the assembly a very difficult point, and the superinduction, of provincial, national, presbyterial assemblies, to congregational, though for my part i approve of them, yet i believe they are not demonstrable in scripture with undeniable clearness. and as for the practice of the apostles, they cannot be adequately urged, because they were not parochial presbyters, but had a general care, and superintendency over the churches, and a greater authority than ministers now adays. the council at jerusalem where they were was occasionate, not menstrual, or annual: as for the successors of the apostles, it is doubtful what they did, antiquity is so fallible, but it is not doubtful, that whilst the apostles lived, the mystery of iniquity worked, and preeminence was loved, so that all the practices of their times, much less of their successors cannot be urged. i am no enemy to the presbyterial government, as it may be ordered. appeals are natural, and necessary; aristocracy is the most even government, if faction can be avoided: but i could wish that all the people of god, especially the ministers of christ, who should go before them, would tread in that more excellent way, charity mentioned by the apostle, 1 cor. 12. ult. and be more careful to advance the power of godliness than their own; but manum de tabula; if we have the government, as we are like to have, let us not fall out for the title; i have known men spend more about a title, than the land hath been worth. for the second impediment which is alleged to be the great stir about admitting or keeping of people from the table of the lord. the case seems to be thus, we have a multitude of people in this kingdom ignorant and profane, many who have a name to live, but are dead, as by their dead works appears, these are to be formed into churches by virtue of their external profession. this is fundi nostri calamitas, and makes the matter so difficult, i believe the abstention, unless in cases of great difficulty, lies in the particular congregation, though not without appeal, which if it were constituted and ordered as it ought, the strife would cease. but in this condition that we are, where many a good man is in danger to strain his charity, why should there be so great and dangerous a stir, if there be a recession from the rule, which is not so clear? i know as little ground for the business of triers for election of elders, which tells us already, we must have congregations not fit to choose their own officers, but we submit to it in regard of the difficulty of our condition: and better (if i may so say) were it if the ministers would exercise the power they have, which they shall find will give them many troubles in this business, then to press it with public prejudice, and (not to prejudge the parliament) for the parliament to grant what is desired, were better than to run a greater inconvenience. but i recall myself, and to make satisfaction for the adventure i have made, i will pass by the discourse of the author, in straightening the bounds of power betwixt the magistrate and the minister, i am afraid of meddling with power; power especially in the ministers of the gospel any further than absolutely necessary to the service and edification of the church, is very troublesome and dangerous, and so they will find it; the power of the word is great, the power of love is not little. pag. 89. upon the mention of the scots desire to the parliament, that having had so good success in their affairs of late, they would send to the king for peace; he declares the equity, and yet improbability of it, in regard, as he says, the king is chief agent in the design of spiritual and temporal slavery, in which he is upheld by foreign nations against his subjects. the parliament hath been careful to apply themselves to the king, for a safe and well grounded peace upon all occasions; whether they are always bound to strive with him, it is not for me to determine. but if he be the chief agent, as this author says, i would gladly understand why we court the chief agent, and punish the accessary instruments. as for the interest of particular princes in the king's cause, i omit them, as also the narrative of the scottish affairs, which i know little of the transaction of them, but heartily resent their sufferings, i pray god give them a right use of them, and full deliverance. as for calumnies and affronts, wherewith some are complained to have repaid them, i dislike and detest them with this author, if any such be. pag. 101. he passeth on to another story of two several attempts of cajeoling upon the parliaments party by the court; the first, by commissioners, richmond and southampton; the second by savill, as i suppose, wherein, he says, they found their design upon the scots to be the blowing of a cold coal, and with this coal he smites the independents, at least with some suspicions and surmises, and refers to intercepted letters and papers. but if we regard papers, who will be without blot? you know here hath been a great rumour about the scots treating with the french, and it may be that papers and letters mention it; but shall we believe it? no surely: i am confident they will not stretch out their hands to a strange god; but consider rather the latter end of 44 psal. if ever that should come to pass, i would go into some protestant monastery, and say, miserere mei, for there were no conversing in this world any more. pag. 103. the author enters upon the march of the scottish army, from nottingham to hereford; in the way he takes notice of the committee of worcester there, who are charged with misguiding the army: but i wonder not that a plot should be found out in worcestershire committee, whereas the removing of the scottish commissioners from the city to the good air, and accommodation of worcestershire house, is also found guilty of a design. pag. 52. which is said to be an endeavour, to make them strangers to the city, but i believe, that distance hath been made up with double diligence. in this business of hereford, there are two imputations laid: one more general, that the army for want of provisions were constrained to live upon fruits; it is well that god made some provision when men failed: but we all know, that unless resolutions be timely made known, that endeavours may be used proportionably; it is almost unavoidable, for an army to undergo some want, when they pitch before a town, in regard that the ability of the quarters is overnumbred, and the country cannot provide so soon as is wished, or wanted. but it is said, pag. 105. that at last some provision came, but than ammunition wanted: that's hard, were it not necessary that there must be some necessity, the thing may be true, but how it should come to pass, is out of my reach; when the army having received ammunition in good proportion at newcastle, with a particular respect to their march, had no considerable occasion to spend it, betwixt that and hereford. the second charge is more particular against some members of the committee of both kingdoms, who withdrew, that so for want of a full committee, order could not be given for the dispose of some horse, to strengthen the siege, which default occasioned the raising of it: sure that man who hindered the continuance of the siege (if without greater disadvantage it might be done) was as little a friend to the public service, as to the scottish army, and it had been well he were named; and did not i bar recrimination, i could tell you, when there hath been no committee, for regulating the scots army for the space of three months, and more, for want of commissioners from scotland: but, as for the possibility of sending horse from the siege at bristol; he that knows the very hard duty, that sir thomas fairfax's horse had there, and the great danger in regard of the enemy in the west; and withal, considers the great importance of that service, both in regard of gaining the city, and preserving the army; i believe, will consent with the truth rather than the manifest. but i will make a fair motion, that all the disputes concerning the carriage of the business of hereford, might be ended in that happy act of oblivion, which was done by the vigilance, and dexterity of colonel morgan, and birch, and the gallant adventure of the lieutenant, who surprised the guard; the city is taken, and we have all reason to be satisfied. pag. 111. upon occasion of the sad news from scotland (which the author acknowledges was heartily resented, as by divers well affected, so, especially by the houses of parliament, (who appointed a public fast on that behalf) some reproaches are cast upon the independents, who are also said to have leaped for joy of the infortune of the scots; it's answered that revilings need no answer: as for what is laid to the charge of independents; because, sometimes the army under the command of sir thomas fairfax, goes under that notion, i must not conceal how earnestly the chief officers of that army were affected with the ill tidings from scotland, and how heartily they expressed it in a most affectionate letter, sent from the general, lieutenant general crumwell, and other commanders, which i am confident they will make good in actions, if the necessity of that kingdom should ever so require, for they are not so void, neither of charity nor gratitude, as this author pretends. i know no kingdom, that england is behind hand with in real kindness, i hope they will not begin with scotland. as for the objection made, pag. 112. concerning lieutenant general lefleyes' going into scotland, upon notice of the ill condition of affairs there given by the chancellor, he can best answer it that made it. i think he wanted respect to the good of both nations, who expressed any unwillingness to the relief of that kingdom, in such necessity, but i cannot but take notice of what is said, pag. 114. of the cold comfort yielded by this kingdom to their neighbours, when things were made known. to which it is returned, that the parliament of england, waited only for the desires of scotland, to be made known to them in that behalf: but the scots were far more shy in asking help, than the english in affording it; we had commissioners then at barwick, witnesses of their condition, to whom indeed, some noblemen, and gentlemen of scotland, made a proposition for sending for colonel poyntz, and rosseter, to come to their relief, and that the forces about hereford might march for supplying, and securing the northern counties, and opposing the attempts of the enemy there, which our commissioners not having power in, speedily represented to those that had, by a paper from the scots lords, as a memorial of their desires therein (for the scots were no committees) and the next day after upon receipt of letters from david lesley there at bawtry; a nobleman, and a gentleman of that kingdom, and of the committee, were sent to our commissioners, and in the name of the rest, receded from their desires in the forementioned paper, which put our commissioners upon a contradiction of their former intelligence, represented to the parliament; and though it was propounded by some of our commissioners (in that time of so great necessity) that a considerable number of scottish forces might be drawn out of the towns, and castles in the north of england, (besides the town of barwick) which might be able to make up a competent strength to oppose the enemy; yet that advice was not approved of by the scots. so that it easily appears, where the ground either of delays, or denials of help were. as for the parliament, they readily yielded to the march of the scots army northward, for the relief of their own kingdom, notwithstanding their engagements in the south, which was as much, as was, or could be desired. so that i suppose the severe intermination, that the setting the promise of a small help at the rate was then offered, will be blamed by posterity, when it shall be recorded what scotland hath done, and undergone for their brethren, and what thanks the scots have for their pains, might have been left out, notwithstanding the particulars which said to be spared till another occasion. pag. 116. i find an unfitting parallel betwixt cardinal richelieu, and the english parliament, (for though the parliament be not named, yet those who are careful of the english armies, are, which must needs be they) who are made to agree in this point of politic unjustice, to set men on work, and purposely deny them necessaries, that through their miscarriage, others might be advanced. certainly, though that cardinal must needs be acknowledged a man of eminent parts and policy, of which he hath left a monument that yet stands; yet after that this author had branded him, with pride, ambition, tyranny, and atheism, which are no cardinal virtues; me thinks he might have used more brotherly kindness to the parliament of england, then to make such an unworthy reflection. but as for the wants of the scottish army, if enough have not been already said, let me add this, the way not to want in england is to work, and i am confident, that had they done the proportion of work, that other armies have done, they would have had the same proportion of wages, and if others had done no more, they had got as little. this page is closed with an injust, though not unusual bitterness; against the once governor of bristol, whose return to sit in parliament, is said to be matter of astonishment to the world. the world is wide sir, and so are you. but why so angry? methinks the taking the city so considerable, might have softened your spirit. we use to grace solemn▪ occasions with some acts of favour: why not the taking of bristol, with receiving mr. fiennes? especially the retaking of the town, affording an argument à majore ad minùs. what is the quarrel? the gentleman had before surrendered it, for which he was sentenced by a council of war. as for the council of war, i believe they were guided by honour and conscience in what they did; and by virtue of the article, obliging the governor of a town, to hold out to extremity, condemned the gentleman. the general remitting the summum jus, concurred not for execution of the sentence: the gentleman lives and does well, may he long do so; he hath left the camp, he follows the counsel, a work suitable to his parts acknowledged by this author, to be fit for a senate. you complain of his friends, for putting him upon an employment; of which (you say) he was not capable; but are you free from blame to deny him an employment, for which you acknowledge him so well fitted? he never was engaged neither in counsel, nor in arms against this cause, as some who are to be found in other counsels or armies: but parciùs ista, i add but this, the gentleman hath received some wrong by this charge, but the parliament more, it being an injust reflection upon their wisdom, and privilege, that they should be taxed for dealing with their own members, as they think best for the public good of the kingdom. as for that passage, of soldiers bawling in the fields, cobblers prattling in tubs in stead of preaching, — ne saevi magne saeerdos; quam scit uterque libens censebo exerceat artem. pag. 122. he proceeds to exagitation of a piece of a letter, written from lieutenant general cromwell, upon the taking of bristol: first, he wonders the latter part of the letter now published by him, was suppressed by that authority, that printed the other part. it is no wonder, that the parliament intending to recommend to the people matter of thanksgiving, should not withhold that part of the letter, wherein there were some passages, tending rather to doubtful disputation, then undoubted gratulation, which i conceive was the reason of it; it is a greater wonder to me, that this author should so confidently print it, when the parliament had forbid it. as for the expressions of the letter recited, and animadverted; i hold not myself obliged to say any thing, i am no man's champion but an advocate to the truth, and a servant (not as i am like to be taxed) a parazite to the parlialiament: but if i were minded to call the letter, and the annotations upon it to a review, it were easy to find as may irregularities in the notes, as the author of the manifest doth in the text. from hence the manifest finds an easy passage to the independents, aggravating their ill, pag. 127. extenuating their good service, pag. 128. i am loath to leave so ill a relish in the minds or mouths of the readers, as to repeat the imputations, but take them as they are; men that serve themselves into employment, engage the pamphleteers to set forth lies and tales for them, causers of disturbances, blasphemies, heresies, violation of the covenant, underminers, factious, guilty of a malicious plot, bringers of confusion into the church, and consequently, anarchy into the state, men that do all for by-ends, that join with others, as the papists with malignants for their own interests. tantaene animis coelestibus irae? to this i answer in the words of the apostle james; my beloved jam. 1. 19, 20. brethren, let every man be swift to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath, for the wrath of man worketh not the righteousness of god. i cannot conceive how they that are singly independents, that is, men dissenting from other governments in the constitution, and ordering of a congregation, should deserve so much bitterness; first, they desire a liberty of collecting their members from several parishes, and would have an union of hearts rather than a neighbourhood of houses to make up a congregation. it cannot be denied, but that this would produce many inconveniences, which no doubt will be remonstrated; but me thinks, if it be not tolerable for its consequents, it should be pardonable for its grounds, arising from a desire of all possible purity in an assembly. we shall all be in this point independent in our desires and endeavours, and must be constrained to set up a congregation within a parish, when we debar one half from the sacrament, and admit the other, which is like to be the case in many places. secondly, they desire a liberty to ordain their own officers. this is the practice of presbyterians also for all officers but pastors: to their admission also the reasonable consent of the people is allowed, and the approbation which gives life to the ordination. thirdly, they desire a freedom from the presbyteries, and synods; an association of churches, methinks they should not deny; a necessity of synods they allow, the difference is, whether the acts of such meetings should be by way of advice, or authority, whether the meetings should be settled or occasional: for reconciling these let us consider, the one would have state-meetings, the other upon emergencies, both agree they should be as oft as necessity is, and no oftener; in case it be oftener, it is as nothing to that congregation which hath no reference thither. as for that of advice, and authority, i have read a position in voetius the professor of theology at utretcht, a very learned man and a presbyterian, to this purpose, potestas ecclesiae est directiva, non jurisdictiva, it is to be found in a disputation de union & regimine ecclesiarum, wherein are many things that sound to moderation; but this difference i believe will find more dispute in notion then opposition in action, i should wave both the debates of jus divinum in presbyteries, and the authority of assemblies, and remit things to the practice. if the dictates, or rather directions of a presbytery, or synod be agreeable to the word of god, and public peace, and edification, i should embrace them, were the authority of a synod never so little, were they repugnant to these rules, and ends, either in themselves, or my apprehension, (which yet i should strive to get informed with all diligence and humility) i must be spared, were their authority never so great. the next, and indeed the last thing of moment is the london-petition, which this author approves, and prints, and contests with the parliament about the receiving petitions in general, and this in particular. but this gentleman and i are of so different tempers, that i shall not take so much liberty to dispute on the behalf of the parliaments privilege and practice in this particular, as he doth against it; they best know their own privileges, and how to maintain them. this i know, that there is no better way to preserve the people's liberty, then by keeping inviolate the parliaments privilege. if there be a necessity of rulers, for the conservation of liberty (as there is) there is an equal necessity of preserving the authority of those rulers, especially employing their endeavours for public good, as the parliament doth. the petition was well framed for the substance of it, and is granted for the main, if the parliament thought it too binding, and particular, and judged better to grant the thing, then receive the petition, who need find fault when they that petition are gainers, and they that grant are no losers? as for the city of london, their deserts are such of this cause, and kingdom, that i am confident, no reasonable thing, much less religious, will be denied them, and i am as confident they will ask no other. they understand the need and use the parliament have had, and have of them, and they also apprehend the near relation, and dependence, they have upon the parliament, and may easily foresee the fractions would arise in so great a multitude, did not the countenance and authority of parliament restrain. their mutual advantage depends upon their agreement, which whosoever goes about to interrupt, let them be divided in jacob, and scattered in israel▪ for a close, let me take that passage of the manifest concerning the endeavour of the enemy to divide the nations, and his own hopes, (to which i add mine) that they shall not prevail. certainly, our endeavour should be to prevent the fulfilling of theirs, especially in a thing so important to religion and the good of these kingdoms. the scrupulous thoughts of offence made me sometimes to forbear this answer: which yet i have endeavoured so to order as not to give any offence; if it be taken, i shall be sorry, yet glad that it is not given. it may possibly breed me some disquiet, but why should i purchase my own peace, with the loss of truth? if i have incurred one trouble, i am sure i have avoided another, which was to me a great one, sc. to see the obligations of this kingdom aggravated, their ingratitude recorded, the parliament affronted, the commissioners abused, the people deceived; these are things i have endeavoured to right; forgive me this wrong, i will trouble you no more, unless this author continue in a resolution of a fuller discourse (as he intimates in the end of his manifest) which i desire might be forborn; for if there be no remedy, we shall also find a reserve. finis. postscript. whereas it may be said that this labour might have been spared, in regard of the censure adjudged by parliament to truths manifest; i answer, that there is as much difference betwixt a censure and an answer, as betwixt the offence in writing the book, and the hurt done by spreading it. the parliament have taken just notice of the fault, but have not thereby prevented the mischief; for since the author was called in question, the book hath been studiously dispersed, and (as i believe) reprinted, and hath found some readers so confident, as to say, that the book was censured, because it could not be answered, the contrary of which doth now appear. new-england pesecutors mauled with their own weapons. giving some account of the bloody laws made at boston against the king's subjects that dissented from their way of worship. together with a brief account of the imprisonment and trial of thomas maule of salem, for publishing a book, entitled, truth held forth and maintained, etc. by tho. philathes. truth faileth, and he that departeth from evil maketh himself a prey, isai. 59 14, 15. as troops of robbers wait for a man, so do the company priests murder in the way by consent, hosea 6.9. shall the throne of iniquity have fellowship with thee, which frameth mischief by a law; they gather themselves together against the soul of the righteous, and condemn the innocent blood, psal 94.20.21. the preface. christian reader; it has not been without due consideration, that we have seen cause to set forth and publish a true account of some of the new-england church members cruel and bloody laws, which through the priest's instigating the magistrates, were by them made against both quakers and all other religious persons within new-englands' jurisdiction, that were found to descent from their worship, as also a short relation of some few of the many persons that suffered persecution under the anti-christian power of the aforesaid church, with some brief observations on each law, and the preamble thereof. unto which is added, an account of the priests, rulers and church members great hurly-burley or confusion made about a late book, entitled, truth held forth and maintained, etc. by thomas maule of salem, in which book is contained thirty eight chapters relating to the principles of truth, agreeing with the testimony of the holy prophets, christ and his apostles recorded in the holy scriptures of truth, together with an account of god's judgements upon divers of the chief▪ persecuting priests and rulers, and a declaration, the late great judgement of god upon the priests, rulers & their follower's of whom twenty were (through the accusation ●y spectre evidence, which judgement continued amongst the inhabitants near or about twelve months, till at length there was so many of the priests and rulers, and others accounted eminent persons, accused by the said spectre or apparition, that the rulers, with as much speed as they had condemned and put to death, d●d now face about and clear the prisons, both of the condemned, as well as of all others accused by the said evidence for witches, an account of which is more at large to be seen in said maules' book, of which books the persecutors sacrificed sixteen pounds' worth a burn offering to their anger and revenge, the which by them was done, as also imprisoning him about twelve months before that upon his trial he was cleared by a jury that found him not guilty, the sums and substance of which trial will appear in this book, by which it doth manifestly appear, that many of the new-england priests and rulers, with many of their church-member brothers in ●n●quity, do remain in the same, when they fled from old england to save their purses and bodies from suffering by the bishop's power, for their dissenting from their mother church, against whom it will sufficiently appear, have rebelled, by persecuting several persons thereunto belonging, as well as all other religious persons found within their jurisdiction, to descent from their priest's worship. as for instance, soon after they came and had settled themselves in this land, they began to persecute after a● horrible rate, and in a cruel bloody manner did they persecute ann hutchinsan, and that company, of whom some wer●● barbarously murdered; so also was mr. clark and that company, great sufferers; as likewise samuel gorton and that company, who for the want of one more casting vot●, escaped the gallows for a dissenter; and the sufferings of the lady moody, with many others, was very great; as also was the sufferings of mr. williams, obadiah homes, mr. donstor the precedent, and many others, of whom i shall hereafter more at large relate; about which time the priests were so beset with the baptists, quakers, and the church of england, that it caused thè hirelings to roar out in their pulp●●s for the help of moses, otherwise aaron must fall, and then they are all undone; whereupon the magistrates mustered the priest's drudges together, and to work they went against dissenters, with all the strength of their faith defenders, which mostly fell upon the innocent quakers, as will hereafter appear, which had these persecuters manifested the least repentance would have prevented the authur from publishing the following account of their bloody laws, and the cruel barbarous works acted and done thereby to the king's good subjects within new-englands' jurisdiction. tho. thilathes. persecutors mauled with their own weapons. antichristian freedom established by the law of the old charter priests and rulers in new-england. this court having considering the proposals presented to this court by several of the inhabitants of the county of middlesex, do declare and order. that no man whatsoever shall be admitted to the freedom of this body politic, but such as are members of some church of christ, and in full communion, which they declare to be the true intent of the ancient law, anno 1631, 1660. observe, hence you may understand, that the county of middlesex, for money and wealth, did encourage for sale, the high priests beware, as well as in love to their bellies, to seat themselves near to the magistrates general high court of injustice, against dissenters from their worship, which said courts were kept in boston, where the priests drudges brought of the dissepters estates, for fin●s, to the value of many hundreds of pounds, with which the priests and rulers, with others of their church brothers feasted themselves from day to day, while they made laws against them that dissented from the worship of their priests, who when their bellies were ruffed with the best provision, and their heads with the richest sort of wine, had not far home to their common prayers against all dissenters, as well as quakers; and while they feasted themselves with the best of other men's labour, they kept the true owners thereof with the best entertainment their goal and bridewell house did afford, as by their cruel suffering therein will hereafter appear, and as is related in the book of sufferings, under these persecuting magistrates, that some went and demanded their fat oxen of them again, to which their answer was, would you that we should sit and starve, while we are about your business? which was to make laws to devour them and their estates; which work was of great encouragement to the priestridden freemen of their body politic, whose some church of christ, as in their law they call it, is no other but the plain church of anti-christ, and so proved to be, by their persecuting all other persons dissenting therefrom in their jurisdiction. the freeman's law, by which a body make, no man that's true can with their church partake: he that will honour gain, and credit at their hand, he must forsake all good, then by their cause may stand. preamble to the persecutors laws made against the people of god and the king's good subjects. whereas there is a cursed sect of heretics lately risen up in the world, which are commonly called quakers, who take upon them to be immediately sent of god, & infallibly assisted by the spirit, to speak and write blasphemous opinions, despising government, and the order of god in church and common wealth, speaking evil of dignities, reproaching and reviling magistrates and ministers, seeking to turn people from the faith, and gain proselytes to their pernicious way. observe; here's the persecutors preamble to their antichristian law, the unrighteousness of which is of their father the wicked one, who from the beginning hath been an accuser of the brethren, wherefore the things of the kingdom of god are hid from them, mat. 11.25. luke. 10.21. in which state they remain as the rebellious jews, calling good evil, and the truth, blasphemous opinions, having no more justly to accuse the quakers of evil, then had the wicked jews against the people of god in the apostles day, and will in this following work appear so to be, to every true christian readers view of the same. here now begins these freemens sin, the cause for which gods judgements bring. preamble to these persecutors law. the court considering the premises, and to prevent the like mischief, as by their means is wrought in our native land. observe, that of their many lies and unjust charges against both the quakers, baptists, and other dissenters, as well as against them of the church of england, is a record to the end of time, as also of their many other unrighteous works against the people of god and the king's subjects, which had they and their brethren been as clear from all means of mischief as the quakers, there had neither rebellion, treason, or murder against the king been alleged to the charge of their new-england brother hugh peter, venner, and others of their brethren in england, which they call our native land. new-england persecutors law. 1. do hereby order, and by the authority of this court be it ordered and enacted, that no master or commander of any ship, bark, pinnace, catch, or other vessel, henceforth bring into any harbour, creek or cove within this jurisdiction, any known quaker or quakers, or other blasphemous heretics, upon the penalty of the forfeiture▪ of o●● hundred pounds, to be forthwith paid to the treasure● of the country, except it appeareth that such ma●ter▪ wanted due 〈…〉 of information that they were such, and in 〈◊〉 ●●se he ●ay clear himself by his oath, when sufficient proof 〈◊〉 the contrary is wanting; and for default of payment of the said fine of one hundred pounds, or good security for the same, such master shall be committed to prison by warrant from any magistrate, there to continue till the said fine be satisfied to the treasurer, as aforesaid. 2. and the master or commander of any such ship or vessel, that shall bring them, being legally convicted, shall give in sufficient securiry to the governor or one more of the magistrates, to carry them to the place whence he brought them; and on his refusal so to do, the governor or said magistrate or magistrates, shall commit such master or commander to prison, there to remain till he shall give in sufficient security to the content of the governor or said magistrate. 3. and if any person or persons within this jurisdiction shall henceforth entertain and conceal any quaker or quakers, or other blasphemous. heretics, knowing them to be such, every such person shall forfeit to the country forty shillings for every hours entertainment and concealment of any such quaker or quakers as aforesaid, and shall be committed to prison, as aforesaid, till the fines be fullly satisfied and paid. observe, that several of the king's subjects, masters or commanders of vessels suffered to the utmost extremity of this unrighteous law, which is so repugnant to the law of god, and the king's laws, that in making and prosecuting the same, they o●t do all their forefather's and elder brethren in iniquity, which law was so well pleasing to the priests, who the more that people might believe their work to be sanctified, set one day apart for preaching and praying, as a day of thanksgiving for the same, hoping that by the means of a thorough prosecution of this law, to keep their jurisdiction clear of every person called a quaker, and that than their freemen would take the more courage against the baptists and them of the church of england; for with the quakers they were hard bese●, and in fear they would deprive them of their god; and as le●etrius, their trade would come to nothing, and in fear of being slain, as was their elder brother, vagabond cain▪ who as these had no certain dwelling in the truth, which if their worship had been the true worship of god, as we read, john 4.24. but on the contrary, as we read, mark 7 6, 7, 8, 9 mat. 15.8. they worshipped they knew not what, john. 4 22▪ in which state of disobedience they were far from the rule of doing as themselves would have been done unto, mat. 7.12. luke. 6 31. but in fleeing the land to s●ve their purses with which their minds did abide, regarded not the rule to entertain strangers, heb. 13.2. but on the contrary, ga●e them the like entertainment as the wicked jews did to christ and his apostles, from whose rule of ●r●eing all things ●r● held f●t that which is good, from the s●me do these persecutors law restrain, as will more at large hereafter appear. of the like laws we never find by men, that god and king do mind new england's antichristian law 4. and every person or persons that shall encourage or defend any of their pernicious ways, by speaking, writing or meeting on the lord's day, or at any other time▪ shall after due means of conviction incur the penalty ensuing, viz. every one so mee●●ng shall pay to the use of the country, for every time, ten shillings, and every one speaking in such a meeting shall forfeit five pounds. observe, that by 〈◊〉 law, and the other aforementioned law of forty shillings for every hours entertainment to any person or persons, or others whom they account blasphemous heretics, as they did account all that dissented from their priest's worship, by which two laws they gained abundance of money for fines of the inhabitants, who were found either at the quakers meeting, or to entertain their relations and kindred, though father or mother, brother or sister, or any other friend or friends, or relations and kindred, whom in their law they call by the name of strangers and vagabonds, as by the following laws will further appear, and that every man by membership admitted to the freedom of their body politic, was according to their priest's way of teaching, become a rule●, to lord over the fait● of every dissenter; by which the christian reader may fully comprehend the nature of these freemens body po●●●ick. unto religion th●se freemen do pretend, we ●●ay all see that money is their end. new-england antichristian law. 5. if any person shall knowingly import into any harbour of this jurisdiction, any quakers books or writings concerning their damnable opinions, he shall forfeit 〈◊〉 every such book or writing five pounds; and whosoever shall disperse or conceal such book or writing, and it be found with him or her, or in his or her house, and shall not immediately deliver the same to the next magistrate, shall pay five pounds for dispersing or concealing every such book or writing. 6 and every person or persons whatsoever that shall revile the office or person of magistrates or ministers, as is usual with the quakers, such person or persons, shall be severely whipped, or pay the sum of five pounds in money. the reader may here note, that the substance of matter contained in these two last laws, is very agreeable with what is before, as also with what will follow, all which is to promote the works of unrighteousness against god and his people, thereby to hinder others from receiving the truth, who for proving all things to hold fast that which is good, 1 thes. 5.21. must as by their law, pay five pounds, either for bringing any quakers books or writings into their jurisdiction, or keeping the same in their house when they are, without immediate delivering the same to the next magistrate, which doth evidently manifest their design is to gain the people's money, as well as to hinder them of receiving the truth, which fulfil what is written, they will neither enter the kingdom of heaven themselves, nor suffer▪ others that are entering to go in, mat. 22.13. but as those wicked jews did, so do these hypocrites most unrighteously charge the people of god with reviling the office and persons of magistrates and ministers, when as on contrary, their testimonies were true for god's cause against pride, covetousness and oppression, which greatly abounded in the magistrates, priests and persecuting freemen, who for the most part by their hireling priests, were taught beyond all grace and common good, and that the whole government of their church and commonwealth, as they call it, had as they concluded that dependency upon their ●old charter, that as by their law, it is manifest they neither feared god nor minded the laws of the english nation; for they had assumed to themselves the power of both god, king and bishops, wholly confiding in the strength of their old idol charter. where persecutors once gain power, like lions, bears, and wolves devour. new-england's anti-christian law. 7. and every person that shall publish and maintain any heterodox erroneous doctrine, shall be liable to be questioned, and sencured by the county court where he liveth, according to the merit of his offence. the reader may hence understand, that the county courts were plenty of these persecutors & plenty of jackalls to hunt for their prey, which was to find out every person in their jurisdiction, that departed from the way of their priest's worship, such person and persons became a prey, is●. 59.15. who were accused to publish or maintain the heterodox or fr●onious doctrine; at the opening of which courts, were always some of their priests to pray, pretending that what they did against dissenters, would be the more sanctified through the means of their prayers, which they pretended was for the honour of god, and good of the souls of them, on whom the said court did inflict punishment, both to their body and purses, so that what with these hirelings unsanctified prayers, and the like advice to the magistrates, they would be sure to lay load enough on the backs of the aforesaid dissenters, especially upon the innocent harmless quakers, whom so often in their law, they call accursed! for unto them was the priest's greatest rage manifested, through their wicked advice to the magistrates, to have them all hanged, of whom four were put to death, and more had been, had not their bloody hands been stopped through the means of the king's order to the contrary, a copy of which letter will hereafter appear in this book, which before it came, many were they that were put to cruel sufferings, both by long imprisonment, cruel whip, cutting off ears, branding with red hot irons, ordering men and women to be sold for bond slaves, searching the bodies of innocent women for witches, besides banishing upon pain of death, and abundance of their estate taken for fines, on which these men, so free to do the devils work, did live, eating and drinking at a high rate, whilst others suffered as aforesaid. this was the work of wicked priest ●nd pulpit liars, whose work was like the jesuits, the monks and frayrs. new-england antichristian law. 8. whereas there is a pernicious sect, commonly called quakers, lately arisen, who by word and writing have published and maintained many dangerous and horrid tenets, and take upon them to change and alter the laudable customs of our nation, in giving civil respect to equals o reverence to superiors, whose actions tend to undermine the authority of civil government, as also to destroy the order of the churches, by denying all established forms of worship, and by with drawing from the orderly church assemblies allowed and approved by all orthrodox professors of the truth, and instead thereof, and opposition thereunto, frequenting private meetings of their own, insinuating into the minds of the simple, or such as are less affected to the order and government of our church and common wealth, whereby divers of our inhabitants have been infected and seduced; and notwithstanding all former laws made, upon experience of their arrogant bold obtrusions to disseminate their principles amongst us, prohibiting their coming into this jurisdiction, they have not been detered from their impetuous attempts to undermine our peace and hasten our ruin▪ the reader may here note, the great wickedness of these unrighteous priests and rulers, who to accuse the innocent, run themselves into further mischief, through their bold attempts against god and the king, which hath proved to be their ruin, for whilst they were digging pits, and making rods, and laying snares the innocent, god was preparing his judgements against them, and all those whose silence gave consent thereto, by which ●udgments they do not only suffer suffer the loss of their fruit and grain▪ throughout their jurisdiction, but also are delivered into the hands of the barbarous indians▪ whom god suffers to make them a double measure of the like cruelty; which themselves (as by their ●●ws) have indicted upon others, besides the loss of their old charter and great idol. god ever will for innocent blood reward, though while the wicked live, little it regard. new-england antichristian law. for prevention thereof, this court doth order and enact, that every person of the cursed sect of quakers, who is not an inhabitant, but found within this jurisdiction, shall be apprehended without warrant, where no magistrate is at hand, by any constable, commissioner or select man, and conveyed from constable to constable, until they come before the next magistrate, who shall commit the said person or persons to close prison, there to remain without bail, unti● the next court of assistants, where they shall have a legal. trial by a special jury, and being convict to be of the cursed sect of quakers, shall be sentenced to banishment upon pain of death▪ obs. the reader may hence understand, that the ●ea●er the magistrates laws did extend to destroy the lives of the innocent, the more pleasing it was to the hireling priests ●ho in honour thereunto, would set time apart for the church's thanksgiving. a new-england antichristian law. and that every the inhabitants of this jurisdiction, being convicted to be of the cursed sect of quakers, either by taking up, publishing and defending the horrid opinions of the cursed quakers, or stirring up m●t●a●▪ sedit● or rebellion against the government of our church at ● common wealth, or by taking up their absurd and destructive practices, viz. denying civil respect and reverence to equals and superiors, withdrawing from our church assemblies, and instead thereof, frequenting private meetings of their own, in opposition to our church order▪ or by adhering to, or approving of known quakers, that are opposite to the orthodox received opinions of the godly, and endeavouring to disaffect others ●o civil government and church order established amongst us, and condemning the practice and proceedings of this court against the quakers, manifesting thereby compliance with those whose design is to overthrow the order established in our church and commonwealth. the reader may here observe the wretched state of these bloody minded persecutors, who for want of true faith were in the state of th●ir elder brother cain, that was a murderer, like unto these who destroy the righteous for their faith and obedience to god, for which cause these persecutors bear cain's mark, being in fear that those which are not of their murdering spirits, will slay them; and knowing themselves to be like principled, as was hugh peter's, venner, and many others of their new-england brethren in iniquity, stirring up mutiny, sedition and rebellion against the english government, and the order of the english church established by the bishops, as by the chronicles of england doth at large appear of their rebellion and treason against the king and his children, in that day▪ of their inventing so much mischief against others in our native land, to set up themselves above all others; which spirit is the same in these their persecuting brethren, who impute that to the charge of an innocent harmless people, which themselves are so highly guilty of, as is manifested by their setting up themselves, to lord it over the people of god and the king's subjects, as for fifty or sixty years time they have done in new-england, where the hireling priests kept a constant stroke of putting all that dissented from their worship, into bear skins, and setting their followers to tear them in pieces, call out in their preaching to their people, curse ye meroz, curse ye bitterly the inhabitants that will not come to the help of the lord against the mighty, judg. 5 23. and cursed be he that doth the work of the lord deceitfully, by withholding his sword from blood, je●. 48.10. with more of the like, endeavouring to persuade, that god's general judgements would not depart, until they had hanged all the quakers, and sent going all other dissenters. the judgements may remove, but when old charter men are dead, and then or when god sends here better men, well to rule in government, then, pro. 29.2 from devil and such wicked priests, pray god deliver me then from all mischief in the world, be sure i shall be free. hosea 6.9. new-england peusecutors laws against the king's subjects. every such person upon examination and conviction before the court of assistants, in manner as aforesaid, shall be committed to close prison for on● month, and unless they choose to depart the jurisdiction, shall give bond for their appearance at the next court of assistants, where continuing obstinate, and refusing to retract and reform the aforesoid opinions and practices, shall be sentenced to banishment, upon pain of death, and in case ●●the aforesaid voluntary departure not to remain, or to return again into this jurisdiction, without the allowance of the major part of the council first had and published, on penalty of being banished upon pain of death; and any one magistrate, upon complaint, or information, given him of any such person, shall cause them to be apprehended, and if upon examination of the cause, he shall find just grounds for such complaint▪ he shall commit such person to prison, until he come to his trial, as above expressed. observe, here you may still note the work of the wicked, in whom he that was a liar and murderer from the beginning, gave them no rest from their bloody pursuit after the lives of the righteous, whom the lord did preserve in all their deep sufferings and fiery trials, that not one of the faithful sufferers for his cause conformed to their wicked will, who would not endure any that differed in judgement from their priest's worship to inhabit within their jurisdiction, who without fear to god, or regard to man, contrary to the laws of the english native, without either fear or regard to god, king or bishops, made the defence of their faith, church and common wealth (as they call themselves) as strong as possible they could with stock, whip, goal and gallows, on which the chiefest strength of their faith did depend; for when all their other anti-christian weapons failed them against the quakers, the gallows held, until the king's letter came, and removed the strength of their faith in that also; yet they continued by their old wont way of pl●king away men's estates, by fining them in great sums for dessenting from their priest's worship, which from the quakers, r●p●●●●s, them of the church of england and others amounted to about twenty thousand pounds, in the bounds of new-england. when wolves once get a taste of blood, they are for killing all that's good. the preamble to their law. this court being desirous to try all means, with as much lenity as may consist with our safety, to prevent the intrusions of the quakers, who besides their absurd and blasphemous doctrines, do like rogues and vagabonds come in upon us, and have not been restrained by the laws already provided. observe. here note the fox's preamble to their wolvish law, whose ravenous bloodthirsty na●●re is not contented with the ●l●●ce, but strive all they can (as have done the wicked in days past) to have the innocent blood also (as did their brother bloody bonner in queen mary's time) whenas to many thousands of people it is well known that those which suffered in n●w-england, under the name of quakers, were neither in doctrine, principle nor practice, any way guilty of these persecutors charge, but on the co●t any differing therefrom, as light from darkness, truth from error, god f●om the devil, christ from beli●● and heaven from hell, from whence is the power and spirit of all those that put people to death for their faith and obedience to god, who permits these things to be done by the instruments of the wicked one, for a trial of faith to those who are made wi●ling to part with all for the sake of him that first loved them, and gives them that power through which they receive strength to withstand all the powers of hell, from whence proceedeth the spirit of these persecutors, as did them in days past▪ john 8.44. mat. 23.31, 33, 34, 35, 36. whose safety did (as these do remain by the strength of unrighteous laws, and as they said, so say these, we have a law, and by our law, every person dissenting from our church order, and against the government of our common wealth, as is manifest the quakers do, by condemning the proceedings of this court against dissenters, who by our law ought 〈◊〉 die. which proves these persecutors to be true vagabonds, by having no dwelling in the truth. vagabonds are, as was their brother cain, who murder them, that in the truth remain▪ new-england persecutors laws against the king's subjects. have ordered, that every such vagabond quaker found within any part of this jurisdiction, shall be apprehended by any person or persons, or by the constable of the town, where he or she is found, and by the constable, or in his absence, by any other person or persons, conveyed before the next magistrate of that shire, where they are taken, or commissioner invested with magistratical power, and being by them adjudged to be a wandering quaker, viz. such that hath no orderly allowance in this jurisdiction, and not giving civil respect or by any other means manifesting himself to be a quaker, shall by warrant under the hand of the said magistrate or commissioner, directed to the constable of the town, or to any other meet person, be stripped from the middle, upward, and tied to a carts, tail, and whipped through the town, and from thence immediately conveyed to the constable of the next town towards the borders of our jurisdiction, as their warrant shall direct, till they be conveyed through the outwardmost towns of our jurisdiction. observe that by the following copy of one of their many warrants of the like bloody and cruel nature, their whipping of the innocent quakers, who by their law must have no allowance to trade, buy or sell within the bounds is of their jurisdiction; for which cause of being so prohibited, and found within their jurisdiction, and by them called vagabonds, whenas a 〈…〉 being found, as cain was, to have no dwelling in the tru●● are the right true vagabonds, endeavouring (as much as in them lies) to whip others from their certain dwellings is 〈◊〉 truth, to become vagabonds like themselves. a copy of one of their many warrants. to the constable of dover, hampton, salisbury, newber●▪ rowley, ipswich, wenham, linn, boston, roxbury, dedham, and until these vagabond quakers are carried out of this jurisdiction, you, and every of you are required in the king's name, to take ann coleman, mary tomkins, alice ambrose, and make them fast to the cart's tail, and driving the cart through your several towns, to whip them upon their naked backs, and not exceeding ten stripes on each of them, in each town; and so to convey them from constable to constable, till they come out of this jurisdiction, as you will answer it at your peril. and this shall be your warrant. dated at dover, december the 22th, 1662. per me richard walden. observe, here are eleven towns in the warrant, and from the first town dover, to the last town dedham, is about eighty miles, and ten stripes on each of them in each town, is one hundred and ten stpipes a piece with a whip made with three small single hair twisted cords, each of which being knotted, fit for the priests work▪ to defend their faith, and so laid on the naked backs of the innocent quakers, as if it were possible, the knots might kiss the bones, which cruel work was agreeable, to the priests exhorting their drudges from these scriptures▪ judg. 5.23 jer. 48.10. which work was as far from the work of god, in this day, as heaven is from hell, as may be readluke 9.54, 55·56. mat. 5.44, 45, 46. luke 6.31 32, 33. mat. 13.28, 29, 30. 2 cor. 10.3, 4, 5, 6. but contrary to these persecutors act, as we read, john 8.44. mat. 6.24. for his servants they are to whom they obey, rom. 6.16. but as their laws were bloody and their execution cruel and barbarous, so hath god suffered both he that drew the warrant, with many more of his persecuting brethren, to be destroyed, and their riches consumed by the great judgements of god upon them, as is more at large to be seen in the aforesaid late book, entitled truth held forth and maintained, by thomas maule. and when the quakery were commonly so whipped, with their torn flesh and bloody backs, had about fifty miles to travel through the wilderness woods, before they came to their friends at rode-island, and so hard weather with frost and snow, that divers people have been killed therewith in travelling between town and town, though but two or three miles distant from each other. the devil and the priests, and all such warrant makers, in full communion are, with all such church partakers. the persecutors law against the king's good subjects. and if such vagabond quakers shall return again, then to be in the like manner apprehended, & conveyed as often as they shall be found within the limits of our jurisdiction, provided every such vagabond quaker have been thrice convicted, and sent away, as aforesaid, and returning again into this jurisdiction, shall be apprehended, and committed by any magistrate, as aforesaid, unto the house of correction within the county, where he or she is found, until the next court within that county, where if the court, judge not meet to release them, they shall be branded with the letter [r] on their left shoulder, and be severely whipped, and sent away in manner as before. observe, hence you may understand, that the law of these cain-like spirited vagabonds, did extend against every true christian, as well as those called quakers, found within their jurisdiction to descent from their priest's worship, and to manifest a dislike against their unrighteous proceedings against the people of god and the king's subjects, which was tyrannical, cruel, bloody and barbarous, that if any person (though the church of england,) was found to petition to the king and bishops to maintain their right, respecting their worship agreeable to the way of the english church, it was accounted high rebellion by these persecutors so to do; for which offence, no less than imprisonment and three hundred pounds, would keep them from being hanged on the new-england gallows till dead, dead, and of this nature, by imprisonment and paying three hundred pounds apiece, was dr. child, samuel maverick, and other merchants in boston, kept from being hanged, for their being taken, with a petition to send to england, as aforesaid. of which when i come to give an account of the english church being persecuted by these new-england freemen, to do what they saw most pleasing to their priests, shall the more speak relating to the aforesaid suffering of dr. child, samuel maverick and others of the church of england as aforesaid. from all bloody freemen, pray god deliver me, they are for hanging all, that one with them not be. the persecutors law against the king's good subjects. and if after this he or she shall return again, then to be proceeded against as ineorrigible rogues and enemies to the common peace, and shall immediately be apprehended and committed to the common goal of the county, and the next court of assistants shall be brought to the trial, and proceeded against according to the former law made 1658. for their punishment on pain of death. psalm 94.20, 21. obs. you may understand, that of this nature it hath been in all ages to the people of god, for as it is written, he that is born after the f●esh, persecuteth him that is born after the spirit, even so it is now, gal. 4. 2●. and that the people are great sufferers as by these laws, when they fall into the hands of hypocrites, which pretend so much to religion, as did the wicked jews to destroy the righteous in that day, which work (as we read in the holy scriptures, books of martyrs, and the like true histories) ever did, as now it doth, begin at the house of the persecuting priests, who would have none live save those that are one with them in all things that tend to the upholding them with money for preaching, which is made up with other men's words, whose life and experience they witness nothing of, but at random make a sixth days image with stolen words, with which they fright the people that know no better then to buy of their ware, which further than they write it down, lose it before the next market day; such like is the preaching and teaching of every hypocritical hireling and persecuting priest, whose doctrine does leaven every persecutor of their church to follow them in the like covetous practice, through whose hypocrisy and deceit many have been horribly cheated. now if new-englands' churches be not highly guilty of these things, as well as persecuting people to death for religion, than the people in foreign countries are the more to blame, to cry out at the sight of new-england vessels, so much as they do against persecutors, deceit, hypocrisy, false doctrine, surfeited horses, and the like of stinking fish, and other cheats, with which it is common for hypocrites and persecutors to trade. hypocrisy deceit is cloaked with religion, by men whose wicked laws, for blood do make provision; no men more wicked than persecuters be, to find it true, in scripture may it see. mat. 23.32 33.34.35.36 new-england persecutors laws against the king subjects. and for such quakers as shall arise from amongst ourselves, they shall be proceeded against as the former law anno 1658. doth provide, until they have been convicted by the court of assistants, and being convicted he or she shall then be banished the jurisdiction, and il after, that they shall return, and be found in any part of this jurisdiction, than he or she so sentenced to banishment, shall be proceeded against as those that are strangers and vagabond quakers, in manner as before expressed. obs. the reader may hence understand, that as their laws were bloody, the cruel nature of their unbelieving hard hearts, was in the execution of their laws, agreeable thereunto, who being bewitched (by a company of hireling priests) not to obey the truth, were through obedience to wicked spirits, mad after the blood of the innocent, that the devout members of their antichristian church, did act with that fury to the quakers, as if they could never use too much cruelty upon them, which was the more by the priestridden executioners, through the priests pronouncing woes and bitter curses against all such as should fail in the neglect of their work for the devil, against both quakers, baptists, and them of the church of england as well as against all other dissenters, which curses they still backed with scripture words, as aforesaid, judg. 5.23. jer. 48.10. which work (as the wicked did, so these pretended) was done by them for the honour of god, and glory of his name, and that their church was the purest reformed church of all other christian churches in the world, but if the pureity of a church consist in such wicked works as they have done by virtue of unrighteous laws against the people of god, and the king's subjects, than it is manifest (by the length of time in the like cruel bloody work) that their mother church of rome is more purer than theirs. but if persecution be the work of the devil, (as by scripture it is manifest so to be) then according to christ's own words, they are children of him whose work they do; than it must consequently follow, that rome's church, being the first under the name christian, found to persecute, that all under that name found to persecute, are her children, whom so often they call the great whore. the devil's work not only done to quakers, but all dissenters were in par● partakers. new-england persecutors law against the king's subjects. and it is further ordered that whatsoever charge shall arise about apprehending, whipping, conveying, or otherwise about the quakers, to be laid out by the constable of such town where it is expended, and to be repaid by the treasurer, out of the next county levy. and further ordered, that the constables of their several towns are hereby impowered, ●rom time to time, to impress cart, oxen, and other assistance, for the execution of this order. 1661. obs. the reader may hence understand, that for the cloaking of the devils work they made all their unrighteous warrants run in the king's name, as if he was the author of their cruel work against dissenters, whenas it manifestly appears, both by the holy scriptures, and also by the king's letter▪ (a copy of which will follow) that they had no warrant, precept or command either from god or the king, but did wholly act and do according to their own wills, which still remain the same, to work mischief against both quakers; baptists, and the church of england also, (as will hereafter evidently appear) but their horns at present are shortened, and their cloak begins to appear threadbare, and now their hypocrisy and deceit will no longer hide their wickedness from the king and people, whose money out of the treasury must serve to defray the charge of the devil's work against the king's good subjects, who had taken from them, by the persecuting churches in new-england, to the value of twenty thousand pounds, for fines imposed upon them, because dissenters from their way of worship, whose priests and rulers had also of their people yearly sallarys, according to the same proportion of the aforesaid sum of twenty thousand pounds, through which means, as these persecutors lived at a high rate on that which others had laboured hard to get, went in threadbare coats, and their families in want of that which was their own, and devoured by this persecuting crew aforesaid; whereby their great oppression reached the whole people of the ordinary degree, even as a sweeping rain, that clears all before it. balaam's state is theirs, who for unrighteous gain, the people do oppress, themselves for to maintain. new-england persecutors laws against the king's subjects suspended (during their pleasure.) this court heretofore, for some reasons inducing, did judge meet to suspend the execution of the laws against quakers, as such, so far as they respect corporal punishment 〈◊〉 death, during the court's pleasure. obs. that tho' these persecutors saw there was cause to suspend their bloody laws against the king's good subjects, so far as they did respect corporal punishment or death, yet it must be only during their own pleasure, not the kings, no, they could not stoop to that. but whether they did not herein manifest a spirit of rebellion against god, the king's order (as by his letter will appear) and the laws of the english nation, i leave others to judge. now the occasion of procuring this order from the king, was their great cruelty in banishing sober honest people out of their jurisdiction upon pain of death, if they returned; for as before is said of dr. child, samuel maverick, and other merchants, whose imprisonment and three hundred pounds a piece, saved them from the new-england gallows, and none, without the like hazard, might make complaint to england; but several banished quakers adventured to lay their said suffering case before the king, whose merciful ear heard their cry, and took compassion on his suffering subjects, and forthwith stopped new-england persecutors wicked hands from shedding more innocent blood, being acquainted with their great wickedness, and knowing the manner of their spirits, by what their brother h. peter, vennor, & other of their n. england brethren had done both against his father and himself, as by his letter he begins with them, as afterwards it proved so to be, as a wise man with the tope tile or covering of a fair outside building, whose inside is full of all manner of deceit, and the foundation thereof very dangerous, by degrees, in working downwards, till he comes to the foundation, which afterwards was wholly removed, through the loss of their charter, which to them had been as an idol godd, in which they trusted as much as ever the people did in baal; and if ever silver and gold procure such another, it may be at a high rate, and they are like to be as cruel as before. but the english laws are far before new-england idols. god will not ever permit the devil's power, nor wicked men the righteous to devour. a copy of the king's letter. charles r. trusty and well beloved, we greet you well having been informed that several of our subjects amongst you, called quakers, have been and are imprisoned by you, whereof some have been executed, and others in danger to undergo the like, we have thought fit to signify our pleasure in that behalf, for the future, and do hereby require, that if there be any of those people called quakers amongst you, now already condemned to suffer death, or are imprisoned, and obnoctious to the like condemnation, you are to forbear to proceed any further therein, but that you forthwith send the said persons, whether condemned or imprisoned, over into this our kingdom of england, together with their respective crimes or offences laid to their charge, to the end such course may be taken with them here, as shall be agreeable to our laws, and their demerits. and for so doing, these our letter shall be your sufficient warrant and discharge. given at our court at whitehall, the 9 th' day of septemb. 1661. in the 13 th' year of our reign. subscribed to our trusty, & wellbeloved john endicot, esq and to all and every other governors of our plantation of new-england, and to all the colonies thereunto belonging, that now are, or hereafter shall be; and to all and every the ministers and officers of our said plantation and colonies whatsoever within the continent of new-england. by his majesty's command, w. morris. obs. now these persecutors had nothing to charge these innocent people with, but that they were quakers, against whom they had provided a law, but this law was repugnant to the laws of the english nation; and therefore upon the receipt of the king's letter, they durst do no other than set at liberty both them condemned to suffer death, and those imprisoned also; but herein they did not obey the king's command; for he commanded them to send these quakers so imprisoned or condemned, over to england, with the particular crimes laid to their charge; but this they would not do, and good reason why, they had to crimes to lay to their charge, but that they were quakers. and being brought to this pinch, instead of sending a ship load of quakers, and a large roll of their crimes of treason, rebellion, subversion of government, etc. home to the king, they send a ship load of masts for a present to the king, with a parcel of horrid wicked lies against the quakers; to defray the charge of which present, the poor inhabitants were severally rated. after which their great deceit and abominable hypocrisy, the king came to find out, not only in doing as aforesaid, but upon many other accounts, too large here to relate; and before i conclude, enough against them will appear, to manifest their great wickedness against god, the king and people. yet notwithstanding all this, they could not long forbear their old work of persecution, but soon put their law in execution again; for the king's letter was dated, 1661. and they revived their old law again in 1662. which was done more in obedience to the devil, and to please their hireling priests, than in honour to god, or respect to the king, against whom they did rebel in so doing, as appears by his letter, and their not sending any of the quakers over into the kingdom of england, but instead thereof sent a present with a parcel of lies, too large here to relate, and put their law into execution again, and as sharp, cruel and barbarous was the execution (respecting corporal punishment) as formerly, though the towns were not to be so many in which they were to be whipped, yet the whip with three single hair twisted small cords (each being knotted, fit for the devil and priests work) was the same as before the king's letter came, and did so continue till near or about the time they lost their idol, viz. their old charter, on which was their dependence, above god or king, as is manifested by their works. priest's rulers masts for ships, d●ceis and lies withal, poor people made to pay, for presents to whitehall. new-england persecutors laws against the king's good subjects, (upon complaint of the priests) put into execution again. now forasmuch as new complaints are made to this court, of such persons abounding, especially in the eastern parts, endeavouring to draw away others to that wicked opinion, it is ordered, that the last law, tit. vagabond quakers, may 1661. be henceforth in force, in all respects, provided, their whipping be but through three towns, and the magistrate or commissioner signing the warrant, shall appoint both the towns, and number of stripes in each town to be given, 1662. obs. here by comparing this their date to their law, with the date of the king's letter, how little regard they had to the king's mind and will therein contained, which was, whether condemned to suffer death, or imprisoned, or to suffer corporal punishment, to forbear to proceed any further therein, but forthwith to send the said persons over into the nation of england, with the respective crimes or offences laid to their charge, to the end such course might be taken with them, according to the nature of the offence, as should be agreeable to the english laws. which express command of the king was but a small time minded by them; for upon their considering the cause some small time, proposed to themselves, that by virtue of their idol charter, they had as much power in new-england as the king had in old-england, and had they the like strength of men and shipping, would (no doubt) with stand all kings and princes that should adventure to oppose their way; now had not i myself heard some of them say these things, durst not have charged it here upon them, to public view; and for a further evidence of the same, witness their proclaiming, (with a trumpet before them,) against the king's commissioners in boston, persuading the people, (as near as as they could) that their commissions were made under a hedge, with much 〈◊〉 of the like nature, too ●orge here to● relate. priests rulerr bloody work, on people hath brought woe, with their consent that silent were to have it so. they're works of him that is of hell, 'gainst god and king all such rebel. new-england persecutors law against the king's subjects. whereas it may be found amongst us, that men's thresholds are set up by god's thresholds, and men's posts by god's posts, especially in open meetings of the quakers, whose damnable heresies, and abominable idolatries are hereby promoted, embraced ând practised, to the scandal of religion, hazard of souls and provocation of divine jealousy against this people. for prevention and reformation whereof, it is ordered by this court, and the authority thereof, that every person found at a quakers meeting, shall be apprehended, ex officio, by the constable, and by warrant from a magistrate or commissioner, shall be committed to the house of correction, and there to have the discipline of the house applied unto them, and to be kept to work with bread and water for three days together: and then to be released; or else shall pay a fine of five pounds in money, to the country, for every such offence; and all constables neglecting their duty, in not faithfully executing this order, shall incur the penalty of 5 l. upon conviction, one third part whereof to the informer. obs. the reader may here take notice of one of these persecutors many horrid and wicked lies, so proved by their contradiction, who in their preambles to their laws, accuse the quakers with keeping their meetings private, yet at unawares in their bridewell law they charge the contrary; and though they pretend the sin is great, yet it may be bought off for five pounds in money, as often as they please; but the said sum not being paid them by any one, they were much enraged thereat, finding their covetous design in making said law, disappointed, because it reach no further than to punish them that were not free to pay 5 l. for being at a quakers meeting, as aforesaid, the penalty of which law several merchants in boston suffered, rather than to disobey god, by satisfying the lust of such covetous priests and rulers, who prefer the love of money before punishing for that which themselves account so great sins, as by the preamble of their laws they pretend these abovementioned to be. their bloody laws are almost done, which work the priests at first begun. new-england persecutors preamble to their laws against provoking evils, as they call them. whereas the most wise & holy god for these several years past, hath not only warned us by his word, but chastized us with his rod, inflicting upon us many general judgements, but we have neither heard the word nor rod as we ought to be effectually humbled for our sins, to repent of them, hence it is the righteous god hath heightened our calamity, and given commission to the barbarous heathen to rise up against us, and become a smart rod and severe scourge to us, in burning and depopulating several hopeful plantations, murdering many of our inhabitants of all sorts, and seeming, as it were, to cast us off, and putting us to shame, and not going forth with our arms, hereby speaking aloud to us, to search and try our ways, and turn again unto the lord our god, from whom we have departed with great back-sliding obs. that to acknowledge the truth is well, and well would it be indeed if they were found acknowledging the whole truth, and to repent of shedding innocent blood, which is the great sin of new-england priests and rulers, as also of the consenting church members thereof; but of this there is no mention made in their preamble-confession of words, without works of truth and righteousness to god and people, according as is at large manifest by their aforementioned laws, the neglect of which execution was by their priests imputed to be the main cause of general judgement to come upon them. but they use to say, if all the quakers were hanged, and all other dissenters cleared out of their jurisdiction, then would their land enjoy peace: unto which work the rulers were bewitched, so far as the devil was permitted to drive them, who were as willing to run, and to work they went against all dissenters, and set forth a book against the baptists, entitled, the rise and foundation of the cursed sect of annabaptists, in which was as many lies as they use to gather for their pulpit work on the first day against the quakers, which lies to hear also costs the people money. none are more blind than those that will not see, the cause for which gods general judgements be. new-england persecutors law against provoking evils, as they call them. 1. this court apprehending there is too great a neglect of discipline in the churches, and especially respecting those that are their children, through the non acknowledgement of them, according to the order of the gospel, 〈◊〉 watching over them, as well as catechising of them enquiring into their spiritual states, that being brought to take hold of the covenant, they may acknowledge, and be acknowledged, according to their relation to god and his church, and their obligation to be the lords, and approve themselves so to be by a suitable profession and conversation; and do therefore solemnly recommend it unto the respective elders and brethren of the churches throughout this ●urisdiction, to take effectual course for the reformation therein. obs. by the aforementioned cruel bloody laws against the people of god, what nature their church government was of, in which covenant, the words, beware of the leaven of the pharisees▪ was put of, and instead thereof they put in, beware of the leaven of the quakers; for which see salem church covenant, so called▪ caused to be so done by their high priest, john higinson, who in his preaching told the people, the quakers light was a stinking vapour from hell, with much more of the like, as was usual with him in his daily preaching and teaching against the quakers, baptists, and other dissenters, this old-charter priest, with other of his devout church-brethrens in iniquity, use to wish their children might be rogues and whores, rather than quakers; which was too 〈◊〉 (though justly fulfiled upon many of them, as well as upon this old priests, whose daughter was highly accused of witchcraft, and now maintained by the parish. it is dreadful to consider what wickedness is in men's hearts, to wish such horrid wishes, as the jews did, mat. 27.25. which justly came upon them, as upon these of the like spirit. no members child, a member t●en could be, from quakers blood in all respects found free. new-england persecutors laws against provoking evils, as they call them. 2. whereas there is manifest pride openly appearing amongst us, in that long hair is worn by some men, either their own, or the hair of others made into periwigs▪ and by some women wearing borders of hair, and their cutting and curling, and laying out their hair; which practice doth prevail and increase, especially among the younger sort. this court doth declare against this evil practice, as offensive to them and divers sober christians amongst us, and therefore do hereby enact and advise all persons to use moderation in this respect. and further, to empower all grand juries to present to the county courts all such persons, whether male or female, whom they shall judge to exceed in the premises; and the county courts are authorized to proceed against such delinquents, either by admonition, or fine, or correction, according to their good discretion. obs. that through the long continuance of disobedience▪ which is as rebellion, and the sin of witchcraft, being highly guilty▪ of innocent blood, these persecutors had lost their dominion over their own families, who began to run into great superfluity and extravagancy of those things which were not comely, decent and of good report, in which they did greatly increase, and now abound beyond all the power of their laws to restrain. where●o●e they may now see, their ungodly wicked wishes are come both upon themselves and children; for the curse of the lord remaineth in the house of th●m that have either actually or by consent been found before the lord guilty of shedding innocent blood, prov. 3.33. mal. ●. 1, 12, 3. from all evil wishes, pray god deliver me, and from all wickedness me and mine keep free. n. england persecutors laws against provoking evils, as the● call them. 3. notwithstanding the wholesome laws already made by this court for the restraining excess in apparel, yet through the corruption in many, and neglect of due execution or those laws, the evil of pride in apparel, both for costliness in the poorer sort, and vain new strange fashions, both in poor and rich, with naked breasts and arms, or as it were pinioned with the addition of superfluous ribbons, both on hair and apparel, for redress whereof, it is ordered by this court, that the county courts, from time to time, shall give strict charge to present all such persons, as they shall judge exceed in that kind; & if the grand jury shall neglect their duty herein, the county courts shall impose a fine upon them at their own discretion. obs. the outward appearance of these persecutors, by their smooth words & fair speeches, as also their short hair even or above their ears, with high crowned hats, peacked board's, as likewise their two or three inch broad bands, and their apparel agreeable thereunto, by which they appeared in the outward, like men differing from all other people whatsoever, which with their priests daily preaching, and their often loud praying, and their works not agreeable with their words, were by their fruits manifested to be men of the like spirit whom christ bid▪ beware of, mat. 7.15. which the more to be accounted good christians, under which name they pretended all their proceedings against the evil of pride, to be for the honour of god, and the good of the people souls, when on the contrary it appears otherwise, by their selling that which themselves account sin, for money, which doth clearly manifest their work to be done in honour to themselves, whose love is to the people's money, for the satisfying their own covetous desire●▪ which work doth manifest covetousness, pride and oppresion and oppression in such priests and rulers that eat up the sin of the people, hos. 4. 8·9. micah 3.11. god's cause is that to which they do pretend, but all men may see, money is their end. new-england persecutors laws against provoking evils, as they call them. and it is further ordered, that the county court, single magistrate or commissioners court in boston, have hereby power to summons all such persons so offending, before them, and for the first offence to admonish them, and for each offence of that kind afterwards to impose a fine of ten shillings upon them, or if unable to pay, to inflict such punishment as shall be by them thought most suitable to the nature of the offence; and the same judge's abovenamed are hereby impowered to judge of, and execute the laws already extant against such excess. obs. whipping, or the like punishment, was only to such persons unable to pay their fine, though the offence was no breaeh of any english law, but these sin-sellers laws are distinct from all the laws of other nations that i have read or heard of, and indeed, in most things their doctrines, principles and practices the same, which are not only condemned by all true christians, but also by the indians, turks and other moral heathens, who abhor the practice of living upon the fines of people not found to transgress the law or laws of their nation, as these new-england priests and rulers do, whose income for such like things, by them imputed to the people's transgressing such like laws as abovesaid, is no less than twelve hundred pounds a year, besides fifteen hundred pounds a year from persons chiefly of their own churches, for the sin of uncleanness, as also some years, no less than forty hundred pounds a year for fine●▪ which they compelled from the people of god and the king's good subjects dissenting from their priest's worship, with which, and ten thousand pounds yearly paid the priests for preaching, and as much yearly paid the rulers for making laws and judging; all which came out of the poor people's labour within the bounds of new-englands' priests and rulers. where men can make what laws they please, such priests and rulers live at ease. new-england persecutors laws against provoking evils, as t●●y call them. it is ordered by this court. that no person within this jurisdiction, nor any of their relations depending upon them, whose visible estates, real and personal, shall not exceed the true value of two hundred pounds, shall not wear any gold or silver buttons, or gold or silver lace, or bone lace above two shillings per yard, or silk hoods, or silk scarss, points or ribbons, or great boots, upon the penalty of ten shillings for every such offence. and further ordered by the authority aforesaid, that the select men of every town, are hereby impowered, enabled and required to asse●s every such person so offending, in any of the particulars abovementioned, in the country rates, at two hundred pounds estates, according as such men pay to whom such apparel is allowed. always provided, that this law shall not extend to the restraint of any magistrate, or public officer of this jurisdiction, their wives and children, who are left to their own discretion in wearing apparel, or any settled military officer, or soldier in the time of military service, or any other whose education and employment have been above the ordinary degree, or whose estates have been considerable, though now deacyed; 1651. it is further ordered and enacted by this court, and the authority thereof, that all persons within this jurisdiction that shall wear any apparel exceeding their quality and condition of their persons or estates, and either of these be so judged by the grand jury and county court of that shire where such complaint is made, all such persons being convicted, shall for the first offence be admonished, for the second offence pay a fine of twenty shillings, for the third offence forty shillings a time, and so following as the offences are multiplied, to pay forty shillings a time ●o the treasurer of that county. and further ordered, that if any tailor shall make or fashion any garment for children or servants contrary to the mind and order of their parents or governors, every such tailor shall for the first offence be admonished, and for the second offence, forfeit double the value of such apparel or garment as he shall make or fashion contrary to the mind and order of such parents or governors, as aforesaid, the one half thereof to the owner, and the other half to the country. and all grand-jurys are hereby enjoined to present all those whomthey shall judge breakers of this order. 1662. obs. that in the year aforesaid, 1662. through the priest's advice they were hot in persecuting both quakers, baptists, and all other dissenters, thinking thereby to fine and whip the christians from their religion, which according to the advice of their hireling priests, being in hopes to do, that when they had so done, and overcome the aforesaid provoking evil of pride in apparel, that god would the more hear their loud prayers▪ and remove his great judgements from amongst them; for it is certainly true, myself is witness to the same, that have often heard them say, that god's judgements would never remove from amongst them, till all the quakers and other dissenters were hanged, or cleared out of their jurisdiction. and for another instance, ●once was present, when thomas maule of salem came to one of the aforesaid rulers, for a warrant to search for one hundred pounds worth of silks and other rich goods stole out of his shop the night before, to whom this ruler answered, he would grant him no warrant, but would complain to the court of any man that did grant him a warrant to search for his goods. moreover, in my hearing said to him, if a man knock you on the head, or hang you▪ the recompense is in your own hands; for you are not to be protected by the laws of this government. this was the justice of this great ruler and church member, free of their body politic, as they call themselves, whose laws allow that apparel to themselves which to others they impute the wearing of, to be one of the provoking evils; for which offence (as they call it) the offender (by their law) must be equally rated with such to whom the law allows the said apparel, as also to pay 40 s. a time, as the offences multiply; and if not able to pay, then to be punished. pride, oppression and covetousness abound, all which by priests and rulers law is found. new-england persecutors laws against provoking evils, as they call them. whereas there is much profaneness amongst us, in persons turning their backs upon the public worship before it be finished, and the blessing pronounced, it is ordered by this court, that the officers of the churches, or select men, shall take care to prevent such disorders, by appointing persons to shut the meetinghouse doors, or any other meet way to attain the end. obs. the time was now near at hand in which all their wicked works against dissenters, as well as on other accounts, came to be throughly looked into by the king and powers in england, who found their unrighteousness so great, that, as before related, their building began a pace to be overthrown, which people perceiving, many of the priests hearers began to give little heed or regard to their idol worship, to which they had been so long kept for divers years, merely by the strength of unrighteous laws; and now at this time finding the priests and rulers strength to confide in little more besides the meetinghouse doors, in a little time after they had been in meeting, were willing to depart, without hearing any more of the priests long wound railing against the baptists, quakers, and all other dissenters; for which cause, i say, many persons turning their backs upon the worship before it was finished, and the money-blessing pronounced, the priest's money box, always when done, held out by one of the church officers, would fall much short of the priests pay for his sermon, to what it use to do, when their cruel laws were in more force than at this time; but the strength of their meetinghouse doar, did at length also fail; yet at times, as the evil spirit moved in them, they must run whom the devil permits to drive into such unrighteousness, would be afflicting one dissenter or another, especially by fines, which by cart loads of corn i have then seen the priest's drudges fetch from the people called baptists, as also goods and cattle from others. it was profaneness, as these persecutors say, i find the cause, the priests did want more pay. old charter magistrates hypocrisy, with an instance of their deceit and cheat amongst themselves, at their general high-court of injustice to others. an eminent merchant in boston, who is said to have erected the town-house at his own charge, besides several other considerable gifts to public uses, he kept an honest sober young man to sell his merchandise, and its like somewhat differing in judgement from their priest's way of worship; he through a mistake sold a bridle for something more than was allowed by these rulers for men to advance on the shilling; and being complained of was fined a great sum of money, and besides was ordered to stand one hour in a public place with the bridle in his chaps; and the fine was divided amongst the magistrates, as one of them testified, who being out of court at the time when the division was made, was by his brethren in iniquity defrauded of his share, who was so offended at the same, that he openly complained of the wrong he had received by his brethren in this matter. obs. you may perceive, that these old charter-men had strange kind of laws, whereby to enrich themselves and impoverish others, as is already proved by their aforesaid unrighteous laws, so also by this it appears to agree with the same. that no merchant must advance more than 4 d. profit in the shilling, for goods from england, by means of which law their clothing and necessaries were to them, & all of their way, at a cheap rate; for themselves were only merchants of law, and their priests merchants of that which they call their gospel; which law is their wills, and their gospel other men's lines made ready to their hands; but the laws of the english nation are otherwise, and the true gospel, to them that believe, is the power of god to salvation. by religion, with deceit, makes hypocrites to be a cheat. a brief account of some of the three hundred and nine persons that suffered persecution under the anti-christian power of the new-england church, besides those four servants of the lord cruelly-murthered by a law made at the rulers and priests high court of injustice against dissenters found within their jurisdiction belonging to boston, which are as followeth, viz. nicholas vpshall, an old man full of years, seeing their cruelty to the harmless quakers, and that they had condemned some of them to die, both he and elder wisewell, or otherwise deacon wisewell, members of the church in boston, bore their testimonies in public against their brethren's horrid cruelty to the said quakers. and the said vpshall declared, that he did look at it as a sad forerunner of some heavy judgement to follow upon the country; which they took so ill at his hands, that they fined him twenty pounds, and three pound more at another of their courts, for not coming to their meeting, and would not abate him one grote, but imprisoned him, and then banished him on pain of death; which was done in a time of such extreme bitter wether for frost, snow and cold, that had not the heathen indians in the wilderness woods taken compassion on his misery, for the winter season, he in all likelihood had perished, though he had then in boston a good estate in houses and land, goods and money, as also wife and children, but not suffered to come unto him, nor he to them but more of his sufferings are at large related in the books of the quakers suffering persecution under the anti-christian power of the new-england church, and so proved to be by their foregoing laws. and more of their cruelty will here follow. the next i shall mention is anne burden, whose husband being dead, and having left money due to him from several in new-england, his said widow came into their jurisdiction to get in the said debts, for the use of herself and children. now th●se persecutors had nothing to charge her with, but that she was a plain quaker, and for that, and coming into their jurisdiction she must abide the penalty of their law, and which they executed upon her, and then sent her away without getting in her just debts, for which she came into their jurisdiction. which was one of their inventions to pay debts to dissenters with, especially the quakers. christopher holder and john copeland, men of good estates, and of good life amongst men, for being of those called quakers, and coming into their jurisdiction, and declaring the truth, were cruelly whipped with their old wont whip of three fold cords, each being well knotted, fit for their church work, wherewith their member whipper gave each of these men thirty stripes a piece, which were so cruelly laid on, that at the sight of their torn flesh and bloody backs, a tenderhearted person fell down dead; after they had been thus whipped, they were put into bridewell, and there kept for three days without bread or water; and with their wounded backs were forced to lie on the board's without bed or straw; and for nine weeks were kept close prisoners, where none, except the gaoler (that devout member) could come unto them. after which, both they and coll. rous's son of barbadoes had their ears cut by the member of their peace, viz. the common hangman. now the reason why john rous escaped with the cutting his ears only, was the kindness they had for him, in respect to the knowledge they had of his father, and his being a gentleman, as is more at large in the said book of sufferings. marry clark, a merchant's wife in london, who for being called a quaker, and coming into their jurisdiction, must undergo their law, though a mother of children and tender of body, to which they had no regard but after their manner imprisoned her for twelve weeks, and with their church whip, fitted as aforesaid, for their priest's work, gave her weak tender body twenty cruel stripes, which was the more harder laid on by reason of their hirelings saying, the quakers did not flinch for their being so whipped, because the devil was got between the skin and the flesh, or the flesh and the bone; but more of this is to be seen in the book of sufferings, under the anti-christian power of new-england's priests and rulers. laurence southwick and his wife, an ancient grave couple, either one or both of them being members of their church in salem, who in good nature differed from most part of the said church, for their entertaining some strangers called quakers, were fined, and their goods taken away; besides, their sons and daughters were great sufferers, by long imprisonment and cruel whipping, as also, they had their goods taken away by the priests drudge●, and some of the said southwicks children were ordered to be sold for bondslaves; and he and his wife, and son josiah, either the one or all three of them were banished the jurisdiction upon pain of death. horrid gardner, a mother of many children, & a young woman with her, having a young infant at the breast, both which women were imprisoned and cruelly whipped, with more of the like cruelty, as is to be seen in the said book of sufferings. richard dowdney, an honest harmless man, tho● after the romish invention, was committed to prison and whipped, after their usual manner, with thirty stripes, with which his flesh was so torn and cut in pieces, that many people lamented at the sight thereof, that such an innocent man as he was should be so horribly abused, as in said book of sufferings is more at large to be seen. sarah gibbins and dorothy waugh, two young women, for being of those called quakers, and coming into their jurisdiction, had for their entertainment in boston, the flesh of their backs beaten to pieces by their priests chief workman, viz. the executioner of their law at their gallows, and when so whipped was by another member of their church's peace, viz. their gaoler, shut up in a close room, where none was suffered to come unto them, and there kept three days together without all manner of food. and at another time kept them eight days without all manner of provision; and had not the lord preserved them at this time, beyond what men of themselves are able to do, they had perished under the cruelty of the new-england church; their said sufferings are more at large to be seen in the said book of sufferings. william shattock, an inhabitant in boston, for being one first day found in his house alone, was by one of the priests drudges carried to their house of oppression, for entertaining of strangers; and in the time of his being kept there with the like whipping, some of the priest's crew endeavoured to persuade his wife wholly to leave him, and that they would place out his children to masters of families, that tended their meetings, whose suffering is more at large to be seen in the said book of sufferings. thomas harris, for declaring against pride and oppression (which the guilty proud oppressor's itching ears could not endure to hear) was committed to their house of oppression, where the gaoler (that devout member of their church shut him up, and kept him eleven days, five of which he kept him without bread; and though he had before been cruelly whipped, yet this merciless wretch gave his weak bruised body twenty blows with a pitched rope, whose sufferings are more at large to be seen in the quakers book of sufferings, as aforesaid. several innocent women called quakers, had their bodies searched for witches, which work was done by the old member women, with such cruelty to their bodies, that one of the women said, she did not the like trouble undergo in bearing and bringing forth five children, besides what more they suffered under the power of those who were as free to run as the devil was to drive them to perform his lust in the doing the aforesaid anti-christian work, of which more is to be seen in the aforesaid books of the quakers suffering under the anti-christian power of new-englands' churches. william brend, for coming into bostons' jurisdiction, where all the aforesaid work of anti-christ was acted and done, and for being one of them called a quaker, and declaring the truth, was cruelly whipped, and shut up into close prison, where the gaoler and devout member of their church, locked his neck and heels together, so close that there was only room for the lock to go between, in which manner he kept him sixteen hours, and then gave his weak bruised body one hundred and seventeen blows with a pitched rope; having thus beaten him for dead, a out cry was among the people, that the gaoler had killed a man; which to appease the people, bills were set upon the prison doors, and else where, that the gaoler should be dealt with; but said brends coming to life again (though the doctors said, it would be admittable if he did recover, for his flesh was beaten into a mere jelly of blood, however, as god would have it, he came to recover again, then to prevent the gaolers being punished for this his great piece of wickedness to said brend, john horton their chief high priest said, if william brend will endeavour to beat our gospel ordinances black and blue, it was just upon him if he was beaten black and blue; and withal in said book, that his counsel was to his church▪ brethren in iniquity, to put off the bear skin, and put on the fox skin; which indeed is ●●●eling priest like, the more to deceive poor ignorant. people, of whom god hath opened the eyes of many, by which they see hirelings deceit. william robinson a merchant, ma●maduke stevinson, and william leddra, as informed the one a clothe● the other a husband man▪ and mary dier wife to mr dier of rode island, all which four were ●eat sufferers in bostons' jurisdiction under the cruel bloody hands of the church members, before they drove them with great number of their priest's club man to their bloody altar, and many more by the priests and rulers with their con●enting members in iniquity, were intended to be she●●●leed an offering to their anger and revenge, had not the king's letter as aforesaid, stopped their bloody hands, and when the priests drudges, with their m●ny swords, staves, guns and drums to drown the testimony of the lords servants from being heard among the people, had driven them to their bloody altar, where they cheerfully delivered up their lives for the truth of god and testimony of jesus, which was to the beholder's admiration, and great rage of their persecutors; when they were executed they cut down their bodies, letting them fall, to the breaking the skulls of some, and ripped off their shirts, dragging their naked bodies either by the heels, or with a rope, and as they dragged them, gnashed their teeth with mere madness, as they went on with their work of dragging their bodies to a filthy stinking pit, into which they threw some of their naked bodies, and never would grant their friends liberty to secure their bodies from ravenous creatures, by putting about the place any manner of fence whatsoever. seeing the wickedness of these persecutors to be great, and their lies against the people of god many, i shall here give one instance of the many which might be produced to prove them liars that ●ay the quakers might have had their liberty to have been gone, but would not accept it, therefore say such liars, they were accassary to their own death. but to prove the contrary here is the copy of a merchant's letter in print, who was no quaker but an eye and ear witness to what follows, viz. boston, the 26th of march, 1661. on the 14th of this instant here was one william leddra put to death▪ the people of the town told me, he might go away if he would; but when i made further enquiry, i heard the marshal say, that he was chained in prison from the time he was condemned, to the day of execution. i am not of his opinion, but yet truly me thought the lord did mightily appear in the man. i goes to one of the magistrates of cambridge, who had been of the court that condemned him, as he told me himself; and i asked him by what rule he did it? he answered me, that he was a rogue, a very rogue. but what is this to the question, said i? where is your rule? he said, he had abused authority. then i goes to the man and asked him, whether he did not look on it as a breach of rule, to slight and undervalue authority? and said, that paul gave festus the title of honour, though he were a heathen; i do not say, those magistrates are heathens. i saw then when the man was on the ladder, he looked on me, and called me friend, and said, know, that this day i am willing to offer up my life for the witness of jesus. then i desired leave of one of the officers to speak; i said, gentlemen, am a stranger both to your persons and country, and yet a friend to both (and i cried aloud) for the lord's sake take not away the man's life: i said, remember gamaliel's counsel to the jews, if this be of god it will stand, if not, it will come to nothing; but be careful you be not found fighters against god. and the captain said, why had not you come to the prison. and the reason was, because i heard the man might go if he would, and therefore i called him down from the tree, come down william, said i, you may go away if you will. then capt. oliver said, it was no such matter, and asked me, what i had to do with it▪ and besides, told me to be gone. i told him, i was willing, for i cannot endure to see this. and when i was in the town, some did seem to sympathize my grief, but i told them, they had no warrant from the word of god, not precedent from our country, nor power from his majesty to hang the man. i rest, your friend, thomas wilky. samuel shattock, joshua bufsum, john small, john barton, john smith, edward wharton, samuel gaskill, danell southwick, his father and mother, sisters and brother, and john kitchen and his wife, with others in salem, were great sufferers by these persecutors, both by long imprisonment, cruel whipping, loss of abundance of goods & cattle, besides land of john smith's, and several banished upon pain of death, and others of them ordered to be sold for bondslaves; all these were of salem, and more of the same town suffered much. obs. by the fore going lines the reader may perceive how they have persecuted all persons differing in judgement from the way of their priest's worship. in the next place i shall here instance a little relating to what them of the church of england suffered; by which the reader may the better understand their bold attempts, who neither fear god nor regard king or bishops. first, you note the manner of settleing their courts, viz. the manner was and yet is, at the opening of their courts to have some one or more of their priests to pray, and to make tedious long insiped graces, as they call them, before and after meals, as also to consult what penalties and sufferings were most fit to ●e inflicted on offenders against their arbitrary and unjust law, and especially against any that were found to descent from their way of worship, in which cast the priest's advice would commonly be, to lay on load enough, and the advice was believed to be sanctified, though at the same time, they could not but understand they drank the wine of the condemned, so expressly charged as a sin on the magistrates, rulers and priests of jerusalem, of no small provocation to the holy one of israel, though the matter in controversy relating to such as dissented from their priest's worship, was no matter of offence against the law of god, nor the laws of the english nation, notwithstanding they minded not, but would proceed, according to their own wills without respect to any, no, not so much as to the church of england, of which many suffered under the new-england church, which pretended to make no separation in point of faith and doctrine, as witness that letter of their fore fathers and leaders into this land, from on board the arrabella, to the bishops and fathers of the church of england, calling them brethren, and begging their prayers, and as who would know more of it, let them see it in a little book printed at boston by joshua scottaway, about the year 1693. remarkable in that it is set forth by a member of their own communion; but how well they carried it to the church of england, and its sons, these few of the many instances which might be produced, may sufficently evidence against them, that they spared not any found to descent from their priest's way of worship, as for instance, dr. child's, samuel maverick and other merchants, of whom i have before hinted, were of the way of worship of the english church, and by these persecuto●● cruel laws, were not suffered to have the least benefit of or by th●t worship; and being wholly denied of their privilege, belonging to the worship of the church of england, they were found to petition to england, for the maintaining their right in boston, but so soon as this was known to these persecutors, they impeached the aforesaid persons of high rebellion, for attempting the same, and forthwith imprisoned them, and fined each of them three hundred pounds, the wh●ch money was the means of their escaping the new-england church members gallows, wh●ch was not only, for murderers, and the like, but also for th●se that dissented from their priest's worship, and were found to petition to england for freedom and liberty of the english churches way of worship, as of the like nature more will appear against these persecutors by what follows. 2. the next was their aim to punish mr. jordan, who was a preacher according to the way of the english church, but he living in ferdinando george's patent, they were fain to use much of their deceit to get him to boston, which by deceit was at last on this wise performed, by one of their brethren in iniquity, who with a small vessel traded in the place where the said mr. jordan preached, he pretended great kindness to this mr. jordan, and withal invited him aboard his vessel to feast it, and when he had got the ancient gentleman aboard, brought him prisoner to boston, and there delivered him into the hands of these persecuting priests and rulers, who, for his preaching and baptising according to the way of the english church, they imprisoned, and fined him in a great sum of money. the story is large, and would swell this small book beyond its intended bulk, to relate it at large. 3. then again, about the year 1684. when their charter was even sick at heart, and ready to expire, yet they could not forbear dabbling in their old dirty puddle of persecution; for at that time a young man, who had been ordained by the bishop of london to preach at carolina, where being sickly, was advised to remove and change the air, whereupon he came to boston, and was civilly ●ntertained by some old england men; and after some time recovering his health, he came to be known to be a minister of the church of england, and for that he was a master of the french language, he was by some french protestants, and others of the church of england recommended to a poor and dark corner of the province, to preach to a small number of poor people, amongst whom he passed some few months before the persecuting priests found him out; but at last hearing that he preached & baptised according to the way of the church of england, they stirred up the magistrates against him, who were at their beck, and soon sent a constable, who beset his longing, and required him to desist from his preaching, etc. at his peril; but he knowing on what foot he stood, continued his preaching and baptising, according to his commission from the bishop of london, till at length he was threatened with whipping, and understanding that the constables had warrants from the persecuting magistrates to seize him, and for that end beset his lodging; whereupon he returned privately to carolina. 4. nor were the affronts offered to robert ratcliff, the first estblished minister of the church of england in boston, to be passed in silence: he came over in the year 1686. with authority from the crown of eng●and to establish a church in boston; this man's meekness and sobriety was sufficiently knwn, yet were his affronts man●, by which they sought to weary him out, not only by personal abuses and public injuries, in breaking the church windows, tea●ing the service book, making crosses of man's dung on the doors, and filling the keyholes with the same, but also seized his clerk, and compelled▪ him to prison in a wheel barrow, of which nature they acted many abuses against the aforesaid and his church, insomuch that no minister longer being able to endure their horrid anti-christian abuses which did more daily increase against him and his church, was necessitated (after about four years stay amongst them) to leave his charge, and go for england, where the late queen preferred him to a living. 5. and as a father sign of their hatred to that church, at the time of the revolution, they imprisoned three gentlemen, members thereof, without any charge against them or since, save that they had officiated as justices of the peace under the king's commission, and although they joined with eight or ten more of their own church members, who sat and jointly acted with them in the same county, yet could find no complaint against their own church members; so apparently partial were they to their own party, and violent to others, by which (as aforesaid) though not the thousand part of what might be brought against them of their great wickedness against the people of god and the king's subjects, ye● with a little more of the like nature to be added hereunto, will by their works be sufficient to the understanding of every true christian, that the new-england church is not the true church of christ, that worship him in the spirit and in the truth, viz john 4.24. having thus mentioned some of the abuses offered to some members of the church of england, i shall now draw conclusion so soon i have given a short account of the trial of thomas maule of salem, about his book, called truth held forth, etc. i shall begin thus, viz. thomas maule, a young man about twelve years of age, came from england to the island of barbodoes', and from thence (for his health sake) came to new-england, where hearing much preaching and loud praying; he began to think with himself, what manner of people are these? whose streets ring with the noise of preaching and p●aying; and having lived amongst them about three years he did experience their words to be good, but by their works to have no good hearts; at the end of which time he removed himself to another of their towns, called salem, where he found the church members to be in all respects (as to religion) one with them in the other towns of their jurisdiction; but in salem he found a people of few words and good works, agreeable thereunto, with which people he joined, by keeping to their meetings, which so enraged the church members, that with their priests, they stirred up the rulers against him, and fined the man where he kept fifty pounds for entertaining him; after which for his keeping open shop upon one of their fast days, and speaking the truth, against their priests railing against the quakers, and the like, they five times imprisoned him, thrice took away his goods, a●d thrice cruelly whipped him, besides their many other abuses, and also accusing him of posting his books on the first day of the week, but he affirming the contrary, and though two evil minded persons, whereof one was a thief, who then unknown had stolen goods in her keeping, both which did say he posted books, as aforesaid, notwithstanding i● being utterly false, and the evidence of no credit, yet recorded they him a liar, when he had spoken no other but the truth relating to the same, shall now proceed to the sum and as aforesaid. from which i shall now proceed to the sum and substance of his late trial, which was writ by a hand then present in their courts, as followeth. the copy of their warrant province of the massachusets bay. to the sheriff of the county of essex, his under sheriff or deputy, greeting. whereas there is lying before the honourable lieutenant governor and council a printed pamphlet, entitled. truth held forth and maintained, & put forth in the name of thomas maule, said to be thomas maules of salem within your county, & published without licence of authority, in which is contained many notorious and wicked lies, and slanders, not only upon private persons, but also upon government, and likewise divers corrupt and pernicious doctrines utterly subversive of the true christian and professed faith. these are therefore in his majesty's name to will and require you forthwith to make search in the house of the said maule, and where else you shall be informed any of the said pamphlets are, or may be found, seize and secure all that you shall find thereof, and to cause the said thomas maule to appear before the lieutenant governor and council, at the council chamber in boston, upon thirsday the 19th currant, to answer what shall be objected against him, on his majesty's behalf. in the premises hereof fail not, making return of this warrant with your doings therein. dated at the council chamber in boston, december 12th, 1695. by command of the lieutenant governor & council. jsaac addition, secretary a true copy, attested by george curwin, sherriff. a copy of the return of their warrant. salem december 14 th', 1695. according to the within warrant, i have been at the house of thomas maule, and there have found thirty one of said pamphlets, and them secured, as required, and have seized the said maule, and delivered him to the keeper of their majesty's goal in salem, there to be secured, in order to his apearance at the time and place within mentioned, and have sent the said thomas maule by the bearer jeremiah neale, to answer as within expressed, which jeremiah neale i do constitute and appoint to be my lawful deputy, to make return of this warrant, with the body of said maule, and to act in all things which shall be further ordered relating to me concerning the within warrant. george curwin, sherriff. this is a true copy of the origenal return, attested by jeremiah neale, sherriff-deputy. thomas maule being brought by the said neale, and said goaler out of salem county, into boston county, where appearing at the council chamber, before the said governor and council, who put divers ensnaring questions to said maule. he made this reply, that no righteous law did bind or enjoin him to answer further than he saw good, and that they had not acted agreeable to law, in compelling him into their county, to stand trial before them, who in the case were not his equal judges, and if they did intend to proceed against him, he did expect the benefit of the king's laws, which did a●●ow his judges to be twelve men of his equals, belonging to the same county he was of. the which being consented to, four hundred pounds' bond was given for his appearance to answer them at their high court of injustice against him, at ipwswich the 19th of the 3d month may, 1696. but before said maule came to his trial they imprisoned him and sacrificed sixteen pounds worth of his books, a burned offering to their anger and revenge, though upon his trial the jury could not find him in the least guilty of any evil fact, relating to their charge about his book. the time of the courts setting being come, said maule was called to his tyral before thomas dan●ord, elisha cook and samuel sewal, three of the council, and judges of this court, who demanded of thomas maule, if he did own that book entitled, truth held forth and maintained, etc. to be of his putting ●orth? to which he said, the outside of the book did not fully manifest to him what the inside thereof did contain. the book being given to him, when he had looked it throw, returned it again, with this answer, that all printed in the book, he did own to be truths, which he did vindicate & maintain, excepting the printers errors, and some mistakes occasioned through authors, which were common to good books. then judge danford said, you are to answer for printing this book without liscence of authority. to which said maule answered, that if he were accountable for so doing, it was not to them, but to the bishops of the eng●sh church, and the king did allow him the same liberty to have his book printed, as they did to any of their subjects, which separated or dissented from their way of worship. then judge cook said, you are to answer for publishing your book in this government without the licence of the present authority. to which said maul replied, the government is the kings, or aught so to be, and the books are my own goods, who as an english merchant have good right by the king's laws to dispose of my goods in any of the king's plantations. then anthony chickley, the king's attorney said, your books are not lawful goods to be disposed of amongst the people, because they contain notorious wicked lies against the churches and government of this province, as likewise false doctrine, utterly subversive to the true christian and professed faith, besides scandals upon many private persons. to which said maul made this reply, that the charge was yet to prove, and which they could never prove against him; and so long as there was no evil fact, he was no transgressor of any righteous law; and if their cha●ge were true, as it is not, it is no more than what they and their priests are guilt▪ of against all persons, as well as the church of england, that dissented from their priest's way of worship, for which cause, and persecuting the people of god and the king's subjects to death, their doctrine, principles and practices were condemned by all true christian people that did know or hear of their unrighteous works, which f●●●hese many years have caused god's judgements to come upon this land; and for not repenting are you now given up to murder one an there, through the devis accusation, by spectre evidence, accusing both priests, rulers and people of being witches then judge cook to this purpose said, you are a horrible liar, and it wer● better you would forbear in this nature running yourself into further troubl●, by accusing the churches and government after such a horrible wicked rate, as you have done, and still do persist in, for which you are to suffer, according to your deserts. to which said maul made this reply, that the truth by him to them was spoken, and so lo●g as he did not ●xceed the bounds thereof, he did not fear their whip, goal or gallows; and withal, that relating to this his testimony, he had suffered ten times 〈◊〉 their jurisdiction, five times by imprisonment, three times by the loss of goods taken from him, and twice by cruel whipping; and now before this trial they had both imprisonmed him, and burnt sixteen pounds' worth of his books, and 〈◊〉 yet not given him any copy of the particulars of the charge against him. to which judge danford said, it is but reason that thomas maule should have a copy o● what we have to charge him with, and also time to consider of it, which by the renewing of his bond, he may have till next salem court. which was agreed to. then judge cook said, that he would have thomas m●ule to be more careful of what he said relating to the scriptures, and not to undervalue them, as he had already done, by comparing his book with the bible. to which maul answered, that to compare that with the bible which was agreeable to the holy scriptures in the bible, could be in no way found to contradict or undervalue the bible. and as to errors now so much talked of, he did not know of any book that was free; for as some of the learned have said, beza committed eight hundred errors in his first translation of the new testament, which by amending through his second translation, left three hundred errors therein. and by comparing mat. 27 v. 5. w●th acts 1.18. proves as great a mistake as any he knew to be in his book▪ judge cook commanded this sentence to be writ down. then said maul desired it might be writ down, that at present he did so believe. which being done, he said, that if through his now so believing did prove an error, he did hope, through a contrary belief to be free of the error before his next trial. then judge cook said, then your belief is changeable, and so contrary to the quakers principle of perfection, that it overthrows their whole religion at once. to which thomas maule made this reply, that it was not so, because, said he, every true believers warfare makes a change from worse to better, that through grace, by faith, they come to forsake the error to join with the truth, which makes free from all that is evil; and had not the like in measure, been my state, to have departed from evil, i had not become a prey to you, who have caused me to suffer for the truth, as it is manifest you have done. then judge danford said, thomas maul, forbear, we have something else to do than to spend time to hear you p●ate after this kind of rate. to which thomas maul answered, that he was willing to forbear without further trouble to him, by or from them. a copy of the grand jurys presentment, as also a copy of the judges charge. at a superior court held at salem, for our sovereign lord the king, in the county of essex, in the province of the massathusets bay in new-england, the 10th day of the 9th month, 1696. the grand jury do present thomas maul of salem, shopkeeper, for publishing, or putting forth a book, entitled, truth held forth and maintained, wherein is contained divers slanders against the churches and government of this province; and for saying what he did before the honourable court at ipswich, in may last, as will appear on record, reference thereunto being had, may more at large appear, as in this hereunto annexed. james stivens, foreman. thomas maule being bound over by recognizance to this court, and being asked concerning a book put forth by him, entitled, truth held forth and maintained, etc. did in open court declare an● say, that there was as great mistakes in the scriptures as in his book, and instanced, comparing mat. 27. v. 5. with acts 1. v. 18. and this being read to him, desires to be understood, that at present he believes so, at the superior court of judicature held at ipswich on the third tuesday may last, 1696. a true copy, by adington davenport, clerk. dr. benjamin bullivants speech, in the first part of the pleas 〈◊〉 the presentment, is as followeth, viz. to the presentment of the grand jury, exhibited against tho. maule this present court, always saving to himself the liberty of such further pleading and defence, as by law are due unto him, viz. first, that the uncertainty of matters alleged in the said presentment is so notorious, that he that runs may read them; and the lord cook says, the law requires certainty in all cases, especially such as are penal to the lives or estates of the subject, which uncertainties are. secondly, that neither county, year or day are laid in the said presentment. thirdly, that the presentment is not laid to be made for the king, who if any one hath offence by whatever in this case alleged against the defendant; neither is his majesty's name or s●ile used in the presentment, as is necessary, and required particularly by the laws of this government. fourthly, that it is not laid upon oath, as it ought to be, if it hold a man to his answer. fifthly, that the jury had no plaintiff to inquire for, they being sworn, well and truly to try, and true deliverance make between our sovereign lord the king, and thomas maule the prisoner at the bar. and yet the king's name and style entirely omitted in the presentment aforesaid. sixthly, that if it were true the defendant should have said, as is laid to his charge in the indictment, that there was as great mistakes in the scriptures as in his book, yet this can charge no fac● by law punishable upon him▪ the presentment wanting an invendo or meaning, whether they were the holy scriptures or words of god, since there are profane as well as holy scriptures, and the defendant may be supposed, in construction of law, to intend as well profane as sacred scriptures. seventhly, that it was not laid to be against the peace of the king, or so much as a misdemeanour. to these arguments judge danford answered, that the presentment was according to former usage, and their custom, and that want of form could not destroy the ●udictment, or hinder the coming to his answer. judge cook said, as to the invendo, that it would have been necessary if the particular quotations had not been named, which he did believe thomas maules' counsel would not deny to be the books of the holy ●●riptures, which was conceded unto. then was anthony chickley, the king's attorney, ca●●ed upon, to know what he had to say to it on the behalf of the k●ng, who only said, he would answer to the third exception brought against the indictment, viz. that it wanted the stile of the k●ng, assi●t●g a●d not want it, founding his assertion on th● preamble of the ●●●ictment, it being said, at a superior court held at salem for our sovereign lord the king. reply to this was made, on the behalf of the defendant, that the preample had no relation to the body of the presentment, since the presentment was presumed to begin at these words, the grand jury do present. the court, after some further debate, overruling the pleas, the prisoner is left to say for himself. thomas maule to the judges on the bench, as followeth, viz. to you who have set yourselves to be judges in this case, against me▪ as you are invested with magistratical p●wer by commission from the king, i do respect you, out wherein you do assume to yourselves the power of the bishop's court, as in this case, i do no more value you than i do jack-straw. and if you will approve yourselves wise men, you ought to mend the many rents by you already made, through the mismanagement of the tru● committed to your charge, before you proceed to make a further breach upon me, who has not given you any just occasion so to do, which if you are resolved to make a rod for me, that it may be easy, for the more ease of your own that is to come, for it is said by him that cannot lie, the same measure that men make, the same shall be made to them again; and if your power, by which you act against me, do long continue, he that now enjoys a good estate, under your government, in seven years' time, after this rate, may not be left worth a groat; for as you are set to watch over the people, things are at that pass, through your means, that they have the greater need to watch over you, otherwise they are like to be undone by the heavy burdens you lay upon them. then the cause, with the said maules' book, and a speech made to this purpose by judge danford, was committed to the jury, viz. you have now heard the cause, which with the book is now committed to your hands, who have taken a solemn oath to do the thing that is right in the sight of gods as near as you can; therefore you ought well to consider the horrid wickedness of thomas maules' setting forth the book now ●e●ore you, in which there is contained a great a●al of blasphemous matter against the churches and government of this province. you weak 〈◊〉, that when the husbandman hath take● great care and labour to fence in his f●●ld of wheat, and there comes a ravenous creature and makes a gap through the fence for other like creatures to go through and spo●l the corn, and to trample down and lay waste the h●sband-mans field, will he not use his utmost endeavour to destroy such a ravenous creature that doe● so? how much the more are we to preserve the h●dge of the good husbandman with which he hat●, by his ordinances, and good government, fenced and hedged his churches and people in this pr●●gi●●●, against which the wicked work of thomas maule doth wholly tend, to overthrew all good in church and commonwealth, which go● hath planted amongst his people in this province; w●ich ●ause with the said maules' book is now before you, to do that which is right relating thereup, 〈◊〉 near as god shall enable. in answer to which speech, thomas maule made this r●ply to the jury, and said, jury look well to the work which you are now going to do, the cause is now committed to you, who are to be governed by the king's law; no law of our nation have i broken, as to you will appear; the book has no evidence in law against me, further than to you it doth appear, i have writ or caused to be printed any thing contrary to sound doctrine, and inconsistent to the holy scriptures of truth, which if you take up with any part of these judges unjust charge against me, and say, there is such like matter in my book as they charge me with, you may seek to the printer for satisfaction, for of any such like matter in the book i know not, and my hand is only to my copy, which now is in another government, in the hands of the printer, and my name to my book made by the printer does not in law evidence to prove the same to be thomas maule, no more than the spector evidence, in law, is of force or validity to prove the person accused by said evidence to be the witch, but rather conclude the spector to be the witch; therefore jury look well to your work, for you have sworn, true trial to make and just verdict give, which if you miss of doing me justice, the fault will lie on your part▪ for these my accusers on the beach, are but as clerks to conclude your work with amen. in some small time the jury brought in their verdict for the prisoner, whom they found not guilty, at which the judges seemed much dissatisfied therewith, and ass● the jury, how that could be, having the book before them? who answered, that the book was not sufficient evidence, for that thomas maules' name was there unto set by the printer, and the matter therein contained not cognizable before them, they not being a jury of divines, which this case ought to be. then judge danford made this speech, that tho, thomas maule had escaped the hands of men, yet he had not escaped the hand of god, who would find out all his evils and blasphemies against his church and people, and for which wickedness god did reserve him▪ or further ja●gm●●o come upon him. in answer to which, said maule replied, that he was no way guilty of their charge, but had great cause to praise god ●or his di●●●erance by the jury, who were made instruments of freeing him out of the hands of them, who had manifested their unrighteous works against the people of god, and the king's subjects, as their father's be●ore had done in which time of the said reply, judge, danford called out, take him away, take him away. the reader may hence understand, that the distance of these persecutors from the king, and much further froms god's truth, is the cause that by them, many of the people of god and the king's subjects suffer, more than they would do, were they where their complaint could readily be heard by the king, who would not suffer his subjects to be persecuted under the anti-christian power of the new-england church, who yet continue the old stroke, according to their power, against the quavers, at this very t●me of liberty of conscience, respecting to religion now allowed by the king and powers of england, as for instance, they now do suffer in their jurisdiction, especially in the town of linn, where for the priest's maintenance, they compel the quakers oxen, their pots and platters, with the of other household goods more worse in that respect, then of the first two wiked priests we read, sam. 2.12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17. for which sin god will reward the wick●● priests▪ finis. a vindication of w. p. from the erroneous and false testimony of thomas budd: being in answer to a sheet of his, entitled, a testimony for truth, against error. by joseph wyeth. london, printed and sold by t. sowle, next door to the meetinghouse in white-hart-court in gracious-street; and at the bible in leaden-hall-street, near the market, 1697. a vindication of w. p. from the erroneous and false testimony of t. budd; etc. having met with a sheet, entitled, a testimony for truth against error, subscribed thomas budd, in which he charges w. p. with denying some of the chief principles of christianity: after reading the sheet, i was very desirous to get those books of w. p's mentioned by t. budd, that i might examine the quotations from which he pretends to draw this charge of error; accordingly i did (with some difficulty) get them, and have examined the pages referred to by t. budd, and have just reason to be amazed, that after such picking, leaving out, and sometimes forging w. p's adversaries words for w. p's; a man should have so hard a forehead as to entitule it, a testimony for truth; when in truth, it is a testimony of as great villainy as one man can be capable of towards another; and nothing but malice and apostasy could be the parent of so monstruous a production; which yet i know cannot at all influence those who know, and impartially consider the different characters and qualities of w. p. and t. budd: but to some who know them not otherwise, than as this erroneous testimony against truth represents, may (not having the books to examine) take this monster of a draught for w. p's true figure. for the information of such (and now having the books by me) as also to do justice to w. p. i have undertaken this, wherein i shall do little more than to set down the places as they are quoted by t. budd, and then subjoin the places as they are in w. p's books, & which will be found sufficient to prove, that w. p. does not deny, the father, the word, and the holy spirit to be god, nor that christ was wounded for our transgressions, and bore our griefs; nor deny that jesus christ was the son of god, that died at jerusalem; nor that we are justified through the righteousness of christ; nor that jesus is the messiah, the christ of god; or the resurrection of the body; nor undervalue the scriptures: all which blasphemy, heresy and error he pretends to find in the books following, as they are cited by him. his first quotation is out of sandy foundation, p. 12, 13, 15. if god, as the scriptures testify, hath never been declared or believed, but as the holy one, then will it follow, that god is not a holy three, nor doth subsist in three distinct or separate holy ones; and since the father is god, the son is god, and the spirit is god: then unless the father, son and spirit are three distinct nothings, they must be three distinct substances, and consequently three distinct gods: thus he. now to give some light in this matter, it may be convenient to give the reader a brief account of the occasion of this book and method which the author w. p. has taken in the writing of it: as to the first, viz. the occasion it was this, thomas vincent, in a meeting of his, said, that the quakers held damnable doctrines. george whitehead being present, stood up, and as it was his place, willingly would have given the people an information of our principles; which, if objected against, he was ready to defend them by the authority of scripture and reason; which t. vincent prevented, and put the following question: whether we owned one godhead subsisting in three distinct and separate persons? this was the occasion of this book, next as to the method it is this, w. p. refutes the the doctrine built upon the foregoing question; first from scripture, next from right reason; showing many irreligious and irrational consequences flowing from that doctrine; and all this intermixed with many informations and cautions concerning it. now the two first lines of t. budd's quotation are part of an argument drawn from scripture by w. p. against the doctrine in the quotation above, and the rest of that quotation is part of one of those irreligious consequences which w. p. shows in the book before cited, to be the result of the same doctrine: but besides this abusive patching, and setting down as w. p's sentiment; what w. p. sets down as an irreligious consequence. t. b. does not come up to the terms of question which is concerning three distinct and separate persons subsisting in one god. if he can prove this from scripture, than he proves what w. p. hath denied. but while t. budd does only set down the testimony of the apostle, viz. that the father, the word, and the spirit are the three that bear record in heaven, and are one god. he does not at all show himself to believe the question in the terms w. p. denies it. and for such holy three, as is mentioned in scripture, which have none of the terms w. p. opposes, he hath sufficiently shown his belief thereof, not only in the confession of faith hereafter mentioned, but also in his innocency with her open face; and his key. and many of his books which do at all border upon that point of faith. this for t. budd's first charge. his second is, the denial of christ's satisfaction; for proof of which t. budd hath made a quotation out of the same book, viz. sandy foundation, p. 16, 18, 21, 22. w. p. saith, the justice offended being infinite, his satisfaction ought to bear a proportion therewith, which jesus christ, as man, could never pay, he being finite; and from a finite cause could not proceed an infinite effect— since christ could not pay what was not his own; it follows, that in the payment of his own, the case still remains equally grievous, since the debt is not hereby absolved or forgiven, but transferred only; and by consequence we are no better provided for salvation than before, owing that now to the son which was once owing to the father. it no way renders men beholding, or in the least obliged to god, since by their doctrine he would not have abated us, nor did he christ the least farthing. hitherto t. budd's quotation, but the doctrine which w. p. does in the pages before cited oppose, is mentioned by w. p. in p. 14. of sandy foundation, and is in the terms following: doctr. that man having transgressed the righteous law of god, and so exposed to the penalty of eternal wrath, it's altogether impossible for god to remit or forgive without a plenary satisfaction; and that there was no other way by which god could obtain satisfaction, or save men, then by inflicting the penalty of infinite wrath and vengeance on jesus christ the second person in the trinity, who for sins past, present, and to come, hath wholly borne and paid it, to the offended infinite justice of his father. against this rigid and unscriptural doctrine w. p. brings about fifteen texts of scripture, and from them shows the great forgiveness of god; after them in p. 17, 18. he refutes this doctrine from right reason; showing, why jesus christ, as man, could not be a plenary satisfaction; the place is thus, p. 18. 6. the justice offended, being infinite, his satisfaction ought to bear a proportion therewith, which jesus christ, as man, could never pay, he being finite, and from a finite cause could not proceed an infinite effect; for so man may be said to bring forth god, since nothing below the divinity of christ itself, can rightly be styled infinite. of this reason t. budd cut off the last line. but to go on, w. p. having in this, and six or seven particulars more, shown the contrariety of the doctrine above, to right reason, he than numbers up nine irreligious and irrational consequences from the afore doctrine: the seventh and eighth consequences in p. 19 runs thus, since christ could not pay what was not his own, it follows that in the payment of his own, the case still remains equally grievous; since the debt is not hereby absolved or fogiven, but transferred only; and by consequence we are no better provided for salvation than before; owing that now to the son which was once owing to the father. 8. it no way renders man beholding, or in in the least obliged to god, since by their doctrine he would not have abated us, nor did he christ the least farthing, so that the acknowledgements are peculiarly the sons; which destroys the whole current of scripture testimony, for his good will towards men. o the infamous portraiture, this doctrine draws of the infinite goodness: is this your retribution? o injurious satisfactionists. of this, t. b. in his quotation hath taken but about two lines. t. b's third charge is, that w. p. hath denied jesus christ, the son of god, that died at jerusalem; his quotation is out of serious apology, in answer to t. jenner, p. 146. w. p. saith, he (t. jenner) takes up a whole chapter in his endeavours to prove, that we deny the lord that bought us, because we deny that person (the son of god) that died at jerusalem to be our redeemer. it will be convenient here, to give some brief account of this book, before i give the quotation out of it, in order to its better understanding, which in short is this: this book, entitled, a serious apology, etc. was written by w. p. in answer, and for the clearing of the people called quakers, from the malicious aspersions, erroneous doctrines, and horrid blasphemies of tho. jenner and timothy taylor, in a book of theirs, entitled, quakerism, anatomised and confuted: in which book among other things they say, the quakers deny the lord that brought them, etc. in reply to this, w. p. in p. 146. of the apology, says, 1st. he takes up a whole chapter in his endeavours to prove, that we deny the lord that bought us, though very falsely, and with equal insuccess. and here he brings in a quotation out of quakerism anatomised, etc. p. 153, 154. the quotation is thus out of jenner, because we deny that person (the son of god) that died at jerusalem to be our redeemer. and immediately w. p. subjoins, which most horrid imputation has been answered more (i believe) than a thousand times; that is, that he that laid down his life, and suffered his body to be crucified by the jews, without the gates of jerusalem, is christ the only son of the most high god: but that the outward person (or body only, which is what w. p. meant as appears by what follow) which suffered was properly the son of god, we utterly deny, and it is a perfect contradiction to their own principles; a body hast thou prepared me, said the son; then the son was not the body, though the body was the sons; this brings him more under the charge of making him but a mere man, than us, who acknowledge him to be one with the father, and of a nature eternal and immortal; for he was glorified with the father before the world was. the patching and horrid forgery of t. budd in this place is surely without example, for here he has not been content only to pick a line, but also to join to it (as w. p's, a quotation which w. p. took out of his adversaries book to answer as above. to this forgery, he has also added folly in that after picking two or three lines of the last quotation, he has laid them down in his sheet, as a charge of a different nature from the last mentioned, which he makes his fifth charge; but this his folly, blind malice, and forgery, falls back upon himself: such is the shame and confusion of him, and all others; who, by apostatising from the spirit of truth, are become darkness. i proceed now to t. budd's fourth charge, drawn out of p. 148. of this same book, and which is, that w. p. denies justification by an imputative righteousness t. budd's quotation runs thus, that we deny justification by the righteousness which christ hath fulfilled in his own person for us (wholly without us) and therefore deny the lord that brought us. in answer to this w. p. saith, and indeed this we deny, and boldly affirm it, in the name of the lord, to be the doctrine of devils, and an arm of the sea of corruption, which does now delude the whole world. if men may be justified while impure, then god quits the guilty. death came by actual sin, not imputative in his sense; therefore justification unto life, comes by actual righteousness, not imputative. but in the apology it appears: that w. p. does in this page of 148. bring a quotation out of t. jenner's book, p. 155, 156, 157, viz. that we deny justification by the righteousness which christ hath fulfilled in his own person for us (wholly without us) and therefore deny the lord that bought us. to this w. p. subjoins, and indeed this we deny, and boldly affirm it in the name of the lord, to be the doctrine of devils, and an arm of the sea of corruption, which does now deluge the wbole world. and then goes on, i shall not so much insist upon this, as i have not upon the other four particulars, they having been irrefutable considered and answered by my friend and partner in this discourse, in the first part of this apology: only this i shall observe and add: first, no man can be justified without faith (says jenner) no man hath faith without works (any more than a body can live without a spirit (saith james) viz. the apostle.) therefore the works of righteousness, by the spirit of christ jesus, are necessary to justification. secondly, if men may be justified, whilst impure, then god quits the guilty; contrary to the scripture, which cannot be. thirdly, death came by actual sin, not imputative in his sense; therefore justification unto life comes by actual righteousness, and not imputative. there are three more conclusions which follow, and which for brevity sake, i omit, willing only to recite so much as may take in all that t. budd has here and there picked to make up his quotation, only next immediately after the three conclusions; which, i say, i have left out, there follows a short confession of our faith, which it may be of service to the honest-minded to publish; as also a testimony against the apostasy, hypocrisy and envy of t. budd, who could not but see it when he mangled that part of the book, as he thought, for his service: it is in p. 149. we do believe only in one holy god almighty, who is an eternal spirit, the creator of all things. and one lord jesus christ, his only son, and express image of his substance, who took upon him flesh, and was in the world, and in life, doctrine, miracles, death, resurrection, ascension, and mediation, perfectly did, and does continue to do the will of god, to whose holy life, power, mediation and blood, we only ascribe our sanctification, justification, redemption and perfect salvation. and we believe in one holy spirit, that proceeds and breathes from the father and the son, as the life and virtue of both the father and the son, a measure of which is given to all, to profit with; and he that has one has all; for those three are one, who is the alpha and the omega, the first and the last, god over all, blessed for ever, amen. t. budd's sixth charge against w. p. is, the denying the messiah the christ of god; for which he cites a book, entitled, the christian quaker; written by g. w. and w. p. against the injurious attempts of many adversaries; and it will stand against the weak, though black, attempts of this man, who in this quotation of his, has with a hardened face, cut a sentence asunder in the midst, which i question whether any spanish inquisitor has yet done, when he willingly raked in a book for heresy; his quotation is thus, chr. quaker, p. 96. abraham saw my day and rejoiced: they still harping upon that visible body, not thirty years old, replied, thou art not yet fifty, and hast thou seen abraham? taking that to be the messiah the christ of god, and saviour of the world; he meant, which they saw with their carnal eyes. i shall now give the quotation from the book itself, but am obliged to recite the whole paragraph (the above quotation being in the middle) and the whole being so dependant upon every part, that it cannot, without some hurt to the meaning of the whole, be separated; it is thus, chr. quaker, p. 96. before i conclude, take this notable saying of christ to the jews, and what may be collected from it to our purpose, before abraham was, i am: abraham saw my day and rejoiced, john 8. 56, 57, 58. which affords us briefly thus much: that though he was not so visibly come, yet it was the very same he that came about one thousand six hundred years ago, who was with the fathers of old; and that abraham, who lived nineteen hundred years before that outward appearance, saw him, and his day. if this be not the import of the place, i know none; for the jews, not believing him to be the messiah, thought it high presumption for him to compare with abraham; art thou greater than our father abraham, who is dead, and the prophets are dead? unto which he answered (that he might prove himself to be the true messiah, the christ of god) (the foregoing part of this sentence, as also the explanatory parenthesis t. b. cut off, and gins his here) abraham saw my day, and rejoiced: they still harped upon that visible body not thirty-three years old, replied, thou art not yet fifty, and hast thou seen abraham? taking that to be the messiah, the christ of god, and saviour of the world, he meant, which they saw with their carnal eyes. to which he rejoined with a verily, verily, i say unto you, before abraham was, i am; then took they up stones to cast at him, etc. by all which it is most clear, that unless our adversaries will deny him that so spoke (which yet t. hicks 's anti-scriptural opinion doth imply) to be christ, who singled and distinguished himself as the messiah, the christ of god, and saviour of the world, from that visible body, not fifty years old indeed; both christ that spoke then must needs have been long before abraham 's time; and that such holy ancients were not without a sight and prospect of him, and the day of his glorious appearance, or that most signal manifestation of himself in that body prepared for that great and holy purpose, witness the exceeding clear and heavenly prophecies, that were as so many forerunners or introductions of the evangelical state. this true quotation does sufficiently show w. p. to own and believe in the messiah, the christ of god. i come now to t. budd's seventh charge, viz. christ, the son of the virgin, denied by w. p. to be the seed of the promise. in this charge t. budd has hid his head; he having made a quotation, but named no book, nor any page where his (i doubt not) false quotation may be found; therefore i pass it by without notice. t. budd's eighth charge is, the resurrection of the body denied by w. p. the book he quotes is w. p 's rejoinder to john faldo, p. 369, 370. his quotation runs thus: w. p. saith, but suppose j. f 's relative (it) to hold, i do deny that this text (viz. it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body) is concerned in the resurrection of man's carnal body at all.— i say, this doth not concern the resurrection of carnal bodies, but the two states of men under the first and second adam. in this, as in the former, he has played the inquisitor, taking here and there a line, as best liked him; only his pretence may be more fairly made for clipping this than any of the former; for they were all english, but here is a little greek and latin; yet of the english he has not taken all he ought and might have done. i will recite the two paragraphs out of which he has pillaged his quotation. the greek text is first set down, and then the latin translation, it runs thus, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 1 cor. 15. 44. seritur corpus animale, resuscitatur corpus spirituale. i e. a natural body is sown, a spiritual body is raised: that is, they lay down a natural, and take up a spiritual body, or in lieu of a natural receive a spiritual body; not that the natural body shall be transubstantiated into a spiritual body, or that admitting of such an exchange, that the spiritual is the same numerical body, that was the natural; for so the natural and spiritual body would be one and the same; but suppose j. faldo 's relative (it) to hold, i do utterly deny that this text is concerned in the resurrection of man's carnal body at all. i will recite it with the five following verses as they lie in our english translation. it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body; there is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body; and so it is written, the first man adam was made a living soul, the last adam was made a quickening spirit; howbeit, that was not first which was spiritual, but that which is natural, and afterward, that which is spiritual; the first man is of the earth, earthy; the second adam is the lord from heaven; as is the earthy, so are they that are earthy; and as is the heavenly, so are they also which are heavenly; and as we have born the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly, verse 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49. i say, this doth not concern the resurrection of carnal bodies, but the two states of men under the first and second adam, men are sown into the world natural, and so they are the sons of the first adam. but they are raised spiritually, through him who is the resurrection and the life, and so they are the sons of the second adam, the lord from heaven, the quickening spirit. the very words of the apostle undeniably prove this to be the scope; how else could the first adam 's being made a living soul, and the second adam a quickening spirit, be a pertinent instance to prove natural and spiritual bodies; upon which follows, that the natural was first; that is, the first adam; and than that which is spiritual, which is the second adam, the quickening spirit, the lord from heaven, who came to raise up the sons of the first adam, from their dead to his living, their natural to his spiritual, state. having now given the paragraphs entire, out of which t. budd had picked his quotation, and which does sufficiently confute the wrong suggestions thereof, i may not well omit to take some little notice of his reply to the above quotation: it is thus, therefore let p. w. know, etc. (he has forgot to place the letters right) i can assure t. budd that w. p. does know, and believe the good doctrine of christ's crucifixion, and the advantages of a true christian upon it; and i can also assure t. budd, that i look upon him no more cordial an adviser to w. p. than satan was to our saviour, when he repeated the text to him, and he hath given his angels charge over thee, etc. t. budd hath done with advising, and now threatens: and if he thinks to stop our testimony, etc. and i do tell t. budd, that if he thinks to go on without opposition in forgery and wresting, than i think he will find himself mistaken, since we have solomon's advice for to use the rod: and indeed the night is so far spent, and the day so dawned, as sufficiently discovers where to apply it. but now t. budd would appear one that can calculate mysteries, and point at a beast by its number; but if he will take the numerical letters of his own name, he will find he makes up three times that beast, and seven to spare. as for what he promises for the year 1700 and 1750, i can without such calculation tell him, that let the freedom of the upright-hearted and faithful towards god be as in his divine wisdom he shall see meet; yet t. budd, with all that apostatise from the spirit of christ, and turn their backs upon his holy law, will still be in severest bondage. i now come to his last charge against w. p. which is, that he hath vndervalued the scriptures. the book t. budd quotes, is christian quaker, p. 144. 142. (i am not to account for his folly in postponeing the bigger number) his quotation is thus: christ left nothing in writing, as the rule that we hear of; and doubtless had he intended the rule of his followers to have been a written rule, he would have left it upon record with all punctuality; this must be believed, and that done on pain of eternal death. if the scriptures were the rule of faith and life, etc. then because they cannot be the rule in their translations, suppose the ancient copies were exact, it cannot be the rule to far the greatest part of mankind; indeed to none but learned men. in this part of the book g. w. and w. p. come to speak concerning the scriptures, which were asserted to them, to be a general and perfect rule of faith and life (viz. to all men) they have divers arguments to show the contrary; their eighth argument lies thus: 8. furthermore, if the scriptures were the rule of faith and life, etc. then because they cannot be the rule in their translations, suppose the ancient copies were exact, it cannot be the rule to far the greatest part of mankind, indeed to none but learned men; which neither answers the promise relating to gospel times that is universal, nor the necessity of all mankind for a rule of faith and life. (here he cut off the conclusion of this argument) in p. 144. there is another objection thus, but if the law engraven and delivered to moses was a rule to the jews, why should not the law delivered by christ, and written by his apostles, be the rule to christians. to this it is answered, answ. christ left nothing in writing as the rule, that we hear of; and it is not to be thought he was less faithful in his house than moses (this last sentence t. budd cut out) and doubtless had he intended the rule of his followers to have been a written rule, he would have left it upon record with all punctuality, this must be believed and that done, on pain of eternal death (what follows t. budd has cut off) nor did his followers writ in the method of a rule, as the law was written; nor did they so call or recommend what they writ. having now done with all the false charges of t. budd upon w. p. and put the several quotations in their true light, from whence the unprejudiced reader may make a solid judgement of them. i shall in few words bespeak the readers patience, while i more particularly speak concerning this t. budd, who was in unity of profession with w. p. divers years after all the books by him were written; and in which he now pretends to find such errors and heresies, and i doubt not was acquainted with all, or a great part of them: but now (like eve) his eyes being opened, he is become a man of gath, one who gives information to all (as himself says) who seek after truth and righteousness; but which, i am sure, is not to be found in this his testimony, nor in any testimony that ever was given forth by the spirit of apostasy, in which he is. he calls himself a servant of christ. to this his claim it may be proper to ask him the question which was put to the man in the gospel; friend, how camest thou hither? it is but a few years since he made public profession of what he now calls errors and heresies; and the distance is very great betwixt the erroneous and heretic, and him who is truly a servant of christ; and we have not seen any marks of repentance and recantation, in order to this his pretended restoration; and it is not to be allowed in the nature and order of conversion, for a man who hath through ignorance embraced error, and through the viciousness of his will followed heresy, to become reallya servant of christ, and a true member of a christian society without deep sorrow, hearty repentance, and great acknowledgements of god's goodness, and his own former vileness and ignorance; of all which we have heard nothing, but have often heard, that like the pharisee, he is crying out, i am more righteous than thou; from whence i conclude he is at great distance from a true possession of this claim. i shall now, honest reader, give thee a dismiss, only desiring that the quotations truly made may be to thy edification, as the detection of t. budd's fraud will be, i hope, to thy satisfaction. the end the holy truth & peo●●● defended and some of the weapons and strength of tho●● 〈◊〉 of darkness broken and scattered, by 〈◊〉 light and power of truth in an answer to the chief passages 〈◊〉 letter, written to me, and replied to by me, 〈◊〉 imprisonment in this place, where i have been a prisoner a year and a half, without any law broken, or cause 〈…〉 part; who only came innocently and peaceably to visi● 〈…〉 in prison. by me isaac pennington, pri●●●er for the testimony of truth, (for could i have denied 〈…〉 might have avoided the snare) at reading goal. the bows of the mighty men are broken, and they that 〈…〉 with strength, 1 sam. 2.4. printed in the year, 16●● the preface. a letter was sent me from a dear friend of mine, (bearing date the fifth of the eleventh month, 71.) who had long been greatly distressed, and could not find relief in the way of her former profession and church fellowship: for whom i greatly traveled with the lord, and towards whom my spirit was made very tender by him. i still felt the seal of god's love and mercy towards her, even in her lowest condition, deepest despair, and sorest captivity, through her great and manifold temptations: and my testimony to her at times, from the lord on this behalf, was sometimes of use to her, to bear up her spirit, till the day of gods visiting and redeeming her, with the virtue and healing power of his salvation; which blessed be his name she hath since had sweet experience of, and true peace and joy in knowing the true head, holding him in the faith, and being held by him. now this letter of an ancient acquaintance of mine, which i had answered long ago, one that belongeth to sr. henry vane (as she signified in her letter to me) desired she should see, which is said to be an answer to a letter of mine. if my answer had gone along with it, i should have took no further notice of it: but it going without my answer, lest it should do hurt to those to whom the lord hath done, or is doing good, i am engaged in spirit to reply somewhat to it, and to give forth to others what the lord giveth in to me upon this new occasion. how greatly, truly, and purely i have loved the man, i will not boast (the lord knoweth, with whose knowledge herein i am content) but o that this his paper might not be laid to his charge at the great day! which i am afraid it will unless he repent of it: for indeed it is not a fruit of life from god's holy spirit; but of the growth of egypt, and babylon. it was sent me in the form of a book, as if it had been sent abroad for special service. there was no name at it, as if it were an arrow to fly in the dark and wound secretly: but no weapon form against the israel of god shall prosper, either from this hand or any other, and every tongue that riseth up against them in judgement will god condemn. this is the heritage of the despised people and servants of the living god in this our day, whose righteousness is the righteousness of his son bestowed upon them, wherewith he himself hath clothed them, as the anointed eye now seethe, and all eyes shall one day see and tongues confess to the glory of god the father. the holy truth and people defended, etc. in an answer, etc. he excepteth against those words of mine to him, in a former letter (of jun. 24. which i have not here by me) that when his eyes are opened by the lord he shall then acknowledge, that we oppose no truths of the lord, but hold forth what we have received from him. to which he thus replieth, is redemption by christ's blood no truth of the lords? which he chargeth one of us in particular, and many others in general, with denying. answ. we are gathered into that, and abide in that, in which no truth can be denied: and are in him that leadeth into all truth, and teacheth to deny no truth that ever was held forth by the spirit of the lord. some of us may not yet be grown up in understanding into the mysteries of the kingdom, which god hath revealed and made manifest to others: but yet we do not deny, but own one another in our several measures of knowledge, and sense of things, and in our several growths. and we own and acknowledge in god's sight, the several dispensations he hath brought forth, both before the law, and under the law and prophets, and in the time of ch●ists appearance in the flesh, and after when he sent his spirit, and all the time the church was in the wilderness, and now she is coming forth again in the brightness and glory of the father, looking forth as the morning, fair as the morning clear as the sun, terrible as an army with banners. nor do we disowne any thing that is of god in the professors of this age: but only that which we know and are required by him to testify against, as being not of him. o that they could weigh our words and testimony in a right spirit! for they would not then be so offended at, and speak so against us as now they do; and the lord knoweth, we would do any thing that lieth in us to remove the stumbling blocks that lie before them: but it cannot be done to that spirit in them, before which god almighty hath laid the stumbling block, that it might stumble, and fall, and be snared, and broken, and taken. but if they could come into another spirit, and feel unity with, and the birth of another spirit, the birth of that pure wisdom should find no stumbling block or offence in this precious dispensation of truth, wherewith god from on high hath visited us. and as for denying redemption by the blood of christ, o how will he answer this charge to god, when none upon the earth (as the lord god knoweth) are so taught, and do so truly, rightly and fully own redemption by the blood of christ, as the lord hath taught us to do! for we own the blood of the lord jesus christ both outwardly and inwardly, both as it was shed on the cross, and as it is sprinkled in our consciences, and know the cleansing virtue thereof in the everlasting covenant, and in the light which is eternal: out of which light men have but a notion thereof, but do not truly know nor own it. and let him consider, b fore the time of antichrist, it was a great matter to know and own christ outwardly, as he appeared in that body: but since the antichristian spirit hath got that, the distinguishing knowledge and owning of christ, is to know and own him inwardly. the outward knowledge and confession now (as it is generally separated from and held forth in way of distinction from the inward) is but the knowledge and confession of babylon, and not the true living knowledge and confession of christ in and by the spirit of the father, which is the knowledge and confession of all the children of the true and heavenly mother, which is the mother of all that are born of the spirit. he repeateth ●hose words of mine, that we do not make any finite thing our righteousness, but christ of god is made into us righteousness. this he saith, is well spoken, a●d wisheth we may always abide on this confession. answ. these words arose in me from an inward feeling of him who giveth righteousness, and of the righteousness given, and the lord preserving me in that life, i shall feel so for ever, and confess so for ever. and truly i can testify of no other righteousness: for blessed be the name of my god, i feel the righteousness of his son revealed in me daily from faith to faith. in his name i have been gathered, in his name i live, and in him i feel righteousness, and indeed there is nothing but righteousness, holiness, truth, life and salvation (and the like) in him. and he that is truly in him, is righteous, and holy in him; there being in him a new creating of all that are there, and a renewing into the holy and heavenly image, which consists in the righteousness and holiness of truth. he desireth me to give a plain answer to this question. is christ of god made our righteousness by faith in his blood, or in his spirit? answ. a pretended faith in christ's blood, without faith in his spirit, is but dead and notional. except ye eat my flesh, and drink my blood, saith christ, ye have no life in you. it is the spirit that quickeneth, the flesh, saith he, profiteth nothing. now the faith must be in that which quickeneth: and the faith in that which quickeneth, is holy and righteous; and the man who is found in it, is justified, through that faith in the quickening power, in the sight of god. thus abraham was justified in the sight of god, and thus are the children of abraham to be justified, even through believing in that holy power and spirit which requireth obedience, and justifieth the obedient, and condemneth the disobedient for ever, rom. 4.24. he saith, he fears a snake in this green grass, when i say from his life, virtue and power, revealed in us, is our conformity to him. answ. it were better and safer for him to fear at home: for the snake is in his own grass, and many notional high soaring expressions without true knowledge. but can there be any conformity to christ without his life, vitrtue, and power, inwardly revealed? what else can conform unto, and bring forth in the image and likeness of christ? he saith, he feareth lest i make this life and virtue our righteousness, which is indeed the fruits of it .. answ. who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge, and runneth out from the truth into his own imaginations? what was christ's righteousness? was it not the life, the virtue, the spirit of the father in him, he being one with it in the faith of it, and in the obedience to it; and is not the righteousness of the head and the body the same, communicated from the head to the body? are they not all of one, and the righteousness one and the same in both? so much of christ's spirit, so much of his righteousness: and out of his spirit out of his righteousness for evermore. for the righteousness of the son is revealed and communicated from faith to faith in his spirit: and so christ is indeed made righteousness to them that are found in his spirit; and they are covered with the garment of righteousness and salvation, who are covered with his spirit. he saith, our righteousness is before this. answ. what is our righteousness before any of the life, virtue, and power of christ revealed in us. is god a respecter of persons? doth he justify any out of the holy covenant, before he hath made a change in him? how doth this man with his vain imaginations turn the whole way and council of god upside down? he brings a scripture to prove this, the spirit is life for righteousness sake. answ. that scripture (which is, rom. 8.10.) speaks of those in whom christ is and dwells: and there indeed, the body is dead because of sin, and the spiritis life because of righteousness. this is plainly spoken, and plainly felt, and known as it is spoken. o that he had the true sense and understanding of it, as it is in jesus. he saith, righteousness is in order of nature before sanctification. answ. that which is holy is righteous. there is nothing righteous in the eyes of the pure god, but that which is holy. the head was really holy and righteous; and they that are in him partakes of his holiness and righteousness, and are really holy and righteous in him: and faith which purifies the heart, and through which sanctification is, must needs be in order of nature before the justification which is by it; for god justifieth no unbelievers, but believers only. yea the wicked must forsake his way and the unrighteous man his thoughts and turn unto the lord, which cannot possibly be without some degree of sanctification, before the lord will have mercy and pardon the soul its sins. isa. 55.7. and chap. 1.16, 17, 18. he saith justification is an act of grace passed upon us by god freely, without respect to us as godly, nay properly reflecting on us in that moment as ungodly. answ. i charge this in the sight of god, for absolutely false doctrine and contrary to the gospel. for god justifieth no man as ungodly, but calleth upon men to repent and turn from their ungodlyness, and he will have mercy upon them, justify and save them. now m●n are not ungodly in turning from their ungodlyness, but changed: and so their state is in some measure changed, before justified. if abraham was ungodly when god called him, yet in forsaking his own country, and following the lord, and offering up his son, he was obedient, and not ungodly, and in that obedience he was justified. a man may have notions of justification in his mind, and accordingly take himself to be justified, when he is not: but there is no man justified by the lord till he be changed, translated into him in whom god justifieth, out of the place of condemnation, into the place of justification. for till men are changed by the spirit and power of the lord, they are but darkness and in the darkness, where no justification is. it is the believing, the obedient, the children of light, that are justified by the lord. he saith, were we godly before or at that time, it were no act of grace to pronounce us righteous. answ. he that witnesseth salvation in christ jesus, witnesseth it to be a continued act of grace. grace appears to the soul, grace teacheth, grace enableth, grace maketh a change from the ungratiousness of the heart and state, and then grace (or god by his grace in and through christ jesus) forgiveth the sins that were committed before. for though the lord visit me with life, quicken me thereby, make a change in my heart and state, yet it is his mercy to accept me, and to pass by for his name sake my former debts and trespasses against him. alas the new covenant is wholly a covenant of grace and mercy; and the giving of christ drawing the mind to him, accepting and justifying in him, are works of grace and mercy towards this: so the spiritual israel may well sing this song in the land of holiness and redemption, o praise the lord for he is good, for his mercy endureth for ever. i can truly set my seal to this thing, that the more holy and righteous the lord maketh me in his son, the more sensible am i of his love, grace and mercy in justifying of me: and it is precious to me to witness justification and acceptance with him in and through his son. he saith further, but this is the bounty, the freeness, the munificence, the richness of the grace of god, to call things that are not as though they were. answ. take heed of abusing that scripture. god sent christ to renew, to redeem, to change, to make holy and righteous, to make people such as the father might be pleased with, accept and justify: and as christ maketh them so, the father receiveth and accepteth them as such. but god doth distinguish and call things as they are. he doth not call an ungodly man, an holy man, a justified man. but when he hath changed him, new created him in christ jesus, took him out of his old stock and planted him into the new, than he accounteth and calleth him so, and not before. it were better for men to wait upon god, to understand what his spirit meant in what he spoke, then to put form meanings of their own upon his words. he wrists my words, charging and reproving me, as if i said, the love of god was a bare thing. answ. those were not my words, nor did my words so signify; but my words were, that it is not by bare loving (or mere loving, or only loving) that god makes a man righteous, which is very true & manifest: for there is besides his love (in and through that love) the sending of his son, and revealing of his son, drawing to and transplanting into his son, to make holy and righteous in him. for holiness though it may be distinguished, yet it cannot be divided from righteousness; nor can a man posibly be righteous in god's sight, unless he be also holy in some measure. his reflecting words hereupon i pass by, though very unjustly and unchristianly cast upon me (without any just occasion given him by my words) which i desire the lord may make him sensible of, that he may be forgiven it. he blameth me for saying, we make no finite thing our righteousness, and yet he saith, we make the measure of the spirit (which each member of christ receives) our righteousness. answ. a measure hath the same nature with the fullness: a measure of the spirit and life, of the grace and truth which comes from jesus christ, hath the same nature that the fullness ha●h. all the life, all the new creation that comes from him and dwells in him is righteous and found righteous where ever it is found. yet i do not remember that we have thus expressed it, that that measure is our righteousness, but it is he who is the fullness, who is revealed in that measure, and it is he, who is our righteousness, our wisdom, our sanctification, our redemption: but it is in the holy pure measure of the heavenly gift that he is made thus of god to us, not out of it. he saith, the lord our righteousness redeems us, not properly by the life and spirit of his godhead, though that was in the work supporting, enabling him and carrying him up, in that great undertaking, but by the death and sufferings of his manhood. answ. this is strange doctrine, to make the manhood the main redeemer, and the life and spirit of the godhead, but the supporter, and the carrier up of the man in the work of redemption: whereas it was the word which created all, which also redeemed, he that left his glory and made himself of no reputation, but came in the form of a servant to do the will. it was the spirit and life of the father (even the eternal son) which took up that body, appeared in that body, offered it up a pure and acceptable sacrifice to the father, finishing the work therein, which the father gave him to do, joh. 17.4, 5. he saith, shall we think to answer the law by our obedience? answ. we do not look upon the law of moses, which was given to the jew outward, to be the dispensation of the new covenant, or to be the law of the spirit of life in christ jesus. but those who are in the new covenant, and have god's law writ in their hearts, and his fear put there, which preserveth from departing from him, and his spirit put within them, to cause them to walk in his ways and to keep his statutes and judgements and do them, and who live in the spirit and walk not after the flesh, but after the spirit, the righteousness of the law is fulfilled in these. yet they do not magnify and cry up their own obedience (nor call it their righteousness) but him from whom their obedience comes. for in the measure of his grace and living truth, the soul is one with him; and all that he is and all that he hath done is theirs, and it is he himself that is the righteousness of all that are in him: and they that abide in him partake of his righteousness from day to day, which floweth in like a stream upon them. i wish he could consider in what spirit it is, that he calls the white stone a ticket for the righteousness. doth he know the white stone with the new name? it is no less than the foundation stone, than the righteousness itself: and what doth he talk of bringing that as a ticket for the righteousness? he seemeth to pass by some things (which i spoke in tender love and weightiness of spirit to him) as the judgement of man in his day: but let him take heed, lest when be comes to appear before god, he then find it was the judgement of god's spirit, in the light of his day: which day is inward and spiritual, which believers are to hasten to, and which approacheth in every heart, as the night spendeth and passeth away. and all true christians and believers ought to wait for the passing away of the night, and the dawning of this day, and the arising of the day star in their hearts. he saith, christ is now ready to be revealed. answ. i believe he is to be revealed further and in fuller glory: but he is truly already revealed as the saviour, shepheard, and bishop of the soul, and many are gathered home to their resting place in him, which while they were scattered up and down upon the barren mountains (before the shepherd appeared and made himself manifest) they could not find. he seems to strike at the peace and joy which is of god, and to give it a dash, because minds estranged from the enlightenings and convictions of god, have much peace in their ways, and such are under delusions. answ. we do not tell men of the peace and joy we have in our god boastingly, but in a faithful way of testimony concerning, and invitation to, what we once wanted, but now have found under the leadings of the true shepherd. and the peace and joy which he gives, is an evidence and assurance in the hearts of those to whom it is given by him. and they that have been greatly distressed for want of the lord and his powerful arm of salvation, having met with it, it riseth up from life in them to testify and say to others, lo this is our god we have waited for him, and we will be glad and rejoice in his salvation. and o that ●e also were stripped of this dead, notional, comprehensive knowledge concerning the saviour; that ye might meet with the saviour himself, and receive that knowledge from him which is life eternal. and this, with the true peace and joy thereof from him, ye would find no delusion. he speaketh, of suffering loss and of phrases and expressions, better (saith he) to suffer loss in these then themselves to be destroyed. answ. let him apply this home. o that he saw how those phrases and expressions, and imaginary knowledge, which he hath brought forth in this letter, stands in his way to hinder the true knowledge, and that he cannot possibly receive the true knowledge, without being emptied of these, and parting wi●h them, for the excellency of the knowledge of the truth as it is in jesus: and without the true knowledge of jesus, men cannot but perish and be overtaken with destruction. then for being helpful to establish persons in grace. answ. such kind of doctrines as these do not tend thereto. they may establish men in such a notion of grace as he hath form: but they neither tend to lead to, nor establish in the grace itself, but keep men from it. nay i can truly say it, from him that is true, that he himself cannot receive the grace, the thing itself, till he part with these notions. and o that he might know the stone cut out of the mountain without hands, to dash his image, that the living one (who gives life) might be received by him, in that measure of grace and truth, which he inwardly dispenses to all that travel out of the darkness of their own imaginations and conceivings upon the scriptures, into his pure light. the main reason he giveth why he is not satisfied with that which i sent him, concerning the sum and substance of the true religion is, because it fights with his notions, even a stating of our righteousness with god, according to his imagination, which is absolutely a mere dream, which he hath dreamt of in the night, and not seen in the light of the day. for the cry of the spirit of the lord is in the gospel day, open ye the gates that the righteous nation which keepeth the truth may enter in. this is the truth, as god ha●h revealed by his own spirit, in this our day: but to say, this speaks of our state in him, without witnessing it in ourselves, is but a mere dream: and men cannot bring forth fruit to god, nor be lovely and pleasing in his eyes, but as their fallow ground is ploughed up, the thorns, thistles, briers, and that which is unclean and unholy removed. christ, he saith, is the heavenly man and mansion in whom we are thus blessed, and in whom we sit down in a state of rest and riconcilliation, heavenly and divine, before and without the consideration of any works of righteousness which we have wrought, etc. answ. if he means this concerning the full sitting down in rest; it is directly contrary to scripture. for none sit down in that full rest, before and without consideration of works of righteousness wrought by them. for that great judgement, is a time of rendering to every man according to his works. rest is the reward of the traveller: and his travels are not despised, but considered in his reward. mark, every one that improved the talon, had a reward from his lord and come ye blessed of my father inherit the kingdom prepared for you: for i was an hungered, and ye gave me meat, etc. math. 25. and the apostle is of the same mind with christ, when he saith, it is a righteous thing with god, to recompense tribulation to them that trouble you, and to you rest, etc. 2 thes. 1.6, 7. so that persons do not sit down in eternal blessedness in christ, before or without consideration of any works wrought by them. and then for sitting down in an heavenly divine state of righteousness, rest and peace in him here; it is a glorious state to be traveled to. the●e must be a translating out of the kingdom of darkness, into the kingdom of the dear son first. the kingdom must first be come, and the soul prepared to enter into it, at the gate which the spirit opens to him in the way of the gospel. for it is one thing to know somewhat of christ, and to begin to become a disciple; and another thing to learn of him so to deny a mars own wisdom, and will, as to come to receive and be born of that which is true and living of him, and to learn to wait aright for the opening of the gate, and entering into the kingdom and land of life, and to be prepared to sit down with him. for their is a state of discipleship, wherein a man hardly knoweth a settlement, so much as how to watch with christ rightly and constantly: but it is a great matter to be able to dwell and abide with him. none can do this; but he that can dwell with devo●ering fire and everlasting burn: for the pure word of life is a fire, and he that sits down in the heavenly place in him, must sit down in that fire. this he reckons the firm stable state which indeed is no state at all. there is not a state in christ without being in christ: and then the state is according to the souls being in christ: for then the work of regeneration, the work of sanctification, the work of justifying, etc. goeth on and a man is with god, according as he is framed and new created in christ, and not otherwise. so that the life and power of the lord jesus christ, is found judging and condemning whatever is not of god; and justifying only what is of god in him. for the soul than comes into the new covenant which requireth and justifieth that which is new, all that is wrought in god; and condemneth all that is wrought out of him. and so here is the true sense and knowledge of sin, by the new, and pure law of the new covenant, and the advocate known and repentance given by him upon all occasions, to those that wait upon him, and the sprinkling of the blood, and remission upon repentance. this is the new and living way of the lord jesus christ, which he hath consecrated for all his (made known in the demonstration of his spirit) which will stand for ever: whereas men's aprehensions about those things which they have gathered and comprehended of themselves out of the scriptures (in the supposed light of their natural reason and understanding) are but dreams and will vanish even in their own hearts, if ever the true light arise the e. he saith, this state can never fall nor be finally fallen from. answ. there is a way of coming to christ, and there is a way of preservation in christ. for there is a power that redeems; and men are preserved by that power in subjection to it. and so every one, that thinketh he standeth is to fear, and take heed lest he fall: and not to boast and say, i am in a state of justifycation, which is firm and cannot be moved; and it cannot fall, nor be finally fallen from, for ye are kept by the power of god, through faith, unto salvation, keep to the power which preserves; hold that fast which thou hast, let no man take thy crown. keep the faith, make not shipwreck of it, and of a good conscience. o that men knew the right doctrine, and way of coming to christ! (which they cannot do, till they are taught of the father, joh. 6.45.) and the right doctrine and way of standing and abiding in him. for truly men's professed coming to christ, believing and standing at this day, is generally notional, outward, without; but not in the inward life and power itself, without which no man can come to him, nor stand and abide in him. he chargeth us, with setting up a covenant of works; always doing and never done; a covenant to be performed by us, for ourselves, not by christ for us. answ. i would he saw in the true light how unjust and untrue this charge is. for the lord god of life knoweth that he himself hath taught us the new covenant, and thereby taught us to wait upon himself in his son, to work all our works in us and for us: and this we daily experience, that we can work nothing, but as he works in us. therefore our whole course is a waiting on him in stillness, to witness him appearing and doing all in us: and blessed be his name, we do not wait in vain. but if he think all works are excluded out of the new covenant, he greatly erreth: for the works of god's spirit are required and have a place therein: and god and christ (the king and shepherd) is the judge of his people in the new covenant, and justifieth or condemneth according to the law thereof. in the faith and obedience he justifieth: in the unbelief and disobedience he condemns, without respect of persons. and it is a precious thing in the gospel ministration to come to god the judge of all, and to witness true judgement set up by god in a man's own heart, that by the ministration of the pure judgement there the soul may come to learn righteousness, of the holy teacher and shepherd, even the lord jesus christ, who is just and faithful under his father, in the impartial ministration of the new covenant. hereupon several charges he brings against us, through his own mistakes and misapprehensions of us. as first, that our doctrine employs free will and power in the creature. answ. we have never experienced free will nor power as of ourselves, but as we have been turned to god's power and received it from him; nor did we ever testify to others, that they could receive and embrace truth in their own will & by their own power. o that this person had true discerning of, and were severed from that spirit which thus chargeth us! for whoever receives this testimony concerning the inward light of our lord jesus christ, shall never find himself able to do any thing therein by his own will and power: but there witnesseth gods begetting him out of his own will, by the life and power of truth. secondly, he chargeth it, that it maketh the election of god altogether frustranious. answ. election of the seed, in the seed, it doth not at all make frustranious: but men's wrong apprehensions concerning election out of the seed, the true doctrine of election doth not con●●●● with. he hath chosen us in him; so that in him, to wit, in christ the choice is; and he that will make his election sure, must make the seed sure to him; growing in the nature thereof, wherein the election is to the truly obedient. he saith, our righteousness with god is the foundation. answ. but is there not somewhat which is the foundation of our righteousness with god? and can we be righteous with god, till we come to that foundation, and be made righteous by it? must we not first believe in him? and is not faith a gift, which comes from the holy root, and maketh a change in them in whom this gift is found? doth not faith make a difference between them that believe, and them that believe not? so that so soon as ever there is true faith, and it thus works, the state is changed: and there is no justification before faith. for in the unbelief is the condemnation for ever. he that believeth not is condemned already: and what, is he justified there too at the same time? was abraham our father, justified in the unbelief and disobedience? or in believing and obeying god? for what saith the scripture? abraham believed god and it was counted to him for righteousness. that which i spoke of, he saith, is but the fruit and superstructure. answ. when christ directs men to the seed of the kingdom, doth he direct unto the fruit and superstructure? i spoke there of the seed, of the light, of the holy spirit, of the quickening virtue; is that the superstructure? or is that the fruit of men's being made righteous? nay must they not turn to that, receive that, believe in that, even in the light of god's spirit (for they are the true and right believers) before a man can come to be made righteous, or accounted righteous in the eyes of the lord? for none are righteous but in him: and all are out of him, till they be gathered into him. he instanceth in one passage of mine (in a book entitled, the sum or substance of our religion, who are called quakers) the words are these. this is the sum of all, even to know and experience what is to be brought down into death, and kept in death; what to be brought up out of the grave, to live to god, and reign in his dominion, and what to be kept in subjection and obedience to him who is to reign. now to experience it thus done in the heart, the flesh brought down, the seed of life raised, and the soul subject to the pure heavenly power, whose right it is to reign in the heart, in and by the seed, this is a blessed state indeed. for here the work is done, etc. these were my words. now mind, god is the teacher in the new covenant. now he that hath learned this of him, hath he not learned the true religion? and is not this a full sum and substance of religion? wh●n the apostle saith, pure religion and undefiled before god, is to visit the fatherless, etc. alas, might this spirit have said against the blessed apostle, that is not the pure religion, (not the sum or substance of pure and undefiled religion) that is but a fruit or superstructure. o that men had true sense and understanding! that they might favour the words that come from god's spirit, and the words that come from their own spirit; and might not be offended at that which is true, pure and living of him. but having disliked this sum, he giveth one of his own, in these words following. i say the sum, and that which first and mainly imports us to know, as the lord hath taught me; is that the old man is crucified with christ, and brought down into his grave, and that we are risen together with him, by the faith of the operation of god, and from this faith to be working with god, to mortify our members that are on the earth. answ. doth not christ send his apostles to preach the gospel, and give them this m●ssage, that god is light, and to turn their minds to the true light, that they might be enlightened by it? doth it not import men first to know that, whereby they might be crucified, before they can know themselves crucified thereby? so that christ did judge this as the first thing necessary to be known in the preaching of the gospel, and bid men p each the light, and turn men to the light, and to the inward appearance and voice of god's word in their hearts: and what are men risen together with him by the faith of the operation of god, while they are yet in their sins, in their ungodly state. and how can any witness the faith of the operation of god in this state? now it had been better he had forborn affirming that the lord taught him thus. for truly the lord never taught any thus. this is not truth from god, nor will it be owned by the lord as his truth, when he comes to appear before him: and he should have took it to himself, and not have put the name of the lord to it. but against this his own doctrine he raiseth an objection, in these words. shall we mortify that which is mortified already? his answer is, the old man which is crucified together with christ, is the state of the flesh and of enmity. this is passed away, and in this is the concern of our righteousness and justification properly. that which remains to be mortified, are our members upon earth, which are the fruits of that evil state, and in the mortifying of these, is the concern of our sanctification. the will of god is done in heaven, etc. answ. paul speaks of the law of sin in his members; and he also speaks of the body of death, and cries out against that, o wretched man that i am, saith he, who shall deliver me from the body of this death? he felt somewhat that nuorished and gave strength to the law of sin in his members, and looked upon himself as wretched, ti●l he could meet with deliverance therefrom. now some are of opinion that there is no being delivered from the body of sin, while in this life. dost thou look upon it to be done in christ for us without us but never to be done by christ in us? let me tell thee, if ever thou come to witness the pure, eternal light of the lord jesus christ revealed in thee, that will not find out some members on earth only, but the very body thereof and show thee the necessity of the putting off that body from thee, and that circumcision whereby it is to be done, which is the circumcision of christ. mark, the promise of the new covenant; i will circumcise thine heart and the heart of thy seed to love the lord thy god with all thine heart that thou mayest live. is not this the circumciosin of christ? doth not this cut off the body of the sins of the flesh in the particular, where this is witnessed? this is the truth as it is in jesus, even to put off the old man with his deeds. it doth not say, the body is put off in christ without us, and men must only put off the members or deeds; but, they must put off the body, and come to witness in themselves the very nature, spirit, root and principle, from whence they proceed; cut down and destroyed in them. they must feel the axe laid to the root of the corrupt tree; and it cut down in them (not think it enough to say it is done in christ for them) yea, they must also witness the lord arising to shake terribly the earth, in which the tree grew, that so the place of dragons, and serpents (where each lay in times past) may hence forward become the place of holiness, where grass may grow, and the new plants and flowers of the paradise of god. and how is the will of god done in heaven? is it done in heaven after this manner? have mercy and righteousness the pre-eminence the leading of the van (they are his own words) and said to go before and look down from heaven after this manner (the body of sin being put off in christ there) are there not those here on earth who dwell in heaven? whose conversation is in heaven, even the witnesses to gods holy truth, who are ascended up above the spirit of this world, and dwell in gods holy spirit, and who walk in the light, as god is in the light. hell is not far from the wicked; nor is heaven far from them, who are renewed in the spirits of their minds and who witness the passing away of the old things, and the new creation in christ. o that he could look back (in a true sense) and see how he hath wrested those scriptures! psal. 85.9, 10, 11. isa. 4.2. and ephes. 2.6. afer his own imaginations: and indeed in this spirit men cannot but turn the precious truth of god into a lie, that is, as to themselves, as to their own knowledge of it. it is known, how the branch of the lord is beautiful and glorious, and the fruit of the earth excellent and comely, and in what day it is so; which day is, when the lord shall have washed away the filth of the daughters of zion, and shall have purged the blood, etc. by the spirit of judgement and by the spirit of burning, isa. 4.4. then every one that is left shall be called holy, and the branch of the lord shall be glorious in the midst of them, and the fruits of the earth excellent and comely for them. and then they that are thus purged, shall sit with christ in the heavenly places, there being an abundant entrance ministered to them into the everlasting kingdom, 2 pet. 1.11. thirdly, he chargeth it with making the obedience and suffering of christ superfluous, except only as a pattern. ans. christ came to do the father's will, ●o obey, to suffer, totast death for every man; to fight with and overcome the devil, to offer an holy, spotless sacrifice for all mankind that through him they might witness atonement and acceptance▪ and the lord saw the use of this, and we witness the use of this, and find every thing in its proper place and service in him, who is god's covenant of life and peace in us and to us. but the work of this day, is not to preach up a notional knowledge of these things (the christian world so called, hath been drowned and dead in them long enough) but to bring to that measure of the spirit, to that sense of grace and truth, which is by jesus christ, wherein the benefit of these things is truly reaped and enjoyed: and indeed that is the work committed unto us from the lord, who gave us this testimony to bear, whatever men may think or speak of us. and whereas he speaks of our laying hold of passages, in his printed sermons to favour our cause. answ. that is his mistake, as to me. it was for his sake i mentioned it. there was indeed at that time somewhat stirring in him, which would have gathered him, had he known and obeyed its voice, and not run out into lofty notions concerning it. he had some sense then of a glory approaching, which he might have from the true prophet: though even then he ran out in his imaginations concerning it, and did not rightly apprehend, nor know how and when it appeared. he hath further charges against us, of crying up works against the workman, man's grace and righteousness against gods, conformity to christ, against christ; yea to make a christ of our righteousness, a saviour of our conformity. answ. o what will this man do, when the lord shall show unto him, that he hath charged not so much us, as the spirit and power, and precious appearance of the lord jesus christ with these things! we cry up works no otherwise then we are taught of god, and as the apostles and prophets have cried them up. faith is necessary, and works are necessary in their places: and the justification of each follow them. and he that receiveth the spirit of the son, and therein doth righteousness, is therein esteemed of god righteous, as the son ● righteous. 1 joh. 3.7. god justifieth us in his son, and loveth his holy seed to therein, and the faith that comes from him, and all the works that are wrought in him; and out of this holy root of life and power is no man, nor his faith, nor his works justified. then for man's grace and righteousness. where doth he hear us speak of man's grace? o what doth he mean? will he misrepresent the cause of his neighbour or brother to make it bad? and for man's righteousness, we do not cry it up or put it on; but testify men must be unclothed of it: and we ourselves were fain to part with it, and put it off before we could be clothed with god's righteousness. but the works of life, the works of god's spirit, the works of the new creature, the works of the new covenant; these are not man's works, nor unrighteous works, condemned by god, but justified in and through him that works them. the works wrought in us are truly acceptable, and we in him who works them, who is our righteousness. and concerning this peop e (these children of the new covenant) which the lord hath begotten and brought forth in this our day, that scripture is fulfilled in them and upon them their righteousness is of me saith the lord. isa. 54.17. well as long as the lord saith so, we matter ●ot though others say that our righteousness is of ourselves, and that it is our own righteousness, being assured that god's testimony in our hearts (as to this thing) will stand. he aggravateth this charge thus. and this to be done by those that have been so far enlightened, and that account all the relig on and profession in the world below them as carnal. answ. indeed we magnify truth, life, the anointing, the spiritual, the inward appearance of our lord jesus christ, to which we have been turned, and in it made spiritual: and all other knowledge, faith, profession, religion (which hath not its rise here) we cannot but call carnal. for the enlightening spirit of the lord hath given us this testimony to bear, against all the dead, notional professors of this age, who build from the letter (or rather their apprehensions of the letter) out of the life, all which cry up names of the foundation and corner stone, but refuse, reject, deny and turn fr●m the corner stone himself, and have neither skill nor patience to try what he is, in this his pure, precious, living, powerful and glorious appearance, in the spiritual light of his inward day, after the long thick darkness of the foregoing night. and woe would be unto us, if we did not thus testify. for, for this cause we were b●rn and brought into the world, to testify to the present appearance of our god, and of his christ in this our day; glory to him who hath called and chosen us to, and (in a true and precious measure and degree of his own pure life) made us faithful therein. this (saith he) is so far from giving us a list nearer heaven, that i cannot more properly resemble it, then to the coming forth of amal●ck, who met israel by the way when they were come forth out of egypt, and smote the hindmost of them, etc. answ. do not talk of having a list nearer heaven, o learn the way, the holy way, the living way wherein no dead, unclean thing can walk. learn to know god's spirit in yourselves from that which opposeth his spirit. ye have been long learning, after your old conceivings and apprehensions of the letter, o at length come to learn the truth as it is in jesus, which discovers sin and death, and the body of it, and crucifies and puts it off, and makes room in the heart for him that is true and pure. and then for amalecks smiting israel, o how greatly are ye mistaken; ye take yourselves for israel, and us for amaleck, whereas if your eyes were anointed, ye would see that we have been begotten and born of god's spirit, through the word of life which was from the beginning, wherein we have been circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, that we might worship god in his own pure spirit, and in his living truth; and that our god hath inwardly appeared to us, and led us out of egypt's land, and out of babylon also, and all the lands whereinto we have been scattered in the cloudy and da●k day: and that this is amalecks' spirit in you several sorts of professors (through your dark imagination's and conceivings about the letter) which riseth up against us, and this spirit in you feareth not that god who hath appeared, and by his own holy arm of power hath led, and is leading us. so that we may take up the complaint of the prophet in this day, who hath believed our report, and to whom is the arm of the lord revealed? for though we speak what we have heard, seen, and felt of the life which is eternal, and of the word which was in the beginning, yet ye are so far from the witness of god in your own hearts, that ye cannot receive our testimony, but oppose it with your dead, dry, notional, conceited, imaginary knowledge, which will stand you in no stead at all when ye come to appear before god. then he proceedeth, complaining against us thus: ah sir! in stead of clapping us on the back, and ministering to us in our journey, you clog our march, and fall upon our rear; in stead of serving the kingdom of christ, which the church is now in travel of, you deny the first principles of the gospel and wholly disown the hope of christ's second appearing and kingdom, knowing or acknowledging, as no other saviour, so no other kingdom, but a principle or a light in yourselves. answ. god is light, and in him is no darkness at all, and this is the message of the gospel, 1 john 1.5. and christ, who is one with the father, he is one and the same light with him, and we confess we look not for another besides him, nor for another kingdom besides the kingdom which is revealed in him; for the kingdom which is revealed and manifested in and by him, is the spiritual, eternal, everlasting kingdom, and there is not another. we do not say the fullness, or that the full glory of the kingdom is now revealed or enjoyed, (nay, we confess we have but the earnest, in comparison but a mea ure, a proportion) but this is the same in nature and kind with the fullness itself. and all that is of christ, of his spirit, of his nature is saving; the least measure of his grace that appeareth in any heart, bringeth salvation with it, the least touch of his finger hath pure life and saving virtue in it: yet this is not distinct nor separate from the fullness, and so it is not another, though it be not the fullness. but whereas thou complainest of our not ministering to you in your journey, but clogging it: oh that ye knew what your journey is, and whither ye are marching and travelling in that present spirit wherein ye act. we acknowledge it gods great love and mercy to us, to deliver us from that spirit, and from that way of knowledge, religion, and worship, wherein ye still abide. and what we have seen and known from the lord, that are we required of him to testify to you; and if your eyes were opened, (by the principle of light from him) in the holy anointing, ye would bow to the testimony: but judging of it in a contrary wisdom and spirit, ye not only turn from it, but fight against it, and reproach and slander us, for our faithfulness to the lord and good will to you, which the lord make you sensible of, and forgive you, that at length ye may know and receive him (who is the desire of all nations) in his pure, living, inward and spiritual appearance. and as for denying the first principles, that belongs to yourselves: for do ye not deny that light which is the foundation of all, and wherein and whereby all the mysteries of god's kingdom are seen: and instead thereof set up a notional, comprehensive knowledge of your own conceiving, comprehending and gathering from the letter: whereas no man can understand the letter, but as he comes into the abides in the light. this we have experienced in ourselves formerly: for we were but guessing at, and imagining concerning the letter, until and further than we were turned to, and our minds gathered into, and comprehended in the light of god's spirit. and as for disowning the hopes of christ's kingdom, the lord knoweth that is far from us: for we ourselves bless him for what of his kingdom is already appeared; and wait and hope for the further and fuller appearance thereof. but this we confess, another spirit, another christ, another light, another life, another power, another kingdom, besides him who hath already appeared, we do not expect. for he is our king and kingdom both: and the least proportion of his life and spirit received, (bought with the loss of all, and so purchased and possessed,) is no less than a pearl of great price, and an heavenly kingdom to him that enjoyeth it. he addeth further, if christ be but a principle, than we are no other, and only principles shall be saved, and no persons. is this your gospel? answ. christ is the promised seed, to which all the promises are, in which seed all the families of the earth are blessed, as they are gathered unto, and grafted into him. but he is not only the seed, but the seedsman also; who soweth of his life, of his nature, of his spirit, of his heavenly image in the hearts of the children of men. he giveth a measure of the grace and truth unto them, the fullness whereof he hath received of his father. now this measure of the light eternal is very precious, and is that wherein he appears and manifests himself: yea indeed glorious things are both spoken, and witnessed of the seed of life, of the seed of the kingdom, of the grace and truth which comes by jesus christ. but we never said that this seed, or measure of life, is the fullness itself, but that which the fullness imparts to us, and brings salvation home to our doors by. and if any man will receive ch●ist, he must receive that from christ wherein he manifests himself. there is a difference between the light which enlighteneth (the fullness of light, which giveth the measure of light, the measure of anointing to us) and the measure or proportion which is given: the one is christ himself, the other is his gift: yet his gift is of the same nature with himself, and leavens those that receive it and abide in it, into the same nature so that not only the gift is one with him, but we also are one with him in the gift. come be not thus wise after the flesh, nor do not strive so (in thy wisdom and knowledge out of the truth) to triumph over the truth, and truth's testimony, in this the day of god's great love, and glorious arm of salvation, revealed in the midst of his people, which he hath gathered out of babylon, and the dark knowledge thereof, into the light and kingdom of his own dear son; where he giveth them eternal life, and of the fruits of the good and heavenly land. he addeth; i firmly believe, and so have all the saints that have gone before, that christ is a person, and his spirit is a living principle in the hearts of all the faithful, but it is not the spirit or principle in us that did redeem us, but the man christ jesus. ans. if he mean by the man christ jesus, the second adam, the quickening spirit, the heavenly man, the lord from heaven, he who is one with the father, the word which was in the beginning, which created all things, i grant him to be the redeemer; for it was he who laid down his glory, wherewith he was glorified before the world was, and made himself of no reputation, but took upon him the form of a servant, and came as a servant, in the fashion of a man, to do the will. but if he distinguish christ from this word and spirit, and make the man's nature, the saviour, and the godhead only assistant to him (as he seemed to word it before, and as these his words seems to imply) that i utterly deny. for so testifieth the scripture, i am the lord, and besides me there is no saviour. i am a just god and a saviour, etc. so that christ is the saviour, as he is one with god. it was god's arm and power (revealed in him) that effects salvation. yea if i may so speak, his obedience was of value, as it came from the spirit, and it was the offering it up through the eternal spirit, that made it so acceptable to god. so that we must not attribute redemption originally to him as a man, but as he came from god, and brings the honour all back to the spring and fountain, from whence he had all, that god may be all in all, and the very kingdom of christ may endure and abide for ever, in the root of life from whence it came. and so he is not a foundation, or the cornerstone distinct from god: he as the foundation, was and is the rock of ages: the spiritual rock, both before and since he took upon him the body prepared for him. it is the spirit, the life which was revealed in that man (by which he did his father's will) which was and is the foundation whereupon all the living stones are built. there is a foundation of death; and that's the wicked spirit. there is a foundation of life, and that's the holy spirit, by which christ himself was led and guided (in that his appearance in the flesh,) which descended upon him, and he was anointed with, and all his are to be anointed with, and live in the same spirit. and he that knows christ in this spirit, he hath the true and abiding knowledge of him, and no otherwise: and though the names, messiah, jesus, christ, saviour, anointed, etc. were given to him as in the flesh, or as man, they most properly and originally belong to him with respect to the divine life and birth in him as the sent one, and only begotten, proceeding from the father, the brightness of his glory, etc. for he as the eternal son of god was the spiritual rock, before he took upon him that body which was prepared for him, which expressly was called, the body of jesus, and which he called this temple, and distinctly he being called jesus christ come in the flesh, which every spirit that confesseth not, is not of god, but is that spirit of antichrist, 1. joh. 4.3. he speaketh of sitting on the throne of david. ans. it is a great matter to know that throne, which david's throne signified, and christ sitting thereon. his kingdom, his throne are not of this outward worldly nature; but inward and spiritual: and his throne is in his kingdom and temple, where he reigns and is worshipped. he that knoweth satan disthroned and cast out, knoweth also christ come in, and sitting on his throne. o that men did give over their dreaming about the heavenly glory, and come thither in the leadings of god's spirit where it is revealed. was that scripture written in vain, concerning the glorious state of the gospel? but we all with open face beholding as in a glass, the glory of the lord, are changed into the same image, from glory to glory, as by the spirit of the lord, 2 cor. 3.18. he putteth up a prayer for us, that the lord would awaken us, and make us do our first works, and return to our first love. answ. ah poor man how is he blinded, not discerning how the lord hath done this for us and much more: but it is he himself that hath lost his first love, and doth not do his first works, but is found short of that tenderness, quickness and savour that once was in him. o that he might see it, and return to him whose quickening virtue restores and heals. he concludeth with the words of the prophet jer. chap. 13. ver. 15, 16, 17. hear ye and give ear, be not proud for the lord hath spoken. give glory to the lord your god, before he cause darkness, and before your feet stumble upon the dark mountains, and while ye look for light, he turn it into the shadow of death, and make it gross darkness. but if ye will not hear it my soul shall weep in secret places for your pride, and mine eyes shall weep sore, and run down with tears, because the lords flock is carried away captive. answ. how doth this man mistake in his sight and application of scriptures? seeing, and applying in a wrong spirit. it is true, the lord hath spoken, but he himself and many such as he is have not given ear, and what is the reason, but because they are exalted above the pure principle of life in their own hearts? and are not such proud? hath not he brought forth these weapons, the e false charges and reasonings in this paper against the heritage of god in the pride of his heart? as for us the lord god hath humbled us, and taught us, who have learned, and daily learn of him in the humility; and in humility and fear do we give forth our testimony, though also in the authority and majesty of our master's name, whose name stands over, and is exalted above every name, and his mountain and gathering is (in the pure authority and power of his spirit) above all other mountains and gatherings whatsoever. and as for gods causing darkness, let him and such as he is look to it, for god doth not, nor will cause darkness to them whom he hath gathered into the light of his spirit, but saith to them, arise, shine, for thy light is come, and the glory of the lord is risen upon thee, o city and dwelling place of the living god. but those that know not, or turn against his appearance, and cry up former dispensations of the same life and power, but reproacheth and blasphemeth the present, on them doth he cause the gross darkness to fall, and cover them. and this which he threateneth us with, is already fallen upon himself, for his feet are fallen upon the dark mountains; and whilst he looks for light he hath lost that which once he had, and his very light, as (he esteems it) is become obscurity and gross darkness, as this dark paper of his (from the dark spirit and principle) makes manifest to all that shall read it in any measure of true sense or discerning. and truly my soul doth weep in secret for his pride, and height of spirit in opposing the lord, his truth and people. and for this cause shall those, who have looked upon themselves as the children of the kingdom, and flock of god, be laid waist, and know, that as it was a dreadful thing to oppose christ jesus the lord, in his appearance in flesh, so it is also dreadful to oppose his appearance in his spirit and power: wherein he is arisen to set up his kingdom, and to throw down babylon, which is built in the likeness of zion, but by and in another spirit. those in whom there is any tenderness towards god (and true breathe after him left) the lord give them the sense and true understanding of this inward spiritual appearance of his son, and of what they have been doing and are doing against it; that they may not continue to fight against the the lord, and kick against that which is able to wound and prick, to their own hurt and eternal ruin. for there is not salvation in any other name, then in that which is now revealed: blessed are all they that trust therein; it being not another but the same that ever was. to his postscript. he beginneth it with the justification of that passage of his, in a foregoing letter of his to me, wherein he said, christ is heaven, and i am hell. answ. when god visiteth man, he finds him in union with hell, death and darkness, and the man is dead, is dark, is of an hellish nature and spirit in that state. but when the lord hath converted him, cut him off from that root, leavened him with the spirit and nature of his son, is he hell still? ye were darkness (saith the apostle) but now are ye light in the lord. and such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the lord jesus, and by the spirit of our god. a man can be but hell before he is washed, before his filth be purged away by the spirit of judgement and burning, before the old leaven is purged out, and he sanctified and made a new lump: but after the lord hath thus changed him, and new created him in christ, is he still hell? he saith, he doth not call the new creature hell, but there is an old man, an outward man, as well as the new man & the inward man; flesh as well as spirit in the regenerate. answ. what doth he mean by the outward man, the sinful body; the body of flesh is within. the outward body that's not hell, that's the temple of god, where the heart is sanctified. and the pure word of life sanctifies throughout, even in soul, in body, in spirit, those that are subject to it, know ye not that your bodies are the temples of the living god? and your spirits much more: for god is a spirit and he dwells in a spiritual temple; and his temple is holy. he addeth, and unless your attainment be beyond paul's, he found that in him, (that is in his flesh) dwelled no good thing: and the flesh lusting against the spirit, so that he could not do the thing that he would. answ. paul did once experience such a state, that he felt himself carnal, sold under sin; when he did not find how to perform that which was good, but did what he hated, the law of sin being strong (in his members) against the law of life in his mind; which state he calleth, a state of captivity to the law of sin in his members, and calleth it a wretched state, rom. 7.23, 24. but did paul never experience another state? did he never witness the virtue and power of the new covenant, even the law of the spirit of life, and the power thereof, freeing him from the strength and captivity of the law of sin in his members? there were young men, john speaks of, who were strong and had overcome the wicked one. did paul himself never attain to that state? he bid others be strong in the lord and in the power of his might, and shown them how to resist in it, so as to overcome. did he never experience and witness it himself? he said, he had fought a good fight, and was more than a conqueror. what was he then a captive to the law of sin in his members, and did he then cry out, who shall deliver me from the body of this death? he said, he could do all things through christ that strengthened him: was not that a state different from that other wherein he found only to will? and could not do the good he desired, but did the evil he allowed not, but hated? and blessed be the lord, there are many at this day, who witness a farther state of redemption and deliverance from sin, and the law thereof in the members, than that state of captivity was, which paul there expresseth his former groan and complain under. for he was not in that state of captivity when he writ that epistle, but knew the dominion of grace over sin, and bid that church be subject to the grace, and not give way to sin, but yield their members servants to righteousness unto holiness, ch. 6. for that other place, of the flesh lusting against the spirit and the spirit against the flesh gal. 5.17. he doth not there speak of himself; but of the galatians, who were in a weak, low, and indeed fallen state, from the spirit and power of the gospel, having let in that which was contrary thereunto. and so he strives to gather them into the spirit again, and bids them, live in the spirit (and walk in the spirit) and so they should not fulfil the lusts of the flesh. for in the new covenant man is taught of god, the holy lesson of ceasing from evil, and doing good: and taught in the virtue and power of the covenant, so that he learns daily, and grows daily out of deceit into truth, until he come to be a true israelite in whom there is no guile. and so in the spiritual war, the house of saul grows weaker and weaker, and the house of david stronger and stronger, until saul's kingdom be at length overturned and wholly destroyed, and the kingdom of david established in righteousness for ever and ever. then jerusalem the holy building, the city of the living people, the city of righteousness, (the habitation of righteousness and mountain of holiness) is known, and jerusalem is witnessed a quiet habitation, there being peace in all her borders. then the mind is fully stayed upon the lord in all conditions: and he keeps it in perfect p●ace. then the soul is careful for nothing, but in every thing makes its requests known to god, by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving; and the peace of god which passeth all understanding, keeps the heart and mind through christ jesus. surely the apostle had learned himself, (when he taught others this) in every state to be content. he knew how to be abased, and how to abound, etc. o glorious state, o pure state of pure life in the heart! and what if i should add, o perfect state! the apostle james saith, let patience have its perfect work, that ye may be perfect and entire, wanting nothing, or in nothing, jam. 1.3. when paul had so learned christ, that abundance could not lift him up, nor want deject him; or cause him to repine or distrust, what did he want of this perfect state? his next words are, if you have no sense of this, your state is never the better to be liked. answ. christ led captivity captive, and the same power is revealed to lead captivity captive in us. and truly when god leads our souls out of captivity, putting his fear within us, writing his living powerful law of life in our hearts, and putting his spirit into us, leading us in the way of holiness, and causing us to walk therein; we find this a better state, then when we were groaning under deep captivity. further he saith, if your peace and joy stand in seeing no sin yourself, (in yourself i suppose it should be) i shall more than suspect it, not to be the peace and joy of paul, and all the saints, but a delusion. answ. our peace and joy is in him who is without sin, and it abounds in us, in his cleansing and delivering us from sin: and we have found h●m remove sin as far from us as the east is from the west: and as he removeth transgression from us, and bringeth sin and the power of satan to an end in us, he giveth us of his peace and joy. and truly we do not only witness him destroying sin and the works of the devil, but breaking the very head of the serpent, casting him out, and peirceing leviathan, that crooked serpent, and slaying the dragon that is in the sea. and though such as he may suspect our peace and joy; yet while christ gives it us, and maintains it in us, it is very sweet and pleasant to us: and the time may come, that he may wish from his heart, that he might partake with us therein. he concludes the matter thus; we are without sin in him, but in ourselves nothing but sin. answ. he spoke of delusion just before: a greater th●n this i do not know. for christ doth make a real change, if any man be in christ there's a new creation, there's a real change. the man is not what he was before: but he puts off that which is old, and puts on that which is n●w; and so is really changed in his state, and in the sight of god, and is not what he was before. the heart when it is really renewed and washed by the water, blood, and spirit; it is not the old, abominable, wicked, deceitful heart that it was before. if this be his knowledge and experience let him keep it to himself: for my part i desire not to partake with him therein; but to be like christ my lord and master; even sanctified throughout in soul, body and spirit; that i may become wholly his and the enemy of my soul have no part in me. he saith, christ shall appear without sin to salvation. answ. i grant it; but when and how? doth he not inwardly appear without sin to salvation to those who have waited for, hastened and come to the inward day? doth not christ appear without sin to salvation inwardly in the day of his own spirit? is not salvation then witnessed for walls and bulworks? is not the glorious salvation of the gospel brought forth in the gospel-day? and is there not in the life and dominion of grace, a pure defence about all the glory? is there any sin in the grace and spirit of the gospel, which appears and shines in the day of the lord? and doth not this grace bring salvation to them that wait for the revealing of it? he seemeth to clear himself of watching for our haltings. answ. had he not watched for our haltings, and received things into, and considered them in the prejudiced part, he could not have writ such a paper against truth and us, so far from true understanding and judgement as this is. but he saith, he hath watched for our repenting. answ. if we should repent of having our eyes opened by the lord, and turning to his truth, and receiving his holy spirit, and of having the precious promises of the scripture made good to us, and fulfilled in us, we might justly lose our portion and inheritance of life for ever. we have repent from dead works, but we cannot repent of god's pure truth, and the living way, spirit and power thereof. but this i can tell him, and that from the lord, whose name i reverence and worship in, that the lord watch●th for his repenting, and turn from that spirit in him, which darkneth him concerning, and prejudiceth him against the truth. he beseecheth me in love, etc. and requireth me to clear myself of , falling from grace, denying election of persons, and imputed righteousness. answ. what the lord requireth of me, that i must mind, and i have divers times expressed my heart nakedly in these things. the principle of life, which the lord hath raised in me, in that is the freedom to good, and in that am i made free by jesus christ my lord. and i had rather witness him upholding me by his power, than contend about a notion of falling or not falling away. and my care hath been about making my calling and election sure in him, who is sure to those that are of him for ever. and i have witnessed the righteousness of the lord jesus christ revealed in me, and imputed to me, and my soul clothed therewith in his sight, blessed be his name. o that the professors of this age might come to the anointing, and see those things in the anointing; then would they know the truth and harmony of the scriptures therein: but men by the letter without the spirit can never discern or find out the mystery of life, but only gather into their minds, and retain a literal knowledge that killeth. he bids me, love the truth better than a party. answ. the lord knoweth he hath taught me so to do. for had it not been for the evidence and demonstration of god's spirit in this people, i could never have owned them. (for, o how low was the knowledge they held forth in my eye, before the power of the lord reached to my heart, raising up his own seed in me, wherein i knew them!) and the lord also knoweth, that 'tis in him that i love, and discern, and honour them to this very day; yea i see his name written on their foreheads, and them brought forth in the glorious image, and heavenly life of his son (though it be hid from the wise eye of the professors of this age) and in the true light, with the true eye (which god hath opened in me) have i seen it. he speaks of clinging together, and keeping up a party against all right. answ. nay, nay. this is the gathering of the lord jesus christ, by his spirit and power, after the long night of darkness, and we are kept up by the same spirit and power, and life of truth which gathered us. he saith, it is not a calling for a work within, which will give you authority to lay waist christ and the gospel in the most fundamental and concerning truths thereof, and those above mentioned, etc. and above all the rest, denying the person of our lord jesus christ, and making him but a light, or notion, or principle in the heart of man. answ. this is but his own mistake, not a true and just charge against us, as he will one day see. the lord hath not taught us to lay waist, nor do we lay waste any truth of the gospel, but own every thing in its place. and though our religion do not lie in notions concerning him, but in the principle of life itself, ev●n in the grace and truth which is by jesus ch●ist (which is a measure of light from him the full light) yet we do not learn thereby to deny the full light, but the more to acknowledge it. and we own him to be the true and full light, and his outward appearance in that body in the fullness of time, to fulfil the fathers will therein, and his appearance in spirit and power, in the hearts of his people, in the day of the gospel, and his setting up his spiritual and glorious kingdom there, where he reigns as king on the throne of david, over the spiritual israel of god. come, consider seriously, do not ye yourselves fall short of not only the principle and power of life, but also the true knowledge of things according to the letter? he confesseth, there is too little power, and without it profession is little worth. answ. o that the professors of this age knew the scriptures and the power of god, and had that knowledge which comes from and stands in the power! for then that evidence and demonstration of truth would be witnessed, which puts an end to the disputes and reasonings of the mind,: and then the great care would be to live the life of that which god makes manifest and requires in the new covenant. he saith to pull down the pillars and principles of the gospel is the work the devil employs his power in. answ. i grant what he saith is true, (and wish he knew how rightly to apply it:) but there is a great error and mistake in his judgement about it. for the lord is pulling down that which men have built up, (which they may in their mistaken judgements call principles and fundamentals) and is building up that which men have trampled on, even the tabernacle of david, which hath long been fallen down, and the city of the living god, which hath long been trodden under foot of the false christians: and the power of the devil is greatly at work to oppose this appearance, and mighty work of the lord in this day. let him take heed of blaspheming the lords power, calling it the devils, and owning the devil's power for gods. he concludeth thus, come to the point, what singular thing do you more than moding and wording it, save only that out of you have risen men, that have more audatiously lifted up a standard against the sealed and experienced truths of the gospel, than ever i have heard or read of any before you. you talk of words and boast of perfection. i tell you an humble sense of a man's nothingness, driving him out of himself, to live and glory in christ alone, is more than all such boasted perfections a thousand times. sir accept my zeal for your soul. ans. we are a people (many of us) who have gone through great distress for want of the lord our god, and exceedingly waited and longed for his living and powerful appearance. and for my own part, this i can say, that had not this appearance been in power, and in the evidence and demonstration of his spirit to my soul, (reaching to and answering that which was of him in me) i could n●ver have own●d it, so deeply was i jealous of it, and prejudiced against it. and since my mind hath been turned to the pure word of life, even the word which was in the beginning, (i speak as in the lord's presence) it hath had singular effects on my heart. the light hath so searched me as i never was searched before, under all my former professions, and the lord hath given me a true and pure discerning of the things of his kingdom, in the light which is true and pure, and singular quickenings have i met with from his spirit, and the faith which stands in his heavenly power, and giveth victory and dominion in him, blessed be his name. and the love which he hath given me is not notional, but ariseth from his circumcising my heart, and answereth his nature, springing forth purely and naturally towards him and those of his image, and all his creatures, yea towards those who are enemies to me, for his names sake. i might mention the patience also and faithfulness to his truth with the long-suffering spirit, which cannot be worn out, which his spirit testifieth in me to be of a singular nature, with many other things. nor am i alone, or the chiefest, but have many equals, yea there are such as far exceed me in the heavenly and divine image of my father. and the fruits are according to the root of life in us, and so acknowledged by all who look upon us with the true eye, with the eye of gods giving and opening. now the same that hath wrought thus inwardly in us, the same hath required some outward behaviour and expressions from us, which are foolish and weak to the eye of man's wisdom, but chosen of god, to hid the glory of his life from that eye which discerns it not, but despiseth th● day of small things. and though this be the least part of our religeon (yet subjected to because it is of god, who we dare not disobey in the least) yet the spirit which is contrary to god casteth this upon us, as if this were all, or at the least the main wherein we differ from others. some call the living words of truth from us (when god according to his good promise giveth them us) but canting, and thou callest all that is singular in us, but moding and wording of it. alas! it is in the main we differ from you, we holding our religion as we receive it from god, in the light and life of his spirit; you as you apprehend it from the letter. christ is our rock and foundation as inwardly revealed, yours but as outwardly conceived of. we believe with the faith which is of the nature of him whom we believe in, which faith is mighty through god, and works through all the powers of darkness, giving victory over them all in god's way and time: ye believe with a faith which esteems victory and a perfect and entire state (wanting nothing) as impossible, while in this world. and as our root differs, so all that grows up in us differs from yours. so that indeed all is singular that is in us, and all also is singular that is brought forth by us, as the spirit of the lord, who knoweth the difference of things, witnesseth. have we so long walked in the name and spirit of our god amongst you showing the singular virtues of his spirit, daily in our faithful testimony, sufferings, patience and conversation, and do ye still cry, what singular thing do ye? just like the jews, who after all christ's mighty works, and demonstrations of his father's virtue and power outwardly, asked for a sign? o that your eyes and hearts were opened by the spirit and power of the lord, for than ye would soon see otherwise in this respect than now ye do. and then as for that expression, of audatiously lifting up a standard against the sealed and experienced truths of the gospel, that is but an over confident expression, through prejudice and mistake of judgement at least; for i can truly testify, i have never learned, since the pure heavenly light of the lord jesus christ hath shined on my spirit, to deny any one truth that ever was sealed to me, or experienced by me in the days of my former profession: for whatsoever was then of god hath been restored to me, and that only which was of the flesh pared off. and i have ground also to believe; that it is so wi●h others in this respect, as it hath been with me. he speaks, as if our difference or talk were about words. nay, it is about things: for though we own the same lord jesus christ to be the foundation of life; yet after a different manner, ye, as ye notionally apprehend concerning him; we as we experience him to be the precious stone and foundation of life in us: and we testify of justification and sanctification, as we witness him bestowing it upon us and working it in us. but for boasting of perfection, i wonder how he dares speak thus: what is their no fear of god before his eyes or in his heart, that he dares charge us with that which is so utterly false? where is any of us, that did ever boast of perfection? but that god's power and covenant is able to make perfect; and that gods will is our perfect sanctification, in soul, body, and spirit: even that we be wholly leavened with the salt of the kingdom, and become a fit temple for him; this we humbly and reveren●ly testify of, and press towards in his holy name and fear. and as for that humble sense, of a man's own nothingness d●iveing him out of himself to live and glory in christ alone: this we meet with and witness in that light, which this generation of professors despiseth: but others, though they may talk of it, can never come truly to witness it, but in that light wherein god bestoweth and preserveth it. well the professors of this age, who despise the light, shall one day find, that what they take themselves to be, they are not in god's sight; nor are we before him, what we are reproachfully represented by them: but we are his workmanship in christ jesus, created by him unto good works; and that it is natural to us, to bring forth the fruits of righteousness and holiness to our god, however men reproach us. as for his zeal for my soul, which he desired me to except: it is strange zeal, and would tend to my ut●er destruction, had it power over me. but blessed be my god, who hath called me into the light of his son, and i am satisfied that he will preserve me therein, even in that holy spirit of life, which he hath gathered me into, from all deceivable spirits of darkness whatsoever, in that holy covenant wherein his strength appears to me and is revealed in me. and o! that he might know what that spirit is wherein he hath thus appeared against the lord, (though under a pretence, as if it were for him) and bring forth no more the fruits of it. for a close, i shall add a few words on that scripture, phil. 3.3. for we are the circumcission, which worship god in the spirit, and rejoice in christ jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh. it is a precious thing to witness this scripture, fulllefid in the heart: to experience that there, which inwardly circumciseth, which cutteth off the foreskin of the heart, which lieth over it and vaileths, till it be cut off by the inward appearance of the life and power of the lord jesus christ inwardly revealed. then when this is done, i can truly and sensibly say, i am a jew inward: how so? how can that be proved? why i am inwardly circumcised. i have felt that within which circumciseth the heart, and have born the inward pain and cutting thereof, and am circumcised by it. that which stood between me and the lord is cut off, the vail is taken away, the stiffeneckedness and unsubjection to god removed, the wall of separation is inwardly broken down; and now i am in true unity of spirit and comunion with my god, even with the father and the son, in that one holy spirit wherein they are one. now i can bow before the father of our lord jesus christ, and worship him in his own spirit; even in the new and fresh life thereof day by day. now my rejoicing is in christ jesus, whom the father hath sent, both outwardly in a body of flesh to fulfil the holy will, and do what therein the father had for him to do; and also inwardly in his spirit and power into my heart, to destroy the works of the devil there, and so to work me out of the enmity and unreconciled state, into the love and reconciliation: and i cannot but rejoice both in what he did in his body of flesh for me, and in what he doth by his spirit and power in me. and blessed be the lord, i feel him near, his spirit near, his life near, his power near, his pure virtue near, his holy wisdom near, his righteousness near, his redemption near: for he is my rock, and my strength, and my salvation day by day: and i have no confidence in the flesh, in what i am, in what i can do after the flesh, but my confidence is in him, who hath weakened me, who hath stripped me, who hath impoverished me, who hath brought me to nothing in myself, that i might be all in him, and that i might find him all unto me. he is my peace, he is my life, he is my righteousness, he is my holiness, he is the image wherein i am renewed; in him is my acceptance with the father, he is my advocate, he is my hope and joy for ever. he hath destroyed that in me which was contrary to god, and keepeth it down for ever. he is my shepherd, his arm hath gathered me, and his arm encompasseth me day by day. i rest under the shadow of his wings, from whence the healing virtue of his saving health droppeth upon my spirit day by day. oh i cannot tell any man what he is unto me; but blessed be the lord, i feel him near, his righteousness near, his salvation daily revealed, before that eye which he hath opened in me, in that true living sense wherewith he hath quickened me. and now ye that have high notions, and rich comprehensive knowledge concerning these things, but not the thing itself, the life itself, the spirit itself, the new and living covenant and law of life itself, wherein alone christ is livingly revealed; ah how poor, miserable, blind and naked are you, in the midst of all your traditional knowledge, and pretended experiences, concerning these things. come be quiet a while, and cease from bitterness of spirit, and reviling the work and people of the lord: for the lord knoweth and will make manifest both who are his and who are not his. all the living stones are his, but the great professors of the words of scripture, without the spirit and life of the scriptures, are not his, nor never were, nor never will be owned by him. come, learn to distinguish from god, by his life, by the anointing, by the everlasting infallible rule; and not by words without life, where the great error and mistake hath been in all ages and generations. the great way of deceit hath long been (and still is) a by form of godliness without power. be sure ye be not thus deceived; for if ye miss of the power which saves, ye cannot but p●rish for ever. and what if the appearance of the spirit and power of our lord jesus christ inwardly, which is that which saves, be as strange to your sense, understanding and judgement, as his outward appearance was unto the people of the jews? take heed of their spirit, take heed of their judgement, who judged according to the appearance of things to them, which they imagine and conceive from the scriptures, but judged not the true and righteous judgement, which only the children of the true wisdom can a postscript. there are four or five things very precious, which were generally witnessed in the days of the apostles, among the true christians, which are all mentioned together heb. 6.4, 5. first, they were truly enlightened. the ministers of the gospel were sent by christ, to turn men from darkness to light, and from the power of satan to god, act. 26.18. 1 joh. 1.5. and they were faithful in their ministry, and did turn men from the darkness and power of satan, to the light of god's holy spirit, and they were enlightened by it, and received power through it, and so came to be children of the light, and to walk in the light as god is in the light. secondly, they tasted of the heavenly gift. what is the heavenly gift, which christ gives to those who come unto him, and become his sheep? he gives them life, eternal life, joh. 10.27, 28. he brings them out of death, and gives them a savour and taste of the life which is eternal. this was it which the apostles testified of, even of the life which was manifested in that body of flesh of our lord jesus christ, (1 joh. 1.2.) and they that turn from the darkness to his light, he gives them a taste of the same light. thirdly, they were made partakers of the holy ghost. the gospel is a day of bringing forth the spiritual seed, and of pouring out the holy spirit upon them. the law state is a state of servants, the gospel of sons: and because true believers in christ are sons, god sent forth the spirit of his son into their hearts to cry abba father. and god cannot deny his own spirit, to his children that ask it of him, he knoweth how absolutely necessary it is to the state of a son. and whosoever truly receiveth christ, christ doth give him power to become a son, which power is in and with, and cannot be separated from his spirit. yea, the spirit of christ is so necessary and inseparable from him that is christ's, that the apostle expressly affirms, that if any man have not the spirit of christ, he is none of his, rom. 8.9. fourthly, they tasted of the good word of god. of that word from which the gift comes, of that word which was in the beginning, of the word which is engrafted into the hearts of those that truly believe, which word is able to save the soul. fifthly, they tasted of the powers of the world to come. of the power of the endless life, whereof christ is the minister, and according to which he ministers life, in that holy, true, living, inward spiritual temple, which he pitcheth and reareth up for an habitation to god, in his own spirit. now in the apostasy and night of darkness, which hath come over the christian state, these things have been greatly lost. for there hath been none that have been found able to turn people to that light, which the apostles directed to. none could tell men where the light is to shine; and where men were to expect it, and wait for it. none were able to direct men to the seed of the kingdom within; to the word of faith, the word of the kingdom, nigh in the heart and mouth: much less were they able to instruct men, how they might know and distinguish it from all other seeds, and the voice of the shepherd from all other voices. here it came to pass, that though at times god visited and opened men's hearts, a little warming them by the breath which came from himself; yet they not knowing how to turn to the lord, and wait upon him for preservation in the gift and measure of his own grace; the good hath soon been stolen away from them, and the building which hath been raised up in them, hath not been a building of life according to the spirit, but a building of wisdom or knowledge concerning the things of god, according to the flesh: and so the building, that hath been raised up in men's spirits, hath been babylon, in stead of zion. but the lord hath had a remnant all along the apostasy, who felt some beget of life, and had in measure some sense and taste of the heavenly things. these mourned after that state, which was once enjoyed, and felt their want of it, travelling from mountain to hill, seeking their resting place, which none could rightly inform them of. now for the sakes of these, god hath at length appeared. how appeared, may some say? why thus, he who is light hath appeared inwardly, causing his light to shine inwardly, causing his life to spring inwardly: so that he who is light, who is life, who is truth, is felt and known in his own inward visits, break forth and appearances. for god who is a spirit, his appearance is spiritual, his day is spiritual, his kingdom is spiritual, his light is spiritual, his life is spiritual, his daystar is spiritual, and his day dawneth and his daystar ariseth in the heart. thus, the dayspring from on high did visit us who sat in darkness, and in the region of the shadow of death. and here we have met with what the apostles met with, the very same light of life, the very same enlightening spirit and power, and have been enlightened by it, and tasted of the same gift. the very same grace that appeared to them and taught them, hath appeared to us and taught us; and of it have we learned the same lessons, in the same covenant of life wherein they learned: and now can we seal to their testimony in the same spirit wherein they gave it forth, and witness to the same eternal life, and the same holy oil and anointing, our eyes having been opened and being kept open by it. and though their be great disputes about our testimony in this our day (and the present professors rise up against us, as the former professors did against them) yet let but any man come rightly to distinguish in himself, between that which god begets in the heart, and all other births, and let that speak and judge in them, that will soon confess that our testimony is of god, and given forth in the authority and by the commission of his own spirit. true wisdom is justified by the children that are born of her: it is the other birth, that doth not, nor can own her. the other birth can own former dispensations: (according to the letter of them) but not the life and power of the present. i have known the breaking down of much in me, by the powerful hand of the lord, and a parting with much (though not too much) for christ's sake. the lord hath brought the day of distress and inward judgement over my heart. he hath arisen to shake terribly the earthly part in me, (yea what if i should say, that the powers of heaven have been shaken also?) that he might make me capable to receive and bring me into that kingdom which cannot be shaken. and now, that which god hath shaken and removed in me, i see others build upon, and they think it shall never be shaken in them. but such know not the day of the lord, nor the terrible searching of his pure light, nor the operation of his power, which will not spare in one, what he hath reproved, condemned, shaken and overturned in another. he that knows the living stone within, and comes to him as to a living stone, and as built upon the revelation of his spirit, life and power (revealed inwardly against the power of darkness) is not deceived, all that otherwise build (i mean upon an outward knowledge concerning christ, and not upon his inward life) their building will not be able to stand in the day of the lord. i wish they might have a sense of it in time, that they might not perish for ever; but experience that life and power of our lord jesus christ, which redeemeth and preserveth out of the perishing state, for ever and ever. amen. the end. a rejoinder consisting of two parts, the first entitled, the balance, or, a vindication of the proceed and judgement of parliament and their ministers, in the cases of william (called lord) craven, christopher love. from the scandalous allegations, and ironical reflections of ralph farmer, (a pretended minister of the gospel at bristol) in a late infamous libel of his, named, the impostor dethroned, etc. dedicated to the former. wherein the commonwealth's case as to the one is briefly stated, and the treasons of the other are rehearsed as a looking-glass for the priests, and an awakening to england. the second, evil scattered from the throne, and th● wheel brought over the wicked: in an examination of that part of the impostor dethroned, as is in way of reply to the throne of truth exalted, etc. george bishop. he that is first in his own case seemeth just, but his neighbour cometh and searcheth him. london, printed for thomas simmons, at the bull and mouth near aldersgate, 1658. to the sober reader. to shorten the ensuing vindication, and to give thee more perfectly to understand the ground of the contest between ralph farmer and myself, i desire thee to take notice that it was not on my part; for though he gave me many provocations, (who had not done him any wrong) yet i began not with him, but rather chose to abide in silence, (knowing the man) then to have to do with such a one, the beginning of the words of whose mouth is foolishness, and the end of whose talk is mischievous madness, as solomon saith of the fool, eccl. 10. 13. and in the same purpose of mind i determined to have continued, had he not in his narrative of j. n's coming into bristol, etc. charged the blasphemies [there] affirmed, upon the truth of the living god, and the many thousands of the friends thereof in this nation, scornfully called quakers; and me in particular with matter of fact, as to my public trust, which with more than ordinary care, hazard, and faithfulness, i have a witness in my conscience as well as amongst men, to have honestly discharged. in all which knowing the truth, and those people and myself to be innocent; and being assured that a principal cause of his vilifying of me was geo. fox his letter, sent unto and taken upon j. n. (wherein the spirit that then led him & that company, and their actions, was judged and denied) which being wrote with my hand, he expected would be made use of, and my testimony therein for the clearing of those people from his slanderous imputations of detestableness and biasphemy; and being sensible that the great design of the devil in all, was to dis-savor truth, and to make it abhorred with those to whom the relation should come; i was pressed in spirit (being a● bristol during the time of this transaction, and well informed in the truth of the particulars) to make answer thereunto, (not purposely in reference to my own particular, as if i were troubled, but) for the clearing of the truth, that all who would, might see it free of the monstrous apparel in which he had clothed it, and that those that should notwithstanding shut their eyes, might be left without excuse in the day that god shall judge the secrets of all hearts by the man christ jesus: and that my answer i styled as it was, viz. the throne of truth exalted over the powers of darkness, etc. whereunto he being constrained to give up the cause, and being sorely plagued and tormented therewith, and at the discovery of his wickedness, he not only falls upon me with all the rancour lodged within his malicious breast, but having compassed the earth, and rummaged through the unclean bowels of the nation, and consulted with his black generation, he grovels up into his bottomless pit what false reports he could meet with among the enemies of the state and truth, and having in his first seventeen pages bid defiance to perfection, (the work of the ministry for which christ gave gifts unto men when he ascended up on high) and to those who are made clean by the eternal word, the blood of the new covenant which cleanseth from [all] sin, (christ jesus the light of the world, that lighteth every man that cometh into the world) and to conversion from evil, as of the devil, (to show himself whose minister he is) he casts up all again at me from the depths of darkness, in the following 100 pages, the whole of his book, which he calls (such is the fervency of the heat, of his scorched tongue) the impostor dethroned, (who is proved to be the man) or, the quakers throne of truth detected to be satan's seat of lies: (which is not true of it, but is true of himself and his generation) by way of reply to a quaking railing pamphlet written by capt. bishop, (the slanders are his own, the truth is mine.) entitled, the throne of truth exalted over the powers of darkness; (so it is, and so it shall stand over his head for ever;) wherein is briefly hinted the rottenness of the quakers conversion and perfection in general, (it's the state of his own stock, whose root is rottenness, and whose blossom is going up as the dust, not of those people whose rock is the stone of israel.) exemplified in this busy bishop; (the busy bishop appears to be himself in the behalf of these men's treasons; what i did was in discharge of my trust) in special instanced in his practices against the estate of the lord craven, life of mr. love; (the one adjudged by the parliament, the other by their high court of justice, and my duty faithfully done in both, long before i knew the thing that is reproached a quaker.) by occasion whereof this truth is asserted, viz. if we may judge of the conscience, honesty, and perfection of quakers in general by this man in particular, a man may be as vile a person as any under heaven, and yet a perfect quaker. which being proved a lie both in ground and conclusion, this is affirmed of a truth, & made good, viz, that if the conscience, honesty & profession of the ministers of england in general, may be judged by ralph farmer, [and wh●● he writes] in particular, a man may be one of the vilest of mer, yea, a notorious traitor, and yet a professed minister of the gospel. this is the sum of the beast, and the number of its name, with which, as a servant to the state, i am now to encounter, like as i answered the narrative as a friend of truth, unto which i shall presently apply myself. bristol the 13th. day of the 11th. month, 1657. g. b. the balance, or, a vindication, etc. before i come to any new engagement, it is requisite that i first state the old, and briefly show what hath already been, and how it is now; and wherein a reply is hitherto declined. the great question or cause in controversy between ralph farmer and myself, (in his * sata● enthroned. narrative, and my answer thereunto) was this: viz. whether j. n. and those with him (as to his coming to the throne of truth, etc. bristol, and what was done to him by them) and the people called quakers, were one? this he affirmed, and for this purpose published his narrative, satan. title page, & former part, etc. impostor, p: 24: throne, first ten pages. and called it quakerism in its exaltation; and concluded what he had said of the one, upon the other. this i denied, and proved by plain demonstration, and full testimony of truth, (which shall stand for ever) that they were not one, not led by one and the same spirit, but seen (to be gone forth) and judged, and denied, and the spirit that led them, long before their coming thither; and consequently, that those people, and the truth they witness, were clear, and unconcerned; and that his narrative, and its pag. 25. title, design of it, and end, foundation, and matter therein contained (so far as it related unto them, whom, and their faith he had taken that occasion highly to charge, revile, and abuse) was a lye. for the clearing of this (being the axis, or that on which the weight of the whole did hang) i expected [when i heard of his reply] him to have spoken (had he any thing to say) but when i had viewed it round, i found the field quitted, and the cause left me without an engagement. the next thing in dispute, was his narrative, whether it was a true relation, or not? a true narrative and relation it is, saith he in his title-page; satan. title-page. epistle. and in his epistle to the reader he pledgeth for it his faithful assurance in these words, but this i can, and do faithfully assure you, that there is nothing here of the one, or the other, but what is real truth, as will be made good upon any occasion. [then which, what higher engagement can there be of honesty to induce a belief, for which end it is held forth?] it is not so, (replied i) for the examination of one of throne. p. 29, 30. them, which gives the lie to his conclusion, upon the rehearsal of their papers and examinations, he hath wholly left out. pag. 30. that passage of the examination of a second, which checks the design and drift of his relation, he hath ommitted. pag. 28, 29. the examination of a third he hath affirmed to say, and produced to prove (contrary to his own record of his said examination) that which it saith not. pag. 26, 27. all the contents of a fourth paper he hath neither repeated, (though short) nor in the very words (which clear the matter) but makes up a pack of his own, and then presents it as the language of the paper, to slander the innocent. pag. 27, 28. a fifth deposition he brings forth clipped of that clause, which renders it false sworn. pa. 2 5, 7, 8. 9 and a sixth letter wanting divers words, and a material part of a sentence; and in the close, changed from its own, into such an expression (forged in, and then pointed to with a marginal note, observe) as not only quite altered the sense, but rendered it very scandalous, and the life of him liable to danger, had it really been his, whose was the subscription. pag. 25, 31, 32 hereupon i concluded his narrative a lie, and him as a narrator reprobate to faith and honesty. of this (being the hinge on which turned the whole of his reputation, as on the other did the cause) i listened for a thorough vindication (could he have made it) but throughout the whole reply i could not hear a whisper of his said engagement in his epistle, nor of the words, reprobate to faith and honesty; nor of his quotations of his own pag 74. books, which i had charged upon him to have made to belie one another, and both to give himself the lie, and to prove him a false prophet in such a business of consequence as foreseeing and foretelling things to come, of which he so highly vaunted: no nor of, nor to my demands, viz. by what spirit didst thou foresee, and foretell? the infallible spirit thou hast not, so thou hast confessed, pag. 34. a●d the spirit of the lord is infallible. is it not the witch, the fallible spirit that is out of the truth, that hath divined? seeing that spirit that doth foretell, which is not the spirit of the lord, is such. then i considered him as to religion, and i found (proving it upon him by plain scripture) that his share in a pag. 61, 62, 63, 70, 71. christianity he had renounced. that his [ b pag. 61. ] hopes to be saved, his [ c pag. 65, 66. ] happiness, and way to true happiness, was a lie; and that his [ d pag. 63, 64, 65. ] ministers, ministry, word, churches, unity, orders, peace, civility, good manners, & all [that] religion which he saith apollion & abaddon the destroyer is tearing, laying waste, and confounding is the same; for all that is confounding, tearing and laying waste, (and he saith the [ e satan. epist. to the reader ] destroyer is tearing, laying waist, & confounding ministers, ministry, word, churches, unity, order, peace civility, good manners, yea * o horrible blasphemy! none but christ jesus is truth itself, and truth itself (saith this priest) apollion, etc. is confounding. truth itself, and all religion) is shaken, & all that is shaken is of things that are [made] and that they are shaken, signifies the removing of those things that are shaken, as of things that are [made] that those things which cannot be shaken may remain, heb. 12. 26, 27. but of these slain heaps upon heaps, i find no mention. i also weighed his [ f pag. 80. to pag 90. ] profession, his coat, and craft, and generation, his [ g pag 80. satan, pag. 34. ] argument (in his answer to his own objection) form against the friends of truth as knaves, impostors, and deceivers, and found it and them all too light, and proved them (turning his argument on his own▪ and the heads of his generation) knaves, inter alliis, [they are his own words] impostors, deceivers, who say they are ministers of the gospel, and yet pretend not to the infallible spirit, which they had who were ministers of the gospel, who affirm that their necessary deductions from the scriptures are as true and certain as the scriptures; yea, that they are scripture, and yet deny that they speak by inspiration, (by which all scripture was given) and as the holy men of god did, (who spoke as they were moved of the holy ghost) or that they have infallibility, who declare that they deceive not the people in stretching beyond their line & measure; whereas in stretching beyond their line and measure, in the line and measure of others, is the whole of their trade of divination, who confess that they may he deceived, and may err; and say that they do not lyingly and hypocritically pretend to an infallibility, and yet undertake to lead people the right way to salvation; the ground of whose ministry is no other than according to practice to speak from the scriptures, [we pretend to no other, we preend not to infallibility, saith r. f.] in which satan, pag. 34. are found the devils and false prophets, and the certainty of whose speaking according to the spirit, is no other than their speaking according to the scriptures, whose dictates (he saith) they are, of which they are no more sure than were the false prophets and devils aforesaid, who spoke the words of scripture, and from the scriptures, and according to the words of the scriptures, and yet were reproved by christ, and his prophets, and apostles, for so speaking; for it is not the words that are said, nor the actions that are done, but the nature in which they are said and done, and from whence they proceed, that renders them good and accepted before the lord; and there are but two natures, the divine, and that which is in the transgression; but two principles▪ the one of life, the other of death; as is the root of either, so is that which proceedeth from it; and he that ministers can minister no other than that principle from which he ministers, nor to any other then to that which is of the same principle, whether of death, or of life. and as for the scriptures, they are for the man of god, to be read, to be believed, to be fulfilled, to be practised; they are the things of god, not to be made a trade of for so much a year, or to be talked, or spoken of from, or by the wisdom of this world, no not in the words which man's wisdom, but which the holy ghost teacheth— here his lips are covered. many horrible blasphemies i charged him with, against the father, son, and holy ghost. many notorious lies, slanders, and false accusations; many filthy scoffs, and profane jeers, yea of the spirit, many gross absurdities, confusions, and contradictions, line against line, page against page, one part of his book against the other, slaying and confounding one another, and he them, and they the end and drift of his work, of which he is silent. the justification of the doctrine and principles of the people called quakers, and of geo. fox from his foul calumnies and aspersions he hath not informed; nor hath he endeavoured to quit himself of the instances of blood-thirstiness, charged by me on him and his generation; nor of the assertion, viz. the dog it is that bites, the lamb doth never. nor hath he said a word of the great tumult and sedition of which i charged him to be the chief stirrer up, and principal mover, nor of many things more; in all which should i be particular, time would fail me, being the contents of the greatest part of my answer; and with what juggling, lying, and sophistication he hath replied to the rest, and how little to the purpose, i shall dissect, and plainly make manifest. now when as reason would that of these things aforesaid, and the residue of my answer, he should have cleared himself, or have been silent, (and so to have done, had been somewhat becoming the seriousness of man) instead thereof, (as one forlorn and desperate) h● falls violently on my person, pouring forth at it the evil treasures not only of his own, but the venomous hearts of those generations, of whom, and their treasons, he appears a patron, and advocate, who are (and he with them) become mine enemies for having been instrumental (in the discharge of my trust) to the detecting and preventing their secret plots and bloody conspiracies against the commonwealth, and treasonable adherencies to the chief and declared enemies thereof, in the day of its general designment, and greatest conflicts, not considering that amongst wise men recrimination is always accounted an indicament of a bad cause; and instead of making good a general charge, particularly to asperse, and personally to reflect, is a very foul blemish. and here (having gained the cause) i might withdraw my pen, and sit down in silence till r. f. shall have quitted himself an honest man in print, and have taken off what is laid by me on him in that my answer; it being reasonable that he whose honesty as to a narrator, i have so highly impeached; whose narrative in the material parts thereof, i have so fully answered; whose ministry and religion i have so manifestly overturned; whose share in christianity himself hath so openly renounced, should so do before he gain credit unto what he hath now wrote, or receive from me thereunto a reply. but forasmuch as the level of his, and the poisoned arrows of the generation aforesaid, (who shoot under his cover) is laid at my reputation, as to matter of fact; and for that his, and their entrance unto me is made through the authority of parliament, their high court of justice, and the cause of the nation, for which all the blood hath been spilt in the late wars, and in regard the parliament (as is said) have appointed to hear the case of him whose cause is the principal pleading of this impostor at their next sessions. and because after all the vomitings up of his venomous filth, he saith in his last page, and now from henceforth let none of these quakers trouble me, i have done with this generation; but if they will be troubling, let them know that i will not be troubled— and as for any further answers, replies, contending or debating with them or him, i declare this as my goronis, my farewell to quakerism. (and so i may stay a long day i appear for clearing of my innocency, and the justice of the state.) therefore i shall (waving in this place all other particulars) immediately descend to engage him and his confederates, in his and their two great battalions, the sum and end of his work, and the strength of his mischief, viz. the case of william l. craven, christopher love, in reference to my self. * i mention myself first, because i am accused; it being convenient that i clear my own innocency before i appear in the vindication of others. the state. to the first, viz. cravens case. ralph farmer in his satan enthroned, having vilely traduced me in the business of this man, i judged it necessary for the satisfaction of all such as neither desired nor delighted in the defame of others, to declare my innocency therein, which i then did, and do again in these words, i do throne, p. 102. declare in the presence of the lord, before whom i fear, who searcheth the heart, and tryeth the reins, and bringeth every work to judgement, that i am clear and innocent therein; nor have i used, nor do i know of any indirect proceeding in that whole business of craven and fauconer. at this my declaration he raves exceedingly, and is greatly moved, singling it out in the front, and discharging against it the wrath and fury of the envenomed body of that his reply, well knowing that if that stand, he is cast in the groundwork of his defame of me, (on which he saith, pag. 117. his discourse and discovery is founded) as my answer hath overturned the foundation of his blaspheming of the truth. but stand it doth before him who seethe all things (in the fear of whom i have spoken this twice) and i question not but stand it will (notwithstanding all this dirt) before the sober and truly wise in heart, who shall read and seriously consider what shall be said in this matter. and here i shall not rehearse, nor speak to all he hath written, it deserving neither, nor shall i trouble the reader with a voluminous discourse (with which of necessity i must, should i be particular in every thing) nor shall i defile my pen with the repetition of all his unclean and unsavoury language in abuse of me; but shall briefly come to what he calls his evidence, upon which he saith page 83. clear he is, that if any jury in the world (of discreet, sober, impartial, and understanding men) were to pass upon me, they would give in this verdict, that i do know of many indirect proceed in the matter of the lord craven and fauconer, and that i myself hath used them, and that therefore i am not clear and innocent in this matter: which i shall examine and scan, and then leave it to all understanding, impartial, sober, discreet men, even to that of god in the conscience, which is just to judge, whether notwithstanding all his evidence, i am not clear and innocent; yea, whether his said evidence, viz. the pretended paper said by him to be signed by major fauconer on his deathbed, and the book, entitled, the lord cravens case, etc. do not make me so to appear. for the pretended paper, said to be signed by fauconer. although the black character which himself hath drawn over the man as one most scandalous and perjured; and his producing the said paper in the behalf of his lord craven, to prove him such, be material arguments against himself for the invallidating the credit of any thing said to be wrote, or signed, or spoken by fauconer against me; and although the said pretended paper, as it is set down by r. f. without date or witness, and with an etc. at th● foot, appears rather as a forged libel, than a true record, and so not to be taken notice of, especially coming forth on the single credit of him whom i have proved to be a falsifier of his own records, etc. yet upon supposition that the paper is fauconer●, and that every word thereof as it is set down by r. f. without any variation, interposition, or omission of word or syllable, was wrote and signed by him, and that it is all, and every word and syllable that was so wrote and signed, (which whether it be or not, i shall leave to the sober to judge, and those who are concerned to look after upon what by and by shall be offered to consideration in that particular) i say, upon supposition, as aforesaid, i shall thereunto thus speak. first it saith, and here i dare not say that any man bribed impostor, p, 28. me; no, none d●d. whereby i am cleared from that false and slanderous imputation of corrupting fauconer to swear falsely in the case aforesaid, which cravens friends at the trial of fauconer at the upper-bench, and the author of the pamphlet, entitled, a true and perfect narrative, etc. and r f. in this his reply have so industriously sought to fix upon me. secondly, the words, i dare not say that any one bribed me; no, none did; do plainly intimate, that strong temptations (to affirm the contrary, viz. that some did bribe fauconer) were on him, who ever he were, that wrote it; but the dread or the righteous god, who pleadeth the cause of the innocent, was such upon him, that he said, i dare not; no▪ none did. unto the witness of which god of truth, hadst thou r. f. harkened when (as thyself confesses, pag. 18, 19) upon the first reading of the declaration of my innocency, (which thou calls my bold and daring appeal) it caused thee to make a stand, and seriously to observe it, and astonished thee, and made thee to read it again, and to consider whether there might not be some equivocation in the language and expression, [how was thy evil eye abroad r. f searching for iniquity?] which nor appearing to thee, thou then beganst to think that possibly i might not be guilty, this being an age, sayest thou, wherein many things are charged upon many men very slightly and ungroundedly, and sometimes very falsely, which is my case ralph, in this matter, & that by thyself: i say, hadst thou still harkened thereunto, & obeyed it, than thou hadst done me right, as hath the other, instead of wronging of me in so high & wicked a manner as thou hast in this thy reply, for which a strict reckoning thou hast to make with him who is the judge of all, before whom thou must shortly appear, and then thou shalt know what thou hast done, and what it was that made thee stand, and seriously to consider, and astonished thee, and put thee to reading again; and notwithstanding thy evil eye which searched for equivocation in the language and expression, to set it by, judged in my behalf the second time, and caused thee to begin to think that possibly i might not be guilty, and further to express thyself as hath been said, which is the truth, and which shall stand a witness against, and plead my cause with thee for ever; for i am innocent before the lord in this thing, and his witness it was that stopped thee in thy way this twice, and gave judgement for me, and shall do it eternally against thee, the mouth of the lord of hosts hath spoken it; though thou heeding, and being guided by that spirit which watched and searched for iniquity against the witness, didst suffer the evil o●e to get over, and to hurry thee forth into very bitter and violent expressions of me, and didst then, and hast since (through the just judgement of god upon thee) trampled it under foot, and mayest do yet for a little season, till the measure of thine iniquity be filled up; yet shall it revive again, and then shalt thou know that the lord hath said it, and that thou art the man, and that the things are true of thyself which thou hast uttered forth against, and upon occasion of me in the following lines of the pages aforesaid. now this paper (which after much travel is procured and made use of as the foundation of this last attempt for the retrival of the said estate, and the blemishing of my reputation in order thereunto) acquitting me thus manifestly, as hath been said, what need i any further vindication? 3. the particulars in which i am named in that paper, are only these: and here i utterly renounce, etc. especially a late pamphlet sent to me by capt. bishop; the cause of my writing that pamphlet was, etc. and when i made a demur at the words barbarous and inhuman rebels, capt. bishop said, if you leave that out, you do nothing. true, i had done great services for them, but not by employment; and capt. bishop kept me low with small pittances, so that i was at his bow. to the first; i sent him no such pamphlet as there is intimated, nor put i him in any such, either by myself directly, or by under-actors upon the consideration there mentioned, or any other. to the second, i know not of, nor do i remember or believe that any such demur was made by him at any time, or that i returned any such answer; nor that he scrupled his information; nor had i any suspicion that he was not clear in the certainty of any part thereof, [had it been so, i should have stopped his deposing thereof, though himself had offered it] but had he made such a demur, and had i replied as is expressed, doth it therefore follow, or saith the paper, that i bade him swear it notwithstanding, or left him otherwise then to his liberty, either to leave out these words, or to put them in, as he was satisfied in the truth of them, or the contrary, so to have done had been indirect dealing indeed, and such an abominable wickedness as my soul ever abhorred: besides those words pretended to be spoken in answer, are justifiable according to the common acceptation of that phrase amongst men. to the third, it is a further justification of me who by it am made to appear to have been so far from encouraging any such thing as false information, or perjury in fauconer, that though he had done great services for the state, yet i kept him low with small pittances, so that he was at my bow; what! to swear falsely? nay the contrary, as the reasonable may judge. and here by the way the reader may take notice of the confusion of r. f. who one while seeks to prove that i corrupted fauconer with [great] sums of money, expressing what they were, and by whom paid, pag. 90. another by keeping him low with [small] pittances, who affirms pag. 90. that though he were not bribed with money [beforehand] yet it was promised him, and liberty too; and presently saith, why was it promised him? no doubt, that he might not flintch from his oath; so making it [after.] and a few lines following that demands, but i pray, why was not the money [paid him which was promised?] and yet (in the next words) instances several sums of money which (he saith) was [paid him by my direction;] and then saith, why was not the money [promised him, now paid?] thus as to money, and as to liberty, (having made a slanderous relation concerning my being the occasion thereof, out of newgate, (thereby endeavouring to prove the performance of the promise of liberty, as of money) and reflected upon me with a heap of notorious lies therein) nevertheless of both, viz. money and liberty, he saith thus, but i say, why was not his liberty procured him now? and the money paid him now? and immediately answers himself, oh! (saith he) the business was done, the estate sold, let him hang, let him starve now; it may be the sum promised him was too great, and they could not agree who should pay it, the estate being sold; (wickedly insinuating a combination to make up his pack of scandalous falsehoods.) and thus like a swift dromedary, traversing her ways, and as a bear bereft of her whelps, he raves up and down with a ●ea and no; and it is so, and it is not so; doubling and redoubling the counter again, and all to bring forth this lie and foul aspersion on me, with which he sorely travels, viz. that i bribed fauconers' perjury; which he being not able to compass, (his own say in this point, as so many false witnesses not agreeing among themselves; but disproving one another with diametrical opposition) yet such is his wickedness, that he will have it so, notwithstanding as aforesaid, and that the pretended paper (his libels chief engine raised up against my reputation) clears me (as doth my conscience) of any such thing in these full and express words, and here i dare not say that any one bribed me, no, none did; as hath been rehearsed: this is priest farmer, and the villainy of him who pretends himself to be a minister of the gospel. the paper doth not say that fauconers' information, or those words, barbarous and inhuman rebels, or any other part of it, arose from any one but himself; nor that any one knew that the information, or any particular thereof was false; or that any one, knowing it to be false, used any means, or provoked him to swear it; but it saith, the words, [viz. barbarous and inhuman rebels being once (not but once, as r. f. belies it, pag. 89.) named by me, they were as quickly inserted; which (granting it to be so, though i know of no such snatching) was no more than what ought to have been done, it freely proceeding from the informant, and being of such importance to the state, though r. f. keeps so great in several pages, to wrest it to the contrary: (so by the paper) the fault, if any, lies on falconers part who gave the information, and who (it saith) falsely swore it, (as he since remembers, saith the paper, not when he deposed it) and upon no other; or if it be, it appears not on whom to fix it; for though the words, [i was hastily after a great sickness provoked to it] seem to intimate the contrary; yet whether it was by inward temptation, or outward suggestion, (to either of which the term provoke, is convertible) who can determine? or who it was that used such provocation, seeing therein the paper is silent? for my part i know of neither, nor of any such haste as the paper mentions; or that the information, or any part of it was false; or that he doubted of the truth of any thing he deposed; the information was wholly from himself, & he was very free in giving it; and time there was enough [days, and weeks, and months] for consideration, had he doubted in himself, between the first discourse, wherein falconer mentioned cravens name, and the beginning of his information, and the deposing of what he had informed. [5. the paper saith; so that i do here solemnly protest, that i did not then (when he made oath) absolutely remember whether the very words barbarous, and inhuman rebels were expunged; and premises these as the reasons in the foregoing words viz. for after twenty weeks sickness (saith it) this was done, my body being low, and in much haste, being much enfeebled; and above three quarters of a year after i came over sea; which plainly clears his information as to those words (and no other clause was insisted upon at the trial as a perjury) from being a packed, feigned, or designed thing, and himself from being guilty, viz. of corrupt, wilful, and malicious perjury, (the verdict brought in by the jury against him:) and so what doth there remain as a ground of clamour? for on these two hinges, viz. that his information as to these words barbarous, and inhuman rebels was designed, feigned and packed, and that he wilfully and in malice, and being corrupted thereunto, swore it doth turn all the late endeavours for the retrivall of this estate; and on these two pillars is founded all the outcries that hath been made of fauconers' perjury, and of the injustice, and indirect dealing of the parliament counsel of state, their committee for examinations, etc. and of myself their secretary in order thereunto, as the only game they had left to play, and the last stone they had to turn for that purpose; which nevertheless (after all this great a do) is but as aforesaid by their own reckoning; for after twenty weeks sickness this was done, my body being low, and in much haste, being much enfeebled, and three quarters of a year after i came over, so that i did not then absolutely remember, whether the word barbarous and inhuman rebels were expunged; saith the paper: and that fauconer drew the petition, and that he put into it those very words, drury, and brisca (the only witnesses against him at the trial) confessed on their oaths, though they said they were afterwards expunged, so that as he solemnly protests, he did not well remember wheher those words barbarous and inhuman rebels, which as i shown you before, he motioned to have put into the petition, and might therefore have some confused remembrance of them; i say he could not well then in haste (as he saith) remember whether they were expunged, or no; saith r. farmer, page 89. here is the sum of this whole matter, and the criticism on which it hangs, and the narrow compass into which it is drawn by the friends of craven, and falconers enemies: and thus hath their evidence over-turned their cause, and their management thereof declared (against their wills) their juggling to posterity. but whether the said pretended paper, and the whole contents thereof be really falconers, and of his hand writing and signing, i shall offer a few particulars to men of understanding to consider (and as i have said) to those who are concerned to look after. 1. i have by me a declaration every line of his own hand writing and signing, to the contrary, which he sent to me to publish in his vindication, without any foreknowledge of mine, direction or preocupation either of the thing, or matter therein contained directly or indirectly, which followeth in these words. a declaration of major ric. fauconer, prisoner in the upper bench, humbly tendered to all honourable persons of trust, and employment, and to all other impartial readers. having endured a strict imprisonment these two years his death prevented the publishing of this declaration. and a quarter, being exposed to all wants and extremityes, that possible a prison can reduce a man unto; languishing also in a deep consumption, contracted by my cruel sufferings; and for that i perceive the malice of my adversaries to be most insatiable, by rendering me daily more & more odious; thereby to invalidate my testimony concerning the lord craven: i have therefore after a strict examination and scrutiny into my very soul, issued forth this ensuing declaration, most humbly tendering it to the just censure of all honourable persons of trust and employment, and to all other impartial readers. and first i declare of myself, that as by birth and education, i claim a parity with the better sort of gentlemen; so my affections were showed most early to the parliament, when the feature mountainous troubles were but an embryo. in the service i continued constant in arms, even to the latter time of the late war; i also expended out of my patrimony four hundred pounds, and upwards, in raising horse in wales; as hath been and will be attested to by several officers, under major general horton, of all which i never received yet one penny: after this i undertook my employment beyond sea, there i run many hazards, traveled many hundreds of miles, through france, flanders, holland, jersey, etc. to and again, & performed matters with all vigilant care: on my return for england after a year and a halves time, in the packet boat of ostend, the said boat was rob, and some seventeen or eighteen passengers carried prisoners, and myself only and the boatmen free; surely in this i observed the hand of providence then, which preserved me to come safe to london, where i rendered an ample account all of the whole treaty at breda, and all the transactions, with divers matters of importance; as my services were many, so i shall instance but one to avoid prolexity, and by that the whole body of the other may be judged; expede herculem. at breda, several commissions were granted by the scotch king, for the raiseing of horse and foot in divers parts of england, by those numerous insurrections to have gained a body of an army, whereby to have diverted the lord general, and the army, from hindering the scotch in their design for england; this was carried with much secrecy by the principal agents there, the chiefest, and most desperate of those insurrections as well as the rest; notwithstanding the great secrecy, i gave a particular account of four months before it happened; nay of the colonel who was chief agent, and taken an actor with several others: by this timely hint the parliament had time enough to prevent their enemies; which they did, and by crushing them, all the intended insurrections in the west, and wales, they vanished: the parliament and council of state did solemnize a day of thanksgiving at margret's in westminster, and ordered a day to be observed through the whole nation for that great deliverance, of which instrumentally under god i was the principal author; and judge jermine was pleased to tell mr. maynard, who was most bitter against me, that without that service of mine, and some others, neither he had set there, nor mr. maynard pleaded there: i wonder drury and brisco, did not acquaint th● state with the intended dangers, they both knew it a● breda: no, they stayed to see the last man born of all the royal games; and then came into england after they could act no more mischief, as good common wealths men. and now a word or two of them, the chief evidence against me, i have in part related what i have been, what i have acted, and what i am, and let the indifferent man balance us; drury was always a papist in arms against the parliament; so irreconcilable an enemy, that after all endeavours at home, he petitioned the than scotch king, (as himself confessed at the upper bench court) to be enabled to serve him, as he had done his royal father: one who went from bredato antwerpeto place his son there with the jesuits, this he cannot deny & i am sure divers can testify it: for brisco, there was enough declared on oath concerning him viz. that he betrayed and sold his countrymen for twelve stivers a man, he was always an invetterate enemy against the state, and formerly belonged to the lord cravens regiment; i will spare to touch at their personal vices, although some of them have falsely blasted me, and rendered me odious, and notorious of which i shall speak anon. and now i desire of all honest men to judge, whether my evidence may not stand in competition with theirs; drury confirms that i drew the petition, also, which was presented at breda, and sure i have then best reason to remember the contents of it; notwithstanding a copy which he said he preserved in his sons book, yet that was but a copy; not the main original petition, nor can drury upon his oath deny, but that himself related to me and others, that the lord craven told him, it would not be safe for him to deliver the petition; but he would speak to the queen of bohemia; this he cannot deny on oath, unless by a mental reservation, he can dispense with any oath: if this man who hath forfeited his life may stand in competition with me; nay overthrew my evidence, who so long adventured my life, and who have been under god, a means of so great deliverance to the army and nation; then i may safely cry aloud, terras astraea reliquet; indeed a large and a strange verdict was obtained against me on their evidence; viz. corrupt, wilful and malicious perjury; but i would be informed where either of the three were, or on what evidence the jury should ground it, to bring in corruption, malice & wilfulness; ● as for corruption ideclare before god, & to the whole world, that i never was enticed animated, or procured, to put in the information given by me at white h●ll, touching the lord craven, by any person or persons whatsoever nor did jever receive one penny of money, or any moneys or reward to do it, or for doing it: my long & extreme poverty remaining in a perishing condition may easily confirm it. for malice i am sure the lord cravens person was altogether unknown to me, until the treaty at breda; & for wilfulness, it was upon oath attested by an honourable & an honest patriot, that it was first accidentally delivered in discourse; of which when i was called before a public authority, i thought in my conscience, and do still think, i was obliged to declare the truth, and in this i will live and die. nor can i omit the subtle malice of my prosecutors, who being backed at home & abroad with potent friends and large purses, compassed sea and land to gain their proselytes (whilst i was detained most strictly in prison) by them to blast me in my repute, so to make way to their verdict, knight, the first of those proselytes, was condemned to be hanged at tyburn, and was carried in the cart as far as the bars in holborn: the rest were catchpoles, and catchpoles-followers; only mr. worllage an attorney, who could not charge me with any particulars: and one jaques, alias jackson, the son of a bailiff, one who by the ruin of many young men and others, from a poor alehouse, came to be an innkeeper. these were their good substantial evidence, as they term them; nay, this jackson was prosecuted by mr. w●rllage for cheating a neighbour of his with false dice, of a great sum of money. this jackson was perjured in a deep manner; and if he can produce any one to attest what he falsely swore, viz. that i on my knees drank a health to the devil at noonday in the market-town of peters-field some six years since, as he falsely and wickedly swore, i will, as i should deserve, suffer the most ignominious death: it is strange that at noonday, on a market-day, and in the marketplace, none should see or hear this; no surely, nor perjured jackson neither; and i beseech god in his due time to manifest this exemplarily on one of us, either by his mercy or justice. and that the world may most apparently behold the machivilian projects, and pestilent divices of my adversaries; i do here declare, that after that false verdict obtained against me, several agents, and some of them note. persons of good quality oft times were with me, and solicited me to discover & acknowledge what i was not guilty of, offering me from my chief adversaries indemnity, liberty, etc. and if any shall say, this is but my bare assertion, and that i will say any thing to help myself in this sad and desperate condition; to them i answer, and to my adversaries, that i defy them in this, and that i have their letters under their hands kept safe, to this hour; wherein i am offered indemnity, liberty, etc. so that i would but comply in their devices, with them to the ruin of others, and shipwreck of my soul and conscience: these * these letters i have by me. letters i say i have, and it was a long time on treaty, and if i produce not these letters before any authority, than let me be hanged, and spare not: surely these men have dealt with me, as some witch-finders do, as i have heard, who have put poor innocent old women to so great torture, that they have been forced to confess themselves witches, though nothing so, choosing a present death rather than their continued torments; but let their cruelty be as raging as hell, and devil himself, as i am exposed to all wants, and deserted by all, i shall yet rather choose to walk in the direct line of my conscience, than divide from the truth: to conclude, as all and each particular in this my declaration is truth, so i once more declare before god, and to all men, that no manner of person or persons whatsoever ho●e, did in the least, entice, persuade, move, or procure me to give in the information touching the lord craven at white hall, but as i have declared, i thought myself obliged to declare the verity before a public authority, before which authority i was called after i had accidentally discovered it in discourse to a person of quality, and trust. rich. fauconer. 2. he suffered a very sharp and cruel imprisonment in newgate, and the upper bench prisons, under such deep necessity of apparel, bedding and other provisions, that he was even eat with vermin, and wasted with an incuraeble cough, and consumption, (as from himself by many sad and lamentable letters, expressing how his dogs and horses, stood warmer and cleaner in the days of his prosperity, and by others i have been informed (that he died; dureing which time of his said sad imprisonment, both before and after his trial, he was treated, tempted, and sought to be corrupted, die in diem from day to day for many weeks together, not only with threatening, and terrifying expressions that he should be severely prosecuted, his cheeks branded, his nose slit, & 〈◊〉 such like, but with large offers of money, liberty, indemnity, and the sta●ing of all, to some such thing, of himself and me, as is the intent and drift of the recital, and use made of this paper: now produced after his death▪ and said by ralph farmer to be his, which (when living) he withstood, and chose rather thus by linger cruelty to waste into death, than by yielding thereunto [and so to make himself and others guilty, who are innocent] to live, though in the possession of the largely promised indemnity, money, and liberty. now of this tampering to corrupt him, i was not only informed at white hall, from time to time as it was transacting, but i have the papers by me ready to make i● appear, yea the original letters (subscribed and wrote all with the same hand) of the copies of which, and the negotiations of that person and his outward quality; he thus expresses; now sir, i have sent you a copy of two letters, of which i have the originals by me, whereby you may perceive how they have been at me; their spleen being at coll. joyce, yourself, and others, etc. i have forborn to affix his name, in regard he is a gentleman of quality: assoon as it is known that i have imparted it▪ i shall be surely murdered (which i am confident is far from your desire.) now i am deeply engaged to secrecy, therefore should the gentleman be summoned, and i remain here where he hath a brother prisoner; i say again i should be surely and out of hand murdered: this gentleman came in all haste to me, assoon as he understood the book mentioned their large offers to me before, and since my trial (now, this gentleman ●●●●●ed with me before, and since my trial) and said it could not possibly be but i had revealed it to you, but i protested you knew not his name, which i am sure you do not, although i wrote to you of the matter in general, but i told him that indeed, one went to you, and told you of some large proffers were made me, which in part pacified him; i have the original letters subscribed with his hand, and he is a gentleman of worth and good descent; and in the postscript he saith, as i shall answer it at the dreadful day of judgement, to my knowledge i have not written one false matter or circumstance in this letter. rich. fauconer. besides the aforesaid, i have (among the rest) a paper of another, (whose name i shall forbear to mention) who (he says) is a gentleman of quality, and an ancient and intimate acquaintance of his, and who came to him, and tampered with him in the same matter, and told him, that he could tell how to put a brace of hundred he o● ten expressed himself that he was offered some hundreds a year if he would say, he was corrupted. pounds into his pocket concerning the lord craven. and that a parliament man assured him (his said friend) that if he would but subscribe who enticed him to it, that the lord craven would recover his estate, and how they were conspireing to have all his creditors to arrest him, &c▪ with much more, which i shall forbear further to repeat: the poor man through extremity of misery (though chief justice rolls, and the judges of the upper bench, saw cause to arrest judgement; which arrest of judgement they never took off) is languished and dead, his blood will lie somewhere and be required; for my part i am clear. 3. those passages, [i hear protest before the almighty god, that i never nudertooke any employment, nor never any one mentioned it to me, but i went over in a poor desperate condition, supported by others;] and [true, i had done great services for them, but not by employment] renders the said paper either very unlikely to be falconers or (if r. f. and his fellows will have it to be his yet) that it is not truth, and so the paper is not to be believed upon the account of the confession of a dying man; for that he was employed beyond the seas to discover the designs of the enemy against the common wealth, lievt. coll. joyce deposed in court, at the trial, as being discoursed with by him thereabouts before he went over; and lieut. coll. joyce it was that brought him to me (after he returned) to give an account of the discovery he had made beyond the seas of their conspiracies; and himself hath confessed it under his hand in his declaration aforesaid, & that he was employed afterwards, others can testify; against which so known a truth to himself and others and by him subseribed, for fauconer to protest & affirm as aforesaid is most improbable, and hardly to be supposed, as the matter of the said protestation, and assertion appears to be most notoriously false; which being so in these particulars, so solemnly in words protested and affirmed; what credit is to be given to the rest of the said paper, as of the words of a dying man pretended to be delivered under the sense (as it saith) of a touched conscience, and from a soul woefully perplexed; upon the bare reputation of which; (viz.) as the words of a dying man so sensibly expressed; this paper for the ends aforesaid is dropped into the world as truth to be believed, but is thus proved a lie and blasted. and thus much concerning this pretended paper (ra. farmer's main foundation of what he calls his evidence, and indeed, upon the matter, the sum of it) and to what i seem therein to be concerned. for the other particulars which he endeavours to fix upon me, as indirect dealing from certain passages out of the book, entitled the lord craven case: etc. picked, parceld, and mangled by him, and then set down as his other ground of (what he calls) his evidence for that purpose: i need no clearer vindication than that very book, wherein is not only related, stated at large, and argued that whole business of craven and fauconer; but objections, & those very things which he lays to my charge answered in a short examination of a certain pamphlet entitled, (a true & perfect narrative of the several proceed in the case concerning the lord ●●aven, etc. the substantialitie and truth whereof he hath not (by any thing that he hath said) infirm, nor can he refel; yea those very passages as related by him, considered abstractively from the particulars of the pretended paper, which by horrible wresting he hath sought to make speak, what they say not, and then hath joined them to those passages to force them (if he could) to pronounce the same, (which i have already cut off and answered) clear me sufficiently; therefore i shall not (being desirous to ease the reader) rehearse what he hath said therein, nor further answer to it as i might, though so to do would tend much to the infamy of him, and my advantage; but shall refer the unprejudiced reader to the said book, & the pamphlet examined as aforesaid, and that part of r f 's reply, wherein are those passages, & upon serious consideration of the one & the other, with this my defence, let him judge, whether ineed desire amore fair & fuller vindication? and whether any man (besides r. f. and such as are led by his spirit) pretending to ingenuity or honesty, would not have blushed so to have produced & misused them as he hath done? whose cankered bowels so plainly work to convert against me, what is my justification; and whose black malicious spirit so apparently runs through the body and members of what he hath written as the very source and contagion thereof, that i need not give it any further demonstration; and indeed were it otherwise, yet it is so circularly interwoven with mingle mangles, and wrapped up with such interrogatory uncertainties and ironical reflections, that there is nothing so positive as might deserve a rational reply; and the ground work or foundation falling, or rather shakeing, of what he hath sought to build thereupon, what he hath endeavoured so to raise must needs come to the ground; true it is, i readily lent him (at his desire) the book aforesaid partly to try what he would do therewith, & partly to leave him without excuse although i then expected some such wretched mis-use thereof as he hath made, & poisonous extraction which the book itself corrects, to the recording of his shame and disingenuity for ever. and now having (or rather what he hath produced as evidence against me) cleared my innocence from his gross and slanderous imputations, i shall proceed to speak a little more particularly of this matter, the clamour whereof hath made such a ring in this nation. to what hath been already said, i do further declare, that as i have used no indirect dealing, so it hath not been in my heart, or desire at any time to do this man wrong, much less to design the ruin of his estate, that i might have part, as is most falsely suggested; my soul even abhorred, and my hands have always been kept clear from any such wickedness, (as my whole course in public affairs & many families in this nation whom i freely endeavoured (as i saw just cause) to keep from ruin, and was instrumental to preserve, (can witness:) but being entrusted by the state i was faithful thereunto, that the commonwealth might receive no detriment, and did (in the discharge thereof) communicate what came to my knowledge of him (as of others) to those in authority whom it did concern, who considered and did therein, as they saw appertained to justice; and that i neither desired nor designed to do him wrong, but the contrary, i shall give one plain (i may say undeniable) demonstration, of which i leave the reasonable to judge, viz. drury and brisco (the two only witnesses against fauconer as to perjury) being in custody by virtue of the council of state's warrant, as traitors, and under my examination; i had then an opportunity (had i desired or designed any such thing as r▪ f. lays to my charge, or had been such a man as he represents me) to have shut the door against this last attempt, (viz. the conviction of fauconer) for the retriving of this estate, and consequently to have prevented all that wrong and abuse which (in order thereunto) hath been since done me (bo●h in print and otherwise) by his agents and advocates. for these two having been always enemies to the commonwealth, and in arms against it; the o●e a colonel [a papist] the other a captain; and having been at breda in the time of the treaty there, and the conclusion thereof between the scotch commissioners and their king, where (and in those parts) they waited for new employment (under him) against the state, till they were ready to perish, and then petitioned him to take into his princely consideration their extremities who had been always ready to prostrate their lives in his majesty's most royal father's service, and were no less willing and ready to prosecute the same in what he should command, and that some course might be taken for their present subsistence, that their future endeavours might not be buried in that unavoidable calamity which their known loyalty had reduced them unto, (as the petition hath it, which drury upon examination tendered to me as the original draught of the petition presented by themselves and other officers, to the said king for the effecting of their desires) wherein they entreated the lord cravens assistance. and drury appearing to me (as did brisco) by his pleading on cravens behalf before i asked him one question, or signified the reason of his apprehension, and by his continual interjecting his plea to the same purpose throughout his examination, to have come over from beyond the seas upon some such errand, as they were afterwards made use of: and they both having given me in their examinations under their hands, an account of their bearing arms against the commonwealth from first to last, and of their being at breda, and doing as aforesaid, i might either have recommitted them to prison, or in prison detained them, or have procured them to be tried for their lives, and executed as traitors (they being desperate enemies to the commonwealth, and without the act of pardon, and coming over without the allowance of the state, and their own examinations, as well as others, witnessing against them) or have taken from drury the original draught of the said petition, wrote (as was said) with fauconers' hand; and so there had been neither matter on which to raise, or witnesses whereby to effect what hath been done against fauconer: but contrary hereunto, i continued their liberty upon paroll, and took not from drury the said draught of the said petition; and when i was asked by some why i did so, as foreseeing and being sensible of the use that would be (and which hath since been) made of it against the commonwealth, and expressing somewhat to that purpose; i replied to this effect, that i did so in regard there were mutterings abroad, as if the lord craven had received wrong, and now that there were some which could testify in his behalf, the council had laid their power upon them. and i added, that whatever were the issue, yet this i had done in uprightness, and that the commonwealth might not sustain the least blemish upon their proceed. and this is the naked truth as it was in my heart; for it was always my desire, and i often expressed it, that the commonwealth might not have a tittle of any man's but what was right; and the same i pursued as i saw just cause, and had opportunity and power, and bore my testimony against such as endeavoured the contrary. now whereas it may be said, how do these things agree with the remanding drury to the custody of the sergeant at arms, and detaining of him there till the end of that sessions, wherein the indictment was found against fauconer; so that a trial could not be had before his conviction, and before the next sessions the vote passed for sale of his estate? and with the not reporting of drury and brisco's examinations aforesaid, which tended to the vindication of the lord craven; when as those that made against him were reported? and with my purchasing a considerable part of his estate? (all which r. f. hath laid to my charge as indirect dealing, (and therein keeps a great a▪ do) from the pamphlet, entitled, a true and perfect narrative, etc. i answer, although that pamphlet; with all the particulars therein, and the residue of the contents thereof, are at large argued and answered in the aforesaid book, entitled, the lord cravens case, which, as i have said, i lent r. f. at his desire, that of the truth of things in behalf of the commonwealth, he might not be ignorant, and unto which (because not refelled or infirmed by r. f.) i have already, to avoid prolixity, referred the reader for satisfaction; yet that i may not seem to avoid speaking because unable to answer; nor leave the reader for the clearing of these things, at such a distance as the perusual of those books which he may not have by him; i shall in short reply. 1. to the first, drury was not remanded into safe custody by me for any such intent or purpose in the least, as to obstruct proceed that sessions, nor was it so much as in my thoughts; but because drury being a prisoner to the council for treason, which he & his fellow brisco had confessed, & under examination, did suffer himself to be treated, sworn, and examined in a case wherein the commonwealth was concerned, without first acquainting the council or committee, or me (who had let him have his liberty upon perol) therewith, which he ought to have done; or declaring unto them (who so treated, swore, & examined him,) that he was in such a condition, by which his behaviour he appeared not to be in that indifferency and uprightness as became a witness, but in combination against the state, whose prisoner he was: not that the offence was because he was examined on his lord's behalf (had that been the thing in design to hinder, it could, as hath been said, easily have been prevented either by keeping him and brisco prisoners, or taking away the draught of their petition, or having them both tried:) nor that i apprehended that his testimony could acquit his lord of the guilt, for which the parliament adjudged his estate to be confiscated; his very examination being a further proof of his lord's delinquency, not an acquittal, as anon will appear. nor that proceed should not have been had against fauconer in a legal way, (had it been so, he would have been detained longer than four days, and his lords friends constrained to have passed through the bars and locks of the authority of the council (which was by act of parliament) thereunto) but for the reason's aforesaid. nor had drury been at liberty, could there [reasonable] have been expected a trial that sessions, though the narrator aforesaid, on whose bottom, or rather falsehood, r. f. hath raised this slander upon me, hath alleged, that fauconer might have been tried, had not drury been restrained by me, and lays it before the reader, as if his not being tried that sessions, was the ground wherefore the passing of the bill engrossed, was not prevented: and before the next sessions, saith he, the bill of sale of the lord craven's estate to be sold, did pass; for neither was fauconer (who must have pleaded to the indictment ere a trial could have been) summoned to appear; nor was he in custody; nor was there a certainty whether he might be found in that short space of time wherein drury was detained▪ which was but four days; or had he been found, summoned, or attached, could it be expected that (in a case of such concernment to himself and the commonwealth) he should have witnesses, in so short a time, ready, the matter of fact being done beyond the seas some years before, where none but enemies to the state were present, (who must be, if any, his compurgators) and the parliament's adjudging of the case, having put by the expectation of any such trial; or that the chief justice rolls would have bound him up peremptorily to have pleaded within that time, and so consequently have constrained him to impossibilities, he having so rational and just ground of plea for a longer: nor (had all these things concurred) could it have been tried that sessions, in regard the indictment was wrong laid; or if it had been tried, could it have done otherwise then miscarry? for that the original deposition on which the indictment was grounded and recited in hac verba, could not be found, as is more at large argued in cravens case aforesaid, pag. 31, 32, 33, 34. which r. f. (such is his fallacious manner of dealing where he cannot answer) calls a company of blind supposals, and childish arguings; and bids me print it, and saith he'll be my bondman if it any way help me, nay, if it doth not further discover my folly, and that he would have wrote it, but that, he saith, it is as long as impertinent; and then saith, this is enough. [priestlike indeed.] but whether his saying so, doth convict the thing, or render me, or him as deserving that which he casts on me, and whether he be not my bondman, let men of understanding upon perusing these passages, and what is here asserted, judge. to the second, i neither transmitted, nor reported any of the informations in this affair to the parliament, nor was i so to do, but to the committee of the council of state for examinations and discoveries, who reported them to the council of state, and the council to the parliament; unto which committee i communicated the said examinations of drury and brisco, as i had done the others; but neither from them, nor the council, received i any order to transmit them, or not, and so had nothing further lying upon me as my duty, but to keep them safe with the rest of the things of that nature with which i was entrusted; nor do i know of any reason wherefore the council reported them not; perhaps it was (and it is very likely the reason) because the parliament took not the informations on which they grounded their first vote of confiscation, again into consideration; but notwithstanding the often and long debates afterwards, during the space of full seventeen months, and what was offered, urged, and earnestly sought to be enforced upon his behalf, still saw cause to adher unto what they had at first voted; and so the council might judge the reporting of these needless, especially being taken above a year after their first information, as their dates make manifest. but as for concealing these examinations because they cleared his said lord, which the narrator aforesaid, pag. 44. and r f. pag 96, 97▪ 98, 99, 100 and to know the reason of me wherefore the council of state reported them not; cravens council so much insisted upon in prosecution of this question, for that purpose in behalf of his lord, at the committee of parliament fitting in the star-chamber novemb. 23. 1654. to whom his petition was referred as unjust and indirect dealing, and done in design to ruin his estate, and of which so much clamour is made. i say, jt's an abominable and false calumny; for, as i have said, i concealed them not, but communicated them, as i did the other informations; nor have i known nor perceived any such intention in the council or their committees in letting them lie unreported, or any thing in them but integrity and uprightness in this whole business, as i then declared to the committee of parliament aforesaid, and am now made free to do the council and their committee this right in the face of all men; and that this is so, their permitting drury and brisco to enjoy their liberties upon what i said to some of them as aforesaid and drury to keep the pretended original draught of the petition, and not restraining their liberties afterwards, nor trying them, nor at all hindering the course taken for the conviction of fauconer; nor interposing with their, or the authority of parliament, then sitting: these proceed though of so bold and high a nature (as the like hath not been heard of) and tending in the very foundation of them (as is manifest by the use since made of it) to the scandalising of their proceed, and arraignment of their justice, is a plain demonstration. had i known to the contrary, i should not have kept silence, but have born my testimony against it, as having received mercy not to have served (knowing it to be so) the base ends, or unjust commands of any in authority, or other person upon any consideration whatsoever. to conclude this particular, let the impartial understanding men in the laws (who are friends to the commonwealth) read and weigh the examinations of drury and brisco, hereunto annexed, and judge whether instead of clearing their lord from the guilt of delinquency, viz. adherency to the enemy of this commonwealth, (the ground on which the parliament voted the confiscation of his estate, of which more by and by) they do no● prove it strongly upon him? and whether they are not sufficient enough in themselves to bottom a sequestration upon, (by the law) were there no other testimony? finally, if so be the said examinations of those two men (their choice witnesses for the disproving of fauconers' testimony, the grand wheel on which hath turned all the late transactions in cravens behalf) do render him guilty, (as upon perusal and weighing, let it be judged whether it doth not so appear) what need there any more to be said for the clearing of the council, the committee, and myself from the foul calumnies and false suggestions, as aforesaid, of concealing the said examinations which they say (and thereupon make such a noise) tended to his justification? 3. to the last, i did contract for part of his estate, and why might i not as well as another, being sold by act of parliament upon their judgement of delinquency? but i withdrew, and went not thorough with my contract because i foresaw what use (as hath been since discovered) would be made thereof, viz. the rendering of me a party, and so to cut off my testimony in the behalf of the commonwealth, (which testimony of mine is their great trouble, and a principal cause of the s●inging up of all this, and the rest of the dirt in this libel, and otherwhere upon me) though such my withdrawing and reserving of myself free, was much to my prejudice, as there be that can bear witness; and i could largely make to appear: and he that went on where i left, had it, (as far as i know) at the very same rates as i had agreed to, without any consideration of advantage accrueing thereby to me whatsoever. and so as i am not, nor never was possessed of any part or parcel of his estate, either in my own, or under any other name, so i am clear of having carried on any private bargain therein with any one, or of ever having or designing a title-consideration upon the quitting of that my interest, or upon my relation to that business directly or indirectly; or of having under pretences of public interest drove on a design of my own private, (with which r▪ f. slanders me, pag. 103.) in this or any other business in relation to the public, and under covert or pretence thereof; charge me who can, i here bid open defiance to all the world to prove any such thing upon me during my whole course in public affairs, in which it is well known, i had opportunities and temptations enough, but always obtained this mercy, to be kept clean in heart & hand from any such thing: and so in the presence and fear of the lord, whose dread was with me, and kept me; i can say i came into, and passed through, and left all public employments, which were neither few, nor inconsiderable; and hereunto i have the answer of a good conscience, even the witness of him who is greater than all, that my life, and all i had, was never so dear to me as the commonwealth, nor minded in comparison of it, but for its sake was put to the stress, which is now in my retirement (during this hour wherein all unclean and malicious spirits are let lose) my rejoicing and exceeding great reward, though of man i have, and do receive the contrary. but as for denying such my contract, it's a wicked lie, i have not done it at any ●●me; nor did i relinquish it upon any apprehension of scandal that either was, or like to be, (as r. f. by information, as he saith▪ suggesteth p. 103.) for i was always clear on the contrary, but for the reason aforesaid, nor did the committee of parliament lay it to my charge, whether i did contract or no? but only put the question to me at the desire of cravens counsel in behalf of his lord, who thought (but he was mistaken) to have found me a purchaser, and so to have taken off my testimony in the behalf of the commonwealth; but i was present there for the information of the committee, for which cause they had desired, (not summoned as to a charge) my coming to them by their register as they did at the same time several who were eminent members of the council of state, and of their committee for examinations and discoveries when that business was transacted; and secretary thurloe also (who was then secretary to the english ambassadors in holland, when the appeal was made to the state's general, and their jurisdiction, in the behalf of craven in the case aforesaid, from the jurisdiction of the parliament of england.) and 〈◊〉 that question asked me by the committee as aforesaid in my answer thereunto; i did neither shuffle nor prevaricate with the committee, nor put off an answer till i saw those present who were ready to produce the contracts out of the book, (as r. f. falsely affirms, as he saith, by information) they are all abominable lies, especially the last, which i neither saw, nor came into my thoughts. and as for the rest of what thou sayest thou hast by information, but dost not mention of whom, and thy queries whether i said not so and so to one in my study at white-hall, whom thou namest not, when i shall see any thing relating unto me deserving an answer under the hands of either of them to whom thou pretendest, i may make a reply. to close this particular, had any thing been in design, as r. f. and his confederates would fix upon me, otherwise might have been found then by meddling with that estate, (which could not otherwise be●● expected then to raise a clamour) to have answered such ends, of which neither he nor his accomplices might have once heard so much as a whisper; but as i was clear, so i proceeded boldly, knowing that innocency would in the end triumph, and my open contracting at that time was not without reason as to the public, it being a demonstration to honest men, that if i had known any thing but honesty in the bottom, on which was grounded that judgement, i would not have contracted myself for part of the estate which by that judgement was confiscated. as for major fanconer, i neither known him, nor heard that such a man was beyond the seas, till (after his coming from breda, where he was at the time of the treaty between the scotch commissioners and their king) he was brought to me to give an account of what designs he knew there to have been hatched against the commonwealth, which i received according to the trust committed to me by the council in things of that nature; and finding it to be of seasonable and great importance to the safety of the commonwealth, it being of designs generally laid over the nation, and of several of the heads and chief actors therein particularly in norfolk, (which a few months after brake forth into an open insurrection) and it agreeing in many particulars with what i had received from other of my agents, i gave credit thereunto. and this as i have said, is the first knowledge i had of the man, and that which gave the occasion of my conversing with him; but as for any thing designed by me against craven; and then sending fauconer over the seas to effect and act it (as hath been whispered into the ears of some in chiefest authority) or corrupting of fauconer by moneys, or otherwise, to swear falsely; or any knowledge or apprehension that he had in any particular untruly deposed; or putting him upon straits of time, or any other inconveniences whereby he might be surprised in his understanding or memory, or using any provocation for that purpose, or that he might give in a wrong information, i am (in the presence of the lord who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and coming) clear and innocent. and thus much in reference to myself. as to the state. the question in the case is not whether the words barbarous and inhuman rebels, were in the petition of the officers presented the king at breda, in which william (called lord) craven, is said to have assisted? or whether what fauconer gave therein, be a true testimony? as that on which the parliament grounded their vote of confiscation at first; and afterwards their judgement for sale of his estate, (though it hath been the design and artifice of his agents and advocates (and of r▪ f. in particular) thus fallaciously to state it, and in prosecution thereof, having got a verdict of perjury against fauconer, as to that clause only have thereupon founded this loud lying outcry, viz. that upon the single testimony of that scandalous and perjured person, the parliament did give judgement for the sale of his estate; and have upon this wheel turned all their late transactions for the retrival thereof, to the undermining the act of parliament, and blemishing their justice.) but whether he the said craven being a native and subject of this commonwealth, did not repair to the declared enemy thereof, viz. charles stuart, son to the late king (then at breda in treaty with the scotch commissioners, for the instateing of him into the throne of england, and where it was agreed to instate him by force of arms into the said dominion, and where many of his councillors of state, and officers were met, and were there hatching and laying designs to be acted throughout the commonwealth of england, and which afterwards were endeavoured to be put in execution.) and whether he the said craven had not then, and thereat, and during the time of the aforesaid treaty, and the conclusion thereof, (where it was agreed as aforesaid) converse and familiarity with the said king (the declared enemy of the commonwealth) in his privy chambers, and otherwise, and with his councillors of state, select juncto, and officers? which to do is adherency to the declared enemy of the commonwealth, and consequently treason by the known laws of the land. and that he the said lord craven hath so done, is positively proved [to say nothing of fanconers' testimony, to invalidate which as to what he hath said in this particular, nothing hath yet been offered] not only by four witnesses, viz. reyley, ketchingman, benson, and mowbray, sworn before the vote of confiscation, and in consideration with the parliament when they resolved that vote, but by bardsey, (sworn before the council of state, and before the parliament, when they ordered his name to be put in the bill for his lands to be sold) and by priswick, sworn before the commissioners for sequestrations, nou. 18. 1●51. and by drury and brisco in their examinations, which they owned upon their oaths at the upper-bench on the trial of fauconer, where they being produced in cravens behalf as the only witnesses for fauconers' conviction of perjury, proved his delinquency. and the aherency aforesaid to the declared enemy of the commonwealth, [thus proved] is * when i speak of that on which the parliament grounded such their vote and judgement, i speak ex manifesto, upon what the testimonies themselves say; but as for that which directed every individual member to give his vote & judgement, and what further evidence might be of, or amongst themselves when they debated and pronounced i●, i meddle not with. that on which the parliament have grounded such their vote and judgement, as aforesaid, against which and its proof, nothing hath yet burn offered, as i have seen or have heard. so that cravens case as it is stated by his agents and advocates to have been grounded by the parliament as to the confiscation of his estate on those words, barbarous and inhuman rebels, and on the single testimony of fauconer therein, [on which particular clause of his information only, they have endeavoured to fix a perjury] withal they have said thereabouts, the clamours that have been made, the noises raised, are clean out of doors, as is manifest; for neither was the parliaments vote and judgement grounded upon those words; nor on falconers single testimony therein, but otherwise as aforesaid; nor is there any ●eed at all of faucon●●s testimony to prove that on which their vote, and judgement was so grounded. and thus the deceptio visus, blind or foggy mist of barbarous, and inhuman rebbels corruption, perjury, etc. (raised to deceive the understandings of men, into an apprehension as if there were never the like horrible injustice, & indirect proceed used, and exercised) being struck aside, removed, and dispelled, the true and substantial ground of the parliaments vote and judgement is apparently to be seen, and the reason of the justice, to every sober understanding: thus much for the ground. as for that which gave the parliament occasion at first to take cognisance of this matter, and their particular votes thereupon, and the appeal made in his behalf from the judgement and jurisdiction of the parliament to a foreign power viz the state's general of the united provinces; instead of addressing himself to the parliament in his defence, and the particulars thereof, and this whole business, i refer the understanding reader, to the relation of them all at large in the book aforesaid, entitled the lord cravens case etc. and to the answers of the objections raised therein on his behalf; and upon serious consideration of the whole, let such judge; whether the manner of the parliaments proceed therein, be not cleared, as is the ground of their judgement. for though such an appeal was made (as i suppose) never the like before was hard of, arraigning, and charging the justice of the parliament in their proceed on that cause, and judgement therein with oppression, and injustice, as grounded on proof ridiculous, and utterly false; or if true, yet frivolous, and not applicable to the cause whereon the judgement was given against him: and in case that there had been proof, yet affirming that there is no law in england to warrant such proceed: and so concludeing the judgement to be unjust, and void; and demanding that the same be annulled, canceled, and revoked; that the witnesses be as perjured calumniators, and he put into the possession of his estate again, alleging that he was a sworn servant to that state, and therefore not to be condemned by the parliament, for his courtesy, and duty (as he calls it) towards their lord. and pressing them thereunto from their usual goodness in upholding, and assisting the oppressed, and for the redress of their own honour, and upholding of their power, authority, and prerogative, etc. and though the laws, of this nation are so severe, and strict against such as make their appeals to foreign jurisdictions, from the authority and jurisdiction of their own country, (viz.) that such incur praemunire, which is forfeiture of their liberty, and estates, and all th●● have but life (this crime being in effect a denial of the supremacy of the jurisdiction of their own country, and the subordinateing, and subjecting it in that particular, to that state to whom the appeal is made.) and, though the parliament had a full relation of the said appeal, from their * w● have here with sent your lordships an appeal in the behalf of my lord craven, from the justice of the parliament of england unto the assembly here, which as the papers bea●● is intended to be delivered to us, and which whether it be or not, we do intent to take a convenient time to vindicate the honour and power of the parliament, and shall do the same upon the other paper, herewith sent concerning the queen of bohemia; whereby the king of scotland, is asserted likewise to be king of england etc. s●y th● ambasadors st. john and strickland in their letter to the council; dated hague may 30. 1651. read 〈◊〉, june 6. 1651. in our letter to the council, you will see how the prince el●ct●r, and my lord craven have fallen upon the parliament in a [tender] point; your lordship will see all the particulars, and we shall in due time do our duty, here to present it. in my judgement the elector, and queen, and craven have given you a good ground to do more than you resolved to do, saith ambassador strickla●d in his letter dated hauge may extraordinary ambasadors then in holland, by letters dirceted to the council of state, and of the states general taking cognizance of the cause, and assumeing jurisdiction, and authority judicially to proceed therein, by receiving all the papers concerning the particulars aforesaid (though for matters only concerning the commonwealth of england, and in behalf of a person who was a subject, native, and member thereof) and causeing them to be registered, and permitting witnesses to be produced, and examined before them in his behalf, and in ordering their commissioners, (appointed to treat with the said ambasadors) to deliver the said paper (wherein amongst other particulars, the then king of scotes is affirmed to be king of fngland) in the name of the said states, to the said ambasadors etc. and though the parliament also received an account as aforesaid, of their said ambasadors high resentment, of the said appeal, and the reviveing, and owning thereof by the states, as absolutely derogatory, to the undoubted interest, rights, power, and jurisdiction of the parliament, who have absolute power, jurisdiction, and authority of itself, without depending on any other state, or prince whatsoever, etc. and of the said ambassadors, answer thereunto; suitable to their trust, and the independent soveraingnty, and honour of the parliament of england, who in so high a measure were, reproached, and slandered with the falsehoods, and absurdities mentioned in those papers: and of their protestation therein against the matter of the said papers, and the state's assumeing the cognizance, and jurisdiction; and of their declaration, that it did not in right, or justice appertain to them to intermeddle therein etc. and of their demands that the said papers and proceed thereupon be cast out, and the registers thereof vacated, that nothing so degrogatory to the honour, and interest of the commonwealth, of england, might remain upon their record to posterity, or note. that might give ground to any subject, or member thereof to seem to have cause to justify any treasonable practice against it, though a sworn servant to those states, out of his duty to the said states, or from any order of note. their ministers, which he, the said lord crav●n had done etc. i say notwithstanding all these things, and their knowledge of them; yet the parliament ordered, and caused a summons to be issued out, proclaimed and printed, july 3. 1651. for him to make his personal appearance before them on the third of september following, whereby he had an opportunity to allege what he had to say in his own behalf. and although he neither made appearance at the said time limited in person (it falling out to be the day on which th● king of scots and his whole army were routed at worcester) or by petition so testified to the truth of his being seen to have subscribed it, as might give the parliament ground to take cognizance thereof, (for there came along with it so to witness; and therefore the parliament permitted it not to be read, and if they had, there was no other thing in excuse in that petition, but that he desired to be permitted to answer by his friends and council, in regard the present conjunction of affairs there did not permit him to come in person) yet they took not the advantage to make sale of his lands till june 22. 1652. above nine months after his said limited day of appearance; at which time [and not before] they voted his name to be put in the bill (after the reading of his petition then presented) for his lands to be sold, (the rents and profits being only received till then, as is usual in sequestrations.) and although until the said 22. of june there appeared nothing before them in defence and excuse of his not personal appearing then as aforesaid and in his petition then read not a word thereof, but to be heard by his council: yet upon the petition of his friends, they took his case into debate again the day before the act passed as a law; and on that very day as it passed as a law, viz. aug. 4. 1652. they considered something that concerned the entail, of part of his lands, yea upon his own petition, read octob. 29. 1652. (above two months after the bill passed engrossed, and his name therein as aforesaid) they took in consideration his tender of a sum of money for the redemption of his estate, and debated twice thereupon. but neither then, nor at any time before during the space between the first vote of confiscation, and the passing of the bill (which was full seventeen months) did they upon any debate take the said vote into consideration again, but (notwithstanding the many great debates, overtures, and influences in his behalf, and the representation of falconers being convicted of perjury, as the last and great attempt) did see cause to adhere still to the same, and to rank his name amongst other delinquents mentioned in the said act for his lands to be sold; upon what weighty reasons and just grounds, the understanding reader may by this time plainly perceive through all the mists that have been cast before it; for whose right information in the truth of these things (of which such a dim is made in the world) as well as for the vindication of mine own innocency, and the proceed and justice of the state (which r. f. in his epistle to craven, terms club-law, and saith it is the fortune of the wars, where many an honest man that stands by and means no harm, gets a knock as well as those who began the quarrel. i have been constrained to be thus particular. thus much as to craven. secondly, for christopher love. the man is dead, and in his ashes, he hath answered long since the justice of the state, and before the tribunal of him who hath with an outstretched arm delivered england from the traitorous designs, and bloody plots of him (whilst alive) and his confederates. therefore i shall say little more than i am constrained to what is pretended to be by him charged on me before the time of his execution, choosing rather by silence to be exposed to the censure of some, then by replying (how manifest soever in my justification) to seem to raise my defence upon the grave of a dead man, who whether he wrote so of me as is suggested, i know not; this i am sure of, he cannot answer. but of his spirit alive in ralph farmer, and the men of this generation, and to the treasons of him and his brethren and confederates, whereof they were attained, (upon presumption of my having a hand in the discovery of which, and bringing them to justice, he charges, and seeks thereby to prove me not only a bloodthirsty, but a bloodsucking person) i am constrained in my own, and the vindidication of the state, to speak, and briefly to show, first in general; what these treasons are. secondly in particular, how far they respect christop. love. first in general, what these treasons are. no sooner was the breath out of the late king's body, but the men of this generation (who before had struggled so much to break in pieces the army, and the honest interest wrapped up in it, & desperately engaged england and ireland for that purpose) began to entertain thoughts of setting up his eldest son king of england, in the subversion and overthrow of the government of the commonwealth, newly declared thereupon, (whether out of love and truth of heart to him and his party, or to serve their own domination and revenge, i leave to him and his friends to judge.) and the scottish nation having the same game to play, and not knowing how to effect it otherwise then by the discontented interests and influences of these men as an expedient, or third party, (whom they had experienced well enough how to cajole & engage under the pretence of a kirk & covenant-interest) acquaint them, that they intended to apply themselves to the king, in which application they would consider the presbyterian party in england, as themselves; and that the foundation of the agreement, should be the covenant; and desire a constant correspondency, and good understanding between those here, and them in scotland. this overture occasioned the first meeting of the men concerned in the following treasons, at which the gracious disposition of the prince was spoken of, & how that loyalty & the sense of his sufferings, engaged them to attempt something in his behalf, if he would close with the scots and take the covenant; and this produced the first treaty at the hague. that treaty bringing forth nothing, the king of scots sends to these men to procure another treaty between the scots and him, (as the scots had before for a treaty with the king) and assures them, that if they could obtain it, and the scots to moderate their propositions, he would give satisfaction to the scots. this they take into consideration, and send to the scots to make another application to the king, and to moderate their propositions. the scots returned, that they would make another application to the king; but withal▪ they said it should be upon the same terms, for that the former breach at the hague had occasioned rather the heightening of their propositions, than the moderating of them, and desired them to make use of their interest with the king to give them satisfaction. hereupon these met, considered of, concluded, and sent a petition to the king for that purpose, and letters to the queen, jerm●n and percy to persuade the king to give the scots satisfaction. these returned, that however things seemed to them, yet the king was resolved to give the scots satisfaction, & that to that end a treaty was appointed at jersey, & percy advised them to send one from hence to the treaty: furthermore, that if the king and his privy council could not agree there, he would remove the treaty to breda, & at last cast himself on the scottish commissioners. accordingly an agent was pitched upon and resolved, viz. capt. titus, who is sent from these to jersey, and one hundred pounds raised amongst them to bear his charges; where he spoke with the king, & libe●ton the scotch commissioner, tells him from what party in england he was sent, represents the presbyterian party considerable; had assurance & letters from the king to the ministers, and presbyterian partyhere. that he would give satisfaction to the scots: that to that end the treaty was removed to breda, whither he advised them to send commissioners, and that he took notice of their noncompliance with the present powers. this treaty being ended, capt. titus hearing that the council of state understood that he had been at jersey, dares not go to england, but sends a letter (amongst other things) for one to come to him to calais, to receive the account of his agency. upon the reading whereof these agree, and send one of their confederacy to calais, who having received of capt. titus the account of transactions, returned, and to those who sent him gives the relation thereof, and the copy of the king's letter aforesaid, (the original being sent to ald. bunce in holland, for fear of miscarriage) and titus his narrative also in writing, which were [all of them] then communicated. also that titus was in debt, having borrowed some money of jermyn. this occasioned the drawing of a * note. commission, enabling their lord willoughby of parham, ald. bunce, major general massey, and capt. titus, to treat in the name of the presbyterian party in england with the king at breda, and to assist their brethren the scots; and when it was moved by some, what power they had to send a commission? it was answered. the king had sent to them so to do, and they had also many secluded members, whose authority they looked upon to be better than those at westminster; which together with instructions thereunto annexed, are sent by mason, p●rcy's servant (who came hither on purpose to give the king of scots an account of proceed, and at graves-end had those papers brought him by three of the correspondents) letters also were drawn and sent to the queen, perey, and jermyn, willoughby, massey, bunce, etc. to forwatd the agreement, and to act as authorized, and titus had more money. the business being thus put into a likely way of issue, private * no●●. fasts were by them appointed to pray for a blessing in the treaty, and for the continuation of the agreement afterwards; and percy wrote to them to lend 10000 l. to the king, as that which would add much to the agreement; with how it might be raised, one of the ministers moved a way, viz. the ministers thus to move their friends, sir, you shall give me 20, 30, 40, 50. l. etc. for a charitable use, but you shall not ask me wherefore; but because they were not assured of the kings giving satisfaction, it was forborn. this treaty having produced the end designed, the king sends his letters to several of the * the substance to this effect, to acquaine the said ministers with his majesty's agreement with the scots, and with what he would do for satisfaction in matter of religion and presbyterian government here in england; that confidence of their assistance, was one motive that induced his agreement: that they would now join hearty with him and the scots in the endeavour of his restitution: and that they having influence (not only upon their parishes, but also on other parts of the kingdom) would stir up not only their several congregations, but also other places where they had interest to join likewise with his majesty for that purpose; and that they would privately pray for him and his good success. the ministers to whom to be delivered; to edm. calamy, james cranford, christo●●er love, and william jenkins, to be by them communicated to to the rest of the ministers in and about the city of london. ministers, that if note. they could not live quietly in england, they should come to him. three or four of them also he desired for his chaplains, and gave instructions to his general agent to treat them civilly, to give * letters to them, and the presbyterians in the city from him, and to press them to action. but the scots having got the king into their hands, through the mediation and influence of these, and so served their ends, deal with them otherwise: for though they did prepare (as they promised at breda) to raise arms to put him in the throne of england; yet not massy, titus nor the english (whose interest in the presbyterian party in england was made use of to bring the king, and them together) were considered. of this, massey and the rest complain to those here who very ill resented it, and thereupon sent a long letter to the kirke, and commit of estates, complaining thereof, attributeing it to their pride, laying open in what condition they were; which with much more was wrote with white ink in a table book, and sent to scotland. dunbar fight follows, after which great rout (most of the kirke party) the scots being in need of their help, court these here again; and the kirke and estates, and massey wrote to them by sea and land; signifying the cause of the rout, adviseing them to stand fast to the cause and covenant, desiring money, and 3. or 5000 muskets and cases of pistols; and massey and titus particularly pressed for money, because of their wants. these letters, the correspondents aforesaid received, considered of, and agreed at that present to raise about three hundred pounds, to send to massey and titus, which the correspondents performed by 5. and 10. pounds etc. a man, and letters were also by them returned to the kirke, and committee of estates, and massey. hereupon the correspondencers begun to have life again, the scots preparations to be in the field are signified hither; advice also to those here to caution, steadfastness, timeing of a party seasonably here, and to write to the kirke for union etc. these here return the same cautions to them, and advise massey to take heed how he came into england, and that he bring with him a strong party: and from scotland came hither returns of the receipts of the money aforesaid, and of the letters to the kirke and state , how seasonable they were, how much union they effected, how it broke the designs ' of the adverse party, and how considerable it made them: and ways of settling intilligence were also signified, and made use of. at length in march 1650. 1651. came an answer to what was signified in the table book aforesaid by coll. bamfeilds' man, which gave an account of the state of sco●land; and in the same packet, letters came from bayly (their former correspondent, in the behalf of the kirke) and from their lords belcaris, argile loudoun, and lowthian, wishing ●h●m here to give credit to bamfeilds' negotiation (in regard he was a cavaleire) press for 5. or 10000 pounds in money to buy arms to furnish, and ships to bring over from beyond the seas into england, 5000. old soldiers; propose a general to be chosen by these here, to command them and promise repayment when (as they said) god should bless their endeavours so as to cause a free parliament in england. this agent was returned with money in his pocket, and a bill of exchange to bamfeild. presently upon the coming of this packet to them, from bamfeild, ●homas cook (general agent for the king of sco●'s designs in engla●d) was taken: capt. po●ter, (an apothecary in blackfriar's lond●n, one of these correspondents) was imprisoned; titu● his letters and papers (mentioning the designs, agitated by bamfeild in england particularly, the 5000. soldiers from beyond the seas as aforesaid, expressing at large, the p●rts from whence they were to march; the place on which they were to land in england; the name ●f him in a cipher, who was to command in chief those force's; with letters from the marquis of argyle, and several noble men of scotland, from the queen concerning titus his n●gotia●●ons from france,) were brought (with several other things) in their originals by ●i●us his man to our extraordinary ambassadors in holland, who sent them to the council of state; and christopher love with divers of his brethren, and other confederates in the cabinet juncto of the transactions aforesaid were apprehended by order of the council; upon the aforesaid, and other informations, and upon the report of a large narrative of those designs, as they had been traced along by a member of the council and . these apprehensions, and discoveries put a stop to the treasonable proceed aforesaid, and gave occasion for the beginning of new, but of an other nature, (viz) the examining, and bringing to justice the actors therein as aforesaid, by order of the council. and not only was the matter so highly treasonable & dangerous, but the manner of transaction was as private & subtle: for their meetings were upon pretence of religious exercises; the places either in shops of commerce, or ministers * note. studies; the way of communication as of news, seldom any letters produced in their originals, but by copies, and those mostly in characters, which for some time were kept in a book; the person from whom it came as seldom asked, (that being generally known,) nor were any to inquire of names, and the letters and papers also were before hand put under a candlestick: the contribution of money was under pretence of charitable uses, for the widow and orphan's, and poor distressed gentlemen beyond the seas: this money generally brought in baggs, or papers, laid down in warehouses, studies, and chambers, but nothing said when brought, nor any seen to receive it. for the conspirators who agitated, and carried on the wheel of the design, they were men tenaciously fixed thereunto upon a mistaken conscientious, and religious principle, having the ministers in greatest admiration, who were with them in council, divers of them soldiers, and some of them such as had served in the army: these trained up at a club another generation of such as had be●n officers, and others where they were instructed, and informed as occasion served, and as it seemed good to the former, some of whom usually resorted thither for that purpose. a third rank consisted of the chief and great men for purse, conduct and interest, of which i shall here be silent, in regard little as to them, was produced at the high court of justice; to whose proceed, and what was made there to appear, i have confined for the most part what i have hitherto said of these treasons in the general. secondly in particular, how far they respect christopher love. titus' letter (to say nothing of what preceded) signifying his fearfulness to come into england, and desiring one to be sent to calais to receive an account of his negotiations in jersey (as aforesaid) was read in his house, where he was present with divers others, and where they concluded to send one to calais to titus. in his study the person that was sent to titus, as aforesaid, being returned, gave an account of his journey, where christopher love was present, & many others, and where was read titus his narrative in way of a diary of proceed at jersey and the copy of the king's letter, as is . there the commission and instructions to willoughby, massey, bunce etc. and the letters to the queen, jermyn, percy, were read, debated, and concluded, & when some debate arose concerning what authority they had to give or send a commission, being private persons; unto which it was answered, the king having sent to them so to do, was authority sufficient. christopher love said, come, come let it go. there the letters were read which were agreed to be sent to scotland upon masseys' complaint for their being neglected in scotland; there the letters from massey, committee of estates, general assembly after the fight ●● dunbar, were read, which desired money, assistance, arms, etc. there he pressed for the raising of money upon those letters from massey, titus, committee of estates, etc. viz four or five hundred pounds, saying, if they would not raise it themselves, they must with their friends; and spoke to some to lend on that account, signifying the contents of the letter, for money, arms, etc. and from whom, which sum was brought down to three hundred pounds. there some of the money was brought in, and laid down in his room where he was present. there some of the fasts aforesaid were kept, and he officiated at the same fasts, and at other places. there the packet from bampfield was read, (having a letter [l] on it) the letters also from their lords, belcarris, london, argyle, and from bayly their agent, moving for five or ten thousand pounds, for the furnishing of arms; and shipping for five thousand old soldiers to be brought from beyond the seas, the time when it should be repaid, and for a general to be nominated by them for those forces. there forty pounds was thought convenient by him and others to be sent to bampfield, ten pounds to bampfields' man was paid, and the other thirty pounds was sent by bill of exchange to btampfield, and a letter wrote with [b.] on it, brought to capt. potter for bampfield, and said by the party that brought it, that it came from mr. love, christopher love and another being spoken to before to draw up the letter. these are in brief the treasons against the commonwealth, and the manner of their transaction, in which christopher love, his brethren and confederates in the general, and he in particular were concerned, and for having to do in which he was executed, & unto which doctor drake, capt. massey, and coll. vaughan in one indictment, and capt. potter in another, upon the arraignment for the said treasons at the bar of the said court, pleaded guilty, as the examinations, papers, indictments, and proceed upon record do make more at large to appear; to which i refer, & to the book entitled, a short plea for the commonwealth, etc. where they are set down with their effects, and the trial of christopher love, and his demeanour thereupon; and on his examination and sentence, and his application to the parliament; together with the generation this case respects, their deportment ab initio, their influence, number, opportunity and principles, and the danger of the common wealth as to all: for should i herein be particular, and draw what naturally would flow from thence, i might fill a volume; the very confession of one of them (viz. doctor drake) upon his examination, which he gave me with many tears, and which i took from his mouth with my own hand, whereunto he signed, being (as i remember) near twenty sheets of paper wrote on the right side, and captain potters as many more. nevertheless through the mediation of the (now) prorector, whom, and the army of which he was (then) general they had in the highest hatred, and sought to cut of; they received mercy, and pardon from the state, after such their arraignment, and confession; though sentenced to die, as did the rest, who were not so much as brought to the bar, though they were some of the most transcendent acts of high treason that records witnessed to have been discovered, brought unto, and proved at barr of justice in this nation; designing and endeavouring by secret plots, and open force the total overthrow, subversion and destruction of the parliament, and government of the commonwealth, their army, friends, yea the very cause of liberty, in which themselves engaged, and acted (many of them) in the beginning, worthily in their generations: and for this purpose espousing, falling into, and joining with the contrary interest; viz. the king against whom they drew the first sword, and vehemently sounded out the alarm of war; and with the queen, whose idolatryes as a papist) they had bewailed publicly on their days of humiliation, and charged to be a cause of the plagues on the nation: and with je●myn and percy; and with the episcopalls under whom they had suffered so much, and of whom they cried out so loud, that the sword was awakened, and taken up to avenge their quarrel: and with all the parties of the bad men of these nations, whose wickednesses, bloodsheds, and delinquencies they had publicly confessed: and with papists and rebel●s, (for having espoused the interest, they must needs be partakers with the friends thereof, & carriers of it on against whom they declared themselves to be in the most irreconcilable opposition; & with foreign, soldiers so highly enveighed against by them in the late king, (viz. the design of the germans horse) and laid to his charge. and lastly with another nation, viz. the scots, and those people therein, whom they opposed at first, upon the account of their being for the king; to bring whom, and their king, and all these interests together they become the third party, to which each apply, and by whose warmth and influence they are all united, and made one, with them they enter into a strong confederacy, and jointly proceed in the laying of the foundation, and carrying on of a new, desperate, and bloody war, wherein thousands lost their lives, and the three nations were hazarded in such a manner, and for such ends as hath been in part expressed. unto which should i add, how this spirit ran generally through the men of the same * when i so speak i do not intent all that are called ministers, for those of the independent and baptists, and seekers so called, were faithful to the commonwealth; and many of them in arms; nor, all that are called presbyters, for there were divers even in parliament, and the council who abominated, denied and acted against this spirit & those practices of some to the b●inging of christophes love to justice. principle in this nation, what designs were hatched, how subtly contrived; how deeply plotted, how strongly laid, by the cavaleirs and them (in order to the same end) over the counties, chief towne●, garrisons, feild and naval forces thereof, & by the cavaleirs, on the parliament, and council of state, and chief members, and ministers of each, and of the army at land and sea, (by assassinations, poisoning, murders, firings, violences, blood, to have cut them off.) what numbers of thousands of men listed? what arms and horse provided? what monies raised and how? what foreign princes and forces treated with, engaged and how prevented? what men of estates conduct, in●e●est concerned? what armies form, how ●imed in all things for general insurrections to answer the s●ots preparations, and motions in the field, and their councils and motions depending upon, and answering unto the intelligence of the state of these designed insurrections, whether as to their perfection or irruption (the army in the mean time abiding the sharp colds, necessities and hardships of that naked country during the winter-season, waiting upon their motion and action out of, and from their fastnesses) or should i be particular how they were discovered, traced from the beginning, certainly known all along, and understood, with their agents, heads, principals, variations, extents and limits, and in the nick of time when they were known to be ripe, and the time of execution even come, utterly broken in pieces, (and with that junctures of providence as well beyond the seas as in these nations) as were all their forces in the field, their king, nobles, councillors, great men, captains, ministers and soldiers; or could this place admit of so large a discourse, it might prove an astonishment to the world in the narration, as the total rout of the other was in the report and evidently manifest that no other thing but the allseeing eye, and outstretched arm, and tender bowels of the lord did discover, or could deliver the parliament council of state, armies at land and sea and honest people of these nations from being wholly cut off and destroyed, even our enemies themselves being judges; and would prove a warning to all nations, especially to england (upon whose high places in fields of blood, and the sad calamities of many years' war it hath been sorely experimented) to take heed of, and watch over that spirit and generation who to effect their tyrannical domination over state and conscience (to which they would give the rule, but will not receive it from any) appear not to care with whom, or with what they join, or to what they turn, or how they engage their country and themselves into ruin and destruction, under the pretence of religion and conscience, whereas christ jesus saith, my kingdom is not of this world; if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight. and his apostles and ministers declared, that their weapons were not carnal, but mighty through the spirit; and prophesied that in the last day's men should be * here are teachers traitors. traitors, whereby the last days should be made perilous; which before our eyes in this very age hath been fulfilled (as aforesaid) in the men of this generation, with whom i have to do, who notwithstanding pretend themselves to be ministers of christ jesus and of his gospel, and the successors of his apostles. o my people (saith the lord) remember what balaak king of moab consulted, and what balaak the son of peor answered from shittim unto gilgal, [from scotland into england, from england into scotland▪ from scotland to the hague, from the hague to england; from england to scotland again▪ from scotland and england to jersey; from jersey to br●da; from breda to dunbar; from dunbar to fife; from fife to st. johnstons'; from st. johnstons' to worceste●] that ye may know the righteousness of the lord. thus far of these treasons in the general, and how far they respect christopher love in particular, the effects of them, and proceed thereupon: in the rehearsal whereof (through this urgent and necessary occasion▪ i have been the rather thus particular, that those who are concerned may be awakened, and look out ere it be too late; for if this spirit which but the other day was struck down with such an astonishing stroke from heaven, as the like thereof hath not been heard of in these later ages, be so far already recovered out of its swoon, & gathered into such life & confidence as that it dares to appear thus openly in the justification of them in whom it so worked & acted (as it hath in this r. farmer's libel) styling them ministers of the gospel of our lord jesus, servants of christ whose names are yet precious in the churches, [as are the expressions, pag. 110.] and christopher love aforesaid (a chief designer and actor of them, for which he was beheaded by sentence of the high court of justice) as a man most innocent, fall'n into the hands of huckster's, of whom it saith, i'll say nothing of the man, i need not, he was well enough known in england, in his death, bewailed of thousands, and his name precious with many godly, [as are the very words, pag. 110.] and the detecting, examining, and bringing those their unparallelled treasons to justice, rancour, malice, spiteful, and most cruel prosecution, blood-thirstiness, bloodsucking, sucking and swallowing the bloods and lives of men, ministers of the gospel, [as the same page hath it.] and the taking notice of his not bewraying the least grudging or repentance of his death for any thing acted therein, (though such were his actions as aforesaid) a going about most unchristianly to undervalue, debase and disparage that comfort and confidence he professed to enjoy at his death, a kill of his good name, and endeavouring maliciously to kill him twice, and the latter with more cruelty than the former; with such like, as it is set down pag. 106, 107. and the discovering of those his, and his other fellow-traytors treasons, a trappanning; as it is termed pag. 105; 106.) and spending ten pages thereabouts, and in reviling and abusing the state and their ministers in the examination thereof, and doing justice thereupon, which i shall no further repeat: i say, if this spirit be so gotten head thus above-board, in print to manifest itself, even whilst those are in rule whom it sought to cut off, and who were made the battle-ax of the lord, and his weapons of war, to the hewing down, and cutting in pieces the men in whom it appeared and acted. what under-ground-work (upon rational grounds) may hereby strongly be suspected to be forwarded and near perfection? the tender eye of the lord hath watched over and his outstretched arm delivered england (as hath been said) from its devilish contrivances, and bloody workings, through the rolling of thousands of garments in blood, and multitudes of other sharp and sore extremities of war, as the effects thereof: let those who are concerned look to it now; out of a deep * this i felt & wrote before the second session of parliament, with an intent to have published it against th●● their coming together; but their s●●ting was short, and their dissolution sudden; and some workings were discovered, and i stop● the publication. sense upon me do i give them warning; who may also take it into consideration, whether such an infamous libel as this is, wherein the proceed of parliament, the council of state, committee for examinations, etc. and their ministers in case of the former, are so highly reflected upon, charged and reproached with such horrible indirect deal, corruption and injustice; and their deliberate act and judgement therein, expressly termed club-law, (the highest affront that can be given to an act of parliament) the fortune of the wars, etc. in the epistle to the delinquent himself, to whom it is dedicated for patronage, as to a worthy and considerable person, under the name of right honourable, a lover of his country; wherein the proceed of them all in the case of the latter, is called trapanning, spiteful and malicious prosecutions, etc. (and that eminent execution done by sentence of the high court of justice authorized by act of parliament, (in which the whole body of honest men to the interest of the commonwealth and the army, (all of whom those treasons sought to destroy) are concerned) blood-thirstiness, bloodsucking of a man, intimated as one most innocent, fallen into the hands of hucksters, etc. (for these acts of justice were the parliaments, and the proceed therein had, were in, and by virtue of their authority, in order to the safety of the commonwealth, and nothing was done by me but by virtue thereof, in the discharge of my trust, wherein i exercised, and have the answer of a good conscience, serving my generation in uprightness of heart: and what is said, concerns and strikes at them and their authority who gave the judgement and the sentence which so much troubles them, and by whose power they were acted, though the direction be at me, at whom it is revengefully fling, supposing it their safest course, & that for so doing they have now their day and liberty, as is plain to any sober understanding.) and lastly, wherein that treasonable spirit which plotted the designs, raised, embodied, and carried on those desperate and cruel wars, as aforesaid, is warmed and cherished: i say, those who are concerned may consider whether it consists with their honour and reputation, and the justice of the good and wholesome laws of the nation, and due estimation and regard they would have given to their own acts by the generations to come, and with the safety of the nations, to permit such an infamous libel to pass up and down without a reproof. by this time the serious reader may plainly perceive who is the bloodthirsty and bloodsucking person, that can suck and swallow the bloods and lives of men; whether i who had (with others as aforesaid▪) to do in the examination and discovery of those treasons which had their influence to the actual shedding of the blood of thousands, and thirstingly sought to swallow the lives of the parliament, council, army and its friends in these nations: or ra. farmer who hath thus appeared in the justification of these treasons, and calls the bringing of one [a chief] of them to execution, and of others to the bar of justice, a swallowing of the bloods and lives of men, bloodthirstiness, and bloodsucking? whose are the malicious, most spiteful, and cruel prosecutions, whether mine (as he presumes) in order to the bringing such blood sucking treasons to light (according to my duty) and bloodthirsty traitors to justice; or his in seeking to kill my good name, (which is far out of his reach) and to render me as vile a person as any under heaven, upon his presumption of my so doing? who are the ministers of our lord jesus? whether those who treasonably design by war and blood, the ruin of their country, and the overthrow of a commonwealth, and this in opposition to the cause and people they once engaged in, and with, and in the behalf of the contrary, and all its abettors and assisters; or those whose gospel was peace on earth, and good will towards men? who are the churches of christ? whether such in which prayers were made for kings and those in authority, that under them they may lead a peaceable life, in all godliness and honesty; or those in whom the memory of them are said to be precious, who conspire the overturning and destruction of the government, under which they might lead a peaceable life in all godliness & honesty, and for that purpose had of them full liberty and large protection? and lastly, whose name shall rot & perish, or if it be remembered, it shall be with abhorrency & detestation; whether mine whose actions have been as aforesaid, in the discovery of those treasons, or r. farmers, who in the behalf of those treasons and his brethren, hath thus appeared and acred? thus much of his charge in general, and of the treasons of christo●her love, and his brethren and confederates, and his spirit, (now alive in r. f. and that generation) in whose behalf i am thus charged and accused, and in discharge whereof i have been constrained thus to draw them forth as a looking-glass for the priests, and an awakening to england. the ground of the charge as it is laid down pag. 106. is this. viz. that i was a zealous prosecutor of christopher love, unto, yea after death. first, after death, (for with this he gins, as that which its like, he supposeth he can most positively prove, and may best serve his purpose) and for this his only instance is the book entitled, mr. love's case; of, and concerning which he saith, and peremptorily chargeth me in these express words. that you were a zealous prosecutor of mr. love unto, yea, and after death, is so manifest, that as impudent as you are, you will not deny. that you prosecuted him after death, appears by what you published against him when he had no being to answer for himself; wherein you endeavour maliciously to kill him twice, and the latter with more cruelty than the former, killing his good name, & what in you lies, making him a reprobate and an outcast from god and glory. i suppose you will own that piece called mr. love's case, printed by peter cole▪ (as well as the other books you published against him) wherein you go about (most unchristianly) to undervalue, debase and disparage that comfort and confidence he professed to enjoy in, and at his death, and this upon several accounts, which i will not recount to avoid tediousness; one only i'll mention to show your spirit of envy and bitterness; it is the animadversions upon the first section, pag. 34. mr. love (say you) it's more than probable was not only vehemently exhorted, encouraged, importuned, but even solemnly by all the sacred interests of high presbytery, conjured by his clergy companions, to die like a valiant and resolute champion of the cause, and not bewray the least grudging of any fear, or repentance for any thing he had acted upon the service thereof, lest it should be said of presbytery, her glory was stained and betrayed by the cowardice of her fitst-born. and pag. 38. here we have the second part of the theatrical flourishes of mr. love's confidence— much might be animadverted, but i forbear. you have a strange spirit that his comforts and confidence in god trouble you. and then you go on to charge him with hypocrisy and lying, and other base imputations all along, bespattering and bespotting, and besullying him (as you can) even to his last. i know what slight touches of charity you have now and then; and at the close of that pamphlet, which are inconsistent with that you had charged him before, as that he acted the part of a most unchristian calumniator upon the scaffold in the very approaches of death, pag. 38. but pag. 46. you most unchristianly reproach him and his doctrine, as followeth, whereas in purging himself [he means mr. love] from the aspersion of lying, he saith thus, i hope you will believe a dying man, who dares not look god in the face with a lie in his mouth; intimating (say you) as if his being ready to die was a bridle in his lips to restrain him from lying. the truth is according to that principle of his, that he who once truly believed, can never by any sin or wickedness whatsoever, lose the love and favour of god.— his being ready to die, in conjunction with a persuasion of his saintship, should rather be a temptation upon him to lie, or commit any other wickedness, than an engagement upon him to refrain lying. thus you. i have done with that; but i pray that you may find more favour and mercy from god, than he found from you, and to that end let him grant you grace to repent of these spiteful and most cruel persecutions. this is his charge, inference, and conclusion, and every word of it, which is a lie in every particular, a heap of lies and falsehoods; therefore i deny it all, though he is so brazenfaced as to say of me, viz. as impudent as you are, you will not deny it: for i am so far from having wrote the book aforesaid, entitled, mr. love's case, or from having the least hand therein, that i do not certainly remember that ever i read it over; but writ it i did not, nor had i any hand in it, nor do i know who is the author thereof; yet how positively, and with what confidence doth this impudent liar affirm it mine? how oft? about twenty times he falsely charges it on me) with what bitter invectives and reflections, and with what height of impudence and zeal, as one whose life is concerned and touched, and suffers in every word spoken of, or thing done to that his dear brother, the sober may plainly read in these his expressions? and by this single instance (had i said, or should i say not a word besides) such may judge, whether ever man of a more impudent face, flinty forehead, seared conscience, vile and lying spirit hath appeared in print? and whether he fears god, or regards man, or cares what he saith or doth, or is to be believed in any thing he affirms? this is ralph farmer. this is my enemy without a cause. this is he that writes against perfection, of satan enthroned in his chair of pestilence, and then calls it quakerism in its exaltation; of the impostor dethroned; and styles it the quakers' throne of truth detected to be satan's seat of lies; of the rottenness (as he blasphemously reproaches) of the quakers' conversion and perfection in the general, exemplified in this (he saith) busy bishop, in special instanced in his practices against the estate of the lord craven, life of mr. love; who saith, by occasion whereof this truth is asserted, viz. if we may judge of the conscience, honesty, and perfection of the quakers in general, by this man in particular, a man be as vile a person as any under heaven, and yet a perfect quaker. [whether i or he be the man of whom the substance of this may be said, and on whom it is found? reader judge.] this is he that so abominably arraigns, reflects upon, and traduces the acts and judgements of the highest judicature and court of justice in the nation, in the most weighty executions (one of them) as england hath brought forth; and so highly reproaches the proceed of them, their council of state, committee, court of justice, and ministers aforesaid. this is cravens advocate, in whose behalf he reviles and abuses (as hath been said) in hope of, and in order to the retrival of his estate, and then dedicates it to him for patronage, in a light, lying, and frothy epistle. this is the champion of edmund calamy, christopher love, and his brother traitors and confederates as aforesaid, and of them called ministers of the gospel, whose names (he saith) are yet precious in the churches. this is he, for the b●aring testimony against whose deceit, and speaking and writing in the name of the lord, many have suffered long imprisonments, and some have been whipped. this is he that hath poured forth all this filth & rage at me, that talks of making an agent in the marches of wales; of the machiavellian maxim, lie, calumniate, slander, and do it boldly and with confidence, and some of it will stick; it will take with some or other of the hebrew proverb, if all enter not yet hall will; of a common-lyar, a shameless forehead, a profligate spirit, a most supernaturally and god-forsaken hardened heart and seared conscience, etc. ralph fa●mer who calls himself a servant of that josus christ who was crucified at jeru●alem 1600 years ago▪ whose blood (he villainously & falsely saith) the quakers (who witness it and its cleansing) trample under foot (this instance proves it true of himself, as a c●mmon thing; and who is called, and calls himself a minister of the gospel: a minister of the gospel! get thee gone to thine own place, the gospel denies thee; the children of light spew thee out. no marvel after all his trades, he took upon him this name, and turned thither to shelter him; dost thou say to me, turn turk, man, or become a jew, to whom [thou sayest] the name and gospel of christ, and christian is odious? turk and jew shall rise up in judgement against thee, & shall condemn thee: this is some of the groundwork on which (he saith, pag. the last) his discourse and discovery is founded, and that he is well assured that it will stand firm; and thereforesaith, as for any farther answers, replies, contendings, or debatings with them or him, i declare this as my coronis, my farewell to quakerism. what sayest thou now r. f.? were they no babes in the world, and yet honest; [as thou expresses, pag. 106.] who advised thee to these things? thus much of the prosecution of christopher love after his death, (the killing him after he was dead) most falsely charged upon me as aforesaid, by this liar ralph farmer. for those before his death, he saith, page 108. — as for the persecution of him in his l●f●, and of his trial, i shall not enter upon th● st●ry of— so (as to proof) that's given up, as the other is taken down: where is then the hypocrisy with which he chargeth me for accusing the priests, and him in particular, with bloodthirstiness, the more (as he saith) in th●●r ey●, before i had pulled out th● b●●m (bloodthirstiness, bloodsucking) in mine ow●? i shall not enter upon the story, saith he, etc. and yet in the next page 109. he enters upon the story of that, upon which he said before he should not enter, and spends several pages therein, saying (to palliate the matter) i shall not (as i said) engage to the whole of your prosecutions against him, when as he hath said no such words, but the contrary, viz. i shall not ●n●er, etc. so his own hand-writing proves him a liar, a belyar of his own record: doth not, will not this man say any thing? well, seeing he will enter upon the story, & that he chooses rather with his own pen to register himself a false man to posterity, then to miss it, what's then the part of my prosecutions (as he saith) against him, to which he will engage (for it concerns me to sift this matter) and in what pieces finds he it? why in a book written and published (says he) by mr. love himself, (and yet) finished [but] the last day but one bef●r● his death: ●he title of it thus, a clear and necessary vindication, etc. what is that to me to prove prosecutions? why, i desire you (says he) to take notice that there is a lying pamphlet put forth, entitled, a short plea for the commonwealth; ●n which there are many gross lies, especially in things that rela●e to me. well, what of all that? why (saith this liar pag. 111. 112.) he supposes capt. bishop wrote the lying book. he supposes! supposition is no proof nor sufficient ground to charge, nor reasonable matter for a reply; nor shall i therefore make any thereunto but to come nearer the matter, (and to search thy bowels r. f. (they are the words of thy epistle) for a real discovery, that the world may no longer be deceived with a windy conception.—) if christop. love did suppose i wrote it (and so sayest thou, page 111. and also the words which thou sayest are his, page 113.) then how comes i (in the enumeration of those pretended lies, and the observations thereupon said by thee to be christop. love's) to be expressly charged therewith, page 111. in these words, — another thing he charges him with, is a loud lie, etc.— and page 112. — where he further says, he (bishop) charged him, etc. no less than four times in the space of twenty eight lines, page 111, 112. doth he charge me positively by name? now either these words are christop. loves (as is said and pretended) or r. farmers? if christop. loves, than he is one while saying he supposes, at other times absolutely charging what before he only said he supposed, and so he is not to be believed in what he saith (in that his pretended book) no, not as the words of a dying man; and if his words when dying be such, at which time r. f. says, what ever i say, men are most serious, and to be believed; what are they when he is not in that condition, and how to be accounted? if they be not christop. loves (which i incline to believe) than they are ra. farmer's forgeries foisted after his death, into (what he saith are) the writings of him, who h● accounts his dear friend, and brother, finished the last day but one before his death, for whom he seems to be as zealous as for his life; and being so forged, foisted, and sophisticated, they are not to be considered, or taken as christop. love's writings, but as r. farmer's forgeries, and so not to be believed or answered. thy malice at my good name r. f. drew deep, when thus to bespatter it, thou plungest thyself into this labyrinth. but to proceed a little further, what are those lies said to be in the said pamphlet, so supposed to be mine, and so observed? why, it will not, saith r. f. page 111. be to any purpose to set down the particulars, because my reader hath not the book whereby to judge of the truth or falsehood, i shall therefore content myself to give you what observations mr. love ma●es on the man, and his lying stories. if this, viz. to give the observations, and not the thing, to rehearse the conclusion, and not the premises; to charge so and so, and yet to be silent wherein, on purpose to reproach; if this, i say, be fair dealing, fit matter to reply unto, or sufficient proof of such a charge, let the reasonble, yea my enemies themselves be judges. is there any more yet? yea, but like the former; they viz. his no babes▪ etc. aforesaid, advise me to re●d a book concerning mr. loves designs, and his death, written and penned by you, and they say it will give the reader further satisfaction: but you have dealt as craftily in the printing of this as of the former, printed so few, & kept or given so at your own pispose that i cannot get it, page 106. which being a lie, and the book neither named, nor got▪ nor seen by him, and it together with the pretended further satisfaction therein, being but matter of hearsay, and that from his no babes, etc. (they did advise, they say) i shall pass it by as false and frivolous, and not deserving a reply. thus hath this liar rushed, as the horse into the battle with his — but yet what i find from other pieces, i have met with in this matter. (what matter? the antecedent is— who did trepan mr. love, and some of that party? the pieces (and i have mentioned all of them) say nothing ●hereof, and of nothing nothing can be found, nor nothing met with) i will communicate to yo●, and the world; and this the rather to show you; what a● hypocrite y●u were in chargeing us priests (as in * i call ye not priests in scorn, (its a lie, scorning i deny, and therefore thee and thy generation of scornets) but priests ye are by profession, who are tythers, and your old ordination was by the name of priest. and the common-prayer-book hath it priest and clerk. and page 37. in a scorning manner thou sayest of thy sel●; is it not pity that any man (much more a minister of the gospel, and if you will, a priest) should, etc. scorn you call us) with bloodthirstiness, and myself in particular, as in title of your pamphlet; you should have pul●'d the be●m out of your own eye, before you reproached us with a mote in ours. i suppose, here i have done, though it be partly done already, you will appear to be not only a bloodthirsty, but a bloodsucking persion.— i say, thus hath he rushed into this case, as the horse into the battle; but to what disadvantage, the sober by what hath been said, may easily perceive: for neither hath he or any of his pieces so much as looked towards the matter, viz. — who did trepan mr. love, etc. which must be the matter, or what he saith is inconsistent, and nonsense. nor hath he made so much as one thing hitherto to stand as a beam or mote of bloodthirstiness, or bloodsucking in my eye, as to any prosecutions of christop. love, before or after his death; the work it seems he aimed at ●erga versa, but hath thus missed and hit himself; so what he saith he hath found, and communicated to me and the world from the other pieces; which he saith he hath met with in this matter, shows what a hypocrite himself is, not me and an abominable vile person, who hath charged me with bloodthirstiness, and bloodsucking, (and committed such wickedness in the prosecution thereof) as a mote in my eye, but makes no such thing to appear, and hath not first▪ or at all, pulled the beam of bloodthirstiness (charged and proved, not reproached, that's a lie by me on him, and his generation of priests, which he hath not otherwise then by this recrimination attempted to disprove) out of the eyes of himself and generation. and here i might conclude this case, for aught unto which i am obliged any further to reply. but forasmuch as ra. farmer hath expressly charged me with practices of forgery in these words, v●z. i shall discover the ground of your so easy an entertainment of the thoughts (at least suggestions) of forgery in me, from those practices of forgery which i shall declare to have been really acted by you, pag. 106. and for that the committee for examinations, and one of the members thereof in particular is accused, reflected upon, and scandalised, as well as myself, as in that his (as he calls it) declaration thereof. and because the design of what is so said is to blemish the credit of what should be made public of those treasons on the behalf of the commonwealth, which the author supposed would be, and therefore so speaks, and solicitously beseeches the reader not to believe any thing that should so be made. and in regard the charge relates to my trust, and therein as to the lives of men, lest i should seem to any to decline speaking because of guilt, or to take advantage by the dis-reputation of another to cover what may be thought my own; i shall speak to both his instances, viz. christopher love, (though parcel of the foresaid attainted vindication) and the nameless letter, [though it come forth so, and on the single credit of this liar, soften by me proved reprobate.] the first is this, viz. that whilst he was examined, he faith i did put in six or eight lines into his examination, which he never said, i supposing he would be so meal-mouthed as not to read it, or to put his hand to my forgery without any more ; but that he did [to my shame] make me blot out at least six lines in his examination, which was but very short; and that some of the committee did ingenuously say sometimes, that he did not speak such words as i had put in; and that he did refuse to put his hand to it, seeing he was abused by me, but told them if they would give him a copy of it he would subscribe his hand; but that they denied him a copy, which made him to suspect they did not intent to deal fairly with him, as he found true after. and then goes on to show wherein [says this liar, but gives no instance, yet saith] and that to their conviction; & concludes thence thus, wherefore i beseech the reader not to believe any thing that shall come forth, either pretended to be my examination, or the examinations of other men against me; they are but the forgeries and contrivances of mr. s. and capt. bishop, pag. 113. and further, that the examinations of the witnesses were taken from them in private, and patched together by mr. s. and capt. bishop, that they were not ashamed to produce them and read them in open * and why not in open court, the witnesses desiring it, and referring thereunto (the particulars being many & lon●) and the court allowing it? court. that some of the witnesses had so much † capt. potter being the first witness produced, bogled at what he had wrote, and signed, and se●t from the tower; but upon his arraignment pleaded guilty to it all; what honesty he had left that so did, let wise men judge. honesty left, as to disavow them in open court; and therefore (says he again) believe nothing but what was sworn in open court, nor all that neither; for some of the witnesses swore falsely as [he saith] he made * he being (as i remember) touched with the words concerning the commission, come come, let it go; fl●w out in a rage, and said, that he was against the going of it, or words to that effect. whereby he discovered himself to be in the principal part of the design, of which himself professed, and others would account him innocent. appear in his defence, pag. 110. and that because he was belied about his examination before the committee, and may be more abused after he is dead; therefore he was necessitated to discover that juggling and baseness of mr. s. and me about his examination, which he thought [as it saith] never to have made public, pag. 112. and thus this liar brings all this in. among all these lies thus generally hinted, i have reserved one in special, wherein mr. love chargeth him not only with lying, but also with forgery, pag. 112. and concludes, and well might mr love think how this bishop injured other men, and that in the like ●ind, pag. 112. vind. christopher love being apprehended by virtue of a warrant from the council of state for high treason; and being brought before the committee to be examined, before any question was demanded of him as to the cause of his apprehension assigned in the warrant, he voluntarily made such a deep and general profession of his innocency, (as to the treasons which afterwards were charged upon, and proved in court against him, and in part by himself confessed) that the committee were at a stand how to ask such an innocent professor any question of guilt; and so unto him they declared: whereupon he (supposing (its like) that he and his actions were hid from them, and lay in the dark.) gathered spirit, and said in these, or words to this effect, gentlemen, i look upon you as honourable persons, ask me any question in particular, and i will ingenuously answer you, as i have made a general profession. hereupon i put to him (as from the committee) some questions concerning himself; corresponding with the cause of his apprehension, assigned in the warrant aforesaid, which giving him to see that the committee was within his veil, instead of making an ingenuous, or any answer thereunto, he fell into a great passion (being closely touched) and particular reflections, and refused to answer, saying he would not accuse himself, and that it was the high commission court. it was answered, that it was not the high commission court, for he was not put to answer to interrogatories upon his oath, to accuse himself when none did or could accuse him; which was the high commission oath, ex officio, condemned by the parliament: but he being in custody, and accused of such high treasons, and informations being ready to be produced (and i then brought forth two) relating to the matter whereof he stood charged, and unto which he was demanded to answer; by the ancient law of england he ought to answer, yea or nay, thereunto, which was what the committee required of him. then he was demanded as to other correspondents in the same treasons: to which he answered, he would not be an informer. this his neither answering to the questions demanded against himself, nor as to others, though he had said, ask me any question and i will ingenuously answer; and made such a general profession of innocency as aforesaid; i say, this and his other high and peremptory carriage occasioned many words to pass between the committee and him; so that there was not such a proceeding in setting down his examination, as was usual in such cases by the committee, viz. the question leisurely put, and wrote down, and read, and then the answer demanded, and wrote, and then read and expessed, and altered as the prisoner desired, before another question was asked. but amidst the much speaking i took notice of some few things which he said, and having wrote them (after the heat was somewhat over) read it in the hearing of him and the committee, to the end that he might have it expressed, altered or changed to his satisfaction, (as was usual to every one that was examined, before he be required to set his hand thereunto;) upon the hearing of which read, he liked not some part thereof, whereupon i struck it out, and drew his examination as he would have it, and then read it, which he not objecting against, the committee required him to put his hand thereto; but he refused to sign it except he might have a copy thereof, which they thought not fit to grant without an order from the council, it being not usual in cases of treason otherwise to do: so he was returned into the custody of the sergeant at arms, without having signed his examination, which (for the contents of it) was not material, nor was any use made thereof at his trial. this is the truth of the matter. now whether so to take, prepare and draw an examination in the presence of the committee, and the sight of the examinant, and with such changes and alterations as the examinant doth desire, (suppose i had mistaken in some words or expressions, as easily i might (but do not grant) considering the manner of the examination as aforesaid) be forgery, juggling, baseness? or whether it be mr. s. and my baseness, juggling and forgery, or a discovery thereof, who neither dictated to, nor advised with me, as to what i wrote? or whether this or any other passage mentioned in this case makes to appear, or proves that whatsoever shall come forth as the examination of him, [christopher love] or the examinations of other men against him, are but the forgeries [as he saith] and contrivements of mr. s. and me, patched together in private, and so not to be believed? or, whether the bare saying of these words only, which made me suspect they did not intent to deal fairly with me, as i found true after: and then goes on [says r. f.] to show wherein, and that to their conviction, [but how or in what, r. f. says not] be sufficient to ground such a charge upon the committee, as of unfair dealing, or makes manifest wherein they dealt so unfairly with him, or convicts them thereof? or whether the design and end of all this, be not apparently to justify christopher love as innocent, and to render the parliament and their ministers, and those that prosecuted and gave judgement against him, guilty of his blood? and whether such things ought to be suffered, i leave to the sober to judge, and those who are in authority to consider. had the examination been perfected, and he set his hand thereunto, and committed to my custody, and should afterwards have inserted any word or sentence that he had not signed, without his knowledge or consent. this indeed had been forgery in me; & i [had i so done] deserved indeed to have been made a public example; but no such thing did i, nor doth this instance accuse me of any such; nor did i ever exercise in such things as these, otherwise then a good conscience, doing unto all men [therein] as i would they should do to me, and always abhorring the contrary as a most abominable wickedness. and as for my putting in six lines into his examination which he never said, supposing he would be so meal-monthed as not to read it, or to put his hand to my forgery (as he slanders) without any more ado. it is false, and a thing (in the understanding of wise men) not likely by m● to be supposed, viz. that he would sign what i had wrote (as said by him in his examination▪ being concerned as to his life, and making such a stir as he did) without reading of it, or speaking against what was wrote by me, as spoken by him which he had not said, had any such thing been: nor was any such thing, as to put what was not his, as his examination, upon the supposition aforesaid, or any other consideration, so much as in my thoughts; nor did i any thing of which i was ashamed, or that deserved it, but the contrary: nor do i remember that any of the committee did say sometimes that he did not speak such words as i had put in, (though they by reason of his passion and prevarication, and the words it occasioned, not taking such notice of his expressions as i did, who minded them as my business to observe, & set down might express themselves, as not remembering in some things that he so said; & himself by reason of his rashness, might forget; & not liking when he was come coolly to consider what was wrote as said by him, might deny his own expressions; whereby it doth not follow, that what i took as his, was not by him spoken▪ or to such effect. thus much to his first instance, and of the passages at the examination of christopher love, in which i have hitherto been silent, and thought not to have made it public, but r. f. having so highly charged me and the committee in this case, pag. 110, 112, 113. and falsely concluded thereupon, pag. 114, 115, 116. i am constrained thereunto for my own, and their necessary vindication. the second follows in these words; i have one instance more under: he hand of a godly, reverend, and faithful minister of the gospel now in being, well known to most of the inhabitants of this city, and many in london so to be, who writes to me, that being to be questioned about m. love's business, (as he was, & imprisoned) bishop (says he) was clerk to the committee of examinations, and wrote down all that i said, & add a d●vers things, thereby endeavouring to ensnare me, for which i sharply reproved him, telling him that i knew his birth and breeding, and therefore i did scorn to be ixamined by such a one as he was, at which both he and the committee were much offended, threatening to use much severity against me, but the lord restrained them. vind. what's this to the purpose, as to forgery? to prove which on me it is produced, (taking it as it is, and for granted that it is so, as is expressed) it saith, i wrote down all that he said; it doth not say that i wrote down more. and should i not have wrote down all he said? what crime is this? is this forgery? how doth malice render him void of understanding? for the passage, and added divers things, thereby endeavouring to ensnare me; it manifestly appears by what immediately follows, that it intends words spoken by way of examination, not an addition of words which he spoke not, inserted into his examination; which latter (had it been so) would have suited his case, not the former; it seems the questions pricked him to the quick, that he was so wroth at the applying of them, that the committee saw cause to threaten to bind him (so much he was from it) to the good-behaviour and that the substance of the questions was such truth, and so applicatory to him in the behalf of the commonwealth, that he reckons the proposing of them matter of ensnarement; that is to say, if he had answered to the questions as he could, he should have confessed what was demanded. and added (says he) divers things, thereby endeavouring to ensnare me. what a pitiful generation have i to deal with, and how sottishly malicious? now as to the story, i remember that matthew haviland sometimes of bristol) being in custody as a confederate of christopher loves treasons, and brought before the committee to be examined thereabouts, manifested much filth and rage at me (but in what particulars i do not perfectly remember) because of some questions that i put that nearly touched him, for which the committee sharply reproved him, as he deserved, who knew not a bridle for his tongue, and ●et professed himself to be a minister of the gospel. notwithstanding i was so far from being provoked thereby to do him harm, that i (considering him as a froward, peevish, inconsiderable, ignorant weak man, and drawn in through simplicity rather than design) accomplished (of mine own accord) his liberty from that which otherwise might have proved hard upon him; for at some of the meetings aforesaid, at christopher loves he was, for which there was proof. if this be the man that wrote the pretended nameless letter aforesaid, and if he so wrote as this liar hath rehearsed, let the reasonable judge whether he hath returned me well for that my moderation and voluntary kindness: and whether such a one be a godly, reverend, and faithful minister of the gospel, (as r. f. epithets) who is not ashamed to express himself under his hand such a scorner, as that he scorned to be examined by such a one whose birth and breeding he knew, and this in such a manner as that the committee by reason thereof were much offended and threatened (as he saith) to use much severity against him; and what a one r. f. is, who calls such a scorner, a godly, faithful minister of the gospel, and a reverend, (and blusheth not to print it) whereas of the lord only it is said; holy and reverend is his name. these are his instances, and yet thus this impudent liar concludes, pag. 114. oh horrid and dreadful! not only to be a common liar, but to forge, to put in, and to add words on purpose to ensnare men. no marvel you catch at falconers words but once spoken, and put them in hastily to take away ones estate, when you forge and put in words, many words, (whole lines in a short examination) which were never spoken, and this to take away m●ns lives. but where are (all this while) those practices of forgery, which thou sayest thou shalt declare to have been really acted by me, as proof of what thou hast affirmed, and as a plain and just ground for those thy conclusions? doth all that thou hast produced, prove one practice or tittle of forgery really acted by me? do thy instances bear thy conclusions? [let the impartial judge.] or discover they any thing more than thy false and slanderous spirit, who carest not what thou scrapest together, and sayest, nor mindest thou how it and thee may stand before the judgements of wise men, so it may but seem to reflect upon, or any ways prejudice (as thou thinkest) my name and reputation. my trust was great, laid upon me, and faithfully passed thorough in as dangerous and difficult a season as england's commonwealth hath known. thou hast charged me ralph farmer expressly, (but very falsely and maliciously, as hath been made to appear) with practices (as thou sayest) of forgery really acted by me, with the putting in, and adding words, many words, whole lines in a short examination, which were never spoken, on purpose to ensnare men, to take away men's lives; the lives (as thou sayest) of ministers of the gospel of our lord jesus, in the cases of high-treason, whilst i was in the exercise of that my trust, and to the high abuse and breach thereof. therefore how canst thou but expect another manner of reckoning with thee for the vindication of my innocency from these, and thy other charges and ironical expressions of corruption and indirect dealing, as to perjury for the taking away of a man's estate, during, and in relation to that mine employment, than what is made in these few sheets of paper, which to check thy lies and slanders, i have at present thus sent forth into the world. and whereas thou sayest, i shall discover the ground of your so easy an entertainment of the thoughts (at least suggestions) of forgery in me, from those practices of forgery, etc. thy ground and discovery is every way false; neither have i really acted practices of forgery, nor hast thou proved upon me any one such practice; nor was any such thing the ground of my so easy (as thou sayest) an entertainment of the thoughts of forgery in thee; but thou having publicly declared and professed in the epistle to thy satan enthroned, etc. concerning the matter of thy narrative in these words, viz. and this i can and do faithfully assure the reader, that here (in the said narrative) is nothing of the one, or the other, but what is real truth, as will be made good upon any occasion. and i finding upon perusal of that narrative, that in the rehearsal of a principal paper and part thereof, viz. the letter of g. f. to j. n. taken upon him, thou hadst thus set it down, the light of christ in you all i am— and in the margin over against it, the word obscure, as a special note of observation to the reader, to give him to mind the import thereof; and upon comparing those words so affirmed and plighted by thee, with the original under g. f.'s own hand-writing, (which i had by me, and out of which i wrote what was so taken) that the words were not so but these, viz. the light of christ in you all i own— upon consideration thereof, and the vast material difference between those two words, am, & own, in the ground, especially in that place, and how they turn the sentence, and of the dangerous tendency of that alteration to the life of g. f. (in that season) as a high blasphemer, and thy noting him thereby to be such; and of thy bold-thirsty and cruel spirit manifested in that thy pamphlet. i say, upon consideration of all these things, i did in my answer charge thee with forgery, and expressed myself as thou hast repeated, viz. you may here see of what a false and mischievous s●●rit this priest is, and what a devilish wickedness it is to forge in such a wo●d; as for it, were it tru●y so, would take away a man's life: what credit is to be given to what such a one saith? is not he that can do this past blushing? is there any wickedness so great that such a one may not be well conceived to be ready to act? is such a one a minister of the gospel? words needs not further to express such an act, which in its very f●●ce is so manifestly wicked and abominable; a wickedness not found in the roll of those evils which the apostle mentions shoul● make the last days perilous. this was my ground of charging thee with forgery, and this is part of the conclusion i drew from thence, which whether it be not substantial, and bearing what i have inferred therefrom, or whether thine of me be like it in the case, let understanding men judge. thus much in vindication of my innocency, from this liars charge of forgery; there are yet some questions laid in my way, to remove, ere i close my vindication as to this part of his libel with which he gins, and with which he ends, and in which he wraps it up, and by which his spirit is further made manifest, and the ground and conclusion of all edmund calamy, and his brethren. the first questions are these. i was desired to ask you, who did trepan colonel andrews into a design, for which he lost his life, when as he had given over all thoughts of engaging, till he was moved thereto by a trepanner, as he declared before his death? ; and who it was trepanned sir john gell into a misprision of treason? and lastly, who did trepan mr. love, and some of that party? these questions are proposed by those who are no babes in the world, and yet honest; and they say this bishop can (if he will) give satisfaction in: you know george what these things mean, and i know what the last means; and they advise me to read a book, concerning mr. loves designs, and his death, written and penned by you; and they say it will give the reader further satisfaction. thus this liar gins the case of christopher love; and these are the very first words therein, as they lie together, not a word omitted, page 105. 106. the last questions follow. but let me ask you, were these all whose blood you thirsted after? did you not write a letter to a friend of yours in bristol from white-hall, that until calamy, and some others of the priests were dealt withal as love was; it would never be well? i hope i shall one day get that book of yours, which you wrote against him, (mentioned before) viz. a short plea for the commonwealth. those who have seen it tell me, it most fully sets forth the fierceness and bitterness of your spirit, not only against him, but that you show your rancour and malice therein against many of the servants of christ, whose names are yet precious in the churches, and the memory of whom shall live, when your name shall rot and perish; and if it be mentioned, it shall be with abhorrency and detestation as infamous as poor fawconers is. thus he ends, page 115. reply. this is the head and the tail of this bloody monster (whose belly i have already cut out) and the feet on which it goes,— viz. — i was desired to ask you who did trepan, etc. by those who are no babes in the world, and yet honest; these questions are proposed; and they say this bishop can give satisfaction in, and they advise me to read a book, etc. and were these all whose blood etc. did you not write a letter? etc. that until calamy, etc. here's the middle and both ends brought together: i shall proceed presently to dispatch the two ends as the middle, and so finish this case. first; the aforesaid colonel andrew's, and colonel gell, were the early men of this generation, who conspired against the commonwealth, one of whom, viz. colonel androws their high court of justice cut off, which stroke, and that upon christophrr love, etc. (it seems) this liar, and his no babesin the world, and yet honest fee●, and call the discovery of their treasonable conspiracies a trapanning of one into a design, for which he lost his life, and the other into a misprision of a treason▪ christopher love, and his brethren and confederates were the nex●, who were discovered to take up where they left, and to design and act the treasons aforesaid, for which christopher love was beheaded, as hath been declared. this he and his no babes etc. call a trepanning likewise. — who did trepan mr. love, and some of that party, saith he; so that in the treason's aforesaid, he and they were, & the root of the matter was in them, otherwise into what were he and they trepanned? and why is it demanded who did trepan, etc.▪ how comes he and they then to be innocent men, and all the ado aforesaid to be made in their justification, the lamentation of his death, and the admiration o● them as precious? doth not this liar and his no babes, &c▪ hereby show themselves to be no babes in wickedness? do they not show themselves to be in the same spirit, and one with what that spirit brought forth? those who are concerned may hereof take notice, and consider, whether the discoveries of such high treasons, and the eminent execution of justice on some of the chief actors therein, should be thus publicly arraigned, and grossly abused, especially by one who pretends himself to be a minister of the gospel. is not the armies fight against, and destroying those who appeared in the field to act the same, and of as high a nature as the discovery and execution of some of those, by sentence from a court of justice who conspired the action? can the one then be reproached and traduced; and the other clear? since the cause was one and the same, and the enemy, and the end of his designs, and the deliverance to them who fought in the field, as to those who sat at the stern. and this i say to the army, either lay down the cause●, and confess yourselves guilty of all the blood spilt in the war, or let that be reproved as it deserves, which thus spits in the face of it, and of you, and of those who acted with you, and of their authority and justice from whence you received your commission. next, consider the ground, bottom, and foundation of all these clamours of this liar, and his high accusations of me, as aforesaid: is it any thing of his own knowledge, or that he hath seen, or read under my hand, or doth he name his informers, or advisers? nay, but i was desired to ask you who did trepan? etc. these questions are proposed by those who are no babes, etc. and they say this; and they advise me to read a book, etc. but i cannot get it, and they say it will give the reader satisfaction, etc. i hope i shall one day get that book, etc. those that have seen it tell me so and so. and let me ask you, did not you write a letter, & c.? this and such like is all that he hath produced as certainty in this whole matter, and whethet it be a sufficient ground, bottom, and foundation [or indeed any at all] for such his clamours, charges, and accusations, let the reasonable judge. lastlie; in answer to the questions, to the first and second, i had nothing to do in the execution of colonel andrew's, nor the misprision of colonel gell, nor in the discovery of either of their treasons, nor in that whole business, nor can i give so much as a particular account of them. so this liar who hath asked, and those other who he saith desired him to ask these questions of me, (on purpose to render me as a person who hath made it my trade thirstinglie to design the shedding of the blood of men, and the ruining of estates) have shown themselves what no babes they are in malice and wickedness, and how exceedingly dishonest, not only thus to insinuate, but to affirm that i can, if i will, give in this satisfaction; and how impudent this liar is, as to say positively to me, you know what these things mean: that is to say, that i am the man that trepanned them, as aforesaid, and that i do know myself to have thus designed, who am thus free, as hath been declared to the third; i know not of any man that in the behalf of the commonwealth, either tempted, or drew forth [nor do i believe any did] the treasons aforesaid, which secretly lodged in the discontented breasts of christop. love, and his brethren, for aught i know [and i am persuaded] his and their own spirit was the father and mother of those conspiracies; or [to give them their own word back again] the trepannor of them all: nor if his bosom friend, who was as his confessor before his death cannot, do i guests who of his generation, or any other, can give satisfaction to this question, except this liar who asks it, though he saith, i know what this last meaneth. to the fourth; i neither thirsted after the blood of these, nor any man; but these and all other who thirsted after the blood of the commonwealth, and not only endeavoured, but put these nations into war and blood to effect it, i sought to discover, as was my place and trust, and their designs for that purpose; upon which discoveries some of the chief of them were brought to justice, whereby the spilling of blood was much prevented, my heart being more tender to the blood and being of a commonwealth (such a one as england) and the hundreds of thousands of innocent persons therein, that it might be preserved, then to one man who sought and designed its ruin and destruction; and to me he that by design, counsel and contrivance, effects that which sheds the blood of men, though he draw it not with his own hand, is a murderer in a higher degree than he that violently doth the execution; and whoso sheddeth gen. 9 ●. man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed, for in the image of god made he man, is the law of god, unto which agreeth that of god in every man's conscience. now in case of the treasons aforesaid, there was one particular which put it out of the capacity of pardon, viz. the assuming unto themselves ● supreme power within the jurisdction of the commonwealth, to give commission and instructions to divers persons, authorising them to treat with a foreign state, (the scots) and the proclaimed enemy to the commonwealth (charles stuart king of scots) for the setting of him by force of arms into the throne of england; which treaty they effected, and at which treaty it was so ●●●cluded, from whence sprang the war aforesaid: whi●●●eing a most transcendent act of high treason, and ●●●king at the very root of the authority then in bein●, (for it's impossible that two supreme powers in o●e commonwealth can consist; and if that war had ●●complished the said result of the treaty, the commonwealth had not been) the parliament saw it not only just, but necessary for the safety of the commonwealth, to make it exemplary in his execution. to the fifth and last, i wrote many letters when i was at whitehall, and much business was upon me and went through my hands, it is impossible for me to remember precisely all that i wrote so many years ago; nor do i remember whether i wrote the matter of this question, but this i say, produce my letter, and what i wrote i shall not deny; in the mean time, and for the close of this case, let edmund calamy and his brethren take heed, lest what this liar hath queryed concerning him and them, they prove it to be a truth. it's good advice, however it be received, from him who knows what he saith, and wishes no evil to him or them, or any man; but an irreconcilable enemy is to the spirit of darkness, which worketh in the dark by design, war, and bloodshed, to set up its own dark domination over state and conscience; of which (even of his and their generation, as hath largely been made to appear) england hath been of late made deeply sensible. and now r. f. let me ask thee one question, is not the hand of joab in this business? were not those of christopher loves brethren & confederates (who were lately at brist.) thy no babes, in the world, and yet honest, (or some of them) by whom those questions aforesaid were proposed, and who desired thee to ask them of me, and advised thee as aforesaid, or from whom, or by whose intimation, or direction, or instigation thou hast charged, wrote, and reviled as aforesaid? are not these thy rowers, and have they not brought thee into deep waters? thus much of the case of christopher love, and in vindication of the proceed and judgement of parliament, and their ministers, in the case of him, and of the said william (called lord) craven, from the scandalous allegations, and ironical reflections of this liar r. f. in his libel aforesaid, as to both, and in conviction of his false charges therein of corruption, as to fauconers' information, and other indirect dealing in the case of the one, and of blood-thirstiness, bloodsucking, etc. in the case of the other, and of all his mire and dirt cast up at me in the management of each, on purpose to render me (if he could) the vilest of men: upon serious consideration of all which, the wise and sober may judge whether his exemplifications (as he terms it) prove me to be such a man as he hath represented me to be, or the rottenness of the (people called) quakers conversion and perfection in the general, as he blasphemeth; or that i am the busy bishop, (in meddling with that which i should not) as he affirmeth; or whether that be a truth which (he saith) by occasion of my practices in special instanced against the estate of the first, and life of the last, is asserted, viz. if we may judge of the conscience, honesty, and perfection of the quakers in general, by this man in particular, a man be as vile a person as any under heaven, and yet a perfect quaker, as his title-page, and other parts of his libel hath it: or whether i have not proved this to be a truth; viz. if the conscience, honesty, and profession of the ministers of england in general, may be judged by ral●h farmer (and what he writes) in particular, a man may be one of the vilest of men, yea a notorious traitor, and yet a professed minister of the gospel. and lastly, whether by any thing he hath said, the declaration of my innocency in the case of craven, is impeached or convict? thus much in reference to the first part of this rejoinder; for the rest of his stuff as to the cases aforesaid, i reckon it not worth any further reply▪ but do leave it to fall with its foundation, which is thus razed down, and overturned. whitehall, may. 1652. so much of the examination of coll. edward drury, as relates to the business of craven. he saith, that whilst he was at breda; he, this examinant, and several officers of the king of scots, as lieut. coll. james bardsey, capt. john brisco, capt. tho. hutt●●, capt. tho. hunt, major rich. fauconer, and others, to the number of five or six and twenty, did join together in a petition to the king for some relief, which petition was drawn by major richard fauconer in this examinants' lodging, the rest of the officers being present, which was to this effect, may it please your majesty, the great sense we have always had of your majesty's present condition, hath been the prime cause of our long silence; but now our necessities are grown so great and unsupportable, that we are enforced to petition or perish, most humbly desiring your royal majesty to take into your princely consideration their extremities who have been always ready to prostrate their lives in his majesty's royal father his service, & are no less willing & ready to prosecute the same in what your majesty shall command; most humbly petitioning your royal order that some course may be taken for our present subsistence, that our future endeavours may not be buried in that unavoidable calamity which our known loyalty hath reduced us unto; and we shall cordially pray. after this petition another memorial was wrote to the king, to this effect, may it please your majesty, we whose names are subscribed, humbly desire your royal warrant in order to your gracions promise to mr. secretary long, that when the money was brought in by the scotch commissioners, we should be relieved, and that the poor inhabitants of breda who have preserved us from perishing, may be paid. and we shall cordially pray, etc. the examinant saith, that being with the king in his privy-chamber the day before the king departed from breda, towards scotland, the queen of bohemia being there also, the aforesaid capt. brisco delivered the said memorial to the king, who laid it upon the table; presently upon this the lord craven came into the privy chamber where the king was, as aforesaid, with the queen of bohemia, to whom the said brisco went, & informed him that there were several gentlemen ready to perish, who had presented a petition to secretary lon●, to be presented to the king, and a memorial delivered by the said brisco to the king in their behalf, which the king had laid on the table, and had done nothing therein, & desired his lordship to speak to the queen of bohemia to move the king in their behalf, who casting his eye towards the table, and the memorial that lay thereon, as this examinant conceives, said to the said brisco, as he said to this examinant, well; and went to the queen of bohemia; but what he said to her, this examinant knows not, nor had they any real effect of their desires; only ●he princess royal, and the governor of breda, ten days after (upon this examinants' solicitation) discharged their quarters so far as one hundred gilders came to; but saith, that what the lord craveu might say to the other officers, or they to him before he came to the king, as aforesaid, or what he said to them, or they to him after the said lord came from the king, this examinant knows not. edw. drury. , june 10. 1652. the deposition of captain john brisco, aged about forty years. who deposeth, that at the time of the late treaty between the king of scots, and the scotch commissioners at breda, he, this deponent, with several other officers of the late king, and the king of scots being in great want, and having nothing to discharge their quarters, met together, and major rich. fauconer, one of the said officers, as this deponent conceives, drew a petition in the name of the said officers in coll. druries' lodgings, where the said officers were met, which was directed to the king to relieve them with some money; but this deponent saith, that he being very lame of his wounds, tarried not to see the perfection thereof, & therefore cannot further depose, as to any other contents of the petition. he saith, that the said petition was put into the hands of secretary long, who told the petitioner that nothing could be done in it till the commissioners of scotland had brought in some money to the king. he further deposeth, that the said petitioners understanding that the king of scots was to departed suddenly towards scotland, they drew another paper to remember the king of his promise to secretary long, that the said petitioners should have some relief; which memorial this deponent saith he presented to the king himself, his own condition being very sad, who took it into his hand, and carried it into the next room, and put it down on the board; this deponent saith, that he went into the room where the king was, and seeing the lord craven there, he, this deponent, desired the said lord to help the said deponent, and divers other gentlemen in distress, who had presented a petition to the king for relief, and also a memorial to put them in mind of his promise to secretary long, that he would afford them some relief; whereupon the said lord said, well: the deponent saith, that the queen of bohemia was in the room at the same time with the lord craven and the king, but whether the lord craven spoke to the king, or to the queen of boh●mia, this deponent cannot say, but saith that major faucon●r, and lieut. coll. james bardsey, were left by the said petitioners to wait on the king till he took water to see what might be done in point of relief; who sent this deponent and the other petitioners notice, that they could get no money. afterwards the governor of breda did cause the said quarters to be discharged. the deponent further saith, that about twenty six officers petitioned as aforesaid, and that he, this deponent had served in the same regiment under sir horat●o vere, with the lord craven in the low countries, which was the reason wherefore this deponent spoke to him to present the petition as aforesaid. john brisco. the everlasting truth exalted. being a plain testimony unto the manifestation, growth and prosperity of truth. also some dangers opened and discovered in the not receiving truth, or having received it, departing from it. also a short testimony unto gospel meetings and fellowship; with a tender invitation unto all that are afar off, to come; and unto all that are departed and gone away, to return. william smith. printed in the year, 1669. the everlasting truth exalted, etc. after the long night of apostasy had overspread the earth, and the gross darkness of it covered and remained upon the people, and that none could be found among the sons of men to lead and deliver out of it; then did the lord manifest himself from heaven, and the light began to spring as the morning, and to give light to such as sat in darkness, and under the shadow of death; and though many traveled in pain, as being soarly opprdssed by the power of darkness; yet when the lord did manifest his light, and his love in it, there were not many could believe that it was he, and so they received him not, though he came unto them for their good, but to as many as received him to them he gave power to become the sons of god, even to as many as believed in his name, which were born, not of flesh, nor of blood, nor of the will of man, but of god; and so the love of god is manifested in sending his only begotten son into the world, to be a light unto the world, that all in him might believe and receive life; but that which is born of flesh and blood, and of the will of man doth not believe that the light is he whom god sendeth, and therefore receives him not in his light, when he makes himself manifest; for that nature expecteth some higher or greater appearance of christ then in his light; but as john bare witness of christ to be the true light, so his appearance is not to be expected after any other manner, or in any other thing; for whatsoever is contrary to that which is true, is false, and there is but one thing true (or truth itself) and that john testifies to be the light with which christ enlighteneth every one that comes into the world, and as the light is true, (or truth itself) so the expectation is to be drawn off from all other things as being false, and the mind is to turn to the light as being only true; and though it seem as a low or little thing in its manifestation, yet there is nothing which in itself is true besides it, and therefore most worthy of all things to be loved and obeyed in the least appearance of it; for who dispises the day of small things cannot come to the day of glory, where the son ruleth; and here many have suffered loss as to the benefit which in the light they might have received and enjoyed, for not loving and obeying the appearance or breaking forth of the light in a small measure, it doth not go on in such unto a perfect day, but being despised as a small thing, or a thing of no value, it draweth into itself again the manifestation, and then none can see the way unto god, nor walk in the path of life; for the light being despised, and so withdrawing itself, there is nothing but darkness remains to be the guide, and such as walks in darkness knows not whither they go, because darkness hath blinded their minds, and this hath been an occasion of stumbling unto many, who have not loved the light, but despised it, for in darkness they stumble, and many times fall, but in the light, which is the plain path, there is no stumbling, and they that do not walk in that path, but dispises it, and stumbles at it, they walk in the broad way, and in that way they cannot have peace; for they that despise the day of small things, they despise that by which peace cometh, and none can have peace whilst they despise that by which it comes; for they that would have peace with god must receive and entertain the light, and not despise it, and though it may appear but as a little thing, yet peace is found in the least appearance of it, as it is loved and obeyed; but the high and softy cannot bow unto it, the birth of flesh and blood, and of the will of man expects some higher and greater thing; and when the light manifests itself by reproof in the conscience, there is not submission, but rather despising, for the broad way is more delightful to that birth than the narrow; and therefore it is that the broad way is filled with many walkers; and so many may see the morning, and not come to see the perfect day; for if the light in its manifestation be not loved and obeyed, there is not a going forward in the truth, nor any growth and increase witnessed, and so the light hath manifest itself in many, and they have seen the darkness by the manifestation, but not loving and obeying the light that it might become their teacher and leader, they still abide in darkness, and are not redeemed and delivered, and that is the thraldom and bondage, where many yet remains who have been visited with the dayspring from on high, they do not love nor obey the light when it springs and manifests itself unto them, and so they keep themselves in their own sorrow, and misery by loving and obeying darkness; for if the light be followed in love, as being only true, there is not an abiding in darkness, but a coming to the light of life; and so christ said, i am the light of the world, he that followeth me shall not abide in darkness; which thing is true in him, and in all those that follow him; for in the appearance of his light the darkness passeth away, and the power of it groweth weaker, and then comes redemption and deliverance out of darkness unto those that love and obey the light, and so they come out of the pollutions and defilements into that which is pure, and holy, and righteous, and these are only the people which are found to the praise and glory of god; for who have been visited, and do not obey the lord, they are not found to his praise and glory, but are sound in that by which god is dishonoured; and who have tasted of the good word of god, and the powers of the world to come, and have seen many great and wonderful things, and afterwards go from the light, and lose their steadfastness, they are not found to the praise and glory of god, but dishonoureth his name and truth and people; for they that sometimes did own the light to be true (or truth itself) and for a season rejoiced in it, and as disciples took up the cross to follow it, and now are grown weary of walking in the narrow way, and so are gone back and follows no further, they cannot be found to the praise and glory of god, but are found to dishonour him, by departing from him, and taking liberty to satisfy the flesh, with the affections and lusts, and that is the birth of flesh and blood, and of the will of man, whatsoever may be pretended of the birth of god, or of retaining a measure of light and truth to wait upon god in their own particulars; that spirit which so draweth back, and causeth any to depart from the way of truth, and from the holy commandment given of god, it is a false spirit, and so an enemy to the true spirit, and those that follow it and live in it; and though some may say, that to withdraw and depart from that which they have sometimes observed in outward practice, is not to withdraw or depart from the truth, but rather a growth, and a going forward in it; but that will not hold to be true if tried by the truth itself; and for want of such a trial many have wronged themselves: for if there had been a true trial, before there had been such a close joining, the matter would have appeared otherwise, and the deceiveableness would have been seen under the covering, and all that walked in the light did see it, and were preserved; for truth is unchangeable in all its ways, though in degrees it appears more glorious, and being an immutable unalterable power, it always justifies its own work and order from one degree to another; and they that really go forward in the truth, and retain it in their particulars to wait upon god, they cannot possibly disesteem or despise any practice which in the truth is observed, and in and by which they have often been refreshed; (for mark) where the carcase is, thither will the eagles resort; and this in the beginning did draw to meet together with a willing mind; for as the word of life was ministered by such as god appointed, so the virtue of it caused resort unto it, and the same thing being yet preserved and continued, and also much increased, according to the power and wisdom in which it did begin, how can any lay a sufficient ground for their withdrawing or departing from it? or how can any truly say, that they are gone forward in the truth, or that they retain a measure of it to wait upon god in their own particulars? for the everlasting power of the lord god doth yet continue amongst those that fear him, and the word of life floweth, and is yet ministered in the assemblies of the righteous, and all the faithful meeteth with it in a large and plentiful measure; and it yieldeth the same virtue unto refreshment & nourishment as in the beginning, and keepeth the same judgement upon transgressor's; and hereby it is manifest, that the power changes not, nor the word of life ceaseth not, but some are rather willing to cease from obeying the truth, and to depart from the holy commandment given of god, and so it had been better they had never known it, unless they repent and return, but such things are permitted to happen, that they which are reproved may be made manifest, and that the lord may be magnified in stretching forth his arm for the recovery of such who in their simplicity have been turned aside: and though some may think that they are gotten above the assemblies of the righteous, and the ministration of the power (which is the gospel) and that they are now more large and universal in their love, yet that power which they despise, as a thing below them, will bruise the head of that spirit which hath lift them up, and all that abide in that power will live the longer life, and the love which is in the light where the righteous have their fellowship, it will remain when all the pretended universal love is gone; for the love which is universal is in god, and that love is pure, and cannot join to any impure thing, to have unity or fellowship with it; for if it were so, then there is no distinction between righteousness and unrighteousness; but there is a distinction, for as much as righteousness is always justified, and unrighteousness always condemned, and so it is as possible to join the east and west together, as to join righteousness and unrighteousness in unity and fellowship, and who walks in the light in which is the universal love of god, they cannot have fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but is made to reprove them; and so the light is the same now as in the apostles days, and they that live in it are of the same mind as they were, and they could not have fellowship with unfruitful works of darkness, but reproved them; and the apostles were in the universal love of god, and god never loved esau: therefore all such had need consider what they are gone from, and what they are joined unto, lest they so long withstand the lord until the day of visitation pass over; for it is certain that all such as have forsaken the assemblies of the righteous, and disesteemes, or rather dispises the ministration of the gospel, that they have filled themselves with high imaginations, & surfeits with their own fullness, and so they joath the life and virtue which is sweeter than the honey comb, and with their own fullness they grow wanton, and makes themselves merry above the witness, and so with the flesh are committing whoredom and uncleanness; but that which is begotten in an unlawful bed must not inherit the kingdom of god, that birth is not the heir of life, nor cannot have an inheritance with the saints in light; (mark) it is the saints in light which inherits, it is their lot only which falleth into that ground, and there is none can partake of their goodly heritage, but who are born of the same life; for those that are full and wanton, and in their fullness and wontonness joins to a harlot, they have no part in the kingdom of god and of christ; but as they sow to the flesh, so of the flesh they must reap corruption; and this is a grief unto the righteous, that any who had a beginning in the light and spirit should go back again into the flesh, and in that state to think they are perfect, and that their perfection is of a higher degree than those who keeps in the light and spirit where they did begin; for that measure of light and spirit which was first manifest from god to spread abroad his truth in this day, it was and is perfect, it was, and is his good and perfect gift, it came from him as from the father of light, with whom is no variableness or shadow of turning; then that which is variable and turning, is not the gift of god, and they that are varied and turned from the assemblies of the righteous, and from the ministration of the gospel, they are gone from the gift of god that is perfect, and the highest degree of their perfection is perfect surmisings, and perfect prejudice, and perfect enmity, and this state will never stand as a perfect state before the lord; and it is with such, as when a hungry man dreameth, and behold he eateth; but when he awaketh his soul is empty; and this is the greatest deceiveableness in the highest mystery of iniquity, for to be deceived in spiritual things as to the immortal soul, is the greatest deceiveableness, and all from the light which is the good and perfect gift of god are so deceived; for as they are from the light, they are in darkness, and in darkness they sleep and dream; for they that sleep, sleep in the night, and in their sleeping and dreaming, it is, as if they were eating, [but mark] when they awaken their souls are empty; and so all that goes from the light and life, and falls asleep and dreameth, they are deceived with their dreams; and by such a dreaming vision many simple ones have been deceived; and all that are turned aside from the way of life, and are departed from the assemblies of the upright in heart, they are all deceived by a vision which had its beginning in sleeping and dreaming, and all the perfection that is in it, is but as a vapour that flieth in the air, and the souls of such are empty who have received the vision, and are sleeping and dreaming in it: therefore all to be awakened who are sleeping and dreaming in the night, and turn to the light and day which they have despised, that they may come to see that their souls are empty, whilst they are surfiting with their own fullness, & so come to be undeceived by the manifestation of the everlasting truth, and be recovered out of the snare in which they are taken, and it is only the consideration of the soul, and love unto it, that presseth to the manifestation of these dangers, and also to the manifestation of truth, that such as are fallen into them may not always be entangled with them, but come to the light and spirit again in which they did begin, that by the light, spirit & power of the lord god, their captivity may return; for jacob is in morning, and israel in heaviness whilst the captivity remains, and the lamb is slain, though pretended to be followed, and the lord of life is crucified, and the universal love of god is straitened, & this is not a state wherein jacob can rejoice and israel be glad, but that which in this state rejoices and is glad, it is appointed for heaviness, and a day of sorrow; oh that there might not be a resister of the power of god, or a withstander of his arm, by which he doth valiant things; for that spirit which hath drawn from the way of truth, and hath brought in surmisings, prejudice and enmity, it must come under the power of the lord to be judged & condemned; & who have any tenderness remains in their hearts towards god, or any simple love to his truth and people, let all give up that spirit to be judged, as their greatest enemy, and not to run in that spirit from the judgement seat, for than it will fall heavy upon them in the latter end, and the lord will be clear in that he hath waited to be gracious, and hath not ceased to visit by many faithful warnings; for though the night vision did create, and bring forth a manifest opposition to the truth and power of god, yet the truth and power of god spreads abroad and prospers, and all the whirlwinds passeth away, and the children of light yet lives in the still and quiet day, and the lord blowsupon that spirit which blows against his truth, and it is going into its air, and all that it carrieth up with it will be driven about as clouds of darkness; but the righteous rejoices, and are glad in the lord, for their foundation standeth sure, and their building unshaken; and it is the same foundation upon which they now stand, as in the beginning, it is unalterably so, and the lord is with them as in the beginning, and they love his word as in the beginning, and have unity and fellowship in the light, as in the beginning, and that which was in the beginning is their food and clothing, and they shine in the glory of righteousness which is their garment, and so they have kept the beginning, and prospers in that which was in the beginning, which is the same to day and for ever, and there is no end of its goodness; and they that are gone away, as if god was departed from the assembles of the righteous, they are departed from god in themselves, and so have lost the sense and feeling of him in that way by which he appeareth with the faithful, for his power and glory is more abundanly seen in the assemblies of his people, and they, that cannot see him and find him there, it is they that are departed from god, but god is not departed from those that love him and worships him; and that is their joy and crown of rejoicing, that they are counted worthy to serve the lord, and to feel his presence; and notwithstanding there hath appeared great oppositions, not only in a way of outward persecution, but also in several other ways and manners, and sometimes from such as once in measure bade received truth, and made a profession of it, yet the lord hath carried on his own work, and truth hath prospered from the beginning, by which it is manifest that god is not departed, but is the same unto all, and with all that wait upon him; for there could be no prosperity if god was departed, but there is prosperity, yea, a great increase, and many tender plants are springing and budding, and many are grown to be trees of righteousness, of the lords planting, and in the strength of the lord they stand as pillars in his house, and there is no decay nor want in the family, all the garners are rich with store, and their land is a land of plenty; and all that are departed out of the house are gone into famine, and are decayed as branches that wanteth nourishment from the root; and herein the great and universal love of god is manifest to his people, who hath caused his light to shine in their heartsâ�ª ã��â��ã�� also drawn their hearts to join unto it, so that it is become ã��â��ã�� most precious thing by them to be desired; and as they have been faithful to it from the beginning, so it still remaineth with them, and spreads abroad its power more fully and largely; and though some might be drawn away in the beginning who were convinced, and felt the power, yet as their hearts are joined to it again, they are come into prosperity; for the lord hath caused their captivity to return, and captivity being returned, the pure plant increases with the increase of god, and that is the increase in which is prosperity, all being gathered into the light and power of god, they are all fruitful branches of a living root; and so all that obey the light are united in one, and every one in their measure grows in grace and godliness, and in that all stands in the beginning; and as they wait upon god in that which first convinced them, they are preserved out of the net of the fowler, and from the deceit of the deceiver; and this is marvellous in the eyes of many this day; for by the preservation that many have witnessed, by cleaving to the power, they certainly know that there is not another thing sufficient for that work; and so they keep their faith in it, as in the greatest; and in the very time when darkness came upon some to draw them back, then there was no whither else for them to go, but to that which from the beginning had preserved; for they were come to assurance that he was the son of god in whom they believed, and they knew that he had the word of eternal life; and so they could not forsake him, and depart from him, to go to another, but continued in his love according to his command; which, if all had done so, there had not been a going away and departing; but the serpent beguiled, as he beguiled eve; and though he aimed to deceive the very elect, yet it was not possible, because their foundation was sure, and they were faithful to it; and upon the foundation they yet stand, and are not moved, and the truth is precious in their eye, and the testimony of it lovely in their hearts, and they are not weary of serving the lord; for his power carries them as upon eagles wings, and such are not born of flesh and blood, and of the will of man, but of god, and as heirs of god they inherit life and immortality; and so they rejoice in their way, and in their portion, and in this good ground their lot is fallen, and they have a goodly heritage, yea a heritage above the earth, and the glory of it; for in the seed and life they have found the heavenly treasure, and the pearl of great price; and as their affections are set upon things above, so they do not mind to be in love with things below; and abiding in the light and truth, they have a sure dwelling, and a quiet habitation; and so in that which is immortal they live with the lord, and one another, and are refreshed in the lord and one in another; and these are children which of his own will he hath begotten by the word of his power; [mark] by the word of his power these are begotten, and they love the word of his power which hath begotten them, and it is milk unto them as babes, and meat as strong men, and they know the virtue and power of it, and cannot depart from it, and by faith in the power they obtain victory; and so they keep the faith, and do not make shipwreck of it, and by faith they stand, and from the beginning they have kept in the way that is good, and have not cunningly devised fables, but by the manifestation of truth have approved themselves unto god; and these are they which of his own will he hath begotten by the word of his power, who love the word of his power that hath begotten them, and by the word of his power he upholds them; it is that they lean upon, and cleave unto in all their trials, distress and tribulations, and it hath been, and is their strength from one degree of godliness unto another, and from one degree of faith to another; and so from degree to degree they have followed the lord in humbleness of mind, and he hath and doth give his grace unto them, and exalts them into honour, and they are honourable and beloved in his sight; and though some that came out with them be gone from them, yet the truth is the same, and they are the same in the truth; for as they have kept in the truth from the beginning, so they have not wavered nor changed, but in all things have been found faithful wherein truth hath been concerned, and many whose dear and precious lives have been given up as a testimony to it, and many whose sufferings and tribulations doth yet remain for the truth sake; and it is no less in such as now depart from the testimony, and turns against it, than a trampling upon the blood and sufferings of the faithful, and so a trampling under foot the son of god, and doing despite to the spirit of grace; and such are gone from the grace of god in themselves, and so runs into the liberty that pleaseth the vain mind which cannot bear the yoke; and in that sea of liberty in vanity the flesh is pleased, and from that sea cometh all the great swelling words of vanity in the likeness of truth; but the sea is bounded, beyond which it cannot pass, and in that which bounds the troubled seas the faithful are preserved from being swallowed up; and they that are fallen into this ocean, they are fallen from the rock (christ jesus) who is the beginning and ending, the first and last; and so they are gone from the chief corner stone the elect and precious, upon which the building is fitly framed, and groweth unto an holy temple in the lord (so mark) the building is fitly framed upon the rock, and not upon the sea; and upon the rock the building standeth and groweth unto an holy temple; and so the power of the rock raiseth the building which is framed upon it, and there is a perfect union between the foundation and building, and a perfect union in the building; for it is framed and compacted by his hand who is lord of all, so it is united, and no where out of order; for that which is out of order is not framed and compacted in the building which stands upon the rock; and though it may appear as framed, compacted and builded, yet it is not united to the foundation: but the lord hath pleasure in his own building: as being his own work, and it grows to be an holy temple, and he fills it with his presence and glory, and besides this foundation which god hath laid, there is no man can lay another, nor no man can build another building to be an holy temple for him; therefore all foundations and buildings which man hath laid and builded must come to nought, for it is only his own work that must stand and remain; and so he hath been building upon his own foundation, and he hath framed a building according unto his pleasure, and he causeth the building to grow unto an holy temple for himself to walk in; and so he walks in the temple, and dwells in the temple which is holy, and this is his own work from the beginning. for when the lord appeared to make known his truth, in this day there was no building framed, but all in several forms and professions scattered, and he beheld it, and his eye pitied, and then was his love manifest to the scattered, and with his light he opened their eye that was darkened, and many came to see that their foundation was sandy, and that their building could not stand safely; and as the lord was minded in this morning of light, or springing of his day, so more light brake forth from his fullness, and the day more appeared, and dangers came to be more clearly seen; and when dangers were discerned in the light, there was a fear came upon many to behold them; for as they saw their foundation to be sandy, so they came to be sensible that it would fail, and their building fall, and that they could not stand in safety, if they did there remain, and in the sense of their danger they were made to cease from building, and to cry unto the lord for help; for they came to see with the light that was breaking forth, that the lord would overturn their foundation and building: and though some had long been working & building, yet they were made willing to give it all up, and to become nothing as to what they had done; and being mindful of the light which had opened their eye, and made them sensible of their danger, and waiting in fear and humbleness of mind, the lord revealeth a sure foundation of his own laying, and he called the scattered to come into it; and as his voice was obeyed he stretched forth his arm and gathered, and with the strength of his love he made many willing to be at his disposing; and then he began to work upon their hearts by his power, and to frame their hearts according to the nature of his own foundation, for all were out of order until the lord began to work by his mighty power, there was not one stone framed fit for his building, but all were rough and could not be laid and compacted together; and in this condition the lord found the children of men in this day of his appearance, he did not find them framed, and so fit for building; but he found them as such upon whom the plain had not gone, and for his name sake he took the work into his own hand, and his work reached to the heart which was out of order; and then many came to feel the lord working in them by his power, and came to know that it was the lord, which they never knew before; and as they came to know god by the work of his power in their hearts, so they came to stand in fear before him, and not kowing what the lord would do by such a manifestation and operation of his light and power, they were brought to stand still in silence and to wait for the effect, and then did he open the treasures of his love and showed them his salvation, and also showed them his judgement seat before which they were to stand, and they were made willing to appear before him, and to be judged by him; and he caused his judgement to pass thorough them for the casting out of that spirit which wrought iniquity, and for the kill of that life which had pleasure in unrighteousness, and so his judgements were found to be just, and he was found to be righteous, for he judged nothing but that which was contrary to the purity of his own life, and was the burden of the immortal soul, and that is for judgement in all where ever it remains; and so he began and prospered his work in the hearts of those that did abide the day of his coming, and they can set to their seal that god is true; and whilst the wicked stood in his sight he was terrible in his appearance, and whilst corruption remained he was dreadful to behold, for his word was as a fire and a hammer upon the transgressing nature, and so his fame hath gone, and his hammer hath wrought for the purging of the conscience from dead works, and for the raising and bringing forth of life and immortality, and so by his power he hath squared and framed the hearts of many, and hath made them fit for his building, and he hath fixed and united them to his foundation (which is christ the rock) and in him he hath fixed and united them one to another, and so the building and foundation are joined in one nature, and the building is fitly framed and grows unto an holy temple, it doth not decay and fall, but grows and prospers in the light, life and power, and since the beginning the lord hath enlarged it more abundantly, and hath raised it into honour and glory, and herein his works hath been seen from the beginning by all that have kept in the beginning, whose eye have been to the lord in that by which he first made himself known unto them; and this is the foundation and building that standeth, and will stand as being only the lords; for man hath been wholly excluded from the work, that the excellency of the power might appear to be of god, and that he alone might have the glory in it, and by it; and so it is not the wise, nor mighty, nor prudent of the world that brought to pass the things which now are witnessed by the righteous; but the arm of the lord hath done it, and his power is exalted in it, and by it, and his power triumpheth over all contrary spirits that would lay his building waste; & many can now say as in times past, we are god's husbandry, we are god's building, the seed which is sprung up is of god, and the building is framed by him, and he waters his seed, and bears up the pillars of his building, and therefore his seed and building grows and prospers and triumphs in victory, and here the goings on with the lord is known from the beginning, for he hath led many by the hand, and carried many in his bosom, and such have been with him from the beginning, they have not run out of either hand, or turned back again, but have kept their habitation in the holy temple which the lord buildeth, and where his honour dwelleth; and so have always walked with the lord, and the lord with them: but who are debarred from the ministry of the word of life, or utter words, and not in the life, they are not always with the lord, nor the lord with them; and so they are to mind the light to be their stay, and to stay their minds upon god, and keep to the truth as the principle which instructeth in the right way, that life and virtue may spring, and unity and followship grow and increase; for all that have kept to the truth, as the principle, they have been preserved by the power of it, and have escaped many dangers which others have fallen into for want of watchfulness, for he that is begotten of god keepeth himself, and the wicked one toucheth him not, he keeps himself in the power by which he is begotten, and into that power the wicked one cannot come to touch him; and so the begotten of god is kept from the wicked one by the power which begets him, and by the power is always helped in the needful time, and here the righteous dwell safely under the banner which is spread over them, they do not depart from the testimony of the word of life, neither do they utter words as a testimony out of the life, but lives and dwells in the life as in their habitation; and they that do not dwell in this habitation they utter words from a wrong motion, but who keeps their habitation in the life, the life is in their ministry and testimony, for such lives in the word of life, and so preaches the word of life in its own power, and the sound of that word of life and power goes thorough death and darkness and reaches the true and faithful witness; and this is a joyful sound by which the captive is made glad, and this sound is gone forth into the world, and the words of it to the ends of the earth, & many that were in the graves are raised up by it; the dead hath heard the voice of the son of god and lives, for it hath quickened and given life to as many as received the testimony of it into their hearts, and they that keeps it, and abids in it, they live by it, and such cannot forget it, nor the benefits they have received by it, but esteems it and prefers it above all other things; and so they do not let the benefits slip out of their minds, but retains them in that from which they have received them, and so they keep in the beginning, and goes forward in the beginning, for it clearly manifesteth that such as depart from the way of truth, and from the holy commandment given of god, that they have not kept in the beginning, but lost it, and so have lost the sense of benefits which in the beginning they received, and now makes merry above the witness, and grows wanton upon the earth, and what can the end of these things be but distress, sorrow and misery; for all that have known the lord in any measure, and have turned their backs upon him, they cannot lie down in peace, except they repent; and therefore that all might mind their own conditions, and not to resist and strive against that which seeks their eternal good, but submit unto it, with a lowly and humble mind, that the vapours which darkens their understanding may be removed, and the night vision cease, and the word of life become precious to them as in the beginning; for the lord hath gathered a flock which keeps together in his light, life, power and wisdom, and he is their shepherd and bishop of their souls; and as they abide with him, they cannot be scattered any more, for the good shepherd leads them, and keeps them, and the bishop of their souls overseeâ�� them, and taketh care for them; and the pasture of his life is their delight and well-being; and so the lord god exalts his everlasting truth over all, and his work prospers against every assault that would lay it waste, and in the pure truth springs and spreads and triumphs, and the lamb and the saints have the victory, and must have the victory, and the victory they rejoice and are exceeding glad; for they know that their labour is not in vain in the lord, and by many infallible proofs the lord doth evidence that they are his, and that the labour of true labourers doth stand in his council and wisdom; and the lord god is a witness for them that they labour in his service, for as much as he makes them useful both to the gathering and confirming many; and having such a certain evidence of the lords power with them, they mind their labour and service; and though some, which in the beginning was the fruit of their labour, be gone from that in which they then received their testimony, and now reckons their labour and service to be useless, yet the lord reckons their labour and service useful for himself, and many that standeth as the seal of their apostleship and ministry; and having the seal they continue their labour in the work of god, and cannot cease to publish the everlasting gospel; but goeth on with the lord, and the lord with them, and they are a blessing in his hand for converting sinners from their way, and for establishing the righteous in their goings; and whosoever rises up to oppose the work of the lord in the gospel ministration, they must certainly fall and wither as the mown grass; for the good seed is sown, and many have received it into the ground, and fruit is brought forth according to increase, and the lord god hath his honour and glory by it, and this is the sweet savour which proceedeth from the almighty to season the earth; for the earth hath brought forth corruptible fruit, which is unsavoury, and now the lord god is seasoning the earth with the savour of his life, and the testimony of life spreads abroad, that the earth may be seasoned; and the everlasting gospel is preached over the beast, and the whore, and false prophet, and many have received it into their hearts, and walks according to the truth of it, and because of the good savour they are in love with it; and so the truth and power of the lord god judges down, and goes over the head of the serpent, and the lamb reigns, and must reign, and under his government the saints rejoices. a short testimony unto gospel meetings and fellowship, etc. the everlasting god having called and separated a people by the manifestation of his light, spirit and power from the ways, customs and worships which are observed amongst such as be in the fall and in the apostasy, he hath gathered them into a new and living way, and into a holy and spiritual worship, and in the leadings of his spirit they follow him according to his mind and will, and in his wisdom and counsel he order them to meet together, and to wait upon him in his fear, not in the way, nor after the manner as others do who know not his mind and will in what they do, but as a distinct and separated people from all that meet according to the commandment of men, they meet according to the commandment of god; and this is a meeting according to the truth of the gospel; for the saints in primitive times did not meet to wait upon god, and worship him amongst the jews in their synagogues and temple, but by the light and spirit were separated from their worship, and in the light and spirit they met together in such places, and at such times as the lord ordered and appointed; and they met distinctly and apart both from the jews and gentiles in their way and worship, and did not meet or join with them to observe their practice, as may be seen in the scriptures of truth, for when christ ascended he commanded his disciples to tarry at jerusalem until they were endued with power from on high (so mark) he commanded that they should tarry at jerusalem, and meet together, and wait for the power to endue them, and being met together with one accord in one place (mark again) being met together, there was a gospel meeting according to the commandment of the lord, and in that meeting the holy ghost fell upon them, and they spoke as the spirit gave them utterance, (mark again) they did not go forth before they had received the power, nor they did not speak before the spirit gave them utterance; but having received the spirit and power they then speak in the spirit, and went forth to declare the things of god in his power, and in the spirit and power which they had received they gathered meetings distinctly both from jews and gentiles, and they continue their meetings, and did not cease to meet after they had received the spirit and power, and they were not only separated from the jews and gentiles as to their worship, but they also received power to testify against the worships which jews & gentiles observed; for stephen testified against the temple-worship, and paul against the athenians worship; and this was their love to god his truth and worship, and also love to the souls of such as were ignorantly worshipping; and herein they discharged a good conscience towards god, forasmuch as they laboured to open the understandings of ignorant worshippers, by testifying against their worships; and as they met together and worshipped god in his spirit and truth, so they kept their meetings in his fear, and did not forsake the assembling of themselves, but with all diligence observed the way and order of the spirit which they had received of god to meet together, and to worship god in; and their meetings were form and ordered of the lord, and by his appointment; they were not form, ordered or appointed of man, or by man, but the hand of the lord was in the forming, ordering and appointing of them; and they that sometimes observed them, and then departed from them, they departed from the holy commandment given of god; and so it doth clearly appear that the meetings of the holy people (called quakers) are constituted, ordained and commanded of god, forasmuch as they answer to the saints meetings in primitive times, being form and appointed of god, as their meetings were, and being also observed in the same light, spirit, life and power; and so their meetings are no new thing, if truly examined and compared with the purity of gospel times; but their meetings are of the first constitution and appointment of god amongst christians, and so hath the first place in christian practice, service and worship; for as they stand by the appointment & commandment of god, so they are more worthy to be observed then any meetings that stand by the appointment and commandment of men; and all that truly love god they do observe them as his command; and by keeping his command they manifest that they love him; and many that doth manifest their love unto god in assembling and meeting together according to his appointment and command, and his command is not grievous, but joyous unto them; for by observing and keeping his command, they have found him in his own way, and so keep their meetings unto god, and not unto men; and this is the glorious light that is broken forth again through the night of apostasy, and in which gospel-meetings are ordered again, as was before the apostasy, and the everlasting gospel is preached again as in the apostles days, and christianity is known again as was amongst them, and the worship of god is observed again in their light, life and spirit, and the way of life and peace is walked in, as was by them, and so all things are made new by the appearance of christ, in his light and power, and yet nothing new in itself, as to the ground, but only made new by a separation and distinction from the old: for all that man hath constituted, ordained and set up, as to worship and religion, it is of the old nature, and so old things, but christ makes all things new, and yet in himself before all things, and he hath brought forth that again which darkness hath overspread since the primitive times, which being so large a time kept under darkness, it now appeareth new, distinctly from the old; and though this be new as to the appearance of it out of the old; yet christ, who brings it forth in himself, he is the beginning of all; and so he is the first and good old way, as in relation to foregoing ages; and also the last, and new and living way, in relation to succeeding ages; and he hath gathered a people to himself, who walks with him, as in the new and living way, and in him they meet and worship god, and enjoys his presence; and having found the lord in his own way, & walking with the lord in his own leadingâ��, they cannot walk in any other way, nor meet to worship god in any other manner; for there is but one way that leadeth unto god, and in which he is worshipped, and that is christ the light, & truth and life, and that way being found, all other ways are to be denied as leading from god, & that is the ground why such as have found the new and living way, and walk in it, cannot walk in the old and dead ways, which by the old nature of men are set up and prescribed, but cleaveth to the way which god hath prepared and appointed, that they should walk in; and therefore the holy people (called quakers) who walk in the light and spirit cannot walk in the ways, or observe the worships in any form or profession which is made and set up by men, as knowing that christ jesus is not their way, nor that their worship is constituted and ordained of god; and therefore they cannot meet with them, nor walk with them, nor worship with them; but meets in the spirit, and walks in the spirit, and worship. god in the spirit, who is a spirit; and this is a gospel-meeting, and way, and worship as in the primitive times, and all other meetings, ways and worships are constituted and set up since the primitive times, and they are all to be denied and forsaken, as having no life in them; for though the lord might once appear in meetings, ways and worships which were of a lower degree then that which now he hath revealed, and that the sender in heart did meet with something of god in such meetings, ways and worships; yet that doth not bind the lord to a continuance in such meetings, ways and worships; neither is it a sufficient ground for any to continue in them now the lord hath appeared in a higher and greater manifestation of light; for what any have met withal as from the lord in lower dispensations, it was fourth drawing and bringing them higher; not that god would fix himself in that dispensation, or fix any unto it, but only condescended unto low things to bring forward into higher, and so to lead on from that which is below into that which is above, and so to lead on from that which is below into that which is above, and so to the greatest, which is christ the fullness, who in the appearance of his light and life doth swallow up all lower dispensations, though as to time they might be of god; and so many have seen the goings on of the lord in his light, and in his light have followed him, from the lower into the higher, and so are come to live and walk in that where his presence remains; and to as many as have so followed him, and abides with him, they know the place of his rest, and also knows their rest in him; and so they know the lord to live in them, and walk in them, and that he is their god, and they are his people; and in such a meeting, way and worship the lord is found, and he abides and continues there in his love, mercy and goodness; therefore all below are to come up into it; and all gone from it are to return, if they would walk with the lord; for there is not another way wherein any doth walk with the lord, or the lord with them; but in his light, life and power, and in that to meet and worship him according to his own appointment and command; for as the lord is gathering into himself all lower dispensations, and gathering in one such as have been scattered in them; so all are to mind the lords gathering, that in the light, by which he gathereth, they may come to be made perfect in one, [mark] in one is the perfection, which is christ the light, and life, and power and wisdom of god, in whose light, life, power and wisdom is the gospel unity and fellowship, not in outward forms and professions, and lower dispensations, but in the light, and life of christ jesus, who is above all, and greater than all; in his light the saints had fellowship, as the scriptures testify, and in his light the saints have fellowship in this day; and so by one spirit they are all baptised into one body, and are one body under the government of christ the head; and this is the universal fellowship in the universal light, where the spirits of just men, are now known who are gone before, and the spirits of just men now will be known by such as are to come; and so a perfect unity in perfect light of christ, by which light the faithful are bound in a bundle of life, and so in the unity of the light and spirit the saints now meets and worships god, and build up one another in their most holy faith, and edifies and comforts one another according to the practice of the holy men and women in times past, and they keep the unity of the spirit, which unto them is the bond of peace; and though some may lose the unity by going from the spirit, and some that may profess the truth be not in unity, as not walking in the spirit, yet neither doth weaken or break the unity of such as lives and abides in the spirit, for the spirit changes not, though some that profess the truth do not walk in it, or some may withdraw and depart from it, therefore the unity in the spirit is certain and everlasting, and it is the bond of peace to all that live in it. so all are to come unto this light and spirit in which the saints meet and worship god, and in which they have unity and fellowship with god and one another, there is nothing below it will endure, nor nothing exalted above that will stand; for as the light and spirit is the beginning, so it is the ending unto all that abides in it; for all truth is only comprehended in the light and spirit of god, and from thence received, and there is not any other things, or things, in which true and lasting peace can be found, but in a measure of that light which comes from god as the fountain, & they that have fixed themselves below the light, they must be disjoined from that unto which they are fixed, and stand-loose from all things which they have made and set up in worship and religion, and mind the light which is only true, to lead them forward into all truth, for where any are fixed to things below the light, and will not be disjoined and separated from them by the light, they are â��entered in mortality, or the corruptible body which presseth down the soul; and whatsoever any may pretend as to their meetings, ways and worship's to be of god, yet they are all form and framed in the corruptible part, and so are all corruptible offerings, which have not the savour of incorruptible virtue; therefore all forms and professions distinct from the light, with all their meetings; worships and worshippers, they must all forsake their meetings, ã��â��ã�� being in the corruptible part, and as such where the living god is not to be found, and all come to the light and spirit of god which openeth the eye and understanding, and gives the knowledge of god and of his way and truth, all to come unto that, and follow it, and live in it, and so come to the assemblies of the righteous, and to the meetings of the firstborn of god, and with them to worship god in his spirit and truth, and to have unity and fellowship with them in the light which is their guide and way, and so come to keep the holy commandment given of god, for until the holy commandment of the lord god be kept the mind remains in sin and transgression, and there is none in that state which are in the saint's worship and fellowship, and so they must come to the light to be redeemed from the vanity of their minds, because the pure and holy god is not worshipped with such a mind; therefore the light must be followed as a leader to bring out of vanity into truth and purity, and so to serve and worship the pure and holy god with a pure and holy mind, and with a sincere and upright heart, and unto this all must come before their service and worship be accepted of god, or before they can come to have true and lasting peace with him; therefore let the wicked forsake their way and the unrighteous their thoughts, and turn to the lord who would not the death of them that die; and so come out of all forms and professions below the light and life, and come to the light, and meet with those that meets in the light, and worship's god in spirit & truth, and so come to keep the ordinance of god, and who are willing to come in the drawings and leadings of the light and spirit, the lord standeth ready to receive them, and will in no wise cast them off, as being yet the day of his visitation: oh, therefore, let all come whilst the hand of the lord is stretched forth to gather them, and whilst his arm is open to receive them, let them come in the light and in the spirit, and bow before the lord, and worship in his holy temple, that all who are drinking the cup of fornication, may come to the cup of salvation, and praise the lord. and all that have been formerly donvinced of the everlasting truth, and for a time assembled with the holy congregation, and kept the holy commandment given of god, and now have lost their guide and way, and forsaken the assemblies of gods chosen, and departed from the holy commandment, and from the worship and ordinance of god, and are gotten into created likenesses, and are bowing and worshipping at there own altar, that they all may feel that again which first convinced them, from which they are gone, that by its power, it may cause them to return, and so in the light and pure spirit to come again to the worship and ordinance of god; that as they have departed from the ordinance of god, and broken the covenant, and gone from the true fellowship, so to return unto that again from which they are departed and gone; and to return in submission and lowliness of mind, and tenderness of heart, that the lord and his people may delight to receive them, and may have pleasure in them. oh let all return from the barren mountains and broken costerns, and return to the lord whom they have grieved by departing from him, and let them return to that which reconcileth and maketh peace, that they may not wholly lose the benefit of former mercies, nor the benefit of present and future mercies, but return to the light, and live in it, where mercies always aboundeth, that as there was a beginning in the truth of the gospel; so to return unto that which in the beginning did lead in the gospel way and practice, and so return to the gospel meetings, and to the gospel minnistration, and to the gospel fellowship, and this whilst it to today, and whilst the door is open, and whilst the lord and his people are willing and ready to receive, let it bear a weight upon every heart concerned, for as much as everlasting peace and happiness consisteth in it. oh wander not longer in desert places, nor feed no longer upon corruptiple thing, but feel the seed, and life and virtue, and with the power of the lord god judge down that spirit which is gotten up, that the firstborn which is gone into captivity may show itself again, and the truth and order of the gospel may be lived in again, and the ordinance of god kept again, and gospel fellowship come into again, that all who are departed may return and find rest for their soul. nottingham, 9th month, 1668. w. s. the end. the copy of a letter sent by mr. d. t. to mr. john vicars (mr. prynn's second) in answer to his letter sent by him to mr. john goodwin. a righteous man hateth lying, prov. 13.5. righteousness keepeth him that is upright in the way, prov. 13.6. only by pride cometh contention, but with the well advised is wisdom, prov. 13.10. therefore thou art inexcusable, o man, whosoever thou art that judgest another, for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself, for thou that judgest dost the same things, rom. 2.1. sir, whether it was my good or hard hap to meet with your letter directed and sent to mr. john goodwin, i cannot easily determine: for though all manner of knowledge, either of persons or things, be in some kind or other beneficial; it being an undoubted maxim, that verum & bonum convertuntur: yet some knowledge may be so circumstantiated, that it may prove more burdensome and offensive to the party knowing, then commodious. i confess from the reading of your l●nes i have gained thus much, to say i know you: but this gain hath occasioned such a considerable loss i●●he things of my joy, that i do even wish for my former ignorance, and could be well contented, to have met with no other description of your frame and temper, than what the promise of your countenance, and the report of your friends have made of you: indeed it cannot but deduct somewhat from the comfort of a reasonable man, to see one, whom (one would think) grey hairs should have taught the language of soberness, shooting with his tongue at rovers, and speaking sharp and devouring words against persons and things, which he knows not. sorry i am, that mr. vicars should break the fair face of his reputation upon this stone, against which this besotted world is dashing itself in pieces from day to day. i have some hope that though your zeal to mr. prynn's glory, did cast you into such an ecstasy of passion, that you scarce knew what you writ; yet by this time you have pretty well recovered yourself again: and lest the sense of your miscarriage should too much oppress you, i give you to know that you are fall'n into soft and tender hands, and have discovered your nakedness to such only, who rather pity, then deride it. for my part, i love not to disport myself at the weakness of any man, or to turn his folly into laughter; for what were this, but to reflect dishonour upon the same nature, wherein he partakes with myself. rather, i could mourn over the vanities of your pen, and weep to see you so fare intoxicated, as to call the most injurious dealing one shall lightly meet with, by the name of candour and ingenuity. the truth is, you have so foully bewrayed your paper with bold and untrue assertions, imputations, exprobrations, and such like excrements, that i thought even for modesty sake to have drawn over them the veil of silence, and to have contested with that spirit that breathes in them no further, then by speaking to it in a secret wish, the lord rebuke thee. but i considered with myself, that perhaps you might communicate in the nature of such persons who (as solomon saith, prov. 26.5.) are apt (being unanswered) to be wise in their own conceits: and if i shall hereby demolish or at least weaken this conceit of yours, i presume i shall do you herein a very charitable and christian piece of service. think not i am become your enemy, because i tell you the truth: you have injured me not otherwise then by trespassing upon your own credit, and by making thereby a sad breach in that holy profession, wherein you stand engaged with myself. whatever your intentions were, i conceive you have done me no more wrong in clapping the title of an independent proselyte upon my back, than pilate did to christ in affixing this superscription over his head, this is the king of the jews. i think this name to be full as honourable, as that of a poor and unworthy presbyterian, wherewith you have pleased to baptise yourself: and conceive that herein only you have followed your own, or rather the apostles counsel, in honour to prefer others before yourself. but had you been minded to suppress your name, your very dialect had been enough to betray you: me thinks you write just like such a one as you say you are. did i not hope for better things from the hands of more worthy presbyterians, your unworthy dealing had set me often degrees further from your way, than i now stand: but i will not take the advantage of your, or any man's misdemeanour, though more gross and absurd than yours, to render presbytery odious to the world: to any opinion or practice with the garments of men's personal distempers, thereby to fall upon them and beat them with the more applause, is a method which i as much abhor, as the gentleman you admire, delights in: and if this property in him were one of those beauty-spots, which ravished you into a passionate adoration of him, you need not fear, that ever i should become your corrival: and yet i love and honour mr. pry●● for what ever you can find lovely and 〈…〉 neath the line of a man, is to make him and myself obnoxious to the wrath of god, and the scorn of man. i acknowledge that for a time he ran well, but who hindered him? questionless he who is ever and anon hindering the saints in the race of holiness. the prince of darkness owed him a fall for his sharp contesting with his prime agents, and now he hath paid his debt; but if mr. prynn will be ruled by the advice of his best friends, he may rise again to his greater glory, and notwithstanding his fall, triumph over the envy and malice of the devil. concerning mr. john goodwin, (over whom you shake the rod of your reproof, as if he were one of your scholars) i could speak as high and excellent encomiums, as you have spoken of your precious gentleman; i could compare him even with mr. prynn himself: but such a comparison as this, would be to me most odious. i could tell you what he hath done, what he hath writ, how deeply he hath suffered from unreasonable men; yea, i could give you such a lively and bright description of him, as would dazzle your eyes to look upon, and make you blush for shame to have grappled with such a person as he is, upon such rude and unmannerly terms as you have done. for you, who are but a teacher of boys, so haughtily to correct a great master in israel, is such an absurdity, as cannot but rend a more patiented soul than mine, into disdain and grief. 'tis a wonder to me, that, whereas at the beginning of your letter, you confess yourself to be but a poor and unwrothy presbyterian, you should so far forget yourself, before you come half way, as to take upon you, like the dr. of the chair; and to censure the best of men and ways with as much confidence, as if your pen had dropped the votes of a general assembly with its ink. had a poor and unworthy independent done the like, you would have cast his boldness into a basilisk, and used it to batter down the way of his profession, and to lay the glory of it even with the ground. but i well perceive, though you have 'scaped the snare of gifts and parts (in which you fear mr. goodwin is taken) yet you are fall'n into the pit, not of divine, but natural simplicity; and have verified the old proverb, a rash man's boult is soon shot. as for that book of mr. goodwin's, called innocency and truth triumphing together, though you are pleased to triumph over both, and to cast it out as an arch rebel to reason and morality, yet (i must tell you) it hath found joyful and bountiful entertainment in the judgements of sober and intelligent men: but certainly, it was the unhappiness of this treatise to fall into your hands, when you stood upon the mount of mr. prynn's honour, and when the vision of his transfiguration wrought so strongly in you, that you did not wots, what you spoke, no, nor what you did neither, for you laid about you with such regardless fury that you broke the head of your friend priscian, [the words in the written copy of your letter, are these, and thus spelled quinn alterum paratus est dicere, ipsum vicio careat oporte, as may appear from the original in mr. goodwin's custody. but it seems the corrector being the better grammarian transformed them into good latin in the printed copy.] of whose safety men of your profession, should bet most tender. i thought to have argued the case with you, whether your exceptions against this treatise and its author, will hold in the court of reason and equity: but perhaps you are not so well skilled in the rules of this court; and i am loath to take the advantage of you. i shall only propound a few querees, peradventure the struggle of your thoughts to give them satisfaction, may dissolve the enchantment that is now upon you. what persons did ever most learnedly declare mr. goodwin to be justly censured for socinianism? when, or in what public place did they make this declaration? how call you that brother of his, who will justify against him the charge of holding a most damnable opinion about justifying faith? i suppose you must strain, not so much your memory as your invention, in shaping your answer: you had done well to remember, that though fools (as solomon speaks) believe every thing; yet wise men will question such assertions as these: alas (sir) the best course you can run to game credit with the prudent, is to cut your allegations and your proofs, just of one and the same length: to large and broad say with curtailed arguments, reflects as much shame upon such say, and him that speaks them, as hanun did upon the servants of david, in cutting off their garments to their buttocks. you cannot but know, how that many grave, sober, godly, and learned men have fall'n into that way you call independency. now, your only method, to have brought over these to your party, and to have filled their mouths with the cry of a confederacy against this way, had been this; not barely to have affirmed it to be a novel and disturbant way (as you have done) but to have poised the lightness of your affirmation, with the weight and substance of a demonstration. i assure you (sir) (what ever you may think) i approve of this way no further than i see the footsteps of those sweet sisters, truth and peace printed in it: i have narrowly viewed it, and i can find no drops of blood, no strew of the liberties, estates, names, comforts of the saints scattered in it, and yet some travellers affirm, they have seen such things as these in that way, which the ignorance of thousands lusts after. but to conclude. i beseech you (sir) be more watchful over the extravagancies of your tongue and pen for the future: since you are (in part) acquainted with their infirmities, let it be your wisdom to seek their cure. i reverence you for your age, piety, and some services you have done to the public; and i should rejoice to see such an ancient slander in the garden of god ●s you are, carrying your hoary head with honour to the grave: which that you may do, as i have (you see) in part endeavoured, so i shall further prosecute with my prayers to him, who is able to keep you to the end: in whom (though i am unknown to you) yet with all sincerity i profess myself, february 3. 1644. sir, 〈…〉 to his reverend and much respected good friend, mr. john goodwjn: be these i pray presented. reverend sir, having lately received from you, by the hands of my loving neighbour and friend, mrs. ducker, a both undeserved and unexpected favour, one of your last books, entitled, innocency and truth triumphing together; i acknowledge it a just engagement of obliged gratitude, and therefore, accordingly, i do here return you deserved and most humble thanks for the same, by the same friendly hand. and because (worthy sir) i conceived and considered with myself, that you sent it by way of love and desire to give me (who am, as i acknowledge, a poor and unworthy presbyterian) satisfaction, if it might be, touching your independent churchway: i having now perused it all over, even à capite ad calcem (and i hope with that piety and impartiality, as my god hath enabled me, which becomes a christian and fellow servant to the same lord jesus christ with you) i therefore hope you will, not so much pardon (which i pray not) as accept (which i heartily desire) with christian candour, mine ingenuity and plain dealing with you, in now giving you an account, briefly, as i thought it most fit, of what light or content and satisfaction i have received from it. truly sir, i having read your epistle to the reader, found therein very full and fair promise of your ingenuous aim and intention in the subsequent discourse, viz. that you projected four things therein, brevity, perspicuity, moderation, and satisfaction. but having, i say, perused your book, truly sir, (if i am not mistaken, as i believe i am not) you have come extreme short of your promised project, in every of the four branches thereof. for first, if i found you short, i am sure i found you sharp and tart; for perspicuity, i assure you i found much cloudy obscurity; veri similitudinem multam, non ipsam veritatem; satisfaction, therefore none at all. but especially, in that of projected moderation, and promised temperature in writing, (the great defect, and foul fault, so cried out upon by independents against all presbyterian writers or speakers) in stead of moderation i found abundance of bitterness, and unsavoury jerkes and jeers (the light issues me thought, rather of a youthful green-head, than the solid expressions of such a grave heart) sprinkled, almost, over all your whole discourse; which i must confess much troubled and affected me with wonder to meet with, after such a seeming promise of moderation: some few of very many whereof (because i knew, dolosus versatur in generalibus) i have here particularise with their pages where they are evidently and easily to be seen. as first (to omit your via sanguinea, with all its most bitter and biting, yea sorely wounding expositions of that term, in your theomachia, &c.) pag. 13. you compare mr. prynn in his reply, to the two false witnesses, who falsely accused our blessed saviour. and in the same page you tell the reader, here mr. prynn vapours in his reply; immediately after, in the same page how notably do you jeer and scoff him about three tabernacles? and with what an elated spirit do you answer him, page 16. line 4. together with a downright jeer about a national church, some 12 lines after? you also grossly tax him with errors, page 17. sect. 21. and page 18. and 19 you frequently jeer him, and amongst those jeers you tell him, that acts 15. is only mr. prynns gospel; what a bitter and unchristian censure lay you upon him, and all presbyterians, page 24. sect. 26. towards the end of it? and o how you jeer him with his quotations, page 37. towards the bottom; as also page 49. and page 51. you slander him with want of reason and truth too; and page 52. you tell him, his pen spits black reproaches in the face of independents. you also accuse him page 65. of much untruth; and the same also again most foully, page 84. together with a notable jeer, exalting yourself, and vilifying mr. prynn, which i have noted at large in your book, page 85. together with very many other such like expressions, too tedious to be here recited; and yet (strange to consider) you conclude them all (with the conclusion of your book) page 99 in a hortatory way to mr. prynn in these words: that he would put less vinegar and gall into his ink and more wool and cotten. and in the apostles words, ephes. 4. 31. that all bitterness and evil speaking be put away, as becomes brethren. and now any impartial person may judge, whether you yourself have followed this brotherly exhortation; nay, whether contrariwise, you have not with unbrotherly aspersions, endeavoured to besmear the face of that precious gentleman, most worthy ever to be honoured both by you all and us all? truly sir, you independent gentlemen have dealt with this most worthy servant of the lord, just as the people of lystra did with the apostle paul, whom at first they so honoured and admired, as that they were ready to deify him and make him a god; but shortly after, they furiously endeavoured to stone him to death: so ye, at the first, in the time of mr. prynns first most elaborate and learned divine writings, yea and for his most glorious and saintlike sufferiugs; o then, how ye all (with us) most highly (and that most justly too) honoured him, and brought him home from bavishment, as it were in the triumphing chariot of your love and praises! but now, since he hath piously and faithfully written against your independent way, and only for this, o how have you and almost all of your way, endeavoured as much as in you is, to stone to death his illustrious reputation, by most unworthy and unchristian reviling and vilipending of him, both in words and writings! even him i say, who for his piety, humility, incomparable constancy, fortitude and magnanimity in suffering for gospel truths, was not inferior to any of his most faithful fellow-sufferers yea, whose soundness and sincerity, whose profound learning and indefatigable labours in writing upon deepest points of divinity and controverted gospel truths (witness his perpetuity of the estate of a regenerate man; his anti-arminianism, vnbisboping of timothy and titus, his histri-mastix; and many other his later, most learned, orthodox and precious pieces) have made his neverdying name and fame most worthily renowned both in england and other parts of the world, beyond the seas. and yet this noble gentleman to be thus, i say, besmeared and bespattred with your unjust accusations, only i say again, for writing the truth against independent novelties; o! it is most sad and bad to consider. truly sir, you must here give me leave to be yet more plain with you, i profess in the sincerity of my soul, that i do most groundedly believe, that (had mr. prynn been such a nonsense, consciencelesse, irrational, false and frivolous writer, as you and others of your way only have struggled (but all in vain) to make and demonstrate him by your lavish tongues and pens) that yet, i say certainly, mr. john goodwin, was the most unfit man of all i know in london, to lay those undeserved criminations to mr. prynns charge. for, you know good sir, that qui in alterum paratus est dicere, ipsum vitio carere opertet. for you therefore, reverend sir, to take upon you to tax mr. pryn of errors, untruths, and such like, as you have done, how deeply you yourself, (before ever this most unhappy and unhol● difference of independency with presbytery was dreamed of) have been ceusured both of socinianism; (and how justly too others have most learnedly in public declared) and more lately also how you have been discovered to hold a most dangerous, yea a most damnable opinion (as a learned independent brother of yours termed it in my hearing, and who then said, he would justify it against you) touching justifying faith by christ. and now also, how fiercely you are fallen on this unhappily disturbant new way of independency. i beseech you therefore, reverend sir, seriously to consider these things, to muster up your saddest thoughts, and to see into what a labyrinth you are strangely and strongly intricated. sir, i do not, i cannot deny, but ingenuously confess that god hath given you much learning and eminent parts, but truly sir, if i be not, mistaken, i greatly fear your independent proselytes do too much magnify, if not (almost) deify you for them, and as it was with pythagoras his scholars, an ipse dixit is enough, i, fear for many, if not most of your disciples, jurare in verba magistri; whereby i pray god, your great parts and gifts be not (thus) a great snare to your soul, which i much fear, if not timely and truly seen into and prevented by cordial self-denial, and holy humility in yourself, being more kindly affectioned with brotherly love, and in honour preferring others before yourself▪ rom. 12. 10. and thus, reverend sir, i have made humbly bold, by your own occasion, lovingly and, i hope, fairly and friendly as a true christian brother ought, (levit. 19 17) liberare animam meam, and thus to manifest my reciprocal love and gratitude unto you, praying our good god it may be accepted with the like right handed christian candour, and simplicity of heart with which it is sent and intended, i humbly take my leave and rest, sir, yours in our great lord and master christ jesus, to be commanded. john vicars. jan. this 18. 1644. imprimatur. ja. cranford. jan. 24. 1644. an answer thereunto. to his much respected friend mr. john vicars, these be delivered. (the author of this following letter, did not intend it for the press, but sent it to mr. vicars in a private way: but mr. vicars his letter coming forth in print, and divers copies thereof being dispersed into several hands by himself, it was thought fit that this letter should be published also.) sir, whether it was my good or hard hap to meet with your letter directed and sent to mr. john goodwin, i cannot easily determine: for though all manner of knowledge, either of persons or things, be in some kind or other beneficial; it being an undoubted maxim, that verum & bonum convertuntur: yet some knowledge may be so circumstantiated, that it may prove more burdensome and offensive to the party knowing, then commodious. i confess from the reading of your lines i have gained thus much, to say i know you: but this gain hath occasioned such a considerable loss in the things of my joy, that i do even wish for my former ignorance, and could be well contented, to have met with no other description of your frame and temper, than what the promise of your countenance, and the report of your friends have made of you: indeed it cannot but deduct somewhat from the comfort of a reasonable man, to see one, whom (one would think) grey hairs should have taught the language of soberness, shooting with his tongue at rovers, and speaking sharp and devouring words against persons and things, which he knows not. sorry i am, that mr. vicar's should break the fair face of his reputation upon this stone, against which this besotted world is dashing itself in pieces from day to day. i have some hope that though your zeal to mr. prinn's glory, did cast you into such an ecstasy of passion, that you scarce knew what you writ; yet by this time you have pretty well recovered yourself again: and lest the sense of your miscarriage should too much oppress you, i give you to know that you are fall'n into soft and tender hands, and have discovered your nakedness to such only, who rather pity, then deride it. for my part, i love not to disport myself at the weakness of any man, or to turn his folly into laughter; for what were this, but to reflect dishonour upon the same nature, wherein he partakes with myself. rather, i could mourn over the vanities of your pen, and weep to see you so far intoxicated, as to call the most injurious dealing one shall lightly meet with, by the name of candour and ingenuity. the truth is, you have so foully berayed your paper with bold and untrue assertions, imputations, exprobrations, and such like excrements, that i thought even for modesty sake to have drawn over them the veil of silence, and to have contested with that spirit that breathes in them no further, then by speaking to it in a secret wish, the lord rebuke thee. but i considered with myself, that perhaps you might communicate in the nature of such persons who (as solomon saith, prov. 26. 5.) are apt (being unanswered) to be wise in their own conceits: and if i shall hereby demolish or at least weaken this conceit of yours, i presume i shall do you herein a very charitable and christian piece of service. think not i am become your enemy, because i tell you the truth: you have injured me no other ways then by trespassing upon your own credit, and by making thereby a sad breach in that holy profession, wherein you stand engaged with myself. what ever your intentions were, i conceive you have done me no more wrong in clapping the title of an independent proselyte upon my back, than pilate did to christ in affixing this superscription over his head, this is the king of the jews. i think this name to be full as honourable, as that of a poor and unworthy presbyterian, wherewith you have pleased to baptize yourself: and conceive that herein only you have followed your own, or rather the apostles counsel, in honour to prefer others be●ore yourself. but had you been minded to suppress your name, your very dialect had been enough to betray you: me thinks you write just like such a one as you say you are. did i not hope for better things from the hands of more worthy presbyterians, your unworthy dealing had set me off ten degrees further from your way, than now i stand: but i will not take the advantage of your, or any man's misdemeanour, though more gross and absurd than yours to render pesbytery odious to the world: to clothe any opinion or practice with the garments of men's personal distempers, thereby to fall upon them and beat them with the more applause, is a method which i as much abhor, as the gentleman you admire, delights in: and if this property in him were one of those beauty-spots which ravished you into a passionate adoration of him, you need not fear, that ever i should become your corrival: and yet i love and honour mr. prynn for what ever you can find lovely and honourable in him: i cannot deny but that in some of his works, he hath acquitted himself upon commendable terms; but to say that in all things, he writes after the rate of a god, when in many things he falls beneath the line of a man, is to make him and myself obnoxious to the wrath of god, and the scorn of man. i acknowledge that for a time he ran well, but who hindered him? questionless he who is ever and anon hindering the saints in the race of holiness. the prince of darkness owed him a fall for his sharp contesting with his prime agents, and now he hath paid his debt; but if mr. prynn will be ruled by the advice of his best friends, he may rise again to his greater glory, and notwithstanding his fall, triumph over the envy and malice of the devil. concerning mr. john goodwin, (over whom you shake the rod of your reproof, as if he were one of your scholars) i could speak as high and excellent encomiums, as you have spoken of your preci●us gentleman; i could compare him even with mr. prynn himself: but such a comparison as this, would be to me most odious. i could tell you what he hath done, what he hath writ, how deeply he hath suffered from unreasonable men; yea, i could give you such a lively and bright description of him, as would dazzle your eyes to look upon, and make you blush for shame to have grappled with such a person as he is, upon such rude and unmannerly terms as you have done. for you, who are but a teacher of boys, so haughtily to correct a great master in israel, is such an absurdity, as cannot but rend a more patient soul than mine, into disdain and grief. 'tis a wonder to me, that, whereas at the beginning of your letter, you confess yourself to be but a poor and unworthy presbyterian, you should so far forget yourself before you come half way, as to take upon you, like the dr. of the chair; and to censure the best of men and ways with as much confidence, as if your pen had dropped the votes of a general assembly with its ink. had a poor and unworthy independent done the like, you would have cast this boldness into a basilisk, and used it to batter down the way of his profession, and to lay the glory of it even with the ground▪ but i well perceive, though you have scaped the snare of gifts and parts (in which you fear mr. goodwin is taken) yet you are fall'n into the pit, not of divine, but natural simplicity; and have verified the old proverb, a rash man's bolt is soon shot. as for that book of mr. goodwins, called innocency and truth triumphing together, though you are pleased to triumph over both, and to cast it out as an arch-rebel to reason and morality, yet (i must tell you) it hath found joyful and bountiful entertainment in the judgements of sober and intelligent men: but certainly, it was the unhappiness of this treatise to fall into your hands, when you stood upon the mount of mr. prins honour, and when the vision of his transfiguration wrought so strongly in you, that you did not wot, what you spoke, no, nor what you did neither, for you laid about you with such regardless fury that you broke the head of your friend priscian, * the words in the written copy of his letter, are these, and thus spelled, qui in alterum paratus est dicere, ipsum vicio careat oportet, as may appear from the original in mr. goodwin's custody. but it seems the corrector being the better grammarian transformed them into good latin in the printed copy.] of whose safety men of your profession, should be most tender. i thought to have argued the case with you, whether your exceptions against this treatise and its author, will hold in the court of reason and equity: but perhaps you are not so well skilled in the rules of this court; and i am loath to take the advantage of you. i shall only propound a few queries, peradventure the strugglings of your thoughts to give them satisfaction, may dissolve the enchantment that is now upon you. what persons did ever most learnedly declare mr. goodwin to be justly censured for socinianism? when, or in what public place did they make this declaration? how call you that brother of his, who will justify against him the charge of holding a most damnable opinion about justifying faith? i suppose you must strain, not so much your memory as your invention, in shaping your answer: you had done well to remember, that though fools (as solomon speaks) believe every thing; yet wise men will question such assertions as these: alas (sir) the best course you can run to gain credit with the prudent, is to cut your allegations and your proofs, just of one and the same length: to clothe large and broad sayings with curtailed arguments, reflects as much shame upon such sayings, and him that speaks them, as hanun did upon the servants of david● in cutting off their garments to their buttocks. you cannot but know, how that many grave, sober, godly, and learned men have fall'n into that way you call independency. now, your only method, to have brought over these to your party, and to have filled their mouths with the cry of a confederacy against this way, had been this; not barely to have affirmed it to be a novel and disturbant way (as you have done) but to have poised the lightness of your affirmation, with the weight and substance of a demonstration. i assure you (sir) (what ever you may think) i approve of this way no further than i see the footsteps of those sweet sisters, truth and peace printed in it: i have narrowly viewed it, and i can find no drops of blood, no strewings of the liberties, estates, names, comforts of the saints scattered in it, and yet some travellers affirm, they have seen such things as these in that way, which the ignorance of thousands lust after. but to conclude, i beseech you (sir) be more watchful over the extravagancies of your tongue and pen for the future: since you are (in part) acquainted with their infirmities, let it be your wisdom to seek their cure. i reverence you for age, piety, and some services you have done to the public; and i should rejoice to see such an ancient standard in the garden of god as you are, carrying your hoary head with honour to the grave: which that you may do, as i have (you see) in part endeavoured, so i shall further prosecute with my prayers to him, who is able to keep you to the end: in whom (though i am unknown to you) yet with all sincerity i profess myself, sir, a cordial wellwisher to your peace and credit: d. t. january 27. 1644. a faithful rebuke to a false report: lately dispersed in a letter to a friend in the country. concerning certain differences in doctrinals, between some dissenting ministers in london. exod. 23. 1. thou shalt not raise a false report. jer. 20. 10. report (say they) and we will report it. london: printed for john laurence, at the angel in the poultry. m.dc.xcvii. dear friend, it's grown of late the mode with some to communicate their sentiments, under the colour and cover of a letter to a friend in the country. in compliance with the humour, i have given mine ● same inscription: but you shall excuse me if i imi●e not the disingenuity, the prevarication, the parti●ty of the reporter, though i comply with the fashion general. whoever makes a report, aught to be un● the severe law of conscience, to speak the truth, whole truth, and nothing but the truth; that is, who●r will report, ought not to make his report; for an ●●●torian must never be the author of his history. i can afford to pass by the reporters assuming spirit, ●o determines who are the most learned of each party, ●ause i know not by what authority he ventures upon 〈◊〉 nor whether he be duly qualified for such a deterration; tho' he has a friend in the city, who has pro●med him all over the town, a learned divine: ● shall i concern myself at his reflections on those or seven presbyterians; who, he says, are of the bignames amongst them; hoping they can be content ●e of no name, when the name of the lord jesus ●st, may be glorified in them: though perhaps they ● not so tamely suffer their names to be trampled in dirt by every insolent scribbler. i pass by also his temptuous stuff, at those who meet at little st. hel● though you know it is the body of the united bre● who meet there; of which number he himself one with others, however now absented from the ● and the union too; and is now laudably employed in misrepresenting them or some of them, principal or accessaries as inclining towards the unitarians: nor will it be worth the while to take notice of his affected terms, pursuances, explosion, etc. for your great wit● fancy now and then to be pedantic, nor are they fo● little fooleries to be accountable. but it will deserve a serious remark, that since these persons are resolved never to unite with them, ye● they might have suffered the poor presbyterians to live quietly by 'em. they might at least have let the sparks of contention silently die and be buried in their own ashes, and not have blown them up into this flam● in the country, which they had kindled in the city light indeed is pleasant, but i like not the sparks an● flames that come from a forge. that little artifice which the reporter may glory i● is obvious, and needs not my observation, that his paper came out at a juncture when he knew the unite ministers had adjourned their meetings, and so mig● hope to poison the country, before they could prescribe and send down the proper antidote; and that his fir● balls might put you all in a flame, before the minister could rally to quench it. but you expect to be entertained with more substanti● matters. i. and therefore i present you with the substance of the gospel of christ, as he has presented it: we are all● nature under the curse of the law, and destitute of righteousness intituling to eternal life. this is our state a● condition: this is the place in which we are: in which, we die, we are undone eternally: for vindicative justice which is essential to god, makes it necessary that the wra● be inflicted, and that there be no right to eternal life, wit● out a perfect meritorious righteousness. that all who believ● might escape the wrath to come, and have everlasting life the lord jesus christ undertakes for us, by making satisfaction both to punitive and remunerative justice: and that might do so, he put himself into our place, state and condi●●on: so that whereas we were sin, and under a curse, ●y this blessed change christ is made sin, and a curse, and ●e delivered from sin, and the curse, 2 cor. 5. 21. gal. 3. 3. pag. 5. this he tells us is the substance of the gospel of christ: which if it be, and sound at the bottom, is the worst ●rawn up of any i ever read. (1.) out of his substance of the gospel, he has left regeneration, conversion, repentance, holiness, sanctification a new heart, and new obedience, good works etc. a blessed report for the country! you are eased at least of one moiety of your work, though i question whether your consciences will take his security that this is the substance of ●he gospel which you are to preach to the people. woe ●o that poor people, whether in city or country, who ●t down under such preachers, who make this the substance of their preaching; for though they may now and then, upon the by, hint a little at repentance and so ●orth, yet that's but accidental to the gospel; the sub●ance lies in what christ has suffered for them; 'tis mere accident what he is by the spirit to work in them; much more what is (if any thing be) to to be done by ●hem. (2.) but suppose this were intended only as the substance of the gospel so far as we are to believe what christ has done and suffered for sinners without them, ●nd with god; yet there's something in this draught ●hat gives cause of suspicion to those who are of no ●ealous inclinations: for whereas he informs us, that christ suffered and satisfied, that all who believe might scape wrath to come, and have everlasting life: here's ●o necessity of faith in order to justification, no be●eving necessary to pardon of sin, or peace with god: no faith needful to union with christ, that we may ●ave an interest in his righteousness, but only to escape ●rath to come, and the having everlasting life. well! give me my bible again! i will subscribe without equivocation to the apostle, rom. 5. 1. being justified b● faith we have peace with god through our lord jesus christ. (3.) be pleased to observe. he instructs you: tha● we are all by nature under the curse of the law, and destitute of a righteousness that may entitle us to eternal life and that this was our place, state and condition: which we all own and lament as too true: but then he instruct you also, that christ put himself into our place, state and condition: will you not, must you not conclude from hence, that christ also was destitute of a righteousness t● entitle him, and if himself, us too, to eternal life? (4.) such an inference is obvious; but it will requir● more application of mind to discern the fallacy i● these words. so that whereas we were sin, and unde● a curse, by this blessed change christ is made sin, and under a curse, and we delivered from sin and curse; here beg your most critical attention. 1. we are sin; and under a curse: can you with a● your penetration, divine the reason, why it's said, w● are sin? that we are sinners by nature, that we are sinful is an acknowledged truth; but how are we sin we are altogether delighted with sin, we are under th● condemnation of the law for sin, but that is no other than to be under the curse: why must it be phrase● thus, we are sin? it was poetically and satirically said that alexander the sixth was non tam vitiosus quam vi●tium, non tam scelest us quam scelus: but we need to be taught how man was sin? sin itself? 2. you shall now see the mystery of his phraseology it was to misled you into that abomination; tha● christ was sinful, that he was a sinner: for if christ was sin in the same acceptation that we are, than he was sinful, he was a sinner, and the greatest sinner tha● ever was in the world: that christ was made sin, sacrifice for sin, that he bore the curse due to sin, is so express the language of scripture, that he that denies th● former must disbelieve the latter: but what needed he say that we were sin, and then that christ was made sin, unless he would insinuate that christ was sin in ●he same sense that we were sin, that is sinful? but this is the fruit of going to cambridge to learn to quibble. (5.) will you observe with me the last words of his scheme, and substance of the gospel of christ: by his blessed change christ is made sin, and curse, and we delivered from sin and curse. ipso facto! no doubt; but i humbly conceive, without the usual compliment ●f submitting to better judgements, that whatever christ suffered, however he was made sin, and curse, yet here's an order settled by the divine will in which ●e application of the sufferings of christ, and satis●ction given thereon, shall be made: and that whoeer expects to partake of the benefits thereof, ●aust by ●race believe, repent, and accept of christ, as god as offered him in the gospel; and that the elect are ●ot justified from that moment wherein christ suffered ●nd gave satisfaction to justice for their sins: this ●ght to have been more clearly worded before it had ●een proposed to, or imposed upon our faith as the substance of the gospel of christ. (6.) you would be satisfied, and so would i, why ●is gentleman could not be contented to give us the doctrine of redemption and satisfaction, as they are ●ady drawn up to our hands in the confession of faith ● the church of england, as in that of the assembly at westminster, or in that of the savoy; but that we must ●ve a superfoetation of articles, new schemes of religion every new-year, spawning of creeds, and equip●ng of confessions every campaign, when the thing ●s been done so of●en already, and much better? for ●e that cannot allow him to be a faithful reporter in ●atter of fact, can much less trust him to pen for us ●atter of faith. that he took on him the person of sinners: you must understand that he now refers to a certain paper drawn up by some private ministers, whereof you will hear more in due time; now their words run thus: we conceive that the doctrine of justification, and of christ's satisfaction, on which it depends, cannot be duly explained, and defended consistently with the denial of any commutation of persons between christ and believers: so then according to this paper there must be some commutation of persons between christ and believers. but 1. he has foisted in those words taking on him the person of sinners: 2. that the commutation those brethren speak of, is between christ and believers; and therefore i am convinced that this reporter will never be trusted in his arguings, or repeating of other men's words. § 3. and to what end does he thus needlessly multiply terms of art without any apparent necessity, that the controversy has of 'em? all that the case of sinners required for satisfaction to divine justice, was a substistute, or sacrifice to be offered for our sins; for the substitute to take on him the punishment due to them; but to take upon him the person of sinners; as the phrase is new and uncouth, so it's to me unintelligible, till they who have invented it shall interpret it, and if ever they should be so ill advised as to give it a fixed sense, they must either make it signify no more than that christ died in our stead; or else enlarge it to such a breadth as will admit all the extravagancies of antinomianism. § 4. for i will make a fair motion, or propound a modest question: this phrase of christ's taking upon him the person of sinners; does it signify more or less, than christ's taking on him our sins, and suffering for them in our place and stead; or does it signify neither more nor less, but is just adequate and commensurate to, and with it? if it signifies less, than it limits and narrows the end of christ's sufferings, and will be a sense only serving the turn of a socinian; if it signifies more than that, than it comes of evil and leads to evil, even to the dregs of antinomianism; but if it signifies neither more nor less than christ's standing and suffering in our place and stead, when he offered himself to god; then i embrace it, subscribe it with my whole soul. but than what need is there to pester and vex the christian faith with a word which signifies neither more nor less than that old term which has obtained so long in the world, that we cannot be deceived in it: whereas this new phrase, christ suffered in, or took upon him the person of sinners, is a phrase to puzzle and confound men's understandings. § 5. i think therefore we ought in the first place to inquire what they mean by the person of sinners? and then to inquire about christ's taking it up. does it import that all sinners are united, and are to be supposed, conceived, considered as one person? and so christ died, suffered, satisfied for that one person? very good! then i perceive we are tacked about to the tents of the arminians, and do suppose that christ died for all equally: for if all sinners be one, or to be reputed as one person, and christ took upon him that one person, it will be difficult for all their divi●ing and prescinding skill to make it out how he died for one, and not for another, seeing all these sinners, as in christ's eye, are but one single person. now i do not once conceive that this is their sense, for they are too far gone the other way: but by this way of expressing myself, i would provoke and tempt 'em to fix a tolerable meaning upon the phrase; though it were more reasonable that they should choose a sound phrase for a sound meaning, than torture an incorrigible phrase into an honest meaning against its will. the purer primitive times were wisely concerned for the preserving the truth, that they decreed in the sixth general council; that it should not be lawful to introduce 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, any unusual way of speaking, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, any new invented terms, upon great penalties; and a modest regard to this canon had prevented a world of mischief, and all this blunder and confusion which 〈◊〉 arbitrary terms have produced among 〈◊〉 § 6. i will shut up this head of discourse with this modest proposal: let this matter be thus worded: that christ in his suffering and dying was considered by god, and placed himself in the place and stead of all the elect; so that he made satisfaction to the divine justice for all their sins; the benefits and advantages whereof, every individual person shall partake of, in that order and method, and upon those terms, which the wise and holy god has prescribed in the gospel: which proposition you, and i, and all sober persons in the city and country would readily subscribe, and leave these gentlemen, who it seems are at leisure to invent new controversies, to their own imperious humours. ii. the reporter has miserably imposed upon you in matter of fact, nor has he shown that due regard to truth, which he and all of us owe to so great a sovereign: a few instances i will give you, that you may be convinced how little reason you have to take him or his narrative upon their bare words. (1.) one specimen of his honesty, you shall meet with at the entrance of his paper; and its ominous to stumble at the threshold, lest he should break the neck of his whole discourse. and thus in a pompous style he breaks into the business: after sundry attempts made by the industrious pacificators, an instrument was pitched upon, which gave satisfaction to the most learned of both parties: this paper was sent by six or seven of the biggest name among them, who do, or at least have gone under the denomination of presbyterians, unto some congregational brethren, and gladly embraced by them. now, sir, do you not judge that this instrument which gave such satisfaction to, and was so gladly embraced by the congregational men, had redintegrated the violated union, had reclaimed them who had deserted their former station; that all distances were wholly removed, and jealousies and suspicions of socinianism on the one side, and antinomianism on the other were cured, and that a coalition between the two parties had hereupon ensued; that they were all now got together again at little st. helen's? i assure you, sir, not one word of this was true; and that you shall truly learn from these particulars: 1. whereas he affirms this gave satisfaction to the most learned of each party: what does he then think of mr. tho. cole, and mr. nath. mather? are not these to be reckoned in the number of the most learned of that party? these great persons will hardly return him thanks for expunging them the catalogue, unless they judge him no competent judge of their learning. 2. whereas he tells us that it gave satisfaction to the most learned of each party: it appears it gave no satisfaction at all: for they of the congregational interest never intended to receive such satisfaction, as to return to a reunion; and this was openly avowed by one of that number, who was not of the least name, nor made the smallest figure amongst them, that they never designed to enter into an union with the presbyterians: and of this i can produce incontestible proof; this rational jealousy was the reason why mr. g. hammond refused his hand to that paper, yet declaring, (if the reporter says true) he would gladly have done it, if it might be a mean to restore union; which he had just grounds to believe it never would, and therefore refused. the truth is, it was known from first to last through the whole transaction of that affair, that this expedient would never retrieve the union; only if they could get any advantage by it, to put a slur upon mr. d. williams, this they would gladly embrace, and then let the union shift for itself. 3. but will you see with your own eyes how these gentlemen were satisfied, and how gladly they embraced the first paper? thus it was; after all the pains taken; after much attendance, great courting of, and waiting upon them, they obtained this little, this nothing, or nothing to the purpose of reunion: they are glad to find so good an agreement amongst us, as this paper doth express: no doubt, a little is better than nothing, and so much agreement as this comes to, is better than going to logerheads: but are there any expressions that intimate they are satisfied upon the terms of this paper to unite? do they express any embracing of communion with one another? (2.) i come now to a second instance of the reporters regard to truth, where you will easily observe how by a wretched synecdoche, he has given you a part for the whole of a just narrative. this is called the politics of the pismire, which nibbles off the grain at both ends, that it may never grow, but come to nothing: or rather, this report is framed according to the law of a good heroic poem, which, our critics tell us, must always commence at the middle of the story; this is the method of our reporter, who enters upon his report about the middle of his matter, and therefore expect a pure poetical fiction. he begins with the mention of pacification: i think he should have informed his country friend; that there was once an union; that this union was broken; and than who they were that made the breach, and upon what grounds; and how the breach was pieced up again; and then how it was without any visible reason broken again; and then he might seasonably have entered upon the story of his so celebrated attempts for pacification: now, sir, to supply the deficiency of his story, i'll give you a full and faithful account of the whole, wherein i shall inform you of nothing but what you know already. § 1. in the year 1691. after many meetings of ministers of both persuasions, after frequent applications to the throne of grace; certain heads of agreement were drawn up, and assented to by about eighty ministers in and about the city of london, and by some others in a little time. this agreement was solemnly transacted, and seriously concluded with this protestation: as we assent to the forementioned heads of agreement, so we unanimously resolve, as the lord shall enable us, to practise according to them. amongst those heads assented to, the eighth contains the test and standard of orthodoxy, and speaks thus: as to what appertains to soundness of judgement in matters of faith, we esteem it sufficient that a church acknowledge the scriptures to be the word of god, the perfect and only rule of faith and practice; and own either the doctrinal part of those commonly called the articles of the church of england; or the confession, or catechisms shorter or larger, compiled by the assembly at westminster; or the confession agreed on at the savoy, to be agreeable to the said rule. this agreement was the honour and strength of the dissenters, and in the practice of which they made the greatest figure in the eyes of all wise men: they became the rejoicing of their friends, the envy of their enemies, to whom they had formerly been a scorn. in the practice of this union they walked together peaceably, holding communion in prayer, preaching ●he word, and sacraments; mutually strengthening the hands of each other, consulting, counselling and advi●ng, and assisting one another; and one of the great blessings of this union was, that they contributed to the relief of their poorer brethren in the country, supporting and encouraging them in the work of the lord. § 2. but a little before this, 1690 a new impression, of dr. crisp's works, with an addition of some sermons came into the world, which was judged by some to contain divers strange doctrines, either evidently erroneous, or of dubious construction, creating a suspicion in some tender minds, lest some doctrines were openly vouched, or secretly couched in them which might disturb the harmony of the confession they had signed, and without great care and caution, might weaken, if not dissolve the union. § 3. this awakened some of the more zealous among the united brethren to consider of some proper expedient to obviate the growth of those errors: amongst and before the rest, mr. williams, a brother of the union, composed a book styled, gospel truth stated and vindicated, wherein some of dr. crisp ' s errors are considered, etc. a book, to say no more, ingeniously penned▪ exactly methodised, the truths and errors fairly stated, and for aught i can see, piously designed. to this book upon its first edition, several ministers gave their judgement thus far; that he had (in all that was material) fully and rightly stated the truths and errors, etc. and in 〈◊〉 second edition many more gave their judgement of it in th● same words. § 4. but now, sir, as if aeolus had opened all the treasures of his blustering winds; or a floodgate had been drawn up to let in the sea upon us; such a storm of passion, such indignation against the author and his book, broke out, as had almost overset the united brethren with their union, if providence had not timously interposed by a powerful word; peace, be still! for upon the 17th of october, 1692. a paper wa● brought in to the brethren at dr. annesly's meetings house, importing a heavy and high charge against th● author and his work, subscribed by six brethren, is●ancy, geo. griffith, tho. cole, nath. mather, rich. tay●, rob. trayle. accusing him, amongst other things, fall in with the antinomians, under colour of opposing ●em: for setting up a way of justification by evangeli● works: that he denies the covenant of grace to● made with christ, with some others, and a reserve more objections, and articles of impeachment to ● alleged in due time. now, sir! whilst its fresh upon my memory, let ●e beg your patience while i make, and your pardon ●at i do make some short observations upon this ●aper. 1. i will observe to you, that among the many and ●ievous crimes laid to his charge, they never objected ●at he denied a change of persons between christ and us: 〈◊〉 that he denied christ's taking upon him the person of sinners; and yet now all the quarrel centres in this one ●ing; that which i note it for is, that you may employ our piercing head in considering what should be the ●eason that all the weight, all the stress is ●aid upon this? 2. observe further, that the phrase of change of per●ns between christ and us, and his taking upon him the ●erson of sinners, are terms wholly unknown to those ●onfessions and articles which were made the test of ●oundness in the faith, by the united ministers. nay, ● you have the leisure, search the whole body of concessions of the reformed churches from helvetia to tran●ylvania, thence to america, and you shall not find these terms, phrases or expressions in any one of them. 3. hence you will infer that mr. williams cannot, up●n that account, be judged erroneous by any of the reformed churches, seeing he has not (as it does not appear that he has) contravened any of their doctrinal articles; nor can he, or ought he to be censured by the ●ody of the united ministers, because he never subscribed to these expressions, inasmuch as they're not to be found in any of those articles which made the standa●● of soundness in the faith. 4. and let me observe this further, that amongst 〈◊〉 six persons that gave in the charge against mr. william one moiety of them never entered into the union; a●● it's strange upon what principles they should char●● mr. williams as breaking that union, when they themselves had never entered into it. after this short, but necessary digression, i will no● reassume my narrative. § 5. matters standing in this dubious posture, and v●sibly inclining to a scandalous rupture, some brothers of a cooler temper (and there were always such amo● the differing parties) moved that an equal number 〈◊〉 the brethren, and of each side, might be chosen to advice and consider if any healing expedient might 〈◊〉 found out to beget a right understanding between th● litigant parties: it was done, the minister's convene● and after many servant prayers for the spirit of lig●● and love, the result was this; that nine article were drawn up and subscribed by the chosen brothers by mr. williams and mr. chauncy, and when brought 〈◊〉 the body of the united brethren, it received their approbation. § 6. amongst the nine articles then agreed on, 〈◊〉 shall only mention part of the third and the fift● articles, because these relate to our present controversies. 3. article, of christ the mediator. the lord jesus christ by his perfect obedience, and sacrifice of himself, which he through the eternal spirit once offered up to god, hath fully satisfied the justice of his father. 5. article. of justification, etc. those whom god effectually calleth, he also freely justifieth; 〈◊〉 by infusing righteousness into them, but by pardoning their ●●ns, and by accounting, and accepting their persons as righteous, not for any thing wrought in them, but for christ's sake alone; nor by his imputing faith itself, the act of ●elieving, or any other evangelical obedience to them, as ●●eir righteousness, but by imputing the obedience and satisfaction of christ unto them, they receiving and resting on him ●nd his righteousness by faith, which faith they have not of themselves, it is the gift of god. § 7. these things thus settled, they proceed to a for●al and solemn agreement. 16 decemb. 1692. this day the brethren who endeavoured to accommodate the controversy, did with mr. wil●iams, mr. chauncy, and the other five brethren, who with him objected against mr. william's his book, subscribe 〈◊〉 this agreement, and these doctrinal propositions. samuel annesly. daniel williams, isaac chauncy. matth. barker. edw. veal. john james. stephen lob. john whither. vinc. alsop. geo. hammond. rich. mayo. sam. slater. geo. griffith. tho. cole. nath. mather. rob. trayle. rich. tailor. dec. 19 1692. this expedient was brought to a meeting of the united ministers, who unanimously expressed their approbation. but for the preface to these articles, the articles themselves, and the words of the approbation, i must, to avoid tediousness refer you to the printed paper. § 8. to proceed: the two sticks are once mo● made one, and the broken bone being set by a skill hand, we hope will be the stronger; not because it w● luxated, but because it was skilfully restored. th● matters are happily compromised, union and peace covered, and the united brethren cheerfully pursue t● great ends of their union: a great disappointment t● gave to the devil, who rejoiced in their divisions. a● now, dear sir, what are your thoughts? can the ● nemy any more sow his tares in the field amongst t● good grain? will not the brethren hereafter take mo● care of taking and giving offences? will they n● henceforth watch lest any root of bitterness shou● spring up, and give 'em trouble? i will no to you few things: 1. here was the result of what understanding th● all had, in drawing up these articles, and they though they had sufficiently fenced their union against all invasions from socinian, arminian and antinomian opinions. 2. all objections then made against mr. william's h● book are accounted ●or: all antecedent quarrels a● buried in the grave of this agreement: whatever controversies might arise from any thing mr. william's ha● then written, are from the day of the date hereof, f●ever shut out of doors. 3. therefore any new started debates about chang● of persons, or christ's taking upon him the person of sinners, are void, and of none effect; if mr. william's shal● hereafter write or preach any thing in derogation of the subscribed articles, it will oblige him to make satisfaction; but for his book, that has received its com-pur●gation. as the law will not permit suits to be immortal the gospel forbids controversies to be eternal. 'tis only the savage creature the hyaena, that loves to dig up dead bodies out of their graves; and none ought to be ambitious of the woman of endor's excellency, that she would not let samuel sleep quietly among the ●ad. 9 notwithstanding the late reunion, the united brethren soon found there was some dissatisfaction in 〈◊〉 breasts of the reconciled brethren, who gradually ●drew from their assemblies and common meetings, ● not only so, but set up another opposite meeting, ● neighbouring place, at the very hour, and on the ●e day that the united brethren assembled at dr. an●ey's: some few of them would now and then drop when they had occasion to serve themselves of the ●ion, and commonly there was one or two to spy 〈◊〉 their liberty, whether merely from their own in●ations, or ordered to that unworthy employment their principals; and if they could pick up any thing ●y conceived might be grateful at pinners-hall, they ●uld not fail to give advice of it, while the poor incent presbyterians were seriously consulting the ho●●ur of their lord, and promoting the interest of religion, without respect to party or faction. nevertheless the brethren went on in the way of their ●ty, and though they had but slender hopes of retrie●g their brethren to reason, were willing to call them ●pes still, rather than to sit down and sink in utter despair: and therefore not standing on points of ho●●ur, as if they who first departed without cause, should ●st seek to return, they were willing rather to imitate ●eir gracious god, who first invites the sinners to re●nt, and turn, though the sons of adam were first in ●e revolt. they thought it more glorious to yield in ●der to peace; than to be stiff, though in a just war. ●here being therefore a brother yet left of the other ●umber, who had not quite fallen off; one that had ● excellent talon in dressing up creeds and articles, ● was employed, or employed himself to bring in rude draughts of new articles; and they were rude ●●deed. in may, 1695. another attempt was made for peace's if peradventure they might recover the dissenting bre●thren into the bosom of the union, and articles we● framed of different natures; by some of which they e●●deavoured to clear themselves of the least suspicion 〈◊〉 arminianism; by the others they were desirous the dissenters should purge themselves of all suspicion of incl●●ning to the antinomians. the paper then sent to the other party was as fo●●lows. we the united ministers in and about london, considering of a way to preserve the union and prevet any mistakes, and remove any prejudices that may arise amo●● us to interrupt the said union; do declare, that we do st●● adhere to the terms thereof; and do still submit ourselves 〈◊〉 the holy scriptures, as the perfect and only rule of faith 〈◊〉 practice: and do own the doctrinal part of those commo● called the articles of the church of england; or the confession, shorter and larger catechisms compiled by the assem●● at westminster, or the savoy confession; and do renown and testify against all opinions and doctrines dissonant the● from: as for instance, amongst many others. 1. that there is no definite number of persons elected fr● all eternity, whom god will by his appointed means, certainly save and bring to eternal life. leaving the rest, 〈◊〉 fall under a just condemnation for their original and act● sins, especially for their neglect and contempt of the me● of salvation. 2. that christ died equally for all men, not intending 〈◊〉 final salvation of some more than others. 3. that men have it in their own power, by the use of th● natural faculties of reason and will, unassisted by the especial light and grace of the holy ghost, to perform all that necessary to salvation; or that his special efficacious lig● and grace is not necessary to their conversion, perseverant and final salvation. 4. that any of them whom god hath foreknown, predestinated, called effectually according to the purpose of his grace, ●all fall away either totally, or so as not to be finally saved. 5. that faith, repentance, a holy conversation, or any act or work done by us, or wrought by the spirit of god in ●s, are any part of the righteousness, for the sake of which, 〈◊〉 on the account whereof, god doth justify any man or entitle ●im to eternal life. § 10. the united brethren when they had thus gi●en their jealous brethren this over-abundant satisfaction of their innocence as to any tincture of arminianism, ●y their subscribing articles, turned into all possible ●hapes and forms, did think it reasonable that the dissenting brethren should a little answer their expectation also, by a more express renouncing some odd notions which savoured pretty strongly of the other extreme. and it's an unquestionable truth that some of them had ●ented such strange doctrines, that it gave umbrage to ●hem that there might be found among them one or two ●r so, that had dipped very deep in those crispian hetero●●xies: and therefore for a trial, they transmitted to ●hem these seven following propositions. on the other side [we renounce these doctrines.] (1.) that men are under no obligation to make use of their natural faculties, with such external means of salvation as god affords them; praying in hope, for his gracious assistance, in order to that blessed end. (2.) that god hath not made offers of grace by christ, 〈◊〉 all within the sound of the gospel, testifying that whoever believeth shall be saved, without excluding any, and commanding them to believe accordingly. (3.) that any are in the sight of god justified or entitled 〈◊〉 eternal life, before they are effectually called, or while ●hey continue unregenerate, or in unbelief. (4.) that any may expect pardon without repentance. (5.) that continued repentance towards god, and fai● in our lord jesus, and holiness of heart, and life, are 〈◊〉 in the nature of the thing, and by the gospel constitution ●●cessary to salvation. (6.) that the moral law is not of use to unregener● men, to awaken their consciences to fly from the wrath come, and drive them to christ, or that it is not a rule life to them that live under the gospel as well as others. (7.) that believers falling into grievous sins, do not i● cur god's displeasure thereby: or that they may expect ●●●surance otherwise, than by the evidence of those graces which the promises of salvation are made, and by the test●●mony of the spirit of adoption witnessing with our spir● that we are the children of god. we have thought it our duty to bear our testimony again all these erroneous opinions, or any other contrary to the pla● tenor of the gospel of god: and we do further protest against all undermining one another in any matter of church discipline and government, and do heartily desire to mai●●tain communion with each other, according to the heads agreement which we have assented to. and if any thi● hath been done or spoken by any of us, through mistake or ina●●vertency that may cause any just offence to the prejudice the aforesaid union; we are ready upon better informati●● to rectify the same, still desiring and resolving mutually, brotherly forbearance towards one another, in any less points wherein we may differ. and now, sir, do you, and let the impartial world judge whether these dissenting brethren did not owe a satisfaction to the united ministers, as well as the unite● brethren to them; and whether there were not mo●● pregnant reasons to suspect some of them inclining 〈◊〉 antinomianism, than they could pretend to reason's 〈◊〉 suspect any of these veering towards arminianism and yet, to the amazement of all considerate person● though the five first articles were received; the seve● last were wholly rejected. i say this further, it was not without cogent reasons ●at the united brethren after they had given such frequent and incontestible demonstrations of their sound●ess in the faith, against all arminian and socinian errors, and were still ready to give all further reasonable proofs thereof, did try these dissenting brethren, whether they were sound in the faith, in opposition to the antinomian heresies; especially when some of the biggest name amongst them, from the press and pulpit had disseminated such horrid opinions as filled all intelligent ●ersons with equal astonishment and indignation; now ●ir, because most of you in the country are innocent ●n these matters, and perhaps not many of you have yet ●eard what abominable doctrines the wantonness of ●ome men's fancy in this city doth produce; i will give you a little taste of some few of them, with this caution, that you would implore the special grace of god to fortify your souls with that antidote, lest this ●ittle taste should prove your bane and poison. 1. to talk of a gospel threat is at best a catachresis, and nothing else can save it from being a bull. 2. pardon is rather the condition of faith, and much more having a causal influence thereunto, than faith and repentance are of pardon. 3. it was sin as to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that christ bore; the fault of sin was laid on christ; the sin itself as opposed to gild; christ was reputed a criminal, not only by man, but by god. 4. as to the elect there was never any gild upon them, in respect of the righteous judgement of god, in foro dei, but that which accompanied the letter of the law, setting in with conscience. 5. union with christ is before faith, (at lest naturâ) and we partake of the spirit by virtue of that union. 6. justification in regard of application, must be before believing. 7. the first application, ordine naturae saltem, is to ungodly man, eo nomine, that he may believe. 8. we believe that we may be justified declaratively. 9 it is denied that god requires faith as an indispe●●sable qualification in them, whom he will justify 〈◊〉 christ's merits. 10. all that a believer can pray for, is the further manifestation of pardon, for he knows that all his s●●● are pardoned. 11. a believer is to work from life, and not 〈◊〉 life. 12. it's a great truth, that god sees no sin in a b●●liever. 13. sin can do no real hurt to a believer. 14. god is not displeased with his people, and is 〈◊〉 angry with the persons of believers for their sins. 15. legal convictions before saving faith are no mo●● than sin; it's but the filthy, conscience polluting, gu●●● of sin. 16. all imperfect holiness is sin. 17. turn ye, turn ye; why will ye die? is but the triumph of the law over a dead sinner. 18. the eternal life in which the angels were created and confirmed by christ, differs from that eternal life which believers have in christ: the one is creature life, or a created life; the other is the ete●●nal life of god communicated in time. 19 believers are as righteous as christ; i mean no● in a way of similitude, but in a way of equality. 20. christ's incarnation was no part of his humiliation. 21. we coalesce upon believing into one mystical person with christ, which is distinguished from legal union which is before faith. i doubt not but by this time, you are abundantly sa●fied that the united brethren had just reasons to 〈◊〉 and of the dissenters, and might reasonably expect ●om them, that they should clear themselves in these ●oints, when they had given such offence to the uni●●d brethren, who had over and over, given them all ●anner of satisfaction, in all points wherein they could detend any suspicion of them, to be leaning toward ●e arminians: but alas! no satisfaction could be ob●ined, they were inflexible; and would not comply in ●y one of the seven articles proposed to them; and ●us the breach became beyond the united brethren's ●aking up. iii. in this melancholic posture of affairs, pray ●ell me what could the united brethren do more than ●o sit down in a sorrowful silence, and commit themselves and their cause to god, whose cause indeed it ●as; yet comforting themselves that they had the testimony of their own consciences that they had pursued the things that made for peace, though without success. in this juncture, there were some brethren piously disposed, and with sincere intentions no doubt, who would be doing something, though they little knew what that something should be, or what would be the success of it; and that would make another attempt for union; and these were they whom our reporter calls, and may they deserve to be so called, the industrious pacificators. now these acting upon their personal account, and without instructions or directions from the body of the united ministers, held many meetings, had many debates, the product whereof was a paper signed by nine of those brethren who had put their names to mr. william's his book; some others who had not subscribed that book, only expressed themselves thus; we are glad to find so good an agreement amongst us, as th● paper doth express. but this poor paper produced no real effect, both because some of the leading men of the dissenters, woul● not, or did not sign it; and because the paper grew into small credit, when it was known, and it was soo● known, that some of those whose names were affixed t● it, disowned that they had put their hands to it, no● had empowered any to do it for them, and by what way or by whose means their names were put to the paper they could give no account. after some considerable time of expectance, finding no real effects of this paper, no approach made by the other party towards reunion, the body of the united ministers judged themselves concerned to take the matter into consideration; and appointed some of their own number to prepare matters, who drew up somewhat, which being presented to them, after mature deliberation, they put their thoughts into tha● form, which is now called the third paper; of which i will give you some entertainment, when i have firs● premised a few things. (1.) the body of the united ministers did not, could not look on themselves as concluded or bound up by the former paper, because it was managed without their privity, and however without their order. (2.) therefore they proceeded upon the whole matter as entire and clear in itself, not prepossessed by, or prejudiced against it, but as free, and in their own power to resolve as god and their own consciences should direct them. (3.) and yet they carried it with a decent respect to those of their brethren who had engaged in the drawing up the former paper, and accordingly retained as much of that paper as they safely could, and drew-up this other in conformity to the former, saving in some expressions and phrases, which were either judged of dubi●s sense, or dangerous consequence. (4.) they well knew that those brethren who had a and in penning the first paper, laboured under some conveniencies in that whole transaction, from which ●ey were now set free. for 1. their own strong propensities to peace, might possibly lead them to swallow own some harsh expressions, and to accept of peace ●on very hard terms. 2. there were some persons 〈◊〉 the other side, who being much given to the politics, and great intrieguers, might easily overreach ●ch as proceeded with plainness and integrity of heart, ●d suspected not to be out witted by those, to whom ●ey were no ways inferior in learning, or any useful knowledge. (5.) those brethren who had their heads, and ●ands, and hearts too, in drawing, dressing and sign●g the former paper, when they had heard the reason's ●d arguments of the whole body, where all matters were managed, not in a hasty and precipitate way, but with ●e greatest calmness, by slow paces, with great liberty, and freedom of debate and being now dis-in●mbred from the counterpoise of oppositions or in●uations; might, and did see just reasons to alter the ●rase, and new model some expressions, which had ●ept into the former. (6.) and hereof you may be fully assured, inasmuch those individual nine brethren, who for, and in ●pes of peace, had signed the former paper, had their ●ands, and heads, and hearts too, in the forming, ●ording, and assenting to this third: nor did they ●rein alter their judgements, or vary in the least from ●eir zealous desires of peace and union, only they ●w saw, this last paper was the same in all things ●ith the former, saving in some few passages and expres●ns, which carried a face of some dangerous tendentes; which, however they might escape the notice of private brethren, could not pass the observation of many discerning heads, who with utmost applicati● set themselves to prevent any inconvenience that mi● arise to the truths of the gospel. (7.) lastly, the controversy lying chiefly in so● school terms, or jargons' of art, and of very late 〈◊〉 trivance; such as a change of persons between christ 〈◊〉 us; which may possibly be capable of receiving a so● meaning, and yet is more sounding towards a dangerous sense; the brethren did unanimously agree to gr● as much as the sound sense could bear, and modest to wave and pass by the other, which was liable to interpreted to a sense and sound of malignity to 〈◊〉 whole of the gospel; and they are now more fully 〈◊〉 swaded that they were in the right by the reporters ●●tions, and those of the manuscript exemplified in the 〈◊〉 port, if that was not of the reporters invention, wh● to me is not material. iv. proceed we at last to the consideration, and 〈◊〉 amination of the reporter's objections, with those the manuscript. the present controversy (says the reporter, p. 3.) is about church order, but doctrinals; and may be reduce● two general heads, viz. christ's satisfaction, and the pe● sanction of the law; though hitherto, the greatest strug● has been about the first, unto which my papers confine me● methinks i need not observe to you, that they rese● more heads of contention under deck, to be cal● above-board, when they have occasion for them: 〈◊〉 that if this impertinent quarrel were at an end, ab● the change of persons; they have another ready, and 〈◊〉 knows how many legions more, to keep up the strug● and that we shall never want either the ball of contention to keep us in breath, or the bone of content● to set us together by the ears. hitherto (says he) greatest struggle has been about the former. yes; hith● what shall be hereafter, who can divine? like ●se pettyfoggers, qui lights litibus serant mortalibus im●taliter: however it be, i am heartily glad that he reduced the controversy to two heads; if they ●ve not like those of the hydra, that where one was 〈◊〉 off, two more succeeded in their place and 〈◊〉. but he asserts, that hitherto the greatest struggle has ●n about these two: whereof the first is about christ's ●isfaction. but herein you will need better informa●●●, and a truer report: for never, hitherto, have the ●ited brethren, nor any one of that number, given lest occasion to any to struggle with them about 〈◊〉 point; but they have clearly stated, vigorously ●intained that great fundamental; and for this they ●appeal to whatever of impartiality and honesty is in this lower world. they appeal to the thirty ●e articles; to the assemblies confession; that of savoy; to the shorter and larger catechisms, and to ●ir own papers published in 1692 to which they have ●reely subscribed, and never yet in the least departed, 〈◊〉 by the grace of god, will they ever depart, no not ●h their lives. ●nay, i will speak a great word: none has ever more ●arly stated this truth, than mr. williams; for which ●fer you to his gospel truth, 2 chap. though our sins 〈◊〉 imputed to christ with respect to the gild thereof; so 〈◊〉 he by the father's appointment, and his own consent, ●me obliged as mediator to bear the punishment of our enjoys, and he did bear those punishments, to the full satisfa●n of justice, and to our actual remission when we ●eve, etc. now, sir, because you well understand the socinian ●ntroversies in all points, and therefore in this, pray me if he has not in these words obviated whatever ●asions the socinians make use of, to avoid the argu●nts brought to confirm this truth: 1. the gild of sins imputed to christ. 2. christ bore the punishme● of our iniquities. 3. and this was according to his f●●thers appointment and his own consent. 4. this punishment he bore to the full satisfaction of justice. to our actual remission when we believe. about what then is all this struggle, or rather squabble why sir, 'twas lately they objected to mr. william that his righteousness would not go; 'twas clipped within t● ring: witty enough in all conscience! but now su●●ceeds the coining age, and they have stamped or cou●●terfeited some new phrases, terms, expressions, su● as christ's taking on him the person of sinners, dying in t● person of sinners; and raising a huge dust about the● they call it a struggle about christ's satisfaction, when i●●hing less: and i am afraid this false coin w● not go. will you observe with me, as we go along, how u● easy these gentlemen sit under all the old confessions faith, all the articles of religion, drawn up to be bo● instruments of peace and truth. i will for a mome● leave you to your meditations, and a little freely discourse with them. come, gentlemen! will the ankle of satisfaction as propounded by the church of e●●land, please you? o, no! we are weary of that: th● were episcopal! will that content you which was co●●piled by the assembly at westminster? lest of all! th● were presbyterians! will then that of the brethren at 〈◊〉 savoy satisfy you? they were independent! no! 〈◊〉 have had enough of that! well! will that arti● drawn up by your own selves in 1692. make you eas● no! we have occasion for some other phrases! w● is it i beseech you? will a change of person quiet yo● yes; in our own sense! then again i beseech you t● us what that is? why that it be interpreted to sign● christ's taking on him the person of sinners; and that died in the person of sinners. and how long will that content you? i can tell you that! till the next croc● comes in your heads to invent another, and then the stress of peace and truth shall be laid upon that: i perceive we may as well bind proteus, as fix your desultory humours, or as the comedian expresses it, canem ●ugitivum agninis lactibus alligare. for this has been our method all along; you draw up a proposition, ●ou hope mr. williams will boggle at it, he subscribes. ●hen study another; invention is fertile: it's done; ●nd mr. williams subscribes to that too! then invent a ●hird, a fourth, and so on till he refuses, and then you ●ave gained your point, and done your business: mr. williams shall be an obstinate heretic. it's now high time to examine their objections, whe●er against mr. williams for the papers sake, or against ●e paper for mr. williams' sake, it's not very clear; or whether against both, for divisions sake, i am not concerned; nor will i promise to confine my answers to the arguments against either; but yet i think i shall chief●● confine myself to those leveled against him, and ●ot wholly waving what they say against this third pa●er; though in truth there is but one paper that the ●nited brethren are concerned to own and justify: ●nd the reason of my procedure is plainly this; i have ●o warrant to vindicate the brethren, they are more ●ble to answer for themselves, which if they think such report deserves it, they will certainly do; and for mr. williams, i need none of his leave or allowance; ●r any man may defend the common cause of christi●nity, or answer any arguments brought against it, without his permission or commission. mr. williams as asserted and publicly owned that christ died in our ●ead [vice nostrâ, loco nostro.] and more fully as i quoted him, gospel truth, chap. 2. now the manuscript 〈◊〉 the report answers: (1) that our modern innovators (does he mean them●lves?) have assumed to themselves a privilege of impo●g an heterodox sense on sound terms and phrases: and that these words [in our place and stead] do not with many now a days signify a surrogation, or a proper change of persons in a legal sense, but import no more than [for our good.] to which disingenuous objection i return thi● reply: § 1. it is here then acknowledged, that these word● of mr. williams' are sound and orthodox,; and wha● would these unreasonable men have him do? how shal● he speak to please them? must he use heterodox term● and phrases? and then qualify them with a sound meaning? they that revile him for speaking sound, because others put an ugly meaning upon his words, how would they have reviled him had he spoken heterodoxly, and then thought to salve all with a good meaning? let mr. williams speak the words of truth and soberness, and preach the doctrine which is according to godliness, and let the uncharitable judge what they please. § 2. but have these modern innovators usurped this privilege, to impose an heterodox meaning upon sound words? then it will follow that these men, who without cause have put an evil meaning upon mr. william's his expressions, are modern innovators; nay, malicious slanderers: and they are guilty of a more heinous sin, that they usurp the privilege of god to judge the heart ● charity thinks no evil; that is, where none appears; an● where has it appeared that mr. williams reserved any heterodox sense under those holy and wholesome words. and what if these words [in our place and stead] do not with many now a days signify a surrogation? how can mr. williams help that? if surrogation signifies [in our place and stead] it's very fair; for i would always have the more dark term explained by the more clear and familiar, and not that which is plain by the more dubious and dark: i should think the light should comment better upon darkness, than darkness would interpret the light. still he carries on the charge! these words do not signify a proper change of persons in a legal sense. i answer: ●ho can tell that, till they shall tell us, what a proper ●hange of persons in a legal sense, does signify its own self? ●t them agree, if they can, to fix what the meaning of proper change of persons in a legal sense, does import, and ●en it may be judged whether [in our place and stead] ●oes signify as much as that comes to. but the caviller proceeds; in our place and stead (with ●me) signify no more than for our good: why 'tis imposable they should: that which christ suffered in our ●ead was for our good! to bear the punishment of our ●ns, to satisfy divine justice was certainly for our good! ●hat by his death and sufferings, he delivered us from ●e greatest evils, hell and wrath; and that he pur●ased for us the greatest blessings, heaven and glory, ●as most certainly for our good: so that he argues ●us; if for our good, than not in our stead! but i will inert the argument; if in our stead, undoubtedly for our ●od; and therefore for our good because in our stead. (2.) the manuscript gives a second answer: the ●nglish socinians declare that the hinge of the controversy ●tween them and us, turns not on the words [in our stead] ●at the men of the racovian way consider our saviour as offering for us, and in our stead. take this reply. § 1. 'tis all the better! i had rather have them speak honestly, though with a knavish meaning, than speak ●d mean both like knaves. § 2. but pray, sir, (i direct myself to you, mr. ma●script) if the socinians will put an unsound sense up●n sound words, will you quit the sound phrase because ●ey put a wretched sense on't? what other remedy ●ill you advise us to? why our wise gentlemen have ●und out an expedient that shall out-wit them; for if ●ey think to evade [in our place and stead] they have another ready, viz. that in the sufferings and death of christ there was a commutation of persons: but this wil● not do the feat! for socinus and crellius, will grant there was such a change of persons; and what will they do now? why here's a new phrase ready to put in it● place, viz. that christ died in the person of sinners; or that he took on him the person of sinners. not too fast that would have served for next time. but assure yourself, sir, though your invention be never so fruitful i● new phrases, the socinians are as pregnant in equivocations, and interpretations to elude and evade the new terms; and you must be put to the needless trouble to make new intrenchments as they distinguish you out o● the old, and so on till you have not one foot of ground to 〈◊〉. see now to what a wretched pickle you have reduced yourself, and which is more, the cause and truth of christ. the socinians have by a false gloss driven you from that old excellent phrase [in our place and stead] you retreat to [a change of persons between christ and us.] they put a false gloss upon that, and then you retire to christ's [dying in the person of sinners.] do you think they cannot give a false construction of that too? and so you must make and coin new terms and phrases in infinitum. § 3. i will therefore in charity (if you are pleased to accept it) recommend an easy expedient to you: i● you suspect that any under a sound expression conceals an unsound meaning, ask him, if he understands it properly in a legal sense, or no? ask him, if he means that christ suffered in our stead as a sacrifice to satisfy god's justice? and there you have driven him to the end of his equivocations, for which mr. williams has given you the only proper draught in the place i have already exemplified. and beyond this you cannot go, unless you will have recourse to the rack or spanish inquisition, which is a remedy worse than the disease. § 4. i add one thing more: if both these phrases, christ's suffering and dying in our place and stead; and that other, a change of persons between christ and us, be liable to be thus practised upon by men of great wit and little conscience; and that no terms can be found out so plain, but crafty heads will suborn them into an evil meaning, i would then a thousand times sooner choose, to adhere to this phrase, christ suffered and died in our stead and place, [loco nostro, vice nostra] than to that other, in the sufferings of christ, there was a change of persons between christ and us: for the former has had its signification strongly fixed and settled, by long usage and prescription; whereas this latter is but of yesterday, and scarce two persons, no not the inventors, are agreed amongst themselves, what sense to stamp upon it. again, the plainest christians have a tolerable understanding of the former; whereas the other does but amuse and confound them: nor is it so dangerous to the main of the cause, to mistake in the one as in the other; for he that by christ's suffering in our stead intends he suffered for our good, speaks the truth; but he that mistakes in the sense of commutation of persons, may err the whole heavens, and misled himself and others into the dregs of antinomianism. in a word therefore; the socinians are subtle, and have put a false gloss upon christ's dying in our stead; shall we therefore discharge that phrase? so have they put a false one upon commutation of persons; shall we therefore by the same reason discharge that also? why, they have put as absurd a sense upon the term satisfaction; which with them signifies no more than satisfaction made to the will or wisdom of god: must we therefore relinquish that too? then we give them up the whole cause: how much more advisable would it be, to keep to the old land marks, and adhere to what mr. williams with all that are sound in the faith, have asserted; that christ suffered and died in our place and stead, as a sacrifice to satisfy divine justice; and then let the socinians, and whoever have a wicked mind, try their skill in evading and eluding it. (2.) a second heavy charge against mr. williams is, that he absolutely denies a change of persons between christ and the elect: to which the united brethren in their third paper (as he calls it) give a clear answer; that it could not be intended as a denial of a change of person between christ and us in a general sense, but only in opposition to the opinion of his adversary, he wrote against, for in that very place he expressly affirms, that christ suffered and died in our stead: that is, mr. williams did not deny a change of person, simpliciter, sed secundum quid; not universally, but restrictively; for the most universal terms are not always universally to be understood. but the manuscript will not acquiesce in this answer. § 1. he therefore says; that his denial of a change of persons between christ and the elect, or between christ and believers, is so express and full, that he leaves no room for a distinction, limitation or restriction, etc. to which i return this; mr. williams has left room enough for all the distinctions that are proper to the matter in hand; for thus he expresses himself: gosp. truth. p. 33. 2 edit. the difference lies in these points: 1. whether there be a change of person between christ and the elect? yea, or between christ and believers? this the doctor affirms, and i deny: whence i argue; mr. williams denies nothing, was concerned to deny nothing, but what the doctor had affirmed; but the doctor had affirmed a wild, monstrous sense of change of person between christ and the elect, or believers; and therefore mr. williams did not, could not deny any thing else, according to all the rules and laws of pertinent discourse. now than the determination of what mr. williams denies, must depend on the knowing what it was the doctor affirmed: and for this see pag. 31. where he citys dr. crisp, speaking thus; mark it well! christ himself is not so completely righteous, but we are as righteous as he; nor we so completely sinful, but christ became, being made sin, as completely sinful as we; nay more, we are the same righteousness; for we are made the righteousness of god; that very sinfulness which we were, christ is made the very sinfulness: so that here is a direct change; christ takes our person and condition, and stands in our stead; we take christ's person and condition, and stand in his stead: so that if you reckon well, you must always reckon yourselves in another's person, and that other in your person. and now you have it, what is that change of persons, which the doctor affirms, and mr. williams denies; which had he not, he had denied his redeemer and betrayed the gospel. § 2. but the manuscript comes upon mr. williams with his logical talon, p. 8. the negation of a change is so general, that unless no change signify a change; and a negative is of the same import with an affirmative, you will never be able to find him allowing of a change of person between christ and us, etc. this case is very hard, i confess; for of all morsels, i never loved to swallow a contradiction: but the question is, where the contradiction lies? they that would find it between mr. williams and the united brethren, must seek elsewhere: they affirm the same things. if they will find it between mr. williams and dr. crisp, they need not look far, the doctor affirms, mr. williams denies: but now to find mr. williams contradicting himself, that would be sweet! why does not he own a change, and yet deny a change? he does so! yet without any contradiction to himself or the truth. there is nothing more nauseous to an understanding reader than to see a man paratragaediate in trifles, and to raise a mighty storm in a sorry bucket of water. a change and no change! yea, and nay! did this gentleman in good earnest never hear or read, that single terms or propositions, which are really contradictory, must be spoken or intended, ad idem, eodem modo, eodem respectu, eodem tempore: suppose i should tell him, lazarus was dead, and lazarus was not dead; he'll cry out perhaps, o horrid contradiction! o barbarous nonsense. but be not so fierce, both are true: he was dead before christ raised him, and not dead when christ said lose him and let him go: to what purpose then do they fill our ears with the din of an imaginary contradiction, which has no ground but in the fancy and wind of their own heads. to conclude, there may be an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where there is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a seeming, where there is no real contradiction: ay, but our manuscript thinks he has nicked it: p. 9 he should have told us the sense in which his adversary affirmed a change. but to what purpose should he tell you it, when you stop your ears; or to what end show you it, when you are blinded with prejudice, or wink very hard and will not see? he has told it to all the world besides; every one else can hear it, see it, or read it: only he has not told it you, because you do, male audire, i. e. are thick of hearing. but what would they have this poor man do? will they allow him to hold his liberty of writing by no other tenure than than that of villanage? what are the conditions of his 〈◊〉 he has written for a whole page together, in what sense his adversary takes it; and i have here given you enough, you may have more if you please to open your eyes, and yet he has not told you one word of it. but this reminds me of a passage i once heard from a reverend and learned divine in the pulpit; who discoursing upon the words of the apostle paul, rome 3. 28. therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith, without the works of the law: and comparing them with ●hose of jam. 2. 24. ye see then how that by works a man ● justified, and not by faith only. here as that learned ●erson observed, is a seeming contradiction, not by works, ●nd yet by works; by faith only, and not by faith only: for ●e clearing of which, he prudently waved all the common solutions, and upon the whole thus determined; ●hat if god should reveal contradictory propositions to our faith, we were obliged to believe them both to be true. this would be a compendious way, i confess, in salving contradictions; only it has an odd inconvenience in it; for ●hen god must give us other faculties than these we now have; for according to those poor ones we are at pre●ent masters of, whatever god may oblige us to, i am certain it's simply impossible that both the propositions ●an be true; and i think too, it's as certain, god can ne●er reveal or oblige us to believe a lie. (3.) but the reporter, in my opinion, has discharged more formidable argument against the paper●nd ●nd mr. williams too; p. 6. for whereas the third pa●er had said (or the cover to it) that on our so happy establishing the doctrine of justification, we need say but little to the point of commutation of persons. and to speak a ●lain truth, that little they said, was enough, because ●hey had established the doctrine of justification upon its ●roper basis, namely, divine revelation, upon which bottom god himself had established it, and then it stands unmoveable, and the gates, the power and policy of hell ●all not prevail against it. now harken to the report of ●is canon, a great report without ball. it's impossible to establish the doctrine of justification on its ●ue and proper basis, any otherwise than by clearing the point of commutation of persons. impossible! what a huge opinion have these men of ●he vast extent of their intellectuals? they can admeasure it to a hairs breadth, just where the possible ends; and where the impossible begins: it had been more modest to have qualified the word with [for aught i know, or 〈◊〉 apprehend] but if that great doctrine cannot possib●● be established upon its basis without clearing the poi●● of commutation of persons? why do they not, why hav● they not long since cleared it? dr. crisp has cleared i● and to say truth, though he be erroneous, yet he spea● clearly, we see his sense; but these gentlemen spea● dubiously, darkly, at best but in the twilight, an● whether there be a sound sense under those obscure phrases, we know not, nor perhaps they neither. this doctrine had need be well settled, and in ord●● thereto the basis of it well cleared; for i have ever t●ken it to be articulus stantis, out cadentis ecclesiae: if th● article fails, the church fails and falls with it; and 〈◊〉 were better the whole world should fall than either give me leave to offer a few things to his high con●●dence. 1. he that will build a castle in the air, must b● content with a foundation of air to support it; and 〈◊〉 that will form an imaginary notion of justification, mu●● provide a basis in his own imagination, for it to rest u● on. if indeed justification admits no faith, as dr. cri●● has contrived it, than we must admit his pedestal to see ●e it upon; to reckon ourselves in christ's person, an● christ in ours, which is his commutation of persons, but 〈◊〉 the holy ghost unites the soul to christ by faith, i● no such impossible thing to conceive how both our si●● may be imputed to christ, and his righteousness to th● be lieving sinner. 2. this great doctrine of justification is already se●●led upon divine revelation, there it has stood from th● beginning, there it shall stand to the end of time, an● things, and needs not the presumptuous fancies 〈◊〉 towering wits to place it on a more from bottom. bu● are we not brought to a sine pass? we must trust go● no farther than we can see him; believe no more tha● we can understand a reason for; that is, we must whee● about to the main principle of the socinians, to admit no more into our creed than we can comprehend: he that will settle the great revealed doctrines of religion on a humane foundation overthrows it. the scripture has sufficiently revealed the doctrine of justification, to be through christ's righteousness accepted of god, received by faith; and for this commutation of persons in their sense, it knows nothing of it. let not therefore this gentleman be so over-officious ●o erect a basis for justification of his own head, or of wiser heads than his; the holy spirit has done that already, left putting forth his daring hand to stay the ark, which he dreams begins to totter, he should meet with the fate of presumptuous uzzah. 3. i would ask this modest question: where has this doctrine of justification been settled all this while, since the reformation? since the purest primo-primitive times? what! has it hung, like mahomet's tomb, in ●he air? or floated, like the ark, upon the water? no! it has stood firm and unmoveable upon scriptural foundations, against all the assaults of papists, socinians, ar●inians, and antinomians: it has stood visible in the articles of the church of england; in the confessions of the assembly at westminster; in that of the savoy, in the catechisms shorter and larger, and yet this uncouth phrase never yet heard of: it is strange to me, that councils general, and provincial synods, assemblies of holy learned men, should so often, so strenuously assert, and confirm by the word of god, this great truth, and yet never once dream of dr. crisp's commutation of persons, ●pon which to superstruct the doctrine of justification. nay, i would entreat these gentlemen to look at home ●nd inquire whether any particular congregation of ●hat denomination soever, did ever insert any of these terms amongst their credenda, even that to which he ●ay belong, or over which he may preside, and yet i will presume they have the doctrine of justification orthodoxly propounded, judiciously explained, and solidly confirmed without these innovations and strange term of commutation of persons, christ's taking on him the person of sinners, or dying in the person of sinners. 4. this phrase, the change of the person of christ; may have, and truly has, an honest and sound sense; in which it may be of some good use to explain the doctrines of satisfaction and justification; and it is that which the right reverend the bishop of worcester, with grotius against crellius do put upon it. reason of christ's suffer. edit. 1. p. 144. viz. the substitution of one person in the room of another, and pag. 143. a proper redemption may be obtained by the punishment of one in the room of another; which is neither more nor less, than that christ suffered and died in our room and stead. and this is it, which the former and latter papers, which mr. williams, and all others do freely own, and that which is denied, is only such a sense of the phrase as his antagonist asserts; 〈◊〉 therefore christ's dying, by way of change or exchange be all they would have, 'tis no more than what is granted in that other expression, he died in our place and stead but if they must have a further sense, we are afraid o● nonsense; if they must have a higher reach, we are afraid of an over-reach; and therefore let them tell us how much larger a sense they have some secret services for, and when we know, it will be told them whether we judge it orthodox, or otherwise. (4.) casting my eye upon the manuscript i meet with a small cavil against commutation of persons as i● stands either in the third paper, or in mr. williams and if it be indifferent to him whether of them be misrepresented or reproached, it shall be as indifferent to me, if either of them be set right or vindicated. now the words he cavils at (as he quotes them) run thus it is apparent, that commutation of persons is to be understood in a legal or judicial sense (as we may call it): he by agreement between the father and him, came into our room and stead, to answer for our violation of the law of works. at which he cavils thus: [as we may call it] not that it is really so in a legal or judicial sense, only we may so call it. to which i reply. 1. as we may call it, is not opposed to reality, and the critics do commonly observe that there is a sicut veritatis, as well as similitudinis; and we must expect when the humour takes him to cavil at the apostle, who heb. 7. 9 uses a like phrase; and as i may so say, levi also, who received tithes, paid tithes to abraham: the phrase there does not deny the truth of the thing; but is a form of speech wherewith we usually mollify an expression, which to tender ears may seem a little harsh and strange: such as these terms, legal and judicial, might do to vulgar understandings. he that will answer another man's words ought faithfully to quote them, and oblige himself to a syllabical exactness: but i perceive this answerer wears not such a ●crupulous conscience: not that it is really so, only we may so call it: now his not and his only, are either his own text or his own comment, and let him see to it to reconcile them to truth, for the words may carry this sense: as we may call it, i. e. as we may lawfully call ●t; and not as his gloss bears, only we may so call it, which ●s either a gross perverting of the meaning, or a bold falsification of the words. but i have an answer worth two of this; and will produce their great master in this very case, thus qualifying his own words, gosp. truth, p. 31. 2 edit. thus, ●ays dr. crisp, in giving christ, god is pleased (as it were) ●o make a change; and yet none questions but that do●tor thought the change as proper, as literal as they can ●esire, or words can be found to express. but will they ●ive us the liberty to interpret the doctor's, as he does mr. williams' words; god is pleased as it were to make a change: yea, not really or properly to make a change; ●ut only as it were: and so we shall have glossed away the beloved phrase of change of persons. but still the manuscript proceeds in his objecting faculty; a commutation in a legal sense, is the same with 〈◊〉 proper surrogation; and what is a proper surrogation, but a placing one person in the room and place of another and thus god placed his son, and the son so placed himself in our room and stead, and he was a sacrifice to satisfy divine justice: are they not all agreed? one would think so! ay, but there is more at the bottom what is that? why, where the surety puts on the person and stands in the quality, state and condition of the debtor, and lies under the same obligation to answer for him. i wish i were worthy to advise this confident man not to insist so strictly upon that notion, of debt and debtor: for if he supposes sin to be only a pecuniary debt and that the sinner stands only obliged as such a debtor he has betrayed the cause he seems so zealous to defend and yielded it up irrecoverably to the socinians! and this is that which the learned author of the reasons of christ's sufferings, p. 269. has warned him of long since: the true state of the controversy (says he) has been rendered more obscure by the mistakes of some, who have managed it with greater zeal than judgement, (he had never seen the report nor manuscript) and by this means have shot over their adversaries heads, and laid their own more open to assaults. it's easy to observe that most of the socinians arguments are leveled against an opinion, which few who have considered these things do maintain, and none need think themselves obliged to do it. that christ paid a rigid and proper satisfaction for the sins of men, under the notion of a debt, etc. the sinner therefore is to be considered as a malefactor, who has forfeited his life to justice, and here the surrogation and substitution of christ intervenes, who has by agreement between his father and him, offered himself as a sacrifice to satisfy divine justice. but still says the manuscript, in this paper, (the ●hird) christ's putting on the person of sinners, and his undertaking for them the obligations of the law of works is ●ft out. to which i will return these things: 1. if christ's ●tting on the person of sinners be left out: it's better out ●an put in, till it be known what it signifies. 2. and for the other expression; christ's undertaking answer for them the obligations of the law of works: is at left out too? and not a word put in their place, that peculiar to a proper satisfaction? pray then let's read the ●ords as he has quoted them, p. 6. christ, by agreement●●ween the father and him, came into our room and stead, answer for our violation of the law of works. what is ●e nice difference then between christ's answering for 〈◊〉 violation of the law, and answering for us the viola●on? or what the critical difference between christ's answering for them the violation, and answering their●●iolation ●●iolation of the law of works: he that answers for 〈◊〉 the violation of the law, answers for my violation the 〈◊〉 law; but this it is to be hypnewcriticks in the●gy, when it's often ridiculous even in philology. but the eye that sees all other things, sees not itself; ●d this manuscripturist, that could discern the more the eye of the third paper, could not see the beam at was in his own: let the impartial judge! the first ●●per expresses itself thus: christ putting on the person, ●●d coming into the room and stead of sinners to answer for ●m the obligations of the violated law of works: the ●hird paper thus:— to answer for our violations of the ●●w of works: but this faithful person repeats it thus: answer for them the obligations of the law of works. the ●bligations of a law, as it stands entire, is one thing, and 〈◊〉 obligations of a law as violated, is clearly another, 〈◊〉 where passion prevails we must not expect imparti●ty, especially if any thing of mr. williams falls under consideration. i will close this head with this short note: it is freely granted that christ suffered and died for the persons 〈◊〉 sinners; that he suffered and died for the sins of the persons; that he suffered and died in the room and stea● of their persons; that he suffered and died to make satisfaction to the justice.. to the vindictive justice of god: nay he lives in their persons by faith; and lives for ever 〈◊〉 plead for their persons on the throne; and yet all th● is nothing, unless it be granted that christ died in the person of sinners too: which they are resolved he sha●● do, whether he or the scriptures will or no. (6.) i had almost forgot a passage in the manuscript for which i ought to have begged pardon, because 〈◊〉 contains so much learning: in p. 7. what more comm● amongst the learned than subrogatum & suffectum in locu●alterius, ejus naturam sortiri: here is learning enough in all conscience! the mischief is, 'tis but a scrap borrowed out of calvin's lexicon juridicum; and will neve● do the business of him that quotes it: for that term 〈◊〉 surrogate, he might have fetched it nearer hand from d●ctors commons; and for his suffectus in locum alterius, yo● have it interpreted, consul suffectus, est qui pro alio substtuitur; sic enim appellabatur qui in demortui consulis locu● sufficiebatur: ab ordinari is autem consulibus non autem suff●ctis, anni computabantur; & id circo minor eos honour, m●nor laus sequebatur. now what is their parallel between this suffect●s consul; and our blessed lord jesus, as surrgated and placed in the room of sinners? this substitute not in being, till the former be dead: this substitute was of less honour than the former; nothing was reckoned in his name, but in the others; and therefore though he might sortiri officium, yet not naturam; 〈◊〉 supplied the office, but acted not in his person; he w●● substituted in locum alterius, non in personam alterius. i have observed all along, and shall now once for al● give you my observation: that this reporter, bega● at first to hint a change: in a while, he smoothly slide into a change of persons between christ and us: then insensibly he steals into christ's taking upon him the person of sinners: and at last he silently comes to, christ's dying in the person of sinners; and i note it for no greater end, but that i may requite his civility, with a little thread of the civil law; as i find it, tit. digestorum, de verb. signif. no. 177. natura cavillationis haec est, ut ab evi●denter veris per brevissimas mutationes disputatio ad ea, quae videnter falsa sunt pr●ducatur. this is the nature of cavilling, when from some things evidently true, the disputation is lead by short changes to those as evidently false. sir, it's time, high time that i ease you and myself of this trouble, and i will effectually discharge you, when i have left with you a few queries, which you may consider at your leisure. § 1. do you understand the true reason why these gentlemen in the city will not be persuaded to settle the true notion of christ's taking on him the person of sinners? dying in the person of sinners? for i find that the true reason why some do not subscribe it, is because they do not understand it: and yet on the other side, there are some who say, they understand it too well to subscribe it; there are yet some who affirm, that the words have only this honest plain meaning, that christ suffered and died in the place and stead of sinners, to make satisfaction to divine justice, for them, and for their obligations to his violated law: but then, should they declare as much, all the design would be defeated and utterly blown up, for then mr. williams would certainly subscribe it. § 2. pray, sir, inform me quo warranto? by what right do these gentlemen impose such hard terms of union and communion? why must all the world be hereticated that dare not subscribe to these apocryphal phrases, which neither scripture nor ancient fathers, nor general, nor particular councils, nor synods, nor assemblies, nor nation reform, nor single churches ever brought into their creeds, confessions, or articles of faith, to be the standard, or test of orthodoxy, or the terms of communion? and i am the more earnest in this query, because the dissenters formerly have complained heavily, that some things were imposed on them as necessary to communion, which were n● ways necessary to salvation. § 3. and i would be satisfied how it comes to pass that if these terms insisted on, be necessary to support the doctrines of satisfaction and justification; they themselves never once mentioned or moved, or insisted on them, that they might be inserted into the heads of agreement, upon which they united in 1691. nor into those articles debated, agitated at great pinners-hall, and afterwards agreed to, at little st. helen's, where yet the highest, hottest, and greatest names of the contender● did subscribe to the articles of the person of the mediator and of justification, when yet not a word or syllable o● christ's taking on him the person of sinners, dying in th● person of sinners, etc. was once spoke of, and therefore conclude were never then thought of; 1692. § 4. i wish you could inform me, whether they have received any new revelations, or made any new discoveries of these great secrets, and the indispensible necessity of these new notions? whether they are become 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the adepts in the rosacrucian mysteries, 〈◊〉 have found out the philosopher's stone, to turn all antinomianism into pure gold; or whether the true reason of all this pother be not, that they are resolved to beat their brains till they have found out some terrible term that shall check mr. williams his faith, and gravel his conscience, that so he may be discarded, for non-subscriber. though i am pretty confident, if 〈◊〉 understand him, he's both wiser than to be bubled and made a cully, and honester than to be hectored out of his understanding. § 5. i would propound it as a moot point, whether ●e socinians, who have blasphemously degarded the ●erson of christ, into a god by office, though a mere man by nature: or the antinomians, who own him a god by nature, yet affirm him to have been a sinner, ●he greatest of sinners; nay, sinfulness itself, do more derogate from the honour of our redeemer? he that ●enies me to be a man, does less reproach me than he ●at affirms me to be the greatest villain. and it might ●rther be queried, whether it was not the absurdest ●ing in the heathens to confess that their gods were ●oly, dan. 4. 8. the spirit of the holy gods, and yet to ●ll such stories of their rapes, adulteries, and thefts, ●at bear the greatest contrariety to holiness? § 6. whether therefore it be not equally a duty to ●oviate the detestable doctrines of the one as well as ●e other? if this be a day (as the reporter, p. 4. assures 〈◊〉 it is) wherein socinianism is rampant; it's a day too, ●herein antinominism is no less triumphant. and therefore the united brethren, like wise men, have provied against both, whereas some, like foolish mariners, content themselves to stop one leak in the ship, though will as certainly be sunk by the other: if therefore sword was so wise as to set a hedge, a bar, a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, about 〈◊〉 doctrine of christ's satisfaction; why should not prudence advise to set a hedge about the others, and first would have a hedge, a thorn hedge set about the doctrine of god's holiness; that he be not made the author of sin, as some men's principles inevitably do: ●nd i would have a bar, a barriere (stronger than that flanders against the french) set about the divine ju●ice, that men may not dare to represent him as a ty●nt, in making so many millions to damn them eter●lly, to damn them without respect had to their demerits: especially i would have a strong 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pla●d about the doctrine of justification; and that faith made indispensably necessary to it, in all the adult: and i am the more urgent in this matter; for if faith be not necessary to justification, perhaps it may not b● so to salvation: because if god can delight and tak● complacency in an unbelieving sinner, an impeniten wretch that hates him, his son and spirit, and all hi● ways, and laws, for one minute, there's nothing i● the nature of the thing that hinders, but he may tak● complacency in him to eternity. but if this gentleman will hedge about this doctrine as i take him to be a good hedger; if i were worthy to advise him, he should never set a hedge of human invention, about a doctrine of divine revelation. le● the garden and the hedge be both of a piece, and le● him never think that the doctrine of the gospel will eve● be secured by his own ●ond contrivances. § 7. whereas this reporter with his brother manuscript have pretended such a marvellous kindness, if no● foundness, and to be so desperately enamoured of th● first paper, they are grieved and afflicted, and i know not what, that it was rejected; and yet that paper expresses a bearing with one another's infirmities, and different sentiments about logical or philosophical terms, or merely. humane forms of speech: why they should make such a hideous outcry and hubbub about christ's taking o● him the person, dying in the person of sinners; when these are mere humane forms of speech, at best; as humane denotes infirm, though not as it signifies rational. i would be satisfied further, why that first paper did not think it reasonable or just to charge upon any brother such consequences of any expression or opinion of his, which he himself shall disown; and yet mr. williams shall no● have the benefit of the clergy to explain his own words, and such consequences must be forced on him and them, as the words do not admit, and the author does abhor. § 8. seeing the great struggle has been not about the satisfaction of christ, as the report misrepresents it, but about some odd phrases and expressions, in which 'tis clothed, especially these of christ's suffering in the person of sinners, etc. whether if this be a sound and safe way of expressing that great doctrine, it will not endure to show its naked face, in some other of the learned languages? and if you please, make an experiment how well it will look in latin; christus passus ●est in personâ peccatorum, seu peccantium: how do you like it? what do you think of it? again we are told, p. 7. of christ's sustaining the person of sinners: now, good sir, what is sustinere personam alterius? what then can these expressions signify, but that christ wore the mask, the vizor, the disguise of sinners? that he was personatus histrio? like a stage player, that puts on the person of a king, when indeed he is but some sorry fellow; now what a wretched blasphemous representation of all the love and goodness of our glorious redeemer is this? which yet shone forth in his cross though much eclipsed by his dreadful sufferings. you may possibly have read salmasius his defensio regia; which he enters upon, with the news, de parricidio apud anglos in personâ regis, etc. to which, i. milton, who wrote and understood latin, as well as the great critic, makes this return: quid quaeso, est parricidium in personâ regis admitter? quid in personâ regis? quae unquam latinitas sic locuta est? nisi nobis aliquem forte pseudo-philippum, narras, qui personam regis indutus, nescio quid parricidii apud anglos patraverit. whatever excuse they can make for the english phrase, i know not; but this i know, it's pretty hard to damn all the world for an anglicism. § 9 tell me freely, what do you think of that strange spirit that runs through the whole of the report, and manuscript? they would both make us believe how grieved, how afflicted they are that this third paper was sent, and the former rejected, by the body of the united brethren, p. 5. this is one thing that grieves the offended brethren: and another passage increaseth their sorrow, etc. and p. 7. we cannot but be grieved to observe, etc. and p. 11. they have added to the grief of the offended brethren: now do not you in the country fancy from these expressions, that they have been melted and drowned in floods of grief and sorrow? and why then did they not grieve to make the breach in the union, to break it again, when it seemed to be closed up; in all which they were certainly the aggressors: and why did not they advance one single step towards the reunion, upon the signing of the first paper? they had time enough between that and the sending of the other: which may remember you of what you read in some naturalists, that the crocodile weeps over his prey and then devours it. of the same temper you will interpret the reporter's strange transport of passion, with which he concludes: to the all wise god, be rendered honour, and glory, that the indefatigable pains of the pacificators have issued out in so happy an agreement of the most godly, learned, and judicious ministers in and about this city, etc. to which he should have added;— et quorum pars ego magna fui. yea, no doubt, an indefatigable pacificator, who was first employed to louse mr. william's his book, that he might pick quarrels with it; and as little question of his godliness, learning and judiciousness; but these tears, these praises are all mo●kery. and these doxologies are like the modern te deums, which take pay on both sides, and are calculated for any elevation; and will serve indifferently paris and vienna. i have much more to observe to you, and paper would sooner fail me than matter; but i will spare you, and indeed myself; if you blame me for writing, thank yourself, from whom i received the first news and sight that there was such a creature as the report, to yourself therefore justly belongs the answer. now i am aware they will say, that you are no real person, but like letters which they use in lawcases, for which any in the alphabet will serve the turn, but because i know you well, as you me, i recommend you to the protection of the almighty, and with you, i. and b. etc. yours in all faithfulness. a postscript. reader! thou mayest possibly wonder that the report and manuscript should bear so hard upon the third paper, and yet so graciously smile upon the first: and what sufficient causes there can be conceived, to justify their height of passion against the one, and yet the most endeared affection towards the other. but the secret will manifest itself, when thou shalt consider, that all this is nothing but a trial of skill between the apocryphal story of tobias, and the canonical history of daniel. now that i may deliver thee from this uneasy posture of soul, i will set before thee the mystery in a clear light, that so thou mayest be capable of using thy eyes; and therefore know: i. that the true reason of their severe displeasure conceived against the third paper is, that it has so clearly and fully born its testimony against the antinomians in the fundamental article of justification: and thus it speaks: we further declare, as to to the special matters in difference concerning justification: that although the express word of god doth assert, the necessity of regeneration to our entering into the kingdom of god: and requires repentance that our sins may be blotted out; and faith in christ, that we may be justified; and holiness of heart and life, without which we cannot see god: yet that none of these, or any work done by man, or wrought by the spirit of god in them, is under any denomination whatsoever, any part of that righteousness, for the sake, or on the account of which, god doth pardon, justify or accept sinners; or entitle them to eternal life: that being only the righteousness of christ without them, imputed to them, and received by faith alone. from hence it is most evident, that the brethren have secured the doctrine of justification against the socinian, papal, and arminian errors; and themselves too, from all, even the least suspicion of any inclination that way, with all impartial, reasonable and indifferent persons, by the latter clause: yet the former, by which they were willing to give a fair opportunity to the opposite party, to vindicate themselves from all jealousy of leaning towards antinomianism, is the unpardonable sin against dr. crisp; which shall never be forgiven by the reporter, and his brother manuscript; if they may carry the keys of admission and exclusion, absolution and condemnation at their girdles. ii. as i have now given the secret reason of their immortal pike against the third paper, so will i gratify the reader with the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or secret reason of their over-passionate fondness to the former, and that must be wholly ascribed to its severity upon mr. williams. and let it be observed that a few hard words and censures upon him, shall at any time, even in their most morose hours, purchase their good will and friendship: and this paper having honoured them herein to the utmost, could not fail of insinuating itself into their favours. mark therefore the conditions of his peace, and the terms of being restored to some small degree of acceptance: if therefore, mr. williams shall concur with us in what we have declared, touching the doctrine of justification; and in the sense we have given of a change of persons between christ and believers; and of christ's undertaking the displeasure of his father for our sins; and shall give satisfaction about any thing else, that any brother excepts against in the rest of his writings, agreeably to the abovesaid articles and confessions, we shall so far acquiesee therein, as not to make them the matter of further public contest or altercation amongst ourselves. was ever a poor creature thus tied to a stake to be baited by the english molossi, and every whaffing whelp that could bark, though not bite? must a man stand in the pillory all his days, there to be palted with rotten eggs, till they can find no more to throw at him? how much more merciful were the terms put upon the men of jabesh-gilead by nahash, 1 sam. 11. 2. he would only thrust out their right eyes; but these would cut off his right hand too: and now because the brethren in their third paper, expressed more humanity, durst not be so unreasonably cruel, but proposed more moderate terms, the former paper must be cried up above the skies, and the latter thrown down to hell. reader, thou shalt pardon me if i exercise thy patience in making some remarks upon the conditions of mr. william's his absolution; the rather, because they are wiser than to allow any for their own: and first i will observe the conditions required, and then the grace promised upon fulfilling the conditions. § 1. and for the conditions required. the three former conditions, i will not mention to save time and paper, but the last condition, which is a complex of many, i will a little, though gently examine: if he shall give satisfaction about any thing else, that any brother excepts against, in the rest of his writings. now here we have what he must give, and then to whom he must give, it, and then, how far he must give satisfaction. (1.) what is it they expect mr. williams should give? satisfaction. but what will satisfy? he has given already ●ust and reasonable satisfaction; he has subscribed the assemblies confession of faith; he has subscribed the article of justification drawn up by themselves, 1692. he has subscribed the article of justification in the third paper, which satisfies all but socinians, arminians, papists and antinomians: and must he satisfy them that are resolved nothing shall satisfy? these terms savour too much of empire over souls, and dominion over the consciences and faith of men: let them tell him explicitly and plainly what will content them, and not vex men with indefinite, unlimited satisfaction. (2.) but to whom must he give this satisfaction? why truly to any brother? i wish they had confined their number to— about twenty thousand; that had given some possibility, at least some little hope that he might at last have given satisfaction. but to any brother is really hard: for in what sense must he interpret brother? in a general sense, it may reach all mankind; in a much narrower it may include all protestants, reform at least: but suppose it extends to none but independents, where there are no clergy-brethrens, nor lay-brothers, it would find him picking work for one ten years at least: but what if these any brothers, should prove weak and injudicious? what if cavilling and captious? what if proud and imperious, their character as well as number, would render it next to impossible to satisfy them: and what if one will be satisfied and another dissatisfied? this will suspend the performance of the promise for his life; and i know no way for him to satisfy all, but by leaving the world; to which i will never advise him, lest some other should be set up in his place and stead, with whom to quarrel, and of whom to demand satisfaction; and i am not sure but i may be the man. (3.) how far must this satisfaction extend? to any thing else, excepted against in the rest of his writings? i am glad however this allows no exceptions against his thoughts; though the manuscript has adventured upon that too: here's a wide field for exceptions; for mr. williams has written a pretty many things, and it were hard, if ten thousand men, having ten thousand sentences to except against, could not make earnings of it for three lives, and the longest liver of them, and so they have entailed the fibble frabble to succeeding generations. you have heard the hard terms required, will you § 2. now hear the favours promised upon his fulfilling the conditions: we shall so far acquiesce therein as not to make them the matter of farther public contest or altercation amongst ourselves. o quantum oh quantillum! what a world of work must he do for such sorry wages! what severe penance for this hungry absolution! will they acquiesce? o no! but so far only! how far? pray, that he may know the worst on't! they will make no further contest: well, but if they make no further, they may keep the old or the present contests a foot still; but will they promise to make no further contest; not to raise new objections, pick new quarrels; but be content with the old ones? i mistake; they will make no further public contests; but private whisper and evil surmises, and insinuated slanders, and clandestine reproaches may be multiplied, whilst mr. williams lives, and 'tis to be feared, will feed upon his carcase, and survive his dust and ashes. to shut up this ungrateful subject; those very brethren, who from amongst the presbyterians had some, concern in this first paper, after having heard the debates and reasonings of the united brethren, being satisfied that they had gone beyond the bounds of moderation, did ingenuously (to say no more) join with their brethren of a more benign temper, in the third paper, which is that crime, amongst some others, which these bigotts will never forgive. iii. give me leave, reader, to bestow one thought more, upon the manuscriptors' tragical harangue, upon mr. williams' pretended contradiction: a change and no change! what, a negative of the same import with an affirmative! yea and nay, words of the same signification! crimen inauditum caiazzo caesar! but did he never hear or read of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; a gift and no gift? i make no question but he had heard of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; a marriage and no marriage: and though there might be some solaecism in't theotogically, yet it was no grammatical or logical contradiction: and if the one of these does not offend his tender ears, nor the other grate upon his tender conscience, he might have spared his pompous rhetoric upon a change and no change! nor indeed in this case; does a change signify no change: nor is a negative of the same import with an affirmative: nor yet are yea and nay, words of the same signification (as he childishly fancies) but that there may be a change (in a certain sense) which is well consistent with no change in another sense, without the mortal hazard of a contradiction; even as he that may be said to be married and yet not married, may be said also with equal truth, to have changed, and yet not changed his condition: of which some may have heard on both sides of their ears. iv. reader, thou hast heard much noise about that book, gospel truth stated and vindicated, etc. and of the subscription to it by some ministers; i could wish thou wouldst be so true to thyself, and just to the subscribers, as to view with thine own eyes how far the subscription extended; for this is the pretended and assigned reason of their fire and faggot, with which they have presented it and them: it was no more than this: they judged that he had in all that was material, fully and rightly stated the truths and errors therein mentioned. now if the things be not rightly and fully stated, in all that is material, why have not these gentlemen, with all their acuteness and exactness, stated them better? the same quarrel they had formerly raised against the book and the subscriptions, or rather against the author and subscribers, which most men thought had been composed, and full satisfaction given, and in which the opposite party did acquiesce; as appears from the printed transactions of dec. 16. 1692. but it seems they reserved some seeds of further and future quarrels in their own breasts, and had smothered some secret sparks of contention under the ashes of their compliance, which now after some years they have blown up into a greater flame: but if they were then satisfied, why are they now dissatisfied? and whence is it, that in the first paper, they have changed the former declaration into this other: that the generality had given their names only to a short abstract of truths, and errors which they had seen (and since is much enlarged) and not to the book itself, which they had not seem. reader! mr. williams, and the generality of the subscribers do hereby demand justice of the authors of this assertion; and they doubt not thou wilt do 'em right, upon this evidence: 1. the author doth protest there was never yet any abstract, short or long, of the truths and errors, since they were first stated. 2. that the state of the truths and errors was seen by all that subscribed, and printed before any one subscribed. 3. whereas there were sixteen who suscribed the first impression, and three and thirty who gave their names to the second; there were three or four of the first sixteen who had read, not only the state of the truths and errors, but the book itself: and therefore ●he author and subscribers do humbly and modestly ask, ●y what construction, by what interpretation it can be ●id, that the generality gave their names, etc. unless twelve ministers could be the generality of nine and forty? which we must leave to be adjudged by those of ●hese gentlemen who are so versed and skilled in merchant's accounts. i will conclude with this; if these contenders will go on to exact so much, and yield so little for the sake of union; they sell their own innocency and the church's peace for nothing. errata. pag. 3. l. 27. for stuff, read huff. p. 6. l. 23. for delighted read defiled. p. 24. l. ult. for wholly, read for the most part. p. 27. l. 11. for any one read most. p. 47. l. ult. read hypercriticks. p. 48. l. 26. for their, read shear. finis. books printed for john laurence at the angel in the poultry. the life of the reverend mr. richard baxter. published by mr. matthew sylvester. folio. mr. pools english annotations; with the additions of content to each chapter: and a concordance written by mr. sam. clark the third edition: in two volumes. folio. mr. giles firmin's review of mr. richard davis his vindication giving no satisfaction. 4to. mr. lorimer's apology for the ministers, who subscribed only unto the stating of the truths and errors in mr. william's book showing that the gospel which they preach, is the old, everlasting gospel of christ: and vindicating them from the calumnies, wherewith they (especially the younger sort of them) have been unjustly aspersed by mr. trail's letter to a minister in the country. 4to. mr. lorimer's remarks on mr. goodwnin's discourse of the gospel: proving that the gospel covenant is a law of grace; answering his objections to the contrary, and rescuing the texts of holy scripture and many passages of ecclesiastical writers both ancient and modern, from the false glosses be forces upon them 4to. sir robert heward's free discourse, wherein the doctrines that make for tyranny are displayed; the title of our rightful and lawful king william vindicated; and the unreasonableness and miscievous tendency of the odious distinction of a king de facto and de jure, discovered. 8vo. remarks on a late discourse of william lord bishop of derry, concerning the inventions of men in the worship of god. also a defence of the said remarks against his lordship's admonition. by i. borse. 8vo. mr. samuel slater's earnest call to family religion; beiing the substance of 18 sermons. 8vo. mr. george hammond's, and mr. matthew barker's discourses of family worship. written at the request of the united ministers of london. 12ves. an account of the life and death of mr. philip henry, minister of the gospel near whitchurch in shropshire. who died june 24. 1696. in the sixty fifth year of his age. 12ves. a testimony for the truth, and against deceit and deceivers, with a reproof unto those who are not faithful to the truth which they are convinced of. by stephen smith. isaiah 26.11. lord, when thy hand is lifted up, they will not see: but they shall see, and be ashamed for their envy at the people. verse 12. lord, thou wilt ordain peace for us; for thou hast wrought all our works in us. printed in the year, 1668. a testimony for the truth, and against deceit and deceivers, with a reproof unto those who are not faithful to the truth which they are convinced of. for as much as it hath pleased the lord in his great love and tender mercy to visit many who have been long covered with darkness, and drawn by the subtlety of the serpent, working in a mystery within, and without in his instruments, from enjoying that love and great riches which is declared of in the scriptures of truth, which should be revealed in the latter days, in his everlasting and unchangeable covenant; which promise of the lord many who had true breathing after him, and could not be satisfied with feeding with swine upon husks, but truly breathed after living refreshment, and after that bread which nourisheth that birth which is eternal, and have delighted in the righteous judgements of the lord, over the enemy and oppressor of man's soul, through which judgements the love of god hath greatly been manifest, having thereby brought to the knowledge of his everlasting and unchangeable truth, to the exceeding great refreshment and satisfaction of the souls of many thousands, who have earnestly desired the same before the world and all its glory; and having received the same in the love of it, and known freedom by it, in the enjoyment of the same do meet together, as the manner and practice was of those who lived in the fear and dread of the lord in the primitive times; so now in the pure fear and obedience to the just and equal requirings of their creator (whose ways are equal, right and just) meets together to wait on him, to the end they may be refreshed and fed with the same bread of life, that so the plant which the lord hath planted may grow, that so they may be changed from glory to glory, till at length they may come to bear the image of the heavenly, whereas formerly they have born the image of the earthly; and those who so meet in the spirit of truth, can truly say they never waited on the lord in vain, but do witness true refreshment from the god of love, whether a word be spoken in their meetings or no; so that they can truly sing in their spirits of mercy and of judgements, forasmuch as the lord hath mixed mercy with judgements, and hath not executed judgement without mercy, in which hath greatly appeared his wonderful love to lost mankind, of which great and unspeakable love, there are this day (to the glory and praise of his great name, even from his own works) thousands of living witnesses, and hundreds have laid down their lives in nasty holes, and stinking prisons, and many have been banished, and many have suffered cruel mockings, & many thousands the spoiling of their goods, whose righteous testimony through the eternal spirit of love and truth they have gladly born in this day of god's power, to the exceeding comfort and refreshment of all that are faithful followers of the lamb, but is, and shall be to the astonishment of all who persist in their disobedience against the spirit of truth, and continue in their rebellion against it, and this righteous testimony, through all who are true worshippers in the spirit and truth, who are led and guided in all their ways by the spirit of truth, being sons and daughters of the living god, so greatly beloved by him; so that those that touch them in a wrongful manner do touch the apple of his eye, who created all things for his glory; and though his mercy is great in not executing judgement speedily, but gives space and time of repentance, yet if they mind it not, but let the day of god's love pass over their heads, that terrible voice they shall hear; my spirit shall strive no more, let flesh know that it's but grass, & when the spirit of the lord bloweth upon it, it shall fade as a flower, and that in a moment, when his anger is kindled, which may be when the worker of iniquity is in the height of his vain glory, and greatest boasting: so as that righteous testimony (through all who are in the true innocent seed, unto which all the blessings and the promises of the lord are) doth stand as a true witness of the lords great love in this day wherein he is making known his great power against all workers of iniquity, and unrighteous actions, and deceitful workers, who can feign and flatter with all sorts of debauched persons, and all dissembling hypocrites, persons of unstable minds, joining with the cunning, twisting, twining serpent, in all its appearances, in their earthly, sensual, and devilish wisdom, being in the adulterous whorish spirit, degenerated from the spirit of truth, holding a profession of the faith of our lord jesus christ with respect of persons, receiving honour, and giving honour, according to the customs and vain traditions of the world, by which means they have no knowledge of that honour which is from above: yet notwithstanding these great abominations which they commit in the sight of the lord, and all them which lives in their faithful testimony against them, yet they lean upon the lord, and thinks there shall come no evil upon them; but except such do speedily repent, and turn from their abominations, and bow to the righteous testimony of god in them, which shows them the deceitfulness of their hairs, to the end they may above, and before all, desire a clean heart, and a right spirit, that so they may be single hearted toward their creator, and all men; which except that be known, the lord will send a day upon them, wherein shall be weeping, and howling, and bitter lamentation; and their torment shall be so great, that in the morning they shall wish it were night, and at night they shall wish for morning, and many shall desire death rather than life: so i greatly desire that all people would mind, in coolness, how it stands between them and their creator, and deal impartially with themselves, for, of a certain, god will not be mocked, but such as they sow, such they must reap: so all mind the fear of the lord, which is to departed from evil, that so the curse of the lord may be done away, and his blessing known and received. and those that comes amongst the possessors of truth, who have heard the sound of it, and so a belief is raised in their hearts, that god is found by them that diligently seek him in the way of truth; many there be that are thus persuaded, and so frequent meetings (together with them that are in the work of truth) in a bare profession of truth, never throughly given up to the end that truth may be their guide in all their ways, but comes and sits down with some reserve in their hearts, which they covet to keep, as achan did the goodly babylonish garment, which was appointed for the fire; but for so doing the curse of the lord followed him, though his covetousness was a trouble to the children of israel for a time, yet at length god made it manifest; and so will the lord do those who comes amongst friends with a reserve in their hearts; that which is appointed for the fire, they that covet to keep, notwithstanding the many precious meetings they come to, and hear their conditions plainly laid open to them, yet still consulting with flesh and blood, which will never yield that true obedience should be given to the lord, so cannot amend, but continue in the same course of life, for not taking heed to the council of the lord, nor giving wholly up to be guided by the spirit of truth; such are not in the way of truth, but sit down as dead branches by those of the vine; but their fruit doth manifest them: for those that deals so deceitfully with their own hearts, how can it be expected they should be true to others? so such becomes an ill savour to truth, as long as they continue so, and a burden and a trouble to them that are in the way of growing in the truth; but let them know who harden their hearts against reproof, and though they do come amongst them that lives in the fear and dread of the lord, and so meet together that they may receive a continual supply of the bread of life, and enjoy the presence of the lord; yet their so coming with a reserve in their heart, they cannot profit by it: so at length, seeing they cannot bring the way of the lord to their way, they begin to grow cold in meeting, and so by degrees the enemy draws out the mind, and then gets room for his consultations, and so persuades them to wait no longer, but that all places are alike: and so at length some gets into the mass-house, with other silly people laden with sins, ever learning, and never able to come to the truth; and gins to persuade themselves, (or the enemy of their souls persuades them) that there is little difference in the declaration of the ministers of christ and antichrist; their words, say they, are all good, and so gins to build babel again, having rejected that love which did appear for their everlasting good, having chosen to please themselves in some small thing, which they could not part with, though no better than a mess of pottage, for which many have sold an eternal inheritance; so with cain they are in the curse, wandering up and down in that which is cursed of the lord, and not beloved of good men; so the lord hath dealt justly in making them manifest, they went out from us, because they were not of us, but their reward will follow them. and many others there be that comes to meetings, and hears truth declared often, and confesseth its the truth, but when they see, if they come to obey, they must take up a cross to flesh, either in denying to fear man, or else hazard of losing goods, and some their companions and acquaintance, (though it may be in iniquity) and such like baits the enemy of man's soul hath ready, for that mind which is willing to catch at them, to save that alive which is in the curse; so sometimes they come, and sometimes stay away, and then come again, and the enemy of their souls gets a wound now and then; but for want of giving up, at length the enemy gins to be whole again, and so the spirit of the lord is grieved and quenched by degrees, and the enemy grows stronger and stronger; and at length he gets these reasons in the creature, because the enemy knows many will not be satisfied without some plausible reason; so he tells many, why thou art but a poor creature, or you are but poor creatures, and what can you do without power? so here the willing mind readily catches at this bait: and then when they are asked, why they give not up, o say they, we want power, o that i had but power to do so and so, how joyful should i be; and such like stuff the enemy furnisheth them withal, who are willing to receive it, and in the mean time slights the appearance of christ, (the light, in whom power is received) by grieving and quenching his holy spirit of truth, in which is the greatest manifestation of love that god could bestow on lost mankind, in making manifest his son in their hearts, for the redeeming them up unto himself, out of their lost condition, in the nature of adam in the fall, up into the nature of the second adam, which never fell: but how is this love of god slighted by those who thus wilfully yields to the enemy of their souls, and rejecting the lord, who searcheth the heart, and tryeth the reins, and then say they want power; and its true, when people have given themselves up to the power of the enemy, whose nature is to do all the hurt he can, they may well say then they want power to do good, that being disesteemed and accounted of as a thing of nought, having cast behind them the great love of god in his son, and embraced something which the enemy hath set before them, as some glory in the world, and the like; but as he was always a liar, (the devil) so will he be found in this; for instead of giving them the glory of the world, he is fitting them for god's wrath and indignation, that so when he is cast out of those of more upright hearts, and more thankful, that he may possess those swinish natures, and so throw them headlong into a sea of destruction, with others of the like bad natures, of whom i shall say something. those are they which have heard and seen something of truth, by reading books, or speaking with some in the truth, whose words being accompanied with power, proceeding from the spirit of truth, they not having been able to resist, but standing over them, questionings and reasoning hath been raised in them concerning their buildings, whether or no they be upon the right foundation; but that being catched too, which shows them their conditions so plain, that they have no assurance of their well-being, but in doubtings, and reasonings, and fears, through which secretly torment doth arise; but their minds being from him that shows them their conditions, which, though it be the greatest love that god could bestow on lost mankind, yet in that it brings a cross to flesh, seeing plainly that if they harken to it, they must forsake all their vain customs & traditions of the world, with all its lusts & vanities; these things not agreeing with flesh & blood, with which they are consulting, the mind being drawn from the witness for god in their hearts, by their wilful yielding to the enemy of their souls, who is always ready with his baits to betray them who desires ease in the flesh, and whose minds are out in studying arguments to keep them in the same, the subtle serpent being here at work, to the end that the creature may partake of his table, for he knows that then they cannot partake of god's table, as the scriptures of truth declares; so at his table he hands out curious words, in prayers, and hanging down the head like a bulrush, and with feigning and flattering words to all sorts of deceitful workers, and doth help to turn and wind with all sorts of worship, which the beastly nature sets up, and so tells them there is flesh as well as spirit to be satisfied, and that they must live in sin, as long as they have a being here; and to others, whose natures be inclined to lust, he provides plentiful dishes for them; and others, who are disposed to drunkenness, he directs them to companions, and opportunity; and at his table are variety of dishes for the covetous man, or proud, high, heady, boaster, curser, ranter, for all sorts that will come to his table, he hath curious dishes in a plenteous manner, and in all these he promises content and satisfaction; but as he ever was, so he is, and ever will be a liar; for let those speak who hath fed most plentiful at his table, if ever they were satisfied, but that the more they fed the more hungry they were; let all all these forementioned, and gamesters speak for themselves, and thiefs, and murderers, and the like. but in some he works more in a mystery, and furnisheth his table with curious words, and so feeds them, and decks them; but always at his table he hath this dish for all sorts of professors and profane, that they must live in sin, in this life; this is, as it were, a chain, by which he holds all, that will believe so, fast to his table; and then let them be as rich as they will, in comprehending, and getting into the brain-knowledge the scriptures, and outward learning, so though the work grows so high in the mystery of iniquity, that the enemy of the soul hath exalted himself above all that is called god, and so makes a show in fine words, and in long prayers, and in curious arts; yet whilst he can keep them in his chain to his table, if they cannot have ease in professing in one sect, he will give them leave to profess in another sect; and if that will not serve he will give them leave to go into the profession of truth itself; and further, to meet together with them in the truth, any thing but hearing the voice of the son of god, and obeying, which brings to the table of god, and so overthrows his table; to any thing but this his chain will reach: now, as to what is before, those that have seen something of truth, and some trouble hath by reason thereof risen in them, but for love of a little ease to the flesh, such their minds being out, willingly goes into the devil's chain, and so feeds at his table, where they are furnished with arguments against the spirit of truth manifested to lead and to guide into all truth, and so out of sin, which is the devil's chain; but being thus furnished according to their hearts lusts, being in the adulterous spirit, takes all occasion to speak evil of the truth, and them that are in it, who are true worshippers of the lord, according to his will, in spirit and truth; so the god of the world having blinded their minds, an evil eye gets out, and this watches for the halting of them who are in truth; and when the just hand of god is gone out, in making manifest some who have been in the profession of truth, who have hardened their hearts against reproof, till at length their hypocrisy and guile is made manifest; on which, they hereby take occasion to speak evil of the way of the lord, and them that are in it, the enemy of their souls giving them thereby some ease for the present; but it lasts not long, but the fame of truth is sounded in their ears again, by the witness for god within, or else from those in whom in dwells without them then the lamb riseth, and giveth torment again, & their cover be too narrow, & will not serve them, neither shall they; woe to the rebellious children saith the lord, that take counsel, but not of me, and that cover with a covering, but not with my spirit: so all unrighteous cover which people of unstable minds are under, the woe of the lord is against, so what will become of them that are under them? o that men would in coolness consider, whose day of god's visitation in love is not past, lest by their often provocations, he visits in his great displeasure, and says my spirit is weary with striving, it shall strive no more: now for the sakes of many who have yet true breathe after living refreshment, and are willing to take up christ's yoke and burden, and to follow him that is meek and lowly in heart, that so they may find rest for their souls; for their sakes i shall give a brief relation of the ministers of christ, and of the ministers of antichrist: first, the ministers of christ must know christ, and see him, and believe on him, john 6.40. but some will say, who is there that knows not christ? doth not all that can read see what is writ of him in the scriptures of truth? and is not that the ghrist which you mean, who suffered without the gates of jerusalem, and the like? yes, we do own the same christ, and that which the scriptures do declare of him is true, and we do expect no other; but to know him no further than the report of him, (though that be true) this is but a poor knowledge, which the workers of iniquity have, of all sorts, that lives visibly in gross and manifest sins; and notwithstanding that knowledge, yet live and abound in the same; so that knowledge only (though that, as i have said, be true) is not sufficient to fit a man to be a minister of christ: but saith the diligent enquirer. what knowledge then is necessary for a minister of christ? to know him as he is the mystery hid from ages and generations, but now is made manifest to his saints: to know what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the gentiles, which is christ in you the hope of glory, collos. 1.26, 27. to know him as he is a covenant given to the people, and a light to enlighten them, manifested within them, to give the knowledge of god; and to know that he is the light of the world, and how he hath enlightened every man that comes into the world: to know him to be the word in the heart and in the mouth: to know him to be the reconciler unto god: to know him to be the anointing, which is true, and teacheth all things: to know him to be the spirit of truth, which is manifest to lead and to guide into all truth: to know christ's flesh, and what it is to each: to know christ's blood, and what it is to drink it: but some will say, all this may be read in the scriptures: but by the way, thought the words may be read in the scriptures of truth, yet the knowledge of the mystery which is declared of in those words, is not attainable by reading them: but because some are willingly ignorant, and so desires to be, rather than to have true wisdom in god's way. and so stumbles at all, i shall say a little concerning seeing the son, which is necessary for a minister of christ; first, to see him to be the great love of god manifested to convince of sin: to see him to be the wonderful power of god, and how that he died, to the end, that whether we sleep or wake we should live together with him: to see him as he was manifest to destroy the works of the devil: to see him to be the great mystery of godliness, god manifest in the flesh; and much more might be said of the knowledge and sight which a true minister of christ hath, but what hath been said is enough to satisfy the truly hungering and thirsting soul; but the full loathes the honey comb: but is this all may the upright-hearted say? nay, they that thus have obtained mercy to have the knowledge of what is above declared, must receive it in the love of it, and this love of god thus manifested in them they must give up to obey, being his everlasting and unchangeable covenant, which is the key of knowledge, manifested to rend the veil, and to break the chain of darkness, and to open the mysteries of the scriptures of truth, and to give the knowledge of god, whom to know is eternal life; so iniquity being taken away, and sin being purged through the knowledge of christ, who is the power of god, and god known to walk, and to dwell in them through the son of his love, who is god's righteousness, as god hath said, i will dwell in you, and walk in you: the eye of the understanding being thus opened, and the revelation of christ being daily witnessed to fit and to furnish them with wisdom from above, to speak a word in season unto all conditions; being thus filled with the love of god, and his glorious appearance, a constraint lying upon them, through the power of god that dwells in them, and from the great love of god in the same, such cannot be silent, nor eat their morsel; alone but the love of god doth constrain them who have wives, and children, and estates, and several others that have no wives and children, to leave their callings, and several employments, and go abroad as sheep among wolves, to declare this great and unspeakable love, to the end, that people may be turned from darkness to light, and from satan's power, to the power of god, that others may partake of the same love of god in his son christ jesus with them: but for this their love, how barbarously and cruelly they have been used, many having finished their testimony in nasly holes, and prisons, and other great cruelties, which would be too long to relate; so these thus furnished with the love and power of god, and being obedient to the same, being learned men in the book of life; these are not to take with them scrip nor purse, so as to be careful of earthly things, (but as they have received freely, do minister freely) but into what house they come, where this great love is answered in the same love of god in measure, what things such set before them, for necessity they eat and drink, and the like, seeing it comes from their father's love: but when they come into a place and cannot see, in the counsel of the lord, that that love is answered in which they come, there they cannot receive, though in never so much necessity. true, say some, these are fit qualifications for a minister of jesus christ; but be there any such now adays? how dost thou know them? yes, i do testify, as thousands beside myself are ready to give the same testimony, that such ministers, qualified, as before mentioned, there be many in this day of god's power: but how do you know, may some say? i answer, by turning us to the great and unspeakable love of god manifested in our hearts, which shows us our conditions, how it stood between us and our creator, as it had done long before, but we knew not that this was the appearance of the son of his love, till those who had tasted, handled, seen and felt the powerful working thereof told us; but told us also, the first step must be through judgement; so a belief thereof being raised, and a clean and a perfect obedience yielded to it, we in time found its power in us, opening the eye of our understandings, and revealed the mâ��n of sin; and so came the knowledge of the spirit of truth to be revealed in us, and by it we had a sight of the unfruitful works of darkness without in his instruments, and the sight of the spirit of truth, and those that were ministers of it: but notwithstanding this testimony, if some should be hard to believe, let such deal so ingeniously with their own souls, as to go and hear, and try, with a single heart, and hold fast that which is good; and this is desired, to the end that others may be partakers of the same love of god, and of their assurance of their being reconciled unto him through his son, to whom be glory for ever. now there being a necessity that the ministers of christ should be qualified, as is before mentioned, the ministers of antichrist may be easily known; but for the sakes of such aforementioned, i shall lay down some marks of them: first, they are such who never knew the son of god in the everlasting and unchangeable covenant manifested in them, so not learned men in the book of life, but are alienated from the life of god, through the ignorance that is in them, not knowing him manifested in them, who is infallible, but in their fallible wisdom, by the art of tongues, gets the prophets, christ, and the apostles words, and something out of heathen authors, and so in their vain imaginations patches up an hours discourse; and so for the love they have for their god, which is their belly, they sell their art at as dear a price as they can, for several hundreds by the year, some for more, and some for less, but all as dear as possible; as i heard a priest say once, if it were not for tithes who as would should preach for him: but this being so well known to all, that its alone for their god, which is their belly, that their mouths is opened, there is little need to speak of that, these being sayers, but not doers, so not accepted of god; these are they which run and are not sent, which speaks a divination of their own brain, so not like to profit the people, you may read of them at large ezekiel the thirteenth, read the chapter; from such priests and prophets as these is profaneness gone forth in all the land, read jeremiah the twenty third; so they are sufficiently marked out in the scriptures of truth. but some say, we know all the priests now adays are bad enough, and the smoothest of them preaches for filthy lucre sake, but they speak good words; so we may do as they say, and not as they do: o foolish people, is it not because you love such easy prophets, who speaks peace to you in your sins, that you thus speak? have you not heard what the scriptures of truth says? do men gather grapes of therns, or figs of thistles? by their fruits you may know them: should we not count him a very fool that should go look for figs on thistles, or sweet water out of a bitter fountain? what if they should say the lord lives, that is a true saying to them which knows it in themselves; but it's a lie to them who say it, and knows the contrary in them; but these priests which peach for hire, cry peace to men whilst they put into their mouths, to the end their god may be supplied, which causes and constrains their mouths to be open; but in case you deny to put into their mouths, then, demetrius like, prepares war; crying out, we have a law, and if you want pay, we will make you pay: but by the way, what compulsive law of man doth christ's ministers use, or were they to use? prove any such thing in the scriptures of truth, that they were to compel any man to give to them: now, if god hath appointed no such maintenance by his righteous covenant and law; is it not stealth in his sight, to compel and take that by man's law, which god hath not appointed in his law? look about you priests, for the righteous judge will sit in judgement, and to the lambs bar to give an account you must come, and then the twisting serpent will stand you in no stead, but all things will be laid bare before you, what esteem you have had of your god, which is your belly, for the serving of which, how have you yielded unto the lying spirit, and so like ahabs' prophets persuaded & instigated many to go on in persecution, though to their destruction. have you not told the magistrates that the quakers are ringleaders of faction, though you never come to their meetings, nor never examined the cause why they dissented from you; nor never heard that they went about to disturb or molest any, of their outward enjoyments, but barely because they bore a faithful testimony against the twisting twining serpent, the great enemy of man's soul; which spirit of error your god cannot be served without: so a great stir and ado you make, in being instruments of casting into prison, haling and tearing away the goods, and the like, from those who lives in the fear and dread of the lord god almighty, and in peace with men, though in enmity with the serpent, the enemy of man's soul: so the innocent blood which hath been shed in nasty holes, and stinking prisons, cries aloud unto the righteous judge of heaven and earth, who is lord of all, who created all at his pleasure, and can destroy all in the same; those that be innocent, out of the revengeful spirit, have committed themselves, and so cannot use any compulsive way, with weapons that are carnal, but in plain demonstration and power of the spirit of truth, and their innocent cause to the judge of all they have committed, to be cleared in his will and time, who will assuredly do it. but further to clear that you are the ministers of antichrist, if, notwithstanding what is declared, any yet be in doubt: harken what christ saith to the wicked, i was an hungered, and ye gave me no meat: i was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink: i was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and visited me not. then shall they also answer him, saying, lord, when saw we thee an hungered, or thirsty, or a stranger, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee? then shall he answer them, saying, verily i say unto you, inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me; and these shall go away into everlasting punishment, matth. 25. in the same chapter he shows the righteous man's love, and his reward; and how did they express their love to christ? did they do it in speaking great words of his name? no, as you may read, they visited his brethren in their necessities: so mark by the way, there were righteous men, and now are, though the ministers of antichrist for their god's sake, would have all err and stray again from the lords way; but the pearl for which they have sold all and bought, is of more value than so; but since christ hath brethren, are not they them which are led by the spirit of truth? and if people be given up to obey it, will it not lead them out of the spirit of error? if so, then must they not departed from your ways, who are in the revengeful spirit? well then, since those that are led by the spirit are sons of god, as the scriptures of truth declare, rom. 8. and heirs with christ; for he that sanctifieth, and them that are sanctified are all of one, wherefore he is not ashamed to call them brethrens: now since there is such a unity between christ and his followers, shall it avail them any thing, who call upon christ, yet persecute so near relations, as his brethren? and since those that visited them not in their necessities, received such condemnation, what will become of you? and you, generation of wicked doers, who have been the cause of the imprisoning so many of christ's relations, where several hundreds have laid down their lives for their faithful testimony against you, because of your adultery from the lord, and his worship, which is to be performed in spirit and truth, and have set up worships according to your own hearts lust: and because of the lords patience, and long-suffering, and great mercy, how do you harden your hearts against reproofs, and for good return evil, and so go on scoffing and mocking: well, though the lord hath exercised a great deal of patience, it's my belief, it will not last long; but he will execute righteous judgement, and plead the cause of the innocent, who hath committed all to him, with praises and glory from his own works for ever. the 21th day of the 11th month, 1667. stephen smith. the end. christ alone exalted in dr. crisp's sermons, partly confirmed in answering mr. daniel williams' preface to his gospel truth stated, by alleging testimonies from scripture and the doctrine of the church of england, in the book of homilies established by law, and other orthodox authorities: showing, how he hath wronged as well the truth, as the said doctor in the great point of justification by the neonomian doctrine. hom. of salvation, fol. 17. justification is not the office of man, but of god; we be justified freely by faith without works, not that this our faith in christ, which is within us, doth justify us, that were to count ourselves justified by some act within ourselves. of fasting, fol. 82. good works go not before in him, which shall afterward be justified; but good works do follow after, when a man is first justified, and are testimonies of our justification (this spoils neonomianism) on the sacrament, fol. 200. it followeth (for communicants) to have a sure and constant faith, that he (christ) hath made upon his cross, a full and sufficient sacrifice for thee, a perfect cleansing of thy sins, (where is the sin of a believer now?) passion, serm. 177. for in this (death of christ) standeth the continual pardon of our daily offences; in this resteth our justification. (if so then, faith doth not procure it, but only receive and evidence it; and so away flies neomanism with arminianism.) humbly offered by s. c. an unworthy son of the said doctor, author of a book entitled, christ made sin, reflected on by mr. williams. london, printed for william marshal at the bible in newgate street: and henry barnard at the bible in the poultry, 1693. where is to be sold at the same place, the same author's book entitled, christ made sin. errors, besides false pointings, to be amended. folio 2 line 47. for assume, read affirm. 12 36. for or, read our. 24 40. for of sin, read if sin. 41. for participation, read propitiation. 26 5. for thus, read this. 28 24. for as, read of; at the last as. 32 22. for other, read object. 34 7. for faces, read fails. 38 47. for pampering, read tampering. 40 38. read, but saith. 42 33. f. god's righteousness, r. our sanctification. 43 20. blot out that. 44 last line, put in is after holiness. 47 34. for mercies read mines. 47 45. read 1642. 48 20. read, than god believes. to the eminent assertors of the free grace of god in christ, whereby christ alone is exalted in the salvation of sinners, viz. to the reverends, mr. cole, mr. griffith, mr. mather, mr. beverly, mr. barker, mr. mead, mr. chauncey, mr. trail, mr. woodcock, mr. laurence of stepney, mr. brag. mr. bearman, mr. terry, mr. crusoe, mr. james of wapping, mr. white, mr. moor, mr. wavel, mr. tailor of pinners-hall, mr. cross, mr. grace, mr. nisbet, mr. fincher, mr. job, mr. glascock, mr. mence, mr. ford, mr. owen, mr. jennings, mr. roe, mr. wressel, mr. clark, mr. goodwin, mr. gammon, mr. powel. also to several of the surprised subscribers to mr. william's late book, as dr. bates, mr. how, mr. alsop, mr. bures, and others. also to those of the episcopal clergy, who preach the doctrine of justification, as it is established by christ in the gospel, and by our statute law in the homilies; as mr. meriton of old fish-street, and others. rejoice thou heaven (the church of christ) and ye holy apostles and prophets (rev. 18.) (the evangelical preachers) that blessed be god, there are many seven thousands that have not bowed to the bayal of man's holiness, joining with christ to justification: but mr. william's having (in the judgement of many) in his gospel truth stated, warped that way; witness his interpreting the righteousness of christ, in phil. 3.9. to be a believers gospel holiness. i hereby appeal to your consciences, if such a star of the first magnitude in the firmament of the scriptures, aught with the silence of the bystanders to be so obfuscated. though in many respects, i look on myself one of the unworthiest of those that name the name of our blessed lord jesus in sincerity, yet i cannot but bear my testimony against the preface of the said book as unsound, according to my sense of the truth, after above 50 years investigating it, and tasting a sweet relish in divine things; and i humbly apprehend, i have in the ensuing collection, made it so appear; which i leave to the spirit of the prophets in the prophets, to judge and hope you will all agree, to declare, he hath much wronged the said text. as for his stigmatising my dear father, as a dethroner of christ, because he exalted him alone without works, in the business of our salvation, i beseech the lord, mr. williams may see his mistake, and that god would forgive him, as i, (and i hope all mine) freely do. this i pass by; but when the mother of us all, the truth as it is in jesus, is wounded by him, when not of works, lest any man should boast, eph. 2.9. is turned by him into, god promiseth li●e to imperfect man by forgiveness, yet insists on some degree of obedience. and hence, the use of faith, holiness, etc. to these benefits is not from their conformity to the precept, but their conformity to the rule of the promise. then on such an invasion, all from 16 to ●0. should be alarmed; then all hearts and heads that love the lord jesus, should be engaged i● vindicating his royalties; that he is alpha and omega, wisdom, righteousness, sanctification and redemption, all and in all in our salvation. that no flesh should glory. in particular, i find myself (though the meanest) obliged to bear witness against this piece, being censured by many for my silence, in regard my preface to my fathers reprinted sermons, (they say) occasioned this pother: what i did therein, was in the simplicity of my heart, to exalt the lord jesus, and refresh souls thereby, which i still desire by taking off mr. william's evidence against the said sermons, by showing his disagreeing from scripture, and orthodox authority, as well as from my father. i hope you will all candidly accept this service, and upon this occasion, give me leave to beg, that as the lord jesus hath sent you to preach the everlasting gospel, glad tidings to sinners through christ, in which many of you have been renowned, so that ye abound more and more, that you will determine to know nothing among your people, but christ and him crucified, that he may be magnified in your bodies by life and by death, that you may show in every sermon, that to you to live is christ, and not to labour with a scheme of some degree of obedience in the business of our salvation; and this supposes the death of christ, as if his death were only a sub-intelligitur, business in his rectorship. o that we could be more warm for our lord jesus, who poured out his soul and warm blood for us! and, if when warm, you please to remember me, a poor worm, at the throne of grace, as i do ye, i doubt not but i should be highly recompensed for this labour of love, and should find refreshment under many rufflings from the lord, on my person and family. thus beseeching the lord to pour out abundance of his spirit on you all, and the unhappily engaged mr. williams, (whom i truly love and respect,) that the people may be prepared for the lords glorious appearance now hastening, to him i recommend you, and subscribe, your servant, and an unworthy son of dr. crisp, s. c. clapham, january 21st. 1692/3. christ alone exalted in dr crisp's sermons, partly confirmed in answer to mr. william's preface to his gospel truth stated and vindicated, by comparing some of his unfair accusations of the said doctor, with the scripture, and the doctrine of the gospel, established by law in the homilies, etc. when peter who seemed to be a pillar was come to antioch, i withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed, saith the apostle, gal. 2.9, 10. and if an apostle who seemed a pillar, might err in ceremonies, and be blamed; so may our seeming pillars some of them err in substance, conjoining our gospel holiness with christ's righteousness, and be blamed. now i perceiving what i suppose will appear a great error in the preface of mr. williams to his arraignment of gospel truths in dr. crisp's sermons, and supposing none will mind the preface, that design to answer the book, but pass it over as a cursory discourse: i think it not ungrateful to studious christians to animadvert on the brief systems of religion, which mr. williams hath there given the world, in opposition not so much to dr. crisp as to the plain express scripture, and the sound sense thereof, held out by the great orthodox divines that were staunch against arminianism upon our first coming out of popery, when zeal for christ alone in salvation was warm. wherein i beseech the lord so to guide my thoughts and pen that i may mind only his glory in and through our lord jesus. the meek he will guide in judgement, which meekness i beg of the lord; though a golden calf of man's gospel holiness to be set up in the place of christ's righteousness, would provoke a moses. yet i hope to retain as well meekness as integrity till i die. it is beyond all doubt, man, since the devil deceived him (that upon eating he should be as god,) doth think with himself, he can (tho' dead) do something which is proper only to god; that is, he can quicken his own dead soul; he can convert himself, he can be a god to himself; hereupon there is a great outcry against any that assert, that our lord jesus christ is all in all in the salvation of poor sinners; and dr. crisps sermons, because fuller than ordinary of the free grace of god in jesus christ, are singled out to be battered, and with them the gospel of our salvation is run down into terms utterly foreign to the scripture, and because the doctor adheres and sticks close to the scripture terms, of our being dead, dead, dead in sins, and our sins, our very sins, christ bore in his body on the tree, as the apostles peter and paul expressly say, he is exclaimed against: and that this great champion might appear completely armed in opposing dr. crisp, he puts on the great shield of being solicited to this work by several worthy ministers, and that this may appear true, he hath emblazoned his honour in this great achievement, by the hands of several indeed worthy ministers, who are most of them in my experience eminent servants of our lord jesus; however their zeal for gospel holiness, may have been imposed upon to countenance mr. williams making christ's righteousness to be our gospel holiness: though i have a great honour for all those of them whom i know, yet i suppose they will not think themselves dishonoured to say, i think most of them were imposed upon in getting their subscribing to what they never throughly examined i am sure one of them tho' next the first, yet nulli secundus for a sweet christian spirit among them said a few weeks before dr, crisps sermons were reprinted, to an eminent mininister in a great company, if dr. crisp be an antinomian, so am i, and i am sure he said in a sermon december 12. 1669. we are first made active by christ, in order to his bringing us to god, and september 24. 7. 1672. christ hath brought the law to its end, it hath no more to require be is the abolishing end the law is quite out of doors, as to justify, plant a crabtree in the best soil, it brings forth crabs till planted in christ, so that there must be union to christ, by gods planting us in christ before any good fruit. so this gentleman, and so doctor crisp in his faith, the fruit of union, contrary to mr. williams; and yet this excellent person is by mr. william's art, taught to say with the rest. we judge our reverend brother hath in all that is material, fully and rightly stated the truths and errors mentioned as such, and do account he hath in this work, done considerable service to the church of christ; and so will i say, when by it he hath engaged able pens to vindicate the truth from sophistical glosses; that he hath done considerable service against his will. i reckon this preface is the marrow of his book, and i shall begin with as great a point as any i know of in the bible, next to the deity of the lord jesus, and yet 'tis that which is the chief fruit of his deity, which is his righteousness as god-man made ours by faith; by mr. william's his treating this, he discovers his whole soul concerning justification that great article, stantis vel cadentis ecclesi●●, of the standing and falling of that church that holds it, as luther said, in that a little leven here leveneth the whole lump. here mr. williams hath made very bold with the expression of the apostle paul, in phil. 3.9. that i may be found in him not having mine own righteousness which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of christ, the righteousness which is of god by faith; here mr. williams, instead of extolling this righteousness of christ, and the rich grace of god to impute this to us, he runs counter to the stream of the gospel, and dashes to pieces all the comfort that thousands have found in this scripture, as signifying christ's righteousness, our clothing before god, and gives his romish gloss upon it in these words: i exclude not this righteousness (christ's imputed) when i affirm that the righteousness of god phil. 3.9. principally intends the gospel holiness of a person justified by christ's righteousness, which in plain words is this, when i daniel williams say in the preceding words, his righteousness imputed is the cause for which we are justified and saved, when we do answer the gospel rule; now i explain the answering the gospel rule, and how we make this righteousness of christ the cause for which we are saved, that is, i do affirm or positively declare without any suspicion of being accounted a self justiciary, that the righteousness of god, which the apostle accounted all his righteousness but dung for, and which he saith is the righteousness through the faith of christ, and the righteousness of god by faith: this i assume; for the honour of man's righteousness to concur with christ's imputed righteousness; that this expression of the apostle intends, yea, it principally intends the gospel holiness of a person justified by christ's righteousness, that is to say, though the apostle expressly saith, 'tis not my own righteousness, yet i will make the apostle mean 'tis my own holiness, tho' the apostle calls it the righteousness through the faith of christ. i affirm 'tis the holiness of the person justified, and though i do not exclude christ's righteousness, (in words) yet i affirm 'tis gospel holiness that the apostle intends. if this be not a plain contradicting the apostle, and making the apostle contradict himself, than nothing can do so: the apostle saith, 'tis not mine own righteousness; 'tis (saith mr. williams) my gospel holiness; this is to say and unsay, it is not, and yet it is: i pray what great difference between my righteousness and my gospel holiness, the apostle would not for a world be sound in his righteousness of any sort but in christ, and yet mr. williams saith, the apostle would be found in his gospel holiness. i believe mr. w. consulted few protestant divines in that affirmation, for here he goes diametrically opposite to the current stream of them of which hereafter, and against the very direct words of the apostle, in which he laboured to bring forth his meaning; the holy spirit by the apostle uses much pains and skill to free the truth from mr. w. his interpretation of a sinners or saints being found in his own righteousness or holiness, by varying the expressions, thereby explaining the truth of our righteousness, not having any thing to do in our justification, or standing at god's bar either in our consciences, or at the great day, but mr. williams with a bold stroke of his pen, flatly opposes it, the apostle saith, that the righteousness he would be found in, is that which is through the faith of christ: how can this be mr. william's his gospel holiness? by faith, noah being warned, etc. became heir of the righteousness which is by faith; which shows us, that noah had in those deal of god with him, the very same righteousness for the object of his faith, which our gospel now proposeth to us, and which our faith lays hold upon. which the same apostle styles the righteousness of god, and the righteousness of christ, which is by faith, phil. 3.9. which righteousness for justification he more setly treateth of, in rom. 3.21. but now the righteousness of god without the law is manifested, even the righteousness of god, which is by faith of jesus christ: he witnessed of that righteousness which is by faith, as it hath christ for its object; this all sound protestants do profess. goodwin of elect. fol. 40. the faith of jesus is faith in the righteousness of christ, who is the lord our righteousness; and the apostle, lest he should not be fully understood, he explains what this (through the faith of christ) is, he saith plainly, 'tis the righteousness of god; and lest we should mistake here, and turn this righteousness of god, this righteousness through the faith of christ, which is the righteousness of god, to our gospel holiness with the arminians or with grotius, and mr williams; he explains it farther, and saith, 'tis the righteousness of god by faith, as much as to say, 'tis that righteousness which christ as god, wrought out for us, who is made of god to us righteousness, and which is made ours by faith. but though these 4 bars be laid in the way: 1. not my own righteousness. 2. but that through the faith of christ. 3. plainly (not gospel holiness) but the righteousness of god. 4. and this righteousness of god ours by faith; yet this gentleman takes a run and leaps over them all, with a confidence most bold, dashes out all the apostles sense, and saith, i affirm it principally intends gospel holiness, than which nothing can be a more shameless imposing on the plain word of god (i conceive) and a corrupting of it, which he doth by his confident affirmation; that the righteousness of god, ours by faith, is a persons own gospel holiness, he may as well affirm that being justified freely by his grace, through the redemption that is in jesus, is, being justified by our gospel holiness. the gospel of salvation by jesus, would stand on ticklish terms, and soon be lost, if a few more such bold attempts as this against the righteousness of god, ours by faith, be allowed, but the gates of hell shall never be able to overthrow this truth, that the righteousness of god there is christ's righteousness believed on to justification, and not our gospel holiness. we must not lose such a glorious star out of the firmament of the scriptures; nay, i may say 'tis the sun, for take this mr. williams, and take all the bible away; for i would as soon hope to be justified by the turkish alkoran as by my gospel holiness, nay, it must not come in for a share, or have any concurrence as to causality, for a little leven, in this case will leven the whole lump. o the cloud of witnesses that have from this text of phil. 3.9. made many comfortable conclusions that this righteousness of god, by faith, is the imputed righteousness of christ received by faith. o the famous dr. tuckny, how would he have shamed that man that should have enervated this text on which he preached many sermons, lately printed contrary to mr. william's exposition. o the rich streams of gospel grace, that flowed from solid dr. jacomb. at tunbridge in june 1686. in six sermons on this text, which i took from his lips, all contrary to this puddle of gospel holiness. hundreds of these i pass, and shall cite a few passages out of older times, as the faith of our protestant forefathers, not to be ravished from us by mr. williams, tho' he had a hundred vouchers for his serving the church. first, our composers of the homilies in king edward the sixth's time, which is the doctrine of the church of england, confirmed by many acts of parliament; they quote bazil a greek father, in fol. 16. of the homily of salvation on this very text, phil. 3.9. this is (saith bazil) a perfect rejoicing in god when a man advanceth not himself for his own righteousness, but acknowledgeth himself to lack true justice and righteousness, and to be justified by the only faith in christ; and paul doth glory in the contempt of his own righteousness, and he looketh for the righteousness of god by faith, phil. 3. here is not a word of our gospel holiness brought in, but a total contempt of his own righteousness; call it what you will, the righteousness of the law or gospel holiness, if it be his own, 'tis contemned; and somewhat plainer, is mr. perkins on the same text in fol. 659. vol. 1. who saith thus; the apostle paul in desiring to be found not in his own righteousness, but in christ's, desired nothing else but that he might be accepted of god for christ's sake, and be esteemed righteous in his righteousness; and this very obedience which is in christ, and not in us, is the very matter of the justice of the gospel, and this is made ours by faith; the gospel requires not the conditions of merit or of any work to be done on our parts, in the case of justification. toletus writing on the rom. 10.3. the not submitting to the righteousness of god, which is the same righteousness of god by faith, as is in phil. 3.9. he hath this expression upon it, and saith it is— justitiam partam morte christi quam deus credenti imputat & donat; and pareus, saith 'tis justitiam christi, and vatablus on rom. 10.4. concerning christ's being the end of the law for righteousness, saith, qui credit in deum reputetur justus à deo. perinde ac si totam legem impleverit, finis legis per se est ut ex ejus prestatione justificentur homines, hunc finem lex obtinuit in solo christo, qui legi penitus satisfecit & per christum in nobis quoque obtinet quibus data ei legi satisfactio per fidem imputatur, thus va●ablus: gomarus gives in his testimony very plainly against gospel holiness, being the righteousness of god, and saith on rom. 1. on the righteousness of god, revealed from faith to faith, in this question, quid sit justitia? non qua deus justus est sed effectiuè quod à deo data est: & estius; quâ nos revera in oculis ejus justos facit: & tirinus; quâ nos deus à peccatis absolvit: and zanchy on the righteousness of god without the law, rom. 3.21. saith, quomodo fides justificat, assert fides justitiam non effectivé quasi habitualiter justos efficient, nec materialiter quasi ipsa sit illud quo justi censemur, sed objectiuè, quatenus in christum, qui est justitia nostra dirigitur, & organicè, quatenus justitiam christi nobis imputatam (fides) apprehendit. and on this very text, phil. 3.9. but the righteousness which is of god by faith, id est, justitia quae est ex deo quae tota penitus & omnibus suis partibus merum est donum dei gratuitum, venit haec justitia è caelo unde cadit super fidem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 non dicit hic 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quasi fides prout opus est nostrum, vel sit pars hujus justitia, vel illud promereatur, sed tantum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. thus these worthies on this text agree with dr. goodwin who saith p 40. of election, which righteousness by faith to be christ's righteousness, all sound protestants profess, wherein they are as far from saying the righteousness of god, by faith, is our gospel holiness, as that it is our gospel unholiness. i suppose it might easily be shown whence mr. williams had this unsound interpretation of this glorious text, even from grotius, as he from the mother of harlots, rome, who joyns man's works with christ's for justification. but methinks every true lover of the lord jesus, and honourer of him with his righteousness made ours, should rise in arms against such an exposition of this text, and say, sir, i would rather the pen though steel, should be thrust into the ball of my right eye, than thus to pierce again the side of the lord jesus, and let his righteousness run waste, while 'tis joined so corruptly with our holiness. but what need the suffrage of these worthies be called in to oppose this exposition, they may as well be called in to say white is not black, and black not white, for 'tis positively against the express word of god, and such an interpretation is to make the word a nose of soft wax, to turn it which way one will; the spirit of god saith expressly, 'tis the righteousness of god by faith, that is, 'tis the righteousness of him who is god blessed for ever, and 'tis ours by faith. no, saith this bold pen, 'tis our gospel holiness, that is, 'tis our conformity to all the rules of the gospel. from such divinity the lord deliver us. by this preface it may be guessed how he will attack the free grace of god, set forth in the gospel, and held up to the light by dr. c. ex pede herculem, ex ungue leonem. this is the first part of the proof of his opposing dr. c. in order to bring in our righteousness to concur with christ's in our justification, by his perverting the text in calling the righteousness of god by faith our gospel holiness which is near a kin to the quakers light within, being their christ; so if our gospel holiness be the righteousness of god, then 'tis our christ, for christ is called by thomas his god, and by the apostle paul, he is made of god our righteousness, and by mr. william's this christ our righteousness, is our gospel holiness. so that by this clew or thread at the entrance into his book, we are led into the mystery of his laying so great blame on dr. c. for renouncing all our righteousness in the matter of justification before god. but to trace him from the beginning, he enters on the stage with so much heat against errors of his own forming, that he forgets himself, and the first dash in his preface is a trip of nonsense, making his beginning to sound as if it were his ending, saying, the revival of those errors, whereas he had named no errors before; but zeal and his passion puts and gins on these errors, which hath no reference, and instead of saying the errors which i have proved against dr. c. he saith, the revival of these errors: well, what will the revival of these errors (in the air) do? they must not only exclude that ministry as legal, which is most apt in its nature, and by christ's ordination, to convert souls, but also renders unity amongst christians a thing impossible: but what if they be found sound gospel truths, what you take for errors, than the ministry excluded as legal, will be found not very apt in its nature to convert souls, and not of christ's ordination so to do: whether they be errors or no, will be seen when examined; in the mean time, this expression looks like legal and ungospel, to say the ministry he pretends to hath an aptness in its own nature to convert souls; and is foreign to the apostle's account, he gives of converting souls, for the gospel itself preached by the apostles themselves, had no aptness in its nature to convert souls, nay, it was so far from that in its own nature, that it became a savour of death to the non elect; the apostle did not preach a deal of trumpery qualifications must be found in men to prepare them to true conversion, but he preached christ crucified, to the jews a stumbling block, and to the greeks foolishness, but to them which are called both jews and greeks, christ the power of god, 1 cor. 1.25. and in 2 cor. 2.16. the apostle saith, we are of god a sweet savour of christ, in them that are saved, and in them that perish, to the one, the savour of death to death. where is the aptness of the gospel in its own nature to convert souls, when you find it is the occasion of stumbling, and is a savour of death, where there doth not go forth the same almighty power with it, as raised up christ, and now though the apostles preaching was far from having any thing in its own nature, of aptness to convert souls, yet a human invented way of preaching the gospel with threats and promises, you say is apt, nay 'tis most apt in its nature to convert souls; what doth this tend to but the taking off the effectual irresistible grace of god in calling some by the same word which hardens others; i fear the conversion that is wrought by the natural aptness of a certain ministry, is only a conversion to a natural religion, not to that which is from above. well, you say your ministry is not only apt in its nature, but by christ's ordination to convert souls: if it be by christ's ordination, it must have a tendency to what christ hath ordained it for, but the ministry of christ's ordination is not to set up any thing in man to convert him, unless deadness in a man is a qualification to make him live; he saith the dead shall hear the voice of the son of god and live, and you who were dead in sins, hath he quickened; you may tell a dead man of many qualifications that be necessary to make him live, but 'tis all in vain, till christ by his omnipotent power say the word, and with the word speaks life: but this aptness of a ministry in its nature, and then hooking in christ's ordination of it without any proof, shows we must take things for granted, because you say it, though the scripture say just the contrary, in saying, when thou wast in thy blood, i said to thee, live, ezek. 16. what threats and promises were here, what aptness in denouncing the terrors of the law, when even the promises of the gospel have not a natural aptness till christ speaks the word, and say, lazarus come forth. the other side ignorantly set up the name of christ and free grace. (he says) 'twould be good manners first to prove 'tis done ignorantly, and next it would help your cause to prove that the name of christ, and free grace, are not of more value in the case than your promises and threats. o have a care of a fling at the name of christ, for by faith in his name, the apostle made the cripple to go. this is set up against the government of christ and the rule of judgement, d. w. no, 'tis set up by the authority of the apostle, who desired to know nothing among the corinthians but christ and him crucified, not a rag of men's righteousness to cover the least speck, would the apostle know. as for the government of christ, he needs none of your stating. i believe many abettors of these mistakes are honestly zealous for the honour of free grace, m. w. again, he comes with his these mistakes before he names any, so positive in his nonsense through zeal of opposition is he, they are honestly zealous: but if they be in the right, as will appear if the word of god be right, then 'tis to be feared the opposer will not be honestly a dictator, and to calumniate before he prove, is no sign of over much modesty, nor discretion. if he had said, i suppose the reader will find dr. c. guilty of mistakes by the following discourse, he might have acquitted himself of modesty. but presently these errors and these mistakes without a tittle of proof requires a reproof; he taught his venerable vouchers, dr. b. etc. modestly to say, he hath rightly stated the truths and errors mentioned, not these errors, and these mistakes; they may be rightly stated, and yet come far short of being sufficiently proved; and whereas they modestly say, they account he hath in this work done considerable service to the church of christ. i am of their mind too, by many considerable pens being engaged in answering it, and will say what an excellent christian told me, i bless god with all my heart every day i rise for the oppposing dr. c's. doctrine at pinner's hall, for it hath occasioned the light to break forth more gloriously thereby: in illustrating and confirming what was opposed. i suppose they referred to the reverend mr. coles discourses. they have not light sufficient to see how god hath provided for this (honour of free grace) in his rectoral distribution of benefits by a gospel rule, mr. w. if he had said they have not confidence sufficient to prescribe god a rule as some others have; i had agreed; but for light: let us to the law and testimony, when we come to the point; but this rectoral distribution is the business, men have coined an office for god, they prescribe him a model of government; he must distribute benefits by a gospel rule, but this gospel rule is of their own scheme, whereas the apostle said to the jailor reeking in his sin, going about to kill himself, believe in the lord jesus, and thou shalt be saved; this rectoral distribution must have been by threats and promises, you jailor, what have you to do with the free grace of god in christ, sure you have heard of dr. c. doctrine, that christ saves the worst sinner that comes to him by believing; no, hold a while, the apostle paul runs too fast, he hath made abundance of such antinomians as dr. c. stay a little, consider, have you gracious qualifications? have you wept and mourned, and given full proof of your humiliation, godly sorrow, repentance, and the like? don't tell us these are the fruits of faith, and follow faith, but when you have found these, then come to us for comfort; show us your gospel holiness, and then we can tell you, believe in the lord jesus, and you shall be saved. many of our ablest pens were engaged against these errors, as mr. gataker, etc. the provincial synod at london. as for able pens, god gives various light, and if paul and barnabas contended, much likelier for mr. gataker and dr. c. but 'tis easier refuting a dead man than a living one, for one cannot answer what the other opposes: peter and paul contended, but free grace paul was too hard for legal peter, who complied too far, gal, 2.11. and so at last will dr. crisp's doctrine be to those, that as it were bring in somewhat with christ's righteousness for justification. as for the provincial synod that opposed by name doctor crisp, i fear much of their spirit is in those that pretend to moderation, while they oppose this doctrine, they were for bloody bonner's argument against dr. c. fire and faggot it would have come to. i remember i went when a boy to prison, to see an eminent christian whom that synod had secured there for promoting the publishing doctor crisp his works; a rare way of rectoral distribution of benefits by a gospel rule, and were power in the hands of those several worthy ministers that doctor williams saith, oft solicited him to engage in this work, i question not but they would at length prevail with him, as well to imprison doctor crisp his defenders, as to aver those things to be errors, that he hath not proved so. we are engaged in a new opposition, to the grief of such as perceive the tendency of these principles. here's new nonsense in the great champion for man's righteousness to fit him for christ's; here's a these without naming any; well, and what are we engaged in? truly 'tis to grieve such as consider these things. to the grief of such as perceive the tendency of these principles, we are engaged in a new opposition (he saith) and i am of his mind, he or they that assisted him, did engage therein to the grief of such as saw the tendency of the principles he opposed. but to take his meaning if it can be hit, 'tis thus, to their grief we are by them engaged in a new opposition; but will it not be more to their grief to find your opposition is to the truth, which by your opposing will be more radiant. i believe many abettors of these notions, have grace to preserve their minds and practices from their influence, d. w. here 's great concession, first these errors, than these mistakes, and now, these notions, at last i hope it will be these pure streams of gospel grace; i perceive your eyes begin to dazzle by long poring on the truth, the lord grant a clear sight; you believe the abettors have grace? o blessed be god that gives to the most unworthy. but they ought to consider that the generality of mankind have no such antidote, d. w. that is, the generality of mankind have not grace to preserve them from the influence of errors and mistakes: i doubt so too, but methinks this word, the generality of mankind not having such an antidote, savours as if the generality of mankind had some antidote, or, as the arminian says, all have still sufficient by nature if they would improve it to preserve them: o how apt are we to refer somewhat of good to the generality of mankind, whereas in truth not only the generality have not antidotes to keep them, but the contrary is most true, no man whatsoever unconverted hath any antidote to keep himself from the poison of any error ever broached. i must encounter another plunder, i see, and pick out the meaning. who can wonder at the general abatement of humble walking, when so many affirm, i sins are not to be feared, d. w. i have heard of fearing god by every christian, and christ saith, i'll tell you whom you shall fear, but i never heard of fearing sins, or a complain that sins are not feared. the pagans do fear the black devil they say, lest he should do them hurt, but never any christian i think had any such reverence in him toward sin, probably he means, many affirm they ought not to be afraid to commit sin, if he mean so, he was unhappy in his expressing himself, and he would do well to cite some of his many that say so; as for dr. crisp i suppose he will not offer at it, though his words look very uncharitable that way, which the dr. flatly denies fol. 510. and saith, let me not be mistaken: i do not say we must not be afraid to sin, but they need not be afraid of their sins. but as to his meaning that no believer ought to fear any hurt can be done him by his sin, as dr. crisp his assertion, when he quotes any thing of dr. crisps tending that way. i will prepare for an answer, in the mean time. i suppose he will not deny, but god often turns that which seems most dreadful to be most beneficial, as the small pox to cure a consumption, so sin the worst of evils, to the advancing god's glory and best of goods; but he want say dr. crisp taught that, therefore we ought to sin that grace may abound, an old objection of satan answered by the apostle; and dr. crisp in his sermon 8. christian liberty no licentious doctrine. god hath no more to lay to the charge of the wickedest man if he be elected, than he hath to lay to the charge of a saint in glory, m. williams in his charge. this harsh expression when compared with the scriptures, quoted by dr. crisp, will be better reconciled to our spirits, than that christ the holy jesus in his most perfect state of most perfect holiness, as god the father is holy, was made sin and a curse, and yet god blessed for ever, is it more astonishing, that a sinner in his blood, in his highest sins, as manasseh, should be looked upon in christ as chosen in him loved in him from all eternity to all eternity, and looked on by god in christ's righteousness, should have nothing to be laid to his charge; is this more harsh, than for christ in his most complete holiness to be looked on by god to be a curse for us? dr. crisp will be found not to have spoken of sinners as in themselves; but as looked on in christ, and then the time of being in blood, was a time of love. and a little charity in d. williams might have lead, not to make a scarecrow of such an expression, but if the apostles opposers fetched wrong conclusions from his blessed premises of free grace, so it will be to the end of the world by self justiciaries, but of this in its more proper place. again, the elect are not governed by fear or hope, m. w. charge. no, why should they be governed by any but their lord jesus, who is both their fear and hope. for the laws of christ have no promises nor threats to rule them by, w. this is a most false charge, for dr. crisp owns they are under the law to christ, and enforces it, and saith expressly in fol. 561. do not mistake me, i have no thoughts as if wrath and vengeance were not to be preached, and made known even to believers, yea beloved, wrath and vengeance is to be made known to them, and that as the deserts of sin, and as the means to keep men from sin. now doth it not look like malice for any to assert so gross an untruth, as to say, so 'tis affirmed by those he opposes, meaning d. crisp. that they are not under impressions of rewards or punishments as motives to duty, or preservatives against sin, w. can any thing be a clearer proof of falsehood if not malice than this? and it may be at least 100 such expressions as this, to desist from sin by motives of rewards, and sometimes of punishment. but report, and we will report, and i must own 'tis marvellous to me, that so many worthy divines should take upon trust mr. william's assertions out of dr. crisp, and not compare them with the book, especially such a liberal charge as his, that believers are not under impressions as aforementioned, and then in his next paragraph to say, to the best of my knowledge, i have in nothing misrepresented dr. crisps opinions. whereas to the best of my knowledge, he hath not only forged opinions on him as this last; but hath asserted plain falsities against him, for which i will go but to his first charge in his book in fol. 1. where he saith as the error of dr. crisp. that dr. crisp saith, the elect are at no time of their lives under the wrath of god, nor are they subject to condemnation, if they should die before they believe, whereas there is not one word in the quotation of doctor c. that he saith, they are not subject to condemnation, if the die before they believe. so that that is forged by mr. williams, as the first grand error, and all the rest will seem like it. now if he be false in his first charge compared with his quotation; any unbyast person will believe he is much more so in the following charges, but thus it pleases god to suffer prejudice to blind him, that any inquirer into his book, may judge of his veracity by the first dash of his pen, and so seeing that unsincere, may reject the whole, as not worth looking into, but of this more in its place. next let us see how he dresses up a scheam for doctor crisp, wherein if he be not very wary, he must expect to be tripped, for 'twill be found dangerous for mr. williams to represent him but in his own words; this than i take to be his charge in general, for he saith, dr. crisp his scheme is this, (but i say 'tis mr. ws. for him) that by god's mere electing decree, all saving blessings are by divine obligation made ours, and nothing more is needful to our title to these blessings, that on the cross all the sins of the elect were transferred to christ, and ceased ever after to be theirs, that at the first moment of conception, a title to all those decreed blessings is personally applied to the elect, and they invested actually therein; hence the elect have nothing to do in order to an interest in any of these blessings, nor ought they to intent the least good to themselves, in what they do, sin can do them no harm, because it is none of theirs, nor can god afflict them for any sin; and all the rest of his opinions follow in a chain to the dethroning of christ, enervating his laws, and plead, obstructing the great designs of redemption, opposing the very scope of the gospel, and the ministry of christ and his prophets and apostles. here's the charge, gratis dictum, and the consequences of it: it can't be imagined the rancour that prejudice will make; the preaching up of christ, and freegrace through him, is the dethroning christ; what could malice say worse? is crying up the king for our deliverer, from popery and tyranny, a dethroning him? just so is crying up our salvation only by christ, without a concurrence of our works, a dethroning him; in considering this scheme, so far i take it for granted that mr. williams looks on it in the whole and every part of it to be false doctrine, by the contrary to which we may draw a scheme of mr. williams. thus, that by god's decree, no blessing belongs to us, and that on the cross all the sins of the elect were not transferred to christ, that at conception a title to blessings is not applied. but as it is not fair to urge upon him any thing that he doth not plainly assert, so i wave fixing this on him, and only touch on what may be true and what not in this scheme. first, 'tis not true that doctor crisp saith, that by god's mere electing decree, all saving blessings are ours by divine obligation, and a bare denial is sufficient, where he brings no proof, and i ground it upon that word mere, for dr. crisp no where severs the election of the father from the redemption of the son, either in covenant or actual performance, for god blesseth with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places, according as he hath chosen us in him; and this is more proof for what mr. williams advances as an error, than he hath brought or can bring to make it an error, to say by god's decree, all blessings are ours, so that this is a frivolous and false charge; 'tis frivolous, because the sum of the charge is a truth, and 'tis false, because dr. crisp never asserted 'tis by mere election; but i fear, mr. williams to avoid running too high in the glorifying god for absolute electing all his fore-ordained one's in christ to salvation, and all that occurs to it: he i fear leaves election as a thing to depend much on our own wills, whether it shall take place or no, not but that our wills must be brought over by gods making us a willing people, but still the election obtains, and god elected to the means as well as the end, and will accomplish both. the next charge is that doctor crisp in the scheme made for him, holds that, nothing more is needful to our title to these blessings, but god's mere electing decree; if he means nothing needful as to evidence of the title, than he wrongs the dr. who in many places makes faith the grand evidence under the holy spirit, and a holy conversation necessary, but if he means by nothing more needful to our title but god's decree, taking in the redemption by christ, which dr. crisp never severs, than i hope mr. williams is of the same mind, or he sets up something with christ, and i would fain know why an estate in heaven settled in the counsel of peace from all eternity, between the father, son and spirit, on the children that should be begotten in time by god, and be born of god, john 1.13. should not be a sufficient title of an indeseizable inheritance to all the elect as an estate in land settled upon marriage, should be sufficient for the heir 'tis settled upon, without that heirs doing any thing in order to make it sure more than when he comes to age to enter upon it. the next is, that on the cross all the sins of the elect were transferred to christ. if this be the grand error, than the prophet esay must be called to account for it, with the apostle peter, the lord laid on him the iniquity of us all, who in his own body bore our sins on the tree. 'tis admirable strange the bold front of humane reasoning to oppose the most plain express scriptures in the bible; the sins of the apostle and those he wrote to were committed several years after christ was crucified, and yet he saith christ bore them on the tree, if men will fight against plain scripture, and cry, 'tis dethroning christ to urge the truth thereof, then farewell the gospel. but to expostulate a little, either our sins were laid on christ then or never, for christ suffers no more, and if they be laid on him now, or when a sinner is converted, than christ must come down again, and suffer, or sin could not be expiated, but sure 'tis somewhat else mr. williams means, as that sin was never laid on christ, but that when christ died, he suffered for this end, that if we live a good life, repent and believe the gospel, we shall be saved; but grant that (which can never be granted, for no man can do one good act, without true saving faith in christ, a sacrifice for his sins,) what becomes of our sins, if christ did not bear them on the tree, they must lie some where, for they cannot be laid on christ now, than they must lie on the sinner, which would have sent him to hell presently, but he purged away sin by the sacrifice of himself, which he could not do, if they were not on him when he was on the cross, when he became that sacrifice god forbidden that mr. williams by his gospel truth stated, should call us to a new gospel, as he would by making it an error, to say, that the sins of the elect were on christ upon the cross. his next is of smaller moment, but to be taken notice of, viz. 'tis one part of his scheme of dr. crisps errors, that he holds, that at the first moment of conception, a title to all those decreed blessings, is personally applied to the elect, and they invested actually therein. sure this is no horrid blasphemy, since god saith of jacob and esau before they had done good or evil, being yet unborn, jacob have i loved, and esau have i hated, and jeremy being sanctified in the womb, jer. 1.5. it must be before he had done much good, sure an heir of glory is as soon an heir to it as an heir of a kingdom; and if a young king should be married but one night and die the next morning; if that kingdom was purely hereditary, the states of that kingdom would not suffer the widow queen to marry again, till they see whether she proved with child or no, and if she prove with child, and that child be born, i would fain know when that child began to be an heir, it must be at the first moment of his conception, or not at all. but some men will hardly allow god the prerogative, to give titles to his heirs as they will allow a man to do, by a settlement on marriage; they will grant that a king may go to jail, and choose out the worst offender there, and save him, but god may not without faith foreseen choose vessels of glory to himself, and make them heirs as soon as they have a being. hence the elect have nothing to do in order to an interest in those blessings. mr. williams. this assertion is both right and wrong, as it may be taken, for if by having nothing to do in order to an interest, if mr. williams means that dr. crisp asserts the elect have nothing to do in order to original right and interest by election of the father, before the world, than he is in the wrong, when he charges dr. c. with an error in holding with the apostle, that there was grace given in christ jesus before the world began, 2 tim. 1.9. for in that respect the elect have no more to do in order to an interest in those blessings, than an heir to an estate settled on him before he was born, hath to do to gain him an interest therein, and accordingly the apostle is plain in ephes. 1.3. he hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings, according as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, even as he chose us in christ, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and according to his own grace given to us before the world began; if he blessed with all blessings, even as he choose us, and if he gave his own grace to us before the times of ages, sure than those so chosen, and so endowed with grace before time have nothing to do to get an original right or interest in those blessings, that were then given to, them and afterwards bestowed by god upon them, no more than the law coming 430 years after the promise to abraham had to do to obtain or evacuate the promise. but if mr. william's means that dr. crisp holds, that the elect have nothing to do in order to the applying their interest in these blessings, than he is in the right, and dr. crisp wrong, when mr. williams proves it on the dr. but he doth the dr. wrong in so charging him, for there are whole sermons of the doctors to the contrary, and particularly the 17th. of vol. 2. of the assurance of faith in p. 486 wherein he saith from acts 13.39. you shall see there how necessarily it must be received, that faith gives interest in the privileges of christ. these are the very words in flat contradiction to what mr. williams charges him with, when he saith, dr. crisp holds the elect have nothing to do in order to an interest in those blessings, where this passage of the dr. may convince mr. williams of a false accusation and slander, contrary to the ninth command, thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour, but saith the wise man, who can stand before envy. i hope those eminent divines that favoured his book, will desire their names may not stand to his preface, lest they be brought in to savour this false charge; dr. crisp goes on upon that text, acts 13, 39 by this man is preached to you forgiviness of sins, and whosoever believeth on him, he is justified from all things from which he could not be justified by the law of moses; from which text the doctor treating not of original right, or interest in the blessings, but of the application or evidence hereof, he saith farther in fol. 486. thus; out of this text i argue thus, if there be justification where there is believing, this believing is a proof of justification. if therefore thou dost believe this is a certain truth, thou art justified it is an undeniable argument, because that the apostle doth affix justification to believing. here by the way, besides this assertion being a proof that mr. williams hath done amiss in saying the doctor's scheme is that the elect have nothing to do etc. which his saying justification is affixed to believing confutes; this saying also reflects on another very false and gross charge in the very first page of his book, where he saith, dr. crisp holds the elect are not subject to condemnation if they die before they believe, which as it is impossible they should, so the doctor never asserted they could, and this saying of his that faith gives interest in the privileges of christ, and justification is affixed to believing, shows that it was against the doctor's sentiments, to hold that elect persons could die before they believe, or that he ever said, if they should so die, there was no condemnation. but for once, i would suppose the purpose of god concerning the elect, to be created in christ jesus, to good works, should be frustrate, and the elect never should come to actual faith, and so never come to do a truly good work. now i would ask any sober found protestant, if he should allow such an imposibility for argument sake, as that god's purpose in this last case could be frustrate, which of these two assertions he would take for the more false, either, that an elect person chosen in christ from all eternity, and given to christ, and grace given him in christ, and accordingly died for by christ (according to the compact and council of peace, and this elect person dying in unbelief) is saved, that so the grand contrivance of god, and the precious blood of the son of god, be not frustrate: or this assertion, that such an elect person dying in unbelief is damned, because the word of truth must be fulfilled, that he that believes not is condemned; far be it from any christian to affirm either, but of the two false positions, i should be apt to think the first is not the worst, because of the eternal design of the father and son, to save all the elect given in election to christ. the next charge, nor ought they to intent the least good to themselves in what they do. this is high, general and universal, like the confidence of a man, with his drawn sword against a thistle; here i could have you, and there i could have you, though this be not of the essence of faith, the not intending good to ourselves in what we do, and he would make the doctor preach marvellous self-denial herein, as not intending the least good in our doing, yet here lies a snare, for doubtless, if he means this to be an error, than it may be he means that the doctor holds that the elect must do what they do, not with intent to procure the good of god's reconciliation to them. if that be the doctor's error, it is also of all protestants, that are orthodox, if he means that the error is that the doctor holds the elect are not to do with intent to get the good of pleasing, honouring and glorifying god, he mightily wrongs the doctor, witness his sermons on titus 2.11, 12 grace teaches to deny ungodliness. what good he means, no man can reach without his unfolding, but the charge must be high and general, though thereby mr. williams lays himself too open for a friend to take the advantage he might, and thereby might give him the unmannerly word of speaking untruth against the doctor, i will not say a lie; will mr. williams say the doctor holds the elect ought not to intent the least good to themselves, in what they do; what will he say then to those expressions of the doctors in fol. 141. our righteousness serves as a real way to manifest our thankfulness to god. secondly, there is this usefulness in our righteousness, namely that we may serve our generation. that men may be drawn on to glorify god, and we must shine before men in a godly conversation. thirdly, our righteousness is useful as it is the ordinance of god, wherein be will make good those things which before he hath promised. now how can mr. williams say, the dr. holds this don't intent the least good, when the dr. ●●ith here, that by their righteousness they walk in god's ordinance wherein he will make good his promises; is not eyeing the making good of promises, or intending some good, but unless we intent the good of our righteousness or gospel-holiness to be meant by god's righteousness, ours by faith, as mr. william's asserts the apostle intended on phil. 3.9. our doing is by him accounted the not intending the least good to ourselves; what can't we intent good to ourselves, in fasting, praying, relieving the necessitous, walking in all godliness and honesty, unless this must come in with christ's imputed righteousness for our justification? next the doctor holds, saith mr. william's sin can do them no harm, because it is not theirs. if he mean that sin cannot hinder them from heaven at last, than he rather wrongs himself by holding it can, than the dr. for holding it cannot, for god hath cast them all into the depth of the sea, and saith, i will remember them no more; if so, they cannot do much hurt. if mr. williams, means that the doctor holds there is no evil in sin to an elect person; then he is a false accuser again, for the dr. acknowledges evil in sin, when he saith fol. 4●0. if you would come to see the evil of sin, and to see it that it may be a bridle to restrain you from sin; now in this sense the dr. owns hurt in sin, and prescribes a way so to see it, as to be kept from it, and that is, in the next words, look upon christ, if you would see the evil in sin; if he mean by sin can do them no harm, in his accusing the doctor, that the dr. holds that sin cannot do them the harm of making their services stink in god's nostrils, than he falsely accuses the doctor also, who saith in fol. 404 sin is aggravated much in esaiah 1. when you make many prayers, i will not hear, because your hands are full of blood; here are expressions to aggravate sin, that it makes all our prayers and sacrifices loathsome in his presence, god hateth it in me and in thee. now will mr. williams have the confidence to say in general, that this is the scheme of doctor crisp, that sin can do the elect no harm, whereas the doctor saith plainly, that sin makes all our sacrifices and prayers loathsome in god's presence; is it no harm to have our prayers loathed of god? sure mr. williams would think this a great harm done him by sin, if his wronging the dead by a false general charge, should fly in his face, and make loathsome his prayers to the lord, till he repent and obtain the washing of it from his conscience, by faith in the blood of christ. again, if mr. williams mean that doctor crisp, in saying sin could do him no harm, holds it so in general, that in no sense it can hurt him, and that it is not a sting and terror to the conscience even of a believer, while his faith is unactive and under a cloud, he wrongs him, for he saith in fol. 512. the torments of hell is the merit of the least sin in the world. i speak not to extenuate any sin, such as look upon these sins as uncancelled, so long these sins may work an horror and trembling in persons; and mr. william's will not say but this is harm to a poor souls peace and comfort, and this dr. crisp holds, nay, he saith in fol. 513. before men come to see the light of the gospel of christ, their sins stare in their faces, seeming to spit fire at them; and is this no harm, and this is to the elect till they believe, so that this is no good charge of mr. williams. but if mr. williams mean 'tis an error of dr. crisp to say, there is no sin the people of god commit, can possibly do them any hurt, if it be taken in the sense the doctor expresses calling it real hurt, in fol. 510. this may be matter of debate, but will doubtless issue on the doctor's side, or rather on the apostle pawles who saith, all things work together for good to them that love god. if so, than the affliction that the lord chastens withal for sin, doth not argue that sin brings a real hurt: if sin could do real hurt to a believer, such as to take away his title to heaven, or cause him totally to fall from grace, than christ did not for ever by one sacrifice of himself, save us and wash us from our sins, in his blood, and perfect those that are sanctified, but if he did make an end of sin, and brought in everlasting righteousness, for all that the father gave him, than he having purged our sins by himself on the cross, nailing them there, never to be able to rise in condemnation to those that are in christ; then this stingless serpent, sin, will never do real hurt to believers, as the doctor saith. but if mr. williams mean, that sin doth hurt even believers, because it brings natural death, the wages of sin being death to believers, yet the sting of that being taken out by our lord jesus, that is so far from real hurt, that it is the inlet to eternal glory; and if that be hurt, the lord grant mr. williams and i may be so hurt, or rather blessed with it in our exits. several other such hurts come by sin, not from its own nature, but from god's ordination, as that where sin abounds, grace much more abounds (not that any should think sin the less dreadful and terrible) and as sin hath reigned to death, so grace reigns to eternal life by jesus christ our lord, and yet still sin is to be avoided as the greatest, horridest evil in the world; but notwithstanding this, the apostle encourageth poor souls when they do fall into sin, not to be afraid of their sins, but to fly for refuge to the mercy-seat, the hope, sure and steadfast, set before them, saying, if any man sin, we have an advocate with the father, jesus christ the righteous, and thus i hope this grand cavil is evaporated, and that it appears groundless for any to think dr. crisp had slight thoughts of sin, when he saith, it cannot do a believer any real hurt, yet he saith, the torments of hell is the merit of the least sin, and they will work an horror and trembling till we see them canceled. the next is, nor can god afflict them for any sin, saith mr. williams against the doctor; this expression is not where quoted, but inferred from the doctor, and it is put here contrary to the doctor's sense, in which he speaks of affliction, and seems harsh; mr. williams might see that what the dr. saith, is spoken by way of punishment, that all the afflictions that god lays on his people, are in love, and not by way of punishment for their sins, seeing their sins were laid on the lord jesus, and he bore them and all punishment due for them, and if those that scruple saying, christ bore the very sins of the elect, will yet allow he bore the punishment for them, sure than they must grant that god doth not lay affliction on his people by way of punishment; god saith, indeed you only have i known, therefore will i punish you for your iniquities, but this cannot be taken properly for punishment, unless men will make god worse than the foolish servant, who made him a hard master; viz. an unjust oppressor, to punish sins on his son, and to punish them also on the sinner; and besides, that affliction which a man bears in this life, be it never so great, is so far from punishment proper for sin, the least of which deserves, as doctor crisp saith, eternal hell torments, that it is not so much as a flea-biting compared with a stab at the heart, but i take the ground why persons will call afflictions on god's children punishments for sin, is on this double account. first, they would make god an easy, tender-hearted judge, that will commute penance, and for a great crime, as every sin is, he will take a small amends as a little temporal affliction, and next they will be as kind to our lord jesus christ, and reckon he bears the less if the sinner bear part with him; but without any mincing, this must be owned that all afflictions on god's people are in love; all i love, i rebuke and chasten, and 'tis for our profit, that we may be partakers of his holiness, and it is fatherly to deter from sin. i do not mean that sin hath no hand in many afflictions, for as the apostle said of the disorderly corinthians, for that cause many were sick and weak: but what the dr. insisted on, was, that affliction for sin was not proper punishment, but pure love to their souls, though i cannot see but afflictions are a fruit or effect of sin in many, yet i may, not from thence conclude, that those afflictions are from wrath in the father, or for punishmenr proper on the child, but the effects of a fatherly love, for if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons, so that this exception against the doctor is a small one, but because it hath some seeming harshness, to say god doth not afflict the elect for sin, therefore it must be hooked in to fill up the charge, though the charge in the preface be varying and harsher, than it seems mr. williams could lay in his book, for there is no such word as nor can god afflict them for any sin. mr. williams having laid the charge, in the next words he comes with a deadly thunderclap, conclusion full of indignation, saying, all the rest of his opinions follow in a chain to the dethroning of christ, which if true, then say i, let his memory for ever perish, and his posterity be blasted, as to this world. but if this charge look like sublimated malice, every candid reader, will say, mr. williams, for charging falsely with high treason, (a great admirer and advancer of the lord jesus christ, with dethroning him) deserves not a stab, no nor an outrageous word from his posterity, or the lovers of the doctor's memory. but the answer of the angel to the devil, the lord rebuke thee, satan, is not this a brand plucked out of the fire, zech. 3.2. how can any thing but that which looks like cankered venom against free grace. charge him or his doctrine point blank with no less than dethroning christ, when every sermon tends chief to the exalting christ, and christ alone, under the father, in opposition to the grand idol, or christ of self justiciaries setting up man's righteousness. if the whole stream and almost every page of his book, flows with mighty zeal for christ, and jealousy of joining any thing with christ in our salvation, for f●ar of robbing christ of any of the honour and glory due to him. if this be dethroning christ, i wish mr. williams would so dethrone him in every sermon, and that all that name the dear and blessed name of christ, would so dethrone him, then we should not have the righteousness of christ by faith called our gospel holiness: i would ask the greatest enemy that is to justification only by the blood of jesus, who is the dethroner of christ, dr. crisp, who in all his sermons is for christ alone exalted, crying out none but christ, none but christ, to the ravishing the hearts of thousands of lovers of christ. or mr. williams who sets up a rectoral government for the lord, for saving sinners in a sapiential way, joining our gospel holiness with christ's imputed righteousness, nay, in plain terms, boldly affirming that the righteousness of god by faith, which the apostle just before had called the righteousness of christ, phil. 3.9. that this is a believers gospel holiness. mr. williams cannot have the confidence to say dr. crisp was for dethroning the christ the son of the most high, the christ the eternal son of god made man but in truth he was for dethroning mr. williams christ, of phil. 3, 9 that is, man's gospel holiness from getting in the throne of the true christ, the ever blessed son of god, for justification of a sinner, or to have any thing to do therein, he was for gospel holiness in doctrine and practice as much as any person living, keeping it in its due place; a friend of the bridegroom, but not a copartner with the bridegroom, and as eminent mr. christopher fowler, said twenty and twenty times (so in effect, say the doctor's sremons) i would not for this room full of gold open my mouth against evangelical holiness, or true holiness, one grain of it being more worth than all the world, but hold, it must not sit on the throne with christ: it is a good handmaid to wait on the queen, but it is not to lie in bed with the queen, or in effect, our gospel holiness must not affront the lord jesus christ, to take his crown and dignity from him: now in any impartial mind, it may easily be judged who is the dethroner of christ. o whether will passion and prejudice lead men, and how will it blind them, when their conscience cannot but tell them, that they themselves come short of him in exalting christ, they cry out against others that are of a far more elevated strain in the honouring the lord jesus. o you dethrone christ, because you do too much magnify him in opposition to gospel holiness, coming in for any share in our salvation. this is his first link in the chain dethroning christ, as much as to say, i'll lay load enough, but the first stroke shall do his business, the dr. opinions have been to the dethroning christ, would any one but such as solomon speaks of, who casteth about firebrands, arrows and death, prov. 26.18. have uttered such language without one tittle of proof, without saying i have proved his opinions dethrone christ, or i am of opinion his notions tend to dethrone christ; none of this softness is in his iron strain, but point blank, all his opinions follow in a chain, to the dethroning christ, his preaching that christ is the only way, is dethroning christ, his preaching man's righteousness, is the grand idol, is dethroning christ. any one may guests 'tis the rubbing that sore makes such outcry: o you dethrone christ, when you unhorsed men from their own righteousness: but if for every idle word, that men shall speak, they shall give an account, can they think they shall not also for every false uncharitable charge they give, in accusing a grand asserter of the alone rights of the lord jesus in the matter of our salvation, to be in that very thing, a dethroner of the lord jesus. what shall be done to thee, thou false tongue. psal. 120.3. i hope the lord will incline such arguers not to adhere to their own arguments, but fling down their strong reasonings, and submit to the alone righteousness of god for salvation without our gospel holiness sharing in it, being overcome by the almighty overpowering sweet drawing of the spirit, and cry before it be too late, as julian did, vicisti galilae, thou hast overcome me, o galilean by thy blood and spirit, freely given to me for my righteousness and life, to ascribe all the glory to thee, none to my gospel holiness, this is all the harm i wish and pray for the uncharitable censurer of dr. c. for, for that he had by his opinions dethroned christ, cujus contrarium. the next is, enervating his laws and plead: this flows from the other, if christ be dethroned his laws must be enervated, but if christ alone is exalted, his holy and pure word is established, as the dr. often asserts from the apostle; do we make void the law by faith, nay we establish it by bringing in christ fulfilling the law for us, and writing it in our hearts, as holy just and good, teaching us by his spirit, to deny all ungodliness, as in the sermons on that text. dr. crisp shows; 'tis not the exalting the blood of christ, that enervates the laws of god and christ, but 'tis the making our righteousness which is every jot defiled to stand in the place of the abrogated moral law; to say that in regard we are not able to fulfil the moral law, god accepts of our evangelical righteousness, that is, our own gospel holiness, and so making it in some sense a copartner with christ's righteousness, denying it in words, but establishing it in deed; this is the real enervating christ's laws, else how comes the righteousness of god by faith, phil. 3.9. to be called gospel holiness? i am sure the righteousness of god by faith justifies a believer, and if this righteousness of god be our gospel holiness, than our gospel holiness justifies a believer, and this they will bring it to at last, or they say nothing. obstructing the great design of redemption: a virulent charge, but unless obstructing man's righteousness from eclipsing christ's righteousness be the crime, nothing of this can be laid to the drs. charge, how inconsistent is this charge with the great cry against him, that christ saves the worst of sinners that come to him, even when in their blood and filth which he freely asserts, and yet presses not to live in sin, but to glorify god in all holy conversation. if by the design of redemption mr. williams means that we are redeemed or created in christ jesus, to good works, and charges the dr. to obstruct that design, what can be more contrary than that in the doctor's sermons, when he saith, fol. 556. the belief of this, (that free grace abounds) doth certainly and effectually teach and produce an hatred of sin, and a love of holiness, and in fol. 557. if there be any such, (as say, let us sin that grace may abound) let me deal plainly with them, for my part i must account them the greatest monsters upon the face of the earth; the greatest enemies to the church that ever were, and i say of such dishonourers of the church, and disturbers of the consciences of god's people, that they are carnal, sensual, and devilish; they are the greatest enemies to the free grace of god, and the greatest subverters of the power and purity of the gospel, and the greatest hinderers of the course of it under heaven: no persons in the world do so wound the sides of christ as he who doth profess the gospel, and yet live wickedly, and if there be any such here, let me tell them their faith is no better than the faith of devils, for they believe and tremble, and that christ will have a heavier reckoning, and account for such when they come to judgement, than for any persons under heaven besides. now can mr. williams in cold blood say this doctrine obstructs the design of redemption; that this opposes the scope of the gospel. next he apoligizes for the doctor, that he had not entertained these opinions, if he had considered that god's electing decree is no legal grant, nor a formal promise to us. i suppose it may be gathered that the doctor considered god's electing decree as much as his opposer, when the dr. lays all the stress of man's happiness upon the absoluteness and irreversibleness of it, and if others had as great an honour for the veracity and steadfastness of those mountains of brass, they would not make men's salvation that are elected so uncertain a thing as many do. as for the decree not being a legal grant, mr. williams hath erected a new term of art, what he means i know not, but if he means 'tis a grant not good in law, or that 'tis such a grant as no man can plead at the bar of god, either in our own conscience, or at the great day of judgement, to say, lord thou hast elected me, therefore i must be saved. this i suppose i may flatly deny, and say (provided i know my election, as the apostle saith, 1 thes. 1.4. knowing brethren your election or as christ bids us rejoice that your names are written in the book of life, when this comes to be known) it may be pleaded, or else there would be little ground of joy in it, and it may be pleaded as a grant good in law, for the discharge of every one to whom it belongs, not that the dr. or any considerate christian is for election going alone without justification, and sanctification, no not in children in the womb that are elected and die there. so that though election be not a formal promise, yet in this sense it must be a legal grant, or a grant good in law: but there may be a snare in mr. william's his electing decree: if he means god's decreeing to elect, that's one thing, and god's act of election that's another; 'tis the last i insist on, i cannot reach what he means by electing decree, but god's act of election, or god's actual choosing us in christ, before the foundation of the world, carries in it the virtue of a legal grant, or it is a frustrable election which it is abominable to say of god's act, and yet some men's laying the stress of all men's salvation upon man's holiness, must reduce god's election to. the decree includes the means and the end] granted most freely, yea more than mr. williams saith, for the decree not only includes the means and the end, but the means is as well of the essence of the decree as the end is, which i suspect mr. williams denies, for he saith in the next words, willing the first in order to the last, that is, god wills the means in order to the end; or god wills sanctification in order to salvation. but if by only willing the means, he doth not make it a decreeing the means, he falls short of the truth, and makes election not infallible, for god is spoken of often in scripture, of willing things to be done which are not done, as, how often would i have gathered you, and you would not; if he means only such a willing the means which men may frustrate by not complying with his will, than the decree of the end which is eternal salvation that must fail, and so god's election is made a conditional one and not absolute; that is, god elected such and such to eternal life, if they would repent and believe, and obey the gospel, and not that he elected them, that they should repent and believe and obey the gospel, and this repenting and believing is left to the freedom of man's will, so that god may be frustrate of his whole decree by their so stating election; and i thought it would come to that at last, so that with mr. williams, god's electing decree is only to the end salvation, and he wills the means sanctification, which will of god is rejected or obeyed, as man's resists or complies with the motives offered to it; and if mr. williams thinks the dr. did not thus consider god's election, and therefore was led into false opinions, he bewrays his own misapprehension of election, and doth not at all invalidate the drs. positions concerning the elect. his next words which he asserts concerning election, seem to make good my former suspicion that he makes god's election depend on man's will, and for not considering which he blames the dr. and they are these. and as it (the decree) puts nothing in present being, so it bars not god as a governor to fix a connexion between benefits and duties by his revealed will. here must be a great mistake of this learned and acute gentleman, in saying god's decree puts nothing in present being; what, the decree puts nothing in present being? sure the decree puts somewhat in present being, the decree puts the decree in present being, and is god's eternal unalterable decree, which the father and son and spirit delighted in during all eternity past, and will in all eternity to come, is this vanished into nothing in present being? i may say god's decree is so far from putting nothing into present being, that it puts all things into past, present, and future being, for if god be one eternal act, and all things past, present, and to come are ever in being in his eye or knowledge, so he puts every thing into present being with himself, to be manifest in their proper seasons according to his eternal purpose which he purposed in himself, ephes. 1.11. and accordingly the election of sons to glory is in present being when there are such sons in being. this putting nothing into being by god's election, is the way these men take to evaporate god's election into man's election; 'tis not god doth absolutely elect any man to salvation (except the man christ, i hope they grant that) but man elects himself to salvation, and then election hath put somewhat into present being: but though mr. williams say of election, it puts nothing into present being, i hope all orthodox protestant's will say that election hath put the elect into an happy state; for election hath obtained, though the rest are blinded, and nothing can be laid to the charge of god's elect, and they are loved with an everlasting love; and is god's love nothing in present being? so it bars not god as a governor to fix a connexion between benefits and duties. no, but it bars man from framing a model for god, and from making god's righteousness to be man's gospel holiness, and it ba●s man from putting in any leven into the lump of being justified freely by his grace, through the redemption that is in jesus, it bars man from ploughing with an ox, an ass, and from wearing a linsey wolsey garment, and from putting new wine into old bottles, and from thinking a branch can bring forth any good grapes, except it be first in the vine the lord jesus, there being no gathering grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles, or any good work from any soul, till he is in christ, and though there is a blessed connexion of benefits and duties, yet no good duty is done till the benefit of being united to christ be first bestowed by god; god fixes a connexion, 'tis true, he makes the tree good first, and then the fruit good, and this was eternally in the decree, but man must not fix the connexion by making duties procurers of benefits, or making gospel threats and promises to have in their own nature a tendency to convert souls, without the operation of the holy spirit. mr. williams saith, if the doctor had animadverted that christ's sufferings were the foundation of our pardon, but not formally our pardon: this intimates that the dr. saith christ's sufferings were formally our pardon. i can show how far our great reformers went beyond mr. williams in asserting the virtue of the sufferings of christ in the pardon of sin, which if mr. williams had consulted, he would not have reflected as he doth on the dr. they say in the doctrine of the church of england, that which is tantamount to a formal pardon in christ's sufferings, they do not amuse the world with mr. william's his rectoral distribution, that he allows to god in pardoning sinners, upon account of their being found in their gospel holiness, joining faith and holiness together, as they entitle to gospel benefits, which benefits he saith, are not from the conformity of faith and holiness, etc. to the precept, but from their conformity to the rule of the promise, and so plunging poor souls in his deeps, and amazing them with his rules and connexion's: but these homilists give a certain sound of the gospel, and say upon the sermon of the passion, of good friday fol. 177 such favour did he purchase by his death of his heavenly father for us, that for the merit thereof, we are now fully in god's grace again, and clearly discharged from our sin. these are plain wholesome intelligible gospel truths, such as suit with the doctor's testimony, they are not bombasted with, if we continue to repent and believe to our death, than our evangelical righteousness shall justify us at the great day from satan's charge of unbelief: but, they speak home against all arminianism, and say that by the merit of his death, we are in god's grace again, nay we are now in god's grace and that fully, (not we shall be) and we are discharged from sin, nay, we are clearly discharged from sin, and in the next words they put it home, and say to the confounding all the mincers of the virtue of the death of christ as to the pardon of sin, thus, no tongue surely is able to express the worthiness of this so precious a death, for in this standeth the continual pardon of our daily offences. had such a passage as this been found in the notes taken from doctor crisp that there is a continual pardon standing, firm in the death of christ, of our present daily offences, this would be accounted dethroning christ by giving more honour to him, than some distinguishers can allow, or if reverend mr. cole had said, that in christ's death stands the pardon of our daily offences, nay, there stands a continual pardon, and this mentioned without naming faith and repentance, but be our offences what they may be, there stands a continual pardon if we be christians indeed, say these holy reformers, this had been dangerous doctrine, as an eminent divine said of as harmless expressions of his as these in pinner's hall: i wish those worthy gentlemen who are so exceptious against the freeness of god's grace in and through christ, and must eke it out by our gospel holiness, would seriously consider in the simplicity of the gospel spirit of these homilists, such expressions as these of theirs, before they pass their hard censures of crying dethroning christ, enervating his laws, because some who may be clearer than themselves, preach we are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in jesus without any thing of man's works cooperating therein or thereto; nothing can be plainer than these reformers newly come out of the school terms of popish justification, for renouncing every thing in man to have any concurrence into our pardon: but now the simplicity of the gospel must be lost by some men's distinction of our pardon by christ's death, his sufferings were not our formal pardon, but the foundation of it. i believe none of his publishers of freegrace, too freely, ever said christ's sufferings were the formal pardon of a sinner, it being perfect nonsense, but i hope they may say his sufferings were a real expiation of the sins of all the elect, without offending most of the subscribers to mr. william's his book, else how could the apostle say, by one offering he for ever perfected those that are sanctified, and he loved us, and washed us from our sins in his blood, having made peace by the blood of his cross. but in regard plain scriptures will not go down but christ's righteousness must be our gospel holiness, i proceed with the testimony of those blessed maintainers of the absolute irreversible virtue of the sufferings of christ, which sufferings contained in them the daily pardon of our offences, and yet these i hope mr. williams will not say have laid down doctrines to the dethroning christ, though the same with dr. crisp; they say, in the same passion sermon, in fol. 177. in this (death of christ) resteth our justification. how? sure archbishop cranmer, and bishop ridley, and you famous martyrs, you will be antinomians by and by, have a care mr. williams do not see this, he'll get 49 and 49 and more, if the press be not in too much haste to subscribe a paper to countenance his accusing you for enervating christ's laws; what, our justification rest in christ's death? what justified in the sight of god (who calleth things that are not as though they were, rom. 4.17. before we believe? sure either you are mistaken, or mr. william's must retract his black titles he hath given to this doctrine; however, mr. williams take it, the doctrine is good, stands firm, is allowed, nay, commanded by many acts of parliament to be read, and by queen elizabeth's letter, to be read again and again, by all parsons, vicars and curates, that our justification resteth in the death of christ, and if so, having the apostle paul on my side, being justified by his blood, rom. 5.9. and the apostle john, who washed us from our sins in his blood, and our statute law, and the queen's letter to the bishops, that our justification resteth in his death, i will oppose it against all gospel mincers, though 1000 times 49, and will say that on god's part, all the elect were justified when christ died, or rather risen again for our justification, that is, for the declaration of it, tho' on man's part, no man is personally justified, till christ come, and unite himself to him, and work faith in him, which is always accompanied with all other graces in faith, the seed and root planted by christ with himself, in the soul; the homilists go on for the farther ascertaining the benefits that accrue to the elect in the death of christ, and say, in this (death) we be allowed, how will mr. williams and his friends take this? in this we be allowed; will they say, in christ's death there is only a foundation for pardon, or a foundation for our being allowed? o 'tis much more doubtless; 'tis thus, we now are allowed or accepted in that death of his, that death had such an efficacy, that we being justified by it, are allowed or accepted in it; he don't say we are accepted for it, or allowed for it, but in it, we are allowed in it; god looks on nothing else but that death of his son in which he allows or accepts of those sheep his son died for; and that this is the meaning the next words show, they saying, in this is purchased the everlasting health of our souls: ay, saith mr. williams, now they lean on my side, christ purchased this for them, that is to say, provided they repent, believe, walk holy; no, 'tis not with that connexion, tho' god works all those graces where christ's death is imputed. but they say everlasting health is purchased, and it is in this death of christ, there, 'tis firmly fixed on that unmoveable rock, without mentioning any previous qualifications as terms or conditions to concur to our title, for the title is freely given in the purchase, and the qualifications are wrought by the purchaser, all of grace; and as sure as he laid down his life for his sheep, so surely they shall come to him, the father drawing: but without any limitation to any condition, 'tis asserted plainly by above 49 of these holy reformers, that in this (death of christ) (i say in it, which is more than by it) in this is purchased the everlasting health of our souls, and we may not think that christ will lose his purchase, he having paid the price; salvation is sure and secure without any ifs and ands, and connexion's and distributions, as their next words plainly say, yea, there is none other thing, (than the death of christ) that can be named under heaven, to save our souls, but this only work of christ's precious offering of his body upon the altar of the cross. here are words without sophisticating connexion's, saving our souls is the thing aimed at; now say they, he hath not only purchased it, so will say most arminians, but nothing else out the death of christ saves us, name what you will, name repenting, believing, gospel-holiness, blessed graces, all, but what have they to do with salvation? they are found in the subjects saved, they being the free gift of god; but as for salvation, as for the everlasting health of our souls, that was wrought out long before our complying with the gospel rule, and made firm to all the seed, the foundation of god standing sure, this work was over; and so allowed) by these great men) when christ died, and so well and effectually done, that nothing can be named under heaven to have any thing to do in saving our souls but this death of christ, tho' i grant many things tend to the manifesting of it to us, and making us meet for it, as faith and holiness, being the things that must and will accompany salvation. are you for works, for conditions? 'tis this only work (say they) saves our souls, christ's precious offering of his body upon the altar of the cross, then and upon that altar the material cross on which our lord jesus hung and died, upon that the work of saving our souls was finished, when he cried out, it is finished; so that here is more than a foundation for pardon, for here is justification, nay more than justification, here is everlasting health and salvation of our souls, wrought upon the cross of christ 1657 years ago, or thereabouts; this was good divinity in our great grand-father's days, and in dr crisps eyes and lips, that our justification and salvation was really, actually in christ's death, as they say, and so confirmed by every parliament that ever confirmed the book of common prayer; but now a poor sinner's salvation must be tortured with our personal holiness, coming in with an as it were, as the apostle saith, rom. 9.32. that is to say, with our inherent righteousness, concurring, complying with conformity to gospel rule under threats and promises, or else we are for the dethroning christ, for enervating his laws, and the rabble that know nothing of either justification or sanctification, shall be let lose upon asserters of free grace, by mr. william's crying out, o these be men against gospel holiness, when their opposers know in their conscience, there is such a strain of holiness all along in dr. crisps book, that though it be against the grain, they cannot but own they believe him a holy person, and well they may, if they compare his sermons on free grace, teaching to deny ungodliness, with his other sermons on our sins laid upon christ, in the last side of which vol. fol. 444. the dr. saith, for my own part i abhor nothing in the world so much as this, namely, a licentious undertaking to continue in any sin, because that such fullness of grace hath abounded; and i shall recommend to them (if any such be here) the reading of the epistle of judas, where they may see the fearful wrath of god upon such persons as abuse the grace of god to sin: o beloved, let not the love of the lord god, in jesus christ thus manifested, be so basely requited at your hands, seeing the lord hath so freely loved you, and given christ to you, that you might be to the praise of the glory of his grace in a godly and christian conversation whereunto you are ordained, for you are created in christ jesus to good works, that you should walk in them: and i beseech you always to remember that you cannot answer the free love of god toward you, any other way, but by showing it in a fruitful conversation in the world, and considering that one end, for which the lord did redeem you, was, that you might be a peculiar people to himself zealous of good works, titus 2.24. thus ends the third volume. to stop the mouths of gain-sayers, especially mr. williams, who accuses the dr. to be for licentious doctrine; but because our holiness must not come in to concur to our justification, this is to enervate christ's laws. but to our purpose again, the homily saith, as to the respect christ's sufferings have to the pardon of our sins, though his sufferings be not a formal pardon, as saith mr. williams, as a piece of nonsense charged upon dr. crisp, yet his sufferings are, tant-amount to a pardon in the account of those holy compilers of the homilies, who say in fol. 178. his passion is the ransom and whole amends for our sin. if so, then with submission, i may say this whole amends for sin, is in the eye of a just and gracious god tant-amount to a pardon, for god cannot but acquit where amends is made, though the person acquitted is never the better for it as to his conscience, till he believe in the lord jesus; no more than a criminal in newgate condemned for treason, is the more at peace in his mind, when his friend hath got a pardon for him, in his pocket, till he see it or believes it; but will any man in his senses say this criminal is not really benefited by the pardon his friend got him, till he see and plead this pardon, much less may mr. williams say, that an elect person is not benefited by the justification by christ's resurrection, because 'tis not applied to him till believing. they go on in fol. 185. and say, christ being perfect god, and the son of god, gave his body to be bruised and broken on the cross for our sins; this mr. williams will grant, but they go on and say, our saviour christ hath delivered us from sin, this mr. williams must temper with ifs and connexion's; they proceed, yet not so that we shall be free from committing sin, but so that it shall not be imputed to our condemnation: so they have allowed a benefit to believers, before they believe, though mr. william's questions it, and affirm christ on the cross delivered from sin, bearing it away, so as it shall not be imputed to them, and whether this be not more than a bare foundation of our pardon, it being a real making amends for sin; a real justification, a real saving our souls in these great men's account, and in the nations account; let mr. williams ponder, and not conclude that dr. crisp entertained these opinions which dethrone christ, as he calls it, by not animadverting that christ's sufferings were barely a foundation of pardon, and let him muse what his vilifying this doctrine of the church of englamd will amount to. to proceed, he saith, that the sins of the elect, they are not forgiven immediately upon, nor merely by his enduring those sufferings; this is directly contrary to the doctrine in the homily, 177. which saith, in this death of christ, standeth our continual pardon. i hope he will allow that christ did put away sin by the sacrifice of himself, because god saith it without any trope, or ifs or connexion's, heb. 9.26. also he will allow that before christ sat on the right hand of god, he purged our sins by himself, heb. 1.3. and that at the end of seventy weeks he made an end of sin, and brought in everlasting righteousness, dan. 9.24. and bore our sins in his body, and was the lamb of god that took away the sins of the world. john 1.29. if so that sins be satisfied for, and if put away, and if purged and made an end of and born away, and took away, then what will remain to be forgiven? even nothing; and yet still neither the dr. or any i know of, hold that the conscience of a sinner is acquitted hereby, or at all by christ's death, till christ be applied by faith, with all his benefits to the soul; so that though with mr. william's our sins be not forgiven immediately upon christ's death, as pertaining to the conscience of the elect sinner died for, yet by mr. william's leave, god is not so hard a creditor to keep the debt upon record, when he is satisfied for it, and when 'tis blotted out by the blood of christ, sure he will allow that in the court of heaven the book is crossed, and no debt appears against the elect after christ made payment; sure this will not be gainsaid but by those who deny christ's satisfaction, which many will nibble at, tho' 'tis too plain popery, to say downright that christ did not make full satisfaction to god by his death, for the sins of all the elect. sins are not forgiven merely by his enduring sufferings, w. what, is our gospel holiness to help our faith; holiness? etc. yes, for saith he, there were to intervene a gospel promise of pardon, the work of the spirit for a conformity to the rule of the promise, in the person to be pardoned, and a judicial act of pardon by that promise on the person thus conformed to the rule thereof; here's a tedious lesson for a poor terrified soul to get by heart, when the spirit of god hath convinced him of his miserable condition by sin, when he cries to a gospel minister, good sir, for the lords sake, tell me how i may get a pardon into my bosom; i have heard, may he say, god saith, there is forgiveness with him, 'tis now ready by him, that he may be feared. i have heard that when the jailor cried out, what shall i do to be saved, the apostle bid him only believe in the lord jesus, and thou shalt be saved: i have heard and read that in ephes. 1. and col. 1. the apostle saith in him we have redemption through his blood, forgiving of sins, so that as soon as i have him by faith, i have forgiveness, and i am bid to fly for refuge to the hope that is set before me, which i take to be jesus my city of refuge and not my gospel holiness: now good sir, may this poor soul say, what shall i do under the load of my sins? may i take the apostles words, and christ's call, come to me, and you shall find rest for your souls, as soon as ever you find yourselves weary and heavy laden; or must i stay till i find by a long seven or ten or 38 years lying at the pool, searching if i can find mr. william's draught agree with me, that i have attained to a full complete answering the rule of the gospel, which he calls conformity to the rule of the promise? must i stay till i can understand mr. william's school terms of a judicial act of pardon by that promise to the person thus conformed to the rule; that is to say, must i stay till i can love my enemies, they being my neighbours as well as myself, till i can turn my left cheek patiently to him, that smites me on my right, till i can, having two coats, give one to him that hath none, till i can hate father, mother, sell all and follow christ, and in every thing conform to gospel rule; in a word, till i am perfect as my father which is in heaven is perfect, before i may dare believe my sins are forgiven? or may i satisfy myself with dr. crisps quotation, look to me and be ye saved, as the serpent was only looked to for healing? i say if a poor soul should put this to a gospel minister, would he not answer, the plain short scripture way is best, harken to jesus, saying, come take the water of life freely, this is the work of god, that ye believe in him the father hath sent. if you have me you have life, as many as receive me, that is, believe on my name, are sons of god. as for mr. william's distinctions, connexion's, judicial act of pardon, he may please the schools with them, but there is more nourishing food in one cal● of christ, come to me, come, come, buy wine, milk and honey without money, without price, in such a promise well pressed, than in a thousand of mr. william's distinctions. next i must attack an odd expression savouring of god's dispensing with the breach of his righteous law without satisfaction, which is the back door of arminianism, wherein creeps in man's free will, and his good works concurring to his salvation; the expression which i cannot digest, is this, mr. w. saith, a continuance in a state of death with a bar to the blessing are not threatened (in the gospel) against every degree of sin, as the covenant of works did. this is mr. william's sense of the gospel, and its differing from the law or covenant of works, viz. the law condemned for every sin, but there are some degrees of sin, the gospel allows, or doth not threaten death for, which i suppose without wronging him, i may instance thus: the law condemned a man for killing his brother, and for hating his brother, and for ill will to his brother; but the gospel hath compounded the matter, and made god reconcileable through faith in christ, for a man's murdering his brother, but god will take no notice of a man's ill will to his brother, that degree of sin there is no threatening of death for; if this be his sense, i take it to be far wide of the apostles sense, when he said the blood of christ cleanseth from all sin, that is to say, there is as real need of the virtue of the blood of christ to cleanse from a vain thought as from murder, though i do not say both are alike heinous, yet both need the blood of christ to wash them away, or there is no standing justified at god's bar. oh we should have a care of letting this poison down, that any sin can be pardoned but by the blood of christ cleansing it, for he that is guilty of one sin is guilty of all; so that to say there is any degree of sin under the gospel against which death is not threatened will amount in the conclusion, to render the blood of christ not needful to take away that degree of sin: o sin, sin, how small soever, must not be so treated, for if the grain of mustard seed, small faith, but true, will grow to a great tree, and reach to heaven; this grain of henbane, the smallest degree of sin, if not accounted for in the gospel by the blood of christ, will grow to a vast depth even the regions of darkness and hell. upon this dangerous position of mr. williams, that a continuance in a state of death and a bar to the blessing, are not threatened against every degree of sin, as the covenant of works did, mr. williams propounds a splendid question, can any doubt this to be the grace of the gospel promise: o profound grace of the gospel promise, it doth not bar from blessing, nor continue in a state of death, for every degree of sin, a heavenborn soul, that lives day by day on the blood and flesh of jesus, and feasts on the infinite love of god in jesus, would have thought that an eminent minister of the gospel, a gentleman of great parts, supported by some of the greatest names in our israel, would hav● thought that when mr. williams was rescuing the lord jesus (as he intimates) from the dethroning principles of dr. crisp (as he pleases to call them) and when he is bringing back the lord jesus to his throne, one would think, i say, when mr. williams is celebrating the glory of the grace of the gospel promise, he should have called for the aid of the holy spirit, to help him, and have said somewhat to this purpose: o the height and depth, o the superlative excellency of the love of god in christ, that he should love us, and wash us from our sins in his blood, that the blood of christ cleanseth us from all sin, that he hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in christ. thus our lord jesus is to be enthroned, though it comes too near dr. crisp his way of dethroning christ, no, this is not his clue or way to raise monuments of glory to our blessed lord, but thus he celebrates him by sniping off a lap of his garment as david did saul's; can any doubt but this (the not being in a state of death for every degree of sin) is the grace of the gospel promise: if he had said this is a grace of the gospel, it had been a degree of modesty in mr. williams to the gospel, though it were not a truth, but to say 'tis the grace, and so the grace that none can doubt of it, this needs a remark, and the chief that i shall make, is, that i will beg of god, and now do, that i and mr. williams also may have the grace of the gospel promise in a more full stream than that a continuance in a state of death, and a bar to the blessing, are not threatened against every degree of sin, as the covenant of works did; but that we may swim in the rivers of infinite love; that god chose us in christ before the world, and gave us to the lord jesus, that no sin should pluck us out of his hand, and that by one offering he hath for ever perfected those that are sanctified, so that now there is no more conscience of sin, because where sin abounds grace doth much more abound, and yet still for every sin and for every degree of sin we may not think ourselves freed from condemnation for it, by virtue of the gospel promise relaxing the covenant of works, but i beg that he and i may for our cleansing our consciences from the least degree of sin, make use of the apostles remedy. if any man sin (be it in any the least degree) we have an advocate with the father jesus christ the righteous, who is the propitiation for our sins; ay that's the business, that's it we must trust to, he is the propitiation for our sins of sin in the least degree, it must have this participation, or woe unto us; this i implore of god in the name of jesus, that i and mr. williams may by a daily applying to this propitiation, get our consciences free from every degree of sin. before i leave this clause, i reflect that the greatest grammarian may make blunders, which i note, that mr. williams in the next edition may mend this, that so the world may not think mr. williams allows false grammar, as this clause gives suspicion, or i must go to school again: the false grammar in this clause, is in these words, at the covenant of works did, which follows these words, and a continuance in a state of death, with a bar to the blessing, are not threatened against every degree of sin, as the covenant of works did, so that the sentence in brief by mr. william's ordering runs thus, death and a bar are not threatened, as the covenant of works did, and if this be sense or grammar, it must be by some outlandish figure and rule, i suppose he means thus, death and the bar are not threatened as in the covenant of works they were, and not as the covenant of works did. mr. william's next makes his queries to confirm ●is assertion that every degree of sin is not threatened under the gospel with death, and for confirmation of it, saith, doth it (the gospel) promise life to all men, however vile and impenitent they be: i confess this rhymes like brains and stairs, he propounds that every degree of sin doth not bar the blessing of the gospel, and confirms it by this, the gospel don't promise life to the vilest and impenitent. if it don't promise life to the vilest and impenitent, doth it follow that any degree of sin can be so small as not to deserve death under the gospel? a strange inference, and stranger doctrine, as if he had said thus, there are some sins under the gospel do not deserve death, because the gospel doth not promise life to the vilest and most impenitent. but to leave the illogicalness of his argument, i'll consider his question as a positive assertion single and by itself. the gospel doth not promise life to all men, however vile and impenitent they be, saith mr. williams, and i never heard of any that ever said it did; that all men of all nations, since the world began to the end of it, had promise of life by the gospel, and then mr. william's rambling question supposes some such universalians there are, but to help and amend the question it may be mr. williams intends thus; doth the gospel promise life to all that hear it, however vile, etc. i answer, none that he opposes ever asserted it, as i see, they with every good christian say it promises life to all that truly believe in the lord jesus, nay, it promises life to all the elect, but the grand question is still, if it promise life to the elect, however vile and impenitent they be; this i take to be mr. william's question, now if he mean that the gospel do not promise life to those that continue vile and impenitent, to those that are never effectually called by the grace of god. i am satisfied he must fight with the air, for none disputes him in that point, but if he mean that the gospel doth not promise life, to the chief of sinners, to th● most vile and most impenitent, which cannot be worse than the chief of sinners, if they be elected chosen vessels; if he asserts this he mistakes, but i will not question his integrity to the gospel in this point; i fear there lies somewhat at the bottom that wi●●●●t bear the standard or touchstone of the word, that is, that god promises life and salvation, upon our repentance and growing from vile to good; for he doth not promise it to the vile and impenitent: if this be his meaning, that there is no promise of life to an elect person till he return from vileness, and till he repent, this is as near arminianism as four pence is to a groat, and as far from the scripture as the west is from the east, for that saith in titus 1.2. in hope of eternal life, which god that cannot lie promised before the world began, so that i conclude against mr. williams with the apostle, that the gospel promise was before the foundation of the world, for life and salvation to all the elect according to the promise of god, though they be the chief of sinners, however vile and impenitent they are, till the gospel comes and turns them from darkness to light, from dumb idols to serve the living god, and the gospel promise when it first touches their hearts by the spirit of god, though it finds them so vile and impenitent it does not leave them so, but first puts in a new spiritual life and carries it on in sanctification more and more every day, and in this sense i give my judgement, the gospel promises life to all men that are elected, that is, all that are by virtue of their election effectually called, which promise was before the world began, this cannot be too much insisted it, because it is for the praise of the glory of his grace, and hath no tendency to lessen the true value of the blessed graces of repentance and new obedience which flow from and do give life to the promise. his next question is, or doth it, (the gospel) threaten damnation or a continuance of it on any true penitent believing godly man, because he is imperfect. this is as wild a question as the former, that was, doth the gospel save all thus, doth it damn all, for what man lives and sins not? so that every true penitent is imperfect, and this question needed not be asked, but only to insinuate, that true penitence believing and godliness come in equal sharers, in intituling men to salvation by christ; that they go hand in hand to give an interest in the promise, only repentance must take the right hand and go next the wall, though the apostle say, justified by faith, we are saved by grace through faith, yet repentance and godliness will crowd in for a little boasting, though it rob christ, whereas true faith gives him the glory of all, by being the hand that receives all from christ. in the next place, we have the yet most dangerous position for establishing our works in the business of our salvation, in this long sentence to bring in a degree of obedience, a little finger we must have in the pie; or it will not be well made; he brings it in thus, this change of the sanction. (that is, of life from gospel obedience instead of the law obedience) supposes the death of christ, and his honouring the law by his perfect obedience, wherein god hath provided for his own glory, while he promises life by forgiveness to imperfect man, and yet he insists on some degree of obedience, to which of his mere grace he enableth us. here's a long series or train to bring in a degree of obedience, first the sanction is changed, this needs pondering; next this supposes the death of christ. o fit, what only supposes the death of christ, is his death to have no better encomium upon it, one would think that glorious price and ransom of our redemption, should have been set off with a glorious title, as thus, this is owing to the infinite love and mercy of god, in the unvaluable purchase by the blessed death of christ. but repenting, believing, a godly life, that must have the high praises, the death of our blessed lord jesus must come off with a supposition; this supposes the death of christ, 〈◊〉 the next place, it supposes the honouring the law; and is that all, doth it not suppose the satisfying the law? i find not a word of that, that christ's death satisfied the law: o there is care taken that string must not be harped upon, it would drown the sweet melody of some degrees of obedience, and our repenting, believing, and godliness, which though excellent in their place, yet are not to eclipse the glory of our lord jesus in becoming the end of the law. i must say 'tis a mean business to say christ's death honoured the law, so cranmers' death honoured the gospel, but christ's death to all sound protestants, was the end of the law, by his fulfilling our righteousness; but there must come in with it some degree of our obedience, this seems pretty broad compounding the matter with god for the sin of man, christ honoured the law by his obedience, yet god insists on some degree of our obedience, this looks like a linsey woolsey garment, but it must be laid aside, for it will not prove the wedding garment, the bridegroom will scorn that any of his guests shall sit down with the glorious garment of his righteousness, patched up with the degrees of our obedience. if the king should send a garment for mr. williams to come to court in and stand before him, i am confident he would wear that and that only, and not go about to clap a patch here and a patch there of his own coat, much less will he do it to the lord jesus on serious thoughts, wherein god hath provided for his own glory: but it is but a mean provision, if christ have only honoured the law, and not fully satisfied it, and if our obedience must come in with his son's obedience, can is be thought that our imperfect obedience provides for god's glory, by joining it with christ's most perfect obedience; god indeed hath provided well for his glory in man's salvation only from his own free grace through the blood of christ, but mr. williams makes but a slender providing for god's glory, while he leaves room for the flesh to glory in his presence by his own obedience, is this that no flesh may glory in his sight. but mr. williams takes care to prevent that (he'll say) by the last clause, that god of his men grace enables us to this our obedience. i answer, not in the least doth this take off from glorying, for though 'tis god's grace inables to obedience, yet the obedience is still our work, and the scripture saith plainly, not of works, lest any boast. every breath i breath, is of god's grace, and if god should enable me to speak for two hours together to the king lords, and commons in parliament, so as to persuade them to employ none but those that truly fear god in any place of trust, should i not be apt to applaud myself, though i should still own the ability and efficacy to persuade them was of god, how much more will any poor creature boast if his obedience hath any hand in the salvation of his soul? o that we could cry, grace, grace, not to us but to thy name be the praise, and as for our obedience, cry all our righteousness is as filthy rags, and so let us set the crown on the head of our lord jesus, say continually to the king; eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise god, be honour and glory for ever, for his being all in all, author and finisher, alpha and omega, in our salvation. he promises life by forgiveness to imperfect man, this is the next step to bring in some degree of our obedience, but a false step, if by promising life, by forgiveness he excludes christ's satisfying gods justice, as that which leads to forgiveness, of which there is not a word in this paragraph, and doth god promise life barely by forgiveness, this is a sorry and nonsensical account of man's redemption, and salvation. and yet he insists on some degree of obediences, saith mr. williams. here comes the great master wheel by which our salvation is secured, christ's death is supposed, the law hath honour by christ's obedience, life is promised, but yet god insists in our obedience, at least on some degree of it. that god insists on our obedience, and on more than some degree of it, must be owned by all, for god insists on our being holy as he is holy; god insists on our loving him with all our heart; god insists that we be blameless and unreprovable in his sight; this is more than some degree of obedience, and it is our duty doubtless to endeavour to be perfect, as our father which is in heaven is perfect. but this hath nothing to do in our obtaining life, and is not such an obedience, as mr. williams saith god insists on: he is more easy in his terms to poor sinners, than to run it so high; well, what is it god insists on? he in effect, told us before, 'tis a true penitent believing godly man, this god insists on▪ this is his some degree of obedience, that god insists on, while he promises life by forgiveness, and is this the true interpretation of these texts, while● we were enemies, we were reconciled, and, he justifies the ungodly, but from such glosses i desire to be delivered. well, we must be true penitent; we must have faith that christ honoured the law, and we must be godly persons, that is, we must walk in all godliness and honesty, or we be not godly persons, and when that is done than we may come to god and say, lord we have done what thou commandest, we repent, believe, and are godly, though we are not perfect, yet we are truly penitent, believing and godly, 〈…〉 life; if this be nor dividing shares with the lord jesus, in the honour of salvation, what is? no mortal man will say that our perfect obedience must come in toward our justification, there being no such thing in the world, and to say that christ merited that our imperfect obedience should be accepted for perfect, is to say christ's death was needless, for god might as well have saved the honour of his righteousness and justice, when man had broken his law, by an absolute forgiveness, without christ's death, as to make his death of no more value, than to purchase that our lame obedience should pass for firm, perfect obedience? but god is just in justifying, god hath received full, complete satisfaction from the lord jesus, and now saith, come take the water of life freely, and by a holy conversation, glorify me and do good to yourselves and others. i pass by examining his next cloudy expression, in these words, viz. this (life on some degree of our obedience) the covenant of redemption secures to the elect, though the grant therein is pleadable only by christ, as the stipulating party for us, and our personal claim depends on the gospel covenant wherein christ is mediator; which is liable enough to exception, for his saying gods grant is not pleadable by us, but only by christ, whereby mr. williams makes way to bring in the gospel covenant of our degree of our obedience, before we can claim any thing of christ as mediator; this i pass, and if come to his plain downright opposing the way of salvation, according as it is delivered us by the apostle, by holy martyrs, by the homilists, by famous divines, besides dr. crisp, which follows, in these unscriptural words of mr. william's his gospel sanction, saith he, determins as certain a rule as happiness and misery, as the law of works did, though it be not the same 〈◊〉 it fixeth true repentance and faith unfeigned to be the terms of pardon, so when it promiseth heaven to the sincerely holy persevering believer, it fixeth sincere holiness and perseverance in faith as the terms of possessing heaven. hence the use of faith, holiness, etc. to those benefits is not from their conformity to the precept, but their conformity to the rule of the promise. this long paragraph of the gospel sanction of mr. william's his drawing, i take to be as clearly opposite to the apostle paul, as arminius was to our reformed orthodox divines, for mr. william's his faith, holiness, and the bottomless boundless, endless, etc. are brought in as the terms of possessing heaven, and not only so, for that they might be as fruits of union to christ, but they are so, the terms as they are a conformity to the rule of the promise, even as the law of works was to the rule of the precept, that is, as the law of works required a perfect obedience in conformity to the precept for obtaining life. so the gospel sanction requires faith, holiness, etc. in conformity to the promise for obtaining life, which in our ordinary dialect is, that what perfect obedience obtained under the law, that imperfect faith and holiness, etc. doth under the gospel, which in plain terms is, christ hath purchased that our faith, holiness, perseverance in new obedience under the gospel, should pass instead of perfect obedience under the law, which is as diametrically opposite to the apostles, not of works, lest any boast, as east is to west, and though mr. williams say, these are not works of the law, yet they are works and good works, and such as if brought in for answering the gospel sanction, as perfect works did the law, is the homest stab to the true gospel that ever was printed by any arminian, for there is not a tittle in all the gospel that our faith and holiness are so, our terms of happiness in conformity to the rule of the promise, as obedience to the law of works was in conformity to the rule of the precept; the apostles sanction is quite otherwise, he faith not by works of righteousness, but by his grace he hath saved us, and not of works, lest any boast, if of works than grace is no more g●●●● is not faith a work, holiness is it not working; perseverance in obedienc● 〈◊〉 it not working? and must these come in to answer the promise, as perfect obedience answered the law? what becomes then of christ's obedience for us, to answer the law? 'tis quite shut out of doors, and his satisfaction too, by this scheme and sanction, this is so far from giving christ the sole honour of being our perfect, complete, alone, only saviour, wisdom, righteousness, sanctification and redemption, that it quite excludes him in every part of salvation, but only his making way that we should save ourselves, his obtaining by his life and death, imputed to us, that god would be so kind to us, and unjust to himself, that our faith, holiness, etc. should answer the promise as unsinning obedience should have answered the law; this is making god a very cheat to himself, to set up a pure holy law, the perfect copy of his will, and man's breach of it should be made up by our imperfect, weak faith and holiness; which hath no more proportion to the infinitely holy law, than a brass farthing hath to a world full of diamonds, nor so much; and yet so easy a merchant this doctrine would make god, by making our pretended conformity to the promise to answer the enjoined perfect conformity to the law. but because those of this opinion cannot for shame bring it in to stand alone, that our conformity to the promise should answer instead of obedience to the law, therefore they bring in christ to purchase this privilege, that is, that christ purchased that god should cheat his holiness and righteousness with a shame of men's invention, whereas the doctrine of the gospel is, that god is just, and the justifier of those that believe in jesus, who in our stead fulfilled all righteousness, for us and so became the end of the law for righteousness sake. and that our faith and holiness with the unmeasurable, etc. have nothing to do in our justification or salvation, as a conformity to the gospel promise, even as perfect obedience had in conformity to the precept (or covenant of works) i shall show farther by the opinion of sound orthodox writers, and begin with that famous martyr in scotland, burned anno 1532. for adhering to salvation by jesus christ without works, in his treatise set forth by mr. john frith an english martyr in the same cause burned in 1533. he hath these expressions, viz. no manner of works make us right wise, and no works make us unright wise; if any evil works make us unrighteous, than the contrary works should make us righteous, the proof is we believe that a man shall be justified without works, rom. 3. and we believe in jesus christ that we may be justified by the faith of christ and not by the deeds of the law, good works make not a good man, nor evil works an evil man, but a good man bringeth forth good works, and an evil man evil works, good fruit makes not the tree good, nor evil fruit the tree evil, but a good tree beareth good fruit, and an evil tree evil fruit: if works make us neither righteous nor unrighteous, than thou wilt say it maketh no matter what we do. i answer, if thou do evil it is a sure argument thou art evil, and wantest faith; if thou do good it is a sure argument thou art good and haste faith. here is no sophistication of faith, holiness, obedience, etc. answering the rule of the gospel promise as perfect obedience answered the law, and moreover he gives the reason why we are so saved by christ, because, saith he, thou madest the fault and he suffered the pain, and that for the love he had for thee before thou wast born; now sigh he was punished for thee, thou shalt not be punished: finally he hath delivered thee from condemnation, all evil, and desireth nought of thee (mark that) but that thou wilt acknowledge what he hath done for thee, and bear it in mind, and help others for his sake, as he hath helped thee for nought: thou wilt say, shall we then do no good deeds? i say not so, but i say we should do no good works for the intent to get the inheritance of heaven, or the remission of sin. thus this blessed martyr asserted the gospel, in these truth's worth laying down one's life for; but i hope none will be put to lay down their life for asserting our imperfect obedience, answers the gospel, as adam's perfect obedience, if he had had it, would have answered the law, for any to die upon such a point, would be to be a martyr for his own righteousness, not for asserting christ's; now comes mr. frith, and gives his observations as full of antinomianism as his author mr. hamilton, or as dr. crisp, and just such an antinomian as the a. paul was, and saith; therefore wheresoever any question or doubt ariseth of salvation, or our justifying before god, there the law and all good works must be utterly excluded and stand apart, that grace may appear free, the promise simple, and that faith may stand alone, which faith alone without law or works, worketh to every man particularly his salvation through mere promise and the free grace of god; this word particularly i add for the particular certifying of every man's heart privately, and particularly that believeth in christ, so faith is the instrumental cause by which every man applieth the body of christ, particularly to his own salvation, so that in the action and office of justification, both law and works (all good works above) be here utterly secluded and exempted, as things having nothing to do in this behalf: the reason is this, for seeing that all our redemption universally springeth only from the body of the son of god crucified, then is there nothing that can stand us in stead, but that only wherewith this body of christ is apprehended, now for so much as neither the law nor works, but faith only is the thing that apprehendeth the body and death of christ, therefore faith only is that matter which justifieth every soul before god, through the strength of that object, which it doth apprehend, for the object only of our faith is the body of christ; like as the brazen serpent was the other only of the israelites looking by the strength of which object, through the promise of god immediately proceeded health to the beholders, so the body of christ being the object of our faith, striketh righteousness to our souls. thus far mr. frith. here's good, sound, strong, homespun divinity, that came from the heart of an early english martyr in the days of hen. viii. it came not from rome or amsterdam, or poland, and because the book of our blessed martyrs is in few hands, i'll transcribe some more of mr. frith's contrariety to our new way of stating gospel truth, hoping it may tend to the establishing souls, whom the sophistry of some men may amuse with their connexion's of, etc. to faith and holiness in the business of pardon of sin, to which mr. frith saith, as follows, in a christian man's life there's the law, there's repentance, there is hope, charity, all which in man's life and doctrine are joined, and yet in the action of justifying there is nothing else in man that hath any part or place but only faith apprehending the object, which is the body of christ jesus for us crucified, in whom consisteth all the worthiness of our salvation by faith, that is, by our apprehending and receiving of him, according as it is written, john 1. whosoever received him, he gave them power to be made the sons of god even all such as believed in his name. for so much therefore as the truth of the scripture in express words hath included our salvation in faith only, we are enforced necessarily to exclude all other causes and means in our justification, and to make this difference between the law and gospel between faith and works, affirming with the scripture and word of god, that the law condemneth us, our works, (of all sorts) do not avail us, and that faith in christ doth only justify us, and this aught diligently to be learned of all christians, especially in all conflicts of conscience between the law and the gospel, faith and works, grace and merits, promise and condition, god's free election and man's free will, so that the light of the free grace of god in our salvation, may appear to all consciences to the immortal glory of god's holy name, amen. thus said this blessed servant of the lord jesus, and this he sealed with his blood, and this was good doctrine in those days among the reformed, this was thought worthy to be inserted in our famous book of martyrs, and approved by the whole body of christians in the nation, and not scandalised as the same expressions are in dr. crisp's sermons. i would fain know what more stabbing words can be said against mr. william's thesis or position, than both mr. hamilton and mr. frith have insisted on, no manner of works make us right wise, and no works make us unright-wise, and all good works must be utterly excluded, and stand apart, that grace may appear free: now are not repentance, holiness, new obedience, perseverance, and mr. william's his &c. good works, yet they must stand apart, and be far from such a conformity to the rule of the promise in our salvation, as perfect obedience was to the rule of the precept. o, that god would teach men to, lower their high towering opinions of our holiness, concurring to our salvation, and cry grace, grace to all, from the foundation to th● top-stone, still not of works (though this galls proud flesh) lest any boast. for a farther satisfaction in this great point, let us see what our great men presently after the down-fall of popery in this nation, have said as to our works in the matter of salvation. the homilists say in fol. 27. all good works spring from faith, and cannot be done without faith; then i argue if they spring from faith, and that we are justified by faith, then good works have no hand in our justification, because that is over, in order of nature, before a good work sprung up, then what have we to do with mr. william's gospel obedience conforming to the promise in order to pardon? the homilists say farther, from those words, without me you can do nothing. that what work is done without faith is sin, and without faith all done of us is dead, and austin saith, fol. 31. whether thou will or no, that work that comes not of faith is naught: there is one work in which is all good works, that's faith, this is the work of god to believe in him; so that christ called faith the work of god, and as soon as a man hath faith, anon he shall flourish in good works. thus holy austin was for faith alone, without the trumpery of our obedience with, etc. in order to pardon. mr. w. fixeth repentance and faith with holiness, etc. to be the terms of pardon. how far this, &c, goes, it may be mr. william's may tell us in the next edition, or by the athenian mercury, but for the consolation of humble enquirers into the truth, i'll tell them what our homilists say of this great grace of repentance which mr. w. puts before faith, and which he makes one of the terms of pardon with his etc. in fol. 258. these homilists say, we must return to the lord, yea to him alone, and never rest till we have taken bold upon him, but this must be done by faith, and he himself in his gospel doth cry out, i am the way, the truth and the life, therefore they are greatly deceived, who preach, repentance without christ. (so that with the homilists 'tis first christ's ours by faith, than repentance,) they that think they have done much of themselves towards repentance, are so much more the farther from god. this is not like our new gospel truth stated, that a man without saving faith in jesus, may repent of his sins, yet say the homilists, but 'tis such a repentance, as judas', such as puts him farther from god, and in fol. 263. they confirm their doctrine of no sound repentance without faith in jesus, the way to it, and say, we must beware, we in no wise imagine we can repent aright by our own strength, for this must be verified in all men, without me, you can do nothing. mr. w. will say he owns that christ enables us to repent, 'tis true, but doth he own a man is in christ, believes in christ, before he repent, if he do not own that, than he comes not up to the text, where christ speaking of all his to the branches, in him, he saith upon that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, without me, or out of me you can do nothing, you cannot repent or do new obedience if not a branch in me by faith. again, in fol. 268 they say, they that preach repentance, without a lively faith in our saviour. jesus christ, do teach judas his repentance: it is evident, tho' we be never so earnestly sorry for our sins acknowledge and confess them, all these are but means to bring us to utter despair, except we do steadfastly believe that god our heavenly father will for his son jesus christ's sake pardon and forgive us our offences. to them i add the testimony of as great a scholar, and as sound a protestant as mr. williams who above 100 years ago gave a better account of faith and holiness than mr. w. doth, and that is mr. perkins, no antinomian who saith in fol. 236. the law promises life to him that performs obedience perfect, the gospel promises salvation to him that doth nothing in the cause of his salvation, but only believes in christ; yet not for this faith, or for any work else, but for the merit of christ. this is a big word; what, do nothing in the cause of salvation but believe? no, nothing, saith mr. perkins, and before mr. william's can confute him, he must prove christ's righteousness ours by faith, is meant of our gospel holiness; that is, god saith 'tis christ's righteousness, but he means quite otherwise, viz. 'tis our gospel holiness. mr. perkins is in good earnest that we are to do nothing for salvation but believe and answer several objections as follow. objection 4th. (saith mr. perkins) to believe is a work, therefore one work is commanded in the gospel, and is necessary to salvation. answer. the gospel considers not faith as a virtue or work, but as a hand to apprehend christ, for faith doth not cause or effect or procure our justification and salvation but as the beggar's hand receives them, being wholly wrought and given of god, and in fol. 247 he saith, we must first be justified before we can do a good work, and in fol. 287. paul teaches that works set up as causes of salvation with christ make void the grace of god: and is not this making them causes of salvation with christ, to say christ purchased this grace, that our sincere obedience, faith, holiness, perseverance, should be accepted to answer the rule of the gospel promise for pardon. well doth mr. perkins proceed to reject our righteousness in the matter of salvation, and saith in fol. 955 of vol. 1st. a man's conscience must in some sort be settled touching his reconciliation with god, before he can begin to repent, wherefore justification and sanctification in order of nature, go before repentance, but if we respect time, (then) grace and repentance are together. this is intelligible doctrine, and strenuous for the advancement of christ alone and the same in effect as mr. perkins had asserted, contrary to mr. williams in fol. 84. saying, from sanctification repentance is derived, because no man can earnestly repent except he denying himself, do hate sin, and embrace righteousness, this no man can perform; but such an one as is in the sight of god regenerate and justified and endued with true faith, and regarding the order of nature it follows faith and justification. o these are strong battering rams against setting up man's righteousness, and in fol. 468. he gives account, whence this new doctrine of repentance having a hand in our salvation, comes, viz. from rome, and saith thus— the church of rome hath corrupted the ancient doctrine of repentance (saying) that a sinner hath in him a natural disposition which being stirred up by god's preventing grace, he may, and can work together with god's spirit in his own repentance: but indeed all our repentance is to be ascribed to god's grace wholly, eph. 2.4. the soul of man is not weak but stark dead in sin, and therefore it can no more prepare itself to repentance than the body being dead in the grave can dispose itself to the last resurrection. o these are weighty words, and o that they might prevail in the hand of the spirit of god to weaken man's apprehensions of something practicable in and by himself in order to bring about his salvation, that so we might all put our mouths in the dust, and give glory to god, for of him and through him, (especially in the matter of our salvation) and to him be all things to whom be glory in the churches for ever; thus much for mr. w. sanction of the gospel, giving pardon on our conformity to the rule of the promise. in the next place mr. w. asserts a profound benefit by gospel grace, and yet it carries poison in it i fear, hence by gospel grace there is a great difference between imperfect faith and utter unbelief. the poison in the head of this snake, i fear is, that this imperfect faith is intended to be the upshot of gospel grace. a little to descant upon this, i would offer; that if so mean a lover of the lord jesus as i am, should have been telling the world the benefit of gospel grace, i should have flown a little higher in celebrating the love of god therein, than to say by it, imperfect faith differs greatly from utter unbelief; which without gospel grace any child of four years old, will grant, that can tell there is a great difference between a little mess of milk and none at all. i should have said, by gospel grace there is a great difference between our lord jesus freely given us, and with him all things, even himself, to be our wisdom, righteousness, etc. and being slaves of satan, sold under sin, without this gospel grace, i should have invited the world to rejoice in this benefit by gospel grace, that christ was made sin for us, that he might be made righteousness to us, or become the lord our righteousness: and that by gospel grace, god com●s to justify the ungodly, to save sinners, of whom the apostle saith, he was chief, and a pattern of them who should afterward believe to everlasting life; this is right gospel grace, worthy of the father, son, and spirit, to give, purchase, and communicate. i should scarce have flammed the world off with such a dead carcase of divinity, as to say, if you look for the glorious privilege and benefit of gospel grace, which the father, son, and spirit, have been contriving, and rejoicing in from all eternity, and which the eternal blessed son of god, took man's nature for, and for which he was under the curse of god, and died, for which all the angels and saints of god for ever adore him: it was, that this should be published. that there is by the gospel grace a great difference between imperfect faith and utter unbelief, or which is much at one, between an essentiality and a nullity, between something and nothing; there is so great difference as is between heaven and hell; and this difference is eternal, and so would have been without any thing of the gospel. i suppose mr. w. means, though he is unhappy in not expressing it, that by gospel grace, imperfect faith is accepted for perfect obedience, that is to say, if it be joined with sincere holiness, true repentance, and perseverance, etc. but this is still wide from the mark of gospel grace; for the apostle saith, it brings salvation, and teaches godliness. but mr. w. will make the world amends, it may be hoped, in the next benefit by gospel grace, which take as follows: by gospel grace there is a great difference between sincere holiness and formal profaneness or wickedness; one would wonder how gospel grace comes to be hooked into this difference, which all the world would own to be infinitely different without any grace of god in the gospel. did our lord jesus shed his blood for this notion to be asserted? which was as true without any grace of the gospel, as with it; but it may be he means that by gospel grace there is a purchase made, that sincere holiness shall stand instead of perfect holiness, which wickedness could not do: and this he must mean or nothing, and if he means this, he perfectly overthrows the gospel, and if he do not mean it, he abuses the world with an amusement. the next is, true love to god and prevailing enmity. there is by gospel grace (he saith) great difference between these. but this is another great mistake, which i am confident he will he ashamed to own: what hath the gospel to do to make this great difference? by the law is the knowledge of sin, and the gospel shows grace; but to say the gospel makes this difference, is to roh god of the holiness of his righteous law. but supposing this nonsense to be current divinity with some, that by gospel grace there is great difference between god and the devil, or love to god, and prevailing enmity: what is this to the point mr. williams is labouring to make good, that there is to be a conformity to the rule of the promise in the person to be pardoned; for proof of which, he saith, there is great difference between love of god and prevailing enmity. would he have his meaning to be, that love of god is conforming to the rule of the promise, therefore an ingredient to pardon, which enmity is not. i answer, love of god is as much conforming to the rule of the law as of gospel grace; and so his argument faces; had he said, the law commands us to love god, and the gospel promiseth to write this law in our hearts, though not as an ingredient to our pardon, there might be some edification by it; but to assert, there is a difference between these two, which was ever so, is of no more force for his argument, than to say, black and white differ, or i and doctor c. d●ffer. his next is like the three former differences, viz. by gospel grace there is a great difference between in perfect spiritual duties and rebellious neglects. now he hath spun a fine thread; here's the end of his gospel grace; it hath made this difference; and would not this difference have been, if we had never heard of the gospel? what riches of grace is this in mr. williams' gospel! the sum whereof is, it hath made a difference between faith and unbelief, holiness and profaneness, love and enmity, duty and rebellion. o what encomiums must the world raise to such a discoverer of that which nature, without either law or gospel, teaches every man! but some hidden treasure must lie under this rubbish of divinity; 'tis not for nothing, that gospel grace is dignified with procuring these four blessings: therefore mr. w. must mean that conformity to the rule of the promise, is in our imperfect faith, sincere holiness, love of god and spiritual duties; and these are the conditions on which the gospel promiseth pardon; now how correspondent mr. william's gospel is to the prophet isaiah's account, the world may judge from isaiah 43.25. i even i am he that blotteth out thy transgressions, for mine own sake. this is the rule for pardon, in the sense of doctor crisp, and of all that love the lord jesus, for obtaining this gospel grace, and for those that differ, i beseech the lord to open their eyes, and subdue their hearts to the simplicity of the gospel, that they may lay down their strong reasonings, which indeed are foolishness not only with god, but to every child of seven years old, that hath learned his assemblies catechism. but now i think on't, mr. williams hath slured that by his new unsound one; come we next to his conclusion of his great point of our conformity to the rule, in order to obtain pardon, wherein he saith thus, god in dispensing of gospel promised blessings, doth judicially determine a conformity to this rule of the promise. we must observe that decisive word this rule, no gospel blessing, without a conformity to this rule, that is, the four pillars of his babel; to build pardon upon, our imperfect faith, our sincere holiness, our love of god, our spiritual duties, which include every precept, counsel, and direction in the bible; as much as to say, stand by, blessed jesus, i have heard of thy precious blood, a ransom; i have heard of thy saving to the uttermost all that come to god by thee; i have heard of thy passing by, when poor sinners lay in their blood dead in sins, and saying, live; i have heard, thou didst say, publicans and harlots go into the kingdom of god before you pharisees, that justify yourselves, m●●h. 21. 3●. but there is risen up in this last age, a generation of strong reasoners, that say, our formal pardon is not in thy blood, but we must get it, as it were by the works of the law, by faith, holiness, perseverance, love, spiritual duties; and this doctrine, o jesus, i must adhere to, or i shall be accounted a dethroner of thee, and an enervater of thy laws, though there is not one word either in the law or gospel, that enjoins these as conditions to obtain pardon. but thy righteousness is by them interpreted to be our gospel holiness; and upon this they ground our obtaining pardon, not by the one work of the law, thou shalt love the lord with all thine heart, but by the many works of the gospel. o that ever men's learning and parts, should be so vitiated as to decry the simplicity of the truth, as it is in jesus! believe in the lord jesus, and thou shalt be saved; set up their scheme of a gospel promise of pardon, upon a conformity to this prescribed rule of duties innumerable, besides repentance, faith, love, sincere holiness, perseverance, obedience; and when all this is mentioned, there comes in a boundless, etc. o to the law, and to the testimonies, let 'tis say, which directs us plainly, look to me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth, come unto me, and ye shalt find rest for your souls. after all this pother mr. williams comes to himself, and also doctor crisp, and though he had been setting up his connexion's and conformity in faith, holiness, obedience, etc. at last he comes to bellarmins' tutissimum, to the sheet anchor, to the alone true gospel way of salvation, true uniting faith in christ. i was in an amazement to find, that god extorted this confession from him after his long deviation, that true uniting faith was the wedding garment. this is like a minister of the gospel of our lord jesus, if he can stay here; but alas! the next page throws this good mist down; however, we will make much of this; for here he centres with the choicest christians, when he saith thus, god upon a view of his guests, he cast out him that had not on the wedding garment, viz. true uniting faith. then i, quaere, what's become of the long beadroll of spiritual duties, faith, love, repentance, holiness, obedience, etc. if true uniting faith be the wedding garment, sure this wedding garment was not worn without pardon of sins, through the blood of christ, washing them off from this guest; if this were by true uniting faith, and nothing else, was looked after by the master of the feast, but that his guests owned him by wearing him their righteousness by faith; then avoid the scheme of our holy performances from having any thing to do in our being admitted to fit with the king at his round table. but what shall we say, unstable as water reuben was; no sooner hath mr. williams writ clear gospel, that nothing but true uniting faith kept a man from being cast out; but the next clause brings in persevering holiness, with the train of all spiritual duties, to give admittance to the wise virgins; so that one while we are justified by faith, another while by persevering holiness. if you are to go to the wedding feast, you are to put on true uniting faith: if you are to enter with the bridegroom to the marriage, then 'tis the spirit of grace, and persevering holiness gains you admittance; these are his words, as by keeping out the foolish virgins, for not having oil in their lamps, viz. the spirit of grace, and persevering holiness; so by admitting the wise virgins, he judicially declared, they had a spirit of grace and persevering holiness. here's not one word of faith, or of christ, or of his righteousness; for these poor virgins to get into the wedding house by; not one syllable of being justified by faith: but according to his sense, they said to christ, lord, we have the spirit of grace, and persevering holiness; we have prophesied in thy name against too much exalting free grace; we have done many wonderful works; we have persevered in our holiness till thy coming. but will christ give them admission on this plea of a spirit of grace, and holiness, without a word of faith in our lord jesus? no sure, he will say, i know you not, you would not know me to be your righteousness: you come in your gospel holiness; i know you not. this is to make the gospel yea and nay. 'tis yea to day, true uniting faith gains admittance to day, 'tis nay to morrow; now persevering holiness doth it. this is giving an uncertain sound; whereas the promises are the same to day, yesterday, and for ever, and all, yea, and amen, in christ jesus; if true faith be the wedding garment, our wearing christ's righteousness, the same true faith is that which receives the oil into our vessels, the blood or righteousness of jesus, ours by faith, or the spirit of life, which is in christ jesus, rom 8.2. this christ dwelling in our hearts by faith, christ dwelling in us by the holy spirit, is the true oil that the wise virgins gain admittance by. his next clause is, the advancing into our justification god's terms of forgiving, adopting, glorifying as rector, by believing, etc. this, etc. hath a great hand in forgiving, i suppose it wonderful to every judicious r●ader, that a gentleman of great parts and sense should blend the gospel thus, as to make the gospel blessings to be dispersed by god, with regard to our being believers, etc. that is, to our being believers, and performing all the duties prescribed in the gospel; he puts it only god hath a regard to it, but the plain english must be, god doth so regard our performing this act of believing, etc. and that till death, and not only so, but all other gospel duties, that if we do not perform them, god dispenses no gospel blessing, so that we are still under a covenant of works, but let us see the true lineaments of this new gospel, which is in these words of mr. williams. thus, can any think that forgiving, adopting, glorifying, or the conveyance of every other promised benefit, given on god's terms are not judicial acts of god as rector; if so, doth he dispense these blindly and promiscuously, without any regard to our being believers, etc. or no? i suppose mr. w. will be accounted more hold than becomes him, to insinuate that god dispenses his blessings blindly, if he do not bestow them in his way, upon his terms of our being believers, etc. o that men were humble, and in pretending to oppose dr. crisp they did not speak indecently of god, by calling him a blind giver of benefits, if he give them not according to our prescriptions of his rectoral government: god gives freely, god gives before we have done good or evil; god shows mercy, because he will show mercy; god saves the chief of sinners in the career of sin; god therefore speaks comfortably, because israel went after her lovers, and pardons sin because it is great; his ways in showing mercy, are past finding out, justifying the ungodly, and not calling the righteous; and yet god dispenses not blindly and promiscuously, though he do not do it in mr. w. way of having some regard to our being believers, repenters, perseverers, etc. vain man would be wiser than god, when god saith, not for your sakes do i this, be it known unto you, but for mine holy names sake, which ye have profaned among the heathen. will mr. w. be so bold as to think god dispenses his blessings blindly, because he doth not give them on those terms he hath prescribed; we see gods terms, here are for his names sake which they profaned; profaning god's name was all that god had regard to on their part, it was his own holy name was his only inducement, his holy, free, gracious covenant in which his holy name was engaged, not our being believers, perseverers in spiritual duties, etc. the like ground god looks at and regards in his delivering israel in deut. 7.7. not their being more excellent than other people, but his own love of them, the lord did not set his love upon you, and ch●se you, because you were more than other people, for you were the fewest of all people, but because the lord loved you, these are gods terms, he loved and chose because he loved: sure mr. williams will not say god had regard to their holiness in dispensing his blessings to them, before the gospel shined in its lustre through our lord jesus, and must god be charged with blind promiscuous dispensing blessings now under clear gospel light, if he now show mercy in a sovereign way of grace to gross sinners, without regard to any good they do, while he suffer the righteous in their own eyes to perish in their own righteousness. o let us not prescribe rules and terms to god for his bestowing mercy, but thankfully accept his grace and mercy in our lord jesus, freely given, because he will have mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardens. well, but mr. w. will confirm his position, and that by scripture too, though strained thus, with respect to what's above declared, the gospel is called a law of faith, a law of liberty: it is true, the gospel is called in opposition to the law of works, a law of faith, but i think in the stream of the whole bible, david could not find a fit stone to sling into the head of this great goliath, man's righteousness to join with christ's than this scripture; mr. williams is setting up a righteousness of works or gospel holiness, for ushering in pardon, and to prove it, saith the gospel is called a law of faith, but let us see how 'tis so called in rom. 3.26, 27. to declare his righteousness that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in jesus, where is boasting then? it is excluded, by what law, of works? nay, but by the law of faith. here the apostle setly and solemnly treats of excluding works, and of our being justified by faith without works of all sorts, and positively asserts, god is just in justifying the believer; god could not be just in justifying according to the arminian way, for our imperfect holiness, or having any regard to it in the matter of justifying, but god is just in justifying a believer, because the believer hath a perfect complete righteousness of christ put upon him to answer the law by, and god looking upon him complete in christ, is just in justifying him. the apostle having laid this ground work to damn all self-righteousness or works, even faith as a work in the matter of justification; he comes and makes a challenge directly against mr. williams' doctrine, of our sincere holiness concurring to pardon, and saith where is boasting then? where are all these great advancers of man's righteousness, which tends to boasting? and he gives the stabbing answer, it is excluded: god hath not lest the least crevice for it to enter by, 'tis wholly excluded, 'tis shut out from ever having any thing to do in our salvation; yet may one say, 'tis shut out by the law of works, the old moral law, do and live; we grant that, but there is a gospel holiness will let in boasting again; i must repent, believe, be sincerely holy, and persevere therein all my days, and god hath regard to this in my justification: no, no, 'tis wholly shut out, there is to be no boasting, and 'tis shut out by the law of faith, by that faith i just now mentioned; all you have to do in the point of justification is, believe in the lord jesus, and you shall be saved. do these men seek a law? here's the law, this is his commandment, that you believe in the name of the lord jesus, john 3.23. when they said, what shall we do that we might work the works of god, jesus answered and said unto them, this is the work of god, that ye believe in him whom he hath sent, so the apostle here, do you seek, a law that excludes from boasting, i'll tell. you the law, 'tis the law of faith to believe on him that is just, and the justifier of the ungodly upon his believing, and yet this mr. w. brings for confirmation of his sincere holiness, that god regards in his giving pardon. but thus it pleaseth god to confound the wise by quoting a text in order to adulterate it, when in the issue, no text is more sharp upon him. a farther confirmation of his setting up works for concurring to pardon, is in the next words thus. and it (the gospel) specially insists on that sincerity of grace and holiness, which the rule of the promise makes necessary in its description of the person, whom it makes partaker of its included benefit; sure never was the free grace and love of god to man so fettered and obscured, by dark expressions; had any sophister industriously set himself to vitiate the true meaning of god's love in these words, god so loved the world, that he gave his only beloved son, that whosoever believeth in him, should not perish, but have everlasting life; he could not possibly, i think have done it worse, than to explain him in mr. w. expressions, of the gospel insisting on grace, and that sincere, and on holiness; and that such as the rule of the promise makes necessary, and that rule of the promise is in its description of the person to be benefited by it, which description must needs be the whole word of god, and when this person hath all that holiness that we find the word of god recommends, than this person by this rule with this holiness, is partaker of an included benefit. god of his rich mercy pour out his spirit and grant his servants may be enabled to deliver his clear plain scripture offers of life and salvation by jesus christ, with clearer evidence than this, is this the way of confuting dr. c. who asserts gospel grace in plain gospel terms; that christ came to seek and save the lost, that he seeks and finds his lost sheep, and brings them home upon his shoulders, that he carries the lambs in his arms, and gently leads those with young, and instead of such soulsaving encouragements, to poor sinners, to put them off with our grace and holiness, and not a word of gods saving them in christ, but our coming up to the rule which the promise makes necessary? and who shall be able to say, when he hath done all, that he comes up to mr. william's rule of believing, etc. his obedience, etc. his persevering, etc. from such stating of gospel truth, o lord deliver thy people. now we come to the use mr. williams makes of his premises of salvation, from our conformity to gospel rule of new obedience, etc. which he sums up in few words, viz. and the main of our ministry consists in pressing men to answer the rule of the gospel promise. but the main of the apostles was, to know nothing but christ and him crucified, and to press men to be found in him, and so mr. w. once did when he preached that christ endured the utmost, god bated him nothing, the atonement was so complete that god can demand no other from christ, or from any soul this atonement is applied to. this he deduced from this doctrine, the reconciling of sinners to god is effected by the concurring influence of the priestly and kingly office of christ. well then, christ hath effected this reconciliation; what remains for poor man to do, but accept it and be thankful, not to come in with his gospel holiness, for god to have regard to in our reconciliation to god. but it seems this stream of gospel grace must not run so clear, now in his book; here must be conformity to gospel rule, before we have any benefit by christ, which consists in repentance, faith, etc. to all the rest, and now this is pressed, and the main of our ministry consists in this, whereas the main of the apostles, was to beseech men to be reconciled to god, because god was in christ, and when upon the cross, reconciling the world to himself, when by one offering he for ever perfected the work, and cried out, it is finished; and then after union, after engrafting into christ; after being in a blessed state of salvation, secured so as never to fall away, than the apostle presses to walk worthy of this gospel, of this free salvation by jesus christ. mr. williams proceeds, viz. we call men to be reconciled to god, upon which we know god will be at peace with them. this i thought it would come to at last, first, we must come to god and be reconciled to him, and then god will be at peace with us, which is just contrary to the apostle, when we were enemies, we were reconciled, rom. 5.10. but when men will be pampering with our holiness, for god to look to in our acceptance in christ, they will fall into a covenant of works, and call it gospel grace, that our works are accepted, in order to our justification and salvation; we must first be reconciled to god, saith mr. w. that is, we must first comply with the gospel rule, of not only faith, but holiness, repentance, and perseverance in new obedience, and having thus brought ourselves to that reconciled posture, than god will be at peace; is this fulfilling christ's commission, go preach the gospel to every creature, he that believeth shall be saved? is this proclaiming the acceptable year of the lord, when thou wast in thy blood, i said to thee, live, and for mine own name sake, i will remember their sins no more? god waits to be gracious, knocking at the door of poor sinners hearts, crying, open to me, let me come in, i bring my supper, i bring my son, only let him in, only receive him by faith, god don't say, my son and i will be at peace with you after you have washed you and made yourselves clean; but he comes to tell you he loved you and washed you from your sins in his blood on the cross, and you that believe in me are the persons: i was reconciled to you then, and am come now to offer it to you, and beseech you to be reconciled to me: thus with these words of his first love, he draws poor sinners to be reconciled to him, and do not damp their comforts by telling them, i will be at peace, if you be reconciled to me, but revives their hearts by telling them that the peace is already wrought in god and for sinners, by christ at his death, for that he made peace by the blood of his cross and by him reconciled all to himself, col. 1.20. christ did not stay till we were reconciled to him, as mr. w. seems to intimate, when he calls men to be reconciled to god, upon which he knows, god will be at peace with them. this i take to be setting the cart before the horse, to invite men to be reconciled thereby, to get god to be at peace, whereas the sweet heavenly strain of the gospel is, come, for all things are ready, come to jesus who is already made of god, to you that come, wisdom, righteousness, sanctification and redemption, who is the author and finisher of your faith. o jesus, thus draw and we will run after thee, and thus he hath drawn thousands by the prophets, and apostles preaching, and his faithful servants after him, to come to god, and to holy obedience in love, whereas the legal drawing, of walking holily, and then god will be at peace, keeps poor souls in perpetual doubts, and works the soul but to a spirit of bondage. next comes the top-stone of this new system of gospel truth, which looks as if it were hewed and squared at rome, with only a little varnish at amsterdam, viz. these things (gods promising life by forgiveness, and ye insisting on some degree of obedience) will help thy conceptions, still remembering that the merit of christ are the cause of this gospel ordination. can any spiritual enlightened mind read this, and not blush for mr. w. and think he is hard put to it to support his cause, of laying our salvation on our gospel holiness joined with christ's righteousness, when he flies to such an assertion as the papists have been forced to forsake, being beaten out of that trench by our great divines: that christ merited, that we should merit, this they asserted, but found it would not hold water, therefore bellarmin flies to his tutissimum, and saith in his book the justif. l. 5. ch. 7. pro. 3. propter incertitudinem propriae justitiae & periculum inanis gloriae, tutissimum est totam fiduciam in sola dei misericordia & benignitate reponere. because of the uncertainty of our own righteousness, and the danger of vain glory, it is safest to put all our trust in the alone mercy and bounty of god. here the jesuit flies from the gospel ordination that christ merited, that god should have regard to our gospel holiness, and our conformity to gospel rule, for obtaining gospel promise; this chimed well with him in his long arguments for justification by works, but upon his review of his strong reasons, he flies from it and betakes himself to god's mere mercy and bounty, which must be in christ, and so i hope the great opposer of dr. crisp will do. but in regard this is so broad and wide a gap, to let in the whole body of self justiciaries, with their good works to come in for sharing with christ in salvation: i must make some opposition to it, both from scripture and sound protestants. the merits of christ, saith mr. w. are the cause of this ordination, that is, that our answering the gospel rule obtains us interest in the gospel promise, or which is all one, do and live; christ merited that if we do we shall live, the only difference is the first doing and live, was perfect obedience to the law, and this doing and live of mr. w. is sincere obedience to the gospel in all its commands, counsels, etc. which every true christian trembles to think on. is this the upshot of christ's death, to merit, that our gospel obedience should be the ground of our obtaining benefit by christ; then i say again, it must come to this, that christ merited that we should merit; for there can be no benefit to a sinner, but by merit; christ did not absolutely merit the benefit for us, say they, but merited that we doing so, and so, should obtain the benefit; then our, doing so and so, must merit it; for it is injustice of god to himself, and his righteous broken law, to give a sinner that deserves hell any good, unless that good be merited: and this is left to the sinner, to obtain by gospel obedience, which therefore, must of necessity be from merit. so that here it must rest, or we make god unjust to himself, and so say, christ purchased this, that we should do so, is nonsense. mr. williams can hardly assoil himself from this charge, till he retract this assertion, that the merits of christ are the cause of that gospel ordination he had laid down. as for the scriptures that oppose this divinity, those already mentioned are abundantly more than sufficient to throw down the house built on this sandy foundation, as that god so loved the world, that whosoever believes in him, should not perish, but have everlasting life. here is nothing required, but believing to everlasting life. so the apostle, acts 16. believe in the lord jesus, and thou shalt be saved. here's complying with no other gospel rule for salvation, but believing in the lord jesus: to which i may add, the whole stream of the new testament, to come and take the water of life freely, rev. 22. they that hunger and thirst after this righteousness of christ, they shall be filled. if god by his grace have begot a true hunger, a true desire after it, they shall have it, come to me, if weary, if laden; cast yourself on me, and you shall find rest for your souls: but the great scripture is, not to him that worketh, not to him that thinks to obtain gospel benefits, by complying with gospel rule of walking in holy obedience, to obtain pardon by it, but to him that believes on him that justifies the . this scripture is enough to confound the whole scheme of the new fashioned stating of gospel truth: the apostle states gospel truth thus, not to him that worketh; no works at all must come in in the business of our salvation, as concurring to it: thus the apostle held, saith mr. williams, this lets in licentiousness; i have found a better way of staring gospel truth, that is, to him that worketh, to him that complies with gospel rule, to him that is godly, not his faith alone, but his faith with sincere obedience: that is his gospel holiness, which the apostle intends, when he speaks of being found in the righteousness of god by faith: this gives right to gospel benefits. o what heart touched with love to the lord jesus, and poor souls, but must ache to see the gospel thus mangled, and the crown upon our gospel obedience, jointly with christ! if this be not evacuating, and invalidating the complete mediation and atonement of the lord jesus, then what can do it? for he will not have any co-workers with him for justification and salvation: though by his spirit he makes all his regenerate one's co-workers with him in the carrying on the work of sanctification. not to multiply scriptures in a matter so strenuously contended against by the apostle, of our works, concurring to our salvation. i shall only add at present, that great text, 2 tim. 1.9. who hath saved us, and called us, not according to our works: here's a perfect renunciation of works, even works of all sorts, before faith and after faith: he don't say, who saved us not for our works, but not according to our works; our works have no accordingness in them to our salvation; they have no concurrence in that point; they are left quite out: here's no room for gospel obedience in complying with gospel rule to obtain life: no, not a word of that; 'tis so far from being for our works, that 'tis not according to our works, god hath no regard to them in saving and calling. he hath saved: how? he saved by calling us: how is that? did he not call us to salvation, upon seeing us comply with the gospel rule? no, he saved us, and called us, not according to our works. how then? then, it is in a way that amazes the scholastic world, a way that will not go down with the wise and prudent of this world. it is according to his grace (not our grace) according (i say) to his own grace given us in christ, before the world began. o be amazed and confounded all that would state gospel truth any other way than god hath stated it, for the everlasting comfort of all those blessed ones whom god hath showed their election to, by their effectual call to come to christ; he hath saved, 'tis already done, and that not according to humane stating gospel truth, not according to our works, that way would leave us always under suspicions and jealousies to our dying day; but according to his ancient everlasting love, and that given to us as looked upon in christ, when chosen in him before they had done good or evil, before the world began, that the purpose of god according to election, might stand: here the apostle leaves it, and so will i, as to scripture confutation of his gospel ordination; and because mr. william's may not say, this is but one doctor's opinion, when he saith doctor crisp dethrones christ, by rejecting holy works from concurring to salvation, i shall spend some pains and time, begging it may be acceptable service in the lord, in showing what several servants of god of good name, say to this point: i begin with mr. veale, a gentleman not in the least inclining to antinomians, in his sermon against merits, morn. lect. fol. 437. he shuts out gracious works from having any hand or concurrence in our salvation, by this expression, viz. it is much that he (god) doth not damn you for your good works, seeing they are all defiled, and have something of sin cleaving to them. what becomes of our gospel holiness now, and sincere obedience, in the case of salvation? what, all good works sin! then they are dung. well, but hath not christ merited such a gospel ordination, as our answering the gospel rule of holy obedience, though imperfect, it shall interest us in gospel blessings. to this mr. veale saith, in fol. 417. it is in vain to say, that christ hath merited for the saints a power of meriting; the papists can never prove that christ merited any such power for believers. it is really more for his honour to purchase all for them himself; but mr. william's will say, i do not say christ merited, that we should merit; no, but he saith, christ merited god should regard our works in justification and in our salvation: what's that, but coming in as it were by works, not with a downright rejecting of christ, but with a side-wind bringing in our works. christ merited that we should do something in our salvation: and what's that? in plain english, they give us a right to the gospel benefits, which in some sense is worse than downright popery, in as much as popery makes our works meritorious of life, in that christ hath put an infinite value on them by his merits, and so makes our works so valuable, as to compensate the justice of god for our sins, and so still maintain the honour of god's righteousness in forgiving sin on a valuable consideration of our works made, by christ, meritorious of it: whereas the middle way found out by some, makes god so gracious as by virtue of christ's mediation god accepts of imperfect defective gospel holiness as perfect, for christ's sake, and thereupon forgives: how near this comes to mr. w's. stating the gospel ordination, may be easily be judged. mr. veal leaves mr. williams to stand by himself as to gospel holiness, giving an interest in the blessings, and saith 'tis only an evidence of faith, and gives no title, in fol. 421. hope of life (saith he) may be helped on by obedience and good works, because they are an evidence of his faith, and so of his interest in christ; but there is a vast difference between a man's taking comfort in his obedience, as the evidence of his title to glory, and trusting in it, as that which gives him title. i come next to mr. doelittle, fol. 195. of morning lecture, who gives an account of the protestants and papists doctrine of justification: first, he sums up the apostles doctrine of justification, not to him that works, as d●vid describes the blessedness of the man to whom the lord imputes righteousness, not imputing their trespasses to them; for he made him to be sin for us, that we might be the righteousness of god: then he quotes the protestant doctrine thus, we are accounted righteous before god, only for the merit of our lord and saviour jesus christ by faith, and not for our works. those whom god effectually calls he freely justifies, not by infusing righteousness into them [mark that against the gospel ordination of god's regarding our holiness] but by pardoning their sins, and by accounting and accepting their persons as righteous, not for any thing wrought in them, or done by them, but for christ's sake alone, imputing the obedience and satisfaction of christ to them, they receiving and resting on him and his righteousness by faith. i think nothing can be more opposite than this account of protestant faith (where is not a word of our holiness to justification) and mr. williams', which is made up of gospel obedience, gospel rule, gospel ordination of sincere holiness, regarded by god in our justification. this protestant doctrine he confirms by referring to a cloud of witnesses against our new divinity, viz. the helvetian confession, the bohemian, gallican, augustane, belgic, wittenberg, and basil. then follows the popish trent justification: justification is not only forgiveness of sin, but also sanctification of the sinner, whereby a man of unjust is made just; (and mr. williams like this complying with gospel rule, gives right to gospel blessing,) the papists, go on and say, the only formal cause of justification is the righteousness of god, not wherewith be himself is righteous, but whereby he makes us righteous. i know mr. williams in words denies our sanctification to be a part of our justification, but in the whole scope of his argument, he makes our gospel holiness to be looked upon by god as having a concurrence in our justification; and this is his gospel ordination, and in full conformity to the popish justification by god's righteousness, whereby we are renewed: his last clause of the popish article about justification suits extremely with mr. williams' fling at doctor crisp, as dethroning christ for making christ the alone cause of our salvation, without any thing of our works concurring: and thus saith the council of trent, if any one shall say, that a man is justified by the s●le imputation of the righteousness of christ, or in the sole remission of sin, excluding grace and charity, which is shed abroad in their hearts, by the holy spirit, and is inherent in him, or that the grace whereby we are justified is only the savour of god; let him be accursed. this i take to be asserted by the papists, in opposition to the protestant doctrine; so that the protestant doctrine was what they accursed, and what mr. williams in effect accurseth, saying the holding it is dethroning christ: well then, the papists curse those that say, a man is justified by the sole imputation of christ's righteousness, without any grace or charity. what's become then of mr. williams' gospel holiness, sincere obedience, that god looks at in the gospel rule, to obtain the gospel promise; again, they curse those that say, our justification is by the alone savour of god (or freely by his grace, rom. 3.25.) what doth mr. william's less, in falling foul on doctor crisp, and all that wholly exclude every thing of man in the business of justification, and say, they enerv●te christ's government, and open a door to all licentiousness? whereas the contrary is most true, that the grace of god appearing, teaches to deny all ungodliness. my next opposer of mr. w's gospel ordination, is a great maul to arminianism; that is, the learned, pious mr. perkins, who saith in fol. 576 of vol. 1. thus the papists say, christ merited that our good works merit: and answers, this is a dotage of their devising, for christ merited pardon for sin impuation of his righteousness, and life eternal. and fol. 104. to say christ merited that our works merit this takes away christ's intercession, & i may add to say, our holiness comes in toward our justification doth the same. mr. perkins comes closer in vol. 2 fol. 205. it may be objected (saith he) there is a co-operation of works and faith: i answer, that this co-operation is not in the act of justification, nor in the work of our salvation, but in the manifestation of the truth and sincerity of our faith, and for the declaration of this, faith and works jointly concur. here then is a pestilent and damnable doctrine of the papists, when they teach justification by the wo●ks of the law. and what is it to teach justification by the works of the gospel, which never had a promise of justification to it, whereas the works of the law once had before adam's fall. in fol. 236. he turns perfect antimonian, with our homilists, if some men may censure him, and saith thus, the gospel promises life to him that doth nothing in the cause of his salvation, but only believes in christ. this is dangerous doctrine in doctor crisp, because it spoils mr. w's gospel ordination of works and faith going together in justification, but hath for this 100 years been good sound doctrine in perkins, and the homilies too. he proceeds in fol. 237. and saith thus, believing and doing are opposed in the article of our justification.— in our good conversation, they agree, faith goes before, and doing follows; but in the work of justification, they are as fire and water. this is a fatal stroke to the new gospel ordination, and a full concurrence with dr. crisp, though mr. williams call this a dethroning christ. mr. perkins could not expect to be taken for an oracle, so that by his ipse dixit, that every one should receive his positions, tho' he grounded them on plain scripture, therefore he strengthens his assertion by the say of the fathers, with which i farther oppose mr. w's. gospel ordination, and confirm dr. c. in fol. 537. mr. perkins saith, the fathers do hold faith only to be requisite to justification, even without the works of grace. chrysostom saith, in hom. 7. in cap. 3. rom. what is the law of faith? (saith he) to be saved by grace; here he showeth the power of god, in that he not only saved us, and that without use of any works, exacting only faith of us. and theodoret on eph. 2. we have not believed of our own accord, but came being called, and when we are come, he doth not exact purity, and innocency of life, but hath pardoned our sins, accepting of faith only. and basil ser. de hum. this it is to glory in the lord, when a man is not puffed up with his own righteousness, but acknowledgeth himself destitute of all true righteousness, and justified by faith alone in jesus christ. they are justified before god, saith ambrose, on rom. 4. without any labour, or toil, by only faith, no works of penitence being hereto required, but only that they believe. this cloud of witnesses, is enough to cover and wholly extinguish the gospel ordination of mr. williams, without any comment on them. mr. william's next assertion is a chip of the same block, thus; his (christ's) righteousness imputed, is the cause for which we are justified when we do answer the gospel rule. here's no mincing the matter, of bringing in our sanctification into our justification, for mr. williams tells us plainly what our answering the gospel rule is, viz. some degrees of obedience, repentance, love, imperfect faith, persevering, etc. thus while in words he pretends to separate sanctification from justification, yet here he really joins them and confounds them, making our justification to be by christ's righteousness imputed when we are holy; when we be sanctified, inferring that it is not till then, and not only so, but that that is the condition of our justification: is this the apostles justifying the ungodly, to be justified when we answer mr. william's gospel rule? whereas the gospel makes no such rule as he lays down of our sincere obedience, concurring to justification, or god's having regard to our gospel holiness, which is mr. william's own word: i will not stand to refel this, but do aver nothing can be clearer to me than this, that by this expression we are justified when we answer that gospel rule which mr. williams laid down, there is a downright mingling our sanctification with our justification, which the apostle strenuously denies; 'tis not of works, only of faith, that it might be by grace, not god's grace in us, working holiness, but his grace to us in christ. the next is that which is the ground work of all mr▪ w●● building 〈…〉 that glorious text which i so often have harped upon, and which i must again say somewhat to now in its course, for that i am not able to bear that such an outwork should treacherously be delivered up, and say that this text in phil. 3.9. is allowed by all sound protestants, to be meant, as 'tis said that the righteousness of god that the apostle desired to be found in by faith is only the imputed righteousness of christ, and not at all concerns our gospel holiness; nay, this gospel holiness, thus put in the room of christ's righteousness, is a term foreign to scripture language, and is brought in to jostle out gospel grace. 'tis holiness we are to walk in, but 'tis grace we are to be saved by, which grace is this, that the rig●●●●●ness of christ is made ours; wrought out by christ for us, and imput●●● 〈…〉 to us without any thing of that which men call our gospel holin●●● 〈…〉 to do therein: now if the church of god will be content to lose 〈…〉 ●f phil. 3.9. and suffer a disputer to make this breach in our bank ag●●● 〈◊〉 popish sea of justification by gospel holiness, all the rest of our banks and ●arriers will soon be run down; then they that hunger and thirst after righteousness, shall be filled; must be interpreted of our gospel holiness. if we be hungry for holiness in conformity to gospel rule, our souls shall be filled with eternal happiness, and then if we take to us the breast plate of righteousness, that is, a holy walking with god, that will defend us from all temptations of the devil; as for faith in christ, that must come after our own righteousness by this doctrine, whereas the apostle in that place eph. 6. brings in that breast plate as our chief, first piece of armour after truth, when the soul is enlightened with the knowledge of god's love, to give jesus christ for us. the first thing he doth, is, he puts on christ's righteousness as his breastplate: alas if the soul puts on his own righteousness, the devil's darts would soon pierce through it, but every sensible soul will say, with job, though i were righteous, yet would i not answer, i would make supplication to my judg. i suppose job had as much to say for his close holy walking with god as any that now call for gospel holiness, to make us partakers of christ's purchase, yet he renounces all, and saith farther, for the confounding our new grotian divinity, if i wash myself with snow water; (of the best gospel holiness that ever mere man had) and make my hands never so clean (with close walking with god) yet shalt thou plunge me in the ditch. (of self condemnation and eternal misery) and mine own (of self righteousness) shall abhor me. o what clear gospel grace had this good man acquaintance with, when he flies from all the trash of his being clean, to make way for his justification, and betakes himself to his days-man, his redeemer, who though he had not actually taken flesh, yet was then living, and living as his redeemer, for i know that my redeemer liveth, though he slay me, i will trust in him: if i justify myself (with my close walking or gospel holiness, in part or in the whole) mine own mouth would condemn me, nay, though i were perfect yet would i not know my soul. here was a right gospel spirit, like the apostle paul, concerning the law blameless, yet, my righteousness is dung; so job, if i be righteous, i will not lift up mine head, job. 10.15. i will not glory in my breastplate of mine own righteousness. again, if with mr. william's the righteousness of christ by faith be our own gospel holiness, why may not esa. 45.24. in him have i righteousness and strength, he our gospel holiness too, and jer. 23.6. jehovah our righteousness be the same, and then, have not submitted to the righteousness of god, rom. 10.3. shall have the same usage, and mainly intent our gospel holiness, though the apostle brings it in, in opposition to our own righteousness: but blessed be god, if mr. w. or an angel should undermine these foundations of a sinner's salvation, yet on this rock god will build his church, that christ was made sin for us, that we might be made the righteousness of god in him. i say in him, not in our gospel holiness, and if on this foundation any man builds hay and stubble, (as our gospel holiness compared with christ's righteousness) his work shall be burnt and he shall suffer loss, but he himself shall be saved so as by fire, it being a dangerous thing to mingle our gospel holiness with christ's righteousness. again, if christ righteousness, phil. 3.9. be our gospel holiness, mr. w. may as well say, by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men, to justification of life, rom. 5.18. doth principally intent, not so much the righteousness of christ imputed to us as the gospel holiness of every one of us. if we give this inch, he may take an ell, but we are bid earnestly to contend for the faith once delivered to the saints, of which this is as great a part as any i know next the deity of our lord jesus; therefore we must not part with it to let in a shame model of schematical divinity of god's regarding our holiness as a ground to justify us, we complying with the gospel rule of sincere obedience to qualify us for christ's righteousness to be imputed to us. by this unsavoury gloss of mr. w. any judicious person may see how unmeet he is to arraign, and by his arguments, to come in evidence against the doctrine delivered by dr. c. if he would have convinced him, he must do it with stronger and better reasons than human, even with opposite scriptures, if his bible have any such as are repugnant to the plain force of express scriptures, that the dr. insisted on, such as the lord laid on him the iniquity of us all, to prove sin really translated on christ, and the children being yet unborn, having done neither good nor evil, he said, jacob have i loved, and esau have i hated, to prove that god loves us, and imputes the righteousness of christ to his elect, without respect of good or evil done by them: but he having no scriptures to overthrow those maxims, he may not think to do it with plausible sophistry of the suitableness of it to god's holiness, to justify none but the holy, when the scripture saith expressly, he justifies the ungodly, and so i beseech the lord to do to him as well as to myself, else woe unto us. next comes the exact copy of paul a pharisee, thus; the grace of god is hereby stated as free as is consistent with his government, or rather, i may say, as free as is consistent with justification, partly by works, and partly by grace; i wonder that any man should say, none need the riches of grace more than i, as he doth in the next words, and yet tell the world a little before that god's government, and rectoral distribution of rewards and punishments, require our complying with gospel rule in some degrees of obedience, and the gospel sanction fixeth sincere holiness and perseverance in faith, as the terms of possessing heaven, and so by bringing in our gospel holiness into our justification, totally make void the grace of god, and then in effect this is all the grace that i need; that when i have persevered in the gospel rule, i may tell god now i have done what thou requirest; now heaven is due to me, for christ hath purchased this gospel ordination. o that god would unhorsed lofty spirits, and make us cry out, (with the poor publican, smiting on our breasts,) lord be merciful to me a sinner, not lord be merciful to me a complyer in gospel holiness; if i could hear him say so, it would be with me an argument that he thought he needed the riches of grace, but the righteous need not grace, for he came not to call the righteous, but sinners. is this the only grace you will allow god to glory in, that when men have lived sincerely holy all their days, than they may come to god and say, i demand my penny i have laboured for; i crave heaven, for christ died for this end that i should save myself by my evangelical righteousness, and this is consistent with thy rectoral distribution of rewards and punishments, viz. rewards to the holy, and punishments to the unholy; as for christ's righteousness and my justification, by that, i must name it for fashion sake, but my darling holiness with perseverance, are the terms of possessing heaven? to which our lord jesus hath already answered, and so will to every self-justitiary, as in matth. 21.31. verily i say unto you, that the publicans and the harlots go into the kingdom of god before you. when the holy pharisee comes with his, god i thank thee i am not as other men; i am none of those sinners that trust to be saved, by the mere grace of god, in the merits of christ: i am none of st. paul's antinomians, who said, those that are of the law are accursed: i fast twice a week, i give alms, i have sincere obedience, i have gospel holiness, i hope i shall scape well. then the poor publican, the poor self-condemned sinner cries, grace, grace, unclean, unclean, i am a chief sinner; i fly for refuge to the hope set before me, the blood of christ only, to free me from my sins; sure this man will go down justified rather than the other, and such a sort of justification i beg of god for my soul, and that mr. w. that saith he needs the riches of grace, and the more because he brings in gospel holiness to concur with christ's righteousness in justification: i hope and pray he may seek the publicans, and not the pharisees justification, and leave gods rectoral distribution to his own holy determinations in his word, come ye blessed, and go ye cursed, as they were chosen before the foundation of the world, or passed by in god's eternal decree, yet still the chosen were chose to faith and holiness, tho' not as those terms which give a right to heaven. mr. w. goes on thus, reader note that in this ●ook i speak of the adult, and not infants, and why infants saved one way and adult another; if infants be sanctified in the womb, by infusing the new nature, what is that but the seed of faith, and all grace in christ? and if so, he not they saved as the adult, though their grace shine not out; must infants be saved by the merits of christ alone, but not so the adult, who must have gospel holiness to join with christ's righteousness, for god to have some regard to in their salvation? if this be his meaning then the garments of infants must be all of pure fine white linen, and of those grown to 15 or 20, it must be linsey wolsey, the warp of linen, and woof of the of gospel holiness, and so infants may be buried in linen and the others in flannel; this is the rectoral distribution of threats and promises, not according to god's way, he that believeth shall be saved, and he that believeth not is condemned: but the adult that is sincerely holy, god is so just as to save him, and he that thinks to be saved only by faith in the lord jesus, bringing forth fruits of holiness, is an antinomian, dethrones christ, enervates his laws, he must be exposed to scorn. mr. w. proceeds, thou must expect to take up my fall sense by a view of several chapters, and not only one, because sundry chapters refer to the same points, more or less: we use to say that which is sauce for a goose is sauce for a gander, but 'tis too common for men to look through red angry spectacles on the authors they oppose, but would have their own writings looked on in green ones; would it not have been becoming mr. w. to have dealt with the dr. as he thou's his reader to do by him, to take up his full sense, by a view of several chapters, than he would not have charged the dr. with enervating christ's laws, by pleading the free justification of sinners without works: if he had compared his sermons on esa. 53. with those on titus, of denying ungodliness: is not our lords rule good here? what you would that men should do to you, do ye the same to them. if mr. w. would have people compare one part of his book with the other, 'tis equal he should have done so by the dr. which would have taken off a great part of his acrimony in making the dr. a dethroner of christ. his next looks invidious, and is a clear contradiction to his last desire of comparing one part with another, for he puts a sense by force on the doctor thus, and forget not (saith mr. williams) that though the dr. oft in his book speaks of men as believers, yet every thing is true of the elect, viz. they have as much title to saving blessings, only they do not know it; this was his judgement. here by head and shoulders he brings in this as the drs. judgement of the elect, without one tittle of proof; forget not this, that whatever the doctor saith of saving blessings that believers have a title to, he means it of the elect; this 〈…〉 well, but what if that be forced on the dr. as his judgement, that all saving blessings belong to the elect tho' before believing they do not know it? how much more is this than what mr. williams grants in fol. 39 in saying christ merited for all the elect, that they should certainly partake of the saving benefits of his righteousness? where is the drs. enervating christ's laws, if this was his judgement? doth not this correspond with that of the apostle, eph. 1. he raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places, in christ jesus, do●h not this evince that all the elect were raised up with christ, and do now sit with him in heaven, being in his heart as the twelve tribes were upon aaron's breastplate when he went into the holy of holies: are they not in the heart of christ, and doth he not pray for those that god gave to him? if so, than all saving blessings belong to them, only the doctor had not the happiness to word it to please mr. w. therefore is quarrelled at. but next, he sweetens all, and having broken the doctor's head, gives him a plaster thus, i have carefully avoided any reflection on reverend dr. crisp, whom i believe a holy man: for which respect i return many thanks, and bless god for fulfilling his word, that when a man's ways please the lord, he makes his enemies at peace with him: but may i not wonder that those that have uttered so great invectives, that he was for dethroning christ, should yet be convinced from the strain of his writings, that he was a holy man. this is agreeable to what treatment he met with in the heat of people's flocking by thousands to hear him, which he was much maligned for, yet there was not a man of all his detractors that ever charged him with the least immorality or indecency, or neglect of exactest holiness, though there was scarce ever seen a wrinkle in his brow, he being cheerful in conversation, even to admiration; yet as solemnly devout in the worship of god on lords days, and fast days, as the greatest legalist, so that his enemies gave him his due character for exact holiness. but now for mr. w. to say, dr. c. was holy, and reverend dr. c. and but a few lines before to say, all the rest of his opinions follow in a chain to the dethroning of christ, etc. seems strange, but without doubt it is from a mighty overruling providence of god, not only out of the mouths of babes and sucklings, the unlearned to perfect praise to his name, but to still the enemy and avenger, mat. 11. ps. 8. not only do the simple, celebrate the praises of god, for the opening the rich mercies of freegrace by the dr. but the learned that seem to be his enemies, and come out against him with vengeance, god doth still them; nay, after high reproach he engages them to acknowledge this dethroner of christ, i believe was a holy man; this is like bellarming, propter incertitudinem, tutissimum est, etc. 'tis absolute sovereign grace in christ, nothing in us that saves us when all is done. before i leave mr. w. in this good temper, i hope it may be useful as well for settling the wavering, as confirming the sound: to quote a passage or two i met with occasionally, out of unquestionable authority for orthodoxy in the faith, for a suffrage to dr. crisp in what he is opposed by mr. w. and that is out of the reverend dr. harris of hanwell, an eminent member of the famous assembly of divines anno 1652. i begin with his asserting, that christ sustained the person of a sinner: this is a grand charge against dr. c. that christ was a reputed sinner, but this eminent dr. h. makes no scruple to assert it roundly, without any ambiguity, and saith directly in his sermon, called, absaloms' funeral, in fol. 215 christ he stood in our room, and sustained the person of a sinner, though in himself sinless, could not he though he was the heir and first born, escape until his blood was shed, and flesh rend, and soul poured forth as an offering? then make good that thou art in christ, and (so) a new creature, or else take thy leave of all hope and comfort: i add, if this were not true, that christ sustained the person of a sinner, how could god punish him, or how could the apostle say to the seven churches, he loved us, and washed us from our sins, in his blood; sure those us were in christ when he shed his blood, and i● his own person as head, he sustained them and all other sinners that he shed his blood for, else, how were they crucified with him, and raised with him, and made sit with him in heavenly places; now because reason and philosophy cannot fathom this, shall we reject plain scripture, and say, that the elect have no interest in christ, till they believe, though god say plainly, grace was given them in christ before the world was, and they were chosen in him before the world. dr. h. gives his testimony against the new sort of divinity, which may look better from him than dr. crisp, and may reconcile to his doctrine, or rather christ's, that nothing must come in of ours to join with christ for justification: and saith in fol. 36. from rom. 8.1. no condemnation to those in christ, the doctrines of later editions (arminians) drive mostly at this, to wrest you from your estate in christ,— hence the superadding of our righteousness to christ's, ad corroborandum, look to your standing, find all your hopes, joys, life in him alone, own to him all wisdom, righteousness, sanctification, redemption and salvation. this is far from the new scheme of gospel ordination of christ's purchasing that faith, holiness, etc. have their use in gospel benefits, from their conformity to the rule of the promise, not of the precept; this taking us off from our superadded righteousness, ad corroborandum, to strengthen our title, clearly evinces, that he was not for faith and holiness giving a title; no, faith can only receive it, and holiness evidence it. dr. h. answers for dr. c. as being charged that if god acts us in believing and, god believes, and god reputes, and saith in fol. 64. not only the power but the act too is from god, phil. 2. he works in us to will and to do, if it be thus (say the jesuits and others) than man shall not be master of his own acts, than god shall be said to repent and believe, man shall do nothing, but all shall be resolved unto god. answ. may not man be said to understand, though god do powerfully enlighten, so also to hate, love, etc. they (the jesuits) yield that god worketh upon the understanding, and the affections, and yet man understands and affects; and why should not the same be true of the will? secondly, god first works all things in us, and then by us; he prevents and acts us, and then we work under god. object. this takes off all endeavour; nay, this quickens our care and endeavour, if st. paul may be heard, phillip 2.13. therefore we must work out all, because we depend on god for all, saith, the apostle, neither doth god only work in his people a power of willing, but the very act also, and indeed the acting of the will of man is more than giving him a power only to will. the covenant of grace is this, be content to accept of another's obedience, and to lay hold of the righteousness of christ for justification, (he soars as high as dr. c.) and saith, there is nothing required of us more than this, to disclaim ourselves, and to make christ alone our teacher, our head, and all-sufficient saviour, (nay in fol. 35. he is clear and saith) what can we do toward the getting of a new heart? answ. man cannot concur to the renewing of himself as a cause or an agent. if this be good divinity in dr. h. and the assembly of divines, why should it be quarrelled at in dr. c. would it not be more becoming the greatness of mr. w's spirit, to have encountered the assembly in these particulars, than dr. c. yea doubtless: but there was a new scheme to be erected, and this would more easily obtain against a single person, than the established religion of the nation, which in the chiefest points objected against dr. c. concurs with him; yea, after all, when mr. w. finds by the strong proofs brought against him, that his scheme will not take, he betakes himself to the substance of what he objects against the dr. as in time may be made evident; in the mean time, i humbly conceive, i have made it appear, that his preface hath not only wronged the dr. but the truth which i doubt not but in a great measure he sees. thus begging of the lord, that some glory may rise to his name by some few hours investigating the truth: i conclude as well for mr. w. and all that desire the truth as it is in jesus, may take place, as for myself, let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, o lord, tzuri ve goeli, my rock, and my redeemer. amen. finis. non vltra: or, a letter to a learned cartesian▪ settling the rule of truth, and first principles, upon their deepest grounds. by i. s. london, printed for a. roper, at the black-boy, over against st. dunstan's church, in fleetstreet, mdcxcviii. to the much honoured sir edward southcot, knight and baronet. sir, 'tis so unusual a compliment, to make a person of your quality a judge in a philosophical controversy, that it will be admired at by those who do not know you▪ and, i fear, scarce accepted by yourself. such studies do so seldom colour with the profession of a gentleman, that he must be much raised above the common, who can merit the esteem of being fit for such an umpirage. to be held, not only a lover of learning, but a discerner too in that highest sort of knowledge, is such a starry embellishment to a noble extraction, and sets such a deep stamp of honour upon it, that it gives a double tincture of excellency to such illustrious persons, and ranks them in the first file of heroes. in the time of augustus, when the roman learning was in its zenith, such famous worthies might have been easily met with; but they are so rare nowadays, that they seem uncouth, and look like monsters: and such, indeed, they are, in scaliger's phrase; that is, monsters of perfection. great men do generally, now, so undervalue learning, and 'tis so despicably-little in their eye, as if they took a view of it at the wrong end of the prospective. the noble sir kenelm digby, the honourable mr. boil, and some few others, have rescued the universality of their peers from this imputation: but, now that they have left us, such personages are so very thin-sown, that, for any thing we see, there are but few left, besides yourself, who give us any prospect of keeping alive a succession of men, endowed with that renowned character. yet, ignorance and folly are such ignoble blemishes, that knowledge, in common, does still uphold itself, with the generality of mankind, in a fair esteem: but, this thing, called [philosophy,] looks like such a bugbear to most of our modern great ones, that the very name and sound of it puts them in a marvellous fright; whence, 'tis no wonder men do not love, or esteem amiable, what they fear, and look upon as hideous. whereas, indeed, the study of philosophy is no more but the improvement of our reason, (by which we are men,) in reading, and (to a fair degree) understanding the book of the world; or, in knowing those things, with which, whether we will or no, we must converse, and be concerned daily. certainly, their palate is much out of taste, who cannot relish a benefit so natural to our soul; but think it below the station of a gentleman, to regard it. i could wish such men would please to reflect upon what kind of objects their thoughts and affections are employed, while they neglect this. i believe it would shame their choice, if they duly considered what empty toys they pursued, and preferred before this solid and substantial good. philosophy, truly such, and rightly understood, is far from being such a frightful thing as their imagination paints it; being only plain, natural reason, polished, bettered and elevated by art and reflection: so that they who check at the knowledge of philosophy, aught, with much better reason, find fault with the teaching persons of quality to sing, dance or play on the lute: unless they think it very prudent, and expedient, to give our voice, feet and fingers the best advantages we can, to perform their actions artificially, and exactly; but, that 'tis a very needless folly to perfect the knowing power of our soul; and wondrous wise, to let it still dose on sluggishly, in its homespun native rudeness, and lie wholly uncultivated. nay, such gentlemen would be much offended their houses should not be clean swept, and garnished; yet, they are not, in the least, concerned, that cobwebs should hang in the windows of their intellect, and dusty ignorance dim and blear the sight of the noble inhabitant. but, where is this philosophy all this while? or, is there, indeed, any such thing in nature? whatever glorious attributes some have given it, they all agree in this, that it is the knowledge of truth: if so, then, as truth can be but one, so it should follow, that ●either can there be more than one philosophy which is the true one and, that all others are but 〈◊〉 pretended; and, consequently, in reality, fabulous, and erroneous. where, then, shall we certainly find this one, or only-true philosophy? multitudes of sects did, of old, set up to drive the trade and profession of philosophising: but, they all broke, and shut up shop, having but a very few chance-customers; except that great man, (whom st. hierome calls, ingenii humani finis,) aristotle. he, i say, alone, has got quiet possession of the schools, for a long time; and, ha● now strengthened his title, by an immemorial prescription: nor did any pretender of note put in his claim against him, till, in our days, the admirably-ingenious cartesius declared himself his competitor. till then, aristotle being drawn into different senses, by his many-minded commentators amongst the modern schoolmen, those men who were of sharp wits, and hated jurare in verba— were in danger to turn sceptics; and began to think that truth was either flown to heaven in astraea's coach; or, (as some ancients thought,) was in puteo defossa; or else, if she were aboveground, that she was sequestered in some terrestrial paradise; so that none could get knowledge of her habitation, or come at her. in this juncture, to rescue the flower of mankind from falling into perfect scepticism, and to encourage them still to hope for truth in philosophy, there arose, very opportunely, those great men, thomas albius, sir kenelm digby, and cartesius; who were, all of them, in a manner contemporary: all of them promised science, which kept up those men's drooping spirits from despair of truth. the former two of these, in many of their main principles, declared themselves aristotelians; as also did those who followed their philosophy: whereas, cartesius ravelled all the schemes hitherto woven by others, moulded all the world in a new frame; and set up for his single self, without any copartner. by which you see, sir, that your task, which seemed at first so vast, and endless, is reduced, and confined to this one enquiry; viz. to determine (in your own thoughts at least, whether you think fit to pronounce sentence, or no) which party, viz. these followers of aristotle, or of cartesius, are true philosophers. on which side soever the lot falls, it follows of course, that, since they contradict one another, the other, let them talk and write as long as they will, are, in reality, none. still you will complain, that even this is beyond the extent of your narrow province, and exceeds the purlew of your reading, and thinking too. but i dare assure you, sir, that this present debate is of that nature, that it requires no more to decide it, than a fair stock of clear and penetrative natural reason; in which your discerning genius (besides what acquisition may have added to it) is well known to be abounding, and no way deficient. to perform this, there needs no sedulous and tedious turning over all the books writ by both parties, or scanning the force of their arguments. providence would be wanting to mankind, were there no other way than this left us, to know where truth is to be found: nor would man's life be long enough for such an endless task. i know not what untoward ways men, who love much talk, have framed to themselves, and introduced into the world: but, certainly, the god of truth, who envies not to mankind his best natural perfection, exact knowledge, or true science, has furnished us with a more compendious, and more sure method, if we will but follow it: which is, to examine which party, what book, what discourse has right principles; and, which not. if two mathematicians follow their principles, and yet differ in their conclusions, we may be sure the pretended principles of one of them are no principles at all: and the same, for the same reason, holds in all other sciences. but, how shall we know who has true, or right principles? most easily, by examining the first principles either side pretends to. for, if the first principles may be fallacious, and, consequently, none; then the second principles, which depend on the first, can be none neither; and, so, they will be unavoidably convinced to have no kind of principles at all. nor is it possible for any man to be ignorant, whether the first principles, or first truths, which are to be the rule of knowing all other truths, be truly such; because these must be self-evident, most firmly grounded, unmistakable, and necessarily assented to, by all mankind; as is demonstrated in the following treatise; and, indeed, is evident by common reason. again, if either side would pass upon us gratuitous, or unprov'd supposisitions, for principles; or decline the way of connexion of our simple apprehensions, in which all truth formally consists; and, without which, all discourses must be necessarily incoherent: lastly, if the rule of knowing truth which one party assigns, be such, that even learned men may be mistaken, and deceived, while they think they follow it; in all these cases, i say, 'tis incontestably evident, that that party are no philosophers: nor can know any thing at all, if nature be not kinder to them, than their own unprincipled doctrine. you see, sir, by this time, that a gentleman, endowed with a far less perfection of understanding than your self is master of, may, by these tests, determine, who are true philosophers, who not: as also, how all controversies in philosophy may be easily decided; how all occasions of wrangling about particular tenets, may be avoided; and, lastly, how the fiercest opposers, if they really seek after truth, may be reconciled, and satisfied. 'tis the business of this following paper, to let you into the certain knowledge, what kind of propositions are the first principles, and the rule of knowing all truth whatever. the first step we take into our inmost thoughts, we meet with and discover these primary truths: whose self-evidence is the earliest light that dawns to our soul, as soon as over her power of knowing awakens into action. 'tis a subject, tho' most necessary, and of the highest influence, yet neglected by writers hitherto. two or three have, indeed, spoken of it; but, none i know of, has handled it professedly, and at large. tho' it be dry, and requires chawing ere it becomes nutritive; yet, i dare presume, it is solid, and not at all windy. even, seeds, when first planted, are dry; which, yet, hinders them not from yielding a large increase afterwards: the first principles are the seeds of all truths; which, by how much their roots are laid deeper, so much higher they rear and extend their branches. the present i offer you, is small; but the little it contains, (as far as concerns this subject,) is wrought entirely out of natural and reflected reason, without being beholding at all to the dishonourable task of transcribing; as some pieces, i could name, are. i dare undertake, that the reasons produced here, are so firmly grounded, that they can fear no opposition but drollery, the last effort of nonplussed reason. you will not expect fine language, in a matter that cannot bear it. self-evidence is so brightly luminous, that nothing can make it more glossy: nor is all the eloquence in the world able to do these first truths any service at all: all attempts to burnish or varnish them, do, instead of doing this, dawb and hide them; as painting does a perfect beauty. the sum is; the whole controversy, now agitated, is this; whether of these two philosophies abovesaid is built on more evident principles; or, has a more self-evident, and unmistakable rule of knowing; and, your steady, and equally-poized judgement, is requested to hold the scales. what the trifle i here send you, wants in worth, is, i am sure, abundantly supplied by the sincere respects, which are, at the same time, presented you by, much honoured sir, your ever devoted, and very humble servant. i. s. honoured sir, 1. i give you many thanks for your kind visit. had you known how welcome it was, i am confident you would have accepted my kind invitation, and have gratified my request that you would repeat it often. but your exceeding modesty and civility, did, it seems, fear that might be a trouble, which, i do heartily assure you, was esteemed by me as a high favour. of which i thought i could give you no better testimony, than by letting you see that i am not willing that small scantling of your conversation you then allowed me, should be lost. wherefore, i thought it not amiss to give you a rehearsal of it, as far as my memory reaches at such a distance; and withal, my sentiments of the several particulars then touched upon; what my first thoughts of them were then, and my second thoughts since: not debarring myself the liberty of adding some farther reflections that occurred to me, while i was writing this paper; because the treating of many things confusedly, ere any one was concluded, made the tenor of our conference uneven, and shattered▪ for, in discoursing of principles, a slow pace is the surest; and, when wit is too nimble, it hazards to lame reason and judgement, to keep pace with it. 2. i must confess, dear sir, that when i heard you discourse, you did it so ingeniously in the cartesian way of wit, which consists in explicating and doubting, and seems to exclude proving, that i did not see how the great cartesius himself could have defended his doctrine better: for, he could not have doubted more scrupulously than you did; nor, i think, have explicated himself more ingeniously. you guarded his doctrine so warily, that it was scarce possible to attack it. tho', that i may not flatter you, i cannot say you did this by the evidence of any proposition you advanced, but by your ready exceptions against any thing that art or nature could oppose; at least, taking them as managed by one no better skilled than i am. your cause seemed to me, as if it had been secured in some castle; made impregnable, not by means of the ordinary methods of fortification, used in lawful war; but, (which is against the old laws of arms,) by a kind of enchantment. your bulwarks, entrenchments and redoubts lay so cunningly hid in your way of ideas, that they were altogether invisible; so that the most quicksighted engineer living could not discern them, or take any sure aim at them: much less such a dull eye as mine; who, tho' i bend my sight as strongly and steadily as i am able, yet i cannot, for my heart, see what kind of things those spiritual ideas are. and, which leaves me in a helpless condition as to that particular, such very ingenious cartesians as mr. le grand, who, having poured so long upon them, should be best acquainted with them, and therefore best qualified to inform me what they are, gives me no account of them; unless we can think there may be such things as are made up of contradictions, and altogether chimerical. as you may see in the 2d examen of my ideae cartesianae expensae, §§. 26, 27, 28, 29, 30. 3. now, sir, this looks like a kind of rosycrucianism in philosophy, to build all your doctrine on ideas, and yet keep the secret among yourselves, and conceal from us what those same ideas are. indeed, our doctrine, which makes our notions, conceptions, or simple apprehensions, to be the very things objectively in our understanding, seems very abstruse to those who guide themselves by fancy, and not by connexion of terms; in regard it depends on the manner of operating proper to spiritual natures; which is above our common speculation concerning natural subjects, and is only reachable by those who are well versed in metaphysics: yet, notwithstanding, i tell you plainly (preliminary 2d.) what these notions are: i explicate them fully, so that none can doubt what i mean by them: nay, more; i bring there many (at least pretended) demonstrations, to prove they must be such; none of which mr. le grand (if he do, indeed, differ from me in that point) has thought fit to solve. this being so, you would very much oblige me, if you would help me to the sight of any cartesian author, who has so clearly and candidly given us his thoughts concerning your ideas; who has fully explained their nature, defined them, and attempted to demonstrate they must be such. which if it be not done, all other sorts of philosophers in the world have reason to complain that they are very hardly dealt with. for your method calls into doubt, in a manner, all the ways of knowing held by mankind, till cartesius' time: and you would have us renounce all our former judgements, and accept nothing for certain, but what appears to us by your way of ideas; and yet you will not give us a clear and distinct knowledge, what your ideas are, nor demonstrate them to be such as you would have us believe them to be: without which, perhaps there are no such things as those ideas of yours; nor, consequently, is your way of philosophy, building all our science upon such ideas, any way at all. but, to return to our conference. 4. foreseeing i should not be able to give satisfaction to your acute wit, without beginning from the very bottom-ground of all truth, (to do which my own genius also inclined me,) i alleged, that it was manifest we could neither speak true nor false, without affirming, or denying, (which we use to call formal truth;) and therefore, that truth was no where to be found, but in such speeches as were affirmative, or negative: which kind of speeches logicians call propositions. also, that all truth, if affirmatively expressed, consists in the connexion of the two main parts of a proposition; which logicians call, its terms, or extremes; and that, for the same reason, if those terms were unconnected, the proposition was false. i flattered myself, you would become convinced thus far; the ground i built on being unavoidable, my deductions thence immediate, and the consequence clear and undeniable. but you were too hard for me in your doubting way: for, you gave some small stop to my proceeding, by your dislike of the word [proposition] as savouring of the way of the schools. this a little surprised me: for, i conceived, that since words were only intended to signify our meanings, there could be no reason why the word should dislike any, so it was declared what was meant by it; which, the common usage of it by philosophers, for so many centuries, had, i thought, sufficiently manifested, and warranted. this gave me occasion to explain myself; and to declare, that i meant no more by the word [proposition,] but a speech that affirms, or denies. i added, that therefore, such speeches, if affirmative, (and the same, mutatis mutandis, is to be said of negative ones,) must consist of something that is affirmed, something of which, is affirmed, and some word which affirms or expresses the affirmation. which three parts of a proposition, logicians agree to call predicate, subject, and copula. these plainest. first rudiments i was forced to begin with; not out of any apprehension you did not know them; but, out of my desire you would admit the words, after such an explanation of them; fearing, otherwise, i should want language to discourse with you, in a subject of this nature. 5. what followed immediately, i do not certainly remember; but i think it was, that you excepted against that whole artificial way of discoursing; and made account there was a more compendious method, or shorter cut to science: which, i conceive, was, by contemplating your ideas; by which you hoped to arrive at truth, by the clear and distinct appearance of it to your mind. to defend our method, i alleged, that it was the way of nature, tho' perfected by art; as all our other natural faculties and operations are. that all art, if it be solid, and not fantastic, is nothing but a deeper inspection into plain, honest nature, made by the reflection of our mind. that such mental speeches and propositions, and each part of them, (as was shown lately,) were in the understandings of all mankind, when they do conceive, or intent to speak any truth, or falshood. that all the discourses about a syllogism, made by true logic, (which is nothing but exact reflection upon what passes in every man's mind, naturally,) is nothing but the dissecting an evident or conclusive discourse, made by our natural faculty of reasoning, into all its parts; the placing those parts best, in order to clearness; and the showing those nerves and wires, (the first principles of our understanding,) which are, as it were, th● main springs of our reason, an● give strength and vigour to such a discourse. and the same may be said of a proposition, both as to its p●●●s, and the connexion or identity of its two terms, (the subject, and predicate,) in which consists its truth: a●● which, i hope, i have shown very particularly, in the second and third books of my method to science. moreover, because i saw, your prejudice against our way was taken from the insignificant jargon of some of our schoolmen, i take leave to add, that, let others talk as superficially of those matters as they please, and disparage the true way of art, by mis-managing it, and making it look fantastic; yet i am not conscious to myself, that i have any thing in my method, but what is entirely built on the nature of the thing in hand; i mean, notions, propositions, and rational discourses, found in the minds of all mankind: which way of building on the nature of the subject of which we are speaking, is the only ground that can give solidity to any discourse: at least, i am sure, that, if i have any argument there, which has any other foundation, i shall renounce it, as swerving from my method, and my intention: and i do candidly here declare, that i am obliged, either to bring a more solid proof for that point, or i ought not to expect it should be well received by any man of learning. which being so, i have that good opinion of your equity, that you will not therefore discard a way which is thus willing to approve itself to be solid, and to subsist by arguments built on the firm ground of the nature of the thing, because some slight understanders of it have used it triflingly. nor would you think it reasonable, that the cartesian hypothesis should be quite rejected, upon no other reason, but because you think some late writers have not done it the right they ought. 6. in order to your clear and distinct perception, which you therefore judged to be the rule or test of all truth, because we cannot but assent to that, as true, which we clearly and distinctly see to be so, i make these preliminary remarks. 1. that this is the main hinge of all the cartesian hypothesis, which persuades them to place the ground of truth within their own minds, and its productions; and not in the things themselves. 2. that this is the most ingenious and plausible conception, which the great wit of cartesius ever advanced; and therefore it most deserves clearing: which is, indeed, one main reason why i strained courtesy a little, in publishing this paper. 3. that the plausibility of it lies chiefly in this, that every man must grant the truth of that proposition, as it lies: for, who can deny, but that what i see to be true, is true? this being full as evident, as that i cannot see what is not. this, then, is a plain truth, and might deserve the name of a subordinate rule; were it certain, or proved first, that we could not possibly be mistaken in thinking we have a clear and distinct perception of a thing, when we have it not. mr. le grand confesses, this may happen when the will is biased, or men are unskilful; (and how frequent is that?) and we shall give many instances afterwards, how we are deceived in many other occasions. 4. that this clear and distinct perception, the cartesians so much speak of, and value themselves upon, tho' the expression be new, is no more in reality, but perfect evidence of an object: for, the seeing any object clearly, is the seeing it evidently; nor can we see it evidently, if that object, or it, be confounded with others, and not seen to be distinct from them. wherefore, this phrase, of clear and distinct perception is a mere amuzement; and, being new, makes the readers apt to conceit that it is a lately-found-out discovery of some unheard of thing, or some new method, of which all former philosophers were hitherto ignorant; whereas, 'tis the selfsame with perfect evidence of some particular object; which all the learned part of mankind have ever used, before cartesius was born; nay, have allowed, and held also, that no man could refrain from assenting that the thing, or mental proposition, is true, when with perfect evidence it is seen to be so. wherefore, this last point will not, i hope, break squares between the cartesians and me; for, thus far we agree in our meanings; however, i except against the novelty of the expression, which would seem to intimate something extraordinary in the method you pretend to have first found out, and introduced; and which, by your carriage, you seem to appropriate to yourselves, as singularly yours. 5. these things being so, it follows, that the first rule of our knowledge of all truths whatever must be common to all knowing natures in the world: it must also be the most evident that can be, or self-evident; so that none can disagree, dissent, or be deceived in it, but must see and assent to it, in despite of any weakness of the understanding, or any bias or obliquity of the will; as we shall see hereafter our rule is, and must be. and the reason is, because this rule being that, by means of which, a creature made for knowledge is capable of knowing any thing; it follows, that, if it lay in any man's power to be ignorant of this rule, or to descent from it, or be deceived in it, it would be in his power, not merely to pervert, but utterly to destroy and unmake the nature given him by god; and, of cognoscitive or capable of knowledge, make it cognoscitive or incapable of knowing any thing; which, the natures of things being fixed by god's wisdom, to be what they are, 'tis as impossible for any man to do, as it is for him to put off his own individuality, and not be the same person he is. 7. these notes premised, i come closer to examine your rule of truth. you say, if you clearly and distinctly see that a thing is true, you do thence certainly know it to be so. i allow the conditional proposition; for, 'tis impossible to see that which is not to be seen; or ●o know that to be true, which is not-true. the only question, then, is, whether this be a rule of truth; mr. le grand very rationally granting, p. 92. there goes more to constitute a rule of truth, than to be true? in order to the clearing of which, i ask: was it true before you saw clearly and distinctly it was true? or, did it become true by your seeing it (as you phrase it) clearly and distinctly to be true? if it were true before you thus saw it to be true; then, 'tis unavoidable, there was another rule, or reason, for that truth which anteceded your seeing it to be such; and therefore, your clear and distinct perception could not be the rule of knowing that truth, being subsequent to it. and, if you say, it became true by your seeing it clearly and distinctly, than it was not true before; and then, you saw that to be true, which was not true; that is, you saw it to be otherwise, than, in effect and reality, it was. and, consequently, that pretended sight or perception is so far from being a rule of truth, that it is a palpable error and mistake; and therefore, all the judgements issuing from it must be false. which, instead of constituting it a rule of truth, would make it, indeed, a rule of falshood. 8. to make this yet plainer, please to reflect, that this clear and distinct perception is such an act of your understanding; and that all acts have their being such, from the object of those acts. for, the faculty or power of understanding was, of itself, indifferent and indetermined to all and every particular act: and, since nothing that is indetermin'd, nor any act in common, can be; it follows, that the being, and being such, of each act, depends formally on the object, and is such in particular, as that object, which informs the power, is. wherefore, when you see a thing to be true, that which you saw thus clearly and distinctly true, must have been thus true before you saw it to be so. whence, we ask, what was that which made the object you perceiu'd-to-be-true, to be true? or, what was the rule of truth to that object that was true, ere you saw it to be such? must not the object be such, ere you can know it to be such? or clearly and distinctly perceptible to be such, before you can clearly and distinctly perceive it to be such? if not, than you must say, you can know what is not to be known, or clearly and distinctly perceive what is not clearly and distinctly to be perceived: which is a perfect contradiction. 9 for instance; since truth is no where to be found, but in such speeches as affirm, or deny, that is, in propositions; let us put some proposition which you thus clearly and distinctly perceive to be true, and therefore (as was lately demonstrated) must have been true before you saw it to be so. does it not clearly follow, that, either that truth must have been made evident by another, and that again by another, and so in infinitum; (by which means, nothing at all could ever be seen to be true;) or else there must have been some first kind of truths, whose noonday evidence imparts evidence to others, and is itself visible, or (if you please) clearly and distinctly perceptible to all mankind; and forces them, at first sight, to assent to its verity? now, if some such first kind of truths can be found, which, by their absolute self-evidence, do, as objects of our understanding power, necessarily determine the understandings of all mankind, to assent; and do withal influence all our other truths, and our knowledge of them; then (our act of perception being clearly excluded from being the rule of truth) these first truths have all the requisites that can be imagined for a ratio cognoscendi veritatem, or a rule of truth; since they self-evidently manifest to us their own truth; and by it, give us light to know all others. let us pursue then the quest of these first truths. our discourse, because it concerns and antecedes all other knowledges, and all particular truths, must necessarily be fetched from the deepest grounds, and therefore▪ must needs be very speculative. but, i know i speak to him whose piercing wit will easily comprehend it. only, i beseech you, so far to bend your bias, which you must needs have contracted by your long and steady meditating on your way of ideas, till you reduce any obliquity that may have prepossessed your good judgement, to a rectitude, or indifferency; and then i cannot doubt, but i may do you some service, even, perhaps, against your will: for, evidence, if clear, and well penetrated, does ofttimes force assent, whether the will repugns, or no. 10. the ideas, or essences, of each piece of the world's fabric were in the mind of the divine architect, ere they were made. again; since he did not make them by the hand of some bungling journeyman, who might, perhaps, deviate from his pattern, or model; but immediately, by his own infinite wisdom and power; it cannot be doubted, but that each part of the creation was framed exactly according to the archetypes of those unchangeable ideas; and therefore, was perfectly established in its respective essence, or nature, as those original ideas were; that is, they were fixed to be what they are, by an inerrable hand; in which consists that which we call their metaphysical verity. wherefore, since all truth, originally, primarily and most fundamentally consists in this metaphysical verity of things, it being the immediate effect of the divine wisdom; it follows, that the first formal truths that can be in our minds, (which, consequently, are the rules, or principles, to all others,) must be those which speak, express, or affirm this metaphysical verity, or, that the things are what they are. which kind of self-evident propositions, can therefore, be no other than those we call identical. this is most evident, and incontestable: for, since this metaphysical verity, which (next to the divine maker of all things, from whom it immediately proceeded) is the ground and cause of all truth, does consist in this, that things are fixed in their essences, or are what they are; 'tis impossible to speak this truth, or make it a formal truth, by affirming, or denying, (that is, by putting it into a proposition;) but by affirming, that they are what they are; which is most evidently an identical proposition. 11. hitherto, then, it is undiscernible, how it can, with any show of reason, be denied, that the self-evidence that so visibly shines in identical propositions, bids fair towards their being the first rule of knowing all truths; or, which is the same, the first principle to all other knowledges. for, 1. there cannot be any so great clearness, or evidence, as is self-evidence; nor so close connexion of the terms in any proposition, or speech, that expresses truth, as is perfect identity, or self-connexion; consisting in this, that the thing, or mode of thing spoken of, is what it is, or, is its self. 2. 'tis impossible any thing else can be so solid, or so firmly established; being immediately built on the unchangeable metaphysical verity itself; or rather, being it, spoken, and expressed: which verity (as was shown) is imprinted in the essences of every created thing, by the immediate hand of essential truth. whence it is so nearly allied to that infinite truth itself, that it is removed but one degree from it. 3. by reason of this connatural and immediate descent from that brightest and most glorious luminary of all knowledge, the father of lights, who is candor aeternae lucis, and infinitely intelligible; it forces the assent of all mankind to its verity. insomuch, that no disease can so pervert a rational being, which has the least use of reason, as to deny it, or doubt of it; nor suspend their judgement concerning it: nor can the highest passion of the most profligate wretch living, hurry his understanding into the admittance of such a folly. no scepticalness can call the truth and certainty of it into question. no whimsical speculation can inveigle any man into a conceit, that it can be false. no opposition can make head against it; since, whatever can be alleged to overthrow it, must needs appear to be less evident than it; and, therefore, unable to shock it. no subtle distinction can impair its truth; or pretend it is true in one respect, but not in another; since it is impossible to distinguish the copula [is;] the notion of existence being so perfectly simple, and most formal, or indivisible, that it can admit of no distinction into divers formalities; according to one of which, it may be true; according to another, false. nor can it prejudice any such proposition, to distinguish its subject, or predicate; since whatever distinction can fall here upon the subject, must fall upon the predicate too; both of them being the selfsame notion. by which means, the identicalness and self-evidence of the proposition will be still the same after the distinction is given, as it was before. so that 'tis impossible to imagine, that any thing can be proposed, which can, in any regard, or in any degree, vye with identical propositions; either in being so solidly grounded, or so perfectly clear, undeniable, unmistakable, and placed above the reach of any possible attack. nor did cartesius himself, amongst all the evident things he called into doubt, in the least question the evidence and truth of such propositions, formally expressed: nor could he have done it, without utterly destroying, at the same time, the certainty of all he could have said; nay, even of his own first principle too; as will be seen hereafter. from all which considerations, (any one of which might suffice,) i may safely and evidently conclude, that, in point of evidence of its truth, and stability of its grounds, nothing can be any way comparable to the light which strikes the eye of our understanding, by its steady rays emitted from these self-evident, or identical propositions: which goes very far to the entitling these, and these only, to be the rule of knowing all truths, or the first principles to all science, in whatever particular subject; not excepting even metaphysics itself. 12. notwithstanding all that has been so fully evinced hitherto, i have, as yet, done but half my business; or rather, the better half is still left behind. for, a first rule, or first principle, requires another quality, peculiar to itself, to complete its notion, besides its being thus solidly grounded, and thus supremely evident; which is, that all other truths, or knowledges, must be ruled, or principled by it: it must have an universal influence over all other knowledges, and impart its light to them. the former qualities will, i believe, be granted to identical propositions, by every attentive considerer, who knows what belongs to logic, or reason reflecting on itself; and is, withal, but meanly versed in metaphysics. this later qualification will be denied by many, perhaps by most; nay, will be fancied, and abetted by very few. for, every one's genius does not lead him to speculate so deep; and there are scarce any who have proposed this highest and nicest point, much less handled it at large; tho' divers have given the grounds whence it must follow. the reason of this general dislike of identical propositions, is, because they have such a dry mien, and contemptible aspect; so unlikely to give us the least kind of instruction, or light, to know any thing but their own insignificant selves, that nothing seems more ridiculous, than for any man, who is to teach others, even to propose such insipid sayings as a means, much less as a rule, to gain the knowledge of any truth whatever; nor is it discernible how we can come to know any thing, or work out▪ any new knowledges, by making use of such blunt tools. i think i have said the worst against them, that the keenest adversary can allege. it remains, then, to show how i can clear them of this disgraceful character; or make out that they have such a general influence over all other truths, as is pretended. 13. i demand, then, of my opposers, whether it be not fundamentally necessary in all discourses about whatever truth, to attend still, and keep an eye directed to the nature of the thing or subject about which we are discoursing, and to take special care we do not deviate from it? i do not think any scholar living, attending to his natural thoughts, or common sense, will deny this. for, if any discourse makes the thing be otherwise than it is, it must necessarily be false; and expose the author of it to speak manifest contradictions. now, i do no more but this, while i make self-evident or identical propositions to be the first rules, or first principles of all other knowledges: all i do, is, to keep a heedful eye to the nature of the thing, and its metaphysical verity. only, because it is manifest to every reflecter, that all our discourses are made up of propositions; nor can a rule or principle be expressed, but by such forms of speech; nor is the comparative, or (as i may say) the compositive nature of our soul satisfied, till it has brought the object it would discourse about, into some formal truth, (her only perfection in this state,) which is expressed by a proposition: hence, we become forced to put the nature of the thing, or its metaphysical verity, into such a frame of speaking; so to fit it for discourse: which 'tis impossible to do, but that speech, or proposition, whether we will or no, must be an identical one. 14. as for their seeming so ridiculous, and dry, this happens because of their most perfect simplicity, having as little composition in them as is possible; or rather, none at all, but what is in the form of expression; i doubt not but your acute judgement is well aware, that the first stamina, in what kind soever, are, and must be, the most simple; and, therefore, such, that, should nature stop her course there, and proceed no farther, they would be the most insipid, and useless things in nature. and yet, from such simple beginnings, or (to use virgil's expression) tenues orsus, all the most perfect productions in whole nature have their rise: nor could any work of hers ever arrive at maturity, or attain to that admirable frame it afterwards grows up to, unless it had had at first such a simple and shapeless origin. the same happens in the first stamina of all our succeeding knowledges: they are so simple, and have such an odd, bald and unfledged appearance, that we know not what to make of them, when we regard them only in themselves; or, what use they are of in the acquisition of science; yet, without such simple beginnings, forelaid in our knowing power, no distinct knowledge at all could be had of any other thing; as will most clearly appear shortly. 15. we may observe, that, generally, we are not so sensible of goods, as of harms; because the former, through the generous bounty of god's good providence, are of so many kinds, surrounding us on all sides, that they are common, and quotidian; whereas, the later are seldom, and (as it were) casual: whence, these are remarkable, and apt to strike our apprehensions smartly, and f●rce us to take notice of them; which those, being ordinary, and customary, do not. to breed then a due reflection, what good those first truth's now spoken of, laid up in our minds, do us, we will consider what universal mischiefs their proper opposites, [contradictions,] would do to all our knowledge; and what a malignant influence they would have, not only to pervert all our actual knowledge, but to destroy our very power of knowing any thing. let us suppose then, that those two propositions, [what is, is not;] and [a thing is not what it is,] which are the proper contradictories to those chief identicals, [what is, is;] and, [a thing is what it is;] to be, both of them, true: would it be possible, in that case, to speak a word of truth; or, to discourse at all; but, instead of speaking consequently, to talk a hotchpotch of incoherent nonsense? for, we cannot affirm any thing to be true, but by means of the copula [is,] in whose connecting or identifying sense, all truth most formally consists: wherefore, if that word, or the notion it signifies, were chimerical, and might be the same with [is not,] then, since there can be no middle between them, all we affirm might be false. and, since the subject we speak of, must either be some thing, or some mode of thing; all that we speak of that thing would go to wrack, and be false, in case the subject of our discourse, or speech, were not distinguished from all other things or modes; that is, if it were not itself only, but another, all the while. since then, the contradictories to these two identicals now spoken of, have such an universal influence, that they constantly set up error, and destroy truth; 'tis manifest, that identical propositions (their contradictory opposites) do, for the same reason, of their own nature, tend to abet truth ' and destroy error; and therefore they are deservedly entitled to be the rule of truth; the influence they have over all truth's being full as universal, as contradictions, their opposites, have, to induce error. 16. but nothing can more victoriously confute, or more unanswerably convince an adversary, than to show that he must be forced, for his own interest, to admit the truth of that tenet which he opposes. ask, then, a cartesian, how he knows any particular truths; or (which is the same) how he knows that such predicates, or attributes, do belong to such a subject? he will answer, because he finds those predicates in the idea he has of such a thing, or such a nature. very good, replies the other: but, how shall we know that the idea you have of that thing is not chimerical, and involves in it many other things, as well as that? which, if it does, your discourse, applying it to that thing only, must needs be incoherent, and false. your only answer, in this case, can be this, that each idea you have is distinct from all other ideas, and has its metaphysical verity and unity peculiar to itself, or (which is the same) is its self only; which is an identical proposition, and speaks, or expresses the metaphysical verity of each idea you have. now, say i, hence appears evidently, that this truth, viz. [every idea is itself only, or no other;] which is an identical proposition, is the very first truth you can have; and, that on it depends, fundamentally, your whole doctrine by way of ideas: for, if this be false, 'tis most evident that your ideas can give you no distinct knowledge of any thing, or mode of thing; that is, they could enable you to know nothing at all. 17. you will say, perhaps, it is not needful to put, lay or propose so expressly those identicals, they being so very clear, of themselves, to all mankind. i reply, 1. that this comes over to me, as to what relates to their clearness, and self-evidence, and abets my position. 2. that, certainly, that is most needful, on which, as was now shown, all depends. you must, then, have those identicals in your mind, at least understood, and presupposed, tho' you express them not. 3. you must be forced to express them if you come to discourse rigorously, and reduce your thesis to the first, and self-evident truths; without doing which, (especially, if you hap to encounter with a sceptic,) nothing can be finally decided, or concluded. 4. the point is, that 'tis most needful to express them, nay, unavoidable, when the question, [which is the first truth that can be, which gives light to all others,] is in agitation; as is our case at present: you must be forced to confess, that the truth of these identicals is antecedent to all the following knowledges you can have by your ideas; that, thence, you can know nothing, unless this be presupposed, and foreknown; and that, therefore, it influences all your future and dependent knowledges, after its fashion; and gives and secures to them all the strength, distinction and evidence they have. whence is clearly inferred, that the self-evident light which appears in such first truths, aught to be made, by the cartesians themselves, the rule of knowing whatever other truths they can pretend to know by their ideas; that is, the very first rule of all others; that is, the only one: for, none can be, in proper speech, a rule, unless it be the first; all others being regulated by that which is the first: so that it, and only it, is the rule; all the rest, ruled. and, certainly, it will appear evident to all mankind, that what is most self-evident, as all identicals are, were there nothing else, should be the rule of knowing all other truths which are not so evident as they. be pleased, sir, to reflect upon that proposition, by which you notify, or express to us your rule of knowing, viz. [that which i clearly and distinctly see to be true, is true.] consider, how many words are in this proposition; and that each word has its proper, or peculiar idea, each of which ideas must be distinct from all other ideas, that is, each of them must be the same with its self only, (which make so many identical propositions;) or else, none of those ideas can be possibly able to do you any service. so that, 'tis manifest, your rule of knowing depends on the self-evident light supposed to be in ours. whence 'tis concluded, that yours is not the first ratio cognoscendi, the first rule, or first truth; but, ruled by ours, grounded on ours, and subsequent, in the order of knowing, to ours. 18. i do not expect, that such high speculations will please every body: but, i hope, it will plead my pardon, that i could not avoid it. in so nice a point, as is the settling the first rule of all knowledge; or, what is the very first, self-evident, and most firmly-grounded truth; no speculation, resolving all dependent truths into that which is absolutely-independent, (as the rule of all truth must be) can be too accurate, or laid too deep. 'tis not, then, any humour of mine, or a kind of trial of skill, which moved me to this very abstracted, and metaphysical way of discoursing▪ but, it was the very nature of the present subject, that forced me upon it. 19 nor was it any care of overreaching your acuteness, nor the desire of opposing the rule of knowing truth introduced by the great cartesius, which put me upon this unusual piece of doctrine. i had, above twenty years ago, upon some hints given me by that second aristotle, the profoundly-learned albius, applied my speculative thoughts to dig very deep into this subject, to find out the immovable centre of all truth; and i had begun to write a very speculative treatise, showing how to reduce every truth into an identical proposition; and every error, to a contradiction; which, i saw, lay hid at the bottom of every truth, and falsehood. this, i say, was an old design of mine, before i thought of opposing any, or of being opposed by any. i foresaw also, while i was writing my method, that (it being more easy to be witty, than to be solid) identical propositions would be looked upon by very ingenious men, who were not thorough-speculators, as sapless, useless, and insignificant. wherefore, i did there take some occasions, which lay in the track of my thoughts, while i was settling the grounds to true science, to clear those first truths from such unworthy misapprehensions. to this end, i demonstrated there, b. 3. lesle. 1. §. 3. that all the force of consequence, in which consists our rationality, can only be built upon such propositions. i show, b. 2. l. 2. in what their self-evidence consists: what is the first of them, and their several sorts and degrees. i set myself to demonstrate, by many arguments, from §. 11. to the end of that lesson, that all first principles must be identical propositions; and (§. 19) that plain reason teaches us it must be so: which evinced, it follows, that whoever denies these to be useful, must, with the same breath, affirm, that all first principles are useless, and good for nothing; which is a strange position. nay, since there is an order in truths, and therefore all second principles have their force from the first, it follows, that we can have no use of second principles, if the first be useless; and so, we must talk ramblingly, and at random, all our lives, without any principles at all. i manifest the same, (l. 3.) by instances, fetched from the mathematics, and other sciences; and show what use is to be made of them; which is not to make them either of the premises in a syllogism; but to avail ourselves of them in a higher nature. i show (b. 2. l. 2. §. 18.) that even plain, uncultivated nature makes the vulgar recur to them, as their first principles, when they would express that which is decisive of the dispute, and undeniable. i prove, that all middle terms which are proper, are built upon the same ground with them. i endeavour (b. 3. l. 3. §§. 16, 17, 18.) to evince clearly, that all truths have, at the bottom, identical propositions, and are reducible to them; and i attempt to show, (lesle. 4.) the way how to reduce inferior truths to those highest ones. all which, if i have fully proved, especially, that all first principles are identical propositions, which bears all along with it, and is concluded there by divers demonstrations, on which i dare venture my whole cause, that they are impossible to be solved; then, i may safely presume, i have evinced, that the intelligibility and light of identical propositions is most self-evident; the ground on which they are built, most solid; and the usefulness or influence of them upon all other truths, most universal: and, therefore, that they are every way qualified to be the first and only rule of knowing all truth's whatever. 20. to comprehend better the evidence of this discourse, let us imagine a man devested of the knowledge of identical propositions; and then let us consider whether he could know any thing at all, or what he is good for. to instance in one of them; let us suppose him ignorant that a thing is what it is; or a cartesian, that each idea is itself, and no other; and common sense will tell every one, that such a man could know nothing, nor make any judgement or discourse concerning any thing, or idea either; since that thing, or idea, he would judge, or discourse of, is, perhaps, all the while, for aught he knows, another. whoever would see farther the use of identical propositions brought to practice, may please to observe how they are serviceable in many places of my three treatises here mentioned: not by proposing them first, and then deducing and arguing from them, as some may mistake; but by reducing the truth of my discourses up to those standards of all truth; and by showing these to be engaged in the patronage and support of my thesis; by which means, they smartly clinch the force and evidence of my arguments, by bearing up to them, and relying on them. 21. it was a well-aimed reach of speculation in mr. locke, [essay concerning humane understanding, b. 2. ch. 32. §. 2.] where he says, that the metaphysical verity of things contains in them a tacit proposition: which i would understand, not to be meant of that verity, as it is in the thing itself; but as it is in our understanding, where only propositions are, or can be. for, since this metaphysical verity is not a natural notion, imprinted directly by our senses, it can only be known by reflection. the mind, then, careful to be well assured of the subject of which it is to judge, or discourse, (without which preassurance, it could do neither,) reviews it heedfully, and steadily; and then says of it, within itself; ['tis this, and no other.] which is an identical proposition, in substance; tho', for a reason we shall give shortly, we put it afterwards into an expression more formally identical. why the soul does this, springs hence; because, being naturally made to see truth; and no truth (in the first and proper signification of that word) being possible to be had, without affirming, or denying; hence 'tis natural, and necessary, that, when it comes to review the object, in order to see its truth or falsehood, it should put it into the frame of an identical proposition; only which kind of speeches are capable to affirm, or deny. and this is that i mean, when i use to say, (as i do frequently,) that the nature of the soul is comparative, or relative: for, when a proposition is moulded in the mind, the predicate of it is compared or related to the subject, in order to see their agreement, or disagreement; without which, nothing can be known to be, in proper speech, true, or false: in which position, mr. lock perfectly agrees with me. now, setting aside extrinsical denominations, which are not at all found in the thing, but merely tacked to it by our consideration; this comparing is, either of the mode, to the thing; and, seeing, in general, how it affects it, as is seen in the two last predicables of porphyrius; which, because modes are not distinct things, and yet differ vastly from the formal notion of the thing itself, of which they are modes, can only be connected with it materially; or, as belonging to the thing, as their subject: or else, the mind compares the thing to what's formal, or essential to it. and this, either in the whole, as is found in our identical propositions; for which reason, i am forced to make a sixth predicable, in which the whole is predicated, entirely and formally, of the whole: or else, in part; when some part of the essence or nature of the whole thing is predicated, or compared to it diversely; as is seen in porphyrius' three first predicables, called genus, species, and difference; which do, all of them, in part, belong to the essence. these notes borrowed from logic, and premised, 'tis here farther to be noted, that all those comparisons, or relations the soul makes in whatever proposition, is done by that relation, called identity; as is manifest from the copula [est.] wherefore, to review what we said lately; the predicates belonging to the two last predicables of porphyrius, are referred only according to material identity; or, only as found to belong to the same thing, and not as essential to it. the three former are related, or compared, as identified formally to the thing; yet, still so, as but several parts of its essence. the 6th is, when the whole thing is compared, related to, or identified with the whole thing; and this entirely, or according to all that is in the thing. and, this way of comparing or relating the whole thing to its self, is that relation of identity, which is the most essential, most formal, and most expressly such, of all other; and, is only found in those propositions we call first principles. which propositions being, for the reasons given, most fully and properly such, we do therefore, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, call identical. 22. whence may be seen, that the virtue of identical propositions threads, or runs thorough all those propositions that are essential; and, collaterally, those also whose predicates are immediately and necessarily connected with the essence. for, since the parts are found in the whole, and all identification in part, is a part of the identification of the whole thing with its self; it follows, that propositions, or truths, in which the predicate is but part of the whole, are, in reality, but parts of our identicals. nor is this all; but the force of every consequence too is grounded on them, in which consists all our rationality; as was shown above. whence mr. lock, in his essay, b. 4. ch. 2. §. 7. shows, very judiciously, that every step we take in true demonstrations, is made by intuitive, or self-evident knowledges. 23. whence, 'tis evident, that even your rule will force you, tho' contrary to your intention, to come over to us; and, will oblige you to guide yourselves by connexion of terms, (which is our way,) however you strive to avoid it. you say, that when you clearly and distinctly see a proposition to be true, it must be so: and we say, you can never see a proposition to be true, but when you see its two extremes, (or, the subject and predicate,) connected. you will allege, you see it in your idea: but, (as is shown above,) there are three parts in a proposition, which have, each of them, a distinct idea; in regard, the selfsame idea which is of the subject, cannot be the idea of the predicate; for, this would throw you upon identical propositions, which is our rule: and, the idea of the copula is, most evidently, quite different from the other two; being, precisely, that which affirms, or denies; which neither of the other does. this being so, i beseech you to reflect, that truth (which is the thing in question) cannot consist in these ideas, singly considered; for, taken thus, they are, all of them, simple apprehensions▪ which can neither be true, nor false. it remains, then, that you must confess, truth can be only in those ideas, put together, or connected; nor, can they be connected, but by that which only is apt to connect or identify them; viz. by the copula [est;] for, these three parts cannot be framed into one speech, by any other manner, but by putting the word [est] between them. wherefore, 'tis evident, that you cannot pretend to see clearly and distinctly, that any proposition is true, (which is your rule to know truth,) but by seeing its said terms connected, or identified. i see not how you can, even in your way of ideas, deny this clear discourse: and, if you grant it, we are thus far friends. only, we add, that, to make such connexion's the rule to all others, you must allow them to be self-connexions', or identical; which is our position. so that, which way soever you wriggle, to avoid our rule, the light of common reason, or natural logic, will force you into it, whether you will or no. 24. as for the dryness of identical propositions, which goes not down with some men of fancy, i have this to add; that that which is objected to them, as scandalous, and opprobrious, is, in reality, a great commendation to them. for, this conceit of their dryness springs from their seeming too obvious. whereas, were not the very first principles, and the rule of knowing all truths, thus most plain, easie and obvious, but needed the least reflection, or consideration, they would be utterly unfit to be what they ought to be; first principles, and self-evident. nothing pleases the palate of such gentlemen, which is not new, or such as they knew not before. not reflecting, in the mean time, that nothing is new, but conclusions lately deduced; and that all first principles must be as old as nature, or mankind itself: nor could they be the rule of truth, which must oblige all mankind to see their evidence, and assent to their verity, were they otherwise. 25. how pretty a delusive faculty is this fancy of ours! and, how apt, if we be not aware, to decoy us, every step, into error, by customary appearances; which, by striking often upon it, would fool our reason! our own thoughts, and those of others, do, in all our conversations, use to come to us, clad in words: whence it happens, that 'tis very hard, liquidly and clearly to strip the sense from those words; and to consider it, and nothing but it. if a man says, [every thing is distinct from all other things,] none is apt to smile at him, or impute it as ridiculous, or foolish: but, if he says, [a thing is its self,] witty men can scarce contain their jest at such an idle proposition: and yet they are, most evidently, the selfsame in sense; for, that which is distinct from all others, must either be its self, or nothing; and, the taking away all distinction, does, almost in terms, at least, most formally, and necessarily, put identity. let us take another instance: if one says, [a whole is more than a part,] it appears to such men, wondrous wise; and, none blames him, in the least, that says it, or lays it for a principle. but, if he says, and puts for a principle, [what's more than a part, is more than a part,] it is good luck if they do not think he deserves midas' ears. yet, both of these propositions are the selfsame, and both of them equally, and most perfectly identical in sense; and only differ in the manner of expression. which i thus show: a whole consists of its parts; and, since every thing is that of which it consists, a whole is its parts. but, the word [parts,] being plural, signifies more than one part; wherefore, [a whole is more than a part,] is the same as to say, [what's more than a part, is more than a part;] which is as perfectly identical, as can be imagined. nay, more; if we regard it well, we shall find, that the former proposition had not been known, speculatively, to be self-evident, nor could have been made out to be such, but because it is the same with this later, whose terms are most formally identical; to which, the other is easily reduced. 26. it will be asked, why we could not let the sense alone in its former dress, (which became it much better than this other,) since it was self-evident enough before? i answer; because the self-evidence better appears, when it is also brought to terms most perfectly identical; as any one may discern, who compares the two propositions now mentioned: and, hence also the sceptical dissenter, or denier, is most forcibly, and unavoidably thrown upon a direct and open contraction; for, to deny those identicals, which are such, not only in the sense, but in the manner of expression too, is, to avow a contradiction proposed barefaced, and in the plainest terms; which could not have appeared so clearly from the terms of the former proposition. lastly, a brabbling pyrrhonian might have drawn the words, [whole,] and [part,] into some sinister construction; and have wrangled and quibbled about them, by putting upon them divers senses; which he is quite debarred of, when the terms are thus identical: for, when the words of both the terms are the very selfsame, whatever sense he gives the words of the subject, must be allowed to the words of the predicate too; so that he will be put quite past his shifts, and the proposition will still remain equally identical as it was before, maugre all his cavils, and evasions. 27. by this time i have, as i conceive, good reason to presume enough has been alleged by us, to prove that our rule of truth is, in every regard, qualified for such an employ. we will therefore, if you please, now turn the tables, and examine what your rule can pretend to; or, what it it has in it, which can entitle it to be such a rule; or, in any respect, counterbalance what has been produced for ours. to do which, we will consider it, both as to the act of your clear and distinct perception, the immediate object of that act; and, at the same time, as to the stability which each of these may be conceived to have from its ground. we will begin with the object, that determines your faculty of understanding to this or that particular act. if i rightly conceive the cartesian doctrine, the immediate objects of your clear and distinct perception, are your ideas, in which appears this truth which, you say, you clearly and distinctly see. now, these ideas of yours are, confessedly, effects produced by a second cause, the mind itself; and not the immediate work of the first cause, on which (as has been sh●wn) our rule is built: which gives ours an infinite advantage, above yours, as to the stability of its ground: ours having, for its solid foundation, the ideas in the divine understanding; whence are unquestionably derived, and by which are established, the essences of things, on which ours is immediately grounded: whereas, your ideas are held by yourselves, to be the creatures, or productions of your own mind; which (were it granted it could produce any such ideas) is a defective agent of its own nature; and, therefore, its productions so uncertain, that it seems a most strange piece of doctrine, to build all the certain truth and knowledge mankind can possibly have on such an unsteady foundation. how many thousands, even of a fair pitch of understanding, have mistaken lively fancies, for evident knowledge? must, therefore, all truth be built on a mistakable principle? nay, more; such men, judging thus, by mistake, the thing was evident, taking them as possessed with such a mistake, cannot but assent to it, as true, tho' it be never so false: must we therefore consecrate this erroneous ground of theirs, into a rule of truth? oh, but it belongs to god's goodness, to take care, that, since we cannot but assent upon such a clear and distinct appearance, we should not be forced upon error. why so? if you will needs leave the things his wisdom has made, take your own way, and over-conceit the infallibility of your own faculty, in judging you clearly and distinctly know a thing, when you do but fancy it; is god's providence answerable to support every overweening rashness of ours? doubtless, his goodness is never wanting to such a considerable species, as is mankind, in n 〈…〉 to their knowledge, for which th●●● nature was made: but, if there 〈◊〉 another way, more solidly ground●● and evident than yours; nay, aga●●●● which (as has been proved) ther● can lie no exception, and men will not take it; his providence is acquitted, and, 'tis just to let them delude themselves. at least, it will be said, that this clear and distinct perception is a rule of truth to us, tho' not to truth, considered in itself. but, if what we assent to upon that imaginary ground, may still be false, for any thing that ground can assure us, how can it be a rule of truth to any? to return to our ideas; the main point is, that it is so far from evident that there can be any such ideas elicited, or produced, by our minds, that there are many pretended demonstrations against it; as may be seen in ideae cartesianae expensae, exam. 2. from § 31. to §. 49. nay, there are very many others in my second preliminary, proving there can need none; the thing itself being objectively in our understanding. to none of which demonstrations, i do expect any full and solid answer; but only, perhaps, some slight touches. i add, that the ideists themselves cannot agree amongst themselves, what kind of things these spiritual ideas should be. mr. locke makes them to be similitudes; which mr. le grand denies; and, is so at variance with himself, that he puts them to be many several sorts of things, and those inconsistent with one another; and so makes them to be chimaeras. this inconsonancy of those writers with one another, and with their own selves, makes it very dubious that there are any such things as these ideas, at all; at least, 'tis evident, that they who ground all their doctrine upon them, do not know what they are; and, therefore, they build all their hypothesis on they know not what. and, if this be so, than the immediate object of their clear and distinct perception is, perhaps, a nonentity; or, at least, such an entity, as no man living (nor themselves neither) knows what to make of it. 28. again; this object, which you clearly and distinctly see to be true, must be some mental proposition; for, nothing can be formally true, but some speech that affirms, or denies. now, say we, 'tis most incontestable, that the first proposition we can make of a thing, is, to affirm its metaphysical verity; or, to say, 'tis this, (or its self,) and no other: for, the subject being the basis of all our thoughts, we must fix it certainly, clearly and distinctly, ere we can, with certainty, say any thing else of it. this proposition, then, say we, is such, that our understanding no sooner opens its eye, to take a view of it, but it must assent to it, because of the self-evident identification of its terms; whose self-evidence we do therefore make our rule. it remains then, that you show us some truth, or proposition, which is before this, (which we think to be the first,) and which both makes itself thus visible; and also, by its self-evident light, giveth clearness and intelligibility to all other truths; and, lastly, which is so firmly grounded, that it may be a solid first principle, and not an airy and fantastic conceit. you must then, (we say,) produce, and show us some other proposition than that you have brought hitherto, which tells us your clear and distinct perception is your rule; for, this, you see, is already, by many unanswerable arguments, thrown out of doors, and shown unfit to be a rule. and, till you do this, you ought not to be offended, if we tell you friendly, and plainly, that you have no rule of truth at all. 29. thus much for the immediate object of your clear and distinct perception. as for the act it self, i beseech you, sir, consider on what a sandy foundation you would build all truth. what signifies yours, or mine, or any man's judgement, that he clearly and distinctly sees a truth; or, that he must assent, or may not assent to it? what signify these, i say, to the truth of the thing? must truth be built on men's judgements, or their manner of conceiving? what's true, is infallibly such; and this, by virtue of its grounds. is our judgement, or manner of conceiving, such a certain ground, or infallible? how many instances is the world full of, to prove those perceptions of ours, tho' judged by us most evident, to be fallacious? a passionate man, highly injured, and bend upon revenge, judges it most evident that he ought to take his private satisfaction: and, you can do no more, but verily judge you have this clear and distinct perception, that such or such a proposition is true. i am to presume, that those cartesians who stigmatised me with the ignominious note of being impious against god, etc. judged they did clearly see, i was thus wicked; for, otherwise, they left their own beloved rule, to blacken me; which is too high a malice for any man to charge them with: and yet, no man living, as far as myself, or my friends, can discern, did think so, but themselves; for, 'tis hard to conceive, that, if others had thought so, none of them should have that zeal for god's honour, as to object it, or reprehend me for it: nor am i to doubt but they thought they clearly and distinctly saw, that when i said, annihilation was impossible, i did, by that doctrine, set upon god himself: and, yet, tho' the learned albius maintained the same, in his metaphysics, 50 years before, no friend ever admonished him, that by saying so, he had fallen into a wicked error: nor any of his opposers, who were very learned men, tho' they gathered many propositions out of his books, which seemed to sound ill, did ever object this; whereas, had they judged it impious, they would not have spared him, but have laid load upon him for it. but, it seemed, they all wanted this gift of clear and distinct perception, which is peculiar to the cartesians. to come to other instances; how frequently are people mistaken, in thinking they have a clear and distinct perception, or perfect evidence! prejudice, faction and education work this ill effect, and make men absolutely judge they see most evidently, they are in the right. people far gone in the spleen, or a deep melancholy, do assent, and judge, perhaps, more firmly than you do, that they see clearly twenty ridiculous fooleries to be true. highflown enthusiasts judge the same. pious women, and prudent in other things, if much given to introversion, judge, they see clearly and distinctly (nay, far more lively than we do) many strange things in their imaginary visions and revelations; insomuch, that they would pawn their very souls for their truth; which, yet, are oft known, by their effects, to be mere illusions of fancy. from all which errors and inconveniences, our rule is free: for, who can, out of humour, precipitancy, fancy, disease, or any other casualty whatever, be deceived, in judging, that identical propositions are true? this, then, unanswerably concludes ours to be the genuine rule of truth; in regard, this must be such as all men must be forced to assent to, unanimously agree in it, nor can ever hap to be deceived in it by any chance whatever: since, otherwise, the whole nature of those men would be depraved, and good for nothing, as having no rule by which to know any truth whatever. nay, it must be such as may be produced openly, by the asserters of any truth; that, by alleging it, they may be able to convince others, that what they maintain is a real truth, and not some fantastic conceit of their own; without which, their clear and distinct perception is invisible, and so can satisfy no man; nor clear themselves from being selfconceited; but, to argue like fanatics, who pretend they discern things by an inward light, which none can see but themselves, nor they themselves make it visible to others. of which, more hereafter. 30. i beg of you, once more, (the point being of great importance,) that this question, concerning your rule, may be rightly stated, and understood. none doubts, but that, if we clearly know a thing to be true, it is true; otherwise, it would follow, that we may know what is not; or, (which is the same,) may know that which is not to be known. the only question, then, is, whether we may not be mistaken in judging we know it, when, indeed, we do not know it, but only fancy it: which is a thing so common amongst all mankind, that not very many escape this fault of overweening. wherefore, ere you can pretend that this rule of yours is useful, and a certain means to know truth, you should first prescribe us some self-evident rule, how we may know assuredly, that our judgement that we do clearly and distinctly know a thing, is not a mistake: for, otherwise, we are often apt to think we do most certainly know a thing, when we have only a lively apprehension, or fancy of it. besides which, this rule must have force upon all mankind, that we may easily make it out to others, that we do indeed and really know, and not merely presume we know, when, perhaps, we do not: otherwise, it will neither give others, nor ourselves, any certainty that what we imagine we know, is true. this is the true difficulty; and against this, i do not discern any effectual provision made by you; nor how you can make any, without having recourse to the self-evident connexion of the terms in an identical proposition. this self-evident connexion we can produce openly, to every man's eye; whereas, you cannot produce your pretended clear and distinct perception to any man: and, it being, when thus produced by us, impossible not to be seen and acknowledged by any man, who has any use of his intellectual faculty, 'tis able to give perfect satisfaction to ourselves, and to others also, that we neither are, nor can be mistaken in our judgement, that we do really and indeed know it; and, not only deem it. you see, sir, where the difficulty pinches. that can never be a certain rule to me, or to any man, which i can never be sure i make use of: now, 'tis evident by what is said here, i cannot be assured i do clearly and distinctly know, unless my judgement that i do so be secured from mistake: for, if i be mistaken in that judgement, and do not clearly and distinctly know, your rule affects not me at all; nor am i a jot the better for it, or nearer the knowing any truth by it: but, which is yet worse; 'tis evident from this discourse, that there needs another rule of knowing, antecedent to yours, to guide my judgement that i do clearly and distinctly know, and do not mistake, or rashly presume i know; as we experience, the generality of mankind does. which evidently concludes, that the proposition by which you express your pretended rule of knowing, may, indeed, be a truth, (in case you do really know,) but can never be a rule of truth to you, me, or any man: for, this must be first known, or self-known, to all mankind; or otherwise, it needs another antecedent rule, to make it useful; and, so it is ruled, and no rule. here it is, then, that the point sticks; and, here 'tis like to stick, for any thing i can imagine, in behalf of the cartesians. 31. i am apt to apprehend, that your acute wit will object, that some few of those instances i alleged formerly, of men who verily judged they clearly and distinctly knew such and such things to be true, and yet were mistaken in thus judging, do fall short of concluding; i mean, those that concerned people in diseases; which you may, with some reason, think, are known to be plain deviations from nature, by an easy criterion; viz. by the standard of mankind, who have the right use of their reason. which i shall not contest with you; nor had i brought such as these, but that i see your writers bring the same against the certainty of our senses; as, that icterical people see all things yellow, and such like; which are solved by the same criterion. but, what are these to many others which i there alleged; and could press farther, were it suitable to the brevity i had intended. to force that objection home, what shall we think of speculative men, and great philosophers; nay, of many great mathematicians, who thought they had most certainly squared the circle? they are held to be men in their perfect wits; nay, they are held to be candid too; and, moreover, learned; and, which is more, both sides offer demonstrations for their tenet; and have, ofttimes, great multitudes that follow them, and embrace their doctrine. can it be denied, but that such very learned, acute and ingenious men do verily judge that they clearly and distinctly see their doctrine to be true? and yet, we are certain that, since they contradict one another, one side must needs be in an error in that judgement. we will bring it yet nearer home, and lay it even at our own doors. 32. i do not doubt, but yourself (for, i cannot suspect your candour) does verily judge that you clearly and distinctly perceive, or (which is the same) have perfect evidence, that your way of ideas is the true way to science: and i, on the other side, am as fully persuaded, as that i live, that i do clearly and distinctly see, it is so far from being the way to science, that it is perfectly groundless, and leads to innumerable errors. that you are thus persuaded, seems very evident to you; for which, i am very willing to take your word. and, that i am thus fully persuaded i do clearly and distinctly see the contrary, besides my faithful asseveration, i believe indifferent men will think i have given sufficient testimony, by bringing so many pretended demonstrations against your way; and hazarding my credit, by vouching them to be conclusive; which, therefore, are so many sure gauges for my sincerity, when i declare this to be my sentiment. add, that these demonstrations are not like flashes of wit, coined by my own brain; for, then, perhaps, i might, for some by-end of applause, or some such foolery, have falsely pretended they were my true thoughts: but, they are all built upon the nature of the thing, or subject in hand; which being established to be what it is, 'tis beyond the wit or power of man, to make, mar, alter, or deface it; and, should i go about to disguise or misrepresent it, 'tis easy for any adversary to show, i speak contradictions, and expose me to open shame for my confident ignorance: for, what is against the nature of the thing, makes that thing to be what it is not; which is a plain contradiction. this, then, being so manifest, that i may convince you by your own method, why ought not you, by your way of doubting of every thing that has any show or possibility of falsehood, or any uncertainty, to lay aside, and renounce your rule of truth, as uncertain and fallacious; since we do both of us follow it to our power; and, yet, since we contradict one another so diametrically, one of us is, notwithstanding, in a vast error! here is matter of fact, then, against the usefulness of your rule; and that too, as certain, and evident, as that one (or both of us) is not the worst sort of hypocrites; that is, belies himself, and his own thoughts: whereas, i believe, no man that knows either of us, had ever such a bad opinion of us. i could press this topick much farther; but i had rather leave it to your sincere and deliberate consideration. 33. the rule by which we are to know truth, ought therefore, (as was said,) in such a manner oblige all mankind to assent, that it should be apt, of itself, to compose all differences in opinion, by applying, and bearing up to it: whereas, yours can compose none at all; but, chose, engages learned men in an endless wrangle. we both grant, that if we see a thing clearly to be true, it is true; since common sense tells every man, that none can see what is not to be seen: nor is there any such mystery, or mastership, in advancing this obvious position; or, for magnifying cartesius so highly, for inventing it; since, i think, no man living ever denied it. the question is, which of us has this true evidence, which you call clear and distinct perception? you will say, you have it, and i want it: i shall reply, that i have it, and you want it. you will blame some defect in my understanding, or some untoward bias or propension of my will, both which, according to mr. le grand, (p. 93.) can make one deceived in thinking that he evidently perceives: and i, on the other side, think i may, with equal justice, blame yours: and, so, we may come to lay the fault, either on the weakness of one another's understanding, or the depravedness of his will; which naturally leads men to pelt one another with rash judgements, and hard words: but, since we can, neither of us, see one another's thoughts, or discover to others, how clear they are, which is your way; both sides will still remain as far from conviction, and the point from decision, as at first, for any thing your rule helps either of us. and, if we set aside propositions and discourses, and the showing that their terms are undeniably connected, and therefore, themselves certainly true; (which is not yo●● way;) how, i beseech you, shall men ever come to a final conclusion by dint of reason, without being put to it to avail themselves by ill words, and passion; which (i fear, by proceeding upon your rule; for, you pretend not to have produced any connexion of terms) has been such a stickler, of late, to uphold the cartesian cause? 34. this seemed to me so odd a procedure, that i begged the favour of you, to acquaint me, how, or by what means, you would make others know you had, indeed, this clear and distinct perception; or, how you could prove you had it, but by making use of propositions and discourses; the force of which consists only in affirming, denying, or inferring; that is, in the connexion, or inconnexion of the terms. as i remember, your answer was, by explicating to them clearly the point, and desiring them to meditate upon it: which way you seemed to magnify very much. i could have alleged, that you could not have proposed, or used, even this way, without making use of propositions, and discourses: but, letting you proceed, i barred explications, if they were brought (as it here seemed) to evacuate any need of proof: for, explicating, as contradistinguished to proving, amounts to no more but a kind of rhetorical persuasive, made up of similitudes, parallels, allusions, and such little sorts of light, witty fancies, which may serve, and are made use of, in a manner, equally, to abet error, as well as truth. indeed, if the terms of the question be dubious, explications are needful, and very requisite; lest, otherwise, we levelly our argument at a wrong thesis: but, if the point in question be rightly understood by both parties, it must either be proved, if it be not self-evident and needs no proof; or, it must remain for ever uncertain, and undecided. i should be glad to know whether, or no, you would go about to convince such a man by grounds and principles? if you say, you would, and that you think you can do this: than you wrong your cause exceedingly, by waving the mention of such strong supports as principles and grounds; and recurring to, and relying on such unsteady, feeble reeds as explications. if you say, you cannot evince your thesis by principles; then all your explications, tho' never so witty, are, confessedly, unprincipled, and groundless. if you pretend, your explications do involve proofs in them; 'tis clearly for the interest of your cause, to make use of the argumentative part of such discourses, and leave out the explicative: for, 'tis certain, that the argument, if a good one, subsists upon some solid principle; whereas, an explication may be without any at all. it will therefore, to any considering man, be a strong prejudice against the cartesians, and make men apt to think they have no grounds or principles at all, that they do not much pretend to them, much less build their discourses on them, or reduce them to them; but seem to abdicate them, while they place their chief support in explications. in a word; let the position be first proved to be true, or all explications are frivolous: for, to what purpose is it to stand explicating a falsehood? the nature of all explications, is, to give us the sense of the thesis proposed; but, let it be first proved, and seen that it bears good sense; for, 'tis a very sleeuless task, to stand explicating nonsense. 35. on this occasion, it were not amiss to note here a certain manner of writing, very frequent amongst some modern philosophers; which is apt to lead the generality of learners into very great errors. we do, all of us, naturally affect knowledge; and therefore, we love to read authors that are clear, or write clearly; as being very knowable, or intelligible. but, now, clearness is of two sorts: the one makes clear the thoughts of the writer; the other makes clear the truth of the point he writes of. the one expresses clearly his own meaning, when he says thus: the other manifests clearly, that he says true when he says thus. the former is performed by means of rhetoric, and witty expressions: the other can only be done by solid principles, and by true logic. but, it too often happens, that those readers who have not a strong bent to see truth, and, with a steady aim, pursue it, and it only, are so well apayed with the clear expression of an author, in delivering his own mind; which cannot but be very pretty, and taking, being, generally, neatly clad; that they are, at unawares, decoyed to think the thing itself is clear, when 'tis only the sentiment of the author which is rendered so evident; especially, if there be also some slight show of coherence; which seldom wants, if the writer be a man of parts. and, yet, perhaps, all this while, were that discourse stripped of its superficial gaiety, and sounded to the bottom, nothing will be found to support its truth; but it will appear plain bald nonsense en cuerpo. on the other side, it lights so, that discourses that are solid, and built all along on evident principles, (only which can clear the truth of the point,) do want the other sort of clearness, which consists in explicating, to recommend them to the liking of the reader. and this happens for two reasons: one, because principles do consist of few words, or notions; and those too, such as are general, or universal ones; which do not admit such varying the phrase, or smooth explications, to make them more knowable; their clearness consisting only in the greater simplicity of those general terms, and their close connexion. the second reason is, that those writers who endeavour to look deep into the foundation and principles on which truth is grounded, and are not satisfied with skimming over questions superficially, do not care to avail themselves by explications, and the way of smooth expressions; but quite disregard them, and judge them only lukewarm words in their present circumstances; because they neither conduce to the attainment of science, nor to settle and clear the truth of the thesis; which such men see can only be done by the strict and evident connexion of their notions. to apply this discourse; i entreat you, sir, to consider whether the former sort of clearness be not that which the cartesians affect; the second, that which we take, and pursue. i shall hope, that whoever peruses my method to science, with an attentive and indifferent eye, will easily observe, that i first put my thesis, and then endeavour to establish it by rigorous proofs, drawn from the nature of the thing or subject treated of in those respective places: and that the cartesians do not use to take any such method, but place their hopes of recommending their tenets to the reader's approbation, in their explications. which makes it so difficult for a logician to find where their arguments lie hid, or where they press; of which, with just reason, i so often complain. 36. thus much concerning your method of proving by explicating; or rather, of substituting explications in the place of proofs. as for the other part of your method, which is, your putting learners to meditate long and seriously, upon what you have proposed to them, i liked that as ill as i did that of explicating: and, my reason is, because, unless men take principles along with them, to guide their thoughts right, and keep an attentive eye to them, while they thus meditate; 'tis to be feared, their long meditating will, by its frequent dints, so imprint and fix what you have told them, in their brain; and, at length, make it sink so deep into their minds, that, whether it be right or wrong, it will stick there, as daily experience shows us; custom, a second nature, having a very powerful ascendent over the understanding, to imbue us with false impressions, by the oftreiterated thinking upon any point that is disputable; especially, ingenious explications (as was shown lately) too often serving for reasons, to those who are not well versed in true logic. 37. but, the main objection i make, is, that this method of yours quite overthrows the rule of truth, which you intended to establish by it. for, this rule being that, upon which all all our knowledge of truth depends, must be so very clear of itself, above any thing we can add to its highest evidence, that it cannot possibly need any explication, nor meditation neither. nor, consequently, can any stronger argument be brought, to demonstrate that this rule of yours is not the right one, than 'tis to confess or pretend that it stands in need of, or, even, can admit assistance, or light, either from the one, or the other. for, if it can need any explication, it follows, that it must be something obscure: and, if it can need poring and meditating upon it, ere it be admitted, or can be known, then 'tis far from being most self-evident: both which utterly destroy the nature of such a rule. for, since we must know all other truths by it, its evidence must be the first thing to be known; and therefore, the knowledge of its truth must antecede the knowledge of all other truths whatsoever, and be clearer than they. which being so manifest, i wonder what thoughts or considerations our explicating or meditating can suggest, that can do this first rule of truth any service, or give it any advantage; since, all others being more obscure than it, they may, indeed, (could they affect it,) impart to it their own greater obscurity, and make it less clear and intelligible than it was; but, can never make it clearer, as having no greater, but far less clearness themselves. lastly, as this pretended necessity of explicating, and meditating, quite degrades yours from being the genuine, first, and, consequently, the right rule of knowing truth; so it abets ours, and gives it a clear title to be such a rule, since the self-evidence of those first truths, expressed by identical propositions, (which is our rule,) is such, as is both impossible to be explicated, and impossible to need meditating, to clear it to us; but, at the first instant we open the eye of our mind, it discovers itself fully to all mankind, to be most true; and, withal, begets, forces and fixes us in a full and firm assent to its verity. 38. perhaps it will be alleged, notwithstanding what i have said above, that this clear and distinct perception is not pretended to be a rule of truth in itself, so that it establishes truth fundamentally; but of truth to us, or, (as the schools phrase it,) quoad nos; that is, a rule whereby we may know what's truth, what not: and, it seems, that it cannot be denied to be such a rule, in regard 'tis evident that we must assent, or hold a thing true, when we see clearly and distinctly it is so; nor ought we to assent, or hold it to be true, unless we do clearly and distinctly see it to be so. i answer, that this pretence is already forestalled, in divers places of my former discourse; where it was shown, by many instances, that, even in the opinions learned men held, this guiding our thoughts and judgements by what appears to us a clear and distinct perception, is uncertain, and fallacious. whence, in the thesis constituting this to be your rule, there is tacitly involved a false supposition; v●z. that that perception, on which we solely rely, is unmistakable by us: for, if we may mistake it to be really a perception thus qualified, when it is not, than our assent may be erroneous; and, how can an erroneous judgement, in any sense, be true to us, or make us know a thing to be true? if i am to draw a strait line, and the rule by which i guide myself be sometimes strait, and sometimes crooked, how is it a rule to me, in that action, or draught? 2. in constituting this perception to be your rule, you begin at the wrong end: for, seeing this perception is an act, and that the object specifies every act, and makes it such as it is; the object, or thing, must be true in itself; and, by being in itself true, it thence makes our judgement (when we rightly conceive it) to be true also. this distinction, then, in our present case, is altogether frivolous; and the alleging it, preposterous. 3. to perceive, is an act of the understanding, and the same as to know; and, to perceive clearly and distinctly, is the same as to know perfectly. whence follows, that to say, [i know that to be true, which i clearly and distinctly perceive to be so,] is the very selfsame sense, as to say, [what i know to be true, i know to be true;] or, [i know what i know:] which is a good confident saying; and, moreover, true too. but, nothing can be more ridiculous, than to make knowing the rule of knowing, or a rule to make a thing true to us. to say, [a thing is, because it is;] or, [i know it, because i know it;] is more like a woman's reason, when she is fixed, and wilful; than a rational man's, or a philosopher's. 39 the ingenious mr. le grand seems to go more charily to work, by putting his rule of truth, (dissert. pag. 86) in these terms, [illud omne verum est quod clarè & distinctè percipitur.] he does not say, [quod percipitur esse verum;] but barely, [quod percipitur.] which words do not tell us, whether he speaks of our perception by the first operation of our understanding, simply apprehending a thing; or of the second, which is expressed by a proposition. but, this still falls into the same: for, if he means the former, then, since simple apprehensions have neither truth nor falsity in them, being no more but, barely, what's meant, or signified, by the words; it cannot follow, that what i clearly and distinctly thus perceive, is therefore true: for, i simply apprehend, and this clearly and distinctly too, the meaning of these words, [a triangle has four corners;] yet 'tis far from being true, being a plain contradiction. he must mean then, that i am to perceive the sense or meaning of those words to be connected, which is done by putting them into a proposition; and then his rule must run thus, [whatever simple apprehensions i see clearly and distinctly to be connected in a proposition, that proposition is true:] which is that very rule which we advance, and the cartesians would avoid. only, we say, that to make this a rule, we must see the parts of it self-connected, or self-evident; for, all other connexion's are made, by the terms being connected by means of a third; which is the same as to be deduced, or proved. but, these connexion's being, all of them, conclusions, they cannot pretend to be rules, or principles, since they must depend on such rules, as show those conclusions must follow. again, if he means, (as he must, if he means any thing,) that his rule is, that we must see those simple apprehensions, which we call the terms, connected in a proposition; then we must see, or clearly perceive, that that proposition is true: and then, his principle must run thus; [whatever proposition i clearly and distinctly perceive to be true, is known by me to be true:] wherefore, since to perceive thus, is, to know; and that, as appears by cartesius' words, there cited, he speaks of what's verum mihi, as the effect of his principle; that is, of what i know to be true; join these two together, and this principle, or rule, does manifestly amount to this; [that which i know to be true, i know to be true;] which is a most prodigious rule of knowledge; and yet, this is most evidently the sense of it, in case to perceive means, to know; and verum mihi means that which i know to be true: which, i think, is undeniable by any man of common sense. and, i wonder how the great wit of cartesius could imagine that any thing could be true to him, unless he first saw it to be true in itself, which it has from its grounds; unless he makes account, that a thing may be true to him, which, in itself, is false: which makes those two truths fall out, and contradict one another, which i ever took to be very good friends. this makes me wish that the ingenious mr. le grand, who tells us here, p. 92. that there goes more to a rule, than to a truth, had told us, in what a truth, and in what the nature of a rule consists; which we plainly deliver, by affirming that a truth consists in the connexion of the main parts (or terms) of any thesis; and a rule in the self-connexion of them, by formal identity; whence, such rules become self-evident to all mankind, and able to impart their light to all other truth's whatever. but, this shows the genius of the cartesian writers: they take what's uppermost, and descant very prettily and gently upon it; which, being obvious, and facile, does mightily please the fancy of the readers: but, they go not to the bottom of any question. they rake the surface of the most difficult points; but they never dig deep into it, to find out the ground and foundation on which truth is built. and, i hope, the reasons i have alleged, both here, and elsewhere, will satisfy my readers, that it is not the ridiculous motive of pique, or humour, which makes me give this character of their way of writing; but, merely, the duty i owe to truth, which obliges me to do it. thus, worthy sir, i have used the best reason i was master of, in examining exactly, and understanding rightly, your rule of truth; and i have endeavoured to stop all the startingholes, by which the cartesians may think to evade the force of my arguments. which done, i presume i may take my leave of this point, and apply my discourse to what followed next at our interview. 40. my design, at the beginning of our conference, was to convince you, that truth consisted in the connexion of the terms, in those speeches we called propositions; which evinced, i made account i could easily prove, that the very first truths, which were to give light to all others, or be the rule of truth, were such propositions as were self-connected, and therefore self-evident. how your over-acute way of doubting defeated my intentions, and stopped my progress, is seen above. sorry to have been put out of that direct road, which i saw was the only right one, and without settling which, all our discourse would be unconnected talk to no purpose, i was casting about how to get into it again. but a learned and judicious friend of ours, who was present, suggested, that [cogito ergo sum] was pretended by you to be a first principle; and, he pressed earnestly it might be thoroughly examined, that we might see whether it had in it the nature of a first principle, or no. i was something troubled to relinquish the method i had prefixed to myself; without which, i saw, the nature of a first principle could not be settled, nor shown: however, i yielded to his request. i allowed then, that [cogito ergo sum] was a true and evident consequence, as are a thousand such others, viz. dabito ergo sum; scribo, ambulo, dormio; nay, somnio ergo sum, etc.) which is what, with unattentive considerers, give it all its credit, and makes them look upon us, as unreasonable men, who, as they apprehend, do question this consequence, or call it into doubt. but they are quite mistaken; there is no body that doubts it is an evident consequence; but, there is a very wide difference between a consequence and a principle; or rather, if it be a consequence, tho' never so good, it can never be a first principle, because, the premises, which induced that consequence, were before it; and that truth, on which all force of consequence is grounded,, (as was noted above,) is before either of them. what we affirm then is, that it is not a first principle, nor could be so to cartesius, when he proposed, and made use of it as such: and i addressed myself, to show it had not in it, the nature of such a principle, nor could, with reason, be pretended such by cartesius himself. 41. to prove this, i alleged, that it is an inseparable property, or rather, essential to first principles, that they must manifest themselves, to be such by their own most perfect self-evidence; whereas cartesius was forced to use very many prolix antecedent discourses, to prove all else to be dubitable; and, because they were so, he went on, enquiring farther, till he could find something that could not be doubted; which, he conceived, was [cogito ergo sum,] from which he came to conclude, that this was the first principle. whence i alleged, that therefore, those antecedent discourses of his, which proved all else to be doubtful, were the reasons or arguments whence he drew his conclusion, that this was the first principle. now, i think this as plain reason as plain can be, that no man can evince a thing to be the first in any kind whatever, but, because, there is nothing before it in that kind. and, from this consideration, i prove my allegation clearly; because, had not those many and large antecedent discourses, to prove all else to be doubtful, been true; his conclusion, viz. that [this is the first principle,] could not have followed, or been true neither. for, in case the senses had not been thus fallacious as still to deceive us, perhaps, science might have been had from the things without us affecting those senses; nor had there been any need to recur to the operations of our own mind, to seek for the ground of all truth there, because, we might have had it from the things in nature. this being so, how many propositions did he use all along, to prove that our senses might all deceive us; that we know not certainly whether we sleep or wake; that mathematical demonstrations might be all erroneous, etc. all which antecedent propositions, by the plain rules of logic, aught to be more evident, and more certain, than the conclusion he gathered, or inferred thence, viz. that therefore this, and only this, being indubitable, and certainly known, is the first principle. add, that this being plain sense, his own discourse overthrows the establishment of his first principle. for, since he had not this first principle of his till he had found it, nor did he find it, till he found all else to be doubtful; it will be asked how, and in virtue of what first principle he became, while he was in quest of it, more certain, that all other things were doubtful, than he was of the conclusion he inferred thence, viz. that [cogito, ergo sum] being impossible to be doubted of, was his first principle. wherefore, if he guided himself by no indubitable, or first principle all along, in those antecedent discourses, which were in reality his premises; that conclusion of his, cannot in any logic follow, nor be certainly true, nor aught to be embraced; especially, by such a philosopher as he was, who professes doubting of ever thing, till he came at his first principle, that can be in the least dubitable. 42. in reply to this discourse of mine, which is grounded on the supposition, that cartesius guided himself by reason, in settling his first principle; and on the plainest rules of logic that the premises must be clearer than the conclusion; the former of which, i suppose you will grant, the latter is obvious to common sense; you brought an ingenious explication, by way of similitude, or parallel; which, i see, are to supply the place of arguments, and answers too, in the cartesian way. it was this. suppose i see a man making great holes in the ground, or throwing aside rubbish; and that i ask him what he is doing? he tells me, he has an intention to build, and to lay foundations for that end, and is making way for it. now this action of his looks like an idle business, if we consider it alone; but, if we regard his farther intention of building, it is a wise and necessary preparative. and yet this antecedent action, of preparing to lay a foundation, does not give strength to the building, which is an action quite different from it; but the building depends on the foundation itself, and on nothing else. and, therefore, it follows, by way of parallel, that the antecedent discourses of cartesius, need not be connected with that first principle, as premises, to infer it must be such; since they served only to remove the rubbish, or the pretended knowledge of things by means of the senses, which encumbered the mind with prepossessions; and, so to make way to lay that first foundation of science. i think i have done your parallel all the right you can expect: wherefore, i come now to examine what force it bears, and what strength such a way of discoursing has in it; which, i the rather do, that i may inform those readers, who take such kind of similitudes for reasons, how easily, and how frequently they are deluded, by such unsteady, inconclusive, and illogical methods. 43 first then, 'tis so certainly known, that similitudes do not use quadrare per omnia, or, (as they say,) run on four feet, that it is grown proverbial; which lays a great prejudice upon that way in common. 2. similitudes drawn from material things, to immaterial, are particularly liable to this defect. they may, indeed, oft times, serve to illustrate some truth, as fit metaphors to suit with our fancy; but then they presuppose the truth, which they are to illustrate, to be known some other way. whence, unless this be done first, all they can do is to explicate we know not what, which destroys the nature of an explication; for, explications are not intended to put the truth of the point, but suppose it. 3. all the actions of our soul are, or aught to be rational; and have a dependence on one another, by the way of reason gathering subsequent truths from those which preceded. now, i think, 'tis impossible to be contested by any man who has read cartesius' meditations, but that his discourses which anteceded his finding out this first principle of his, are reducible to this enthymem; [for these and these reasons, there can no certainty be had, as to speculative knowledges, by any information had from outward objects affecting the senses; therefore, it ought to be sought for in some interior act of our mind, which is most comprehensive and peculiar to it,] which he conceive was cogitation; and thence he laid this first principle: [cogito ergo sum] which being so, it follows necessarily, that the laying this for his first principle, depended on the goodness of the reasons he had, why our senses were not to be trusted, nor could give us our first notions; whence, by reflecting on their metaphysical verity, we might have those self-evident, and first truths, of ours. this, i say, was evidently the tenor of his discourse; because, did not those reasons of his, against the sufficiency of our senses to give us this information, conclude; but that, notwithstanding all those reasons could prove, the senses might still imprint on our mind those first notions, his consequent would not have followed: nor, could he have had any ground for recurring to the interior act of cogitation, for his first principle, in regard it had been given to his hand by means of the senses, as was now declared. 4. it being then evident, that the substance of those antecedent discourses was summed up in the enthymem now mentioned, 'tis manifest, that this explication of yours falters in the main particular, in which it ought to suit, and resemble. for, in case those impressions on our mind could have been made by means of the senses, as aforesaid; then those impressions, or notions, being the immediate foundation, on which is built all our knowledge, could not be called, or resembled to rubbish; nor compared to a hole, to lay the foundation; for, the holes were already made in those inlets, our senses; which were pervious to the effluviums affecting the seat of knowledge; and thence, the soul. so that your similitude is, in effect, the begging the whole question; and can have no force at all, but by our granting it; which, i see plainly, we shall never have reason to do. rather, unless this petitio principii (which is tacitly involved in this parallel) be yielded by us, or proved by you, it makes against yourselves. for, by denying all such certain information from the senses, you will be found, not to remove the rubbish, in order to lay the foundation; but, to stop up the way to the laying any; and, to dam up all the holes, by which the materials could come into our minds, where only such a foundation could have been laid. at least, you see, your explication amounts to nothing; and, that your similitude is lame in all its legs, and has not one sure foot to stand on. which will, i hope, sufficiently inform others, that this way of explicating, so mightily affected by cartesius, and his followers, is utterly insignificant. i shall hope too, that this paper will light into the hands of some readers, who are so intelligent, as to discern, that this explicative way is taken up, to avoid the way of rigorous proof; which is so unfriendly to a doctrine that wants principles. 44. whence i should give this advice to all aristotelians, that whenever the cartesians would obtrude upon them their ingenious explications, they would demand of them smartly, by what grounds they know, or will prove to others, that what they explicate, is true; without doing which in the first place, no explication ought to be admitted. it may serve for a kind of currying favour with weaker understandings; but it can never improve any intelligent man in solid knowledge, nor make him one jot the wiser. 45. after this, we came to argue that other objection of mine, that first principles, of all others, must be most clearly and distinctly known; because they ought to be, of all others, most knowable; there being no others before them, by means of which they might come to be better known. now, cartesius himself expressly confesses, that, when he had found this first principle, he did not yet sufficiently understand what [ego,] the subject in that principle, meant: whence i inferred, that therefore, [cogito ergo sum,] could not be to him a first principle. this is enforced, because the subject is the principal, and most substantial part in every proposition: and, since, in ordinary things, when we do not well know what we talk of, plain s●nse tells us, 'tis a folly to talk at all; much more is it disallowable in philosophical matters, where exact truth is aimed at; and most of all in first principles, which must be most self-evident. you seemed to think an obscure knowledge of the subject was sufficient. but, how an obscure knowledge can be either clear, or distinct; much less, superlatively such: or, how a proposition, whose principal part is neither clear, nor distinct, should, notwithstanding, itself, (as here it must,) be most clear and distinct, is, i believe, past any man's comprehension. 46. however, i let your smooth explication slide, without pressing my discourse too forcibly: for, it had been something rude, at so civil a visit in my own chamber, to push things forward too rigorously; or, to seem to affect the victory of a confutation. but our friend urged me to bring some one argument, that might decisively conclude the point. it came into my mind, (waving what i had objected elsewhere,) to allege against it, that a first principle must be some one determinate proposition; whereas it was evident that this principle of yours had in it two, and those very different ones. for, [cogito] is a speech that affirms, which logicians call a proposition; and involves in it all the three parts that complete such a speech, being clearly the same as [ego sum cogitans;] as [sum,] for the same reason, implies, [ego sum existens;] which is evidently a proposition too, and distinct from the other. your answer was, that, notwithstanding the manner of expression, they made, or amounted to but one proposition; and signified no more but [ego sum re cogitans.] but i replied, that this was the first proposition; and hence i a●k, what becomes of the later, [ego sum existens,] since the predicate [existens,] is a quite different notion from the predicate [res cogitans.] add, that to prove himself existent, was the sole scope cartesius aimed at in laying this principle; as appears by his words immediately following; viz. [nondum tamen satis intelligo quisnam sim ego ille qui jam necessario sum.] he does not pretend to have evinced that he was res cogitans, but only necessarily existent. to enforce this the more, i alleged, that the illative particle [ergo] did show plainly, that there were two propositions; of which, the one was an antecedent; the other, a consequent. but you would not allow that [ergo,] in that place, had an illative signification; nor, as far as i could discern, any at all; for, i am sure, if it has any, it can have no other. i remember, you bestirred your wit as dexterously as any man could in such a cause, to bring off cartesius; but 'tis beyond the power of wit, or art, to do it, unless the most pregnant and significant words which rational creatures can use, must, for his sake, lose their signification. which is such an injury to the rest of mankind, who would be at a strange loss to discourse or understand one another, were this admitted, that it will never be allowed by other philosophers, who are disinteressed, and have not that passionate concern for cartesius, as some others seem to have. i remember, mr. le grand tells us, he has spoke to some exceptions made against this principle formerly, and, perhaps, this may be one of them. but, as i could not light on that book of his, so i clearly see, this particular is so manifest, that 'tis impossible for any man, in such a case as this, to answer to the purpose. 47. and thus ended our discourse; in which, if you had any disadvantage, it proceeded hence, that you would needs undertake to defend cartesius' logic: whereas, nothing is more evident, than that, in the far greatest part of his meditations, (not to speak of some other pieces of his,) he regarded no rules of logic at all; but merely followed the current of his own ingenious thoughts, in gliding smoothly and gently, from one thing, to another, as his first design led him, and in putting his conceptions clearly; i mean, according to the first sort of clearness, mentioned above, §. 35. the sum is this; without propositions, we cannot speak; and, without illative particles, we cannot make use of our rationality; both which, notwithstanding, you do not seem very willingly and heartily to admit. had i been of your party, i should have advised you to have flatly denied all syllogisms, inferences, antecedents, consequents; and, in a word, all logic, and all kind of connexion, and then it had been impossible for any man to attack you, or bring any argument against you; i add, nor you any for yourselves. 48. the generality of mankind (i wish i might not say, of philosophers too) being much governed by fancy, i am to expect, such a high speculation as is the foregoing discourse, will scarce find a civil entertainment amongst such gentlemen. however, i hope it will not displease them, if, on this occasion, i ask them some few pertinent questions; leaving the resolving them to themselves. 1. whether there be not such propositions; as those i call identical? 2. whether mathematicians, and some others, who treat of philosophy in a mathematical method, have not proposed such before me, and made use of them? 3. whether such propositions are not the most-firmly-grounded, and the first of all others? 4. whether they are not self-evident, and force the assent of all mankind? 5. whether we can be deceived in judging them self-evident; as we may, and often are, in judging that we clearly and distinctly know a thing to be true? 6. whether they have not an universal influence, in their way, over all truths, especially all deduced truths; since 'tis demonstrable, that all the force of consequence is grounded on them? 7. whether, all these qualifications being shown to be found in the self-evident knowableness of identical propositions, this clearest light, or intelligibility, which so necessarily appears in them, ought not, with just right, entitle them to be held the rule by which to know all other truths? lastly, whether this self-evident connexion of the terms of a proposition, found in them, which is producible openly, be not a clear means to show to others, that we do not mistake when we judge them self evident, and true; since all mankind that sees them produced, must think the same of them we do? and, whether, on the other side, it can possibly be shown to others, that ourselves do clearly and distinctly know a thing to be true, without producing finally some proposition that is unmistakable and self-evident to every man? when they have duly weighed each of these particulars, and the proofs brought for them, i appeal from their fancy, to their reason, whether i have not done a just and necessary duty to philosophy, in endeavouring to settle the rule of truth upon so solid and evident a basis; and, whether i could have been less speculative in such a high subject, as requires a deep inspection into the very centre of all truth whatever, even to the resolving it finally and connaturally, into essential truth itself? if these considerations do not acquit me upon either account, i cannot but think myself unjustly condemned; and, i hope, the whole court of philosophers, who are impartial, and sincere, will judge the same. 49. to clear me from singularity in this uncommon method of philosophising, i could farther allege, that mr. locke, in his essay, b. 4. ch. 1. §. 4. gives us this doctrine; that the first act of the mind, is, to perceive its own ideas; and, that one of them is not another; that is, that each of them is its self only; which is an identical proposition.— that this is so absolutely necessary, that, without it, there could be no knowledge, no reasoning,— no distinct thoughts at all. which sufficiently expresses it to be the first truth, or rule of truth, which influences all other truths; since, without it, nothing at all could be known.— that a man infallibly knows that the ideas of white, and round, are the very ideas they are.— that this is the first agreement, or disagreement, (that is, the first truth,) the mind perceives in its ideas.— that men of art have, for ready application in all cases, reduced this into those general rules, [what is, is,] etc. in all which, (as he does in divers other main speculative points,) he so perfectly agrees with me, that, tho' i did not proceed on my own grounds, i need no more but these of his, to draw such immediate consequences thence, as would establish and abet my thesis. indeed, it did not lie in the way of that very learned man's speculation, to reflect on the universal influence identical propositions have over all truths, and all knowledges, whatever; and therefore, his dislike of them afterwards, (chap. 8.) can be thought to relate only to their apprehended uselessness: tho', even there, (§. 2.) he acknowledges an excellent use of them too; where he says, that [what is, is,] may serve sometimes, (he might have said, always when it needed,) to show a man the absurdity he is guilty of, when, by circumlocution, or ambiguous terms, he would, in particular instances, deny the same thing of itself; because no body will so openly bid defiance to common sense, as to affirm visible and direct contradictions, in plain words. to which reflection of his, if this learned gentleman pleases to add, that whoever discourses false on any subject, does, at the same time, make that subject not to be what it is, or (if the question be of some mode) as it is; his penetrative judgement cannot but discern, that identical propositions are equally useful in all questions, all disputes, nay, all discourses whatsoever, if the way of reducing inferior truths to them, were but well improved, and cultivated. 50. i much value your good opinion; and, i perceived, i was in danger of losing it, by a hint you gave me, with a dis-relishing air, that i called cartesius a fanatic; which you thought very harsh. in answer, i deny the charge. 'tis one thing to say, that, when cartesius was laying his method to science, by denying his senses, and divesting himself of all his former knowledges, which (as my author expresses it) was no less than to unman himself, he fell, for some few days, into a spice of enthusiasm; nay, was brimful of it; and fancied he had visions and revelations; so that he seemed crack-brained, or to have drunk a cup too much; which are the very words a cartesian, who wrote his life, has given us, (p. 34, 35, 36.) and, 'tis another thing to say, he was habitually a fanatic, or enthusiast, all his life, and in every action he did, or book he writ; the former of which can neither be denied with truth, nor the later objected with any degree of modesty: nor does it suit with the high character i have given of him, in the preface to my method, and the encomiums i have, upon occasion, bestowed on divers of his books. i beseech you, sir, be so just, as to stare my case right. i was writing a method to science, and two other methods, (if, indeed, they do not fall into the same,) which looked very extravagant, did lie cross my way; which, unless i removed, my whole design had been spoiled, and of no effect. i mean, that of malbranche, which makes all humane science come by divine revelation: and, that of cartesius, that we must deny all our knowledge of natural truths, had by our senses. the settling this later method, had, confessedly, lost cartesius his wits, for some time; and therefore, i had good reason to fear, that the following the same method might do a greater mischief to others, who had not such strong brains as that great man had; of which too, there do not want instances. the former method, advanced by malbranche, i saw evidently, brought a kind of fanaticism into philosophy. for, i believe, no man doubts, but that the genius of fanatics is, to overleap all humane means, and to pretend that their light of knowledge comes to them immediately from god. my fault, then, only consisted in this, that i was such a friend to truth, and to mankind, as to endeavour (to my power) to avert such mischiefs from young students, by forewarning them of what had prejudiced others, and therefore might highly prejudice them; and, to confute those ways to science, that so directly thwarted mine, which, my best judgement told me, was the true one. now, this being a task so unavoidable to one in my circumstances; and the confuting such strange methods being, with good reason, judged by me to be so beneficial to others, it cannot, without rashness, be thought, i did this out of a desire of opposing other learned men; but, purely out of duty to my reader, and a just regard to myself. yet, for pursuing this laudable and (in my case) necessary intention, i am persecuted with the highest malice, by two overzealous cartesians; who, to uphold these awkward and pernicious methods, make no scruple to break in upon the most sacred methods of christianity; tho' i have done no more but cite the words of their own authors. besides, every candid reader will, hence, easily discern, that it is not out of pique against their persons; but, purely, out of my dislike of their unprincipled and dangerous methods, that i have opposed them at all. nor have i any personal reflections upon their morality: nor do i charge them with impiety, but of folly; which every antagonist in philosophical debates is forced to object to his adversary. 51. but, am i the only man, of our moderns here in england, who have thought it the interest of philosophy, and of truth, to oppose malbranche and cartesius? mr. john keyll, of oxford; a person of great wit, and greater hopes, being (as i am informed) scarce arrived yet at the summer of his age, has lately put forth an examination of dr. burnet's theory of the earth; where, after he had, in his introduction, discovered the fopperies of divers of the ancient philosophers; and of three of our moderns, spinoza, dr. more, and mr. hobbs, not much less ridiculous than the former; he lays open that superlatively absurd opinion of malbranche, which i noted above. he gives us a summary, and parallel consequences, of his doctrine in that particular; which is, that we see not the things themselves, but only their ideas, which the soul sees in god:— and, that there is no possibility of seeing any bodies, except in that being, (god;) which contains them after an intelligible manner.— bodies, therefore, and their properties, are (only) seen in god; so that (says he) a man who reads this book, does not really see the book itself, but the idea of it, which is in god. which he deservedly characters, to be unintelligible jargon, and a solid piece of nonsense. he exposes that equally-senseless opinion, that bodies, of their own nature, are neither heard, seen, smelled, nor tasted; and, that when, for example, we taste any thing, the body tasted cannot produce any savour in us; but god almighty takes that occasion, to stir up that sensation in us, to which the body does not really concur. so that mankind has, it seems, quite lost its animality; at least, that we are not naturally sensitive creatures, but only supernaturally; or, by god's immediate power making us such, every time we are to use our senses. he proceeds: according to him, it is impossible for any man to move his own arm; but, when he is willing to move it, god takes it, and moves it up and down, as the man wills. if a rebellious son, or subject, murder his father, or his prince, by stabbing him, the man himself does not thrust the poniard into his father's or prince's breast, but god almighty does it, without any other concurrence of the man, but his will. it seems, our laws are very unjust; which do not hang men for merely intending, or willing; but for ouvertacts; in which the man himself has no hand at all; they being, all of them, entirely of god's doing. whence we see, that, with the cartesians, such doctrine as this has no impiety in it at all against god: it comes from them, and so 'tis all sacred. he proceeds, and affirms that no second causes act: so that no body, tho' moved with never so great a velocity against another, can be able to drive that other before it, or move it in the least; but god takes that occasion, to put it into motion. at this rate, one need not fear his head-piece, tho' a bomb were falling upon it, with all the force that powder can give it; for, it would not so much as break his skull, or sing his hair, of god did not take that occasion to do it.— the most natural agents, with him, are not so much as instruments, but only occasions of what is produced by them: so that a man might freely pass through the fire, or jump down a precipice, without any harm, if god almighty did not take that occasion to burn him, or dash out his brains. 52. coming to cartesius, whom he calls the great master and deliverer of the philosophers, from the tyranny of aristotle;— and the first world-maker of our century, he lays the blame at his door, of all this presumptuous pride of his followers, and their fantastic philosophy; and animadverts severely upon divers of his odd placita: as, that there is always the same quantity of motion in the world. so that, if all the men and animals in the world were moving, which most part of them can do when they please; yet, still there would be no more motion in the world, than there is in the nighttime, when they are at rest; and, what motion they had when they were moving, must be communicated to the aether, when they are at rest. and, whereas cartesius ' s skill in geometry gave those contrivances of his witty fancy all their credit, this author assures us, p. 15. that, from the beginning to the end of his principles, there is not one demonstration drawn from geometry; or, indeed, any demonstration at all, except every thing illustrated by a figure be a demonstration; for, then, indeed, there may be enough of such demonstrations produced in his philosophical works. now, in case this be so, then, it seems, explications by figures do serve cartesius, and his followers, for demonstrations in geometry, as well as explications by words serve them for demonstrations, or proofs, in other sciences.— he adds, that, his great fault was, that he made no use at all of geometry in philosophy.— nay, that his whole system was but one continual blunder, upon account of his negligence in that point.— that galileo and kepler have by the help of geometry, discovered physical truths, more worth than all cartesius' volumes of philosophy. he confutes his vortices, by mr. newton's principles; who shows it impossible, upon many accounts; that the earth, and other planets, should move in a vortex. with which most consummate geometrician, i believe, none of the cartesians will be willing, or able, to grapple, or contend. and, were cartesius now alive, perhaps he would have as much admired him, as himself, in his life-time, was admired by others.— he subjoins, that, his notion of a vortex being ruined, the whole cartesian system must of necessity fall to the ground: and, that world, whose origination he pretended to have deduced from mechanical principles, must be a wild chimaera of his own imagination. cartesius' discourse about the motion of the moon, is so notoriously false, that there is no almanac-maker, but can demonstrate the contrary. farther, that the cartesians pretend to give a true account of all the phaenomena in nature; whilst they understand so very little, that they have not given us an explication of any one thing:— and, that cartesius has blundered so much in the easiest, and most abstract things in nature, that of the seven rules he has given of the laws of motion, there is but one of them true. cartesius' fancy of making a world by mechanical principles,— has given the ignorant atheists (for, so are, says he, most of that persuasion) some plausible pretences for their incredulity, without any real ground. where the the parenthesis lays such a blemish on the greater part of the followers of cartesius, and on his doctrine, as occasioning it, that, as i have charitably endeavoured, in divers places, to wipe off that aspersion, and have taken their part; so, i am sorry to see now, that 'tis beyond my power to do it. i must own, that there have been many virtuous persons, cartesians; but i am not so well versed in their catalogue, as to to know, whether they, or the athèists of that persuasion, do make the major part. these are his present objections against des cartes; and, by what i have read of this learned author, i know no man more likely to make good what he has charged upon him, than he is. 53. you see, sir, how much it behoves the cartesians to look to their hits, if they have any; and, to arm themselves against such brisk attacks, tending to the overthrow of all their hypothesis by way of geometry; which i have attempted to do by way of logical, physical, and metaphysical principles. for, if this opposition to cartesius, by geometrical arguments, should come to be a confutation; then, since mr. le grand tells us, his physics is but a part of the mathematics, his credit, as a philosopher, will sink utterly; as i am informed, the esteem of his doctrine does, by large degrees, in both the universities; or rather, it is quite vanished out of one of them already. 54. for my part, let them come off with the geometricians as well as they can, i will not give them much trouble; but, do sincerely declare, that if they can bring any one evident principle, either in logic, physics or metaphysics, which they will vouch to have the nature of a principle in it; and prove that it abets any point of their doctrine, as 'tis distinguished from ours, i will cross the cudgels for the next comer, and promise, never to oppose them more. fairer offer was never made; nor any method ever proposed, that shows a greater sincerity of the proposer in pursuing truth, nor that can be more decisive of a philosophical contest; in which, half a sheet of paper will do the business, as well as whole volumes. you see, sir, i allow my adversaries a large field; out of which they may please to pick and cull what they like best, or judge they can best prove. if they know of any thing that grows there, which will bear the test, and can approve itself by principles, to be an evident truth, they have free liberty, and a fair occasion to do right to themselves, and oblige the world; and, withal, they will do me an especial favour, (for which i shall not be ungrateful,) in making me, by their confutation, see a truth i never knew before. this very compendious method, i say, will shorten disputes, avoid all show of wrangling, which is grateful to no man; and, finally conclude the whole cause. or, if this does not please them; and, that it agrees not with their genius to stand bringing evident proofs; then, let them but merely name, or put down categorically, any one principle of theirs, which they judge to be the strongest, and most evident, of any they have; and, which they will vouch to be influential upon the cartesian doctrine; and i will undertake to demonstrate, that either it is no principle, or, that it has no force to prove any point of their doctrine, nor has any influence upon it at all. in case this rational proposal (which, if both parties do candidly seek truth, ought rather to be called an overture of peace, than a challenge) be as friendly accepted as it is meant, it must needs draw upon us both the eyes of all learned men who are lovers of truth, and are weary of long disputes; especially, if they be concerned to know whether the so much famed philosophy of cartesius be solidly principled, or only extravagantly witty: and, their expectation will be strangely raised, to see what will be the issue of a controversy thus closely managed; our philosophical combat being, by this means, brought to the last trial, and a final decision by principles, which are the arma decretoria or truth. for, if it shall hap to appear that cartesius' doctrine has not so much as any one principle, which is truly such, their cause will be quite lost, past hopes of recovery: but, if it subsists by principles, than i must make them satisfaction, by acknowledging publicly, that i have foolishly overweened▪ and take the shame to myself, for my rash presumption. we may confine ourselves (as i said) to half a sheet of paper: all shall be transacted by pure dint of reason; and, he that uses the least uncivil word to his adversary, and falls into passion, shall be held to have lost his cause, and to be reduced to a nonplus. every man, acquainted with humane affairs, knows that, in some cases, [responsum non dictum,] may be a sufficient plea to justify one who is to vindicate his christian credit, unjustly attacked, without any provocation given to his opposer. it happens too, often times, that a man cannot clear himself fully of those blemishes with which he is aspersed, but by laying them at the door of the injurious affronter; whose faults, if they be great ones, cannot be so much as named, but the words which express them must needs sound harshly. retorted language, in such a case, is only the rebound of the aggressor's violent strokes, upon himself; and are not thrown at him, but only reverberated from an object incapable to receive their impression. but, especially, such a replier is excusable, when he observes such a temper and measure, that he imputes no impiety or irreligion to his adversary; but rather, charitably excuses him from any such high crimes, even tho' he had causelessly, and uncharitably, imputed the same to himself; which (as i hope every man will observe) is the distinguishing character between mr. le grand's aggressive, and my defensive. notwithstanding, however such a carriage against an assaulter may, in prudence, seem sometimes unavoidable; yet, certainly, it is, in itself, neither edifying to good christians, instructive to the learned, nor profitable to the readers. therefore, to avoid it for the future, and to clear truth, which ought to be our only care, i have thought fit to make this fairest and civilest overture. if it be accepted, neither party, in case they do seek truth, can be justly displeased. but if it be refused, and that my opposers resolve to pursue their former rude method, i shall hope that all wise and good men will hold me excused, (i dare say, yourself will,) if i decline the ungrateful task of reciprocating the saw of contention; but let them still wrangle on contentedly to themselves, and apply my thoughts to better things. 55. it remains, worthy sir, that i beg your pardon for publishing this paper, without acquainting you first with my design. but, since you are not named in it, it need not concern you in the least, unless you please yourself. besides, i have discoursed with other cartesians, of your profession, upon the same subject; and, added, for their sakes, some passages, which, otherwise, had not needed: so that it cannot particularise you, in the least. and, since this paper has no other tendency, but to clear truth, i have reason to presume, that your candour would not have been displeased at it. i entreat you to do me that justice in your thoughts, as not to interpret this address, by way of letter, to be a kind of challenge, or provocation. i am too well acquainted with the study and practise, in which you are so laudably and successfully. employed, to think it can allow you any leisure for an avocation so impertinent to your proper and precise business. i hope my [ideae cartesianae expensae] may give you satisfaction in divers other points. but, i must bespeak your pardon, while you peruse it, for the many errata. it happened, that the compositor understood no latin; and (besides other faults,) in two or three places, he happed to put in what i had blotted out in amending my copy; and, my circumstances were such, that i could not always be in town, to correct the press. i am, honoured sir, your sincere friend, and humble servant, j. s. finis. some books printed for, and sold by abel roper, at the black-boy, over against st. dunstan's church in fleetstreet. solid philosophy asserted, against the fancies of the ideists: or, the method to science farther illustrated. with reflections on mr. locke's essay concerning humane understanding. by i. s. the history of poland, in several letters to persons of quality; in two volumes: comprehending an account of the form of government in that kingdom; king's power, court and revenues, the senate, senators, and all other officers; of the religion, diet, and little diets, with other assemblies and courts; of the inter-regnum and election, and coronation of the king and queen, with all the ceremonies; of the present condition of the gentry and commonalty, as likewise, of the genius, characters, languages, customs and manners, military affairs, trades and riches of the poles: together with an account of the city of dantzic's origin, progress, and present state of the teutonick order, and the succession of all its great masters: of the present state of learning, natural knowledge, practice of physic, and diseases, in poland: and, lastly, a succinct description of the duchy of curland, and the livonian order; with a series of the several dukes, and provincial masters. with a table for both volumes; and a sculpture of the diet, in their session. by bernard connor, m. d. etc. composed and published by mr. savage. of the nature and qualification of religion, in reference to civil society. written by samuel pussendorff, counsellor of state to the late king of sweden. translated from the original. marriage-ceremonies: or, the ceremonies used in marriage in all parts of the world. very diverting, especially to ladies. by signior gaya. translated from the italian. the second edition: with an addition of remarks on marriage; by mr. brown. a defence of dramatic poetry: being a review of mr. collier's view of the stage. in two parts. a voyage to the east-indies: giving an account of the isles of madagascar and mascareigne, of suratte, the coast of malabar, of goa, cameron, ormus, and the coast of brasil; with the religion, customs, trade, etc. of the inhabitants. as also, a treatise of the distempers peculiar to the eastern countries. to which is annexed, an abstract of mr. de rennefort's history of the east-indies: with his propositions of the improvement of the east-india company. the new atlas: or, travels and voyages in europe, asia, africa and america; through the most renowned parts of the world, viz. from england to the dardanelles, thence to constantinople, egypt, palestine, or the holy land, syria, mesopotamia, choldea, persia, east-india, china, tartary, moscovy and poland; the germane empire, flanders and holland; to spain, and the west-indies: with a brief account of ethiopia; and the pilgrimages to mecha and medina in arabia, containing what is rare, and worthy of remarks, in those vast countries; relating to building, antiquities; religion, manners, customs, princes courts, affairs military and civil, or whatever else is worthy of note. performed by an english gentleman, in 9 years travels, more exact than ever. mr. tillam's account examined, or, a brief reply to his unchristian account of some passages of providence. by a friend to truth, and to mr. tillam's own soul, if god have not sealed him down under hardness of heart. written for the sake of such poor honest souls in colchester, and the parts adjacent, as are misled through his enchantments. should not the multitude of words be answered? and should a man full of talk be justified? should thy lies make men hold their peace? and when thou mockest, shall no man make thee ashamed? joh 11.2, 3. london, printed for the author, 1657. an epistle to the reader. christian reader, peradventure, a reply to mr. tillam's pretended christian account was long since expected, but, upon sufficient reason, a delay was made. it was some time before the parties most concerned in it (living at a distance) could know of his pamphlet: but chief, after it was drawn up, it was judged fit, by some interessed in the business, to lay it aside, hoping that his folly would be made manifest enough by his own proceed; which indeed is already done in great part, especially to pious and prudent christians; and, i doubt not, but it will be discovered more and more daily. but in regard of his vain triumphs, and because there are many weak, harmless, and well meaning people in danger of being further deluded by him, it is now resolved to present the man to the open view of the world, that his untruths, scandals, and dangerous designs may make all more cautious whom they confide in, and depend upon, in so great concernment as that of religion. upon this, and other accounts (reader) thou shalt here find such a discovery of mr. t. t. written, not out of envy to him, but pity to others misled by him, as (i hope) will make thee sensible of the bottom of his design in coming to colchester, which he pretends to be guided to, by a hand of providence; but upon perusal of this, i believe, thou wilt find, it was rather a plot than a providence, being the last adventure of a necessitated person, that must shift for himself somewhere, discarded by those in the north who first gave him credit, and having his 40 l. per ann. withdrawn by the commissioners there. yet no doubt a providence it was too, but such a one as that of colchester siege, which prevented the suffering of other places when the enemy was garrisoned there. and i wish, that as that party had their last considerable motion terminated within the walls of colchester (the adjacent parts being sufficiently alarmed by their being there) so also mr. tillam may make your miserable town the ultimate stage of his progress. 'tis pity other places should ever be troubled with such a guest as sets the house on fire where ever he comes, making it his business to divide and sow discord amongst brethren; by which (if there were nothing else) it may be easily gathered of what fraternity he is. it is abundantly known what their religion is, whose aim is division; knowing how to retire into union among themselves, and meet together in one centre, though the lines drawn from it stand at a distance in the circumference. doubtless mr. tillam's slighting mr. prin's charge (of his being a papist) is a masterpiece: 'tis more policity for mr. t. to contemn than answer so fair a probability. his own acknowledgement that he has been a papist, together with his romish trinkets, extreme unction, washing of feet, pretences to infallibility (the choicest jewels in the pope's triple crown) for all he speaks must be taken as the oracles of god, without any consulting others, though never so pious and prudent; these things i say may strongly persuade a sober man to suspect a papist in the bottom. but i shall not judge him, reader, let me only persuade thee to lay aside prejudice, and thou shalt here find mr. tillam passing judgement upon himself; for most of the particulars charged upon him in this book, are no other but such as dropped from his own pen or tongue; and therefore, if any wrong be done him, he may thank himself for it. but i shall hold thee no longer in the porch; if thou wilt know more, read further; let thine own eyes be thy informers. that which follows is a letter written by mr robert eton to a friend of his, which he desired him to print. worthy and endeared friend; i having at last met with mr. tillam's pamphlet, falsely entitled, a christian account, i thought good in the first place to give you an account of him, and then of those passages in his pamphlet which relate to me. this tillam, who is not ashamed to call the censures which the church & people of god have passed upon him, the trials of his grace, was for a short time an aporthecary, but since having assumed to be an anabaptistical minister, by reason of his fasticusness, pride, and turbulence of spirit, hath been like a ball of wildfire tossed from one end of the nation to another; scattering his peslilent errors with very great impudence and boldness in every place where he hath come. now though i had heard in lancashire, and other places (before my removal from dedham) of the dangerous conditions of this man, and what disturbance he had made in several places, in venting and propagating his errors, yet now i am more fully certified of the truth of those things which there i heard. for brevity sake i shall only give you an account of mr. samuel eaton's, who is pastor of the church of duckenfield in cheshire, before whom one of mr. tillam's causes was examined, and by whom mr. tillam's excommunication out of the church at wrexam was declared just and regular: mr. sam. eaton's words are these, mr. tillam was excommunicated first by the church at wrexam, and afterwards his excommunication was found and declared just by the church at duckenfield, the causes of his excommunication were several; among others were these; the proof of several untruths told by him, intolerable pride, together with a visible design to divide the church, etc. but that he withdrew himself, and that his withdrawing (as mr. tillam excuses the matter) was the cause of his excommunication, is utterly false, and a mere evasion; fir they were fully resolved to cast him out before he did withdraw himself, and he withdrew himself purposely to evade the sentence: and many that were his disciples, and rebaptised by him, when they heard things laid open, were satisfied to the justness of the sentence pronounced against him. thus far mr. sam. eton gave me an account of him: now whether a man so eminent as mr. sam. eton (in a business where he can have no by-respects) is to be believed, or mr. tillam (one cause of whose excommunication was lying) let all men judge. as for that church of anabaptists in cheshire which he so much magnifies in his book, i shall not meddle with them, only this i shall say, that some of them, though under the ordinance (as their expression is) for which mr. tillam hath, and doth show so much zeal, and therefore more likely to favour mr. tillam's cause; yet (i say) some of them do disown him, as not fit to be communicated withal; and others have told me, that he is disowned by their whole church; yea some of that sweet society (as mr. tillam calls them) do suspect him to be a jesuit; and several grounds they have of their suspicion, as themselves have related to me. first, because he hath acknowledged that once he was a papist; and again he hath confessed (as some of them have told me) that he hath been at rome. secondly, they have observed him to deliver doctrines in favour of justification by works: and truly though he so slightly pass over that which mr. prin charges him withal, yet, i think, he ought, there being so much ground of suspicion, to have laboured more for his vindication in that particular, than merely to say, it is a gross slander. now as for those passages in his pamphlet which relate to me; though i have understood by several persons, that he hath not only a false tongue, but also a brazen face, yet i conceive he would never have been so impudent as to have uttered such a reproach without the least ground, but that he hoped it would never have come to my knowledge, i being now so far remote. but i have now at last providentially obtained a sight of his pamphlet, and for my own vidication, i shall give an account of all that passed betwixt him and me, whence he hath taken an hint to forge all those reproaches he casleth upon me. i being occasionally with mr. malyn, secretary to the lord protector, and with mr. wakering, and some other gentlemen at whitehall, there was mention made of this same tillam, and the instrument whereby he was authorized to preach in any vacant place, which mr. malyn hearing of, said, he was very confident he never had any such instrument granted him by the protector: and that there never was any granted him, he told me, and some gentlemen there, after that he had been with his highness the lord protector to inquire about it. yea he added further, that an order should issue out to apprehend him. what i then heard, i related to some particular persons, whom i occasionally had some discourse withal concerning mr. tillam. some weeks after mr. tillam came to me, charging me that i should say hisinstrument was conterfeited: to whom i answered it was not so: but nevertheless what i had heard, and from whom i heard it, as i had told others, so now also i would acquaint him, and all that is touching the discourse with mr. malyn concerning him and his instrument, i related to him; and added, that if any wrong were done him, he must seek to mr. malyn, secretary to the lord protector, for reparations. yet i further told him, if he would produce his instrument, and if upon the sight of it i should be convinced that it was a reality, upon a christian account i would tell those persons who heard the former relation from me, that i had since seen his instrument, and that it was a real thing. now that this is the truth and the substance of all that which was said by me, those two eminent ministers that mr. tillam speaks of in his pamphlet (viz. mr. hudson of capel, and mr. walker of assington) will attest. and if this be the truth, and those forenamed ministers will give testimony to it (as they say they will) then either both i and they are liars, and stirred up by satan, the father of lies (as mr. tillam expresses it) or else mr. tillam (who for lying, among other things, was excommunicate, and so given up to the father of lies) hath not yet repent of, nor is delivered from that sin, but seems now rather to have habituated himself unto it, as i shall make appear by a passage or two in his book, which savours much of that lying spirit. not to stand to show how little ground mr. tillam had, upon my relating of what i heard, to bottom those expressions of his upon, (viz. that i calumniated him, that i falsely accused him, that i confidently affirmed, that his instrument was conterfeited) little untruths are not worthy to be taken notice of, when they come from mr. tillam's either tongue or pen. but such a forchead of brass, and such a conscience of brawn has he, that he is not afraid, nor ashamed to say, after my falsehood was discovered. but when was this discovery made? in what place? and before what witnesses? he that helped him to make that (i mean his father of lies) must either help him with another, or else this will appear to be, as it is, a loud one. but mr. tillam saith, that i (with two eminent ministers) laboured for peace. to labour for peace i know is a christian duty, yet not with an excommunicate person. and how i and the abovesaid ministers laboured for peace with mr. tillam, you shall judge by that which follows. first, i shall ask mr. tillam, whether i went from dedham to him at colchester, or he came from colchester to me at dedham? if he came to me, hitherto mr. tillam (and not i) laboured and took the pains. secondly, when mr. tillam was at dedham, whether i sought after, and went to him, or he to me? if he to me, than hitherto also mr. tillam, and not i, laboured and took the pains. thirdly, after mr. tillam was at my house, whether i laboured any further, or took any more pains with him, than speaking the words rehearsed before? indeed this i did, having heard that mr. tillam had been convicted of, and excommunicated for lying, among other things (though then i had not certain proof of it, as now i have) i desired those two forenamed ministers, being then at my house, to hear what should pass in discourse betwixt us, lest mr. tillam should afterwards (according to his manner) bespatter me, as he had done some others with gross untruths, and his pamphlet may evidence i had good reason so to do. but that i laboured for peace myself, further than is expressed before, or that i ever desired either of those eminent ministers to labour for peace on my behalf, is false, and it comes from mr. tillam's father of lies. in the third page of his book he mentions a project of mine, what it is i know not, unless it be this honest one, that an impostor who grows worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived, may be discovered. but what ever project i had, this i discern to be one in mr. tillam, who that he may breed prejudices in his disciples against the testimony of those that bear witness against him, useth to say, they are his enemies; as if all those persons, that in several parts of this nation, have testified against mr. tillam and his ways (whereof some are eminent for learning and religion) were acted from a principle of envy and malice against him, and not from zeal to god and his truth. but that that great untruth (viz. an eminent discovery of my falsehood) may not be thought a slip of his pen, but a deliberate birth, form by the father of lies, he repeats it, and puts an emphasis upon it, page 3. (not dictating any falsehood, so eminently discovered) all that i shall say to this, is only thus much; that i never had any discourse with mr. tillam in all my life, but that which was mentioned before in my own house at dedham, when those two ministers with some others were there; and if those two reverend ministers (mr. hudson, and mr. walker) will not testify that it is eminently false, that there was any falsehood discovered in me at that time, then let not only this, but all the rest that mr. tillam is charged withal, be said at my door. but i shall not any further trouble myself with him; god (i hope) will in short time lay him open, what he is, that he may proceed no further inseducing simple and unwary souls. your affectionate friend robert eton. the following sheets were done by another hand; in the vindication of mr. hammond: when you shall find a satisfactory answer to the reminder of mr. tillam's abusive pamphlet. mr. tillam's account examined. mr. tillam's glozing pamphlet within these very few days coming to my hands, and perceiving (with great grief of heart) his old spirit of pride, vainglory, boasting, lying, and slandering, tunning through the veins thereof; and understanding that mr. hammond (who with a breath could have blown away all his vapourings, if he had been willing to have stirred in his own cause) not willing to meddle with such an incurable creature; hereupon my spirit was drawn forth (not so much for his sake, as to undeceive such honest hearts as are abused by his hypocrisy) to pull off his mask, and let them see the man in his proper shape. 1. that he is a man boared in the ear, branded and stigmatised in the forehead, by the most godly persons wheresoever he yet came, when they once knew him well (though at the first, through his fawning and glozing carriage they were for a while deluded by him) for, first, he is with one consent given up to satan by the whole church of wrexam, which though he labour to shuffle off, yet the testimony of one twenty godly men (for so they will be proved to be in spite of all his aspersions) (when sober men hold the scales) shall over balance the single testimony of one man, in his own cause, who is a liar upon record. secondly, when his case was judiciously heard and scanned by such godly elders, and the church of cheshire, to which himself appealed, they concluded the censure just, and rolled the same stone upon him in these words (as mr. tillam himself writes, p. 6.) that he was to be looked upon as neither an elder, nor a member of the church of wrexmham, but to be left to the world as a man without. thirdly, then after this, conversing with the anabaptist-church in newcastle, he so carries himself (though at the first, who but mr, tillam) that they presented to the church at london, twelve several artiles against him. fourthly, he also falls so foul with the three congregational ministers in newcastle (mr. wield, mr. hammond, and mr. durant, whom god and his servants are pleased graciously to own) that they are forced to vindicate themselves to the world in print (which they never did against any man before) to paint him out to the life. fifthly, after this (as if he studied to imitate ishmael, to have his hand against every man, and procure every man's hand against him) he breaks with the church at london (in whose very bosom he lay for a while, till they perceived his frame) who cast him off with much indignation, as (still) it appears by his own confession in his book, p. 19 (for we have most of all these things from his own words.) sixthly, at last his own church at hexam (such was his carriage towards them) falls into two pieces; and one part of the two, discards him. now, if these be not black marks, or flesh-brands; if these things will not prove him to go out from all places [like a snuff] which words he so pitifully snuffs at, let wise and sober men judge. 2. observe all along his course of life, and his book also, that whereas all godly men in scripture, and our own experience, so suffer usually from the enemies of grace, wicked and ungodly men which is an honourable thing, 1 pet. 1.14. mat. 5.10, 11. for the spirit of god and glory resteth upon such.) now this man's case is quite otherwise: for, still, he is opposed, and contested withal, and rejected by the godly, yea, and most usually the most eminent for godliness, in all places wheresoever he comes, at wrexam, cheshire, newcastle, london, and now at colchester; i. e. by godly christians, faithful ministers, pastor, teachers, elders, yea, whole churches, and that in the guest degree of censures that ever jesus christ ordained in his churches, excommunication itself. and again, whereas other godly men suffer as christians, for well doing (which is a blessed thing) this man is still buffered, not for his good deeds, but for his faults, scandals, pride, slanders, etc. and. (which is exceedingly to be noted) good men usually are opposed and fought against by men of differing judgements and practices from themselves; as congregational men by presbyterial, paedobaptists by antipaedobaptists, orthodox by arminians, socinians, and protestants by papists; but this man (as if he were born to strife) is still opposed by men of his own judgement and practice in doctrine and discipline. were not the church of wrexam, and that of cheshire, and the three ministers of newcastle of his own judgement and practice in point of discipline? did not the anabaptist church nof newcastle, and that of london, jump with him in point of baptism? yet he is a man not only disgusted by all these, but one not sufferable to abide among them, and out he must as an incorrigible person, without reconciliation; which how clear it speaks in point of his intolerable turbulence of spirit, and what an alarm it rings in all their ears who are misled through his subtle insinuations, i leave to all men to judge. 3. a common liar is generally accounted a vile person, a son of belial, one of the basest among men; but to gather up all his gross lies and slanders were too heavy a task; for certainly he hath driven an old trade therein: for, first, he was cast out of wrexam church for lying, as one principal crime among others. secondly, he is rejected by the church at london for making and maintaining a lie; see his own words, page 19 it was concluded (saith mr. tillam himself) that i lied, and they presently declared a withdrawing from me (with these words added, which are) he hath grievously sinned against the rule of christ, col. 3.9. lie not one to another: wherefore we have put him away from us, and shall have no communion with him, that he may be ashamed. this from his own words; and this was done deliberately, after much scanning, by a whole church. thirdly, there are many manifest lies in this his book, as, that mr. hammond was vicar of newcastle (which he writes to disgrace mr. hammond) whereas he is only lecturer and teacher to a congregational church, and absolutely refused to be vicar, which mr. tillam cannot but know, being so oft conversant in newcastle. fourthly, another abominable lie against that reverend man, in these words, whither have those surseiting feasts of newcastle (saith he) transported mr. hammond? how strangely have those luxurious banques increased choler in this corpulent gentleman? for, besides the odious contempt in the manner of his writing which he casts upon this faithful servant of christ (so much beloved and honoured by the saints) he most impudently and palpably slanders him for intemperance; for all newcastle knoweth, that though mr. hammond be often and earnestly invited to feasts, yet he hath absolutely refused (to avoid all occasions) to come at any feast, great or small, to one or other, for these two years together, except at one time that was unavoidable. fifthly, he boldly vaunts, that god made himself an instrument of detecting the false jew, wherein (besides that vainglorious vapouring, in assuming to himself what is not due) he tells a most manifest falshhood; for it's notoriously known to mr. go. dauson, mr. hammond, mr. durant, and others, that he did what he could when they were about convincing the false jew, to defend him and harden his heart, till they were all grieved and ashamed at his practice. sixthly, another falsehood, that mr. hammond was basfled in the dispute about baptism; which impudence of his is stupendious; for above a hundred persons present will witness the exceeding freedom of mr. hammond, whose arguments were as a rod held over him all the dispute, and that mr. tillam, to his utter confusion (if he could tell how to be ashamed) was so non-plussed, and baffled to purpose, that one of his own party was driven to confess it, & to chide him off, & take up the bucklers, whiles all the time after mr. tillam sat dumb; which calls to mind a seventh lie; he told mr. george hodshan, when he came first into the north, that he was for the baptism of the infants of believers, when it manifestly appears, he was at the same time an anabaptist. per me geo. hodshan. lastly, for a full conviction of his lies, see the bundle of urtruths, written by the newcastle ministers against mr. tillam. now this lying is such a sin as it makes a man so unlike god, into whose image all his children are cast, and so like the devil, who is the father of lies, and so unlike the saints, who are a generation that will not lie, isa. 63.9. that it deserves the heaviest censure of excommunicaon, rev. 22.15. without (the new jerusalem) shall be dogs, and whoremonges, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh lies. see (mr. tillam) what copesmates liars are matched withal, and what is their censure; and yet you are angry with the church at london for rejecting you for lying, and giving you no warning, whereas the rule itself (you see) gives no such direction for any warning; but it being once proved (as it seems the london church averred) you were to be presently sent without among the dogs. 4. observe his proud boasting, and vaunting high language, almost in every page of his book (and indeed all his writings and actings do fulsomly tang of that spirit) in the front of his book he gins, thanks to my lord and king, who hath enabled me, so that he counted me faithful, putting me into the ministry. which are the words of the greatest apostle on earth, and that in the height of his zeal; yet this man dares apply them to himself, which i believe never any minister, that knows himself, dares noce do. so that he is (if you will believe him) an able minister, a faithful minister, and, as he saith afterwards, a welling minister, and a minister that labours with his whole soul in the work; whereas humble spirits are ever fearful to think highly of themselves, much more to lift up themselves in print, by vapouring terms, and high titles. furthermore, you have him ever and anon vaunting of the multitude of his hearers and followers, & great success in his ministry in every place, that he could gather a church of saints in a years space in such or such place where he came; which (by the way) shows his doctrine and practice very suitable to carnal hearts, that can so easily take with him in all places where he comes, whereas the doctrine of the best minister under heaven is so cross to corrupt nature, that it cannot be digested; but his doctrine and opinions go glib down, and can bring in souls tiick and threefold; 'tis but touch and take. and i cannot omit how often this poor man boasts in high language of his sufferings, and calls them sufferings for christ's sake, and for his name's sake, and all in obedience to him; whereas (presumptuous man) thou mayst know, it was (all along) for thy faults, scandals, lies, turbulence, faction and disembling from the first till now. was it for christ's sake thou wert given up to satan by the church of wrexam? was it for thy good deeds thou wert condemned by the church in cheshire? was it for the honour of christ that the church in london risen up against thee (and the three ministers in newcastle writ against thee?) was it nor for a lie maintained against so many evidences? and hast thou the face to father all thy wretched deal on christ? will he maintain thee in a course of sin, and crown thee for it? what tender heart can digest such impudence and hypocrisy? 5. observe what contempt, scorns, and base calumnies he (all along his book) casts out again all that stand in his way, be they never so holy, never so many; be they godly saints, ministers, whole churches, all is one, if they speak or a & against him, the sparkles of his anger (in a vile contemptuous manner) shall fly in their faces; this is the very spirit of his book. so (like the dragon) he spews out whole floods of contempt, to drown them and their reputations if he could; to instance but in two or three particulars. 1. how shamefully doth he reproach the whole church of wrexam, that cast him out, and the one and twenty members, as if they were the vilest persons on earth (but who will believe him, they being known godly men?) and all this to justify himself, and avoid the dint of their censure, as page 9, 10. at large? 2. then again, how he reproaches the church at newcastle, because they articled against him, page 19 3. then when london church excommunicated him, see his shameful reproaching of them, as acting irregularly, and against light of conscience; and what not? no marvel therefore if he reproach mr. weld, mr. hammond, mr. eton, hugh prichard (these are but single persons) when he flies (like a wasp) in the face of whole churches; and (that which is under this head remarkable) i. e. that all such as bear witness against him, he falls soul upon them, as envious persons, as if there were no evil at all in him to testify against; no, no, it's only the good they saw in him, his good success, the attendance on his ministry, and god's blessing on his labours, these are the things, the good things in him (as he would fain persuade the world) they envy. when i preached (saith he) in cheshire, i saw the power of god, and (than adds) there i incurred mr. eaton's displeasure. why darest thou say, that holy man (mr. eton) was displeased at the power of god in thee? and within two lines after he speaks as bad of the church of wrexam; the church of wrexam (saith he) was troubled at my success. now to make men envious persons at the grace of god in others, is to make them the very devils eldest sons, and himself must needs be god (or in god's place) to judge their very hearts, that it was god's grace in him that moved them to bear witness against him. whither will the venom and malice of this man's spirit carry him? 6. as he casts down to hell almost all that oppose him, so he lifts up to heaven all that side with him, or favour him in his way; witness his extreme flattery of the magistrates in coldester that favour him; witness also his high elevating those three men at hexam that certified for him (and there were but three in all) and how easy a matter it is for any man to bring three men in a whole county to attest any thing in a man's behalf, and subscribe what he himself shall draw, and bring to them to subscribe, all men know. yet, alas! some of us know what pitiful men some of those three are, whom he sets our, as if the most eminent in the whole county. alas, alas, the man dares say any thing, bad or good, of any man to serve his own turn. it this man be not a dauber, a scraper with his nails for men's favours, an insinuating flatterer for his own ends, i never knew any. he will verify what mr. hammond writ of him; he is (saith mr. hammond) the most fawning man till you discover him; and, then, the most loose-tongued man in reviling. is it not just so? 7. mark his railing: the poison of alps is under his lips, his mouth and stile is full of cursing and bitterness; for these are his usual terms, men stirred up by the devil, slanderers, rigid ones, false liars, men born from beneath, sons of the earth, absoloms, joabs, whited sepulchers, full of horrid hypocrisy and iniquity; that woeful hypocrite, that proud disorderly church, that proud scornful haman, etc. these are his expressions, and that against any, even against the most godly and eminent in grace, that do but oppose him. and, though to write, or speak such things of a man, when matters are proved upon record against him by a cloud of witnesses (as those things are which i hold forth against him, as lying, boasting, vaunting, etc. which i have proved, either directly from his own words, or the testimony of whole churches) although this (i say) be just against himself, and no wrong donetherein, yet for him to belch out such vile reproaches, when no just cause is given, such language in him is plain railing, whereas giving him his own terms, when matters are proved against him, is but righteous dealing. 8. it's an usual thing with him throughout his whole book, to set his own single testimony against all that contest with him; be his adversaries never so holy, never so many, yet his own bare word must pass for current, against the subscription of the one and twenty members, yea the whole church of wrexam, the elders of the church in cheshire, the baptised church in newcastle, the three ministers of the congregational churches there, the whole church at london, etc. whereas moses, paul, and christ himself tell us, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every truth shall be established; here are three, ten, twenty, yea whole churches, and yet all are false, and deluded, he only speaks the truth, himself being witness. if this be not the very spirit of his book, let any man that has not forfeited his reason, judge. and from whence (do we think) comes this, from heaven, or from hell? 9 his instability is notorious. he was once, by his own confession a papist, then a protestant again (if he may be believed) (though some of his own friends do shrewdly suspect him to be still a papist in his heart, and that his turning church-divider at wrexam, and dipper afterwards, was but a turning every stone, and trying every side, to see where he might best advance a popish design) at last, as if weary of every thing, he falls now to the holy kiss, washing the saints feet, anointing with oil (some say to six sacraments) to denial of the trinity of persons, original sin of infants, etc. when, and where will this man stop? nay, so far is he deluded and intoxicated, that he calls this giddiness in running out to unsound fancies, and dangerous opinions, obedience to christ, pag. 13. and as he is weary of truth, so of all persons, societies, and places too, where ever he yet came. in the church of wrexam (so much admired by him at the first) he stays but eighteen months, and then it's such a corrupt society, that he is glad he is out of it. then to cheshire he hastens, there's the only church, but he plays such pranks there, that he is soon discovered. then away into the south; from the south into the north he goes, hexam is the place, and there he has a glorious people (if ye will credit his report) (for still all his geese are swans) but hexam grows stolen, the south is more desirable, and colchester, of all places of england, is the only place; and there you shall have him as long as you of colchester shall court him with applause, honour, & liberal gifts (for want of which he was pitifully pined at hexam) but as soon as you discover him, as others have done, you shall find him indeed, to go out like a snuff; for do but run through the story of his life, or read but his own pamphlet, and you shall see how after a little while he has set fire on every place where he came, and run away by the light of it. 10. but, above all, his notorious abuse of scripture is intolerable, making the blessed holy ghost (the author of it) to serve his lust, and execute his revenge upon all such as contest against his sin; as if he himself were that righteous one whom the holy ghost intended in those scriptures he quotes, to vindicate and maintain, be his cause never so bad, and to condemn all his opposers, be they never so holy and good; and to strike at them as his most inveterate, incorrigible enemies, as scribes, pharisecs, persecutors of christ, his apostles, and prophets: do but peruse a little some of the scriptures he citys, and see if he would not design his godly adversaries to the bottomless pit, psal. 55.20, 21. jer. 9.4, 5. jer. 20, 10, 11. hos. 4.7. acts 17.5. acts 21.28. 1 pet. 4.14. to 18. mat. 6.4. mat. 23.27, 28. what height of pride, arrogancy, impudence, malice, and revenge this man is grown unto, i leave to godly tender hearts to judge. is it a small thing to grieve men, but wilt thou grieve my god also? isa. 7.13. thus having given you a little taste of the man (and truly but a little, for it were endless to print him out in all his lineaments) but by the lions paw you may gather the proportion of all the other parts of the beast, i shall now proceed to wipe off such aspersions as he casts without fear upon some dear servants of god in his book, and leave all other things as not worth the while. first, for mr. hammond (a man so eminently known, that he is above the reach of his slanderous pen) yet because he hath so plainly laid him open to the world, he must be the mark for mr. tillam to shoot his venomous arrows at: the cause was this (for mr. hammond upon this account hath been desired to declare the whole matter) who saith as followeth; that he with some others having discovered the conversion of the jew (whom mr. tillam baptised, and so boasted of) to be a cheat, published his popish design to the world; but mr. tillam perceiving the romish plot and himself unvailed, wrote a most false, slanderous pamphlet against the discoverers, charging them with thirteen untruths, to which they replied again, revealing the notorious lying, boasting, slandering spirit of the man; to which mr. tillam wrote another reply, full of froth, lying, and folly, and sent a copy of it in a braving way to mr. hammond, who returned him a sharp answer in a private letter; and likewise told him, that mr. eton had given a large account of him, and withal sent him a copy of mr. eaton's letter, wherein mr. eton declares the righteous dealing of the church of wrexam against him (the substance of which you have in mr. robert eaton's letter) and that he turned anabaptist upon it, and proved a great disturber in those parts. ita testor sam. hammond. and was not all this plain dealing by mr. hammond? thus things lay buried a great while, but at last mr. tillam and mr. anderton having discovered the wickedness one of another, his church at hexam broke into two pieces: he then being discarded of all men, writes an insinuating letter to mr. hammond (as one begging his favour) who (out of the goodness of his disposition, ready to forget all wrongs, upon the least relenting of his worst enemy) writes back again, that the thoughts of those former quarrels were buried in his heart, etc. though at that very time, and when he came to this house, he still dealt plainly, in reproving of him. but afterwards; mr. tillam still proceeding in his old strain of scandal, providence calling upon mr. hammond to declare his knowledge of him, he judged himself bound in conscience to reveal him to such as desired an account of him, the cause of god calling for it; and he doth appeal to the great god, and any gracious spirit, whether there were dissimulation, gross dissimulation and hypocrisy to amazement in all this? his conscience bears him witness that there was not. as for his charge of feasting, and calling mr. hammond vicar of newcastle (which are two evident falsehoods) it shows he hath not yet left his old trade of lying. his calling him proud haman, with allusion to his name, and pope boniface, in relation to that feature of face which god and nature hath given him, speaks a childish wanton sinful spirit in mr. tillam, and let him know, that god will one day have an account of idle words. but he saith mr. hammond entertained him kindly, and added the courtesy of new wine: i say it was ill-bestowed on such an ungrateful man, as quarrels with love; worthy the next time he comes to be thrust out of doors among the beggars. all men that know mr. hammond, well know him to be a gentleman, and full of courtesy to all that set foot over his threshold; and he endeavoured to conquer this unworthy man by kindness, especially looking at him, as seeming now to repent of his former miscarriages, and is not this a trim requital? again, his proclaiming mr. hammond so rigid against anabaptists, is another great slander; for he never preached against them; he carries it most lovingly in all civil converse towards them; his spirit and principle carry much moderation to men of different judgements. 'tis true, he disputed about the point of baptism with mr. tillam, when providence called him to it, wherein mr. tillam was so silenced, that his denying of it since, hath demonstrated to many who heard that dispute, that he dares say any thing to save himself, and slander others. and for mr. hammond's moderation upon several accounts to mr. tillam, sure his own conscience will witness against him, if he deny it. yea, his own mouth hath often said it, and here he unworthily upbraids mr. hammond for it; yea he boldly tells the world, that mr. anderton's ejection was because he called mr. hammond pope boniface, which (as mr. hammond professeth) he never knew mr. anderton ever said so, till now he read it in mr. tillam's pamphlet. but it's upon record he was ejected for nonresidency, and notorious sabbath-breaking; so that it appears mr. tillam will say any thing. secondly, for mr. weld, he tells the world (pag. 7.20, 21.) he kindly invited him to his house in a letter, with much seeming affection, and yet all but gross dissimulation. since mr. tillam's book came out, mr. weld hath been consulted withal, and desired to write the truth of the business, whose very words again are these; i must sincerely profess (being called thereto) that although i am not of the newcastle churches judgement of the unlawfulness of being sent out to preach by commissioners and ministers, yet i cannot clear mr. tillam, nor vindicate his innocency, in denying that he had such an order to preach as the newcastle church charged him withal, pag. 20. for when i look into their three first articles, pag. 16. wherein their charge of his receiving order from the commissioners lieth, i plainly see the full substance of their charge to be true in each article. for, whereas the church say, 1. that he came to the priest (they mean ministers) (by the way i could wish no such word of contempt were used) this is truth, for he came to such of us as were appointed to examine ministers to be sent out to preach, and told us, he came to us for that end, and we conferred with him in order thereunto. 2. the church saith, that he preached before them (that is, the ministers) for the trial of his gifts, this is as true; for he preached at nicholas on a thursday lecture, where divers of the ministers were present to hear his gifts, and brought relation to the commissioners, and the rest of the ministers; and he was also tried by personal examination before the commissioners, this also is true. 3. that he was by the propagators and ministers sent to preach at hexam, and by an order under the commissioners hands, as other ministers have, and that without the least taking notice of his being sent out by the church at london. these things are so clear, that himself cannot, and no man will with any face deny it. now how mr. tillam dares call this a false charge, and so accuse the whole church at newcastle, for saying that which so many know to be true, i much wonder; for i must in this particular clear the church, and deeply blame him. and for his saying he can show my letter to vindicate him in this, my answer is, i known not how he may alter the words, or invert the sense, but i here challenge him to produce such a letter from my hand as contradicts what i have here written, and i'll bear the blame; but he hath abused the church and me, the lord give him repentance. the truth of these things i affirm on my personal knowledge, and subscribe my name, tho. weld. thirdly, he not only abuseth particular persons, mr. weld, mr. hammond, mr. eton, hugh prichard, etc. but he let's fly against whole churches, as the church of wrexam, which he accuses of excissive pride, gross error, envy at his person, profaneness, strange disorder about baptism, and many other enormities among them, pag. 9, 10. and the church at newcastle, they are a company of rigid ones, false accusers, violent, pag. 19, 20. and the church at london, they deal irregularly, and hastily withdraw without giving him warning; they will not hear the truth, though not abundantly testified. so that their censure is null and void. thus he proceeds to rage, and fight, and tear, and (like the drunken man in the proverbs) to cast firebrands at all that stand in his way. answer all his folly i will not, but this. first: we have neither allowance from the word or from reason to believe one word of all these allegations against so many godly men; where is the mouth of two or three witnesses? and if against an elder only without two or three witnesses we must not receive one accusation, how dare we receive these, so manifold, deep, and hideous accusations against whole churches and elders too? the accuser also being found no competent witness, being in his hot blood, in a way of recrimination, and a known liar, as hath been proved; therefore if he should say ten times as much, it is all nothing without further proof. secondly: what he doth say against those churches, especially that of wrexam, is but a proclaiming his malice and ignorance in church-discipline: for, 1. he spends many words to declare, he was not excommunicate out of the church of wrexam, but that he went out of himself, and proclaimed himself none of theirs. but let me ask this knowing man, if he ever learned from christ, that a member, when the church is dealing with him, in order to a censure, and he seeing the blow a coming, to award it off, withdraws himself, saying, he rejects the church, and disclaims them, and so they proceed against him for contempt, whether (i say) such a one is not justly excommunicate, and whether such a censure be not a real and lawful censure? else any man, just before the sentence is denounced may withdraw, and so no man living need be excommunicated; and than it will follow, christ ordained that censure in vain; yet in this silly, sinful shift he pleases himself, and deludes babes with this pretence. object. yea, but they are a very corrupt church, and therefore their censure is contemptible. answ. 1. as before was said, we dare not believe one word of all he saith out of god's way. 2. if this that you say had been true, is this the way for you to reject them, and excommunicate yourself? no, you should first have cleared yourself of those gross things laid to your own charge. secondly, humbly, and with all meckness have presented their disorders to their consideration. 3. you should have endeavoured to convince them. 4. and have waited with patience, if peradventure god would at any time have given them repentance. and then, 5. desired leave to refer the matter to other elders and churches, who might without prejudice, or partiality have weighed the strength of what you alleged against them; and after all to have desired leave in all humility to withdraw, in case no satisfaction could be had, and not to fling away disorderly, when in a way of censure for your faults, and say, you renounce the church. this is, 1. plain schism. 2. intolerable pride. 3. contempt of the church. 4. contempt of christ's ordinances, and consequently of christ himself the institutor of it, and (which makes all worse) he still justifies himself in all this. besides for a member to cut off itself without consent of the body, is a thing unnatural and monstrous, never heard of in the gospel. secondly: he grossly abuseth, and shamefully bespattered the church at london in sundry particulars, but we see he can do no other. we shall observe but two or three things more, and conclude. first: he tells you, in a vaunt, p. 14. he had not only 80 l. per annum, but 40 l. per augmentation; but he tells you not withal, that this was before the commissioners well knew him, & that as soon as they saw his spirit and carriage with the same hands they gave him the augmentation, they took it from him again, as judging him unworthy of it; and how that after it was gone, he crouched to the commissioners, and insinuated fawningly to some of the ministers to get it regained, but it never could, and whether it was not one great cause of his leaving the north, i leave to be considered. truly, some of us well know they never saw the commissioners more ashamed of settling any man than of his settlement at hexam, and resolved for his sake as long as they should sit, to know men better before they settled them, and never be so cheated by any man's glozing and hypocritical pretences, as by his. but it was too late to repent after it was done. 2. he vaunts often in two or three of his pamphlets, what a company of saints, and precious people he had at hexam, and how his church flourished; but tells you not of his tarrying there so long, that so few would come to hear him, that it was time to lay the key under the door, and give up. 3. he professeth that he receives none to baptism but such as he judgeth to be precious saints; and yet it's proved against him, that he baptised some persons at stokesbey, and in cheshire, etc. that made no profession of their faith at all; and this himself grants, pag. 17. how can such be known to be precious saints? and how does this accord with john baptists practice, who baptised none but such as made confession of their sins, mat. 5. or philip's practice, who requires the eunuch to confess his faith, acts 8.37? but this man (it seems) dares say any thing, or do any thing; 'tis no new thing to hear him contradicting the practice of others, or his own principles. but to what end do i waste ink and paper in answering him, whom i have so little hopes to reclaim? i will therefore turn the stream into another channel, and by way of conclusion direct my speech to those , well-meaning christians misled by him in the town of colchester, and elsewhere. you colchester christians and others, that have lent your ears to this seedsman of sedition, and happily think, that in entertaining this stranger, you have entertained an angel of god, do but a little view his face in this glass, and see if his countenance be like that of an angel. is he not here plainly convicted of boasting, lying, slandering, and many other sin? has he not for these crimes been taxed by faithful ministers, and censured by whole churches, and is all this nothing? can you expect a blessing from the god of heaven while you harbour such a one in your bosoms as he hath sealed up under a spiritual judgement, with which (as a rod at his back) he ranges up and down the world, and is not humbled, but rather hardened by it? take heed you bring not the guilt of his sin on your own heads; for (i call god to witness) 'tis not the man, but his sin i all along strike at; and a sin both foully practised, and fully proved against him, the horrid sin of lying (among many other) a sin so hateful to god, prov. 12.22. yea so loathsome in the very nostrils of nature, that among the savage indians, he that told a lie thrice, was condemned to perpetual silence, if aelian may be credited; this is (it seems by his own confession in his book) the grand crime for which mr. tillam stands excommunicate; for which i shall not need to judge him, two churches having already passed sentence upon him, guided (i suppose) by that rule of christ, mat. 12.34. out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh; as the physician looking on the sick man's tongue, when he sees that foul, concludes it is worse within. (christians) let me deal a little with your consciences; do you take the word of christ for your rule? how then dare you hear him that will not hear the church? or by what scripture-ground can you take him for your pastor, whom you are to look upon as a heathen or a publican? and that by express warrant from christ himself, mat. 18.17. yea let me ask you further, how unlikely is it, that he should be to you a preacher of truth, who has been rejected by others as a venture of falsehood? indeed what has he to do to take god's covenant into hismouth, hating to be reform? and how unfit is he to be a preacher, whom the churches of christ have judged unfit to be a member? what truths he has preached among you, i know not; but if he has spoken to you the words of truth and soberness, he is both much manded since he left the north, and misunderstood by some of eminent note in the south, who have affirmed, and will maintain it to his face, that he has dealt most unfaithfully in some of the main truths of the gospel, as, denying infants to be guilty of original sin till they come to act sin, and affirming, that we are not justified by the same justifying faith that luther and the first reformers were justified by (to say nothing of his new ordinances, new sacraments, new sabbath, that he contends for) these are no small and petty errors. the good lord open your eyes that you may see the evil of those dangerous principles he has scattered among you: and let me beseech you, in the bowels of christ (as a wellwisher to your souls, though a stranger to your persons) that you would take heed of being carried about with these divers and strange doctrines, yea with any one of them: for if satan can but draw you into one, he will quickly lead you into all. he that saith yea to the devil in a little, shall not say him nay when he pleaseth. in the fear of god i beseech you consider how you will be able to look christ in the face another day, when your own consciences will tell you, you have parted with his truths upon the bare word of a branded lyar. my record is on high, that i have not written these few lines out of envy, spleen, or passion, but out of pity and compassion to your souls: read all before you censure; compare mr. tillam's pamphlet with these papers, and i suppose he will be sufficiently answered, and all sober-minded christians abundantly satisfied. a catalogue of many pernicious principles and false doctrines, publicly in the pulpit, and elsewhere asserted by mr. tho: tillam in the town of colchester. first: that we are not justified by the same justifying faith that our forefathers were justified by. secondly: that antichrist shall not be destroyed till christ's personal appearing the second time in the flesh, & that whoever teacheth otherwise is a deluder. thirdly: that children are not guilty of original sin till they act sin. fourthly: that love-feasts, washing the disciples feet, the holy kiss, and anointing the sick with oil, are ordinances still to be observed in the churches of christ. fifthly: that the lord christ was a carpenter, but neither house, nor ship-carpenter, but a yoke-maker; to prove which he cited, mat. 11.29. sixthly: that those whom he lays his hands upon and blesses, are as really blessed, as those whom christ blessed when he was upon earth. seventhly: that baptising in the name of the either, son, and holy ghost, as so far from being the substantial form of baptism, that it is scarce a circumstance in baptism. eightly: that there is none truly called to the ministry, but by visions dreams. revelations, or immediately from heaven. ninthly: that not any infant-baptism is of god. tenthly: that the first day of the week is not our christian sabbath. these things can be proved against him, by divers witnesses to each. finis. the door of truth opened: or, a brief and true narrative of the occasion how mr henry burton came to shut himself out of the church-doors of aldermanburic: published in answer to a paper, called, truth shut out of doors: for the vindication of the minister and people of aldermanburic, who are in this paper most wrongfully and unjustly charged; and also for the undeceiving of the underwriters, and of all those that are misinformed about this business. in the name, and with the consent of the whole church of aldermanburie. rom. 16.17. now i beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences, contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned, and avoid them. 1 cor. 11.16. but if any man seem to be contentions, we have no such custom, neither the churches of god. 1 cor. 1.10. now i beseech you, brethren, by the name of our lord jesus christ, that all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you, but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind, and in the same judgement. london, printed for christopher meredith at the crane in pauls-church-yard, 1645. the door of truth opened. it hath pleased m. burton in the later end of his paper, to call his narrative an unpleasing discourse. a fit epithet for such a paper. unpleasing we believe to god himself; unpleasing to all meek, humble and peaceable christians; unpleasing to his quondam loving neighbours and friends of aldermanburic; unpleasing to most of the underwriters; and we conceive it will at last become an unpleasing discourse to m. burton himself, when the judicious and impartial reader shall clearly and fully understand the true grounds and causes of his discontinuing to preach his catechistical lecture in aldermanburic; which before we come to declare, we desire the reader to take notice of the title of the narrative, which is, truth shut out of doors: or, a brief and true narrative of the occasion and manner of proceeding of some of aldermanburic parish, in shutting their church-doors against me. in which title m. burton doth seem to assume to himself the name of truth (which is a very high and sacred title) and to make the shutting of him out of doors, to be the shutting of truth out of doors: which how fit it is for any humble and selfdenying minister to speak of himself, we leave it to the reader to judge. and besides, this title layeth a very heavy charge upon the churchwardens and others of aldermanburic, as if they were now become enemies to the truth, as if they had shut the church-doors upon truth, insomuch as that it is cried up and down the streets of the city, truth shut out of the doors of aldermanburic, to the great disparagement and defamation of us all; so great, as that we conceive it to be a high breach of the ninth commandment, and we expect reparation. and as he hopes in this his narative that m. calamy will find just cause publicly to confess at his next day of humiliation, let us be ashamed and confounded, so he must give us leave to say, that we expect, and that more justly the like from him. especially, if the reader will be pleased to consider the texts of scripture that are subjoined to the title page. in which he doth secretly seem to insinuate (for to what purpose else are they there put?) that because he is not suffered to preach any longer at aldermanburic (upon just causes hereafter to be mentioned) that therefore, truth is fallen in the streets, and equity cannot enter. that therefore, we are a rebellious people, lying children, that will not hear the word of the lord, who say to the prophets, prophesy not right things. and like to the scribes and pharisees, who commanded peter, james and john not to teach in the name of christ. now whether this be not a perverting of scripture, and an unparallelled affront to aldermanburic, we leave it unto the reader to determine. in the last text he justifieth himself, in the words of paul, act. 20.27. which puts us in mind of a book written by him of his life and sufferings, wherein he is pleased to compare his sufferings with the sufferings of st paul, and in many things to prefer his sufferings above paul's sufferings. and yet we do not write this, as if we would any ways undervalue m. burtons' great sufferings, for which we bless god, and for which we shall always honour him, and we do believe that therein he did great service to the churches of jesus christ. but howsoever we would desire him to remember what a epist. 11. epist. 13. cyprian saith of many confessors (especially of one lucianus) that had endured much for christ's cause in times of persecution, and yet afterwards in times of peace, presuming upon their former sufferings, did venture to do many things which did much tend to the great disturbance of the church. b and what he writeth to maximus and nicostrat●●, & other confessors, that after their glorious sufferings for christ, made a schism in the church, & fell away to the novation heresy. cypr. epist. 44. and what eusebius saith of one natalius, that had endured much for the truth, & yet afterwards fell into a grievous error, till god was pleased by his argels to whip him into the truth again euseb. l 5 cult. but leaving the title page, let us come to the narrative itself. in which there are divers things supposed, and taken for granted, which are not to be supposed; and many things misreported and misrepresented. and therefore that the reader may have the whole matter set before them in the right colours, we are necessitated to show what those false suppositions and false representations are. and m. burton must not be offended with us for speaking the truth. we profess that we writ these things with grief of heart. for we know that the common enemy will take advantage by our differences; but woe be to him by whom those offences come. for our parts we declare to all the world, that had it not been that truth would have been quite shut out of doors by our silence, we would not have answered this narrative of truth shut out of doors. but to come to the matter itself. 1. first, it is taken for granted throughout the whole narrative, that the shutting of independency out of doors, is the shutting of truth out of doors. and that the desiring of m. burton to forbear to preach his congregational way, is to desire him to refrain from preaching the truth of god. and that if m. burton should balk this controversy, he should balk a necessary truth of god, and should shut up truth close prisoner. and many such like expressions, which will not we hope any whit move a wise and judicious reader. for an opinion is not therefore a truth, because m. burton saith it is. bold and confident assertions may work upon those that have men's persons in admiration: but a wise and understanding christian will consider not so much who speaks, nor the confidence of him that speaks, as the weight and strength of the arguments upon which his confidence is grounded. there was an athenian that laid confident claim to every ship that came to the haven, and yet he had no true right to any, and was accounted a mad man for his labour. the reformed churches know no such truths of god. an he himself (we believe) hath not been many years of this judgement. but howsoever let not m. burton assume such a high measure of confidence to himself, as to make his judgement, and the truths of god to be terms convertible. the world is too wise to believe any such thing. and many will say that this is self worship and self-idolatry. 2. secondly, m. burton doth take it for granted, that he is bound to preach every truth of god that comes in his way, in this his catechistical lecture; and that he is not to shut up any truth close prisoner (as his phrase is) and he blesseth god that the committee when they met together, not one of them did use a word of persuasion to him to balk any one truth in opening and ploughing up the scriptures. but we are informed by some of the committee, that upon his first admission to this lecture, he was desired not to meddle with the points in controversy (which he is pleased to call the truths of god) and that he did promise so to do, or at least by his silence gave his consent. and we can upon certain grounds assure the reader, that m. burtons' meddling with the points in difference is much displeasing to most of them, who profess that they will not countenance him, nor maintain him in it. and that they sent one of their committee to m. burton, since his said lecture ceased, to persuade him to desist from preaching his independent opinions amongst us. and therefore we wonder that m. burton durst write after such a manner concerning the committee. howsoever, if m. burton will yet persevere in this his resolution, and this be also the judgement of his brethren (as we hope it is not) mark the mischiefs that must necessarily follow hereupon. 1 all underwriters, that are not independents in their judgements, must be forced to study this case of conscience, whether they can with a safe conscience contribute to the maintenance of that lecturer, which is engaged in his conscience to preach up that opinion which they think disagreeable to the word of god, whensoever it comes in his way? 2. this mischief also will follow, that all presbyterian ministers, in whose churches these our brethren preach, with such a resolution made known, must either by their silence be accessary to the misguiding of their people, or by confuting them, make their pulpits places of strife and contention, to the great disturbance of piety & peace, or do a third thing which will not be very pleasing to them or us. but it seems strange to us, that m. burton should think himself bound to preach his particular opinion in every congregation: and that all truths (as he calls them) are to be preached at all times, in all places. is it not sufficient to preach his private judgement to his own gathered church, but he must think himself bound in conscience to come to infect (for so we judge it) all congregations wheresoever he comes? if this should be the principle likewise (which god forbidden) of all his brethren, let the wise reader consider what a city-devouring fire this principle would quickly kindle. 3. thirdly, m. burton doth take it for granted, that he did preach no otherwise, sept. 23. 1645. then is set down in the narrative. but certainly, if he had preached only, as he saith, against man worship, and will-worship, blind obedience and resting finally upon men's determinations in matters of religion, without looking into the rule of the word; those of us that heard him, would not have taken the least offence at it: for we have often, and often heard the same doctrine from our own minister. and therefore we think it very rashly done of him, to charge m. calamy, that he should in the face of god, and of the congregation, bring this truth as a grievous sin to be bewailed: for he cannot but know that this is very unlikely, if not impossible to be true. but there are divers others besides the parish clerk (as m. burton by way of scorn calls him) that are ready to depose, that he did preach otherwise then is set down in his narrative. and here we cannot but take notice how bishop-like he lords it over the poor parish clerk, telling us of a garment of many pieces patched together. but surely it doth ill become his gravity to jest at a man's calling, and worse become his goodness to trample a poor godly man thus under his foot. and let the reader judge, whether this discourse of the parish clerk were not sewed into the narrative, as an old patch into a new garment, for it comes in very abruptly. but to the business. there are those amongst us, that will depose that m. burton said, that for a people to wait upon man for a form to worship god by, was idolatry. nay, for a people to wait upon parliament or assembly, for a form to worship god by, was worse than corporal idolatry. ob. but, saith m. burton in his conference with m. calamy, will you not give credit to me, as well as to those that informed against me? answ. if he saith, that these things are not in his notes, or that he intended not to preach thus, we will believe him. but if m. burton saith directly, he did not preach thus; we conceive it a very unsafe thing for a man to affirm a negative, when three or four will witness the affirmative. one that heard him at that time, tells, that when he said, mistake me not, he added presently, i scorn mistakes. and the party perceived he began a little to be angry. and a man in a passion may say that which was not in his notes. but if he thinks this harsh dealing, let him but review his narrative, and consider how he deals with m. calamy, believing and publishing to all the world what he collected out of his sermon, but from one man, who is one, as we hear, of his own congregation; whereas we have witness, more than one, for what we say. and also not believing that m. calamy was not acquainted with his shutting out (as he calls it) though the churchwardens came on purpose to certify him of it. and though he himself affirmed it to him: 〈◊〉 the conference he had with him, and though he hath no witness to prove the contrary. so great is his uncharitableness. 4. fourthly, it is taken for granted, that m. calamy in his fast sermon, septemb. 24, 1645. did call upon his people to be ashamed and confounded, as for divers other things, so amongst the rest for this, that whilst the parliament is sitting, and labouring to settle things, and while the assembly of ministers are studying to settle religion, and labouring to heal our breaches, should be separating from us; thus much he confesseth he said. but now whereas it is added he should say, and that you may be sure your scribe did mistake m. calamies sermon, consider that one passage, though of no great consequence. m. calamie said, is not this to crowd people into separated congregations? and your notary hath it, into secret congregations. that this is a sin to be ashamed for, that while a house is a purging, men should separate from the defilements, and not wait to see what the purging will be. he conceives this to be either the wilful, or ignorant mistake of his notary. and he desires m. burton would name another witness, if he can: for the apostle saith, receive not an accusation against an elder, under two or three witnesses. he never thought, much less preached, that we should join with a defiled church in her defilements. it is one thing to join with a church in her corruptions: another thing to separate from a true church, because of some defilements that may be in it. and this is that for which we think people ought to be ashamed and confounded; because for some few, (and those but supposed) defilements they separate not only from defilements, but from the true churches of jesus christ, and engage themselves into separated congregations, and do not wait and tarry to see what reformation the parliament will make. and this is no more than five (as we remember) of your brethren have written, as their judgement in print. and therefore what m. burton writes in his margin, to prove that every one ought to day, before to morrow, to separate from present defilements, is but to fight with his own shadow. for though we must separate from the defilements of a church, yet we are not to separate from a church, for every defilement that is in it. the church of corinth had many defilements in it, as many we believe as the church of alderman-bury; and so had divers of the churches to which christ wrote. and yet neither christ, nor his apostles doth persuade the people to separate from those churches, because of the defilements. and if this doctrine were true doctrine, we believe men will soon find cause to separate from some of their churches, a letter written by m john batchelor. as well as ours. the time was when in print, the church of alderman-bury was accounted a true church, even by one of his own way. and we can assure him, that it is much purer now, than it was then. but he adds in his margin. that each man in his place, and each minister in his place, must forthwithfall to a purging out the defilements, not knowing, what others purging may prove to be, and how long we may wait, when in the interim we and our house may perish in our defilements. but to this we answer. first, that we would gladly know what these defilements are, that he saith are still in our churches. secondly, how will he prove that these defilements are of such a soul-destroying nature, that they that live in them, must necessarily perish? thirdly, doth he not directly tell us in this passage, that we must not wait to see what reformation the parliament will make? and is not this an unexpressible prejudice to their proceed? fourthly, it is our opinion, that every minister, and every man ought so to administer, and so to partake of god's ordinances, as not to sin in the administration, and participation of them. and this they ought to do to day, before to morrow. but we conceive, and, if it were a fit opportunity, would prove, that this may be done without separation from us. it is one thing to keep ourselves pure from pollution, another thing to gather churches out of churches, and to set up a new frame of government, according to the private judgement of the minister and people of every particular church. this we conceive to be his practice, and of dangerous consequence; and for this we think he hath no warrant in the word, but that he ought to wait yet longer upon the magistrate's establishment. the scripture gives much power to magistrates, in purging of churches, when corrupted: as we may perceive by the examples of asa, hezekiah, and josiah. but we are very glad to read in his margin, that he makes mention of our solemn league and covenant. and we hope he will remember that he hath sworn to endeavour the extirpation of heresy, schism, and profaneness, and to bring the churches of god, in the three kingdoms, to the nearest conjunction and uniformity, etc. m. burton goeth on in repeating m. calamies sermon, according as his one only witness did dictate unto him. and he saith, that he preached that we should likewise be ashamed and confounded, that any should preach, that it is idolatry to wait upon the parliament or assembly, and that it is above all corporal idolatry, to wait upon them till they settle a government. and here he triumphs exceedingly, and insults, (such is his spirit) as much over m. calamy, as he did before over the parish clerk. he saith, he hopes that m. calamy will in his next solemn day of humiliation, find just cause publicly to confess, let us be ashamed and confounded. and in another part of his narrative, speaking of the same thing, he saith, o that i might hear a second voice in alderman-bury pulpit, and that on the like solemn fast day; let us be ashamed and confounded, that we have been ashamed of the truth, more precious than our lives, and have shut it ourt of doors, etc. but let m. burton tell us, whether he be in jest or in good earnest. doth he think that any meek, or humble christian, will approve of this language? for our parts we will not censure him, but mourn for him. doth he not think that this is a sin to be bewailed, that it should be preached, that it is worse than corporal idolatry, to wait upon the parliament, to see what government they will settle? is this doctrine a truth more precious than our lives? is this doctrine a clear and undoubted truth? for so much he seems to say in express terms in his narrative, in these words—; and being at the very worst, a clear and undoubted truth: which words we cannot but wonder at, and we believe when the reader ponders them, he will stand amazed at them. object. but m. burton saith, that he did not preach as it is here set down. answ. but to this it is answered. 1. that now he owns it as it is here set down as a clear and an undoubted truth. 2. that m. calamy did not name him by name. but to this he replieth in his conference with m. calamy, that he needed not to name you, for all that heard both you and me, understand plainly enough, you did mean me, so fresh it is in memory. but in this answer of his he doth seem ingenuously to confess, that he said the words he denied he said. for if he said no such thing, and spoke nothing in derogation either of parliament or assembly, but made honourable mention of both; how is it possible that they that heard him, and m. calamy, should suppose that m. calamy meant him? this very answer of his, doth seem to confess a guiltiness. but to put him out of doubt, it is answered. 3. that m. calamy hath good proof of others that have preached to this effect, though he had not. and therefore had just cause to say so, although he had not preached at all the day before. it is no wonder to hear men preach up their own practice. no wonder to hear those men preach against people's tarrying to gather into separated churches, who daily gather people into separated churches. but he deeply chargeth m. calamy in divers places of his narrative, because he did not send to him to know the truth of those things, whether he preached them or no, before he spoke of them in the pulpit. but it is answered. that if indeed no other had ever preached to the same effect, or if he had named m. burton by name, or if he had said it had been preached in that pulpit the day before, or if it had been preached in another church before other people, than indeed there might be some ground and reason for this accusation. but seeing that others have preached the like, and m. burton was not named, and that it was about a sermon preached in his own church, before some of his own people, of whose faithfulness he had no reason to doubt: and seeing it was only spoken in a general way, m. burtons' applying of it to himself, doth give us just cause to think that he was guilty of it. fifthly, it is taken for granted, that the churchwardens said unto m. burton, that they were sorry for what they had done, if they had done amiss. but they say that they did not say, that they were sorry for the thing they had done, but only for some circumstances about the manner of doing of it. and they do now further tell him, that upon diligent search made, they cannot find out by whose authority and allowance he first came to preach his catechistical lecture amongst them. m. calamy saith, that none ever spoke to him, to desire his consent. and our former churchwardens deny, that ever they gave their approbation. and therefore they suppose, he hath no such cause to take it ill, if they upon just grounds forbidden him to do that which he never had warrant, nor authority from them to do at all. sixthly, and especially m. burton takes it as a thing supposed, that his sermon preached sept. 23. 1645. was the cause, and the only cause why he was desired to forbear preaching at aldermanburic. whereas this sermon was rather an occasion then a cause; and if a cause, yet not the only nor chief cause. the reader must know, that m. burton hath often and often preached his own private opinion of independency, in his lecture at alderman bury, to the great offence and scandal of some of us, that have hereupon resolved never to hear him more, because we heard such things, which as we thought, were contrary to truth. and therefore m. burton need not wonder what spirit haunted those walls and thresholds, that so few people came to hear him in that place. surely it was the spirit of error that haunted them, and drove them away. for sometimes (as we are informed by those of our own congregation that heard him) he would urge a necessity of entering into a churchway, and that there is no expectation of salvation without it. and that it was as necessary to be joined in church-fellowship, as with christ the head. another time, that a member that walks out of church-fellowship is unuseful to itself, as if a foot and a leg be out of joint, it is unuseful: for any that walks singly and alone, without being in communion and in a churchway, he is out of the body of christ, and so is unuseful to himself and others. again, you complain you grow not in grace: but join in a churchway, here is growth in grace. a member out of his proper place grows not. another time, that none ought to be admitted to the supper of the lord, but such as were entered into a churchway, and had covenanted in a congregational-way. and that none could receive the sacrament aright, that had not first taken the church-covenant. and that to join in a churchway, is more than to be a protestant at large, because they ought to watch over one another, and those that refused to join, were as cain, that are ready to say, am i my brother's keeper? they that wrote his sermons do also tell us, that he made sundry sermons to press the necessity of gathering churches, and covenanting together. they tell us likewise that he shown how dangerous it was for men to set up churches provincial, nationall, or parochial. this was antichristian and babylonish, set up by the pope, that all in a parish might come to mass. another time he spoke against paying of tithes, as popish, etc. such things as these he often and often, as occasion served, did not spare to preach and urge with great vehemency: insomuch as many of us, and others of the city did resort to m. calamy, and told him that they wondered how he could with a safe conscience suffer such things to be preached, which they knew to be so contrary to his judgement. upon this m. calamy at one time got a reverend minister of m. burtons' acquaintance to go to him, and to deal mildly with him about these things, and to represent the scandal of the people. but all the answer, as he remembers, returned was, that m. burton thought himself engaged to preach the kingdom of christ. upon another time m. calamy did likewise speak to one of his brethren of that way about it, and all the answer to his utmost remembrance that he had, was this, m. calamy, you know the man, and of what nature he is, it is in vain to speak to him, he will do what he list: and it may be he preacheth thus to see whether you will cast him out, or no. at another time m. calamy spoke with another of the brethren of that way; and his advice was, to get a meeting of m. burton, and the rest of his brethren, and they would see if they could persuade him to desist from preaching his churchway in aldermanburic. but notwithstanding all this, m. burton continued in his tuesday lecture, upon all occasions promoting his congregational-way, till at last, upon occasion of his sermon, septemb. 23. 1645. the churchwardens sent to him the day before he was to preach, to forbear preaching any more at aldermanburic. and this they did without acquainting m. calamy with it, whatsoever m. burton thinks to the contrary. of which, as soon as m. calamy heard, he sent for the churchwardens, and obtained of them upon the tuesday morning (which was the next day after) to go to m. burton, and to declare the whole truth to him, how it stood, that m. calamy was a stranger to the business: that upon m. calamies entreaty they came to him, assuring of him that if he would be pleased to forbear the points in difference, and to preach jesus christ, and him crucified, the doctrines of faith, repentance, etc. they would willingly and cheerfully suffer him to preach. but he answered, as it is set down in the narrative, that he was not to be restrained from preaching any truth of god. now let all indifferent readers judge, whether m. burton by his former practices, and his last answer doth not willingly and wilfully shut himself out of the church doors of aldermanburic. for though he supposeth his congregational-way to be the truth of god, yet it is never the more the truth of god, because he supposeth it. and if he think it his duty to preach those truths (which we think errors) in aldermanburic: the same consciences that obligeth him to preach those truths, will oblige m. calamy, who thinks them errors, to preach against them. and by this means the course and fruits of his ministry will be much hindered, and the pulpit made a stage of contention, and to speak uncertain sounds; one thing upon the tuesday, another upon the lord's day. we appeal to m. burton, whether ever he did, or ever will give leave to a presbyterian minister to preach his presbyterian opinions to his people, that he hath gathered? or if any should occasionally preach them to his people, whether he would not think himself bound in conscience to confute them? we demand further, whether he doth not think it his duty, to hinder (as fare as he can) that a presbyterian minister, resolving to preach his way (as supposing it the truth of christ) should be suffered to preach once a fortnight to his people. and whether, if he should be a means to hinder it, he can be said to shut truth out of doors? let m. burton seriously study these questions, and not think it hard measure, that he is not suffered to do that in aldermanburic, which he would not suffer to be done in his own congregation. but further, we would have him to know, that they that are for the presbyterian government, do firmly believe that that which they hold hath clear light out of the scriptures, & that they are able to prove it: and that the congregational-way is an invention of man: and that there is no word of god for a church-covenant: for gathering churches out of churches; for assuming all church power within themselves independently: and that this is a way and means to divide the body of christ into as many schisms, as there be congregations. and he must not think that the presbyterian ministers are so void of a good conscience, so cruel to the souls of their people, so ashamed of the truths they hold, as to suffer them to be trampled under feet, and their people to be seduced by one that shall preach in their own pulpits, with a profession to preach down the presbyterial government, and they in the mean time sit quiet, and betray the truth, and their people by their wicked silence. add to this what was said before about the committee, and divers other things , and then it will appear to all peaceable and unprejudiced readers, that there is just cause that m. burton, continuing in this mind and judgement, should not continue his lecture at aldermanburic. 7. the seventh thing that is misrepresented and mis-stated, is, the conference that was between m. burton and m. calamy in private. of which that there may be a right and full representation, the reader must know, that when m. calamy perceived by m. burtons' answer upon the tuesday, that he was resolved not to cease preaching the points in difference (and as one very near him, told some of us, that m. burton would not be muzzled up) he sadly weighed all things that might happen hereupon. on the one side he considered, that in this uncharitable age, even good people would be ready to censure him very deeply (though never so innocent) and charge him as the chief, if not the sole anthour of what was done, and that the times were too too full of divisions already, and that there was little need of new rents and schisms. and therefore he concluded with himself to do all that he could with a safe conscience for m. burtons' readmission. on the other side, he considered, that this was done without his privity or knowledge, and that the hand of god was in it, and that if now he should be instrumental for his readmission without a promise, or at least a fair overture upon good ground (for he did not expect a formal promise) that m. burton would preach only such things wherein they did both agree, he should for the time to come be accessary to all the mischiefs that might happen, if any of his people should either be led away, or if not quite led away, yet puzzled and ensnared by what m. burton should preach. and this his scruple was the more increased, because m. burton had already taken one of his congregation into his church, without ever acquainting him with it (which is surely a great injury to m. calamy, and so great, as that we have good cause to believe, that few of his brethren would have done the like.) by this he perceived that m. burton was resolved to catch (we will not say, to steal) as many as he could from his church. now here was the case of conscience, how far he might be active in m. burtons' readmission. he consulted with godly, learned. he was told, that as things than stood, he could not with a safe conscience entreat for his readmission, unless he had some ground to believe that m. burton would not preach his congregational-way amongst his people. upon this the wednesday after this tuesday, m. francis shute coming to visit m. calamy, who was sick, m. calamy communicated the whole business to him, and desired him to relate it to the committee, that they might have a right understanding of it, and to endeavour that the committee might use their interest in m. burton to prevail with him to forbear the points in difference, that so he might bear admitted. how fare m. francis shute did manifest his dislike of m. burtons' meddling with his congregational way in his preaching at aldermanburic, we will not relate. but as m. calamy conceives, upon m. shutes applying himself to the committee, proceeded the conference spoken of in the narrative. for m. shute came afterwards and told him that m. burton would come to him. but he replied, that as soon as he was well he would go to m. burton. but m. burton prevented him. little did m. calamy think that such a private conference should have been made public, and cried up and down the city, and therefore he had no witness on his side to attest what he said. but seeing it is the will of god to have it so, and to suffer the fire of contention to kindle more and more, let the pious and peaceable reader read over the conference, and then tell us. 1. whether most of the conference be not already answered: whether it doth not the whole business, and take the six things before named for granted, which we have abundantly proved to be far otherwise. 2. whether in this conference m. burton doth not discover an episcopal spirit, rather then m. calamy. indeed m. calamy did not enumerate the particular things, for which we took offence at some of m. burtons' sermons: but the reason was, because he was desirous to accommodate and reconcile differences, and not to increase them. and this was the reason likewise, why his clerk was not sent for, because, as m. francis shute then said, it would but increase the contest between m. burton and him, and make the breach wider. add further, that m. calamy thinks that m. burton hath misplaced many of his questions, putting one before another, to the great prejudice of the conference, and interlaced many things, which (as he remembers) m. burton did not say at the conference, and hath left out many things that m. calamy did say. one thing m. calamy chargeth him withal, of which we will give the reader a fuller account. m. calamy had preached many sermons out of matth. 7.6. concerning brotherly reproof, and the duty of watching over one another, and had showed that this duty did belong to a christian, as a christian; not only as he was a member of a church; and had likewise showed how fare they that were members of the same church, were to watch over one another. hereupon he came to justify an equal and prudent division and bounding of congregations by parishes, that so by their near living together, they might the better watch over one another. and then he came to answer that question, whether the living in the same parish did make a man a member of that church to which his house belongs? it would be too long to repeat what was answered. but the next tuesday m. burton preached directly against bounding of congregations by parishes, saying, it was popish and antichristian, or to that effect, as those that heard him relate. upon this m. calamy when he came again to preach of this subject, amongst other things wished that all controversies amongst brethren might be laid aside, and that we would agree to preach faith and repentance. then comes m. burton, and calleth upon all ministers to set up christ's kingdom, and adds, but some will say, we must not meddle with these things, but only preach faith and repentance. he answered, we must not leave out faith and repentance, but we must preach christ's kingdom, for we have liberty now to speak, etc. in reference to this story, m. calamy not naming the story, charged m. burton for preaching point blank against him. and his answer is, it is possible i might casually do so, yet without reference to you. whether this answer be satisfactory, let the reader judge. we are sure that if it be sufficient, it will quit m. calamy of most of the accusations that are brought against him in the narrative. as for that concerning m. lockier, we spoke since with the pastor of the place where he lectures, and he assures us, that it is true that m. lockier hath engaged himself by promise, not to meddle with the point in difference between the independents and presbyterians. and for m. francis shute, because we love and honour him, we will forbear to write what we know. m. calamy remembers not that m. hartford should say. the committee thought very hard that these things should be so carried, before m. calamy had first spoken with m. burton. the committee surely are wiser, then to condemn a man before he be heard. we believe the committee will not own this speech, much less thank him for it. whereas in the later end of the conference m. burton saith, that he was sent home, without any hope of having the doors unlocked, we leaving him without hope of our keeping any truth close prisoner. if these words were well weighed, they would give a key to the reader to unlock the whole business. m. burton resolveth, wheresoever he preacheth, to let all truths out of prison, and whosoever will open the doors of their church to him, must open their doors to all his independent opinions also. how fare the committee and the rest of the underwriters, and others whom it concerns will approve of this, we know not. but sure we are, that whosoever readeth the conference, and this answer to it, will confess that m. burtons' high language against m. calamy, doth savour more of self-conceitedness then of just accusation. 8. the eighth particular which is mis-related in this narrative, is about a second conference, which, as m. burton saith, he procured out of love to aldermanburic, there were two of the committee sent to m. calamy, to know of him, whether he would be pleased to suffer me to exercise there still: his final answer to them, was; that he could not in conscience suffer me any longer to preach there, because his people were of a contrary judgement. thus fare m. burton. now that the reader may understand how fare this relation is from truth, we will set down m. calamies answer, as it was written, word for word, by one of those two, who were sent to him, and it is this, november the first, 1645. m. james storey, and m. robert dolman were sent by the committee to m. calamy, about m. burtons' preaching in that church. and his answer was, 1. that he had no hand, directly or indirectly, in keeping of him out, and that that business lay in the churchwardens and parishioners. 2. that if the committee will send under their hands, that they are confident upon good grounds that m. burton will preach the truths of christ, and not meddle with the controversy, he will be a means to the churchwardens, and the parishioners for his readmission. by this answer it may appear to all the world how desirous m. calamy is that m. burton may be restored to his lecture amongst us. and we can further evidence to all that are willing to receive satisfaction, that m. calamy hath dealt with many of the committee, and hath made use of one of them in especial manner to deal with m. burton, to see whether he could obtain of him to join with m. calamy in a way of peace and unity. but m. burton will either preach all his mind at his church, or not preach at all. now whether m burton, or m. calamy be in the fault, let the world judge. and that all men may likewise be fully convinced of aldermanburies' love, and good affections towards m. burton, we do here profess to all that read these lines, that if m. burton will be pleased to forbear preaching his congregational way amongst us, and preach such things, wherein both sides agree, we will re-admit him with all readiness and cheerfulness, and will promise to endeavour upon all occasions to come and hear him. which offer, if m. burton refuseth, let the world judge, whether m. burton shuts himself, or be shut out of the church-doores of aldermanburic. and thus we have given an answer to this unpleasing narrative, so fare as it concerns us. and it may be the answer will be as unpleasing as the narrative. but our apology is, that ours is forced, his is voluntary. it is a sad thing that aldermanburic, that hath had so much truth preached unto it, and hath had so many famous preachers of truth, should now be cried up and down the streets of the city, as a people that shut truth out of doors. who would not rise up to wipe off such an aspersion? truth it is the purchase of the blood of jesus christ: it is that which christ brought into the world with him: for grace and truth comes by jesus christ. christ jesus came into the world to bear witness of the truth. truth it is the light and life of the soul, the spouse of the understanding, the food and sustenance of the soul: it is to be preferred before gold and silver; pearls and precious stones are but dung and dross in comparison of it. and therefore if we contend earnestly for the truth, and make it appear to all men, that we are fare from shutting truth out of doors. we hope that all that are moderate and sober christians will not only not accuse us, but commend us for it. we have done. the lord open all the doors of our hearts, that we may receive peace and truth as unseparable guests to lodge within us for ever. amen. a postscript. there is one thing that m. burton mentioneth in the narrative, which though it concerns not aldermanburic, yet we must not wholly bury it in silence, and that is concerning the late large petition for the speedy establishment of religion. of which he speaks very dishonourably, as also of the petitioners, as of men led with blind obedience, and pinning their souls upon the priest's sleeve. we leave it to the petitioners to answer for themselves. for our parts we conceive that no reader, unless blinded with prejudice, can charge them with blind obedience. for the petitioners do not desire to have the model of the reverend assembly established, but the government of christ established, a model whereof, etc. these words, a model whereof, etc. come in with a parenthesis, and the sentence is complete without them. all that they affirm about the model is, that the reverend assembly hath framed a model of the government of christ, according to their ability, and presented it to the parliament. and who but he that hath pinned his faith upon an independents sleeve, can except against this? but if m. burton be displeased with the model of the reverend assembly, we would entreat him that he at last, after so long expectation, would set forth his model. finis. the true state of gospel truth, established upon the free election of god in christ: the agreement, and yet difference between law and gospel; so, that the gospel cannot be styled law. the inconditionateness of the gospel salvation. the procedure of the day of judgement. in the way of a conciliatory discourse upon mr. william's his concessions. by t. beverley. london. printed for william martial, at the bible in newgate street, where you may be supplied with most of mr. beverley's works, and dr. owen's late pieces, viz. his dominion of sin and grace. bound 1 s. his meditations and discourses concerning the glory of christ, being the second part, and application of the first part that have been printed twice. price bound 1 s. two discourses lately printed of the work of the spirit that is wanting in dr. owen's folio: both discourses bound together in octavo. price 2 s. his guide to church fellowship. bound 6 d. you may likewise be supplied with most of dr. owen▪ s books in print. 1693. the preface. that the jealousy of so many of the servants of christ hath been so exceedingly awakened, and inflamed by mr. william's suspicious attempts to obscure the doctrine of the free grace of god in christ, is to me a very great prognostic of that kingdom of redemption drawing nigh, and that philadelphian state, to which christ hath opened a door, which none can shut; and they therefore, who are now nearest to it are obliged by christ to hold fast his word herein, that among all the professors of protestancy, who hold it in this part so lose, none should take their crown, who are true philadelphians. hence it appears, that no more disadvantageous a time could have been chosen out by those, who would eclipse that glory of free grace, for their making an attack or impression upon those doctrines, wherein it is concerned, with success; so i hope it does appear; no happier time, when in this present sardian state, there is but room for dispute concerning them, could have been singled out for the friends of it then now; when so many zealous maintainers and defenders of it have openly shown themselves, and offered themselves willingly; should i say, to help the lord against the mighty in the high places of the field of these debates for so great truths? and indeed it is a duty on such occasions, to discover the foundation of error and mistake, even to the very neck; and if in this search, some essays are to find out; and to bring out of the scripture treasury, not only things old, but new; i hope, none will be offended; seeing as it is a duty at all times, so it is more hopeful so near the day dawning, and the daystar arising, such humble offers should not be accounted foolish fires; but some beams and rays of that light, that shall appear more and more to the perfect day. in the mean time, i have made it my earnest endeavour not only to preserve herein the analogy of faith, but to offer as a key, and clue in all these disputes these five grand principles. 1. the whole of our salvation is from god, through god, by god, and so to god. from god in the majesty of the father, through the mediation of the eternal word, and son of god by the efficacy of the eternal spirit, to the praise of the glory of his grace all in all. thus the divine being is the father of lights with whom is no variation or shadow of turning, not only in his own perfection, but always looking full on his elect. 2. that the manifestation of this salvation by that mighty power, and efficacy of the spirit, is in the due times and seasons, and in the just order, really and effectually vested in the spirits of the elect, and so joins their several faculties, and so the action and conversation, according to all that is spoken of in scripture. 3. that the law is the irrepealable standard of all, that man himself is to do, whether imprinted on man in the very creation, or revealed further by god in any after manifestation of his will; which the gospel, as occasion requires, takes into its own hand, and makes use of; and whatever is to be found in us according to the gospel, the law lays its sanctions upon it. 4. the gospel commands nothing; if strictly and properly taken; requires nothing, commands nothing, that yet it declares, must be in us in answer to itself; nor that it declares, must, and shall be in us according to the law; but it making use of the law, as to all the commanding part; itself gives, and conveys all, as being the covenant of grace, from the father through christ, the son of the father in grace and truth, by the holy spirit. 5. the judgement of christ is according to the law, answered thus by the gospel, as the covenant of grace, in relation to his own elect children, members, and servants; written in the lamb's book of life by the father's election from the foundation of the world; and in relation to the non-elect: his judgement is according to the law of righteousness, imprinted on the hearts of men; and according to that law obliging, upon any manifestations, or intimations of the gospel revealed to them. whoever then keeps these great principles as a polestar in his eye, shall find himself guided by them in all the various disputes of them; and not fall into either of those great errors the apostle james warns us against, of saying; when we are tempted, we are tempted of god, who cannot be tempted of evil; neither tempts any one; nor the second like to it, viz. not to be sensible every good gift, every degree of good, much more every perfect gift is from above, and does not rise up, but comes down. therefore above all; the assistances of the divine spirit guiding us into all truth, and bringing every thing into our remembrance i most humbly beseech for them, and for myself, and therein beg the prayers of all, who shall read with any approbation this short discussion of these truths. books sold by william marshal at the bible in newgate-street, relating to this controversy, viz. 1. mr. beverley's first conciliatory judgement, concerning dr. crisp's sermons, and mr. baxter's dissatisfaction in them. price stitched 2 d. 2. mr. beverley's second conciliatory discourse upon dr. crisp's sermons on the observation of mr. william's dissatisfaction in them. price 6 d. 3. samuel crisp esq; his book, entitled, christ alone exalted, in dr. crisp's sermons, partly confirmed in answering mr. daniel william's preface to his gospel truth stated; how he hath wronged as well the truth, as the said doctor, in the great point of justification, by the neonomian doctrine. price 6 d. 4. samuel crisp esq; his other book, entitled, christ made sin, from 2 cor. 5. 21. evinced from scripture, upon occasion of an exception taken at pinner's hall, at reprinting of dr. t. crisp's sermons. price stitched 1 s. 6 d. bound 2 s. 5. there is lately published, a plain inquiry into gospel truth, as stated and vindicated by mr. dan. williams, especially in reference to the doctrine of justification, and the nature of his proceed, with his testimonies hereupon: by thomas edward's esq; price stitched 1 s. 6. you may be supplied with dr. chancey's three parts, lately printed against mr. williams. 7. you may likewise be supplied with dr. crisp's works. 8. where is sold mr. troughten's first and second parts of justification, and ca●●● on job, in two large volumes in folio. price bound 40 s. and poole's ●●n●●sis cr●●icorum, in two large volumes. bound 1 l. 10 s. a right state of gospel truth, presented to mr. williams; occasioned by some assertions of his (so called) defence of gospel truth. i have upon the view and consideration of the reverend mr. williams his defence of gospel truth, and the many excellent confessions of the true grace of god, wherein we stand, therein found; thought it necessary for myself as in a low, and humble capacity, yet having appeared, as a reconciler upon the account of the sermons of dr. crisp; not to come forth as a disputant, much less as a professed adversary, but as a reconciler of some of the collateral, and derivative branches, of that grace and truth, i find in that discourse, to their principals; and to prune, what seems not to be so reconcilable, that the whole may be seen in its order, and beauty. and herein i labour to avoid, not personal reflections, i am out of the temptation of them, where i profess honour and esteem only; but of any aculeate animadversions on, or encounter with particular expressions, wherein the fundamental interests of truth are not lodged, or concerned, but i have set myself to establish those grand points of gospel truth, which i am persuaded aught at all times to be set in a clear and full light; on all just occasions, in the most stated, and solemn discourses; and at all other times so interwoven; that they may shine out and give their light both to prayer and preaching; while there is just room and scope yet left for all those scriptural expatiations into instruction, exhortation, expostulation, reproof, as methods of direction into the ways of righteousness; but still so, as they may be enlightened by these springs of gospel light, truth and grace, which i am now undertaking to conciliate them unto. this i have endeavoured in the most plain, and perspicuous method: and so that whatever may appear in mr. william's book of a contrary sentiment, and inclination; may be comprehended so, as to be resolved in some cases of doubt, in others foreprized, or guarded against; not to say, answered. and herein i have made it my business to levelly the discourse to these heads, or points. 1. to state the gospel doctrine concerning the eternal councils of god, with relation to all his elect, who are the principal concernees in all these points; yet with necessary respect to all others, so far especially, as what is said of others or in general, is necessary to be considered; as illustrating these things with relation to the elect. 2. i have made an essay upon that noblest point of debate; how far the law upon its own authority necessarily, and indispensibly falls in with, ratifies, and confirms the power, and authority of the gospel; and how far the gospel finds necessary to itself, and to its great ends; not to make void, but to establish the law: and whether upon all this, the gospel can by itself be properly styled a law; which i on great reason make out in the negative. 3. i have offered great proof, that the faith. repentance, sanctification, and good works the gospel requires cannot be justly deemed, or taken for conditions, or qualifications, but are effluxes, as from electing love, and grace; so from the righteousness, and death of jesus christ, and his victorious resurrection, through which the holy spirit is given, and are as free, as election, and justification themselves; when they are considered in strict relation to the elect, however in relation to the non-elect, or as generally spoken of, they may put on such notions, or representations, as of conditions or qualifications. 4. i have endeavoured to illustrate the procedure of the day of judgement to be so described in scripture, that the primary and supreme representations, and that subordinate all others to themselves, are most exactly agreeable to the free grace of the gospel; not as a law, nor requiring any qualifications, or conditions, with relation to the elect, but as gloriously appearing with its own product, and effect, as it shall be made to appear the glorious gospel of the blessed god, and by the appearance of jesus christ with his saints, in whom he will be glorified, and admired at that day. i begin with the first, and seeing i direct this conciliatory discourse to them, whom i suppose to acknowledge with me an election of a certrin number to salvation, and glory, i make this appeal to them. are there not in scripture highest assertions of eternal love, and grace, independent upon qualifications, and conditions in them, who shall be made partakers? do not all stand in a frame and connexion? election, calling, justification, wisdom, righteousness, sanctification, and redemption? all as free, and as certain, the one as the other. it is true; the wisdom of god hath so contrived, and ordered this preaching the gospel; that it is to be published promiscuously to the non▪ elect with the elect, and (as i may say) to probe for the elect, and to draw them out with efficacy, and power, by the spirit joining with the word. it is also most true; these cannot be applied to particular persons, but as ●●●●●ing grace singles them out by calling, sprinkling the blood of christ on their hearts, and sanctification; but they are always true concerning the whole number, and body; and so concerning every single person; and they may, and aught to be openly asserted, and maintained in doctrine, and also to be offered in preaching, and publication of the gospel, as occasion requires, to invite, and draw souls, by so free absolute, and independent a grace declared to lost man in all the election of god; and who knows, but it may draw this, and that particular person in a congregation; and therefore with great hopes of a divine co-operation, it ought to be as other truths, promulged: and i doubt not, when god opens the mouths of his servants in the boldest and frankest declarations of truth, as he will; when the as 'twere new song shall be learned, and so taught by the 144000 on mount zion with the father's name on their foreheads; it shall be sealed, with the greatest number of converts, as it was in peter's sermon, offering that grace: which thing i humbly declare myself to be waiting for, as the great consolation of israel. and there are undeniably many great scriptures, that set out the freest, most absolute and independent grace, throughout our salvation from first to last, as patterns or exemplars of all scripture; such as; before the children had done either good, or evil, that the purpose of god according to election might stand; who worketh all things according to the council of his own will; to the praise of the glory of his grace; who hath called us with an holy calling; not according to works, but according to his purpose; not of works, but of him that calleth; matthew the publican was called from the receipt of custom. the apostle paul in the height of persecution, that he might be a hypotyposis, a pattern. ho every one that thirsteth, come without money, and without price. the son of man came to seek, and to save that which is lost; i am found of them that sought me not; i came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance; being justified freely by his grace, etc. who believeth on him who justifieth the ungodly: publicans and harlots go into the kingdom of heaven before you. now it is most evident, the settlement of whole salvation in the eternal councils of god is most free, absolute, independent, without having any respect to having done good or evil, and so of grace, and in such an opposition to works; that here and indeed throughout; grace, and works do so remove one another, that they cannot consist in an equal domination, but either grace must cease to be grace, or works cease to be works; one of them must lose its very genus, or nature: seeing then, none can so much, as dare to deny: the gospel gives the pre-eminence to grace; it is a necessity according to the so positive and peremptory arguing of the apostle, rom. 11. 6. works must submit and fall under grace. if so, it most necessarily follows; works foreseen must be as much excluded, as if they could be supposed present; for else works had the primiere ascendency; and seeing the scripture ascribes all to grace; either grace had not been grace, or works not works, or all is grace, and works done by grace so inherent, and resident in us, as not to be in christ, as the sun, and fountain, from which it every moment flows; as much shut out, as works done by that rectitude of nature god at first gave to man; so that they could be neither a condition nor qualification foreseen by electing grace; and so moving god to elect; but works are elected to and not for, or upon; as the apostles express doctrine assures; for god hath chosen us in christ; that we should be holy, and without blame before him in love, eph. 1. and good words are fore prepared, as the margininal translation, eph. 2. for us, that we should walk in the, or god hath fore-prepared for good works, that from himself they should be; he hath provided them a being in their very selves, as well as in us, and that we should walk in them. he hath also fore-prepared; and seeing this fore-preparation even of works, is not of works, lest any man should boast, it must be of grace even as much, as election: otherwise work is no more work, or grace is no more grace, if works are not throughout of grace. if you say; then work is not work; i answer, it is much more suitable to the gospel, work should lose its nature into grace, than grace into work. but still the precise nature of works and grace remain distinct in their abstract consideration; yet it is most true: work is comprised by grace; for in every work we are his workmanship, which is of grace. and indeed, thus it must needs be; for upon the infinite foreknowledge of god he predestinated in whole, and not in parts, to the conformity to the image of his son; whatever then is in the image of his son, one thing as well as the other, he hath predestinated unto, rom. 8. and so eph. 1. he hath predestinated unto the adoption of children by jesus christ: whatever we are predestinated unto therefore, is essential to the being children of god by adoption, in and according to christ, as in one entire sum predestinated to, and as in one act of god upon his foreknowledge; and then there is a distribution into its distinct heads, fitted to our understandings, calling, justification, glory; and every head is as free, and as certain, one, as another: that which in the manifestation in time comes after, as that which went before; for each single head of salvation was by itself singly, and distinctly determined by god, as well as the whole contexture or the order of each head. i call them heads; because each is a whole, and not apart, each is of that worth and dignity, that it cannot fall so low, as a condition, or qualification, or means, in respect to, or with relation to any other of those heads. so that those entire, supreme, absolute, and most acknowledged, and independent acts of god. his foreknowing a number of persons, and predestinating them to the adoption of children, by making them conformable to the image of his son, being laid in the foundation; according to his eternal love, and grace, the arche-type or first ememplar of all; we may find each of those heads coming forth in its distinct and single dignity. as first he did according to his own grace, purpose; will, and determine; such, as he hath before known, and predestinated to be conformed to his son, should come to his son upon no either fortuitous or supremely free use of their own will, or actuation of their powers by their own work, but upon the certain, efficacious call from himself in his word, and an instinct, or implantation of wisdom flowing from himself in christ, that original wisdom; all their intellectual powers seeing him, and their applying faculties cleaving, and uniting to him; now this is styled vocation, or calling. and it is absolute, and by itself, and worthy to be so; and as it first and must needs be so in an intellectual salvation; and as so distinct from sanctification, it is called wisdom; 1▪ cor. 1. so there is no one head, that is more specially ascribed to grace, and to purpose, than it i●, rom. 8. 2 tim. 1. called according to purpose, called with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose, and grace, which was given us in jesus christ before the world began, not of works, but of him that calleth. and why is this head of calling kept so distinct, even from justification, and sanctification, and so ascribed to true grace; is it, because it is indeed a condition of all the rest? no, because it includes the certainty of all the rest; and all others certainly join themselves; and therefore it is as much, as any, or, if it could be, more, ascribed to grace. 2. god hath chosen a people, whom he justifies, and makes righteous, and pardons freely in christ, and by the imputation of his righteousness; and in whom the glory of so great a righteousness shall appear, as the righteousness of god in christ: this is then absolute, and by itself. 3. god hath chosen a people to be holiness to jehovah in christ our sanctification. and this is also so worthy a head, as to be determined single, and for its own own sake; as who will deny? 4. god hath chosen children, who shall be conformed to the image of his son in glory, who is in us the hope of glory, colos. 1. 27. and this is itself so blessed, and worthy a point, that it may be considered by itself; as all will readily grant. it is true, none of those can be one, without the other, but that they most necessarily implicate, infer, and include one the other; yet there is not one of them, but scripture speaks of it singly; not only because it includes the other, but because it is worthy to be alone in the eye of god, and to be the supreme point of his eternal council; wherein it can be considered, as distinct; as how often are the fore known, predestinated, elected, spoken of, without any thing else? the people whom he fore-knew, rom. 11. 1. knowing brethren your election of god; the lord knows them that are his; predestinated according to the council of him, who worketh all things after the council of his own will: so of justification scripture speaks often by itself; in him shall all the seed of israel be justified, and glory; justified by his grace; and so throughout, rom. c. 3, c. 4, c. 5. galat. 3. 6. so of sanctification; inheritance among them that are sanctified; he hath for ever perfected them that are sanctified; so of glory; written in the lamb's book of life from the foundation of the world; and another book was opened, which was the book of life; heirs of life, bringing many sons to glory; an exceeding great, and eternal weight of glory. now if this were considered, it would take away much of the dispute about conditions, and qualifications. seeing every link of the golden chain, is itself a jewel of inestimable value, and hath in itself the oriency, and riches of all the other. yet notwithstanding; it is to be freely acknowledged, that god for the manifestation of his own grace, hath settled an order, and connection, but not so as to lessen the dignity of any head below the worthiness it hath, in the eternal council of god to be one head with the other; and were it not, even as all the other; freely given of god, according to the riches of his grace; take any one of them, that seems fittest to be looked upon, as a qualification, or condition; and it would as much deserve, to have some qualification, means, or condition found out for it, as any of those, which seem most removed from being so, and to which any of the other may seem to be so. but not in a secondary consideration, but equal with the first; all this is to be considered in christ, the image to which all is to be conformed; the eternal love of god is in him; calling is to and in him; the righteousness of christ is imputed to us; holiness is derived from christ, not only by one act of sanctification, but by a continual efflux from him, our head, and root; even as it is through his whole meritorious, and efficacious sanctification of himself, that we are sanctified, john 17. our glory is seeing him, as he is; being made like to him, appearing with him in glory, in the beams falling from his glory, encompassing and filling us with his light. now as all these are in him for us, as the head and foutain and example; one as well as the other; without any notion of condition, or qualification, or means; and so they are to be looked upon therefore in saints; and so he stood in eternity before god in that everlasting covenant, wherein all was settled in him, as the exemplar, head, and root of the church; and not only so, but as a mediator, surety, and testator; upon the foresight of man, a fallen, lost, sinful nature, out of which the elect are recovered by christ, as such mediator, testator, and surety. now if this eternal settlement had the solemnity, and sanction of a covenant; for so the apostle tells us; there was an everlasting covenant in christ. and if all be settled thus by an everlasting covenant, it must be in the same eternity, wherein the grace and purpose of god was; whatever then was settled in that purpose, and council was established in, and by that covenant; and so must stand fast for ever: and the apostle there instances a point, that one would be as ready to suppose a condition, or qualification, as any whatever: and yet he makes it a point settled by the everlasting covenant; viz. to be made perfect in every good work, to do his will; and the working whatever is well pleasing in the sight of god. what can be more supposed to be a condition, or a qualification, than these things? and the apostle enough assures us; these were settled by the everlasting covenant, because he prays to him, that brought again from the dead the shepherd of the sheep by the blood of the everlasting covenant, to make perfect in every good work; now as it is most observable; the spirit of god singles out those attributes of god, that are most enforcive of a gracious answer; seeing then god bringing back the shepherd of the sheep by the blood of the everlasting covenant, is chosen as most moving of god in prayer for the making perfect, etc. it shows, there is a like certainty of the everlasting covenant availing to perfect saints, that there was in bringing christ back from the dead: the same for the shepherd, and the sheep; one from the grave, dying for sin; the other from the death of sin. now then, if there was such an everlasting covenant in christ, (for it must be as old as the purpose, and grace in christ) that may be most infallibly argued. that there can be no change: for as the apostle saith, though it be but a man's covenant; yet if it be confirmed; no man disannulleth, nor addeth thereto; and this (saith he) i say; the covenant that was before confirmed of god to christ; the law that was four hundred years after cannot disannul, galat. 3. 15. 17. now how much higher will the argument run concerning the everlasting covenant; if every link of the chain of salvation was equally settled and established, that it should be freely given, and most certainly given; no after model, nor manner of promiscuous, universal preaching of the gospel, can add to, or take from the everlasting covenant, settled between god, and christ; that every part of salvation should not be as unchangeably conserved, and secured by god in christ; one as another; nor turn any part into condition, and qualification, or, so much as a means on our parts; on which any thing relating to salvation should be dependent, any law or usage of scripture speaking to the contrary, in any wise notwithstanding. for to this standard covenant must every thing be reduced, adjusted, and reconciled; when the gospel according to the universal preaching requires faith, and repentance, holiness, and obedience, as qualifications, and conditions; this publication of the gospel reduced to the everlasting covenant must be interpreted in relation to the elect, so, that faith, and repentance may be understood to be no qualifications, conditions, or means as on our parts, nor dependent on us, but as free and absolute gift to us, though in us, and rising as from us, when so given to us; and so scripture speaks often to the same purpose (as is after to be shown) for all was both distinctly, and together settled, and established in the same eternal council, and under the sanction, and unmoveable confirmation of an everlasting covenant; whom he predestinated, he called, he justified, he glorified; all in one and the same eternity in regard of council, in regard of covenant, all was then passed; and christ enfeoffed in all for us, however to be fulfilled in the order of time, appointed by god with christ. to say then, if the elect do not believe, and repent, they shall be damned; i must confess, may receive some countenance from the apostle paul's saying to the company, that sailed with him to rome concerning the shipmen, acts 28. 21. 31. 34. except these abide in the ship, ye cannot be saved; when by a prior oracle he had assured them: that there should not be the loss of any man's life, but only of the ship, which certainly included all the necessary means of preservation; and so of the shipmen's being ●ept in the ship (that being such a means) before determined; and so the apostle returns to the first certainty, there shall not a hair fall from any of your heads. thus in pressing faith, and repentance, it may very well be said; except ye believe, and repent, you shall certainly perish; but concerning the el●●t, it m●y be said, you shall certainly be saved, as he that reputes, and believes, sh●ll be saved. for they shall certainly repent, and believe, and ●●●●ved; and i find not the scripture is ●el● to sp●●k (to allude to 〈◊〉 of the arch angel judas) on any supposal whatever of the elects being damned; but as with a reverence of election it says; to deceive, if possible, the very elect; and, except those days had been shortened: no flesh could be saved, but for the elects sake, those days shall be shortened. for the foundation of god standeth sure, having this seal; the lord knoweth them, that are his: this is the supreme, or sovereign seal; and it carries the exhortation, importing the other seal, along with it, let him that nameth the name of christ depart from iniquity; for that departure from iniquity is settled equally by way of gift in the everlasting covenant, and not by way of condition, or limitation; but by the same eternal council covenant, and free gift upon it, even as justification, or glorification, one is as free and as indefailable as the other, and as self-subsistent, without dependence upon ourselves, or upon one another; one as the other; saving yet the wisdom of the divine order; and no after manner of speaking can turn gods, hath called, hath justified, hath glorified into conditional, dependent, and incertain, no more, than his foreknowledge or predestination into conditional, or incertain. i therefore deny any of the graces, or duties, required by the gospel can be in supreme sense called either condition or qualification, with relation to any other part of salvation, or dependence on our acts; when we speak of them whom scripture styles, the election. head 2. i come now to the second head, which i style a noble question, whether the gospel can by itself be styled a law; according to which believers are justified. suppose but upon the very point of believing, or in that they have believed and repent, and obeyed that law, of the new covenant, or the covenant of grace, and with sincerity (though not to perfection) all the holy laws, and rules of it. and this i undertake the negative of; that it ought not to be styled a law. and that this principal qestion may be duly stated, i must first lay down that most prime consideration, both of the gospel, and covenant of grace, and also of the law, as an everlasting covenant of righteousness, and how these two both conspire in the eternal salvation, and blessedness of the elect; and yet how they do, in some critical, or, (as i may so call them) nodal points oppose, and eclipse, one the other. it is manifest from scripture, by what hath been already said, that the first and supreme point in the council of god is the purpose, and grace of having many sons among the children of men, whom he would bring to glory, and make conformable to the image of his son, and so as to be holy, and without blame before him in love; all which was established in christ, the eternal son of god, the eternal son of his love; and so this decree, and purpose is properly called the adoption of children. when this was decreed by god, the creation of these heirs of life must needs be, and so of the whole humane nature, must needs be supposed to stand before, and to the eye of god: in that decree as created: and therefore there must be by any that would distinctly, and steadfastly understand these points a most intent, and due consideration, of what scripture hath revealed to us, concerning the first creation of man. 1. it must then be acknowledged, that communication of the divine glory in the creating an intellectual, and immortal spirit, and in righteousness, and true holiness, (the most lively expressions of the divine being to us) and so to be happy, and glorious, and blessed in the enjoyment of himself, in a perfection of holiness, and righteousness, is the supreme scripture account of creation; and it becomes the immutable, and unchangeable law upon man; that can no more vary, nor alter, than the very being of god: and therefore in that great relation, wherein jesus christ stood in the creation of man: it is said, 1 cor. 11. 3. god is the head of christ, and the man (especially, as we shall presently see, intending christ) is the image, and glory of god, christ speaking of himself even as mediator in the human nature, he says; my father is greater than i: while as mediator in the divine nature, he thought it no robbery to be equal with god, john 14. phil. 2. this is the primo-prime, as may be said, foundation of holiness, and happiness; to know and enjoy the only true god. which scripture calls the glory of god, 2 cor. 4. as first in nature, and is before the face of christ; and the praise of this glory is sovereign, even to election in christ, eph. 1. of this glory man is fallen short, or become destitute, rom. 3. 23. by sin. but neither sin nor redemption can bring down this highest glory; for notwithstanding sin, and even hell itself, an immortal intellectual spirit is eternally obliged: and redemption is bringing or restoring to god, and to an access to the father; as jesus christ in all his mediatory discourses most fully declared, and his apostles after him; and as all along the kingdom of god is in christ's kingdom, so it is at last delivered up to god, all in all: which i lay in the foundation, to show the absolute excellency, perfection, and immutability of the divine law of creation; standing in participation of, and conformity to the divine nature in holiness, for the participation also of its blessedness, both which are the glory of god. 2. it is much to be considered, and deeply pondered; what scripture so often says of man being made in the image of god, this image of god, jesus christ is most positively affirmed to be, 2 cor. 4. colos. 1. he is the image of the invisible god. the eternal word fore-seen in humane nature is the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person. heb. 1. and as in humane nature he is the firstborn of every creature, colos. 1. the glory of god spoken of so much in the former particular is in the face of jesus christ, 2 cor. 4. and christ is the head of every man, 1 cor. 11. even as god is the head of christ, and man, viz. that great supreme man is primarily the image and glory of god, v. 7. for christ being the head of man, as between god and man, it is he must be the image, and glory of god; else god without christ intervening would be the head of every man, which the apostle says expressly christ is; and god the head of christ, as whose image and glory the man christ is; therefore is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the manly man, rev. 12. 5. or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 1 cor. 11. 7. foreseen in human nature, and not every man immediately; and so the apostles argument in that place reaches from christ to every man: all these great expressions of christ show more nearly, who that image of god is, in which adam was made; for all these cannot be supposed to come in upon sin, and on that occasion or necessity only; they have place before it; and this i say not only to ascribe excellency to our mediator, but to show, how fit he is to be so, who is thus the original image of god, by whom as the eternal word he made and created all; i speak it also with a peculiar respect to the point to be discoursed; concerning that admirable agreement, and conspiration between the law and the gospel; and so to resolve whether the gospel can be called a law; on all which these things well apprehended will reflect great light. 3. when man was thus made in the participation of the divine nature, and in the image of god, (which image christ is) in order to the eternal enjoyment of god in blessedness, and in his glory; as it became an immutable unchangeable law upon man, which can no more be put off than his very being; so it must needs be secondarily a law upon him to be like christ, who is the image of god: now therefore here it comes to be solemnly enquired, whether adam had any notices of jesus christ the image of god, wherein he was made; and there are two great reasons that he had notices. 1. because it being so expressly said; god made adam in that image, which is christ; it is not probable, he could be ignorant of it in so perfect a state of holy understanding, as wherein he was made. 2. because the apostle says, adam was the type of him to come, as the great and supreme adam, though the second in order of time of appearance, yet the first in dignity and designation; again therefore here i argue, adam in so perfect a state, could not probably be ignorant of so great a truth, as of the second-first-adam, of whom he was a type: and this i desire the further observation of, as much tending to show, how close the gospel, and this eternal law may conspire. 3. though the perfection of man's being, was, as hath been said, a law adequate to his being; as in conformity to the divine being, and to the image of god, jesus christ; yet because man was but a living soul, and not a quickening spirit, as the second adam; that is, he was but a vessel, that had its measure, and not a fountain, or spring, still supplying itself: therefore what ever further revelation of the will and pleasure of god, to which he should be obedient, god would please to vouchsafe adam for the securing his perseverance, and the confirming him in a continuation of that happy state, wherein his creator had placed him; such revelation became, as much of the essence of the law of his creation, as his conformity in any branch of it whatever to the divine being in the image of god, viz. christ; both because of the authority and goodness of the revealer, to which that eternal law must needs oblige him; as also because it tended to secure, and confirm him in that blessed estate; for whatever did so, must needs bind him, even as the preservation of that conformity to god and his image in any other essential branch did; and herein, if possible more; because it secured and confirmed all the rest. it pleased therefore that infinite wisdom and goodness, as well as supreme authority of god, to appoint in the paradise, wherein he placed adam, as the representation of his holy and happy state, two sacramental trees; one the tree of the knowledge of good and evil; and the other the tree of life. by the one he was under a test of his obedience in refraining from it; by eating of the other, he was to receive a visible pledge, and seal of the confirmation of his blessed state: the refraining therefore from the one was to be but for a time; till which time of abstinence observed, and expired, he had no right to eat of the other: for so is signified; in that the tree of life was plainly prepared to be eaten, so there must be a time for the eating of it; and in the care god took, adam should not eat of it, after he had sinned, it appears god intended adam should not eat of it, and dye; for it was a sacrament of living for ever as god said, lest he put forth his hand and eat of the tree of life, and live forever; which however spoken in derision, yet imports the sacramental sense of the tree of life; according to all which sense, it is said of the true and substantial tree of life: blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, rev. 21. 14. alluding to the first tree of life, of which adam, if he for the time appointed, had kept the command of god in not eating of the tree forbidden, he would in due season have had right to eat of the tree of life. now we may conceive two great reasons of god's forbidding the fruit of this tree. 1. the observation of this command had fixed adam in universal obedience, and perfected him in a conformity to god, in love, humility, dependence, self-resignation, love and care of his posterity; righteousness, justice, and not invading, what was not his; sobriety, temperance, universal holiness and goodness being some way drawn up into it; on which account it might justly be styled the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. 2. the tree of life being a sacramental type, plainly and undoubtedly looking to christ, by the so often use of it, and application to the eternal wisdom, prov. 3. and in the revelation: it argues strongly, the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, was a sacrament of adam 's subsistence, for the preservation of his integrity and happiness, in the eternal word, to come in humane nature, or the second adam, represented to him by the tree of life. for seeing these two trees were coupled one to the other, such as the one, such was the other; if one looked to christ, so did the other; now the greatest temptation to the forbidden fruit, was to be as god, knowing good and evil; that is; having the full dominion over good and evil in himself; and so securing that holy and happy state by himself and in himself, and not in christ his head, the image of the invisible god, the first born of every creature, the second adam to come, the head of every man; as the apostle styles him, referring to the first constitution. and i have not the least doubt, jesus christ in so many great expressions, that have no reference to the sin of man, was proposed as the surety of creation; and the mediator of it, and not only as to men but to angels. but as i remember zanchy on john 8. expounds, the devil was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, that is, not in christ the mediator, who is the truth; before all angelical and humane being; by whom all were made, and consist; so that confirmation of both the angelic, and humane nature was in him; and even as the devil fell by not abiding in christ, so he tempted man, deceived them on the same point of not abiding in the truth, that is, in christ, but coveting to have all in himself; by the delusion of the liar, the father of lies. now this i have thus far insisted upon, to open so great a truth in such a way as may most show the conspiring of the law and the gospel in the same grand point of the salvation of the elect; as shall be further shown; how great influence this stating of the original constitution hath upon it. but we must yet further consider the relation, this command of not eating the forbidden fruit, or the eating it, had to the posterity of adam, or to all in him. for it is most plain from scripture; adam by having kept the command of god, in not eating the forbidden fruit, had conveyed holiness, and happiness, even life and glory from god, and christ the image of god to all descending from him: this may be undeniably argued from two things. 1. he could not have coveyed sin, and death, if he had not been first appointed by god to convey holiness, and life; for he was ordained by god to be a common head; else, though the parent of the world, he could not have been so; he could not be ordained of god, first, a conveyer of evil; that came in by his own sin; god indeed in highest justice, as he continues the descent of mankind from him, continueth the sanction of conveyance of what he was, and had, which was righteousness, and life, as he was by god established to convey; when by his sin he had lost that both righteousness, and life; as god does not cut off that power of propagating the world, given him in that first blessing of fruitfulness, and multiplication; so he does not reverse the sanction of his conveying, what he should make himself a root and original of, by the special ordination of god upon his obedience, or disobedience in that one single act of eating or not eating; having then by that act of disobedience plunged himself in sin and death, he conveys it with that derivation of humane nature from him to the very end of the world: christ alone coming into the world under a peculiar law of both generation, and holiness of nature. 2. he could not have been a type of the him to come, if he had not been appointed by god a conveyor of righteousness, and life: for christ is so alone; after the transgression adam was a type of christ only in conveyance, as a common head, not as of sin, and death; for so he is an opposite to him, who conveys righteousness, and life. so therefore must adam needs be as from god, that he might be a type; the nobler part of his being a type he lost by sin, and is now become only an opposite type; he conveys but contrary to christ, not righteousness, and life, but sin, and death; and so he begat seth, not in the image of god, who is christ, but in his own image, gen. 5. 3. but thus in every thing, as the apostle says, the scripture foreseeing, god would do all he does, in eternal grace, and love by jesus christ, preached before the gospel to adam, in that tree; the symbol of removing him from the thoughts of being a god to himself in the dominion over good, and evil; called the knowledge of it, according to the great importance of the word, knowing, in scripture; but that he should trust in him; shadowed to him, by the tree of life: again he preached the gospel to him by making him a type of one to come, as a second adam by way of appearance, but he was before him, for he was before all things, as the eternal word to be made man, and by him, they all consist; so the first man was to be an adam, or universal original of righteousness and life subordinate to christ, dependent upon him, and to be confirmed by him, by such an experiment given of the obedience of trust, and not taking upon himself; for so the apostle pourtrays lust, 1 john 2. by its first parent lust, the lust of the eye; the forbidden fruit was fair to the eye; the lust of the flesh, it was good to taste; the taking upon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or pride of life, we shall be as gods, etc. adam therefore taking upon himself, and not trusting in christ to be sustained for ever, lost himself and his posterity, excepting redeemed by christ; as first offered, a head of confirmation; now of recovery. and though this making adam a common head, as it hath proved, is a scandal to proud reason; yet it was first, an ordination of grace, and wisdom, and, as i may say, a compendious contrivance for happiness, and blessedness to mankind; by one man, the common parent, and head, having by faith in christ, represented by the tree of life, trusted in him, and not taken upon himself; and saying with the prodigal; let me have my portion of good, all in my own hands. thus all mankind had been secured, and not left to the hazard of every single person, betraying himself; for it is most apparent by adam what every one would have done; he having all possible advantages in a fresh vigorous holiness, an unstained world: such a lively invitation of the tree of life, such a short act of self-denial, or refusing to be a god to himself, as he thought to be, by eating of that forbidden fruit. but now, let us see, what all this contributes to the points we are upon, which will be found to be exceeding in enlightening both the law, and the gospel to us. 1. from hence it appears the law is an immutable, and unchangeable law of holiness, and of everlasting obligation, while there is such a being humane nature. for it arises from the being of god to be enjoyed in holiness, and blessedness, by man, made so to enjoy; and it arises from the image of god, jesus christ, in and by whom that state was to have been confirmed, and so for ever enjoyed; and by whom it is to be so recovered. 2. from hence it appears, there can be no new law, but what must of necessity entwine, and incorporate into that first law, and merge into it, so adequate to the being of man, enjoying the holy and blessed god, by jesus christ the image of god; such was that law of not eating the forbidden fruit; it was a law of trust in christ the image of god, the way, and the truth, and the life, by way of confirmation, and so was immediately adopted into that law of righteousnoss, and holiness: the law of faith in christ the redeemer, and of repentance is in this sense no new law, but that old commandment, and a new commandment only, by being new illustrated by a more glorious light; but it unites with that law first given of holiness, in and by christ the image of god for the enjoying god in conformity to him; now in away of redemption, expiation, and recovery, and thereby a return to our first state, according to the first law. 3. from hence it appears, the everlasting covenant of god in predestinating a number of mankind to be conformed to the image of his son, cannot be disannulled, or added to, nor taken from by any dispensation or manner of speaking, that comes after it, according to that rule of the apostle, gal. 4. 3. understanding it of the elect of god, controlling all doubts; so that what christ was to do as the image of god by way of confirmation, he now does by way of redemption, by that mighty eflectuating image of the glory of god in christ by his spirit. 4. from hence it appears, that jesus christ in the first and original right of being, the head of every man, and the image of the invisible god, by whom, and for whom all things were made, and without whom nothing was made, that was made, and in whom they consist, upholds a present state of the world in the patience, and long-suffering of god; and also bears up, as he pleases, the natural law, in which man was made, enforcing the reasonableness, justice, and equity, to turn by repentance to that god; who leaves not himself without witness, in giving fruitful times, and seasons, and filling men's hearts with food, and gladness, (and so signifies grace, and mercy) and to recover themselves, as far as to the utmost they can to that state of righteousness, of which they find such plain mentions of in their hearts; and finding the shortness of their own power to cast themselves upon divine grace, and help. and where the light of the glorious gospel comes according to all degrees of divine revelation, the obligation rises higher, and becomes stronger. for the transgression and ruin of humane nature does not take off the obligation of duty; but it stands wherein soever god does not immediately execute the penalty, or vouchsafes any remainder of power at first given, or increase, and advantage of that remainder; and wherein soever men do not thus, there is a just particular, personal condemnation; but yet it remains according to the first standard law of creation, every man must be miserable for ever, and die the death, whoever is not found in the image of god in christ in righteousness, and true holiness, for the enjoyment of him. 5. from hence it last appears, the elect of god in jesus christ must be perfectly restored into a state of righteousness, and freedom from gild, into a state of holiness, and purity, for the enjoyment of god; and seeing this cannot be in man fallen, sinful, unholy, and so miserable for ever; it must be by the sacrifice, righteousness, and obedience of christ imputed; by the restoration of his spirit, and all according to grace, and riches of grace, and to the praise of the glory of that grace, which adam first refused; but is hereby exalted to a far higher glory by jesus christ appearing thus a redeemer, a reconciler, an eternal spirit so closely united, and fully declared in redemption, for the lord, even christ, and his increated spirit is that spirit changing into his own image from glory to glory by that spirit, who is himself jehovah. that i may now make a nearer approach to resolve this great and weighty question; whether the gospel can be in true, proper, and strict sense styled a law; i will now propose these two heads to discourse it upon. 1. i will show, how far, the law, as it is a law, must yet needs join its authority, for and with the gospel, according to its eternally holy, and righteous nature; and then i will on the other side show, how far the gospel without any abatement of its purest gospel-nature, makes use of the law, as a most righteous holy law, to its own most graoious ends. 2. i shall make it yet most evident from scripture, that the law can never, as it is law in the scripture definings and discourses of it become gospel; nor on the other side, can the gospel, as it is gospel, and drawn out according to the everlasting covenant, pass into the nature of law, according to scriptures describing of law. i begin with the first head, to show how far the law cannot, even as law, but join its authority to the gospel. 1. that the law of reason, and understanding, of righteousness, holiness, goodness, that god hath engraven upon the heart of man, and seated in his conscience, cannot but establish the revelation of christ, and grace by him, manifested by such a mighty power from heaven, and asserted by so many infallible proofs to be from god; so full of goodness, and grace, above the very law of creation itself implanted in man's heart: it cannot, i say, but establish it as a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, of both faith, love, and obedience; so that in this very regard, it may be truly and properly styled a law of faith and obedience to the gospel among all nations, to whom it comes, and is most strictly enjoined, and commanded by it: and so the apostle might most elegantly say, boasting is excluded; by what law? of works? viz. the law as it commands works; nay, by the law, as it commands faith, or the receiving christ as a saviour, and his righteousness, by mere gift, and of grace; in which righteousness hath so great honour, and full satisfaction paid to it, that it cannot but accept, and charge upon all that hear of it the acceptation of it. but because thus faith will stand as a work, though (as i may call it) a post-work, or a work after sin; i rather understand the apostle using here the word, law of faith, in a lax and allusive sense, as any doctrine, or divine manifestation may be called a law. 2. the law hereupon cannot but enlarge its promises, according to this divine constitution; for if god have declared, that he will give eternal life to all that believe in christ, and savingly turn from iniquity by repentance, and doth accept the righteousness of christ imputed to believers, instead of unsinning obedience; the law must needs join issue with these declarations of god, and with what infinite truth and grace have said, and confirm with its own sanctions, all these promises, as earnestly to be desired and laid hold of, yet still this belongs to the law, as law, and enterferes not with gospel, as free grace. for as all the commands of the law are grounded upon the sovereignty, and righteousness of god; so are its promises grounded upon the power, truth, goodness, and unchangeableness of god: if then the gospel declares a righteousness of god, a righteousness of god by faith in jesus christ, accepted of god beyond any righteousness by works of the law; the very law itself opens, and enlarges all its promises to that righteous person by the righteousness of christ; and as this righteousness, on which such a person is justified, is exceeding unto him, and upon him, as the apostle speaks; that is; every way over▪ flows him, and so beyond all other righteousnesses; so does the law extend its promises to the utmost in relation to it, and therefore god is said (as in triumph) to declare herein, and at that very time his righteousness; that he might be just, and the justifier of him that believes in jesus, rom. 3. and the apostle john saith, if we confess our sins, that is, acknowledge our absolute necessity of such a righteousness by christ, and receive it, he is faithful, and just; even according to the eternal law of righteousness to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness: so they who receive abundance of grace, and of the gift of righteousness, shall reign in life by jesus christ: not only live, as the law saith to the man, who doth its works, but reign in life; the promises of the law being stretched out, and accumulated upon such a person so justified by the transcendent righteousness of christ. 3. the law opens wide its threaten in the cause of, and on injury done to the gospel, and the grace of god revealed in it; for seeing, it is essential to the law of righteousness to condemn sinners; it is also essential to it to condemn and adjudge to its punishments according to the degrees of sin, and gild; for, saith the apostle, he that transgressed moses law, died without mercy, under two or three witnesses, and every transgression received a just recompense of reward, that is, according to the degree of gild, and demerit. of how much sorer punishment suppose ye shall, he be thought worthy, who hath trod under foot the son god, and counted the blood of the covenant a common thing, and done despite to the spirit of grace? this is plainly according to the law of righteousness, according to which also christ said; it shall be more tolerable for sodom and gomorrha. thus we may see how far the law must needs attend the gospel with all its authority. i will now show how the gospel takes in the law, and makes use of it for its own great ends, and purposes: upon account of which the apostle says, do we make void the law? nay we establish it. the law stands fair in the gospel, and in its full perfection of breadth, and length; that it may show the glory of the righteousness, and obedience of jesus christ; and also it stands with all its penalty, severity, curse, and condemnation, that it may show the deep of the sufferings of our great mediator; and interpret to us the agony, wherein he sweat drops of blood, and the meaning of that loud cry, my god, my god, why hast thou forsaken me? for, said christ; thus in every jota of the revealed will of god, it be came him to fulfil all righteousness. 2. that it may show to all the glory from which they are fallen, and from which they daily fall lower, and lower; the deformity of their own state; the dread and horror of that ruin, and condemnation of hell, and death, that is so justly come upon sinners, fallen short of that glory of god; for this holy, righteous, and good law, of such purity, and cleanness, a fiery law, a royal law, a law of liberty, shows all the hatefulness of sin, and justice of punishment, and condemnation; and all this is in order to humiliation, sight, and sense of sin, conversion from it; and especially to show the great necessity of christ's redemption, grace, the free gift of righteousness, and justification by him. for thus by the law is the knowledge of sin; thus the law worketh wrath; that is, it both stirs up the due apprehension of it, and if not prevented by pardon, and justification, it calls up vengeance against the offender; wherefore the law is our school master, to bring us to christ, by the severity and rigour of its justice. and as such it is in the hand of the gospel. 3. that the gospel may by the law show that perfect pattern, and exemplar of holiness, and purity of thoughts, words and actions, to which we are to aspire; that cleansing of ourselves from the filthiness of flesh and spirit, to perfect holiness, in the fear of god; that exceeding broad commandment, that sets an end, or bound, showing all other perfection too short, and too narrow compared with itself; and so the law may be as a rule of holy life, and action, to which we should follow on according to the mark even of perfection itself; if it could be; to attain the very state of that perfection, that shall be in the resurrection of the dead. and herein there are four great gospel ends, aimed at by the gospel, thus taking the law under itself. 1. that we may feel a continual necessity of making recourse to the blood of christ, the fountain set open for sin and for uncleanness; because, by this holy law, there is a discovery of daily defilements, failings, falls, imperfections, and infirmities; concerning which, there can be no atonement between god and us, but by the blood of the lamb, offered by the eternal spirit, and his appearing in that blood to the very face of god for us in heaven; for on the least failing, or offence, the law hath none to offer us; so that there can be nothing but condemnation: on this account therefore we find in the gospel so many of the laws severities, that we may be continually awakened to go to christ. 2. that we may find inability in ourselves to do any thing suitable, or agreeable to that holy law; which commands with an astonishing and admirable excellency of holiness, but gives not the least power, or strength to perform what it commands; and in both respects, the apostle may be very well understood; if there had been a law that could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law. but the law that commands, and gives not power, is therefore called a letter that kills. 3. that herein the gospel may show itself to be a gospel indeed; in the ministration of righteousness opposite to the law, the ministration of condemnation; and in the ministration of life, and power, by the spirit giving strength to do what is commanded; and so enabling the spirits of saints to become the epistle, and gospel of christ; ministered by the servants of christ in preaching the new testament; but written not with ink, or in the leaves of the bible, but with the spirit of the living god; and not in tables of stone, but in the fleshly tables of the heart; and therefore is the gospel in all its most proper ways of speaking so constantly interlineated with christ, and his spirit. 4. seeing what even the spirit is pleased to vouchsafe in the present state, is so much below the very glory, the gospel holds out; there is a continual incitation, the gospel sets before us to desire that change from the beginning glory of the present state, to the glory, that shall be in the perfect state, of the kingdom of christ; and on this account is that future state, so often mentioned; when indeed with a face perfectedly open, we shall behold as in a mirror, not as in ordinary mirrors, our own natural faces, but jesus christ the image of god in his own glory; and we now are in degrees, and shall be perfectly changed into the same image from glory begun now, to the perfection of the same glory in the kingdom of christ, as by that spirit jehovah. and this gives us the true excellency of the gospel; the law, like our ordinary mirrors, shows our own faces by that light, which first indeed represents what we ought to be, but we not being that, it reproves, and condemns such sinners, or imperfect saints, as the best are; but it shows no glorious image, or not in christ, with an efficacious changing grace, and power: but this the gospel does for us. 4. the gospel takes the law into itself, that it may, though it be in itself a ministration of righteousness, and life, and spirit; yet that it may by the law show the greatness of the sin of unbelief, and impenitency, re●●ection of itself, and refusal of its gracious offers. and this it does on two great reasons. 1. that all those manifestations of the sin and danger of an unbelieving, impenitent state, may be rational instruments, and conveyances, in the hand of the spirit, of that power of faith, and repentance, flowing from itself in the new-testament into the hearts of the elect. 2. that the gospel may have in readiness the law to revenge every disobedience against itself; and yet preserve its own high title of the new-testament, and the covenant of grace; for as the lord saith, i accuse you not; you have one that accuseth you, even moses in whom you trust; and i judge you not; the words that i have spoken, they shall judge you at the last day, viz. in the virtue, and the authority of that eternal law of righteousness, which, as hath been shown, cannot but pass along with the so gracious gospel dispensation. and thus when the gospel hath made offer of itself, and all the grace of it without saving effect. the law and justice; according to it, seizes upon the sinner for sin, against that eternal righteousness essential to itself; and against the unspeakable grace of the gospel, with dreadfullest aggravations of condemnation; and herein jesus christ the eternal son of god in our nature is the righteous judge at that day; though here on earth he judged not, being come not to judge, but to save. and his judgement is according to that eternal law, seated in the heart, and thoughts of men; and yet according to the gospel, as the apostle speaks, declaring that his judgement, agreeable with the law written in men's hearts, and so in the word of god; which very law written in the heart, and thoughts of men, accusing, or excusing, is now in the hand of christ, and of the gospel to its own great ends of drawing them to christ, who are his, and leading them under the conduct of his spirit; and god is said there to judge the secrets of men's hearts according to the gospel, concerning that light, and sense of natural conscience; because the grace of the gospel both exalts this light; and because also according to the saving effects of the gospel upon these powers of natural conscience, so preserved by christ, every man is found to honour, praise, and glory; or else falls under the revelation of the righteous judgement of god upon their hard and impenitent hearts, and ways; by which they have treasured up wrath against the day of wrath. and of all things in both states, jesus christ is most righteously, and propperly constituted the judge, as shall be further made out. but notwithstanding the law, and the gospel, do thus far join themselves, one to another, yet (which will come up close to the decision of this question,) the law can never pass into the nature of the gospel, nor can the gospel become a law: for, first, it is most evident, the law can never become gospel, or of the excellent nature of it; as shall be seen in a brief compare of the one with other, in these following particulars. 1. the gospel, or new-testament gives the image of the glory of god in the face of jesus christ; an image of the admirable beauty, and life, in christ the wisdom of god, the righteousness of god, and the power of god; perfect, increated, invariable, eternal, ready to communicate itself in richest abundance to all the election of god; but the spirit of god itself represents the law, a holy, and righteous rule; it must so needs be; but it is engraven only in tables of stone, or written with ink; for jesus christ, the image of god, in which adam was made, withdrew upon the sin, and fall of adam; and what adam had, was lost, and defaced, so that there is a rule of glory, but no image of glory; as in the gospel, that by the covenant of grace is to communicate itself. 2. the gospel having such a communication of righteousness, so high, so perfect, can accept a sinner by putting upon him a perfect righteousness and obedience, and so blot out all his transgressions, and imperfections by a full and free pardon; the penalty being fully answered, and discharged by christ's death, and sufferings, even as the righteousness is fulfilled by him, who is that image of glory; but the law being only a rule and no more, can accept no less, than the whole and perfect obedience; for the least offence being (as they speak) solutio continui, a convulsion or breach of the whole frame of righteousness, the law can pronounce nothing, but condemnation to a sinner, who hath not that full, and perfect righteousness of the gospel to offer to it; but solicits, and stirs up, and works wrath by the discovery of sin; and it stains all imperfect righteousness by declaring the offender in one point guilty of all; it brings to nothing all outward righteousness, by showing the very first desire, or coveting to be sin. 3. the inward inherent righteousness, so absolutely necessary to be in every person redeemed by christ, and united to him, is not only enjoined upon him by a letter that kills, by commanding, and giving no power; but is conveyed to him by a quickening spirit, changing him into the same image from beginning glory, to perfect glory; as by that lord, who is that spirit jehovah; one with that spirit, and who himself is that image, and that spirit; so every one redeemed by christ is the epistle and gospel of christ itself, written not with ink, but with the spirit of the living god; this the law can never do; it commands, and supposes the power, which was once given; but the law never considers the loss by the fall, nor takes compassion of it; so never it can become a gospel: for the gospel brings every good work from the treasury of eternal love, and grace, from the blood of the everlasting covenant by a meeting of the spirit, of the gospel in the heart of every elected in christ; and from providential opportunities, and advantages of such holy action, and good work, according to the will of god, heb. 13. 4. the reward therefore, and the whole procedure of judgement is according to the gospel; of, and according to mere grace to all the elect of god, though in, and with a splendour of holiness, and purity; but whatever is done at that day so, that the law hath the superiority; even to, and upon those, who enjoy the gospel; all is turned to condemnation, and aggravation of punishment; even to, and upon all those who are not the evangelized, the children of the gospel by election; and yet in a way of clearest justice, and righteousness, according to their works, in that righteous judgement; as shall presently be, in a particular head of this dscourse made out concerning that great day. 5. the gospel hath this most illustriously peculiar to it; that it toucheth nothing, even that is in its own nature most severe, and farthest from grace, but it by its high dominion of grace, it subordinates' it to the ends, purposes, and service of grace; even the law, sin, and death, that where they abound, grace does much more abound; where sin by the law does reign unto death, all, who receive abundance of grace, and of the gift of righteousness, shall much more reign in life by jesus christ; and grace itself so reigns; as therefore it hath been made out; even the law is throughout taken into this great service of the gospel, for the great ends, and purposes of grace; but now the law takes nothing under its cognizance, but so far as it comes under its hand, with relation to fallen man, it turns it, like itself, into a killing letter, and into a ministration of condemnation. let us therefore consider the most different influence of the law, in three dispensations that comprehend all the deal, or manner of treaties, god hath had with man, since the transgression of adam. 1. that which is the most universal dispensation of god towards all mankind, and is generally styled the law, or light of nature, or as the apostle calls it, the work of the law written in the heart wherein all should be doing by nature the things contained in the law, men being a law to themselves; and this, though it be the lowest of divine dispensations to men; in order to recovery of the elect, in order to humane society for the elects sake; yet it is general to all; only in children, and idiots, it is hidden and close folded up, for want of the use of the faculties, else it is the same: and it is by the interposal of the mediator for the elects sake, that there should be a world under the patience and long-suffering of god; and by the same patience and long-suffering there was a reserve, and reprieve from the utter loss of the image of god, as from christ communicated; on account of which he is said to enlighten every man that comes into the world; which light is capable of more and more degrees of clearness, and power, if closely attended to; whereby the world becomes habitable by being under the government of that eternal wisdom, by which kings reign, princes, and all the judges of the earth decree justice, prov. 8. 15. now this reserve of the image of god in man, as it falls under the law, or the strict rule of holiness; it serves only to self-accusation, as to every particular person, that he hath not acted up to that law, and light within; and yet still if they did live up to the highest degrees, it could not make a recovery or restoration of any man without christ; for without any the least acceptance of what is done according to it; it only aggravates what was not done to the height; so that that accusation of thoughts the apostle speaks of, the law hath its power over; and the excusing or apologies of thoughts are from the grace of the gospel: which does allow them in abatement of condemnation, for any good thing found in them, or done by them; and therefore the apostle says; god will judge the secrets of all hearts at that day according to this gospel by jesus christ; showing, that with relation to this light given by the mediator, and for his sake, god will proceed with great gospel equity, and mercy; which may be another, and greater sen●e of those words before given, to all those, who have laid together those remainders, or reserves of the light of nature, and the patience, and goodness of god; of which he hath given so many witnesses; so that it shall be more tolerable for such, than others; who have trodden all these under foot; and run into all excess of riot, cruelties, and all uncleanness with greediness. but in all the elect the grace of the gospel makes much a higher use of this light, for it lifts them up above it into a new-creation, and regeneration by the spirit of life, and grace, from christ; and of this the apostle discourses after the mentions of the law of nature, and the gentiles conformity to it in some parts; the grace of the gospel turns the uncircumcision into circumcision of the spirit, as he goes on. 2. let us consider the great difference between the law, and the gospel in that, which scripture in the new testament so universally styles the law, viz. the whole frame of the mosaic law; and as this was purely by itself, and as it did not look to christ, it is represented, as that rigorous and severe dispensation, that is, the killing letter, the ministration of death, of condemnation, the law that worketh wrath; by which is the knowledge of sin, by which no flesh can be justified in his sight: a law of works done by our own power, in number, weight, and measure; or else it brings under the curse; a law therefore, that can by no means give life, and so righteousness cannot be by it unto justification of life; and all the ceremonies are, but so many labels, handwritings, and seals against us, and contrary to us: binding us to keep the whole law; so opposite to christ that where they are observed since reversed by the gospel, he can profit us nothing; opposite to grace, so that he that adheres to them for righteousness, falls from grace, and is under the works of the law, and under the curse; as the apostle says, whoever sins having the law, perishes by it, and with having it. it is a covenant, that is found fault with, because god finds fault with them, who are under it for breaking it: and yet all this time the law is holy, just, and good; and therefore there was a glory in regard of its so intimate, and essential goodness, that reflected a glory on moses his face, when god gave the two tables; as it were, in remembrance of the first glory on adam; but it soon vanished into a ministry of death and condemnation, showing how soon adam fell from the glory of god: and yet even this whole mosaic frame was designed with all its ceremonies to lead to christ, according to all the service of the law to the gospel, when it is in the hand of the gospel, as hath been before explained; in which regard also moses his face shone, receiving the rays of the divine glory in the face of christ; but because the efficacy of the gospel-grace was only to the elect, the law became superior, and the ceremonies thickened as a veil upon that glory; emblemed by the veil on moses his face, which hide the glory of christ; which veil so sadly lies on the minds of the jews, blinding them to this day. but this very law being in the hand of the gospel to the elect was a law converting the soul, making wise, the way of life; and all its ceremonies led to christ; and his glory shone through them; although, because it was not a dispensation high and spiritual enough for that glory o● grace, they saw, that glory was to be done away in christ, not to remain; and therefore, even as god did often undervalue all the legal state in compare with the gospel-grace; so did his saints also in the time of the old-testament; and under the gospel it is done away; but the substantial goodness of of it was then, and ever shall be in the hand of the gospel; as hath been more fully set out in the last head of discourse. 3. let us now last duly weigh, how far even the dispensation of the gospel becomes law to them, who by not being in christ, are under the law, although they have the light of the gospel vouchsafed to them in the outward administration; for to whomsoever the gospel is hid or veiled, and a savour of death, they are left to the dominion of the law over them; however the gospel be never so clearly offered to them; the law then having nothing to do with the promises of grace, it urges upon us, whatever is to be done by ourselves; it presses the acceptance of christ, and of his righteousness, a conformity to his holiness, and to his holy precepts, as the only way to recover ourselves; but it having no power of promise, according to the gospel in its own proper ordination, or dispensation, it calls upon us in our own strength, and improvements of ourselves to obtain both righteousness and the spirit; and so entitles us after the manner of works only, to pardon of sin, righteousness and sanctification by christ; which is turning the gospel into a law, to all, who are not the children of god by faith in jesus christ; hereupon it proceeds to aggravate gild, and condemnation, and to make it more tolerable for any, than for those who having had the gospel, have not yet reached justification, and righteousness, and sanctification, and holiness, by and from the gospel according to it. but now the gospel proceeds quite otherwise with all those, who are the evangelized, truly the children of promise; for it gives all to them freely, and as a ministration of righteousness, of life, and of the spirit; even that very righteousness, and spirit; it does not set the elect of god to correct their faces, the face of their hearts and lives by it, as by a glass, or mirror, showing them what they are; but it presents jesus christ the image of god, who is also the lord, that spirit changing the saints into the same image; though indeed it be, but a beginning glory, onwards still to perfection of glory; so that there are rays of glory from christ upon the soul, and spirit of every one, united to him, far greater than the rays of glory on moses his face, shining from god in his law, by his image christ; but not as mediator, but as the eternal word in our nature, and as in the first creation, not our trustee, and surety in the new-covenant, and new-creation; so that glory was none, being so much exceeded by christ as mediator; which is also a remaining glory, always, going on to the perfection of glory. whatever therefore of righteousness arises any way to, or in man, not thus derived from christ, scripture calls it flesh, as being man's righteousness, not gods; and righteousness of flesh, that is, of humane erection, not god's righteousness; and so the holiness rising from men's faculties, and power, is born of flesh, and so is flesh, and is not spirit, not after the spirit; therefore it cannot see, enjoy, or enter into the kingdom of god. and this must needs be plainly our lord's sense; and thus he does not speak of flesh, corrupt flesh, as it speaks lust, and foul corruption; for that cannot pretend to have any thing to do in the matter of righteousness, and holiness; but by flesh, is to be understood creature-righteousness, and holiness, as in our present fallen state; and in regard of this, no flesh, (that is, man with all his powers, even of soul in this sinful lapsed nature; whatever is not of god in christ is this flesh,) i say, no such flesh shall boast, or glory in his presence as having obtained the glory of god, nor be justified in his sight. now by all this, it plainly appears, the gospel is so distinct, in each particular from the law, that it can no more return back into a law, according to scripture discourse, when it speaks strictly of law, as law, than the law become gospel: yet i shall further argue it more particularly, that the gospel cannot be a law in the proper scripture sense of a law; although it be to be acknowledged, the law can never cease to be, because it is eternal righteousness; and it hath, and aught to have power upon all the reserve of the light, and law of nature, and upon all the improvements of it by common grace from the helps of revealed truth in the word of god; yea, even the very saints, and servants of christ are hereby kept within bounds at any time, or in any acts, wherein the grace of christ is not present to them more abundantly; they are hereby acted to their duty; and the supreme wisdom, and grace of the gospel subordinates it to its own purposes, both in the elect, and in the non-elect, as hath been shown. and this answers all cavils about the doctrine of free grace, as if the teaching of it were antinomianism, and let men lose either to carnal licentiousness, ease and security, till the grace of god should come, and work. but even while the eye of the soul is supremely upon free grace, the free gift of righteousness, and of the spirit; yet the law binds every soul to its ultimum posse, the all it can do; and the gospel subordinates the law to engage men so to do; and though this be no condition, or qualification, on which free grace is determined; yet it is oftentimes the way, and method of supreme grace to come upon such motion, and action of the soul; not for the sake of that, but for its own sake, therefore to excite thereunto; and it is one of the wise methods of god's government of the world to make it habitable for his elects sake, to influence the hearts, and actions of men either by that light of nature, or by his gospel: all which i have prefixed, as necessary to remove all scruple, and doubt of what is to come after in the proof of this, that the gospel is not a law. for by what is said, it appears, the gospel and the law are joined; one to and with another, in sweetest consent, so that all in christ are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or under the law to christ, and neither entrench upon, nor enterfere, one with the other; but if they are divided or set one in opposition to the other, either antinomianism truly so called, or a covenant of works is brought in; even as the jews separating that law from christ, turned it to their own great ruin into a covenant of works; and the apostle intimates every where the great danger of turning the grace of god into licentiousness, or proclaiming a liberty to sin, that grace may abound; if we do not join the law under the gospel. but thus joining, and setting them in a consent, and union in the great end; the glory of grace from the foundation of the world; we honour, and establish both; and plainly understand; that the gospel is only a covenant of grace, a ministration of righteousness, life, and spirit; and yet hath so many admirable rules of holiness, such powerful commands and exhortations to it; as also to faith in christ, and repentance, so many dreadful threaten and denunciations, and so severe a judicature at the last, not in itself, but by the ministry of the law. in that the law is so prepared, as to serve it fully and adequately thereunto; and itself only, (as hath been said) is a ministration of righteousness,, and life. obj. if any should say, by what means can the gospel thus preach the law, and hold out all the perfections and severities of it, both as to itself, as a declaration of free grace only; or as to the law, as an eternal law of righteousness, and not be turned into a law? answ. the gospel being the manifestation of life, and salvation, it must needs come with a great glory of light, and truth, on every thing; wherein the whole nature of life and death, happiness and misery, the humane nature can be concerned in, stands; so that tho, it is not a law, it is yet a doctrine of the greatest amplitude, compass and extent in all things, that pertain to life and godliness, or on the other side, to sin, and death: so that as the apostle says, it hath brought life and immortality to light; so it hath brought all the other things any way related thereto to light: so than it is out of all doubt; when ever the gospel comes, a great light comes, like the morning spread on the mountains: it is therefore called, the day spring from on high, opposed to night and darkness, and the valley of the shadow of death; and so that there is a support of, and in all our greater illuminations, of natural conscience, by that eternal word, enlightening every man that comes into the world; and on this very account were those more heroic efforts of natural light, and moral philosophy, by seneca, plutarch, plotinus, simplicius, about the very time of the spread of the gospel-light by the apostles. i come therefore to decide that noble question, as i style it, whether the gospel can bear or comport with the true notion or sense of a law. to answer this question, there must be first a due understanding, and notion of a law: in the general, law may be applied to any doctrine, or determinate frame, constitution, or settlement, that cannot be changed, or varied. and thus the gospel may be called a law. but this is but a very general and lose notion of a law. there is a more strict sense of it; and it imports three things. 1. a rule of action, given by a just authority, that must be observed. 2. it supposes a power resident in the person under that command, and therefore it expects obedience without any further assistance, or gift of power, to enable in the obedience. 3. rewards, or punishments are suspended upon the obedience, or disobedience, and a just judgement must accordingly be given. but such a law, as this the gospel, a covenat of grace, cannot be, as may be argued upon these great accounts. arg. 1. there can be no law given, no rule of holy action, ●ut it must needs merge and fall into the eternal law of righteousness, and be the same with it, being so perfect, and (as hath been shown) 〈◊〉 br●●●; so that upon a supposal of a new proposal of grace, the acceptance and obedience of faith, is as much commanded by the eternal law, as any of the most natural moral duties of fear of god, or righteousness; and the same may be said of repentance. arg. 2. the supposal of the gospel's being a new law, necessarily supposes a new power given, as large as that law. so that whoever teaches the gospel a law, must also assert; all to whom the gospel comes, must have a power vouchsafed enabling them to faith and repentance; which seeing mr. william's disowns, as given to all, the argument, is very heavy upon him; but, as i have stated faith and repentance within the first law, the first power given obliges without any power vouchsafed a new, even as to all other duties of obedience, as hath been said. for the further illustration of the point, that a new law requires new power. let it be supposed adam had no power of faith, or repentance, ever given him; he could not forfeit from his posterity, what he never had. if there be then a law of faith, and repentance given, there must be a power of faith and repentance answering that law; and so there must be such universal power of grace given, as may answer that law in all, to whom it extends, as a law. but now, let us look upon faith, and repentance to be a law included within the universal law of righteousness; as i do; and as must needs be done, viz. upon two suppositions. 1. that man is fallen into sin. 2. that god is pleased to offer a mediator and a pardon, and so to accept the righteousness of another, and repentance after sin: it will then follow, the faith and repentance commanded, are but the exertions of that power of the image of god first given; for the same power that tends to conservation in the first righteousness, works to restitution to that righteousness, when lost, upon any possibility of recovery. herein therefore is the grace of the mediator to all mankind, that he hath shored up the lapsed faculties of humane nature universally; that there are some reserves of that law, and light of the first creation, some of the characters, and first impressions for very great ends, both as to the government of the world; as also to fasten the grace of the gospel unto, to whom it comes; and seeing the patience and long-suffering and bounty of god to mankind is a witness of some merciful intention. finding therefore such motions of the law of nature within, and of merciful providence without; here is so much of the general goodness of god leading men to repentance, as will leave even the gentiles without excuse at that day. now than god requiring of fallen man no other thing, than what he gave him power for at first, and what he hath by the mediator sustained him in some reserves of: according to the thoughts, therefore accusing, or excusing in the day of christ, and according to god judging the secrets of all hearts by the gospel, preserving these remaining of the law of nature, shall all be determined upon, at that day. and thus every thing stands clear and fair, according to the discourses of scripture, according to sound reason; whereas all else must be full of trouble, and rencounter, against the grace of the gospel, as against that so evident experience of god's giving the very light of the gospel by his own free will and grace; and those laws of humane justice and equity, of which we have so inward a sense; and surely in every thing it appears, that the first law of righteousness, continues, and stands fast; thus its authority falls freely on the gospel, either as there is any witness of it among the heathen; or as it is published, and made known to any by the immediate preaching and reading of it; and as the gospel for all its great uses, and ends takes it into itself: but yet still it is itself a ministration only of life, of righteousness, and of the spirit, and the transcript of the everlasting gracious purposes of god from eternity. arg. 3. if the gospel be a new law, it must have a promulgation, as universal, as it is a law; and seeing it is the only name under heaven, given to the children of men, whereby they can be saved; if it were a law, it would certainly be by the goodness and equity of god proclaimed and made known to all mankind, even to every person, for faith, repentance, and obedience; but as it is a counterpart of that supreme purpose of grace in god towards his elect, and not a law; it is enough that it be made known to so many as are called according to purpose; to all others god is at freedom; for even the general patience, and bounty of god are sufficient manifestations of some mercy, that should excite men to seek after god, and to turn from sin, and leaving them inexcusable if they do not; that natural law requiring it, when there are such hopes, to seek after god, as far as they can, according to those hopes, and manifestations, even as in all natural duties; and the case is but the same in perishing without gospel, as in perishing without law; for thus the apostle argues, while he is discoursing with pagans, (rom. 2. 3, 4.) according to natural light. but this promulgation is not sufficient for a new law of so great good to all man kind. arg. 4. the gospel, if it were a new law, it must needs be a law of works; and indeed else it were no law; for though it be sounded in grace; and though it be a law accepting sincerity in the place of perfect obedience; yet it must, if it be a law, (as some mistakingly speak and would have it) resolve itself into the last issue, into something done by ourselves, by our own power; even though we are assisted by the grace of the spirit in it; yet there must be a power in us to accept, or refuse that assistance; and if so, beside the apostle's constant remonstrance to any such works, or ●aw of works in the gospel covenant; 1. it is evident by the experiment made in adam, how hazardous the smallest dependence on our own created will is. so the promise could not be sure to the seed, as the apostle discourses, rom. 4. 2. 2. the reward would be of debt, and not of grace, because to him that worketh, though in the least of work, as the apostle expressly says, it is so, rom. 4. 4. 3. there would arise cause of boasting to him that should so work; because by that part how littlesoever, it should be of work, he improves, and exerts his power so, as thousands do not; which gives cause of boasting: now there is nothing the apostle more excludes than boasting, as most contrary to the design of god in the gospel. arg. 5. i● the gospel be a law; it is necessarily supposed to be founded in the grace of the redeemer, and in every thing weighed out by him, that it should need no further grace for the pardon of sins against it; it being a law purchased by the blood of the redeemer: now, if no sin against the law of the gospel, as that law is apprehended a law of all evangelical obedience, have the benefit of a pardon, how dreadful were all our case; for if this law allow no pardon, it is expressly assured, there remains no more sacrifice for sin, but that of the gospel; and if that extends not to sins against the gospel, there would rest nothing to us, but a certain fearful expectation of judgement, and fiery indignation: if it be said, there is no sin against this law, but final unbelief, impenitency, or insincerity, or an apostasy including all these; how imperfect then is the evangelical law that hath command only upon those final results of our state and case; and the subjects of it are either left to the law of works in all other cases; or else being under no law, there is no transgression but those forenamed. but if the law do so ratify and confirm the gospel in those grand points of faith, and repentance, by its own authority, and in all things else stand the immutable rule of holiness; then the grace of the new covenant does offer pardon and remission, by the blood of that everlasting covenant, and needs not be a law, but a fountain of pardon, and remission, and of power and strength only, as hath been explained; enabling to every act of obedience, both of faith and repentance, and all holiness, and making atonement for every disobedience, and imperfection; which it does not prevent. from all which is much the fairer and clearer state of the case in reason, and more agreeable to the scripture, duly considered and compared. add hereunto; the condemnation of every unbeliever is according to the law of righteousness, because he loves darkness rather than light, in that his deeds are evil, and so he dares not come to the light; this, saith christ, is the condemnation, joh. 3. 19 and thus, if the law does ratify and confirm the gospel with its own proper authority, as hath been asserted; every offence seemingly against the sanction of grace is condemned by the law, as primarily against itself, and so the covenant of grace is applied to for the pardon of it, and as against itself; which is all grace, as a covenant, and hath nothing of law; but as sin against the gospel it cannot but be against that eternal law to refuse grace when offered by god and christ, as will fully appear by the next argument. arg. 6. the apostle says, the gospel, or new testament, truly, properly, or strictly defined, is a ministration only of righteousness, of life, of the spirit, not of the letter, that killeth, but of the spirit that giveth life; it can therefore be no law, except upon itself; for if it minister life, righteousness, spirit only; if it writ not in tables of stone, nor with ink in paper, but in the tables of hearts, and by the spirit of the living god; and if it is not only written in the heart, (as the apostle says, the law is written in the hearts of all men; which may be turned by disobedience to it, into an accusing record;) but gives a mighty spirit enabling, and a gracious pardon remitting, as is evident by the whole covenant of grace; if all this be so, than whatever it charges, it charges upon itself; that it hath not so ministered as it takes upon is to minister; and that it hath not ministered as such a ministration, as it asserts itself to be to all, that are within it as its proper subjects; it must fault itself, as the other covenant was found fault with, because they broke it that were under it. but seeing this cannot be supposed of so glorious a ministration; the gospel cannot be a law requiring and condemning, when not obeyed; but a covenant of grace ministering righteousness and pardon, and not condemnation for what ever is against the eternal law, on the gospel account, as well as on the law's accounted; and so giving power, and enabling to whatever the law requires on its own, or the gospel account: lastly, ministering righteousness, and pardon in whatever, it ministers only in degrees, and not to perfection. having thus determined upon the second head, that however the law and the gospel unite, one with the other in several great concernments, and interests of both; yet neither can the law pass into gospel, nor the gospel become a law. i come therefore to the third head to make out, that the humiliation under the sight and sense of sin, effected by the spirit of bondage; faith in christ, and repentance, are not qualifications, or conditions of an interest in christ or justification by his righteousness, but are effluxes from electing love, and from christ the mediator, and from his righteousness and redemption; and whoever has a sense of these great concernments of eternity, is not to wait for these as qualifications, or conditions, but to hasten to christ, to fly to him for refuge, to be found in him, and look to christ for all these great effects, and to expect them from him; as such effects; for such they are to all the elect; though to the non elect, they are branches of the same eternally righteous law; upon promulgation of the gospel of salvation by christ, and upon the very acknowledgement of christ as a saviour, and the general sense of our lost state. i lay in the non-elect also, an uniformity in the order, of first looking to christ upon those two great declarations of the gospel. 1. that all men are lost and undone in themselves; which rises up also from evident, even sense and experience. 2. that in jesus christ there is life and salvation for sinners; from whence also it naturally follows in reason and true arguing; as the apostle observes; if one died for all, then were all dead; so that proposition, that christ hath died for sinners, may be in divine declaration, as well first, as the other, viz. that all are lost without christ; the very preaching of christ, infers in all true judgement, as the apostle reasons; that all are lost in themselves; i know not, then why in regard of its dignity, it may not be first, that jesus christ died for sinners; or why not so in most absolute consideration? for though it is true in our state, our lost state is before the offer of salvation in christ in time; yet grace in christ is first in the purpose of god before the world began; and the permission of the fall, and of our lost state upon it, came in after: i know not therefore why that great proposition, god so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten son, that whoever believes in him, should not perish, but have eternal life; should not be throughout the supreme, and first, and carry the other in it; that then all were dead: and when the proposition the apostle gives, that christ died for the chief of sinners, is first; then the belief and acceptation shall follow; and the abundance of grace, and the gift of righteousness, draw, invite, and invigorate the reception of it. i say therefore, even to non-elect, as well as to the elect, the first thing to be offered is chrsst himself, to be received and believed on; he than is the foundation and fountain of all, even of that which is called condition and qualification: for if we do but weigh two things, it must needs resolve us in this matter. arg. 1. if redemption be redemption, it must itself be before all things of qualification, or condition; else it were not redemption; according as christ is said to be the author of salvation to them, who, (he being the author of it) obey him; forasmuch, as that is so great a point of salvation, and he the author of all salvation, is therefore of that, viz. obeying him. does not christ draw all to him? is not the grace of our lord abundant with faith and love, that are not brought to him, but in him? does not the eye, the look of the grace of christ upon any sinner move him as peter, to sorrow after god, to faith, repentance, humble sense of sin? and therefore what is a sinner to do but to look to christ to be saved; to look on him whom he hath pierced? and even such prescriptions, to look to him, to come to him, are held out to souls, principally though our duty be included, but in attendance on the grace of christ, to see how, where, and on whom it will move: and in the very nature of the thing, it is impossible, any qualification should be before hand to him, who is come not only to save, but to seek that which is lost: it is most true therefore if any be christ's, these things shall in their time be all manifested in them, for they are prepared for them. arg. 2. what is it by which we are redeemed? is it not the righteousness, sufferings, death, blood and obedience of christ? must not these then be in their power, motion, and actuation before any thing else? seeing by faith we are saved, which is the gift of god; must not the author of salvation and of faith give that? and does god give any such grace, by which we are saved, but through the redemption of christ, for his sake? and because he hath first given his son, does not he give all these to unite us to him? does not his blood purchase, and bestow that faith in his blood? must it not needs be then true; as we believe that we may be justified; so also most true; those sheep for whom christ hath laid down his life, those he must bring in; and now are they brought in, but by believing? if therefore they are brought in by faith, he that must bring them in, must take effectual care, that they may believe: and seeing he laid down his life for his sheep, and gives them eternal life; all must be on the same title, and tenure, viz. his life laid down; so faith is no more a condition, or qualification, than justification, or eternal life, nor any other grace preparatory, or perfectory; but what free grace itself undertakes for. object. but it may be said there is an order of the links of the chain of salvation; and vocation (wherein faith and repentance are contained) is in order before justification, and so may stand as a qualification, and condition to justification, and none may presume to touch at justification or pardon till they are qualified by faith, and repentance, given in vocation before justification, rom. 8. answ. it hath been already acknowledged there is a wise and holy order in the several links of the chain of salvation, but not by such a way of dependence, as should lessen the dignity, the equal determination, and certainty of each part in the eternal foreknowledge, and electing love of god in christ. accordingly therefore, it is acknowledged there is an order of vocation, or calling before justification, rom. 8. and of wisdom before righteousness, 1 cor. 1. 31. but this calling is the first change of the state of every elect person from sin to god; the delivery from the power of darkness, and translation into the kingdom of the lord jesus, the dear son of god: for he hath called us, saith the apostle, out of darkness into his marvellous light: it is the turning from darkness to light, it is the cutting out of the olive, and vine, wild by nature, and the implanting into the true vine, and olive; it is the beginning of faith, and repentance, and of all holiness, and sense of eternity, (though they have a further state in sanctification, and distinct from calling) which is the true passing from death to life, and always abides so. it is a voice alarming the soul at the first. it is the voice of the son of god, quickening whom he will; but then, that which shows, this is not a condition or qualification only is; that vocation, or calling does not go off, it is still vocation, it is a holy calling, even until glory: it is wisdom without any change, as the word certainly assures; there can be no more return to folly. it is a calling in this regard, it is a certain abiding therein with god; so scripture every where speaks of it; it is a calling to glory, and virtue; a calling to obtain salvation; so saith the apostle, you see your calling; who hath called us with an holy calling, called according to purpose, as he who hath called you is holy; all these expressions plainly show, this calling is a settled, established grace, even, as justification, and together with it entering into glory; so that to make calling a mere qualification, or condition, is to degrade it from the high dignity, scripture hath invested it with; i account it the first hand of grace still holding the soul, so that though there be justification, and sanctification, a work of faith fulfilled with power, repentance never to be repent of; and the whole course of sanctification goes on to the day of christ; yet that first work is itself secured by grace, as all the rest of the works of grace: so that, as the apostle says, the gifts, and (calling) of god are without repentance, it is never recalled; and in the same manner may be discoursed concerning sanctification. it is no qualification for, or condition of glory; but there is real self-subsistence of each of these, for their own worth and excellency; and though they are sitted for, and connected one with the other in infinite wisdom, and prudence, eph. 1. 8. yet they are also independent, and self-subsistent also, in the divine decree; each one by itself, and all from free grace. this then assures, none of those great links of salvation, however joined one to another, but is yet of itself, and by itself, but all still of free grace; because none of them go off, but remain together with all the others to eternity. the very first call hath an eternal abiding; justification by the righteousness of christ, sanctification by the spirit of christ abide, and continue, even as glory itself: calling is as free as justification: for except that grand foundation; being of god in christ, by eternal election, what qualification, or condition, can there be of cutting out of the wild olive or vine, unless to be in the wild ones, or in darkness, are made a condition? sanctification, or making perfect in every good work to do his will, and working in us what is wellpleasing in his sight is as much secured as glorification is; and justification may as well be called a condition of sanctification, (for god sanctifies none but whom he justifies) as calling a condition of justification, or sanctification of glorification. seeing then (cutting off only some particularities) as proper to the present state; all these are of god in christ, and are found together in the state of grace here, and perfected each distinct in glorification; and glorification distinct from them all, and by itself in that illustrious state of saints; superadded to all that perfection of grace, even in glory; i may conclude none of them is either qualification, or condition, but of and by itself in free grace. and this is caution, limitation, prevention of deception sufficient; that no one part can be without the other. scripture therefore speaking of these things so freely, so manifoldly; it shows all is alike, free-gift, freegrace; all is in connexion, and inseparable concatenation, and indefailable certainty to the elect; and grace opens sometimes one way sometimes another; as to appearance or manifestation. but whoever is to be advised or directed to the most wise and hopeful method, in case of doubt; it is to lie at the foot of god through christ, for all grace from first to last; and not to stay for, or rest in any of our preparations, or qualifications; but to press up as near, and as close to christ as we can; and happy is he, whom he calleth so to do, for from whom else can we hope for any, for so much as the first turn of our souls to god, himself, and into the whole way everlasting, as from, in, and throu●h him alone. and 〈◊〉 have dispatched the third head i proposed, and come to the forth and last i am yet to speak to; and that is, that the procedure of the judgement of christ at that great day; however it be represented in regard of the exactness, righteousness, and equity of it, as if it was, and shall be by the examination of every man's works, and an application of those works to law, and that the law, as vindicating the gospel; yet from undoubted, and undeniable grounds of scripture it must needs be, that the good, and the bad are judged by their very appearance in, and out of christ, and so found written, or not found written, in the book of life: and that so every man's case is determined, and yet that the works of the servants of christ, cloth, apparel, and adorn them; or as the scripture says, fellow them; and the works of evil men, or their sin finds them out, comes, as water into their bowels, and as oil to their bones; is as the garment that covers them, and as the girdle, wherewith they are girded continually. notwithstanding this all these three things are most admirable in the grand oeconomy of that day; which the father only, and not so much, as the created humane nature of christ could adjust, or set in order, or in that sense knows, or hath cognizance of. 1. the spirits of good, and evil men re-invested with bodies, must necessarily be understood to return into them with those resentments, they had in the enjoyment of christ, or in separation from him; the happiness of the one, and misery of the other: for it is not possible to be supposed, that such their re-investiture should stupefy, and benumb, and efface, what they were so newly in the full sense of; that to me is the great argument against pre-existence; that there are no traces of the sentiments, in that former supposed existence, without which no improvement can be apprehended to be made of the state before this, and the experiences therein; but we are as much strangers to them, as if it were on all sides confessed, we never were before. this would be much stranger here, when the whole man, spirit, soul, and body, are immediately to enter into the full possession of the happiness, or misery, before enjoyed, or sadly felt; and therefore can by no means be supposed to lose what they had, both in regard of the justice of god upon that state of spirits, as in prison; and what is to be further executed upon them: and much more in regard of his grace to spirits, that had been as the apostle says with christ, and that are so immediately to appear in bodies of glory. 2. the very company, and especially the great head, and prince under whom, and with whom the saints, appear does most illustriously show their pardon, and perfect absolution and justification from all their sin; and the perfected, completed holiness, and inherent righteousness, received from the imputed righteousness and spirit, communicated by his spirit, of christ: so that they appear in robes made white in the blood of the lamb, and with palms of victory in their hands: they are just men made every way perfect; their sins are blotted out, when the times of refreshing come from the presence of the lord: herein they are above judgement in themselves, even as christ their head; their appearing with him is their immediate justification; both according to the eternal law, and everlasting gospel, and with him they judge angels, and the world; but those who have no interest in christ, not being with him, even that is their condemnation; that he knows them not, that they are made to departed, and to go away from him: thus he that is justified is for ever justified, and he that is filthy, and unrighteous is so for ever. all which is in one view determined by being with, or not with jehovah our righteousness the sun of righteousness, arising with glory in his rays, or righteousness upon us, or healing in his wings. and this is according to what hath been said and according to all that hath been discoursed of our being found in christ, and receiving all from him; and so apprehending that state of perfection, for which we are apprehended of christ jesus. 3. the very view, and appearance in bodies of glory and light, and purity; called armies of heaven, on white horses, in linen white and clean, bodies made like to his glorious body, by that power of his subduing all things to itself; the being made like to christ by seeing him, as he is; does without any other law, but the law of the spirit of life in christ jesus, set free from the law of sin and death sufficiently; declare saints to be so without laying them to any other law; and all the wicked are known by their bodies of shame and contempt; like men condemned, and known to be so by their prison , their chains, and fetters: sheep are presently known, and goats appear goats by that very law of appearance. and thus i have laid down the great doctrine of the new-testament in these points, as i have reason from such an abundant scripture evidence to be assured: let me for a conclusion recommend to all the ministers of the gospel, the due consideration of the whole matter; for it is of most exceeding concernment to our ministry; this is our enablement, our sufficiency, as ministers of the new-testament, to preach not the letter, but the spirit; to preach it as a ministration of righteousness, and not of condemnation; as a ministration not of the letter, but of the spirit; for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life. thus we shall minister it in its abiding, continuing glory, as it shall continue in the kingdom of christ, set out in all its freeness, and in all its efficacy: we cannot else triumph in manifesting the savour of the knowledge of christ, nor will our ministry be of sufficiency to be a savour of death unto death to the lost, as it ought to be according to the divine ordination laid down by the apostle, 2 cor. c. 2, 3. for if the full, and true grace of the gospel be not set out, as a ministration of righteousness, of life, and of the spirit; it does not offer to men the great gospel experiment, whether it is unto them a savour of life unto life, or of death unto death; they have not that high savour of the knowledge of christ, that is the instrument of grace, as by a most divine, and heavenly suffumigation or perfume of life to excite, and bring to life; such a stream of life to give life from the spirit; nor on the other side, till this be administered, can it according to this gospel canon, or rule be said; that the ministry of it is a savour of death unto death; for to whomsoever this high savour of life is not administered, there is not that conclusion to be made, it is of death unto death; herein being the strength of the crisis, or distinction, if the highest savour of the gospel give not life, the only flavour of life be not effectual to life, be but like a dead savour, effect nothing, produce nothing of life; it must needs be argued, such are unto death: and even the gospel preached, concludes them unto death, when it does not prevail; if the most irradiant light of christ the image of god shining to men does not enlighten; such a hiding demonstrates such lost, and their case desperate. rationalizing, moralising upon the gospel; yea, scripture legalizing upon it, without a continual interweaving this high spirituality, and rich grace of it, cannot thus conclude, seal and bind up: if the fountain and sources of light and life be not kept clear, and open; though men do indeed die, and perish for want of life and light, yet they are not sealed and bound up for death as the true preaching of the grace of the gospel by this ordination of god declared here by the apostle, does. the close experiment for want of this ministration of the new testament is not made; for the apostle says, who is sufficient so to preach the gospel, as that it should be; if not a savour of life unto life, the principal purpose, design and scope of it; then of death unto death: this sufficiency, saith he, is of god, who hath therein sufficientized to minister the new testament, not as of a letter that kills; but as of the spirit that giveth life; so that though it be not indeed to all a ministration of the spirit giving life to all; yet it is not our male admistration; for we are by such a faithful discharge of ourselves a savour of death unto death, without which so faithful a discharge, we could not be so; for such a preaching only, as was said, puts such a crisis upon persons, makes such a tremendous gospel experiment, which the only wise god hath yet ordained, should be made by the free gospel preaching. and that this experiment may be made; saith the apastle; we take great care not to allay the high flavour of the gospel, by any mixture of the doctrine of works with that of grace; as they, who minding their own advantages, make a trade of debasing, what is most excellent, by vending worse in temperament with nobler liquors: but with greatest sincerity as in the sight of god, we bring forth only pure gospel supreme grace; and herein we use all freedom, clearness, frankness, openness and boldness, in manifesting this: no darkened, unintelligible doubling between grace and works; as moses who veiled so the gospel-part of his ministry, that it became a ministration of death: and because paul knew how distasteful this purity of preaching is to the condemned world, that would yet be righteous; and to the proud and stately powers of reason and free will: he says, we arm ourselves with a divine courage, and constancy in pursuing this ministry; and will not on any account whatsoever, use art, or guile; but with all integrity represent truth in its own light, and leave to god the discrimination of the lost; to whom this preaching is as the jealousie-water, to discover them, when their very mind, the highest rational part, being blinded by the god of this world, find not the rays of the glory of the gospel of christ, (who is the image of god, and all our perfection is likeness to him) shining to them. wherein the apostle manifestly alludes, to what he had said of the superior glory of the gospel to that of the law, though that gave such a glo●y to moses his face: and he alludes also to the veil on moses his face upon that glory, and to the veil on the hearts of the jews to this day. implying, that not to receive this pure gospel light, is like jewish unbelief, who stumbled at that stumbling-block of exalting works, and their own righteousness above christ and grace. it is true indeed, this preaching up of our works, endeavours, relying upon our own action, is very plausible, and seems to carry greater force, as being more a kin to our first constitution under the first adam. and of this the apostle also gives a secret (as we say) gird, when in this so great point, he interposes not without great design; we preach not ourselves. as if preaching, intermingled with works, and humane powers of holiness, were setting up and exalting ourselves into a dominion over men's consciences; but saith he, we preach christ the only lord, and ourselves servants i● so high a ministry: and in this epistle, chap. 11. they who even with design against the grace of the gospel, teach the law, are as the apostle says, in the appearance of angels of light, and ministers of righteousness, zealous enforcers of holiness, and good life; if yet they stop up these springs, and are enemies of this grace, they are false apostles, and ministers of satan; evil workers, as the apostle calls them, in a taunt of their high pretence to works; and others for want of true distinguishing thoughts, desirous, and most propended to be teachers of the law, and yet dare not desert the grand gospel-principles; know not what they speak, nor whereof they affirm; that is, do not accurately think, nor speak, nor reconcile themselves to themselves; for, the law is good if a man use it lawfully, that is, according to the gospel direction of it; but pure perfect law, is only pointed, set against those, upon whom the gospel hath not effect, who are given up by it as incurable, and unto death. this i speak not, i appeal to him, who searcheth hearts, with reflection on any person, or sort of persons; and least upon mr. williams; of whom i desire much other esteem: but to move and persuade him and all preachers of the gospel to reconcile all their notions, disputes, preaching the glorious gospel of the blessed god committed to their trust; which the apostle hath defined to be then sufficiently preached, when it is primarily, and till the gospel hath remanded the lost under the aggravated condemnation of the law, for refusing the grace of the gospel; till then, i say, the new testament is to be preached, as a ministration of the spirit, and not of the letter; for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life, a ministration of life, not of death, not of condemnation, but of righteousness; which ministration shall in a short time be with open face, and all veils removed; the lord drawing near, and all turning to him, beholding christ the image of god, and the glory of god, in the face of christ; we shall be changed into the same image, from the glory of a lower degree now, to the glory that shall be in perfection, by the mighty effusions of that spirit, who is jehovah, that shall so soon be. now, this high and richest gospel treasure we have, saith the apostle, at the present, but in vessels of earth, men of like corruptions, and guilt; low, and base appearances of outward condition and state, and of the vile and dying bodies for sin; that the excellency of divine grace, and power may be exalted alone throughout, and throughout: for at the present we have, as the apostle saith, all this glory but in hope; we see yet but as in a glass, though with an open face, this glory: but when the angelical ministry, rev. 14. 6. shall in the kingdom of christ be missioned and sent out, this ministration shall so exceed in glory, that all other glory of humane righteousness shall utterly disappear; and when it comes, it shall for ever remain. and this shall he when the israel of god, shall be called, and turned to the lord; and that shall be when 〈◊〉 times are at an end, as christ says, luke 21. 24. and when the eclipse on the 〈◊〉 churches going off they shall have a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a full orbed light, as that word, rom. 1●. 25. opposed to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or eclipse in that chapter, properly signifies; and all this shall, i doubt not, begin at 1697. finis. truth's manifest revived, or a farther discovery of mr. stucley and his churches causeless excommunication of mrs. marry allein. wherein the former narrative and observations on mr. stucleys' sermon, are reprinted and his late scandalous pamphlet, falsely entitled (manifest truth) answered and refuted. by toby allein of exon. matth. 16.2. they shall put you out of the synagogues; yea the time cometh that whosoever killeth you, will think that he doth god service. pro. 10.18. he that hideth hatred with lying lips, and he that uttereth a slander is a fool. london. printed by r. d. for francis eglesfield, at the marigold in s. paul's churchyard, 1659. an advertisement to the reader. forasmuch as my narrative was soon out of print, and came not to the hands of many, that desired a sight thereof, and many that have seen it may perhaps, desire fuller satisfaction in the case, especially considering, that my fierce adversary, by his new erected pamphlet called (manifest truth) by unsufferable falsities and odious reflections represents us, and it, unworthy of any credit to all, designing thereby to veil and vizard his and his churches unwarrantable practice, after seeking and sending unto him to condescend to a true stating of the case, and a fair hearing, and debate of the business by godly ministers and christian friends of each side, in order to peace; all being rejected by him, i am (for the farther vindication of truth, satisfaction of others, and reparation of our bleeding names and reputations so massacred and torn in pieces by this land-leviathan) forced a second time to the press, to reprint my narrative, together with some few sheets by way of reply and answer to his scurrilous pamphlet: nothing but truth is presented, and your patience and impartial consideration is desired by thy friend toby allein. we under-written neighbours to mr. toby allein citizen of the city of exeter, having for several years now last passed had knowledge of him, do bear testimony that he is of good name and reputation, well esteemed of, and beloved for his godly conversation, and his honest and just deal towards men, to whose words credit is given, and his actions well resented, and hath been entrusted with, and executed the public office of one of the stewards or bailiffs within the said city, elected thereunto by the major and common counsel of the same: and always well-affected to the commonwealth, and very active in, and as captain, raised a company for his highness' service. james pearse, major. henry prigge, sheriff. thomas bampfylde recorder. thomas westlakes, town-clerk of the said city. thomas ford alderman. james martial. simon snow alderman. christopher clarke, juni. james gould alderman bernard bartlet. ralph herman alderman. john pym. richard evans alderman. william bruen richard crossing alderman. john aclaud nicolas broking alderman. walter holditch. richard sweet alderman. thomas tack. henry gaudy receiver. stewards of the city of exeter. john gupwill. edmond star. william pynny. edward anthony. william pyne. william shewer. henry mills notary public. john goswell. to the reader. courteous reader, as i never deserved, so i never desired to be in print; but necessity that knows no law, hath compelled me; and that i hope may be a sufficient excuse for me, i am the husband of one of those poor women whom mr. lewis stucley and his church in exon; (as much as in them lay) lately delivered unto satan, and not content by that unrighteous censure to defame her. mr. thomas mall, (assistant to the said church) hath since (questionless with mr. stucleys' consent and privity) published the notes of the sermon (preached upon that occasion, and at that very time) to spread those false reports they have raised, as far as possible they can. the sense of this dishonour, and reproach upon my wife and myself in her, hath occasioned me to make a true report of all transactions of theirs in and about that matter: so to vindicate my nearest relation, and undeceive those who otherwise are in danger of believing lies. i shall not trouble the reader with mr. malls' impertinent quotations of many learned and reverend men, because what he saith from them, is nothing to our purpose. the question is not what excommunication is, or whether a particular church may excommunicate, or (if it be) let the learned dispute it. the only question is, whether mr. stucley and his church have walked by the rule of christ, in the application of that censure to these persons; and this i deny, and say, there were no crimes proved that might argue the parties guilty, or deserving such a censure, in the judgement of any impartial and understanding men; and their unblamable walkings before, and since, may justly challenge mr. stucley, and his church to answer what they have done, before the tribunal of him, who shall judge the world in righteousness. for this i appeal to all that shall be pleased to exercise their patience in perusing the following narrative together with those short observations that i have made upon such sad passages in mr. stucleys' sermon, as have an odious reflection upon the censured parties beyond all truth and reason. i shall no longer detain the reader, but only desire him to consider impartially of what is here offered and judge accordingly. thine and the truth's friend toby allein. exon. may 10. 1658. the narrative. about the year 1648. the ordinances of christ, being all of them administered by mr. mark down in his church at exeter, i, and my wife considering with ourselves, that for the space of two or three years then last passed, we had not partaked of the lords supper, and being desirous to partake thereof, we thought it our duty to endeavour to be admitted to join with that church in that ordinance, and having made our addresses, we were (after examination) admitted, and did partake in all ordinances with them. about two years after, mr. stucley beginning to gather a church in exeter in the congregational way, a friend of ours, telling us what purity of ordinances and excellent administrations they had amongst them, even to admiration, and desiring me to ride to bideford to behold the gospel-order they had in mr. william bartlet's church there, and the excellent manner of administration of the ordinances by him, we being by this great report of purer ordinances and administrations, rapt up into a fools paradise, forthwith desired our friend to propose us to mr. stucleys' congregation for our reception, which he did accordingly, and upon notice from him at the day appointed, we presented ourselves at their meeting; and (being desired) we spoke our experiences, and so were dismissed until another time, when we were sent for by them, and accordingly came, and were admitted; and continued in fellowship with them about four years; after which time during our said fellowship: there was a petition, in the name of the church, brought to my house for me to sign, the substance of which was to pray the lord protector not to accept of the kingly office, and it was said, there was a clause in it, to pray the lord protector to dissolve the parliament. whereupon i told the party that brought it, that the parliament were wise enough for state-affairs, with which they were entrusted, and for me, or any private person, to meddle with such great matters, were very foolishness, and so refused to sign it; the party that brought this petition told me, that it was to be signed only by seven of the church in the name of the whole; and accordingly it was signed by some few of the church, and sent up, others of the church not knowing thereof, until the rumour thereof was spread about the whole city, the which my wife observing, said, this is no fair dealing, and desired me to be wary what i did. this being the first disrelish my wife had of their proceed, it was seconded by a friend that came to my house, who asked me whether i had signed the petition that the church had sent up? to whom i answered, i had not, he replied i am glad with all my heart you did not, for (said he) there is that in the petition for which some eminent statesmen have lost their heads, and said, it was judged by the long parliament to be treason for any one to counsel or persuade the king to dissolve the parliament, as you may see in the cases of the archbishop, and strafford. my wife hearing this discourse, her heart began to grow, and could not but vent herself a little, saying, that she feared the church carried on some particular man's interest, and begged me i would be exceeding wary what i did, and have respect to myself, her, and our children; but yet (as to the church was very quiet) the next time that we went to the church-meeting, was a day of prayer; at which time, one amongst the rest prayed much after the rate of the petition; and had this passage concerning the lord protector: lord humble him, what would he have? is he not high enough already? and a great deal more of such stuff, when i and my wife came home, she asked me how i like those passages, and said me thinks it is like mr. feaks praying; i answered her, and said, if he pray so again, i will never hear him more: hereupon my wife began to flag in her affection towards their way, and now every thing that was amiss began to be thought on by her, and in particular, the expressions of some of their members, who, in making out their experiences at their admissions, spoke of such sins as are not to be named, which thing she said bordered too nigh auricular confession. the next time my wife went to the meeting, was a day appointed by the church for thanksgiving, for that god was pleased to prevent some insurrection by the fift-monarchy-men, & for that the lord protector would not accept the kingly office, when she had waited long at the place, the people were dismissed without doing any thing for that time, for that the lord protector had then given but his first negative answer. my wife returned home much discontented that i had not told her the occasion of that days meeting before she went, and said, that for her part, she apprehended that some of them did carry on a selfish carnal design. after this there was a covenant brought into the church, to be debated in order to the taking there of, and all or a great part thereof was assented unto by them; but my wife having a copy thereof from the elder, she utterly disliked it, especially, two particulars therein; the one whereof was a tying of them up wholly to hear them when they preached, and no other without their leave; and the other was, that we were to expect a greater blessing from god on their ministry then any others. all these particulars being laid together made such impressions on her thoughts, that she resolved, not to join any longer with them on such terms, or in the manner as formerly, but forthwith went and joined herself to mr. mark downs church from whence she formerly departed, professing her hearty sorrow for her departure thence, and saying, she was persuaded the lord had manifested his displeasure against her for the same, which she apprehended by reason of those many visitations on herself, and the death of her children; the thursday next before the sacrament at mr. stucleys' church, i did notwithstanding desire her to go with me to the meeting in way of preparation thereunto, but she refused, alleging the reasons before mentioned; whereupon one of mr. stucleys' church, that was likewise absent from the meeting, seeing my wife at work in her porch, asked her, what was the reason that she was not at the meeting; she answered, i think i shall not come there any more, thereupon he asked her, saying, why then did you come among us, you may go among the presbyterians to mr. ford, who is for general admission, as (said he) he declared, at the last general meeting of the ministers in exeter: hereupon my wife desired me to go with her to mr. ford, which i did, and she asked of him, whether he did ever declare himself to be for general admission to the lords supper, who answered, he was never of that opinion, and whosoever said that he was, did much wrong him. this traducing of mr. ford, and their common slighting of others, that are not of their way (though never so godly) helped to heighten her dissatisfaction. within few days after came one (now an elder of their church) to admonish my wife for not coming to their private meetings; to whom she answered, she intended to come no more amongst them; for that there was such kind of praying and carrying on designs, that she could no way close with, and referred him to me for the farther knowledge of her mind: shortly after he brings with him one more, and after that others came, but she would give them no other answer then formerly, nor admit of any other private discourse, with them (remembering how mr. parr was entangled by them) unless they would admit two persons, whom she should appoint to hear their discourse; this would not presently be granted, pretending, that no others were to have to do with the business of their church, which i look upon as a dangerous principle; but at length they consented; and when both parties met together; they were asked what they had to lay to her charge, who answered to this effect, that they charged her for going from their church; which they said was schism, and no other thing had they to charge her withal; to whom the other party answered, saying, you are the schismatics in rending from other churches, and produced mr cawdries book to prove the same; which was all the substance of the debate at that meeting. shortly after this, mr. stucley desires to speak with my wife, who sent him word that she would not come to him single or alone, but if he & mr. mall pleased to meet two other ministers with her, that she should nominate, she would submit to their joint determination: but this was utterly refused by him; although it was offered him again & again. after the former admonition by those of the church, i myself used arguments to persuade her to return to master stucleys' church; pressing them with so much eagerness, and harshness, that i have cause to repent, for straining the strings so high, that it broke out into some words of heat, and discontent; but at length, i and my wife accorded to have the case justly stated, whether those things before mentioned, at which she was so much offended, were sufficient cause to withdraw from mr. stucleys' church, and go to another. now where to find fit persons for the resolving of this question, we knew not for the present, being both of us tender to engage the ministers of this city, lest it might prove of ill consequence, or beget some animosity between them upon the determination of the question; and therefore we mutually agreed to go to taunton; where we thought we might be well satisfied by some friends there, without more ado; the time for our journey was prefixed and the day came, but a friend that was to accompany us, being employed upon some public business, our journey was put off, and no other day appointed; my wife having waited about ten days longer, and i too often pressing arguments against her withdrawing from mr. stucleys' church, she became impatient of farther delay, & told me that she would go somewhere to be resolved, and rising early in the morning, having given a charge to her chiefest servant-maid to be careful of her children until her return, she went away, but whether she went i knew not for the present, which exceedingly troubled me; i then apprehending the ill use would be made thereof. towards the evening of the same day i understood that my wife was gone to honiton, whether i road that evening unto her, and we lodged there that night in a very friendly manner, and the next morning when i awaked, ask her whether she intended her journey, she told me that i had too long delayed her, and that she was now resolved for taunton to her friends, to be satisfied about the former question; and for that purpose had sent to a kinsman of ours in somerset, to bring my mare, which he there kept, and furniture with him to honiton, to carry her to taunton; which was brought that morning accordingly; and i had then a great mind to have carried her thither, but our friend with us, having urgent occasions to return to exeter, we willingly came home together with him; resolving upon another journey thither afterwards; which we undertook accordingly. but failed of that full fatisfaction we expectedâ�ª mr. stucley having been there with our friends before hand, and (as i have cause to suspect) had tampered with them about our business; shortly after we were returned from honiton, i remembered my wife of her failing or miscarriage, in not acquainting me with her journey, who answered (with tears) that she was sensible of the evil thereof, but intended no harm thereby, and desired the lord to humble her, and forgive her for it, and prayed me to forgive her, which i did with all my heart. now, reader, i have given thee the true and impartial state and story of the occasion, manner & end of my wife's going to honiton, which mr. stucley hath represented by a false perspective, or multiplying-glass, and most unworthily terms, running away from her husband; whereof she never had the least thought. behold, and wonder, this is her capital crime, that he parallels with incest, this (by his doctrine) is a sin unpardonable by a husband, without his church's satisfaction: but (that i may not digress, but go on with the story) take notice, that his church (poor souls) being possessed & bemisted with prejudice, though they knew neither the occasion, nor end of her journey, they too gladly take advantage thereby, and hereupon two others of his church were sent to my wife, with whom she refused conference, unless upon the terms before expressed, and began to be very rough with them; telling them, that they should forbear her house, for that she apprehended they did set her husband at variance with her, she having seen a letter of mr. savery, one of their members, written unto me, carrying so much (if not more) in the sense thereof; and she having likewise heard the expression of another member of theirs, who, speaking concerning my wife; said unto me, if the unbeliever departed, let her departed: after this mr. stucley, with mr. mall, pretended they had a mind to treat with two other ministers (but such as themselves should nominate) about the premises, whereupon my wife proposed mr. ford and mr. mark down to treat with them, both of which mr. stucley refused, saying, he had burnt his fingers with mr. ford already, and mr. downe was an engaged or a prejudieed man. so that proposal took no effect: hereupon reports were printed, by several of the members of mr. stucleys' church; that they had an intent to proceed against my wife, by way of excommunication, whereat i took occasion to abstain from their private meetings, at which they were much offended, and sent to me, to come to the church, which occasioned me to write them this following letter in answer, which i thought good here to insert at large, that the reader may see the truth of what mr. stucley says, that i never did or said any thing to prevent it. a letter from mr. toby allein to mr. lewis stucley to be communicated to his church, before they excommunicated his wife. christian friends, the occasion of my writing to you is this, mr. rolls and mr. eveleigh were with me yesterday, desiring me to come to your meeting this day, which i was minded to do, but considering with myself, what was best to be done, i chose rather to write because of my unfitness to speak, especially before some, who have already much defamed me, as to make me a perjured man; and why? because mr. mark down baptised my child, other defamations there have been, but i spare, and forgive without their ask me mercy, if you desire a reason of my forbearance of your company, it is this, when my wife and you differed, i could seldom meet with any of you, but a little after salute, presently the discourse was about my wife, in which i could take no felicity, it being but as vinegar or gravel to my teeth, especially the saying of one, if the unbeliever departed, let her departed, this and such like say begat in me some dissatisfaction, which, for want of better observation, i thought zeal, which, when my good father heard of, i remember his advice was this, next to peace with god, and your own conscience, which is the effect of the former, preserve peace in your family, especially with your wife, which i have done, and shall maintain, and if any be offended thereat, let them be offended, although you be very dear unto me still, for whom i suffer daily; as for my absence from your private meetings, to me it seems unreasonable any one should ask a reason thereof, you know what debates and discourses you have had about my wife, and how disagreeing to a husband's affection would it have been, if i should have been there, especially, being of another apprehension as to that thing, than you were, for i perceive after long and serious consideration, that the first ground of my wife's distaste with you, was her earnest love to me, fearing some evil might happen as to my life, or estate by joining with you in a petition you sent up to my lord protector, which was occasioned thus: there was a man of good understanding came to visit me, amongst the rest of our discourse, he asked me whether i had signed the petition the church sent up, i answered, no; he replied, i am glad with all my heart you did not, for there is that in it, for which some eminent statesmen have lost their lives, and that was for seeking to dissolve the parliament, which my wife hearing desired me i would have a care. after wards other things followed, which increased this dissatisfaction; and truly made me to stagger; such things as these (indeed) are the only way to break and ruin the church; besides this, how am i perplexed to hear daily the scoffs and taunts wherewith some of our brethren have every where at their doors, and shops, and tables vilified her, for whom i am to leave father and mother: for my forbearance of the lords table, i have (i confess desired to be humbled for it) abstained too long, too long. but you know who is unsatisfied with me (thomas savery) and as i suppose, can hardly sit with me, and as to the other churches of christ here, i have forborn in part to partake with them, because i would not offend you; but having well consulted with those more wise and godly than myself, i have taken up this resolution to seek the lord to prepare me to partake with both, as occasion offers; and i shall endeavour to wipe off (what i can) that ill name, which i fear is too justly laid on us (separatists.) now, i shall desire you to send me word, whether i shall meet you at the lords table the next time, that i may dispose of myself according as i shall hear from you, & if you have any thing to offer me in writing, i shall kindly receive it, and return you answer with all humility; praying daily for you all, i recommend you to god, & remain, yours to command in any service for christ, toby allein. exon. 4. feb. 1657. to my honoured friend mr. lewis stucley to be communicated to the church, who (they say) are unsatisfied. this letter was sent and delivered into mr. stucleys' hands, at the meeting of the church; who did not communicate the same according to the direction thereof (and therein (i think) was neither faithful to me, nor his church) but the reason thereof (as one of the members told me) was, for that he apprehended there wes somewhat in it that might dissatisfy the church; but what that should be, i know not, unless he feared it might hinder their proceed against my wife, neither could i ever get their answer thereunto, whether i might partake with them, and other churches of christ also, as occasion should present, whereof i speaking to some of their members, their answer was, that they were loath to admit me to partake with them in my sins: and i demanding of them, what were the sins they charged me withal? they told me it was disorderly walking; and being asked in what particulars; they did instance in my carrying my child, and baptising it at master downes church, and my not coming to their private meetings. the next news we heard, was a summons in writing, sent by mr. stucley unto my wife, giving, her notice of his church's resolutions to proceed to excommunication of her, on monday the eighth of march then following; which was in these words. the summons. mrs. allein, this paper is to give you notice, that all our endeavours for the reducing you having proved ineffectual, the church is resolved to proceed upon you, on monday next, and then to excommunicate you, unless the lord give you grace, to endeavour the satisfying of the church before that day; and this i thought fit to inform you of, that you may attend the said meeting; my prayer is daily for you, for surely whatever you think, i am your soul-friend, lewis stucley. march 4. exon, 1657. to mrs. marry allein, at her house. these in exon. my wife having received this summons, did, for the present return answer to mr. stucley, by the messenger that brought it, only by word of mouth; that before he proceeded to the work, he should read the 58. of isaiah, but afterwards she understanding that he had sent the like summons to mrs. parr, who was also a late member of his church, & long since deserted them; the said mrs. parr and my wife, being willing to do what (they conceived) becomed them in such a case, and (if it might be) prevent their violent proceed, sent unto them this ensuing letter, in answer to their said summons as followeth. mrs. parr and mrs. allein, their answer to mr. stucleys' summons. sir, having received a summons under your hand, we have sent you our answer as followeth: that we know ourselves guilty of no crime, that may justly deserve excommunication from any church of christ: however, as we desire not to be judges in our own cause, so we think it not equal, to be put upon trial by you, and your church, who are also parties, as well as we; we desire to have our cause heard by understanding and impartial men, whosoever they be, and when we shall see reason from scripture, to convince us, you may rest assured, that we shall submit to the law and will of christ; if this will not satisfy, but that you, and your church will proceed against us, we hope to suffer with more comfort than you can lay on your censure, because we remember what solomon saith, prov. 26.2. and know what our saviour foretold, joh. 16.2. and that even god's servants have suffered, as much as this, from god's enemies, we tremble to think you are not afraid to draw that sword against us; who (through grace we hope) are no way faulty as those were, whom we read to have been delivered to satan, 1 cor. 5. and 1 tim. 1.20. we hope we have, and desire still to lament, and repent those evils we know ourselves guilty of before the lord; but we think it no evil in us, to communicate in the ordinances of christ, with any of god's people, that will admit us into communion with them, and therefore we desire you seriously to consider what you do; and this we desire, as those that wish very hearty well to your soul, and all the souls that are of your church. susanna parr. marry allein. exon, march 7. 1657 these for mr. lewis stucley, preacher of the gospel, and his church in exon. this letter was carried and delivered unto mr. stucleys' hands, when he was assembled with his church, at the house of mr. andrew raddon postmaster in exon, the eighth of march 1657 to excommunicate mistress parr, and my wife, in the morning before he began his own exercise, in order to that work, and the messenger (according to directions) at the delivery thereof spoke aloud, so as all the people might hear him, saying to mr. stucley, sir, here is a letter from mrs. parr, and mrs. allein, which they desire may be communicated to the church, who thereupon opened it, and he (with two others of his church, having looked it over) pocketed it up, and did not communicate the same to the church, but afterward told the people, that he had received a paper, that had more of design in it, than any show of humility, or repentance, and that he thought it not fit to be communicated to the church: and so proceeded on in his sermon (since in print) wherein having desamed them, with the highest defamations almost imaginable, he stood up and pronounced the sentence following. the sentence. forasmuch (brethren as) mrs. susanna parr, and mrs. marry allein, have been convicted of great sins, and forasmuch as they have neglected to hear the church, we therefore, in the name of christ, deliver them over to satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of christ. upon pronouncing of which sentence, the church made a hideous howling cry, that did even astonish divers then present which occasioned the party that noted mr. stucleys' sermon, to write his prayer, which he made after he had pronounced the sentence; which was as followeth. the prayer blessed lord, we have left them where thou bidst us leave them, and we pray thee let them have such awakenings by church-censures, that they may not stay long there. lord, o that god would be pleased for them, fetch them away thence, lord, there-hence, lord, if they belong unto thee, fetch them back again, lord, back again. o let them not rest there, o let them have no quiet in their spirits there, lord, o let satan torment them home, o let them be driven by satan among us, we pray thee lord, if they had not fallen out with thy law, they had not fallen out from thy house, they begun with thee, yea long time before, before we gave this sentence. and now it is given, the lord second it upon them, that they may know, that we have not done it in a revengeful way, give them to understand that we have wished well to their souls to day, and that we had not set upon this work, but that we know not how to answer the contrary, we know not how to answer the neglect thereof one day longer, and therefore we delivered them up, that their souls may be saved in the day of christ, we beseech thee that thou wouldst make them know, that they are under the curse of god; let them know that they are gone out of this place accursed; o let them know that all their prayers, are accursed prayers? and all the bread they presume to eat is accursed bread to them: and let them know, that their estates and privileges are accursed to them, and that if they live and die in their sin, they are accursed for ever; awaken them throughly, o lord; would to god they had been here to day, but they are gone with the curse of god at their heels, all their company will be accursed company to them, and we can see them no more; we may not go unto their houses any day more, we may not come near them, as in the days of old. o lord, that they might be ashamed, let them be ashamed, they have foreheads of brass, but o that they might be ashamed; o lord, how glad would we be to see these poor worms crawling to this house another day; surely, there is that upon their backs that they will not get off, till they repent; there is that upon them will damn them, unless they return, there is that upon them will cost them eternal flames, unless they return. now the lord pity them, we would fain have these wretches, their flesh destroyed; some of us have seen a great deal of pride, and a great deal of self conceitedness, and a great deal of hatred, and a great deal of self confidence, and a great deal of deceit, and a great deal of hypocrisy; o how hath satan befooled these creatures, they thought to have gotten themselves a name in thy house, and thou hast turned them out of thy house, thou wilt not allow them a name in thy house; they shall not be so much as within our gates; o for aught we know, they shall be no more dwellers where god dwells; what a sad thing is this; but lord, pair off that flesh, and then they may return and stand at thy gate, & beg a blessing; o that this day may come, o this ordinance hath been strangely wronged in our days, neglected by some, and despised by some, and wronged by others, but it is thine own appointment, lord, and good lord, if it be thy will, let this be the fruit, the return of their spirits to thee, by giving them repentance, and endeavours to be brought in, and reconciled to the house of god, that they might know what it is to break covenant with thee; good lord, let them never be quiet, o, we know there be many agents here will be endeavouring to bear to them this very sentence, o, let them remember to write down in their books this days curses. let it lie upon their hearts when they lie adying; o let not thy name be taken in vain this day, it will not, there is a righteous god in the heavens, in the heavens, their is a holy god above, a god that will find out this sin, and make them know that they have offended one of thy little ones; o it were better a millstone had been hung about their necks to day; o surely this is worse than a mill stone, a heavy millstone, and therefore likely they have offended many little ones in so doing: we shall pray for aught we know no more for them, let us not pray for them, avoid their company, but remember in ours prayers that such and such persons are this day accursed, and the influences of heaven shall be taken from them, their reading hours shall not prosper to them, and their hearing hours shall not prosper to them, before they hear his rod: all the influences shall be stopped till they return to thee; god is banished out of their presence, o we pray thee, let us beware to look to our feet, to walk in thy ways, and be with us in the remaining part of this day; we bless thee lord we have done the work, we were long a doing of it, and blessed be god we have some peace in our consciences since we have done it, yea blessed be god, we have done it, and blessed be god we go according to our light, and blessed be god we do not endure a rebel among us, a rebel among us; make us fathful to thee, & upright before thee, and to live as becometh thy people, and so pray and engage together, and covenant with thee, and one with another, that this might be the last hour that we take the rod into our hand; o we pray thee, let this be the last excommunication, let this be the last rod we take into our hand, and let it be the last hour we are put upon cursing work, we pray thee, let's be put upon blessing work, the lord be with us in the remaining part of this day; and all we beg for the lord jesus sake. the prayer being ended mr. mall stood up, and said to the congregation, now we have separated the precious from the vile, let's renew our solemn league and covenant. and taking his text out of nehemiah, 9 last ver. preached thereupon, and vented most uncharitable and invective passages, and reflections on my wife. some of which are insinuated in his pretended reasons, set down in the book after mr. stucleys' sermon, the particulars whereof, i shall here omit, as too tedious to relate; and in regard he was so modest, as to print but a piece of his sermon (being it seems ashamed of the rest, as he might well be) i shall here pass it over without troubling the reader therewith, it sounding much to the same tune with mr. stucleys' sermon; of some part whereof, i shall give you a brief account by and by. and now having given you a true account of the whole story and state of the business as to the matter of fact, that hath been so transacted and falsely represented by mr. stucley, i leave it to all judicious christians; to consider and judge upon the whole matter; whether there were any just cause or ground, etc. warrantable by the laws of god, or man, for this their practice and proceeding, or whether it was not merely and only for her deserting them, and returning to her former pastor. and so having finished my narrative, i now come to take notice of, and make brief answers or solutions to some of the most notorious passages, and pieces of defamation, set down in mr. stucleys' printed sermon, and herein, it is not my purpose to take any notice of such passages therein, as seem to reflect upon the presbyterian ministers in general, or those of this city in particular: only, (as i am bound in duty) i shall endeavour to clear the innocency of her, who is in so near relation to me. and this, if i should forbear to do, well might the world think me an unworthy man, in suffering my wife's reputation, and honour, to be buried under the reproach, and calumny he hath cast upon her. in mr. stucleys' printed sermon in mr. malls' book, pag. 7. the ground of our union with them was their visible closing with christ; now when that visibility ceaseth, the union is to be dissolved, etc. solution. what visibility, or outward appearance of religion ceased in my wife, except that she for just reasons, refused any longer to hold communion with mr. stucleys' church; and betook herself again to her former pastor? it seems by this, that visible holiness ceaseth in all, that have no longer a mind to continue in their separation, what a reproach is here cast on all the churches of christ, that are not independent that there is no visible holiness in the members of them: nay more, that they oppose god and christ in his laws, as it followeth in the same, 7. page: for my part, i know no opposition my wife hath made to the laws of christ, more than formerly whilst she was a member of mr. stucleys' church, but that she hath of late left them, i am sure her behaviour towards me, and my family, is with the same circumspection as formerly; cannot a person outwardly close with christ, except in mr. stucleys' church? must they needs be held to cast away christ's cords, to have broken the covenant with god, and neglected his house, that like not the ways of mr. stucleys' congregation? reader, this might serve to satisfy the members of that church, who were engaged as far as himself, but (i hope) will not any understanding and indifferent men. but she contemned admonition private & public. sol. the truth is this (whatever mr. stucley was pleased to say) that she did not refuse admonition, even by them, only, knowing that they waited for her haltings, she refused to appear before mr. stucley, or to talk with any of his church; unless she might have leave to bring some ministers or friends with her; and there was good cause, for she knew that mrs. parr going to, and treating with them alone, had been overreacht by them, whilst they had witnesses of what passed, and she had none. besides, what if she had refused admonition from mr. stucley and his church, so long as she was no more a member of it, but was in actual communion with her former pastor, she had left mr. stucleys' church, and all communion with it, and therefore was under no special obligation to receive admonition from him, or any of his church, and to speak the truth, that was her only fault, that she left them; and her refusing admonition was, her not submitting to be treated withal alone, for fear she might be again entangled by them. neither my wife, nor mrs. parr were looked on as refractory, and rebels to god and man, till they had no more any mind to stay with them: this was their fault, which (i hope) god hath forgiven them, though for this they are excommunicated by mr. stucley and his church. these reject him as their lawgiver and head, etc. sol. what? because they refuse to be of mr. stucleys' church? that's the matter that hath kindled all this fire, there's no church, but mr. stucleys and such like, all other are looked upon as babylonish, and synagogues of satan; wonder not i so charge them, besides many expressions sounding this way: consider how mr. stucley applies, 2 cor. 6.14, 15, 16. and to put it out of all doubt when i myself was reasoning with mr. stucley to this purpose, that i thought i might communicate in the lord's supper with his church, and others also, meaning the rest of the churches in exon, he told me, that i could not partake of the table of the lord, and of the table of devils. and whereas mr. stucley makes it so intolerable an evil, for good men to be forced to live amongst wicked men, i grant it, but say withal, that these excommunicate persons as they communicate in ordinances with godly christians, so they have frequent civil society with no other than (if comparisons be not odious) give as good testimony of the grace of god, as mr. stucley himself, or the best of his church. he styles them dogs, etc. sol. 'tis an easy matter for mr. stucley, to call these poor oppressed women dogs, he and his church only, are the children and saints; but if thou wilt set aside their leaving his church, there is nothing in them, for which they may not compare with the best saints in his church, and i dare say this city, in which they were born and bred, and have ever lived, can say no otherwise, i appeal to all that know them; but it's policy for him, first to debase and vilify those, that he intended his church should curse; he that will kill a dog, must give it out that he is mad. pag. 9 mr. stucley citys prov. 5.8, 9 remove thy way, far from her, etc. and adds, that 'tis dangerous to come near the house of such, etc. sol. what is this but to insinuate my wise, such a one as is spoken of in that place i. e. a very strumpet. i cannot forbear to say (it so nearly concerns me) that this insinuation, is a base and slanderous belying her, who never came into the least suspicion of any such crime, had mrs. parr been guilty of such lying, as this, i, and others had been more satisfied in her excommunication than we now are, or can be. pag. 9 whereas in the same page towards the end, mr. stucley saith, he ought to pull off the masking robes and vizards, etc. sol. he discovers himself, what many before now never believed him to be (viz.) a man that cares not what dirt and filth he casts on any that cares not for his independent ways. they have deceived him (as he saith,) but the truth is they were deceived in him, and his church, expecting when they entered into fellowship with them, that purity which they never found, and now when they were disappointed, and so apprehended their oversight, and went about to mend their fault, by returning to those congregations to which they formerly belonged, he judgeth them causelessly. pag. 10. he calls my wife a lawless woman, that knows no subjection, etc. sol. i cannot forbear to say, this is a most notorious belying her, whom i know to be far otherwise, i have cause to bless god for so good and obedient a wife, and one that order the affairs of my family and calling, with so much care and diligence as my heart can wish: insomuch that i have often left the whole management of my trade and employment on her head & care, for a whole month together, in my absence, when i have kept above 500 people on work; for what he charges her, about her going once to honiton, i have sufficiently answered in the narrative, to which i refer the reader. pag. 10. again, these have turned their backs on pure ordinances, etc. sol. as if no pure ordinances could be found, but in mr. stucleys' church, or some other of the same edition. reader, be pleased to take notice, they were in actual communion with the rest of god's people in this city, before they were excommunicated, and therefore did not turn their backs on pure ordinances; but such is the pride of independents, they think there are no pure ordinances but in their own churches. pag. 12. the like stuff you have page 12. that now my wife and mrs. parr are not in mr. stucleys' church, they are not amongst god's people, cannot enjoy the benefit of the covenant, see in what a sad condition all are, that are not independents. but i hope god and good men will judge better than mr. stucley and his church. pag. 13. they are turned out from beholding the conversation of god's people, etc. sol. sill mr, stucleys church are god's people & no other. but for that which he so much commends, i do assure thee, neither i, nor my wife could ever see such eminency of godliness in their conversations, i shall not asperse them, i will only say, i know many, very many no independents in this city, of as unblameable and godly conversation as any of them, and my wife may see the conversation of those (i hope) notwithstanding she is excommunicate by mr. stucley, pag. 13. in the same page, god will lose us, this day from that particular tie, etc. sol. my wife (i hope) is not in so sad a condition because mr. stucley and his church are lose from their tye, if she have other as godly and honest to admonish and exhort her, as ever she had, i forbear comparisons. pag. 14. i have no mind to discant upon mr. stucleys' fancy, in the fourteenth page, where he frames a parley between god and the devil 'tis absurd enough. sol. only i must say, he hath again slandered my wife, in saying she hath removed the bounds, and that she is a lawless woman; the contrary to my knowledge is most true, and for this there are in this city as many godly christians to witness, as far exceed the number of mr. stucleys' church. i know it is a sad thing to be justly excommunicated, matth. 18.18. but i know many have been excommunicated by the pope, and some by the pharisees, the question is whether those persons were justly excommunicated? and that i deny, and leave it to the impartial reader to judge by the narrative. pag. 15. he citys mr. grenhams opinion of excommunication. they are among zijms and jijms, etc. sol. he need not cite mr. grenhams opinion to persuade me or my wife, what a sad thing excommunication is. i only say the curse that's causeless, shall not come: the pope's bull is but a beast, when it roars the loudest. pag. 17. whereas contumacy is urged as the reason of excommunication, and mr. rutherford is quoted, with a sufficient slur upon him and the presbyterians. sol. i reply that cannot be contumacy, for that one act of indiscretion she hath acknowledged to myself; and (if an error) 'twas such (i hope) as was pardonable by the husband, without mr. stucleys' indulgence. there was no persisting in any crime, but only her not coming to mr. stucleys' church, and mr. stucley cannot but remember the many overtures she made, for a meeting of him and mr. mall, with other ministers, and her willingness to submit to their determination, which he refused, as if he had been lord bishop paramont, and his church infallible, for which i refer you to the narrative; but now (forsooth,) contumacy must be the foil to set off the fact, and a decoy to draw the church, into this unwarrantable practice. pag. 19 my wife is accused for neglecting fellowship, and covenant breaking, and running away, etc. sol. i answer she holds fellowship with the people of god, and for covenant breaking, she is so far guilty, as she was no more willing to be confined to master stucleys' church, but indeed, of her own accord went from it, for reasons mentioned in the narrative before. if she had made a covenant (which yet she never intended) to walk with master stucleys' church, and not with other people of god, it is an unlawful covenant, and so better broken then kept. for her pretended scandalous running from me, i have given a satisfactory answer in the narrative by which the reader may judge what a scandalous abusing her it is, to charge her with deserting her husband, and family, when in mine own conscience, i know the contrary, and that she never entertained the least thought of it, and except master stucley, and his church, there is not one sober man that knows her, ever saw cause to suspect her of such an unnatural act. she continueth to dwell with me as a dutiful and obedient wife, she never ran from me, but only went as far as huniton with a purpose to go as far as taunton, there to entreat the advice and assistance of some near relations for satisfaction touching those differences, occasioned upon her deserting their church. pag. 19 whereas he charges her with her companion, whom he sets off with a dash. sol. i answer that the woman hath been her keeper for many years in childbed, as she was of many other women of good account and quality in this city, and was my wife's keeper (when in child bed) all the time she was in mr. stucleys' church, and yet then no exception against her; besides she being a midwife, was a fit companion for my wife then great with child, for what mr. stucley hints, and some of his members have said of that woman, i am persuaded they can never prove it, but do very much abuse and slander her therein. pag. 19.20. when mr. stucley presses tit. 2.5. know reader that he hath omitted somewhat that he spoke in preaching to insinuate into his auditory a suspicion of my wife's chastity, wherein he did most unworthily abuse her. sol. and so hath he done in what is printed pag. 20. where he accommodates d. tailors words; to insinuate her to affect merriment, and expensive company, and account the house a prison which i can truly say she is so far from as (if comparisons be not odious) i know none farther; and she utterly detests it. that which follows is to the same tune, all that i will say is, that it is clean contrary, she never looked on me as a nabal, but hath ever showed me as much tenderness; and affectionate kindness as my heart could wish; she never left her trust, otherwise then any good housewife must do, when she is forced to be from home, she went out in a journey, which she intended to dispatch with all speed, & then to return again to her family; of whom she gave a special charge to her chiefest maid-servant at her going abroad: how scandalous a report have they made of what had nothing blamable but a little indiscretion in the manner of it, and of this she was presently sensible, and cried me mercy. pag. 20.21. for mrs. parr who is charged with lying, etc. you may see by what is said in the end of the 20. page, she was not well pleased with the proceed of master stucleys' church, and for that let her answer. sol. only this i can say, she was looked on by them as a precious soul, till she had a mind to hear some other ministers, and here began the quarrel which could not be ended but in her excommunication, because she was peremptory in her resolution, not to be tied from hearing of others; how far she might forget herself in discourse with them, which they call tripping in her tongue, etc. i cannot say, only (if she did) it was partly occasioned by their tampering with her, for going out sometimes to hear some other ministers of the city, in which she was so resolved, as she chose to leave mr. stucleys' church, and so did, and was in communion with other churches in this city for a long time before they excommunicated her. pag. 21. he saith, for my wife's coming amongst them, it was somewhat observable, etc. sol. it is observable indeed how mr. stucley persists in his unworthy design and endeavours to slur and vilify her, whom (whatever malice says) i have cause to say to the glory of grace, god hath blest with some good measure of knowledge of him and his will, and of herself, and her duty, which she hath manifested in the general course of her conversation (the best character of a christian) as all that know her, can bear her witness. pag. 21. and whereas in the same page, he charges her for omission of the church-duties of admonition, etc. sol. note, what a good shepherd mr. stucley is, that in the whole space of about 4. years, whilst she was of his church, he could never spy this fault, so as to reprove her for it, till she had left his church, and then he can find it in his heart to curse her for it. pag. 21.22 mr. stucley tells another story, but very partially and untruly, charging my wife with abusing her sister, etc. sol. the truth of the story is this: about four years since, i observing my brother not to thrive in his way of husbandry, which he then used, out of my affection to him, and care of his good, i set him in a way of sergemaking, wherein neither he, nor his wife, having any insight, i gave them all the encouragement and assistance i could, both by my advice and instruction therein, and sparing him mine own servants of all sorts, to carry on his work, and took off all the serges he made, and sold them at the same prizes with mine own, which otherwise he could not possibly advance to that rate, and my wife being also very loving to him, and his wise, her sister in law, and desiring their good, and thriving in their trade, and knowing their gains, ad observing her sister in law not to be so careful and industrious as she should be, and as that trade required, and their expenses rising somewhat high, she advised her said sister, to have a care that they did not spend more than they got, whereat her sister took great distaste, but shown no more care then formerly, my wife fearing their going back in trade, when she went up into the eastern parts, wished her sister's mother to give her the like advice as she had done, which, i apprehended she did, and her said sister being much offended as it, instead of embracing this counsel, which would have done her no hurt, she complains to several of the members of master stucleys' church, and had engaged a strong party for her, before my wife knew thereof, insomuch that it came to a hearing before master stucley, and by his means they were reconciled and in token thereof, kissed each other, and afterwards frequented each others company in a very friendly manner, at the lords table, and their own tables, upon occasion, for the space of above a year together, even until the time of my wife's withdrawing from mr. stucleys' church. reader, judge how fit it is for mr. stucley to rake up this petty business, an offence indeed taken and not given, and to aggravate it in pulpit and print beyond all truth, near three years after they had been reconciled, and the same had been buried in oblivion, of purpose to bespatter and abuse my wife; but i wonder not at it, when i consider how suitable it is, to what himself once told me upon occasion of writing a letter to mrs. parr, that when he wrote letters of that nature, he would have as much of reflection in them, as he could, that they might be ashamed to show them. pag. 23. my wife (i can truly say) puts a great price upon all god's ordinances, and in particular on excommunication; she is not so ignorant as not to know the consequence of it, only she might perhaps speak slightly of their excommunicating her, when they threatened her with it, as a man may slight the pope's excommunication without any prejudice to god's ordinance. pag. 23. whereas mr. stucley. pag. 23. in his comparing her sin, with the sin of the incestuous person, saith, the incestuous person did not separate from the church to avoid the censure, but so have these, etc. sol. reader, take notice of a gross untruth: how can it be said, that my wife separated from the church to avoid the censure, whereas, (themselves being judges) they had nothing to censure her for, before she left them, they never so much as pretended any cause or ground for a censure until she had deserted them, and long after, although they most unworthily sifted my late domestic servants to find somewhat to accuse her of, but could find none. note, the pretended crime or cause of excommunicating her, was in time, long after she had left mr. stucleys' church; when she left mr. stucleys' church she had done nothing in the least that might incur a church-censure, & therefore it could not be rationally imagined, that she should desert the church to avoid a church-censure. to this i say no more, but liars need good memories. for their perjury, covenant-breaking, and schism which are charged on them, in pag. 23. sol. i confess they have relinquished mr. stucleys' church, and that's their fault, and yet i dare assure you, my wife had not done this had they not meddled with state affairs, and had mr. stucley and his church allowed her to communicate in the ordinances with other churches, as there was occasion: they held it their sin to be tied to one congregation, and to be debarred fellowship with others, especially there being so many opportunities of it in this place. whereas in the application, pag. 24. mr. stucley charges other churches and ministers for want of discipline; i shall leave it to those ministers to vindicate their own practice: i do not pretend to so much knowledge and learning, as to meddle at all with it, only i wish, that they were all free from lying, that master stucley gives the sacrament unto in his church, i know none that's offended at their exercise of discipline, only i, and many others think we have cause to be offended at these their proceedings, because we know as bad tolerated amongst them, and nothing said to them, because they have a mind to stay with them, which these poor women had not; alas (poor souls) that they must needs fall into those foul faults, that mr. stucley, and his church can by no means brook or endure. for this third use of information, pag. 27. we desire to apply it for the comfort of these poor oppressed and despised women; made as the scum and offscouring of all things, by his and his churches abusing of god's holy ordinance, hoping the wise disposer of all things will order it to their spiritual advantage, by giving them grace to cleave to god, when they are cast off by men, and to hold communion with others of god's people to better purpose now they are excommunicated by them. once we are sufficiently informed, that they may be cast out of mr. stucleys' church, and yet be in the readier way to heaven. for the last use of exhortation, i must needs say it is very proper for himself & his church, i wish them to take it home to themselves, they have need enough of it, 'tis very true, as he saith the leaven is among them, the leaven of the pharisees, etc. there are none that know them, but are too well acquainted with their great thoughts they have of themselves, as the only church and people of god in exon, and what other churches have been called and counted by them, that god will in due time discover the hypocrisy of liars i know well, and that god would bring to light their proceed is my hearty desire and prayer; i pray too, that their may be no more liars found amongst them than their are as yet, nor any that are disobedient; for my wife, i know she hath kept her bounds at home so well, as i desire nothing more than her perseverance in that obedience and duty she hath yielded me hitherto. i shall not trouble the reader any farther with mr. malls' reasons, that are annexed to mr. stucleys' sermon, only i desire him to consider, how the whole drift of his discourse, which was a kind of sermon on that sad and black day, aims at this, that they only are zion, and the israel of god, and all others as bad as the strangers, from whom israel separated in nehemians time. for their renewing their covenant that day; i wish they have done it hearty, and remember what they are bound to by their covenant in baptism, (viz.) to forsake the devil and all his works, the vain pomp and glory of the world, and the carnal desires of the flesh, so as not to be led by them. so i say, amen. finis. to the reader. courteous reader, upon first view of mr. stucleys' pamphlet called (manifest truth) as i could not but wonder, so i could not easily resolve, whether his pride and arrogance, or his passion and impudence were most predominant, each appearing at such a magnitude, which at first made me think that as it deserved, so it needed, no other answer but silence, which (as the philosopher says) is the best answer to foolish questions: and the rather for that he hath therein so portrayed himself to the life, that all that are judicious may read what is the man by his manners. but in the second place considering that this lion couchant, contents not himself to rend my wife in pieces, but also sucks the blood of my reputation, to satisfy his greedy appetite, and makes lies his refuge for all his unjust actings, it being granted to every man to speak in the defence of his own innocency, publicly questioned and wrongfully slandered: (this wound reaching to the very soul) i have resolved (by god's assistance) in a few following sheets, to discuss and examine his late precious piece or pamphlet, and to discover both it, and ' its author to the world in their proper colours. and herein' its not my purpose to deal with every thing that lies fair to exception: were i every way as able as my antagonist, much less is it my purpose to write after his blotted copy; i have learned better of my lord and master christ, when i am revilea not to revile again, remembering what one says, that no adversary (suppose the devil himself) is to be answered either with affection or passion; but by sound reason and religion, and i have reason to believe, that mr. stucley might have done himself and his church better service by his silence or a modest retractation, than he hath done with all his passion and bitter exclamations. i hope all men are not so prepossessed to look upon all he says, as oracles; nor every one bound up, by an implicit faith, to believe as he and his church believe. wise and impartial judges are wont to reserve an ear for the defendant, ere they determine the cause: all that i expect, is the like common justice from all, that shall be pleased to exercise their patience in perusal of my ensuing defence, which how weak soever, it, or the author be, yet having truth and innocency for our support, which is strong and prevalent, is commended to thy impartial consideration by thine and the truth's suffering friend toby allein. it would be to little purpose to spend time, in descanting on the borrowed title, and many passages in master stucleys' book, that discovers more frothy wit, than christian wisdom or gravity. it would be also tedious and troublesome to enumerate the odious railing names and epithets of cham, ishmael, shimei, rabsheka, apostate; broadfaced lie, brasenfaced lie, putid lie, egregious lie, with such like excrementitious stuff, that hath dropped from his venomous pen; and wherewith his book is full fraught, as if composed at bedlam or billingsgate, unbeseeming any sober christian, much more a pastor of a congregation. i pass by the taking notice of his many quibbles, scoffs, and jeers, his pride and arrogance, his passion and impudence so obvious in every leaf, that he that runs may read; and with reference to these things, content myself only to say (as catalus to his insulting nonius) what a deal of dung doth this cart carry, such unsavoury unsanctified language suits not a sanctified spirit, fit for the cookingstoole than the press. but to come to particulars; in the first place, i shall only glance on some passages of his epistle. that there is poison and gall in ink (as he affirms) i shall not question, sigh his book puts it out of question, the reader will find it growing upon his dung-heap. in the next place mr. stucley presents himself unto the reader, as in a great strait or dilemma; whether he should be silent, or answer my narrative (which he styles a false report) and lays down reasons; pro and con. but why is this preamble? i tell thee reader, hypocrisy was never more in sashion then in our times: the vilest, & most abominable practice & design in the world must have this preface and varnish of religion and conscience to cover ' its ugly face and form. 'tis sad to see how men cover wickedness with holiness even the garment of god; but how think you, shall mr. stucley gain reputation to his ensuing report of 48. lies, without painting the rotten post, and making a fair prologue to so foul a piece. and therefore it is, that first he insinuates himself to be a man of peace, he tells you that he takes little pleasure in a salamander life, though in the mean while, we all know, that it was his first work, after his coming to exeter to vent his antinomian tenants, and that in pulpit in contradiction to mr. bartlet's orthodox divinity and sound practical truth; and who knows not who hath been the firebrand, that hath kindled the coals and blown the flames of contention in exeter ever since mr. stucley set foot there; and yet this is the peaceable man you must take his own word for it, for he says he is a minister, but first he should have done well to have taken (ordination) along with him, and yet i should have much doubted of his hundreds of ministers; that he boasts, he could have to certifiy for him, i think the number would have fallen very short, only some few of his votaries that he hath helped unto, or kept in good benefices and places, and some others for fear of ejecting probably might have done him that office, we well know, who rules the roast in these parts. i shall for brevity sake pass over his reasons for his silence, as not bearing weight with his more preponderating considerations, to excite him to answer. answer he must, first to prevent the gospel's suffering, secondly for his church's satisfaction. the gospel will suffer, and his labours be obstructed, if he be silent under calumnies and misrepresentations (as he insinuates my narrative to be) and therefore (he says) he is bound in conscience, but what to do? what bound in conscience to lie for god? he needs it not, what, bound in conscience to deny and evade truth by shift and shufling? to maintain unwarrantable practices by impudence and insolent carriage, denying to give any account or satisfaction to any for your actings? what to slander censure and trample on poor honest souls justly dissenting from you, thereby to raise and keep up your own and your churches tottering independent interest, on the ruins of their persons and reputations? surely the gospel needs no such support. mr. stucleys' pamphlet (in the eye of judicious christians) gains little glory to god, little advantage to the gospel, little credit to his ministry, or edification to his church, and christ will give him little thanks one day, for such imprudent and preposterous zeal, being not according to knowledge, and will say, who hath required these things at your hands. pray sr. tell me, where was your conscience and zeal to preserve the gospel from suffering, when you raised that false report on mr. ford, reporting to one of taunton that he said, that lying was the property of a woman: and when you abused mr. down & mr. bartlet by reports to my brother at the same time? where was your tender respect of the gospel, when you too frequently aspersed mr. ford, and would be picking of holes in his sermons, and telling your members, that he was much dissabled by his sickness, whereby many refused to hear him for near two years together? who taught your members to call his sermons preachments, rail &c. is not this your very shiboleth to distinguish a right independent? and why have you and mr. mall, now also withdrawn from his lecture: is it not to confirm your disciples? reader, note, this is the man that is so careful that his own name be not reproached, lest the gospel suffer, and yet whispers and broaches untruths against three godly ministers to take away their good names, without any respect to the gospel's suffering; how stands this together? in the next place, whereas mr. stucley tells you, how he adores god's goodness to him, in hiding his infirmities from me, whom he styles a cham, that would soon have published it to my brethren. i answer, that 'tis not i, but his own harsh irregular actings that have proclaimed not only his infirmities but enormities also to the world; for my part i am convinced, 'tis sinful to publish others infirmities, much more to curse them for it. but i adore the divine providence, in that mr. stucley himself should occasion a discovery of his own fowl enormities. god hath a time to discover the hypocrisy of liars: a time when they shall proceed no farther, but their folly shall be manifest unto all: god will bring to light the hidden deeds of darkness in due time, 'tis neither pride nor policy can hinder. had i published mr. stucleys' privity to the uncommissionated opening of other men's letters, and taking copies of master snows, and mr. westlakes postletters, to lay up by him; suggesting to his church members that these men endeavoured the ruin of the church, and that god had broken their designs: and appointing thanksgiving days for the same (a mere trick to alienate their affections from them) i say, had i published these pranks; i suppose they would not come under the notion of mr stucleys infirmities but somewhat of a higher nature. is it not a petty piece of burglary think you, to unlock and break open the closed cabinet of another man's breast and bosom, to rob him of his secrets, his heart jewels? is not this somewhat above an infirmity? if not i should have concealed it, but i dare not be accessary to such things, & therefore i say, my masters beware of your letters. next mr. stucley proceeds to rejoice, that shimei his railing tongue, and rabshekahs' letters should conduce to his and his church's reputation. stay reader, peruse my narrative: where i pray doth mr. stucley find shimei his railing tongue or rabshekahs' letters? doth he not dream? is it not in his pamphlet, he love to triumph before the victory: first let him take my answer intended for his conviction, and then if it conduce to their reputation, much good do it them, i hope god will work good out of it, when his eyes shall be opened to see his error, and to make him sensible of his high flown conceits of his; and his church's infallibilities, & to make him really to adore the divine justice towards him, who seeks to advance his & his church's glory and greatness, by the defamation of honest conscientious christians, who endeavour to walk honestly both in the sight of god and men. in the last place he ends his epistle with an apology for his tartness in his ensuing book; and pleads the law of nature for doing right to himself, forgetting) it seems) the law of grace, that forbids wronging his neighbour, god is not to be found (as one says) in the raging fire of opposition, but in the sweet breathe and soft voice of truth and love. i leave his epistle, & proceed to take a short survey of what follows in his pamphlet. in his first page, he cavils at the title of my book in that ' its called, truth's manifest, and seeks to cloud it, with a thick fog or mist of 48. lies which i doubt not ere i have done, will call him father, and be justly laid at his own door: of these in their proper place. in his second page, he hath a firivolous quibble or exception against the author, in that, 'tis said toby allein a (late) member etc. which he says denotes; either my excommunication, or dismission, or apostasy from them, etc. i answer i was in the first place denied communion with his church, some of them told me, they were offended at mr. downs baptising my child, and at my forbearing them private meetings, and i must not be admitted in such sins; in the next place i gave them notice that for their unjust excommunicating my wife, and refusing to give any reason or satisfaction about it, and for other reasons (which the reader will see ere i have ended) i did withdraw from them, and could walk no longer with them; and so i styled myself (a late member) as i hope was proper enough, though not actually excommunicated, nor dismissed by them; and yet for all this i hope, i am not otherwise an apostate, than luther was, who said he was an apostate, but it was from error to truth. but mr. stucleys' church is now become offended and must be satisfied, ere they will say farewell to toby. well satisfaction must be had, and i hope i shall satisfy those that are capable of satisfaction; the church requires satisfaction because i say; they have unjustly cursed my wife; and i require satisfaction because they did unjustly curse her. mr. stucley pray sr. be ingenious; have i not offered by word and writing; that i was ready to receive your charge (if you had any against me) and to submit to the determination of godly judicious, and indifferent ministers or private christians? and have you not refused this; calling them foreigners; and will refer it to none but your own church, mr. eveleigh, owen, etc. parties as deeply guilty as yourself, in this male administration, these must be the indifferent judges. to determine whether you and themselves have done right, or wrong in your proceed, none else must intermeddle in your church affairs, and why? 'tis your principle, a principle without scripture precept or precedent, a punctilio, or device to wave and evade the hearing of the judicious, lest the nakedness of your cause appear, and your shame be discovered. sr. i hope you did reverence learned mr. burroughs, if so, pray take the pains to look into his heart-divisions pag. 43: where he says. those in the congregational way acknowledge, that they are bound in conscience to give account of their ways to the churches about them, or to any other, who shall require it, this (saith he) not in an arbitrary way, but as a duty they own to god and man. observe, he makes no distinction, but says to the churches about them; or any other, that shall require it. and this he speaks not only as his own opinion, but as the judgement of those of the congregational way in general. pray tell me, how you will reconcile your practice with this judgement? i would willingly know why? or upon what different principle it was, that you refused to give mr. nicols, mr. bartlet, mr. down any account or satisfaction touching the reason & grounds of those your proceed, when those three ministers desired it, after you had sent them your monition (in the nature of a mandatum) that they were to take notice that you and your church had excommunicated mrs. parr and my wife: did you advise with any of the churches in exeter or elsewhere before your precipitate proceed? pray let's know in your next how it was resented by your brethren of the congregational way, at your late convention, at the act in oxford (if truly stated by you which i must suspect) did they commend your practice (as it is reported) and intent to draw it into precedent, or did they blame you for it? have you known any power either episcopal, or archiepiscopal, (but only papal) that claim such an absolute independent jurisdiction, as to deny all appeals; and refuse to give any account of their ways, and administrations) when desired) before independency was set up? pray what meant you by your notice to the ministers in exon, was it not, that they should deny these poor souls communion upon pain of your and your churches high displeasure, must your (ipse dixit) satisfy, without ground or reason? if this be your principle, we doubt not but within a few pages to show who are the schismatics, whether mr. stucley and his church, or toby allein; but of that by and by, i pass on to his observations on my testimonial. reader, here see (this peaceable man) how his heart rises and swells against the chamber of exon. (as he calls the subscribers to my certificate) he will not be guilty of such a piece of incivility, as to suffer them to pass without abusing them, he must have a fling at them, now they come in his way. in the first place he gibes at their administration of justice, we must (says he) carry ourselves warily, lest we be bound to the good behaviour warily, not honestly, he gins with a jeer. pag. 3. next, in his third and some ensuing pages; he calls them my compurgatours, prolocutours, seconds, guard, etc. and tacit'ly represents them, as men dissaffected to the supreme magistrate, with his jeering (spectatum admissi, etc.) and that his highness' affections to him, is an eyesore to the chamber, etc. reader this is the peaceable man still, if thou wilt believe him, he takes no pleasure in a salamander life, and yet toby allein and his wife are not subjects high enough to wreak and fret his malice upon. no, the chamber: they must know that he is offended at them also, and they and all the world must know, what a favourite of the protectors, mr. stucley is, he put's it in print. but alas (poor man) how vain is it to be angry with those that care so little for it: doubtless the chamber takes notice of it, so fare, as to be sorry for his simpleness, and that such a spirit of envy and contention should lie couchant, and discover itself from under mr. stucleys pastoral robe, they can bear a few gibes and jeers from mr. stucley, and look on it as his weakness, and that it would be weakness in them to engage in a contest with him about such things so inconsiderable. the eagle scorns to catch flies; i shall only say, that had i said & insinuated so much of the chamber of exeter, as master stucley hath done, it might have been called, an impudent lie. but we leave him in his sweat of discontent against the chamber, and shall speak a word of his query, why i had not gotten a certificate from the ministers or from his church, i having (as he says) reported his church to be the honestest people that ever i came amongst. to this briefly, that as for the ministersâ�� certificate i might have had it, had i needed it; and as for his church's certificate, i left it for him to take the benefit of that, being the best he can get; and as for his church, if i reported them to be the honestest people, etc. i do now find i was in a great mistake, and must retract and ask them forgiveness; i shall promise to say so no more till i have better evidence for their honesty: i am not the first that have been deceived by these independents; and therefore i hope i may expect a pardon of course. next mr. stucley raises queries, upon the contents of my testimonial, (simple ones god knows:) how easy is it to pay him home in his own coin; may it not be asked of him, 1. whether he as not an unrighteous steward in his causeless cursing my wife? secondly whether he be not better affected to his independent party and interest, then to the common wealth? thirdly whether he hath not raised more divisions in the churches of christ in exeter by gathering a church out of other churches, than ever was known in exeter before? but to let that pass, i shall only add, that the certifiers (however mr. stucley represents them) are known to be men of that worth, loyalty and integrity, that they disdain for any respects whatsoever to certify any thing but what they know to be really truth: and had they not been so, doubtless he would have long since informed against them; or else had neglected his duty. pag. 4. whereas in his fourth page he insinuates that i am to have a trial at law against him, etc. reader, be pleased to take notice, that after mr. stucley had libellously slandered my wife in pulpit and print, before i printed my narrative i demanded (by several letters) satisfaction for this public defamation, as a breach of the laws both of god and man: telling him, that if he would show the matter of fact truly stated, and a positive scripture, or law of man, for such a procedure on such a fact or ' its parallel, he should convince me. i likewise sent him a charge; consisting of four particulars, (to wit) first his application of prov. 5.8.9. and tit. 2.5. to my wife, insinuating her to be a harlot and unchaste: secondly his reporting her to be a woman knowing no subjection at home or abroad, thirdly, his saying, that she went from them to avoid curch censure: fourthly his reporting that she never gave any reason for her leaving them: i charged him that in these particulars he had scandalised my wife, and therein broken both the law of god and man. i desired a debate of these particulars by himself and master mall (his assistant,) and two others whom he thought fit with myself and three other godly christians that i should bring, promising that if he could prove either of them, nay, if i did not disprove all of them, i would lay down and beg him mercy. his answer was, that this charging him with particulars, he did not like, and that it was not the way of gaining him; but that i was to tell him his fault between me and him alone; and failing in that first assay; then i was to take with me, one or two of that particular fellowship (meaning his church) and that until than he saw no reason at all to call in foreign helps. note reader, this learned rabbi, he tells me that i must first tell him of his trespass privately, which himself hath published on the housetop, in pulpit and press. i thought he had known better how to distinguish, as to the application of admonitions, and that there is a vast difference between the case of private personal wrongs; and public church male administrations. next (says he) i must take two or three of his church; they were partakers in the fact of cursing my wife; and they are to admonish him for that, which they joined with him to do. note, he wholly declines my proposal, and hath found out this shift, he tells me the church are offended, that i take offence at their proceed; and summons me to his consistarie before mr. eveleigh, owen, and the rest, judges in their own cause: for them to debate, and determine whether he & they had done right or no: you may imagine what a piece of justice i might expect from them. right lidford law. hereupon i gave notice to the church by letter, that forasmuch as they had abused the ordinance of christ, in excommunicating my wife on such pretended crimes as were apparent falsities; i had therefore withdrawn from them, and could neither in reason nor conscience join with such a congregation as live wholly under an arbitrary form of church government, and admitted of no appeals in the case of unjust excommunication. and so, after mr. stucleys' denial of a friendly debate often proposed by me, i was enforced to commence my suit at law, to right myself in way of a legal proceeding. and this is the action of the case, he there speaks of. it would be almost infinite to follow him in every of his impertinencies and frothy fancies, i purposely wave many as inconsiderable, and shall speak only to the most material, that i tyre not the reader. mr. stucley hath done with my testimonial, and now taking leave of the chamber, with his pace tantorum virorum, a jeering farewell, he passes to my epistle. he gins with a whipper: scandal & contumacy (says he) was proved against my wife, and therefore her censure was not unrighteous: good logic, were it true; yea, but he will prove it by his sermon notes (alias) his printed libel: i refer you, says he, to the notes of my sermon in print. a very strong evidence, a cogent argument. he and his church must curse my wife for deserting them and joining to her former pastor, but scandal, and contumacy must be the gloss and pretence for their proceed. mr. stucley preaches, & prints her guilty; and that's his proof. they say so; and therefore 'tis so; they are satisfied, and therefore others must me. the pharisees say that christ had a devil, and therefore it must be so; probatum est. suppose a vile wretch (being met with a parcel of his desciples, as bad as himself) do preach and print blasphemy (as many do in these days) is it true? or is it ever the less blasphemy, because he preaches and prints it, and his desciples own and maintain it? this is sorry stuff. next we are now come to the point, the whole stress of the business in difference between mr. stucley and myself lies in this, namely, whether my wife were guilty of crimes deserving excomminication, or not deserving? whether guilty of contumacy, or not guilty? in a word, whether his curse be causeless or not? i am not ignorant that i am to encounter, one, that goliah-like seems to be armed cap-ape; he is a scholar, which i pretend not to, therefore the disadvantage lies on my side; but i trust my cause is good, and my design is satisfaction, and therefore shall not fear to take leave humbly to propose a few queries to serious consideration. first, whether a particular church may impose, press or practise any thing that is not warranted by scripture precept, apostolical iustitution, or primitive church practice? secondly, whether, if such things be imposed pressed or drawn into practice, by a particular church, the church members may not refuse it as arbitrary and after their declaring dissatisfaction in point of conscience may not withdraw from such church, till they receive satisfaction; and for non-satisfaction, wholly desert it. thirdly whether a particular church denying, or tying up its members by covenant, compact or otherwise from communion with other churches of christ in the ordinances, and it's refusing to admit the members of other churches of christ (professed believers and orderly livers) to communicate with them, in the ordinances, be warrantable by scripture rule, apostolical institution, or primative practice, or on the contrary, be separation & schism in such particular church. fourthly, whether there be any scripture rule, or parsident, for a particular church, to erect private meetings, and there to pray, preach, and carry on designs and particular interests, relating to state affairs to promote self-edification in stead of sole-edification?â�� and if not. fiftly, whether a churchmember, seeing the danger, and taking offence at such practices, having declared against it, may not in conscience abstain and withdraw from such, and join in the ordinances with other congregations of god's people, without incurring the guilt of shcisme. in the next place i shall point mr. stucley, to some passages of the late reverend and learned mr. burroughs in his heart-divisions pag. 173. & 174. if (says he) the cause of leaving communion be just, than those who gave this cause are the schismatics, not those who withdraw upon it, thus the governors of the church may be the schismatics and a private member withdrawing may be free. and again, if governors impose that which is not necessary (though in itself not sinful) and will not bear with the weaknesses of such, as think it to be evil, if upon that, they be forced to withdraw in this the governors are the schismatics. and again in pag. 50. the power of the church (says he) extends not to the punishment of every thing, that either may by the governors of it be conceived to be evil, or that is indeed evil, but only such things, as some way or other appear to be against conviction and are obstinately persisted on, etc. and in pag. 52. those that will go farther, they will punish for every evil, and if they use means to convince them, and they be not convinced, they will judge them obstinate, & proceed against them accordingly, those challenge & exercise not the power of christ, but antichrist. and again pag. 67. this is generally held by our brethren (saith he) if a man be rightly cast out of communion with one church, he is thereby cast out of all. if this be so (says he) then surely many things must be suffered, before we proceed to cast out a member, it must not be for every error of miscarriage, thus also bp. davenant in his rules for peace, these may not be cut off from communion with particular churches, who remain joined to the catholic church. and again pag. 90. prelatical spirits indeed account it their honour to force men to be of their mind; 'tis their glory, that they can say to the consciences of men, bow down before us: a gracious spirit abhors the thought of such a tyranny. these things thus-premised and considered, i apply it to the case in hand, in these few ensuing queres. first i inquire, what other meaning or construction but imposing and pressing things unnecessary, can be made or put on those passages and practices in your covenant (for so your elder mr. eveleigh named it to me and my wife) (viz.) that we should hear you, when you preached, and no others, without your leave, and that we must expect a greater blessing on your ministry, than any others, and that we must frequent your private meetings, or be accountable to you and your officers for our default? have you any scripture-rule or primitive church practice for these, and for such pressing of them (as your elder did) on me and my wife to subscribe unto them? and as for your denying liberty to communicate at the lords table with other churches of christ, where is your scripture-rule or reason for it? is not this an imposing and pressing of things unnecessary. in the second place i inquire, whether i and my wife did not refuse to subscribe this covenant upon grounds of dissatisfaction, in point of conscience: pray ask your elder, did i not tell him i must first see direct proof, or sound consequence from scripture, to convince me that this was an injunction of christ and not arbitrary, ere i could submit to it. and pray ask him farther, did not my wife tell him that she found no such rule of christ, not obligation upon christians, and could not in conscience submit or yield to be so tied up, but desired to stand fast in the liberty wherewith christ had made her free, or that effect, this, i say we did refuse to be engaged unto in point of conscience. thirdly, i inquire farther, did not my wife tell mr. eveleigh and mr. whitehorne, two of your members, that came to admonish her for not coming to your private meetings, that she was offended at your carrying on selfish designs and interests, under pretence of serving god, at such times, appearing both in your prayers and practices, and that she could not, with a good conscience join with such, but would leave you, especially after she had heard capt. rolls his strange praying, and the churches perilous petitioning the protector, which you sent me to subscribe, whereof the danger was represented to her as my narrative doth express, had she not just cause to take offence at this? were not such things enough to stumble a woman, to make her fear & in point of conscience and prudence also, to avoid this apprehended danger, both to soul and body? pray let it be considered. but now i mention this petition, i must take heed for mr. stucley is offended as you may see in page 7. where he makes the reader believe he hath gotten me into his net, into a dilemma inextricable; that unavoidable i must be either a traitor, or a liar, here he puts a bold face on a bad matter; but pray not too fast, let's along with you. reader take notice that in my narrative i was telling the grounds and occasion of my wife's withdrawing from them, that she heard a friend say, that there were dangerous passages, in their church petition, which they brought me to sign; and in particular a clause, to pray the protector to dissolve the parliament, and i told you also that this (amongst other things) did, (as it well might) trouble her, and cause her, to cautionate me to be wary what i did, and at length for this and other reasons before recited, to withdraw from them. for my part i never read the petition, nor knew ' its contents whether there were any treasonable undertaking in it or nor, let the contrivers and subscribers look to that, i did mention it in my narrative only to show the occasion and ground of my wife's dissatisfaction, and one reason of her deserting them, i had not the least design to alienate the chief governors affections from him & his church (as he suggests) i fear not the guilt of misprision of treason; but yet seeing mr. stucley puts me so hard to it, i shall see whether we can extricate ourselves out of mr. stucleys' dilemma, and that i may not be guilty of misprision of treason, and others may see who is the traitor or the liar, i shall here insert what i have heard (and doubtless mr. stucley will not deny) was the heads or substance of their church-petition as followeth. should this change be (viz.) the kingly office be accepted, how much will the liberty of the saints be hazarded; and will you put on the yoke of intolerable slavery on their necks with your own hands, and rivet it fast by a parliamentary power from falling of. can your highness be ignorant, that there is too much of an imposing spirit in matters of conscience, still remaining in the midst of us, who would gladly deny liberty to those who have earned it with their blood; and must we again forsake our inheritances & estates, etc. we cannot but remember your highness; that the itch that was upon the spirits of men (nothing could satisfy them, unless they could put their fingers on their brother's conscience to pinch it) is not yet healed, what assurance will the parliament give, that your army, who are at present a fence between us, and fiery spirits) shall be continued? and is it not sufficiently known that many of those persons that cry up monarchy, as hereditary, are crying down of a military basis, as inconsistent with magna charta and the liberty of the nation? if the militia be kept in your highness' hands, it was that which was thought unreasonable for the king to pretend to: if left in the parliament, so chosen by the nation as now qualified; may it not easily be presaged how suddenly they shall be disbanded? or what ground or hope hath your highness, that the spirits of the common people are now more wary in picking and choosing representatives then of old? did you not lately see what need you had of your counsel to set guards on the parliament, to keep out malignant and violent spirits, though we fear, notwithstanding all their vigilancy, there are but too many crept within those doors. how unreasonable is it, that they who came together by virtue of this government should now be permitted to pull it down? if it were thought unreasonable that any should sit without a recognition: is it not most intolerable (pardon our boldness) that the subverters of the government, should be let alone their months being long since expired? doth it lie in your highness' breast to secure the government against such invadors? will not this as dangerously disappoint, and discompose the nation as any thing that could have been invented, by the greatest enemies to your peace and welfare? lastly are not the same weeds, nettles and briers thriving under this parliament as under tholast; and are there not the same reasons, for their dissolution, as for the former? may it therefore please your highness to lay these things close upon your heart, and not to consent to such alterations and subversions of government, etc. reader; there needs no paraphrase; these heads were given by one of their own members (no apostate) and therefore i think master stucley will not say, 'tis a lie or a false copy, only i cannot pass it by, without a query or two. first i ask why mr. stucley himself, had not printed their petition in his book, he says he was not ashamed to tell the world of it, and yet conceals it; if it were so honest why had you not printed it? secondly i would ask him, whether it were recomended to him and his church by his holiness from rome; or was it composed within the walls of mr. raddons posthouse in exeter at their private meetings? thirdly, i would know whether those that subscribed it were englishmen, italians, or spaniards. fourthly whether religion doth challenge any other place then to be a settler, no sticker in the state? fifthly whether some eminent statesmen did not discourage mr. mall (your agitator) from presenting it, and whether it were not turned back to be laid aside, or amended? sixthly, whether such church work might not justly offend weak members, and put them upon thoughts of satisfaction before they join farther with such a church? doubtless mr. stueley will take some pains to give some solution and satisfaction to these queries in his next, which i shall content myself to wait for with patience; and that i may no farther digress, i return to examine his allegations of my wife's supposed crimes and contumacy, deserving excommunication; and here i find he would make the world believe, that 'twas not for deserting them and going to her former pastor: this he thinks will not hold, though this in truth was at the bottom. but now (forsooth) it must be running away from her husband. reader for satisfaction in this, read my narrative, which shows the true cause, manner and end of my wife's going to honiton, which he falsely calls running away. the truth is, her spirit was troubled at those sorry actings in the church, which i have before set forth; she saw mad church work a-making, she feared entanglements and could not in conscience continue longer with them as i pressed her to do; therefore she desires satisfaction, and on that occasion and no other, she went to honiton in order to go to taunton to mr. newton, and my brother allein, ministers of taunton for solution of her doubts. i appeal to the impartial readers. what think ye? might not this intended tying up by covenant to a particular congregation, & debarring her of the liberty of church privileges in communion with other christians; and their engaging in state affairs in so unheard of a manner, make a good woman to use means for satisfaction, and quiet of her conscience, when she had told them and me, she could not in conscience continue with them? and she was told, she could not leave them: might not this, i say, cause her to be importunate for satisfaction without danger of excommunication? object. but they object; she went away, and i knew not of it. ans. i answer; she had told me before that she would go somewhat for satisfaction; and i had before agreed to her going to taunton for it. but suppose i did not for present know whether she was gone; what then? must she therefore be run away? none but an independent will judge so. object. but 'tis farther objected, why then did ye grieve at her going away and said, she would leave you? ans. to this i answer, 'tis false, i never said she would leave me, whatever you vouchers capt. rolls, and owen do tell you. they are your own disciples; and have been her accusers and judges. secondly i say, i had reason to be troubled: first at the ill use and advantage i apprehended such as you (who watched for her haltings) would make of it. and again secondly, because i had no sooner complied & condescended to the healing of her troubled spirit, but had too much harkened to some of your cruel counsels and instigations against her. let me put mr. stucley a query or two? first let me ask him did i ever complain to him or his church or any other, that my wife was run away, and require a church proceed about it? or did he or his church ever ask me whether she did run away or not, or whether there were a reconciliation, did any of them examine the case before they proceeded to curse her? secondly, did not he and his church (being madded at her leaving them) in point of policy or rather revenge conspire to spread and foment this false report, and then call it a public scandal, past her husband's pardon, and such as he and his church must take cognizance of ex officio, and curse her, for unless she would cry peccavi, though innocent. this will be the case another day, whatever they pretend to hid it now. she had left them: they could not brook it, therefore they seek occasion and finding none, they feign and frame somewhat that they may have some show for the work: it must be done in terrorem. strict discipline against the wife, may chance deter the husband from going away; for they now fear his departure too. to lose a church member may be ominous. thirdly, i ask mr. stucley this question, if he and his church had so good a cause, and could prove their pretended crimes against my wife, why was this conscientious pastor so rigid, as to refuse a hearing and debate of their accusations before mr. ford, mr. down, and others nominated by my wife, whereby he and his church might have been cieared and justified in their proceed, had their pretended delinquent been convicted? where was this man's wisdom or charity (i would fain know?) who rather then he would abate a hairs breadth of his greatness and honour (that proves his shame) he will give my wife to the devil, send her packing to hell; where is this man's scripture-rule, or church precedent for such a wilful procedure? hear learned zanchie, treating about church power in the point of excommunication. what is more grievous (says he) to the whole body of the church, then to cut off a member from the body? if a church (saith he) be small and consists not of many learned men, (as mr. stucleys i am sure doth not) excommunication ought not to be done, unless the neighbour churches be first consulted withal. a chirurgeon (if he fear god and be wise) doth not cut off a hand or an arm, before he hath first heard the judgement of the skilful neighbour physicians. and the late reverend mr. vines in his treatise of the sacrament of the lords supper, pag. 212. says. the proper and adequate, and immediate object of debarriment from the communion of the church is a sandalous person, that holds either a course, or hath committed the act of a scandalous sin, which he explains to be, some atrocious or grievous sin of the first magnitude, if any that is called a brother be a fornicator, idolater, covetous, etc. 1 cor. 5. and 1 cor. 6.9. know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of god, nor fornicatours, idolaters, adulterers, abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thiefs, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, and such were some of you, etc. and pag. 213. he tells us it must be an open and manifest sin, else it is not scandalous: and known it must be either by evidence of fact, confession or conviction. now let mr. stucley show wherein my wife was guilty of any such atrocious or grievious sin, and if not, why falls he upon this highest work of excommunication? little flies (says mr. vines) must not be knocked down with so great a hammer. object. true (says my adversary.) but there was contumacy that your wife was guilty of. ans. i answer first, if no crime, no contumacy. but secondly suppose a fault, i deny any contumacy: what contumacy? when she had made so many overtures to be tried by indifferent judges, godly indifferent ministers or people: what contumacy? when the poor women wrote to mr. stucley their desires, to be communicated to his church, to have their cause heard by understanding and impartial men whosoever they be, and gave assurance, that they would submit to the law and will of christ, which letter, this faithful pastor pocketed and concealed from his church, you see what a good will he had to the work; he would curse them right or wrong, where is the contumacy in her? was it not tyranny in him? doth he not deserve a bishopric. by this time (i suppose) the reader sees, how pertinent and applicable mr. malls' quotations are to the case of my wife's unjust excommunication; and whether she were guilty of crimes or contumacy deserving such a cruel censure, unjustly inflicted by mr. stucley and his church, i leave it to the judicious to consider. before i pass, i take notice that in his 5. pag. he tells you, that i am willing to wave the question about the impertinency of mr. malls' quotations, and to refer it to the learned, and says that i should have studied the question, and not contented myself with an implicit faith in the learned, etc. to this i answer, i think the question is now put out of question, and by what hath been cited out of those learned men before named, it plainly appears that his quotations are frivolous and impertinent to the case in hand, let the reader judge. and as for an implicit faith in the learned, i say an implicit faith in church affairs, is no way satisfactory unto me; and therefore i desire mr. stucley to satisfy me; whether he did not tie up his church-members to an implicit faith in him, when he did upon that black day of his curse, make his members subscribe a church-covenant or oath, that they would submit to his guidance and teaching as their pastor, (absolutely) without any restriction or limitation? why had it not been added, he guiding and teaching according to the rule of god's word? what is this but to pin their faith on his sleeve? what is it but an implicit faith on mr. stucley. st. paul durst not be so bold; he bids the churches be followers of him; and the other apostles, as they are followers of christ; are we not bid, to the law and to the testimony? bid search the scriptures, bid try the spirits? must we take up all you say upon trust? are there no deceivers gone forth into the world, and into the church too? wolves in sheep clothing such as (like the devil) transform themselves into angels of light, creep into houses & captivate silly women, etc. pray sir tell me why was this omitted in your church-covenant or oath, which mr. mall hath inserted in his book? should not oaths and covenants be plain and express? or will you supply it with an & caetera. have you not herein outwitted the pope, and made him a younger brother? surely there is somewhat lies in this pad, pray explain yourself next. reader i am sensible that i have been too tedious hitherto, and should i trace this fox in his wiles and cunning fetches in every page, i should tyre both you and myself to unkennel him; i profess i am hearty sorry to see his impudence; he would make the world believe the crow is white, and that 'tis night at noon by his logic all are lies, but what he himself says; he sees he is engaged head and ears; and must make lies his refuge to maintain his and his churches unjust act, like the boy that bid his mother call whore first. for a man to cloister himself up, and like the owl to decline the light of a hearing, and to be ashamed to give account to ministers and others that are dissatisfied, doth not this in the eye of every judicious reader speak him guilty and unworthy? what hath been already said, answers many of his foul aspersions i shall now contract myself and cursorily run over the rest. and first for his affirmation that i and my wife consented to mrs. parrs' suspension, in pag. 8. i profess we never knew of any suspension of her, much less joined in any; her answer was (as to me) fair and satisfactory, (viz) that she remembered not the things for they accused her, and if she were convinced of it, she, would be sorry for it. i never voted it satisfactory and neither knew nor joined in any such suspension, therefore that's an untruth on mr. stucleys' part. and next as for mr. stucleys insisting on my wife's neglect of admonition. etc. i answer that she did declare unto some or one of the officers, her dislike & dissatisfaction at their carriage in several particulars assoon as she had a convenient opportunity, which proved fatal to her in the end. take notice reader, it was not a brother or a sister singly, or a few members, but 'twas the whole church ', they were all as it were hung together in a string. their tying up the members by compact; their intermeddling in state affairs, their carrying on self designs, their practical forbidding communion with other churches; their traducing those that are not of their way, was a disease epidemical, that run through the whole body, and was discove'rd by degrees to be the very product of their private meetings, as if it had been a part of their religion. and would it not have been looked upon as a piece of pride & presumption for my wife to reprehend a whole church; & should she not (think you) have been accounted against (as mrs. parr) for a contentious woman, that raised discord and disturbance in the church. i shall (for brevity's sake) leap over many of his pages, the sum of what he there alleges; being answered occasionally in my former sheets. i also pass by his silly probabillities in the 14. page; which he brings to induce a belief in the reader, that my wife ran away, and intended not for taunton, 'tis fully answered. his queries; whether dame must ride upon the mugle of the mare? and whether honiton be in the way to taunton, and the like are so sordid and ridiculous, as ti's unworthy an answer, better be fitting the tongue of a stage-player then the pen of a minister, every child sees ' its weakness; and therefore i content myself with the saying of the wise man, answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him. â�� its merely forged to say, that john mongwell reported that dame ran to ireland with another woman's husband. 'tis false also that i could not for a while be admitted into my wife's chamber at honiton: & also false that my wife confessed that she had left me because of a different way: and that honiton and exeter rang of this scandal; all of this stuff proceeded from mr. stucleys' forge. 'tis likewise most untrue that he affirms in the 16. page, that my wife refused conference with those of the church that were sent unto her: she would have conferred with them, if others might have been present: she well knew they came to intrapp her, as they did mrs. parr, dealing with her singly. i only add, that the action of my wife in going to honyton was not scandalous. it was honest and upon conscientious grounds and ends, as in my narrative is set forth. in his 17. pag. he falls upon me for neglecting church-fellowship i. e. neglecting their conventicles at mr. raddons posthouse, to hear my wife vilifyed and abused, and others reproached and slandered; and see self designs promoted. reader thou hast heard what broth is boiled at those meetings. note; these subtle foxes must have their private meetings, to distil their principles, and gradually to discover their practices among their choice disciples of their own gang, that make no bones to swallow any thing that their infallible master doth impose or command: witness their subscripsion to his imposed covenant, binding them to follow his guidance and teaching absolutely without any restriction or limitation: witness, their stickling church-state petition and the like, of which thou hast already heard. for my part i am far from decrying or declaiming against the meetings of god's people, either in public or or in private, as there is or may because or occasion. but what need this private meeting, so constituted by strict injunction and to be frequented upon pain of castigation i profess i can see neither warrant for it, nor good of it: what is done: there you have partly heard is it not to strengthen the members in their separation from other churches of christ, and to infuse farther dividing principles, to widen the breach, that they may work their own ends? why not public meetings that all god's people may see and hear what they do, what they pray, and what they preach and practise as other churches do. i am of opinion that we ought to admonish, instruct, comfort & edify any of god's people of what society soever, at all times as there is occasion & opportunity. but not of your vowcher mr. owen's opinion, that we are to love those of your society, as a man loves his wife above other women, i know no such rule. i must confess, i am very much for public meetings, since i so much observed their private transactions; i much better like our public administration of justice in open legal courts in the face of the country, since i have taken notice of some chamber proceed before private comittes. mr. raddons posthouse was the conclave, where mr. stucley and his church did curse mrs. parr and my wife. as for mr. stucleys cavils, and exceptions against me for my pretended neglecting church fellowship; i refer the reader to my letter in my narrative, which was to have been communicated to his church; had he been faithful, which will give a satisfactory answer. i must say somewhat to tom savery's letter, which for the excellency of it mr. stucley hath put in print, pag. 19 the very reading of it with observation and reference to the matter then in question, makes good what i have said concerning it in my narrative. note in the beginning of his letter, he says, his soul is grieved for my disorderly walking, i mean (saith he) your absenting yourself from our private meetings etc. then follows; if the wife of your bosom divert you, etc. that is (see the scope of his letter) divert you from our private meetings, what then? he tells me out of luke 14.26.27, 33: if any one come to me and hate not his father and mother and wife etc. he cannot be my disciple. see his good application: if my wife divert me from their private meetings (you have heard what they are) if i do not hate my wife i cannot be christ's disciple. an excellent conclusion, a very sound inference. i hope, notwithstanding his doctrine) that i may come to christ without coming to such private meetings as theirs are: and i hope my wife may divert me from error, from danger, from their private meetings, and yet not divert me from christ, or from his ordinances, so as to give me occasion to hate her. doth tom savery think that to be at mr. raddons chamber in praying and preaching up self interests, and promoting dividing principles, is a waiting on god in his gallories? if it be so to him, 'tis not so to me; pray give liberty of conscience to others, as well as take it yourselves. mr. stucley hath well vindicated tom savery. i take no farther notice of his descant on my letter to him and his church, or of tom saveries letter to me; a common eye sees how frivolous his exceptions are. but now he comes with his kill-cow in his 22. page. behold yet greater abominations (says he) well, what's the matter? he saith, that i fear at the workings of the spirit in those mournings and lament which god was pleased to bestow upon his people upon that sad day; and that i blasphemously called it a hideous howling cry, and accounted so just a censure to be like the pope's bull, a beast, when it roars the loudest. for answer, i bless god, i am not ignorant, how horrid a sin it is to jeer at the workings of god's spirit in the mournings, sighs or groans of his children; and 'tis not mr. stucley, nor the devil himself (the grand accuser of the brethren) can justly accuse me for any such thing. i can (i bless god) appeal to the searcher of hearts, in the uprightness of my heart, that i am free from any such sin, or the least thought thereof; and i do not in the least recant what i said, i did say, and do say still, that they made a hideous howling cry or noise; in so much that one of them fell down in a swoon, or counterfeited; and others told me, that they were fearful to tarry longer among them, and truly i was and am serious, and do not jeer: i think they might well make a hideous howling cry, when they were about such hideous work; they were not about god's work, i dare say, it was the devils. they were perverting and misapplying god's ordinance. what to curse, and cast out god's servants to the devil, unjustly denying them an indifferent hearing: and when they had no warrant from gods revealed word, to pretend an immediate word, an enthusiasm or revelation for it? what else meant your fictitious parley between god and the devil in your printed libel, telling your church that the devil demanded those women to be given him by god, and that god bid your church give them to the devil, and bid the devil take them, and torment them, representing them as the immediate subjects of the devil's fury and vengeance by your unjust curse, pray what meant your, take her devil, was not this enough to make your members (if conscientious, any of them) to make a hideous cry? yea to howl too, for fear that the devil would have visibly appeared to encourage you in such a work, as (it is credibly reported) he hath since given you a visit in your house. 'tis well you have gotten an inspiration, i am sure you had no written word of god, applicable to this case; and therefore what if i compared it to the pope's bull, i think it very near of kin: yours as just and right as his, and no otherwise. and as for the copy of your prayer, it was taken by a man, who (whatever mr. stucley says to disparage him) hath been & is esteemed by honest men to be honest and religious, such as will not falsify any thing therein; but the truth is, 'tis such a misshapen piece that master stucley is ashamed to father it; and therefore in his pag. 24. he brings in his compurgatours: and who are they? his church officers and other complices in this unjust act; they are birds of a feather, they must witness that it was not his prayer, and say they, somewhat was inserted, and somewhat was omitted; but they set not down a word what this somewhat was: a very fair testimonial, ask my fellows, etc. as for the story of my wife's abusing her sister, i have made a true report thereof in my observations on mr. stucleys' printed sermon, to which i refer the reader, assuring him that 'tis not all mr. stucleys' shuffling untruths and evasions can acquit him from unfaithfulness and unworthiness in that business. and the like i say of his reflections in his letters: what i have averred touching it, is true; and 'tis sufficiently verified by himself in his scurrilous pamphlet against me and my wife, in which you see that practice exemplified to the life. and as for his charging me with neglect of fraternal correption in 18. particulars in his 28. pag. i shall only give this short answer, that it is a false charge; liars need good memories. reader cast back thy eye, and peruse my letter in my narrative and see how many of these things i complained of, that concerned him and particular members of his church; what was this but admonition, and what effect had it? 'twas clapped up and not communicated, lest it should dissatisfy the church: a fine shift to stifle my complaints and hid them from the church, and after charge me with neglect of fraternal correption. mr. stucley may also remember that i told him that i heard that the church had sent up a dangerous petition, and that it was ill resented: and that he was so far from disowning or disliking it, that he wished that he were in london, to present it with his own hands. and since he knows that i have sent him several letters showing him the particulars wherein the unrighteousness of his censure lay, and yet he most impudently denies all? i could go through all the eighteen particulars, and show how i have discovered to the parties concerned, my dissatisfaction, and reprehended them for their practice as occasion did serve. but in regard most of these are answered in my precedent sheets, as i have occasionally met with them, and others of them will fall in to be spoken to in my answer to his 48. pretended lies, i do (for brevity sake) wave them here, and shall proceed to his catalogue of lies, to give brief answers to such as are not already spoken to; as followeth. and as for his first pretended lie. that his sermon contained many foul untruths and base reflections, who sees it not? and that he printed it, what was it, but to spread false reports? i utterly deny that any person was employed by me to write his sermon or prayer, but after i heard what good stuff it was, i was willing to have it written out fair, that myself and others might read it, and where is the lie in all this? to his second supposed lie, i do still aver that my report in my narrative of all transactions relating to my wife's excommunication is true. and for his pretended care or counsel to prevent this censure i know none, but only his desires for my joining in that cruel act were sufficiently evidenced; but the lord in mercy prevented it. to the third, i say still, and that truly (and think the reader is convinced) that there were never any crimes proved against mrs. parr or my wife deserving such a censure. if he can make any appear, why doth he yet lie in his hole, and refuse to come forth before the judicious to evince it, and answer what he hath done: he thinks his pen must plead for him, and he may print lies, cum privilegio. i utterly deny that i ever joined in mrs. parrs' suspension; i was satisfied in her answer; and if she were suspended, it was unjustly done. to the fourth, i have answered before in my book, and (i think) have sufficiently evinced it to be an unrighteous censure: i shall say little more to that before i see mr. stucley prove it to be righteous, which he can never do: he shuns the light, for my part i little thought that he and his church should ever have been so far left to themselves, as to proceed so unrighteously. i did not desire their forbearance of my wife upon any such account, as he pretends; 'tis true, that i wished them to forbear their vexings of her (almost daily) as they did, for fear lest she, being big with child, might have miscarried by reason of their continued vexations. to the fifth, i say, we were fixed as members to mr. downs church, as really as any other members of that church, & did receive the sacrament there, and that without any such conditions as he supposes: yet i conceived, and was resolved by an able minister, that i might (notwithstanding) sit down with god's people in any other congregation, as providence should order, or as occasion was offered. to the sixth, i say we were not admitted of mr. stucleys' church, until almost a year after we had spoken our experiences; and for the difficulty of out admission, if it had been either for ignorance or scandal, mr. stucley was often enough with us, and might in all that time have told us so much; but never a word of any such thing till he had a mind to curse my wife for deserting him. to the seventh, i say mr. eveleigh one of the church-officers, and others called the paper which was brought into the church to be debated (a covenant) & told me that the greatest part thereof was assented unto, & therefore if it be lies, you see who was the author, and that i did dislike it i have already demonstrated. to the eighth; i say, my wife did join to mr. downs church, as in my narrative is expressed, and that which mr. stucley calls admonition preceding it, was only mr. whithornes ask her the reasons of her absence from their thursdays private meetings, when she had been absent not above three or four times, for which i think the reader is satisfied she had some reason to abstain. to the 9 the traducing of mr. ford & slighting of honest godly people different from your principle, hath been too frequent among you, and the lie and slander returns on yourselves. to the tenth, i say i have sufficiently set forth, the occasion, manner, and end of my wife's going to honiton, which is the truth, and will stand firm another day, when all mr. stucleys foisted probabilites, will be found to be nothing but the scum of his malicious calumniating spirit. to the 11th. and 12th i say i deny not that i had hopes to prevail with my wife to return to mr. stucleys' church, as my narrative shows, but when i had considered her grounds of dissatisfaction, and their harsh proceed in order to excommunication, i abstained from their private meetings, especially after that one of the honestest of the confederacy had counselled me to pluck up my spirits; and hold the reins of government strict in my hands, and to forbid my wife's brothers, sisters and friends to come near my house, and to turn away such servants as would not be pliable to this work, and to take in others, and to bear a stiff hand on my wife, and that then she would go from me, and i should not look after her; and that then she would be weary and repent, and i should receive her on mine own terms. i did presently guess from whom this counsel came, for ask the party when he was with mr. stucley, he answered he had been with him about two hours before, and would needs engage me to go to master stucley; which i thought to have done, but my heart failed me, and i durst not go, fearing lest he should engage me to some such wicked course as was proposed. you see where to repair for good counsel how to order your wives. the thirteenth, hath neither head nor tail, i shall answer it when mr. stucley explains himself, if it be then worth an answer. to the 14. i aver that he opened the letter which mrs. parr and my wife sent, and most falsely and unfaithfully told the church, that it had more of design then humility in it. if it had any design, it was to prevent his and his churches harsh and heady running into a mischievous act: and if it be (as he says) that none of the church saw it, i say, the worse, the more unfaithful, and inexcusable was mr. stucley for that: it was sent, and directed to be communicated to the church, and he would not show it them, nor ask counsel of any in so weighty a business, but lead his churchhead long into sin. the letter concerned them all, but he conceals it: and did he not therein show himself more a lord and master, than a steward and dispenser of god's ordinance? if this be his faithfulness, let me never be under such a faithful shepherd. to the 15. to this i have answered already, i only add, that ratcliff that noted mr. stucleys' prayer, and others also that heard it, do a verre it to be his prayer, such a one as it was. to the 16. i answer i have examined more narrowly this particular and find, that mr. malls' doctrine was, that there is great reason, scripture reason, when in severing the precious from the vile, the church should renew their covenant: and he applied it to the business of excommunication then acted, and pressed the renewing of their covenant. pray where is the great difference from what i have set down in my narrative that denominates it to be a lie? and as for his posture, whether he sat down or stood up, ' its not much material. if i mistake in that, i am sure i am right in all the rest. to the 17. i suppose mrs. parr is answering for herself: and as for my wife i say again, she found faults and saw cause enough to leave them, and did desert them before she was admonished for neglecting their private meetings to the 18. i answer, that if you did not look on other churches as babylonish, etc. pray tell me how do your words and opinions agree? pray what meaneth your cry? come out of babylon, what meaneth the saying of one of your officers, to one that was going to the sacrament at mr. john bartlet's church (viz.) what will you never come out of babylon? and what meant that independent book, one blow more to babylon? to the nineteenth i answer, hear mr. stucley shifts, and pretends he understood not my meaning; and that he meant not the churches in exon, when all this while his conscience tells him, that i was meaning and speaking to him of the churches of christ in exon, could he think i was speaking of communicating in spain or france in their mass. i remember well, he spoke these words to me, without intermssion; can you (said he) partake where there are drunkards? can you partake where there are liars? can you partake of the table of the lord, and the table of devils? and as for the argument you recite out of my letter; of your acknowledging the churches in â�� exon to be true churches. reader it is well known, with how much ado he shown them as much; note, this was spoken by him above two months before he owned the churches here to be churches of christ: the associated ministers in the county of devon, know enough of mr. stucleys' mind. about owning other churches i need say nothing. to the twentiteh, i say, let the judicious reader judge, what other construction can be made of mr. stucleys citing of pro. 5.8.9, and tit. 2.5. and his applying doctor tailor's exposition thereupon to my wife, then to insinuate and beget in the reader a suspicion of my wife's chastity? and by spreading his false and scurrilous pamphlets into dorset, cornwall and other places in the west to induce the people to believe those honest women to be as vile and notorious as is imaginable. to the 21.th there needs no answer, but the experience of the people of this place; let them judge if i lie in this. to the 22th i answer 'tis well known that my wife was of mr. downes congregation, and received the sacrament there before she joined with mr. stucleys' church: and for mrs. parr she attended on the other ministers. and therefore i think owned them: sure there were no others in exon that she owned, till mr. stucley came. to the 23th imputed lie, mr. stucley, pray be not angry, i must tell you again, that your saying that my wife is a lawless woman, that knows no subjection, is a most notorious belying her indeed, and to persist in it as you do, in saying that she hath taken the power of rule out of my hands (in the particulars you there instance) is a bold untruth. i am sorry and ashamed to see you so impudent in averring such apparent falsehoods. pray tell me, did i ever complain to you of my wife's disobedience? what tattling gossip was it from whom you had this tale? did she not tell you, 'twas not i, but my wife that put the girts into the pot? why had you not printed that also, to prove my wife's taking the government out of my hands? well, this looks but like a sneaking trick, to pry and peep into other folk's cupboards and kitchens to discover their houshold-affaires; but i am sure all is but a false gossopps tale at best. as for the 24.25.26. pretended lies, i refer the reader to my answer to the 18th. to the 27th. i have answered already, and begged them mercy for my mistake, if i did so far forget myself as to say that they were the honestest people that ever i came amongst: i have recanted that error. for his denial of slurring mr. rutherford in calling him the champion of presbytery, i shall refer it to the judgement of the reader, that considers how mr. stucley esteems of the presbyterians, and what a stickler he is against that way. to the 29th. i have sufficiently spoken, and shown his base abuse of, and blind proceed against my wife, and challenged him to a public debate of it, which he refuseth; i am sure he can never prove what he says in his pamphlet, unless he can get some knights of the post to be his witnesses. to the 30th. i tell mr. stucley that i was never burdened with old dame, but once when he told me a lie upon her, and then i was so zealous as to call her naughty woman, but my mouth was never so foul as to call her whore, as he suggests. had i done so, i would have begged her mercy, for i believe, she is as truly honest as mr. stucley himself. but had she been such as mr. stucley reports, yet why might not my wife go with her, with less ignominy than mr. stucley may keep such a one for a nurse in his house constantly for a year and more. as for mr. mongwell, he hath given it under his hand that mr. stucley hath slandered both him, and her in his false reports. to the 32. 'tis not worth an answer, yet i say, i might well avouch the tenderness and kindness of my wife, which i had ever found, though his and his churches deal occasioned a sudden heat or discontent for once. to the 33 and 34. i say mrs. parr was questioned by the elder of their church for going to hear mr. ford, to the neglect of their own officers, & was told that she should be called to account for it, i have spoken to this already, and therefore shall only ask this question, if she had been so guilty of lies and devisions as they charge her to be, why were those things let alone, some of them for two years and more, and then they must prove so mortal? why did they let her lie so long in her sin? but i doubt not she will sufficiently clear herself, therefore i forbear. to this 35. i say mr. stucley repeats false. reader, look into my narrative, i do not there say that he never reproved my wife in four years; but that he never reproved her in that time for her neglect of admonition of others. to the 36. 37. 38. 39 & 40. pretended lies, all which do concern the story of the difference between my wife and her sister in law, i answer that what i have set down in my narrative relating to that business is the very truth; and yet observe how confidently this bold man speaks passages in that business, as if he had been present and privy to every thing spoken or done about it, when in the mean time, he prints all this merely upon relation and hearsay, and hath no better authority for it then if he had taken it out of esop's fables. to the 41.42. i answer that my wife and her sister were reconciled friends; and feasted, talked, journied, and went to the lords table together many times, and how durst this pastor suffer them, if he knew them to be enemies all this while. to the 43. imputation; i confess i was in a mistake, but no wilful one. i said it was near three years when as it was not above a year and half: this was a mistake only in point of time which i have now rectified, but i am sure 'twas long enough, the differences were dead and buried by an amicable composure, but mr. stucley must rake up any thing to make a stinking stir withal. to the 44. i shall only bid my adversary repeat right: my words are; they had nothing to censure her for, before she left them; and this is the truth. i have and do challenge him to bring forth any crime that deserved church censure, before she deserted them: as for her forbearing their private meetings, which master stucley calls church meetings, i think the reader is convinced, she had sufficient cause. to the 45. i say, that i lament his impudence: 'tis known to the whole city that 'tis their principle, and practice to deny their members to communicate in the ordinances with other churches. i can prove that some were refused by him, only because they would not be confined to his church, and he hath denied it me as i have already shown, can ye partake of the table of the lord, etc. to this 46. i shall only wish mr. stucley to be as good as his word, i make no question but you have heard how your member mr. robert spragne was convicted for two lies against the chamber of exeter: i fear they had another original, and his was but the second edition, however they were public offences, and therefore pray instruct him to go to the chamber and acknowledge his error in spreading two lies against them, that they may forgive him, or else according to your doctrine, he will be in a sad case, for you told me lately, that we ought not to forgive, unless the offending party ask us forgiveness. to the 47. for answer i refer the reader to my answer to his 18th pretended lie, i only demand whether you would grant that there was any other church of christ in exeter, till about the beginning of april last, did you not before that time style yourselves (the) church of christ in exeter? pray what means your calling those of your own church and no others, brother and sister by way of contradistinction? what means that tenent of some (if not all) of you, that you must love those of your own fellowship above any other of god's people, as a man loves his wife above other women? and why should not mr. savery grant mr. ford the minister, to be one of the visible church of christ, when he was so hardly pressed to it? to the last i shall only say, that as for mr. malls' sermon, i refer it to the reader to judge by his reasons that are extant in his book; and if any other construction (than mine) can be made thereof i shall be well content: for the truth is, i believe the poor man was merely drawn in. and now to conclude, reader do but reflect, and consider the whole story and state of the business laid before thee, and then judge impartially of mr. stucley and his churches proceed, and at whose door all the lies and foul practices must be laid. i profess 'tis fare from me to take any content to imbroile in differences; or to make discoveries of others nakedness, could i avoid it, as all that know me can bear me record: but in this case, i may truly say, he hath compelled me, 'tis no time for truth and innocency to seek out corners, and to hold ' its peace, when falsehood and upstart novellisme is so clamorous and impetuous. mr. stucley, (you see) hath declined a hearing, and denied satisfaction to the unsatisfied, and plays the part of the athenian commander, who having ill stewarded the treasury of the common wealth, studied not so much how to give an account, as not to give any account at all, which hath necessitated me to this work. pardon me (right courteous reader) if i have been a little exasperated by mr. stucleys' intemperate dealing, and if i have uttered aught, more fit for him to hear, then me to speak, it being almost impossible for any man that is conversant in his writings, but to contract somewhat of his eloquence: consider the case in hand, and it is such as will even put words into the mouth of crâ��â��sus son, who (as 'tis storied) was dumb from his nativity. public injury calls on me to speak more loud and largely in mine own cause, but modesty bids me forbear. my design is not to derogate from him, but (if possible) to convince him and to satisfy others, truly honest and conscientious. i deny not his personal abilities, yet (without presumption) dare appeal and say, he hath neither shown that soundness of judgement, that is to be reverenced in some, nor that meekness of spirit that is required in all: my prayer therefore is, that god will give him these and all others graces that may make him more instrumental for his glory and the good of his church. finis imprimatur, november 23, 1677. guil. jane, r. p. d. hen. episc. lond. à sacris domest. organum vetus & novum: or, a discourse of reason and truth. where in the natural logic common to mankind is briefly and plainly described. by richard burthogge m. d. in a letter to the most honoured andrew trevill esq. of èthe in the county of cornwall. marc. ant. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. l. 7. 1. 12. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. london: printed for sam. crouch, at the prince's arms a corner-shop of popes-head ally in cornhill. 1678. for the most honoured andrew trevill esq at e'the in the county of cornwall. sir, that of making many books is no end, was truly said by the wisest man that ever was: not in this sense only, that multitudes of books, begetting in the minds of those that read them infinite distractions, deprive them of the benefits they might receive from fewer; but in another, that there is a prolifickness in books, that one produces another, and this a third, and so on without end; and consequently that the labour men are at in making them, is not only useless, but endless. you will have reason to believe this second sense to be as just and true as the first, when you consider that i, who lately wrote an apology for the deity, am obliged by the reflections made upon it, now to write another to defend it; and no question (but) the latter may be as obnoxious to unjust exceptions as the former: so that if occasion given, be also taken, there will never be an end of writing, but by what gives end to the writer. however, having received an invitation to add something to the former essay, i am (at last) resolved, both in justice to myself and to my book, to comply with it, and to enter into thoughts of the causes that not irrationally may be presumed to have had an influence on the objectors, and into most of the objections; and then to offer to them (by way of obviation) such considerations as (it may be) will not prove unuseful to rectify mistakes in other matters, as well as in this. and the main causes i intent to touch on (not to mention envy, etc.) are three: proud ignorance, ignorant zeal, and impertinent reasoning. 1. proud ignorance consists in a man's presumption of his own omniscience, (for the sciolist is ever most conceited) so that he presently and peremptorily condemneth that for error, which himself hath never learned for truth; as if there were no growth in knowledge, or that any humane understanding were adequate to verity: whereas capacities of the largest size are yet but narrow; and they that know most, do but the better know how little it is they know, and how much they are to seek. the most the wisest know, is, that their own and others ignorance is the surest object of knowledge. true knowledge is not conceited; it is humble, and aspireth after more. if any man think that he knoweth any thing, he knoweth nothing yet as he ought to know. 2. ignorant zeal, (a cause of very general influence into many mistakes, not only in matters of religion, but also in points of philosophy) what is it but a horse of high metal without eyes? indeed, nothing is more commendable in religion, or administers a better argument of sincerity in its professors, than fervency of zeal; but than it must be zeal according to knowledge, and managed with discretion, or else it is but rage and fury, not zeal. zeal regulated by the holy scriptures, that is, zeal according to knowledge, and governed with wisdom, is fire from the altar: but then irregular zeal, zeal without knowledge, zeal without wisdom, is wildfire, which (as the corruption of the best is worst) hath nothing more pernicious than itself to church or state. zeal without knowledge may be styled blind zeal, and is that when men are passionately concerned for or against an opinion and practice, from a strong, but groundless and unwarranted persuasion, that what they do, and what they are for, is highly to the honour and glory of god, and what they oppose, is against it: as if they knew abstractly of themselves, and by their own discourse, what is for god's glory, or what is otherwise, further than it hath pleased god himself in his word to reveal it. that only is for god's glory, which is grounded on god's word. the word of god is able to make the man of god perfect. the corinthians had a zeal for god, but not according to knowledge: and so had the jews, who persecuted and murdered the christians, but thought they did god good service. what manner of men they were, who among them called themselves the zealous, josephus hath left on record. yes, the disciples of christ, in zeal too, they would have fire from heaven, and cite an example; but our meek and blessed saviour tells them, they knew not the spirit they were of. they took it to be a spirit of zeal, but he knew it to be a spirit of passion. a persecuting furious spirit is none of christ's; it is antichrist's. the wrath of man worketh not the righteousness of god. zeal without wisdom may be called imprudent zeal, and is zeal unseasonably and unsitly shown in circumstances of time, place, and persons that will not bear it; as when men shall take their pearls, their reprehensions, counsels, instructions, or whatever other instances a zeal is shown in, and cast them before the swine; and that though they have a prospect themselves, or an advertisement from others, of the probable ill success, both that the pearls shall betrodden under foot, and they themselves be rent; this is not to employ and use zeal, but to lose it. there is a time for every purpose, and every thing is beautiful only in that time. pearls so cast, are cast away. 3. impertinent reasoning, (the third cause i mentioned, and a cause of all others of most general influence into errors and mistakes) i call not only that which of the logicians is named 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a passing and arguing from one thing to another, when yet there's no agreement, no connexion between them; but that also which is bottomed on single mediums, and runs on in a long, but simple line and train of consequences, from thing to thing; or else is founded but on second notions, and inlaid with them: which way of reasoning must be showed to be impertinent, and that by showing a better, pertinent one. thus, sir, i am arrived to what i principally designed; and i crave your pardon if, for my readers satisfaction as well as for mine own, i now enlarge, and take the boldness to let him understand my apprehensions of reason, both as to its nature, and the interest it hath in religion, and how (i think) it must be circumstanced and conditioned, to assure us of truth. by which performance if i gain no more, i shall this; that as well the persons that approve my former essay, as those that cavil it, will know the rule and method i proceeded by (in framing it;) which, to the former will afford a greater confirmation, if it be right; and to the latter, a fairer rise of assaulting (me) if it be not. 1. before i can proceed to show what reason is, i am first to show the many senses the word is taken in; which, not done by most, is one occasion of the great confusion in their talks about it. and reason (to omit some other senses not so necessary here) is in ordinary language taken either largely, or strictly, or appropriately and most strictly. 2. reason largely taken, is the same with mind or understanding, and so is commonly affirmed to exert itself in three acts; the apprehension of simple terms, the composition of those terms by way of affirmation and negation, and discourse, or illation of one thing from another. reason strictly taken, is the understanding as it issues out in its third act, not in the apprehension of simple terms, nor in the composition of them, but in discourse and illation; and so reason is the understanding as it argues, discourses, infers. but reason is appropriately taken, or most strictly, as it is opposed to faith and revelation, of which hereafter. 3. reason taken for the mind or understanding, is that faculty whereby a man is said to be reasonable, intelligent, understanding; as sight is that faculty whereby an animal is said to be seeing: or 'tis that faculty whereby a man is said to elicit acts of reason, or to understand; as sight is that faculty whereby an animal is said to see. i so define it by the act, for that the act is better known than the faculty. to understand (as well as to see) is a first notion, and he must be very simple that understands not what is meant by it; nor are there any notions more intelligible, whereby to mark faculties, than those of their acts. acts we see, being conscious of them when we exert them; but faculties we see not, we know not but by their acts. 4. the acts of reason in this large sense (as the same with mind or understanding) to speak of them as they offer and present themselves to mine (without confining of myself to notions of the schools, or common logicians) are two; apprehension and judgement. 5. apprehension is that act of understanding whereby it is said to see or perceive things, and is the same in relation to the mind, that seeing is in relation to the eye. 6. apprehension is conversant with things either as in themselves, or as they are noted; and they are noted either by simple words, or else by propositions, which are words joined by way of affirmation or negation; both which the mind sees or apprehends but as it hath the sense of them. sense or meaning is the motive and immediate object of apprehension, as colour is of seeing. the eye sees nothing but under colour; the mind apprehends nothing but under sense. 7. i know well that truth is usually affirmed the proper, adequate, immediate, formal object of the intellect; but (it) is not so. not truth, but sense or meaning is the proper, adequate, immediate object of the mind, as to its first act [that of apprehension;] truth is only the proper, adequate, immediate object of it as to another, which is called assent, and is a kind of judgement. i understand and apprehend a proposition which is false, that is, i have a sense and meaning of it, though when i understand or apprehend it, i refuse my assent. so that it is not verity that is the motive and immediate object of understanding in its acts of apprehension, but sense or meaning. 8. sense or meaning is that conception or notion that is form in the mind, on a proposal to it of an object, a word, or proposition; as colour is that sentiment begotten, and caused in the eye, upon the impression of its object on it. 9 to understand this, we are to consider, that to us men, things are nothing but as they stand in our analogy; that is, are nothing to us but as they are known by us; and they are not known by us but as they are in the sense, imagination, or mind; in a word, as they are in our faculties; and they are in our faculties not in their realities as they be without them, no nor so much as by picture and proper representation, but only by certain appearances and phaenomena, which their impressions on the faculties do either cause or occasion in them. 10. every faculty hath a hand, though not the sole hand, in making its immediate object; as the eye makes the colours it is said to see, the ear the sounds, the fancy the idols, and so the understanding the conceptions or notions under which it apprehends and sees things. so that all the immediate objects of humane cogitation (to use the word in its largest sense) are entia cogitationis, all appearances; which are not properly and (may i use a school-term) formally in the things themselves conceived under them, and consequently conceived as if they had them, but so only in the cogitative faculties. no such thing as colour but in the eye, nor as sound but in the ear, nor as notion, sense, or meaning, but in the mind. these, though they seem in the objects, and without the cogitative powers, yet are no more in them than the image that seemeth in the glass is there indeed. 11. so that all immediately cogitable beings (that is, all immediate objects of humane cogitation) are either entities of sense, as the immediate objects of sense, colour, sound, etc. or of imagination, as the images therein, the idols it frames; or of reason and understanding, mental entities, the meanings or notions under which the understanding apprehends its objects; which (notions) though they seem to the understanding to be without it, and to be in the things understood, yet (as i said before) are no more without it or in the things themselves, than colours are without the eye, or sounds without the ear, or sapours without the tongue, although they seem so to sense. 12. faculties and powers, good, evil, virtue, vice, verity, falsity, relations, order, similitude, whole, part, cause, effect, etc. are notions; as whiteness, blackness, bitterness, sweetness, etc. are sentiments: and the former own no other kind of existence than the latter, namely, an objective (one.) a notion that will free the mind of much intanglement in framing notions. we generally conceive faculties, good, evil, and other notions (under which the mind apprehends things) to be realities, and to have an existence of their own without the mind, and though there were no mind to think of them, when indeed they are but noemata, conceptions, and all the formal being any of them have, is only in it. and no wonder if he that takes noemata to be realities finds himself confounded by that mistake, in forming his conceptions about them. notions therefore are very aptly, though somewhat barbarously, styled by the schoolmen, conceptus objectivi; notions of the mind, but yet seeming to be in the object. he that looks for notions in things, looks behind the gláss for the image he sees in it. 13. such cogitable being's aś have no foundation, no ground in realities, that is, in things without the cogitative faculties, but are mere effects of the faculties, are called chimerical (entities;) and in the imagination are fictions, in the understanding mere notions; as in the former a golden tree, in the latter a philosophical romance, or groundless hypothesis. but such as have foundation in realities, are called real, [real notions] not that in their own nature they are in realities themselves, but that they have their grounds in those that are; they are real (as a school-man would express it) not formally, but fundamentally; they are inchoately and occasionally in the things, but not consummately and formally but in the faculties; not in the things, but as the things relate to our faculties; that is, not in the things as they are things, but as they are objects. 14. those words or propositions any one hath a sense of, those things to which the words or propositions relate, he hath a notion of. sense is notion; only it is called sense as it relates to the words or propositions, and notion as it relates to the things; but indeed sense is notion, and to have the sense of a word or proposition, is to frame a notion of it, or of the thing signified by it. 15. 'tis as impossible to apprehend a word or proposition one hath no notion, no sense of, as to see an object that maketh no impression of colour on the eye; for what colour is to the eye, that sense, meaning, or notion is to the mind. 16. sense, meaning, or notion arises from a congruity in the object to the faculty; so that to inquire why one cannot understand or apprehend a nonsensical proposition or word, is to inquire why he cannot see or hear tastes, or taste and smell sounds, or taste, hear, and smell colours, or see an object hath none. 17. that congruity in the object to the faculty, whereby it either actually moves it, or is capable to move it to frame a notion or sense, aught to be distinguished from that congruity which is in the object within itself, or with other objects: the former (for distinction sake) i call a congruity to the faculty; the latter a congruity in things. the harmony of objects to their faculties, and that of them within themselves, or one to another, are distinct harmonies. i can make sense of a proposition that is not true, so that 'tis congruous to the faculty, it moves that; when yet (it being false) the parts of it are incongruous one with another. 18. to understand and apprehend a proposition or discourse, it sufficeth not to have a perception of the sense and meaning of the words; those words as in conjunction, and tied together, aught to make such an impression on the mind, as moveth it to make a notion of them in that relation. one may have a sense of the words in a discourse, when yet he cannot make any of the discourse itself, because he cannot frame a conception, a notion of them in the composition that is given them in it. he cannot see how they are joined. 19 there are a thousand instances of discourses of this kind in jacob behmen, but i need not go so far as germany to seek some; i might have many nearer home within the compass of our own time and observation; but i decline them as invidious; i will only point to one in dr. fludd, a person that could speak as good sense (if he listed) as another, but i could never make any of many passages i find in him, and of one particularly, namely, that in his mosaic philosophy, book 3. sect. 1. chap. 4. 20. those discourses in which nor words nor propositions are sensible, or wherein the words are sensible but not the propositions, and yet are taken by those that make them for high sense, may be called enthusiasm. of the former sort i apprehend the whims of basilides, of valentinus, and the gnostics; and of the latter, those of the familists, and of others of late. 21. enthusiasm either may proceed from a spirit, or from complexion and a certain temper of mind; the former i call demoniacal, the latter complexional; and not unlikely but in most enthusiasts it comes from both: whereof an upstart sect among us, in its first appearing, afforded strong evin●cments. 22. that there are philosophical enthusiasts, is as certain as that there are theological; enthusiasts in matters of philosophy, as well as enthusiasts in matters of divinity. paracelsus, helmont, and many other chemists, are examples of the first sort; as h. nicols the father of the familists, and others, are of the second: jacob behmen and dr. fludd may pass for examples of both. 23. when enthusiasts think they understand one another, (as they all pretend to do, and that seriously, and therefore must have some impression to justify that pretention, whereas yet no sober man can understand any of them;) i conceive it not to be by apprehension, but sympathy; not intellectually, by apprehending, that is, by framing just, steady, distinct notions of what is said; but sympathetically, by having excited in their mind on such expressions, motions, conformable to theirs that use them; for they all being of the same frame and temper of mind or of imagination, whatever touches one agreeably, also moves the rest; as in unison-lutes, or other instruments fitly tuned, but to strike one, is (at once) to move all. 24. notions of the mind are bottomed on sentiments of sense; so that as realities are grounds to sentiments, so sentiments are grounds to notions: the impressions of things without upon the sensories, produce or occasion in them the cogitations which we call sentiments, as colours, sounds, sapours, etc. and sentiments (again) impressing of the fancy, and so the mind and understanding, beget or occasion in it those higher cogitations which we call notions, apprehensions of reason, or ideas. idols or phantoms are in the fancy, ideas in the mind. 25. the nearer our sensories are unto the objects impressing them, (if not too near) the clearer and distincter is the sensation made by them; as we more clearly and distinctly see an object at a nearer than a remoter distance: so the nearer the mind and understanding is to sentiments, the more clear, distinct, and evident its perceptions are; i mean, the more sensible notions are, and the nearer to their grounds, the more effective, more impressive, and consequently clearer and more evident they be. 26. hence knowledge and apprehension of things is better both acquired and conveyed by first notions, which are next to sentiments, than by second which are more remote: the knowledge which is had of things by first notions, is more real, evident, clear, distinct, than that which is by the second. first notions are founded immediately on things; second notions are notions concerning notions: these are not so impressive and effective as the first. by first and second notions, i both understand terms or words, and the notions signified by them. 27. so much for the object of apprehension, which is sense and notion; and for the grounds of that object, which is sentiment: now for the affections of apprehension (if a good one) and they are two, namely, cleverness and distinctness. 28. cleverness of apprehension, which is in the mind the same that cleverness of seeing is in the eye, is opposed to obscurity and darkness, and presupposes light. 29. light is that which manifests, and consequently intellectual light is that means whereby the understanding comes to see and apprehend its objects; or that which manifests them to it: and is either light of revelation, which is also called light of faith; or light of nature, which is also called light of reason; where reason is appropriately taken, and most strictly. 30. the light of revelation is that discovery or manifestation god himself is pleased to make of things by his spirit, and is chief in the holy scriptures. the light of nature is all other light whatever but that of revelation, whereby we see and apprehend things, and is that we have by sense and discourse. 31. some things there are that may be seen in both lights, in that of nature, and that of revelation, though more clearly in the latter than in the former; as that god is good, and that he is the maker and conserver, and supreme director of all things: other things are only to be seen in the light of revelation, being of a nature not to be discovered but in and by it; as the mysteries of christian religion, the doctrine of the trinity, the incarnation of god, etc. 32. the lights of faith and nature, of revelation and reason, though they be not the same, yet are not contrary; i mean, that what is shown or seen to be true in one light, can never be shown or seen to be false in the other: what is apprehended by sense rightly circumstanced and conditioned, to be this, or to be that, or else by reason rightly acting to be so, or so, it is never contradicted by revelation. things are nothing to a man but as they stand in his analogy: for him to believe against his faculties, is to believe a contradiction. if in the holy sacrament of the lord's supper, the elements first and last are bread and wine to sense, and to reason judging according to sense, i cannot hold myself obliged by (any) revelation to believe them flesh and blood, but in a notion consistent with the judgement sense and reason make of them; that is, not flesh and blood substantially, but sacramentally; not flesh and blood really, but only by signification. else truth might be incongruity, inconsistency. transubstantiation is to me a mystery; i am so far from making truth of it, that i cannot make any sense of it; i might as well believe that two and two make not four, or three and three six, as that it is not bread, or wine, which to my eye, my taste, my touch, in a word, which being an object of sense, to all examinations of my sense is so. what is against sense, is against knowledge. 33. an object only to be seen by the light of faith, may be said to be seen by reason above reason, by reason assisted with the light of revelation, above reason not so assisted, but acting only by the aids of nature; but still it is reason sees in both: as i can see an object with a tube, that with my naked and unarmed eye i cannot: or see in the sun-light an object that i cannot by moonlight; but still it is the eye that sees in both; the organ is the same, although the lights be not. it is the same reason and understanding, the same faculty that sees in the light of revelation, as it is that sees by the light of nature; and the same that argues and discourses in the one, as by the other. 34. the great design of god in all the doctrines, and even in the highest and most sublime mysteries of our religion, is to affect the hearts of men: and therefore as (1.) he represents and reveals them in first notions; so (2.) he also doth it in sensible and comparative ones; and usually (3.) he representeth one thing by many notions. (1.) to make it more affective; and withal (2.) to signify, that no one notion he represents the thing in, is adequate and just to it. thus he represents the great mystery of our union unto christ, and our communion with him, by that between the vine and branches, between the husband and wife, between the head and members: as also the great work of conversion that passes upon men in the change he makes on them, from their darkness into his most marvellous light, he compares it to generation, to adoption, to creation: in fine, the new covenant is not only styled a covenant, but also a testament, and a promise. all which resembling and comparative expressions may and aught to be employed and used for the apprehending of the things they are designed to signify, and the making of them more affective; but neither of them so (to be insisted on) as if it were adequate, or just. 35. the light of faith and revelation, must not be confounded with that of reason and nature; i mean, we ought not to consider points of mere revelation in the light of mere natural reason: spiritual things cannot be discerned but spiritually, and therefore must not be compared but with spirituals. in points of (mere) revelation, we ought entirely to confine ourselves to the notions, comparisons, similitudes and representations god himself hath made of them, without pretending to be wise above what is written, and to say or understand just how in themselves the things are, abstractly from the dresses revelation puts them in. 36. he that pretends to understand the mysteries of christian religion, or any point of mere revelation stripped of those notions, resemblances, and comparisons, when they be not revealed or discovered but in them; as he looketh not on these things in the light of faith and revelation, but in that of reason or nature; so not looking on them in their own genuine and proper light, no wonder if he either err or trifle about them. 37. justly liable to this reproof i judge them that are not content to think and speak of god (the proper object as well as author of revelation) in that manner that he speaks of himself; who reveals himself to us men in analogous and comparative notions, not in such as adequate and adjust him, but such as do proportion and suit with us; as if he had an understanding, will, and affections; and did purpose ends, and elected means to compass them; did consult and decree, and were touched with the affections of joy, grief, love, hatred, anger, revenge, etc. 38. they that tell us that he is not angry, that revenge is an imperfection not to be imputed to him, and pretend to tell us just what's meant by it, they might as well tell us that he doth not love nor hate; that he doth not propose ends to himself, nor design means; that he doth not consult nor decree; that he hath no providence, no foresight, there being imperfection in all those notions; and yet without them, and the like, you can nor think, nor speak of god. abstract the deity from these and other comparative notions, notions of him, which are not in him, and yet wherein he pleases to reveal himself, and you will soon make him such an one as epicurus fancied, an infinite excellency, but unknown, not concerned, nor concerning of himself with things below him. 39 it seems to me, that he that would abstract god, or any matter of religion, from the notions or comparisons which he or that is represented in, would do like one that would consider the world only in its realities of matter, figure, texture, and motion, abstractly from those phaenomena and appearances occasioned by them in our senses and minds: and if the latter may be thought to have but an empty, dry, and barren notion of the world, the former would not have a much better of god (whom now we cannot know as he is) or of any subject of revelation, that should so consider it. 40. whoever well attends, will find that all the notions under which we apprehend god, are notions of him, like those we have of the world, not as he is in himself (for so we know him not;) but as he stands in our analogy, and in that of the world; which notions are very fitly styled attributes, not accidents, as not speaking things inherent really in him, but things ascribed by the mind, or attributed to him; as colours, which but in the eye, are yet ascribed to the object; and sounds, that indeed exist but in the ear, are attributed to the air: for we regarding god in that relation that he bears to the world, and to ourselves, and so considering him, have excited in us such notions by the impressions the things we look on, and god himself as interested in them, make upon us. the attributes of god are but (as) so many aspects. much obscurity and many errors in forming notions about god and his attributes, are owing to an unacquaintance with this truth. 41. having spoken of clearness of apprehension, and of the lights that make it, i will only add a consideration, which though obvious enough, is not reflected on as it should; namely, that the lights are gradual; [even that of revelation] and that all things are not equally clear (in them:) so that we ought to put a difference, as between philosophical and theological points, and points unrevealed and revealed; so in those revealed between fundamental points (which are but few and plain) and superstructures upon them; between what is in scripture in express terms, and what is there but by consequence; and in consequences, between those that are immediate and next to principles, and those that are remote and further off. as there are weighty points of the law, so there are tythe-mint, anise, and cummin; he that makes no difference, takes not his measures by jesus christ's. as it is inept and foolish, so it is inhuman and bloody, not to distinguish errors from heresies. heresy in religion, is as treason in the law, a subversion of fundamentals; and it must be plainly and directly so, and not by consequences and far-fetched deductions: for heresy, it must be eradicated; but as for errors, he that is exempt from them, let him throw the first stone at the guilty. but this is not intended as a plea for error, god forbidden! but for humanity. 42. i proceed to the second affection of apprehension, which is distinctness. and to apprehend a thing distinctly, is to form such a notion and conception of it, and to have such a sense as doth distinguish it from all things else. 43. distinctness of apprehension is acquired by distinction, and by definition. distinction, as i take it, is of words; definition of things. to make a distinction is, when a word hath many significations, to determine, fix, or define the sense it is taken or used in, and by certain marks and tokens to distinguish it and circumscribe it from all the others (it hath.) definitions of things are properly descriptions. to describe, is to notify, mark, and represent a thing in and by its attributes, that is, according to the impressions that it makes upon our faculties, and conceptions it occasions in them. essential definitions are nonsense. things are not explicable, but as they are to us in our faculties. 44. the more particularly any thing is marked, the more distinct is the knowledge we have of that thing. 45. most errors in divinity as well as in philosophy, own their being to confused apprehensions, and confused apprehensions their's to the ambiguity of words, and the uncertainty of their signification. he that uses words of many significations without distinctly marking them, and without particularly noting what sense he takes the word in when he uses it, may easily be apprehended to take it sometimes in one sense, sometimes in another, that is, to take one sense for another; and he that takes one sense of a word for another, mistakes, and confounds things. to confound things, is to take one for another. confusion of things comes from ambiguity of words. a word in one of its senses may belong to a thing, when in all it cannot. 46. caution. take heed of being abused with the agreement of words, into a belief of answerable agreement in things. 47. direction. to avoid confusion of apprehension, the best way is to look beyond the words we hear or read, or have in our minds, unto their senses and meanings: for words may be uncertain and equivocal, whereas sense and notion is not so, but certain and fixed. 48. having treated of apprehension in the general, of its object, and of its two affections, clearness and distinctness, it remaineth to speak of those conditions which are requisite to the forming of a clear and distinct apprehension; and they are four: a due illumination or illustration of the object; a right disposition of the faculty; a due distance from the object; and a due attention to it. the same conditions in apprehension as in vision. 49. a due illumination of the object; by which i mean here but perspicuity of expression: a representation of things unto the mind in plain, apt, and significant words, and in a plain and instructive order and method. plainness of expression and method is the light of a discourse; he that uses it is didactical, [apt to teach,] but he that will clearly and methodically express his thoughts to others, must first conceive them so himself: so that here i might say over again what i have already about clearness and distinctness of apprehension. 50. a right disposition of the faculty; a right temper of mind, [rectitude of mind] consists in a full and perfect exemption of it from all the prejudices that either education, custom, passion, or false reasoning have imbibed it with. prejudices are erroneous (or false) anticipations, and are in the mind as tinctures in the eye, which falsify its vision. other diseases of the mind there are besides prejudice, as levity, curiosity, scepticism, etc. in an exemption, from which also sanity of mind consists; but the principal is prejudice. and besides sanity of mind, there is (for the apprehending of some particular objects) necessary also a sanctity of mind. the pure in heart [only] see god. 51. a due distance from the object; not to look too near, nor at too remote a distance. 52. not too near. too near looking is a cause of much entanglement and error, both in forming of philosophical and theological notions; he that looks too near, doth either see nothing at all, or but confusedly: he looks too near to things, that not contented with common notions of them, wherein all the world agrees, will have more exact ónes; or that not contented with the knowledge of things according to appearances, as he may see them, is always attempting to know them in their realities, in which he cannot; as in quantity the common notion of it, how evident is it! 'tis evident to all men, and none but knows what is meant by it; and he that looks on quantity but so, observes a due distance; but whosoever looks nearer, looks too near, and is confounded with the composition of the continuum [and well he may that takes a phaenomenon, a spectrum, an appearance for a reality.] 53. not at too remote a distance. he considers objects at too remote a distance, that looks on them but in second notions, or contents himself with general ones, which at best are but confused and uncertain; and being so, no wonder if they cause mistakes: the more particular and distinct, the surer the knowledge is: we are often deceived with appearances, and take one thing and person for another, when we only see them afar off. 54. due attention is a fixed and steady beholding of the object, in order to a framing clear and distinct conceptions about it; and 'tis opposed to inadvertency, or a precipitate and hasty skipping from thing to thing, without a due considering of any: a distemper of mind, to which youth and warm complexions are subject, which though they may be more ingenious and witty, and more prompt and ready, are yet for that reason seldom so judicious, prudent and weighty, as those of cooler tempers and of more age. 55. so much for apprehension, the first act of understanding; i now pass on to the second, which is judgement. 56. judgement is that act of the understanding whereby it having compared and considered things (presented to it, and apprehended by it,) comes in the end and upshot, either to assent, or dissent. so that judgement is a compounded act, and (as it were) made up of two; one of which is mediate and inchoate, the other ultimate & complete; the first is comparing and considering; the second, resolving and decreeing: that the premises; this, the conclusion. the former properly is reasoning; the later, resolving according to reason. 57 reasoning is (a) producing or showing of (a) reason. (a) reason is the ground of intellectual judgement; or the cause why the understanding either assents, or dissents. assent is the approving judgement of the understanding; dissent is the disproving judgement of the understanding. to show reason for a thing, is to prove it: to show reason against a thing, is to disprove it. plain reason is that which convinceth: forced reason is that which only confutes. to confute is, so to entangle a person that he cannot answer: to convince is, so to show him reason, that he cannot deny it to be so. a man is often confuted, when yet he is not convinced. 58. method of reasoning is called logic; and is either artificial or natural. artificial is the logic of schools, of which the chiefest is aristotle's: and is useful many ways, but among others, mainly (as a whetstone) to acute and sharpen the wit; and to render it more sagacious, circumspect and wary, both in making and admitting deductions and consequences. natural logic, that of plain and illiterate men, of which i design to discourse, is the natural method of reasoning; in relation whereunto the scots are said to have a proverb, that an ounce of mother-wit is worth a pound of clergy. 59 natural logic is universal, a logic of the whole kind; so that what in natural logic is reason to one man, is so to all; for all having the same faculties, and using them in the same method, must needs come to the same issue, and by the same principles arrive to the same conclusion. 60. as one naturally by often seeing and attending to his own acts, acquires a method how to look to see to the best advantage, as also optical rules by which he judges of objects; which method and which rules are [to speak generally] the same among all men: so may he by frequent reasoning, and attending to his own and others reasonings, easily and insensibly acquire a method [which as reasoning itself will for the general be the same with all men] how to use his reason to the best advantage, to reason out things. this common method of reasoning, (which because common, and in some measure acquired without assistances of art, i call natural) is natural logic. 61. all reasoning is either speculative or practical. speculative reasoning is showing a thing is true or false: practical reasoning is showing a thing is to be done, or not to be done. (a) speculative reason is the ground of speculative judgement. (a) practical reason, the ground of practical judgement. speculative judgement is judgement that a thing is true or false: judgement that it is true, is speculative assent; that 'tis false, speculative dissent. practical judgement is judgement or decree that a thing is to be done, or not to be done. judgement that a thing is to be done, is judgement for it, or practical assent: judgement that a thing is not to be done, is judgement against it, or practical dissent. 62. speculative reasoning is either proving or disproving. to prove, is to show a thing to be true; to disprove, is to show a thing to be false. so that in natural logic, [as to speculative reasoning,] there are but two topics, or principal places of arguments, and those are verity and falsity: the one affords us a medium of proving, the other a medium of disproving: i prove what i say, by showing the truth; i disprove what another says, by showing the falsity of it. 63. truth and falsity are to the mind, as white and black to the eye; as these are kinds of colours, and so the objects of the eye; so the former are kinds of sense, and consequently objects of the mind: and as the eye rightly circumstanced and conditioned sees white to be white, and black to be black; so the understanding sees truth rightly shown to be truth, and falsity to be falsity. 64. wherefore to prove a truth to be one, is but in a right method to show it to the mind, the understanding apprehending a thing to be true when rightly showed, as the eye doth see the show to be white that is duly held before it. a notion may be true, yet not acknowledged to be so, because not rightly apprehended, or seen; and it is not rightly seen or apprehended, because not rightly showed: then truth is rightly showed, or shown to be truth, when 'tis showed systomatically, or harmonically. the like is to be said of falsity. but to enlighten this point, i am to show at large what truth, and consequently, what falsity is. 65. truth, in the apprehensions of some of the schoolmen and of others, is that conformity which is in things to their original ideas in the divine intellect. all second being's are but copies of the mind of the first, in which they have their exemplars: and wherein doth the verity, the truth of copies consist, but in a conformity to their originals? 66. but this notion of truth (however true it may be) is not pertinent to us; 'tis metaphysical truth that it relates unto; a truth of things as standing in the analogy of god: but the truth we treat of, and whose notion we are enquiring after, is logical, a truth of things as standing in our analogy, and which is the ground of assent. certain it is, this notion that the schools afford us, is not (nor can it be to us) a medium of reasoning; since we cannot say what is conformable or what is not unto the divine exemplars. he must see the original, and compare the copy with it, that on knowledge will affirm this to be true. 67. of late the old catalepsis has seen the light again, that comprehension discoursed of by cicero in his lucullus. the meaning of which is, that there is no other criterium, no other judicial note of truth, no other rule, mark, or measure whereby to know a thing to be true, than clear and distinct perception. and thus also the cartesians. 68 but on the contrary, clear and distinct perception is not the cause and ground of assent, but only a condition of causing; truth is the only adequate and effectual motive or reason of assent; but to be so, it must be clearly and distinctly perceived. truth (as whiteness) is something in the object that invites assent: clear and distinct perception is not in the object, but of it; and consequently is not truth, but conversant about truth. sight is not colour, but of colour; so neither is perception truth, but of truth. besides, that cannot be a certain mark of truth, which may be affirmed as well of error as of truth. i may as clearly and distinctly perceive a thing to be false, as to be true. a thing may be evidently false, as well as evidently true. 69. if any say (as doubtless some will) that by clear and distinct perception, they mean nothing but a clear and evident apprehension of the truth of things; i answer, that then either they know what truth is by its mark and definition, and by the impression that it makes on the mind, as well as what whiteness (is) by the impression made thereby on the eye; or they do not. if they do not, how can they say they clearly and distinctly perceive a thing to be true, who know not truth? they might as well say, they clearly and distinctly see a thing to be white, when they know not whiteness. or if they know what truth is, than that impression, that form, that notion of truth they have, ought rather to be insisted on, and not the (bare) perception. they should say, the thing is true, we see clearly the form and notion of truth in it. for indeed, nothing makes a thing true, but the form and notion of truth therein: for did i apprehend a thing to be true never so clearly and distinctly, yet if i did but apprehend it so (as i may, and many do) and that the notion and form of truth were no wise in it, it were not true by virtue of the apprehension i had of it, but only seemed so. as i clearly and distinctly see an image in the glass, when indeed it is not there; or an oar in the water bowed and crooked, when indeed it is not so. it is an error (and a most dangerous one too) to assert, that seeming or intellectual sense (for clear and distinct perception signifies no more) is the measure of truth: there are so many ways wherein a thing may be seen clearly and distinctly, that is, may seem true, and yet not be so. no convincing heretics, or opinionate philosophers, if seeming be the mark of truth. 70. to this opinion, i am now to add another much of kin to it; that of the truly-noble and learned the late lord herbert, namely, that truth consisteth in the analogy, agreement, harmony of things to our faculties, inviting a most free and full assent: or, in his own terms; veritas est harmonia inter object a & facultates, habens sensum gratissimè & lubentissimè sine ulla haesttatione respondentem. 71. all the difference between the former and the latter opinion is, that in the former apprehension clear and distinct, in the latter assent free and full, is made the mark and measure of truth. of this (latter) opinion, as that eminent person (last mentioned) among the moderns; so among the ancients were a many noble philosophers; in tully it is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. and as described by him, it hath the same foundation that his lordship builds on, namely the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of truth. that truth is so domestical and congruous to the faculty, so analogous and fit to it, that the inclination of the mind thereto, in nàture and necessity, resembles that of a stone, or whatever or other heavy body you'll imagine, to the centre. 72. but (1) a bare congruity between the object and the understanding is not the ground of truth, but of sense or intelligibility; and though there be a congruity in all truth, because there is a sense in it, and happily more congruity because a more agreeable sense; yet since that congruity is unobservable, unremarkable but by assent, and assent (of itself) is no sufficient evincement of truth; i lay it by as illogical and useless. (2) nor doth the understanding blindly incline to truth, and as it were by sympathy, or a natural motion of aggregation; its assent is (an act of) judgement: the mind proceeds therein judicially upon allegations and proof; judging a thing to be true, that is, assenting to it, only because it sees therein the form, notion, and mark of truth, as it judges a thing to be white wherein the eye assures it there is the form of whiteness. and (3) one may readily and cheerfully assent to falsities and errors, and mistake them for truths; and therefore free and full assent is no sufficient evincement of truth. not to urge that cheerfulness of assent, that readiness and promptness we many times observe in it, is oftener an effect of a passion bribing of the understanding, than of a pure clear impartial reason. 73. wherefore, others of the ancients, as well as of the moderns, abundantly convinced of the insufficiency both of perception clear and distinct, and of assent free and full to ascertain them of truth, and yet unwilling to have nature (so liberal in other matters) exposed to the reproach of deficiency in one so important as intellectual judgement; they have conceited humane understanding furnished by her with certain [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] anticipations, that is, with connatural and engrafted notions; principles designedly implanted in the mind, to be a rule to it to direct it. thus in the speculative understanding they have set up a habit, which they call intelligence; in the practical another which is called synteresis; in both, a constellation of principles, shining with their own light, and imparting it to others that want it; not much unlike to what is affirmed of dionysius in his celestial hierarchy concerning spirits, that those of superior orders enlighten all beneath them in the inferior. 74. but were there really such a system of notions and first principles engrafted in the mind by nature, in whose light all others were to shine and to be seen, it would follow that contemplation of our own minds, acquainting us with the chain, concatenation, and sorites of the principles therein, and propositions deducible therefrom, would more import to the rendering us philosophers (not to say divines also) than observation of the world and experience; and so the greatest schoolmen (those metaphysical alchemists) that insisted much on this method, and spun out all their notions of their own bowels, should have been the wisest and most fruitful of men. whereas we know the men, and the manner of their communication; all their discourses are indeed subtle and acute; but also empty and barren, and no more agreeing with realities (and in our analogy) than light with darkness. again, the soul in its state of union and conjunction with the body, is so dependent on it in all its operations, that it exercises none without the aids of it. ratiocination itself it is an animal act; not an abstract action of the soul, but a (concrete) act of the animal; it is the man reasons. and in the ordinary method of nature, we receive into our minds no impressions, no images, but what are handed to them by our senses. i am apt to think that person who should never have seen, nor heard, nor tasted, nor smelled, nor felt any thing, would have his mind as little furnished with ideas or notions, as his memory with images, and would understand as little as he had sensed. besides, those very principles themselves we call first ones, or anticipations shining with their own lustre and light, propositions which we cannot but assent to assoon as we hear them, or mind them; it will appear, if we reflect warily on what doth pass in our minds, that even these are not assented to, but on the evidence they bring; i mean not assented to naturally, but (as other propositions are) judicially. for instance, that the whole is greater than the part, we assented not unto it on the first hearing, but first considering what was meant by whole, what by part, what by greater, what by lesser; and then having sensibly, either by eyesight, or by imagination, compared one unto the other, we evidently saw it to be so; that the notion of greater, even to sense, ever agreed to the whole; and that of less, to the parts. the like that two and two make four. this is the way we first admitted to belief the propositions which are called principles; and it is no other than that wherein we admit all others. only the propositions (which are) called anticipations, or first principles, are propositions of so easy, sensible, and plain an evidence, and so obvious, that we early admitted them, so early, that we cannot well remember when we first did so; and therefore they are styled anticipations, or proleptick notions: for being of so early an admission and existence in our minds, they preceded all our (after) knowledges, whose acquirement we well remember. further, being's are not to be multiplied without necessity, and there is none of feigning such anticipations and habits of principles to direct the mind in inquisitions after truth, since all acknowledge there are no such principles in the eye, the ear, the nose, the tongue to direct them, and why then in the mind? besides, reflection on our ordinary reasonings, evinces that in them we seldom attend to such principles, but to the object discoursed of; nor need we to do otherwise, if it can be evidenced that there is a certain notion, form, ground of truth that runs through all things true; which form or notion of truth, assoon as the understanding rightly circumstanced and conditioned, apprehends in an object, it cannot but acknowledge it to be true, as it would another to be white or black, wherein it is assured by the eye rightly circumstanced and conditioned, that there is the form of whiteness or blackness. as for anticipations, they are too particular, and not of a nature so large and comprehensive as to be the rules and measures of truth, which is infinite. let those anticipations be reckoned, and then experiment be made upon comparison with the immense latitude of questions, and of truth relating to them. 75. thus i have shown the indications, marks, and notions of truth that (in my judgement) are not proper, adequate, or useful; it now remaineth that i show one (that) is. and truth, as it is the ground, motive, and reason of assent, is objective harmony, or the harmony, congruity, even-lying, answerableness, consistence, proportion, and coherence of things each with other, in the frame and scheme of them in our minds. truth is universal and exact agreement or harmony. 76. on the other hand, falsity (as the ground, motive, and reason of dissent) is objective disharmony, or the disharmony, incongruity, inequality, unanswerableness, inconsistence, disproportion, and incoherence of things, in the frame and scheme of them in our minds. any disagreement or disharmony is falsity. 77. probability or likelihood of truth, is an appearance of congruity. a thing is probable, when it hath some consistence and agreement; it quadrates and lies even with what we do know; but in regard there are particulars relating to the same systemes and frames of thoughts which yet we do not know, therefore we know not if it will lie even and square with them. improbability is apparent incongruity. 78. that truth is harmony and proportion, and consequently that probability is apparent harmony, apparent proportion; and falsity, disharmony, disproportion cannot be but very evident to him that shall consult with nature and common sense. 79. in nature it is plain: for harmony, it is the reason of the world; the world was made by it, cannot be known but by it. the rule of proportion is the king-key, unlocking all the mysteries of nature. the great creator framed all things in the universe in number, weight, and measure: extremes in it are united by participating middles; and in the whole system there is so admirable uniformity as ravishes every one that beholds it: every thing in its place is aptly knit with what is next it; and all together into one most regular frame of most exact proportions. every thing we look on affords examples; and galen in his books of the use of parts, has a thousand, to whom (if in so plain a matter it be necessary) i remit the learned reader. 80. and 'tis a common sense, that what is congruous is true, and what is true is congruous; so common, that none ever fancied any notion of truth but in congruity: some schoolmen, in congruity to the divine intellect; others in congruity to our faculties; and all men (though they speak not out, and it may be mind not that they do so) in consistence and congruity of things with one another; all generally concluding that narration (for instance) to be probable, which seems consistent; and probability being appearance of truth, if what seems consistent be probable, what is so is true. but to give a mechanical instance; one that would repair a broken china-dish, or make up a watch or other engine taken abroad, what measures doth he naturally take to do so? what rule proceeds he by? none verily, but by that of congruity; he makes no question but that when he hath found a place for every part wherein it lies consistently and aptly with others, so that in the whole there is exact coherence and congruity, no flaw, no unanswerableness, it is truly set together, and every part in its place. truth is harmony. 81. and seeing truth is harmony, and the universe itself, as it consists in our analogy, is but one system; it follows that properly there is but one science (which some will call pansophy) one globe of knowledge, as there is of things: as also that the partition of sciences, or rather the crumbling of them into so many, hath been a great impediment of science; the dependency of things, and their relations one to another, thereby becoming unobserved and unconsidered. and in fine, that the more large, general, and comprehensive our knowledge is, the more assured and evident it is. it is in science as it is in arch-work, the parts uphold one another, and mutually contribute strength and beauty. the consinement of the understanding to particular knowledges, as also the limiting of it in any unto certain methods and terms of art, is like too strait a swathing of the child, and spoils its growth. 82. so much for the two topics of natural speculative reasoning, namely, truth and falsity. it now lies on me more expressly to describe how reasoning is performed in reference to them, and so what the nature of it is. and natural speculative reasoning is systematical, and harmonical; it is a showing, an evincing the truth or falsity of a thing, by conferring and comparing thing with thing; it is a showing a notion to be true or not true, by representing of it in a frame, a scheme of real notions, with all its relations in it; and so by comparing, evidencing how it squares, agrees, and harmonizes, or otherwise. 83. that natural reasoning is harmonical, systematical, that it is conferring, comparing, is evident in the natural reasonings of plain and illiterate, but understanding men; who not having other logic but that of kind, to verify their tales, desire but to have them heard out from end to end; and who no otherwise confute their adversaries, than by telling over again in their own way the whole relation, that so both may be compared. besides, the comparative method of reasoning, used by the mind in intelligible objects, is no other than that we naturally use in those that are sensible: for, be it a visible object we enqure into, and examine the truth of, we turn it every way, and into all postures, so to make a certain judgement of it; and circumspection, (which is cicero's word for it) or the minds comparing and conferring of things is no other. and if truth indeed be harmony, proportion, congruity, an object cannot be evinced true, but by being evinced harmonical, congruous, proportionable; and it cannot be evinced harmonical, congruous, proportionable, but by being conferred and compared, and upon collation and comparison shown to be so. 84. to prove harmonically, is in a scheme and frame of notions bottomed on things, to show the thing to be proved, to quadrate, lie even, and to be entirely congruous and answerable. to disprove a thing harmonically, is in a frame and scheme of notions bottomed on things, to show it not to quadrate, but to be incongruous, unanswerable, and unadequate. 85. the best way of confuting error, is to do it by showing the truth: there is so great a delicacy in proportions, that a scheme of thoughts may seem congruous and agreeing by itself, which compared with another, is observed no longer so; as two pieces of fine cloth looked on at a distance, and not compared together, may be judged equally fine, and one no better than the other; whereas when put together and felt, and so compared, the difference is plain and discernible. 86. the effect of reasoning, (and as it were the conclusion) is assent, or dissent, according to evidence. evidence is the assurance we have a thing is true or false, and so is either of truth or of falsity, and answerably bottoms either assent or dissent. 87. assent is the judgement of the mind upon evidence of truth, that the thing is true. dissent is the judgement of the mind upon evidence of falsity, that the thing is false. 88 evidence of truth is either certain or probable. certain evidence is full assurance. probable evidence is good assurance, but not full. certain evidence is evidence of certain truth. probable evidence is evidence of probability. probable evidence is now a-days termed a motive of credibility. 89. in proportion, as the evidence is, so is the assent. if the evidence be certain, that is, indubitable and unquestionable, [and that is to be understood to be so, of which there is no cause to doubt, or make any question] then the assent is firm and certain, and without doubting; (but) if the evidence be but probable, the assent than is infirm, and with doubting more or less, as the evidence is lesser or greater. to doubt, is to fear lest the thing to which assent is given should not be true. 90. evidence of certainty, is to the mind (as to its assent) all as much as evidence of infallibility: for the mind as firmly adheres to what it hath all reason for, and no reason against; all reason to believe it to be so or so, and no reason to believe it to be otherwise, as to what it apprehends impossible to be otherwise; seeing it were unreasonable and contradictious for reason any wise to doubt, when it hath no reason at all to do so. i am as sure that once there were such persons as william the conqueror and henry the eight, and that there are or lately were such cities as rome and constantinople, as i am that two and two make four, or that the whole is greater than the parts. 91. firm assent in matters in themselves mutable and of a contingent nature, may be called confidence; but in matters of a necessary, firm, and immutable nature, it is science. infirm assent, or assent with dubitation, is called opinion. suspicion is a beginning assent, or an inclination to believe a thing, and is short of opinion. suspicion on grounds is called just suspicion. suspicion on no grounds is mere suspicion. probability is appearance of truth: and ground of suspicion is appearance of probability. suspicion is also called presumption. 92. assent on evidence by the testimony of our own senses rightly circumstanced and conditioned, is as firm as firm can be, and is called knowledge. assent to a thing upon another's knowledge and not our own, is called belief. to believe, is to take a thing upon another's word; and if that word be divine, the belief is called faith; or if but humane, it is called simply belief or credit. belief is grounded on the wisdom and veracity of the person believed: for he that believes another, believes him to have wisdom enough not to be imposed upon or deceived himself; and veracity or truth (which among men is called honesty) enough not to impose upon or to deceive him. the word of god therefore is the most proper object of belief, god being so wise he cannot be deceived, and so true he cannot deceive. notoreity of a thing [of a fact] is the certainty of it on common knowledge: it is not presumption, nor probability, but certainty. 93. assent to falsity under the notion of truth, if it be firm, is called error: if infirm, and with dubitation, it is erroneous opinion. 94. ratiocination speculative, is either euretick or hermeneutick, inventive or interpretative; and this latter again is either interpretative of the world, the book of nature; or of the scriptures, the book of god. but of these perhaps, another time, as also of the method of reasoning which i called practical, and is either that of prudence (1. humane, or 2. christian) or of conscience. now on the whole matter, who seethe not the share and interest (that) reason hath in matters of religion? men are reasonable creatures, and therefore their religion must be reasonable: every tree must bring forth fruit in its kind. faith itself it is a rational act [if i have any reason to believe men, i have all reason to believe god] and ratiocination is as much employed in points of revelation, as in points of mere reason. truth is the immediate reason of assent in matters of revelation as well as in others; and there is an analogy of faith as well as of nature; the mediums are different; but ratiocination is the same in both: we are as well obliged to compare spiritual things with spiritual in the one, as natural things with natural in the other. thus are the bereans applauded as persons of nobler and more generous minds than those of thessalonica, because they took not all on trust as these did, but examined the things were told them, and compared them with the scriptures. it is easy also to infer, that if any person shall give himself the trouble of disproving what in my apology i presented to the world; to do it to conviction, he must produce a frame and scheme of thoughts more congruous and harmonical than mine, and must account for those phaenomena which i therein essayed to solve, in a method more perspicuous and natural, and with more agreeableness and uniformity of notions than i have; or else he will not confute, but confirm it. i say this, to show the fairer play to those that undertake to answer me, if after i have said it any shall resolve to do so; and i say no more, to show the opinion i yet avow to be mine of all the objections whispered up and down, that in themselves they have as little force and evidence, and as little conviction, as those that make them have yet had either courage to own them to the world, or candour to own them to me. thus, sir, i have performed what i principally designed. i have showed the nature of reason: i have showed the true method of reasoning; as also the nature of truth, and (up and down my discourse dispersedly) the causes of error: and i have showed the extent of reason. in which performance, whatsoever other incongruity or error i may have been guilty of, sure i am i have committed none in dedicating it: for to whom could i address a discourse of reason and of truth more properly, than to a person who is so great a lover and owner of both? and withal who is so perfectly honoured as you are by all that have the happiness to know you: but by none more than sir, bowdon, aug. 14. 1677. your most humble servant and son, richard burthogge. books printed for, and sold by samuel crouch in popes-head-ally. feltham's resolves, divine, moral, political, with new additions. clark's martyrology. — his lives of the fathers. the sabbath of rest, to be kept by the saints here. by n. smith master of arts. cole's english dictionary. dr. thomsons method of curing. — his epilogismi chymici. sleepy spouse of christ alarmed; in several sermons. by j. b. recommended in a preface, by mr. nath. vincent. purchasers pattern, much enlarged. the english tutor: or the plain pathway to the english tongue; with examples of most words from one to six syllables, both in whole words, and also divided: with rules how to spell them, by way of question and answers. a vindication of the naked truth, the second part: against the trivial objections and exceptions (of one fullwood; (styling himself) d. d. archdeacon of totnes in devonshire) in a libelling pamphlet with a bulky and embossed title (calling it) leges angliae, or, the lawfulness of ecclesiastical jurisdiction in the church of england: in answer to mr. hickeringill's naked truth, the second part. by phil. hickeringill. london, printed for richard janeway in queens-bead-alley in paternoster row, 1681. the epistle to the readers. in the days of solomon, it was certainly true, that— of making many books there is no end; eccles. 12.12. what is it then in our days; and since this german engine and invention of printing is now so much improved and misimproved? books seeming to engender one another, (like those genets of spain) the offspring of every windy and hypochondrick vapour. i, that love my pleasure and mine ease so much, would now for ever take my leave, and last farewell of the press, if i could with a safe conscience connive at the insolence and empty windy vapours of this huffing man, whose flatulent bluster has begot (or rather ravished) from me, this following answer and just reproof: to say nothing of his insufferable and vainglorious petulancy, in styling his railing libel— leges angliae, the laws of england, too bulky to be comprised in his little noddle, and little scribble. i know full well that this vindication is needless to all considering and understanding men, who have already nauseated the trifling entertainment found in the archdeacon's pamphlet; the frustration being so much the more enhanced by the promises and idle invitations of the specious frontispiece and staring title— (leges angliae) of his thin, futile and cobweb contextures and composures; and they will certainly judge this vindication as unnecessary, as unworthy any solid pen: but all men are not critics, though his mistakes are obvious and thick enough. and doubtless, he will miss of his end and aim in every thing, but one, namely, of thinking thus to be taken notice of, for daring with such decrepit force to grapple with the naked truth, thus purchasing indeed a name and fame, but with such infamy, as makes him a scandal even to archdeacon's, and to all the d. d's of his little way. a vindication of the naked-truth, the second part; in answer to a libel called leges angliae, or the lawfulness of ecclesiastical jurisdiction in the church of england. no man (who has read the book called the naked truth, the 2d part, and compared it with the (pretended) answer of mr. fullwood) can imagine that ever the gentleman read the book which he threatens to answer. for many of the main passages therein, he touches not at all; nay, against the numerous and pregnant testimonies (from undoubted law-books, civil, cannon, common and statute laws, equity, reason, and conscience) against procurations, sequestrations, synodals, and visitations, etc. (to vindicate the lawfulness whereof (above all other things) it behoved an archdeacon to bestir himself to make answer unto,) he produces not one reason, or argument, except the statute of 15 hen. 8. c. 7. which is only for synodals, and proxies to be granted from dissolved-monastries, and not one word therein to vouch that unconscionable bougling of the richer dignitories in preying upon the poor vicars and rectors, and the inferior clergy, and going snipps with them in all the benefits in the kingdom, shearing the fleece of every flock, though they mind not at all the cure thereof. and for which they are smartly enough chastised in naked truth— quaer. 3d. but i'll do him right, and not o'reslip the least tittle of his arguments, (which i wish were stronger,) nor do i contend for victory but for truth. i am obliged to track his methods, and must therefore begin with the frontispiece, a stately but most unproportionable porch, to such a crazy and rotten fabric that only stands upon crotches, and crotchets; and if it were not for the little sentences of greek and latin to unriddle the hieroglyphic, it would be as dark, mysterious, and unintelligible, as was of old, those of the egyptians; or as the primitive painting, (whose pens were glad to surrogate to their pencels, and write— this is a cock, and this a bull. at the base of his cathedral lies a wench in black, or mourning apparel, with a cross upon her, he makes her weep too, and make a face as if she had lost her maidenhead, her purity, her virginity, and what would disconsolate say if it could speak? for my part i'll have nothing to do with her; for he cannot with any face make her to lie there as a portraiture of the present church of england: for in nomine domini— in the name of goodness what would those d. ds. and archds. be at? have they not all the sway, power, dominion, honours, manors and preferments, in the greatest courts and counsels of the nation? surely, they will be ashamed to put singer in the eye and cry; in the name of god, (i say) what would these men be at? what would they have. and what do they want to keep a wawling, and weeping, and wailing? what? never satisfied? never glutted? the papists indeed are crossed (of their plots, blessed be god) but the prelates have (as yet) no cross upon them; therefore i'll not offer to guests what mother he means that lies weeping there under the cross, nor do i care, i am sure she is none of my mother; be she what she will. upon the pinnacle of this church of england sits a pelican most kindly pecking and piercing her breast to suckle her young with her dear hearts blood, (and he makes her speak latin too) proprio vos sanguine posco. whereby he seems to insinuate that this kind pelican (his prelatical little church) has nourished mr. hickeringill with her dearest and most precious treasures, her very heartsblood, (such he takes her best preferments to be) and indeed some men had as leeve part with their heartblood as their flush ecclesiastical promotions) calling him (in his epistle to the reader) a divine of the church of england, who hath also a share in her government.— and yet this he, this ungrateful he, that has sucked her very heartblood, and got her nearest and dearest blessings, she having taken him up, on to the bench, and given him a share in her government; for him thus now to fly in her face, nay, most ungratefully and slovenly to spew up and nauseate all this heartblood, (those dear, dear procurations, synodals, visitations, etc. dear as the very heartblood) and to throw them up, nay, at the face of this kind pelican; oh temporibus, moribus! by all these emblems i now perceive that this same archdeacon knows not mr. hickeringill no more than he is willing to understand his book; for the mother he speaks of, has been always a stepmother to the author of the naked truth, and he never had any thing of her but frowns and blows, at best, but a bit and a knock; nay, when he had (above all others) disarmed the fanatics of their old weapon that lay ready at hand to make use of and take up— (by writing, curse ye moroz) for which at lest this same stepmother might at least have made him a courtesy, and thanked him for his great pains;) not such matter, too much envy and ingratitude reigns amongst a sort of unthinking black-coats, the lumber of the ship of the church, that pester it in a calm, and only help to sink it in a storm. nor has he any share in her government, nor never will, till they show as good authority for their government and jurisdiction ecclesiastical, as he can for his, namely, 4 patents, from 4 kings of england, granted with all royalties, immunities, jurisdictions and privileges in the exempt jurisdiction of the soken in the county of essex, and the inheritance of the most noble earl rivers, but in no diocese, nor subject to any archbishop, or bishop, and of which mr. hickeringill is commissary lawfully constituted, and he and his predecessors have been the only ordinaries; from whose sentence there is no appeal but, to the king in chancery, (or the king in the greatest court of judicature in england, (or perhaps in the world) the house of lords. but for this he has so little cause to thank the bishops, that, i believe, they would take it from him (if they could) and by privy whispers, and fictions, and stories, do him all the mischief (good catholics) that in them lies, for opposing their usurpations and encroachments, at least of some of them; and for vindicating the ancient immunities, and royalties of the (manyages enjoyed) inheritance of that noble earl: and from nasauces and encroachments of greedy neighbours that think they can never have enough; though (god knows) this exempt peculiar is but 3 parishes, a puinsul, almost encompassed with the sea, and is not worth five pounds per annum, to mr. hickeringill; who values the favour and good will of that noble lord (in conferring it on him without his seeking or petition) more than twenty times the profit thereof; it being usually bestowed as the most signal mark of favour, upon such, whom that noble family had a mind to grace. but enough of the pelican, mother or stepmother, and also of the frontispiece, with which trifle i have too much busied myself and the readers; now for the title, leges angliae; the laws of england. but by what title his pitiful pamphlet can challenge or lay claim to so swelling a title, shall be considered only by the sequel. next his epistle to the reader. wherein, at first dash, he endeavours to preoccupate and prepossess his readers with an opinion of his modesty, (good man!) he cannot wail nor whip his adversary; (that's pity)— and yet he begs pardon that (he is such a doe-little) he has not chastised so spiteful an adversary according to his merits and provocations, for he verily wants the talon and dislikes the sport. as if he should say, time was, in his juvinile years when he was (as indeed he was) a furious chastizing pedagogue, another whipping-tom, that took pleasure to lash and slash, but those merry days are done, (that's happy for mr. hickeringill) he now verily wants the talon and dislikes the sport. what a termagant whipster would this have been, if he had taken pleasure and made a sport of whipping men according to their merits and provocations? but why he should at first step fall down of his knees and beg his readers pardon for not chastizing mr. hickeringill, for not being cruel to him, for not bringing him to the whipping-post, i cannot imagine; i am sure if he cannot slash and lash, and chastise, if his bridewel-accomplishments have now forsaken his old withered arm, he yet retains his billing sgate; old men can prate (however) and scold, and so does he; he calls mr. hickeringill all to naught, he calls him papist in the very next page, (i suppose) for writing the naked-truth, and exposing the wickedness of papists and their popes in p. 2. of the naked-truth; nay, he makes another hugh peter of him, and that's somewhat strange, that hugh peter should be a papist; and more strange that mr. hickeringill should be hugh peter's; and also afterwards he makes a quaker of mr. hickeringill, nay, p. 6. he calls him both papist and hobbist, and most unmercifully tears him with pun and quibble (for which a very barber ought to be kicked) saying, i thought i had caught a hobby, but war-hawk. and a great deal of bad language this archdeacon and d. d. does very liberally bestow upon mr. hickeringill in almost every page, the wont attaques of such feeble and effeminate disputants. well— even what he pleases, he brings mr. hickeringill within two strides of the gallows, saying, he takes him to be at hugh peter's game, (i suppose for preaching on— curse ye meroz and drolling upon hugh peter's sermon) and running his wicked race. i see there's no remedy (at present) against such a cursing railer, the next now, and all that remains, is to make mr. hickeringill infidel, pagan, atheist, turk, and great magul; and yet this modest archdeacon cannot, nay, has not the talon to rail, and dislikes the sport. then last (he says) for pride, envy, wrath, malice, spite and revenge, some say, he (mr. hickeringill) is a very angel of light and somewhat more excellent— bless thy seven wits! dear d. d! for thou art the first that has made an angel of light— old excellent— pride, envy, wrath, malice, spite and revenge. the only modest expression in his book is the last clause— to the reader— where he confesses his unparalleled shallowness of conception— saying. if others can find truth in the man he cannot; so that— what has already got a verdict all england over, (except amongst the archdeaconry, and men byased with interest,) its grace is stopped by a sorry d. d. that confesses his ignorance, and hates the truth that thwarts his gourmaudizing, would lessen his paunch, animus in patinis. thus much for his epistle, it's well it's no worse. the proem. this proem takes up all the sense, and also almost one quarter of doughty pamphlet; indeed it takes up too much room— and arbitrary government of will. the conquerors long sword and proclamation, is all the reading he has shown throughout the whole book, citing an old edict— (out of spelman, but he conceals the plagyary) and will not lose the worm-eaten honour of some ambitious antiquary: whilst he quotes the record, and puts us to our trumpets to guests how, or when or where he came honestly by it. well, much good may it do him, when we come to it. and first like a churchman (of the old stamp) he will permit his majesty to come into the church (that's more kindness then old st. ambrose, bishop of milan, would show sometimes to the great emperor theodosius when he did not do as he would have him to do) nay, this archdeacon opens the doors himself to let his majesty into the church, but he will not trust him which the keys; as who should say, we will open the church doors to your majesty, and come in and welcome, whilst we continue good friends. but they that keep the keys and can open the church-doors to let his majesty in, can also (whilst they have the keeping of the keys) upon displeasure, lock him out; well, for this very trick and for another late scotch trick; if i were a privy-councellour, i would advise his majesty as head of the church, and governor thereof, to keep the keys of the church in his pocket, or hang them under his girdle; if it be but because this prelatical champion, this same pitiful archdeacon, like another pope, or st. peter, will keep the keys of the church, and will keep his majesty from them, and would fain persuade him, that our laws (to use his words p. 2. of the proem) exclude this purely spiritual power of the keys from the supremacy of our kings, except it be to see that spiritual men do their duty therein. belike this same archdeacon carries the leges angliae, the laws of england in his belly and greedy gut; for i am sure he carries them there or no where, he carries not these bulky laws of england in his brains, he has no guts in his brains. for, i pray, good d.d. where does our laws exclude this purely spiritual power of the keys from the supremacy of our kings, if our kings, (like good king david,) or wise king solomon should have a mind to be ecclesiastes? in the days (even) of popery, i never heard of a king shut out even from the topping-pulpit, if he had a mind to climb so high; stout king henry the 3d. made bold to invade the pulpit, took his text psal. 85.10. righteousness and peace have kissed each other; and then in his sermon ad clerum— to the learned monks of the cathedral church of winchester, when he had a little self-end too (as some pulpiters' have also had) in the case, namely, to cajole the said monks to elect his brother (athelmar) bishop of winchester; bak. chron. p. 82. paraphrasing and enlarging upon his text, and saying (to use his own words)— to me and other kings, who are to govern the people, belongs the rigour of judgement and justice; to you (who are men of quiet and religion) peace and tranquillity; and this day (i hear) you have, for your own good, been favourable to my request, with many such like words; i do not know whether the king had got a licence to preach— from a bishop. it seems the clergy (than too) would favour kings, in what was for their own good, and, if it were for their own good, would also permit the king to take a text and preach in their cathedral-church; how hardhearted, or straitlaced soever our archdeacon proves, and will not suffer our kings to have the keys neither of the church nor pulpit; i say, therefore, some kings would therefore keep the keys of the church themselves, and trust never a d. d. of you all with them, no, not the pope himself. but what if i prove that our kings at their corronations, have at the same time been ordained clergymen, they are no more excluded (then) by our laws from the power of the keys then mr. archdeacon or the pope himself. what is ordination, but the ordering, designing or setting a man a part to some office? if, to the ministry, than there are certain significant words to that purpose; and what more significant words for ordination to the priesthood, or making a man a clergyman, than those the bishop uses to our kings, namely, with unction, anthems, prayers, and imposition of hands (as is usual in the ordination of priests) with the same hymn,— come holy ghost, eternal god, etc. the bishop saying, also, amongst other things, let him obtain favour of the people, like aaron in the tabernacle, elisha in the waters, zacharias in the temple, give him peter's key of discipline, and paul's doctrine. which last clause was praetermitted (in times of popery) from the coronation of hen. 6. bak. chron. 742. till charles 1. and charles 2d.) lest it should imply the king to be more a clergyman and ecclesiastical person than these archdeacon's could afford him; but our gracious king charles 2d. and his father, at their corronations, had the ancient forms of crowning kings revived, and in the anointing, the bishop said, let those hands be anointed with holy oil, as kings and prophets have been anointed, and as samuel, etc. then the archbishop and dean of westminster put the coif on the king's head, then put upon his body the surplice, saying this prayer, o god the king of kings, and lord of lords, etc. and surely (of old) the very pope himself looked upon our anointed kings as clergymen, else why did the pope make hen. 2. his legate de latere here in england? the usual office of the archbishop of canterbury (usually styled) legati nati. therefore, mr. archdeacon, you talk like an unthinking black-coat, stocked with a little superficial learning, when you say, our laws exclude the king from the keys of the church, to which he has as good right as your d. d. divinityship. and (indeed) to give the man his due, he is glad (afterwards) to confess that constantine and the eminent christian emperors called counsels and approved their canons. then, by your leave, dear d. d. they also, for the same reason, might, upon occasion, and if they had seen cause, also disprove the same; who then was papa of old? pa-ter pa-trum? surely no other but he that is papam, (i mean) pa-ter pa-triae? into a volumn (beyond mine or the readers patience or leisure) must this vindication swell, if i should trace him in all his extravagancies, impertinencies, and nauseous repetitions, and therefore i must quit my first design, and summarily contract the crazy principles and postulata on which his mighty fabric of the laws of england is e●●●●ed chap. i in his first chapter, after a great deal of prattle to no purpose, he sets up the propositions suggested by mr. hickeringill, and then he batters them. the propositions suggested by mr. hickeringill, are these following. 1. that before hen. 8. all ecclesiastical jurisdiction in england, was derived from the pope: as mr. cary. p. 6. 2. that hen. 8. when he annexed the ecclesiastical jurisdiction to the crown, he took it wholly away from our ecclesiastical ministers. 3. that the church had no jurisdiction after hen. 8. had annexed it to the crown, till 1 edw. 6.2. 4. that if there be any ecclesiastical power in our church, it cannot be executed but in the name and with the stile etc. of the king, according to 1 edw. 6.2. 5. that all our ecclesiastical power was lately founded in 1 eliz. 1. as it established the high-commission-court; and that act being repealed, all ecclesiastical power was taken away with the power of that high-commission. then most insultingly concludes, in these words,— on a rock consisting of these sands, stands our mighty champion, triumphing with his naked truth, etc. and truly if our mighty champion stand thus triumphing upon a rock made of sands, it is the first rock made of sands, that ever was seen in the world before: i have seen great hills of sands, but never a rock consisting of sands before: for lively and natural expressions, and tough and sinewy arguments, 'tis the very none-such of the d. d? come, confess ingeniously, is there not more and better heads than your own in this elaborate work? is it not the six months' labour of a prelatical smectimnuus, or club-divines. now for his rancounter. chap. ii. wherein very majesterially he asserts (contradictorily) in defiance of the said propositions and rocks of sand, that our ecclesiastical jurisdiction in england was not derived from the pope, but from the crown before the reformation, by hen. 8. sed quomodo probas, domine d. d? first by begging the question, petitione printipij, and ask sternly and demanding in 8 bold questions, first, dare any protestant stand to the contrary, etc. so that he has got mr. hickeringill upon the lock, and upon the hugg, the devonshire and cornish hugg; hang, or drowned, there's no escaping; yield, or confess yourself a papist, concluding that to say so, is not more like a hobbist than a papist. i thought i had caught a hobby, but war-hawk. to which i'll only say, that (as seneca (in his epistles to his dear lucillus) speaking of harpast (his wife's fool, a poor ridiculous creature) that if he had a desire to laugh at a fool, he need not seek far, for he could find cause enough at home to laugh at himself, so) you mr. quibbling archdeacon need not be at charge to keep a jester, you may find one ridiculous enough within the corpse of your own archdeaconry— hobby-war-hawk. but then he falls, and grows calm, and leaves this bold italian way of reggin●… and comes to his proofs. first, then our ecclesiastical jurisdiction was not derived from the pope, but from the crown before h. 8. because it was a known law (25. edw. 1. and 25. edw. 3.) long before hen. 8. that the church of england was founded in episcopacy by our kings, etc. and not in the papacy. 1. i always thought (till now) that our church of england (i know not for his church of england) was neither founded upon episcopacy, not the papacy, but on christ the rock of ages. 2. the popish episcopacy (in the said two king edward's time) and the papacy were one and the same piece; the pope the head, they the members, and derivative from him, influenced by him, and would never obey our kings further than they list, as appears by stout robert archbishop of canterbury, another becket: and though the kings made bold to recommend an archbishop, or a bishop to the pope, yet the pope invested and chose whom he list; (the greater usurper he, but who did or could help it?) till stout king h. 8. did behead the pope, and made himself (by parliament) head of the church. 'tis true, rome was not built in a day, and neither did nor could extend its suburbs and commands as far as england, till william the conqueror (the pope's champion) and who fought under the pope's banner (which he sent him for the invasion of england) did with his french, and normans, and all gatherings, bring with his french and italian troops, the french and italian laws, and the french mode of ecclesiastical polity and jurisdiction; and therefore ('tis rightly noted) that till will. the conqueror, there was no bishops courts or ecclesiastical courts but the hundred-courts, (the only courts of justice in england in all causes ecclesiastical and temporal.) but the pope made his champion will. the conqueror and all succeeding kings after him, till h 8. set up such ecclesiastical courts and jurisdiction (as were at rome) wherein they judged and proceeded according to the pope's canon-laws, and he himself was the head and supreme of those courts, and nothing more frequent than appeals to rome, till the 24. h●n. 8.12. ordained that there should be no appeals thither, where he had emptied so much of his purse, and yet could not obtain a divorce to his liking; if appeals to rome from our ecclesiastical-courts, than they were only rome's inferior courts. and was there ever any statute made, from will. the conqueror, or rather hen. 3. to hen. 8. but by the consent of the popish clergy, that is to say, the consent of the pope their head; whose laws they obeyed in defiance of their leige-lords and sovereign kings. i know there was old tugging frequently betwixt our kings and the popes, and sometimes the staring people cried now the pope, than (in hopes) now the king has got is; but, if any stout king did (as they did) try for mastery with this whore, and who should wear the breeches, yet pope joan, or pope john; or howsoever named, always got the better at long run. of which i will instance in some few particulars that first occur and come to mind, for i scorn to spend so many days as this d. d. (with his smec-conjoyned) has been months in labour for the production of his ridiculus mus. robert kildwardby archbishop of canterbury, 6. edw. 1. fleeced the whole province of canterbury (namely, the greatest part of the kingdom of england) by his provincial-visitation, not by downright plundering of the clergy, churchwardens, and the poor and rich sinners; (he knew a way worth two on't, the other had been the ready way to be hanged, for edward 1. was neither bigot, antiq. brit. ec. p. 196. fook, nor coward,) for he (saith mat. parker) being the pope's creature, went a visiting (as some do now a days) without any commission from the king; no strange thing in those days, more strange in our days, now that they have not (as formerly) a pope to back them, and whose creatures they were in despite of the king; but this crafty robert kildwardby played the fox in his visitation; and see donis (saith the historian) non imperitando sed artificiose, ut fratres sui ordinis solebant, suadendo locupletavit: that is, he enriched himself and filled his pockets, but how? not by an open violent way of force and command, but craftily, with sleight of hand and tongue, (as the brethren of his orders are wont to do) picked their pockets with a parccls of fair words. why, that's better yet, than the hectoring way, come— clergyman— deliver, your purse, your purse— for procurations, visitations, etc. the naked-truth on't was, the pope (nicholas 3d.) had a cardinals cap at robert's service, if he would come up to the price on't, and bid like a chapman; but all the craft lay in the catching— the money to day the purchase. whereupon kildwardby does not go in the old road of procurations, synodals and vilitations, that (even in those times were not only grumbled at by (the slaves) the inferior clergy, but many canons and decrees made against the same; (see naked truth 2d. part.) and therefore robert went another way to work, namely, the way of loans, or gifts, (for they have often proved one and the same thing, though the public faith has been surety and bound for repayment,) and therefore— se donis artificiose suadendo locupletavit, he wheedled them out of their moneys with a parcel of fair words; (why? that's fairer play, then to hector and browbeat the clergy out of their moneys with threats of suspension, excommunication, the devil and the gaol. but rob. had no sooner done his business, and won the game, most neatly and above-board, filling his coffers, but he begun to take pleasure (as misers do) in looking upon the beauty of his mighty treasures, and liked their looks better than that of a cardinal's cap; but old nick (the pope) heard of his good luck, (for he had spies that told him all along how the game went, and what good fortune the archbishop had, and how he thrive in his visitation-provincial) whereupon nichol. the pope forthwith sends for him to rome, and is resolved to go snips, and half stakes, and therefore cries— half mine, and bids him divide the booty— these are not my words, nor the comment of a hobbist and a papist, but the very words of the historian of those times,— a nicalao 3. papa romam ad praecium participandum accitus est; ab eoque antiq. eccl. brit. 196. cardinalis hostiensis & portuensis episcopus creatus est: for half of that money the pope made him cardinal of ostia, and bishop of portua. i have heard of many a thief that has robbed poor men of 500 l. and been condemned, and yet have got a pardon; and the popes-collector for peter-pences (polidor virgil) does as smartly observe upon them and their trucking for souls and benefices, (lib. 17. hist. angliae.) legem nunc prope eversam, etc. polyd. virg. 322. h. ang. telling what feats in those days money could do in the spiritual-courts, and amongst spiritual men, and to purchase a benefice, a bishopric, or an archdeaconry; but now a days there is a law against simony, and an oath against simony; yea, yea, so there was in those days. thus that pope was his crafts-master, and killed two or three birds with one stone; you heard how dear he sold, and what a mighty price he got for a cardinal's cap, and a pair of lawn-sleeves; and one would have thought he might have sit down contented, and have slept quietly for that night, and never have writ diem perdidi upon his beds-head: but this was but a lean-days-work in comparison of what he got by the very same bargain, namely, the vacancy of the archbishopric of canterbury, which was as good to him as ready money in his purse: it would not be long upon his hands, such ware (as that) will off to one or other; or perhaps, he had promised the gift and donation thereof to one of his harlots, no strange things even in those days. for his wench, or he (i know not which) contracted for the said arch-plshoprick with john peckham (the fairest chapman) and a notable blade at the canon and civil law; an advocate, a glib hackney-tongue he had in his head, (says matthew parker) lugduni cum esset, jure civili atque pontisicio operam dedit, in quâ causas tantâ furis peritiâ tractavit, etc. a notable bold fellow (it seems he was) at the bar, and (as is usual to such as are so well stocked with impudence) he knew it as well, and looked big, and high, and staring, surly, mat. paris. hist. p. 90, 97. and grim, gestu, incessu, & sermone glorioso & elato fuit. and yet all those mighty virtues would not help him to preferment, but that he truckled underhand with the pope's wench, he knew the way to the wood, and how the market went, as well as another; and therefore in plain down-right-symony (without the ceremonious equivocation of a game at tables with the patron, buying a foundered jade of him for 100 guinnies, or making friends to his wife or miss,) he became bound to the pope in 4000 marks, (a wonderful sum in those days) and was esteemed above seven years purchase at that time for the said holy-see of canterbury. a good round sum for poor john peckham (for so he styled himself) to soften the hearts and melt into money his province, that had been reaped and fleeced a little before by rob. kildwardby his immediate predecessor, poor john came but to the glean and picking of wool; but it's no matter, in 13 years (for so long he sat archbishop) he paid off his bond to the pope, saw it cancelled, antiq. eccl. brit. p. 206. advanced all his kindred to great estates, and left (all charges borne and debts paid) to his executors 5305 l. 17 s. 2 d. and q. (making nicholas of knovile rector of maidston, and simon de greille his executors.) a vast sum, jo. buleus. scrip. brit. cent. 4. c. 64. p. 348. 349. godwins catal. p. 78. in those times, especially considering how poor and insolent he was when he first made the bargain with the pope or his leman, and entered into bond; nay, and to his dying day he kept the old style, calling himself in his letters constantly, poor john peckham, (like the blind beggar of bednal-green) for good people enriched him out of mere charity and in compassion of his pitiful cries and importunate begging; and none could imagine, till their deaths, that they were worth a farthing, all debts paid. thus he begun some of his letters, johannes frater cantuarensis ecclesiae servus humilis, qui regi suisque ministris audaciter restitit, etc. in english— poor john a friar of canterbury, the churches humble servant, that always stoutly rebelled against the king and court, etc. but though he was hard enough for this king (edw. 1.) as stout as he was, yet the pope was too hard for poor john; 'tis ill halting before a cripple. for he was no sooner well warm in the see of canterbury, and found the virtue and comfort of lambeth, but he gins to cast about how he might cheat the pope his patron, because, quoth he, to deceive a deceiver is no deceit, and the 4000 marks is a symonical contract, and being a cunning lawyer, and also loving his money, most ungratefully he went about to chouse the pope of the money, thinking he had law enough of his side; and that a simoniacal contract and bond is ipso facto void in law and of no effect, strength nor virtue. but the pope presently smelled him and his tergiversations, and was as cunning as peckham was crafty, and was resolved to rub up his memory and teach him better manners then to forget his creator; and therefore without any dallying or shall i? shall i? he makes no more a do but fairly cursed the archbishop by excommunication (sent over and) nailed on the cathedral church doors of canterbury, and also a bull of deprivation; upon condition tho', that if john paid the said 4000 marks (the subject of the quarrel) to the lucan-merchants within one month after demand,) the pope and peckham would be as good friends as ever. john peckham thought of having a fair hearing at the bar, and advocates and council on both sides, or perhaps john would have pleaded his own cause to make void the bond; but some are wiser than other some; the pope knows a trick worth two on't, and without more ado, sends him to the devil, and deprives him of his archbishopric, except as before excepted. in short, seeing he had met with his match, there was no remedy but the money must be paid, not a farthing bated of the principal; only the pope gave him a years time (instead of the said month) for the payment of so immense a sum. of all which hard measure poor john complains in his letter to the pope, in these very words.— ecce me creastis, & quanto creatura a sua naturaliter appetit perfici createre, sic in meis oppressionibus censeo per ves recreandum. sane nuper ad me pervenit cujusdam executionis litera horribilis in aspectu & auditu terribilis, quod nisi infra mensem mercatoribus lucanensibus cum effectu de quatuor millibus in arcarum quae in romana curia contraxi, extunc sunt excommunicationis sententia innodatus, & in ecclesia mea & alijs. majoribus pulsatis campanis, accensis candelis, excommunicatus denuncior, singulis diebus deminicis & festivis. hanc tam graudem solutionem impossibilem sibi futurum, rescribit, etc. a great deal of heavy splutter he had (poor man) all the days of his life, whilst he sat archbishop, what with the pope on one fide, the king on the other, and the augustine monks of canterbury, who were wonderful rich, and well worth the shearing and fleecing; chron. william. throne. col. 1960, 1961. and therefore he would have gladly have been at it amongst them with visitations: but they stood upon their guard, defied him, and bid him come at his peril, or dare to meddle with their exempt churches, of menstre, chistelet, nordborne, middleton and faversham, etc. and that they would suffer none to visit them but the pope and his legate; which privileges they contested with him anno 1293. and maintained that they were no other than the privileges of their ancient foundation granted by augustine the monk, apostle of england, (the pope's apostle) and first archbishop of canterbury; anno dom. 600. or thereabouts. and confirmed by pope boniface, agatho, celestine, calixt, innocent, vrban, eugenius, lucius, alexander, gregory, innocent, alexander and honorius. but peckham after a weary life took occasion to die, and there was an end of his contests, his creator (pope nicholas) departing his busy life a little before him, but first calling all his cardinals into his bedchamber, saxoniae, l. 8. c. 35. cent. magd. 13. c. 10. col. 1091. where he lay upon his deathbed, and by the prerogative of his power; degrades them every man, and makes as many friar-minor's (of his own order) cardinals in their rooms, and charging them upon his benediction to choose none but friar-minors into the papal-chair for ever. which they performed to their utmost, and until sextus 4. was pope, there was always a little-pope lurking among the fryar-minors, and he had his cardinals, and pardoned sins (i'll warrant) as well as the best pope of them all; only he sold his indulgences much cheaper and a better pennyworth. this mischief happened an. 19 ed. 1. and by peckham's death, the king was freed of a tiger of a priest, that always resisted his majesty tooth and nail, threatening and vapouring with his bell, book and candle: but after their death, the king took heart, as by a memorable example in our common-law books happening at this time, may appear; before the statute of carlisle against pope's bulls and provisions: for, a subject of this realm procured a bull of excommunication from the pope against another subject, and gave notice thereof to the treasurer of the king; for which offence, le roy voluyt quill ust este trey & pendus, the king willed he should be drawn and hanged as a traitor. here's an instance (mr. d. d.) as pregnant as your 25 ed. 1. against the pope's usurpations: but this was no thanks to john peckham archbishop of canterbury, and the rest of the bishops. for all resisted, all the clergy, and did as much mischief as in them lay: but the king and parliament got the day, an. 7. edw. 1. and made john peckham the archbishop recant his dissolute canons made in the convocation (at rading) in these words: memorandum quod venerabilis pater johannes cantuarensis archiepiscopus, venit coram rege & concilio suo in parliamento regis sancti michaelis, claus. 7 edw. 1. m. 1. dorso. revocationes provisionum concilii rading. anno regni regis septimo, apud westm. & consitebatur & concessit quod de statutis, provisionibus & declarationibus eorundem, quae per ipsum promulgatae fuerunt apud rading, mense augusti, anno eodem, inter quasdam sententias excommunicationis quas idem archiepiscopus ibid., promulgabat. primò, deleatur, & pro non pronunciata habeatur illa clausula in prima sententiâ excommunicationis quae facit mentionem, de impetrantibus literas reglas ad impediendum processum in causis quae per sacros canones ad forum eoclesiasticum pertinere noscuntur. secundò, quòd non excommunicente ministri regis, licet ipsi non pareant mandato regis, in non capiendo excommtnicatos. tertiò, de illis qui invadunt maneria clericorum, ut ibi sufficiat paena per regem posita. quarto, quod non interdicat vendere victualia eboracensi arch●episcopo, vel alii venienti ad regem. quintò, quod tollatur magna charta de foribus ecclesiarum; consitetur etiam & concessit, quod nec regi, nec haeredibus suis, nec regno suo angliae, ratione aliorum articulorum in concilio rading, contentorum nullum prejudicium generetur in futurum. in english thus. be it remembered, that the reverend father john archbishop of canterbury came before the king and the king's great council of parliament, in michaelmas term, at westminster, in the seventh year of his reign, and confessed and acknowledged, that— of the laws, provisions, and declarations, which were by him promulgated at rading, in the month of august last passed, amongst other sentences of excommunication which the said archbishop did there pronounce: first, let that clause in the first sentence of excommunication (pronounced against all those that obtain the king's prohibition to hinder process in ecclesiastical courts, of such causes as are known to appertain to ecclesiastical cognizance and jurisdiction) be made null and void, and stand for nothing, as if it had never been made; as also, secondly, that the king's ministers of justice shall not be excommunicated, although they do not obey the king's mandates for apprehending such as are excommunicate. (note by the way than that the writ de excommunicato capiendo (the only weapon of ecclesiastical jurisdiction, and the only prop of ecclesiastical courts) was not common law, but long after, (only statute-law,) and but in some cases neither: 5 eliz. 23. the queen finding (that since the mist of superstition was vanished by the sunshine of the gospel, the people could not discern any terror in the thunder of excommunication for every petty cause, and therefore) that without the temporal sword was also drawn to back it, her new high-commission-court, and consequently all other ecclesiastical courts (that had no weapon but the spiritual sword of excommunication) could strike no awe, terror nor reverence into the obstinate and contumacious; much less into delinquents.) thirdly, that the punishment inflicted by the king alone, upon those that invaded the clergymen's manors, should be held sufficient. fourthly, that he would not hereafter interdict and forbid any one from selling any meat or drink to the archbishop of york, (whom the proud prelate had excommunicated about a quarrel betwixt them for precedency, etc. and therefore he thought thus to famish him, as happened after to jane shore excommunicate: god deliver men from a furious bigot and proud prelate, when he has power to be mischievous;) or any other that comes to the king. fifthly, that magna charta be taken off from the church doors; (for you must know, that the impugners of magna charta were in this synod of rading again declared excommunicate; which the king and parliament did dislike, and would not suffer any such sentence of excommunication to pass, except for things thought worthy and deserving the same, in the judgement of king and parliament, who were judges also even of the timing of an excommunication, even in particulars, which had (like the impugners of magna charta) been adjudged formerly to deserve to be struck with that thunderclap, that grew so frequent, it lost its terror;) the said archbishop also confesses and does acknowledge, and grant, that neither the king, nor his heirs, nor his kingdom of england, shall receive any damage by reason of any of the said articles contained in the synod of rading. bless us! what work's here, to keep the archbishop and his clergy quiet, that a king and parliament must use all the skill and power of england (which commonly till hen. 8. was all too little) to bind these brats of rome (and creatures of the pope, and symonists,) to the good behaviour, and to tie up their hands and tongues from doing the king, his heirs, and his kingdom of england any mischief. and now (mr. ) i have bestowed some little pains (you see) to draw you a picture in little, of those times of edward 1. that you bring to make something to the purpose of exalting your ecclesiastical hierarchy and jurisdiction, (from the prospect of those times;) and what honour you have got to your hierarchy by this provocation, plume yourself with; but, i dare say, the reader will say before i have done with you, that you had done your church as much service in the convocation, where the men of your little ray, of your talon and improvements, would listen to your leges angliae with great admiration; rather than thus to neglect your great employment (there) by this impertinent diversion of writing and publishing the laws of england, in which you have no more skill nor ability than you have in undertaking to answer the naked truth. but to take a little further view (with the reader's patience) of those popish times of king edward, etc. before hen. 8. which (the thinks) do make so much for his turn. afflictions seldom come alone, as poor john peckham found true, by sad experience; for besides, that there was no help for it, but the 4000 marks must be paid, or the symonist archbishop lose both heaven and earth, king edward also for his wars with scotland was as needy of money as the pope, and he borrowed by way of loan a whole years revenue of the profits of the said archbishopric, and that loan (poor john complains) being little better than a benevolence, came in a very ill time; for, robert kilwarby the late archbishop, and before him his predecessor boniface, had left the archbishopric lean, cadaverous, forlorn, delapidated and poor, the people too were exhausted by wars and seditions: for if they had had it, he could not (he would not) have wanted it; and the pope too resolved that if the archbishop or the people had it, he also could not (would not) want it; (as his brother pope used to say) he could never want money so long as he could hold a pen in his hand to write to his ass, (meaning) england; for the whole world had not (i had almost said has not) such religious zealots and bigots, that would run at all, right or wrong, in the cause of religion, religion, (as hud. says) whose honesty they all will swear for, though not a man of them knows wherefore. for the subtle italian papists that stand near, and sees within the scenes, the lives of popes and cardinals, etc. understand the juggle, and will not give two pence a piece for an indulgence, that here in england will go currant for a hundred pounds; whilst the modest papists at rome smile at the known pious frauds, and the rest laugh right out, or (at least) in their sleeves. but to return— though the pope bubled poor john peckham, as aforesaid, he also after he had got a little heart (papae ad exemplum) does endeavour to hector or wheedle the king out of some money by texts of holy writ, (the very same that some religious bigots have made use of, to as vile ends in our times) in an insolent letter to his majesty, written 9 edw. 1. beginning with these very words— excellentissimo principi, ac dom. edvardo, spelman's concil. p. 341, 342. dei gratiâ illustri regi angliae, domino hiberniae, & duci aquitaniae, etc. johannes permissione divinâ cantuarensis ecclesiae minister humilis, etc. which see at large in spelman; and after some compliments, he falls on in downright earnest— quia tamen oportet domino magis quàm hominibus obedire— & ad praevaricationem legum illarum, quae divina authoritate absque omni dubio subsistunt, nullâ possumus humanâ constitutione ligari, nec etiam jurament— that is (in plain english) the archbishop told the king, he would be his humble servant, and as loyal a subject as the best, but only that he was bound to obey god rather than men, and that no humane laws, no though he had sworn to obey them, acts 5.29. should tie or oblige him to the breach of those laws which are founded upon divine authority. of which, he and the pope were the interpreters and commentators; he might as well have told the king, he would be his humble servant, when, where, and in what he list. for presently after he brings that of isa. 10.1. to vanquish the king and parliament that made him recant (his own canons) two years before; isa. 10.1. dicente domino per prophetam, vae qui condunt leges iniquas, etc. woe unto them that decree unrighteous decrees, etc. (meaning the statutes made by the king and parliament;) for so he goes on— quia igitur ab antiquo tempore inter leges & magnates angliae, ex parte unâ, & archiepiscopos, episcopos & clerum ejusdem regniex altera, duravit amara dissensio, pro oppressione ecclesiae, contrà decreta summorum pontisicum, contra statuta conciliorum, contra sanctiones orthodoxorum patrum, in quibus tribus summa auctoritas, summa veritas, summaque sanctitas consistunt, supplicamus regiae majestati, etc. huic periculosae dissentioni dignemur finem apponere salutarem, cui finis alitèr imponi non potest, nisi vos sublimitatem vestram praedictis tribus, scilicèt decretis pontificum, statutis conciliòrum, & sanctionibus orthodoxorum patrum, juxtà domini beneplacitum cùm catholicis imperatoribus dignemini inclinare, ex his enim tribus sunt canones aggregati, & jura coronae vestrae christi coronae supponenda, cujus sunt diadema & sponsae suae monilia, universae ecclesiasticae libertates,— (all which are most emphatical words, and most apt for our purpose to stop the arch-deacon's mouth, that would have the present church of england and its jurisdiction derivative from edw. 1. and edw. 3. nor do i know any man more able (in all history) to write all that could be said for ecclesiastical jurisdiction, canon-law, or civil-law, than the said peckham; nor can any thing better represent the posture of affairs in england as to ecclesiastical matters, than the said letter, which i will english faithfully, as followeth—) because (quoth the archbishop) there has been of old and long has continued a bitter dissension betwixt the king and parliament of england, on the one part; (god grant they may always be so, (as they ought to be but) one part,) and the archbishops, bishops, and clergy of this realm, on the other part, to oppress the church, contrary to the pope's decrees, contrary to the canons of councils, contrary to the sanctions of the orthodox fathers, in which three consists the supreme authority, the greatest verity, and the choicest piety: we entreat your royal majesty, that we should vouchsafe together to put an end to this dangerous dissension and differences, which can never be concluded, except you will please to submit your highness to the said three things, namely, the decrees of popes, the canons of the synods, and the opinions of the ancient orthodox fathers, according to the command of the lord, and after the example of catholic kings: for of these three are the canons made, and the rights of your crown must submit to the crown of christ; the church's rights and liberties, being the diadem of christ and the ornament and jewels of his spouse, etc. whence i make these plain remarks. 1. that as the devil (tempting our blessed saviour) accosted him with holy scripture in his mouth, so does this filthy symonist talk scripture language to the king and parliament, whilst he himself hated to be reform. 2. that there was and has been an old feud, difference and dissension, (and cannot possibly be otherwise) where the laity are governed by one law, and the clergy by another; the laity a distinct and peculiar party, on the one part; and the clergy with other designs, a party in opposition to the laity, on the other part. the devil and the pope brought in that distinction of laity and clergy, (not god and scripture,) and it was never a quiet world in christendom since that time of making that distinction, which god never made. 3. that when the king and parliament thwarts the clergy and the canons of their own devising, and made to gratify (as those of rading aforesaid) only their avarice, ambition and revenge; yet that is called— oppressing the church of god. 4. that kings must always (under the notion of submitting to god and christ) submit their sceptres, crowns and dignities, to religious zealots and bigots, when they get the power; and they'll have it too, or they'll want of their will. 5. that the clergy, archbishops and bishops accounted themselves, and were taken and accepted for the church of england. 6. that the pope was head of this church, his decrees their rule and canons to walk by, and carry on their ecclesiastical-courts and jurisdiction. 7. that their laws were contrary to the sense of the king and parliament. 8. that the king and parliament were sometimes (though but a little, little time) too hard for those archbishops, bishops and clergy, of whom the pope was supreme head. 9 that it is impossible that our present archbishops, bishops, and ecclesiastical jurisdiction, can derive their authority for ecclesiastical courts from the popish archbishops, popish canons, popish bishops (that had the pope for their head) since our clergy, archbishops and bishops, do renounce the pope's supremacy. 10. that the ecclesiasticals before hen. 8. (whilst the pope was their head) looked upon the kings of england as their inferiors; and that the king and parliaments sentiments and decrees should truckle to theirs; and if some had not some strange relics, they would not dare (as this archdeacon does) to write, and defend a jurisdiction and courts in england, without special authority and commission from the king. and for him to say, they keep courts by common-law, is the idlest of all his dreams. 1. because before will. the conqueror there was never any spiritual courts kept distinct from the hundred-courts; and if they have right to keep them there at the bailiffs house, let them come, but instead of chancellors, surrogates, and officials, and archdeacon's, must sit for judges there (as now and of old) two honest freeholders; let them come then, with their ecclesiastical courts founded in the common-law before william the conqueror. 2. the common-law (this d. d. calls, p. 51.) long and granted use in the whole land; but then if they plead for their ecclesiastical courts according to ancient use and custom, they must keep them in places, times, and by such laws and judges, as were of the ancient use and custom. 3. the common-law of england is ancienter than our christianity; but bishops, as now in england, much less archbishops, (for austin the monk (sent hither by the pope) was the first archbishop) and much less archdeacon's, are the inventions of men, and the favour of kings, at first, of popish kings; for before austin the monk, anno dom 〈◊〉 england had neither lord bishops nor lord archbishops after the manner they are now, therefore neither they nor their courts (as now kept) have any foundation in common-law. 4. by his own showing, that edict of william the conqueror enjoins that no bishop nor archdeacon hold pleas any longer in hundret, nor bring any ecclesiastical cause to the judgement of secular men; therefore william the conqueror (the pope's champion) brought with him this new distinction of clergy and layty, and ecclesiastical judges and secular judges; for it seems ecclesiastical causes (as well as secular) were brought in the hundret court to the judgement of secular men, not ecclesiastical men. 5. the said proclamation ordains every man to do right to god and the bishop, not according to the hundred, but according to the canons and episcopal laws. which answers the greatest stress of the d. d. answer, the conqueror with the pope brought in the canons and episcopal laws, and when the pope's head was cut off and his supremacy taken away, vanish also did his canons and episcopal laws. and the popish king and parliament in hen. 8. time knew it as well, and therefore when they had made the king head of the church, as well as state (a fatal distinction of church and state, and often makes a kingdom divided against its self) cutting off all appeals to rome, 24 h. 12. (in the very next year) they found a necessity to abrogate all popish canons that were contrariant to the king's prerogative, and the laws and statutes of this realm, but such as were not so contrariant and repugnant to remain in force. and to that purpose there was to be a book of such canons compiled by thirty two commissioners, party per pale, one moiety clergy and the other lay; but they did nothing, and so that project in the statute came to nothing; and for my part, in the knowledge i have in the ancient councils and canon's, (in the making whereof the pope had the great hand) they might as well seek a needle in a bottle of hay, as seek for canons (amongst the old ones) suitable to the new face of our church when it had lost its old wont head, that had authorized and fathered the english church and all ecclesiastical jurisdiction from william the conqueror, till 24 henry 8. which was 467 long years, and during the weary reigns of twenty kings together; who were so tired with the pope's insolence, that some of them (as king john) meditated rather to turn turk, than undergo the infamy as well as tyranny and cruelty, in being (all his reign) so shamefully priestridden; complaining and bemoaning himself, that after he subjugated himself and his sceptre to the pope of rome, nothing prospered that he undertook ever after. therefore hard is the fate of that man, much more of that king and kingdom, that are under the tyranny of these bigots.— how do they wrest the holy scriptures to surrogate their preposterous hierarchy, as did the said popham archbishop, in his said letter to the king, (edw. 1.) aforementioned, quoting— mat. 16.19. whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and threatening the king with death— from deut. 17.12. and the man that shall do presumptuously, and will not hearken unto the priest, (that standeth to minister there before the lord thy god) or unto the judge, even that man shall die. then, he threatens the king with deut. 17.18, 19, 20. and with luk. 10.16. he that heareth you, heareth me, and he that despiseth you, despiseth me; and he that despiseth me, despiseth him that sent me: which (saith the archbishop) st. dyonisius expounds— jerarchis in his quae agant jerarchicè, obediendum est, sicut a deo motis— to the hierarchy or prelates in what they act as prelates, we ought to obey them, as those that are influenced by god himself. then he quotes deut. 17.8, 9, 10, 11. and heb. 4. and mat. 17.5. mat. 28.20. acts 3.22. mat. 18.19, 20. mat. 18.17. mat. 10.20. as impertinent as tedious to insist upon, concluding his letter in a menacing way,— from lambeth, november, anno dommi 1281. and the third year of his translation. instancing also (for his platform and imitation in this his contumacy) the example of thomas becket, and boniface, his predecessors, as fierce and seditious as himself. but wise king edw. 1. like his grandfather hen. 2. and his father hen. 3. would not so easily part with the reins of government; for he disannulled (not only the rading-canons as aforesaid,) but also the lambeth-canons, anno 1281. even as his grandfather hen. 2. abrogated all the canon law (being then duke of normandy) and particularly the canons of the late council of rheims, and by proclamation forbidding (hugo archbishop of rouen) to put the same in execution; and threatening pope innocent 2. that if he would not restrain the said archbishop therein, he would turn protestant (so i translate the words of the king's letter to pope innocent;) minatus est apertè divortium ab apostolicâ sede, nisi praesumptio illius archiepiscopi reprimeretur. which so frighted the pope, that he was glad to knock under and yield to the time; (foreseeing a storm approaching) he very wisely made fair weather on't, (to use his own words;)— quod prefectò quamvis justum fuerit, mat. paris. hist. aug. p. 96, 97. & à nobis in concilio rhemensi mandatum, pro ejus tamen charitate aliquando condescendere (quando non ascendere possumus) debemus, et pro tempore, ipsius voluntati assensum praebere. that is (saith the pope)— what was done in the council of rheims, was nothing but what was just and right, and also by us commanded; nevertheless for charity sake we must be lowly and condescend then when we cannot climb and ascend and be uppermost, and for the present, give our assent and consent to the kings will and pleasure. and there had been a fatal divorce (or beginning of protestanism) from rome by another henry, (hen. 2.) long before hen. 8. if pope innocent had been as stiff and inflexible as was pope clement to hen. 8. so that all along, those (that please to observe our statutes, histories and chronicles, they) will find, that ever since our ecclesiastical jurisdiction was brought from france and rome by william the conqueror, sometimes the churchmen and (their head) the pope had the weather-gage, and sometimes the kings, as they happened to be some more prudent, some more weak, some more potent, and some in greater straits than other; of which last condition, namely, when our king's affairs were in a peck of troubles and distresses, the pope and his janissaries (the popish prelates,) always wrought upon their necessities, and (most unmanly) would never give them fair quarter, when they had them down; none so cruel as women and cowardly gownmen when they get men at advantage; many instances whereof you may see in the reigns of king john, the king henry's, and the king edward's, etc. so that— now canon-law, now statute-law— now the church, and now the state, now the lord archbishops and lord bishops, and now the lords temporal and the common's had the upperhand: but the bishops carried it for the most part, and always at long run, whilst they had the pope or the high-commission on their side; and (even since) they have lost those two main pillars, i do not see but it may be (yet) in great measure true, what the learned spelman says was currant (of old) even to a proverb,— os sacerdotis oraculum esset plebis; os episcopi oraculum regis & reipublicae; both king, people and commonwealth took all for gospel that the bishops and priests said and persuaded. and therefore no wonder at what mr. archdeacon says, p. 49. that our great churchmen had no small hand in making all our laws, both ecclesiastical and civil; and made bold to sit upon the benches with the judges, in the king's palace and court, in the council and parliament; in the county, with the earl and justices of the county, in the sheriff's county-court with the sheriff, and in the hundred-courts with the lords of the hundred. all true to a tittle; why, who durst take them by the lawn-sleeves and ask them what they had to do there? they had as good have taken a bear by the tooth, the stoutest layman of them all. besides, a scholar was a rare bird in those days; ignorance is the mother of popish devotion; and therefore neither lords, nor parliament-men, nor judges, had any more learning than needs must, no, nor skill in laws. so that the clergy did all; who swayed the king's counsels but they? who were lord chancellors, lord treasurers, lord chief barons, lord chief justices, master's of the rolls, but they? was not nigel bishop of eli (in h. 1. time) lord treasurer, and wonderful skilful in the laws and court of the exchequer? was not martin de patishal clerk and dean of paul's made lord chief justice of the kings-bench (in h. 3. time) because of his skill in law? brail. so also was william de raleigh clerk, made one of the judges of the kings-bench; henry de stanton clerk, lord chief justice of the common-pleas; and the parson of oundell in northamptonshire, made master of the rolls, with thousands more, even to our times, bract. rot. pat. 17. e. 2. and in man's memory; was not the bishop of lincoln, william's, lord treasurer? (so also bishop juxton bishop of london:) and archbishop laud did all in all with king charles 1. and in the case of ship-money, and the loans and benevolences, (those hard shifts,) that good king might well repent that ever he followed such precipitate counsels. and therefore, (mr. archdeacon,) it is no great credit to you (nor for your jurisdiction ecclesiastical) to quote all the 12 judges and their subscriptions, to vouch your citations in your own name, and not in the name and style of the king, because that opinion was subscribed by 12 judges,— john brampston, l. c. j. john finch, l. c. j. humph. davenport, l. c. b. will jones. jo. dinham. ri. hutton. george crook. tho. trevor. george vernon. ro. berkley. fr. crauly. ri. weston. for they were very man of them, except hutton and crook, condemned by parliament, for betraying the rights and properties of the kingdom in the case of ship-money. and therefore, (mr. archdeacon) i except against the judgement and opinion of your 12 judges (very legally) in the cons truction of the statute of edw. 6.2. alas! good men, to say otherwise, it was as much as their places were worth, (besides the terror of the star-chamber, and high-commission-court, and indeed every spiritual court, which were then as horrible as the spanish inquisition, and so much the more cruel that by the oath ex officio a man was bound to accuse himself, which is not required by the inquisition of spain. and therefore some have observed, that when the severe part of the law, as in sentences, fines, etc. has been put to the vote in the star-chamber and other courts against offenders, the clergymen there, (who should have been exemplary in mercy and charity, and not for summum jus,) were always more rigid and fierce than the laity. as for instance, when mr. chambers, 5 carol. 1. said (and only privately to the privy council, called thither to answer for not paying customs,) that the merchants in england were more wrung and screwed than in foreign parts:— and what if it had been true? why may not our laws screw them, and enact bigger customs and excise, (as of wines, etc. we do;) where's great mischief? why; for this he was to be fined in the star-chamber, (for the words are not other where actionable:) and the chancellor of the exchequer he was for fining him (for those words) 500 l. so also voted the two lord chief justices: ay, but when it came to the bishops— doctor neal bishop of winchester— cries— 3000 l. then also doctor laud bishop of london— 3000 l. at last the business was adjusted, and the fine settled— 2000 l. therefore, (mr. archdeacon) do not vapour and tell us of the opinion of the judges when high-commission-court and star-chamber were up; do not we know, who penned the proclamation's; and who did the business, and every man's business that durstst and in his way? you may as well say, that attorney general noy was a great lawyer; who doubts it? does it therefore follow that ship-money (his invention) was legal? anno domini 1632. and the judgement of a whole house of commons might surely stand in competition with the opinion of a single archdeacon, though he had some of the judges on his side; although it was that house of commons in 1640. for not one in ten of them were rumpers. resolved— that the clergy in a synod or convocation hath no power to make canons, vote of the house of commons. constitutions, or laws ecclesiastical, to bind either laiety or clergy without a parliament: and that the canons are against the fundamental laws of this realm, against the king's prerogative, property of the subjects, the right of parliaments, and do tend to faction and sedition. and therefore, your doughty work and leges angliae, which (you seem) to commend as the sense of a convocation, and you their prolocutor, saying, p. 66. so whether it seem good to the king and his high court of parliament, to augment or lessen it (ecclesiastical jurisdiction) or to continue it as it is, we, (we again) shall still maintain our loyalty (that's kind) and manifest our duty, and cheerfully submit ourselves. i am glad to hear it; if this cheerful submisson be the sense of your brethren, and that you have (mr. archdeacon) from them authentic letters of credence for this manifesto. but i doubt it; for (certainly) your brethren are better scholars, and better principled than to own such an idle and impertinent discourse as this of yours, that is throughout so lose, futile, and tending to such arbitrary principles, that indeed none are so fit to answer you as a parliament, if they do not think it beneath them to take notice of such a prater; that has so little judgement as to think it possible to prove the spiritual courts and jurisdiction, (as now practised) to be common-law courts, much less statute-law-courts; which is next to be considered, in his chap. iii. whose title is, that king henry 8. did not, by renouncing the power pretended by the pope, make void the ecclesiastical jurisdiction; neither was it void before it was restored by 1 edw. 6.2. and to prove this negative, he's at it again with his old way of questions, but that he shows a little more warmth and wrath against mr. hickeringill in this ironical sarcasm— pray mr. wiseman where, and by what words did h. 8. cut off, as you say, all these ordinary jurisdictions? mr. hickeringill told you enough of it in the naked truth, which read over seriously before you answer any more such books (good mr. d. d.) he told you, that when the pope's supremacy and head was be-headed, and the king made supreme head of the church (as well as state) and of the spirituality as well as temporality, by act of parliament: the same king and parliament devised also, and advised, by what laws this new face of the church (having got a new head, sure it had a new face) should be guided and governed. therefore the king and parliament enact, that the king shall appoint thirty-two commissioners, not to make new laws, but compile them out of the old ones; so that they were not repugnant to the king's prerogative, nor the laws of the realm. but that was a thing impossible, for most of the canons being forged at rome (or licenced there, and confirmed) and also they supposing the pope head of the church (which was against the laws of this land) nothing could be done; and the reason is already given in the former chapter, at large; so that less shall need to be said to this chapter, or indeed to the remaining part of his mighty volume, or leges angliae. and truly, that king henry 8. had so much to do to keep and secure his new acquests— (the abby-lands, monastries, etc.) and to counterplot the pope and his emissaries; and on the other side, the english bishops were so consternated (at the sudden and total downfall of their brethren and sisters (the friars, abbots and nuns) that they were in a bodily fear, lest that king (thus fleshed) finding the sweetness of the booty, should hunt after more church-lands: and therefore mr. archdeacon needed not ask the question, was that watchful prince asleep? no, (surely) nor yet the watchful bishops (i fear) did not sleep very quietly, but were always troubled in their sleep, crying out,— oh— this fat manor is upon the go— and these brave walks, houses and orchards are a departing— and as dreams sometimes prove unluckily true, so did these dreams; for soon after was (first) exchanged with the two archbishops by the statute of 37. henry 8.16. sixty-nine fat and stately manors (named in the said statute) at one time from the archbishop of york, and also a great many brave country-houses, and rich manors from the archbishop of canterbury, and from edmond bishop of london; which see was particularly named in the statute. but some may say, that the abby-lands which the king gave in exchange, were not comparable in value to the said archbishops lands and manors. who can help that? if they did not like those abby-lands (i suppose) they might have let them alone. thus the king having been busied in the 24th year of his reign, with cutting off the roman head, and all appeals to rome, then troubled with his abby-lands, beginning with the lesser monastries, 27 henry 8.28. those digested, than the great monastries and nunneries, 31. henry 8.13. than the next year the brave houses, lands and revenues of the templars, called the knights of the rhodes, and of st. john of jerusalem; 32. henry 8.24. than the free-chantries, hospitals, etc. in 37. henry 8.4. and in this his last year, that sad exchange with the archbishops, and bishop of london, 37. henry 8.16. i do not see any cause, mr. archdeacon, why any flesh alive should say, that either the king or the bishops were asleep for thirteen years together, in which time every one had work enough to be watchful. the best on't is, that the man thinks he can answer all mr. hickeringill's arguments (in the naked truth) with a story which he tells, p. 14. and so silly and so little quadrating with the question in controversy, that it is not worth the answering, nor his observation thereon— namely, that though the lords (of the manors) were changed, yet the customs, and courts, and officers were not changed. no, were not the customs, courts nor officers changed? god forbidden, for than it must still be a custom, that neither the bishop nor the archdeacon may lawfully marry: it will still be a custom to excommunicate (as it was of old) all that did not pay the pope the first fruits, and tenths, if the customs be not changed; and a thousand such exceptions could i make, if it were not below me to take notice of all his idle and impertinent whimsies and stories, obvious enough to every learned and ingenuous reader, without my remark or asterisque to expose it. nor does any body deny, but that king h. 8. willing to have a divorce from queen katherine, from rome, and not able to obtain the same, got it at home; the said statute of appeals cutting off all appeals to rome, and enabling the king's courts, spiritual and temporal, to determine the same, any foreign inhibitions, appeals, sentences, summons, etc. from the see of rome, etc. to the let or impediment in any wise, notwithstanding. 24. henry 8.12. whence note, 1. the design of the statute is to cut off appeals to rome, this realm of england being an empire of itself, governed by one supreme head. 2. therefore no need of such appeals, when they may be with less trouble ended here within the king's jurisdiction, in courts spiritual and temporal. 3. that statute limits the cognisance of all matters cognisable in spiritual courts, to these three sorts— namely, causes testamentary, matrimonial, or divorces, tithes, and oblations, and obventions; and if they can prove their courts to be lawful courts, and by lawful authority, who ever doubted but those three things were matters and causes of ecclesiastical cognisance? but they are not content to keep themselves there; and therefore the great design (of the naked truth) is not in the least to check their proceed in those three particulars, but their exorbitances in meddling with church wardens, the oath of churchwardens, exactions illegal and unconscionable in their fees, in despite of the statutes, in probate of wills, procurations, sequestrations, synodals, licenses to preach, visitations, etc. 4. the archbishops, bishops and clergy in convocation, in less than twenty years after this statute, found so little authority in this 24. henry 8.12. for keeping spiritual courts, and exercising ecclesiastical jurisdiction (it coming in but by way of parenthesis, and not the purport and main design of the statute) that they all acknowledge and confess, uno ore, and 2. phil. and mar. that their jurisdiction and liberties ecclesiastical, were taken away, and desired their restauration; and surely they better understood their ecclesiastical jurisdiction in those days, than this archdeacon can possibly at this distance, in these days. lastly, the temporal as well as spiritual courts are enabled by 24. henry 8.12. to determine the controversies in this realm, without appeals, and yet none of them take upon them to sat without the king's special commission and authority, except petty-hundred-courts, etc. which are common-law-courts; but so are not the ecclesiastical (at best) further than ecclesiastical matters may still by the common law be tried before the lord of the hundred, or his steward and the freeholders; and the bishop also and archdeacon may be suffered to come into the room; but whether they may come in without knocking, or must sit or stand, be covered or uncovered, when they come there, by the common law, (it seems) it is not by (our d. d.) the great common lawyer as yet determined. and therefore it is much better for the archdeacon, at least much more proper for him, to leave these doubtful matters (as whether 1 edward 6.2. be now in force, and how far, and to what commissioners the 13 car. 2.12. does extend (wherein the author of the naked truth would not peremptorily assert any thing) to the decision of a parliament, or wiser heads than his own. then in chap. 3. sect. 2. the d. d. tells of another statute, 31 henry 8.3. and citys the words, but most egregiously false; there is not one such clause in 31 h. 8.3. but if there were, as perhaps (i will not deny) something to that purpose in another statute, that archbishops, bishops, etc. may wear the tokens, and ensigns, and ceremonies of their order; and whilst they do nothing but what to their office and order does appertain, no body will trouble themselves about them. and more false also is what he would make 25 henry 8.19. speak, as though by that statute the convocation hath power reserved (by the same act) of making new canons, provided the convocation be called by the king's writ, and have the royal assent and licence to make, promulgate, and execute such canons. if this be true, i do not know but the lambeth-canons (exploded and condemned by act of parliament) and those of king james, are all statute-law; for the convocation (that made them) were called by the king's writ, and they were confirmed also by the royal assent— in a matter of this consequence, let us turn to the statute, and trust our archdeacon henceforward no further than our own knowledge. that of 25. henry 8.19. gins thus— the title. the clergy in their convocation shall enact no constitutions without the king's assent. and as the title, so the body of the act, where the king's humble and obedient subjects, the clergy of this realm, etc. promise in verbo sacerdoti, that they will never presume to attempt— premulge, or execute any new canons, etc. unless the king's royal assent and licence be to them had, to make, promulge and execute the same— now is this d. d. an honest man? when the statute only binds them to good behaviour; namely, not to presume without the royal assent; but does not enable them to make any new, though they have the royal assent? false also, most impudently false, is his next quotation of a statute 37 henry 8.16. but if he mean 37 henry 8.17. still it is false, either through imprudence, or unparelleled impudence; for there is not one word to the matter in question, but the whole statute is only a licence to marry, a licence for civil lawyers to marry; and that though they be married, yet that shall not make them uncapable of being commissaries, chancellors, or vicars-general, or officials; but does not create or constitute any ecclesiastical jurisdiction, or courts to put them in. indeed, the said 37 henry 8.17. is a clear and evident explanation of the 25 henry 8.18. that thereby the king and parliament did look upon all ecclesiastical canons, ordinances and constitutions, formerly made, to be null, and void, and repealed, and of no effect by the said 25 henry 8.18. saying, that the bishop of rome and his adherents, minding utterly as much as in him lay to abolish, obscure and delete such power given by god to the princes of the earth, whereby they might gather, and get to themselves the government and rule of the world, have in their councils, and synods provincial— made divers ordinances and constitutions— and albeit the said decrees, ordinances and constitutions by a statute made 25 henry 8. be utterly abolished, frustrate and— 1. by this it is evident, that as the king, pope and bishops had all work enough to look to themselves, and that king henry, and his parliament, and bishops, were still popish; so if the spiritual courts had any jurisdiction, yet they had none but by way of parenthesis in the said statute of appeals. 2. and that only in causes testamentary, marriage, or divorce, tithes or oblations— 3. and to judge of these, and determine, was impossible, because they had no canons, decrees, nor laws ecclesiastical, by which to judge and determine of them. 4. and therefore mr. archdeacon, though by what has been said, your official might keep spiritual courts, although he were married, so also he might keep spiritual courts, although he did nothing but whistle there all the while, or throw stones at all that came near him; for sentences and decrees cannot be made but according to a canon law or rule; and canons there were none in force at that time, in the said judgement of the house of commons. and therefore though you had never so much authority and commission for keeping your beloved courts, what's that to the naked truth? have you any commissions for extortions in probate of wills, for illegal extortions of money, for citations, licenses to preach, institutions, inductions, sequestrations, synodals, procurations, money from churchwardens, commutations, visitations? to confute which, is the great import of the naked truth; and you have not one word in your leges angliae to say for them, or for yourselves, or to justify by whose, or by what commission, or by what canons you act and proceed. it is a most dangerous and fatal thing sure, for a man to think as the papists do think (in these days); whereas i thought, a man might have believed, that jesus christ is the son of god, and a thousand things more that the papists believe, and yet keep out of harms way. but no; our desperate d. d. has (p. 22.) got mr. hsckeringill upon the hip again, and gores him too with one of the unavoidable horns of the sharpest of arguments, a dilemma (in these words) namely,— i leave it to mr. hickeringill himself; for if he think that that convocation (namely, in queen mary reign) spoke that which was not true, he hath said nothing to the purpose (so his business is done that way). but if he think they did speak truth, than he thinks, that the jurisdiction of the church of england, as derived from the king, according to the statute of edw. 6. or in hen. 8's time, was no lawful jurisdiction; that is, mr. hickeringill thinks as the papists think: war hawk again mr. hickeringill, and a praemunire too. let him even pick and choose, i see there's no escaping, yield or die; there's no fence against a crambee-pun and quibble; the second assault is always irresistible. and yet this joke is not so witty as it is sharp and poignant, insinuating, that mr. hickeringill's opinion is a popish opinion; so in plain english he says before— chap. 2. sect. 2. in these words— thus our ancient ecclesiastical governors and laws depended upon the crown, and not upon the pope, by the laws of england, and in the judgement of all the states of the kingdom before h. 8. and so did also the execution of those laws, by those governors in the same public judgement— all this is true, and the very naked truth in other words varied. and what of all this? listen— a little better than mr. hickeringill 's popish opinion. and why, i pray, mr. archdeacon, why this unsanctified epithet of— popish— to vindicate in the words of the ingenious hudribas— when you at any thing would rail, than you make popery the scale, to take the height on't and explain to what degree it is profane. well, look to thy hits d. d. for all the corpse of thy archdeaconry, together with the extortion money in visitations, synodals and procurations, will not be able to pay the damages that you and your bookseller royston are like to undergo, forfeit and pay, for bringing that scandalous imputation of popery so often in your book against mr. hickeringill, who though he has not much ecclesiastical emoluments to lose thereby, if the imputation be true, yet he pays the king assessments, and finds arms for above 200. l. per annum, temporal estate of inheritance; a third part whereof (besides other mischiefs) are forfeit, if you can prove him a papist; and if you cannot, 'tis fit that on the gallows which was set up for innocent mordecai, that wicked haman should be hanged thereon; and the mischief which you wickedly designed against him, 'tis but just it should fall upon your own pate; and that you and your bookseller should for the libel fall into the same pit which you have in malice and wickedness digged for the innocent. alas! you do not know mr. hickeringill (the man you scandalise) in time he'll make you know him better, i dare assure ye; as he has, and will do to some others, such railers, liars and slanderers as yourselves; sure mr. archdeacon you do not say your prayers, you do not (sure) say your litany d. d. but all your provocations cannot make mr. hickeringill render you railing for railing, the wont attacks of effeminate and doting old men. the author of the naked truth is so much against the pope's supremacy, and all other religious bigots, that some think (as does this archdeacon) that he gives the king too many, even all the keys of the church. for 'tis undoubtedly true, that the crown of this realm of england is, and has been (before h. 8.) imperial; that is, de jure, not the facto; thanks to the wicked usurper, the pope and his legates, like that paudolfus, who in huffing pride set his ecclesiastical foot upon this imperial crown in king john's time; or like those popes that made the emperors themselves hold their stirrups. this ought not to have been done, it was not the jure, it was commonly de facto done, before h. 8ths' time: and thus (with his quixot-chivalry) he assaults the windmills set up by his own brains, like boys that set up their shrovetide-cocks only to throw at, and busy themselves. as for example, chap. 2. sect. 3. he says, the statutes grant consultations and appeals into chancery from the spiritual courts— 'tis true, but what then? it only supposes that the spiritual courts meddle with those appealable causes, (as matrimony, tithes, etc.) which are but very few. and whereas he says, the bishops may deprive, and have statute-law for so doing; 'tis false, they have indeed power by 1 h. 7.4. to commit a minister that has committed incest or fornication, to the gaol, but for no other offence; and that statute was made upon force, when the laity durst not meddle with a clergyman, though a muderer, without consent of his ordinary. however the clergy then were so goatish, numerous, and high-fed, that no man could keep his wife or daughters from those lazy and buxom abby-lubbers; and so let the bishops (still) for incontinency send the delinquent to gaol; but (i thank you) not such matter, incontinency is now as modish and fashionable a sin as ever; i have known two or three notorious whoremasters (ministers in essex) convict, but they scaped the gaol, and one of them (a scotchman) that had two bastards in one year, got a pardon. the sin of adultery and fornication is a filthy and abominable sin in all men, especially in divines, but as long as it is the mode, it will sinned great patrons to countenance and abet it; sweet-lips cannot forbear so sweet a sin. no body denies, but procurations, synodals, robbing by the highway, visitations and picking of pockets (in spite of laws, canons and decrees of holy-church to the contrary, in spite of equity and conscience, in spite of mercy, pity and compassion, has been (in times of prelacy) in spite of christ's command, and the apostles command (not to wrong men for filthy lucre's sake) has been, i say, an old and ancient practice; and indeed, in the days of popish prelacy and the high commission, they did what they list, who durst control or gainsay? but now that popish prelacy and the high commission are nulled and made void, and all their ecclesiastical jurisdiction so precarious, and no authority for their procurations and synodals, no authority to call churchwardens and ministers before them to a great town and tavern, no authority for such visitations, much less to demand money for the same; no authority (neither) to demand money in ecclesiatim-visitations: (and yet they will have six shilling and eight pence ready money, and visit twenty churches in a day (a very special trade). they will not be put off with a little victuals, bread and cheese, or pottage: no— these ecclesiastical fellows are high fed.) and truly to spoil all their courts, though they had never so lawful an authority, let but the people follow this following advice, and you will not long be troubled with them. namely, when the minister and churchwardens are cited to come to a visitation at a great town, and there is a great tavern, take no notice of it, refuse to be hurried from your business, your families and your homes against law; let them proceed against you as far as they dare; if they excommunicate you for contempt, a good action of the case lies against them, for there is neither statute-law, nor common-law, nor civil-law in england to justify such citations and visitations. indeed, there is old canons in times of popery, to justify, that there has been ecclesiatim visitations: namely, for the visitor or bishop to come to your churches, and see how you do; but it is against all law, equity and conscience— to see how your pockets do. therefore if they come, ecclesiatim visits, give them such poor fare as the vicar feeds upon; if they be hungry feed them, do not fat them, do not feast them, and i'll secure, you shall not be often troubled with them thence following; but give them not a cross of money, and fear not that ever they'll disquiet you very often. as it is in the naked truth— if their visitationes morum prove not to be visitationes nummorum, i'll be your warrant, you shall not need a new act of parliament to stave them off. so, if they call upon you, and cite you to prove a will, or take an administration, though the sumner or appariter come forty miles, do not give the knave a groat, but for him, and his masters, and the citation or process, give him three pence, and no more, as by statue, 23. hen. 8.9. 1. eliz. 1. if they ask or demand any more, sue them upon the said statute, inan action of debr, or qui tam— five pounds due to the king, and five pounds to the party grieved. the like penalty upon them, if you sue them for taking more for administrations or probat of wills than is allowed by statute; nay, if they will not give you back your will, when proved, into your own keeping, upon demand, there lies a swingeing action against them, as baron weston declared at chelmsford the last assizes in open court to the country, exhorting them to bring such actions against those ecclesiastical fellows (so he styled them) and if they brought such actions before him, he would make examples of them. the cry, the common-cry against the extortions of these ecclesiastical fellows, was loud and clamorous all over england, and reached the ears of the king and parliament in henry 8ths time (as in good time it may again) which occasioned the statute of 21 henry 8.5. as appears by the preamble of that statute against their extortions, in these very words,— namely,— where in the parliament holden at westminster, in the 31st. year of the reign of the noble king of famous memory, edw. 3. upon the complaint of his people for the outrageous and grievous fines and sums of money, taken by the ministers of bishops, and of other ordinaries of holy church, for the probat of testaments, and for the acquittances by the said ordinaries to be made concerning the same: the said noble king in the same parliament openly charged and commanded the archbishop of canterbury, and other bishops for that time being, that amendment thereof should be had: and if no amendment thereof should be had, it was by the authority of the same parliament accorded, that the king should thereof make inquiry by his justices, of such oppression and extortions, etc. and where at the parliament holden at westminster, 3 hen. 5. it was recited, that the commons of this realm had oftentimes complained there in divers parliaments, for that divers ordinaries do take for the probation of testaments, and other things thereunto belonging, sometimes xl. s. sometimes lx. s. and sometimes more, against right and justice; where in time of king edw. 3. men were wont to pay for such causes but 2. s. 6. d. or 5. at most, by which unlawful exactions, etc. then it follows in the statute, and is enacted, that none of these bishop's ordinaries, archdeabons, commissaries, chancellors, officials registers, scribes, praisers, summoners, appariters, or other their ministers, shall take or demand for probation, writing, sealing, registering, making of inventories, or giving of acquittances, or for any other manner of cause concerning the same, any more than what follows, namely, where the goods of the deceased amount not to more than 5. l. l. s. d. to the register for the probat of the will 00 00 06. to the register or if an admistration, than also 00 00 00. to the register and to the judge 00 00 00. where the goods of the deceased amount to more than 5. l. and yet under 40. l. l. s. d. to the bishop, or ordinary 00 02 06. and to the register 00 01 00. for such probat, inventory, or administration, where the goods of the deceased amount to above 40. l. l. s. d. to the ordinary, or judge ecclesiastical 00 02 06. and to the register for probat of such a will 00 02 06. and for administration of such goods of that value, to the register 00 00 00. or the register, or scribe may refuse the said 00 02 06. and if he please, may take and demand a penny for writing every ten lines of such testament, each line to contain ten inches. for inventories they usually take 40. s. a press (as they call it) that is, the length of an ordinary sheet of parchment. but by this statute, for inventories not one farthing. here's (now) one would think, a law to keep them in awe, but it signifies nothing, they have got so many cunning startingholes to creep out, 'tis hard to catch a fox. for if they be indicted for extortion, or that you bring an action of debt upon the statute, or a qui tam— namely, l. s. d. due to the king for every such extortion 05 00 00. also to the party grieved 05 00 00. but here too you will be baffled again, except you punctually observe these following conditions: if it be a will that is to be proved, 1. you must bring the witnesses along with you to prove the will, and that it is the true, whole, and last testament of the testator, and that the executor also believes the same to be the last will and testament of the testator. 21 h. 8.5. 2. you must bring wax also (soft wax) ready for the judge to put to, and affix the seal of the court, if the goods of the deceased amount not to five pounds. 21 h. 8.5. 3. you must bring two inventories, fairly written and indented, the one to be left with the ordinary, the other to be carried away by the executor, or administrator. 21 h. 8.5. 4. the very individual will and testament of the testator you must carry away with you again, so soon as it is registered, as 21. h. 8.5. 5. you must carry with you good witnesses of the tender of the said fees. and keep but to these conditions, which are plain and easy, and there is never a register, or chancellor, or sumner of them all that will give many hundreds of pounds for the place, nor will you be much pestered with these ecclesiastical-courts, or ecclesiastical fellows: (for that now belike is the word, ecclesiastical fellows); nor with archdeacon's, although they had never so good authority for keeping courts, and sending citations in their own names, and not in the name and stile of the king (their head) and the head of the church, as well as state; and as all other his majesty's courts are kept in england. indeed the courts-baron, and courts leet, etc. are kept in the name of the lord of the leet, hundred, etc. they being the lords-courts properly, and not the kings-courts, no more than his lands or manors are properly the king's lands and manors. but the courts of justice, whether ecclesiastical or civil, ought surely to be open to all the king's liege people, and have the king's authority, name and stile, not only for their warrant and authority, but to give them thereby life, vigour, power, granduer and majesty. and 'tis strange to me, that men who have taken the oath of supremacy, have bid desiance to the pope, and do not pretend to set up a commonwealth in a commonwealth, nor any government independent of the crown imperial of this realm, nor have no privy designs (at some time or other) to stand (as of old) upon their own legs without dependence upon the king (whom both papists, presbyterians, fift-monarchy-men, etc. endeavour to subjugate to their discipline) should be so awkward, and loath to have their processes and citations go out, and run (as other writs) in the king's name and stile; and it were but for their own ends to agrandize their processes and proceed; except (as formerly) the clergy do take care to have as little dependence upon a layman as possibly may be; and i say again, it will never be well, nor our differences cemented, until lay and ecclesiastical men be one and the same, with one and the same ends and designs (in this kingdom) where all ecclesiastical and lay-power is united, and one and the same, in one head, our sovereign lord the king. 'tis this bigottism that undoes us, and wars upon the score of religion that (above all other things) has blooded all over the woeful face of christendom. but let me hear of no more extortions for visitations, procurations, synodals, institutions, inductions, ordinations, licenses to preach, sequestrations, pilling and polling the clergy, nor (in probate of wills) the laity; and in visitations, churchwardens. and when they have done, and (performed their said great duties) if (after that) they cry out, for want of work and employment, let them (also) sit upon as many benches, as shall be thought fit. it is acknowledged, also, that convocations are, always have been, and aught to be assembled by the king's writ only; no doubt on't, (for else they are an unlawful conventicle:) and there let them sat together, till i, or any body else disturb them, or meddle with them. the power to make laws for the church, was ever in the (king and parliament only;) and who ever denies the same, 'tis fit they should severely answer it in a parliament: have a care of a parliament, (mr. archdeacon;) have a care of a praemunire, war-hawk; (i will not say,) war-buzzard. i had almost forgot to touch upon one string, with which he makes a great sound and noise in his proem; and that is, to prove, that chancellors, registers, summoners, officials, commissaries, advocates, notaries, surrogates, etc. ejusdem farinae, are all church-officers jure divino, and according to holy writ: ay! but where? what chapter? what verse? (it follows as close as any thing) in 1 cor. 12.28. helps in government. the registers are but to make (i thought that had been the judge's office, to make) and keep the acts of court, etc. advocates and proctors, to order and manage causes; and apparitors, to serve process, and execute mandates, etc. then this remark;— mr. hickeringill is a man of great experience in spiritual jurisdiction, and need not be told of these plain matters; (having said in the first words of this paragraph,) but, how witless, and quaker-like is this? and, how unlike mr. hickeringill? sometimes he makes (mr. hickeringill) a hobbist, a papist, a statist, and a man of great experience in ecclesiastical jurisdiction; and now a witless quaker; (even just what the good old gentleman pleases.) but sure, mr. archdeacon does mistake, and mr. hickeringill is not a man of so great experience, but he had need to be told of these plain matters again and again, before it can be beaten into his head; that the apostle (who never had register, surrogate, apparitor, nor commissary, official, nor advocate, (nor the primitive church) no, not so much as an archbishop, or an archdeacon) should ever intent, or mean any such creatures, when he told the corinthians of, helps in government. well, of a d. d. 'tis an incomparable finder, a piercing and quicksighted commentator for a man of his age, that cannot see without spectacles. for proctors, summoners, and apparitors, are just such helps in government, in the church; as squire dun, and gregory, in the state; namely, helps to ruin many. alas! poor primitive church of christ! that made a shift to subsist many hundreds of years, (by miracle surely) and yet never had these ass-sistants, or helps in government. such helps in government, (god knows!) plut. lives, p. 940. as are far more fit to people the city that plutarch speaks of, called poneropolis: god grant them a good shipping; they'll meet with many of their brethren in spain and italy. and it is as senseless to defend these ecclesiastical fellows by magna charta, because such as they (if they still be papists, as those were) were (then) members of holy-church, and brought hither from rome by william the conqueror. for by that first clause of magna charta, that the church of england shall be free, and have all her liberties, etc. can never be meant, (as the archdeacon would insinuate) that it is a sin to alter that frame of government, and the rights and libertyes of holy church: for peter-pences, first fruits, and tenths to the pope, investiture of bishops, etc. with many other, were then the right and liberties of holy church, (as aforesaid) when magna charta was made. i have not willingly omitted to give answer to all, and every the idle cavils and exceptions in his book: once for all, (by way of conclusion; for i am quite tired with his impertinencies) let the reader read the statute of 1. eliz. 1. and he will find, 1. that the popish ecclesiastical jurisdiction of the church, at the making of that statute, was cut off utterly, by the name of all foreign powers, repealing the 1. and 2. phil. & mar. 8. whereby the see of rome had been again set up in england, from whence (that statute confesses with great contrition) (to use the words of that statute,) they had a long while wandered, and strayed abroad; and in which statute, the protestant ecclesiastical jurisdiction (set up by edward 6.) is disannulled. 2. that therefore by 1. eliz. 1. it appears, there was then neither popish nor protestant jurisdiction ecclesiastical. 3. that therefore full power and authority is granted to the queen, her heirs and successors, to set up the high-commission-court, the soul and life of all the other inferior ecclesiastical courts. 4. that this high-commission-court might (for the greatness thereof, for the novelty thereof, and for the grievous vexations thereof) be called extraordinary; yet all the inferior and subordinate courts were all of a piece: it was the head-court, whither all appeals at length might come; and it animated all the rest: and when it was disannulled, and that head beheaded by 13. car. 2.12. all the little inferior, and ordinary ecclesiastical-courts, were held dead in law, and spirit-less. and when we shall persuade the king and parliament to revive them, god only knows. but let us suppose, that they have right in their ecclesiastical courts to take cognizance of causes testamentary, matrimonial, of tithes and oblations; and by 1. eliz. 2. for not coming to divine service: what's this to visitations, churchwardens, and the oath of churchwardens, procurations, etc. in causes testamentary, (whether men be cited, or not cited) i will (as i am an ecclesiastical judge) give my countrymen this honest council (without a fee) merely for the public weal: bring your will (if you be executor and inventory as aforesaid) as also, make the same application to them, if you be next of kin to the deceased, and have right to take letters of administration) keep to the former instructions, and tender them the aforesaid fees: and if you be an administrator, then according to a late act, (for an administration-bond, tender them one shilling more.) if they refuse to dispatch you, without frustratory delay, go away: and what ever you are damnifyed thereby, the law will give you right, and satisfaction and reparation upon them. and if they be thus held to justice, and to take no more than due and legal fees, there needs no act of parliament to discountenance the ecclesiastical courts. and indeed they cannot afford to buy their offices, and yet get no more than legal fees; for the value of money is so different from what it was in henry the eighths' time, (when a harry-groat was the chiefest silver-coyne, and would have bought as much victuals as half-a-crown will now) that they cannot afford to keep clarks, nor to write and register wills at this day for the legal fees. but who dare make himself wiser than the law; when the high-commission-court was up, there was no dealing with them, nor with their extortions; and ever since that court has been defeated, no parliament has (as yet) thought them worthy of larger fees; and why should men be wiser than what is written, and enacted in the statutes of this realm? no doubt but the settling of these ecclesiastical-matters, and the kerbing these ecclesiastical fellows, are things of weight and great consequence, deserving the most serious debate of the highest judicature, a parliament; but till they have time, or till they think fit to take some order herein, i have shown you how to do their business. nor have i done this, out of malice and spleen, against these ecclesiastical fellows, that do so huff the country, and the inferior clergy, but in detestation of their avarice and extortions, aggravated with such insufferable insolence, that i speak but the sense of the common-cry of the country against them, as loud and obstreperous, and for the same exorbitances, as in the reigns of edward the third, henry the fifth, and henry the eighth, when those three statutes were made on purpose to check their insufferable pride and greediness. and for an example to them, i'll only instance in the said popish king edward the first, how he made an example of them. 1. in england, 2. scotland. 3. ireland. 1. in england, when john roman archbishop of york, excommunicated anthony beck bishop of durham, for imprisoning john de amelia, and william de melton, public notaries, sent by the archbishop to summon before him and the said bishop, then employed in the kings-service, in the northern parts, the archbishop admonishing him thereunto, once, twice, thrice, and still the bishop (or his ministers,) refusing to release them, the archbishop thunder's out the curse (against him) of excommunication, to the prior of boulton in craven, to cause the same to be published in the churches of alverton and darlington, beginning, claus. 20. e. 1. m. 2. dorso brevia regis. johannes permissione dia eborac. archiepiscopus, angliae primas, dilecto in christo filio priori de boulton, etc. dat. apud sanctum martinum juxta viterbium 13. kal. maii, anno gratiae, 1292. & pontificatus nostri septimo; in the seventh year of our popedom. (for papa, or pope, was the common compliment every little bishop passed upon his brother bishop, in those days; of which, i can instance in many records, if needful.) this difference was decided by parliament. see placita parliam. an. 21. ed. 1. nu. 17.18. johannes archiepiscopus eborum attachiatus fuit ad respondendum domino regi, de placito, quare cum placita de imprisonamento & alijs transgressionibus in regno regis contra pacem regis factis, ad regem & coronam— idem archi-episcopus per johannem priorem de bolton in cravene commissarium suum, in venerabilem patrem antonium-episcopum dunelm. etc. die mercurii prox. ante festum s. jacobi apostoli anno vicessimo apud derlington, etc. sententiam excommunicationis in dictum antonium, etc. fecerit fulminari, etc. in regis contemptum, etc. in despectum ipsius regis 20. mill. librarum, & hoc offered rioardus de bretenil pro domino rege verificare, etc. et archiepiscopus venit & defendit omnem contemptum & totum, etc. & dicit quod ipse nihil fecit in contemptum regis, nec contra dignitatem suam, etc. & dicit, quod de sententia a canone lata & per ipsum declarata, in curia domini regis non debet respondere; sed tamen salva libertate ecclesiae suae ob reverentiam domini regis vult plane declarare factum suum, etc. et richardus de bretenill qui sequitur, pro rege dicit, quod praedictus episcopus dunelm. habet duos status, viz. statum episcopi quoad spiritualia, et statum com. palatii quoad. ten. sua temporalia, etc. too long here to recite; (i can show the whole process in parliament) where the archbishop was voted to be committed to prison, to absolve bishop anthony, and to pay what fine the king pleased, which was four thousand marks of silver (an immense sum, in those days) but the archbishop was vastly rich, and though the son of a whore (a poor chambermaid) yet she had the wit to lay the bastard at a rich man's door; fathering it upon one john roman, treasurer of york, who educated him very well, made him a scholar; and * h. de knighton. de event aug. l. 3. c. 7. col. 2507. henry de knighton says, he was a right roman, for he inherited the roman avarice of those days, as well as the name; being the first archbishop that wheedled himself into the estate of the deceased that died intestate, or that gave letters of administration, in england; (and yet this deep-read archdeacon makes the common law depose and justify their proceed in spiritual courts) pretending (that since the poor soul died without a will, and so (consequently) had not taken care to redeem his soul out of purgatory, by giving the priests his goods, money or lands, for so many masses to that purpose; therefore the archbishop (piously) took that care upon him; yet he himself happened to die (though not intestate, yet) so suddenly, (for two judgements in parliament against him, (namely, the aforesaid,) and, presently after, for endeavouring to defraud the king of three-hundred pounds of money belonging to one bonamy, a banished jew, and which he would have been fingering for himself, knowing that the money lay in the priory of bridlington within his jurisdiction) broke his heart, his executors would not, or durst not meddle with his goods. executores enim sui se intromittere noluerunt, ibid ita quod non proprio sed potius alieno fiebant expensae funerum, & in ecclesia sua cum honore simplici repositus est, non enim panis vel obolus pro anima ipsus dabatur: unde justo dei judicio contigit, ut qui subditorum bona & maxim ab intestatis sitiret, subita quasi morte praeventus, nullum vel modicum ex testamento suo proprio consecutus est emolumentum: that is (saith henry de knighton) his executors would not meddle with the execution of his will, so that his funeral expenses were defrayed, out of other men's, rather than his own estate; he was buried in his own church after a very homely manner; for not a bit of bread was given to the poor, nor one farthing, to pray for his soul; by the just judgement of god upon him, that he that did so thirst after intestates estates (especially) dying in his province, being prevented by a sudden death, got none or very little benefit by his own last will and testament. the second instance shall be in scotland; for king edward the first was king thereof, at least, by conquest, (king edward the conqueror of scotland) when the bishop of glasgow having a spite, and a pique against a minister of his diocese, deprived him of his living tortiously and arbitrarily, whereupon king edward the first by his letters to his lieutenant, or guardian of scotland, restored him upon the petition of john comyn, in these words. al tres honourable prince e noble, in bundle. brevi●…n & petic. in tur. load. an. 24. e. 1. e a son trescher signur lige sire edward par la grace dieu, noble roy dengleterre, le ce ou, si luy plest, johan comyn kaunk il set e poet de honour e de reverence come a seon seignur lige. chire sire si vus plest, io vus pri especialment ke vus deyngnet mander vostre lettre au gardeind escoce pur mettre mesh robert mounsycitien partur de ceste lettre en la eglice de grant dalton, de la quele sire robert evesk de glascou, etc. 'tis too tedious further to recite. the last instance is a record of a fine set upon the bishop of cork in ireland for holding plea (in the spiritual courts) of things belonging to the king's crown and dignity, for which he was amerced 140. l. claus. 20. e. 1. m. 13. hibern. pro roberto nuper, corcagensi episc. to be levied upon his goods and chattels, in these words: cum venerabilis pater robertus cortagiensis episcopus huper coram venerabill patre, s. tuamensi archi-episcopo tunc justis. regis hiberniae, amerciatus esset ad centum libras pro contemptu, & idem episcopus amerciatus esset postmodum coram eodem justice. ad quadraginta libras, pro eo quod advocavit se tenuisse placita in curia christianitatis and coronam & dignitatem regis spectantia, etc. teste rege apud westm. primo die decembris. 20. r. r. e. 1. and 'tis observable this great fine was set by an archbishop of tuam, than the king's lord-chief-justice in ireland. for indeed (in those days) the clergy were the greatest lawyers and had the greatest places; bak. chron, p. 50. and yet they would not suffer any clergyman to be subject to temporal magistrates, by a canon made, b. steph. in a synod held at london by henry bishop of winchester, the pope's legate. 'tis true king henry the second opposed this canon, and thomas becket archbishop of canterbury that stood up for it, and the contest almost ruined them both. but no king like king henry the eighth, bak. chron. p. 95. and edward the first, for keeping the crown safe from the usurpations of the clergy; this latter not suffering any prelates to sit in the parliament at saltsbury, anno. 1274. and took their great treasures hoarded up in churches, and monasteries, and put it in the exchequer. and though stout king (edward the third) struggled hard, and a long time tugged with john stratford archbishop of canterbury, who threatened the king, that he would exercise his ecclesiastical authority and proceed to excommunication of his officers, though not of himself, queen, or children; yet the great offices of the realm were executed by clergymen in his reign; for at one time when simon langham was arch bishop of canterbury, he was also lord chancellor of england; (a place that becket resigned when he was made archbishop of canterbury, denying to be at the helm of the common wealth, and the church both at once;) william wickham archdeacon of linclon was keeper of the privy seal: david willer parson of sommersham, master of the rolls; ten benesised ministers civilians, masters of the chancery; william mulse dean of s. martin's le grand, chief chamberlain of the exchequer, receiver and keeper of the king's treasure and jewels; william aksby archdeacon of northampton, chancellor of the exchequer; william dighton prebendary of st. martin's, clark of the privy seal; richard chesterfield prebend of st. stephen's, treasurer of the king's house; henry smatch parson of oundel, master of the king's wardrobe; john newnham parson of fenny-staunton, one of the chamberlains of the exchequer; john rawsby parson of harwick, surveyor and controller of the king's works; thomas brittingham parson of asby, treasurer to the king for the part of guifness, and the marches of calais; john troy's a priest, treasurer of ireland. but certainly a gospel-minister may find work enough, (though he be a bishop or arch bishop) in the works of his ministry; and most honour; i am not for alterations and great changes, yet certainly the face of our church of england is not only comely, but beautiful and well guarded by the statutes of uniformity, and confining all places of honour and profit in the kingdom to the sons of the church, and to such only as can conform to her liturgy and administration of the blessed sacraments. and what would men be at? what would they have more? than a certain settled religion (as in holland) which (alone) is countenanced, (alone) entrusted with affairs of state, places of honour or profit both at sea and land; indeed other religions or modes of worship, are rather connived and winked at, than encouraged, both in england and holland. and will no face of a church please some men, but the blood-red, bloaty and sanguinary carbuncle fiery face of an inquisition, canon's, or high commission, or low commission courts, unkown to the primitive church and christians, that were content to serve god, though they had not power to damn, and cram and ram, (etc. oaths, canons, creeds) down men's throats in spite of their teeth. but on the other hand, i abhor the novelty, as much as the ruin, i foresee, in men that are so given to change and reformation, that nothing terminates their designs but total destruction. they cannot be content to sweep the house, but they must pull it down, and how to set up one (a better) in its room, more cleanly, and more convenient, they have neither skill nor will to inquire; like the late reformers (in the late times) that pulled down and pulled down, without considering what next to set up and erect, or knowledge how to do it. and indeed the extortions in the spiritual-courts are inconsiderable in comparison of those amongst the numerous fry of common-lawyers, attorneys, clarks, notaries, sollcitors, splitters of causes, etc. whose numbers are almost numberless, and now they are born, they must be kept; and if one or two lawyers in a country be enough to disquiet the same, what are all those growing and threatening swarms, twenty times more than in the days of qeen elizabeth, who astonished and affrighted at the wonderful growth of the numbers of lawyers, attorneys, pettifoggers and solicitors in her time, seeming to threaten some alteration; (as the spirit that conjurers raise, (some say,) will fall upon their masters for want of other work and employment) was comforted by the learned lord treasurer burleigh, with this answer, madam the more spanyells (always) the more game. and there may be the more sport for the lawyers, but still the country, the poor countryman, the laborious countryman (the staff of bread,) is there decayed and impoverished; through numerous shoals of beef eaters and man-eaters, which (if they were honestly put to sea and the plantations) the sturdy young fellows would do good work, and live with less care, less shifts, more honestly, nay, more profitably also both for themselves, and their country. and therefore, though i have told you that the spiritual-courts are naught, stark naught; yet where shall we mend our market? for i am certain that the fees of lawyers, and the pretty devices (to fill up atturnyes bills) (in despite of 3. jacob.) so notably of late found out and enhanced, that a man might have tried two causes twenty years ago as cheap as he can try one now. some men never know when they have enough; ten shillings or twenty (at most) use to be the highest fee for the best sergeant that came to the bar; now, every petty counce looks asquint and lakes it in disdain, if you proffer him silver and not guinies; two, three, four; nay, ten or twenty guinies, some of them think all too little. and if you do not satisfy these breath sellers, (and 'tis almost impossible to satisfy them) they may perhaps leave you, and your cause, in the lurch; or find out some quirk● or quiditty, or 〈◊〉 trick, to unravel all you have done: and then fet you to begin again, and at it again; more guinies again. and therefore, men that try, will certainly find, (perhaps too late) that seldom comes a better. all violent changes distemper a state, which caesar's murderers found to their cost, repenting they did not rather submit to the time, and endure his usurpation, (the ruin of the bravest commonwealth, that ever was in the world) rather than by such violence, to give the better colour to the pretences of his successors, who wanted caesar's incomparable clemency, and magnanimity. i'll conclude with the story of pacavius calavinus, a man of great authority in capua, (the second city of italy) who by a wile had shut up, and secured the senate, and chief magistrates of that famous city, in the guild-hall there; being men bad enough in all conscience; and the common cry against them for their enormities was not louder, nor more universal, than in england of late years, against the rump, or committee of safety. but pacuvius (having made them thus fast) called the people into the forum, or marketplace, to hear their good pleasure, and what sentence or punishment they would doom them unto: with one mouth the people, ne●…ine contradicente, condemned them to death and torture, and to be drawn out by lot, one by one to execution; but not one to suffer, till another was chosen by the people to supply his place; (for they knew, they could not subsist without justice, and consequently justices and governors.) first, that one (on whom the lot happened to fall) was called out by pacuvius, and sentenced to be cut off, as a pernicious and rotten member: but (first) saith pacuvius, make choice of another better qualifyed to supply his place. this unexpected speech bred a distracted silence, and the multitude were put to a grievous plunge; one thought upon one friend; and another, of another; every one as his interest, relation, friendship, or acquaintance most persuaded; at length, one of the boldest of the rabble ventured to name one, fittest (in his opinion) to succeed. and no sooner was he nominated, but the multitude (who had other designs, for other friends of their own; or some just cause of digust against him that was proposed,) by a general consent of voices, did condemn this new-magistrate with a more loud, and universal outcry, than the former old senator, who was bad enough, but not guilty of so many hundred imperfections and faults, as was objected against this new-upstart. so that these contradicting humours growing more violent and hot, every one following his private affection or malice, a far greater confusion and hurly-burly ensued upon the nomination of a second and third; for in choosing fit successors, the multitude could never agree. at last, weary of this tumultuous toil, one sneaked home one way; another, another way; scattering and stealing away from this rabble-rout, every one with this resolution, that, since all men are frail, mortals not angels, of two evils, best to choose the least; that some diseases are safer to be endered, than cured; and better an old evil, (of which we know the worst, and have had experience) than a new-evil, that we know not whither it will tend, or where it will end; and finally, that seldom comes a better. let these elegant french-verses finish the discourse, (made by pi●…rack, the french-poet; but more honestly, than elegantly.) aim l'estat tel que tu le voîs estre s'il est royal, aim la royante, s'il est de peu, ou bien communante, aim l'aussi, car dieu t'y a faict naistre. love thou thy country's state, whether it be a commonwealth, senate, or monarchy: all change is fatal, count then that the best, in which thy country finds most peace, most rest. an abstract of the premises, in a short conclusion. 'tis evident (then) by his own showing, that there was no ecclesiastical courts distinct from the hundred-courts, and lay-courts, till the pope's champion brought over that new french and italian mode, with a long sword into england; and odo bishop of bayeux, (brother to the conqueror) assisting to set up the pope's usurpations in spiritual courts, or spiritual tyranny, forbidden by christ, and his holy apostles; who pretended not to this hierarchy or frelacy, names as unknown, as arch-bishops or arch-deacons, (chancellors, officials, surrogates, advocates, proctors, summoners, and the rest of that kind) to the primitive-church. secondly, that it is great impudence for the clergy, much more for the frelacy, to call themselves the church; as if the lay-people were not as much members of christ; nay, as learned, prudent, modest, and honest, as the best of them, i will not except the pope himself: and that to style the clergy alone the church or holy church, is contrary to the constant style, and dialect of holy-writ; as appears by mat. 16.18. act. 2.47.— 5.11.— 8.1.— 11.26.— 13.23.— 14.27.— 14.23.— 15.3, 22, 41.— 16.5.— 20.17, 28. rom. 16.1, 4, 5, 16, 23. 1 cor. 4.17.— 10.32.— 14.4, 5, 23, 33, 34. 1 cor. 16.1, 19 2 cor. 1.1.— 8.1.18, 19.23, 24.— 11.8, 28.— 12.13. and in all other places (which are numerous) throughout the holy scripture. thirdly, that by the oath given always to excommunicate persons before they be absolved (namely, stare & parere mandatis ecclesiae, to stand to, and obey the commands of the church) by church, they always mean themselves, the prelacy, or governing men of the church; and by holy-church being free (in magna charta) was, and must be meant the clergy, and the pope their head; but how holy they were in those times, what symonists, and (consequently) perjured persons, appears fully in the premises. by the angel of the church of ephesus (rev. 2.1, 8. the prelates say by angel (there) is meant the bishop or presbyter; by the church (there them) must be meant, the christian people of ephesus; and if these clergy, in edw. 1. (such as old nich. pap. and archbishop peckham, etc.) were angels, they were black ones surely. fourthly, that from the reign of william the conqueror, to hen. 8. the clergy, or ecclesiastical men had one head, namely, a foreign head, the pope; and the laiety another head, the king. fifthly, these two heads (namely) the pope the head of the church, and the king the head of the state, were (ever and anon) knocking one against the other, and the english-clergy always sided with their head, the pope, to make the other temporal head bow down, and submit to this spiritual head. sixthly, that when this spiritual head would not submit to the temporal head, and gratify the king's will (in the desired divorce betwixt king h. 8. and his queen) (who had been twenty years his wife.) he caused this pope, his spiritual head and forreign-power to be beheaded, and cut off; till it was restored, and patched on again, by 1. phil. and mar. 8. and indeed what ever that resolute king henry did will, that will soon became a law: if the king would have queen katherine divorced, and her daughter mary declared illegitimate, yea, quoth the stature 25. h. 8.22. when his will was to have the princess elizabeth legitimate, and inheritable of the imperial crown of this realm, yea, quoth the statute 25. h. 8.22. again when he was minded to make her uncapable of the crown, yea, quoth the statute, 28. h. 8.7. and lastly, when his will and his mind was changed, and that both the princess mary and elizabeth (though it was impossible but one of them was illegitimate, and both of them so declared illegitimate in the said statutes) should be capable to inherit (as they both did) the imperial crown of this realm; yea, quoth the parliament, 35. h. 8.1. when the bishops grumbled that they had not their old procurations out of the dissolved monasteries, and consequently, could not pay him their first-fruits and tenth's (though the king knew it was against their own laws and canons to have any) yet the king (willing to stop their mouths) and knowing that to take some men by the pocket, is as bad as to take them by the throat, rather than he would disoblige them (he being also at variance with the pope) he allows them these little snips, out of his large new-conquests and acquests, by the statute 34. and 35. h. 8.19. but made them only recoverable in ecclesiastical-courts, and only such as were paid ten years before the dissolution of monasteries, which now is a thing impossible to prove; their own registers being no competent witnesses, being parties, and their register-books no records. 7. that all the remaining years of the reign of hen. 8. (after the ecclesiastical jurisdiction here in england had no dependence of the pope) they had no laws, no known canons, nor rule to proceed upon, and if they kept courts, these ecclesiastical courts could take no cognizance but of three or four things, namely, causes testamentary, matrimonial ties, and obventions, and (such perhaps they have cognizance of at this day) if they have authority for keeping courts, and have any laws or canons (other than acts of parliament to direct them) which (i think) they have not. 8. that when the ecclesiastical courts, and jurisdiction had got a protestant-head, it also had a protestant-face, by 1. edw. 6.2. and 'tis senseless to imagine, that that statute was not constantly put in execution, and all processes in the name and style of the king. 9 this protestant-face of ecclesiastical authority was blasted by 1. mar. and in its room was again set up the pope's head, and the popish-church, by 1. phil. and mar. 8. and foreign powers, and jurisdiction ecclesiastical after the old italian or romish mode. 10. this popish ecclesiastical jurisdiction and foreign powers were defeated (in 1. eliz. 1.) by repealing 1 mar. and 1 phil. mar. 8. that had repealed 1 edw. 6.2. which had been under restraint and made of no force by the repeal aforesaid, and thence resumed its former vigour and virtue, but of that quere: all the reason in the world for it, as mr. h. cary learnedly insists. 11. when 1. eliz. 1. had cancelled all the popish ecclesiastical jurisdiction and spiritual-courts, there was none, till the same statute gave the queen and her heirs and successors power by commission to settle a new form and face of government ecclesiastical. 12. that branch of 1 eliz. 1. that gave the queen and her heirs this power and authority (being repealed by 13. car. 2.12.) for my part (i must say) it is beyond my apprehension to find out where the authority of ecclesiastical-courts can or does consist, or subsist; or who gave them the authority they pretend to; not the pope, (as of old,) not the common-law, (i am sure) nor can possibly the canon-law, or statute-law. 13. grant they have authority, it is but in three or four particulars, causes testamentary, matrimonial, tithes, and for neglecting to come to divine-service, by 1 eliz. 2. or (at most) but those ten things in 5. eliz. 23. de excommunicato capiendo, enumerated; what's this to justify their great extortions in probates of wills, and administrations, and their illegal proving the same, and keeping men's wills contrary to that statute? what's this to justify the force of any canons at this day? or who made them laws of england without a parliament? what's this to justify the pilling and polling the churchwardens, and the inferior clergy by procurations, articles of visitation, oaths arbitrarily imposed upon them both for canonical obedience? what's all this to their great business (in visitations, and court-keeping) namely, the money-business? and lastly, what a shameful thing it is to impose upon the consciences of the clergy an & coath of canonical obedience condemned by act of parliament, in condemning the canons of 1640. in 13 car. 2.12. what insolence, for a bishop to commend the observation of those canons, which the king and parliament have condemned by statute? quer. what punishment do such incur? and for imposing oaths upon churchwardens to inquire into the breach of such late canon's? which cannot be possibly, the laws of england, if made since the days of king henry the 8th. their shameful and illegal extortions are a thousand times more sufferable and pardonable than these arbitrary impositions of oaths, to torture and rack men's conscienees, if not to precipitate them into purjury; nay, (except god be more merciful than they) eternal damnation, making men swear stare mandatis ecclesiae, to obey the commands of the church, and to obey his majesty's laws ecclesiastical, when it is not defined what or where these ecclesiastical laws are; the wisest of them all will not, cannot, dare not tell, nor determine. i'll bid this arch deacon farewell with the same compliment he passes upon mr. hickeringil in his last words, bidding him not be wiser than the law. if this d. d. had not been wiser than the law, he had not writ such a thin discourse, and yet face it with a bulky and imbost-title, styling it leges angliae. if the spiritual court keepers were not wiser than the law, they would first prove their courts legal, their canons legal, their fees legal, their extortions and impositions of oaths (upon the consciences of the king's subjects) legal. nor writ i this to weaken their authority, but that it may, (if it seem good to the king and parliament) prove instrumental to give them a just authority, and a true face of power, and also limit their exorbitances: there's no wise man nor good man that favours anarchy. the king's throne (which god long preserve) is established by justice and law, and 'tis the people's happiness to be governed and guided by honest laws, not arbitrary canons, impositions and methods, but such as are of the right english make and temper, enacted by king and parliament. and i dare justify, that there is nothing in the naked-truth, but what is good for the clergy, (as well as the laity,) if they will lay aside prejudice and pertinacy; pride and covetousness. finally, for i am hearty weary of the company of this same totnes-arch-deacon, and with conversing thus long with such an impertinent d. d. that has not his fellow among them all for insolence and impudence, in defaming and belying a gentleman he never saw, nor knows any harm by, except perhaps from malice, that never speaks well and seldom speaks true; or from fame, which was a liar of old; and long before ever there was an archdeacon heard of in christendom. and now at length to make mr. hickeringil the common odium, nothing will serve but to make him a papist, a hobbist, etc. when all his enemies that know him, have not effrontery to deny, but that he has more loyalty than to be a papist, more conscience than to be a simonist, (though an arch-deaconry of totnes might be put into the bargain and seal,) more honour and ingenuity than to be a parasite, more reason than to be an atheist, more religion than to be an hobbist, and more honesty and plaindealing than to be in a dissembling age of sycophantry. but after all this bespattering language, how inhuman it is in an archdeacon, and a d. d. so unmercifully to attack mr. hickeringill with pun and quibble, a persecution beyond the plague of barbers, in an itchy endeavour to be witty (forsooth) in despite of nature and his stars, who have all entered sufficient caveats against it? then for the serious part (if there be such a part) in his idle pamphlet; is it not quixolisme, beyond the relief of hellebore, to style his insignificant babbling— leges angliae? make bonfires of your cook, your littleton, your crook, dyer, statute-books and common law-books; for behold (here) in thrifty querpo, leges angliae, the laws of england, price 8 d. nor less madness is it, in him, or more idle vapour, than to appear thus publicly upon the stage as the chavalier, or champion of mother-church, in answer to mr. hickeringil's naked-truth, when he only tickles over the skirts of the business, and says not one word in answer to the main drift and design of the naked-truth; namely, in answer or vindication of the canon's authority to keep eclesiastical courts or to impose oaths of canonical obedience upon the clergy, or to impose oaths upon the churchwardens; nor one word does he say to vindicate their unjust and unconscionable impositions and extortions upon the clergy, in procurations, institutions, licenses to preach, ordinations, inductions, sinodals, visitations, etc. and yet (most impudently) styles his book, an answer to mr. hickeringill, etc. nor does that statute 25. hen. 8. give any authority to arch-bishops, or bishops to keep ecclesiastical courts or jurisdiction, except such as was then practised when the statute was made, namely, popish courts, popish articles of visitation, popish habits, and palls, and to be worn by popish arch-bishops, and bishops; but we have none now: you know hen. 8. (that made that statute) lived and died a papist, as aforesaid. but what is that statute however to justify your arch-deacon's courts? that spiritual creature is not named in 25. hen. 8. well, come mr. archdeacon, friends must part; i'll (even) bid you farewell, and shake hands with you, in hopes never to meet with you again; but because i am in your debt for that witless quibble,— hobby war-hawk; i'll pay you quid pro quo, in the same coin; namely, an anagram for your pun and quibble; nay, an anagram, as silly (if possible) as your quibble,— war-hawk— fra-fulwood, (anagram) war-dul-fool. thus has it cost me some pains (the labour of six days, not seven days, i protest) to answer the six months abortive throws of a sibling, quibbling, fribling, fumbling archdeacon. and 'tis enough, (at least) as much as is needful, and more than i could well afford upon so despicable an opponent; besides a subtle anagram frankly vouchfafed to him, and ex abundanti, liberally thrown (and given him) into the bargain. to teach his costive-wit more sobriety, than to attack the naked-truth, (only with impertinencies; and pun and quibble) in his next attempt, when peradventure he makes a second adventure. which, not i (so much as the the booksellers) greedily expect from him, or rather some more modest, more solid, and better accounted champion of the kirk's. but enough (i say) at present, not only because i am in haste, and have other more important affairs in hand, than to spend much time with such a scribbling d. d.) but chief because the naked-truth is luscious, too much at a time is apt to glut and nauseate; to eat much honey is not good. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. the husbandman, with wary hand (not with whole sack-fulls) sows the land; but thriftily contrives his gain, by handfuls husbanding the grain. finis. london, printed for r. janèway, in queens-head alley in pater-noster-row. the love of truth and peace. a sermon preached before the honourable house of commons assembled in parliament. novemb. 29. 1640. by john gauden, bachelor in divinity. published by order of that house. london printed by g. m. for andrew crook in paul's churchyard at the green dragon. 1641. to the honourable house of commons, assembled in parliament. such is the powerful, and universal influence, which the great and noble constellation of your house bath, under god and the king, over all that are members of this state, that none with modesty may deny your desires, or with safety (at least of their discretion) disobey your commands; so irresistible a force must the intimation of that will carry, which proceeds from somany wise and excellent judgements united together. this may sufficiently justify my obedience, in presenting this sermon to your, and the public view: which not any self-forwardness, or overvaluing hath obtruded. it was enough, in the author's opinion (if not too much) that so sudden and abortive conceptions had once adventured the hearing of so learned, pious, and judicious an assembly. where obtaining (through god's blessing) some approbation, (by doing some good, i hope) they were further, by the vote of your honourable house, required to be printed: which they now are; and with all humility presented to your acceptance. that at once i may, both cast in a mite to god's glory in the public good (which should be the end of all our actions) and also testify a mind vehemently sensible of, and thankful for those free and noble expressions of favour generally from the whole house, and particularly from some members of it, my special friends, conferred upon me. what good others may now get from these notions, i know not: i pray, and hope, they may not be wholly useless to candid, pious, and unprejudiced minds, since your censure hath allowed them as fit and necessary for our times. this i am sure, your wisdom and piety are (above all others) by the publication of this sermon, more straightly obliged in conscience, to justify before god and man, your desires and opinion of it, by your proceedings answerable to the subject and intent of it; which is the love of truth and peace. the splendour of so many clear minds, concentred in truth, cannot but kindle to a public love of it. and from the sacred light, and heat of so many wise and warm hearts, the life sweetness and abundance of our peace cannot but grow and flourish. that this may be the happy success, wherewith with god will be pleased to crown your public endeavours; as also these, which from my private pen are now adopted unto your so great and honourable protection, is the earnest prayer of your most humble servant, gauden. the love of truth and peace. zach. 8.19. thus saith the lord, the fast of the tenth month, shall be to the house of judah, joy and gladness, and cheerful feasts; therefore love the truth and peace. though the weight of this service and employment be so great, that it might well have required abler shoulders to bear it, and longer time to prepare for it, and not to have put saul's armour on david's back: yet that i may not be wanting, to god's glory, my own conscience, or your desires and expectation; i have adventured to appear this day, in this place, before this honourable, grave, and judicious assembly. nothing did more encourage me, against the greatness of the work, the shortness of the time, and the insufficiency of my own abilities, than the auspicious fitness and readiness of this text, so every way suitable, as i conceive; 1. to the auditors. 2. to the times. 3. to the present occasion. 1. to the auditors; who are, or should be all filii veritatis & alumni pacis: lovers of truth, and peace: professors of truth, and protectors of peace: being called together by his sacred majesty, and deputed by the country, to be counsellors, and vindicators of truth and peace. 2. to the genius of our times▪ nothing is more needful to be preached than the love of truth and peace. the winter's distemper of our age is such, that the love of many (if not most) is grown cold to both: truth much obscured, depraved, blemished, prejudiced, undermined, discountenanced, suppressed: peace very crazy and shaken: rumours of wars, preparations for wars, study of sides & parts, great division of thoughts, pertinacy in opinions, breeding disaffections; and disaffections flaming to open contention and hostility; so far, as from the strife of pens and tongues, writing, and disputing, we are come to the terror of war, to swords and arms; that if the great god, who is the father of truth and peace (who refrains the spirits of men that delight in war) had not been gracious unto us, and inclined the heart of our king to counsels of peace, you had not this day been auditors, nor i a speaker of this theme, but all of us miserable actors, or spectators of the contrary, the suppression of truth, and utter subversion of our peace. 3. the text suits to the present occasion of the sacrament: your late fasting is this day happily turned to a cheerful feast: your water changed to wine; the best viands, the best wine; the soul's provision for eternity, the body and blood of christ. a soul's feast, a feast of exceeding joy, of eternal gladness. a feast of love; god's love to us; christ's love for us; our love to them, and to each other. a feast of truth; the sealing and confirmation of the highest, most necessary and comfortable truth, which received by faith, is able to save our souls. and a feast of peace too; the most glorious peace between god and our souls, between christ and his church; between one another. so that nothing can come more seasonably after your fast, and with this feast of spiritual joy, the holy sacrament, than this divine exhortation, most worthy of god to teach, and of us to learn, as men, and as christians: both which names import a special relation we have, above all creatures under heaven, to truth and peace, as we are {non-roman} {non-roman} {non-roman} {non-roman} {non-roman}, rational and social creatures; as {non-roman} {non-roman} {non-roman} {non-roman} {non-roman}, regenerate and sanctified by the spirit, which raiseth our souls to the enjoyment of the highest truth and peace, which is in god, and from god, bringing the soul to god, and uniting it ever with him. the three words in the text (whereon i purpose to insist) are a sacred trinity. three precious jewels; truth, peace, and love; all eminent in god, and from him: objects, and affections of the highest capacity, use, and excellency to our souls; truth, as the light of the sun; peace as the heat, which enlivens, fosters, quickens, makes fruitful all. love makes us enjoy them both. truth and peace are, bona publica & universalia. truth for the soul, peace for the body and state; every one hath a share and interest in them, prince, peers, and people. of these i intend to speak, not as a statist or politician (to which i pretend not) but as a divine, a messenger from the god of truth and peace; seeking to kindle and inflame your hearts to such a love of them, as may be most happy to your own souls, and most beneficial to our church and state: in the good of both which, you are all highly concerned: and in nothing can you promote the prosperity of either or both of them, more, then in your love and advancement of truth and peace. may god the fountain of truth, christ the saviour of love, the holy ghost the spirit of peace, assist me in speaking, you in hearing, all in doing so, as we may show a pure impartial, and unpassionate love of truth and peace. in the words consider three things: first, the inference, therefore: secondly, the objects propounded, truth, and peace. thirdly, the duty required: love. every word hath a weight, beauty and benefit in it; so that they well merit and require your attention. first, the inference, therefore: the greater mercies god shows to us, the stricter obligations to love and obedience he hath upon us. when our fasting and mourning are happily turned to cheerful feasts, our fears and jealousies cleared up to joy and gladness, to hopes of better estate and times, what doth god require of us, but this? therefore to love the truth and peace. when god's infinite mercy and patience to us hath beyond expectation, as well as desert, brought back our church and state, from the brink and precipice of war, ruin, and confusion, which threatened our peace. from the spreading, and prevailings of errors, heresies, schisms, and superstition, which strive to oppress or eclipse our church and truth: that there is a breathing space, a lengthening of our tranquillity, put into our hands, what doth god require of us by way of gratitude to him, of loyalty to our sovereign, of fidelity to our country, then to love the truth and peace; which are so happily still continued to us; and by an active, serious, and industrious love to study the settling and recovery of them both. secondly, the objects propounded: here we will consider. first, what truth is. secondly, what peace. thirdly, the union of them: truth and peace. fourthly, the loveliness in them: which best appears in the benefit by them, so as to merit our affection. 1. of truth. that question of pilate to christ, will here be made: what is truth? i answer. it is a conformity, agreeableness, or answerableness of our minds or things to their ideas, patterns, rules or measures; as that copy is true, which agrees with the original; that weight or measure true, which fits the standard, that impression true in wax or paper, which exactly fits the types and engravings, that notion or perception true in the mind or sense, which agrees with the nature of the thing or object, whereto they are applied. truth is the increated light of the intellectaull world, shining from god to angels and men. the first idea, rule, measure or standard of truth, is god: his will, which i call veritas dei. whereby he is, what he is, essentially, simply, immutably: by which he wils all things to be, what indeed they are, and knows them to be, such as they are most certainly. this sun of truth is in god: never clouded, spotted, or eclipsed; never setting or changing. eternal light, day, noon, a constant serenity. from this is the eradiation of truth; or shining forth of the divine will by his works and word. which we call veritas rei: and this is first entitatis, whereby things are such as god would have them to be, and so are true and good. secondly, veritas mentis; whereby things are known or believed by us to be such, as indeed they are, either made or revealed by god to us: this is the truth of science or faith; thirdly, hence flows veritas sermonis, of dicti; when our words and oral expressions are conformable to our knowledge, and belief or things speaking the truth. ephes. 4. 15. fourthly, veritas facti & vitae; whereby our actions are conformable to what we say, and seem to know, judge, or believe of things, which is the doing of the truth. 1. ioh. 1. 6. the idea or pattern of our actions are our words; of our words, our minds and conceptions; of our minds things themselves; of all things the divine will, most wise, powerful, and immutably good. all truth as being, is originally from god, as a sea and sun derived, and must by a right beam and clear stream be reduced to him again: and so it is; when we do as we speak: when we speak as we think, know or believe; when we know or believe, as things are either made, or revealed by god: then doth the ray or veyn of truth flow aright from god to us, and reflect back again from us to him: when in any of these we fail: there comes in hypocrisy and simulation in our actions; lying in our words; error, falsity and unbelief in our minds, when our actions contradict our words, our words our minds, our minds the nature and truth of things, made, or revealed by god: whose will in his works and word, is (as i said) the rule of truth. there are divers manifestations of truth; though it be but one, yet as light shining through divers pores; or one fountain derived in several conduits, for the benefit of rational creatures. first, there is truth, natural or physical in the works of god, which by sense and discourse, by art and science we learn. secondly, there is truth moral, political, or civil; which is in the enacting, interpreting, and executing of laws according to the rules of justice. thirdly, there is a truth theological, supernatural or religious; which chiefly concerns our souls, and is immediately taught from god. the first is in the works of god and nature. the second in the laws and edicts of men agreeable to principles of reason. the third is in the sacred scriptures, the only foundation and rule of faith and religion. the first concerns us as creatures severally. the second as sociable creatures jointly in a state or commonwealth. the third as christians, in a church and nearer call or relation to god. the first requires our love to it, as we love ourselves in a natural way: the second, as we love our country, relations and liberties: the third as we love our souls. by the first, the health and welfare of our bodies, and pleasure of our senses, fancies, and minds, are maintained, while we know and enjoy the true virtues, power, and use of creatures; able to apply fit means to our ends. by the second, the health of the state, or body politic is preserved; while laws, which are the nerves and ligaments of civil societies, are grounded upon innate, infallible and eternal principles of equity, reason, and justice, to which all men agree; and being so constituted, are truly interpreted and executed; not wrested, depraved, obscured, or violently broken: this is veritas justitiae & decisionis: the truth in judicature, zach. 8. 16. execute the judgement of truth and peace in your gates. by the third, our soul's health and happiness are maintained; while we see, know, believe, and rest upon those excellent and saving truths, which god hath in his word revealed to us, in the plainness and simplicity of the sense, not denying or doubting any thing, but humbly and willingly embracing every truth revealed, as it agrees to the general rule and analogy of faith, contained in the holy scriptures, this is veritas fidei & religionis. the first truth we gain by senses and discourse. the second by common notions, or inbred principles of reason. the third by divine revelation; depending upon the veracity, infa●libility and authority of god. no truth is to be neglected, because it is a beam or lineament of god; but those are most to be loved and esteemed, which discover god most clearly to us; bring us nearest, and make us likest to him! this, as the most excellent and useful truth, i chiefly here understand; which exceeds all others, as much as the soul doth the body; or eternity a moment. and in this, men's hearts are most prone to be negligent, and coldly affected. 2. peace. peace in any kind, and under any notion is sweet and lovely. {non-roman} {non-roman} {non-roman} {non-roman} {non-roman} naz. we can better tell what it is by the fruition, than description of it: what health is to the body, and calmness to the sea, and serenity to the day, such is peace: which ariseth from the fit, orderly, and proportionable disposing of things. it is a kind of sweet, divine, and heavenly consent, harmony or beauty of things, subordinate one to another. such it is: first, peace in nature, and the greater world, from the wise and apt combination of creatures; by symbolical qualities so contempered, that all agree to make up one entire body, the world. 2. in the lesser worlds of mixed bodies, peace is that {non-roman} {non-roman} {non-roman} {non-roman} {non-roman} or {non-roman} {non-roman} {non-roman} {non-roman} {non-roman} due temper and moderation of humours and parts, which keep their true place and proportion; quá quodlibet corpus non minus appetit unitatem suam quam entitatem. 3. in the rational world; peace is that composedness, and tranquillity of the soul, whereby all the inferior faculties, and the populacy of affections or passions are regular, and subject to the rule, and sovereignty of reason. 4. in the spiritual world, the regenerate soul; peace is the humble and willing subjection, and suitableness of the conscience in all things to the will and spirit of god. 5. in the political or civil world, the state, or church; peace is the settling and due ordering of things by just laws of government; and by true grounds or rules of piety and religion; whereto all submit. it consists, {non-roman} {non-roman} {non-roman} {non-roman} {non-roman}, in the right skill of governing; and will to be governed. when all agree in one thing, all think, speak, and do by the same thing, all conspire in one main end, the glory of god, and the public good, which is the supreme law: when all are settled on one ground, move by one rule, and tend to one end. truth, order, and justice, are the only foundation and pillars of peace, in both church, and commonwealth. 2. the second consideration is the union of the two, truth and peace; in god they are united: and so in every good soul, & well ordered church or state, they may, and do best agree together: no firm, or durable peace, which is not fastened and cemented with truth: so false and pernicious a principle is that of some; that the less men know of truth, the more easily they will be kept in peace; that the way to subdue men to an asinine patience, is to cast them into an asinine ignorance. whereas on the contrary, no men or minds are more obedientially disposed to an heroic patience, as to the burdens, pressures, and exactions upon their states and liberties, &c. than they, who are best informed, how little all these worldly things are to be valued, having hopes of far better. and no men are more stubbornely contumacious, refractory and prone to flame, to rebellion and munity, than they, who know, and expect no better, or higher good than those of sense and present life, who think you rob them of their heaven, god, and all happiness, if you injure them in their estates, honours, or liberties. those subjects are most shy, and prone to start from obedience, and fall from peace, who live by moonlight of human reason, and senses only, which amazeth their minds with the shadows of good in riches, pleasures, honours, and liberties temporal, and walk not by the sunshine of divine truth, which discovers the only necessary, excellent, and satisfactory objects, worthy of the soul's love and acceptance; for nothing is truly lovely, which is not spiritual and eternal. no such bonds of peace and unity, then, as the spirit of truth, which ties the conscience to obedience and patience; the wisdom from above is first pure, then peaceable, james 3. 17. so that they best may march together; but first truth, than peace. truth must have the precedence: rather truth, than peace. truth we owe to god, and our souls immediately; peace only to our bodies and states, &c. if one must be dispensed withal, it is peace, not truth: better truth without public peace, than peace without saving truth. truth alone will bring us peace, the best peace, christ's peace, which the world can neither give nor take away. pax est omni bello tristior, quae veritatis & justitiae ruinâ constat. that peace is far to dear, which costs us the loss of truth, i mean great, saving, necessary, and fundamental truth. 2 where these truths are asserted, study to add peace to them; that truth may root, spread, fasten, and fructify the more. nor is the public peace to be violated for every truth, such as neither tends to faith, acontius. straying. sat. nor much to good manners. dissidiis magnis, & controversis non sunt redimendae minores istae veritates. we must not by contention of tongues, or pens, or hands, so far vindicate truths of lesser size, and consequence, as to break the peace of our affections, words and conversations. let truth and peace then go together, in our loves and lives. truth as the root, peace as the fruit: truth as the light, peace as heat: truth as the foundation, peace as the structure. and certainly in the church, those tenets and propositions are likeliest to be true, which tend to the peace of the church, ●ing. 3. 25. as it was the true mother, which pleaded against the dividing of the child. and that peace in the civil state is likeliest to be lasting and sound, which is built on the truth of reason and religion both, and not upon the fancies, opinions, dictates, traditions, examples, and tyranny of custom and men. neither peace of church nor state is to be purchased with the sale of truth, saving and necessary: nor yet are all truths to be prosecuted with such vehemency, heat, and contention, as to make shipwreck of either's peace. the windows and lights of truth must not be so enlarged as to weaken the firmness, solidity, and entireness of the building: nor may the walls be so thick, close and compacted, as to exclude or obscure the light: which the turks do, who so far secure their peace, as they forbid the searching of truth: neither darkness may make the house of god useless; nor breaches, under pretence of letting in more light, may be made so wide, as to render the edifice unsafe and tottering. as divine truth of religion, so civil truth of judicature and peace must kiss each other. here the veracity and conscience of judges, and magistrates is chiefly required; that they be men of truth, exod. 18. 21. for, false, corrupt, and unjust judges, like comets, portend wars and commotions in a state; scattering so malignant an influence into men's minds, that every one had rather adventure the injuries of war than suffer the injustice of peace. 4 the loveliness of them, which will best appear by the benefits from them, why truth and peace are to be loved. 1 civil or political truth is the mind of the law, the rule of justice, the right measuring and distribution of things to every one, according as equity and reason require. by this truth the propriety and enjoyment of what is our own are maintained; fraud, injuries, and violence, detected, punished, and restrained. innocency relieved, industry maintained and encouraged; due rewards to virtue and merit, as well as punishments to sin and vice are dispensed: in a word, the safety of your persons, wives, children, houses, lands, goods, honours, liberties, lives, and all that is dear to you in this world, depends upon this truth in judicature, without which no society of men can subsist, at least not flourish; but degenerate to a poor and slavish vassalage, and such a lazy despondency of minds, which sink them next degree to beasts; seeking no more but to live, having no thoughts or designs generous, noble, or extending beyond the present supply of back and belly. see then how much they deserve public hatred, who through fear or flattery, or base and sinister ends, falsify the mind of the law; at once cutting asunder that great cable which holds the state from shipwreck: turning the sword of justice put into their unworthy hands, to cut the throat of laws and liberties. 2 the loveliness and benefit of divine truth revealed, whereon our faith, our religion, our souls, our church depends, is so great that no time or words serve to let it forth. by this light of sacred truth, we know ourselves in our worst, lost, sinful, and damnable estate, wherein else as heathen or beasts we should stupidly and miserably die and perish. by this we know god in his infinite mercies through christ, which is life eternal, ioh. 17.3. by this we discover his grace and love to us: for our free justification by the righteousness of christ, and sanctification by his spirit. by this truth the burdens of our sins, our fears, our miseries, the horror of death, hell, and eternity, are disarmed and relieved: by this blessed light of truth, we have many sweet and precious promises to support us in all states, and all trials and temptions. but this as moses from mount nebo, we discover the pleasant and happy prospect of heaven and eternity: the joys, peace, pleasure, happiness, and security of that afterstate we expect in the other world: we see a full, though future, victory over sin, fatan, flesh, world, men, death, hell, and all; a full triumph and crowning of the soul and body in eternal glory. you may see then how little experience or knowledge they have of this truth, and the comforts by it, who are weary of it, enemies, or indifferent to it: better not have the truth, than having it to want the love of it. 3 the amiableness of peace, public and national in church or state; it is like the smiling of a beautiful face, when peace flourisheth with truth: o how lovely is it, at once to serve god with purity and safety; with sincerity and security; to enjoy the blessings of god's right and left hand together! to eat every man with joy and cheerfulness of heart the fruit of his own vine and plantings▪ mich. 4. 4. to reap the harvest he hath sowed: to dwell in the house he hath builded: to enjoy the wife he hath espoused, and the children he hath begotten. your own long and happy experience may best teach you, what is the beauty and sweetness of the breasts of peace: whence plenty flows; learning, arts, industry, trading, thrive and prosper; your private and in them the public strength, honour, and treasure increaseth. god grant you be not taught to prize and be thankful for it, by the want of it yourselves: look over sea on the sad and black characters, which fire, famine, and sword, have wrote, nay engraven, and ploughed upon the faces of men, women, and children; on their houses, fields, vineyards, cities, churches, &c. and you may with weeping and amazed eyes read this lesson; o the sweet and lovely blessings of truth and peace! o the horrid, hideous deformity of errors and wars! — en quo discordia gentes perduxit miseras. 3 we come now to the third general head: having seen what truth and peace are; how well they agree, how much they merit our love; now we go on to the last part, which is our duty. therefore love them. here we will inquire two particulars. 1. what need there is that men should be thus exhorted to love these, which have so attractive a loveliness in them. 2. wherein most effectually we must express our love to them. i although nothing more deserve our love: yet such is the ignorance, dulness, or depravedness of men's minds, affections, and manners, that few there are, which truly love them. first, some love neither truth nor peace; of which temper the jesuitick spirit seems to be, which deceives the nations with the cup of error, and scatters coals of fire and dissension among men. secondly, some love truth, but not peace: zealously affected to truth, but for want of sound and steady knowledge, or meek and humble hearts, they are full of violence and bitterness; so prone to strife and contention, that from words and disputes they easily kindle to blows: some, when you speak to them of peace, prepare for war, quia multis utile bellum; their best fishing being in troubled waters. thirdly, some love peace but not truth; as ishachar, sluggishly couching between the burdens of superstition and oppression, rather than trouble their peace, in a land of plenty. out of a lazy, gross, and sensual humour, so addicted to the enjoyments of peace, that they care not what encroachments are made on truth. fourthly, many seem to love them, but not simply, per se and propter se; but corruptly and partially, for by-ends and advantages to be had by them, of profit, preferment, applause, and the like; as demas did 2 tim. 4. 10. {non-roman} {non-roman} {non-roman} {non-roman} {non-roman}. it is neither truth nor peace so much they love (though they stickle for both) but their bellies, pleasures, plenty, and selves, which they enjoy under the wings of truth and peace. 5. many love what they think truth (and happily is so) yet not because it is so, but because they think so; extremely biased with self love and pride; that they pertinaciously retain, what ever opinion they have once undertaken, though they cannot maintain it; only on this ground, ne videantur errâsse; so hardly drawn by overcoming themselves to triumph over their errors. ita perit judicium, ubi res transit in affectum, & nostram qualemcunque praevalere volumus sententiam, quia nostra est: so much do our affections blind, bri●●, corrupt, and warp our judgements. 6. many say they love truth; but not universally; not such truths as cross their credits, opinions, ends, pleasures, sins and lusts; nolunt id verum videri, quod affectibus suis adversatur. he loves not any truth, that loves not all; as he likes not the light or sun, who is offended with any beam of it. 7. veritas animae sponsa; truth is a pure virgin, which every soul should woo and seek to wed to itself; many pretend to love it, but not casto & honesto amore sed meretricio & prudendo. lascivientia ingenia, such as fondly and wantonly out of a vanity and curiosity only court that truth, which they see is countenanced and shined upon by public favour and authority; ready enough to discountenance and forsake it, if the stream of things should change: venales animae, vile and mercenary souls, that buy and sell the truth, prostituting it, not entirely loving and wedding themselves to it. 8. some to purchase their peace, are ready to sell the truth, by flattering, complying and mancipating their judgements to other men's opinions and errors, either discovered, which is very wicked, or unsearched, which is very weak, degenerate minds which so easily enslave that {non-roman} {non-roman} {non-roman} {non-roman} {non-roman}, the noblest and sovereign faculty of the soul, which is the understanding, to other men's errors never so great, if their power be so too. 9 veritas animae pabulum, there is as great an aptitude and proportion between the mind of man, and truth, as is between the eye and the object, meat and the stomach: now we know, it must be a pure and unblemished eye, that sees with certainty and constancy; a clear, sound, and undiseased stomach, that desires, likes, and digests wholesome meats. such must that mind be which loves. {non-roman} {non-roman} {non-roman} {non-roman} {non-roman}. 1 tim. 4 3. wholesome truths, sound doctrines. 1. many are so vitiated and distempered by sin, the world, their lusts and vanities, that they wholly refuse to take down any truth; what the ear may receive sometime, their heart casts up again profanely and reproachfully, by their words and actions. ita veritas odium & nauseam parit. the speediest way to lose the love of many is, freely to tell them that truth, which might do them most good, 1 kings 22. for it seems to them as michaiahs' words to ahab, odious and offensive, although it gave him warning of his danger, and showed him the only way for his safety. 2. many like choice and wanton stomachs, receive and digest indeed, some truths in their minds and memories; but it is morbum alere non hominem; only thereby the better to nourish and strengthen their erroneous humours and conceits; and what ever truth they meet with, is presently swallowed without chewing by some monster of opinion, which they maintain. for error is so feeble and unbottomed, that it must have some buttresses and seeming basis of truth to support it. by this means detaining the truth of god in unrighteousness, rom. 1. 18. 3. many are of so hot, unquiet and choleric stomachs, that they love not truth sweetened with peace; not calm and sober truths. afraid to be thought coldly, if peaceably religious, even in matters of lesser moment. interpreting that zeal, which is but natural passion and choler, an human feverish and praedatorious, not that holy, gentle, and propitious heat of love, which only well digesteth sacred truths. so that most men we see had need to be called upon to love truth and peace. in some, hopes of preferment will do much to pervert, leaven, and suppress truth, warping which way the sun of favour shines warmest. in others, despair of preferment, and popular inclinations may do as much to disturb peace, and established truth: every way pronus lapsus, major sit cautela. few are true, sincere, and hearty lovers of them; by the antiperistasis of others coldness, let the heat of your love grow more intensive. 2 which is the last particular: the way most effectually to express the love we owe to truth and peace: first to truth, then to peace, to both if possible. amor est pondus animae: love is the weight and motor of the soul, the spring that sets all the wheels on work. it is a vehement, active, industrious, unwearied, invincible affection; if rightly placed on worthy objects, it works wonders. amor non potest abscondi, the fire of love is impatient to be hid or smothered: nescit nimium, never thinks it hath done enough: est extaticus, nec sinit amantem esse sui juris: it hath a kind of rapture and extatick power, which transports the mind beyond itself, and dispossesseth it of itself, to bestow itself on that it loves. delicata res est amor; it is a tender affection, impatient of any injury or dishonour cast on what we love. et sibi lex est severissima: love needs no motive but itself to carry it to the extremity of its power. if our love then to truth be real, it will show itself. 1 in the serious and earnest searching for, finding out, and discovering of truth: for, veritas in profundo: truth is not obvious in the surface of things, but hath a depth, being sunk and retired from us, as now we are. there is a great deal of false and loose earth, rubbish of opinions, probabilities, and falsities to be cast away, before we come to the clear stream of truth, which by secret derivations flows from the eternal fountain, god. there are not only grosser clouds of errors and falsities, which darken truth; but parelii too, verisimilia, seeming suns of truth, which are but apparences and probabilities, of no long continuance. he then that will seek and find certain, and saving truth, must apply himself to god, his word, and spirit, not take it upon trust and credit of human fancy, or reason: multi taedio investigandae veritatis ad proximos divertunt errores: many out of an easiness, laziness, or presumption, take up truths from custom, education, prepossessed conceits, show of antiquity, excellency of men's parts, &c. prone to count that truth, which themselves or others have a long time believed to be such. sed oculos à rebus omnibus abducas, quae deus non sunt si veritatem quaeras, esay 8. 20. to the law and to the testimony, joh. 5.29. search the scriptures; from these wells must we draw the waters of life, purifying, refreshing, and saving truths; {non-roman} {non-roman} {non-roman} {non-roman} {non-roman}. the vein and mine of truth, hath many windings, and intricate turnings, requiring a sagacious and industrious mind to follow it. 2 show your love to truth, by propagating, and imparting it to others, when yourselves have discovered it. veritas nihil erubescit, praeterquam abscondi; t●rtul. truth is only ashamed to be hidden; as the sun to be clouded, or eclipsed. truth, as light, wastes not by communicating itself to others. quò communius bonum eò divinitus. show your love to it and to men, by teaching it to others, but in a calm and unpassionate way; truth is best seen in clear and untroubled waters, {non-roman} {non-roman} {non-roman} {non-roman} {non-roman}, ephes. 4. 15. speaking the truth in love. pitying not triumphing in others' ignorance, or reproaching their errors and weakness of judgement. farther, show your love, by using all means to plant and nourish truth, by setting up the lights of good and painful preachers, in the dark, and obscure corners of our land, where, god knows, many poor souls perish for want of knowledge (such i mean) as can and will rightly divide the word of truth, 1 tim. 2. 15. there is no engine you can invent so effectual, to batter down and demolish the adverse party, or to secure the prosperity of our church and state. but this will hardly be done, without encouraging men to the study and preaching of truth in the way of necessary, competent, and liberal maintenance; for it is most certain, as bishop jewel sometime told queen elizabeth, in a sermon, tenuitatem beneficiorum necessario sequitur ignorantia sacerdotum. never flatter yourselves, that the lamps of the temple will burn at all, or but very dimly, and poorly, if you supply them not with oil sufficient to enliven themselves and enlighten others. 3. show your love of truth, by a zealous, active, and constant maintaining of it: zeal, is flamma amoris: love raised to a flame: by all justifiable ways asserting the honour of it, and the professors of it, against the profaneness, idleness, envy, calumnies, and oppositions of the enemies thereof, either atheists, sensual, ignorant, or superstitious, 2 cor. 13. 8. we can do nothing against the truth, but for the truth, do all you lawfully may: by severe, and wholesome edicts, fencing in, and fortifying truth against the seminary incursions of those, that seek to encroach upon its ancient bounds: also against the bold, and impudent preaching, printing, and disputing for the contrary errors, which have been long ago exploded and confuted; which by misused power, or tacit connivance, seek to creep in, and undermine our truth. leaks may sink us, as well as rocks split us. jude 3. contend then earnestly for the truth; but with the power of gods, not man's arm of flesh; with a contention of love, not of force; such as may not destroy men, but their errors, which otherwise will destroy them. truth is so sufficiently armed with its own power, that it needs not the assistance of the sword or canon, which reach not the minds of men; nor can divide them from their errors, nor batter down the {non-roman} {non-roman} {non-roman} {non-roman} {non-roman}, strong holds of prepossessed false opinions; that excellency if power which is in the word of god and his spirit, is only able to subdue the understanding? yet must not the magistrate▪ so far be wanting to god's glory, and the churches good, as to fail to defend truth against those that by cunning or force seek to subvert it, setting up the just t 〈…〉 or of those laws, which may chase away those owls, and bats, and feral birds, that love darkness, and portend a night, where ever they appear; that cannot endure the light, because their works are evil, as well as their doctrines false. 4. show your love to the truth, as by doing for it all you can; so by obeying the truth from the heart, 1 pet. 1. 22. by living conformably to it: that there be no solecism in your lives, that the truth of your doctrine be not confuted, by the corruptness of your manners: not only seeking the truth, and speaking the truth, and defending the truth; but farther, doing the truth, 1 john. 1. 6. which is the strongest vindication of its honour, and your belief of it. there is a labour of love, which loves its labour; ready to deny ourselves, in any thing near or dear to us, rather than deny any saving truth: cheerfully suffering for it, rather than it should suffer; a good mind, that loves the truth, suffers more in truth's suppression, than its own; yea, by dying for it, if need be; and god choose us out for his champions to crown and improve the necessity of death, with the glory of martyrdom, which is the highest witnessing of our love to god and his truth. difficulties rather wh●● and twist to a firmer resolution, than any way bl●t or discourage a well placed affection. the heathen man set such a price on truth, that he thought it worth our life; — vitamque impendere vero, nec propter vitam vivendi perdere causam. it is a blind & preposterous love, that loves life better than that, for which only life is worth the having; better we die, than truth decay, which as a phoe nix is wont to renew its life out of martyrs' ashes. 5, lastly, what we come short in doing or suffering for the love of truth, at least, seek to supply by our frequent and fervent prayers to god, that he would so make the way, and carry on his truth that it may prevalile upon the hearts of men to a love of it. but in this variety of opinions, and distraction of sides, every one challenging truth to be on their party, how shall we know, what is that truth, which we ought to love and adhere unto? i answer, the truth of god, like the light of the sun, is best known and distinguished from all other, by the beauty and excellency of its effects, of life, heat, and fertility; that is infallibly the saving and necessary truth of god, most deserving our love and study, which hath, and always had the greatest and best influence on men's hearts and lives: that is, god's truth which makes men more godly, more holy, pure, just, good, humble, peaceable, charitable, self-denying, and conscientious in all their ways: what brings us nearest, and makes us likest to god, which conforms us most to that highest and divinest pattern of christ's mind and conversation. it hath been always the seal of honour set upon christian religion: and that truth, whereon it is founded, that it most magnifies god and goodness. those truths which have the greatest operation on men's minds, consciences, and lives, so as to amend them, are set beyond all question and disputes: these let us chiefly study, love, and live by. 2. if our love be thus rightly set to god's truth, he will take care to settle our peace: to which we owe a love too, and must show it in the second place. first, by praying heartily and constantly for it, psal. 122. 6. every one should think himself called upon in those words. o pray for the peace of jerusalem. prayer engages god on our side, and calls in an omnipotent arm to settle, strengthen, and secure our peace. secondly, by assisting really, to the support and maintaining of it, against the perturbers of it. 1. by seasonable counsels, and faithful advise grounded on truth and justice. 2. by arming counsels with power and subsidies of purses and persons; to suppress all unjust and rebellious practices, which seek to violate our peace. peace is not safe, except there be power for war; which is the guard of peace; as power without counsel is brutish, and self confounding; so counsel without power is feeble, and subject to be despised. 3. by living orderly in a way of meekness, humility, and subjection in the fear of god, and obedience to the wholesome laws established; which is that we are taught by the truth of god, rom. 13. ●. let every soul be subject, &c. this i am sure will bring a man peace at the last. if not external, yet internal, which will be eternal. 4. by searching out, and exemplary punishing those that are the perturbers of our peace; justly troubling those that have troubled israel, as joshua to achan. psal. 34. 14, thus seek peace and pursue it; by pursuing those that would rob us of it. and certainly you will find, none are more enemies to, and perturbers of our peace, than those that are the perverters and opposers of our truth: either in judicature, or religion, for these scatter and blow the coals of discontent in every corner, that the whose house must needs be set on fire, if they be not timely quenched. and now give me leave by way of conclusion, a little to apply to you and myself, the weight and force of this text. therefore love the truth and peace. had we in this church and state (right honourable, and the rest) been so happy in the love of truth and peace, as we have been in the long glorious enjoying, and the miraculous preservation of them among us, certainly, neither truth had this day been so clouded and perplexed, nor our peace so broken and distracted. the god of truth and peace declares his displeasure, and high indignation against us, for the negligence, coldness, and ingratitude of many; for the profaneness, atheism, and malice of some: for the superstition, formality, and backsliding of others. how many are there, that deny, or despise, spise, or suppress, or oppose, or contemn, scorn, and deride, and corrupt and belie the truth? that the prophet's complaint may come near our times, esay 59 15. truth faileth, and he that departeth from iniquiry maketh himself a prey: nos patim●r longae pacis mala saevior armis, luxuria incumbit— long peace, like fair weather, hath raised up the vapours of sins to cloud our sun, and trouble our heaven withal; which almost of us, from highest to the lowest are not guilty of one or more of those forenamed degrees of neglect against truth: which shows, we have either no love at all, or a small love, a tepid, and laodicean love, a shamefaced, which is a shameful love, or a false and base love of truth, not for itself, but for ourselves: as our diana; the mystery, by which our gain or greatness are sustained. if we have not loved truth in peace, were it not just with god to make us want truth in war? and because men received not the love of the truth, he should give them over to strong delusions, to believe a lie, 2 thes. 2. 10. certainly god will severely exact of this church and nation, of prince and people, of preachers and hearers, an account for our long enjoyed and undervalued truth and peace. have we so long been a vine planted, and watered, and fenced, both to necessity, and omament, by an excessive indulgence of god, and do we bring forth sour grapes; that neither please god, nor profit men? may we not justly fear (what we have deserved) to be laid wast and desolute, to be made a hissing and astonishment to all nations▪, that god should remove, or extinguish the glorious lamp of the gospel, in whose light we have not rejoiced, because we have not loved it? love is an affection of union and fruition. do we love the truth if we are weary of it, tediously and peevishly affected to it, willing to leave it, and withdraw from it? the loathing and nauseating of this heavenly manna, as if we have had so much, that it is necessary to recover and quicken men's appetites to it, by a more scanty allowance of it, is this to love the truth? the tampering and essays of someto clip, or wash, or new coin, or allay, and abase, with some romish mixture, the gold and purity of our doctrine; is this to love the truth? that pure and refined truth, which hath passed the fiery trial, hath been baptised in the blood of many martyrs, sown in a field, made fruitful with their ashes; who loved not their lives so much as the truth. to set up lying vanities, pictures, and images, and to cry down praying and preaching, whereby those toils may be useful and necessary to the ignorant (because untaught) people, is this to love the truth? to suffer idolatry, or superstitious formalities in serving god to get ground upon our opinions and practices. is this to love the truth? quae quo nudior, eô venustior; which the less it hath of painting, the more it hath of true loveliness and native beauty. are not the lengthen and increase of ceremonious shadows, a presage and sign of the shortening of our day and setting of our sun, or diminishing of our light. to quarrel at those truths, which have been long ago determined by the scripture, in the public confession of our church, and in the writings, or preachings of our gravest & learnedst divines, prelates, and others; as in the points of justification by faith alone; of trasubstantiation, of auricular confession; of prayer for the dead; of worshipping before images; of fiduciary assurance, and the like; which some doting and superstitious spirits, dare to question, and retractate; is this to love the truth? what hath been done by preaching and printing, by correcting, or rather corrupting of books (where the correctors themselves deserve to be corrected) your piety and wisdom may best find out. nay, such hath been the shameless impudence and effrontery of some ridiculous heads, that plain and honest minds shall be scorned, derided, and in judgling fashion, cheated out of truth, and the power of religion (which is a holy life) if you do not harden your faces, and confirm your resolutions against, supercilious vanity of such men: whether they have any intent to re-edify babel's ruins or no, i cannot tell (some vehemently suspect it) sure i am, there is such a confusion and novelty of language affectated by some men of altars, sacrifice, priests, corporiety of presence, penance; auricular confession. absolute, that is, blind obedience; the holy of holies; and adoration, which must be salved from a flat idolatry, or at best an empty formality by some distinction or notion that must be ready at hand; that most people know not what they mean, what they would have, or what they intend to call for next. not that i am ignorant how far pious antiquity did use these and such like words innocently, without ill mind or meaning, and without offence to the church, as then times were: yet let me tell you: 1. such swerving from the form of sound words used in the primitive and purest times, occasioned and strengthened after errors. 2. they were not then engaged to maintain truth against such erroneous and pernicious doctrines as we now are of the reformed church: which doctrines are now eagerly maintained by a proud faction, who seek to abuse antiquity, and patronize their own errors, by using those names and words to other intents, and things, than ever was dreamed of by the ancient church. 3. by such dangerous symbolising with them in words, and some outward formalities, we do but prepare our minds, and sweeten them with less distaste to relish their doctrines and tenets; and as it were in a civil way we compliment ourselves out of our truth; giving the adversaries strong hopes and presumptions, as they have discovered, that we are inclining towards them: to be ashamed of frequent, serious and conscientious preaching, which was the work of christ and the holy apostles; the honour and chief employment of the primitive and best bishops and ministers, in all ages, as that deservedly famous bishop jewel in his apology proves out of the fathers sufficiently against the popes, and other idle bellies; which count preaching as a work below their greatness, as indeed it is above their goodness. is this to love the truth? to preach ridiculous, impertinent, flattering or corrupt matter, which is the shame of the pulpit and foolishness of preaching, in good earnest; so as to bring an infinite contempt, odium and envy upon the sacred function of the ministry, that men abhor the services of god, and daily separate by swarms from our church; are these the fruits of our love of the truth?— pudet haec opprobria nobis, &c. sure there is something extremely amiss and displeasing to god as well as men, either in our doctrine, or manners, or hearts, or all. else whence should that burden of dishonour, those loads of reproaches be cast upon the clergy, which makes them drive so heavily: and this even among christians, and reformed churches; whereas naturally all men, though otherwise barbarous, and insolent, yet are prone to pay a special reverence and double honour to their holy men, such as are in a more immediate nearness and relation to their deity or gods: now truth carries a divine majesty and lustre with it, casting a glory on every moses or man of god, who converseth with it. the more truth there is in any religion, the more love and honour will arise from the professors to the preachers of it; if they seriously affect the one, they cannot scornfully neglect the other. god himself hath long ago taught all men, especially churchmen in ely's heavy doom, this lesson as an infallible maxim in point of true honour, 1 sam. 2. 30. those that honour me i will honour, and those that despise me shall be lightly regarded. saint paul gives a charge to timothy, 1 tim. 4. 12. and to titus, tit. 2. 15. both bishops, let no man despise thee, &c. one would think the apostle should rather have charged the ephesians and cretians not to despise them; but the apostle shows the true way for ministers, to be masters of men's love and affections, is to be a holy rule and example to men's life and actions. to timothy, but be thou an example in word in conversation, in love, in spirit, in faith and in pureness, 1 tim 4. 12. to titus, showing thyself a pattern, tit. 2. 7. certainly had divines both great and small, been more busied in preaching and practising those great weighty and necessary truths, that are able to save their own and others souls, they would not have had such leisure, to have been so inventive and operative in poor beggarly toys and trifles, which neither bring honour nor profit to god, themselves or others. nothing (i say) nothing, will restore the church and churchmen to their pristine honour, love and authority in men's hearts and minds, but a serious setting of themselves to the study, preaching and practising of truth and peace in a holy life. these, these were the arts, these the policies, these the pious frauds, and stratagems by which anciently they won people's hearts to love god, his truth and of themselves the witness of it. to such a height of honour and ecstasy of love, that they received them as angels of god, ambassadors from heaven; counting them dear as their right eyes. humility, piety and industry, laid the foundation of all those magnificent structures, dignities, titles, places, revenues, privileges wherewith churchmen were anciently endowed: what hath or is likely to wast and demolish them is easy to conjecture. jisdem artibus retinenda quibus olim parabantur. o consider then (i beseech you) how precious a jewel, how sweet and necessary a blessing we are like to lose by our want of love to it. solem e mundo tollunt; what the sun is to the world, that is god's truth to our soul, the light, life, joy, day and soul of our souls. as the darkness, barrenness, coldness and deformity of the earth would be, if the sun were always absent from it, or clouded to it, such will the state of our poor souls and our church be, if the healing wings of the sun of righteousness, truth, mal. 4. be quite removed; or only a winter's truth, clouded, deadened and obscured by many superstitious doctrines and practifes. if (i say) such a truth content us; where will be the cheerful light of the promises, which now we enjoy? where that only rock of the soul's comfort, which no temptation can shake or undermine, the free justification of our souls by faith in the merits of christ only? where the sound and well grounded peace of our consciences? where the warmth of our zeal, love and affections to god, from the fiduciary apprehensions of his love to our souls? where will be the ravishing joy, hopes and expectation of a better life? where the zealous care of leading here a holy life? will not all these fail us, if truth doth? and is not truth like to fail if our love doth? are not all those flowers and beauties of our souls and church heliotropia, such as have their life and motion from the sun? following and depending upon that glorious truth; which so much offends weaker eyes, is so little seen or desired by blind, darkened and sensual minds? if this go, ickabob; 1 sam. 4. 21. the glory is departed from our land. our goshen will soon turn to an egypt: our fruitful field and garden of god, where so many famous preachers, and zealous professors of christianity have flourished, will be changed to a barren howling, and desolate wilderness. if the love of ourselves move us not; nor the love of truth and peace, which have happily dwelled together a long time with us, yet let us not be so barbarously cruel to posterity, as to put out their soul's eyes before they can see, and deprive them of the light of the gospel, before they enjoy the light of the sun. what can you transmit to posterity more desirable than truth and peace? paix & peu. peace and a little, but truth and less, will do very well, and make you and them live and die happily: what will your honours, lands, offices, estates, houses, names do them good, if they be betrayed to ignorance, superstition and slavery of conscience, which are in the bottom and dregs of error and confusion. o then let the first care be to clear, and settle truth among us; and then peace; sweet and most desirable peace, which we have had to the envy, wonder and astonishment of all our neighbours, enemies and friends. alas! have we so long drunk of peace, as to become intoxicate with so sweet wine, and now do we fall to quarrel with tongues, pens and swords! that we in this island are divided from all nations is our safety under god, and by the providence of our gracious sovereign: but to be divided among ourselves will be infallibly our ruin. si collidimur, frangimur: as two strong arms united to one body and under one head fighting against each other; that censure of a great captain and statesman is remarkable which he gives of our state. that it is a great and strong body which will never die, d. de rohan. interest des estates. angle terre est ungrand animal, qui ne mourira ja mais si lue se tue luymesme. unless it kill itself. civili in bello trist is victoria, civil wars can neither merit nor expect laurels, triumphs nor trophies: the memory and monuments of them are best, when buried in oblivion; victory itself is sad, and ashamed of itself; weeping, dejected and blushing with its own blood unnaturally and barbarously spilled; as having fought not so much against enemies as humanity; not so much conquering others, as wasting and destroying itself. — pax una triumphis innumeris potior.— one fair and spotless lily of peace is a greater ornament to a prince's diadem, than to have it beset round with many red roses of bloody triumphs; especially in civil, which are the most sanguinary wars. o then let us not so easily abandon so great, so precious, so hardly recoverable a blessing, if once it be lost. the orator said well: {non-roman} {non-roman} {non-roman} {non-roman} {non-roman}. any rash hand or furious head may inflict a wound, or kindle a fire, but it's god alone, who can heal up the breaches, or extinquish the flames of a state or church. the miserable spectacles of other countries and churches, do they not, as foils, sufficiently set forth the beauty and loveliness of this jewel of peace? o then let us all take up thoughts, words, counsels, resolutions, prayers for peace: away with all bitterness, strife, malice, jealousies, and all those devilish maxims of severing the interests of the prince and the people as inconsistent; whereas rightly considered they are, as the head with the body; united, both are safe and firm; severed, both inevitably ruin. divide & regnare desine: divide them and you destroy them. love and union are the mutual safety of prince and people. counsels of truth and peace, like light and fruitful showers, descend from above from heaven, from god: but falsity and dissension, like tempestuous vapours and fiery exhalations, come from the earth, from the devilish hearts, designs and practices of men. o consider then (as i know you do) how large afield, how ample a province the mercy of god, the favour of our king, the love of your country hath put into your hand, where to show your love of god, his truth, worship and religion; your loyalty to your king, his throne, dignity and succession; your fidelity and zeal to your country, its peace, liberty and prosperity. how great a disservice you must do them all (besides yourselves in particular) if you fail or slacken by any means in your love to these two, truth and peace. imagine with yourselves you hear daily, your noble and famous progenitors (who being dead yet speak, by those blessings of truth and peace, which by their studies, prayers and endeavours they have bequeathed to you) imagine (i say) these calling earnestly upon you all, o love the truth and peace. shame not our names, and yourselves by being wretchedly negligent of what we esteemed the most precious jewels, the honour and happiness of our times: which were dearer to us than our lives: which we purchased for you with our blood, with infinite expenses, hazards and sufferings. think you here the joint prayers and importunities of all estates in the kingdom, the nobles, the gentry, the commons; your parents, wives, children, friends, alliances, neighbours, all with one voice calling to you, pacem te possimus omnes. o love the truth and peace, and by your love preserve them for us. betray not us and yourselves, to the darkness of errors, to the miseries of war. be you as suns and shields to us, and the commonwealth: your populous cities and towns, your stately houses, your fruitful fields, your pleasant gardens, your costly clothes, your plentiful tables, your ancient liberties and noble immunities, wherewith above all subjects in the world you are invested and honoured, all join in this voice, o love the truth and peace: which affords you all these sweet enjoyments and noble ornaments of life. all complaints, all grievances, all petitions may be resolved into this lesson, love the truth and peace, in so doing you shall remedy, relieve and satisfy all. o have a care then, that truth as the pillar of fire may go before us to enlighten and direct our way to the heavenly canaan; and peace as the pillar of the cloud may overshadow, and refresh us in our travails; through the tedious wilderness of this life. the way to peace is by the paths of truth, never hope to recover and settle your former peace, unless you return to your first love of the truth. truth is but one, as the centre, and draws all minds to an unity, which tend to it. errors and falsities are various and full of crossings enterfirings, and contentions both with truth and themselves: as several cards in a map, whose lines drawn out infinitely cross, cut, and thwart each other. here give me leave by way of short digression, in so great and public an assembly, to recommend to your favour, the noble endeavours of two great and public spirits, who have laboured much for truth and peace, i mean, commenius, and duraeus: both famous for their learning, piety and integrity, and not unknown, i am sure by the fame of their works, to many of this honourable, learned and pious assembly. the one hath laid a fair design and foundation for the raising up a structure of truth, dur 〈…〉 s. human and divine, of excellent use to all mankind, for the easiness and exquisiteness of attaining the true knowledge of things. the other hath long studied, cousmenius. and with great pains, endeavoured and well advanced the peace and unity of the reformed churches (a blessing that cannot be purchased at too dearea a rate) whereunto he hath the suffrages and assistance of many learned divines, and some of our own, especially the reverend bishop of salisbury, as you may see in his letters to him, and his late tractate, de pace ecclesiastica, &c. but alas, both these noble plants (to the infinite shame and reproach of the present age, to the loss and detriment of the future) a 〈…〉 like to wither to a barrenness for want of public encouragement and aid to go on in so noble, great and useful undertakings; i leave it to your wisdoms, at your leisure to consider, whether it were not worthy the name and honour of this state and church, to invite these men to you, to see and weigh their noble and excellent designs; to give them all public aid and encouragement to go on and perfect so happy works, which tend so much to the advancing of truth, and peace. * whereunto if it shall please god to incline any of your thoughts for the effectual promoting of so commendable purpos●s, notwithstanding the distances whereat they now are, the one being in ●●land, the other in de●marke, yet there is a fair, easy, and safe way of addresses to them both, opened by the industry and fidel●ty of mr. hartli●e, whose house is in duke's place in london, a gentleman who hath been a constant furtherer, and great coadjutor wit● them both, in their works: who hath correspondence with them; whose learning, pi●●y and unwearied industry towards the public good, are so well known to the learned world, and many of yourselves as well as to me, that he needs not the farther testimony of my pen. but to return to your particular and nearer concernments; if you love yourselves, your relations, wives, children, houses, lands, liberti●s, lives and honours; if you love your king, your country, your church, your consciences, your souls, your saviour, your god; love the truth and peace; but heartily, sincerely, courageously, constantly. let your faith in the truth, work and show itself by an active love of the truth. shall the adversaries of our truth and peace, be so bold, vigilant and desperately active, for the bringing in of their shadows, lies, paintings and adulteries of truth and religion; and shall we be cold, remiss and timorous? shall they as assassinate's, be prodigal of their own and our bloods, and shall we be sparing of our words, estates or persons? hoc agite. do then god's business, and the kings, and the countries, and in them all your own. do them worthy of yourselves, worthy of the honour of this church and state, worthy the memory and renown of your ancestors, worthy the expectation of the world, both at home and abroad; the eyes of all christendom being upon you especially the reformed churches, whose hopes and prayers meet in you. do them worthy the majesty and favour of our gracious king; worthy of the truth, worthy of the glory of our god, and great redeemer: at once show yourselves good subjects, good patriots, good counsellors, good men, good christians. you have long enjoyed truth and peace, therefore love them; no nation under heaven, hath more cause, and will be less excusable, therefore love them; none hath had a clearer light of truth, and a greater length of peace, therefore love them; you and yours have long thrived by them, therefore love them: you have fasted and prayed for the preservation of them, therefore love them: you are this day solemnly to renew your covenant with god in the holy sacrament, the seal of god's love to you, and yours to him, therefore love the truth and peace, for they are god's. and upon the heat and sacred flames, which by this days' duties possess your affections, take up (i beseech you) serious resolutions, and make tacit vows in yourselves to god, that you will love the truth and peace, and by all lawful ways (for other they neitherneed, nor will allow) seek to advance them. none are fit and prepared to receive, but such as have hearts filled with this love; none will have the comfort of worthy receiving, but such as daily increase, and persevere in this love. for conclusion, i will use the last and weightiest argument in the world, which raised the victorious soul of that great apostle saint paul, to such an invincible patience and unwearied activeness for god's glory and the churches good, 2 cor. ●. 14. o let the love of christ constrain you; that free, preventive, transcendent love; that humbled, sorrowing, sweating, bleeding, crying, crucified dying love, which this day is presented to you, who loved our souls more than his own life: greater love can no man express, greater motive to love can no man desire. quid amplius pro se facere aut pati potuit, quam pro te & fecit & passus est christus? what could christ have done, or suffered more, if he had been to redeem himself, than he hath both done and suffered to ransom thee and me. content to make himself the object of his father's wrath (whom he infinitely loved) that he might procure our peace. o what shall we render to him again for this excessive love; but an unfeigned love of him and his church, his truth and glory, an undaunted zeal for his honour and worship, for the purity and peace of his church? zach. 8. 16. these are the things you shall do, speak ye every man the truth to his neighbour. execute the judgement of truth & peace in your gates. that so it may be fulfilled on you, and us all which the prophet prays, esay. 26. 2. the gates of mercy and peace here, of glory and happiness hereafter may be opened, so that the righteous nation which keepeth the truth may enter therein. finis. a rejoinder to mr. daniel williams his reply to the first part of neomianism unmasked. wherein his defence is examined, and his arguments answered; whereby he endeavours to prove the gospel to be a new law with sanction: and the contrary is proved. by isaac chauncy, m. a. london, printed for h. barnard, at the bible in the poultry. mdcxciii. a rejoinder to mr. daniel williams his reply. reverend sir, you say you are misrepresented, in my saying, you hold the vacating or abrogating the old law. a. this is no false charge or misrepresentation, for if the sanction be changed, as you expressly say, both in the former book and in this, the law is vacated, it ceaseth to be norma judicii, and what passage you refer to in p. 198. of your former book, relieves you not. p. 198. where you say, the holiest action of the holiest saint needs forgiveness: for upon your hypothesis, there is general pardon purchased conditionally, which faith and sincere holiness entitleth us to. the old law itself is laid aside, as that which will never trouble the believer; christ hath satisfied that for him, but it is the new law which the believer must be tried by; which is the gospel law, and hath another sanction to the preceptive part of the law which the covenant of works had prescribed. p. 6. this new law, you say, fixeth new terms, viz. true repentance and faith unfeigned, to be the terms of pardon; which terms, you say, the covenant of works admitteth not, so that the terms or conditions being changed, the sanction is changed: what remains then but a new law, the righteousness of which must be our justifying righteousness, for there's no justification by any law without fulfilling it, by performance of that very righteousness by ourselves, or another, which that law requires. and tho' you say, we are bound to the duties of the moral law, yet you say, the use of faith and holiness, in respect of the benefits, is not from their conformity to the precept [so that conformity to the precept of the old law hath nothing to do as righteousness in the new law] but their conformity to the rule of the promise, which can be no other than the rule of the new law. hence it is manifest, that with you this new law is distinct, both in precept and sanction; therefore it's out a doors. lastly, none can deny, but that how good soever the precept of a law is, if the sanction be vacated or changed, so that it ceaseth to be norma judicii, it ceaseth to be a law; and where a law ceaseth to be norma judicii, there's no trial to be made thereby of men's actions, no judicial proceed thereby, nor justification or condemnation by it; whatever we are, in respect of another law, our righteousness must be judged of and tried by the law in force; and this is your plain judgement. see p. 131. you say, if men have nothing to do for salvation, than christ hath no rule to judge them who lived under the gospel. so that men under the gospel are judged by a rule of doing, which is your rule of the promise. and again, ibid. consider the description of the last day, and you'll find god saves and damns with respect to men's neglects and compliance with the gospel. you say, it's true, the sanction of the law of works is removed, p. 135. your granting, that we deserve wrath, in respect of the covenant of works, and that the law is a rule of duty, etc. is nothing, for 'tis not mere satisfying that law will save us, or the righteousness thereof, but a compliance with, and obedience to a new law. you say, the law cannot hinder our relief by christ, from the sentence: christ stands between us and that law, that we may be saved by another. forgiveness, you say, is not by sinless obedience [we say, it is by christ's, which s sinless obedience] but it is by our imperfect obedience that must follow. you say also in this reply, p. 23. were not the gospel to be a rule of judgement (norma judicii,) i cannot see how that can be a judgement day, it must be only an execution day; for by the law of adam no believer could be acquitted; that law must be altered by the lawgiver, to admit satisfaction (which is a strange expression, as if christ could not satisfy adam's law, without altering it, the law must be vacated if christ satisfied and fulfilled it, cujus contrarium verum est)" and it is by the gospel only he hath enacted the way how this satisfaction shall be applied: and that way enacted is your new law that comes in the room and stead of the old law, vacated. therefore, i beseech you, consider your own reputation more than to say, i misrepresent you, in saying, you hold that which your words show, your scheme must contain, and you know in your conscience is your principle. again, you charge me for misrepresenting you, whenas you say; christ's sufferings are the foundation of our pardon; that our sins are forgiven for christ's sufferings. by my saying, your fundamentally is only a remote causality causa sine qua non, by something else besides them. r. you know, whatever you say, to palliate it, that you mean christ's righteousness is our legal righteousness; but our faith and obedience, our evangelical righteousness, which you own under the name of a subordinate righteousness, and is not the inference of causa sine qua non, p. 20. very natural, when you say, for the sufferings of christ our sins are forgiven, and explain it thus: without them sin cannot be forgiven. how can a causa sine qua non be more plainly expressed; as thus, the going out of my door is the causa sine qua non, of my going into cheapside. how so? without going out of my house (which is in another street,) i cannot go into cheapside. you say, it's strange that any one should infer, that you deny the righteousness of christ, to be the sole meritorious or material cause of our pardon, which in judicial acts are the same. rej. all this may be, and your contrary sense to us still the same. 1. it's one thing to be a meritorious cause of pardon, and another thing to be our very sole justifying righteousness. i can say christ's righteousness is the sole meritorious cause of sanctification, for which we are sanctified, as well as for which we are forgiven; and yet we are sanctified by the spirit: and so for which we are adopted. hence you will say, christ's righteousness is the meritorious cause for which we are pardoned and justified by the gospel-law, the condition whereof you make meetness (what is required of sinners is only a meetness to receive the effects) this meetness is the evangelical righteousness; this is the condition we shall be tried by at the last day, and this is the law condition upon which we receive the effects of christ's righteousness; not the righteousness itself neither: and is not this meetness a material cause in the gospel law of our receiving these effects? why then hath it not ●he same place in respect of the new law as christ's righteousness hath, in respect of the old law, so that there must be at least two righteousnesses requisite to our complete justification, one righteousness to answer the old law, and another to answer the new? and indeed here christ's righteousness is made by you most properly the subordinate righteousness, because it is in ordine ad, it's only in order to an●ther righteousness. in the most favourable sense, you make the righteousness of christ to merit ex condigno, and evang●lical to merit ex congruo, for all law meetness is meriting, either in respect of the remunerative or minatory part of the law. all that you say over and over helps not, nor covers you from those that know your dialect; nor your saying, that christ is the foundation of your plea: i may found a plea or argument upon a thing that is not my plea, or at least my chief plea, and how do you found it? why, for the sake of christ, accepted against excluding bars, you say; whereby you have permission now to come in with your evangelical righteousness. you speak here just as in your other book, to this point, and i understand you still as i did then, and you know you mean as i have represented your meaning, but you would not have the people understand what you mean; and therefore you throw in an abundance of expressions, thereby to hid your opinion, but instead thereof they lay it open. what is more plain than this? repl. p. 3. the terms of the gospel by the promise do make us capable of being justified and saved for the merits of christ. now here's your true sense of being forgiven for the merits of christ, i. e. when we are made capable by the righteous meetness of another law, we shall be absolved in the old law sense, by the righteousness of christ. and mark that all along, its forgiveness only comes from christ's merits; there's no positive righteousness of christ, in active obedience, is reckoned to us; this positive righteousness whereby we stand just in the eye of the law, in your sense lies wholly in conformity to the rule of that promise, which is the new law righteousness: and you use the word merits still, in the way of procuration, not satisfaction. you say we are justified only by christ's merits, as the sole procuring cause or righteousness for which we are justified [to which you should add, that the reader might take your full sense] by the righteousness of the gospel law. that which you call the fifth misrepresentation, and is your fourth, i am not convinced of, but that my inferences are truly drawn, according to your natural sense and meaning of what your expressions and what your principles must bear, 1. that you make the great end and use of christ's righteousness to secure us from the old law, mr. b. calls it our legal righteousness: and therefore our justification is not an immediate effect of that righteousness, but of our evangelical righteousness. 2. that he merited only that we might merit, i. e. that he procured our justification by evangelical righteousness; you will not call it merit; call it what you will, it's a law of meetness; and a law meetness i think, gives a claim and challenge of pardon; and if we should pray in your dialect, we should pray thus, lord, i am meet to be pardoned for the righteousness of christ. 3. that you make faith and repentance the meritorious cause of pardon and glory by the new law, and that's true, for all conformity to, and compliance with the conditional preceptive part of a law gives right, a legal right to remuneration, and the benefit becomes a reward of debt; and if so, the meetness is a merit, ex pacto. all these, though you say, you disown, yet in what you declare, you say but what you said before, and from whence the same consequences will follow, viz. that god requires a meetness in a sinner for justification, and that this meetness is a federal condition. 1. you say, christ satisfied justice and merited pardon and glory, i. e. he satisfied justice in respect of the old law, and merited pardon and glory, to be bestowed as rewards of obedience to another law: and that 2. the sinner thus partaking of them, is as fruits of his death; and this is all done for his sake. 3. you say, god in christ hath declared a way and order how he will dispense his benefits; this way is by another law, in which he acts in a way of distribution of justice, upon performance of law conditions, p. 4. and therefore you say, gospel conditions have no other use to our interest in these benefits, than a compliance with this stated rule of the distribution of pardon and glory, p. 4. adam's obedience had no other use, than a compliance with the stated rule of god's distribution of life promised, and pardon and glory is no other than life promised. so that you make your law to be every whit the same in specie, with a covenant or law of works; the condition works out the reward of debt; but this is all the difference, that man fell under the first covenant of works by creation, but under the second by redemption; he was redeemed from the curse of the old law that he might be justified by another law covenant; and this is your plain meaning, as you say: and these things you do but say over and over again in this book, as in the former. and what doth this conditional grant of these effects import, but that we should have justification, adoption, etc. upon the performance of obedience to another law? which is as much as to say, christ purchased another law, and obedience to it must let us into pardon by christ. this purchasing conditional grants and propositions, is a new sort of divinity, suiting the highest degree of arminian doctrine, and will strike at the nature of absolute election, which gives ground of suspecting you also in that point, as well as what you say of the savability of the none elect; tho' i acknowledge you often assert absolute election; but how well that principle will comport with indefinite redemption, upon a conditional grant, let the rational judge. you go on again, and say, as from chap. 10. pag. 84. of your first book. when sinners are pardoned, the whole meritorious cause of that pardon, is that atonement; and what is required of sinners, is only a meetness to receive the effects. you need quote no more, to give us an account of what you mean in these things; if the reader desires to be further confirmed in the truth of my representation of your principles, let him read pag. 4, 5. of your reply. you quote passages in p. 30, 31. of my book (for the first head) from whence you say, i endeavour to render you one, that thinks faith or other graces did merit the pardon of our sins; which you say, is contrary to your declared judgement. rep. i grant you deny merit; and i profess, sir, i would not willingly wrong you by any false imputation; but this i tell you, it signifies not much to deny a name to a thing whose nature requires that name if it be named aright; a federal condition performed, doth bring a man into the claim of the benefits promised as debt, your own word gives the performance of the condition the meritum ex congruo, merit of meetness; and you making this meetness federal, i know not how it can be avoided but it will be merit. you quote proofs, that you do not call this meetness merit, but you call christ's righteousness the merit, as this; there is a righteousness for which a man is justified, and that is only christ's: but you'll say, there is a righteousness of meetness upon which a man is justified for christ's righteousness, i. e. the qualifing condition of the person whom this mercy is promised to, he must have a conformity to the rule of the promise; and it's by this we are justified for the righteousness of christ. to what purpose is it to deny repentance and faith, to be meriting righteousness; when according to your scheme, it can be denied in no other sense than in respect of the covenant of works? the satisfaction of the breach whereof, you acknowledge to lie in the righteousness of christ conditionally, i. e. for all that shall conform to the rule of the promise, which rule is the preceptive part of the new law; which conformity you call, with others, subordinate righteousness, intituling us to another righteousness; it's this righteousness, you say, we shall be judged by at the last day. now sir, i say, that righteousness which believers shall be acquitted by in the day of judgement, that is the righteousness that they were justified by, and the righteousness of that law which they shall be judged by. let us but a little consider how near this subordinate righteousness comes to the papist's notion of merit, and if their merit be not as small a thing as your meetness and new law conditions of justification by christ's righteousness. hear what s. de clara our countryman tells us. meritum est actio libera acceptata ad aliquod premium. meritum de congruo est actio libera ex congruitate quâdam acceptata ad premium. meritum de condigno, est actio libera ab homine in gratiâ elicita qui ex justitia acceptatur ad premium. merit is a free action, accepted to some reward. merit of meetness is a free action, which by reason of some congruity or fitness is accepted to a reward. merit of worthiness is a free action of a man performed in grace, which from justice is accepted to a reward. now the question is, 1. whether that personal qualification, which you require of meetness for justification by christ's righteousness, be not exactly the papists merit of congruity? upon which is their first justification. 2. and the sincere imperfect presevering obedience be not their meritum ex condigno, or of worthiness? which is their second justification. see the first justific. the council of trent, decr. 5. the beginning of justification of the adult, proceedeth from preventing grace which inviteth to dispose themselves, consenting and co-operating with it freely, etc. the manner of this preparation is, to believe willingly the divine revelations and promises, and knowing one's self to be a sinner, to turn from the fear of god's justice to his mercy, to hope for pardon, and to begin to love him, hate sin, purpose to be baptised, etc. decr. 7. justification followeth this preparation. decr. 8. when a man is justified by faith, and gratis, it ought to be understood, because faith is the beginning, and the things that preceded justification, are not meritorious of grace, and in another f. they condemn those that say, a man may be justified without grace, by the strength of human nature, and the doctrine of the law. what is it that you say of your doctrine of meetness, which they will not say in behalf of your congruity? and scotus tells us, that an act is not meritorious precisely, because it comes from grace, but because it is accepted of god, as worthy of eternal life, as you say it's the promise made to that meetness gives the right. concerning meritum de congruo, merit of meetness, bellarmine disputes, lib. 1. c. 21. and concerning that de condigno, lib. 5. the justificatione, the merit of meetness he ascribes to the works of him that is to be justified, a partibus justificandi, i. e. that meetness for justification by repentance and faith, previous to justification and capacitating for it, or disposing to it. the other, viz. merit of condignity, is ascribed operibus justificati, to the evangelical sincere obedience of one justified by the first justification, whereby he merits the second justification▪ and though you will not own the name merit, yet in your scheme, your first justification by meetness, or upon meetness, and the second upon persevering imperfect obedience, is the same justifications that bellarmine means, for the jesuit saith thus, the perfection of our righteousness and justification is not from faith but from works, for faith doth but begin justification, and after it hath assumed to itself hope and charity, it doth perfect it. bellar. de justif. l. 1. c. 20. and again he saith, the merit. good works merit without all doubt, yet not by any intrinsic virtue and worth in them, but by virtue of god's promise, and is not this as much as you say again and again, it is the promise that gives right to benefits upon our conformity to the rule of the promise, p. 104. and calvin, inst. l. 3. s. 12. they are forced to deny the intrinsic worthiness of works, and grant the righteousness of works is always imperfect, while we live here, and wants forgiveness whereby our failure in works may be made up. he makes it appear, that a promise made with a condition of a work, brings this to pass, that he who performs the work is said to have merited the thing promised, ex pacto, and may challenge his reward as debt in law. it signifi●s not much whether you suppose the first grace to be saving, or mere moral endowment; the council of trent condemns them that say, ● man may be justified without grace, by the strength of human nature, and the doctrine of the law: if you make the first grace a qualifying meetness for justification, in order thereto, it is the papists doctrine. thus you see your sheltering yourself under the absoluteness of the first grace, will not do: and, 1. doth god give the first grace absolutely? then all other graces conditionally, for the first grace comes from the same foederal condition that all doth. 2. the giving the first grace is the giving eternal life begun. 3. either the first grace is through christ or not; but 'tis strange to say, that christ gives inherent grace to one that's not united to him (but as his designed head, as you phrase it) and to one in a state of condemnation: and should make a change in his nature before a change of state. 4. then sanctification, (if faith be any part of it) must be before justification, contrary to the best protestants, and what you have said. your 8th exception is, that i say 'tis the doctrine of imputation that you banter; and you tell us what you say of it in your book, where, when i come to the places you quote here, you will see my remarks on your say: and so as to the ninth and tenth, it will be spoken to in its proper place: and as to the el●v●nth and twelfth, i am of the same mind i was, i shall not spend time in vindication; and i leave the considerate reader, who understands himself, whether i do not give a very fair account of your opinion, whereof, by the quotations of yours, out of your former book, you give sufficient confirmation. as to the stating questions in difference between us, you do it not fair: the first you say is, preface 2. l. 1. whether the elect are required to believe, that they may be justified? this, you say, i deny. r. you should have quoted the place: i say there are commands in the ministry of the gospel unto sinners, to believe and obey the gospel, that they may partake of justification by christ's righteousness, but not to perform it as a moral condition, that thereby they may be qualified for justification, or made meet for it as you say. 2. you say it is not whether the gospel be such a law, that the acts of obedience to it stand in the place of works, so as for them we are saved; but whether the gospel assure salvation for christ's merits, to such as obey it, and their active exclusion of salvation to such as disobey it? this you say you affirm, and i deny; i'll tell you what i say: the gospel can't be a law commanding obedience as a federal condition of the promise, but upon performance of it the promise must be a reward of debt; and if the promise be justification for the merits of christ, than its due as debt upon the said obedience; and tho' you say, justification for the righteousness of christ, yet that justification must be the reward of obedience required in that law. 3. it is not whether we are justified by our faith as an act of ours, as if they [you mean repentance too] as works or qualifications, were a jot of that righousness for which, or by which, we are justified: this i deny. rep. who says you say its that righteousness of christ, to which you annex your for, or by? but for and by this righteousness we come to be justified by our faith and repentance, the duties required in another law, which you tells us is the gospel rule [i. e. your law] that a man must be a penitent believer whom god will justify, for the righteousness of christ: this you say you affirm and i deny, and that with good reason, that our faith and repentance must be previous, qualifying duties to our justification. so that a sinner must repent and believe in a state of condemnation, before he is justified: and it's no more than this, that for christ's righteousness which is our legal righteousness, we shall be justified by or according to our evangelical. 4. your next particular is the same; and i say as before, god doth not justify us as a judicial act for any duty or act, tho' wrought by the spirit. 5. you say, it's not whether we are justified upon believing before any works, which follow the first act of saving faith. r. no, for the papists own their first justification to be so; but you say, if faith should be ineffectual to acts of sincere holiness, and to prevent apostasy and utter ungodliness, would we not be subject to condemnation by gospel rule? this you say you affirm, and i deny. r. let us examine this then, and see what you affirm. 1. that there's a possibility true justifying faith may be ineffectual, and so there may be a falling away. 2. that till faith hath brought forth sincere persevering obedience we are not fully and certainly justified; we must be justified by the second justification, before we be secure. 3. that apostasy and utter ungodliness is prevented by a gospel rule of condemnation that we are made subject to; it's a fine way to prevent apostasy to lay us under a rule of condemnation, you mean a sentence: for my part i can t see these things hang together, nor know what you mean by a rule of condemnation, but in the sense of the law working wrath, which is quite contrary to the nature of a gospel. 6. you say and we say, that holiness and good works are necessary to salvation; but that i deny they are indispensable means of obtaining the possession of salvation through christ. r. if i say they are necessary, it is enough, tho' i may not own them to be indispensible means in your sense, as a law condition is an indispensible means of the reward; and if they be indispensible means, the thief upon the cross could not have been saved, and hundreds more, that i doubt not, but god saves in the like manner. 7. it is not whether justification, adoption and glorification be acts of god's free grace, which i affirm. r. but you said otherwise, that forgiving, adopting and glorifying, and the conveyance of every promised benefit, given on god's terms, are judicial acts of god as a rector, i. e. as you after say, that grace is so dispensed, by way of judicial rectoral distribution of rewards, etc. pref. of the 1st book. but the question is, you say, whether it pleased god to leave himself at liberty to justify the unbeliever, while such, and glorify the unbeliever and wicked, and al●o to damn the penitent godly believer; this mr. c. affirms, and i deny. r. you should have showed the place where i said it, that your charge might have fastened by a demonstration. i marvel you blush not at such things as these. 1. where have i that expression, of gods leaving himself at liberty? it's one of your terms of art, not mine. 2. that he justifies the ungodly, is what the spirit of god saith; and therefore i may. 3. but i say in justifiing him, he sanctifieth him; and whatever a sinner is, he is justified as such, not as made holy and sanctified, unless you'll confound justification and sanctification as the papists and quakers do. 4. but when did i say, that god doth glorify an unbeliever, and a wicked man; or damn the penitent and godly believer? or that in the covenant of grace he hath made any such exception, that he may or will do so? i suppose that you must mean by leaving himself at liberty. " this, you say, is these men's free grace, while they deny the gospel rule or law. these taunts and falsehoods are well enough, it seems, in your mouth; its suitable to the rest of the prittle prattle in this preface. 8. you say the question is not, whether god hath not as to us absolutely promised and covenanted with christ, that the elect shall believe, and all men believing be pardoned, and so persevere in faith and holiness to eternal life; which i affirm, pref. p. 5. r. here than you allow that there is an absolute covenant of grace (for whatever distinction you would make between the covenant of redemption and the covenant of grace, there's no man of sense can deny, that the covenant of redemption is a covenant of grace) and if god hath absolutely promised to, and covenanted with christ, that the elect shall believe and be pardoned, this must stand absolute to the end of the world. but by your favour, tho' i am for the absoluteness of the covenant of grace, yet it was not absolute but conditional to christ; that faith and pardon and perseverance, as promised to christ for the elect were conditional, and the condition was, that he should make himself an offering for sin, bear it, and make full satisfaction to the law by his righteousness active and passive, and make intercession for transgressor's, and therefore tho' you affirm here, yet i deny. but the question is (you say) whether there is a covenant which requires our true believing consent to the terms of it, to the condition of pardon and glory, and supposeth this true consent in the actual bestowing these benefits? this mr. c denies, and i affirm. res. 1. i deny that there is any more covenants of grace than one, and say, that the covenant between the father and the son, was that original contract which was displayed and made manifest in the gospel of the old and new testament, and in whatever is required in this display is absolutely promised. for if there be two covenants wherein the same things are promised, and to the same persons, the first absolute and the second conditional, the one must certainly be vacated by the other. for if i promise to a person, or to another for him, to give him a house freely, and afterward make a covenant bargain with him, that he must pay me 20 l. or 20 s. per annum, the first covenant is vacated; or if i am bound to stand to my first promise, the second agreement falls to the ground. 2. likewise observe what you affirm, that god hath made terms as a condition, i. e, federal of pardon and glory. so that here is brought in a covenant of works, to intervene betwixt the absolute covenant, and bestowing the benefits, absolutely at first promised. now men may see plainly what you mean when you talk so much of pardon for and by jesus christ; this pardon is one of the benefits bestowed in your new law judicially, by way of remuneration to the performance of the terms of duty required. 9 it is not whether faith be the only grace by which we receive and rest on christ for justification, and that it is christ received by faith doth justify, which is the sense of the protestants, when they say we are justified by faith alone; this i affirm. r. yes you do in your sense, i. e. that christ justifies here, as much as is needful as to legal righteousness; but there is another righteousness, viz. evangelical, that puts in for a snack, viz. that of the new law. and you do much misrepresent the protestants, for they say, christ's righteousness is all our righteousness, of one kind and another that we are justified by, a righteousness without us, and not by any within us, any act or qualification whatever. but the papists say with you, the council of trent doth anathematise those that say a man is justified without the merit of christ, by which christ did merit for us, or is formally just by that, anath. 10. and they curse also any one that saith, that he is justified only by the imputation of the righteousness of christ, or only by remission of sins, without inherent grace, anath. 11. but let's have the query then; it is, you say, whether he that can truly believe to justification, must be in part a convinced, penitent, humbled sinner; and this you affirm, and say i deny. r. you should have told the place and my words. it's possible i may deny it in your sense, and i will prove how that you must deny it in my sense, i. e. that legal convictions and humiliations are no federal conditions of faith; for you say, that the first grace is absolutely given; and if so, there's no federal conditions of it. why do you not bring in hearing the word, as a federal condition of faith, for it comes by hearing? why do you not bring in a man's having his senses and understanding, and many more things? and now you talk of humbling, let me mind you what you say, page 15. you tell us of the sum of the popish principles our divines oppose. 1. they think that by attrition (or a selfish legal fear of punishment) men do, ex congruo (or meetness) merit charity and faith, which be the beginning of sanctification; and that this begun sanctification is all our first justification. 1. what do you say less than they, setting aside the word merit, and they say as to that de congruo its scarcely so? nay some are against meritum de congruo, as being any merit but only a disposition and meetness of the subject, such as you would have, and we may put their attrition to your humbling, as a meetness for faith. see what the council of trent saith, can. 8. when paul saith, a man is justified by faith and gratis, it is to be understood because faith is the beginning, and the things that precede justification are not meritorious of grace: see now how you abuse the papists. nay i'll tell you more, for i would give the devil his due; you abuse the papists in charging them for making this begun sanctification all their justification. the words of the 7th canon of the council of trent are, that justification followeth preparation, which is not only remission of sins, but sanctification: and therefore they make not only sanctification begun to be our first justification. and in the 10th anathema, they curse them that say, a man is justified without the righteousness by which christ did merit for us. now i think you aught to ask the papists forgiveness for slandering of them. rhemists on rom. 2.3. they grant, that the beginning of our justification, which they call the first, is merely of grace; neither can we do acceptable works before we be justified, but in the second justification, which is, the increase of former justice a man may merit by good works. so again they say, works done of nature before or without faith, can't merit; but works done by god's grace, may and are joined with it, as causes of salvation; and in these points the protestants oppose them. i could fill a volume with it if need were, but it's enough to say, you are mistaken in telling us what the protestants oppose them in. you say also that i say, that pardon is rather the condition of faith, nay pardon is the cause of faith. r. i say rather, for if a federal condition must lie between giving and receiving, giving is the causal condition of receiving, and not receiving of giving. 2. the object must be before the act of the organ, pardon is the object applied by faith; application before there is an object, is contradictio in adjecto. 3. the promise of pardon is the ground and reason of our believing, therein is the grace brought, therein doth the truth and faithfulness of god appear; and the apostle saith, faith comes by hearing this word of promise, i. e. is wrought by it, rom. 10. and he opposeth the works of the law, and the hearing of faith in justification gal. 3.2, 5. and what is that acceptation but of faith, which the apostle speaks of, 1 tim. 1.15? and what doth it accept, but that faithful gospel saying there mentioned, that christ came into the world to save sinners, and the chiefest? it's the grace of god working in this promise, that hath wrought faith in the hearts of thousands 4. we say with all soundest protestants, that justification in nature is before sanctification and the cause of it, and therefore of faith, because faith as a grace wrought, is a part of sanctification. it's enough for you, to hold up that you call error, and give it name, and so let it go. 10. it is not whether sanctification taken strictly do follow justification; this i affirm. r. if you affirm this, you should not make so strange of my saying, pardon is the condition of believing. what you hid under strictly i concern not myself; sanctification is sanctification, and if justification goes before it, you allow it to be conditio ordinis at least. therefore i conclude, pardon is rather a condition, yea i say not merely of order, but such a condition as is an influential cause. but go on, stating your difference. but whether effectual vocation make a real habitual change in the soul, and that this vocation is in order of nature before justification: this mr. c. and the letter, and i affirm, with the assembly. r. as to the letter, i must tell your answer to it is short and ungenteel; and as he did bellarmine, who said bellarmine thou liest; when you say, it was rather to serve a turn than to argue; it spoke truth weakly, and other things erroneously and ignorantly, etc. it justifies a necessity of dealing a little more roughly with men of your country and kidney. but to our point in hand; it need not be enquired, whether you take effectual vocation in the active or passive sense, seeing you say its such as makes a real habitual change in the soul: and seeing it makes such a change, it must be a change of sanctification, and this, you say, is before justification; how can that be, when you had said before, that justification is before sanctification strictly taken? what kind of sanctification, i pray, is effectual calling? is it not so in a strict sense, when you say its a real habitual change in the soul? is this not turning from darkness to light, raising us together with christ or being born again? but all this must be done before the relative change; a man must be free from the reigning power of sin, and alive from the dead without jesus christ our lord. see what the assembly saith in the larger catech. q. 67. that effectual calling is the work of god's almighty power and grace, whereby out of his free and especial love to his elect, and from nothing in them moving him thereto, he doth in his accepted time, invite and draw them to jesus christ, etc. and they are hereby made able and willing freely to answer his call, and to accept and embrace the grace offered and conveyed therein, i. e. then they are effectually called, when they have embraced the pardoning grace of god offered and conveyed; which shows the previousness of that grace working the effectual calling consummated in believing and embracing the gospel offered; the gospel grace in the promise, is always that which works first upon the sinner, moves his heart, and draws it forth in believing. 11. it is not whether our sincere faith and love, etc. are imperfect, and so can be no meriting righteousness; which i affirm. r. you affirm they are imperfect, and so do i; but not therefore that they can be no meriting righteousness; for the merit of righteousness doth not depend upon the perfection of the duty or service in itself, but its perfection in relation to the law that requireth it; if the duty required be never so weak, little, and lame, if i have such a degree as the law requires, its perfect as to that law: the law requires a poor man to pay a shilling to a tax, it's as good obedience as another man's thats required to pay twenty. many instances might be given, the papists say, merit lies not in the value of the action, but in god's acceptation. the council of trent saith, our works are meritorious of eternal life. quia a patre acceptantur per christum, yea, saith s. de clara, actus meus dicitur meritorium quia elicitus seu imperatus a gratia ex pactione divina acceptatur ad premium. deus ab aeterno ordinavit hujusmodi actus esse dignos vita eterna quando eliciuntur a gratia habituali; non igitur tota ratio meriti a gratia ipsa. so scotus, actus non est meritorius praecise quia perveniens ex gratia, sed quia acceptatur a deo tanque dignus vita aeterna. but where's the question then? whether faith and love, etc. are disobedient even in a gospel account, and so uncapable of being conditions of any of its promised saving benefits? r. in the sense of the papists they be not, but be accepted of god for this end, to be federal conditions of a law covenant; they are perfect in that kind and relation, and merit the benefit; but we say, tho' any of our gifts of grace or duties are accepted in christ, yet they are not accepted to any merit or worthiness of any other grace; federal conditions and worthiness of all grace and blessings bestowed on us, are only in christ; and hence faith and charity and other gifts of grace, tho' they have a conditional connexion one to another, yet they are all of promise, and can't be federal conditions of any promised saving benefits. mr. c. saith, i am against the articles of the church of england and the assembly; i am sure he'el never prove it, and i profess the contrary; but i am sure he's against all the confessions of faith that we own as orthodox. r. how your principles agree with the said articles and confessions, upon impartial examination, let others judge; 'tis not your saying, your profess the contrary, will satisfy the world, when res ipsa loquitur; especially when you have the confidence to suggest such a false thing of me in the same breath, that you are sure i am against all the confessions of faith that are orthodox (but indeed you say, which we call orthodox) that we, i suppose, are, you and your schematists; and than what they account orthodox, i shall not trouble myself. you go on and say, in the strength of christ you'll sustain the utmost persecution at the hands of these angry men; and while god enableth me, they shall not overturn the gospel by their unscriptural abuse of the blessed names of the righteousness of christ, and free grace and the gospel way of application. r. enduring persecution is no infallible argument that a man's principles are good; if it were, papists and quakers then have more to say for the justification of their principles than ever you had, or are like to have; and let the wise judge, how near akin yours is to theirs: and whereas you insinuate, as if you had suffered persecution from the angry men (as you call them) who have conscientiously contended earnestly for the faith. impartial men will (if they do weigh and consider duly what you have done and said in these matters) determine which side hath been the persecutors, if reproaches and false imputations be persecution, and god will judge one day whether you be a champion (as you would be accounted) for christ or against him; the day will reveal it; it's not enough to brave it out before the world, a judgement at man's day will not serve our turns; he that judgeth you and i is the lord, and therefore consider what you do, while you call so much upon the name of god and christ, to countenance your confident undertake in this affair. you say, there's a mystery in it that one explication of a text should be pretended for a reason against my whole book, and so countenance all dr. cr. errors, which they profess they dislike. rep. there's no mystery in it, that any faithful minister or people should not only be highly jealous of, but exceedingly blame such a book, and the author which shall rob them of so high an article of their religion as the true nature of the doctrine of imputation of christ's righteousness, and for the maintaining himself therein, must wrest so eminent a portion of scripture out of their hands as to its genuine and plain meaning, upon which thousands of the most eminent saints in all ages have lived, and do live; no, be you confident, they will not lose that sense of that portion of scripture (phil. 3.) which you oppose; they'll tug hard for it first, and it will stand in the hearts and prayers of god's children maugre all opposition. and whereas you say, you hear augustine is of your mind, he tell you what an author of none of the least name tells me, concerning austin's opinion: thus augustinus breviter ostendit ab apostolo, etc. austin briefly shows from the apostle phil. 3.9. that whatsoever is of his own righteousness is excluded there; and that paul speaks not of the law of circumcision or uncircumcision, but of the precepts in which 'tis said, thou shalt not covet. lydeker. de discr. legis & evangel. you proceed to vindicate yourself against the charge of not being against the articles and confession, and pitch upon the doctrine of imputation for an instance wherein you know you differ from them; and your stating your judgement in that point sufficiently evinceth, though you do it after that perverse manner which is usual with you, to make your principles look sound. you say, you will state that case, viz. of imputation. 1. it is not whether christ was a public person, as a mediator in his undertake, and so transacted all for sinners, that they might be pardoned and saved by his undertaken satisfaction and merit: this i affirm; but whether we are so represented in christ, as that we are in law sense; they that undertook to atone and merit; this i deny. r. what do you mean by a public person, as a mediator? did he stand in such a capacity as to represent, undertake for, and stand in stead of the elect? were they federally in him as his seed? for so the assembly say they were. see confess. c. 8. sect. 1. he was made the head and saviour of his church, the heir of all things: unto whom god did from all eternity give a people to be his seed. so larg. cat. the covenant of grace was made with christ, the second adam, and in him with all the elect, as his seed: but you say he only transacted for sinners as a mediator; but do you mean such a mediator as is a surety; if so, the persons for whom he is a surety are federally in him, for he takes the debts upon him, stands in their room and stead, and they federally in him accounted, and to all intents and purposes he is entertained, as comprehending all their debts in him. a man may be a mediator, and treat with both parties at variance; but not take the whole cause upon, so as to treat and engage, and make payment in the room of the offending parties. but let us hear what your question is. whether we are so represented in christ, that we were, in law sense, those that undertook to atone or merit? this i deny. r. i will appeal to all men of sense in the world, whether they can tell by your stating this question, whether you own or deny christ to be a public person, representing the elect. he is a public person as mediator, and represents so as no body ever said any person did represent another: viz. that we are, in law sense, they that undertook to atone and merit. a person comes to be bound, as surety, to a creditor for an hundred debtors in ludgate; he becomes debtor, and is accepted in the room of all and every one, they all pay, and are discharged in him: doth the law reckon that all these men were sureties, or that they atoned or merited? but that in the surety's atonement and merit, they being all represented by him, their persons are accepted, and their debts paid. doth any body look upon the debtor to be the surety because the surety stands bound? or because the surety pays or undertook to atone and merit? i would fain know whether this be not perverse perplexing a question instead of stating of it? 3. you go on, stating thus: nor whether christ was a surety for us, in a bond of his own, to pay our debt to the full (or more) that we might in a due time and way be released? this i affirm. reply. if christ came under obligation to pay our debt absolutely, he represented not as if he obtained our release but conditionally, upon future terms to be performed by us or some others; for than his suretyship was not for us, but to purchase conditions for us. but whether we were joint parties in one and the the same bond with him, and so we were actually acquitted when he made satisfaction? therefore god could enjoin no terms of application to us for justification and glory, nor suspend the same upon those terms. this i deny. r. what mean you by joint parties in one and the same bond? do you mean the bond of debt to the law, by reason of the obligation of doing and suffering? there we stood bound as principles, and not being able to discharge, christ became bound as surety; we were never bound as sureties nor christ as the principle. but if you mean that both were bound to pay the same debt, we do affirm it. 2. what do you mean by an actual acquittance? is it not meet that he that hath his debt satisfied, should have an actual acquittance, or their surety for them? there's no man pays a debt, his own or another's, but he will have an acquittance, according to the terms of payment, if they were such as you suppose, viz. to purchase a discharge upon other terms. but you say, if christ were actually acquitted, and the elect in him, god would not come upon new terms with the sinner for justification and glory; this is as much as to say, christ paid a fine for sinners, that they might be brought to lower terms with the justice of god by a milder law. how false are you, when you tell us, your meaning is, that christ's righteousness is our only justifying righteousness? whereas here you own, that it obtained not our full discharge, but only the bringing us under new terms; upon which justification and glory are suspended; is not the performance then of those purchased terms, our immediate justifying righteousness? 3. that which you affirm in this first part is pretty unintelligible, but according to my understanding it amounts to no more than that christ died pro bono nostro only, which is consistent with all the socinian notions of imputation. but as that which you say you deny, i want it to be unriddled; viz. that christ was joint covenant party with all the elect, in adam's covenant, so that they are legally esteemed to make satisfaction, and yield obedience in his doing thereof. r. you seem here to suggest as if some did hold, that christ was under adam's covenant, so as the rest of his posterity was, and consequently fell in him, as they did. or do you mean that all the elect in christ satisfied the law, as all adam's posterity broke it in him? and this i suppose you deny. now, as unto this point, if i have hit your meaning, i will tell you what a great divine saith in answer to a socinian: the first adam was by god's institution a public person (having showed that god's pleasure is the first rule of righteousness) hence in him sinning the world sinned. the second adam is not only by god's institution a public person, but also an infinite person, because god: this public person doing and suffering was as much as if the world of the elect had suffered. if the first adam, a finite person, was by god's institution in that act of disobedience, a world of men, why should it seem strange that the second adam, being an infinite person, should be by god's institution in the course of his obedience, as the world of the elect? he being infinite, there needed no more than god's pleasure to make him the world of men, yea ten thousand worlds. that which is infinite knoweth no bounds, but god's will. the kind of his obedience was legal, the same in nature and measure which we, by the first covenant stood bound unto. this his obedience to the law was more acceptable to god than the disobedience of adam, was detestable; yea more acceptable than the obedience of adam (understanding both as public persons) had he continued in the first covenant. nort. against pinch. p. 6. 4. that which you affirm of the imputation of christ's righteousness here, is no more than what you say every where, importing no more than as to its effects; but your expression is strange, in saying christ's righteousness is reputed by god, as that which now plead; for our impurity, etc. which seems to import that it doth not actually plead, but that god is willing to reckon it a kind of plea: so that the imputation you here intent of christ's righteousness is to christ himself, and not to the sinner: but you tell us what you deny, you say its this, that it is imputed as our formal righteousness, and so we may truly plead, that we ourselves, as elect, did legally by proxy as our christ, satisfy and merit all, and without the interposal of the gospel rule, we have a legal title to glory by adam s covenant: this i deny, as that which exclud●s forgiveness, makes christ's sufferings needless, denies any proper satisfaction, and destroys christianity. rep. here 1. you seem to deny christ's imputed righteousness to be our formal righteousness, for christ's righteousness we reckon to be, as it were, the matter of our justification, and being imputed by an act of grace, becomes our formal as well as material righteousness; for if it become not by imputation our formal righteousness, it's not our perfect righteousness; for matter and form are the essential causes of the effect. 2. that we in christ, satisfied the justice of god, i know no sound protestant but will affirm, and that legally. mr. b. saith over and over, christ's righteousness was our legal righteousness, but you will deny, that we legally satisfied in christ: may not a debtor plead that he legally paid the debt in his surety, tho' not with his own money? 3. you cast reproach upon the suretyship and federal headship of jesus christ, by calling him a proxy and attorney, as our surety and representative. a proxy is vicarious, an inferior person that's employed to do business in the name and by the authority of a superior, so that he is his vicar or substitute. but is a father, that pays a sons debts, and purchaseth an estate for him out of his mere love, pity and compassion, the son's proxy? or if a man purchase an estate for his heirs for ever, is he a proxy to the children yet unborn? and yet their estate is bought and paid for in him, the original right and title lies in him the purchaser. or a rich man, who undertakes for the debts of an hundred poor prisoners in ludgate (suppose the king, or another great person) out of mere pity and commiseration, is he their proxy? is he not their benefactor and patron? i wonder how you can speak these things without suspecting your own spirit, when you do so manifestly cast dirt upon jesus christ; may not i justly say you banter the doctrine of imputation? 3. but you say christ can't satisfy and merit for us, without the interposal of a gospel rule; the meaning whereof is, that christ hath not legally satisfied for us till we have done something in conformity to the said rule, that may give validity to the satisfaction of christ, and make it pleadable as such; so that christ hath neither satisfied nor merited, till we make up the compliment whereby it becomes legal. 4. what mean you by a legal right to glory by adam's covenant? if you mean by christ's satisfaction and obedience to adam's covenant, we have our legal right to glory, we say it; for christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believes, and through his righteousness we have a right to glory by adam's covenant; christ's righteousness is our legal righteousness, as it respects the perfection and justice of god in that covenant; and it's our evangelical righteousness, as it's in the behalf of, and bestowed upon undone sinners. but you say this doctrine excludes forgiveness; why? because it brings in forgiuness merely upon christ's righteousness alone: but how makes it christ's sufferings needless? when it lays all upon the righteousness of christ, imputed as the matter and form of our justification? or how doth it deny proper satisfaction, when it makes christ's righteousness all the satisfaction? and your doctrine makes it but an improper and remote satisfaction, yea and imperfect. and lastly, you say, it destroys christianity: this is so gross a charge, as that it is to be exploded with detestation; if the imputation of christ's righteousness, as our legal and evangelical right and title to life and salvation, destroys christianity, we may burn our bibles. but you go on. 5 you affirm, that all sinned and died in adam, and in christ are all made alive, owning christ's influence, both real and public, as before explained. r. all this is nihil ad rhombum, you own not hereby the imputation of adam's sin to his posterity; but that sin and death are only effects of adam's first sin, i. e. influential; you own not that all men were legally condemned in adam, as a public federal person, standing in their stead: in the same manner you always speak of the righteousness of christ, as influential to our forgiveness; and that the imputation of it is only bestowing the effects. but whether we were in christ before faith, as we were seminally in adam, before we were born; which his federal headship did suppose the being thus in christ before faith; i deny. r. you here grant our seminal being in adam; and that adam's federal headship supposed it, and therefore we were seminally and federally in adam before we were born. why speak you it not positively, whether it was so or no? that we were federally and seminally in adam, and that our sin and death was in him; there we lost original righteousness, and thence the imputation of his very first sin to all his posterity, by virtue of our federal standing in him, and by reason of our being seminally in him, the corruption of the whole nature was in him, and naturally descended to us? if it be so, why are not the elect as to righteousness and life in the same manner in the second adam, federally and seminally before they believe, i. e. before they are born again, in him federally, as to righteousness, and seminally as to the new nature, christ being their righteousness and sanctification, whereas the apostle runs the parallel so fully and plainly as he doth, rom. 5? but all this is but shuffling the cards to make people believe your principles are what they are not; most of whom cannot tell what you hold, when you have darkened and confounded the question, by your manner of stating it: you say, i object against you the denying of the doctrine of imputation; why do you not deny the charge, but only distinguish so upon it as to confirm it? if your principles are truth why do you not speak them out (but fill us with your cloudy expressions and distinctions, which you charge us for) why speak you not plainly, that you deny the suretyship of christ, as you know you do? that you deny christ to be a public person, in the sense as the soundest protestants have always held him to be; which last you do here in effect positively do, that we were neither federally nor seminally in christ before believing: which, if so, i am sure you must deny the whole doctrine of imputation, and what you pretend to can be no more than what the socinians do. and how can you say you are not against the confession, and i am, when the assembly saith, confess. c. 8. sect. 1. that christ is ordained of god the head and saviour of his church, see pinchin the s●cinian, and mr. norton's answer, p. 353. dialo, i grant that all m●nkind are one with adam, by a natural union, as proceeding from the same root; but i fear mr. forbes doth stretch out our natural union with ad●m to a personal, to the end that he might make adam's personal action to be ours by imputation. norton, the scope of mr. forbes is to prove the imputation of christ's passive obedience, and that only in his death, to b● the matter of our justification, etc. we consent to mr. forbs, as to the argument taken from the comparison, but descent from him as concerning the restrictions, the reason of the comparison being founded upon the conditions of the persons and divine institution, it holds betwixt such acts a● th● first and second adam acted as public persons: adom therefore being in that act of disobedience, only a publs ck person, hence that act only is imputed unto his seed. but christ b●ing in all his acts of obedien●● a public person, hence therefore all the acts of christ's obedience are imputed to his seed. as upon supposition, adam's continuing in obedience (because he had then continued a public person) all the acts of his obedience, even to the finishing of perfect righteousness, had been imputed to his seed, according to the nature of the covenant of works, unto their attaining of justification by the law. the union between adam and his posterity was not personal, nor only natural, but mystical: it was a conjunction of the person of adam, and all contained i● his loins, in one spiritual body, by the instis ution of god, whereby he was as their head, they as his members, to stand or fall with him standing or falling mr. norton sums up pinchin's errors under three heads. 1. in his denying the imputation of the sin, of the elect unto christ, and his suffering the punishment due thereunto, contrary to 2 cor. 5.21. gal. 3.13. isa. 53 5, 6. thereby leaving the elect to perish in the●r sin. 2. denying that christ, as god-man mediator, obeyed the law, and therewith that he obeyed it for us, as our surety, contrary to gal. 4.4, 5. matt. ●. 17, 18. heb. 10.7. compared with psal. 40.8.7.8. rom. 3.31. thereby rendering 〈…〉 and insufficient saviour, and spoiling the elect of salvation. 3. denying ●he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉ation of christ's obedience unto justification, contra●y to rom. 5.19. phil. 3.11. thereby ●avi●g a●l that are ungodly under an impossibility of being justified. 2. destroying the very being of a sinn●r'● ri●ht●●●●n●●●, by taking away the o●edienc● of christ unto the law, and imputation, which are the matter and form i. e. the esse tial ca●ses of justification. 3. placing a sinner's righteousness 〈…〉 atonement or pardon of si●, such as in effect doth man fastly not only deny itself to ●e the effect of it, 〈◊〉 ●enieth, yea defieth the very b●ing of the mediator, by obdience of christ t● the law for 〈◊〉▪ th● fir●t holdeth u● in a●l o●r si●●, and continueth the 〈◊〉 wrath of god abiding upon ●s. the 〈…〉 away your saviour. the ●hir ● takes away our r 〈◊〉 and just ficat●on. w at 〈◊〉 the ●n●●y of j●sus, grace and souls 〈◊〉 mor●? and i am sure thi● 〈◊〉 sp●ak● as 〈◊〉 ●oly ●f these do●t●in●●, which he o●poseth, a● you 〈◊〉; yo● and more. etc. unto whom he did from all eternity give a people to be his seed, and to be by him in time redeemed, called justified, sanctified, glorified. in the same manner they speak in the larg. catech. q. 30, 31, 32. as above rehearsed. and in the short. q. 18. man's sinfulness consists in the guilt of adam's first sin. in the 39th. page of your book, you pretend to some answers, to what i affirm in some things: as that i deny the covenant of redemption to be a distinct covenant from the covenant of grace. i own it, and make good my denial elsewhere, therefore will not actum agere. you blame me, p. 40. for saying, p. 29. that pardon is not promised to faith and repentance, as things distinct from the promise, but pardon is promised together with faith and repentance to the sinner. and herein you say, i confound a promise of grace, and promises made to grace, and affirm the gospel covenant is but one promise. repl. 1. i do affirm, that the promise of the gospel in its original grant and comprehensive nature is but one, as the promise of the covenant of works was but one, viz. life. so in the covenant of grace 'tis life, the spirit of god is express in it, 1 joh. 2.25. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, this is the promise which he hath promised us, even eternal life. and 1 joh. 5.11. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, this is the record (or testimony) that he hath given us, eternal life, and this life is in his son. now eternal life contains all justification, sanctification, adoption and glory. 2. i affirm that in this promise is justification, faith and repentance promised. 3. that in this promise justification, faith and repentance are inseparably conjoined. 4. that in and under this promise are multitudes of gifts bestowed in a way of connexion one to another, and have their particular promises pointing distinctly to them; but these gifts are no federal conditions one of another. 5. i say, if you speak of these gifts of righteousness and life, as in a way of conditionality, 'tis christ's righteousness is the proper federal condition of life, and pardon is rather the condition of faith and repentance than they of pardon. i say so again, 1. if giving be the condition of receiving, 'tis true; but giving is the condition of receiving, for faith is but the sinner's receiving pardon: is not the giving of pardon then rather the condition of faith, which is the receiving of it, than faith of pardon? luke 1.77. a●ts 10.43. so for repentance: the cause is rather the condition of the effect than the effect of the cause; but forgiveness received by faith is the cause of all true evangelical repentance. see this saving repentance and remission, b●th given by one hand of promise, acts 5.31. preached together by commission, luke 24. 4●. how strange soever you make of this divinity, 'tis built on the rock christ jesus, and you cannot shake it, nor all the devils in hell. you say, i wretchedly mistake the nature of the first promise, as if it excluded all terms of our interest in the blessing of it. rep. i know not what the first promise is, if it be not a blessing; and if the first promise be absolute to us (as you say the first grace is) than it excludeth all terms to be wrought by us, to interest us in the blessings of it, unless you intent that a natural man is to perform these terms in his natural state; and then the first grace is not absolute: and as for the first promise, concerning the seed of the woman, it was absolute, and saved our first parents as such, for it was all their gospel as i know of, and therefore they by it had remission, faith and repentance, without bringing the two last into a federal condition: for if god had intended to bring them in as such, 'tis most likely he would then have mentioned them as such, adam just coming out of a covenant with federal conditions. in answer to what i say of a legal grant, you say 'tis out of my element. be it so, others may not judge it so, though you do: mr. antinomian saith, a grant may be legal two ways, either by free gift, from a person's good will and pleasure; and so god's giving us, both grace and glory is legal, because it gives us an undoubted, unexceptionable right. and a legal grant is a law covenant grant, when the gift is bestowed upon the performance of federal conditions, as grace and glory is bestowed in and for christ and his righteousness; both these grants we have first in election, choosing us in christ; and in the eternal compact between the father and the son. you say what i speak of, tit. 1.2. will appear not to be eternal, but before many ages, and not to exclude gospel conditions. if christ be our great gospel federal condition, i say it doth not; for god's purpose and grace was given us in christ, and were to be bestowed in and through him. but who told you that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, was but before many ages, 'tis sure before the times or ages of the wo●ld; and what can be supposed to be so but eternity, when christ rejoiced in the sons of men, prov. 4. and i think i have a good interpreter on my side: beza saith, on tit. 1.2. in his judgement the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cannot be referred to the first promise, made to adam, cen. 3. much less to that of abraham: but, saith he, ante tempora seculorum; before the ages of the world, doth denote all series of time or ages, i. e. before this world was, according to joh● 17.2, etc. in this sense runs the assembly's notes, pooles anot. continued. what i say of the gospel's being no law with sanction, i shall not trouble the reader with here, but handle it in its proper place; and therefore pass by all you say, p. 43, 44 and 45. as for what you speak about that position of mr. b. i leave the learned to judge, whether you have salved it: i shall hardly set that and other things in a greater l●ght, unless you provoke me thereto, as you insinuate by further endeavours to set other men in the light or dark, to as great reproach as you can cast upon them. you say i m●ke mr. r. b. to speak orthodoxly, by saying, p. 22. when once a transgressor is sentenced by a law, he falls into the hands of prerogative, and the prince may do with him what he pleaseth (i e. either execute him or pardon him) god a so might have put repentance into the condition of the law of works, and said, if thou dost not eat, or repent of thy eating, thou shalt have thy reward: you should have added, the reason of my so saying; it was upon your saying, the law of works admitted no repentance: i tell you, if god had intended salvation by a law of works, wherein repentance should have been a condition, he might have put it in at first; but god never intended to accept repentance as a federal condition of any covenant, nor our imperfect condition: and so i say again, with a non obstante all that you have or can say against it; and i must stand to that rule which mr. norton takes from cham. de descensu, tom. 2. l. 5. c. 12. this great principle is all-a-long to be kept in mind, and occasionally to be applied, as in answer to this question. q. what is the supreme and first cause why justice requireth, that sin should be rewarded with punishment due thereunto, according to the law? a. the free constitution of god, the principal and whole reason of this mystery depends upon the good pleasure of god; for who can deny that god could have saved man in another way? but he would save him thus, and no otherwise than thus. this serves not only as a sword to cut, but as a leading truth to lose the knots of carnal reason. the good pleasure of god is the first rule of righteousness, the cause of all causes, the reason of all reasons: and, in one word, all reasons in one reason. and how doth this make the following saying orthodox? viz. being that christ the mediator, and faith in christ are only means of the restauration of men to god by holiness and love, therefore it must be said from the nature of the thing, faith, holiness and the love of god, are more necessary to salvation than either faith in christ or the sacrifice of christ himself. now if i had said that this position were god's constitution, viz. that holiness and love to god wrought in us, should be more necessary means of salvation than faith in christ, or the sacrifice of christ, you had said something: or that it were the constitution of god, that christ in all things should not have the pre-eminence, whether in genere causarum, mediorum vel finium, col. 1.18, 19, 20. therefore to say holiness in grace or glory is more necessary than christ mediator, is to magnify the creature above christ, himself. but because you say you would not have spoken the words yourself, but endeavour to explain them as charitably as you can, i do not think it convenient to give you any further trouble about them; but i must remark, that it is not so fair in you to charge all upon me as my sense, which is spoken by an interlocutor in a dialogue. an enquiry, whether the gospel be a new law? sir, you begin thus. reader, though i did not once call the gospel a law in all my book, only in my preface called it a law of faith; yet because the whole of mr. c is book runs on this, i shall insist most on this head. r. whether you called the gospel a law or no, it matters not; i know you kept yourself here, as in many other points within your trenches, yet he that reads your book is very blind, if he sees not this to be the cornerstone of your whole scheme: and by your now appearing in a defence of that principle, as your professed opinion: you have not only dealt more candidly with your reader than in your former book, but also justified me to the world, in these things. 1. that i endeavoured faithfully to represent your opinions, and did so in this point. 2. that i wronged you not in saying, your art lay in concealing your tenants from your less intelligent reader, under ambiguous and equivocal expressions, which i called by a plain english name that you seem to be offended at. 3. in that i treated you under the appellation of a neonomian (which is an antinomian in the truest sense) in that you have in this reply professedly owned yourself as such, and subscribed to the truth thereof, which for your own reputation i would not have had you to have done. in handling this question, i shall in the first place remark upon your stating the question; and show its true state. 2. i shall answer your arguments, to prove the gospel a new law. 3. i shall show what law and gospel is? 4. i shall give my arguments to prove, that the gospel is no new law. 5. i shall show the beginning and progress of this great error; viz. that the gospel is a new law. 1. the stating of the question. sir, you tell us, 1. in what sense you hold the gospel not a law; and from thence it follows, that in a sense it is not a law, and therefore in mine it may not be a law. 1. you say, you do not hold that the gospel includes nothing besides this law. r. here is your old tricking again: the question is about the gospel being a law, and you say it includes something that is not a law; it includes the covenant of redemption and absolute promises, as if the question were, whether a scabbard were a sword? and you say, the scabbard includes a sword: but, by your favour, a law, as such, cannot include an absolute promise, for there's no promise but conditional in a law; but yet an absolute promise may include a law, as that, i will write my laws in your hearts. there may be (you say) prophecies, histories, doctrinals, etc. yet these may be called adjuncts. of what? you should have told us whether of law or gospel, or of the gospel as a law. the histories of christ are gospel, and the prophecies of him, and whatever in doctrinals brings good news to sinners, belongs to the promise and exemplification thereof. 2. you say, p 19 nor do i judge it a law, in that sense our divines six on s●cinians and arminians. r. no, you apprehend our divines abuse them, but yet it hinders not but that you may judge it a law, in the sense of the socinians and arminians: i have told what yours is, let the reader judge whether it be so or no; for they hold justification by acts of obedience to this law but as you do: nor do they hold that we are justified thereby, as adam should have been by perfect obedience. 3. you say, nor do i tak● it in the popish sense, which the socinians and arminians espouse. r. the popish sense of merit is renounced by the socinians and arminians, as well as by you, and as much, for aught i can see. the popish sense is very plain from the council of trent, anath. 20. cursed is he that saith the gospel is a promise, without a condition of observing the command: and this, i am sure, is your sense. you proceed, 4. " it is not a law that supposeth a moral ability in sinners to perform its precepts, etc. r. it's an unreasonable law that requires duty of those that have no ability to perform; and that law that makes a condition, and promiseth ability, concludes not the subject till the power is given; and, when all comes to all, 'tis but a comprehensive promise both of the duty and benefit to be received by it. you say, 5. it's not a law that extinguisheth the law of nature, which hath its special precepts. r. if the law of nature be the law of adam, you say it vacates it: for if it strip it of its sanction it ceaseth to be a law, for sanction is the law's ratification as such. again, 6. neither doth this law require any thing of us as a condition of christ's coming into the world, nor of the first grace to the elect. this the covenant of redemption secures to the catholic church by promise. r. whoever talked of our doing any thing, as a condition of christ's coming into the world as our redeemer, but believe it (as weak as you say mr. c. is ● i'll presume to tell you, that you are bold to attempt to prove the gospel to be a law with sanction: if you allow that the first grace is absolutely given, and what is given by electing grace is secured by election to the elect; it's an inconsistent principle that redemption secures nothing but conditionally, for where the absoluteness of any thing is secured, it is secured so as to cease to be conditional. 6. nor is it a law of obedience, whereto it renders any promised blessing a debt; all is free though sure; its free as to procurement or price, yet it is as sure by promise as if it were by debt: the price was christ's obedience and sufferings, all comes of gift, yet in that way which god appoints to give it. r. this amounts to thus much, that now you have dwindled your law quite away; for that obedience that renders not the promise a debt, can be no law with sanction: for by the same reason that the punishment is due to me upon disobedience, the promise is due upon obedience. you say, it's sure by promise, so every promissory covenant makes blessings sure; but that which is sure and free, cannot be by law conditions. p. 20. you give us a very long and confused account of your new law, the sum whereof is, that upon believing and persevering in sincere faith and holiness, life and salvation is promised, and upon non-performance death and damnation threatened. the sense is, do and live; the very same essentials as to matter and form; the matter, the duties and promises, or sins and punishment; the form is the connection of these together by the sovereign of authority of a law giver. you say, that you mean by saying, the gospel is a law, that god in christ commands sinners to receive christ with a true operative faith. r. we grant the gospel doth so command, but is it a condition required of the creature, to be performed in and by his present abilities? must he have this first grace given before he perform the condition, and by him that commands it? yet must this command be a law with sanction? no, this command carries with it to the elect nothing but a gracious offer and invitation, and effectual operative means to bring a poor sinner from under a law with sanction, to life and salvation: rom. 5.1. the wages of sin is death: he lies under this law-condemnation. joh. 3. he is condemned already: the gospel calls him not to come under another condemnation, but it calls him to the gift of god; what's that? eternal life through jesus christ; besides god's commands in the gospel are gracious, it's to such duties which the same grace promiseth, and there's no middle between being under the law and under grace, under a gracious command and a legal, they are adversa sine medio. you say, upon their believing they shall be united to christ; therefore they must first do something before union to christ, that they may have the benefit of union, make the fruit good, and then the tree afterward, contrary to one of the fundamental maxims of our lord jesus christ. you proceed and say, it threatens, if any die unbelieving, impenitent, etc. they shall be barred from these benefits. r. the meaning is, they shall die under the condemnation of the law they are in already; as much as to say, a physician offers a sick patient a remedy, he refuseth it, and dies of his disease, will you say the physician brought him under a law, with sanction? many such instances might be given; the king sends a pardon to all the condemned prisoners in newgate, suppose it be upon condition of acceptance; some one accept not, will the court now try him upon a new law? no; there's no further trial, he is executed upon the sentence before received: and so are all those places to be understood that say, he that believes not shall be damned: if you say by what law: i say not by a new one, but by the old law. i own, as i believe there are degrees of glory, according to the degrees of the vessels of honour greater or lesser; so there are degrees of wrath, which the law will execute according to the degree of sin; and the law will look upon rejection of christ, as the highest degree of disobedience: therefore are those expressions, it shall be more tolerable for sodom than for corazin; some shall be beaten with fewer, some more stripes; some counted worthy of sorer punishments than others; but all this is by the law, not by the gospel: and unbelief and impenitency are sins judged and condemned with all their aggravations, severely enough, by that law, you need not doubt; there needs no new law to do it. your referring yourself to the assembly will cast you, for they never intended any such thing, that the gospel is a law. you say, 1. here's the essentials of a law, god is our ruler and we his subjects. r. are ruler and subjects the essentials of a law? that's strange logic: the ruler in his legislative power is the efficient: and so in his executive, in application of it to its ends, and the ruled are therefore called subj cts, because under subjection to both; the law is essentially distinct from both. put go on. his will revealed in a way of government, here's the precept that binds to duty; here's a promise made to them that comply, and a threatening denounced against such as rebel. r. these look like essentials of a law of works, such was adam's law, there was god's will for duty in a way of government revealed, a promise to him if he complied, and a threat denounced, in case he did not: now then, that law which hath all the essentials of a covenant of works, is a covenant of works; but your new law, by your description, hath all the essentials of a covenant of works. therefore you say 2. this is a law of grace, and it's made by our redeemer for fallen man. r. say you so? 1. that which is made and executed in a way of judicial proceeding, is not a law of grace; for grace and judicial proceeding is diametrically opposite: but you say it's a law in a way of government, by a law therefore of judicial proceeding. 2. you say it's made by our redeemer: is it made with our redeemer? i suppose you must mean so, because you say for fallen man; then christ covenanted in our stead, which you deny elsewhere, and he is to perform the conditions for us. 3. you say, all the benefits of it are founded on christ's righteousness, as the immediate cause of them. r. and where are the duties founded in man's natural power and will? no; you'll say in election absolutely as to the first grace: well then, here's the benefits secured in redemption, absolutely i hope, and the first grace in election: now if you can tell us where to get security for after graces and perseverance, we should have this whole covenant absolutely secured. effectual ability to perform the duty (i. e. the first duty) is provided for, you say, in election: but is after duties provided for there? if so, election is the sole covenant condition for duty and redemption for benefits: thus you may mangle the grace of god. again, you say, god doth not fix on these terms for any worth in them, or profit to him. r. it's true he did not fix on adam's terms for any worth in them; what proportion could the forbearing an apple bear to eternal life, or what profit would it have been to god, if adam had let the apple hang on the tree, or persevered all his days in holiness? mr. w. the gospel is the instrument or sign by which this will of god is expressed; this is not the language of god in adam's law. r. an instrument in this sense is a law, deed or conveyance, engrossed or enroled, which is but a small adjunct to the law. the scripture of the old and new testament are called instruments, because they are the enrolments of this will of christ and his testament ratified by his death; and you say the gospel is a sign, the seals of the covenant are signs, but the covenant of grace is not a sign, unless you mean it signifies god's will and pleasure in government, and so did adam's law, and was the language of it. mr. w. it fixeth that rule of the promise, which mr. c. p. 33. is at a loss to know. r. and so are more than i: for you say, it's not the promise nor the precept, where to find a rule for the promise in the law, i know not, if it be not in promise or precept, will you say its the connection of precept and promise? if so it's the rule rather of the law, forma perquam lex est; is it god's rule to dispense by, or our rule to claim by? it may be you mean both, precepts and promises are desparata at least, therefore what your new term is, i suppose you do not know what it is yourself, no more than your other new rules of sin, which is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and misery, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. since in stead of clearing the oustion you have confounded it, i will take the true state of it from a man that would speak his mind more intelligeably in these matters. the question stated. scrip. g. justific. contr. 17. my true sense is, that the covenant of grace is such a law, as that the sincere acts of faith and obedience, and perseverance therein are the conditions upon which eternal life and salvation is promised, with a penalty of eternal death, threatened upon the non-performance; only i say that sincere faith and repentance are the moral qualifying conditions of the continuance of our justification and enjoyment of heaven. and this is a true account of the notion how yourself understands the gospel to be a new law; as i could prove from your own expressions, even to every word here in this account, you might therefore have spared yourself and me the labour about your confused stating the question. r. before i answer your arguments, i shall promise a few things: 1. it being a great end of our lord jesus christ, in the covenant of grace, to restore fallen man, and in so doing to magnify the law, he makes full atonement for the breach of it, brings in everlasting righteousness, procures new obedience to the perceptive part of it, teacheth it by his grace, and works it by his spirit; and whereas in the covenant of works, obedience was the way to, and condition of the promise, he makes the promise the way to, and condition of obedience, commanding no more than what he hath promised. 2. when we say the gospel is not a new law with sanction, we deny it not to be a testament that hath its ratification in the death of christ the testator, wherein also the law of works had its sanction, in respect of penalty, for all those that shall be saved by him, as to satisfaction for their sins. 3. that rule and government which christ exerciseth over his church, as it comes to him by right of redemption, so that obedience we give to him is part of that eternal life which he hath purchased and restored to us, and both his government and our subjection thereto is of promise, and none of the least blessings and privileges of the covenant of grace. 4. as the matter of all precepts, requiring sanctity and obedience of heart and life, moral and instituted, absolutely considered, primarily belong to the first law of works, and so are binding in a natural relation unto unregenerate and regenerate, as they are the commands of god the creator, and the least transgression requires a punishment due to the breach of the whole law; so our obedience becomes gospel-obedience, 1. from our being restored to it in christ, the second adam. 2 in that it flows from a new life given, we must live before we can do. 3. from the end of performance, it's not for life, as a law-reward of it, but for the sake, honour, duty to, and enjoyment of christ, and in the most grateful returns of his grace and love to us. 4. it's performed from higher motives and obligations, viz. that great love wherewith god hath loved us, constraining us to the highest love and expressions thereof to him. 5. as for all sin and disobedience (even impenitence and unbelief) to any commands of the gospel, it's condemned by the law; and every one under the condemnations of impenitence, unbelief, rejection of christ, or disobedience in a natural estate, are therein under the law; but there is no condemnation to them that are in christ jesus, i● mean to their persons, tho' all their sins also are condemned by the law. 2dly. i proceed now to your arguments. mr. w.'s arg 1. the gospel is called a law, by the spirit of god, isa. 42.4. mic. 4.2. rom. 3.27. ch. 10.31. jam. 1.25. and 2.12. psal. 19.7. gal. 6.2. rom. 8.2. r. as to the places quoted out of the old testament, as isa. 42.4. mic. 4.2. ps. 19 7. i have shown, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies doctrine, and instruction, and sometimes is taken for the whole revealed mind and will of god in the word, and it's called by the name of law, as a part for the whole, both law and gospel, in that place, isa. 42.4. a prophecy of christ; it's a promise, that the isles shall wait for christ's doctrine, and receive all commands from christ, whose precepts may be called laws, tho' of another nature than a law with sanction; the preceptive parts of the gospel are often called laws, especially in the old testament; but this makes not the gospel itself a law, tho' it contain many precepts. that of mic. 4.2. psal. 19.7. hath the same answer; those places explicate themselves by the word of the lord: the law shall go forth of zion, and the word of god from jerusalem. so that law signifies no more than the word preached, both law and gospel; it were easy to show how it's used at large in the proverbs and psalms, and elsewhere, not under any distinct consideration of law or gospel. we have showed the covenant of grace is exhibited only in a way of promise and free-gift unto sinners, as such, takes them into covenant with god, not upon any terms of their doing, perfect or imperfect, performed in their own or another's strength, tho' it takes them into the kingdom where christ: rules and governs them, and from which kingdom goes forth all the word of the lord, both law and gospel. lastly, the old testament speaks often prophetically of the gospel in its own terms and dialect, as by priests, sacrifices, etc. isa. 66.21. c. 56.7. c. 6.7. ezek. 40. c. 41, 42. that of rom. 3.27. where the apostle saith, that boasting is excluded; by what law? by the law of faith, it may be taken for an ordinary rhetorical figura dictionis, called anadiplosis; and beza saith, the apostle doth here, de industria 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, say, the law of faith, instead of faith, because the adversaries of grace were always wont to have the name of the law in their mouths, for which reason our lord calls faith, a work, joh. 6.29. and on which place he saith, they are plainly ridiculous, who from hence will argue, that faith is a woe k, and that therefore we are justified by works. but if any that contend for a further account of the meaning of this expression, 1. it is the doctrine of justification by faith in christ's righteousness which he opposeth to all law-righteousness, as rom. 4. or other doctrine that teacheth contrary. 2. it may be taken for the nature of faith, the power and efficacy of it; the nature of it and its power in the soul, is to make a man renounce all inherent righteousness; in the same sense is law taken, rom. 8.2. the law of the spirit of life that is in christ jesus, viz. i. e. the nature, power, and efficacy of it. so rom. 7. the law of sin is no more than the power and prevalency of it, whereby it captivates us. jam. 1.25. the law of liberty is no other than the gospel-doctrin of freedom by jesus christ, (joh. 8.36.) from the law moral and ceremonial for justificaion, yea, he speaks to them as such (saith beza) on whom no yoke of ceremonial bondage was laid, (as peter, acts 15.10.) yea, such as the moral law could not retain as servants under fear, but the spirit of god forms them into free and voluntary obedience. hence it's plain enough, that the apostle opposeth the gospel to a law with sanction, which enforceth obedience from the threats thereof. so beza carries, c. 2.12. this epithet of liberty, saith he, is very fitly added, [having shown he spoke of the moral law before, which he called the royal law in its full sanction, as appears from v. 8, 9, 10.] for seeing we are made free by the son, by a much better right the lord requires of us the fruits of righteousness, rather than of those who remain under the tyranny of the law of sin, etc. so that from these expressions of james, here is so little pretence for a plea to make the gospel a law with sanction, that the apostle seems strenuously to argue against it. i wonder that place is mentioned, rom. 9.31. the law of righteousness, is plainly the law of works; for it was righteousness by this law they sought after, but lost their labour, not seeking after a righteousness to satisfy the law by faith in christ. you argue also from gal. 6.2. this is spoken of a particular precept, [which are frequently termed laws or instructions] bear one another's burdens, and so fulfil the law of christ, or his command, yea, from an obligation so to do (an obligation to obedience and thankfulness is sometimes called a law of love.) and what was the obligation? christ bore our burdens. isa. 53. therefore we should bear one another's burdens, as he carried our griefs and sorrows: be followers of christ as dear children. beza and others refer it to john 13.34, 35. a new commandment give i unto you, that you love one another as i have loved you, i. e. i give you a new motive and principle to act obedience from: and this is contrary to a principle and spirit of bondage and fear from a law with sanction; and this new commandment is called the old, as to the matter of it. mr. w.'s arg. 2. men's behaviour towards the gospel is expressed by words that denote it to be a law. rom. 10.16. 2 cor. 9.13. 2 thess. 1.8. 1 pet. 4.17. r. you said, tho' the gospel be a law with sanction, yet it contains in it absolute promises. this i deny, as a contradiction. but i affirm, that an absolute promise may contain in it law-precepts, as that promise, i will wite my laws in your hearts; the gospel sets up the law-precepts as rules of sanctity and obedience, and calls for a conformity to them from better motives and principles; yet upon bette● promises, not such as provoked to obedience, by rewarding the work performed in our own strength, but such as promised the very obedience itself. therefore no body denies obedience to the gospel, and subjection to it from the grace of adoption, as children, not as slaves under the rigour of a law. those places that speak of taking vengeance on them that obey not the gospel, 2 thess. 1.8. 1 pet. 4.17. they show only that the curse of the law will fall more heavily upon them for disobedience to god in the gospel, impenitency and infidelity being sins the law of god doth condemn and judge; and christ will come at the last day clothed with law-vengeance, which is called flaming fire, and will proceed against all sinners, those that are ignorant of god, and those that are disobedient to the gospel, and judge them by one and the same law, tho' some that have added to their other sins the rejection of christ, and so lie under aggravations of their sins, and are become more inexcusable, may be accounted worthy of sorer degrees of punishment, and judged thereto by the same law. mr. w.'s arg. 3. justification is a judicial act, therefore it must be by a law. r. you should have form your argument, and then it would have run thus: it justification be a judicial act, than the gospel must be law; but justification is a judicial act: therefore, 1. i deny the consequence of the major; for it may be a judicial act in respect of the first violated law; first a gracious act of imputing christ's righteousness to us that may answer the demands of that law, and then a judicial act of acquitting us from the condemnation of it, accounting us in this manner righteous by this law; and therefore there's no need of another law for our justification, tho' it be a judicial act. you say in justification is a right to impunity: and can any thing but a law give this? but i tell you, it must be the law that's offended, must discharge in a way of justice from punishment, and not another law, unless the pardon be by prerogative or repeal mr. w.'s arg. 4. the gospel gives a right to its benefits upon believing. r. the gospel gives nothing but benefits to sinners; faith is one of the great benefits, and there's a connexion of benefits of different nature in the gospel-gifts, but our right to all as a federal condition is in christ, and it's safe enough to speak of gospel-worthiness and rewards, but they are founded in christ, not in any law-righteousness of ours. mr. w.'s arg. 5. if god have no gospel-rule, besides election and distinguishing mercy, to confer glory by, th●n god will not, nay cannot save the non-elect, tho' they should believe in christ. say not they will not believe, hath not god declared he will save them i● they believe? r. first, here you change the terms, putting rule for law, and god's rule for man's; therefore you conclude not the question. 2. you make a pro syllogism. your argument should regularly run thus: if god hath gospel-rule, besides election and distinguishing mercy, to confer glory by, th●n the gospel is a law; but god hath other gospel-rules to confer glory by, besides, etc. therefore, 1. your consequence is denied; for if you will have god's way of conferring grace or glory to be a rule to him, the particular application thereof depends wholly upon his good will and pleasure and the manner itself, and that's the rule of all rules; and so the rule of conferring grace and glory is all one: but suppose god's manner of conferring glory be the rule you mean, god never propounded but two ways of doing it, one in a way of free grace and absolute promise, and the other in a way of debt to us by a rule of justice; now your consequence will sink, for god's rule in bestowing grace and glory upon sinners, is to do it in a way of free grace by promise and gift, and not in a way or by the rule of a law or distributive justice. 2. for your minor it's this, that god hath a gospel-rule, besides election and distinguishing mercy, to confer glory by; which you prove thus, if god hath not, etc. then he cannot nor will not save the non-elect if they believe: but he will save the non-elect if they believe; therefore, this argument necessarily supposeth, that god hath a rule of salvation altogether independent on election and distinguishing mercy, whereby others may be saved if they will; and you take it for granted, that the non-elect will believe, for you say, say not they will not believe. your minor is flatly denied, for that general proposition, he that believes shall be saved, concludes not that a non-elect person shall believe or be saved, it's false logic so to do; there's no more in it than in this proposition, every man is a rational creature, therefore if a horse be a rational creature, he is a man. this connex proposition hath a verity in the connexion, but determins not any truth in the antecedent or consequent, that a horse will ever be a man or a rational creature. so here, he that believes shall be saved; therefore then, if the non-elect believe they shall be saved; if judas believed he should be saved, but this says not that judas will believe or be saved. yet you say, hath not god declared he will save them if they believe? i say, no where, he hath not said, i will save a non-elect person if he believe, more than he hath said a horse shall be a man if he can use reason or speak, or a man shall be a horse if he have four feet. there's hundreds of such instances: the fire consumes all combustible matter; if i throw my coat or cap in●o the fire it will be burnt; but this doth not determine that i will throw it into the fire, or that it will be burnt, but rather the contrary that there will be neither one nor the other: therefore how bold and illogical is it for you to conclude, that god will save the non-elect upon an imperformable condition? for whatever hath no other foundation than an impossible condition, can never be; but the salvation of the non-elect can be founded upon nothing but an impossible condition; for it can have no other condition, according to you, but believing, and this is impossible, because, according to you, also faith is from election, and therefore it's a contradiction to talk of saving non-elect, or god's making a rule to save them upon supposition of their having that which he never intended to give them. the general proposition runs thus, all men that shall believe shall be saved; a general contradiction here will not divide truth from falsehood, viz. no man shall believe therefore no man shall be saved; but to divide truth from falsehood and fix it on a subject, the contradiction must be special or proper, and then that general axiom and application, specially or properly, makes this syllogism, all men that believe shall be saved; some men shall shall not believe, as non-elect, or judas, therefore some men shall not be saved. now see how well you agree with the assembly in this point, ch. 10. §. iv. they say non-elect ones, tho' they may be called by the ministry of the word, and may have some common operations of the spirit, yet they never truly come unto christ, and therefore cannot be saved. you say forgiveness is an act of sovereignty, and how you will reconcile that to what you say before and after. i know not. 1. that it's a judicial act by a rule of judgement; if so, it's not in that respect a sovereign act, wherein god is free to give faith and forgiveness to whom he will. and, 2. you say, he hath not left himself free to give forgiveness to whom he will of the adult, without faith, and therefore god must come under a law to give forgiveness in the way of a law, whereas the same sovereign grace that inclines him to one doth also to the other, and both faith and forgiveness are the free gift in the promise, in a way of showing forth his righteousness. mr. w.'s arg. 6. the apostles, with all the saints, may be arraigned, as fallen from grace, and turned from the gospel, if it be no rule, according to which god applies christ's righteousness, how should peter, say, repent and be baptised? r. i see no consequence here at all; the argument, to me, seems to run thus: either the gospel is a new law with sanction, or else the apostles are fallen from grace: and what's the reason of this forced argument? the apostles preached, that men should repent and be baptised. i hope you will make baptism too to belong indispensably to the new law, as a condition; but i pray, doth the gospel, requiring and calling for gospel duties, make the gospel a new law with sanction? are not gospel duties from gospel quickening and enliuning a poor dead sinner to obey, the gospel commands of christ to an unbeliever? he doth not deal with him as a person under a moral power to answer them, and therefore putting him under trial by his natural strength, as all laws do; but gospel commands are as christ's voice to lazarus in the grave, joh. 5.25. i pray by what law are dead men capable of coming to life? the gospel is the power of god to salvation, not the power of man. you allege the gaoler's words, act. 16.36. what shall i do to be saved. i wonder you should insist upon the words of a man that knew not christ, and knew no other way of salvation than by doing. paul indulged him not in this opinion, but taught contrary, exhorting him to believe in the lord jesus christ, which the apostle always opposed to doing; faith being a grace that excludes works of any law, yea, itself as a work; it will ascribe all to christ and free grace: it's new doctrine, that a command to believe, should be a command to work for life, as the obedience to a law, when it calls men from under the law; and it saith, that a believer, is not under the law, but under grace: it should have said, you are not under the old law, but you are under the new law. you instance in gal. 2.16. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there, doth not denote a priority in time of faith to justification, but of the end of faith; we should believe, for this end, that the grace of justification by christ's righteousness alone may shine into our hearts, by the light of faith, that we may have peace with god in our consciences through the lord jesus christ; and so we do not only in our first believing, but in all other acts. and this hinders not but that god's gracious acts prevent ours and causeth them; god's love let forth to us constrains us, and is the reason of our loving him. justification may be considered as terminating on our persons, and terminating on our consciences; in this last sense the apostle speaks; but note what is the antithesis, and not the works of a law. if he had not meant the works of every law, he should have distinguished, and said, not by the works of the old law, but by the works of the new law: it's strange he should keep the galatians in the dark, about the works of the new law; it was but works that they looked for to join with christ in justification. i am confident this very distinction would have satisfied all the neonomians of his time. mr. w.'s 7th arg. the gospel is at least part of the rule by which christ will judge the world; this must be a law if it be a rule of judgement. r. your argument is, that rule, by which god will judge the world, is a law, but the gospel is a rule by which god will judge the world; therefore, i deny the minor. 1. you say, part of that rule; i pray what's the other part? will the rule of judgement have two parts? do you mean the old law will be another part? or will god judge some by the old law, some by the new? 2. it's not likely that god will judge the world by any more than one law, and that, the law of creation, and that by which he governed the world; that law which hath been the standard of righteousness from the beginning of the world to the end. 3. it's likely to be that law that all the world are become guilty by; they shall not be guilty by one law and judged by another. 4. it's likely to be that law that men's consciences accuse or excuse by. 5. it's likely to be that law that will reach jews, christians, infidels, and all that never had the written law or gospel. 6. if the gospel be a law then, to try by, it must cease to be a gospel, for it will bring execution of indignation and wrath, no good tidings; i suppose you will not say, the sentence, go ye cursed, is gospel. well, you say, the work of that day is not to try christ: no sure, i believe not; but christ must sit upon his throne judging the world. nor whether christ's righteousness was imputed to all that believe; but will be to decide the cause of all men, to silence all apologies, etc. 1. i suppose you mean to decide believer's state, which hath been undecided till then. 2. to prove that the rest of the world had not faith. as for the first sort, i would know whether their trial will be before the resurrection or after? before it can't be, they must be raised first; and those that die in christ shall rise first. and it's said, b●essed and happy are they that have part in the first resurrection; and how shall they be raised? incorruptible, in glory, like to christ at his appearance immediately carried up into the ●ir to meet the lord. is it likely that now they are clothed with all this glory, at the resurrection, they shall come to stand a trial for justification? surely their state will be fully decided, before christ will raise them in this glory. but you say, their faith must come to trial whether it hath been sincere; but undoubtedly that will be fully resolved before the resurrection; or how shall the elect be gathered from all parts? and how shall christ distinguish the saints from others to raise them in glory? but you'll sa●, this trial will be by the new law at the resurrection of the unjust. 1. shall they not be raised in dishonour, with their consciences accusing them by the old law? 2. how few, in comparison, will there be of the millions of wicked that can be justified by the new law that never heard a word of it? 3. those that have heard of it, never owned it, or were under it; they must be tried by a law that nature hath brought them under. 4. all their sins against god's offers and commands are judged by the old law; for in the moral law, god is declared a god that shows mercy unto thousands. 5. the offers of mercy rejected, are but aggravations of the sins of those that are condemned already, and make them more inexcusable. in this sense the men of nineveh, and the queen of the south, shall rise up in judgement against some, and condemn them; not that their actions shall be a law to try by, but that they will be matter of aggravation to such as had greater means of grace than they had. rejections of pardon do not bring condemned persons to a new law to try them by; it leaves them but under the former law and condemnation, with a greater torment upon their minds and consciences. for my part, i look upon your whole hypothesis, about the day of judgement, to be very raw and indigested, in that you suppose it will be like man's assizes when all men shall be brought to a personal trial, good and bad, all in mixture, and believers as well as unbelievers must be arraigned, and hold up their hands at the bar, and stand upon their delivery; whereof some upon a formal trial shall be justified, others condemned. i come to show what a law is, and what gospel is. what a law is. the word lex is with some a ligando, because it binds to duty and obedience; with others it is a a legendo, * quod omnibus ad legendum exponitur publice in soro quod dicebatur promulgatio legis. isidor. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 aristot. because among the romans, when a law was made, it was exposed publicly, that all might read or know it; and this was called the promulgation of the law, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a tribuendo aut distribuendo, because it gives every one its due, by commanding and forbidding, upon a penalty expressed or understood. hence it is not only regula justi & injusti, (which describes but the preceptive part) but it's regula sancita whereby justice doth proceed in a way of distribution to justify or condemn, and thereby suum cuiquet ribuere, to give every one his due, if wages of sin be due, to pay it; this is the primary and strict sense of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: in a larger sense it's take for doctrine, a custom or usage, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 comes of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, instituit, docuit, monuit, etc. and is often used for doctrine or institution in the proverbs and psalms; sometimes for the law of god strictly taken, sometimes for the law of moses, and sometimes for a particular law or precept, as exod. 12.49. sometimes for the doctrine of the revealed mind of god in his word, psal. 1.19. and 119. and sometimes for a manner and custom, as 2 sam. 7.19. in which significations its by the hebrew dirived from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. they have also divers other words for particular statutes, precepts, commandments; in treating of which, i shall not detain the reader. 2. a law in general is an explicit injunction of obedience by a rightful power, with a penalty annexed. duty may be owing where its not by any positive law prescribed on penalty. there are these things necessary to a law. 1. that there be a legislative power lodged somewhere: that it be sovereign, whereby the first reason of the law is the good will and pleasure of the lawgiver. 2. that this sovereign power be rightfully exerted, or else the law is but an usurpation. 3. that the subject under this law be capable of performing it, or else the law is tyrannical. 4. if a promise of reward to obedience be expressed or employed, it becomes a law-covenant: but concerning the nature of that more may be said elsewhere. 3. in a law there is but two parts, the preceptive part and sanction; which is binding the subject to duty, upon the authority of the lawgiver, and on pain of curse denounced for the transgressions thereof. you oft reflect on me for being ignorant of what sanction is; i must tell you, i understood sancire before you began to study, at five years old, as you say you did; and if any one speak of life and death distinct from the precept, it's you, when you talk of continuing the duty and removing the sanction to another law; for the removing the sanction from a law, is the taking away all the binding nature of it; and these things are inseparable from a law with sanction. 1. every such law requires perfect obedience to the conditional precepts of whatever kind they be; if the law require of me a small matter or a great, it abates not one jot or tittle of what it requires, and my performing that is perfect obedience to the said law. if the king's law require one shilling poll-tax of me, eleven pence three farthings half farthing will not pay my due, nor be accepted. hence, 2. whereas the law requires the full duty without the least abatement, so if i make the least default of what it requires, i fall under the curse of it; and he that is thus by the least default, whatever his compliance or obedience is besides, is under a curse unavoidably, the whole penalty falls upon him. thus much for a law in general, whether divine or human, none allows an imperfect performance of conditions required in the said law, but condemns it. 4. the law of god is a strict injunction to man of obedience to all his revealed mind, and will, upon pain of death. the original record of this law was in man's heart, concreated with him; adam had by nature the things contained in the law, lex adamo data fuit naturalis vel p●sitiva, illa in imagine d●i involvebatur & in cord scripta, rom. 2.14, 15. lex positiva consistebat i● prohibition arboris scientiae boni & mali, gen. 2.17. l●i. a few dark remains whereof continue in fallen man in his sinful condition: this not only comprehended those precepts which the jews call the law of nature, which are eadem apud omnes homines in omni tempore & omni loco. which are the same among all men, and in every place: but it requires exact obedience to any particular, or more peculiar precepts that god afterward should require obedience by, of any one person, or sort of people, even god's extraordinary commands such as to abraham of offering up his son. again, it doth not bind only to the external acts of obedience but to the internal, and the principle from whence it flows, mat. 5.21, 27. c. 22.37, 38, 39 this principle and internal heart conformity man had at the first; all prescription of duty belongs to the law, as voet. disput. tom. 4. 24. and this we must hold, if with all the reformed we will maintain the law's perfection, as containing in its compass all virtues and duties of holiness. wits. 197. the foed. hence whatever is a transgression of ours in a defect of obedience to any of god's precepts, that were or should be given, the very lest, though but in a defect of faith or love to god in the heart, is condemned by god's law: will any man say that god hath commanded faith and repentance at any time to man, and that was not employed in the law at first given to man, doth not that law condemn every disobedience, impenitency and unbelief▪ and if it condemns the sins it commands the duties. the law of creation condemned all sin, which could not be but by the fall, and hence commanded all contrary duty, and therefore repentance in case of sin. 5. this law was twice solemnly promulgated, 1. to adam in paradise, in which promulgation god did bring him upon the trial of his obedience in one particular precept or prohibition, as a part of his revealed mind and will; and likewise declared the penalty of the breach of the whole law in that sin. 2. on mount sinai, which law was but a recognising and transcript of the said original law, writ in man's heart, but so as to be expressive of the fallen state of man; in which law, though but a brief summary in ten heads what was that moral obedience god at first required of man, yet therein it's abundantly declared, that man by a moral obligation was bound to observe whatever god enjoined as a duty to sinners in faith and repentance, and in all matters of instituted worship under the old or new testament, in the first table, and most especially in the first and second commandments: though those particular commands as to the mosaical institution were alterable, yet they being the revealed mind and will of god, for the time being, men lay under a moral obligation as the principle and foundation of that obedience. so wherever god commands and requires any duty in the gospel, the law primarily obligeth us to obedience, de comminationibus si quae sunt in foedere pratiae videamus, si accurate rem putare v●limus, &c though the gospel seems to have comminations in it, yet if we accurately consider the matter, the covenant of grace hath no peculiar comminations; all comminations or threats belong to the law; which law, a● to all its parts doth accommodate, and suits itself to the covenant of grace, wits. de foed. and will revenge all disobedience and imperfection, if we are not secured from its curse in some way of perfect satisfaction and obedience; there needs no other law with sanction to try and execute a transgressor by: this is the law by which all the world becomes guilty before god; by which he governeth the world, condemns every sin in the very regenerate, and every impenitent unbeliever; and by this law, and it only christ will judge the world. neither doth the greatness and aggravation of any sin, remove it to the trial of another law, as in refusal of gospel remedy, but leaves men the more inexcusable under a higher degree of punishment inflicted by the same law: and whereas that place, rom. 2.16. is alleged to prove the change of the law-sanction, and that it is not the law of nature but the law of the gospel by which christ will judge the world: the allegation is grounded on a manifest mistake, for mark what is said, v. 16. in its next coherence it belongs to v. 12. (for v. 13, 14, 15. are shut in by a parenthesis) and then the sense is plainly thus, as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law, in the day when god shall judge the secrets of men by jesus christ, according to my gospel, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, i. e. according as i have preached, that christ shall judge the world by the law; for he saith two sorts of men shall be judged by the law, such as had never no law, but what was written in their hearts, and such as had the written law; and christ shall judge them both, according to the truth of the gospel which he had preached, acts 17.31. and this is according to the account mr. beza gives of the text. 6. hence the law of god is but one from first to last, indeed in this one law there are many precepts, ten in the mount sinai law, and those ten contain multitudes of duties in other places of scripture more particularly expressed: and upon this foundation of obedience is built all the ceremonial laws and judicial, which had but a temporary sanction; and no more hath the instituted gospel worship, and are but branches that fall off, but our obedience to them for their time is moral, because they are the command of god, and that moral duty to conform to the revealed mind and will of god, remains and will be our glory in heaven, though particular circumstances and actions wherein this obedience is now ordinarily expressed, will cease: hence it was not needful that christ should exert his perfect obedience in those circumstances and actions which do attend all the varieties of states, stations and relations that we are in, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the law is the whole rule of obedience which god gave to the church under the old testament. it was a perfect and complete rule of obedience, which god required of his church, the moral law ●he foundation of the whole both ceremonial and judaical. by virtue of that covenant made with abraham it was accompanied with a power and efficacy enabling unto obedience. the law ln itself as merely preceptive and commanding, administered no power and ability unto those that were under its authority, no more do the mere comm●nds of the gospel. under the o. testament, it enforced obedience from the severity of its san●tion. d. o. of just. p. 4 13, 144. neither would it have been essential to adam's perfection if he had stood, nor will it be to glorified saints. to conclude the law of god is perpetual, and its an eternal truth, do and live, as that the soul that sins shall die, not one jot or tittle of the law shall pass away till all be accomplished, heaven and earth shall pass away first, matt. 5.18. not that it is vacated when fulfilled, but established: and our saviour tells us, that he that will break one of the least of these commandments, and teach men so, shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven; what must they then be called, who tell us, god hath vacated this holy, righteous and good law, and brought in another in the room of it that dispenseth with little sins, and makes them not of a damning nature. ii. concerning the gospel: what gospel is. 1. the english word gospel comes from good, god, or ghost, and spell, which signifies a word or saying, so that gospel is as much as a good word, a comfortable word or saying of god, the word comes of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 been, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nuntius, & est laetum vel foelix nuntium. or the spirit, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the proper signification of it is a good message, or joyful news; and so it's used by aristophanes and appian, and in that sense 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used mat. 11.5. rom. 10.15. luc. 2.10, 11. the lxxii. use it expressly for good tidings, 2 sam. 4.10. and so isa. 52.7. the gospel that we are to believe as the glad tidings of the kingdom of heaven, mar. 1.15. luk. 2.10. the publication of christ's doctrine, 1 cor. 4.15. rom. 1.1. the gospel of ages or eternal gospel, rev. 14.6. i know no place that it is used otherwise than for acceptable news, and glad tidings, and no where in the sense of a law or law-covenant; and it can be no otherwise, because to whom are these glad tidings brought, but to poor sinners, that are fallen under the law, become guilty before god, utterly hopeless and helpless in themselves? and by the said law, or any law that requires the least degree of holiness as a federal condition of life and salvation. christ himself luke 4.18. from isa. 61.1. tells us who he came to preach gospel good tidings to, it was to the poor, , captives, blind, imprisoned. the hebrew word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is of the same signification, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 chald. and syr. see isa. 40.9. 2. now than the gospel is the manifestation of the grace of the covenant, the good news and glad tidings of life and salvation, promised in the covenant of grace to transgressor's of the law, that lie under the curse of it, and was promulgated immediately after the fall (before the sentence was passed) by way of promise, without the least mention of a new law or law conditions to be performed by man to invest him in the said promise: the promise was to christ and of christ, that he should destroy the work of the devil, and spoil principalities and powers, and give life to to the world, that the devil by his subtlety and malice had plotted to destroy; and as he thought had effected the total ruin and destruction of. the like promise was to abraham 430 years before the law. the manner of this salvation was soon exemplified in sacrifices, in adam's family, as types of christ the great sacrifice for sin; they were continued in the families of the faithful both before and after the flood, and in abraham's and the patriarches till the church of israel was erected and organised in the wilderness, when the whole ceremonial service was established, the oeconomy whereof was but an entire type of christ and the gospel in the tabernacle and temple, state of the church; so that the whole service was no more than their gospel, wherein christ was daily preached to them: which gospel of theirs laboured under much faultiness, comparatively to what it was afterward at the appearance, and by the ministry of christ and his apostles, 2 tim. 1.9, 10. compared with eph. 3.5, 6. 1. this gospel brings life and immortality to light by the promise, which was not so clearly discovered before christ's incarnation and ministry, eph. 3.5. he appears to be the great sacrifice so long fore-typified, as likewise the great priest that was to come, after the order of melchisedeck, and the great prophet moses prophesied of: to him gave all the prophets witness, and john the baptist pointed him out, as the lamb of god that took away the sins of the world; and that he had received the spirit without measure. the history of christ's life, doctrine, death and exaltation are eminent proofs of these glad tidings, from whence the four evangelists are rightly named. the witness and ministry of the apostles contain likewise the same, whereby there is the giving the knowledge of salvation, luke 1.77. and that through this knowledge we should have all things pertaining to life and godliness, 2 pet. 1.3. 2. the promise of the gospel to us, contains all good news, being free and absolute to sinners (such 2 tim. 1.15. 1 joh. 5.11. ch. 2.25.) of christ and of eternal life and salvation in him. 2. promises of the first grace freely and graciously bestowed on us as of faith, eph. 2.8. the spirit, luke 11.12, 13. the new creation, eph. 2.10. and free justification, ezek. 36.25. the new heart, 26. a promise to make us to walk in his ways, and that we shall be his people, ibid. a promise to be taught of god, joh. 6.45. isa. 54.13. yea the bringing us into a true gospel obedience to the law, jer. 31.33. the making christ our wisdom, righteousness and sanctification, 1 cor. whereby obedience to god's law is graciously given us, psal. 119.29. the promise of perseverance, that we shall not departed from god, jer. 32.40. 3. the promises made to christ, and of christ, wherein our absolute salvation is wrapped up, so as to be a covenant, isa. 42.6. c. 49.6. c. 53.11, 12. promises to him of the throne and dominion of david, in a spiritual sense, such as concern his priestly and prophetical offices, as heb. 7. ps. 10. to instance in all would be long. 4. all the names of christ, as messiah, jesus, emanuel; the account of his natures, of his offices, of his office in general, mediator, redeemer, saviour; of christ in particular, of his prophetic, priestly, kingly offices; his exercise of them, and his excellent spirit which he shown therein, full of meekness, compassion, wisdom and zeal. all this is gospel, and good news to sinners. 5. the gracious free invitations that are made to sinners, as isa. 55.1. mat. 11. lat. 2 cor. 5.1. with promises for encouragement. here's high and rich gospel. 6. the promise of principle and strength to perform every duty required; of his spirit, to work in us to will and do; of god's love shed abroad in our hearts to constrain us, of life itself; and that he will be the resurrection and life; of love, springing from the love of god; of making us good trees, that we may bring forth good fruit, is all wonderful gospel. 7. all the discoveries christ hath made of his father; his eternal election, his transacting with him in a covenant-way, showing us the mystery of the father, revealing him, by his glorious designs to glorify his justice and mercy in such a way of salvation; his designs to magnify his law, and make it honourable; to exalt his son jesus to be a prince and saviour, and give remission of sins; to exalt his free grace in this salvation by a free justification, adoption, sanctification, and glory; and in doing this, justice should lose nothing of its due, is all great and glorious gospels. 8. that in all these great and precious things, there is such a connexion together that one encourageth and leadeth to another, promise leads to duty, and duty to the receiving of promises, grace leads to glory, and that perseverance is as infallibly settled in electing grace, and as absolutely as the first grace. this is admirable gospel. 9 the great and clear discoveries that are made of the evil of sin, of the dangers sin leads to, and sinners are in and running into, by continuing in sin, and laying open the strict nature of the law, that it dispenseth not with the least sin, it requires still perfect righteousness and holiness, and sentenceth the sinner to eternal death and damnation for it; and therefore it's impossible, that any flesh living, by ordinary descent from adam, can be justified by the works of the law; it's a gracious and necessary piece of gospel to take off a poor sinner from the love of sin and fondness of his own righteousness, which every sinner by nature is apt unto, and to set up the lord jesus as the only name whereby he can be saved, and to show, that he is able and willing to save to the uttermost, whereby a sinner becomes dead to the law, and married by faith unto jesus christ. this is in the glorious gospel of god and our saviour: it is the light of it that shines into the heart doth this. 10. it is good news and glad tidings, that the grace of god in the gospel doth not make void the law, but establisheth it, rom. 3.31. neither is the law against the promise, gal. 3.21. tho' that he that is under a law for justification, is under a curse, and that by the oeconomy of the grace of christ in the new covenant, the law and gospel do sweetly harmonise: 1. in that the law hath been fulfilled in christ as to all righteousness, it hath a full sanction as to every believer in the active and passive obedience of christ; their delivery from the curse of it being by this, that he was made a curse for them; all their sins are condemned in his flesh, he bearing them on the cross; the law hath its end as to all righteousness and complete perfect holiness in christ; believers are all complete and perfect in christ as to the law. 2. it's good news, that christ's death was not only the satisfying of the law and justice of god on the account of our sins, and, together with his active obedience, the merit of grace and glory; but that this same death of christ was the sanction and ratification of all the grace of the new covenant, as a testament, being by the death of the testator, and as a law to christ, which he lay under by his father's injunction to perform. and this is the sanction spoken of h●b. 8.6. and more fully explained, c. 9.15 16, 17. compared with c. 10.7. 3. it's good news to a believer, that god hath provided a way for him to come into an acceptable obedience through jesus christ, to the law of god, lex attemperata foederi gratiae & juxta illud inscripta cordi electorum jubet ea omnia quae in evangelio proponuntur, fide non ficta amplecti & convenienter isti gratiae & gloriae vitam suam insti tuere. quando ergo deus in foedere gratiae promittit p●ccatori electo fidem rescipiscientiam & consequenter vitam aeternam, tum lex cujus obligatio nunquam potest solvi quaeque ad omne officium sese extendit obstringit hominem ut illi veritati assentiatur, promissa illa bona magnifaciat, impense desideret, quaerat, amplectatur. wits. de foed. p. 198. because the grace of the gospel causeth him to love the law and the commands of christ in the gospel-way of performance. he saith, oh how do i love thy law; oh that my ways were directed to keep thy statutes; and he desires, that now god would grant him his law graciously: see psal. 119. for the grace of god in the gospel writes the law in his heart in a true love to god with all his heart, and a love to the law of god, to the holiness, justice and goodness of it, and his great desire is now, that in christ jesus, and conformity to him, god's law may be honoured, and therefore he looks upon the very performance of holy duties accordingly, as his benefit and privilege by the grace of the gospel▪ christ is sanctification to him, he is created in christ jesus to good works, he is redeemed from all iniquity, tit. 2.12, 13. and taught by the grace of god to deny all ungodly and worldly lusts, etc. from love and thankfulness to christ to keep his commandments; and this new gospel restored principle of obedience is the new commandment spoken of joh. 13.34. 1 joh. 2.7, 8. 2 joh. 5. not that it was materially a new command. 4. lastly, it is great and good tidings, that jesus christ is set on the holy hill of zion; that he is king, head and governor to his church; and that he hath provided particular right laws, rules and precepts for them to walk by, according to the original design, purity and intention of god's law; and that now the law of god goes no longer out of mount sinai, but out of mount zion, and the word of the lord from the heavenly jerusalem, isa. 2.2, 3. mic. 4.1. heb. 12.18, 22, 23. and it's gospel, that all power is not only given to christ in his church as king thereof, but all power in heaven and earth is committed to him, as to governing providence, and that he shall judge the world at the last day. these things are all the good tidings of the gospel, ratified in the covenant of grace, graciously, freely and fully bestowed on us in the gospel, and upon no federal condition of our own performance, either before or after conversion. arguments that the gospel is not a new law with sanction. arg. 1. if law and gospel are specifically distinct, than the gospel is not a law, nor the law a gospel, but law and gospel are specifically distinct, therefore the gospel is not a law. the consequence of the major is undeniable to any one that understands the nature of genus and species. the revealed offers of salvation were never but by two ways to man, by works and by grace, that is called law, this gospel, and they are contra distinct, sub proximo genere, and adversa, as much as homo & brutum sub animali; and the law can no more be called gospel, or the gospel a law, than a man may be called a brute, or a brute a man. 1. law and gospel-grace are opposed expressly by the spirit, joh. 1.17. the law was given by moses, but grace and truth came by jesus christ. here is not a law and a law opposed, evangelium non esse legem, sed ab ea plurimum distinctum tum ipsa arguit appellatio quam ponderat, theophyl. in praef. matth. & euseb. l. 1. in praeparatione evang. c. 1. tum manifesta antithesis quae est, joh. 1.17. rom. 10.5, 6. tum utriusque discrimen situm in patefactionis ordine natura, promulgatione, ministerio in forma seu differentia promissionum in effectis, adjunctis efficacia, officio utriusque in applicatione ad objecta: tum constitutus ecclesiae purioris consensus quae semper evangelium a lege discrevit quemadmodum, cyril. alex. but a law and grace essentially differing; for an old law and a new do not differ essentially, but secundum adjuncta only, in the like manner and for the same end; christ and moses are opposed, christ as a son, to moses as a servant, one being a minister of the law, the other of the free grace of the gospel, heb. 3.5, 6. as mediators, one of a legal administration, that vailed the grace of the gospel; christ such a mediator of the new testament, who brought life and immortality to light through the gospel, 2 tim. 1.10 upon the account of this specific difference of law and gospel, it is that mount sinai and mount zion, or jerusalem that is above, the heavenly are opposed to the earthly in that spiritual allegory of hagar and sarah, applied gal. 4.24, 25. which opposition between these mounts is fully and admirably managed by the apostle, heb. 12.18, 22. to this let me add the specific difference that is made between those that are under one and under the other, rom. 6.14. there are some under the law, and some under grace; he saith not some under an old law, some under a new; but what's the condition of them under the law? sin reigns unto death; but as to those under grace, grace reigneth through righteousness [i. e. of christ, not of works of our obedience to any law] unto eternal life. lastly, the opposition made between the works of the law and the grace of the gospel, is in the point of justification; the works of the law, or any law, are peremptorily rejected by the apostle in the point of justification; so that if grace justified in a way of works, grace and works here could not be opposed: see those two famous places that peremptorily reject all works of what kind soever, of what law soever, from justification, rom. 3.20. gal. 2.16. where it's said by the works of a law, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. no flesh living shall be justified: it is reasonable to think, that if the apostle had intended we should be justified by any law, alexand. in c. 40. isa. hieron. l. 1. contra pelagianos & plurimorum ubi opus adduci possunt testimonia. christop. pelargi jesuitismu, p. 71. impres. an. d. 16●8. that he would not have told us by what law-works? would he have spoken so universally of all law-works? are not all good works, towards god and man, commanded in the law? but are some works of one law and some of another? this remark of mine, obout leaving out the prepositive article, showing that the words of all laws are indefinitely here meant, you would blow away as a cobweb: your words are, upon such cobwebs, in the face of the plain scope of the bible, doth this cause stand. cobwebs are fit enough to catch flies in; but i never fear an adversary that spits at arguments instead of answering them. where's the argument, you say, because in a few places the article ὼ is not put in? [you should have said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.] therefore the apostle excludes every sort, when he plainly excludes only one sort, as appears by the whole context; nay, when at the same time another species under that general, rom. 3.27. r. therefore ver. 20. we have the general of all laws, there's no justification by the works of a law; and know you not that which is denied to the genus as such, is denied to the species; and tho' he mentions a law of faith, v. 27. in the sense or senses which have been above mentioned, yet it is manifest that he absolutely denies justification to faith as a law-work; for else, why had he not excepted faith as a law-work, when he excludes all works? and when he showeth all works are excluded, he saith, where is boasting then? saith he, it is excluded by the nature and power of true faith, which will always lay the creature low, and exclude all matter of boasting that may be in us; he saith not, we are justified by faith as a work of the new law; but saith, that faith stands up against all such works, and law-justification; and this is witnessed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, by the law and the prophets, i. e. by the mosaical ministry, as well as the prophets, were the prepositive points at law, in a peculiar sense; but what is it that's witnessed? it's that the righteousness of god is manifested, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, without a law, any law for justification by gospel grace. you mistake if you apprehend we make this our great argument, to prove that the gospel in its nature is not a law with sanction; it is the plain scope and design of the apostle, in all those places where he disputes against justification by works, that we argue from, and make use of this observation, as a corroborating argument, that his plain intent is to exclude, not only the works of the moral law, but the works of any law; for the apostle deals with the galatians, which hankered after circumcision, and under pretence of observation of some of the mosaical ceremonies, would have introduced the works of the law to share in the matter of their righteousness: and, therefore, by using law in the largest and most comprehensive sense, he casts out all-law works as conditions of justification; and this is the sense mr. beza hath of the apostle's scope on rom. 3.20. st. paul having proved the world to be guilty before god, and liable to his wrath, he concludes that which he undertakes to prove, viz. that no man could be justified by the works of any law; for having disproved one part of the disjunct proposition, he establisheth the other, viz. seeing we are not justified by a law; therefore, only by faith in christ alone, christ apprehended by faith, as the gospel teacheth that we are both justified and saved; therefore, that the gospel is the power of god unto salvation to every believer; which was the state of the question, as laid down in the beginning of the epistle. he tells us what doth further show or demonstrate these things duly considered; that in this verse, by the nameing the law without an article, all doctrine is understood, whether written or not▪ which doth command or forbid any thing, as the series of his arguments, and th●t effect which he ascribes to the law, in discovering sin doth prove; you may see much more in him to this purpose: the works of the law are called the doing of those things, haec autem diligenter considerata manifesta indicant in hoc ver siculo, appellatione legis sine articulo, intelligi omnem doctrinam scriptam aut non scriptam, quae aliquid aut jubeat aut interdicat, etc. which the law commands, as they are done by us, or not done by us, not as simply commanded by the law. now i suppose you will not call this learned man's arguing here a cobweb. it were easy to show upon what probable reasons the prepositive is added or omitted, in other places of the epistles where law is mentioned, which to avoid prolixity i must now omit. it's enough at present that it is left out in these eminent places, where justification by any works of any law, is utterly denied and condemned. it's frivolously objected by you, that the omission of the article here, argues not; because the socinians would improve the leaving out of ὸ, joh. 1.1. against the deity of christ; and say the word was a god, not the god; a god by office, (as one preached at p. h.) whereas it's in that text an argument against them, and there is doubtless a great force in it; for as mr. b. saith by the first words, the word was in the beginning, the eternal essence of the son is asserted. 2. by the next, the word was with god, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (where the article is expressed, and the person of the son is distinguished from the person of the father, god without separation. and in the third enunciation, he affirms, that the word was, (i. e. ver. 1. et essentialiter deus) patri, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, essentially god, the same in essence with the father; and if the article had been added, and it had been 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, it had affirmed the son to be the same person with the father. it's no small matter, therefore, in the declaring this divine mystery, that the article is first added, and then afterwards omitted, to show christ is god, tho' not god the father. see what an argument yours is, because the socinians will make a false inference from the leaving out ὸ, joh. 1.1. therefore it must be socianism to argue from rom. 3.20. because the prepositive is left out, and law used indefinitely, that all laws are understood, and justification by all law-works are excluded. and whereas, you say, the text speaks directly of the law of moses; if you mean thereby the moral law, it was essentially the same with the law of innocency; and the denial of justification by one, is also a denial of justification by the other; and so by all doctrines, requiring duty, as mr. beza saith. what you say of gal. 3.11. militates against yourself, whereas you say, was every law given 430 years after abraham? is not the apostle express, in the 3 first chapters, that that law was the jewish law? [do you not mean moral and ceremonial, and judicial? for of these parts were the jewish law] or at most the law of nature together with it. r. were not these all laws of duty that god made, and all comprehended in the law of nature, requiring universal obedience to god in all things, that he should ever command? but observe that justification by christ, which is the same always in the apostle's sense as justification by faith, is opposed to justification by the law of moses, which was the way the jews looked after, partly by sacrifice, partly by their obedience to that law in the preceptive part; and thus they followed after that law of righteousness, rom. 9.31. and attained it not, because they sought it not by faith, sed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quasi operibus legis, as it were by the works of the law, v. 32. mr. beza, refuting erasmus on that place, saith, erasmus wrongs the jews, in that he thinks that they looked upon the salvation they had, to have been by works only, the grace of god excluded; for the contrary to this assertion appears by the prayer of the pharisee, that the jews had no other opinion of merits and grace, than now our sophists have, which conjoin with grace, and faith with works. and indeed this was the stumbling-block. i might go through paul's epistles to evince this, that all sorts of works are opposed to grace in justification, quasi e regione perpetuo adversantur. and this is the point he deals so roundly with the galatians about, viz. their judaizing, in joining works with faith in justification; not so much the ceremony of circumcision, which at another time he admitted of, but because of the reason why now the galatians thought circumcision so necessary, viz. as a work of the law; therefore he testified, that if they were circumcised, christ would profit them nothing; and thereby they were obliged to keep the whole law for justification; because obeying it in one point would not serve, they could not be justified partly by christ, and partly by some partial obedience to the law; and there was as much reason to plead for a mosaical imperfect obedience, to join with the sacrifices in justification, before christ, as there is now for an evangelical imperfect obedience to conjoin with christ's righteousness now, and more. lastly, grace and free-gifts is by all men opposed to all conditional claim, upon performance of a duty required by any law; and the apostle always makes this debt, rom. 4.4. let the conditional part be never so small, it's a debt ex pacto. hence the apostle placeth both eternal life and the righteousness by which we are justified, all in free gift to us, rom. 5.15, 16, 22. yea he directly opposeth the gospel gift of eternal life (which comprehends grace and glory) to any law with sanction, v. last, i. e. any law that pays death as the wages of sin; the wages of sin is death, but the gift of god is eternal ●ife through jesus christ, etc. now if your new law makes death the wages of any sin, than the gospel gift of eternal life is opposed to it. you say, p. 25." the benefits are not given us for our faith, but upon believing. r. for and upon, in a covenant sense, are the the same; to convey an estate upon the payment of 5 shillings is a bargain, and good ex pacto, tho' the estate be worth hundreds. you say, if a man says, i will give you a thousand pound, provided you will come and fetch it; is it not free gift? i suppose it's reckoned so by him that is able and willing to fetch it. but the case may be so, that if some men offer me a thousand pound, i will not fetch it to have it, and then i may not be able. one may offer a thousand pound to a man that lies with broken arms and legs in the bottom of a deep well, provided he will come and fetch it, especially when he knows no body can set his limbs and help him out. and how oft do you say the first grace is ablolute? and to say the same thing is absolute in the power of another, and make it a condition by law with sanction unto me, is the greatest absurdity in the world. and i tell you, that if a rich man offers a hundred pound to a poor man, lame and blind, and in prison, and the king makes a law he should come and fetch it, or else be hanged, it would cease to be a free-gift. arg. 2. that which is a law with sanction curseth every one under that law, with an irretrievable curse upon the first transgression of the said law; but the gospel doth not bind any one under a curse irretrievable, by the gospel, upon the first sin, or many sins committed against the grace of it; therefore the gospel is not a law with sanction. the major is very manifest, that there's no law pardons a transgression of itself: it is a universal maxim concerning not only the law of creation, but of all laws, gal. 3.10. ●rom deut. 27.26. the apostle saith, he that is under law is under a curse, provided he doth no● all things that are written in the book of the said law that he is under: therefore first he saith, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. in the second place, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. suppose you speak of your new law, the condition whereof you make faith and sincere obedience; lowered conditions and imperfect obedience: and these are the all things contained in the book of this law; then immediately upon the publishing and promulgation thereof all unbelievers are irretrievably condemned by that law. the wages due by that law to every unbeliever, upon his first unbelief▪ is death: and the said law cannot relieve him, because he hath not done whatever was writ in the book of this law; its true one law may relieve us in respect of another, in some sense at least as to the curse of it, but no law relieves from its own curse, therefore if the new law curseth unbelief, it curseth the unbeliev● irr●treivably, upon the first act of sin in that kind. the minor is plain, because the gospel do 〈◊〉 reliev● from th● curse that lies upon men for unbelief (being in its proper natu ●a transgression of, and disobedience to the first law) there's no sin or curse but th' gospel gives ●●e●●f, though aggravated by the rejection of a remedy; all laws with sanction, give the due recompense (constituted by that law) to the transgressor of it in ●ny one point, therefore sin is always, in respect of that law against which it is, unpardonable, for therein the nature of that sin is adjusted, and the punishment that is made due to it. hence therefore if the gospel be a law with sanction, every one that appears upon trial to have transgressed it after its promulgation, less or more is under the curse of it, and that person which any law hath once cursed, it can never bless; therefore this position puts thousands under a most certain, hopeless and helpless condition by the gospel. arg. 3. that which is a law with sanction, if it contain a promise of benefits upon obedience, is a covenant of works; for up●n the same grounds that the punishment is the wages due in case of disobedience: upon the same is the benefit due, in case of obedience; the same law make● one a debt as well as the other, for whatever is of law is of debt, either upon the account of sin or of righteousness; the law was the same upon both accounts to adam, life had been a reward, and wages due as well as death: therefore the apostle argues so strenuously against all kind of works, rom. 4.4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to him that worketh there's a reward; not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, not of grace bu● of debt; and he excepteth not him that worketh according to the new, but to him that worketh, whether according to the old or new law; the reward to him that worketh by any law, is debt by the said law. arg. 4. if the gospel be a law, it's either the same law with t●e law of nature, or a distinct law from it: but it's neither the same law nor a distinct law from it, therefore no law with sanction. the necessity of the consequence in the disjunction cannot be doubted by any man of reason. the minor is thus demonstrated. 1. it's not the same law with the law of nature; this you will not say, because you call it a new law: and if it be the same law, than you have no pretence to evade all the consequences that will be drawn upon you from the doctrine and arguments of the apostle paul; therefore i doubt not but i am secure of you as to this part of the dilemma. therefore i come to the second, that which must be essentially the same law with the old law, is not a distinct law from it, but your new law must be essentially the same with the old law, therefore is not distinct from it. your new law can have no essentials distinct from t●e old law, for if it have the same essentials its the same, the same matter and form, and the same integral parts wherein they consist. the parts of a law are condition and promise, in case of obedience, and threat in case of disobedience, the connexion of these makes the form; all this you'll allow. hence there's the same law-nature in one as in the other, and therefore it's a law in the same way and manner, and a man under it must be dealt with in a law way and manner: obedience to god was commanded there, and so here; disobedience to god forbidden there, and so here; life promised there upon obedience, and death threatened there upon disobedience, and so here: and what obedience is there which is not commanded in the old law? and what disobedience that is not forbidden there? but you will say the old law commanded perfect obedience, and the new imperfect. a. the new law would not certainly command what the old law forbade; but the old law forbade all imperfection in obedience, and cursed it. 2. whatever the degree of obedience is that any law requires, its perfect, in regard of that law that requires it. 3. it should be strange if god should make that which is imperfect, sinful, condemned obedience by one law, to be perfect obedience, and justifying by a new, and so set law against law. lastly, as to the promise, it's the same, for it was everlasting life, both in the old covenant and the new; the manner of having it by works or by grace, altars not the nature of the thing itself. a house in itself is the same whether i purchase it or it be given. from all which i conclude, this pretended new law is no other than the old law furbished up again, that in itself it must be essentially to-name, the works and justification by them, that if there be some little difference i●●odalities it makes no essential change, than is in a man that wears one coloured suit of one day, and another on another day. i argue, that covenant that bestows the grace of the promise without a previous condition, is not a new law; but the covenant of grace bestows the grace of it without previous conditions performed by us. therefore it bestows eternal life unconditionally; ergo, for it bestows the first grace (according to yours) unconditionally, which is eternal life, joh. 17.3. arg. 5. if there be no need of a new law, god is so wise he will not make a new law, if there be no need of it or use for it, than the gospel is no new law: but there's no need or use of a new law. minor, there's no need or use for it, neither in respect of law or gospel dispensation of justice or of grace. 1. there is no need or use in respect of law or justice, because the old law is a sufficient rule for distributive and commutative justice, it condemns every transgression and disobedience eternally, it hath provided curse and condemnation enough for the greatest and most aggravated sin, for unbelief in the least and highest degree; and so for impenitency: all the world is guilty by this law, god rules the world by it, and will judge it by it, there's not the least or greatest duty but is here commanded, which is or shall be the will of god, not only in way of moral duty, but in all matters of instituted worship under the old and new testament. lastly, in respect of justification and reward, if god had intended to have given life as a reward of the works of any law, he could as easily have done it by the old law, and sure would never have made a new one to have done it by. 2. there is no need of a new law in regard of the dispensation of the grace of the gospel: because what the gospel doth its in way of delivery of man from the curse of the law that they lie already under; and here there is no need of law, because it's done all in a way of free grace, pardon of a condemned prisoner must come merely from the good will of the prince, its inconsistent with his prerogative to be bound to it by a law; therefore god reserves this prerogative, he will have mercy on whom he will have mercy. and its needless in respect of the condemned p●rson, because there's need of nothing but a free off●r of grace and mercy to a condemned prisoner, if he refuses it its at his own peril, it's his choosing; but to remain in statu quo, under the law, that he was condemned by, and to be executed according to it. you'll say, there's need of a new law in respect of new obedience. a. i say no; for god's law is still perfect in respect of the rule of obedience. 2. the gospel requires no other obedience materially than what the law required. 3. the gospel makes provision in the dispensation of free grace for all obedience the law requires, for the perfection of it in christ, for our conformity to it through its promise, teaching and new creating, and writing that law anew in our hearts which the fall had blotted out. well, to conclude this argument, the apostle expressly saith, rom. 3.21. now without law, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the righteousness of god is made manifest, being witnessed by the law and the prophets, i. e. by the whole old testament, as the jews were wont to divide it; and therefore saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. for distinction from law, in the sense that he took it in, when he saith, without law: new obedience is obedience to the law, from a new life, p●inciples, strength, and for new ends. arg. 6. that which is inconsistent with the grace of god in the gospel, is not to be admitted; but that the gospel should be a law with sanction, is inconsistent with the grace of god in the gospel. ergo, the minor is easily made manifest, 1. from the nature of a law, that's to enforce's obedience; where a thing is freely given, it's expected it should be freely received and not enforced. 2. it's inconsistent with showing mercy to poor, lame, blind cripples, to offer them relief upon unperformable conditions. yea, it's also an abuse of justice to make a law, that lame men should walk before their limbs be restored: i pray did christ heal the diseased, restore the lunatics, raise the dead, cast out devils, by a law? 3. if it be consistent with the grace of the gospel to act by a law in saving sinners, it must be before regeneration or after; not before, for than they will come under no law, they are out in rebellion against all law, nay they are already in the custody of the law, and therefore not capable of coming under the terms of another. 2. their salvation must lie in delivery of them from the custody and curse of that they are under; which cannot be by making terms with them, but with the law offended that detains them; therefore it must be mere grace without a law, that must open the prison doors to them. 3. you say the first grace is absolutely and freely given, therefore the sinner can come under no terms of law in order to the bringing him into a state of grace, for terms of a law laid upon any supposeth a power and ability in them to perform the said terms, if they will, and that they can both will and do if they will. it is not a new law after regeneracy, for then grace begun would cease to be free grace afterward: christ is not only the author, but the finisher of our faith and obedience, our perseverance and standing in grace would not be so secure as its beginning, the grace of the covenant would not be homogeneous, one part would be free and absolute, the o●her conditional and upon terms; but the operation of the spirit and promises of after-grace, they are all of the same nature from first to last, as god gins so he perfects and completes the new man; he works all our works in us, all-a-long, in the same way and manner as they are begun. arg. 7. if the gospel be a new law, it was made as soon as the old law was broken: and, as new as it is, it must be that law by which the patriarches antidiluvian and postdiluvians were saved. this consequence, i suppose, cannot be denied, because we are saved even as they, and the gospel was preached unto them. but there was no such new law from adam to paul's time: 1. the gospel was not delivered to our first parents in the terms of a law, but absolutely so to abraham. the apostle is most express in it, that there was no law given to his time, that could be a gospel, i. e. that could give life to sinners, gal. 3.21. if there had a law been given which could have given life, verily righteousness had been by a law: and now i pray except not at my reading 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a law, indefinitely understanding any law, for our translators render it so; and i must tell you they should by the same reason have rendered 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the same manner, and then the text had been uniform in the translation as in the original, if there had been a law (any law) given, which could have given life, verily righteousness had been by a law: therefore your new law was not given before paul's time, but the gospel was, therefore the gospel is no law with sanction. luther on this place saith thus. though those words of paul be never so plain, yet the papists have this wicked gloss always ready, that he speaketh only of the ceremonial law: but paul speaketh plainly, and excepteth no law, whether moral or ceremonial, or any other: wherefore their gloss is not worth a rush. and contrariwise we affirm, that there is no law, whether man's law or god's law that giveth life; therefore we put as great a difference between the law and righteousness as between life and death, between heaven and hell; and the cause that moveth us so to affirm, is, that the apostle saith, the law is not given to justify, to give life and to save, but only to kill and to destroy, contrary to the opinion of all men naturally, etc. this difference of the offices of the law and the gospel keepeth all christian doctrine in its true and proper use. this witness of luther i can set against all the testimonies you bring from any whatever, who hold or have held the gospel a law with sanction, as you do; divers may speak of it under the term of a law of faith, or understanding by law the precepts of the gospel; but if they plead, that the true and proper nature of the gospel is a law with sanction, as you do, i do renounce their opinion, and do oppose them therein, as i do you, it being as such fundamentally destructive to the gospel, and the whole nature of the grace of it. and on gal. 4.4.— christ being made under the law, is not a lawgiver, or a judge after the law, but in that he made himself subject to the law, he delivered us from the curse thereof. now whereas christ under the gospel giveth commandments, and teacheth the law, or expoundeth it rather, this pertaineth not to the doctrine of justification, but of good works. moreover, it is not the proper office of christ (for which he came into the world) to teach the law, but accidental, as it was to heal the weak, etc.— wherefore the true proper office of christ is to wrestle with the law,— to conquer and abolish sin and death,— to deliver the faithful from the law and all evils— let us learn to put a difference between christ and a lawgiver,— that when the devil goes about to trouble us under his name, we may know him to be a very fiend.— christ is no moses, he is nothing else but infinite mercy, freely giving. on gal. 2.20. now as it is the greatest knowledge and cunning that christians have thus to define christ, so of all things it is hardest. i myself in this great light of the gospel, wherein i have been so long exercised, to hold the distinction of christ which paul giveth so deeply, hath the doctrine and pestilent opinion, that christ is a lawgiver, entered into my bones. you young men therefore are in a far happier condition, for you are not insected with those pernicious errors wherein i have been so muzzled and drowned from my youth, that at my hearing the name of christ, my heart hath trembled and quaked for fear, for i was persuaded, that he was a severe judge; wherefore it is to me a double trouble to correct and reform this evil: 1. to forget, condemn and resist this old-grounded error, that christ is a lawgiver and a judge. 2. to plant in my heart a new and true persuasion of christ, that he is a justifier and a saviour. ye that are young may learn with much less difficulty to know christ purely and sincerely, if you will. arg. 8. if the gospel be a new law, than we must have a double righteousness for our justification; but we have not a double righteousness for our justification, therefore the consequence is good, 1. from most of your concessions, that we have the righteousness of christ, and that which you call subordinate. [you should rather have said as dr. owen argues, that christ's righteousness is the subordinate, it being in ordine ad, in order to our justification by a new law.] mr. b. and others speak more distinctly and say, a legal and evangelical righteousness; but, in truth, it must be two legal righteousnesses: for, 2. there's no law but must have a peculiar distinct righteousness from that of any other law, whereby a man under it must be justified, and all the righteousness that serves for justification by another law, hath nothing to do in our justification by the said law; and therefore there must be two distinct righteousnesses and two distinct justifications, as there are two distinct laws. unless you say the old law is vacated, which is a contradiction; if you do but own, that christ is the end of that law for righteousness to every one that believed, and then it cannot be vacated, for a law vacated and a law in force is a contradiction, and a law fulfilled to every jot and tittle to every believer remains in force. therefore it remains, that we have two righteousnesses for justification, and both legal, because all law-righteousness is legal; christ's single righteousness is indeed legal in respect of the law, and evangelical in respect of sinners, it being to them the gift of righteousness; so with us the same thing differs only respectively. 3. there must be as distinct righteousness for justification, as there is unrighteousness for condemnation; but each law hath its distinct unrighteousness for condemnation. the minor is easily proved, that we have not two righteousnesses for justification, for if we have, 1. christ's righteousness is not enough for our justification unto life, contrary to the scripture. 2. all the popish doctrine will unavoidably come in at this gate, which is wide enough for it. 3. our own works, call them what you will, let them be faith and sincere obedience, imperfect holiness, etc. must come in for a share in our justification, contrary to tit. 3.4, 5. and an hundred places of scripture besides, nay, for the whole of our justification by the new law; for the righteousness that answers that, must be distinct from the righteousness that answers the old law; to enervate this doctrine, many have wrote to very good purpose, in particular that most worthy divine, mr. traughton in his lutherus redivivus, a book worth every christian's having. you say, p. 25. hath the gospel-covenant no sanction? what think you of heb. 8.6? r. you might have said heb. 9.15, 16. i said not, that the gospel-covenant hath no sanction: it hath a sanction, as a testament in the death of christ, in which the law is satisfied for us, and upon which the better, absolute and clear promises are founded; and herein was that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 placed, the establishment of the promises of life and salvation, on the sure conditions of christ's righteousness, and not of our performances. you say, what will become of dr. owen 's law of justification, p. 167. r. his law of justification is the law that christ came under, in doing and suffering, the fulfilling god's will for the justification of a sinner; this was the law that was in his heart; for the doctor's words are, not that he did as a king constitute the the law of justification, (as you say) for it was given and established in the first promise, and he came to put it in execution. you say, it's one thing to be justified for faith, and another to be justified by it. r. i say so too, if it be in the apostle's sense, by faith be in opposition to by works; but if you make faith a law-condition, than this by becomes for, and it signifies just as much as being justified by works. and thus mr. bulkly in your own quotation is against you, for he saith, if we make the commandment of believing to be legal, than the promise of life, upon the condition of believing, must be legal also. and so it must needs be upon your hypothesis, that the gospel is a law. you often say, the gospel-law is not a law of works, and that paul saith so, p. 26. what is so said either by the apostle or you, the gospel is denied thereby to be a law with sanction or law-covenant, for if there be no works as condition of it, there's nothing but promise; but where is your sincere, conditional, imperfect obedience, if there be no works? it's absurd to say the first grace is a condition required of us, because you grant it absolute. you tell us what dr. o. saith on ps. 130 p. 230. this is the inviolable law of the gospel; i. e. believing and forgiveness are inseparably conjoined, which hath nothing of your sense in it. concerning faith's being the condition of a law with sanction, he saith nothing; he means no more but that they are connexed by god's constitution. so there are many things connexed in the promise, as faith and forgiveness, faith and repentance, faith and love, justification and sanctification and glorification. i could quote you a hundred places out of dr. o. where he militates against this very principle of yours: see dr. o. of justify. p. 407. the apostle speaks not one word of the exclusion of the merit of works, only he excludes all works whatsoever.— some think they are injuriously dealt withal, when they are charged with maintaining merit— yet those that best understand themselves and the controversy, are not so averse to any kind of merits, knowing that it's inseparable from works.— those among us who plead for works in our justification, as they use many distinctions to explain their minds and free themselves from a co-incidence with that of the papists, they deny the name of merit in the sense of the church of rome, and so do the socinians. see more, p. 408, 409. where he shows all works before and after grace are excluded. what you quote out of my honoured father's book, i see nothing contradicts me, if rightly understood; had not your doctrine been contrary to his, (tho' i hope i should defend the truth, according to my light and conscience, tho' against my own father) i should never have given you the least opposition; but it's not human authority must turn the scales in these matters. you quote men's transient expressions that speak of a gospel-law and conditions in a sense that may be born with, when they approve themselves clear in all main points: others speaking in such a dialect in sermons and practical discourses; to show that such things as god hath conjoined, man is not to sever. as for the two great divines, besides d. o. i mean dr. goodwin and mr. clarkson, i know them to be expressly against your notion of the conditionality of the covenant, and by what you quote out of them, it appears to be so. see dr. goodwin's judgement about condition, whether faith be a condition, sermon xxii. p. 301. i would have this word laid aside, i see both parties speak faintly on't; perkins on the galatians, and another.— there is danger in the use of it, a condition may be pleaded. 2. in those expressions, if a man believeth he shall be saved, import, that he that doth so, shall be saved in the event, which the elect only are, to whom he giveth faith.— my beloved, the nature of faith is modest, it never maketh plea for itself; if it were a condition, a man might plead it before god; and the making it a condition, seems to me, to import as if there were an universal grace; and that it is the condition terminateh it to this man and not to that. what mr. clerkson saith, is nothing to your purpose; for he saith, the first blessings of the covenant are promised absolutely, and subsequent blessings, are in some sense conditional.— not that god makes a conditional bargain with us, but because divine wisdom hath made a connexion between these blessings that they shall never be separated, etc. lastly, i shall give an account of the beginning and progress of this neonomian error. this doctrine was first forged by the pharisees of old, who did not believe themselves justified by perfect obedience to the moral law, their owning the sacrifices and other types (their gospel) being a sufficient evidence that they acknowledged themselves great sinners, and far enough from perfect obedience; they only thought that obedience that they did perform, was through the merciful nature of god accepted to justification of life, and their sins expiated by sacrifices. for not only the scriptures give us full assurance of this to be truth, but it were easy to show what the opinion of the ancient and latter jews were, in this matter. 1. they placed their righteousness, not in perfect obedience, but in sincere. so paul, before his conversion, act. 26.5.9. chap. 23. 1. rom. 10.9. the jews went to establish their own righteousness and their imperfect obedience, as such, in conjunction with the atoning sacrifices for their justification. and r. menahem saith, scito vitam hominis in praeceptis; know that the life of man, in the precepts, is according to the intention that he hath in doing them; but they say, faith is the cause of blessedness, and, therefore, the cause of eternal life. thus the author of sepher ikkarim. and that faith justifies as righteousness itself; for, saith the same author, our father abraham was praised, by reason of his faith; for it's said, gen. 15. he believed god, and it was accounted to him for righteousness. and that this doctrine was that which paul contendeth with the judaizing christians about, and the false teachers among them, i doubt not in the least, and am very apt to believe, that it was these neonomians that laid that charge upon paul's doctrine; that it was a doctrine of licentiousness, and made so great a cry against it, for antinomianism; or as being destructive to the righteousness of the law and obedience thereunto. philip, a presbyter and hearer of hierom, on job 42. tells of a heretic, then living, that held this opinion, that the gospel was a law, christop. pelarg. the next i find it charged upon, is pelagius, as one of h s grand heresies. and from the pelagians, saith dr. leydecker, the papists have taken up this principle. the council of trent, anath. 20. cu●se all that say the gospel is a promise without condition of observing the commands. and anath. 21. they curse those that say, christ is given for a redeemer, and not a lawmaker. and anath. 26. they curse them that say, the just ought not to expect a reward for their works. peter a soto tells us, the catholic church doth hold, that christ gave a new law. the same saith s. de clara. it is generally h●ld by all the jesuits. bellarmin in his controu. de justif. contends, that the gospel, as such, is a law; and that it contains proper ●aws, with threats and promises, and requires obedience as the condition of life, and of the accomplishments of promises, which are so conditionated; and that merits cannot be otherwise defended, which the papacy holds. gregory de val●ntia tells us, they reject the usual distinction of law and gospel, viz. that the law promises are conditional, the gospel promises free and absolute. tom. 2. controu. disput. 7. q 6. le calls it a fiction. mr. fox, in act. & mon. impr. 7. p. 34. vol. 1. gives this following account of the papist's opinion in this point, they say, moses was a giver of the old law, christ of the new. thus, imagine they, the gospel to be nothing else but a new law, given by christ, binding to the promises the conditions of our do and deservings, no otherwise than to the old law; and so divide they the whole law into three parts, the law of nature, the law of moses, and the law of christ, to the fulfilling whereof they attribute justification. and thus they lead the consciences of men in doubt, and induce many errors, bringing the people into a false opinion of christ, as tho' he were not a remedy against the law, but came as another moses to give a new law to the world. dr. barns, who suffered martyrdom in henry viii.'s time, an. dom. 1541. vigorously opposed the popish bishops in this point; as appears by his excellent treatise of justification. in defending justification, by faith alone, according to the true meaning of the apostle paul, hath these passages. it were but lost labour for paul to prove that works did help to justification; for that the jews did grant, and required no more; but that which they stood upon, was, that works might not be clearly excluded. but here, peradventure, it will be said, that paul condemns the works of the old law, but not of the new law; are you now satisfied in your consciences? think you, that you have now assoiled paul's argument? think you to be thus discharged before god? go boldly to the judgement of god, with this evasion, and doubt not but than you shall find st. paul stiffly and strongly against you, and your new works, as ever he was against the jews and their old works. briefly, what works can you excogitate to do, which be not in the old law, and of the old law? therefore he speaks of all manner of works; for the law includeth all works that ever god instituted, the highest, best and most of perfection; what works, in the new law, have you better than those of the old law? & ●.— but grant that there be certain works of the new law which be not of the old; yet have you not, nor can prove that these shall justify; for there can be no more goodness in works, than were in the works of the old law, for they were to god's honour, and the profit of the neighbour, and yet you grant they cannot justify. st. paul disput●s against them that were christened, and had works of the old law and of the new; yet concludes, that christ alone justified. mark his argument; if righteousness cometh by the law, then is christ dead in vain, etc. where he proceeds to enervate this doctrine of neomianism. from the papists the socinians took up this doctrine, as dr. leidaker shows, styling them, our new pelagians. they do indeed (saith he) exclude ceremonial works, and works of the jews, who oppose the gospel, but when they may seem to differ from the roman catholics in the doctrine of merit, they answer; socin. saith, paul treats concerning perfect works of that law, and seeing none can be justified by them, the law requiring perfect obedience; therefore the apostle saith, we are justified by faith and obedience, so far as a man is able to perform them. that paul excludes works of the law not interrupted by sin (i. e. perfect persevering works) or merits, not those that are performed according to the mild law of the gospel: and he takes notice how dr. p. barrow, a divinity professor in england, was among the first of ours that deserted the true doctrine, and an assertor of this doctrine, that the gospel is a new law, showing that no man was ever justified by a perfect observance of the law, but by that observation which depends upon mercy, and includes pardon of sin the regenerate do perform that law; in his treatise de p●aestantia legis, c. 13. this dr. barrow, the arminians, when they began to spring up, highly applauded, saith dr. leidaker; his words are, similes habent labra lactucas; he says, they changed the very decalogue into a covenant of grace, confounding it with the gospel, asserting a covenant of works; saying, that notwithstanding the giving christ, god might have set up again a covenant of works, but he would not, because of the weakness of the flesh: therefore in the room of the rigid covenant of works he substituted a milder covenant, mixed with goodness and grace, in which faith with imperfect obedience to the law might be accepted for perfect righteousness unto life. these doctrines arminians began to vent, but episcopius taught them openly, whom curcellius also followed as his master, and more lately dr. limburgius; who asserts, that the scripture no where teacheth christ's righteousness is imputed to us; and saith, this error (so he calls the doctrine of the imputation of christ's righteousness) ariseth from a false opinion, that christ gave full satisfaction to vindicative justice for all the sins of the elect, and bore their punishment in their stead, and fulfilled the law for them: that the gospel contains no precepts, but in respect of the elect are mere promises, etc. which doctrine of limbergius are (saith the said learned author) tantum non sociniana: he showeth how this man excludes all works from justification, but only the works of the new law. he shows how the remonstrants, the dutch arminians took up with this doctrine; how it prevailed in france, which after the endeavours of meliterius and corducus, camero's triplex foedus, gave the greatest occasion to, which cocceius and his followers opposed: and lastly shows how it hath prevailed in england, in opposition to which the labours of dr. owen, in his treatise of justification, and of mr. troughton, in his lutherus redivivus, is highly commended by him. from all which it doth appear, that this is no new error, but an old ones ever since christ's and the apostles times, and hath been a leading principle to all doctrines, contrary to the free justification of a sinner by the righteousness of christ alone, apprehended by faith: and the foundation of the doctrine of , and the natural power and ability of fallen man, to do good works that are pleasing unto god, and in some way or other, in part or in whole, rewardable. he that will see a full account of this doctrine, from though positions of the jesuits, and a c●ear refutation thereof, and all their arguments they bring for it, even more than you do, let him read, the learned dr. christopher pelargus, loco xii. de evangelio, in his jesuitismus, printed ann. d●m. 1608. divers passages in your reply and its preface, wherein you lie open, i have omitted remarking upon: 1. for brevity sake. 2. such as concern others, i leave to them. 3. as to all material points, in difference, you'll see my mind elsewhere. i shall only note, how weak and absurd the reason is, you give, for your desiring the testimony of so many to your book, viz. because the people do often value names more than arguments. q. d. the people must be lead by an implicit faith, as in days past; populus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur. can protestants think this reason is for their honour and safety? but i spare you; and do assure you, my design hath not been for contention, in contending for what i have thought to be the truth; but my cordial desire is, that all may issue in the unity of the spirit of truth and peace, and what collateral expressions have fallen from my pen, from first to last, that are justly disrelished by you, or any other that feareth the lord, ascribe it to human frailty, which i am liable to; and usually may be seen in contests of this nature, how just soever they be. excuse my plainness of speech throughout, and allow something to every man's natural temper and disposition. sir, i am willing to be, notwithstanding all that hath passed, your faithful friend and brother in the lord, j. c. books printed for henry barnard, at the sign of the bible in the poultry. examen confectionis pacificae: or, a friendly examination of the pacifick paper; chief concerning the consistency of absolute election of particular persons with the universality of redemption, and the conditionality of the covenant of grace: wherein also the new scheme is clearly declared. by isaac chancy, m. a. the old man's legacy to his daughters: wherein the hidden mysteries of faith and experience are briefly discussed and laid down, in a plain and familiar dialogue; in six several conferences betwixt the author's two daughters, elizabeth and margaret. to which is added, some choice discoveries of the author's most excellent experiences; in two parts. written by n. t. deceased, when near ninety years of age, for the private use of his daughters aforesaid; and now made public, at the request of many, by an admirer of grace and truth. the banqueting-house, or, a feast of fat things: a divine poem, opening many sacred scripture mysteries, profitable for all who would attain to the saving knowledge of god and of jesus christ. written by benjamin keach, author of war with the devil. chirurgus marinus: or, the sea-chirurgion; being instructions to junior chirurgick practitioners, who design to serve at sea in this employ. in two general parts: the first part contains necessary directions, how the chirurgeon should furnish himself with medicines, instruments and necessaries fit for that office; together with a medicinal catalogue, and an exemplary invoice. the second part contains the surgeons practise at sea, both chirurgical and physical; which practical part serves as well at land as at sea. by john moyle, sen. the third and last part of neonomianism unmasked, in answer to mr. dan. vvilliams' first book: is now in the press, and in a few days will be published. a copy of a letter, written by john lilburne leut. colonel. to mr. william prinne esq (upon the coming out of his last book, entitled truth triumphing over falslhood, antiquity over novelty) in which he lays down five propositions, which he desires to discuss with the said mr. prinne. sir, you and i have both been sufferers, by the hands of the prelates, the comnon and open enemies of christ● kingdom; and the eyes of the people of god are therefore the more upon us, and are subject with less jealousy to receive those things that come from us for truth, not imitating the noble bereans, who daily searched the scripture, to see whether those things they heard, were according thereunto or no, acts 17.11. the law and the testimony of christ being the str●ight rule, by which we are to walk espeacially in matters of worship, and whosoever he be that practices and speaks not according to this rule, it is because there is no light of truth in him, esa. 8.20. i have seen some of your late writings, which a little diving into, i have found them full of bitter and unsavoury language against the poor saints of god, and the unspotted ways of jesus christ, and finding your confidence very great but your arguments very weak and unsound having received a talon from the lord, i conceived myself bound in conscience to employ it, and lay it out for my ma●ers best advantage) and i was determined some weeks since, to have writ you a few lines in a public way, and to have told you, you err not knowing the scriptures. math. 22.29. (but being that you, and the blacke-coate? in the synod) have not dealt fairly with your antagonists in stopping the press against us, while things are in debate, yea robbing us of our liberty (as we are subjects) in time of freedom, when the parliament is sitting, who are sufficiently able to punish that man (whatsoever he be) that shall abuse his pen. so that while we are with the hazard of our dearest lives, fight for the subjects liberty, we are brought into egyptian bonds in this and other particulars, by the blacke-coates, who i am afraid, will prove more cruel taskmasters than their dear fathers the bishops: who cowardly sit at home, in my apprehension, for no other end but to breed faction and division amongst the well affected to the parliament, promoting thereby their own interest, which is lazines, pride, covetousness and domination, endeavouring to lay lower than the dust a generation of men whom they falsely call sectaryes, that have in the uprightness of their hearts without syodianlike ends, ventured all they have in the world for the good of the parliament, and the commonwealth of england, and who may bid defiance to all their adversaries that brand them with unfaithfulness. so that by mean● of which, i have not been able that way yet, to accomplish my earnest desire: and truly it argues no manhood nor valour in you nor the blacke-coates, by force to throw us down and tie our hands, & then to fall upon us to beat and buffet us, for if you had not been men that had been afraid of your cause, you would have been willing to have fought and contended with us upon even ground and equal terms, namely that the press might be as open for us as for you, and as it was at the beginning of this parliament, which i conceive the parliament did of purpose, that so the freeborn english subjects might enjoy their liberty and privilege, which the bishops had learned of the spanish inquisition to rob them of, by looking it up under the key of an imrpimatur, in whose tyrannical steps the synod treads, so that you and they think you may rail at us own privilegio, and rank us amongst the worst and basest of men, as rooters up of parliaments and disturbers of states and common wealth's, and so think to carry it away without control, but it may be you will be mistaken, for though we cannot print so fast as you, we can speak and lay down as strong arguments for ourselves, as you can for yourselves, and therefore being desirous to try a fall with you, though one of your friends not long since told me, there was as great disproportion betwixt you and me, to write upon controverting the things of god, as there is betwixt a tall cedar and a little shrub: unto which i replied, go you, and tell the tall cedar, the little shrub will have about with him: and therefore, that i may be as good as my word, i send you these ensuing propositions, upon which i will dispute with you, hand to hand before any auditory in and about the city of london when and where you will choose, giving me four or five days warning before hand. first, that the ordinances, laws, rights and ceremonies of the church of the jews were types and figures, which were only to last and endure till the coming of christ, which he by his death did abolish, gen. 49.10. john 19.30. acts 15.24.29. & 21.21: 28. heb. 7.11: 12. & 10.1. and he himself with his institutions in the new testament are the antitypes of them, acts 3.22. heb. 1.8. & 6.20. & 7.17.18.19. & 8.1 2.6. & 9.11.12. secondly, that jesus christ being apppointed by god his father to be mediator, hath a kingdom given unto him, dan. 2.13.14. mat. 2.2 & 28.18. luke 1.32.33. heb. 1.8. which he hath erected, and set up in the world, amongst his saints, where visibly and spiritually he governeth, ruleth and dwelleth, psal. 2.6.22.27.28: and 46.4: and 48.1. etc. & 132.13: 14. esa. 6.9 7. & 33.23. and according to that trust the father hath reposed in him acts 3.22.23. he hath been faithful to every thing requred of him, heb. 3.25. compared with exod. 39.43. and unto this his visible kingdom by his last will and testament he hath bequeathed perfect and complete laws, which are unalterable and unchangeable, in all times, ages and places by any of the sons of men, acts 1.3. 2 thes. 2.15. 1 tim. 6.13.14.20. 2 tim 3.15.16.17. heb. 10.28.29. & 12▪ 25. thirdly, that the matter, form, laws, worship, ordinances and administrations of this kingdom are not carnal, nor of this world, but all and every one of them spiritual, john. 4.22.23. & 18.36. act. 1.15. & ●. 41.47. & 11.23.24. rom. 1.7. 1 cor. 1.2. & ch. 5: 2 cor. 2.6.7.8. fourthly, that no parliament, council, synod, emperor, king, nor magistrate hath any spiritual authority, or jurisdiction over this kingdom, or the subjects thereof, mat. 20.25.27. 1 cor. 4.5. ephes. 1.21.22 23. and 5.24.25. col. 4.17. 1 pet. 6.5.3. rev. 17.17. fiftly, that to persecute for conscience is not of nor from god, but of and from the devil, and antichrist, esa. 2.3.4. & 11.6: 7: 9 micah 4.2.3. luke 9.54.55, 2 cor. 10.4. 1 tim. 1.20. rev. 13.2.4.15 16.17. sir, in your last book that you put out, you spend a great deal of pains in citing old rusty authors, to prove that kings, counsels, synods and states have for so many hundred years meddled with matters of religion, i grant you they have; but i demand of you, by what right, or by what authority out of the word of god they have so done? hath god the father, or jesus christ his son given them any allowance in thi●? or have they not hereby rather fulfilled the prophecies of the scripture, which saith, (rev. 17.17.) that the kings of the earth shall give their power unto the beast, till the word of god be fulfilled, which they have done in assisting the pope, to join the ecclesiastical and civil state together, making the golden laws of christ, to depend upon the leaden laws of man; yea, upon such laws, as was just suitable to their tyrannical lusts, and which might the most advance their wicked ends and designs, and in the doing of this, they have set up a perfect antichrist against god's christ; yea, england is not free from this; for though king henry the right did shake of the pope's supremacy, yet by the advice of the clergy, the sworn enemies of jesus christ, he assumed the same, calling himself head in all causes ecclesiastical and civil, and so though he jusled out the pope, he set himself in the throne of christ, and his successors have done the same, for opposing of which, the saints that were burnt in queen mary's days have not only smarted, but also those that were hanged and murdered in prisons in queen elizabeth's days, and those that were banished and destroyed in king james his days, and myself and many others, that have suffured worse than death in king charles his days, and this is the great contrversi●, that god contends with the whole earth for, and for which god will make the greatest of princes and states to taste a cup of trembling, yea, and to drink the dregs of his fury and wrath; for he will give people and nations for his saints, esa. 43.3.4.14. and if england drink yet deeper of this cup, amongst other causes, they may thank mr. prinne for it who hath incited them to wage war with the king of saints, (and his redeemed one's) who will dash all the nations of the earth in pieces in being revenged of them, for that which they have done unto them already in this particular, rev. 18. ch. & 19.1.2. for sir, let me tell you, it is the incommunicable prerogative of jesus christ alone to be king of his saints, and lawgiver to his church and people, and to reign in the souls and consciences of his chosen ones, it being too high a throne for all the creatures in the world to reign in; and therefore, were your eyes but open, it would make you quake and tremble, to consider what you have done, in endeavouring to set the potentates of the earth together by the ears with christ (who is to rule all nations, rev. 12.5.) to pluck his crown from his head, his sceptre out of his hand, and his person out of his throne of state, that his father hath given him to reign gloriously in. oh sir! consider the time is not long, before jesus christ will come again in glory triumphantly, and say it out of his own mouth before the eyes of the sons of men, bring those mine enemies before me, that will not have me to rule over them, that i may slay them, luke 19.17. sir, if your positions be true, that there is no rule left in the world, how we may worship god, but that kings and states may set up what religion● they please, or may mould it to the manners of their people; 〈◊〉 queen mary did justifiably in burning the saints in her days that would not stoop and submit to that religion she and her parliament had set up: truly, had i not seen your name to your books, i should rather have judged them a papists or a jesuits than mr. prinnes, and without doubt the pope when he sees them will canonize you for a saint, for throwing down his enemy christ, who you say hath been less faithful than moses, and so had need of the pope, or some others to supply what he hath been deficient in; surely you have given away your ears, & suffered as a busy body in opposing the king and the prelates; without all doubt, all is not gold that glisters; for were you not a man, that had more than truth to look after, namely your own ends and particular interest, which i am afraid you strive more to set up then a public good, you should rather importuned the parliament, to have continued their favours and respects to that people, that cannot prostrate their consciences to man's devises though never so great and famous; (and who yet with their bodies and estates to the utmost of their power, yea and divers of them beyond their abilities) have done the parliament as sincere, upright, faithful and good service as either yourself or any generation of men in england whatsoever they be) then to enforce them to destroy them: but truly the son of god, and his saints (those beloved ●ewels of his) are but a little beholden to you, that will not suffer his ransomsed one's to enjoy the liberty of their conscience to serve their lord and king, that hath bought them with his own blood, [are you not in this as cruel a taskmaster as pharaoh] nor to have footing in the land of their nativity, though christ himself hath given them a true right to all things present in this world, and all things in that is to come, 1 cor. 2.21.22.23. and they themselves (many thousand of them) have endeavoured more than yourself to redeem their native country from bondage and slavery with their dearest blood: and therefore i say, the lord judge betwixt you and us in this particular. sir, it may be instead of satisfying my desire, you'll run and complain to the parliament; and press them upon their covenant to take vengeance upon me, if you do i weigh it not; for i bless god i am fitted to do, or suffer whatsoever the parliament shall impose upon me, but if you do, take these two along with you. first, that i am not against the parliaments setting up a s●te-government for such a church as they shall think fit, to make the generality of the land members of, for i for my part leave them to themselves, to do what they shall think good, so that they leave my conscience free to to the law and will of my lord and king. socondly, if you put them in mind of their covenant, tell them, i think they have sworn to root out all popery, and therefore have lately abolished the common prayer (that great idol) but yet have established tithes, etc. the very root and support of popery, which i humbly conceive, is a contradiction to their covenant, and which willbe a greater snaire than the common prayer to many of the precious consciences of god's people, wh●se duty is in my judgement, to die in a prison before they act or stoop unto so dishonourable a thing as this is to their lord and master, as to maintain the blacke-coates with tithes, whom they look upon as the professed enemies of their anointed christ, he that pays tithes, is bound to the whole law of tithes, in which there was a lamb to be brought for a sin-offering, which is abolished; also he that was to take tithes, was one that was to offer sacrifice daily for sin, which if any do so now it is to deny christ come in the flesh, and to be the alone sacrifice for sin by his death, and so overthrow all our comfort, joy and hope. so desiring to receive your answer to the things i propound to you, i rest london, this 7. jan. 1645. yours more than you are the truths john lilburne. finis. an answer to monseiur de la militiere his impertinent dedication of his imaginary triumph, to the king of great britain, to invite him to embrace the roman catholic religion. by john bramhall d. d. and lord bishop of derry. hague, printed in the year, 1653. an answer to monseiur de la militiere his epistle to the king of great britain, wherein he inviteth his majesty to forsake the church of england, and to embrace the roman catholic religion. sir, you might long have disputed your question of transubstantiation, with your learned adversary, and proclaimed your own triumph on a silver trumpet to the world, before any member of the church of england had interposed in this present exigence of our affairs. i know no necessity that christians must be like cocks, plut. that when one crows all the rest must crow for company. monseiur aubertine will not want a surviving friend, to teach you what it is to sound a triumph before you have gained the victory. he was no fool that desired no other epitaph on his tomb than this, here lies the author of this sentence, prurigo disputandi scabies ecclesiae, sir henry wotton. the itch of disputing is the scab of the church. having viewed all your strength with a single eye, i find not one of your arguments that comes home to transubstantiation, but only to a true real presence, which no genuine son of the church of england did ever deny, no nor your adversary himself. christ said, this is my body, what he said, we do steadfastly believe; he said not, after this or that manner, neque con, neque sub, neque trans; and therefore we place it among the opinions of the schools, not among the articles of our faith. the holy eucharist, which is the sacrament of peace and unity, rences in the church directly about the sacrament for the first 800. years. ought not to be made the matter of strife and contention. there wanted not abuses in the administration of this sacrament, in the most pure and primitive times, as profaneness and uncharitableness among the corinthians. 1 cor. 11. the simonians and menandrians, and some other such imps of satan, unworthy the name of christians, theod. ex ignatio. did wholly forbear the use of the eucharist, but it was not for any difference about the sacrament itself, but about the natural body of christ; they held that his flesh, and blood, and passion, were not true and real, but imaginary and fantastical things. the manichees did forbear the cup, but it was not for any difference about the sacrament itself; they made two gods, a good god whom they called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or light, and an evil god whom they termed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or darkness, which evil god (they said,) did make some creatures of the dreg, or more feculent parts of the matter, which were evil and impure; and among these evil creatures they esteemed wine, which they called the gall of the dragon: for this cause, not upon any other scruple, they either wholly abstained from the cup, leo. ser. 4. de quad. epiph. haer. 30. & 46. or used water in the place of wine, which epiphanius recordeth among the errors of the ebionites, aug. li. de haeres. c. 64 and tacians; and st. austin of the aquarians. still we do not find any clashing either in word or writing directly about this sacrament, in the universal church of christ, much less about the presence of christ in the sacrament. bel. l. 1. de sac. euch. c. 1. neque ullus veterum disputat contra hunc errorem primis sex centis annis. the first that are supposed by bellarmine to have broached any error in the church about the real presence were the iconomachi, after 700. years. primi qui veritatem corporis domini in eucharistia in quaestionem vecarunt fuerint iconomachi post annum domini 700. bel ibid. synon nic. 2 act 6. only because they called the bread and wine the image of christ's body. this is as great a mistake as the former. their difference was merely about images, not at all about the eucharist; so much vasques confesseth, disp. 179. c. 1. that in his ●udgement they are not to be numbered with those who deny the presence of christ in the eucharist. we may well find different observations in those days, yet different observations, as one church consecrating leavened bread, another unleavened; one church making use of pure wine, another of wine mixed with water; one church admitting infants to the communion, another not admitting them; but without controversies, or censures, or animosity one against another: we find no debates or disputes concerning the presence of christ's body in the sacrament, and much less concerning the manner of his presence, for the first eight hundred years. and different expressions. yet all the time we find as different expressions among those primitive fathers, as among our modern writers at this day, some calling the sacrament the sign of christ's body, the figure of his body, the symbol of his body, the mystery of his body, the exemplar type and representation of his body, saying that the elements do not recede from their first nature; others naming it the true body and blood of christ, changed not in shape but in nature, yea doubting not to say, that in this sacrament we see christ, we touch christ, we eat christ, that we fasten our teeth in his very flesh, and make our tongues red in his blood: yet notwithansting there were no questions, no quarrels, no contentions amongst them; there needed no councils to order them, no conferences to reconcile them, because they contented themselves to believe what christ had said, this is my body, without presuming upon their own heads, to determine the manner how it is his body, neither weighing all their own words so exactly before any controversy was raised, nor expounding the say of other men contrary to the analogy of faith. the first doubt about the the first difference abou● the presence of christ in the sacrament. presence of christ's body in the sacrament seems to have been moved not long before the year 900. in the days of bertram, and paschasius, but the controversy was not well form, nor this new article of transubstantiation sufficiently concocted in the days of berengarius, after the year 1050. as appeareth by the gross mistaking, and mistating of the question on both sides; first berengarius (if we may trust his adversaries) knew no mean between a naked figure, or empty sign of christ's presence, and a corporeal or local presence, and afterwards fell into another extreme of impanation; on the other side the pope and the council made no difference between consubstantiation and transubstantiation, they understood nothing of the spiritual or indivisible being of the flesh and blood of christ in the sacrament, as appeareth by that ignorant and capernaitical retractation and abjuration, which they imposed upon berengarius, penned by umbertus a cardinal, exact. syn. rom. sub nich. 2. approved by pope nicholas, and a council, ego berengarius, etc. i berengarius do consent to the holy roman apostolic see, and profess with my mouth and heart, to hold the same faith of the sacrament, of the lords supper, with pope nicholas and this holy synod, etc. and what the faith of pope nicholas and this synod was, follows in the next words; that the bread and wine which are set upon the altar after consecration, are not only the sacrament, but the very body and blood of christ. this seems to favour consubstantiation, rather than transubstantiation; if the bread and wine be the body and blood of christ, than they remain bread and wine still; if the bread be not only the sacrament, but also the thing of the sacrament, if it be both the sign and the thing signified, how is it now to be made nothing? it follows in the retraction; that the body and blood of christ is sensibly, not only in the sacrament, but in truth, handled and broken by the hands of the priest, and bruised by the teeth of the faithful, if it be even so, there needs no more but feel and be satisfied. to this they made berengarius sweat, by the consubstantial trinity, and the holy gospels, and accurse and anathematise all those who held the contrary; yet these words did so much scandalise and offend the glosser upon gratian, that he could not forbear to admonish the reader, de cons. dist. 2 cap. ego ber. that unless he understood those words in a sound sense, he would fall into a greater heresy than that of berengarius. not without reason, for the most favourable of the schoolmen do confess, that these words are not properly and literally true, but figuratively and metanimically, understanding the thing containing by the thing contained, as to say the body of christ is broken or bruised, because the quantity or species of bread are broken or bruised, they might as well say, that the body and blood of christ becomes fusty and sour, as often as the species of bread and wine before their corruption become fusty and sour. but the retractation of berongarius can admit no such figurative sense, that the body and blood of christ in the sacrament are divided and bruised sensibly not only in the sacrament, (that is in the species) but also in truth. a most ignorant capernaitical assertion; for the body of christ being not in the sacrament modo quantitativo, according to their own tenet, but indivisibly, after a spiritual manner, without extrinsecall extension of parts, cannot in itself or in truth be either divided or bruised. therefore others of the schoolmen go more roundly and ingenuously to work, alex. gab. bonav. etc. and confess that it is an abusive and excessive expression, not to be held or defended, & that it happened to berengarius, (they should have said to pope nicholas, and cardinal umbertus,) as it doth with those who cut of a detestation of one error incline to another. neither will it a veil them any thing at all, that the fathers have sometimes used such expressions of seeing christ, of touching christ in the sacrament, of fastening our teeth in his flesh, and making our tongues red in his blood. there is a great difference between a sermon to the people, and a solemn retractation before a judge. the fathers do not say, that such expressions are true, not only sacramentally or figuratively, (as they made berengarius both say and accurse all others that held otherwise) but also properly, and in the things themselves. the fathers never meant by these forms of speech, to determine the manner of the presence, (which was not dreamt of in their days) but to raise the devotion of their hearers and readers, to advertise the people of god, that they should not rest in the external symbols, or signs, but principally be intent upon the invisible grace, which was both lawful and commendable for them to do. leave us their primitive liberty, and we will not refrain from the like expressions. i urge this to show that the new doctrine of transubstantiation is so far from being an old article of faith, that it was not well digested, not rightly understood, in any tolerable measure, by the greatest clerks, and most concerned, above a thousand years after christ. the first definition or determination of this manner of the presence was yet later in the council of lateran, in the days of innocent the third, scot in 4. sent. didst 11. q. 3. t. 3 q. 75. d. 81. c. 1. the determination of the manner of the presence opened a floodgate to a deluge of controversies. after the year 1200. ante lateranense concilium transubstantiatio non fuit dogma fidei. and what the fruit of it was, let vasques bear witness, audito nomine transubstantiationis, etc. the very name of transubstantiation being but heard, so great a controversy d●d arise among the later schoolmen concerning the nature thereof, that the more they endeavoured to wind themselves out, the more they wrapped themselves in greater difficulties, whereby the mystery of faith became more difficult, both to be explained, and to be understood, and more exposed to the cavils of its adversaries. he adds that the name of conversion and transubstantiation gave occasion to these controversies. no sooner was this bell rung out, no sooner was this fatal sentence given, but as if pandora's box had been newly set wide open, whole swarms of noisome questions and debates did fill the schools. then it began to be disputed by what means this change comes, whether by the benediction of the elements, or by the repetition of these words of christ, this is my body. the common current of your schools is for the later: lib. de corr. theol. scholar but your judicious arch-bishops of caesaria, since the council of trent, in a book dedicated to sixtus the fifth, produceth great reasons to the contrary. then was the question started what the demonstrative pronoun hoc signifies in these words, this is my body; whether this thing, or this substance, or this bread, or this body, or this meat, or these accidents, or that which is contained under these species, gloss. de con●…. d. 2. cap. timorem. or this individuum vagum, or lastly (which seems stranger than all the rest) this nothing. then it began to be argued, whether the elements were annihilated; whether the matter and form of them being destroyed their essence did yet remain, or the essence being converted the existence remained; whether the sacramental existence of the body and blood of christ do depend upon its natural existence; whether the whole host were transubstantiated, or only some parts of it, that is such parts as should be distributed to worthy communicants, or whether in those parts of the host which were distributed unto unworthy communicants the matter of bread and wine did not return. guidmend. l. 1. de ver. whether the deity did assume the bread or the species thereof, by a new hypostatical union, called impanation, either absolutely, or respectively mediante corpore. whether the body and blood of christ might be present in the sacrament without transubstantiation, with the bread, or without the bread; whether a body may be transubstantiated into a spirit, vasq. disp. 184. c. 8. and (which is most strange) whether a creature might be transubstantiated into the deity. then the schoolmen began to wrangle what manner of change this was, whether a material change, or a formal change, or a change of the whole substance, both matter and form; and if it were a conversion of the whole substance, then whether it was by way of production, or by adduction, or by conservation, each of which greater squadrons are subdivided into several lesser parties, speaking as different language, as the bvilders of babel, pestering and perplexing one another with mextricable difficulties. it cannot be a new production (saith one) because the body of christ, whereinto the elements are supposed to be converted, did pre-exist before the change, neither can that body which is made of bread, be the same body with that which was born of a virgin. if it be not by production (say others,) but only by adduction, than it is not a transubstantiation, but a tran-subiation, not a change of natures, but a local succession. then the priest is not the maker of his maker, (as they use to brag,) but only puts him into a new positure, or presence, under the species of bread and wine. howbeit this way by adduction be the more common, and the safer way (if we may trust bellarmine) yet of all conversions or changes, it hath least affinity with transubstantiation. suppose the water had not been turned into wine at cana of gallilee by our saviour, but poured out, or utterly destroyed, and wine new created, or adduced by miracle into the water-pots, in such a manner, that the introduction of the wine should be the expulsion of the water, not only comitanter, but causaliter, in such case it had been no transubstantiation. moses his rod was truly changed into a serpent, but it was by production, if his rod had been conveyed away invisibly, by legerdemain, and a serpent had been adduced into the place of it, what transubstantiation had this been? none at all; no, though the adduction of the serpent had been the means of the expulsion, and destruction of the rod. it is so far from transubstantiation, that is no conversion at all. the substance of the elements is not converted, for that is supposed to be destroyed; the accidents are not converted, but remain the same they were. it is no adduction at all, when the body of christ (which is the thing supposed to be adduced) remains still in heaven, where it was before. it cannot be a conservative conversion, (say others,) for the same individual thing cannot be conserved by two total distinct conservations; but if this were a conservative conversion the body of christ should be conserved by two total distinct conservations, the one in heaven, the other in earth; yea, by ten thousand distinct total conservations upon eatth, even as many as there are consecrated hosts; vasq. t. 3. q. 75. d. 181 c. 4. which seems to be ridiculous, and without any necessity administers great occasion to the adversaries of christian religion, of jesting and deriding the mysteries of our faith. so here we have a transubstantiation without transubstantiation; a production of a modus or manner of being, for a production of a substance; an annihilation supposed, yet no annihilation confessed; an adduction without any adduction; a terminus ad quem, without a terminus à quo; who shall reconcile us to ourselves? but the end is not yet. then grew up the question, what is the proper adequate body which is contained under the species or accidents; whether a material body, or a substantial body, or a living body, or an organical body, or an humane body; whether it have weight, or not, and why it is not perceived; whether it can be seen by the eye of mortal man; whether it can act or suffer any thing, whether it be movable or immovable; whether by itself, or by accident, or by both; whether it can move in one place, and rest in another; or be moved with two contrary motions, (as upwards and downwards, southwards and northwards,) at the same time? add to these, whether the soul of christ, and the deity, and the whole trinity do follow the body and blood of christ under either species, by concomitance? whether the sacramental body must have suffered the same things with the natural body? as supposing that an host consecrated at christ's last supper had been reserved until after his passion, whether christ must have died, and his blood have been actually shed in the sacrament? yea, whether those wounds which were imprinted by the whips in his natural body, might and should have been found in his sacramental body without flagellation? likewise, what blood of christ is in the sacrament? whether that blood only which was shed, or that blood only which remained in the body, or both the one and the other? and whether that blood which was shed was assumed again by the humanity in the resurrection? then began those paradoxical questions to be first agitated in the schools, whether the same individual body, without division, or discontinuation from itself, can be locally in ten thousand places; yea, in heaven and in earth at the same time; or if not locally, yet whether it can be so spiritually, and indivisibly? and whether it be not the same as to this purpose, whether a body be lolocally or spiritually present in more places than one? bellarmine seems to incline to the affirmative. bell. l. 3. de euch. c. 3. in fine. though to be any where sacramentally doth not imply the taking up of a place, yet it implies a true and real presence, and if it be in more hosts or altars than one, it seems no less opposite unto indivisibility, than the filling up of many places. nay, he is past seeming positive, that, without doubt if a body cannot be in two places locally, it cannot be sacramentally in two places. compare this of bellarmine with that of aquinas, in 4. d. 44. q. 7. art. 2. q. 3. that it is not possible for one body to be in more places than one locally, no not by miracle, because it implies a contradiction; and consider upon what tottering foundations you build articles of faith. it is impossible, and implies a contradiction, for the body of christ to be locally in more hosts than one at the same time (saith aquinas,) but it is as impossible, and implies a contradiction as much for the body of christ to be sacramentally in more hosts than one at the same time, as to be locally (saith bellarmine). the inference is plain and obvious. many more such strange questions are moved, as whether it be possible that the thing contained should be a thousand times greater than the thing containing? whether a definitive being in a place, do not imply a not being out of that place? whether more bodies than one can be in one and the same place? whether there can be a penetration of dimensions? whether a body can subsist after a spiritual manner, so as to take up no place at all, but to be wholly in the whole, and wholly in every part? moreover, whether the whole body and blood of christ be in every particle of the bread, and of the cup, and if it be, then whether only after the division of the bread and wine, or before division also; and in how many parts, and in which parts, is the whole body and blood of christ, whether in the least parts, and if in the least parts, then whether in the least in kind, or the least in quantity, that is so long as the species may retain the name of bread and wine, or so long as the matter is divisible, and whether the body and blood of christ, be also in the indivisible parts, as points and lines, and superficies? lastly, whether accidents can subsist without their subjects, that is, whether they can be both accidents, and no accidents? whether all the accidents of the elements do remain, and particularly whether the quantity doth remain? whether the other accidents do inhere in the quantity as their subject, that is, whether an accident can have an accident? whether the quantity of christ's body be there, and whether it be there after a quantitative manner, with extension of parts, either extrinsecall or intrinsecall, and whether the quantity of the body of christ, be distinct and figured, or indistinct and unfigured? whether the accidents can nourish or make drunken, or corrupt, and a new body be generated of them; and what supplies the place of the matter in such generation, whether the quantity, or the body of christ, or the old matter of the bread and wine, restored by miracle, or new matter created by god? and how long in such corruption the body of christ doth continue. whosoever is but moderately versed in your great doctors, must needs know that these questions are not the private doubts, or debates of single schoolmen, but the common garboils and general engagements of your whole schools. wherefore it had been a mere vanity to cite every particular author for each question, and would have made the margin swell ten times greater than the text. from this bold determination of the manner of the presence, how, have flowed two other differences, first the detention of the cup from the laity, merely upon presumption of concomitance, first decreed in the council of constance, after the year 1400. let what will become of concomitance, whilst we keep ourselves to the institution of christ, and the universal practice of the primitive church. it was not for nothing that our saviour did distinguish his body from his blood, not only in the consecration, but also in the distribution of the sacrament. by the way give me leave to represent a contradiction in bellarmine, which i am not able to reconcile. lib. 4. de euch. c. 25. in one place he saith, the providence of god is merveilous in holy scripture, for st. luke hath put these words [do you this,] after the sacrament given under the form of bread, but he repeated it not after the giving of the cup, that we might understand, that the lord commanded that the sacrament should be distributed unto all under the form of bread, but not under the form of wine. and yet in the next chapter but one of the same book, he doth positively determine the contrary, upon the ground of concomitance, that the bread may be taken away, cap. 27. if the cup be given, but both cannot be taken away together, can that be taken away, which christ hath expressly commanded to be given to all? a second difference flowing from transubstantiation is about the adoration of the sacrament; one of those impediments which hinder our communication with you in the celebration of divine offices: we deny not a venerable respect unto the consecrate elements, not only as love-tokens sent us by our best friend, but as the instruments ordained by our saviour to convey to us the merits of his passion: but for the person of christ (god forbidden) that we should deny him divine worship at any time, and especially in the use of this holy sacrament, we believe with st. austin that no man eats of that flesh, but first he adores. but that which offends us is this, that you teach and require all men to adore the very sacrament with divine honour. to this end you hold it out to the people. to this end corpus christi day was instituted about 300. years since. conc. vien. yet we know that even upon your own grounds, you cannot without a particular revelation, have any infallible assurance that any host is consecrated; and consequently you have no assurance that you do not commit material idolatry. but that which weighs most with us is this, that we dare not give divine worship unto any creature, (no not to the very humanity of christ in the abstract, much less to the host) but to the whole person of christ god and man, by reason of the hypostatical union between the child of the blessed virgin mary, and the eternal son, who is god over all blessed for ever. show us such an union betwixt the deity and the elements, or accidents, and you say something. but you pretend no such things, the highest that you dare go is this, bell. l. 4 de euch. c. 29. quodam modo. as they that adored christ when he was upon earth did [after a certain kind of manner,] adore his garments. is this all? this is after a certain kind of manner indeed. we have enough. there is no more adoration due to the sacrament, than to the garments which christ did wear upon earth. exact no more. thus the seamless coat of christ is torn into pieces; thus faith is minced into shreds, and spun up into niceties, more subtle than the webs of spiders, fidem minutis diffecant ambagibus ut quisque est lingua nequior. because curious wits cannot content themselves to touch hot coals with tongs, but they must take them up with their naked fingers, nor to apprehend mysteries of religion by faith, without descanting upon them, and determining them by reason, whilst themselves confess that they are incomprehensible by humane reason, and imperceptible by man's imagination; how christ is present in the sacrament can neither be perceived by sense, aq. p. 3. 1. 76. art. 7. nor by imagination. the more inexcusable is their presumption to anatomise mysteries, and to determine supernatural not revealed truths, upon their own heads, which if they were revealed were not possible to be comprehended by mortal man; as vain an attempt, as if a child should think to lad out all the water of the sea with a cockleshell. deut. 29.29. secret things belong to the lord our god, but things revealed unto us, and our children for ever. this is the reason why we rest in the words of christ, this is my body, leaving the manner to him that made the sacrament; we know it is sacramental and therefore efficacious, because god was never wanting to his own ordinances, where man did not set a bar against himself. but to determine whether it be corporeally or spiritually, (i mean not only after the manner of a spirit, but in a spiritual sense,) whether it be in the soul only, or in the host also; and if in the host, whether by consubstantiation or transubstantiation, whether by production or adduction, or conservation or assumption, or by whatsoever other way bold and blind man dare conjecture, we determine not. durand. motum sentimus, modum nescimus, praesentiam credimus. this was the belief of the primitive church, this was the faith of the ancient fathers, who were never acquainted with these modern questions de modo, which edify not, but expose christian religion to contempt. we know what to think, and what to say with probability, modesty, and submission in the schools; but we dare neither screw up the question to such an height, nor dictate our opinions to others so magisterially as articles of faith. nescire velle quae magister maximus docere non vult, erudita est inscitia. o! against multiplying of questions, and controversies. how happy had the christian world been, if scholars could have sat down contented with a latitude of general, sufficient, saving truth, (which when all is done must be the olive branch of peace, to show that the deluge of ecclesiastical division is abated,) without wading too far into particular subtleties, or doting about questions and logomac●ies, whereof cometh envy, strife, raylings, evil surmisings, perverse dispute. old controversies evermore raise up new controversies, and yet more controversies, as circles in the water do produce other circles. now especially these scholastical quarrels seem to be unseasonable, when zenos school is newly opened in the world, who sometimes wanted opinions, but never wanted arguments; now when atheism and sacrilege are become the mode of the times; now when all the fundamentals of theology, morality, and policy, are undermined and ready to be blown up; now when the unhappy contentions of great princes, or their ministers, have hazarded the very being of monarchy and christianity; now when bellonia shakes her bloody whip over this kingdom, it becometh well all good christians, and subjects, to leave their litigious questions, and 〈…〉 to bring water to quench the fire of civil dissension already kindled, rather than to blow the coals of discord, and to render themselves censurable by all discreet persons, like that half-wirted fellow personated in the orator, qui cum capit is mederi debuisset reduviem curavit; when his head was extremely distempered, he busied himself about a small push on his finger's end. but that which createth this trouble to you and me at this time, is your preface, the occasion of this discourse. and epistle dedicatory; wherein to adorn your vainly imagined victory in an unseasonable controversy, you rest not contented, that your adversary grace your triumph, unless the king of great britain, and all his subjects, yea and all protestants besides attend your chariot. neither do you only desire this, but augurate it, or rather you relate it as a thing already as good as don: p. 37. for you tell him, that his eyes and his ears do hear and see those truths, which make him to know the faults of that new religion which he had sucked in with his milk; you set forth the causes of his conversion, the tears of his mother, and the blood of his father, whom you suppose (against evident truth) to have died an invisible member of your roman catholic church. and you prescribe the means to perfect his conversion, which must be a conference of your theologians with the ministers of charentou. if your charity be not to be blamed, the author's indiscretion. to wish no worse to another than you do to yourself, yet prudent men desire more discretion in you, than to have presented such a treatise to the view of the world under his majesty's protection, without his licence and against his conscience: had you not heard that such groundless insinuations as these and other private whisper concerning his father's apostatising to the roman religion did lose him the hearts of many subjects? if you did, why would you insist in the same steps, to deprive the son of all possibility of recovering them? to no purpose. if your intentions be only to invite his majesty to embrace the catholic faith, the king is already a better catholic than himself. you might have spared both your oil and labour. the catholic faith flourished 1200. years in the world, before transubstantiation was defined among yourselves. persons better acquainted with the primitive times than yourself (unless you wrong one another) do acknowledge that the fathers did not touch either the word or the matter of transubstantiation. discursus modestus jesuitarun p. 13. watson's quodlib. l. 2. art. 4. mark it well, neither name nor thing. his majesty doth firmly believe all supernatural truths revealed in sacred writ. he embraceth cheerfully whatsoever the holy apostles, or the nicene fathers, or blessed athanasius, in their respective creeds or summaries of catholic faith did set down as necessary to be believed. he is ready to receive whatsoever the catholic church of this age doth unanimously believe to be a particle of saving truth. but if you seek to obtrude upon him the roman church, with its adherents, for the catholic church, excluding three parts of four of the christian world from the communion of christ, or the opinions thereof for articles and fundamentals of catholic faith, neither his reason, nor his religion, nor his charity will suffer him to listen unto you. the truths received by our church are sufficient in point of faith to make him a good catholic. more than this your roman bishops, your roman church, your tridentine council, may not, cannot obtrude upon him. listen to the third general council, par. 2. act. 6. c. 7. that of ephesus, which decreed, that it should be lawful for no man to publish or compose another faith or creed than that which was defined by the nicene council, not lawful to add to the old creed. and that whosoever should dare to compose or offer any such to any persons willing to be converted from paganism, judaisme, or heresy, if they were bishops or clerks should be deposed, if laymen anathematised. suffer us to enjoy the same creed the primitive fathers did, which none will say to have been insufficient except they be mad, concil. flor. sess. 10. prof. sid. in bulla pti quarti. as was alleged by the greeks in the council of florence. you have violated this canon, you have obtruded a new creed upon christendom. new i say, not in words only; but in sense also. somethings are de symbolo, what are additions to the creed, and what are only explications. somethings are contra symbolum, and somethings are only praeter symbolum. somethings are contained in the creed, either expressly or virtually, either in the letter or in the sense, and may be deduced by evident consequence from the creed, as the deity of christ, his two natures, the procession of the holy ghost. the addition of these was properly no addition, but an explication. yet such an explication, no person, no assembly under an ecumenical council, aq. 2. 2. q. 1. art. 10. can impose upon the catholic church. and such an one your tridentine synod was not. secondly, somethings are contra symbolum, contrary to the symbolical faith, and either expressly or virtually overthrow some article of it. these additions are not only unlawful, but heretical also in themselves, and after conviction render a man a formal heretic; whether some of your additions be not of this nature, i will not now dispute. thirdly, somethings are neither of the faith, nor against the faith, but only besides the faith; that is, opinions or truths of an inferior nature, which are not so necessary to be actually known: for though all revealed truths be a like necessary to be believed when they are known, yet all revealed truths are not a like necessary to be known. it is not denied, but that general or provincial councils may make constitutions concerning these for unity and uniformity, and oblige all such as are subject to their jurisdiction to receive them, either actively, or passively, without contumacy or opposition. but to make these, or any of these, a part of the creed, and to oblige all christians under pain of damnation to know and believe them, is really to add to the creed, and to change the symbolical, apostolical faith, to which none can add, from which none can take away, and comes within the compass of st. paul's curse, gal. 1.8. if we, or an angel from heaven, shall preach unto you any other gospel (or faith,) than that which we have preached, let him be accursed. such are your universality of the roman church, by the institution of christ, to make her the mother of her grandmother the church of jerusalem, and the mistress of her many elder sisters. your doctrine of purgatory and indulgences, and the worship of images, and all other novelties defined in the council of trent, all which are comprehended in your new roman creed, and obtruded by you upon all the world to be believed under pain of damnation. he that can extract all these out of the old apostolic creed, must needs be an excellent chemist, and may safely undercake to draw water out of a pumice. that afflictions come not by chance, p. 4. crosses are not always punishments but sometimes corrections, or trials. that prosperity is no evidence of god's favour, or adversity of his hatred; that crosses imposed by god upon his servants, look more forwards towards their amendment, than backwards to their demerits, and proceed not from a judge revenging, but from a father correcting, or (which you have omitted,) from a lord paramount proving and magnifying before the world his own graces in his servants for his glory and their advantage, are undeniable truths which we readily admit. as likewise that the dim eye of man cannot penetrate into the secret dispensations of gods temporal judgements and mercies in this life, so as to say this man is punished, that other chastised, this third is only proved. but you forget all this soon after, which the author presently forgets. when you take upon you to search into, yea more, to determine the grounds and reasons why the hand of god; p. 8. aswell as the parliament, hath been so heavy upon the head of his late majesty, and his royal son. p. 14. namely on god's part, because he called himself the head of the church. god purposing by his punishment, to teach all other princes that are in the schism, with what severity he can vindicate his glory in the injury done unto the unity and authority of his church, p. 9 and on the parliaments part, because he would not consent to the abolition of episcopacy, and suppression of the liturgy, and ceremonies established in the church of england. first, what warrant have you to inquire into the actions of that blessed saint and martyr, which of them should be the causes of his sufferings? not remembering that the disciples received a check from their master upon the like presumption; joh. 9.2. who sinned? this man, or his parents, that he was born blind? jesus answered, neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents, but that the works of god should be made manifest in him. better grounds of his majesty's sufferings, than those of the author. the heroical virtues, the flaming charity, the admirable patience, the rare humility, the exemplary chastity, the constant and frequent devotions, and the invincible courage of that happy prince, not daunted with the ugly face of a most horrid death, have rendered him the glory of his country, the honour of that church whereof he was the chiefest member, the admiration of christendom, and a pattern for all princes, of what communion soever, to imitate until the end of the world. his sufferings were palms, his prison a paradise, and his death-day the birthday of his happiness; whom his enemies advantaged more by their cruelty, than they could have done by their courtesy. they deprived him of a corruptible crown, and invested him with a crown of glory; they snatched him from the sweet society of his dearest spouse, and from most hopeful olive branches, psa. 128.3 to place him in the bosoms of the holy angels. this alone is ground enough for his sufferings, to manifest unto the world those transcendent and unparallelled graces, wherewith god had enriched him, to which his sufferings gave the greatest lustre, as the stars shine brightest in a dark night. the author's rash censure upon the archbishop of cant. the like liberty you assume towards the other most glorious martyr, the late archbishop of canterbury, a man of profound learning, and exemplary life, of clean hands, of a most sincere heart, a patron of all good learning, a professor of ancient truth, a great friend indeed, and earnest pursuer, of order, unity, and uniformity in religion, but most free from all sinister ends, either a varitious or ambitious, wherewith you do uncharitably charge him, as if he sought only his own grandeur, to make himself the head of a schismatical body. in brief, you therefore censure him, because you did not know him. i wish all your great ecclesiastiques had his innocency, and fervent zeal for god's church, and the peace thereof, to plead for them at the day of judgement. by applying these particular afflictions according to your own ungrounded fancy, what a wide gap have you opened to the liberty and boldness of other men? who if they should assume to themselves the same freedom that you have done, might say as much, with as much reason, concerning the pressures of other great princes abroad, that god afflicts them, because they will not become protestants, as you can say that god afflicted our late king, because he would not turn papist. but if you will not allow his majesty's sufferings to be merely probatory; and if (for your satisfaction) there must be a weight of sin found out to move the wheel of god's justice, why do you not rather fix upon the body of his subjects or at least a disloyal part of them? we confess that the best of us did not deserve such a jewel, sovereign's may be taken away for the sins of their subjects. that god might justly snatch him from us in his wrath for our ingratitude. reason, religion, and experience do all teach us, that it is usual with almighty god, to look upon a body politic, or ecclesiastic, as one man, and to deprive a perverse people of a good and gracious governor, as an expert physician by opening a vein in one member, cures the distempers of another. prov. 28. ● for the transgressions of a land, many are the princes thereof. it may be that two or three of our princes at the most (the greater part whereof were roman catholics, not above two or three of our princes called heads of the church. ) did style themselves, or give others leave to style them, the heads of the church, within their dominions. but no man can be so simple, as to conceive that they intended a spiritual headship to infuse the life and motion of grace into the hearts of the faithful, such an head is christ alone; no not yet an ecclesiastical headship; we did never believe that our kings in their own persons could exercise any act pertaining either to the power of order or jurisdiction: that is only political heads. 1 sam. 15.17. nothing can give that to another, which it hath not itself. they meant only a civil or political head, as saul is called the head of the tribes of israel, to see that public peace be preserved, to see that all subjects, aswell ecclesiastiques as others do their duties, in their several places; to see that all things be managed for that great and architectonical end, that is the weal and benefit of the whole body politic, both for soul and body. if you will not trust me, hear our church itself, when we attribute the sovereign government of the church to the king, art. 37. we do not give him any power to administer the word or sacraments; but only that prerogative which god in holy scripture hath always allowed to godly princes, to see that all states and orders of their subjects, ecclesiastical and civil, do their duties, and to punish those who are delinquent, with the civil sword. here is no power ascribed, expos. paraphr. art. conf. ang. art. 37. no punishment inflicted, but merely political, and this is approved and justificed by s. clara, both by reason, and by the example of the parliament of paris. yet by virtue of this political power, he is the keeper of both tables, the preserver of true piety towards god, as well as right justice towards men; and is obliged to take care of the souls, aswell as the skins and carcases of his subjects. the christian emperors political heads. this power, though not this name, the christian emperors of old assumed unto themselves, to convocate synods, to preside in synods, to confirm synods, to establish ecclesiastical laws, to receive appeals, to nominate bishops, to eject bishops, to suppress heresies, to compose ecclesiastical differences, in councils, out of councils, by themselves, by their delegates: all which is as clear in the history of the church, as if it were written with a beam of the sun. this power, the old kings of england political heads. though not this name, the ancient kings of england ever exercised, not only before the reformation, but before the norman conquest, as appears by the acts of their great councils, by their statutes, and articles of the clergy, by so many laws of provision against the bishop of rome's conferring ecclesiastical dignities and benefices upon foreiners, by so many sharp oppositions against the exactions and usurpations of the court of rome, by so many laws concerning the patronage of bishoprics, and investitures of bishops, by so many examples of churchmen punished by the civil magistrate. of all which jewels the roman court had undoubtedly rob the crown, if the peers and prelates of the kingdom had not come in to the rescue. by the ancient laws of england it is death, or at least a forfeiture of all his goods, for any man to publish the pope's bull without the king's licence. the pope's legate without the kings leave could not enter into the realm. if an ordinary did refuse to accept a resignation, see authorities for all these in cawdries case, in judge crook his reports. the king might supply his defect. if any ecclesiastical court did exceed the bounds of its just power, either in the nature of the cavie, or manner of proceeding, the king's prohibition had place. so in effect the kings of england were always the political heads of the church within their own dominions. so the kings of france are at this day. but who told you that ever king charles did call himself the head of the church? neither k. charles, k. james, nor queen elizabeth styled heads of the church. thereby to merit such an heavy judgement. he did not, nor yet king james his father, nor queen elizabeth before them both, who took order in her first parliament, to have it left out of her title; they thought that name did sound ill, and that it entrenched too far upon the right of their saviour. therefore they declined it, and were called only supreme governors, in all causes, over all persons ecclesiastical and civil; which is a title de jure inseparable from the crown of all sovereign princes; where it is wanting the facto (if any place be so unhappy to want it,) the king, is but half a king, and the commonwealth a serpent with two heads. thus you see, you are doubly, and both ways miserably mistaken. first, king charles did never style himself head of the church, nor could with patience endure to hear that title. secondly, a political headship is not injurious to the unity, or authority of the church. the kings of israel and judah; the christian emperors, the english kings before the reformation, yea, even before the conquest, and other sovereign princes of the roman communion have owned it signally. but it seems you have been told, or have read, this in the virulent writings of , or parsons, or have heard of a ludicrous scoffing proposition of a marriage between the two heads of the two churches, sixtus quintus, and queen elizabeth, for the reuniting forsooth of christendom. all the satisfaction, i should enjoin you, is to persuade the bishop of rome (if gregory the great were living, the author's satisfaction to persuade the pope to leave that vain title. you could not fail of speeding,) to imitate the piety and humility of our princes; that is, to content himself with his patriarchical dignity and primacy of order, & principium unitatis, and to quit that much more presumptuous, and (if a pope's word may pass for current) antichristian term of the head of the catholic church. if the pope be the head of the catholic church, than the catholic church is the pope's body, which would be but an harsh expression to christian ears; then the catholic church should have no head, when there is no pope, two or three heads, when there are two or three popes; an unsound head, when there is an heretical pope; a broken head, when the pope is censured or deposed; and no head, when the see is vacant. if the church must have one universal, visible, ecclesiastical head, a general council may best pretend to that title. neither are you more successful in your other reason, hatred of episcopacy or the true cause why the parliament persecuted the king. why the parliament persecuted the king; because he maintained episcopacy, both out of conscience and interest, which they sought to abolish. for though it be easily admitted, that some seditious and heterodox persons had an evil eye, both against monarchy, and episcopacy, from the very beginning of these troubles, either out of fiery zeal, or vain affectation of novelty, (like those, who having the green-sickness, prefer chalk and meal in a corner, before wholesome meat at their father's table,) or out of a greedy, and covetous desire of gathering some sticks for themselves upon the fall of those great okes, yet certainly they: who were the contrivers, and principal actors in this business, did more malign episcopacy for monarchy's sake, than monarchy for episcopacies. what end had the nuncio's faction in ireland against episcopacy? whose mutinous courses apparently lost that kingdom. when the king's consent to the abolition of episcopacy in scotland was extorted from him by the presbyterian faction (which probably the prime authors do rue sufficiently by this time) were those presbyterian scots any thing more favourable to monarchy? to come to england, the chief scene of this bloody tragedy: if that party in parliament had at first proposed any such thing, as the abolition either of monarchy, or episcopacy, undoubtedly they had ruined their whole design; until daily tumults, and uncontrollable uproars had chased away the greater, and sounder part of both houses: their first protestation was solemnly made to god, both for king and church, as they were by law established. the true causes of the troubles in engl●●d. would you know then what it was that conjured up the storm among us? it was some feigned jealousies and fears, (which the first broachers themselves knew well enough to be fables) dispersed cunningly among the people, that the king purposed to subvert the fundamental laws of the kingdom, and to reduce the free english subject to a condition of absolute slavery under an arbitrary government. for which massy weight of malicious untruth, they had no supporters, but a few bulrushes. secondly, that he meant to apostate from the protestant religion to popery, and to that end had raised the irish rebellion by secret encouragements, and commissions; for which monstrous calumny, they had no other foundation (except the solemn religious order of divine service in his own chapel, and cathedral churches) than some unseasonable disputes about an altar, or a table, and the permission of the pope's agent, to make a short stay in england, more for reasons of state than of religion. and some senseless fictions of some irish rebels, who having a patent under the great seal of ireland for their lands, to colour their barbarous murders, shown it to the poor simple people as a commission from the king to levy forces. and lastly some impious pious frauds of some of your own party, whose private whispers, and printed insinuations did give hopes, that the church of england, was coming about to shake hands with the roman in the points controverted; which was merely devised to gull some silly creatures, whom they found apt to be catched with chaff; for which they had no more pretext of truth, than you have for your groundless intimations in this unwelcome dedication. these suspicions being compounded with covetousness, ambition, envy, emulation, desire of revenge, and discontent, were the source of all our calamities. thus much you yourself confess in effect; that, this supposition, that the king and bishops had an intention to re-establish the roman catholic religion, was the venom which the puritan faction infused into the hearts of the people, p. 11. to fill them with hatred against a king worthy of love; and the parliament judged it a favourable occasion for their design, to advance themselves to sovereign authority, be judge yourself how much they are accessary to our sufferings, who either were, or are the authors, or fomenters of these damnable slanders. there was yet one cause more of this cruel persecution, which i cannot conceal from you, because it concerns some of your old acquaintance. there was a bishop in the world (losers must have leave to talk) whose privy purse, and subtle counsels, did help to kindle that unnatural war in his majesty's three kingdoms. our cardinal wolsey complained before his death, that he had served his king better than his god. but certainly this practice in your friend, was neither good service to his god, to be the author of the effusion of so much innocent blood, nor yet to his king, to let the world see such a dangerous precedent. it is high time for a man to look to himself, when his next neighbour's house is all on a flame. as hitherto i have followed your steps, though not altogether in your own method, or rather your own confusion; so i shall observe the same course for the future. your discourse is so full of meanders and wind, turn, and returnings, you congregate heterogeneous matter, and segregate that which is homogeneous, as if you had made your dedication by starts, and snatches; and never digested your whole discourse; on the contrary, where i meet with any thing, it shall be my desire to dispatch it out of my hands, with whatsoever perteins unto it once for all. i hope you expect not that i should amuse myself at your rhetorical flowers, and elegant expressions; they agree well enough with the work you were about; the pipe plays sweetly, whilst the fowler is catching his prey. trappings are not to be condemned, if the things themselves are good and useful, but i prefer one pomegranate tree loaden with good fruit, before a whole row of cypresses, that serve only for show. be sure of this, that where any thing in your epistle reflects upon the church of england, i shall not miss it first or last, though it be but a lose unjointed piece, and so perhaps hitherto untouched. we are only accused of schism. amongst other things which you lay to our charge, you glance, at the least twelve times, at our supposed schism. but from first to last, never attempt to prove it, as if you took it for granted. i have shaped a coat for a schismatic, and had presented it to you in this answer, but considering that the matter is of moment, and merits as much to be seriously and solidly weighed, as your naked crimination without all pretext of proof deserves to be slighted, lest it might seem here as an impertinent digression, to take up too much place in this short discourse, i have added it at the conclusion of this answer, in a short tract by itself, that you may peruse it if you please. presbyterians and brownists have been rome's best friends. you fall heavily, in this discourse, upon the presbyterians, brownists, and independents, if they intent to return you any answer, they may send it by a messenger of their own. as for my part, i am not their proctor, i have received no fee from them. and if i should undertake to plead their cause upon my own head, by our old english law, you might call me to account for unlawful maintenance. only give me leave as a by-stander to wonder why you are so choleric against them, for certainly they have done you more service in england, then ever you could have done for yourselves. and i wonder no less why you call our reformation, a calvinistical reformation, brought into england by bucer, and peter martyr, a blind reformation, yea, the entire ruin of the faith, of the very form of the church, and of the civil government of the commonwealth instituted by god. p. 16. though you confess again in our favour, that if our first reformers had been interrogated, whether they meant: p. 19 p. 14. any such thing, they would have purged themselves, p. 17. and avouched their innocence with their hands upon the new gospel. the gifts of enemies are no gifts. if such as these are all your courtesies, you may be pleased to take them again; our first reformers might safely swear upon any gospel, old, or new, that they meant no such thing. and we may as securely swear upon all the books of god, old or new, that there is no such thing. but why our gospel should be younger or newer than sixtus quintus his gospel, or clemens octavus his gospel, passeth my understanding, and yours also. comparisons are odious, therefore i will not say, that the true english protestant standing to his own grounds, is the best subject in the world. but i do say, that he is as good a subject as any in the world, and our principles as innocent, and as auxiliary to civil government, as the maxims of any church under heaven. and more than yours, where the clashing of two supreme authorities, and the exemption of your numerous clergy from the coercive power of the prince, and some other novelties which i forbear to mention, do always threaten a storm. tell me sir, if you can, what church in europe hath declared more fully, or more favourably for monarchy than the poor church of england, l. cant. 1643. c. 1. that the most high and sacred order of kings, is of divine right, being the ordinance of god himself, founded in the prime laws of nature, and clearly established by express texts, both of the old, and new testament. moreover, that this power is extended over all their subjects, ecclesiastical and civil; that to set up any independent coactive power above them, either papal, or popular, either directly, or indirectly, is to undermine their great royal office, and cunningly to overthrow that most sacred ordinance, which god himself hath established. that for their subjects to bear arms against them, offensive, or defensive upon any pretence whatsoever, is to resist the powers which are ordained of god. the english reformation not calvinist. call. and why do you call our reformation calvinistical, contrary to your own conscience, contrary to your own confession, that in our reformation we retained the ancient order of episcopacy, p. 9 as instituted by divine authority, and a liturgy, and ceremonies, whereby we preserved the face, or image of the catholic church. p. 10. and that for this very cause the disciplinarians of geneva, and the presbyterians did conceive an implacable hatred against the king for the church's sake, and out of their aversion to it. did they hate their own reformation so implacably? if these things be to be reconciled, reddat mihi minam diogenes. he that looks more in disputation to the advantage of his party, than to the truth of his grounds, had need of a strong memory; we retained not only episcopacy, liturgy, and ceremonies, but all things else that were conformable to the discipline, and public service of the primitive church rightly understood. no, sir, we cannot pin our faith upon the sleeve of any particular man, as one used to say we love no nismes; m. tho. sq. neither calvinism, nor lutheranism, nor jonsenianism, but only one, that we derive from antioch, that is christianism, we honour learning, and piety in our fellow servants, but we desire to wear no other badge or cognizance, than that we received from our own master at our baptism. bucer was as fit to be calvin's master, as his scholar. so long as calvin continued with him in germany, he was for episcopacy, liturgy, and ceremonies, (and for assurance thereof subscribed the augustane confession) and his late learned successor, and assertor in geneva, monsieur deodate, with sundry others of that communion were not averse from them. or why do you call our reformation blind? it was not blindness, but too much affectation of knowledge, and too much peeping into controverted, and new fangled questions that hath endamaged our religion. it is you that teach the collier's creed, not we. howsoever you pretend to prove that our reformation was the ruin of the church, and commonwealth: we expect you should endeavour to prove it. you cannot so far mistake yourself as to conceive your authority to be the same with us, that pythagoras had among his scholars, to have his dictates received for oracles without proof; what did i say, that you pretend to prove it? that's too low an expression, you promise us a demonstration of it, p. 19 so lively and evident that no reason shall be able to contradict it. are you not afraid that too much expectation should prejudice your discourse by diminishing our applause? quid tanto dignum feret hic promissor hiatu? do you think of nothing now but triumphs? lively and evident demonstration, not to be contradicted by reason, is like the phoenix much talked of, but seldom seen. most men, when they see a man strip up his sleeves, and make too large promises of fair dealing, do suspect juggling. no man proclaimeth in the market that he hath rotten wares to sell; and therefore we must be careful, notwithstanding your great promises, to keep well epicharmus his jewel, remember to distrust. by your permission, your glistering demonstration is a very counterfeit, not so valuable as a bristol diamant, when it comes to be examined by the wheel. sometimes nothing is more necessary than reformation. reformation is sometimes necessary. never was house so well builded, that now and then needed not reparation. never garden so well planted, but must sometimes be weeded. never any order so well instituted, but in long tract of time there will be a bending and declining from its primitive perfection, and a necessity of reducing it to its first principles. are your houses of religion which are reform, therefore the less religious? why then did all the princes and commonwealths in europe, yea the fathers themselves in the council of trent, cry out so often, so earnestly, for a reformation? yet were forced to content themselves with a vain shadow for the substance, as ixion embraced a cloud for juno, or children are often stilled with an empty bottle. reformation not agreeable to all person, especially the court of rome. but reformation is not agreeable to all persons. judas loved not an audit, because he kept the bag. dull lethargic people had rather sleep to death than be awaked; to and mad phrenetick bigots are apt to beat the chirurgeon that would bind up their wounds; but none are so averse from reformation as the court of rome, where the very name is more formidable than hannibal at the gates, yea than all the five terrible things. no marvel they are afraid to have their oranges squeezed to their hands; if they were infallible as they pretend there was no need of a reformation, we wish they were, but we see they are not. on the other side, there is danger in reformation. it cannot be denied that reformation, when it is unseasonable, or inordinate, or excessive, may do more hurt than good; when reformers want just authority, or due information, or have sinister ends, or where the remedy may be of worse consequence than the abuse, or where men run out of one extreme into another; therefore it is a rule in prudence, not to remove an ill custom, when it is well settled; unless it bring great prejudices, and then it is better to give one account, why we have taken it away, than to be always making excuses why we do it not. needless alteration doth diminish the venerable esteem of religion, and lessen the credit of ancient truths. break ice in one place, and it will crack in more. crooked sticks by bending straight are sometimes broken into two. there is a right mean between these extremes, the right rule of reformation. if men could light on it, that is neither to destroy the body out of hatred to the sores and ulcers, nor yet to cherish the sores and ulcers, out of a doting affection to the body, that is, neither to destroy ancient institutions, out of a zealous hatred to some new abusers, nor yet to do at so upon ancient institutions, as for their sakes to cherish new abuses. our reformation is just our reformation not the ruin of faith church or commonwealth. as much the cause of the ruin of our church and commonwealth, as the building of tenderden steeple was the cause of goodwin's sands, or the ruin of the country thereabouts, because they happened both much about the same time. — careat successibus opto, may he ever want success who judgeth of actions by the event. our reformation hath ruined the faith, just as the plucking up of weeds in a garden, ruins the good herbs. it hath ruined the church, just as a body full of superfluous and vicious humours is ruined by an healthful purgation. it hath ruined the commonwealth, just as the pruning of the vine ruins the elm. no, no sir, our sufferings, for the faith, for the church, for the monarchy, do proclaim us innocent to all the world, of the ruin either of faith, or church, or monarchy. and in this capacity we choose rather to starve innocents', than to swim in plenty as nocents. but this is but one of your doubles to keep us from the right form. it is your new roman creed that hath ruined the faith. it is your papal court that hath ruined the church. it is your new doctrines of the pope's omnipotence over temporal persons in order unto spiritual ends, of absolving subjects from their oaths of allegiance, of exempting the clergy from secular jurisdiction, of the lawfulness of murdering tyrants and excommunicated princes, of aequivocation and the like, that first infected the world to the danger of civil government. yet far be it from me to make these the universal tenets of your church, at any time, much less at this time, when they are much fallen from their former credit; neither can i deny that sundry dangerous positions, destructive to all civil societies, have been transplanted by our sectaries, and taken too deep root in our quarters, but never by our fault. if god should grant us the benefit of an ecumenical or occidental council, it would become both you and us in the first place to pluck up such seditious opinions root and branch. you say our calvinistical reformation (so you are pleased to call it as you would have it, for the moderate and orderly reformation of england, was the terror, and eyesore of rome) is founded upon two maxims, our first supposed maxim. the on●●hat the church was fallen to ruin and desolation, and become guilty of idolatry and tyranny. the catholic church cannot come to ruin or be be guilty of idolatry or tyranny. this is neither our foundation, nor our superstruction, neither our maxim, nor our opinion. it is so far from it, that we hold and teach the direct contrary. first, that the gates of hell shall never prevail against the universal church, that though the rain descend, and the floods come, and the winds blow and beat upon it, yet it shall never fall to ruin or desolation; because it is builded upon a rock. secondly, we believe that the catholic church is the faithful spouse of christ, and cannot be guilty of idolatry, which is spiritual adultery. thirdly, we never said, we never thought, that the ecumenical church of christ was guilty of tyranny. it is principled to suffer wrong, to do none, and by suffering to conquer, chrysost. as a flock of unarmed sheep, in the midst of a company of ravenous wolves, a new and unheard of kind of warfare as if one should throw an handful of dry flax, into the midst of a flaming fire to extinguish it. but i presume this is one of the idiotisms of your language, catholic and roman not convertibles. in which by the church you always understand the roman church, making roman and catholic to be convertibles. as if christ could not have a church, nor that church any privileges, unless the court of rome might have the monopoly of them. there is a vast difference, between the catholic church and a patriarchal church. the ca-catholick church can never fail; any patriarchal church may apostate and fail. we have a promise that the candle shall not be put out, we have no promise that the candlesticks shall not be removed. rev. 2.5. the roman church itself not absolutely fallen to ruin. but suppossing that (which we can never grant) the catholic church and roman church were convertibles, yet still you do us wrong. first we do not maintain, that the roman church itself is fallen to ruin and desolation, we grant to it a true metaphysical being, though not a true moral being; we hope their errors are rather in superstructures, than in fundamentals; we do not say that the plants of saving truth (which are common to you and us) are plucked up by the roots in the roman church, but we say that they are overgrown with weeds, and in danger to be choked. next for idolatry, whether the roman church be guilty of idolatry. whether, and why, and how far, we accuse your church of it deserves further consideration. first you agree with us, that god alone is the object of religion, and consequently that all religious worship is due terminatively only to him, that god alone is to be invocated, absolutely or ultimately, that is so as to grant our requests and fulfil our desires by himself, and that the saints are not the objects of our prayers, but joint petitioners with us, and intercessors for us to the throne of grace. secondly, we profess as well as you that there is a proportionable degree of honour, and respect, due to every creature in heaven and earth, according to the dignity of it, and therefore more honour due to a glorified spirit, than to a mortal man: but withal we add, that this honour is not servitutis but charitatis, not of service as to our lords and masters, but of love and charity as to our friends and fellow servants, of the same kind and nature with that honour which we give to holy men on earth. and herein we are confident that we shall have your consent. thirdly, we agree in this also, that abundant love and duty doth extend an honourable respect from the person of a dear friend, or noble benefactor, to his posterity, to his memory, to his monument, to his image, to his relics, to every thing that he loved, or that pertained to him, even to the earth which he did tread upon, for his sake. put a liefhebber, or virtueso, among a company of rare pictures, and he will pick out the best pieces for their proper value: but a friend or a child will more esteem the picture of a benefactor, or ancestor, for its relation. the respect of the one is terminated in the picture, that of the other is radicated in the exemplar. yet still an image is but an image, and the kinds of respect must not be confounded. the respect given to an image, must be respect proper for an image, not courtship, not worship, not adoration. more respect is due to the person of the meanest beggar, than to all the images of christ and his apostles, and a 1000 primitive saints or progenitors. hitherto there is neither difference nor peril either of idolatry; or superstition. wherein then did consist this guilt of idolatry contracted by the roman church? i am willing for the present to pass by the private abuses of particular persons, which seem to me no otherwise chargeable upon the whole church than for connivance. as the making images to counterfeit tears, and words, and gestures, and compliments, for advantage, to induce silly people to believe that there was something of divinity in them; and the multitude of fictitious relics and suppositious saints, which credulity first introduced, & since covetousness hath nourished. i take no notice now of those remote suspicions or suppositions of the possibility of want of intention, either in the priest that consecrates the sacrament, or in him that baptised, or in the bishop that ordained him; or in any one through the whole line of succession; in all which cases (according to your own principles,) you give divine worship to corporeal elements, which is at least material idolatry. i will not stand now to examine the truth of your distinctions, of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, yet you know well enough, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is no religious worship, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is coin lately minted, that will not pass for current in the catholic church. whilst your common people understand not these distinctions of degrees of honour, what holds them from falling downright into idolatry? neither do i urge how you have distributed the patronage of particular countries, the cure of several diseases, the protection of all distinct professions of men, and all kinds of creatures, among the saints, just as the heathen did among their tutelary gods; nor how little warrant you have for this practice from experience; nor last how you build more churches, erect more altars, offer more presents, power out more prayers, make more vows, perform more offices to the mother than to the son. yet though we should hold our peace, methinks you should ponder these things seriously, and either for your own satisfaction, or ours, take away such unnecessary occasions of scandal and disunion. but i cannot omit, that the council of trent is not contented to enjoin the adoration of christ in the sacrament, (which we never deny,) but of the sacrament itself, (that is, according to the common current of your schoolmen, the accidents or species of bread and wine, because it contains christ.) why do they not add upon the same grounds, that the pix is to be adored with divine worship, because it contains the sacrament? divine honour is not due to the very humanity of christ, as it is abstracted from the deity, but to the whole person, deity, and humanity, hypostatically united. neither the grace of union, nor the grace of unction can confer more upon the humanity, than the humanity is capable of. there is no such union between the deity and the sacrament, neither immediately, nor yet mediately, mediante corpore. neither do you ordinarily ascribe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or divine worship to a crucifix, or to the image of christ, indeed not terminatively but transeuntly, so as not to rest in the image or crucifix, but to pass to the exemplar or person crucified. but why a piece of wood should be made partaker of divine honours even in transitu, or in the passage, passeth my understanding. the heathens wanted not the same pretext for all their gross idolatry. let them plead for themselves non ego, etc. i do not worship that stone which i see, but i serve him whom i do not see. lastly, whilst you are pleased to use them, i may not forget those strange insolent forms of prayer, contained in your books, even ultimate prayers, if we take the words as they sound, directed to the creatures, that they would, protect you at the hour of death, and deliver you from the devil, and confer spiritual graces upon you, and admit you into heaven, precibus meritisque, by their prayers and merias. (you know what merit signifies in your language, a condignity or at least a congruity of defers.) the exposition of your doctors is, that they should do all this for you by their prayers, as improper a form of speech, as if a suppliant intending only to move an ordinary courtier to mediate for him unto the king, should fall down upon his knees before the courtier, and beseech him to make him an earl, or a knight, or to bestow such an office or such a pardon upon him, or to do some other grace for him, properly belonging to the prerogative royal. how agrees this with the words, precibus meritisque? a beggar doth not deserve an alms by ask it. this is a snare to ignorant persons, who take the words to signify as they sound. and (it is to be feared,) do commit downright idolatry by their pastor's faults, who prescribe such improper forms unto them. the roman court most tyrannical. concerning tyranny which makes up the arriere of the first supposed maxim: we do not accuse the roman church of tyranny, but the roman court. if either the unjust usurpation of sovereign power, or the extending thereof to the destruction of the laws and canons of the church, yea, even to give a non obstante, either to the institution of christ, or at least to the uniform practice of the primitive ages, or to them both; if the swallowing up of all ecclesiastical jurisdiction, and the arrogating of a supercivill power paramount; if the causing of poor people to troth to rome, from all the quarters of europe, to waste their livelihoods there; if the trampling upon emperors, and the disciplining of monarches be tyrannical, either the court of rome hath been tyrannical, or there never was tyranny in the world. i doubt not but some great persons, when they have had bloody tragedies to act for their own particular ends, have sometimes made the roman church a stalking horse, and the pretence of catholic religion a blind, to keep their policies undiscerned: but if we consider seriously, what cruelties have been really acted throughout europe, either by the inquisitors general, or by persons specially delegated for that purpose, against the waldenses of old, and against the protestants of later days, against poor ignorant persons, against women and children, against madmen, against dead carcases, as bucer, etc. upon pretence of religion, not only by ordinary forms of punishment, and of death, but by fire and faggots, by strange new devised tortures, we shall quickly find that the court of rome hath died itself red in christian blood, and equalled the most tyrannical persecutions of the heathen emperors. our second supposed maxim the other maxim whereupon you say that our reformation was grounded was this; that the only way to reform the faith and liturgy, p. 21. and government of the church, was to conform them to the dictates of holy scripture, of the sense whereof every private christian ought to be the judge, by the light of the spirit, excluding tradition, and the public judgement of the church. you add, p. 26. that we cannot prove episcopacy by scripture without the help of tradition; and if we do admit of tradition, we must acknowledge the papacy, for the government of the catholic church, as founded in the primacy of st. peter. your second supposed ground is no truer than the former, much mistaken. we are as far from anarchy as from tyranny; as we would not have humane authority, like medusa's head, to transform reasonable men into senseless stones; so we do not put the reigns of government into the hands of each, or any private person, to reform according to their fantasies; and that we may not deal like blunderers, or deceitful persons, to wrap up on involve ourselves on purpose in confused generalities, i will set down our sense distinctly; when you understand it, i hope you will repent of your rash censuring of us, of whom you had so little knowledge. the scripture the rule of supernatural truths. three things offer themselves to be considered: first, concerning the rule of scripture; secondly, the proper expounders thereof, and thirdly, the manner of exposition. concerning scripture we believe, that it was impossible for humane reason, without the help of divine revevelation, to find out those supernatural truths which are necessary to salvation. 2. that to supply this defect of natural reason, god out of his abundant goodness hath given us the holy scriptures, which have not their authority from the writing which is humane, but from the revelation which is divine, from the holy ghost. thirdly, that this being the purpose of the holy ghost, it is blasphemy to say he would not, or could not attain unto it. and that therefore the holy scriptures do comprehend all necessary supernatural truths; so much is confessed by bellarmine, that all things which are necessary to be believed, l. 4. de verbo dei, cap. 11. and to be done by all christians, were preached to all by the apostles, and were all written. 4. that the scripture is more properly to be called a rule of supernatural truths than a judge, or if it be sometimes called a judge, it is no otherwise than the law is called a judge of civil controversies between man and man, that is, the rule of judging what is right, and what is wrong. that which showeth what is straight, showeth likewise what is crooked. secondly, who are the proper expounders of scripture, and ho●… far. concerning the proper expounders of scripture, we do believe that the gospel doth not consist in the words, but in the sense, non in superficie, sed in medullâ; and therefore that though this infallible rule be given for the common benefit of all, yet every one is not an able or fit artist to make application of this rule, in all particular cases. to preserve the common right, and yet prevent particular abuses, we distinguish judgement into three kinds. judgement of discretion, judgement of direction, and judgement of jurisdiction. as in the former instance of the law (the ignorance whereof excuseth no man) every subject hath judgement of discretion, to apply it particularly to the preservation of himself, his estate and interest; the advocates and those who are skilful in the law, have moreover a judgement of direction, to advise others of less knowledge and experience; but those who are constituted by the sovereign power, to determine emergent difficulties, and differences, and to distribute, and administer justice to the whole body of a province or kingdom, have moreover a judgement of jurisdiction, which is not only discretionary, or directive, but authoritative to impose an obligation of obedience upon those who are under their charge. if these last shall transgress the rule of the law, they are not accountable to their inferiors, but to him or them that have the sovereign power of legislative judicature; ejus est legem interpretari, cujus est condere. to apply this to the case in question concerning the exposition of the holy scripture. every christian keeping himself within the bounds of due obedience and submission to his lawful superiors, hath a judgement of discretion, prove all things, 1 thes. 5.21. hold fast that which is good. he may apply the rule of holy scripture for his own private instruction, comfort, edification, and direction, and for the framing of his life and belief accordingly. the pastors of the church, (who are placed over god's people as watchmen and guides,) have more than this, a judgement of direction, to expound and interpret the holy scriptures to others, & out of them to instruct the ignorant, to reduce them who wander out of the right way, to confute errors, to foretell dangers, and to draw sinners to repentance. the chief pastors to whose care the regiment of the church is committed in a more special manner, have yet an higher degree of judgement, a judgement of jurisdiction to prescribe, to enjoin, to constitute, to reform, to censure, to condemn, to bind, to lose, judicially, authoritatively, in their respective charges. if their key shall err, either their key of knowledge, or their key of jurisdiction, they are accountable to their respective superiors, and in the last place to a general council, which under christ upon earth, is the highest judge of controversies. thus we have seen what is the rule of faith, and by whom, and how far respectively this rule is to be applied. thirdly, the manner of expounding scripture. for the manner of expounding holy scriptures, (for there may be a privacy in this also, and more dangerous than the privacy of the person,) many things are necessary to the right interpretation of the law, to understand the reason of it, the precedents, the terms, the forms, the reports, and an ability to compare law with law. he that wants all these qualifications altogether, is no interpreter of law. he that wants but some of them, or wants the perfection of them, by how much the greater is his defect, by so much the less valuable is his exposition; and if he shall out of private fancy, or blind presumption, arrogate to himself, without these requisite means, or above his capacity and proportion of knowledge, a power of expounding law, he is a madman. so many things are required to render a man capable to expound holy scriptures, some more necessarily, some less, some absolutely, some respectively; as first to know the right analogy of faith, to which all interpretations of scripture must be of necessity conformed. secondly, to know the practice and tradition of the church, and the received expositions of former interpreters in the successive ages, which gives a great light to the finding out of the right sense. thirdly, to be able to compare texts with texts. antecedents with consequents, without which one can hardly attain to the drift and scope of the holy ghost in the obscurer passages. and lastly, it is something to know the idiotisms of that language wherein the scriptures were written. he that wants all these requisites, and yet takes upon him out of a phanatique presumption of private illumination to interpret scripture, is a doting enthusiast, fit to be refuted with scorn than with arguments. he that presumes above that degree and proportion which he hath in these means, and above the talon which god hath given him, (as he that hath a little language, yet wants logic, or having both language and logic, knows not, or regards not either the judgement of former expositors, or the practice, and tradition of the purest primitive ages, or the symbolical faith of the catholic church) is not a likely workman to build a temple to the lord, but ruin and destruction to himself, and his seduced followers. a new physician (we say) requires a new churchyard; but such bold ignorant empirics in theology, are ten times more dangerous to the soul, than an ungrounded unexperienced quacksalver to the body. this hath always been the doctrine, this is conformable to the doctrine and practice of our church. and the practice of our english church; first, it is so far from admitting laymen, to be directive interpreters of holy scripture, that it allows not this liberty to clergymen so much as to gloss upon the text, can. 1603. can. 49. until they be licenced to become preachers. secondly, for judgement of discretion only, it gives it not to private persons above their talents, see the preface to the bishop's bible. or beyond their last. it disallows all fantastical, and enthusiastical presumption of incompetent and unqualified expositors. it admits no man into holy orders, that is, to be capable of being made a directive interpreter of scriptures, howsoever otherwise qualified, cant. ●4. unless he be able to give a good account of his faith in the latin tongue, so as to be able to frame all his expositions according to the analogy thereof. cant. 1571. tit. concionatores. it forbids the licenced preachers to teach the people any doctrine as necessary to be religiously held and believed, which the catholic fathers, and old bishops of the primitive church, have not collected out of the scriptures. it ascribes a judgement, of jurisdiction over preachers to bishops, in all manner of ecclesiastical duties, as appears by the whole body of our canons. and especially where any difference or public opposition hath been between preachers, can. 1631. can. 53. about any point or doctrine deduced out of scripture. it gives a power of determining all emergent controversies of faith above bishops to the church, art. 20. can. 1603. can. 139. as to the witness and keeper of the sacred oracles. and to a lawful synod as the representative church. now, sir, be your own judge how infinitely you have wronged us, and yourself more, suggesting that temerariously, and without the sphere of your knowledge, to his majesty for the principal ground of our reformation, which our souls abhor. is there no mean between stupidity and madness? must either all things be lawful for private persons, or nothing? because we would not have them like david's horse and mule, without understanding, do we therefore put both swords in their hands, to reform and cut off, to plant and to pluck up, to alter and abolish at their pleasure? we allow them christian liberty, but would not have them libertines. admit some have abused this just liberty, may we therefore take it away from others? so we shall leave neither a sun in heaven, nor any excellent creature upon earth, for all have been abused by some persons, in some kinds, at some times. we receive not your upstart supposititious traditions, the english church an enemy to upstart, not to apostolical traditions. nor unwritten fundamentals: but we admit, genuine, universal, apostolical traditions, as the apostles creed, the perpetual virginity of the mother of god, the anniversary festivals of the church, the lenton fast. yet we know that both the duration of it, and the manner of observing it, was very different in the primitive times. we believe episcopacy to an ingenuous person may be proved out of scripture without the help of tradition, but to such as are froward, the perpetual practice and tradition of the church renders the interpretation of the text more authentic, and the proof more convincing. what is this to us who admit the practice and tradition of the church, as an excellent help of exposition? use is the best interpreter of laws, and we are so far from believing that we cannot admit tradition without allowing the papacy, that one of the principal motives why we rejected the papacy, as it is now established with universality of jurisdiction, by the institution of christ, and superiority above ecumenical councils, and infallibility of judgement, was the constant tradition a● the primitive church. so sir, you see your demonstration shaken into pieces; you who take upon you to remove whole churches at your pleasure, have not so much ground left you as to see your instrument upon. your two main groundworks being vanished, all your presbyterian and independent superstructions; do remain like so many bubbles or castles in the air. it were folly to lay closer siege to them, which the next puff of wind will disperse, ruunt subductis tecta columnis. howsoever, though you have mistaken the grounds of our reformation, and of your discourse, yet you charge us, that we have renounced the sacrifice of the mass, transubstantiation, the seven sacraments, justification by inhaerent righteousness, merits, invocation of saints, prayer for the dead, with purgatory, and the authority of the pope. are these all the necessary articles of the new roman creed, that we have renounced? surely no; you deal too favourably with us. we have in like manner renounced your image-worship, your half communion, your prayers in a tongue unknown, etc. it seems you were loath to mention these things. of the sacrifice of the mass. first, you say we have renounced your sacrifice of the mass. if the sacrifice of the mass be the same with the sacrifice of the cross, we attribute more unto it, than yourselves; we place our whole hope of salvation in it. if you understand another propitiatory sacrifice, distinct from that (as this of the mass seems to be, for confessedly the priest is not the same, the altar is not the same, the temple is not the same,) if you think of any new meritorious satisfaction to god for the sins of the world, or of any new supplement to the merits of christ's passion, you must give us leave to renounce your sacrifice indeed, and to adhere to the apostle; heb. 10.14 by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified. surely you cannot think that christ did actually sacrifice himself at his last supper, (for then he had redeemed the world at his last supper, than his subsequent sacrifice upon the cross had been superfluous,) nor that the priest now doth more than christ did then. we do readily acknowledge an eucharistical sacrifice of prayers and praises, we profess a commemoration of the sacrifice of the cross, and in the language of holy church, things commemorated are related as if they were then acted, as almighty god who hast given us thy son [as this day] to be born of a pure virgin. in the collects for these ●easts. and whose praise the younger, innocents' have [this day] set forth. and between the ascension and pentecost, which hast exalted thy son jesus christ with great triumph into heaven, we beseech thee leave us not comfortless, but send unto us thy holy spirit. we acknowledge a representation of that sacrifice to god the father, we acknowledge an impetration of the benefit of it, we maintain an application of its virtue: so here is a commemorative, impetrative, applicative sacrifice. speak distinctly, and i cannot understand what you can desire more. to make it a suppletory sacrifice, to supply the defects of the only true sacrifice of the cross, i hope both you and i abhor. the next crime objected by you to us is, of transubstantiation. that we have renounced transubstantiation. it is true we have rejected it deservedly from being an article of our creed; you need not wonder at that. but if we had rejected it 400. years' sooner, that had been a miracle. it was not so soon hatched. to find but the word transubstantiation in any old author, were sufficient to prove him a counterfeit. of 7. sacraments. your next article of the septenary number of the sacraments is not much older. never so much as mentioned in any scripture, or council, or creed, or father, or ancient author; anno 1439 1528. 1547. first devised by peter lombard; first decreed by eugenius the fourth; first confirmed in the provincial council of senes, and after in the council of trent. either the word sacrament is taken largely; and then the washing of the disciples feet is called a sacrament, than the only sprinkling of ashes on a christians head is called a sacrament, than there are god knows how many sacraments more than seven; or else it is taken strictly for a visible sign, instituted by christ, to convey or confirm invisible grace, to all such partakers thereof, as do not set a bar against themselves, according to the analogy between the sign and the thing signified. and in this sense the proper and certain sacraments of the christian church, common to all, or (in the words of our church,) generally necessary to salvation, are but two, baptism and the supper of our lord. more than these st. ambrose writes not of in his book de sacramentis, because he did not know them. these we admit for genuine, and general sacraments. their sacramental virtue we acknowledge. the rest we retain more purely than yourselves, though not under the notion of such, proper and general sacraments. as confirmation, ordination, matrimony, penitence (though we neither approve of your preposterous manner of absolution before satisfaction, nor of your ordinary penitentiary tax,) and last, the visitation of, and prayer for the sick, which only is of perpetual necessity. the unction prescribed by st. james, jam. 5.14. being appropriable to the miraculous gift of healing, or recovering men out of sicknesses, then in use; whereas your custom is clean contrary, never, or rarely to enoyl any man, until he be passed all hope of recovery. the ordinary and most received custom of preparing sick persons for another world in the primitive church, was prayer and absolution, or the benefit of the keys, and the viaticum of the body and blood of christ, which we retain. concerning justification, of justification. we believe that all good christians have true inherent justice, though not perfect according to a perfection of degrees, as gold is true gold, though it be mixed with some dross. we believe that this inherent justice and sanctity, doth make them truly just and holy. but if the word justification be taken in sensu forensi, for the acquittal of a man from former guilt, to make an offender just in the eye of the law, as it is opposed to condemnation, rom. 8.33 it is god that justifieth, who is ●e that condemneth; then it is not our inherent righteousness that justifies us in this sense, but the free grace of god for the merits of jesus christ. of merits. next for merits, we never doubted of the necessity of good works, without which faith is but a fiction. we are not so stupid to imagine that christ did wash us from our sins, that we might wallow more securely in sin, but that we might serve him in holiness and righteousness all the days of our life. we never doubted of the reward of good works; come ye blessed of my father, etc. for i was hungry, and ye fed me. nor whether this reward be due to them in justice; henceforth is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, 2 tim. 4. ● which the lord the just judge shall give me in that day. faithful promise makes due debt. this was all that the ancient church did ever understand by the name of merits. let petavius bear witness; discrt. eccles. li. 2. c. 4. antiqui patres omnes & prae caeteris augustinus, cumque iis consentiens romana & catholica pietas agnoscit merita eò sensu, nimirum ut neque dei gratiam ulla antecedant merita, & haec ipsa tum ex gratiâ, tum ex gratuitâ dei pollicitatione tota pendeant. all the ancient fathers, especially st. austin, and the roman and catholic faith consenting with them, do acknowledge merits in this sense, that no merits go before the grace of god, and that these very merits do depend wholly on grace, and on the free promise of god. hold you to this, and we shall have no more difference about merits; do you exact more of us, than all the fathers, or the roman and catholic piety doth acknowledge? it is an easy thing for a wrangling sophister to dispute of merits, in the schools, or for a vain orator to declaim of merits out of the pulpit, but when we come to lie upon our deathbeds, and present ourselves at the last hour before the tribunal of christ, it is high time both for you and us to renounce our own merits, and to cast ourselves naked into the arms of our saviour. that any works of ours, who are the best of us but unprofitable servants, which properly are not ours but gods own gifts, and if they were ours are a just debt due unto him, setting aside god's free promise, and gracious acceptation, should condignly by their own intrinsical value deserve the joys of heaven, to which they have no more proportion than they have to satisfy for the eternal torments of hell: this is that which we have renounced, and which we never ought to admit. of invocation of saints. if your invocation of saints were not such as it is, to request of them▪ patronage and protection, spiritual graces, and celestial joys, by their prayers, and by their merits, (alas the nisest virgins have oil in their lamps little enough for themselves;) yet it is not necessary for two reasons; first, no saint doth love us so well as christ. no saint hath given us such assurance of his love, or done so much for us as christ. no saint is so willing, or able to help us as christ. and secondly, we have no command from god to invocate them. so much your own authors do confess, and give this reason for it, s. clara probl. 37. ex horantio. lest the gentiles being converted, should believe that they vere drawn back again to the worship of the creature. but we have another command, call upon me in the day of trouble, and i will hear thee. we have no promise to be heard, when we do invocate them; but we have another promise, whatsoever ye shall ask the father in my name, ye shall receive it. we have no example in holy scripture of any that did invocate them, but rather the contrary; see thou do it not; rev. 22.9. i am thy fellow servant, worship god. we have no certainty that they do hear our particular prayers, especially mental prayers, yea a thousand prayers poured out at one instant in several parts of the world; we know what your men say of the glass of the trinity, and of extraordinary revelations: but these are bold conjectures without any certainty, and inconsistent the one with the other. we do sometimes meet in ancient authors, with the intercession of the saints in general, which we also acknowledge; or an obliqne invocation of them (as you term it,) that is a prayer directed to god, that he will hear the intercession of the saints for us, which we do not condemn; or a wish, or a rhetorical apostrophe, or perhaps something more in some single ancient author: but for an ordinary invocation in particular necessities, and much more for public invocation in the liturgies of the church, we meet not with it for the first six hundred years, or thereabouts; all which time and afterwards also, the common principles and tradition of the church were against it. so far were they from obtruding it as a necessary fundamental article of christian religion. of prayer for the dead with purgatory. it is a common fault of your writers always to couple prayer for the dead and purgatory together, as if the one did necessarily suppose, or imply the other; in whose steps you tread. prayer for the dead hath often proceeded upon mistaken grounds, often from true grounds, both inconsistent with your purgatory. many have held an opinion, that though the souls were not extinguished at the time of their separation from the body, yet they did lie in secret receptacles, in a profound or dead sleep, until the resurrection, doing nothing, suffering nothing in the mean time, but only the delay of their glory. others held that all must pass through the fire of conflagration at the day of judgement. these opinions were inconsistent with your purgatory, yet all these, upon these very grounds used prayer for the dead. others called the merciful doctors, held, that the very pains of hell might be lessened by the prayer of the living: such a prayer is that which we meet with in your own missal, o king of glory, deliver the souls of all the faithful deceased, from the pains of hell, from the deep lake, tartarus. from the mouth of the lion (that is the devil,) that the bottomless pit of hell do not swallow them up. a man may lawfully pray for that which is certain, if it be to come, but one cannot lawfully pray for that which is past. the souls which are in purgatory (by your learning,) are past the fear of hell. nor can this petition be any ways so wrested, as to become appliable to the hour of death. this prayer is not for the man, but for the soul separated; nor for the soul of a sick man, or a dying man, but for the souls of men actually deceased. certainly this prayer must have reference, either to the sleeping of the souls, or to the pains of hell; to deliverance out of purgatory it can have no relation. neither are you able to produce any one prayer public or private, neither any one indulgence to that purpose, for the delivery of any one soul out of purgatory, in all the primitive times, or out of your own ancient missals or records. such are the innovations which you would impose upon us, as articles of faith, which the greatest part of the catholic church never received until this day. moreover though the sins of the faithful be privately and particularly remitted at the day of death, yet the public promulgation of their pardon at the day of judgement is to come. though their souls be always in an estate of blessedness, yet they want the consummation of this blessedness, extensively at least, until the body be reunited unto the soul, (and as it is piously and probably believed) intensively also, that the soul hath not yet so full and clear a vision of god, as it shall have hereafter. then what forbids christians to pray for this public acquittal, for this consummation of blessedness? so we do pray, as often as we say, thy kingdom come, or come lord jesus, come quickly, our church is yet plainer, that we with this our brother, and all other departed in the faith of thy holy name, may have our perfect consummation of blessedness in thy eternal kingdom. this is far enough from your more gainful prayers for the dead, to deliver them out of purgatory. the authority of the pope. lastly, concerning the authority of the pope, it is he himself that hath renounced his lawful patriarchal authority. and if we should offer it him at this day, he would disdain it. we have only freed ourselves from his tyrannical usurped authority. but upon what terms, upon what grounds, how far, and with what intention, we have separated ourselves, or rather have suffered ourselves to be separated from the church of rome, you may find if you please in the treatise of schism. i cannot choose but wonder to see you cite st. cyprian against us in this case, p 27. who separated himself from you, as well as we, in the days of a much better bishop than we, and upon much weaker grounds than we, and published his dissent to the world in two african councils; he liked not the swelling title of bishop of bishops, nor that one bishop should tyrannically terrify an other into obedience; no more do we. he gave a primacy, or principality of order to the chair of st. peter as principi●m unitatis; so do we: but he believed that every bishop, had an equal share of episcopal power; so do we. he provided a part, as he thought fit in a provincial council for his own safety, and the safety of his flock; so did we. he writ to your great bishop as to his brother and colleague, and dared to reprehend him for receiving but a letter from such as had been censured by the african bishops. in st. cyprians sense, you are the beam that have separated yourselves from the body of the sun; you are the bough that is lopped from the tree; you are the stream which is divided from the fountain. it is you, principally you, that have divided the unity of the church. you collect as a corollary from our supposed principal of the right and sufficiency of private judgement, whether humane laws bind the conscience. enlightened by the spirit, that no humane authority can bind the conscience of an other, or prescribe any thing unto it. i have formerly shown you your gross mistake in the premises, now if you please hear our sense of the conclusion. humane laws cannot be properly said to bind the conscience, by the sole authority of the lawgiver, but partly by the equity of the law, every one being obliged to advance that which conduceth to a public good, thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself; and especially by divine authority, which commands every soul to be subject to the higher powers; for conscience sake; not prudentially only. the question is soon decided, just laws of lawful superiors, either civil; or ecclesiastical, have authority to bind the conscience in themselves, but not from themselves. how shall we believe that it is not you but god that represents these things to his majesty, p. 34. 69. the author a little enthusiastical. that addresseth them to him by your mouth, that calleth him, that stretcheth out his hand to him, that hath set these things before his eyes, in characters not to be defaced. what? that his majesty should turn roman catholic? are they like belshazars' characters; and are you the only daniel that can read them? we do not see a cloven tongue upon your head, nor a dove seeming to whisper in your ear. be not too confident left some take it to be a little taint of anabaptism, perhaps you have had as strange fantasies as this heretofore, whilst you were of a contrary party. be it what it will be, you cannot offer it to his majesty with more confidence, or pretend more intimacy with god, or to be more familiarly acquainted with his cabinet counsel, than a scotch presbyter; and yet yourself would not value all his confidence at a button. wise men are not easily gained by empty shows or pretences, that signify nothing but the pretenders vanity, nor by enthusiastical interpretation of occurrences. it is only the weight of reason that depresseth the scale of their judgement, and makes them to yield and submit unto it. howsoever it be god or you that represent these things to his majesty, you tell us that the end is to reduce him from those errors which he sucked in with his milk, which in the days of peace, and abundance, it had been difficult for him to discover. but now his eyes and his ears do see and hear those truths which make it evident to him, that god hath condemned them to reduce him to the communion of the church; wherein you promise him all manner of blessings. who told you of his majesty's new illumination? or what have you seen to believe any such thing? when you dare avouch such gross untruths of himself, to himself, how should he credit your private presumptions, which you tell him as a new mercury dropped down from heaven. the romanists require submission to their church as necessary to salvation, you tell us that it is necessary for every one to adhere to the true church, which is the keeper of saving truth. that is true, but nothing to his majesty, who hath more right already in the catholic church than yourself. you tell us moreover that this church is the roman church. that is not true; but suppose it were most true, as it is most false, what should a man be better or nearer to the knowledge of the truth, and consequently to his salvation, for his submission to the roman church; yet cannot agree among themselves what this roman church is. as long as you cannot agree among yourselves, either what this roman church is, or what your infallible judge is? one saith it is the pope alone; another saith no, but the pope with his conclave of cardinals; a third will go no less than the pope and a provincial council; a fourth will not be contented without the pope and a general council; a fifth is for a general council alone either with, or without the pope; a sixth party, (and they are of no small esteem among you here at this present,) is for the essential church, that is the company of all faithful people, whose reception (say they,) makes the true ratification of the acts of its representative body. it were as good to have no infallible judge, as not to know or agree who it is? be not so centorious in condemning others, for not submitting to your roman church or infallible judge, nor so positive to make this submission so absolutely necessary to salvation, until you agree better what this judge or church is. it is five to one against you, that you yourself miss the right judge. the english church not perished. whatsoever become of your church, you say ours is perished by the proper axioms of our own reformation, and hath no more any subsistence in the world, nor pretence to the privilege of a church. this is hard. he perisheth twice that perisheth by his own weapons. even so joseph's brethren told joseph himself with consciences guilty enough, one is not: gen. 42.13. this is that which the court of rome would be content to purchase at any rate. this hath been the end of all then secret negotiations and instructions, by all means to support the presbyterian faction in england against episcopacy; not that they loved them more than us, but that they feared us more than them. there was an israelitish church, when elias did not see it; but he must be as blind as bartimaeus, that cannot see the english church. wheresoever there is a lawful english pastor, and an english flock, and a subordination of this flock to that pastor, there is a branch of the true english protestant church. do you make no difference between a church persecuted, and a church extinguished? have patience and expect the catastrophe. it may be all this while the carpenter's son is making a coffin for julian. if it please god, we may yet see the church of england which is now frying in the fire, come out like gold out of the furnace, more pure, and more full of lustre. if not, his will be done. just art thou o lord, and righteous are all thy judgements. the primitive church was as glorious in the sight of god when they served him in holes and corners, in cryptis, sacellis, conventiculis, ecclesiolis, as when his worship was more splendidly performed in basilicis, and cyriacis, in goodly churches, and magnificent cathedrals. your design stops not at the king of great britain, p. 42. but extends itself to all his subjects, yea to all protestants whatsoever. i wonder why you stay there, the author's vain dreams. and would not add all the eastern churches, and the great turk himself, since you might have done it with one other penfull of ink? and with as much pretence of reason, to secure himself from the joint forces of christendom thus united by your means. a strong fantasy will discover armies, and navies in the clouds, men and horses, and chariots in the fire, and hear articulate dictates from the bels. this is not to write waking, but dreaming. yet you make it an easy work, to effect which there needs no disputation, but only to behold the heretical genius of our reformation, p. 43. 44. which is sufficiently condemned by itself, if men will only take the pains to compare the fundamental principles thereof with the consequences. great houses and forts are builded at an easy charge in paper. when you have consulted with your architects and engineers, you will find it to be a work of more difficulty. and your adversaries resolution may teach you to your cost, what it is to promise yourself such an easy conquest before the fight, and let you see that those golden mountains which you phantasied have no subsistence but in your own brain, and send you home to seek out that self-conviction there, which you sought to fasten upon others. when you are able to prove your universal monarchy, your new canon of faith, your new treasury of the church, your new roman purgatory whereof the pope keeps the keys, your image worship, your common prayers in a tongue unknown, your detaining of the cup from the laity in the public administration of the sacrament, and the rest of your new creed, out of the four first general councils, or the universal tradition of the church in those days, either as principles or fundamental truths, (which you affirm,) or so much as ordinary points of faith, (which we deny,) we will yield ourselves to be guilty both of contradiction and schism. until you are able to make these innovations good, it were best for you to be silent, and leave your vapouring. desperate undertake do easily forfeit a man's reputation. p. 47. etc. his vainer proposition of a conference. now are we come to the most specious piece of your whole epistle, that is the motion or proposition of a conference, by authority of the king of france, at the instance of the king of great britain, before the archbishop of paris, and his coadjutor, between some of your roman catholic doctors, and the ministers of the reformed church at paris, whom you do deservedly commend for their sufficiency and zeal. you further suppose that the ministers of the reformed church will accept of such a disputation, or by their tergiversation betray the weakness of their cause; and you conclude confidently beyond supposition, that they will be confuted and convicted, and that their conversion or conviction will afford sufficient ground to the king of great britain, to embrace the communion of the roman catholic church; and that his conversion will reduce all conscientious protestants to unity and due obedience. i will contract your larger palm to a fist. if the king of great britain desire a solemn conference, the king of france will enjoin it; if he enjoin it, the ministers will accept; if they do accept it, they are sure to be convicted; if they be convicted, the king of great britain will change his religion; if he change his religion, all conscientious protestants will be reduced: and all this to be done, not by the old way of disputing, no, take heed of that, the burned child dreads the fire; but by a proper new way of refuting old protestant principles, by new independent practices. why was this remedy found out no sooner? this might have eased the cardinals in their consultations about propagating the faith; this might have saved cardinal allen all his machiavillian instructions to his english emissaries; this may in a short time turn the inquisitors out of their employment, for want of an object, and not leave such a thing as heretical pravity in the world. how must men praise your fortune, and applaud your invention? but stay, the second thoughts are wiser; what if this chain supposed to be of adamant, should prove a rope of sand? and so it is; i have seen a sorites disgraced, and hissed out of the schools, for drawing but one lame leg after it. this is foundered of all four, from the beginning to the end there is nothing in it but future contingents, which are known only to god, not one grain of necessary truth. the king of england desires no such conference. first sir, be not angry if a man take away the subject of your whole discourse; it is but your officiousness, the king desires no such conference. let them desire conferences who waver in their faith. all these blustering storms have radicated him deeper in his religion. and chief that which you make the chiefest motive to his apostating, the martyrdom of his royal father, and an hereditary love to that church which he hath justified with his blood. secondly, if he should, he had neither reason nor need to desert his english clergy. if his majesty should incline to such a conference, do you think he would desert the english clergy, who have forsaken their country, their friends, their estates, out of their conscience, out of their duty to god, and their sovereign, who understand the constitution of the english church much better than yourself, or any foreiners how sufficient soever, and cast himself wholly upon strangers, whose reformation (you say) is different from that of england, in the points of episcopacy, liturgy, and the ceremonies of the church? say, what was the reason of this gross omission? were you afraid of that image of the church (as you call it in a slighting manner) which they retained? or did you not think any of the english nation worthy to bear your books at a conference? it hath been otherwise heretofore, and you will find it otherwise now, when you come to prove it. i know not whether england hath been more fortunate or unfortunate since the reformation, in breeding as many able polemique writers on both sides, as any nation in europe; stapleton, harding, parsons, sanders, reynolds, bishop. etc. for the roman church. jewel, andrews, abbot, laewd, white, field, montague, reynolds, whitaker, etc. for the english church (i forbear to name those that are living) and many more who come not short of these, if they had pleased to communicate their talents to the world. this is such a contumely as reflects upon the nation, and you must be content to be told of it. thirdly, such a conference not fit to be granted by the king of france. how are you sure that the king of france and his counsel would give way to such a solemn and public conference? private insinuations use to prevail much when a man may laevere & tack to and again to compass his ends. authority or the sword may put an end to controversies: but public conferences for the most part do but start new questions, and revive old forgotten animosities. what were the donatists the better for the collation at carthage? the mind of a man is generous, and where it looks for opposition, fortifies itself against it. urban the eighth was the wisest pope you have had of late, who by his moderation and courtesy cooled much of that heat, which the violence of his predecessors had raised against the court of rome. the mild beams of the sun were more prevalent, than the blustering blasts of the north wind. multiplying of words more commonly engenders strife, than peace. fourthly, nor to be accepted by the ministers of the reformed church. upon what grounds are you so confident, that the ministers of the reformed church would admit of such a public disputation upon those terms which you propose? that, is to accept of the archbishop of paris and his coadjutor, two persons interessed, for competent judges. i am as confident of the contrary, that they would rather choose to suffer, than wrong their cause so much; frustra fit per plura quod fieri potest per pauciora. it were a readier way for them, and but the same in effect, to subscribe to a blank paper, and to submit without disputation. nor could any such success be expected from it. fifthly, suppose (all this notwithstanding) such a conference should hold, what reason have you to promise to yourself such success, as to obtain so easy a victory? you have had conferences and conferences again at poissye, and other places, and gained by them, just as much as you might put in your eye, and see never the worse. when conferences are only made use of as pageants, to grace the introduction of some new proselyte, and to preserve his reputation from the aspersion of desultorious levity, they seem much more efficatious than they are. as they know well enough who are privy to what is acted in the withdrawing room. the time was when you have been as confident in a contrary opinion, that such a free conference would have sealed the walls of rome, and leveled the pope's triple crown. sixtly, the author's impertinence and sauciness with the king. whether the ministers should accept of such a partial unequal conference or not, or whatsoever should be the success thereof, you trespass too boldly upon his majesty's patience, to dictate to him so pragmatically, so magisterially, what he should do, or would do, in such a case, which is never like to be. doth his father's constancy encourage you to believe, that he is a reed shaken with the wind; qui pauca considerate, facile pronunciat, he that weighs no more circumstances or occurrences than serve for the advancement of his design, pronounceth sentence easily, but temerariously, and for the most part unsoundly. when such a thing as you dream of should happen, it were good manners in you to leave his majesty to his christian liberty. but to trouble yourself and others about the moons shining in the water, so unseasonably, so impertinently, or with what will come to pass when the sky falls, is unbeseeming the counsellor of a king. his pen over ●uns his wit. lastly, consider how your pen doth overrun your reason, and overreach all grounds of probability, to ascribe unto his majesty's change such an infallible influence upon all protestants, as to reduce them to the roman communion, not only his own subjects, but foreiners. his blessed father's example had not so much influence upon the scots his native subjects. he was no changeling indeed, neither to the right hand, nor to the left. henry the fourth his grandfather, did turn indeed to the roman church. had his change any such influence upon the protestant party in france? i know no followers such a change would gain him, but i foresee clearly how many hearts it would lose him. certainly sir, if you would do a meritorious piece of ●●…ice to his greatest adversaries, you could not fix upon any thing that would content them more highly, than to see you successful in this undertaking. i have done with your proposition. he than compares it and your demonstration together, will easily judge them to be twins at the first sight. as a motive to his majesty's conversion, you present him with a treatise of transubstantiation, and desire that it may appear unto the world under his royal name. p. 58. his improper choice of a patron for his treatise. i meddle not with your treatise, some of your learned adversaries friends will give you your hands full enough. but how can his majesty protect or patronise a treatise against his judgement, against his conscience, so contrary to the doctrine of the church of england, not only since the reformation, but before? about the year seven hundred, serm. saxon. in fest● paschat. the body of christ wherein he suffered, and his body consecrated in the host, differ much. the body wherein he suffered was born of the virgin, consisting of flesh and bones, and humane members; his spiritual body, which we call the host, consists of many grains, without blood, bones, or human members, wherefore nothing is to be understood there corporally, but all spiritually. transubstantiation was neither held for an article of faith, nor a point of faith in those days. you charge the protestants in divers places, p. 62. that they have neither church nor faith, but have lost both. and at the later end of your treatise you undertake to demonstrate it: p. 222. his unskilfulness, or his unfortunateness in his demonstrations. but your demonstration is a mere paralogism. you multiply your terms, you confound your terms, you change and alter your terms, contrary to the rules of right arguing, and vainly beat the air, concluding nothing which you ought to prove, nothing which your adversary will deny. you would prove that protestants have no church. that you never attempt; but you do attempt to prove (how pitifully god knows,) that they are not the only church, that is, the one, holy catholic church. this they did never affirm, they did never think. it sufficeth them to be a part of that universal church, more pure, more orthodox, more catholic than the roman, always professing christ visibly, never lurking invisibly in an other communion, which is another of your mistakes. i should advise you to promise us no more evident demonstrations; either your skill, or your luck is so extremely bad. in the second place you affirm that faith is founded upon divine authority, and revelation, and deposited with the church. all that is true; but that which you add, that it is founded in the authority of christ speaking by the mouth of his church; by this church, understanding the church of this age, and (which is yet worse) the church of one place, and (which is worst of all) the bishop of that one church, is most false. the great advantage of the prostant above the roman catholic in the choice of his foundation. and so is that which you add, that the faith of protestants is founded upon their own reasonings, which makes so many differences among them. reason must be subservient in the application of the rule of faith. it cannot be the foundation of faith. bad reasoning may bring forth differences and errors about faith, both with you and us, but the abuse of reason doth not take away the use of reason. we have this advantage of you, that if any one of us do build an erroneous opinion upon the holy scripture, yet because our adherence to the scripture is firmer and nearer than our adherence to our particular error, that full, and free, and universal assent which we give to holy scripture, and to all things therein contained, is an implicit condemnation and retractation of our particular error, which we hold unwittingly, and unwillingly against scripture. but your foundation of faith being composed of uncertainties, whether this man be pope or not, whether this pope be judge or not, whether this judge be infallible or not, and if infallible, wherein, and how far; the faith which is builded thereupon cannot but be fallible and uncertain. the stricter the adherence is to a false, uncertain, or fallible rule, the more dangerous is the error. so our right foundation purgeeth away our error in superstruction; and your wrong foundation lessens the value of your truths, and doubles the guilt of your errors. i will (by your leave) requite your demonstration, and turn the mouths of your own canons against yourself. that church which hath changed the apostolical creed, the apostolical succession, the apostolical regiment, and the apostolical communion, is no apostolical, orthodox, or catholic church. but the church of rome hath changed the apostolical creed, the apostolical succession, the apostolical regiment, and the apostolical communion. therefore the church of rome is no apostolical, orthodox, or catholic church. they have changed the apostolical creed, by making a new creed, wherein are many things inserted, that hold no analogy with the old apostles creed; the apostolical succession, by engrossing the whole succession to rome, and making all other bishops to be but the pope's vicars, and substitutes, as to their jurisdiction; the apostolical regiment by erecting a visible and universal monarchy in the church; and lastly the apostolical communion, by excommunicating three parts of the holy catholic apostolic church. again, that church which resolves its faith not into divine revelation and authority, but into humane infallibility, or the infallibility of the present church, without knowing, or according, what that present church is, whether the virtual, or the representative, or the essential church, or a body compounded of some of these, hath no true faith. but the church of rome resolves it faith, not into didine revelation and authority, but into the infallibility of the present church, not knowing or not according what that present church is, whether the virtual church (that is the pope,) or the representative church (that is a general council) or the essential church, (that is the church of believers diffused over the world,) or a body compounded of some of these, (that is the pope, and a general or provincial council.) therefore the church of rome hath not true faith. the greater number of your writers is for the pope, that this infallibility is fixed to this chair. but of all other judgements, this is most fallible and uncertain, for if simony make a nullity in a papal election, we have great reason to doubt, that that chair hath not been filled by a right pope these last hundred years. these are no other but your own mediums; such luck you have with your irrefragable demonstrations. p. 68 his majesty's apostasy is not the way to his restitution. in case his majesty will turn roman catholic you promise him restitution to his kingdoms. great undertakers are seldom good performers; when you are making your proselytes, you promise them golden mountains, but when the work is done, you deal with them, as he did with his saint, who promised a candle as big as his mast, and offered one no bigger than his finger. do you however think it reason, that any man should change his religion for temporal respects, though it were for a kingdom? jeroboam did so, you may remember what was the success of it. you propose this as the readiest means to restore him. others who penetrate deeper into the true state of his affairs, look upon it as the readiest way to ruin his hopes, by the alienation of his friends, by the confirmation of his foes, and in some sort the justification of their former feigned fears. do you think all roman catholic princes desire this change as earnestly as yourself? give them leave first to consult with their particular interests. a common interest prevails more with confederates than a common faith. the sword distinguisheth not between protestants and papists. but what is the ground of this your great confidence? no less than scripture. seek ye first the kingdom of god, and the righteousness of it, and all other things shall be added unto you. you say the word of god deceives not man. true, but you may deceive yourself out of the word of god. the conclusion always follows the weaker part, such as this, are commonly your mistaken grounds, when they come to be examined. the text saith, seek the kingdom of god, you would have his majesty desert the kingdom of god; the promise is of all things necessary or convenient, you will be your own carver, and oblige god almighty to kingdoms and particular conditions; the promise is made (as all temporal promises are,) with an implicit exception of the cross, unless god see it to be otherwise more expedient for us; he that denies us gold, and gives us patience and other graces more precious than gold, 1 pet. 1.7. that denies a temporal kingdom to give an eternal, doth not wrong us. this was out of your head. that the scots had an ancienter obligation to fidelity towards his majesty, p. 70. the obligation of the scots to his majesty the greatest of any subjects in the known world. and that royal family than the english, is a truth not to be doubted or disputed of, i think i may safely add, than any nation in europe, or in the known world to their prince, his majesty being the hundred and tenth monarch of that line, that hath sweyed the sceptre of that kingdom successively. the more the pity that a few treacherous shebas, and a pack of bawling seditious orators, under the vizard and shadow of pure religion, to the extreme scandal of all honest professors, should be able to overturn such an ancient fabric, and radicated succession of kingly government. their treachery but take heed sir, how you believe that any engagement of the presbyterian faction in scotland, proceeded either from conscience, or gratitude, or fidelity, or aimed at the resetling of his majesty upon his throne. no, no, their hearts were double, their treaties on their parts were mere treacheries from the beginning. i mean not any of those many loyal patriots, that never bowed their knees to baal-berith the god of the covenant, in that nation: the loyal scots excepted. nor yet any of those serious converts, that no sooner discovered the leger de main of a company of canting impostors, but they sought to stop the stream of schism and sedition, with the hazard of their own lives and estates. nor even those whose eyes were longer held with the spirit of slumber, by some stronger spells of disciplinarian charmers, but did yet later open their eyes, and come in to do their duties, at the sixth or ninth hour. all these are expunged by me out of this black roll. let their posterities enjoy the fruit of their respective loyalties, and let their memories be daily more and more blessed. but i mean the obstinate ringleaders, the disloyal scots deciphered. and standard-bearers of the presbyterian covenant of both robes, and the setters up of that misshapen idol. it is from these i say, that no help or hope could in reason be expected. they who sold the father, and such a father, were not likely to prove loyal to the son. they who hanged up one of the most ancient gentlemen in europe, the gallant marquis of montrose, being then their lawful viceroy, like a dog in such base and barbarous manner, together with his majesty's commission, to the public dishonour of their king, in the chief city of that kingdom, in a time of treaty; they who purged the army, over and over, as loath on their parts willingly to leave one dram of honesty, or loyalty in it, who would not admit their fellow subjects of much more merit and courage than themselves to assist them; they who would not permit his majesty to continue among the soldiery, lest he should grow too popular; they who after they had proclaimed to the world his title and right to that crown, yet sought to have him excluded from the benefit of it, and from the execution of his kingly office, p. 70. until he should abjure his religion, cast dirt upon his parents, alienate his loyal subjects, and ratify the asurpations of his rebels; these, (there i say,) were most unlikely persons to be his restorers. was it ever heard before, that subjects acknowledged a sovereign, and yet endeavoured to exclude him from his rights, until he had granted whatsoever seemed good in their eyes? no hope from that party until they repent. others may be more severe in their judgements, but i for my part could be well contented, that god would give them the honour to be the repairers of the breach, who have been the makers of the breach; to be the restorers of monarchy, who have been the ruiners of monarchy; to be the re-establishers of peace, who have been the chiefest catiline's and promoters of war. but that can never be whilst they justify their former rebellious practices, and after they have eaten and devoured, wipe their mouths, and say what have we done? until they acknowledge their former errors; repentance only is able to knit the broken bone; why should they be more afraid to confess their faults, and shame the devil, than to commit them? p. 73. god must not be limited to time or means of deliverance. yet i cannot say with you that this hath rob his majesty of all hopes and means of recovery. we may not limit god to any time, who commonly withholds his help until the bricks be doubled, until the edge of the razor doth touch the very throats of his servants, that the glory of the work may wholly redound to himself. we may not limit god to those means which seem most probable in our eyes. so long as joseph trusted to his friend in court, god did forget him; when pharaohs butler had quite forgotten joseph, than god remembered him. god hath nobler ways of restitution than by battles, and bloodshed, that is, by changing the hearts of his creatures at his pleasure, and turning esau's vowed revenge into love and kindness. i confess, p. 74. 75. his majesty's escape out of england almost miraculous. his majesty's resolution was great, so was his prudence, that neither fear (which useth to betray the succours of the soul,) nor any indiscreet action, or word, or gesture, in so long a time should either discover him, or render him suspected. when i consider that the heir of a crown, in the midst of that kingdom where he had his breeding, whom all men's eyes had used to court as the rising sun, of no common features or physiognomy, at such time when he was not only believed, but known to be among them, when every corner of the kingdom was full of spies to search him, and every port and inn full of officers to apprehend him, i say that he should travail at such a time, so long, so far, so freely, in the sight of the sun, exposed to the view of all persons, without either discovery, or suspicion, seem little less than a miracle. that god had smitten the eyes of those who met him with blindness, as the eyes of the sodomites, that they could not find lot's door, or the syrian soldiers, that were sent to apprehend elisha. this strange escape, and that former out of scotland, where his condition was not much better, and seems to presage that god hath something to do with him. nor his person much safer, do seem strangely to presage, that god hath yet some great work, to be done by him in his own due time. you attribute this rare deliverance, p. 76. prayers and tears the proper arms of woman, and the hopes of his conversion, in part to the prayers and tears of his mother; prayers and tears were the only proper arms of the old primitive christians; more particularly they are the best and most agreeable defence of that sex; but especially the prayers and tears of a mother, for the son of her desires, are most powerful. as it was said of the prayers and tears of monica, especially of mothers; for st. austin her son; fieri non potuit ut filius istarum lacrymarum periret, it could not be that a son should perish for whom so many tears were shed. god sees her tears, and hears her prayers, and will grant her request, if not according to her will and desire, (we often ask those things which being granted would prove prejudicial to ourselves and our friends) yet add utilitatem, to his majesty's greater advantage, which is much better: she wisheth him a good catholic, and god will preserve him a good catholic as he is. we do not doubt but the prayers of his father (who now follows the lamb in his whites) for his perseverance, yet not so powerful as his father's intercession now in heaven. will be more effectual with god, than the prayers of his mother for his change. p. 77. the author's instance of henry the great not pertinent. your instance of his majesty's grandfather, your grand king henry the fourth is not so apposite, or fit for your purpose. he gained his crown by turning himself towards his people, you would persuade his majesty to turn from his people, and to cast away his possibilities of restitution, that is, plutarch. to cut off a natural leg, and take one of wood. to the tears of his mother you add the blood of his father, p. 77. 78. the just commendation of k. charles. whom you justly style happy, and say most truly of him, that he preferred the catholic faith before his crown, his liberty, his life, and whatsoever was most dear unto him. this faith was formerly rooted in his heart by god, not secretly and invisibly in the last moments of his life to unite him to the roman catholic church, but openly during his whole reign, all which time he lived in the bosom of the true catholic church. it is gross impudence to feign that he died a roman catholic. yet you are so extremely partial to yourself, that you affirm that he died invisibly a member of your roman catholic church, as it is by you contre-distinguished to the rest of the christian world. an old pious fraud, or artifice of yours, learned from machiavelli, to gain credit to your religion by all means, either true or false; but contrary to his own profession at his death, contrary to the express knowledge of all that were present at his murder. upon a vain presumption, that talem nisi vestra ecclesia nulla parerit filium. and because you are not able to produce one living witness, you cite st. austin to no purpose to prove that the elect before they are converted, do belong invisibly to the church; yea and before they were born also. but st. austin neither said nor thought, that after they are converted they make no visible profession, or profess the contrary to that which they believe. seek not thus to adorn your particular church, not with barrowed but with stolen saints, whom all the world know to have been none of yours. what faith he professed living, he confirmed dying; in the communion of the church of england he lived, and in that communion at his death he commended his soul into the hands of god his saviour. the author's confession confutes his demonstration, that prostants have no faith. that which you have confessed here concerning king charles, will spoil your former demonstration, that the protestants have neither church nor faith. but you confess no more in particular here, than i have heard some of your famous roman doctors in this city acknowledge to be true in general; and no more than that which the bishop of chalcedon (a man that cannot be suspected of partiality on our side,) hath affirmed and published in two of his books to the world in print; that protestantibus credentes, etc. persons living in the communion of the protestant church, if they endeavour to learn the truth, and are not able to attein unto it, but hold it implicitly in the preparation of their minds, and are ready to receive it when god shall be pleased to reveal it (which all good protestants and all good christians are) they neither want church, nor faith, nor salvation. mark these words well. they have neither church nor faith say you; if they be thus qualified (as they all are) they want neither church, nor faith, nor salvation (saith he. his intelligence as good in heaven as upon earth. ) lastly sir, to let us see, that your intelligence is as good in heaven as it is upon earth, & that you know both who are there, and what they do, you tell us that the crown and conquest, which his late majesty gained by his sufferings, was procured by the intercession of his grandmother queen mary. we should be the apt to believe this, if you were able to make it appear, that all the saints in heaven do know all the particular necessities of all their posterity upon earth. st. austin makes the matter much more doubtful than you, that's the least of his assertion, aug. de cura pro mortuus. c. 15. or rather to be plainly false; fatendum est nescire quidem mortuos quid hic agatur. but with presumptions you did begin your dedication, and with presumptions you end it. in the mean time till you can make that appear, we observe, that neither queen mary's constancy in the roman catholic faith, no faith sufficient armour against bloody attempts: nor henry the fourth's change to the roman catholic faith, could save them from a bloody end. then by what warrant do you impute king charles his sufferings to his error in religion? be your own judge. heu quanta de spe decidimus; alas! the author much fallen from his former charity in seeking the reunion of christendom. from what hopes are we fallen! pardon our error, that we have mistaken you so long. you have heretofore pretended yourself to be a moderate person, and one that seriously endeavoured the reuniting of christendom by a fair accommodation. the widest wounds are closed up in time, and strange plants by inoculation are incorporated together, and made one; and is there no way to close up the wounds of the church, and to unite the disagreeing members of the same mystical body? why were caleb and joshua only admitted into the land of promise, whilst the carcases of the rest perished in the wilderness, but only because they had been peacemakers in a time of schism? well far our learned and ingenuous countryman s. clara, who is altogether as perspicacious as yourself, but much more charitable. you tell us to our grief, p. 204. that there is no accommodation to be expected; that cardinal richelieu was too good a christian, and too good a catholic to have any such thought; that the one religion is true, the other false, and that there is no society between light and darkness. this is plain dealing, to tell us what we must trust to. no peace is to be expected from you, unless we will come unto you upon our knees, with the words of the prodigal child in our mouths, father forgive us. we have sinned against heaven, and against thee. is not this rare courtesy? if we will submit to your will in all things, you will have no longer difference with us. so we might come to shake a worse church by the hand, than that which we were separated from. the way to a general accommodation. if you could be contented to wave your last four hundred years determinations, or if you liked them for yourselves, yet not to obtrude them upon other churches; if you could rest satisfied with your old patriarchal power, and your principium unitatis, or primacy of order, much good might be expected from free councils, and conferences from moderate persons; and we might yet live in hope to see an union, if not in all opinions, yet in charity, and all necessary points of saving truth, between all christians; to see the eastern and western churches join hand in hand, and sing, ecce quàm bonum, & quam jucundum est habitare fratres in unum; behold how good and pleasant a thing it is for brethren to dwell toge-in unity. but whilst you impose upon us daily new articles of faith, and urge rigidly, what you have unadvisedly determined, we dare not sacrifice truth to peace, nor be separated from the gospel, to be joined to the roman church; yet in the point of our separation, and in all things which concern either doctrine or discipline, we profess all due obedience and submission to the judgement and definitions of the truly catholic church; lamenting with all our hearts the ptesent condition of christendom, which renders an ecumenical council, if not impossible, (men's judgements may be had, where their persons cannot,) yet very difficult, wishing one, as general as might be, and (until god send such an opportunity,) endeavouring to conform ourselves in all things, both in credendis, & agendis, to whatsoever is uniform in the belief or practice, in the doctrine or discipline of the universal church; and lastly holding an actual communion with all the divided parts of the christian world, in most things, & in voto, according to our desires, in all things. finis. du moulin's reflections reverberated, being a full answer to a pernicious pamphlet entitled moral reflections on the number of the elect. together with several arguments against transubstantiation of the outward elements in the sacrament of the lords supper, transubstantiated into falsehood and absurdity. to which is added a postcript in answer to some passages in mr. edmund hickeringil's scurrilous piece styled the second part of naked truth. by edward lane vicar of sparsholt, hants. london, printed for william crook at the green-dragon without temple-bar. 1681. a preface. christian reader, this following tract was prepared to be a refutation of dr. lewis du moulin's reflections upon the number of the elect, long before his death. but you may see no haste hath been made to impart it to the world, having been (too long i confess) retarded in expectation of some other more able pen, which could have convinced him of his error. yet since it hath pleased god to put an end to his days, and that no man hath hitherto (so far as i can learn) appeared for the vindication of the truth of the gospel against him in this particular, i have accounted it my duty to undertake it, in regard i have already been an aggressor upon him, in the antidote which i gave the world about a year past, to keep poor desponding sinners from receiving harm by his uncharitable opinion of the small number of those that shall be saved. he hath, it seems, repent him, before he died, of all those personal reflections which he made in his books on the divines of the church of england, as that they leaned towards popery, and in downright terms that they had made several advances towards rome; but as for this book of his reflections upon the number of the elect, i find no retractation of it made by him at all, or by any else for him; and do therefore fear that he left the world with this opinion which he had so deeply imbibed upon his soul without any public repentance of it. whereupon he having been such a leading man among those that pretend to know more of the mind of god in holy scripture than others, it is much to be doubted, he will have many disciples to follow him, who will jurare in verba magistri, take all to be gospel which he hath written of this subject: for seeing there are many of them (as it is said) who still persist in their invectives, and have since his death published under his name an additional account of the church of england's advance towards popery (though it appears clearly by many infallible proofs to be as false a slander, as the father of lies himself could invent) what can be otherwise imagined, but that such blust'ring zealots will much more second him in this antifundamental opinion? such people being prone to publish that doctrine, which seems to canonize them for the few that shall be saved, and to damn to hell all those, whoever they be, that shall but look awry upon them, out of a dislike of their fraternity, and their opinions. upon which account i would that this which is here written against the said doctor may be construed as directed unto them, to prevent their precipitant zeal in following his example by mealing with the number of gods elect. for him, i hope god hath forgiven him his error therein: and seeing that he lived to wish that his soul might be with theirs whom he had in his life-time (according to his own confession) wronged in his uncharitable censures, i believe he hath found before this time a real demonstration of his error in numb'ring those that came not within the compass of his arithmetic. i do therefore leave him in his bed of rest, but shall withal warn all men by this which is here written against him, to take heed that they run not after him into such want of charirity which he lamented on his deathbed as being inconsistent with the power of godliness and true christianity. yea i would advise those that profess themselves to be his disciples, seriously to consider with their own souls betimes whether their defaming the church of england, as this doctor had done, or their rash determining of the number of god's elect, like unto him be such as he would have approved on his death bed, or (as it hath been already said) such as they will dare to answer for at the great day before god's tribunal. but if any will yet be so anti-evangelical as to appear in the defence of his desperate doctrine of a general damnation, and their defence be managed by them with learning, piety and moderation in the judgement of those that are wise and godly, with whom i hold a conversation, i shall though i be superannuated (as being in the seventy seventh year of my age) certainly maintain the truth of the gospel in that point against them. humbly beseeching god to give us all a right understanding more and more in the mystery of the gospel; and if in the publication of this my labour of zeal i have offended either in the manner or matter of it, the good lord, i hope, will pardon me, seeing i had prepared my heart only to aim at his glory, though i have not done it exactly according to the rule that is set me. having thus far given my apology for publishing this tract; it is meet that somewhat be also here premised concerning that doctor, to the end my readers may discern how unfit he was to enter upon such a controversy. he was desirous it seems (having been public professor of history in the university of oxford) to appear to the world as an atlas in that kind of learning, by quoting several of the ancient fathers, and other writers; that he might thereby add some strength to his opinion: but the truth is, he did rather in so doing lay open his weakness to the pre-judging of his own cause: as may be made evident by two of his quotations, wherein he failed, and it is therefore to be suspected, he hath done the like in many more. the two quotations which i have singled are these that follow. in the thirteenth page of his book, where he undertook to prove that the greatest part of the world was in the state of damnation, and must inevitably sink in it, it is thus written. the popes drew all europe into perdition; and this is what all the world would suffer, per docilitatem asininam. unless some or other were permitted to resist the pope and to demand of him, by what authority he led so many millions of persons into hell: for it is that which we learn from the canon, si papa, etc. which et-caetera signifies that this doctor was of that opinion in which others before him have been deceived: for it to is most shamefully false which is alleged from the said canon, viz. that the purport of it is this, albeit the pope should drive the whole world into hell, no man ought to say unto him, why do you so? but before i proceed any further herein, let no man here so far mistake me, as if i were pleading for popery. it is only to lay open the plain truth in this case without partiality. the church of rome is doubtless faulty enough, yea most abominable in her doctrines and do, yet will it not become us to make it worse than in truth it is; she hath gild enough upon her that will certainly in gods due time bring her down wonderfully, so that the world shall say, babylon the great is fallen, is fallen. but that the aforesaid opinion of her is a great untruth, and consequently that the doctor's collections from thence were vain, shall be here made manifest from that which is past all contradiction. 1. the author of the said canon was not a pope, as it hath been imagined; but it was st. boniface a faithful martyr of jesus christ (as in the title of the said canon is expressed) which boniface was never pope but a virtuous learned englishman who lived about nine hundred years past, and was the first archbishop of mentz in germany, of which people and country he is called the apostle (by ancient writers) for that he publicly converted the nation, erected that primate see, and suffered glorious martyrdom by the heathen for the faith. 2. the canon, si papa, etc. was taken by gratian out of the writings of that st. boniface. the introduction into which canon is, according to the words of that holy man, in this manner. damnatur apostolicus qui suae & fraternae salutis est negligens, plagismultis in aeternum vapulaturus. the pope is damned who is negligent in the affairs of his own salvation, and of his brethren; after which beginneth the canon, si papa suae & fraternae salutis negligens, etc. showing that albeit the pope have no superior judge in this world, which may by authority check him, unless he fall into heresy: yet shall his damnation be greater, than of other sinners, for that by reason of his high dignity he draweth more after him into perdition than any other. whereby we may perceive that this canon was written not to flatter the pope, but to warn him rather of his peril, etc. but how then came the world to mistake this canon, as if it said, though the pope should carry many people with him into hell, yet no mortal creature may presume to say unto him, why do you so? to give a short answer to this demand; i might relate the story at large, and make mention of the names of those persons engaged in a contract about this canon, which occasioned those hard words clean differing from the intent and scope of it, and which did put some upon a more strict inquiry into it; the result whereof is briefly this, some of the words of the said canon were misplaced, some omitted, and some misquoted. the omission of that which is in the canon is this, cum ipso plagis multis in aeternum vapulaturus, that such a pope is to suffer eternal punishments, and to be scourged with many stripes together with the devil himself, if by his evil and negligent life he be the cause of others perdition, which threat being omitted, these words, as immediately following in the canon, are misplaced and joined with the antecedent words which should have been put after, viz. hujus culpas redarguere praesumit nemo, etc. that which is misquoted is praesumet for praesumit, no man shall or may presume, for, no man doth presume to control. lastly, that which followeth containing a reason of all that went before, is left out, viz. quia cunctos ipse judicaturus a nemine est judicandus, nisi deprehendatur a fide devius, etc. for that whereas he is the judge of all other men, he cannot himself be judged by any except he be found to err from the true faith. here is the case in as few words as it could possibly be put, which clearly show the sinister sense that hath been put upon that canon, yet this it was certainly which led the doctor into this error; for, saith he, it is that which we learn from the canon, si papa, etc. the second mistake is in that he quoteth st. austin lib. 1. de verâ & falsâ poenitentia, cap. 5. affirming that he hath there an excellent thought (as his usual word is) whereas if he meaneth by lib. 1. the first book (as probably that must be the meaning) this must go into the mistakes, for there is but one book of that subject de verâ & falsa poenitentia: neither is that one any of st. austin's work; but it is thrust in by others as an appendix only to st. austin; yea more, the author of that book (whoever he was) produceth a sentence out of st. austin expressly naming him, cap. 17. to which saying of st. austin the said author refuseth to give his consent which is a clear argument, it is not st. austin's. but instead of this mis-quotation i could wish that the doctor had thoroughly perused that book de verâ & falsâ poenitentiâ, for he would have found in that book a full confutation of his opinion concerning a general damnation, and that which i have written in my antidote to be as fully confirmed. moreover besides these mistakes, the said doctor, after all the dreadful clamour made of millions of millions that shall perish in their sins, addeth that which may well be accounted in effect a plain contradiction to his opinion, by showing what is the concurrent judgement of some english divines in this case, whom he nameth, calling them the true barnabasses, and to whom he subscribes his consents viz. that the justice of god's tribunal at the last day is full as much laid open in the pardon of the greatest sinners that repent, as it is in the vengeance and punishment, of the impenitent, and those that know not god, that when jesus christ shall come in the last times, he will do the same to those that truly have repent, though even at the last period of their lives, that the mercies shown to zacheus and the thief upon the cross were particular and personal, but the comfort which is to be received from thence, is common and public. adding likewise further in the same page, pag. 39 that the same english divines do also agree with all the casuists, etc. in one considerable mark of a child of god, and which (as he saith) is comprehensive all divinity and the practice of piety, and which may also be shut up in one period, to wit, that notwithstanding the atheism whether speculative or practical, secret or open that reigns at this day in the world, and all the difficulties which are met with in the interpretation of the holy scriptures, which human reason cannot unravel and understand, a man ought to be strongly and powerfully persuaded of the truth, goodness and excellency of the christian religion, and of this holy scripture which contains it; and that it will be his eternal happiness, if it be now his principal care, study and endeavour to obey, etc. whereto may be joined what one of his said english divines affirmeth (pag. 24.) viz. that god's mercies are offered to us in such a manner, that nothing is required of us but that we would accept them without any thoughts of our own so much unworthiness to hinder and keep us from it: that as his promises are of grace and mercy, so likewise are they rich and great. that in truth, they are made to those that believe, but also that faith is a gift of god, and he gives it as liberally, as he grants the pardon of sins. and who is there that will not now be ready to say, if all this be so, to what purpose is all this heat and fury in so bold, uncharitable condemning the major part of mankind to hell-fire? do not these words of his english divines, (some of whom (as owen, baxter,) were as oracles unto him) speak aloud to the world that the doctor might well have saved himself the labour of writing his reflections upon the number of god's elect? for they do plainly prove his thousands, hundred thousands, millions, millions of millions that shall be damned to be insignificant ciphers, as to god's secret purpose and decree, and likewise as to his will revealed in holy scripture. one thing, i confess, there is which he writeth of these divines, (but hath been here omitted) which i for my part cannot but except against, that is, that they have mingled with all these lenitives such a corrosion as may in some sin sick patients prove for ever destructive to their precious souls, viz. that the greatness of repentance ought to be commensurate to the greatness and enormity of the sins that have been committed. what warrant those men, or any else, can have for this assertion, is beyond my reach. i confess somewhat may be said for it from reason, if we consider what passeth between us poor creatures when we are offended each with other, it is but sit that the quality of the repair or acknowledgement should be apportioned according to the quality of the offence, but doth god require the same of us for our violation of his law as if satisfaction should be given to his justice by our repentance. true it is, very good it would be in us all, if we did walk humbly with our god all the days of our lives, according to the heinousness of our iniquities, as manasseh did, when he had sinned greatly against god, he humbled himself greatly before the god of his fathers, and when peter had sinned so wickedly in denying his master, he went forth and wept bitterly. but is this the constant method, as this doctor hath said, which god hath prescribed in the conversion of greatest sinners? what would then become of those that repent only in articulo mortis, when they are at the point of death? yea what alas will become of us all, if this were required of us? it is not hanging down our heads like bul-rushes, nor beating our breasts, nor shedding our tears, though in abundance that will come near to a satisfaction for our transgressions; not but that where true repentance is in the heart, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the right word is, and natural strength is waiting upon it, these external humiliations will be, yea and in some measure ought to be: but to make such account of them, or to trust unto them, as if we had obliged god by them so as to have mercy upon us, and that he could not in justice deny us now the pardon of our sins (which is the old pelagian error, and new popery downright) this will really prove an aggravation of our sins, and make them exceeding sinful. to this purpose hear what mr. bilney a faithful martyr of christ in the reign of hen. 8th. once said of such kind of doctrine as this is, if (saith he) i had heard such preaching of repentance in times past, i should utterly have fallen into desperation. and in his writing to dr. tonstall bishop of london, he hath these words, viz. to speak of one of your famous men; after he had sharply inveighed against vice (wherein he did well, for it cannot be too much abhorred) he thus concluded, behold, said he, thou hast lain rotten in thine own lusts, it may be by the space of threescore years, even as a beast in his own dung, and wilt thou presume in one year to go forward toward heaven, and that in thine age, as much as thou goest backward from heaven toward hell in threescore years? is not this think you (saith that good martyr) a goodly argument? is this the preaching of repentance in the name of jesus? or rather is it not to tread down christ with antichrist 's doctrine? for what other thing did he speak in effect than that christ died in vain for poor sinners? he will not (it seems by this preaching) be our jesus or saviour, but we must make satisfaction for ourselves by our repentance, else we shall perish eternally. then doth st. john lie (quoth he) in saying, behold the lamb of god which taketh away the sin of the world; and in another place, his blood cleanseth us from all our sins, and again, he is the propitiation for the sins of the whole world, etc. thus he, like one that well understood the mystery of the gospel, and good it were, if we did so all of us, that pretend to be preachers of truth in this generation. these things considered, let not so high an esteem be set upon that doctor, as to account him infallible, for it is certain, he was deceived, and he himself did find it so before he died, as appeareth by his own confession on his deathbed. i am loath to say what hath been written to me of him by a neighbour-minister (who for his learning and piety is wortly of a due regard) as that he (the said dr. moulin) had some private ends and hints, and that he had been prompted to this ill office upon those accounts. but this i will affirm constantly, if after all this friendly warning that hath been given to those that tenaciously stick to his opinions now since his decease, and will publicly advance after him (a word that he commonly used) in his errors, so making them worse at the last than they were at the beginning, i say no more, but oculus ad finem, the coming of the lord draweth near, when every man's work shall be made manifest, whether it be wood, hay, stubble, or that which is precious, and will endure the searching fire of god's spirit, which will one day try every man's work of what sort it is. and seeing that sundry errors as well of the church of rome as of other false brethren have crept in among us, i have here produced several arguments against that unreasonable doctrine of transubstantiation, and tho' i know ' many learned authors have written already, in the vindication of the doctrine of our church against that of rome, insomuch that it may be thought what is here done, is but actum agere, to repeat only the arguments that have been formerly used; yet this i will be bold to affirm, that that old saying, nihil erit dictum quod non dictum fuit prius, cannot here be objected against me. true, it is impossible but we must sometimes take up the same weapons to encounter our enemies which others have before used, yet may they be sharpened and furbished afresh, that an insipid crambe, shall not in the using them be here laid to my charge, nor dull the edge of them. yea and a new weapon shall be here taken out of the armoury of holy scripture, that never was (so far as i can find) managed before by any, which may prove as convincing (absit arrogantia) as any other. the design of which little tract is, according to the title that is set before it, to lay open the falsehood and absurdity of that grand error, of transubstantiation, and because the church of rome hath been a long time so infatuated as to wrest the words of our saviour which he spoke of the bread at his last supper, (viz. this is my body) to make them speak that which be never intended, but very little or not at all meddling with his other words concerning the cup, as well knowing the very reciting of them, would be a sufficient conviction of their error; i shall therefore here deal with them at their own weapon, and to that purpose will, at the very entrance, call upon my reader, to remember the words of our lord jesus christ, which he spoke at his last supper, viz. this is my body. du moulin's reflections reverberated. the design of this treatise is to put a stop to the carieer of one mounsieur moulin, (i say not that reverend dr. peter moulin, who is, as he well deserveth an eminent dignitary among us, but his unworthy brother lewis) who like jehu marcheth furiously here in our nation out of his road, venting his paradoxes not only against the order and discipline established in the church of england, but against the very doctrine of the gospel of our lord jesus christ, which should be dearer to us than our lives. it is reported by some that he is a scholar, and possibly they may have taken his dimensions in that kind from his office that he held by the title of usurpation in the university of oxford, during the late schism; but doubtless his pamphlet entitled moral reflections upon the number of the elect, was not penued at athens. sure i am, it did not spring from the sweet fountain of israel, for whatsoever his learning may otherwise be, he hath not yet learned christ sufficiently to know the truth, as it is in jesus. a character hath been given me of him in scriptis from london by a very good hand which is as it here followeth. this lewis du-moulin is by profession a civilian, by persuasion an independent, a man of a morose and insolent conversation, he was a history-professor at oxford in the times of the late troubles and distractions. but being thrown out of his desk at the happy return of our peace, he is led away by a misguided zeal, turns malcontent, peevish and froward; quarrelling with all good order and discipline, thinking himself not enough out of babylon unless he be out of himself; a man that ought to be severely corrected for his insolence and folly, it being to be wished, the magistrate would take such men under their discipline, which will work a more effectual cure upon them, than the most satirical pen, though dipped in gall, as wise generals punish mutinous persons more than thiefs and robbers. the reason (saith my friend) that makes me more severe with him is, because he hath, since i writ to you last set forth another discourse under this title, viz. the conformity of discipline and government among those who are commonly called independants to that of the ancient primitive christians. you may guests of the book by the title: it is not worth your animadversion, nor my time to give you any rehearsal of it. this is the man with whom we have here to deal about his moral reflections upon the number of the elect (so he calls them) and as the man is, so is his work, wherein he advanceth (as his braving transition is) on and on, without any order or method, insomuch that whosoever he be that shall undertake him shall have but as 'twere a rope of sand to hold by in following his track: only it must be the pages of his book that are to be my conduct, and the exercise of my readers patience, if he will give himself the trouble to peruse them. which book of his, though i had it in my custody before i writ my preface to the antidote being then at the press (for i would not answer a matter until i hear it or know it, that (as a wiser man than either he or i are ever like to be, hath said) would be folly and shame unto me) yet have i for born hitherto to answer it particularly, because i hoped some other would have reverberated this reflector according to his desert before this time: and well might it have been expected, seeing his hand hath been so busy against every man, not above one in a million escaping the virulency of his pen, i supposed every man's should be against him. but since it is so that no man hath hitherto appeared in this contract, but myself, albeit several persons both wise and godly have approved of that which i have already done in it, i shall now proceed further to make his folly manifest to all men, hoping that i may thereby do somewhat in the service of my master jesus christ for the glory of his great name. the good lord give his blessing unto it, that the good people of god may be confirmed in the truth of the gospel, and that this unevangelical doctor may have some sight of his folly also, who now sits brooding upon his error. and against whom i confess i have a zealous indignation, fearing lenity in this case may be imputed as a sin unto me. first then to begin with the title of his book, he calleth it moral reflections upon the number of the elect. [moral reflections] would any man that had learning, fear of god in him, christian love or good manners towards the church of god have reflected so boldly upon the secret counsels of the almighty, as this peremptory mounsieur hath done, by using this term of reflection in this case? i know the word hath of late obtained a pass, and gone for current instead of observations, considerations, etc. but it is so toto coelo eccentric, as we say, from god that it cannot be used in the sense it is here put to, without blasphemy; not therefore to be passed by without a reflection, or a repercussion rather. to reflect, what is it but to bend or bow, or strike again? flectere si nequeam, etc. and though our rhetoric may sometimes lead us to this word in things of a mere human alloy, yet i think i may safely say no sober modest author, christian, jewish or heathen did ever stretch it to such a height, as this proud dictator doth, in giving a final judgement upon things divine that are secret to us. and that which leads me to this confidence is, because cicero that prince of human learning (if we may give any heed to a large and perfect index annexed to the four tomes of his works) did never so use it. let this mounsieur then talk what he will of the worth and excellency of his subject, his divinity (certainly) is very slender, that he dares thus rashly more than ever any man did presume to make reflections upon gods infinite wisdom, in determining gods eternal election according to his fancy, which is above the reach of men and angels. nor will his word moral wherewith he would polish his unhandsome reflections make them acceptable, rather it makes them seem more ugly. will any man think that his blunt, muddy morals can either penetrate or illustrate that inaccessible light which no man hath seen, or can see? or can he imagine that his morality will excuse his blasphemy? it is somewhat i confess, that he did not name the elect here god's elect (as st. paul doth often in his epistles) though he cannot deny but that that must be his meaning. yet (possibly) being conscious to himself that he had been already too bold with god, he durst not for shame advance so far, as to call them gods elect. nevertheless taking his words as they are rendered by him (impudently enough) hath he known the mind of the lord? or hath he been his counsellor? to know the number of god's elect with a reference to the number of those that are left to perish in their sins? i could name a man, of whom this puisny may learn, one that had heard the words of god (which may be called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) and knew the knowledge of the most high, which passeth knowledge, and who saw the vision of the almighty, yet made it a question, numb. 23.10. who can count the dust of jacob, and the number of the fourth part of israel? which he meant its like, of the elect of god, as his following words seem to imply. but out of all doubt god promised abraham gen 22. that his seed should be as the stars of heaven, and as the sand which is upon the seashore innumerable, showing him how to make his account from things above, and from things beneath, which might probably signify both jews and gentiles, for he was to be the father of many nations (which must also be understood in a spiritual sense) what reckoning then can any man make of those that are without number? but to be meddling thus with gods numbering, it is such a boldness that is without parallel. holy david would have taught him more modesty when speaking of god's salvations (p. 71.15.) he saith, non cognovi numeros ejus, confessing he knew not his numbers, q. d. he had no skill in that kind of arithmetic, such knowledge was too wonderful for him, it is high, he could not reach it. st. austin renders it non cognovi negotiationes ejus, meaning that he (the prophet) knew not the several ways of god's dealing out his salvations to the children of men, the negotiations of his grace and mercy with the souls of poor sinners to bring them to heaven, he thought were not only secret but numberless. st. jerome thus, non cognovi literatunam ejus, he knew not a letter in god's book of accounts wherein the number of the elected is enrolled, meaning, the book of life was far above his reading; yet this poor illiterate man, it seems knew all, so that he could tell, as if he had taken out a copy of the account how many were to be set at the last day on the judges right hand, and how many on his left. otherwise he would not have said his reflections are proved plainly by scripture: which proof if he can produce (for in all that he hath yet written there is no such evidence) i shall hereafter be willing (as old as i am) to go to his school and learn to cast up my accounts better than i have done, though i believe a man may learn better of the soothsayer before mentioned. three places of scripture i know there are, but no more upon which he will fasten, to prove his numbering right, all which are sufficiently proved in my antidote against him, to be heterogeneous from the propositum in hand. what a doctor then have we here that hath set forth a book pretending that his reflections therein are proved plainly by scripture-evidence, when they have no warrant from thence at all? and seeing that the spirit of god hath not given his imprimatur unto it, the audacious author well deserveth to be smitten with that exprobration written ezek. 13.7. hast thou not seen a vain vision? and hast thou not spoken a lying divination? whereas thou sayest, the lord saith it, albeit god hath not spoken. but what is it that he saith is proved so plainly from scripture-evidence? why, that not above one in a hundred thousand, nay probably not above one in a million from adam down to our times shall be saved. see how punctual this french calculator is in his accounts: surely a man would think our times were much beholden to him, that we are not brought into the same condemnation with those before us: but let us not be too hasty to catch at his charity, nor to fear his fury. at his first onset (to speak of his fury) he is like a true frenchman very fierce, but he doth but hid his talons, for he will, we shall see, open them again, and gripe us to death everlasting as much as others. and what is the reason think ye, that he doth so curtal his sentence of death here in his title, which he after enlargeth even to the day of judgement? possibly this mounsieur may be of their mind, who held that there were no more of mankind to be saved, than might suffice to fill up the vacant places in heaven, from which the angels who kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, fell down to hell: or it may be he is somewhat near of kin to the ancient gnostics, who were of opinion that none were saved, but all went to hell, till the fifteenth year of tiberius caesar, wherein it was from heaven revealed, this is my beloved son, hear him. a man might here indulge himself with too much mirth, but it is better in this case to be serious. that which did put him upon this simpering and mincing his number in the title page, which in his book he uttereth with open mouth, was it may be his fear of displeasing his own party, lest they might suppose he had a hard opinion also of them for the major part of them, or possible he donbted he should exasperate the whole world about him, if he had in his title extended his uncharitable censure to the full length, and that thereupon his book might primâ fancy have been cast aside with a quis legit haec? nemo, hercule nemo, or have vanished like a cacodaemon or spectrum quite out of sight, or into grocer's shops for waste paper, as it hath been said of another like unto it in thuris, piperisve cucullos. in short, never was there man that wrote at the rate, as this man hath written. how great a scandal (alas) hath he brought upon the christian profession? for should this be received without a public contradiction, as a doctrine of truth among us, viz. that not above one in a million shall be saved, our religion would be the most uncomfortable religion of any in the world, and who among those that are aliens from it, will ever be persuaded to be converts unto it? nay then may satan well insult, and with triumphant boastings cry out with a shout, o christ, where is thy victory; what, is the blood of god, spent for the salvation of the world, become of so little value that so small inconsiderable number can be saved by it? thou, o christ art called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and i know not what, but a poor prince, and a weak captain hast thou proved thyself to be, when i like a stout and valiant champion indeed have brought the greatest number of those, for whose sake thou didst enter the field against me, under my command, not above one in a million but shall for ever be subject unto me, and consequently never to be delivered from everlasting destruction. horrendum dictu! never, o dear christians, never let our souls enter into the secrets of this man, nor be baptised with the baptism that he is baptised with. somewhat we may discern by him of the miserable fruits, which the late schism and rebellion brought forth amongst us, that such as he should be preferred then to a place of dignity in one of our universities, where he might be the more able cum privilegio, to do mischief by his whimsical opinions. however i am glad it is not any of our nation that hath run into this worst kind of antichristianism, but one that hath been an intruder amongst us. while men slept in those days the enemy, we see, hath been busy to sow his tares, yet may these tares be now plucked up without any hurt to the good corn, yea very much would it be to the advantage of it, if they were quite removed. and therefore since this intruder hath disobliged our nation, yea goeth on still to disoblige it more and more, it were to be wished that he had his pass given him to return again to his own country with shame, for there is no reason he should stay longer to eat of our bread or abide in our nation, as he hath by his own confession upwards of fifty years, and yet be so unworthy of this privilege by his dissenting from us both in the doctrine and discipline of our church, creating thereby troubles to us while we are here in this world, and sending us all for the most part packing to holl, when we depart out of it. at least i could wish that his works may have the same law put in force upon them, as the works and wares of aliens are to have by the statute of the 14th. and 15. of hen. 8th. viz. that special marks be set upon them, to prevent the fraud and other worse inconveniences that may arise unto us by them. i have done with his title, upon which i confess i have insisted too long, but that what hath been here written of it, may be joined with that which hereafter followeth in the refutation of this uncharitable man's absurd opinion. before i come to his book there are also some parts of his epistle to be reflected upon and to be reverberated too for that religious persons sake to whom he dedicates his book, and for the sake of all others who may have the hard hap, as i have had, to read it. first i find no fault with dedicating his book to an honourable lady, one that excelleth in piety, knowledge of and love to sacred things (as his words are) whom if he had called his elect lady, it had been pertinent to his purpose, for (surely) he could not but account her as one chosen out of his millions etc. let such persons, whom the king delighteth to honour, have all that honour given them which is their due, and when by their exemplary piety they bring a more than ordinary lustre upon religion, god himself hath promised to honour them likewise: well than may we that are ministers of the gospel by all good ways and means endeavour without flattery to do the same. this man (i do not call him minister of the gospel for that it seems he is not) but whatsoever he be, he hath so done by his dedication, and i commend him for it. it is pity he did not set her name unto it as well as her title. she is a stranger unto me, one of whom i never before heard, though i have made some inquiry of persons about me. but though i commend him in his design of dedicating, i cannot approve of all that he hath written in it. he humbly begs to have leave to lay his treatise at her honour's feet for protection, this methinks sounds not well, and signifies a fear in him (as well there might) that he failed in his undertaking. why else doth he thus fall a begging? when if his treatise be (as it should be) according to truth, he needs no such protection of it, for no doubt god would protect him in it, and the whole church of god would stand by him against me and all others that should except against it. but if otherwise it agree not with the standard of truth, that is, the holy word of god, who will not say neither he nor it deserves any protection at all, what then is the matter, trow? that he so earnestly begs protection? doth the man fear he shall be knocked on the head that he thus seeks for protection? or will his treatise be safer at her honour's feet, than it would be upon a stationer's stall? the feet indeed is the sittest place for it, that is, to be trodden upon, or spurned into the fire rather than to be protected, being able to do much hurt to those that shall read it or hear it. had he dedicated his book to his good brother, or to some other that may be better able than himself to discern the dishonour which he doth to our lord jesus christ and his gospel by it, he might not have possibly been in danger thereupon to have fallen into the number of those millions whom he so much condemns; which i fear, without a serious reflection upon himself and his works, such as may through grace lead him to repentance for it, he will find to be his portion in the end to his smart and sorrow. non obstante (as i have said already) i dislike not his zeal in awakening the world out of that sluggish lethargy to which all, as he saith, are more or less inclined; let the thunder and lightning of sinai be rattled in the ears, and darted into the eyes of secure impenitent sinners, let the terrors of the law be as magor-missabib, formido circumquaque, dreadful to them round about, let the judgement to come be displayed before them with all the terrifying appearances of it. this indeed being according to the form of found words which the spirit of god in scripture hath set us in our preaching, may do some good, as it hath done to many desperate sinners in opening their eyes, and turning them from darkness to light, and from the power of satan to god. but it is a false alarm that this man soundeth to that purpose when he tells the world that not above one in a hundred thousand, nay probably not above one in a million shall be saved. this is not to be as a schoolmaster to drive us to christ, but rather as a devil to scare us from him. this is the echo rather of the bottomless pit, the reverberation that ariseth from the deep caverns of hell, enough to make men run headlong into desperation, or into athiesm, or at least into epicurism and greater dissoluteness in their lives; neither indeed can any other be expected, when the mercies of god, which have always been proclaimed to be infinite, are so straitened, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 pet. 1.19. and the precious honourable blood of the lamb sufficient to save all the world, is made of so little reckoning. a good doctrine would this be where that antichristian tenet is received as an evangelical truth, viz. that men shall be justified by their own righteousness, and saved by their own works, for then well may it be said, not one in a million, nay not one in all the world from adam down to the last man that shall spring from that sinful root shall ever be saved, well may the church of rome now sing their jo paean, and well may the quakers that frantic sect join in it, for this man hath done all their work for them. but to go on with his dedication. he is (it seems by his words) at the end of his stage, even as i am, i confess, at the end of mine, and it will concern us both therefore to be very wary how we get off from it. no necessity (though) was there for him before his exit to gaze about for a plaudite by proclaiming publicly that it is the common entertainment he allows himself to meditate upon his leaving the stage. let him on god's name employ his wisdom (if he have any) in considering his latter end, and his appearance before the great god, and god almighty grant that i also may do the like. nevertheless when i look upon his boldness in reflecting upon god's arcana imperii, i am afraid he is not so wise as he should be in that matter of his departure, but that either the thought of his latter end was then the latter end of his thought, or if his thoughts did run to the end of his stage, his precipitant fancy did so outrun them, that he could hardly reach with comfort to the end of his race. and as for others, better surely were it for us, who are ready to be unclothed (as the apostle's word is) to reflect upon ourselves by a serious examination of our hearts, lives and opinions, then to be astonished with the stupidity and profound security of others, which i confess is much to be lamented too wheresoever it is. but for him to boast thus of himself, and at the same time to condemn the gross of mankind (as he impudently calls it) for their negligence in that matter, wherein he would have us believe he himself excelleth, what is this but pharisaism in a high degree. all their thoughts and bustle (he saith) amount only to this to pursue the lusts of the flesh, the lusts of the eye, and the pride of life, and to advance their carnal interests in the world, as if there were nothing more to hope for or to fear, etc. which he applies not only to heathens, but to those that are born in a christian world, that are educated and bred up in the truths of the gospel, in whom he saith this insensibleness is inexcusable. see i beseech (good readers) what a censor morum this doughty doctor is and how arrogant, in that he will dare to usurp a divine power thus by entering into the hearts of men, and to know all their thoughts; what knoweth he but that a great multitude of those whom he accounts insensible may have as great a sense of sin at some time or other in their souls and sorrow for it, as he himself hath? yea and though they make not so great a bustle in the world about it as he doth, yet may their sorrow be more after a godly sort. for him, when i hear what carefulness there is in him to amend his errors, what apology he can make for himself about them, what indignation he hath against his own heart for conceiving them, when i hear of these and the other effects of godly sorrow to be in him, i will rejoice and praise god for the grace that is given him, but till then i must say he hath exceedingly sinned against god, and let him be sure his sin will find him out. in the mean while when he saith all their thoughts and bustle amount only to this, to pursue the lusts of the flesh, etc. and to advance their carnal interests in this world, as if there were nothing more to hope for, or to fear: on the other side the gulf which all must shoot, i would know of him what he means thereby, would he have men to neglect their callings whereto god hath called them, and wherein, by the apostles rule, they are to abide with god, otherwise not to eat? men that are wise would say, the more noise and bustle men make in the world by their diligence and industry in their callings, the more are they to be commended, provided that they keep themselves within due bounds, especially that they neglect not the vnum necessarium, the one thing needful: for whereas god commands us to serve him, he alloweth us also to serve ourselves, nay more, by serving ourselves in a holy conscientious use of god's blessings, and by following our callings in obedience to his commands, god accounts himself to be served too. col. 3.24. servants (saith st. pauly in serving their masters diligently, serve the lord christ, they wrought for me, saith the lord (ezek. 29.20.) when it was their own interests and advantages they aimed at in their bustle which they made. if then this be the bustle which he means, god will certainly in mercy pay wages for it, notwithstanding the bustling of this foolish man. or would he have men cast off their near and dear relations so as to take no care for them contrary to the will of god often revealed in scripture? this were a bustle indeed that would overthrow all natural affection, and make men worse than brute creatures. one of these i guess he doth mean by his writing at this uncharitable rate, more like a judge than one that shall be judged among other men. let him examine all the examples of holy men, whose praise is upon record in the book of god, abraham, isaac, jacob, david, etc. were they not all diligent in their particular callings? were they not all tenderly affected towards their natural relations, wives and children? yet no man will say that their care of their own eternal salvation was lessened thereby; and if the gross of mankind (as he like a proud pharisee calls the major part of the world of men) do the same now as those patriarches and other holy men did, with what face can he say that all their thoughts and bustle amount only to this, to pursue the lusts of the flesh, etc. and to advance their carnal interests in this world, & c? rather doth not an anabaptistical spirit haunt and pursue this man, which hath put him upon these whymsies to account all that is done by men in the world but a vain bustle, unless it be (forsooth) licensod by his magisterial fiat? no prince (if at least he will acknowledge any) shall go to war against an encroaching and enraged enemy, but he will call it a bustle, no merchant shall traffic with any foreign nation, but it shall be a bustle, no tradesman tend his shop without a bustle, no artificer practise his scill, but it is a bustle, no shepherd look after the state of his flocks without a bustle, no rustic till his ground, sow his corn, gather in his harvest, carry it to market, but it must be a bustle, no husband take care for the things of this world how he may please his wife, nor no wise take care for the things of this world how she may please her husband, but all this must be a bustling to pursue the lusts of the flesh, etc. and to advance carnal interests in this world. how this bustler can be able to stand with confidence before men in this world, when he hath been thus pragmatical in stretching beyond his last, i know not, and how he will able to stand in the judgement at the last day, let him look to it betimes before it be too late. it was said before we should go on with his dedication, but i doubt i go too far, making the porch too big for the building that is to follow one reflection therefore and no more shall be here made upon some other words in his epistle dedicatory. you say indeed that there are some divines very sincere and upright, etc. that are apt to believe that the mercies of god are of a vast extent, far beyond our possibility of finding out. and why apt to believe? as if they did not yet really believe this; surely if they be good divines instructed unto the kingdom of heaven, they do fully believe that the mercies of god (i will not say as you say, are of a vast extent, that's a word too much below the height of this divine subject, but they do believe they) are infinite, and that the dimensions thereof are incomprehensible, far beyond (as you say) our possibility of finding out: this questionless they believe, and do not you (sir) believe so too? if you do not (which your words imply) you are so far from being a sincere and upright christian, that intruth you are no christian at all, but a downright enemy to god and his son jesus christ: if you do believe it, why do you cast off those sincere divines so slightly by saying there are some others whose reasons appear more strong and sinewy to you, and who allege scripture for their opinion, that conclude the mercy of god is to be restrained, to a fewer number. [the mercy of god] was there ever man that dallied thus with the glorious attribute of god? he spoke before of the mercies of god, as of many wherein he did well, for they are indeed without number: but now being about to make god's mercies of a less extent, the plurality thereof would not agree so well with his fancy, therefore he speaks of them now in a diminutive sense: whereas had he written like a scholar, he would have made the correspondency in the latter branch exactly according to the former and have called them, as they are, the mercies of god, nor did he before make mention of any number to whom the mercies of god should have been extended, only now the small number which ran in his mind hath made him to vary his words, and to bring them down to nonsense. having stayed thus long in the portal, it is now time to enter into the building, where instead of mercy being built up, as the good psalmist foretold it should, and that for ever, we shall find it miserably broken down, which will be but a cold entertainment for my reader who hath his hope in god's mercy, only he shall see it here repaired in some measure, and the ruins of it, removed out of his sight, that his hope in it may be strengthened yet more and more. the reflector gins here again with his title of moral reflections upon the number of the elect, as if he were not ashamed of it, but would stand to it like a valiant man, whereas it will appear his boldness is but daubed over with impudence, nor will his shuffling excuse his impudence by telling the world what others say of this unmerciful tenet; for that which they say, and they say as he writes, pretending as if he himself had nothing to say to it, he affirms it to be his own judgement in the following parts of his discourse, surpassing all that ever i heard of, or i think any man else in uncharitable judging, declaring his mind plainly that not above one in a million shall be saved. first, he gins with the opinions of others that differ from him, giving his sense of them, naming one caelius secundus curio, an author, i confess, that i am not acquainted with, whose opinion, though he dislikes it, is most orthodox, and is the same which i shall here maintain against this reflector, and against the world, viz. that the number of those that shall be saved is, in all probability, much greater than the number of those that shall be damned. but as for that of zuinglius, whom he nameth also, if that be true which he writeth of him, viz. that the number of the saved and the damned is equal, just as many of the one, as of the other, zuinglius. which he and his followers would prove by certain parabolical allusions and semblances that are not argumentative, i shall let it pass, as unworthy of any regard. those arguments of the first sort, viz. caelius, etc. that are most pertinent to the matter in hand, though this reflector takes no notice of them or but very little, i shall briefly recollect and render an account of them; first, the law in its greatest rigour says that god punisheth but to the third and fourth generation, but he showeth mercy to a thousand generations, thus they. and will not you mr. reflector say so too? if you will not, you must fall under the curse threatened by the holy ghost (rev. 22.) viz. god will take your part out of the book of life, i.e. cast you out of his church, so that you shall be uncapable of any of the blessings belonging to it: if you will say thus, the thousands to whom god will show mercy would have sounded better under your pen, than that which you have writ of the number of those that shall be damned. and here i cannot but insert what a learned and good divine hath writ to me when he saw my antidote against your book. we (saith he) seldom or never (in sacred pages) meet with the terrifying number of the damned particularly summed up, but of the happy we find rev. 7. such precise numbers mentioned. and some thousands of years before that, it is written god had mercy in store for thousands of them that loved him and kept his commandments. this, in truth, is the spirit that hath prevailed among us here in this our church, it being well known that the genius (if i may so call it) of our nation hath always more inclined to mercy than to rigour, and hath been apt to interpret the law of god as well as the law of our land rather for the comfort and benefit of mankind, where such a construction may upon good terms be allowed, then for their ruin and destruction. i know not (mounsieur) what hath been predominant with you in other parts of the world. but it is you and such as you are that have joined with the roman faction against us to create disturbances among us, and to lead captive silly people into many absurd errors which have brought a cloud over all our excellency, and have eclipsed that glory of truth and peace, which but for you would, long ere this time, have dwelled in our land. you go on to tell us what they say (viz. caelius, etc.) that the mercies of god are of a large extent, that god is slow to anger. ready to pardon and show mercy, that he forgives sins of the deepest dye, and that calvin remarking upon the words which god speaks (ex. 34.) of his forgiving iniquity, transgression and sin that god thereby wonderfully advances the greatness of his own mercies, and that he would have us to know, he pardons not only little sins, but also the most enormous, and that god would not command us to say forgive us our sins, if he had not an intention to forgive them; for he did not make that command to send us away from him (as you impiously say) like fools as we came. yet is your sarcasme an argument against you. all which that they say of this matter, and much more that you add is true, and which all good people who believe there is a god, will say. how dare you then to contradict it by saying, not above one in a million shall ever by these infinite mercies come to heaven? would any man but you having all these comfortable promises of mercy and overtures of grace under your eye, conclude expressly for the execution of god's wrath to the uttermost upon his poor creatures that have sinned against him? but that you after say, the arguments for your opinion are incomparably more strong and nervous (how strong they are we shall see hereafter.) in the mean time i must tell you, these premises (though you slight them as being not syncategorical with your position) yet are they certainly against you, and make for the truth. you say further that they mightily press, (as all good christians will) the infinite price and value of the merit, death and satisfaction and redemption of jesus christ, which is not only efficacious to pardon (you should rather have said to obtain pardon for) an infinity (that's your word) of sins both for their number, and their enormity, but also for an infinity of men. that it is extremely to lessen the ends, for which jesus christ came into the world, to admit, that he came only to redeem one man of a million. that it is not to be believed that jesus christ at the right hand of his father does intercede but for one of a hundred thousand of all mankind. what you say to all this, we shall see hereafter. they do likewise (say you) mightily urge this consideration that since none are in a state of damnation, but who are under a perpetual weeping, wailing, and gnashing of teeth, and an eternal horror of conscience for their past offences, it cannot rationally be affirmed of so many millions of heathen children that died before they came to the use and exercise of reason: and if god be merciful to these (as who can determine the contrary) it would be ridiculous (such is your word, as if you had a mind to laugh at god) that god has reserved their parents alive, who have the use of reason, to damn them to all eternity; what you will say to all this also would be considered, for none of all these things move you. moreover who will believe (say they) that god so loved the world, or that he sent his son into the world, not to condemn it, but that it might be saved by him, that christ is the lamb of god that takes away the sin of the world, and that he being the bread of life, gave himself to the world to give life to it, etc. who will believe that by the world, we must understand but one or two persons among i know not how many thousands or millions in the world? and where is that love towards the world, to let it walk, that is to say perish in its own ways? all this and much more is alleged by that orthodox evangelical party against your destructive opinion, as for that other which makes the number equal between the elect and reprobate, as i have said, i meddle not with it. and you mr. reflector had done better if you had made no mention of it at all: for to what purpose do you recite it, and their arguments for it, when you may know it is not at this time of any account, scarce a word spoken of it among any, unless it be with contempt? but you were willing to muster up your enemies, and drive them before you altogether promiscuously like a brave man at arms, or rather like that pugnacissimum animal, as it is said of the gander, armata elidere manu, to crush them altogether, as it were with one gripe. two and twenty of their forces you have reckoned up paragraphically with words at length and with figures too, enough to make your valour famous in conquering them. and what is it that you do against such a troop? it is methinks somewhat like to that which the man did against the learned cardinal with two words only quite confuting him, viz. mentiris bellarmine. so say you here, but for all this, i like better those that are on my side, than those that are against me. so that in effect it is your own poor narrow soul that must sway the balance against all the reason that can be produced, and against all the whimsies too of zuinglius and his followers. if this be not childish and absurd, what is? children, we know, are wont to say, but for all that, i will do what i list; or as scolds say, for all this, i will have it as i please. the word, it's true, hath been used in some cases to good purpose, but never by scholars in their disputations, especially when arguments have been multiplied against them. you come at length to show what your party can do in your opinion, but do it not. they do you say most easily enervate and weaken all the arguments of those who hold the opinion of caelius curio secundus, i. e. that the major part of mankind shall be saved; and how do they so? they say first, if we ought not to be too ingenious to throw men into a despair of their salvation, so we ought not to lull them asleep in the depth of security by a false persuasion that they shall be saved. first i must here tell you it is not your word, they say, will excuse your nonsense, and what is it that they say which you do not say? but would any man undertake such a weighty matter as this is and manage it no better? that which you offer in the first place should be (as your vaunting words are) most strong and nervous; but how is it so, when it fails both in sense and reason? we ought not, you say, to be too ingenious to throw men into despair, and you ought to be so ingenuous now to acknowledge your folly, when it is made known unto you. for tell me sadly, do you account it a trick of wit to cast men into despair of their salvation? i shall not charge this upon you (though your word signifies so much) no nor will you (i believe) nor will any of your party pretend unto it, what a stout champion then are you to begin thus with nonsense? you will say possibly, it is but a typographical eslip, the word here should be ingenuous, but the printer here failed, yet neither will this help you, for what ingenuity or goodness of nature can there be to do the devils work? you should have said if we ought not to be too severe in that kind, this will be easily granted you; for doubtless it is the most uncomfortable office in the world to offend in such a severity, and most impious. but by shunning such a severity we ought not you say to lull men asleep by a false persuasion that they shall be saved. and what reason is here; is there any necessity that he that shuneth the one must unavoidably do the other? thus far i will consent unto you in this case, whosoever he be that shall do his endeavour to lull men asleep in the depth of security by a false persuasion that they shall be saved, he is in danger himself of eternal damnation. but you make your argument here to be like unto that which hath been called by logicians argumentum crocodilinum, a dilemma. for as the crocodile if you follow him will lead you into his den, i. e. into the river nilus, if you fly from him, he will pursue you, till he have fastened upon you, so do you, if we consent unto your doctrine, you will lead us into a damnable snare, where we shall be in danger to make men run into despair, if we eat you, you will judge us as the authors of men's condemnation in lulling them asleep, etc. what then shall we that are ministers of the gospel do who are chief concerned in this matter? the best is, not to regard your vain words, but seeing the word of reconciliation is committed to us, let us then, as the ambassadors of christ, beseech poor sinners still to be reconciled to god; if this will lull them asleep, etc. we cannot help it, a necessity is laid upon us, and woe will be to us, if we preach not the gospel; we are not then to neglect our own duty, because of the misconstruction that others may make of our ministry, the consequents that may follow thereupon are to be deferred to the judgement and award of almighty god who will order the whole matter for his own glory, as seemeth good unto him. thus did st. paul in another the like case, though he had in 1 thess. 5.2.3. written of the sudden coming of the lord, yet when he perceived that some were like to take occasion thereby to make the world believe that the day of christ was then at hand, that so they might, as it is probable, carry on a pernicious design against the whole doctrine of the gospel, he thereupon tells them plainly in his second epistle that that day should not come, (2 thess. 2.2, 3.) before such and such things that he there mentions were first come to pass: he feared not, it seems, lest he should give occasion of a carnal security to presumptuous sinners (as it is here objected) by his writing of the protraction of the great day, but leaves that to their peril, who shall pervert his words and turn them to such a sinister sense, declaring the mind of god clearly without casting such scruples as you do. and this may be a sufficient warrant, once for all, unto us to speak freely of god's grace and goodness to the world, not regarding what wicked persons deluded by the devil may suggest unto themselves thereby. thus mr. reflector you see your first allegation is here torn in pieces. the rest that follow are so far from being weighty, strong and sinewy, that they are as light as a feather. so in truth a man may well account of them, for having already driven you from your strongest hold, i mean, the holy scripture, which you may find in my antidote set forth against you, i shall make little reckoning of any thing else that you can say, your outworks i mean may be easily thrown down. but because i find i shall be tedious to myself and others if i should trace you, as i have begun, i shall choose in the sequel to join issue with you in a more succinct manner, and take down your sophistry and mounting confidence at the first bound of them; not that i intent to gather up all the fragments of your discourse to give my reader a taste of them, for that would be nauseous, but to save myself the labour, and to ease him of his trouble in tumbling over your stuff, which you have heaped together, i shall in that manner as aforesaid make my addresses unto you v g. reflector. adam and eve's salvation is much what the same with that of solomon's, and both equally probable, though they are not certainly known and revealed, answer. not certainly known and revealed? no more is the salvation of seth, enos, cainan, etc. nor many of those that follow who are upon record for holy persons though their obedience to god's law was not so exact, as the law did require. but seeing the salvation of our first parents is here brought into question by you, i shall show you somewhat concerning them, which it seems you know not. to say nothing of what is written of adam (luke 3.38.) where he is said to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of god, for as cain is said to be (1 joh. 3.12.) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the wicked one the devil as belonging to him, so is adam 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of god, as belonging not only to his creation (for so do all creatures, even the devils) but to his election of grace. it is written of adam (gen. 3.20.) that after his fall and god's displeasure made known unto him for it, immediately adam called his wife's name eve, because she was to be the mother of all living. the sense whereof i take to be this (with submission to better judgements,) adam by faith here layeth hold upon the promise of god's grace. and he doth it in the only way and manner that he could have at that time to give an evidence of his faith, that is, in calling his wife by a new name, a name which he had not before given her, when the lord god brought her first unto him; for he now when the sentence of death was passed upon him, calleth her name eve, which signifieth life (whereas before he had only called her woman, as being one, whom he was to own above all other creatures for the lovely and beloved consort of his life) implying doubtless that though he had been in danger through his sin, to die in the loss of god's favour for ever, yet was he now fully persuaded by the gracious indulgence of god unto him in the seed of the woman that not he himself alone and his wife should live, but his posterity also should be a living posterity, and that his wife should be mother of him among them, by whom the sentence of death was to be reversed, and life and immortality to be again brought to light, for, saith moses, she was to be the mother of all living. that this sense may be received, let it be considered, if this were not the intent of moses in this place, viz. to give notice hereby of adam's restipulation to the new covenant, here would be a strange incongruity between these words and those immediately before: there had god severely threatened to punish adam all the days of his life with sorrow upon sorrow for his disobedience, and that he should in the end be reduced to his dust from whence he was taken. now (surely) to a man that was exalted to so great an honour as adam was in his creation, the sound of these words must needs be very terrible, and it might well be expected that at the first hearing them, somewhat should have appeared of adam's astonishment, and bewailing his misery, but we find no such matter here at all to be mentioned. what then? is all this thunder and lightning from heaven upon him slighted, and made of no account? so it should seem, if these words of adam concerning his wife have no coherence with the former, but do only show a kind of uxoriousness in him towards his wife. but away with such vain conceits, there is certainly that here added which may well be construed as a due sequel of the former proceed of god with adam. for when god had done pronouncing his righteous judgement, what should this poor malefactor do? not (certainly) as cain after him did, cry out desperately, my punishment is greater than i can bear, but without delay close in with god's mercy in the promised seed. here therefore in order thereto is a description of his confidence in god's goodness purposely so interserted by moses, to show (as hath been said) the lively faith of adam in laying hold upon god's preceding promise. for though it is to be presumed, he did humble himself greatly before god for his sin, yet is not that so much regarded by the spirit of god, as this his confident cleaving to the covenant of god's grace, that so the church may take notice hereby that this covenant was at first mutually agreed upon between god and adam, and consequently that all mankind to the end of the world who are interessed in it must be obliged to the conditions of it: for the act and deed of the first covenanter (who was the representative general of all that came after him in this case, as well as in the other of the former covenant) was ipso facto obligatory in their several generations, according to the form and manner, force and virtue of all other covenants that are usual now adays in the world of the like sort and nature. if this than be the true sense of this scripture (as i believe it is, and will be so accounted by the church of god throughout the world,) viz. that our first parents did in this manner mutually consent with god in the covenant of grace, what an uncharitable man are you to doubt of their salvation? especially when (as it appeareth in the verse following) upon their submission and consenting to this new covenant, god doth immediately also take care of these his new covenant servants that they may be clothed (as 'twere) with his livery, that their bodies may be preserved from shame and violence, and that they might know thereby that the garment of his righteousness, whom those beasts (with whose skins they were clad) did typify, would do their souls more good, than the fig-leaves of their own righteousness could, with all their patching be able to do. reflector. the salvation of solomon is much-what like to that of adam and eve's, and both equally probable though not certainly known and revealed. answer. nothing will please you i see but what agrees with your fancy. you question here the salvation of solomon, because it is not revealed; as if all persons mentioned in scripture must have such a revelation of their eternal happy estate there set down, else you may be at your liberty to judge of them as you please. it is true much is written of solomon's defection; but so there is of noah's drunkenness as it is called, of lot's incest, of judah's incontinency, of reubens desiling his father's bed, of simeon's and levi's cruelty, of king asa his rage against the seer who came to him with a message from the lord, etc. but little or nothing is written of their repentance before they died, yet will no man be so rash as to doubt of their salvation: why should you then or your complices be so peremptory as to cast a scruple about the salvation of solomon? cannot you be contented with that which is written of him, favoris gratiâ, but you must have a damnable sling at him, as if he were hover between heaven and hell? but how else could you maintain your absurd paradox of your hundred thousands and millions of men that shall perish in their sins, in comparison of one that shall be saved? we read joh. 13.1. whom the lord loveth, he loveth to the end; and do we not read also again and again that the lord loved solomon. 2 sam. 12.24. neh. 13.26. yea that this love was confirmed unto him by the best assurance that could be given him, viz. propter jehovam, the lord loved him for the lords sake, that is, for christ the messiah's sake, in whom all gods elect from the beginning of the world to the end, are beloved with an everlasting love. did god choose him out to be one of his actuaries of his public records to his church, viz. the book of the proverbs, the book of ecclesiastes, or the preacher, the book of the canticles, that pure celestial epithalamum, or marriage song, and of two of the psalms (as the title of them signifies,) viz. ps. 72. and ps. 127. and can it be probably thought that he should be dignified in this high degree, if he had been no better than a wretched castaway in gods eternal purpose? what, were there not heirs enough of everlasting salvation to be inspired by the holy ghost for the office of a public notary of heaven, but one must be taken from among the bondslaves of hell to make up the number? was he a preacher sent of god, and was not one of his books called ecclesiastes his recantation sermon which he writ in his old age when he took a more serious view of his bypast life, wherein among other his follies he showeth his abhorrency of his being misled by women. i find (saith he) more bitter than death the woman whose heart is snares and nets, eccles. 7.26. and her hands as bands; implying that though death be bitter, yet he had rather die than be entangled again in the snares of a whorish woman. which option may well be justified, if we consider the aggravations of this sin, as they are rendered by a good interpreter, bishop r. one of a thousand, and a right reverend preacher among us in our church, whose words are these, viz. they (that is wicked harlots) are more bitter than death) more pernicious, and bring more heavy miseries with them. we read of the bitterness of death 1 sam. 15.32. and of a worse bitterness, the end of a strange woman is bitter, etc. and her steps take hold of hell, pro. 5.4.5. death may be sweetued and sanctified, made a welcome and desirable thing to a believer, 1 cor. 15. but the bitterness of hell is incurable; death may be honourable, to die in a good cause (as our king charles the martyr comforted himself in his death) to die in a good old age, to go to the grave in peace, lamented, desired, with the sweet savour of a holy life, and many good works to follow one. but to consume and putrify alive under a tabes of impure lusts, to shipwreck a man's honour, ruin his estate, shorten his years, consume his flesh, rot his bones, put a hell into his conscience, to bury his name, his substance, his soul, his carcase, in the bosom of a harlot, this is a bitterness beyond that of death. this now is that which solomon here means and complaineth of. and whether this be a sound of repentance, or no, judge you; and if your judgement be of any value, how dare you doubt of his salvation? being so true a penitent, as you see, neither can you but acknowledge him to be so. reflector. nothing can be concluded of the salvation or damnation of those that were the types of things to come. answer. can nothing then be concluded of the salvation of samson, who was an eminent type of jesus christ? so doth our learned whitaker demonstrate him to be, viz. 1. in sanctitate natiuâ. 2. in servatoris munere. 3. in juvicto robore. 4. in morte calamitosa cum hostibus: if all this will not satisfy you, the apostles numbering him among the saints (heb. 11.) should convince you, that you may conclude of his salvation. i could instance in sundry others, as gideon, jephthah, etc. but this may suffice to show you your error herein. reflector. for it happened sometimes that one person, as esau who was the figure and type of the reprobate, was also that of the most excellent thing in the world, viz. the righteousness of jesus christ, under which a jacob, a sinner obtained the blessing of god. answer. your reason here is defective both in sense and truth, worthy therefore of no regard. but that you may not flatter yourself in your folly. what a confused shuffling words is here, like the quakers jumbling several things together without sense? as for esau, it seems, you have so much charity for him, as not to conclude him to be a reprobate, though the spirit of god in scripture hath noted him to be a profane person, and one whom god hated. but how it came to pass that he hath escaped your censure of a reprobate, when you make him a type of the reprobate, i know not it being a rule in logic (if ever you learned it) de proportionalibus est idem judicium. et quod de uno, secundum proportionem, affirmatur, id etiam de altero; if esau then be a type of the reprobate, that is, hath the impression of a reprobate upon him, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the word type signifies, he must needs be a reprobate. but let me demand of you, is it for you or i to cast a figure thus, or create a type of god's eternal decree, concerning mankind? we should certainly usurp upon god's power, if what is written in scripture, we may wrest it to our meaning without an express warrant from the spirit of god. and polanus (an author whom i suppose you approve of) saith typi fuerant figurae a deo destinatae ad res divinas praefigurandas. in syntag. let us not then be too bold, to thrust ourselves into god's pavilion by giving our judgement of things which god hath kept in his own power. for my part i cannot say that esau was a type of the reprobate, much less that he himself was a reprobate. this i can say, with good probability he was in that generation admitted into the church of god by the sacrament of circumsion, as well as his brother jacob, who though he took him by the heel at the birth, signifying his future supplantation of him, yet could he not supplant him in his new birth, but both were alike interessed in god's grace and favor. 'tis true esau was profane in the act of despising his birthright, but so was judah in the act of incontinency, etc. and he was one whom god hated i e. did not love, as he loved jacob, yet i will not stretch my censure of him so far, as to account him a son of perdition, as judas the traitor is. luther on gen. 17. is very positive for the salvation of ishmael (though it be written of him that he being born after the flesh, persecuted him that was born after the spirit) and for aught i see, we may be as confident of the salvation of esau. certain it is, his father isaac, a holy man loved him entirely from his very infancy, nor do we find that he ever displeased his good father by any undutiful carriage towards him (except only in his linking himself with the daughters of heth) nor by forsaking the true god, and falling off to idols; and seeing isaac had so great affection to him, strangers that knew him not should not condemn him for a reprobate. but esau according to your words, must be not only a type of the reprobate, but also of the most excellent thing in the world, to wit: the righteousness of jesus christ, under which, a jacob, a sinner obtained the blessing of god, what sense or truth there is in these words, let the wise reader judge. the bare reciting them is, to me, a clear refutation of them. only a man would think that you who can set out ideas of the true sons of god so roundly with characteristical signs and figures drawn at large out of holy writ, which is easy to be done by any man studious in searching the scripture, but not so easy to find all those excellencies in any the very best of men (for a quis requisivit may suffice to bring down their vaunting pride in that matter, and to shorten your rolls wherein you glory with much insultation) a man, i say, would think that you should with a seraphical strain of holiness magnify the righteousness of our lord jesus christ, and not dwindle or shrink up that most excellent thing, as you call it, in so poor jejune unedifying exemplar, as esau was one whom the holy spirit of god, we may well believe, never intended to such an honour. but what a stout way is this of enervating all the arguments of your adversaries who hold the opinion that is truly evangelical? if bold words without sense, truth and reason will do it you have done it to purpose. but let us search a little further into your folly, that it may be made manifest unto all men. reflector. those promises in ex. 34. and numb. 14. are conditional, and only appertain to them that obey the commandments of god, and that repent as david did. answer. it is much that you do not call them fine promises as you, in derision, do in the 26 page of your book. so light account do you make of that which concerns the comfort of poor sinners, but any thing that may lead them to a despair of their salvation, you aggravate to the uttermost. who ever doubted of this that gods promises of mercy are conditional, and only appertain to them that obey his commands? but if you mean here by such an obedience as the covenant of works did require, you make the gospel of no effect: and who then can be saved? are you yourself so exact in keeping gods commandments that you may lay a just claim to the crown of life by a rightful desert, and need not the passion of thy redeemer? i have that charitable opinion of you, that you are not guilty of such a pharisaical arrogance; be you then so charitable, as not to lay on men's shoulders such burdens which you yourself will not, nay cannot touch with one of your fingers. had you confuted st. paul concerning this very scripture, which you have alleged; you would have given a better interpretation of it, than your words seem to carry with them; i mean more agreeable to the tenor of the new covenant: read but what is written by him rom. 4.3, 4, 5, 6.7, 8. and then, if you please, tell me your mind, what you think of obeying god's commandments. but it is well that you have added, god's promises belong to those that repent; which is indeed evangelical, but whereas you say they ought to repent as david did, instancing in many of his words taken out of the 32 psalms, not at all to your purpose; it is true what david did in sincerity, let every man look to it that he follow his example therein, but can you or any man else come near unto him in holiness, zeal, humility, & c? the examples that are given us in scripture of the piety of god's eminent servants are (indeed) set for our imitation, and let our souls drive our sluggish hearts hard after them to the uttermost of our power, yet let us do what we can, we shall not overtake them (neither is it, i think i may say, required of us that we should) for copies must ever be more excellent than the apographa that are to follow them, otherwise they cease to be copies: nor doth god command that there shall be in all that are ordained to eternal life the same degree of faith, spiritual wisdom and mortification, but as the apostle faith of alms 2 cor. 8.12. so may it well be said of all that we do in the work of our salvation, if there be first a willing mind, it is accepted according to that a man hath, and not according to that he hath not; as a father deals with his child whom he loveth, so will god deal with all those that shall be heirs of salvation, what quality soever they be of●; he accepts of the will for the deed, you and above the deed. only let every poor sinner, whose heart god hath touched with remouse, see that his mind be fully bend not barely to will but to do, so far as he is able, that which is acceptable unto god, praying also with all the earnestness of his soul for gods assisting grace herein; for saith the apostle phil. 2.13. it is god which worketh in us both to will, and to do, according to his good pleasure. reflector. remission of sins belongs to those whose hea●ts are without guile and maliee. answer. do you not know that the heart of man is deceitful above all things? it is not safe therefore trusting to your own heart, of which it seems you have some confidence, because you speak so much of the hearts of god's people (of whom you reckon yourself, no doubt to be one) that they are free from all guile. if i thought yours were so, i would (as i have heard a good man make the offer to another) change hearts with you, and give you all the money in my purse to boot. but let it be as you say, for i confess it to be a truth, that remission of sins belongs to such and such, yet let me ask, cannot the blood of jesus christ cleanse the heart from all guile and malice, seeing the evangelist telleth us, it cleanseth us from all sin? 1 joh. 1.7. and what know you, but that this purifying act may, in instanti, powerfully operate upon the hearts of millions of men in the world, whom you, without any warrant, have doomed to everlasting destruction? hereafter than i advise you meddle not with the hearts of men, so as to pass your censure upon them, lest you be judged at last to be an intruder upon god who alone is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (acts 1.24.) for as it hath been a true word cathedram in caelo habet qui corda docet, so it is as true, cathedram in cord habet qui ad caelum ducit. reflector. those words of st. paul 1 thess. 5.9. god hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our lord jesus christ, are to be explained by those of the 13 verse of the second chap. of the second epistle, viz. god hath from the beginning chosen us to salvation through sanctification of the spirit, and belief of the truth. your comment hereupon is this, god hath chosen us to be sanctified, and hath sunctified us, to the end that he might save us. answer. seeing you will have such an explanation of the former words by the latter (though some would have put a difference between them,) not only in respect of the distance which the apostle hath set in his writing of them (the scope of the writer not being always the same in one place, as it is in the other,) but because of the persons whom the apostle distinguisheth, viz. us and you) yet i shall choose rather to let you know that by the words (which you insist so much upon,) viz. through sanctification of the spirit) is meant the sanctification wrought in them by the spirit of god, which may be also in millions of millions of persons not discernible by the world. this certainly is that sanctification which all true believers are to glory in, not boasting of any holiness or worthiness of their own (as quakers commonly do) but rejoicing in the work of god's abundant grace upon them. for you must know that which the apostle here meaneth is not so much an active sanctification manifested in the life, as that which is passive, wherein they are but patients under god, though they do indeed actually receive it into their hearts by faith; god gins with his work of sanctification, and the believer seconds it with his work of believing, both which are here joined together by the apostle, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in, by, or through the sanctification of the spirit, and belief of the truth. whereas if it were an active sanctification that were here meant, such as is commonly visible in the life of a believer, then may that doctrine be received again among us which hath justly been exploded by us, viz. that we are chosen to salvation for or because of our foreseen holiness, which is that that you ignorantly contend for. but you should remember it is christ who is all in all in the work of man's salvation, and that it is nothing but faith which is expected from us, that no flesh should glory in the presence of god (1 cor. 1.29.) and mark what the apostle there addeth, v. 30. for of him are we (that is born, of him) in christ jesus, who is made unto us of god wisdom, righteousness, sanctification, and redemption (meaning all that is required of us in this matter.) he is our wisdom to instruct us, our righteousness to justify us, our sanctification to sanctify us, our redemption to save us. what are you then, poor man, without christ, what is your wisdom but folly, what your righteousness but a filthy rag, what your sanctification, but sin at the best, your holiness no better than the pope's holiness, what your redemption, but everlasting. bondage under satan? from all which good lord deliver you talk no more therefore so proudly of your sanctification, but let him that glorieth glory in the lord. by this time i hope you begin to see your error in making so false a gloss upon that comfortable word of the apostle, viz. god hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by jesus christ: which word will stand firm and strong against your ignorant and absurd cavils, yea and against the gates of hell, neither is it weakened at all by that other word of the apostle (which you have ravished from the pure simplicity of the gospel) but confirmed rather. whereupon i conclude your argument is so far from that nervofity you boast of in overthrowing the true and sound doctrine of the common salvation that it is as weak as water. only it showeth how apt you are to catch at any thing in scripture, though you wrist it to your own perdition, which may but seemingly strengthen your destructive opinion. reflector. all the world fallen in adam, deserving the curse and eternal damnation, it is a signal mercy to spare some from that general condemnation. answer. we have heard in the late times, of legal preaching, but what can be more legal, i mean more disagreeing with the covenant of promise, than your words here are and in many other places of your book? it is we confess an eminent mercy to save some of those that had by their disobedience made themselves liable to the curse. but to save a numberless multitude, or a million for one that shall sink under the curse, is a mercy more to be magnified, yea and might with more truth have been asserted by you, than to talk of a general condemnation. reflector. how excellent soever the efficacy of redemption may be, it is only for those whom god hath a mind to save. answer. miserable man! do you know what you say? a report hath gone of you that you are mad, because you have been thrust out of your preferment at oxford. if it be so, it is the best excuse that you can have for making these frantic reflections. would any christian who is right in his wits speak thus unreverendly of the great work of our redemption, as you have here spoken? do you not know the excellency of it in its efficacy? you might surely have known it partly by the price of it, not by corruptible things as silver and gold, but with the precious blood of christ, partly by the fruits and benefits that arise to us by it, as the holy scripture sets them out, viz. we are redeemed from the curse of the law, gal. 3.13. from our vain conversation 1 pet. 1.18. from all iniquity tit. 2.14, etc. partly by the end or final cause, that we may be consecrated to god and the lamb rev. 14.4. that our sins may be forgiven eph. 1.9. that we may receive the adoption of children gal 4. that we may be reconciled to god. etc. if you know these things, why do you speak so doubtfully in this weighty matter with a may be? as much as to say, the efficacy of redemption may be excellent, or it may not be so, and whatsoever it is, 'tis only for those whom god hath a mind to save, q. d. let christ suffer what he will, let him give a full satisfaction by his death to divine justice for the sin of the world, yet god hath no mind to save any, but a very few, in some parts of the world. this is your sense; but had you said, 'tis only for those whom you yourself have a mind shall be saved, this indeed had been answerable to that height you have skrewed your poor fancy up unto, viz. to judge the world as you please. but you are pleased here to refer it to god's mind, methinks however you might have found out some sitter word for this purpose that had been more for the honour and majesty of the most high god, than to talk so boldly of the mind of god in this case. but possible it is thus with you, because you pretend to know the mind of god, and to be his privy counsellor, being that (as i have said already) which hath made you to cast up your accounts so exactly and judicially of your thousands, hundred thousands and millions that shall be damned. had you said here (as it hath been wont to be said by all christians that are wise and honest) the work of redemption is only for those that are in covenant with god, and that believe the gospel, this had been according to the mind of god, but these terms you were willing to wave, because you know that faith is the gift of god, and he gives it to whomsoever he pleaseth, which would have made your reflection retort upon you, whereupon it is that you talk of the mind of god at large. but hath this indeed been the mind of god to lay such restraints upon the sufferings of his beloved son that the efficacy of them shall reach but to a sew? and consequently hath this been the mind of god by an eternal decree to damn all his poor creatures who are the masterpiece of his creation for ever excepting one in a million? gen. 1. o that ever any that beareth the face of a man should dare to speak so wickedly of god: what is this but to make the father of mercies, and the god of all consolations more cruel than all the tyrants that ever were in the world, yea than all the devils that are in hell? for they are but god's executioners, it is god himself that hath passed this doom, neither can the merits of his only begotten son our dear redeemer be of force to reverse it. away therefore with this cursed opinion, most abominable in the hearing of all mankind. the very heathen will certainly abhor it, yea and hate that religion which maintains it. nay they will be ready to defy and blaspheme that god who shall harbour so cruel a mind, and say (as one of them said in the like case) qualis, malum, deus isbe est, what a kind of god with a mischief is this, whose mind is set to damn and destroy so infinite a number of people whom he had made (as they say) after his own image and likeness. upon these and the like considerations that shall follow i hope (mounsiour) you will retract these your reflections and be sorry that you have given so great offence by them, both to god and his church. reflector. when jesus christ prayed for those that crucified him, he did particularly mark out those in act, 2.36, 37. who would repent at the preaching of st. peter. answer. christ's prayer upon the cross for those that crucified him was this, viz. father forgive them, and the reason why he so prayed was not as you seem to imagine, for they will repent; that is far short of his meaning, neither is it suitable to that philanthropy that was in him towards them, nor to the elevation of his mind unto his father, which was fixed, no doubt, upon his father's purpose to save the world by him, of which they were ignorant, for, saith he, they know not what they do: from whence it may be gathered that they who ignorantly transgress as the greatest part of the world do, may be more capable of mercy than they who sin presumptuously (as the apostle st. paul saith of himself 1 tim. 1.13. i obtained mercy, because i did it ignorantly, in vbelief.) we read indeed (joh. 17.20, 21.) that christ prayed also for them, who should believe on him, through the word of his apostles, that they all might be one in him, that so the world may believe that the father had sent him, which otherwise might have been brought into question, after his departure, by the divisions and dissensions that might arise among his disciples. but that when he prayed for those that crucified him, he did particularly (as you say) mark them out act 2.36, 37. who would repent at the preaching of st. peter, this is your particular fancy, groundless and unwarrantable. and will you still thus shuffle with the holy scripture to make it serve your turn? for it is very obvious to all that read you, why you force these scriptures together that are so incoherent. you would like a wary fencer ward off a thrust, which you foresaw might have touched you to the quick. but fear it not poor man, for it will be easily granted you that none but those who are born again shall ever be saved; but you likewise must grant that both faith and repentance are the gift of god, and that god's mercy in the free bestowing his gifts is not to be limited to time or means for the conversion of those that are chosen to life eternal (as you may find it clearly proved in my antidote,) but that this mercy may be secretly and suddenly dispensed to millions of millions in the world by the gracious work of the good spirit of god in and upon the hearts of men before they die, and that sometimes in the very instant of their departure out of this life. this being so, your accounts will fail you of your hundred thousands and millions that shall perish in hell for ever, in comparison of one that shall be saved. reslector. and though there should be but one saved for a hundred thousand that, should perish and be lost, yet grace would sub-abound in this one person saved, where sin had abounded, as in the example of the thief, luk. 23.40, 41. answer. the words of the apostle that you harp upon are these, where sin abounded, rom. 5.20.21. grace did much more abound, that as sin bath reigned unto death, even so grace might reign through righteousness unto eternal life by jesus christ our lord. a most comfortable place of scripture this is, written on purpose to magnify the glorious grace of god now under the gospel, towards poor sinners that repent. and will you thus limit it to one particular person, whom you have fancied to be culled out of your thousands and millions, when it is clear, the good spirit of god speaks it expressy of adam and his offspring as they generally issue from him in their several generations? are you then and your complices sit to meddle with the holy scripture when you understand it no better? better (surely) were it for you, if it were as a sealed book unto you, rather than be permitted to wrest it so perniciously to your own destruction. there is a truth, i confess, in what you here say; but seeing you cannot but know that these words of the apostle (from whence you gather this your abundant favour for one probably of your own gang) are of so large an extent as hath been said, and that to take them in his sense, were utterly to overthrow your damnable doctrine, (which rather than you would do, you would pervert them to your own private shallow interpretation) since it is so, may it not well be said without any offence either before god or man, you are fit to be a hewer of wood, etc. as the gibeonites were, than to divide the word of truth to god's people? had the apostle here written, where sin abounded, wrath did much more abound, this it seems, would have gone down easily with you, as according to your palate. but blessed be the good spirit of god whose word it is, and blessed be the hand that first wrote it, it is a word of mercy, a word of strong consolation to the whole church of god. the magnitude and redundancy of divine grace being infallibly by the abundance of sin made the more conspicuous, as the more desperate a bodily disease is, the more is the virtue and excellency of the medicine that cures it, made the more famous and to be extolled. let therefore that word stand firm and steadfast against you which you in your eleventh paragraph of objections have made light account of, viz. that the grace of god is exalted far above his judgements and severities, that there where sin has abounded grace has much more abounded, for the solution hereof is not so easy, as of many more, though you have pretended so of it, to your reader. reflector. as to the salvation of the children of heathen parents, or others, that is a sealed book which god doth not permit us to open. answer. it is well that you have that charity for children, yea for the children of heathen parents, as well as of others, so as not to reckon them among your thousands and millions, whom you have marked to destruction, for your only design, (you say pag. 27.) in this whole discourse is, to speak of men deceased above an age ago (still you shuffle) and after they had the exercise and use of reason: it is well i say. but you here add, the salvation of such children is a sealed book, which god doth not permit us to open. i will not much argue with you about this, though i might, nor inquire by what authority you call the salvation of children, more than of others, who have had the exercise and use of reason, a sealed book, which god doth not permit you to open. possibly you may dream of the limbus infantum, where children are kept from the pains of hell, not having the pain of sense but only the pain of loss; which limbus no man could ever open, no, not the pope himself, for though it is said he hath the key of purgatory, yet the key of this place appointed for children is not, it seems, committed to his custody. but is the salvation of children, as you say, a sealed book, and is not the book of god's universal judgement, and the lamb's book of life sealed books likewise? yet you dare, it seems, without god's permission, yea contrary to gods express command in scripture, to open these books, and give your judgement (forsooth) of them, as you please. and what is this, but to anticipate the judgement of the great day? the apostle reasoned with faelix of judgement to come, act. 24.25. and adviseth yea warneth us (1 cor. 4.5.) to judge nothing before the time, until the lord come who is to be the judge of quick and dead; much less should we judge so rashly as to determine of the number of god's elect, and that with so peremptory a sentence, as to exclude the major part of mankind from all hope of salvation, which is the deadly venom, that runs through your whole discourse. it had been good indeed, if this your book had been so sealed, that it might have been bound up in everlasting silence, never to come forth, rather than to do that mischief, which it is like to do among poor and weak christians who have always been apt to despond, and not only them, but among such as are profane, to strengthen some in their atheism which groweth over-rampant in this generation, and others in their epicurism and debaucheries, who will be ready to say, seeing there is little or no hope of mercy for us when we die, let us take our pleasure while we may, eat, drink and be merry. reflector. it is sufficient for us mortals to know that none is or can be saved but by jesus christ: but we must not go about to determine, whether none are saved, but who have known jesus christ. answer. for us mortals? a word that you use once and again here in your discourse, because you would (like your good friends the quakers) take up a form of speech differing from that which is common: otherwise you might have said, it is sufficient for us, poor creatures; which would have passed for current better than your word mortals; for the time will come when this mortal shall put on immortality, wherein the same truth shall be known by us then, which we now know. and do not they that are now immortal know this that jesus christ is the only saviour of the world, as well and better than we. but i must tell you, it is not sufficient for us mortals (as you call us) to know this, for god hath been graciously pleased to illighten us poor mortals, and those that are immortal too to know, that none can be saved by jesus christ, but those that are in covenant with god. why then do you by affirming so gross an untruth, lessen that knowledge which the spirit of god in scripture hath given us, saying? it is sufficient, etc. why indeed, but because you was loath to extend the work of salvation so far as to reach to those thousands and millions, which you will have to be damned, for they also may (for aught you know) be in covenant with god, as well as yourself. men may guests at your meaning, don doctor, though you speak it not out, as you ought to speak it. you say further, we must not go about to determine whether none be saved, but who have known jesus christ. was there ever such a don known before that will take upon him so imperiously to judge the world, and yet be guilty of so shameful ignorance in the fundamentals of our christian faith? doth not our lord himself tell us, it is eternal life to know him? and must we not then determine that none can be saved but those that know him? know him, i say, either by an acquired knowledge in the use of holy means, or by an inspired knowledge without them, as many millions in the world i doubt not have attained through grace, and may also for the time to come more and more, one of these must be absolutely necessary to salvation, seeing our saviour hath spoken the word, it is eternal life to know him. go then and learn better to know jesus christ, if thou thyself wilt look for salvation by him. reflector. all other passages seem to carry with them some kind of probability and likelihood, but they are not convincing, and their solution is very easy; in a word they are nothing so forcive as those which are alleged for the contrary opinion, viz. that for one that shall be saved many hundred thousands shall be damned. answer. passages you call them. a pretty word for a mystical man at maudlin hill fair, where he comes with his hocas pocas and heipass to turn substantial arguments into shadows, or by a nimble sleight of hand to close them up in a narrow pinfold of passages to delude the people. but seeing you will have them called passages, it is fit you should be paid for your passages with a demonstration of your cunning or of your folly; your cunning in hiding that which would have laid you open to the eyes of all your spectators, or your folly in your vain glorious boastings and triumph that you make by insulting over the poor truth your captive, telling the world, those passages for it are not convincing, and their solution is very easy, and nothing so forcive, as those which are alleged for your great diana, the contrary opinion. nevertheless, you say they seem to carry with them some kind of probability and likelihood, which is more than any that are wise will say of your opinion, as for zuinglius and his followers (whom you reckon among the rest) i shall leave them to be swinged by you, as i hear you have threatened me, and do so, pay them sound, for they well deserve it. but what will you say to that where it is objected that that man to whom god hath given the grace to pardon all those that have offended him hath a promise that god will forgive him all his sins. that it is extremely to lessen the ends for which jesus christ came into the world, to admit that he only came into the world to redeem one man of a hundred, of a thousand, or of ten thousand, or indeed of a hundred thousand, etc. that it is not to be believed that jesus christ at the right hand of his father does intercede for one of a hundred thousand of all mankind, etc. are not these passages, as you call them, convincing? or is there no force in these that follow, viz. that god is slow to anger, ready to pardon, and show mercy, yea plenteous in mercy, as the scripture often speaks of him, that the work of god and his natural inclination is to do good to his creatures, and to pardon them their sins, that he never punishes but with regret and unwillingness, and that to destroy and to chastise rigorously, it is his work, but it is his strange work, and his act, but his strange act. that if jesus christ would have us to pardon seven times, yea seventy times seven our offending brother, there is no likelihood, but that god should be much more merciful, since he commands us mortals to be so, and if god promises to give a new heart to all those whose sins he pardons, who will believe that god should pardon an infinite number of persons, but that he should only give a new heart to a few, etc. what is there nothing now forcive in all this? surely it may well be said of you, bishop hall. as it hath been heretofore applied, with too much derision to an eminent, holy and learned prelate of our church, viz. that you are an irrefragable doctor. but above all, i am amazed to see those two important considerations to be thus slighted by such a man as you are, who pretend to rejoice in hope of the glory of god by jesus christ; both which you intersert among other objections against you, in this manner. first, that it is extremely to lessen the ends for which jesus christ came into the world, to admit that he came to redeem only one man of a hundred, of a thousand, or of ten thousand, or indeed of an hundred thousand, etc. 2. that it is not to be believed that our great redeemer and advocate at the right hand of his father, does intercede but for one of a hundred thousand of all mankind. these are such things as would make any man's ears to tingle that should hear them. but for you, you make nothing of them, and their solution with you is, as the rest are, very easy. certainly were it not that you were too much doting upon your general damnation (a word peculiar to your own fancy, for i believe it was never used by any in the world before you, neither was it an unhappy eslip of your pen or spirit which came from you unawares, for you repeat it again and again in your pernicious pamphlet, as if you would that the world should take special notice of it) were it not, i say, that you had been too precipitant in running on upon that foot of account, you would with earnest prayer have besought god to guide you with his good spirit that you might not err in this weighty point (which prayer, it is much to be doubted, you have neglected, because you have erred in the matter most grossly.) yea and now when you may, if you will, perceive, that your foundation on the holy scripture is mislaid, and that all the batteries which you make from thence will recoil upon yourself with shame and sorrow, you should do your utmost endeavour to retract your uncharitable aspersions, and to find out some other sense of those places of sacred writ, which hitherto have been, by you and others, but ill understood and worse interpreted, as your own words are in another case. saint austin i am sure gave this advise, lib. 2. cap. 3. de cons. evang. where treating of some difficulties in the evang. genealogies, hath these words, hoc facile posset occurrere homini religioso, qui quodlibet aliud quaerendum potius judicaret quàm evangelistam crederet esse mentitum, i. e. to a man truly religious this consideration would easily offer itself, that it would become him to judge that some other sense then yet appears, should be inquired out, rather than to doubt that a quill of the holy dove should drop the least spot of error in the written oracles of heaven. and rather, say i, than to wrest them to a sinister sense, disagreeing from the whole current of the gospel, as you have done with those texts mentioned often by you for the confirmation of your opinion, viz. mat. 7.14. straight is the gate, and narrow is the way which leadeth to life, and few there be that find it. and luke 12.32. fear not little flock, it is your father's good pleasure to give you the kingdom, and mat. 20.16. many are called, but few are chosen. so mat. 22.14. to show you your error in these, it is needless here, having said enough of it already in my antidote set forth against you, which hath been sufficient, in the judgement of rational men, to expel the poison of your corrupt doctrine. reflector. they that hold the opinion of the small number that shall be saved, allege the rigour of the examination at the day of judgement, and the words of st. paul in the 2 cor. c. 5. v. 10. for we must all appear before the judgment-seat of christ, that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done whether it be good or bad, etc. answer. [those who hold it] and are not you one of them that hold it? nay do you not in rigour surpass all men that ever held it by uncharitable judging and condemning? your confident boldness therein will appear more in the sequel of this discourse. but to our present business. first i do not like your uncouth word here, rigour, as you use it. a more reverend term might in this case have easily been thought upon by you, and more proper for your purpose, but that your rigid spirit would have an unseasonable vent according to its humour whether with sense, or without, you cared not. there shall (its true) be a strict and severe examination at that day of all the whole race of mankind, all their thoughts, words and works shall be made manifest and placed in order before them. god's law-book which may be called his doomsday-book, whether it be the law of works for such as are in a reprobate condition, or the law of faith, for such as are the elect of god, shall then likewise be opened; by both which the sin of the world shall be set out in its colours, i mean as the apostle, it shall be made exceeding sinful (for by the law is the knowledge of sin, rom. 3.20.) all this and whatever else you mr. reflector can be able to add warrantably from the written word of god concerning that most exact scrutiny and search that shall then be into the hearts and lives of all mankind i do readily consent unto, for it will be the day of the lords vengeance upon all his enemies who lived and died in their malice against him, and knowing the terror of the lord, we should all be persuaded in this our day to know the things that belong unto our peace, before they be hidden from our eyes. but after all he granted which you can well imagine what will be the result of this righteous examination? will a general damnation follow upon it? yes must you say (for so you have said) though most impiously, else your arguing comes to nothing. as for your alienating the matter in the twenty fourth page of your book, it is not a retracting of your bold censure: you say indeed, the apostle did by the consideration of the terror of the lord persuade men to fly to jesus christ, but what's this to your opinion of the general damnation? that you hold still in worse terms (as may be seen in the following parts of your discourse) than any of your fraternity (for aught i know) ever did before you, and such as cannot enter into the heart of man to conceive, which is not void of all humanity. i will therefore here tell you what, i believe, will be the sequel of this great judgement and scrutiny; i do not say it shall be for your condemnation or mine, because i hope and pray that both you and i shall before we die, repent us of our sins, you of your misjudging the world, and i of my misjudging you (if i have offended therein) and of my many other failings, wherein i am too sure i have very much offended; but this i say that when the horrible ugliness of sin shall then be discovered, an amazement shall generally seize upon men for their folly in committing it, insomuch that those who have been tried by the law of works, and are found guilty of the violation of that law (as all unbelievers and impenitent persons shall be) will say to the mountains and rocks fall on us, and hid us from the face of him that sits upon the throne, and from the wrath of the lamb, for the great day of his wrath is come, and who shall be able to stand: but others that have been tried by the law of faith, and have thereupon found their judge to be their advocate, as i believe a great multitude (not one alone amongst many millions) but a great multitude, rev. 7.9. which no man can number, of all nations, and kindred and people, and tongues, i. e. the major part of mankind, shall find him to be, they shall then lay aside their amazements at their former folly; and with loud acclamations chant out their hallelujahs, ascribing blessing and honour, and glory, and power unto him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the lamb, for ever and ever. these undoubtedly are some of the immediate consequents that will follow upon the righteous judgement of that great day: some i say, for i do not take upon me to determine of all, but only what concerns our present purpose, viz. the beginning of everlasting sorrows to all the reprobate, and the beginning of everlasting happiness to all the elect people of god. i know there will follow the justification of the judge himself, for it is called rom. 2.5. the day of the revelation of the righteous judgement of god, which may be taken not only in an active sense but in a passive, which will signify that which is written, he will be justified in all his say, and be clear, (saith the prophet) overcome (saith the apostle) when he is judged, meaning all mouths shall be then stopped which have been apt to cavil against him, and be forced even against themselves to confess, the judgement of god is according to truth. but to return to our purpose. you'll say, how shall they that have lived all their days in unbelief and the hardness of their hearts, (as the greatest part of mankind made up of those that are without, alienated from the life of god, and those that are within, living under the light of god's word, yet have been ignorant and profane) how shall they be able to stand with any confidence in the judgement at the last day? hereto i have already also given an answer in my antidote, to which i remit you. but because you object so much that terrible threatening (as you call it) of the apostle 2 cor. 5.10. i will tell you the right meaning of those words, after i have first shown you your weakness in the construction that you make of them. you will now, you say pag. 24. speak a word for the comfort of repenting sinners that examining their lives, and squaring it (you should say them) according to that terrible threatening in 2 cor. 5.10. which frightens them in such a manner as to take from them all hopes of finding pardon and grace at the last day; it is, say you (but the diligent reader will easily see your incoherence here) it is, if those words of st. paul were to be understood according to the letter, that there should not be one saved, no not moses, caleb, joshua, david, daniel, st. peter and st. paul. strange! but it is no novelty with you to misinterpret scripture. know therefore those words are to be (and god forbidden but they should be) understood according to the letter, for there is as much comfort arising from them to penitent sinners, as you can gather terror to the impenitent (as is evidently to be seen) the inference therefore that you bring from thence is utterly false, viz. that if so, there should not one be saved, not moses, caleb, joshuah, etc. you say further st. paul would contradict himself when he makes man's righteousness to consist in the remission of sins. but i believe you do wrong to st. paul in putting this upon him, and consequently to the holy ghost, can you tell where the apostle saith man's righteousness consists in the remission of sins? have you thus learned christ? alas man, there is as much difference between these two, as there is between habitus and privatio; it was the death of christ that brought on remission of sins, and it was the resurrection of christ that was the efficient of our righteousness. this doubtless is the apostles doctrine uti patet rom. 4. 25. he was delivered for our offences to take them away, and was raised again for our justification, to make us righteous. but you say, st. paul in the following verse makes it plain enough to be understood, that he only used that way of speech to give terror, and to persuade men to fly to jesus christ, etc. here i must tell you mr. reflector by the way you have so delighted to act the part of a boanerges (though your thundering sounds in the ears of wise men, but as the discharge of a potgun) that it is a hard matter for you to be a right barnabas, as appeareth here by your words which you intended for comfort. for will not the poor desponding sinner be ready hereupon to reply unto you, is this your comfort, to tell me the apostle used that way of speech only to give terror? alas this needed not, i find it to be true by sad experience upon my soul and conscience, but i find not here that he doth persuade me (as you say) to fly to jesus christ. that which he saith in the next words is only to show how necessary it is for ministers, if they have any true fear of god in them, to be diligent in the performance of their duty by persuading men to prepare themselves for that dreadful judgement. but this reflecteth not upon me for my comfort. in fine, it is true what you say, jesus christ is our righteousness, even of the very worst of sinners, say i how deeply soever they have been drenched in sin, provided that they repent and believe, their sins shall not be imputed to them, being already imputed to christ. but it is not true that by his righteousness our sins are pardoned, rather you should say our persons are justified thereby, as for sins they are pardoned by the satisfaction which christ made to the justice of god through the blood of the cross, for by his stripes are we healed saith the prophet, es. 53.5. and thus saith the apostle, he was made sin for us (having born our sins in his own body on the tree) that is now made a sacrifice for sin, and when sin is thus done away, then is jesus christ become our righteousness, for so it follows that we might be made the righteousness of god in him. thus you see mr. reflector how unhappy you have been in expounding the scripture: doubtless you are an interpreter one of a thousand, but it is the wrong way, for there are but few, i hope, that will be so bold with god's holy word as you are, in rendering the sense of it according to vain fancy, as you have done. but what then, you'll say, is the right meaning of those words? i answer, the context will plainly declare it: some there were it seems to me, that would be cavilling against the apostle, as if he commended himself too often unto them to whom he wrote, needing their approbation of him and his ministry. this exception he was willing here to remove, we, saith he, persuade men (not upon such a low account as you imagine, to curry favour with you, but) first because we know, we must appear, as well as others, before the righteous judge at the last day, and that will prove a woeful day unto us if we preach not the gospel to you. 2. we appeal to god and your consciences to judge of our fidelity in the discharge of our duty (to the same purpose in the following words of the 11th. verse) and this in short i humbly conceive to be the reason why the apostle makes mention here of the terror of the lord with a direct reflection we see upon himself, i am not ignorant there are other reasons rendered, but this i may be confident is one. as for your words whereby you make such a pother, viz. of the startling and thundering thereby upon others, which you call terrors (though the apostle doth not so) that is to be taken obliquely not as the chief thing that he intended, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. albeit there be terror enough in them to drive us all to repentance. i shall now (for it is high time) shut up this reflection with an allusion to that which the prophet writeth of the church of old concerning her deliverance from the assyrian, is. 33.22. the lord is our judge, the lord is our lawgiver, the lord is our king, he will save us; every word is emphatical, and may well be applied to our present purpose. the lord is our judge; to him it is (may all poor sinners say, to whom god may be pleased to grant repentance unto life throughout the world) to him it is that we stand or fall. a small thing it is (mr. reflector) that we should be judged by you, or of man's judgement, the lord who is our true friend and elder brother is our judge, and he will certainly take care of us that we shall not perish. it is true, a judge must not be partial, he must give sentence according to law, otherwise he is not a righteous judge, well, let it be so. but the lord is our lawgiver, our statute-maker, he hath the law in his own breast, he can mitigate it as he pleaseth, yea he can retract it, and bring in another law in its stead more favourable to us; the law of moses with the curse annexed to it shall not be the rule of this judgement to us, but the christian law, which is the law of faith. but what can a lawgiver do if he have not power? there have been, we know, lawgivers in this world, such as numa pompilius, solon, lycurgus, osiris, zamolxis, and others, that have found their laws to be of no force, for want of power to establish them, the law of the sword utterly broke asunder the sword of their law. but the lord is our king, he it is that beareth the sword, and he beareth it not in vain, is able to maintain his law against all adverse power and to overcome when he is judged, yea and able to defend all those that will at any time, upon the least intimation of his will, be subject unto him. for so it followeth, he will save us; us a rebellious a stiffnecked and idolatrous people, he will save us, he is sui juris, his will is his law, his power is absolute and arbitrary, the power that he manageth in this kind is for the good of his redeemed, not for their destruction: it is not said, as you say, he will damn us all, that were in our sense tyrannical, but, he will save us. salvation is his peculiar prerogative, the richest jewel in his diadem, this was the song of the prophets of old, david sang it when he fled from absalon, jon. 2. salvation belongeth to the lord, psal. 3.8. the prophet ionas long it in the belly of hell, salvation is the lords: it was the song of the apostles, the grace of god bringeth salvation, christ is the captain of our salvation, the author of eternal salvation, and it is the song of heaven, salvation to the lord, rev. 7. it is indeed (as an excellent writer saith of it) the argument of both the testaments, the staff and supportation of heaven and earth, they would both sink, and all their joints be severed, if the salvation of the lord were not, the birds in the air sing no other note, the beasts in the field give no other voice, than salus johova, salvation is the lords: he will save us, us sinners of the gentiles, in what dark corners of the earth soever we lie hid, us sinners in the visible church of what sort soever we be though the most heinous, the most obdurate, the most desperate sinners in the world, whom the devil hath carried captive after him at his will, yet if we will believe, though it be at the very last exhalation of the spirit, he will save us. and even your oracle mr, baxter hath, by your own confession here, pag. 24. in effect said so much (of whom it will become you to learn more moderation in your judgement concerning this matter) even he, you say, hath said, that god's mercies are offered to us in such a manner, that nothing is required of us but that we should accept them (meaning surely, that we should believe) without any thoughts of our own so much unworthiness to hinder us, and keep us from it; that as his promises are of grace and mercy, so likewise are they rich and great; that in truth they are made to those that believe, but also that faith is a gift of god, that he gives it as liberally, as he grants the pardon of sinners. the refultancy of the whole matter is this, he that is our god is the god of salvation, he will save us from our sins, he will save us from the wrath to come, he will save us from the world, he will save us from ourselves, he will save us from the devil, for he is the god of salvations (so is the word of the prophet rendered) whereas if your word of a general. damnation should stand, you would make him (a word not to be spoken without great horror and blasphemy) the god of damnation: if all the devils in hell should conspire together to put a dishonour upon the god of heaven, could they imagine a greater? hitherto (mr. reflector) i have showed you the weakness of your collections from scripture, those i mean which you have heaped together in the 5. and 6. pages of your book with the corollary to the last of them in the 24. page. i should now say somewhat to the types which you have fancied to relate to the number of the elect and reprobate, as the drowning all the world, except eight persons at the universal deluge, and the land of canaan, and the small number that entered into it, in comparison of those that did not, the division of the kingdom of israel into two parties, the survey that you make of the whole world, etc. but because i judge it more methodical to join your other reflections from scripture which you have in the 22. pag. with those , i shall rather reflect upon them, and upon the preface set before them, wherein i shall take the same course with you, as i have taken before. and thus you begin pag. 21. reflector. i would refer myself to the judgement of any sober considering person, what a vast and almost an infinite proportion in number one should find, if from adam's days down to ours, there should be a comparison made of the sum total of the elect with that of those who are not elected: i believe that this proportion would be of one person saved to a million that is not, that is to say, that there is a million of reprobates to one that shall be chosen, so as to be saved. which is a dreadful thing to think on, that the lord jesus christ came only into the world to save one man among an hundred thousand, or rather a million: 'tis an abyss that neither can nor aught to be sounded, etc. answer. first you say, you would refer yourself. it is well that you will at length speak plain english, and not fob us off with them and they, as you did before to make us believe you were not concerned in the point. but you would refer yourself, as much as to say, you would appeal to the judgement of any sober considering person, as if you thought that any such would give judgement in your behalf, but what sober man is there in the world who doth not rather abhor your opinion (i am sure i have discoursed several about it, who do much condemn you) and look upon you, as the most daring man that ever set pen to paper? the holy scripture tells us that god hath appointed a day wherein he will judge the world by that man whom he hath ordained, etc. but is mounsieur lewis du moulin become that man? stay, i beseech you, till you be raised up from the dead, for before that time we can have no assurance from heaven that you shall be the man. in the mean while talk no more so proudly of the sum total of the elect, so as to compare it with those whom you in your hasty pre-judging spirit will not (forsooth) allow to be elected, which will certainly be accounted an affront put upon the righteous judge, yea and a charge upon him with want both of faithfulness and wisdom if he should not give sentence according to that total sum which you have taken pains to cast up. you consider not (poor worm) from whom it is that you refer yourself or make your appeal. you must therefore know, is is from almighty god who hath determined this case, before the world was, and hath kept it as a secret in his power, far out of your reach, and it is from our lord jesus christ, as if you questioned the value of that satisfaction which he hath given for the sin of the world, if so, how can you look to be interessed in it? you say next that you believe this proportion (upon such inquiry) would be of one person saved to a million that is not, that is to say, there is a million of reprobates to one that shall be chosen, so as to be saved. upon what foundation, i pray, do you build your faith? it is not upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, etc. but merely upon the quicksands of your imagination, and upon your shallow observations that you make of the world in the several ages of it. what you imagine in this case is not material, and as for your surveying the world to spend your censure upon men, as you do, who was it that did put you into that office? though you look upon the face of the whole world during some thousands of years (as your words are,) yea and shound visit all the families, (as you say) and all private persons, but cannot find the truth of religion, nor the power of godliness in them, may you therefore take upon you so precisely to determine of their final estate? that is, without doubt, to be reserved to the judgement of the great day. for what think you, can this grent mystery of man's salvation be perfectly known by observation, and their eternal election pointed out to the view of the world, so that we may say (as a great many phantastics do say) lo here is a saint, and lo there is a saint? hath not our lord himself told us luk. 17.20. the kingdom of god cometh not with observation, that is, neither at his appearance in the last day, nor at his appearance in the hearts of men by his good spirit in this day of grace and salvation, so as to be outwardly discerned, or can this mystery be comprehended by the discourse of reason, when the scripture (as i have proved) is silent in it, viz. with a reference to particular numbers, wherein nevertheless you take upon you to be very positive? affirming that there is a million of reprobates to one chosen to salvation. a dreadful thing it is, you say, to think upon, and i say again, it is a horrid blasphemy to speak it, which you are not afraid to write, viz. that the lord jesus christ came only into the world, to save one man among a hundred thousand, or rather a million. and though you say, it is an abyss that neither can nor aught to be sounded yet will you dare to be diving into it, though you venture your salvation upon it. the lord give you grace to repent of this your boldness betimes, before it be too late. reflector. if one durst to proceed upon this subject father than i have done, and well weigh the words of st. paul act. 14.16. that god in times past suffered all nations to walk in their own ways: that is to say, he left them to perish in them, one might find that the proportion of the number of the reprobate to that of the elect, before the advent of jesus christ, and before the preaching of st. peter had convented three thousand men, is not the number, neither of a thousand nor of a million, but of millions of millions, to one person that is saved. answer. whereas you say if one durst to proceed upon this subject farther than you have done, it seems thereby you doubt no man durst do so, and well you might; for i believe, no man, who hath had any knowledge in the mystery of salvation, would (if not out of fear of god's displeasure, yet for humanity's sake) proceed so far in it, as you have done. the words of st. paul which you quote out of acts 14.16. will not infer such a damnable conclusion, as you have brought from them, if they be well weighed, as you should have done them; for first, albeit the nations of old were suffered to walk in their own ways, i. e. without that clear light to guide them, which now shineth in the time of the gospel, yet doth it not follow that god so left them that they all might perish therein, that's a stretch of your own, and a false gloss that you put upon god's providence in his government of the world. 2. what were those ways which they walked in? there is no necessity to interpret them the ways of sin, unless it be of their idolatry: for there is no question, but in many of those nations, if not in all of them, there were always some leading men, who were just, temperate, meek, innocent in their lives, who did infuse principles of virtue into the minds of the common sort, without which they could not well live comfortably together; and i could name you some divines of our church in former times, eminent for holiness and learning who have to this purpose written of those nations. thus saith one, precepts of moral conversation have been among heathens as sound delivered, and some as strictly observed, as if moses had taught and lived amongst them: reprehensions likewise of all sorts of vices, and commendations of their contrary virtues they have both wisely conceived, faithfully proved, and earnestly persuaded, and although they were ignorant of the joys of heaven, and the torments of hell, yet in their gentile learning they saw reason sufficient that the embracers of these contrary qualities should be contrariwise recompensed. certainly (saith another) the civil virtuous courses, and commendable actions of many famous renowned pagans, such as fabritius, aristides, and the like were not mala in se, nor sins, depravations, or evil acts in themselves, but good, as the pearl is bred in the sea, in a shellfish, materially water, but of heavenly or aereal dew, and in value and account, for the clearness, smoothness or whatsoever condition it hath, rather resembleth and referreth unto heaven, than to the sea: so some men naturalists in the sea of this world, have bred, nourished, fomented in them, by sweet influx of god's general grace and providence, those commendable qualities and correspondent actions, which in themselves simply are accepted of by god, do not displease him, are rewarded by him. notwithstanding all this thus far i consent unto you, if these excellent moralities of the heathens be not at some time or other clothed either with an implicit or explicit faith in christ (as who knoweth but that they may?) that being the formality and life of every work truly and essentially good, they are not so accepted of, as to be rewarded with salvation and eternal life. for however they be specious among us here on earth, it is the image and superscription of christ upon them that makes them current in heaven. but seeing the work of faith whereby christ comes to dwell in the hearts of men may be secretly and suddenly wrought in them without the use of ordinary means, as appeareth by examples out of scripture, it may, and seeing it may be said of the people of those nations of old that were suffered to walk in their own ways, that they were not far from the kingdom of god, such of them, i mean, of whom history reports that they did excel in good works, why should you pronounce upon them so hard a sentence as to say, god left them to perish in their sins? why indeed? but only because you are still for perishing, perishing upon the least occasion that you can meet with, and to make sure of your general damnation that it may fall upon your millions of millions, for so you now mouth it out, in comparison of one that shall be saved. the opinion of justin martyr (whom you asperse from your scotch author) of the heathens partaking of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (the evangelists word of christ) would have been more tolerable: the virtuous qualities, saith he, and commendable endowments of heathens living after 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were christian ornaments and cognisances of that house: for true virtue is christianity, that continence, temperance, justice and honesty, and the rest, they had by a participation of that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which originally is from christ, and which eminently and properly, though not by them understood, is christ. thus he; this without doubt soundeth better than your uncharitable judging. so likewise doth the opinion of clemens alexandrinus (for whom you have some favour) show by his words (which i could relate if need were) what he thought of the salvation of the heathen, before christ's incarnation. you might have added to these epiphanius and st. chrysostom who were as much of the same opinion as the former. these all do clearly speak of the ways that heathens walked in before christ came; and their words in this case, which i could reckon up unto you, (but that for brevity's sake i omit them) are rather to be taken for sound and orthodox than yours which tend so directly to destruction. reflector. one might find that in the posterity of abraham, which god had chosen out of the general damnation to be his elect people, and his peculiar treasure, there were scarce of five hundred or a thousand israelites one that was elected, faithful, and in whom there was no guile. answer. having driven the heathen into hell you now go on to spend your censure upon the israel of god, whom you say god had chosen out of the general damnation to be his elect people, etc. with whom you deal as cruelly as you dealt with the former, affirming that scarce one of five hundred or a thousand of them was elected, etc. and is not this also a bold aspersion? doth the holy ghost in scripture set so high a value upon that people, as to account them gods peculiar treasure (as you yourself call them) his first born, his portion, his inheritance, a holy nation, with many other titles of singular favour and honour that are given them, not only when he first took them to be his people, but after they had rebelled against him, solemnly protesting unto them that though he would make a full end of all nations whither they were scattered, yet he would not make a full end of them? and doth not this people to this very day continue in the world to prove god's promise in this kind to be true? and will you thus judge and condemn them all to hell except one in a thousand? 'tis true (you may say, as the whole world will say) they were a stubborn and stiffnecked people; and you may say that god hath for a time quite forsaken them; but to speak of them at the rate as you do, with a reference to god's eternal election, what's this but intrude yourself most presumptuously into the secret of god's pavilion? nor do you, it seems, thereby think it any robbery to be equal with god, in that you take upon you to search and know the hearts of men, when you say there was scarce one among a thousand of the posterity of abraham that was faithful, and in whom there was no guile. if these things be not to deprive god of his honour, i know not what is. and if they be not a hindrance to that happy restauration of the jews which is expected by us, let the world judge. but you go on mr. reflector, to add greater abominations, for thus you writ. reflector. i dare not make any further advance in this matter, for fear lest i may be deceived in the calculation, not in having made the number of the reprobate too great, but because i have not made it great enough. answer. you have already advanced notably against the mercies of god, and the merits of our redeemer jesus christ but now you say, you dare not make any farther advance in this matter. it is a good hearing that you are come to the end of your march. alas man, what is it that frights you, that you are put to this nonplus? hath the captain of your general damnation met you, that you are in some danger to be hurried away by the millions of millions that you have listed under his power? or do you begin to repent you of your daring in that you have done? i would it were so for the truth's sake, and for the church's sake, and for your own souls sake: no, but it is for fear, you say, that you have been deceived in the calculation, as doubtless you have been, and it were good for you to learn a better art of arithmetic in this point, than hitherto you have learned. but you are so far from that, that you fear you have not made the number of the reprobate great enough. what, will not millions of millions satisfy your cruel mind? this is indeed somewhat to your purpose of a general damnation; and what doth it signify, but that you are ambitious to be the prime feweller to the prince of darkness, to fill up his tophet by throwing all the whole race of mankind into hell-fire. insomuch that he may now save himself the labour of walking about, seeking whom he may devour, for thou o merciless man, hast done his work for him. but what is it that hath put you upon this devilish design? some great matter will be expected from you. as for all the observations which you or any man else have made of the state and condition of the world from the days of adam down to these days, all your scrutiny into the overspreading idolatry, and sinful course of men's lives in the several ages of it, all of them i say, are in this case not worth a rush; yea all your typical prefigurations, which you here in your pamphlet have fancied of the judgement to come, are of no value; for if the time when this judgement shall be, is unknown to all the angels of heaven, much less can the number of god's elect, taking it but comparatively as you do, be known to you (poor man) or any other whatsoever, neither can there be, without a daring desperate presumption, any scrutiny made into it, so as to derogate from the merits of our merciful and faithful high priest jesus christ. what then is it that you will pretend unto, which hath put you upon this pragmatical busying yourself in that which is so much above your reach? you say you have your warrant from scripture-evidence; for thus you writ (meaning that this your determination must pass for current.) reflector. especially after all the reflections i might make thereupon, as are these. first god saith by his prophet jeremiah, chap 3. v. 14. that he will take but one of a city, and two of a family or tribe, to bring them to zion. 2. of a hundred sheep, he will leave ninety and nine of them to their wander. 3. jesus christ took a long journey to the city of samaria, which was called sychar, to signalise the conversion of one poor samaritan woman joh. 4.4. usque ad 27. 4. presupposing that the children of israel were as great in number as the sand on the seashore, yet but a remnant of them shall be saved, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, rom. 9.27. is. 10.22, 23. 5. the lord had but very few names in sardis, rev. 3.4. 6. of the ten lepers that were healed, there was but one that returned to give glory to god, luk. 17. 7. in truth there is incomparably a far greater number of come stones and pebbles than there is of diamonds, saphires and pearls, and yet jesus christ doth only make use of these in the building and structure of his house. 8. few persons find the way that leads to the kingdom of heaven, and life everlasting, straight is the gate and narrow is the way that leads thereunto, and few there that be find it. answer. these (mounsieur) are your triarii, else you would not have ushered them in with such a terrifying preface, nor made them your last reserve, ordering them in rank and file so paragraphically, (not like your former which were huddled up altogether in a heap) that so the more notice might be taken of them. and now let all men that have any understanding in the holy scripture give their opinion of this reflector; would any one but a fool or a madman lay so great a weight upon so sandy a foundation, as this octonary of reflections seems even at first fight to be, and which, upon a serious perusal of them, cannot but be construed a miserable wresting of the holy oracles of god? let us consider them here severally each one by itself, and in such words, as you render them. first god saith by his prophet jeremiah chap. 3. v. 14. that he will take but one of a city, and two of a family, or tribe, to bring them to zion. here i must mind you by the way, that as you render the sense of the prophet's words to another parpose than the spirit of god intended them, so you word it otherwise than god spoke it. god doth not say, he will take but one of a city, and two of a family, etc. (your word (but) whereby you would hook in your sinister opinion, will prove a butt for god's anger against you) but thus saith god, i will take you, one of a city, and two of a family, that is (not as you would have it, of a tribe, but) of a country or nation, (for so the word family is in scripture sometimes used and must be so here) the true sense whereof is this; gods calls upon his people israel when they had forsaken him to return unto him, and to encourage them, speaks words of comfort and kindness, uti pater ver. 12. return thou back-sliding israel, and i will not cause mine anger to fall upon you, for i am merciful, etc. turn o back-sliding children, for i am married unto you, and i will take you one of a city, etc. o● as it is is. 27.12. one by one, q. d. seeing i am joined to you all in such a contract, i will pick out and gather you all out of the several places and countries into which you have been dispersed, that though there should be but some one only of you in a city, or some two only in a whole country, yet they should not be neglected, but should be culled out; or as the lord speaks by the prophet amos, am. 9.9. i will sift the house of israel among all nations, like as corn is sifted in a sieve, yet shall not the least grain fall upon the earth, or, be lost, and i will bring you to zion, or join you to my church, whereof zion is a type, that so all israel may be saved, rom. 11.26. this being the genuine sense of the place, how can it, with any serenity of conscience be wrested to that, to which you apply it? if it be said, it is so interpreted by way of allusion, i grant, by a collusion it is; neither do similitudes all men know, prove any thing at all argumentatiuè, only rhetoricè, they may be of some use some times, but not in this place. secondly, of a hundred sheep god will leave ninety and nine of them to their wander, mat. 18.12. rather he will leave them in a sure and safe fold, or in a good pasture. god commits his people, that is his flock to his pastors which he hath set in his church, that they may be fed, so the charge was given to peter, feed my sheep, feed my lambs. he doth not then leave them to their wand'ring, if so, he would have no great cause to rejoice when he returns home with his stray sheep upon his shoulders, sweeting under his burden, where he seethe that during his absence, all his flock are gone astray. thirdly, jesus christ took a long journey to the city of samaria, which was called sychar to signalise the conversion of one poor samaritan woman, joh. 4.4. to 27. a long journey you call it: it was a journey that he had been acquainted with before, for this is not the first time that he came into those parts, and he came you say to signalise (a word of your country (possibly) or of your own coining) the conversion of one poor samaritan woman. whereas it appeareth not by all the discourse that passed between him and the woman, nor by the report that she made of him to the men of sychar that she was such a convert, as you imagine; and if it were so, she was not the only convert in that city, for it is said v. 4.1. that many believed, because of his own words, and the confession that they made of him was much more signal, than any thing we read of the woman, how then did he come thither to convert that one woman? but let all be granted that you say of this matter, what is it to your purpose? eve just nothing, it will signify rather against you, that he went thither to open the treasures of mercy and grace to the poor despised samaritans. is this your reflection then of any value? 4. presupposing that the children of israel were as great in number as the sand on the seashore, yet but a remnant of them shall be saved, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, rom. 9.27. [presupposing] and why so? was not the same promise made to abraham gen. 22.17. totidem verbis? and repeated again by the apostle heb. 11.12? why then should any man speak doubtfully in this point? i confess, it is a proverbial form of speech used commonly to signify an innumerable multitude, judg. 7.12. is. 48.19. but is it not clear hereby, that when any thing is mentioned in scripture that may tend to the enlarging of god's mercy towards the world, it is by you but lightly regarded, (as it hath been noted before) whereas any thing that may but seemingly advance your general damnation that must be stretched to the uttermost? so here an innumerable multitude that may signify the elect of god (in some sense) is ushered in with a doubtful presupposing, as if the thing were uncertain. well, but this being so, what will follow thereupon? nothing at all to serve the present turn; for can any man infer from hence directly that not above one in a million shall be saved eternally? admit that the remnant of the israelites who were delivered from the sword of the assyrian (which is the proper meaning of the prophet in that place) were a type of god's elect among that people to be saved by christ (as some imagine) what's this to all the elect of god all the world over? yea and when the whole nation of the jews is restored again to their former glory (as there is no doubt but they shall be) it may as well be concluded to be a type of universal redemption, (which the arminians will be ready to catch at, so that then there shall be no 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (as your word is) or rather no 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, no reliquiae, but all the whole race of mankind shall be saved, which is an opinion not to be warranted by the word of god. 5. christ had but very few names in sardis, rev. 3.4. ergo. a most incongruous ergo must this be accounted by all men, but it is of the same kind as the rest are; and therefore there need no more be said unto it, but only to fix a non sequitur upon it, unless we may say, you wrist the scripture from the right understanding to a reprobate sense. 6 of the ten lepers that were healed, there was but one that returned to give glory to god. from hence if any thing may be gathered in reference to eternal salvation, it may be said (which nevertheless must not be said) that there shall be a decimation of all mankind at the last day, one amongst then to be saved, or rather it may be you would have it there shall be then a centuriation of millions of men, that shall then be culled out for salvation which will amount to your reckoning, but that you reckon, as we say, without-book. i.e. without the records which are laid up in archivis, far out of your reach. 7. there is incomparably a far greater number of common stones and pebbles than there is of diamonds, saphires, and pearls: and yet jesus christ makes use only of such as these in the building and structure of his house. grant all that you here say, viz. that jesus christ makes use only of precious stones for the building of his house, yet what stone is there laid, which is not of his own squaring, framing, polishing, yea of his creation? and surely, since he will have his house of a large extent, we may believe he will create materials answerable thereto, for number as well as for quality: yea and rather than fail he will take them immediately out of the quarry of corrupt nature into his own hands, to fit and smooth them for his purpose: of pebbles and common stones he can make them agates, saphires, carbuncles, and what not? 8. few persons find the way that leadeth to the kingdom of heaven and life everlasting, straight is the gate and narrow is the way that leads thereto, and few there be that find it. this, we may believe, you make the main pillar of your building. but this pillar is already removed, and set in its right place; the removal whereof hath made your whole building to shake, for when your scripture-evidence (so you call it in your title-page) hath proved to be invalid, as to your purpose, your & cetera that there follows is but as a spectrum to fright inconsiderate people, or as a single simple cipher, signifying nothing. behold here (good readers) what strong and nervous arguments the reflector hath used to maintain the doctrine of his general damnation, and how easily, as he would make us believe they do enervate and weaken all that may be said against it. who will not now rather think that the man hath been given up to a spiritual blindness, not being able to discern that truth and reason, which are so clear against him? contraria juxta se posita magis illucescunt. the triarii being thus routed, and the commander having advanced yet farther with a party of the same spirit, forcing the holy scripture to wait upon him in his salleys against the gospel of our saviour; we are now to see whether the other weapons of his, surreptitiously taken out of that sacred and celestial armarium, be well managed by him, and what edge they carry in them to do him service, or rather disservice to christ and his church. these are they that are produced in the 10th. and 11th. pages of his book, where he thus fluttereth. reflector. of ten thousand to whom that holy god-man jesus preached, hardly will you be able to prove, or substantially find any thing to ground your belief that a hundred of them were converted, whereof the greatest part thought that jesus christ was come into the world, not to establish a spiritual kingdom in it, made up of saints and faithful souls, but to erect an earthly empire, and to set up tabernacles in it. answer. first, for the reckoning that is here made of the ten thousand to whom christ preached, concerning whom i will not contend, only it may be demanded why such a scant number should be set of them? was not christ (as he is called rom. 15.8.) the minister of the circumcision, that is, of the whole jewish nation? and did he not preach to others that were no jews? for he was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the messenger of the great counsel (as the septuagint render that written of him, es. 9.6.) and doth it not hereby appear that the reflector writes at random, as his fancy only leads him, without any warrant? for there is not the least tittle in scripture of the ten thousand that christ came to preach unto. neither will i much contend about the term that the reflector here puts upon our lord calling him god-man. our lord jesus christ is indeed god and man, but is this term, god-man, according to the form of sound. words? 'tis true, christ is often called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by human writers, but never so in holy scripture; and though the greek bears it well enough, yet the idiom of our language will not, whereupon we are forced in that case to use a periphrasis, and to say god and man. why then should this reflector make use of such an uncouth word when he speaks of our most holy and righteous lord which neither the scripture nor our language will allow him? only because as he differs from men that are rational in his opinion, so he doth, i say again, take up a form of speech, like the quakers, differing from all other men. but though this holy man of god, or rather this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 god and man did preach and speak so as never man spoke, yet we are told here that hardly shall we be able to prove or substantially find any thing to ground our belief that a hundred of them were converted, etc. what then was there any failing in the doctrine which he preached, or in the spirit wherewith he spoke? far be from us any such blasphemy. the work which the father had sent him to do he perfectly fulfilled it: but it was not all to be finished during the time of his ministration, some things were to be done by him while he was in the state of his humiliation, and some things after he came into the state of his exaltation. the perfect conversion of sinners from ignorance to the true knowledge of the gospel, and from unbelief to a full confidence or assurance of faith was not (as it is the work of god's free grace) to be consummated by christ until he was ascended into heaven, and set at the right hand of his father, for then and not before, was the holy ghost to be sent for that very end and purpose amongst many other. which powerful act of the spirit was first wrought upon the apostles that they might be instructed more fully to the kingdom of god. for even they, during the time that they were with christ, and were witnesses of what he did and taught, were very defective both in faith and life. in faith, about the death and resurrection of christ, and about a temporal kingdom, which was their error as it was of the rest of the jews. in life, when they were too full of revenge in drawing the sword, as peter, or for calling down fire from heaven upon the samaritans, as james and john, luk 9.54. it was the spirit after the resurrection and glorification of christ that was to bring all things to their remembrance whatsoever he had said unto them. it was the spirit which should then lead them into all truth. it was the spirit which, after christ was glorified, made them clearly to understand the prophecies which went before of him. thus it is said, joh. 12.16. these things understood not his disciples at the first, but when christ was glorified, etc. it was the spirit which should adapt and fit them for the great work of converting the world, which otherwise they could never have been able to bring to pass. and as it began thus with the apostles, so did this grace extend unto others in the same manner (secundum modum recipientium) thus testified the evangelist joh. 7.39. this spoke he of the spirit which they that believe on him should receive, for the holy ghost was not yet given, because jesus was not yet glorified. these things considered we may see some cause why there were not many converted by the preaching of jesus christ. yet cannot a conclusion be gathered from thence that there were but few then of god's elect among that people, unless we will exclude the apostles, or at least other the disciples of christ from eternal salvation, who had also their failings both in faith and obedience because the holy ghost was not then given. reflector. jesus christ saith that his flock is small, that there are but few persons that enter into the kingdom of heaven, that when he shall come again upon the earth, be shall not find faith in it, that all the world shall run after the beast; that the number of the elect is very little in comparison of those that are called, and consequently that the number of the called is infinitely less than that of those who are not called, and that know not what the christian religion is. answer. we had best beware what we say of our lord jesus christ at any time so as to tell the world, jesus christ saith, when he hath not spoken it, for fear lest that rebuke fall upon us which fell upon the prophets of old, behold i am against you that smooth your tongues, and say, he saith. let these scriptures be searched which are heaped together, and it will evidently appear they say no such thing as you say of them. first, when christ calls his flock little flock, he speaks not of the elect of god all the world over, as you imagine, that would be contrary to the holy scripture, which in several places speaks of them as of a great multitude: but it is certain he speaks it only of his apostles who were his peculiar care above all others: as is plainly to be seen in my antidote. 2. christ never said that there are but sew persons that enter into the kingdom of heaven. but speaking of the narrow way that leadeth to life, he saith, sew there be that find it, meaning probably sew there be of the jewish nation at that time that were so wise as they should be to find it. metapha canibus investigantibus. for so the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies, sagaciter depichendo as it is written at large in the aforesaid antidote. 3. christ saith not, as you say, when he shall come again upon the earth, he shall not find faith in it. the words that you harp upon in this particular (though jarringly) are those in luk. 18.8. when the son of man cometh shall he find faith on the earth? and now consider how great a difference there is between your words, and the words of our saviour. first, he saith not when he shall come again upon the earth. for the earth, where is it at that time? st. peter tells us, the earth and the works that are therein shall then be burnt up 2 pet. 3.10. but his coming shall be in a cloud with power and great glory, luke 21.27. so say the evangelists, and the psalmist saith, he makes the clouds his chariot, psal. 104.3. such a chariot it was that carried him into heaven, and such a chariot it must be, on which he will ride, when he cometh again, (so the angels tell the apostles act. 1.11.) but that will not be to the earth, the wheels of his chariot will not strike so low, st. paul who knew better than any man the way to the third heaven and the way back again, he i say showeth the utmost extent of his stage which will be at that time, viz. the air, for thus he writeth 1 th●ss. 4.17. then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with the angels in the clouds, to meet the lord in the air, etc. to speak therefore of christ's coming again upon the earth what is it, but a dream? 2. he saith not, as you say, he shall not find faith upon the earth, but only by way of interrogation thus, shall he find faith, & c? between which say there is some difference. but 3. there is a great error that followeth which hath deceived many, and you among the rest, who have rendered the word of our saviour here, as if he meant that all the whole christian profession should be utterly then banished out of the world by a general apostasy and defection from the faith; this i say is a great error that hath gone about the world, and you it seems are willing somewhat to revive it: but this is not the meaning of our saviour, for than would the church be quite dissolved, and how then should his promise be fulfilled, viz. that he would be with his people to the end of the world? can christ be with his church to the end of the world, and yet find no faith in it at all? you'll say, he means but little saith, or but sew that have faith: and i say he means no such matter, but that it is to be doubted whether he shall find any faith, meaning any jewith christians in the land of judaea when he comes to judge the persecuting jews that were in that land: for so the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to be understood, rev. 1.7. viz. for this land of judaea, not for all the earth as it hath been taken (as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 tribes of israel) which word of our saviour came to pass at that time when jerusalem was destroyed as it is observed by eu●cbius. the people of the church in jerusalem, that is, the christians there, according to an oracle delivered by revelation to some honest men among them, commanding them to go over jordan to a city called pella, did all remove thither, and left jerusalem without any christians in it at their destruction: which clearly fulfilled the prophecy of our saviour, when the son of man cometh shall he find faith in this land? that is, the land of judaea. in the next place you lead us to one of st. john's visions and revelations: but neither doth jesus christ, nor his angel, nor his servant john say as you say that all the world shall run after the beast. the words in the place that is here fixed upon are in the original 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which are not to be taken for all the world in your sense, but for the whole land or region where the roman idolatry was set up. neither do the following words, viz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signify a running or wand'ring after the beast, but a wondering behind or after it, which implies their great veneration of that idol-worship: which is further expressed by their saying, who is like unto the beast? who can sight with him, that is, who is able to oppose this idol-worship, or resist the power by which it is upheld? rev. 13.4. and what idol-worship was this, but that which was professed in the capitol at rome by the inhabitants of that city while it was heathenish? see dr. hammond in his paraphrase upon this matter and his annotations. this (very probably) is the right sense of the spirit of god in those words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. that exposition of them therefore which you give, and not only you, but some other expositors that have of late taken upon them to make their revelations of the revelation, mr. brightman, etc. rendering the said words as you do, viz. that the whole world shall run after the beast, meaning the pope and his idolatrous worship, cannot be good; much what like unto that which hath been gathered falsely from this book of the revelation, viz. that the people are they, that must pull down antichrist, whilst kings espouse his cause, than which nothing can be more effectual and direct (saith dr. hammond) towards the raising and fomenting of commotions in the world; which is certainly contrary to the doctrine of the gospel. but let me now here demand of all those that have been of your mind, what is all this to your purpose? surely nothing. yet, if it were so, as you seem to say, that there shall be a general defection, or falling away to romish idolatry, so that all nations and people in the world shall run after the beast, will it necessarily follow that god from everlasting decreed that not above one in a million of millions shall ever be saved? cannot a true faith be wrought in the hearts of idolatrous people before they depart out of this world? is any thing too hard for god? it is no novelty, for the spirit of god to work such a conversion secretly, suddenly, in a way unknown to the world, and to deliver people at the very last moment of their lives out of the snare of satan, as brands plucked out of the burning. and do not you tell us even the very same thing in the 29. page of your book that jesus christ will save those that have truly repent, though even at the last period of their lives? such gracious acts of god's infinite goodness have been done upon those that seemed to be as castaways in the eye of the world, and doubtless may be done again. god's arm is not shortened, nor his bowels less yearning towards his poor creatures that are ready to perish in their sins, through the malice of hell, which hath originally brought them into that wretched condition. but of these things enough hath been written in the aforesaid antidote, no need therefore here to write of them again. as for that which is here added about the number of the elect in comparison of those that are called, enough also hath been said thereof in the antidote aforesaid. these are the scripture-evidences which the reflector hath produced to maintain the dreadful doctrine of a general damnation. all which the wise and pious reader will now see to be far short of proving that which is so stoutly affirmed in the title-page of his book of reflections, viz. that not one of a hundred thousand, (nay probably not one in a million) from adam down to our times shall be saved. or as the said opinion is stretched in the 21th page of the said book, viz. the proportion of the number of the reprobate to that of the elect, before the advent of jesus christ and before the preaching of st. peter had converted three thousand men, is not the number, neither of a thousand, nor of a million, but of millions of millions to one person that is saved. there yet remains one reflection more which will require some animadversion upon it, that is, the idea or character (as the reflector calleth it) of the children of god, made by himself in setting a multitude of marks and signs upon them, without which, he saith, they cannot be saved, all which he makes the essential and constituent parts belonging to every true christian. and from thence he imagined, that his opinion of the general damnation is concluded to be a certain truth, because they are not all to be found in one man amongst a million. but festina lentè (as we say) for haste makes waste, are these all, being about thirty of them, to be found together in one man? i believe, without any breach of charity, they were not all to be found in himself that so compiled them? else he would never have been so uncharitable, nor so unrighteous, as he was, in his passionate raging heats against the church of england, nor, in accusing several of the most eminent champions of the gospel in it against the superstitions of rome, laying to their charge things which they knew not, as that they leaned to popery, and had made their advances towards rome, wherein, by his own confession upon his deathbed, he thought they were not guilty, wishing that his soul might be with their souls whom he had so much and unjustly defamed, but let that go. this i may say boldly, to glean the holy scripture, raking together several duties of piety, charity, righteousness, etc. required in it, and to annex unto them such a terrible threatening as this, viz. without them there can be no salvation, this cannot agree with the spirit of the gospel: had it been said, without faith and repentance no man can be saved, i for my part would readily have subscribed thereto. but as that legislator had stated the case, designedly to give some corroboration to his unevangelical opinion, he seemed to me to be as one sent from moses with two new decades of laws, more dreadful than the decalogue proclaimed on mount sinai. for, as for the violation of that decalogue we hear a comfortable sound, jesus christ the righteous is the propitiatory (1 joh. 2.2.) meaning doubtless that such a violation shall, upon true repentance pentance, be so hidden by christ, that it shall never appear in judgement for condemnation to any that believe (for in those words the holy evangelist alludeth to the mercy-seat which covered the ark of the covenant from the sight of god, (where the tables of that law lay) but for the violation of these laws which come out of zion (as being written in the new testament) there is no propitiation: for where there is a failing in these, we are told there can be no salvation. but let us consider the matter a little better. it were an excellent thing indeed, and as it were a heaven upon earth to have such a characterism upon us while we live in this present evil world, and let us on god's name press toward it as the apostles word is, phil. 3. that if by any means we may attain (not only to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to which all mankind shall attain but) to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that's the word, the glorious resurrection of the dead; let us be spiritually minded (for for so the reflector characteriseth the elect of god) which is, so to know the things of the spirit, as to believe them; so to believe them as to affect them and esteem them, so to esteem them, as to seek them, so to seek them, as to seek them in the first place, let us abstain from carnal and worldly lusts, let our thoughts and meditations be more set upon god than the world, let us live soberly and righteously and holily in this present evil world, etc. nevertheless if in these or the like any of us shall come short of the glory of god, or of the glory from god, meaning god's acceptance and approbation (as it must be confessed with the apostle in many things we offend all, and too many offend in all) we are comforted from the evangelist, we have an advocate with the father jesus christ the righteous, etc. 1. joh. 2.1. having yielded thus much in this point, let me now expostulate a little with the disciples of this reflector concerning these things; is it agreeable with the sense and scope of the gospel of our saviour to multiply signal demonstrations of gods elect children, by imposing duties upon them, as if they were all exactly to be performed without any the least digression from the rule, and without making any mention at all either of god's grace assisting and enabling thereto, or of god's mercy by christ in pardoning the transgression of them. adding only the condemnation (as the reflector hath done) that shall fall upon those, in whom those marks are not to be found? what thunder and lightning from sinai could be more dreadful? could any thing be said or written more consonant to the covenant of works? upon this account, i confess, the doctrine of general damnation may prove to be, according to the usual saying, as true as gospel: but what then will become of the covenant of grace; and consequently of the comfortable doctrine of salvation? will it not by this means be utterly annulled, and made of no effect. 2. what did the reflector mean, when he said that in our days we can meet but few that labour to take the kingdom of heaven by violence? what, but that he would catch at any thing that would but seem to hold up his opinion of the small number of persons that shall be saved. for i demand, is the kingdom of heaven in these days to suffer violence, and do the violent take it by force according to christ's meaning when he spoke those words, mat. 11.12. certainly if that be a good exposition which i have read an interpreter one of a thousand hath given of them, viz. that the multitude and meaner crowd of the jews who had heard john's preaching came and submitted themselves to the rules of the gospel, together with the publicans and sinners, who were all looked upon by the jews, as those that were accursed, and had no right to the messiah, and so were accounted as violent persons, invaders and intruders upon those privileges which they imagined did peculiarly belong unto them. if this, i say, be the true and genuine sense of those words, as in all likelihood it is, how can they be so stretched, as they are wont to be to such an use and purpose as is commonly made of them? i deny not but we may therehence obliquely infer that a holy zeal in the service of our god is good and commendable that we are to strive to enter in at the straight gate, to sight the good fight of faith, etc. but to argue from thence that few in these days do take the kingdom of heaven by violence, therefore few shall be saved, is not to be endured, being both 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 absurd and irrational. 3. that the reflector did take his marks amiss, for the greatest number of them, and that they are defective in sundry particulars, as coincidence, tautology, vain repetitions, contradictions, misinterpretations of holy scripture, etc. may be easily proved if we should insist particularly upon them. some of them shall be here produced to that purpose, to give an essay of the rest, u.g. it is said the elect of god are to be regene rated, and that they are passed from the state of nature into a state of grace: and what difference is there between these two? are they not both one and the same? and how often is this repeated by the reflector? it is the common crambe in his book, ad nauseam usque. though regeneration be much talked of, yet is it but little understood. true, the power of it is to be evidenced in the course of our lives: but the first working of it is (without doubt) in our baptism, wherein, as our church liturgy teacheth us, we are made members of christ, the children of god, and intheritors of the kingdom of heaven: and what doth this signify, but that we have then passed from the state of nature into the state of grace? hence it is that the minister, after we have been baptised, pronounceth openly before the whole congregation, that we are then regenerated and grafted into the body of christ's church. and the church likewise there declareth it to be certain by god's word that children which are baptised, dying before they commit any actual sin, are undoubtedly saved. all which do agree with the apostles rules, rom. 6.3. gal. 3.27. etc. if then we are regenerated in our baptism, and are thereupon changed from the state of nature into the state of grace, and it be granted that these are the marks of the children of god and of the members of christ, can any man pass a definitive sentence upon us that we belong not to the number of god's elect? i know and acknowledge there is some difference between an external profession of religion which we take upon us in our baptism by water, and between a practical conformity to the rules of the gospel and the example of christ, which conformity is the effect of our inner baptism by sire, and which will be visible in the course of our lives: but even this is not limited to any certain time; for the work of regeneration is never at an end while we live in this world, it is indeed somewhat like to the ineffable generation of the son of god which never ceaseth, being as the school men speak of it, actus commensurastes aeternitati, of the same size with eternity, a permanent and everlasting generation, so our new-birth or regeneration is not a transient act, but a permanent and continued act, an act which is still in being all the days of our lives. to this purpose i have heard a most learned divine, dr. collins by name who was in my time provost of king's college in cambridge and regius professor of divinity in that university deliver his judgement at a public commencement there, in these words, quotidie renati sumus, we are every day regenerated. which being so, what judgement can any man make by the work of regeneration in us, of our eternal election, so as positively to determine such an one is regenerated therefore he shall be saved, and such a one is not regenerated, therefore he shall be damned? the holy apostle would that we judge nothing before the time. it will be said, may we not then judge of men, as we find them? if they live righteously, soberly and holily, so far as can be discerned by men, may we not say so of them? yes without doubt, if we go no further in our judging: but to judge of god's eternal election thereby, what is it, but to anticipate god's judgement (as it hath been said before) it is to intrude ourselves into the secret of god's pavilion, it is to invade god's prerogative, it is an arrogancy god will never endure. yet is this a part of that course which according to the reflectors arguing we are to take in determining of the number of gods elect. another of his marks is to live in the joys of the holy ghost, possessing a peaceable serenity of mind, and an undisturbed quiet of soul, without which it is concluded no man can be saved. and this is again repeated in the same words. religion consists in a continual serenity of joy, peace of soul, tranquillity of mind. but what then will become of a broken heart, of a wounded spirit? what? the prophet david who knew better the mind of the almighty and merciful god, will tell such for their comfort, they are gods sacrifices, which he will not despise, what account soever they be made of among uncharitable men. it were too much to follow the track of all the reflections which hath been made of this matter. i think i have pursued the chief of them with a tolerable reverberation, only before i conclude, i cannot but protest against the strange and vehement asseverations that are used in the carrying on of this pernicious doctrine. it is said to be as great a truth as any can be in the world, viz. that there is no salvation but among christians, and that the greatest number of the elect is amongst the reformed, etc. but can a man with any serenity of soul and conscience speak thus confidently of god's secret counsels and decrees? and what a bold and daring affront is this which is put upon divine truth, to affirm that this opinion of the small number of god's elect, so limited as is here set down is as great a truth as any can be in the world? surely that which was once unjustly laid upon a pious and reverend prelate of our church by some ministers in and about london may most justly be here applied, viz. is this as great a truth as any can be in the world? what is it not a more certain truth that there is a god? is it not a more certain truth that jesus christ is god and man? is it not a more certain truth that christ is the only saviour of the world? as great a truth as any can be in the world? must this then be an article of our creed, the cornerstone of our religion, must this be of necessity to salvation? no greater truth than this, which is no truth at all? o that men should not only forget themselves, but god also, and in their zeal for their own vain fancies, utter words bordering upon blasphemy. i cannot likewise but protest against that which is written page 23. where complaining of the neglect of piety in this age, which is too true, and a thing much to be lamented, it is said that many masters of families, otherwise sober, civil, true, honest, upright dealers, and good friends have wholly neglected family-duties, etc. god forbidden that i or any man should speak or write a word against the religious exercises of good christians in private! that is and shall i hope be ever far from me, let them still be continued in their due order, provided that the public service of god, as it is now in use among us here in this church and nation, be not thereby slighted and brought into contempt, as it hath been in many places, especially in populous cities and towns: nay it were much better that the family-duties were wholly omitted, than the public worship of god in our churches and congregations should be despised. the church certainly hath taken great care for her children in this matter, appointing a method to be commonly used in the service of god twice a day throughout the year morning and evening, commanding the holy scripture to be read so daily, that the old testament shall be read once every year, and the new testament thrice. and were it so that the church-liturgy were exactly observed in every church throughout the nation, ministers and people hearty joining together, as the common-prayer-book doth appoint, what a nation should we be of holy zealots for god's glory? glory would then certainly dwell in our land, and never till then? jesus christ would be in his throne amongst us, and god would delight in us as his peculiar people. then should we not need to fear the encroachments of popery upon us any more, if we had once this unanimity and uniformity settled among us in the daily service of our god, o that god would be pleased yet to open the eyes of the people of this nation, both high and low, to see and understand this one needful thing, that will above all things else bring peace unto us, and establish it. let family-duties i say again be performed in their due time, place and order, but let them yield the precedency to the public, which of late years they have not done, the greater is our sin: yea though the private piety and zeal, i mean that which is according to knowledge, hath been the fruit and offspring of the public service of our god, yet through the malice of the devil it hath come to pass that the old word is verified in our land, filia devoravit matrem, the mother which under god give a being to the daughter is devoured most viperously by her own issue, and the daughter is perked up in her stead. and though a spurious brood of errors doth commonly spring from her, yet will she pretend that all saving truth is confined to her private conventicles. let this then be done and there will be no need to complain any more of the omission of family-duties. nor let any be scandalised at that which is here written in the behalf of our book of common-prayer, but for lewis du moulin's sake let men have better thoughts of it who while he was in his health and jollity did possibly join with others in a prejudice against it, but when he saw death the sergeant of heaven ready to lead him before god's tribunal, he then was of another mind, to which purpose somewhat shall be here related of that which is published of him by a good hand when he lay dying. doctor du moulin having sent to the reverend dr. patrick dean of peterborough to desire a visit from him, being of his parish, the dean immediately upon the evening of the same day went unto him, and was entertained with many expressions of great affection to him, and high esteem of him, when after some comfortable words spoken to the sick man, he endeavoured with meekness to convince him of his great offence against the church of england, which he had wronged intolerably to the great gratification of its enemies, at such a time when all sober men should be its friends, and without any real cause for such imputations as he had charged upon it, whereupon dr. du moulin replied somewhat, needless here to be repeated, but yielded thus far, as to say, well doctor, pray to god to pardon me all my sins, especially my want of charity. accordingly the dean kneeled down by his bed side and began with the lords prayer, so proceeding to the other prayers, which are appointed by the order in the common prayer-book for the visitation of the sick, in all which the sick man joined with lifting up his hands often, and other expressions of devotion; especially at that passage (in the prayer, when there appears small hope of recovery) give him unfeigned repentance for all the errors of his life past, etc. he gave more than ordinary signs of his fervent desire, and when the dean had done he gave him most hearty thanks, and renewed his expressions of extraordinary affection to him and esteem or him. a little after, the dean coming to see him again, he was so affected with his kindness in giving him a new visit, that he said, are you come again sir? o how charitable are you! this is indeed to return me good for evil. and after some discourse with him, desired him to pray with him again, for your prayers, said he, were very comfortable to me the last time. and accordingly he did, in the same form of words he had used before: with which he was so much affected, that when the dean had solemnly commended him to god's blessing, in that excellent form; unto god's gracious mercy and protection we commit thee, the lord bless thee and keep thee, etc. he laid hold upon his hand (which he held up over him) and kissed it with an unusual passion. such an example as this one would think should incline people who are apt to speak evil of that excellent form of prayer prescribed by the church in that book, and of the whole method of divine service in it, to be much humbled before god for their depraving it, and to make better use of it, than hitherto they have done, by making it their daily rule for the ordering of their public and family-duties and devotions with reverence and godly fear. the last thing that i shall here take notice of is that which is added toward the close of these reflections, viz. a plain contradiction of them, and which overthroweth all that is before written of the general damnation, in these words, they that find there is nothing but wickedness in them, and death by sin, and that they have only the name of christians, and have denied the power of godliness, and that they deserve for ever to be cast out of the presence of the almighty, may have hope; for even in that miserable and much to be pitied estate god counsels the sinner to make use of the remedy that he offers him, and to touch the sceptre of grace which is extended to him, which will infallibly work the salvation of the soul; for god's ways are not like to man's, nor are his thoughts like to those of sinful flesh, his ways and thoughts are inconceivable, the height and depth of them immeasurable towards sinners that repent: where by the ways of god you are to understand those of his mercies, and not those of his knowledge and wisdom. this i must say sounds well, and i wish that all the rest that is written in that book of reflections had agreed thereto, but there is as much difference between this and them as there is between the colours of white and black. i have been willing to add this in the close, that if ever it should happen these papers may come into the hands of any disconsolate soul, it may see that here both from the reflector and myself which may bring some comfort unto it. remember the words of our lord jesus christ, which he spoke at his last supper, viz. this is my body. it is much to be lamented that there have been so long a time perverse dispute and uncharitable dissensions about these words among those who are or should be partakers of the same precious faith, when if they were understood aright, it might well be presumed, that instead of animosities and fiery persecutions which have too much abounded, a sweet peace and brotherly accordance had ere this time happily overspread the christian world, to the adorning of the doctrine of god our saviour, even among those that are without. it is not too late yet for us to use our utmost endeavour towards the making up of this peace, i say not, by affording any connivance to error, but, by rendering an interpretation (rational in the judgement of all men) of these words, which may possibly be a great furtherance unto it: and if my poor judgement may be of any value, i think (after fifty years' employment that i have had in the work of the ministry) that such a sense may be given of them, which, though it be not to be found in the common road of expositors, yet may lead all sorts of people of what persuasion soever they be (if they be not possessed with a spirit of contradiction) to the nearest way of a right understanding, the meaning of our saviour in them, and consequently to a more peaceable and christianlike living together in the world, and loving one another than hath been among us in former times. true it is, satan hath prevailed mightily in this his masterpiece of mischief, to sow discord and variance about that very thing, which our lord jesus christ, the prince of peace, hath ordained to be a means to unite his people together in love. surely we cannot but be sensible of it; o that we would all unanimously agree to counter-work this our grand enemy, by a holy endeavour after unity, in consenting to the truth of these words of our blessed saviour, according to his own sense of them: which sense, i say, this present discourse shall aim at, and in some measure demonstrate plainly, without any wresting, or sinister construction, yet with submission to the church's determination of it. those who are and will be of the roman schism, are indeed very free also in making their complaints of these unhappy differences: i wish that it could not be a true imputation put upon them, viz. a main cause of all this quarrelling in this point hath chief had its original from them. ferus (moguntinus concionator as he is called) one of the greatest moderation among them, cryeth out in this manner, o dolour super dolorem, quod ecclesiam conjungere deberet, per hoc ipsa vel maximè discerpitur & scinditur, quod ad pacem & vnioneni servire deberet, eo vel maximè utimur ad excitanda bella, discordias, sectas, i. e. o grief of all griess! that which should knit the church together in love and concord, even by that very thing is it chief divided and rend in pieces, that which ought to work peace and union, we chief make use of to raise and foment wars, discords and schisms. thus he, and why then will they (and he among the rest) be still so tenacious as they have a long time been, in maintaining their corrupt and prodigious doctrine of transubstantiation? a doctrine but of yesterday, not known in the church, till above a thousand years after the gospel's first appearance in the world; bishop hall. so young it was (saith a pious and learned prelate of our church) that it had not before learned to speak, he and sundry other authors of very good account affirming that this word transubstantiation, whereby the roman church understands the turning of the sacramental bread into the body of christ, was never mentioned, or heard, or thought of among the ancient fathers, or in the primitive church: only about six hundred years now past, pope nicholas the second (some say it was innocentius the third, so n. d. a popish writer against our martyrologist) in the lateran council did set forth, propagate and confirm to the utmost of his power that opinion of changing the substance of the bread in the sacrament (as for the cup their heat doth not reach so much against that, which is the reason that this discourse is mostly of the bread) and would have made it an article of faith, and did what he could to have it placed in the creed, whereupon there ensued corput christi day, masses of corpus christi, and the like novelties never before known or brought into use, practice or observation in any part of the world: yea hereunto do they themselves (the papists) give their consent (which they could not possibly avoid) that this word transubstantiation was not used before the time of the said council; yet to keep themselves from a total defeat herein, they do withal affirm that the doctrine of it was held in effect and substance from the beginning by the ancient fathers, and maintained by them in other terms, such as mutation, transmutation, transelementation, conversion of the bread, and the like. nevertheless this evasion will not serve their turn, for though they yield us thus much, in this point, confessing this word to be a novelty, as they apply it to the sacrament of the eucharist, yet, is it not (let all mankind judge) an absurd vanity for any man to imagine that the said doctrine should be so generally owned, and so fiercely maintained, yet not a fit word to be found out by any in that long tract of time, to show to the world the full meaning of that doctrine? for, as for those words which they say were then used, what do they signify, but the same sense, which we (who are and must be their adversaries in this and many other points of our christian profession) do and always have acknowledged, viz. that there is a change in these outward elements, being turned from a common to a sacred use, after they are consecrated and set apart according to the first institution? which certainly was the meaning of the ancients in this case, and no otherwise (as shall appear hereafter from very good authority) though, 'tis true, their zeal did oftimes lead them to many strains of rhetoric in a just magnifying this great and holy mystery. but will any man that is wise conclude thereupon that to be their judgement, which is now, and hath been since their times vainly precended, and thrust upon them by the church of rome, merely upon the account of their florid elocutions, hyperbolies, and high expressions used by them, to quicken communicants to their duty, when they come to the lords table? for our parts, we cannot so conclude, for than we should condemn ourselves, who often do the same thing, to the same good end and purpose, as they did yet abhor this unscriptural doctrine of transubstantiation. a doctrine it is that overthroweth the very nature of the sacrament: for unless there be an outward sign really continued in it, such as christ instituted to represent and assure the grace he principally intended to the faith of those that come worthily unto it, it is and must be utterly annihilated; neither can it be said that the accidents of bread and wine do remain as a sign, when the substance is vanished; for there can be no resemblance nor analogy between those accidents which have nothing in them of nourishment, and the body and blood of christ whereby the souls of true believers are in and by that sacrament really nourished and strengthened. nor can it be denied that in every sacrament, it is meet and requisite that there be an analogy or convenient agreement between the outward sign, and that spiritual good thing which is signified by it. this being so, may it not be proved to the teeth of our adversaries that they are in an error in this point; and that they vainly pretend to make that to be an article of faith, which a ma● may confute by his finger's ends? a doctrine which, like the eutichian heresy of old, disannuls the verity of christ's human nature; for it hath fancied such a body unto christ, which in one and the same moment of time may be in many thousands of places, viz. wherefoever the massing-priests shall please to consecrate their host, which clearly contradicts not only nature and reason, but the plain word ofscripture, which saith, heb. 4.15. christ was in all points tempered like as we are, yet without sin; neither will it help them, to say (as they do weakly enough) christ's body is now glorified: for first, christ spoke this word (this is my body) at his last supper when he was here upon earth. 2. it is the crucified body of christ which is represented in the sacrament, not the glorified. 3. christ's body is not, by being glorified, so devested of its natural properties, as to cease from being a body: and if by being in glory, it be made ubiquitary (a property only belonging to the divine nature) then shall our bodies be so too in heaven, (which i think no man will say) for these vile bodies shall be made like unto christ's glorious body, phil. 3.21. it would be too great weariness to my reader if i should lead him into a consideration of the many gross absurdities, which arise from this upstart doctrine, that which hath been here in short alleged against it, is enough to show the vanity of it. and so long as the abettors thoroof continue in it, all who will be faithful to the gospel of christ, and his church must protest against them. but we have (say they) the word of christ himself for our warrant, for hath not he said, this is my body? and may not we, without offence, say as he hath said. viz, that it is his body? yea and one of them, none of the meanest (as i find it reported of him by a late writer) thus vannteth out his confidence, that if god should ask him at the day of judgement, why he held so, he will boldly say tu docuisti, thou hast taught me. but is it true, that the spirit of god hath taught him to say so? and will he like a dull scholar 〈◊〉 poring still upon the letter of his lesson, never labouring to understand the right sense and meaning of it? of which gross neglect what account he and his fellow-ignaro'es can be ablo to make at the time of public examination, would be considered by them. and is it not (say they again) possible with god to make good his own word by changing the substance of the bread into the substance of christ's body, though we see it not? wherein they seem to be like the stoic philosophers that were of old, who proposing things strange and uncouth in foretelling future events, pleaded for themselves, saying nihil est quod deus essicere non possit, there is nothing which god cannot bring to pass. but as cicero answered them well, in his second book de divinatione, utinam sapientes stoicos effecisset, i wish he had made the stoics wise men; so may we wish that these of the roman church had more wisdom in their knowledge of god and his word, than it appears yet they have. for us, we will not, we dare not, and god forbidden we ever should deny this attribute of omnipotency to the great god creator of heaven and earth, he hath himself spoken it, not once, but twice, i. e. not once, but many times, once in the law and a second time in the gospel, without retractation, that power belongeth unto him. but to argue a posse ad esse will be acknowledged by all to be very illogical, and in this case it is inconsistent with found divinity: for we are taught by the holy scripture that gods will and power are ever joined together, only his will makes way for the exerting his power, his actual power, i say, which is of the same latitude and extent with his will. our god is in heaven (saith the psalmist, p. 115.3.) and doth whatsoever he will, not whatsoever he can do: so job, what his soul desireth, even that he doth, job. 23.13. he can at an instant overturn the whole course of nature, and reduce all things to a chaos, by his absolute power, or annihilate them, but he doth not, because he will not. there is no doubt but what christ said is true, and what he said he is able to bring to pass, for being god equal with the father, we confess with holy job, he can do all things. but the question is not of the truth of these words, nor of his power in fulfilling them, but of the sense, viz. whether christ intended thereby that a new sacrament, should be ordained and continued in his church, till his fecond advent, or, because his words being spoken in this manner, (viz. take eat, this is my body which is broken for you) whether his apostles should at that time take that bread which was then broken with his own hands in their sight, and which they did then eat in his presence, whether, i say, they should take that bread for his human body, made of a woman, gal 4. which was the next day to be buffeted, scourged, crowned with thorns, nailed to a cross, and pierced to the heart with a spear: and this his body which was present with them sitting at the table, and speaking these very words should (contrary to his own meaning and resolution often before declared by himself in express terms, and contrary to the clear apprehension of his apostles) be free from all this cruelty and extreme hard usage. a very easy passion certainly it must needs be which christ endured, if this be granted, as it must if their doctrine of transubstantiation be from that instant time allowed, being the thing which they contend for: neither indeed can we say, as it is commonly and truly said, that there was never sorrow like unto his sorrow, if he had such a proxy to suffer for him. but without controversy divine justice would not now be satisfied with figures, shadows, representations, and resemblances, but seeing the body is come, which they did all typify, the body itself must be sacrificed, or all mankind must perish for ever. this latter part therefore of this hypothesis must be cashiered, and the former retained, viz. that christ intended only by these words (this is my body) to ordain a sacrament in his church, which should be a standing memorial and declaration of his death (as the apostles word, 1 cor. 11.26. signifies) till his coming again. and herein there cannot, or should not at least be any difference between them and us. well then, if our saviour's intent was by these words to institute a sacrament, will not all men say that he used a sacramental kind of speech to that purpose, in his forming of such an ordinance? hither to have we dealt only with our romish adversaries those psendo-catholicks about this matter. we should now show the sense which orthodox-catholicks have rendered of it. but first because there have been some who have joined with us against those our common adversaries, that have in their haste given such an interpretation of these words, as is inconsistent with truth and reason, lest their sense should be objected against us, as if we were wounded with our own weapons, it will be necessary to show in one or two particulars, what is not the sense of the catholic church of england, nor of most of the reformed churches that harmoniously agree with it. first then, the misconstruction which is made of the excellent form of sound words in our liturgy, is not the sense of the church, whose children we are. there it is said, the body and blood of christ are verily and indeed taken and received by the faithful in the lord's supper; which is a most true saying and worthy of all acceptation. but to infer from thence that there is a areal presence of the body and blood of christ in that bread and wine, is such an error, that they who make this inference, do in effect pass over to the tents of the romanists, or consubstantiate themselves with the lutherans in their heterodox opinion, which is also very absurd. the truth is, those words are not to be understood with a reference to the bread and wine immediately after consecration (as our venerable mr. r. hooker hath excellently declared his judgement in this point which shall be showed at large hereafter) but to the time, in which they that are worthy do really entertain christ, and feed on him in their hearts, after they have received. so the words spoken to them by the minister, when he gives them the sacramental consecrated bread do plainly signify, which words are these, take and eat this, in remembrance that christ died for thee, and feed on him in thy heart by faith with thanksgiving. and this feeding must necessarily imply a real presence of christ unto them, not to any other. this mistake therefore of the premised form of sound words in our liturgy doth not show the true sense which we are enquiring into. much less doth that form of unfound words devised in the time of the late unhappy schism and rebellion among us give any satisfaction herein. the words which were imperiously imposed in those times upon every minister to use, when he gave the bread of his god, after he had broken it, were these, take ye, eat ye, this is the body of christ, which is broken for you. but now i appeal to the conscience of any man that is able to discern in this case, could these words be thus spoken without assuming presumptuously a power which christ had not given? yea could they be spoken without great offence to the communicant? for might not he well demand, how can this man give us the body of christ to eat which hath been in types and shall be really broken for us? and what can he think when he heareth these words of the bread, which he seethe with his eyes, and feeleth with his finger's ends, but that either the minister is blind, or that he intends to deceive him, or that he believes as the church of rome believes, viz. that the substance of the bread is vanished, the accidents of it only remaining, and that the body of christ is really substantially present in it. i know well what they will allege for their justification, i. e. seeing our blessed saviour used this sacramental form of speech in his first institution, they likewise may use it in a conformity to him, when they administer the said sacrament: which is somewhat like unto him whom i mentioned before, who will say unto god at the day of judgement. tu docuisti, thou hast taught me. but they may hear that now which possibly they never heard of before, or at least did not well consider, viz. because our saviour, like a king that hath command over his broad-seal, to confirm or alter it, as he pleaseth, spoke this word, (this is my body) when he first instituted this sacrament, it will be too bold an arrogancy for any man since, whatsoever he be who pretendeth to be a subject unto him, to say the bread is the body of christ, when he administereth it. sure i am, the great apostle st. paul doth not word it in so bold a manner as to say, the cup which we bless is the blood of christ, or, the bread which we break is the body of christ, no, but with a pious modesty worthy of imitation, only thus, the cup of blessing which we bless is it not the communion of the blood of christ? and the bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of christ? and this it is like, was the form which all the apostles used in their ministrations of this nature, for he speaks it here in the plural number; we, we, neither indeed, is there the same reason for us, nor the same occasion before us, to speak these words, as there was for christ to speak them. he spoke them discriminatim, in a way of forbidding the former sacrament of the passover to be used any more, and appointing this of his last supper in its stead (as shall appear more at large in the following parts of this discourse) upon which account it is, that he then spoke this word so expressly, (this is my body) to the end that his apostles, and after them his whole church might understand his meaning, in abolishing the old sacrament, and ordaining the new.. which being so, doubtless we are not to follow his example in speaking the words that he spoke, which brought on this change. and accordingly i knew a man at that time (domino teste non mentior) who for conscience sake did not use that indirect form when he administered that sacrament, but varied from it using the aforesaid words of the holy apostle, when he gave though bread, this bread is the communion of the body of christ, adding thereto the words prescribed in our liturgy, viz. take and cat this in remembrance that christ died for thee, etc. and when he gave the cup, this cup is the communion of the blood of christ, drink this in remembrance, etc. for knowing assuredly that the real presence of christ is not in the outward element, but only in the hearts of the worthy communicants, he durst, not say so plainly and so punctually, as he was then commanded that the bread is the body of christ which is broken for his people. a large mention hath been here made of the form that was then commanded to be used in administering the sacrament of the lords supper; not as if it were worthy of any regard, (rather it deserves to be expunged out of the world with an anathema fixed upon it) but that our enemies may not upbraid us with it, and that the world may take notice how apt those that separate themselves from the established orders of our church, will, though they be associated in an assembly as they were in those days at west minster, and applauded by their followers for their piety and learning, will be to fall into the worst of romish errors, though they will seem most to protest against them. having removed the rubs that lay in our way, we may now go on in a plain path, which will lead us to hear the voice of our lord walking in his garden which is in his church, where he commonly meets his people, and makes his mind known unto them. there it is, where we have learned the true sense of his words in this mystery. let us then hear what the spirit hath said of it to the church, which is our mother, and to her children, amongst the rest to one, who is the meanest of gods poor servants, who rejoiceth that he hath attained to some understanding in this mystery; and if his particular judgement which shall be added towards the close of this discourse, be accounted by those who are to judge in such cases, sit to be built upon the foundation, his song shall ever be deo gloria, mihi venia. the sense of the church in general is declared in the twenty eighth article of her confession, which is of the lords supper, in this manner, the supper of the lord is not only a sign of the love that christians ought to have among themselves one to another, but rather it is a sacrament of our redemption by christ's death, insomuch that to such as worthily and with saith receive the same, the bread which we break is partaking of the body of christ, and likewise the cup of blessing is a partaking of the blood of christ; the body of christ is given, and taken, and eaten in the supper only after an heavenly and spiritual manner, and the mean whereby the body of christ is received and eaten in the supper, is faith. this is the voice of the turtle which is heard in our land, the echo whereof is heard in heaven, which makes sweet music in that celestial symphony. the word which our apostle useth (1 cor. 10.16.) in this case is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, an emphatical word which makes heaven and earth intercommon together; first on god's part, it is communicatio, for god by his ministers (in all ages) communicates or distributes this spiritual food among his people. 2. on their side, it is participatio, when they by faith take and receive this food into their hearts, for then, and not before it turns into nourishment in them, and is digested by them. from these two springs another 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, viz. a communion or fellowship not only among ourselves, but with the father and with his son jesus christ, (1 joh. 1.3.7.) a most sweet and apposite word, a word which the said apostle seems to delight in, as appeareth by his repeating it in the same instant 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, saith he, and again, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; surely it pleased him very well, as well it might: and to me it soundeth, as if he would have us to account this vinum generosum to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the common wine that passed between god and his guests at his holy table. much pains likewise have been taken by orthodox catholics to smooth the way to a right understanding of this great mystery: r. v. but i shall not here multiply quotations of that which is written hereof by them. their sense shall be shortly summed up in that form of words which is to be seen in a late writer, and is in effect used by them all. when christ said, this is my body, what body did he mean? even his own natural body, which is given for us (luk. 22.19.) which is broken for us (1 cor. 24.10.) but how can this be? it's impossible that bread, while it is bread should be christ's body, or wine while it is wine should be his blood. it's very true that it is impossible, disparatum de disparato non proprium praedicatur. we must therefore seek for a possible meaning, and of necessity conclude with calvin, sacramentalem esse locutionem, that it is a sacramental form of speech, the sign bears the name of the thing signified, as both in vulgar and scripture language is common in scripture, signs either figuratively representing, or sacramentally sealing do bear the name of the things represented or sealed. v. g. gen. 40.12. the three branches are three days. gen. 41.26. the seven ears of corn are seven years, the seven kine are seven years, so ezek. 37.11. these dry bones are the whole house of israel. dan. 2.38. thou o king are this head of gold. dan 4.17. the four beasts are four kings. gal. 4.25. this agar is mount sinai. rev. 7.9. the seven heads are seven mountains. so in sacramentals, circumcision is called the covenant, gen. 17. ●3. and a token of the covenant, ver. 11. and a seal of the righteousness of faith, rom. 4.11. the lamb is called the passover, ex. 2.21. the rock was christ, 1 cor. 10.4. and in this of our lord's supper, this is the cup of the new testament. these and the like instances are commonly used in this case, and the form of speech is so plain that a child may understand it. thus he. but if similitudes may be of any force (i say not in argumentation, but illustration) in my judgement there can be nothing more pregnant to this purpose than a resemblance that may be made between our saviour himself, and this his own holy ordinance. two natures, we believe, are personally united in christ, the divine and human; now as the distinct properties of these natures are by virtue of this hypostatical union sometimes applied and made common to both, yet remain themselves entire without any confusion each with other, or conversion into one another; in like manner there being in this ordinance of our saviour a sacramental union between the ontward visible sign, and the inward and spiritual grace, well may the one be denominated by the other▪ yet remain themselves entirely in their own nature and substance (as they were before the said union) without any confused mixture one with the other, or any real conversion into each other. so the soul and body of man while they are united, are ofttimes put distinctly for the whole person of a man, yet are both bounded within their original being's. but the truth is, this real corporal conversion of the bread into the body of christ, notwithstanding the confidence which the roman party useth by it to bring on their oral manducation of christ's body in the mass, hath no such warrant, as they dream of, from these words of our saviour, which they so much harp upon. for it is well known among the learned (as my aforesaid author observeth out of cameron and moulin) that the hebrew tongue or syriack, in which christ spoke, doth not use in this form of speech any copula of subject or predicate, either (is) or (signifieth.) but sometimes, and not always pronoun, as in those places before cited in the old testamenr, no (is) nor (was) nor any other verb is there; but thus, the seven ears of corn, they seven years, the four beasts four kings, which when they come to be translated into greek or latin, than the idiom of the language requires it, and saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is, e. g. the rock is christ. so that they are much mistaken who to bolster up their devised transubstantiation place the emphasis here in this word (is) which word probably our saviour did not speak, when he instituted this sacrament, though it be, as it must be, so rendered by the evangelists, according (as it hath been said) to the idiom of the language in which they wrote. thus in short we see the sense which hath been wont to be given of these words of our saviour by pious and learned men, and which passeth for current among us of all sorts; to which sense i also for my part do readily subscribe, though (i do humbly conceive) there is something lacking in it, and so not fully coming up to our saviour's meaning, i come therefore now, according to my promise, to deliver my particular judgement of it. my particular, i say, because i never heard of it before, nor in all my reading met with it in any author elder or later that hath written of this subject. and it is as followeth. our lord jesus christ intending, as it appeareth, to put an end to the old sacrament of the paschal lamb, for which his disciples had been so solicitous, and to institute this of his last supper in its stead, he therefore, having first lifted up his eyes and hands to heaven, that he might in the name of his father, consecrate the chosen element of bread and wine, speaks to his disciples in this manner and form, saying, this is my body, and this is my blood, q.d. you have taken that for my body hitherto, according to the rudiments of the law of moses (for indeed christ the lamb of god was praesigured thereby) but now this shall be it hereafter till my coming again: so placing the emphasis in the word (this) as by way of distinction from the former sacrament, calling it likewise his body in opposition to the former shadows, not making any other change at all, but only one sacrament instead of another; which (its true) is generally acknowledged, but the premised emphatical distinction hath not been heeded, as it ought to have been, from whence have sprung the differences, and hot contentions about the manner of christ's presence. the apostles themselves so understood it, for they never after were inquisitive, as they had been, about the passover, but were, no doubt, obedient to the command of their lord and master, for he had laid this charge upon them, in these words, do this in remembrance of me, as much as to say, leave the other undone, or, use it no more, and let none other use it in my name hereafter. the apostle st. paul, who laboured more abundantly than all the rest of the apostles, kept himself precisely to this command in his apostolical office. so he telleth the church at corinth (1 cor. 11.23.) that (saith he) which i have received of the lord (meaning not from moses, but of christ) have i delivered unto you. yea the very words of our saviour himself, which he spoke of the cup, do seem to point out this sense unto us, for as he saith of that, this is my blood of the new testament, so his meaning (very probably) may be of the bread, this is my body of the new testament, that is, which in the time of the new testament you and all other to the world's end shall take for my body, not that which hath been taken for it, under the old. for by these words he takes away the first sacrament of the passover (how else comes it to be out of date?) and establisheth this of his last supper: the first being an ordinance of the law to continue during the old covenant, the second he will have to be an ordinance of the gospel, as being more apt to agree with his new covenant. this, this i say, is clearly the thing that our lord intended by using this form of speech when he ordained this new sacrament in his church, viz. this is my body. he would that his apostles, and his whole church after them should take his meaning as spoken in this manner, this emphatically, this specifically, this substantially, this, not the former, yet this mystically, even as the former was, is my body, whereby you shall be united together in bortherly love, your faith also shall be confirmed, and your souls strengthened and refreshed unto life eternal. this appears to me (pardon my confidence) an unquestionable rendering of the sense of these words, and a manifest clearing of all difficulties yea and of all differences too, which have been raised about them, if men would but follow the conduct of truth and reason. for let it be considered, though we find a distinction of god's covenants with mankind, viz. the old, and the new, yet i ask is not the covenant of grace the same now for substance, which it was from the beginning? was not the same spirit of christ in his ordinances given unto the fathers under the law, which is now given to the faithful under the gospel, excepting only in the accidents and circumstances of effusion and manifestation? how else can christ be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the same yesterday and to day (as it is said he is heb. 13.8.) and will be so for ever? had the fathers a saviour and deliverer exhibited unto them in the paschal lamb, otherwise, more than symbolically, than we have in the lord's supper? did they not all eat the same spiritual meat, and did they not all drink the same spiritual drink, the same not only with and among themselves (as popish writers would have it) but the same with us christians also? for the apostle addeth, they drank of that spiritual rock that followed them, and that rock was christ, 1 cor. 10.4. can any truth revealed in scripture be more plain than this? viz. that christ was their expectation, their comfort, their refuge, their rock in all their troubles, the food and sustenance of their souls, the object of their faith, even as he is now in this time of the gospel to all true believers? and consequently that this sense which is here rendered of our lords words is most true. well may it therefore be an amazement unto all men, as it is, god knoweth, unto me that such a pother hath been made in the world about these words of our saviour, which do, and can signify no more in this case unto us, than the sacramental form of instituting a new sacrament did necessarily require, in rome of the old. let therefore the vain words of transubstantiation and consubstantiation, and the questions de modo sine modo (as they have been well called) of christ's presence in his sacrament, about which this giddy generation hath been quarrelling so long, be for ever abandoned by us, and let us for shame content ourselves, as becometh us, and as the fathers of old under the law did with the overtures of god's love in the arbitrary dispensations of his grace (for we never hear of such annimosities and uncharitable differences among them about this matter (as have been among us) and whatsoever is in it which for the present surpasseth our understanding, when we come to see god as he is, we shall undoubtedly see more clearly the secret of his covenant, and have a more perfect knowledge of this mystery, than we can now be able to attain unto, or than indeed is fit for us while we are clothed with mortality to reach at, much less throughly to understand. in fine, the judgement of venerable mr. hooker concerning this point, way well be accounted a ne plus ultra to all sober men: his words are these. the real presence of christ's most blessed body and blood is not to be sought for in the sacrament, but in the worthy receiver of the sacrament. and with this the very order of our saviour's words agreeth, first, take and eat, then, this is my body which was broken for you; first, drink ye all of this, then followeth, this is my blood which was shed for you. i see not which way it should be gathered by the words of christ, when and where the bread is his body, or the cup his blood, but only in the very heart and soul of him that receiveth them. as for the sacraments they really exhibit, but for aught we can gather out of that which is written of them, they are not really, nor do really contain in themselves that grace which with them, or by them it pleaseth god to be stow. if on all sides it be confessed that the grace of baptisin is poured into the soul of man, that by water we receive it, although it be neither seated in the water, nor the water changed into it, what should induce men to think that the grace of the eucharist must needs be in the eucharist, before it can be in us that receive it? now the reason hereof is, in my judgement, beyond all exception: for as in the sacrament of baptism, all that the minister doth, or can do, is to baptism with water, after he hath with solemn prayer and supplication set it apart from other water, it is christ himself that baptiseth us with the holy ghost and with fire. our ministry is but very wash in comparison of that which christ doth unto us when we are baptised. so in that other sacrament of the new testament the priest can do nothing but give the outward elements after he hath by prayer and reciting the words of christ put a distinction between them and other ordinary bread and wine; it is christ only who by that means feedeth the soul of a worthy communicant with his broken body, and his blood poured out for the sin of the world: only, as unless we be baptised with water, we cannot ordinarily expect to be baptised with the holy ghost, so unless when we are invited unto the lord's table we come worthily unto it, and there take and receive the consecrated elements at the hands of the minister, our souls must want that spiritual nourishment from, and by christ which otherwise they might be said with and made strong in the grace of god. which being so, as it is a truth not to be denied, what need all those bitter conflicts that have been and are about this matter? we should rather say as that worthy author had written a little before in the same paragraph. shall i wish (saith he) that men would give themselves more to meditate with silence what we have by the sacrament, and less to dispute of the manner, how? if any man suppose that this were too great stupidity and dulness, let us see whether the apostles of the lord themselves have not done the like. it appeareth by many examples that they of their own disposition were very scrupulous and inquisitive, yea in other cases of less importance and less difficulty, always apt to move questions; how cometh it to pass that so few words of so high a mystery being uttered they receive with gladness the gift of christ, and make no show of doubt or scruple? the reason hereof is not dark to them who have any thing at all observed how the powers of the mind are wont to stir, when that alone which we infinitely long for presenteth itself above and besides expectation. curious and intricate speculations do hinder, they abate, they quench such inflamed motions of delight and joy, as divine graces use to raise when extraordinarily they are present; the mind therefore feeling present joy, is always unwilling to admit any other cogitation; and in that case casteth off those disputes, whereunto the intellectual part, at other times easily draweth, etc. thus he. and certainly it must be granted by all that he was in the right, unless we will be still inquisitive after that which is infinitely above our reach, and consequently break into god's pavilion, where we shall find the dark waters that encompass it will inevitably swallow us up. neither will it be the pretended suffrage of the ancients that will keep us from sinking in this bold presumption. pretended i say, for all that our pseudo-catholicks of rome have boasted of the ancient fathers, as if they were their coryphaei in their heterodox opinions which they hold of this holy sacrament, are but vanity. and let this eminent divine (approved even by them for his great learning as shall here be made manifest) be heard speak his judgement also in this particular. it appeareth not that of all the ancient fathers of the church any one did ever conceive or imagine other than only a mystical participation of christ's both body and blood in the sacrament; neither are their speeches concerning the change of the elements themselves into the body and blood of christ, such, that a man can thereby in conscience assure himself it was their meaning to persuade the world either of a corporal consubstantiation of christ with those sanctified and blessed elements before we receive them, or of the like transubstantiation of them into the body and blood of christ; both which to our mystical communion with christ are so unnecessary, that the fathers who plainly hold but this mystical communion cannot easily be thought to have meant any other change of sacramental elements, than that which the same spiritual communion did require them to hold. which being so, let the impartial reader judge whether the church of rome hath not lost one of her strongest holds, wherein many of her most able champions have thought themselves to be impregnable. it will be no offence, i presume, to transcribe thus largely the words of that renowned author. for the plain truth is, we who are clergymen are obliged in many respects to be more diligent in perusing his works, then, i doubt, we are. but however though we in this generation slight them, they have certainly been of very high account with learned men, in former times. and which is a thing not common, two kings there have been in our land, who for learning and piety were second to no princes in their generation, that did much extol mr. hocker and his works. first king james of famous memory gave this commendation of him, that he had received more satisfaction in reading a leaf on paragraph in mr. hooker's writing of the sacraments, than he had in reading large treatises of that subject written by others though very learned men. again, king charles the blessed martyr, the day before his death gave a charge to one of his children (the lady elizabeth) which was to be imparted to the rest, to be very conversant in good books, and among others he was pleased to name mr. hooker's ecclesiastical policy, which, as he said, would arm them against popery. and well may this be a reflection upon us all that survive him. if a father when he is ready to die shall thus instruct his children, and such a father who is pater patriae, tanti meriti, tanti pectoris, tanti oris, tantae virtutis pater (as st. austin said of st. cyprian) a father so worthy, so wise, so well spoken, so virtuous, so learned a king that was (as it hath been said of him in a public phrontistery) a defender of the faith, not only by his title, but by his abilities and writings, a king who understood the protestant religion so well that he was able to defend it against the whole conclave of rome, and hell. and when he knew it so throughly, and died so eminently for it, it will concern us to be very wary, how we depart from his judgement by falling off to the apostatical church of rome. but for such as have forgotten their duty and reverence to the late king our common father, and the pious advice that he left us, such had need to have a very profound judgement of their own, to bear them out, but that it is much to be doubted they will not in the end prove to be wiser than dapiel (as the word of scripture is) no nor so wise as our good father king charles the faithful martyr, who gave us all good counsel, if we had the grace to follow it. however if we be willing to be armed against popery, let us make use of such means which he commended unto us, whereof this is one, viz. to be diligent in reading mr. hooker's ecclesiastical policy. once more therefore i shall add here what the said author writeth, to our present purpose, in the close of the same paragraph, wherein he hath not only excelled in casting down strong holds, but all vain imaginations, 1 cor. 10.4. or foolish reasonings (so the apostles word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth signify) that are exalted against the simplicity of the gospel. when i behold (saith he) with mine eyes some small and scarce discernible grain or seed, whereof nature maketh a promise that a tree should come, and when afterwards of that tree any skilful artificer undertaketh to frame some exquisite and curious work, i look for the event. i move no question about performance either of the one, or of the other: shall i then simply credit nature in things natural? shall i in things artificial rely myself on art, never offering to make doubt, and in that which is above both art and nature refuse to believe the author of both, except he acquaint me with his ways, and lay the secret of his skill before me? where god himself doth speak those things, which either for height and sublimity of matter, or else for secrecy of performance we are not able to reach unto, as we may be ignorant without danger, so it is no disgrace to confess we are ignorant: such as love piety will as much as in them lieth, know all things that god commandeth, but especially the duties of service which they own to god; as for his dark and hidden works, they preserve as becomes them in such cases, simplicity of faith before that knowledge, which curiously sisting what it should adore, and disputing too boldly of that which the wit of man cannot search, chilleth for the most part all warmth of zeal, and bringeth soundness of belief many times into great hazard. let it therefore be sufficient for me presenting myself at the lord's table, to know what there i receive from him, without searching or enquiring of the manner how christ performeth his promise: let disputes and questions, enemies to piety, abatements of true devotion, and hitherto in this cause but over-patiently heard, let them take their rest, let curious and sharp-witted men beat their heads about what questions themselves will; the very letter of the word of christ giveth plain security that these mysteries do, as nails fasten us to his very cross, that by them we may draw out, as touching essicacy, force and virtue, even the blood of his gored side, etc. they are things wonderful which he feeleth, great which he seethe, and unheard of which he uttereth, whose soul is possessed of this paschal lamb, and made joyful in the strength of this new wine, etc. what these elements are in themselves, it skilleth not, it is enough that to me which take them they are the body and blood of jesus christ: his promise in witness hereof sufficeth, his words he knoweth which way to accomplish: why should any cogitation possess the mind of a faithful communicant, but this, o my god thou art true, o my soul thou art happy. thus sweetly, thus christianly, thus divinely would this holy and humble man put a peaceable end to this unhappy controversy. a man, i say, of whom and of his works, the bishop of rome himself that then was (viz. clement the eight) gives this character, there is no learning that this man hath not searched into, nothing too hard for his understanding, this man indeed deserves the name of an author, his books will get reverence by age, for there is in them such seeds of eternity, that if the rest be like unto this, they shall last, till the last fire shall consume all learning. to this purpose did that pope (if my historian be of ny credit) (as i believe he is) declare his opinion, isaac walker. when he heard one of his books of ecclesiastical policy read before him. but now to draw towards a conclusion, i shall only add one story out of our martyrologist of a certain disputation about these very words of our saviour, viz. this is my body. it was really most eminent, the king himself that then was, viz. henry the eight being a chief disputant in it, the story (omitting needless circumlocutions) is as followeth. when a great assembly of the nobles and other the chief of the nation was gathered by express order and command from the king from all parts of the realm, and all the seats and places were full of men round about the scaffold, within a short time a godly servant of jesus christ one john lambert was brought from the prison with a guard of armed men, even as a lamb to fight with many lions, and placed right against that where the king's royal seat was prepared, so that now they tarried but for the king's coming. at length the king himself did come with a great guard, and when the king was set in his throne, he beheld lambert with a stern countenance, and turning himself to his counsellors, he called forth dr. day bishop of chichester, commanding him to declare unto the people the cause of that present assembly and judgement. after he had made an end of his oration, the king standing up upon his feet, leaning upon a cushion of white cloth of tissue, turning himself toward lambert with his brows bend, as it were threatening some terrible thing to him, said these words; ho good fellow, what is thy name? then the humble lamb of christ humbly kneeling down, said, my name is john nicholson, although of many i be called lambert. what, said the king, have you two names? i would not trust you having two names although you were my brother. but after many profaces and much talk had in this manner, the poor man showing the reason how his name came to be changed, the king commanded him to go to the matter and to declare his mind and opinion, what he thought as touching the sacrament of the altar. whereupon lambert beginning to speak for himself, gave thanks to god in that he had inclined the heart of the king so, as not to disdain to hear and understand the controversies of religion, &c: then the king with an angry voice interrupting him, i came not hither (saith he) to hear mine own praises, etc. but briesly go to the matter without any more circumstance. lambert being abashed at the king's angry words, contrary to all mons expectation, stayed a while, considering with himself what he might do in those great straits and extremities. but the king being hasty with anger and vehemency said, why standest thou still? answer as touching the sacrament of the altar, whether dost thou say that it is the body of christ, or wilt deny it? and with that word, the king lifted up his cap. then saith lambert, i answer with st austin, that it is the body of christ after a certain manner. answer me (saith the king) neither out of st. augustine's nor by the authority of any other, but test me plainly whether thou sayest, it is the body of christ or no? lambert replied, i deny it then to be the body of christ. mark well (saith the king) for now thou shalt be condemned even by christ's own words, hoc est corpus meum, this is my body. when this was finished with great triumphing amongst the opponents, and sundry other arguments used by them against him, all which were common and nothing sorcible, the king asked him, what sayest thou? art thou not yet satisfied? wilt thou live or die? thou hast yet free choice. lambert answered, i yield and submit myself wholly unto the will of your majesty. then said the king, commit thyself unto the hands of god, not unto mine. lambert replied, i commend my soul unto the hands of god, but my body i wholly yield and submit unto your clemency. the king replied very smartly upon him, if you do commit yourself unto my judgement, you must die, for i will not be a patron unto heretics. and thereupon immediately caused the sentence of condemnation to be read against him, which was executed in a most terrible manner with greater cruelty than ordinary. here, if may be said, was a bolt soon shot, which of itself in reason could do no hurt, but being backed with the venom of folly and frenzy proved deadly. for let all mankind judge, who are able and impartial, was not this a doughty argument which that king used, to drive a poor innocent lamb to the slaughter? and will not the very children of this generation, that are instructed in the knowledge of this truth, as it is here opened and made evident, be amazed and ashamed to see the holy scripture so grossly abused in the maintenance of such a cursed error? yet was this their argumentum achilleum, their dead doing weapon in those days of ignorance and cruelty, and still is at this very day with our catholics (falsely so called, unless it be that they are of a catholic confederacy against christ and his gospel) which we shall certainly find to our smart and sorrow, if ever they come to prevail over us: for their hoc est corpus meum will prove to us to be but as a preface to their writ de comburendo, for their merciless burning of our bodies. but blessed be god we have hitherto been kept out of their reach: and blessed for ever of god be the government which is set over us whereby, under god, we are still preserved. yet neither do we slight the words of our lord, which he spoke saying (this is my body) god forbidden that such a thought should ever enter into our hearts, no, but taking them in the sense which he intended, they are the crown of our rejoicing: his promise herein is the greatest blessing that we can be capable of in this world; it is our life, and without it we shall ever be dead in our sins and trespasses; whatsoever spiritual quickning we have in us to heavenly things, it is the body of christ, and the blood of christ, which we have received into our hearts by faith that worketh them in us, for we live not (as the apostle st. paul said) but christ liveth in us. it is the body of christ, and it is the blood of christ which filleth the whole inward man, enlightening the understanding, rectifying the will, ordering the affections, putting courage into the heart to encounter any difficulties for christ, to suffer any torments for his sake that can be inflicted upon us by men or devils. nay more, it is the body of christ, and it is the blood of christ separated each from other, which were so taken and received in the lord's supper, and which continue to be so in the hearts of those that worthily received that holy sacrament, which fully satisfieth all their hunger and thirst, as bringing a clear evidence of christ's death, and consequently a full assurance of the pardon and remission of their sins unto them, the memorial of christ's death being the main end why the sacrament was ordained. this, in short, is that real presence of christ in this holy ordinance, which the church the spouse of christ expecteth, so as to be entertained by her lord at his holy table, and which indeed is only to be desired, as being most advantageous unto her. as for that presence of christ in this sacrament which papists contend for, let it pass for a dream, as it is; it shall even be (to use the words of the prophet) as when a hungry man dreameth, and behold he eateth, is. 19.8. but he awaketh, and his soul is empty; and as when a thirsty man dreameth, and behold he drinketh, but he awaketh, and behold he is faint, and his soul hath appetite; so shall their hoc est corpus meum, i mean their doctrine of the transubstantiation, of the outward elements in the lord's supper into the body and blood of christ prove to be unto them but a miserable delusion. never never o my god let my soul enter into their secret, nor be baptised with a baptism that they are baptised with. and with this confidence i do shut up this whole discourse, god almighty give a blessing unto it. finis. postscript. but now (it seems) to strengthen the popish interest hell is broke lose; seditious pamphlets now flutter about for the discrediting our religion and our church (which hath been acknowledged the best reformed church in the christian world) such pamphlets, i say, as are not only against the doctrine of the true protestant religion, but against the best ecclesiastical discipline also, witness that scandalous and scurrilous piece (gratum opus agricolis romanis atque atheistis) entitled the naked truth, second part, whereas in many parts of it, i say not in all, it rather deserves the title of impudent untruth, as shall be here made manifest past all contradiction. the author thereof whom i care not to know, being he is prava avis in templis, nigroque simillima spectro, gins his epistle to the reader with a colloguing insinuation, i had almost said with much craft and cunning, in this manner; no man does more reverence good bishops than myself: and why so? but because he does, it may be, account himself to be one (it is an ill bird then that will defile his own nest) nor (saith he) does any man less dread them with a slavish fear. but non obstante all his confidence, i, who am a poor inconsiderable man, shall here take the boldness, before i go with him a foot further to expostulate with him in this case. who (sir) is there that doth so dread them? i know a man who is in the seventy seventh year of his age, and in the fifty third year of his ordination to the office and order of an evangelical priest, yet in his full strength (blessed be god,) at which age fears do commonly, as other weaknesses, take hold of a man, but although he hath in his time lived under the inspection of many bishops, yet had he never such a fear of them upon him, nor have i at this day, for the plain truth is, there neither was nor is any the least need of it. nor is there, i believe any one of our bishops who is willing to be so dreaded, for if courteous affability, fatherly instruction, brotherly condescension, tender compassion towards the weaker sort, be to be found in them, and that very frequently constantly upon all emergent occasions presented before them (as i know by experience to be in some of them) what do these boasting words signify, but a vainglorious hussing? if they be not a most unchristian suggestion and slanderous susurration sufficient to make all that followeth in the whole tract liable to suspicion among wise men. as indeed many other of his following words do. i admire them (saith he) at my distance (which he presumeth is not very great) but i do not idolise them (and god forbidden that he or any man else should;) i honour them, but i do not fall down and worship them; as if none could kneel unto them, to crave their blessing, like dutiful sons of their grave and reverend fathers, and as all good subjects do to the king, being so in duty bound because he is pater patriae, can none i say, do this, but they must thereupon make idols of them and worship them? i can say (saith he) my lord, and not add, my god. but let me ask again, does any do so, or say so? sure there is not such a polytheism to be found among us here in this nation, though there be (god be merciful to us) much atheisin, which is like to grow up to a more prodigious height, than it hath yet attained, by the means of this and the like prodigious pamphlets that are scattered among us. the man goeth on in his apology thus, you will not find in this ensuing inquiry the least tang of bitterness or yellow choler, no not so much as one tart or harsh expression, being so far from justly disgusting any, that i shall not so much as set their teeth on edge, so insipied and simple an humour have i cherished all-a-long through this whole discourse (for fear of any satirical mixtures) that i doubt you will scarce find any salt, savour or smacky relish here, 'twill scarce by't the tongue of a sinner. 'twill indeed scarce be believed that a man who writes these words should at all prevaricate, i mean, make at first such a show of lenity, and yet steep his words after, in the very gall of asps: nay with what serenity of mind and conscience could he make this apology for himself, when his design was, it's apparent, to whet his pen like a sword, or, should he say, it was not his design, when his spirit was screwed up to a magisterial height, he could not contain himself but must either lash out into a frenzy, or else fall into a people-pleasing whimsy. which is the most sordid descent for a man of his measures to sink into: but possibly he might imagine that those who would undertake to read him might be blind, or that they would not be able to discern his shuffling diglossia's. i am sorry that a man of his rank and reach that he is thought to be, should deserve such terms to be put upon him: but let all impartial men that are wise and godly judge upon their reading him whether he doth not deserve it, not only i say to be accounted satyrical, wherein he hath a surpassing faculty, though he disclaims it, but to be grossly hypocritical in pretending smoothness and gentleness, yet proving really, throughout, rugged and sarcastical. if this be not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (a word sanctified by the holy ghost) naso suspendere, as the poet renders it, gal. 6.7. to lead his reader about by the nose (according to our proverb) i know not what is. but oh no, by no means, his reader he would have to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, long breasted, not like her cousin welshman, whose heart is near to his mouth, and so may easily be provoked by him, which he is loath he should because this great don nasutus cannot, as he faith, endure with any equanimity to be crossed. i shall therefore be as long breasted (to use his word) as i can, not intending to trouble myself much with his tedious loquacity; only single out two or three of his naked pudenda, to lay them open, which he well deserveth, to the view of the world, for this very purpose (which he cannot dislike) that the naked truth may not suffer any wrong by them. first a great picque he hath against our ecclesiastical courts, as if they were illegal having no parliamentary foundation, and their proceed unjust, no good to be done by them without their fees, etc. i will not contend with him about law-matters, it is out of my road: he is not for reformation of them, nor for edification, but for destruction; destruction, destruction is his continual song, down with them, down with them even to the very ground, for it is money, money, a common thing in all temporal. courts. as he often repearts the words, which they must have, both of ministers and people, or else to the devil with them all and after to the jail, etc. behold the insipid and simple humour of the man, which he saith he hath cherished all-a-long through his whole discourse for fear of any satirical mixtures. but by his leave, they that have an office are to wait upon their office, and is there not reason than they should live by their office? if they live not honestly by it, i would they did, wishing also that some legal course might be taken with them to compel them thereto, but must the courts be thereupon utterly dissolved? that were the next way to bring in all wickedness and debauchery 〈◊〉 the nation, as we have found by sad experience already the temporary suspending of church-censures hath been, notwithstanding the proceed in temporal courts, a great inlet thereto. if corruption in ecclesiastical courts hath made them unfit to be continued, there may be the same plea against temporal courts; for where is any thing in this world of a human alloy, such are all courts spiritual and temporal in some respects 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all of them, which is wholly free from failings? perfection in judgement and perfection in manners is only to be expected in the congregation of just men made perfect. the honourable house of commons, i am sure did the last parliament before this, take notice both of bribery and debauchery in the election of some that were to sit in their house, else they would not have made an order among themselves to prevent such abuses, though i hope the major part of them are free from such corruption; yea one of them i know, who was then, and is now again chosen for the said purpose, is far from the gild of so odious a scandal, being sought unto by the honest people that were to choose, who entreated him with much importunity to give his consent to be their burgess in parliament, neither would they rest satisfied with his denial till he had accepted of their choice, yea and i myself persuaded him thereto, telling him, non nobis solum nati sumus; the town likewise told him, it should not cost him a penny, and and i believe they have made good their word. yet i cannot say the like of other places interessed in the like business, having heard otherwise of them. but if our high and honourable court of parliament cannot be totally free from failings, not only in such elections, but in the managery of their affairs, as the world knows they have been in former times, who can say that inferior courts are without any? yet must we not therefore cry, down with them, down with them. o but our ecclesiastical courts have no legal foundation now when the statute of 1 eliz. 1. is retracted. and is it so? how comes it to pass then that it is still annexed to our public liturgy? surely, if the said statute were quite null and void, it is but a vanity to affix it to our book of common-prayer. and if all commissions granted to clergymen be of no force, why are some of that rank and calling put into commission for the peace as men fit for such an employ as well as any other? yea indeed who are more fit for it than they? again who is there that since the reformation fell under the heavy censures of the church for trisses, as you say (but it is a foul slander.) for it is not to be doubted but that it was for some heinous crime, or for their contumacy and contempt of the court, which is accounted an unpardonable offence in temporal courts, punished there with outlawries and i know not what. but what have i done? i have here made mention of clergymen; and who alas are they? if we be to be tutored by this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we must not word it, as we have been wont, for all god's people, saith he, are his clergy; and it is certain so they are. but as for bishops, priests and deacons, who have been wont to be called the clergy, he speaks of them under this notion of clergy not like an honest clergyman, but like a mar-prelate indeed with infinite disdain, repeating the word scossingly enough, clergy, clergy. but from whence comes all his clashing like a vaunting swashbuckler about this word? why, he will make us believe we have all this while been mistaken in the word, the word (clergy) is indeed (saith he) a scripture expression, but never but once found in holy writ, and then it signifies laymen, 1 pet. 5.3. the flock, not the shepherds that feed the flock, the presbyter peter advising his fellow presbyters, or priests 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, neque ut dominantes cleris, not lording it over god's lot, over the flock there called, clergymen, that is to say, laymen, thus he. doubtless this man hath not read the holy scripture with that care as became him, or else he hath sancied all men to have (as his word is) a wide swallow, capable of all that he will cram in upon them. whereas if he had had but clergy spectacles with him (so he wordeth it also) he would have seen his opinion here to be a grosser error, even the naked truth would tell him, the said word is more than once or twice, or thrice set down in scripture, for besides this of sit. peter which he quoteth, let him see joh. 19.24. act 1.20. act. 8.21. act. 26.18. col. 1.12. etc. nevertheless he will out of his huge bounty vouchsafe the favour that the word shall be appropriated as it hath been; for thus he writeth: since this word clergy hath so long obtained in the world, and also is become part of some statutes in england (mark that) i will even let it go as it is, and take it in its common acceptation hereafter; i only have said thus much (true enough) to show that neither the name nor the thing, neither the word clergy nor yet god's heritage belongs to this tribe of levi more than to other christians, if so much. truly (sir) this tribe of levi is little beholding to you; yet the best of it is, it is not you that can turn them out of their inheritance; you have seemed to be very friendly to them, and oh how much reverence you have for them? but is this your kindness to your friends? ha? these are his own words upon another account. but i will here show his naked untruth to his shame in this particular. it is not to be denied, (as it is before said) but that all people whatsoever, that are in covenant with god, are god's clergy, god's lot, god's inheritance, and blessed be god for it, that they are so, as all the israel of god were of old called gods inheritance, psal. 78.71. etc. yet was the tribe of levi then chosen out in a more peculiar manner, as is evident by sundry places of scripture, to be god's heritage, his especially numb. 3. numb. 8. etc. and for the service which they did at his altar, he gave them the first fruits the tithes and offerings which were his due: and can any man think but that ministers of the gospel have as good a title to these privileges, as the levites had under the law (for even so (saith the apostle) 1 cor. 9.14. (observe) hath the lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should even so live of the gospel) upon which accounts, they may well be called god's clergy, and the church's clergy in a more peculiar manner than other people may. all god's people were called his anointed, psal. 105.15.2. cor. 1.21. yet were there some in public office among them, who had that denomination given them honour is gratiâ: and now are there not titles common to all the faithful, which yet are (without any the least scruple) ascribed eminemiae gratiâ to ecclesiastical persons, viz. spiritual men (a term which the prophet hosea likewise applied to the preachers of god's word in his days hos. 9.7.) watchmen, churchmen, ministers, priests, disciples? and amongst the rest, this of clergy men hath been commonly so used, till this objector hath devised a cavil against it. but, observable it is how he is choked with the word (clergy) in his tenth and twelfth pages, etc. when he can with much facility swallow the word (priest) a term more excepted against , than this, of clergy. neither of which (though) can in truth be justly cavilled at by him or any man else. for the naked truth is, ecclesiastical persons are not usually called by us (clergy or priests) with any reference at all to the order of aaron, or to the disorder of antichrist (as some blasphemously prate) but only in a more excellent way (as is before said) than the community of the people are, being, as such set apart by god himself to preserve in his church his public worship and honour, to keep a commemoration of the sacrifice of the death of christ, and to offer up sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving even for the people when they are solemnly assembled together in their congregations. neither will the word (church) please him, as it is upon any emergency applied to clergymen. but so long as the word of our saviour stands in holy scripture, mat. 18.17. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. advising the offended brother to make his appeal to the church, meaning the sanhedrim, that is the church-senate or seventy elders, who then sat by god's approbation, to hear harder causes and to decide greater doubts against peace and charity. i say, so long may we call the assembly of ecclesiastical persons among us, be they in convocation, or other solemn meetings or synods, the church of england, notwithstanding the oggannition of all gainsayers whatsoever. one instance more, he saith, he will produce, as if he had not said enough already to his shame: he will at last show what little pretence the clergy hath to entitle themselves alone the church representative of england distinct from the lay-brethrens, and that is in making a canon to cringe to the east (thus he wordeth it according to the scossing language of turbulent. schismatics) and to bow at the name of jesus. was there ever any man that made such pretensions to truth, and withal did print and publish such notorious lies? where doth he, or any else during this last century of years (as for what may be done before it is not now material) find such a canon as he here speaks of, that enjoineth men to cringe to the east? out upon it! this false dealing must be repent, if ever he will look for mercy from almighty god at the last day. true it is, of late, viz. in the year 1640, there was a declaration made by the convocation then, concerning some rites and ceremonies to be observed in the church, which with other canons was confirmed and published under the great seal of england, which declaration, in that part of it which concerns this present purpose is verbatim in this manner. whereas the church is the house of god, dedicated to his holy worship, and therefore ought to mind us both of the greatness and goodness of his divine majesty, certain it is that the acknowledgement thereof, not only inwardly in our hearts, but also outwardly with our bodies, must needs be pious in itself, profitable unto us, and edifying unto others. we therefore think it very meet and behoveful, and hearty commend it to all good and well affected people, members of this church that they be ready to tender unto the lord the said acknowledgement, by doing reverence and obeisance, both at their coming in and going out of the said churches, chancels or chapels, according to the most ancient custom of the primitive churches in the purest times, and of this church also for many years of the reign of queen elizabeth. the receiving therefore of this ancient and laudable custom, we hearty commend to the serious consideration of all good people, not with any intention to exhibit any religious worship to the communion-table, the east, or church, or any thing therein contained in so doing, or to perform the said gesture, in the celebration of the holy eucharist, upon any opinion of a corporal presence of the body of jesus christ on the holy table, or in the mystical elements, but only for the advancement of god's majesty, and to give him alone that honour and glory that is due unto him, and no otherwise: and in the practice or omission of this rite, we desire that the rule of charity prescribed by the apostle, may be observed, which is, that they which use this rite despise not them which use it not, and that they who use it not, condemn not those that use it. if this be the canon that the man means, as i believe it is, i do appeal to all men that are able to discern between truth and error what jost; exceptions can be taken against these words; is it not evident that they carry in them a sound of much piety towards god, much tenderness of spirit towards the people of god, in persuading them with meekness of wisdom, to consent unto that pious course there propounded for the advancement of god's majesty? and what can be more christian like spoken than that which is there added in the close, desiring that the rule of charity prescribed by the apostle may be obseryed, which is, that they who use this rite, viz. of reverential gesture in the public service of god, despise not them who use it not, and that they who use it not, condemn not those that use it. what imposing then is here upon people a cringing to the east? it is not expressly disavowed? where is that unlawful canon which is said to be obtruded upon the church? yea where is that popish superstition which hath been and still is mouthed out in these times against convocations of the clergy, the clergy? where? it will certainly be sound one day to be in the pens, in the tongues, in the hearts of those that make these causeless, uncharitable invectives; it is not in the clergy, it is not in their assemblies nor in their administrations. oh but to the bowing at the name of jesus he hath some what more to object, he will not, he saith, let that go so: he will smite it first with his tongue, rather than confess with his knee, or his tongue that jesus is the lord. and what can he or what doth he say, but the same nauseous crambe which his old acquaintance of the separation have said before him? quae omnia protrita & prostigata sunt (as it hath been said by a learned man in another case like unto this.) the convocation in amo 1603, doth indeed order that when in time of divine service the lord jesus shall be mentioned, due and lowly reverence shall be done by all persons present, as it hath been accustomed: testifying by these outward ceremonies and gestures, their inward humility, christian resolution, and due acknowledgement that the lord jesus christ, the true and eternal son of god, is the only saviour of the world, in whom alone all the mercies, graces, and promises of god to mankind for this life, and the life to come are fully and wholly comprised. and is this now to be accounted any so great a crime in that synod to make such a canon, that they must be condemned; as if they were unworthy to be called god's clergy? had they done any thing to the dishonour of our lord, could they have had a heavier sentence passed upon them? it is, he saith, a dishonour to the father and the holy ghost to prefer the second person before them, being coequal in glory. and therefore may the lord jesus christ account himself dishonoured by this bowing to him, seeing the father and the holy ghost have not the same honour done unto them. these are his chief objections, as for the rest, they are so ridiculous and profane that they deserve not a refutation, but to these i return briefly. 1. if we did believe that our lord jesus took upon him the person of a man, when he was made of a woman, and that we do thereupon ascribe unto him this honour we should in so doing dishonour him. for first we should deprive him of his highest honour, which is, of being god equal with the father. 2. we should thereby derogate from the father and the holy ghost, of which he will never approve, it being of dangerous consequence to all the three persons, it being also written that we should honour the son even as we honour the father; yea than we should believe a quaternity of persons contrary to that which is revealed and believed ever since the gospel hath been preached and written, wherein i confess we should sin sadly. but this we do not. that therefore cannot be imparted to us, in this case nor in any other. 2. we do not ascribe this honour to christ, as he is the second person in the trinity, the son of the father: for then indeed we should be partial in the worshipping of our god, presenting one person before another, and consequently should be guilty of idolatry in framing an imagination of our god in our hearts, otherwise than it is written. but thirdly, this honour we do ascribe to christ as he is mediator between god and us, and no otherwise, not exalting him thereby above the first and third persons, but because we would exalt him above every name that is named among all the creatures of god either in heaven or in earth, and we believe in so doing we do not offend. it will be said, we do give more honour unto the name of jesus, than we do to the name of the father and of the holy ghost. it must be answered, jesus we know is a proper name given to our saviour at his birth, as all we of the same nature have, but there are no such names given to the father and the holy ghost; neither are the three persons to be distinguished by names and titles, but only relatively. for than we should make such a distinction as is inconsistent with the catholic faith, and therefore, it is gross ignorance in this objector and all his complices to dream of such a matter. but because there seems to be a necessity that this mystery be explained, i shall therefore endeavour upon this occasion so far as i can be able to reach the sense of the spirit of god in it revealed in holy scripture to open it here more largely. it is not to be doubted, there is nothing more intelligible than god, because he is the first, the perfectest and truest being, the first mover which ordereth all things, but receiveth no order from any, the purest act, the highest sublimated elixir, the supremest entity, the most souraign and simple essence, without any the least imaginary metaphysical composition at all; yet is our understanding of him (whether we be in the body, or out of the body, whether in this life, or that which is to come) so short, and so shallow of a total penetration into his essence, that we must let that alone for ever: job 11.7.8. zophar's question to job will put us all to a nonplus, canst thou by searching find out god? canst thou find out the almighty unto perfection? it is high as heaven what canst thou do? deeper than hell, what canst thou know? we read (gen. 32.29.) how god rebuked jacob, for his enquiring after his name, tell me i pray thee (saith he) thy name, and he said, wherefore is it that thou dost ask after my name? yet to let him see what he was without telling him any name, he blessed him there. so when manoah, judg. 13.16. would be inquisitive in the like kind he met with the same repulse, why askest thou thus after my name, seeing it is secret or wonderful, and accordingly he made it known in his wonderful work which he then wrought. and verily to talk much of god's name i mean of an appellative, distinctive notamen is not, cannot be safe, the way of negation is (indeed) and must be accounted the best and safest for us to take in speaking of god, that is, to show not what he is, but what he is not. numb. 23.19. 1 sam. 18.29. after this manner did the prophets of old speak of god; balaam the false prophet as well as samuel the true, could say god is not a man that he should lie, nor the son of man that he should repent. it will not become us boldly to gaze upon the glorious excellency of god, or to break into his pavilion: rather it is our duty to settle our thoughts upon those negative expressions of him, viz. that he is immortal, invisible, infinite, immense, incorporeal, unchangeable, etc. and whosoever he be that shall presumptuously ask, who is god, or what is his name? he may be answered, god is not such an one as thyself; but he is such an one as will reprove thee for thy unreverend and rash intrusion into the secret of his sovereignty. he hath no compeer either in nature or in honour, being vnissimus deus, one alone, and none besides him, es. 45.6. etc. neither hath he any proper name at all, such names being used among us for distinction sake, and for the avoiding of error in mistaking one for another, which danger is not incident to the one only true god. 'tis true we read of names of god in scripture, but they only show the essential properties of god, being numina rather than nomina, for numen incomprehensibile est deus (was the saying of old) sed omnino absque nomine. but christ hath a proper name given him, and he is to be known by it unto his church for ever. undoubtedly therefore it ought to be used with reverence by all those that receive comfort and benefit by the sense and significancy of it. which duty should be done according to the tenor of the aforesaid canon upon these two considerations. first because that for our sakes our lord jesus made himself of no reputation. 2. because a sort of wretched men in the world about us, set on by the devil, conspire together to make him of no reputation also. first for our sake he made himself of no reputation, great reason therefore that we should account him worthy of all honour; not only that which is spiritual in captivating every thought to the obedience of his gospel, but that also which is of the body, in the outward deportment of it (for he hath bought it with a price, a great price, even his dearest blood, as well as the soul,) it was no robbery for him to be equal with god, for he was and is the brightness of his father's glory, the character of his person, yet saint paul tells us he emptied himself, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men, and being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. now quanto pro me vilior tanto mihi charior, said holy bernard sweetly, the more humility appeared in him, it is but meet that the more honour be ascribed unto him. admit that it be not a duty of the text to use genu-slexions at the mentioning of his blessed name, when we are employed in the public exercises of our religion, yet since the father hath even upon the account of his humility, highly exalted him, and given him a name above every name, it well becometh the church upon the same account (in a conformity to that divine pattern) according to her poor strength and ability, by all ways and means to exalt him likewise. this then (i conceive) may somewhat stop the mouth of contradiction against the religious canon of our church, requiring all persons to bow at the name of jesus, for why, she hath learned it of the father (whose example is without controversy in this case worthy of imitation) to exalt him, because for our sake he made himself of no reputation. again, is not our lord now (as it hath been prophesied of him, is. 53.3.) despised and rejected of men? do not jews, turks and infidels blaspheme his worthy name, by which we are called? are not socinians those cursed heretics as unwearied now in their malice against him to lay his honour in the dust, as the arrians were of old? is not the precious blood of this immaculate lamb of god (shed to take away the sins of the world) in many places beslavered with the impious mouths of execrable swearers? and are not some wretched people risen up among us in these days, who out of a luciserian pride, pretend that they are as well and as truly god as jesus christ, because they have their being in god, and are partakers of the divine nature? what then should the church do, but out of a detestation of these horrid impieties, and out of a tender regard to the honour of her lord give a signal testimony of her duty in commanding all her faithful children to bow their bodies in token of reverence unto him at the mentioning of his name in their solemn assemblies when they are gathered together for the holy service of almighty god. i have here given my reader a sight of some of the ugly errors contained in that scandalous pamphlet unjustly called naked truth, which but a few days past came into my hands: and having perceived that a leading man here in our country hath been seduced by it, who hath, (as i have heard) spoken these words, what will mr. lane say to this? let him try if he can answer it. i was willing to set pen to paper for the vindication of truth which hath been miserably abused by this pretender unto it. but having since heard also from some of the seniors of our college by winton that one hath already set forth an answer unto it, i shall forbear any further meddling therewith. and though the author of it calls them babies and boobies (such are his immodest terms) that will write against him, yet i am confident such a work (as it may be managed) will be acceptable to god and all good men. nevertheless i wish with all my heart that abuses in our ecclesiastical courts, those i mean that are not imaginary but real (if there be any such) that they may be removed, which i believe the chief governors of the said courts will be hearty willing unto. finis. the contents of the foregoing discourse upon the words of our saviour, viz. this is my body. 1. of the sad differences that have been about the sacrament of the lords supper. page, 71 2. the romish doctrine of transubstantiation proved to be but a late upstart doctrine. p. 72 3. is is a doctrine which is destructive to the nature of the sacrament. p. 73 4. it is a doctrine that disannuls the verity of christ's humane nature. p. 74 5. god's omnipotency not questioned by us in this case, but vainly urged by our adversaries in it. p. 75 6. of the words used in our liturgy, viz. the body and blood of christ are verily and indeed taken and received by the faithful in the lord's supper. p. 76, 77 7. the sense of the church of england in her twenty eighth article concerning this point. p. 79. 8. the sense which orthodox interpreters give of these words, viz. this is my body, approved. p. 80 9 a resemblance taken from the two natures of christ, divine and humane, and applied. p. 81 10. an additional sense of these words, viz. this is my body, is here offered to consideration. p. 82 11. venerable mr. hooker's judgement of the real presence of christ's most blessed body and blood in the sacrament of the eucharist. p. 84 12. how the words of our lord which he spoke, saying, this is my body, are the crown of our rejoicing. 91 13. the popish opinion of the real presence of christ in the sacrament is but a dream. 92 books newly printed for william crook, viz. 1680, 1681. an institution of general history, or, the history of the world, being a complete body thereof from the beginning of the world to the taking of rome by odoacer, and erecting a kingdom of barbarians in italy, describing the several empires, their forms of government, magistrates, laws, customs, polity's, &c. all in such unbroken order and method as yet was never extant. by dr. william howel, chancellor of lincoln. in fol. 2 volumes. historical collections, or an exact account of the proceed of the four last parliaments of queen elizabeth, wherein is contained the complete journals both of lords and commons taken from the original records of their houses, wherein are the speeches, arguments, etc. of secretary cecil, sr. fr. bacon, sr. walter raleigh, sr. john croke, sr. edward hobby, etc. by h. townsend idque member in those parliaments. fol. the connexion's, being choice collections of some principal matters in the reign of king james, which doth contain several remarkable and learned pieces of great men in that time, as the duke of buckingham, sr. j. caess. sr. francis bacon. which will supply the vacancy betwixt townsend and rushworth. the moors baffled at tangier in a letter by a learned person, in quarto. considerations on the reputation, loyalty, manners and religion of thomas hobbs of malmesbury, octavo. a sermon in french and english preached at the savoy, twelve. mercy triumphant, the kingdom of christ enlarged beyond the narrow bounds which have been wont to be set to it— written by this author. a sermon of mr. tho, maningham's, in quarto. two sermons of dr. gregory hascards in quarto. hobbs, his life in an english poem, fol. responsio valedictoria, ad secundam sandii epistolam, etc. per s. gardinerum, s. t. d. octavo. 1681. thomae hobbs angli malmesbur. philosoph. vita, containing an account of his life, as it was part written by himself, the rest, gathered by those that knew him well. and put together by dr. b. wherein is an account of his friends and enemies, the books he wrote, and what against, or for him, with other things relating to his life, in oct. 1681. a new mystery in physic discovered by curing of fevers and agues by quinquina or jesuits powder, where you have the ancient and modern use of it: part translated out of french, part out of italian, and part wrote in english, twelves, 1681. price 1 s. the court of curiosity, wherein the most intricate questions are resolved by a most curious fortune-book. with dreams and visions explained and interpreted according to the doctrine of the ancients and practice of the moderns, the third ed. cleared from all the difficulties in the former editions, the dreams corrected and enlarged, and the fortune-book is double what it was, octavo, price 1 s. 6. d. 1681. advertisement. there is printing the whole art of rhetoric in english, by tho. hobbs of malmesbury, octavo. finis. the impostor dethroned; or, the quakers throne of truth, detected to be satan's seat of lies. by way of reply, to a quaking and railing pamphlet, written by capt. bishop, entitled, the throne of truth, exalted over the powers of darkness. wherein is briefly hinted, the rottenness of the quakers conversion, and perfection, in general, exemplified in this busy bishop; in special instanced in his practices against the estate of the lord craven. life of mr. love. by occasion whereof, this truth is asserted, viz. if we may judge of the conscience, honesty, and perfection of quakers in general, by this man in particular, a man may be as vile a person, as any under heaven, and yet a perfect qvaker. come down, and sit in the dust, o virgin, daughter of babylon, sit on the ground; there is no throne, o daughter of the chaldeans, isa. 47. v. 1. thy nakedness shall be uncovered, yea, thy shame shall be seen, v. 3. by ralph farmer, a servant of that jesus christ, who was crucified at jerusalem, above sixteen hundred years ago, and whose blood the quakers trample under foot, as a common thing. published according to order. london, printed by r. i. for edw. thomas, and are to be sold at his house in green-arbour, 1658. the impudent and daring protestation, and appeal to god, of george bishop, concerning the business of the lord craven, whereof (as he confesses) he had the whole mannagement. i do declare in the presence of the lord, before whom i fear, who searcheth the heart, and tryeth the reins, and bringeth every work to judgement, that i am clear and innocent therein; nor have i used, nor do i know of any indirect proceeding in that whole business of craven and falconer. to the right honourable, william lord craven, baron of hampsteed,— marshal in the county of berks. it's usual (my lord you know) in publishing books, to prefix the name of some worthy and considerable personage; and i now apply myself to your honour, upon several accounts. first, tua res agitur, much of the matter ensuing concerns yourself. secondly, i never heard, but that you were a lover of your country, always with much respect and honour, treating and entertaining your countrymen that came over into the low countries; (the place of your residence, for many years together) and he that loves my country, i love him, and him i honour. as for your adversary (the man i here deal with) his tongue is no slander, for who will believe a common liar? which whether i have made him appear to be or no, judicet mundus. thirdly, i understand the present parliament hath taken cognizance of your cause, and intent to consider it next session, and i am come (in the mean time) to bring you good news; your adversary quakes, which if it be a symptom of true conversion, there is hopes that confession, (an ingenuous confession of the whole design) and an endeavour of satisfaction (if it can be) will follow; but fearing it may prove but a false birth, i have put manum obstetricalem, in intima, searched his bowels for a real discovery, that the world may no longer be deceived with a windy conception. truly, my lord, your case is hard; but what shall we say? 'tis the fortune of the wars; and there you know (as in a common scuffle) many an honest man, that stands by, and means no harm, gets a knock, as well as those who begun the quarrel; and this your adversary himself (who confesses to have had the mannagement of the whole business against you) seems to me clearly to acknowledge, as the ground of your sequestration: for, in answer to an objection made on your honour's behalf, by your friends, in the narrative, by them published, he (your adversary) doubting of the weight and validity of the testimonies produced against you, says, (in the fourth particular answer, page 22. of his book) that the time when your estate was sequestered, was, when the commonwealth was deeply imbroiled in wars. and then goes on, and says, (in the next page) that in such times and cases, they have many considerations, as the reason of their actions, which those who are without doors, (that is, your honour, and your friends, who were not of the parliament) neither know, nor apprehend, nor are to take upon them so to do: so that here (you see) is club-law, you must be sequestered, because the commonwealth was embroiled in wars; and your honour (being out of doors) must neither know, nor apprehend ('tis too far above your reach) the reason why; nor are you to take upon you ('tis presumption) so to do: for he tells you (page 2.) that true englishmen, have used to have parliaments, and their acts, as being the judgement of the whole representative of the nation, in more veneration and esteem, than to be put into the balance, with the contradictory assertions, of any private or biased spirits. and truly (my lord) upon this ground, we may well question, whether you be a true englishman, or no, who being swayed by your own private interest, and biased with a desire after your own estate again, should dare now to move any thing against the actions of that parliament, which (as he tells you in the same page, answ. 6.) upon the proofs by him alleged, and (because they were not full enough) for reasons best known to themselves, in time of general imbroilments, ordered your estate to be confiscate. so that still (my lord) you must take the fortune of the wars; and though your honour, and all out of doors, know no reason for it, yet they did it (says he) for reasons best known unto themselves. but will your honour give me leave (as a true englishman) to say something for that parliament, and indeed for all parliaments, and courts of judicature; you well know, that the manner of their proceed, in administration of justice, is much according to that aeconomico-political process of nature in man himself, wherein the apprehensive, deliberative, and conclusive faculties, (which in a word we call common sense) which is the great judicatory in man, doth determine all things, (with a common and equal respect) as they are represented. now the outward senses, are the spies and intelligencers of the soul, who bring in several objects (according to their respective natures and faculties) to be judged of, and determined by the understanding. and hence we say, nihil in intellectu, quod non sit, prius in sensu. now if these senses (either by any defect or vice in the organ, faculty, or medium, (which we might follow with an exact and elegant analogy) but i will avoid prolixity) if i say the senses, either by deficiency, or redundancy, under, or overdoing, make a false report unto the court (the common sense) false judgement must proceed accordingly, and yet the court blameless: but some men tell us of inferior faculties (even in the soul itself) which do corrupt the superior, and so obstruct justice, and pervert judgement: if this be so, it is within doors, and i who am without, am not (i am told) to take upon me to inquire into. all the hope is, the smoke of gunpowder, (being by god's goodness) dissipated, the noise of drums and trumpets, and clattering of armour ceased, and those imbroilments, which hurried your estate into sequestration, abated, and the confessions (and so the guilt) of your adversaries discovered; the great judicatory of the nation, will be the better able to discern and judge of your case, with serene judgement, and imperturbed affections; and accordingly resolve upon, and execute such signal justice, as shall deliver the land from the guilt of oppression, if any such there be in this particular, which is, and shall be the prayer of him, who is, my lord, the commonwealths, and your honour's servant, so far as your honour is the servant of the commonwealth. ra. farmer. to the christian and understanding reader. reader, i think it requisite (by way of preface) to give an account, why i sit not down in a retired and desirable silence; i met with one who tells me, that, as he that impaireth the good name and fame of another, is cruel to that other; so he who neglects his own, is cruel to himself: and that it concerns ministers of the gospel in a special manner, to preserve their reputation, because the contempt of their persons redounds to the prejudice of their work and calling. how i have been reproached and charged by my quaking adversary, in his railing and reviling pamphlet, is obvious to all who read it; and how falsely, appears in the discourse ensuing; as for his foul language, i leave it to the men and women of their generation; but as for the imputation of forgery, and underhand practices, my soul so much abhors them, that i should think it my sin to sit still in silence under them, but rather conceive it my duty, to return them whence they came, there being so just and real a lodging for them, of which (reader) i constitute thee a judge between us as for those vulgar bubbles, that take wind, and rise with every light and foolish story, which they receive from the men and women only of their own persuasion, and judge of things and persons by the rule of their affections, i dismiss them to anticyra, for a purge of hellebor, taking up the resolution of the apostle (in cases where i appeal not to them) with me it is a very small thing to be judged by them, 1 cor. 4. 3. or by man's judgement; for what more false, uncertain, and inconstant, than the popular air, who cry hosanna to day, and crucify to morrow? no (reader) i'll dwell at home; and so long as i maintain peace between god, and my own conscience, i'll rest there. but some may say (for we live in a querulous age, wherein every one (even women) will be quarrelling) why did you at all appear in public? i answer, to maintain the peace of my own conscience; for i say with david, 1 sam. 17. 29. was there not a cause? shall the uncircumcised philistines, defy the hosts and armies of the living god? and shall david (though a stripling) stand still and bear it? no, curse ye meroz, judg. 5. 23. saith the angel of the lord, curse ye bitterly the inhabitants thereof, because they came not to the help of the lord, to the help of the lord, against the mighty. i writ not this, as blaming all who have not appeared with me in the like manner: but this i judge, that if (in such a case as this is) the lord suggest it to any man, (especially a watchman) and make his spirit willing, and he withdraw upon selfish considerations, he cannot maintain that peace true christians look for: for my part, in plain english, i am not (i cannot be) an universalist. there is an opinion (or at least a practice) taken up by some of universal respect, and compliance with all persons, of whatever opinion or persuasion, which is not less prejudicial to truth, than the doctrine of the universal and equal love of god to all, is prejudicial to grace. i know they are both plausible things, winning and taking, as much suiting to, and complying with every man's interest and affections; but how agreeing with god's mind, with some men, sub judicelis est, but is with me determined. and for the former, i have taken some notice of the insinuations and subtleties of it, in our last generation; for what more usual plea (with those who lay in wait to deceive) than love, and sweetness, and meekness, and gentleness, and mutual forbearance, indeed in difference in matters of religion; as if it were a virtue to sceptics, ever doubting, querying, and questioning, never resolving, that either this or that, were the undoubted mind of god, and the true religion: and how skilfully did the prince of darkness play his game in his black regiments, by branding all those with the scandal and reproach of passion, and bitterness of spirit, who would not answer his ends in a lukewarm neutrality? or at least, in such a sweetness of spirit, (as they call it) as should give equal encouragement. but whether the word of christ warrant such a deportment, would easily be concluded, if men would not consult their ease and worldly advantages; and i propose it to be considered, whether one, or both of these, be not the temper of this kind of people? let which side will be uppermost, they will lose nothing. i could not but smile (but yet with a kind of indignation) when i took notice of a letter, heretofore written from london, to one in this city, in the behalf of blaspheming nayler, when the punishment, adjudged by the parliament, to be inflicted upon him in this city, was to be executed, the author of that letter takes an occasion, from information of some of his fellow saints, (of the new model) that there were some here of bitter spirits, forsooth, and fearing rigorous execution, writes for a mitigation, giving high expressions of what superexcellencies he found in that adorable creature, when as this epistoler himself, is a saint of so mild and sweet a temper in religion, that he will never be branded for a puritan; for sabbath days were his fittest seasons to look over his accounts, or to go to his house in the country. truly reader, i must tell you, we are fallen into those times, wherein most peoples religion (i mean the wise ones) lies in making faces, and courting the rising interest, at least waiting an opportunity so to do: in the mean while, the question grows high, and rome's interest (by the subtleties of the jesuits working amongst us) is very much promoted, and that by our own hands, men pretending (which is strange) to the protestant persuasion; for now the question is not (as among the separatists) whether our parishes are true churches, but whether we have had any true churches at all in england, till these late years, that they were brought in by the sword in the late army, or those who accompanied them; and it's very like (if the lord prevent not) magisterially, and dictator-like (almost in cathedra) to be resolved, that we neither have, nor had true churches, or ministers among us, and that we must renounce our ordination, take it up from the people, and so make all new, after a mode, which yet our eyes, nor the eyes of our forefathers have ever seen, or their ears ever heard of. to effect this, have those emissaries of the roman faction, no doubt, stirred up, and set on foot these obstreperous quakers, (though the generality of them suspect no such matter) to cry down our churches, ministers, and ordinances, to whom they have now drawn in, heads and pens more subtle and able, who, aliud agentes (as it were) do that for them, which they themselves (in their own persons openly) were not able to effect or accomplish, who doth not with fear and sadness (that doth consider) foresee that lamentable result, that's like to follow upon the contests raised, and increasing between our brethren of the presbyterian and independent persuasion, and which by the heat and opposition of persons of ability, (on both sides) are like to grow more high than ever: but if my poor low voice might be heard between them, and oh, that the lord would persuade them to hear, i should say as abraham to lot, let there be no strife between you, for you are brethren; and i should beseech them in joseph's language to his brethren, fall not out by the way: but if i cannot be heard, i make this protestation, disclaimer, and prayer, lord, let not my soul come into the secrets, and let me never partake of the delicacies of those men, who make schismatical separation, destroying those churches and ministry, wherein, and by whom (blessed be god) thousands have been converted and saved; and who are willing to reform, and conform, according to what is revealed in the scripture; sure i am, and experience (the mistress even of fools) hath made it good unto the world, that discipline and government in the church, hath (ever since the reformation from popery) kept the reformed churches free from heresy and blasphemy getting head among them; and if there were danger of an inroad, and an incursion, by the abuse of government, he shall come little short of an idiot, (and wise men will easily acknowledge it) that doth not perceive, that no government at all, every one being left to his own fancy) will much more do it. it's a strange piece of madness, not to put a difference between enforcing men to religion, and tolerating all religions, to the hazarding of the true: or if (putting a difference) matchivilianisme shall so far prevail with any, as that, so they can secure their own interests, they care not for the concernments of jesus christ, and his gospel. as for my own former undertake (by the help of the press) i have but endeavoured to discover these upstart enemies, and adversaries to the truth, who privily brought in damnable heresies, even denying the lord that bought them. by occasion whereof, i have raised up this homebred adversary, my own countryman, by hinting only at whose impostures in this kind, the imposthume is broken, and much filth and quitture hath been vomited forth from it, in most unchristian rail, lyings, and reproachings, who yet withal, pretends to higher measures of saintship, and perfection, than ordinary, which considering (and well knowing the man, and his practices) i concluded this with myself, that if we might judge of the conscience, honesty, and perfection of the quakers in general, by this man in particular, we may well assert this, viz. a man may be as vile a person as any under heaven, and yet a perfect quaker, which (after a brief discourse of the conversion and perfection of quakers in general) i have endeavoured to demonstrate, from the practices and do of him in special; and this in his deal in the matters of the lord craven, and mr. love; the ones estate, and the others life. the materials i have built my discourse with, (in the matter of the lord craven) are two printed pieces, the one entitled, a true and perfect narrative, of the several proceed, in the case concerning the lord craven, wherein are set forth the whole proceed, together with the indictment, trial, and conviction of falconer, of perjury, in that information, upon which the lord cravens estate was sequestered, which piece was printed and published by the friends of the lord craven; the other is a piece, entitled, the lord cravens case, etc. with a short examination of that former narrative; and this latter, was written by bishop himself, in excuse, and defence of himself and falconer, of which book, he printed so few, and so disposed of them, as that i could not get one, either here, or at london, until (by providence) i was directed to send to himself to borrow it. and this i did, because in his pamphlet against me, he quotes it, and refers to it, for clearing (as he thought) of his innocency; which if he had refused to lend me, i intended to acquaint the world, that he had quoted his book to clear himself, which could not be come by, which (it may be) he feared, and therefore sent it me; or otherwise, by the disposing of divine providence (the time being come for the discovery of his deep hypocrisy) he was overruled so to send it. for his own confessions (therein contained) and falconers confession upon his deathbed, of that perjury, (which bishop would in his book free him from) being conferred, and compared, the whole practice, and whence it arose, and how it was carried on, is manifestly discovered; as in the discourse following, to which i have added a little of his deal against mr. love, to let him, and the world see, whether he be not also a bloodsucker. can i have gotten his other book, called, a short plea, etc. which he also published against mr. love, i doubt not but thence i should have made a further discovery of him; but he dealt as subtly in this, as in the former, printed so few, as that they cannot be gotten. but i suppose what i have done is sufficient; the improvement i make of the whole, is this, to let the world see, how deeply and closely wickedness may lie lurking in our natures, and what a desperate evil hypocrisy is, that a man may continue in such wickedness unrepented of, and yet think himself a saint, and to have attained to perfection: if by what i have herein done, i may be instrumental to bring him to repentance, or his case may be as a pillar of salt, to season and caution others, i shall be abundantly satisfied in my labour, and shall (when i know it) give god the glory: in the mean time, i rest, reader, thine, and the church's servant; ra. farmer. the impostor de thrond; or, the quakers throne of truth detected to be satan's seat of lies. it's the great criterion and distinguishing character of the generation of quakers among us, that they pretend to greater measures and higher stature in christ and christianity than others, to have attained even to perfection; such perfection, as to be without sin in their persons. this to be so, is manifest by their reproaching and vilifying the ministers of the gospel, and their doctrine in this point; though we teach and press perfection as the white to be aimed at, and as that which every true christian must, and doth endeavour after, not as though he had already attained, either were already perfect, but following after, if that he might apprehend that, phil. 3. 11, 12, 13, 14. for which also he is apprehended of christ jesus; and which he shall attain unto, when he hath attained unto the resurrection of the dead. and although we say and teach, that there is a measure of perfection, even in this life attainable (and that personal too) consisting in sincerity, integrity, and uprightness of heart, walking in all good conscience both towards god and men: and that we must and do daily cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, 2 cor. 7. 1. perfecting holiness in the fear of god. although (i say) we preach and press, and (by grace received) practise this, yet this will not content them: no less than such a manner and such a measure of christ within them, as shall put them out of need of christ without them, will serve their turn: if this be not so, they have no cause to charge us as they do, for we do (with all seriousness possible) profess and urge a necessity of christ within us, renewing, transforming, and changing us from our dead and perishing estate in nature, and conforming, and making us more and more like unto himself by grace, and the mighty and powerful operations of his spirit within us. when we sin (which we would not do) giving the grace of repentance (and the exercise of it) unto us: rom. 7. by his mediation and intercession in heaven, procuring pardon and peace for us, and as our head and king, by degrees, subduing our sins and iniquities (which are our greatest enemies) under us. this is our doctrine; this we profess, preach, and practise. and for the truth of this (that we do so, even all of us unanimously, and with one mouth) i appeal to the whole world to bear us witness. but this (i say) our present adversaries disapprove of; their perfection is of another nature, a high form of perfection, absolute and entire, wanting nothing. and we are (with them) false teachers, because we say, we cannot here attain it. to argue this a little, because 'tis (cardo & caput controversiae) the great and main thing they seem to drive at, and to profess; witness their morese and severe carriage and conversation, their demure looks their abstinences in meats and drinks, the pulling off their points, laces, and ribbons from their clothes, their separating and withdrawing from the society and familiarity of all others, as unclean and polluted. and last of all, witness their living without, and despising all former ordinances and administrations since christ and his apostles, as if too low and mean, and not suiting with their perfection. we shall therefore a little examine this matter, and try their title, and doubt not but (upon trial) we shall find them as those in the revelations, whom the angel of the church of ephesus tried, rev. 2. 2. who said they were apostles, and were not, and so were discovered to be liars: perfection then is twofold, doctrinal, and practical; doctrinal perfection, is such a height and measure of knowledge, as beyond which a man cannot go: to be perfect in knowledge. practical perfection is such a measure of holiness, as not to sin at all, at any time, in any thing, but to be perfect in the measure of every grace, and in the practice of every duty. i suppose this is so plain a distribution of humane perfection absolute, as is very clear and obvious. and if our adversaries mean less than this, they fall in with our doctrine, and then they quarrel and charge us wrongfully. now if i shall show from prophotical and apostolical doctrine (and consequently from the doctrine of christ) that perfection in either kind, (doctrinal or practical) is not in this last sense in this life attainable, than the quakers are found to be out of the doctrine of christ, and are hypocrites and liars; and it will not need many words to prove either. and first for doctrinal perfection, that we cannot here attain that full measure of knowledge allotted us, that one place of the apostle is a sufficient testimony, 1 cor. 13. 9, 10. we know in part, and we prophecy in part, but when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away. and ver. 12. for now we see through a glass darkly, but then face to face; now i know in part, but then i shall know, even as i am known. if any shall be either so simple or perverse, as to question whether the apostle speak this of our imperfect state in this life, in point of knowledge, i shall not think him worthy of an answer; the clearness of the truth will sufficiently argue such a man's imperfection; and as for practical perfection, that we cannot here attain such a measure of holiness, as not to sin at all, at any time, in any thing, but that we may be absolutely perfect in the measure of every grace, and in the practice of every duty. i shall not need heap testimonies, a few places will sufficiently evidence this truth, without any further argumentation, 1 kings 8. 46. there is no man that sinneth not. prov. 20. 9 who can say i have made my heart clean, i am pure from my sin? eccles. 7. 20. there is not a just man upon earth, that doth good and sinneth not. these are the testimonies of solomon. more might be produced from the old testament, take only two from the new. the first from st. john, 1 john 1. 8. if we (i john, and the saints to whom he wrote) if we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. the next from st. james, ja. 3. 2. in many things (not in a few only) we offend all. so that here we attain not a sinless perfection, we shall not here be, i say, fully like christ in holiness or knowledge, this is reserved for hereafter; and this the same st. john attesteth, 1 jo. 3 2. beloved, now are we the sons of god, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be; but we know that when he shall appear, we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is, when we shall see him (as st. paul says before, face to face) than our imperfect measures shall be made perfect. that which there follows in john (and other places produced for perfection) intent it, and press it (viz. absolute perfection) as our duty and the matter of our endeavour. thus from canonical truth i have showed you the imperfection of our perfection here: and what ground our adversaries have, to plead their exemption from the same condition, i cannot discern. suppose we should grant them to be led by the immediate and infallible teachings of the un-erring spirit, let them then tell us, who are the liars, solomon, and paul, and james, and john, or they? or was that true which they affirmed of themselves and all men, that they are sinners? and is this, which these men affirm to the contrary, true also? or was it truth then, and is not so still? doth new light make the old a lie? rom. 3. 4. or doth the spirit speak contraries? no, let god be true, 2 cor. 11. 30▪ & 12. from 5, to the 10. and every man a liar; and that i am sure is a sinner. and for our parts, if we boast, we will (with the apostle) boast and glory of and in our infirmities, not that we are sinners, (that's our burden) but that god for christ's sake is righteous and just to forgive us our sins, 1 joh. 1. 9 when we confess them, and that christ by his grace, will cleanse us from our sins, and all iniquity; that so his strength might be perfected, and manifested, and magnified in our infirmity. with this further. that if we were so perfect, as to be free from sinning on earth, we should not need christ's intercession in heaven; nor should we need to pray daily (as christ taught his disciples) father forgive us, heb. 7. 25 and therefore we say, blessed be god for jesus christ in heaven: 1 io. 2. 1, 2 who ever lives to make intercession for us. and who, when we sin, is there our advocate, and the propitiation for our sins; and thereby able to save us (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) to the uttermost, to perfection: till all be perfected, and if the quakers will not for themselves join with us in this christian confession, let them speak out, and say so: and we know what to say to them, and if they will join, let them cease to condemn us, for the acknowledgement of our imperfection. and thus have we argued human imperfection, by an argument ad rem. and now we shall prove it by arguments ad hominem; even the quakers themselves. and discover the imperfection and unsoundness of their pretended perfection, and consequently their hypocrisy. and first from the manner of their conversion, and then from the matter or quality of the persons converted. and thirdly from their conversion itself. and this, first a little from the conversion of the quakers in general: and then of my quaking adversary in particular. and first of the manner of the quakers conversion in general, and that which i shall here observe is from the suddenness of their conversion, and i may add the violence of their conversion. and first from the suddenness of it, it may render it justly suspected, for suppose a drunkard, or a sottish buffoon, a fellow that makes himself a fool (an ape) to make profane persons merry (for some such among us have turned quakers) suppose i say, such a one, shall all of a sudden leave his drunkenness, or leave his apish conversation, and (without any more ado) become a quaker, shall we call this conversion? it's a saying of that great lecturer of nature hipocrates, that omnes repentinae mutationes, sunt periculosae: all sudden changes or alterations are dangerous: they forebode no good, but evil. these sudden leaps, are from violent motions. nature in its regular course is more lent and moderate, making its progress from one degree unto another; and although sometimes there are found such violent motions in nature, yet they are very rare, but always doubtful, this is true in religion and grace also. these sudden converts are (if not miracula) mira gratiae, wonders. as we say of late conversion, from the instance of the thief upon the cross; one was so converted, that none might despair, and but one, that none might presume. so of this sudden conversion, they are rare. a paul or so, that (as he himself says, 1 tim. 1. 16.) christ might in him show forth all long-suffering, for a pattern, to encourage others to come into god, notwithstanding they were persecutors, and grievous sinners. but i say, these patterns are rare. as one job was made a pattern of patience. such dispensations being not ordinary; for as we say, nemo repent fit pessimus, none come to the height of wickedness at once, so nemo repent fit optimus: a man comes not to his stature of goodness on a sudden. there are several ages in christ: there are little children, young men, and fathers, 1 john 2. 12, 13. and there is a growth in grace, 2 pet. 3. 18. as well as in nature. in order to the appearances of grace, in true conversion, there is a previous and precedaneous act of godly sorrow, which works repentance and true humiliation; whereby the soul (being cast down under the sense of its former evil ways and ungodly conversation) is made humble, meek, and lowly; judging and condemning itself as the vilest of all others: or at least as vile as any. and thence (by the power of the spirit fetching strength from christ, by faith) comes up by degrees, to some stature and growth in him, till he come up to his appointed measure. but these persons (as we have observed them) do per saltum, skip from the lowest degree of baseness; to high measures of perfection, in a moment, all of a sudden. but some may say, how can you tell whether they have not been so humbled, or truly repent? the sin and evil conversation was open, but the repentance may be secret. we see a change, an alteration. ans. i'll ask then this question (and let it be seriously considered) may not satan be contented that a person leave a base, a wicked conversation; that a man cease to be a drunkard, (or the like) that he may become an heretic, a blasphemer? is it not his advantage? doth not the devil gain proselytes by such converts as these are? oh says a poor simple honest-hearted christian, who judges by appearance, and suspects no evil, what a change is here wrought in this man? surely this must needs be by some immediate and extraordinary power of god's spirit, it is good therefore to be of his religion, whereas the man hath but shifted spirits. one or two are gone out, to make way for more and worse. is not this the meaning of that parable, where an unclean spirit (it may be a whorish one, mat. 12. 43, 44, 45. or a drunken one) being gone out of a man, comes again and finds his old habitation (as there) swept and garnished, swept from his former filthy lusts, and garnished with specious shows and pretences of piety (indeed an hypocrite) empty of true grace, and finding it thus, concludes, there's a fit dwelling for my purpose, and then goes and takes seven devils more, worse than himself, devils of pride, censoriousness, faction, railing, lying, heresy, blasphemy, and all these enter and take possession, and so the man's worse than ever, his latter end is worse than his beginning: so that you cannot call this man's change, a conversion, though there be an alteration. but yet to show the uncertainty, and (for the most part) hypocrisy of these sudden changes, and to make an estimate in that which may appear. suppose a person hath got an estate by cheating, cozening, bribery, forgery, perjury, extortion, oppression, or the like, and this person becomes a quaker, and so a witness of the truth, even of that christ's appearing the second time, and without sin unto salvation, as my friend george hath it in the title page of his railing pamphlet; and you must suppose this appearing of christ the second time without sin, to be so in him, or else he cannot be a witness, which he says himself to be. now i say, suppose such a person become a quaker, and so an eminent saint, of the highest form of the quakers model, and hath not made restitution, nor given satisfaction for that estate so wickedly, impiously, and villainously gotten, can any one in the world say, this man hath repent, that he is converted, or a true christian? will any one dare to say other of such a one (if he profess to be godly) then that he is a most wretched hypocrite and dissembler? and such persons we find among them; and therefore the very suddenness of their conversions, with so little evidence of truth, doth justly render it suspected, especially if you consider the violence of the motion in which they are hurried. we have another saying, that nullum violentum est perpetuum, what is violent, is not lasting. and surely, if we observe their violent unusual and uncivil actings, following (or rather going along) with their sudden conversions, we may easily conclude the unsoundness of them. for as for the spirit of christ (which they so highly pretend to) it was not of their temper: he did not (as was prophesied of him) strive, mat. 12. 19, 20. nor cry, neither did any man hear his voice in the streets: he did not quench the smoking flax, nor break the bruised reed; he did no sin, neither was there guile found in his mouth; when he was reviled, 1 pet. 2. 22, 23 he reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not, but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously. and how contrary this people's demeanour is, and how unlike this pattern, 'tis easy to discern: never were there such bold, open, and unparallelled railers and revilers in the world as these are, as if they were the masters of scolding, and billingsgate professors; and which is remarkable, their rage and malice is thus violently belched out, most against the ministers of the gospel, by which we discern whose scholars they are, and whose work they do: the malice of satan hath been always most against christ's ministers; and therefore hath his practice been, by his instruments, to slander and cast dirt in their faces, that by calumniating their persons, he might hinder the acceptation of their doctrine; and this with singular confidence and boldness and (no doubt) by this means they gain with some people: they have learned that machivilian maxim, calumniare audacter, aliquid haerebit; lie, calumniate, slander, and do it boldly, and with confidence, and some of it will stick, it will take with some or other; according to the hebrew proverb, if all enter not, half will. and indeed it will not be believed (but by observing persons) how much bold, confident, and peremptory asserting and holding out an opinion, or relation (though false in itself) will take, and prevail with such simple and unexercised people, who cannot judge, and put a difference between words and matter: and it's strange to see, how in matters of debate and controversy, they will determine of his side that is most daring, and carries on his cause with most words and confidence: nay, most certain it is, that the very title page of a pamphlet, boldly stuffed and languaged, shall be a sufficient confutation and satisfaction to many, against that person or side they fancy not; so that sense, or nonsense, truth or falsehood, their adversaries (say they) is answered and confuted, though possibly they read neither one nor t'other; or if they do, they do not understand them; and so from the bold revile of their leaders, take up a prejudice against both our doctrine and persons: but as for the latter, we can be contented to be reproached for christ's sake, and the gospel; and we can with comfort read and think upon these words, blessed are ye when men shall revile you, mat. 5. 11, 12. and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil of you falsely for my sake, rejoice and be exceeding glad, for great is your reward in heaven, for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you. and in the steps of these their railing forefathers do this people tread, much unlike our lord and master christ jesus: true it is, we find him angry, and much displeased sometimes, but 'twas with two sorts of persons, those who profaned the public place of worship, and those hypocrites, who under specious pretences of more holiness and higher perfection than others, devoured widows houses, and made void god's commandments, teaching, that children were free from honouring their parents, upon their corban, some religious pretences, and that now they were free from doing any more for their father or mother, contrary to that commandment, thou shalt honour thy father, and thy mother. and solomon ranks them that do not bless their mother, pro. 30. 11. 12. 13. with them that curse their father: and who are they? proud self-conceited hypocrites. i'll give you all together, there is a generation that curseth their father, and doth not bless their mother; there is a generation that are pure in their own eyes, and yet is not washed from their filthiness; there is a generation, oh how lofty are their eyes, and their eyelids are lifted up. and surely these things have never been exemplified in any age more, than in this present generation of quakers, wherein, under pretext of more holiness, piety, mortification, self-denial, voluntary humility, abstinences, and the like, they put forth so much pride, scorn, rancour, censoriousness, self-exalting other-men condemning practices, that never was the like known (or heard of) by any people under heaven. with such as these (profaners of the public places of worship, and dissembling hypocrites that despised all others) i find our lord dealing very roundly, whipping the one out of the temple, and denouncing direful and dreadful woes and judgements against the other: but as for all other sorts of sinners, i find him manifesting much tenderness towards them, being meek and gentle, benign and gracious, eating and drinking with publicans and sinners; which reads me this lesson, that profaners of god's worship, and hypocrites, are to be dealt with more severely and sharply than others. and the same course doth the apostle paul direct his scholar titus (a minister) to take with unruly and vain talkers, and deceivers, who subvert whole houses, teaching things that they ought not, for filthy lucre's sake, titus 1. 13. rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith: and therefore if these people be found to be hypocrites, and we deal plainly with them; if they call our plain dealing railing, we will follow our master in bearing his reproach, for doing the same work that he did, and his apostles enjoined us, and leave it to him to judge between us. and for mine own part, if any man shall be displeased with me, for telling people of their sins, and neglect of their duties (as desiring their amendment) keeping myself within the bounds of truth and soberness (of which those who are guilty of base cowardice, flattery, or unworthy compliance; nor those who kick, because their sores are touched on, shall be my judges) i shall not account myself to have discharged my ministry faithfully, if some be not angry. sore eyes cannot endure the light, and a toothless minister will best please a careless and a secure people; and if they will have such teachers, the best way (which they have pretty well learned) is to get such that must live upon their alms, that they and theirs may starve, if they will not flatter them; and which (i am confident) is not the least of satan's design at this time upon this nation. i writ not this in reference to my own condition, for i bless god, i am otherwise honestly provided for; and the shutting of people's purses, shall not stop my mouth from speaking what my lord and master commands me: and as the apostle (in another case) so i in this, could wish that all other ministers in the nation were as i am, for than i should hope we should have a better people, i mean for the general; and as for those reproaches which some would cast upon me, i can, and do rejoice in this, that it is not for any false doctrine, or scandalous conversation, or for any thing of personal or private concernment, but for home, and plain, and faithful applications, from zealous and hearty opposition against faction, heresy, and blasphemy, and against unworthy and unchristian practices in some people, especially hypocrites, who will not easily be roused: and if any shall hence apprehend themselves justified in the like reprehensions towards me, i prevent them with this proposal; when they shall find me devouring widow's houses, or ruining the estate of any man; when they shall see me (with the hypocritical or quaking pharisee, wearing broader or narrower philacteries than others; that is, making greater or higher shows and outsides of religion (one way or other) on purpose to be taken notice of, and to be seen of men, and pointed at; when they shall find me (as their fellows) compassing sea and land to make proselytes; when they hear of me running up and down from country to country, from one parish to another, disturbing, reviling, railing at, and persecuting those who are in their lawful and settled stations (following and pursuing their lawful callings) when they find me (and they can prove it) preaching false doctrine and heresy, when i do any of these things, let them call me hypocrite, and deal sharply with me, i will not call it persecution. and since i am thus fallen upon this particular, give me leave to write a word or two unto it. the quakers charge us (and according to their guise and guile) make loud out-cries on us for persecution: but i appeal to all the world, who are the persecutors; do not they disturb, revile, and persecute? are not we in our rightful possessions and employments? and did, or do we go or run after them, to hinder or disquiet them? do we desire any thing of them, more than that we and our people might meet and serve god peaceably, according to our rule? and may we not require it of our magistrates? and is it not their duty, to secure and protect us and themselves from tumults, frights, and fears? must they revile and reproach us, and our doctrine, and render us vile at their pleasures? must all they say be good and warrantable? and must our just defences of ourselves, calling, and worship, be persecuting and railing, because they say so? was there ever such a breed of peremptory controllers of words, laws, and actions, as these are? must all the world bow down and kiss their feet, and worship james naylor, upon their bare and un-grounded affirmations? and if at any time, any of them do suffer imprisonment, or the like, what is it for? is it for religion, or conscience sake? who meddles with them upon that account? is not their suffering for riotous disturbances in our public worship? and if they say their conscience or light leads them to it, and therefore they must be suffered, and not punished, which if we do punish, 'tis persecution. i ask, what if their light lead them to take away our estates as well as our good name, must they (because they pretend conscience) be let alone and suffered? or if they suffer, is it persecution? i leave it to all sober men in the world to judge, and who are not willing to be led blindfold: nor is this a groundless or a blind suggestion, that such a thing as this may be; for did not the anabaptists in germany heretofore do the same, upon the like pretences? did they not rob, and take away the estates of all that were not of their faction, because forsooth they were the wicked and ungodly? and was not this the levelling principle of that thing, which my opponent george in his imaginary throne of truth, page 104. calls a parliament, and highly magnifies? whose speech was that to the officers of the army at white-hall, concerning that parliament (if we must so call it) that they did fly at liberty and property, insomuch, that if one man had twelve cows, they held, that another that wanted cows ought to take a share of his neighbour: and (as he most consideringly said) who could have said any thing was his own, if they had gone on? and blessed be god for their dissolution. and thus much of the quakers perfection, from their conversion, mark 9 18. 20. in respect of the manner, sudden and violent, more like a possession, than a conversion. and now a word or two of the matter (the stuff) these quakers are made of; and truly (all things considered, their sudden rise, growth, and perfection, together with the matter whereof they are generated) i know not to what more fitly to liken them, than mushrooms, or toad-stools, one of natures hasty productions, sprung up and perfected in a night or two; a kind of excressence, of a light and thin substance, like a sponge, white and fair to look to, generated for the most part out of rottenness and putrefaction; most of them of a dangerous and pernicious quality; at the best good for nothing. hence (by translation) they use to call an unprofitable and empty fellow, a fungus, which is a mushroom. he that will be informed of them, let them read gerhards' herbal, where among other evil qualities of them, you shall find some of them (for there are of several kinds) made use of to kill and smother bees, to drive them out of their hives, and bereave the poor bees of their meat, houses, and lives: and in some places they serve, says he, to carry fire from place to place, and which being opened, send forth a thin powder like to smoke, this of the puck foists, which is one kind of mushroom. which is very noisome and hurtful to the eyes, causing a kind of blindness, which is called purblind, or sand-blind; and they grow, saith he (some of them) where old rusty iron lies, or rotten clouts, or near to serpent's dens, or roots of trees that bring forth venomous fruit. in sum, they are a slimy excrementitious matter, suddenly arising out of the earth, having no root, and so of no continuance, tending as suddenly to putrefaction and rottenness, whence they had their original. and how this doth quadrare, and almost run upon all four, and fully suit to hypocritical productions, is easy to discern: for a little to apply, and but a little, for an ordinary capacity may carry it on; is it not strange? and is it not that which makes the wonder now a-daies, that sots, drunkards, where's, whoremongers, covetous persons and oppressors, persons stupid and ignorant, of no brains or knowledge in morality, less in religion, silly clowns, and simple women, whose capacities reach not beyond their breeding and employment, persons fanatical, vertiginous, factious, of unstable and unsettled spirits, and indeed almost all sorts of vile persons, that these should be the matter of which the quakers are gendered? doth not the world wonder at this, as it did after the beast which arose out of the sea? rev. 13. but alas friends cease your wondering, is it such a strange thing to see old rusty iron, dirty clouts, and rotten trees bring forth dainty mushrooms? is not this the mode of the ungrounded, unrooted professor? know you not? or have you not heard of the parable of the sour? there are a sort of professors which quickly (suddenly) take, but not having depth of earth (not well rooted) they dry away and whither? matth. 13. and it's observable what matthew hath, mark 4. ver. 5. concerning them; luke 8. and mark also, ver. 5. that forthwith (immediately, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, all of a sudden) it sprung up, and why? because they had no depth of earth; slight and ungrounded professors start up suddenly; and for the same reason they suddenly whither, as in the following verses: ill weeds (we say) grow apace; not so good herbs, and fruit-bearing plants; they bring forth with patience, they must have time to perfect them. and here let me not be mistaken, i do not any way judge or limit the almighty in his operations upon souls to be converted, either for the matter (the persons to be converted) or the manner (the suddenness of it) for he is a most free, and a most powerful agent, and in my soul i bless and do adore him. but let it be considered, his workings are not ordinarily so sudden, violent, and so general, especially with such as have been grossly ignorant and scandalous; he doth not usually bring souls from the lowest condition of darkness, ignorance, and stupidity (both natural and spiritual) and of profane and ungodly conversation, to the heights of light, knowledge, and holiness (even to perfection) at an instant, in a moment, within a few days, or weeks, or months, as these pretend to be. these sudden, violent, and hasty progressions are not usually well grounded, or perpetual; for indeed they have no bottom, no stable foundation, and argues, that though there be a change, 'tis not true conversion, every turning, every change is not conversion. the scripture tells us of some who turn aside after satan, 1 tim. 1. 15. and that some shall turn away their ears from the truth, 2 tim. 4. 4. and shall be turned unto fables, which is the third thing considerable in the quakers conversion, and will evidence their imperfection; for perfection stands in these two things, to be perfectly fully informed and established in truth of doctrine and faith, and to be absolutely, fully completed in holiness, and if a person come short in either, he is not absolutely, completely perfect. and now if a man turn from profaneness to heresy, from an ungodly conversation, in point of practice, to an un-christian or anti-christian persuasion, in point of doctrine, he cannot be said to be truly converted, much less absolutely perfect; the greatest heretics have been sober and serious persons. and i do sadly, seriously (and with respect to the welfare of people's souls) propose it to be weighed by honest, yet simple hearts (and so easy to be seduced.) and let them tell me, is there not as great danger? and doth it not bring upon the soul as certain perdition and damnation, to be under the devil's dominion by heresy and false doctrine, as by a wicked conversation? if not, what matter is it, whither a man be a christian or no▪ or what religion he be of, so he be otherwise an honest man, and of a good conversation? doth not the word tell us of damnable heresies, which bring swift destruction; and that the damnation of such as embrace them, 2 pet. 2. 1, 2, 3. slumbers not? 1 tim. 4. 1, 2. and of some that depart from the faith (i.e. true doctrine) and give heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils, vented by such as speak lies in hypocrisy; and that some are thereby in the devil's snare, 2 tim. 2. 25, 26. and led captive by him at his will. much more might be, and hath been elsewhere spoken and written to this purpose, not to be denied: if then the quakers do turn from one ungodly way to another, as certainly destructive and deadly, we cannot account them perfect: nor will their own say, boasting, pretendings avail them, for he is not just who acquits himself, but he whom god acquitteth. and now as for the anti-christian doctrines of the quakers, they have been sufficiently discovered, and whether they acknowledge their heresies, or no, makes not to the matter, 2 cor. 4. 3, 4. for satan's captives are blinded by him, and the lord in judgement gives some men over to the efficacy of error, 2 thes 2. 10, 11, 12. to believe lies, to their condemnation. and let it here again be minded (to evince the unsoundness of the quakers conversion, and thence their imperfection) the effect or end of gospel conversion is, to change and alter men both in mind and manners, and to bring them to that gospel temper prophesied of and promised, isa. 11. 6. 7. 8. the wolf shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid, and the calf, and the young lion, and the fatling together, and a little child shall lead them, etc. so tame and gentle shall they be, walking lowly and meekly, under the sense of former vileness, with humble acknowledgements of their own unworthiness, of such grace they have received, not boasting, exalting, or (pharisee like) lifting up themselves above others, with a stand further off, i am more holy than thou: whereas the quakers change is of a quite contrary temper, whatever they were before: how meek, how mild, how gentle soever, they now become fierce, and heady, and raging, running up and down like mad dogs and tigers, barking, biting, suarling, raving, and railing at all others; nay, even women and maidens, (the ornament of whose sex is a meek and quiet spirit) changing their natural temper, 1 pet. 3. 4. become (not spiritual, but) unnatural, uncivil, and immodest, lifting up their voices in the very streets and public congregations: so that had that conceit of those philosophers, of transmigration of the souls of men and women into beasts been true, we might have thence fancied another, and that is, that the souls of beasts had transmigrated, and shifted themselves into the bodies of women and maidens, and informed them, it being otherwise almost impossible (sure not imaginable) that that more modest and milder sex should so far forget themselves, but not to seek after such uncertain light (indeed false) for the ground of this miscarriage. the true light of scripture tells us, rom. 1. 25. 26. that those who change the truth of god into a lie, the lord in justice gives them up to vile affections, and passions, so that even women change the order of nature into that which is contrary to nature, as this people do: so that from the manner of the quakers conversion, the matter, and the end and term, we may well conclude, their change is not true conversion, but unsound and rotten, and then they are not perfect. thus of the quakers in general. and now to deal with my quaking friend in particular: and first, as for the person of the man, i profess i do not hate him; and should the lord be pleased to humble him, to give him a sight of his sins, and the grace of true repentance, that so he might be truly converted. i shall (notwithstanding all his unworthy deal with me) gladly receive him into my bosom; but for the present, and as yet he appears to be, i look upon him with a heart full of trembling, and beg of god, that he would never leave me (or any good man) to fall into the like condition. for truly, as i look upon francis spira, as a dreadful instance of a poor despairing creature, so i look upon george bishop, as a fearful example of a poor wretch, whose heart is judicially hardened, and his conscience seared, and both, for sinning against the light of the gospel revealed to them; for the lord hath several ways to deal with gospel-despisers and contemners, who receive not the truth with a love of it. when i read my opponents pamphlet (oculo currente) as we say, throne of truth, page 100 and with a superficial eye, i met with his protestation, concerning the matter of the lord craven, (with the iniquity whereof i knew he had been highly charged) i made a stand, and seriously observed it; and i do confess i was somewhat astonished at that bold and daring appeal, which he therein makes unto the all-discerning eye of the almighty, of his innocency and integrity, which made me (considering the notoriousness of the fact, and of his being charged with it) to read again, and to consider whether there might not be some equivocation in the language and expression, which not appearing to me, i then began to think, that possibly he might not be guilty, this being an age, wherein many things are charged upon many men very slightly and ungroundedly, and sometimes very falsely: but when i more closely, and with a more observant eye, read again his writings, and took notice of his practices and devices, his juggle, wrestle, prevarications, and pervertings of my plain sense and meaning; his putting of blinds and fallacies upon his reader, (which artifice possibly he learned of his master the jesuit, whom he served till he was discovered.) and when i observed his railing and reviling language, with his malicious and revengeful tendencies, i then saw, that as he had dealt with a shameless forehead in this matter, so he had done in that also; and that he was a person of a profligate spirit, and that there was some mental reservation in his protestation; or that (which i most incline to believe) he is a man of a most supernaturally, and god-forsaken-hardened heart, and seared conscience. and i affirm, that if we may judge, and take an estimate of the conscience, honesty, and perfection of the quakers in general, by this man in particular, we may safely say, that one may be as vile a person as any under heaven, and yet be a perfect quaker. for certainly, he that shall dare to make such an appeal to the all-seeing eye of god, of his innocence, and shall be guilty, will dare to do any thing. but the proverb is verified; she that will dare to play the whore, will dare to deny it; custom is a second nature: so that, in what a man is accustomed unto, it is a hard matter for him to do otherwise: can the ethiopian change his skin, jer. 13. 23. or the leopard his spots? then may ye also do good, that are accustomed to do evil: frequent and reiterated acts beget a habit, and hard and much working, doth not more harden the hand, than often sinning hardens the heart: 2 pet. 2. from 10. to the end. so that as s. peter says, they cannot cease from sin; who (as s. paul describes them, eph. 4. 18, 19) through the darkness of their minds, and the blindness of their hearts, being past feeling, give themselves over to work all manner of wickedness, even with greediness: 1 kin. 21. 20. and with ahab, who by wicked practices got away naboth's vineyard, sell themselves to work evil, even in the sight of the lord. and when they have perpetrated their lewdness (with the whore in the proverbs) eat and wipe their mouths, pro. 30. 20. and say, i have done no wickedness: nay, so prevalent is satan with such persons, that they will pretend to god, religion, and the public interest, to promote their evil practices. so did ahab; but the devil is never a worse devil, than when a saint, dissimulata sanctitas, est duplex iniquitas, dissembled (counterfeited) sanctity, is double iniquity, none so dangerously tempting and taking; 2 cor 11. 14. and therefore doth satan himself transform himself sometimes into an angel of light, 1 thes. 2▪ 9 coming with greater power than ordinary, and more specious shows of holiness; he comes as an immediate messenger, an angel from heaven, with great light, when 'tis but a new gospel, (if it be a gospel) and the old devil, who upon pretence of teaching our first parents in another way than god had declared, made their children blind ever after, till restored and recovered of their sight, by a new creation, and till then, no marvel if they go on in their wickedness with resolution as (too much to be feared) this man hath done, in many particulars. for to come to his deal and practices, and to begin (and to consider) what he gins with, how vainly (and like the bragging soldier in the comedy) how thrasonically, and with long-winded expressions, doth he lift up the hands of that blaspheming wretch, james naylor? and how daringly doth he ask the question? what law hath he broken? or what offence against man hath he committed? whom the parliament hath censured (and in part punished) as a horrible blasphemer: it's free to this man (geo. bishop) to arraign and censure the actions of the parliament; but, is james the champion of the lord of hosts, before whom none of the priests could stand, as george says? and was his light so clear (so infallible; so sure?) how comes it to pass that this glorious son of the morning, is like lucifer so cast down, and darkened, by that woman and her company, martha simons. with all their filthiness and deceit, as he phrases it, page 5. beg. what spirit was that: and what darkness was that which he speaks of, page 4. that clouded him? when began it? and is it not still upon him? and how came it to pass, that being delivered, he became dark again? (page ead.) these things would be known, that so we might say, when james is in the dark, or when he is in the light, that so we might not be mistaken in him; for we must not be altogether led by george bishop, lest we agree not with those, who (notwithstanding his, and his fellow foxes disclaims) did, and do still own james naylor. but to let this pass, (for he is not worth enquiring after) by the wisdom of god that foresee all things (says he, page 5.) it was so ordered, that there was found (among the papers that were about james naylor) one paper wherein that spirit (good or bad) the woman and her company, martha simons. and their practices were expressly discerned and judged. this was the letter sent from fox and bishop to naylor; mentioned both in my narrative, and geo. answer. in which letter they disclaim, and judge james naylor, and his crew, as deceivers. but now mark (horrendum facinus) the false and mischievous spirit of the priest, that published that narrative, and his foul and dishonest dealing, and how unfaithful he is in his relation: the priest out of devilish wickedness (george's words) forges such a word, as had it been truly so, might have rendered george fox a blasphemer under his own hand; and this is such a fact, that words need not further to express it, which in its very face is so manifestly wicked and abominable, a wickedness not found in the roll of those evils, which the apostle mentions, should make the last days perilous; and 'tis manifest, this act is wilful. all this, and more, page 7, 8. of his pamphlet, and part of the 9 to all this outcry, by way of answer, one would have expected, that one so eminently perfect in charity as george is (for if he have not charity, he is nothing, he is not what he pretends) would have judged the best, which is one main property of charity, it would have taught him, as v. 5. not to be ready to think evil of another, 1 cor. 13. 1, 2. and not to have triumphed and rejoiced in my sin, and made so many words of it; and to aggravate it so highly; charity would have suggested this, or the like, possibly through his (the priest) and his scribes neglect, or mistake, or the hand of the clerk (from whom he received the copy of that letter) being obscurely written, there being not much difference between these two words (own and am) as they may be written, might misled both, or either of them. or, it may be a mistake of the printer, and the priest's oversight in correcting. or (if none of this could have pleaded my excuse, to clear me from so great a crime as foul forgery) he might have (in reason) considered me from his own condition, before he became so singularly illuminated. for i ask, was he never (in the time of his darkness and ignorance) guilty indeed of forgery? (of which hereafter) or was it not, because he had been so often criminous in such practices, that he so easily, so readily, and so (confidently charges others. i leave it to his light within him: but (to satisfy every honest person) the truth is, it is just so (as i have set it down) in the copy of the letter, which i received from the hands of the clerk, who took the examination, and that as plainly written, as any words in the world, which master dorney will acknowledge, and which the copy itself will justify, which i have to show to all that desire it. as for the letter itself, it was sent up to london to the parliament, and there continues. and (as mr. dorney said upon sight of the copy) it might be so as i have expressed it (for aught he knew) in the original, which whether it be or no, in this case is not material, i am clear, i did not forge it; and yet upon this base doth he build the great weight of his discourse, charging and re-charging (like a doughty captain) again and again, in several places of his pamphlet, making this his great achilles. and so much in discharge of that great calumny which he makes so much use of. and i wish him to consider, whether he did not willingly take it up, as a matter to reproach me, when as (probably) he might be informed, i followed my copy. for sure i am, i have been divers times asked (before the publication of his scurrilous pamphlet) how it was in my precedent, or copy: to which i gave satisfaction, if he did it wilfully, the lord humble him, and forgive him. and whereas he says (page 9) that what i have published in my narrative (p. 10, 11.) of the examination of martha simons, is enough to prove me, my design, and title, and book, to be a lie. surely he presumes highly upon the blindness, ignorance, or negligence of his reader; for it clearly demonstrates, that fox, and his crew, were against naylor, and his; and so that they were not all guided by one spirit, or at best, by that spirit which is the spirit of division, which was part of the design and title of my book, and so not a lie. but that which sticks much in the captain's teeth, and puts him to picking (from page 11. of his pamphlet, to 24.) is the quakers confusion with which i charge them. and truly, i believe, had he been left at large, to choose his own testimonies, and to have suborned and produced his own witnesses, he would perhaps have packed his matter handsomer, and more to his own purpose; but being confined to my relation, how miserably is he bedabled and confounded, in seeking confusion where it was not, in my book. the sum of all that matter is this, for i could not bring you into every stinking corner of his discourse, but help you to view it, and him at a distance, lest the noisomeness of it should offend you. i did (in my narrative) by way of dilemma (which what kind of argument that is scholars know) propose two things, by way of supposition, but positively affirming noither: but if either were true, (as one of them must, the matters propounded being apparent) i had my end upon them. the matter thus, there was opposition and witness bearing (that's plain, and confessed, not only by words of mouth and writing, but also by blows and sore beating) between fox, and his followers, and naylor, and his. now, say i here's opposition manifested and declared, party against party, in appearance. i considered the quakers, (fox and naylor, and all of them one and another) as pretending to be led by one and the same unerring spirit; and that, as they said, they were all one; but here was division, and daggers drawing (as it were) one against another; i looked upon them in general as deceivers, their fruits discovering it. this opposition (if true) i concluded could not consist with unity and oneness, to which they pretended i had no way to determine the matter, but thus: this opposition of theirs (say i) was either real, i.e. fox and his crew were realy and indeed displeased, and did judge naylor and his, or they were not indeed displeased and offended, and this opposition and quarrel might be but from the teeth outward and to blind the world; one of these two must of necessity be granted; if the former, sc. that it was a real quarrel, than their brags of unity was a l●e, a cheat, and they deceivers, and impostors that way. if the latter, sc. if their opposition were but feigned, they were cheats and liars that way, in pretending opposition where it was not real. now that either might be true, i gave divers grounds or reasons, not determining for either, but absolutely concluding one, which was sufficient to my purpose, which was, to discover their impostures and deceive: and yet hereupon so simple, or so— is this fellow, as to cry out, is not the matter granted, and the priest grants it? when as 'tis easy to discern, i do but argue exhypothesi, and by way of supposition. thus, if so, than they are divided (notwithstanding their professions of unity) if thus (as it may be) then (notwithstanding their outward oppositions) they are secretly agreed, and they are one, either way, impostors. and this discovers his delusions in those fourteen pages: and yet we see how simply he pleases himself at the end of his thirteenth page, and the beginning of the fourteenth, vapouring and bragging with high language, as if my discourse in that matter, were nothing but confusion and contradiction. i am not willing to put myself to so much pains to write it out. and here i might end with his 24. page for the matter▪ but there are some things i must take notice of, to discover his blinds and juggle with his reader, and his most miserable begging a thing in question; nay, utterly denied him. in the fourteenth page, (and so on, to part of the twentieth) he seems to me to deal with his reader as a cunning thief, who overtaking a simple-hearted, and unwary traveller, and not well acquainted with the way, falls in with him, and entertains him with a long discourse, and (unawares to the man) draws him out of the way, to rob him: so doth he make a large story of moses leading israel out of egypt, and of his transactions with corah and his company; and of aarcus business with nadab and abihu, and other such like matters, and of the opposition between paul and peter, and of paul and barnabas, etc. and asks, whether, because of these oppositions and contests between the good and bad party, (the one being in the right, and the other in the wrong) whether therefore the quakers, because of their oppositions, be a pack of cozening impostors, and lying mountebanks: and he says, if my argument be good, or of force to prove the quakers confusion, and that the one true infallible spirit by which they are led, is a babel, bauble, cheat, an impostor, etc. because of foxes and naylors' opposition: then he says, moses and the israelites, who kept faithful with god, and the law, etc. must be so too. and upon this score, calls me high blasphemer, and arrogant priest, etc. before i make answer, i must observe the wretched, perverse, and prevaricating spirit of this man, and how unworthily, and indeed dishonestly he wrists and changes my expressions at his pleasure: for where (in all, or any part of my book) did i say, that the one true infallible spirit, by which the quakers are led, is a babel, bauble, cheat, an impostor (as he would make me to say page 15. of his pamphlet) all that i said was, that their pretences to be led by that spirit, was a babel, etc. and i deny that they are led by the one true infallible spirit: and now i say further, the spirit by which the quakers are led, is a babel, etc. and now to the matter in question: and seriously (reader) i'll tell thee truth, when i observed his reasoning (if i may give it so good a name) i could not choose (though alone) but smile, and was affected, i cannot well say, whether more with the simplicity of the man in his own understanding (in respect of his darkness) or with something else, whereby he would impose upon the ignorance of some silly reader, in all, and every one of those instances produced by him, which is to this end, sc. to evince this truth, (for i'll do him all the right in the world) that good men may disagree, and not be impostors, as did moses and aaron, paul and peter, etc. wherein he might have spared himself, and reader, a great deal of labour. for i readily grant, that because some sin, therefore all sin, is no good argument: but what's this to the quakers? doth this clear them from being impostors? we say, whether they agree, or not agree, they are both wrong, both deceivers: may not knaves fall together by the ears? doth their falling out, make either side honest? suppose the quakers and the ranters (who pretended to as high a principle, even the same) should fall out, would that justify either? no, no, my friend george (or who ever helped him) is out; they shall not get that by begging, which they will never prove; nor will we ever grant them, that either (fox or naylor) are in the right, or to be believed: true it is, had either (fox or naylor) been in the truth, as moses was, and paul was, and those other worthies (whom he instances) these allegations had been to purpose; but fox and naylor both, being deceivers, all this matter of george's, is besides the cushion. and i cannot but note one thing, how bold this man is with all the quakers that are not of his persuasion, as if he had monopolised the spirit of truth and infallibility, he brings in naylor and his party, as aaron, and the calf-makers, and fox and his party, as moses; the one sinning, the other reproving; for if this be not his meaning, he produces that, and his other instances, to no purpose: so that he would have naylor the calf, and his party, those that worship him. are all the quakers of england of his mind? if not (as sure it is they are not) where is still their unity? and they may well question george, as arrogating and assuming unto himself (and foxes followers) the spirit of stability and setledness: in derogation of naylor and his adherents, as he doth in page 20. whom they deny, as being under the spirit of darkness, page 21. and whereas he (sillily) seems to triumph over us priests (as he calls us) because we do not hypocritically and lyingly (as they do) pretend to be led infallibly, by the spirits discovery of new doctrines to us, as were the apostles: let him know, that we are led and guided by the spirit, into the knowledge and belief of those truths which were so revealed, by belief whereof, we attain salvation, (and as many as by our preaching embrace and follow the same truths with us) without more or further revelations. and we affirm, and prove, that so preaching, our people ought to hear us, and we are to be believed. but doth not the reader perceive the blind, that george would put upon him? doth he not discern the end of that long discourse, whereby he would draw him out of the way to cousin him, that he might not look after the matter that was of great concernment, and incumbent upon george (as the quakers great advocate) to have undertaken and discharged? but of that ne gry quidem (as we say) not a word: that which an understanding reader would reasonably have looked for, was, that george would have done them this service, to have showed how this can stand with truth, that the quakers are all at an agreement, and led by one spirit of truth; when as fox, (one great apostle, (who also hath many followers) shall charge naylor (another great apostle, who also hath many followers) that he and his disciples are joined against the truth, as in that former letter. and that he trained up a company against it, and that their iniquity doth increase, and that accompanied with wilfulness and stubbornness. is this to be one in the truth, when one considerable party are joined against the truth? etc. and another thus bear witness against them, and yet they stubbornly persist. if george now could have unfolded this riddle, he should have been the quakers oedipus, or their great apollo, to resolve all their doubts, and help them at a dead lift, but not being able to do it, he decoys his reader out of the way, and tells him a long story, of nothing to the purpose: and yet a little further, it would be known, for the information of all quakers in general (for i see i must be their friend) what is, or was james naylor's sin and wickedness, that such high testimony is born against it, as that the matter must come to blows: wherefore do these infallible ones thus judge him, and his company, (who are not a few) and spirit? it is not (it seems) for his and their blasphemous practices, for which the parliament did censure him, for this testimony was born against him, and the sin witnessed against, was long before james riding in pomp. no, this fox and his crew can allow of, and so become participes criminis, guilty of the same crime, witness foxe's, and others papers published in print, for extenuation and vindication of naylor, witness the petitions of those eminently godly and conscientious persons, who interceded for him with the parliament; and witness bishop himself, page 3. who asks, what law hath it been made appear to the nation that naylor hath broken? and then highly aggravates his suffering▪ as unparrallelled: so that in this, the priest will grant they are agreed. but still we are to seek what was james his sin, was it; because that woman (martha simons) struck him dumb, and made him silent; so that he hath not since spoken in public? why, is not this now in fashion among them generally? their silent meetings, wherein like pigs and swine they come together, and grunt, and snuffle, and so departed. we read in the gospel, sometimes of a mad and raving devil, that no man could tame, mark 2. 3, 4. and matthew says he was so fierce, mat. 8. 28. that no man might pass by that way. and sometimes we read of a dumb, a silent devil, so called, because he made those he possessed dumb and silent, so that they were not then free to speak. and it seems the quakers must witness these various dispensations, as a part of their perfection. this then is not james naylors' sin, george fox, or bishop, shall do well (in charity) to acquaint the world of quakers with it, that they may avoid it, lest they come into the same condemnation, and to greater confusion, and he be more puzzled; we shall expect it, when george gets up into his throne again; and if it be that bastard that james naylor was charged with, let them deal plainly with the world, for there is (since the publication of my narrative) some further discoveries of it, more fully; as in a book entitled, the grand impostor examined, printed for h. brome, at the hand in pauls-church-yard. as also another entitled, an exact history of the life of james naylor, with his parents, birth, education, etc. printed by edward thomas in green-arbour, both published by one john deacon, wherein there is also mention made of a maid, seduced to be a quaker, and got with child, by one duesbury, another quaker, which was confessed by herself, who also affirmed, that naylor did solicit her to lie with him; and possibly this may be it, for george doth not deny it, neither in text, nor margin, nor doth he say, it is a lie, as he doth page 6. in the behalf of howgil, whose mouth martha simons affirmed she had stopped: it was a lie (saith he) for his mouth was never stopped by her, but always open to declare against her, and their deceit (that is, james naylor, and his company.) they were deceivers then, and the matter of their deceit would be known. but i must not stay here, for my friend george hath, page 24. something further to say to me: and i must acknowledge, when i took a survey of his strength, and following forces (for what is past, was (it seems) but his forlorn.) and having a desire to gather up as much as i could together, (to ease myself and my reader of impertinencies, and tautologies) i was confounded with his disorder. true, in his page 25. he gins with my title page, but in the very next page, he leaps to page 30. 31. and in the next, to 44. of my book; and then in his page 28. to the 30 of mine, and 39 and then presently to the 30. again, and some seven lines after, back again to my 17. then to my 45. and within two pages after, to my epistle to the reader, and instantly to page 48 of my book, and shortly after to my title page again, and so runs (foxlike) skipping up and down, that it would tyre any man in the world to follow him, speaking to the same things in several places, as if he did it on purpose to make work for one that had nothing else to do, but to be so idle as to follow him. and truly, if his skill in martial affairs were no better, to order and muster his forces, he is fit to be a captain to lead apes and monkeys, than reasonable creatures. and i am half jealous, that this was done by him upon design, to take up so much of my time and leisure to follow him in his serpentine motion, that i might glut my reader with these litigations, that so he might have less stomach to what i have to say to george in particular. and therefore, as to my narrative and relation, for the truth of it, i say thus much in the general, that when he hath said, and i have said, we must leave it to the judgement of those who live here in this city, to conclude of the truth of either: and i have said only thus much further, i desire it may be observed, that in my epistle to the reader, i did profess i had not inserted all the letters, nor all the examinations and page 4. i expressly said, i should give in so many, & so much of their letters and papers, as was pertinent to their discovery, and no more, as being unwilling to make my book swell too much in bulk and price; so that if i have not inserted all that might have been, and george would have: i am not, (i cannot) therein be found a liar, because i have not gone against my promise; for i did not propose, nor intent an exact and full relation of all things concerning it, as i have expressed myself. sufficient it is to me, that there is nothing therein contained, but what is truth, which was that i promised, and have performed. and as to the order of time (wherein things were acted) when i came to a close in that particular, i told my reader, page 59 that i had not been exact, to observe the order or circumstance of time in every particular; for (as i there say) i intended not an exact diary, but had been careful to give in the substance in truth, and reality, which (as in god's sight) i was careful to observe and do: if any thing therefore be short or mistimed, it doth not follow that i am a liar and deceiver, etc. as he (most uncharitably and unchristianly) charges me with; to all which i say, the lord rebuke him, and give him repentance for it; and these two things being observed, will serve to answer much of his cavils and reproachings of me: but yet i must not pass over all so lightly, but i shall make answer to some things, which i conceive of concernment, in special, leaving the rest as not worth the troubling myself, or the reader with; and in this i shall study brevity, and in them observe, how short this man comes of that christian perfection which he pretends to. and passing by his railing, and sending me to the lake, to be tormented with the devil and his angels (who he says is my father and portion) i shall make a stand a little at his charge against me in his page 27. concerning the oath of laurence raymond: and herein i shall discover the wretched nature and practice of this quaker and his fellow, i having heard that this laurence raymond had heard that blasphemous and unchristian expression spoken by audland's wife, that whosoever did think to be saved by that jesus christ that died at jerusalem, should be deceived; and being assured from his own mouth of the truth of the relation, i did some time after (that these wretches might be discovered) desire the magistrates to send for this young man, and to take his testimony upon oath, for greater satisfaction, as occasion should require, which accordingly (at their own leisure) they did, i not being present, or speaking any further with the young man in it. now this testimony, my friend george would invalidate, because in my narrative, the place (where the words were affirmed and expressed by the young man in his deposition to be spoken) were left out, which to be done upon design (as he affirmed) i utterly deny, nor can, or could there be any design in it, for any thing that did appear to me, for i doubted not, nor had heard any thing, that might occasion me to doubt of the truth of his oath, either in the substance (which was that i only looked at) or the circumstance, which was not by me much considered, which possibly made me less wary, and observant of the omission in that, as of another passage, and non-moment anous sentence, in fox's letter to naylor; of which george took notice, but it would not afford him ground to cavil upon, as this it seems doth. and for the readers satisfaction here, i desire him to know, that the discursive and declarative part of my narrative, was wholly written to him (who copied them out again for the press) with mine own hand: but as for those letters, examinations, and other things, which i had in lose papers, i only marked the place in my discourse, where they were to be inserted, leaving it to him to inscribe and write them; and in hasty examination, i might (as it seems i did) pass over, and not take notice of an omission, especially in a matter of circumstance, which my thoughts were not, as i said, so much upon; as here the main thing intended to be declared was, that such words were spoken by this quaker: and as for the truth of the oath in every particular, which this caviller would enervate by this nicety, i did (upon the publication of his pamphlet, and observation of this passage) repair to the young man (laurence reymond) and there i discovered a notorious piece of juggling, and wretched practice of these quakers; for showing to him what george had written, and ask him what he could say unto it, in that he had charged him as a liar, and forsworn. he made me this answer, that hollister had got him over into his shop, and had been tampering with him, to entrap him, or draw him from his testimony, affirming it was false, using many words to that purpose, till the young man was weary, and left him; but then asserted and maintained the truth of what is contained in his oath, in every particular, as he doth still, insomuch that hollister, seeing he could not prevail before he left him, threatened him, that the plagues of god would, or should overtake him, as they had done (as he affirmed.) cowlishaw, for taking a false oath, (as he called it) against the quakers formerly, and this the young man's master (mr. stephens) told me, the youth informed him of, so soon as he came from hollisters. now my reader must know, that mr. cowlishaw (since his oath taken as aforesaid) is failed in his trade; and i wish it may not be the case of many an honest man besides him. and it's strange it should not, in such times as these are of dead trade in general. but mark the bold, daring, and uncharitable presumption of these wretched quakers, who step up into the judgement seat of the almighty, and assign the particular causes of his dispensation; as if those upon whom the tower of siloa fell, were greater sinners than others, because of that hand of providence; or as if his oath were false, because of this accident. no, he still owns the truth of his deposition also. and divers others there are in this city, who can attest much to the substance of it: but see the malicious spirit of these wretches; and yet further, seeing they could not draw off this young man from the truth of what he had deposed, nor get any advantage (by tampering with him) against me (which was the thing intended; for hollister then told him, he had a hand in a book to that purpose:) now not being able to compass their ends upon him, bishop by hollisters instigation (i believe) (for i suppose the young man is almost as much a stranger to bishop, as to myself, who never spoke with him but twice, and that upon this occasion) bishop, i say, falls to reproach this young man, and to slain his reputation, as one of evil course, and bad conversation, from which he would needs have us believe, quakerism had restrained him; and to which (since he left quaking) he affirms he is again returned, page 28. of his pamphlet; how far the young man's father is concerned in this (a person of quality, colonel raymond a justice of peace in the county of gloucester) i shall not inquire. but for his comfort, his sons right, and the discovery of the spiteful, malicious, revengeful, and lying spirit of these deluded, and deluding wretches; i do affirm, that both from his master and neighbours (persons i am sure of better credit than hollister or bishop) i received a most ample and full testimony of the youths most sober, piously conformable, and good conversation; by which we may see, what spirit these quakers are of, and how ready they are to reproach all that are not with them; a generation of vipers, and adders, that when they cannot reach the head, will be biting at the heels of those who come near them, and must vent their venom one way or other, so that (notwithstanding his cavillings) the young man's testimony stands good against him, that these blasphemous words were spoken, as is alleged; nor must his denials, (no nor of many more) pass for currant, or bear weight against a positive affirmation, so solemnly confirmed: nor is blaspheming language of the quakers so strange or rare, as he would make; for it is but the same, which was spoken by one simon dring, another of them, as i have declared, which allegation bishop would also enervate, and null, because i do not name him to whom the words were spoken; and from thence, says it is of my own invention▪ page 77. i was not, i confess, overforward to mention the names of persons, by whom things were related to me, because all are not willing to have their names so publicly mentioned. but now (for satisfaction) i let him know, it is one that is not ashamed to appear in the face of captain bishop, and it is mr. timothy parker, whom, i suppose, he will not deny to be a person of credit, and who is ready to attest the truth of what i have set down concerning it. and for a further discovery of the impostures, prevarications, deceits, and juggle of this generation, i'll give one instance more, from a person, of whose faithfulness, i am assured, who himself upon london road, meeting with one with whom he had been formerly well acquainted, and knowing him to be turned quaker, amongst other discourse, said unto him, (by way of dislike of his present judgement and opinions of quakerism) you did look and hope for righteousness or justification by jesus christ; the quaker answered, so i do still; yea, (but replied the other) do you look to be justified, and to have your sins pardoned for that blood which christ shed upon the cross? whereunto the quaker replied, what can that blood be worth, which was shed so long ago. this (for substance) will be made good, both parties i know very well; and this quaker not one of the dull, simple, or sottish sort of them (who know not the worst of their own opinions) but one of an ingenuous education, and of abilities more than ordinary, in comparison of the generality of them, one acquainted with the mysteries of their own iniquity, and blasphemous doctrine. and this not much unlike another (but a she quaker, yet not of the simplest rank) who being conferred with by one who had heard much of their opinions, and ask her by whom she hoped to be saved, she answered, by jesus christ: by what jesus christ, said he? by that jesus christ that died at jerusalem, said she: what (replied he) by that jesus christ that died at jerusalem, and that is now in heaven? yea, said she: whereat he something wondering, and yet suspecting some equivocation, (or mental reservation) where, said he, is that heaven? in me, said she, and so discovered the juggle. now who (but one who knows them throughly) but would have been satisfied with her first answers? and who would have thought it needful, to have carried on the question any further? and so in the former, any honest, simple, well meaning heart (that is not acquainted with their collusions) would have been satisfied with the first answer: but you see how hard a matter it is for every one to discover them, and how loath they are, that what they hold should be fully known, lest it should (as it deserves) render them abhorred, by all honest christians. and hence also you see, how little they are to be believed in what they say, having reserved meanings to themselves, and speaking contrary to the sense of those expressions, which are commonly used amongst christians. and now, as the rest of his nibblings at my narrative, and observations thereupon, i shall leave the truth to be determined by the examinations themselves, which he cannot impeach; nor will his affirmations, negations, or wrest, any way impair. and for matter of fact, in the rise, growth, and settling of these people among us, i appeal to those who were ear and eye-witnesses of these things. and for his atheological cavillings, and scripture wresting, and misapplying, i refer to those who are judicious in such matters, to conclude between us, only there are some few things, wherein i must observe unto my reader, the malicious and revengeful temper of this man in his dealing with me. i confess, neither the person of my opponent, or the things are (in themselves) worthy of the thoughts of any serious man; and i should therefore have past it over, but that i mind my engagement and promise, which is, to let the world see (in the instance of my adversary) that the conversion and perfection of a quaker, (if to be estimated by this man's.) is very unsound, imperfect, and rotten, notwithstanding all their outward shows, and specious pretences; any man (even with half an eye, as the saying is) my easily discern, (by the matter and manner of his language) that his design, all along, and throughout his whole pamphlet, is to render me (all the ways he can) obnoxious to danger, and the displeasure of others that are above me, wherein (besides his malice) his impotence is discerned, in that being not able to revenge himself upon me, he would bring me within the reach of others, who might do it for him. and see how he goes out of the ways of truth and honesty to do it; (so revengeful is he) yea, out of the way of his own profession (so impetuously is he hurried in his rage and passion; for but mind his courtship, giving flattering titles, and having respect to persons (as they call our due tenders of reverence and honour to our superiors) in page 27. justice fell, a discreet grave man, one of the judges of the nation, and chancellor of the duchy of lancaster: well, what of all this? why says george to me, art thou assured he will put up all this? oh, says he, the instance is so foul and odious, and so filled with scoffs and jeers, that thy wickedness therein is hard to be expressed. thus he there. oh lamentable! is it not pity that any man (much more a minister of the gospel, and if you will, a priest) should commit so great a crime? surely it can be no less than betraying mr. love to death, or ruining some great man's estate, by base practices, perjury, bribery, or some such thing? no, but 'tis as bad: why, what is it? oh harken, and wonder! in page 31. of my narrative, i produced judge fells wife (as one bearing witness in the behalf of james naylor) and (here's my sin which hath raised all this outcry) i said, such discerning folks cannot easily be mistaken. ah poor impotent creature, how hath rage, and malice, and hatred, and envy besotted him? is not this man guilty of having men's persons in admiration for advantage, that he might have advantage against me? or doth he mock the judge, in giving him these titles, so much contrary to their quaking principle? the lord help him to see the baseness of his spirit. but yet, why doth he add an, etc. to the criminous words quoted by himself? why, surely, to let the world see, that his malice outbid and out-bribed his conscience; for being convinced in himself that the words quoted, would not bear so high a charge against me, as of a crime so great, the wickedness whereof can hardly be expressed, he would have it understood, that the danger lay in the word, etc. which if it do, 'tis none of mine. and let any one in the world read my book, and say, whether they can find any thing else in that whole matter, to be charged as an offence upon me: and is this such an offence, so heinous, so grievous? to say ironically, that such discerning folk as judge fells wife, cannot easily be mistaken: what's this to the judge? may not a wise man, a good man, have a simple, a perverse, or a quaking wife, which is not in his power to remedy, further than to restrain her from their assemblies; he cannot change her judgement: as for the judge himself, i meddle not, i do not know him, i have not heard (to my remembrance) other than well of him: well, the lord forgive my adversary, and humble, and alter him: sure i am, this is far from that simplicity, charity, goodness, that was, and is in christ jesus. hence ex ungue leonem, by this paw of the lion (or rather hoof of some more silly creature) judge of the man; or if you will, you may take him both ways: a lion, or a bear, for his rage and fierceness, and a more sottish beast, for his silliness. i have discovered the venom of his teeth, in this the more fully, to save myself and thee (reader) some labour, in being as brief as possibly i may, in the following particulars; and the next is, his endeavour to traduce me, with traducing the magistrates of our city. and whereas i plead their excuse, in that, by their lenity at first, (over and above what other places in the nation exercised towards these croaking frogs) they gave them too much encouragement to nestle amongst us, imputing this (as just cause i had) to their too much fearfulness, and having been formerly overtopped, and overborn, by an overswaying power, by the usurpation of inferior officers, exercised upon them; and looking upon this as a part of their weakness and infirmities, which (because of the common frailty incident to all men, even the best) i did (as being in the body, and sensible of the same frailties) christianly and soberly alleviate, (not justify) how does he most pharisaically and proudly fall, both upon me, and them in it? and because i say (and say now) that the best magistrates have their spots, defects, and failings, he concludes them to be no magistrates of god, but men of sin, evil doers, and the born of the devil, page 34. but because this (nor any thing in my narrative) would afford matter to incense them; he runs abroad, licking up the vomit of every malicious and venomous spider, to belch it out against me; and this lyingly too, (more suo) for he says, that i endeavoured in the pulpit to render them vile and odious; one while likening them to jupiter's log▪ and to george on horseback, and reproaching them with the abilities of tom pain, which he puts in great letters, as if i had mentioned his name in the pulpit. but what a bold and daring wretch is this, to judge of my intentions and endeavours, as if they were to render the magistrates vile and odious? when being called to preach unto them, upon a public occasion, for administration of justice: the lord knows my heart, my endeavour was to render them honourable and precious, by ●●●ssing them to discharge their duty; and to that purpose, i told them, that magistrates should not be as jupiter's log, which by lying still, and doing nothing, made the frogs bold with it, and to leap upon, and make sport with; and that they should not be as the picture of george on horseback, with his arm and sword always lifted up, but never smiting; telling them further, that if the bare name, ornaments, and accoutrements of a magistrate were sufficient, than that poor creature (that was then walking up and down in their presence) might make a magistrate; but i utterly deny, that i likened or compared them with, or to either, or named him. and of this, all those who heard me with their right ear, must bear me witness. but what will not a malicious person do to revenge himself, though he do it never so impotently? but indeed (george) did i deal so plainly with them, even the magistrates, and that to their faces, and being their chaplin too, and having many large dinners and feast from them, besides my salary of ten pounds a year for that service, and when i have fair words and advise from them? (all this in his pages 37. 38.) why sure (friend) it seems the magistrates were so honest, that they did not choose a chaplin to flatter them, they had divers years experience of me, and my temper: and further, it's clear from hence, i am no respecter of persons, which i am sure amongst you is accounted a virtue, and a high piece of your perfection, though in a perverted sense: and is it now a sin (a vice in me?) i see nothing will please him, who is resolved to quarrel: and you see (friend) that their large dinners do not so fill my belly, but that i can speak plainly; if i reflected upon some who were guilty of doing nothing, (which is a great sin in a magistrate) doth that condemn (doth it not honour) those who are active? i might mention your rail at, and despisings of all magistrates, 'tis too gross and palpable; and that he might be still, sibi constans, like himself, in his mischievous practices. in like manner doth he charge me with abusing major general sk●●●●, whereas whoever reads, shall find, i make no other than an honourable mention of him, as a discreet and sober person, who did not usurp authority over the civil magistrates, but held (as i say) a good correspondence with them. and is this to abuse him? what a hard thing is it, although he ●ad bef●dre charged the same things, page 41. for a man habituated to an evil course, (lying, railing, or the like) to leave it? so also towards the end of his pamphlet, page 103. and so onwards, he falls to the same malicious work again, charging me of abusing that reverend parliament, concerning which i have spoken already, of which, and such like, i desire never to speak more only this, we may well guests what a pure convention it was, when such pitiful fellows, as his fellow hollister should be a principal member thereof. and wherein (as george phrases it) page 45. he tasted as much (yea more) of the power and glory of this world (oh lamentable world!) than any in this city, which he says, he might still have had, could he bow down and worship; bow down to whom, to him whose nose george would have held to the grindstone? he and his fellow hollister will not then, it seems, bow down, nor worship, not so much as civilly; a stiffnecked and stubborn generation: thus we may see, what it is, to lift up the head of a dunghill brood, how highly they will swell, and how hardly they will be reduced again: and truly i cannot here (upon this occasion) but think, how nebuchadnezzar-like, dennis hollister did strut it, and pride himself in his eyrie kingdom; and how he did scorn and despise all the opposite party in that assembly: read his words, in a pamphlet published by him against that congregation (or church) in this city, whereof he was once (till turned quaker) the leader; and well may he call them so, which i shall elsewhere discover. the title of which pamphlet is this, the skirts of the whore discovered, and the mingled people in the midst of her. in a letter sent by dennis hollister to the independent baptised people, who call themselves a church of christ in bristol, but are found to be a synagogue of satan; together with another letter written by him to thomas evens, a teacher among them, who before several witnesses hath often denied himself to be a minister of the gospel. this, and more is dennis his title. now suppose him in his heights, and hear his language, page 13. 14. such as were so high, as that they were above all ordinances. for my own part, i must deal plainly, and tell you, the beholding and observing the unrighteous actings, and deceitful hypocritical deal of many of the eminent members, and other high pretenders to religion, whilst i sat with them in parliament, and other chief places of council and trust in the nation (brave words) was one of the first things that put me upon consideration what the root of that profession (of anabaptism, i suppose he means) should be, from whence such sour grapes, and fruits of bitterness proceeded; and so on, telling them their own sufficiently. and then he lets them know, that he has known what it is to be accounted something among those called churches, and what the preferment of pharoahs' court is, (we know whom he means) and the great things of england; and that he had a nature prone enough (which we all well know) to embrace the same, but that his peevishness was as great as his pride, which made him side with that faction, which acted by those levelling principles i formerly mentioned, which gave just occasion to his highness to ding many of them down to the dunghill, from whence those vapours were exhaled, which yet he in his pride, (such is his stomach) calls a suffering affliction with the people of god, rather than to enjoy the pleasures and treasures of england, which belike then were in their hands; and if he could have bowed down, he supposed he might have still enjoyed (and george thinks so too) even for ever: for then (not doubt) the fifth monarchy would have been erected; but it seems they were not then infallibly inspired; for than they carried their bibles to their parliament, there to seek out the pattern, but there it seems it was not to be found exactly; and therefore now (throwing away their bibles, and) being more immediately guided by the spirit (of blood, the levellers standard being now discovered. and of rebellion) they betake themselves to their weapons, to build and raise their kingdom, which possibly may be the reason why so many bricklayers and carpenters (and such like persons) turn quakers, in hope of employment, it may be of preferment; and why not, as well as mascinello, a poor fisher-boy in naples, or john of leyden, a tailor in germany, who made themselves regent's, by the assistance of the rude rabble, the one upon civil, the other upon religious pretences? but (to meddle no more with this parliament) in the next place (malice making him very industrious) he renders me obnoxious to the protector, and his council, which needs no long answer. for whereas i had said nothing against them, he would make me criminous by way of inference and insinuation, and the like, concerning major general desborow, (to whom, for advantage, he will afford a title of honour) whom he says i intimated to have been easily and mischievously instrumental to wicked, ungodly, and unchristian practices; 'tis wonder he did not directly charge me: but let any man read what i have therein written, and say, wherein have i abused him. and thus much i say, (as to that) as i hope the major general, and others in power, did not by their lenity intent to countenance such practices before: so now (seeing what their lenity may produce) they will not be so easy to be entreated for the future, which was that (and all) i aimed at; and the like envious dealing hath he in the matter of colonel scroop, and there he charges me with flattering him: so that let me speak how i will, i must (it seems) be concluded an offender. but (he alleges) i had spoken against him, why, what of this? because i deal plainly with a man when i find he doth ill, may i not therefore commend him when he doth well? is not this an argument of ingenuity? i hope he will pardon me this offence. and truly, had i not apprehended him really to have disclaimed these quakers, (as i then believed he did) i should not have made that honourable mention of him. and i confess, had he been still here in power over us, i might well have been thought, in so doing, to have flattered him; but it is well known, when he was here, i did it not, and less reason to do it now, in that he is absent. but i must here observe what george says concerning him, which very much tends to the justifying of my narrative, concerning the rise, growth, and settling of the quakers among us, by the over-topping, and over-bearing of our magistrates, and making them ciphers, by a foreign power, so that they could not reform things, though they had a will to it; for page 106. george, says he (col. scroop) was so far from denying the quakers, to speak publicly, that he said to dennis hollister, by name, that if the magistrates did put them in prison one day, he would put them out the next, which no doubt dennis acquainted them with, for their encouragement, which very likely made them so bold and daring, and to outface (as they did) the magistrates, and not to care for their commands to departed the city: how will revenge and malice blind a man to tell all, which he had better forborn? as for the remainder (ejusdem farinae) which follows, it is a further discovery of the same spirit which i shall pass over, intending (as the lord shall give time and opportunity) to give a full and distinct answer to the particular of thomas evens; for as for morgan lloyd, whose doctrine he says i had reproached, and concerning which, he says, he sent me a sober note, to reason with me publicly in my steeplehouse (as he calls it) which i refused. to that, i say, it's not so, i did not reproach his doctrine, for i knew not what it was, nor heard it; that i took offence at (and justly) was, that any man should intrude, and thrust himself, yea, force himself into my pulpit, upon a day, and at a time, which was not assigned for public lecture, whereas himself, and erbury, had not long before made a kind of a public contest, to the disturbance and unsettling of the people in another congregation; erbury at that time being sufficiently known to be tainted with unsound opinions, and lloyd himself much disliked. and truly (to speak my mind in this matter) if morgan lloyd's note had been, or were to that purpose, i suppose, that minister, that in these brawling and heretical times, shall entertain motions for public contests, with such as run up and down, and make it their business to wrangle, and contend in things doubtful and uncertain, shall not provide for his own peace, nor the people's establishment in the truth, by giving them entertainment. if the doctrines we teach were unsound, or ourselves not able to discharge our duty, it would be a favour for some to come and help us, when orderly, and peaceably sent, or called; but otherwise, for men of unquiet and rambling spirits, to impose themselves upon us, is neither christian nor civil: and i conceive, those who are careful to preserve the people from infection, do not well to encourage (much less to invite) them. nor are the people competent judges in doubtful matters, and are (as i said before) much swayed by the impudence and confidence of a bold and daring opponent. i have now but two or three things more to speak to, and so i shall come to deal, by way of charge, upon my adversary, wherein i shall have so much matter, as that i must of necessity avoid all debates, and altercations with him, in matter of doctrine, and this upon a double account: first, because their doctrines, judgement, and way of arguing, are sufficiently known, and answered already, and i am not willing to draw the same saw of contention everlastingly, not caring for the last word in the quarrel. and secondly, lest by taking up too much time in those things, of which the reader may be elsewhere better satisfied, (as in mr. thomas of vblegs most sober and christian answer, mr. baxter, mr. ford, and others) i be prevented of what i principally intended, which is to discover the hypocrisy and unsoundness of a quakers conversion, and to exemplify it, in this man in particular, which you see i have in part performed, by discovering his railing, lying, and malicious dealing, in which trade he still continues; and therefore, page 47. he charges me, that i would have joined myself as a member of hollisters congregation, but finding by discourse with him, that there was no place for my imperious, proud, and pragmatical mastership over them, they heard no more of me in that particular, till the state of things were changed, and then i became an adversary to separated churches, and to that in bristol especially; this is the full of the charge. this story i assure myself he had from dennis: but how doth he know that dennis says truth? to this, i oppose this true relation, when thomas evens came first to this city, (i desiring to know him fully) had a purpose to invite him to my house to dinner, and understanding that he would be at the house of robert purnil in an evening, went thither, where i met him, and most (i think) of that congregation, at an exercise of religion, where i continued, mr. evens being the man that then exercised, wherein something being delivered unsound and erroneous, i forbore (for divers reasons) to speak to it, till most of the company were dismissed, when (conceiving it convenient) i told him of that erroneous doctrine which he had delivered, and spoke fully to it; to which mr. evens making neither answer nor excuse. mr. purnil (for now i am not speaking to, or of quakers) and therefore let me use our ordinary and civil language) with many good words approved of what i said, and spoke something in excuse of mr. evens. whereupon, moon (being present) with much affection used these words, why should not master farmer be one of our congregation? (for i had never met them formerly) which was seconded thus by mistress nethway: ay, mr. farmer, if you would be one of our congregation, you may be chosen pastor afterwards, which words (the very thoughts of the matter being strange to me) i do profess, made me wonder? which produced this reply from me, chosen pastor mistress nethway! what mean you? to which (after some other words) she said, she was told, that if i might be chosen pastor, i would join with them, which i denying, and she affirming again that she was told so, but would not tell me by whom (but 'tis easily supposeable) i then presently appealed to mr. purnill, then present, to witness for me to the contrary, to whom formerly (in discourse) i had declared several times, that i could not join with them, which he at that time witnessed; and this to be a truth, i appeal to that light and truth of god that shines in his and their consciences, and which i hope they will not dare to stifle, (notwithstanding that distance which is now between us.) and the reasons why i would not join with them, were, because they performed their lord's day duties in private houses, to the prejudice of the public, (which i ever honoured (as i shall declare in another discourse, christ assisting me.) and for that they had not lawfully constituted pastor to take the charge of them: true it is, i should likely have joined with them, had those two hindrances been removed. and to this purpose i did divers times solicit master n. i. a rightly constituted and able preacher, to take the charge of them, promising myself to sit down as a private member, only exercising my public ministry, by way of preaching, which he refused; and this i doubt not he will testify. and further, to make it appear, that i desired not to be their pastor, being conscious to myself of the weight of that work, and my unfitness in divers respects, i did (in an occasional discourse with some of them) declare my unfitness, which is so true, that one of them (now a quaker) did since (by way of reproach) upbraid me with my own acknowledgement, so that then i had no intention of joining with them; and since that, i gaining further light, in matter of churches, and their appendent questions, and they drawing more and more towards anabaptism, i more and more declined, and disowned them. and whereas he says, i became an adversary to separated churches, when the state of things were changed: i ask, to what were the times changed? or from what? not from that way of separated churches, but more to it: if i did it then, than i did it not to serve the times, but to secure my conscience. but wherein did i? or did i ever appear an enemy to separated churches? why doth he not show wherein? but of this, more in another discourse. and so much in answer to that lie of george, and his master dennis: another there is of the same forge, i am sure; and that he speaks to page 59 60. and again (being chafed with the business of the lord craven) page 109. where he joins them both together: the charge is this, from both places, that i earnestly solicited some then in power, for turning out of nicholas, one of my brethren, constant jessop, by name, for his differing in judgement in some particulars, urging as an argument for this purpose, that till then the city would not be in quiet, into whose place (by diligent seeking) i did climb, and domineered ever since over his people, and him, as the issue of that prosecution; and that i forced myself upon his people to this day, by procuring an order from above; and that thereby i got myself out of poor thomas, into rich nicholas. now this whole story is a most wilful mistake (as it's grounded upon what i urge, page 49. of my narrative) and in this i appeal to his light within; for that person (and thing) which he cannot but know i meant, was this, that hollister and his company (then domineering) threatened the magistrates, and the rest of the committee (who were not of their faction) that if they might not have him whom they sent for out of wales to be their teacher, one of no breeding, and that hath since often denied himself to be a minister, (and is now turned anabaptist) to be one of the public lecturers in the city, they would turn out of the city a godly and orthodox minister, who had been imprisoned, and suffered much more than any of them, (for his good affection to the parliament) he differing that time in judgement in some particulars, and so they had their end, which (as is well known) hath proved a reproach and scandal to this city, from many strangers that come hither, and take notice of it. now this person (he knows very well) was master paul, for as for mr. jessop, he was never committed to prison upon my occasion: is this man now a true convert? is he not a manifest prevaricator? and did he it not on purpose to bring in that lie, and malicious slander of his fellow hollister? whom to be a liar, a piece lately published by those who were his fellow-members (with his teacher aforesaid) doth amply testify; the church of christ in bristol recovering her vail. and which i myself also have had sufficient experience of oftentimes, insomuch that i desired one, a minister of this city (who was then wont sometimes to visit him) to tell him from me, that his shop was a forge of lies: and for the matter of mr. jessop, i shall give a true and full account of it (so far as concerns myself) thereby to discover these liars to the world. it's well known (up on the death of the late king) what endeavours there were by the then parliament, for settling the nation in peace: in order whereunto, there was an engagement drawn up, and required to be subscribed by all persons: and it is as well known in this city, how opposite master jessop, aforesaid, (together with that other brother) was thereunto; and what expressions, concerning that matter, were used by them, both in prayer and preaching, i need not mention: by which means there was much averseness in many of this city to this settlement, they being honest men, and having a great influence upon the people: at this, i (thirsting for a settled peace) was much offended, and did endeavour, with themselves, privately to take off their opposition, and publicly to settle the people, declaring my dislike of their do. with this, and the like expressions: that if they (the preachers) did apprehend those actions of state (whereby they endeavoured a settlement) as evil, they should go up to westminster, and declare it to those who had the power, and not trouble the people with those things, which they had no ability to amend, or power to withstand; and for that their do would but raise an impotent disgust and opposition, with the public prejudice; further, telling them of an evil which i had formerly observed, and was now by them practised, that men would preach court sermons in the city, and city sermons at court, which i conceive an unprofitable kind of preaching, when our sermons are not suited to the capacity and condition of our auditors. and indeed, as to the matter also, i always conceived it, (and do still) as savouring too much of the beyond-sea temper, for ministers to meddle with state matters: of which see a large discourse, entitled, a case of conscience, concerning ministers, meddling with state matters; in, or out of their sermons, resolved more satisfactorily than heretofore, which was then written by mr. john dury, one of the assembly of divines, a man of a peaceable and public spirit, and one with whom bishop hall, and bishop davenant, had several endeavours formerly, for settling peace in the churches; which book was licenced by mr. joseph carril▪ containing about twenty five sheets of paper; sold at the star in cornhill, 1650. but to go on, they st●● persist in their way, during which time, mr. craddock coming to this city, and lodging (as i was informed) at hollisters, i went thither, (which i seldom used to do) to desire mr. craddock to preach for me at thomas; but he not being then within, and staying for him, hollister, and myself, talking of the times, and several matters, and (among others) of their oppositions in public, i did then say, it was not fit to be suffered, so to hinder a settlement, and to alienate men's affections; and this was all, and this (as you see) but occasional: and before that special occasion was given by mr. jessop himself, for his removal, in a sermon which he preached afterwards, upon which, and for which, he was outed; and of which, i knew not, nor had any hand in, one way, or other, either by writing, speaking, or suggestion to any person what soever: nor did i ever speak with hollister at any time, after that occasional discourse, aforesaid, concerning it; and what i did speak, having respect to that other brother, as well as mr. jessop; which outing and banishing from the city, was so far from my expectation, and seemed to me so rigorous, that i publicly taxed and declared against their hard dealing, as is (i doubt not) well known to divers that heard me, the notes whereof i have still by me; so that my declaring against their rigorous and harsh prosecutions, raised the spleen of that froward adversary hollister against myself, and procured that scandal upon me; i confess i then thought it fit they should be silenced from opposing authority, and hindering (as much as in them lay) the settlement of the peace of the nation; (whereof this city is no inconsiderable parcel) but banishment from it, was far from my thoughts. and whereas my adversary alleges, that i urged as an argument to this purpose, that till then, the city would not be in quiet: if he say that i used these words to hollister, (for i never spoke with any other, nor him, other than as aforesaid) it is very false: but this i acknowledge, some of these words were spoken by me, to, and mistaken, (to say no more) by mr. jessop himself, upon this occasion. a few days before the time allotted for his departure, i met him upon the tolzey, and supposing that much of hollisters heat against him, was for his zealous asserting of presbyterial discipline, in opposition to independency, (of which he had treated much in his lectures) i endeavoured to persuade him to an accommodation and compliance, (as not thinking the quarrel worth so much contention) and offering myself to mediate between them; (as being indifferent in that matter) but m. jessop stiffly persisting in his way, (and knowing hollisters temper, who was then in his heights) i told mr. jessop, that then there was no quietness to be looked for among us, which words, how they have been misapplied by some, let it be considered by them who are concerned. and for mr. jessop, i desire him to remember, that he and i parted not in discontent each with other, which no rational man will conceive could be, if i had spoken those words in such a manner as i am charged. and master jessop may further remember, (if he please) that i went to mr. young's to speak with mr. ingelo, (who was there at a marriage that morning) to procure him to mediate the matter, in behalf of mr. jessop, for his continuance, but mr. ingelo was (a little before) gone his journey towards london, so that my intention was frustrate, and (as i perceived afterward) would have been so, notwithstanding▪ for i after understood, the quarrel was old, and inveterate against him in special, as appeared by their violent prosecution. for whereas his sentence was, to departed ten miles off the city, they followed him, with their rage, as far as tewksbury, thirty seven miles distant, hindering there his entertainment; which dealing of theirs so far provoked my spirit, (in his behalf) as that i drew their odium upon myself, as aforesaid. and whereas it's further charged, that i did promote the outing him, to in myself into nicholas, and that i forced myself upon them, and that i procured an order, etc. this is so false, that there is not the least shadow of truth in it, more than this, that i am now in. but it's well known (and will be acknowledged) that above half a year (and more) after mr. jessop was gone, and the church lay void; and notwithstanding i was divers times desired by some of the parishioners to preach the tuesday lecture, and sabbath-day lecture, and it was near a year after he was gone, ere i accepted it. or either; i refused it, and did endeavour to settle myself at the college, (as being loath to take a pastoral charge) which thing by the help of mr. aldworth, and mr. hodges, (and other friends of mine in the then parliament) i did effect and compass, and had 150. pound per annum, settled upon me by order, and which is since still paid to him who doth there officiate; and one sermon i preached in order to it; whereupon the chief of the parish of nicholas (perceiving i would remove from thomas) the occasion i will not mention, because i am not willing to offend any: they calling a vestry, sent the principal of them unto me, to desire me to come to them, which i (acknowledging their love and respect) refused; but they still urging me, i took time to consider, and about a week after they came unto me again accordingly, and obtained their desire; and afterwards they drew a petition, subscribed by them, and many of the parishioners, intending to present it to the committee here, for my establishment; and understanding that this committee here, had no power to do it, they sent up to the committee above, and effected it; and since i am (in a sort) enforced to it, i shall declare the two principal reasons of my acceptation: the one was, i was persuaded by them, (and many other of my friends) that in regard most of the inhabitants near and about the college, were persons of another judgement than myself, in civil matters, i should have little converse or comfort among them, but rather the contrary; nay, some did suggest to me, that my settlement there, was procured by some who bore me no good will, on purpose to make me weary, and so to leave the city; but that i satisfied them, the matter was of my own seeking, and endeavour; and the other reason was, that going so far out of the city, i should not have any opportunity of any church communion, and christian fellowship, with any considerable number, of which i was convinced to be a duty, although i was then unwilling to undergo the burden of a pastor. and indeed, considering that some honest-hearted christians in thomas parish (with whom i had there communion) did still desire it; and hoping that divers of nicholas, (having formerly been exercised in it) i should find them more comfortably complying, than those who had been a long time strangers to it, i did the more willingly embrace it; but as for the advantage, in removing from poor thomas, to rich nicholas, (as the calumniator phrases it) let him, and the world know, that upon these grounds i removed from the rich college, to poor nicholas; nor was it the poverty of thomas (though poor enough) that made me leave them; nor was it (or could it be) filthy lucre, or sordid covetousness, that drew me to nicholas, which could by no reasonable man be imagined, would amount to what was settled upon me at the college. and since i must boast, (but 'tis to secure the credit of my ministry, that it suffer not damage in any thing, i will do it a little further. (having good witness of the truth on't) after i had consented to come to nicholas, and came to give them a meeting at their vestry; although i knew, that with much difficulty they raised, what some of them had engaged unto by bond, to m. jessop, and which, as i have heard, was not above eighty pound per annum; yet when they asked me, what would content me for my labour, so far was i from seeking myself, as that i told them, i would not make a bargain for preaching the gospel, but that i would do my duty, and leave them to do theirs; and how richly it hath been performed by them, (i speak not of all) i am ashamed to mention: sure, not beyond poor thomas, nor so much (by two parts in three) which m. jessop now reaps, as i am informed; and which place was settled upon him, upon my commendations of him to m. strong, at westminster, and which m. strong intended to let him know, had he not been prevented by death, heu premature, if he hath not done it formerly: but much good may it do him, and much good may he do them: i envy no man's gain or preferment; nor will the inhabitants of nicholas say, i contend with them in that matter, although i have cause enough to take notice of their neglect (yea, and sin) in this particular. for i dare say, there are few handicraft's men that work upon so small encouragement; for, i suppose, their calling feeds their family. i have been the large in this matter, because some persons are, and have been as willing to take up, and spread this lie and calumny, as others have been to raise, and make it: and truth it is, i should hardly have undertaken to answer his railing pamphlet, but to satisfy the world in these two last particulars, and to wipe off the aspersion of base forgery, which my soul abhors; and to make good what i promised, concerning the discovery of this quaker, to which i'll hasten with all expedition. as for his charging of several trades upon me, it is but the licks up of the excrements of william erburies' black pudding, a book so called, written by w. erbury, wherein he would prove me to be a black pudding: in which foolish pamphlet, most (if not all) of these things are. whereby, i see, george was very hungry, and wanted matter to feed upon, being, it seems, troubled with that disease, which physicians call, caninus appetitus, the doglike appetite, which makes them huge greedy, and to catch at any thing; but i wish his after-mess may do him more good, than the pudding itself did erbury: for a few days after he had published it, he went home, and died; whether he died for shame, or what it was, i know not, nor dare i say this was the cause, or occasion of it; no, god forbidden, i should presume to meddle with the secrets of the almighty, or to judge any man: but i mention this, because a harebrained fellow came (as himself said) to revenge erburies' death upon me, which i no ways promoted; but probably this poor fellow might take up the thoughts, upon what he might hear some sober persons speak of it: but be it what it will, george, it seems, having swallowed it, must vomit it up again the second time, that the world may see his foul stomach. but, see how the vapours of it (whilst there) had corrupted his brain, and be fooled his intellectuals? did ever any man in the world understand, being a member of an independent church, or of a presbyterian church, to be a trade? and it is a trade, when a man in the former troubles engages, for a time, in some public service, (as most active spirits did) and then lay it aside: is this a trade? how many trades has george had then? and for a man living in the country (as i did) to practise physic, (being thereunto lawfully licenced by the university of cambridge, upon trial, and examination) i say, for a man so living in the country, (and having a house fitted for such a purpose, no other convenient house being there to be had for a pleasant dwelling) is it a trade, if a man make malt there for a time? doth not many a gentleman, many a minister do so? and did i not (so soon as i could get there a more pleasant dwelling) give it over? and being a physician, do men call that a trade? or is it a trade (being so) to apply one's self to the ingenious experiments of chemistry, in order to the enabling himself to deal in his profession, with more security and understanding? (without which, physicians are no better than empirics) or is it a trade, if a man living in london, (as a physician) the earl of berkshire keep an office in his house, for that which is not a monopoly, but a privilege granted to him by the law of the nation, and no man forced (nor attempted to be forced) to it; no, nor intended to be forced, which i know, and write for the honour of that noble and ingenious earl, under whom i had no employment in it, be having his clerks, and registers, and other agents under him? and for the other things mentioned, are they trades? are they mechanical? are any bound apprentices to them? are they handicrafts men? are they not callings and employments for persons of liberal, and (in some measure) learned educations? the meanest of them, (i mean, in respect of abilities) is that of chamberlain; and of my desire to it, i may possibly elsewhere give an account, in another discourse, upon another occasion, (if god permit) and yet that is not a trade neither, but, as he himself calls it, an office, and not unworthy of an ingenious person; so that none of all these are trades, nor were they, nor are they any calling, the honourable calling of the ministry excepted: of my call and entrance whereunto, i shall (i hope by god's blessing) give a satisfying account to the world: and as for the other, which i only own as my calling, (in reference to my first employments) i look not on them as several callings, having all relation to one and the same office; namely, the chancery; in the last whereof, viz. one of the clerks of the chapel of the rolls, (if the lord had not designed me to another, and better employment, and driven me thence by a long and consuming sickness, which drove me into the country, and set me upon the study of physic) i had abode, and continued: but both in that, and the former, which he terms a subscriber in the six clerks office; (which is a notorious lie) for though there be subscribers there, yet i was never one of them, (having never been any man's servant) i say, in both those places, i kept my clerks under me, being liberal employments, wherein men of the best rank in their countries, (some of them esquires, and justices of the peace) had a station. and as for the first, which i reckon as the meanest, which he lyingly and reproachfully calls a ticket-maker, in the subpen: office, (there being no such distinct employment there) but that george had a spiteful and rancorous stomach; i was not then and there so inconsiderable a person, but that a gentleman of the six clerks office, who knew me well, and who had but one only daughter, and heir to a hundred marks per annum, free-land, bestowed her in marriage upon me; and that not by stealth, or unwillingly, but upon writings between us, with whom we lived afterward in house together, till he died, and then made me executor of his estate personal. but here we may see, how malice will multiply; and that george's measure of perfection (both in wit and honesty) is very small: nor doth all this any whit take off the exception against mechanical undertakers, who from either cobbler's stalls, or tailor's shop-boards, step up into the pulpit, without any just call, or competent abilities, (either natural, or acquired) but a good memory, whereby they can only deliver, what they have from other men's sermons, not being able to maintain what they say, more than another well instructed and ordinary christian may do, which yet is not sufficient for a minister; and should such a ministry be countenanced, (to the disparagement of learning) farewel religion to the next generation; which not sober and understanding christian, but will have respect unto, and which, no doubt, the jesuits look at; and therefore have no little influence in upholding ignorant and unlettered persons among us. but now after all this lying story of so many trades, i'll tell one story (but a short one) which this occasioned. one telling a gentleman (a justice of peace) who hath known me long, and my manner of living, of this passage of george's, charging so many employments upon me, in such a ridiculous way; (by numbering them up) yea, but says the gentleman, can captain bishop say that mr. farmer had played the knave in any of them all? and he knows george almost as well as i do. and now (as in my narrative, page 37. 38.) and he in his throne of lies, page 95. 96.) behold the imposture, and the impostor, george bishop (whose name i am loath to fully my ink and pen with) but i must crave leave to do it: him whom they call captain bishop. this man (notwithstanding the former letter of defiance against naylor) is charged by me with complying with naylor, because he writ a letter in his behalf to some in the parliament; and thereupon i charge him with collusion and juggling. and how doth he discharge it? why truly, (like himself) doing the same thing again, by feigning, foisting, and packing (at which he is non-parel) i hope he hath not his fellow in england: and thus he doth it, he feigns (upon information, as he pretends, but who informed him, he doth not tell us, whether his own spirit, or any other) that the mayor, aldermans, etc. had prepared a petition, intended to be presented to the parliament, concerning naylor; (which is true) wherein we (saith he) who in scorn by the world are called quakers, are highly charged and accused: if he mean himself and fox, it is a lie; for they are so far from being highly charged and accused, as that they are not therein charged, or accused at all: and he desires his friend (if he be free) to move, that the accusers, and the accused, may be heard face to face, lest the parliament should condemn the accused unheard, upon the bare accusation of their adversaries: and then he says, what a sad thing that will be, if they should slay the innocent, and the righteous. and this is the effect of the letter. now, who are they that are accused? none but james naylor, and his crew; not any of his (we) fox, etc. unless they will thrust in themselves against our mind and meaning. and to that end, see the petition itself, as it was sent up to london. the humble remonstrance and petition of the mayor, aldermans, and common-councel, of the city of bristol, together with the ministers of the gospel, and other chief inhabitants, who desire to fear god, and love our lord jesus, in sincerity, in the same city. shows, that we (especially the magistrates) have with much regret and sadness of spirit) lain long under much reproach and ignominy, occasioned by the increase of a generation of seduced and seducing persons among us, called quakers, who at first were supported and upheld by some soldiers, then in chief command, in the absence of the governor of the garrison; the wickedness of which sort of men, hath not in our nation, as we know of, been formerly heard of, and so destitute of a law to punish, and restrain; and therefore have not been able to suppress. and whereas we have waited long for some directions to that purpose, (being unwilling to run upon unknown precipices) these people have strengthened, and encouraged themselves in their iniquities, upon some pretended countenance from thence, where we cannot suppose it. so that although we could, and did (yet with some difficulty) punish, and thereby (in some measure) hinder their open and frequent disturbances of our public worship; we had not power to silence their blasphemies, nor restrain their confused and tumultuous meetings, although they tended to the high dishonour of god, in their unchristian principles, and practices (too well known) and in profaning the sabbath, by multitude of their proselytes, flocking from all parts of the country round about us, upon that day. but now, so it is, that one james naylor (a most eminent ringleader, and head of that faction) hath lately appeared here among us, more high than ever, in horrid and open blasphemies, expressly avowed and owned by his nearest followers, as that he is the only begotten son of god; and that there is no other than he; that he is the everlasting son of righteousness, and that in him the hopes of israel stands; that he is the king of israel, and prince of peace; and calling him, lord and master, saying, his name shall be no more called james, but jesus. all which, are no other, than the natural issue of their scripture-denying principles. and now we, desiring to follow the ductures of divine providence, which hath brought their iniquity to a height, at such a time as this is, when the legislative power of the nation is fitting, in whom it is, to provide wholesome and good laws against the growing evils of the times, wherein the lord eminently (in our apprehensions) calls for your zeal for his glory: we humbly make our applications to your honours, and with profession of our abhorrency, and utter detestation of the damnable and blasphemous doctrines of the quakers, which tend, in their own nature, to the utter ruin of the true christian religion, and civil government, both in cities, families, and all relations; (as would too soon appear, had they power in their hands) and who now, (not as heretofore, tacitly, and by way of implication, but) openly and expressly dishonour that sacred name, by which we are called, and trample upon that blood, by which we are justified, by making others sharers with him, in his incommunicable excellencies. and do therefore humbly pray, that your honours would now take up the reins of government into your hands, (which have too long lain lose) in this particular; and to curb the insolences of all ungodly persons, who in this, (or any other way) do, or may eclipse the glory of our christian profession, by their unbridled and licentious liberties, that so the reproach, not only of this city, but of the whole nation and government, may be rolled away: and the glory of this work (being acted by your hands) might render your names worthy to be enroled amongst the number of those faithful confessors, to whom the honour of our dearest lord hath been more precious, than their lives, and all worldly enjoyments: and we shall daily pray, etc. so that here you see, george can make, and feign an occasion, to usher in his friendly letter in naylors' behalf, and yet would not seem to own him; this is not the first of george's collusions and packing in this kind: i'll but mind him of the like practice, and that was about our burgesses chosen for the parliament, 54. where having framed a petition against the election, putting to the hands of several persons that knew not of it, (in a base and wicked way) as was proved to the lords of the council. besides this piece of knavery, (which was most gross) their petition presented to his highness, and his council, with their narrative of the proceed in that election, petitioned, that the parties nominated by them, might be approved and established: and who were they, but george himself for one? as by their narrative, art. 5. appeareth. now when they thought to have surprised us, by short summons, to appear before the council, (as one of their own party acknowledged afterwards) and supposed we would not appear, or not provided, which contrary to their expectation, we were, (having gotten copies of their petition and narrative before hand, and so were fitted accordingly) when we came to the hearing, they had foisted in another petition, not that which was presented with their narrative: and in this second, there was no petition to confirm himself, as the former: (with reference to the narrative as aforesaid, prayed) and then george; very finely, with his guilt sword, did not appear there (as he said) for himself, but for those honest men that were with him. seriously you would have smiled (knowing of him) how demurely, and how simply honest he did look. now this trick george we took notice of; but never told you of it till now▪ (having enough else to lay you then) but now we tell you of it, that you may see we know you better than you are ware of. and that the world may know further, what a one you are, i'll acquaint them with one thing more: do not you know who it was, that a little before that election, said, that we must choose such parliament men, as should hold my lord protectors nose to the grindstone. and yet see how this lamentable creature doth gloze and glaver, and cog, and fawn, and flatter, speaking against the very light within him. and this is in their said petitions, which that you may see that base practice, and the high conceits of himself, and his party, as the only saints, and fit for quakers, i'll lay before you. to his highness, oliver, lord protector of the commonwealth of england, scotland, and ireland, etc. the humble petition of divers free burgesses, and inhabitants of the city and council of bristol. shows, that your petitioners; and divers other burgesses and inhabitants of the city and council of bristol, viz. the generality of the godly, faithful, and constant friends to the parliaments interest, came to the place, and at the time appointed by the sheriffs, for the choosing of burgesses to sit in parliament, according to the qualifications, in the instrument of government, supposing, that those that had been faithful to the cause of god, and the nation, should have received countenance, and have been owned by those who were to execute your highness commands, in a business of so great weight and concernment, as the election of burgesses to sit in parliament; for the carrying on, and securing the common interest of liberty contended for, and brought through (by the good hand of the lord) such seas of blood, and multitudes of other unspeakable sufferings, and ruins of the saints, and good people of the nations, amongst whom, 〈◊〉 your petitioners, and their friends, have borne no small share and propertion. that contrariwise, they found those, who all along, both in principle and practice, have bitterly opposed the cause of god, (in the behalf of the late king, and your petitioners, and other their friends, from prosecuting the same) countenanced, and encouraged to avote, and undertook by the sheriffs to be born out in so doing; and your petitioners, with other friends, with a very high hand affronted, abused, threatened, and some or them (though rightly qualified) denied to vote, as by the narrative of proceed hereunto annexed more particularly, may appear; to which your petitioners humbly refer your highness, as that which they own, and are ready to make good. that your petitioners being greatly astonished, and afflicted in spirit, at these proceed, especially upon the sheriffs, declaring, that what they did in point of election, (contrary to the express words of the qualification in the instrument of government) was the judgement of your highness' council, (which they cannot believe, but hope, and are confident to find the contrary) did divers of them several times, object and protest against such elections; but all proving in vain, the scorn and confidence of the cavalier party increasing, (who carried things so, as if there were no such thing as a commonwealth, or your highness being chief governor, but as if charles stewart were again enthroned in the sovereignty of this nation) before the first, whom your petitioners nominated for them, was gone through, protested to the sheriffs against such the elections, and departed immediately out of the hall. and your petitioners bowels being even pressed down with grief, knew not where (as to ●men) to ease their hearts, but in pouring forth their groans and sighs into to your highness' bosom, whom they have (with the hazard of all that is dear unto them, and with much resolution and unweariedness owned in all your excellent undertake, for the true interest of the commonwealth, against this very generation of men, whom in the time of parliament, durst not show their teeth; and now, when your highness rules, (in whose government your petitioners expect them most to be kept under) seem to prevail, and do triumph over your petitioners, who have been owned and preserved, by the presence of the lord of hosts, as a bush unconsumed in the midst of the burning, etc. if therefore it shall please our god, to stir up your bowels within you, to be affected with these proceed, and your petitioners condition, which indeed concerns your own being, for their enemies are yours, and so you will find it, if providence should ever give an opportunity: then your petitioners shall humbly pray, that the election made, and intended, to be returned by the sheriffs, may be null and void, and that the persons nominated, and chosen by your petitioners, may be approved and established; and such other provisions made by your highness, as may testify the earning of your heart towards, not only your petitioners, but the faithful in these nations, whom these things do generally concern; if otherwise, behold your petitioners, and their friends, are in the hands of the lord, and let him do with them whatsoever is good in his sight. now reader, say, did ever man meet with such an hypocrite; carrying two faces under one hood, in this manner? what a monster would this man appear to be, if one should but open the carcase of this base petition, and let the world know the truth of things, as we in this city know it? the generality of the godly, faithful to the cause of god, the saints, and good people of the nation, amongst whom the petitioners, and their friends, bore no small share. these are the epithets of himself, and the petitioners; now i will not name them, because peradventure some of them are, or may be honest hereafter. but countrymen, and fellow citizens, you know them all: and say, would not you think the worse of yourselves a good while after, if you should be found in the company of many of them: i speak to you of my countrymen, who are not atheists, ranters, church, and ordinance-forsakers, and haters, drunkards, whoremasters, sots, and scoundrels: to you i speak, would you not blush to be found among such saints? oh how easy it is to become a saint? 'tis but petitioning for george bishop to be a parliament-man, and then a saint presently; and than quakers (as many of them now are.) all these saints came together, to the business of so great weight and concernment, as the election of burgesses to sit in parliament, for the carrying on, and securing, etc. so the petitioners, and one of the men to do it, and that these saints had nominated (which was only in their purpose) not so much as nominated in the place of choosing, lest they should have been laughed out of it: and as in their petition (as they say chosen) which is a manifest falsehood, was this st. george; oh high arrogance, impudence! i want words: what a frontless man was this, to have such a conceit of himself? and how sottish and simple were these fellow-saints, as once to think, that the inhabitants of this city had so far forfeited their reason, and would so far forfeit their charter, as to choose such a one for such a work? as sure as can be, had we chosen him, my lord protector would have appointed a guardian over the city, as a company of lunatics and mad men. and see the unworthiness of this fellow, and the baseness of his spirit: in their petition they go on, (and you must suppose them to be in a meek, humble posture, with very meek and gentle hearts towards god, and his highness) your petitioners bowels being even pressed down with grief, know not where (as to men) to ease their hearts, (poor wretches) but in pouring forth their groans and sighs into his highness' bosom, whom they had owned, etc. for the true interest of the commonwealth, but now would hold his nose to the grindstone, as going about to promote a false interest. george, your countrymen know you well enough. but yet for all this, see how sweetly we express ourselves (not as hypocrites, who dissemble and flatter) and go on: if it shall please god (good hearts) to stir up the bowels (his highness) within you, to be affected with these proceed, (in putting by george from being a parliament-man) and your petitioners condition, which indeed concerns your own being, (yea, and it should appear so, had he and his complices power in their hands) for their enemies (i.e. georges, and the petitioners) are yours, and so you will find it, if providence should ever give an opportunity. but you george, (who i doubt not had the great hand in drawing this petition) you are a most special and loving friend to his highness: fie george, fie, wilt thou not blush when thou shalt think of thy fellow-citizens reading this petition, who know thee so well? i would not have taken this pains, but to let the world see, what saints you quakers are, being mindful of my title page, and promise. and now to go on, and see how george can free himself in the matter of the lord craven, which, says he, (page 98.) i seem occasionally to bring in, but chief intended, thereby to asperse his name, and wound his reputation; in that i say (page 37. of my narrative) that he was the great agent in breaking and tearing the lord cravens estate in pieces. why george? what is the matter? is it an aspersing of your name, and a wounding of your reputation, to say, that you were the great agent in breaking and tearing the lord cravens estate in pieces? doth it touch? are you sore thereabouts? (ah guilt, guilt! this worm of conscience.) but stand, stand i say, i must touch you, and handle you there a little more? possibly i may be instrumental for your good, to open the ulcer, and let out the corruption, which lying there in thy conscience, and impostumating, might destroy of a sudden. come, stand, better now than hereafter: oh! how should i rejoice, that i might be instrumental to help him to a sight of his sin, and so to true repentance? to proceed, the lord cravens estate is broken in pieces, that cannot be denied; but, says george, it was confiscated by act of parliament, and the act was not his, but theirs: and how can that act be charged upon me, who had not to do in the passing thereof? well, i shall show you how by and by: but in the mean time, let me ask you george, is it not possible, that a parliament (upon misinformation) may do that which in its self is unjust, and they not so in doing it? i pray god deliver this nation from the guilt of unjust actions, both in matter and manner. suppose you, (or such a one as you) having accidental discourse with another, about a third person, and he you discourse with, should let fall some words concerning that third person, which you at the present take no notice of, (or at least) seem not so to do, which yet you do; (for otherwise you cannot communicate them unto another) and those words you communicate to another; upon, and concerning which person, and words, you confer between yourselves; and apprehending they might bring some advantage to some body, (being well improved, and handsomely managed, having power in your hands) and so being ordered, you speak with your first man again, and form up his accidental discourse, which he judged not worth any thing (as to the prejudice of that third person, to injure whom, he was not bribed or corrupted, nor bore any malice towards) you draw up, i say, that discourse into an information of a crime, by handsome contrivance, reduce it into an oath, with your own hand, and thereupon form a charge against the third person, to the questioning both of his life and substance; and this charge you present to the parliament, and they take cognizance of it, and order it to be inquired into, and examination to be had upon it; and you (having the transacting of the whole business) so manage it, as that (it may be) it appears to them (by that which is before them) he is guilty, and so adjudge him: are they guilty who so adjudged him, although (possibly) he may not be guilty? no, surely, the guilt lies on those who misrepresent him unto them: you well know friend, that judges proceed not in judgement upon their own knowledge, they act (secundum allegata & probata) as things are proved unto them. and how many persons and estates have been ruined upon base, and wicked, and designed informations, is too well known to the world? and whereas you ask me, whether i have not been a solicitor for sequestrations in london, in the time of, and by authority of parliament. i answer, yes; and yet i can charge you for tearing and breaking in pieces men's estates; and do you, if you can, (or any man else) charge me for doing the like, and i'll make them restitution, whom i have so injured, if any such there be, as sure i am there is not. i'll tell you george, my business there, was not to be an informer against any man, neither did i so; nor was it to possess myself of any man's estate (either goods or money) the committee had both their collectors and treasurers to that purpose, i have sat there many a score of times chairman in that committee. as also the lord steel, now the lord chancellor of ireland) hath done the like; this hundreds (and many in this city) know: i was not their underling, or clerk, (as you were) to sit bare to your masters, they had several clerks (better, and honester than you) and under-clerks, to that purpose; not (george) my business was, to see right done between the parliament, and those who were their enemies, not to make them enemies, who were not, but to see justice done on those who were, according to information brought in unto them; and this is the rejoicing of my heart at this moment, even the testimony of my conscience, that i was always fearful of making those offenders, who were not; and if i inclined to any side, it was to the side of mercy. and i appeal to the god that searcheth hearts, that this honest and old principle (do as thou wouldst be done by) sat and wrought upon my spirit, when informations was brought before us: and i have often had this thought upon my soul, when men's whole estates have lain in question, and even bleeding before us; what would i have done, if this man's case had been mine own, or mine had been his: and accordingly i have had a respect unto them, so far as the business wherewith (upon oath) i was entrusted, would bear and permit me; and this not of fear, or favour, nor for gifts, or bribes, either before or after: i did not think all that might be gotten, either to myself, or the parliament, might be well gotten; i did always reckon, that injustice and oppression, was the way to bring guilt and judgement upon the parliament and nation, and to make all their endeavours frustrate, and to turn it into a curse: and i doubt, such as you, are not a little guilty of being jeroboams companions, who made israel to sin grievously, and this by false and perverted informations, and that such things were not unusual: and how much judges may be abused by base practices, if those who act under them deal not righteously: i could instance in several particulars, that came within my own knowledge, whilst i was in that committee, wherein had i readily complied with the commands of the parliament, and obeyed their orders, which had been sinisterly procured (by wicked suggestions of those, who sought their own advantages, and not the nations welfare) many innocent persons had been ruined: this to be a truth, i could (i say) make appear by several instances undeniable, but that i am loath to charge my discourse with any thing that is foreign, and that might make it unnecessarily tedious. and as for myself, (in respect of any gain that i reaped by that employment) let me tell you george, i did not make that my aim, i bless my god for it; nor can i (or any man else) say, that i have made any addition to my estate by it, either in land or money; for what i earned, i expended in their service; and this will appear to the world, when my god shall take me hence, of whom it will (or may) be said, as once was spoken of one i well knew, (who lived in an employment, by which many others grew rich) he was an honest man, for he died poor: this i speak, in respect of any addition to my estate, since that employment: no george, i have neither bishops, or deans and chapters lands, nor king or queens, or delinquents lands: and as for moneys, i am beholding to my friends to provide for my wife and children, so little have i been grasping after the world, whatever else may be mine infirmities otherwise; and whether you george can say this, doth appear to the world by your manner of living, (without your trade) which you would not do before, and by what will be declared afterward▪ and therefore to go on, whereas you charge me page 100 with light scoffing, and slanderous stuff▪ and that by dark intimations of the business of falconer, of set purpose to wound your reputation, and to reproach the truth which you witness. i shall now therefore (to do you right) speak no longer darkly, and by way of intimation, but expressly, plainly, in words at length, and not in figures, by which i suppose every one that runs may read what a saint you are, and what a truth you witness: but the proverb is here verified, like lettuce, like lips, a truth and witness well met; and because i would do you all the right i can, and for that possibly some may read mine, that will not read yours. i will here set down in your own words all you say for yourself in this matter, in your page 100 and 101. and then consider it: george's protestation in the matter of the lord craven. for the stopping of thine, and all slanderous mouths (say you) and the satis of such as desire not, nor delight in the defaming of others: i do declare in the presence of the lord, before whom i fear, who searcheth the heart, and tryeth the reins, and bringeth every work to judgement, that i am clear and innocent therein; nor have i used, nor do i know of any indirect proceeding, in that whole business of craven and falconer, nor done otherwise, than in the faithful discharge of my duty. and further, that during the time of my public engagements, (which have not been a few) and my whole conversation, as i have received mercy to have a witness, so have i born my testimony against unrighteousness and dishonesty (especially such as thou dost intimate) in whoever, as i have had opportunity, or have been called thereunto, neither fearing the face of any man, nor preferring my life, or outward concernments, to the clearing of my conscience therein, as is well known; unto which i have also the witness of him who is greater than all; and a large time of trial i have had, wherein i have neither wanted enemies for the sake of truth, nor thy malice and opportunity to lay to my charge, could they find, or were there any thing to be found to the contrary; and thus much to say thou hast compelled me: thus he. here is you see (reader) a bold, high, daring, confident appeal of his innocency, in the matter of the lord craven, and of his honesty and uprightness in all other particulars, in the time of his public engagements. now, what if it shall appear, (notwithstanding all this) that he (george bishop) who made this dreadful protestation, did not only know of indirect proceed in that matter, but that he also was one (a chief one) that used them, and that (as to this matter) falconer, who died in prison for perjury, was (in comparison of him) an honest and innocent person: if i say all this shall appear, will you believe, that he doth believe there is a god, that searcheth hearts, and tries reins, and brings every work to judgement? or can you be persuaded, that he rightly entertains that article of the resurrection, though he seems to do so. and before i give you an account of what i have to deliver unto you, that you may know the daring spirit of this man, and how little respect and reverence there is in him of the almighty; and that it is an easy and light thing with him, to make such appeals to god as this is. let me mind you of the like in that his pamphlet, which i think few men in the world (besides himself) would offer, and by that judge of this. whereas in my narrative, i charge him and hollister, and other of their relations and adherents, that they joined themselves to the wretched quakers upon faction, humour, and discontent. in page 44. he makes this appeal and protestation, another of george's protestations. i do here, for clearing of my conscience, and the satisfaction of all the sober-minded, to whom this may come, and for the stopping of thine and all slanderous mouths, in the dread and presence of the living and eternal god, who is judge of heaven and earth, before whose judgement-seat, thou, and we must all appear, that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, good or bad. in my own, and the name of those servants of the lord whom thou reproachest, declare and affirm, that neither faction, discontent, disaffected humour, pride, affected-singularity, (which are all of them thy slanders) nor any other thing, was the cause of our joining unto them. but having many of us, etc. and so goes on, speaking of waiting in the use of outward means, etc. how god had now visited them, by the ministry of these men, and how he had reached by his eternal power to that of himself in them, and so they became joined to the lord, and to the immortal word, etc. and seeing him who is invisible, etc. they hunger no more, nor thirst, nor wonder, as heretofore, etc. speaking highly of their high attainments, as if they were now perfect, so that neither faction, humour, pride, etc. nor any other thing, but the mighty and pure work of god, was the ground of their becoming quakers; so says george. but now if he were to be cleared by compurgators, (viz.) such as should upon their consciences affirm, that what he here says, they are persuaded is true, he would find very few (if any besides quakers) that would dare to do it. for suppose he might be believed for himself, who, or what man in the world (that truly fears god, and knows what it is to make appeals to his most glorious majesty, and with what righteousness and judgement it ought to be performed) would, or can dare to make such a protestation in the behalf, and in the name of others, as he here doth? if he had said, he had believed, or been persuaded, or the like, that they did it not upon such grounds, or motives, but upon a pure account, (which is impossible in this business) it had been tolerable, but thus expressly, fully, unlimitly, as fully for them (whose hearts he cannot know) as for himself, to call the living and eternal god to witness in this manner, argues him to be one of a presumptuous spirit. and for a further discovery of his atheistical impudence in this kind, do but read the report and judgement of those who were familiarly acquainted with hollister, for whom this daring man doth thus protest, he being by me charged in special for turning quaker upon faction and discontent, before ever i saw their book, which was but lately published; it is a book published by, and in the name of that church (as they call themselves) whereof he was a member, or rather master, till he fell away to the quakers, and drew away from them (as they say in their epistle to the reader) eighteen or nineteen with him; in the tenth and eleventh page of which book, they say, they did observe in what height of discontent he came home, (from that thing called a parliament) and continued in that posture (viz. of discontent) till a new religion came (which was the quakers) which (say they) presently, within few days or weeks, he embraced. so that i can (nor i think will any considering man) look upon him no otherwise than as one of those knights of the post, (as they call them) who will say or swear any thing; and this to let you see the spirit of the man. and now to proceed, he professes, and (as you see) boldly protests his innocency in the matter of the lord craven, and falconer; nor hath he used, nor doth he know of any indirect proceeding in that whole business. now that my reader (who is a stranger in this matter) may go along with me with understanding; i shall (as briefly as i can) lay the whole business before him: the lord craven (having been for many years (long before the troubles in england) resident in holland, and employed in their service) having a command under the prince of orange; the scots king going to breda, the lord craven came thither in attendance upon the prince of orange, during the scotch king's residence at breda, divers officers (soldiers) formerly in the service of the king his father (being in great distress, and like to perish) drew up a petition for relief of their necessities: now falconer aforesaid, having been a soldier (a major) in the parliament service, and being (as upon his deathbed he confessed) in a poor desperate condition, and going over to breda, (as a spy) strikes in with these cavaliers as one of them, and was entreated by them to draw the aforesaid petition, which he did; in drawing whereof, falconer moved, that they might petition the scotch king, that they might be entertained by him to fight against the commonwealth of england, by the name of barbarous and inhuman rebels; but those honest cavaliers answered, that they were soldiers of fortune, and it was uncivil language, and they would not have it in; and so the petition (being drawn up by falconer, according to their mind) was delivered to the scotch king, who, it seems, promised to consider them. about three weeks after, the scotch king (being to departed from breda next morning, these cavaliers)▪ not finding answerable relief, (according to the former petition, and the king's promise) they drew up another short petition, to put him in mind of his promise; and meeting the lord craven there, (who they knew to be a friend to soldiers) they entreat him to further that their petition, he knowing nothing of the former; nor did it appear that the lord craven promoted this second petition, which if he had, there was not any thing offensive: but the scotch king went away next morning, without giving any relief to the petitioners, as captain brisco, one of them sweats, at falconers trial, insomuch that falconer (being discontented that he got no moneys) said, (as he was going into the town) this is a horrid thing, that we should be in this case, to follow a thing, they call a king, goddam me, i will go into england, and do all the mischief i can, as col. drury (another of the petitioners) informed, at falconers trial: of which afterward. now that you may better know what a manner of person this falconer was, and how fit for any desperate undertaking; it was at his trial sworn against him, that he drunk a health upon his knees to the devil, in the open streets at petersfield; and that then he used these words, i have spent my brother's estate, and my own, i will never want money, for whilst there is any in the nation, i will get one way or other, and i will do something of infamy to be talked of, that the name of falconer shall never die. one james greham swore against him, that after the siege of exeter, in a cellar, there he the said falconer put into grehams' hand a two and twenty shillings piece of gold, swearing, damn him blood and wounds, he would bugger his soul to hell. another swore, that damn him, and sink him were his usual expressions. one bradley testified, that he heard falconer say, our saviour christ was a bastard, and a carpenter's son, and carried a basket of tools after his father: mr thomas dyer of bristol, (being produced as a witness) did declare, that falconer confessed to him, that he had ten pound of a man, by procuring one to personate captain bishop. thus a citizen desiring falconer to get captain bishop to do a business for him, he promised falconer twenty pound, ten pound in hand, and ten pound afterward; falconer got one to personate captain bishop, and to go along with him to the citizen, which man so personating captain bishop, promised the citizen (upon the account of major falconers good services for the public) to afford him his best assistance in effecting what was desired in his petition, and so falconer got the ten pound. it was also proved, that falconer was committed to goal, in the county of middlesex, for suspicion of felony; and thence, by order from the lord chief justice rolls, to newgate; and that he had been committed to ailsbury goal, upon suspicion of felony, robbery, and murder. now this falconer having been over at breda, (as v) and returning into england, george bishop (being clerk to the committee for informations) has to do with him, from whence he receives information of divers plots and designs of the adverse party to the parliament. but (to come to the business) the lord craven, (having a great estate in england of land, besides brave houses, one in particular, that cost twenty thousand pound the building, besides brave and gallant woods and timber) being thus beyond sea, and never acted against the parliament in arms, a long time after falconer had been over, and given in his informations, of enemy's actings; and having said nothing of, or against the lord craven, an information is drawn up against the said lord craven, in falconers name, as the informant, which is as followeth. falconers examination. who saith, that about a fortnight before the conclusion of the treaty at breda, the lord craven, the queen of bohemia, and her two daughters, came to breda, to the scots king charles, and went not thence till the king went to housleidike, a house of the prince of oranges; that during that time, this informant saw the lord craven divers times in presence with the said king, and every day with the said king at the court there, he being there with the queen of bohemia, and her two daughters, to take their leave (as they said) of the king of scots, before he went to scotland: that several officers, about thirty in number, made a petition to the said king, to entertain them to fight for him against the commonwealth of england, by the name of barbarous and inhuman rebels, either in england or scotland, for the recovering of his just rights, and reinstating him in his throne; and deputed this informant and colonel drury to present the said petition, who indeed drew the same, that when the informant, and some other officers came to the court at breda, intending to present the said petition immediately to the king's hand, but finding the lord craven very near to him, likewise the marquis of newcastle, who presented his brother, sir charles cavendish, to kiss the said king's hand, the evening before the said king's departure, who this informant saw kiss the king's hand accordingly: the lord wilmot, the earl of cleveland the queen of bohemia, the lord gerrard, etc. and a great bustle of business: this informant, with colonel drury, applied themselves to the lord craven, entreating him to present the petition to the queen of bohemia, to present it to the king of scots: the said lord craven taking the petition, and reading the same cheerfully, said to colonel drury, and this informant, there is the queen of bohemia, deliver it to her, and i will speak for you; upon which they applied themselves to the said queen, and she presented the petition; after which, the king of scots, the lord craven, the marquis of newcastle, the queen of bohemia, with some other lords, went into a withdrawing room, where this informant and company could not enter; but the lord craven came forth of the withdrawing chamber, and told this informant and company, that they should receive an answer from the queen of bohemia to their petition, and that he had spoken to the queen of bohemia in their behalf, who afterward came and told this informant and company, that she had delivered their petition, and that the king had taken order for it. the next morning, at three of the clock, the king departed; but this informant and company had their quarters satisfied by the princess of orange, according to the said king's order upon their petition, and thereby to enable them to follow the said king in the prosecution of these wars against the parliament of england, which was the effect of their aforesaid petition: that this informant saw the lord craven very often, and familiar with the said king, and enter with the said king into the withdrawing chamber, and stayed there the last night the said king was at breda, very late. richard falconer. to this were added these two following examinations. colonel hugh reyleys examination. who saith, that during the late treaty at breda, this informant did oftentimes see my lord craven with the now king of scots in his bedchamber, and also walked abroad with him, there being no man more conversant with the king than he: that the said lord craven, during the said treaty, did twice go to rotterdam, and dunhagh, and back again, being employed, as was commonly reported at court, there by the said king, that the said lord craven had a charge from the king to look to one mrs. barlow, who (as is reported) and he believes to be true, had a child by the king of scots, born at rotterdam, which he did; and after the king was gone for scotland, the said lord craven took the child from her, for which she went to law with him, and recovered the child, as is reported: hugh reyley. captain kitchingmans' examination. who saith, that the said captain thomas kitchingman, in april and may, 1650. saw the lord craven several times with the king of scots at breda, and waiting upon the said king several times at his table at breda. this informant also saw the earl of oxford, at the same time, with the king of scots at breda, waiting upon the said king at his table; and saw the lord craven, and the earl of oxford, many times going into the withdrawing rooms after the said king. this informant also saw the lord craven, and the earl of oxford, in a bowling-alley in breda castle, with the said king. tho. kitchingman. in these two latter examinations, reyleys, was but report. you see there was nothing that would render lord craven criminous. but upon this his estate was ordered to be confiscate, and afterward sold, and sold it was, and is, accordingly. of the endeavours of the lord cravens friends to prevent it, and what was agitated in parliament, i shall not mention, for that i refer the reader to a printed piece, entitled, a true and perfect narrative of the several proceed in the case concerning the lord craven, printed by r. white, 1653. now if this information of falconer be the only material testimony, upon which the lord cravens estate was sequestered; and that falconer in this information was perjured and forsworn, and this be a false information, than this will clearly follow, that there was indirect proceed in some body, in this business; and that this information of falconers was, and is false, and he perjured in it, and forsworn, appears by two most pregnant testimonies, neither of them to be denied. first, by his legal trial, and conviction. secondly, by his own confession on his deathbed: for falconers trial and conviction of perjury, (in, and for this very information) that appears by the records thereof; for the lord cravens friends preferred an indictment of perjury against him in the county of middlesex, which indictment was found against him, one sir henry blunt being foreman of the jury: delays were used to hinder falconers pleading to it, notwithstanding the prosecutors for the lord craven had procured a habeas corpus, to bring him to the bar to plead to the indictment, which he sailing, they procure another habeas corpus; he yet gets further time, and a peremptory day assigned by the court, or else judgement to be entered against him. and the very last day (when needs must) and not before, when the last rule was out, he pleaded, not guilty. now falconer having pleaded not guilty, a jury is summoned, council appear in the upper bench at westminster, mr. maynard, mr. hales, mr. twisden, mr. philip's, mr. baldwin, and mr. drury, for the commonwealth, and the lord craven; mr. windham, mr. letch, mr. lechmore, and mr. haggat, of council for falconer, where (upon five hours' debate) the said falconer was found guilty of perjury, in this very matter against the lord craven, the whole proceed whereof you have fully related in the narrative before mentioned. this trial and conviction of falconer, was may 20. 1653. hereupon falconer was committed to the upper bench prison in southwark, where he lay till he died. now for the second evidence of falconers perjury, in his testimony (upon which the lord cravens estate was sequestered and sold) you have here the sad and lamentable confession of poor falconer himself upon his deathbed, under his own hand and seal, confirmed in the presence of several credible persons, who were present with him on his deathbed, which is to the effect following. in the name, and through the gracious mercy of god, i richard falconer, being of sound memory and understanding, do under my own hand and seal, on my deathbed, make, and confirm this my confession, with a contrite heart and penitent soul, to the honour of my good god principally, and particularly concerning the lord cravens business. and first; i confess i have sinned grievously against my god, in taking my oath upon his holy testament, that all my information was true; for after a twenty week's sickness this was done, my body being low, and in much haste, being much enfeebled, and above three quarters of a year after i came over sea; so that i here solemnly protest, that i did not then absolutely remember, whether the words, barbarous and inhuman rebels, were expunged; and these words, being once named by me, they were as quickly inserted, and i (the lord pardon me) swore it; but since i really remember, those words were put out of the petition, and the petition which drury produced in the upper bench court, was the true and right petition: drury did say, that the lord craven would not be seen to deliver such a petition, but he would speak to the queen of bohemia. i did not hear the lord craven say this. i sinned, swearing the lord craven said so, when as drury told it me. and truly these great sins, since they perfectly came to my memory, and to touch my conscience, have woefully perplexed my soul, so, that i many times wished that the lord would expiate them, by taking my life away, and granting me repentance and pardon, through the merits and sufferings of my lord and saviour jesus christ, the which the lord for his mercy's sake vouchsafe to grant. amen. and here i utterly renounce all books and pamphlets writ by me, or any one in my vindication, and especially a late pamphlet sent to me by captain bishop. the cause of my writing that pamphlet, was the shame and disgrace of the world, which i feared then, more than the provoking of my good god: besides, other under actors told me, until i did that, i could not think my friends would supply me, as they would, if that were done; liberty and money were falsely promised me. and whereas it was sworn in court, that i was employed, i here protest before the almighty god, that i never undertook any employment, nor ever any one motioned it to me, or i to any; but i went over in a poor desperate condition, supported by others. and here i dare not say that any one bribed me, no, none did, but i was hastily, after a great sickness, provoked to it; and when i made a demur at the words, barbarous and inhuman rebels, captain bishop said, if you leave that out, you do nothing: so i let it pass, being speedily brought before the committee, where i falsely swore it. true, i had done great services for them, but not by employment, and captain bishop kept me low with small pittances, so that i was at his bow, etc. richard falconer. an advertisement to the reader. reader, i thought here to have given thee in, the attestation of this confession and acknowledgement, who were present when it was signed: also some further testimony of other practices of this quaker; and how poor falconer to his dying day, cried out against that rogue bishop, (for so it is languaged to me.) but in regard the hearing of the lord cravens case in parliament, is not yet past, (although they have taken cognizance of it already, and have appointed to enter further upon it, the beginning of their next session) i shall therefore forbear, not doubting thou wilt hear further of it, by some hand or other. so that here is (you see) manifestly, undeniably, unjust proceed: here is perjury proved, and confessed: what's this to captain bishop? he declares in the presence of the lord, before whom he fears, and who searcheth the heart, and tryeth the reins, and brings every work to judgement, that he is clear and innocent therein; and that he hath not used, nor doth he know of any indirect proceed in this whole business of craven and falconer. well, god send him a good deliverance, at the day of judgement; and to that end, i hearty beg for him the grace of true repentance, and pardon, through the blood of christ, shed at jerusalem. and to further this work for his conviction, we shall endeavour to try, and examine him here; and clear i am, that if any jury in the world (of discreet, sober, impartial and understanding men) were to pass upon him, they would give in this verdict, that he (george bishop) doth know of many indirect proceed, in the matter of the lord craven and falconer; and that he (george bishop) himself hath used them; and that therefore he is not clear and innocent in this matter. and now hear the evidence, this book was written by george, partly to testify the proceed against the lord craven to answer the narrative, and to justify falconer. there is a book published, entitled, the lord cravens case, as to the confiscation and sale of his estate, by judgement of parliament related, and argued, and objections answered on the behalf of the commonwealth, together with a short examination of a certain pamphlet, entitled, a true and perfect narrative of the several proceed, in the case concerning the lord craven, etc. which is the narrative before quoted, wherein are all the proceed against falconer. now this book (the lord cravens case, etc.) was printed by william du-guard, 1653. and that this book was written by george bishop himself, i suppose he will not deny, though no name be to it; the book is said to be written on the behalf of the commonwealth, and this expressed in great characters: i would now but ask george this question, why he (of all men in the world) being but a clerk or secretary (call him what you will) to a committee, should undertake this private and personal quarrel against the lord craven, in the behalf of poor perjured falconer, and the commonwealth? i should think, that a clerk or secretary, (if an honest man, and impartial) when he had performed the d●●● of his place, should have sat him down, and not espouse any personal quarrel (unless he were particularly concerned in it) but says george, that pamphlet tends to the blemishing of the parliament, and their ministers; so he, page 1. of his book (for so i shall call it all along, as i have occasion to quote it;) and therefore he puts pen to paper, and writes that book. mark, the parliament, and their ministers, are blemished: who those ministers are, (at least one) we shall see anon; 'tis the securest way to save ones ears, to join in the ministers of the parliament, with the parliament itself: but the parliament may be honest, though their ministers may be knaves; and therefore george presently says, that that book of his, is not purposely to apologise for the parliament; well then, it is for some body else, he would not have writ it to no purpose: but why not for the parliament? why, says he, 'tis a thing needless among true english men, mark here, george would have actions of parliament so highly re●enced, that none might question this business. who are used highly to reverence actions of parliament, etc. sure george 〈◊〉 no● say, that parliaments are so infallible. but we'll take it for granted, that this apology is not for the parliament, but for their ministers; but who, or what are they? sure it is some 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉? some busy bishop in another man's diocese, so the word signifies; 1 pet. 4. 15. but 'tis rendered in our translation, a busy body in other men's matters, matters they should not have meddled in: but who is it? why, 'tis george bishop, busy george bishop, who had the transactions of all that business. so he says himself, page 14. line 25. of his book, two or three lines before, he hath these words, how dare any thus falsely, to charge a state with such gross wickedness. (as to corrupt falconer; though captain bishop himself writ the book, yet he speaks, as if it were written by another, and so plays behind the curtain, which let the reader remember for his better understanding what i quote from that book of his. he means) and then goes on, but as there was not a tittle produced to prove corruption, malice, or wilfulness, in the said falconer, against the said lord, so captain bishop, who had the transactions of all that business, upon his oath, cleared him of all. these are george's words. well then, stop a little here, and (though we break order in the form of proceed in legal trials) you gentlemen of this jury, who are to give your verdict, in this matter of george bishop, i pray take notice; geo. you see, upon his oath, (it was at falconers trial) clears falconer of corruption or malice against the lord craven, poor man, he intended no such thing at first against him; no, falconer was altogether a stranger to the lord craven, and since he came over, he confessed to some of good credit, that the lord cravens deportment at breda (where this horrible treason should be by him committed, and for which his estate is sequestered) was altogether inoffensive, as to the commonwealth of england; and that he (falconer) understood nothing of the said business, (namely, of that dreadful petition, for which he was so sequestered) more, than that a consideration was desired, to he had of the present wants and great necessities of the petitioners. this you have in the fourth petition presented to the parliament, on the behalf of the lord craven, in the narrative aforesaid, page 19 ay, these were their words, will george say. but i answer, they offered to prove them to the parliament, if they might have been admitted. but to second this, i'll show you what george himself says in his own book for falconers honesty, simplicity, and harmlesness, (as to the lord craven) and this upon bishop's oath, (if it be any thing worth) page 13. line the last but 10. he says, that when falconer gave him accounts of designs against the commonwealth, the same he hath again, in page 42, 43. he said nothing to him of the lord craven, nor of any thing of this passage of the petition; (upon which the estate was sequestered) nor notwithstanding many discourses with him, said he any thing, till about five months afterwards, and then but accidentally, not of his own accord; as page 43. captain bishop ask him, who were at breda with the king, not thinking of the lord craven, falconer reckoned the said lord amongst the rest, and being asked, said something of that business, which captain bishop not much valued then. thus he. how this was improved, you shall see afterwards; so that here falconer is cleared of any intention of mischief against the lord craven; the man (poor falconer) is yet honest in this matter. but yet you see, he was afterwards perjured and forsworn. how comes this about? oh see what a fearful temptation 'tis to be in poverty and want! it will put an honest heart into great straits. i now think upon that prayer of honest agur, (prov. 30. 8, 9) give me not poverty, lest i be poor and steal, and take the name of my god in vain: poverty is a sore trial, even to a good and honest heart; but when it shall meet with a wretched and profligate spirit, what will it not put him upon? i mind that dreadful expression of poor falconer, before expressed, whilst he was ranting and drinking healths to the devil, i have spent my brother's estate, and mine own, i will never want money, for whilst there is any in the nation, i will get it one way or other, and i will do something of infamy to be talked of, the name of falconer shall never die. oh how dreadfully did the lord say amen to this poor creature! and what a lamentable thing is it for such a poor wretch to fall into the hands of such as will make use and advantage of his low condition? why, you will say, what's the matter? do you ask what's the matter? look back upon falconers confession, and there he tells you, he was provoked to swear falsely: how? read the last words of his confession, captain bishop kept me low, with small pittances, so that i was at his bow. at his bow! what to do? he (falconer) made a demur at those words, barbarous and inhuman rebels, (whether they werein the petition or no, which he did not then remember, but now did) and so (it seems) scrupled to swear to them; and captain bishop said, if you leave that out, you do nothing; and (so says he) i'll let it pass: being speedily brought before the committee, where i falsely swore it; and concludes, captain bishop kept me low, with small pittances, that i was at his bow. what think you of this sirs? is this direct, just, honest proceed, to provoke a poor man in want to swear with a scrupling conscience, and to that which now appears to be false? he was resolved, it seems, he should swear something to the purpose. do you want any more evidence? this is enough, you will say, but if you have any more, produce it, and pray tell us, how do you conceive this game began? why, i'll tell you, what george himself says, as he goes on, in page 13. lines 3 last, and so on to 14; and the same also, page 42, 43. of his book, when falconer (as before) in that accidental discourse with bishop, (five months after falconers coming over) had mentioned the lord cravens being at breda with the king, and had spoken something of the petition, which made all this stir, which bishop said, he did not much value then. he goes on, and tells you, that though he did not much value it then, yet he acquainted some of the council of state therewith, and they ordered him (the said bishop) to ask him (namely falconer) further about it; who thereupon took his information; he (the said falconer) judging it then also (as geo. himself said) not to be worth any thing; poor falconer still continued his good opinion of my lord cravens innocency; but well (or ill) far a good (or a bad) head and heart, that can make something of nothing, and bring something (a great estate) to nothing; 'twas a huge sin to be so rich, and yield nothing but contribution to the parliament: who those were of the council of state that you (george) acquainted with it, if you did acquaint any with it, (for i know not how to believe you) i do not know. but sure they had more skill in chemistry than ever i had, or desire to have, that they could make so great a transmutation upon so little matter: i doubt they were some such as i met with, when i was in the chair of the committee for sequestrations, when an information being brought in against one, and the prosecutors pressed for a sequestration of his estate in london, (being money) the party living in the country; all that could be proved against him, was but words, declaring some malignancy of spirit against the parliament: some of the committee inclining to sequester him, i told them, that by our ordinance we could not do it, for words alone, without some action: what, (says one of the committee) the parliament wants money, and he hath it; but we stopped it; it's a dangerous thing to be rich in troublous times. but george, you would seem to put that which you looked upon as no great matter, (of which notwithstanding a great matter is made) you would put it upon some of the council of state: how the matter was secretly contrived, i know not, nor will i inquire. but now sirs, you that are to give judgement upon george, you shall hear how this information was taken, and by whom, and how. it was proved at the trial, by bishops own acknowledgement, that he himself prepared falconers information, before the commissioners (before whom he was sworn) were sent for. (of this again afterwards) and bishop said again, i prepared the information which he made oath of, page 40. of the narrative, well. now see how it was prepared; and for that, hear poor falconer upon his deathbed. look back to his confession: after twenty week's sickness (says he) my body being low, and in much haste, being much enfeebled; and above three quarters of a year after i came over sea; so that (as he solemnly protests) he did not well remember whether these words, barbarous and inhuman rebels; (which as i showed you before, he motioned to have put into the petition, and might therefore have some confused remembrance of them) i say, he could not well then, in haste (as he says) remember, whether they were expunged or no. but now mark; those words (says he) being once named by me, they were as quickly inserted, and i (the lord pardon me) swore it. the poor man, after a long time, and much weakness, taken hastily, (and so inconsiderately) mentions those words, (of which some former motion had been) and they are suddenly catcht at (being, as he says, but once named by him) and are quickly put in for him to swear to. ah george, george! poor falconer, 'tis too late to pray for, or to say any thing to him, he stands, or is fallen to his own master: but george, what hast thou to answer for, especially considering, that when the poor wretch, his heart seemed to relent, and that he demurred and scrupled at the words before he swore them, (and having met with an honest, tender-hearted, conscientious man, might have prevented his crying sin) for which (poor creature) his name is infamous) that thou shouldst tell that poor necessitous creature, (whom thou hadst thereby at thy bow) that if he left out that, he did nothing; and so he went on, and perpetrated his villainy: well george, well, quake, or not quake, 'tis dreadful: ah poor falconer! ah poor george! the lord convert thee, and forgive thee: i profess, (in the sight of god) i beg it hearty, i desire not thy condemnation; but these practices cannot yield comfort, nor a safe and secure conscience, though possibly quiet for a time. readers, you that are to give your judgement upon this man, when i have done with him, is not here indirect dealing? but i pray stand by a while, and hear what i shall further interrogate him in: you (george) declare in the presence of the lord, etc. that you do not know of any indirect proceeding in this whole business of craven and falconer, which how true (or rather how false) it is, appears sufficiently already, too much. but i ask you further, falconer says, monoy and liberty were promised him, though not performred: though he were not bribed with money before hand, yet it was promised him, and liberty too. let me ask you, who promised this? did not you? who (as you say yourself) had the transactions of the whole business; i doubt not you can tell; and why was it promised him? no doubt, that he might not flinch from his oath: and why did he write a pamphlet in his own vindication? (which upon his deathbed he disclaimed as false) but that (as he says) he was told by under actors, that until he did that, he could not think his friends would supply him, as they would, if that were done: and did not you (captain bishop) send him that pamphlet? but i pray, why was not that money paid him which was promised? thomas dier (who was your clerk, as was sworn in court at falconers trial) paid him by your direction, twenty pound at one time, and about thirty pounds more at other times, in several portions; and that falconer confessed to him, that he had twenty pounds afterwards; and that being demanded what it was for, he would not tell him, saying, i will not speak to that, i cannot speak to that. why, was not the money promised him now paid. and when as falconer was (as is before expressed) imprisoned in newgate, upon suspicion of robbery and felony, did not you write a letter to the lord chief justice rolls, signifying, what a servant falconer was to the commonwealth? and how much depended upon the upholding of his credit, and testimony? and when as the judge slighted such applications unto him, saying, if he were innocent, that would prove his best vindication: don't you know what was done, and how unquiet you were, till he was enlarged? was not affidavit made, that he was employed upon public concernments? and did not falconer give it under his hand, what services he had done for the public, and how he was the chief witness against the lord craven? and was it not so carried, that there was slack prosecution of the indictment; and when falconer was set at liberty upon bail, to appear at next sessions at newgate, they never appeared, and so the matter ended? which whether it were justice and honesty, to pervert, or obstruct justice, and whether this be not indirect proceed, let all the world judge. to this you answer, page 41. and say, for falconer to be released without trial, fixes no crime upon him; and an honest man may be committed upon suspicion. true, but you should have suffered him to come to trial; and sure he was no honest man that hindered it, it was a crime, and a great one, in him that hindered it; you know who it was george: it seems the lord craven must be a delinquent, and a man for the purpose must be countenanced against law and justice: but i say, why was not his liberty procured him now? and the money promised, paid him now? oh! the business was done, the estate sold, let him hang, let him starve now. it may be the sum promised was too great, and they could not agree who should pay it, the estate being sold: ah poor falconer! how art thou befooled? no marvel thou criest out against bishop to thy dying day. but let me ask you further (george) concerning your indirect proceed; the direct proceed against delinquents was, that the informations were taken before the commissioners, at their usual place of sitting, and set down in writing by the sworn examiner thereunto belonging, who was thereby engaged, to be a person just and indifferent between the commonwealth, and party accused: and was not this indirect proceeding, that you should frame the oath and information before hand, in your chamber at white-hall, and in such a manner, as aforesaid, catching at hasty and inconsiderate words (which were the only material words) and then send (as you did) for the commissioners at haberdasher's hall, to your chamber, who (knowing you to be clerk to the secret committee, (and supposing you had some secrecy of state to communicate unto them) came, and there you tendered to them falconers oath, so ready drawn, to be sworn to; and he was there (contrary to the ordinary and direct way of proceed, upon some little alteration made by them upon their examination) sworn to it, i know how smoothly you wipe your mouth, (or rather, how you would wipe your readers nose) and how slightly you come off in this matter, page 43. of your book, saying, that because of the season, and the danger of discovery, the commissioners of sequestrations were desired to come to white-hall, and there took his deposition: what you mean by the season. i know not; but indeed, the danger of discovery was considerable. but would you sequester a man's estate in hugger mugger (as we use to say) 'tis honestly said, though not honestly done, that you confess you sent for the commissioners to white-hall, to take the information, because of the danger of the discovery. go too george, go too, are you innocent? are not these indirect proceed? i ask you again further, when the indictment for perjury, narr. page 16. was brought against falconer in london, where the bill was found by the grand-jury, and colonel drury (before mentioned) being served with a subpena to appear at guild-hall, to give in further evidence against falconer, in the behalf of the lord craven; did not you take away the subpena from him, saying, how durst you be examined against the commonwealth, and not acquaint me first therewith? further, saying, mr. mayor (meaning the lord mayor) had better have done something else, than to have suffered that indictment to be found. and did not you (george bishop) thereupn immediately call for a messenger, and commit the said drury to the custody of one middleton, (a messenger to the council of state) who forthwith carried away drury a prisoner to the strand, to the house of the said middleton, where the said drury was kept in strict custody, from monday, when the indictment was found, till saturday, that the session was past, that no further proceed could be had against falconer, at that time, by reason of druries' restraint, who had falconers own hand-writing to produce against him, and being the most material witness against him; and before the next sessions, the bill for the sale of the lord cravens estate was passed. were not these indirect proceed towards the lord craven, to hinder and obstruct the discovery of falconers perjury? (upon whose oath the lord cravens estate was sequestered) was this direct, and honest, and even carriage? are you innocent? to excuse this, you shuffle so miserably, and catch at such straws: in your book, page 34. and 35. that i cannot but commend your wit, (though not your honesty) in printing so few of your books, that every one cannot see how poorly you come off in your answers. and i take it as a great providence, (i hope for your good) that i was so directed, as to send to your self for one of them, and which (i thank you) you sent me, it is no doubt from that hand (which as you rightly said before) order all things, that you were overruled so to do; and i wish that this discovery of you to yourself, (from yourself) i mean your own book (in great part) may be for your conviction and conversion: and because your book is not to be had easily, i'll give in the weight and substance of your answer; (for the whole is very long) and if you suppose i do you wrong in concealing any thing thereof, that may tend to your vindication, print your whole book, and let them ordinarily be had, and if any understanding reader will say i have injured you, i will be content to be accounted as you are. you say, that drury being a papist, a traitor, apprehended upon a warrant from the council of state, and in safe custody, and being examined by you of his treasons, should have been continued in safe custody, but that (upon his sad complaint, that he had neither money nor friend, to relieve him there, and that he must needs perish) you gave him his parol, (which in english is) as i suppose, you let him go at liberty, to return when required. after this, drury having acquainted you, that he had been sworn at guild-hall london, and given in evidence to the grand jury against major falconer there, and examined upon part of what he had been examined by you before. i perceive your meaning sir in these last words: but i pray (before you go any further) because you had examined him before in one part, was it unjust that my lord craven should examine him (or cause him to be examined) on another part, to clear himself? doth, or should your examination, take him off from being examined by others? they did not examine him of secrets or mysteries of state, but of falconers perjury, and your mysteries of iniquity. well, but than you were a man in power, and hereupon you say, that (drury) showing you the subpena, you asked him, whether he told them that he was under the warrant of the council of state, and under examination of their committee of examinations. as to that particular, amongst others, (but i must tell you, he was not under their examination to that particular of falconers perjury) he answered, no. then you say, you asked him, why he had not acquainted you with the subpena before he went to guild-hall, and was sworn (yea, there was his fault) since he was a prisoner under examination, and under parol? to which (as you say) he giving no reasonable answer, but that he knew not what the business was, and such like; when as (as you say) the indictment could not have been drawn without the consent of, and converse with drury; (yea, still there was the sin) and who, you say, was the chief witness upon which it was grounded, it being prepared and found that day. (and had he not been committed by you, falconer had been convicted that sessions, of that perjury, which was afterwards proved, and himself confessed.) but you go on, and say, that you perceiving thereby how he did prevaricate, and how things were done in design and combination against the state. but stay, was it a design against the state, that the lord cravens innocency should be cleared? oh base! yes, now i remember myself, it was; for then the design against the estate of the lord craven, (in all likelihood of justice) might have proved ineffectual. but you go on, and say further, that you not knowing what other inconvenience might come to the state by his (druries) further liberty, since he had made that use of it, aforesaid, reproved him therefore, (with that high language against him, and the lord mayor (as before) which you do not deny) received the subpena from him, and taking of his parol, returned him into custody, from monday evening, to the friday following. and was it not to friday evening following, as well as from monday evening before? which you reckon up with a four nights, and no longer, and i say four days too, so long, that no proceed could be expected that sessions against falconer. the last day of the sessions, being no time for such prosecutions, but calling over the goal, and concluding former businesses; and than you say, upon information of the poverty of drury, and that he had no money to pay for his diet and lodging, which you knew well enough before, and have acknowledged, when you gave him money for his supper, and would not commit him, lest he should perish. and now (you say) in mere charity, (when there was no opportunity for him at sessions) he had his liberty upon his parol again, and enjoys it. charitable wretch! and did you in charity commit him? fie upon such base hypocrisy. and then you go on with a company of blind supposals, to argue the improbability of your committing of him, to the end, to obstruct the proceed against falconer, which are so childish, (and coming in but by way of additional aid, to your former answer, which is your chief buckler, but a silly one) i shall not trouble myself, and the reader with, which if you think any thing worth, print it, and i'll be your bondman, if it any way help you; nay, if it don't further discover your folly; and i would have writ it, but that 'tis as long, as impertinent; and this is enough. and your main answer, which how it clears you, let all, or any man of common reason judge: and say, is george bishop innocent in this matter? and one thing more i find charged against you george, which i suppose is an unjust and indirect practice, narr. page 40. and used by you in the matter of craven and falconer: and in the margin of the narrative (where this matter following is spoken to) there is written, observe; and 'tis observable, 'tis short, but home, and therefore printed in another character, in these words, by way of digression observe, that druries and briscoes' informations, which captain bishop had taken, above twelve months since, and which tended to clear the lord craven, he concealed, till this hour, that he produced the same in court, and never transmitted these two men's examinations to the parliament, though before the bill of sale did pass, he did transmit bardseys and kitchingmans' re-examinations, taken by himself, and which he apprehended made against the lord craven. here now is a heavy charge; and certainly these proceed (if true) are very indirect, and he cannot be innocent: but hear him speak for himself, and i'll give you every word: and thus he gins, page 44. of his own book, what captain bishop's employment was, is already spoken, his duty was to take, and to keep such informations, as concerned the committee, and to do with them according to their, or the counsels, or the parliaments orders; but neither the council nor committee ordered him to transmit them to the parliament, though they were not ignorant of them, and several times showed by him to some of the members of the council, and to the committee; nor did the parliament call for them, or what papers concerning the lord craven were in the custody of the council or committee, nor take the depositions into debate, after the first vote of confiscation; and whether those examinations advantage the lord craven, let the reader upon consideration of what is already mentioned, and argued thereupon, judge. nay, but george, let me put in a word or two by the way; it had been very honest and fair for you, to have put down their examinations themselves, that the reader might judge upon them, for we can't see them, nor must we take your word. but you go on, nor were any papers at all transmitted by him, (meaning himself g. b.) to the parliament, either for or against the lord craven; for bardseys' examination, when he had taken it, he sent it in to the council, for bardsey to make oath thereof, which after he had made, it was put presently into the hands of one of the members (viz.) mr. gourdon to report to the parliament, who received it, and lodged it with mr. scobel, it being not returned to captain bishop; and for kitchingmans' re examination, he transmitted no such thing, nor was any such taken whilst the committee for examinations was in being, kitchingmans' information being deposed by him at haberdashers hall. now i pray, what's all this to the purpose? doth this excuse you? will you give me leave to interrogate you? if you will not answer choose, let the reader judge: you took such informations from drury and brisco, did you not? 'tis plain you did; did not their depositions excuse and acquit the lord craven, and prove falconer perjured? 'tis plain they did: had not drury the original draught of the petition, under falconers own hand-writing, which at his trial was produced, and he could not deny, and which he confessed upon his deathbed, to be the true and right petition? this is most certain, it cannot be gainsaid; the testimonies of these two men so vex you, that in your book, page 12. you do what you can to bespatter them as incompetent witnesses, because cavaliers. and whereas you say, your duty was to take and keep such informations as concerned the committee, and to do with them according to their, or the counsels, or the parliaments orders. did any of them order you to suppress or conceal the testimonies of these two men? if they did, tell us who they be, and we'll say of them almost as much as we do of you? you say some of them did know of them; like enough such a business as this could not be so managed, but by the knowledge (and somewhat else) of more than one: its plain that falconer was a perjured wretch in his testimony; he was convicted of it by two, nay, three several juries, of men sworn to give true judgement; and upon his deathbed he confessed it, and his conviction was upon the testimony chief, if not only, of these two men, who were the principal actors in the business of that petition at breda, narr. page 35. which gave colour to the lord cravens sequestration; and drury at falconers trial said, that what testimony he then gave to the court, he acquainted you with, when he was examined by you, and no doubt brisco the like; and no question had the parliament in general known of these testimonies, they would not so readily have sequestered the lord craven; nor would any honest man (advise who would) have suppressed such testimonies, which would have discovered the truth, and prevented injustice, which is the curse and ruin of a nation, and the way to render parliaments (which should be our greatest security) our greatest plagues, in committing or countenancing such actions. and whereas you would choke your conscience, and cheat your reader with this pretext, that some of the parliament did know of these testimonies, and that you were not ordered to transmit them. i say again, no honest man (that had it not in design to ruin the lord cravens estate) but would have made them known; or if he had been commanded to the contrary, would have scorned to serve unworthy ends to any man's ruin: come (george) come, you must not magnify parliaments, as if they were infallible in themselves, especially when knaves are prosecutors, and as bad are agents or ministers under them; and he that shall readily obey their unjust commands, knowing them so to be, (while there is time and opportunity to offer something to the contrary) shall instead of honouring them, do them the greatest disservice in the world, (viz.) wrong the innocent. i'll give you an instance or two within my knowledge; there were in the hands of sir robert rich, than a master of the chancery, (put into his custody upon a suit depending in that court) 204 diamonds, with many other rich things of gold and pearl, and writings of great value, upon an information given in to the committee for examinations at westminster, that they were the goods of a lord, then in arms against the parliament; those goods were ordered to be taken out of the hands of sir robert rich, and put into my custody (which were the only goods of any delinquent, or supposed delinquent that ever were in my custody) it being none of my business, as i have before declared: but this was by an extraordinary order, these things (taken by an exact inventory before witnesses) being thus in my hands, there came a peremptory order to me, to deliver them out to be sold, as the goods of a delinquent; but i being satisfied by sir robert rich, (who was an ingenious gentleman) that they were brought into his custody, in the behalf (as i remember) of divers children and orphans, i delayed the observance of the order, till those who were concerned (who they were i know not) had opportunity to clear them; & at last (by order) i re-delivered them to sir robert rich, from whom i received them. now should i have readily observed their orders, orphans had been ruined, and the parliament instrumental to an act of injustice; and that all that are members of parliament, are not always such as they should be. i'll give you one relation more, there comes an information to our committee in london against a person for delinquency, pressed and urged very hard for a speedy sequestration; the reason of the haste, i perceived afterwards to be, because the party concerned (being a lawyer) was in the circuit, and the prosecutors would fain have had him sequestered before he knew on't; upon hearing the information and witnesses, i perceived the bottom of the business to be revenge, and private interests (to say no worse) their haste added to my jealousy, and i was therefore the more slack in furthering it. the next day (as i remember) one comes to me to my house, from the prosecutors, to offer me gold to speed the business. it would be too tedious to tell you every circumstance, i refused it. after this (now mark) one of the house of parliament, comes to me to my house, with recommendations from others of them, to press me on; i gave him civil entertainment, but grew more resolved in the business. after this, an eminent man in the parliament came to our committee, and pressed it, and told us, it was a business that many in the parliament took notice of, and that if we did not do it, they would take it into hearing themselves: i asked that gentleman whether he came to threaten us, and told him we were upon our oaths, etc. so that he went away in discontent. upon this (very speedily) an order comes to us to appear before the committee of lords and commons for sequestrations, to give an account for our non-prosecution; a colonel in the army was he that promoted it, and it was backed (as i perceived after) by divers members; myself appeared alone in behalf of the committee, they having council (besides the council for the state) to speak for them: it was as great a committee of lords and commons, as i ever remember, to have seen at any time, i so managed the matter, (well knowing the baseness of the business) that it was referred back again to us, where we never heard more of it, insomuch that the colonel came afterward to my house to speak with me, but by providence i was not at home, but he (as my family and neighbours told me) threatened to be revenged upon me, but by god's goodness (in whom i trust) i heard no more of him; now had i yielded in this matter, an honest gentleman might have been ruined, for if we had sequestered him in london, (though he had not much there) they would presently have sent down into the country, and done the like there: the person is one of worth and honour, afterwards a member of that parliament, and of the close committee, or safety, (i have forgotten the title) and is now a member of this present parliament, one so cordial to the public interest, that i do profess, whom i afterwards saw him (upon his return from the circuit) my heart rejoiced that i had so appeared for him, whom (upon my own knowledge) was so true a friend to the parliament, for i well knew him before by sight, but did not know him by name, to be the person prosecuted. i could tell you further (george) of others whom i have rescued from the jaws of ruin, upon parliamentary prosecutions, and that upon base and packed knavery, followed with perjury, and by some of our own officers, which i myself have discovered, and caused them to be turned out: so that george, you must not sculk and hid your head under the shelter of the parliament. and for the rest that follows in your answer and excuse, the reader will easily perceive you do but quibble and trifle upon forms and circumstances, which makes nothing to the substance of the business. i shall not need to mention your zeal and earnestness at the trial of falconer, in his behalf, nor your reflecting upon the judges in these words, page 15. of your book, the judges in the issue summ●●● not up the evidence, which they should have done. as for the jury, you bestow this upon them, in the same page, the jury (of the affections of whom for the parliament, we cannot yet understand) neither took any notes, nor asked a question, yet in a very short time were agreed in their verdict, and the next morning gave it into the court, that falconer was guilty of the perjury mentioned in the indictment: and then you go on, and say, that a man indeed, without divining, might have told which way the cause would go, by the countenances of the jury, all along the trial of the cause, as was taken notice of by many honest men, such as you are, no doubt. and then you sadly complain thus, george is huge angry that falconer is found guilty of perjury. but this is what every honest man may expect in cases wherein the state is concerned, when the unpardoned traitors, whom with the peril of their lives they discover to be undermining the safety of a state in times of great danger, in the field, and under ground conspiracies, working towards the general destruction thereof, shall after the enemy is overthrown and prevented, be permitted to come into england, when they can no longer do the commonwealth mischief abroad, and to be good witnesses against such honest discoveries (risum teneatis amici) in such traitors own causes, as to their lives, as hath happened to one of the states witnesses (falconer) in the very case now in question. and so you flirt upon the jury again, page 47. i will not comment upon it, because i hasten to an end: but the man is very angry with judge, and jury, and witnesses, (and as before) with the lord mayor, as no friends to the state, that falconer was found perjured, which yet he himself hath confessed himself to be. but why is george so angry, it seems he is much concerned in it; for though he act for good affection to the state, yet its reason that he should be considered; and therefore in my information from london (by a hand that is able to make good his undertake) i am thus told, that he (george) repaired to drury house, and contracted for about 300 pound a year of the lord cravens land, where, and when this argument was used, that he might be favourably dealt with, and considered in the purchase, for that he was the man that brought the commonwealth so great an estate, and that but for him, the lord craven had not been put into the bill of sale: and accordingly he was favourably dealt withal: but master baker, surveyor general to the trusties, than reprehended the said captain bishop for so speaking, the scandal whereof was (it seems) like to prove so great, (as well it might) that he relinquished the contract; and when (in the last parliament but this) this contract was laid to his charge, by the committee of parliament, appointed to hear the lord cravens case, and he urged to answer, whether he did contract or not: how (says my information) did he prevaricate and shuffle with the committee, and put off an answer, till he did see there were those present, that were ready to produce the contracts out of the book, and then (to his shame, and admiration of the committee) he did confess at last, he did contract, for a considerable part of the lord cravens estate, but that he had since that time declined the same: so that for all your pretences of public interest, you drove on a design of your own private; and if the way had been honest, you might have done it, and you need not have declined it; and to back this, and so an end. did not you write to a gentleman, an acquaintance of mine and yours, (one employed for the public) to inform you of the quality and worth of a manor of the lord cravens, called the manor of hinton norton in sommersetshire; and did not you afterward (in your study) at white-hall, tell him, that you inquired after it, for that you expected that the parliament should reward your good service you had done for the state, in sequestering the lord cravens estate? or words to that purpose. and now sirs, you that are to give your judgement upon george bishop, upon the whole matter, what say you? is george clear and innocent? hath he not used? nor doth he not know of any indirect proceed in that whole business of craven and falconer? of which he makes such a bold appeal to the almighty: say, is it any matter, whether he be a quaker or no, or what he is? and if we may judge of the conscience, honesty and perfection of the rest by him, may we not conclude, as i undertook to make good, that a man may be as vile a person as any under heaven, and yet a perfect quaker? if he had repent of it, and (what in him lies) made restitution) it had been somewhat, i should have said nothing; for who will upbraid a man with that, for which he hath repent. but he still (like a quaker) justifies himself, as if he had done no evil; and i easily perceive the bu●h under which he hides himself, and thinks no body sees him: for after his protestation, he says, he has had a large time of trial, wherein he hath neither wanted enemies for the sake of truth, nor they malice and opportunity to lay to his charge, could they find, or were there any thing to be found against him. simple fellow! i wonder he could manage so great a business, with so little wit; because the lord cravens friends did not indict him, but falconer, therefore he sillily concludes, they could find or say nothing against him. doth he not know, that it was for the lord cravens advantage, to lay all the blame upon falconer, and to charge him with the malice of it, (as well as with the fact) that so they might convict him of perjury, which being done, and he to his conviction, having since acknowledged it by his own confession; and you having confessed so much, and taken so much upon yourself, to clear him of the malice, (all which they knew not, till you confessed it.) now all this, (as afore considered) they know what to say to you: by the law (it seems, and as the judges gave their opinion) bore forswearing one's self, doth not bring a man within the compass of the law against perjury, unless also it be done maliciously and wilfully. and now to deliver falconer from the crime and conviction of perjury, george (at the trial) discovers the rise and ground of all this business, freeing falconer (upon his own oath) of any intention of evil and mischief against the lord craven, (as knowing nothing against him, that might render him culpable, or any way sequestrable, as you heard before) but george (having consulted with some body else) by handsome contrivance and mannagement, hath brought it to this you now see; and by this confession of george's at the trial, and falconers at his deathbed, it is now apparent by whom it was begun, and effected, even by him, who (as before he confesses) had the mannagement of the whole. and now if there were a starchamber court, or any place of trial for such practices, they know whose ears and estate to require in part of satisfaction. in the mean time▪ let the world judge of your innocency: george, you have a fair estate in land, plate great store, rings and jewels, and cabinets, and brave hang, etc. you can live without the honest calling of a brewer, which you could not do before; you have not been a busy bishop to no purpose, you have your reward; but take heed, it be not in this life only: it may be you may come to a reckoning, and give an account here for all these things, but sure hereafter: the present parliament hath taken cognizance of the lord cravens cause, and it is to be hoped they will proceed so justly and impartially, that the guilt of injustice and oppression, shall not lie at the doors of the parliament of england, and so become the sin of the nation, and draw a curse upon the whole, for the iniquity of a few. however, look you to your light within, and let me tell you thus much, if it do not stare you in the face, and fright you, 'tis a sign you are blind and hardened. i was desired to ask you, who did trepan colonel andrew's into a design, for which he lost his life, when as he had given over all thoughts of engaging, till he was moved thereunto by a trepanner, as he declared before his death? and who it was that trepaned sir john gell into a misprision of treason? and lastly, who did trepan mr. love, and some of that party? these questions are proposed by those who are no babes in the world, and yet honest; and they say, this bishop can (if he will) give satisfaction in. you know george what these things mean, and i know what the last means; and they advise me, to read a book concerning mr. loves designs, and his death, written and penned by you, and they say, it will give the reader further satisfaction. but you have dealt as craftily in the printing of this, as of the former, printed so few, and kept, or given so at your own dispose, that i cannot get it; and i am not so free to send to you for this, as the former, because you do not quote it against me. but yet what i find from other pieces i have met with in this matter, i will communicate to you, and the world, and this the rather, to show you what an hypocrite you are, in charging us priests (as in scorn you call us) with blood-thirstiness, and myself in particular, as in the title of your pamphlet: you should have pulled the beam out of your own eye, before you reproached us with a mote in ours▪ i suppose, ere i have done, (though it be prettily well done already) you will appear to be, not only a bloodthirsty, but a blood sucking person. and in the discourse of this, i shall discover the ground of your so easy an entertainment of the thoughts, (or at least suggestions) of forgery in me, from those practices of forgery, which i shall declare to have been really acted by you, that you were a zealous prosecutor of mr. love unto (yea and after) death, is so manifest, that (as impudent as you are) you will not deny ●hat you prosecuted him after death, appears by what you published against him, when he had no being to answer for himself, wherein you endeavour maliciously to kill him twice, and the latter, with more cruelty than the former, killing his good name, and (what in you lies) making him a reprobate, and an outcast from god and glory. i suppose you will own that piece, called mr. love's case, printed by▪ peter cole, (as well as other books you published against him) wherein you go about (most unchristianly) to undervalue, debase, and disparage that comfort and confidence he professed to enjoy in and at his death; and this upon several accounts, which i will not recount, to avoid tediousness, one only i'll mention, to show your spirit of envy and bitterness, it is the animadversions upon the first section, page 34. mr. love, (say you) it's more than probable, was not only vehemently exhorted, encouraged, importuned, but even solemnly, by all the sacred interests of high presbytery, conjured by his clergy companions, to die like a valiant and resolute champion of the cause, and not to bewray the least grudging of any fear or repentance, for any thing he had acted upon the service thereof, lest it should be said of presbytery, her glory was stained and betrayed by the cowardice of her firstborn. and page 38. here we have the second part of the theatrical flourishes of mr. love's confidence. much might be animadverted, but i forbear; you have a strange spirit, that his comforts and confidence in god, trouble you. and then you go on to charge him with hypocrisy and lying, and other base imputations all along, bespattering, and bespotting, and sullying him (as you can) even to his last. i know what flight touches of charity you have now and then, and at the close of that pamphlet, which are inconsistent, with that you had charged him before, as that he acted the part of a most unchristian calumniator, upon the scaffold, in the very approaches of death, page 38. but page 46. you most unchristianly reproach him, and his doctrine. t●●●e, whereas in purging himself (he means master love) from the aspersion of lying, he saith thus, i hope you will believe a dying man, who dare not look god in the face, with a lie in his mouth; intimating (say you) as if his being ready to die, was a bridle in his lips, to restrain him from lying: the truth is, (according to that principle of his, that he whoever once truly believed, can never by any sin or wickedness whatsoever, lose the love and favour of god: his being ready to die in conjunction, with a persuasion of his saintship, should rather be a temptation upon him, to lie, or commit any other wickedness, than an engagement upon him to refrain lying. i have done with that; but i pray, that you may find more favour and mercy from god, than he found from you; and to that end, let him grant you grace to repent of these spiteful and most cruel prosecutions. as for your prosecutions of him in his life, and of his trial, i shall not enter upon the story of, although i have relations of it, it would prove too large an undertaking; nor will i insist upon your rotten and unsavoury language of the ministers of the gospel, whom in scorn you call his clergy companions, you were fairly disposed for quaking then; nor will i debate the cause, which you maliciously in your former book (the lord cravens case) charge upon presbyterians in general, wherein how rash, heady, uncharitable, and unchristian you are, let yourself consider. in page 22. of that book, you speak it, which (because it tends also to discover the suspicion, that even yourself had, of the injustice of sequestering the lord cravens estate) and do therefore endeavour to extenuate it from the circumstancy of the time when it was done) i shall lay before the reader; and thus you give it forth, the time when the parliament gave judgement upon his estate, (that's right, not upon his person, that had not offended) was, when the commonwealth was deeply embroiled in wars, and designs lay every where to blow up this nation in all parts thereof; their army in scotland, and the scots drawn into the field after their rout at dunbar, ready to serve the desperate, and great designs and conspiracies laid by mr. love, those of the presbytery and the king's party, then ripe and ready to break forth in all parts, all of which were the effects of that treaty at breda, where the lord craven was often with the king, and his privy council, (but doth any one person so much as say, that he came to treat, or did treat? not one) and assisting his officers in their petition for relief, to be in a capacity to serve him; (which you see was proved to be a lie) and some of whom served in those designs, and otherwise, and of which the parliament were sensible, (what was this to the lord craven) and the lord craven had manifested to most that conversed with him, his disaffection to the parliament, and supreme authority, (no such thing is charged against him) in such times and cases, have many considerations, as the reason of their actions, which those who are without doors, neither know, nor apprehend, nor are to take upon them so to do. thus he. the language in the last part of it, is inconsistent and incoherent, a kind of nonsense; but this clearly is his meaning, (viz.) that the times being dangerous, (as he describes them) have many considerations and reasons to sequester the lord cravens estate, which those who are not his judges, (no nor he himself) are to know or apprehend, nor must inquire into. in plain english, the lord craven must lose his estate, and none must ask a reason, why? are not these sweet do? as he himself says in another case, page 19 but to go on with the matter of mr. love, mr. love and the presbytery are designing the nation's ruin, says george, if you may be believed; and how honest you are, even in your most serious protestations and appeals to god, appears already. but if you suppose (and that's enough with you) that mr. love, or the presbytery design the nations ruin, you will be sure (right or wrong) to accomplish these. i have heard say heretofore of the marches in wales, that a cause there, did seldom fail for want of prosecution, and good witnesses; you were a notable man to make an agent there; well, or ill far him, who if a cause be not good, can make it so: i shall not (as i said) engage to the whole of your prosecution against him, i shall only notify what i find concerning yourself, in a book written and published by mr. love himself, which (in the close) he says, was finished the last day but one before his death; and at such a time (what every you say) men are most serious, and to be believed. the title of it thus, a clear and necessary vindication of the principles and practices of me christopher love, etc. which book, he says, he writ for the vindication of his name, from those obloquys and reproaches, which by the sons of slander were cast upon him, (was not this you george?) who would fain have his name to be buried, and rot above ground, before his friends could bury his body under ground. in this book of his, he complains, that whereas at his trial, he had a notary to write for him, they took away all the books from him, so that nothing might come to public view, but with what additions or alterations they please, to his greater disadvantage. but he says, his hope is, that some faithful pen or other, hath writ his defence, and the witnesses depositions, which is done; and i have, and according to them he desires, that his innocency be judged, by indifferent, and unprejudicated men; it contains seventeen sheets, very large paper, and very small print; i shall not meddle with aught thereof, i shall only give in what i have from mr. loves own book. in page 36. he desires his readers, that if other slanders (for he had answered and wiped off many) should be cast upon him, that they would have so much charity, not to believe reports raised upon him, when he shall be silent in the grave, and not able to speak in his own vindication. and page 37. he says, 'tis very likely that they (his prosecutors) will not publish the depositions of the witnesses in court, but the private examinations taken from them in private, and patched together by master s. and captain bishop. they were not ashamed (says he) to produce them, and read them in open court. and he says, some of the witnesses had so much honesty left, as to disavow them in open court; and therefore (says he) believe nothing but what was sworn in open court, nor all that neither, for some of the witnesses swore falsely, as (says he) i made appear in my defence. in the same page, i desire you (says he) to take notice, that there is a lying pamphlet put forth, entitled, a short plea for the commonwealth: in which there are many gross lies, especially in things which relate to me, (and which he himself is best able to speak to.) he says there further, it is not fit for him to enter the lists with him; it becomes not, says he, a dying man to write of controversies, which will beget dispute; therefore, says he, i shall not answer the book, (though i could easily do it) but only sum up the many lies he relates, concerning me. thus he. and page 39 he says, he supposes captain bishop writ that lying book. and then master love goes on, reckoning up his lies in that book, and shows wherein, and in the margin, writes the first lie. the second lie, and so on to the eleventh lie; it will not be to any purpose to set down the particulars, because my reader hath not the book, whereby to judge of the truth or falsehood; i shall therefore content myself, to give you what observations mr. love makes upon the man, and his lying stories. in one place he says, that if bishop should name the person that should say the thing, (there mentioned) every one that heard the trial, would cry out shame upon him, (viz.) bishop, for telling such a lie▪ he says, another is a gross lie. and another thing he charges him with, is a loud lie; and says, it is well there were many witnesses to contradict him: and surely (says he) if the author of this book had not cast off all fear of god, and regard to the good name of his brother, he could not be so impudent, as to affirm what he did. to another he says, 'tis notoriously false, and abominably false; and that although he was not ashamed to▪ say of him, as he did in the general, yet he durst not instance in any particular, nor (says he) will any other in my life time, whilst i can answer for myself. to another (he says) he that will be so shameless to falsify my petitions, (which are made so visible) will not be ashamed to belly my words: where he further says, he (bishop) charged him, that master calamy instructed him to speak as he did; and that it was, that master calamies good tricks might not come to light; both which, together with what he charged him before, he says, are very false. to another, he says, he wonders the man is not ashamed, to fasten that upon him, which he did. and again, he says, if this man (meaning bishop) hath belied others in his book, (whom he names) as he hath done me, there is not one true page in all his book. and to the eleventh lie, thus; if this man were not an atheist, or an antiscripturist, the example of ananias and saphira might make him tremble, lest he should be stricken down dead, with a lie in his mouth. and again, this false and deceitful man, would make the world believe, that this were proved against me; and then concludes this matter thus, these, and many other falsehoods might be found in this book, if i should make a through search into it: he calls it (says he) a short plea, but i may call it, a long lie: and 'tis not, says he, for the honour of the present government, to have a common liar to be a pleader for their commonwealth. and amongst all these lies, (thus generally hinted) i have reserved one in special, wherein mr. love charges him not (only with lying) but also with forgery, which he brings in thus, page 38. and because i am belied about my examination, before the committees, and may be more abused after i am dead, therefore i am necessitated to discover that juggling and baseness of mr. s. and capt. bishop, about my examination, which i thought never to have made public. whiles i was examined (says he) before the committee, that pragmatical fellow, captain bishop, (who i suppose wrote this lying book) did put in six or eight ☜ lines into my examination, which i never said; he supposing that i would be so meal-mouthed, as not to read it, or to put my hand to his forgery, without any more ado; but i did (to his shame) make him blot out, at least, six lines in my examination, which was but very short. some of the committee did ingeniously say sometimes, that i did not speak such words as captain bishop did put in: by his abuse of me, who would not be abused by him, i cannot but think, how he injured other men. he goes on, i did refuse to put my hand to it, seeing i was abused by captain bishop; but told them, if they would give me a copy of it, i would subscribe my hand; but they denied me a copy, which made me suspect, they did not intent to deal fairly with me, as i found true after: and then goes on, to show wherein, and that to their conviction, and concludes thence thus; wherefore i beseech the reader not to believe any thing that shall come forth, either pretended to be my examination, or the examinations of other men against me; they are but the forgeries and contrivements of mr. s. and captain bishop. and well might m. love think how this bishop injured other men, and that in the like kind. i have one instance more, under the hand of a godly, reverend, and faithful minister of the gospel, now being well known to most of the inhabitants of this city, and many in london, so to be, who writes to me, that being to be questioned about master loves business (as he was, and imprisoned) bishop (says he) was clerk to the committee of examinations, and wrote down all that i said; and added divers things, thereby endeavouring to insware me; for which i sharply reproved him, telling him, that i knew his birth and breeding, and therefore i did scorn to be examined by such a one as he was; at which, both he and the committee were much offended, threatening to use much severity against me, but the lord restrained them. now george say, are not you a bloodsucker? were not the lives of these men at the stake? was not one of them actually put to death? i'll say nothing of the man, i need not, he was known well enough in england, his death is bewailed by thousands, and his name precious with many godly. i was once drawn away by your d●ssimulations and lies, to a prejudice against him; but now i see, that the most innocent, (when they fall into the hands of hucksters) may be rendered culpable▪ what george, what▪ are not only the estates of men (great estates) small bits with you, but you can suck and swallow the bloods and lives of men, ministers of the gospel of our lord jesus! no marvel you turn quaker, turn turk man, or become a jew, to whom the name, and gospel of christ, and christian is odious; for shame bear not that sacred name any longer, lest it be blasphemed by its enemies, because of you: oh horrid and dreadful▪ not only be a common liar, but to forge, to put in, and to add words, on purpose to ensnare men; no marvel you catcht at falconers words, but once spoken, and put them in hastily, to take away ones estate, when you forge and put in words many words (whole lines in a short examination) which were never spoken; and this, to take away men's lives. and here, ex ore tuo serve nequam, out of thine own mouth, from thine own words shalt thou be judged: look back, and mind thine own expressions, in thine own book, pages 7 and 8 where you charge me with forgery, in one word, and which yet was not forgery, but a mistake, and that not in me neither; and yet see your outcries and loud exclamations, you may here see (say you) of what a false and mischievous spirit this priest is; and what a devilish wickedness it is to forge in such a word, as for it, were it truly so, would take away his (foxes) life? what credit is to be given to what such a one saith? and again, is not he that can do this past blushing? is there any wickedness so great, that such a one may not be well conceived to be ready to act? is such a one a minister of the gospel? words need not further to express such an act, which in its very face is so manifestly wicked and abominable, a wickedness not found in the roll of those evils, which the apostle mentions should make the last days perilous. i'll say no more, i need not. read the words, and remember your own actions, and apply. but let me ask you, were these all, whose blood you thirsted after? did you not write a letter to a friend of yours in bristol from white-hall, that until calamy, and some other of the priests were dealt withal, as love was, it would never be well? i hope i shall one day get that book of yours, which you writ against him (mentioned before) viz. a short plea for the commonwealth. those who have seen it; tell me, it most fully sets forth the fierceness, and bitterness of your spirit, not only against him, but that you show your rancour and malice therein, against many of the servants of christ, whose names are yet precious in the churches, and the memory of whom will live, when your name shall rot and perish; or if it be mentioned or remembered, it shall be with abhorrence and detestation, as infamous as poor falconers is. i cannot but remind that passage of yours in your throne, page 34. where, because i said the magistrates had their spots and failings, you say, they are no magistrates of god, but men of sin, and the born of the devil: if spots and failings do (in your judgement) render them thus, oh! what are you? mind that rom. 4. beg. therefore thou art inexcusable, o man, whosoever thou art (jew or gentile, ranter, or quaker) that judgest; for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest dost the same things. (nay, infinitely worse) but we are sure the judgement of god is (according to truth) against them which commit such things; and thinkest thou this, o man, that judgest them who do such things, and dost the same, that thou shalt escape the judgement of god? but reader, in this poor wretch, you see what a dreadful thing, and what a heavy judgement it is, for a man to be given up of god; what wickedness so abominable, that he will not then commit? so rom. 1. ver. 24. to the end. and see also, how the lord doth punish hatred and contempt of his ministry and servants, and apostasy, from the truth, with hardness of heart, and blindness of mind, giving them over to believe lies, 2 thes. 2. 10, 11, 12. what a sottish piece is this poor man become, to turn quaker? but 'tis most true, shipwreck of faith, and of a good conscience, are seldom severed, 1 tim. 1. 19 but yet (countryman) come, there is hope in israel, concerning this thing, there is still balm in gilead; the blood of jesus christ shed at jerusalem (though above sixteen hundred years ago) is as efficacious, as prevalent, as ever. come man, leave quaking, don't trample upon, and despise the price of thy redemption; i see thou art in the gall of bitterness, and bond of iniquity; but come, repent of thy wickedness▪ and pray to god, perhaps the thoughts of▪ thy heart, (and the wickedness of thy hands, and the blasphemies of thy pen and tongue) may be forgiven thee. don't despise the riches of god's goodness, and forbearance, and long-suffering towards thee; know, that the goodness of god (in this patience of his, in not cutting thee off) is to lead thee to repentance. consider friend, there is a day coming, wherein the lord will bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and will make manifest all secret plots, contrivances, and underhand counsels; repent, whiles 'tis called to day, lest thy heart be more and more hardened, through the deceitfulness of sin; treasure not up wrath by impenitence, and hardness of heart; one true repentant tear, will avail more now, than millions of yell and howl then; our jesus is able to save perfectly, and to the uttermost, all those who come unto the father through him, meet him whom thou slightest, and make him thy friend. and for a close, know and consider, that if you go on in sin wilfully and impenitently, (after you have received the knowledge of the truth) and that you despise the blood of christ, there remains no more sacrifice for sin, but a fearful looking for of judgement, and of fierce indignation, which shall devour the adversaries. and now from henceforth, let none of these quakers trouble me, i have done with this generation; but if they will be troubling, let them know, i will not be troubled: and as for any further answers, replies, contendings, or debatings with them, or him, being well assured that my ground work (on which my discourse and discovery is founded) will stand firm: i declare this, as my coronis, my farewell to quakerism: as for their doctrines, or opinions, (in this, or any other of their pamphlets) i think them not worth the reading (much less the answering) by any serious christian, especially that hath public employments, indeed, not of any one that hath aught else to do, but to make a long voyage to tarshish, to fetch only apes and peacocks. i conclude therefore with holy augustine, tales judices velim, etc. i desire such judges of my writings, that will not always require an answer, when they shall find what i have written, to be spoken against; those things (which being matter of fact) have clear testimonies, and (being matters of doctrine) have clear arguments and authorities: it were a prejudice and disparagement to either, to agitate them always, upon the cavils of ignorant or contentious persons; therefore i end. finis. books lately written by william prynne, esq a bencher of lincolns-inn, and sold by edward thomas in green-arbour. i●s patronatus, or the right of patrons, to present vicars to parish churches, etc. the first and second part of a seasonable, legal, and historical vindication of the fundamental rights and laws of england. the second edition, in quarto. a declaration and protestation against excize, in general, and hopps, a native incertain commodity in particular, a piece worthy perusal. a polemical desertation of the inchoation, and determination of the lords day sabbath. an old parliamentary prognostication, for the members there in consultation. the quakers unmasked, and clearly detected to be the spawn of romish frogs, etc. a new discovery of free-state tyranny. the first part of a short demurrer, to the jews long discontinued remitter into england. the second part of the short demurrer, etc. a legal resolution, of two important queries, concerning ministers giving of the sacrament to their parishioners. a new discovery of romish emissaries. pendennis, and all other standing garrisons, dismantled. also all the former works of mr. william prynne, both before, during, and since his imprisonments, are sold by edward thomas in green-arbour. more books, printed and sold by edward thomas in green-arbour. reynolds, of god's revenge against murder. folio. festivous notes on don quixot, folio. phioravants three pieces, in quarto. a rich closet of physical secrets, in quarto. baker's arithmetic, in octavo. crumbs of comfort, in twenty fours. private devotions, by d. valentine, in twenty fours. lilies grammar, in english, by r. robinson. the school of compliments, in twelves. a little handful of cordial comforts, by rich. stardfast, master of arts, the third edition, in twelves. railing rebuked; or, a defence of the ministers of the nation, against the quaker, by william thomas, minister of the gospel at ubley, in quarto. a vindication of the scripture and ministry, by william thomas, minister of ubley, in quarto. practical husbandry improved, by g. plats, in quarto. etc. satan enthroned in his chair of pestilence; wherein the whole business of ja. nayler, his coming into bristol▪ and his examination, is related, by ralph farmer, minister of the gospel, in quarto. a so the life of james nayler, with his parents, birth, education, actions, and blasphemies, is exactly set forth, by william deacon, in quarto. hypocrisy unmasked; or, the definition and characters of the natural, moral, civil, praying hypocrite; and how they differ from the sincere christian, by mr. samuel crook, late rector of wrington, in sommersetshire. the true christ falsely applied, discovered. 1. how far his person. 2. the expectation of receiving christ in the spirit. 3. the operation of christ received. 4. the predestination. and 5. his merits and freegrace, are not truly apprehended; from whence some conclude to cast off all ordinances, pretend, and expect to prophesy, and work miracles; all which, with twenty more false applications of the true christ, are discovered, by w. kaye, minister at stokesley. some remarks upon the anabaptist answer[ sold by john harris] to the athenian mercuries: and some upon his answer, who styles himself philalethes pasiphilus. london, printed for john laurence at the angel in the poultry. mdcxcii. ad r. dom. authorem. ut terrae cumulis adamas plus, pulvis& auri, et facibus multis unica stella poli; sic {αβγδ} immensis parvula scriptis plus, venerande senex, vestra pagella valet. cecinit dîgratia clavecastri. some remarks upon the anabaptist answer[ sold by john harris] to the athenian mercuries, &c. the covenant of god with our father abraham, 17 gen. 7, 8, &c. being the first ground upon which children were admitted with their parents into the church, and had a church-ordinance administered to them; if god hath repealed this covenant, and nulled our fathers charter, the controversy between us and the anabaptist and antipaedobaptist is at an end. the first of these answerers tells us, p. 19. that it is plainly repealed. whether it be so, we shall see presently. before i proceed, this i lay down for truth, viz. god did never make a covenant with his people expressly; but if he did repeal it, he did repeal it expressly. for instance, moses 29 deut. 1. tells the people, beside the covenant god made with israel at horeb, he made another covenant with them in the land of moab. this we red, 10, 11, 12, 13 v. of the same chapter. so that here are two covenanrs. but there is another covenant above four hundred years before either of these, with our father abraham; so that there are three covenants: but moses does not mention our father abraham's covenant. but as for these two covenants, god expressly repealed them. that in horeb which was long before this in moab, he declares the repealing of it in mercy and love, before they went into captivity, 31 jer. 31, 32, &c. 8 heb. 8. but that in moab he declares the repealing of it in wrath, after their return from babylon, for their great sin, in rejecting of christ, 11 zech. 10. that i might break the covenant which i had made with all the people. you may red the people, in 29 deut. 10, 11, 12, 13. with whom this covenant was made. but here he does not break the covenant with the children firstly and only: but with the parents firstly, for rejecting christ, as the 12& 13 v. declare. yet here again he had a respect to the poor of the flock that waited upon him, and whom he fed, 7& 11 v. but not one word of abraham's covenant, the father of believers, being repealed. i prove it further, no repealing. in 2 ephes. 11, 12. the apostle declares the miserable estate of us gentiles, before christ came, and the gospel was preached amongst us. i will name but three of the things whereby our miserable state is set forth. 1st. aliens from the common-wealth of israel. {αβγδ}, the dutch render citizen-ship, i.e. the church of god contained in the commonwealth, say they, and so others; and that must be the meaning: for in 19 v. showing what a change is made by our embracing the gospel, now ye are no more strangers, but {αβγδ}, fellow-citizens, which cannot be meant of the civil commonwealth more i could say, but this is sufficient. , impossible for all gentle churches to be fellow-citizens in that sense: but their children were fellow-citizens with their parents, that is, church-members, and the greatest part of the church too. how many children might one father have? they are fellow-citizens with the saints, that clears it more. and yet more, they are of the household of god. but children are part of the house, they build up the house, 25 deut. 5.9. when therefore we red the apostles baptized housholds, i do not question at all but they baptized the children too, if any were in the house: it does not concern us to prove there were children in those houses, 'tis enough for us, children are a part, and a great part too of the household. 2ly. the second thing in which our misery consisted, we and our children were without covenant of promise. no share, neither in abraham's covenant, nor horeb, nor moab. 3ly. as we were without the covenant, so without the seal of the covenant, we were not circumcised, v. 11. but circumcision came in with abraham's covenant. circumcision is not of moses, but of the fathers, saith our lord, 7 john 22. so then to be without church-membership, without covenant, without the seal of the covenant,[ of which all the jews children were partakers] is a miserable state: such was our state once. but now, saith the apostle, v. 13. in christ jesus ye who are far off, &c. the apostle tells us what we gentiles get by believing in christ, viz. we partake of as high spiritual blessings, and all church-privileges, both we and our children, as ever jews did or do; which is the scope of all the apostles discourse from the 13 v. to the end of the chapter: if our children be not taken in, the apostles discourse, in the 19 v. is not true; nor are the gentiles miseries, as to the three heads i mentioned in the 11 and 12 v. taken away, but remain still. to the same purpose doth that verse, 11 rom. 17. speak; and that 1 cor. 7 14. your children are saints. had paul told all the citizens in corinth, unless you be believers in christ, all your children are bastards, i believe paul had not come out of corinth alive. the apostle speaks in the verse but of one husband and one wife, and the children of such parents were as legitimate before faith, as any of the anabaptists are. they were a godly seed, according to 2 mal. 15. for here was but one man and one wife, according to that verse, before faith. what is meant by the word godly in that text is another question, the word is not so in the hebrew. if it be meant the image of god, in which man was created, that surely did not rise, because he made but one woman; but from the state wherein he created them. had he made adam three wives, and they had continued in their pure estate, their children had been a godly seed in that sense. it was from this covenant the great god made with abraham and his seed, and not with other nations, that they were separated from other nations, and so were called the holy seed, 9 ezra 2. 7 deut. 6. and 14.2. but now to this anabaptist. that the old or first covenant, for their incovenanting is repealed, is plain, saith he, pag. 9. proved. he took away the first, that he might establist the second, 10 heb. 9. i answer, these terms old and first are given to the covenant god made with ifrael, after he brought them out of the land of egypt, 8 heb. 9, 13. but abraham's covenant, which was made about 400 years before this covenant, when isaac and his seed were not yet born, to go into egypt[ which is the covenant in question] is not so called. so that you begin with your sophistry already. ignoratio elenchi. as to the text, did you observe the coherence? it seems you did not. see then 10 heb. 4. the apostle asserted, that it was impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sin. he proves it, v. 5. from christ's bespeaking his father when he came into the world, 40 psal. 6. where he enumerates all the sacrifices for the expiation of sin, v. 5, 6. lo i come, saith christ, v. 7. the apostle repeats the whole testimony, v. 8. then god showing his acceptance of this sacrifice of christ, v. 9. he concludes, he took away the first, that is, all the levitical sacrifices, and established the second, that is, the sacrifice of christ. what is this to the repealing our father abraham's covenant? are sacrifices things visible, palpable, the same things with a covenant, to be the god of abraham, and his seed for ever? let me try your 2d. 'tis said that hagar and her son are cast out, viz. the legal covenant,[ i say so too: but sophister, you are still beside the question; speak ad idem, if you will dispute; 'tis abraham's, not sinai's covenant, that is the question] and fleshly seed, and no new law is added to bring them into the gospel-church by baptism, i.e. the fleshly or natural seed as such.[ i say so too, no fleshly seed that cleave to hagar's covenant shall be baptized.] then you add, now is the ax laid to the root of the three, 3 matth. 10. wherefore is this text quoted? the question was, whether god hath nulled our father abraham's charter, does this ax cut it down? i pray give us the sense of this text. i suppose this ax will cut down an anabaptist tho he be dipped, if he does not bring forth good fruit. 2. but what must the poor children[ for so is our question about children] be cut down because they bear not fruit? you will not allow them any seeds of faith or grace; and what, must we look to reap wheat, where no seed is sown? to bear fruit, and have no root? 3. if it respects the whole church of the jews, if the parents be cut down, the children are too, i yield; but that still is beside the question: for our question is, the parents standing, are the children cut off? this is all this author brings to prove the repealing of our father abraham's covenant. one thing i observe in several of your pages, because you would be sure to exclude children from baptism, you describe the subjects of baptism, by the acts of such graces, and spiritual works in their hearts, which children cannot perform. and i say, if such only be the subjects of baptism, and ministers bound to baptize only such, i would never baptize child nor adult person while i live. you anabaptist may, who can see into mens hearts, which we poor things cannot do. i pray, sir, let a visible believer be the subject of baptism. 1. i am sure 'tis a visible ordinance given to a visible church. 2. simon magus believed, and was baptized, 8 acts 13. was philip blamed for baptizing him? 3. whence is it, that some of your dipped members walked pretty soberly before dipping, but after dipping grew very vicious; and others not only fell off from their dipped societies, but[ which with you i believe is an heinous sin] joined with the church of england, zealous for the common-prayer-book, and the appurtenances,[ which your mr. tombs the antisignanus of the anabaptists, improved his learning to defend] grew mere formalists. surely those were but visible believers when you dipped them. i could speak much to this, and that with trembling, how far men have gone, and lived for 10, 20 years, so as none of your dipped members did exceed them, that might well be baptized, yet how they ended, is sad to speak. as to acts of grace, i pray tell us, are not infused habits before acts? are not principles before operations? are not seeds before fruits? i pray give us a reason, why if god giveth or infuseth a principle of love, fear of his name, or any other grace in the heart of a child, why not as well the principle, the habit, the seed of faith? i regard not dr. taylor's authority, whom you and your other anabaptists so cry up; what he was, the pious, orthodox and learned mr. anthony burgess, hath described him to be an hotch potch errors in the doctrine of original sin, as in other points. , &c. i believe our lord jesus before ten dr. taylors, that every child which goes to heaven must be regenerated; the filth they bring with them must be cleansed, without holiness, they shall not see heaven. whoever is born a child of wrath by nature, must first be reconciled and justified, else must not stand at the bar of god; and if this can be without a principle of faith, and all other graces, let him give us but the word of our lord for it, then i believe him. can you anabaptist or dr. tailor tell us infallibly, how god works, and what god works in childrens souls, when you cannot tell us how he frames the body 11 eccles. 5. ? hath god tied up himself to the ears, to preaching, because faith comes by hearing to the adult? what if the child[ suppose isaac] cannot act, cannot god act? does the ordinance depend only upon the child, or baptized person? hath god nothing to do in it? did god institute circumcision, which had its spiritual significations as well as baptism, adding such a threatening to them that dare omit it? the circumcised child could not act, did not god act, i know no such difference between circumcision and baptism, that children may not be as capable of this, as of that. children have need of the things signified in baptism. when and where he pleased, as to the inducing these spiritual things signified in the ordinance; while man circumcised the flesh, did not god circumcise the heart where he pleased? did god institute the ordinance in vain? the most saints that we red of in the old testament, were such from their childhood; you rarely red of converts after a wicked life. as to what you say, p. 19. they who were baptized, did experience the death of sin in their souls before they were baptized, but children cannot. therefore, &c. say you so? did all that john baptized experience; nay, did the converts in 2 acts, the jailor in the 16 acts, experience the death of sin in their souls before they were baptized? what, in three or four hours space to come to experience the death of sin, when many christians who walk with god as well as anabaptists, after ten, after twenty years spiritual warfare, if you put the question to them, do you experience the death of sin? with sadness of heart will tell you, they experience the life of sin, and fear very much their own condition, because they cannot experience the death of sin more. what, because of the conviction of some vile sin, and terrors upon that conviction, sin under this conviction and terror doth not act as before, is this an experience of the death of sin? what divinity do these anabaptists broach? but now to baptizing. may the children of visible believers be baptized? i say yea. both these authors say no there is no express command given by christ to his apostles to baptize children, ergo. i deny the consequence. i. because there was no need why the lord should give an express command to baptize children. ii. because tho there be no command {αβγδ} declared, yet there is a command included in the command given by christ to his apostles, to teach and baptize all nations. for the first, there was no need. for all the apostles were jews, bread up in the jewish church, and they knew the way of god there with parents and with children; they were members with their parents, in covenant, and under the seal of the covenant. now had it been the lords pleasure to change this his way towards the gentiles, i am assured that christ, who was faithful in his house as a son, would have declared and made this known to his apostles, that jews and gentiles should know it, as i am sure he gave them a command, to teach and baptize all nations. the apostles would have declared this counsel of god. let us suppose[ as we may well suppose such a thing] those three thousand who were admitted into the gospel church in the 2 acts, to be all married men, their wives all with child, and all to be delivered on that day of pentecost, when their husbands were admitted: had these women been all delivered by six in the morning, their children had been all born church-members, under covenant, and a right to the seal of the covenant; but had they been delivered at six at night, when their husbands were admitted into the gospel-church, now their children, are no members of this church, under no covenant, nor seal of a covenant. you that call thus for express scripture to baptize them into the church, do you bring us express scripture for casting their children out of the church, and bringing their children as to these their privileges, into the state of the heathen;[ the thing is so evil, and lay such a block in the way of the gospel's reception] else all your scribbling signifies nothing. as to that question, about the jews admitting proselytes into the jewish church, with circumcision, baptism, and a sacrifice, if the question be stated thus, whether this be true or no? i answer, so far as i may believe any thing with a human faith, i believe it to be true. observe how i state the question, if rabbi joshua saith, they were baptized, and not circumcised, this is plainly against the text. if eliezer say they were circumcised, and not baptized. there are divers others whom dr. buxtorf, selden, ainsworth, lightfoot, men versed in the jewish writings as much as sir n. knatchbull, affirm this. lightfoot quotes, affirming they were circumcised and baptized. and one thing is observable, whereas it is objected, why should children be baptized, since they have no understanding? they answer, it is a tradition: they privilege a person, tho he know it not; but they do not dispriviledge a person without his knowledge. this is good; a privilege may be put upon a person[ a child baptized as well as circumcised] tho he himself knows not of it. thus the jews. both of you cry out, superstition, god commanded only circumcision. stay a little, not too fast. while the church was in families, the fathers were the priests, the lord commanded only circumcision to the jews; but when he gathered all these families into one church, set up his polity in it, and made his covenant with them as a national church at sinai, he required more than circumcision, they must wash their clothes, 19 exod. 10. i do not think there was water enough to dip all the congregation in the wilderness. the command is given to the people, not only to the adult: their children were part of the people i hope. so jacob, 35 gen. 2. all his household must be clean, and change their garments. there was the sacrifice, 24 exod 5. upon these texts of scripture, the jews say, they ground the admission of proselytes into their church: as israel was taken into covenant, so shall the heathen proselytes, by circumcision, baptism, and a sacrifice. why they should be admitted otherwise than the jews, i know no reason. after they were incorporated, their after-children were not baptized, so far as i understand. i wish there were no superstition worse than this in churches. according to this, there was no need for christ to give command to baptize children, for it was in practise hundreds of years before john baptized. if it was superstitious, as you say, then there was more need of a command from christ to forbid it, which he would have done be sure. the ground of this practise of the jews with proselytes, was as old as sinai's covenant. the baptism of john was to another end, not to admit into the jewish church; for here adult jews in great numbers, were in a solemn, public, unusual manner baptized: the pharisees did not question what his baptism was, nor what it meant; but they questioned his person, his authority, being that he denied, that he was either the messiah, or elias, or that prophet; which does not deny, but baptism in admission of proselytes was in practise before. 2ly. i say there was a command included, in that command our lord gave to his apostles, to teach and baptize all nations. teach the parents first, and if they embrace the gospel, then baptize their children, tho as yet not capable of teaching, no more than isaac was; but i doubt not by reason of the covenant isaac was reputed as his father was. i look on all the children i baptize, as believers with their parents, who do educate them in the faith of christ, else i would baptize none. 11 rom. 16. if the root be holy, so are the branches. if the parent be a believer in christ, so are the children if a parent be a disciple of moses, so is the child. . if the parent be a mabumetan, the children are so too; they go with the parent. in all nations, cities, houses, the children are a part of them all. but we must have express scripture; away then with consequences. no, i will not. there is no adult person baptized, but 'tis by consequence: deny it if you can: then we will try if we cannot prove children of visible believers to be baptized by consequence. no less than seven syllogisms, philalethes brings against it. his last is, 'tis substantially, and severely forbidden by the word of god, to baptize children. i wonder where? if it be substantially, must it be severely too? name the texts. but for all your high words, and your provoking language, loading the athenian authors surely they were bread scholars not taylors. ,[ unknown to me by name] with as much contempt and scorn, as i have red a piece a good while. before you shall take us off from performing our duty to god, by dedicating our children to god in baptism, he having a double right to them; 1. by nature. 2. by covenant; we prising, not contemning his grace, manifested in his covenant, you must do these things. first, you must name the text, where the lord hath expressly repealed our father abraham's covenant, and cut off the entail from his seed, as he hath done other covenants. secondly, you must prove that god makes covenants without seals; that our father abraham's covenant standing, there must be no seal annexed to it, as it was before. tho circumcision being a bloody seal, must of necessity be removed[ christ having shed his blood] yet there must be another. thirdly, you must prove, that our lord, when he took away the partition-wall between the jew and gentle, ephes. 14. set up the partition-wall between the believing jew, and his children; and now brought the children of believing jews, as to church-membership, covenant, and seal of the covenant, into that condition heathens and children were in before their faith in christ. fourthly, you must prove that it was christ's intent and purpose by his coming, to make the state of the church under the gospel, to be far worse, as to parents and children, than it was under the law: it is so be sure by your doctrine: then, parents and children had a covenant to pled and lay hold upon god by, but now none; then they had a seal of a covenant to strengthen their faith and improve, but now there is none. such parents, and such children as have improved[ as there are such] their father abraham's, and their baptismal covenants, and have found the benefit of them, they would not be without them, let the anabaptists make as light of them as they please. it is de facto, a worse state, reason itself being judge. do you prove that christ intended it. i believe our lord, who when he was upon earth, shewed himself so indulgent and kind to poor children, will hardly give you thanks for this dishonour you have cast upon him. fifthly, you must prove that the apostles discourse in 2 ephes. from the 13 v. to the end of the chapter, is in great part false: for it is evident that the end of his discourse is to show, that however our estate as gentiles before christ, was in itself, and comparatively with the jews, v. 11, 12. very miserable, yet now by faith in christ, both as to saving, and as to church-privileges,[ for he expressly mentions church-privileges] our state is as good as the jews ever was, or is: that the apostle in 2 col. 11, 12. intends that baptism[ the initiating ordinance into the gospel-church] doth succeed in the room of circumcision,[ the initiating ordinance into the jewish church] zanchy, and the most learned expositors that i see, agree. and that it is so, the apostles discourse in this 2 ephes. 11. will clear it. the jews were circumcised, but we gentiles uncircumcised: now how is this part of our misery as it was a church-priviledge taken off, i know very well how it is taken off, 2 col. 11. but i speak as to a church-state. but by baptism, another church-priviledge? and who were the subjects of circumcision we all know. i know the anabaptists do not like it, no more than that young scholar in oxford, whom that learned reynolds in his lectures on the apocrypha twice mentions, who in his disputation, would ever deny the conclusion. he did nor like that, because it was ever against him. sixthly, you must prove that we believing gentiles are not grafted into that olive-tree, 11 rom. 17. from which the branches were broken off; and that to have our children with ourselves, under a blessed covenant, and the seal of the covenant, as those branches were, to help our faith, to lay hold upon god for our god, is no part of the fatness of the olive-tree. we take it to be so, and have many times blessed god for it. seventhly and lastly, you must prove, that when we poor gentiles have embraced our dear jesus by faith, taken him for our prince and saviour, that now our children are as unclean, as they were while we were heathen and unbelievers in him, contrary to 1 cor. 7.14. here are seven things to answer your seven syllogisms. if you can expressly prove the first,[ i stand upon the word expressly here, because god hath expressly repealed; and you call for express scripture for infant-baptism, and i hope you will be honest men, buy and sell by the same measure] and if you will substantially and severely prove the other; then, sir, whereas you have made seven syllogisms, one might have served the turn: but if you cannot do thus, then if you add ten syllogisms more, which make seventeen in our county, you must give us leave to go on to baptize the children of believing parents. i call him or her a believer in christ, who 1. is convinced and sensible of his own sin and guilt, and the dreadful danger of it. 2. who feels himself helpless and hopeless in himself. 3. willing to accept of christ upon his own terms. 4. his conversation doth not give the plain lye to this his profession. 5. gives up himself to all the institutions of christ with church-discipline. this man i call a visible believer, tho there may be much hypocrisy under this, but de secretis non judicat ecclesia. and this man's children i shall not fear to baptize. that you are all baptized by consequence, you must yield it. he that believeth may be baytized. but i believe. ergo. is not this baptizing by consequence, and can you baptize any other way? i will take your medium, which you stand much upon. the children of visible believers are believers. therefore they ought to be baptized. they are reputed so by god. for the antecedent. they are believers, or infidels; but they are not infidels. therefore they are believers. believers and unbelievers are adversa {αβγδ}, one of them they must be. they are not infidels i prove. they that have a jus, a right to promises, and may, if they were able to speak, claim a promise of god, are not infidels. but the children of some believing parents have a right to promises, and might pled them the first day they are born, if they could speak. therefore they are no infidels. the mayor i think cannot be denied. tell us where there is any promises made to infidels, which they remaining such, may pled. the minor i prove. 112 psal. 2. the generation of the upright shall be blessed. 20 exod. 6. showing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, &c. 20 prov. 7. the just man walks in his integrity, and his children are blessed after him. 44 isa. 3. i will pour my spirit upon thy seeed, and my blessing upon thy offspring, &c. children of such parents have a right to these promises, and may pled with god for blessing[ choose what blessing they will, christ himself in whom all abraham's seed are blessed] mercy, his spirit; and that by virtue of his free promise to them, as children of such parents, whom he is freely pleased thus to honour, that their children shall fare better for them, have they but hearts to improve them. 2ly. they with whom god is in covenant are no infidels. but god is in covenant with the seed of believers. therefore they are no infidels. tell us where god is in covenant with infidels? the child of a believing parent, is a subjectum capax of faith, as it is of regeneration. faith is a gift of god to the adult. he can give it as well to the child as to another; and if god will repute them for believers, having taken them into covenant, what is that to you, shall you oppose it? his pleasure was to give to abraham first[ to isaac and jacob after] the promise of the blessed seed, and he believing, to make him be called, the father of them that believe, tho they be not circumcised, 4 rom. 11. the father of us all, 16 v. of many nations, v. 18. which is, by virtue of his covenant with him and his seed. circumcision, the seal of the righteousness of faith, which he calls his covenant, must be administered not only to isaac his own seed, at eight days old, but also to the child of a gentile-proselyte of the same age, 17 gen. 12. all that bore his seal, were his seed: this concerns us gentiles, and shall they who are his seed be called infidels? does god repute and call them so, when he calls them his chiidren? 16 ezek. 20, 21. and 23 chap. 37. why then do you make them so? i have heard a grave disputation in n. e. between those worthies, mr. cotton, mr. tho. hooker, mr. shepherd, &c. q. whether we are justified by the act, or habit of faith? mr. cotton was for the habit of faith. mr. hooker he owns the habit of faith, and doth not doubt but god gives it to children. calovius a learned lutheran, he gives several reasons to prove that little children may have faith. why the faculties of the rational soul in children should not be capable to receive a divine impression from god, as well as of the adult, when both are passive in that work of regeneration, i cannot understand. 3ly. they who are saints are not infidels. but the children of believing parents are saints, 1 cor. 7.14. they that will have their saintship there to be only legitimacy, i question whether their brains be legitimate. then the apostle, 1 cor. 1.2. and 2 cor. 1.1. by the saints, understand those that are legitimate. where are infidels called saints? 4ly. they who are members of the church are not infidels. but the children of believing parents are members of the church with their parents. therefore they are not infidels. the minor i proved from 2 ephes. 19. we will take christ's word for it, 19 mat. 14: of such is the kingdom of heaven. the kingdom of god, saith luke, 18 luke 16. that the church on earth is here meant, i doubt not; unless there be some other word joined, which will force it to be meant of the church triumphant. 8 matth. 12. the children of the kingdom shall be cast out. out of what kingdom? not heaven above, i hope. you will have it, the kingdom of glory, because it makes against you. but what do you get by it, if it should be meant so? shall they be members of the church triumphant, and not militant first? of the kingdom of glory, and not the kingdom of grace first? what strange doctrines have we here? hence being members of the church, they must be baptized; the initiating ordinance of the church belongs to them. and it is further proved from 5 ephes. 25, 26. christ loved the church, and gave himself for it, that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water; that baptism is meant here by washing with water. 5ly. they that are christian disciples are believers. but the children of believing parents are such, 15 acts 1.10. compared with 21 acts 21. had circumcision been in force, the children of these believing gentiles had been circumcised: but the ground of it was, because they were disciples first. 'tis enough for me they were reckoned among disciples. water, all agree in it, that i see; nor do i know any shadow of reason why any should deny it. the invisible church is contained in the visible church; and washing it with water, is a visible ordinance belonging to the visible church, and some children of godly parents do belong to the invisible church. christ gave himself a ransom for his church, 25 v. if they be not of the church, christ did not die for the children. mr. grantham tells you he died for all. 5ly. as for the mark in the flesh, which you mention, p. 12. which was made by circumcision, from whence they might learn spiritual things, 1. i answer, let these circumcised children be let alone with their mark, and neither parent, not any other instruct them, what the meaning and signification of it is, and see what they will learn from their mark. so that it depends wholly upon the teacher to learn them how to make use of it. and thus parents having instructed their children in the nature of their baptism, and taught them to pray for the benefits of their baptism, have come to understand their baptism, as much as they their circumcision. i have known it, when the parent catechizing his children, and turning the substance of their catechism into a form of prayer, and their baptism with it, they have understood it, and improved it, as much as many, if not most, of your adult dipped persons. 2. what if the circumcised jew die before he be a year or two old, what does he learn from his mark? 3. i said before, god hath something to do in the ordinance, and not the child only. 4. as to what they object against children, because they cannot put forth any acts of grace, this strikes as much against god's wisdom in appointing circumcision: they had best teach him how he should appoint his ordinances. tho children were circumcised on the eighth day, yet they were not to eat of the passover till they were about 10 or 12 years old, when by their parents catechizing of them, while the lamb was taken up on the tenth day, they were instructed in the meaning of the passover. but to understand the meaning of the lord's supper, is much harder, being wholly spiritual. then we come to another q. p. 11. why sprinkling, not dipping? section 3. i have taken peculiar notice of the words of our liturgy here, so that your author is mistaken, the thing is very well. i wonder the athenian gentlemen would admit this question these anabaptists keep such a prating and scribbling about sprinkling, when i know no sprinkler, no such thing in practise that i know or hear of. i suppose they are gentlemen of the church of england, by the answer they give to the question: but they have wronged their church and common-prayer-book, which command no such thing. the book speaks only thus, the minister shall dip the child in the water, so it be discreetly and warily done; and if the child be weak, it shall suffice to pour water upon it. but not one word of sprinkling. with what face then do these anabaptists make such a clamour about such a word and thing, which is not. both of your books have given us a specimen of your critical learning, in teaching us what every body knew before, forsooth. what baptizo signifies, viz. to dip, or plunge under water: but still both of you writ as deceivers; why did you not put the word only in, that it signifies only to dip; which of your cloud of witnesses say it does so? we should soon confute them out of scripture, 9 heb. 10. {αβγδ}. he does not say, there were divers things baptized, whicih is true; but divers baptisms. but if there be only one way to baptize, viz. by dipping, then the word divers must be left out. so that we may baptize some other way beside dipping. i cannot but observe the 7 mark 3. in this verse the pen-man uses {αβγδ}, for washing, in the 4 v. he changes the word, and uses the word {αβγδ}, and {αβγδ}. do the anabaptists wives, when their tables are foul, carry them to the pounds or rivers to baptize them? do they not pour water, and so baptize them? the word is {αβγδ}. did the pharisees baptize their beds, by plunging them under water? what, to spoil them? how often of late have i seen a person baptizing of vessels, by pouring water into them, but not by dipping? how were they baptized in the cloud and in the sea, 1 cor. 10.2. by dipping? were there no children baptized at that time? what a strain of wit does mr. danvers show to make it serve his turn? but in vain. i doubt not when elijah baptized his hands, by elisha's pouring water upon them, his hands were as clean as any anabaptists are by dipping, 11 luke 38. with 2 kings 3 11 v. i have met with no lexicographer as yet, but render the word by abluo, lavo,[ so castelio, tho he were now a better critic than any anabaptist] as well as immergo. and that's the reason why all the translations i see, use the greater, baptize; because if they translate it dipping, they do not give the full signification of the word. he that translates the dutch into english, translates it baptize every where. how do both these authors insult over the athenian gentlemen, charging them with strange and prodigious ignorance, for requiring a proof of female baptism, by dipping, they meant, if they did not express it, and the printer omitted it. but how i should prove invincibly paul baptized lydia; yea, and the jailor, and others, by dipping, i cannot tell; if they can, let them. my thoughts are these, christ was manifested to take away sin, 1 john 3.5. this taking away of sin, is set forth several ways. as first, by sprinkling, 36 ezek. 25. 12 heb. 24. 1 pet. 1.2. secondly, by burial, in two places only, 6 rom. 4. 2 colos. 12. 3ly. by washing, cleansing; and this more than any other way, 5 ephes. 26. 3 tit. 5. 1 revelat. 5. 1 john 1.7, 9. 9 heb. 14. 1 cor. 6.11. 22 acts 16. paul being in a city, and in a house, whether he went out of the city to a river to be dipped, i cannot prove it. but however, washing is the thing i aim at. the word {αβγδ} not signifying to sprinkle, i never use that, nor any man else that i know; but signifying washing, a word more frequently used: i pour such a sufficient quantity of water[ some time i fear too much] as shall lively show forth washing. man is known by his face, not by his heels: the rational soul having its seat in the brain,[ tho i might pour the water all over, and so set forth burial after our way more lively than your way] i think it may be sufficient: for i understand you dip but part. now he that is washed from his sin, hath sin taken away, as well as he that hath it taken away by burial: 'tis death, not washing, is signified in burial. yet further, i have in the heat of summer offered my people to baptize their children by dipping, if they will venture it; not because i do not judge the baptizing by washing to be as regular, but because the word signifying both, washing, and dipping. and to let the anabaptists know i am not against dipping, provided there be no dipping of them who were baptized before; as is the practise of these men: whence it is no nick-name to call them anabaptists, as this author philalethes tells us, but very proper; their act being will-worship, never instituted by christ to baptize men in his name twice, i weigh their dipping no more than a rush, being a mere cheat. besides, as they questioned john's authority, we may well question yours. prove your call according to scripture. where were the dipped churches that called you, and the dipped presbytery[ or dipped bishops if you would have it] that ordained you regularly? there were two apostles at least to ordain. trace you to the beginning. the anabaptists have not yet proved that the three thousand baptized in the 2 acts, were baptized by dipping. nor can they prove it: they were the same day added to the church, 41 v. there were not waters to dip them in; they need not have gone from jerusalem to jordan to be baptized, 3 matth. 5, 6. had there been waters at jerusalem to dip in. john baptized in jordan, in bethabara, and aenon, because of much water. he being a prophet highly esteemed of the people, could as well have gone to jerusalem, and baptized there, had there been such waters at jerusalem, to dip three thousand in one day. what if he cried in the wilderness, 3 matth. 3. at his first beginning to preach? he could cry and preach in herod's court afterwards. nor can they prove that they who were baptized in houses were baptized by dipping. dr. lightfoot saith, there was an express maxim among the jews against dipping in any vessel; that they went out to rivers or pounds, there is no word that speaks it: the apostles were all jews. we red, 24 matth. 20. and 13 mark 18. in the destruction of jerusalem, christ directs his discidles to pray their flight may not be in the winter. but they might be well clothed, tho' it were winter. hence i considered as to circumcision, it might be administered in any country, at any time of the year, it was the same to all. but for baptism, it is not so. in some countries the season so hot, that to refresh themselves, tho' there were no sacred baptism, they would baptize themselves: but in other countries, baptizing may well hazard their health, if not their lives. tho some from a zeal to an opinion, can endure dipping, being strong bodies, as the moscovites, bread up hardly,[ but alas! pitiful churches,] what is this to weaker bodies and to children. christ it seems had a care of the winter; they have the advantage that dwell in hot countries as to baptism; it was not so in circumcision. it was said of one of the roman emperors, that he would not wish to be caesar, to be obliged to walk through britain, and to endure the northern frosts. it seems italy and england are not alike. nor yet have i done about this dipping. if christ hath put so much in dipping as you have done,[ to tie salvation to it, as that silly woman, had i died before i had been baptized by dipping, i had perished. and a teacher forsooth, told a good plain-hearted woman, repentance, faith and good works are not sufficient without this. what are they not sufficient for? whether to a sound christian to salvation? you are a liar and deceiver, take which you will.] then would christ have left it plain how it should be administered. both these mens books seem to give an answer to what i never heard questioned, other, p. 41 one page. 11. is it to put the whole body forward or backward, sideway,& c? this is not the thing. but the question is, are you so strong to take up their whole bodies, and plunge them under water; 〈◇〉 so you bury them, and not they themselves in any part? or do they go into the water first, whether to the knees, middle, or arm-pits;[ bury themselves so far; among the jews women were set up to the neck,] then you dip the rest. i pray direct us from the holy page., how it should be done, how john did it, that we may know how to administer this ordinance to adult persons not baptized before according to scripture, that our consciences may be satisfied in our administration. i do seriously seek light from scripture. again, i suppose john did stand in the river jordan, and a good while too, when he baptized so many; must we also stand in the water when we baptize? jordan was warmer than our rivers. whether they were baptized in their clothes, we cannot tell. we can gather nothing from the apostles, how they baptized. i can tell how to baptize a child, as i said, and would, if parents would venture it, and satisfy myself, but not an adult person. one thing i have heard from a learned professor of divinity in a foreign university, yet living as i think: he saith, that the baptizing of children by pouring of water, and not dipping, came in thus: in old time, when the conversion was from heathenism to christianity, persons of quality being tender over their little children, were not willing to expose them to danger by dipping of them, and so not so forward for baptizing them; therefore they did pour water upon them in baptism. dipping is essential, i grant, to burial, but not to baptism. water is the essential material cause. dip a man over head and ears in milk and wine, and 'tis no baptism; it wants the material cause. and still i say, if this be applied, by pouring or dipping, its baptism, one as true as the other. one thing i observe in philalethes, he regards not the practise of the church, section 5. from the apostles time, as origen, and also angustin saith infant baptism is; whereas this author makes nothing of it. verily then the promise of christ to be with his ministry and church to the end of the world, and of his spirit likewise, have some, yea, much dishonour cast upon it; to let his church, the great body of it in all ages, the eminent saints for holiness and learning, to err so, in such a practise as this is; and that a pitiful few, and the ring-leaders of them erroneous, yea, heretical, should be the first bringers of a truth to light in one of our latter centuries. if infant-baptism be an error, tell us who was the first author of it? if you ask, if the denial of infant-baptism be an error, tell us who was the first author? i answer, before auxentius and pelagius, two notorious heretics, that denied infant-baptism, tell us who ever denied the baptism of the children of visible believers? tertullian does not speak of the children of believing parents: besides there is another spot upon tertullian's name. both these authors are very angry with the athenian gentlemen, for mentioning the german anabaptists; and tell them in all societies or professions there will be some vile and corrupt persons. it's very true: but 1st. it is very observable who were the first, the ringleaders in any sect or doctrine; and they were heretics, and in germany very corrupt persons. do you prove the history of the german anabaptists to be false if you can; when so many worthy, both godly and learned men, have given us an account of them. 2ly. why do you in your writings tell us what kind of persons they must be that are the subiects of baptism? as. that the glorious internal work of the spirit must appear i●●●em, p 11. in another place, their faith must be the faith of the operation of god? again, they must experience the death of sin, before baptized, p. 19, 〈◇〉. when we come to observe your dipped persons, many of them we find nothing like to what you talk of. the author, sold by john harris, p. 13. tells us, they differ not from orthodox christians in any essentials— no, nor in fundamentals of church-constitutions, save in the point of baptism, &c. for the first part, i leave you to your orthodox grantham, a messenger( forsooth) of the churches. a very wise interpreter of the angels of the seven churches. for the latter part, you differ but so much from others, as to null all churches but yourselves; and that is a difference with a witness. this is proved. 1. by your principle. 2. by your practise. for your principle. baptism is the form of a church. thus one of your teachers affirmed to me and others. forma, est causa per quem res est id quod est, saith our logic. what any thing is, it is by it's form. baptism is only by dipping say you; this is your doctrine. lay then the argument thus: they that have not the form of a church, are no church.[ very true, where there is not the forma, there cannot be the formatum.] but they that are not baptized by dipping, have not the form of a church. ergo. they who are not baptized by dipping, are no church. 2ly. it is proved by your practise, you will hold communion with no other churches but yourselves, and this you justify by your wretched abusing of the text, 2 thess. 3.6. to which i have answered elsewhere, and add this only to it now, you are the disorderly walkers, who slight and cast off our father abraham's covenant, cut off the entail to his seed, when god hath not, and shut them out of the church, laying them in that miserable estate we were in before christ, 2 ephes. 11, 12. let those that impose upon churches look to themselves, that they be not guilty of schism. i impose nothing[ but what i am sure christ hath] upon anabaptist, independent, presbyterian, church of england members, provided they walk as become christians, i give communion to them all, bearing with the other differences. i hear of a very worthy brother, who hath an anabaptist joined with him in office, and such adult as will be dipped,[ rejecting their sormer baptism] he dips them; but at the lord's table they sit down all together. this latter i like very well: but for the former, if our brother do baptize children by dipping, then there may be something in it; else, he hath one joined with him, that condemns and nulls his act; which i think is absurd to admit; for he will baptize them, whom he hath baptized before. this is but confusion. as that is our misery in england, either persecution, or confusion; both which the bishops might have prevented, had they pleased. i thought to have spoken to him who makes the covenant with our father abraham, 17 gen. 7. to be a covenant of works; but i saw it would take up more paper than i intended. he hath his answer by that worthy and now blessed saint of god, mr. flavel. i only say this, 'tis but righteous with the lord to infatuate them, who slight his grace. i have but one word to the anabaptists. many of you had godly parents, one or both, who in obedience to god, blessing of god for their father abraham's covenant, gave you up to god in baptism. now i desire you to answer in the presence of god, 1st. did you, when you came to years of understanding, seriously and solemnly before the lord, own your parents act, and give up yourselves to god, as they did? 2ly. have you blessed god since for your father abraham, and your baptismal covenant? 3ly. have you improved these covenants, to lay hold upon god by them, to be your god for ever? 4ly. have you begged of god to perform his part of his covenant,[ god must begin first] that you may in the strength thereof perform your part in the covenant to them. 5ly. have you experienced what an advantage it is to a soul, under darkness, temptation, yet to lay hold upon god by these covenants? i pray do not tell god you were but sprinkled[ which is but to tell him a lye, we have not known, nor do know any such practise] not baptized. and will you prate and writ against that in religion, which you never experienced, nor ever went about to experience? what is religion without experiencing the power of it? others have experienced what i say, their experience grounded upon the scriptures i have mentioned, and blessed god for these covenants. to some he hath eminently appeared in their baptismal-covenant, tho not dipped. you that have not done thus, you have dealt unworthily by god, and god hath justly given you up to this error. finis. advertisement. the answer of giles firmin, to the vain and unprofitable question put to him, and charged upon him by mr. grantham, in his book, entitled, the infant's advocate: viz. whether the greatest part of dying infants shall be damned? which advocate, while he shuts all infants out of the visible church, and denies them baptism, opens heaven to all dying infants, justifying those of his party, who admit them all as he doth, into heaven without regeneration. the preface may be very useful for the children of godly parents. london, printed for john laurence at the angel over-against the poultrey-compter. 1689. postscript. he that stiles himself philalethes, hath given us seven arguments against infant-baptism, but his seventh hath more in it than all his six, had it been true: i waited for the proof of it, and it came to my hand after, i fear, my copy is printed. his argument is, baptizing of infants in the name of the lord, is substantially and severely forbidden by the word of god. ergo. the antecedent is proved by the 18 deut. 20. it is not commanded by god. ergo. we are allowed consequences it seems, then well enough. as to the text, it speaks severely indeed, against those who are guilty according to that text; for such were to die not only by the magistrate temporally, but also eternally: yet i fear not to say, there are many more thousands of paedobaptists in heaven than either anabaptists, or antipaedobaptists. the text speaks of two sorts of prophets. but what is a prophet in the old testament? the name is taken from speaking or uttering words, or oracles that come from god immediately, seeing or receiving them by vision; had the spirit of god, foretelling things to come. we pretend to no such things, we cleave to the written word, using consequences from it, as you do. these prophets, some could speak in the name of the true god, pretending that god sent them, but did lie. what god had spoken by his true prophets, they spake quiter contrary in his name, oppose god to his face. such were found in israel, 14 jerem. 14.& 23.31, 32.& 27.15.& 29.21, 23. 13 ezek. 6. 2ly. some prophets could speak in the name of other gods, as they who prophesied by baal, 2 jer. 8.& 23 jer. 13. and these could teach israel how to sacrifice their children to moloch, 19 jer. 5. which of these crimes do you charge upon us? as for the command of god to baptize the infants of believing parens, i have spoken to it before; this text does not scar us from our duty. you have taken great pains, to help your reader understand the signification of the word {αβγδ} in the 2 act. 38, 39. telling him it signifies persons grown in stature, as your learned grantham tells his followers: and who does not know this? but you should have added the word only to it; then, had you looked into the new testament, 2 matth. 18. compared with 16 v. where it is the first time used, and in 1 thes. 2.7. you would have seen your confutation. i have viewed two and twenty texts more, where the word signifies as well little children as grown men. the persons to whom peter was speaking, were bearded[ da veniam verbo] children, since the word {αβγδ} must signify such; and these bearded children had little children, and the promise did belong to them both, to you, and to your children. the text does not say, repent and be baptized, that the promise may be to you and your children; but it saith, repent and be baptized, for the promise is, to you and your children, {αβγδ}: so that there was some promise antecedent to their repenting and baptizing, and the apostle doth exhort them and encourage them to repentance and baptism, from their being under the promise. they who were actual sinners, guilty of that great sin, they must actually repent of their sin and be baptized. their children who were not actually guilty of that sin, but being under the promise, as their parents were[ the apostle is upon the same design, 3 acts 25. ye are the children[ your little ones as well as yourselves] of the prophets, and of the covenant, which god made, &c.] the children having need of the blessings, and being subjects capable of the blessings signified in baptism, as well as the parents: as it was the parents duty to be baptized, so it was their duty to give up their children to the lord in that ordinance, dedicate them to him, and wait for his blessing upon them in it, for they were under the promise, under the covenant. when the apostle preached to the gentiles, who were strangers from the covenants of promise, 2 ephes. 12. they never use this ground and argument to bring them to repentance and baptism, but peter in his two first sermons to the jews, useth it so that it is something for parents, and children with their parents, to be under our father abraham's covenant, which gentiles believing in the promised seed to abraham, are, he being the father of visible believers in christ,[ as he was a visible believer himself] as of the invisible. as to the paedobaptists fawning one upon another, which philalethes charges the athenian gentlemen with, because they put into their gazettes a note concerning mr. eliot, given them by an unknown hand: i have but this to say, that eminent servant of christ, mr. eliot, i knew him well, being a member of the same church into which i was admitted about threescore years since. david had warlike valiant men under him, but there were three most eminent, 2 sam. 23.8. god hath many precious saints, but amongst them, some are more eminent than others, and our eliot for holiness, heavenly-mindedness, humility, self-denial, zeal for god, and charity, shall take his place among the first three: this is the holy man whom god hath honoured above all men in the world, for many ages, making him the apostle, the first gospel-preacher to the american indians, invading the devils kingdom, and setting up churches of christ in the midst of it, in spite of all the power of hell; so zealous in his master's work, that for several dayes in one week he was not dry, but pulled off his stockings at night, and wrung them, and put them on again. the apostles when they went forth to preach, had the gift of tongues miraculously bestowed upon them, and cost them no trouble; but our eliot,[ i call him our, because he was a member first of of our church] he must study, labour and pray hard, to learn the tongue of that people to whom he was to preach, a strange language, having no affinity with other tongues, and hath translated the bible into that language. to conclude, a man that had such communion with god, that if there were any public enterprise in hand, let mr. eliot carry it first to his god, and he would tell them whether it should succeed well or ill: whence i do highly esteem of his judgement in the things of god, and in this particular of infant-baptism; and tho' i do think god hath his people amongst these anabaptists, and so far i do value them, but yet for worth in all respects, one mr. eliot weights more with me than all the anabaptists in england, tho' philalethes be put into the scale with them. finis. errata. page. 4. in margin, for errors r. erroneous. p. 7. l. 24. for we r. he. p. 8. l. 16. for we r. he. p. 10, 11. red the first paragraph in the 11th. page., beginning with water, after the quotation of 5 ephes. 25, 26. in pag. 10th. p. 14. l. 12. for even r. and. a brief defence of infant-baptism. with an appendix, wherein is shewed, that it is not necessary that baptism should be administered by dipping. by john ollyffe, rector of almer in the county of dorset. london, printed for jonathan robinson at the golden lion in st. paul's church-yard: and are to be sold by john woolfryes, bookseller in blandford. mdcxciv. a brief vindication of three passages in the practical catechism, from the censures affixed on them by the ministers of london, in a book entitled, a testimony to the truth of jesus christ, &c. by h. hammond d. d. london. printed for richard royston in ivy-lane, 1648. a vindication of the practical catechism. seeing it again appears to me by a book, that came to this town on saturday last, (entitled, a testimony to the truth of jesus christ, &c. pretending to be subscribed by 52 ministers of christ within the province of london) that it is god's good pleasure to deliver me up to be evil spoken of, and accused, and to bear a yet deeper part of his bitter cup, than many others of my brethren have done, i desire to bless and praise his name for this his goodness and mercy to me, and to embrace all those, who have joined their hands to be instruments in this, as those whom by christ's command (particularly belonging to me on this occasion) i am bound to love, to bless, to pray for, and not to think of any other way of return toward them. this, i thank god, i can most cheerfully do, and would satisfy myself to have done it in private, between god and my own soul, were there not another occasion, which makes it a little necessary for me to say somewhat publicly; and that is the vindication of the truth of christ jesus, which they, who are willing to give testimony to it, will, i hope, take from me in good part. these men p. 4. in the beginning of the second branch of their testimony, (which it seems by p. 37. the whole number of the 52 ministers have subscribed) make mention of unsound opinions, especially abominable errors, damnable heresies, and horrid blasphemies, which are broached and maintained here in england among us, under the notion of new lights, and new truths; many of which they have reason to judge destructive to the very fundamental truths of christianity, &c. all of them utterly repugnant to the sacred scriptures, the occasion of much grief of heart to all the friends of truth and piety at home, the scandal and offence of all the reformed churches abroad, the unparalleled reproach of this church and nation, totally inconsistent with the covenant, and the covenanted reformation, and in a word, the very dregs and spawn of those old accursed heresies which have been already condemned, &c. after this preface and expression of their zeal to god's truth, they conclude the period with a profession, that they more particularly abominate these infamous and pernicious errors of late published among us, and hereafter recited in this ensuing catalogue, viz. errors, &c. in this catalogue, three particulars there are recited from the practical catechism of h. hammond, 2. edit. london, 1646. from which premises, i suppose, any reader will conclude, that those three particulars are by these ministers thought guilty of all those charges which they had affixed to all the unsound opinions, &c. noted by them, viz. that they are utterly repugnant to the sacred scriptures, &c. and in the modestest of their expressions, that they are infamous and pernicious errors. upon this supposition, i hold it my duty by setting down these three particulars punctually, to refer it to all impartial christians to judge whether it be a testimony to the truth of jesus christ to pass such censures on them. the first is recited by them, p. 9 and it is this, that christ was given to undergo a shameful death voluntarily upon the cross, to satisfy for the sin of adam, and for all the sins of all mankind. this is thus plainly set down in their catalogue of infamous & pernicious errors, but without the least note to direct what part of this proposition is liable to that charge, any farther than may be collected from the title of the errors under which 'tis placed, viz: errors touching universal or general redemption. from whence i presume to discern their meaning to be, that to affirm christ to have satisfied for, or redeemed all mankind, is this pernicious error by them abominated. and such i confess i should acknowledge it to be, if it had any right to be joined with that other by these men set under the same head [that the damned shall be saved] but i hope that error hath received no patronage from that catechism, nor sure from that assertion of christ's redeeming all mankind. these two propositions being very reconcilable, that christ redeemed all men, and yet that the whole number of the impenitent, unbelieving, reprobate world shall never be saved by him. if there were any need of it, i should easily show the way of reconciling these two, by adding that the great benefits of christ's death, which i affirm to be general, are given upon condition, not absolutely (as god's love to the world, &, the effect of it, giving his son, is not designed, that all absolutely, but that all conditionally, i. e. whosoever believeth in him, should not perish, but have everlasting life) and that they which do not perform that condition (as god knows a great multitude do not) shall never be saved by his death: to which purpose is that of prosper, one far enough from all kindness to the pelagians, redemptor mundi dedit pro mundo sanguinem suum, & mundus redimi noluit, &c. the redeemer of the world gave his blood for the world, and the world would not be redeemed. ad gall: cap. 9 but, to confine my discourse (without consideration of the consequences) to the assertion itself; i desire it may be observed, that this was not crudely set down in that catechism, but with this immediate addition [to taste death for every man, heb. 2.9.] by that plain testimony of scripture confirming the truth of what was asserted, as punctually as could be imagined. for sure [every man] signifies all mankind, as that notes singulos generis humani, in the largest notion of the word, and tasting death for them is satisfying for their sins. if this testimony (so clear, that it alone hath, to my knowledge, convinced one as learned a man as doth in this church of ours maintain the doctrines contrary to the remonstrants) be not thought sufficient to support this assertion, i shall then ex abundanti add these other plain testimonies; not only that of god's giving his only son, mentioned by christ, as an effect or expression of his love to the world, (which it would not be, if he did not give him for the world, whom he is said to love) but (to prevent all distinctions concerning the notion of the world, as if it signified, only the elect) more particularly these two; first that of 2 pet. 2.1. where the lord, i. e. christ is plainly said to have bought (i.e. paid the price, satisfied for) them, who deny him, and bring upon themselves swift destruction: to which agrees that of 1 cor. 8.11. where the weak brother, of whom 'tis said, that by another man's scandal he shall perish, is described to be one for whom christ died. the other testimony which i shall add, is that of s. paul, 2 cor. 5.14. which i desire the intelligent reader to observe: where speaking of the constreining obliging love of christ, he saith, we thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead, that is, surely, all in the full latitude, not only the elect but all others; and this conclusion the apostle infers by this medium, because one, i.e. christ died for all, which being a proof of the other, must certainly be as true, and as acknowledged (if not more) as that which 'tis brought to prove; and particularly the [all] for whom he died, be as unlimited as the [all] that were proved from thence to be dead, or else the apostle could not judge (as he saith he doth) or conclude the death of all in adam by that medium. from this arguing of the apostle i shall make no question to infer, that in s. paul's divinity, christ died for all who are dead in adam; and on that occasion i shall add, by the way, that the contrary doctrine [of christ's not dying for all] was by the ancients affixed on pelagius upon that ground, of his affirming that all (i. e. that infants) were not fallen in adam, and so needed not to be redeemed by christ. thus it appears by s. august: cont. 2. epist. pelag: l. 2. c. 2. pelagiani dicunt deum non esse omnium aetatum in hominibus mundatorem, salvatorem, liberatorem, &c. and when the massilians, to vindicate themselves from that charge of s. augustine's, confess that christ died for all mankind, (as it appears by prospers epistle) prosper expresses no manner of dislike of that confession, but forms other charges against them. and the truth is, there is scarce any ancient writer before pelagius, but hath directly asserted christ's dying for all, the testimonies of irenaeus, clemens, origen, macarius, cyril of jerusalem, eusebius, athanasius, and many others might readily be produced, if that were needful. and then let it be guest also, which of the two positions, the affirmative or the negative, best deserves the charge of being the spawn of those old accursed heresies, which have been already condemned, &c. the same i could add from many the learnedst protestants, which never were thought to be tainted with any ancient or modern heresy (though others i know have expressed themselves otherwise) but i need not such auxiliaries. to conclude this point, i suppose in affirming or vindicating this position, i have born testimony to the truth of christ, from whom, and whose apostles i profess to have learned this truth, and to conceive it (for the sense of it) as fully testified by plain scriptures, as many articles of the creed; and for the expression used in the pract: catechism of [all mankind] i must acknowledge to have learned it from the church of england (of which i do yet with joy profess myself an obedient son and member) in those words of her catechism, established by act of parliament, and inserted in the book of liturgy, where i was taught, [to believe in god the father, who created me and all the world, in god the son, who redeemed me and all mankind, and in god the holy ghost, who sanctified me and all the elect people of god; where mankind as it is of a narrower extent on one side then all the world of creatures, so is it to be understood of a larger, than all the elect people of god; and so much for the first charge. the second is set down p. 15. and it is this, that neither paul nor james exclude or separate faithful actions or acts of faith from faith, or the condition of justification, but absolutely require them, as the only things by which the man is justified. what is thus set down i acknowledge to be in terminis in the practical catechism, but cannot easily guess wherein the error or perniciousness is conceived to lie, unless it should possibly be thorough a mistake of the phrase [the only things by which the man is justified] as if by that speech should be understood, either that the faithful actions or acts of faith without faith itself, were the only things by which we are justified, or else that all the things there spoken of, faith, and faithful actions, or acts of faith are the only cause, and so some cause of our justification, or by which, as by a cause, we are justified; either of these i confess might pass for an error, but both these doctrines i have sufficiently disclaimed; and indeed in this very proposition 'tis affirmed that the faithful actions or acts of faith are not excluded or separated from faith (which they must be if they justify without faith) or the condition of justification (i. e. from that faith which is considered as, and affirmed to be the condition of our justification) but by those two apostles absolutely required, to what? why to faith, or the condition of our justication, as the only things together with it by which as by a condition, and only so (as 'tis clearly set down all over that part of the catechism, which handles faith or justification) the man is justified. this i suppose may give these men some light of their mistake, if it were such: but if they understand the speech as then and now i do, and yet think it error, and pernicious, i must then only prove that what was said from s. james and s. paul, was not by me falsely imposed upon them, and then they must either maintain my speech, or fall with me in the same condemnation. that s. james doth not exclude or separate faithful actions, or acts of faith, from faith, or the condition of justification, but require them, (i.e. faith, and faithful actions, or acts of faith) as the only things by which, as by a condition, the man is justified, will be clear by the definition of a condition in logic, and the plain words of s. james; a condition is a qualification of the s●bject required to make him capable, or a causa sine quâ non; and so a condition of justification is no more, then that without which a man cannot be justified; and that as the direct affirmation of s. james, c. 2.24. ye see that by works (i. e. faithful actions, or acts of faith) a man is just●fied, and not by faith only: and again, faith if it have not works, v. 17. and faith without works, v. 20. is dead, and so, sure, not such as by which we are justified. from whence i form this syllogism, that, without which, in s. james' opinion, we are not justified, and by which joined with faith we are justified, not by faith only, is not by s. james excluded or separated from faith or the condition of our justification, but required together with faith, as the only things by which (as by a condition the man is justified; but without acts of faith or faithful actions, in s. james' ●●●mon, we are not justified, and by them we are justified, and 〈◊〉 by faith only, therefore faithful actions, or acts of ●●●th are not by st. james excluded or separated from faith, or the condition of our justification, but required together with faith, as the only things by which (as by a condition) the man is justified. the first proposition is clear from the nature of a condition; the second from the words cited out of s. james, and then i hope the conclusion will neither be error nor pernicious. then for s. paul 'tis made evident in the pract: catech●sme that the faith by which according to his doctrine abraham was justified (and not by works) rom. 4. was not only a depending on god for the performance of his promise (which yet was a faithful action, or act of faith) but also a resigning himself up wholly to him to obey his precepts; or more clearly, was a faith, which, howsoever it was tried by promises or commands, did answer god in acts of faith, or faithful actions; and so was accepted by god (without absolute unsinning obedience, much more without obedience to the mosaical law, i. e. without works) all which is clear in the story of abraham, and i suppose need not farther be evidenced. and then concerning s. paul's part in the business, my syllogism shall be this, he that affirms abraham to be justified by that faith, which, howsoever 'twas tried, did answer god in acts of faith or faithful actions, doth not exclude or separate faithful actions or acts of faith from faith, or the condition of our justification, but absolutely requires them, &c. but s. paul affirms abraham to be justified by that faith, which howsoever 'twas tried, did answer god in faithful actions, or acts of faith, therefore s. paul doth not exclude or separate faithful actions, &c. the first proposition i conceive wants little proving, after that which hath been already premised in this matter. and for the second i shall desire that abraham's faith, as it hath justification attributed to it by saint paul, may be viewed both in the 4 to the rom. and the 11 to the heb. in the former his faith was tried by the promise of a numerous seed, &c. and he answered that with one act of faith, or faithful action, believed in hope, beyond hope, v. 18. was strong in faith, and gave glory to god, v. 20. was fully persuaded, that what god had promised, he was able to perform, v. 21. all which what are they but acts of faith, or faithful actions; all, which (when the object of the faith is god's absolute promise) the matter is capable of, and for this it was counted to him for righteousness, or he was justified, ver. 22. and thence sure i may conclude, that these were so required, as the condition by which he was, and without which he should not be justified. in the 11 to the heb. many other acts of his faith, or faithful actions are mentioned; v. 8. by faith he obeyed to go out of his own country, not knowing whither he went, and v. 9 by faith he sojourned in a strange land, v. 10. by faith he expected a city, that hath foundations, v. 17. by faith he offered his son, and v. 19 counted that god was able to raise him up from the dead, v. 20. by faith he blessed isaac concerning things to come. what are all these but acts of faith, or faithful actions in all kinds of trials? and therefore i suppose all this being out of saint paul, as the former out of saint james, 'twill be no error or pernicious from their very words to have affirmed this doctrine, and affixed it on them. i suppose also this may serve for the second proposition. the third is set down p. 18. from pract. catech. p. 120. and 'tis this, that [thou shalt not take the name of the lord thy god in vain] is undoubtedly no more than [thou shalt not forswear thyself.] to this charge i answer first, that it is a little strange, that a bare explication of a phrase of scripture, a part of the third commandment in exod. though it were acknowledged false, or forced, should yet be so far improvable by any, as to come under the title of an infamous pernicious error, a spawn of the old accursed heresies, &c. and be capable of all those other aggravations at first mentioned, which being affixed to all the errors in the catalogue, must also be affixed to this which is set down for one of them. but than secondly, for the truth, (most undoubted certain truth) of this explication, or interpretation thus censured, i have formerly at large made it appear, that the words [to take the name of god] signify to swear, and no more, and the hebrew which we render in vain, signifies [falsely] and is so rendered in the ninth commandment, and agreeable to that, psal. 15. to lift up the soul to vanity, is to swear by the soul or life falsely, as it there follows, nor sworn to deceive his neighbour, and beside my own judgement in this matter, backed with the consent of as learned as this age hath, or the ancient church had any, i conceived that i had a most authentic warrant from christ himself, who renders it {non-roman} {non-roman} {non-roman} {non-roman} {non-roman}, thou shalt not forswear thyself: for so we read mat. 5. ye have heard that it was said to them of old, thou shalt not kill, and again in the same manner, thou shalt not commit adultery, that is, that of the 10 commandments delivered in sinai, and brought down by scripture, to them his present auditors, one commandment was, thou shalt not kill, another, thou shalt not commit adultery, and so again in the very same form of words, another, thou shalt not forswear thyself, from which i did assure my self (and so still do) that {non-roman} {non-roman} {non-roman} {non-roman} {non-roman}, is as directly the interpretation (in christ's judgement) of the first part of the third commandment, as {non-roman} {non-roman} {non-roman} {non-roman} {non-roman}, or {non-roman} {non-roman} {non-roman} {non-roman} {non-roman} of the seventh and sixth, and so that it is undoubtedly no more the one than the other. and indeed this was the only occasion of delivering those words in the pract: catech. to show that christ did not misreport the words of the commandments, nor yet refer to any other place, but that commandment in those words of his. and though i have many other things, that i could say to that matter, able to free that speech from all imaginable inconveniences (especially when in that place christ's prohibition is explained to be against all kind of swearing (by any other as well as by god) in ordinary conversation, or in any case but wherein it is necessary to confirm by oath) yet i am very willing to leave the matter here, upon this account at this time given of it, i. e. in my opinion on christ's score, and not fear what any ingenuous reader will charge on me for this interpretation. i beseech god to forgive them which have brought this unnecessary trouble upon the reader: and for myself i have to them these two only requests, 1. that they will examine themselves sincerely, and as in god's sight, what the motive or design was, which persuaded them to single out me alone (who profess myself, and am by all that know me, acknowledged to hold nothing contrary to the church of england, and will justify it to any man that knows what the church of england is) and join me with the broachers of all the blasphemies and heresies of this age: and 2ly, that they will lay to heart the consequences which may naturally flow from hence, if god do not uphold weak christians, who seeing so many doctrines of very distant natures blended together, with the same brand of [heresy and blasphemy, infamous and pernicious] fastened on them, and no kind of proofs annexed, that any are such (beside the judgement of the censors) may possibly find some of them to be the infallible truths of god, and be tempted (if they have not stronger antidotes than this bare testimony will afford them) to have the same thoughts of the other also; or if not, whether they will not be inclined to have the same severity and condemnation for me, or any other asserter of such propositions as these, as they are taught to have for the authors of those other blasphemous propositions, and so be tempted to uncharitableness. having said thus much, i shall hope it may find some good success among some who have subscribed that testimony: but if i am mistaken in all of them, i shall then desire that this improsperous paper may gain me but thus much, that either the first subscriber mr john downam (who did licence the printing of this very book, from whence all these pretended errors are cited) or else dr gouge, or mr gataker, who are foremost of the second rank, or some other person of learning and christian temper will afford me their patience personally, and by fair discourse, or any other christian way, to debate the truth of our pretensions; and for this i shall wait their leisure. h. hammond. from my study, christ-ch: in oxon. jan. 24. monday. the end. to the much honoured and ingenious francis willoughby esquire. sir, 'tis likely you will no less wonder at this unexpected sally of my pen; than at my having prefixed your name to a trifle, that owns no author. of the former, you will receive an account in the preface. and the latter, if the considerations following; are not of weight, to atone for; i know you have goodness enough to pardon, what i have not reason sufficient to excuse, or vindicate. well meaning intentions are apology enough, where candour, and ingenuity are the judges. i was not induced then to this address, because i thought i could oblige you; worth describes itself in the fairest character. but reflecting upon that delight & satisfaction, that i have received in discoursing with you on such matters; and knowing that your noble genius is gratified by such kind of speculations; i thought i could not make more suitable payment for my content, or better acknowledge the favour i receive in your acquaintance, then by presenting you a discourse about praeexistence; & giving you a peculiar interest in it, as you have in its author. not that i would suggest, that you are a favourer of any strange opinions, or hold any thing in this particular, or any other, that is fit to be discountenanced. but i know you love to be dealing in high and generous theories, even where yourself are a dissenter. nor is it the least evidence of the greatness and heroic nobleness of your spirit; that amidst the flowing abundance of the world's blessings with which you are encircled, you can yet dedicate yourself to your beloved contemplations; and look upon the furniture and accomplishments of the mind, as better riches, than the largest doals of fortune, and the wealth and revenues of an ample inheritance. and methinks while most others at the best, do but use the donatives of providence; you enjoy them. and by a nobler kind of chemistry extract from them a pleasure, that is not to be met with in all the trivial sports of empty gallantry. to be reviewing the recesses of nature, & the beauteous inside of the universe, is a more manly, yea angelic felicity, than the highest gratifications of the senses; an happiness, that is common to the youthful epicure, with his hounds and horses, yea your ends are more august and generous, then to terminate in the private pleasure you take, even in those philosophical researches; for you are meditating a more general good, in those careful & profound inquiries you are making into animals, & other concerning affairs of nature, which i hope one day the world will be advantaged by. but i must not engage in an encomium, in which i cannot be just, but i must be troublesome. for your modesty is no more able to bear it, than my pen can reach. wherefore i shall dismiss your eyes from this tyresome attendance; and only beg, that you would assure yourself that no man is more your servant, than the author of lux orientalis. the preface. it is none of the least commendable indulgencies of our church, that she allows us a latitude of judging in points of speculation. and ties not up men's consciences to an implicit assenting to opinions, not necessary or fundamental; which favourable and kind permission, is questionless a great obligation upon the ingenious, submissively to receive & observe her pious appointments for peace and order. nor is there less reason in this parental indulgence, than there is of christian charity and prudence; since to tie all others up to our opinions, and to impose difficult and disputable matters under the notion of confessions of faith and fundamentals of religion, is a most uncharistian piece of tyranny, the foundation of persecution, and very root of antichristianisme. so that i have often wondered, that those that heretofore would have forced all men to a compliance with their darling notions, and would have made a prey of them, that could not bow down before the idol of their new-framed orthodoxy; should yet have the face to object persecution and unchristian tyranny to our church appointments; when themselves under a deep and crimson guilt of those very same miscarriages, which they endeavour to affix upon those more innocent constitutions. for is it not a far more unblamable and obnoxious imposition to srame systems of disputable opinions, & to require their admittance into our creeds, in the place of the most sacred, necessary, and fundamental verities; than it is to appoint some harmless orders of circumstance and ceremony, which in themselves are indifferent and innocent. and let any equal man be judge, which is the greater superstition, either to idolise and place religion in things of dispute and mere opinions; or conscientiously to observe the sanctions of that authority we are bound to obey. but how all those ill applied reproaches of the church of england, recoil upon those that discharge them, i have fully proved in a discourse on this subject, which in its due time may see the light. but for the present i go on with what i was about; therefore i say, 'tis a most commendable excellency in our ecclesiastical constitutions, which with all due regard ought to be acknowledged; that they in some few matters of opinion, but such, as are of important concernment, or very meridian truths, which i mention not to this purpose, as if men might therefore indulge themselves in what conceits and dangerous opinions soever their fancies might give birth to; this were an unpardonable abuse of that noble and ingenious liberty that is afforded us. but that they might see the beauty of those well tempered constitutions; and that the mouth of obloquy might be stopped that slanders our church, as if it yielded no scope at all for free inquiry; when i dare say there is not a church in christendom, that in this regard is less criminal. as for the opinion of praeexistence, the subject of the following papers, it was never determined against by ours, nor any other church that i know of; and therefore i conceive is left as a matter of school speculation, which without danger may be problematically argued on either hand. and i have so great confidence in all true sons of our common mother to think, that they will not fix any harsh and severe censures, upon the innocent speculations of ●hose, though possibly they may be errors, who own the authority, articles, canons, and constitutions of that church which they are so deservedly zealous for. therefore let me here premonish once for all, that i intent no innovation in religion, or disturbance of our established and received doctrines, by any thing i have undertaken in this little treatise; but only an innocent representation of an ancient and probable opinion, which i conceive may contribute somewhat towards the clearing and vindicating the divine attributes, and so representing the ever blessed deity, as a more fit object of love and adoration, than the opinions of the world make him. and what ever may be thought of the thing itself, or the manage of this affair, i'm 〈◊〉 the end and design is concerning and important, and deserves at least a favourable construction of the undertaking. for there is nothing more for the interest of religion, then that god be represented to his creatures as amiable & lovely, which cannot be better done, then by clearing up his providences and dealings with the sons of men, and discovering them to be full of equity, sweetness and benignity, so that though i should be mistaken in the opinion which i endeavour to recommend, yet i expect the candour of the ingenious being betrayed into an error, if it be one, by so pardonable an occasion. if it be excepted against this undertaking, that the doctrine of praeexistence hath in a late discourse been purposely handled; besides what the learned d. more hath written of it; and therefore that this labour may seem a superfluous, unnecessary repetition. i answer, that that very treatise, viz the account of origen, made some such thing as this, expedient. for though the proof and management of this affair be there unexceptionable, as far as the author is by his design engaged; yet, he being consigned to the reasons of origen, and to the answering such objections, as the fathers urged against him; hath not so fully sta●ed and cleared the business, but that there was room for af●er-undertakers. and 'tis a ●reat disinterest to so strange and ●nusual a doctrine as this, to be 〈◊〉 partially handled: since so long, it will not be understood, and consequently be but exposed to contempt and ignominy. nor can we hope that the world will be so favourable to a paradox, or take so much pains for the understanding of that which they think a gross absurdity, as to collect those principles that are scattered up and down the writings of that great & excellent restorer of the platonic cabbala, and accommodate them to the interest of this opinion. so that i thought that till the reasons, answers, principles, & particular state of the hypothesis were brought all together to talk of praeexistence in arnest were but to make a man's self ridiculous, and the doctrine, the common ludibrium of fools and ignorants. and yet i must confess myself to be so much a contemner of the half witted censurers of things they know not, that this reason alone could not have moved my pen the breadth of a letter; but some ingenious friends of mine, who were willing to do their maker right, in a due apprehension of his attributes and providences having read the letter of resolution, and thence being induced to think favourably of praeexistence, were yet not fully satisfied in the proof, nor able to give stop to those objections, which their imperfect knowledge of the hypothesis occasioned: wherefore they desired me to draw up a more full & particular account of that doctrine, which they had now a kindness for, and which wanted nothing more to recommend it to them, but a clear and full representation. for their satisfaction then, i drew up the following discourse, intending at first, that it should go no further than their hands, whose interest in mine affections had commanded it; but they being more than i could well pleasure with written copies, and perceiving others of my acquaintance also, to whom i owe regard and service, to be in the like condition with these; i was induced to let this little trifle tread a more public stage; and to speak my mind to them from the press. if further reason be expected for mine undertaking a business in which others have been engaged, i would desire them to consider what an infinite of books are written upon almost all subjects can be named. and i am confident, if they turn o'er libraries, they'll find no theme, that is of any consideration, less traced than this is. so that no body hath reason to call it a crambe, who considers, that there are multitudes, even of scholars that have never seen or heard of any thing of this nature; and there is not, that i know of, any one book extant in any language besides this, that purposely, solely, and fully treats of praeexistence. wherefore who ever condemns this as a superfluous engagement, if he will be just, must pass the same censure upon well nigh every discourse the press is delivered of, for he'll meet with few written on lesshandled subjects. i might urge also if there were need on't, that various representations of the same thing, fit the variety of phansyes and gusts of perusers; and that may have force and prevalence to persuade in one for me, which signifies nothing in another. but 'tis enough; he that will judge me on this account, must pass the same award on every sermon he hears, and every book he looks on; and such a censure will do me as little hurt, as him good, that passeth it. besides this exception, 'tis not unlikely that some may object, that i use arguments that have already been pleaded in behalf of this opinion; which rightly understood, is no matter of disrepute; since every one else doth it that deals in a subject formerly written of. and i would have him that commenceth such a charge against me, to consult divers authors who have handled the same subject; and if he find not the same arguments and reasons infinitely repeated every where, let him call me plagiary, & spare not. 'tis true therefore i have not baulked the reasons of origen, dr. more, or the author of the letter of resolution, because they had been used already; but freely own the assistance of those worthy authors; however i think i have so managed, fortified, & secured them against exceptions, especially the most considerable, that i may reasonably expect a pardon, yea and an interest in them also. for 'tis the backing of an argument that gives it force & efficacy; which i have done to the most weighty of them, at my proper cost & charges. nor should i have been faithful to my cause, had i omitted any thing that i thought confirmed it, upon any pretence whatever; since possibly this discourse may fall into the hands of some, who never met with those other authors. and my design being a full proof, defence, & explication of praeexistence, it had been an unpardonable defect to have permitted those weighty reasons by which its learned assertors have enforced it. if any yet should criminat me (as i know some did the account of origen,) for using many of the same words, and some of the same phrases & expressions, that those others; who have writ about those matters have made use of; i am not very careful to answer them in this matter; and i doubt this engagement against those little seruples, will be importunate to the judicious. for no body blames the frequent usage of words of art; or those which the first masters or restorers of any doctrine have been wont to express their notions by since that such words and expressions are best understood, as have by custom or the authority of some great authors been appropriated to such doctrines, as they have employed them in the service of. and should every man that writes on any subject, be obliged to invent a new, all the terms he hath need of, and industriously to shun those proper, expressive words and phrases that are fitted to his hands, and the business he is about; all things will be filled with impertinency, darkness & confusion. it must be acknowledged then, that most of the peculiar words & phrases that either i, or any body else that will speak properly & intelligibly in this matter, make use of, are borrowed from the judicious and elegant contriver of them, the profound restorer & refiner of almost-extinct platonism: whose invention hath been so happy in this kind, that it hath served up those notions in the most apposite, significant, comprehensive and expressive words that could well be thought of, where fore 'twere an humoursome piece of folly for any man that deals in these matters industriously to avoid such terms and expressions as are so adopted and fitted to this purpose, and so well known among those that are acquainted with this way of learning; when without vanity he could not think to be better furnish't from his own fancy. if in the following papers i have ufed any expressions of others, which these considerations will not warrant; i must beg pardon for my memory which doth not use to be so serviceable. and where i writ this discourse, i had not one of my books within my reach, that treated of this, or indeed any other subject. nor am i at leisure now to examine, them and this, to see whether i can find any such coincidences; which a man's fancy dealing frequently in such matters, might insensibly occasion. if any there be, let those that find them out, pardon them, as the slips of a too officious imagination's or however else they treat them, they shall not much difplease the author. and now that this discourse may pass with less control among those that shall light on it, i find myself engaged to speak a little to a double sort of readers, who are like to be offended at my design & averse to the doctrine asserted in these papers, and (1) some will boggle at praeexistence, & be afraid to entertain it, upon an apprehension that the admission of this opinion will disorder and change the frame of orthodox divinity, which, were there cause for such a jealousy, were but a commendable caution; but there's hope this may prove but a panic fear, or such a needless terror as surpriseth children in the dark, when they take their best friends for some bugbear that would carry them away, or hurt them. for 'tis but supposing (as i have some where intimated in the discourse itself) that god created all souls together as he did the angels that some of them sinned and fell with the other apostate spirits; and for their disobedience were thrust into a state of silence and insensibility; that the divine goodness so provided for them, that they should act a part again in terrestrial bodies, when they should fitly be prepared for them; and that adam was set up as our great protoplast and representative, who had he continued in innocence and integrity, we had then been sharers in that happiness which he at first was instated in; but by his unhappy defection and disobedience we lost it; and became thus miserable in our new life in these earthly bodies. i say the doctrine of praeexistence thus stated, is in nothing that i know of, an enemy to common theology: all things hence proceeding as in our ordinary systems; with this only difference, that this hypothesis clears the di●ine attributes from any shadow of harshness or inequality, since it supposeth us to have sinned and deserved all the misery we suffer in this condition before we came hither; whereas the other which teacheth, that we became both guilty and miserable by the single and sole offence of adam, when as we were not then in being; or as to our souls, as much as potentially in our great progenitor; bears somewhat hardly upon the repute of the divine perfections. so that if the wary reader be afraid to venture upon the hypothesis, that i have drawn up at the end, (which i confess i would not give him the least encouragement to meddle with) yet, without danger he may admit of praeexsistence as accommodated to the orthodox doctrine. nor should i indeed have meddled with the other scheam, which is built upon the principles of mere reason and philosophy; but that those friends who drew the rest of the discourse from me, engaged me to give them an account of the philosophical hypothesis. in which, i know i have not in every particular, followed the mind of the masters of the origenian cabbala; but kept myself to the conduct of those principles, that i judged most rational; though indeed the things wherein i differ, are very few and inconsiderable. however for that reason i thought fit, to entitle no body to the hypothesis that i have made a draught of, lest i should have affixed on any one, what he would not have owned. but for the main, those that understand it, know the fountain; and for others, 'tis no great matter if they be ignorant. now if any one judge me to be a proselyte to those opinions, because i call them not all to nought, or damn those, that have a favour for them; i know not how to avoid the doom of their severe displeasure; having said as much in the place where i treat of those matters, to purge myself of such a suspicion as i thought necessary to clear me, in the opinion of any competently ingenuous. as for others, let me say what i can, i shall be what their wisdoms think fit to call me; and let that be what it will, i am very well content to bear it. i'll only add to take off the ground of this uncharitable jealousy, that among thefavourers of praeexistence, i know none that are adharers to those opinions; & therefore for me to have declaimed against any, on this account, had been a piece of knight-errantry; and those donns that do so make giants of the windmills of their own imaginations. but, (2) there are another sort of readers that i have a word to say to, who contemn & laugh at every thing that their narrow noddles comprehend not. this i confess is a good easy way of confutation; & if we may take every fool's smile for a demonstration, praeexistence will be routed. but the best on't is, to call things by their right names, this is but a vulgar childish humour arising from nothing but a fond doting on the opinions we were first instructed in. for having made those the standard of truth & solidity, those praepossest decerners presently conclude every thing that is a stranger to their ears and understandings, & of another stamp from their education-receptions, false & ridiculous; just like the common people, who judging all customs and fashions by their own, account those of other nations absurd, and barbarous. 'tis well for those smiling confuters, that they were not bred in mahumetism, for then without doubt they would have made sport of christianity. but since they are so disposed, let them laugh at the opinion i have undertaken for, till they understand it; i know who in the judgement of wise men will prove ridiculous. it was from this very principle that the most considerable truths, that ever the world was acquainted with, were to the jews, a stumbling block, and to the greeks, foolishness; and 'twas such a spirit as reigns in these children of self-confidence, that called s. paul a babbler. and methinks till these narrow sculed people could boast themselves infallible, and all their opinions, an unerring canon, common modesty and civility should teach them better manners, then at first dash to judge that a ridiculous absurdity; which the greatest and wisest sages that enlightened the ancient world, accounted so sound and and probable a conclusion. especially it being a matter not determined against, but rather countenanced in scripture, as will appear hereafter. but opiniative ignorance is very weak & immoral. and till those slight and vulgar decerners, have learned that first principle of true wisdom, to judge nothing till they throughly understand it, & have weighed it in the balance of impartial reason; 'tis to no purpose to spend one's breath upon them. courteous reader, in the authors absence, you are desired to correct the printers errors. lux orientalis. chap. i. the opinions proposed concerning the original of souls. it hath always been found a matter of discouraging difficulty, among those that have busied themselves in such injuiries, to determine the soul's original. insomuch that after all the contests and disputes that have been about it, many of the wisest inquisitors have concluded it undeterminable; or, if they have sat down in either of the 2 opinions, viz. of its immediate creation, or traduction (which of later ages have been the only competitors); they have been driven to it, rather from the absurdities of the opposite opinion, which they have left; then drawn by any rational alliciency in that which they have taken to. and indeed, if we do but impartially consider the grand inconveniences which each party urgeth against the others conclusion, it would even tempt one to think, that both are right in their opposition and neither in their assertion. and since each side so strongly oppugns the other and so weakly defends itself, 'tis a shrewd suspicion that they are both mistaken. wherefore if there be a third that can lay any probable claim to the truth, it deserves to be heard to plead its cause; and, if it be not chargeable with the contradictions or absurdities either of the one or other, to be admitted. now though these later ages have concluded the matter to lie between immediate creation, and seminal traduction; yet i find that the more ancient ●imes have pitched upon praeexistence, as more likely than either; for the plato●nists, pythagoreans, the chaldean wise men, the jewish rabbins, and some of the most learned and ancient fathers were of this opinion. wherefore i think we owe so much at least to the mentory of those grave sages, 〈◊〉 to examine this doctrine of theirs, and if neither of the later hypotheses can ease our anxious minds, or free themselves from absurdities; and this grey dogma fairly clear all doubts, and be obnoxious to no such contradictions; i see no reason but we may give it a favourable admittance: till something else appear more concinnous and rational. therefore let us take some account of what the 2 first opinions allege one against another, and how they are proved by their promoters and defendants: now, if they be found unable to withstand the shock of one another's opposition; we may reasonably cast our eyes upon the third, to see what force it brings to vouch its interest, and how it will behave itself in the encounter. chap. ii. daily creation of souls is inconsistent with the divine attributes. the first of these opinions that offers itself to trial is, that god daily creates humane souls, which immediately are united unto the bodies that generation hath prepared for them. of this side are our later divines, and the generality of the schoolm●n. but not to be born down by authoritys, let us consider what reason stands against it. therefore, (1) if our souls came immediately out of the hands of god when we came first into these bodies, whence then are those enormously brutish inclinations, that strong natural proclivity to vice and impiety, that are exstant in the children of men? all the works of god bear his image, and are perfect in their kind. purity is his nature, and what comes from him, proportionably to its capacity partakes of his perfections. every thing in the natural world bears the superscription of his wisdom and goodness; and the same fountain cannot send forth sweet waters and bitter. therefore 'tis a part of our allegiance to our maker to believe, that he made us pure and innocent and if we were but just then framed by him when we were united with these terrestrial bodies, whence should we contract such degenerate propensions? some tell us, that this impu●ity was immediately derived from the bodies we are unired to; but, how is it possible, that purely passive insensible matter should transfuse habits or inclinations into a nature that is quite of an other make and quality? how can such a cause produce an effect so disproportionate? matter can do nothing but by motion, and what relation hath that to a moral contagion! how can a body that is neither capable of sense nor sin, infect a soul, as soon as 'tis unied to it, with such vicious debauched dispositions? but others think to evade by saying, that we have not these depravities in our natures, but contract them by custom, education, and evil usages. how then comes it about, that those that have had the same care and industry used upon them; and have been nurtured nuder the same d scipline and severe oversight, do so vastly and even to wonder differ in their inclinations? how is it that those that are under continual temptations to vice, are yet kept within the bounds of virtue, and sobriety? and yet that others, that have strong motives and allurements to the contrary, should violently break out into all kinds of extravagance and impiety? sure, there is some what more in the matter than those general causes, which may be common to both; and which many times have quite contrary effects. (2) this hypothesis, that god continually creates humane souls in these bodies, consists not with the honour of the divine attributes. for, (1) how stands it with the goodness and benignity of that god, who is love, to put pure and immaculate spirits, who were capable of living to him and with him, into such bodies as will presently defile them, deface his image, pervert all their powers and faculties, incline them to hate what he most loves, and love what his soul hateth; and that, without any knowledge or concurrence of theirs, will quite mar them as soon as he hath made them, and of dear children, render them rebels or enemies, and in a moment from being like angels transform them into the perfect resemblance of the first apostates, devils? is this an effect of those tender mercies that are over all his works? and (2) hath that wisdom that hath made all things to operate according to their natures, and provided them with what ever is necessary to that end, made myriads of noble spirits capable of as noble operations, and presently plunged them into such a condition wherein they cannot act at all according to their first and proper dispositions, but shall be necessitated to the quite contrary; and have other noxious and depraved inclinations fatally imposed upon their pure natures doth that wisdom, that hath made all things in number, weight, and measure, and disposed them in such exact harmony and proportions, use to act so ineptly? and that in the best and noblest pieces of his creation? doth it use to make and presently destroy? to frame one thing and give it such or such a nature, and then undo what he had done, and make it an other? and if there be no such irregular methods used in the framing of inferior creatures, what reason have we to suspect that the divine wisdom did so vary from its self in its noblest composures? and (3), is it not a great affront to the divine justice, to suppose, as we are commonly taught, that assoon as we are born, yea, and in the womb, we are obnoxious to eternal wrath and torments, if our souls are then immediately created out of nothing? for, to be just is to give every one his due; and how can endless unsupportable punishments be due to innocent spirits, who but the last moment came righteous, pure, and immaculate out of their creator's hands; and have not done or thought any thing since, contrary to his will or laws, nor were in any the least capacity of sinning. ay, but the first of our order, our general head and representative, sinned, and we in him; thus we contract guilt as soon as we have a being, and are liable to the punishment of his disobedience. this is thought to solve all, and to clear god from any shadow of unrighte●sness. but what ever truth there is in the thing itself, i think it cannot stand upon the hypothesis of the souls immediate creation nor yet justify god in his proceedings. for, (1) if i was then newly created when first in this body; what was adam to me, who sinned above 5000 years before i came out of nothing? if he represented me, it must be as i was in his loins, that is, in him as an effect in a cause. but so i was not, according to this doctrine; for my soul owns no father but god, its immediate progenitor. and what am i concerned then in his sins, which had never my will or consent, more than in the sins of 〈◊〉, or julius caesar? nay, than in the sins of belzebub or lucifer? and for my body, 'tis most likely, that never an atom of his, ever came at me; or, if any did, he was no cause on't. besides, that of itself is neither capable of sense, sin, guilt, nor punishment: or, (2) admitting that we become thus obnoxious assoon as in the body, upon the account of his default, how doth it comport with the divine justice, in one moment to make such excellent creatures, and in the next to render them so miserable, by thrusting them into a condition, so fatally obnoxious; especially since they were capable of living and acting in bodies more perfect, and more accommodate to their new undesiled natures. certainly, could they have been put to their choice whether they would have come into being upon such terms, they would rather have been nothing for ever. and god doth not use to make his creatures so, as that, without their own fault, they shall have cause to unwish themselves. hitherto in this second general arg. i have dealt against those that believe and assert the original depravity of our natures: which those that deny, may think themselves not pinched by or concerned in; since they think they do no such dishonour to the divine attributes, while they assert, that we were not made in so deplorable and depraved a condition, but have so made ourselves by our voluntary aberrations. but neither is this a fit plaster for the sore, supposing our souls to be immediately created and so sent into these bodies. for still it seems to be a diminutive and disparaging apprehen●on of the infinite and immense goodness of god, that he should detrude such excellent creatures as our souls into a state so hazardous, wherein he seeth it to be ten thousand to one, but that they will corrupt, and defile themselves, and so make themselves miserable here, and to eternity hereafter. and certainly, be we as indifferent naturally to good and evil as can be supposed; yet great are the disadvantages to virtue that all men unavoidably meet with, in this state of imperfection. for considering, that our infant and growing age is an age of sense, in which our appetites, and passions are very strong, and our reasons weak, and scarce any thing but a chain of imaginations, 'tis i say great odds, but that we should be carried to inordinacy, and exceed the bounds the divine laws have set us. so that our lower powers of sense and passions using to have the head, will grow strong and impetuous; and thus 'tis an hundred to one but we shall be rooted in vice, before we come to the maturity of our reasons, or are capable of the exercise of virtue. and woeful experience teacheth us, that most men run so far before they consider whither they are going, that the care and diligence of all their lives after, will scarce reclaim them. besides, the far greatest part of the world are led into wickedness and all kinds of debauchery, by corrupt and vicious education. and 'tis not difficult to observe what an inormous strength, bad education hath to deprave and pervert well disposed inclinations. which things considered, this way also methinks reflects a disparagement on the divine attributes: since by creating souls daily and putting them into such bodies, and such parts of the world as his infinite wisdom sees will debauch them, and pervert them from the ways of righteousness and happiness, into those of vice and misery; he deals with them less mercifully than a parent among us would with his offspring. and to suppose god to have less goodness than his degenerate creatures, is to have very narrow apprehensions of his perfections, and to 〈◊〉 him of the honour due to his attributes. (3) it hath been urged with good probability by great and wise sages, that 'tis an unbecoming apprehension of the majesty on high, to suppose him assistant to unlawful and unclean coitions, by creating a soul to animate the impure foetus. and to think, it is in the power of brutish lust to determine omnipotence to create a soul, whensoever a couple of unclean adulterers shall think fit to join in their bestial pleasures; is methinks to have a very mean apprehension of the divine majesty and purity. this is to make him the worst of servants by supposing him to serve his creatures' vices, to wait upon the vilest actions, and to engage the same infinite power that made the world for the perfecting what was begun by dissolute wantoness. this argument was used of old by pious and learned origen, and hath been employed in the same service since, by his modern defendants. but i foresee an evasion or two, that possibly with some may stand for an answer, the removal of which will clear the business. it may be pretended that god's attending to create souls for the supply of such generations, is but an act of his justice, for the detection, and consequently punishment, of such lawless offenders; which therefore will be no more matter of disparagement than the waiting of an officer of justice to discover and apprehend a malefactor. but this subterfuge cannot elude the force of the argument, for it hath no place at all in most adulteries; yea great injustice and injury is done many times by such illegitimate births; the child of a stranger being by this means admitted to carry away the inheritance from the lawful offspring. besides, god useth not ordinarily to put forth his almighty power to discover secret miscarriages, except sometimes for very remarkable and momentous ends, but leaves hidden iniqui●es to be the objects of his own castigations. and if discovery of the fault be the main end of such creations, methinks that might be done at a cheaper rate, that should not have brought so much inconvenience with it, or have exposed his own innocent and harmless offspring to undeserved reproach and infamy. but further it may be suggested, that it is no more indecent for god to create souls to furnish those unlawful generations, than it is that a man should be nourished by meat that he hath unlawfully come by, or that the cattle which he hath stolen should engender with his own. but the difference of these instances from the case in hand is easily discernible; in that the nourishment and productions spoken of, proceed in a set orderly way of natural causes, which work fatally and necessarily without respect to moral circumstances; and there is no reason, it should be in the power of a sinful creature to engage his maker to pervert or stop the course of nature, when he pleaseth. but in the case of creating souls, god is supposed to act by explicit and immediate will, the suspending of which, in such a case as this, is far different in point of credit and decorum, from his altering the settled laws he hath set in the creation, and turning the world upsidedown. i might further add (4ly), that it seems very incongruous and unhandsome to suppose, that god should create a souls for the supply of one monstrous body. and of such prodigious productions there is mention in history. that's a remarkable instance in sennertus, of a monster born at emmaus with two hearts, and two heads; the diversity of whose appetites, perceptions and affections, testified that it had two souls within that bi-partite habitation. now, to conceive the most wise maker and contriver of all things, immediately to create two souls, for a single body, rather than suffer that super-plus of matter which constitutes the monstrous excrescence to prove effete & inanimate, is methinks a derogatory apprehension of his wisdom, and supposeth him to act more ineptly in the great and immediate instances of his power, than in the ordinary course of nature about less noble and accurate productions. or, if it be pretended, that souls were sent into them while the bodies were yet distinct, but that after wards they grew into one: this, i say will not heal the breach that this hypothesis makes upon the divine wisdom; it tacitly reflecting a shameful oversight upon omniscience, that he should not be aware of the future coalescence of these bodies into one, when he made souls for them; or at least, 'tis to suppose him, knowingly to act ineptly. besides, that the rational soul is not created till the body, as to the main strokes of it at least, is framed, is the general opinion of the assertors of daily creation; so that then there is no room for this evasion. and now one would think that an opinion so very obnoxious, and so liable to such grand inconveniences, should not be admitted but upon most pressing reasons and ineludable demonstrations. and yet there is not an argument that i ever heard of from reason to enforce it, but only such as are brought from the impossibility of the way of traduction, which indeed is chargeable with as great absurdities, as that we have been discoursing of. 'tis true, several scriptures are pressed for the service of the cause; but i doubt much against their intent and inclination. general testimonies there are to prove that god is the father and creator of souls, which is equally true, whether we suppose it made just as it is united to these bodies, or did praeexist, and was before them; but that it is just then created out of nothing when first it comes into these earthly bodies, i know not a word in the inspired writings that speaks it. for that saying of our saviour, my father worketh hitherto, and i work, is by the most judicious understood of the works of preservation and providence. those of creation being concluded within the first hebdomade, accordingly as is expressed in the history, that god on the seventh day rested from all his works. nor can there an instance be given of any thing created since, or is there any pretended, but that which hath been the subject of our inquiry; which is no inconsiderable presumption, that that was not so neither; since the divine way of working is not pari● colour or humoursome, but uniform, and consonant to the laws of exactest wisdom. so that for us to suppose that god, after the completing. of his creation, and the laws given to 〈◊〉 things for their action, and continuanc● to be every moment working in a quit● other way in one instance of beings, tha● he doth in all besides; is methinks a som● what odd apprehension, especially whe● no reason urgeth to it, and scripture silent. for such places as this [the 〈◊〉 of the spirits of all flesh, the father 〈◊〉 spirits. the spirit returns to god 〈◊〉 gave it. the souls which i have mad● we are his offspring. who formeth 〈◊〉 spirit of man within him, and the like signify no more, but that our souls 〈◊〉 a nearer relation to god then our bodies as being his immediate workmanship made without any creature-interposal and more especially regarded by him but to infer hence, that they 〈◊〉 then produced when these body's 〈◊〉 generated, is illogicall and inconsequent so that all that these scriptures will ser● for, is only to disprove the doctrine 〈◊〉 fraduction, but makes not a tittle for the ordinary hypothesis of daily creation against praeexistence. chap. iii. (2) traduction of souls is impossible, the reasons for it weak and frivolous, the proposal of praeexistence. thus than we have examined the first way of stating the soul's original, that of continual creation; and finding no sure resting place for our inquiry here, we remove to the second. the way of traduction or seminal propagation. and the adherers to this hypothesis are of 2 sorts, viz. either such as make the soul to be nothing but a purer sort of matter, or of those that confess it wholly spiritual and immaterial. he dispatch the former, briefly strike at the root of their misconceit of the souls production, and show it cannot be matter, be it as pure as can be conceived. therefore (ay) if the soul be matter, than whatever perceptions or apprehensions it hath, or is capable of, they were let in at the senses. and thus the great patron of the hypothesis states it, in his leviathan, and other writings. but now clear it is that our souls have some conceptions, which they never received from external sense; for there are some congenite implicit principles in us, without which there could be no sensation; since the images of objects are very small and inconsiderable in our brains, comparatively to the vastness of the things which they represent, and very unlike them in multitudes of other circumstances, so that 'twere impossible we should have the sensible representation of any thing, were it not that our souls use a kind of geometry, or mathematic inference in judging of external objects by those little hints it finds in material impressions. which art and the principles thereof were never received from sense, but are presupposed to all sensible perceptions. and, were the soul quite vold of all such implicit notions, it would remain as senseless as a stone for ever. besides, we find our minds fraught with principles logical, moral, metaphysical, which could never owe their original to sense otherwise, then as it gives us occasions of using them. for sense teacheth no general propositions, but only affords singulars for induction; which being an inference, must proceed from an higher principle that owns no such dependence on the senses as being found in the mind, and not derived from any thing without. also we find in ourselves mathematical notions, and build certain demonstrations on them, which abstract from sense and matter. and therefore never had them from any material power but from something more sublime and excellent. but this argument is of too large a consideration to be treated of here and therefore i content myself with those brief touches, and pass on. (2) if the soul be matter 'tis impossible it should have the sense of any thing: for either the whole image of the object must be received in one point of this sensitive matter; a thing absurd at first view, that such variety of distinct and orderly representations should be made at once upon a single atom; or the whole image is impressed upon every point, and then there would be as many objects as there are points in this matter; and so every thing would be infinitely multiplied in our delusive senses. or finally, every part of the soul must receive a proportionable part of the image; and then, how could those parts communicate their perceptions to each other, and what should perceive the whole? this argument is excellently managed by the great dr. h. more, in whose writings this fond hypothesis is fully triumphed over, and defeated. since therefore the very lowest degree of perception, single and simple sense, is incompatible to 〈◊〉 body or matter, we may safely conclude, that the higher and nobler operations of imagining, remembering, reasoning, and willing must have a cause and source that is not corporeal. thus therefore those that build the souls traduction upon this ground of its being only body and modified matter, are disappointed in the foundation of but (2) another sort of assertors of traduction teach the soul to be spiritual and incorporeal, and affirm that by a virtue derived from the first benediction, it can propagate its like; one soul emitting another as the body doth the matter of generation. the manner of which spiritual production useth to be illustrated by one candles lighting another; and a man's begetting a thought in another's mind, without diminishing of his own. this is the most favourable representation of this opinion, that i can think on. and yet, if we nearly consider it, it will appear most absurd & unphilosophical for if one soul produce another, 'tis either out of nothing or something preaexistent. if the former, 'tis an absolute creation, which all philosophy concludes impossible for a creature. and if it be pretended that the parent doth it not by his proper natural virtue but by a strength imparted by god in the first blessing, increase and multiply, so that god is the prime agent, he only the instrument: i rejoin, that then either god hath thereby obliged himself to put forth a new and extraordinary power in every such occasion, distinct from his influence in the ordinary course of nature: or else (2) he only concurres by his providence, as he doth to our other natural actions, we having this ability bestowed upon our very natures. he that asserts the first, runs upon all the rocks that he would avoid in the former hypothesis of continual creation, and god will be made the cause of the sin and misery of his spotless and blameless creatures; which absurdities he cannot shun by saying, that god, by interposing in such productions, doth but follow the rules of acting, which he first made while man was innocent. for certainly infinite goodness would never have tied up itself to such laws of working, as he foresaw would presently bring unavoidable inconvenience, misery, and ruin upon the best part of his workmanship. and for the second way, it supposeth god to have no more to do in this action then in our eating and drinking. consequently, here is a creation purely natural. and ●methinks if we have so vast a power to ●ring the ends of contradictories together, something out of nothing, (which some deny to omnipotence itself) 'tis much we cannot conscrve in being our creature 〈◊〉 produced, nor our own intimate selves, since conservation is not more than creation. and 'tis much, that in other thing we should give such few specimen of so vast an ability; or, have a power so divine and excellent, and no faculty to discern it by. again (2) if the soul be immediately produced out of nothing, be the agent who it will, god or the parent, it will be pure and sinless. for, supposing our parents to be our creators; they make 〈◊〉 but as natural agents, and so can only transmit their natural qualities, but not their moral pravities. wherefore there can no better account be given from this way how the soul is so debauched and infected assoon as it comes into the body, 〈◊〉 in the former, and therefore it fails in the main end it is designed for. thus we see then that the traduction of the soul supposing it to be produced out of nothing, cannot be defended. nor doth the second general way, yield any more relief to this hypothesis. for if it be made of any thing preaexistent, it is either of matter or spirit. the former we have undermined and overthrown already, in what was said against those, that hold it to be body. and if it be made out of any spiritual substance, it must be the soul of the parent, (except we will revive the old enthusiastic conceit of its being a particle of the divine essence) which supposition is against the nature of an immaterial being, a chief property of which, is to be indiscerpible. nor do the similitudes i mentioned in the proposal of the hypothesis, at all fit the business; for one candle lights another, by separable emissions that pass from the flame of that which is kindled, to the ●ieke of the other. and flame is a body whose parts are in continual flux, as a ●iver. but the substance of the soul is stable, permanent, and indivisible, which quite makes it another case. and for a man's informing another's mind with a thought which he had not conceived, it is not a production of any substance, but only an occasioning him to exertan operation of his mind which he did not before. and therefore makes nothing to the illustrating, how a soul can produce a soul, a substance distinct and without itself; thus we see how desperate the case of the soul's original is in the hypothesis of traduction also. but yet to let it have fair play, we'll give it leave to plead its cause; and briefly present what is most material in its behalf. there are but two reasons that i can think of, worth a naming (1) a man begets a man, and a man he is not without a soul, therefore 'tis pretended that the soul is begotten. but this argument is easily detected of palpable sophistry, and is as if one should argue, a man is mortal therefore his soul is mortal, or is fat and lusty therefore his soul is so. the absurdity of which kinds of reasoning lies in drawing that into a strict and rigorous affirmation, which is only meant according to vulgar speech, and is true only, in some remarkable respect or circumstance. thus we say, a man begets a man, because he doth the visible and only sensible part of him; the vulgar, to whom common speech is accommodate, not taking so much notice of what is past the ken of their senses. and therefore body in ordinary speaking is oft put for person as here man for the body. sometimes the noblest part is used for the whole, as when 'tis said 70 souls went down with jacob into egypt; therefore such arguments as the assertors of traduction make use of, which are drawn from vulgar schemes of speech, argue nothing but the desperateness of the cause, that needs such pitiful sophistries to recommend it. such are these proofs which yet are some of the best i meet with, the seed of the woman shall break the serpent's head; 66 souls descended out of jacob's loins; adam begat a son in his own likeness, and such like. according to this rate of arguing the scripture may be made speak any thing that our humoursome fancies please to dictate. and thus to rack the sacred writings, to force them whether they will or no to bring evidence to our opinions; is an affront to their authority that's next to the denying on't. i might add (2) that begetting also hath a latitude, and in common speech signifies not a strict and philosophical production; so that a man begets a man, though he only generates the body, into which fitly prepared descends a soul. and he that doth that upon which another thing necessarily follows, is said to be the cause of both. (2) the adherents to traduction use to urge, that, except the whole man soul and body be propagated, there is no account can be given of our original defilement. and scripture gives evident testimony to that early pollution; for we are said to be conceived in sin, and transgressors from the womb. we have already seen that indeed the way of daily creating souls, cannot come off but with vilely aspersing the divine attributes. and it hath been hinted, that neither can traduction solve the business: for if the parent beget the soul out of nothing, it will be as pure and clean as if god himself were its immediate creator; for though a clean thing cannot come out of an unclean, when any thing of the substance of the producent is imparted to the effect; yet where 'tis made out of nothing the reason is very different, yea, the soul in all the powers that are concerned in this production is now as clean and pure as ever 'twas; for it is supposed to do it by a capacity given, at its first creation while pure and innocent; in which respect it is not capable of moral contagion; this being an ability merely natural and plastic, and not at all under the imperium or command of the will the only seat of moral good and evil. or, if our souls are but particles and decerptions of our parents, than i must have been guilty of all the sins that ever were committed by my progenitors ever since adam; and by this time, my soul would have been so depraved and debauched, that it would be now brutish, yea diabolical. thus than we see, that even upon this reason 'tis necessary, to pitch upon some other hypothesis, to give an account of the pravity of our natures; which both these fail in the solution of. and, since the former commits such violence upon the honour of the divine attributes, since the latter is so contrary to the nature of things, and since neither can give any satisfaction in the great affairs of providence and our natures, or have any encouragement from the sacred volume; 'tis i think very excusable for us to cast our eyes abroad, to see if there be no other way, that may probably unriddle those mysteries, and relieve the minds of anxious and contemplative inquirers. in which search, if we light on any thing that doth sweetly accord with the attributes of god, the nature of things, and unlocks the intricacies of providence; i think we have found, what the two former opinions aim at, but cannot make good their pretences to. and may salute the truth with a joyful 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. wherefore from the modern disputants, let us look towards the ancient sages, those eastern sophi, that have filled the world with the same of their wisdom; and since our inquiries are benighted in the west, let us look towards the east; from whence 'tis likely the desired light may display itself, and chase away the darkness that covers the face of those theories. therefore it was the opinion of the indian brahmin's, the persian magis, the egyptian gymnosophists, the fewish rabbins, some of the grecian philosophers, and christian fathers, that the souls of men were created all at first; and at several times and occasions upon forfeiture of their better life and condition, dropped down into these terrestrial bodies. this the learned among the jews made a part of their cabbala, and preten to have received it from their great lawgiver, moses: which hypothesis, if it appear but probable to an impartial inquiry, will even on that account be preferrible to both the former, which we have seen to be desperate. chap. iv. (praeexistence) praeexistence cannot be disproved. scripture saith nothing against it. it's silence is no prejudice to this doctrine, but rather an argument for it, as the case standeth. praeexistence was the common opinion of our saviour's times. how, probably, it came to be lost in the christian church. therefore let us see what title it can show for our assent, or whether it can prove itself worthy of the patronage of those great authors that have owned it. (1) then, whether this doctrine be true or no, i'm confident it cannot be proved false: for if all souls were not made together, it must be, either because god could not do it; or because he would not, for the first, i suppose very few have such narrow conceptions of the divine power, as to affirm that omnipotence could not produce all those beings at first, which apart he is supposed to create daily; which implies no contradiction, or as much as difficulty, to be conceived; and which the facto he hath done in the case of angels. or, if inconsistence with any attribute should be pretended, that shall be proved quite otherwise hereafter; and the amicable consistence of this hypothesis with them, yea the necessity of it, from this very consideration of the divine attributes, shall be argued in the process. therefore, whoever concludes that god made not all souls of old, when he produced the world out of nothing, must confess the reason of this assertion to be, because he would not. and then i would ask him, how he came to know what he affirms so boldly? who acquainted him with the divine counsels? is there a word said in his revealed will to the contrary? or, hath he by his holy penmen told us that either of the other ways was more suitable to his beneplaciture? indeed, 'tis very likely that a strong and ready fancy, possessed with a persuasion of the falsehood of this hypothesis, might find some half phrases in scripture, which he might suborn to sing to the tune of his imagination. for, in such a miscellaneous piece as the bible is, it will not be difficult for a man that's strongly resolved against an opinion, to find somewhat or other that may seem to him to speak the language of his fancy; and therefore it shall go hard, but that those whom their education or prejudice have engaged against this hypothesis, will light on some obscure pieces of texts, and broken sentences or other, that shall seem to condemn what they disapprove of. but i am securely confident, that there is not a sentence in the sacred volume, from end to end, that ever was intended to teach, that all souls were not made of old; or that, by a legitimate consequence, would infer it. and if any there be that seem to look another way, i dare say they are collateral, and were never designed by the divine authors for the purpose they are made to serve, by the enemies of praeexistence. wherefore not to conceal any thing that with the least show of probability can be pretended from the sacred volume in discountenance of the doctrine of praeexistence, i'll bring into view whatever i know to have the least face of a testimony to the contrary, in the divine revelations. that so, when it shall appear that the most specious texts that can be alleged, have nothing at all in them to disprove the souls praeexistence, we may be secure that god hath not discovered to us in his written will, that 'twas not his pleasure to create all souls together. therefore (ay), it may be pretended, that the doctrine of praeexistence comports not with that innocence and integrity in which the scripture determines adam to have been made. since it supposeth the descent into these bodies to be a culpable lapse from an higher and better state of life, and this to be a state of incarceration for former delinquencies. to this i answer. (1) no one can object any thing to purpose against praeexistence from the unconceiveablenesse of it, until he know the particular frame of the hypothesis, without which, all impugnations relating to the manner of the thing, will be wide of the mark, and but little to the business. therefore, if the objectour would have patience to wait till we come to that part of our undertaking, he would find that there was but little ground for such a scruple. but however to prevent all cavillings, in this place i'll show the invalidity of this objection. wherefore, (2) there is no necessity from the doctrine of praeexistence to suppose adam a delinquent, before his noted transgression in a terrestrial body: for considering, that his body had vast advantages above ours, in point of beauty, purity, and serviceableness to the soul, what harshness is there in conceiving that god might send one of those immaculate spirits that he had made, into such a tenement, that he might be his steward in the affairs of this lower family; and an overseer, and ruler of those other creatures that he had ordered to have their dwelling upon earth. i am sure, there is no more contrariety to any of the divine attributes in this supposition, than there is in that, which makes god to have sent a pure spirit, which he had just made, into such a body. yea, (3) supposing that some souls fell, when the angels did (which the process of our discourse will show to be no unreasonable supposition) this was a merciful provision of our maker, and a generous undertaking for a seraphic and untainted spirit. for by this means, fit and congruous matter is prepared for those souls to reside and act in, who had rendered themselves unfit to live and enjoy themselves in more refined bodies. and so those spirits that had sinned themselves into a state of silence and inactivity, are by this seasonable means, which the divine wisdom and goodness hath contrived for them, put once more into a capacity of acting their parts anew, and coming into play again. now if it seem hard to any to conceive how so noble a spirit in such an advantageous body, should have been imposed upon by so gross a delusion, and submit so impotently to the first temptation; he may please to consider, that the difficulty is the same, supposing him just then to have been made; if we grant him but that purity and those great perfections both of will, and understanding, which orthodox theology allows him. yea again (4) i might ask what inconvenience there is in supposing, that adam himself was one of those delinquent souls, which the divine pity and compassion had thus set up again; that so, so many of his excellent creatures might not be lost and undone irrecoverabiy: but might act anew, though upon a lower stage in the universe: a due consideration of the infinite foecundity and fullness of the divine goodness will, if not warrant, yet excuse such a supposition. but now if it be demanded, what advantage adam's standing had been to his posterity, had he continued in the state of innocence; and how sin and misery is brought upon us by his fall, according to this hypothesis: i answer, that then among many other great privileges, he had transsmitted downwards by way of natural generation that excellent and blessed temper of body; which should have been like his own happy crasis. so that our apprehensions should have been more large and free, our affections more regular and governable; and our inclinations to what is good and virtuous, strong and vigorous. for we cannot but observe in this state, how vast an influence the temper of our bodies hath upon our minds; both in reference to intellectual and moral dispositions. thus, daily experience teacheth us, how that, according to the ebb or flow of certain humours in our bodies, our wits are either more quick, free, and sparkling, or else more obtuse, weak, and sluggish. and we find that there are certain clean and healthy dispositions of body which make us cheerful, and contented; others on the contrary ●orose, melancholy, and dogged. and 'tis easy to observe how age or sickness sours, and crabs our natures. i might instance in almost all other qualities of the mind, which are strangely influenc● and modifyed according to the body's constitution. but none will deny so plain a truth; and therefore i forbear to insist further on it. nor need i mention any more advantages; so many, and such great ones, being consequent upon this. but our great protoplast and representative, falling through his unhappy disobedience, besides the integrity and rectitude of his mind, he lost also that blessed constitution of body, which would have been so great a privilege to his off spring: so that it became now corrupt, weak, and indisposed for the nobler exercises of the soul; and he could transmit no better to us, than himself was owner of. thus we fell in him, and were made miserable by his transgression. we have bodies conveyed to us, which strangely do bewitch and betray us. and thus we all bear about us the marks of the first apostasy. there are other sad effects of his defection, but this may suffice for my present purpose. thus we see how that the derivation of original depravity from adam is as clear in this hypothesis, as can be pretended in either of the other. and upon other accounts it seems to have much the advantage of both of them. as will appear to the unprejudiced in what is further to be discoursed of. finally, therefore, if the urgers of the letter of genesis of either side, against this hypothesis, would but consider, that the souls that descend hither, for their prevarication in another state, lie in a long condition of silence and insensibility, before they appear in terrestrial bodies; each of them then might, from the doctrine of praeexistence thus stated, gain all the advantages which he supposeth to have by his own opinion, and avoid all those absurdities which he seeth the other run upon. if the assertors of daily creation think it clear from scripture that god is the father of spirits, and immediate maker of souls, they'll find the same made good and assented to in this hypothesis. and if they are unwilling to hold— any thing contrary to the nature of the soul, which is immortal and indiscerpible, the doctrine of praeexistence amicably closeth with them in this also. and if the patrons of traduction would have a way, how sin and misery may be propagated from our first parent without aspersing the divine attributes, or affirming any thing contrary to the phaenomena of providence, and nature; this hypothesis will clear the business; it giving us so fair an account how we all die in adam, without blotting the wisdom, justice, or goodness of god, or affirming any thing contrary to the appearances of nature. i have been the longer on this argument, because 'tis like to be one main objection; and we see it is so far from prejudicing, that it is no inconsiderable evidence of the truth of praeexistence. and now, besides this that i have named, i cannot think of any arguments from scripture against this doctrine, considerable enough to excuse a mention of them. however, if the candid reader will pardon the impertinency i'll present to view what i find most colourable. therefore (2), it may be some are so inadvertent as to urge against our souls having been of old, that, sacred writ says we are but of yesterday; which expression of divine scripture, is questionless to be understood of our appearance on this stage of earth. and is no more an argument against our praeexistence, then that other phrase of his, before 〈◊〉 go hence, and be no more, is against our future existence in an other state after the present life is ended. nor will it prove more the business it is brought for, than the expression of rachel's weeping for her children because they were not, will infer, that they were, absolutely nothing. nor can any thing more be made. (3) of that place in ecclesiastes, yea better is he than both they, (meaning the dead and living) which hath not yet been; since, besides that 'tis a like scheme of speech with the former, it seems more to favour, then discountenance praeexistence for what is absolutely nothing can neither be worse, nor better. moreover, we coming from a state of silence and inactivity when we drop into these bodies, we were before, as if we had not been; and so there is better ground in this case, for such a manner of speaking, then in mere non-appearance; which yet scripture phraseth a not being. and now i cannot think of any place in the sacred volume more that could make a tolerable plea against this hypothesis, of our souls having been before they came into these bodies; except (4) any will draw a negative argument from the history of the creation, concluding that the souls of men were not made of old, because there is no mention there, of any such matter. to which i return briefly, that the same argument concludes against the being of angels of whose creation there is no more said in the first story then of this inferior rank of spirits, souls. the reason of which silence is commonly taken to be, because moses had here to do with a rude and illiterate people, who had few or no apprehensions of any thing beyond their senses, and therefore he takes notice to them of nothing but what was sensible and of common observation. this reason is given also why minerals were omitted. 'twere an easy matter, to show how the outward cortex, the letter of this history is adapted to mean and vulgar apprehensions, whose narrowness renders them incapable of sublimer speculations. but that being more than needs for our present purpose, i shall forbear to speak further of it. i might (2) further add, that great and learned interpreters tell us, that all sorts of spirits, angels, and souls are symbolically meant by the creation of heaven, and light. and, if it were directly in the way of our present business, it might be made appear to be no improbable conjecture. but i refer him that is curious in this particular to the great restorer of the ancient cabbala, the learned dr. h. more in his conjectura cabbalistica. and now from the consideration of the silence of the first history, we descend to the last and most likely to be urged scruple, which is to this purpose. (5) we are not to step beyond the divine revelations, and since god hath made known no such doctrine as this, of the souls praeexistence any where in his word, we may reasonably deny it, or at least have no ground to embrace it. this is the most important objection of all the rest, and most likely to prepossess timorous and wary inquirers against this hypothesis; wherefore i conceive that a full answer to this doubt, will prevent many scrupulous haesitations, and make way for an unprejudiced hearing of what i have further to allege in the behalf of this opinion and (1) i wish that those that urge scripture silence to disprove praeexistence would consider, how silent it is both in the case of daily creation, and traduction, we have seen already that there is nothing in sacred writ to warrant either, but only such generals from which the respective patrons of either doctrine would infer their own conclusion, though indeed they all of them with better right and congruity prove praeexistence. (2) i suppose those that argue from scripture-silence in such cases mistake the design of scripture, which is not to determine points of speculation, but to be a rule of life and manners. nor doth it otherwise design the teaching of doctrinals, then as they have a tendency to promote the divine life, righteousness, and holiness. it was never intended by its inspired authors to fill our heads with notions, but to regulate our disorderly appetites and affections, and to direct us the way to a nobler happiness. therefore those that look for a system of opinions in those otherways-designed writings, do like him that should see for a body of natural philosophy, in epictetus his morals, or seneca's epistles. (3) christ and his apostles spoke and writ as the condition of the persons with whom they dealt administered occasion, as did also the other penmen. therefore doubtless there were many noble theories which they could have made the world acquainted with, which yet for want of a fit occasion to draw them forth were never upon record. and we know, few speculative truths are delivered in scripture, but such as were called forth by the controversies of those times: and praeexistence was none of them, it being the constant opinion of the jews, as appears by that question, master, was it for this man's sin or his fathers, that he was born blind, which supposeth it of the disciples also. wherefore (4) there was little need of more teaching of that, which those times were sufficiently instructed in: and indeed, as the case stands, if scripture-silence be argumentative, 'twil be for the advantage of praeexistence; since it being the then common opinion, and the disciples themselves being of that belief 'tis very likely, had it been an error, that saviour saviour or his apostles would have witnessed against it. but there being not a word let fall from them in disapprooval of that opinion, though sometimes occasions were administered (as by the question of the disciples, and some other occurrences) 'tis a good presumption of the soundness of it. now that praeexistence was the common opinion of the jews, in those times might be made good with full and convictive evidence, were it worth our labour to insist much upon this inquiry; but this being only a by consideration, a brief touch of it will suffice us. one of the great rabbins therefore, mr. ben israel in his problems de creatione, assures us, that praeexistence was the common belief of all wise men among the jews, without exception. and the author of the book of wisdom, who certainly was a jew, probably philo, plainly supposeth the same doctrine in that speech, for i was a witty child, and had agood spirit, wherefore the rather being good, i came into a body unafiled. as also did the disciples in their foremention'd question to our saviour; for except they supposed, that he might have si●ned before he was born, the question had been senseless and impertinent. again, when christ 〈◊〉 them, whom men said he was they answered, that some said john the baptist, others elias, others jeremias or one of the prophets, which sayings of theirs suppose their belief of a metempsychosis & consequently of praeexistence. these, one would think, were very proper occasions for our saviour to have rectified his mistaken followers, had their supposition been an error, as he was wont to do in cases not more considerable. therefore if the enemies of praeexistence will needs urge scriptures supposed silence against it; they have no reason to take it amiss if i show them how their argument recoils upon themselves, and destroys their own cause, instead of their adversaries. (5) besides, there were doubtless many doctrines entertained by the apostles and the more learned of their followers, which were disproportioned to the capacities of the generality, who hold but little theory. there was strong meat for the more grown and manly christians, as well as milk for babes, and weaker constitutions. now scripture was designed for the benefit of the most, and they could little understand, and less make use of a speculation so remote from common conceit, as praeexistence. among us, wise men count it not so proper to deal forth deep and mysterious points in divinity to common and promiscuous auditories. wherefore the apostles and others of their more improved and capable disciples might have had such a doctrine among them, though it were never expressly defined in their public writings. and the learned origen and some other of the ancients affirm that praeexistence was a cabbala which was handed down from the apostolic ages, to their times; and we know those were early, and had therefore better advantages of knowing the certainty of such a tradition, than we at so vast a distance. nor need any wonder how it came at length to be lost, or at least kept but among a few, who considers the grossness of succeeding ages, when such multitudes could swallow the dull and course anthropomorphite doctrines; much less, if he reflects upon that black night of barbaric ignorance which spread itself over this western world, upon the incursion of those rude and uncivilised nations that ' ore-ran the empire: out of which darkness, 'twas the work of some centuries to recover the then obscured region of civility and letters. moreover, it would allay the admiration of any one inquisitive in such researches, when he shall have taken notice of the starting up and prevailing of school-divinity in the world, which was but aristotle's philosophy theologised. and we know that philosophy had the luck to swim in the general esteem and credit, when platonis● and the more ancient wisdom, a branch of which, praeexistence was; were almost quite sunk and buried. so that a theology being now made, out of aristotelian principles, 'tis no wonder that praeexistence was left out, nothing being supposed to have been said of it, by the great author of that philosophy; and his admiring sectators were loath to borrow so considerable a theory, from their master's neglected rival, plato. but 〈◊〉 at once to remove this stone of offence out of the way, i think scripture is not so silent in this matter as is imagined. and i'm confident, more can be said from those divine writings in behalf of praeexistence, then for many opinions, that its opposers are very fond of, and think to be there evidently asserted. and had this been a commonly received doctrine, and men's wits as much exercised for the defence on't, as they have been for the common dogmata, i nothing doubt, but that scriptures would have been heaped up in abundance for its justification, and it would have been thought to have been plainly witnessed to, in the inspired volume. for, as men's fancies will readily furnish them with a proof of that, of whose truth they are strongly prepossessed; so, on the contrary, they'll be very backward to see any evidence of that which is strange to them, and which hath always been reputed an absurdity. but my scripture-evidence is not so proper for this place, i intending to make it an argument by itself. therefore if the urger of this objection, will but have a little patience till i come so far on the way of my discourse, i hope he may be satisfied that praeexistence is not such a stranger to scripture as he conceits it. chap. v. reasons against praeexistence answered. our forgetting the former state is no argument to disprove it: nor are the other reasons that can be produced, more conclusive. the proof of the possibility of praeexistence were enough, all other hypotheses being absurd and contradictious. but it is proved also by positive arguments. now therefore to proceed, let us look back upon our progress, and so enter on what remains; we have seen, that god could have created all souls at first had he so pleased, and that he hath revealed nothing in his written will to the contrary. and now if it be found also, that he hath not made it known to our reasons that 'twas not his will to do so, we may conclude this first particular, that no one can say, that the doctrine of praeexistence is a falshhood. therefore let us call to account the most momentous reasons that can be laid against it, and we shall find that they all have not weight enough in the least to move so rational and solid an opinion. (1) then, 'tis likely to be urged, that had we lived and acted in a former state, we should doubtless have retained some remembrance of that condition; but we having no memory of any thing backwards before our appearance upon this present stage, it will be thought to be a considerable presumption, that praeexistence is but a fancy. but i would desire such kind of reasoners to tell me, how much they remember of their state and condition in the womb, or of the actions of their first infancy. and i could wish they would consider, that not one passage in an hundred is remembered of their grown and riper age. nor doth there scarce a night pass but we dream of many things which our waking memories can give us no account of; yea old age and some kinds of diseases blot out all the images of things past, and even in this state cause a total oblivion. now if the reasons why we should lose the remembrance of our former life be greater, then are the causes of forgetfulness in the instances we have produced, i think it will be clear, that this argument hath but little force against the opinion we are enquiring into. therefore if we do but reflect upon that long state of silence and inactivity that we emerged from, when we came into these bodies; and the vast change we underwent by our sinking into this new and unwonted habitation, it will appear to the considerate, that there is greater reason why we should have forgotten our former life, than any thing in this. and if a disease or old age can raze out the memory of past actions, even while we are in one and the same condition of life, certainly so long and deep a swoon as is absolute insensibility and inertnesse, may much more reasonably be thought to blot our the memory of an other life, whose passages probably were nothing like the transactions of this. and this also might be given as an other reason of our forgetting our former state, since usually things are brought to our remembrance by some like occurrences. but (2) some will argue, if this be a state of punishment for former misearriages how comes it about then, that 'tis a better condition then that we last came from viz. the state of silence and insensibility. i answer, that if we look upon our present terrestrial condition an an effect of our defection from the higher life, and in reference to our former happiness lost by our own default, 'tis then a misery, and a punishment. but if we compare our now-being with the state of inactivity we were delivered from, it may then be called an aftergame of the divine goodness, and a mercy. as a malefactor, that is at first put into a dark and disconsolate dungeon, and afterwards is removed to a more comfortable and lightsome prison, may acknowledge his remove to be a favour and deliverance compared with the place he was last confined to; though with respect to his fault and former liberty, even this condition is both a mulct and a misery. it is just thus in the present case, and any one may make the application. but it will be said, (3) if our souls lived in a former state did they act in bodies, or without them? the former they'll say is absurd, and the latter incongruous and unlikely; since then all the powers the soul hath to exert in a body, would have been idle and to no purpose. but (1) the most that can be argued from such like objections, is, that we know not the manner of the thing; and are no arguments against the assertion itself. and were it granted that the particular state of the soul before it came hither is inconceivable, yet this makes no more against it, than it doth against its after-condition; which these very objectors hold to be so, as to the particular modus. but (a) why is it so absurd that the soul should have actuated another kind of body, before it came into this? even here 'tis immediately united to a purer vehicle, moves and acts the grosser body by it; and why then might it not in its former and purer state of life have been joined only to such a refined body, which should have been suitable to its own perfection and purity? i'm sure, many, if not the most of the ancient father's thought angels themselves to be embodied, and therefore they reputed not this such a gross absurdity. but an occasion hereafter will draw our pen this way again, and therefore i pass it to a third return to this objection. (3) therefore, though it were granted that the soul lived afore-times without a body, what greater incongruity is there in such a supposition, then that it should live and act after death without any union with matter or any body whatsoever, as the objectors themselves conceive it doth? but all such objections as these will fly away as mists before the sun, when we shall come particularly to state the hypothesis. and therefore i may be excused from further troubling myself and the reader about them here. especially since, as hath been intimated, they prove nothing at all, but that the objectors cannot conceive what manner of state that of praeexistence was, which is no prejudice to the opinion itself; that our souls were extant before these earthly bodies. thus than i hope i have clearly enough made good that all souls might have been created from the beginning; for aught any thing that is made known, either in the scriptures or our reasons to the contrary. and thereby have removed those prejudices that would have stood in the way of our conclusion. wherefore we may now without control, from our proof of, that it may be so, pass on to inquire, whether indeed it is so; and see, whether it may as well be asserted, as defended. and truly considering that both the other ways are impossible, and this third not at all unreasonable, it may be thought needless to bring more forces into the field to gain it the victory, after its enemies are quite scattered and defeated. yet however, for the pomp and triumph of truth, though it need not their service we shall add some positive arguments, whereby it may appear, that not only all other ways are dangerous and unpassable, and this irreproveable; but also that there is direct evidence enough to prove it solid and rational. and i make my first consideration of this kind, a second argument. chap. vi a second argument for praeexistence drawn from the consideration of the divine goodness, which always doth what is best. (2) then, whoever conceives rightly of god, apprehends him to be infinite and immense goodness, who is always shedding abroad of his own exuberant fullness: there is no straightness in the deity, no bounds to the ocean of love. now the divine goodness refers not to himself, as ours extends not unto him. he acts nothing for any self-accomplishment, being essentially and absolutely complete and perfect. but the object and term of his goodness is his creatures good and happiness, in their respective capacities. he is that infinite fountain that is continually overflowing; and can no more cease to shed his influences upon his indigent dependants then the sun to shine at noon. now as the infinite goodness of the deity, obligeth him always to do good, so by the same reason to do that which is best; since to omit any degrees of good would argue a defect in goodness, supposing wisdom to order, and power to execute. he therefore that supposeth god not always to do what is best, and best for his creatures (for he cannot act for his own good) apprehends him to be less good than can be conceived, and consequently not infinitely so. for what is infinite, is beyond measure and apprehension. therefore to direct this to our purpose, god being infinitely good and that to his creatures, and therefore doing always what is best for them, methinks it roundly follows that our souls lived and enjoyed themselves of old before they came into these bodies. for since they were capable of living and that in a much better and happier state long before they descended into this region of death and misery; and since that condition of life and self-enjoyment would have been better, then absolute not-being, may we not safely conclude from a due consideration of the divine goodness, that it was so? what was it that gave us our being, but the immense goodness of our maker? and why were we drawn out of our nothings but because it was better for us to be, than not to be? why were our souls put into these bodies, and not into some more squalid and ugly; but because we are capable of such, and 'tis better for us to live in these, then in those that are less suitable to our natures? and had it not been better for us, to have enjoyed ourselves and the bounty and favours of our maker of old, as did the other order of intellectual creatures; then to have lain in the comfortless night of nothing till another's day! had we not been better on't to have lived and acted in the joyful regions of light and blessedness with those spirits that at first had being, then just now to jump into this sad plight, and state of sin and wretchedness. infinite power could as well have made us all at once, as the angels, and with as good congruity to our natures we might have lived and been happy without these bodies, as we shall be in the state of separation: since therefore it was best for us, and as easy for our creator so to have effected it, where was the defect, if it was not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not this to 〈◊〉 his goodness! and to straight-lace the divine beneficence. and doth not the contrary hypothesis to what i am pleading for, represent the god of love as less good and bountiful, than a charitable mortal, who would neglect no opportunity within his reach of doing what good he could to those that want his help and assistance? i confess, the world generally have such narrow and unbecoming apprehensions of god, and draw his picture in their imaginations so like themselves, that few i doubt will feel the force of this argument; and mine own observation makes me enter the same suspicion of its success that some others have who have used it. 'tis only a very deep sense of the divine goodness can give it any persuasive energy. and this noble sentiment there are very few that are possessed of. however to lend it what strength i can, i shall endeavour to remove some prejudices that hinder its force and efficacy; and when those spots and scum are wiped away that mistake and inadvertency have fastened on it, 'twill be illustrious by its own brightness. chap. vii. this first evasion, that god acts freely, and his mere will is reason enough for his doing, or forbearing any thing, overthrown by four considerations. some incident evasions, viz. that god's wisdom, or his glory, may be contrary to this display of the divine goodness, in our being made of old, clearly taken off. (1) therefore, will some say, god worketh freely, nor can he be obliged to act but when he pleaseth. and this will and pleasure of his is the reason of our beings, and of the determinate time of our beginning. therefore if god would not that we should have been made sooner, and in a better state of life, his will is reason enough and we need look no further. to this evasion, i thus reply. (1) 'tis true indeed, god is the most free agent, because none can compel him to act, none can hinder him from acting. nor can his creatures oblige him to any thing. but then (2) the divine liberty and freedom consists not in his acting by mere arbitrarious will as disujnct from his other attributes. for he is said to act according to the counsel of his own will. so that his wisdom and goodness are as it were the rules whereby his will is directed. therefore though he cannot be obliged to act by any thing without himself, yet he may by the laws of his own essential rectitude and perfection. wherefore i conceive he is said, not to be able to do those things (which he might well enough by absolute power) that consist not with his ever blessed attributes. nor by the same reason can he omit that which the eternal law of his most perfect nature ob●geth him to. the sum is, god never acts by mere will or groundless humour, that is a weakness in his imperfect creatures; but according to the immutable rules of his ever blessed essence. and therefore, (3) 'tis a derogation from his infinite majesty to assert any thing contrary to his goodness upon pretence of his will and pleasure. for whatever is most suitable to this most blessed attribute, and contradicts no other, that be sure he willeth. wherefore (4) if it be better, and more agreeable to the divine goodness that we should have been in an happier state, before we came into these bodies, god's will cannot then be pretended to the contrary, especially it having been proved already, that he hath no way revealed any such will of his) but rather it is demonstratively clear that his will was, it should be so. since as god never acts in the absence of his wisdom and goodness, so neither doth he abstain from acting when those great attributes require it. now if it be excepted again (2) that 'tis true that this hypothesis is most suitable to the divine goodness and the consideration of that alone would infer it. but how know we but his wisdom contradicts it. i return briefly, that if it be confessed to be so correspondent to, and inferrible from one attribute, and cannot be proved inconsistent with another, my business is determined. therefore let those that pretend an inconsistence, prove it. (2) the wisdom of god is that attribute and essential perfection, whereby the divine actions are directed to their end, which is always good, and best: therefore to do that which is best cannot thwart the divine wisdom, but always includes and supposeth it. whence it follows, that what so comports with goodness, cannot stand opposite to wisdom. wisdom in god being indeed nothing else but goodness, contriving and directing for the creature's good and happiness. for we must remember, what was said above, that what is infinitely full and perfect, can have no ends for any self-advantage; and therefore the ends of the divine wisdom are something without himself, and consequently the good and perfection of his creatures. so that unless it can be proved to have been contrary to ours, or any other creatures good, that we should have been extant as soon as the light, it cannot be concluded to have any contradiction to the divine wisdom. but it will be said again (3) gods glory is his great end, for the promoting of which his wisdom directs all his actions; and consequently, that which may be best for the creature, may not be so conducive to the divine glory, and therefore not agreeable with his wisdom. now though i think the world hath a very mistaken apprehension of god's glory, yet i shall not here engage in more controversies, than i must needs. 'tis enough for my present purpose to intimate; that god's glory is no by-end or self-accumulation, nor an addition of any thing to him which he was not eternally possessed of; nor yet is it any thing that stands in opposition to the good of his creation: but the display and communication of his excellencies; among the which, his goodness is not the least considerable, if it be not that most divine and fundamental attribute which gives perfection to all the rest. so that we may assure ourselves, that when ever his goodness obligeth him to action, his glory never stands in opposition. for even this is his glory to communicate to his creatures suitably to his own absolute fullness, and to act according to the direction of his essential perfections, yea, though we should state his glory to consist alone, in the honour and renown of his attributes, yet even then the hypothesis of our having been made in the beginning will accumulate to his praises, and represent him to his creatures as more illustrious; since it is a more magnificent apprehension of his goodness, and clears his other attributes from those stains of dis-repute that all other suppositions cast upon them. and though his glory should consist, as too many fond imagine, in being praised and red by his creatures, even on this account also it would have obliged him to have made us all of old, rather than opposed it; since, then, his excellencies had been sung forth by a more numerous choir, in continual hallelujahs. now if it should be urged, that god made all things for himself, and therefore is not obliged to consult the good of his creatures in all his actions. i rejoin, that god's making all things for himself, can argue no more than his making all things for his own ends, viz. the ends of goodness. besides, the best critics make that place to speak no more but this, that god order all things according to himself; that is, according to the rules of his own nature and perfections. thus than we see that for god to do that which is best for his creatures, is neither contrary to his will and pleasure, his wisdom, nor his glory, but most consonant to all of them. and therefore since the praeexistence of souls, is so agreeable to the divine goodness, and since nothing else in the deity opposeth, but rather sweetly conspires with it, methinks this argument were enough to conclude it. but yet there are other evasions which would elude this demonstration, i shall name the most considerable and leave it to the judicious to determine, whether they can disable it. chap. viii. a second general evasion, viz that our reasons cannot tell what god should do, or what is best, overthrown by several considerations. as is also a third, viz. that by the same argument god would have been obliged to have made us impeccable, and not liable to misery. wherefore the second general evasion is, that our reasons cannot conclude what god 〈◊〉, there being vast fetches in the divine wisdom which we comprehend not, nor can our natural light determine what is best. i answer (1) our saviour himself, who was the best judge in the case, teacheth us, that the reason of a man may in some things conclude what god will do in that saying of his, if ye being evil, know how to give good things to your children, much more shall your father which is in heaven give his spirit to them that ask him. plainly intimating, that we may securely argue from any thing that is a perfection in ourselves, to the same in god. and if we, who are imperfectly good, will yet do as much good as we can, for those we love and tender; with greater confidence may we conclude, that god who is infinitely so, will confer upon his creatures whatever good they are capable of. thus we see our saviour owns the capacity of reason in a case that is very near the same that we are dealing in. and god himself appeals to the reasons of men to judge of the righteousness and equity of his ways. ye men of israel and inhabitants of jerusalem, judge between me and my vineyard, which place i bring to show that mere natural reason is able to judge in some cases what is fit for god to do, and what is suitable to his essence and perfections. and if in any, methinks (2) its capacity in the case before us should be owned as soon as in any. for if reason cannot determine and assure us, that a blessed and happy being is better than none at all; and consequently, that it was best for our souls to have been, before they were in this state of wretchedness; and thence conclude, that it was very congruous to the divine goodness to have made us in a former and better condition; i think then (1) that it cannot give us the assurance of any thing, since there is not any principle in metaphysics or geometry more clear than this, viz. 〈◊〉 an happy being, is better than absolute not-being. and if our reasons can securely determine this, 'tis as much as we need at present. or if this be not certain, how vain are those learned men that dispute whether a state of the extremest misery a creature is capable of, and that everlasting, be not better than nonentity. (2) if we cannot certainly know that it had been better that we should have exsisted in a life of happiness, proportioned to our natures of old, then have been mere nothing, till some few years since; we can never then own or acknowledge the divine goodness to us in any thing we enjoy. for if it might have been as good for us not to be, as to be, and happily; then it might have been as good for us to have wanted any thing else that we enjoy, as to have it: and consequently, we cannot own it as an effect of god's goodness that he hath bestowed any blessing on us. for if being be not better, then not-being, then 'tis no effect of goodness that we are; and if so, then 'tis not from goodness that we have any thing else, since all other things are inferior to the good of being. if it be said, it had been better indeed for us, to have lived in a former and happier state; but, it may be, it had not been so for the universe; and the general good is to be preferred before that of particulars. i say then, and it may serve for a (3) answer to the general objection. if we may deny that to be done by almighty goodness, which is undoubtedly best for a whole species of his creatures, merely on this account, that, for aught we know, it may be for the advantage of some others, though there be not the least appearance of any such matter; we can never then argue any thing from the divine goodness. it can never then be proved from that glorious attribute, that he hath not made some of his creatures on purpose that they might be miserable; nor can it be concluded thence, that he will not annihilate all the pure and spotless angels; both which i suppose, any sober inquirer will think congruously deducible from the divine goodness. and if to say, for aught we know, it may be best for some other creatures, that those should be miserable, and these annihilated, be enough to disable the argument; on the same account we shall never be able to prove aught from this, or any other attribute. i might add, (2) there is not the least colourable pretence for any such suspicion. for, would the world have been too little to have contained those souls, without justling with some others? or, would they by violence have taken any of the privileges of the other intellectual creatures from them? if so, how comes it about that at last they can all so well consist together? and, could other creatures have been more disadvantaged by them, when they were pure and innocent, than they will at last, when they are so many of them debauched and depraved? (3) if this be enough to answer an argument, to say, for aught we know, it may be thus and thus, when there is not the least sign or appearance of any such thing, than nothing can ever be proved, and we are condemned to everlasting scepticism. we should never for instance, from the order, beauty, and wise contrivance of the things that do appear, prove there is a god, if it were sufficient to answer, that things are indeed so made in this earth, on which we are extant; but, it may be, they are framed very oddly, ridiculously, and ineptly in some other worlds, which we know nothing of. if this be answering, any thing might be answered. but there is yet another objection against mine argument from the divine goodness which looks very formidably at a distance, though when we come near it, we shall find, it will not bear the trial. and it may thus be urged. (3) if the goodness of god always obligeth him to do what is best, and best for his creatures, how is it then, that we were not made impeccable, and so not obnoxious to misery? or how doth it consist with that overflowing goodness of the deity, that we were let to lie in a long state of silence and insensibility, before we came into these bodies? this seems a pressing difficulty, but yet there's hopes we may dispatch it. therefore, (1) had we been made impeccable, we should have been another kind of creatures then now; since we had then wanted the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or liberty of will to good and evil, which is one of our essential attributes. consequently, there would have been one species of beings wanting to complete the universe; and it would have been a slur to the divine goodness not to have given being to such creatures as in the id● were fairly possible; and contradicted no other attribute. yea, though he foresaw that some would sin, and make themselves miserable, yet the foreseen lapse and misery of those, was not an evil great enough to overbalance the good the species would reap by being partakers of the divine goodness in the land of the living; therefore however, 'twas goodness to give such creatures being. but it will be urged upon us, if liberty to good and evil be so essential to our natures, what think we then of the blessed souls after the resurrection; are not they the same creatures, though without the liberty of sinning? to return to this; i think those that affirm, that, the blessed have not this natural liberty as long as they are united to a body, and are capable of resenting its pleasures, should do well to prove it. indeed they may be morally immutable and illapsable: but this is grace, not nature; a reward of obedience, not a necessary annex of our being's. but will it be said, why did not the divine goodness endue us all with this moral stability? had it not been better for us to have been made in this condition of security, then in a state so dangerous? my return to this doubt will be a second answer to the main objection. therefore secondly, i doubt not, but that 'tis much better for rational creatures, that this supreme happiness should be the reward of virtue, rather than 〈◊〉 upon our natures. for, the procurement of that which we might have missed of, is far more sensibly gratifying, than any necessary and unacquired enjoyment; we find a greater pleasure in what we gain by industry, art, or virtue, then in the things we were born to. and had we been made secure from sin, and misery from the first moment of our being, we should not have put so high a rate and value upon that privilege. (3) had we been at first established in an impossibility of lapsing into evil; then many choice virtue's, excellent branches of the divine life had never been exercised, or indeed have been at all. such are patience, faith, and hope; the objects of which are, evil, futurity, and uncertainly. yea, (4) had we been so fixed in an inamissible happiness from the beginning, there had then been no virtue in the world; nor any of that matchless pleasure which attends the exercise thereof. for virtue is a kind of victory, and supposeth a conflict. therefore we say, that god is good and holy, but not virtuous. take away a possibility of evil, and in the creature there is no moral goodness. and then no reward, no pleasure, no happiness. therefore in sum (5ly), the divine goodness is manifested in making all creatures suitably to those ideas of their natures, which he hath in his all-comprehensive wisdom. and their good and happiness consists in acting according to those natures, and in being furnished with all things necessary for such actions. now the divine wisdom is no arhitrary thing, that can change, or alter those settled immutable idaeas of things that are there represented. it lops not off essential attributes of some beings, to inoculate them upon others: but, distinctly comprehending all things, assigns each being its proper nature, and qualities. and the divine goodness, according to the wise direction of the eternal intellect, in like distinct and orderly manner produceth all things: viz. according to all the variety of their respective ideaas in the divine wisdom. wherefore as the goodness of god obligeth him not to make every planet a 〈◊〉 star, or every star, a sun; so neither doth it oblige him to make every degree of life, a rational soul, or every soul, an impeccable angel. for this were to tie him to contradictions. since therefore, such an order of being's, as rational and happy, though free, and therefore mutable, creatures, were distinctly comprehended in the divine wisdom; it was an effect of god's goodness, to bring them into being, even in such a condition, and in such manner, as in their eternal ideas they were represented. thus than we see, it is not contrary to the infinite plenitude of the divine goodness that we should have been made peccable and liable to defection. and being thus in our very essential constitutions lapsable; 'twas no defect in the goodness of our maker that he did not interpose by his absolute omnipotence to prevent our actual prevarication and apostasy. since his goodness obligeth him not to secure us upon any terms whatever, but upon such, as may most promote the general good & advantage. and questionless, 'twas much better that such, as would wilfully depart from the laws of their blessed natures, and break through all restraints of the divine commands, should feel the smart of their disobedience; then that providence should disorder the constitution of nature to prevent the punishment, which they drew upon themselves: since those apostate spirits, remain instances to those that stand, of the divine justice, and severity against sinners, and so may contribute not a little to their security. and for that long night of silence, in which multitudes of souls are buried before they descend into terrestrial matter, it is but the due reward of their former disobedience; for which, considering the happy circumstances in which they were made, they deserved to be nothing for ever. and their reinstating in a condition of life & self-injoyment after so highly culpable delinguencies, is a great instance of the overflowing fullness of the divine compassion and benignity. thus than we see, that gods making us lapsable and permitting us to fall, is no prejudice in the least to the infinite faecundity of his goodness, and his making all things best. so that mine argument for praeexistence bottomned on this foundation, stands yet firm and immovable, notwithstanding the rude assault of this objection. from which i pass to a fourth. chap. ix. a (4th) objection against the argument from god's goodness viz. that it will conclude as well that the world is infinite and eternal, answered. the conclusion of the second argument for praeexistence. therefore fourthly, it will be excepted, if we may argue from the divine goodness, which always doth what is best, for the praeexistence of souls; then we may as reasonably thence conclude, that the world is both infinite and eternal, since an infinite communication of goodness is better than a finite. to this, because i doubt i have distressed the readers patience already, i answer briefly. (1) every one that believes the infiniteness of god's goodness is as much obliged to answer this objection, as i am. for it will be said, infinite goodness doth good infinitely, and consequently the effects to which it doth communicate are infinite. for if they are not so, it might have communicated to more, and thereby have done more good than now 'tis supposed to do, and by consequence now is not infinite. and to affirm that goodness is infinite, where what it doth and intends to do is but finite, will be said to be a contradiction, since goodness is a relative term, and in god always respects somewhat ad extra. for he cannot be said to be good to himself, he being a nature that can receive no additional perfection. wherefore this objection makes no more against mine argument, than it doth against the infinity of the divine goodness, and therefore i am no more concerned in it than others. yea (2ly.) the scripture affirms that which is the very strength of mine argument, viz. that god made all things best; very good, saith our translation: but the original, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a particle of the superlative. and therefore every one that owns its sacred authority is interested against this objection. for it urgeth, it had been far more splendid, glorious, and magnificent for god to have made the universe commensurate to his own immensity; and to have produced effects of his power and greatness, where ever he himself is, viz. in infinite space and duration, then to have confined his omnipotence to work only in one little spot of an infinite 〈◊〉 capacity, and to begin to act but another's day. thus than the late creation, and finiteness, of the world, seem to conflict with the undoubted oracle of truth as well as with mine argument, meant, and therefore the objection drawn thence is of no validity. (3) those that have most strenuously defended the orthodox doctrine against the old opinion of the eternity and infinity of the world, have asserted it to be impossible in the nature of the thing. and sure the divine benignity obligeth him not to do contradictions; or such things, as in the very notion of them, are impossible. but in the case of praeexistence, no such thing can be reasonably pretended, as above hath been declared; and therefore there is no escaping by this evasion neither. nor can there any thing else be urged to this purpose, but what whoever believes the infinity of the divine bounty will be concerned to answer; and therefore 'twill make no more against me, then against a truth on all hands confessed. let me only add this, that 'tis more becoming us, to enlarge our apprehensions of things so, as that they may suit the divine beneficence, then to draw it down to a compliance with our narrow schemes, and narrow models. thus than i have done with the argument for praeexistence drawn from the divine goodness. and i have been the longer on it, because i thought 'twas in vain to propose it, without taking to task the principal of those objections, that must needs arise in the minds of those that are not used to this way of arguing. and while there was no provision made to stop up those evasions, that i saw this argument obnoxious to; the using of it, i was afraid, would have been a prejudice, rather than a furtherance of the cause i engaged it in. and therefore i hope the ingenious will pardon this so necessary piece of tediousness. chap. x. a third argument for praeexistence, from the great variety of men's speculative inclinations; and also the diversity of our genius's, copiously urged. if these arguments make praeexistence but probable, 'tis enough to gain it the victory. but now i proceed to another argument. therefore, thirdly, if we do but reflect upon what was said above, against the souls daily creation, from that enormous pravity which is so deeply rooted in some men's natures, we may thence have a considerable evidence of praeexistence. for as this strong natural propensity to vice and impiety cannot possibly consist with the hypothesis of the souls coming just out of god's hands pure and immaculate; so doth it most aptly suit with the doctrine of its praeexistence: which gives a most clear and apposite account of the phaenomenon. for let us but conceive the souls of men to have grown degenerate in a former condition of life, to have contracted strong and inveterate habits to vice and jewdnesse, and that in various manners and degrees; we may then easily apprehend, when some men's natures had so incredibly a depraved tincture, and such impetuous, ungovernable, irreclaimiable inclinations to what is vicious; while others have nothing near such wretched propensions, but by good education and good discipline are mouldable to virtue. this shows a clear way to unriddle this amazing mystery, without blemishing any of the divine attributes, or doing the least violence to our faculties. nor is it more difficult to conceive, how a soul should awaken out of the state of inactivity we speak of, with those radical inclinations that by long practice it had contracted, then how a swallow should return to her old trade of living after her winter sleep and silence; for those customs it hath been addicted to in the other state, are now so deeply fastened and rooted in the soul, that they are become even another nature. now then, if praeexistence be not the truth, 'tis very strange that it should so exactly answer the phaenomena of our natures, when as no other hypothesis doth any whit tolerably suit them. and if we may conclude that false, which is so correspondent to all appearances, when we know nothing else that can yield any probable account of them, and which is not in the least repugnant to any inducement of belief, we then strangely forget ourselves when we determine any thing. we can never for instance, conclude the moon to be the cause of the flux and reflux of the sea, from the answering of her approaches and recesses to its ebbs and swellings. nor at this rate can the cause of any thing else be determined in nature. but yet besides. (2) we might another way enforce this argument, from the strange difference and diversity that there is in men's wits and intellectual craseiss, as well as in the dispositions of their wills and appetites. even the natural tempers of men's minds are as vastly different, as the qualities of their bodies. and 'tis easy to observe in things purely speculative and intellectual, even where neither education or custom have interposed to sophisticate the natural 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that some men are strangely propense to some opinions, which they greedily drink in, as soon as they are duly represented; yea and find themselves burdened and oppressed, while their education hath kept them in a contrary belief: when as others are as fatally set against these opinions, and can never be brought favourably to resent them. every soul brings a kind of sense with it into the world, whereby it tastes and relisheth what is suitable to its peculiar temper. and notions will never lie easily in a mind, that they are not fitted to; some can never apprehend that for other than an absurdity, which others are so clear in, that they almost take it for a first principle. and yet the former hath all the same evidence as the latter. this i have remarkably taken notice of, in the opinion of the extension of a spirit. some that i know, and those inquisi●ve, free and ingenuous, by all the proof and evidence that is, cannot be reconciled to it. nor can they conceive any thing extended but as a body. whereas other deep and impartial searchers into nature, cannot apprehend it anything at all, if not extended; but think it must then be a mathematical point, or a mere nonentity. i could instance in other speculations, which i have observed some to be passionate embracers of upon the first proposal; when as no arguments could prevail on others, to think them tolerable. but there needs no proof of a manifest observation. therefore before i go further, i would demand, whence comes this mere notional or speculative variety: were this difference about sensibles, yea or about things depending on the imagination, the influence of the body might then be suspected for a cause. but since it is in the most abstracted theories that have nothing to do with the grosser phantasms; since this diversity is found in minds that have the greatest care to free themselves from the deceptions of sense, and entanglements of the body, what can we conclude, but that the soul itself is the immediate subject of all this variety, and that it came praejudiced and prepossessed into this body with some implicit notions that it had learned in another? and if this congruity to some opinions, and aversene●e to others be congenial to us, and not advenient from any thing in this state, 'tis me thinks clear that we were in a former. for the soul in its first and pure nature hath no idiosynerasies, that is, hath no proper natural inclinations which are not competent to others of the same kind and condition. be sure, they are not fatally determined by their natures to false and erroneous apprehensions. and therefore since we find this determination to one or other falsehood in many, if not most in this state, and since 'tis very unlikely it is derived only from the body, custom, or education, what can we conceive on't, but that our souls were tainted with these peculiar and wrong corruptions before we were extant upon this stage of earth. besides, 'tis easy to observe the strange and wonderful variety of our geniusses; one man's nature inclining him to one kind of study and employment, another's to what is very different. some almost from their very cradles will be addicted to the making of figures, and in little mechanical contrivances; others love to be rhyming, almost as soon as they can speak plainly, and are taken up in small essays of poetry. some will be scrawling pictures, and others take as great delight in some pretty offers at music and vocal harmony. infinite almost are the ways in which this pure natural diversity doth discover itself. now to say that all this variety proceeds primarily from the mere temper of our bodies, is me thinks a very poor and unsatisfying account. for those that are the most like in the temperayr, complexion of their bodies, are yet of a vastly differing genius. yea they that havebeen made of the same clay, cast in the same mould, and have lain at once in the same natural bed, the womb; yea whose bodies have been as like as their state and fortunes, and their education & usages the same, yet even they do not unfrequently differ as much from each other in their genius and dispositions of the mind, as those that in all these particulars are of very different condition. besides there are all kind of makes, forms, dispositions, tempers, and complexions of body, that are addicted by their natures to the same exercises and employments: so that to ascribe this to any peculiarity in the body, is me seems a very improbable solution of the phaenomenon. and to say all these inclinations are from custom or education, is the way not to be believed, since all experience testifies the contrary. what then can we conjecture is the cause of all this diversity, but that we had taken a great delight and pleasure in some things like and analogous unto'these, in a former condition? which now again begins to put forth itself, when we are awakened out of our silent recess into a state of action. and though the employments, pleasures and exercises of our former life, were without question very different from these in the present estate; yet 'tis no doubt, but that some of them were more confamiliar and analogous to some of our transactions, than others, so that as any exercise or employment here is more suitable to the particular dispositions that were predominant in the other state, with the more peculiar kindness is it regarded by us, and the more greedily do our inclinations now fasten on it. thus if a musician should be interdicted the use of all musical instruments, and yet might have his choice of any other art or profession, 'tis likely he would betake himself to limning or poetry; these exercises requiring the same disposition of wit and genius, as his beloved music did. and we in like manner, being by the fate of our wretched descent hindered from the direct exercising ourselves about the objects of our former delights and pleasures, do yet assoon as we are able, take to those things which do most correspond to that genius that formerly inspired us. and now 'tis time to take leave of the arguments from reason that give evidence for praeexistence. if any one think that they are not so demonstrative, but that they may be answered, or at least evaded; i pray him to consider how many demonstrations he ever met with, that a good wit, resolved in a contrary cause, could not shuffle from the edge of. or, let it be granted, that the arguments i have alleged are no infallible or necessary proofs; yet if they render my cause but probable, yea but possible, i have won what i contended for. for it having been made manifest by as good evidence as i think can be brought for any thing, that the way of new creations is most inconsistent with the honour of the blessed attributes of god: and that the other of traduction is most impossible and contradictious in the nature of things: there being now no other way left but praeexstence, if that be probable or but barely possible, 'tis enough to give it the victory. and whether all that hath been said prove so much or no, i leave to the indifferent to determine. i think he that will say it doth not, can bring few proofs for any thing, which according to his way of judging will deserve to be called demonstrations. chap. xi. great caution to be used in alleging scripture for our speculative opinions. the countenance that praeexistence hath from the sacred writings both of the old and new testament; reasons of the seeming uncouthness of these allegations. praeexistence stood in no need of scripture-proof. it will be next expected, that i should now prove the doctrine i have undertaken for, by scripture evidence, and make good what i said above, that the divine oracles are not so silent in this matter as is imagined. but truly i have so tender a sense of the sacred authority of that holy volume, that i dare not be so bold with it, as to force it to speak what i think it intends not; a presumption, that is too common among our confident opinionists, and that hath ocsioned great troubles to the church, and disrepute to the inspired writings. for, for men to ascribe the odd notions of their overheated imaginations to the spirit of god, and eternal truth, is me thinks a very bold and impudent belying it. wherefore i dare not but be very cautious what i speak in this matter, nor would i willingly urge scripture as a proof of any thing, but what i am sure by the whole tenor of it, is therein contained: and would i take the liberty to fetch in every thing for a scripture-evidence, that with a little industry a man might make serviceable to his design: i doubt not but i should be able to fill my margin with quotations, which should be as much to purpose as have been cited in general catechisms and confessions of faith, and that in points that must forsooth be dignified with the sacred title of fundamental. but reverend assemblies may make more bold with scripture then private persons; and therefore i confess i'm so timorous that i durst not follow their example: though in a matter that i would never have imposed upon the belief of any man, though i were certain on't, and had absolute power to enjoin it. i think the only way to preserve the reverence due to the oracles of truth, is never to urge their authority but in things very momentous, and such as the whole current of them gives an evident suffrage to. but to make them speak every trivial conceit that our sick brains can imagine or dream of, (as i intimated) is to vilify and deflower them. therefore though i think that several texts of scripture look very fairly upon praeexistence, and would encourage a man that considers what strong reasons it hath to back it, to think, that very probably they mean some thing in savour of this hypothesis; yet he not urge them as an irrefutable proof, being not willing to lay more stress upon any thing than 'twil bear. yea i am most willing to confess the weakness of my cause in what joint soever i shall discover it. and yet i must needs say, that who ever compares the texts that follow, with some particulars mentioned in the answer to the objection of scripture-silence, will not choose but acknowledge that there is very fair probability for praeexistence in the written word of god, as there is in that which is engraven upon our rational natures. therefore to bring together here what scripture saith in this matter, 1. ●e lightly touch an expression or two of the old testament, which not improperly may be applied to the business we are in search of. and me thinks god himself in his posing the great instance of patience, job, seems to intimate somewhat to this purpose, viz. that all spirits were in being when the foundations of the earth were laid: when saith he, the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of god shouted for joy. by the former very likely were meant the angels, and 'tis not improbable but by the latter may be intended the blessed untainted souls. at least the particle all me thinks should comprise this order of spirits also. and within the same period of discourse, having questioned job about the nature and place of the light, he adds, i know that thou wast then born, for the number of thy days are many, as the septuagint render it. and we know our saviour and his apostles have given credit to that translation by their so constant following it. nor doth that saying of god to jeremias in the beginning of his charge seem to intimate less, before i form thee in the belly i knew thee, and before thou camest out of the womb, i gave thee wisdom; as reads a very creditable version. now though each of these places might be drawn to another sense, yet that only argues that they are no necessary proof for praeexistence, which i readily acknowledge; nor do i intend any such matter by alleging them. however i hope they will be confessed to be applicable to this sense; and if there be other grounds that persuade this hypothesis to be the truth, 'tis i think very probable that these texts intent it favour. which whether it be so or no, we have seen already. 2. for the texts of the new testament that seem to look pleasingly upon praeexistence, i shall as briefly hint them as i did the former. and me thinks that passage of our saviour's prayer, father, glorify me with the same glory i had with thee before the world began, sounds somewhat to this purpose. the glory which he prays to be restored to, seems to concern his humane nature only; for the divine could never lose it. and therefore it supposeth that he was in his humanity existent before: and that his soul was of old before his appearance in a terrestrial body. which seems also to be intimated by the expressions of his coming from the father, descending from heaven, and returning thither again, which he very frequently makes use of. and we know the divinity that fills all things, cannot move to, or quit a place, it being a manifest imperfection, and contrary to his immensity. i might add those other expressions of our saviour's taking upon him the form of a servant, of rich for our sakes becoming poor, and many others of like import, all which are very clear if we admit the doctrine of praeexistence, but without it somewhat perplex and intricate: since these things, applied to him as god, are very improper and disagreeing, but appositely suit his humanity, to which if we refer them, we must suppose our hypothesis of praeexistence. but i omit further prosecution of this matter, since these places have been more diffusely urged in a late discourse to this purpose. moreover the question of the disciples, was it for this man's sin, or for his fathers that he was born blind? and that answer of theirs to our saviour's demand, whom men said he was; in that some said he was john the baptist, some elias, or one of the prophets; both which i have mentioned before; do clearly enough argue, that both the disciples and the jews believed praeexistence. and our saviour saith not a word to disprove their opinion. but i spoke of this above. now how ever uncouth these allegations may seem to those that never heard these scriptures thus interpreted; yet i am confident, had the opinion of praeexistence been a received doctrine, and had these texts been wont to be applied to the proof on't, they would then have been thought to assert it, with clear and convictive evidence. but many having never heard of this hypothesis, and those that have, seldom meeting it mentioned but as a silly dream o● antiquated absurdity, 'tis no wonder that they never suspect it to be lodged in the sacred volume, so that any attempt to confirm it thence, must needs seem rather an offer of wit then serious judgement. and the places that are cited to that purpose having been freequently read and heard of, by those that never discerned them to breathe the least air of any such matter as praexistence, their new and unexpected application to a thing so little thought of, must needs seem a wild fetch of an extravagant imagination. but however unconclusive the texts alleged may seem to those a strong prejudice hath shut up against the hypothesis; the learned jews, who where persuaded of this doctrine, thought it clearly enough contained in the old volume of holy writ, and took the citations, named above, for current evidence. and though i cannot warrant for their judgement in things, yet doubtless they were the best judges of their own language. nor would our school-doctors have thought it so much a stranger to the new, had it had the luck to have been one of their opinions, or did they not too frequently apply the sacred oracles to their own fore-conceived notions. but whether what i have brought from scripture prove any thing or nothing, 'tis not very material, since the hypothesis of praeexistence stands secure enough upon those pillars of reason, which have their foundation in the attributes of god, and the phaenomena of the world. and the right reason of a man, is one of the divine volumes, in which are written the indelible ideas of eternal truth: so that what it dictates, is as much the voice of god, as if in so many words it were clearly expressed in the written revelations. it is enough therefore for my purpose, if there be nothing in the sacred writings contrary to this hypothesis; which i think is made clear enough already; and though it be granted that scripture is absolutely silent as to any assertion of praeexistence, yet we have made it appear that its having said nothing of it, is no prejudice, but an advantage to the cause. chap. xii. why the author thinks himself obliged to descend to some more particular account of praeexistence. 'tis presumption positively to determine how it was with us of old. the author's design in the hypothesis that follows. now because inability to apprehend the manner of a thing is a great prejudice against the belief on't; i find myself obliged to go a little further than the bare proof, and defence of praeexistence. for though what i have said, may possibly induce some to think favourably of our conclusion, that the souls of men were made before they came into these bodies; yet whil they shall think that nothing can be conceived of that former state, and that our preaexistent condition cannot be represented to humane understanding, but as a dark black solitude: it must needs weaken the persuasion of those that are less confirmed, and fill the minds of the inquisitive with a dubious trouble and anxiety. for searching and contemplative heads cannot be satisfied to be told, that our souls have lived and acted in a former condition, except they can be helped to some more particular apprehension of that stare; how we lived and acted of old, and how probably we fell from that better life, into this region of misery and imperfection. now though indeed my charity would prompt me to do what i can for the relief and ease of avy modest inquirer; yet shall i not attempt to satisfy punctual and eager curiosity in things hidden and unsearchable. much less shall i positively determine any thing in matters so lubricous and uncertain. and indeed considering how imperfect our now state is, how miserable shallow our understandings are, and how little we know of our present selves, and the things about us, it may seem a desperate undertaking to attempt any thing in this matter. yea, when we contemplate the vast circuits of the divine wisdom, and think how much the thoughts and actions of eternity and omniscience are beyond ours, who are but of yesterday, and know nothing, it must needs discourage confidence itself from determining, how the oeconomy of the world of life was ordered, in the day the heavens and earth were framed. there are doubtless infinite ways and methods according to which the unsearchable wisdom of our maker could have disposed of us, which we can have no conceit of; and we are little more capable of unerringly resolving ourselves now, how it was with us of old, than a child in the womb is to determine, what kind of life it shall live when it is set at liberty from that dark enclosure. therefore let shame and blushing cover his face that shall confidently affirm that 'twas thus or thus with us in the state of our fore-beings. however, to show that it may have been that our souls did praeexist, though we cannot punctually and certainly conclude upon the particular state, i shall presume to draw up a conceivable scheame of the hypothesis; and if our narrow minds can think of a way how it might have been, i hope no body will deny that the divine wisdom could have contrived it so, or infinitely better than we can imagine in our little models. and now i would not have it thought that i go about to insinuate or represent any opinions of mine own, or that i am a votary to all the notions i make use of, whether of the ancient, or more modern philosophers. for i seriously profess against all determinations in this kind. but my business only is, by some imperfect hints and guesses to help to apprehend a little how the state of praeexistence might have been, and so to let in some beams of ancient and modern light upon this immense darkness. therefore let the reader if he please call it a romantic scheam, or imaginary hypothesis, or what name else best fits his fancy, and he'll not offend me; nor do i hold myself concerned at all to vindicate the truth of any thing here that is the fruit of mine own invention or composure; though i confess i could beg civilityes at least for the notions i have borrowed from great and worthy sages. and indeed the hypothesis as to the main, is derived to us from the platonics: though in their writings 'tis but gold in oar, less pure and perfect: but a late great artist hath excellently refined it. and i have not much work to do, but to bring together what he up and down hath scattered, and by a method-order, and some connexion's and notions of mine own, to work it into an entire and uniform mass. now because the frame of the particular hypothesis is originally philosophical, i shall therefore not deprave it by mingling with it the opinions of modern theologers, or distort any thing to make it accommodate to their dogmata, but solely and sincerely follow the light of reason and philosophy. for i intent not to endeavour the late alteration of the ordinary system of divinity, nor design any thing in this place but a representation of some harmless philosophical conjectures: in which i shall continually guide myself by the attributes of god, the phaenomena of the world, and the best discoveries of the nature of the soul. chap. xiii. [7] pillars on which the particular hypothesis stands. now the fabric we are going to build, will stand like as the house of wisdom upon seven pillars; which i shall first erect and establish, that the hypothesis may be firm and sure like a house that hath foundations. therefore the first fundamental principle i shall lay, is [1] all the divine designs and actions are laid and carried on by pure and infinite goodness. and methinks this should be owned by all for a manifest and indisputable truth; but some odd opinions in the world are an interest against it, and therefore i must be fain to prove it. briefly then, every rational being acts towards scme end or other; that end where the agent acts regularly and wisely, is either some self-good or accomplishment, or 'tis the good and perfection of some thing else, at least in the intention. now god being an absolute and immense fullness, that is incapable of any the least shadow of new perfection, cannot act for any good that may accrue to his immutable self; and consequently, what ever he acts, is for the good of some other being: so that all the divine actions are the communications of his perfections, and the issues of his goodness; which, being without the base alloy of self-interest, or partial fondness, and not comprised within any bounds or limits, as his other perfections are not, but far beyond our narrow conception, we may well call it pure and infinite benignity. this is the original and root of all things, so that this blessed ever blessed attribute being the spring and fountain of all the actions of the deity, his designs can be no other but the contrivances of love for the compassing the good and perfection of the universe. therefore to suppose god to act or design any thing that is not for the good or his creatures, is either to fancy him to act for no end at all, or for an end that is contrary to his benign nature. finally therefore, the very notion of infinite fullness is to be communicating and overflowing; and the most congruous apprehension that we can entertain of the infinite and eternal deity, is to conceive him as an immense and all glorious sun, that is continually communicating and sending abroad its beams and brightness; which conception of our maker, if 'twere deeply imprinted on us, would i am confident set our apprehensions right in many theoryes, and chase away those black and dismal notions which too many have given harbour to. but i come to erect the second pillar. [2] then, there is an exact geometrical justice that runs through the universe, and is interwoven in the contexture of things. this is a result of that wise and almighty goodness that praesides over all things. for this justice is but the distributing to every thing according to the requirements of its nature. and that benign wisdom that contrived and framed the natures of all beings, doubtless so provided that they should be suitably furnished with all things proper for their respective conditions. and that this nemesis should be twisted into the very natural coustitutions of things themselves, is methinks very reasonable; since questionless, almighty wisdom could so perfectly have form his works at first, as that all things that he saw were regular, just, and for the good of the universe, should have been brought about by those stated laws, which we call nature; without an ordinary engagement of absolute power to effect them. and it seems to me to be very becoming the wise author of all things so to have made them in the beginning, as that by their own internal spring and wheels, they should orderly bring about what ever he intended them for, without his often immediaie interposal. for this looks like a more magnificient apprehension of the divine power and praeexistence, since it supposeth him from everlasting ages to have foreseen all future occurrences, & so wonderfully to have seen and constituted the great machina of the world that the infinite variety of motions therein, should effect nothing but what in his eternal wisdom he had concluded fit and decorous: but as for that which was so, it should as certainly be compassed by the laws he appointed long ago, as if his omnipotence were at work every moment. on the contrary to engage gods absolute and extraordinary power, in all events and occurrences of things, is me seems to think meanly of his wisdom; as if he had made the world so, as that it should need omnipotence every now & then to mend it, or to bring about those his destinations, which by a shorter way he could have effected, by his instrument, nature. can any one say that our supposition derogates from the divine concourse or providence? for on these, depend continually both the being and operations of all things, since without them they would cease to act, and return to their old nothing. and doubtless god hath not given the ordering of things out of his own hands; but holds the power to alter, innovate, or change the course of nature as he pleaseth. and to act by extraordinary, by absolute omnipotence, when he thinks fit to do so. the sum of what i intent, is, that god's works are perfect; and as his goodness is discovered in them, so is his justice wrought into their very essential constitutions: so that we need not suppose him to be immediately engaged in every event and all distributions of things in the world, or upon all occasions to exercise his power in extraordinary actions, but that he leaves such managements to the oeconomy of second causes. and now next to this, (for they are of kin) i raise the third pillar. [3] things are carried to their proper place and state, by the congruity of their natures; where this fails, we may suppose some arbitrary managements. the congruity of things is their suitableness to such or such a state or condition; and 'tis a great law in the divine and first constitutions, that things should incline and move to what is suitable to their natures. this in sensibles is evident in the motions of consent and sympathy. and the ascent of light, and descent of heavy bodies, must i doubt when all is done, be resolved into a principle that is not merely corporeal. yea supposing all such things to be done by the laws os mechanics, why may we not conceive, that the other rank of beings, spirits, which are not subject to corporeal motions, are also disposed of by a law proper to their natures, which since we have no other name to express it by, we may call congruity. we read in the sacred history that judas went to his place; and 'tis very probable that spirits are conveyed to their proper 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or a 〈◊〉 descends. the place●ifts would have the soul of the world 〈◊〉 be the great infor●ment of all such 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as also of the phenomina, that ●e beyond the powers of ●asser, and 'tis no unlikely 〈◊〉: but i have 〈◊〉 need to engage further about this 〈◊〉 not yet to speak more of this first part of my principle, since i● so nearly depends on what was said in be behalf of the former maxi●. yet of the 〈◊〉 we need a would or two. when therefore we cann● give accounted of things either by the 〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉 or concen●able 〈◊〉, (as likely some things relating to the states of spirits, and immaterial beings can be resolved by neither) i say then, we may have recourse to the arbitrary managements of those invisible ministers of equity and justice, which without doubt the world is plentifully stored with. for it cannot be conceived that those active spirits are idle or unemployed in the momentous concerns of the universe yea the sacred volume gives evidence o● their interposals in our affairs. i shall need mention but that remarkable instance in da●iel, of the endeavours of the prince of persia, and of grecia, to hinder michael, and the other angel, that were engaged for the affairs of f●les; or if any would evade this, what think they o● all the apparitions of angels in the ol● testament, of their pitching their tents about us, and being ministering spirits for our good. to name no more such passages; now if those noble spirits will engage themselves in our trifling concernments, doubtless they are very sedulous in those affairs that tend to the good and perfection of the universe. but to be brief; jadvance. the fourth pillar. (4) the souls of men are capable of living in other bodies besides terarestial; and never act but in some body or other. for 〈◊〉 when i consider how deeply 〈◊〉 this state we are immersed in the body, 〈◊〉 can ●ne thinks searce imagine, that presently upon the quitting on●e, we shall ●e stripped of all corporetry, for this would ●e such a jump as is seldom or never made in nature; since by almost all i●ances that come under our observation his manifest, that she ●seth to act by due ●nd orderly gradations, and takes no precipition leaps from one extreme to another. 'tis very probable therefore, that 〈◊〉 our immediately next state we shall ●ave another vehicle. and then, 2. 〈◊〉 that our souls are immediately 〈◊〉 to 〈◊〉 more 〈◊〉 and s●bile body 〈◊〉, than this gross outside; 'tis 〈◊〉 thinks a good presumption, that we shal● not be strip● and divested of our inmar● stole also, when we leave this dull earth behind us. especially 3. if we take notice how the highest and noblest faculties and operations of the soul are helped on by somewhat that is corporeal, and that i● employeth the bodily spirits in its subli● most exercises; we might then be persuade ded, that it always 〈◊〉 some body o● other, and never acts without one. an● 5. since we cannot conceive a soul to live or act that is insensible, and sinc● we know not how there can be sense where there is no union with matter, we should me seems be induced to think, tha● when 'tis 〈◊〉 from all body, 'tis 〈◊〉 and silent. for in all se●sations there is corporeal motion, as all philosophy and experience testifies: and these motions b● come sensible representations, by virtue of the union between the 〈◊〉 and its confeder 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, so that when it is lose and 〈◊〉〈◊〉 from any body whatsoever it will be unconcerned in all 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, (being a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) and ●o sense or perceptions will be conveyed by them. nor will it make any thing at all against this argument to urge, that there are 〈◊〉 and purely unembodyed spirits in the universe, which live and act without relation to any body, and yet these are not insensible: for what they know, and 〈◊〉 they know we are very incompetent judges of, they being a sort of spirits specifically distinct from out order and therefore their faculties and operations are of a very divers consideration from ours. so that for us to deny what we may reasonably argue from the contemplation of our own nature's, because we cannot comprehend the natures of a species of creatures that are far above us, is a great mistake in the way of reasoning. now how strange soever this principle may seem to those, whom customary opinions have seasoned with an other ●e lief, yet considering the reasons i have alleged, i cannot forbear concluding it very probable; and if it prove hereafter serviceable for the helping us in some concerning theories, i think the most wary and timorous may admit it, till upon good grounds they can disprove it. the fifth pillar. (5) the soul in every state hath such a body, as is fittest for those faculties and operations that it is most inclined to exercise. 'tis a known maxim, that every thing that is, is for its operation; and the contriver and maker of the world hath been so bountiful to all beings, as to furnish them with all suitable and necessary requisites for their respective actions; for there are no propensities and dispositions in nature, but some way or other are brought into actual exercise, otherwise they were mere nullities, and impertinent appendices. now for the employment of all kinds of faculties, and the exerting all manner of operations, all kinds of instruments will not suffice, but only such, as are proportioned and adapted to the exercises they are to be used in, and the agents that employ them. 'tis clear therefore, that the soul of man, a noble and vigorous agent, must be fitted with a suitable body, according to the laws of that exact distributive justice that runs through the universe; and such a one is most suitable, as is fittest for those exercises it propends to, for the body is the souls instrument, and a necessary requisite of action: whereas should it be otherwise, god would then have provided worse for his worthiest creatures, than he hath for those that are of a much inferior rank and order. for if we look about us upon all the creatures of god, that are exposed to our observation, we may seal this truth with an infallible induction; that there is nothing but what is fitted with all sutaeble requisites to act according to its nature. the bird hath wings to waft it aloof in the thin and subtle air; the fish is furnished with fins, to move in her liquid element; and all other animals have instruments that are proper for their peculiar inclinations: so that should it be otherwise in the case of souls, it would be a great blot to the wise managements of providence, and contrary to its usual methods; and thus we should be dis-furnished of the best and most convictive argument that we have to prove that a principle of exactcst wisdom hath made and ordered all things. the sixth pillar. (6) the powers and faculties of the soul, are either (1) spiritual, and intellectual: (2) sensitive: or, (3) plastic. now 1. by the intellectual powers i mean all those that relate to the soul, in its naked and abstracted conception, as as it is a spirit, and are exercised about immaterial objects; as, virtue, knowledge, and divine love: this is the plate●nical n●s, and that which we call the mind the two other more immediately relate to its espoused matter: for 2. the sensitive are exen●ised about all the objects of sense, and are concerned in all such things as either gratify, or disgust the body. and 3. the plastic are those faculties of the soul, whereby it moves and forms the body, and are without sense or animalversi●: the exercise of the former, i call the higher life; and the operations of the latter, the lower s and the life of the body. now that there are exercised faculties belonging to our natures, and that they are exercised upon such and such objects respectively, plain experience 〈◊〉, and therefore i may be excused from going about to prove so universally acknowledged a truth: wherefore i pass to the seventh pillar. (7) by the same degrees that the higher powers are invigorated, the lower are consopited and abated, as to their proper exercises, & è contra. 1. that those powers should each of them have a tendency to action and in their turns be exercised is but rational to conceive, since otherwise they had been superfluous. and 2. that they should be inconsistent in the supremest exercise and inactuation, is to me as probable. ●or the soul is a finite and limited being, and therefore cannot operate divers ways with equal intention at once. that as, cannot at the same time employ all her faculties in the highest degree of exercise that each of them is capable of. for doubtless did it engage but one of those alone, the operations thereof would be more strong and vigorous, then when they are conjunctly exercised, their acts and objects being very divers. so that i say, that these faculties should act together in the highest way they are capable of, seems to be contrary to the nature of the soul. and i am sure it comports not with experience, for those that are endowed with an high degree of exercise of one faculty, are seldom if ever as well provided in the rest. 'tis a common and daily observation, that those that are of most heightened and strong imaginations, are defective in judgement, and the faculty of close reasoning. and your very large and capacious memories, have seldom or never any great share of either of the other persections. nor do the deepest judgements use to have any thing considerable either of me●wry, or fancy. and as there are fair instances even in this state of the inconsistence of the faculties in the highest exercise; so also are there others that suggest unto us. 3. that by the same degrees that some 〈◊〉 fail in their strength and vigeur, others gain and are improved. we know that the shutting up of the senses, is the letting loose and enlarging of the fancy. and we seldom have such strong imaginations waking, as in our dreams in the silence of our other faculties. at the sun recedes, the moon and stars discover themselves, and when it returns they draw in their baffled beams, and hide their heads in obsurity. but to urge what is more close and pressing; it is an unerring remark, that those that want the use of some one natural part or faculty, are wont to have very liberal amends made them by an excelelncy in some others. thus those that nature hath deprived of fight, use to have wonderfully tenacious memories. and the deaf and damn have many times a strange kind of sagacity, and very remarkable mechanical ingren●ities: not to mention other instances, for i'll say no more than i must needs. thus then experience gives us encouraging probability of the truth of the theorem asserted. and in its self ●ts very reasonable; for (as we have seen) the soul being an active nature, is always propending to this exercising of one faculty or other, and that to the utmost it is able, and yet being of a limited capacity, it can employ but one in height of exercise at once; which when it loseth and abates of its strength and supreme 〈◊〉; some other, whole improvement was all this while hindered by this its engrossing rival must by consequence beg●n now to display itself, and awaken into a more vigorous 〈◊〉: so that as the former loseth, the 〈◊〉 proportionably gaineth. and indeed 'tis a great instance of the divine 〈◊〉, that our faculties are made in ●o regular and equilibrium 〈◊〉 order. for were the same powers still uppermost in the greatest height of 〈◊〉, and so ●nakerably constituted, there would want the beauty of variety, and the other faculties would never act to that pitch of perfection that they are capable of. there would be no liberty of wi●, and consequently no h●mare nature. o● if the higher powers might have lessened, and fayl●d without a proportionaable iner●ense of the 〈◊〉, and they likewise have been remitted, without any advantage to the other faculties, the soul might then at length fall into an irrecoverable recess and inactivity. but all these inconveniences are avoided by supposing the principle we have here insisted on; and it is the last that i shall mention. briefly then, and if it may be more plainly, the higher faculties are those, whereby the soul acts towards spiritual and immaterial objects: and the lower whereby it acts towards the body. now it cannot with equal vigour exercise itself both ways together; and consequently the more it is taken up in the higher operations, the more promped and vigorous it will be in these exercises, and less so about those that concern the body, & è converso. thus when we are very deeply engaged in intellectual contemplations, our outward senses are in a manner 〈◊〉 up and cramped: and when our senses are highly exercised and gratified, those operations monopolise and employ us. nor is this less observable in relation to the plastic. for frequent and severe meditations do much mortify and weaken the body; and we are most nourisbt in our sleep in the silence of our senses. now what is thus tr●e in respect of acts and particular exercises, 〈◊〉 as much so in states and habits. moreover, 'tis apparent that the plastic is then most strong and vigorous when our other faculties are wholly unemployed, from the state of the womb. for 〈◊〉 when she is at her plastic work ceal●th all other operations. the same we may take noti● of, in silk worms and other infects, which lie as if they were dead and insensible, while their lower powers are forming them into another appearance. all which things put together, give good evidence to the truth of our axiom. i'll conclude this with one remark more, to prevent mistake; therefore briefly; as the soul always acts by the body; so in its highest exercises it useth some of the inferior powers; which, therefore must operate also. so that some sen●ces, as ●ghs and somewhat analogous to hearing may be employed in considerable degree even when the highest life is most predominant; but than it is at the command and in the services of those nobler powers; wherefore the sensitive life cannot for this cause be said to be invigour●ed, since 'tis under servitude and subjection, and its gusts and pleasures are very weak and staccid. as this is the reason of that clause in the principlo, (as to their proper exercises.) having thus laid the foundation, and 〈◊〉 the pillars of our building, i now come to advance the superstructure. chap. xiv. a philosophical hypothesis of the souls ●aexistence. the eternal and almighty goodness, the blessed spring and roo● of 〈◊〉 things, made all his 〈◊〉, in the best, happiest, and most perfect condition, that their respective natures rendered them capable of, by axiom the first; and therefore they were then constituted in the inactuation and exercise of their noblest and most perfect powers. consequently, the souls of men, a considerable part of the divine workmanship, were at first made in the highest invigouration of the spiritual and intellective faculties which were exercised in virtue, and in blissful contemplation of the supreme deity; wherefore now by axiom 6 and 7, the ignobler and lower powers, or the life of the b●ily, were languid and rei●iss. so that the most tenuious, pure and simple matter being the fittest instruments for the most vigorous and spiritual faculties according to principle 2, 4, and 5. the soul in this condition was united with the most 〈◊〉 and athereal matter that it was capable of enacting; and the inferior powers, those relating to the body, being at a very low ebb of exercise, were wholly subservient to the superior, and employed in nothing but what was serviceable to that higher life: so that the senses did but present occasions for divine love, and objects for contemplation; and the plastic had nothing to do, but to move this passive and ●asie body, accordingly as the concerns of the higher faculties required. thus then did we at first live and act in a pure and aethereal body; and consequently in a place of light and blessedness, by principle 3d. but particularly to describe and point at this paradisaical residence, can be done only by those that live in those serene regions of lightsome glory: some philosophers indeed have adventured to pronounce the place to be the sun that vast orb of splendour and brightness; though it may be 'tis more probable, that those immense tracts of pure and quiet aether that are above saturn, are the joyous place of our ancient celestial abode: but there is no determination in matters of such lubricous uncertainty where ever it is, 'tis doubtless a place and state of wonderful bliss and happiness, and the highest that our natures had fitted us to. in this state we may be supposed to have lived in the blissful exercise of virtue, divine love and contemplation, through very long tracts of duration. but though we were thus unconceivably happy, yet were we not immutably so; for our highest perfections and noblest faculties being but finite, may after long and vigorous exercise, somewhat abat● and remit in their sublimest operations, and adam may fall a sleep; in which time of remission of the higher powers, the lower may advance and more livelily display themselves then they could before, by axiom 7; for the soul being a little slacked in its pursuits of immaterial objects, the lower powers which before were almost wholly taken up and employed in those high services, are somewhat more released to follow a little the tendencies of their proper natures. and now they begin to convert towards the body, and warmly to resent the delights and pleasures thereof; thus is eve brought forth, while adam sleepeth. the lower life, that of the body is now considerably awakened, and the operations of the higher, proportionably abated. however, there is yet no anomy or disobedience, for all this is but an innocent exercise of of those faculties which god hath given us to employ, and as far as is consistent with the divine laws, to gratify. for it was no fault of ours that we did not uncessantly keep our spiritual powers upon the most intense exercises that they were capable of exerting; we were made on for purpose defatigable, that so all degrees of life might have their exercise; and our maker designed that we should feel and taste the joys of our congenite bodies, as well as the pleasures of those seraphic aspires and enjoyments. and me thinks it adds to the felicity of that state, that our happiness was not one uniform piece, or continual repetition of the same, but consisted in a most grateful variety, viz. in the pleasure of all our faculties, the lower as well as the higher; for those are as much gratified by suitable exercises and enjoyments a● ●hese; and contequently according to their proportion capable of as great an happiness: nor is it any more derogation from the divine goodness, that the noblest and highest life was not always exercised to the height of its capacity, then that we were not made all angels, all the planets so many suns, and all the variety of the creatures formed into one species: yea, as was intimated above, 'tis an pastance of the divine benignity, that he produced things into being, according to the vast plenitude of forms that were in his all knowing mind; and gave them operations suitable to their respective natures; so that it had rather seemed a defect in the divine dispensations, if we had not had the pleasure of the proper exercise of the lower faculties as well as of the higher. yea, me thinks, 'tis but a reasonable reward to the body, that it should have its delights and gratifications also, whereby it will be fitted for further serviceableness. for doubtless it would be in time spent and exhausted were it continually employed in those high and less proportioned operations. wherefore god himself having so ordered the matter, that the inferior life should have its turn of invigouration; it can be no evil in us, that that is executed which he hath so determined, as long as we pass not the bounds that he hath set us. adam therefore was yet innocent, though he joyed in his beloved spouse, yea, and was permitted to feed upon all the fruits of this paradise, the various results of corporeal pleasure, as long as he followed not his own will and appetites contrarily to the divine commands and appointments. but at length unhappily the delights of the body betray us, through our over indulgence to them, and lead us captive to anomy and disobedience. the sense of what is grateful and pleasant by insensible degrees gets head over the apprehension of what is just and good; the serpent and eve prove successful tempters; adam cannot withstand the inordnate appetite, but feeds on the forbidden fruit, viz. the dictates of his deba●chea will, and ●sual pleasure. and thus now the body is gotten uppermost, the lower faculties have greater exercise and command then the higher, those being very vigorously awakened, and these proportionably shrunk up, and consopited; wherefore by axiom 3. and 5. the soul contracts a less pure body, which may be more accommodate to sensitive operations; and thus we fall from the highest paradise the blissful regions of life and glory, and become inhabitants of the air. not that we are presently quite divested of our etherial state, as soon as we descend into this less perfect condition of life, for retaining still considerable exercises of the higher life, though not so ruling and vigorous ones as before, the soul must retain part of its former vehicle, to serve it as its instrument, in those its operations: for the therial body contracts crasiness and impurity, by the same degrees as the immaterial faculties abate in their exercise; so that we are not immediately upon the expiring of the highest congruity wholly stripped of all remains of our celestial bodies, but still hold some portion of them, within the grosser vehicle, while the spirit, or higher life is in any degree of actuation. nor are we to suppose that every slip or indulgence to the body can detrude us from our athereal happiness; but such a change must be wrought in the soul, as may spoil its congruity to a celestial body, which in time by degrees is effected: thus we may probably be supposed to have fallen from our supreme felicity. but others of our order have made better use of their enjoyments, and the indulgences of their maker; and though they have had their perigas as well as their apoge's: i mean their verges towards the body and its joys, as well as their aspires to nobler and sublimer objects, yet they kept the station of their natures, and made their orderly returns, without so remarkable a defection: and though possibly some of them may sometimes have had their slips, and have waded further into the pleasures of the body than they ought to have done, yet partly by their own timely care and consideration, and partly by the divine assistance, they recover themselves again to their condition of primigenial innocence. but we must leave them to their felicity, and go on with the history of our own descent. therefore after we are detraded from our etherial condition, we next descend into the aerial. the aerial state. now our bodies are more or less pure in this condition, proportionably to the degrees of our apostasy: so that we are not absolutely miserable in our first step of descent; but indeed happy in comparison of our now condition: as yet there may be very considerable remains of virtue and divine love, though indeed the lower life, that of the body be grown very strong and rampant: so that as yet we may be supposed to have lapsed no lower than the best and purest regions of the air, by axiom 2 & 3. and doubtless there are some, who by striving against the inordinacy of their appetitites, may at length get the victory again over their bodies, and so by the assistance of the divine spirit who is always ready to promote and assist good beginnings, may re-enkindle the higher life, and so be translated again to their old celestial habitations without descending lower. but others irreclaimeably persisting in their rebellion, and sinking more and more into the body, and the relish of its joys and pleasures, these are still verging to a lower and more degenerate state; so that at the last the higher powers of the soul being almost quite laid a sleep and consopited, and the sensitive also by long and tedious exercises being much tired, and abated in their vigour, the plastic faculties begin now fully to awaken; so that a body of thin and subtle air will not suffice its now so highly exalted energy, no more than the subtle aether can suffice us terrestrial animals for respiration; wherefore the aerial congruity of life expires also, and thus are we ready for an earthly body. but now since a soul cannot unite with any body, but with such only as is fitly prepared for it, by principle 3. and there being in all likelihood more expirations in the air, than there are prepared bodies upon earth, it must needs be, that for some time it must be destitute of any congruous matter that might be joined with it; and consequently by principle 3d. 'twill lie in a state of inactivity and silence. not that it will for ever be lost in that forgotten recess and solitude, for it hath a●ptness aptness and propensity to act in a terrestrial body, which will be reduced into actual exercise, when fit ●atter is prepared. the souls therefore, that are now laid up in the black night of stuipdity and inertnesse will in their proper seasons be awakened into life and operation in such bodies and places of the earth, as by their dispositions they are fitted for. so that no sooner is the●e any matter of due vital temper, afforded by generation, but immediately a soul that is suitable to such a body, either by mere natural congruity, the dispositi, on of the soul of the world, or some more spontaneous agent is attracted, or sent into this so befitting tenement, according to axiom 2 and 3. terrestrial state. now because in this state too we use our sensitive faculties, and have some though very small relics of the higher life also; therefore the soul first makes itself a vehicle out of the most spiritous and yielding parts of this spumous terrestrial matter, which hath some analogy both with its etherial and aerial state. this is as it were its inward vest, and immediate instrument in all its operations. by the help of this it understands, reasons, and remembers, yea forms and moves the body: and that we have such a subtle airy vehicle within this terrestrial, our manifest sympathising with that element, and the necessity we have of it to all the functions of life, as is palpable in respiration, is me thinks good ground for conjecture. and 'tis not improbable but even within this it may have a purer fire and ather to which it is united, being some little remain of what it had of old. in this state we grow up merely into the life of sense, having little left of the higher life, but some apish shows and imitations of reason, virtue, and religion: by which alone with speech, we seem to be distinguished from beasts, while in reality the brutish nature is predominant, and the concernments of the body are our great end, our only god and happiness; this is the condition of our now degenerate, lost natures. however, that ever overflowing goodness that always aims at the happiness of his creatures, hath not left us without all means of recovery, but by the gracious and benign dispensations which he hath afforded us, hath provided for our restauration; which some (though but very few) make so good use of, that being assisted in their well meant and sincere endeavours by the divine spirit, they in good degree mortify and subdue the body, conquer self-will, unruly appetites, and disorderly passions, and so in some measure by principle 7. awaken the higher life, which still directs them upwards to virtue and divine love; which, where they are perfectly kindled carry the soul when dismissed from this prison to its old celestial abode: for the spirit and noblest faculties being so recovered to life and exercise require an aetherial body to be united to, and that an aetherial place of residence, both which, the divine nemesis that is wrought into the very nature of things bestoweth on them by principle the second. but they are very few that are thus immediately restored to the celestial paradise, upon the quitting of their earthly bodies. for others that are but in the way of recovery, and die imperfectly virtuous, mere philosophy and natural reason (within the bounds of which we are now discoursing) can determine no more, but that they step forth again into aer● vehicles; that congruity of life immediately awakening in them after this is expired. in this state their happiness will be more or less, proportionably to their virtues, in which if they persevere, we shall see anon how they will be recovered. but for the present we must not break off the clue of our account, by going backwards before we have arrived to the u●most verge of descent in this philosophical romance, or history; the reader is at his choice to call it which he pleaseth. wherefore let us cast our eyes upon the most, in whom their life on earth hath but confirmed and strengthened, their degenerate sensual, and brutish propensions; and see what is like to become of them, when they take their leave of these terrestrial bodies. only first a word of the state of dying infants, and i come immediately to the next step of descent. those therefore that pass out of these bodies, before the terrestrial congruity be spoiled weakened, or orderly unmound; according to the tenor of this hypothesis, must return into the state of inactivity. for the plastic in them is too highly awakened, to inactuate only an aerial body; and, there being no other more congruous, ready, and at hand for it to enter, it must needs step back into its former state of insensibility, and there wait its turn, till befitting matter call it forth again into life and action. this is a conjecture that philosophy dictates, which i vouch not for a truth, but only follow the clue of this hypothesis. nor can there any danger be hence conceived that those whose congr●ityes orderly expire, should fall back again into a state of silence and intertnesse; since by long and hard exercises in this body, the plastic life is well tamed and debilitated, so that now its activity is proportioned to a more tenuious and passive vehicle, which it cannot fail to meet with in its next condition. for 'tis only the terrestrial body is so long a preparing. but to the next step of descent, or after state. to give an account of the after state of the more degenerate and yet descending souls, some fancy a very odd hypothesis, imagining that they pass hence into some other more course and inferior planet, in which, they are provided with bodies suitable to their so depraved natures; but i shall be thought extravagant for the mention of such a supposition; wherefore i come to what is less ●bnoxious. when our souls go out of these bodies therefore, they are not presently discharged of all the matter that belonged to this condition, but carry away their inward and aerial state to be partakers with them of their after fortunes, only leaving the unless earth behind them. for they have a congruity to their airy bodies, though that which they had to a terrestrial, is worn out and defaced. nor need we to wonder how it can 〈◊〉 have an aerial aptitude, when as that congruity expired before we defended hither; if we consider the reason of the expiration of its former vital aptitude, which was not so much through any defect of power to actuate such a body, but through the excess of invigoration of the plastic, which was then grown so strong, that an aerial body was not enough for it to display its force upon. but now the case is altered, these lower powers are worn and wearied out, by the toilsome exercise of dragging about and managing such a load of flesh; wherefore being so castigated, they are duly attempered to the more easy body of air again, as was intimated before; to which they being already united, they cannot miss of a proper habitation. but considering the stupor, dulness & inactivity of our declining age, it may seem unlikely to some, that after death we should immediately be resuffitated into so lively and vigorous a condition, as is the aerial, especially, since all the faculties of sense and action, are observed gradually to fail & abate as we draw nearer to our exit from this stage; which seems to threaten, that we shall next descend into a state of less stupor and inertnesse. but this is a groundless jealousy; for the weakness and lethargic inactivity of old age, ariseth from a defect of those spirits, that are the instruments of all our operations, which by long exercise are at last spent and seattred. so that the remains can scarce any longer stand under their unwieldy barthem; much less, can they perform all functions of life so vigorously as they were wont to do, when they were in their due temper, strength, and plenty. however notwithstanding this inability to manage a sluggish, stubborn, and exhausted terrestrial body, there is no doubt, but the soul can with great care, when it is discharged of its former load, actuate its thin airy vehicle; and that with a brisk vigour and activity. as a man that is overladen, may be ready to faint and sink, till he be relieved of his burden; and then, he can run away with a cheerful vivacity. so that this decrepit condition of our decayed natures cannot justly prejudice our belief, that we shall be erected again, into a state of life and action in aerial bodies, after this congruity is expired. but if all alike live in bodies of air in the next condition, where is then the difference between the inst and the wicked, in state, place and body? for the just we have said already, that some of them are reinstated in their pristine happiness and felicity; and others are in a middle state, within the confines of the air, perfecting the inchoations of a better life, which commenced in this: as for the state and place of those that have lived in a continual course of sensuality and forgetfulness of god; i come now to declare what we may fancy of it, by the help of natural light, and the conduct of philosophy. and in order to this discovery i must premise some what concerning the earth, this globe we live upon; which is, that we are not to conceive it to be a full bulky mass to the centre, but rather that 〈◊〉 somewhat like a sucked egg, in great part, an hollow sphere, so that what we tread upon is but as it were, an arch or bridge, to divide between the upper and the lower regions: not that this inward ●llowness is a mere void capacity, for there are no such chasms in nature, but doubtless replenished it is with some ●uid bodies or other, and it may be a kind of air, fire and water: now thi● hypothesis will help us easily to imagine how the earth may move notwithstanding the pretended indisposition of its bulk, and on that account i believe it will be somewhat the more acceptable with the free and ingenious. those that understand the cartesian philosophy, will readily admit the hypothesis, at least as much of it as i shall have need of: but for others, i have little hopes of persuading them to any thing, and therefore il'● spare my labour of going about to prove what they are either uncapable of, or at first dash judge ridiculous: and it may be most will grant as much as is requisite for my purpose, which is, that there are huge vast cavities within the body of the earth; and it were as needless, as presumptuous, for me to go about to determine more. only i shall mention a probability, that this gross crust which we call earth, is not of so vast a profound as is supposed, and so come more press to my business. 'tis an ordinary observation among them that are employed in mines and subterraneous vaults of any depth, that heavy bodies lose much of their gravity in those hollow caverns: so that what the strength of several men cannot stir above ground, is easily moved by the single force of one under it: now to improve this experiment, 'tis very likely that gravity proceeds from a kind of magnetism and attractive virtue in the earth, which is by so much the more strong and vigorous, by how much more of the attrahent contributes to the action, and proportionably weaker, where less of the magnetic element exerts its operation; so that supposing the solid earth, to reach but to a certain, and that not very great distance from the surface, and 'tis obvious this way to give an account of the phoenomenon. for according to this hypothesis the gravity of those bodies is less, because the quantity of the earth that draws them is so; whereas were it of the same nature and solidity to the centre, this diminution of its bulk, and consequently virtue would not be at all considerable, nor in the least sensible: now though there are other causes pretended for this effect, yet there is none so likely, and easy a solution as this, though i know it also is obnoxious to exceptions, which i cannot now stand to to meddle with; all that i would have is, that 'tis a probability, and the mention of the fountains of the great deep in the sacred history, as also the flaming vulcanoes and smoking mountains that all relations speak of, be others. now i intent not that after a certain distance all is fluid matter to the centre. for the cartefian hypothesis distributes the subterranean space into distinct regions of divers matter, which are divided from each other by as solid walls, as is the open air from the inferior atmosphere: therefore i suppose only that under this thick outside, there is next a vast and large region of fluid matter, which for the most part very likely is a gross and fa●lid kind of air, as also considerable proportions of fire & water, under all which, there may be other solid floors, that may encompass and cover more vaults, and vast hollows, the contents of which 'twere vanity to go about to determine; only 'tis very likely, that as the admirable philosophy of des cartes supposeth, the lowest and central regions may be filled with flame and aether, which suppositions, though they may seem to some to be but the groundless excursions of busy imaginations; yet those that know the french philosophy, and see there the reasons of them, will be more candid in their censures, and not so severe to those not ill-framed conjectures. now then being thus provided, i return again to prosecute my main intendment; wherefore 'tis very probable, that the wicked and degenerate part of mankindare after death committed to those squalid subterraneous habitations; in which dark prisons, they do severe penance for their past impletyes, and have their senses, which upon earth they did so fond indulge, and took such care to gratify, now persecuted with darkness, stench, and horror. thus doth the divine justice triumph in punishing those vi●e apostatet suitably to their delinquencyes. now if those vicious souls are not carried down to the infernal caverns by the mere congruity of their natures, as is not so easy to imagine; we may then reasonably conceive, that they are driven into those dungeons by the invisible ministers of justice, that manage the affairs of the world by axiom 3. for those pure spirits doubtless have a deep sense of what is just, and for the good of the universe; and therefore will not let those inexcusable wretches to escape their deserved castigations; or permit them to resicle among the good, lest they should infect and poison the better world, by their examples. wherefore i say, they are disposed of into those black under-abysses; where they are suited with company like themselves, and matched unto bodies as impure, as are their depraved inclinations. not that they are all in the same place and under the like torments; but are variously distributed according to the merits of their natures and actions; some only into the upper prisons, others to the dungeon: and some to the most intolerable hell, the abyss of fire. thus doth a just nemesis visit all the quarters of the universe. now those miserable prisoners cannot escape from the places of their confinement; for 'tis very likely that those watchful spirits that were instrumental in committing them, have a strict and careful eye upon them to keep them within the confines of their goal, that they roave not out into the regions of light and liberty, yea 'tis probable that the bodies they have contracted in those squalid mansions, may by a kind of fatal magnetisme be chained down to this their proper element. or, they having now a congruity only to such fatid vehicles, may be no more able to abide the clear and lightsome air, than the bat or owl are able to bear the sun's noonday beams; or, the fish to live in these thinner regions. this may be the reason of the unfrequency of their appearance; and that they most commonly get them away at the approach of light. besides all this, some there are who suppose that there is a kind of polity among themselves, which may, under severe penalties, prohibit all unlicensed excursions into the upper world; though i confess this seems not so probable, and we stand in no need of the supposition. for though the laws of their natures should not detain them within their proper residences; yet the care and oversight of those watchful spirits; who first committed them, will do it effectually. and very oft when they do appear, they signify that they are under restraint, and come ●ot abroad, but by permission; as by several credible stories i could make good: but for brevity i omit them. now though i intent not this hypothesis, either for a discovery of infallible truth, or declarement of mine own opinions, yet i cannot forbear to note the strange coincidence that there is between scripture-expressions in this matter, some main strokes of the orthodox doctrine, and this philosophical conjecture of the state and place of the wicked. 'tis represented in the divine oracles as a deep pit, a prison, a place of darkness, fire, and brimstone; and the going thither, is named a descent. all which most appositely agree with the representation we have made; and the usual periphrasis of hell torments, fire, and brimstone, is wonderfully applicable to the place we have been describing; since it abounds with fuliginous flames, and sulphurous stench and vapours; and, as we have conjectured, the lowest cavity, is nothing else but a valut of fire. for the other expressions mentioned, every one can make the application. so that when a man considers this, he will almost be tempted to think, that the inspired writers had some such thing in their fancies. and we are not to run to tropes and figures for the interpretation of plain and literal descriptions; except some weighty reason force us to such a refuge. moreover hell is believed among the orthodox to have degrees of torments, to be a place of uncomfortable horror, and to stand at the greatest distance from the seat and babitation of the blessed. all which, and more that i could reckon up, cannot more clearly made out and explained, than they are in this hypothesis. thus than we see the irreclameably wicked lodged in a place and condition very wretched and calamilous. if any of them should be taught by their miseries to renounce and forsake their impietyes; or should have any dispositions to virtue and divine love reinkindled in them; mere philosophy would conclude, that in time they might then be delivered from their lad durance; but we know what theology hath determined. and indeed those brutish apostates are so fixed and rooted in their sensual and rebellious propensions, that those who are not yet as far distant from their maker as they can be, are still verging downwards; and possibly being quite void of the divine grace, and any considerable exercises of reason and conscience, they may never stop till they have run through all the internal stages, and are arrived to the extremest degree of misery, that as yet any are obnoxious to. wherefore the earth and all the infernal regions being thus monstrously depraved; 'tis time for the divine justice to show some remarkable and more than ordinary severity upon those remorseless rebels; and his goodness is as ready to deliver the virtuous from this stage of wretchedness and impiety. when therefore those have completed the number of their iniquities, and these are fit for the mercy of so great a deliverance; then shall the great decree for judgement be executed; which though it cannot be expected that mere philosophy should give an unerring and punctual account of, yet we shall follow this light as far as it will lead us; not entrenching upon the sacred rights of divinity, nor yet baulking what the ancient eastern cabbala, assisted by later discoveries into nature, will dictate; but sincerely following the hypothesis, we shall leave all its errors and misguidances to be corrected by the more sacred canons. so that where we shall discern the wisdom of the world to have misdirected the most knowing and sedulous inquirers, we may duly acknowledge the great benefit of that light which we have received to guide us in matters of such vast and concerning speculation. the constagration of the earth. therefore at length, when the time preappointed by the divine wisdom for this execution, is come; the internal, central fire shall have got such strength and irresistible vigour that it shall easily melt & dissolve that fence that hath all this while enclosed it; and all those other smaller fires, which are lodged in several parts of the lower regions joining themselves with this mighty flame, shall pray upon what ever is combustible and so rage first within the bowels of the earth, beginning the tragic execution upon those damned spirits that are there confi●ed; these having been reserved in the chains of darkness to the judgement of this great day; and now shall their hell and misery be completed, and they receive the full reward of their impieties, which doubtless will be the most intolerable and severe torment that can be imagned, these sierce and merciless flames sticking close to, yea, piercing through and through their bodies, which can remove no where to avoid this fiery overspreading vengenance. and now the subterranean vaults being thus all on fire, it cannot be long ere this prevailing combustion take hold of the upper regions, wherefore at last with irresistible violence it breaks forth upon these also: so that the great pyre is now kindled, smoke, fire, darkness, horror and confusion, cover the face of all things? wherefore the miserable inhabitants of the earth and inferior air, will be seized on by the devouring element, and suffer in that fire that was reserved for the perdition of ungodly men. but shall the righteous perish with the wicked? and shall not the judge of all the earth do right? will not the sincere & virtuous both in the earth and air be secured from this sad fate? and how can their deliverance be effected? doubtless providence that in all things else hath been righteous and equal will not fail in this last scene; but provision will be made for their recovery from this vengeance that hath taken hold of the wicked. but all natural causes failing here, since their bodies are not pure enough to waste them up the quiet regions of the un-infested ather; and the higher congruity of life, being yet but imperfectly inchoated; they would be detained prisoners here below by the chains of their unhappy natures, were there not some extraordinary interposure for their rescue and enlargement; wherefore when we contemplate the infinite fertility of the divine goodness, we cannot think, that he will let those seeds of piety and virtue, which himself hath sown and given some increase to, to come to nought; or the honest possessors of them, fatally to miscarry: but that he will employ his power for the completing what he hath begun, and the deliverance of those, who have relied upon his mercies. but for the particular way and method how this this great iransaction will be accomplished, philosophy cannot determine it. happy therefore are we, who have the discoveries of a more certain light, which doth not only secure us of the thing, but acquaints us with the way and means, that the divine wisdom hath resolved on, for the delivery of the righteous. so that hereby we are assured that our ever blessed redeemer shall appear in the clouds before this fiery fate shall have quite taken hold of the earth, and its condemned inhabitants. the glory of his appearance with his celestial legions, shall raise such strong love, joy, and triumph in his now passionately enamoured expectants, as shall again enkindle that high and potent principle, the spirit, which being throughly awakened and excited, will melt the grossest consistence into liquid aether, so that our bodies being thus turned into the purest flame, we shall ascend in those fiery chariots with our glorious redeemer, and his illustirous and blessed attendants to the celestial habitations. this is the resurrection of the just, and the recovery of our ancient blessedness. thus have some represented this great transaction; but i dare warrant nothing in this matter beyond the declarations of the sacred scriptures, therefore to proceed in our philosophical conjectures, however the good shall be delivered; be sure the wicked shall be made a prey to the scorching element which now rageth every where, and suffer the judgement threatened. but yet the most degenerate part of mankind (if we consult mere reason and the ancient eastern cabbals) who are detained prisoners in the now inflamed almospheare, shall not for ever be abandoned to misery and ruin. for they are still pretended to be under the eye and tender care of that almighty goodness, that made and preserveth all things, that punisheth not out of malice or revenge, and therefore will not pursue them to their utter undoing for ever: but hath set bounds to their destruction, and in infinite wisdom hath so ordered the matter that none of his creatures shall be lost eternally, or endure such an endless misery, than which not being itself were more eligible. wherefore those curious contemplators fancy, that the unsupportable pain and anguish which hath long stuck to those miserable creatures, will at length so consume and destroy rhat insensible pleasure and congruity that unites soul and body, that the thus-miserably cruciated spirit must needs quit its unfit habitation; and there being no other body within its reach that is capable of a vital union, according to the tenor of this hypothesis, it must become senseless and unactive by axiom 4. and so be buried in a state of silence and inertness. at length when these greedy flames shall have devoured what ever was combustible, and converted into a smoke and vapour all grosser concretions, that great orb of fire that the cartesian philosophy supposeth to constitute the centre of this globe, shall perfectly have recovered its pristine nature, and so following the laws of its proper motion, shall fly away out of this vortex, and become a wand'ring comet, till it settle in some other. but if the next conflagration reach not so low as the inmost regions of the earth, so that the central fire remains unconcerned, and unemployed in this combustion; this globe will then retain its wont place among the planets. and that so it may happen, is not improbable, since there is plenty enough both of fiery principles and materials in those regions that are nearer to the surface, to set the earth into a lightsome flame, and to do all that execution that we have spoken of. some conceive therefore, that the conflagration will not be so deep and universal as this opinion supposeth it; but that it may take beginning from a less distance, and spendit self upwards. and to this purpose they represent the sequel of their hypothesis. the general restitution. those thick and clammy vapours which erstwhile ascended in such vast measures, and had filled the vault of heaven with smoke and darkness, must at length obey the laws of their nature and gravity, and so descend again in abundant showers, and mingle with the subsiding ashes, which will constitute a mud vegetative and fertile. for those warm and benign beams, that now again begin to visit the desolate earth, will excite those seminal principles into action, which the divine wisdom and goodness hath mingled with all things. wherefore they operating according to their natures, and the dispositions which they find in the restored matter, will shoot forth in all sorts of flowers, herbs, and trees; making the whole earth a garden of delight and pleasure; and erecting all the phaenomena proper to this element. by this time the air will be grown vital again and far more pure and pleasant, then before the fiery purgation. wherefore they conceive, that the disbodyed souls shall return from their unactive and silent recess, and be joined again to bodies of purified and duly prepared air. for their radaical aptitude to matter still remained, though theyfell asleep for want of bodies of fit temper to unite with. this is the sum of the hypothesis as it is represented by the profoundly learned dr. h. more, with a copious and pompous eloquence. now supposing such a recess of any souls into a state of in activity, such a restitution of them to life and action is very reasonable; since it is much better for them to live and operate again, then to be useless in the universe, and as it were nothing for ever. and we have seen above, that the divine goodness doth always what is best, and his wisdom is not so shallow as to make his creatures so as that he should be fain to banish them into a state that is next to nonentity, there to remain through all duration. thus then will those lately tormented souls, having smarted for their past iniquities, be recovered both from their state of ●rtechednesse and insensibility; and by the unspeakable benignity of their maker, placed once more in such conditions, wherein by their own endeavours, and the divine assistance they may amend what was formerly amiss in them, and pursue any good resolutions that they took while under thelash of the fiery tortures; which those that do, when their good inclinations are perfected, and the divine life again enkindled, they shall in due time reascend the thrones they so unhappily fell from, & be circled about with unexpressible felicity. butthose that for all this, follow the sameways of sensuality and rebellion against their merciful deliverer, they shall besure tobe met with by the same methods of punishment; and at length be as miserable as ever. thus we see the air will be repeopled after the conflagration: but how the earth will so soon be restored to inhabitants, is a matter of some difficulty to determine since it useth to be furnished from the aerial regions, which now will have none left that are fit to plant it. for the good were delivered thence before the conflagration: and those that are newly come from underthe fiery lash and latter state of silence, are in a hopeful way of recovery; at least, their aerial congruity cannot be so soon expired, as to fit them for an early return to their terrestrial prisons. wherefore to help ourselves in this rencontre, we must remember, that there are continually multitudes of souls in a state of inactivity, for want of suitable bodies to unite with, there being more that die to the airy state, then are born into this terrestrial. in this condition were myriads, when the general fever seized this great distempered body; who therefore were unconcerned in the conflagration, and are now as ready to return into life and action upon the earth's happy restauration, as if no such thing had happened. wherefore they will not fail to descend into fitly prepared matter, and to exercise all the functsons proper to this condition. nor will they alone be inhabitants of the earth. for all the variety of other animals, shall live and act upon this stage with them; all sorts of souls insinuating themselves into those bodies, which are fit for their respective natures. thus then supposing habitable congruous bodies, there is no doubt, but there will be humane souls to actuate and inform them; but all the difficulty is to conceive how the matter shall be prepared. for who shall be the common seedsman of succeeding humanity, when all mankind is swept away by the fiery deluge? and to take sanctuary in a miracle is unphilosophical and desperate. i think therefore, it is not improbable (i mean according to the dust of this hypothesis) but that in this renewed youth, of the so lately calcined and purified earth, there may be some pure efflorescences of balmy matter, not to be found now in its exhausted and decrepit age, that may be proper vehicles of life into which souls may deseend without further preparation: and so orderly shape and form them, as we see to this day several sorts of other creatures do, without the help of generation. for doubtless there will be great plenty of unctuous spirituous matter, when the most inward and recondite spirits of all things, shall be dislodged from their old close residences; and scattered into the air; where they will at length, when the fierce agitation of the fire is over, gather in considerable proportions of tenuous vapours; which at length descending in a crystalline liquor, and mingling with the finest parts of the newly modified earth, will doubtless compose as genital a matter as any can be prepared in the bodies of animals. and the calm and wholesome air which now is duly purged from its noxious reeks and vapours, and abounds with their saline spirituous humidity, will questionless be very propitious to those tender inchoations of life; and by the help of the sun's favourable and gentle beams, supply them with all necessary materials. nor need we puzzle ourselves to fancy, how those terrae filii, those young sons of the earth will be fortified against the injuries of weather, or be able to provide for themselves in their first and tender infancy; since doubtless, if the supposition be admitted, those immediate births of unassisted nature will not be so tender and helpless as we, into whose very constitutions delicacy and effeminateness is now twisted. for those masculine productions which were always exposed to the open air, and not cloistered up as we, will feel no more incommodity from it, than the young fry of fishes do from the coldness of the water they are spawned in. and even now much of our tenderness and delicacy is not natural but contracted. for poor children will endure that hardshp that would quickly dispatch those that have had a more careful and officious nurture. and without question we should do many things for self-preservati on and provision, which now we yield no signs of; had not custom prevented the endeavours of nature, and made it expect assistance; for the indian infants will swim currently, when assoon as they are born, they are thrown into the water. and nature put to her shifts, will do many things more than we can suspect her able for the performance of: which considered, 'tis not hard to apprehend, but that those infant aborigines, are of a very different temper and condition from the weak products of now decayed nature: having questionless, more pure and serviceable bodies, senses and other faculties more active and vigorous, and nature better exercised; so that they may by a like sense to that which carries all creatures to their proper food, pursue and take hold of that nutriment which the free and willing earth now offered to their mouths; till being advantaged by age and growth, they can move about to make their choice. but all this is but the frolic exercise of my pen choosing a paradox; and 'tis time to give over the pursuit. to make an end then, we see that after the conflagration the earth will be inhabited again, and all things proceed much what in like manner as before. but whether the catastrophe of this shall be like the former or no, i think is not to be determined. for as one world hath perished by water, and this present shall by fire, 'tis possible the next period may be by the extinction of the sun. but i am come to the end of the line, and shall not go beyond this present stage of providence, or wander into an abyss of uncertainties, where there is neither sun nor star to guide my notions. now of all that hath been represented of this hypothesis, there is nothing that seems more extravagant and romantic than those notions that come under the two last generals; and yet so it falls out, that the main matters contained under them, one would think to have a strange consonancy with some expressions in the sacred oracles. for clear it is from the divine volume, that the wicked and the devils themselves are reserved to a further and more severe judgement then yet afflicteth them; it is as plainly declared to be a vengeance of fire that abides them, as a compleatment of their torments: and that the earth shall be burnt, is as explicitly affirmed, as any thing can be spoken. now if we put all these together, they look like a probability, that the conflagration of the earth shall consummate the hell of the wicked. and those other expressions of death, destruction, perdition of the ungodly, and the like, seem to show a favourable regard to the state of silence and inactivity. nor is there less appearing countenance given to the hypothesis of restitution, in those passages which predict new heavens and a new earth, and seem to intimate only a change of the present. and yet i would have no body be so credulous as to be taken with little appearances, nor do i mention these with an intent that they should with full consent be delivered to intend the asserting any such doctrines; but that there is show enough both in reason and scripture for these opinions to give an occasion for an hypothesis, and therefore that they are not mere arbitrary and idle imaginations. now whatever becomes of this particular draught of the souls several conditions of life and action, the main opinion of praeexistence is not at all concerned. this scheame is only to show that natural and imperfect reason can frame an intelligible idea of it; and therefore questionless the divine wisdom could form and order it, either so, or with infinitely more accuracy and exactness. how it was with us therefore of old, i know not; but yet that we may have been, and acted before we descended hither, i think is very probable. and i see no reason but why praeexistence may be admitted without altering any thing considerable of the ordinary systeme of theology. but i shut up with that modest conclusion of the great des cartes. that although these matters seem hardly otherwise intelligible then as ihave here explained them: yet nevertheless remembering i am not infallible, i assert nothing; but submit all i have written to the authority of the church of england, and to the matured judgements of graver and wiser men; earnestly desiring that nothing else may be entertained with credit by any persons, but what is able to win it by the force of evident and victorious reason. des cartes princ. prilos. lib. 4. ss. cvii. finis. a word to the people of the world, who hates the light, to be witnessed by the light in them all; wherein is shewed unto them, what the light is, which is the condemnation of the world with its deeds, and what the spirit of truth is, and what it leads them into, who are lead by it; and what the spirit of error is, and what it leads them into, who are led by it; and also they are here exhorted to repent whiles they have the light, to believe and walk in the light, least darkness come upon them, and they into it be cast, where there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. also a few queries to such professors as stumbles at the light, the word, the kingdom, and spirit of god within, and tell people that none can be free from sin in this life, and yet say that they own the scriptures. light is come into the world, and the world hates it, john 8.12. and the whole world lieth in wickedness, 1 john 5.19. and this is the condemnation of the world, that light is come into the world, and men love the darkness rather then the light, because their deeds are evil( saith christ) john 3.19,20. and every one that doth evil hateth the light, neither cometh he to the light least his deeds should be reproved; for all things that are reproved are made manifest by the light, for whatsoever doth make manifest, the same is light, eph. 5.13. and christ jesus he is the true light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world, john 1.9. drunkard, thou hast a light given thee which comes from christ, and that is the light which lets thee see that thou should not be drunk; so here thou hast learned thy condemnation( which is the light) swearer, and liar, and fighter, and quarreler, thou hast a light given thee which comes from christ( who saith, swear not at all) and with this light, thou seest thou shouldst nor swear, nor lie, nor fight, nor quarrel, for the light in thee witnesseth against these things; so here thou hast learned thy condemnation( the light) scoffer, and scorner, and mocker, and railer, and cursed speaker, and foolish jeaster, and vain talker, and cuzener, and cheater, the light that shines in thy conscience, though thou cannot comprehend it( john 1.5.) because thou art darkness, it is pure and eternal, and never consented unto evil, but stood and stands a witness for god, against all evil;( mark) this light, this pure witness oftentimes hath appeared and doth appear unto thee,& in thee, and lets thee plainly see that thou shouldst not act any of these evils before-mentioned, and it often checks and reproves in secret, when thou dost so act; so here thou hast learned what condemns thee( which is the light) eph. 5.5,23. proud one, wanton one, lustful one, covetous one( who art an idolater) and backbiter, and whoremonger, and gamer, and sporter, and profane one, who walkest on in lasciviousness, and excess of the creatures, in revellings, banquetings, and abominable idolatries, and whoever thou be that acts any manner of unrighteousness whatsoever, it is sin: and it is of the devil; but the light that lighteth every man that cometh into the world, that is the son of god, who is made manifest for this very end that he might destroy the works of the devil, 1 john 3.8. and he( mark) the son of god, hath given thee a measure of his light, and that is the measure of his light in thee, which lets thee see that thou shouldst not act any of these abominations before-mentioned, but it oft appears in thee to convince thee of thy evil deeds, and reproves thee, and judgeth thee for thy wickedness; so here thou hast learned thy condemnation, which is the light, which makes manifest unto thee thy abominations. and thou who makes a profession of the saints words, but art found to be out of their life, and in thy dark carnal mind and imaginations runs into their words( the scriptures) and calls them the word of god, and thy rule, and the way to know god( and yet thou livest contrary to the scriptures, and art out of the knowledge of god, whom to know is life eternal) mark, the light wherewith thou art enlightened withal, it comes from christ( who lighteth every man that cometh into the world, and his name is called the word of god, rev. 19.13. and he is the way to god, and no man knoweth the father save the son, and he to whomsoever the son will reveal him) matth. 11.27. and this light which comes from the son of god, often times appears in thee, and shows thee that thou art out of the saints life( though thou profess their words) and the light lets thee see that thou art a thief and a robber, and art climbing up another way( in thy imaginations) then by the door,( john 10 1.) which is christ( from whence the light doth come) and this light in thee which makes manifest to thee thy condition, it oftentimes confounds thee and thy imaginations( which thou hast raised out of thy dark mind, concerning the scriptures, which were given forth in the true light) and the light oftentimes convinceth, reproveth and judgeth thee of and for thy hypocrisy, and dissimulation, and feigned love, and humility, and will-worship, and lets thee see that thy worship is not that worship which the lord requireth, for that is in the spirit and in the truth which god requireth, john 4.22,23,24. and thou being out of the light( not being guided by it) art out of the spirit, for the spirit is light, and the light is the truth, and so out of the true worship in the false, worshipping thou knows not what; so here with the true light thou art condemned, and so hast learned but thy condemnation. therefore all people, both young and old, high and low, rich and poor, bond and free, eph. 5.13. 1 cor. 12.7. who yet lives in any of these evil deeds beforementioned, mind that which makes manifest your evil deeds unto you, which is the measure of the pure god, which he hath given you to profit withal, and this measure in you convinceth you of sin, and reproves you for it; now mind to stand in that which doth convince, for that is the power, and as you stand and believe in that which doth convince you, it will led you into true repentance never to be repented of, 2 cor. 7.10. for it will bring you to repent of, and to forsake all your evil deeds and hard speeches( jud. 15.) which you will see in the light( which never consented unto sin) that you have acted and spoken against the living god, so believe in the light which shows you sin and evil; john 1.12. and wait in the light as it ariseth and appears in you, to show you your estates and conditions; now if you believe in the light, and wait in it, rom. 5.12 you will come to receive power from christ( from whence the light doth come) to overcome evil, and to withstand the tempter, when he appears to tempt you to evil, and the light( believing in it) will preserve you out of the evil, and led you out of the death and loss that ye are in, unto christ the life and saviour of the soul. but if you hate the light( which shows you sin and evil) you hate christ, for i am the light saith christ, john 8.12. and if you hate the light, you hate the way to the father, for i am the way to the father saith christ who is the light, john 14.6. and if you hate the light, you hate the truth, and you hate the life, for i am the truth and the life saith christ the true light, who lighteth every man that cometh into the world, john 1.9. and 12 46. and if you hate the light, you hate the covenant of god, for i will give him for a covenant to the people, and for a light to the gentiles saith god, isay 42.6. and 49.6. and if you hate the light you hate the power, for all power is given unto me both in heaven and in earth, saith christ the light, matth. 28.18. and if you hate the light you hate the word of god, and so you hate god and christ( who are one, john 10.30.) mark, for in the beginning was the word, and the word was with god, and the word was god, all things were made by it, and without it nothing was made that was made, in it was life,( mark, in the word was life,) and the life( of the word) was the light of men; and john a man sent of god bare witness of the light, that all men through him might believe( mark) through him, who lighteth every man that cometh into the world, john 1.1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9. and god is light, 1 john 1.5. and god and christ are one, john 10.30. 1 john 5.7. so you that be turned from the light( which shows you sin and evil, mark what you are turned from) you are turned from the way, and from the truth, and from the life, and from the covenant of god, and from the power of god, and from the word of god, and so from god and christ, from whence the light doth come, and into the darkness you are turned and gone, and the prince of darkness ruleth in you( eph. 2.2. that so you cannot find any power over your own perverse wills, nor over your lusts, nor over any sin there, being gone from the light in your own particulars, in which light if you believed and waited in it, you would receive power to overcome sin, but you not believing in the light, you believe in him who leads you from the power of god into sin, and there he persuades you that you must live( in sin) so long as you live upon the earth,& you have believed& received this doctrine of him, and you teach it to others, and so are become the devils ministers, and so you deny the end for which the son of god was made manifest, which was to destroy the works of the devil, and to take away sin, 1 john 3.8. matth. 1.21. and yet many of you feed yourselves with hopes of life and salvation, but your hopes are vain and will perish; be not deceived, god will not be mocked, for such as you sow, such shall you reap, gal. 6.7,8. ye that live after the flesh fulfilling the lusts thereof, you shall surely die( if you repent not speedily) rom. 8.13. and you that sow to the flesh, shall of the flesh reap corruption; the day of the lord hasteth greatly wherein you must give an account unto him, who will judge you righteously, and reward you according to your deeds done in the body; and all you who have been slothful, and have hide that in the earth which the lord gave you to profit withal, you will be turned into utter darkness, matth. 25.30. john 12.35. therefore whiles you have the light, believe, and walk in it, least thick darkness comes upon you, even such darkness as may be felt, the day of your visitation prise, least the things that belongs to your peace be wholly hide from your eyes; consider there is a time when the candle is lighted, and when you may see( if you search with it) what is in the house; but mark, this time will not always continue with the wicked, for the candle of the wicked shall be put out, prov. 24.20. yea, the spirit of the lord shall not always strive with man, gen. 6.3. therefore cease from your dark imaginations, which several of you have got into, for whosoever followeth the imaginations and thoughts of his own heart( which all who believe not in the light do) they run on in darkness and knows not whether they go, isai. 5.20. and such are under the wo, putting darkness for light and light for darkness, calling the spirit of truth the spirit of error, and the spirit of error the spirit of truth, as all the world do, who lieth in wickedness and hateth the true light which lighteth every man that cometh into the world, which light reproveth you for your wickedness, and this light you call a spirit of delusion and error, and you say, that those who are guided by it, are deluded and lead into error; oh! take heed of blasphemy against the pure god, who is light, mark, the spirit of error, what it is, and wha it leads into, it is that which abode not in the truth( and the light is the truth) and it is a murderer, and was so from the beginning, and they who walk not in the true light, they walk and are guided by this spirit, and some by it are lead to murder, some to steal, some to be drunk, to swear, to lie, to cheat and cousin one another, to fight, to game, eph. 4 29. and 5.5. gal. 5.19,20. and some it leads into vain laughter, foolish jesting, corrupt communication, cursed speaking, wantonness, lust, whoredom, fornication, and into covetousness( which is idolatry) into pride, variance, strife, railing, back-biting, envy, wrath and malice, false accusing the innocent, and into all manner of ungodliness, into feigned love, self-seeking, dissimulation, hypocrisy and feigned flattery, and to hate the very appearance of truth; now examine with that which reproves you for sin in secret, and it will let you see that you bring forth many of these cursed fruits before mentioned, and so are deluded and guided by the spirit of error; now the true light( which lighteth every man that cometh into the world comes from the spirit of truth, and that is the truth, and it witnesseth against all these evil deeds before mentioned( which are out of the truth) and they who believe in the light( which makes manifest sin and evil) and wait in it, john 1.12. they receive power from him from whence the light came, to abstain from evil, and to overcome sin and evil, and that spirit which tempts the creature to evil is the spirit of error( and this i witness;) so we who believe in the true light, which is the manifestation of the spirit of truth, which is given to every man to profit withal, 1 cor. 12.7. we by it are lead out of error and delusion, into the perfect truth of god, and to act those things which are well-pleasing in his sight, matth. 11.29. john 3.21 they being learned and wrought in the light which comes from the son, in whom the father is well pleased; and this true light in us is our guide and teacher, and this brings us who wait in it to understand the scriptures of truth, which was given forth from the spirit of truth, and it brings us into that which the scriptures speaks of, into the life& power of god, and to witness that which the world talks of, for they will talk of faith in christ jesus, though they witness not what they speak; but we who believe in the light, are made( by the power of god) children of the light, and we witness faith in christ, which faith purifies our hearts, and gives us victory over the world, acts 15.9. 1 john 5.4. and the light leads us into meekness, into soberness and love unfeigned, into holiness and uprightness into sound and pure judgement, into mercy, into patience, when we are reviled and persecuted( and at all times) into long suffering and truth in the inward parts, to do unto all men as we would they should do unto us; yea, it leads us who abide in it, into all truth, john 16.13 and this is not of ourselves, for it is the free gift of god, who freely gave his son for a covenant of light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world; and we who have received the gift of god( the light) by the gift we are brought to bring forth these fruits, which are contrary to those, which the spirit of error leads the children of disobedience to bring forth; so although we the children of light are accounted to be in delusion and error, yet it is but by you who bring forth the cursed fruits, which the spirit of error leads you to bring forth; gal. 5.22,23. so in the light, life and power of god we stand over all false accusations and reproaches, and persecutions, and in the patience of gods lamb we bear them all, and our love goes forth to your souls, who wilfully oppose yourselves, and we declare unto you that the long sufferings of the lord towards you, is to draw you to repentance, rom. 2.4. and i have directed you to that which will show you, what you ought to repent of. therefore consider your ways speedily all you that forget god, least he tear you in pieces, and there be none to deliver you, psal. 50.22. for verily, this i declare unto you in the presence of the lord, that if you go on and continue in stubborness and rebellion against the pure god, and despise his love, and reject his council, and still refuse to harken to the light of his son in your consciences( which reproves you for sin, and is freely given to you, to led you out of sin unto god, if you wilfully did not resist it) mark, when the measure of your iniquity is filled up, then will he arise upon you at unawares in his fury and wrath and indignation, and his eye shall not a● all pitty you, matth. 24.50,51. but he will bring his plagues and righteous judgments upon you, which shall consume you both root and branch, if you will not be gathered in the day of his long patience and forbearance, which is the day of your visitation, wherein you may come to know the things belonging to your peace, if you do not wilfully resist the power that is offered and committed unto you. but if you resist the power, then the lords righteous judgments will assuredly come upon you, and you will receive to yourselves condemnation, and if you continue in your wickedness until the day of your visitation be past, then shall the light in all your consciences( which hath oftentimes shewed unto you your evil deed●) arise and witness to the judgments of god that they are just, ezek. 2.7. so whether you will hear or forbear, remember you are warned in your life time, by a friend to your souls, and a lover of the creation of god. george fox, the younger. a few queries to such professors as stumbles at the light, the word, the kingdom and spirit of god within, and tell people that none can be free from sin in this life, and yet say that they own the scriptures. 1. query are not all by nature darkness, and doth not the light shine in darkness, yea or nay? 2. qu. can any come to see themselves to be darkness, but with the light which shineth in the darkness, yea or nay? 3. qu. is there any way to come out of darkness and death, and to receive life, and to be made children of the light, but by believing in and followin of jesus christ the true light( which lighteth every man that cometh into the world) yea or nay? 4. qu. must not all be turned from darkness to light, and from satans power to the power of god, before they can receive remission of sins, and an inheritance among them that are sanctified, yea or nay? 5. qu. can any come into the true faith( which purifies the heart, and gives victory over the world, without which none can please god) but by hearing the word of god, yea or nay? 6. qu. and is not christ the light, the word of god, and is not christ the light, the author and finisher of the true faith( which saves and sanctifies) yea or nay? 7. qu. and is not the word nigh in the mouth and in the heart, that men may obey it and do it, and is not christ the light, the word, the prophet, which all that hears him not are to be cut off, yea or nay? 8. qu. and is not christ the word which discerns and reveals the thoughts and intents of the heart, and is not he the engrafted word which is able to save the soul, and is not he the grace of god which bringeth salvation and is sufficient( which hath appeared unto all men) and is not he the word of gods grace( which is able to build up and keep from falling) which people are to be commended unto, yea or nay? 9. qu. and is not god light, and is not the shining of him in the hearts of people, which gives them the knowledge of himself in the face of jesus christ, yea or nay? 10. qu. and is not christ the light, the hope which purifies as god is pure( which anchors and stays the soul) to be known within, and are not people tossed like a ship( in a tempest) without an anchor, till christ the hope be felt within, to stay and anchor them, and is not christ within the hope, a mystery, which hath been hide from ages and generations, and are not all they in the reprobate state, who knows not christ within them, yea or nay? 11. q. and is not gods kingdom light, and is it not like a little leaven that is hide in meal, and as a grain of mustard seed that is sown in the earth, and like a pearl hide in the field, or like good seed sown in the field, both on stony, thorny, high-way, and good ground, and is not the world the field, where the seed of the kingdom is sown, and is not the world in mans heart; so, is not gods kingdom within men, yea or nay? 12. qu. and is not the manifestation of the spirit given to every man to profit withal, and doth any worship the father of truth aright, but those that worship him in the spirit and in the truth, and is not the light the truth, yea or nay? 13 qu. and is not christ the light, that word which reconciles to god, and is it not he that must open the understandings of men, before they can understand the scriptures, and are not people in error, and in jangling and strife about the scriptures, till christ the light, the spirit of truth, the power of god( from whence scriptures were spoken) be known and owned to guide and led them, yea or nay? 14. qu. and is not this the cause of so many sects and opinions, and divisions as are, and of such striving as is about scriptures and religion, because people know not or own not the spirit of truth( from whence scriptures were spoken forth) to led and guide them, and is it not like that people should run into sects, and opinions, and divisions, and strife, if they know not, or own not the spirit of truth to guide and led them; and if the spirit of truth were known and owned to guide and led them, would it not led and guide them out of sects and opinions, and divisions and strife, and would it not bring people to be of one heart, and of one mind, and into unity with god, and one with another, and with the scriptures, yea or nay? 15. qu. and doth not christ the light, the spirit of truth, for sin, condemn sin in the flesh, and must not that be owned which makes manifest, reproves and condemns sin in the flesh, before the ministration of life and peace can be witnessed, yea of nay? 16. qu. is not the unity of the spirit the bond of peace, and must not people come into unity with the spirit, before they can come into true peace, and doth not the spirit of truth reprove men for sin who live in it; so must not people come out of sin, before they can come into unity with the spirit, and so into true peace, or hath the spirit any unity with sin, or is there any true peace to the wicked, who live in sin, yea or nay? 17. qu. and is not christ the light, the word, the rock of offence, and the ston of stumbling unto the disobedient, in whom the prince of the power of the air ruleth; but is he not elect and precious to them that believe and obey him, and is it not he that ruleth in them, and leads and guides them in the way of peace, yea or nay? 18 qu. doth not as many as believe in the light receive power to become the sons of god, and are not those the sons of god, who are lead by the spirit of truth, and are not those that doth not believe in christ the light, nor are guided by the spirit, bastards and not sons, and are they not condemned already, who doth not believe, and is not the light their condemnation, yea or nay? 19. qu. and shall not darkness( yea, great darkness) come upon them, who doth not believe and walk in the light, and shall not they stumble and fall, and be broken, yea or nay? 20. qu and shall not they who believe and walk in the light, be made children of the light, and be kept from stumbling and falling, and shall not they have fellowship with the father and the son( from whence the light comes) and one with another, and doth not the blood of christ cleanse them from all sin, yea or nay? 21. qu. can any have fellowship with the father and the son and the saints in light, but those that walk in( and are guided and lead by) the light of christ jesus, which he hath enlightened them withal, yea or nay? 22. qu. can any deny themselves before they see themselves, and can any man see himself but with the light which christ hath enlightened him withal, which makes manifest self, and can any be christs disciple, but he that denies himself, and take up the across, and come after christ the true light; and are not all they thieves and robbers which comes before christ the light, and are not such enemies to the across of christ, and is not the across of christ the power of god, and is not the across( and the preaching of it) foolishnes● to the wise of this world, and is it not a stumbling block to such as in words profess they know god, but in works deny him, yea or nay? 23. qu. and they that commit sin, and cannot cease from sin, are not they of the devil, and are not they the servants of sin, and so free from righteousness, and have they not eyes full of adultery who cannot cease from sin, are they not adulterated and whored from the life of god, and though they promise liberty to themselves and others, yet are not they servants to corruption, and do not they live in the flesh, and are they not dead whiles they live, and so out of the true faith, and can such please god, yea or nay? 24. qu. and they that believe in and obey christ jesus the true light, doth not their faith stand in the power of god, and doth it not purify their hearts, and give them victory over the world, and doth not they who witness( in the life) the manifestation of the son of god, also witness that he destroys the works of the devil, and takes away their sin, and makes an end of transgression, and changes their nature which was subject to sin, and makes them partakers of his divine nature, and thoroughly purges and sanctifies them with his living truth, and doth not that make them free from sin, and so makes them servants of righteousness, and doth not that make vessels of honour fitted for the masters use, and are not such dead unto sin and alive unto god, and can such live any longer in sin, and having mortified the deeds of the body through the spirit, shall not they live( but not to themselves, but to god) and are not these christs, and have they not crucified the flesh with the affections& lusts thereof, yea or nay? 25 qu. shall any man see the lord without holiness, and ought any ●o name the name of christ, but those that depart from iniquity, and is that the faith of gods elect which doth not purify the heart, nor give victory over the world( but is without the works) or is not this dead faith, and but the faith of devils, and shall any be saved or justified by this faith, yea or nay? consider of these things ye professors who stumble at the light, and tells people that none shall be free from sin in this life. 26. qu. and when is the time, and where is the place, and what is the name of it( if not in this life) that men shall be made free from sin,( answer plainly, that i may see how much ye differ from the papist in this particular) or do ye believe that corruption( and that which is imperfect) shall enter into heaven, and inherit incorruption, yea or nay? answer these queries in plainness according to the scriptures( if ye be able) if not, then submit unto the true light, which will let you see your thoughts, your darkness, your unstableness, and ignorance of the scriptures, and repent and believe, and wait in the true light, that you may come out of your thoughts and darkness, and unstableness and ignorance, into that which the scriptures declares of, to feel christ the saviour( from whence the light doth come) to redeem and save ye from sin, and to keep ye out of your own thoughts, inventions and imaginations, that so your minds may come to be stayed and settled in the power of the lord, which moves against sin. by one who witnesseth god, christ, the light, the word, the spirit of truth( and these are one) and the kingdom of god within me, and so am come to the thing that the scriptures testify of, which was before scripture was, in whom the scriptures ends, and the tabernacle of god is witnessed with men, and his presence is felt, which filleth heaven and earth, and the heaven of heavens cannot contain him, glory to him in the highest. george fox, the younger in the truth. the end. london, printed for thomas simmons, at the bull and mouth near aldersgate, 1659. an alarum of truth sounded forth to the nations; or the way of truth from the way of error, plainly manifested and declared. and the true worship of god (which is in the spirit) from the false worships of the world, distinguished. whereby people may come to know which way they are in, and what worship they are in, and what spirit they are of, and led by; whether they are in the spirit of god, which the saints were in, and now are in at this day; or the spirit of this world, which is the spirit of antichrist, gone out into the world; which hath the words of christ and the saints, and a form of godliness, but denies the power where it is manifest, and is turned against it, and persecute it: but that spirit is denied, and the true spirit witnessed. also an invitation (of love) to all people, and professors of all sorts and sects, to turn in their minds to the light of christ jesus in them, which doth reprove them for sin, which is the manifestation of the spirit of truth, which is freely given; that with it they may all see, and try themselves, and all their teachers whom they have long followed, what spirit they are of, seeing they cannot say they have the same spirit they apostles had. written by a friend to truth, called henry fell. london, printed for robert wilson, and are to be sold at the sign of the black-spread-ha●●e and windmill in martin's le grand 1660. to all the people, and teachers, and professors of all sorts in these nations, or elsewhere. friends and people, the truth hath been declared among you; and the sound of it hath been heard by you, and the everlasting gospel hath been preached, and must be preached to all nations, kindreds and tongues, that thereby the large love of god may be known, and made manifest unto all mankind, that he would not have any to perish, but that they might all come to the knowledge of his truth, that they might be saved. and therefore he hath uttered forth his voice from on high, and is causing the sound of it to be heard in the nations, that all people should fear god, and give glory to him, for the hour of his judgement is come, and coming; and his day is appearing after so long a time of darkness, and night of apostasy which hath been over the face of the earth; even over all nations, kindreds and people, for many ages and generations past, so that darkness hath covered the earth, and gross darkness the people, and the way of the lord hath been hid from them, which is a straight way, and a way of holiness, wherein the unclean cannot walk, but they have been walking in untrodden paths, & in crooked ways, & have been erred from the lord, and from his way, days without number, nor have not known it. for their hearts have been filled with filthiness, and all manner of uncleanness, in so much that they have committed sin with greediness, and followed after the vanities of their own minds, and walking after their own hearts lusts, to the satisfying thereof, and have been stubborn and rebellious children against the lord, in so much that the lord hath been against them, and his jealousy hath been provoked, and his indignation hath been kindled against them, and his wrath hath been revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who have holden his truth in the unrighteousness, and there hath not been peace to him that came in, nor to him that went out; for that which was manifested of god in them hath not been regarded, therefore hath the anger of the lord been kindled, and his hand hath been stretched out still, because of all the abominations that have been committed in the nations, and among the people: who have professed the knowledge of his name; whereby his name: hath been profaned and blasphemed among the heathen round about, 2 thess, 2.9, 10, 11. and his truth dishonoured which they have professed in words, but in works denied, and held it in the unrighteousness; who have not received the truth in the love of it (which god hath showed unto them) nor have not obeyed it, but have taken pleasure in unrighteousness, & therefore have they been given up to strong delusions, to believe lies, and to commit iniquity with a high hand, and rejected the truth, and erred from it in their hearts, and striven against it, and have loved their evil deeds, and their unrighteous ways, and have not chosen the way of the lord, nor served the law of the lord with their hearts nor with their minds, but whilst they have drawn nigh unto god with their mouths and with their lips have honoured him, their hearts have been removed far off from him: and their fear towards him hath been taught by the precepts of men; for the precepts of god, and his commands, and law in the heart hath been disregarded and cast behind their backs; isa. 5.24. and they have despised the word of the holy one of israel: therefore as the fire devoureth the stubble, and as the flame consumeth the chaff, so their root shall be rottenness, and their blossom shall ascend as the dust; for behold the lord will come with fire, and with his chariots like a whirlwind to render his anger with fury, and his rebukes with flames of fire; for by fire and by his sword will the lord plead with all flesh, who have corrupted their ways before him, isa. 66.15. and delighted in the thing that was not good, whereby he hath been provoked to anger. and now this is come to pass among all the professions in the world, who have had the scriptures of truth which was declared and spoken forth by the holy men of god, from the spitit of truth which was in them, and dwelled in them; whereby they were made able ministers (not of the letter but) of the spirit; by which they were able to try, and judge of all spirits whether they were of god, and saw many in their days who had gotten the true words, and had a form of godliness but denied the power, and so they turned away from such, 2 tim. 3.5. and did bear their testimony then against such whom they saw separating themselves, being sensual having not the spirit, and saw such as were erred from the spirit going in the way of cain, to envy, and running greedily after the error of balaam, for gifts and rewards, and for the wages of unrighteousness, and such as served not the lord jesus christ, but their own bellies, and preached for filthy lucre, and through covetousness with feigned words made merchandise of the people, and were enemies to the cross of christ, whose god was their belly, who gloried in their shame, whose and was destruction, who minded earthly things; and such as had great swelling words of vanity, whilst they themselves were servants of corruption, and what they knew; jude 10. they knew naturally as bruit beasts, and in those things they corrupted themselves. and false prophets there was, 2 pet. 2.1, 2. as there shall be false teachers amongst you; (saith the apostle) who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the lord that bought them, and many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth should be evil spoken of; and that perilous times should come, that men should be lovers of themselves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, without natural affection, truce-breakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, traitors, heady, high-minded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of god, 2 timothy 3. now all those before mentioned, were, and are erred from the spirit of truth which was in the saints, the holymen of god, who spoke forth the scriptures which declares of these things, that there was such then, and that there should be such. therefore now behold all people and see whether the things which the apostles prophesied of concerning the false teachers which should come, be not come to pass abundantly in the generations since their days, and also in this our age; insomuch as the whole world hath been deceived by them, and led after them, and they have drawn them into many religions, sects, and opinions, and set them to kill and murder one another about religion, and about the scriptures, and about their worships and laws to compel men to them; being all erred from the spirit, and from the truth, and now know not the truth, nor the spirit which was in the apostles and saints, in which spirit they worshipped god in their days; and those then that got christ's words, and the prophet's words, and had not his spirit (but were arred from it) and were out of the life, and out of the truth, which they did profess in words; these i say the saints and true christians, who were followers of christ, and had his spirit, with it they tried the spirits of the other, who had it not; and found them not to be of god, nor to be believed, nor received, but turned from; for they were false spirits and false prophets which were gone out into the world from christ, and from the saints, that had the spirit of god in them, by which they tried the other, and found them to be of the world, and antichrists in the spirit of this world, and by it led, which cometh from him who is called, the god of this world who had blinded their minds. 12 cor. 4. and so they were not true prophets (or seers) or true ministers of christ, nor true teachers, but false teachers, false ministers, false prophets and antichrists, and blind guides gone out into the world, in the world's spirit, and so with that spirit they could not confess christ come in the flesh, though in words they might say he was come in the flesh (as all the priests and professors who are called christians, do now at this day in words confess him) but not with the spirit confess him, as their fruits make it manifest. now saith the apostle, hereby know ye the spirit of god. every spirit that confesseth that jesus christ is come in the flesh is of god; and every spirit that confesseth not that jesus christ as come in the flesh is not of god, and this is the spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come, and even now already is in the world. ye are of god little children, and have over come them, because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world. they are of the world, therefore speak they of the world, and the world heareth them. we are of god, he that knoweth god heareth us: hereby know me the spirit of truth and the spirit of error, john 1.4. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. verses. now if those had not had christ's words, and confessed him in words to be come in the flesh, (while they were out of his life, and of another spirit) than the apostle would not have called them antichrists, and prophets, and teachers, but he would have called them jews, or gentiles, or heathers; but this was it which did differ them from the jews, and unbelieving gentiles, and heathers then; namely, they had the words of christ and the saints, and the prophets, and did profess them as the priests and teachers, and professors do now the scriptures, but are erred from the life of christ, and from the spirit that was in the saints who gave forth the scriptures as they were then, whom john speaks of, erred from the life and spirit of christ and the saints, and so were antichrists, and false prophets, and false teachers and deceivers, which were gone out into the world, from the saints life, and spirit, and so the world heard them, (as they do now the priests and false teachers) and they drew people after them then, from the saints the true church, and so set up false churches and religions in the world, and false worships in imitation of the true church, and true religion, and true worship of god, which is in the spirit; and so by this means deceived people then at the first, and scattered them from god, and led them into confusion, and darkness, and disorder, and error, and so they broke out into many sects, and opinions, and religions, and ways of worship; being once gone from the true worship, which is in the spirit of god alone, in which the unity is, & where this is wanting there cannot be unity, nor gathering unto god nor true worship of god: and so after the apostles decease, they being erred from the true spirit, who did profess themselves to be gatherers, could not gather unto god, but did draw people more and more from god; and so the whole world went after the false prophets and false teachers. acts 20.29. and these were the grievous wolves which entered, and scattered the flock; math 12.30. (which the apostle spoke of before which should come) and christ's words were fulfilled, who said, he that is not with me is against me and he that gathereth not with me scattereth. so he that is not with christ, but is against him, the same is antichrist; & he that gathereth not with him, but scattereth, there is the grievous wolf that scattereth the flock, and spoils the sheep of the lord's pasture and makes havoc of them: and such are all they now at this day, who are called ministers, and have been accounted gatherers, and divines, and are called orthodox men; but are found to be wolves in sheep's clothing, who do scatter the flock, and make havoc of the sheep of christ, and spoil their goods, and cast into prison, and whip, and stock, and cut off ears, and wound, and hang, and banish, &c. and cause people to hail them before magistrates, and stone, and beat them, & knock them down in streets for dead, and hail out of the synagogues, and steeple-houses, and reproach, and scoff, and scum, and speak all manner of evil falsely against them who are true christians that not only confess christ come in flesh in words, but also in works, and walk in that spirit which confelseth him come in the flesh; who walk harmlessly, innocently, and righteously before all men, in meekness, in patience, in humility, in lowliness, in truth and uprightness before the lord in all their dealing, and abide in christ's doctrine, to speak the truth in all their communications, their yea to be yea, and their nay, nay; who will not swear, nor lie, nor cozen, nor cheat, nor defraud their neighbours; who are no fighters, nor quarellers, who resist not evil, but do good for evil, and pray for enemies, and bless them that curse them; who are not in the envy, and hatred, and malice, and persecution, but are persecuted for righteousness sake; who covets no man's silver nor gold, that are willing to deny themselves and their reputations in the world, and forsake the world's friendships to follow christ, and suffer the loss of all for christ's sake and the gospel. now are not those grievous wolus & antichrists that turn against such, and rent such, &c. i say, are not these the grievous wolves that are entered? and the antichrists that are gone out into the world? and is there not now very many of them antichrists and wolves in sheep's clothing, among the professors, and the apostate christians, or antichristians, who are out of the life of christ and the true christians? such are not with christ, but against him, and such gathereth not with him, but scattereth, and rents, and tears his lambs, and sheep, and persecutes christ, and his church the true christians, who are followers of him, and are gathered to him by his spirit in them. rom. 8. and if any man have not the spirit of christ, he is none of his. now the antichrists who are gone out into the world, and the wolves come in sheep's clothing, who inwardly are ravening wolves; these have not the spirit of christ in them, nor are his, and so do turn against him and his; and they are of another spirit, which their fruits do make manifest, whereby they may easily be known: the true christians knew them so merly, and did bear their testimony against them; so we know them now, and have, and do bear our testimony against them, for their fruits have appeared more plainly in this, then in any age since the arostles days. therefore now come all ye priests, teachers, and professors in the world who are called christians; try yourselves, and examine yourselves, and see what spirit ye are of, who act these things before mentioned against the true christians, and sheep of christ, (who by you in scorn are called quakers) who hear his voice, and follow him; and yet ye confess christ in words to be come in the flesh: but what spirit is this in you, by which ye are led to act these things wherein ye are now found? is this the spirit of christ, or the spirit of antichrist gone out into the world, which lies in the wickedness, where there is many antichrists? and the world hears them, for they are of its own; but who are true christians and followers of christ jesus, 1 john 4.5. (who is not of this world) and are led by his spirit, these the world will not hear; nay, the priests and professors therein, but cry against them, and speak all manner of evil against them falsely for christ's sake (by whose spirit they are gathered out of the world) and say hang them, away with them, they are not fit to live upon the earth; and so would murder, and kill, and destroy. by this we know that this spirit is not of god, nor doth confess christ come in the flesh, but denies him who came not to kill, but to save men's lives; and to destroy the devil, who was a murderer from the beginning; and therefore we cannot believe that spirit, but deny it, and declare against it, to be that spirit of antichrist gone out into the. world; and the same spirit that was in the scribes, and pharisees and jews, who would have jesus crucified, & barrabbas released, (who was a robber) for he was of their own spirit, and therefore they chused him before jesus, who was of another spirit, and bore witness against them for their hypocrisy, and therefore they hated him. and so now, they that are of god, in the spirit of truth have tried this spirit, which the priests are in now, and have found it to be the spirit of error, which neither knoweth god, nor loveth him; for he that loveth not, knoweth not god, for god is love: 1 john 4 8. and so all who are found persecuting for conscience sake, and compelling men to swear, and to worship god in their ways which they have set up, and hating and envying of people, and reviling and reproaching for matter of religion, and worship, &c. are found to be of that spirit which is not of god, 1.3.12, 13. which loves not nor knows not god, who is love; but is of the devil, john 8.44. who was a murderer from the beginning, and a liar from the beginning, 1 john 2.22.4.20. (and the father of all liars, and murderers, and persecutors, and envious ones) who is out of the truth, from whence all lies, and murder, and envy, and pride, and hatred, and persecution, and strife, and emulations, and enmity cometh, and all the deeds of darkness: and he is the god of the world, who hath blinded the minds of all men of the world that believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of jesus christ, 2 cor. 4.4. who is the image of god should shine in them. so he it is that makes people dark, and blind, to work the works of darkness, and to act as blind men, where they are walking in the darkness, isa. 5.20. and love it, and put darkness for light, & call good evil, and evil good, and know not whither they go, nor know not the truth, nor the way of god, but persecute it, and call it error, and heresy; as it was in all ages past, even so it is now; for truth was never persecuted under the name of truth, but of error, and they who did persecute it, were always blind, & will be, for they are out of the truth, and therefore they know it not; as the jews did not know christ, for if they had known him, they would not have crucified the lord of life, 1 cor. 2.8. (saith the apostle.) so all the world's professors now are blind, math. 15.14. (who do persecute) they are all groping in the dark, 2 pet, 1.19. as the men of sodom did, who wearied themselves to find lot's door, rev. 3.17. gen. 19.11. and so it hath been in the world, in all their professions that hath be● since the days of the apostles, they have been fighting, and ●●●ing, and persecuting one another, and hating, and speaking evil one of another, and even wearied themselves by setting up of this form, and that form of worship, and making laws to compel to them (which they have called church discipline) and by running from one way of worship to another, and from mountain to hill, and have been climbing till they are weary, and groping in the dark, till they are weary to find the door, and to find the true way, and yet they have not found it; for the door is christ, who saith, i am the door of the sheep; all that ever went before me are thieves and robbers, john 10.7. and again, i am the light of the world, &c. so friends and people all, know this assuredly, that there is none ever comes to the door, to find the door, but who cometh to the light which christ jesus hath enlightened them withal, and every one that cometh into the world, john 1.9. to wait in it, and believe in it, and be obedient to it; for christ saith, while ye have the light, believe in the light, that ye may be children of the light. john 12.35.36. so who are children of the light, they see, and are not blind, (as the sodomites were, and as the professors now are, who believe not in the light of christ.) i say, they see the door, which is christ, from whence the light comes, and enter in, and are his sheep, who know the true shepherd's voice; but all who deny the light, and turn from it, and hate it, and speak against it, they are the children of darkness, who are unbelievers, that are without, the door is shut against them, and the light is their condemnation: so they are all walking in darkness, and wearying themselves, and groping, and cannot find the door, and so never come to enter in by it, nor to find rest for their souls, but are still without where the sodomites are (shut out of lot's door,) and without where the dogs, and unbelievers are, and where the whoremongers, and murderers, and liars are, and the unclean, and sorcerers, and the idolaters are, isa. 55. 22 rev. 15. and so people do weary themselves there, and spend their money for that which is not bread, and their labour for that which satisfies not; but never comes to harken diligently to the light of christ jesus in them, which reproves them for sin, that by it they might be led out of sin, (and out of sodom and egypt) that their souls might live and find rest, for the light leads to christ, who gives rest to the soul. and till ye come to harken diligently to the light, ye cannot know your souls to live, but still are the people that are dead while ye live, and that have ears, and hear not, eyes, and see not, mark 8.18. and hearts, and understand not; and so are all as dead men, and blind men, and deaf men, and lame men, (that cannot walk, and say none can keep christ's commands) and dumb men, and foolish men, without understanding in the things of god, which are spiritually discerned; and without tasting, and feeling, and smelling, that cannot savour the things of god. and here are all the professions of the world, and their priests, and teachers, (even the highest of them all) who denies that christ jesus hath enlightened every one with his true light, and tell people its a natural light, and a delusion of satan to draw them from it, and seduce them, and tells them it's not sufficient to lead to salvation, &c. i say they are all blind leaders who say so. and now people, let me tell you who comes to the true light which christ jesus hath enlightened every one with that are come into the world, john 1.9. and believe in it, and wait in it (which is true and spiritual) it brings people to spiritual seeing, and lets them see and discern the thoughts and intents of their hearts; and who comes to believe in this light, and harken diligently to it, they come to hear the voice of the son of god, and they that hear shall live; so these are they that come out of death, and come to be made alive unto god; then they are not dead men, ephef: 2.1. nor deaf men, as the scripture saith, you hath he quickened, who were dead in your si●ts and trespasses; and who comes to have their minds turned into the light of christ jesus in them, it will let them see the vanity of their minds; this will unblind their minds which the god of this world hath blinded, see 2 cor. 4.3. and bring them to see the light of the knowledge of the glory of god in the face of jesus christ, then will they not be blind men, who have eyes and see not, and ears and hear not, as the scripture saith, isa. 47. , i will give him for a covenant, for a light unto the gentiles, to open the blind eyes, &c. and again saith christ, buy of me eye salve that ye may see, rev: 3.18. and gold that ye may be rich, and white raiment that ye may be clothed, than ye will not be blind men nor naked. and who believes in the light of christ (which is spiritual) which christ hath enlightened them withal, it will bring them to understand the things of god, and gives to discern them, 1 cor: 2.10, 11, 12, &c. and to know god. and this is it which reproves, and judgeth the deceit, and pride, and hypocrisy, and error in the heart, and the desperate wickedness in the heart, and the foolishness in the heart, and that which is contrary to god in the heart, and discerns the thoughts and intents of the heart, and so brings people to be of an understanding heart, and to discern the spiritual things of god, heb. 3.10. and not always to be of those that have hearts and understand not; rom: 1.21. who are erred in their hearts, and know not the way of god, and are become vain in their imaginations, and by their foolish hearts are deceived. and again who come to the light, and wait in it, they come to taste and savour the things of god, and come to taste of the heavenly gist, and to taste of the word of god, and the power of the world to come, see heb. 6.3.5. and they come to discern the things of god, from the things of the world, and come to discern between the spirit of god, and the spirit of the world, and come to have salt in themselves to savour withal, that which will season the heart (which is not to be trodden under men's feet) for it is good to judge out that which hath corrupted the heart, matth: 5.13. and desiled it; mark 9.5. the light which shines in the heart, which hath no fellowship with darkness, nor with the works of darkness; and so this will season it, and keep it cleah from corrupting, as every one minds it, and keeps to it, to love in, and believe in it, and obey it; for there is nothing that is corrupt brought forth, matth: 15.11. but first is in the heart, for saith christ, out of the heart proceeds evil thoughts, mark 7.20. thefts, murders, adulter yes, uncleanness; matth: 15.18.19 for that which goeth into the man doth not defile the man, but that which cometh out; so every one whose minds be turned into the light of christ, this will bring you to taste, and savour, and discern between the good and the evil, the light and the darkness, the precious and the vile, the holy and the profane, the clean and the unclean, the right hand and the left; the sheep and the goats; him that serveth god, and him that serveth him not, between the righteous and the wicked, between him that sweareth, eccles. 9.2. and him that feareth an oath. so than ye will not put darkness for light, and light for darkness; nor call evil good, nor good evil; mal: 3.15.18 nor put bitter for sweet, not sweet for bitter; nor call that which is corrupt holy; nor the proud happy, as they did in former times (who wereblind) and as they do now, who deny the light of christ, and teach people that it is but a natural light, &c. these are they now who are blind, and without discerning, and tasting and savouring of the things of god; and their hearts are hardened through the deceitfulnesle of sin, and they are without feeling. now the light of christ will let you see what is in your hearts, and in your minds, and in your thoughts, and what ye think, and what ye speak, luke 6.45. for a good man (saith christ) out of the treasure of his heart, bringeth forth good things, and an evil man out of the treasure of his heart bringeth forth evil things; now whose minds are turned to the light of christ within, it will let you see what treasure you have in your hearts, and what ye do bring forth; or whether ye be the good men which brings forth good things, good words, and good deeds, good desires, good motions, good thoughts, and good affections; or whether ye be the evil men (who out of the evil treasure of your hearts) brings forth the evil things, as evil thoughts, evil words, and evil deeds, &c. this will let ye see whether the good things be there, or the evil things be there at all times (if ye do mind it) and show ye what ye bring forth, and what ye keep in secret, which ye would not have seen, for that is the evil doer, who doth not do truth, that would not have his work seen, and so doth not love the light because the light will reprove him; but the good man who doth truth, he loves it, and brings his deeds to the light to be proved. and the light will let ye see if there be any deceit, ier: 17.9. or hypocrisy in your hearts, or desperate wickedness there, and it will reprove for that, and will search your hearts, and try your rains, and let you see what rules there, and what reigns there, in your hearts, and in your minds, and desires, and affections; and whether ye have any rains to hold in your desires and affections, that they should not run into the lusts and vanities of the world, and of the flesh; yea, or nay. and it will let ye see whether ye have the girdle of truth to gird up the loins of your minds to god; or whether they are at liberty and loose, and tossed to and fro, as the raging sea, yea, or nay. and it will let ye see whether ye have a bit and bridle for your tongue, psal. 32.9.39. which otherwise will be unruly, and thereby you will offend, james 1.26. if ye use it as your own; i say the light will discover this unto every one whose minds are turned to it, james 3.2. and wait in it, and who harken diligently to it, and believe in it, and obey it; they shall come to know their souls to live; for obedience to it is life, and disobedience to it is death. and now whilst men who have been in power to govern the nations, have been making laws without to bind men's consciences, and to limit them, and compel them to this or that worship, and have been talking long of reformation and church-government, and have gathered-churches (as they have called them) and made leagues and covenants, and assemblies of divines (so called) to make confessions of faith, catechisms, and set-forms of worships (as directoryes, &c.) to worship god by, and to settle church-government, and have laws that all that would not worship god in such a way, and such a form as they had set up, to fine them, imprison them, and whip them, and stock them, and banish them, and hang them, or cut oft their ears, &c. these have been the reformations in the world, in the apostasy, among the apostate christians, since the days of the apostles ' among the protestants and papists, with their laws, and statutes, and customs, and ordinances without, and carnal weapons, and goals, and whips, and houses of correction, and inquisitions, and fires, and faggots, and courts, and penance, and stools of repentance (so called) now all these things have been, and are in order to their reformation, and worshipping of god, and to bring people to the kingdom of god. but now mind people, what hath all this produced? for they have all this while begun at the wrong end of the work, and their labour hath been in vain hitherto, and will be; and little reformation hath been wrought among people all this while, for many himdreds of years past, but one generation hath exceeded another in wickedness, pride and covetousness, drunkenness, uncleanness, deceit and hypocrisy, &c. i say, what hath it brought forth, but to make people hypocrites, not saints, false christians, not true christians; and wolves in sheep's clothing; to profess god and christ in words, but in works to deny god; and profess the scriptures to be their rule, and yet they are walking as contrary to that which they call their rule, as if they had no rule at all, nor no scripture at all, nor no law at all to bind them to this or that form of worship. these are but babel's builders, whose work the lord is comingto confound & throw down, & their languages is already confounded; and they are all on heaps still; after all their bustle and stir, which the many builders have made for many hundreds of years about religion, and worship, and reformation; and they are as far from the true worship as they were: and people do not yet know the truth, nor the true worship of god which is in the spirit. john 4.23, 24. and the lord is seeking such to worship him, as worship him in the spirit, and in the truth, for god is a spirit. but all the world, teachers, and the priests, and professors therein, do not know the spirit of god, nor know not the truth year, and so were not like to worship god in it, or to find him in their outward worships, and carnal ordinances, and doctrines, and commandments, or in the outward observations and forms, which men have prescribed. nay, god is a spirit, and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth. now all this while people have been erred from the spirit of god, and the wolf hath been covered with the sheep's clothing, matth: 7 and the wolves nature still retained and lived in, and not the sheep's nature. 2 pet. 1.3, 4. they have been all inwardly ravening wolves, and not in the true christians nature, which is the divine nature, innocent and harmless, and separated from sinners. now it hath been contrary in the world and is still; they that depart from iniquity are made a prey of, and have been; even the innocent and harmless sheep, and lambs of christ have been rent and torn by the wolves, who did appear like sheep in the sheep's clothing, and had the saints words in their mouths, and have made havoc and spoil of their goods, and imprisoned their bodies, where the life of christ hath been made manifest in any measure, which is the divine nature which the saints and true christians were made partakers of, as ye may read in the scriptures: these i say have been made a prey upon, and persecuted in all ages, since the days of the apostles by the priests and professors, which doth appear, that though they have had the sheep's clothing on, matth. 7.15, 16, 17. yet they were inwardly ravening wolves, and by their fruits they are seen, and now do appear plainly in this our age and day, wherein never more profession hath been made since the days of the apostles, than now hath been of late years, and yet their fruits have been as bad as the worst; even persecuting the innocent to death without cause, devouring of them, and making a prey of them, and accounting of them as sheep for the slaughter all the day long. these are not, nor never were the fruits of the true christians, who were called sheep of christ; for it is contrary to their nature to persecute any, to whip or imprison any, to kill or destroy any, to bite and devour, and rend and tear to pieces like dogs and wolves (as this generation hath done, jeremy 23. of priests and professors) but now this is not contrary to the wolf's nature to devour and rent and tear, isa. 56. nor contrary to their nature, rom. 16. who come in sheep's clothing for the fleece, ezek. 34.2, 3. and divine for money, and preach for hire, 10, &c. and their gain from their quarter, and for their filthy lucre, and for their bellies, it's not contrary to these who are inwardly ravening wolves; and these are the fruits by which ye may know them, john 10. and they are known now by all the lambs and sheep of christ, who are his stock which he hath gathered from under their mouths, who do deny them (therefore they follow after them to devour them) and these are children of light who do believe in the light of christ, and follow him, and know his voice from the strangers; for those who are in the wolf's nature are strangers to christ, and alienated from his life, and erred from his spirit. john 10. and so whilst we were in the darkness, and in the alienation from the life of god and strangers to the covenant of promise (as they are now) than we did sollow them, and their voice was not strange to us, for we were one with them in the same nature, but than enemies in out minds to god, and without christ, ephes 2.12. and without god in the world, but after that we came to believe in the light of christ, and to hear christ's voice, and to follow him, than we turned from the strangers, and would not hear them (the priests) any longer, for the children of the light see them, and bear testimony against them, but who are not yet come to the light of christ in them they are still in the darkness, and in the night, and are in babylon still, nor are not yet come to know a separation between the night and the day, the light and the darkness, truth and error, christ's voice from the stranger's voice; between the good shepherd's voice, and the thieves and robbers voice, who come not but to kill, and teale, and carry away, see, john 10. and these come in the night, and so ye being in the nigh, cannot see them. now they that steal steal in the night, 1 thess. 5.7. and these do rob and spoil ye, and dovour the widow's houses, and makes merchandise of your soul, and ye see them not, john 10.10. and so they kill and steal, and carry away undiscovered; and make ye spend your money for that which is nor bread, and your labour for that which doth not satisfy; and so keeps you always labouring and never satisfied, and always learning and never come to the knowledge of the truth, for who knows the truth, 2 tim. 3.6. the truth sets them free, and gives them ease and rest from their burdens and labours, and peace, and satisfies their fouls; but while people are in the sins and divers lusts (and your teachers tells you that ye must be there as long as ye are here upon earth) you know not truth which sets free from sin, which loads and burdens the soul, and keeps it in death, where there is no peace, nor rest, nor satisfaction to it; and so it cannot praise god, for its the living that praiseth god, the dead praiseth him not, isa. 3.12. nor they that go down to the pit. and so ye are all as a company of weak silly women, who are laden with sins and divers lusts, all in the transgression, and in the death, not a living man amongst you, to speak and to pray in your church; but its the woman in the transgression, and so all is in the disorder and confusion, where the woman rules, and exerciseth authority over the man (he that can receive this let him) 1 tim 〈…〉 and thus ye have been, and are cheated, and deceived by the deceivers, which are come amongst you, the blind guides who leads you blind into the ditch, john 3.19, 20 and ye love to have it so, and love the darkness, and will not come to the light, because your does be evil, lest it should reprove them. and there you remain blind and weak under them uncured, for they are all physicians of no value. but now the children of the light sees them, how they do deceive, and cozen, and cheat you, and they declare against them, and they tell you of it, and show you plainly how, and wherein ye are deceived by them, and yet ye will not believe them, nor receive their testimony, and so if ye will be deceived, ye are like to be so; and if ye perish, your destruction will be of yourselves, for the lord will be clear of all your blood, and we shall be clear also, who have warned you to come out of babylon, the mother of harlots, 2 cor. 6.17. (the false church) and be separate from her, and touch no unclean thing, and the lord will receive you; but if ye be partakers of her sins, rev. 17.4.9, 10, 11, 12, 15, 20. and trade with her merchants, and buy of their merchandise, ye will partake of her plagues that is coming upon her, and that speedily, and the time is at hand; and the saints shall rejoice at her fall, when her judgement and torment shall come upon her; but her merchants shall howl and mourn for her, for by her were they made rich. and these things are seen and made manifest to the children of light, glory, and honour, and living praises be unto the lord for evermore: the hidden things of darkness is making manifest, and coming to be preached upon the house top, and all the hidden things of dishonesty comes to be laid open to the view of all men. 1 cor. 3.13. for the day is come and coming, which reveals all things, and which will prove every man's work of what sort it is; and every man shall receive a reward according to his deeds done in the body, whether they be good or evil. therefore all people, in whom there is any fear of the lord, or any desire after the knowledge of his way, or any love to his truth, or to your soul's peace and welfare. it is high time for you to look about you and to consider your ways, what ye have beendoing, and what ye are doing, for the times of ignorance god hath winked at, but now he calls all men everywhere to repent; for it is not a profession of the words now will serve you, without the possession of the life, for that will not be accepted of god. but all to repent and turn from the evil of your ways which ye have long been reproved for, by the light of christ jesus in you, john 3.19. which is god's witness in all your consciences, which otherwise will be your eternal condemnation, for your profession of christ will not serve you, nor hide you; nor your mountains, ierem: 3.23. nor your hills where ye have been gotten up high, and looking for salvation from them, but it hath been all in vain. come down from them to god's witness in you, and harken to that, what that doth testify to you, for that is true and will not lie, nor deceive you, for that is of god, and leads to god. and with the lord jehovan alone is salvation, and with him is everlasting strength; for those mountains will all fly away from you which ye now do trust in, rev. 6.15.16. and they shall not hide you from the face of the lamb, though ye may call to them to cover you, and to the rocks to fall upon you; nay though ye seek death it shall fly from you. therefore i say in time all be warned, and harken diligently that your souls may live; and away with all your false and deceitful coverings, which are but as so many fig-leaves sowed together to cover your nakedness: which will not endure long, and your profession will wither suddenly, and your nakedness will then appear more to your shame, then if ye had made no profession at all, to have that plucked off wherewith ye have been covered all this while, which made ye seem to be some body, when that is gone than ye will be naked, and as it were like nobody, and have nothing to cover your shame from the eyes of all; for christ jesus disowns ye, who are workers of iniquity, matth. 7.23. and ye must depart from him, and not name his name. luke 13.27. for it's not every one that saith lord, lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven, matth. 7.20. but he that doth the will of my father which is in heaven, saith christ. gal. 7.17. but while ye have been seeking to be justified by christ, and yet lived in sin, and are found sinners (ye have not been doing the will of god) for thereby ye would make christ the minister of sin, 2 thess. 2.8. who came to destroy sin, and the devil who is the author of it, heb. 2.14. and therein he did the will of the father, 1 john 3.8. and plased him. john 8.29. and so as many as receive him and believe in his name, john 1.11, 12. to them he gives power to become the sons of god, and to do his will in earth as it is done in heaven, matth. 6.9. which ye have been praying so long, and saying these words, romans 10. but do not believe in your hearts that any shall ever attain to that here, which you pray for, therefore it's not of faith, for with the heart man believeth unto righteousness, &c. and ye are not like to recelve that, which ye cannot believe; so ye are not come to the measure of faith, luke 17.20. even as a grain of mustardseed, for he that hath it, shall say unto this mountain be thou removed into the sea, and it shall be so, saith christ; but these are all parables, to all you professors in the world unknown, as it was to them to whom they were spoken then. but who comes to the light of christ jesus to believe in it, they read the parables, and they know the faith that removes the mountains and brings them down, and exalts the valleys, and makes the crooked ways straight, matth. 3.23. and the rough ways plain, and prepares the way of the lord in the wilderness, heb. 12.13. and make straight paths for his feet, and such knows the kingdom of god to come, where his will is done on sarth, as in heaven, and where the daily bread is received, and sins forgiven, and enemies loved; and christ said to those that did not know nor believe, if i toll ye of earthly things, and ye cannot believe, how should you believe if i tell you of heavenly things? john 3.12. and again, i speak that which i have seen with my father, and ye speak that which ye have seen with your father, john 8.39. therefore all ye professors of the scriptures, and teachers of the prophets and christ's words, and the words which ye have received by tradition from your fathers. acts 13.41. it's no wonder if the things declared of by the prophets, christ, and the saints, be strange to you, that ye neither know them, nor can believe them, seeing ye me all erred from the spirit of the father, even that spirit which was in the prophets, john 16.25. christ, and the apostles, and saints, which shows plainly of the father, 13. verse. and showed them things to come, which was, and now is the saints comforter, which christ said he would send; even the spirit of truth, which should lead them into all truth, and should bring all things to their remembrance. this the saints did receive in former times, by which they did plainly declare, what they had heard, and what they had seen, and tasted, and handled of the word of life; and this the saints do now receive, even the same spirit of the father which was in the saints, and is now in the saints, and shall be in the saints to the end of the world, as christ said; by which the saints do now know the scriptures which were spoken forth by the spirit of god (in the holy men of god) and understand them, and witness the thing they speak of; so that they are not a book sealed to us, nor parables to us, who come to enjoy the things they speak of, which is freely given to us of god, as they were to them who spoke forth the scriptures, as the apostle said, 1 cor. 2.11, 12, 13. we have not received the spirit of this world, but we have received the spirit which is of god, by which we know the things which are freely given to us of god; which things we declare in the plain demonstration of the spirit, and not with words which man's wisdom teacheth, comparing spiritual things with spiritual. but the natural man perceiveth not the things of god, for they are foolishness to him, neither can he receive them, because they are spiritually discerned. and so with this spirit which we have received of god the father, & the father of our lord jesus christ, doe-we speaks of the things of god, which we have seen with him; by which spirit the saints are now led to declare forth the truth to the world as it is revealed in them from the father of spirits, as the children of god did formerly by the same spirit, who said, as many as are the sons of god, rom. 8. the same are led by the spirit of god. and so now it is, 1 pet. 4.10. as every one hath received the gift of the father, so to minister to others; 1 tam. 17. and according to the ability which god hath given, from whence every good and perfect gift doth come, from the father of lights, with whom is no variableness, nor shadow of turning. and this we know and declare, that if any man have not the spirit of christ, he is none of his, which is the gift of the father's love, and he that hath it, hath received it freely from the father, from whence every good and perfect gift doth come: mark! who receives a gift from god, they receive that which is perfect, that which is heavenly, that which is free, and that which comes from the father of lights, and so with that they see, and know, and can freely declare of the things of god, of the heavenly things, of that which is perfect, of that which is holy, of that which is true, of that which sins not, of that which is born of god, which overcomes the world, as the saints did of old, who said, hereby know we that we dwell in him, and he in us, because he hath given us of his spirit, 1 john 4.13. no otherwise can any one know him now truly, but by his spirit, which quickens, and makes alive unto god: john 17.3. for it is life eternal to know thes the only true god, 1 ioh. 5.19, 20. and jesus christ, whom thou hast sent, saith the saints; and herein is our love made perfect, that we may have boldness in the day of the lord; for as he is, so are we in this present world. and we know that the son of god is come, and hath given us an understanding, and we know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his son jesus christ. this is the true god, and eternal life; and this we have not of ourselves, but this we have freely received from god, (as the saints had) and this we freely declare, and testify to the world as they did, that so others might come to receive of the same from him, in whom the fullness of the godhead dwells, of whose fullness have we all recelved, john 1.16. and grace for grace. and so we have nothing to boast of, or glory in of ourselves, for it is by grace, which is the free gift of god, that we are what we are; that no flesh might glory in his sight, but that all the honour, and the praise, and the glory might be given unto god alone, rom. 11.6. from whence every good, and perfect gift cometh. 1 cor. 1.29. and now oh all ye priests, and teachers, and professors, unto whom these things seems strange, which we declare of; so that ye cannot believe them, but get up into rage, and envy against us to persecute and reproach us, and speak all manner of evil falsely against us, as your forefathers did (the scribes and pharisees, who were hypocrites) against christ and the saints in former times, who did declare of those things then, which the blind guides did not know, nor could believe, and therefore did they persecute them, and hail them before magistrates, and cast them into prisons, and put them to death, though the things which the saints did declare were true, and the same which moses and the prophets, the holy men of god had declared of, which should come to pass, and so did come to pass according to their words: yet now the scribes, and pharisees, and jews, who had the words of moses and the prophets, and were the greatest professors of religion then that were in the world; they having the words, but being out of the power, out of the life of abraham, and moses, and the prophets that declared those things by the spirit of god; these i say (being erred from the spirit) did not know the things which the holy men of god did foretell of to come. the holy thing which was to be borne, which is called the son of the living god, and when he was come, they did unto him as they listed, luker. 35. & crucified the lord of life, because they knew him not. 1 cor. 2.8. though they said they were abraham's children, and knew god, and were moses disciples, and were called jews, and rested in the law, and made their boasts of god, and that they knew his will, rom. 2.19, 20, ●●. and did approve of the things that are more excellent, and were confident that they themselves were guides to the blind, and a light to them that are in darkness, and instructors of the foolish, and teachers of babes, which had the form of knowledge, and of the truth in the law. thou therefore (saith the apostle) that teachest another, teachest thou not thyself, &c. all these were untaught themselves, though they were teachers of the law, they were transgressors of the law, and when christ jesus came, who was the substance, the holy seed, the end of the law, who fulfiled it, and brought in everlasting righteousness, who was the way to god, the truth and the life, they knew him not, but slew him; (and so it is at this day, the professors of the world, who only have) the name of christians, persecute them that are in the true christians life and nature) for they were blind leaders of the blind; (as christ told them) and that they were of their father the devil, who was a liar, and a murderer from the beginning, for whom god hath sent, him ye believe not, but seek to kill him: and so though they had the true men's words, and the righteous men's words, and the just men's words, yet they were erred from their spirit, and therefore they knew not the just and righteous one, and holy one of israel, but were in the murderous spirit, and in the lying spirit, which is of the devil, who did not abide in the truth; and in the envious spirit, and in the persecuting spirit, which is not of god, (as all ye priests and professors are found in at this day,) which spirit i say is not of god, nor received of god, for the fruits of god's spirit is love, gal. 5.22. meekness, gentleness, patience, long-suffering, charity, &c. but the fruits of your spirit is the contrary, as the fruits of theirs was coutrary, who persecuted the saints in former times, as the scriptures declares, and plainly makes manifest. and so now ye come to be tried, and seen, and manifest, and declared against, by the same spirit as was in the saints formerly, and the testimony thereof we know is true, and your deceit and hypocrisy comes to be laid open, as theirs were, whom ye have been crying against for many years, (the scribes, and pharisees, and jews, who crucified christ, and killed the saints, and prophets) and have been envying against them, (and have a law made that none of the jews should come into this nation, &c.) and speak against them, as they did against the false prophets, and their forefathers that slew the true prophets, and said, if they had been in the days of their forefathers, they would not have done so; math. 23.31. but christ told them not withstanding, that they were the children of them that killed the prophets, and they built their tombs, and garnished the sepulchers of the righteous; and he called them, whited walls, and painted sepulchers, and serpents, and a generation of vipers, &c. therefore come now ye professors, and teachers, and priests, own your forefathers, the scribes, and pharisees, and jews, which are gone before you, whom ye have cried against, and said, ye would not have done as they did; and yet have ye not done, and are doing many of the same things as they did, in persecuting of the righteous; for now have ye not slain the prophet in you which moses spoke of, deut. 12.85.18. saying, like unto me will the lord raise up a prophet in the midst of you, him ye shall hear in all things, &c. and are ye not slaying, iam. 5.6. and persecuring the righteous, and killing the just, who doth not resist you; and are painting and garnishing the sepulchers, and building the tombs of the prophet, and of the righteous? and are in your fair outside worships, (as they were) to be seen of men; and crying 〈◊〉 this form, and the other form of church government; and this ordinance, and the other ordinance; and this way of worship, and the other way of worship; and crying up this learned man, and the other rabbi, and are in your observations, as they were; and have set up the jews tithes, (which were to the first priesthood) and so deny christ jesus the second priesthood; and have set up sacraments, and sabbaths, and schools, and colleges, and churches, (which god never commanded) and giving them saints names, as the papists do, and call the papists old masse-houses churches, and so are crying up dead things, and dead names, and ordinances of men, and doctrines of men, and things which may be touched, tasted, and handled, which all perish with the using. and by these things have ye kept people in the death, while they have seemed to live, and have made a great stir and bustle in the world for many hundreds of years, by crying them up, and setting them up; and your ministry or ministers as the oracles of god, and the maintenance for them, and have killed some for witnessing against these things, and have been ready to kill one another about these things, and could not agree about them; and one hath built a wall, and another hath daubed with untempered mortar, and so have been daubing and daubing to keep it up from falling, and whiteing of it to make it appear beautiful to please men, and to be seen of men: and all this invented worship and imitations which ye have set up, and brought people into, are but as so many tombs and sepulchers of the righteous; and these have been cried up by the priests for divine institutions, and orthodox, and canonical, and whiteed over with large pretences, and plausible arguments, and undeniable consequences, (as they have called them) and the poor people have received all this for gospel, and ordinances of christ, and of his church, as if christ had been there present, (who is the true prophet, and the righteous seed which the promise is to) when as there was nothing but tombs, and sepulchers of the prophets and of the righteous which they had garnished. and so people while ye have been in these things, ye have been all in the darkness and in the death, and have been all as graves which men go over unawares, being erred from the spirit which quickens and makes alive; which spirit was in the prophets, by which they prophesied and declared forth the truth, which came to pass accordingly to the jews, that in seeing they should see, and not perceive, math. 13.14. and in hearing they should hear, but not understand, mark 9.12. which also is come to pass in these our days, among all the teachers and professors who have been thus daubing, and building, and painting the tombs and sepulchers, and whiteing the walls; the just hath been killed, and he hath not resisted you, and the prophet lies slain in you all, and ye understand not, nor hear him, nor see him, neither have perceived, nor known his voice, who is the true light that lighteth every one, ioh. 5.37, 38. that all in the light might believe him whom moses said was like unto him, whom the lord would raise up a prophet from the midst of them, whom ye should hear in all things: and it shall come to pass, saith he, that whosoever will not harken unto this prophet, shall be cut off from amongst the people. and so moses saw and declared of concerning christ, that which ye do not know, nor see, nor hear, though ye have long been talking of him, and naming of his name; but it was but death speaking of the fame of wisdom, because ye have been erred from his spirir, which is the spirit of truth, which convinceth the world of sin, and reproves them for sin; but this the world cannot receive, which doth reprove them for their sins and evil deeds, because they love their sins and evil deeds, and not god; now they that love the lord hate evil, but he that loves not god, nor receives the light of christ, nor believes in it, (which is the true prophet, and faithful witness of god) he loves his evil deeds, but hates the light which reproves him for his sins, and evil deeds, joh. 3.19, 20, (21. and therefore the light is his condemnation, as christ saith; and so this is not their comforter, who believe not but love their evil deeds; but this is he whom we have received and followed, joh. 8.12. (even christ jesus who is come a light into the world) and denied ourselves, and our own wills for him, and taken up his cross, and we know the prophet raised the spirit of truth come, which is our comforter in all our troubles, and leads us into all truth, and brings all things to our remembrance and knowledge, which were spoken before by the prophets, christ, and the saints, which spirit is in us, which was made manifest in the flesh, john 1. and dwelled amongst the saints, and they saw his glory, who was the begotten son of god, and did hear testimony of him, who said unto them who believed in him, i will pray the father, and he shall give you another comforter, that he may abide with you for ever: even the spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive: mark! because it seath him not, neither knoweth him; but ye know him, for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you, (joh. 14.16, 17.) and now is in all his saints, and so he did come to them according to his promise, 1 cor. 12.7. acts 1.4. and he doth come again to all that wait for him in the manifestation of his spirit, which is given to every one to profit withal, which is the true light which christ jesus hath enlightened every man that cometh into the world withal, that all through the ligh might believe, and follow the light, 1 john 9 and not walk in darkness, but might come to have the light of life, and might come to christ from whence the light comes. but now all ye who have set yourselves against the light, and denied it to be sufficient to lead to christ, and say it's natural, and so have kept people from it, are the seducers which john speaks of, 1 joh. 2.26. ye are still in darkness, and walking in darkness, and following your own spirits, and have seen nothing, ezek. 13.3. who have prophesied lies in the name of the lord, ier. 14 14. and have been walking in the light of the fire, ier. 23.25. and of the sparks of your own kindling; but you shall lie down in sorrow, isa., 50.11. for that will not bring you to christ, neither hath, nor to his life, whose life is the light of men, with which he hath enlightened them that they might believe in it, and follow him; and so with this they know him, and hear him, and deny you, who are strangers, and hear him not, nor know him, nor receive him, and so have not power, but are crying out ye want power, and the reason is, because ye receive him nor, nor believe in his name, 1 ioh. 11.12. who gives power to become the sons of god; and yet are professing his name, and asking, and preaching, and praying, and baptising in his name, 2. tim. 2.19. but none of you are baptised yet into his name, who depart not from iniquity, though ye have been crying, lord, lord, we have eaten, and drunken in thy presence, &c. who have had a form of godliness, but denied the power, which was before the form, isa. 53.2, 3. and is without form, and is the substance which shall stand, when all your forms shall end. and so ye know not the life, the power, isa. 6, 13. the substance, the holy seed which is come, who stands, and remains, and abides, and lives for ever, ye are all out of that, and strangers to it: but ye are in that which ends, out of the truth, who denies the power, and life, but retains the form, and have a show of wisdom in your will-worships, and voluntary humility, intruding into those things ye have not seen, 2 col. 1. being vainly rufft up by your fleshly minds, having a form and shadows of things to come, but the body which is christ, (who is the life and substance) hath been wanting amongst you, who have been making a large profession of christ and of the gospel, and had a form, but the substance being wanting, which is the life and power, which ye are all our of, rom. 1. and therefore ye do not know christ, nor the gospel, for it is the four of god unto salvation, to every one that believes: but many have had that which ye have called the gospel, (namely the four books of matthew, mark, luke and john.) and yet want this power, and know nothing of it, but say they want power to do what they should do, and aught to do; and this is the farthest that any of them can come, and there they are still in the weakness in the flesh, ferred from the spirit, and cry out they want power, which is the gospel, and so want peace and want salvation to their souls, for the gospel is still hid from them, which is the power of god which saves the soul. so the gospel had need to be preached to you all again, ye priests and teachers and profestors, for it is hid from you, and ye are all in the lost state, seeing ye are all erred from the spirit, by which it was preached, (and is preached) which proceeds from the father, and came down from heaven, and so it is hid from you, you want it, ye have lost it, lost the power, but retained a form in the long night of apostasy, 2 tim. 3.8. since the days of the apostles, and have been erred from the faith, 1 tim. 6.10, 21. which was once delivered to the saints, judg. 3. which stood not in the wisdom of words, but in the power of god; 1. cor. 2.5. but the power you want, and so the faith ye have lost, and erred from it, and it hath been so long wanting among you, that ye do not know it, what it is; for it is a mystery held in a pure conscience: and ye have been in the night all this while, 1 tim. 3.9. (and are still) and have been eating and drinking with the drunken, and beating your fellow-servants, and have said in your hearts, math. 29.48. (49. the lord deferreth his coming, (who hath been in a far country from you, and ye have not known where he hath been, for the manchild hath been caught up unto god) but he is come and coming upon you as a thief in the night, and ye do not see him, because ye have not watched for his coming, but have been asleep in sin, and have been careless, and thought yourselves secure as if all had been well with you, and said none can be free from sin here, luke 18.8. &c. and now behold the son of man is come, he doth not find faith in the earth, as christ said, when the son of man cometh, shall be find faith in the earth? and now the day of the lord is come, and coming, wherein every man's work shall be tried of what sort it is, luke 1.78. and truth shall now be known from error and deceit; i say the dayspring from on high hath now again visited us after the long time of darkness which hath been over the earth; yea such a time hath been, that the darkness hath been so great, that it might be felt, that none could rise from the place where they sat, and is yet upon many peoples, and nations, and kindreds, and tongues, as it was in egypt of old, (see exed. 10.21, 22.) so it is now, and hath been in spiritual egypt, where also our lord jesus christ hath been crucified. and so his gospel is again to be preached unto all nations, math. 24.14. kindreds, and tongues, and people, mark 16.15. whom god hath given for a covenant, for a light unto the gentiles, to open the blind eyes, isa.; 49.8.42.6. and to bring the prisoner out of prison, and them that have sat in darkness out of the prison-house. for people have sat in darkness, and have taken up their seat there, and the priests have laboured to keep them there, and have been crying out against new-lights, and calling it heresy, and getting laws made to keep out all new-light (as they called it) to keep out truth from being known any more than it was, and so have made a covenant with death, isa. 28.18, and an agreement with hell, and to keep people in the death, and in the darkness, and error (which they called light and truth) and none must remove from the place where he sat in darkness, and in the shadow of death; this hath been the priests work for many years past to keep people there, in spiritual egypt, and darkness; so the leaders of the people have caused them to err, and they have told people that these laws were the discipline of the church, to keep out error, and to preserve the gospel, and to keep heresy from spreading: now this hath been their cry and their pretence whilst they have been keeping out truth thereby, and limiting the spirit of god to this or that form, so that truth hath not had its liberty, which is only able to keep people from error and heresy. and what error, and heresy, and wickedness is there that can be named, that is not amongst them? and you (oh ye priests and teachers notwithstanding all your outward laws) who have had all these fair pretences to keep up your forms of worships without the power, even by your outward laws, and carnal weapons, as stocks, and whips, and prisons, and courts, and leagues, and covenants, and oaths, and protestations, and assemblies of divines, (so called) and confessions of faith, and directories to worship by, &c. all this hath been but to hold up your trade to preach for hire and filthy lucre, and for your bellies, and to bear rule by your means over the people, and to keep them still in the house of bondage, and darkness, in egypt, to labour in the brick, and so have been as the taskmasters over them, who would have their tale of brick, exod. 5. and would allow them no straw; but they must go abroad to get it, and so have oppressed the people, and have been cruel, so that ye have made them to groan under their burdens, and there was none to help them. and now the lord hath heard their cry, and is risen, and come to deliver his people from under you, even from under the mouths of such devouring wolves, who have made a prey upon them; and have cried peace to people in their sins and wickedness, and have had men's persons in admiration because of advantage, and have kept and do keep many there. now ye that have done so, have not been the ministers of christ, but of antichrist; not of righteousness, but of unrighteousness, and messengers of satan; 2 gor. 11.15. though ye have transformed yourselves into several forms and shapes, but your end is seen, and your reward will be according to your work; for though the strong man armed have kept the palace, matth 12.29. and so the things therein hath been in peace, luke 11.12. yet now a stronger than he is come (who is in us) even stronger than he who is in the world; and this is he whom we preach, christ jesus the true light, who hath enlightened every one that cometh into the world, which convinceth them of sin, matth. 10.34. and reproves for sin, and speaks not peace to them there, but sends a sword to take it away, and leads them out of sin who believes and obeys him; and this is he who saves his people from their sins, and destroys the work of the devil. and he is come and appeared in his servants and ministers, as of old; acts 26.18. to call sinners to repentance, and to turn from sin unto god, and from the darkness to the light, and from the power of satan unto god, that so they might receive remission of sins, and an inheritance amongst them that are sanctified; which many who have been turned, and are turned (by them) can witness the inheritance, and an entrance into it; glory be unto the lord god of heaven and earth for ever. therefore do i exhort and warn every one of you in the fear of the lord, to turn in your minds to the light of christ jesus within you; who is given for a light to the gentiles, and for a new covenant to the house of israel, isa. 42. where the law is written in the heart, iere. 31.31. that so ye may come to read there what is in your hearts, to know good from evil, and the just from the unjust, and truth from error; the right way from the wrong; for the light will show you if your minds be turned to it. for the law is light pro: 6.23. saith solomon, and it is a light unto my feet, and a lamp unto my paths, saith david; and again he saith, the law of the lord is perfect, converting the soul; the testimony of the lord is sure, psal. 19.7, 8, 9, 10, 11. making wise the simple; the statutes of the lord are right, rejoicing the heart; the commandments of the lord is pure, enlightening the eyes: the fear of the lord is clean, and endureth for ever; the judgements of the lord are true, and righteous altogether; by them thy servant is forewarned, and in keeping of them there is great reward. and again saith he, oh how do i love thy law, psal. 119.97, 98, 99 it is my delight, it is my meditation day and night; whereby he became witer than all his enemies, and more understanding than all his teachers. and this is it which gives the knowledge of sin, and convinceth of sin, and reproves the world for sin, and condemneth for sin them that believe not. and this law is spiritual, holy, rome 7. just, and good; and this will let you see, that ye are carnal, sold under sin, and found in the sin and transgression of it, and in the corruption, whilst ye have been promising of yourselves liberty and saying ye are justified by christ (and so would have made him the minister of sin, gal. 2.17.) while yet ye are under the law, and the law hath dominion over you, and condemns you for your sins, and evil deeds; as the apostle saith, know ye not, rom: 7.1. for i speak to them that know the law, how that the law hath dominion ever a man so long at he ●●●eth. for paul saith rom. 7. i was alive without the law once, but when the commandment came sin revived, and i died; that slew him, and so that which was ordained unto life, became death unto him; he being in the transgression of it; and so dying unto sin he was dead to the law, not under it, for than he faith, i through the law am dead to the law, but alive unto god; so that which slew him, and made him dead unto sin, brought him unto christ jesus who is the life, rom: 10.4. the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believes; so the law was our schoolmaster to bring us to christ, saith he, gal. 3.24. so who are come to christ they are come out of the transgression, they are come to live unto god, they are come to christ who sulalls it, who is the way, the truth, and the life, and they are not under the law but under grace. for the law was given by moses, but grace and truth came by jesus christ. and now (to the witness of god in you all do i speak, who have long been professing christ, and justification by him, &c.) to turn in to the light which is god's witness, and with it try yourselves, and examine yourselves truly and honestly; and it will let you all see that ye are not come to christ yet, nor yet known him, who is the end of the law for righteousness, who fulfillls it; but ye are under it still, alive without the law, unslain by it (as paul was) in the sin and transgression, and so not justisied by christ, neither know him: all ye who do deny the light which he hath enlightened ye withal; for none comes to know him, but who believes in the light which christ hath enlightened them withal; nor none come into the righteousness which is the end of the law, and fulals it; but who believe in the light and are obedient to the light, and walk in it: here is the righteousness known, which exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and pharisees who should in no wise enter into the kingdom of heaven, who had the law without, and read it every sabbath day, but they were sayers and not doers, and hypocrites of whom christ said, go not after them, for they had the form, but not the power; they had a show of righteousness, and made clean the outside, but the inside was unclean, and unrighteous, and were but as whited walls and painted sepulchers, which did appear beautiful and righteous before men, mat. 23.27. but within were no●●ing but rottenness and deads' men's bones, and so were as graves which men go over unawares, and what they did it was to be seen of men, and thereby did beguile, and deceive the hearts of the simple, and so shut the kingdom of heaven against men (as christ said) and neither entered in themselves, nor suffered others that were entering. now are not all ye teachers, priests, and professors found here in the pharisees spirit, and in the same generation with them, in outward shows of holiness and righteousness, and forms of godliness, and making clean the outsides, as they did, and saying, and are sayers as they were, but not doers, and so are hypocrites as they were. and ye keep people always saying, but never bring them to do what they say; but teach them that christ hath done all for them, and if they can but believe that, than they are well enough; and so blinds people by that means, that they do not mind what they do themselves, mat: 23.13 nor what they say to perform, and so are out of the truth, and never come to the knowledge of it, and so the kingdom of heaven is shut against you and them, and so you are ever teaching them, and they are ever learning, and saying after you; and so make a fair show in the flesh, and appear to be something outwardly, and persuade them that they are justified by the righteousness of christ, which he hath wrought for them without, and so there they rest as the pharisees did in the outward observations, whilst in the mean time, they are inwardly unclean, their hearts unclean, 2 pet. 2.14. their minds defiled, their eyes full of adultery, who cannot cease from sin, and so are shut out of the kingdom, into which no unrighteous thing, or unclean thing must ever enter; and are but as tombs garnished, and sepulchers painted (wherein is rottenness, and dead men's bones) mark! like the scribes and pharisees, and so your righteousness doth not exceed theirs. in the same generation with them are ye, and their children are ye, who slew christ jesus the true prophet, which moses spoke of, when he said, like unto me will the lord raise up a prophet, which all were to hear, &c. as the pharisees were the children of them that slew the prophets that went before them, and are like unto them. and are still slaying, and have been slaying, and killing, and persecuting, and hailing before magistrates, and out of the synagogues as they did, those who are the true chriftians, in whom the spirit of christ is manifest, who bear witness against your hypocrisy and deceit now, as christ did, and the true christians did in the primitive times; and it is your srultes makes ye manifest now, as theirs did then: and your fair sayings, and not doing now cannot cover you, no more than that could cover the pharisees then, who said, and did not; and therefore christ calls them hypocrites. moreover, as they would not hear him of whom the father said, this is my beloved son, in whom i am well pleased, hear ye him; and of whom john bore witness and said, he was the true light, john 1.9. that lighteth every man that cometh into the world. and so because they did not believe in the true light, therefore they were blind leaders of the blind; and so it is, and hath been with you, who do not believe in the light which christ jesus hath enlightened you withal, but speak against it, and say it is insufficient and natural, &c. therefore ye abide in darkness, and are children of darkness, who know not whither ye go, john 12.35. nor know not that ye are walking in the steps of your forefathers the scribes and pharisees, who were hypocrites and blind guides, who persecuted christ, and put him to death, and persecuted the saints (the true church) and halled them before magistrates, and shut them up in prisous, and thought they did god good service in so doing; even so it is now with many of you at this day ye think so, who walk in darkness, and know not whither ye go; but the children of the light who believe in the light, they see the true way which is christ, and with the light they see you all where you are in the false ways, in the way of the pharisees (and not in the way christ) and bear witness against you now, as the saints did then against them. and ye can no longer be hid, but your folly will come to be laid open, and manifest more and more, so that ye cannot proceed much further. for now is the day dawning, and the day-starr arising in the hearts of many people, 2 pet. 1.17, 18, 19 who take head unto the more sure mord of prophecy, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place; and such as do so, do well; and when the day-starr doth arise, the sun is near approaching which expels all the darkness, that men comes to see round about them; and then they can see what the holy men of god did, and what christ and the saints did, and what the scribes and pharisees did, and so see over the apostasy to the apostles days; and what the apostate christians have been doing since the apostles days, and what they are still doing, and what the saints the true christians are now doing, and who are they; and can know them who have done well, and who now do well, from them that have done evil, and now do evil; for the day is that, which tries every man's work of what sort it is. and all who are come to the day now, can see beyond the night of the apostasy, and over it, and what was before it, and what hath been since in it, among the apostate christians since the apostles days; that people have been in the darkness and night, who have not seen the true way, nor known whither they have been going. mal. 4. but now unto all that fear my name shall the sun of righteoususse arise with healing in his wings, saith the lord. for who comes to take heed unto the light which shines in the dark place, they do well; and who comes to do well, they come to be healed, and to know the sun of righteousness to arise from whence the light comes, and they are those who do righteously, and truly, and honestly, and walk as in the day time, and to put off unrighteousness, and the works of darkness, and fleshly lusts which war against the souls. for that is it which hath wounded the soul, even the fleshly lusts that wars against it: 1 pet. 2.11. now the light which shines in the heart leads from the fleshly lusts, and out of them to christ jesus the sun of righteousness, who ariseth with healing. for as the unrighteousness, and works of darkness is put off, and the fieshly lusts abstained from, which wars against the soul and wounds it; so christ jesus the sun of righteousness ariseth, and is put on, who heals and binds up the wounds, and powers in wine and oil thereinto, luk. 10.30, 31, 32.33. who is the good samaritan, who is better than the priest, and the levite, who passed by like strangers, and left the man half dead, who had fallen among thieves and robbers, among his enemies, and was wounded; as the hirelings priests do now, who are strangers that pass by, and leave many wounded, and as it were half dead; and instead of helping of them, are rather the thieves that rob, and wound, and murder, and kill. for, saith christ, john 10. the hyroling cometh not but for to kill, and to steal, and to destroy, neither careth he for the sheep, but for the fleece, and for his tithes; as the priests and levites did, who passed by. and again, saith the prophet, as atrope of robbers wait for a man, hosea 6.9. so do a company of priests further in the way by consent. and these things have been seen, and are as plainly fulfilled, and manifested amongst this generation of priests, and teachers, and professors, as in any age of the world. nay it will be more tolerable for those that went before, then for these, even the scribes and pharisees, who perfecuted the saints, and put christ to death (whom they did not know that it was he that should come, as the scripture saith, if they had known they would not have crucified the lord of life) but these say they believe that he is come, and profess they know him, and yet persecute him, where ever he is made manifest in sons, or daughters, and cast him into prison, &c. math. 25. now the fewes and pharisees were under another priesthood which god had commanded, and so had a righteousness there according to the law of moses outwardly, which mey sought to establish, and so could not own christ jesus, the second priesthood, rom. 10.3. who is god's righteousness, nor submit unto it, and so were rejected. but now the priests and professors and apostare christians they do confess christ jesus comain the flesh (in words) who is the second priesthood, who is god's righteousness, and do deny the jews & rharisees and yet they set up another priesthood, which is contrary to christ, and contrary to the jews, which god never commanded; and they take tithes, and stipends, and augmentations, and gleabe-lands, &c. and seek to set up a righteousness without them to be justried by (which they call the righteousness of christ) while they are in the unrighteousness themselves, and in the sin, and transgression of the law of god, and so have not submitted to the righteousness which is of god by faith in christ jesus, no more than the jews did; therefore this is but their own righteousness (which is but as filthy rags) and antichrist in the likeness of christ, and antichristians and apostates, in the likeneste of true christians. for this is but their own inventions, and their own righteousness (which inderd is not worthy to be called righteousnesses, where they are puffed up in their fleshly minds) which they go about to establish, whilst they are disobedient to him who is the righteousness of god, rom: 8 and was made manifest in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for, sin condemned sin in the flesh, that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the spirit. now there is none ever cometh to the righteousness of god, and to have the righteousness of the law fulfilled in them, and to walk after the spirit, but who come to believe in the light of christ in their own particulars, and obey it; which convinceth of sin, and reproves for sin, and condemns sin in the flesh; who do so they walk not after the flesh, they come our of the weakness; for the law was weak through the flesh, or they come to feel the power, and the operation of the spirit, which makes free from the law of sin, and death; which the law could not do because it was weak through the flesh: but now god hath sent his son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin condemned sin, in the flesh, that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us (say the saints) who walk not after the flesh, but after the spirit. and this law of the spirit of life, which condemns sin in thee, and makes free from the law of sin and death, and is in christ jesus; and this is the light which christ jesus hath enlightened every one with that cometh into the world, and is a manifestation of the spirit which is given to every one to profit withal his which is sent into the world to convince the world of sin, and to reprove for sin; and will be, the condemnation of all the world who believe not in it, but dirobey it, and hate it, and love their evil deeds, and their sins which it doth reprove them for; so that it is not their comforter, but their reprover and condemner that do not receive it, and love it not, but reject it. but it is the comforter of all those who do receive and love is, and believe and obey it, and are led by it; for it leads into all truth, and sets free from sin and death, and hears witness with their spirits, that they are the sons of god; for as many as are led by the spirit of god, the same are the sons of god. this the saints did bear witness of in former times, and this the saints do, witness now, glory and honour and living praises be unto the lord god of heaven and earth for evermore. but this is a mystery to the world, and hid from all the apostate christians in it; of what sect, or opinion, or judgement, or religion soever they be of, who deny the light which christ jesus bath lighted every one withal to be ●ufficient to lead to salvation, 〈◊〉. i say, john 1.34. they know not that which makes free from sin and death, and brings to life; no can they believe that, rom: 4.7. when it is declared to them; rom: 6.2.6, 7. but say none can be free from sin on this fide of the grave; rom: 6.18. and account it error to say that any can be free from sin here, rome 8.10. or be righteous here without sin; 1 john 1.7. and say the most righteous man sins, 1 john: 3.8.9. and he that is borne of god sin (which is blasphemy so to say) and this is, i joh: 3.6. and hath been their doctrine in the world, amongst the priests and profelsors, i john 5.18. the antichrists and anrichristians, who are out of the life of christ, and the true christians that now their nakedness appears to thein shame, because they have not submitted to the righteousness by faith in christ jesus that they might be covered with it, who is the true light; to believe in the light, that by it they might be led unto christ jesus from whence it comes, who is god's righteousness, and thereby know the righteousness of the law fulfilled in them, rom: 8.3.4. and know the kingdom of god within, which cometh not with observation, as christ saith, and the righreousness in which it stands, and the power in which it stands is within; and the law of the spirit, which makes free from the law of sin and death, and the life which is eternal, which is the gist of god through rom. 8.2. jesus christ, in whom the law of the spirit of life is. but now all who are pleading for sin, and say, none be free from sin here, they are still under the law of sin and death, (which paul said he was made free from) sin is still a law to them, and they are servants to it, and so they are free from righteousness, as the apostle said; while ye were servants of sin, ye were free from righteousness; but being made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness: rom. 6.18, 20. that at sin had reigned unto death, so righteousness might reign unto life through jesus christ our lord. and again; his servants ye are whom ye obey, whether sin unto death, or obedience unto righteousness. therefore come all ye teachers and professors of the world, what say you? can none be made free from sin and death here, while he is upon earth? ephef. 1.1. what is there not a living man amongst you all who is quickened? is there none of you come up out of the grave that can truly say, 1 gor. 15.55, 56, 57 oh death, where is thy sting? oh grave, where is thy victory? thanks be to god, who hath given me victory over death? ioh. 5.25, 28. what are you all as graves which men go over unawares? have none of you heard the voice of the son of god yet, which they that hear shall live? are you all dead in your sins and trespasses, unquickned yet, in the fall, in the first adam's state, in the disobedience, rom. 5.12, 19 (21. by which sin entare dinto the world, and death by sin? are you all there still where death reigns? is there none come to life, which is through the obedience to christ jesus, 1 cor. 15.46. (48. the second adam, the quickening spirit, the lord from heaven? have none of you the word of god abiding in you, heb. 4.12. which word is quick, and powerful, and the entrance of it gives life? come forth and answer for yourselves; what are you all shur up in the unbelief until this day, and have not believed in him whom god hath sent, who is the resurrection and the life, john 11.26. (who saith) he that believeth in me shall live for ever, he shall never die; for he hath life in himself, and he gives life to every one that believeth; what are you all searching the scriptures which testifies of christ, and think to have eternal life in them, and you not yet come to christ that you may have life? him whom the scriptures testifies of, and saith, he is the trus light that lighteth every man that cometh into the world, that all might believe in the light, ioh. 8.12. and become children of light, and he who followeth him should not walk in darkness, but he shall have the light of life, and know christ jesus, who is the way so the father, the truth, and the life, who saith, no man cometh unto the father but by me: i am come a light into the world, &c. what do you not believe christ? or do you think to find another way to the father? an easier way than christ? or a broader way? a way which is not a cross to your wills, or a way where you may walk yourselves without a guides, that ye may go whither you list, (but that's not the way to god) as christ told peter, when he was young he girt himself, and went whither he would, &c. answer me plainly to these queries, oh ye priests and professors, who have been so long talking of the scriptures, but have been out of the truth, and out of the life of righteousness, and out of the light, and out of the way, who have been wandering in the darkness, not knowing whether you go, and seeking the living amongst the dead, and are erred from the truth in your hearts, and hold it in the unrighteousness, professing the true words, but are, and have been out of the truth, and so could never be established there; for none can ever be established, but in the truth and in the righteousness. but ye have been out of the life, and so are dead men still, and are yet in the graves, and have not heard his voice that should raise you up yet, because you have not harkened diligently that your souls might live; though you have been long talking of him, and searching for him without in the observations, and have been saying, lot, here is christ, and lot he is there, in this form, or in that form of worship, and in this, or that ordinande; job 28.22. so death hith heard of the fame of wisdom, and hath been talking of the fame of wisdom, which is justisied of her children; but ye who only have been talking of wisdom, and speaking of it, while you were in the death, and did not learn the way to life, ye are but soolish children, and are not justified; for you have all been but as the foolish. virgins (the best of you) who have had lamps, but wanted oil, and so ye are in the dark still, luke 10. your lamps are not burning, nor your lights shining; neither hath your light so shined before men, that they may see your good works, math. 5.16. and glorify the father: but you have all professed that which ye did not possess, and so are found in the hypocrisy, and your righteousness hath been like the righteousness of the scribes and pharisees, whom christ told, should in is wise enter into the kingdom of heaven; now all that are but there will be shut out; though you have been talking of faith, and hope, and sanctification, and redemption, and adoption, and justification by christ, and by his righteousness, while you are in the unrighteousness, and in the sin, and transgression, who would have christ's righteousness to be a cloak and cover for your sins, and would be justified by christ in your sins, who came to save his people from sin, and to destroy sin, and to destroy the devil who is the author of it; and he came to take away all cloaks and covers for sin, who saith himself, if i had not come and spokon to you, ye had not had sin, but now have ye no cloak for your sin, so he it is that hath spoken to you once and again, but ye have not regarded, and he doth speak to you, and reproves you for sin, all of you secretly in your consciences, and for your evil deeds, by the light of his spirit, with which he hath enlightened you all; who saith, except ye believe that i am he, ye shall die in your sins; and then there will be no covering for you, for your shame and nakedness will be seen, though ye may call to the rocks and mountains to fall upon you, and cover you. but the woe is unto all, who are covered with a covering, and not of my spirit, saith the lord; and woe will be for ever to all such who want the covering of god's spirit at the last day. therefore all people, turn in your minds to the light of christ jesuswithin you, which doth reprove you for sin, and never consents to the doing of any unrighteous thing, and believe in the light, and be obedient to it (for obedience to it is life.) then will ye come to put off that, and be uncovered of that, which ye have been covered with, which the woe is too, & brings the trouble, and sorrow, and anguish upon your souls; and which will bring shame and confusion, and woe and torment for ever, except it be cast off, and separated from. and who come to the light of christ, and believe in it, and love it (which is the law of the spirit of life) with it they come to be quickened, and made alive unto god, and made dead unto sin; and so come to be covered with the covering which the woe is not too; for the spirit is life because of righteousness, but the body is dead unto sin; as the apostle said, how can we who are dead unto sin, live any longer therein? mark! they who were quickened (which paul writ to, who were once dead in sins and trespasses, & children of wrath as well as others) these were made alive unto god; but they were first dead unto sin, and so could not live any longer therein, except they would go about to build again that which before they had destroyed, and so make themselves transgres7s; o'er, 2 gal. 18. now this the saints said and witnessed who were made alive unto god, and quickened by his spirit dwelling in them, and made free from the law of sin and death; but now this is contrary to all the apostate christians (the priests and professors) in this age; who say, that they must live in sin, and have the body of sin as long as they be here, and none can be perfect here, nor be made free from sin, but they sin in thought, word and deed daily; and say they had need to pray for the forgiveness of the sins of their prayers, and the best of their holy duties is full of sin, and the most righteous doth sin, &c. and so teach people. these i say never yet did know sin destroyed, nor never yet come out of the transgression, nor our of the fall adam's state, nor we yet requickened, but are still dead in their sins and trespasses, and therefore they are not like to show people the way out of sin, or how to be freed from sin, for they themselves are still in the death, the dead not raised yet, and therefore hath all their preaching and praying been in vain, both to themselves and others, and their faith vain also, and they are yet in their sins, even as the apostle said, if the dead arise not, 1 cor. 15.14. then is our preaching vain, and your faith is vain also, and ye are still in your sins. now you (i say,) who long have been called christians, and you who have professed yourselves to be ministers of christ, and yet are walking according to the course of this world, not redeemed out of the world, nor separated from the world, but dead in sins and trespasses, unquickned yet, unmade alive unto god, in the death yet, where all the world lies who are in the wickedness; your conditions are far unlike to the saints conditions, who spoke forth the scriptures, ye who are not yet come from among the dark world, who sit in the darkness, and in the shadow of death, and love darkness rather than light, because their deeds are evil: and will not these teachers and professors abide with them in the darkness? and doth it not appear that they are resolved upon it, who say they must have sin, and cannot be freed from it here, but as long as they live here they must carny a body of sin about with them, and a body of death, and so they walk in the shadow of it, and sit in the shadow of death, and are not yet come to the light, nor will they come to the light, (that they might see a way out of it) but love their evil deeds rather than the light, so there they are sat down in the darkness, and remain in the death until this day, and will not arise, and harken to the voice of christ jesus, isa. 42. whom god hath given for a covenant, for a light unto the gentiles, isa. 49. to open the blind eyes, and to unstop the deaf ears, and to bring the prisoner's oat of prison, and them that sit in darkness out of the prison house; and out of the house of bondage, where they are all in egypt still, in the land of darkness; and it hath been and is still the work of the hireling priests to cry peace to the people there; and when any of the servants of the lord have been sent by him to call people our of the darkness, to come to the light of christ, which he hath enlightened them withal, that by it they might be led out of spiritual sodom and egypt, rev. 1.8. where our lord jesus christ hath been, and is crucified afresh, and put to open shame; i say the priests and teachers, they have stood up to oppose, and have been like jannes and jambres who withstood moses, 2 tim. 3.8. and would have hindered the people from going our of egypt, even to keep people in the darkness, and by the flesh-pors of egypt, where they may eat and drink with the drunken, and satisfy their lusts, and yet notwithstanding tell the people that they are the children of god, and christians, and that none can be free from sin, and the best have their sailings, and so daub with untempered mortar, and speak peace where the lord speaks no peace, 2 tim. 3: 6. and so lead people about like silly women, laden with sins and diverse lusts, ever learning, but never able to come to the knowledge of the truth; for who knows the truth, ioh. 8.32. the truth makes them free, and brings them from under the load, and from under that which burdens, and vexeth the righteous soul, as the righteous soul of lot was vexed from day to day with the unclean conversation of the wicked sodomites; now these would keep people in sodom and egypt, under the heavy burdens and loads in the fleshly lusts, and filthiness by the fleshpots of egypt, that even people's hearts and minds have been boiling up with wickedness and uncleanness, and their eyes full of adulrery who cannot cease from sin, and here they have been ever learning, but could not know truth while they are there; and so by this means they have made people to pay them for reaching of them, and to uphold them, and give them fire, and these are the blind leaders of the blind into the ditch. but who comes to the light which christ jesus hath enlighmed them withal, to wait in it, and harken diligently to it, they hear the voice of christ and live, and arise up from their seats, and so come out of egypt, and out of the shadow of death, and the house of bondage, and from under pharaoh and his taskmasters, and they come through the sea, (as israel did, and was baptised unto moses in the cloud, and in the sea,) i cor. 10.2. and through the fire to be baptised into the name of christ, with the spirit and with fire and to be baptised all into one spirit, rom: 6.3, 4. and to be made like unto christ in his death, to be made dead unto sin that they may not live any longer therein, and to drink of the spiritual drink, and to eat of the spiritual meat, and to drink of the spiritual rock, which rock is christ that is gone before us, (which rock is the same which israel drank of which followed them) who were under the law until the seed came, which seed is christ, gal. 3.19. who redeems from under the law, who was made under the law, that he might redeem them which were under the law, who fulfilled the law, and blotted out the hand writing of ordinances, and nailed them to his cross, which whosoever are followers of him, math. 16.24. they must take up this cross which crucifies the flesh with the affections, 1 coll. 20. and lusts, and makes dead unto sin, 2 coll. 14. and slays the transgressor, and so makes peace through the blood of his cross; i say this cross must be taken up daily by all who will be true disciples indeed, and true christians; the preaching of which cross now to the world and professors therein is foolishness, and is despised, and cannot be endured, cor. 1.18 &c. as it was formerly to the jews a stumbling block, and to the greeks foolishness; but unto them that believed therein both jews and greeks, it was the power of god, and the wisdom of god, and to them that believe now it is the same, but unto the unbelieving it is foolishness even to all who are not yet turred to the light of christ jesus within, which he hath enlightened them withal, they are still in the unbelief, and so never yet knew the power of god, nor the wisdom of god, and so it is foolishness to them, for they are all spiritually blind, and so cannot discern the things of god which are spiritually discerned, but are all as foolish and sottish children without understanding, and untaught, and unlearned, neither are they come to receive the law from him who is the lawgiver, that they might be taught of him, mat. 11.30. who sarth, learn of me, i am meek, and lowly in heart, and ye shall find rest for your souls, and be made wise unto salvation, for in him is hid the treasure of wisdom and knowledge. now all those who only looks out at, the scriptures, and comes not to the light of christ within, which the scriptures declares of, the treasure of wisdom and knowledge is still hid from them; for it is in christ jesus from whence the light comes; which light leadeth to christ, where the treasure is hid, and where the life is hid from all the world yet, who are searching the scriptures, 1 john 4.5. and thinking in them to have eternal life; but ye will not come unto me that ye may have life, john 26.40. saith christ; i am the life, john 11.25. the way, and the truth, and our life is hid with christ in god, john 14.6. said the saints. therefore now all people, this is an invitation of love to all your souls, to turn in your minds to the light of christ within you, which is spiritual, holy, true, just and good, which will let you all see what your words are, your actings are (though done in secret) and what the thoughts and intents of your hearts are, it will try them all, and let you all see (your minds being truly turned to it) what is in your hearts and minds, and what your ways are now, and have been, and what your lives are, and how you have lived. now this i say, which lets you see these things, and reproves what is contrary to it, will let ye see whether ye are come to christ yea or nay; who is the way unto god, the truth, and the life; and the righteousness of god, from whence the light cometh; and so here every one of you will know judgement laid to the line, isa. 28.17. and righteousness to the plummet, and that which is lies and deceit, and hypocrisy, will be judged, and condemned in every particular, with the light, which is and will be the condemnation of the world, who love their evil deeds, evil ways, evil lives, evil thoughts and intents of their hearts, and evil words, rather than the light which doth reprove them: and therefore the way, the truth, and the life, which is christ, is hid from them; col. 2.3. and they know not him in whom the treasure of wisdom and knowledge is hid. now the light is that which doth reveal, and make manifest that which is hid, and hath been hid from the wise and prudent men of this world, col 1.26. and hath been hid from ages and generations past. but now is the truth plainly seen, and known, and declared, as it was in former ages (by them whom it was then manifested to, by the spirit of god) even by us (whom the world in soorns call quakers) who have believed in the light of christ, and received the manifestation of his spirit (which is light) which is freely given, and tendered unto all, and hath appeared unto all; but is not, neither hach been received by all. but as many as receiveth him, to them doth he give power to become the sons of god, even to as many as believe i● his name, who is the true light, and who is true, and faithful, and everlasting; the same to day, yesterday, and the same for evermore. and this we can declare forth freely unto the nations round about, which we have freely received of him, even of his spirit of truth, which was the promise of the father, to lead us into all truth, whereby we are come to know the leadings of the spirit; and know that we are the children of god, and taught of god; and led by his spirit, and this is it which doth comfort our hearts, and assure us that we are his children: and as many as are the sons of god, the same are led by the spirit of god; as the children of this world are led by the spirin that is of the world, which is of him who is called the god of the world; ephef. 2.3. whose work it is to blind the minds of people (as we were also at well as others) while we were in the vain conversation, and walked according to the course of this world, even the prince of the power of the air; that spirit which now worketh in all. the children of disobedience. and they may be easily known, for they are full of air, and talk of that which they possess not, of others conditions and not their own, and so have been in travel (as it were) but have brought forth nothing but wind; have a form of godliness, but want the power, and are talking of the spirit of god, but are led by the spirit of this world, and are disobedient to the manifestation of the spirit of god, which reproveth them for sin, and checks them secretly when they do evil. but all who receives it, and are obedient to it, they know the movings of the spirit, and the teachings and leadings of the spitit; and what it is to be borne of the spirir, and what it is to live in the spirit, and to walk in the spirit, and to mortify the deeds of the body by the spirit, and so to be quickened by the spirit; and what it is to be raised up from the dead (with christ) by his spirit dwelling in them; rom. 8.11. now if any man have not the spirit of christ, the same is none of his. therefore how can any of the priests, and teachers, and professors in the world confess christ come in the flesh, and know not the spirit which is of god, &c. who say they have not the same spirit that was in christ & the apostles, and saints, and say none have the same spirit now which they had? therefore i say truly they are not like to know that spirit, who are erred from it, nor confess christ come in the flesh, who are of another spirit, which not being the same, must needs be the spirit of this world (which is the spirit of antichrist) by which they cannot know the things of god; 1 cor. 2, 12, 13, 19 for none knows the things of god, saving the spirit of god; neither were they like to discern them, or demonstrate them by the spirit which they have not, but are erred from it; nor know the scriptures which were given forth by the spirit of god in the prophets, christ, and the apostles, but give their private interpretation of them, and meaning which they add to them, which is of no private interpretation; for the spirit of the lord was but one in all them that spoke them forth; and them who are in the same spirit and life now reads them, isa. 9.24. and knows them again as they were spoken, and knows the interpretation of them, which is not private, but public, and plain, and manifest; but all who are of another spirit, they are erred not knowing the scriptures, math. 2.29. nor the power of god (as christ said) and so they neither know that which hath been spoken by the spirit of god formerly, mark 2. 24. not what the same spirit speaketh expressly now, not what the scripture means where it is spoken plainly and expressly. ezek. 3. and truly it is no wonder now to see it so; 1 tim. 4.1. for people and their teachers are so far erred from the spirit by which the scriptures were spoken forth, that it is become a strange thing (which cannot be believed) even amongst all forts of professors who are called christians; for one to say he is moved by the spirit of the lord to speak, 2 pet. 1.20, 21. or to pray, or to do any thing else (as the servants of the lord were in former times) and this is become a scorn and derision amongst them, which is a shame to them, and doth plainly manifest what spirit they are of. now if they were children of god, or sons of god (who are led by the spirit of god, as some of th'one profess themselves to be) mark this diligently, then must they needs know the meaning of the spirit of god, and the leadings of it, otherwise it could not lead them and they not know it; and they would be in the spiritual feeling, and tasting, and savouring, and discerning of the things of god in themselves, and of the fruits of the spirit in others brought forth, and try all spirits with that, and know them, and love the good, and not mock and scoff at them. and so i say, than it would not be a strange thing unto them, if they themselves were come to know a motion, or leading by the spirit of god in themselves, which would manifest that they were the children of god, and sons of god; that they were of christ, who have his spirit, and are led by it, and so were true christians, and followers of christ; and this would be a true testimony to themselves, and to others; and then surely they, neither any of you would mock, or scoff, or scorn at any who can witness the same. but now the want of this hath caused your nakedness appear to your shame, and to the shame of all your blind guides whom ye have so long been following for teaching, who have caused you to err by their lies, otherwise they might have brought you to have known the truth before now, and to have reached you better manners, then to have scoffed at it, and at those who have declared it amongst you, and walk in it (whom you in scorn call quakers) and utter forth evil words, which corrupts the good manners; howsoever if it were so, that we were not in the truth, but in the error, and not moved by the spirit of the lord, as ye say, but erred from it; then we were but where ye are. now friends this i say, and testify in the lord, and know assuredly that my testimony is true, and god's witness in all your consciences shall bear witness to it to be true, and the scriptures of truth will bear witness to the same; that ye cannot say in truth (whom any of you do scoff, or scorn, or mock, or reproach any of us, or others) that ye are moved thereunto by the spirit of god, or led unto it by the spirit of god, or taught by the spirit of god to do so, or taught by the scriptures to do so, which the holy men of god spoke forth, which ye call your rule. neither can ye say, that scoffing, and scorning, and repsoaching, and persecuting is the fruits of the spirit of god. but on the contrary, it is the fruits of that spirit in you which lusteth to envy, james. 41.5. which is of the envious one, the enemy of all mankind, the devil, who was a liar, & a murderer from the beginning, & out of the truth. and so it is he that moves some to murder now, and some to accuse falsely, (for he is the accuser of the brethron) and he moves some to persecute, and to hate, and to cast into prisons now, (those that live in the truth, and bear witnessetoit) and he moves others to scoff, and scorn, and speak all manner of evil of them that are good now in these days, as he did of old; he it was that led cain to murder his brother abel who was a righteous man, and it was he who moved ishmaell to mock at isaac, who was the son of promise; and it was he (the devil) that moved the scribes and pharisees to say that christ had a devil, and that he cast out devils through belzebub, &c. and led them to persecute christ, and put him to death, and judas to betray him, and the high priests and the rest to spit upon him, and smite him, and crown him with thorns, and mock at him, and to say hail king of the jews, and to cry to have him crucified, and barrabas to be released, (who was a robber) now here are some of the fruits of that spirit which is not of god, nor of christ jesus, but is against god, and against christ jesus: and the scripture saith be not ye mockers, lest your bonds be made strong; and the scriptures speaks of some who mocked the messengers of god, and despised those whom he sent to warn them till his wrath broke out upon them to destroy them; now they that did so were not moved & led by the spirit of god, but by the evil spirit which is of the devil. therefore now all people try and examine yourselves, and see what spirit ye are of, and what spirit ye are led by, by the fruits which ye bring forth: for this i say, and know and testify, that there is no people upon the face of the earth, but they are either of the good spirit, or of the evil spirit; that is, they are either led by the spirit of god, or by the spirit of the devil; and this is that, which doth nearly concern all people to know which of these they are led by, chron. 6.16. which they may know by the fruits which they bring forth, isa. 6.22. for that is it which doth, and will make it manifest plainly, even as a tree doth manifest itself what it is, whether good or evil, by the fruit it brings forth, for the fruit doth come from the sap and virtue, (or as i may say, the spirit and life that is in the tree) which comes from the root of it, and ground in which it stands; math. 7.16, 17, 18, 19 now the scripture saith, a good tree bringeth forth good fruit, and again, if the root be holy, so are the branches, than the fruit is good, there is the good tree; but now if the root be rotten or corrupt, which stands in the cursed ground, than the branches will be rotten and corrupt, & the fruit will be evil, or none at all, and there is the corrupt tree, which is to be hewn down and cast into the fire, and burned, for it is good for nothing else; and there is the plant which must be plucked up, which christ saith, the father hath not planted, for its a degenerate plant. now people these parables are true, therefore learn to read them, and understand them with the light that christ jesus hath enlightened you withal, who spoke them forth unto the world, who is the gift of the father's love unto the world, whom he hath sent a light into the world, that all men through the light may believe, which they that did believe in him who is the light, he said unto them, joh. 1.9, 10. it was given to know the mystery of the kingdoms of god, math. 13.11. but unto the world who did not then believe in him, they were parables, and are so still to this day. now the light which christ jesus hath enlightened you withal is the gift of god to you, and the manifestation of his spirit which is given to you, titus 2.11. and his grace which hath appeared unto you all, (which brings salvation) therefore receive it, and believe in it, and be obedient to it, and so you will come to know the mysteries of the kingdom, rev. 3.7. and to understand all the parables which christ spoke to the world, & know the key of david which opens and none shuts, and shuts and noman opens; otherwise ye will all remame in the dark world still, which loves not the light, but doth choose darkness rather; and they will remain parables to you still, and ye will be shut up in the unbelief, and in the darkness, & the light will be your condemnation for ever. therefore in true love i exhort you all to consider, in time oh all ye people, professors and profane, that ye may escape that eternal condemnation and judgement which will come upon all the world of unbelievers, and ungodly men, who do not believe in the light of christ jesus, who is come a light into the world, but slight it, and hate it, (and say it is not sufficient to lead to christ, and to lead to salvation) which reproves you for sin, and for your evil deeds, that ye might be turned from sin and from the power of satan to god; otherwise your sins, and your evil deeds, which now ye love rather than the light which reproves them, will be sufficient to sink ye down into hell, and into the pit of perdition. i say now is the day of the lord's visitation of his grace and mercy and love to your souls, that he would not have any of you to perish, but all to come to the knowledge of his truth, which would surely save you, and set you free. every one therefore seriously to sit down and consider where ye have been, and what ye have been doing, and what ye are doing, and what ye have gotten, and what ye do possess of all that which ye have made profession of, and what assurance ye have of the health, and welfare, and salvarion of your souls; and what certain evidence and testimony ye have thereof in yourselves, and to yourselves; for that alone will stand you in stead, and be your comfort and stay in time of trouble, and in the hour of temptation, and when ye come to lie upon your deathbeds, when all things else will fail you, and yield ye no comfort nor help; nay your teachers whom ye have so long been following, cannot help you, nor comfort you, if ye have not the witness in yourselves, and testimony of god's spirit to bear witness with your spirits that ye are the children of god; all your profession will be nothing worth, which hath only stood in words and outside worships, and forms, without the power and life of that which ye have professed. therefore honestly consider in time, and turn in your minds to the light of christ jesus in all your consciences, which is god's witness in you all, which will either accuse or excuse you, and acquit, or condemn you in every thing that ye do, or word ye speak, or thought that ye think. if ye do turn your minds into it, and wait in it, by it you will come to see, and examine, and truly to search and try what is in your hearts and minds at all times, and so come to be acquainted therewith, and see what lodgeth there. otherwise ye will not know, nor be acquainted with your own hearts, which will then deceive you, for they are desperately wicked, and ye will not know that wickedness that is there, which is ready to join to any thing that is evil, and to be led into any error; but as ye do mind that of god within you, which will searh your hearts, and try your reins. and in this condition have people been, and are still in the world, and in all their professions there and worships, which stands in ourward observations, and carnal ordinances, and worships set up in men's wills, and practised in the world's spirit, which knows not god, nor the things of god, and are in their own wills, and led by that spirit. so their hearts & minds are drawn out into those things, to look at the things that are seen which are temporal, 2 cor. 4.16. which are of the world, from that which may be known of god, which is manifest in them, from the things which are not seen, which are eternal, and with which they should know the true, and living god, acts 17.23. whom they have for a long time been thus ignorantly worshipping, not knowing of him, though he was not far from every one of them, neither have they known the true worship of him, which is in the spirit, & in the truth, in which the true church stands and is gathered our of the world, and out of itsworships & ways and customs, which are corrupt, and are upholden by men's laws, made in their corrupt wills, whereby they have compelled people to their worships which is not true, but are all erred from the truth, and true worship, and true church which is in god the father of our lord jesus christ, the pillar and ground of truth, wherein they worship god in the spirit, and in the truth, and so have found the father, john 4. who is seeking such to worship him in this his day, which now is dawned after the long night of apostasy & darkness which hath been over all people, so that the whole earth hath been covered with darkness, and the veil hath been over all faces, and the whole earth been corrupted by the abominable worships that hath been therein in this time of darkness in the false church, which is the whore of babylon, the mother of harlots, and the abomination of the earth (gotten up in the room of the true church) with her false worships in imitation of the true worship, whereby all nations have been drunken with the cup of her fornications; rev. 17.2.18. and all the emperors, kings, princes and judges, 18.3.9. and rulers of the earth, 19 & 19 and they have all been making of laws to uphold her, and she hath ridden upon them, for they have been the beast which have carried her; rev. 13.4. and the beast and the false prophet (which receives their power from the dragon) have made war with the saints, 17. & 3. and overcome them; and their blood hath been shed by her, which hath cried, and doth cry unto the lord for vengeance, and the lord hath heard the cry of it. and he is now risen to take vengeance upon all them that dwell upon the earth, where the devil hath been their king, rev. 12.9. who is the dragon that old serpent, who was cast out into the earth; and now the time is come that he shall be bound and chained and cast into the pit, rev. 20.3. and the beast & the false prophet) with him, shall be taken alive and cast into the lake. and the lord god is come to judge the great whore (the false church) who hath set upon the kings of the earth, & made them drunk with her cup, and to render vengeance with fury upon her, and burn her with fire. and all her merchants shall cry woe and alack, who have been made rich with her merchandise: and the great city shall fall in which they have been trading; which is babylon the mother of them all; in what form, or profession, of show, or colour, or dress soever they have appeared; for the hour of her judgement is come, and strong is the lord that judgeth her. therefore woe, woe, from the lord will be unto all that seek to uphold her, and come 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of her! for all that drink of her cup, and partake with her in her s●●●, must be sure to partake of her plagues. and the decree of the lord is sealed, and gone forth against her, rev. 8.4. and the war is openly proclaimed against her, and the beast, and the false prophets who have gove forth to deceive. rev. 17.4. and the lamb is come forth, and his sword is drawn, and ho is riding on conguering and to conquer, and with him are his saints, who are called, and faithful, and chosen, who are made willing to follow him whither soever he goes. rev. 14.4. and the victory is determined, the lamb and the saints shall have the victory; and their weapons are not carnal, but spiritual: for with the sword of the spirit which proceeds out of the mouth of the lamb shall all his enemies be slain; and great shall be the day of slaughter of god's enemies, who have the beasts mark, or his name, or are of the number of his name; rev. 21.27. they shall all be slain both small and great; even all whose names are not written in the lamb's book of life, who was stain from the foundation of the world. and this the lord is now bringing to pass in this his day, zach. 4.6. not by might, nor by power, but by my spirit will i do this, saith the lord. and therefore blessed are all they who have an care to hear, and an eye open to see what the lord is doing, and a heart to understand, and receive his counsel, and to do his commandments, and his will, and to answer his requirings. written by a friend to all your souls, a lover of truth and righteousness, and a sufferer for the testimony of a good conscience towards god; who am called by the name of henry fell. written at thersord in norfolk the place of my imprisonment, the 5th month in the year 1660. the end. the falsehood of mr. william pryn's truth triumphing, in the antiquity of popish princes and parliaments. to which, he attributes a sole, sovereign, legislative, coercive power in all matters of religion; discovered to be full of absurdities, contradictions▪ sacrilege, and to make more in favour of rome and antichrist, than all the books and pamphlets which were ever published, whether by papal or episcopal prelates, or parisites, since the reformation. with twelve queries, eight whereof visit mr. pryn the second time, because they could not be satisfied at the first. printed in london, 1645. epist. dedicatory. to mr. william fryn of lincoln's inn, esquire. sir, i may safely appeal to whatsoever is of esteem and dear unto you, how i could much rather have bemoaned in private that perverse and implacable spirit of yours, had not you of late so inconsiderately bespattered so many pamphlets, which have infected the very air, far worse than any most malignant epidemical contagion, by having inherited the privilege to be cried up and down the streets and public places, instead of royal proclamations, to the great scandal of your most conscientious brethren, and suppressing truth both spiritual and civil, which had more than begun to shine out so gloriously, since the first assembling of this present parliament. you have done as much as in you lies to divide the independents from the parliament, by grudging them a peaceable abiding place in the land of their inheritance; and provoked our brethren of scotland by fixing or fastening upon christian emperors, kings, magistrates, parliaments, the undoubted legislative coercive power in all matters of religion, title page; and that even without the assistance or advice of synods; page 88 i do but advertise you thereof, though it be known so publicly, that aulicus took notice of it so long since: consider the high consequences thereof, and the mischief it may grow unto, unless prevented opportunely. both king and parliament pretend to have taken up arms to defend the protestant religion, etc. and yet fight one against another, no less, than both of them opposed it: the king wonders the parliament should entertain brownists and anabaptists to fight for the protestant religion; and the parliament marvels no less that the king should entertain papists to do the same: but may they not both alike wonder at each other in this particular? or rather, why should either of them at all wonder at such proceed, since the papists in matter of doctrine believe all which protestants believe; and both brownists and anabaptists hate popery and superstition as much as protestants? but if the protestant religion can be truly propagated by fight; surely both papists, brownists and anabaptists, even turks and very dogs may be brought and taught to fight for it, all alike; but when you have spent your spirits, and distilled away your brains, you will perceive at last if ever your eyes be open as i desire unfeignedly) that it is the most irrational and vn-gospel-like course under heaven, to employ the arm of flesh to work upon the spirit. take heed then what you say; or explain to us what you and your party mean, when you make the supreme civil magistrate to be custodem utriusque tabulae: tell us whether the great turk, emperor, kings of spain, france, poland, etc. be not lawful civil magistrates; how you can abridge them this prerogative of both tables, or quit their duty in taking charge of them, more than any prince or magistrate of christendom. did not paul tell timothy, and mr. pryn in him, that the time would come when men would not endure sound doctrine, but turn away their ears from the truth, heaping to themselves teachers after their own lusts, 2 tim. 12 3, 4, 5. what if mr. pryn were another timothy, or had the very spirit of the self same timothy, and could infallibly assure us that these were the times which paul then spoke of, and the independents those who were then foretold to have itching ears, and to be turned unto fables? may mr. pryn be more officious, or exceed the commission which was given unto timothy, himself? paul, and christ, whose apostle and minister paul was, gave timothy no other, than that in such a case he should be watchful in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, make full proof of his ministry, reprove, rebuke, exhort, with all long-suffering and doctrine, v. 2. consider, i beseech you, for the love of god and men, or your own sake, if you have any symptoms of respect to either; does the apostle, think you, there understand by reprove, rebuke, exhort, with all long-suffering and doctrine, that timothy should upbraid, reproach, defame such as but differed from him in some opinion only, as you have done to mr. john goodwin, and that not for turning away from, but for holding out such truths, as none in scripture are more evident, or may more warrantably, and that more easily too, be made good, next to the very scriptures themselves to any equal judge, and even to every man himself, who will not put out the eyes of his own reason and understanding, to be led blindefold and superstitiously by other men's, whereof we can have no other assurance than what is full popishly implicit? to do the work of an evangelist, to make full proof of his ministry, is it, think you, to become an informer of the civil magistrate? to provoke them unto wrath and rage against your brethren of the independent way? to become an accuser of them, a persecuter, a very executioner, (properties most eminently peculiar to the arch-enemy both of god, and any thing like godliness in any of his saints) as you have done most tragically to your eternal infamy, unless god in mercy work your bitterness of spirit into a more christian temper of mildness and humility? which till attained to, shall continually be the prayer of one, who, till you be such, or at least, less basilisk-like, must only rest, your friend in private. christian reader; i conceive it may not a little conduce towards the enlightening the presbyterian party, to see the whole catalogue of their errors, did they but once cast an eye upon the fierce clashings and diametrical contradictions, in which their most eminent champions would inconsiderately involve them: to which purpose, amongst many, i do here in the two next pages present thee with some few of them as in a lookingglass; peruse them impartially, and when thou findest that no distinctions, how sophistical soever, can possibly reconcile such contrarieties, be jealous and suspect the rest; free thy conscience from the thraldom and bondage of these egyptian spiritual taskmasters; disclaim the very countenancing such spirits, who care not what trash and trumperies they vent, so they may gain proselytes and contributions: let reason be thy guide, peace and truth thy aim; and the god of peace and truth, who requires no other than a reasonable service, will infallibly be both thy rewarder and reward itself: farewell. divines of the church of scotland, discipl. pag. 89. the nationall assemblies ought always to be received in their own liberty, and have their own place.— and all men, as well magistrates as inferiors, to be subject to the judgement of the same in ecclesiastical causes without any reclamation or appellation to any judge, civil or ecclesiastical within the realm. doctor adam stuart's second part of his duply to the two brethren, p. 30. the civil magistrate is subject in a spiritual way unto the church; he must learn god's will by the ministers of the church, who are gods ambassadors sent to him; he must be subject to ecclesiastical censures. mr. william pryn in the title page terms his truth triumphing over falsehood. a just and seasonable vindication of the undoubted ecclesiastical jurisdiction, right, legislative, coercive power of christian emperors, kings, magistrates, parliaments in all matters of religion, church-government, discipline, ceremonies, manners. author of the pamphlet, entitled, the readiness of the scots advance into england, 6. of november, 1643. the general assembly is subordinate to no civil judicature whatsoever, etc. apollonius considerate. quarund. controvers. etc. p. 108. particular churches as well as general assemblies have their authority immediately from god. mr. thomas edward's says in his antapologia, p. 163. junius, zanchius, amesius, etc. make the subject matter of political adminstration to be res humanae, humane things and matters; but of ecclesiastical, divine and sacred. page 166. is it that you do give a power to the magistrate in ecclesiastical things, of the ultimate determination of matters purely ecclesiastical, which the presbyterians principles do not, as in matters of doctrine scandal etc. and page 168. spiritual remedies and means must be used in the kingdom of christ, and by them christ doth his work. and hence in ecclesiastical discipline, and those scandals in the church, which are the point in hand; punishments in the body or in the purse, which can be by the power of the magistrate, have no place. divines of the church of scotland in a book called, a dispute against the english popish ceremonies obtruded upon the church of scotland, p. 150. it followeth that christ hath committed the power of judging, defining, and making laws about those matters, viz. which concern the worship of god, not to magistrates, but to the ministers of the church. calvin institut. l. 4. c. 11. sect. 16. since the church hath of its own any power of compelling, neither may require it (i speak of civil coercive power) it is the duty of pious kings and princes to uphold religion by their laws, edicts and judgements. junius controvers. 3. l. 3. c. 26. sect. 12. whereas some things are matters of conscience, and belong to the judicatory of heaven (that i may speak according to the canonists;) others humane and temporal appertaining to an earthly judicatory; in sacred, divine, and church affairs, the judgement is never lawfully committed unto the civil magistrate, no, not to the emperor himself, because holy things are of another kingdom and cognizance. six impossibilities which do necessarily accompany persecution for cause of conscience. 1 it is impossible that the gospel should come to be preached unto all nations, if men may be questioned for matters of conscience. 2 it is impossible that such as know but in part, should grow in knowledge or from one measure and degree of faith unto another. 3 it is impossible that in a rational way there should be a firm secure peace throughout the world, nay not in a province, city or town, so long as men make a point of conscience to compel one another to their opinions. 4 it is impossible to prescribe such a way for suppressing new or different opinions whatsoever, which to any state or church may seem heretical, but there will still be left a gap, a possibility of fight against god, even when such state or church think they fight for him most of all. 5 it is impossible that either the weak believers, misbelievers or unbelievers can be won by our godly conversation as is required, 1 pet. 2. 12. and 3. 1. 2. 1 cor. 7. 12. 16. so long as we will not suffer them to live amongst us. 6 it is impossible for a man to hold fast the truth, or be fully persuaded in his own heart of what he does, of what religion he makes choice of; unless after he hath searched the scriptures, and tried the spirits whether they be of god or no, it be lawful for him to reject that which shall appear to him as evil, and adhere to that which seems good in his own judgement and apprehension. the falsehood of mr. william prynn's truth triumphing, briefly discovered. sir: your title says, truth triumphing over falsehood, antiquity over novelty; you mean, i suppose, antic truth over novel falsehood; and the truth is, whoever considers your ensuing discourse, will find it to be antic truth, very antic; such as to the reformed world of christians would well near have quite been antiquated, and totally become ridiculous, had not such unskilful antiquaries as william prynne of lincoln's inn, esquire, taken so much unnecessary and thankless pains in gathering them up from dunghills, and by whole volumes and impressions to delude and cousin the unstable people of his party; the truth whereof, that himself and all others into whose hands this paper happens, may suddenly perceive; besides the several absurdities and contradictions, let them only take notice, that both the truth and antiquity he so much speaks and boasts of, are deduced only from the abominable precedents of superstitious popery; some whereof i shall particularly, and yet briefly mention, as i find them confusedly pestered amongst themselves, in the undigested rhapsody of his more vain discourse. but before i leave the specious title thereof, i desire all readers may observe how amongst others, you term it a vindication of the undoubted ecclesiastical jurisdiction legislative of christian emperors by scripture texts; as if amongst your antic readings you had discovered some newfoundland, wherein you would make your over credulous disciples think there had lived christian emperors before, or at the writing of the scriptures who verified your antic doctrine and assertions. this grand task, like a very atlas, you pretend to take upon you in refutation of mr. john goodwin, without so much as disturbing any of his arguments, or of the answers to your twelve questions, which, both your epistle and the latter part of your book take notice of; but because you cannot make a satisfactory reply, and yet are not so ingenuous as to acknowledge it and yield to truth, you traduce as malicious and full of virulency against presbytery and the scots, page 125. and worse than the popish gunpowder plot, epist. dedic. are not these powerful arguments able to confute the very apostles had they but been alleged in their days by such an irreconcilable and implacable spirit as is mr. prynn's (witness, besides others, his proceed against colonel fines?) surely your friends will think you have better in your budget, or be ashamed of you, when they have leisure but to consider of it. 'tis true, you complain that mr. rutherford's due rights of presbytery, mr. thomas edward's his antiapologia, and gulielmus apollonius, with the vallacrean ministers, were never answered. 'tis likely the independents do not desire to make, no nor be thought to have any difference with their scotch brethren, if possibly to be avoided; and you know the proverb says, the second blow makes the fray; and though you would not take notice of a completely fit and full answer to mr. edward's, and so much the more, because 'twas made by a mild, meek spirited servant of god, quite contrary to that of mr. edward's his; i hope mr. pryn will no longer say mr. edward's is not answered, now that mr. chidley hath so clearly and fairly foiled him the second time; and that you may see apollonius speaks no better latin for presbytery than you do english, please but to cast your eye upon cap. 3. p. 44, 45. in answer to the assemblies letters to the churches of zealand, where he says in substance, that the body of believers in general have not a power of governing and judging ecclesiastical matters by any spiritual jurisdiction; but that the presbyters themselves have received this power of ruling immediately from christ the king of the church: which, what ever he allege to prove it with, these gross absurdities, besides how many others, will plainly follow: 1. that all church officers have either intruded themselves into their offices, or else they must have been thrust in by some supernatural means; of the latter there is no evidence; of the former there is no allowance. 2. if the believers the brethren did not choose the officers, so neither might they turn them out. 3. then in such case it would be in the officers power to tyrannize even to the highest extent their own lust should lead them to, without any just authority on earth to question or restrain them; for if their presbytery, their officiating, their governing, ruling, be by divine right, and not the people's free choice; however they behave themselves in it, they cannot be turned out by the people. but how doth it appear that they have their office or eldership immediately from god? is it sufficient for them to say so? then may any other number of their brethren pretend the like. he alleadges 2. cor. 5. 20. now than we are ambassadors for christ as though god did beseech you by us: we pray you in christ's stead be ye reconciled to god: but may not so many tinkers use the very same text, and saying they are christ's ambassadors, thrust themselves over any congregation in the world if this be fair dealing? if there goes no more thereunto but confidence and laying claim, he that can justle hardest will doubtless get it, though simon magus could not carry it with money. but what kind of ambassadors did paul make himself and those primitive christians to be? what power did they take upon them? and how fare? they were christ's ambassadors; we know them by their entreating, mildness, gentleness and long-suffering, as in the same 2 cor. 5. 20. with rom. 15. 1. gal. 6. 1. 2. 1. pet. 5. 2. 2 tim. 4. 2. eph. 4. 2. but the prelatical presbytery, the pretended ambassadors of christ in these times, we know to be wolves that worry, starve or flay the very lambs of christ alive; and as if their cruelty were not satisfied with the destruction of their bodies, endeavour what they can, to put a yoke of bondage upon the very souls of their brethren, act. 20. from v. 28. to 31. matth. 20. 25, 26. 3 joh. 9 the other place produced is, 1 cor. 4. 1. let a man so account of us, as of the ministers of christ, and stewards of the mysteries of god; but the presbyters which we speak of, instead of taking upon them a ministry, lay claim unto a jurisdiction, dominion, a prelaty; instead of being stewards, they command, require, expecting lordly obedience and submission; they scorn to use entreating and beseeching, as paul the aged, 2 cor. 10. 1. 3. stet pro ratione voluntas is their motto, their symbol. thus we may see the texts produced to maintain the presbyterial government to be of divine right, make eminently against it; neither is it more evident in scripture, than from reason and experience, to wit, that what power the presbyters have and exercise, they have it from man, and not immediately from god, since the brethren do either explicitly or implicitly make choice of them, and might as well have chosen any other if they had pleased: church officers are no more immediately from god, than civil officers. the truth is, apollonius acknowledges the presbytery to be the representative church, but denies the means, without which i never yet knew it pretended so much as possible to be constituted: first, he says, multitudo fidelium in ecclesia potestatem regendi, & jurisdictione spirituali negotia ecclesiastica dijudicandi non habet jure dei, proinde eam senioribus & presbyteris delegare non potest: hoc sensu igitur representativam ecclesiam non agnoscimus. nec talem agnoscimus ecclesiam representativam quae à multitudine fidelium missa, absolutam potestatem per leges & jurisdictiones actus suos obligandi multitudinem ejus fidem & conscientias subjiciendi; ita ut absque examine ut laudatum susciperet quicquid ab hac ecclesia statutum foret. at ecclesiam representativam hanc ex sacris literis agnoscimus, quae est caetus presbyterorum à multitudine ecclesiae electus, qui authoritate & jurisdictione ecclesiasticâ à christo accepta ecclesiae praeest & invigilat, & decretis secundum sacram scripturam factis & jurisdictione spirituali eam regit: which in effect is thus: first, that believers in general have no power to judge concerning church affairs, therefore they cannot give or derive unto the presbyters what they themselves never had; and secondly, that the laws of country are not sufficient to authorize believers for choosing church commissioners, who may afterwards oblige them and their consciences by whatsoever decrees shall be by them agreed upon without examining it themselves; but says he, a representative church is an assembly of presbyters chosen by the multitude, who having received ecclesiastical authority and jurisdiction from christ, do watch over the church, and govern it according to the scripture. to him therefore, or mr. pryn that quotes him, i should desire to make these following queries. the truth is, apollonius acknowledges the presbytery to be the representative church, but denies the means, without which i never yet knew it pretended so much as possible to be constituted: first, he says, multitudo fidelium in ecclesia potestatem regendi, & jurisdictione spirituali negotia ecclesiastica dijudicandi non habet jure dei, proinde eam senioribus & presbyteris delegare non potest: hoc sensu igitur representativam ecclesiam non agnoscimus. nec talem agnoscimus ecclesiam representativam quae à multitudine fidelium missa, absolutam potestatem per leges & jurisdictiones actus suos obligandi multitudinem ejus fidem & conscientias subjiciendi; ita ut absque examine ut laudatum susciperet quicquid ab hac ecclesia statutum foret. at ecclesiam representativam hanc ex sacris literis agnoscimus, quae est caetus presbyterorum à multitudine ecclesiae electus, qui authoritate & jurisdictione ecclesiasticâ à christo accepta ecclesiae praeest & invigilat, & decretis secundum sacram scripturam factis & jurisdictione spirituali eam regit: which in effect is thus: first, that believers in general have no power to judge concerning church affairs, therefore they cannot give or derive unto the presbyters what they themselves never had; and secondly, that the laws of country are not sufficient to authorize believers for choosing church commissioners, who may afterwards oblige them and their consciences by whatsoever decrees shall be by them agreed upon without examining it themselves; but says he, a representative church is an assembly of presbyters chosen by the multitude, who having received ecclesiastical authority and jurisdiction from christ, do watch over the church, and govern it according to the scripture. to him therefore, or mr. pryn that quotes him, i should desire to make these following queries. at what time do the presbyters receive their church power from christ? by what means and mediation? whether before they be chosen presbyters or afterwards? if before; whether did this power lie idle in them till they became presbyters? and might it not possibly have continued so all their life time, if they had never been chosen presbyters, or are they predestinated to be chosen, when christ has once made a deed of gift unto them of some considerable proportion of spiritual power? but if we see they cannot exercise any spiritual power until they be chosen presbyters, and that we might have chosen others as well as they; do you think the people will ever be brought to think they have any other jurisdiction than what they give, and suffer them to enjoy? whether do the presbyters ever part from their spiritual power after they have once received it? and how come they to lose possession and the exercise thereof ever after? surely if these queries be well answered, all the power the presbyters have, besides what the people derive unto them, will be one of the strongest fantastical delusions and chimeras which ever yet was heard of. but because you make so much of apollonius, since he is upon the stage, if the indifferent reader please to run over these few following passages, he will not only find him contradict himself, but mr. pryn also in the very title and whole subject matter of his book: mr. pryn throughout this volume of his affirms and endeavours to prove, that, princes and parliaments have the sole sovereign and legislative power in all matters of religion both for discipline and doctrine. on the contrary apollonius says it is in ecclesiastical assemblies and synods in these words, c. 6. p. 107. competit ex jure dei ecclesiis in classibus & synodis junctis, potestas canones legesque ecclesiasticas ferendi, quae omnes ecclesias particulares unius provinciae aut regni constringunt ad obedientiam: which is in effect, that, ecclesiastical assemblies, synods, have by divine right a power of making canons and ecclesiastical laws which do bind unto obedience all the particular churches of a province or kingdom, (he may as well say of all the world:) and p. 109. he tells us that, that union and communion of particular churches in ecclesiastical discipline and government common to them all, which is exercised in synods and classes, is of divine right, and proposed to us in the example of the apostolical church, for imitation. thus is apollonius point blank in opposition to mr. pryn; neither is he at better agreement with himself, for p. 108. he says, the power of synods doth not take away or disturb the ecclesiastical power and liberty of particular churches; but serves to direct, conserve and promote their ecclesiastical power and liberty, that they may become more efficacious, powerful and fit to edify; and yet p. 144. he says; classibus & synodis competit authoritativa quaedam inspectio, & judicium non tantum discretionis sed & jurisdictionis & approbationis in excommunicationibus à particularibus ecclesiis peragendis; ita ut nulla ecclesia particularis quae communionem suam ecclesiasticam cum aliis ecclesiis in synodis & classibus colit, aliquod suae communionis membrum excommunicare, & sathanae tradere legitimè possit absque classis aut synodi authoritativo judicio & approbatione: that is, there is due to classes and synods a certain authorative inspection and judgement, not only of discretion, but also of jurisdiction and approbation in excommunications to be passed by particular churches; so that no particular church which keeps ecclesiastical fellowship with other churches assembled in a synod may lawfully excommunicate or deliver up to satan any of their members, without the authoritative judgement and approbation of the synod; and to mend the matter he yet tells us, p. 108. that the power which particular churches have, is granted them immediately from ●od, not derived unto them by synods; as also, that the power of synods is granted them immediately from god, not derived to them from particular churches: which is as much as if he had said, that each of them must be independent and absolute of itself; and yet one must submit unto the other; contradiction upon contradiction, or else i understand it not. but to return again to mr. pryn himself; who would think that any one who had but the head-piece of a man, much less one that takes upon him to be a champion, should be so miserably transported with vainglory as thus to play the bragadocio, and fill the world with books and pamphlets as if he had got the victory, or spoken somewhat to the purpose, when yet it may appear upon due search of an indifferent judge, that neither in the whole catalogue of his books which was lately printed, nor in whatsoever came since to light, will there be found so much as one leaf truly worth reading, or any whit availing him in this controversy which he (not without recanting in his own heart i believe by this time, to see he thrives no better in it) hath undertaken against the independents; remaining still so shameless, that not being able to conceal, or any longer to uphold his vain undertaking, flies unto the high court of parliament, endeavouring to exasperate their power against such, whose prayers and contributions, in likelihood, have been the only, or chiefest means to keep him thus long alive? but alas, what can we expect of this volume of civill-common-law-divinity of yours, when you acknowledge it to be distracted subitane collections, indigested nocturnal lucubrations (you may like enough say dreams) borrowed from the hours allotted to your necessary natural rest, epist. dedic. one would have thought the answerer of your subitane apprehensions digested into 12 considerable serious questions, when you confessed, you had neither leisure nor opportunity, had given you a seasonable and sufficient item, not to trouble the world with such trash again; and yet you are not ashamed to say you published them principally for satisfaction of the learned, and such as most seduce the ignorant; when doubtless such learning as this of yours, is good for nothing else but to seduce the ignorant, who more admire a margin full of rusty antic authors, than whole leaves and chapters of arguments and sound reason; and according to your own arguing you do hereby as you think, with your indigested readings of superstitious popish writers, enable such, as you call learned, still farther to seduce the ignorant. you tell the parliament in your epistle dedicatory, that having had the honour of vindicating their sovereign power in all civil and military affairs, you expected a quietus est from all other coutroversies concerning the jurisdiction of parliaments especially in ecclesiastical matters: surely you might have said with as much truth and reason, that having vindicated the sovereign power of the roman emperors, suppose the persecuting nero, domitian, trajan, or who else lived in any of the apostles or primitive times, you had likewise vindicated their legislative power in matters of christianity, about propagating the gospel, etc. justifying them in putting to death our saviour, and so many of his saints: the just rights and power of magistrates, are to all magistrates alike; all one, whether they be christian or pagan: their power is given them as magistrates, not as christians; and the subjection which we were commanded in the gospel, matth. 22. 21. rom. 13. 1. 1 pet. 2. 12. 13. to render them, was as to heathen magistrates, since at that time there were no other. but why tro do you say, how most men imagined that controversies about the parliaments jurisdiction in ecclesiastical matters had been put to eternal silence, when our lordly prelates lost their votes and session in parliament by a public law? did you not intent that presbyters should succeed bishops? or did you think them to be less lordly than their reverend fathers from whom they spring? surely you show yourself very ignorant of the presbyterians pretences, or endeavour much to conceal them. methinks you might have seen a pamphlet entitled the readiness of the scots advance into england, wherein, besides others, is a letter bearing date the 6 of november, 1643. from edinburgh, upon occasion as it relates of certain propositions made by the french agent unto the privy council there, which says, the general assembly is subordinate to no civil judicature whatsoever, etc. and because i find mr. pryn so captious, and apt to seek subterfugies; lest he should cast this off as the bare assertion of some anonimous, he may, if he please, find not a little to the same purpose in a. steward's observations and annotations upon the apologetical narration, in these words; the civil magistrate arrogates not unto himself (not so much as) any directive power in matters of religion, p. 5. the civil magistrate arrogates no spiritual authority to himself, p. 48. the parliament indeed is the supreme judicature, severe tribunal, the most sacred refuge, etc. in civil causes, but it pretends no directive power in matters of religion, by teaching, or preaching, or judging of controversies of religion, nor any executive power that is intrinsecall to the church, as in the vocation, deposition, and suspension of ministers, etc. which are merely spiritual, p. 6. if your meaning be that the parliament should judge between the independents and presbyterians, you go against the parliaments intentions, ibid. and lastly. for intrinsecall spiritual power, it is not in your power to grant the civil magistrate any at all; neither can you give him more spiritual obedience than scripture permitteth you, or give him a part of the spiritual power which you have received of god: it is only in god who can give power therein to any man, we dare not be so bold, p. 28. all this the answerer of your 12 considerable questions, as you called them, auvertised you of in p. 26. and for apollonius whom you so much glory in, as i told you a little before, he says that both particular churches, as well as general assemblies have their authority immediately from god, p. 108. which diametrical variance amongst these presbyterian champions, doubtless must needs be ominous, and presage no less than ruin, so much more speedier as they protract the reconciling them: in which respect if mr. pryn would be so good for the gospel's sake, as to give the independents rest, and take a. s. with apollonius to task; who knows but that they may do some good upon one another? i am sure it were not more than needful, each of their fancies abounding with excrescencies, which they might much advantage each other in cutting off. but what availeth it to have the head of one lordly episcopal prelate cut off, when a hydra, a multitude, above 77 times as many presbyterial prelates succeed instead thereof? prelatia, prelaty, prelacy, as we use it vulgarly, is a preferring one before another; and the presbyterial government is much more truly said to be prelatical, than either episcopal or papal; unless you will say that neither episcopal nor papal be prelatical at all; for in either of those governments there are but few prelates; but in the other there are many; to wit, so many prelates as there are presbyters, each whereof is an absolute prelate, that is one preferred above his brethren. you speak of the defunct prelates souls transmigrated into the independents, acknowledging them for the most part really cordial in their affections, actions to the parliament and church of england, for which, and for their piety, you say, they are to be highly honoured: but me thinks this amounts to little less than contradiction; can the earthly tabernacles of independents, with the defunct prelates souls in them make men of piety, cordial in their affections, actions to the parliament, and church of england highly to be honoured? i wish mr. pryn would tell me whether it were the prelatical souls, or their earthly tabernacles for whose sake he casts this grand elogium on them: doubtless the soul must have pre-eminence of the body, unless your mind be altered, and hold the immortality of the soul, which you seemed to discountenance in your 12 inconsiderable serious questions, p. 7. but if independents having prelatical souls in their earthly tabernacles are for the most part men of piety highly to be honoured; why should not the prelates be so too? the truth is, i cannot deny but mr. pryn was once by more than a many and they godly too, held to be a man of piety, and was highly honoured; in whose books and pamphlets, notwithstanding, which have been published of late, may be observed, more corrupted principles, and a far worse spirit of persecution, than ever was discovered in the late delinquent decapilated archbishop, from his first ascending unto his highest growth of authority and greatness; and in the diary of his life, which i suppose mr. pryn printed not to do him honour (though after ages will not be tied to be no wiser than mr. pryn) i find such eminent signs of a moral noble pious mind, according to such weak principles as he had been bred up in, (his own persecuting disposition disabling him from being instructed better;) and particularly so ingenuous a passage in his funeral sermon whereby he justifies the parliament in putting him to death, as i may safely profess unto all the world, i never could yet discern any thing near of like piety or ingenuity to be in mr. pryn, by all that ever i yet heard of him from first to last, or by all the books of his which ever came to may hands, wherein yet i have hitherto done him the honour in being at charges to buy as many, i mean one of every sort, as i could ever meet withal. but i wish seriously that both presbyterial prelates, and all others now surviving, who are any ways possessed with this unruly spirit, this legion of persecution, would, even for their own sakes, not so suddenly forget the little late arch-prelate, though his head be off; since for my part, through some small knowledge and experience of him both in his life and death, i am fully satisfied, that his endeavouring to subvert the fundamental laws of the kingdom, and introducing another religion, for which he was charged, and suffered death, arose only from that depraved principle of enduring no body of any other religion or opinion but his own: i hope both mr. pryn and others of the same allay may think it worth revolving in their saddest thoughts: persecuters are worse than birds and beasts of rapine amongst the rest, whom even nature teaches to associate and join together against this common and most pestilent of all enemies: bears and lions are not so hurtful in a country, as a misguided zeal grown furious, is torrent like, and carries all before it: such whose religion teaches to persecute, or but prevails upon to make use of civil coercive means for differences of religion of opinion, will easily be carried on from one degree unto another, until their ends be compassed, whether by fire or water, gun-powder-plots, or maritime invasions; nothing comes amiss to them whom religion once innitiates with the cruelties of compelling consciences. 'tis worth observing, how whilst the truth constrained mr. pryn to acknowledge the independents piety, with their real and cordial affections and actions unto the parliament and church of england in his epistle to the parliament, he tells them only that they are justly to be blamed as great disturbers of our public peace and unity (the better to amuse them) whilst in his other pamphlets and this farraginous hotchpotch of obsolet, antic popish histories and precedents, for the most part, which perhaps he thinks few or none of them will vouchsafe to read through, he seeks to captivate and poison the people's understanding into an evil conception of the independents, and so incense them, whilst he himself exclaims, traduces, and persecutes them, unto his power, with fire and faggot, merely for nothing but because they sue and seek for, in all humility and meekness, a possibility of keeping a good conscience both towards god and man; this is all they desire as touching ecclesiastical matters; let mr. pryn, who thinks himself to have deserved so well of parliaments, become their advocate, procure but thus much for them, and take the rest for his fees. he flourishes, and cries out against the arminians of the netherlands about ascribing, at the first, unto the civil magistrate, a power of passing ultimate judgements in all controversies of faith and other ecclesiastical matters arising in the church; and afterwards contracting or denying such a power belonging to the civil magistrate: might he not even as well, nay much better blame former parliaments of england for first acknowledging the pope head of the english church, and afterwards renouncing of the pope (much against his holiness his good liking no doubt) to choose henry 8. in his stead? and if henry 8. then but a papist were a fit head of the church; queen elizabeth was no less: (though the papists cry out of a female head of the church of england, as much as protestants of a female pope of rome) and then surely king charles must have succeeded in this headship of the church of england, and here i desire to leave him, and yet to find him here rather than a presbyterian synodall head, until mr. pryn resolve me what it is to be head of the english church; what his power and authority is over the church's body; whether the body may or can do any thing without the head: and whether any, or what power one member or part of the body hath over another: but before you put pen to paper, or your paper to the press at least, that you will remember how king charles the only supreme head of the english church according to the oath of supremacy, is now at oxford, with such, and so great a part of the english nationall church, which if they should call another assemby of divines would likely pass judgement in sundry points of faith and other ecclesiastical matters, quite contrary to the parliament and divines at westminster. page 29. of your discourse you quote a passage out of the last convocation canons that had the &c. in the tail, which you approve of, saying; the power to call and dissolve counsels both nationall and provincial is the true right of all christian kings within their own realms or territories: now if this be so; to what purpose do the assembly of divines at westminster spend time in sitting there? why should the commonwealth be at 4s. a day charges for each of them? why do they not repair unto their flocks? where will king charles his writ appear for summoning them? and for want thereof, will not all the pains they take be lost? might not therefore the disturbance and offence they give their independent brethren have well been spared? are not both houses of parliament tacitly aspersed by mr. pryn for causing them thus to assemble without king charles his writ, and so against his true rights and prerogative royal? and lastly, if this be not an absolute making void and null, whatsoever the assembly shall conclude on, or the parliament establish by their advice, besides a justifying of the independents for not submitting thereunto, let mr. pryn himself upon review be judge: for certainly it will seem strange to every body else, how mr. pryn producing, besides others, in page 25, 26, 27, 28, 29. no less than four of king charles his letters, only to prove the due right of christian princes for calling such assemblies, can any ways make legal the present sitting of the divines at westminster; or how he can make atonement for himself to give occasion that both their assembling and whole proceed may thus be called in question. but p. 88 you bring in a parenthesis (which doubtless the assembly will think had far better been left out) that the assent of the clergy is only by way of assistance and advice, not simply necessary to the parliaments determining what is heresy; however, for my part, i do not much dissent with you therein; and if the assembly did like as well thereof, should think it might somewhat qualify their over forward and eager appetites, which else might too likely lead them to declare those ways heretical, after which paul was not ashamed to say he worshipped the god of his fathers, act. 24. 14. but may not both kings and parliaments reprove you (like an unlucky cow, who having given great quantity of milk kicks it down with her foot) for contradicting yourself, and plundering them so speedily of all ecclesiastical power which before in a good mood you cast upon them so liberally without allowance, saying p. 141. that there is the self same reason and equity for several combined churches in a council, synod, presbytery to have a coercive power over every particular congregation in their limits, as for any particular congregation to claim or exercise a jurisdiction in point of direction or correction, over any or every particular member of it. this assertion, i conceive, is yet more prodigious than all your popish precedents with which you ever were acquainted, and i believe that never any body hereafter will so much as acknowledge you in this opinion: whereas the title of your book and whole discourse in general ascribe all power and authority unto the civil magistrate both in civil and ecclesiastical matters; this passage gives the same unto a synod, even a coercive, that is, all power and authority, and that both in civil and ecclesiastical matters, provided they do but colour and call them ecclesiastical, for nothing of coercive can be otherwise than civil properly: if you excuse yourself by saying you meant a synod ratified by authority of parliament; i answer, that you must mean a synod so ratified by authority of parliament, as some presbyterians of scotland mean when they expect that parliaments must do it ex officio, whether they be willing or unwilling; and if your meaning had been otherwise, you might have brought your comparison between a parliament and particular congregations, not a synod; besides that, the power of direction, which you acknowledge to be in every particular congregation towards any or every member thereof, i do not find to be granted them, or so much as meddled with by authority of parliament; so likewise, if you will have it any ways hold parallel, you must mean the synods canons so confirmed by authority of parliament, as that the parliaments confirmation must still wait upon and follow the synods beck and requisition. that part of the statute 37. h. 8. c. 17. which you bring to establish the king head of the church, says, that by holy scripture all authority and power is wholly given to him to hear and determine all manner of causes ecclesiastical, and to correct all vice and sin whatsoever, and such persons as his majesty shall appoint thereunto: so that whereas a negative voice which hath been, and is still the great controversy betwixt the king and parliament in civil matters only; this statute 37. h. 8. c. 17. with mr. pryn's opinion and consequences thereupon, do freely grant the king in all spiritual causes and affairs: surely if all englishmen did agree with mr. pryn in this particular; the king might like enough be willing for the present to part from his negative voice in civil matters, in full assurance of regaining it in recompense of pardons and dispensations, which he might grant by virtue of his headship of the church, with the sole authority of correcting all vice and sin, and final determining all causes ecclesiastical. the truth is, that christian kings and princes have de facto done much with civil censures in maintenance of religion, whether right or wrong, established by law: but the point is, what they did, or might do lawfully, de jure: whence is their power derived? surely the power of princes pretending to the name of christian, whether papists, lutherans, calvinists, brownists or anabaptists, and even of turkish and pagan princes is all alike: so that whatsoever power the best reformed princes can justly assume unto themselves in ecclesiastical affairs; even popish kings and the great turk may fully pretend and act as much in and about the churches within their territories, and neither of them be more disobeyed or resisted than the other: the power is given to them as magistrates and princes, not as christians; otherwise they might be deposed at any time if they became antichristian, which is exploded for a popish doctrine. but as artaxerxes did not make that decree for building of the temple out of love or conscience unto the god of ezra, ezra 7. from v. 21. to 26. so can it not be concluded from kings and magistrates interposing their civil power about matters merely ecclesiastical, that therefore they might and did do it by full authority from god; since by the self same manner of arguing, it would follow that popery were the truest religion, because most christian princes, as they are called, have established popery. but it may have been observed, how princes and magistrates in all ages who have had the sword of justice in their keeping, have for the most part been kept in an ignorant and superstitious overawfulnesse by the clergy of those times, who still for their own private ends, prevailed with them to countenance and enforce their constitutions by coercive means upon the people; by which device of theirs, both prince and people became so entangled and ensnared to them by degrees; that if either of them afterwards sought to withdraw themselves forth from this bondage, they still found such a party of the other, as was able to curb and bring them again into subjection of holy church; as they pretended, though never so popish or otherwise corrupt; and this series of corrupted and corrupting precedents with their tyrannical dominion over men's faith and consciences, which the apostle paul disclaimed, 2 cor. 1. 24. mr. pryn produces as orthodox, requiring it should be established after the manner of medes and persians irrevocable, and made very scripture of; ascribing by this antic rabble of quotations as great a power unto the civil magistrate in spiritual matters as ever any pope of rome assumed unto himself. but if the civil magistrate must be masters of our faith, determining all controversies in church affairs; why, i pray, was mr. pryn so refractory to the bishops who then were authorised by the civil magistrate of the united kingdom, which now to the universal grief, is so mortally divided? these are hard questions i confess; but mr. pryn will get the more glory when he knows how to answer them. if the arminians upon the improving of their studies about their other controversies, or the civil magistrates bade employing a power ascribed, but not due to them, saw their error and amended; must they be upbraided? i would be loath that mr. pryn should want of such encouragements of providence and mercy, lest it might hinder his repentance of what, i fear me, he is too highly guilty; god is contented to toll us to him and to his truth, even with variety of enticements and provocations: frail mankind is dull and stupid; no less than god's infinite wisdom together with his unmeasurable bounty will serve to animate and raise us up to new discoveries of knowledge and obedience. take this then for your learning, that whosoever attributes to any man or magistrate, a power of imposing any thing upon the consciences of others in matters of religion, do justify them in whatsoever they impose, though it be erroneous, so they impose according to their own judgements and understandings, condemning the other for not submitting, though it be unto erroneous impositions: for if the one may impose, his own reason must teach him what he may impose; and if he have just authority to impose, the other is obliged in conscience to obey; and so by consequence, should be engaged to submit implicitly to whatsoever superstitious ceremonies and worship were put upon him. in your epistle to the reader, you say the independents may upon the same grounds deny the catholic church, an article of the creed, upon which they deny a nationall church; as though so many more particular churches might not as well make one catholic, as several, but yet so many fewer nationall churches; or as though particular christians who lived straggling in turkey or any pagan countries where they could not possibly be members of a nationall church, could not possibly be members of the catholic church. you accuse the independents as believing most things with a reserve, according to their present light, with a liberty of changing as new light shall be discovered to them: but did ever any man so overshoot himself? certainly this is so high a character of the independents compleatest posture ensuring or growing stature in the school of christ, as could be applied unto them, wherein they glory not a little, and place it as the only groundwork and foundation, without which they cannot grow in grace from one degree of faith unto another, until they become perfect men, perfect saints, unto the measure of the stature of the fullness of christ, eph. 4. 12, 13. and yet your law-divinity knows no better, than to say, this is in truth to bring a skepticisme into religion. and whereas you say their principles dissolve all relations, all subordinations, and humane society itself: i answer, that this is even as if you should affirm a turk not to be a man, unless he will be a christian, unless he will be a member of some nationall church; nay, of every nationall church, since his not being of any one is all alike prejudicial or damageable: but they are the presbyterial and such other prelatical tenets which destroy, and expressly murder all humane society, in avouching as william pryn with his ense recidendum, and a. stewart, does, that says whosoever is cut off or cast out of the church, must likewise be cast out, and cut off from the civil state, p. 166. in 2. part of his duply, etc. sir, i confess i have spent more time and paper about your epistles than i intended, which if you and the reader will but excuse, i shall endeavour to make you amends in part by troubling you the less with your rusty, musty rubbish of popish times and precedents. page 1. your first proposition is, that the calling of synods or assemblies about church matters belongs not to bishops, ministers, nor private or particular congregations; but to princes or supreme temporal magistrates and powers; so that if the magistrate be turkish under whose jurisdiction live many protestant greeks, i mean such as disavow the pope with the greatest part of his unsound doctrine; if he be popish as the emperor of germany, with the kings of france and polonia, in whose territories inhabit millions of protestants, all which protestants must never meet together in synods and assemblies about church affairs, because those emperors and kings are never likely to summon synods for them, or put them in mind to do it themselves. you still quote multitudes of texts to prove your propositions with, in hopes perhaps that if one fail you another may do the deed; but you happen to be so successelesse therein, as if you used still to press the scriptures which came first to hand, ranking them in your margin whether they would or no; which 'tis true, has stood you in stead no more, than a forced militia does the king or parliament; & yet doubtless, that god with whom the word was from the beginning, and who is the very word, joh. 1. 1. will not approve that his blessed word should be made use 〈◊〉 and employed so vainly, impertinently, preposterously, rashly, and irreverently: wherefore i would gladly advise mr. pryn for the future, to insert the very words themselves of every text he quotes, in hopes that if he do but once read them over by himself, he will find they make nothing to the purpose, and so have ingenuity enough to leave them out. after you have done belying sacred scripture, you fly for assistance unto profane, and from thence tell us by whose authority the first general counsels were convocated; which proves nothing else, but that whether it be king or parliament that have the strongest sword, or shall prevail and get the better over the other in this civil war; the assembly of divines now at westminster must sit no longer, not any of their coat ever meet again above two in company, unless the present ruling party please, lest they be termed a conventicle, and fall into a pramunire. but by what authority trow did the pretended synod of jerusalem assemble? act. 15. what kings or parliaments writs, or letters-patents had they for so doing? what court countenance did they procure to second their proceed? for my part, i had rather follow such a precedent, and err with them, if you will needs esteem it such; than degenerate with the weaker christians of after ages, in supplicating of powers and princes in such a manner, whereby they should be moved to think i granted them such a power, as god never gave them, or confirmed them in, supposing they had a just liberty of denying, what through want perhaps of christian courage only, or the civil powers protection, i durst not put in practice without their order and commission. page 4. i am glad to find you acknowledging a passage of the bishop's letters, wherein they return thanks to valentinian and theodosius for assembling the council of illyria, which says, nemo deesset volens; nemo cog●tur invitus; that no bishop might be absent who was desirous to be there, and none compelled who were unwilling to be present; from whence follows an irrefragable consequence, that their counsels, decrees or canons, did not bind all people universally, but only such as of their own accords submitted thereunto: if mr. pryn will but procure the same just privilege for his independent brethren, they will have the less occasion of exceptions, if he domineer over the volunteers of the presbyterian party. page 87. you say, the statutes in q. mary's days repealing divers acts touching religion in k. edward 6. his reign, and setting up mass and the old [popish] liturgies again, do sufficiently evidence the jurisdiction of our princes and parliaments in matters of the church and religion; which is in effect; first, that this present parliament, or any other hereafter have a jurisdiction to set up popery again, and so judaisme or turkism, even what they please; for all parliaments have equal power: and secondly, that if they do set up popery, judaisme or turkism, that then all england must submit thereunto, and consequently become papists, jews and turks (or hypocrites which is more worse then either:) for whatsoever a magistrate, especially the supreme, has jurisdiction in, that, he may justly and lawfully put in execution; and that, the people may not disobey, upon pain of sinning, and danger of damnation, rom 13. 2. but under what colour and pretence than did mr. pryn refuse subjection unto church government by episcopacy, and according to the common-prayer-book? do not take it ill that i spur the question so soon unto you again; i may ask it ofttimes, before you will be able to answer once, without condemning yourself according to your principles and laws, by which you proyoke justice against the independents. were not episcopacy and the common-prayer-book established by act of parliament, which had as great a power than as this present parliament has now, or any other can have hereafter? nay, you say expressly, p. 88 that the statute, 1 eliz. chap. 2. for uniformity of common-prayer and service in the church, and administration of the sacraments, enjoining conformity under temporal and ecclesiastical punishments is an irrefragable proof of the parliaments power in all church matters: what was it tro, that then encouraged you to withstand the jurisdiction of parliaments when they agreed not with your own humour and disposition, which you now press so violently upon the tender consciences of your independent brethren? can there appear any other clearer reason for it, to the apprehension of standers by, moderate men even of mr. pryn's best friends, or any that have their wits about them; than that mr. pryn having suffered (for christ's cause as he thought, to think more charitably of him than he doth of others) upon false principles, grew weary of it, and resolved that as the bishops domineered and persecuted him; so he would repair himself by persecuting others? but did the only wise god, think we, resolve to create man after his own image, to estate him in such a sad and execrable condition, worse than that of beasts, wolves, bears, and tigers; as that he must necessarily tyrannize, or be tyrannised over both in soul & body? and yet it cannot possibly be otherwise, if you will grant a power to kings, parliaments or synods to require conformity from others in any thing which is not agreeable to their consciences; for if such a latitude and height of jurisdiction be granted but to the more orthodox kings, parliaments and synods; both papists, lutherans, calvinists and independents, pretending and really taking themselves to be the most orthodox, are bound in conscience to lay claim to, and put in execution this power of compelling all the world unto their uniformity; and so infallibly produce the most cursed enmity and hatred betwixt all people but differing in opinion, exceeding that of cannibals; or the profoundest of antipathies between any irrational creatures whatsoever; and therefore you are mightily mistaken p. 96. to be so confident that independents would preach universal obedience and subjection under penalties ecclesiastical and civil, if the parliament should establish an independent government, which are clearly incompatible, and contradictory to themselves and principles; the ignorance whereof, though to some it may seem as slight, as easily apprehended by a willing and enquiring spirit, i persuade myself, hath not only transported mr. pryn himself, but many others into multitudes of impertinencies and absurdities. oh that mr. pryn therefore, or any one of the presbyterian way, who wishes well to godliness, would but please to cast an eye upon john the baptist, chap. 10. and considerately give their opinion, whether to be persecuted be not even the most infallible mark of the true church and saints of christ; notwithstanding most christians thus persecute one another. page 94. and 109. you say the opposites to parliaments ecclesiastical jurisdiction have formerly and more especially in this present parliament, addressed several petitions to this high and honourable court for reformation of the church, etc. wherein, under favour, i conceive you have misapprehended their proceed and intentions, which doubtless were for the most part, or best affected, that the parliament, in whom they acknowledged the sovereign power to reside, would permit, countenance and encourage all godly men of gifts in preaching down heresies, errors, idolatry, popery, etc. many whereof had either been formerly established by law, or not permitted to be preached down through the prelate's corruption contrary to the law. this is the best, even all the reformation, which the civil magistrate, as civil, has a capacity of compassing against all heresies and errors, which must necessarily be vanquished by the sword of the spirit, and cannot possibly be suppressed by carnal weapons or the civil sword; they may destroy the flesh, but cannot properly be said to touch and work upon the spirit. page 109. after a frantic, infectious, pestilential fever-fit of railing, the likest that of billingsgate, you tell mr. john goodwin, with much gravity, forsooth, but far more saucy ignorance, that it was no less than high presumption for him, being a mere divine, and a man altogether ignorant of, or unskilful in the ancient rights and privileges of our parliament (as his writings demonstrate, and himself intimates, page 5.) to undertake and determine, to judge of them so peremptorily, and in such manner as he has done, etc. but how come you trow, a mere lawyer (i wish you were good at that, at any thing) to take so much upon you in divinity, (if divinity and the knowledge of parliamentary privileges be inconsistent, as you seem to insinuate) to pin the gospel with its propagation and whole affairs upon civil powers; the greatest share, or major part, whereof (which should both by your polity and divinity be submitted to) is in the hands of turks of infidels? where's your licence from the court of heaven for subjugating the gospel of peace to your litigious lawcases and precedents, most whereof are all popish? to sacrifice the scriptures, the word, even god himself, joh. 1. 1. whole christianity, both discipline and doctrine unto acts of parliaments, which have been heretofore so popish, and may possibly be so again hereafter; to which according to your grounds, the whole kingdom must conform and be obedient not only passively but actively, and that for conscience sake? but what lawful calling or warrant have you (if a man may be so bold with you as you are with other men) from god's word, or our laws, to handle the jurisdiction and rights of parliament more than mr. goodwin? was not his imprimatur as legal or authentical as yours? do you think the parliament had not far rather hear the submissive cautions and mementoes of a loving tender and affectionate remembrancer, as in the presence of the god of heaven, whose duty is to teach all nations, matth. 28. 19 as occasion is offered, from parliament to peasant; than be flattered and soothed up with fusty sweep of popish precedents, by one, who yet (i think) pretends to be (no canon but) a protestant lawyer, best versed at common-pleas and chancery bills? certainly 'tis none of mr. pryn's least oversights thus to bring himself, a lawyer, whose wrangling faculty sets and keeps all people at worse war amongst themselves, than all foreign enemies can do, with mr. goodwin, whose zeal, piety, and fervent interceding towards the throne of grace for reconciling unto the god of peace, not only all such as join with him, but whosoever else are capable thereof, hath been heretofore, and is at present well known to all the godly and well affected in or about the city both far and near, which does and still will tend so much more to mr. pryn's great reproach and infamy, for thus shamefully traducing him? if mr. pryn were a man truly godly and conscientious, he might long ere this time have considered the unlawfulness of his very calling, according to the greatest part of lawyer's practice, in entertaining more causes than they can possibly take care of as they ought, in taking of excessive fees, prolonging suits, and so involving the whole kingdom in their sophistical quirks, tricks and quillens, as that a man can neither buy nor sell, speak nor do any thing, but he must be liable to fall into their talons, without ever being able to redeem himself; the lawyers having most of their mysteries written in a little less than heathen language, and detaining us in such ignorance or captivity, as that we may not plead nor understand our own cases; by which and such like devises of theirs, they are become the greatest grievance, crying loudest to heaven for justice to be done upon them by this parliament, next to the corrupted depraved clergymen. page 153. when you are told that the apostolical church of jerusalem, act. 15. (improperly by you and all popish writers called a synod, and grand precedent for synods) was infallible, and therefore might say it pleased the holy ghost and them; and that, since you cannot say of whatsoever you shall do, that it doth infallibly please the holy ghost, and for that cause may not be permitted to make binding determinations: you answer (most appositely no doubt) that the apostles preached by an infallible spirit, ergo, none ought to preach but such as have alike infallible spirit with the apostles. but i wonder mr. pryn's wits are thus a woolgathering; or rather that he proclaims it to the world so much; for i must needs say, i never knew them otherwise! cannot you let independents preach by way of instruction, advice, etc. though you were not sure whether they have the holy ghost or no; as well as they give you leave to do the like if you can; yea, to sit and vote in parliaments and synods, enacting ordinances, decrees, and what you please, even as much as your pretended synod of jerusalem (call it a parliament too if you will) since there is no remedy, though to my knowledge you are brim full of little else than all fallibility? but when you have attained to be a parliament or synod-man, do no more than that apostolical infallible assembly of jerusalem did; say, we do well if we observe your ordinances and decrees; and if we do not, we may do better, and therein be confident you say well infallibly: thus you hear how you may become a synod-man, and how your independent brethren may easily have leave to preach, though neither of you be infallible; let your decrees and ordinance pass as peaceably as their sermons, and both may lodge together, and likelier become friends the sooner. act. 15. 4. 22. we find the pretended synod styled a church [that is the church at jerusalem] if a church, it must have church officers, that is, ruling and teaching elders and deacons; which i do not perceive observed in any synod since, nor can possibly be, unless they can turn the fixed churches of any particular place into synods; and if that could be done, what would this be otherwise than for one sister-church to make and impose canons and decrees, according to you principles, upon all other sister-churches? now and then, 'tis true, you refresh us with an ingenuous confession, which if you did but follow close, would clear your understanding from multitudes of gross errors, and unparallelled mistakes. you acknowledge a possibility of erring, or some actual errors in counsels, synods, parliaments, and that such as apparently erroneous and repugnant unto scriptures may be disobeyed: and now i see you have almost satisfied one of the 8 queries in answer to your 12 considerable serious questions, which hitherto i thought you had not been able to give the least satisfaction to, because i heard it not in print cried up and down the streets, a privilege which any thing, or every thing of mr. pryn's enjoys peculiarly. but this short acknowledgement of yours, if you understand what you say, and stick to it, will undoubtedly bring you over unto the independents. and now (that your book, and such as read it over may make a comfortable end) since you are so good to grant a little, you shall see the independents will comply with you, and say they'll ask no more: they only desire it may be lawful for them to disobey your counsels, synods, parliaments when they actually err, and are apparently repugnant unto scripture: but now, when they tell you so at any time, and challenge this free grant of yours, professing in the presence of god and men, that they speak the truth and lie not, their conscience bearing witness, rom. 9 1. unless you will renounce christianity in practice, you must believe them, and not measure their consciences and understandings by your own, lest they come short of their due; you must not be both judge and party: no, nor judge only, where all aught to be brethren, matth. 23. 8. their own reason must guide them: their own understanding must be the ultimate resolver of their wills; and none but their own faith can save them, 2 cor. 13. 5. gal. 6. 4. 5. rom. 14. 12. from the non-submitting unto some counsels, synods, and parliaments, which you perhaps may not think erroneous, will follow no other worse consequence, than this; that a man may likewise refuse to hear or not believe some sermons, which you perhaps may hold worth hearing, and necessary to be believed (though others as wise and godly as yourself, do think the contrary) which you may well be so indulgent as to grant your independent brethren, since they will do the like for you, expecting with long-suffering until you be convinced, or you convince them, peaceably. page 154. you proceed and say, admit synods, counsels, parliaments have sometimes erred out of human frailty; yet this is a most certain truth, that they are not so apt to err, as private men, or conventicles of persons less learned, less experienced, etc. but this may not pass for orthodox neither, if, not many wise, not many learned are called, be scripture, 1 cor. 1. 20. 26. besides, experience teaches us, that god doth not discover his truth by wholesale, nor to whole nationall churches or general counsels at once, but rather by degrees, and that for the most part, at first, to some contemptible person, perhaps, in the eyes of the world, who had no earthly superfluities, or so much as any natural pre-eminence to tempt or to withdraw him from being god's ambassador or trumpeter to publish it unto a people or whole nation, it may be, not without his utmost peril. and besides; do we not find that even these more learned, of whom the counsels and synods are pretended to be compacted, are they, who most of all deceive? are they not by their unsanctified human learning and wisdom, the better enabled; nay, do they not by that means become like so many decoys to lead the multitude, the rabble after them over hedge and ditch, and, too too often, into the very ditch itself? but what if synods, counsels and parliaments were less apt to err, and best qualified to discover truth, and debate matters of controversy? it will not follow from thence, that either of them may therefore impose their supposed truths (for other than suppose they cannot be, for want of infallibility) or final determinations upon the other: if there were a necessity that the greater part should have this spiritual dominion, or rather a civil power in a spiritual government over the lesser, or the lesser over the greater; then there might be some colour for the greater to have precedency in some respects: but since either of them would be absolutely sinful, we must grant it unto neither. page 155. you say, that though it cannot be proved that all the elders, brethren, and whole church of jerusalem were infallibly inspired, yet they all said it seemeth good to the holy ghost and them: to which i answer, that their saying so, was an infallible sign that all of them were then, as concerning what they affirmed, infallibly inspired; otherwise, not only the brethren with the rest of the church, but the apostles also might possibly have told a lie, in saying so, in joining with them in one common verdict, act. 15. v. 23. nay, it might even now, and ever may be said hereafter to the end of the world, that this passage in the acts of the apostles, it seemeth good to the holy ghost and us, is not of infallible truth, unless, that both the apostles, brethren, and whole church had been infallibly assisted in saying so; they spoke not one for all, but all of them in one, or one spirit, even god himself, who is one, in all of them infallible: say but as much, and upon as good grounds and reason, in behalf of the synod which sits now at westminster, and you say something: but for your great promise under the gospel, that god will pour out his spirit upon all flesh; surely it makes as much for independents, unless you suppose them to be some newfound land-fish: but you yield it may be objected, how perhaps all or the greatest part of the parliament and assembly are not endued with the sanctifying spirit of god, therefore they cannot use this language, [it seemeth good to the holy ghost and us:] this objecting of yours i confess is somewhat ingenious; but alas! it seems, you desire not to continue so, in that you take such pains in shruging and shifting to evade the force and truth thereof, by saying, 'tis only known to god who are his; and admit there may be some few among them, who have not god's sanctifying spirit, yet i doubt not but very many, if not the major part of them have: is not this profoundly answered? thousands of conscientious godly people object, how it is possible that all, or the greatest part of the parliament and assembly may not be endued with the sanctifying spirit of god; and mr. pryn pretends to answer them by saying, he doubts not but they have: is he not a doughty champion? but what if it should be objected, that it may yet more fully, than by perchance, be said, it cannot be made appear that there is so much as one, neither in the parliament nor assembly, who have had an infallible assistance of the sanctifying spirit, in any thing they have done already, or shall ever do hereafter? and must we then necessarily be of their religion, of their faith implicitly? yet we submit, you see, unto them in civil matters; our estates, our lives, and what ever we have that is mortal, has been devoted, if not sacrificed to justify their power, and our subjection, but the rest must be reserved for him only, who is lord paramont of spirits as well as flesh. surely, mr. pryn, 'tis no small disservice which you do both parliament and assembly, in thus exposing their proceed to be questioned by no little, and that the most conscionable and best affected party of the kingdom; such spirits of contention, as this of yours, were those which made the first great breach amongst the parliaments friends; i mean, betwixt the independents and presbyterians; and now yourself as the chief ringleader has begun a subdivision, even among the presbyterians, by attributing (after such an imperious and reproaching manner towards all such as descent from your opinion) that supreme legislative power to civil magistrates in all matters of religion, which our brethren of scotland appropriate only to nationall assemblies: how great a stumbling-blocke this may grow to in time, and the miserable consequences thereof, i leave to your saddest morning thoughts to be better considered on; and wish you would forbear to publish such midnight, subitane, distracted lucubrations, as you yourself well call them, to the great detriment and endangering both of church and commonwealth. twelve queries, eight whereof presume to make a second visit to mr. pryn, importuning his resolution in christian modesty and charity, for the satisfaction of many troubled consciences. 1 whether have not parliaments and synods of england in times past established popery? and whether may they not possibly do so again hereafter? 2 whether in case a parliament and synod should set up popery, may they therein be disobeyed by the people? if they may be disobeyed in one particular, whether may they not upon the like grounds be disobeyed in another? whether the people be not judge of the grounds for denying obedience to parliament and synod in such a case? whether the pretence of giving a parliament and synod power to establish religion, and yet reserve in our own hands a prerogative of yielding or denying obedience thereunto, as we ourselves think good, be not an absolute contradiction? and lastly, whether they that attribute such a power to parliaments and synods as they themselves will question and disobey, when they think good, do not in effect weaken and quite enervate the power of parliaments, or else condemn themselves in censuring the independents for withholding of obedience from parliament and synod in such things wherein they never gave, or meant them to have power? 3 if the whole kingdom may deny obedience unto popish acts and canons, or upon any other the like just occasion, and they themselves be judge whether the occasion be just or no; whether may not independents, a part of the kingdom only do the like in all respects? or whether ought they because a lesser part of the kingdom, to yield obedience to popish acts and canons, because a major part approve of and agree with a parliament and synod in establishing them? 4 whether would it not be an ungodly course for any people to hazard any thing at the disposal of others, or to be carried by most voices, which may possibly, if not more then probably be decided in such a manner as the yielding obedience thereunto would be burdensome to their consciences, if not absolutely sinful? 5 whether were it not an ungodly course for the whole commons of a kingdom, so far differing in religion as that they profess before hand that they dare not yield to one another upon peril of damnation, to make choice of a parliament and synod, with entering into vow and covenant to become afterwards all of that religion whatsoever the parliament and synod should agree on? whether it be not absurd for men to say they will be of such a religion as shall be settled, before they see evidence to convince them? and whether it be in the power of man to be really of what religion he will, until he see reason & demonstration for it? 6 if a representative state or magistrate may make laws for setting up a religion, or establishing what church government they please; whether have not the people the same power originally in themselves, to assume again, and put it in execution when they please? and whether were this otherwise then to attribute unto a mixed multitude to the world, if not absolutely as it is distinguished from the saints in scripture, joh. 15. 18, 19 and 17. 6. 9 11. 14. at least by most voices, to make choice of a religion, laws and discipline, wherewith the saints, household, and church of god must necessarily be governed? 7 suppose a luther an and calvinist, or any others differing in opinion; whether they may out of hypocrisy or implicitly submit and be conformable to one another's discipline and doctrine whereof they doubt, before they be convinced? whether have either of them an infallible way to convince the other, and bring them over to be sincerely of their opinion before their understandings besatisfied? if they have, why do they not put it in execution? if they have not, why should they be offended with one another if they continue differing? 8 whether opposing god's people or their ways be not a fight against god? whether it be not extremest rashness, if not absolute madness and presumption to attempt any thing which may possibly prove a fight against god? and whether any man in these days can have a fuller assurance in his own conscience, or give better evidence unto others that he doth not oppose the people of god whilst he opposes such as differ from him in opinion, than paul whilst he persecuted the church, phil. 3 6. thought he ought to do many things contrary to the name of jesus of nazareth, act. 26. 9? 9 which of the two parties may best be thought proud, presumptuous or contentious? whether independents who seek only to enjoy their own consciences in all peaceableness and meekness, without giving the least disturbance to such as differ from them in opinion; or the presbyterians, who haman like, are never at rest within themselves, until they bring all others to be conformable unto them both for discipline and doctrine, though to an equal judge they may probably, be as erroneous as other men's; and possibly, most superstitious and heretical? 10 if there be but one christ and many antichrists; one true way and many false: whether do not all men and women in general, and every one in particular, run a greater hazard to have the truth withheld from them both in discipline and doctrine, if all manner of opinions and religious worship but one, were banished the country where they live, than if there were a toleration of them all? 11 if a state may lawfully compel a nation to be of this or that religion, as in spain, italy, and england, during the bishop's reign; whether is it possible for the people of such a nation to be damned by submitting to such state religions, though false? whether are not such respective states bound in justice to be accountable for all the souls which do miscarry by conforming unto such state religions? and whether were it discretion for any man to run a hazard of so many souls, though he might thereby gain the empire of the world? 12 whether are not all religions alike, nothing available to salvation, to him that takes his religion upon trust? if we be obliged to try the spirits, to search the scriptures, and hold fast the truth, whether must we not be fully persuaded thereof in ourselves, according to our own reason and understanding? whether is there a necessity that the state religion for the time in fashion, must always appear to be the true one, in every man's judgement, who really endeavours and desires to have such an opinion of it, so it might be with a good conscience? and what gospel warrant is there for magistrates imprisoning, fining, banishing, or so much as discountenancing any man for not believing, or not doing that, which he could not possibly believe, or do without sinning damnably? finis. a serious answer to a late book, styled, a reply to mr. robert steed's epistle concerning sing. wherein the chief scriptures and arguments are examined, and the weakness thereof showed. together with an answer to the several reflections, and false charges, against both churches and persons. recommended to the elders, ministers, and members of the baptised churches. joh. 4.24. god is a spirit, and they that worship him, must worship him in spirit and truth. jer. 20.10. i heard the defaming of many; report, say they, and we will report. london, printed in the year, 1692. to the elders, ministers and members of the baptised churches throughout england and wales. beloved in our lord; it is a great truth, that as we are not to omit any thing in the solemn worship of god that is of his appointment; so we are not to admit any thing that is not of his institution, under any pretence whatsoever to be intruded upon us. but it is greatly to be lamented that there is a proneness in professors (except by grace prevented) to turn aside from this holy rule, either through the infirmity of the flesh, or the deception or infection, which through temptation they meet withal in the world, whereof there hath been and still is continually sad experience. an instance whereof we have in the matter we have now to present to your serious consideration. when it pleased the lord in times past to enlighten some gracious holy persons in that great ordinance of baptism, as it was commanded by our lord and saviour, and practised by him and his apostles, and the primitive churches. and therefore to cast off infants sprinkling, which was set up in the room of it as a humane invention. they were then also, on scripture-grounds, well weighed and seriously considered, convinced that the common way of praying to god, or praising of god (in what manner soever it were performed) by a composed form (as usually then was, and still is the custom of many protestants) was not of divine institution, and therefore to be rejected. and accordingly it was in those days laid aside by the baptised churches, whom the lord then graciously and eminently owned by many signal tokens of his presence among them. but now to our great grief, some whose duty and place it was to have settled, and further to have established the churches in that work of reformation, are declined from it, asserting (with heat and confidence) that to sing by a composed form, with a whole multitude lifting up their voices together, the ignorant and profane, the unbelievers or unconverted with the church-members, is an ordinance of our lord jesus; which they practise, and with vehement earnestness are contending for: whereby the peace and edification of the churches is hindered, and the minds and consciences of many gracious souls perplexed and entangled. by this they are not only building again what hath been destroyed, but thereby also there is plain introduction unto a farther declining in prayer, and others of the holy ordinances of our blessed lord and lawgiver. this common or popular way of singing they also with great endeavour are labouring to promote in all the churches, by their public pleading for it; by preaching and printing in the defence of it. and therein they not only vehemently contradict and oppose whatever is presented by any from the holy scriptures, to deliver them or others from that humane invention which hath been so long rejected by the churches aforesaid; but they also take a licentious liberty to reflect upon them that would hinder their design in this matter; not only most falsely aspersing them, but also uttering a most false accusation and slander against the baptised churches in their first gathering, laying that to their charge as a received principle owned by them, which they had openly declared against to the whole world in their confession of faith, which was in those days printed and published; whereby they stigmatize or brand them with the deepest hypocrisy that depraved mortals can be guilty of. these things (which are matter of great lamentation) are either evidently insinuated, or plainly declared, in a late printed tract concerning sing, in answer to a small sheet published by mr. r. steed, which was intended chief for, and therefore written by way of epistle to that church to which he is related; which by some friends that had perused it, was given also into the hands of the members of other churches: wherein he only gives his understanding of what the holy scriptures speak concerning that subject, without mentioning or reflecting on any others that are of a contrary mind. but mr. keach, who is the chief promoter of this controversy, so as to heighten it to a contention, said, it must be answered, and that he would answer it. and we do not question on good grounds, but that he and mr. whinnel (by his instigation) joined together to contrive that answer which they have printed: tho mr. keach, as we are informed, did say to some, that mr. wh. was not the author of it. it's very probable that he was not the principal, but mr. k. expects to have the greatest honour in due time of that enterprise, as being the chiefest contriver of it. but that their book might pass with the greater applause and credit, it is in the beginning of it recommended by an epistle as a very sober answer, subscribed with several names at the conclusion of it: some of those persons, whose names are there subscribed, are such as we have no communion with, being such as are called free-willers (or arminians) holding a falling away from true grace: and some others whose names are set down, have professed that they did not subscribe it. and some that did give their consent, say, they had not done it, had it not been for mr. keach's importunity: and one of the chief of them saith, that he never saw the epistle till after it was printed, to which his hand was subscribed. so that it's ushered in with a gross forgery in the beginning of it, as it is carried on with unchristian reflections and false accusations, which certainly cannot consist with christian sobriety or common honesty, whatever may be pretended. but mr. keach who knows how to take refined gold out of another man's mine or lines, made ready to his hand, and present it as his own finding, though to the great prejudice of him whose indeed it was, may know also how to take the liberty to subscribe other persons names, though without their consent. the serious consideration of these things, as they have been matter of trouble and sorrow to us, so they have engaged some of us, who have hitherto been silent as to these things, now to appear for the truth of our lord against such innovations. and therefore to endeavour that the churches may not be abused, nor their members deceived by such artifices as these are. we do not intent to answer every seeming argument and carping cavil, or to take notice of every unseeming reflection contained in that printed book of theirs: but shall chief insist on the main pillars of their pretended reasons, for that sort of singing which they would persuade the churches to entertain as an ordinance of our lord and saviour: for if the foundation fail, the building cannot stand. and we shall return a reply to some of the most gross, most false and grievous accusations and reflections that are therein so boldly vented; and shall leave it with you in the fear of the lord diligently and seriously to consider, and to search the scriptures, waiting for the spirit of truth to lead you into this as well as into all other truths, that either concern your most holy faith or practice, whereby you may be preserved from turning aside to those humane traditions, from which you have been delivered, which we desire and pray that the lord may bless unto you for these gracious ends . that which we shall endeavour (with as much plainness and brevity as the matter will bear) to lay before you, are these following particulars. first, we shall detect and answer to some of those false reflections and accusations cast upon us and the baptised churches, which are contained in mr. whinnel's epistle, and in the book itself. secondly, we shall manifest the weakness of the foundation on which they build their practice of common or popular singing, which will be apparent by an impartial examination of these following inquiries. 1. whether singing to the praise of god, according to the phrase or expression of it in the holy scriptures, be to be restrained, or only is to be understood of uttering the praise due to the most high god by a musical melodious modulation, or tuning of the voice, as they are pleased to describe it. 2. whether singing to the praise of god, (according to the direction given us by our lord in the new testament) is to be performed by a composed stinted form, by a whole mixed multitude, with the church-members in the solemn assembly of the church, lifting up their voices together in consort. 3. whether those scriptures, col. 3.16. eph. 5.19. do command or justify such a sort of popular singing in or by the church as aforesaid, which they so earnestly contend for. 4. whether that hymn spoken of, mat. 26.30. and mark 14.26. or the hymning, or (as it is translated) the singing the praise of god by paul and silas, acts 16.25. do further justify that practice which they plead for. and, first, concerning their reflections on us, or accusations against us; we find mr. whinnel insinuating in the beginning of his epistle, as if custom, not conscience, did hinder us from joining with them in their way of singing. to which we answer; first, that it is a very unbecoming censure, in which there is not the least grain of truth or charity exercised by him: the same rash and unjust judgement may as well be given against him and others, for not conforming to the common prayer or the liturgy of the church of england, by those that are zealous for it: which we suppose he would reckon to be a very false and a very uncharitable censure. secondly, we do declare to him and to all men▪ that the lord knows it is not custom, or a long disuse or neglect of it, that makes us averse to that practice of theirs; but judgement and conscience, knowing on a deliberate and serious consideration, that it hath no more foundation from any precept or example of our lord jesus or his apostles to warrant it, than common set form of prayer hath. in which we are the more confirmed by the weakness of the arguments, which by them and others are produced for the justification of it. but secondly, he doth positively affirm in that epistle, that they had no mind to have published their thoughts to the world, or to have troubled the churches with any dissertations about it; but endeavoured to have a friendly debate with their brethren who were convened to consult the church's welfare: but that their endeavours therein were obstructed by the opposers (viz. of that common way of singing.) and that soon after some of them from an imprudent zeal, not only openly opposed it, but took to themselves a lawless liberty to calumniate those who endeavoured the restoration of it, etc. answ. to all this bold calumny we answer, that we believe he cannot prove any part of it to be true: it is a very false suggection, which is uttered either from a false information or great forgetfulness, or from a sinful contrivance. for first; whereas he saith, they had no mind to have published their thoughts about it, etc. but that they were obstructed in their desires and attempts to have a friendly debate, etc. we reply; what was the reason that before any person, that was contrary-minded to that practice of theirs, had said or printed any thing publicly against it, that this opinion of theirs concerning singing, was preached up, and frequently and vehemently pressed by several of them in variety of assemblies; and asserted in print, to the view of all men, by mr. keach, in his treatise called gold refined, and in his great book of scripture tropes and metaphors; and by mr. h. c. in a select treatise on that subject, though with more sobriety than any we have seen since, that hath been published on that controversy by any of them? had they no mind to publish their dissertations about it? was their public preaching and public printing for it, against their minds; which was done by them before any person did openly contradict them in it? who can believe it? and all this before there was any motion or mention of a friendly debate about it that we know of; neither as yet, do we know of any such motion seriously made, except it were for a liberty to introduce it by a major vote in a church of christ, etc. which was long after they had endeavoured to promote it by their endeavours aforesaid. if we were blame-worthy in this matter, it was in being so long silent, wher● by they took the opportunity to leaven so many honest souls, and to beguile so many churches (i● their number be so many as they boast of) with this irregular doctrine and practice; hereby it was that to such a height of confidence mr. keach was come, (who makes breaches more than he repairs any) that when one did but once preach on that subject of singing in the church to which he belongs on a lord's day, far enough off from mr. keach's congregation; because he did it not according to his sentiments, he coming the next day or shortly after, in much affection to visit him, mr. keach (having heard of his preaching, as before mentioned) immediately falls upon him, as soon as ever he came into mr. keach's house, with a most severe and very uncivil passionate reprimand, for daring to preach after that manner, contrary to his judgement; as if he had the pre-eminence over all. but when mr. marlowe did but endeavour to manifest the weakness of mr. keach's arguments for common singing, which he publicly delivered in his meetinghouse, not on a lord's day, but on a select leisure-time when he was like to have the company of many persons of several churches, a time set apart yearly by him to preach up that with other doctrines, on purpose contrived to influence all the churches (especially in the city) with that will-worship or practice, o what a clamour and exclamation is there made against mr. m. for it, by him and others of the same persuasion with him! so that it plainly appears they had not a mind to be silent, as mr. wh. falsely suggests they had, but to publish all they could, by all manner of ways, for the propagating of this opinion; and to control all with a high imperious hand, that should stand in their way, or offer any contradiction to their design. they had no mind to have their arguments examined; they would indeed have none to speak but themselves. secondly; whereas he saith they desired a friendly debate with their brethren, but were obstructed by the opposers, etc. in this also we must charitably reckon, that he is very forgetful. for he was present at the general-meeting of the messengers, when he with others of them, were proffered a time for a friendly conference on that subject whenever they would desire it. only it was by the unanimous consent of the whole assembly agreed, that it was not expedient to have the controversy argued among them at that time, because it would unavoidably obstruct them in the business they came about, which was for the general good of all the churches. indeed at the last general meeting, mr. whinnel did craftily and surreptitiously, in combination with others, on the last day of that assembly, when the most part of the country-messengers were gone home, and many of the messengers of the churches in the city absent, a time intended only for them that remained, to put in order what had been agreed on in the former days of their assembling, that it might be presented to the churches; then did he present something to be debated concerning persons retaining their communion with a church; whereof they were members, though the practice of common sing were, contrary to their declared judgements and consciences, set up in it. which being then so unseasonably presented in the absence of the greater part of the assembly, it was witnessed against by many then present, as that which was not fit to be debated at that time; it savouring more of a politic contrivance than of honesty and candour. so that we are confident he cannot produce any time wherein a debate of the matter in difference, was obstructed or opposed, when there was a convenient opportunity for it. last; whereas he accuseth those that differ from him in this matter, for taking a lawless liberty to calumniate persons with their way of singing. we answer; we know not, nor ever heard of any that did take such a sinful liberty to calumniate any on that account: it must lie at their own doors. for when mr. marlowe printed his first little tract about singing, in answer to what mr. keach had publicly preached for the proof of it, at the time aforesaid, forthwith four or five of them appear in print against him with great vehemency and zeal, though with very weak arguments; and some of them with many bitter and untoward reflections. mr. keach falls upon him in a public house with great passion, without any provocation given him by mr. marlowe, except his answering his arguments for common singing. one sheet among the rest was printed and published by persons that would not, or were ashamed, to write their names at length, which was a piece, as we may call it, of raillery, where there was little else but the uncivil abusing of mr. m. which to render him the more infamous, was publicly tendered to persons in some of the baptised churches in the city of london. which if mr. k. was not the instigator and contriver, yet it is well known that he did promote the publishing of it. but we need go no further than the perusal of this book, printed in answer to mr. steed. surely it laid upon them no necessity to answer it, as mr. wh. would suggest. for he writ it for the church to which he belongs: they cannot say he calumniated or reflected upon any of them, or meddled with any of their books. and the less need had they to write, if it be true, or that they believe what they say (pag. 3.) of their reply, that all his arguments were fully answered in their former books before that epistle was printed. why then if it were so, they needed but to refer him and others to those books, and set down the pages where those answers were to be found, and never have troubled themselves to write, or others to read their needless and tedious repetitions. but what, was it a crime in their eyes, that the members of other churches had the sight of it? must nothing be seen or read by others but what they will allow of, without sustaining the penalty of their contradiction, reflection and calumny? he gave no public notice of it in an observator for the whole nation to know it? but if they did think in conscience they must answer his arguments, could it not be done without such untoward reflections and accusations? there's scarce a leaf wherein there be not some untoward slurs or other inserted. sometimes he is rendered by them a promoter of enthusiasm and the notions of the seekers, or an upholder of the way of the quakers, with other such like invectives. some of their expressions seem more like unsavoury jeers and scoffs than a sober reply● though interlarded with the titles of honoured and dear brother, which may be inserted as a covering for their uncivil treating of him, or as oil upon the sacrifice to make the fire of their indignation to pierce the deeper. but what do such causeless reflections, or such groundless accusations serve for? certainly, for nothing but exasperation, or to manifest unmortified pride and passion. the lord grant that if mr. th. wh. or mr. k. print any more epistles or books, they may put on more sobriety, truth and candour, than they have in this: which we mention, because he and mr. keach in that book, do threaten and boast that they will examine or answer every treatise that shall come out to hinder their design in this matter. which threatening of theirs we trust, by the grace of god, will quicken us to be so much the more diligent to defend the truth of christ in this matter; and not to give the least place to them in this controversy by silence, as we have formerly done. for as we are bold to say, that mr. whinnel hath most falsely accused us, to say that any of us have taken a lawless liberty to calumniate persons that would endeavour to set up this sort of singing in the churches: so we do as boldly, in the fear of the lord, declare that the way of common singing, which they contend for, is after the rudiments of the world, after the traditions of men, but not after christ. it is their lawless liberty they take thus to accuse and represent us without cause, in this epistle and the like, that hath necessitated us for truth's sake, that 〈◊〉 may not suffer by such false reports, to declare ●uch things concerning some of them, which otherwise we should have buried in oblivion. but it was not enough, it seems, that we should be thus scandalously represented by mr. wh. in the epistle, that did not give a sufficient vent to their indignation, when we look into the book, where we might expect nothing but answers to his arguments, there also (as we said before) we must be exercised with the reading their needless, causeless reflections on mr. steed; and with their most false slandering of the baptised churches in their first gathering. we shall say little to their taunting reflections against him, or their imperious treating of him, in their answer to him: only whereas they impertinently say, that mr. knowles preached up the singing they, plead for in the forenoon, and that he preached against it in the afternoon: we, upon enquiry of the members of that church (that were present at that time in the assembly) find it to be utterly false, a mere invention put into the head of some unwary person to vent, which mr. wh. and mr. keach greedily take up to proclaim without modesty, sobriety or verity; on which we may with great cause use their own exclaiming expression, sad case! but it is not with mr. steed only that they thus deal; but they exhibit a very grievous and a very false charge against those of the same profession, that were more ancient in it than the authors of this reply, who vent this scandal, or any of those that by their epistle have commended the same. when those ancient brethren were convinced of their duty, that believers, upon confession of their faith, were the only subjects of baptism, and accordingly, sat down together in communion as a congregation or church of christ; and many in the nation began to inquire into the truth thereof, they met with many harsh censures and false charges cast upon them to make the truth of christ contemptible, (viz.) that they were corrupt in the doctrines of the gospel; that they denied subjection to magistrates; that they held, that to maintain ministers was antichristian, etc. they to clear themselves, and to take off those false charges, did think it their duty to publish to the nation a confession of their faith; which when drawn up, was read in the churches, being then seven in number; and consented to by all the members, not one dissenting, and subscribed by two of each church in the name of the rest. which confession of faith was five times printed in that year 1644, and from that, to the year 1651, without the least alteration of any one article of what was first printed: which confession gave such general satisfaction to most christians of all sorts of differing persuasions from us, that it took off from many that prejudice and offence that was formerly taken by them against our profession. what the judgement of those church's 〈◊〉 their first constitution, was, concerning the maintenance of ministers, may be seen in the 38th article, in these words, we do believe that the du● maintenance of ministers should be the free and voluntary communication of the church: that according to christ's ordinance, they that preach the gospel, should live on the gospel, etc. and accordly they did then, and we have ever since made it our practice, as a duty required of all the members of the church that are able to give. true it ●s, that our churches since the first, have not been filled with many of them that have the riches of this world, (the poor receive the gospel.) but this we can say with comfort, and appeal to the lord herein, that according to our abilities, we have given to the maintenance of our ministers; nor have any had any just cause to complain to the contrary (that we know of); although it hath been, and is our trouble, that we have not been able to make so great a provision for them as we desire. herein we would be understood in this, that we now assert concerning the churches, that we mean principally as they were in the beginning: and we do find, to our great grief, that which was then falsely charged upon us by those that did not know us, is now as falsely (with a far greater aggravation of their sin) charged upon us by some of us, who might have satisfied themselves, had they perused our confession of faith. but either they were willingly ignorant, or negligent in enquiring, but resolved to calumniate; and therefore in the 9th page of the said book, they charge us with the same things, in these words, it is a question whether the said baptised churches in those times, did not as unanimously conclude and declare too, that for a gospel-ministry to have a yearly allowance, or a competent maintenance, was a humane invention or anti-christian. we speak (say they) in part upon our own knowledge, and by good information we have had from others. to this charge we answer, that nothing can be more falsely asserted, or more slanderously uttered: for if this their charge have the least shadow of truth against the baptised churches in their first beginning here in england; they must needs be the grossest fort of hypocrites, in professing the contrary by their profession of faith, and yet believing and practising quite otherwise to what they solemnly professed as their faith in that matter. and we believe they cannot give one true instance that any church of the baptists, that are sound in the faith, ever did in the least conclude or declare against a competent maintenance for a gospel-ministry, as a humane invention or anti-christian, since those times. to conclude, as to this matter concerning their unworthy reflections and false accusations, (though we might instance in mo●● 〈◊〉 one sort or other in that book) we must declare that we do wonder that any persons, professing piety, would commend that book as a sober discourse, ●●●●out any limitation or exception, against 〈◊〉 gross and fulsome slanders, which with so much confidence are delivered, whatever their judgements be concerning the controversy about singing. moreover, we hope the baptised churches, their elders, ministers and members, do hereby, at least, see great cause to suspect, and to be very cautious in believing that spirit that would persuade them to the way of common or popular singing, which would make way for its entertainment, by such notorious falsehoods and abominable slanders, which were certainly devised by the father of lies, thereby to offend or stumble the weak, though otherwise honest and well-meaning. having now answered to some of their unrighteous and scandalous reflections, we shall endeavour (as the lord shall enable us) to manifest the weakness of the main pillars of their assertion concerning the singing before mentioned: for we shall not spend our time to answer every particular in that treatise, (the weakness whereof is most evident to any that will but take any serious notice of it) it would be very tiresome and altogether needless. first then, we shall inquire whether singing to the praise of god, according to the expression of it in the holy scriptures, be to be restrained, or is only meant of declaring those praises by a musical melodious tuneable voice. to which we answer, that singing or uttering the praise of god, are convertible terms, according to the language of the holy scriptures: as for instance, cant. 2.12. the time of the singing of birds is come, etc. that, as able interpreters tell us, is meant, that a rejoicing or praising-time is come. deut. 32.44. and moses spoke all the words of that song unto the people; and in v. 43. it's said, rejoice, o ye nations, with his people: which is elsewhere called singing, and sometimes shouting. doubtless there was never a greater song of praise uttered to the honour of christ, than that luk. 19.37, 38. when the disciples rejoiced and praised god for all the mighty works which they had seen; saying, not singing, blessed be he that cometh in the name of the lord: peace in heaven, and glory in the highest. that music uttered by them with their voices, made more melody than any composed songs that can be sung in metre. and as mr. caryl tells us upon that scripture, it was music the pharisees did not like, but would have them rebuked for so doing. obj. it is indeed frequently and earnestly pleaded by the authors of that book, that singing or song bears that acceptation of a musical melody with the voice amongst all mankind. answ. to which we answer, that if it hath pleased the spirit of the lord in the holy scriptures, to make use of those words in another sense, what have we to say to it, or dare any that are truly pious to contradict it? that singing is in the old testament as well as in the new, used in a metaphorical sense, is apparent: as where singing to the praise of god is ascribed to inanimate creatures as well as to others. see psal. 65.13. isa. 49.13. jer. 12. so job 38.7. if we take the morning-stars for the angels, as some do, they need not the faculty of speech; or, as others, take the words for the whole creation in their respective kind's; than the word sing must be taken figuratively, even for their praising their great creator by ways suitable to their several natures; however, a supposition to the contrary would be highly ridiculous. so in like manner in the new testament; as for instance, 1 cor. 14.15. where it appears, that singing and giving of thanks be convertible terms. but especially we desire it may be considered seriously what may be the meaning of the mind of god in that scripture, heb. 2.12. i will declare thy name unto my brethren; in the midst of the congregation will i sing praise to thee. this text was a prophecy of christ our saviour, quoted from psal. 22.22. for the opening of which, we shall repeat the exposition that the excellent person dr. owen gives of it, as followeth; first, what christ will moreover do; he will sing praises unto god. and, secondly, where he will do it; in the midst of the congregation. the expression of both these is accommodated to the declaration of god's name, and and praising of him in the temple. the singing of hymns of praise unto god in the great congregation, was then a principal part of his worship. and in the first expression, two things are observable; (1.) what christ undertakes to do, that is, to praise god. now this is only exegetical of what went before. he would praise god by declaring his name. there is no way whereby the praise of god may be celebrated, like that of declaring his grace, goodness, and love unto men, etc.— (2.) the cheerfulness and alacrity of the spirit of christ in this work, he would do it as with joy and sing; with such a frame of heart, as was required in them, who were to sing the praises of god in the great assemblies in the temple. (3.) where would he do this, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in the midst of the congregation; the great congregation, as he calls it, v. 25. 〈◊〉 is, the great assembly of the people in the temple. and this was a type of the whole church of the elect under the new testament. the lord christ in his own person, by his spirit, in his apostles, and his word, by all his messengers unto the end of the world, setting forth the love, grace, goodness and mercy of god in him the mediator, sets forth the praise of god in the midst of the congregation. i shall only add, that whereas singing of hymns unto god was an especial part of the instituted worship under the old testament, to whose use these expressions are accommodated; it is evident that the lord christ hath eminently set forth this praise of god in his institution of worship under the new testament, wherein god will ever be glorified and praised. this was that which the lord christ engaged to do upon the issue of his sufferings; and we may propose it unto our example and instruction. thus dr. owen on that text, pag. 256. and again on the same text, pag. 258. moreover, the lord christ by declaring, that he will set forth the praise of god in the church, manifests what is the duty of the church itself; namely, to praise god for the work of his love and grace, in our redemption by christ jesus. this he promiseth to go before them in; and what he leads them unto, is by them to be persisted in. this is indeed the very end of gathering the church, and of all the duties that are performed therein, and thereby. the church is called unto the glory of the grace of god, eph. 1.6. that it may be set forth in them, and by them. this is the end of the institution of all ordinances of worship in the church, eph. 3.8, 9, 10. and in them they set forth the praises of god unto men and angels; this is the tendency of prayer, the work of faith, and the fruit of obedience. it is a fond imagination which some have fallen upon, that god is not praised in the church for the work of redemption, unless it be done by words and hymns particularly expressing it. all praying, all preaching, all administration of ordinances, all our faith, all our obedience if ordered aright, are nothing but giving glory to god, for his love and grace in christ jesus in a due and acceptable manner. and this is that which ought to be in our design in all our worship of god; especially in what we perform in the church. to set forth his praise, to declare his name, to give glory to him by believing, and the profession of our faith, is the end of all we do. thus we have the testimony of that worthy person, that singing to the praise of god, is not to be restrained, according to the scripture, to a musical, melodious, tuneable voice. but further, we judge it worthy to be observed, and seriously considered, the mind of god concerning that singing mentioned, rev. 14.2, 3. i heard a voice from heaven, as a voice of many waters, etc. and they sung as it were a new song before the throne, etc. note; first, it could not be a song prepared in meeter, or any of the songs mentioned in the old testament. because, secondly, it was a song they only could learn that were redeemed from the earth. thirdly, this they did with harpers harping: the meaning of which, as learned forbes tells us, was the hearts of the redeemed ones. fourthly, the matter and substance is ther● expressed: and learned mede, by this song, tells us, the whole mystery of evangelical worship is in it contained. and brightman on rev. 15.2. tells us, that drusius on that place saith, they are called the harps of god, because god sendeth the joy of his spirit into their hearts, wherewith they may be able to give god his due praise. and by this song of the lamb, saith brightman, is meant that whereof mention was made, rev. 14.3. wherein they do magnify god the father for the grace of their adoption in christ. the joy of their heart is called a song by a metonymy, the effect ariseth out of faith in the righteousness of christ, whereby we feel the fatherly love wherewith god doth embrace us; which song hath been always sung by the saints in all ages. so that whereas they tell us, wherever singing is mentioned in scripture, it must be understood with a tuneable voice; it appears they did not consider these and such like scriptures. we shall only mention one more, job 29.13. i caused the widow's heart to sing for joy; whereby it appears there is heart-singing as well as by expression in meeter with the tongue. in which text, it appears that joy and sing are convertible terms. from all which, and many other scriptures that might be quoted or alleged, it evidently appears, that singing to the praise of god is not to be restrained to a melodious tuneable voice, in the direct stated solemn praising of god in his church: and that there are praises sung to god (in the language of the scripture) in praying and praising, and in all the administration of holy ordinances, when there is no tuneable or musical voice heard among them; as appears from what hath been mentioned from heb. 2.12. which we shall further make evident by these following considerations. first, we may conclude it to be a certain truth, that no sober person will deny that the gifts of the holy spirit, wherewith our blessed lord furnished his church upon his ascension, to be complete and sufficient for the fitting of his people ●nto every good word and work, for every part of his worship; eph. 4.8, 11, 12, 13. yet there we find no singing-masters appointed; which would have been absolutely necessary, if musical or tuneable singing with the voice, was a gospel-ordinance. the old-testament-church had such as taught to sing praise, 1 chr. 25.7. 2 chr. 25.13. which if the new-testament-church had needed, we may reasonably judge or conclude she should have had them to a higher degree than the former. for the worship prescribed in the gospel, aught to exceed that under the law; therefore if musical sing be that which is now required, than the best voices in singing do most acceptably perform that duty to god, at least in the outward part of it: and therefore it would be absolutely necessary that all christians, both men and women, should learn from such as can teach them, to elevate their voices and tunes in the highest strain: seeing they call this an ordinance of the new testament, and that no other can be called singing, though persons with never so great a sense of the majesty of god, and of their mercies received, with the greatest spiritual melody and enlargement of heart utter his praise; but no such gifts being given, nor any such art required, we may safely conclude, it is not a gospel-ordinance. secondly, if musical singing with the voice be a gospel-ordinance, as they assert, then assuredly the songs of praise recorded in the new testament, would have been written in greek verse, as an example for others to have followed them in their language: but that it is otherwise, is manifest to all that can read the greek testament. moreove●▪ it is not said that those that uttered those songs, d●● it with a musical tuneable voice; but only that they spoke after a solemn and audible manner those praises: as may be seen from the song of the blessed virgin mary, to those mentioned in the revelations. lastly, whereas they frequently say, that we admit or allow of no singing praise to, or praising of god in the church, but what is in prayer. we answer; we are indeed for praising of god with our supplications to him for mercy: but if the holy spirit fills any that are qualified for the administrations of his house, with the joy of the lord, and so with the matter of praise; such may express it (without mentioning any petitions) with a solemn, cheerful, audible voice, as the spirit of the lord may give utterance, either with or without a tuneable voice, to the glory of god, and refreshing of others: which is singing praise in the new-testament language, whereunto they have not, nor can they prove, that according to the scripture-dialect aforesaid, a musical tuneable voice is essential. we shall now come to the second enquiry, which is as followeth. quer. 2. whether singing the praise of god in the church of christ, aught to be by a composed form, by the whole multitude assembled, professors with the profane or ignorant; or the church-members of all sorts lifting up their voices together in consort? in answer to this question, that we may the more distinctly resolve it, we shall divide it into several branches or particulars, and speak to them severally. namely, first, we shall consider whether singing the praise of god in the church of christ, may be performed by a composed stinted form? answ. 1. in answer to which, we desire it may be remembered, that the institutions left by our lord jesus in the gospel, as they are very plain, so they are more spiritual, and require more of the spirit than under the law; therefore we have a more plentiful effusion of the spirit promised: it being a state of more grace, as well as of more truth. therefore our blessed lord and saviour, as he procured by his death, so by his resurrection and ascension, he sent his holy spirit unto us, to fit us for the worship of god, that we might have more intimate converse with him, in the observation of what he hath commanded, mat. 28.19. 2. in the great gospel-duties of prayer and praising god, he hath graciously promised the assistance of the holy spirit, both what to pray for, as well as how we are to pray; rom. 8.26. for we know not what to pray for as we ought; but the spirit itself maketh intercession for us. where we observe, that which respects the manner and frame of heart in prayer, respects also the matter of prayer. indeed we are poor worms, and know not how to order our cause before him, unless we are assisted both in matter (in the time of worship) as well as manner. and as it is in prayer, so is it in praises, which duty ought certainly to be as spiritually performed as prayer; and we need as great assistance of the holy spirit to praise, as to pray. but if gospel-singing the praise of god, be with a musical voice, and the form before composed in verse, than we know what to praise god for: the minister, or some one, brings that matter composed in writing, or in print, in his pocket; and than what need will there be of the spirit of god to help us what to pray for? 3. but if it be objected, that we ought beforehand to consider the mercies we have received. we readily grant it; and do affirm, that also in prayer we ought to consider our wants, to beg supplies; and our sins, to beg pardon: but also in presenting them before the lord, we need the assistance of the spirit to order our very requests before him. and that it's the experience of every servant of god, that in prayer to god, and in praises of god, their hearts are enlarged in matter far beyond the preparations of matter in either of those holy exercises. this is one of the most pregnant arguments used against stinted forms of prayer, by those ministers that so do; even that it is a stinting the spirit of god in that duty; as also contrary to the blessed design of the lord christ in his ascension, mentioned eph. 4.8. and therefore we cannot see but it must necessarily follow, but that if a set-form of praises, composed and brought into the church in the public worship of god, is lawful, or as an institution appointed by him; then certainly a set-form of prayer ought to be provided also, as a part of the public worship of god, for the people's prayers. and tertainly, would they but seriously consider their own arguments that persuade them to be against set-form prayer, the same would confute their notions against set-form singing, if indeed they be against set-form prayer. for they that can so vehemently plead in that book for reading songs of praise, and for reading sermons, and call it preaching in the church; why should they not be for reading prayers there also? especially when their arguments for both are for the most part the very same that others urge for set-form prayer. as for what they most impertinently allege for their vindication in this matter, from the song of moses, and the hymn mentioned mat. 26.30. with col. 3.16. they will be considered in their due place. secondly, we shall inquire, whether for a mixed multitude, professors and prosane, believers and unbelievers, to sing in consort in the church, be an ordinance of our lord jesus, according to his new-testament-institution. 1. we desire it may be seriously considered that there is not the least mention of it in the new testament, by any precept or example, wherein we are directed in the worship of god. certainly if our lord jesus was most faithful in the house of god, and if his apostles did faithfully declare the whole counsel of god to the churches, than they would not have failed to have declared this also: so that it is purely a humane invention, without any shadow of ground for it in the scriptures before mentioned, which are the only rule to guide us in the solemn instituted worship of god in his church. if this arguments hold good against the common practice of infants sprinkling (called baptism) as undoubtedly it doth; than it doth also as evidently prove that this way of common sing is a tradition of men, and not an ordinance of our lord jesus. 2. as there is not the least mention of it, as aforesaid, so it is directly contrary to what our lord jesus hath plainly declared, both as to the qualification of the worshippers, as well as to the manner of worship in gospel-times; joh. 4.23. the true worshippers shall worship the father in spirit and i● truth, etc. can the unbelievers, the ignorant▪ and the profane, thus worship the father? are they thus qualified? or are they capable so to do? so that this practice of theirs is a plain contradiction to the will of our lord and lawgiver, in that affair of solemn worship, which therefore ought to be rejected by all the upright in heart. 3. hereby there is an opportunity given them to make, or to speak a lie before the lord, to take his name in vain, while they speak that which they do not understand, and utter that as the frame of their hearts which they do not receive in their minds, nor can they know them, or truly affect them, while they remain in an unconverted estate, because they are spiritually discerned. now to be accessary unto, or to promote such a transgression in the solemn worship of god, which they unavoidably do who set up this common way of singing, is a practice that cannot be justified. there is more to be added to show the great irregularity of this common practice, which must be referred to its proper place. object. but they object, that we admit them to be present, and to join with their hearts in our public prayers, which is as much, or more than lifting up their voices in singing in the church. answ. to which we reply; that it is true we do admit them at the time of prayer and preaching to be present, and so we can and do to the spectators and hearers, when we partake of the lord's supper: not knowing by what means the lord may work upon them, or give them repentance unto life. but that which is affirmed, that they join with us with their hearts in prayer, is no true assertion: they do not so join with us, because they cannot. for the holy spirit, who knows the hearts of all men, plainly tells us, that persons while unbelievers and unconverted cannot so do, as is most evident from that scripture, rom. 10.14. how can they call on him, on whom they have not believed? object. but they say, some have been converted by their singing; for psalms are full of instruction, etc. answ. 1. we grant that psalms are full of admonition and instruction: but we deny that the musical tunes do instruct, but the matter itself that is sung. and if it be matter itself that doth only instruct, as you would seem to acknowledge, than it is not music, but the matter. 2. tho some should be converted by their musical singing, yet it cannot be a rule to judge that way of singing to be an instituted ordinance of christ in the church. some we know have declared they have been converted by the hearing of common prayer; yet we suppose they will not therefore acknowledge that common prayer is an instituted ordinance of christ. also some have professed that they have been converted by partaking of the sacrament in the way of the nation: and thereupon, it is not many years since several learned men employed their wits in writing large treatises to prove it to be a converting ordinances and therefore, that all without exception ought to be admitted to it. but we do suppose it is not their judgement, object. they again pretend they do not join w●●● unbelievers, but unbelievers with them, in th●● work. answ. 1. then by this poor excuse, if unbelievers will come and partake with them at the lord's supper, of the bread and the wine, they may permit them so to do, and pretend that they do not join with unbelievers in that ordinance, but they with them: and so quickly bring the world and the church into one; that is, christ and belial to have communion together, unto which this practice and the reason for it have a direct tendency. 2. if they plead for this practice as lawful, as that which is a converting ordinance, as that which is warranted by the word of god: certainly they do more than permit, they do admit and call them to it. object. but it is further and earnestly urgeds that it is a natural duty that all without exception are enjoined to do. answ. 1. we grant that worship was due to god by the light of nature: and say further, that spiritual worship was due from man as his creature, inasmuch as god is a spirit; but the outward means of that worship, what would be acceptable unto god, was not known by the light of nature. this was only known by positive institution, and depended not on the law of creation. adam in innocency knew that god was to be worshipped, yet by nature he did not know by what outward acts he was to pay this to his creator: this depended on the direction of god, as the sovereign lawgiver should prescribe. and therefore we find the positive institution of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, etc. the pillars upon which the worship of god stands, cannot be known but by revelation. 2. we say, that as god alone knows how, and by what means himself will be worshipped; so it is not in the power of men or angels to prescribe worship to his creature; and that it is an entrenchment upon his sovereignty for any so to do: man being to observe whatsoever he, and he only, hath commanded. 3. it is evident that in all the instituted worship that god hath prescribed, it is with all plainness both in matter and manner. and that god hath always done, even in the first institution god gave to adam, not to eat of the forbidden fruit: it was with that plainness and clearness, that no objection could be made by him in his disobeying the command of god. also in all the tabernacle and temple-worship, every particular direction thereunto, to the very pin in the tabernacle, was given to them, that they might not vary from, without sin. and therefore the least addition or detraction from it, was severely punished by god. and now it is much more plain under the gospel-administration, though more spiritual. and the worshippers that are admitted to perform or celebrate it in his church, are required even in the outward part, both as to their qualifications and exercise, to be more spiritual than under the law. 4. therefore though the obligation to worship is natural, and that it is to be performed with the highest reverence and affection concreated with man: yet the whole of external worship is positive, and depends upon institution. nature is silent therein, otherwise than as it regulates, with respect to conveniency and decency, in common with other actions, in matters of less moment than worship, to wit, marriage and meats. man was created with an instinct for nutrition and procreation, but was directed unto the means and manner of both by institution. so in the present case, that god is to be honoured and praised, is an innate principle; but the means how, or which way, or by whom it is to be managed in his church, depends only on his sovereign will and pleasure declared in his word: which that he will be thus worshipped by a mixed multitude lifting up their voices together in musical singing, he hath no where declared in his new testament: and therefore, the pretence of proving it from its being a natural worship, falls to the ground, having not the least weight in it to justify such a practice. obj. it is further argued by them, that moses and the children of israel, that were a mixed multitude, sung by a composed form; therefore we ought to do so now. answ. 1. we desire it may be seriously considered that this alleged of the song of moses, belongs to the old-testament-dispensation; unto which we now in gospel-times are not to have recourse to direct us in the positive part of worship; we must therein hearken to the son, and not to the servant. we may as well argue (as many do) from the children of israel's, with their offspring, being, as the apostle saith, all baptised unto moses in the cloud and in the sea, for the baptism of infants now; and so in like manner from circumcision: as to conclude from their manner of singing to such a manner now. 2. it is plain that it was an extraordinary song on an extraordinary occasion, that we do not find was enjoined to be sung afterwards in their tabernacle or temple-worship: nor do we find that ever the whole congregation were afterwards to sing in consort, or with all their voices together; which they cannot deny. therefore if it were not admitted for a constant practice then, nor any such thing commanded by our lord jesus since to his gospel-churches, we may wonder with what shadow of pretence they should allege it to justify such a kind of singing now. they have only this poor sorry evasion concerning their not singing afterwards so in consort together, that the levites, the singers, sung together; and therefore all may now sing together: which is a strange way of fallacious arguing, easily to be seen and exploded by all. but consider, those levites, or singers, had a positive direction from the lord so to do. let them produce such a command from the lord jesus, our lord and lawgiver, for his churches now, and the controversy will be ended. 3. if the manner of singing the song of moses be a pattern for us now, then must the women sing by themselves with music and dancing, a● they did then, exod. 15.20. there cannot be t●● least reason given, but if one be admitted, so m●●● the other, if it be a directing example for 〈◊〉 gospel-times. 4. though it be said moses sung, and the children of israel, yet it doth not necessarily follow that they all lifted up their voices together: it is very improbable, if not impossible, for 600000 to sing together; nor could copies of it be suddenly dispersed among them all to learn it: but rather that there was some other way where 〈◊〉 through the direction of the lord, the song 〈◊〉 managed, wherein they might all join, though 〈◊〉 all lift up their voices at one time. but however, supposing they did so, yet it signifies nothing in the least to prove it a new-testament-institution. and it is an argument so manifestly weak and impertinent, that we may wonder it should be mentioned as a proof to warrant their practice; but any pretence shall serve the turn when person are resolved for a human tradition. thirdly; the next and last branch of this general enquiry to be considered, is, whether it be enjoined by our lord jesus as a gospel-ordinance, for all the members of a church, both men and women, to sing a composed form read to them, by listing up their voices together? answ. 1. to this we say, that having already manifested that a composed form of praying to, or praising of god, doth not comport with that assistance of the holy spirit promised not only to assist us in our preparation for such solemn exercises, but also to help us both as to matter and manner in the very time of that sacred work; and therefore, to be relied upon and expected by all that desire spiritually to worship him, according to the new-testament-direction and dispensation; and therefore not suitable, but contrary to the design of our lord in his ascension, spoken of eph. 4.8. therefore we shall say no more to it now, but refer the reader to what was before declared; neither can there be any true solid reason given, why if the members of a church of christ may have a composed form of praises written and read to them to sing, why may they not have a composed form of prayer read to them also, for them audibly to repeat over, as the manner of some is? 2. all the members may not lift up their voices together, because the women are expressly forbidden to teach, or so to speak in the church: sing being for teaching, as hereafter will be declared. neither doth the holy spirit except this exercise of singing with their voices, as if they were therein allowed: had this liberty been granted, or this as a duty enjoined them, there's no question but the apostles, who faithfully delivered the whole counsel of god, would have declared it; and for any to make exceptions where the lord hath made none, is to be adding to his word, or to be partial in his law. obj. but they allege, to justify this practice, that miriam and deborah sung in the congregation. answ. 1. we desire it may be remarked how they are still constrained to fly to old-testament-instances, to justify their popular way of singing; they having not the least ground for it in the new testament. but herein, how manifestly do they strengthen the hands of them that are for infant's baptism, who fetch their strongest arguments from the old-testament-instances and practices to prove it. which way of arguing, if it be allowed of, how soon will the worship of god, according to the gospel, be perverted or changed from its primitive purity in all respects. 2. it is plain, as hath been declared, exod. 15.20. that miriam and the women did not sing with the men: they sung by themselves with timbrels and dancing. if that example be authentic to justify women's singing now, than it must be by themselves with music and dancing; which as yet they dare not plead for now to be practised. as for deborah, her song was by an extraordinary inspiration; and it appears by the manner of her expressing it, that she spoke it or sung it alone; though baruch might join with her in spirit: neither is there the least intimation in the scripture that she sang in the congregation. but what a pitiful irrational argument is this; because a woman, extraordinarily called and inspired, uttered or sung a song by that extraordinary inspiration, on an extraordinary occasion; therefore all the women in a church may ordinarily, though under no such inspiration, sing a composed song of another's making, though they have no direction for it in the word of the lord, but are rather commanded and enjoined to be silent there. surely it is a bad cause that cannot be supported or pleaded for, but by such incoherent groundless inferences as these, which they might be ashamed to publish. 3. we find, according to the direction and commandment of our lord and lawgiver, a psalm is to be managed after another manner in the church of christ. for in 1 cor. 14.26. where it is mentioned plainly, with reference to the public worship of god in the church; it is most evident, by the context from ver. 24, to 31. that there it is under the general regulation of the gift of prophecy, and the exercise thereof limited unto one, as farther appears from the 16th and 17th verses, without the least intimation of its being confined or restrained to any thing musical or in meeter, in the delivery of it. moreover, it may be certainly concluded, that if singing or uttering the psalm was to be by lifting up of their voices in consort, when the apostle had by the command of the lord, limited them to one at a time in their exercises in the chu●●●, 〈◊〉 would not have failed to have plainly told them, that the psalm was otherwise to be managed. obj. but to this plain and undeniable testimony they earnestly plead that the apostle speaks there of prophesying, not of singing. answ. to which we answer; the psalm is there plainly and evidently manifested, to belong to the gift of prophecy as much as the doctrine or interpretation, and is included in it. he prophesied that uttered a psalm, as much as he that declared the doctrine or the exhortation: therefore it appears that singing or uttering the psalm, is plainly included in the limitation of one at a time, as well as the rest of those solemn exercises; which psalm was from a special spiritual gift, as much as any other there mentioned. for if the psalm (aforesaid) might be one taken out of a book, or out of the old testament; why so might the doctrine or exhortation be nothing else but a reading something out of a book, or out of the scripture, there being plainly as much ground for the one as for the other; which would be a groundless imagination: therefore mr. burroughs with others of the godly learned, do own that the psalm there spoken of, was by special gift; and therefore, for any to imagine it to be any of david's psalms, is to give up themselves to any fancy or supposition, so they may contradict the truth which is so apparently manifested in that portion of the scripture, because they are resolved not to entertain it. obj. but they again cavilingly object, can this be proved by any other place of scripture? if not, say they, it must be rejected. answ. to which we reply; that the lord is here pleased to give a most plain direction how a psalm is to be brought forth or sung in a gospel-church, not by a composed form, but by special gift, and not by the whole assembly lifting up their voices in consort, but by one who hath received such a gift. and this being so evidently declared, should we not rest satisfied with it? shall we question the truth of a divine oracle, because but once mentioned, though it be never so plainly delivered? our lord jesus is but once called a surety: shall we therefore question or deny the truth of it, as the socinians do? heb. 7.22. surely on this ground, the hebrews might have rejected the apostle's proof of the being and excellency of the priestly office of our lord and saviour, that he was a highpriest after the order of melchizedeck, because it was but once mentioned in the old testament, psal. 110.4. thus having (we hope) evidently proved that the musical tuneable singing of a composed form by a whole assembly, with voices in consort, is no ordinance of our lord jesus; we shall now examine the scriptures they earnestly urge to justify their practice. q. 3. whether those scriptures, eph. 5.19. ●ol. 3.16. do command or justify that kind of singing in the church of christ which they plead for? in answer to this enquiry, it being that on which mr. keach and mr. whinnel do bottom their assertion for the introducing the common and popular way of singing into the baptised churches; we shall first premise some considerations, which we desire may be seriously pondered. first; that those scriptures (supposing they intent a direction for public worship in the church, which we do not grant, on the reason hereafter to be mentioned) do plainly testify against the admitting of the profane, the ignorant, and the unconverted to sing in the solemn assembly of the church of christ; forasmuch as they are to be sung for the teaching and admonition of others. did the lord jesus ever appoint the ignorant, profane, or unbelievers, to be teachers in, or admonishers of his church, according to his new-testament-dispensation? can there be the least shadow of proof produced for it? certainly, as it was then told them in that epistle of mr. steed's, (which they pretend to answer) that he never appointed any to administer teaching and admonition to his church, but such as are orderly added to it, and are qualified by the gifts of the holy spirit, being solemnly allowed or orderly called to such an holy exercise: this being such a truth which they could not, nor did they dare directly to gainsay. how grossly do they endeavour to evade it, by saying that they are allowed to worship god (which is as much as to say, to attend on the worship of god) in the church? now we appeal to their own consciences, whether there be not a great difference between being at, or attending on it as them that do worship god, and administering teaching and admonition to the church? which if the singing of the psalms and hymns, etc. here mentioned, are for that end and use, as it's evident from these scriptures they are; then such persons are plainly excluded from any such solemn exercise in the church, if the meaning of it be for a directions for the public worship of god in the church, as they would insinuate. moreover, that it plainly excludes such from that kind of singing in the church, is most evident; inasmuch as it is expressly declared, that the singing there spoken of, is to be brought forth from the word dwelling richly in them, col. 3.16. and from being filled with the spirit, eph. 5.19. now are unbelievers, etc. capable of being so qualified in any degree? indeed in their way of singing by a composed form, there needs no more than the reading or hearing a psalm or song read to them; and then they are sufficiently furnished for it, be they never so ignorant, profane or unbelieving. in answer to which, they say they detest such a singing: but why then do they plead for the singing of such, before mentioned, who can sing no otherwise, but in a carnal formal manner? can they in truth say, they detest that they allow and openly practise, and vehemently contend for? secondly; these scriptures, if they be as they say, to direct the church in its public worship, do also plainly exclude the women from singing in the church: they are expressly forbidden to teach or admonish in the church, but are commanded to be in silence; without any exception that they may teach by singing, but not by an ordinary speaking, as we have before declared. thirdly; in like manner (if it be meant as aforesaid) those psalms and hymns, etc. there mentioned, are not intended to direct the churches to sing david's psalms, or any other psalms recorded in the scriptures; for then certainly our lord jesus would have caused them to have been translated into greek verse, or meeter, for the use of the churches in those times, and as a pattern for time to come. but none ever did or can assert any such thing; neither is that saying of theirs of any weight, whereby they would seem to prove that, because the word psalm, etc. is there mentioned, that it must needs be meant of those called the psalms of david, etc. because (say they) god hath given us a psalm-book but not a prayer-book (an expression which they have borrowed from others) in the scriptures: for in that sacred book there be abundance of the prayers of holy men recorded, as well as their songs; and especially, that our lord jesus hath left as a platform in the manner of a form of prayer, usually called by the name of the lord's prayer: therefore if we may take their songs, and read and sing them in the church, why may we not also take those prayers, (at least such as we may think most suitable to our present occasion) and read them there for our prayers in the church? let them show, if they can, why there is not as much reason for the one as for the other. moreover; the book of psalms, as they were sung in the old-testament-time, (for which season they were ordained) were a part of the temple-worship. now if that be our rule for musical singing of them now, as it must be if they be those psalms that be here commanded to be sung musically, as a part of the new-testament-church's public worship, than it must be our rule in all parts; (which must be necessarily included in this counsel, if the meaning of it be as they affirm) and so there must be instruments of music with singers or choristers in the performance of it, except they can prove that one part is abolished, and the other remains: for what god hath joined together, no man may put asunder. fourthly; if it be for the public worship of the church that this direction is given; then as it was asserted by mr. st. in his epistle, it must not be by lifting up of voices in consort, because those psalms, etc. must be for teaching and admonition: therefore some are to teach, and some to be taught by them that sing those psalms. but if all sing, they are all teachers, and all admonishers at one time. which is confusion in the judgement of our lord, 1 cor. 14.33. now what do they answer to this, which is so plainly declared in that direction given for the singing or uttering a psalm in the public worship of the church, as well as the bringing forth of the doctrine? verily nothing, but either a plain contradiction of the judgement our lord hath given us in this matter, saying, though it would be confusion in preaching or praying, yet it is not so in singing: which is still confidently to beg the question, to dictate and not to prove, to set their judgement, or the opinion of men, against the judgement of the alwise god: or else they fly to that instance of moses his song, exod. 15.1. which how impertinently it is alleged, to guide us now in the times of the gospel, hath been already declared. secondly; having premised these things: we answer positively (and we desire it may be seriously considered) that it appears plainly, that those scriptures, eph. 5.19. col. 3.16. though they are written as a part of the epistles that were directed to particular churches, yet they do not seem in any respect to refer to their public church-worship, but to regulate their ordinary christian conversation, either solitary by themselves, or in private one with another, as is manifest by comparing or considering their several contexts in those chapters, whereof these verses are a part, both as to what goes before and follows after. that in the epistle to the ephesians stands directly opposed to corporal drunkenness. we do not oppose, or deny, but that it may be lawful for a christian, or for several christians in their private or civil society, if their hearts be cheerful, and that they have skill in singing, and take pleasure therein, to solace themselves therewith; provided it be done decently, and that the matter of their song be such as tends to edification, according to that of james 5.13. so that from the whole it's most evident that those scriptures, in what sense soever they are taken, do not in the least justify that manner of singing as a gospel-ordinance, to be used in the public worship of the church, which they do so earnestly contend for. but it is most evident, that in 1 cor. 14.26. (before spoken to) doth clearly relate to the guiding of them in public worship, in the solemn assembly of the church, which we shall not again insist on. obj. but if any shall be so weak as to object, and say, if any such kind of melodious teaching or admonishing may be lawfully used by church-members in their private conversation, why may it no● also be used in the public worship of the church. answ. we answer; tho it be used in a civil o● private converse, yet it ought not to be admitted in the worship of god in the church, without a command from the lord jesus enjoining it to be a standing ordinance in his church: for it is well known, that there be ways of teaching that are lawful, and aught to be practised in private, which would be very disorderly & unlawful to be introduced into the public worship of god in the church. as for instance, priscilla a woman, may instruct apollo a preacher, more perfectly in the way of god privately, which she ought not attempt to do in the church, act. 18.26. so the aged women ought to instruct the younger women, tit. 2.4. but not in the church. moreover, men and women may and aught to exhort and teach, to admonish or comfort one another in private (as there is occasion and opportunity) by way of mutual conference, discoursing or talking one with another. but this way of teaching (in the judgement of all serious persons) is not to be admitted in the church of christ; because it is, no instituted ordinance of our lord jesus for such an assembly, we having no direction or command from him then to practise it; and therefore cannot expect a blessing in so doing at such a time. even so in the case of singing, whatever may be lawful or allowed of in private, to be practised as aforesaid; yet if it be brought into the church, without a warrant from our lord jesus, to be used in such an assembly in such a manner, it is unlawful, and not accepted by the lord. which warrant is not contained in those scriptures, nor in any other that they have alleged for the justification of their common way of singing, as we have already declared, and shall further (god assisting) make manifest. thus having examined those texts of scripture, they chief plead as perceptive or commanding their manner of singing; we shall now consider those scriptures that are urged by them as precedents to confirm it, which we shall propound in this following enquiry. quer. 4. whether our saviour hymning with his disciples, mat. 26.30, etc. or that, act. 16.25. where it's said paul and sylas, at midnight, prayed and sung praises to god, etc. be precedents or examples to confirm that common way of singing to be an ordinance of our lord jesus, which they strive to set up in the churches? answ. in answer to this enquiry, we shall begin with that hymning of the lord christ with his disciples, mat. 26.30. upon which they lay great stress for their introducing of common set-form singing into the churches. 1. we say to it, as it hath been asserted, that the hymn, before mentioned, in the judgement of many learned men did belong to the passover, and not to the lord's supper; it being the manner of the jews to conclude the passover with a psalm or hymn. now if they would know who those learned men are; we answer, all the learned rabbis of the jews do assert it. see also ainsworth's notes, on exod. 12.11. the dutch also in their exposition, on mat. 26.30. say the hymn was at or did belong to the passover: and that it was the 113th psalm, and so forward: this may be seen in their exposition of the bible. but to put it out of doubt that there was singing appointed and used at the passover; it is recorded in the scripture, by what is mentioned was practised in hezekiah's time, 2 chron. 30.21. it is also plain that the lord jesus and his disciples hymned but once. now if it was their practice, by a divine appointment, to sing at the passover, as by the scripture is evident it was: and if it be also a duty to sing at the lord's supper, than our saviour would have sung twice, once at the passover, and once at the supper. but they hymning but once, (if it were by musical voices in consort) seems plainly to belong to the passover: and so it was done away with it. they with more show of reason might argue for washing the saints feet as a standing duty, seeing it was practised at that time, joh. 13.5. with a more plain injunction to it, which some of their persuasion have practised. 2. supposing it did belong to the supper; it is a question, whether they hymned melodiously with a musical voice or no: for it is manifest, that the greek word there used, is not in its signification restrained to sing with a melodious voice, but may be rendered to praise indefinitely, whether with, or without, a tuneable voice; as it is to be seen in those authors that interpret greek words: but they boastingly say, they can bring threescore to three, that say it signifies to sing with a tuneable voice. to which we answer, that we believe they can scarce produce any authentic authors that say it only signifies to sing or praise with external melody. and so evident it was to learned mr. knowles, (who we believe understood the greek tongue as well as beza and others) that he doth grant it to mr. marlowe in his printed letter to him; yea, so manifest it was to those learned persons that formerly translated the bible into the english tongue, that they rendered it to be giving thanks, or saying grace; as it is extent in their translations, which are to be seen in the library in sion-colledge; who, for aught mr. b. k. or mr. wh. knows (though they speak undervaluingly of them) were as wise and as faithful as our last translators; though they are pleased to revile their translation with the epithets of old and corrupt. 3. neither is it manifest, if the hymn were sung with a musical voice, whether it were in consort, by lifting up their voices together, or only by attention on their lord ministering to them? as in acts 4.24. where it's said, they lifted up they voice with one accord, and said, etc. though none can or do suppose that they all spoke together, but one as the mouth of the rest. to which they say, that many may be said to pray together, when one is their mouth; but not so in hymning or singing praise to god: but what reason do, or can they allege for this their assertion? why, nothing but a common or general custom with many. surely they do but beg the question, while they only assert the contrary, and bring a custom for their proof. it is well known, that it is the custom of many protestants, to pray by lifting up their voices together: and they may with as good ground say, there is no praying, by a company together, without it; and bring their custom as a proof of their assertion; and say, they do abominate any other way of praying to god together▪ as these say, they do abominate any other way o● singing praise to god, as aforesaid. what they further say about what some affirm, not without great probability, (as they are pleased to express it) that they than sung together the 2d psalms; is so senseless an affirmation, not having the least shadow of ground for it in that scripture, nor in its context, that it is but waste time to insist upon it: but any pretence shall be taken up, though never so weak, (because proof is wanting) to justify ● human invention. further; whereas they usually make great use of that expression, that he gave thanks, but they hymned, or (as our last translators render it) sang an hymn, to justify their opinion, that it was done by lifting up their voices together. to that instance, it was answered, that it is most likely that our lord jesus at that time, did give thanks, as speaking by himself, in the first institution of that ordinance; as he usually did before others, on several occasions, matth. 11.25. joh. 11.41. joh. 17. throughout. but at the conclusion, the praise or thanks might be spoken or expressed in the plural number, to testify the refreshment his disciples had with him at that spiritual banquet, though but one might be the mouth of them all, to declare it. now that it was usual with our lord jesus so to do, they could not deny; but o how do they with indignation cavil at it. first, they say it doth intimate as if the disciples did not, or were not admitted to join with our lord in his giving of thanks when he blessed the bread: but what reason is there for that inference, or affrighting conclusion that doth attend it? might not the disciples join in their hearts so, as to say as psal. 20.4. which is a prophetic psalm of the messiah? secondly, they cavil, that from hence it may be a question, whether the minister may be allowed to give thanks over the bread, etc. or whether the members of the church may join with him? to which we answer, that from hence they may as well raise a cavilling question, whether, because our lord jesus expressed his prayer in the singular number, when with company, and especially after his comforting sermon to his disciples in their presence, joh. 17. it be allowed to the minister when with the church to pray, or for the members to reckon they are allowed to join with him? which certainly, would be accounted a groundless feigned scruple, a mere contentious cavil as theirs is. our blessed saviour prayed and gave thanks, as the great representing person and head of his church, and so included all his body in himself; being also the only prevailing advocate with the father. but we that are members, are taught to pray otherwise, when together, in the plural number; as especially appears by that holy platform or direction of prayer he hath left with us. thirdly, they ask, what reason can be given why the hymn might at the conclusion be expressed in the plural number, and not so in the beginning at the blessing of the bread? etc. we answer, the reason was plainly expressed, because it was the only prerogative of our lord to bless his own institution, especially at the beginning and first appointing of it: but at the conclusion, his disciples more fully understanding the grace and love, exhibited and confirmed to them by it, might be in a blessed capacity to join in the hymn, or giving of thanks, as expressed in the plural number. so that it still remains dubious, whether it were uttered with a musical voice, or whether, if so sung, it were by lifting up their voices together; or whether by one, as the voice of the rest; or whether it did belong to the passover, or to the lord's supper. therefore we cannot but reckon it a very rash attempt to lay the basis or foundation of a new institution, upon the sands of such palpable or apparent uncertainties. had our lord jesus said, do thus in imitation of me; as he said, do this in remembrance of me, in the institution of the lord's supper, its being an ordinance, would not be questioned: and then without doubt, it would have been attended with as plain directions, both as to the matter and manner of its exercise. obj. lastly, whereas they say that it is incongruous to say the hymn may intent a general rule for giving of thanks, yet to question, whether the hymn be binding to us. answ. to which we say, it can be no incongruity to affirm, that if by the hymn be meant a composed song, read and sung by all the company, it is not binding to us; it then plainly appears, to our apprehension, on the grounds formerly mentioned, to belong to the passover, and not to the supper: but if it mean only a giving of thanks, wherein one is the mouth of the rest, it may be only a general rule for a direction for the churches to follow in all such cases. finally, it appears to be a conclusive argument to us, that the hymn did not appertain to, or that it was no adjunct to the lord's supper; because that the apostle paul, 1 cor. 11.23, to the 26th, ●hen he there declares, that what he received of the lord, touching that administration, he delivered to them, but makes no mention of the hymn. obj. to this clear instance, they have this evasion, or rather utter this most false assertion against the express word of that scripture; which is, that the apostle leaves out another part of the solemnity; he does not mention, (say they) that our saviour, when he took the cup, gave thanks, as well as he doth not mention the hymn. answ. to which we answer, that it is most evident and plain, that the apostle doth mention that solemnity about the cup, as well as the other. it is a wonder to us, that they should be so bold as to say he did not: for these are the words of that scripture, v. 24. he took the bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it. v 25. after the same manner also he took the cup. now is not this a plain mentioning of giving of thanks at the taking of the cup as well as of the bread, in the understanding of the meanest or weakest amongst men? how else could he say in truth, after the same manner also he took the cup? that they should dare to assert the contrary, notwithstanding such clear evidence, delivered with such plainness, is matter of great lamentation. obj. and whereas it may be objected, that praising of god is not mentioned in that place no more than singing; therefore neither is praising of god there required at the conclusion of that ordinance. answ. we answer, that every mercy received by us from god, implieth a thankfulness to him, as our duty we own to him from whom we have received it. therefore the apostle paul tells us, 1 tim. 4.4. that every creature of god is good, if it be received with thanksgiving. and we are commanded in every thing to give thanks: therefore▪ the greater the mercy is that we receive from god▪ the more enlarged aught our hearts to be in praise and thanksgiving to god from whom we do receive it. neither doth this imply, as they cavil, that then it is left to our wisdom to teach us in that matter, since we are directed by the wisdom of god, what to do in all such cases; especially, when he is pleased to afford to us, or to privilege us with such choice and singular mercies. having thus (we hope plainly) made manifest how little that hymning of our blessed saviour with his disciples, either affirms or confirms their popular way of singing, we shall now (as the lord shall enable us) examine that other text of scripture which is quoted as a precedent for their practice, which is acts 16.25. the text saith, paul and silas at midnight prayed, and sung praises to god; and the prisoners heard them. to which we say, 1. that we may take their praying and praising to be one entire solemn act, though two parts of it be severally noted; neither is there any inconvenience in so understanding it; which seems the more likely for the reasons mentioned in the first enquiry: nor doth the greek word translated (sung praises) restrain us from such an apprehension, but rather confirm it. 2. suppose their singing of praises were with a melodious voice; how doth it appear, that they sung in consort, lifting up their voices together? we may as well from the text, suppose they prayed in consort with their voices: for the scripture implies that the prisoners heard both their prayers and praises. what they answer to this, is, that it is the common voice of mankind, that many be said to pray together when one is their mouth: but they cannot be said to sing praises together, unless they lift up their voices in consort; which is still to beg the question, and to bring nothing for proof but the common vogue or custom; which is most commonly greatly differing from the language and custom of the holy spirit, declared in the new testament. 3. but suppose they did then express the joy of their hearts, by a melodious singing in consort together, what is that to the purpose to prove a stated gospel-ordinance, a standing institution of solemn worship in the new-testament-church? the use of civil or devout sing is not denied, either single or in consort, to persons in their private conversation, as we said before, either to refresh the tired spirits of those, who think themselves refreshed thereby; or to express their inward joy, who think it a proper expedient: and the more religiously it is performed, the better it is. but if any person shall from thence presume to bring it into the church, without a divine warrant, they may be found intruding transgressor's in the day of the lord. thus having (we hope) evidently discovered the weakness of the foundation, upon which they build their practice of common and popular singing, and answered their chief objections which they have made against what was presented in that epistle, which they pretend soberly to answer, we shall only add some few remarks upon some passages in that book of theirs. pag. 42. they ask this question, why we do not answer what renowned mr. cotton, dr. roberts, mr. sydenham, mr. caryl, mr. wells, mr. jesse, m●. knowles, mr. keach, dr. wright, mr. whinnel, a●● mr. ford have said on this subject? to which we answer; that we desire to satisfy ourselves in the discharge of our consciences in what we are convinced to be our duty; and although we own most of them in their catalogue, to be men of renown, both for parts and godliness, yet what they writ upon that subject, doth no more satisfy us, than what they writ for the proof 〈◊〉 infant-baptism, doth satisfy them that ask th●● question of us? and what they have writ in answer to them, doth as little satisfy them, as if they had not writ at all. further, we do not question but in answering mr. keach in this treatise, we have spoken to the chief of their arguments on this subject; he being very dextrous to take gold or dross out of other men's writings, and present them as his own: neither have they any more specious pillars to uphold this common way of singing than those that are pleaded for in this treatise of theirs, which we have now answered. but lastly, we do much wonder that mr. keach and mr. whinnel, should give themselves the style of being renowned; they being the authors of that book, in which they give this encomium of their being men of renown: it is but their own opinion of themselves, not (it may be) of others that know them. however modesty would have caused them (if they had exercised any) to have forborn to have spread their own praise. but surely mr. whinnel and mr. k. forgot the wise man's sayings, prov. 25.27. for men to search their own glory, is not glory. and prov. 27.2 let another man praise thee, and not thine own mouth. and elsewhere that same wise man tells us, some men are wiser in their own conceit, than seven men that ●●n render a reason. they again inquire, how we dare say that singing of psalms with voices is not of divine institution? in answer to which, we ask them again, how they dare to say, that singing of psalms in meeter, with a tuneable voice, by the whole church, and a mixed multitude, is of divine institution, when not one word of all they have written doth prove it? it hath been already granted, that singing of psalms in the temple-worship was of divine institution. and we acknowledge that all the songs and psalms in the old testament, are the undoubted unerring word of god, and of excellent use to all the servants of god, profitable for doctrine and consolation; wherein are contained many excellent experiences of god's gracious dealing with his people, and many blessed promises and prophecies for the establishment of the church and servants of god. but we say the singing of those psalms, as they had respect to the temple-worship, with their musical singing and instruments, with the persons assigned for that kind of exercise, are all at an end. you will find 55 of them directed to the master of music, and 15 of them called each a song of degrees, and most of them directed to the sons of korah. and by the most learned and renowned men of our age, it is asserted that those ordinances being ended by the coming of christ, who was to destroy the city and the sanctuary, and to cause the sacrifice and oblation to cease: it remains now that the word of christ dwell richly in us, in all wisdom; and that we be filled with the spirit, speaking to ourselves, teaching and admonishing one another in psalms, and hymns and spiritual songs, etc. and if that manner of worship, under the law, is ceased, as is affirmed by the learned and pious that it is, then can it not be in the manner of that administration in any respect, unless you will say that the type and the anti-type are all one. but if the gospel be the anti-type of those types, than we must conclude, that as they were outward in their melody and music, so the melody now under the gospel must be inward or spiritual: that is, the joyful voice, signifying the melody and joy of our hearts to god, expressed in praising and thanksgiving to god, who hath revealed more of his grace by jesus christ, that he who is a spirit, may be worshipped in spirit and in truth. as learned dr. owen saith, in his exposition on heb. 2.13. before cited. and whereas they say, that they utterly deny that prayer is a lower sort of worship than singing. we answer, that if they mean singing in their sense, we agree with them; but if in the sense of the scripture, we do affirm, that praises, which are the matter of a song, is a duty of a higher nature than prayer. for, (1.) the praising of god is that duty which saints and angels will be employed in for ever; but prayer ceaseth. on this account it is, that the apostle tells us that charity is the greatest, because it always abideth, 1 cor. 13. (2.) praise is giving to god the glory of his mercy received; but prayer is the begging from god the mercies he hath promised, and which we stand in need of: but we shall not follow them in all their mistakes and impertinencies. they also tell us they are against the composing, ●●sing and imposing set-forms of prayer. but would they but make known the reasons, why they are against set-forms of prayer, no doubt but they would have answered themselves, in all they could substantially allege for their set-form singing, and have saved us the labour. but it is a question whether it be so or no? for this we find, that those very arguments, those very scornful reflections that those that are for set-form prayer do use against them that are opposite to that formal will-worship, do these use to them that are against their set-form singing, or praising of god. as for instance, do the one call in scorn, praying by a spiritual gift, ex tempore praying, in a confused manner? so do these to the like purpose, spenk of praising or singing praise to god without a set-form, pag. 39 in the like manner, as the one say, if you pray by the spirit, your prayer would be of equal authority to canonical scripture; so do these concerning singing praise without a set-form, pag. 36. do the one say in derision, that those that are against set-form prayer, are enthusiasts, or setters up of enthusiasm; so do these in their pretended sober reply say against those that deny their set-form singing, pag. 57, etc. we hear that one whose heart and mind (we believe) as well as name, is to that book of theirs, hath asserted, that enthusiasm came in with the doctrine of believers baptism, whereby he would make our lord jesus the author and promoter of it, that doctrine of baptism aforesaid being originally from his command and practice. it were easy to answer to all these cavils and scorns cast upon us; but we shall forbear at present, because we would first know from them (seeing they say they are resolved to answer, and so to hold on this controversy) what they have to say to wipe off these slurs cast upon their manner of praying, and yet that they may be deservedly cast upon those that are for praising or singing praise by the same spirit, assisting in the same manner as he doth in prayer. but by these things, the baptised churches may behold what that spirit is that would introduce this common singing among them that hath been so long rejected by them; even the same that hath brought in, and maintained all that carnal worship, which by the anti-christian apostasy, hath filled the world to this day. and hereby they may see whereto it would lead them, even back to lick up the old vomit; which will be the more pernicious to them than others, because they have been (through grace) farther delivered from it than many others: and therefore their turning back, will be the more grievous and provoking to the spirit of the lord: though our gracious lord is pleased to deal very gently with his people in all their weaknesses or mistakes, while a perverse spirit is not found among them. wherefore we declare, we have no disgust against, nor would we maintain any distance or difference with those brethren, whose apprehensions may not be the same with ours in this matter about singing; who carry it not only piously, but peaceably in their stations, and among the churches. some of whose names are set to the recommendation of this book (which we in the substance of it, have endeavoured to answer) though without their knowledge or consent. for we believe they are so sober and righteous, that whatever their opinion might be of the argument, they would never have set their names to such a universal appropation, without a faithful witness against those abominable and lamentable extravagant false accusations, reflections and slanders, contained in it. as for mr. whinnel, whose misguided zeal may have misled him with some misinforming, to reflect upon us without cause, as he hath: he being a person of a very courteous and obliging conversation, we hope he will for time to come, if not better, consider his arguments for that common set-form singing, which he doth endeavour to promote; yet, at least, forbear such causeless reflections against those that do in judgement and conscience descent from him in that matter. as for mr. keach, who hath been the chief instrument to raise up this controversy, which may occasion more contention than edification in the baptised churches, we hearty desire he may for time to come labour after the things which make for peace. we know, and he himself also, how long he hath maintained a wall of partition between him and the rest of the baptised churches, allowing no church-communion but such as can agree with him in his opinion and practice of laying on of hands upon the members of the church, both men and women, which practice we find not where commanded by our lord jesus, nor his apostles; yet we have not made it a bone of contention between him and us, neither concerned ourselves for many years, to make any public contest about it; but to say no more of that matter, only what relates to the book itself. 1. whereas in the title of it, it's recommended by divers elders and ministers of baptised churches, mentioning the names of several; some of them affirm they never set their hands to it, saying, they know not how their hands came there; and that the epistle itself, to which their names are set, they never saw until they saw it printed. and where●● in the title it's farther said, it is recommended by divers elders and ministers of the baptised churches, we know that some of them are not ministers, nor elders, nor so much as members in communion with any baptised church as we know of. 2. he hath very unjustly charged the churches which were first gathered, that they were of opinion, and did unanimously declare, that for a gospel-minister to have a yearly allowance, was an human invention, and antichristian: whereas the contrary to which they have declared in their confession of faith, printed by them soon after they came together, as may more at large be seen in the former part of our answer: and it may farther appear what their practice was in those times, by a late printed book, entitled, the life and death of mr. hanserd knowl, written in his life-time with his own hand: wherein he hath left this testimony, pag. 23, 24. that he was pastor to a church in the year 1645, and he received from the church always according to their ability, most of the members being poor. what man fearing god, and desiring to preserve the truth he himself professeth durst affirm so false a thing? and what use may be made of it, by such as are glad of any opportunity to speak evil of the ways of god, we leave to the consideration of all men. finally; we earnestly entreat the baptised churches, their elders, ministers and members, to consider what hath been said concerning this question about singing; and that they would not any of them rashly or hastily, upon any plausible pretences, be persuaded to set up that way of set-form singing; which those churches, in times past, did on matur● deliberation, from the light afforded, reject together with set-form prayer. but the lord grant that we all may be pressing after more purity b●th in the form and spirit of holy-worship; n●t declining to any thing that is not of divine institution. in the mean time, bearing one with another in love, wherein we may be of differing apprehensions in those or other matters that are of ● lower concernment, not being desirous of vain ●lory, provoking one another; studying and earnestly labouring every one of us, to maintain peace a●● holiness in our souls, in our families, and in th● churches of our lord jesus, that the god of love and peace may be with us. we shall conclude with that word, heb. 1●. 20. now the god of peace, that brought again from the dead our lord jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant, make you perfect in every good work to do his will, working in you that which is wellpleasing in his sight, through jesus christ: to whom be glory for ever and ever. amen. we subscribe ourselves, your brethren in the faith and fellowship of the gospel, william kiffin, george barrett, robert steed, edward man. finis. errata. pag. 16. l. 11. for we r. some. p. 23. l. 16. r. in them do they. advertisement. there is now coming forth a book, entitled, truth soberly defended, in a serious reply to mr. b. keach's book, called, the breach repaired in god's worship, or singing of psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs, proved to be an holy ordinance of jesus christ. as also a vindication of a book, entitled, prelimited forms of praising god, vocally sung by all the church together, proved to be no gospel ordinance. with a postscript in answer farther to a book, entitled, folly detected, published by m. joseph wright. and 〈◊〉 a paper called an appendix, or a brief answer to mr. marlowe notion of the essence of singing, by t.w. and to a paper called an answer to a brief discourse concerning ●●nging, by h. k. whereunto is added a brief narative of the ●ise, occasion and management of the present controversy of ●●nging, between i. m. and mr. b. k. with some reflections on book, called truth vindicated, or mr. keach's sober appeal answered. wherein also his abuses, etc. are detected, under the ●nds of several worthy pastors of churches. by isaac marlowe price bound together 1 s. there is also published a book, titled, a treatise of the holy yrin-unity; in two parts. the first ●●serteth the deity of jesus christ and the holy spirit, in the ●●ty of essence with god the father. the second, in defence the former, answereth the chiefest objections made against 〈◊〉 doctrine. by isaac marlowe price bound 10 d. leges angliae. the lawfulness of ecclesiastical jurisdiction in the church of england, asserted and vindicated in answer to mr hickeringill's late pamphlet styled naked truth, the 2d part. gen. ii. ult. naked— but not ashamed. by fran. fullwood, d. d. archdeacon of totnes in devon. london, printed for r. royston, bookseller to the king's most excellent majesty, at the sign of the angel in amen-corner, 1681. to the reader i must beg my readers pardon, that i have not chastified so spiteful an adversary, according to his merits and provocations; for i verily want his talon, and dislike the sport. i confess that when a divine of the church of england, who hath also a share in her government, when such a one shall be taken throwing dirt in the face of his mother, fathers, brethren, and his own profession, he cannot but expect to be lashed to purpose, and to be told roundly, that none but accursed children and very fools would speak such naked truth. some censors, that observe his endeavours, to make not only the canons of the church, but the very canon of scripture itself to veil to the law of the land, would charge him with the profaneness of hobbs: yea, others that find him playing tricks, and sporting (according to his little wit) with the very names of canon, clergy, church and churchmen; and scoffing at almost all that's sacred, will take him to be at hugh peters' game, and running his wretched race. but while he damns the presbyterians, independents, and the fifth-monarchy, together with the church of england, he tempts the wits to produce thirty one reasons to prove he is something, viz. a papist; notwithstanding his drollery and raillery about foppery and popery. lastly, for pride, envy, wrath, malice, spite and revenge, some say he is a very angel of light, and in somewhat more excellent; for the scriptures witness that the devil himself spoke many words both of truth and soberness; and that he seldom or never speaks like an atheist. for my part, i say nothing of him further than this, that if others can find truth in the man, i cannot: and though i am sure he lies open and naked enough, yet i had never troubled myself to expose him, had it not been to secure the government, and to preserve the simple from being betrayed to the danger of the laws by the insolent rant of a pitiful sophister. the proem the contents of it. 1. power purely spiritual of divine right. 2. emperors confirmed bishops-canons. 3. the force of our canons not from rome. 4. officers of our courts. 5. magna charta. 6. the author's concessions. 1. discoursing in the following treatise of the forensic jurisdiction of this church, as established by the law of the land, we had no direct or necessary occasion to speak of the church's power, as purely spiritual, touching preaching, the sacraments and censures. for this is certainly of divine right; and was given to the church by christ himself, with the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and was accordingly exercised in the apostles times, and several hundred years after, without the allowance of the civil magistrate; and was also supposed, allowed, and admitted as such in our own kingdom; and by all the world, even with their receiving christianity, without question or alteration, as is evident in all our histories: and indeed our own laws exclude this purely spiritual power of the keys from the supremacy of our kings, except it be to see that spiritual men do their duty therein. 2. neither doth it concern me to inquire what power the church had, and exercised after the empire became christian: only it seems very clear, that constantine, and the other eminent christian emperors never made any ecclesiastical laws without the counsel of bishops; but only in confirmation, or for the execution of ecclesiastical canons: yet it cannot be denied, but they called councils; they approved their canons; and afterwards entered them into the body of their laws; and still ratified the sentences of ecclesiastical judges with civil penalties. 3. nor yet is't my present province to recollect what influence imperial christian rome had upon the tender age, and immature state of the new born church of england: though we do not deny, but it might be considerable, both as to the form and order of our external jurisdiction in our inferior ministers and ancient canons. but how great soever it was, it was at first only by way of example and direction: and when afterwards it was by command, it was such command, as according to the rights and constitution of this church, had no legal obligation upon us, but by our own consent; and as it became part of our own establishment, either by custom or express law; upon such an occasion the ancient state of england cry out, nolumus mutare leges angliae. this realm hath been and is free from subjection to any man's laws, but only to such as have been devised— within this realm, or to such other as by sufferance of your grace and your progenitors, the people of this realm have taken at their free liberty, by their own consent to be used amongst them; and have bound themselves by long use and custom to the observance thereof; not as to the observance of the laws of any foreign prince, 25 hen. 8. 21. for (as coke declares in cawdries case) as the romans fetching divers laws from athens, yet being approved and allowed by the state there, called them jus romanorum; and as the normans borrowing all or most of their laws from england, yet baptised them by the name of the laws or customs of normandy; so albeit, the kings of england derived their ecclesiastical laws from others, yet so many as be proved, approved and allowed here, by and with a general consent, are aptly and rightly called, the king's ecclesiastical laws of england. 4. as for the inferior ministers in the ecclesiastical courts, that seem to be so offensive to weak people, that they are not popish, or so slanderously to be reported, there is this plain demonstration, that these courts are the king's courts, and the laws thereof are the king's laws; and that notwithstanding all the severe statutes, especially since the reformation, against all foreign jurisdiction, and all such as act under, or by virtue of any foreign power within this realm; yet such ministers are both permitted and required to execute their places in the said courts by the laws and statutes of the kingdom. but grave mr. hickeringill saith, there is not the least specimen of chancellors, registers, summoners, officials, commissaries, advocates, notaries, surrogates, etc. or any ejusdem farinae in holy writ: and hence 'tis learnedly inferred by some, that we have made so many new officers in the church of christ. but how witless and quaker-like is this? and how unlike mr. hickeringill? i should suspect he would call for scripture, for an hourglass, and for clerks and sextons, were it not that he is so palpably in the service of a vile hypothesis, that will stand upon no better grounds; for he knows, that these are not so many new officers of the church, but only assistants allowed by law under bishops, and such other spiritual men as have proper power of ecclesiastical jurisdiction: he knows there is no other canon, but the law of the land; and that the civil magistrate hath power to tell us what is scripture: and that he hath told us s. paul's epistles are so, where we read of helps in 1 cor. 12. 28. government; and that chancellors, commissaries, officials and surrogates are but such helps under different names, from the several ways and degrees of their delegation: that registers are but to make and keep the acts of court, etc. advocates and proctors to order and manage causes; and apparators to serve process, and execute mandates: and that none but one in orders meddles with the keys, either for excommunication or absolution; mr. hickeringill is a man of great experience in spiritual jurisdiction, and need not be told of these plain matters. 5. and seeing the statist will not be quieted, but by argument taken from law; i have written the following treatise, wherein i hope i have sufficiently demonstrated, that our ecclesiastical courts are established in the laws and statutes of this kingdom. our magna charta itself, or the great charter of the english liberties doth suppose and acknowledge the legal exercise of ecclesiastical jurisdiction by the forementioned ministers, as one of the ancient rights and liberties of this church; and doth also ratify, confirm and establish it for ever; at least in the judgement of my lord coke, in these words. this charter is declaratory of the ancient law and liberty of england.— [et habeat omnia jura sua integra] that is, that all ecclesiastical persons shall enjoy all their lawful jurisdictions, and other their rights, wholly without any diminution or substraction whatsoever: and [jura sua] show plainly, that no new right was given unto them, but such as they had before, hereby are confirmed. libertates suas illaesas] libertates are here taken in two senses; 1. for the laws of england. 2. for privileges held by parliament, charter or prescription more than ordinary. coke magna charta. by all which titles the church of england (ecclesia non moritur, but moriuntur ecclesiastici) holds her ancient liberty of keeping courts to this day. 6. yet i do not say but the manner of proceed in these courts may be justly and reasonably altered, as his gracious majesty may be advised; and yet the true liberty of the church be rather fortified than violated. therefore, after some overtures made lately, by a far greater person, in a larger sphere, my narrower subject may suffer me humbly to offer my thoughts touching some alterations, that perhaps might not prejudice our ecclesiastical ministers, or their courts; with all due submission to my superiors. these things following have been long in my thoughts. 1. that a speedier way might be appointed for the dispatch of causes in the spiritual courts than the present legal rules thereof will allow. 2. that trivial matters (such as small tithes and church-rates) might be summarily ended, without exposing the solemn sentence of excommunication, as is generally complained. especially considering that the statute touching the writ de excom. capi. (as well as vulgar apprehension) makes a difference in original causes; though indeed the immediate cause of all excommunication is always the contempt of the king's ecclesiastical jurisdiction, in not obeying, either its summons or sentence; both these perhaps may be contrived by wise men, without prejudice to the said jurisdiction. 3. that there is reason to reascertain the fees for probates of wills, and granting letters of administration, with some moderate respect had to the difference of the value of money, when the former act was made, and at this time, so as the officers in the king's spiritual courts may live upon their employment. 4. and why excommunication decreed in court may not be sent to the parochial minister, to be, not only declared, but executed by him, as the bishops surrogate; and convenient time allowed him to endeavour to reconcile the offender, and to prevent the sentence, if it may be, i see not, if that may give any satisfaction. such kind of alterations perhaps may be admitted without real prejudice to the church, or rather with advantage, as well as those made by the conqueror, when he divided the ecclesiastical from the civil courts: the law by which he made that division is famous, the clauses of it concerning this matter may be desired by the reader, therefore i shall take the pains to transcribe them; they are these: willielmus gratia dei, rex anglorum, etc. william by the grace of god, king of england— to all— that have land in the bishopric of lincoln; know ye all, and all others my faithful people in england, that the episcopal laws, that have [non benè] not well been exercised, nor according to the precepts of holy canons, even to me time in this kingdom (concilio communi) with common counsel, and with the counsel of the bishops and abbots, and all the chief men of my kingdom, i judge (fit) to be amended. moreover, i command, and by my kingly authority enjoin, that no bishop or archadeacon de legibus episcopalibus, hold (placita) pleas any longer in hundret, nor bring any ecclesiastical cause to the judgement of secular men; but whosoever shall be called or questioned for any cause according to the ecclesiastical laws, he shall come to the place which the bishop shall choose, and there shall answer for his cause; and not secundum hundret; and he shall do right to god and the bishop; not according to the hundred, but according to the canons and episcopal laws. — but if any through pride will not appear [venire ad justiciam episcopalem] let him be called the first, second and third time, and if yet he will not come, let him be excommunicated, and if need be, let the strength and justice of the king or sheriff, ad hoc vindicandum adhibeatur— this also i defend, and by my authority interdict, that no sheriff or other minister of the king, or any layman do intermeddle with the laws which belong to the bishop. give me leave to subjoin a few notes upon this law of the conqueror and i have done. 1. the substance and matters of ecclesiastical power and connusance, was the same long before this law was made, and not altered by it: 'twas a law of king alured. si quis dei rectitudines aliquas deforciat, reddat lathlite cum dacis, witam cum anglis: and the same is afterwards confirmed and renewed by canutus and other kings: whereby it appeareth, that long before the conquest the authority and jurisdiction of the church was maintained by the settled laws of the kingdom; and that ecclesiastical judges had power so anciently to excommunicate; and had the help of the king and the sheriff to proceed against the obstinate. 2. 'tis yet very remarkable, that for the form and manner of their spiritual courts and proceed before the conquest, it was not here in england as it was at rome; and therefore our most ancient church-government was not derived or received from rome: this law observes, that before the conqueror, the precepts of holy canons, as to distinct jurisdictions, were not observed in england; that is, the canons of the imperial church, for six or seven hundred years before the jurisdiction of that church was divided from the civil, even by the emperor constantine himself; but for so many hundred years before the conquest, our jurisdictions were exercised together in hundret, as the law acknowledgeth, and is confessed. 3. we here see a plain establishment of our spiritual courts, with power of excommunication, for non-appearance, in the letter of this ancient law, under the king's defence, and enforced with the secular arm; and 'tis observable, that the distinction of the ecclesiastical from the civil courts, was made in the kings own name, and not the pope's, by the king's power and none other; with the counsel of his own subjects only, and not of rome that we read of; and only with respect, and not in any obedience to the ancient canons or foreign methods: and thus the jurisdiction in our courts ecclesiastical as distinct from the civil, is as far from being popish in their original, as it was when they were conjoined; and therein so unlike to the distinct proceed of the spiritual power beyond the seas so many hundred years before: and thus our spiritual courts, both before they were divided, and when they came to be divided from our civil courts, stand firm in the ancient laws of this land. 4. there are certain great epoche's of the legal establishment of the church's power, which i shall but touch; 1. it was received with christianity, and grew and flourished by our ancient laws before the conquest. 2. in the beginning of our norman constitution, it was thus distinguished and established by the conqueror. so it was in magna charta, the first statute. 3. upon the reformation in hen. 8. it was re-established. 4. so it was upon the return of reformation after queen mary by queen eliz. and 5. so likewise upon the return of our present gracious sovereign king charles ii. 5. further, i hence observe, that some alterations in ecclesiastical proceed may be made by law, without any prejudice to the church's power: 'tis observed out of spelman before, that by this law the conqueror did not lessen the church's power: indeed some inconveniences are usually consequent to public changes; and 'tis thought by our civilians, that the many prohibitions which interrupt our ecclesiastical courts are occasioned by their being divided from the temporal: but may not that inconvenience be accidental to that division? or if at any time there be just cause for the church to complain in that respect, is it not rather of the judges than the laws or the constitution? but to the matter before us; admit, for instance, that after summary hearing and sentence of the judge, in cases of small tithes, church rates, and such trivial matters, a justice of the peace, or some other person being legally certified, were impowered and obliged to grant warrants of distress: it seems to me a greater inconvenience in exposing excommunication in such light causes would be hereby removed, than any contracted by such an alteration; and methinks no one should disdain the new office, seeing the superior judge hath been ever bound to issue out the writ de excom. cap. and the sheriff to imprison the party, upon a certificate from the bishop. but i must humbly leave such things to wiser judges. the contents of the chapters and sections. chap. i. the general proposition. the ecclesiastical jurisdiction, as now exercised in the church of england, is allowed and established by the laws of the land. sect. 1. an account of the method. page 1. sect. 2. mr. hickeringill ' s reasoning noted and resolved. p. 2. sect. 3. the propositions suggested by m. hickeringill are these following. p. 4. chap. ii. our ecclesiastical jurisdiction in england was not derived from the pope, but from the crown before the reformation by henry the eighth. p. 5. proof against this popish principle. sect. 1. from the root and branches of ecclesiastical power, donation, investiture, laws. p. 6. sect. 2. jurisdiction. p. 7. sect. 3, 4, 5. p. 9, 11, 12. chap. iii. king hen. 8. did not by renouncing the power pretended by the pope, make void the ecclesiastical jurisdiction: neither was it void before it was restored by edw. 6. 2. p. 13. sect. 2, 3. p. 16, 20. chap. iu. ecclesiastical jurisdictition is lawfully exercised, without the king's name or style in processes, etc. notwithstanding the 1 edw. 6. 2. p. 22. sect. 1, 2, 3. p. 23, 24, 26. sect. 4. 1 edw. 6. 2. repealed, appears from practice. p. 28. sect. 5. 1 edw. 6. 2. repealed in the judgement of all the judges, the king and council. p. 31. sect. 6. mr. h. cary ' s reason to the contrary considered. p. 36. chap. v. the act of 1 eliz. 1. establishing the high-commission court, was not the foundation of ordinary ecclesiastical jurisdiction in england, against mr. hickeringill. p. 41. chap. vi how our ecclesiastical jurisdiction in england came at first, and is at present established by law. p. 46. sect. 1. jurisdiction of the church in common law. p. 51. sect. 2. the government ecclesiastical is established in the statutes of this realm. p. 54. chap. vii. of canons and convocations. p. 60. the conclusion. p. 64. the postscript. p. 67. the bookseller to the reader. the absence of the author, and his inconvenient distance from london, hath occasioned some small erratas to escape the press. the printer thinks it the best instance of pardon, if his escapes be not laid upon the author, and he hopes they are no greater than an ordinary understanding may amend, and a little charity may forgive. r. royston. chap. i. the general proposition. the ecclesiastical jurisdiction, as now exercised in the church of england, is allowed and established by the laws of the land. sect. 1. an account of the method. after so many hundred years' confirmation, both by law and practice, 'tis a marvellous thing this should be a question: yet, of late two worthy gentlemen, treading in the steps of some former malcontents, have ventured to make it one. mr. edmond hickeringill, and mr. h. cary: the first, in his book called naked truth, the second part: the other, in his, modestly styled, the law of england: and it is to be observed, they were both printed very seasonably for the settling our distractions through the fears and danger of popery. i shall note what they say, discover their gross and dangerous mistakes, answer and remove their pitiful objections, and then endeavour to satisfy ordinary and honest enquirers both that, and how our ecclesiastical jurisdication stands firm and unshaken upon the basis of our english laws. sect. ii. mr. hickeringill's reasoning noted and resolved. mr. hickeringill is pleased to say, that upon the stat. 1 eliz. 1. was built the high commission court, and the authority of all canon-makers synodical; but down came the fabric, when that act was repealed by 17 car. 1. 11. and 13 car. 2. 12. where provision was made by striking at the foundation 1 eliz. 1. that no more commissions of that nature be granted any more; only the spiritual courts by 13 car. 2. 12. were to be in statu quo, wherein they were 1639. what state? no great i'll warrant you, if the basis, on which their star-chamber and high-commission-court were built, be taken away. all ecclesiastical jurisdications till hen. 8. were derived from the pope, as supreme of the church: this head being beheaded, the supremacy was invested in the crown. but 1 edw. 6. 2. enacts, that all process ecclesiastical should be in the name and with the stile of the king, etc. so that if there be any ecclesiastical jurisdiction in england distinct from his majesties lay courts, all their processes must be in the king's name, etc. 'tis true 1 edw. 6. 2. is repealed by the 1 mar. 2. but i care not for that, for 'tis revived by the act of repeal 1 jac. 25. the clergy in convocation acknowledged in their petition, that their ecclesiastical power was at that time taken away. so that their present jurisdiction (being not from god; that's certain) 'tis not from man, because his majesty has promised 13 car. 2. 12. never to empower them with any more commissions to the world's end. but this i do not peremptorily assert. i here protest, i know not by what authority we do these things, considering the premises, and the repealing of 1 eliz. 1. by the statute of hen. 8. all these ordinary jurisdictions were cut off, and were revived by 1 edw. 6. upon conditions only. this is the very naked truth, under his first query, and in his conclufion, and up and down this worthy book; that is, such a shabbly lawless logic; such a rude and shattered way of reasoning, as deserves to be reduced with a rod, and lashed into method and sense, and better manners. especially if you single out his false and sturdy begging propositions; fraught with a wretched design of robbing his own mother, in the king's high way, with which he challenges passage to cheat and abuse the country. my business is only to apprehend the vagabonds, and commit them to the justice of some more severe and smarter hand. sect. iii. the propositions suggested by mr. hickeringill are these following. i. that before hen. 8. all ecclesiastical jurisdication in england was derived from the pope: as mr. cary, p. 6. ii. that hen. 8. when he annexed the ecclesiastical jurisdiction to the crown, he took it wholly away from our ecclesiastical ministers. iii. that the church had no jurisdiction after hen. 8. had annexed it to the crown, till 1 edw. 6. 2. iv that if there be any ecclesiastical power in our church, it cannot be executed, but in the name and with the style, etc. of the king, according to 1 edw. 6. 2. v that all our ecclesiastical power was lately founded in 1 eliz. 1. as it established the high-commission-court; and that act being repealed, all ecclesiastical power was taken away with the power of that high commission. on a rock consisting of these sands, stands our mighty champion, triumphing with his naked truth; but we come now to sift them. chap. ii. our ecclesiastical jurisdiction in england was not derived from the pope, but from the crown before the reformation by henry the eighth. dare any protestant stand to the contrary? had the pope really authority here before henry the eighth? did our bishops indeed receive all their power, exercised so many hundred years together, originally from the pope? was not their political jurisdiction derived from and depending on the crown imperial? and founded in our own laws, the customs and statutes of the realm? are these the pope's laws, and not the kings? was there not ecclesiastical power in england, both for legislation and execution ab origine, before the papal usurpation? was not popery at first, and all along, till hen. 8. an illegal usurpation upon our more ancient government, never owned much less established in the true & ancient laws of england, and under that very notion rejected and expelled by him? how then did our bishops, etc. derive all their power from the pope before hen. 8. to say so, is not more like an hobbist than a papist. i thought i had caught an hobby, but war-hawk. proof against this popish principle. sect. 1. from the root and branches of ecclesiastical power, donation, investiture, laws. i. it was a known law long before hen. 8. that the church of england was founded 25 edw. 3. 25 edw. 1. in episcopacy by our kings, etc. and not in the papacy. ii. the collation and donation of bishoprics, and nomination of bishops did always belong to the king; yea all the bishoprics in this realm are of the king's foundation: and the full right of investiture was ever in the crown. coke 1. inst. 2. s. 648. to deny it may be a praemunire. iii. when once the bishops are legally invested, their proper jurisdiction came into 35 hen. 8. 20. their hands, by the laws, without any power derived from the pope: who saith otherwise, knows nothing, or means ill. iv it was acknowledged, that convocations are, always have been, and aught to be assembled by the kings writ only: 'tis law, 35 hen. 8. 19 v as the power to make laws for the church was ever in the king, so the laws themselves must be his, and none other bind us. this realm recognising no superior 35 hen. 8. 21. as 16 rich. 2. 5. under god but the king, hath been, and is free from any laws, but such as have been devised within this realm, or at our liberty, have been consented to, and made custom by use, and not by any foreign power. sect. ii. jurisdiction. thus our ancient ecclesiastical governors and laws depended upon the crown, and not upon the pope, by the laws of england, and in the judgement of all the states of the kingdom before han. 8. and so did also the execution of those laws by those governors in the same public judgement: a little better than mr. hickeringill's popish opinion. 2. in fundry old authentic histories and chronicles, it is manifest, that this realm is an empire, having an imperial crown, to which belongs a body politic, compacted of spiritualty and temporalty: furnished thus, with— jurisdiction to yield justice in all causes without restraint from any foreign prince. the body spiritual having power, when any cause of divine law happened to come in question, the english church, called the spiritualty, which always hath been reputed, and also found of that sort, for knowledge, etc. (without any exterior person) to declare and determine all such doubts, and to administer all such offices as appertain to them: for the due administration whereof the kings of this realm have endowed the said church both with honour and possessions: both these authorities and jurisdictions do conjoin in the due administration of justice the one to help the other. and whereas the king his most noble progenitors, and the nobility and commons of this realm at divers and sundry parliaments, as well in the time of king edw. 1. edw. 3. rich. 2. hen. 4. (all which were certainly before hen. 8.) and other noble kings made sundry ordinances, laws, statutes, and provisions for the entire and sure preservation of the prerogatives and jurisdiction spiritual and temporal of the said imperial crown, from the annoyance and authority of the see of rome from time to time, as often as any such attempt might be known or espied. vid. 25 hen. 8. 12. these things plainly show, that the whole state in hen. 8's. time was not of mr. hickeringill's mind; but that before that time, the whole power of the church was independent on the pope, and not derived from him, but originally inherent in the crown and laws of england, whatever he blatters to the contrary. vid. 25 edw. 3. stat. 4. cap. 22. pag. 123. sect. 3. 27 edw. 3. cap. 1. & 38 edw. 3. c. 4. & stat. 2. c. 1. 2 rich. 2. cap. 6. 3 rich. 2. c. 3. s. 2. 12 rich. 2. c. 15. & 13 rich. 2. stat. 2. c. 2. 16 rich. 2. c. 5. 2 hen. 4. c. 3, & 4. 7 hen. 4. c. 6. 9 hen. 4. c. 8. 1 hen. 5. 7. 3 hen. 5. stat. 2. c. 4. add to these mr. cawdries case in my lord coke, and he must be unreasonably ill affected to the church of england, that is not more than satisfied, that the chief and supreme governors thereof, were the kings of england, and not the pope, before the reign of hen. 8. 3. also it was the sense of the whole kingdom, that the pope's power and jurisdiction here, was usurped and illegal; contrary to god's laws, the laws and statutes of this realm; and in derogation of the imperial crown thereof: and that it was timorously and ignorantly submitted unto, before hen. 8. as the words of that statute are, 28 hen. 8. cap. 16. sect. iii. but if our gentleman be wiser than to believe their words; the matter is evident in our ancient laws, and constant practice accordingly, before hen. 8. his time: indeed all the statutes of provision against foreign powers, are to own and defend the ecclesiastical jurisdiction at home, under this crown. yea all the statutes made on purpose, to restrain and limit the spiritual jurisdiction in certain cases, and respects, do allow and establish it in others, exceptio confirmat regulam in non exceptis. 2. much plainer, all the statutes that prohibit the king's civil courts to interrupt the ecclesiastical proceed, but in such cases, and the statutes granting consultations in such cases; and the statutes directing appeals in the spiritual courts, and appeals to the chancery itself, and the laws ratifying and effectually binding their sentence by the writ de exc. cap. much more plainly do these establish the ecclesiastical jurisdiction in the laws of the land, before hen. 8. 3. by this time 'tis vain to mention the statutes which of old did specify and allow particular matters to be tried only in the ecclesiastical courts: such as tithes, 18 edw. 3. 7. the offences of ecclesiastical persons, 1 hen. 7. c. 4. causes testamentary, 18 edw. 3. 6. synodals and procurations, and pensions, etc. 15 hen. 8. 19 defamations, 9 edw. 2. 3. 1 edw. 3. c. 11, etc. all which are clear evidences that the ecclesiastical jurisdiction was established by the statutelaws of this realm, and consequently, did not depend upon, was not derived from any foreign power before the 20 of hen. 8. sect. iv to seek for the original of our ecclesiastical jurisdiction and courts, in the statute-book, is more than ridiculous; seeing they both stood in a flourishing estate long before the beginning of that book: and are among the number of the great things, which were then, secundum consuetudinem & leges angliae, and are plainly established in the common law of the land: by which they have stood and been practised, ever since (as we shall prove more fully anon.) 2. magna charta, which is found first in the book of statutes, and is said by lawyers to be common law (i. e. shows us what is common law) in this kingdom; gins thus, we have granted and confirmed for us and our heirs for ever, that the church of england shall be free; and shall have all her whole rights and liberties inviolable. reserving to all archbishops and bishops, and all persons as well spiritual as temporal all their free liberties and free customs, which they have had in times past, and which we have granted to be holden within this realm; and all men of this realm, as well spiritual as temporal, shall observe the same against all persons. 3. now what can any man, that knows the practice of the spiritual courts, before that time, at that time, and ever since, imagine what is meant by the liberties and customs of the church, (i. e. in the sense of mr. hickeringill) and the words of magna charta, archbishops, bishops, and all spiritual men, but the jurisdiction ecclesiastical in the first and chief place? and these, by the great charter, are confirmed for ever; and the like confirmation hath been made by the many succeeding kings and parliaments, in their confirmation of magna charta. 4. therefore i cannot but conclude, that the ecclesiastical jurisdiction being founded in the common law, magna charta, and the statutes, by so long practice beyond all records, is in the very constitution of the kingdom: the great men of the church having always had authority in the very making of laws as they had before magna charta, and been reputed (as in the statute of eliz.) one of the three states in parliament; and the execution also of the ecclesiastical laws of the church of england. sect. v lastly, all this is plainly confirmed by ancient ecclesiastical canons (which seems to be an argument of great weight with mr. hickeringill) as well as by the ancient laws and customs of the land. in the apostles canons 'tis ordained, that every national church should have its own chief or head, and thence derive all power under the crown: 'tis acknowledged, against the papists, that we had our archbishops and bishops before the usurpation of the pope: we were anciently a patriarchate independent upon rome: the four first councils confirmed the apostles canons; and established our ancient cyprian privilege: let afterencroachments of the pope be accordingly renounced as lawless usurpations: let us quietly enjoy our restored ancient privileges; and let ancient custom prevail, according to the sentence of the ancient councils, in spite of all papists and hobbists. chap. iii. king hen. 8. did not, by renouncing the power pretended by the pope, make void the ecclesiastical jurisdiction: neither was it void before it was restored by 1 edw. 6. 2. it's somewhat difficult to make this proposition than it is in its self more plain: pray mr. wiseman, where and by what words did hen. 8. cut off, as you say, all those ordinary▪ jurisdictions? did that great prince and his parliament intent by any statute then made, to cut them off, or not? if they did intent it, how came it to pass that they continued in their usual course of power and proceed all the rest of his reign? which may be presumed to be near ten years? was that watchful prince so asleep? was the whole kingdom so stupid, so long a time, to suffer such oppression, by invasion of the crown and the people's liberties, by a company of churchmen, now deprived of the pope's assistance, and without any power at all? or were the ecclesiastical governors so desperate or careless, as to lie under so much danger of praemunire, neither desisting to act without power, nor to sue for it? 2. but perhaps, though the king and parliament did not intent it, yet the words of the statute express enough to dissolve and cut off all those ordinary jurisdictions: and no body could see through this millstone, or tumble it upon the church's head, before mr. hickeringill was inspired to do it in a lucky time. i will answer him with a story; there was a certain lord laid claim to a manor that was in another lord's possession: upon trial it was found, that the plaintiff had the right of it; and he that had had possession was thrown out, and the other (the right owner) was, as he ought to be, put into the possession of the said manor; but it was observed, that, though the lords were changed, yet the customs, and courts, and officers were not changed at all, but all things proceeded as before. 3. thus king hen. 8. and his parliament expressed themselves as if on purpose to our present case; only that the pope's power than was rather in a pretended claim, than in possession; as is evident from that notable statute 24 hen. 8. c. 12. where we have the king's supremacy first asserted, with a body politic of the spiritualty and temporalty, every way furnished with authorities and jurisdictions, to administer justice to the whole realm. thus the imperial crown fully accomplished, throws off the pretence of the pope, as king edw. rich. and hen. 4. had done before, yet as they also did, reserves as well the spiritualty and its jurisdiction, as the temporalty and its jurisdiction. afterwards 4. the king doth by his royal assent, and by the assents of the lords spiritual and temporal, and the commons assembled, and by the authority of the same, enact, establish and ordain, that all causes testamentary, causes of matrimony and divorces, rights of tithes, oblations and obventions, the knowledge whereof, by the goodness of princes of this realm, and by the laws and customs of the same, appertaineth to the spiritual jurisdiction of this realm, shall be from henceforth heard, examined, discussed, clearly, finally and definitively adjudged and determined in such courts, spiritual and temporal, as the natures of the controversy shall require. 5. 'tis plain therefore, that though hen. 8. did cut off the pope's pretence, which is the great intention of that excellent law, yet the ecclesiastical jurisdiction was not dissolved, but annexed or declared to be annexed to the imperial crown of this realm, and to continue to exercise its power in the spiritual courts, as before, according to the laws and customs of the land. read the statute, and you will not only see a continuance of the spiritual courts supposed and allowed, but special directions touching proceed and appeals therein. sect. ii. if king hen. 8. did take away the ecclesiastical authority of the church of england, he did either remove the officers, or deny their power to make canons, or destroy their courts, and the exercise of their jurisdiction; but he did do neither, but rather by acts of parliament established them all. i. for the first, touching the governors of the church, consult statute 31 hen. 8. 3. that it may be enacted by the authority of this present parliament, that all archbishops and bishops of this realm, may, by authority of this present parliament, and not by any provision, or other foreign authority, enjoy and retain their archbishoprics and bishoprics in as large and ample manner, as if they had been promoted, elected, confirmed and consecrated according to the due course of the laws of this realm: and that every archbishop and bishop of this realm may minister, use and exercise all and every thing and things pertaining to the office or order of any archbishop or bishop, with all tokens, ensigns and ceremonies thereunto lawfully belonging. further, that all ecclesiastical persons of the king's realm, all archdeacon's, deans, and other having offices, may by authority of this act (and not &c.) administer, use and exercise all things appertaining to their dignities and offices, so it be not expressly against the laws of god and this realm. ii. neither did king hen. 8. take away the power of the bishops and others, to make canons in convocation, as appears by the statute of the 25 of▪ hen. 8. 19 in that statute, among other things, upon the petition of the clergy, two things are granted to our purpose, touching ecclesiastical canons. 1. the old ones; 'tis provided that such canons being already made, which be not contrariant nor repugnant to the laws, statutes and customs of this realm, nor to the damage of the king's prerogative royal, shall now be used and exercised as they were before the making of this act, till such time as they be viewed by the said thirty two persons, according to the tenor of this act, which was never done; therefore such old canons are yet of force by this act. vid. sect. 6. 2. for the making of new canons; the convocation hath power reserved by this same act, provided the convocation be called by the kings writ▪ and that they have the royal assent and licence to make, promulgate, and execute such canons: as you may read sect. 1. of the said statute. indeed the convocation used a larger power in making canons before, as is there noted, which, they say, they will not henceforth presume to do: but it therefore follows, that they may still use their power, so limited and derived from the crown; which is the evident intention of the act. for by restraining the clergy thus to proceed in making canons, the law allows them the power so to do; and by making the exceptions and limitations confirms their authority so far as it is not excepted against. iii. neither, lastly, did king hen. 8. take away the ordinary jurisdiction of ecclesiastical governors as exercised in the spiritual courts, according to the laws and canons of this church: but indeed established them by acts of parliament, as is plainly to be seen in the 37 hen. 8. c. 16. sect. 4. in these words: may it therefore please your highness, that it may be enacted, that all singular persons which shall be made— deputed to be any chancellor, vicar-general, commissary, official, scribe or register, by your majesty or any of your heirs or successors, or by any archbishop, bishop, archdeacon or other person whatsoever, having authority under your majesty, your heirs and successors, to make any chancellor, vicar-general, commissary, official or register, may lawfully execute all manner of jurisdiction, commonly called ecclesiastical jurisdiction: and all censures and coertions appertaining unto the same, etc. 2. 'tis acknowledged, that in the sect. 2. of this statute, it seems as if the parliament concluded, that by the 25 of hen. 8. 19 the ancient canons were abrogated, which i wonder mr. hickeringill his sagacity had not discovered: yet 'tis plain enough, that wise parliament did not thereby reflect upon or intent all the canons; but such canons, as the present matter before them was concerned in; that is, such canons as forbade ecclesiastical officers to marry; as the words sect. 1. are, that no lay or married man should or might exercise any ecclesiastical jurisdiction, etc. directly repugnant to your majesty's as supreme head, your grace being a layman: than it follows in the next words, and albeit the said decrees, viz. being contrary to the royal prerogative as supreme head of the church, be in the 25 year of your most noble reign utterly abolished. that this is the meaning of that clause is reasonable to believe, because they take no further care to correct the matter, but only by enacting persons lawfully deputed, though they be lay persons, though married or unmarried, shall have power, and may exercise ecclesiastical jurisdiction, notwithstanding any law or constitution to the contrary, as the statute is concluded. 3. besides, we are assured, that all the ancient canons, that were not repugnant to the king's prerogative, or the laws and customs of this realm were not abrogated, but declared to be of force, i. e. to be executed in the spiritual courts, as was noted in the very letter of that statute 25 hen. 8. 19 and that this clause, speaking only of such canons as were abrogated by that statute, abrogates nothing that was not so, by the act referred to. 4. and thus the jurisdiction and canons of the church stood in force, at the latter end of the reign of hen. 8. this statute being made in the last year, wherein any were made by that great prince. 5. thus we have found in the time of king hen. 8. an ecclesiastical jurisdiction exercised in england, without any dependence on the pope, and other authority for canon-makers synodical (as mr. hickeringill cants) besides the statute for the high commission 1 eliz. upon which statute of eliz. mr. hickeringill very learnedly asserts the authority of all canon-makers synodical was built: qu. naked truth. sect. iii. no more is needful under this head, but to show my respect to mr. hickeringill his doughty and only argument, taken out of the petition of the clergy to queen mary; whereby he would fain prove, that the extinguishing act of hen. 8. took away all ordinary jurisdiction from the church of england, and that there was no such thing till she revived it. 2. the words of the petition, from whence he thus argues, you shall have in his own translation, in this manner: they pray that her majesty would make such provision, that those things which belong to our ecclesiastical jurisdiction and liberties (without which we cannot duly discharge, etc.) and taken from us lately by the iniquity of the times, may be again restored; and that all laws which have taken away, or do any ways hinder our ecclesiastical jurisdiction and liberties, may be made null and void. hence he concludes, that in the judgement of the convocation at that time, their jurisdiction and liberties were taken away. is this proof sufficient against all the laws and practice of the kingdom during the reign of hen. 8. after the extinguishing act? or do they say that hen. 8. took away the ecclesiastical jurisdiction? how can mr. hickeringill divine that it was not the renouncing the pope as head of their jurisdiction and liberties, that was the very grievance that they complained of? 3. this is certain, that queen mary succeeded edw. 6. that edw. 6. did require more express testimonies of the clergy's recognition of the crown, in the exercise of the ecclesiastical jurisdiction by the statute (of which we shall take more notice presently) than hen. 8. did; and 'tis past mr. hickeringill his skill to prove, that the convocation in their said petition, did not principally, if not only intent that severe act of edw. 6. however that pass, mr. hickeringill his argument, deserves not the strength of a convocation to confute it. 4. i leave it to mr. hickeringill himself; for if he think, that that convocation spoke that which was not true, he hath said nothing to the purpose: but if he think they did speak truth, than he thinks, that the jurisdiction of the church of england, as derived from the king, according to the statute of edw. 6. or in hen. 8's time, was no lawful jurisdiction, that is, mr. hickeringill thinks as the papists think; war hawk again mr. hickeringill, and a praemunire too. but this brings us to consider the statute of edw. 6. chap. iu. ecclesiastical jurisdiction is lawfully exercised, without the king's name or style in processes, etc. notwithstanding the 1 edw. 6. 2. that all ecclesiastical processes should be in the name and style of the king, etc. according to the statute of 1 edw. 6. 2. is the great and old objection, not only of mr. hickeringill, but several others. sect. i. answ. but first, if this statute were not repealed (as indeed it is) there are several things in the body of it very considerable against mr. hickeringill, and to our advantage. 1. the statute observes in the very foundation of it, that it's justly acknowledged by the clergy of the realm, that all courts ecclesiastical within the realms of england and ireland, be kept by no other power or authority, but by the authority of the king; which, it seems, was then known without the testimonies thereof, then to be required; and indeed is so still by the oaths which all ecclesiastical persons cheerfully take before their instalment. 2. that there was such a thing in practice before the making this act, as ecclesiastical jurisdiction in the church of england: for the statute saith, that archbishops, etc. do use to make and send out their summons, etc. in their own names at that time, who yet acknowledged all their authority from the crown, sect. 3. 3. the statute allows the ecclesiastical jurisdiction itself; and that the archbishops and bishops shall make, admit, etc. their chancellors, and other officers and substitutes, which supposeth the constitution of the spiritual courts, under their own names, and with their own seals, sect. 6. 4. this statute also allows, that some things are limited by the laws and customs of this realm, and if such things are depending in the king's courts of record at common law, are to be remitted to the spiritual courts to try the same, sect. 7. 5. but what is the penalty if they do not use the king's name and style, and put the king's arms into their seals of office? this is considerable. 'tis well the statute provided sect. 4. a better hand to punish the delinquents than mr. hickeringill, and a milder punishment than he interprets the law to do: the punishment is the king's displeasure, and imprisonment during his pleasure; not the voiding the jurisdiction, as mr. hickeringill would have it: and while the king knows the statute is repealed, as shall next appear, we fear not but his majesty is pleased with, and will defend our jurisdictions, while we humbly acknowledge their dependency on the crown, and exercise the same, according to his laws, though we presume not to use his name, and style, and arms, without the warrant of law. sect. ii. 1. for that statute of 1 edw. 6. 2. was repealed by the first and second of philip and mary, c. 8. wherein we have these plain words; the ecclesiastical jurisdiction of the archbishops and ordinaries (are declared) to be in the same state for process of suits, punishment of crimes, and execution of the censures of the church, with knowledge of causes belonging to the same; and as large in these points, as the said jurisdiction was the said twentieth year of hen. 8. whereby that statute is also revived, as my l. coke affirmeth. thus, by act of parliament, of which that queen was the undoubted head, (and by the power of the crown of england, and not the pope) the ecclesiastical jurisdiction of this realm was established by our own law in the same state wherein it stood before the twentieth of hen. 8. and then, we find, that by our ancient laws and customs, it was dependent on the crown, whatever some churchmen thought to the contrary. 2. i have read, that this same queen mary wore the title of head of the church of england herself; though in other points too too zealous for popery: and by this very statute it is enacted, that nothing in this act shall be construed to diminish the liberties, prerogatives, or jurisdictions, or any part thereof, which were in the imperial crown of this realm the twentieth year of hen. 8. or any other the queen's progenitors before: and we have found, that the ecclesiastical jurisdiction of this kingdom was subject to, and dependent on the imperial crown, secundum consuetudinem & legem angliae in her ancestors time: we have found also, that this was the undoubted judgement of the whole kingdom in the statutes of hen. 8. edw. 6. queen eliz. king james, etc. now let it be shown, that this clause of the statute of queen mary is repealed, which is so agreeable to the ancient customs and rights of the crown; let this be shown, and you do something: this statute of my lord coke's is not repealed by the 1 of eliz. or king james, though the 1 of mary should be granted to be so. also the 25 hen. 8. 20. being contrary to 1 edw. 6. 2. is revived by 1 eliz. and never repealed. rep. coke 12. p. 9 i. mr. hickeringill indeed is bold enough, but i find mr. cary timorous in the point, though against the hair: for though he toll on his weak and prejudiced readers, to their great hazard, in putting their whole case upon this one point, whether the court can show the broad seal, etc. yet when he comes home to the matter, he tells them, that the aforesaid statute of edw. 6. not being mentioned by king james' act of repeal, and expressly revived, is thought not to be of force; so that a citation in the bishops own name, may, at this day, be good in law. law of engl. c. 2. p. 12. mr. hickeringill should have taken the advice of this his friend, a great lawyer certainly, that entitles his minute and thin piece, the law of england. sect. iii. mr. cary indeed mistakes the statute; for it is the first of king james 25. not the fourth: yet we have his learned opinion, that citations in the bishops own name, may, at this day, be good in law; and for aught i know, his reason for it may be good too, viz. because the statute of queen mary, especially that of the first and second of phil. and mar. c. 8. is not in the said act of repeal expressly revived, according to the express words of the act, vid. 1 eliz. sect. 13. but, o mr. cary! though we have here your opinion and your reason, where was your conscience? where was your kindness to your beloved dissenting clients? when you dared to betray them to the devil and the gaoler (to speak in mr. hickeringill's language) (a far heavier sentence than curse ye meroz) and that upon no other ground, that i can find, in your english law, but this statute only; which yet for the reason aforesaid, you say, is thought not to be of force; and though, you say, the bishops may at this day send forth citations in their own names by law; yet your grave advice to those friends is this; when you are cited, appear and demand, whether they have any patent from the king for the same, and under his great seal or no; if they will not show you by what authority— protest against their proceed, and go your way, i. e. the way of disobedience, contempt; the way to the gaol and the devil; but that's no matter, he hath showed his spite to ecclesiastical authority against his own law and conscience: he was not to satisfy a doubt, but a lust; and his confidence is as able to secure the deluded people from the danger of contempt of the king's ecclesiastical courts, as his wise notion of magna charta, c. 14. from paying their tithes. see this point excellently and fully argued on both sides, and the judges, etc. opinion and reasons silencing this objection in king james' time, coke rep. 12. p. 7, 8, 9 sect. iv 1 edw. 6. 2. repealed appears from practice. ii. a further argumeut, that the stat. 1 edw. 6. 2. is repealed is taken from the uninterrupted practice, both of the ecclesiastical jurisdiction, and the kings of england, and their own immediate courts, contrary to it: and i think it is a rule in law, that in doubtful cases, lex currit cum praxi. 1. the ecclesiastical judges have, ever since the repealing act of queen mary, before and since the statute of queen eliz. and king james, called statutes of repeal, uncontrollably proceeded in their own names, and not expressly in the name or stile of the king (let one instance be shown to the contrary) than who can imagine without a fancy possessed, that the crown and states of the realm should intent so great an alteration in the ecclesiastical government; and that in the behalf of the supremacy, and for the rights of the crown, as is pretended, by reviving that act of 1 edw. 6. and yet, neither then, nor ever since, expect a conformity to, and observance of it? were queen eliz. and king james so easy and careless of their crowns as this would make them? were all the bishops, who were concerned in making those acts of repeal, and all ecclesiastical judges ever since, so dull and stupid, as not to know the force of those acts; not to mind either their duty, or their safety, in so great and hazardous a point, as some would have it of a praemunire? or so foolhardy, as to bear against the crown itself, on which alone they know they depend against plain acts of parliament, in the midst of froward and watching enemies on every side them? who can think it? i must conclude, that if it be possible that the act of queen mary should be repealed in this point, either by queen eliz. or king james, 'tis more than ever the lawmakers themselves thought of, understood or intended. 2. for secondly, the practice of the crown that was in the first place highly concerned in that stat. 1 edw. 6. 2. hath been ever since the act of queen mary that repealed it, directly contrary to it; and, in a very great point or flower of the supremacy, managed itself ever since, just as it did before that act of edw. 6. and, as i said, directly contrary to it: therefore 'tis past all doubt but that the sense of the queen and kings of england, and the sense of those great lawyers and statesmen, that direct the crown in such great affairs, is evident, that the statute of edw. 6. stands repealed, and is not revived; for in that stat. 1 edw. 6. 2. 'tis expressly enacted, that whereas elections of bishops by deans and chapters upon a writ of congee d'eslire— seeming derogatory and prejudicial to the king's prerogative royal; for a due reformation thereof, be it enacted, that from henceforth no such congee d'eslire be granted, nor election made, but, etc. yet ever since congee d'eslires have been granted, and such elections thereupon have been returned and accepted. 3. the king's immediate courts, so far as they have been concerned with jurisdiction of the church, and the king's civil judges therein, have ever since owned, and as occasion hath required, ratified, fortified, and made effectual all our ecclesiastical proceed ever since, though not acted in the king's name, contrary to the said statute; though 'tis a great part of their places and offices to secure the prerogative against all invasion, especially of the church: thus by their constant practice it appears, that they never understood that statute of edw. 6. to be in force, since queen mary repealed it: was the whole kingdom so long, and in so deep a sleep, to be awakened by such impertinent and little barkings? sect. v 1 edw. 6. 2. repealed in the judgement of all the judges, the king and council. the objection from the 1 edw. 6. is no new light of mr. hickeringill's, we find it busy in the time of king charles the first, anno 1637. and by the king's proclamation it seems it had troubled the kingdom before, as indeed it had in the fourth of king james. in that year 1637. upon an order out of the star-chamber, the learned judges were commanded to give their opinion in this matter: and they all met together, and deliberately, and distinctly, and fully declared, that the 1 edw. 6. 2. is repealed, and is not in force; and that the ecclesiastical judges did (in all the points called in question) act legally, and as they ought to do; hereupon the king and council being satisfied, issued forth the said proclamation to silence and prevent all such objections against ecclesiastical judges, courts and proceed for the future; and the judgement of the judges under their hands, was enrolled in the courts of exchequer, king's bench, common pleas, etc. as law; where any one may find it that desires to be further satisfied in the truth of it. 2. hence i argue, that that statute of 1 edw. 6. is repealed in law; at least that the subjects ought so to esteem it, until they have the judgement of the judges declared otherwise; yea, though those judges (which is profane to imagine) did err in that their declaration through ignorance or fear of the high commission, as mr. hickeringill meekly insinuates, p. ult. for the law is known to the subject, either by the letter or by the interpretation of it: and if the letter of the law be not plain, or be doubtful, we take the interpretation of it from such as by law are of right to make the interpretation, to be the law; and this i think is the common law of england, and believe that mr. cary himself thinks so too. 3. now, who is or can be thought to be the most proper interpreter of a doubtful law, but the king with his council, by all the judges of the land? especially if that law concern ecclesiastical jurisdiction, and the ecclesiastical supremacy of the crown, as the law in question plainly doth. but the king himself with his council, by all the judges of the land, hath solemnly declared, that the 1 edw. 6. 2. is repealed, and not of force; this is a legal interpretation of the law; this is law, and aught so to be taken, rebus sic stantibus, by all the subjects of england, whatever little men that talk of the law in their own narrow and private sentiments presume to vent, to the scandal of the people, the trouble of the kingdom and slander of the church, and ecclesiastical proceed: and indeed it would be an insufferable sauciness, to say no worse, for any ecclesiastical judge to act by a law that is none, against the so solemn declaration of the king, the council, and all the judges of the land, and this is the case. i shall therefore trouble, if not pleasure, my reader with the declaration of the judges, and the sense of the king and council of it. primo julii 1637. the judge's certificate concerning ecclesiastical jurisdiction. may it please your lordships, according to your lordship's order made in his majesty's court of star-chamber the twelfth of may last, we have taken consideration of the particulars, wherein our opinions are required by the said order, and we have all agreed: that processes may issue out of the ecclesiastical courts, and that a patent under the great seal is not necessary for the keeping of the said ecclesiastical courts, or for the enabling of citations, suspensions, excommunications, or other censures of the church; and that it is not necessary that summons, citations, or other processes' ecclesiastical in the said courts, or institutions, or inductions to benefices, or correction of ecclesiastical offences by censure in those courts, be in the name or with the style of the king, or under the king's seal; or that their seals of office have in them the kings arms. and that the statute of primo edvardi sexti c. 2. which enacted the contrary, is not now in force. we are also of opinion, that the bishops, archdeacon's, and other ecclesiastical persons may keep their visitations as usually they have done, without commission under the great seal of england so to do. john brampstone, john finch, humph. davenport, will. jones, jo. dinham, ri. hutton, george crook, tho. trevor, george vernon, ro. berkley, fr. crawly, ri. weston. enrolled in the courts of exchequer, king's bench, common pleas; and registers in the courts of high commission and star-chamber. hereupon followed the king's proclamation, declaring that the proceed of his majesty's ecclesiastical courts and ministers are according to the law of the land; as are the words of the title. i shall only transcribe the conclusion of the proclamation, which you have faithfully in these words. and his royal majesty hath thought fit, with the advice of his council, that a public declaration of these opinions and resolutions of his reverend and learned judges, being agreeable to the judgement and resolutions of former times, should be made known to all his subjects, as well to vindicate the legal proceed of his ecclesiastical courts and ministers, from the unjust and scandalous imputation of invading or entrenching on his royal prerogative, as to settle the minds, and stop the mouths of all unquiet spirits; that for the future they presume not to censure his ecclesiastical courts and ministers in these their just and warranted proceed: and hereof his majesty admonisheth all his subjects to take darning, as they shall answer the contrary at their perils: given at the court at lindhurst, aug. 18. in the thirteenth year of his majesty's reign▪ god save the king. you may see the case fully, the reasons on both sides, and the judge's determination the fourth of king james, to which this proclamation may refer, coke rep. 12. p. 7, 8. now i could almost submit it to mr. cary or mr. hickeringill himself, whether it be fit or safer for ecclesiastical judges to proceed in their courts as they now do; or altar their proceed, and presume upon the king, by using his royal name, and style, and arms, contrary to all this evidence, and reason, and law. sect. vi mr. h. cary's reason to the contrary considered. but mr. cary saith, he seethe not a drachm of reason, why the spiritual courts should not make their process in the king's name, as well as the temporal courts, since those, as well as these, are the king's courts. he seems to talk apothecary, without so much as a drachm of reason; the usage of the courts, and the evidence aforesaid, is better law than his pitiful guesses. neither is there colour of reason in what he saith, if these two things appear. 1. that the ecclesiastical ministers do sufficiently and openly acknowledge the dependence of their courts upon the crown without using his majesty's name, or style, or arms. 2. that there is not the same reason that the spiritual courts should use the king's name, etc. that there is for the temporal. 1. for the first, the ecclesiastical judges accept their places thankfully as the king's donation, and not the popes: then they readily grant they depend upon the crown, even for the exercise of their spiritual function; and that they receive all coercive and external jurisdiction immediately from the crown and the laws of the land, and not from the pope. again, they all take the oaths of supremacy and allegiance before their instalment, which are the fence of the crown against popery. and then in all their public prayers before their sermons, the bishops and archdeacon's, &c. do recognize the king's supremacy in all ecclesiastical things and causes as well as civil. again, they take the late test and the same oaths at the public sessions. and lastly, mr. cary himself confesseth, that they acknowledge the said supremacy in their public canons or constitutions of the whole church of england, as he notes p. 2. in can. 1, 2. 1603. and are all these less significant to testify their dependence on and acknowledgement of their derivation from the crown, than the king's name, and style, and arms (which may be far enough from the conscience) in a process? 2. for the second, that there is not the same reason to use the king's name in ecclesiastical as in civil courts, is apparent from the true cause of using it in the civil courts, which being not known or well heeded, may be the cause of the exception: for bishop sanderson hath well observed the true reason of using the king's name in any court, is not thereby to acknowledge the emanation of the power or jurisdiction of that court from, or the subordination of that power unto the king's power or authority, as the objector seems to suppose; but rather to show the same court to be one of the kings own immediate courts, wherein the king himself is supposed (in the construction of the law) either by his personal or virtual power to be present: and the not using the king's name in other courts doth not signify, that they do not act by the king's authority, but only that the judges in them are no immediate representatives of the king's person; nor have consequently, any allowance from him to use his name in the execution of them. 1. this difference is evident among the common law courts of this kingdom; for though all the immediate courts of the king do act expressly in his name, yet many other more distant courts do not; as all courts-baron, customary-courts of copyholders, etc. and such courts as are held by the kings grant, by charter to corporations, and the universities: in all which summons are issued out, and judgements given, and all acts and proceed made and done in the name of such persons as have chief authority in the said courts, and not in the name of the king; thus their styles run; a. b. major civitatis exon. n. m. cancellarius vniversitatis oxon. and the like, and not carolus dei gratia. 2. once more a little nearer to our case; there are other courts that are guided by the civil (as distinguished from the common) law; as the court-marshal and the court of admiralty; the king's name in these is no more used, than it is in the courts spiritual; but all processes, sentences, and acts in these courts, are in the name of the constable, head marshal, or admiral, and not in the king's name. 3. i shall conclude this with those grave and weighty words of the same most admirable bishop sanderson, in his excellent treatise, showing, that episcopacy as established by law in england, is not prejudicial to regal power; worthy of every englishman's reading: his words to our purpose are these; which manner of proceeding, like that of the spiritual courts, constantly used in those several courts before mentioned; sigh no man hath hitherto been found to interpret, as any diminution at all or disacknowledgment of the king's sovereignty over the said courts: it were not possible the same manner of proceeding in the ecclesiastical courts should be so confidently charged with so heinous a crime, did not the intervention of some wicked lust or other prevail with men of corrupt minds to become partial judges of evil thoughts, p. 68, 69. mr. hickeringill is one of those whom the bishop describes, i. e. that so confidently chargeth the ecclesiastical courts with that heinous crime, and foundeth that confidence in the statute of the 1 eliz. 1. in charity to him, i shall give him such words out of that statute, as do not only secure the act of queen mary that repealed the act of 1 edw. 6. 2. (requiring the use of the king's name in our proceed) from repeal in that particular; but directly and expressly ratifies and confirms the same, and our contrary proceed accordingly. so that our proceed in the ecclesiastical courts without using the king's name, or style, or arms, according to 1 edw. 6. 2. are allowed and established by this very act of queen eliz. thus; further enacted by the authority aforesaid, that all other laws and branches of any act repealed by the said act of repeal of mar. and not in this act specially mentioned and revived, shall stand and be repealed in such manner and form as they were before the making of this act; any thing herein contained to the contrary notwithstanding, 1 eliz. 1. 13. but the act of 2 phil. and mar was not specially mentioned in this act of repeal, nor any other: and the learned judges in 4 jac. observe, that this act of 1 eliz. revives an act of hen. 8. repealed by queen mary, and in both these statutes 1 edw. 6. 2. is made void; and the present proceeding of spiritual courts without the king's name, etc. plainly confirmed; but vid. coke rep. 12. p. 7. chap. v. the act of 1 eliz. 1. establishing the high-commission court, was not the foundation of ordinary ecclesiastical jurisdiction in england, against mr. hickeringill. the worthy gentleman, though he useth much modesty, and will not peremptorily assert; and hath only fitted the matter for the consideration of wiser men (if he can think there be any such) reason's wonderfully after this new and unheard of manner, or to this purpose, if at all. the statute of eliz. for the high-commission court was the only basis of all ecclesiastical power; this continued indeed during her time, and king james'; but being repealed by 17 car. 1. 11. and 13 car. 2. 12. down came the fabric; their great foundation thus torn up, now they have neither power from god nor man, nor ever shall; for his majesty hath by statute enacted never to empower them with any more commissions to the world's end. now their basis is taken away, i cannot discern where their authority lies, nak. t. q. 1. p. 4, 5, 6. this is the spirit of his reason, which he confesseth is not infallible; for he saith as before, he doth not peremptorily assert it. but can a man have the face to write this first, and then to say he is not peremptory? would a man in his wits expose himself in this manner in print, and blunder out so much prejudice, envy, spite and wrath against government? and talk such pitiful unadvised stuff about law? and think to shake the fabric of ecclesiastical jurisdiction, that hath stood firm so long in the midst of all its enemies, with shadows of straws? had he advised with the learned sage, his friend mr. cary, who is the author of the law of england, certainly he could never have talked so idly and impertinently, but would have put some colours at least upon his honest designs, as mr. cary himself hath done. but what if this wise mr. hickeringill err fundamentally all this while? and the clause of 1 eliz. and consequently the stat. of car. 1. and 2. touch not, concern not the ordinary jurisdiction of the church at all? as certainly they do not; and the only wonder is, so wise a man should not see it: a man of so great, and long experience, and practice in the jurisdiction and laws of the church: so diligent and accurate in his writings, and especially of naked truth; wherein he assures us, nothing is presented crude or immature, but well digested; as a few of those things that his head and heart, that is, his stomach have been long full of; as he saith, if you will believe him, p. ult. but doth not that clause that establisheth the high-commission affect our ordinary jurisdictions at all? what pity 'tis, that so excellent a book as this second part of naked truth is, should miscarry in its main project, and in the very foundation too: the fundamental supposition, on which all its strength is built; and in a maxim peculiar to the author's invention, and singularly his own, for aught i know; and wherein he seems to place his glory, especially seeing, as he tells us, p. ult. he has no pique, private interest, or revenge to gratify: and writes only to cure old ulcers; and with such hearty wishes that ecclesiastical jurisdiction, which is his interest as well as others, were of force, strength and virtue, and not so disorderly uncertain and precarious; as he proves it to be, without one argument, if this beloved one, taken from the high-commission, fail him. and yet alas! it will fail him do what we can: for the clause in the stat. 1 eliz. 1. 18. granted a power to the crown to establish the high-commission court, as a court extraordinary; consisting of extraordinary and choice ministers, not restrained to ordinary ecclesiastical officers: and the ordinary jurisdiction did never derive from it, was never disturbed or altered by it; but was ever from the beginning of it, consistent with and subordinate to it; therefore was it called the high-commission. this is evident, as from the concurrence of both jurisdictions all a long; so from the letter of the statute itself, and clearly declared to be so by my lord coke. this clause (saith he) divideth itself into two branches, the first concerning the visitation of the ecclesiastical state and persons; this branch was enacted out of necessity, for that all bishops and most of the clergy of england, being then popish, it was necessary to raise a commission to deprive them that would not deprive themselves: and in case of restitution of religion, to have a more summary proceeding than by the ordinary and prolix course of law is required. this branch concerns only ecclesiastical persons: so that, as necessity did cause this commission, so it should be exercised but upon necessity; for it was never intended that it should be a continual standing commission; for that should prejudice all the bishops in their ecclesiastical jurisdictions, and be grievous to the subject, to be drawn up from all the remote parts of the realm, where before their own diocesan they might receive justice at their own doors. so that this power of the high-commission, neither granted any new power to the ordinary ecclesiastical jurisdiction, nor took away any of the old. yea, it plainly supposeth the preexistence and exercise of the ecclesiastical jurisdiction in an ordinary way, and meddles no further with it than to take its measures from it, which by consequence allows it in itself, as well as for a rule of its own proceed, as my lord coke observes in these words. that your highness— shall name— to execute under your highness— all manner of jurisdiction, etc. and to visit and reform, etc. all errors, etc. which by any manner spiritual or ecclesiastical power— can or may lawfully be reform, etc. now if the ordinary jurisdiction by bishops, etc. did not derive from, or depend on that high-commission, the repealing the statute (i mean the clause) that empowered the high-commission can no wise affect, much less destroy that ordinary jurisdiction; and mr. hickeringill's foot is gone from his ground, and the ordinary jurisdiction of the church of england stands fixed upon its ancient bottom, on which it stood before the high-commission, and ever since, notwithstanding the high-commission is taken away, and should never be granted more. now i cannot but observe, that mr. hickeringill hath the ill luck to cut his own fingers with every tool he meddles with. the stat. of 13 car. 2. 12. which continues the repeal of the clause in 1 eliz. for the high-commission by the 17 of car. 1. which also took away our ecclesiastical jurisdiction; i say this stat. 13 car. 2. 12. restores the ordinary ecclesiastical jurisdiction, and excludes the power of the high-commission. whence it is plain, that the ecclesiastical jurisdiction does not essentially depend on, but may and doth now stand by act of parliament without the high-commission. again, whereas 'tis provided that the jurisdiction so restored shall not exceed in power, what it was in 1639. it is clear, that the church had a lawful jurisdiction before the wars, otherwise nothing is restored: yea, 'tis nonsense, or a delusion unworthy of a parliament, if they that made that act did not suppose and allow, that the ordinary exercise of jurisdiction in the spiritual courts in 1639. was according to law; and i am sure that was just such as is now exercised. chap. vi how our ecclesiastical jurisdiction in england came at first, and is at present established by law. to show how the ecclesiastical jurisdiction came at first to be established by law, is a point not so difficult as much desired. 'tis agreed, i hope, that all kindred's, tongues and nations own their obedience to the gospel, when and wheresoever it comes: and that england was one of the first of the nations that embraced it, and became a church of christ; then we were a rude unpolished and barbarous people, and knew little of civil policy or order of government; but by the gracious ministry of holy men sent from god, our manners began to be softened, and our minds sweetened and enlightened, and our princes became early nourishers and honourers of religion and religious persons; and good nursing fathers and nursing mothers to the church then planting among us; and began to endow it with wealth and power. arviragus, marius, coilus (as the three kings in malmesh. are named by capgravius) entertained christians exploded from all parts of the world, in this kingdom: and gave them peace, and provided them a country to dwell in; and first gave liberty to build and defend churches in public lucius the first christian king, built churches at his own charge; first constituted bishops seats, and built dwellings for priests, and much enriched all things of that nature: and that religious men might with more safety enjoy what they had given them, amplis munivit privilegiis, fortified them with large privileges. here was born also (as baronius confesseth) constantine the great, who brought peace to the whole church; who was the first christian emperor; and likewise the first christian queen, his mother helen. if we come to the kings of the ages following, quis non stupeat, as spelman saith, who can choose but be astonished at the eximious piety, incredible zeal (ardorem) extraordinary (insignes) alms, manifold works of mercy, munificence towards god's ministers, and their magnificent and wonderful (profusionem) liberality and expense in building, adorning, enriching churches, insomuch, as one saith, mirum tunc fuerat regem videre non sanctum: and as another, there were more holy kings found in england than in any one, though the most populous province in the world. the day would fail (that worthy antiquary adds in his most excellent epistle before his councils, enough to inflame the coldest age with zeal for religion) the day would fail me, saith he, should i speak of edwin, ina, offa, ethered, edmund, ethelstan, canute, edward the confessor, and many others; seeing among all the illustrious kings, who were westsaxons, the third is scarce found, qui ecclesiam dei, in aliquibus, non ornaverit, auxerit, ditaverit, who did not adorn, augment and enrich the church of god. in these early times of zeal and piety among the kings of england, the jurisdiction and authority of the church took root, and began and proceeded to flourish; now, no doubt, but religion sincerely managed by good and meek churchmen, was a great mean to move the nation towards a better order in the civil state, both in government and law. now i say (to use spelman's words) when os sacerdotis oraculum esset plehis, os episcopi, oraculum regis & reipublicae, the mouth of the priest was an oracle to the people, and the mouth of the bishop was an oracle to the king and the commonwealth. in the time of ethelbert, the first christian king of the saxons, we find a convention at canterbury of bishops and lords, to settle the affairs of church and state. in the time of the heptarchy summons was, ad episcopos, principes, etc. decrees were made afterward, cum concilio episcoporum, thus during the time of the saxons, etc. and until the pope got footing here by the conqueror, ecclesiastical authority went on apace: yea 'tis evident, that it went on step by step with the progress of the civil, and was gradually owned, enlarged and established in the very essence and degrees, and together with the establishment of the civil state. insomuch, that ecclesiastical jurisdiction was so twisted and interwoven, and, as it were, wrapped in the very bowels of the civil; and the ecclesiastical law so concerned and intimately wrought into the temporal law and government, that 'twas hard to make the separation, or indeed clearly to assign the distinction betwixt them; which hath taken up the care, both of lawyers and statutes to do it effectually and throughly; and perhaps may be in some measure a reason of many prohibitions against ecclesiastical prohibitions to this day. hence also it was, that beyond all known time of christianity in england, our great churchmen have had no small hand in making all our laws, both ecclesiastical and civil: and also sat many hundred years together with our temporal judges in all places of public judicature. primi igitur sedebant in omnibus regni comitiis & tribunalibus episcopi: in regali quidem palatio cum regni magnatibus: in comitatu unà cum comite & justitiario comitatus: in turno vicecomitis cum vicecomite: in hundredro cum domino hundredi. so that in promoting justice every where the sword might aid the sword, & nihil inconsulto sacerdote (qui velut suburra in navi fuit) ageretur, sp. epis. conc. yet we must remember, and 'tis carefully minded in our statutes before mentioned, that our kings were the true and acknowledged fountains of the beginning and increase of that wealth, and honour, and power, which the church and churchmen then enjoyed; and that the kings of england were ever supreme over this church, and all its ministers; and not the pope, or any foreign power; the pope's collector or minister (so say our ancient books) had no jurisdiction in this land, lord coke of courts, p. 321. in our law before the conquest, the king was the vicar of the highest king, ordained to this end, that he should above all govern the church, edw. laws, c. 19 and this hath been carefully maintained by our laws ever since. see cawdries case. sect. i. jurisdiction of the church in common law. thus the power and jurisdiction ecclesiastical grew up with and received much perfection by and in common law. by common law, i mean, long and general use in the whole land; for as i take it, my lord coke saith, that time and use make a custom: when that's general in england, it's called common law; that is my meaning; whether my notion be right, i weigh not, if the matter and argument prove and express the manner of the churches ancient authority and jurisdiction before the statutes. 'tis most evident, william the conqueror found the bishops and other ecclesiastical ministers in great power and with large jurisdiction, which they had long enjoyed, according to the law and custom of the realm. call that law what you will, by that they enjoyed their ancient rights and government, and that's enough. 'tis true indeed, william changed the ancient custom we spoke of, and distinguished the tribunals one from the other: but saith spelman, secrevit, non diminuit jurisdictionem cleri, he did not lessen the jurisdiction of the clergy: yea, by swearing he confirmed the laws of holy church, quoniam per eam rex & regnum solidum subsistendi habent fundamentum. prooemium ll. suarum, ut spel. epis. because, by the church both king and kingdom have a solid foundation of subsisting. thus the church's rights, in being before, were confirmed by the conqueror. my lord coke notes two excellent rules of common law to our purpose. 1. the law doth appoint every thing to be done by those unto whose office it properly appertaineth. 2. 'tis a maxim of the common law, that where the right is spiritual, and the remedy thereof only by the ecclesiastical law, the connusance thereof doth belong to the spiritual court, coke instit. p. 1. 3. hence it follows, that there being many cases in which there is no remedy vid. cawdries case, answ. to object. 4. any other way provided, by common law they belong to the spiritual courts, and the common law both empowers and requires those courts to give remedy in those cases. thus stood ecclesiastical jurisdiction in england by common law before our statutes took so much notice of it; and our statutes since, whenever they mention it, do generally mention it, as a government supposed, upon grounds good and firm in law to have existed before, and also then to be in use, and to flourish in its present exercise, and proceed in its proper course and courts. 'tis as idle a thing to look in the statutebooks for the beginning of ecclesiastical power and its courts, as for the beginning of courts-baron, which are such by common law, as coke saith, or the court of marshalsea, which, as coke's words are, hath its foundation in common law; or courts of copyholders, which are such by custom: and for the same reason to question the lawfulness of these courts, because, in their original, they were not established by act of parliament, as well as the legality of the courts spiritual; these being equally founded in the ancient usage, custom and law of england; and all taken care for in magna charta, that ancient authentic account of our common law. and why are ecclesiastical judges (i mean not bishops only, whom mr. hickeringill finds in scripture, but) archdeacon's, chancellors, officials, etc. as well established in their proper power, as coroners, high-constables, etc. that have the origine of their offices before statutes? have not ecclesiastical officers, when lawfully invested, power, as well as they, to act in their proper jurisdictions, by the same common law? by long, ancient and established custom; or as the usual word in our statutes in this very case is, secundum consuetudines & leges angliae? my lord coke saith, the king's prerogative is a principal part of the common law, which also flourisheth in this part of it, the ecclesiastical power and jurisdiction, as well as in the civil state and government. thus we acknowledge, the ecclesiastical state, and external, and coercive jurisdiction derives from and depends upon the crown of england by common law: and i am bold to add, that the former cannot easily be abolished and destroyed (i do not say altered) without threatening the latter, i mean the crown (at least some prejudice to it) on which it depends. thus ecclesiastical jurisdiction stands by common law, on which also most of our civil rights depend; but we confess it is bounded (as my lord coke) by the same common law; and in all reason it must be so, it being subordinate to the king as supreme, who is supposed to be personally or virtually present in his great courts of common law; and is so declared to be by acts of parliament. instit. p. 1. pag. 344. of my lord coke. sect. ii. the government ecclesiastical is established in the statutes of this realm. the ecclesiastical jurisdiction being thus found established by law before the statute-books were made, the statutes do establish it as much as any reasonable unprejudiced man can expect or desire. we shall begin with magna charta, which is statute as well as common law, and seems to unite and tie them together: this stands at the beginning of our statutebook; and the first thing in this, is a grant and establishment for ever of the rights and liberties of the church; that must be understood of the rights and liberties then in being; and among the rest, sure the great right and liberty of the church's power, and the free use of her ecclesiastical jurisdiction. magna charta itself expounds what it means by holy church, i. e. the bishops and ministers of it, which king hen. 8. in the statute saith is commonly called the spiritualty: and mr. hickeringill, for all his scoffing, knows that the church of england allows a larger sense of the word [church] viz. the congregation of all faithful men, etc. and when we call the clergy, or the governing-part of the church, the church, we use it in a law-sence, and as a term of law, as acts of parliament as well as the civil or canon-law do: but this by the way. 2. when the subsequent acts of parliament do so frequently mention the spiritual courts, and their jurisdiction; this to me is a legal allowance of them; and indeed a tacit or implicit acknowledgement of their more ancient antecedent power and common right and liberty, by the undoubted custom, i. e. the common laws of the land. yea those very statutes that look at least obliquely upon them; that say they are bounded by the common law; that do of themselves limit and prohibit the ecclesiastical courts in some cases, seem plainly to acknowledge them in other cases not excepted from their jurisdiction. but, 3. more plainly and directly, those acts of parliament that appear in the behalf of ecclesiastical jurisdiction in times of its trial and danger, and vindicate its rights, and preserve and maintain its liberties when most in question: there have happened such occasions, wherein the statutes have res●●ed and replevied the ecclesiastical power; in all which the statutes have been thus favourable to it; three of late, not to mention many formerly. 1. thus, when some might imagine, that by the alteration made by king hen. 8. the bishops and their power was shaken: the statutes made in his time assure us, that it was but to restore the ancient jurisdiction, and not to destroy it; that bishops should be elected and act as formerly; especially as coke noteth, by the 25 hen. 8. c. 20. it is enacted, that every person chosen, invested, consecrated, archbishop or bishop, according to this act, shall do and execute every thing and things as any archbishop or bishop of this realm, without offending of the prerogative royal of the crown, and the laws and customs of the realm at any time heretofore have done. note, that this statute, contrary to the 1 edw. 6. 2. was revived by queen eliz. 1. cap. 1. which the judges thought and judged a full answer to all the objections against the churches proceed contrary to the 1 edw. 6. 2. and by this very statute 1 edw. 6. 2. stands clearly repealed, as my lord coke observes rep. 12. 8, 9 which caused me to make choice of it for my present purpose. 2. the second is observed in the time of phil. and mar. when the manner of ecclesiastical jurisdiction had been altered by the 1 edw. 6. the statute establisheth the same as it was before in these words: and the ecclesiastical jurisdictions of the archbishops, bishops, and (other) ordinaries, to be in the same estate for process of suits, punishment of crimes, and execution of censures of the church, and knowledge of causes belonging to the same; and as large in those points, as the said jurisdiction was the 20 hen. 8. which statute of phil. and mar repealed the 1 edw. 6. 2. and was never repealed since, as the judges resolved in the foresaid case 4 jac. but evidently revived by 1 eliz. 1. sect. 13. 3. when thirdly, the long parl. 17 car. 1. had disabled the jurisdiction of the courts ecclesiastical, it was very carefully restored and established by the stat. 13 car. 2. in these words; neither this act— shall take away any ordinary jurisdiction from the said archbishops, etc. but that they, and every of them, may proceed— in all manner of ecclesiastical jurisdiction; and in all censures and coertions belonging to the same, as they did and might lawfully have done before the making of the said act. vid. 17 car. 1. 4. 'tis sufficient, yet i cannot but subjoin one notable way more argumentative enough, alone by itself, to prove the ecclesiastical courts to be allowed and confirmed by statute, viz. when the statutes direct such particulars to be tried in these courts; and require these spiritual courts to use their power for the punishment of offenders, and the doing justice: and i think there cannot be a better medium or clearer evidence than we have in this matter. for if the spiritual courts have no power to try such matters, and pass judgement, and punish in such cases, why do the statutes direct and remit such matters to them? and why do the statutes enjoin them to take connusance and proceed accordingly? that so they do, is plain. in the 18 of edw. 3. 6. 'tis said, that process in causes testamentary notoriously appertaineth to holy church. we must not blemish the franchize of holy church: and in the 18 of edw. 3. 6. parties are to be dismissed from secular judges in cause of tithes, and left to the church: ordinaries have power to punish ministers and priests; as in 1 hen. 7. c. 4. synodals, proxies, pensions, etc. are to be recovered in the spiritual courts. vid. 15 hen. 8. c. 7. sect. 7. the like is known touching causes matrimonial and defamations, etc. i shall only instance one more, viz. in the great cause of nonconformity; and that in an act that is nearer to us, and of unquestionable authority, which both directs what we should punish, and most solemnly requires by its own authority to exercise our ecclesiastical power, by the very rules and proper methods of our spiritual courts; in these words, 1 eliz. before the common prayer: provided always, and be it ordained and enacted by the authority aforesaid, that all and singular archbishops and bishops, and every of their chancellors, commissaries, archdeacon's, and other ordinaries, having any peculiar ecclesiastical jurisdiction, shall have full power and authority by virtue of this act, as well to inquire in their visitations, synods, and elsewhere, within their jurisdiction, at any other time or place, to take accusation and informations of all and every the things above mentioned, done, committed or perpetrated within the limits of their jurisdictions and authority, as to punish the same, by admonition, excommunication, sequestration, or deprivation, and other censures and process, in like form as heretofore hath been used in like cases, by the queen's ecclesiastical laws. this doubtless is very plain. and hereupon, 'tis solemnly required in these words a little before: for the due execution hereof, they do in god's name earnestly require and charge all archbishops, bishops, and other ordinaries, that they shall endeavour themselves to the utmost of their knowledges, that the due and true execution hereof may be had, throughout their dioceses and charges, as they will answer before god for such evils and plagues, whereby almighty god may justly punish his people for neglecting this good and wholesome law. now if in like cases it had not been lawful before this act, for the spiritual courts so to proceed, why are the former laws and use to be followed by these directions? or if this act cannot empower us, give us reason or law against it. or if any thing be a greater grievance to you in the spiritual courts, than the punishment provided for the crimes mentioned in this act, say what it is, or say nothing. but if these cases be not sufficient, mr. cary can tell you of at least ten particular matters, upon which the law is, to grant the writ de excommunicato capiendo: and according to a known act of parliament made after this, viz. 5 eliz. 23. which sufficiently allows and confirms our ecclesiastical proceed to the senses of too many, as some complain. chap. vii. of canons and convocations. we see what reason mr. hickeringill had to keep such a pother about the force of ecclesiastical canons, and the authority of convocations. especially, 1. seeing the late mentioned act of 1 eliz. supposeth the ecclesiastical laws, i. e. the canons to be her own laws; and requires ecclesiastical judges so severely to put them in execution. 2. seeing, since the reformation, most of the matters of canons are expressed and enjoined in acts of parliament; insomuch, that ecclesiastical jurisdiction might stand and proceed well enough, had we no other canon but acts of parliament, as mr. hickeringill insinuates: and 'tis worthy his observation, that the greatest complaints of dissenters, since the king's happy return, have been upon the execution of acts of parliament, and that not so much by ecclesiastical as civil ministers. indeed the statute of car. 2. that restored the ecclesiastical jurisdiction, hath a proviso, that by virtue of that act, the canons of 1640. shall not be of force; and that no canons are made of force by that act that were not formerly confirmed by acts of parliament, or by the established laws of the land, as they stood in ann. 1639. but 'tis evident enough, that by the 25 hen. 8. c. 19 the old canons, not against law or prerogative, are of force; and that the king with the convocation, may make new ones, with the same conditions; and indeed, while the convocation is so limited by that act, their power seems not very formidable. my lord coke, who was not a bigot for spiritual power, declares the law in both those cases; and tells us, that it was resolved by the judges at a committee of lords, these restraints of the convocation were grounded on that statute. 1. they cannot assemble without the assent of the king. 2. they cannot constitute any canons without his licence. 3. nor execute them without his royal assent. 4. nor after his assent, but with these four limitations. 1. that they be not against the king's prerogative. 2. nor against common law. 3. nor against statute law. 4. nor against any custom of the kingdom, rep. 12. p. 720. and my lord coke adds, that these restraints put upon the convocation by the 25 hen. 8. are but an affirmance of what was before the statute; and, as he saith (in his book of courts) are but declaratory of the old common law: pag. 323. consequently the courts of common law are to bond and overrule all ecclesiastical executions of canons, and secure the crown and the laws against them. but what acts of parliament have abrogated the authority of the synod 1603. and quite annihilated the very beings of convocations, i am yet to learn; though mr. hickeringill so boldly after his own way vents so wild a notion p. 3. & 12. or when that of 25 hen. 8. 19 was repealed, or how they are made less than nothing at this day, than they were before, since that statute of limitations, as he is pleased to insult? he saith, they are far from being the representative church of england; for that the people have not the least vote in their election. pray, when was it otherwise than 'tis now? if the law by institution make the clerk a guide to his flock in spirituals; if the people do expressly make choice of him for such, or virtually consent in law he should be so; and thereupon the law allows this clerk to elect members for the convocation, and also reckons the convocation to be the representative church of england; how comes it that mr. hickeringill who is so great a stickler for a legal religion should be so much wiser than the law? and to scoff at its constitutions? i wish mr. hickeringill to beware of touching foundations with his rude and bold fancies, and disturbing the frame of government. i am sure he will not abide by his own rule, if he be well advised of the manner of electing the great representative of the people of england: 'tis our duty to study to be quiet, but some study to be otherwise. the wisest word in his naked truth is this; if men once come to dispute authority, and the wisdom of the laws and lawmakers, the next step is confusion and rebellion, p. 11. the conclusion. thus you have a taste of the spirit and sense that runs through the book called naked truth; his other little gross mistakes are not worthy observing, much less insisting on: such as these: 1. first, that all archdeaconries have corpses annexed, which is certainly otherwise, in most archdeaconries in some dioceses. 2. then that archdeacon's require procurations when they do not visit; which is not done in some, and i hope in no diocese. 3. lastly, that procurations and synodals are against law, and not to be recovered by law or conscience; when he himself confesseth that they are due by ancient composition: that provision (notwithstanding his old canons) in visitations is due; for which the money, paid for procurations, is paid for them by virtue of that composition: and whereas, they are due by undoubted and long possession and custom, which is as law in england: and to conclude, are not only expressly allowed as due, but declared to be recoverable in the ecclesiastical courts, by the statute of 34 hen. 8. 19 i have, at this time, done with his materials; and for the manner of his writing, let the sentence of every reader reproach and shame him. i like not the office of raking kennels or emptying jakes; and all the harm i return him, is to pray hearty for him, that god would give him grace soberly to read over his own books, and with tears to wash these dirty sheets, wherein he hath played the wanton; and indeed defiled himself more than his own nest (whatever the unlucky bird intended) and that with such a barbarous wit, and vile raillery, as is justly offensive to god and man: with such wild triumphs of scorn and contempt of his own order and office, his betters and superiors; with such a profligate neglect of government and peace; and of his own conscience and law (against which, he confesseth, he still acts) yea, against his own interest, safety, and his very reputation. for all which notorious and public miscarriages, i wish he thought it fit to do public penance in another new and cleaner sheet. i have to do with two adversaries, mr. hickeringill and mr. cary: the first wisheth the church of england had more power than it now hath; the other, that it had less. i presume in the name of the true sons of this church, that we are very thankful for the power we have, by the favour of our gracious king and his good laws. and as we do, and always shall acknowledge the dependence of our ecclesiastical jurisdiction upon the imperial crown of this realm: so whether it seem good to the king and his high court of parliament, to augment or lessen it, or to continue it as it is, we shall still maintain our loyalty, and manifest our duty, and cheerfully submit ourselves. but, lord, forgive our enemies, persecutors and slanderers, and turn their hearts. the postscript. i have reserved a few authorities for the satisfaction of such as have no mind or leisure to read the book; which alone are sufficient to oppose and expose my adversaries objections. i. episcopal government in the church of england is as ancient as the church; and at first was subordinate, under god, only to our kings, without any relation to or dependence on the pope; and declared to be so, with the grounds and reasons thereof, very early by edw. 1. and edw. and so established by acts of parliament. read 25 edw. 3. the sum is thus. here we have a recital of the first statute against provisors, to this effect; whereas the holy church of england was founded in the estate of prelacy by the grandfather of this king and his progenitors, etc. and by them endowed with great possessions, etc. for them to inform the people in the law of god; to keep hospitality, etc. and whereas the king and other founders of the said prelacies were the rightful adowers thereof; and upon avoidance of such ecclesiastical promotions, had power to advance thereunto their kinsmen, friends, and other learned men of the birth of this realm; which being so advanced, became able and worthy to serve the king in council, and other places in the commonwealth: the bishop of rome usurping the seignory of such possessions and benefices, did give the same to aliens,— as if he were rightful patron of those benefices; whereas, by the law of england, he never had the right patronage thereof: whereby in short time all the spiritual promotions in this realm would be engrossed into the hands of strangers, canonical elections of prelates would be abolished, works of charity would cease, the founders and true patrons would be disinherited, the king's council weakened, and the whole kingdom impoverished, and the laws and rights of the realm destroyed. upon this complaint it was resolved in parliament, that these oppressions and grievances should not be suffered in any manner; and therefore it was enacted, that the king and his subjects should thenceforth enjoy their rights of patronage: that free elections of archbishops and bishops, and other prelates elective should be made according to the ancient grants of the king's progenitors and their founders; and that no provision from rome should be put in execution; but that those provisors should be attached, fined and ransomed at the kings will; and withal imprisoned, till they have renounced the benefit of their bulls, satisfied the party grieved, and given sureties not to commit the like offence again. ii. before this forementioned act was made, the spiritual courts were in being, and had power by the law of the land, to try such causes as were not to be tried by common law: so declared and established by acts of parliament. vid. in the time of edw. 1. and edw. 2. near four hundred years since. circumspectè agatis, 13 edw. 1. an. 1285. the king to his judges sendeth greeting: use yourselves circumspectly, in all matters concerning the bishop of norwich and his clergy; not punishing them if they hold plea in things as be mere spiritual, as penance enjoined by prelates, corporal or pecuniary— for fornication, adultery, or such like: for tithes and oblations due and accustomed; reparations of the church and church-yard; mortuaries, pensions, laying violent hands upon a clerk, causes of defamation, perjury: all such demands are to be made in the spiritual courts; and the spiritual judge shall have power to take knowledge of them notwithstanding the king's prohibition. iii. hereupon a consultation was to be granted 24 edw. 1. as followeth. whereas ecclesiastical judges have often surceased to proceed by force of the kings writ of prohibition in cases, whereas remedy could not be had in the king's courts— our lord the king willeth and commandeth, that where ecclesiastical judges do surcease in the aforesaid cases, by the king's prohibition, that the chancellor or the chief justice, upon sight of the libel, at the instance of the plaintiff (if they can see that the case cannot be redressed by writ out of chancery, but that the spiritual court ought to determine the matters) shall write to the ecclesiastical judge, that he proceed therein, notwithstanding the king's prohibition. more particularly, those cases reserved by law and statute, against which no prohibition can be legally granted, are enumerated in articul. cleri, 9 edw. 2. iv thus the proceed of the spiritual courts, and the causes belonging to them were supposed, directed, allowed, and established by these ancient statutes. and left those causes have not been sufficiently specified, no prohibition shall be awarded out of chancery, but in case where we have the connusance, and of right aught to have; as it is in the 18 of edw. 3. provided. whence 'tis a general rule, both in law and statute, that such cases as have no remedy provided in the other law, belong to the spiritual courts: and indeed, it hence appears they have ever done so; because we no where find in our laws, that the common law did ever provide for them: and because the kingdom of england is an entire empire, where the king is furnished with a temporalty and spiritualty, sufficient to administer justice to all persons, and in all causes whatsoever: and consequently, what causes are not in the connusance of the common law, belong to the spiritual jurisdiction, which is plainly implied in 24 hen. 8. c. 12. and other statutes. upon the same ground in law depend three great truths. 1. the antiquity of ecclesiastical courts. 2. their dependence upon the crown. 3. the perfection of the government, to administer justice in all cases to all persons, from the supreme power exercised in the temporal and spiritual courts; all which lie in the preamble of that statute according to our ancient laws. for, saith my lord coke in the conclusion of cawdries case, it hath appeared, as well by the ancient common laws of this realm, by the resolution of the judges and sages of the laws of england in all succession of ages, as by authority of many acts of parliament, ancient and of latter times, that the kingdom of england is an absolute monarchy, and that the king is the only supreme governor, as well over ecclesiastical persons, and in ecclesiastical causes, as temporal: to the due observation, of which laws, both the king and the subject are sworn. v if you desire a more full and particular account of such cases, as being not provided for at common law, are therefore, and have been ever under the spiritual power, take this excellent enumeration of my lord cawdri●s case. coke. observe (good reader) seeing that the determination of heresies, schisms, and errors in religion, ordering, examination, admission, institution and deprivation of men of the church (which do concern god's true religion and service) of right of matrimony, diverces, and general bastardy, (whereupon depend the strength of men's descents and inheritances) of probate of testaments, and letters of administration (without which no debt or duty due to any dead man can be recovered by the common law) mortuaries, pensions, procurations, reparations of churches, simony, incest, adultery, fornication and incontinency, and some others, doth not belong to the common law, how necessary it was for administration of justice, that his majesty's progenitors, kings of this realm, did by public authority authorise ecclesiastical courts under them, to determine those great and important causes ecclesiastical (exempted from the jurisdiction of the common law) by the king's laws ecclesiastical, which was done originally for two causes. 1. that justice should be administered under the kings of this realm, within their own kingdom, to all their subjects, and in all causes. 2. that the kings of england should be furnished upon all occasions, either foreign or domestical, with learned professors, as well of the ecclesiastical as temporal laws. vi ecclesiastical laws are the king's laws, though process be not in the king's name. now, albeit the proceed and process coke, cawdr. case, latter end. of the ecclesiastical courts be in the name of the bishops, etc. it followeth not therefore, that either the court is not the kings, or the law, whereby they proceed, is not the king's law. for taking one example for many, every leet or view of frankpledge holden by a subject is kept in the lords name, and yet it is the king's court, and all the proceed therein are directed by the king's laws. vii. spiritual causes secured from prohibitions, notwithstanding, by acts of parliament. lord coke, cawdries case in edw. 2. albeit, by the ordinance of circumspeete n. b. agatis made in the 13 year of edw. 1. and by general allowance and usage, the ecclesiastical court held plea of tithes, obventions, oblations, mortuaries, redemptions of penance, laying of violent hands upon a clerk, defamations, etc. yet did not the clergy think themselves assured, nor quiet from prohibitions purchased by subjects, until that king edw. the second by his letters patents, under the great seal, in, and by consent of parliament, upon the petitions of the clergy, had granted unto them to have jurisdiction in those cases. the king in a parliament holden in the ninth year of his reign, after particular answers made to their petitions concerning the matters abovesaid, doth grant and give his royal assent in these words. we desiring, as much of right as we may, to provide for the state of the church of england, and the tranquillity and quiet of the prelates of the said clergy, to the honour of god, and the amendment of the state of the said church, and of the prelates and clergy; ratifying and approving all and singular the said answers which appear in the said act; and all and singular things in the said answers contained, we do for us and our heirs grant and command, that the said be inviolably kept for ever: willing and granting for us and our heirs, that the said prelates and clergy, and their successors for ever, do exercise ecclesiastical jurisdiction in the premises, according to the tenor of the said answer. viii. the ecclesiaestical jurisdiction is a branch of the king's supremacy; and he that denieth it, denieth the king to be a complete monarch, cawdries case. and head of the whole entire body of the realm, as my lord coke assures us, both from the common law and many statutes in all ages— made on purpose, from time to time, to vindicate the crown and secure our own church and its jurisdiction under the crown from the pope, and his illegal encroachments and usurpations before, and more especially by hen. 8. and since the reformation; as is very amply proved by my lord coke, in his most excellent discourse on cawdry's case, and since very learnedly and fully by sir john davis, attorney general in ireland, in his case of praemunire, called labours case; both which should be well read by all that desire satisfaction in this weighty point. thus the jurisdiction of this church, in subordination to the supreme head of it, hath proceeded through all time, in the laws and statutes of our own kingdom; and was never legally interrupted, till the 17 of car. 1. but that act repealed by the 13 of our present gracious king, it stands firm again, according to the letter of the said last act, upon its ancient legal basis. ix. the old objection, that the spiritual courts do not act in the king's name, etc. is fully answered in the book; but, because it is only mentioned there, that the case was resolved by the judges in l. coke, rep. 12. p. 7. king james' time: i shall here set it down, as abridged (for brevity) out of 〈◊〉 lord coke by manly. pasch. 4. jac. regis. at this parliament, it was strongly urged at a grand committee of the lords and commons in the painted chamber; that such bishops as were made after the first day of the session, were not lawful bishops. 1. admitting them bishops, yet the manner and form of their seals, stiles, process and proceed in their ecclesiastical courts, were not consonant to law; because, by the stat. 1 edw. 6. 2. it is provided, that thenceforth bishops should not be elective, but donative, by letters patents of the king; and for that, at this day, all bishops were made by election, not donation of the king; therefore the said bishops are not lawful. 2. by the same act it is provided, that all summons, etc. and process in ecclesiastical courts shall be made in the king's name and style, and their seals engraven with the king's arms, and certificates made in the king's name: it was therefore concluded, that the said statute being still in force, by consequence all the bishops made after the act of 1 jac. were not lawful bishops; and the proceed being in the name of the bishop, makes them unlawful, quia non observata forma infertur adnullatio actus. upon consideration of these objections, by the king's commandment, it was resolved by popham chief justice of england, and coke attorney of the king, and after affirmed by the chief baron, and the other justice's attendant to the parliament, that the said act of 1 edw. 6. 2. is not now in force; being repealed, annulled and annihilated by three several acts of parliament; any whereof being in force, it makes that act of 1 edw. 6. that it cannot stand, quia leges posteriores priores contrarias abrogant: and by the act of the 25 hen. 8. c. 20. is set forth the manner of election and consecration of archbishops and bishops; and also for the making and execution of all things which belong to their authority: with which words the style and seal of their courts, and the manner of their proceed are included: which act of 25 hen. 8. is revived by 1 eliz. c. 1. and consequently, that of 1 edw. 6. c. 2. is repealed. i advise the reader to see it, as more at large, expressed; and the repealing statutes particularly mentioned, and argued in my lord coke, 12 rep. p. 7, 8, 9 and bid him farewel, and not be wiser than the law. finis. a catalogue of some books lately printed for richard royston. roma ruit: the pillars of rome broken: wherein all the several pleas for the pope's authority in england, with all the material defences of them, as they have been urged by romanists from the beginning of our reformation to this day, are revised and answered. by fr. fullwood, d. d. archdeacon of totnes in devon. the new distemper: or the dissenters usual pleas for comprehension, toleration, and the renouncing the covenant, considered and discussed; with some reflections upon mr. baxter's and mr. alsop's late pamphlets, published in answer to the reverend dean of s. paul's sermon concerning separation. the lively picture of lewis du moulin, drawn by an incomparable hand. together with his last words: being his retractation of all the personal reflections he had made on the divines of the church of england, (in several books of his) signed by himself on the fifth and the seventeenth of october, 1680. christ's counsel to his church: in two sermons preached at the two last fasts. by s. patrick, dean of peterburgh, and chaplain in ordinary to his majesty. the end. the boaster bared, and his armour put off without a conquest, by the quaking principle. in an answer to enoch howets, called, quaking principles dashed in pieces. written by james nayler. london, printed for g. calvert, and are to be sold at his shop at the black spread eagle, near the west end of paul's, 1655. the boaster bared, and his armour put off without a conquest by the quaking principle. in an answer to enoch howets, called quaking principles dashed in pieces. that principle which caused moses, david, daniel, the prophets & holy men of god to quake & tremble, hath been often struck at by a principle of darkness which knows not the word at which the saints trembled, isa. 66.5. and this always under a pretence of truth, saying, let god be glorified; but it never could be dashed in pieces though many weapons have been form against it which are carnal and out of the truth: and it is the same now, as will appear by this which thou enoch howet hast written, wherein thou wilt be found in the same ground of opposition, gathering up false accusations to cast on the the truth, where it is manifested, and being blind, thou thinks thou dost god service therein, that the scripture may be fulfilled upon this generation, who are gathered as the sand of the sea for multitude, mat. 24.6. against the despised people of god. and the seven-heads thou hast lifted up against the truth, with the many horns arising from thence, pushing at the saints with many lies, which heads thou callest our mistakes, but six of them, as thou hast described them, are thy own mistakes (if not thy malicious slanders) as will appear upon trial when with truth they come to be weighed, to which thou adds many lies to make up thy number. before thou comes to the seven heads, thou gins an oration: the god of the whole earth is now about to declare his glory to the gentiles, and the kingdoms of this world are about to become the lords and his christ's. i answer: many such as thou in a vain mind, have long fed yourselves with what will be, but for the present, lives in your own wills and pleasures, and are not subject to the kingdom of christ, luke 17.21. nor that way in which he reigned when he was upon earth (which the literal knowledge could never own,) and whilst we fed with you upon these vain words without knowledge and life, we were beloved of you, being of this world with you, but now being come to the knowledge of the lord by the name of (i am) and seeing his glory (having denied the glory of the world in ourselves and others) to own christ's kingdom wherein he reigned above the world's pleasures, now you hate us, and out of all forms are you gathered against us, 2 cor. 4.8. &c and on every side are we beset, but not destroyed, neither can thy boasting words dash in pieces that principle wherein we stand, and when thou hast made way with thy fair speeches, than thou gins to push with thy horns, wherein is the names of blasphemy, casting out thy lies, saying, that we call the god of this world that blinds the eyes, a god of light, and all this darkness, spiritualness, and that we can hardly endure what is written, but run to unwritten notions, etc. whenas we own no light but that which god hath made to shine out of darkness, wherein he hath shined in our hearts to give the knowledge of himself, 2 cor. 4.6. which is the light of christ, and thou that calls this the god of this world, or an unwritten notion, makes it appear thou hast not the light in thee, nor the testimony of jesus. and thus (being not born of the truth) thou serves the land of thy nativity (as thou sayest) with false accusations, and calling christ thy master, will not hid thee, for such works he never owned. now thy first head thou sets up to oppose us with, is, that we slight the written word, to which i answer: if thou means the scriptures, i say thy accusation is false, for the scripture we own which testifies of the word, which word was in spirit, and spiritually discovered in them that spoke forth the scripture, before they spoke it or writ it in letters, which word we witness in spirit according to scripture, gal. 1.11, 12.15, 16, 17. 2 cor. 3.6. discovered in us spiritually, which thou denies to set up a literal discovery: 2 cor. 13.15 to the 7. verse of the 4. chap. and the veil being untaken away, by turning to the lord, which is that spirit, thou canst not see the gospel's light, nor the end of the scriptures, which were given to lead to the spiritual light and word that gave them forth, where the life eternal is, which they who think it to be in the letter without, deny it in spirit, as the jews did and thou dost; and thou that denies this end of the scriptures, art he that denies the word to set up the letter in his place, and calls it by his name who is the word before the letter was, which we dare not do, which the letter doth not. now if thou calls this slighting of the word, than did not the saints also slight it before us, who called what they writ a declaration of the word? 1 joh. 1.22.3. luke 1.1. and it's called the words of jeromiah, to whom the word of the lord came; a clear distinction, between the invisible word that came to him in spirit, and the visible writings declared from that word, for the words were many, but the word is but one from whom these words were spoken, jer. 1.1. 2. and thou goes on in thy book often repeating, it is written, it is written; john 1. i rev. 19. i3. now it is written that god is the word, and christ his name is called the word of god; but where is it written that the letter is the word, or of a written word? and now it will appear who owns what is written, and who adds to it, or would take from it, prove what thou sayest with plain scripture, than thou mayst boast of its written, thou holds out ignorance of the scriptures to be the ground of error, which if thou meanest literal knowledge, i deny what thou sayest, for many such as thou knows the history, but ers from the life, for it is the ignoronce of the spirit and power that the scriptures declare of, that's the ground of error, without which knowledge puffs but up to oppose the life and power; and for thy rancking us amongst the papists, and saying we persuade you to the uselessness of the scriptures; calling subtle devils and the like; these are but lying slanders to make us odious and on thy head shall they fall, for the devil is known by his works, a liar and false accuser he was, and so he is, as it is written, and his subtlety he uses to uphold his kngdom of sin, and not to pull it down, and in that work thou art found in thy book by his subtlety, pleading for sin against perfection, for respect of persons his own kingdom: and whereas thou chargest us with lust, envy, pride, idolatry, luxury, and uncleanness; i say these are thy own, we deny them, and that spirit that acts them, else we should not be so hated by those that live in them: thou sayest your soundation is laid upon the doctrine of the apostles & prophets: if thou means that spirit that was in them, that foundation i own, but if thou meanest the letter, then where had thy foundation been, hadst thou never seen the letter; and that foundation i judge which stands in the visible, to be none of abraham's foundation, which was laid before the letter was, 2 cor. 4 18. heb. 8. i0, 11. john 16.18. and thou tells of the scripture being the bridle that checks lust: but thou that knows nothing nearer than the letter to bridle and check lust, thou knows not the law of the new covenant written in the heart, nor the spirit of christ that reproves the world of sin, but without book, without bridle, and it's no strange thing that such should plead for a being for sin whileft they live, who have no bridle for lust but when the bible is in their hands, unless thou meanest that keeping it in the house will do it: and how that bridle (thou tells of) hath kept thee and many more it is evident by your practice. the words you have, but not the life, it seems thou hadst forgot thy bridle when thou wrote this book, else thou durst not have vented so many lies and false accusations against the truth, which they that are checked by that spirit that spoke what is in the letter, bears witness against. thou sayest if wisdom to salvation be contained in the scriptures, and if the scriptures are the means of comfort and hope, etc. but why dost thou not speak plain, that salvation is in the letter contained, and that the letter is the means of comfort and hope, it seems thou dares not positively say it is, and therefore puts in [if] thou dares not wholly exclude christ, thou wilt allow him a name in the thing, though thou give the power to the letter, for to say salvation, wisdom, is contained in the letter, and that the letter is the ●eans of comfort, is not this to deny christ and the letter too? where is it so written? thy places thou makest use of will not prove it, without adding or wresting, and to prove that the letter is so, thou brings that of dan. 10.21. where the angel when he would comfort daniel said, i will show thee what is written in the scriptures, where it plainly appears that daniel for all his wisdom could not know what was the life and comfort declared of in the letter, without the spirit shown it to him; and here thou hast well proved the life, wisdom, salvation and means of comfort to be contained in the spirit & its opening, which before thou saidst was contained in the scriptures, and thus whilst thou art about to dash in pieces the quakers' principles, thy potsherds are clashing one against another: thou saidst thy expectation is from the scriptures, but where finds thou it so written? the saint's expectation is from god, is the scriptures thy god? and then to cover thyself thou sayest thou makes not the scriptures thy sole cause of knowledge: i answer: that's the sole cause of knowledge, wherein is contained the wisdom to salvation, and which is the means of comfort which thou hast ascribed to the letter, and now this cover will not hid thee: thou sayest it is able in the hand of the eternal teacher to make wise to salvation the man of god; but thou hadst done well to have given thy judgement clearly, whether thou thinkest the eternal teacher can make wise to salvation without it, or the man of god can be saved without the letter? thou says the scripture proves the work of the new birth, but is it so written? show me that place, the new birth was before the letter, and does the latter prove the former? it is written the spiritual man proves and judgeth all things, but not the literal; and here thou come not with, 1 cor. 2. i0.i5. it is written, this is but imagined, and this is thy first mistake against us: and now thou comes to the second head, which thou calls our mistake, and that is our speaking to that within. i answer: this only of thy seven we own, as it is laid down, and thou that knows not that within to speak to, 1 pet. 3.19. knows not his ministry that preaches to the spirits in prison, nor that quickened in thee, that death hath passed over, but art still dead in sins and trespessas, and knows not the seed of abraham, to which the promise is, which is not after the flesh nor of the flesh, which seed christ takes upon him to renew the image of god: and whereas thou deniest it to be god's language, and calls it satan's language: i answer: 1 cor. 2.4. 2 cor. 4 2. john 5.25. what language spoke the apostles when they spoke in demonstration of spirit, and commended themselves to that in every man's conscience in the sight of god, and what is that dead that must hear the voice of the son of god and live? what is the inward man and the outward man, if there be nothing in man to speak to? and what was that which christ spoke to in peter, when he said, 2 cor. 4.16. mat. 16.18.23. upon thee will i build my church and presently after get thee behind me satan? was this all one thing in peter? or was it to him alone as he was a creature? and herein thou declares thyself to be an unbeliever, for he that believeth hath the witness in himself, i joh. 5.10. which witness thou knows not in thee: and saith the apostle, my conscience also bearing me witness, in the sight of god i lie not: and what eyes was paul to open in the gentiles? acts 26.19. was it not an eye within? or was he but only to preach to men outwardly blind? here thou hast manifested thyself to be a blind guide, who hast not a witness of god in thee thou knowest of, to exercise thy conscience towards god and man, therefore the devil hath his will in thee, lying, slandering, and false accusing, calling the inward man in the saints, satan, or some of his legions, 2 cor. 4. i6. now to thy third head, that we deny the use of reason or consideration in matters of god. i answer: if thou meanest carnal or natural reason, i say it knows not nor discerns the things of god, and we deny to consult with flesh and blood to know the things of god, and show where that is written, 1 cor. 2.14. gal. 1. i6. jude 10. that natural reason is to be considered with about the things of god: but if thou sayest thou meanest spiritual reason, i judge thy accusation to be false, for that reason we own which stands in the faith of god and leads to reasonableness. and whereas thou accusest us, that we will not do as christ and his apostles did, to dispute with gainsayers of the truth: herein let most of the prisons in the nation be witness against thee, wherein we are and have been imprisoned for going into your synagogues and idols temples to dispute and reason with gainsayers of the truth, and herein we are not different from the words and practice of christ, acts 17.2. as thou accusest us to be, which thou in thy reason a voids and saves thyself, lest any of those things that befalls christ and his saints now, should befall thee; and here is thy own reason wherein satan is conversant (as thou says) that will not suffer thee to follow christ and his saints herein, further than thou canst have thy own pleasure s, honour, and ease, and worldly beloved's, that thy lusts may live, and so throws by the cross of christ and his afflictions, for which thou accusest us. and thou lays down ways in thy reason, to know the things of god, as by the air and sun, and by the creation of the world, to know the new jerusalem, and rome at the day of judgement, and many such things of god's secrets thou wilt know, without in thy reason; but thou hast lost (it is written) for it is written, that which may be known of god, is manifest in them, rom. 1. i9. for god hath showed it to them; but where is it written that god is known by reason? and many words thou utters not worth answering. and thou tells of a day star rising in the heart, now thou wilt confess something within, and not all in the letter; but what foundation thou art on, that art thus tossed to and fro, is manifest to the light, but the blind must needs stumble. and now to the fourth head: that we deny the ascension or being of the body of christ, and when thou hast raised this slander, thou goest about to disprove it, and so thou disproves thy own and not ours, for the body of christ we own, john 3.13. john 1.1.14. john 3.13 s john. 53; to the 56. and the ascension of it, and that it is the same that came down from heaven, which became flesh, and is real flesh and bone, which flesh is our food to spiritual life, but if thou sayest this body is carnal, (as the priests do, let us know thy meanining in plain words, for a carnal christ i own not, but if thou sayest christ cannot be real flesh except he be carnal, i say thou knows not the scripture nor power of god, for christ is not begotten by carnal generation, nor by flesh, but the spirit of promise: silence flesh and stop thy mouth, for into this mystery thy reason cannot enter, but christ and his flesh we know, therefore does the world hate us, had the flesh of christ been carnal, it had corrupted as thine must, but being spiritual it could not. thy fifth head is also a filthy lie: that we deny all ordinances of christ, and that there is nothing which christ hath commanded as lord over his heritage, but we deny it, o that ever any should profess the pure name of god, and utter such abominable lies, that all that ever knows our practice or judgement may witness against thee, for all the ordinances of christ we own in their place, and the end of them in christ, who is the body and life of all, yet cannot we give or attribute that to the figure which belongs to the substance; col. 2.8. to the end. and otherways prove if thou canst that we deny any one thing that christ ordained; but it may be thy meaning is that we deny the worshipping in the idols temple, or your churches as thou calls them, which thou pleads for in another place, or sprinkling infants, singing david's words in rhyme, hourglass preaching from a text as now it is used, preaching over the dead, churching women, taking tithes and set wages, and much such like stuff, which neither thou nor all the priests in england can prove any one thing of them that christ ordained as now they are used, but had their rise from rome, and are inventions of men which have the pope for their predecessor, which thou accusest us withal, who deny such beggarly popish rudiments, and bears witness against them both in them and you; and here be ashamed of thy slander, and let it return upon thy own pate, and thy reproof be to thyself, who denies the lord to set up those traditions in such a way as he never commanded: and whereas thou mentions baptism and the lords supper, i say that baptism we own which is with one spirit into the death of christ into one body, 1 cor, 12. i●. which is the baptism of christ; and the baptism of john we own in its place, and the supper of the lord we own, and the bread we break is the communion of christ's body, and the cup we drink is the communion of his blood, and we being many, thereby become one body, and one blood, soul, and mind, and the lords body we discern, and eat not damnation but eternal life: and thou that calls this denying of those ordinances, thou knowest not the end for which they were ordained: thou says, have we a spirit to guide us without a written word? he that bade not the spirit to guide without the letter, went to the familiar spirit, etc. sam. 128.13. john 16 rom. 8.14. thou sayest we may be familiar spirits for aught thou knowest: o thou blasphemer, is that a familiar spirit that guided the saints in all ages before the letter and without the letter; and is not that spirit the same now to those that know it? doth not christ say the spirit of truth shall guide into all truth, and doth he say, not without the letter? and was that a familiar spirit? how dost thou deny the spirit and blaspheme against it, to set the letter in its steed: and thou makest a dissembling as though thou pitied us; but wert thou not blind thou wouldst bewail thyself who art spiritually blind, who hast not the spirit of judgement to guide thee and to try all things, but by the letter wouldst try the spirit, when a lying spirit in thee must read it; it's no wonder that thou shouldst call light darkness, and say the letter is the rule of life and love, and so denies christ to be the rule of life, unless thou sayest the letter is christ. and whereas thou hold'st forth as that all that christ commanded to any, is to be observed by all: then why do not all that reads those commands, go teach and baptise all nations: and why art thou in thy certain dwelling house, and art not wand'ring without bag or scrip, freely preaching and working miracles? and why was not paul sent to baptise as well as the rest, if they had not their particular calls? art not thou now he that hath lost scripture and thy reason too which thou slanders us withal? all that are not blind like thee may see thee; thou goes on lying all along, saying, that we desire to overthrow the writings of the spirit of god, and to shake off all rules, and thou brings mr. pope to witness thy filthy slanders; but hast not thou cast off christ's rule and the writings of the spirit too, in lying and calling pope, master? which christ forbids. chandler. and thou says none ever promised so much liberty to themselves as we do, and tells of chandler as being our head formerly, who is one that we never knew; & suppose that he did own the truth in show, wilt thou slander all the eleven for judas? here thou showest but thy envy and foolishness, to slander those that abide in the truth, for one that falls from it; stop thy mouth and be ashamed of thy lies, is this thy religion? that knows nothing in thee to bridle thy tongue and guide thee in the truth, thy refuge of lies must be swept away, and the truth cleared. thy sixth head is, that we deny honour to men. to which i answer: if thou meanest such honour as stands in the lord, wherein every one is bound to honour one another without respect of persons, or if thou meanest subjects to the power of god, in whomsoever it is, without respect of persons, as to magistracy, etc. or if thou meanest old age, without respect of persons or parents, or masters in the lord, such honour as god requires; this we own and practice both in doing and suffering, and thy slander cannot reach us herein; but if it be that honour that stands in the pride or riches, or respect of persons, we deny it, and thee in it; and do see thee in hamon's condition, who would have the seed of god to bow to thedevils pride, but we have not so learned christ, god is no respect or of persons christ is no respecter of persons, and they that are in the faith of christ are no respecters of persons; and thou that art, read thyself in the scriptures, wert thou not blind thou shouldst see the devil reproved and resisted with (it is written) 2 sam. 14.14. rom. 2.11. acts 10.34. luke 4.7.8. math. 22.16. john 5.44. jam. 2.1. to the 10. job. 32.21.22. est. 3. these and many more places might be added to them, job. 32.21.22. which all forbidden respect of persons: now all may see how thou regards what is written but for thy own ends; thou perverter of scriptures, stop thy mouth for shame, or show me one scripture that commands me to honour any for their pride or riches; till then, all the examples of the world is nothing to me, i follow christ and his commands, and not the traditions of men, good or bad. and whereas thou brings that command, levit. 19.32. thou shalt-rise up before the hoary bead, etc. but how is that command fulfilled? when grey hairs must bow down to pride in young ones, or else such as thou wilt accuse them to commit a sad offence against what is written: hast thou not brought this against thyself? and now who is the conjurer or familiar spirit (thou tells on) but thou, who by alleging scriptures wouldst lead contrary to scriptures, & the commands of christ, & his practice, wherein the scriptures condemns thee. and whereas thou wouldst possess people that we have familiar spirits and are wizards, because we will not bow to men's persons who are proud and rich; o thou serpent! how dost thou cast out thy venom against that seed that would never bow to thee? had christ a familiar spirit, who would not bow to the prince of this world, who would allow him no share in its glory if he did not? had mordecai a familiar spirit, who would not bow to the devil in haman, who else would kill him and all that seed? or was he a wizard, because thou says, they that are wizards use not to bow or honour men's persons? was elihu a wizard? or had the aposile and they that he wrote to familiar spirits? o thou blasphemer! thou shalt now know that thou hast spoken against the holy ghost; james. 2. and i charge thee, and all thy proud generation to prove ever any who required bowing to their own persons, or persecuted, hated, and accused for not so doing, but such who had the spirit of the devil, and the same spirit that tempted christ to it, tempts his saints to it: and now see how thou belies what is written, neither can the saints weakness prove god's commands nor our obedience to them, no more than david's adultery, or josephs' swearing by the life of pharaoh, though thy brood who loves such things take liberty by them, and so wrists the scriptures to their own destruction: thou goes on in thy blasphemy, and sayest, thou art sure that these two are both sins a like, viz. being a wizard, and not bowing to men, or honouring men's persons, for so is thy meaning, or else thou touches not us, then must needs follow that christ, mordicai, and elihu committed that sin, and the apostles exhorts to that sin, when he saith my brethren have not the faith of christ in respect of persons; for if you do respect persons, you commit sin, and transgress the law, which law thou wouldst bring to prove respect of persons: and here thy spirit is tried to be contrary to the apostles, for he brings the law to forbid respect of persons james 2. and thou wouldst wrest it to prove it, james. 2. and this is the spirit of satan, for that law which saith, honour thy father, etc. saith, thou shalt not bow to any creature, etc. and herein thou canst not accuse us, but thou must accuse christ and the saints that followed him. and why dost thou ●o often bring that word (master) unless thou intends to bring the practice of ahrahams' servant, to disprove the express command of christ mat. 23. which if thou dost deal plainly, (for i know that command is much in the way of priests and proud teachers;) and when thou hast pressed respect of persons, and calling (master) and such things (though masters and servants we deny not.) then thou sayest, though these things will vanish away in the day of restoration, yet abide in them till that day: what art thou afraid that we should come too soon into the practice and command of christ? it seems thou art convinced, the kingdom of thy father must down, but thou wilt set too thy shoulder to uphold it as long as thou canst: all that are not blind may see whose work thou art doing; and sayest thou, though forms and ordinances shall cease (and churches as thou calls them) yet let us worship in them till christ come, which if thou meanest christ's coming to his in spirit, than its plain thou hast not received him, who art still in these things, and pleading for them, which must perish at his coming: but if thou meanest his coming at the end of the world, than it seems thou wouldst take a long day for them to continue, even as long as god is to have any worship here, and such stuff as this thou brings forth, to dash the quaking principle a pieces. is this thy standing truth that lies thus in confusion? but it is no wonder to see thee oppose christ and all that follow him, who knowest him not yet come, nor the day of restoration, and yet in a busy blind zeal (without christ) wouldst set judging the things of god, christ, and his saints, with a reprobate spirit that knows not christ in thee, and with thy carnal spirit wouldst keep up carnal ordinances, and yet wouldst accuse us for wizards, 2 cor. 13.5. but read the epistle of paul to the galatians, and there thou mayst read thyself, and how the galatians were bewitched by such wizrads, holding up carnal commandments against the spiritual life, for we own a time of death, a time of quickening, a time of growth, and a time of perfection, and with the light of christ we see it, which the world doth not, nor when we was in death we did not. but thou art much worse than they, who art holding up that which was never commanded but forbidden; and here the witch is found out, but not in the quakers, and into thy pit thou hast digged thou art fall'n, and let thy mischief be upon thy own pate, but peace and truth be upon israel's seed for ever. now to thy last head, which is not thy least lie, that is, affording absolute perfection at one instant, and that we admit of none but perfect men into conjunction, and when thou hast doubled the lie, that thy bonds of wickedness may be strong, than thou goes about to disprove it; and here thou raves and raises up much mud and dirty stuff, as shooting and hitting, and stating the matter to cast upon us, as though we held absolute perfection at one instant, but he is blind that cannot see thy shooting is against any perfection, and yet thou darest not speak out: the great controversy at this day between christ and antichrist, and their ministers is about perfection, and being free from sin, god made man perfect and free from sin, but the devil having led man out of his perfection into sin, labours there to keep him, and god in love hath given christ and furnished him with power, to lead man again to his perfection and freedom; and now here is the contest between christ and antichrist and their disciples, christ gave out his ministers for the perfecting of the saints, and to bring them into one faith unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fullness of christ, eph. 4.11.12, 13. col. 1.28. and all that ebelive in him, preach this and press after it, and none of these did ever plead against perfection, or say, none could be free from the being of sin while they live, but believed in perfection and freedom, and this faith stands in christ, who is able to save to the uttermost all that believe in him. now antichrist he hath his minister's scent out under the name of christ, and making use of scripture to beget a saith in all that will believe them, but quite contrary, (that is) that none can be free while they live, but when they die than they may; and thus each master hath his ministers pleading for their master's kingdom here in this life, who should be served in this life; now because the devil hath nothing at present to give to deceive withal but sin and filthiness, therefore he always deceives those that believe him, with promising a thing that is to come, persuading them to do his work here, and they shall have christ's wages hereafter; this is the liar; now saith christ i am the son, and if you know the son, he shall make you free even from the committing of sin, john. 8.32. to the 37. but then the works of the devil must not stand, for to this and i am made manifest to destroy the works of the devil, 1 john 3.3.9. and you cannot serve two masters saith christ, me and mammon; now all that believe in christ believes this, and so denies the works of the devil and follows christ, and these never want power, for they have him who is the great power of god to salvation, and as they grow in the knowledge of christ, so they know power and victory, and their faith is that which overcomes the world and the devil, 1 john 5.4. now the other hath a faith without power, rom. 1.16. which withstands the power, (that is) to believe they can never be free from sin till they die, and yet believes there is a god that will reward accordingly, and this the apostle calls the faith of the devil, jam. 2. and this faith is to uphold his own kingdom, but perfection and freedom destroys it. and now read thyself whose minister thou art, and whose faith thou preaches, and according to thy faith so shall it be unto thee (and every one else) and that the devil knows well enough, that makes him thus rage, that any should believe freedom, for he that comes to god must first believe that he is able to save, or else he justly cuts himself off by his unbelief, but all that know god have learned to deny thee and thy faith and doctrine, and with that light which is before sin was, art thou comprehended and judged, who art tossing and searching out ways, and gathering up those scriptures to plead for sin, that holy men wrote to lead out of sin; and the saints imperfection in their growth thou usest, to make people believe they never came further; and when thou hast wrested many scriptures to that end, to keep all blind that are blind, for those that see, thy mist cannot hurt. then thou falls to thy lying again, repeating them over, lest they should have forgotten them; in this confusion thou hast led them through: and thou tells again of denying christ's body and his ordinances; and thus thou leads them that will believe thee, into thy practice to tell it after thee, but least any should behold thy practice and ours, and so come to suspect thee, or own us, thou shuts the kingdom against them, thus, satan (says thou) may let them be pure and holy in regard of outward holiness or justice between man and man, and freedom from the pollution of the world through lust, if he can make them be of those that deny the lord that bought them: this error is sin enough to damn them, as though a man could be free from the pollutions of the world through lust, and yet deny the lord that bought them; here shall all that know freedom from pollution through lust judge thee that thou never yet knew it, who sayest it may stand with denying christ. and thus being convinced that our practice will prove thee a liar, thou wilt hid it as well as thou canst. it seems thou owns not freedom from the pollutions of the world through lust, to be the redemption of christ, unless they jump with thy fancy; then to conclude thy lying slander, and to make us odious indeed, thou sayest, the ranters were our forerunners, when all that know us may witness against thee that no people in the nation more differ, both in judgement and in practice than they and we; but were we one with the ranters, we should have more of thy favour and less opposition; for thou and many of thy generation have writ many books against us, but i never heard none of you writ a book to oppose them. thou tells of franckling, what he is i know not, accuse us with what we own, and not with what we deny, who is gone out from us, are not of us, nor do we own their practice. and lest any should spy out thy envy in often repeating thy false accusations, thou sayest it is for several purposes, but all for good of souls; but who sought the good of souls durst never lie, slander, nor speak evil of the things they knew not, nor pleaded against perfection nor freedom from sin, nor for respect of persons, this was never for the good of souls, nor did he ever love souls that set thee on this work; but thou knows not of what spirit thou art of, who knows nothing in thee contrary to thy own will to guide thee, and to exercise thy conscience towards god and man, which is in god and in man. but when thou comes to an end of thy wickedness, and shalt cease to deal treacherously; then shall the witness arise, and thou shalt see what thou hast done in pushing against the lamb. thy heads and horns, with thy names of blasphemy, must be dashed to pieces with that principle at whose presence the saints quake & tremble, which now thou scorns and them that own it; till than i leave thee to run thy course, yet in thy greatest zeal (if thou mind) thou mayst sometimes find a check in thy conscience, that is not of thee nor of thy ways, that is a witness against thee, which sometimes will hint to thee thy latter end, and what then shall befall thee, who now hates to hear it, or be reform by it; at that day it will appear thou hadst better have been silent, then out of a lofty proud zeal in thy blindness to have spoken against the things thou knowest not. there is a bundle of lies more in thy book, not worth answering, all that know our practice shall witness against thee in them; as, that we work upon people to cause a disesteem of the scriptures, that we deny the lord that bought us: that the papist is our predecessor: that we will not have christ to rule over us, but deny both his person and word: that we have not faith, but a bewitching spirit: that we use unseemly kiss in our meetings: that we deny the way of righteousness: that we deny the virtue of what is written: that we fear not god, nor care for man: that being one time wrought upon we are perfect: that we deny any man being under frailty: that we leave christ neither body nor laws extant, and so no being no son: divers more there is not worth the raking up: these i return thee into thy bottle from whence they came, there to rot. is this thy religion? what a spirit art thou guided by? hast thou done as thou wouldst be done unto? but this is thy fruit, who hast denied any thing within thee to exercise thy conscience towards god and man: o shame! shame with thy guide and his fruits, thy envy against the truth. did god create man in sin, imperfection, and respect of persons? etc. or is it in the fall: which if it be, then see whose work thou art doing that pleads for it, and a continuance of it while man lives, and against such as witness redemption from it; didst thou ever read any of god's children in that faith or works? james nayler. finis. a defence of gospel-truth. being a reply to mr. chancy's first part. and as an explication of the points in debate, may serve for a reply to all other answers. wherein the mistaken may at least see that, i. i affirm that we are justified for or by christ's righteousness alone, and not by works. ii. that we are justified as soon as we truly believe. iii. that the righteousness of christ is imputed to the believer, and not only the effects of it. iv. that gospel-conditions are not our justifying righteousness, which legal works were to be. v. how the gospel is a law, explained and proved, & c. vi that i am not for the popish or arminian doctrine of justification, & c. as stated by our divines. vii. that all i contend for is the way which god hath appointed for the application of christ's merits, and dispensing the effects of free grace, and for a gospel-ministry suited to this purpose. by daniel williams. london: printed for john dunton at the raven in the poultry, 1693. to the reader. having, by the good hand of god, contributed so much to the restauration of peace in the dissenting congregations in dublin, and somewhat to the union here, a reason may be expected how i become engaged in the present debates; with grief of heart i shall nakedly render it. soon the reasons of my sermon at p. h. above a year since. after the reprinting of dr. crisp's works, his errors that lay hid for many years appeared with open face: many pleading, that there are no humbling or preparatory works in order to conversion, saving faith is nothing but a persuasion that our sins are pardoned; yea, we are justified before we are born; christ was accounted the very blasphemer at god's bar; sin cannot hurt the believer; men have nothing to do in order to salvation; no assurance by signs from sanctification, etc. eleven counties the flame broke soon into, under the conduct of mr. davies, and several others; the faithful ministers were deserted as legalists, churches divided, and town and country filled with debates and noise. these errors and disorders were imputed to the body of nonconformists, and attempts against our liberty thereupon threatened. dr. crisp's son puts out a book of his own to abett some of his father's opinions, and therein reflects on me by name, and other books to this purpose were set forth; hereupon once, and but once, i delivered at pinners-hall that which is the appendix to my book, hoping that a plain state of the differences might convince some well-meaning people, or at least vindicate us, that we were not papists, arminians, etc. as these represented us, nor antinomians, as by others we were all accused. in that sermon i charged no person; yea, to prevent a jealousy that i might intend mr. cole, etc. i inserted this; it's true, there are some small differences among the orthodox, in wording some of these things, but shall we hereby give advantage to such errors, & c? a great clamour is thereupon contrived, and in his next turn, mr. cole, with great severity, exposed us to vulgar notice, affirming many notions that some worthy divines were startled at: some friends of mr. coles proposed to me a meeting with him, in the presence of dr. b. mr. m. and mr. h. in this meeting it was agreed, that i should read my sermon, after which mr. cole declared he had no exception, and so we were agreed (which was now the second time.) mr. cole, in his turn at p. h. publicly declared there was no real difference, as mr. h. also did, and i repeated it with great satisfaction, hoping that the err●…neous would be less confident, when they lost that cover which they made of his name. this calm did not long endure, for mr. cole, (i fear why i printed my book, about six months since. by instigation) revived at p. h. the same reflections, and dr. bat●…s practically preaching the necessity of repentance to the forgiveness of sin, mr. cole soon after brake out into the wont exclamations, and charged us as opposers of christ's righteousness in justification, etc. and i was accounted by most as the chief mark levelled at. friends entreated me to take no notice of these reflections in my sermons there; and tho' thus oft provoked, i never expressed any resentments in any discourse there since that first: nevertheless many assured me of the necessity of printing somewhat to clear ourselves, and if possible to stem this tide; people's mouths were filled with the grossest misrepresentations of our doctrines; ministers were accused as legalists, when they only preached that men had somewhat to do if they would be saved; if a man did but plead with sinners from gospel-threats, or argue obedience and duties, he was no gospel-preacher: yea, some arrived to that daringness, as publicly to assert there were but three or four ministers of christ in london; the reverend mr. mead himself escaped not the title of a legalist. these things caused in me many sad thoughts, and at last i was convinced, unless we should prostitute our ministry, suffer the infecting of our people, which would end in divisions, (as i found attempted on some of my own) and be all guilty, and branded abroad as complyers, by our silence; something must be published. i was sensible of the trouble, reproach, and hazards attending it, especially since i was informed that some, out of the union, were the spring in this affair, who having failed in their unchristian methods to oppose that agreement, it seems judged by the notions of some few (of whom i was ignorant) that either these opinions must prevail, by our silence, or that the union would be endangered if we appeared against them. at last i found the effects of mr. davies' and others practices, abroad, and in the city; that the hazard to our peace would grow, by further delay, especially seeing as yet so very few, if any of the united brethren, were suspected to abett these errors, and mr. cole, with all the rest that appeared their advocates, in city and country, were not of the union. nay, i believed if some others did not act mr. cole, he could not be offended with what i should write, he having at three meetings expressed himself so reconciled to my principles, and then disowned what i should oppose. the reason why i desired any testimony to my book, was because the people do oft value names more than arguments, the opposites (so unscrupulous in their clamours) might prejudice men against the truths, as if i was singular. and considering the delay of 〈◊〉 testimony against mr. davies, this might be some antidote, till we arrived at more. yea, i heard also mr. cole was printing when i was about mine. these are the considerations which induced me to print my book at the desire of several brethren, and i have peace in this, that it appeared an absolute duty. some object▪ why i did not get some of the brethren's hands, vulgar objections against my book answered. formerly called congregational, and it looks like forming a party, etc. a. i did ask some of them that i thought would not scruple it, particularly mr. mead, who did object nothing against it, but a prudential consideration; and the same answer he made to dr. bates, when he first asked him; and before the second edition came out, i telling him what use his hand might have been of, he made the like answer, and made then to me no objection against the book, but that he wished i had left out that of the third to the phil. all which i mentioned to some, with real respect to him and those brethren. but since mr. c's book was published, mr. m. tells me and others, he is not of my judgement; but i know not wherein, except in my sense of that text. yet there are others that forbore subscribing, who declare no disagreement; and he must quite alter his useful way of preaching, if he much differ from me. others ask why i raked into dr. crisp's ashes. a. it was needful i should instance some author, for they said nobody affirmed those things i mentioned in my sermon. i chose dr. c. before another, not from prejudice, but because he was reprinted with an unhappy front, his works seemed the standard of the propagators of these errors. this book was taking with many, recommended to people by mr. trail and others, as i can prove, and he must never be answered, if not after his death; and tho' i treat him with all respect, yet i wonder his works should be so applauded now, when most of our great divines opposed them heretofore: yea, as mr. nesbit from cre●…lible hands informs me, the assembly of divines desired to have them burnt. obj. you are said to misquote him. a. i cannot find i mistook one word, except that once i set justify instead of pardon, which is altered in the second edition obj. you misrepresent his sense. a. not that i know; ●…nd what mr. c. instanceth, i have fully proved it must be his sense, tho' i inform you in my book he oft speaks contradictions, but the most i mention he labours to prove, and his scheme enforceth it. obj. you take bits of sentences. a. i still give one full period, and it's only to avoid swelling my book that i mentioned no more in other clauses; yea, in what is material i oft set his words at large, and if it be needful, i shall put him in a fuller light. many obj. my book was written against mr. cole. a. i had no eye to him at all, except in the digression about repentance, which was much the same as i delivered at a third meeting to compose the debate between dr. bates and him, (tho' since then he broke out against us twice) this i preface in my book with these words: herein i have to do with men of more orthodox principles than dr. crisp. and mr. cole must know, these words did refer to him; yea, notwithstanding many strange passages, i hope he doth not hold most of those opinions; nor can he agree with mr. chancy, unless he disagree with what he hath oft said, yea, and printed. obj. it's more than hinted, that i intent in that book to reflect on all them called congregational. a. i am sure i abhor such an intention; nay, did not i pitch on testimonies from among them, to oppose these errors? i know many of their ministers, whom i think free from the least disposition towards them; the new england synod effectually opposed them; the history thereof is worth the buying, mr. parkhurst lately reprinted it. mr. flavel and mr. job have written well against them; i cite bulkley, dr. owen's, etc. who are fully for the opposite truths; and tho' i sent mr. m. word, that in the mind i was in, i would forbear testimonies from his writings, but that i would not bind myself for any time, yet i have since met with great reason to cite him, as one fully for the truth: yea, mr. n. (tho' i never requested it) in my house declared, that if mr. m. and three more such had subscribed, he would not have been unwilling to do it; and he desired me to add (congregational) to the divines in and about this city who forbear to subscribe only from prudential considerations which i refused. he remembreth the latter part, and owneth it; and he told mr. hume, that if one passage or two were rectified, he would subscribe my book. it's true, some clamorous people, that cry up these opinions, happen to be of that persuasion, but i hope far the greater part are better principled; and many seem on the wrong side only from misrepresentations. obj. why do you use the word rector? a. it's a proper word, used by dr. owen's, mr. charnock, and most. this book hath met with various entertainment, with many it hath pleased god to grant it acceptance, and many ministers out of the country offered their subscriptions; but of the four seeming answers to it, i'll give these hints. to mr. b. i am obliged, for his christian usage, and while he allows, that i speak the language of time, and of the dispensation i am under, i will comply with his proposal, not to enter the lists, unless i have occasion to prove my sense of phil. 3. which i find patronised by augustin. of mr. keach i would but ask, 1. doth not he believe that persons are bound to agree to the covenant of grace, and thereby engaged to love god, and sincerely obey him; and is not refusing to agree to this covenant the damning sin? yea, is not this refusal the heart of unbelief? and that's all i there affirm. 2. is his spirit in a right frame, when he shall bring these words in my catechism, to prove that we are not justified upon believing, till we do good works, when in that short catechism there is this; q. is not a believer pardoned, before he can put forth any other act of obedience? a. tho' true faith is a certain principle of obedience, yet so soon as we believe, we are pardoned, even before there can be time to put forth any other acts of obedience. yea, how oft do i say in my book, that no act of ours is a jot of the righteousness for or by which we are justified, but that is christ's alone; and yet this person fixeth the quite contrary on me, and so batters in the dark, and warneth all from hearing me: the lord humble and forgive such. the letter from the city, etc. seems rather to design a turn, than argue a truth; for as it weakly saith some things true; and others erroneous, so throughout he belies their principles whom he exposeth; if it be wilfully, let his own serious reviews give him his character; if ignorantly, why should he intermeddle? there are few books written that pretend so much, which may be so easily and much exposed. mr. c. is the author i here deal with: i have long read books, and from five years old have had no employment besides my studies; yea, before nineteen i was regularly admitted a preacher, yet i never met with a tract parallel to his, for abusive language, violent rage, and uncharitable censures. many great divines dissuade me from a reply, assuring me it was at best needless▪ with their advice i had complied, but that i find the ignorant believe his misrepresentation of my principle: it's amazing what eye they read with, if they read at all. what's become of truth or ingenuity, that professors dare affix these doctrines to me, which i a thousand times disown, and never can ascribe any passages to ground them on, but are still forced to cry, this is your meaning, against my plain words and entire scheme; as thou wilt see in this reply. mr. c. saith i juggle and equivocate; when i declare i still speak my mind, and must be the most inconsistent fool, if it were not so. but what should induce me to juggle or equivocate? i value not the purses of any, and in god's cause i fear not the abilities of the whole party; yea, by more of god's presence i shall be reconciled to their fiery and clamorous tongues, which is their only formidable strength, tho' the liberty they take doth not evidence a good cause or a christian spirit. they give out, that i oft meet with noblemen about a great affair, when i never spoke with one of these noblemen, nor ever was once in any meeting about that matter. they assert mr. how said, he had not put his hand to my book, but that i assured him mr. m. would do the same; when mr. h affirms he never said any such thing, but that after he had signed, he desired me to ask mr. m's hand. others say, that hands were affixed without their leave, which is too gross to reply to. nay, they turn the effects of my sinking distempers to my reproach; the worst i wish them is forgiveness, and more charity and wisdom. obj. they say some of the first subscribers did not read the whole book. a. the whole substance of the book is in the truths and errors which they did peruse. obj. do not some of the subscribers recant? a. tho' they have been abused, yet the only one that to me seemed willing that his name had been left out, and that only because of the noise. i offered to publish, that he desired it, but he hath forborn any such desire. two of these authors pretend to great piety in their party above others, the lord increase it in all; but i am persuaded they call many serious ones of their party, who live under the power of the contrary truth, and understand not the errors of those for whose persons they may have regard. there be a far greater number of humble, meek, heavenly christians, that abhor these errors, which they observe to alter much the christian calm and tender frame of such, that i hope are upright in the substance. and i heartily desire all of us would lay these texts to heart, 1 cor. 13. though i have all faith, and have not charity, i am nothing. jam. 1. 26. if any man among you seem to be religious, and bridleth not his tongue, but deceiveth his own heart, that man's religion is vain. jam. 3. 13, to 18. but the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be entreated. and it's evident, notwithstanding what mr. c. saith of passions, p. 12. that a holy fear, with a siducial consent to christ, t●…ds more to make a man's state safe, and his walk exact, than sudden confidence or easy persuasions. it's true, assurance should be endeavoured in our working out our salvation with trembling and with fear; yet mr. sedgwick was a man i'll believe before mr. c. or the letter, and he saith, in my conscience this is the general opinion of ungodly men; they hear christ died to take away sin, and to make peace for sinners, and therefore they will take no thought after christ, but will live basely and boldly in their sinful ways, etc. but christ never yet made such a reconciliation, that all sinners whatsoever, though they live in unbelief and impenitency, shall share in it, but only penitent sinners, and believing sinners. s. of cou. p. 258. i shall represent the true state of the points in debate, that if any men will engage me to edification, and with truth, they may be directed. the controversy with dr. c. my book doth it so plainly, that i hope all may see it there; but the present specimen more especially shall refer to mr. c. who differs from many that help the noise, though they will not see it. 1. it is not whether a certain number of sinners are of free grace elected to faith part of the controversy between mr. c. and me stated, which appears fully in his principles, as in the following book. and justification, which i affirm but whether the elect are required by the gospel to believe, that they may be justified; which mr. c. denies, and i affirm. 2. it is not whether the gospel be such a law, as that acts of obedience to it stand in the place of legal works. so as that for them we are saved, which i deny, but whether the gospel doth assure salvation for christ's merits to such as obey it, and threaten an exclusion from this salvation against all such as disobey it. this mr. c. denies, and i affirm. 3. it is not whether we are justified by our faith, or any act of ours, as if they, as works or qualifications, were a jot of that righteousness for which, or by which we are justified; this i deny; but whether god hath fixed this as the revealed gospel-rule, that a man must be a penitent believer, whom god will justify for christ's righteousness. this mr. c. denies, and i affirm. 4. it is not whether the faith and forgiveness of the elect be the fruits of election and distinguishing mercy, which i affirm; but whether god hath a revealed rule, by which as paternal ruler he gives pardon and glory to believers for christ's sake, and judicially withholds them from others, whom he condemns not for their being unelected, but for their final impenitency and unbelief. this mr. c. denies, and i affirm. to other of his citations under his third principle add this, p. 32. if you understand judicial in respect of any duty, grace, or qualification found in us, tho' wrought by the spirit, i abhor it. 5. it is not whether we are immediately justified upon believing, before any works, which follow the first act of saving faith; this i affirm; but whether if faith should be ineffectual to acts of sincere holiness, and to prevent apostasy and utter ungodliness, would we be subject to condemnation by the gospel-rule. this mr. c. denies, and i affirm. 6. it is not whether holiness or good works are necessary to salvation▪ this they and i affirm, but whether god doth require them as indispensible means of obtaining the possession of salvation through christ; and declares, that the total want of them, and much more their contraries, shall expose to misery. this mr. c. must deny, and the necessity they speak of is only a physical necessity, not a moral. note, 〈◊〉 two last questions refer to the adult that have time. 7. it is not whether justification, adoption, and glorification be acts of god's free grace, which i affirm, but whether i●…●…eased god to leave himself at liberty to justify the unbeliever, while such, and glorify the unbelieving and wicked, and also to damn the penitent godly believer. this mr. c. affirms▪ and i deny. this is these men's free grace, while they deny the gospel-rule and law. 8. it is not whether god hath, as to us, absolutely promised and cove●…nted with christ, that the elect shall believe, and all men believing be pardoned, and so persevere in faith and holiness to eternal life, which i affirm, but whether there is a covenant which require our true believing consent to the terms of it, as ●… con●…tion of pardon and glory, and supposeth this true consent in the actual 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ●…f th●…se benefits. this mr. c. denies and i affirm. 9 it is not whether ●…uth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 only grace by which we receive and rest on christ and his righteousness for justification, and that it is christ received by faith doth justify, which is the sense of protestants, when they say we are justified by faith alone; this i affirm; but whether he that can truly believe to justification, must be in part a convinced, humbled, penitent sinner. this i affirm, and mr. c. denies: yea, he saith, that pardon is rather the condition of faith; nay, pardon is the cause of faith. 10. it is not whether sanctification taken strictly do follow justification; this i affirm; but whether effectual vocation make a real habitual change in the soul, and that this vocation is in order of nature, before justification. this mr. c. and the letter, etc. deny, and i affirm with the assembly. 11. it is not whether our sincere faith, love, etc. are imperfect, and so can be no meriting righteousness, which i affirm, but whether they are disobedien●… even in gospel account, and so incapable of being the conditions of any of its promised saving benefits. this mr. c. affirms, and i deny. these are some of the points wherein mr. c. and i differ: i fear i shall find him in all things of dr. crisp's opinion, as i have assurance he is in his definition of faith. may not i now expect, that people that rail at me will impute to me only what i thus plainly state? the body of well-esteemed authors are on my side; there's an end to our ministry if these be not true; most of the practical books we have, as allen, etc. are all lies, and tending to ruin souls, if mr. c. judge aright. thou wilt find in this book testimonies cogent to my purpose, and if it will serve mr. c. to say i wrest them and men there upon believe him, i cannot help it. such as i quoted in my first book ' are truly quoted, and serve fully to what i produce them for, but to reconcile all men to themselves is not my work; and yet i think it no hard matter to evidence, that none of my authors speak against my assertions. mr. c. saith i am against the articles of the church of england, and the assembly; i am sure he'll never prove it, and i profess the contrary, and am certain he is against all confessions of faith that we own as orthodox. how far other ministers are concerned for the kingdom of christ, the safety of souls, the rule of judgement, the plain gospel way of salvation to sinners, the truth and scope of their ministry, time will evidence. but in the strength of christ i'll sustain the utmost persecution at the hands of these angry men, and while god enableth me, they shall not overturn the gospel by their unscriptural abuse of the blessed names of the righteousness of christ and free grace, the gospel way of the application whereof, and a subservient ministry, being the whole i contend for. i have oft attempted to adjust these things before i engaged, nay, since the severe treatment i have met with, i sent to mr. ch. that i would meet him, and show how much he mistook my principles; or if he refused a meeting, i would send him an account in writing, that he might not abuse himself and the world, but he would accept of neither; as if he could not write without the question were mistated. yea, at the request of the united brethren, i agreed to suspend this book, if he would do so with his, but this he refused. now, whatever be the consequences of these debates, i am innocent, and commit all to god, in whose cause i, though sickly, weak and unworthy, am engaged. there is a mystery in it, that the explication of one text should be pretended by some for a reason against my whole book, and so countenance all dr. crisp's errors, which yet they profess to dislike; and the impartial see i oppose nothing but those errors. the doctrine of imputation being still by mr. c. etc. objected against me, though i have not yet had opportunity to insist thereon, i will state that case, 1. it is not whether christ was a public person as a mediator in his undertake, and so transacted all for sinners, that they might be pardoned and saved by his undertaken satisfaction and merits; this i affirm; but whether we were so represented in christ, ●…s that we were in law sense they that undertook to atone and merit. this i deny. 2. nor whether christ was a surety for us in a bond of his own, to pay our debt to the full, (and much more) that we might in a due time and way be released; this i affirm; but whether we were joynt-parties in one and the same bond with him, and so we were actually acquitted when he made satisfaction, and therefore god could enjoin no terms of the application thereof to us for justification and glory, nor suspend the same upon those terms. this i deny. 3. nor whether christ was made under the law, and that this was one article of his part in the covenant of redemption, viz. that he should in a way of proper satisfaction bear the substance of the penalty of the law, and yield perfect obedience to all such of its precepts, as were competent to his person, and this to save th●… elect; this i affirm; but whether christ was joynt-covenant-party with all the elect in adam's covenant, so that they were legally esteemed to make satisfaction and yield perfect obedience in his doing thereof. this i deny. 4. nor whether christ's righteousness is imputed to believers, and so made theirs, that it is applied to them, and pleadable by them, as what was always designed and undertaken for their salvation, and is the sole meritorious cause of their pardon, acceptance, and glory, and this as effectually, as if they themselves had satisfied and merited; and this righteousness is reputed by god as that which now pleads for their impunity, acceptance, and happiness, as members of christ: all this i affirm; but whether it be imputed as our formal righteousness, and so we may truly plead, that we ourselves, as elect, did legally, by christ as our proxy, satisfy and merit all, and without the interposal of the gospel-rule, we have a legal title to glory by adam's covenant. this i deny, as what excludes forgiveness, makes christ's sufferings needless, denies any proper satisfaction, and destroys christianity. 5. nor whether we all sinned and died in adam, and in christ are all made alive; which i affirm, owning christ's influence as both real, yea, and public, as before explained; but whether we were in christ before faith, as we were seminally in adam before we were born, which his foederal headship did suppose. the being thus in christ before faith i deny. these express my thoughts, which i doubt not (by christ's help) to maintain against all these opposers, while i expect nothing but a gross exposal of themselves, when their conceits are forced out of their cloudy expressions. reader, i had reason to instance some minute things, though with men of wisdom and fairness a cause dep●…nds on arguments, and not personal respects. join with me in earnest prayer, that truth and love may flourish, and that christ's cause may be managed with a christian spirit, which i have endeavoured, and not exposed nor reviled my adversary. i am thy servant in the kingdom and gospel of our blessed lord, daniel williams. errata. p. 1. l. 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. 14. l. 18. deal for. a defence of gospel-truth, the reverend opposer of my book having as yet offered so little of argument against my assertions, my reply must be short to what he hath said; and shall therefore choose another method than what his book prescribes. his unusual reflections i dare not return, being awed by him who chargeth me not to render railing for railing, 1 pet. three 9 and hath declared, that the wrath of man worketh not the righteousness of god: happy they, and likely to arrive at truth, that are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, eph. iv. 15. truthing it in love. the weight of the points in debate will not allow me to be pedantic; nor can i bid at childish jests, without suspecting my mind in a case unfit for serious thoughts, or the aids of the spirit in search for truth; neither is it allowed tit. two. 7. in doctrine showing gravity, etc. i the method. shall therefore proceed in this method: 1. show how he mistakes and misrepresents my principles against the plain words of my book, even where i mention them as my positive judgement. 2. i shall endeavour to make the most material things more evident to the ordinary reader. 3. i shall instance some of mr. chancy's principles, which he asserts, and labour to let thee see where we differ, and what's the judgement of others in these things. 4. i shall briefly reply to what else is material in his book, that falls not under the former heads. some instances wherein mr. c. misrepresents my principles against my plainest words in my book. i. mr. c. saith of the athenian society, i doubt not but they are of your opinion in doctrinals; and then chargeth them, as being against an election of a determinate number of men to eternal life; and adds, i doubt not you will be found to do so. repl. these gentlemen were pleased, in answer to a kind letter of election asserted. mr. crisps, to give their thoughts of my book, and your reply to what they have said of election, affecteth not their assertion. but, by what words can i express my own judgement more fully then? p. 66. i affirm, there is a ●…romise of the first grace made to christ for the elect, and by virtue of that promise they consent, p. 3. ch. 1. i affirm, that certain persons freely-elected by him shall certainly be justified and adopted; and that these persons are the objects of god's love of goodwill, even while they are si●…hers; 〈◊〉 that god continues his purpose of doing them good, notwithstanding their provocations; and christ hath made full a●…onement for sin, and merited eternal life for the elect, which shall be in god's time and way applied. there is a great difference between an elect sinner, and others. as to what they shall be in time, chap. 20. p. 210. god hath elected a certain number, etc. and so the gospel shall not be in vain to all. see the same oft repeated, p. 66, 16, 210, 105. ii. mr. c. represents ●…e, 〈◊〉 p. 3. the 〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is abrogated, transiit in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. 〈◊〉 aside ●…he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and of no use to us at all. so p. 21. we have nothing to do with it, it's out of doors. repl. he would insinuate that i say, that the preceptive part of the the law not abrogated. law is not a rule of manners, nor that the transgression of it makes us guilty, nor that men, whilst they reject the gospel, are not at all under the curse of the law. all which i abhor. and though this point fell not in my way to handle, yet there wants not passages to this purpose: p. 198. the holiest action of the holiest saint needs forgiveness. chap. 21. p. 225. it's legal preaching to be always pressing the duties of the law of nature, but neglect preaching christ, etc. where i allow it sometimes. again, in the same page i condemn saying, that our best obedience doth not deserve wrath by the law, as a rule of misery and happiness; or that it doth not need forgiveness. p. 125. i affirm the law to be a rule of duty. cap. 12. p. 107. the gospel declareth all condemned till they do believe; it declares they are so, and denounceth they shall be so, etc. and again, they that believe, their condemnation is reversed: see p. 57 reader, thou mayest read me still affirming the misery even of the elect, by the law, till they are justified by christ. it's true, i do think that 1. the sentence of the law cannot hinder the relief of any soul by christ, who complieth with the gospel. 2. nor that it is possible for any man to be saved by the law of innocency. by forgiveness is our blessedness, and not by our sinless obedience: and so far i'll own it, but not in the three former senses. iii. mr. c. tells me, p. 20. that when i said christ's sufferings were the foundation of our pardon; that our sins are forgiven for christ's sufferings, and without them sin cannot be forgiven. your fundamentally is only a remote causality, etc. all that we have of your meaning, is a poor causa sine qua non. and within a few lines you mean, by something else besides them, not by the immediate application of them, but mediate and remote, à causa sine qua non. repl. the plain meaning of what he thus exposeth is, that the elect were not discharged and actually justified at the time when christ suffered: which is proved p. 17. etc. but it's strange, that any one that read this or the following passages, should infer either, 1. that christ is only a causa sine qua non, which is no cause; 2. or that his righteousness is not the sole meritorious or material cause of our pardon, which in judicial acts are the same; 3. or that christ's sufferings are not immediately applied to our pardon; 4. or that pardon is by any act of ours as a joint meritorious cause with christ; each of which, i hope, the following passages will clear me in. p. 16. i affirm, when we are pardoned, the whole meritorious christ's righteousness the sole meritorious cause or material righteousness in justification; and it is applied to believers. cause of pardon is the atonement of christ, and what is required of sinners, is only a meetness to receive the effects of it. p. 39 i affirm, that justification, and all other benefits, be the fruits of christ's righteousness, as the only meritorious cause of them. p. 40. we are, for the sake of christ's righteousness delivered from the guilt of sin, and entitled to life, and accepted with god against all excluding bars. p. 41. christ was he by whose merits he forgives us, but he never was forgiven; we are forgiven, and never had merits of our own to forgive ourselves: and it's enough that we were pardoned and adopted for his sake, when we deserved endless woe, and are never capable of making the least atonement. p. 43. faith owns the foundation of our plea to be in christ, from whom are derived to us that pardon and right to life which are the effects of his righteousness; for this we are justified, for that righteousness which is in christ we are acquitted and adopted; the efficient merit is in him, the effect of the judicial absolution for that merit, is in us: the righteousness is still in christ, for the sake whereof we are absolved or justified: god hath for christ's sake forgiven us, but not for the sake of what is in ourselves, etc. and now being absolved or made righteous in a law sense, we have as much matter of glorying as absolved acquitted sinners can have. we are justified by his righteousness; that is, for that we are forgiven, and also entitled to life, which we had forfeited ourselves, but we are not made innocent, nor so esteemed; we are not accounted them who made the atonement; we still take hold of christ's righteousness, that by it we may be forgiven; and this is our blessedness, and our gospel-righteousness, which all such refuse who reject redeeming love from a conceit of their own merits, or refuse the terms of the gospel, which by the promise do make us capable of being justified and saved for the merits of christ; yet these still remain his merits, though thus beneficial to us in their application, as the procuring cause of all our good. p. 44. we still need pardon, and continue justified by the efficacy of the righteousness of another, and must look to christ as▪ the only subject of it all our days. our justified state is a continuance of the blessed effects of the righteousness of christ, from first to last; that cause is still productive of supplies, as our gild returns, or necessities and capacities renew or grow, but our redemption is ever in christ. p. 249. pardon is not the effect of those graces, but of the promise in the virtue of christ's blood, or of his blood applied for forgiveness by the promise. reader, if thou regardest truth, dost not thou find christ's sufferings to be a real cause of pardon, a sole meritorious or material cause, all other causes of that kind excluded, and these sufferings and christ's righteousness immediately applied? see p. 247. we are justified only by christ's merits, as the sole procuring cause or righteousness, for which we are justified. v. mr. c. p. 21. the use of christ's sufferings is to compound with god for sinners, upon the account of the old law, and put a bar upon his proceedings, according to that, and procure another law, by the righteousness whereof we are justified, which righteousness is our own inherent righteousness, and not christ's. and p. 30. faith doth not justify us by applying christ's righteousness, etc. but by its own virtue, as being a righteousness itself, etc. but christ's righteousness hath nothing to do here, it's our own faith and repentance is the righteousness, in conformity to the rule of promise, and that's latin for the new law. so p. 15. we are not at all entitled to this blessing by christ, but by our own obedience you mean, etc. repl. i am represented as if i thought, 1. that christ served only to excuse us from perfect obedience, but that our pardon and glory, given gospel-conditions not the righteousness for which we are justified, nor of the same nature as legal works. by the promise, were not the immediate effects of his merits. 2. that he merited only that we might merit by our faith. 3. that our faith and repentance are the meritorious cause of our pardon and glory by the new law, and so, that gospel-conditions are of the same use to our justification, as works were under the law; that is, to be the righteousness for which we are justified and saved. all which i disown, and expressly declare, 1. that christ hath satisfied justice, and merited pardon and glory; these have their being only on his account, and he hath a right to give them. 2. when the sinner partakes of these mercies, he partakes of them as the fruits of his death, and for his sake. 3. god in christ, as our ruler, hath declared a way and order how he will dispense these benefits to us, and enjoins our compliance with that order. if we believe (tho' faith be his gift) he will forgive for christ's sake, otherwise he declares he will not. 4. gospel-conditions have no other use to our interest in these benefits, than a compliance with this stated rule of the distribution of pardon and glory, which are merited by christ, and given only for his sake. this is my plain meaning in all he hath objected against, consult my words in the epistle, and what i have repeated in the last head, and these following in my book. cap. 7. p. 39 i affirm, that christ by his righteousness merited for all the elect, that they should in his time and way be certainly partakers of its saving effects, and did not only purchase a conditional grant of those effects, viz. that proposition, he that believeth shall be saved. p. 1. i affirm, the whole meritorious cause and price of justification, adoption, and eternal life were perfect, when christ finished the work of satisfaction. cap. 3 p. 16. i affirm, that when we are pardoned, the whole meritorious cause of that pardon is that atonement, and what is required of sinners, is only a meetness to receive the effects of it. cap. 10. p. 84. i deny, that preparatory qualifications do merit true grace; and that faith or repentance do merit an interest in christ. i say, their whole use depends on christ's ordination. p. 45. we are reputed righteous, for the sake of what christ did, and not for the merit of what we have done. p. 61. i deny the performance of the conditions of the covenant to be a purchasing price, or meritorious of the benefits promised on such conditions: this i deny, for christ alone paid the price, and it's the covenant-promise gives an interest in the benefits, to such as perform the conditions. cap. 8. p. 53, 54. when i had shown how all satisfaction, etc. were provided and adjusted in the covenant of redemption, i declare, that by the covenant of grace i mean the way that god hath ordained, to apply to sinners that salvation which is prepared by christ, and which he will enable the elect to comply with. same pag. i affirm the conditions do not merit the blessings promised. p. 55. i affirm, it's from god's will in the promise that they are made to be conditions; he connected the benefit and the duty; though he chose conditions that were fit, yet their fitness would not have availed to our interest in the benefits, unless he had promised they should so avail, etc. and the covenant, though conditional, is a disposition of grace: there's grace in giving ability to perform the conditions, as well as in bestowing the benefits: god's enjoining one in order to the other, makes not the benefit to be less of grace; but it is a display of god's wisdom, in conferring the benefit suitably to the nature and state of man in this life, etc. p. 45. our pardon and acceptance is firm and lasting, and will no more fail us than the righteousness of christ will fail, it being the meritorious cause and security thereof, and the benefits can abate to none, who answers the gospel-rule of its application. p. 57 these conditions make us capable of no happiness, but what christ hath bought and prepared for us, etc. p. 58. the use and interest of gospel-conditions is not from the conformity of them to the preceptive part of the law, (though in a degree there be that) but from their conformity, to the rule of the grace of the promise, the promise of pardon through christ being to the penitent believers, and no other. repentance and faith become necessary and useful conditions of this pardon, by the order of god in that gracious promise; but by the covenant of works, the mere work gave an interest in the reward, as it was obedience to the precept, by a sanction that had goodness, but no such grace in it. see p. 61, & 225. i deny that faith, etc. are in the same place as works were under the law, how many more places could i cite? but i shall refer thee to what follows, as to the point of merit. see p. 225, 247. vi mr. c. p. 30, 31. he looks whether or no we have fully performed the conditions, and upon finding them, he judicially gives the promise, i. e. in away of reward to the works performed. whether they be perfect or imperfect it's no matter; the reward is of debt, and not of grace, etc. and what can this be, but a declared judgement, that he is de congruo, deserving pardon, and i think ex condigno too, before he is pardoned, etc. repl. the scope of these and the like passages, is to render me one that thinks that faith or other graces did merit the pardon of our sins; which is contrary to my declared judgement; as may be seen in what i have above cited, and in these following passages, cap. 12. p, 102, 103. tho faith be no way a meritorious cause of a sinner's justification, etc. note, gospel-conditions no way meritorious of justification or salvation, nor other workingconditions, but a mere conformity to the gospel way of receiving the gifts of christ. 1. there is a righteousness for which a man is justified, that is only christ's righteousness; this is the foundation of the promise, and the merit of the blessing promised: nothing can add to it or mingle with it; it's sufficient, and alone sufficient to satisfy justice, atone for gild, and merit acceptance and eternal life. 2. there is to be considered, what the condition of the person is, whom this mercy is promised to; he is one that hath this true grace of faith, etc. christ's righteousness shall not be imputed to this use, unless we believe, etc. and this faith being a conformity to the rule of the promise, some call it a subordinate righteousness, not meaning any righteousness for which a man is forgiven, for it is christ's righteousness alone for which god justifies us: but it's our answering the rule by which christ applieth his righteousness for our remission, and a right to life, and his promise is the ground of our title. p. 104. i deny that faith or any grace be a jot of the meriting righteousness for which we are justified. i deny that faith, or any other grace add anything to the value of christ's merits: yea, i add, that if christ's righteousness could be applied for pardon, to the vilest sinner, before he believes, it would justify him; but god hath declared, it shall not be applied to unbelievers. p. 120. neither holiness, sincere obedience, or good works, are in the least the meritorious righteousness whereby salvation is caused, or for which this, or any blessing, becomes due to us, as of debt, etc. but he appoints these as the way and means of a believer's obtaining salvation, etc. p. 125. i deny that any holiness, internal or external, any obedience, work, or duty, do at all merit the promise, or is the meritorious cause or righteousness for which any promised mercy is bestowed: and i own, that all is of gift, tho' given in an order suitable to our condition, as subjects in a state of trial. p. 137. nothing of these merit heaven, but he that merited heaven, hath peremptorily appointed these to bring us thither. p. 155. we ought to renounce every thought of purchasing from god any benefit for what we do. p. 210. we must teach the best man to renounce all the grace he hath, and good he performs, as if being the least atonement for sin, or least purchase of life, or any addition of merit to a christ, or sharing in what is peculiar to him. p. 225. i condemn it as legal to preach, that our faith, holiness, or good works stand in the same place now, as perfect obedience did under the law, viz. to render the reward to be of debt, or be the meritorious righteousness for which we are justified. p. 244. i do renounce all that saints have or do, as any atonement for sin, or purchasing price of the least benefit, much less salvation. judge, reader, if i can say more to exclude all opinion of merit. vii. mr. c. p. 31. you, do here not a little insinuate what i know lies in your breast; that there is no specific difference between grace and mere moral endowments. and it appears so upon all your hypotheses, for you declare, there ought to be such and such qualifications, to entitle a man to the promise of grace, or grace in the promise, before he hath the promise. the same p. 32. repl. here i am charged, 1. as if i thought there were no specific difference between saving grace and mere moral endowments. i suppose by moral endowments he 〈◊〉 such as the unconverted have; to which i answer, there is a moral specific difference, the one is saving, the other is not; the one is from the effectual work of the spirit, whereby the soul is truly regenerated, the other is not. and this difference thou wilt see me own, as far as i had occasion. 2. i am charged, as that i hold there must be qualifications in a sinner, to entitle him to the first grace, or to the promise of it. but as there is not a tittle leading to either in the words he citys, so i pray weigh the places under each head. 1. there is a specific difference between grace and mere moral endowments. p. 224. i condemn it as legal to press men to faith and repentance, a moral specific difference between true grace and mere moral endowments. and other duties, as if to be performed in our strength, without the grace of christ, and influences of the spirit. p. 57 the conditions of the covenant of grace are performed by the grace of christ, freely given to sinners. cap. 11. p. 90. every man is without christ, till he be effectually called; but when by this call the spirit of god inclineth and enableth him willingly to accept of christ, as a head and saviour, a man becomes partaker of those influences and privileges which are peculiar to the members of the lord jesus. cap. 11. p. 92. i affirm, that christ's giving us the spirit of grace doth begin this union, and the spirit given, in order to saving operations, produceth this faith, whereby the union is consummated. p. 83. i affirm, there may be knowledge, assent, humbling, etc. and yet a soul fail of an interest in christ, for want of true conversion. 2. see how positive i am, that there are no qualifications to entitle a man the first grace absolutely given. to the first grace, or the promise of it. tho' i wonder that he makes no difference between the promise of grace, which is absolute, and promises to grace, which are conditional. cap. 10. p. 83. i affirm, the worst sinners are often the objects of god's effectual calling, in order to an interest in christ. cap. 8. p. 61. i affirm, the first grace is absolutely given, though dispensed ordinarily in the due use of means. p. 66, the gospel or covenant tells us, that there is a promise of the first grace made to christ, for the elect, and by virtue of that promise the elect do consent to the covenant; and this gospel or covenant is the means whereby that faith is wrought. viii. mr. c. it is this doctrine, viz. of imputation, that you are still bantering; it's that you have the greatest pick at. repl. reader, weigh my plain words; cap. 7. p. 37. the mediatorial righteousness of christ is so imputed to true believers, as that for the sake thereof they are pardoned, and accepted unto life-eternal, it being reckoned to them, and pleadable by them for these uses, as if they had personally done and suffered what christ did, as mediator for them, whereby they are delivered from the curse, and no other atonement, nor meriting price of saving benefits, can be demanded from them. p. 39 i affirm, that besides these effects (viz. all the saving effects of christ's death) being made christ's righteousness is imputed. ours, the very righteousness of christ is imputed to true believers, as what was always undertaken, and designed for their salvation, and is now effectual to their actual pardon and acceptance to life▪ yea, is pleadable by them▪ as their security, and is as useful to their happiness, as if themselves had done and suffered what christ did. (and a few lines before) i affirm, that christ's sufferings and obedience were so in our stead, that god cannot exact from us any other atonement for sin, or price of any gospel-blessings. p. 43. had not christ suffered for us, we could not be absolved for the sake of his obedience and sufferings. the like may be seen p. ●…47. reader, i would inform thee, that i can agree to any expressions, to note christ a representative, surety, head, etc. that are consistent with pardon of sin, and our not being the persons in god's account, who suffered and obeyed: but, i think, forgiveness for the sake of what christ did and suffered for us, is what we must take comfort in, and christ suffered in the person of a mediator. ix. mr. c. p. 1. for the doctrine of justification especially, we are in a manner returned to egypt, that of justification by works being brought into the room of justification by faith. repl. here, and in many places, i am arraigned, as being for justification by works, and not by faith; which must be to import, 1. that i am for works being joined with faith, to our admission into a state of justification. 2. that faith and other things do justify us, as the righteousness for or by which we are justified. as to the last, review what is cited under the 3, 4, 5, 6 misrepresented principles, and sure thou wilt see that it's christ's righteousness, and not ours, which is that for and by which alone we are justified, as the sole merit. the former then remaineth as a charge; as to which, see if i do not positively assert, that we are justified as soon as we truly believe. cap. 12. p. 104. i affirm, that we are justified justified by faith before works. the same moment as we truly believe in christ, and the blessing is not suspended for any time longer. this i affirm, because god justifies us by the promise, as his instrument; and this promise declares, that he will justify him that believes. it's christ, truly believed on, doth justify us, and a christ so believed on cannot but justify us. p. 247. we say we are upon repenting and believing put into a justified state, before any other work●…▪ reader, i did, to prevent this mistake, preface that chap. 13 of the necessity of holiness and good works, with these words. p. 120. note, that whatever is spoken in this chapter of any act of grace, except penitent believing, refers not to the forgiveness of sin, or the sinner's admission into a justified state; the benefits i here treat of▪ are the not forfeiture of pardon, the possession of heaven, and particular blessings, as increase of peace, joy. returns of prayer, etc. so▪ p. 113. obj. the only pretence for this charge, must be, that i make repentance necessary to forgiveness. ans. but, 1. i expressly deny repentance to be any part of the righteousness for which we are forgiven. it's no merit, etc. this thou mayest see gospel ●…ons no 〈◊〉 of justification. in a hundred places in my book, some are cited in the 4, 5, 6 heads. 2. i deny it to be any cause of forgiveness. i say in p. 119. i own myself to be among them who deny repentance, of any grace in m●…n, to be a cause of forgiveness. ●…. i deny that justification is equally ascribed to repentance, as to faith, etc. see p. 113. i deny justification to be equally justification by faith alone, as the 〈◊〉 receiving▪ condition ascribed to faith and repentance, for we are said to be justified by faith; which imports, that repentance is but a disposing condition, and faith the receiving condition: repentance without faith is unavailable, as faith without repentance is impossible. faith seems to complete all, and in a manner comprehend all. now reader, thou seest that all i say, is, that faith alone receives forgiveness by christ, or christ for forgiveness: but that repentance of heart must be in that soul, who shall obtain forgiveness, see my reasons cap. 12. from p. 115, to 119. by the way note. if it can be true, as he saith p. 16. that i mean works are necessary to salvation, as working conditions; when i exclude all graces and works, as any cause at all. x. mr. ch. p. 29. what a sad case is a poor sinner in, if he make shift to scramble, by his imperfect conditions, into covenant! he is like every day to be turned out again; and when he hath done the best he can, he must never believe that he shall go to heaven, till he lie a dying. repl. here my principles are represented as against the perseverance of the elect believer: but i shall cite a few places, and leave it to thy judgement. cap. 7. p. 40. i affirm, that christ by his righteousness merited, all elect believers shall persevere. and by his spirit doth renew the hearts of his members, and will, in time, so communicate of his grace to them, that they shall be perfectly holy, even without spot and blemish: and the spots and blemishes remaining in a godly man, do consist with his justified state, and shall not cast him out of god's favour. p. 138. do not say, the elect believer will not fall away, i think the same; yet is it the less true, that even he shall perish if he fall away: nay, doth not god by these threats contribute to keep him from apostasy? and p. 173. i deny that a principle of life, given at first conversion, will finally fail to exert itself in due humbling for repeated enormities, and in holy resolves. and p. 248. god sees no sin in believers, so as to cast them out of a justified state. p. 66. the gospel secures the perseverance of believers in that true faith, and the necessary effects and operations of it, and thereby secures those benefits as unforfeited. many more places might be produced; as p. 37, etc. xi. mr. c. p. 16. the great quarrel you have with him, is, that he (viz. dr. crisp) makes it so much his business to vindicate the honour of free grace, and of the lord jesus, in our whole salvation. p. 35. according to your own principles, it's a question whether you have not put a bar upon the grace of god, by making so daring and audacious an opposition to it, as you have done in this book. repl. this severe charge is, that i 1. oppose the honour of christ; 2. i make an audacious opposition, to the grace of god, even to a doubt, whether i am guilty of the sin against the holy ghost: but i hope the places following will convince thee of his mistake. 1. i do not oppose the honour of christ, though i would keep the crown upon his head. see p. 55. christ as a priest hath merited all, but as a king christ not opposed, but ex●…ted. or priest upon his throne, he dispenseth all. and p. 209. we must teach, that christ hath purchased all saving benefits, and that men must look to him as the author of salvation, and giver of that grace whereby we obey the terms of life. cap. 22. p. 236. i am willing to own any thing that lays man low; and exalts christ, as the only atonement, the only purchaser of all our blessings, the only procurer of our acceptance, the author and finisher of all grace. nothing can add to his satisfaction or fullness; pardon▪ peace, life, all are the effects of his sole merits; we must do all in his name▪ act in his strength, daily live on him for all supplies, and look to him for acceptance, without whose incense the best man and the best action were an abomination▪ what i contend for is his government, so wisely contrived to apply his blessings to men, in a state of trial. reader, look back to what is cited before, 4, 5, 6 heads, and i am sure my book is full of such passages. 2. i do not oppose the free grace of god: see cap. 23. p. 240, etc. i have affirmed▪ and would admit the fullest expressions to testify, that in free grace honoured, and not opposed. these is the free grace of god in truth of mere grace he elected some certain sinners to life, upon no moving foreseen condition, but yet to obtain it through sanctification of the spirit to obedience, and sprinkling of the blood of jesus. of mere love to sinners no way deserving it, he gave his son to die for them, who also undertook to bring all the elect to salvation, in the way appointed between the father and him. he without any thing in man to deserve it, gave his gospel, and thereby offereth in the virtue of his son's blood pardon, and eternal life to every one that will repent, and truly believe, and no penitent persevering believer shall miss of life by a failure of this promise. he freely, and of mere grace, bestows faith and repentance; yea, gives his spirit to create these, and any other good work in worthless vile sinners; and though he will not forgive any that finally refuse to believe and repent, nor save any ungodly apostate man▪ yet pardon and life are his free gift, and no grace nor duty merits them, they being no more than the required conditions or means of our partaking of them, as the gifts of god through christ; and so he hereby honours his own government, and no way indulgeth the boastings of men. p. 244. this grace i adore, and own the best to merit nothing, to forfeit all, yea, to deserve hell by the law of works. and i do renounce all that saints have or do, as any a●…onement for sin, or purchasing-price of the least salvation, etc. very many other places i might add, and have said nothing inconsistent herewith, unless that i mu●…t be arraigned, because i think, that since god hath published his will, that he will forgive all such, and none but such as believe and repent, and will damn all that remain unbelieving and impenitent; that therefore he is not alike free to forgive the unbeliever and impenitent, whilst they remain such, and to condemn the penitent believer, when he is by grace made such: tho' i declare, he will make all the elect to become penitent believers, and then forgive them. xii. mr. c. truly for your comparing christ and holiness in the matter of justification, 'tis perfect stuff. p. 16. you mean, as a working condition, whereby you put works in the place of christ; and mean as your oracle speaks, etc. p. 30. repl. here, as well as in other places; i am represented to compare christ and holiness in justification, yea, to put works, as working conditions, in the place of christ. i have already instanced, that i denied any holiness not compared with christ, nor works s●…t in 〈◊〉 place. grace or work to be any cause at all, 9th head; also, that christ's righteousness is the sole meritorious cause or matter of our justification, which is imputed to us 4, 5, 6 heads; and that our works follow faith and pardon, and neither faith nor works are any price, atonement, or moving or procuring cause, 6, 11 heads, and elsewhere; yea, and that we are to renounce a thought of this. do i then oppose christ, or compare any holiness with him? i shall add, cap. 19 p. 198. i own we should esteem the sincere holiness of a believer's heart and actions to be dung, if compared with christ, as meritorious of justification. and, p. 202. who must not own, that compared with christ, the best thing in us is vile, yea, compared with his righteousness? and p. 210. we must teach the best man to renounce all the grace he hath, and good he doth, as it being the least atonement for sin, or least purchase of life, or any addition of merit to christ, or sharing in what is peculiar to him. and cap. 21. p. 225. i condemn any that preach, that our best obedience doth not deserve wrath by the law, or that it doth not need forgiveness, or is any supplement of christ's righteousness; yea, or to neglect to call men to renounce all in themselves, as any atonement for sin, or cause of pardon; and that we must look to christ as the only propitiation, purchaser of all our blessings, and cause of the acceptance of our persons and performances. reader, i have given thee a few of those many places. having finished this first point proposed, i will appeal to thy conscience, whether i can with any shadow of justice be charged with those principles which this brother fixeth upon me. i hope he did not wilfully expose me in the face of such evidence. the words in my preface lead not to the least suspicion, yea, are positive to the contrary; and therefore how he saith this is my sense, when i must not only equivocate, but grossly contradict myself, and that in places where i state the question, must increase the wonder: neither is there the least pretence, except that i assert, that though pardon and salvation are all free gifts, and the merits of christ are imputed as the sole meritorious cause of all, yet god, as our ruler, hath appointed a method in the gospel for the dispensing of them, and doth confer them in that method▪ and ordains a gospel-ministry in a consistency therewith, and in a subserviency thereto. this scheme any man may see in my very preface and morethrough the whole book. 2. i shall attempt, if possible, to make my sense intelligible to the most vulgar apprehension, to this end i premise. 1. god may be considered in his dispensations towards fallen men, as a the 〈◊〉 of the ele●…, ●…f god be considered as mere proprietor. mere proprietor and benefactor, and not as rector or ruler; and so men must be considered merely as creature-objects of his benefits, and not at all as rational subjects to be now governed, and hereafter judged. if you look at god thus absolutely conferring benefits, than the way is this: he eternally elects to glory a certain number of men, whom he sore saw undone by adam's fall; he appoints his son to undertake their recovery, as the sole covenanting party with him, in the covenant of redemption he was to satisfy justice, merit glory, and make them physically meet for it. this is all true, and sometimes prophetically declared thus, and the event as to the elect is, as certain as if god dealt no otherwise with man on this side death. but if this be the whole method of god with men, as some account it, how much of the bible is unintelligible and vain, how much is contradicted, and a great part of god's manifold wisdom obscured and denied, which shines forth in his present paternal dominion as redeemer? 2. god may be considered as a ruler, proprietor, and benefactor conjunctly: we may look at him as communicating his benefits in a way of government, and that in many things not exclusive of his absolute propriety. that this is his method, i have proved in my book. cap. 8, 13, 20. the state of fallen men, as god is considered a paternal ruler. and other chapters, and may hereafter more confirm it. herein god connects benefits with duties, offers pardon and glory upon terms, deals with men as subjects whom he now governs, and will hereafter judge without respect of persons, and to that end hath set down his rules, by which he now sentence●…h by the word, and will at the great day do it by the person of christ; all which suppose christ's merits, and the ability to obey, and benefits given for his sake alone. it's true, he discovers his absolute propriety, in not giving the same means or the same internal grace to all; which will, no doubt, fully appear to be equal. he doth also discover himself peculiarly beneficent to his elect, (for whom christ merited all) and infallibly brings about his purpose concerning them, by making them obedient to the conditions of whatever saving benefits his gospel promiseth upon conditions: but yet he dispenseth the promised benefits as a just rector or ruler, according to the offers made to all. pursuant hereto, our ministry is appointed to propose blessings to all in the same way, and upon the same terms, and to assure all, that upon those terms, and no other, they shall obtain those benefits for the sake of christ. can any think we dare make the same offers to the devils, as to every man; or to the damned, as we can to all men alive? dare we say to them after death, if you will now believe, you shall yet be saved; turn now, and you shall yet live? on the other hand, dare we say to an elect unbeliever, if we knew him, elect, thou shalt be forgiven, though thou dost not believe, thy unbelief is no bar to thy salvation, by any threatening of god declared against thee? is sentence passed on all men in adam, or on the elect in christ's person, that god deals with neither in a way of government, as in any state of trial for eternity? there's an end of that preaching which god hath fitted and most blessed to the conversion of souls, if this be true: mr. chancy's father, in doct. of justific. p. 117. mind you your duty, god hath ordained the end with the means; and therefore, though it were revealed to thee from heaven, that thou shalt certainly be saved; yet i might truly say to thee, except thou believe, and repent, thou shalt perish, etc. the offer of christ in the gospel, this shows what he would have us to do, even to repent and believe. mr. norton, orth. evang. shows, they (might) say to a judas, if thou believe, thou shalt be saved; and to a john, if thou believe not, thou shalt be damned, p. 89, 90. having premised these things, i shall familiarly deliver my real thoughts as to what men ignorantly accuse me of, and pitch upon forgiveness of sin, a plain account of my judgement by questions and answers. as a word most intelligible to ordinary readers. q. who forgiveth sin? a. it's god in christ forgives sin. q. what is it for god to forgive our sins? a. to absolve us from obligation to endure those undoing punishments, due for the sins which he forgives. q. for what doth god forgive our sins? a. only for the merits and righteousness of christ imputed to us. q. whose sins doth god forgive? a. the believer's sins, though he be a sinner. q. is our faith the righteousness for or by which we are forgiven? a. no, this would put up faith in the room of christ. q. doth god accept of faith, or any imperfect obedience, instead of perfect legal obedience, as the righteousness for or by which he counts us worthy of pardon and eternal life, as if he for christ's sake had abrogated the law for this end? a. no, for this were to exclude christ's merits from being the immediate procuring cause of our pardon and eternal life; which with all saving blessings are the fruits of his merits and satisfaction. q. is not faith, or any thing in man, the cause of forgiveness? a. no, because forgiveness is a mercy, which no grace or act of ours hath any causal influence into. q. is faith, or any act of ours, any price of forgiveness? a. no, forgiveness is a free gift, and of free grace and mercy. q. is faith, or any act of ours, a foreseen motive to incline god to purpose, offer, or give us forgiveness for it? a. no, it's of mere grace that god resolved, and for christ's sake actually forgives us when we believe. q. will god certainly forgive a sinner when he believes? a. yes, because he hath promised to do so. q. will god forgive all the elect? a. yes, when they do believe. q. did god decree, and did christ merit that the elect might be only capable of being forgiven if they do believe? a. no, for god decreed, and christ merited, that the elect should certainly believe, and so be infallibly forgiven. q. will not god forgive the elect before they do believe? a. no, because he hath not promised to forgive any, while they are unbelievers; yea, he hath declared he will forgive no unbeliever. q. what is that faith in christ which you persuade to? a. such a trust in christ my crucified saviour, as brings me to receive a whole christ, in opposition to all rivals, for justification, sanctification, and glory; relying on his merits, fullness, power, and care to perform in his own way, what he hath promised, and i stand in need of. q. must not we receive forgiveness before we receive christ himself? a. no, we must receive christ himself, and with him his benefits, though i must first believe, that there is forgiveness in him for me, as well as for other sinners, if i will accept of him. q. how come we to believe? a. by the work of the spirit in our effectual calling. q. have we not an interest in christ, as members of him, before we do believe? a. no, we have no claim to the privileges of christ's members, until we believe: but yet, when the spirit effectually calls us, christ thereby takes hold of us, to make us members, and by faith we receive him for our head, and so have the privileges and benefits of his members, as in marriage both parties consent, before the wife hath claim to the privileges of a wife. q. doth not faith entitle us to forgiveness? a. no; yet by faith i have a certain interest in forgiveness. q. what doth entitle us to forgiveness? a. the promises of god entitle us to forgiveness for christ's sake, when we do believe. q. hath god declared any rule by which he gives forgiveness to one rather than another? a. yes, his gospel, wherein he declares, he will forgive them that believe. q. what use is faith of to forgiveness? a. not to merit, not to buy, not to cause forgiveness; but it answers that gospel-rule by which god applies christ's righteousness for our participation of this, as one of the effects of his death. q. have we a right to forgiveness for christ's sake upon our believing? a. the promise gives us a right to forgiveness by christ's merits, when we believe. q. when god forgives us, doth he judge us to be believers? a. yes, for he hath declared he will forgive none but believers. q. will god hereafter more publicly declare us to be believers? a. yes, 〈◊〉 in the day of judgement, where he will publicly pass that sentence, which he by the gospel now passeth upon every soul. q. is it any thing in the nature of faith, as a work whereby a believer comes to be forgiven, rather than an unbeliever? a. no, tho' god did think fit to choose this grace, as fittest to honour christ, make use of his promise, etc. yet its availableness is from god's ordination and promise, wherein he hath made faith a condition of forgiveness. q. why do not you use the word instrument? a. besides the improperness of that word as the act of a sinner, who is the object of god's justifying act, which is a forensick or judicial act, i think it ascribes too much to faith as a work and like not to hear it made a cause, and to have a causal influence on forgiveness; yet i believe the learned mean no more by it than a moral instrument, which is the same with a condition, and therefore they use these words promiscuously. q. but do not they say we are forgiven by faith only as it is related to christ's righteousness, & c? a. so do i say, and add, that the use of any other gospel-condition of any other benefit, is only as that condition relates to christ: but how comes faith related to christ's righteousness, but as the promise declareth, if thou believe thou shalt be forgiven for christ's righteousness imputed. q. but are not we justified by faith? a. no otherwise than as god hath declared christ's righteousness shall justify them that believe. q. doth not faith take hold of, or look to, approve of, rely on, and accept of christ and his righteousness for pardon? a. yes, and therein is its fitness above any other grace: but that would not forgive us, if it were not ordained by the will of god, that they who thus take hold of christ and his righteousness, should be justified by the righteousness of christ, when they take hold of it. q. but do not you affirm, that repentance is necessary to our being forgiven? a. yes; not to pardon in itself, but to our obtaining it; and have proved this cap. 12. but i do not put it in the same place with faith, no●… do i insist upon the whole of repentance, but i affirm, that no man will look to christ, that seeth not his own misery; and no man doth accept of christ, that doth not purpose to leave his sin and idols; neither do in a manner any solid writers deny the presence and necessity of so much of it with faith, which faith is the great term of the covenant, and includes so much of repentance as i insist on. q. shall the elect fall from a state of forgiveness? a. no, the decree, the intercession of christ, the promise of perseverance, yea, and forgiveness itself, do all assure a perseverance in grace, and so a continuance in a pardoned estate. q. what do you trust in, as that for which god will accept of you, and save you? a. only in the righteousness of the lord jesus. q. do not you trust in your own inherent righteousness, as that for which god will save you? a. i abhor such a thought. q what stress do you lay on good works? a. not as necessary to my justified state, into which i am admitted upon my first believing: 2. nor as any righteousness for which god will save me. q. what stress then do you lay? a. no more than as they evidence my faith to be true, execute my first believing consent, prevent their contraries, which the gospel threatens with misery, and answer the rule of any gospel-promise, that god hath made, and will execute for christ's sake, to the upright person. q. do you think that we are justified by our good works at the last day, as if they were the righteousness by which we shall be saved at the last day? a. no, i would tremble at such a thought, and declare it's christ's righteousness alone, and unmixed, that i hope to be saved for and by. q. what are your thoughts then as to our inherent righteousness and good works, as they fall under christ's judgement at the last day? a. my whole heart is, 1. that if a man truly believe, and die before he hath opportunity to do more, he shall be sentenced happy as a believer, notwithstanding he was prevented by death from professing the truth, and proceeding in holiness, performing acts of worship, etc. 2. god hath declared, that none shall at last be saved by christ's righteousness, that are infidels, ungodly, utterly unprofitable, or apostates: and therefore all that god will then save for christ's merits, must truly be, and will be declared to be no infidels, ungodly, utterly unprofitable, nor total apostates, but the contrary; and they shall be judged free from the guilt of final infidelity. 3. the most eminent in faith, holiness, sufferings, and labours, shall be adjudged to greater degrees of glory, which added degrees will be as truly the effects of christ's sole merits, as the lesser degrees. all this is exactly consonant to my book, and my full persuasion. because i see that well-meaning people are imposed on, by a noise of popery and arminianism, i shall let thee see how our protestant and orthodox divines do represent and oppose the popish and arminian points in this matter; and so thou mayst judge how the antinomians secure their destructive errors by this clamour. the sum of the popish principles our divines popish 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. oppose may be thus reduced: they think that, 1. by attrition, (or a 〈◊〉 legal fea●… of punishments) men do ex congruo (or meetness) merit charity and faith, which be the beginning of sanctification, and that this begun sanctification is all our first justification. 2. that whatever be the efficiency of the spirit in working faith, it is determinable by man's free will, whether any believe or no. 3. that upon our improvement and exercise of this first charity and faith, we truly and properly merit the increase of holiness, and eternal glory, and that ex condigno. this they call the second justification. 4. that by the absolution of the priest on confession, in the sacrament of penance, our sins of age are forgiven; as original sin was by baptism, and venial sins, and temporal punishments of mortal sins by satisfaction, and indulgences; and all in a way of merit. the points that can be at all pretended as my concern, i'll give you, as stated by dr. ames, in his bellarminus enervatus, with r●…y own answers to his questions, tom. 3. lib. 5. q whether prayer, fasting, or alms are satisfactory works? a. i plainly deny it oft p. 240. q. do our works truly and properly make satisfaction to god, for that obligation to punishment which remaineth to be expiated? a. i say, no; for we make no satisfaction by any thing. tom. 4. p. 109. q whether faith alone justifieth? a. i say, yes; that is, we are justified by faith alone, as that which alone receives christ, and before works of obedience: but yet i think ames well explains this, p. 112. something may be before pardon, as a pre-requisite disposition, so that it be not the cause of pardon. and this is all i say of repentance, and agree with him in p. 112. repentance taken for legal humiliation goes before justification, as a disposition in order pre-requisite, but not as a cause. 2. evangelical repentance is taken for conversion, of which faith is a principal part. yea, add, that a great part of repentance is the effect of justification. 3. i agree with him in the next words: quocunque modo, etc. which-ever way repentance is taken, neither grief nor detestation of sin is the cause of justification. nay more, i agree with aims in his account of faith, cap. 2. p. 101. fides specialis misericordiae duplici ratione vocatur, etc. faith of special mercy (which is trust or reliance) is taken in two respects, 1. whereby it apprehends christ, or cleaves to him, for apprehending special mercy by him: 2. as it apprehends special mercy as already bestowed. in the first sense it goes before justification; in the latter sense it follows justification, lib. 6. cap. 1. he treats of imputed righteousness; and p. 139. saith, that this is the protestant judgement; christi justitiam catenus imputari, etc. christ's righteousness is so far imputed to us, that by the virtue thereof we are as much esteemed just before god, as if we had somewhat in ourselves, wherewith we might be esteemed just before him. p. 205. q. an opera bona, etc. are the good works of men truly and properly the merits of eternal life? a. i positively and oft deny it, and dare not assert, that condecency which aims and others do. reader, if thou art a man of any skill in these things, thou wilt find that they oppose the papists concerning our graces and works, only as merirorious, and causal of saving benefits; and i deny them to be either. see even chemnit. exam. par. 1. p. 172. davenant. de justit. actuali, cap. 30. q. 1. arg. 1. ames bellarm. eneru. tom. 4. lib. 6. downam of justif. p. 15. i shall now show thee what our calvinists and orthodox divines oppose the arminians in, as to this doctrine of justification. the synod of dort. in their canons, part 1. p. 289. of the errors under the arminian justification, as our divines state it. head de morte christi, thus condemn the arminians; qui docent foedus illud novum gratiae, etc. that teach, that the covenant of grace which the father, upon the intervention of christ's death, made with men, doth not consist in that, viz. that we are justified before god, and saved by faith, as it apprehends the merit of christ, but in this, that the demand of perfect legal righteousness being abrogated, god accounts▪ faith itself, and the imperfect obedience of faith, for (or instead of) the perfect obedience of the law, and graciously judgeth this worthy of the reward of eternal life. which they justly brand as the socinian notion. reader, i declare against this error, and have affirmed, that faith alone receives christ and his merits. 2. that it's the righteousness of christ alone which is the meritorious or material cause of justification. 3. that our faith, repentance, or works are not a jot of the material or meritorious righteousness by or for which we are justified. they say, christ died that we might be saved if we believe. i say, christ died that the elect should believe, and believing, have life through his name. to any one that knows the five points wherein the arminian controversy consists, i have said enough fully to acquit me. i am positive, for absolute certain election, for christ's not dying alike for all: for the elect he died to secure their actual reconciliation; for others his death is sufficient, and real offers of salvation are made to them, on the terms of the gospel, notwithstanding their being condemned by the law. again i say, man is corrupt, and without the grace of god he cannot believe: all the elect shall be (though without violence) brought by efficacious grace to believe, and finally persevere. all which i oft assert in my book. an account of some of mr. c's principles, which he hath set up in opposition to mine. i shall begin with three of them, and consider them together. mr. c. p. 24. the essence of the gospel is altogether promise and free gift. p. 28. the gospel hath no law-sanction of its own, but it only establisheth the sanction of the law by way of promise to all that are saved. p. 33. the gospel, as such is no law, hath no sanction, etc. which, and many more places, i may contract into this as his first principle. that the gospel is in no sense a law, nor includes in it as mr. c's first principle. any part thereof, either any precept, nor any promise upon any condition on our part, nor any threatening. if thou doubt the word precept should not be added, know, the words above fully assert it. and p. 23. he tells us, the precept of faith is a precept of the law of nature. mr. c. affirms, p. 34. whatsoever befalls sinners retaining their sinful state, and rejecting grace, is from the law, and not from the gospel: to talk of a gospel-threat is a cata●…hresis at best, and nothing else can save it from being a bull. his second principles is, the gospel hath no threatenings. mr. c's 2d principle. when my question answered by him p. 32. was this: doth god promiscuously dispense these, viz. forgiveness, adoption, glory, or any other promised benefit given upon god's terms? (i say) doth god dispense these, without any regard to our being believers, or no? or, whether our faith be true or no? mr. c. answers, i would know, whether if god distribute his free grace to poor wretched worthless creatures, according to his election and distinguishing mercy, doth he do it blindly because he finds no reason in them? whence i may call this his third principle. that god forgives, adopts, and glorifies sinners, without mr. c's 3d principle. any respect to their being true believers, or no; and election and distinguishing mercy be the only rule by which he forgives, adopts, and glorifies sinners, as well as gives the first grace. to put the better gloss upon his principle, he saith, p. 13. doth god dispense faith blindly, & c? a. the question was not, whether god gave faith absolutely, but whether he gave forgiveness and glory promiscuously. nay, he knows i ofttimes affirm the former. and in p. 21. he reviles me for saying, that there must be a work of the spirit for conformity to the rule of the promise, in the person to be pardoned. yea, this third principle must follow, and is but the same as that the gospel is no law or stated rule of forgiveness, adoption, and glory. and he affirms, that faith is a precept of the law, and denies that any precept of the law is a rule of happiness with a sanction, p. 22, 23. repl. (not to insist how in the first point, in what he saith of the sanction, he excludes forgiveness of sin altogether; yea, and as he words it, may bind the penal curse on us.) he opposeth in these three principles what he calls my 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 15th paradoxes; but had he considered the 4th and 13th, he had answered his few seeming arguments, and prevented his gross misrepresentation of my principles. there he might have seen, that i assert, 1. there is a certainty that the elect shall obey the terms of the gospel, and be infallibly saved. 2. that it is christ's righteousness which is the alone meritorious cause of a believer's justification and salvation; and that our compliance with the terms of the gospel by the grace of god, is no more than our answering that rule by which god bestows on us justification and salvation, for the satisfaction and merits of christ. he that cannot distinguish between the righteousness for which we are saved, and a compliance with that rectoral method, wherein god doth save us for that righteousness, and the interest arising from that method complied with, had better sit still, than meddle with these disputes. reader, tho' i did not once call the gospel a law in all my book, and only said in my preface, that the apostle called it a law of faith, with respect to what i had discoursed, yet because the whole of mr. c's book runs on this, i shall insist most on this head, 1. by explaining the word law; then 2. in what sense it is not a law; 3. show in what sense it is a law, which i shall prove, & c. 4. answer his objections; 5. produce some testimonies. 1. as to the name or word law. it hath pleased god to call the way of his the word law of grace same as the covenant. application of grace to fallen sinners, by various names, and by that variety, to help our apprehensions, which one name would not so well contribute to. it's called a law, a covenant, a testament, a promise, a word, etc. none of them exclude the others, and are easily reduced to each other. a promise of god, that sets down an order in conferring benefits, wherein he enjoins any duty on man's part, in that order, hath the nature of a law; yea, tho' he engage to enable the person to do that duty. we must also consider, that god in some respects varies these terms from their common use among men, both his dominion and his grace abating their rigid sense. he calls it a law, but yet his mercy resolves thereby to confer such benefits, as brings the law down to a promise. he calls it a promise, but his dominion renders the term enjoined a duty, and so be raiseth up the promise to a law. the word covenant implies the certain performance on his part, in the way he sets down, and our restipulation to that way. in the very word testament, as he notes the ratification of the covenant by christ's death, so it excludes not the appointed condition of the legatees, to whom he makes a disposition of the benefits: so that the word, the law of grace, or the law of faith, is no other than the covenant of grace, the gospel-promise of salvation, the testament of christ, or the word of the gospel, or the gospel itself. whereas mr. c. exposeth it as a new gospel and new law; it's the first how for a new law, and yet no new gospel. gospel god delivered to men, for he never promised to give glory by christ to any unbelieving impenitent person. a new law indeed it is, as being a little younger than the law of innocency, which condemns for the least sin, and gives life to none but the perfect; by which law no man but christ was ever justified, and by whose answering it for us we shall be justified in a gospel-way. heb. 11. 4, 6. but yet it is a law older than cain or abel, otherwise abel's sacrifice had been no more acceptable than cain's, which by faith it was; and which faith in christ must have been commanded, as well as the sacrifice; though the brief account which moses gives, of above two thousand years, doth not express it, nor was it gen. 4. 7, 11. needful. yea, god's words to cain imply it as mr. ball on covenant, p. 43. saith, these are a promise of the covenant, that took place after the fall. 2. i do not say, the gospel is a law in the following sense. 1. i do not say that the how the gospel is not a law. gospel includes nothing besides this law; it gives us an account of the covenant of redemption, and the absolute promises: there be many prophecies the history of our blessed lord, & c. doctrinal truths, prophecies, & c. yet these may be called adjuncts. 2. nor do i judge it a law in that sense our divines fix on the socinians and arminians, viz. as if acts of obedience to this law are the righteousness for which we are justified or saved; as perfect obedience was under the law of adam. this i deny, for we have no righteousness for which we are justified or saved, but christ's, and the fruits of that are we blessed with, upon complying with the gospel. our faith or inherent righteousness, & c. are not the paying a farthing of debt to the creditor, but our submitting to that way by which we have forgiveness of all the debt, and are partakers of glory; both which god had in his eye, as to be purchased by christ, before he fixed on this way for our obtaining them. 3. nor do i take it in the popish sense, which the socinians and arminians espouse, but true protestants oppose, viz. as if the moral law were not perfect in its kind, but that the spiritual extensive sense of the precepts were new precepts of our lord; and that the old testament did not include the gospel-precepts of faith in christ, and repentance for pardon, as well as the new, though it did not discover the objects and motives, & c. so clearly. 4. it is not a law that supposeth a moral ability in sinners to perform its precepts; that was necessary in god's dealings with men as his creatures, just come out of his hand; but not so, when he deals with man about his recovery, when he had virtually sinned in adam, forfeited all, yea, had undone himself. whatever mr. c. saith p. 23. i affirm, if the subject be rational, or have natural power: if such ability comes so with this law, that the elect are made effectually able, and others are wilfully faulty if they finally rebel, it's enough to justify the divine order. will not and cannot are distinct things with mr. fenner, in his book of wilful impenitency. yea, with d. owen's on ps. 130. p. 248. 5. it is not a law that extinguisheth the law of nature which hath its special precepts, and which in genere upon gospel revelation, requires what the gospel requires, and condemns for faults against the special precepts of the gospel, tho' it condemns not so, as to bar the relief which the gospel affords, nor promiseth life upon those terms, which the gospel doth. the gospel in a large sense takes the law as subservient to its gracious designs; tho' mr. c. weakly infers p. 24, 25. that therefore the whole precept is hereby made the condition. 6. neither doth this law require any thing of us as a condition of christ's coming into the world as a redeemer, it supposeth that, nor yet any condition of the first grace to the elect. this the covenant of redemption secures; and it is assured to the catholic church by promise. 8. nor is it a law, obedience whereto renders any promised blessing a debt. all is free tho' sure: it's free, as to man's procurement or price, yet it is as sure by promise, as if it were a debt; but the price was christ's obedience and sufferings, and all comes to us of gift, yet in that way which god appoints to give it. 2. i mean by the gospel being a law, that god in christ our redeemer doth how the gospel is a law. by the gospel expressly command sinners to receive christ with a true operative faith, and promiseth, that tho' they are condemned by adam's law, yet upon their so believing, they shall be united to christ, and justified by his righteousness; and that persevering in faith by sincere holiness, they shall be saved for his sake. he also threatens, that if any shall die unbelieving, impenitent, ungodly rejecters of his grace, they shall be barred from these benefits, and they shall perish without relief, and have sorer punishments, than if these gracious offers had not been made to them: this is the law of faith. i'll add one caution to this account, which is too needful. give me but the assemblies description of faith, conf. cap. 14. and i desire to use no word as expressive of the terms of the gospel, besides faith, but men now define faith by such a small part of it, as requires caution for the sake of souls. 1. here we have all the essentials of a law. god is our ruler, and we his subjects; 1 jam. 4. 12. his will is revealed in a way of government; here's his 2 1 joh. 3. 23 precept which binds us to duty; here's a 3 mark 16. ●…5, 16. promise made to such as do comply; and here's a threatening denounced against such as finally rebel; preach the gospel to every creature, he that believeth and is baptised, shall be saved, he that believeth not shall be damned. 2. yet this is a law of grace; it's made by our redeemer for fallen man, all the benefits of it are founded on christ's righteousness, as the immediate cause of them: effectual ability to perform the duty, is provided for all the elect, and declared in the gospel, and god doth not fix on these terms for any worth in them, or profit to him. 3. the gospel is the instrument or sign by which this will of god is expressed: this is not the language of god in adam's law; if this were not superadded to that, we had been utterly miserable. 4. this fixeth that rule of the promise which mr. c. p. 33. is at a loss to know. god promiseth he will justify him that truly believes, and save the upright in heart: hereby he that in truth believes, and is upright, answers that rule which the unbelievers and hypocrites do not, and so god doth not hereby promise to save them; yea, he declares they shall not have an interest in these mercies, because they continue such, and condemns them as such at last: it's faith, not infidelity; it's faith in truth, not faith in perfection, nor hypocrisy. i shall offer thee some few reasons why i say this is some part of the essence of the gospel, and that god hath fixed this rule therein. r. 1. the gospel is oft called a law by the spirit of god, isa. 42. 4. he proved that the gospel is a law. shall not fall, nor be discouraged, till he have set judgement in the earth, and the isles shall wait for my law, mic. 4. 2. many nations shall come, etc. for the law shall go forth of zion, etc. rom. 3. 27. the law of faith, rom. 10. 31. the law of righteousness, the law of liberty, jam. 1. 25. & 2. 12. a converting law, psal. 19 7. the law of christ, gal. 6. 2. the best commentators expound these to be the gospel; yea, many say, this is that law of the spirit of life in christ, rom. 8 2. many more places might be added. r. 2. men's behaviour towards the gospel is expressed by words that denote it to be a law, rom. 10. 16. they have not obeyed the gospel, 2 cor. 9 13. your professed subjection to the gospel. 2 thess. 1. 8. to take vengeance on them that obey not the gospel. 1 pet. 4. 17. what will the end of them be that obey not the gospel? r. 3. justification is a judicial act, and therefore it must be by a law, if we allow god to be a ruler when he doth it. we dispute this against the papists, who deny it to be a forensick term. it's true, the righteousness for which we are justified, is christ's, which answered the law of innocency, but the application of it to one man rather than another, and to the same man at one time, and not before, is by the gospel. it's not the voice of the law of works, that the believing sinner shall be justified for christ's righteousness, rom. 3. 26. so gal. 3. 22. and i might show, that in justification is a right to impunity; and can any thing but a law give this? for condemnation by law cannot be reversed without a law. r. 4. the gospel gives a right to its benefits upon believing, joh. 1. 12. to as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of god, even to them that believe in his name. what did god by his gospel give to these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a right, a title to be the sons of god. very many places of this kind might be urged: and little do men see what follows from denying this gospel-rule, when we read such places as they were worthy, rev. 3. 4. 1 1 thess. 1. 5. 11. the reward, 2 col. 2. 18. heb. 11. 26. mat. 6. 4. a right to the tree of life. 3 rev. 22. 14. are these terms proper from the mere nature of men's actions? that's popish merit. or from the law of works? that's false, and anti-evangelical. but it's safe to say it's a gospel worthiness, reward, right, etc. god having for christ's sake promised to give blessings in such a way. the gospel-law is so entirely founded on christ, and refers to him so fully, that there is no more than an inviolable connexion between terms and benefits; there's no boasting when the claim is strongest; yea, not boasting, but ascribing all to christ, is one of the great terms. r. 5. if god hath no gospel-rule beside election and distinguishing mercy to confer glory by, than god will not, nay, cannot forgive or save the non-elect, though they should believe in christ. say not they will not believe, that makes no alteration, as to the point in hand: hath not god declared he will save them if they believe? that is his law; and their rejecting his salvation john 〈◊〉. 〈◊〉. john 〈◊〉. 〈◊〉. heb. 2. 3. god arraigneth them for: he is condemned because he hath not believed, etc. what an allay to their misery would it be to think! tho' i had believed, i had not escaped this woe: i have lost neither christ nor heaven by my unbelief. read god's pleas with all sinners; remember christ's tears over lost jerusalem. . what do men speak of a day of grace, that men may sin away? nay, what are the serious pleas of ministers with every soul, to believe and repent? all are delusive mockery; whilst god is as free to pardon the elect, whether he believes or no, he is at liberty to damn others, though they should believe; nay, he is sure to do it, should they believe, because they are not elect. if this leads not to hobbism, i see nothing. i own that forgiveness is an act of sovereignty; that is, he is free to give faith and forgiveness upon it to whom he will: but they that think god hath left himself absolutely free to forgive the adult, whether they believe or no, and to condemn the believer, seem to forget their bible. would men of this principle but preach according to their scheme, i think their influence would abate, with all that seriously mind heaven, not withstanding mr. c. says, that pardon will not leave them impenitent. r. 6. the apostles, with all the saints, may be arraigned as fallen from grace, and turned from the gospel, if it be no rule according to which god applies see my book cap. 20. christ's righteousness for justification. how could peter say, repent, and be baptised for the remission of sin, etc. when the people cried, what shall we do? how could paul answer the goaler's question, what shall i do to be saved? believe acts 2. 37, 38. on the lord jesus christ, and thou shal●… be saved? this is not an advice to signs, but to appointed terms; q. d. god hath commanded you to repent and acts 16. 30, 31. believe, and hath enacted, that if you do so, the blood of christ shall wash and save you. so gal. 2. 16. we have believed that we might be justified by the faith of christ. they believed for this very end. if any say it was christ justified, it's true, but it was upon believing. faith is not the justifying righteousness, but it is the condition of our being justified by this righteousness, and the saints did ill to believe to this end, if god had not enacted it to this end: nor could they do it in this assurance, that they should be justified when they believed, if god had not promised it upon believing. had pardon come by an absolute promise, they acted very legally in believing that they might be pardoned. mr. c. may as justly say of them as of me, they set up a new gospel. r. 7. the gospel is at least part of the rule by which christ will judge the world at the last day. that it must be a law, if it be a rule of judgement, i suppose none will deny, unless they'll deny that christ is a judge: the work of that day is not to try christ, whether he fulfilled all 〈◊〉 righteousness, nor yet whether his righteousness was impured to all that did believe, but by solemn sentence to decide the cause of all men, to silence all false apologies, and publicly of the judgment-day. adjudge all to their eternal place, unto the glory of justice and mercy. that day supposeth all justified or not by the gospel, christ then changeth no man's state; the godly stand there pardoned and entitled to life by christ's righteousness imputed; the wicked are there without any interest in christ; these wicked ones, if they pretend to sinless innocency, they are cast upon the least sin, by the law of adam: but if they plead god's general mercy, it will be evident that mercy adjusted its rule in the gospel. if they plead hopes from christ as a redeemer, and the offers he made, they are convinced by that book, that christ saved none but such as repent and believe. if they plead they did believe and profess his name, christ will convince them, that his gospel required a true faith, operative in sincere and persevering obedience, the want whereof he will charge upon them; as you see in mat. cap. 7. cap. 22. & 25, etc. and so leaves them subject to the law of adam, without relief by the gospel; yea, heightens their condemnation for disobeying the gospel: but if they yet plead, but lord, thou savest some that were unbelievers as well as we, at least, they were not such believers as did yield sincere obedience: this plea christ will confound by solemn declaration of the true faith and sincerity of all them whom he now saves, and so will evidence, that his judgement is without respect of persons, and that his righteousness is no plea for any finally unbelieving, ungodly hypocrite, whom his gospel condemned. if the damned or satan should plead, but they were sinners, though not unbelieving hypocrites; the answer of christ will be, i have satisfied the law for them, and so justice cannot suffer by my washing them in my blood, nor hinder their being glorious for my sake. i humbly think this is being judged according to our works, rev. 20. 12, 13. this is being justified by our words, mat. 12. 37. and what james most intends jam. 2. 24. i hope none can doubt, but this proves the gospel is part of the rule of judgement, and it's plain, god will judge the secrets of all hearts by my gospel, rom. 2. 16. and the word that i have spoken to you, that shall judge you. this is one of the * joh. 12. 48. of iust. p. 10. rev. 20. 12. books that shall then be opened, saith mr. ch. father. and how awful is that day, when the closest hypocrite will be discovered, and yet the doubtful christian adjudged sincere! but blessed be god, the saints plea will be managed by christ himself. reader, it's hard reconciling the account we have of the day of judgement, by any thing below what i have delivered, and were not the gospel to be a rule of judgement, i cannot see how that could be a judgment-day, it must be only an execution-day, for by the law of adam no believer could be acquitted; that law must be altered by the lawgiver, to admit a satisfaction, and it's by the gospel only he hath enacted the way how this satisfaction shall be applied. by that first law these unbelievers (yea, all men) were condemned virtually in adam when he was judged upon his fall, and that sentence seized them as soon as they had a being, there needed no other. it would help thy thoughts, if thou wilt accommodate some of the circumstances of the last judgement to them that shall be alive at that time. i might multiply arguments to prove the gospel to be a law. whatever proves the covenant to be conditional, proves the gospel to be a law. nothing keeps the most sincere godliness, or act of a saint here from being downright a sin, if the gospel be no law, for they are not legally perfect, and so are sins, i see not how any man can have grounded hopes of glory, if the gospel be no law; and they that deny it, and say faith is but a sign, must set up works above faith, for they are more evidencing signs than an internal act of faith: yea, how can christ be our king, if his gospel be no law? many more might be added, were there room, but i shall omit the rest, except what will occur in my answer to mr. c's objections which follow. i. mr. c. objects, p. 5. whoever is justified by a law, is fallen from grace, mr. c's obj. the article is wanting. gal. 3. 11. it should be read a law, not the law; it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the emphatical particle is not put in, and so it's every law is excluded. repl. upon such cobwebs, in the face of the plain scope of the bible, doth this cause stand. where's the argument? because in a few places the article 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not put in, therefore the apostle excludes even every law, when he doth plainly exclude only one sort, as appears by the whole context. nay, when he at the same time affirms another species, under that general, rom. 3. 27. but farther note, 1. where the article is elsewhere omitted, the word it refers to doth not exclude every sort of law, rom. 2. 14. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. will you render this? for the gentiles, which have not a law, or not any law, the article is wanting, but sure they had some law, even the law of nature. 2. where the article is wanting, it doth not infer, that every kind under the general word are alike intended; rom. 2. 12. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. is not there the written mosaic law set in opposition to the law of nature unwritten? yet the article is wanting, rom. 5. 20. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the law was added; was it no special law? sure there was some law before. so gal. 4. 4. gal. 3. 11. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the justice shall live by faith. is this any sort of faith? will a temporary or historical faith serve? yes, by mr. c's rule. 3. the article is oft added to the word law, in the very subject before us, gal. 3. 12. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. but the law is not of faith. v. 21. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is the law against the promises? and v. 24. rom. 10. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, moses describeth the righteousness which is of the law. 4. the socinians evade the force of joh. 1. 1. and so deny the deity of christ, even by mr. c's argument: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. the article is wanting to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, therefore it's to be thus rendered: the word was a god, not the god, a god by office, for that is a god, but not by essence, which would be the god. 5. the context doth manifestly specify this law, and not exclude every law. it's true, the gospel argues à fortiori against justification by the law of innocency, yet he directly speaks of moses' law; as any may see in reading the places, mr. c's proof is taken from gal. 3. 11. and doth not the apostle, v. 17. say, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul the covenant, etc. was it every law that was given 430 years after abram? so from rom. 3. 28. & cap. 4. and is not the apostle in the three chapters express, that that law was the jewish law, or at most the law of nature together with it: but more of this last hereafter. reader, mr. c. seems fond of this argument from the article, and thence oft repeats it; but do thou but read one book in the greek testament, by his rule, viz. that where the article is omitted from a word in negative propositions, there every species is excluded; yea, bring it down to names, and where the article is omitted, than it is any peter, any john who is there spoken of. obj. ii. mr. c. oft objects, as p. 5. works performed under a law-sanction, are legal works, and do make the covenant enjoining them a covenant of works. and a few lines before saith he, the performance of duty as terms enforced by a law-sanction, a sanction makes it a covenant of works. is a covenant of works; so that such men are preachers of a law, no matter what law. p. 21. the preceptive will of god with the sanction of rewards, promised upon the things required, and threats of punishment upon the non-performance, is always a law or covenant of works. this runs through his book, and he oft saith, the gospel hath no sanction, and if we say so, we make i●… a covenant of works. p. 10. christ is of no effect to him that is justified by a law. repl. 1 he oft seems not to understand what a sanction is; for p. 24. he takes it to be mere life and death, considered abstractedly, but not as determining a law sanction. the way of giving of the one, or inflicting of the other: whereas a sanction consummates a law, and determineth what the benefit or penalty shall be, and the certain connexion between the benefit and the condition, and between the penalty and the want of that condition, etc. now will any, except mr. c. say, that god hath not by the gospel given assurance, that upon believing we shall be saved? have not we god's word, oath, and seals for this? 2. a law-sanction doth not exclude the greatest mercy and grace, in conferring the benefit. it's true, every sanction excludes not grace. that if the condition be in itself meritorious, then in that respect the benefit is of debt, and was made a condition in the covenant, because of its condignity, if exactly proportionable, or congruity if less valuable: but god chooseth a condition, that hath ●…o merit either of congruity or condignity; nay, the benefits are purchased by christ, qua good things in themselves, and they be freely given, tho' in this way. is it not a gracious law, though a law, that if fallen wretches will duly accept of my son, they shall have life by him; and this i command them to do? 3. his mistake seems to be in his notion of reward, and in his upon and not upon performance of the condition. gospel-benefits are no reward of debt, and yet the gospel sanction infers not merit. they are given in a way of reward. the benefits are given not for our faith, yet upon believing; not upon it as a meriting consideration, yet upon it as that the presence whereof is made necessary by the gospel, this having required faith, and confined the benefit to him that believes. if a man says, i'll give you a thousand pounds if you will come to my house and fetch it; is it not a free gift, though the poor man must come if he will have it? and the giver is yet bound by his promise to give it if he come, and not bound to give it if he refuse to come. do not say receiving pardon is only naturally necessary, and not as a condition enjoined, for god might have applied christ's merits for pardon, though the sinner consented not. a lunatic may be pardoned by a king; and the rich man might have sent the thousand pound to the poor man's house, whether he came for it or no; but christ resolved to show his governing authority in the displays of grace, and excite to duty by motives from benefits, though the benefits shall be so given, as that what we do shall be no cause or merit of them. 4. hath the new covenant hath a sanction. the gospel covenant no sanction? what think you of heb. 8. 6? he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises. i hope he'll grant this covenant is the covenant of grace, in a greater opposition to the first covenant with adam, though more immediately opposed to the jewish covenant; yet this second covenant hath a law-sanction, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, sancitum est, saith beza. it's a greatest part of the new name mr. c. hath reproached the gospel with; here's a law, a law-sanction which the new covenant is consummated by. men skilled in the socinian controversies lay the stress of the cause of truth upon arguments from condemnation and justification, being god's rectoral acts, but what a loss will they be at, if god do not 〈◊〉 by a or any law? as mr. c. of justif. 166, 167. saith p. 18. where's dr. owen's law of justification? yea, we must part with the force of rom. 5. 19 5. but why must it needs become a law or covenant a sanction doth not make the gospel a law of works. of works merely by a sanction? the great difference between the covenant of works and the covenant of grace, lies in this: what is the righteousness for which we are saved? is it the righteousness of works, or the righteousness of christ? but it is not how we come to obtain salvation by christ's righteousness. doth god make our faith or sincerity to be our justifying righteousness? if he saith, if thou truly believe, i will justify thee by christ's righteousness, but if thou believe not, thou shalt remain condemned; something might be said (tho' not enough) if we were to believe by our own strength, but that is not so more might be said, yea, enough, if our faith and sincerity were to be the righteousness for which we are pardoned, or entitled to life; but neither is it any thing like that, nor doth the gospel design it, nor its law-sanction at all infer it. it's one thing to be justified for faith, as a work or inherent qualification, (though it be such a qualification) it's another thing to be justified by it, as a mere condition: i abhor the former, and will (through god's grace) die by the latter. in the first sense, it's only that for which i am justified; in the last sense, it's only that upon which, by god's ordination, the righteousness of christ justifies me: as a work, it would make me just as an immediate cause of title, but as a condition, it removes the obstacle which god's gospel-threatning hath laid in the way of my obtaining his gift of righteousness upon christ's account. hath god appointed faith by his command to be a * gal. of coming to christ, p. 170. federal instrument to receive christ's righteousness? i say no more, so that men will own men shall be denied it without that instrument: but then, must the gospel be a law of works? by no means; tho' mr. c. p. 30, 31, 33. thinks, that whatever law requires an act of ours in order to benefits for the sake of christ, is a law of works, because (i suppose) the action is a work. is not receiving christ an action? ay, but it ball, son covenant, p. 114. the action of faith is not excluded, in ro. 3. 27, 28. how faith justifies as a condition, tho' it be an act. justifies not as receiving, but it's christ received justifieth. i say the same, but yet i ask, will christ justify me if i do not receive him? a christ he is, and a full righteousness he hath before i receive him, yet i was unjustified, notwithstanding that. why was i unjustified by his righteousness so long? was it not because i received it not, till i received it? well then, sure though that action of receiving doth not justify me, yet that action is by god's fixed law necessary to my being justified by christ's righteousness; not as it is an action, but as it answers to the rule of the promise, whereby god enacts, he will for christ's sake justify him that believes. 6. the apostle doth expressly tell us, that the gospel-law is not a law of works, rom. 3. 27. where is boasting then? is it excluded? paul affirms the gospel to be a law yet not a law of works. by what law? nay, but by the law of faith. here's two laws opposed, and yet both are laws, and one no law of works neither. we are threatened with an answer, p. 33. though i know as much as he is like to tell me, yet i am sure i have the best expositors for this sense, and doubt not the defence of it: yea, though he should argue, it is but the doctrine of faith, yet if god be a ruler that commands that faith, in order to my obtaining saving benefits, i despise all that can be said against its being a law. but it may be he'll admit a solution of his objection from mr. bulkley of new england, the bulkley, of gospel covenant, p. 325. putting of a condition doth not hinder or lessen the free grace of the covenant, so long as the condition is evangelical, and not legal. and p. 328, 329, 330. he answers the objection against the gospel being a new law, and saith, tho' christ be not a lawgiver, to give a law of works to justify ourselves by it, yet he is a lawgiver, to give us a law of faith, commanding us to believe, etc. p. 333, 334. when it is said, do this and live: here the promise of life is legal, because the commandment of doing is legal. on the other side, when it is said believe and live, here the promise of life is evangelical, because the commandment of believing is evangelical; but if we make the commandment of believing to be legal, than the promise of life upon condition of believing must be legal also, and then there is no difference left between these two, do and live, and believe and live, which confounds law and gospel, heaven and earth, and makes the two covenants all one. see mr. ball, the covenant which was ball, of the covenant, p. 17. made of free love, and calls for nothing at our hands, but what comes from, and shall be rewarded of mere grace, is a covenant of grace, though it be conditional: so the pardon of sin is given of grace, and not for works, though the pardon be granted to the penitent, and faith on our part, a lively, unfeigned, and working faith be required to receive the promise. obj. iii. mr. c. p. 2●…. moreover, all the preceptive will of god, then or afterward mr. c. obj. no law but the law of innocency. to be revealed, was enjoined to man as his duty to observe in the law of nature, imprinted on his heart: as for faith, it was an eminent part of his perfection, and that which the serpent first wounded him in by temptation, etc. p. 22. i tell you, the gospel hath no law-sanction at all of its own, but it only establisheth the sanction of the law by way of promise to all saved ones. christ is the end of the law to them, and as to those that are not saved, the law takes its course of them, they came not under the efficacy of the gospel at all. repl. the argument of these words is, that all the precepts and threats in the gospel are part of the law of nature, given to adam; and that law of adam is the only law, and therefore faith in christ, which sinners are called to is only the voice of the law of works or innocency; and the whole sanction of the gospel is the sanction of that law, and hence the gospel must be no law. i might show what a gross sense he gives of christ being the end of the law, and that his words lead us to think, that all obligation (except from gratitude) to obedience, lies on christ only, and not on the elect; that the gospel hath no influence at all upon them that are not actually saved; that the gospel is only an absolute promise, or rather a declaration of election, to the elect, and requires nothing at all from them as a term of any benefit whatever, and yet they are saved, as elect by the law, as immediately entituling them to life, without the interposal of the gospel-sanction; that is, the gospel doth not only invest them in pardon, and a right to salvation by god's imputing christ's righteousness to them (when believers) which was a perfect obedience of his to the law, and a full satisfaction to the lawgiver for them, as their voluntary surety: which i hold; but that the law immediately judgeth them to have obeyed it perfectly, and also to have endured the penalty in christ, he being their proxy and attorney. this is the method these men espouse, whereby they destroy christ's sufferings as a proper satisfaction, exclude all forgiveness, as needless: they debase christ to an attorney, and exalt the creatures, as if they stood on the strictest terms of merit with god, having legal innocence of their own, as having obeyed and atoned too: yea, they had a grant of all the saving effects of christ's death, before they fell in adam, who was their head even when christ was their head too, for they were one legal person wlth christ always as elect, and not when they become believers. and hence the gospel doth require nothing of any elect persons, to interest them in christ or his benefits. but i pass by these, and in opposition to the argument, i shall (in the strength the gospel is not the law of adam. of christ) evidence, that the law of nature or works is not a hindrance to the gospel's being a law, but that the gospel is another law, distinct in its precept and sanction, and other respects. 1. the gospel is distinct in its preceptive part, from the law of innocency. the gospel differs in its precepts from adam's law. faith in christ was never commanded by that law. to say faith in god was a duty, is a vain objection, for faith in christ as a saviour is specified from its object, and is distinguished into temporary, historical, saving, etc. the faith that mr. c. saith adam was wounded in, was merely a faith of assent, which the devils have, or a natural trust in god as creator: but what's that to a receiving of christ, or consent to him as redeemer, and reliance on him? of which more by and by. is it not strange that mr. c. saith, the law never brings us to god, than faith doth not, for its part of the law, etc. but let's hear what others speak. mr. hooker of new e. p. 337. saith, i flatly deny that adam, if the lord jesus mr. hooker souls effect. calling. had been revealed to him, was able to believe in him, and so to rest upon him, etc. the reason to confirm this point, that adam had not this grace of faith, is this; this believing in the lord jesus is that which doth directly cross the estate of adam in his innocency, etc. he to p. 343. proves it, and answers objections. p. 338. to one he thus says: i answer, that not believing in the lord christ is not a sin against the moral law, but it is a sin against the law of the gospel, 1 joh. 3. 23. rom. 3. 28. mr. bulkley, p. 327. lays down this; that faith in bulkley of gospel covenant. christ unto justification and salvation, the commandment enjoining this faith is no commandment of the law, but of the gospel, which i prove by these ensuing arguments. this he doth by no less than nine arguments, and answers many objections from p. 327. to 335. and thus concludes: thus far we are come, that the putting of faith as a condition of life in the covenant of grace, doth no whit derogate from the freeness of grace. d. goodwin affirms, that faith now is of another kind than the faith of adam: d. goodwin in 2 vol. of the creatures, etc. lib. 2. cap. 7. p. 5●…. to 63. as to the principle, objects, light, etc. ours is supernatural, his natural, and as you may see at large, proves by several reasons, that his was but natural; as, 1. all other things belonging to him were natural, etc. and therefore it would be strange, that if the principle of faith in him, which then was not of general use, should be supernatural, etc. 2. for him to have a supernatural principle of faith, as we have, was in him superfluous and vain. this he shows, because adam's covenant would not have brought him to heaven. 3. it would not only have been of no use, but it would have made him miserable. 4. and therefore our way of faith must needs be supernatural, and altioris ordinis from his, etc. which he proves 1. in the respect of the objects revealed to our faith, which his mind should never have arrived at: 2. in regard to the light by which our minds are acted and elevated: 3. in respect of the way or manner of knowledge or assent raised up thereby. i might add the testimony of one whom mr. c. honoured, who gives this reason in the present debate, saying, viz. if consent to the covenant was a duty by the law, than the law did bind to its own dissolution. but i suppose this may serve to show, that faith in christ was no duty by the law of nature, and therefore either it is a command of the gospel-law, or it is no duty at all. the like i might show of repentance, which melancthon's followers prove against flaccius illyricus. obj. if any one should object, did not the law of nature bind us to do whatever god should at any time require? a. you must consider, 1. the law of nature less properly, as the rule of the law as in innocency not the gospel-law. happiness in the covenant of innocency; and so it was appropriated to that state, and was a particular law of works: if so considered, the several precepts of it were written on man's heart, and god and the creatures ministered instruction to the innate light, which was inherent in our minds, and that in a natural way. some ruins of both are still preserved to fallen man, rom. 1. 19, 20. cap. 2. 14. in this sense faith and repentance could have no place at all in the law, for it was a law to govern and save innocent man, but not to recover sinful man. to suppose our own perfection to be the condition of life, and yet to be obliged at the same time to repent of sin, or believe in an a●…oning saviour; to have our abilities immediately from god as creator, and a stock in our own hands, and yet be obliged to depend on christ as mediator for all strength, are utterly the law as natural in f●…lnmen, not the gospel-law. inconsistent. 2. if you take the law of nature for the remaining instincts and notices of it in man (which ought to be perfect) and assisted and directed by the works of god, sure the gospel must be another law, or else heathens are able to find out christ by the book of nature, and engaged to receive him, and rely on him, though he were never revealed to them. the reason is this; the law of nature in this sense binds all the heathens, and its precepts are engraven naturally upon their hearts, and god and his works considered naturally, direct their minds. 3. the law of nature may be considered most generally, viz. as it is an obligation upon man to believe and obey, whatever god shall any way or time reveal and require, and to suffer for disobedience what god shall threaten. in this sense indeed the law commands all duty in general, but it doth not deny the general law of nature ●…inders not the gospel to be a law. the gospel to be a special law, for this indeed doth oblige us to obey all god's laws, when he makes them laws; but it doth not determine any one law, nor give a being to one particular precept. it's the foundation of our obligation, to submit to god's authority as creatures, but appoints not wherein we must instance that subjection. it's the same as an obligation among men to allegiance to the supreme power, which i hope prevents not the ruler's acts to be laws. this law of nature subjects us to god's threatenings, which he shall pronounce at any time for sin, but determineth neither the sort nor degree of the threatened evils. this law is common to good angels, devils, innocent man, fallen man, yea, damned and glorified man, for they are all engaged as creatures to obey the laws of god, when he enacts them, and suffer what he threatens if they obey not. but is the gospel therefore no law, or only this law of nature? then angels, devils, and the damned are obliged to believe in christ for salvation. do not say, god doth not require this of them, for they are under this law of nature, and so he doth require it of them; or else it is some distinct special law, whereby he requires it of others, and not of them. by this notion god never made any law beside this one law of nature; no positive law, no ceremonial law, for this law of nature did bind man to observe them when god was pleased to command them; and yet they were special laws for all that. and why then must the command of faith in christ, and repentance for remission, be no law, when god commands them, because the law of nature requires us to obey them when god doth command them? what a government do these men assign to god, who allow him but one and the same law to govern the whole creation by, when their state and circumstances be so different, though all are his creatures? 4. as for such as confound the law of nature with the law to the moral law now the gospel. israel, as taken into the covenant of grace, i shall not think fit to say more to than this; though the carnal jews did turn it into a covenant of works, as if their imperfect obedience and chargeable sacrifices were the very righteousness for which they were justified, and so neglected repentance and faith in the promise of forgiveness for the sake of christ, who was typified in their sacrifices; nevertheless it was a law of faith and repentance, as wittichius calls it, p. 106. wittichius epist. ad rom. in cap. 2. v. 25. and therefore such great titles are given it in the old testament; and not as such is it opposed by the apostle paul in the new testament, it was the base perverting of it, as exclusive of faith in christ, and as opposing gospel institutions by jewish ordinances, that he reprehends: see calvin. on calvin on psal. 19 10. that the law was the gospel in david's s●…nce. ball, cou. ●…15. ps. 19 9 he states the difference between the law commended by david, and as represented by paul, and saith, that paul had to do with the perverse interpreters of the law, which separated it from the grace and spirit of christ▪ etc. and sums up all in these words, haec diversa legis acceptatio, etc. this different acceptation of the law easily reconciles the seeming difference in the words of david and paul, because paul's purpose is to show what the law of itself (viz. as it sincerely requires the duty we owe to god, without the promise of grace) can do in us or for us; but david commends the whole doctrine of the law, which is the same with the gospel, and therefore includes christ therein. see mr. ball's arguments for the covenant with israel being the gospel-covenant, ball on cou. from 102, to 120. and how the precepts were gospel-precepts. indeed it's true, the matter of the ten commandments were much of the matter of the law of innocency, but god did not deliver it to his church as a law to innocent man, but to fallen man, for his direction and recovery. therefore when any authors take the law as given on sinai, to be the covenant of grace, they deny faith to be commanded adam in innocency, though they grant it required in the law at sinai. 2. the sanction of the gospel is not the same with the law of innocency; the sanction of the gospel differs from adam's law. which i shall evidence in the promissory and minatory parts. i'll begin with the promissory part. i. the promissory part of the gospel differs from that of the law of innocency. 1. there are many things promised in the gospel, which that law never the promises differ. promised. did that law ever promise union with christ, or the indwelling spirit, or forgiveness of sin, or perseverance? surely no: but the gospel doth all this. nay, dr. goodwin urgeth many arguments to prove, that the reward of d. goodw. vol. 2. lib. 2. p. 46, etc. adam was to be only a continuance in the same life he had in paradise, and not a translation to heaven. 2. the rewards of the law of works were not promised on the same account, as the benefits promised by the law of grace be; those were on the account of works as a meriting righteousness, ours are by free grace, on the account of christ's sole meriting righteousness. dr. goodwin saith, d. goodw. p. 45. ubi supra. the reward of the law was in a just sense due (of debt) unto the creature, and that from god: not that god can owe any thing to his creature, or be obliged for any thing to him, but because in a way of natural justice, or rather comeliness and dueness, such as is by the law of creation to be between a just creator and a holy creature; there is an approbation due to him from god, whilst that creature obeys him, and that as a debt of nature. but i say, all the claim we have, is for christ, and ex pacto, as the free promise assureth us. 3. the benefits are promised on different terms. by the law all was for perfect sinless obedience, but the gospel promiseth pardon upon our true repenting and believing; and we forfeit not our interest in its blessings, if our faith be effectual and persevering in sincere holiness and obedience. 4. the law of adam did not justify till the whole time of the trial of obedience was finished. it's true, it did continue the blessings he had, while he sinned not, but it did not fix his state of happiness till his trial was over; but the gospel puts us in a justified state upon our first believing. ii. the threatening part of the gospel differs from that in adam's law. 1. the the threatenings differ. evils threatened are not wholly the same: here's not only death, but that in sorer degrees, heb. 10. 29. & 12. 25. god's wrath will be more poured out, and conscience will find matter of sorer reflections. here's a privation of christ, and his spirit and pardon: we are not only without them, but we are barred from them, because of our wicked refusal, when they were sincerely offered us after our apostasy. if the gospel were no law, we could not be obliged to more misery than adam brought us under; yea, and adam could not be our full representative in his covenant, if we are capable of increasing our misery by that law, without disobedience to a new one. 2. the gospel doth not denounce death for the same sins, as adam's law did; that law threatened death for the least sin, yea, for one sin, but the gospel threatens death not for every sin; it doth not bar every sinner from actual relief, but the impenitent, unbelieving, and utterly ungodly hypocrite. 3. the gospel binds not damnation on us, unless we are finally impenitent unbelievers. if at any time of life we truly repent and believe, we shall find mercy, but adam's law denounced him miserable on his first sin. iii. there be a great many other differences, viz. in adam's law god acted other differences. as mere creator, in the law of grace he acts as redeemer as well as creator; in adam's law men were considered as innocent and sinless, in the gospel we are considered as sinners; by that law god governed us as happy, in order to a fixing us in our happy estate, in the gospel he deals with us in order to our recovery from a lost estate; in that there was no mediator, in this there is a mediator, who also is our king-redeemer. many more might be added. reader, weigh all these things, and if the gospel must be a special law, so that it be not the law of innocency, what can be more plain, than that it is not the same with the law of innocency or nature either. i could farther demonstrate, that the very appropriation of faith (tho' it were a legal precept) to be the grand condition of salvation, doth argue the gospel's being a distinct law▪ for otherwise any duty would be of equal use: but because mr. c. charges me as a new gospeler, i'll give thee a few of the hundreds that oppose his three former errors, and consent to my paradoxes as orthodox. testimonies that 1st the gospel is a law. our divines in the synod of dort. say, par. 2. p. 104. ex sacris literis, etc. it's calvin and wittichius see before, syned of dort. acta synodi. evident from the scriptures, that some are judged and condemned for sins committed only against the light of nature, who yet are excused for not performing the law of faith, through invincible ignorance, which excuse can have no place where god publisheth this law, and men are required to obey it. many other places from this synod might be added. willet saith, p. 888. we exclude not every law, but the law of works; but willet synopsis papismi the law of faith is not the law of works. and p. 635. the publican finding mercy, and departing justified, no doubt had also an express purpose in himself for ever to forsake his sin, for otherwise he could not have been justified, nor found remission of sin; for this is the law and perpetual rule of forgiveness, ezek. 18. 21. steph. de br●…is, in rom. 3. 27. hooker of n. england. lex evangelica clamans, the gospel-law cries, believe, and thou shalt be saved. hooker of effect. calling, p. 338. saith, i answer, not believing in the lord christ is not a sin against the moral law, but it is a sin against the law of the gospel, as he proves fully. saith p. 328. hereto agree the words of the apostle, rom. 3. 27. where the b●…lkley of●… covenant, apostle distinguisheth between the law of works and the law of faith; by the law of works understanding the moral law, by the law of faith understanding the gospel, etc. he adds, here are two distinct laws, having two distinct commandments, as two distinct conditions of the two covenants. this he proves at large. p. 102, to 122. proves the law as given to israel was the gospel covenant mr. ball of the covenset forth by mr. ash. for substance: p. 113. saith, faith in christ is not commanded in the moral law, as it was engraven in the heart of adam in the state of innocency, but as it was given to israel, to be a rule of life to a people in covenant, it was presupposed and commanded. lib. 2. cap. 1. proves at large, that god published a new law as redeemer to lawson theopolitic. man upon his fall. p. 17. christ will proceed at the day of judgement according to a double law, dr. wallis of god's sov●…raignty. the moral law, and the law of faith; the moral law saith, cursed is every one that continueth not in all the law to do it. now by this law we are all cast; but the law of faith affords to mankind a mitigation of the moral law, and begins where the other ends, god having sent his only begotten son to this end, that whosoever believes on him should not perish (notwithstanding the condemnation of the moral law) but have everlasting life. much like the favourable law amongst us, which affords the benefit of clergy, etc. p. 19 those therefore whom christ shall then acquit, are acquitted by the gospel, or law of faith; those whom he condem●…s, he condemns by both laws. p. 230. they that really believe forgiveness in god, do thereby obtain forgiveness. dr. owen's on ps. 130. believing gives an interest in it, it brings it home to the soul concerned. this is the inviolable law of the gospel; believing and forgiveness are inseparably conjoined. p. 139. he saith, repentance was no duty to adam in eden, it is none for the angels in heaven, nor for the damned in hell, what then may be the language of this appointment? o sinners! come and deal with god by repentance, etc. it's true, many do deceive themselves, they raise themselves unto an expectation of immunity, not on gospel-grounds: but god deceives none, whoever comes to him on his proposal of repentance, shall find forgiveness. it's said of some, he will laugh at their calamity, etc. but who are they? only such as refuse his call to repentance, with the promises of acceptation annexed. see p. 254. p. 375. faith is the only condition of the covenant of grace, which is therefore downam on justif. called the law of faith. p. 7. the covenant of grace, the apostle calls it the law of faith, and it is sedgwick of the covenant. especially expressed thus, he that believes shall be saved. p. 308. the precept of believing is a gospel-precept only, and the punishment for unbelief is threatened and inflicted in relation to the gospel; as he oft shows at large, and in p. 10. instanceth in five things a great difference between faith in adam and gospel-faith, one of which is, that tho' there was a kind of faith in adam, yet it was not to be the condition of that covenant, etc. but the faith required in the covenant of grace comes in purposely as the condition of life, and justification for the sinner. p. 18. oh saith the law, such duties have been omitted, such sins have been dr. jacomb on rom. 8. committed, such sabbaths have been profaned, etc. such tenders of grace have been slighted, (here (saith he) the gospel▪ law comes in as an accuser too.) and p. 55, & 553. you must so confide and rely on christ's one most perfect and all-sufficient sacrifice, as yet withal to be careful that you, on your part, do perform those gospel-conditions, which god enjoins and requires of you, in order to remission, justification, and glorification, etc. the whole business of merit and satisfaction lies upon christ, but as to believing and repenting, the two grand gospel-conditions, they lie upon yourselves, (with respect to the act, tho' not the power) and must be done by yourselves; yea, and the doing of these is as necessary on your parts, under the notion of conditions, as suffering and dying was on christ's part under the notion of merit: and it is most certain, that the latter without the former will not profit you, because christ never designed to impute, or make over his merit to any, further than as they should make good these conditions of faith and repentance. p. 553. he shows the rock of popery is to trust in these as merits, and the rock of antinomianism is to deny that respect to holiness, obedience, faith, and repentance which is due to them, as means and conditions. p. 157. you read rom. 3. 27. the law of faith, and the law of works, very opposite and contrary laws. p. 610. unbelief is disobedience to the law of faith, when discovered to men; mr charnock, 2 ●…ol. therefore it is our sin (not the sin of heathens, as that is disobedience to any law) which is against that law when revealed and known. see p. 314. the law of christ requires belief in the satisfaction he hath wrought, for the law of christ is not as the law at the creation was, etc. p. 683. p. 190. vocatur lex, etc. the covenant of grace is called the law of faith, turretin instit. theol. par. 2. mr. m. mead early obedience. because faith is therein prescribed to us as the condition of the covenant. p. 146. there is a legal necessity that he that continues in his lusts and unregeneracy must perish, and that because of the will and law of god. as god wills the salvation of all that will turn to god and obey him, so he wills the damnation of all that will not, but hold fast their lusts and refuse to return. as he hath made a law, that whosoever will come to christ, and take up his yoke, shall find rest to his soul, and shall livefor ever; so he hath declared it as peremptorily, that he that slights christ, and will not hearken to him, nor obey him, shall be utterly cast off. p. 148, 102, 103. it is he that with the father hath established this, as the great condition of salvation, bearing the yoke. so that it is the standing law of heaven, whoever will be saved, must take up christ's yoke: this is the way to blessedness, and there is no other. bear the yoke of christ and be blessed, cast that off, and he will cast you off; submit and be saved, reject it and christ will reject you: this is the unalterable condition of salvation, and there is no other. things are so settled in the eternal compact between the father and the son, about the case of man, that the blood of christ itself cannot stead us, nor the mercy of god (infinite as it is) benefit us, without this condition be performed by us. p. 202. in the day of judgement god will not proceed with men upon election and reprobation, but upon obedience or disobedience to his law, rom. 2. 7, 8, 9, etc. god will vindicate the justice of his proceedings in that day, by making the word the rule of his judgement to all that are under it, joh. 12.48. p. 165. god hath not absolutely promised salvation and eternal life to any, but he hath annexed it to certain dispositions and qualifications, without which we shall never share in the blessing promised. p. 119. mat, 5. 8, etc. p. 72. none can be saved by all which christ hath done and suffered, but upon these conditions, and they are self-denial, faith, repentance, taking up the cross, obedience; these are the unalterable conditions of salvation, and these conditions of salvation are the yoke of christ. these passages of this worthy divine amount to no more than what dr. ames saith. p. 189. bellarmin objecting mat. 11. 29. my yoke is easy; ames answers, pro ames bellarm. e●…er. tom. 4. lib. 6. cap. 7. lege, etc. there's nothing said in these words concerning the law, simply taken, and the perfect observation of it; but they speak of the gospel, that is, of faith and new obedience, that's the easy yoke of christ. i could bring an hundred places out of dr. manton, wherein he calls the gospel a law, and proves it. mant. most frequently. see 2 serm▪ o●… rom. 8. altingius proves, that the repentance required of us is a gospel▪ command, and not required by the law. peraeus, peter martyr, yea, chamier himself, affirm the gospel to be a law of faith. indeed who deny it, except a few lutherans, who also deny the doctrine of perseverance, and three or four ●…ranaker divines, who are followed by several of the cocceians, but not by all of them? see more proof of this under the next two heads. i shall subjoin the assembly of divines. q. what doth god require of us, & c? a. to escape the wrath and curse of god, due to us for sin: god requireth of us faith in jesus christ, repentance unto life, assembly of divin●…s 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. with the diligent use of all the outward means, whereby god communicates to us the benefits of redemption. reader▪ 1. is not that sign or instrument whereby god requires these things, to this end, a law of god? what's a law if that be not? is it the counsel of a fellow-subject? no, it's god's commanding act, he requires these. 2. doth god require these of us to this end in the law of adam, or in the gospel? was innocent man to escape the curse due to him? no, it was not upon him; that law did not suppose him undone; it must then be the voice of god by the gospel to fallen man. the gospel enjoins these duties to this end, with a promise that we shall not fail of this end, if we omit none of these duties. here's the gospel-law. ii. testimonies that the gospel hath its proper threatenings. p. 90. the best persuasion we can arrive at, concerning the spiritual condition d. owen's, on heb. c. 6. v. 9 of any, leaves room for gospel-threatning, etc. and p. 91. whatever we (ministers) may conceive of the state of any such, they are not to balk or wave the delivery and pressing of any evangelical warnings, or the severest threatenings contained in the gospel. p. 91. others should not think they are hardly dealt with, when they are pressed and urged with the severest▪ threatenings of the gospel▪ see him on cap. 4. heb. v. 1, 2. p. 217, 180, 181, 182, on ps. 130. p. 266. he on ps. 130. that believeth not shall be damned: that's a hard word, many men cannot endure to hear of it; they would not have it named by their good-wills, etc. but let not men deceive themselves; this is the softest word that mercy and love itself, that christ, that the gospel speaks to despisers of forgiveness, etc. mr▪ mead: it's epist. before the almost-christian. sad, but certain, that the gospel inflicts a death of its own, as well as the law. p. 121. there be many threatenings annexed to the covenant of reconciliation, gilaspie, ark of the covenant. threatenings of gospel-vengeance to the transgressor's of the covenant, but there are no threatenings in the covenant of suretyship, nothing denounced against the man christ, etc. how many places might i collect from mr. c's father? mr. chancy of 〈◊〉. p. 124. ye unbelievers! your curse is doubled, and your condemnation is the condemnation. john 3. 19 the law pronounceth a curse for breaking of it, but the gospel a far greater for not receiving christ, and your life and salvation which is offered to you through him. p. 303, this gospel-iustice, which is the most terrible. p. 309. the gospel is so far from promising life, by the death of christ, to 〈◊〉 on the cou. impenitent and unbelieving persons, that it threatens and seals death, and wrath, and condemnation to them, john 3. 36, 18, etc. if you read the canons of the synod of dort. you'll find evangelii minas, the threatenings of the gospel. this acta 〈◊〉. par. 1. p. 313. point is so obvious in all orthodox writers, that i forbear more testimonies. but why are gospel-threatning a bull? no doubt, because the gospel is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, glad tidings. and indeed, is it bad news that sinners shall be saved, if they repent and believe, and many shall believe? will nothing be glad tidings, but that they shall be saved, tho' they neither repent nor believe? this indeed was a message unfit for god to send; and tho' mr. c. calls it a bull, christ hath solemnly declared, as the lord of the n. testament, that they who believe not, the wrath of god abideth in them. this cannot be a threatening of adam's law, for those threatenings respected every sin. it is true; the unbeliever is damned for other sins, by rejecting christ, but what makes those sins damning to him in the event, notwithstanding the offers of life? is it every sin will do this? will a vain thought exclude a man from pardon, as much and as surely as final unbelief? surely no: but yet the threatening of adam's law denounced death against any sin, as much and as certainly as against final infidelity, and so did not appropriate death to infidelity, as the gospel-threatning doth. besides, is it an abiding of wrath on us, which adam's law threatened? no, it was the first bringing of wrath on them that were free before. iii. testimonies that god hath declared a fixed rule, by which he pardons, adopts, and glorifies sinners, which rule is his gospel, and not his secret decree. to prevent mistake, know, that i speak not of the first grace, which he gives to all the elect, but i speak of pardon and glory, which he hath promised upon terms, and judicially denies to them that refuse christ. they put this q. how is the grace of god, & c? a. the grace of god is manifested assembly of divines larger catech. in the second covenant, in that he freely provideth and offereth to sinners a mediator, and life and salvation by him, and requiring faith as the condition, to interest them in him, etc. here thou seest faith is a condition, and a condition required, and this required to interest us in christ: no interest, but in conforming to this rule, that requires faith to this end. he, de christo gr●…tis justificante, p. 244. conditio vero, etc. the condition mr. fox, that wrote the book of martyrs. whereby we are properly justified, is this; that we believe in christ, and cleave to him by a constant profession, etc. p. 251, 252. i ask, when salvation is promised freely for christ's sake, will the absolute promise save all men promis●…uously for the sake of christ, without the limit of any condition? i think no such thing: go on then. when this promise belongs but to some, and that only upon a certain condition who then are those on whom this promise properly falls? thou must say, the believer, etc. p. 297. q. what sinners are justified by christ? a. those who▪ inclined by a serious remorse, bewail their sins, and displeased at themselves, do recollect themselves with their whole soul, and are converted to christ with an entire faith, these are the only sinners whom faith without works doth justify. and p▪ 311. repentance prepares the matter to receive justification, but the cause of justification is faith. consult these canons of the synod of dort. p. 289. the promise of the gospel 〈◊〉 synod. par. 1. is, that whoever believeth on christ crucified, shall not perish, but have everlasting life; which promise, with the command of faith and repentance, aught to be declared, and proposed promiscuously, and without distinction to all men, to whom god in his good pleasure sends the gospel. but the reason why many that are called by the gospel do not repent nor believe on christ, but perish in their unbelief, is not truly any want or insufficiency of christ's sacrifice offered on the cro●…s but through their own fault. and the synod adds, p. 302. quotquot autem, etc. but as many as are called by the gospel are seriously called, for god doth seriously and most truly declare in his word what is pleasing to him, viz. that they that are called should come to him, and unfeignedly promiseth rest for their souls, and eternal life to all that come and believe. i have cited these, to show, that god sets down this general common rule to all in his gospel: it's not one rule to the elect, and another to the non-elect, it's the same to all. would the reprobate obey the call of the gospel, he should have eternal life: and the elect do obey this call, and thereupon obtain eternal life. i could give very many instances out of this book, where faith is called act a synod. par. 2. the condition. p. 105, salvation is the thing promised in the new covenant; neither is it promised, but upon the condition of faith. seeing therefore that all men have not faith in christ, under which alone condition is salvation promised, it is certain that christ's death hath not purchased the restauration to a state of grace and salvation for all men, but only for believers. see p. 12. god willeth that the obtaining of life should be suspended, on condition of foregoing faith. dr. owen's on heb. cap. 6. p. 76, 77. when the gospel is preached to men, an experiment is made, how they will prove as to faith and obedience; if they acquit themselves in these, they receive the blessing of eternal life from god. and p. 14. there is no interest in christ or christian religion to be obtained, without repentance from dead works. see p. 12, 13, 14. the removal hereof (viz. enmity of our minds by wicked works) consists in this, repentance; for that is our turning unto god upon the terms of peace tendered to us, etc. all doctrines, notions, and persuasions, that tend to alleviate the necessity of personal repentance, etc. are pernicious to the souls of men, etc. p. 15. it hath an absolute inconsistency with the especial righteousness of his nature (christ) and which he exerciseth as supreme rector, and judge of all, that any such should stand in his sight, etc. and for the lord jesus, it would plainly make him the minister of sin, etc. and the gospel doth openly propose pardon of all sorts of sin, to all sorts of persons, that shall believe and obey it. if the gospel did this without annexing to its promise the condition of repentance, never was there, nor can there be so great an encouragement to all sorts of sin and wickedness. he on ps. 130. p. 141. and this connexion dr. owen's on ps. 130. of repentance and forgiveness, is that principle from whence god convinceth a stubborn unbelieving people, that all his ways and dealings with sinners are just, ezek. 18. 25. and should there be any failure in it, they could not be so, if out of love to sin, or the power of unbelief, he refuse to close with him on these terms, his condemnation is just. p. 136. after the angels had sinned, god never once called them to repentance, he would not deceive them, but let them know what they were to look for at his hands: he hath no forgiveness for them, and therefore would require no repentance of them. it is not, nor ever was, a duty encumbent on them to repent, nor is it so unto the damned in hell; god requires it not of them, nor is it their duty, there being no forgiveness for them. what should move them to repent? why should it be their duty so to do? assignation then of repentance is a revelation of forgiveness: god would not call upon a sinful creature to humble itself, and bewail its sin, if there were no way of recovery or relief. pray see him p. 151, etc. p. 184. he saith, whence is it that men perish in and for their sins? is it for want of mercy, goodness, grace, or patience in god? is it through any defect in the mediation of the lord christ? is it for want of the mightiest encouragements, and most infallible assurances, that with god there is forgiveness? not at all, but merely on the account of their own obstinacy, stubbornness, and perverseness; they will not, they hate the light, they will not come to christ, that they may have life. see his awful denunciation of the curse against all that resolve to continue in the neglect of this salvation, dr. owen's of the satisfaction of christ. p. 272. i'll add one passage of his, p. 144. the satisfaction made for sin being not made by the sinner himself, there must of necessity be a rule, and law-constitution, how the sinner may come to be interessed in it, and made partaker of it, for the consequent of the freedom of one by the suffering of another, is not natural or necessary, but must proceed from a law-constitution, compact, and agreement. now the way constituted and appointed, is that of faith, or believing, as explained in the scripture. if men believe not, they are no less liable to the punishment due to their sins, than if no satisfaction at all were made for sinners. dr. manton on the hebrews. p. 624. he asks, whether there be any terms or no terms in the covenant; he answers, surely there are. how shall poor creatures make out their interest therein, unless god hath declared upon what conditions we shall be possessed of the privileges, & c? if god hath once declared the conditions, if we would have the benefit, we must consent to them. in the last part, p. 127. he tells us, the conditions of the covenant are faith, repentance, and new obedience. p. 374. nothing can be objected against the conditions he requires, viz. charnock vol. 2. repentance and faith. can any malefactor expect peace with his sword in his hand? and is it not fit there should be such conditions to justify god? since we were the guilty offenders, can there be less, than to cast away our weapons, bewail our sins, receive the mediator, and serve him with newness of life? they are such reasonable conditions, that the honour of god would not be provided for, nor have a salvo without them. see p. 692, 349, etc. p. 36. make sure of true saving justifying faith, etc. it secures from this (condemnation) dr. jacomb on rom. 8. both as it is the grace which unites to christ, and also as it is the great condition of the gospel, upon which it promiseth life and salvation, etc. he may set down what condition he pleases, in order to the giving out of his grace, which when they are performed, he is engaged to make good what he promiseth upon them. how oft doth he tell us, that god requires of every man faith to be the condition, dr. preston of new cou. to be partaker of the covenant. p. 114. and p. 143. he saith, the condition required of us is the doing this, viz. to repent, to serve the lord in newness of life. bulkley by very many arguments, from p. 278, to 298. doth prove the gospel-covenant bulkley on the coven. to be conditional, p. 280. the lord doth not say to any soul, i will save you, and bring you to life, though you continue impenitent and unbelieving; but commands and works us to repent, and believe, and then promises, that in the way of faith and repentance he will save us. had i room, i would give thee full proof, that davenant, pemble, perkins, twiss, scharpius, zanchius, rollock, wendelin, altingius, burgess, blake, new-england synod, turretin, synod of dort. with hundreds more, do positively affirm the gospel-covenant to require a condition on our part, and so fix this gospel-rule. mr. chancy's father urgeth it, p. 79, mr. c. on justif. 132, 123, & 116. where he shows what we must do to obtain the propitiation. so 117. mr. rutherford affirms, that to deny there be conditions, is to belly the gospel; rutherford survey of antinomianism, par. 2. and adds, that good works are conditions without which we cannot be saved, p. 38. and p. 36. it is a new heresy of antinomians, to deny a conditional gospel; it is all one as to belly the holy ghost, who saith, he that believeth shall be saved, he that believeth not is condemned already. or they may say, whether men believe or no, they may be saved, as dr. crisp saith. p. 445. if not, then be wise, and 〈◊〉 from the wrath to come; and there is mr. mead, early obedience. but one way, and that is by closing with jesus christ, and giving yourselves up to an entire subjection to his yoke: there is no way to escape wrath, and secure eternal life but this. p. 276. consider where you will lay the blame of your destruction; you cannot lay it upon god, for he gave christ to redeem and save you; you cannot lay it upon christ, for he would have gathered you, and you would not, he never cast you off till you cast him off; you cannot lay it upon the spirit, for he would have convinced, and converted, and sanctified you, and you have resisted and quenched him; you cannot lay it upon your ministers, for they have set before you life and death, and declared to you the danger of sin, and necessity of holiness, but you would not believe their report, etc. so that you can lay the blame no where, but upon a cursed corrupt heart; thy destruction is of thyself. see what he saith of conditions, and decree, under the head the gospel is a law. p. 182, 183, 184, etc. proves the covenant to be conditional, that without faith mr. obad. sedgwick of the cou. there is no relation in a way of covenant 'twixt god and us; and that upon faith god becomes our god in covenant, and answers objections. p. 188, 189. he speaks to sinners presuming of the many promises of salvation, etc. oh but sirs, there is a condition in the bond, which he oft repeats. p. 430. when he had proved repentance was necessary to the remission of sin, he adds, whereas they say this is popish and legal, they speak ignorantly, if not maliciously, etc. it is as popish to say repentance is required for assurance, as for remission, for both are acts of grace. beza, epist. 20. conjunctas autem, etc. but repentance and remission of sin are joined together, and truly so, that repentance goes before forgiveness: this partly the word of god teacheth, yea, reason itself, and common sense, however corrupt, doth calvin, harm. in mar. 4. 12. vid. instit. lib. 3. cap. 17. § 5. mr. clerkson of saving-grace. calvin is positive that the gospel-covenant is conditional, but that condition is not the hard one of the law, lib. 2. cap. 5. § 12. yea, he only excludes meritorious conditions; when he says it is absolute lib. 3. cap. 3. § 21, 22. manifest it; he proves this fully. so calvin, god forgives no sins but such as men are displeased with themselves for, etc. the excellent mr. clerkson will help thee to resolve some seeming difference thou findest among authors, who in one place seem to deny the covenant to be conditional, and in other places affirm it. see p. 132, 133, 134. after he had asserted the first grace to be absolute, viz. in effectual calling, etc. he adds, the subsequent blessings of the covenant, those that follow the first, are in some sense conditional, and so offered and promised in a conditional form, and yet are nevertheless gracious. there are terms and conditions, taking the word conditions in a latitude, as comprising qualifications, adjuncts, and necessary antecedents, which do no way derogate from grace, neither detract from its freeness, nor obscure, but rather illustrate it, rom. 10. 8, 9, 10. rev. 3. upon such terms are justification, adoption, and salvation offered, and not offered but upon terms, and yet most freely▪ and graciously, etc. and not only faith, but holiness of heart and life, and perseverance therein, are the terms upon which salvation is promised, etc. p. 134. and hath constituted an order amongst them, so that one must go before another; we must believe before we are justified, and be holy before we can see god, and hath appointed one of them to be the means or way to obtain the other: we are justified by faith, we are created unto good works, that we should walk in them; acts of holy obedience are the way wherein we must walk to salvation. so that here is an antecedence of some duty, and that necessary by divine appointment and command, and this tending to obtain the favour freely offered. and by this we may understand what a condition is, in a sense very innocent, and no way injurious to grace: it is an antecedent necessarily required, as the way to attain or arrive at what is promised. and in this sense it must not be denied there are conditions in the gospel, and its promises, unless we will deny that there are duties necessary to salvation, and made necessary by divine command, for such a condition is nothing but something of a command joined with a promise in a conditional form, etc. he commands all to repent, and he promiseth pardon; put this promise and that command together, and it becomes a conditional promise, if you repent you shall have pardon, 1 john 1. 9 but p. 137, 138, 140. he justly excludes meritorious, natural, and legal conditions. by which legal he means not whatever is commanded with an annexed promise, for that were to contradict all here cited; but such conditions as do entitle us to the benefit, as the very righteousness for which we merit or obtain them; which i have oft denied gospel-conditions to be. and so he explains himself. reader, it's evident what a number of men fall under mr. c's curse, as well as i, and judge thou what reason he hath to pretend to the old gospel, and arraign us for a new one. my paradoxes appear the common sentiment of the notedly orthodox, while his principles must be content with the patronage of new sangled antinomians. the testimonies under the 1, & 2. principles prove this rule. because the paradoxes may be entire, i'll add the 10th, viz. the wedding garment, of the wedding garment. mat. 22. 11. is true uniting faith; of which mr. c. p. 32. your saying the wedding garment was faith, and not the righteousness of christ apprehended by faith, ●…is a wretched wresting and abuse of scripture, etc. repl. 1. doth a true uniting faith exclude christ's righteousness, or include it? keep to this rule when you speak of being justified by faith, and what will become of the object justifying? 2. is it christ's way to condemn men, merely because they have not a privilege, or else because they neglected the terms on which that privilege was promised? the former was mere misery, and no fault; the latter is a fault by which he is obnoxious to that misery, and therefore fittest to ground a sentence on. 3. i'll join two, to help to bear this calumny; fox, p. 343. sed per mr. fox de christo justificant●…. solam fidem, etc. but by faith alone; therefore faith is that garment made white in the blood of the lamb, which properly clothes us for the wedding. and mr. gale, p. 197. should you this night hear the cry, behold, the bridegroom cometh, mr. gale of christ's coming. are you ready to enter into the wedding-chamber? have you the wedding-garment of faith and holiness? as to phil. 3. 8. i have tried stronger arguments than mr. c. is like to offer, augustin expounds phil. 3. 8. as i 〈◊〉. and yet my sense of that text is not altered, and fear not to defend it in due time. mr. c. p. 27 as for the notion, that the covenant of redemption is a distinct covenant mr. c's fourth principle, no covenant ●…fi redemption distinct from the covenant of grace with men. rutherford covenant opened. ark of the coven. sedgwick of coven. bulkley of covenant. from the covenant of grace; i deny it. repl. by the covenant of grace is meant the gospel-covenant made with men. mr. r. proves, that the covenant of redemption and the covenant of grace are two distinct covenants, p. 308, to 313. so doth mr. gilaspie, cap. 1. 2. and shows the difference between these two covenants, cap. 5. the same is proved by mr. sedgwick, p. 3, 4, 5. and by bulkley, p. 29, to 32. it's affirmed by mr. norton, orth. evan. p. 113. it's oft asserted by dr. owen's, by mr. mead, in mr. mead. the author of the city 〈◊〉. his book of early obedience, p. 72. etc. and sermon for mr. rosewell. nay, the author of the letter grants it, p. 24. reader, i shall not now descend to argue this point, only hint to thee, that the parties are distinct, the terms are distinct, the promises are distincts moreover, one hath no mediator, the other hath, etc. it's true, some worthy divines formerly speak of these two covenants as if one, which rendered their notions less plain; but yet they did not deny, but affirm, that there was part of that covenant to be actually engaged and performed by man, tho' giving ability was undertaken by christ in the other part of it; and also, that as it was promised to him, that upon man's compliance with the conditions, they should be partakers of the benefits; so 〈◊〉 it was a promise made to them upon compliance with the terms. whereas mr. c. asks me, do not we plead redemption, or the promise made in christ? repl. i had said, that the promises of the first grace were pleadable only by christ, as the stipulating party: and what's that to redemption? but can he think that unregenerate men can plead a personal right to the first grace? and it's right that is included in the word pleadable. mr. c. p. 29. pardon is not promised to faith and repentance, as things distinct fifth principle. pardon is the cause of faith, and not faith the condition of pardon, etc. from the promise, but pardon is promised, together with faith and repentance, to the sinner, etc. pardon is rather the condition of faith and repentance, and much more, having a causal influence thereunto, than faith and repentance of pardon, etc. p. 21. repl. 1. here, and p. 28. he confounds a promise of grace, and promises made to grace. 2. he affirms, that the whole of the gospel-covenant is but one promise; and this, i suppose, is the first promise in the sentence against the serpent: hereby he blasts all the fuller discoveries of it by the prophets, yea, and christ the first promise considered. himself, as if all the conditional proposals of covenant-benefits on terms of duty were additions injuriously added to the first promise. 3. he wretchedly mistakes the nature of that first promise, as if it excluded all terms of our saving interest in the blessings of it: whereas it did imply them. if you take the words as a promise of christ, that he should in our nature overcome satan, than it belonged to all mankind, to whom it's promulgated, even the rejecters of it, acts 13. 32, 46. and as such, gives no interest in the effects of it to any man. if you take them as importing the saving benefits to the seed of the woman, than there must be some change in them, who are by nature the seed of the serpent, as well as the most wicked, otherwise all the natural seed of eve have the same saving benefits; which is thus evidenced: when god renewed the promise to abraham and his seed, that seed the apostle tells you were believers, rom. 4. 11, 16, 27. and as i have said before, faith must be then enjoined, for by faith abel's sacrifice was more acceptable than cain's, and god's words to cain were the redeemer's language; and the use of sacrifices imports, that god revealed more of his will to them, by way of precept, than is there recorded. 4. and what can he mean by things distinct from the promise? if that faith and repentance are promised, i had oft affirmed it: if that as acts in man they are not distinct from the promise, it's unfit to reflect on: if that they may not be terms of pardon conjoined therewith, in one promissory series, it's against the scope of the bible; and sure, if that hinder not pardon to be the cause of them, it will not exclude them to be terms of pardon. 5. but what strange divinity is this! 1. that pardon is the condition of faith. 2. pardon is the cause of faith. how is pardon and these at once, as he affirms (i e. in order of nature) and yet faith is the consequent, pardon not the caus●… of conditional faith. yea, effect of pardon. but to come to the point, is not this to burlesque the scripture, we believe that we may be justified, gal. 2. 16? that is, we be justified that we may believe. we are justified by faith, rom. 5. 1. that is, we are made believers by justification. we repent for the remission of sins, luke 33. that is, we have remission of sins, that we may repent. one reason at least should have been offered for these contradictions; i suppose all that would be offered is, that christ cannot work faith in us till we are pardoned, which the whole scripture is against, and god hath provided for it, by divine ordination, in that christ's merits are admitted effectual to the working and and accepting of this grace, before these merits are applied for forgiveness; which is fully expressed in his own revealed method, whereby he commands and works faith in order to forgiveness: yea, he will not, i hope, deny (lest he spoil his argument p. 28.) that union with christ is before pardon in order of nature; and is not that an effect of christ's merits? yea, the gospel-offers, spirits operation of faith, etc. are so. 6. how long must i stay for an answer, if i ask what kind of cause is pardon? it's well if it be not hisprocatartick. 7. is not this a new and singular gospel? consult the former testimonies. need i mind thee, that dr. owen's saith p. 306. we require dr. owen's treatise of justif. clerkson, norton, acta synod. ●… par. p. 279, etc. bulkley on the coven. sheppard's sound believer. mr. c's father of iust. the assemb. evangelical faith, in order of nature, antecedently to our justification, & c? r. mr. cl. p. 134. norton, etc. say the same; the synod of dort. is oft positive. mr. bulkley p. 321. gives nine reasons to prove that faith is an antecedent condition of justification, and saith, the denial of it is some of the new light, which the old age of the church hath brought forth. mr. sheppard proves the same, p. 221, to 240. mr. c's father saith, faithunites the soul to christ, p. 144. it accepts of a whole christ, with a whole heart, p. 154. it's a receiving christ in all his offices, p. 132. faith hath an influence into a sinner's justification, p. 122. faith is constituted and ordained of god in the covenant of grace, as a necessary and indispensible means for attaining this end in adult persons, p. 123. and he answers his son's objections, as to infants. the assembly affirm, that justification is a benefit flowing from vocation wherein faith is wrought; but of this hereafter. it's well if he call not all these enemies to the grace of god, as p. 8. mr. c. near a kin to this is his banter on me, p. 21. because i had said that mr. c's 6th principle, no conversion or effecteal vocation b●…fore pardon. this the 〈◊〉 letter affi●…ms, which i 〈◊〉 regard here, in opposition to his denying an habitual change b●…f. pardon. election was not formally our pardon, nor a legal grant of it, but that by divine appointment there was to interpose between the decree of pardon, and the actual pardon of the elect, a gospel-promise of this pardon, and a work of the spirit on men, for a conformity to the rule of that promise. he tells me, i would have christ to stand as a medicine in the apothecary's shop, for some body or other when the physician prescribes it: nay, it's not an absolute sick patient neither, it's one the apothecary hath in a manner cured before, etc. and before the person be pardoned, he must be in a very sound and safe condition, etc. and there must be inherent righteousness in the person to be pardoned, etc. add this (and much of this kind up and down in his book) to his fifth principle, viz. that pardon is the cause of faith, etc. and then we have his sixth principle, that we are pardoned before the spirit do at all work any change upon the soul in effectual vocation, or we are not called or converted in order of nature before we are justified. this is fully the sense of the letter from the city, p. 25, 30, etc. repl. 1. a legal grant is a term out of mr. c's element, or he would not confound it with a decree; and what he speaks of the promise tit. 1. will appear not to be eternal, but before many ages, and not to exclude gospel-conditions in their use, for our personal interest in pardon. 2. is there not a fullness in christ for sinners before they make use of it? 3. all sinners are ungodly in a gospel the object of pardon is a believer, tho' ungodly, by adam's law. sense, when god comes to call them effectually in order to pardon; and they are ungodly in a legal sense when god doth pardon them, or they would not need pardon. 4. yet they are not unconvinced unbelievers that are the objects of god's pardoning act; they are such ungodly ones as believing abram was. 5. their faith doth not merit pardon, nor is it the righteousness by which they are pardoned; that's christ's alone. 6. faith, or the first grace, is far from making a the first grace doth not make us sound, if abstracted from christ and the promise. sinner sound or whole before pardon; it makes him sound, but as being the condition upon which christ's righteousness will be applied to him for healing; but without this applied to the believer for pardon, he would be miserable notwithstanding faith. 7. faith is necessary to our interest in pardon; see cap. 12. 8. this faith is an effect of the work of the spirit, on the heart of a sinner, in effectual vocation, and by vocation there is a change of the soul, and its prior to pardon: whom he called, them he justified, rom. 8. 30. lest they should be converted, effectual vocation before pardon in order of nature. and i should heal them, mat. 13. 15. act. 26. 18. the sanctification which follows justification, doth not import, that there's no calling before, nor that begun habitual holiness is not infused in vocation. but i would ask, 1. q. what kind of faith is that by which we are justified, if there be no work of the spirit on the heart? eph. 2. 5, 6. 2 cor. 4. 3, ●…. is it a vital act before life? is it the faith of god's elect, when it proceeds from an unregenerate heart? is it an act of an enlightened mind, before the mind be enlightened? or, can they see christ before their eye be opened? is it an act of john 1. 12. the will, before the will be at all determined by grace? is it a receiving of christ, while the heart is yet under an utter aversion to him? is it a renouncing of all for christ, whilst the bias of the heart is against christ, and for other things above him and against him? do we believe before we are made a willing people? can it be an effect of infinite power, and make no change in the principle of our ps. 110. 3. eph. 1. 19 actings? or can that principle be, and yet have place neither in understanding or will? it's true, as they describe faith, a man may be evangelically ungodly and yet believe, because it's a faith common to the most profane, who persuade themselves all is safe, though destruction is near, and this while they hate and reject christ with their whole heart. how can it be a faith unfe●…gned, while villainy 2 tim. 15. and hypocrisy reign in the soul? or be adapted to such great operations whilst in its whole essence there is nothing which argues the least alteration on the soul, or operation of the holy spirit? here's the faith of a dead soul, of an unregenerate soul, of an unconverted soul; and by such a faith we are justified they say. but, 2. q. how dare these men pretend to agree with our orthodox divines, when they testimonies that vocation is before justification. the assembly. are so plain against them? read the assemblies lesser catechism; q. what is effectual calling? a. effectual calling is the work of god's spirit, whereby convincing us of our sin and misery, enlightening our minds in the knowledge of christ, and renewing our wills, he doth persuade and enable us to embrace jesus christ freely offered to us in the gospel. q. what benefits do they that are effectually called partake of in this life? a. they that are effectually called, do in this life partake of justification, adoption, sanctification, and the several benefits which in this life do either accompany or flow from them. reader, is not the assembly plain, that a man is called before he is justified? when justification is a benefit that the called and none but they partake of, and this benefit supposeth them effectually called who partake of it, let's next see who are called; is there no change made upon them by effectual vocation? sure there is, and this in order to their embracing christ, which is believing. they are convinced of sin and misery, their minds are enlightened with the saving knowledge of christ. their wills are renewed; they are persuaded and enabled to put forth that act of faith, whereby they embrace christ. is here no change? sure it's a great one in the understanding and will too; and all this to make a man an object of justification. and shall these men to deny it, is to join with the arminians. face us down, as if we differed from the assembly? nay, do not all our orthodox plead against the arminians, that there is the infused habit of faith before the act; yea, and that most habits are infused at once, and included in the vital principle? what heaps of testimonies could i produce for this! yea, is it not our common principle, that vocation is before justification? herewith agree the synod of dort. hooker. mr. c's father of iust. norton orth. evan. rutherford's survey of antin. par. 2 canons of the synod of dort. par. 1. p. 303. hooker's effect. calling, p. 344, 345. mr. c. saith, p. 123. hence justification is set after vocation, and therefore after faith, because faith is wrought in vocation. norton, p. 260, 261, 263. union in order of nature followeth vocation, p. 291. so also ball of cou. p. 334, 339. see how mr. rutherford exposeth this error, p. 131. and p. 111, 112. he sets down this as the gospel-order: 1. the sinner dead in sin, a son of wrath; 2. a walker after the errors of this world; 3. the gospel of free grace is preached to the dead, the elect heirs of wrath, etc. 4. the law and curses of it preached (with the gospel, lest they despair) to humble them; 5. the sinner legally humbled, rom. 7. 11. with a half hope of mercy, prepared for christ, etc. 6. the stony heart of mere grace removed, in the same moment a new heart put in him, or the habit of sanctification put in him. 7. in the same moment the soul believeth in him that justifieth the ungodly. 8. in the same moment god for christ's sake, of mere grace, justifieth the believing sinner. is not here a new heart in order of nature before faith, and that faith before justification, tho' not in time. mr. c. p. 22. when i had affirmed, that in adam's law life was promised to sinless obedience, etc. and that salvation is now impossible by that law; but that god in the gospel promiseth blessings on lower terms, viz. unfeigned faith, etc. mr. c. answers, to talk of any obedience to that law besides sinless, in respect of that mr. c's 7th principle; all sincere graces and actions are sins, if they be not perfect. law in its preceptive part, is nonsense, for sinful obedience, which you are going to plead for, is disobedience. and p. 26. i roundly assert, that no law of god, with a sanction of life and death, upon performance or non-performance of obedience, doth admit of the least imperfection in the said obedience. he oft speaks in this manner; whence i think this is his principle: that god hath not promised any benefit for christ's sake upon any terms short of perfect obedience; and sincere faith, love, and holiness, because imperfect, are formally downright disobedience; or sin, which is the same. rep. 1. i grant sincere faith and holiness be imperfect, as to the preceptive part of adam's law. 2. i grant, that nothing imperfect can be a meritorious righteousness for which we are justified, etc. but yet i wonder, 1. that any man dare say that god hath promised no beneficial effects of christ's merits upon any terms the gospel promiseth benefits upon 〈◊〉 grace, though imperfect. short of perfection, tho' not for them as the meriting cause. joh. 13. 17. if ye know these things, happy are ye if ye do them. mat. 8. 13, 15. if ye forgive, etc. mar. 11. 25. if we confess our sins. 1 joh. 1. 9 he is just to forgive. rom. 10. 9 if confess with thy mouth, and believe with thy heart, thou shalt be saved. what's repentance unto life, & c? it seems the meaning of these words is, if thou confess, and art sinlesly perfect, god will forgive. or else, tho' i promise thus, yet i mean, that it's all as one, whether thou confess or not, believe or not, repent or not, it shall make no difference in thy interest in the promised forgiveness. 2. it's as strange, that the most sincere action or grace is disobedience or sin, because it is imperfect; iniquity sincere graces not sins, though imperfect. vid my book, cap. 19 cleaves to them, but are they therefore iniquity? is there no gospel mitigation, so as to admit sincere grace to be true grace, tho' it be not perfect grace? it seems the saints have weaker vices, but no graces; their duties are something less sins, but no obediential acts; their love is an abated hatred, but not truly love; they are mere dung, only they do not smell so strong. is not this to spit in the face of the most of the bible? it speaks oft of an inherent righteousness, true graces, real godliness, and good fruits; it praiseth saints for these; but, it seems, we persuade people only to disobedience, when we call them to believe; and they try themselves by their sins, when they try themselves by marks of sanctification, and there's no specific difference between the best and worst action they do; all is disobedience, and but disobedience. 3. and where's the strength of what is so roundly affirmed? viz. no law of god with a sanction admits of the least imperfection in the said obedience. then if the gospel, as including adam's precepts, commands perfection, it cannot forgive any imperfection; if it do not abate the rule every degree of duty is not always the condition of benefits. of duty, it cannot confer any degree of its promised mercy. but, sir, you confound the extent of the precept with that degree of obedience to it, which is made the condition of its promised benefit: may not a humane law command many things, and yet confine its sanction to one part, yea, and vary its threa●…s or promises by many different circumstances in the offenders, or obeyers? doth he indeed think that wherever god enjoins duties, he denounceth his threatening to all degrees of neglect of what he makes a duty; or that it ceaseth to be a duty at all, if the sanction reach not every degree of omission? mar. 16. 16. he that believeth and is baptised, shall be saved. is not it a duty here to be baptised? yes sure. but shall none be saved if they are not baptised, though they do believe? the sanction than falls not on all the precept, or none of the unbaptized can be saved. the unsoundness of this principle will appear to thee in most practical books thou readest, and the orthodox are positive in the contrary. what more common than the difference between legal and evangelical obedience? it's stated by sedgwick on the cou. p. 652. sedgwick. jacomb. rutherford. ames. mr. c. of justificat. dr. jacomb, rom. 8. p. 23. rutherford ant. p. 8. davenant on colos. p. 17. ames spends a chapter to prove against bellarmin, that our good works are not sins quoad essentiam. mr. c's father, p. 130. neither is that obedience which is required of believers, a strict and exact conformity to the law, as it doth in itself require and demand a legal obedience, but evangelical obedience, which stands in the desire, resolution, and endeavour to obey god's revealed will. and p. 222. saith, the imperfect good works that are done by the faithful, are accounted righteousness, or (as mr. calvin saith) are accounted for righteousness, they being dipped in the blood of christ, i. e. they are accounted righteous actions, and so the faithful shall be judged according to their good works, though not saved for them. dr. owen's, p. 72. god hath abolished the covenant of works, by substituting a dr. o. on heb. 6. new one in the room of it, because it could not expiate sin, nor could approve of such an obedience, as poor sanctified sinners were able to yield unto god; for it requires perfection, when the best they can attain to in this life, is only sincerity, etc. and in this covenant god hath provided for the acceptance of sincere tho' imperfect obedience, which the law had no respect to. mr. c. p. 23. christ our redeemer gives commands, and exerts a ki●…gly power in government of his church, and hath judgement committed to him, but these are not the gospel-conditions mr. c's 8th principle. of life unto sinners, propounded in the gospel, god doth not require obedience to the laws of christ in his church, as foederal conditions of eternal life. such obedience is part of the life promised, etc. repl. not to expose the passages before this, as if because the gospel in a large sense includes all the moral precepts, therefore taken in a strict sense, it makes all those precepts and perfect obedience to them the condition of its peculiar benefits; and as if christ's law did not bind a person morally impotent; and that men must be first pardoned before they are obliged to submit to christ; and that christ is king, and his laws bind under a gospel-sanction. there is no difference between such a taste of pardoning mercy, as assures us we shall have pardon on gospel-terms, and our actually having that pardon before those terms be yielded to. at this rate he reasons throughout his book, but i mind greater things than the discovery of his weakness; therefore to his principle i answer: he gives christ, as redeemer, a poor kingdom; it's a kingly power, but it's of a low sort. 1. it's extent is small, it's bounded within his church; it seems than he hath no authority over them that are without, no, not to command them to be church-members. i thought, tho' he be acknowledged king by his church, yet his laws bind much farther. i am sure he damns others for disobeying him. but, 2. by these words he is not such a king as can make laws in his luke 19 14, 27. very church; he exerts a kingly power in governing of his church: this is distinguished by mr. c. from giving commands. the sound of this passage is, he giveth commands as an officer acting not in a proper legislation. 3. allow what he prescribes to be his laws in any sense, yet there's no salvation depends upon obeying them: nothing he requires, yea, by his revealed gospel, are any conditions of life. he came to purchase salvation, but he hath no authority to enjoin the terms of it. whereas i read, 1 rom. 14. 9 that for this end he died, that he might be lord of the dead, and of the living: 2 heb. 5. 9 he is the author of eternal salvation to all them that obey him: 3 joh. 8. 51. if a man keep my sayings, he shall never see death: 4 joh. 14. 21. he that doth my commandments, and keepeth them, he loveth me; and he that loveth me shall be loved of my father: 5 joh. 5. 24, 25, 26, 27. the dead shall hear the voice of the son of god, and they that hear shall live. for as the father hath life in himself, so hath he given the son to have life in himself, and hath given him authority to execute judgement also, because he is the son of man. he that heareth my word, and believeth him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation. it seems too that church-censures bind nothing of eternal danger, even when rightly administered. dr. owen's, in his treatise of the sabbath, says near these words, that our worshipping christ in his ordinances on earth, is the condition of our being with him in heaven. 4. the reason for all this is strange, such obedience is part of the life promised; then he rendered the elect libertines, when he made such promises: he promised to make the elect obedient, therefore he cannot command them to be so. pursuant to his promise, he'll make them obedient, therefore the terms to be obeyed are no foederal conditions of other blessings promised on those terms; because he'll see they shall believe, therefore he must not thus enact, believe, and thou shalt be saved. 5. but is there no distinction admittable in the word life? it's sometimes put for grace in us, sometimes for glory consummated, sometimes it's put strictly for the saving privilege part of the covenant, as consequent to the terms of it, and that believing ye might have life. in this sense he saw i took it: and doth god in joh. 20. 31. every promise of life in this sense, promise obedience to the terms of it? 6. a few lines after these he determines, the judgement committed to christ; it's not legislation at all, nay, all of it is not gospel-iudgment (he might have said none mr. c. p. 24. of it, for with him the gospel is no law, and so no rule of judgement): nay, worst of all, his judgement is only to destroy, not to save; i. e. his reward as redeemer is to be executioner of adam's law, without conditional offers of pardon to any, that are not saved; for if there be no foederal sanction in the gospel, there can be no conditional offer to any that are not saved, nay, to none that are saved. now reader, see how christ as redeemer is honoured by mr. c. he shall be of use to excuse us from loyal subjection, while himself is dethroned, as to the rectoral way of the application of his merits. this very point of christ's regal authority as redeemer, hath been defended by our * icanes against hammond; vide charnock, vol. 2. p. 687. 2. thes. 1. 8. divines hitherto, and i am sure he'll take vengeance on them who obey not his gospel. i might instance others of his principles, which i suppose agree with dr. crisp, as in his description of faith, which he hints p. 36. and i have heard him more fully define it, by assurance of our pardon: in that place he makes faith of no use, but to claim possession, to which it seems we had as full a title before we believed. and p. 17. mr. c. after the manner of imputation, in foro justitiae, our sins shall never be laid on us, (viz. the elect, qua-elect.) which i will prove against you when you will. rep. let's understand the question, for it is too confused: what is this after the manner of imputation in foro, & c? do you mean, the elect shall mr. c's challenge accepted. never come to god's bar of judgement before they believe, and are forgiven? if so i grant it: but if you mean, that the past sentence of god binds not the sins of the elect upon them, while they are unbelievers▪ and that this act of his, by his word, is not an imputation in foro divinae justitiae. i freely accept your challenge, so that you will engage to avoid unruly passions. and it's well if those effects of electing love, which paul had applied to him in the womb, are not semen quoddam electionis, which calvin so condemns. calv. inst. lib. 3. cap. 24. sect. 10, 11. of the same sort is what mr. c. saith p. 34. of 2 cor. 5. 18. rep. 1, god is so reconciled, that no want of atonement shall prevent peace. 2. that upon this atonement god offers peace on the lowest terms. 3. that the elect shall in time be enabled to obey those terms, and be actually reconciled. 4. but the whole canon of the word, and unopposed in this place, assures me, that the elect are in a state of wrath till they believe; yea, were god actually reconciled to them, he could not suffer them to remain enemies in their minds by wicked works, and a total absence of his spirit. but i have not room for these and the like. mr. c. p. 10. after a certain zealous neonomian had taken his leave of us: and p. 22. you play the juggler more; he saith quoniam & christus mediator, etc. being that both christ the mediator, and faith in christ, are only means of the restauration of man to god, by holiness and love. therefore it must doubtlessly be said, that from the nature of the thing faith, holiness, and the love of god, are more necessary to salvation than either faith in christ, or the sacrifice of christ himself. there's a ●…one for you to pick. rep. these are mr. baxter's words, and had i been in his stead, i should not have given so much occasion to simple readers to startle; but being the only seeming difficulty mr. c. hath put me to, (except the exercise of patience) i'll see if the offence may be prevented. 1. mr. b. doth not here compare the causal influence mr. baxter explained. of christ's satisfaction with our holiness, nor the use of faith in christ with faith in god, as the way of life is now appointed by the divine will. if any man had asked mr. b. is holiness as meritorious of salvation as christ's satisfaction is? he would have answered, no; for christ's satisfaction is the sole meritorious cause of salvation, and holiness is none at all. if you had asked mr. b. is faith-love to god of that use, to receive christ for our justification, as faith in christ is? he would have answered, no; faith in christ is in itself most ap●… and by the lord appointed to this use to receive christ. both these he of●… affirms. 2. mr. b. here speaks only of the comparative necessity of these to salvation, with respect▪ to the nature of the thing itself; that is, as he explains himself, it cannot be a salvation without holiness at least habitual; it's a contradiction, as it would be to say salvation without salvation: it is not whether is more necessary now to my obtaining salvation; as if i should ask, whether is more necessary to the essence of man, his humanity, or christ's satisfaction? you would say, from the nature of the thing, a man's humanity is. 3. nay, had mr. b. spoken of the essential necessity of these to the obtaining salvation, yet mr. c. hath made him speak very orthodoxly; for p. 22. mr. c. saith, when once a transgressor is sentenced by the law, he falls into the hands of prerogative, and the prince may do with him what he pleaseth. god also might have put repentance into the conditions of the law of works at first, and said, if thou dost not eat, or repent of thy eating, thou shalt have thy reward. now if, as he saith, prerogative could save fallen man, if god pleased, and what way he pleased; nay, that it was not inconsistent with god's nature, to have made repentance a condition of reward to sinning man, in the first law, without the interposal of christ's satisfaction, than mr. b's words are plain; so that we can prove, that it is inconsistent with god's perfections▪ to save a man that finally hates him, and is utterly void of all holiness. and sure if, as mr. c. saith, christ's satisfaction was not absolutely necessary to salvation, faith in christ would have been less necessary. i am in duty bound to resent that treatment the memory of this great blessing of the nation meets with: what could be more slightly mentioned of any fellow, than he took his leave of us? or more falsely than he was a juggler; tho' i more so? were his enemies as free from crafty tricks, falsehood, and selfishness as he was, a public good would be more intended, and the power of religion receive a greater testimony. there be of them that say publicly mr. b. is in hell: i confess, i am not in all things of the same judgement with this great divine, nevertheless i must say, no man i ever knew expressed so much of god's image, as consisting in light, holiness, and love: many thousands bless god for his labours, which are so adapted to promote christ indeed, and not an empty▪ name of him; and i fear not to declare my assurance that his name will flourish when the antinomian e●…siasts shall fail to impose on the world by their calumnies, nonsense, and abusive pretexts of free grace. mr. c. p. 24. i never thought god gave a rule to fin by. p. 28. to determine rules of sin a rule of sin and misery is a proper expression. and misery, is to make the gospel to approve of sin and misery, and its great design is to send men to hell. take your way of expression in what sense you please, it's so unscholar-like, that a schoolboy should be whipped for it. rep. yet god hath given a ●…ule to abstain from sin by. doth not the precept determine the nature and measure of omissions, and the prohibition fix what are sins of commission? we say even rectum is norma sui & obliqui. i fear he knows not what a rule is, or he would see it's as applicable to sin as to duty, for it alike adjusteth what both are. but let turretin share in my correction for saying ●…ex justi & ●…njusti regula; the law is turret. inst. theol. par. 2. p. 2. a rule of what is just and unjust. alti●…gius shall have a ●…ash, regula recti & obliqui index, it's well if paul escape, i bade not known sin, but by the law, rom. 7. 7. i had not known altingius expl. catec. par. 2. p. 12. lust, except the law had said, thou shalt not covet. yea▪ and a rule of misery is not less proper▪ is not a rule, as to the d●…bitum poenae, an authoritative constitution of what's due to us in a way of punishment. doth not the rule determine what the kind, duration, and degrees of misery shall be, and on whom it shall fall? is not norma judicii, a rule of judgement, as well related to condemnation as absolution? i shall next vindicate myself from mr. c's charge▪ as if i did misrepresent dr. crisp. mr. c. p. 14; 15. a vindication from the charge of abusing dr. crisp. he means, sin can do no hurt. mr. c. you say, dr. c. affirms sin can do no hurt. a. he saith it very oft, and frequently attempts to prove it. c. you would have men understand that no person in christ need fear to commit sin. a▪ that's upon the account of any harm they shall receive by it, and that will go a great way with m●…st. c. but you would have them think that we mean sin in its abstract nature is good. a. i never designed that in any words cited cut of him, for he saith sin is a lion; there's its nature, etc. he saith its a dead lion, there's its calmness, and because it's dead▪ it's not to be feared; it had a terror and fearfulness, that's its nature; christ hath drank it all up, there's its h●…rmlesness: it's a traitor▪ that's its nature; it's bound hand and foot, there's its inability to ha●…m▪ c. dr. crisp renders sin innocent, that's your expression p. 198. a. my expression is, he had said much to render sin innocent to the elect; that's not to make it good, 〈◊〉 than it would be so to all as well as the elect, but he hath said too much to ma●…e it harmless to the elect. c. he declares plainly, the hurt he means is only the penal effects of sin. a he saith not so, and yet those are the most of the hurt that comes for sin. c. he declares he speaks this not to encourage to sin. a. but doth it not more strongly encourage to sin, to assure men there will come no hurt by sin. c. he speaks of the sins of believers, a. he might say it of all the elect, for their sins are no more theirs any time, than when they are believers: it seems than you grant, that believers sins can do them no hurt. c. he speaks not of sins to be committed, these aught to be looked on as most odious. a. but not dangerous: but they are not sins before committed, and pray whose sins hurt them before they are committed? c. no real hurt. a. imaginary hurt▪ is innocent, if the fancy be sound. c. he speaks it only upon the account of some poor distressed consciences, whose sins▪ lay much upon them. a. and must these be eased with lying pillows? but pray consult his own words. he begins, p. 509. well, what are the things we should not be afraid of? perhaps i shall pitch upon things people are much afraid of. i must tell you, the people of god, they need not be afraid of their sins; i do not say we must not be afraid to sin, but they need not be afraid of their sins; there is no sin they commit can possibly do them any hurt; therefore as they cannot hurt them, so there is no cause of fear in their sins they have committed. obj. some will say this is strange, all the evils in the world that come, they grow from the sinfulness of men; if a man may be afraid of any thing, he should be afraid of sin. i answer, it's true, sin naturally is a root bringing all manner of evil fruit, but yet i say, whatever sin in its own nature ' brings forth, yet the sins of god's people they that have god for their own god, (which with him the vilest, if elect, have) their sins can do them no hurt at all, and in that regard there is no cause of fear from any of their sins that ever they have committed. beloved, i conceive this may seem harsh to some spirits, especially to such as misconceive the drift at which i aim, which is not to encourage any one unto sin, but to ease the consciences of the distressed. i desire you to resolve with yourselves this one thing, and i beseech you kick not against the truth, there is not one sin nor all the sins together of any one believer, that can possibly do that believer any hurt, real hurt i mean, and therefore he ought not to be afraid of them; i will make it appear: and goes on for five pages to prove it. now reader, can this one line make all the rest safe? there is no more said by him, it's in a doctrinal way stated, and not in a use to wounded consciences. (he oft says it elsewhere without so much as this) and he saith this to avoid the odium, not to guide his discourse; and it's no other, than if a man were proving a quarter of an hour ●…o a whole company very apt to drink poisoned wine; if this poison be drank, it will do no harm to them that drink it; but yet should once say, i prove this all this while, but it's for the sake of them that have drank the poison, but not to encourage you to drink the poison; yet be you all assured, that when it's drank, it cannot harm you more than them. c. it's to evince the damning nature of sin is taken away. a. but that's a gross error, though pardon will prevent its effects. yet hear d. c's own words p. 511. no you will say, no condemnation in hell, but yet, as there is remainders of sin in gods own people, so there will some evil or other fall upon the commission of sin: mark, etc. and in many words answers it, now sin is condemned to the believer, it can do no hurt at all to him, for what hurt can that do, which is carried into the land of forgetfulness? (and this he oft affirms was when christ died. reader, i'll tell thee on what principles dr. crisp affirms that sin can do no hurt. take his words: 1. god hath no more to lay to the charge of such a person (elect, though a murderer) than he hath to lay to the charge of a saint in glory, p. 364. and the lord hath not one sin to charge on an elect person, from the first moment of conception to the last moment of life. 2. a man doth sin against god; god reckons not his sin to be his, he reckons it to be christ's, therefore he cannot reckon it his; see p. 270. except god will be offended where there is no cause to be offended; he will not be offended with a believer, because he doth not find the sin of the believer to be the believer's own sin, but he finds it to be the sin of christ, p. 15. now reader, judge how vain mr. c's excuses be, and how injurious his censures. what mr. c. p. 15. pleads for dr. crisps saying, that graces and holiness cannot do us the least dr. c. intends no graces or works can do us any good. good, is as vain and false, viz. that he is only against setting them in the place of christ, for he reckons they are put in christ's place, though they be affirmed but as means or conditions antecedently necessary by divine appointment to obtain any blessings for the sake of christ's merits. his principles are, 1. that faith is not so much as the instrument by which we are united to christ, or justified, p. 616. 2. that christ brings us all good things when we are ungodly, and so it's in vain to do any thing to obtain these▪ p. 41, 42. yea, that we had a full title before we are born. 3. he saith, p. 45, 46. it's a received conceit among many, that our obedience is the way to heaven, and though it be not, say they, the cause of reigning, yet it is via ad regnum, the way to the kingdom: but all this sanctification is not a jot the way of that justified person unto heaven. 4. salvation is not the end of any good work we do. 5. no believer should have the least thought in his heart of promoting or advancing himself, or any end of his own by doing what he doth. consider these, with many such, and what good can faith or holiness do us? see my book, c. 13, 14. read the preface to mr. flavel's blow at the root, which mr. mather subscribed: reader, distinguish 1. between the righteousness for which we are justified, and the way of applying it to us. 2. between a law by which christ's merits are applied, and that obedience whereto is our meriting righteousness; 3. between the precepts included in the gospel, taken in a large sense, and what are its proper conditions; 4. free grace, as it gives faith and pardon, and as it's a liberty to condemn the believer, and justify the unbeliever; 5. between the promises of grace, and promises to grace; 6. the gospel as a means to quicken us, and as a charter of benefits; and thou wilt answer mr. c's arguments. finis. the he-goats horn broken. or, innocency elevated against insolency & impudent falsehood. in answer to two books against the people of god called quakers. the one entitled, a fuller discovery, which is stuffed with such a multitude of lies, slanders, and perverting the truth, as the like hath not been extant: the authors of which are john horn, thomas moor senior, and thomas moor junior. and the other book is falsely called truth's triumph by john horn. which are answered for the information of the people, and the clearing of the servants of god, and the way of truth to the simple hearted from the lies, delusions and fallacies that have proceeded from the spirit of antichrist and blasphemy, in these ●●n aforesaid, who profess themselves ministers of christ, but are proved ministers of satan and unrighteousness. by a witness of christ and his work against all the works of darkness. g. w. in vain have the wicked exalted their horn against the righteous. london, printed for robert wilson, at the sign of the blackhead eagle and windmill, in martin's near aldersgate, 1660. a preface. oh! how great hath the wrath of the dragon that old serpent, who is the father of lies been against the seed which god hath raised up and endued with his power from on high, and yet this seed hath dominion over all the strength and wrath of the wicked one, to lift up a standard against him even when he appears and breaks forth as a flood against the lord and his anointed; against whom no iniquity nor enmity can prevail or prosper, and this hath the lord god of hosts made us witnesses of to his eternal praise, that it is no marvel to us that the generation of vipers and serpents, (who are warring for the kingdom of darkness) do put forth their stings, and cast out their venom against us, since that in the power of god we are brought to tread upon them and their deceits: and if the readers hereof have a single eye to the lord in his light in them, they'll see what a body of wickedness and enmity hath appeared in these our opposers, viz. in john horn, thomas moor the elder, and the younger who have pleaded and much contended for sin, which is the devil's work and for their wearing cuffs, and ribbons, and for tithes which the ministers of the new testament pleaded not for, nor ever owned such vanities as cuffs and ribbons, &c. so that all sober minded people who love the light of the lord in them and his truth, may soon see what spirit these are of, that plead for and uphold such deceits as these men aforesaid have done. and let the witness of god in all consciences be minded by which the spirits may be tried and discovered, whether they be of god or no; and this light of christ in your consciences being minded, and you (who have a desire to know the lord) waiting in the light, it will bring your minds into stability to feel god's power and teachings, where the confusion cannot prevail over you, for your confusion and darkness is among the teachers and people, who are as the waters that are unstable where the whorish spirit rules: and woe is to such who are the inhabitants of the earth, and of the sea, unto whom the devil is come down and hath great wrath because he knoweth that he hath but a short time, rev. 12. 12. a brief answer to the book called, a fuller discovery &c. evil men and seducers wax worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived, and the wise men are turned backward, and the diviners made mad, 2 tim. 3. 13. isai. 44. 25. who have striven to overthrow the truth as these men, viz. john horn, thomas moor senior, and his son thomas moor have done, that their impudence, folly, and falsehood more appears than ever, who have evidently showed themselves to be such as walk with slanders, and have made lies their refuge, who are such as the prophet called brass, and iron, who are all corrupters, jer. 6. 28. which i shall here briefly show, both for the clearing of the truth, and us the witnesses of it, and for the satisfying of the simple that they may not be corrupted with the lies, and corrupt doctrines of these the truth's enemies, who whilst they profess liberty and redemption to others, and pretend a denial of the priests of the nation, they themselves are children of corruption in bondage to the devil (that old liar) his works which many both priests and professors have largely appeared in against god's truth and work in his people: for notwithstanding this j. horn and thomas moor, have acknowledged themselves to be neglecters of christ, and abusers of his truth, yet still they proceed in the same iniquity; and notwithstanding john horn in page 55. of this their fuller discovery so called, (where he had laid down a falsehood in his other book) now confesseth himself subject to forgetfulness and over sights, and so did in his forgetfulness write, &c. and in page 66. they acknowledge that they have their share too much in the pollutions, viz. of the nation in general, and in pag. 63. whereas john horn had palpably belied me about a passage he had learned out of a priests queries in cambridge, he now confesseth himself faulty and craves forgiveness, he having been too rash in taking that upon trust (which he falsely charged me with) as they acknowledge; and yet how often have these men accounted us called quakers false prophets, deceivers, liars, accursed; as also they have accounted us vipers and scorpions, cockatrices, not to be charmed, and like the locusts out of the bottomless pit whose sting is in their tails, which revilings the reader may judge what spirit they came from, since they have craved forgiveness of us for belying us: * though we own that which brings them to confess their lying, and faults and can forgive, but we cannot own their dissembling and feiguedness in it. and yet how often have they denied that they have belied us in their books may be seen; but what hypocrites are they to profess themselves christ's ministers, and be found in lying as they are, and what is their confession worth when they continue in their evil, & as an addition to their many former lies, forgeries, and their former rashness and abuses against the truth they have falsely charged us with, and laid down these things following against us called quakers, which we deny and return back upon jóhn horn, and both the tho, moor's aforesaid, who are the inventors of these lies, slanders, and absurdities, which were never owned by us. their lies and slanders in their epistle are these, viz. 1. they charge us with maintaining, that that body of flesh in which christ suffered and bare our sins, and which rose again is not a body. 2. that the blood of jesus christ, is not of the foundation of our faith, and that our faith is not faith in christ's blood. 3. that the body of his flesh in which he suffered, we deny to remain. 4. that the lower parts of the earth into which christ descended, and the heavens into which he again ascended, are no local places, but some conditions or conceits in men. 5. that neither the souls nor bodies of the wicked shall rise again to judgement. this with several other lies j. horn and thomas moor, charge us (called quakers) with maintaining or asserting insome queries i sent to them; when as i only queried them, to try their belief in these things without asserting them; so what unreasonable men these are is easy to see, who distinguish not between questions and assertions, who proceed in their lies thus, 6. that we agree with himneus and philetus that said the resurrection is already past. 7. that christ came not to redeem men from out of the natural bodily death. 8. that such faith as that of the elect mentioned, rom. 8. 33, 34, 35. is by our doctrines to be rooted up. 9 that by our doctrine, christ is not the author and procurer of all good to men, both natural and spiritual. 10. that we deny justification by a righteousness imputed to us. 11. that to endeavour to detect and make manifest the delusions of any, & to preserve people from them, is a being impatient under, and raging against god's judgements, which they falsely charge us (called quakers) with maintaining: and with maintaining. 12. that these teachers whose hearers do slight and neglect the truth preached by them, and remain slothful, formal covetous, are false prophets; whenas the words were not so spoken by us, but we spoke rather in particular against them, and such as being false prophets and hypocrites, who being neglecters of christ, and abusers of the truth themselves, as they have confessed they have not profited the people. again these abusers of the truth, viz. 13. j. horn, and t. moor, charge us falsely, with plainly denying judgement after the natural death and with denying and jeering at christ that holy and innocent man that was born of the virgin mary, as having the form and body of a man. 14. that we set up another thing in his stead, viz. an imaginary seed within every man. 15. that we plead for a christ, without anybody of man distinct from others, or out of them, but a certain seed with an imaginary flesh and blood, dying and bearing sin in every man, having no other body but what is in some men dying, yea in every man in its time. 16. that our christ hath been always dying and rising in men, from the beginning of the world, and so will be to the end. 17. that we make nothing of the coming again of christ, but scoffs at him that died 1600 years ago. 18. that we account christ's death and resurrection but a shadow. 19 that the seed (which we speak of in men) is but a conceited spirit that is within them, with a conceited flesh and blood in them too; of which they say, such an idol was scarce ever in any generation of men set up before. wherein j. horn, and these two moors have both lied shamefully, and blasphemed; for the seed which we spoke of, is christ, whom the apostles preached which the promise was to, in them; and this is not an idol as they have blasphemed, nor his flesh and blood a conceited and an imagined thing, but our meat and drink, without the eating and drinking of which a man hath no life in him. 20. again j. h. and t. m. falsely accuse us, with maintaining that our christ in all the reality of his body with his flesh and blood is wholly within us, sensibly bearing our sins, though not willingly. 21. that the coming of christ to raise the dead bodies of all that sleep in jesus, &c. and the resurrection of the dead, and judgement afterdeath, is by us altogether denied. 22. that whatsoever is said of the true christ or of his church in the scripture, we apply to a false christ and to ourselves. 23. that we come in our own name and authority boasting of ourselves, and witnessing to and of ourselves, and obtruding things upon men, not by and in the light and evidence of the spirit. 24. that we say, our sayings are better than the sayings of the holy spirit in the scriptures. 25. that george fox said in bury at goal of one disbrough brother-in-law to joseph hagger being a tradesman in london, that he was priest and hireling and took tithes; which with the rest is an odious lie and slander, and denied by george fox, as also are these, viz. 26. that we count ourselves lords, and disdain to have any over us, and revile, and likely would destroy if in our power at our pleasure. 27. and that our principle leads to it. 28. that i wilfully played the jesuit or sophister to delude the ignorant with seeming like terms. 29. that christopher wade clearly proved a whole dozen of notorious lies against george fox. 30. and that in my answer i give the go-by most egregiously, and in none of them reproves c. wade. which also are filthy lies against both g. f. and me, as may be seen in my book entitled truth defending the quakers; so that these things here mentioned against us called quakers, which john horn and t. moor have accused us with, which are inserted in their epistle, i return back upon them as wicked lies and slanders proceeding from the envious spirit of the wicked one in them, and yet they are but a few in comparison of many more which they have uttered against us which we are clear of and more of their lies and slanders in their book are as followeth, viz. 31. that some of us say we are christ. 32. that we cast mists and clouds in our expressions. 33. that we turn scripture sayings into fables, perverting the whole scripture to a corrupt sense. 34. that by dead in christ, we mean but the spiritually dead in some, some fancied death, sleeping in him, & the trumpet, and shout, and resurrection all allegorical. 35. 36. that we are deniers of the resurrection preached by the apostles. and that all men may see us to be so. 37. that we count the preaching of the cross foolishness, and turn it into a fable or allegory. 38. that we confess not christ come in the flesh, but make him a figure of a spiritual wickedness, or mysterious deceit that works in them that perish. 39 40. that we turn the words of truth into a lie. not only neglecting, but wholly trampling the true christ under our feet. 41. that we deny the god above. in these slanders also with many others against us, have they showed themselves to be frequent and common liars, all which we return back upon them as things never owned by us; which if they further assay to make them good, we shall know further how to make our defence, that our innocency may be clear from them, as we are clear in the sight of god: but in these they have but done by our words, as they use to do by the scriptures of truth, perverted them, and raised lies from them, which is the manner of their preaching. and now to some of j. horns and t. moor's doctrines in their epistle, wherein they have belied and grossly perverted the truth, with their false constructions and inferences, as to our saying, that the seed of god which is christ, wherever he is known in such a low measure as a seed that suffers, and is burdened in man by corruption, there he desires to be free from the burden of sin, and always to do his father's will, and this seed the power reaches to where it is begotten, and in the power it arises in them that believe in the light for their redemption, to which j. h. and t. m. scornfully say of this seed, christ which we speak of, that he hath not ceased from sin in them, nor can do in all things his father's will, but needs a power to reach to him where he is begotten: and that we represent him as one not able to do his father's will in some men. to which i reply, that christ cannot in all things do his father's will, is their own words and not ours, neither does it follow from what we said, for his desiring to do his father's will, in that suffering state does no more argue that he is unable to do it, than when he prayed to the father, not my will but thine be done who could do nothing without the father; as also the heir as long as he is a child differeth nothing from a servant, though he be lord of all, gal. 4. 1. and christ came into the world to do his father's will, which is the sanctification of them that believe, which he desired to do before it was done, and as for the power reaching the seed which so much these men have scoffed at, and counted what we said of it confused stuff, in page 63. they have showed themselves ignorant of the seed of god, which the promise is to, and that they never knew the work of that power which reaches that seed, as also they are ignorant of the scriptures, for it is written, worthy is the lamb that was slain to receive power & riches, wisdom and strength, and honour, and glory, and blessing, revel. 5. 12. so that they might as well have scoffed at the angels of god, who spoke these words, as at us; and have said that the power that reaches to the seed is christ, and then christ is worthy to receive christ, as also they have done in like manner in their scorn, in page 63. wherein they have showed their gross ignorance of the several manifestations of christ, the seed in his people, who are of the seed of abraham, which christ took upon him to redeem his own, and to bring to his own power and promise, which he receives of the father. and our saying that this seed which is christ where he suffers, and is burdened in man by corruption, there he desires to be free from the burden of sin, does not argue as falsely as these men infer, that it cannot be said of the seed of god that in it is no sin, for christ hath suffered by men's sins and been pressed with them and born them, amos 2. 13. ezek. 6. 9 and yet in him is no sin; and if these men were not past feeling, they might feel how the spirit of the just in them, they have often grieved, burdened and afflicted by their own sins, and yet in that spirit there is no sin, but in them who resist it. j. horn and thomas moor, say their christ by that his death once suffered, and in his resurrection in that his body, &c. hath overcome death and the devil, slain the enmity, and taken out of the way all that was contrary to them, redeemed them from the curse of the law. i answer, herein have they stolen the saints words, which they are out of the like of, for if the enmity were taken out of the way, sin would not be their natural heritage as they have pleaded for it, and they would not have uttered so many lies and falsehoods as they have done, for one of which, j. horn hath craved forgiveness; and if all that's contrary to them be taken out of their way, than its evident that sin and the nations pollutions are not contrary to them, for they have confessed themselves too much to have a share in them, and that they are abusers of the truth. and to that, 1 john 4. 17. as he is so are we in this world, j. h. and t. m. give their meaning, and say, as christ is unknown, despised, hated, persecuted in his doctrine, and judged by any of the world so are we. answ. in this have they apparently lied, for christ was persecuted to death of the world, but so are not j. horn not t. moor, neither are they unknown of the world as christ was, for christ was never known to preach in a steeplehouse by an hourglass for tithes, or so much in the year in leiw of them, like the parish priests and deceivers, who are out of the steps of the true ministers, who walked after christ's example, & not after the hireling priest's example, who preach for hire, and gifts, and reward as these men do: and rather than j. horn will freely suffer by the world as christ did, take heed that he fall not to the common-prayer-book. and to our calling j. horn a priest, he says, if we mean he is a priest of the order of aaron, a levitical priest, we say evidently false. answ. if he be not a priest of the order of aaron, than he plainly appears to be a false priest, seeing that in page 70. he hath pleaded for his taking tithes, as neither repugnant to god's law nor man's; as also his practices therein he instances, that the priests had their several suburbs and quarters, when as they that had these were of the levitical priesthood, numb. 35. which priesthood j. horn hath plainly denied himself to be one of, and yet pleads for tithes which pertained to that priesthood which christ ended, and disannulled the commandment which gave the tithes, heb. 7. so what hypocrisy is this j. h. in, who claims a right to tithes as both being according to the law of god and man, and yet upon that account denies to be called priest, when as the law of god calls them priests that took tithes, and does not the law of man the like? and does not the book of commonprayer call them priests? so that upon this account may j. horn be called a false priest, he claiming a right to tithes as by the law of god, when as the service of the tabernacle (for which they were given to the priests of levy) he is out of numb. 18. as also he is guilty of the false priests practices, who preached for hire and divined for money mica 3. 11. j. h. and t. moor the elder and the younger, say, that the false apostles (it seems by what the apostles writes of them 2 cor. 11. 12.) they use to boast of their free preaching, and in page 71. they say, that the false apostles were never the better for their paeaching freely but the worse. answ. herein have they plainly perverted that of 2 cor. 11. 12. for there is no speech of the false apostles preaching freely; see the malice and envy of these accusers, how they envy the practice of the true apostles and ministers, which was to preach freely and not for filthy lucre, (mat. 10. 1 pet. 5.) which they have not yet proved the false apostles did, as they have affirmed, for they ran into covetousness, and were deceitful workers, having the form of godliness, but denying the power, 2 tim. 3. and in their affirming that the false apostles preached freely, here they have set the false apostles above themselves; for neither j. h. nor thomas moor senior have preaching freely to boast of, whilst they are settled in parishes, and taking tithes and gifts as the other priests do, whom they have called greedy dumb dogs, strong to appetite, &c. in their pamphlet called a brief discovery, &c. t. moor's principle page 2. that sin is in the believer as a natural heritage from adam while he is in this mortal body; and to prove it, he brings, rom. 7. 17, 20. for i know that in me that is, in my flesh dwelleth no good thing; and that it was not he that did sin, but sin in him, and saith there's his natural heritage. to which i answer, herein hath he wrested the scripture, for paul did not say that sin was in him as a natural heritage from adam while he was in the mortal body, neither did he own it as his natural heritage, for while it was in his flesh it was his burden, (after that he was turned to the spirit) so he waited till it was done away, that he could witness the creature delivered from sin and become new in christ jesus, who redeems out of the first adam's state and nature. and where we laid down this as t. moor's principle, that their nature is restored in christ, and that their nature is a filthy nature, and christ took upon him their nature, this they say is falsely expressed and perverted, and yet j. h. and t. m. a little after say thus, viz. that our nature, kind or being, as in us, not in christ, is corrupt and filthy in itself, yet christ took upon him our nature, not as it is filthy in us by sin in it, &c. and they say that we might as well have taxed the apostle of confusion for saying men by nature do the things contained in the law, rom. 2. 14. and yet by nature are children of wrath, ephes. 2. 3. to which i say, we may justly tax these men with confusion indeed, but not the apostle; for here they cannot discern between the sinful nature and the pure nature; for the nature of christ is pure, so that it's not their nature, for their nature is filthy, and therefore it is not in christ, and their bringing that of rom. 2. 14. and ephes. 2. 3. together to prove their confusion, showeth, that they cannot discern between that nature, by which men do the things contained in the law, and that nature by which men break the law, and are children of wrath, but make as if it were all one: but be sure they are out of that nature by which some did the things contained in the law since their nature is filthy, and by it they cannot do these things contained in the law but plead against that state, and for sin to continue in them as their natural heritage while in the mortal body. again j. h. and t. m. say, that the apostle saith not, that christ in them is the mystery, but the riches of this mystery is christ in men * which is as much as to say, not christ in them, but christ in men; and that his riches is not the possession; what folly is this? the hope of glory not the possession of glory, which is not to be enjoyed till his glorious appearing, when these mediums now in use will cease. answ. so herein would these deceivers put christ the possession of glory a far off, as a thing not to be enjoyed by the saints till after their decease, till which time also we know they put christ's glorious appearing afar off: but then how was christ all and in all his believers, and how were they changed from glory to glory, and had the heavenly treasure in earthen vessels, 2 cor. 4. 7. and 3. 18. if they did not possess his glory, when the riches of the glory of this mystery was christ in the saints ' the hope of glory? what was not these riches the possession in them too? how grossly do these men wrong the saints and their words in counting them not possessors of the glory before their decease, when as the saints even when they were in the pure hope, then rejoice they with joy unspeakable and full of glory, 1 pet. 1. 8. and again after these men aforesaid have so wronged the saints in counting them not possessors of the glory while here, they go about to prove their corrupt principle, viz. that sin is a natural heritage in believers so long as they are here; so that by these men's account, the saints had not christ in them as their possession, but sin as their possession, or natural heritage while they lived, which nowhere the scripture saith; how sadly have they herein wronged the saints, and blasphemed against the tabernacle of god, which is with his people in whom he dwells. j. h. and t. m. tell of an instrumental and outward object, or a medium of faith which they say, is the holy scriptures, and then they say the last and most inmost and absolute object is god in christ, 1 tim. 4. 10. rom. 4. 24. and so they say the object of faith is one. i answer, if the scriptures be the outward object or medium of faith, and god in christ be the most inmost and absolute object of faith, then how is the object of faith one? what is the scriptures without and god one? or are the scriptures god? here's confusion indeed, and where does the scripture say it is the outward object and medium of faith? here these men are come under that confusion they have charged us with (as according to their own account) for in page 59 they charge us with counfounding the author with the medium, which they call a piece of confusion, when in page 6. they confess that jesus christ is both the object of faith, and living and enlivening medium by which any comes to god and believe in god, heb. 7. 25▪ 1 pet. 1. 21. so that in page 8. they say true in saying that we did wisely to say that their darkness and confusion may easily be seen, for so it may, who after in their false inference are telling of some being guilty of the imperfection of wit-lesness, because they have in them their guts that be witless, and thus their lightness and folly appears. j. h. and t. m. accuse us that the true christ we say p. 10. we desire not the knowledge of; in which they have shamefully belied us, for our words are these, that you look for a christ like yourselves, but that he hath no blood in his body, as you imagine whom we desire not the knowledge of, for such a christ they look for, as they cannot prove the true christ to be, in their affirming him to have a bod▪ of flesh and bones in the heavens without blood in it, as many have heard them publicly affirm, which now they would deceitfully deny that they so affirmed and say. p. 26. that they determined not that his body is a body of flesh and bones, in heaven without blood, and so they have preached and published that which they determined not, but were doubtful of; what deceit and confusion is here? and how do they leave men in uncertainties; j. h. and t. m. p. 11. say; that a man may be a sinner by having sin in him, and yet not sin, and to prove it bring rom. 7. 20. paul did not the evil, &c. to which i say, that their words are as much as if they had said, that a sinner sins not; what folly is this? which that of rom. 7. 20. proves not, for though there was that in paul which was of god that sinned not, yet when he did the evil which he would not, than he sinned in doing it. again these diviners who are thus confounded say, he that doth righteousness is righteous, as god is righteous, yea as christ is righteous, not because there is no sin in him, but because christ is made to him of god his righteousness, and in him he is righteous, as christ is righteous. answ. what then, hath christ sin in him if a man be righteous as christ is righteous when he hath sin in him? this their assertion would charge both christ and them that are in him, to have sin in them, which is blasphemy against ghrist; for in him is no sin, and he is made manifest to destroy sin. and to our question, which was, what one sin or sins can they lay to paul or james or john's charge, or to any of them, that they were not perfectly freed from before their decease; let them prove some sin which was not destroyed in any of those, before their decease, or for ever be silent from pleading for sin, or accusing the righteous as they have done; as also we asked them what sin can they prove that nathaniel had in him, when he had no guile in him? to which j. horn, and t. moor reply page 13. that it is enough that we believe paul, james and john that they had sin, and did in many things offend, though we cannot name their particular offences, as it is to believe multitudes to have died, though we know not of what particular diseases, &c. and in page 20. they tell us we may as well say, seeing the scripture witnesses that the children of korah died, not in the judgement that befell korah and his company, what disease they died of, and if they cannot prove that they died of some disease, than they are confuted if they believe and hold that they died, they say. answ. here any impartial reader may see how these men are confounded, who have accused the saints to have sin in them, and to offend in many things while they lived upon earth, and now cannot prove any one sin, that they were not perfectly freed from before their decease, or which was not destroyed in them before their decease, so that here all may see how ignorantly they have accused the saints, and how far short of proving their assertion they are, for any of the saints confessing any of their present states or failings, does not at all prove that they were offenders, or had sin in them, so long as they lived, as these said accusers would have it: and as to their saying, that multitudes have died though they know not of what particular diseases, and if they cannot prove that they died of some disease, than they are confuted if they believe that they died; to that i say, thus, their comparison will not hold but is foolish, neither will it follow from what we propounded, for it is evident that multitudes have died, as it is appointed for men once to die: but they have not so proved that all the saints were sinners, or had sin in them, so long as they lived according to their assertion. and to their saying that david implies sins in them though forgiven and covered in whose spirit is no guile, psa. 32. 1, 2. here they have added their own words unto david's, for he spoke of such unto whom the lord imputeth not iniquity, whose sin is covered and in whose spirit is no guile, nor can any say that their sin is thus covered when they sin, or that it shall not be imputed to them while they are guilty of it, for does not the light of christ discover in man his sin and reprove him for it, when he is guilty of it? they that know it can tell though it's hid from these said accusers. again i. h. and t. m. say david saith no man living is so free from sin as to be justified, if god enter into judgement with them, and to prove it bring, psa. 143. 2. answ. this is a lie against david, for these are not his words, he said not that no man living is so free from sin as to be justified, &c. for when the enemy had persecuted david's soul, and had smitten his life down to the ground, he said enter not into judgement with thy servant o lord, for in thy sight shall no man living be justified: which relates to that state wherein the enemy hath power, that the life is smitten down to the ground, and man cannot be justified, but thorough the death to that which judgement is to: so this scripture they have brought proves no more that the saints are not freed from sin in this life, than it does that they are not justified in god's sight, while in this life, when as the saints were justified from that which the judgements of god was to, and such could say its not i that live but christ in me. to our saying touching christ's body that the body is one, and hath many members, 1 cor. 12 12. i. h. and t. m. answer that's said both of a personal and mystical body or society in different senses, and then they say true; also that the body of christ either personal or mystical is not carnal but spiritual. rep. here they darken the minds of the simple by words which they have no scripture for, for the scripture nowhere speaks of christ having a personal body, and a mystical body, and yet both spiritual. for if he hath two spiritual bodies, wherefore do they say the one is personal, and the other mystical, as if then both were not mystical; and whence came that distinction in these words from the papists? what is not that which is spiritual mystical? (according to their own words) but paul saith as the body is one and hath many members, so also is christ, and now are they many members yet but one body, 1 cor. 12. 12, 20. and there is one body and one spirit, ephes. 4. 4. but i. horn, in a paper to me saith, that jesus hath a human body and soul * that which is human is earthly, as humanus & homo are of hhmus the ground from whence man was taken; so that a human soul is an earthly soul, what then hath christ both an earthly soul and a divine soul in him? (& where does the scripture say that christ's soul is human? for his soul is divine and immortal) & men's natural or earthly bodies are human, and the apostle distinguisheth between them and the spiritual bodies, 1 cor. 15. 40, 44. so that christ hath a glorious spiritual body in heaven which few can discern, distinct from men's teresttial or natural bodies, which are human, now if christ hath a natural or human body, & a spiritual body, & his church too, which is his body, which they call his mystical body, may they not as well say he hath three bodies? and then why not as well four or five bodies? but their ignorance about the natural and the spiritual bodies is so plainly discovered in our book entitled a brief discovery of the dangerous principles, &c. in which the truth is so clearly over them that i need say little as to that particular now. to that 1 thes. 4. 15. where its said, we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the lord, &c. john horn and t. m. say, we that live and remain, means but those of us that shall be found living, that is, of the company of believers, with whom they numbered themselves because then living, and possibly not knowing but they might have lived to his coming, but it no more implies that the believers of that age should live and remain till the coming of christ, than they who lived in david's age, lived in moses age many hundred years before him, &c. i answer, herein these perverters would accuse paul with speaking both ignorantly and falsely, to speak ignorantly, as if he knew not whether they should live and remain till the coming of the lord, (who then were alive) and to speak falsely, in their denying that the believers of that age should live and remain till the coming of christ: whenas paul expressly said, we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the lord, shall not prevent them that are asleep; so that they knew the several appearances and operations of christ till they all beheld his glory with open face as in a glass, and were made to sit with him in heavenly places. j. h. and t. m. the apostles exhort to set our affections upon things above, where christ is also at the right hand of god, not upon things within yourselves, but upon things above. col. 3. 2. 3. i answer, if the saints were not to set their affections on things within themselves, than not upon christ in them, for the riches of the glory of this mystery, was christ in them the hope of glory, col. 1. 27. so see the darkness of these men, who would as by their doctrine divide christ, who is both in the saints and at god's right hand, not divided, nor god's right hand divided from them who are saved by it, and how should they set their affections on things above, when they do not affect christ nor his spirit in them? page 42. j. h. and t. m. the apostles faith was not grounded in christ's appearing in them, page 42. answ. which is contrary to the apostles doctrine, for paul preached to the saints that their faith might stand in the power of god, and this power wrought mightily in them; and paul said, examine yourselves whether you be in the faith, prove your own selves, know you not your own selves how that jesus christ is in you except ye be reprobates. j. h. and t. m. in page 31. accuse us with being jugglers, and jesuits, that are full of lies and confusion. but this i return back upon them as a lie and a slander invented in their malice, for do they know us to be jesuits? why do they not discover us to be such then? after that j. h. and t. m. have denied that they that were led by the spirit of god, did witness the creature brought into the glorious liberty of the sons of god before their decease, (wherein they have discovered much ignorance of the state of them who were led by the spirit of god, who remained, not all their life time without their liberty) they say it is god that hath ordered the redemption there spoken of (viz. rom. 8. 23.) to be after death, &c. and that it was their part (viz. the apostles) and so is ours to groan after it, and wait for it, till the time of christ's descending from heaven to change our vile body, &c. to which i say, and this descending of christ from heaven according to these men's words, is not till after men's decease, when they say the bodies shall be raised; and then if it be the saints part that are deceased, and the part of all believers to groan after, and wait for the redemption of the body, (as if the saints body were not changed, nor redeemed from the bondage of corruption before their decease, as these men affirm) where are the saints deceased now groaning for redemption? are they with the father in heaven groaning for it? or are they groaning in some purgatory between heaven and hell? oh! what sottishness are these men in? for in the father is rest from burdens and bondage, which caused the groaning, and the saints according to their expectations and hope, knew the working of the power of god, according to which they witnessed, a changing of the body of their lowness (as the word renders it, {non-roman} {non-roman} {non-roman} {non-roman} {non-roman},) and a fashiong of it into the likeness of christ's glorious body, which power these men being ignorant of, they put that redemption and the glorious liberty of the sons of god a far of, till after the decease they know not how long, but their ignorance about that, hath been largely manifest. again to vindicate thomas moors instancing (for christ's being in heaven with a body of flesh and bones without blood in it) that we do not read that there was any blood in adam's body in paradise: to this j. horn and t. m. say, that t. moor brought forth indeed such an observation as a conception, or thought of his, which rendered it probable to his apprehension, that a glorified spiritual body needs not the being of material blood in it, and that he reads not that adam's body had blood in it before the fall, in which he conceives what before was more purely spirits, was changed into blood, and therein the body became mortal; but this is but his private conception, which he gives not forth as an oracle to be believed, as an article of faith, they say page 53. i answer, mark the deceit and lying divinations of these men, and how doubtful and confused they are in what they deliver; it is known by many that thomas moor affirmed openly, as also he hath in some of his books, that christ's body in heaven, is a body of flesh and bones without blood in it, and that he ascended without material blood. but against this their own assertion, they say in page 26. yet that his body is a body of flesh and bones in heaven without blood in it, they determined not: so who should believe these hypocrites who assert things that they themselves are so doubtful of; and preached their own conceptions, and imaginations which they have no scripture for, and against their own words have guessed above what is written, and have given forth their private conceptions, not as an oracle to be believed. oh! what darkness and folly are they in? and yet after that they have confessed that what they have said (of adam's body not having blood in it before the fall) is but a private conception which they give, not as an oracle to be believed: they go about to vindicate this private conception of theirs in these words, viz. but how prove we that adam had blood? why blood is the life, t. m. may answer, it is so in the fallen state follows it, it was so there they say: so than it follows from these men's words that it is in the fallen state that men have blood in their bodies, & that then it is the life but not in the innocent or spiritual state; from whence they might as well say, that then christ had never blood in his body, for he was never in the fallen state, and that the saints that were spiritual had not blood, for they were not thus in the fallen state: what miserable blind guides are these that tive go about to maintain their foolish conceptions which they gall not forth as oracles to be believed. and to our saying, that nations are made of one blood, acts 17. 26. j. horn and t. moor say, but neither doth that cross t. moor's apprehensions, for there was no nation nor man made of adam before his fall; he fell before he propagated they say. answ. here again their folly and sottishness exceedingly appears, for adam's falling before he propagated, does notargue that he had no blood in his body before he fell, for nations to be made of; for he might have propagated if he had not fallen, seeing that when god had created man in his own image male & female created he them, than god blessed them, and god said unto them be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth and subdue it, &c. gen. 1. 27, 28. and where we asked them whether they believe there was no blood left in christ's body when crucified? they answer, how should we certainly believe what is not revealed? some judge it probable there was not, because it is said after his fide was pierced, forthwith came there out blood and water; water is mentioned last, as if blood might be all drained out till water followed it, they say. i answer, here again they have showed their weakness, in that they have here shown, that they do not certainly believe there was no blood in christ's body when crucified, because it's not revealed to them, and where they say that forthwith came there out water and blood. i say, what could the blood all come out forthwith; so that people may take notice, that all their former asserting that christ ascended without material blood, and that his body is in heaven without blood in it, & their thus blindly reasoning for it as they have here done, is but all in darkness since what they speak of it is not revealed to them, and therefore they say, they find some good men that had the oversight of the churches here in queen elizabeth, and the following days did not disbelieve or deny such a conception, for they say it is printed amongst those songs set before or after the psalms in the complaint of a sinner. thus they the scripture doth declare, no drop of blood in thee, for that thou didst not spare, to shed each drop for me. page 54. whence the reader may see, from whence j. horn and old t. moor, and his son have part of their faith, or their testimony for it, even from among songs which were invented by men; what sad stuff is this! but sure could they have proved their faith, and their conceptions by the scriptures, they needed not to have gone to among old songs to have proved it, which are but additions of men, not given forth by the prophets or apostles. after that john horn hath in pag. 55. confessed himself subject to forgetfulness, and oversights, and that he did in his forgetfulness write job for elihu, because the book doth wholly bear the title of job; he further proceeds in his deceit to vindicate his words in a letter to eliz. underwood which were that the good angels are not pure in the presence of god, and to prove it he brought job 4. 18. and 15. 15. where it's said, behold he putteth no trust in his saints, and his angels he charged with folly; which were none of jobs words, but eliphaz his words, who was one of the miserable comforters that came against job, and one of them against whom the wrath of god was kindled, and spoke not the thing of god that was right, as job did. job 42. 7. but john horn replies, that what eliphaz said of the angels as charged with folly, is related by eliphaz rather as a thing revealed to him, and said to him in a vision by a spirit. i answ. but what spirit it was that led eliphaz to speak so against the saints & angels, thou j. h hast not made appear, but in thy darkness and deceit, hast joined with that spirit that hath accused the brethren, and the good angels as thou hast done further than eliphaz did, for where provest thou that the good angels are not pure in the presence of god? and what sin canst thou prove the good angels guilty of, that makes them impure? and what are the names of those good angels that thou hast so accused? and dost thou believe that god putteth no trust in his saints according to his words that thou hast quoted to prove thy deceit? again, pag. 57 j. h. and t. m. say, they said about that in 1 cor. 15. so (flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of god) that in the changed state, what was blood before, might be changed into pure life and spirit, the thing and substance remaining though (they say) not in the same form of blood, which yet they conclude not, they say. answ. here again, they have showed their folly and imaginations, for which they have been reproved in laying down that which they have no scripture for, but their own blind supsition, which now they conclude not, and so are but uncertain of their blindly saying, that in the changed state what was blood before, might be changed into pure life and spirit, and yet the thing and substance remaining; so how can others believe these men, when they seem hardly to believe their own words, and how often do they thus leave people in uncertainties? to our saying, that the light of christ shines in darkness in some before the morning, which was in answer to that scripture isai. 8. 20. which they brought to prove that there is no light in some, when as the word is {non-roman} {non-roman} {non-roman} {non-roman} {non-roman} no morning to him, which afterward j. h. was partly made to confess, but now he and t. m. say that we allude to 2 pet. 1. 19 and so we imply that the word of prophecy (the scriptures of the prophets, for it appears clearly by the next verse, they say he speaks of them, as more sure to others for their faith, because more abundantly conformed then the apostles, saying that they had such vision) is not the morning light, and that the believers that had like precious faith with the apostles had not morning light in them, and so were like those that peep and mutter and preach false doctrine they say. answ? herein have they belied, and wrested our words; for we did not imply, nor intend, that the word of prophecy in the believers is not the morning light, nor, that the believers had not the morning light in them, nor that they were like those that peep and mutter, as these men have falsely said and belied both us and the former believers; for we declared how that the light of christ both shineth in darkness, and how it shineth out of darkness, and how it is both the evening and the morning light; as also there is a time wherein the light is not clear, nor dark, and when at evening time it shall be light, zech. 14. 7. so that they in whom there is no morning, have a light in them, as it appears in darkness. and their affirming here that the word of prophecy spoken of in 2 pet. 1. 19 is the scriptures of the prophets, and that they are more sure than the apostles saying: (or words) in this, have they showed their blindness, for the word of prophecy was the light which shined in a dark place, which peter exhorted them to take heed unto, until the day dawned, and the day star arose in their hearts; for why should the scriptures of the prophets be more sure than the apostles words? since that the fulfilling of them, the apostles were eye witnesses of, and preached the end and fullness, which the scriptures of the prophets do but prophesy or foretell off, and what, was not peter's words as well to be believed, (by the believers he wrote to) as the prophet's words? seeing these blind men aforesaid have accounted the prophet's words more sure than his? and where in p. 59 they say that john saith, christ is the true light, that lighteneth every man coming into the world; they say it is not enlighteneth, in which they have falsely said for it is: {non-roman} {non-roman} {non-roman} {non-roman} {non-roman} which is as well enlighteneth as lighteneth. and where we called john horn impudent liar, for charging us with a passage about mr. towns-end (as they call him) john horn says he cannot be guilty of impudent lying, for he followed the cambridge queries & what was attested in them; to which i say, john horn then followed a lying spirit, and gave himself to believe lies, which the cambridge queries were full of, as also that priest who was the author of them, viz. tho. smith (who j. horn falsely saith, baffled us; his lies and gross slanders are made apparent to the nation (in a book i gave forth; entitled, the key of knowledge, not found in the university, &c.) as john horn lies also are here like to be, who hath taken part with a lying spirit, as one, who is given over to believe and report lyes, who hereby seeks to get into favour with the priests of the nation, whom he and t. moor have so publicly in their discovery called greedy dogs, strong to appetite, who hunt after livings and maintenance, &c. and now after john horn hath published this lie against me, which he learned out of the cambridge queries, he saith he might be too rash in taking it upon trust, and not fathering it upon him whence he had it, in that, he confesses himself faulty, and craves forgiveness in pag. 63. to which i say, oh! j. horn where art thou now? how often hast thou in thy papers said thou hast not belied me? and now thou hast showed thyself how thou hast been like the prophet's enemies, who were in the the false reports against the true prophets; and may not thou and tho. moor be ashamed, to say, that scholar that disputed with us baffled us, when thou art taken so plainly in his lie, and your saying so is but from his relation? oh! what filthy deceit and impudence are you in? have you all this while counted us deceivers, and false prophets, and heretics, and yourselves to be true ministers; and now do you expect we should forgive you your iniquity? oh! what deceit, hypocrisy, and confusion are you in? but had you stood in that of god, which made you confess your lie, you had not added so many to it as you have. again you say we twit you over and over, that you are neglecters of christ and abusers of god's truth, by your own confession, to which you say blessed be god that you are counted worthy to suffer reproach for his names sake, for that's the thing you say we are mad at you for, &c. p. 65. answ. nay, in this have you lied, for wherein you do suffer, it is not for the name of the lord, for you are not worthy to suffer for that since that you suffer as neglecters of christ and the abuse of his truth, which you have long abused, as you have confessed, and yet you continue abusing it, and its servants, with your lies and false reports; and you have confessed yourselves guilty of sin with the nation, and have your share too much in their pollutions. p. 66. and have confessed that we are a heavy judgement of god, that he hath ordered to punish you for your neglect of christ and abuse of his truth, so that it's not for the name of christ that you suffer, but as evil doers. and in your confessing your abuse of the truth, you go about to join yourselves in with the true prophets, and apostles, saying that they use to confess their sins, as david, solomon, isaiah, jeremiah, daniel, paul james john, &c. and then you say, had we heard david's saying, innumerable evils have compassed me about, mine iniquities have taken such hold upon me that i am not able to look up, &c. would we not have called him hypocrite for faulting his enemies as evil doers, and yet he himself so burdened with iniquity, you say? and further, you say, had we heard isaiah say, we grope for the wall like the blind, we grope as if we had no eyes, and stumble at noonday, us in the night, isai. 59 12, 13, 14. for our transgressions are multiplied before thee, &c. would we not have said, oh! thou hypocrite, hast thou been crying out against us, as blind and brutish, and dost thou grope like a blind man? you say. answ. you have herein supposed falsely, for we should not have had the same ground to call david and isaiah hypocrites, that we have to call you so; for you never came to that innocency, and righteousness they came to, after they had confessed their sins; for they suffered the terrors of the lord for them, and iniquity was david's burden; in so much that he was bowed down greatly, and went mourning all the day long, and so he and the prophets did not only confess their sins, but also forsook them, and by the spirit of judgement and burning, they were purged from their iniquities: but you still continue in your iniquities, and abusing god's truth, and never suffered the terrors of the lord, nor sorrowed as david did, nor ever became such righteous men as david was: for he was not a contender for sin; not in the hireling priests steps as you are. and as for isaiah's saying, we grope for the wall like the blind, we grope as if we had no eyes, &c. this relates more to the unrighteous rulers and jews, as an effect of their iniquities, than it doth to any guilt the prophet had, (for he was then a seer and bad eyes, that saw the light and the straight path) for he said of the jews, that their hands were defiled with blood, their feet ran to evil, the way of peace they knew not, and there was no judgement in their goings; therefore said he, is judgement far from us, neither doth justice overtake us, we wait for light but behold obscurity, for brightness, but we walk in darkness, we grope for the wall like the blind, see isai. 59 2. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10. but mark, how it was the prophet's burden, that the people's iniquity was thus great, for he saith, we roar all like bears and mourn sore like doves, we look for judgement, but there is none, for salvation, but it is far off from us, vers. 11. but it does not appear that ever john horn or either old tho. moor, or the younger, have ever thus roared and mourned because of iniquity, as the prophet isaiah did (for if they did, they would not plead for it as they do) nor are they come into his innocency who are guilty of sin with the nation, and have a share in the nations pollutions as they confess, and yet continue in their iniquity of lying and abusing the truth which the prophets and holy men of god did not, so that they cannot hide themselves and their guilt and deceit, though they have taken it upon them to reprove the teachers, and people of the nation. since that john horn, and tho. moor have confessed us called quakers, a heavy judgement of god which he hath ordered to punish them for their neglect of christ, and their abuse of his truth; and we asked them why they rage so against god's judgement; seeing they have sinned so against him? to this they say, were not the false prophets and deceivers always a judgement? and did not the prophets and apostles always reprove them, and warn people of them? answ. here again their folly appears, for neither have they proved us false prophets and deceivers, as they were, the true prophets and apostles reproved; nor yet that they themselves are as the true prophets and ministers were, who owned god's judgements in their place, and did not abuse the truth as they do (but mark) where does the scripture ever say, that false prophets and deceivers, were ordered of god as a heavy judgement to punish his true prophets for their neglect of christ, and abuse of his truth, as these men's words imply? seeing they count themselves true ministers, & us deceivers ordered of god as a heavy judgement to punish them for their abuse of the truth; again their counting us a judgement as the deceivers, and false prophets were, whom the true prophets reproved, belongs to themselves & not to us: for these deceivers were such as sought for their gain from their quarters, and preached for hire and rewards, and stole the words from their neighbours, saying, thus saith the lord, when god never spoke to them, and strengthened the hands of evil doers that they might not forsake their sins, and were in their lies, and lightness, all which john horn, and thomas moor (especially the elder) are evidently guilty, for they have much contended for sin, declared their own conceptions and divinations, and j. h. hath pleaded for their taking tithes and hire. and further j. h. in his book called truth's triumph, hath gone about to clear himself like as they have done here before, as where i counted it absurd for him to say, that people ought to account the quakers accursed, whom they have said to be an heavy judgement to them, for than they must count the judgement of god accursed, to this j. h. saith in pag 8. for doth not judgement begin at the house of god? 1 pet. 4. 17. and doth he not ordain wicked men for judgement, such as the chaldeans and false teachers, jude 4. and satan too, as to job? answ. here j. h. his deceit is seen plainly, who would fain be accounted as a sufferer with job, and one in the house of the lord, but did god ever set deceivers to be a heavy judgement over his house to punish it for its abuse of the truth? as j. h. hath acknowledged we are to him and such as he is: for the house of god is the pillar and ground of truth, and was that judgement deceivers which began at the house of god? surely j. h. hath undervalved the house of god, neither was job such an abuser of the truth, nor a liar as j. h. is, nor did he suffer as such a one when god tried him: for he was a perfect and an upright man, and one that feared god, and eschewed evil, such as j. h. is not, to be sure; so what was done to job was to try him: neither can he prove us such as the chaldeans were, job 1. 17. nor are we a judgement to god's house, but a refreshment and blessing to them that are in it. and as for the false teachers spoken of in jude; they were even such as j. h. is, filthy dreamers, that spoke evil of the things they knew not, as he doth; and went in the way of cain to envy; and after the error of balaam for reward, and spoke great swelling words of vanity, having men's persons in admiration because of advantage as j. h. hath. and after that j. horn hath been pleading for tithes and hire, he and t. m. in page 71. lay down as their principle; that the priests and levites, even when they were such as blind watchmen, and ignorant profane persons, the lord faults the people for not bringing in and giving them that which he by his law made theirs (meaning tithes) and charged them with robing him therein, and to prove it brings mala. 3. 8, 9 answ. here in have they abused the scripture, for it does not say, the lord faulted the people for not bringing and giving tithes to the blind watchmen and ignorant profane persons; but rather faults both the priests and people for breaking his law, and tells the priests they were cursed, and faults them both▪ as appears for withholding the tithes from the storehouse, saying, bring ye all the tithes to the store-house, that there may be meat in mine house, mal. 3. 10. and chap. 2. for at the store-house the fatherless, widows and strangers should have been relieved out of the tithes, which then were oppressed when the priests were corrupt, and the tithes were not brought to the store-house which god commanded, mal. 3. where we accused j. h. and t. m. of ignorance in their pleading, that all are not hirelings that take hire, for which they brought, zech. 11. 12. and to our telling them it was spoken by way of prophecy concerning judas demanding hire of the chief priests for betraying christ. j. h. and t. m. replies, christ is clearly in the prophet, the shepherd feeding the flock, and asking the price, not judas as we have falsely supposed, but what is said, he says, was by the prophet jeremiah, in matthew it is said jer. not zech. they say. answ. they have herein showed their ignorance and cavilling, for where did ever christ when he was upon earth ask thirty pieces of silver of the jews, or of any for feeding the flock? herein would they make christ a hireling like themselves, for in zech. 11. 12. it is said, they weiged for my price thirty pieces of silver, and a goodly price that i was prized at of them, which plainly hath relation to the price that judas took for christ of the chief priests, mat. 26. 14. so that christ did not take this price, nor was he the hireling, but judas; and where doth the prophet jeremiah either contradict us, or the prophet zechariah, seeing you allege that their expression agree not? and where you say that such as christ hires and sends to keep his flock, may and sometimes do prove hirelings as judas, &c. a poor proof for you who are hirelings, preaching for hire, so judas that hireling who carried the bag, and was a thief, john 12. 6. is your way, and not christ who freely takes care over his flock, and freely gives to his ministers that they may freely give again. j. h. and t. m. in page 73. say, as for their wearing cuffs and ribbons, and white boot-hose-tops, they say, we make a stir about trifles and lawful ornaments, concerning which christ hath not put them in bondage, or forbid them to them, they say. answ. if wearing cuffs and ribbons, &c. be lawful ornaments. where is the pride and vanity in apparel, which you reproved the people for in your other book? what, is not cuffs, ribbons, and lace (which many of your company wear) vanity in apparel? and where you count such vanities lawful ornaments, and say that christ hath not forbid them, in this have you shown your deceit and vanity, for the apostles did not preach these things up as lawful ornaments as you have done, for paul saith, i will that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety, not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array, 1 tim. 2. 9 and peter said whose adorning, let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel, &c. 1 pet. 3. 3, 4. what do you think that christ did not speak in these apostles? and are not many of your company transgressors of his doctrine, in wearing gaudy and costly attire, with their cuffs, ribbons and silver lace? and whereas you say (concerning which christ hath not put you in bondage, nor forbid them to you, we say behold your birth, and what generation you are of; who counts it bondage to put off your pride & come to moderation: are there not some so born that would count it great bondage to be kept from whoring, & stealing, such is their natures and the spirits they are of? and here are you, and here is your liberty found in the same nature and bondage: but though it be your liberty to be proud, yet its bondage to them that labours to maintain you therein, & to the whole creation of god, this we know concerning the pride and idleness and fullness of such teachers. and in that you say, christ hath not forbid them to you, how is that? seeing it was ever forbid to all the ministers of christ and their followers; so we say it's not because god is more at one with it, than formerly he hath been; but this is the cause, you having not heard his voice, at any time, nor seen his shape how should he forbid you, or show you better example, seeing the scriptures you can wrest to every lust, and purpose of your corrupt hearts. oh! what deceivers and hypocrites are you, to preach up, (and to encourage them in) such vanity and pride? when you should be examples of godliness, and rather reprove such pride and wickedness than encourage them in it. and where you say, the israelstes were not faulted of god for wearing jewels and earrings, and ornaments, &c. this cannot cover your deceit and pride, for the israelites borrowed jewels of the egyptians (such as you are) and as appears they were but for a time worn, for the lord said unto them, who wore the jewels, i will come up in the midst of thee in a moment, and consume thee therefore, now put off the ornaments from thee and the children of israel stripped themselves of their ornaments, &c. exod. 12. 35. and chap. 33. 5. and you may see as before the apostles preached another thing, and did not wear cuffs nor ribbons, nor plead for them as you do. and where we charged thee, j. horn with being one of the dogs, which thou said look for their gain from their quarters, to this thou answers that thou charged none so. i reply, oh! thou hypocrite and liar, art thou ashamed to own thy own words? wouldst thou now get into favour with this priests of the nation, whom thou hast so palpably writ against in thy book called a brief discovery, & c? wherein thou hast charged the priests in page 20. and 21. with being such as isaiah speaks of, isa. 56. 10, 11, 12. blind watchmen, dumb dogs, dogs strong to appetite, greedy dogs hunting after livings and maintenance, that look every one for his gain from his quarters, and with many more such like expressions, which thou and thomas moor have uttered against the generality of the teachers of this nation, so that thy seeking to revoke or deny what thou hast said (especially if you one begin to bite another) cannot hide thyself, no, if thou should get the book of commonprayer it would not serve thy turn, if such as thou hast counted dumb dogs begin to bite thee. and where in page 74. thou and thomas moor accused the quakers, and the jesuits to be either the same, or of very great affinity. that, i return again upon you as a lie and a slander, proceeding from a murderous spirit, who before plainly countedus jesuits and jugglers in page 31. but do you certainly know we are such? if you did, you would sure make it better appear than you do, that your murderous spirits might be satisfied. j. horn and t. moor's principle, page 75. for every neglect of christ and abuse of his truth, deprives not of god, nor is accompanied with such transgressions, as not to abide in his doctrine, they say. answ. which is as much as to say, that a man may neglect christ and abuse his truth, and yet abide in god and in christ's doctrine notwithstanding: this is one of the devil's doctrines wherein they are ministers of sin and not of christ, for he that abideth in the doctrine of christ abideth in christ, and he that abideth in him sinneth not, 1 john 3, 6. for christ teacheth perfection and holiness, and against all sin and abusing the truth, mat. 5. 48. and see 1 pet. 1. 15, 16. so that the pit which these men aforesaid have digged for others, they are fallen into themselves, and have evidently showed themselves to be deceivers, and enemies to righteousness. j. h. and t. m. in page 76. say thus, viz. we say, that that body of christ which had flesh and bones after the resurrection of it, is taken up into heaven and is in heaven, luke 24. 39, 40, 51, 52. what change or transmutation further it had in its ascension and glory, we know not (they say) answ. so than it appears, that you know not what such a body christ hath in heaven, and so you discern not his body, for what change or transmutation it had in its ascension, and glory you know not: and how know you than it is a body with flesh and bones without blood in it as you have affirmed? which you would have us to have submitted to your imaginations in, when now you know not what such a body it is yourselves, no more than you know where his blood is, which you said is the foundation of your faith, for it may for aught you know, be turned into pure life and spirits, as you have said: and might you not as well have said so of his body too, seeing what change or transmutation it had in its ascension, and glory you know not, only the nearest proof you have brought to prove it, hath no blood it, is a piece of a rhyme or song that you have learned from among the songs set before (or after) david's psalms, which you say 'tis probible had they thought it an error, they would scarce have let it be printed there. to which i say, you have come off exceeding poorly to prove your doctrine, and your weakness and ignorance the reader may easily see. 'tis probable too that you did not think there was so many errors and lies in your volume of above 20. sheets against us, as there are in it, which does not prove it erroneous therefore, which if your matter had been sound, you needed not like the papists have made up so much stuff, and taken up such a great compass to clear yourselves, but you have the more discovered your folly and wickedness thereby, as the more you will do, the further you go on in it: as also the reader may see what weakness you have discovered in answer to our five questions and other questions of ours, if he read your book, but it will be a task and pretty hard for any unprejudiced spirits to read it over there being so much confused frothy stuff in it, and cavilings, nothing at all tending to edification to be sure; that in a short time it will be out of date, and but as wast paper, or an old almanac except it be with some such cankered spirits as your own. if john horn pay for the printing of such great confused volumes: his preaching sure must be sold at a dear rate, and if his hearers pay for it, than they know the burden of it, but however his work will come to nought, for the day hath discovered him and it, to be in darkness. and now reader since that all the particulars of the said book are not worth answering, i having already answered and rejected the things in it against us of most concernment, i shall show thee a few more consequences and doctrines laid down by the said john horn, and thomas moor the elder and his son, which we deny, and thou may judge whether they came from a true spirit or a false. j. h. and t. m. in their epistle say. that he (viz. christ) may say (as paul said) to will is present with me, but how to perform what i would, i find not. they tell of christ, making his grave with the wicked before he was begotten, and that he suffers before he be begotten. that he by whom all things were made, is in some men, and yet his power not begotten. that when the power reacheth to the seed, it rises in it by degrees, surely as men in whom he is, give way to him. that he (viz. christ) hath neither done dying, nor been at any time without his reigning, that he (viz, christ) bare his own sins in his body, and is the propitiation for himself, seeing the church is he or part of him. page 29. that the dead in christ were raised before paul, and the believing thessalonians died; and so they did not sleep as to their bodies, but were suddenly changed, and taken up to meet the lord in the air; and in vain do men look for christ's coming to raise the dead, for that's past and gone before the apostles age was past. the resurrection of the just is over. see pag. 32. that the flesh of christ which we eat is something of the church, the flesh and substance of the church, and so▪ the church is to eat itself. page 30. these are john horn, and tho. moors own words which we utterly deny, and the reader may see if they have not therein spoken blasphemy. again to our saying; that now the lord makes a new covenant with his people, when he takes away their sins not according to the old covenant which the israelites broke, according to heb. 8. 7, 8, 9 and jer. 31. 31, 32. and ch. 33. 8. to this j. h. and t. m. say, pag. 17. it seems then in this time they may be sinless, and yet sin, lie and forge and traduce and yet not sin in it all. judge reader, is this a good doctrine or consequence of theirs which they draw from the words of truth and scripture? and further mark what doctrines j. horn, and tho. moor have laid down. they affirm. 1. that every sin is not deceit. 2. nor every deceit guile. 3. that envy is not malice, page 18. 4. that a man may be a sinner, and yet not sin, pag. 11. 5. that sin is in the believer as a natural heritage from adam while he is in this mortal body, pag 2. 8. 6. that the same mortal body that dies, or is sown in the earth shall rise, but it shall not rise flesh and blood, pages 44. 46. 7. to know christ as he was the power of god before the world was, is not the knowledge of him to salvation? pag 48. 8. that the light wherewith christ lighteth every man is both natural and spiritual. pag. 61. 9 that adam should not have died the bodily death had he not sinned, pag. 23. 10. that when paul saith christ was seen of him last. 1 cor. 15, 8. he must needs mean is of his body, seen and seen by bodily sight pag. 55. which is contrary to gal. 1. 16. and now i shall note some things in their answers to our queries, and briefly reply to them, by way of discovery. j. h. and t. m. sen. & juni. in pag. 77. they go about to prove that satan presseth men to some duties, thus viz. that satan's ministers may be transformed into the ministers of righteousness, which they could not be, if not zealous for some things that are in their place, and order j. h. t. m. in duties as to be diligent to go up and down, and preach righteous works, together with their own mixtures and to evil unrighteous ends. reply. how miserably come you off here! for these are not duties, that are done to unrighteous ends, for duties are done in righteousness, and to righteous ends, and this satan presseth none to, yourselves are these transformed ones you tell of, who are zealous for some things, for tithes or hire or masterships, and these are your evil and unrighteous ends, which are manifest to all men, and are not yet come so far as they that are drawn from gross evils, and though satan for your own ends press these things as duties, yet are they not duties in the sight of god and gospel truth. touching our 1. que. you say p. 8. whether we so propounded it out of weakness or wickedness you will not determine; and yet soon after in your answer to the same i. h. t. m. que. you charge us with confounding things clearly distinct and seeking by such confusion to work our ends in deceiving the simple; which is your own false determination against us: when before, you determined not whether we so propounded it out of weakness or wickedness; thus you betray yourselves in your confusion, and at the beginning of your answer you falsely say these questions, give a full intimation of our antichristian spirit, which is your slander, and perverting them. in your 2. answer you say, our que. is perverse in that it intimately charges you as calling the personal body of our lord jesus, a body of flesh and bones; which you j. h. t. m. say is a slander, for it is not your expression, and yet you say, though possibly you may sometimes have let it pass without consideration or particular notice of it, in some discourse that may have passed between us. reply, mark how these men are ashamed of their own words, and count that a slander which they cannot deny, but that they may sometimes have spoken, as called the body of christ a body of flesh and bones, and yet now they say the expression they own not, when it is evidently known that they have used that expression and gone about to prove it to be such a body without blood in it, but now seeing that they shame not to deny their own expression, i ask them if the glorified body of christ be not a body of flesh and bones as formerly they have affirmed it to be, what is it a body of? and what is the substance of it? again you say in your 3. answer, that be even the son of man came down from heaven, and descended into the lower parts of the earth, although that his personal j. h. t. m. body in which he was made man, and became the son of man was actually prepared for him or the preparation of it was made in the earth, you say. reply. mark your confusion here which is as if the son of man which came down from heaven, again became the son of man in that personal body which was prepared for him in the earth which is confusion, for he was the son of man as he came down from heaven, and so that body prepared for him in the earth, descended not down from heaven as the son of man did according to your own words. and where you bring ps. 139. 15. that proves not how the son of man descended into the lower parts of the earth, for there it's spoken of the lowest parts of the earth, wherein the prophet saith he was curiously wrought now this is besides the que. for it was about him, which descended into the lower parts of the earth, and not about that which was framed in the lowest parts of the earth which david speaks of, psal. 139. 15. and as for your telling of the son of man, being three days, and three nights in the heart of the earth, pag. 92. i say the sepulchre in which his body was buried, could not be the lower parts of the earth, for it was but one part of it; it being in a rock, mat. 27. 60. and where in pag. 91. you say men of the lowest rank poor despised and of mean esteem may be as properly called the lower parts of the earth, and you bring rom. 12. 16. then i say if such men be the lower parts into which christ descended, it follows that his descending into the lower parts of the earth, was his descending into men of the lowest rank poor despised and of mean esteem (such as you are not who are set up as masters) it seems you running into so many things to prove what the lower parts of the earth are, which christ descended into, you thought if some of them would not serve, others would; but where the earth is not yet shaken, nor the power which must shake and remove it, known, the lower parts of the earth, is covered with thick darkness that they are not discerned, nor the seed which rends the earth known, and that is your state and to you a parable, who are out of the power of godliness over whom the earth, and earthly things hath power. j. h. and t. m. say (pag. 93 and 106.) that the name jesus always signifies that person, as so made and includes the body of his flesh, and that the name jesus always signifies christ as come in the flesh, and so takes in that body of his flesh. reply, if the name jesus always includes the body of his flesh, then from this it follows that the body of christ's flesh was in the believers, for jesus christ was in them, 2 cor. 13. 5. thus these men confound themselves, and they have said that it is the anointing that is in the believers, and not the anointed which is also false, for jesus christ is the anointed of god, who is in the saints, and the anointed, and anointing is not divided. j. h. and t. m. p. 94. that christ in the body of his flesh, may be truly and properly said to be ascended, or gone up far above all heavens, not only in respect of glory and dignity, but even in respect of place or local height also. rep. but what place or local height it is that christ is ascended into far above all heaven's eph. 4. 10. you have not discovered but say it was heaven itself, or the heaven of heavens, as if you had said heaven itself, & the heaven of heavens is far above all heavens, and then it must be far above itself; when the apostle saith he that descended, is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things, eph. 4. 9 10. and it is the same that first descended, that ascended far above all heavens, this is spoken without exception of place, or lo●● height as you except, and the heaven of heavens cannot contain that glory that he is in who is ascended, who is both in the heavens and far above them all. our 10th. question is, where or how came▪ christ into the house where his disciples were met after his resurrection, the doors being shut, john 20. 19, 26. have not some of you said, that then his body being spirituallized, it glided in at the key hole of the door, you answer, that none of you have said as related. reply, but in this you have not all cleared yourselves from speaking these or the like words, for one that informed me▪ (how thomas moor the elder spoke of christ's body gliding in at the key hole of the door) hath been one of his own hearers whom i know durst not belie him, but would be willing to witness it openly to his face, if called to it, and barthel wormel alderman, who owns you did not go about to clear t. moor, (from what was said of him as mentioned) when he took upon him to answer that question, and it appears that t. m. and you have had such like whimseyes in your minds, by what follows where you say these words, viz. further also, you are assured, that even the children of the first resurrection, when they shall attain to that resurrection of the dead, and have their bodies that t. m. j. h. p. 104. now are vile fashioned into the likeness of his glorious body, they in those very bodies being spiritual, immortal, powerful, incorruptible shall be equal to the angels who cannot be hindered from passage by any corruptible things as doors, walls or the like, but can make their own passage thorough any such obstacles, more easily than mortal bodies through the air, and why should it be thought a thing incredible▪ &c. reply, here people may see these men's imaginations, and dreams, and how against what they have professed, they would appear wise above what is written, for we never read in all the scriptures that the children of the first resurrection in these very bodies of flesh and bones, shall be so equal to the angels in the resurrection, as that they may make their own passage thowrow any such obstacles, as doors, walls, and the like, more easily than mortal bodies through the air, as you may see plainly these men imagine; wherein they show themselves intruders into things they have not seen being vainly puffed up in their fleshly minds, and more like such as are peeping and muttering and running into sorcery, and magic, than men in the simplicity of the gospel, for it is not at all natural nor proper to a body of flesh and bones (it being of such a substance) to make its own passage thorough doors and walls more easily than now it can thorough the air, thus have they showed their dreaming in the night of thick darkness that is over them. and in p. 129. j. h. and t. m. are speaking about the second coming of christ, and say that his second coming, his glorious appearing, never yet hath been to any nor now is; &c. reply, herein they might as well say, that then never yet were any come to salvation by christ, for his second coming is without sin unto salvation, and for the same end he will appear to them, that yet look for him even to save them from their sins, for his coming in the flesh, wherein he was once offered to bear the sins of many, heb. 9 28. this was one coming of christ, and after this the saints who looked for him, received his coming in spirit to work their redemption, and to make them witnesses of his kingdom, glory, and reign, and to reign with him over darkness and unrighteousness, but these things have these deceivers put afar off, and discern not christ's kingdom & reign, and where they say, that christ shall then stay all the wicked, even every one that doth not presently submit to serve him and his people, and that then all the saints that come with him shall have immortal bodies, being as & j. h. & t. m. equal to the angels; and that they shall reign with christ on earth, and judge the world until the final and eternal judgement, seize upon all the ungodly at the last, and general resurrection. reply, herein they have spoken but faintly and in darkness, for what service it is they imagine the people of god shall then have from the wicked, when they shall be in these raised immortal bodies, they have not told us, nor what need the saints in these immortal bodies can have of the other part of the creation, or of the wicked to serve them, especially if their bodies be such as can make their passage so immediately thowrow any such obstacles, as doors and walls, as these men have said, and yet these bodies must be bodies of flesh and bones according to their words: but these vain conceptions do arise from the same spirit in them that leads them into pride, self-exaltation, and to look for mastership in the earth like those that look to gain an earthly kingdom, or to reign with christ in some outward pomp and glory, and so to bring all under them, and then they would be lords indeed, but their expectations after that will fail them, & as for their bringing revel. 20. 4, 6. it proves not what they would have it (nor the other scriptures they have blindly quoted that christ shall personally reign a thousand years * but what is the beloved city, and the camp of the saints, which gogg and magogg do compass about when the 1000 years are ended, revel. 20. 8, 9 whether is it an outward city or not? and where shall it be? and whether any be yet come to that beloved city? for in revel. 20. 5. it ' spoken of the first resurrection, which he is blessed that hath a part in, for than he hath a part in christ who is the resurrection, & the life whose kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, which hath already appeared unto his people, and is set up among them that they are come to reign with him over the world, and its deceivers, and these men (as appears) imagine that after christ hath at his coming raised the dead bodies of the saints, and reigned in person with them 1000 years, there must be another resurrection of the bodies of the wicked, which they call the last and general resurrection, but in these things they would show themselves wise above what is written, but the kingdom of christ wherein he will reign and rule over the nations, is spiritual and spiritually discerned and known where the power wherein the kingdom stands is felt, and not according to the carnal imaginations, of hireling priests & deceivers. j. h. t. m. in p. 141. they say that christ hath appointed together with the preaching the cross, this outward ordinance (speaking of the blessing and breaking bread, and taking and blessing the cup) for the remembering and showing forth the lord's death till be come, which implies that there is even in believers in their several ages, till that his coming again; natural d●●ness and proneness to forget it, and therefore need of such mementoes, &c. and that he hath appointed such means to stir us up by putting us in remembranes often, they say. reply, herein they undervalue the believers, as if they were 〈◊〉 themselves, having natural dulness and proneness to forget the lord's death; & the before imagine that the believers ●●ct have need of such outward ●●ings, as bread and wine to stir them up by putting them in remembrance often, whenas the true believers are come to the substance, and to feed upon the flesh of christ, and feel his coming, knowing that the bread which they break is the communion of the body of christ, and the cup of blessing, which they bless is the communion of the blood of christ, which the outward bread and the cup, was but a sign or a figure of, and the end of the world they are come to see, who are in the communion of the body of christ, for in the world is the strife and the doting about these outward shadows which are passed away, where the glory of the sun is broken forth, and the mysteries of life revealed. and what is it that puts you in remembrance to take bread and wine? will not the same stir you up to the remembrance of christ's death? but you are so dull and prone to forget it, that you must always have need of such shadows to put you in remembrance often, sure if you were come to feel the power of christ's sufferings, and were come to feed upon his flesh which giveth life unto the world, and to drink his blood, you would not be so forgetful of christ as you are, for can a living man who is sound, forget his natural food? and where you say, that we render the supper of the lord, as well as the passover a figure, in this have you spoken falsely, for we are come to the supper of the lord, and to sup with christ, and he with us where the bread of god is received, which is not a figure but the substance, to which supper you are not come who live in pride and vanity, and pleading for sin as your natural heritage, and with such christ does not sup, nor feed among such a proud company as you are at your bread and wine, which blindly you call his supper, when it hath not so much as a true form of the supper of christ in it, when his disciples eat with him in the night, in which he was betrayed, they eat the passover according to the command, mat. 26. luke 22. 8. so that his supper was not without the passeover, which was a figure that christ fulfilled. again j. h. and t. m. in p. 146. you charge us with corrupt imaginations; and with signifying in our former questions, that the blood sufferings and death of christ that is over and past as to the actual accomplishment and sustaining thereof, and was so finished in that body is not the bread of life or the drink indeed, and the purger of the conscience, but something else; figured by that, which is now in a present and sensible being nigh to men and in them. reply, in which you show your corruptness and perverting the truth, in that you are striving against what we said of the flesh and blood of christ, viz. that his flesh and blood is so nigh to every believer, that his flesh is his meat, and his blood is his drink indeed, and this flesh and blood continues, and is felt in the true believer whereby he hath life in him, and his conscience purged, when the sufferings and death of christ, as to the actual accomplishment, and sustaining thereof is over and past as you confess: but alas! you are ignorant of this, and cannot tell where the blood of christ is, as to the existence of it; and yet you have called it the foundation of your faith and god's own blood, p. 89. acts 20. 28. and yet by your words god is without his own blood in heaven, for you have denied it to be in christ's body in heaven, so you cavel at us for witnessing the life and substance of that, which you are both ignorant of, and are confounded about. where we asked j. h. and t. m. what is their ground for sprinkling the children, of them they count believers? about this they shuffle and dare not answer directly for fear (it appears) of displeasing their other brethren, the priests that differ from them in this, and say they reject our question, but yet they say that in baptising repentance, and remission of sins is preached, and witnessed as in his name for them, and through it unto them, as appears by comparing, mat. 28. 19 with luke 24. 47, 48. and acts 13. to which i say, in this have you wrested these scriptures, for they will not serve your ends as you would have them. repentance and remission of sins was not preached by christ's ministers to infants through sprinkling them; what do you repent for them? or promise that they shall repent? and are you sure that they will prove believers, that sprinkle them as the seed of believers in your account? and how do you know that other people's children whom you have refused to sprinkle are not as well the seed of believers as those whom you sprinkle? and yet for that popish practice you have no rule in the scriptures of truth you say in p. 155. that we must needs reject and deride imputed righteousness (viz. mens being the righteousness of god in him in an answerable sense, as he was made sin for us.) reply, herein you belie us, for we neither reject nor deride the imputed righteousness, we being in the faith wherein it is revealed in us, and imputed to us to our sanctification, whereby we are become the righteousness of god in christ. 2. christ was made sin for us who knew no sin, 2 cor. 5. 21. neither was there any sin in him so that if men's being the righteousness of god in him, be in an answerable sense as christ was made sin as you imagine & say, than god must account them his righteousness, when they know none of his righteousness, nor have any of his righteousness in them: and this is to make god account sinful men righteous, and so not to padiffere utnce between the holy and profane, which was the false prophet's practice, as it is yours also; who have also said that maintaining a justification by a righteousness within, is a mere unrighteousness, wherein you do no less than charge the apostle with maintaining a mere unrighteousness, for he told them of the righteousness of the law being fulfilled in them, who walked not after the flesh but after the spirit, rom. 8. 4. and the saints were justified by the spirit of god in them, and had the righteousness of faith in them, & so were not justified in sin, but from it, acts 13, 39 1 cor. 6. 11. phil. 3. 9 but their state are you far from, who have been pleading for sin which is your natural heritage, which makes you so unwilling to part from it, and you would fain be accounted righteous in christ, when you are unrighteous and deceitful, being ignorant of the righteousness of god, and not having it in you, and so would be counted what you are not, and therein are hypocrites deceiving yourselves and others. and where we asked you, what is the light with which christ lighteth every man which cometh into the world? which t. mere said, is both natural and spiritual. to this you say, we vary t. m's saying, as (you falsely say) divers times we did our own question about the light at that meeting, for you say his answer was to our question as thus stated, what is the light which christ giveth? and his answer to this was, that he is the author and giver of both 〈…〉 light. reply, in this have you spoken falsely on both hands, for we did not then ask, what is the light which christ giveth? but whetter the light with which christ lighteth every man that comheh into the world be natural or spiritual? and t. m. said, it is both natural and spiritual; as also you have lied in saying that we vary t. m's saying, for he and you have confessed in p. 61. that the light wherewith christ lighteth every man, is both natural and spiritual, and yet one light that is both natural & spiritual you could not show; thus are you taken in yourself contradictions and deceit: and where you say, that christ is the author and giver of all that is truly called light, and good to men, this is not to my question, for it was touching the light with which christ lighteth every man, and not touching all good that he is the author and giver of, for there are many good things that christ is the author of, that are not the light wherewith he in lighteneth every man, so that you discover your weakness about the light. and where you ask, where we read that the gospel is preached in every creature? answ. see col. 1. 23. in the greek its {non-roman} {non-roman} {non-roman} {non-roman} {non-roman}, in every creature. and where you say, you have answered in simplicity and p●ainnese, and not with hidden things of dishonesty, but by a plain manifestation of the truth, in the words of truth have declared your minds, that others when they read may understand ●our knowledge in the mysteries of christ. herein your boasting spirits are seen, you would make men believe as if what you have written were infallible by a plain ma●ifestation of truth, but presently after you say, if in any thing they find you speak not according to the word, let them refuseit and show you in love by evidence of scripture your mistake, and you shall thankfully accept it, you say. to which i say, what confusion deceit and doubting is this you are found in? and what untempered stuff is this? it appears by this you are not assured that your work is all in the truth, for all your boasting of your answering by a plain manifestation of truth and of your knowledge in the mysteries of christ; and now both your lies, slanders, and mistakes in many things are made manifest, and you may see them if you be not still wilfully hardened; and many more aspersions and slanders besides those i have mentioned, have you vomited out in your rage and envy against us in these your answers, which will be a heavy burden upon you when you come to be silent in darkness as the wicked shall, and to reap the fruit of your doings which will be terrible to you one day. and where you desire the reader, if ever he see any reply to this of yours, he would distinctly observe if we pervert not or alter your sayings, by taking them in pieces and changing expressions to mar the sense, &c. and in observance of this caution, you say you doubt not but the reader will be satisfied even from ourselves concerning our antichristian spirit, without your adding any more by way of return to ours, which though you will not bind yourselves from, yet you do not resolve to do, though we should give you occasion by such sorry shifts and pretended answers as hitherto we have returned, you say. reply, as for your suspecting us to mar the sense of your sayings by perverting them, and to lie at the catch to get some matters to snarl about as you say, these are your own practices and it's your own evil thoughts against us, wherein you muse of us as you use yourselves, and that arises from the antichristian spirit that is in you and not in us; and you are the snarlers (as your many lies and frequent perverting our words doth plainly show) and not we; what are you afraid to fall into your own pit? 2. and as for your not resolving to add any more by way of return to ours, i say, to what end should you add any more in return to ours, for you thereby would but add more to your former wickedness and slanders, and blasphemy against the spirit of the lord, which is in us, which sees over your deceits, and this would but add more to your shame, for your lying books many are grown weary of them, who before you vomited out your malice thus against us, had a better esteem of you than now they have; as also, you have falsely said, that we have been already proved deceivers and antichrists; which if it were so, then away with your work, there is no more need of it against us, but your malignity and falseness herein is largely made manifest to many, and you had better never have been born, than have vented such wickedness & perverseness out of your mouths if you repent not. a brief reply to john horne's book, called truth's triumph over deceit, &c. wherein his deceit, insolency, and vain boasting, and his triumphing in his wickedness and lies, is plainly manifested and here reproved, and the truth vindicated. i see, that the diviners and deceivers strive against the truth of our god, and the more their madness and folly and falsehood appears, as it is evidently fulfilled upon this j. horn, whom this his book falsely called, truth's triumph hath sought to vindicate his own corrupt cause, and to clear himself from what i charged against him, in what i writ in that book called, the quakers no deceivers, the truth of which in his pride and deceit, he hath sought to trample under foot, but thereby hath he but more discovered his shame and malice, and folly, and made lies his refuge, and under falsehood hath hid himself, as they spoken of in isai. 28. 15. but the more he strives against the truth, the more he is ensnared and the worse his cause appears: therefore he is not like to prosper, though he appear strongly in contention for his master's work which is sin and unrighteousness; so the reader hereof may take notice of some of the chief of john horne's matter which he hath laid down in order to his father's work, who is the father of lies and liars such as he is▪ and to some of his principal matter i shall briefly answer▪ from whence the reader may easily judge what spirit the rest of j. horne's babylonish stuff in his book came from. in pag. 3. j. horn chargeth us, with being an envious and imbittered people, who hiss like serpents out of the holes. this is one j. h. his malicious slanders, for we are in that power wherein we are a torment to him and such liars as he is, and in that we can tread upon such serpents, and not be stung though they shoot forth their stings against us. in p. 5. j. h. chargeth me with making the asserting of the sayings of the holy men of god, a warring for the devil's kingdom. which is a lie and a slander against me, for i make his perverting of their sayings (in which he contends for sin, which is the devil's work to continue in all, and all to be sinners, so long as they live) a warring for the devil's kingdom, since that where sin is destroyed by christ, 1 joh. 3. 7, 8. there the devil's kingdom cannot stand. and what confusion is this j. horn in, in his warring for this his father's kingdom? one while he pleads that the prophets and apostles had sin in them, and were sinners so long as they lived, as in pages 5. and 26. and for it brings ecc. 7. 20. 1 kin. 8. 46. when at other timees both he and t. m. have admitted of a further state that the saints attained to then being sinners while they lived, for they have said that they might have sin in them, when they did not do it, and that they that were born of god could do nothing against the truth, 2 cor. 13. 8. so that when the saints sinned not, or did not sin as they have granted than they were not sinners, so in their accusing them, with being sinners so long as they lived, they have showed their deceit and confusion. j. h. his reason to prove that no man is perfectly freed from sin in this life, is, that sicknesses, diseases, and mortality that came in by sin, abides upon all men till the death, yea and the bodily death that came in by sin abides upon all till the resurrection, he saith. in which he hath showed his falsehood and ignorance, for does sickness abide upon all men till death? surely than he would make all men live a sad life, if sickness be upon them all their life time. again some of the righteous may be liable to sickness or diseases through natural causes, as hunger, cold, outward sufferings (which christ's when he was upon earth, also suffered and was subject to infirmities as they confess, yet that does not argue therefore that the righteous are not freed perfectly from sin in this life, no more than it argues that christ had sin; and the death which they die, who die in him which is gain to them, did not come in by sin, but that death which is already upon all the wicked though living, as also sickness may come as a judgement upon such; and to his saying that bodily death abides upon all till the resurrection, i say, what bodily death than came upon enoch, elijah or melchizedeck for sin? and where died they that death? gen. 5. 24. heb. 11. 5, 2 king. 2. and where i proffered to be willing to prove against j. h. (if lawfully called) either in the market place, steeple house, &c. 1. that he j. h. is out of the life, and steps of the true ministers, and in the steps and practices of deceivers, and so is a hypocrite and no minister of christ, who being a parish priest is guilty of the priest's iniquity whom he hath declared against. 2. that he upholds a dead formal worship like the world, &c. 3. that his ministry wherein he contends for sin, is antichristian, and both against the commands and promises and works of god, and tends to the making both the preaching and praying of christ and the saints ineffectual. 4. and that he the said j. h. is a forger of lies, a false accuser, a slanderer, and so one of the dragon's army who was wroth with the woman that brought forth the man-child, and the remnant of her seed that kept the commands of god; these i charged j. h. with, and proffered to make them good against him, to which he saith, p. 6. my foolish challenge (as he calls it) he shall not accept, &c. to which i say, ah! j. horn, thou wast herein touched; what wast thou afraid to have thy works tried and brought to light? this showeth thy guilt; but thou knowest i was not afraid to meet thee upon thy challenge, and to vindicate the truth, which thou hast split thyself against for all thy boasting, and what thinkest thou, art thou clear from the deceivers practices, and the parish priest's iniquity, when thou art preaching for hire and pleading for it and tithes? did ever christ's ministers plead for and take tithes as thou hast done? and dost thou not think your steeplehouse worship, whereunto persons are called by a company of bells, is dead and formal and your singing david's words (and experiences) in rhyme and meeter, and preaching by an hour glass? where hast thou scripture for these your practices? i queried thee about them in a paper i sent thee, a great while ago, which i never yet received an answer to, thy guiltiness in these and many other things plainly may be seen. and in p. 6. thou sayest, thou sent me word that thou should henceforth have no more to do with me, but according to the apostles counsel, reject us. but thou may see thou hast herein lied again, for wherefore hast thou scribbled so much confused stuff against us (if thou intended to have more to do with me?) and against me in particular hast thou shown thy venom the most. in p. 6. again thou sayest, thou shalt not go about to plead thy own cause but leave it to god, and rather take good hezekiah's course when sennacherib railed upon him, that would not have him answered again; herein hast thou shamefully lied again, for thou hast gone about thorough much of thy book to plead thy own cause and hast not taken good hezekiah's counsel as thou hast pretended, but hast answered again though to thy own confusion. and in pag. 7. where thou sayest, the quakers would be thought to be better than the prophets and apostles, this is thy lie and slander, j. h. and in pag 8. to my saying, the true prophet says all his judgements were before me, and as for his statutes i did not depart from them, i was also upright before him, and have kept myself from my iniquity, 2 sam. 22. 24 but thou sayest that david acknowledges he had then iniquity, for how was iniquity his, if there was none in him? in which thou hast perverted david's words, for david saith he kept himself from his iniquity, and did not depart from the statutes of the lord, so that then he was not a sinner: and our transgressions and our sins the saints spoke of, when they were washed from them, and their transgressions done far from them, psal. 103. 12. rev. 1. 5. in p. 9 j. h. saith, it is true too that god promises that his people shall be all righteous, and clean from all their filthiness, &c. and that god is performing his promises to them, that they may all be perfectly righteous, even in themselves in the new heaven and earth, and new jerusalem where shall be no unclean thing, he saith: to which reply, in this hath john horn overthrown his former doctrine, for if the people of god shall be cleansed from all their filthiness, as in ezek. 36. 25. and be all perfectly righteous in the new jerusalem, than they are not to be sinners, nor have sin in them so long as they live, as j. h. hath affirmed, for the saints before their decease, were come unto new jerusalem, and to be citizens there, and to a kingdom that could not be shaken, into which no unclean thing could come; and to see the removing of the old earth, and heaven which were shaken, ephes. 2. 19 col. 1. 13. heb. 12. which yet j. h. and all such as he, who are contending for the devil's work are ignorant of. and as for those that john saw, rev. 14. who were without fault before the throne of god, i. h. saith, all that heartily believe in christ, and are not moved away from the hope of the gospel it is christ's office to present them holy unblameable, and without reproof in god's sight, col. 1. 22, 23. not because they are sinless in themselves, he saith. mark his confusion and deceit here, according to j. h. his words here, the saints who are without fault before the throne of god, and holy blameless, and without reproof in god's sight are sinners notwithstanding; as if sin were no fault, and not to be reproved or blamed in god's sight; oh! what darkness and deceit art thou in i. h. what art thou wholly past feeling? dost thou not know in thy own particular that every sin thou hast is reprovable, and art thou not reproved in thy own conscience by the light for it? surely thou art exceedingly hardened, and hast denied christ's office in thy contending for sin to continue even in them whom christ presents holy unblameable and without reproof in god's sight, who live not to themselves but unto the lord. and in p. 10. i. h. saith, he that in such a sense as in 1 joh. 1. 9 confesseth his sins is righteous as christ is righteous, for christ is his righteousness and yet he that confesseth his sin is not without sin in himself,: in which he hath uttered blasphemy against christ, for christ hath no sin in himself to confess, as they have who are but confessing their sins which they have, who are not freed from sin; for they who are righteous as christ is righteous, do witness sin condemned in the flesh, and destroyed, and walk not after the flesh, but after the spirit being purified from all the filthiness of flesh and spirit. and to my saying, that paul witnessed the groaning and travelling in pain before the birth was born in him or before he was born of god (which i. h. hath deceitfully perverted, and wronged my words about) and that paul spoke to conditions below his own (to the romans) which i. h. saith, cannot be true, and the other too, for if paul was but then groaning to be born, and not born of god, he spoke of his own state, and if he spoke to others states below his own, than is it not true that he had, while an apostle a time in which he was not born of god. to which i say, in this hath he showed his blindness and falsehood, for he hath not a ground for these cavals against me, in that i never affirmed, that paul was but groaning to be born of god when he wrote to the romans; nor that he was not born of god when an apostle, but i know he witnessed the groaning, and travelling in pain before the free born state was witnessed in him, as also after he was come into that state himself, he suffered with the body where it suffered, and travailed for its redemption where it was not redeemed; which body was not one member but many, and for the suffering seeds-sake in those members, paul condescended to states below his own, even when he wrote to the romans, all which he himself could not then be in, when he so wrote, yet a sufferer and a traveller under all those burdens which the body under went, about whose condescending, i have more fully writ in that book called the quakers no deceivers, page 14. 15, 16, 17. the truth's whereof j. h. cannot get over for all his cavails. and where thou sayest j. h. in p. 9 that the temptations god tries his people with, are to try and purify their faith from the mixtures therein, in this thou art ignorant of the faith of god's elect, and the mystery of it, for it is pure and stands in the power of god, where there is no mixture of sin, it being of another nature than sin, for it worketh sin out. j. h. in p. 16. speaking of the birth which is born of god, he saith he denies not but in that birth there might be degrees and growth after, nor will the perfection of it be as to the body, till the resurrection thereof from the dead. to which i say, that birth thou never knew, nor its perfection: for how could the body be a temple for the lord, if the perfection of the birth be not as to it? for the saints were born of water, and the spirit which cleansed them from all filthiness of flesh and spirit, so that they became members of his body, of his flesh and of his bone. j. h. saith the prophet isaiah, doth not witness that in them a child was born, and a son in them was given. answ. christ was the first born in many brethren, {non-roman} {non-roman} {non-roman} {non-roman} {non-roman}, rom. 8. 29. and was not isaiah one of these brethren? who also had been as with child, isaiah 26. 17. jer. 30. 6. and where in p. 19 thou chargest r. h. and me with counting christ's coming in the flesh to be but a figure, in this thou hast belied us, for it was never so affirmed by us. j. h. saith, some did believe in the light, before they believed that jesus is the christ; as nathaniel and cornelius, and divers others. answ. where proves he that by scripture? for christ is that light, which cornelius and others believed in, who is not divided: his words here implies, as if they that believe in the light, believed in they knew not what. if they believed not jesus to be the christ, when they so believed: and my saying a man must believe that jesus is the christ, and believe in him too, before he be born of god, as christ said, believe in the light that ye may be the children of the light, of this j. h. says, what is this but to fight against the apostle john, 1 john 5. 1. and says i stick not to make john a liar, p. 21. in which he hath shamefully lied, for i own what john said, and i spoke according to christ's testimony, who put believing in the light before being children of it; for they received christ, and believed in his name, that they might become the sons of god, john 1. 22. and 12. 36 so that j. h. in not owning and believing in christ before being born of god, implies, that while the birth which is of god, is but in bringing forth in man, before it be born, man is but in the unbelief, while that work of god is but in effecting and not effected, which shows j. h. his ignorance of the new birth, which is not conceived without faith in the light, before it is brought forth. j. h. saith p. 24. that the creatures deliverance into the liberty of the sons of god, and the redemption of the saint body, which they groaned and waited for, rom. 8. 19 20, 21, 22, 23. could not be before those saints deceased (for saith he) the apostle (vers. 17, 18,) speaks about their sufferings with christ, and reigning with christ, and speaks of the sufferings with him, as first, and the reign as a thing afterward; the sufferings are of this present time or life, but the glory is to be after revealed, and therefore spoken of as in the future to this present time. answ. here you may see the liberty of the sons of god, and the redemption of the body, which the saints in their life time groaned and waited for, and the reigning with christ, and the revealing of his glory in the saints; all these hath j. horn put afar off, as things not attained by any in this life, in all which he hath showed himself void of understanding, and hath denied the sons of god their liberty and privileges, and so hath denied the end and effect of the saints travail and sufferings, and the work of the spirit of adoption, which was sent into their hearts, and of the son of god who was made of a woman, made under the law to redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons, gal. 4. 4, 5, 6. and that adoption reacheth to the body of the believers, and was its redemption, which for a time it groaned, and waited for, rom▪ 8. and the saints were brought to reign with christ upon the earth, and made partakers of his glory, being made more than conquerors in christ thorough their sufferings, and even then the spirit of glory, and of god did rest upon them, rom, 8. 37. 1 pet. 4. 14. and what gross darkness is it for him to say, the creatures deliverance into the glorious liberty of the sons of god could not be before the saints deceased, as if it were not possible to be so. and whereas from j. horn's not owning that the saints may attain to the redemption of the body, before the bodies be raised out of the grave, (according to his wores) i said from this, than paul is not yet come to the redemption of his body, which so many hundred years since he groaned and waited for, seeing that the resurrection of the bodies is not yet come: oh! how j. horn is vexed at me ' for thus discovering his blindness, as in p. 25▪ he shows his venom in calling us, wicked and corrupt, and poor shifting, for he saith, the fathers that died in the faith, received not as then the promises, and that abraham hath not yet received all the promises for which he hoped, which is another case than paul's groaning and waiting for the redemption of the body from the bondage of corruption, for the scripture does not say, that abraham groaned and traveled, for that which he hath not yet received; for it's said that these all died in the faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar oft and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, heb. 11. 12, 13. but hath not abraham now received the promises which was to him, viz. seen the increase of his seed, and received the heavenly city and country, which he and the martyrs (spoken of in, heb. 11.) died in the hope of? since th●●abraham yet liveth, and is in the everlasting kingdom, but 〈◊〉 is besides j. h. his matter about paul's not yet being come to the redemption of the body, from the bondage of corruption, which so many hundred years since he groaned and waited for, which bondage of corruption j. h. and t. m. have accounted to be the corruption of mortality in which the body corrupteth in death and in the grave, as also they have called it rottenness in their other book p. 48. from which it follows that paul groaned, and waited for his body to be redeemed from the corruption and rottenness in the grave, before ever the body was either dead or laid in the grave, or corrupted there: and thus their sottishness appears, so that this we may lay down as their principle, that the redemption of the body from the bondage of corruption, which so many hundred years since paul groaned and waited for (when he lived) he hath not yet attained to it. alas! then they would make poor paul have a long travail and suffering, as also according to what they say in their other book, page 47. 48. viz. that it was the apostles part to groan after the redemption, till christ's descending from heaven, (which they say is not till after the decease) and whereas i said, that asa's heart was perfect with the lord while he did that which was right in the sight of the lord (which might be all his days, till that was written in, 2 cron. 15. 17, 18, 19) but not when his heart was departed from the lord, and he turned into the rage, oppression, and persecution (nor when he was in the natural state) which is clear ●●cording to 2 chron. 16. 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12. j. h. saith that is a gloss of my own brain against the authority of the text. but i. h. can neither overthrow my answer about this, nor clear himself of it, for was asa's heart perfect with the lord, when he relied not on the lord? and when it was departed from the lord? and when he was in rage with the prophet of the lord, and put him in prison? and when he sought not to the lord but to the physicians? if i. h. urge, that he was perfect all his days, it seems his confidence and faith is grounded upon the history chiefly as the foundation of it; and yet he will but stick to such places of it in the letter, as he thinks may serve his turn, and other places he can turn and wrest▪ but seeing his confidence is such in the letter, or those histories of the kings, i'll ask him if these two places be both infallible and in union? viz. in 2 kings. 8. 26. it's said two and twenty years old was ahaziah when he began to reign, and in 2 chron. 22. 2. it's said forty and two years was ahaziah when he began to reign, and see 2 kings 9 27, 28. and what are all these the word of god and in unity? and where in p. 29. thou j. h. accusest me with alleging the sleeping in security, (against which the apostle warns them, ●● thes. 5. 6.) as an interpretation of the sleeping in jesus, in which thou hast shown thyself a gross and impudent liar, for i never put such an interpretation upon the sleeping in jesus, for it was publicly known at our dispute, that i plainly distinguished between the sleeping in jesus, and the sleeping in sin or security, as also i suppose your own relation of the dispute may prove thee false in this thing. and another of thy lies, is, that i did never confess that coming of christ from heaven, and that bringing with him them that sleep in him, and raising the dead in christ, the apostle speaks of 1 thes. 4. which i have often confessed and witnessed to, but against thy lies and lying imaginations. and where i charged thee with pleading for sin, and that thy ministry tends to keep people in it, thou sayest, which reflects upon the apostles equally with you, p. 31. in this haste thou also lied, for the apostles never set forth two such books chiefly in contention for sin and deceit as thou and thy brethren in iniquity have done; nor ever pleaded for wearing cuffs and ribbons and such like things, as you have done, nor did they say the prophets and apostles were sinners so long as they lived as thou hast done, p. 26. so that thou art not at all fit to be compared to them who art in so much deceit and lies, and yet thou hast called god to thy witness, and reckoned thyself with the just p. 28. 32. and again in thy deceit hast gone about to vindicate thy saying thou wast able to worry me and such foxes; which thou hast not yet done for all thy malice, though it's evident thou art more like a worrier (or wolf) than a lamb. and in page 33. j. h. propounds this for the readers usefulness, viz. that the same persons that believe, are considerable as they are men and women, and have natural beings of souls and bodies, as springing from adam by propagation, and so they are sinful, mortal, subject to many infirmities, and have members on earth to mortify, and yet the same persons as they are by the grace of god begotten to know and believe in christ, and reckoned after him have another state in him, which is not reckoned after adam, and what they are in themselves, and so they are saints holy, spotless, complete, he saith. i answer. was there ever such deceit and confusion as this? did you ever hear of sinful, mortal, holy, spotless, complete saints and believers in christ? or did you ever read in scripture of a sinful spotless saint? thus madly hath j. h. accused the saint●, and pleaded for sin which in his father's work, who before accounted such sinners as are without fault before the throne of god, and whom christ presents holy, unblameable and without reproof in god's sight, p. 9 as if he had told us of unblameable sinners, and sinners without fault: and as for his counting the spotless saints sinners in themselves as propagated from adam, he hath showed his blindness and deceit, for the spotless saints are come out of adam's state and are no more subject to his transgression by propagation or natural issue, than the children's teeth are set on edge by the fathers eating sour grapes, jer. 31. 29, 30. for they are come into christ the second adam's state, and live not to themselves but to him, so the twain is made one, and they are one new-man in christ, in whom he that abideth sinneth not. and after that j. h. hath pleaded for his laughing at the dispute whereby his lightness scorn and madness appeared, eccles. 2. 2. in page 34. he saith that none that saw things rightly could see truth with us, damping or confuting him, for then could he not have laughed or rejoiced over us he saith. * this is another such a reason as i horns saying that he is not a dumb dog for he could worry me, &c. i answer, this is a sottish reason, for could not the truth on david's and the true prophet's side confute and damp their enemies, when they laughed and scoffed at david, and the true prophets, as i. h. hath laughed and scoffed at us, so that his scoffing and laughing at us, does not anrgue the truth to be on his side, but rather showeth his impudence, vain glorying and profaneness, which is largely gone abroad. and whereas i. horn said, the king christ shall rejoice in god, and every one that swearsby (●r comfesses) him shall glory, and to prove it brought psal. 63. 11. to which i say, if every one that swears by christ shall glory, then must the drunkards and liars and all such profane persons, as swear by him glory, about which i. h. charges me with reviling and blaspheming the very words of scripture, & calls me a desperate deceiver, in which he hath both belied me and my words, and slandered me, for i neither reviled nor opposed the very words of scripture, but witnessed against i. horne's saying, that every one that sweareth by christ shall glory, which he would falsely put upon scripture▪ for the words are not so in the scripture, psal. 63. 11. there's not christ mentioned, for that was in the time of the law before christ came when oaths were used, so that he in encouraging men to swear by christ, hath denied christ's doctrine, which is, swear not at all, mat. 5. and so hath given liberty to the drunkard's practice; and then he telling of his explication of the word swearing, by the word confessing, as he saith its explicated in, rom. 14. 11. and phil. 2. 11. in which there is no mention of swearing by christ at all, but of every tongue confessing to god, and of confessing that jesus christ is lord. oh! how sadly hath i. h. come off here and shifted for himself, what doth he make swearing by and confessing christ all one? then he would make all the saints who confessed christ swearers and so transgressors of the doctrine of christ, which was against swearing, but not against confessing christ. again this impudent man i. h. amongst others of his falsehoods he accuseth me with; he is not ashamed to charge me with saying, that the 63. psalm verse 11. tends, to encourage drunkards, and with saying that the apostles and proph●●●, when they confessed sins were not true believers, with many other lies: truly i. h. of all the liars and false accusers that ever i met with, thou art one of the most expert to tell lies and falsely to accuse, thou hast sure been long discipled in they father's work, who was a liar from the beginning, or else thou couldst not be so expert in it. again, how falsely and poorly com'st thou off, in saying, that in my asking, why should christ teach his to pray, that his will may be perfectly done in earth as it is in heaven; if it be not in this world to be done? in this thou sayest, that i reply, there is nothing to be prayed for, but what is here to be enjoyed in this word: in which thou hast again lied, for that is none of my reply, but this is my reply, that thou hast appeared against the end, for which the disciples of christ preached as he taught them, who prayed, that his fathers will might be done in earth as in heaven; which thou i. h. hast denied to be so done in this world: but christ's testimony contradicts thee; for christ saith, what things soever ye desire when you pray, believe that ye receive them, and ye shall have them, mar. 11. 23, 24. and they desired the will of god to be done in earth as it is in heaven, where there is no sin: which my reply is truth and stands clearly over thee, and overthrows thy sinful doctrine about the prophets and apostles being sinners so long as they lived; and thy telling of sinful saints that are spotless, pages 26▪ 33. and such thy sinful doctrines tends to make the saints unbelievers, and their praying in effectual, when they prayed that the will of god might be done in earth as it is in heaven. and to thy saying that i would exclude the coming of christ in glory, and his glorious kingdom out of your prayers, for that is in the world to come, thou sayest. i answer, indeed, thou hast already excluded these things out of thy prayers thyself, who art in thy wickedness and unbelief, and putting the glorious kingdom a far off, (as appears) as not to be come to in this life, contrary to the saints faith, who were translated into the kingdom of the dear son of god when upon earth, which kingdom was everlasting and glorious, and stood in the power of god, into which no unclean thing can come. and where thou i. h. sayest, thou shall add no more to g. w. but leave him to the lord's convincement, and silencing. indeed it's high time for thee to give over, and add no more indeed; for thou hast added enough folly and falsehood against g. w. and the truth cotended for by him, to manifest thy folly and lying spirit to the nation, and if thou add any more to g. w. hereafter, since thou hast promised to add no more to him, but to leave him to the lord's convincement and silencing, thy lying spirit and deceit, is like further to be discovered to the nation: and thy craving forgiveness for one of thy lies will not hide thy many more, and much more of thy confusion i have passed by, and more of thy aspersions and slanders, which are chiefly against me i have waved as not worth mentioning and trample them under my feet as the dust, knowing that the lord will recompense them into thy own bosom one day, and judge thee for them. and as for what thou layest upon richard hubberthorne, it's but like the rest of thy frivolous false stuff, and his innocency and uprightness will clear him from thy aspersions; when thy wickedness and lies will stink and appear odious both in the sight of god and men. and, oh! how hath thy deceit appeared in thy sending so many questions to r. hubberthorne, as thou hast done? and for what end didst thou send them? seeing that thou and thy brother moor have pretended as if you sufficiently knew our principles already; and said in a paper to me as that you sufficiently discovered our corruptness before; and that you would not own us to be such good doctors as to learn of us; nor needed further discover us; so if thou didst neither send these questions to r. h. to learn of us, than thou sent them in vain, and it was in thy foolishness, but thy wicked ends which thou hast not yet fulfilled against us are easy to see. and where thou accusest r. h. of denying that there be many such angels and spirits, as the scripture declares, and of denying the resurrection of the body, as will appear if he clearly speak out his mind in explication of his said answer, thou sayest. in both these thou hast belied him, and hast falsely accused him without understanding his mind, as also thou sayest his answer cannot be understood unless it be known what be these two seeds, and therefore queriest of him, and a little after, thou challengest him for explaining his answer, before it can he seen to agree with the apostles doctrine of the resurrection. see how thou betrays thy own malice, falsehood and folly against r. h. for it appears by thy own words here, that it is not known to thee, whether he deny the resurrection in his doctrine, or whether he own it according to the apostles doctrine, except he further explain his answer; and then thou hast judged him for denying the resurrection without understanding him, and art like the natural men whom the apostles reproved, who spoke evil of the things they understood not, and could not cease from sin, 2 pet. 2. 12. 14. and thou art never like to understand us aright, while thou in thy malice sets thyself to belie and bespatter us with thy falsehoods, and sets thyself against the truth, as thou hast done: thy malice and enmity doth sadly darken and blind thee, so that all people ought to take heed how they follow or believe thee and such as thou art, lest they be leavened with the same malicious spirit that rules in thee, and become as blind as thou art, and so fall into the ditch with thee, and that generation of deceivers and hirelings whose way thou art in; who are guilty of the blood of souls for destroying them, and diverting their minds from the simplicity of the gospel, and your doubtful conceptions and vain imaginations, which god is confounding and will bring them to nought. london in the 6. month, 1660. r. h. his answer to john horn. in thy answer to my queries thou seemest ●o be resolved to say something, although it be absolute contrary j. h. to the truth, and to that which thou knowest to be truth as will appear in what follows. in answer to my first thou sayst; christ in his spirit ascended up to heaven, when his body was upon earth, is this an answer to the question? is the mind or spirit, called the son of man according to john 3. 13. which came down from heaven? and no man doth ascend up to heaven but the son of man, which was then in heaven; so by this thy answer it appears then, that the spirit is the son of man, and that there is no other son of man that ascends into heaven but the spirit: than what becomes of that body thou speaks of, if the spirit only be that son of man? in thy answer to the 2. and 3d. queries, thou provest in thy way, that mary did that which was forbidden by christ, when she held him by the feet and worshipped him, but in mat. 28. 9 there is no forbidding of her to touch him, but this is plainly manifest that thou art in a snare, and cannot tell how to get out, and yet thou wilt be saying something though thereby thou more ensnare thyself: but this scripture thou wilt once know fulfilled, the wicked shall be silent in darkness. when thou shouldst answer to the fourth, thou tellest of its being a secret and of prying into things above what is written: although the ground of my query is grounded upon that which is written in luke 24. 4. to the fifth thou sayst that the women did distinguish which was christ was certain, but how they did so is a foolish curious question: what certainty is there that they did know, when thou knowest not how? but this is like the rest of the priest's doctrine, beating the air, and leaving all people in uncertainties and yet would be paid for so doing; but the lord hath made thee manifest with the rest, that you cannot deceive much longer. to the sixth thou sayest the two angels were seen visibly, but were not bodies nor persons of men; but in thy answer to the fourth sayst, that they both saw them as men, and heard them speak and had two individual forms; now if thou were but simple, and not wilfully blind, thou mightst be the more excused. in thy answer to the seventh, thou art more lost and confused then in all the rest, for when thou shouldst answer who were the 11. disciples that were met together, mentioned luke 24. 33. thou sayst that thomas might occasionally be gone out. answ. if he was gone out, than the 11. was not together, as luke 24. again thou sayst that matthew was chosen before the evangelist wrote this book; what darkness and ignorance is this? thou art not questioned when the book was written, nor when matthew was chosen, but who was the eleven that was together? and whether was matthew one of the eleven seeing he was not then chosen, when christ did arise from the dead? but there needs not much be said to thee, only to let thee see thy own folly, lest thou should say thou art wise. to the eight thou seemest to affirm, that the scripture are to be taken as they speak (and not otherwise a mystery. answ. then why dost thou and the priests give meanings to the scriptures, and do not let people take them as they speak, but makes them such a mystery without your meanings, and so plain with them? but this is thy practice and doctrine to condemn thyself in the thing that thou allowest, and builds again that which thou hast destroyed, and so makes thyself a transgressor. lastly in thy conclusion thou falsely chargest me: that i do not believe that any of these things mentioned in these scriptures to be really done. which is not my faith; for i do believe that those things mentioned were really done and fulfilled as the scripture speaks, but it is no new thing with thee to accuse falsely, and to make lyes thy refuge; but what in all those things thou hast done against me, i do forgive thee, and do warn thee for the time to come, that thou go not on to commit the unpardonable sin against god and his spirit, never to be forgiven. again in thy last paper thou declarest thy ignorance of the two seeds, and askest what be those two seeds? answ. these two the scripture speaks of, the seed of the woman, and the seed of the serpent. 2. who did or doth sow them seeds? answ. god doth sow the one, and the wicked one the other. 3. where be they sown? answ. in man. 4. when be they sown? answ. when man had a being, and a body to receive them. 5. what be the bodies they shall rise with? answ. their own bodies according to their own natures the one pure, and the other defiled. 6. whether be these two seeds, and two bodies in all the world or two seeds in every man, and the two bodies to or in every man? answ. the seeds are but two in the whole world, having each seed its own body, and in every o 〈…〉 e one be cast out. 7. when shall those seeds arise, or be raised, whether after the bodily death or after spiritual death? answ. every one in its own order, after the death of that which is born of the flesh, and also after the death of the spiritual wickedness, which is yet alive in all hirelings and deceivers (such as thou art) where the seed of god is yet in its grave. 8. what are the graves these are in, and out of which they shall arise? these of which the scripture speaks, which when thou comest to understand it, thou wilt understand both the seeds and graves of which we speak, christ the seed made his grave in the wicked; and in the rich in his death, and out of that grave shall rise with his body into everlasting life, if thou canst receive it thou mayst be satisfied. and as to thy 9 query, why i say, that the one shall rise into everlasting life and the other into condemnation? answ. because it is so, therefore i say so, and if thou say to the contrary make it manifest, but in this as in other things thy folly and ignorance is manifest, to ask why i speak the truth which thou thyself darest not to be truth, r. hubberthorne. a postscript. and t. m. sen. thou hast taken a bad work in hand now in thy old age, to join thyself and to appear so publicly with a lying spirit as thou hast done; but how wast thou licks to do better, when thou hast denied the lord in thy turning into the way of the covetous tyth-taking-parish-priests, whose deceit thou formerly hadst a sight of, and in part wast made to witness against them; but that zeal and that simplicity which thou hadst then is turned into darkness, and betrayed, and thou become as sottish and as dark an earthworm as the priests, whom thou hast witnessed against: and thou art become a respecter of persons, and canst bow and cringe under such as be great in the earth, as they do for their own ends, and thou art by many taken notice of, to be more sottish dead and dark, since so much thou hast partaken of the priest's iniquity, than ever thou wast, and the same enemy and betrayer in thee and thy two disciples, viz. j. h. and thy son leads you out to deceive others, with your dreams and imaginations, and to betray the simplicity, and to murder the innocent in others, for which you have a sad account to give; and if thou returnest not to that principle which once brought thee in part to see the deceit of the priests, but continuest in thy deceit, hypocrisy, and accusing the innocent, and so remainest in sottishness and hardness of heart, thou will be cut off & perish in thy iniquity in thy old age. alas! what silly men are ye? you are never like to gain to yourselves any honour and credit among any that are honest hearted, by your books and aspersions against the poor quakers (so called) for it is so common a thing for them to undergo revilings and aspersions even from the vilest of men, as drunkards, covetous idolaters, and the like, that in what you have done you have not shown yourselves any whit more eminent or famous than such, but have merely ranked yourselves in the dragon's army, with them, in belying and slandering the iunocent. the end, {αβγδ} a brief review of mr. davis's vindication: giving no satisfaction. being for the greatest part of it, no direct answer to what is charged upon him; but mere evasions, to deceive his reader. things that tends to practise, are chiefly insisted upon: other things but lightly touched. to which is added, remarks upon some passages of mr. crisp in his book, entitled, christ alone exalted. the reason of the authors engaging in this controversy, is given in the preface to the reader. by giles firmin, one of the united brethren. mark them which cause divisions and offences, contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned, and avoid them. rom. 16.17. the god of peace, shall bruise satan under your feet shortly. ibid v. 20. london, printed for john laurence, at the angel in the poultry. 1693. to the reader. the book entitled, the horrible plague begun at rowel, &c. was sent to me, by an unknown hand: when i red it, i found my name mentioned, p. 14. my brethren might have name others, far better than myself; but they were pleased to mention my name alone. i had no thoughts to meddle with the controversy; but reading mr. davis vindication of himself, and observing he found fault with that, for which they name me: i resolved to defend that doctrine, which i had delivered; and for which they quoted me. as for these antinomian tenets, vented by dr. crisp, and mr. davis, i have reason to be acquainted with them: first living in an antinomian family, about 66 years since, when i was a school boy. during the three years of my living there,[ giving them their opinions,] it was as well ordered a family, as any in the town, strictly observing the lords day. one notion i observed there, which i never heard before, nor since: it was the interpretation of the revel. 12.1. it was a manuscript fastened to a board. i saw a woman clothed with the sun.[ that is, the church clothed with the righteousness of christ, to her justification] and the moon,[ that is, sanctification] under her feet. after i went from thence to cambridge, and from thence to new-england; upon my return hither, i visited the family: as to their morals, they held very sober: but as to their opinions, more corrupt. the lords day, which they did so strictly observe before, and did not now openly profane it, yet the morality now is denied; and one of the company, who did answer his name, ( mud was his name, and a very muddy fellow he was) brought them to these opinions; 1. if there were any such thing, as sin in the world, god was the author of it;[ as for sin, being res, or ens, they did not understand that.] 2. as dieth the beast, so dieth man, denying a future state. i alleged that in 1 cor. 15.19. if in this life only we have hope in christ, we are of all men, the most miserable: they told me, that was a text something hard to answer; but they thought it might be answered: but there i left them, and never saw them more: when we can make nothing of lesser errors, god may give us up to them, which are gross. when i returned to new-england; before our ship came into harbour, a shallop coming of shore to us, the men told us, the churches were on fire. i was amazed to hear it; for i left them all in unity and peace. when i came on shore, i was told, the heat, the animosities were so high, that they were ready to lay hands on their swords, to draw one against another. mr. wheelwright a minister, acted his part there, as mr. davis doth here. all the discourse was about justification, and the assurance of it, by the immediate testimony of the spirit, or an absolute promise applied by the spirit. to speak of conditional promises, sanctification, or marks, was a mark of one under the covenant of works; a person to be despised. a zealot, whose name i see in the book put forth by mr. wield; i asked him, i pray thee tell me, what is justification, thou art so hot only upon it? he answered me, truly 'tis so great a thing, that i do not know what it is. as for any inherent work wrought by the spirit, in the hearts of sound believers, this was slighted. it fell out so, when i came on shore, that the governor with whom i lived before, was not at home: our pastor, was gone with the souldiers, to the pequit war. i could not tell whether to go; but mrs. hutchisons son being my mess-mate in the ship, he carried me to his mothers house, where i eat my first meal: discoursing of several things at table[ though i had not seen mr. cotton our teacher; being chosen to office, while i was in england,] i told them, i heard such things charged upon mr. cotton; which i did believe, he would never own;[ he told me himself how he was abused by them, when i grew acquainted with him] mrs. hutchison, asked me, what it was? i told her, that he should say, there was no difference between the graces wrought in a child of god, and what was wrought in an hypocrite: several at the table said, they never heard mr. cotton deliver any such thing; yes said mrs. hutchison, he hath delivered something like it: will, said she, any body say there is? then she and i fell to our work; she was soon put to silence; this was the first and the last discourse, that ever i had with her. mr. dyer, the husband of her that brought forth that horrid monster; he would have christ to be the new creature, and would prove it from the greek text, 2 cor. 5. 17. {αβγδ}, with {αβγδ}, by apposition, and so would red it thus: if any man be in christ, the new creature; had he been at school, his false grammar, might have cost him a lash: our pastor mr. wilson, a precious saint, he was despised by them; though a man of a singular spirit. our governor, old mr. john winthrop, a man for grace, high apprehensions of god, self-denial, spending all his estate for the common good, was one of a thousand, he was slightly esteemed by them. one of this antinomian gang, because he was a member of the church; in the debates they had in the church, calls him brother governor, when he spake to him. i think, christianity doth not teach men to deny civil respect, and honour to magistrates: but thus did our troubles continue, till the synod having condemned their errors, mrs. hutchison excommunicated, mr. vaughan[ who when governor, was the great favourer and maintainer of these errors, and did animate that faction] by the free-men cast out from being so much as an assistant; so he and mr. wheelwright left us: the heads of that party removed from us, then our troubles began to cease, sanctification came to be in some request again; and there were notes and marks given of a good estate: i took notice, when the word was first used, and what the mark was. the insolent, proud carriages of that party in new-england, makes me to have no good opinion of them in england. what woeful work, the turbulent spirit of mr. davis, with his gospel[ not christs] hath made, we hear from several parts. the pastor of a church near us, being dead, word was sent, there were two ministers, whose churches mr. davis had broken, they might have which they would; with divers others besides. many things i red in mr. davis, with abhorrency, and would have spoken to them; but that i saw my sheets increased beyond my intention: i choose rather to speak to them, which were more practical. if in the close of my days, i may do any service to the church of christ,[ while others, who have better parts and grace, will do more:] i shall have cause to walk numbly and thankfully, before the lord for it. redgwell april 24.93. the unworthyest of christs ministers. giles firmin. contents. the use of the law, and preparatory works, p 3. to 7. true converts, may not know the time of conversion, 7. unbelief, is not always the first sin the spirit conviaceth of, 10 saving faith is not a particular persuasion, that christ is ours, 12, 13. saving faith described, 14, 16, &c. faith receives christ as lord, 19. the necessity of obedience and good works, 20. the gospel a law, 20. mr. williams vindicated, and justification stated, 21, 22. assurance by marks and signs, 23. all promises of saving relative benesits, are conditional, 24. the churches which mr. d. would break, vindicated, 25. mr. davis no gospel minister, 26. the agreement of the united brethren defended, 29. christs rule for admission of members, 30. against lay-preachers, 30 31. chap. i. of legal preparatory works. that the gospel doth command sinners to believe, and invites sinners as sinners to come to christ, not as saints, nor as little and reformed sinners, is evident from the whole current of gospel-invitation, saith mr. davis. p. 16. 49. this is not denied, and we bless our jesus for it, that he calleth sinners, and the worst of sinners. but whether these sinners be so forward to accept this invitation of christ, without some previous act of the spirit to make them willing, is the question? of which presently. for the first, a few words, because i have found the usefulness of it. i grant it is the duty of every person, when the gospel is preached, and christ is offered to him, immediately to receive him, be he prepared or not prepared. this command of believing in christ, 1 john 3.23. is not a conditional command, the duty of believing, depending upon some condition, first performed, but it doth immediately bind the sinner to his duty; viz. to believe in the lord jesus, calling and offering himself to you. if it did depend upon a condition, and were not to take place, till that condition were performed, then men should not be condemned for not believing, but for not being prepared to believe; it's not here, as in the sacraments, which ought to be observed; there is a duty we owe; but there is a condition required, first to be performed by adult persons, if thou believest with all thine heart, &c. 8 act. 37. let a man examine himself. 1 cor. 11.28. those ordinances belong but to some, but this duty of believing in christ, belongs to all. it is as much a duty, and as suitable to reason, for fallen miserable man to believe in, and immediately to receive a blessed saviour, redeemer, offering himself to him in a state of nocency, as it was adams duty to love his creator in a state of innocency. i would have insisted more largely upon this, if there had been need. i have spoken to it something more in my real-christian. this benefit i found by this doctrine, under the many fears and doubts i met with several years, of a sound work of faith in christ; because i could not find those legal preparatory works, which divines did preach of, and print in that manner i would have had them, and i saw others had them: especially when i red these eminent servants of christ[ whom i have mentioned in my real-christian] requiring these, as requisite to the souls true humiliation, before faith in christ, viz. that the soul must be qutet, tho' god will never give it his love, tho' he will never manifest grace, nor give it grace, the heart truly abased, is content to bear the estate of damnation, and much more to the same purpose: what did these holy men mean, to preach and print these things? what soul can bear the thoughts, if we seriously meditate upon them? but then this doctrine gave me relief against all those fears and doubts; jesus christ calls you, he offers himself to you, receive him upon his own terms you had best: 'tis gods command, that you believe in his son, obey his gommand, believe or be damned, there is no escaping, 3 john 18. and 36.16 mar. 16. he that believeth not, shall be damned: they are the words of your saviour, he puts no conditions, but speaks downright, see how that will answer him, lord, i was not prepared to believe in thee: had i not known these worthy men, and men so eminent, i should not have been so much troubled. what mr. s. have brought to prove his doctrine, i have answered, and eight arguments i brought against it. i only add this. if this doctrine be true, methinks we should have had something of it, in gods dealing with our father adam, when he broken the covenant, and fell from god, now thou hast thrown of my government, rebelled against my command, and brought yourself under my threat, and now art in a damned condition, will you be quiet, tho' i leave you in it, and never manifest my grace or love to you? there is not the least shadow of it, but the promise gets the start, and steps in, before the curse was pronounced. o blessed be that grace, 3 gen. 15. of the same use is this doctrine unto souls, that lie pressed under the greatness of their sins; what such a one as i, believe, one that hath committed such sins as i have done? believe or be damned, this knocks all down: do not you add that damning sin of unbelief to all the rest, for then you are damned indeed. believing in christ, is the way to salvation. but these souls i now speak of, were willing souls, troubled souls, laden souls, and to these the doctrine comes sweet. one word yet i would leave, to be joined with what mr. davis saith. the same jesus that calls sinners to believe in him, calls sinners also to repentance, 9 matth. 13. repent and believe the gospel, was his preaching. 1 mar. 15. so it was of his great apostle paul, the sum of his preaching 20. acts 21. so it was of peter. 2 acts 38. let these then be joined together, else we do not preach as our lord and his apostles did, and who ever he be that shall say, a man may be in a justified, pardonned, and saved estate, where this repentance towards god, and faith in the lord jesus christ is not found, he is but a soul-deceiver, for he that hath satisfied divine justice, and answered what ever the law can require, hath said, he that believeth not, shall be damned, 16 mar. 16. and unless ye repent, you shall all likewise perish, 13 luke 3, 5. what ever be his fathers grace, and his own merits, he will dispense them to none but such: he will not across his own doctrine he preached. thus he ordered that repentance and remission of sins, should be preached in his name. 24 luke 47. now for the second question. the most godly and learned men that i have heard or red, master-workmen, whom god hath honoured most in bringing home souls to christ, they have concluded in the negative: man fallen, is not a subject capable immediately to receive jesus christ, offering himself to him in the gospel: but there must be some previous acts of the spirit to prepare man for it. but mr. crisp tells us, christ exalt. p. 5. the apostle did not preach a deal of trumpery qualifications must be found in men to prepare them to true conversion, &c. mr. davis being charged, that he should preach, that such as preach up preparatory works, p. 94. are legal preachers, hinder peoples comfort, keep them under bondage. we should begin with high confidence, and hold it fast to the end. here, as in others of his answers, he shuffles, and refers us to his answers before, to a charge of the same nature, viz. that they who tell us of john baptist preparing the way, prophesy lies in the name of the lord, &c. and tell us, that they who preach up preparatory works as qualifications, that must recommend persons to christ, are these liars: did john the baptist preach so? i see you express a bitter spirit against the presbyterians, name one of them that ever did so preach; i have heard as great legal preachers, as any are in england, before you were born, mr. davis: and i never heard any such words come out of their mouths, nor red any such line in their books; but the constant language was, the end of all preparatory works, was, not to commend us to christ, but to commend christ to us: to make us feel the absolute necessities of him, and see the glorious excellencies in him. what the papists prate of mens abilities to prepare, and dispose themselves for grace, concern not us, their own bradwardin hath given them their answer, do causa dei l. 1. cap. 35, 36, 37, &c. protestants may be silent. but you are not dealing with papists, but protestants; you would make your followers believe, we are a company of silly fellows, that know not how to preach the law[ which i never red so abused by any man as by you, well may you be called an antinomian] but we must come to learn of you. but as to the trumpery[ as mr. crisp phraseth it] of these preparatory works, which you so much cry down, you finding some fault with our definition of faith, tell us; it hath not been so well done of latter divines, p. 19. to depart from that definition of faith given always by our first reformers, who as they lead the van, so no doubt, they had most of the spirit of christ. i honour them as much as you, let that then be enquired into, whether they have denied, despised, these legal preparatory works of the spirit, in order to that end i mentioned, to make the sinner willing to accept of christ offered to them upon his own terms, as you and mr. crisp have done. though this question was not started, and so not put into the confessions of faith, made by our first reformers, yet i find in their confessions, if they have touched upon conversion or repentance, they all tell us, how necessary it is unto conversion, that the person should have the sense of his sin, an apprehension of the displeasure and wrath of god against sin, with these sorrows which the law works, &c. thus i find in the augustan, wirtemburg, saxon, and the bohemian confessions, the latest whereof, was put out in the year 1552. another in the year 1530. i think these reformers led the van, as you phrase it. though the tenth article of our english confession, do not speak so full[ it was leveled against the papists] yet it intimates something, when it saith the condition of man after the fall of adam, is such, that he cannot turn and prepare himself by his own natural strength, and good works to faith, &c. the word preparing intimates, that there must be a preparation to faith and conversion, the man cannot prepare himself; this was published, 1562. as for other divines, the leyden professors, disput. 32. de resipisc, synop. pure. thes. 11. say, man is not capable of regeneration without it, and though you have a pick against amyraldus, here speaks as sound divinity to this question, as any you have in your book, which is but little. thes. salmuri. l. 4. de spir. servitutis. thes. 40 come to our english divines, ames. medul. th. c. 26. thes. 12. i believe there is scarce any one of our old divines, whom god have honoured under him, to bring home many souls to christ[ and he hath honoured them as much, and more in this century, then any in the world] but they have preached and printed these preparatory works, witness mr. perkins, mr. rogers, &c. red our english divines at the synod of dort, upon the third and fourth questions, de antecedaneis ad conversionem, red also the palatinate, and the geneva divines there. calvin i hope, was one of the first reformers, red him, jnstit. l. 3. cap. 2. sec. 7. by all these mr. davis and mr. crisp, may see they are but innovators, and mr. davis condemned by his own rule. but laying by these testimonies of holy and learned men, a cloud of witnesses, i will come closser to the work: whereas you deride and condemn legal preachers, i say, he cannot be a sound gospel-preacher, who is not a right legal preacher. 1. the law was first, had there been no law, there had been no gospel, the gospel came in by occasion of a law broken. 2. we are all born under the law, not under the gospel, ye are not under the law[ being now in christ] but under grace, 6 rom. 14. but they were under the law before, let the first then be first preached. 3. it is the law known, and the effects of it felt in the soul, which makes us to know and understand the necessity and worth of the gospel: call his name jesus, for he shall save his people from their sins. 1 math. 21. sin, what is that? how shall we know what sin is? by the law is the knowledge of sin, 3 rom. 20. i had not known sin, but by the law, &c. 7 rom. 7. what then? what evil is there in sin? yes, there is some evil in it, in its nature it is enmity against god, and the wages of it, is death. yea, death eternal, devouring fire, everlasting burnings, 33 isa. 14. but why so? we may escape that, will not amendment of life, and walking obediently for the future, prevent that? yes, if you can satisfy divine justice, for the breach of his law past, and give personal and perfect obedience for the future, then there may be hopes of escaping the wrath of god for your sin. all this is law-work, and where are you now sinner, it is impossible to answer this condition? now what think you of jesus? you needed not to have opposed, despised, bespattered the law as you have done, mr. davis, telling us, the light of the law is impure, that it drives men further from christ: paul did not think so, 3 gal. 24. as for our justification before god by the works of the law, we are as far from that, as yourself, or any antinomian in england: but that the preaching of the law, to make men know sin, and know themselves, that they may be beaten out of themselves, and glad to accept the invitation of christ, is very useful and necessary, so that he is an irrational, and an unsound gospel-preacher, that doth not preach the law to these ends, no rational man can deny. for tho' christ calls and invites sinners to himself, as you say, yet there are three things which hinders the sinners acceptance of his offer, they make light of it, as they did 22 matth 5, and it is the power of the spirit by the law, which must remove these. 1. the first is ignorance, blindness. satan that told our mother eve, that in the day ye eat of the forbidden three, your eyes shall be opened, dealt by her, as the philistines did by samson, when they took him, put his eyes out: so that now in stead of being gods knowing good and evil, as he promised, we do not so much as know god, nor do we know what is truly and spiritually good for our own selves, nor the evil that is in us. hence when christ calls and invites, we think we are well enough, we see no such evil in sin, nor in ourselves. we see no such reason to go, or accept of his invitation: most have not so much as the notional knowledge, of things that are of spiritual and eternal concernment: others that have the notional knowledge, yet have not the spiritual knowledge of them, to know them as they ought: this word ought, carry much in it, 1 cor. 8.2. and without that, we know nothing savingly, they that have attained it in some measure, yet what need do they feel of divine teaching, as much as any child that goes to school to learn its primer, to be helped by its mistress to spell, even to know the things they do know, as they are. there is the excellency of knowledge, to have the true sight and knowledge of all things, as they are in themselves: of what consequence both to sound conversion, and afterwards of a gracious conversation, the knowledge of god, of sin, of christ, of creatures, of holiness, all as they are in themselves, is, they that are in earnest about these works can tell. and as is the knowledge of god, so is the knowledge of all the rest; how christians find it, i cannot tell: but some body find, it is one thing to speak great words of god, another thing to have high and holy apprehensions of god. the god of glory appeared to abraham, said stephen, 7 act. 2. when the spirit of god hath in some measure, healed the eye of the understanding, and this great god, and law-giver appears, and manifest himself to the understanding, now the soul seeth, what it is to have broken and despised the law of this god, then what the lord said to the jews, 2 jer. 19. it is an evil and bitter thing, that thou hast for saken the lord. so by the law, he finds sin is an evil thing in its nature, and will be bitter in the effects. thus the spirit removes this hindrance by the law. object. but 'tis said, we may know the evil of sin by the gospel. answ. 1. sin may be known without the gospel, but not without the law, the gentiles in 2 rom. 14, 15. knew no gospel, but they knew sin by the law within them. 2. we know sin by the gospel, consequentially. if there be such physic prepared, then there is sickness; but we know sin by the law directly. 3. the proper work of the gospel, is to reveal the cure, the proper work of the law, is to discover the disease, which must go first. 4. the gospel is a confirmation of what the law threatened, before the law taught, he that continueth not in all things, written in the book of the law to dothem, is accursed. 5. we may learn from the gospel in general, that there is sin: but by he law, we know sins in particular: paul saith, he knew sin by the law, not by the gospel. i had not known lust, except the law had said, thou shalt not covet. 7 rom. 7. the second thing that hinders, is the power of mens lusts, and the world, bear in mens hearts, the scripture speaks enough of this, and woeful experience proves the truth of what it saith. how dear these are, 3 col. 7. when ye lived in them, the element they live in, lusts are as dear as their lives, for the world, 14 luke 17. there was a call, but they would not go; and what hindered? not the whore, nor the pot; but lawful things, the world, even a slight thing, a bubble. about threescore years since, or more, some men wore love-locks[ i think they called them so] the indians do so all that i saw, a soldier in the low-cöuntries, coming into a church where a minister was preaching; the minister espying him, he said some thing about his lock, out goes the man, cuts of his lock. when the sermon was done, he comes to the minister, and tells him, sir, you have made me cut of my right hand. the minister would know his meaning, he tells him, the lock which i wore, was as dear to me, as my right hand, and you in your preaching, have made me cut it off. here the spirit of god by the law, hath something to do to prepare a soul, to part with these lusts and bring the price of creatures to a lower rate. mr. davis p. 48. tells us, the law doth not prepare for conversion, that will not take men off from their lusts. a. no nor gospel will do it, without the spirit of god, be pleased to work with it. but this i say, the law in the hand of the spirit, is a very fit mean to prepare the soul for conversion, and to make the soul willing, or at least not unwilling to have its lusts separated. man is a rational creature, his will is moved with evil or good, the power sin hath, is in the will and the affections: now when the great and terrible god, against whom the sinner hath rebelled, shall appear to the understanding, and show him the evil of his rebellion, as now it will appear in the nature; but especially in the wages, being the bearing of the wrath of that god eternally[ which doth most affect the heart at first] and the spirit holds the soul under the work, and will not let it slip out of his hand, that now the soul seeth the evil of sin is infinitely worse, than all the pleasures in its lusts, and the profits in the world are good; if there were no more but that, now the will seeth a reason why it should part with its beloved lusts, if it could tell how to get from them. this is by the law. but because the will doth never rest in a privative good, it is a hungry appetite, you have taken away my beloved dish, sprinkling the curse and the wrath of god upon it, what do you give me in the room of it, i am empty: now the spirit revealing christ in the gospel, showing the soul the feast prepared, 25 isa. 6. and making the soul to taft them, christ and all the blessings of communion: now the appetite of the renewed will is satisfied, and now conversion is wrought, and never till then. the satisfaction of the will, with privative good, so that evil shall not offend it, and with positive good, that the appetite may be pleased, and find rest, is that which makes conversion. but mr. davis tells us, the gospel calls sinners immediately to come to christ, though they have their lusts. a. very true, he doth call them, and what shall they do, when they come to him? tell him, they are very willing to receive him for their saviour, so he will save them from hell, and bring them to heaven when they die; but let them enjoy their lusts, and follow the world while they live, as is the faith in christ, and practise of the great body of believers now in the world. they come to christ, either willing, or unwilling, to have their sins separated from them. if they are willing, this is that which mr. shepherd, one of the greatest legal preachers pleads for. his words are these. remember for ever, that no more sorrow for sin, no more separation from sin, is necessary to thy closing with christ, than so much as makes thee willing, or rather not unwilling, that the lord should take it away. and know it, if thou seekest for a greater measure of humiliation, antecedent to the closing with christ, than this, thou showest more pride therein. if they come unwilling, christ came to save his people from their sins; but these are unwilling with that, they are willing to be saved from hell, but keep their sins. their coming to him is false. the crown and the bed, admit but one, it shall not be christ and a lust, they will not sit on the same throne of the will, nor lie in the same bed of love together. if your lusts must be preserved before christ, keep them. therefore as to what you blame legal preachers for, that they hinder peoples comfort, and keep them in bondage. how many are there, who though they do not desire the bondage, yet have earnestly begged of god, and that some years, that he would make them see the evil of sin more, taste the bitterness of it more[ as well it had been for many light professors, if they had tasted more of that gull] to the end, they might be more separated from it; and by tasting one drop, have a little knowledge, what was that dreadful cup our lord drunk off to the bottom, o blessed be his name; and feared sin more, it is a good help. they have thought of 8 rom. 15. ye have not received the spirit of bondage {αβγδ} again, it seems the romans had experience of it, and then seems to be a gift, {αβγδ} received it. the words seems to carry in them, that it is a mercy of god to give this spirit, to make men know sin, though it produce bondage for a time, so it ends in the spirit of adoption, the word is the same, {αβγδ}, ye have received the spirit of adoption. for many years my saying hath been, god cannot make a sinner know himself, and sin too much, if he doth not let him know his pardoning grace, and his christ too little. 3. still there remains a third hindrance, viz. man hath a good opinion of himself: he hath some good, and can do good, mans goodness. mans righteousness, all that grows upon the natural stock, is as across to christ, and gods design in him, it is as across to gods righteousness, 1 rom. 17. and 3 ch. 22, &c. as mans sin is across to gods holiness. men may think of the gospel as they please, but adams brats naturally are not pleased with the counsel of god in christ, revealed in the gospel, tho' to a sound believer, it is glorious: he had rather make his own righteousness stand, than submit to the righteousness of god. 10 rom. 3, 4. and this the spirit of god, by the law throws down. it was the law opened in the spiritualness of it, that took of paul from his own righteousness, 7 rom. several verses in the chapter. here i must take notice of your sermon you preached in your visitation, in brantree in essex. the notes thereof, came to my hand: your text being 1 kings 19.12. after the fire, a still small voice: having first cried down the law; the doctrine you raised, as the notes tell me, was. nothing will make a poor soul come out of itself, till it doth hear the small still voice of the son of god, by his spirit. how was this doctrine grounded? was the voice articulate, or not, if it were articulate, which were the words? then we may judge, whether your doctrine were rightly grounded. if it were not articulate, how could you raise such a doctrine, you had many words in your doctrine? had you chosen such a text as 3 john 8. and spoken of the variety of the spirit in his working, and so alluded to this text to illustrate, that had been well. but there the text tells you what he is treating upon, viz. regeneration, but that was not the thing here, i hope elijah was regenerated before now: but here seems to be some effect upon elijah, which was not before, but what it was, we cannot tell. how then could you raise such a doctrine from it. what do you mean by the poor soul coming out of itself? this self, must be opposite to christ, that must be either mans badness, or mans goodness; but commonly when we speak of unbottoming a man from himself, we mean his own goodness, according to the head i am upon. but 1. was not the prophet elijah come out of himself, till he heard this small still voice? was not that work done in that holy old prophet, before now? it was to him the voice came, if your doctrine was rightly raised, he was not. 2. i say, 'tis not the small still voice of the gospel, but the loud voice of the law from mount sinai, thundering out curse and terror, to every one that continue not in every thing in the law to do it; give me perfect righteousness, or i condemn you. if you can find this righteousness in yourself, and stand at the bar of gods justice, do, venture that, if not, seek for righteousness in another. i observed nothing in the sermon which was truth, but was very common: but the people were much taken with it, i heard, and what was the accent of the sermon, a small still voice, and with this the people were taken; their ears did itch after new things, from a famous preacher, a word or two about the great commendation you give of the law: david commend it thus. the commandement of the lord is pure, enlightening the eyes, 19 psal. 8. it was reported, you should say, the law giveth an impious sight of sin. but you say, there was a little mistake, it's an impure sight, you mend the matter much, an impious person, and an impure person, differ very little. according as you would make your impure assertion true, the light of the glorious gospel is impure, yea, will it not reach to christ himself, as well as his gospel; but the text saith, the commandement is pure, we have a saying, ex vero, nile nisi verum, so ex puro, nile nisi purum● is the light of the sun impure, because it shines upon an impure dunghill? it enlightens the eyes, he saith, but if the light be impure, it is not fit to enlighten the eyes. a sense of sin enrages the soul against christ, saith mr. davis, p. 10. a. without a sense of sin, no soul will come to christ, why should it? his business is to save souls from sin; thence his name jesus: now where christ is preached, where sin is discovered, it doth as much enrage the person against christ, as a person that is made sensible of his disease, that he is certainly a dead man, doth enrage the sick person against a physician, who can infallibly cure him: o that we had a more sense of the evil of sin. who is it that preach the law, but as paul saith, thereby to led him to christ. your answer is but shuffling, and mere deceit. as to these preparatory works of illumination, conviction, compunction, humiliation, or self-unbottoming. i have spoken to them at large, in my real-christian, and endeavour to give relief to christians, who were troubled about them, so that i speak no more unto them here. this only let me say, christians are of two sorts: 1. some are bread up under darkness, both of ministers, and parents. 2. their life and conversation is wicked. 3. some have a civil conversation, not debauched, as others are, and keep an outward form of religion, in external worship, and bottomed upon themselves. others are bread up under clear light, both of ministry and godly parents. 2. not scandalous in their lives; 3 have understanding of the gospel, and know the difference between it and civility, common-honesty, formality, &c. for the first. god working upon them, when they are adult, having their use of reason, these preparatory works are more clear, and noted in them. but in the other, not so, the first may know the time when god began to work, the other not, which i note against a jolly independent professor, but a few weeks since, speaking with a very good christian of our church, well educated, and who from the seventh year of her age, observed some inclinations towards god, told her, they who were truly regenerated, know the time when it was wrought. i know this hath been a great trouble to many christians, because they could not tell the time, when god began the work: and some have thought, the work being so great, every one should know it, but to speak thus peremptorily, that all truly regenerate, do know it, i have not met with one before. 1. do the spirit of god, who is the efficient cause of regeneration, speak any such thing in the holy scriptures? i am sure not one word, why then does this professor speak thus? 2. do we think that isaac, samuel, david, asab, hezekiah, josiah, obadiah, with others mentioned in the bible, knew the time of their new birth? unless it were manasseh, we red of none converted in the old testament, when they were adult. 3. de we think when god instituted circumcision so strictly to be observed, having its spiritual signification, that the spirit of god never circumcised the hearts of any, while man did the flesh? and the same for baptism, do the holy one institute ordinances in vain? 4. to know the time of our regeneration, is required. 1. that the person know what regeneration is. 2. able to reflect upon itself, and examine whither this which i know, to be regeneration, is wrought in me; but persons must be of some age, before they can do this: then either persons may be regenerated, and not know the time, or if not regenerated, till they can know the time: then all the young generation, till such time come, must be under the devils power, and christ have no such young ones in his flock. cursed be the doctrine. 5. the knowledge of the time, contributes nothing to the essence or true work of regeneration. if the work be sound that is wrought, no matter for the time when it was wrought. divers professors could tell the time to others, when they were converted, but have proved rotten hypocrites. 6. experience hath proved, that there have been, and are, as precious, humble, holy, heavenly, and full reverend christians, who could not tell the time when they were regenerated, as those that have known the time, for the greater part of them. some particular men whom god is pleased to single out, and make them eminent instruments in his church, as mr. perkins, rogers, bolton, &c. whom he called out of their profane, wicked, conversations, they knew their time, and were excellent in their lives; but for the generality, i dare affirm it. these bold assertions of professors, that may trouble christians as good, if not better than themselves, i detest. i thought i had done with mr. davis, as to this head, but casting my eye upon him again, p. 53. i red this: this doctrine of previous qualifications, contradicts not only the doctrine of the bible, and of the first reformers; but also the twelfth and thirteenth articles of the church of england. i wondered when i red it; this man dare say any thing. 1. as for the first reformers, i gave an account of them before; and shewed, they were for the preparatory works, in that sense i have written, 2. for the articles of the church of england, which he mentions. i am, and so are all these who are for preparatory works in my sense, of the same judgement with the church, as much as himself; but they concern not our question, so that he is guilty of ignoratio elenchi: i said before, bradwardin had done this work against the papists, the tenth article inclines to us, though we cannot prepare ourselves. it is one thing for good works to be done by a man[ which the 12th. and 13th. articles aim at] another thing for a good work to be doing in a man by the spirit, towards the making of him a good three, to bring forth good fruit, which is all we aim at. the cutting of stones, and hewing of timber, was necessary to make them fit for the temple, though they were not the temple, till they were cemented, and joined together. 3. are there no qualifications in scripture? yourself mention, the laden, the sick, there are others, they that labour, lost[ sensible they are so] the thirsty, the poor, and the lowest that will go, or can go[ according to his gospel ordination] the willing, 22 rev. 17. which is a mercy; for how many souls have been troubled, about the other qualifications, they are not so laden, so thirsty, &c. but are willing? ay, there they can go with you. tell a man of physic, that is well, he will but laugh at you, tell him of a cooks shop: who cared for the brazen serpent, but they that were strong? i wonder that serious christians, should be taken with this man: but if it be true that dr. crisp saith, then all this discourse about preparatory works is but vain, and all our old divines have been deceived, viz. our first receiving of christ, is when christ comes by the gift of the father, to a person while he is in the stubbornness of his own heart, and the father doth force open the spirit of that person, and pours in his son, in spite of the receiver. it is as a physicianpoureth phyfick down[ farriers do so indeed with their horn] the patients throat, and so it works against his will. answ. 1. how across is this to scripture, rev. 3.20. i stand at the door and knock, if any man open, &c. christ doth not as an under-sheriff, when he comes to take possession, rend open the door with a crow of iron, and so come in by violence, as dr. crisp would have him, but the soul shall open to him, as willingly, as ever it did open to a friend. psal. 110.3. thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power. 2. our coming to christ, and union with him, is compared to marriage, several times in scripture: but dr. crisp makes it a ravishment, not a marriage, a dishonour to christ. 3. can the elicit act of the will be forced, and yet the essence of the will be preserved? i thought liberty, actus voluntatis nihil aliud est quàm inclinatio, procedens, ab interiori principio cognoscente. as it is opposed to natural necessity, and coaction, had been essential to the will, but by dr. crisp, it is destroyed. 4. hath the doctor forgot his grammar rule. possum, volo, malo, have no imperative mood. 5. the word coming, implies, there is no force put upon the will, come to me ye that labour. if any one thirst, let him come, &c. 6. then may the devil triumph over god indeed, you cannot have a servant, but you must force his will: but all mine are willing-servants. 7. i deny, that there is any force put upon any faculties of the soul in religion, but they do all move according to their nature, in coming home to christ, and in all religion, as they do in any other things whatever. it is reasonable service, rom. 12.1. what use soever the socinian smalcius make of the words, yet 'tis a truth, the spirit convinceth, john 16.8, 11. all things are carried on with judgement, math. 12.20. he is called a spirit of judgement, isa. 4.4. we thus judge, 2 cor. 5.14. let then, mr. crisp and mr. davis speak and writ what they please, against these preparatory legal works, as i have opened, yet dr. own hath written the truth, that converting work hath not gone on, nor is it found to be so sound, as it was in those days, when that kind of preaching was in use: thus he. i shall but repeat, the close of mr. cords[ who was a master-workman] letter to me out of new-england, which i have mentioned in my real-christian, and end this head. dear brother, let my love end in breathing out this desire, preach humiliation, labour to possess men with sense of misery, and wrath to come. the gospel consolations and grace, which some would have only disht out as the danies of the times, and set upon the ministry's table, may possibly tickle and ravish some, and do some good to them, who are humbled and converted already: but if axes and wedges withal, be not used, to hue and break this rough, unhewn, bold, yet professing age, i am confident, the work and fruit of all these mens ministry, will be at best, but mere hypocrisy, and they shall find it, and see it, if they live to see a few years more. i thought i had done with this head: but one thing i observe, that i would not let pass; for mr. davis answering to one charge, p. 50. the spirit convinceth of no sin, but unbelief. he saith, a great mistake it was, the first sin the spirit savingly convinceth a man of, is unbelief, and trusting to his own righteousness. this i inferred from john 16.7, 8, 9. saith he, answ. if you inferred so from that text, your logic was nought. so ch. 3.15. the first conviction we red of acts 2.36. peter did not charge them with ther unbelief, though 'tis true, they did not believe him; but peter saith, whom ye have crucified. act. 16.30. is another, if not the next conviction we red of, the jaylor, felt himself in a perishing condition, crying out, what shall i do to be saved? but unbelief was not that which caused this, for he never heard of christ. so all the gentle churches after, how could unbelief in christ be the sin, that the spirit convinced them of, when they never heard of christ? yet the romans felt a spirit of bondage, cha. 8.15. begin at rom. 1.18. and red to rom. 3.21. so ephes. 2.2, 3. here are abundance of sins enumerated, and it is most probable, by these sins the gentiles were first convinced, but it could not be by unbelief in christ. 2. i have known, where the first sin the spirit convinced the soul of, was, original sin: and it was that whereby the spirit convinced paul, in rom. 7. that made him see, what his own righteousness was, and then he threw it away: why should a man look after anothers righteousness, till he see the nothingness of his own? but the law doth that. 3. it is reported, that when you red that gal. 3.24. the law was our schoolmaster, &c. that you should say it was a lie. but one of your own followers said, you did not say it was a lie, but that you did not believe it; that do not much mend it: but it implies, you did not think it to be a truth. our interpreters have given the true sense of that verse, so that neither you, nor all the antinomians in england can overthrow it, the ceremonial law, was but the evangelium velatum, as b. austin calls it in the old testament. as for the moral law, god having promised abraham, that in his seed[ christ] all the families of the earth should be blessed; god knew very well, how man was apt to set up himself, and his own righteousness, he makes a new edition of the law, that discovered sin more than before[ the law of not lusting, was even extinct out of mens minds] pronouncing a curse upon all those who continue not in all things &c. this being cleared, and set home by the spirit, takes a man of from himself, and makes him seek out for his blessedness in the promised seed. so both moral and ceremonial law taught men, they must to christ, if ever they would be saved, and this the 19 v. confirms. how many hundreds of sincere converts are there, that can tell god convinced them first by actual sins against that law, and then of original sin, not first of unbelief in christ, and followed the work so close, that they had no time to settle upon their own righteousness, but glad to fly to their city of refuge, blessed jesus. mr. jeremy burroughs, a congregational man, and a true gospel minister, hos. l. 3. p. 109. thus writes, a company of wanton spirits we have, that consider not what they say, or what they do; running away with the word of the law, they will sie it, what have we to do with the law? and under that word( not understanding what they mean) cast a vile esteem upon the law,— as the law is great in the thoughts of god, so it is, and shall be for ever, in the thoughts of saints. many men will estrange themselves from the law of god by too much familiarity with the world: p. 114. but for people to have this way, by their familiarity with jesus christ, because they come now to know christ more, therefore they should be greater strangers from the law, than they were before: this is a strange way of estranging mens hearts from gods law. chap. ii. concerning faith in christ. three things i observe in mr. davis, p. 19. concerning this,[ and this was the cause of my engaging in this controversy.] 1. he blameth our latter divines[ tho' very unworthy i am of that title, yet i must be one of them in especial manner, because my name only is mentioned by my brethren] for departing from that definition of faith, given always by our first reformers, who as they lead the van, so had most of the spirit of christ. 2. he thinks it a safe way to form a definition of faith, from the holy scriptures of truth, rather then the dark low experiences of weak believers 3. he gives us texts, out of which he would have us form a definition of faith. for the first. he should have told his reader, what was the definition of the first reformers; but not a word of that. in the second, he tells us, some have taken their definition from the dark and low experiences of weak believers. it seems then by their definition, they were believers, though weak. 1. then i pray mr. davis, tell us, what was that definition by which they are believers. 2. tell us who was the man that formed a definition of faith, from the dark and low experiences of these weak believers; that your followers may admire your wisdom, while you show other mens folly, i say, name the man. as for your first, calvin doth worthily bear the name, as being one of the most eminent amongst the first reformers. he defining faith, tells us, this is justa fidei definitio, to wit: it is a sure and certain knowledge of gods good will[ or love] towards us; institu. l 3. c. 2. which being founded in the truth of the free promise in christ, by the holy spirit, is both revealed to our minds, and sealed to our hearts. afterwards he tells us, he is no true believer, unless being persuaded with a firm persuasion, that god is to him a propitious and kind father, sect. 16. doth promise or assure himself of all things from his bounty: unless trusting to the promises of his divine love, or good will towards himself, he presumes of an undoubted expectation of salvation: calvins words are, indubitatam salutis expectationem praesumit, as we use the word presume in english, it doth not svit with indubitatam: if this be truth, which calvin writes, how many handreds, yea, thousands of true believers are cut of from christ, as i shall prove after. our ancient divines follow him, mr. perkins, to the question, what is faith, he answers. it is a wonderful grace of god, catechis. 4th. prin. by which a man doth apprehended and apply christ, and all his benefits to himself. this applying, is done by assurance: when a man is verily persuaded, by the holy spirit, of gods favour towards himself particularly, and of the forgiveness of his own sins. thus also mr. john rogers of dedham, defines it, faith is a particular persuasion of my heart, that christ jesus is mine, and that i shall have life and salvation by his means: that what ever christ did for the redemption of mankind, he did it for me, &c. i name no more: now that which made our first reformers, to define faith, by particular persuasion and assurance, that christ is mine, that my sins are pardonned, that god loves me, was the definition which the papists gave of faith, to wit, faith is only a firm and certain assent, which we give to all those things god hath propounded to us, to be believed: thus bellarmin, soto, and others. now this is common to devils, and carnal men, who have no saving faith: therefore they put in that particular persuasion as we may see in the leyden professors: gerhard the learned lutheran, de justif: p. 503. synops. pu. theol. disp. 31. thes. 6. ravanel. and many others. now according to mr. davis, i should have kept to this definition. they had more of the spirit of god. i aclowledge it, they were many degrees, both in gists and grace above me: yet i will deny this definition to be the true definition of saving faith in christ. definitio est, cum explicatur quid res sit: we say, it tells us where the essence of every thing lies; where that essence is, there is the thing; where it is not, the thing is not: the ancient divines placed the essence of saving faith, in the particular persuasion my sins are pardonned: christ is mine, and by this opposed the papists, where then there is not this assurance, there is not the essence of faith, so no faith. that it is the duty of all men, where the gospel is preached, to believe in christ, is certain, 1 john 3.23. john 3 16. john 6.29. you tell us, sinners as sinners, must come to christ. then by way of enthymem, to spare writing. this definition of faith, ministers cannot preach to all men, but they must preach a lie. therefore it is not a true definition. the antecedent, we must preach to all men, they are bound to believe in christ; but to preach to all men, they are bound to believe, that their sins are pardonned, that christ is theirs, is to preach a lie. therefore, the definition is not true; though a man have sinned against the holy ghost, yet, while he is in via, i will preach to him, he is bound to believe in christ. 2. argument. a man may be saved, without this particular persuasion or assurance, christ is mine, my sins are pardonned. therefore it is not true. the antecedent. i shall prove afterwards, when i give another definition of faith. but without true faith, none are saved, that come under the gospel. mar. 16.16. this kind of assurance, is not properly grace, but a gift, which the spirit giveth, where he please, and in what degree he please. 3. it puts many true believers, into a damned state. therefore, the definition is not true. the antecedent, every unbeliever, is in a damned state, john 3.18.36. and mar. 16.16. they that have not the particular persuasion, christ is mine, my sins are pardonned, they are unbelievers, they have not this definition of faith, then not the desinitum, faith itself. hence most christians, that cry out of their unbelief, they know no other unbelief but this, they cannot believe christ is theirs, that their sins are pardonned; they are full of fears and doubts, therefore no faith. a near friend of mine told me, when he red revel. 21.8. but the fearful and unbelieving— shall have their part in the lake, &c. it struck him quiter down, for he was a man[ though a minister and a close preacher] that had many fears, doubts of his pardon, and this was unbelief, according to this definition, and calvin tells us expressly, verd fidelis non est, and he is not a true believer, that hath not this particular persuasion, &c. hence, when these worthy men saw what work this doctrine made amongst their people, when they saw evident signs of grace, and breathings out of dear love to christ; but far from this assurance; they studied which way to ease their people. hence mr. richard rogers, that eminent man for holiness, whom god honoured, with bringing home many souls to christ: writes, there are several degrees of faith. 1. the weakest and least measure, when there is no assurance in the believer, yet inseparable fruits and tokens of faith. 2. when there is assurance wrought in a believer at some times, but in a weak degree. 3. when there is assurance for most part accompanying it, though not alike. yet this worthy man had defined faith by assurance, now if the essence of faith lie in assurance, as the definition told us, how can there be faith, when there is not the essence of it, any logician knows this cannot be. now mr. davis, who forms definitions, from the dark and low experience of weak believers, which you blame some for, but you cannot tell who? 4. faith upon this definition, is not constant and abiding in the believer. therefore, it is not true. essences of things explained in the definition, are constant, essentiae munus in omnibus rebus est stabile. as adam gave names to all the creatures, when god brought them to him, had he given the true definition of them, they had been the same to this day; if adam had defined, i doubt not the definition had been true, though the socinians, as smalcius, say, adam before his fall, was but instar infantis, vel pueri, he did not know what it was to be naked. now calvin's definition, is totally lost for some time at least, in many believers: but the true definition of faith, abideth always, and all times, the essence of it, what ever the soul thinks under its dark temptations: examine the believers you shall find it. 5. that definition, is but the assent of the understanding. therefore it is not true. true faith hath its place in the will, as hereafter: but this hath its residence only in the understanding, and differs not as to its act and faculty from the assent of the papists, only in the object: that assents to all the promises of god, as true; this assents to this proposition, those promises are mine, yet it is but assent. 6. it is not the definition of pure faith. therefore it is not true. that assurance in that definition, doth not rise purely from faith: but partly from faith in the mayor proposition, and partly from experience, sense, in the minor; but these differ very much; the object of my faith is without me; but the object of my experience and sense, is within me. he that truly believeth in christ: shall be saved: faith assents to this, 'tis the testimony of god. but i truly believe in christ, how know you that? not by faith, but by examining, trying, cor. 2.13.5. i feel, i experience what god hath wrought in me, thence i conclude, i shall be saved; but the conclusion follows the weaker part, and the minor is the weaker part. i am not so sure, that i do truly believe, as i am sure, he that truly believes, shall be saved. so that the conclusion, is properly drawn from sense and experience 7. that definition is not across to mans corrupt nature, therefore it is not true. that true faith, is across to our corrupt, proud nature, no man who understand it, but will yield it, else it need not be the gift of god to bestow it, phil. 1.29. nor would it need the power of god to work it, ephes. 1.19. cor. 2.12. 1. but what man would not be assured, that his sins are pardonned, that christ is his, that god loves him? who is across to this? 2. men are aforehand with you for this, the civil, morally honest, formal christian, is sure, he hath no doubts nor fears of pardon, and gods love to him; while others sincere, are full of fears. 3. yea, so sure, that all your preaching, shall not convince him of the contrary; he will be angry with you, if you question him. 8. there must be another faith, before men can come to this faith. therefore it is not true. hence came the distinction of the direct, and the reflect act of faith. the faith of adherence, and of assurance; divines are forced to this. 9. that definition leaves a gracious soul, under the fears of gods wrath, and his own state, because of unbelief, without support, therefore it is not true. the temptation is, thou art an unbeliever, and thy state is damnation, god saith it, john 3.18. help the man out: you an unbeliever? surely no. why, art not thou persuaded christ is thine? that thy sins are pardonned? that god loves thee? this is faith, by our first reformers; you have helped him out i hope. o! saith the person, this is that which sinks me, i have it not. 10. last of all, there may be great danger here, therefore care had need be here. a professor, a believer falls very scandalously: what if he do, yet he believes his sins are pardonned, christ is his; for though he hath fallen never so scandalously, he must not be an unbeliever; which he must be according to this definition. so men may go on boldly in sin, without sound humiliation, and repentance, and renewed acts of faith: they may comfort themselves, that this is one of the five times that christ is making especial intercession for them, as mr. davis tells us, p. 12. let men take comfort from christs intercession for them, under such scandalous falls, before they have been deeply humbled, and repented, we know who is their comforter. when the antinomians were so high in new england, nothing but justification, and free grace, were cried up; one of them that i knew very well, because he would exalt free grace, committed adultery with his neighbours wise; he did confess it. upon these grounds, mr. davis, i have departed from the definition of the ancient divines: if i have not done well, as you say i have not, then convince me of my error. for your second, you would have us form a definition of faith, out of the holy scriptures. i will do it, premising this, knowledge of christ, must precede faith in christ. i know whom i have believed, said paul, none will believe in him, whom they do not know; the colliers faith, we leave to the papists. isa. 53.11. by the knowledge of him, &c. joh. 17.3. faith comes by hearing, rom. 10.17. in persons adult. to have the object of our faith clear, there must be the knowledge of the person of christ, of the offices of christ, of the effects of those offices in their execution. i do but name these. this premised, i define faith thus. it is, the receiving of jesus christ, the lord, faith in christ defined. and so trusting in him, for all things necessary for our salvation, proved by coloss. 2.6. john 1.12. math. 12.21. i put a difference between receiving, and trusting. and the soundness of the work must be fetched from the receiving of christ, if that be not right, the trusting cannot be right. i doubt not, thousands of christians trust to christ, and that really, for salvation, who never received christ. an old usurer lying on his death-bed, asked those who stood by him, what it is to believe in christ; the gentleman that gave him the answer, told me, what answer he gave him, viz. it is to trust in christ for salvation; and so doth he, i believe, his common word is, as i hope to be saved: but any man that seeth his life, may easily judge, what grounds he hath for his hope. receiving, hath the person of christ clothed with his offices for its object, and hath respect to our union with the person of christ so clothed. trusting hath respect to our communion with christ and hath the benefits of christ, the fruits or effects of his offices for its object. receiving doth as the woman in marriage, she receives or takes this man for her husband, and thereby, there is a union made of the persons, they two are made one flesh: having thus received him, and thereby being united to him, now she trusts to him for his goods, to supply her wants. 1. this reception of christ, is first into the understanding. by the firm assent, which the understanding giveth to the testimony of god, or to all those propositions, concerning christ his person, his offices, and the effects of his offices, revealed in the gospel, as being infallibly true, for the authority of god speaking or revealing. this by our divines, is called dogmatical, or historical faith, and is made light of by most, and having but little in it: but it is by them who were never loaded, burdened with temptations. human faith is very common, but not divine faith. i find in the old testament. {αβγδ} when god spake either immediately to man, as to abraham, gen. 15.6. or sent moses to israel, with messages and afterwards some of the prophets, the word believing is used, {αβγδ} about fourteen times: but the word most frequently used, is trusting, sometime, relying, resting. which acts, properly belong to the will: but in the n. t. the great word is, {αβγδ} believing, about an hundred times used; the word believing, properly belongs to the understanding. i was thinking, why the word should be so much used in the n. t. over it was in the old? tho' christ was promised in the o.t. yet not known, but for god, in the o.t. natures light, helped to discover a god, optimus, maximus. if a god, then what ever he speaks, is truth; and therefore to be believed: a god that can lie, is no god. if a god, he must be all-sufficient, therefore to be trusted: an impotent god, is no god. but when we come to christ, and hear his person to be god, manifestin our flesh. two natures, divine and human, united in one person; his offices, and the effects of these, to be such as our justification, reconciliation, &c. these things are so above our reason, that to believe these propositions to be infallibly true, is a very hard matter: and i doubt not, when the text tells us, phil. 1.29. that faith is the gist of god, and that faith is wrought by the power of god, ephes. 1.19. col. 2.12. the text doth aim at this act of faith, as well as any other; and i doubt not, but the faith of most in this particular, is but the colliers faith, to believe, as the church, and others believe, but not by the teaching of god. 2. christ is received into the judgement, by approbation, the understanding being illightened to see this christ, as i said before in his person, offices, &c. being before sufficiently convinced by the law, what a miserable creature he is in himself, there appears to this soul, an absolute necessity of, and glorious excellency in, this christ so suited to its condition, that the judgement highly approves of this christ, as the adequate good for its self, answering all the wants of the soul: and thus highly approving of christ, it dictates to the will, to receive, to embrace him, for here alone is salvation to be found. 3. christ is received into the will; the same good spirit, who is at work in the understanding and judgement, renewing the will, doth incline the will, and that rationally to follow the understanding, and the judgement, so that it consents, embraceth, this christ, thus presented to it, by the understanding and the judgement, freely and gladly. thus is christ received into the understanding, judgement, and will, else the reception is false, and the faith unsound: if the will ephes. 3.17. ames medul. th. cap. 3. th. 19. and c. 26. th. 23. be not gained, there is no saving work done: ye will not come to me, that you may have life, john 5.40. he that will, let him take the water of life freely, revel. 22.17. while this work is doing, the soul takes no notice of these distinct acts; but when the work is done, the soul can reflect, and see these clearly: but to say, this christ is mine, that is another thing. the soundness of this work, lying in the object, we receive, and in the act of our receiving, the manner of it, i have opened in the real christian, and therefore say no more here. this definition of faith in christ is. 1. grounded clearly upon scripture, so not that. 2. i can preach this to all men, so not that. 3. it takes in all sound believers, so not that. 4. it is found in sound christians at all times, so not that. 5. it gives up all the faculties to christ, he possesseth them, so not that. 6. it gives all the honour, to christ, so not that. 7. it is across to flesh and blood, and carnal reason, so not that. the other definition of faith, viz. by assurance, that christ is mine, that my sins are pardonned, &c. brings in comfort to me, but this definition, gives glory to christ, and let this go first, else the other is but a lie, let mens comfort be never so great. i will return to this again, and move two questions, when i have answered mr. davis's third head. 3. you would have us form a definition of faith out of the text you give, viz. heb. 3.6. to which you add, heb. 10.35. so i will join them; for they both aim at the same thing, heb. 3.6. if we hold fast the confidence, &c. what you understand by confidence, i cannot tell; but both these texts speak to them who were believers before, and he exhorts these believers to put forth an act, for the honour of that christ, in whom they had believed. the fear of the apostle was, lest these hebrews, partly from persecutions, and partly from temptations, from the jews their nation, should fall from the profession of the gospel, to judaisme: therefore he exhorts them to a free, open, and bold profession of the gospel, that truth upon which their hope was built, against all dangers and oppositions, and an open opposing of our hope, or that which is hoped for, against all persecutions and dangers, and that with a holy boasting, &c. the word {αβγδ} denoting, a freedom, liberty, in speaking or doing any thing towards god or man: dr. own denies, that it signifies that fiduciary trust in god, which is an effect of faith, and wherein some have thought the nature of it to consist; and this i believe, was your sense mr. davis. thus the dutch translate the word, courage. so mr. leigh, it signifies boldness of face, freedom of speech, and so other authors whom he quotes. as to the heb. 10.22. which you quote, see doctor own on the text. the full assurance of faith here, saith he, respects not the assurance, that any have of their own salvation, nor any degree of such assurance: it is only the full satisfaction of our souls and consciences, in the reality and essicacy of the priesthood of christ, to give us acceptance with god, in opposition, unto all other ways and means thereof:[ these hebrews shall not need return to judaisme, to their priests, or high priest, of which before he had been speaking, here we have a high-priest, infinitely beyond them, to act between us and god for us, heb. 5.1, 2.] for what the doctor adds, this persuasion is accompanied with an assured trust of our own acceptance with god, in and by him, with the acquiescence of our souls therein. that the true believer in christ, doth trust to him strongly, and only for his acceptance with god through him, and doth acquiesce in him for acceptance, is very true: but that every believer is assured, that he is accepted, that i know was not his meaning, nor is true; that the true believer is labouring for it, is true. for your next, gal. 2.20. i live by the faith of the son of god. paul was a believer before, and this shows what believers should do, and do. but there is a great difference between texts, which gives a definition of faith in christ, that we may know what makes a believer, when he hath the true essence of faith; and such texts as tells us, what acts these believers should put forth; as much as between the root, or. three, and the fruit: such are the texts you mention. as for the heb. 11.1. faith in that text, extends further than to faith in christ, or justifying faith, witness the examples given in that chapter of believers. that faith respects every testimony of god purely, that whatsoever he speaks or promises, shall be as certainly performed, as if it were now at this present done: faith in the object: this faith hath every true believer in christ. definitions i said, give the essence of things. essentia est id per quod res constitutitur in certo genere entis,& ab omnibus aliis distinguitur. there are degrees indeed of faith, which appears in the acts: but gradus non viriant speciem, a child of a week old, is homo, though not vir. 2 pet. 1.1. they had obtained like precious faith: though believers are not all alike, yet if it be true faith, this faith is alike precious. it gives a title to justification, adoption, and all the blessings of the covenant of grace, as well as the strongest faith. so that all the texts you have quoted, are nothing to the purpose. having answered your three heads, now i return to my question. quest. how doth, or how should faith consider christ, in receiving him as king? answ. i presume, must look on him as a king that gives out his laws, and requires obedience of his subjects, and so indeed, must they give obedience to the laws of christ. the socinians, tell us of many new laws christ hath added; which made trypho the jew, tell justin martyr, it was impossible to keep them: t'is true, a king without laws, is no king. but i conceive, that faith in receiving christ, doth not, and should not only look on christ as a sovereign, making and giving laws; but also as one, that will help his subjects to keep his laws. i touched this in my real christian, but here i will follow it, being of great use to christians, who while they think of christ, as a king only giving laws, and obedience they must give, but feeling within their own impotency, and what work that body of sin makes within, sit down discouraged, they shall never be able to obey him, and so prove hypocrites, when all is done. first. all the anointings of christ or his offices, concur to work out our redemption, and salvation i but only giving laws, and requiring obedience, do not help to our redemption: but considering our corrupt nature, accidentally help on our damnation: we have laws enough to condemn us. christ as a prophet, healeth our ignorance, blindness; his executing that office, doth not lie barely in revealing his fathers will, but as the prophets taught the people also, so doth christ teach his people effectually, else he could not be made to us wisdom, 1 cor. 1.30. we being ignorant and foolish, cannot be made wise, without his teaching. christ as a priest, by his sacrifice and blood, makes up our peace; brings in redemption from guilt, law, curse, condemnation. these are excellent; but saith the poor christian, what shall i do with this vile heart of mine, the corruptions i find moving and working there, i shall one day, die by the hand of saul, 'tis impossible to stand? how shall i do for grace, to walk with god, my nature being so opposite to holiness? christ is a king, must answer this, it belongs to this office properly. christ i conceive, doth this two ways. 1. morally. christians in conflicting with their corruptions and temptations, fetch arguments from several topics,[ the fight being between reasons, and reasons, a rational battle.] the majesty and greatness of god commanding, the love of god, love of christ, his sufferings, heaven, hell: christ their king by his spirit, makes them see and feel the force of these arguments, that they prevail, he puts forth an efficiency in these arguments: whence christians find a strange difference in these arguments at one time, over they do at another: at one time the arguments are strong, prevail, and do the work presently; another time we use the same arguments, the spiritual logic or reason is the same; but they prevail not as before; the temptation holds corruption works, heart's quiter out of order, in danger to be carried away with the temptation, the soul cries out, i shall prove an hypocrite: there wants the influence of this blessed king, to make us see these arguments in the reality; for though we fetch our arguments from majesty, greatness of god; the love, the excellency of christ, &c. yet that majesty, greatness, excellency, love, are not seen, nor apprehended by us in their glory at one time, as they are at another: so the argument prevails not. 2. phifically, there is something of this in the former, in the efficency, which he puts forth to make those arguments strong and prevalent: but here i mean by a physical power, he represseth, and keeps under the body of sin; that corruptions shall not stir and work, as they please, or satan please: when the males went up to jerusalem, left their wives, children, cattle and goods at home, this was a fit time for israel's enemies, to make inroads, and spoil the israelites, but exod. 34.24. god promised israel; neither shall any man desire thy land. god would not let such thoughts or desires to be working, while they kept to him: this was surely by a physical power, over-ruling their affections. lay but a finger upon the balance of a clock, no wheel moves; we speak of the restraining grace; i conceive there is a difference between restraining providence common to all, and restraining grace; which christ our king gives forth out of the covenant of grace, proper to them, who are under this covenant, whereby unruly lusts are suppressed, without which[ though many christians have very little quietness in their lives] we should never be quiet, but our vile hearts, and satan would be continually working: this i conceive is done by physical power. 2. if faith considers christ only as a king, giving laws; but we must give the obedience from our own natural power; we are in a miserable condition, as to obedience, under a covenant of grace, over we were in the covenant of works: then we had a power to obey perfectly; but now we should not have power to obey sincerely, even gospel obedience, is too hard for our first created grace alone. 3. it is a branch of the covenant of grace, whereof christ as the head of all his members is interested and concerned, ezez 36.27. {αβγδ} the second adam, i will put my spirit within you, and cause[ o biessed word] you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them: hence davids petition, {αβγδ} psal. 119.35. make me to go, &c. psal. 25.5. the same hebrew word, in both places, and the same conjugation in hipbil. verbis kal addit causam, cujus virtute, impulsu, jussu, vel permissione fit actio. 4. christ is made to us by his father, 1 cor. 1.30. sanctification and redemption. he redeems from the wrath of god, curse of the law by price; from the power of sin, satan, world, &c. he redeems by power: but this part of redemption, and sanctification, belongs to christ as our king to effect; then faith must so look unto christ in receiving him. 5. the work of faith, is to unbottom a man, and take him quiter off from himself, and carry him purely to christ, to fetch all from him, whom god hath made all to us, that god requires of us, and is necessary for our salvation. the growth of children, is when they can get out of their nurses hands, and run alone: but the growth of a christian, is not to get such strength, as to get out of christ's hands, and walk on the feet of our own grace, but to get out of ourselves, and to be strong in him, quiter contrary to natural strength and growth, i live by the faith of the son of god, gal. 2.20. 6. the work of a king, is not only to make laws for subjects, but to look to the peace and welfare of his subjects, in defending them from enemies, injuries, &c. whence our catechism answering the question: how doth christ execute the office of a king? a. by subduing us to himself, [ making us voluntary subjects, which no king can do,] ruling and defending us, and in restraining and conquering his and our enemies: thus zacharias, luke 1.74, 75. this is more than to give us laws to obey; and thus ought faith to look upon christ, in receiving him our king. and now, let the children of zion he joyful in their king. psal. 149.2. this is a comfortable and encouraging meditation, while we meditate upon christ, being a king, and our king, under the covenant of grace, he commands faith by the gospel, which is a law, and gives power to obey that law. there is one word yet in the text, viz. a title given to christ, lord; thus paul to the jaylor, acts 16.31. believe on the lord jesus christ; the apostle useth it eight or nine times, in his apostolical benediction, in the close of his epistles. the grace of our lord jesus christ: 1 cor. 8.6. 'tis to be observed, when the angels brought the good tidings to the shepherds of christ's birth, luke 2.11. they call him a saviour, which is christ the lord. peter, acts 2 36. god hath made him, lord and christ. here is a difference: christs dominion extends further than his redemption, the angels had no need of redemption, yet he is their lord; and that the angels meant, your lord, and our lord; for by him, were the angels created; therefore their lord. 1 coloss. 16. creation is a strong ground for lordship. but peter speaks of his being made a lord, he comes to this lordship another way, by his work of redemption, 2 pet. 2.1. this is the reward given to him for his service: the father calls him his servant. isa. 42.1. and 52. c. 13. and 52 c. 11. so phil. 2.7. the servant now is become a lord, phil. 2.10, 11. math. 28.28. all power is given unto me, in heaven, and in earth. ephes 1 21, 22. that {αβγδ} is an essential name of god, is granted. but, socinus tells us if the article be joined to it, then it signifieth christ. if without it,[ which it is in abundance of places where christ is spoken of] then it belongs to god. grellius does not so well like this, he hath another fancy, as weak as the former. if {αβγδ} be the subject, then it belongs to god; but not if it be the predicate, they may say any thing, if it be proved, because 'tis said. but the learned lutheran calovius, hath given us a good rule, when the word {αβγδ} [ lord] is used in the new testament, tom. 2. p. 506. properly in the singular number, without any restraining, or limiting conditions, then it doth denote, the divine, most eminent, most absolute, most omnipotent dominion, agreeable only to god: unless the circumstances of the text, shows the contrary, and thus we find it given to christ. quest. is there are any difference between christ being king, and lord, between our receiving him king, and lord? answ. yes there is, and great difference too, we red of no lords anointed, christ we know signifies anointed: by his being gods anointed, or christ, he becomes our jesus. all the anointings of christ respect us our good, our salvation; so doth his being our anointed, king: but lord, as it denotes his dominion over us, so it denotes what duty we owe to him: he by being our king, makes and enables us to perform that service which we owe to him our lord, who hath bought us. buying, gives a title to dominion, gen. 17.13. exod. 21.21. but christ hath bought us, 2 pet. 2.1. 1 cor. 6.20. apoc. 5.9. {αβγδ}, thou hast bought us, {αβγδ}, pretio numerato emo. hence who receives jesus christ aright, receives him lord too, else his reception, or his faith, is but a lie. he is the lord of their faith, and the lord of their lives, who ever believes in christ aright: so saith bishop davenant on the text. this lord hath commandements for his subjects to obey, john 14.23. they keep his words, his commandements, 21 v. and 15. ch. 14. from this, i take notice of mr. crisp, who tells us, from john 3.16. p. 40. here is nothing required, but believing, to everlasting life, and from acts 16.31. here is complying with no other gospel rule for salvation, but believing in the lord jesus. he puts me in mind of an old prosessor near us, that laid by ordinances, and when christians asked him, why he did not go to church? he would answer, what can they teach me better then faith? this word faith, was all he cried up, or cared for, and so dyed. his state must needs be good by mr. crisp, but this believing, is receiving christ jesus the lord. let a man understand these words, what the lord comprehends in it, and answer this definition, and he shall be saved: will this lord, have nothing to do with gospel-holiness? p. 20. mr. crisp, speaks thus, repenting, believing, gospel-holiness, blessed graces all; but what have they to do with salvation? if they have nothing to do, then leave them out: but for all your crying up of justification, they that have not repentance to life, sound faith in christ, and gospel-holiness, shall never be saved, these are either seminally in all[ as in infants saved] or seminally and actually, as in persons adult. though they have not the meriting causality, which belongs only to the righteousness, death and sacrifice of christ; yet without holiness, no man shall see god, heb. 12: 14. as well without repentance, and faith there is no remission: what ever god made or appointed christ to be to those that are saved, all that must be found in those who shall be saved: but god did not make christ to be only righteousness to our justification, but he made him also to be our wisdom, sanctification and redemption,[ not only from the curse of the law, guilt of sin, but also, from the power of sin, world, self, &c.] 1 cor. 1.30. so that to say, no more is required to our salvation, than to our justification, is false. that old saying concerning good works, that they are, via ad regnum, non causa regnandi, is true, straight is the gate, narrow is the way that leads unto life, math. 7.14. 'tis a way of holiness, isa. 35.8. these things i take to be true. 1. obedience is indispensably due, from the rational creature, to his creator, be he under this or that covenant; god cannot, as he will not part from his right herein. 2. a sanctified renewed state after the fall of man, whereby a man acted by the spirit of god, is enabled to give this obedience to god, though it be not perfect, as the covenant of works requires, is yet the effect of the free love, and grace of god, and the merit of christ, as well as is our justification. 3. the sincere[ though imperfect] obedience of a true believer in christ, is accepted of god, and as pleasing to him, as was adam's perfect, and personal obedience, it serves his ends. had adams been more pleasing to god, it should have stood, isa. 56.7. and 60 ch. 7. blessed be god for, exod. 28.38. though this covering is too short for our justification. 4. god will graciously reward this obedience of his people. 5. this sanctification and obedience, is necessary unto gods righteous judging of the world. how will the holy one proceed? will he tell men, these i did elect freely to salvation, and so were actually justified from eternity, by that eternal and immanent act of mine,[ as mr. davis tells us,] therefore i save them? will he please to say, i imputed my sons righteousness to these, and not to others, therefore i save them? i think according to the law men lived under, so will god proceed in judgement: rom. 2.12, 16. this last verse tells us, he will judge men[ who lived under the gospel] according to my gospel.[ christ the author, paul the preacher of it.] if he will judge according to the gospel, then the gospel is a law: where there is no law, there is no judging; for the judge is to pass sentence according to law, and is to be ruled by the law. repentance then, and faith, and gospel-holiness, will be of some use, say mr. crisp what he please. god will judge men, by what is wrought in men, and what they have wrought, 2 cor. 5.10. so his judgement will be decleared to be righteous, in condemning some, in saving others, as he clears himself, math. 25.34, &c. 41, &c. even by the works of men. whither mr. crisp, and mr. davis, will charge me therefore to be a neonomian, i cannot tell, i shall tell them how, for many years i have understood justification in it's causes, and that is the clearest way to give ones opinion of a thing: 1. the efficient cause, if we respect the unity of the essence, is god; father, son, and holy ghost: but if order of persons, then god the father. 2. the material cause, the active and passive obedience of christ only. this is the alone merit. 3. the formal cause, the fathers free imputation, of this active and passive righteousness of christ, to that soul who hath believed in, or received his son, jesus christ the lord. 4. the moral instrument or condition, is faith, not as it is an inherent quality, not as it is a working, but a receiving hand by gods appointment. 5. the final cause, the manifestation of the glory of his mercy,[ towards the sinner] mixed with justice[ in respect of christ.] the effect of this, the acquittance of the believer from the sentence and condemnation of the law, and the believer reputed righteous before god. if this be right, then why there is such a clamour made against mr. williams, as if he were unsound in the doctrine of justification, i cannot tell; for as i understood him, he agrees with me in every particular: if we be unsound, show us our error. mr. crisp, i see, because mr. williams differs somewhat from other divines in his interpretation, of that phil. 3.9. insults over him very much: but that doth not prove mr. williams to be unsound in the doctrine of justification: if he and i be in an error, let mr. crisp or others show us it. yet as to these 8 and 9 v. of that chapter, doth the apostle speak of nothing, but the righteousness of christ imputed for our justification, in these verses? those words, in the 9 v. the righteousness of god which is by faith, being the same with rom. 1.17. and 3. c. 21, 22, 26. and 10 ch. 3. do signify the righteousness of christ, imputed to our justification, i grant it; yet deny it's only that. for 1. did paul desire to win christ, only for his justification? 8. v. 2. where the apostle saith,( as for {αβγδ} and {αβγδ} i do not much regard the difference.) and do count them but dung, what is the antecedent to them? is it not, all things which he lost by christ, in the former words? but did paul loose the inherent righteousness he had from christ? i suppose the apostle throws away his pharisaical righteousness, and will own no righteousness, but what comes from christ only. had the apostle any gospel inherent righteousness, before he knew christ? how then could he loose that which he had not? nor would he loose it, when he had it. 3. and is the inherent righteousness of christ so contemptible, to be counted dung? the lord give me more of that dung. 4. the inherent righteousness we have from christ, is it not by faith in christ, as well as imputed righteousness by faith? both blessings of communion flowing from our union with christ, 1 cor. 1.30. he is made of god to us sanctification, why then may not this be found in the 9th. terse, as the other is? 5. that i may be found in him. found when, where? at the day of judgement, say all the expositors, i see: then both righteousness imputed to answer the breach of the first covenant, and our sins and failings under the new covenant, and inherent, to answer the gospel righteousness, as being different from that perfect and personal righteousness, required in the first covenant: both these i say, as flowing from christ, we must be found in, else no sianding at that bar. what will god judge the world, only by imputed righteousness? without holiness, no man shall see god: this is not meant of imputed righteousness. this righteousness inherent, is not our own, as the righteousness of the first covenant was, and as pauls pharisaical righteousness was his own; for it is from christ, who is our life. colos. 3.4. paul saith, gal. 2.20. i live by the faith of the son of god. justification is not a principle of life in us, that consists only in reputatione dei. but the righteousness, of inherency, regeneration is; and shall that be left out here, in the philippians? take them both, and they agree with the text, isa. 45.24. surely shall one say, in the lord have i righteousnesses; the word is the plural number, {αβγδ} i know in the hebrew, pluralis numerus pro singulari quandoque ponitur ad denotandam magnitudinem& excellentiam, but that is nothing here, for there are two righteousnesses, and two only, which we have, and must have, and must have from that our lord, and piscator interprets, as i do. how hearty, how feelingly, doth a sound believer in christ speak these words and joys in them! and to ascribe both these righteousnesses to christ, is the plain scope of mr. williams, his interpretation of phil. 3.8, 9. as for justification, there is no man that knows himself in his own vileness, and god in his purity and justice, but meditating upon the counsel of god in christ, what a way he hath found out to justify a sinner, believing in his christ, and in fine to come to that 24 verse of judas, but he must needs stand amazed, admiring at this infinite wisdom, and love of god: but to have such inferences drawn from hence, that god seeth no sin in his people; that god-doth not correct his people for sin: that david was as pleasing to god, when he committed adultery with bathsheba, as when he danced before the ark, &c. of which language, i have heard enough, about sixty six years since; and can now red the same, in our later antinomians, even mr. davis and others, besides other things inferred from the glorious transactions, between the father and the son, in the covenant of redemption, which i red from dr. crisp, and mr. davis, which do not agree with the gospel dialect; but do in their language, give encouragement to sin, and boldness under sin; if men will writ against such things, can they justly be blamed? herein mr. crisp hath not dealt candidly with mr. williams; for i take notice several times, he writes. i know mr. williams in words, denies our sanctification to be a part of our justification. answ. if you know; he denies it, why is he charged then as unsound in that point. surely mr. crisp., did not red over mr. williams defence of gospel-truth; if he had, he could not have written against him as he hath done: how a man can writ more clearly, then he hath done; i cannot tell. give me leave to make a short digression, upon occasion of a question started by mr. williams, some-where i have red it in him, viz. whither by istael, in the jer. 31.31. natural israel, or spiritual israel be meant? i humbly conceive, naiural israel. 1. with what israel, god made the covenant, when he brought israel out of egypt, with the same israel he makes the new covenant: it seems by the text to run smoothly, nothing appears to the contrary, but that was natural israel. 2. to make spiritual israel, the law must be put into the inward parts, it must be written in the heart: the lord must be known; the stony heart must be taken away, a heart of flesh given, else there can be no spiritual israel. if then spiritual israel be meant, the sense must run thus: when you are spiritual israel, i will make you spiritual israel. when the law is written in your hearts, then i will writ, when the thing is done before, i will do it. this is absurd. i could add more, but forbear: only this i say, when god will do these great things for israel there will be a spirit of repentance poured out upon this israel, and faith in christ. zachar. 12.10. v. that chapter was never fulfilled to this day. faith and repentance, shall never be out of date: unless their notion be true, that the state of the thousand years shall be a sinless state, then repentance possibly may be needless: but vix credo. chap. iii. about assurance. 1. quest. wither all sound believers, have some assurance of their justification and pardon of sin? answ. mr. davis p. 53. answers. the least degree of true faith, hath some assurance in it. say you so mr. davis? that holy man of god mr. richard regers, and you are quiter opposite; he saith there may be true faith, and yet no assurance: how many examples might i here produce, to prove the falsehood of your assertion; but i will only name one, and that shall be in stead of the rest which i have known: the person lived in the town where mr. richard rogers lived and preached, by name, mr. clerk, one of the chief of the town, a man of excellent piety, and honoured god in his place; but so far from assurance, that he went drooping: his godly maid-servant, was always singing at her work; ay wench, said he, thou canst sing; yea master, said she, i have none to please, but god and you: he would turn away, and weep. thus went he forty years in the dark, as to any assurance that i could learn: but at last, god came in with a full assurance; then said he, these eyes of mine shall never close, till i get to heaven: there lay he, seven days and nights, his eyes never closed, but was filled with praising and blessing of god, giving counsel to those, who came to visit him, and so went to heaven. i had this from his maid-servant, who was with him, when he lay thus, and dyed: i could give other notable instances. 2. can a man have assurance of his pardon, before he hath assurance that his faith is sound? and is this so quickly known? what your believers attains to at first, that can step out of their sinful state, into a gospel state, without the triumph[ as mr. crisp calleth it] of legal preparation[ which you also oppose] i know not. but i have known as good christians, as any of your followers, that could say no such thing. i could here have enlarged, but forbear. 2. quest. how may we come to the assurance of our justification? answ. here the antinomians in new-england made work. they must have it, by the immediate testimony of the spirit, or 2. by an absolute promise, given in by the spirit: they who had it thus, were under a covenant of grace. but for the third, to have it made out by sanctification, in a way of self examination, and so of argumentation, this was the mark of those, who were under a covenant of works. dr. crisp denies all marks, and tells us of a revealing evidence, and a receiving evidence, the first is, the voice of the spirit of god, to a mans own spirit: thy sins are forgiven thee. the second is, the echo of the heart answering the foregoing voice of the spirit, my sins are forgiven me, saith faith. thus we come to our assurance. as for that saying, the whole essence of faith, is nothing else but the echo of the heart, answering the voice of the spirit, as before. what faith doth the dr. mean? if he mean saving faith, i will be bold to say, he that hath no other faith bat this, shall never be saved. saving faith is another kind of thing. but suppose it be faith, bring this faith to the trial, how shall i know whither this faith be sound faith? is it not by the fruits of it, as the three is known by the fruits; if it bear not gospel fruits, it is but a lie: then we must come to marks at last, and so we must, when all is done. there is a question also, how shall i know it is the spirit of god that reveals to me, my sins are pardonned? satan being transformed into an angel of light, cannot he play such a revealer, and tell an unsound heart, thy sins are forgiven thee and fill him with joy? i doubt not of it. he that can press down sound christians, applying terrible things to them, out of the bible, and keep them in the dark, can raise up an unsound heart, with promises out of the bible, and give him light. a labourer that belonged to a godly gentleman, whom i knew well, stolen something from him. after some time, conscience did awake, and charged home this sin, which was attended with dreadful horrors, and cryings out in a hideous manner; that he did alarm all the christians in the town, who came in to see a man hanging over hell, labouring to support him, but all in vain. at last he sends for the gentleman, confesses his fault, and gets his pardon. the sore is opened: strange were the heavenly joys and raptures, this man was filled with answerable to his horrors: the minister of the place, a precious able divine, not being acquainted with such dainties, having visited him under his horrors, being saturday when this change appeared, leaves his text he was upon, and choose another; his discourse tending to this scope, to show how the spirit of god was able to raise a man as low as hell, into heaven in a short time. the christians observed him, what became of this man, and one told me, they could not observe any true work of grace in him. that there are some special cases and times, in which the spirit of god doth suggest and testify to a sanctified conscience, thy sins are pardonned, thou art a child of god, we deny not, &c. the soul assents to this, what will you call this; faith? what faith, divine or human? i suppose you will say, divine; because you take this to be a divine testimony. if so, then divine faith is not confined to the testimony of god in the canon of the scripture. if so, i am bound to believe this testimony, to be as true, as i believe the testimony of god in the scripture, viz. i believe that i am a child of god, that my sins are pardonned, upon this testimony of gods spirit, as i believe, jesus christ is a saviour, we believe this upon the testimony of god. the testimony of god, requires the same divine faith. then 'tis a sin, to doubt and call in question this testimony of the spirit, that i am a child of god, and my sins are pardonned, as to doubt, whether christ be a saviour: all gods testimonies are equally true, from the infallibility of him that speaks; god that cannot lie. i desire the help of my brethren here; for 'tis strange, that i should believe this, with the same faith and assurance, that i believe my bible. let me offer this to my brethren, though there be no such words spoken to the ear, as god loves thee, thy sins are pardonned, yet there is a sensible impression made upon the mind, of the sense of such words accompanied with sensible joy: now whether do not the assent rise from the sense of that impression made upon the mind, accompanied with sensible joy? as when we giving diligence, to make our calling sure, do by observing and examining our hearts about the work of faith in christ, which answers the call, we examining the work itself,[ so a priori] and the fruits of faith[ so a posteriori] from the sense of these found in us, assent and conclude, we are called: this conclusion, is from spiritual sense and experience. for i humbly conceive, divine faith, is confined to the divine testimony of god, in the holy. canon of the scripture. i only leave this with my brethren to judge. i conceive, there is a difference between a comfort and an evidence, many christians meet with such comforts of the spirit, from this or that place of scripture, in reading and meditation, or under the other ordinances of god: which much refresh for the time, and may be afterwards remembered; but these comforts go off; but the evidence which arises from the sound work of faith and regeneration, that is abiding as to the foundation of it. as for the absolute need of the spirit, to help us to our assurance, in the ordinary way of the gospel, as we teach, need i say, both in the minor, to clear his work, yea, in the conclusion, to help the soul conclude? i am as stiff for that, as any antinomian. 2. as to absolute promises such as isa. 43 25. and isa. 44.22. jer. 31.33. divers such, these men produce. name any absolute promise, which respects the relative change of a christian, viz. justification, adoption, pardon, which in the application, is not conditional, take the promises mentioned, who is thee, thy, in the promises? art thou a true believer in christ? art thou a true repenting soul,[ these are conditions or qualifications of the subject] if so, then the application is good: but if not, all the comfort you take from them is but a lie. 3. as for marks, this is charged upon mr. davis: that he denies sanctification to be an evidence of our justification. p. 18. why do not mr. davis answer as he doth, to that p. 17. persons may sincerely desire christ to be their prophet, priest and king, and yet be hypocrites still? now you answer, this is a notorious falsehood. why do you not answer so here, and deny that ever you spake it? then we were satisfied: we know what sanctification is, and know whence sanctification flows; but your answer is but shuffling. i had prepared many things, to speak about assurance; but i saw my book swelled in too big a bulk, over i intended, and so lay them by. i only say this: i have noted some of these great sticklers for assurance in the antinomian way; and i choose their state, and their assurance, who come to it by sanctification; before their assurance, that have it by absolute promises, or immediate testimony of the spirit, as they tell us. chap. iv. for the other part of mr. davis book, which concerns the church; and the union of our brethren. he would be a happy man, that should break all the churches in england to pieces, p. 21. say you, as you are charged. you have done pretty well for your part. i hear of divers you have broken, take your happiness. but now 'tis turned off to dr. own, that he said it. what you say to the opinion of mr. holcreft brought against you, p. 9. it is an easy matter to fix stories upon people, when they are dead, may be applied to what you say of dr. own. i honour dr. own, his great learning and gifts, as much as another man: yet what the apostle james, saith of elijah, james 5.17. so i may say of dr. own: he was a man subject to like passions; and might let some sentences fall, which might better have been kept in: witness that saying of his, the alcoran may vie miracles, and tradition with the scripture. observe but, john 10.37, 38. and john 12.37. dr. walton hath told him of it. but mr. davis; before you come to your perfect happiness, by breaking of all churches to pieces: let us hear your reasons in this case. there is a church,[ and divers such.] 1. the members are such, as profess a sense of a sinful, lost, undone, condition in themselves. impotent, hopeless, helpless in themselves; having nothing but sin and misery, they can bring to christ. 2. they profess, they willingly receive and embrace christ upon gospel terms. 3. their conversation, do no way contradict their profession. 4. they join together, and give up themselves to walk with god, in the observation of all his ordinances, discipline, as well as others. 5. these choose their pastor; as for him, he was devoted to the work of the ministry by his parents: accordingly educated in the knowledge of the tongues, in which the pen-men wrote the scriptures; and also in the arts, which are all hand-maids to divinity. he was well grounded in a body of divinity, and had through grace, had experience of that work of faith and conversion, which he is to preach to others; he is tried by learned, judicious, divines, for his ability for his work; on the day for his separation to his office, four or five grave divines[ none of your mechanics before] whom god had owned in converting work, meet together: the people, openly and unanimously declare their election; the elders after preaching and prayer, set him apart, or separate him to his office, by prayer, fasting, and imposition of hands. now mr. davis, 1. give us your reasons, why this church should be broken to pieces: there are many such in england. 2. when you have broken, tell us which way should churches be constituted better. show us where the fault was before, from the scriptures; you that talk so of the pattern of the house, show us you, a better pattern. if you cannot tell me a fault[ as i know none] i will tell you one; and such a one, as i deny you to be a gospel minister,( not only in regard of your errors,) what stir so ever you make in the nation. you tell us, p. 28. you were set apart, to your pastoral office, by fasting and prayer. but i deny this to be gospel-separation. whence i argue. he that cometh not into the gospel-ministry, according to gospel order, is no gospel ginister.[ if he be so, set by the bible.] but mr. davis came not into gospel ministry, according to gospel order: therefore, mr. davis, is no gospel-minister. for the minor. separation to the office of a gospel-minister, is to be performed, by prayer, fasting, and imposition of hands: which i have proved by five scriptures; but mr. davis was not so separated. if mr. davis, or any man else; will please to answer that book, which i have put forth, upon that question, imposition of hands: i must desire him to give me at least, two as clear scriptures for separation, without imposition of hands, as i have given five for it, else i will never reply. in instituted worship, we must stick to our bible. though i honour the graces and gifts of my brethren, above my own: yet i will not give away the authority of five scriptures, for their sakes. i will not own such a one for my pastor; nor would i now take any church ordinance from him, who is not separated according to that gospel-order. mr. fenner tells us, of a gracious, private person, who would in fields and shops, treat with men about their souls, and brought home 40 to christ; yet that did not make him a minister: hold to gospel-order, honour the bible, or lay all by. the french churches say, as renowned calvin says; though there be no command for imposition of hands, yet being the constant practise of the apostles, it ought to be retained: accordingly i red in eleven or twelve national synods, this mentioned: and not one ordained without it. but whereas they say, there is no command for it; both calvin, and they are mistaken: for it was brought in, by an express command of god, in the separation of the levites to office. numb. 8.10.14. and the practise of it, was continued in the jewish church, is confessed by dr. own, as well as by dr. lighfoot. so the apostles who were jews, practised: what need then of another command; for my part, i do not make ordination, a sacrament, as the papists: yet i look upon prayer and fasting, to be to the separation of a minister; but as prayer before baptism: if a man preys; but apply not water, there is no baptism, so if men fast and pray only, {αβγδ} but not impose hands, there is no separation made. the hebrew word, {αβγδ} in hiphil, signify, separavit, distinctionem fecit, the imposing of the hands, facies dividere saith pagnim makes a clear and plain distinction, of that person, from all the church besides; but so do not fasting and prayer. remarkable is that of the apostle,, heb. 6.2. saith dr. lightfoot. observe here, the doctrine of imposition of hands in ordination is a fundamental point, as well as the doctrine of faith and repentance. if faith be a gospel-principle, so is this. to make the constitution of a church to be such that gospel institutions cannot be performed according to gospel-rules, that constitution is false. as to the agreement drawn up, between the united brethren in london, he tells us, what his sentiments are concerning it. i will attend you presently, mr. davis, when i have premised these few things in order to it. our blessed jesus, the head of his church, which is his body. ephes. 1.22, 23. hath but one body, mystical upon earth; two bodies to one head, is monstrous. 1 cor. 12.12. {αβγδ}. ephes. 4.4. rom. 12.4, 5, &c. to fancy there can be no schism, in this one body; but only in a particular church, is very strange, as if the apostle, 1 cor. 12.25. meant only the particular church of corinth, when he saith, there should be no schism in the body. were the apostles, set only in that church? 28. v. if schism were charged upon that church, though they held communion at the lords table, then a minori ad majus, where communion is denied; and so they are denied to be one bread, and one body. 1 cor. 10.17. there is schism with a witness; there was no such wretchedness, appeared in the apostles days. whither diotrephes, 3 john 9. were guilty of it, i cannot tell. schismaticos facit, non fides diversa, said communionis diruta societas. saith b. austin, tom. 4. p. 364. 2. unity in this one body, as it is in itself beautiful; so it is a duty, wherewith the members of it, are strictly charged, to preserve it where it is, to heal where it is broken. 1 cor. 1.10. ephes. 4.3. phil. 2.1, 2. and they are unworthy members of that body, who do not thus labour to preserve, or repair it. sin is charged upon them, if they neglect their duty. 3. our lord prayed for this unity among them, that do believe in his name. john 17.11, 21, 22, 23. 4. there is a brand set upon them, that break this union, and make division, as being persons acted by the devil, who hates this union. rom. 16.17. with 20 v. 5. the divisions between the presbyterians and congregational churches, were so not orious, that they who were no friends to us at home, were very well pleased: but our friends abroad, were troubled. witness, some letters written to me, from some elders of the churches in new-england, about 38 years since, to know what was the reason that we and the presbyterians, could not agree, to hold communion; for i then held, and do still hold with the congregational churches, in several things. i would not baptize all in a parish, though i was affronted openly in the church; i did catechize all in the parish, that were willing: did not administer sacraments upon a parish account; but required the choosing of me for their pastor, and joining with the church, subjecting themselves to all ordinances, and to church-discipline.[ one would not submit, and i would never admit] counsel with the elders of other churches, in church affairs i desired; but leave the execution of the sentence, to me where the case depended, the presbyterians in the committe, never opposed me in the least; but we agreed as brethren indeed, i did not meddle with their parishes, to take the best members away; but gave them communion, when they pleased, they keeping to their own pastors: there were no muman impositions, at that time in gods worship. let schism lie at their door, who give the cause of schism; a. bp. laud himself being judge. i could then clear myself, as deserving any blame. i did then publish, part of a letter, written to me, from that acute, learned, and godly divine, mr. norton, out of new england. i do now publish it again; because mr. davis is very much concerned in it. the association you mention, amongst the ministers, we much rejoice in; i never thought it better then human; but oftentimes worse, that the presbyterians, and congregational men, cannot close together in brotherly communion. the power of godliness, interests us in the affections of the godly, above the notions of either of them, considered apart therefrom. i believe, the congregational way to be the truth; yet i think better of many presbyterians, then of many congregational men. 'tis no wonder, if independents be unruly,[ observe mr. davis.] for i distinguish between independents, and congregational men, or rather such,[ call themselves as they please] that will not aclowledge the rule of the presbytery, and the order of councils. observe mr. davis. from then, a learned, godly, and long experienced congregational divine, mr. davis, is condemned, as an irregular person, and ought to be exploded of all christians; that love unity and order in gods house. no wonder, though the third synod of charenton in france; when they heard of independentism in england, what woeful work it made here, was so careful, that it should get no footing in their churches; because, say they, it usheretb in confusion, all kind of singularities, irregularities, and extravagancies, and barreth the use of those means, which would most effectually prevent them, and dangerous to the civil state also. thus the synod, witnesses your carriage at katterin: when the elders went down to discourse you, to know your doctrines clearly, as i understand, &c. but to exercise any jurisdiction over you, i am confident they had no such purpose, how could they? o! how afraid were you of a lordly classis, as you writ. but this is a principle, amongst even the congregational ministers, that if persons refuse to obey the judgement of a council they with their churches under them, may and ought to declare, that neither they, nor any other churches, ought to have communion with such persons as reject the sentence of a council. mr. davis, hath made the name of independency, and such congregational churches, odious, by this act of his. one thing i observe, before i come to your sentiments, p 35. you writ: they consented, articles should be drawn in such a large and loose frame, that both parties might fix their particular sense upon it, &c. did you observe this? so did i, and was not pleased with it; but that it was an abominable piece of jesuitical equivocation, as you writ, i cannot yield to that. i think i can tell how it came about, though it hath hindered the union much. mr. how[ for the presbyterial part] and mr. faldo[ for the congregational part,] both strangers to me, undertook this work first, as i heard: my heart did cleave to them both, for this their undertaking, though unknown. one with whom i deal in london, being a member of mr. faldo's church: i did writ to mr. faldo, and kept intelligence with him; we did agree in our sentiments, he sent me down a copy, which pleased me well, and i kept it in my own hands, as he wished me. but it seems, that copy would not take. there were such, as he wrote to me, who though not prelates, yet had a prelatical spirit, and opposed him in his work: he name none; but i was sure it was not on the presbyterians party, but i guessed who it was, and a scotch minister of excellent parts and grace, as i have found since;[ for then he was a stranger to me, and came only to see me,] told me, who did hinder the agreement; i saw i was not mistaken; that copy then was laid aside. another was drawn up, much different, from what i had before; which i did not like, as i did the first. mr. faldo being dead, i wrote to mr. how, though a stranger to me, and desired him to give me the reason of this change; for i saw, this copy was drawn merely to gratify the independents, and but a part of them neither; for i hear divers of them, do ordain with imposition of hands: had these men observed the rules that the learned greek scholarius gave, in the council of florence, about opening of scriptures, they would not have set the acts 14.23. against so many clear scriptures for ordination, by imposition of hands. now to lay by the authority of the scriptures, in so plain a case, practised by all churches, since the apostles days, to gratify a small party: i thought there was not that due honour given to the holy scriptures, that ought to have been: he answered me, they were worthy men, both for grace and gifts; and they were very desirous, to bring all into an agreement, and yield to as fair terms, as they could, both parties consenting to the agreement, as it was worded. i wrote to him again till, i suppose, i displeased him. so that mr. davis, your charging of them with abominable, jesuitical, equivecation, is abominable: for it was the esteem they had of men of your party, being worthy men, and the earnest desire of union with them, according to the command of the lord, that made the presbyterians, yield to the wording of the agreement as it is: and though there be other things, with which i was not pleased, being very darkly expressed; yet this of ordination, being so expressly against the scripture, i declared myself against it; and for the rest wait. this being but a beginning; and cost many thoughts, i question not, before they could bring it to this: god in his good time, will clear things, and bring us yet nearer. for your sentiments against it. 1. it is a time of degeneracy and deadness, and apostasy. answ. 1. all the lively christians are at rothwell, and among the antinomians; are they? 2. we do not justlifie ourselves; but yet are followers after our lord, and exercising our faith upon our living head, for more liveliness. i am sure they were not such, who laboured in this agreement; and there are many thousands in england, who keep their station, have not apostatised, and walk with-god, who rejoice in in the union, you so much condemn. their labour in this work, i hope was no proof of their degeneracy; it being to obey the command of their lord. 2. prosessors ends, are carnal and selfish. answ. 1. how do you know the ends of professors? the preface to the first copy, did breath forth a very gracious spirit. we ministers of christ, having before our eyes, the glory of god, the progress of the gospel, the salvation of souls, the peace and edification of the-church of christ: and calling to mind, the sadness of our former divisions, and our duty and work, that not only the word of god; but his providence at this day calls us to, &c. are these carnal and selfish ends? mr. davis. several letters i had from mr. faldo, and two from mr. how; and i am confident, their ends were gracious, they sought purely the honour of christ, and the good of the church: and so did the other subscribers, and i doubt not, so have thousands of other christians. so that mr. davis, you do but act the devils part, whocharged job, for having false ends, in his serving of god. job 1.9. 3. the spirit was not poured down from on high. answ. what is the meaning of this? we must not do our duty to our lord; we must not seek his honour; the good of his church, till the spirit be poured down, according to your fancy. i think the spirit of god was active in them, who were so active in this work, for the lords honour, and good of his church. 2. to what purpose, are those three texts you quote at this time of day: that there will be a great effusion of the spirit, i doubt not when the jews shall be called home; but mr. davis, that time is not so near, the witnesses in the gentle churches, are not yet slain: so that the texts you mention, are nothing to the purpose. 4. the greatest numbers, had forsook the cause and banner of christ, in the day of adversity. answ. but why then should not they who did nor forsake, keep themselves from having to do in making up this union, as well as you? what superlative holiness or wisdom is there in you, above them? 2. what do you mean by for saking the banner of christ? it may be, they went to the common-prayer. it seems, the joining with the church of england in their prayers, is as bad, as the offering of incense to an idol, in the time of the ten persecutions; is nobaius, risen again? cursed be this opinion. 3. though i did not go so far, as holy mr. corbet, mr. baxter, mr. joseph allen, mr. anthoxy barges, &c. who did not only go to the common-prayer; but the lords supper also; some of them at least, yet when i die, i choose rather to have my soul gathered with theirs, then with any antimonian in england, though i question not the salvation of some of them. the providence of god did so order it, that all the time of the persecution, i kept on my course of preaching, and administration of sacraments, with the whole church together, i missed not one day: yet i do not look on myself one rush the better for it. next, you charge some very strangely, i know not what to say. i hope there are very few such, if any: but you do not deny, you say, but, they may have repented. that is something. p. 37. i cannot see but you charge all. have they[ whom do you mean by they, the presbyterians only, or others also] reformed one hairs breadth in their discipline, admissions, watch, care, admonitions, censures— have they not rather gone back ten degrees, &c, if they have been sparing in their censures. i see you abound with them; is it just so as you writ? you can spy faults, it seems in others; but you have none. this do not use to be the temper of sound christians. but as to admissions. i red indeed, in books of purity of churches, and look to your admissions, &c. i desire the satisfaction to these questions. 1. hath god left it in the power of every pastor, to invent and set up such rules for admission, as he pleases? 2. are there qualifications of those, who are to be admitted members, set down in the word, with a command to pastors to look: that those qualifications be found in all them, whom they admit, really, with the strictest examen they can make; 3. or is not the practise of the apostles, how they admitted, the rule to teach us, how we should admit? we must have some common rule to all churches to walk by, surely. 4. do we red, that any who professed their faith in christ, as the true messiah, and gave themselves to the gospel rules, were rejected? i grant faith in christ, as the true messiah, was a great thing then, over it is now: but then they had miracles to help their faith. act. 9.42. act. 8 6. act. 13.12. was philip blamed for admitting simon magus? where were pastors blamed for admissions? for suffering wicked impenitent persons in the church, i know they were blamed, when in stead of growing better in the school, they grew worse. but i speak of admission; because you writ look to your admission. 5. ought none to be admitted into the church, but such as are real christians? they must be real: if churches must be so pure, as your books speak of. name the text, that proves it. if it be so, then 'tis with churches, as with fonds. some pounds we observe, tench and such fish, will breed well in; but not fat them; in other pounds, they will sat; but not breed. churches it seems, are only to fat christian,[ it were well, if they were so] not to breed them; they are all bread real christians, before they come into the church. then it must not be said of zion, psal. 87.4 5. this and that man, was born in her. no, there are none born in zion, they must be born real christians; before they come into zion, the church: we use to say, the church is the mother, no, she is but the nurse: the church, brings forth no children, gal. 4.26. jerusalem, which is above, is free, which is the mother of us all. jerusalem bears no children, they must be all born, before they come there. unless you will make zion and jerusalem to be meant only the invisible church, and this invisible church, to be where there is no visible church, which were strange. that i call purity, which agrees with the rule, the wisdom of god, not what we call purity. i desire therefore, light and texts, that will carry it convincingly, that the apostles did, and so now pastors ought, make the strictest trial and enquiry, that they whom they admit into their churches, be real christians. that you may show your clear texts, for the pure churches, you do so mention. what the ancients did, in keeping of the catechumeni so many years, is no rule unto me. i own nothing in the house of god, but the holy scriptures. as for your mechanics, which you have sentout, as your apostles, i look upon them, as i do upon all these lay-preachers in england, now risen up in this boundless liberty, to be but the devils design, first to debase the ministry, and then to overthrow it. i can remember the time very well, when the ministry of england was in honour, and converting work went on: no such debauchery was known or heard of in the gentry and ministry, as is now. but when bp. laud and his party fell to persecuting, silencing, and driving ministers out of the nation, and wars following, buff-coats and red-coats getting into pulpits, the religious party were they, that gave the first blow to the ministry; with our armies, rose up an army of errors, and these did the business, having got the sword in their hand, to trample upon the ministry. when the king came in, and almost two thousand ministers cast out in one day: for the generality, they were filled up with such, that they who honoured the minister, could not honour them; and how many such are there at this day: then came in this boundless toleration, that i have been told by such magistrates, that are our friends, they have been ashamed, when they sate in the court, to see what fellows came in, and demanded licenses. and this is another fruit of the english indepency, they have done no service to the church, that have written and pleaded for the gisted brethren, and bring in this confusion: had it not been for learned men, there had not been one lay-preacher in england: poor men, they could not have understood two words of the bible: but now, learned men have given them the bible in their own language, they insult over learned men, and despise learning. but better all your gifted brethren, and your books with them, were buried in the earth, then learning should be lost. it was not godliness, but learning, which god used immediately, to rescue us out of the papal darkness: and if learning once were gone, soon would the popish party make a prey of england. but why did not you, that have thus printed for gifted brethren, to go up and down and preach in other churches and towns prove they might also baptize and administer the lords supper? 1. i do not doubt but they may; they that may do the greater, may do the lesser. but they do the greater, i.e. preach. therefore, they may as well baptize. 1 cor. 1.17. christ sent me not to baptize; but to preach the gospel, and that it seems your gifted brethren can do: that which able ministers find so weighty, that it takes up their whole time, with you, is but a light matter. 2. again, the great qualification of a bishop, as bp. is that he be, {αβγδ}. 1 tim. 3.2. so 2 tim. 2.2. {αβγδ}. this chiefly makes him a bishop; for the other qualifications, belongs to all christians; and though a man have them, yet if he be not gifted, fit to teach, he ought not to be a bishop, for baptizing, &c. there needs no such gift; that's easily done, only this advantage your gifted brethren have, above the orderly ministry, that we are confined to our particular flocks; but they, apostle-like, are confined to none; but preach in various towns and churches: so that the order which christ instituted, is quiter over thrown. and this itch we observe, is found only among the inferior mechanics; for gentlemen that are both pious, and have far better parts than any of these, being scholars, divers of them, they never offer to meddle with the ministerial office; but keep their own station. the lowest of the people, 1 kings 12.31. will serve jeroboams turn for priests. that the worship the papists give the virgin mary, is idolatrous, the gifted brethren will not deny; but the papists affirm it to be due to her, and prove it. she that broke the serpents head, deserves religious worship: but the virgin mary did it, which they prove from the vulgar translation of the hebrew text, gen. 3.15. she shall break thy head hence in her worship, they saying. haec est mulier virtutis, quae contrivit caout serpentis. i bad the gifted brother answer the papists; but not a word he could say. dr. own, twice i observed him mentioning, what a dangerous thing it is, for men to meddle with interpretation of scripture, that have not skill in the languages, wherein they were cenned and gives notable instances, both in the hebrew and greek tongues. you that writ so for the gifted brethren, forgot to tell them, that those men from whom you bring your proofs in scripture, had the holy scripture in their own native language; when it costs us much labour and time to attain them. and tho' we have as good a translation[ commended much by diodati, in his letter to the synod of alencon.] i think as any; yet a minister must, and will see with his own eyes yea, and sometimes depart from it too. the papists in king james's time, condemned our translations as false: then our faith is not well bottomed; how will the gifted brethren defend it? but this is the fruit of this english independency; tho' order is, and must be in all societies in the world, the church only must admit confusion: as well may men, who think, they have some knowledge of the law: issue out warrants, and sit down with magistrates upon the bench, as the lay-preachers practise as they do, and most of them, if not all anabaptists; but for a man, who before was but a gaffer, to be now called master, to have the people follow him, and he to frequent their tables, is a better trade, then to be threshing, or such like work. in new-england, in our church we had two, that did in the absence of our pastor and teacher exercise; but they were men, not only very gracious, but scholars, and men of such excellent parts, that these laypreachers are but babbles, in comparison of them. mr. peters, he also had such practices in his church there, and here at white-hall. i being at white-hall and hearing there was something to do in the chapel, i went in, and it seems, his members were prophesying. mr. peters, seeing me come in at the door, intended i suppose, to let me know the ground of their practise, i am not yet convinced, that the gift of prophesying there mentioned, was ordinary. and mentioned the text, 1 cor. 14.31. for ye may all prophesy, one by one: this was his ground, and so that worthy brother in our church, told me it was his ground. but none of these in new-england, ever spake out of their own church: but these independent lay-preachers, go about the country, in several towns; but never separated to the ministry, more than ours; as for the scriptures, that here they bring for gifted brethren, as acts 11.19, 20, 21, where the 70 were, and deacons, and others probably extraordinarily gifted: the hand of the lord was with them, v. 21. that is, saith vetabliss and others, working miraculously with them, to confirm their doctrine, that these did preach, having the gospel in their own language; from hence to prove these lay-preachers, i never heard of this there, nor of the 1 pet. 4.10. as every man hath received the gift, &c. what gift is it he means? but be it a gift to speak? must then such a one, go to this and that church, and several towns, tho never separated to the work, the scripture is not across to itself, in one place to command order, in another place, to give way to confusion; these texts, i never heard there. our men kept only to their own church, never appeared in another church to speak, the jewsh church was but one church; and what examples they bring from thence, do not at all prove this practise; for still they kept within their own church, if these men did so, it would not be so offensive. it they gave themselves up wholly to the work, and were separated to the work, then let them go. such were those in our churches who did exercise, very able men, scholars, and gracious. mr. peters had two or three such in his church, whom i knew very able men. in other churches, there were some, who though not comparable to these, yet slighly conceited of themselves, and must be exercising,[ mr. ward called it exorcizing] their gift: one in the town where i lived, whose name i conceal, a bog fellow, forward to put forth himself; i thought god gave him a check: this gifted brother in his preaching, i think the place he quoted, was, let thy saints shout for joy. psal 132.9. i am sure shout was the word he should have said; but in stead thereof, he said, let the saints shit for joy. my next neighbour, who was a member of tho church, and heard him, told me of it: this was a foul mistake, for a gifted brother, the holy one might do it, to make him ridiculous; who could meddle with his holy things, with such a proud frame; and teach us when to look to our call to the work, and then with reverence and awfulness, to be conversant in his pure things. nor yet am i against a man, that hath none but his native tongue, from coming into the ministry, if there be need of such: provided, he be a grave, gracious, experienced, well cathechized christian, that gives himself to the work, and is orderly separated to the work. the bishops have ordained such to my knowledge, sixty years past, and ordain such now, as have been tradesman.) in warwick-shire, there was one mr. swain a shoemaker, but a man of that grace, gravity, and excellency in gifts, a natural logical head that the ministers[ both doctors in divinity, if not at that time, yet were afterwards did set him apart with gospel ordination, threw of his trade, placed in a town, where he did abundance of of good, and had respect even from church men, from his gravity, grace, and parts. it were well, if we had more such. now mr. davis, i am drawing to an end. you have given us your sentiments upon the union: i pray let me give you my sentiment, upon the reproach and dirt you have thrown upon it, under the colour of purity: i do look upon your opposing of it, as you have carried it; but as satan transformed into an angel of light; and for the whole in reference, to what is charged upon you,[ except that one particular i mentioned,] you do but tergiversari, you so shuffle, and wind about, that i am of worthy mir. medwell's opinion, which he gave of your book on his death-bed[ as i am informed] that your book was but a cheat and evasion, from the beginning to the end. as for the high commendation you give of yourself,[ and i do not remember, you give any denial to it.] i led such a pious conversation, as i am a shane to all those pharisaical presessors, that cannot bear my doctrines: this do not sound well mr. davn. i choose, and preser a thousand times before your spirit, the spirit of that eminent servant of christ, mr. thomas hooker in new-england, who i am sure hated, and condemned your doctrines, when he was moderator each day.[ mr. buckly the other] of that synod, i was at the synod, and did with another young man writ for the elders at night. wherein mrs. hutchisons errors were condemned: this holy man kept up the assurance of gods love above twenty years, walking with god: i won it by fasting and prayer, and if i loose it, i will loose it by fasting and prayer, said be, and as i was informed by a worthy gentleman, when he lay on his death-bed, his church came to him, standing about his bed; and now came to hear the last words of their eminent pastor, what he would leave with them: this eminent man, making a pause a while, he breaks out with the publican: lord have mercy upon me, a sinner. o gracious, humble heart: your speeches mr. davis, seem to me, to speak too much boldness with god: at for the riches of grace. exalting of christ, his righteousness, blood, sacrifice,[ which you and mr. crisp talk of] and the in-dwelling of the blessed spirit of god, many years[ through grace] we have been acquainted with these things, triumphing, glorying, and hoping in them only; the experience of ourselves, and the amazing excellencies that appear in these counsels of god, have brought us to it: but still we want those high and holy apprehensions, that become: that thrice tremendous majesty is which might cause a more humble and holy conversation before him; the merciful god give me more of this; and take your doctrine to yourself. finis. a discovery of truth: presented to the sons of truth. 1. thes. 5.21. prove all things, hold fast that which is good. matth. 1.19. wisdom is justified of her children. psal. 36.9. in thy light we shall see light. the truth is one, and never truly understood by any, till they be one with it. printed in the year, 1645. to the reader. courteous reader; it is the property of souls possessed with truth, accordingly as they are refreshed by the discoveries of it; so are they carried out to discover the same things to others, according to the apostles words; we cannot choose but declare the things which we have ●een and heard, acts 4.20. and ●●kewise (in 1 joh. 1.3.) he saith, that which we have seen and ●eard, we declare to you; that so ●ou may have fellowship with us. the same things may i speak, i being desirous to know something of the difference between the law and the gospel, and so to understand it in one; that so i might see them both to be one, as handed to us by christ. my desire of you (christian reader) is, that you may rather by truth, endeavour to see truth in it, then catch at any broken expressions you may gather from it: for it is rather set forth to declare truth, than man's wisdom: and so i leav● you to the truth desiring that yo● by it, may be made able to judge of it. t. t. the places of scripture which are answered in the following treatise. john 14.4. let not your hearts be troubled, ye believe in god, believe also in me. john 14.6. i am the way, the truth, and the life. john 14.8. and philip said, lord show us the father, and it sufficeth. rev. 21. latter part of the 9 come hither, and i will show thee the bride, the lamb's wife. esay 40. latter part of the 11. and he shall gather the lambs with his arms, and carry them in his bosom, and gently lead those that are with young. rev. 16. beginning of the 19 and the great city was divided into three parts. hos. 10.12. sow to yourselves in righteousness, reap in mercy, break up your fallow grounds, for it is time to seek the lord, till he come and reign righteousness upon you. jer. 4. latter end of the 3. break up your fallow grounds, and sow not amongst thorns. in the second part of this treatise, these four questions are answered. i. whether a christian is freed from the moral law, yea, or no? ii. whether a christian is to strive against sin, when tempted, yea or no? iii. whether sanctification can evidence justification, when justification lies dark? iv upon what ground a christian may tender comfort to a soul, that sees no goodness in itself? a discovery of truth: presented to the sons of truth. dear friends, i salute you in the lord; rejoicing much to to hear the breathing of christ by you. i should rejoice to have an opportunity to exchange somethig of the language of christ with you, face to face i have received your letter, the sum of which i conceive is this; that i, or rather christ by me, would give you an answer of certain places of scripture thus. first, what i by the spirit of god do apprehend to be the mind of god in them. 2. what conclusions naturally may be drawn from them. which scriptures, as you express in your letter, seems to contradict each other: some of them breathing forth the gospel, wherein all duties are sweetly laid upon the power of life, given in by god; the other laying duties upon the creature to get life from god. to which i answer, according to that light which god hath given in to me, so is he apprehended by me, and according to that you shall have an answer from me. for the scripture, psal. 36.9. which is the word of god, none can understand but such as live in god, and so receive the knowledge of his mind, not from the second, but first hand, which is the priviliedge of the saints; who know truth from falsehood, and that by living in truth: now this word of god, which indeed is god but as it is looked upon by us, and given out to us, in those two things is the word considered, as law and gospel, and if you look upon these not in god as god but as the word held out to us, than there is a difference, and that thus. we may describe the law thus. deut. 4. lev 18.5. a declaration of duties holding forth life, not to be given to us, but wrought out by us. the gospel we may describe thus; it is a tender of a full christ, from a free god to a nothing creature, in which tender, god is pleased to give down life from himself, not only to be held out to us, but also to be revealed in us. so that this light in us, really becomes life for us, john 1.4 rom. 8.3, 4 joh. 15.5. to produce in us and act by us, what in the law is required of us; in which description you may consider these corrolies. first, that the coming of christ from god the father, to the sons of men, was not the cause, but the effect of the love of god. joh 3.16. secondly, whatsoever is required of us, or can be desired by us, is to be found alone in christ, as he is held out to us. thirdly, ezek. 16.4, 5, 6. rom. 4.5. rom. 5.8. john. 14.6. that the tender of christ to us, is not to any qualification in us, or any good wrought by us. fourthly, it is christ alone that brings down life from god, and carries up the soul again to god. fifthly, what we gather from the supposition, in the description is this; that the tender of christ in a promise, which is the sum of the promise, christ first receives us in the going forth of himself through the promise, ro 10 20. before we receive him in going out to the promise, and that is clear from this ground: because we cannot go out to him, till we enjoy a power from him, and we never iujoy power from him, till we by the going forth of himself, are laid hold on by himself. dear friend, for the use of the corolies, i leave to you, or rather the truth in you, which is able so to unfold itself, as to overcome your heart with it, and silence all disputes of reason that is against it. now for the law; to those that see it only by a light that flows from it, and not according to the rules of the gospel, it will not only seem to be contrary to the gospel, but will cause the beholder to convert the gospel into law, and preach the gospel as law, and that one element where antichrist lives. and that is the reason why we have so many men in these days that preach, and press men to make brick without straw. but passing, over that, the law i must confess, is not looked upon directly from the gospel, by rules of the gospel, which darkens to us, both the law and gospel: but we are to consider the law thus, that the law is, that wherein god discovers his authority as a god over us, requiring duties of us; and although we have lost that ability to answer law, yet the law continues to declare god's authority, but not our ability. and for such expressions, in the word, you must work, yond must do this and that; it is not to declare our ability▪ but left to declare god's authority, and this is the first rule to judge of the expression of the law, so as they may not contradict the gospel. object. this seems not to be a truth, because that such expressions in scripture are not few but many, it is not only at one time but often; to which i answer. answer. had god withdrawn and made out these discoveries, which manifest his authority, it would have been conceived, that when there was an alteration in the creature, that this alteration wrought an alteration in god; and so it might be apprehended, that some thing below god, had the power to cause an alteration or change in god; which the holy ghost will by no expression admit of such a construction. second rule. god was pleased from his infinite love, to give a christ, not only to fulfil the law for us, 2 cor. 3.15.18. heb. 12.18.22. but also to be a light; as in us, so also a light held out to us, in which light we are to see the law: for we are not now to see the law in the valid light of moses, but in the uncovering light of christ; and if you thus see the law, you shall see that which in the hand of moses was required to get life; in this light of christ you shall see it held out, as actions to be done by, or as begotten of life; in the other, to work that we may be loved, here to work, in that we are beloved; and this presents the law lovely. for dear friend know this, that nothing is injoyrd by us as it is in its self, unless it be apprehended by a light suitable to itself; for if we look upon a white object through a red glass, the object is not white to us as it is in its self, but red according to the light through which it is apprehended by us. so god in the law, if judged by the bare expressions of the law, and not in the light of love, he appears rough and not lovely; but when we being led forth, by christ, and sweetly gathered up in christ, and there see the law, we shall then see the law lovely; rom. 7.12. and say as the apostle, the law is holy, just, and good. and so we shall not see such a contradiction betweext the law and gospel. when we thus see truth in truth, we shall then see an oneness betwixt truth, or rather the truth to one, and that only one; which was which is, which shall be. but i say no more of the law, but come to give an answer to your scripture in particular; according to your desire. and first of the first; being the 14. of john and the first: let not your hearts he troubled, ye believe in god, believe also in me. in which scripture, in general it holds forth these two things. first, a dehortation; let not your hearts be troubled. secondly, a direction; yea, believe in god, believe also in me: but that we may understand the meaning of the words, before we come to draw conclusions, consider these things: first, the party speaking; christ. secondly, his ends of his thus speaking, which was this; he being to departed from them in his bodily presence, and knowing what evil disposition there was in them, knew well at his departure they would be full of fears, through much trouble, and so sin against god. doct. the doctrine from thence observed is this, that it was the way of christ's care in all his teachings, to keep his disciples from sinful fear, joh 16.33 luk. 12. luk. 1 74. contrary to some men's teaching now, which preach obedience to be drawn forth from the terrors of a law, and not from the power of love; which teaching produces directly such effects as these. first, it rather drives men from god, then draws men to god, for men are drawn to love, only by love, and god is love. secondly, the creature to help itself, rather sets upon that which is properly the work of god, then for it to work from a power of god, seeing all come from god. thirdly, such teaching teach men rather to live upon the creature than god; which we do, first, when we live upon the actings of god to us; and secondly when we live upon the acts of god in us, towards himself; this condition is full of fear, and whether this be a sinful fear ye or no, i leave you to judge, which i hope have other ways learned christ; and so much of the party speaking, with the end of his speaking: now of the matter spoke, and first, of the dehortation, let not your hearts be troubled: the nature of a dehortation implies sin, and in this do not only consider the dehortation, but the parties dehorted, which was the disciples that were possessed with christ, luk. 8.24 25. mat 6.30. from whence observe their conclusion; that not only other, but even the members of christ, through want of knowledge of christ, are apt to be troubled with such a trouble, that is condemned by christ; i shall speak nothing of that trouble which is lawful and approved of by christ, nor of that trouble which is sinful and contrary to christ, because i have spoken of it in the conclusion before; only from one term in this conclusion, i will draw one corrolarie, that is this, that all trouble that is a sin against christ, doth directly arise from ignorance of christ, mat. 16.8, 9, 11. and so much of the dehortation. for the direction, ye believe in god, believe also in me: first, ye believe in god; in which words is not only a direction but an acknowledgement, ye believe in god, implying thus much: which shall be as a conclusion from the words, which is this, that believing in god is the only way to remove sinful trouble from the hearts of the people of god: sinful trouble ariseth in us, from the not living upon god: but from a living upon some thing below god; now so soon, and so far as a man hath power from god, to believe in god, so soon, and so far is he really taken up in god, and from thence made able to live upon god; now because it is not a bare believing, but a believing rightly rectified, christ adds this expression, ye believe in god, believe also in me. before we draw any thing from these words, we will first consider the meaning of them, when he saith believe in god, believe in me, not that he intends god one object of faith, and himself another, as being two, for they are one; therefore he saith in that same chapter, he that hath seen me, hath seen the father, therefore i conceive the meaning of the place to be thus; ye believe in god, believe also in me: that is, believe in god as he is held out in me; the conclusion from thence is this, that that faith which is the way of god to remove sinful troubles from the spirits of the people of god, 2 cor. 5.19. joh. 17.3. 2 cor. 3.18. 1. john 5.20. is not a bare believing of god, but a believing in god, as he is held out in his son christ: the devils believe, and tremble, the truth hath a power and authority in itself, presented to men to subject their spirits and overturn the reasons of men, that they are so carried out to assent to truth, that they are made to accknowledge truth to be truth. so simon magus and judas, etc. this faith men may have, and go to hell, apo. 18.13. jam. 19 this faith though it carries men to assent to truth, yet it never gives men to live in truth: nor gives men power from muth, to live answerable to truth; but this faith which is believed in god, held out in his son christ is a gospel's faith▪ such a faith, heb. 11.1 the life of which, believing in christ is the very excellency and glory of the godhead held out by christ: and may be thus described. 1. it is for a soul by the supernatural coming in of god to en●oy a supernatural light from him: by which the soul is made able to see a sufficiency in him to supply all its wants, carrying with it a consent of will. from which description we may draw these corrolies. first, that the life of believing in christ is not only of christ, but is really in christ, but is really the excellency that is in christ, which is the matter, or object of faith, believed by all that are possessed with christ, but i speak this to show what a sweet union there is between the object and the joy. ☞ second corolarie, that power that produceth faith, is not the bare discoveries of god in christ to us: but it is by a supernatural and divine revelation and discovery of christ in us: i speak this for this cause, to show that truth doth and must take hold of us before it can be truly believed by us. thrirdly, that soul that truly by faith sees christ, sees such transcendent and matchless excellency in christ, can. 5.10 to 16. cant. 2.3. psa. 110.3 that he is so overcome by it, that he is by the virtue of it voluntarily carried out, to consent and submit to it. and this is the cause, why souls when once they come to see christ, they see nothing lovely like christ. secondly, that is the cause and reason why souls delight and love to live in those sweet beams of love, which sweetly runs forth from god through christ, which is not only light to them, but life in them; john 1.4 gal. 2.20 dear friend, for the uses of the conclusions, i shall leave to you, and so much in answer to this place of scripture. now the next scripture being john 14.6, 7, 8. the words being thus: jesus saith to him, i am the way, the truth, and the life, no man cometh to the father but by me; philip saith to him, lord show us the father and it sufficeth ut. first, of the sixth verse, in which words we may consider an answer, to a query, christ speaking in the fourth verse, saying, whether i go ye know, and the way ye know. thomas answereth in the fifth verse, we know not whither thou goest, and how can we know the way? this seems to be a paradox, christ affirming the thing, and yet thomas denying it. doct. thence we may observe this conclusion, it is one thing to know, and another to know that we know. the second conclusion is, that christ may know that in us, and for as, that we do not, cannot know, in nor for ourselves; i speak this for these ends. first, to show it is a greater thing, and a higher privilege to be known of christ, then to know christ. secondly, it should teach us to live, not upon our knowing, but upon our being known of christ: hos. 11.3. he that lives upon his knowing, and not upon the thing known, he lives upon the streams, but not in the fountain; upon the beams, but not in the body; such a man may have his discoveries of divine things presented to him, but he hath little of the marrow of those divine mercies enjoyed in him: and now i come to the words themselves: i am the way, the truth and the life: no man comes to the father but by me: in which words you may consider a sweet discovery of that divine excellency and sufficience that is in christ. to speak plainly, these words hold out; first, all that can be said concerning the giving down of the divine and sweet excellencies of god through christ to us. and secondly, all that can be said of the sweet bringing up of a soul from the coming in of god through christ to us. and this is clearly held forth in these words, where he saith; i am the way, the truth, and the life. i am the way that god gives down himself to you, and reveals all that is in himself for you; and i am the way through which you are given up to god, and through which you have sweet records and communion with god, and in which you are made able sweetly to see (as in an open glass) the divine unfoldings of god's bosom secrets, i mean the mystery of his mind, so that a soul is minded sweetly with the mind of god; from which words thus paraphrased on, we may observe these brief conclusions. doct. first, coll. 2.9. 2 cor. 3.18. col. 2.9. that god doth no way give down himself to us, as he is in himself; but through christ, whom was for that end ordained; by himself, he is a suitable light to present such an object. if this be so, what shall we think of those that have found out other ways to bring down god to the creature, under the same consideration before spoken of? not to speak of the dead way of nature, nor much of the dark way of the law; but also of some guilded path, and ways of the gospel, which men do by using some expressions of the gospel; do endeavour to make a conjunction of law and gospel, as one way to bring down god. nay men have an art in these times, to turn the very effects produced by god, they go about to make them causes to cause an alteration in god: my meaning is this, that even prayer and fasting, which in god's way i much prize. which if true, is alone produced by a power from god; the end is, to fit and alter us and not god. men now a days make these means, as a way to tie and constrain god, to alter and to change god; o monstrous, i desire to love the work but abhor the way. objest. surely this fasting you speak of, is not so as you say, but must needs be true fasting and praying, and that for this cause; because we have so many answers after one fasting and praying, of our desires in them. answ. to which i answer, if it be so, bless god; and i desire to do the same. but if you judge of the truth of fasting and prayer, by an answer after it, and not by a right performing of it, than what difference is there i pray you, betwixt the fast of david, and the fast of ahab? but i say no more of this thing. doct. the second conclusion from this first thing is this, joh. 6 44. that no soul does or can give himself up to god, till he enjoys power from the sweet giving down of god to him through his son christ; there may as well be reflections of the beams of a sun without a sun, as returns to god without the enjoyment of god; then things act really to its proper end, when they act not only from but in their own element. but what it is to love from the strength of love, and to act living acts, to a living end, from the distilling of a living power, i leave you to judge, whom i hope lives in those sweet streams? whose spirit is filled by living under the drops of that divine fountain. doct. the third conclusion, that we see nothing truly in god, nor have no real communion with god, but that which we see and enjoy in christ as the way; and so much of this first thing; i am the way. he saith also, i am the truth; christ, may be said to be truth these waves; first, in that he is the cause, declaring truth. secondly, he is the object or matter declared by truth; for all the prophets writ of him; for all the prophecies, and promises, pointed at him. thirdly, he is not only so truth, but he is truth essentially; for god was the word, and the word was god. he faith he is also life, that hereby he may appear to be as he is, all in all. there is but three things essential in a man's way. first, a way to walk in. secondly, a light of truth to discover the way. thirdly, a power to carry us on in the way, or else you must lie still. so by this you may see, that christ is all in all to a christian soul. for we are by christ in christ carried out to christ, he being the way to god, and the truth that discovers god; and also the life that carries you on according to the truth discovered to god in that way. doct. and therefore the conclusions from all this, 1 cro 1.30. 1 cro. 3.22. is this; that christ is all in all to a christian soul, he is all in them, all to them, all for them. the use of this should teach us; first, to see all in him. secondly, to look for all from him. thirdly, to teach us to give all to him, now for the next words, wherein christ saith, no man cometh to the father but but by me; this is but an explication of, the former words, and the same conclusion does naturally arise from it, which was this; that we see nothing truly in god, nor have no real communion with god, but that which we see and enjoy in christ, as the way; and i shall say no more of this conclusion, nor of this verse. now i shall speak a word or two of the eight verse, where philip said, show us the father, and it sufficeth us; in which words in general, is discovered these two things. first, a manifestation of a great desire, in these words; show us the father. secondly, the reasons or grounds of this desire. first, he is a father; secondly, the knowledge of him is a satisfying good, in these words; and it sufficeth us. in the desire, consider first the party desiring, with the special occasion producing that desire, which was the sweet manifestations of god by christ, how he was to be understood as held out in christ. the person desiring, was a soul possessed with god, from whence observe this conclusion. that the discoveries of god by christ, doctr. cant 5.4, 5,16. do abundantly enlarge and take up the heart and desires of that soul, that is really possessed with god, as he gives forth himself through christ. every-thing loves to live in its own light; god is the light of a soul possessed with himself. secondly, every thing loves, and in love is most enlarged to its own centre; but the foul which is possessed with god, is by him really centred in him. thirdly, nothing stirs up a thing, or enlarges the desire of a thing, so much as that which is the only suitable good to the thing: but that soul that is possessed with god, and the life of the joy in the soul really flows from god, nothing is so suitable good to that joy, as the unfolding of god himself. fourthly; men are carried out most sweetly and swiftly to that they apprehend most lovely. but that soul that understands the unfolding of god, from being really possessed with god, sees nothing so lovely as god himself, as he is held out in his son christ. i say no more of this conclusion. secondly, in the desire, you may observe, the matter desired shows the thing desired was to see god; hence observe this conclusion. doct. that the manifestations of god in the way of the gospel, john 4.10 john 4.41 is a very desirable thing, and they that know it will desire after it: from the terms of the conclusion you may observe this; that the sight of god is an object worth viewing. secondly, the gospel is the only way to see god in the objects of love. thirdly, that no soul can truly desire god in the way of the gospel, till he by him has a knowledge of him. fourthly, that soul that ever had a real knowledge of god, can be satisfied by seeing nothing but god: and so much of that conclusion. thirdly, we are to consider not only the thing desired, but the extent of the desire; show us. philip did not only desire it for himself, but for others as well as himself: thence observe this conclusion. doct. that those desires that run forth to god, and really flow from god, are not desires limited within a man's own breast, but extends it self for the good of others, as for itself. that life which is given out to us and produces desires in us, doth really produce a self-dividing power in us: that is the cause why christians are so free in their desires for others, and in their discoveries to others what is discovered in them. streams that flow from the fountain as their centre, need not have secondary causes to carry them to their centre again, for they naturally run into it, being really, one with it: so it is with christians, they stand hot in need to have something put in their mouths in a secondary way: mich. 3.5. like those priests in micah, whom unless you put something in their mouths will by't: or like some, whom when they hear that there is an opportunity to preach christ to creatures, they presently demand what they shall have from the creature? and if they can have more from the one then from the other, their desires is taken off from the least to the most, though there is most need where there is lest: it is to be feared, that it is not the need of the man, but the love of the means and money that carries him. it is not so with souls possessed with christ, whose desires run out for others as well as for itself, in a selfdenying way, they cannot choose but breathe forth to others what christ breathes forth in them: so much of that conclusion. fourthly, consider the object of their dsires, or the person of whom they desire, which was jesus christ, in these words; lord show us. the conclusion from thence is this. doct. that it is the sole work of jesus christ, mat. 12.27. to reveal god the father to the sons of men: he alone was designed of god the father for that end. secondly, none can truly and fully discover god, but those who truly and fully know god; but no man truly and fully knows god in the first sense, but the lord christ: ergo, none can make known god the father to the sons of men but christ: besides, if you consider what the true knowledge of god the father, is through the teaching of the son, the very nature of that description will confirm this doctrine. first, we will show you what this knowledge is not. first, not a natural light of seeing god, wherein reason in apprehending doth so comprehend, that reason is the proper judge of what is apprehended. nor secondly, do we intent a legal knowledge, which light flows from the law; wherein the soul is made able to see god, as a god over him, but hot as a god for him, unless they be for him. nor thirdly, we do not intent a gospel knowledge in a notionary way; by that i mean, men's running out to fetch in notions of the truth, and are not fetched in by the power of the truth, and so they rather carry notions of truth then the power of truth carries them: and that is the cause why some walk loosely in, the profession of the gospel, which is a matter of great grief. but men do exceeding ill in laying these scandals upon the truth, and not distinguish professors from possessors of truth. but to give you a description of the true knowledge of god through christ, we may describe it thus; it is a supernatural light set up in the soul by god, the life of which light hath his residence in god, the actings of which light is all together for god. from whence you may observe these corolies. the first is this, that all means, mat 11.27. nay the perfection of all things below god, cannot bring a natural man spiritually to understand god, for it is produced by a supernatural light, set up in the soul; from that word set up in the soul, you may observe this corolie. that that soul that really understands truth from being possessed with truth, john 3.29.30. phillip 4.8. nothing in that soul is exalted above truth. then from this word, psa. 21.13 set up in soul by god; from whence you may observe this corolie: it is alone the power of god that exalts truth. and from this expression, the life of which light hath his residence in god; observe this corolie. that soul that truly knows god from the come in of god, that light is really maintained by a life that is in god. col 3.3. cant. 4.16▪ then from this word, the actings of which light is altogether for god; thence observe this corolie. that all true light that flows from god doth sweely carry out a soul, joh. 1.2, 4, 5. gal. 1.16. in every act to live to god: the light of knowing is the life of conforming, and so much of that conclusion. the next thing is the matter desired, show us thy father. whence observe this conclusion. doct. to see god as a father, esa. 63.16 is that which is very desirable; that is the way that god presents himself through christ to the sons of men, to draw forth love in them to himself. it is the very tenor of the gospel, thus to present god, and thus to see god. it is a relation that upohlds and indeers more than any: it remove fears, and confirms faith: we are not to present this relation in the gospel to be begotten by obedience, but to beget obedience; but no more of this conclusion. the last thing is the reason; and it sufficeth us. where you may not only see the reason, it sufficeth; but the extent of it, it sufficeth us: thence observe these two conclusions. doct. first, it is a satisfying good to a soul possessed with god, psal. 4.6, 7. ps. 17.15. to see god; such a soul as he lives and so sees, so also he lives by seeing, and so far as he sees god, so far he re-really enjoys what he sees, and in the enjoyment can see nothing like it. and as jacobs' sheep, who was made to conceive by a sight of the speckled rods in the troffes where they drank; so believers who are 〈…〉 forth to drink of these still waters, which are to refresh the city of god, and in them see the beauty and sweetness of god, and immedeiatly conceive and bring forth fruit suitable to god. it is reported that the dove is made fruitful by kissing, but i am sure that believers who are called doves by christ, by the lest kiss of the mouth of christ, are made presently to return reflections of love to christ: my beloved is mine, and i am his. no more of this conclusion. and from these words not only satisfy, but satisfy us, you may see; as before the desire of philip, that others as well as himself might see god; so in this place you may see his faith and knowledge in this word; it will satisfy us. thence observe this conclusion. doct. that those that are acquainted with the effects of the truth in themselves, can also judge what satisfaction other enjoy from truth as well as themselves, that live in the same truth with themselves. but i shall speak no more of this conclusion nor of this verse. the next scripture is in the 21 of the revelation, and the latter end of the ninth verse, come hither and i will show thee the bride, the lamb's wife; the revelation holds forth two things: first, a discovery of christ; secondly, a discovery of antichrist. first, of christ, and that in these things; in the sweet excellency of himself. secondly, the near oneness the saints have with himself. thirdly, reve. 1.13, 14, 15 16. & 5.12. & 9.7. & 12.9. & 13.1, 2. & 13▪ 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 18.2. the great victory and privileges the saints have by christ. secondly, the discovery of antichrist is held out in three things: first, in his rise. secondly, in his reign. thirdly, in his ruin. the discovery of christ in the last thing, which is the privilege; the victory, and the deliverance the saints have by christ, is sweetly held forth in t●ese words; come hither and i will show thee the bride the lamb's wife, in which words you may consider two things. first, an exhortation in these words, come hither. secondly, the reasons or encouragements to back on the exhortation in these words; and i will show thee the bride the lamb's wife. 1. of the exhortation, wherein you may consider these things. first, the party exhorting, an angel. secondly, the party exhorted, john, a soul possessed with christ; from thence observe this conclusion. doct. that god hath not only men but angels if need require, revel. 1.1 luk. 2.10. to preach the privilege that comes by christ to christians; nay, rather, than they shall be untaught, god will teach them himself so much for that conclusion. secondly, consider the exhortation itself, in these words, come hither, in the bowel of which exhortation, is included a sweet admiration; from thence observe this conclusion▪ doctrine. that the understanding of the union between christ and chhristians, ephes. 5.23. is full of high divine misteriall wonders, and this will appear if you consider the nature of it, the privileges the saints have in it, or the glorious effects that flow from it, nay if you consider no more but this, the nearness betwixt the seeing, and the object seen, and the sweet, and swift acting of the spirit when it sees, in running out to the thing seen, so that it really enjoys and lives in the thing seen: but no more of that. now from this word, come hither, his meaning is, not to come from one place to another, nor from one person to another, for places and persons, of themselves, and from themselves cannot farther discover truth. so this word, come hither, doth imply a drawing up of the spirit of john to a higher degree of the enjoyment of the light of god, that from thence he may be made able to understand a further discovery of god, from thence you may observe this conclusion. doct. that no soul can nor doth any further see the manifestations of truth, reve. 1.10 psa. 26.9. than they by it, gathered up in it; the reason of this is because that the truth is as well the life of the eye, as the glory of the object, unless the eye be enlarged, as well as the glory of the object, we cannot see what is dicovered, and the being taken up in the truth, is the enlargement of the eye to see the truth; and there is a suitableness betwixt the eye and the object: that is the reason bats and owls do not love to fly but at evening tide, and that is the cause the eagle loves to look upon the sun, because the eagle's eye & the sun hath a suitableness on them, and so, people legallised, by the law, do not delight to look upon the glorious discoveries of the gospel, and those that are gospellised, love to see nothing else but the glory of the gospel, but i shall say no more of this conclusion. and so much of the exhortation, now for the encouragement. i will show thee the bride the lamb's wife. first, i will show thee, thence observe this conclusion. doct. that the manifestation of christ, prov. 8.31.31. is encouragement enough to christians to hearken to christ, that soul that ever was acquainted with it needs no more encouragement to draw forth its spirit to christ, then to hear it shall have a manifestation of christ, they see such excellencies in it, and receive such sweet content by it, that by the discoveries of the mystery of the gospel, ye may even as with a twined thread lead a soul gospellised round about the world. so much of that conclusision. come hither and i will show thee the bride, in these words is the matter shown, which is the marrow of the encouragement set out in these two words; the bride the lamb's wife. 1. the bride, which metaphor sets out the oneness betwixt christ and his church, therefore the spirit declares her to be a bride, and to make this title appear gloriout he saith, the lamb's wife; that so it may appear that this title given to her by christ is so far glorious, as it flows from union with christ. but first i will begin with the word bride, from whence observe this conclusion. doct. that there is a sweet matrimonial contract betwixt christ and his church, hos. 2.19. isa. 26.5. john 3.29 for proof of which conclusion, i shall do these three things. first, i shall prove it by scripture secondly, i shall show you how it agrees with a matrimonial contract too, and therefore fitly set out under that title. thirdly, i shall show you wherein it transcends all other matrimonial contracts in the world; for this title is but a metaphor, and metaphors are not to compare, but to declare christ, and therefore there is a transcendent excellency in the union betwixt christ and his church, that is not to be found in the limits of this metaphor. but first for the proof of the thing. hos. 2.19. i will betrothe thee to me for ever. esa 62. the latter end of fifth verse; as a bridegroom rejoiceth over this bride, so shall thy god rejoice over thee. joh. 3.29. he that hath the bride, is the bridegroom. and for the second thing, wherein it doth agree wish the matrimonial contract, therefore fitly so called; as appeareth in these things. first, because there is a particular wooing, before there is an actual possessing or uniting; as you may see 2 cor. 5.20. now we are ambassador for christ, as though god did beseech you to be reconciled. god's wooing is nothing else but the sweet expostulations of love with the soul, by which he brings home a soul to himself, and makes a soul one with himself. secondly, a mutual consent of will is the essence, as in other, so in this marriage. 1 john 12. to as many as received him; but the word should be read, as many as consented to him, unto them he gave the privilege of the sons of god. thirdly, as in other marriages so in this, there is a special living with each other, christ lives with the soul and the soul lives with christ not only as domestics, but as bosom friends, in which familiarity, there is sweet imbracemehts and spiritual salutings, and making kriowne the miseries of each others mind to each other, through which they are sweetly wrapped up in each other, these soul-ravishing refreshments, that the saints enjoy in this fellowship with christ, none knows but they that enjoy it, for christ lives so with a soul, and a soul so with christ, that under that consideration, a soul is but a noun adjective, and cannot stand nor sit by itself, without christ. fourthly, as in other matrimonial unions, so in this, the soul is made fruitful by living with christ, for it is alone the sweet & glorious discoveries of christ, that makes a soul bring forth fruit suitable to christ, fifthly, as in other marriages there is a kind of trans-acting of each others condition to each other; the riches of the husband to the wife, and the poverty of the wife to the husband: so it is betwixt christ and a christian, as you may see in the 2 cor. 5. and last; he that knew no fin became sin for us, that we might be made the righteousness of god in him. whatsoever law, sin, or conscience hath against a man, is taken away by christ, he being one with christ, and all that is in christ given forth by god through christ, is made over to a christian made one with christ, and is as really a christians as christ himself. sixthly, as in other marriages there is a sympathising one with the other, so in this christ sweetly simpathises with his spouse, and the spouse sweety simpathises christ. seventhly, as in other matrimonial union so in this; in their absence from each other, where is much longing for each other, and in the presence of each other much rejoicing and delight in each other: and so much of the second thing. for the third, where it transcends all other matrimonial contracts in the world; that it doth in these particulars. first, in that the mutual consent of will, flows from one and the same power; it is not so in other matrimonial contracts: for though a man hath a will to marry a virgin, yet he hath not a power to make her willing to consent to him. but it is so with christ, that, that power of love that carries out christ to be willing to make himself one with us, the same power makes us willing to be one with him. secondly, in other manages mens love is carried out to the party beloved, as being beautiful; but it is not so with christ, for christ doth not match with us because we are beautiful, but being deformed, to make us beautiful: and this you may see in the 16. of ezek. 5, 6, 8. where you may see the time of god's love was, when they were in their blood: and god there entered into covenant with them, not because they were beautiful, but even when they were in their blood, and this he did to make them beautiful. as you may see ezek. 16.14. where god saith, i beautified you in my own beauty: if a moses marry an aethiopian, she is an aethiopian still, but it is not so betwixt god and the soul. 3. in other marriages, commonly men marry such that are suitable in portion, but christ never maries such that are rich, but being poor he marries them to make them rich; and for that end, christ became poor that we might be made rich. fourthly, in other marriages infirmities in a wife, or accusations against a wife, doth many times take off the love of a husband from the wife, but it's never so with christ: will the devil accuse job to the lord? yet the lord is not changed by it, but declares the same approbation of job as before: and so the spouse who hath infirmities in her, and she confesseth the same, saying she is black; yet christ to the same chapter saith, she is fair and comely. fifthly, that which is a just ground according to law, to take off the love of a husband from his wife, so that there is no acceptance to be found with a husband in the return of his wife; it's not so betwixt god & the soul: and this you may see at large in the third of jeremiah and the first verse. sixthly, that which makes a separation in part or whole betwixt a man and his wife, neither in part nor whole can make a separation betwixt christ and a christian. as poverty, imprisonment, and banishment, may make a separation in part, and death makes a total separation; but know this, if the world makes a christian poor, or sends him into prison or banishment, all this cannot deprive them of sweet fellowship and communion with christ; who hath engaged himself to be with them, and to unfold himself to them, not less but more at such times: when jeremiah and paul were in prison, when more enjoyments from god, and unfouldings of god than then? and then for death, 'tis so far from separating us from god, that then is the time we have a full enjoyment of god. and herein i have discovered, wherein this matrimonial contract doth transcend all other: i should draw a corolie from each of these particulars, but for brevity's sake i will pass them over; and make only a brief use or two of instruction, from the whole conclusion. and first to instruct us; if this be so, then let it teach us to look upon-christ as a husband; and that we do when we do these things: first, when we look upon him, as none like him. secondly, when we look for all law and government from him; it is not the vives duty to make laws, but to obey laws; so it is not the church's duty to make laws for the worship of christ, but to conform to such laws for worship, given forth by christ. thirdly, we are said to look upon christ as a husband, not only when we go on in our duty to conform to him, but also when we lay all our poverty and debts upon him. but it is here with christians as it is with some simple women, who out of a pretended humility (though real pride) instead of laying their debts upon their husbands (whom have enough) they pinch themselves to pay their debts from themselves: so many christians, when the law and conscience comes to them with a writ, they not knowing their freedom from them, do not send them to christ, and lay them upon christ, but endeavour to answer, such things from their resolutions against sin, and from their conformity to christ; and so set up their resolutions and conformity as a christ. fourthly, in looking for all maintenance from him. fiftly, in doing all things for the honour of him. next use is of comfort; to comfort all the people of god, that they have such a husband provided for them, which is god: it is a comfort to them in these particulars. first, in that he is a husband, that looks for nothing in you to draw his love to you. secondly, no infirmity in you, can draw his love from you. thirdly, nothing that befalls you can make a separation betwixt christ and you. fourthly, he will call you to no duty, but he will give you a power suitable to perform duty. fifthly, ye may be sure he is such a husband, that will be so fare from failing in his love, that he will transcend all in love: so much of this use, and of this conclusion. for these words, the lamb's wife; which is an explication of the former, to make the former title glorious; thence you may observe this conclusion: that titles given to us by christ, are so far glorious, as they flow from union with christ. nay, we may add one word in the conclusion, and draw it thus. doct. that all titles given to us by christ, nay our very actings towards christ, is so fare glorious as it flows from union with christ; for if we believe, joh. 15.4. or love, or rejoice, or conform, this is no farther glorious, than it is a fruit of christ, flowing from union with christ: but no more of this doctrine, nor of this verse. the next scripture is the 40 of isaiah and the 11. verse, the words being these: he shall feed his flock like a shepherd, he shall gather the lambs with his arm, and carry them in his boseme, and shall gently lead those that are with young; which scripture is so full of divine sweetness that i do not know how, briefly to give an answer to it; all things that are essential to the bringing home of a soul to christ, and all divine privileges belonging to a soul, thus brought home, and all objection that can be made by a soul against these, are sweetly held forth and answered in this verse. if a soul doth object and say, i am dead and have no power? how shall i come to christ? christ answers; i will gather them with my arms; the arm of christ is his, the streength of christ, and the strength of christ is the power of love held forth in christ, and further, whereas they may object and say, if i am brought home to christ, i shall have many oppositions, troubles and trials, how or where shall i be preserved? christ answers; that, in this word, i will carry them in my bosom, an expression full of divine refreshment: and whereas they may further object and say. i am but weak and newly begotten by christ, and am not able to answer the commands of christ, christ sweetly answers; i will drive them gently that are with young, we will begin with the first expression. first, joh. 10.16 john 14.6 i will gather my lambs with my arms: gathering implies, bringing home, thence observe this conclusion. doct. that the bringing home of a soul to christ, is the sole work of christ; and this is clear from many places of scripture, and so if you consider these things. first, what conversion is. secondly, if you consider the metaphors the holy ghost takes up to declare conversion by. first, what conversion is, it is not a turning from a rude course of life, by the power of education, nor it is not a legal conformity to the law, produced by the power of conviction, that merely arise from the terrors of the law, neither is it a bare profession of the gospel, without being possessed with it: but it is for a soul, by the supernatural come in of god, so to be taken up in god, and overcome by god, by the virtue of which he is carried after god, against all oppositions, whatsoever, from the terms of which description, for your better information observe this corolie. first, that it is above the reach of nature to bring home a natural man to god, pro 161. but it is singly and solely, the power of god. secondly, that every soul brought home to god by a power of god, is sweetly taken up in god himself; christians are not only under love, but they really in love, they do not only rest on, but they sweetly rest in the bosom of god himself. thirdly, that the excellency shown in god, by souls brought home to god, is an overcoming excellence: truly friend, a man cannot speak of this from a real enjoyment of it, but he is really, sweetly and swiftly overcome by it; o what divine wonders, what refreshing sweetness, what objects of love, nay what all love, doth that soul see in god, that really lives in the bosom of god. it is not possible for a soul to see it, but he must, he shall be overcome by it. fourthly, the running forth of the excellency of god, seen in god, is the virtue and power that carries on souls after god. fifthly, that no oppsition against christians in the following after christ, can any way take off the love and desire to christ. esa. 43.2. jer. 33.3. the reason is because the more they are opposed for professing of him, the greater incomes they have from him. the second reason is, because they see a macthlesse excellency in him; once see christ, and none like him: water will quench fire in any place, only in lime, and there it will make it burn the more. oppositions may hinder men's going on in professing of christ, if not possessed with christ; but they that are not only professors but possessed with christ, it will make them run forth after christ much the more: the kingdom of god suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force. and so much of this first thing, what conversion is. secondly, for the metaphors that the holiest takes up to declare conversion, doth declare it is done alone by the power of christ, and nothing else; sometimes he saith it is a begetting; well he may so say, for a child can do as much toward his own begetting, 1 pet 1.3. as a man toward his own conversion. secondly, he compares it to a resurrection; he may well so say, for a man may as well rise out of the grave and live of himself, col 3.1. as a man can rise out of the grave of sin, and live to god, without a power of god. thirdly, it is compared to a creation; which is to make something of nothing, ephes. 5.10. which is proper to an infinite power: what shall we think of those than who preach for preparations for christ, and stir up men in the work of conversion too, to work with christ; and think they do well in so doing? we may say of these men, as those the apostle said would take upon them to preach the law, put knew not what they said, nor whereof they affirmed: but i say no more of them but this, the lord lead them and us so forth by the truth, that in all our expressions of such things, we may lay down all things, and exalt the truth: so much of this first conclusion. and from the second thing, i will carry them in my bosom: first, i will carry; then i will carry; them in my bosom. from the first, i will carry them, observe this conclusion. doct. that all souls brought home to god through christ, shall undoubtedly be carried on by christ; that appeareth from these grounds. first, because the power of carrying on to god, is the same power that brought a soul home at the first to god, which is alone the power of god; therefore we may draw the syllogism thus. that which depends upon the power of god, that should stand. 1 pet 1.5. but as well the carrying on a soul, as the bringing home a soul, depends upon the power of god; ergo, jer. 32 40. it must needs stand. secondly, that which hath a dependence on the faithfulness of god without us, and not to any qualification within us, that must needs stand: but our carrying on to god as well as our being converted by god, hath a dependency upon the faithfulness of god without us, ergo, it must needs stand. but if this be so, what shall we think of those that would have a man be a child of god to day, and a child of the devil to morrow? but i say, no more of that thing. next use, is a use of comfort to the people of god; in that their preservation and carrying on to god through christ, is really done by a power of christ: for we are kept by the power of god, through faith to salvation. so much of this first thing i will carry them: now for the next thing, i will carry them in my bosom. the word bosom, is a metaphor, in general it holds forth love, from that we may draw this conclusion. doct. that all souls brought home to christ, do not only live by, but really in the love of christ, but this word bosom, holds forth many particulars. first, it holds forth a nearness to christ. secondly, a familiar and sweet communion with christ, from which particulars observe these conclusions. doct. first, that there is a sweet nearness betwixt christ and a christian, this is set out in divers things by christ himself, where he saith, you are the branches, and i am the vine; a vine and the branches live by the virtue of one life, they are of a nature, they bring forth one and the same fruit, this nearness and oneness is to be considered in these things. first, in their being, a christan hath not only a being in god as a creature, but he also hath a being in him as a christian, which is a riches being consideredy m●erl in the will and free love of god; and this was before for him, before he was brought forth into the world by god: and what is christ considered as christ; but the brightness of his father's image, which is nothing else but the run forth of the father's free love, whatsoever directly flows from a thing as the first efficient cause hath a direct beinig in the thing that is thus the cause of it; and so christ as a christ, and his father are one. secondly, there is an union of persons in time, and that two fold. first, an union of possession, or as some would have it, an union of portions, and that is by the righteous being that was in god before all time, and doth in time through christ put forth itself in the revelation of itself in a soul, and takes up the soul in itself, and gives the soul actually to see itself to bring forth fruit suitable to christ. secondly, there is a union of will and affections, and that is that which christ aimeth at in the 17. of john, speaking thus, he came not to do his own but his father's will, and in the 17 of john, he prays to his father, for his disciples, that they may be as we are, one; and yet they were one in the first and second sense, & therefore the un on he prays for, is of will and affection, the perfection of which union, is the highest pitch that ever the creator shall attain to, this union is increased & built up by the come in of god, and that thus, god is pleased by the sweet, unfoldings and come in of himself, so to fouled up the spirit of a man in himself, that so the soul is brought not only to will suitable to the will of god, and love suitable to love, but is so minded with god's mind, that he will in his will, and loves in his love; the use of this is, to teach all christians, not to comprehend, but so to apprehend, as to admire the wonderful depth of the riches of the love of god in making his people thus one with himself, so much of this conclusion secondly, the word bosom holds forth a sweet familiarity and acquaintance; from thence observe this conclusion. doct. that all that are called home by christ, are not only called to be his servants, but they are called unto a sweet familiarity and friendship with himself, they are called to be bosom friends, they shall know the heart of christ, they shall be dandled upon the knee of christ, they shall be hugged in the sweet embracements of christ, they shall be refreshed by the kisses of the mouth of christ, they shall sup with him, they shall lie with him, they shall live with him; they shall die with him. how lovely is it to live and die in the arms of love, none knows it but he that enjoys it, this love is the privilege of the saints; and so much of this conclusion. and so much of the second thing; i will carry them in my bosom. the third is, i will drive them gently, that are with young; he sets the drivings of the gospel or love, in opposition to the driving of the law, hence observe this conclusion. doct. the drivings of the gospel are gentle drivings. that which carries one on by the power of love, and not by the terrors of a law, that is a gentle driving; but the drivings of the gospel are so: ergo, therefore they he gentle drivings. secondly, those commands which doth not only command duty, but in the bowels of the commands brings a power to perform duty; that is a gentle driving: but whatsoever christ in the gospel requires of us, those commands brought home to us, brings power in them to conform a soul sweet to them▪ these and many other ways may we prove the conclusion: but i shall not at this time speak of. but from all this whole verse, in a conclusion of what we have said, we may gather this conclusion in a way of comfort to poor souls. doct. that whatsoever can be objected by them, concerning their bringing home to christ, and their preservation in christ, and their being carried on after christ; by christ is answered for them in these words: i will gather my lambs with my arms, and i will carry them in my bosom, and drive them gently that are with young. but i shall speak no more of this verse. the next scripture is in the 16. of the revelations, and the beginning of the 19 verse, the words being these; and the great city was divided into four parts. i shall speak something to these words, though not much: i might speak something of them in referenc to the words going before; and so we may speak something of the seven vials, and something of the three unclean spirits, that came out of the mouth of the dragon, and out of the mouth of the beast, and out of the mouth of the false prophet: the unfolding of which things, would give a great light to discover what the city is, and what the three divisions are: but i having spoke so largely to the other scriptures, i shall not speak much to this scripture: and therefore passing over all the matter before, i shall speak briefly to the words themselves. and first for the great city. if you ask me what i conceive that to be? i answer, i conceive it to be the antichristian state, or the state of antichrist, which state is against christ, and condemned by christ. it is a state of pride, which word gins with p. and for those three divisions here spoken of, it is three powers or governments which live in it, and is down forth of it as dranches from the body; and surely in that they live in it, they must needs be like to it: and i told you the great city was the state of antichrist, a state of pride; that is set up in opposition against christ, and being a state of pride as i told you before, gins with p; and those three states in it, or branches drawn forth out of it, unquestionably is like to it, and as that gins with p, so i believe do they. as first, popery. secondly, prelacy. and as for the third state in it, or branch flowing from it as part of it, unquestionably it gins with p, as well as the two farmer; but when we see it, or rather feel the smart of the execution of it, then shall we the better understand it; & be able to give a description of it; but i speak no more of this verse. but you may object and say, though i will not give forth my thoughts any further of this scripture, or especially of the third state that lives in it, or flows from it: but you say we shall better understand it when we feel the execution of the power of it; but may we not in the mean time have some symptoms how to discover it? dan. 7.8. popery and prelacy did rather in deavour a continuation with each other th●n a ruin of each other. to which i answer, that unquestionably it is made up of pride, and must needs begin with p. as the rest do, daniel gives some light for the understanding of it. first, in that he saith it is a little horn; it doth not appear great in substance, but sharp in the nature; covered over with fairer shows than the other, fairer in expressions, but as evil intentions as any. it is a horn that throws down other horns to set up itself; and it is a horn as it is the least, so it is the last. and daniel seems to hold forth something for the understanding of it, dan 7.20. given forth in the languishing of it: therefore surely in the language and doctrine held forth in such a power, we may somewhat guess of it; and that doctrine which doth directly cross and contradict the doctrine of christ, must needs be the doctrine of antichrist: as these doctrines do, which i shall name to you. first, that doctrine which teaches men not to work from a power of love given forth by god, but teaches men to work, and in their working so to work, as to alter god, and get love from god, that is a doctrine of antichrist, and not of god. secondly, that doctrine that holds forth religion as only entered in a law, and not produced by love, that is not a doctrine of christ; who was sent by his father, only to hold forth a doctrine of love. thirdly, that which ties the seat of christ to be regulated by the law of a creature, that takes from christ, and gives to the creature, that must needs be a doctrine of antichrist. but that doctrine which holds forth such a religion, as to bind the conscience in matter of worship, which conscience is the seat of christ, to be regulated and only guided by the law of the creature, i mean the civil law of the nation, further observe from verse 19.29. that the fall of the nations, and the filling of the lands was not till this third division appeared. heb. 3 5, 6 this must needs derogate from christ; and if this argument holds good in one civil state, it must needs hold good in all: then so many sundry states, so many sundry laws, than so many sundry rules of worship, to worship christ by. and how injurious this is to christ, and contrary to the mind of christ: who was as faithful in his house as moses, i leave to you to judge. fourthly, i believe it is such a doctrine or language, that ties all further discoveries to a present light: but no more in answer to these things, nor to this verse. the next scripture, it seemingly speaks not as the former have done; and is in the 10. of hosea and the 12. verse, the words being these; sow to yourselves in righteousness, reap its mercy; break up the fallow ground, for it is time to seek the lord, till he come and reign righteousness upon you. to give my thoughts of this scripture; consider. first, that the expression is suitable to that law which was a covenant of works: which taught men to work for life, as i told you before, but did not teach men to work from a power of life to acknowledge life; leu. 15.18. eze. 20.11. rom. 10.4 2 cot. 3.11. gal. 4.5. heb. 8.13. which covenant by christ we are freed from. but because the duty in it, in an evangelicall way is to be observed by them that are freed from it, therefore we shall speak something to it. and first we must know this; that being freed from that old covenant, which taught men thus to work; so the language of that covenant proper to itself, must be kept to itself, and not applied to them that are freed from it. but in the evangelicall observing any duty in it, it is to be observed not according to the obligement and language of the old covenant from which we are freed, but according to the language and rules of the covenant which we are now under, which is of a more noble nature: in which covenant god is pleased to make the blessings that were annexed to the old covenant, which was the end of an act under that covenant, now to be a cause producing acts under this covenant. and so according to that rule, should we observe all the duties we do observe as to instance in some particulars: whereas the prophet saith, the lord will be with you while you are with him, that is the language of the old covenant. 2 cor. 1.15, 2. now we are not to understand it nor observe it thus, that the lord is kept with us by our keeping with him, but we are kept with the lord by his being with us: and so the prophet in another place, where he saith to some that had not the lord; seek the lord, and ye shall find him: we are not now to understand it nor observe it as though our being found of god, was the fruits of our seeking; but we are to understand it thus: that our seeking god is a fruit of being found by god, for none evangelically seeks god, till he is found of god. so in this place, hos. 10.12. sow to yourselves in righteousness, reap in mercy: which words seem to hold forth so much, according to the language of the old covenan; as though we were to act righteousness before we receive mercy, but believers under the covenant of grace are not so to observe it; but we are now to observe it, so that we act righteousness in that we have received mercy. for christ and his apostles still draws forth duty from a power of privilege, as appeareth by such expressions as these; blessed are they that hunger and thirst; the blessedness is not placed in the future tense, as a thing to be got by hungering and thirsting, but it is placed in the present tense, as that which is the producing cause of it. so the apostle saith, seeing we have these promises, let us cleanse ourselves. according to these rules, are we to understand this verse; sow to yourselves in righteousness, reap in mercy: and understanding these words according to the former rules, this conclusion will arise. doct. that acts of righteousness are fruits of mercy. if you ask me in the first place, rom. 2.1. luk 7.47. 2 cor. 7.1 what i mean by acts of righteousness? i answer, by that i mean the acts of sanctification. if you ask me in the next place, what the righteousness of sanctification is? i answer, it is a conformity to the will of god, produced by the power of god, in which the soul is carried out to live to god in particular acts. if you in the next place ask me, what i mean by mercy that the acts of righteousness is a fruit of? i answer, by that mercy i mean the sweet & glorious come in of god, by which the soul becomes really possessed with god, and is made able to live in the light & love of god, and so is made able from thence to bring forth acts of righteousness suitable to god: and therefore thus i desire to speak to all that love god, act righteousness suitable to god, in that you have received mercy from god. the reason to prove this point is this; no soul can act a living act without a living power, but no soul enjoys a living power, till he hath received mercy from god, therefore no soul can act acts of righteousness, which are living acts, till they have received mercy from god which is a living power, the use of this same is, to show the folly of two sorts of people. first, those who teach men to work to get mercy, and not to act from a power of mercy received, they may as well say to a dead man, act living acts, and i will give you life. secondly, it serves to show the folly of those who say, they have received mercy from god, and yet walk loosely with god, i know not what they say; for that heart that really hath received mercy from god, in being possessed with god, they are so overcome with god, that they love to live to him, and look upon the duties they are to perform, as a high privilege, but no more of this conclusion. and for the next words, break up your fallow grounds, which is an explication of the former, or a direction for a right performance of the former, for as it is a foolish thing to sow in unbroken ground, so it is an impossible thing to act righteousness, with an unmelted, or unbroken heart, from whence observe this conclusion. doct. that a heart is changed and broken by god, before he can bring forth acts of righteousness to god, an old principal cannot bring forth new fruit, when i say, god breaks the heart, i do not mean; breaking the heart by the terrors of the law, but a melting of the heart by the come in of love, but i say no more of of that conclusion. for the next word, it is time to seek the lord. iplying, that is, some special times of seeking god, or that it is a a special thing to seek god, thence observe this conclusion. doct. that it is the duty of all souls possessed with god to seek god. the ne next words are, till i reign down righteousness upon you; implying thus much, that that soul that hath power from god, to seek to god, for the pouring down of his mercy, shall surely have answer; from thence observe this conclusion. doct. that god is not, nor god will not be a forsaking god to a seeking people; this is clear if you look upon the promise of god, consider the love of god. god cannot, will not, forsake a seeking people; why? because it is alone from the enjoyment of god, that we seek god and under that sense we may as well say, god can as well forsake himself, as forsake those that seek him, from an enjoyment of him. use. first, to inform us of one corolie that naturally ariseth from the conclusion, and that is this, that no soul can seek god, till he is found of god, the reason to this corolie is this: because the power of our seeking, is the fruit of gods finding, than this shows the folly of those men which stirred up people to seek, not from a power of being found, but stir them up to seek, that they may be found. the next use is, a use of comfort; if our seeking be a fruit of gods finding: this should comfort god's people thus, that there is no sear of failing to find god, when we seek him, because the power of seeking god flows from the privilege of being found of god, and so much of this conclusion, and of this verse. and for that place in jer. 4.3. and beginning of the fourth verse, which words are these. for thus saith the lord to the men of judah and jerusalem, break up the fallow grounds, and sow not among thorns: circumcise yourselves to the lord, and take away the foreskin of your hearts▪ and had i time i should speak to this scripture as i have spoken to that in hosea, which is to be understod in the same way, and according to the same rules, before laid down, but at this time i shall speak no more. dear friends according that small ability i have given me by god, i have given an answer to your desires: if i had more time, & more light, i should speak more fully and more spiritually, but i must needs confess that it is but a little of god, i do yet know, but may desire for you and myself, is that we may know god, from god, that we may rather live upon our being known of him then knowing of him, so at this time i say no more, but leave you to god, and the word of his grace, who is able to build you up, and to give an inheritance among all them that are sanctified; your loving brother in christ. p. h. dear friend, and brother in christ, my endeared love presented to you, giving to you thanks for all your love to me: this is to put you in mind of your promise in sending me a letter, in the letter i beseech you give me an answer to these four questions. 1. is a christian freed from the moral law yea, or no? 2. whether a christian tempted to sin, should strive against sin, yea or no. 3. whether sanctification can evidence justification, when justification lies dark. 4. how shall a poor soul that hath not the witness of the spirit, nor cannot see any goodness itself, how i say shall such a soul take comfort? or on what foundation shall we tender comfort to such a soul. dear friend, i pray fail not to give me an answer, i long to speak with you, that i may tell you how abundantly my soul is overcome by god, and finds sweet content in god, since i have had a discovery of free grace: which doctrine i was not only ignorant of, but oppofite unto, till i by the love of it, was fetched into it, and i now see it is not a doctrine of looseness; but if any thing indeares a soul to god, and makes a soul able to bring forth fruit to god, than it is to know god in the way of his love. o that the world did but know what the saints do enjoy in this way, than the pulpits would not be so full of calumnies, and the press so full of reproaches, against the doctrine of free grace, as now they be, so in haste, i rest, leaving you to god. your dear friend in christ. m. w. dear friend: i have received your letter; i rejoice much to see and hear of the sweet come in of christ: i desire to bless god in your behalf, and for your questions, i have here sent you an answer according to my small ability, as god hath given in unto me. vale. four questions answered. 1. question. is a christian freed from the moral law, yea or no? answ. without all question a christian is thus as it was held out by the hand of moses; and by that expression, i mean, rom. 7.4. rom. 10. 2 cor. 3.11. heb. 8.13. as it was a covenant of works: and so a law where god did declare himself a god over us, and not a god for us, except we were for him; and so we are not under the law, but as it is handed to us in a christ: by that i mean, as it is made known to us in a covenant of grace, in which covenant of grace, in which covenant god doth engage himself to do by us, what in the other covenant and law he required of us; jer. 33.8. heb. 8.10. so that the materials of the law are not destroyed, but much exalted: for now it is not only a duty, but a high privilege, to work and to walk by the power of god to acknowledge god: and so we do not go about to destroy the matter of the law, but the old obligement of the law, was do and live. but now we are to do because we live, we are not to do for love, but to acknowledge love from the power of the incomes of itself, which is in god for us, which freely runs out from god to us, without reference to any thing in us, but to produce in us whatsoever is required of us. if any one now object and say, this is to lay aside all duty, and live as we list? to this i answer, this is not so; for love enjoyed, ties and indeares more than love supposed: but i know, those that are not by god gathered up into the bosom of god, and so made able to understand the nature of love, within the limits of its own light, they will, they cannot choose, but so judge. for men judge of a thing, according to the nature of that light in which they live: i say no more of that. q. 2. whether a christian tempted to sin, should strive against sin, yea or no? answ. to which i answer, that it is our duty but not our ability: the alteration of the covenant doth destroy duty, but lays it upon a higher power; therefore the apostle phil. 2.12, 13. in all his exhortations, draws forth duties from the power of privileges, as thus: seeing we have these promises, let us cleanse ourselves, etc. and the grace of god which brings salvation, teach us to deny ungodliness, etc. dear friend, i may strive, and sin in striving; there is a way of striving, which its our privilege to be acting in: but if self strive against self and sin, we are more wrestled into self and sin. or when self by the terrors of the old covenant, goes about to lay down self, by such layings down: or when i strive from such a light as is gathered up, which light presents god as set against me, and to be altered by something done by me; this is again to return to egypt, and to live upon a covenant of works, and so we may sin in striving against sin: for though the work, as a work be approved on by god, yet the way in the work, is altogether contrary to the mind of god: but when we by the power of god do strive against sin, which is against god, the more i strive in this way, the better it is; and i count it not only a duty, but a high privilege: the lord make you and i thus to know god, that by that light we may be carried out to live upon god, and to god, in all our actions. for dear friend, you know that sin is not made less, but a great deal the more unlovely, by the apprehending of god in the light of his own love. let men say what they will, this i know, that a man is not truly christianized, and really crucified to sin, till he see a higher good and excellency in god presented to him, and for him, than he can possibly see in any way of sin; so much in answer to that. quest. 3. whether sanctification can evidence justification, when justification lies dark? ans. if the question be so, i answer it doth not; for if i question the acceptation of my person, i must needs question so fare the acceptation of my actions: for (gen. 4.4.) abel believed the acceptation of his person, and so of his sacrifice. therefore for me to go about to answer a doubtful justification, by a doubtful sanctification, is to answer a doubt by a doubtful thing; whereas the doubtfulness of the thing answering, arises from the doubtfulness of the thing to be answered: and how impossible and uncomfortable this is, i leave you to judge, which i am confident have otherwise learned christ. besides acts of sanctification as bare acts, they say do not evidence it, but as sanctified acts; for say they, love as a bare act doth not evidence; but as an act rising from a right principle, which principle is the discovery of god's love to me, which discovery produces in me love to himself; now do but take notice of this seriously: i may not look upon my love, as evidencing further than it arises from god's love to me discovered: so then when there is no discovery of god's love to me, i cannot look upon my love as an evidencing love, further than it arises from god's love to me; therefore by their own argument, love cannot make out to me a property in god's love, when god's love is hid and not made manifest to me by a foregoing witness of the spirit: and so sanctification is not nor cannot be an evidence of justification, when justification lies dark. therefore those scriptures in the epistle of john, (1 joh. 3.14.) and elsewhere, are not to be understood as first, but second evidences. but it may be objected, if the witness of the spirit must go first, this is a foolish thing, for it is but to light a candle to look upon the sun. to which i answer; which is the greatest folly, for a man to light a candle to look upon the sun? or for a man to light a candle to look for his eyes when he hath lost them, judge you? if you ask me whether there be much danger in preaching & pressing men to believe in god, according to their measure of love, and not to press them to believe a propriety in love, though they cannot love, that so they may love; to this answer. for men to preach, and press men to believe a propriety in god according to their measure of love, and not press them to believe, though they do not love, that they may love; this is to reduce them again to a covenant of works: so to preach, and hear, is very dangerous. quest. 4. if this be so; how shall a poor soul that hath not the witness of the spirit, nor can see any goodness in itself: how i say, shall such a soul take comfort, or on what foundation shall we tender comfort to such a soul? answ. to which i answer, that the foundation on which i am to tender such souls comfort, is not the actings of god in them, but the unchangeable disposition of himself for them, which runs out to them, without reference to any good in them; but to produce in them whatsoever god required of them, and this foundation is held out to them in the gospel, where god offers from himself, a free god, a full christ, to a nothing creature; & if the promise of salvation and justification, had been tendered to us, as a looking upon some qualification in us, and not bringing in the bowels of it a power to produce all qualifications in us; it had not been free, but still a covenant of works, but it is free, therefore there is a great deal of comfort to poor souls, although they be nothing, yet there is warrant to believe they may be something; though they cannot do, yet there is ground to believe; that so believing, they may do; and further know that this foundation is not laid for me to rest upon, when i can do, but a foundation to rest upon, to recover me when i am fallen through infirmity and cannot do, that so through believing, i may enjoy power to do; and this is a great comfort, therefore a want of power to do, though it be matter of grief, yet it is no ground of discouragement to keep us from believing, but rather an encouragement to believe the more; this i speak not to declare any ability in the creature to believe, but the warrantableness of a poor soul believing, though it be thus and thus with them, as before said. thus having given yea a brief answer to your queries, i leave you to the teachings of the truth, which is able so to make forth itself to us, as to discover what is to be eyed in it, and observed from it, and to that truth i leave you. and rest; your friend and brother in christ. p. h. fjnjs. imprimatur, febr. 23. 1676. h. london. animadversions upon a late pamphlet entitled the naked truth; or, the true state of the primitive church. the second edition. london, printed by t. r. and are to be sold by benj. took at the ship in st. paul's churchyard, 1676. animadversions on the title, the dedication, and epistle to the reader. of all the rarities which of late have been the discourse of the town (where men spend much of their time, as the men of athens did, either in hearing or telling some new thing) nothing has been more talked of, than a cerrain pamphlet called the naked truth. now having got a sight of it, and scanned it throughout, i am abundantly satisfied, not only from his style, which is sometimes enthusiastic, but from his matter and principles (if he stick to any) that the author is a borderer upon fanaticism and does not know it. but by naked truth he seems to mean christianity without either welt or guard (as they say) and not set off with ceremony. for his title-page stands thus: the naked truth, or the true state of the primitive church. this title-page of his, he explains very sufficiently, p. 17. in the primitive times (says he) in the greatest storms, when the whole world of jews and gentiles were enemies to the church, and not one of your ceremonies in the church to preserve it; the simple naked truth without any surplice to cover it, without any ecclesiastical policy to maintain it overcame all: and so would do now, did we trust to that, and the defender of it. if he means its great defender in heaven, we put our whole trust in him: or if he means his vicegerent upon earth, the defender of the faith, we repose an entire confidence (as we ought) in the gracious declarations and expressions his majesty is pleased to repeat upon all occasions, of his perpetual good affection and compassion for the church of england. or if by trusting to the simple naked truth, this author means, the truth of our own cause, we dare trust to that, and to many defenders of that too. but if trusting to the naked truth, be to this pamphlet and this project; we dare not trust to it. why, this is stripping the church bore to the very skin, nay, skin and all must go, an article of a creed if need be, for he spends his first long chapter in reforming there too, and reducing the faith to, i know not what, naked truth. methinks he should have called his pamphlet the truth fleyed, for naked truth is too short, and not spoken through his subject. but skin for skin, and all that a man has will he give for his life: for this he contends on his principle of self-preservation, this he concludes the only possible expedient to keep out popery, this is his healing salve, this is the product of his fasts, the answer to his prayers, the effect of his seeking god (as he takes care to acquaint us) this has been the travel of his mind, since he had these thoughts, which he has been humbly conceiving these two years, time enough for an elephant to bring forth in. this is the thing which he dedicates to the right honourable, the lords and commons assembled in parliament. pity it was not presented to the lords during the last session, than i believe, it would have been delivered over by their lordships, to be confuted by the same experienced hand, that took to task a more primitive piece of naked truth, viz. the solemn league and covenant in the palace-yard at westminster, where it expired into ashes. as for those noble patriots in the house of commons, 'tis probable they would have voted him their thanks too after the same manner, for laying a libel at their doors, making a breach upon their glorious act of uniformity, and violating their act (their most necessary act) against printing without a licence: though he makes a neat excuse whilst he is doing it, that he does it against his conscience, for which he very poentiently begs pardon of god and them, and so sins on: for, all this while he goes on with his printing and publishing it without a licence. how he will justify his claim to the title of an humble moderator, i cannot imagine; unless assuming, imposing, and turning all upside down, be the signs of humility; and immoderate zeal for one party to be the qualification of a reconciler, or moderator. in his address to the reader he gives an account, why he is so scrupulously careful to conceal his name: because he cannot bear reproach. so all that is like to fall upon the poor fatherless and motherless pamphlet; though he would have done a piece of justice, to have named himself, and so to have cleared others, for it has been confidently laid to the charge of more than one reverend person who (i have great reason to believe, and am several ways assured) had no manner of hand in it, yet he does himself and me a particular favour, in making it impossible for me to reflect upon his person (which i know no more than the man in the moon) only as he makes himself the patron of so vile a cause. for whosoever vents his own amusements, to the churches great and real prejudice (and that's this case) he must not think to scape for the godliness of his style, nor for a man of good intentions, as sure he is, or else he would never give the devil so much more than his due, as to make so strange a protestation as he does here, that he would never condemn any good action though done by the devil (as if he supposed, the devil might do some such for aught he knows) but hell itself, they say (though we never heard before of any good actions there, yet it) is full of such as were once full of good intentions. animadversions upon his first chapter concerning articles of faith. i confess when first i saw this jewel of a pamphlet, and had run over two or three pages of this chapter, i suspected its author for some youngster that had been dabbling among the socinian writers, and was ambitious of showing us his half-talent in the way. i was quickly delivered from this jealousy by his orthodox contradictory expressions in other places: but i find he is one of the men of the second rate (as i take leave to style them) that hardly ever see to the second consequence. therefore once for all i protest, that i do not charge him with many of his own most obvious consequences as his opinions: for 'tis plain he does not discern them. but the church may justly complain of him, for thrusting out such crude, indigested matter, without communicating these conceptions of his, to some that would have showed him the weak and blind-sides of them. now since the mischief is done, to undo the charm again it becomes a duty to expose him; and most of all for this chapter, where he has most exposed himself: a chapter of most pernicious consequence, and admirably serving the turn of the rankest sectaries. who not being able to keep up their congregations any longer, or to keep their disciples from ours by trivially declaiming against our ceremonies; they ferment them now by instilling into them new fears and jealousies of our doctrines: warning them away from our churches, as if there was some strange fury working, or some innovations contriving in the church of england: and as if we were allowed to preach and maintain even in our city-pulpits, new articles of faith, socinian or pelagian, in opposition to the catholic and truly primitive. how unsufferably j. o. for one has reflected, not only upon some particular persons, but upon the whole church of england and its governors upon this account, any one may read, that does but run over his survey of a discourse concerning ecclesiastical polity. no wonder then, if now they are transported with joy, when an author appears as one dropped down from heaven to plead their cause, vouching himself a son of the church of england, teaching as one having authority like a father, venturing at first dash upon the tenderest point in the world, concerning articles of faith, implying and supposing all along, that some are extremely to blame for improving the faith, not by confirming, but enlarging it, ask, whether the state of salvation be altered ' and, what need any other articles? in what church does he ask these questions? and how monstrous impertinent are they here, if we do nothing like it? well! to begin with him, and follow him step by step through his many turn and wind, and sometimes nothing but a rope of sand to guide me; he makes a discovery to us in the first place, that that which we commonly call the apostles creed, is the sum of christian faith. and again, that the primitive church received this as the sum total of faith necessary to salvation. why not now? i answer, it is so now, and all true sons of our church hold it so now: then why this question? why that which follows? is the state of salvation altered? no doubt the terms of belief, on which salvation is ordinarily attainable, are never changeable, but, like god himself who established them, fixed and . but still he follows his blow, though he fights with the air: if it be complete (says he) what need any other articles? there may have been needful heretofore, not only other articles, but other creeds, for the farther explication of those articles in the apostles creed: and yet in those new creeds, not one new article. the apostles creed is the sum of christian faith. true; yet i hope he will not think the nicene, the constantinopolitan, and the athanasian creeds were superfluous and unnecessary: and in his chapter about preaching he seems concerned for this last the athanasian; and yet his censure is so bold upon constantine the emperor, and some godly bishops (he conceives more zealous than discreet, and so do some godly bishops conceive of this author) and his pique at the new word homoousios carries such an ugly reflection upon that creed, that i scarce dare understand him. but we shall have more of this hereafter. he would have men improve in faith, but rather intensiuè, than extensiuè, to confirm it rather than enlarge it. and yet 'tis certain that all formal and mortal heretics, that are not atheists, are justly condemned for want of due extension in their faith. he prays us to remember the treasurer to candace queen of aethiopia, whom philip instructed in the faith: his time of catechising was very short, and soon proceeded to baptism. this is soon pronounced (as he uses to do) but not proved. it does not appear how long, or how short was the time of his catechising: or how many leagues they traveled together before they proceeded to baptism. 'tis true there needs no great length of time to propose and demonstrate christianity (as st. peter and the apostles did it in few words, and) especially out of the prophecies of the old testament, which the eunuch was then reading. but then a great deal must and may be learned in a little time: as the prime articles of faith are so strongly and rationally knit together, that 'tis indeed impossible to teach or learn any one of them, without teaching or learning them all. whereas then our author proceeds thus. but philip first required a confession of his faith, and the eunuch made it, and i beseech you observe it: i believe that jesus christ is the son of god: and straightway he was baptised. how? no more than this? no more. what! nothing of the holy ghost till he heard of him in the baptismal form? what does he mean then by that which immediately follows? this little grain of faith being sound, believed with all his heart, purchased the kingdom of heaven. had he believed the whole gospel with half his heart, it had been of less value in the sight of god. 'tis not the quantity, but the quality of our faith, god requireth. i answer, the true and full notion of saving faith is embracing from the whole heart the whole fundamental truth of the gospel. why does he talk then of the whole heart, and yet supposes but half or a part of this fundamental truth? does he dream that st. philip the evangelist christened the eunuch after christ's ascension into heaven, only as st. john the baptist brought men to his baptism, before christ appeared in his ministry upon earth? and made him such a disciple, as those whom st. paul found in ephesus, that had not so much as heard whether there were any holy ghost? to whom thereupon st. paul proved christianity from their master the baptist's testimony: and to make them perfect christians, which they were not before, but only a sort of disciples, baptised them in the name of the lord jesus, acts 19 yet this author will not let go his hold, and will needs be thus objecting against himself. but, sure the eunuch was more fully instructed. it may be you are sure of it: but i could never yet meet with any assurance of it, nor any great probability of it. yes, i am sure of it, if he means by more fully instructed, taught other fundamental articles beside this one, that jesus christ is the son of god. and i will give him one demonstration of what i say (which is more than a probability) out of the story itself; and he might have met with this demonstration in it himself, if he could have seen but an inch before him; for we find in the story that the eunuch himself made the motion to the evangelist, and reminded him of baptising him. therefore 'tis evident they had discoursed before even of this particular, though we are told no more in express words, but that st. philip preached to him jesus, the faith of jesus. yet he had branched out this faith into all its fundamental articles, and had declared to him even the necessity of baptism; which he understood not at all, if he did not apprehend it aright, and as it was presently to be celebrated; in the name of the father, and the son, and the holy ghost. why, this very short baptismal form is a perfect creed by itself, if it be throughly penetrated and explained in its full latitude: for it seems the name of the son was by a divine criticism chosen and interposed between the other two persons, whose godhead was confessed and acknowledged by the jewish church, rather than that of the word, to denote the second of the 3 persons of the most equal and inseparable trinity, as god of god from the eternal father; and also to connote the coeternal son, made man in the fullness of time, and therefore born of a woman, the virgin mary. why, here's a great part of the faith already. and then the baptismal action itself, the immersion and emersion out of the water, did, in its full and plain importance (as no doubt the eunuch was made to understand it, before he was brought to it) acquaint him and instruct him abundantly in those other great points of faith, the dying, burying, and rising again of christ for our justification from our sins; as also with the whole practical duty of a christian man: that being the inward part, or thing signified in the sacrament of baptism: viz. a death unto sin, the great comprehensive duty of mortification, and a new birth unto righteousness: where he must needs be told the mystery of the first and second covenant, that being by nature born in sin, original sin, and a son of wrath, he had hereby forgiveness of sins, was adopted and made a child of grace, and heir and co-heir with christ in the communion of saints, to live with him after the resurrection in life everlasting. now this author may see what use and need there was of the constantinopolitan creed, that put in, one baptism for the remission of sins: since the true understanding of that sacrament is so instructive of all other fundamentals. for, all this our apostle st. paul supposed, as the common notions all christians should have of their baptism, know ye not that as many of us as were baptised unto jesus christ, were baptised into his death? therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death, that like as christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the father: even so we should walk in newness of life. for if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death; we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection, ro. 6. 3, 4, 5, &c, to as little purpose than is his next application of that passage in st. john, every spirit that confesses that jesus christ is come in the flesh, is of god. 1 joh. 4. 2. why, the mahometans confess, in some sense, that jesus christ is come in the flesh, as a great prophet sent from god. will a mahometan, or a socinian confession of this suffice? for the socinians will admit the apostles creed as the sum of faith; the words i mean, but not the catholic sense of it: and they will say, through jesus christ our lord at the end of their own prayers, in their own distorted sense of it. but if confessing jesus christ be, as st. john means it, confessing the god and the man (otherwise it is not indeed confessing the same jesus christ, whom christians ought to confess) this takes in whole christianity, that is, all its few primary fundamentals are couched in this: all these no question, were virtually contained in st. peter's short confession of faith, thou art christ the son of the living god; for which confession he was blest, and upon which faith christ declared he would build his church as upon a rock. and all these no doubt st. paul preach to the corinthians, when yet he determined to know nothing amongst them, but jesus christ and him crucified. 1 cor 2. 2. but whereas, in the next place, he charges some with introducing new and many articles of faith; i hope he does not mean all our 39 articles: most of which, as (a late right reverend and learned praelate) bishop lany, lord bishop of ely styles them in one of his 5 sermon▪ p 48. are articles of peace, and consent in certain controversies, not articles of faith or communion. not as if the subscribers to these articles engaged themselves to no more than not to contradict them, or never to preach against them; no, the church is so just to herself, as to exact for the security of her own peace, that all whom she trusts with teaching others, or whom she recommends to the world with university degrees, shall subscribe to these articles as their own opinions, and what they believe as convinced in their own judgements that they are true; yet this i take to be one of her greatest ecclesiastical policies, that she admits the many thousands and hundred thousands, without any subscription to these articles, ad communionem laicam, that is, not to half-communion (as some would ignorantly construe it, because they have sacrilegiously taken away the cup from the laity) but to that which the primitive church called the communion of laics: that is, such a communion as was given without such conditions as were anciently required of ecclesiastics. but my best excuse for him is, that, though he be scuffling in the dark, yet he strikes at the papists especially, and would narrow their faith, rather than ours. 'tis true they have introduced many a new article of faith which is bad enough; and, which is worse, many a one that has not a syllable of truth in it. he puts the papists, lutherans, and calvinists all together. one cries, this is a demonstration, another (says he) cries, no such matter, etc. he may make as bold with any of these as he pleases, for we are none of these; and i am not bound to make war in their vindication. in the 4th. page concerning the procession of the holy ghost, he does implicitly condemn the catholic church both in the east and west, for being so presumptuous in her definitions. 'tis modestly done of him. but he means, we have no comprehensive knowledge of the matter declared. his meaning is good and true; but his inference is stark naught, if he means, therefore we understand not at all that this or that is declared. and i am sure, i do him no wrong in fixing this meaning upon his words, for these are his very words, if then our reason understands not what is declared, how can we by reason make any deduction by way of argument from that which we understand not? is it even so? then let us put the case with reverence, that almighty god, who assuming, i suppose, the shape of an angel treated with abraham face to face, as a man does with his friend, should for once have spoken in the same manner to arrius or socinus, and made this one declaration to either of them, that the catholic church's doctrine of the trinity was true, and his false; then i demand, would not this have been demonstration enough of the faith which we call catholic, either to socinus or arrius? and yet all those contradictory arguments, which either of them had once fancied insoluble, supposing them not answered in particular, would remain against it, and stand as they did before any such declaration; and yet all this without giving him any comprehensive knowledge. but as to the ground upon which he raises all this dust, in p. 4. about the procession of the holy ghost, i can easily answer for the church of england; let the church of rome answer for herself, if she can, for her trampling upon the poor greek church as she lies in the dust, and branding her with heresy for her doctrine of the procession, as cruelly as her turkish masters burn their halfmoons on the bodies of those whom they enslave. but our church is not so uncharitable, as to define it a heresy for any to maintain, that the holy ghost proceeds from the father by the son, though we maintain also with good reason, as a great truth, that the holy ghost proceeds from the father and the son. but this makes no breach of communion between us and the greeks, the difference arising only from the inadaequation of languages, which notwithstanding, we agree in the main of this article. so that i may answer all this needless discourse, as demosthenes once answered the orator aeschines, who kept much ado about a word which the other had not used so properly; but the fortunes of greece, said he, do not depend upon it. but if in divine matters we once give way to human deductions, a cunning sophister may soon lead a weak disputant into many errors. so i doubt some such one has misled this author, who, whatever he be, i dare say is not condemned by st. paul for one of the disputers of this world, but rather is one of those whom the same apostle forbids us to admit to any doubtful disputations. but is this author serious against human deductions from scripture, as he calls them, especially since he confesses, p. 7, that heresies never appear at first in their own natural shape, but disguised with specious pretences drawn from some obscure places of scripture, capable of various interpretations; and thus having gotten footing by degrees, they lay aside their disguises and march barefaced? now after this observation, would one think it possible for one that is but master of coherent thoughts for three minutes, within the compass of three pages to tell us gravely, wherefore we have no other safe way to speak of divine matters but in scripture language, ipsissimus verbis, with the very same words. admirable! what way then is there to oppose those new arising heresies, that draw their specious pretences from those obscure scriptures, and do not in express words contradict any plain texts, if there be no safe way to speak against them, or to speak at all in divine matters, but in express words of scripture? nay our author, as it happens, is ware of this horrid consequence, and admits it: blaming for his imprudence that most prudent and most pious constantine (as he calls him) the first and best of christian emperors, that he did not pursue his own intentions, to suppress all disputes and all new questions of god the son, both homoousian and and homoiousian, and command all to acquiesce in the very scripture expressions without any addition, and then he is confident the arrian heresy had soon expired. why, this was the very design of those arrians themselves, that which they drove at in the court, that which they urged in all their little councils and cabals; that silence might be enjoined both parties, and the nicene profession of faith not imposed upon them: as if it had not been ground enough for the church safely to declare and define one divine essence in the trinity, when st. john had set it down, there be three that bear witness in heaven, the father, the son, and the holy ghost, and these three are one, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. what signifies ●●● but unum, that is, una res, or una essentia, one essence? and what is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 more than this? only the church had a necessity of using that word directly to meet and encounter the opposite 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which the heretics took up, to speak their new faith in a new term, and beside and against the scripture. but this principle will misled him farther yet: for upon his measures and rules of faith, what will become of our prime and most necessary principles of faith (as he very truly calls them p. 4.) the trinity three persons and one god? why do we find this author p. 29. solemnly affirming this in the presence of god, that he has known some pass for very good preachers that could not give a good account of the athanasian creed. i suppose this author passes for a very good preacher himself, and firmly believes this creed, and professes his faith by it openly in the church: yet what good account can he give of this creed, if we have no other safe way to speak of divine matters, but in scripture language, and may not safely use deductions or inferences from scripture? how many terms are there in the athanasian, which to seek for in the apostles creed or in the whole bible, were to as much purpose, as it was for the old affected ciceronian in erasmus, to labour and toil his brains to turn that creed into ciceronian latin? yet these are the terms in which the catholic church has thought she spoke safely in these divine matters; but it seems she has spoken all this while at the peril of her understanding. in the mean while the old dormant heresies may safely revive again, as the monothelites that affirmed that there was but one will in christ, and the nestorians that asserted there were two persons in christ, etc. now, their ghosts may rise and walk and invade the church again, under this author's shadow: for though by immediate consequences they destroy the faith, and rob us of our saviour; yet these consequences are only rational deductions, an human (or heathen) way of argumenting, as he words it. but there's no safe way to speak of these divine matters but in scripture language, ipsissimis verbis; with the very same words: then these and twenty other sorts of heretics are safe enough, unless they lay aside their disguises and turn such errand mooncalves, as to state their heretical conclusions point blank contradictory to some express propositions in the bible. but any thing to avoid the plague of school divinity (as he very feelingly calls it) though i dare say, he was never infected with it: but alas! poor st. augustine had a touch of it, and so had athanasius before him. and, if we believe this author, many of the primitive doctors and fathers being converted from heathenism, and having by long and great industry acquired much knowledge in natural philosophy, antiquity, history, and subtle logic or sophistry, were very unwilling to abandon quite these their long studied and dearly beloved sciences (falsely so called) and therefore translated them into christianity, applying their school-terms, distinctions, syllogisms, etc. to divine matters, intending perchance through indiscreet zeal to illustrate and embellish christian knowledge with such artificial forms and figures, but rather defaced and spoiled it. kindly and learnedly spoken of learning in general, and reverently spoken of the primitive doctors and fathers! why, he could hardly have declared himself with greater animosity and severity against greg. de valentia, or suarez, or some other of the late popish schoolmen. as for the fathers, that they were no defacers or spoilers of christianity, 'tis defence enough for them, if i allege in their behalf the testimony of one that was none of their greatest champions, even mr. dallé himself: who in that very book, which he was so many years collecting and writing on purpose to expose them for all their little failings: yet he confesses and contends, that they were guilty of no errors amounting to heresies in their controversies of faith. and by this author's good leave, the fathers were not the men that corrupted our christianity through philosophy; but if any have done so, it is rather that sort of men (the popish schoolmen,) who (pardon the expression) aristotelized the fathers. as for the elder schoolmen their design was noble, to draw the whole scheme of divinity into such order and method, that a divine might sit and see, as it were, his whole world of matter before him; and to arm him at all points where he might possibly be attaqu'd, they set themselves to go into the bowels of all controversies, herein they have often exceeded in beating matters too thin; and i say not, all their armour was of proof, but that which is firm and good, as a great deal of it is, ought not to be thrown away because it is too heavy for some men's shoulders. that unlucky pantaenus set up disputing (if you'll take our author's word for it) in a school of alexandria, though others verily believe that one st. paul before him, disputed daily for the space of two years in the school of one tyrannus. and some differ from this author's opinion, that the damnable heresy of the arrians sprang from the school of pantaenus, they rather think, and our ecclesiastical historians say, that arrius' spleen had never wrought so furiously against the church, but only for a disappointment he received in his aspiring expectations of some great bishopric. but we must needs look back to the second and third pages, to see how he justifies all this, by alleging & proving, with a great deal ado, from reason and scripture, that no man should be forced to believe, for no man can be forced to believe. as for example (says he) if you hold a clear printed book, with a clear candle, to a man of clear eyes, and able to read; he will certainly read: but if the print be not clear, or the candle, or his sight not clear, or he not learned to read; can your force make him read? and just so it is with our understanding, which is the eye of our soul, and a demonstration being as a candle to give light; if then your demonstration or deduction, or his understanding be not clear, or he not learned; you may with a club dash out his brains, but never clear them. it were easy to confound his similitude, by showing the disproportion between the parts of it. for he brings the sense of seeing, which is linked and tied to the dull dimensions of a body, and the studied acquired faculty of reading, which is the other term on the one side; i say he brings these into comparison with our understanding, which be calls the eye of our soul; and a demonstration, which he makes the candle to give it light: but if it be, as he supposes here, a demonstration indeed about things absolutely necessary for us to know, it must of necessity so irresistibly dart its beams into the mind of any, that is not born without any brains to let them in, as there shall need no force to clear them. but 'tis more to my purpose to retort his similitude thus: suppose you held a clear printed book, with a clear candle, to a man of clear eyes; and suppose the man shuts his eyes, and suppose all men that look upon him attentively, see that he shuts his eyes (as that's a thing may be seen) [or, which is all one, that he stops his ears (as some that will not so much as enter our church-doors) refusing to hear the voice of the charmer, charm he never so wisely] and suppose this book thus held to him be the word of god itself: then, since the same word tells us, that some may be damned for shutting their eyes upon it; certainly the magistrate may, and aught to force him not to wink so hard, but to open his eyes: (and sure all this may be done without dashing out his brains with a club) and then indeed it will follow that he will certainly read, but not otherwise. the jews in rome are constrained once a week to hear a christian sermon: the pope indeed cannot make the jews believe, but he can make them hear, unless they close up their ears with wool, or purposely send their wits a woolgathering (as the country phrase is) which would be a fault in their wills, to be punished if it could be proved: whereas this author would ascribe all to men's want of common understanding, or want of discerning ability in the matters now in question, which are the great matters of faith. but god is wanting to no man in necessaries: and the reason which helps every man to see these truths, at least when they are showed and pointed out to him, is a vulgar, a popular thing. but sure this author imagines there are a world of idiots, that he may not be forced to admit any man's hypocrisy & wilfulness to be gross & palpable. thus he concludes, our force may make him blinder, but never see clearer, may make him an hypocrite, no true convert. no! by this author's favour, he that shuts his eyes, yet pretends to see clearly, is an hypocrite already: and we that would oblige him to open his eyes, whether he will or no, do not go the way to make him an hypocrite, but a true convert from his sinful hypocrisy. but he still eagerly pursues his ill-chosen principle in mistaken charity: if a man do not see a thing clearly contained there (i. e. in scripture) you cannot force either his sight or his faith. p. 4. he had said before, p. 3; he than that believes the scripture, cannot but believe what you clearly demonstrate from scripture, if he hath clear brains: if he have not, your force may puzzle and puddle his brains more, by the passion of anger and hatred, etc. and again in the same page, can you drive faith, like a nail into his head or heart with a hammer? nay, 'tis not in a man's own power to make himself believe any thing farther than his reason shows him; much less divine things. put this together (and there's a great deal more of it) and see whether it does not lead us into the very dregs of mr. hobbs' divinity; i. e. fatality. for if it be not in any man's power to discern fundamental truths (of which we are treating in this chapter) when they are laid before his eyes; then i am sure it is none of his fault: of which the result is this, that whereas our saviour has pronounced, that he that believes shall be saved, and he that believes not (that is, he that disbelieves after a sufficient proposal) shall be damned; this author will have it, that he who does not believe, even after such evidence, cannot believe, and therefore cannot be saved, and so cannot avoid being damned. only, this author is better natured indeed than mr. hobbs, who allows the civil magistrate to correct, and even to cut off those that are thus necessitated to do evil (as men kill vermin or noxious creatures:) whereas this author (as much in the other extreme) dares go no farther than that a christian magistrate should punish or banish those that trouble the church of christ with doctrines apparently contrary to the clear text, and such as are destructive to christianity. but who will judge what is clear? or what is thus destructive? the party accused, or the civil magistrate? for, as for the ecclesiastic, he makes the church all along in this discourse a party: and we shall see anon that he will not allow her, even in a general council, for a competent judge, to be relied upon by both parties, no not in points of faith. but if he dares go no farther than this, i dare not go so far: i am very far from thinking, as he does, that it was any part of s. paul's meaning in this place, i wish they were even cut off that trouble you to wish there were a fitting power, that is a christian magistrate to punish or banish them: and his reason is nothing, why st. paul should not mean here, a cutting off from the church by way of excommunication: for that (says he) was in his power to do. why then should he wish it? it might be in his power, i. e. he wanted not authority, but yet he might justly apprehend it a perilous thing, formally to cut off and excommunicate so numerous and powerful a faction, for fear of some great apostasy from christianity; from which these men, by his favour, had not cut off themselves though they ran into schisms or heresies. therefore he might well consider it as a thing rather to be wished than executed: and if this were no wish of st. paul's making, that the troublers of the church might be punished or banished, than i cannot find in my heart to go along with this author in making it my wish, that they should either be banished or more severely punished for the present, than by forcing them into our churches (whence they have indeed banished themselves) that they may hear our defences of an honest cause. and if it wring their consciences to come thither to prayers, i cannot choose but make another wish, that they might first be satisfied either in our public or private conferences with their leaders. the notable effect of such conferences, he that does not believe let him but read what my lord bishop of winchester, (then of worcester,) printed, of what passed, in that short one, at worcester-house, or the savoy, where as soon as ever it came to writing in syllogism, which this author so despises here and every where, the adverse party was driven immediately to that wild assertion, that whatsoever may be the occasion of sin to any, must be taken away. but this author, without making any such provision for their souls, as has any thing in it of constraint is for leaving them to their fate. as for those (says he) who keep their erroneous opinions to themselves, who neither publish nor practise any thing to the disturbance of the church or state (as if to set up altar against altar, were no disturbance) but only refuse to conform to the churches established doctrine or discipline (pardon me if i say) i cannot find any warrant, or so much as hint from the gospel to excuse any force to compel them. no! let all such live like pagans, and go to no churches at all, if they have a mind to it. but he knows full well there is a common objection about the magistrates using any compulsion, taken from s. augustine. some heretics donatists came to him in his later days, and gave thanks that the civil power was made use of, to restrain them: confessing, that was the means which brought them to consider more calmly their own former extravagant opinions, and so brought them home to the true church. to this he answers, first, the donatists are well known to have been a sect, not only erroneous in judgement but very turbulent in behaviour, always in seditious practices. & in that case (he tells us) he showed before how the civil magistrate may proceed to punishment. but, he says, our case is not in repressing seditious practices, but enforcing a confession of faith, quite of another nature. though i could easily and justly retort him a sharper answer, i say only this; the very act against them calls them seditious conventicles: and openly to break so many known laws of the land, after so many reinforcements, is not this to be turbulent? and was it not ever understood so in all religions? even in heathen rome? the most learned p. aerodius tells us, when a sort of innovators kept their conventicles in opposition to the way received among them of worshipping their gods, the senate made an act there should be no such meetings, as tending to the disturbance of the state, and the public peace. et si quis tale sacrum solemn & necessarium duceret, and if any one judged such a sacrifice to be necessary, and a solemnity not to be omitted without a crime, he was to repair to the praetor, and the praetor was to consult the senate, when there were at least a hundred senators present (so that the rump of parliament would not do neither); and if the senate gave him leave, it must be with this condition, that when he performed his offices of religion his own way, ita id sacrum faceret, dum ne plures quam quinque sacrificio interessent, there should not be above five persons allowed to be present at the meeting. the self same number, besides the dissenter's own family, is so far forth endured by an act of this present parliament, that there must be more than five to make it a conventicle: but what are 5 to 500? as commonly they meet: and are not such meetings formidable? and whatever is formidable to the church and the state, is not that also turbulent? and if they were thus solicitous to preserve and establish, as a sacred inviolable thing the idolatrous worship of their false gods, what care of ours can be great enough to secure the godly worship of the only true god, when it is shaken by such divisions? but to return to st. austin; how did the civil magistrate proceed to punish the donatists for their sedition? even by laying his commands upon them, at that good father's request, that they should come to church. a severe punishment and very likely indeed to be inflicted upon them, as traitors to the imperial crown! but secondly, says he, to answer more particularly this story, i suppose, says he, there is no man such a stranger to the world, as to be ignorant that there are hypocrites in it; and such for ought we know) these seeming converted donatists might be, who for love of this world more than for love of the truth, forsaken their heretical profession, though not their opinion, etc. incomparable! for aught he knows, they were hypocrites! so for aught we know, this author is all this while a jesuit, and writes this pamphlet only to embroil us protestants. but he goes on; unless it can be evidenced, that these donatists' hearts were changed, as well as their profession (a thing impossible to prove) all this proves nothing. very good! so unless it can be evidenced that he writes all this pamphlet from his heart (which is impossible to be proved) it all signifies just nothing. but thirdly, says he, put the case their hearts were really changed as to matter of belief, 'tis evident their hearts were very worldly still, grovelling on the earth, not one step nearer heaven. a horrible charitable saying! we may forgive him any thing after this: as his supposing, in this next sentence, that the pruning of the tree by the magistrate's sword is doing evil. as for his putting the case, malchus had been converted by st. peter 's cutting off his ear, and saying, this would not have excused st. peter 's act, which our saviour so sharply reproved, and threatened by perishing with the sword: in the first place (i humbly conceive) st. peter was no civil magistrate: unless he that will not allow him to draw o●e sword here as a private person, will admit the fine monkish conceit of ecce duo gladii! behold here are two swords, the spiritual and the temporal for st. peter and his successors. and secondly, for his cutting of malchus' ear, i suppose there is some difference, between the magistrat's giving one an ear to hear with, or compelling one to hearken and listen to reason; and cutting off one's ear, or setting one in the pillory. but all this, he says, in reference to compelling men to believe or conform, still reserving to the magistrate power according to scripture to punish evil doers, not evil believers, not who think, but do publish or do practise something to subvert the fundamentals of religion, or disturb the peace of the state, or injure their neighbour. god, the only searcher of hearts, reserves to himself the punishment of evil thoughts, of evil belief, which man can never have a right cognizance of. and does he take all this pains only to put a fallacy upon us? and only to prove the truth of an old adage, that thought is free? and that no body can be punished in this world for his thoughts only? or that it is all one for a thing not to be, and not to appear to be? but for all this, evil believers, if they profess their evil belief, plainly appear evil doers, and are to be treated accordingly: though i speak nothing more against them or their greatest speakers, than that they may be brought to our churches, and give us a fair hearing. animadversions upon his appendix to the former subject. his appendix to the former subject gins with censuring the modesty of our first reformers, for their deference to the ancient fathers and councils. we thank him for this reproach. hereby (says he) they were reduced to great straits in their disputations. he shall find himself reduced into much greater before we have done with him, for thus aspersing and deserting, both the ancients, and the modern fathers (as i may style them) of this church, and the reformation. his reason for thus rejecting antiquity is, because some popish errors were crept very early into the church. the superstition of the cross and chrism were in use in the second century. they were in use: but none were then allowed in any superstitious abuse of them. as for the millenary error, and the necessity of infants receiving the blessed sacrament, (errors indeed, but no heresies, and common errors, but by no means to be charged on the church universal of those ages, which is but a vulgar error,) since the papists, he confesses, reject them both, i hope these do not prove the fathers papists, nor yet heretics, that the reformers should balk them on these surmises. however this reformer urges them where he thinks they serve his turn. st. cyprian tells us, that every praepositus, which we call bishop, is to be guided by his own reason and conscience; and is responsible to god only for his doctrine. st. cyprian only says in the place which he means (though he is not pleased to quote it) that a bishop was praepositus, and responsible to no other: that is, to no other bishop, and particularly not responsible to the bishop of rome. but st. cyprian never says that a bishop is not responsible to the church, or a council of bishops, which without any usurpation have always taken to themselves the authority of calling even patriarches to an account for their doctrine: as that general council held at constantinople by the emperor constantinus pogonatus, judged, and condemned five patriarches at once, and honorius the pope of rome for one of them. but st. augustine believed it a direct heresy to hold there were any antipodes. 'tis true, he held there were none, and rallied those that held there was any such thing: this was for want of understanding the system of the world, which in those ages few understood before the late discoveries. but st. augustine is so little guilty of believing it either a direct or an indirect heresy, that he scarce makes religion at all concerned in it. and if he touch it only as a point of philosophy, than his reputation of wit is as safe as that of herodotus and lucretius, and many of the greatest wits, that made as fine burlesques as he, upon this opinion of antipodes. but if so great a divine as st. augustine, and so great a scholar as lactantius were liable, to such mistakes for want of skill in the mathematics; then why does this author inveigh against that part of learning for a divine, in his preaching chapter, p. 27. & 28? he can't but wonder that men of any brains or modesty should so grossly abuse this saying of our saviour, he that will not hear the church, let him be unto thee as a heathen and a publican, spoken of private differences between man and man, to be referred to the determination of the church, that is the congregation of the faithful which they usually and by order should assemble in; and refer this to the church in general, in matters of faith, not in the least pointed at there. he will have much ado to make us believe that a man is not bound to tell his brother of heresy, a matter of so great consequence, and to tell it to the church, if his brother will not hear him; and yet prove that he is bound to do this, in matter of private difference, or petty quarrel between them. wherefore (to borrow his own conclusion of this matter) i pass this over as very impertinent. and so is that which follows, i do not believe, nor am i bound by scripture to believe such expositions as the popish church makes of this place, that the gates of hell shall not prevail against the church. who bids him believe the popish expositions? but if that place be not spoken of the roman church, therefore does it signify nothing to prove the visibility or indefectibility of the catholic church? but 'tis plain he advances the notion of a church invisible, a church that shall be driven into the wilderness (where her ninety nine ceremonies are to be left to attend her) scarce visible in the world: whereas the learned understand that place of the church's persecutions the first three hundred years, which made it the more illustriously visible: and our nineteenth article calls it the visible church of christ. now he proceeds to the business of general councils, whether they may err in some points of faith? the church of england acknowledges they may err, and have erred in things pertaining to god. no doubt of it. but this author immediately flies higher, with a why not in some points of faith. all the evangelical doctors grant (says he) that the later general councils have erred: if so, why not the former? what promise had the former from christ more than the later? true, there is no more promise to a council of the fourth age, or to that of nice, than to one that should be held in the seventeenth, if it were as general and as free. he asks concerning this promise, the gates of hell shall not prevail against the church, what's this to a general council (which is) not the thousandth part of the clergy, nor the thousand thousandth part of the church? we shall find him mistaken in this account at long running. lastly, he shows his charitable divination, in foretelling how much more mischief general councils would have done, if more of them had been convened. but say you (says he) no general council determined those errors? why? because none was called about them: had any been called, who can doubt but they would have avowed that in the council, which they all taught in their churches? this he says: but his yeas and nay's are no oracles with us: for why should they be, when a general council is not so with him? then presently he humbly craves pardon for his bold presumption: viz. of these hard say against general councils. and i as humbly beg leave to speak for them in behalf of the church of england, and the law of the land: both which i'm sure i have on my side, and both give much deference to general councils. the twentieth article of our church has these words, the church has authority in matters of faith; and the statute of the land runs thus, (eliz. 1. c. 1.) that none, however commissioned, shall in any wise have authority or power to order or determine, or adjudge any matter or cause to be heresy, but only such as heretofore have been determined, ordered or adjudged to be heresy, by the authority of the canonical scriptures, or by the first four general councils, or any of them, or by any other general council, wherein the same was declared heresy, by the express and plain words of the said canonical scriptures, or such as hereafter shall be ordered, judged, or determined to be heresy by the court of parliament of this realm with the clergy in their convocation. but for all this we do not confess or acknowledge all or many of those for general councils, which they at trent, or which bellarmine is pleased to account for such, a parcel of eighteen of them; but those very few we count for general, which the church universal, before the unhappy breach between east and west, received for general. but now to unravel the skein which is much entangled and ruffled in his confused way, the diminutions he puts upon general councils may be reduced to these three heads. 1. that general councils may err in points of faith, because they have no promise to the contrary. 2. because they want numbers, even of the clergy, being not the thousandth part of them: and therefore (to put this argument as far as ever it will go) are not truly general. 3. because of the prejudices they that should sit in council would bring along with them; & than who can doubt but they would avow that in the council, which they all taught in their churches? 1. in answer to his first exception, i premise these limitations. if by erring in some points of faith, he means some points belonging to the piety of faith (as divines use to speak;) or to the perfection of faith, or remotely belonging even to the essence or necessity of faith, and wounding it by far-fetched consequences; i will not deny but even great councils may possibly be circumvented for a time: yet i may safely venture (with our learned & pious dr. hammond in his paraenesis) to reckon it among the pio credibilia, or a thing piously credible (as we say) that god will not permit a council truly general and free to err in fundamentals; which thus far only i presume to explain, that god will never permit them to deny and declare against any fundamental truth, and much less to affirm and declare any fundamental error to be a truth, and least of all to declare it a fundamental truth. and if this author asks which of god's promises give us encouragement to hope and believe this, i refer him to the prophet isaiah, ch. 30. v. 20. and though the lord give you the bread of adversity, and the water of affliction; yet shall not thy teachers be removed into a corner any more; but thine eye shall see thy teachers. that this chap. is evangelical will not, i suppose, be denied; and so is that isai. 54. 17. and every tongue that shall rise against thee in judgement shalt thou condemn. if this be denied to be spoken of the christian church, i prove it undeniably from our saviour's application of the context. and all thy children shall be taught of god. it was then a prerogative of the christian church that her teachers should be driven into a corner no more; that is, be always visible, even when the lord gave them the bread of affliction, that is, even in times of persecution, as the lawful catholic bishops were never more visible than when the intruding arrians, that were far enough from being lawful bishops, persecuted them away from their bishoprics, and drove their persons indeed into corners; yet they held intelligence, and kept exact correspondence with one another still, and with all their flock's that persevered in the faith, and disowned the uncanonical arrian bishops. this they did by their literae formatae; by this method the church preserved in her communion her own members amidst their dispersions, and before any general councils, except at jerusalem held by the apostles themselves, though the greatest heresies arose early; by this means they proclaimed their faith loudest of all, then when they were silenced and excluded by the arrians from their own pulpits; as the sufferings which happened to st. paul fell out rather to the furtherance of the gospel. so that his bonds in christ were manifest in all the palace, and in all other places, and many of the brethren in the lord waxing confident by his bonds, were much more bold to speak the word without fear; phil. 1. 12, 13, 14. and if the church has a power of condemning in judgement every tongue that rises up against her; i think this amounts to a promise, a glorious promise (and there are many such) that all or near all the bishops in the christian world, shall never apparently fall from an outward profession at least of the catholic faith in fundamentals, and profess the quite contrary heresies instead of them. and he that will not allow thus much at least to the church, must run into wild airy suppositions of sheep without any shepherds, people without any priests, a church without any orders, and as invisible as the leviathan makes it in his parallel between the church of rome and the kingdom of fairies. thus sar methinks this author should go along with me, for all his ask what's this to a general council? for the promise was made to the whole body of the church; since even he acknowledges that the gates of hell would prevail against her, if the devil could so wound the whole body of the church as to destroy the vitals, the fundamentals. and if this be not a mortal wound to the body, to lose all its pastors and teachers by their falling into formal and mortal heresy; then nothing at all can wound it deadly, but a total dissolution of all and every one of its members: and at this rate, this author may fancy, as a certain great enthusiast did before him, that himself alone might be the catholic church, and that it might wholly subsist in his single person. but he would fain avoid this inconvenience, though a general council should fall into such fundamental error, and persist in it, because secondly (says he) 'tis not the thousandth part of the clergy, nor the thousand thousandth part of the church, which in the scripture is always put for the whole body of the faithful, though of late it be translated into quite another notion, and taken for the clergy only. i answer, if the church be always put for the whole body, yet the clergy sure are the voice or the mouth of that body, and god has promised isa. 59, 20. and the redeemer shall come to zion (to put it out of doubt that all this chapter is gospel;) and unto them that turn from transgression in jacob, saith the lord: as for me this is my covenant with them, saith the lord, my spirit which is upon thee, and my words which i have put in thy mouth, shall not departed out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seeds seed, saith the lord from henceforth and for ever; farther i add out of the author's own confession, in his chap. concerning bishops and priests, the church was always governed by bishops, that is by one, whatsoever you please to call him, set over the rest of the clergy, with authority to ordain to exhort, to rebuke, to judge and censure as he found cause: no other form of government is mentioned by any author for fifteen hundred years, from the apostles downwards. i make account then, that a general council of bishops is, as tertullian styles it, representatio totius nominis christiani, a representative of all that are called christians, inferior clergy as well as laity; and what then if they are not the thousandth part of the clergy, nor the thousand thousandth part of the laity? nay, to strengthen his argument, what if there is not actually met in council the twentieth part of the bishops that are in the christian world? suppose that all are invited with assurance of safe conduct to a place of security, and time enough allowed for their convening, all which can never be effected without the consent of kings and princes, and without that it never must be attempted: nevertheless, because very many cannot possibly take such a voyage, and must needs be absent, it was never pretended to have the force of a general council, till it was manifestly accepted by those absent bishops of the church universal wheresoever dispersed, or at least by the visibly major part of them, so that it might appear to any one at first glimpse (as they say) and without any scrupulous enquiry, which way their much greater number had declared themselves. if there be still a few dissenters 'tis inconsiderable, as what were seventeen arrian bishops (for there were no more arrians that were lawful bishops) in the council of nice, where there were three hundred and eighteen catholic pastors, equal almost to the number of servants bred up in the house of abraham? i know not then what they mean that would evacuate and annihilate almost the whole authority of general councils, by sending us to ortelius' maps or geographical tables, bidding us take a survey of all the great cathedrals or metropolitical churches, and then demand of us whether there were ever any councils so ecumenical from which above half the bishops of these sees were not absent? true; but if they were present upon their own charges, and did but what would be certainly required and exacted of them there, or wherever they were; they must needs accept, subscribe, recite, publish, and preach, and cause to be preached over all their dioceses, the decrees concerning the faith, such as the nicene creed or the constantinopolitan: nay, the bishops did many times summon provincial and national councils to sit a little before and at the same time with the general, on purpose to ratify and spread their decrees. and if any council was pretended to be general and free when it was not so, as was the second of nice, which being overawed by an imperious woman irene, decreed image-worship, immediately two or three other great western councils, as that of francfort in germany, and that at paris, and the british bishops, declared themselves openly against it. and charles the great himself wrote against it. whilst this exact correspondence was among all the bishops of the catholic church, and in every diocese between the bishop and his clergy, and all his flock, then as one of the father's glories, if any man asked the way to the catholic church no heretic had the face to show him the way to his particular church, as if that were the cotholique. and thus although the body of the clergy be a thousand times greater (as this author observes) than any council, and for this very reason for their unmanageable numbers, cannot be convened in one place, nor their suffrages gathered, yet 'tis observable that the universality or whole fraternity of christians that were in the apostles fellowship or communion, had honourable mention made of them and of their concurrence in the letter of decision from that first apostolical council in the acts of the apostles. and so the legates of princes and several learned priests and deacons have been assessors to general councils, but no voters there (for that were endless) & consentiendo subscripsere (that is) subscribed their assent and consent; therefore our author is not to think it a monopoly of ours, though the word church be sometimes used and taken for the clergy only: for as i showed before, there can be no sheep without shepherds, so 'tis an equal absurdity to imagine, that the shepherds should be preserved without their sheep. but if he will grant any thing at all by way of deference to the church's judgement, he must not talk to us of the whole body, nor of his thousands and thousand thousands, for fear of falling into the new oral-tradition way, that rare invention of learning what is the faith, by sifting and finding out (if we can) what was held at all times, and in all places, by all the midwives, and the dry-nurses, and the common people. i come now to his last pretence against the church's authority in general councils, the prejudices they that should sit in council would bring along with them: and than who can doubt but they would avow that in the council, which they all taught in their churches? this again is a piece of my author's unthought of popery, for the papists are not able to endure councils free and truly general, which never failed to swinge their popes and their popery too; that is, the quintessence of it the pope's supremacy: as no doubt they would condemn many other of their doctrines and practices, but that as there have been no such councils of later ages, so indeed there was no such church of rome in former ages when there were such councils: and the council of trent has made their church so quite another thing, that we may well retort them their own question, where was your church before luther? now ask them for any decree of a general council for praying to saints, or worshipping images, or the like, if we reject the council of trent (as we would do the assembly of divines at westminster) they reply, the visibly major part of the church, both east and west, have introduced it: and (as our author expresses himself in another instance) they all have taught it in their churches, therefore if they met in council, who can doubt but they would avow it? i desire to remind these overhasty opiniators of that well known and remarkable story concerning paphnutius, at the sacred ecumenical council of nice: when the question was debated earnestly there, whether married priests should be separated from their wives? or no? and when the major part of bishops inclined to the wrong side, even to forbid them cohabiting any longer, the great paphnutius stood up and set them right; proving the ancient tradition or custom of the church to the contrary: and with one speech he turned the whole council: for it is one thing to strike at random, as commonly polemical authors do, or to oppose those passages in their adversaries books, which are ready to fall of themselves, and to pass by those which urge and press them harder; and quite another thing to keep one another to a point, till it comes to an issue upon the whole affair: but this can hardly be when two controvertists are as far distant from each other in place, as they are in opinion. but if sober, good and learned men were convened and met, prepared with study, not for a vain wrangle or victory, but for a mature deliberation to give such an account of their belief, that all might end in some fixed determination, after full conviction; if precedents and moderators were designed, with one to do the office of a prolocutor or speaker, to see that all might be done orderly, and proceed in strict and punctual form of argument (a method which this author so often declares against, that he will not be this prolocutor.) if the ratiocinators on both sides might have days given them, to recall any thing that slipped inconsiderately from them, that there might be no lying at the catch (as they say;) if such a conference as this were protracted from time to time, till all were ripened for an issue; if there were ready at hand all books that would be of use, fathers especially, and former councils, and above all the holy bible placed upon its throne (as it was the custom to place it in ancient councils;) if i durst hope to see but such ● council as this, than i would hope to see the church restored to all her ancient splendour and serene glory. for i will but appeal to this author (if we may compare those great things with our lesser affairs) if he has ever done any exercise at divinity-disputations in an university, what a vast difference there is between sitting in one's study and writing such pamphlets, as his and mine; and defending in the school a material question in theology, where one stands a respondent enclosed within the compass of his pew; as popilius the roman ambassador to king antiochus, made a circle with his wand about that prince, and bid him give him a determinate answer before he went out of it. which puts me in mind of a certain pope's reply (and it was a very shrewd one) when he was importuned to call the council of trent, he put them off a great while with this answer, that he would not fight with a cat in a cupboard; meaning, he was loath to contend with all the praelacy shut up together, for than he knew they would fly in his face; and so they did in the faces of his successors, notwithstanding all their artifices: whereas he could deal well enough with them severally and at a distance; and it is no wonder at all, if the bishops of the duffusive church are fain to suffer and groan under many of the papal abuses, which they might easily remedy and reform, if they were protected (as they ought to be) by all christian kings and princes, in meeting and acting freely. but incomparably beyond any short and cursory debates (such as our disputations in universities must needs be) are the advantages of a free general council (but trent was neither free nor general) to bring things in debate to a conclusion. i speak now only of those advantages that are in the nature of the thing itself: what shall i say then of the supernatural assistances, from the blessing of heaven upon such a meeting? for though it be promised, wheresoever two or three are gathered together in my name, there am i in the midst of them, yet sure st. paul strengthens the argument, 2 cor. 4. 15. that the abundant grace might through the thanksgiving of many, redound to the glory of god. for by parity of reason, if the thanksgivings, than the judgements, and the censures, and the decrees of many, if not all the governors of the church, either met in one place, or afterwards consenting to the same thing, must also redound to the glory of god. whom therefore he dishonours by prophesying thus aforehand, that if any general councils had been called, they would have miscarried. and so i have done with his two first chapters concerning articles of faith; upon which i have been the longer out of a just indignation, to see a man in his enthusiastic fit threshing of fathers, and councils, and faith, and all into splinters. for what is behind, though he will ever and anon enforce me to make a severe reflection, yet it will hardly be capable all along of a serious refutation. animadversions on his chapter concerning ceremonies. i have seen the picture of an old lawyer with this inscription upon it, that for a time he was the only sergeant at law in england; and then he appeared at the common pleas for plaintiff and for defendant, and said what he could say on either side with great indifference to both. so one would think this officious advocate thought himself the only divine in england, and that in this case of ceremonies he had a privilege of speaking pro and con. but he quickly shows himself so earnest a pleader for one party (for so he magnifies himself to the non-conformists in his charitable admonition, p. 64.) that he makes himself a party against the other. he gins this chapter with condemning the non-conformists for breaking an evident commandment without as clear evidence from scripture, (which he expressly affirms they have none, either against church-service, p. 22. or against the ceremonies, p. 64.) to satisfy themselves in a doubtful matter, which (says he) without doubt is damnable. but he ends this chapter with a long speech he puts in our saviour's mouth, pronouncing, as at the day of judgement, the very sentence of damnation against the governors of the church, and exacters of obedience to its laws: had i mercy on you, and should not you have had mercy on your fellow-servants? with the same measure you meted, it shall be measured to you again. i tremble to go father. so do i tremble at this bold harangue. but where are his reasons? why, if rational and pathetical be all one, we shall have demonstrations enough. but touch any of his flowers of rhetoric, and 'tis hardly worth the while to stand still, and see them fall in pieces of themselves. reduce his declamation into form of argumentation, and then he will make another declaration (as we shall find one anon in his chapter about preaching) against syllogisms and enthymems, and that logic which discovers fallacies in ratiocination, as clearly as arithmetic does cheats in our other accounts. first then he flourishes in the air against the surplice. what wise and loving father would put a winding sheet on his head to fright his weak and simple child? a similitude is not bound to run upon four legs (as they say) but this of the winding-sheet is so lame it has ne'er a good one; for do we wear our surplices (as the turks do their turban) on our heads? i have heard indeed of one that wore his surplice upon his heel: he was a kind of halfquarter-conformist, and when he came into the reading-pew where he must put on his whites, he used to hold up one of his legs behind him (like a goose) and resting it upon his matt, he would hang the surplice upon his foot, that he might be able to swear, he both wore the surplice, and bowed the knee at the name of jesus. this man indeed did not take a course to fright the people with the surplice. but now to speak really (as this author uses to speak) is a minister in a surplice a sight so terrible, that any one should be really troubled in mind at it? we read indeed in the last of st. mark, that when the holy women entering into the sepulchre, saw a young man clothed in a long white garment, they were affrighted. but st. matthew informs us, that his countenance was like lightning. no wonder then if they were afraid. 'twas the habit wherein angels by the will of god almost constantly appeared: the colour which our blessed saviour chose when he entertained his particular favourites with some gracious manifestations of his majestatick presence, and was transfigured before them: his raiment was white as snow, beyond what any fuller on earth can white it. such vests the glorious saints are described, to our understanding, to put on in heaven, as clothed there in pure white linen. but after all that has been spoken and written heretofore in defence of the surplice, if any still are troubled in conscience at it (for that he means by frighting the weak and simple children) we must tell them, they are afraid where no fear is: and the psalmist makes that no very good character; and we must advise them out of the apostle; brethren, be not children in understanding, but in malice be ye children, but in understanding be men. but now he offers at a reason for laying aside the ceremonies upon the same prudential consideration that prevailed with the reformers from popery to retain some of them: because then the people were for them, but now they are passionate against them. to this he first answers for us, and perhaps with more reason than he is ware, that many of our flock are as zealous for these things, as others against them. it may be so, and i hope they are as zealous as they ought to be, for it is good to be zealously affected always in a good thing, gal. 4. 18. and we (says he) had rather gratify the obedient conformers, than the disobedient gainsayers. and that the rather because it cannot be gainsaid, but the obedient conformers are very considerable too for their very numbers, as well as for their exemplary piety to god and their eminent loyalty to the king. a certain importunate mediator (such an one as our author makes himself) for the dissenting brethren, argued thus with a reverend great prelate. my lord (said he) why will you give offence to so many of us by imposing several things which yourselves confess not necessary? why (said the bishop) and yourselves confess those things are not unlawful; o but (replied the advocate) some of our party think those things unlawful, and some of ours (answered the bishop) think them necessary (and for order and decency some ceremonies sure are necessary.) well, but cannot you persuade your men (said the other)? and cannot you (said the bishop) prevail with yours? so the dispute ended, nor was it indeed possible for any solid man (granting that we do not clog our communion with any thing unlawful) to say more for them, without speaking against them, and confessing their weakness, or their wilfulness, that they could not, or would not be persuaded. and if this be reason enough why they must be gratified and humoured in every thing, than it follows that only knaves and fools must govern the world. secondly i answer, if the surplice with other things were (as he confesses) wisely and piously retained by the reformers from popery, when probably many long nourished up in those ceremonies, would not have come into the church, had all those been cast out; then it would be imprudently (not to say impiously) done of us (who ought in pursuance of that most blessed work, the reformation, to make it still our aim and design to bring the papists at home and abroad into the communion of our church) if we should set them further off by turning out all our ceremonies; several of which ('tis true) are theirs also; but many ages before they were either theirs or ours, they were the primitive church's: and therefore to think them popish for being also theirs, is as senseless as to think there was popery before noah's flood. and if the church of england, which is now the terror of rome, and the glory of all protestant churches, be thus considered as a part (undoubtedly the best and happiest part) of the catholic church, whose members are innumerable, ●nd all of them, both in the greek and latin churches, nay in several of the protestant churches, especially the lutheran, are far more addicted to ceremonies than we in the church of england, and use almost all the same ceremonies, and others like them; then certainly we should give offence to almost the whole christian world (whereas we ought to give them none, though they were jews or gentiles) if we should abolish all our ceremonies. then how ill does this author argue in crying, the people, the people are passionately against the ceremonies, and putting the business on this issue of counting noses? but thirdly i answer, this is trying the church of england, as they did its sacred desender in the name of the commons of england, when they had not one in ten of their party. nay perhaps dissenters properly so called, are not in some dioceses above one in twenty. many absent themselves from our churches out of pure indevotion and laziness. many frequent the meeting-houses out of curiosity, and many for want of room in their churches and tabernacles at london, or because of their distance from their own parish churches in the country. the stiff and irreconcilable dissenters appear to be a handful of men in comparison. and this i hope is enough to answer this old bug-bear-argument started by those that found out the trick of gathering hands, and mustering up the broom-men and the chimney-sweepers to cry no bishops. then he raises an objection for us, and answers it after a fashion. but you have no hopes of gaining him: you believe 'tis not conscience but faction and wilful perverseness keeps him off. oh! do not despair, believe better of him, etc. we are very far from despairing, if good means be used, and the right course be taken. and we can hardly believe worse of the dissenters, than this author would make us believe of them; for p 24. this author styles them blind and wilful separatists. and is it not apparently wilfulness and faction? i beseech you, my brethren, take heed of thus dissembling with god and the world, or take heed of giving yourselves up to the delusions of a mistaken spirit. and p. 65. 'tis most evident their spirit savours something of the pharisee, the proud pharisee. but whereas he is pleased to reinforce these objections against the dissenter in our behalf, but you know it is so with him; (viz. that we have no hopes of gaining him, etc.) indeed we know no such thing; but the quite contrary, we know very many that have been as highly prejudiced in their education, and yet have submitted afterward to clear conviction, and are now very useful men in the church of england. but i take no pleasure in giving this author the mortification of answering himself by his own contradictory propositions. that here which bears any colour of reason, is only this, that we should yield the more to save his soul: and we should cover a multitude of our own sins. i answer if that be true which he says, and which i fear, that they do thus dissemble with god, then to frame a new law to serve their turn, is to countenance, and as it were establish hypocrisy by a law. if they have covered their sin, like adam, and hid their iniquity in their bosom, this would but make them add sin to sin: and so instead of covering a multitude of our own sins, we shall only follow a multitude to do evil. his next address is to the bishops, with, oh! my fathers, my fathers. but (oh! the pity of it that twenty such oh's will not amount to one reason;) his humble request to them is, that they would vouchsafe to read the fourteenth chapter to the romans. since he is not pleased to draw any argument thence into any form (and because i shall meet him again pelting of this text anon) my humble answer shall be likewise by way of request to him, that he would vouchsafe to read bishop sanderson's excellent sermon upon the third verse of that chapter, let not him that eateth not, despise him that eateth, etc. that bishop i hope was no persecutor, and yet he plainly shows, that restraining some men's extravagancies by good orders, and requiring obedience to those orders, is not that which this author is pleased to call restraining the liberty of the gospel to the rigidity of their discipline. then he bids us gravely to build our church on a rock, and not on the sand of ceremonies. and again, this is a very sandy and dirty foundation. our church (god be thanked) is not now to be built, but upheld against such as himself, who, like her in the proverbs, plucketh it down with his own hands. who ever before wandered into such an extravagant supposition, as if we made our ceremonies our foundation? yet, by his favour, as contemptible as these materials are of sand and dirt, if every one may be allowed to pick out all the mortar that is made up of them, the house must fall. but is not the body more than raiment? substance more than ceremony? little did our saviour intent that saying against the surplice. but (to follow this author in his airy race) what if the body (that is the substance) be more than raiment, (that is than the ceremony)? yet the ceremony is not nothing. and if he takes away all the raiment with his naked truth, he will leave it such a naked church, without either ornament, or covering, that it shall never be able to hold out against the storms with which he thunders and threatens us. to his next fine mock at our ceremonies, as if they were novelties, and saying, that in those great storms, when the whole world of jews and gentiles were enemies to the church, there was not one of our ceremonies to preserve it. first, i demand, is it reason the church should be as unceremonious now in the times of her settlement, as then in the days of her persecution? now that there is a church at the end of almost every mile, as then when there was hardly one in twenty miles? now when the sovereign powers of the world spread their wings to cover and protect her, as then when they stretched out their arms to vex her? now when kings and queens, her nursing-fathers', and nursing-mothers', bid her quit her cave and show her beauteous face in stately cathedrals, as then when she was fain to hid herself in the wilderness, and her members were forced to wander about in sheep skins? but then again he contradicts himself to say there was not one of our ceremonies in those primitive times, for p. 10. he contends the superstition of the cross (as he very mannerly terms it) was in use in the second century. that the cross was used in baptism very betimes (which is the only superstitious use we make of it) there are testimonies enough. st. cyprian's known words (de laps. in principio) are these, frons cum signo dei pura, coronam diaboli ferre non potuit, coronae se domini reservavit. those foreheads which the sign of god had purified (viz. in the baptismal ablution and confirmation) abhorred the garlands of satan, and reserved themselves to be crowned by god: and the same father again (tom. 1. lib. 4. ep. 6. pamelii) muniatur frons, ut signum dei incolume servetur. arm your foreheads unto all boldness, that the sign of god may be kept safe. a parallel place. to which is that of st. austin (tom 8. p. 262. e.) upon psal. 68 frontosus esto: quid times fronti tuae, quam signo crucis armasti? (i. e.) be not weak foreheaded (viz. in the cause of god) why art thou afraid for thy forehead, which thou hast armed with the sign of the cross? for the surplice, the testimonies of st. chrysostom and st. hierome, that the priests in the ancient church officiated in white vestments, are well enough known. for kneeling at the eucharist, and bowing at the altar, i give an account of their antiquity, when he leads me to say more of them. if he wonders why i bring but three or four testimonies for our 99 ceremonies (as he calls them afterward.) i answer, there are but three or four ceremonies that i know of; but for a need there are 99 testimonies for them. by this time he has spoken so much against the surplice, that now he thinks it his part to say something for it: and at the same time to tell us why he appears so great an enemy to it; (for he confesses he is so) because such dirty nasty surplices, as most of them wear, and especially the singers in cathedrals, where they should be most decent, is rather an intimation of their dirty lives: and has given his stomach such a surfeit of them, as he has almost an averseness to all. this is a strong line and a weak argument: such another weighty exception to the surplice, as was made by the merry country parson, who called it a rag of popery: and when he was cited for it into the spiritual court, he made it appear by the parish-book of accounts, that their surplice was bought in queen mary 's days, and therefore it was truly a rag of popery, being worn all to pieces: but if the parish would provide him a new one, he was ready to put it on the next sunday. the honest man was dismissed with his jest: but alas! our author is in earnest. though a laundress may answer this, as easily as a sempstress might answer the other argument. mean time we can only be sorry that he is so squeamish, and that his sick fancy should be so much too hard for his judgement; for in the foregoing sentence, he, in his own judgement much approves a pure white robe on the minister's shoulders, to put him in mind what purity becomes a minister of the gospel. he much approves it, yet within the compass of six lines, he has almost an averseness to all of it. but we must not change whatsoever is ancient and decent in our church, as often as any one (whoever he be) pleases to change his note, and to acquaint us in the same breath with his admirable sympathies and antipathies to the same thing. his laying this ugly charge to most of us, that we wear such dirty nasty surplices, is to fling dirt enough that some might stick. as for the singing-men in cathedrals, if they are so much to blame, as he supposes they are, either for their dirty surplices, or, as he intimates, for their dirty lives, yet order may be easily taken, that neither of these (to follow his noble metaphor) shall scape a scouring, without taking quite away either the surplices or the singing-men out of our cathedrals. but if he follow the grain of this old threadbare fallacy, from the abuses against the use of any thing, whither will it carry him? the surplices in cathedrals are commonly foul, therefore let them be taken away for ever: so the cathedrals themselves sometimes are none of the cleanest, therefore (instead of sweeping them) let them be pulled down and taken away too. his next effort is against bowing towards the altar; which in his own judgement he allows and practices in some measure. then, i hope, the thing itself is not unlawful. no; but truly many of our church men give great suspicion to the people, that they also believe (as the papists) christ corporally present there. if we give this great suspicion, we give great scandal, which is a great crime in us, if it be true. but it is a great scandal to say this of us, if it be not true. but how do we give this great suspicion? because (says he) the minister or the reader does not only how once at his entering into the church, but bows again as he has occasion to pass and repass by the altar; surely (says he, speaking the apprehension of the vulgar) in reverence to the king of kings he supposes there sitting. what! even at those times when there is no communion? and yet at those times there's the same bowing. this is demonstration enough against such an odious supposition of our believing christ corporally present there. we do not then give them this great suspicion: 'tis not a scandal given, but causelessly taken. so, for any thing he has done upon this point, i may conclude it as he does, 'tis done with little or no reason, and with a great deal of superstition. he proceeds to that grand debated ceremony (as he calls it, and therefore we must dwell the longer upon it) of kneeling at the lord's supper. and first, he honestly grants that we are to perform this act of devotion with all possible reverence. i ask no more. but he quickly nulls his grant: is this (says he) to be expressed altogether in the outward posture of the body? no certainly: nor altogether in the inward posture and frame of the soul: but in soul and body both together: or else, i trow, there is not all possible reverence. well, if outward humility be the thing we contend for, we ought to show it to our god in the humblest way, and that is by prostrating rather than kneeling. pray let them voucsafe to kneel with us before they talk of falling lower. kneeling is a posture of greatest reverence in these western parts of the world, where prostrating is not much in use: and 'tis a gesture most convenient for the devout receiver, who as he knelt may abase himself to the dust, and again (with the royal votary) may lift up his hands to god, and may look up. but he runs away with it for certain, that our lord christ administered the sacrament, and that the disciples received it sitting. and sure he remembers our saviour best, who doth every thing as he did, both in substance and ceremony; and so we find the primitive christians did, etc. in answer to this i demand how does it appear that the apostles received it sitting? because they sat down to supper? but it appears from the text, the posture they used at supper was altered before they communicated. st. john's words are express, that supper was ended, and that jesus risen from supper, and then washed the disciples feet. now the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 alone without 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, where does it ever signify the lord's supper? it seems that followed after it. so this author can never bring the least good proof from scripture that they sat at the first eucharist. now for any one to fasten that upon divine revelation, which he has no ground to infer either from the written rule or the church's testimony, what is it but adding to the word of god? and then let me ask him his own question, p. 3. how they will avoid that curse in the last of the revelations, if they add to the words there written? sure i am that in whatever posture the apostles were first admitted, which is uncertain, yet it was such as wise and sober men, and the custom of the country allowed, as a posture expressing reverence, because (as this author himself has set it down) sure christ would not have allowed any unfitting posture. in the mean time the dissenter cannot deny but that the words of administration, the body of our lord jesus christ which was given for thee, preserve thy body and soul to everlasting life, are an excellent good prayer. now if they will not give us a reason why it is unlawful to kneel, i will give them a reason why it is simply unlawful (except in case of necessity, as for those that lie on their sick-beds, or the like, etc.) to sit and pray solemnly, (for i speak not of sudden, short, ejaculatory prayers, but) i say, 'tis simply unlawful to pray thus solemnly to the most high god in a sitting posture; because it is simply unlawful to pray most solemnly in an unpraying posture, (if i may use such a word). therefore this author is too liberal of that which is none of his own, in allowing, that a man may receive sitting without any irreverence. but he tells us so we find the primitive christians did. what does he mean? (for here he is somewhat obscure) that the primitive christians received it sitting? or that they did not always receive it kneeling? 'tis true, the ancient church many times receive it standing, as all the fifty days between easter and whitsuntide, and on some other festivals. there's a fair difference sure between sitting and standing. standing we find is a posture for solemn prayer in the scripture: so is not sitting. but let him show, if he can, that the primitive saints, on other days, working or fasting days, (for st. augustin and st. basil both agree in witnessing that sometimes there were communions on wednesdays and fridays) let them prove, i say (or else they prove little to the purpose) that on those days, when they kneeled at the other prayers, they ever risen to receive the communion standing. for the fathers tell us plainly, they forbore kneeling then merely out of an excess of joy. most plainly tertullian renders a general account why they intermitted all their strictness, that is, all that might enfeeble the knees, or weary the flesh at this season, quid impedit, nisi necessitas gaudii? what hinders (says he) but the necessity of joy or exultation? but 'tis certain the primitive christians were very far from sitting at the holy eucharist, which this author rashly concludes they did; for they did not at any of their prayers or religious offices: much less at this the most solemn of all their services. for tertullian upon that supposition which was generally received, that the holy angels were invisibly present at the devout prayers of the church, or of good christians in private, to offer them up to god (not that he supposes those angels had any prayers offered to themselves, for all they were supposed to be so nigh at hand; as the prophet elijah, when he knew god's army of angels actually encompassed him round, yet prays to god, and not to the angels, or any of the captains of that heavenly host, that his affrighted servant might have the grace to see them, lord open his eyes; and abraham's steward the good eliazar, though the prophet his master had told him that god's angel should go along with him in his way, yet all the way he prays to none but to the lord god of his master abraham; yet upon this supposition, that an angel always stood by whilst men were devoutly praying, tertullian) in his book de oratione cap. 12. is highly displeased with those that offer to sit down immediately after their prayers are done: and how much less is that than to sit at their very sacramental prayers? but i do not allege tertullian for this or that zealous opinion of his, but as a reporter of the church's practice, and there where he is plain and full (as he is here) he may be allowed for a demonstrator in matter of fact. and thus he declares himself in this place, which is not so commonly noted, against those that did but sit down at their ease just after their prayers. eo apponitur & irreverentiae crimen, etc. to this (says he) may be added, that it is such a criminal irreverence, as may easily be understood even by the heathens themselves, if they have any sense about them; for sure 'tis irreverend to sit down under the view, and placed as it were over-right the view of that person for whom you have the highest reverence and veneration, how much more is it not most irreligious to do so in view of the living god, while the angel that attended at the prayers is yet standing by; unless we have a mind to upbraid god that our prayers have tired us? but if we pray with modesty and humility, we shall so much the more commend our prayers to god. now let heaven and earth judge, whether the primitive christians sat at receiving the sacrament or no? i shall make one observation more upon this whole matter, that although comprehension be the only thing he pretends, yet there must needs be toleration at the bottom of it. 'tis true indeed that p. 23. though he desires such a form of service, such ceremonies also to be established, as may give most general satisfaction, yet he desires what is established may be generally observed, and not a liberty left (as some do propose) to add or detract ceremonies or prayers according to the various opinions and humours of men: for certainly this would cause great faction and division, etc. i suppose he means well here, but quite contrary to his own principle, p. 19 where he treats about kneeling or sitting at the eucharist, and concludes that in these things no man ought to obey till we can rectify his judgement. now suppose the injunctions for kneeling were taken away, are we sure that all they and we should have such rectified judgements on the sudden, as to agree together about receiving, either sitting or standing, or all in any one posture? nay, are we not morally certain of the contrary, that there could be no such agreement? therefore he does well in adjuring us to admit them in any posture, which is toleration. now consider, pray, in this one point, what a confusion would ensue when in the same assembly, one might receive the communion decently kneeling: a second (believing that to be superstition) demands it sitting: a third (because 'tis reported the pope himself sometimes receives it sitting) judges that (as much better he may) to be popery, therefore he will have it leaning or lying along, as he thinks the apostles had it. a fourth would be better pleased with a running banquet, because the jews eat the passover in haste; and because they have it so in some places beyond sea, every one en passant. would not (as st. paul concludes in another case) any that should come into such a congregation, think they were all mad? oh! but if they come in sincerity of heart, etc. he may well make an if of it. but if they are never so sincere, yet alas! what's their, or our heart in comparison of christ's heart? and yet he kneeled in several places, we read, and lifted up his eyes, and lifted up his hands towards heaven. and yet 'tis superstition in us to kneel at receiving the body and blood of christ. but let us be tender and compassionate to our weak brethren. if any tender consciences, that is (as he explains the word) weak judgements (and i am not so uncharitable as to doubt but there are many such) be seriously troubled at kneeling, we are hearty troubled too at their discontents. we kneel to god, and pray for their conversion and satisfaction. we could even kneel to them that trouble them with vain scruples, and pray them (with st. paul) to study to be quiet. we readily offer ourselves either to answer their reason (would they bring those could speak it, or rather, writ it in strict form of argument: which yet they would never do, but only make these orations) or else if we could not answer it, than we would quit our opinion, and embrace theirs. but if they have nothing to oppose to us but only this, and if this suffices that they are offended at it; at this rate there can be no settlement in the world, either of church or state. for they may deliver themselves from all its injunctions, if they please but to take a caprice against them. this is assuming to themselves a perfect negative vote against any law, without giving any reason against it. if such a spirit as this be not destructive of christianity, nay, of all civil society, and the ready way to set the heels above the head; we understand not any thing. he huddles up the rest concerning other ceremonies, cross in baptism, ring in marriage, etc. slighting them all, and giving them up, without the least shadow of an argument: except this be one, wherefore i conclude (says he) this point of ceremonies, with st. paul, he that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the lord, and he that regardeth not the day, to the lord he doth not regard it, etc. so he that kneeleth, kneeleth unto the lord, and he that kneeleth not, to the lord he kneeleth not. now do but examine this conclusion, and whence he draws it. consider (pray) that regarding or not regarding these days, that is the old jewish holidays (as presently i shall make it appear) was neither commanded, nor forbidden by the christian church, but left indifferent: is kneeling at the blessed sacrament left as indifferent? is it not commanded by the church? do not they that refuse to kneel disobey the church? so then his argument in the parallel runs thus, he that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the lord, and he that regardeth not the day, to the lord he doth not regard it, etc. so he that kneeleth, kneeleth to the lord, and he that kneeleth not, to the lord he kneeleth not; that is, to the lord he disobeys the church, and refuses to kneel. but i must needs take notice of his next passage, because 'tis a pleasant one, and because he desires us to observe it, how st. paul in this place, rom. 14. calls the zealous observer of ceremonial matters, the weak brother, and commands the strong not to despise him. so that now the tables are turned, and we of the church of england (our poor weak mother, as this author would make her) are the weak brethren. but what (i pray) were those ceremonies which the apostle thought it a weakness in some to opiniator? is it not evident they were the jewish, out-dated ceremonies? which the apostle allowed them to bury honourably, and therefore was con●ented they should fall gently, and sink by degrees. yet he was discontented at their untimely zeal, that urged them still as necessary, and obligatory upon the christians. he permitted them to have some regard to a day (viz. an old jewish holiday) and if they were overfond of it, he charged those that better understood their christianity, to bear with their weakness. but if they obstinately persisted to judaize, as if they were still obliged to it, than he tells them, galat. 4. 10. (a place undoubtedly parallel to that urged here, rom. 14.) ye observe days, and months, and times, and years, i am afraid of you. and to assure us he strikes at those who maintained the old mosaic rites, contrary to the new christian ordinances, he, following the same thread of discourse, enters his protestation, chap. 5. v. 2. behold, i paul say unto you, that if you be circumcised, christ shall profit you nothing. tertullian, one of the most learned fathers, (whose authority is great, where he reports) descants upon these passages of st. paul smartly, and fully to my purpose. then (says he) we do galaticari, that is, act like the galatians indeed, when we observe the jewish ceremonies and legal solemnities, for if the apostle intended in this place to take away all devout observance of days and months, why (says he) do we celebrate easter every year in the first month? (that is, in march) why do we go about and carry with us joy and exultation, wherever we come for fifty days after? 'tis apparent then, st. paul calls them, and only them, weak brethren, who having embraced christianity, yet hankered after the jewish festivals and their other ceremonials. now to say that all christians, who contend for the keeping of the festivals, and observing the ceremonies of the christian church, are guilty of judaizing; and that all such ceremonies are to be abolished (all which if it be not said, there can nothing be drawn from st. paul to this author's purpose) would be spoken almost as senslesly, as was that saying of a certain weak brother indeed, that christmas was a jewish ceremony abolished at the coming of christ. or to infer (as this author is pleased to imply) because the zealous observer of some ceremonial matters is styled by st. paul a weak brother, therefore all zealous observers of any ceremonies are weak brethren? 'tis argued much at the same rate, as another inferred, from some other words of st. paul, acts 17. 22. ye men of athens, i perceive that ye are in all things too superstitious. but athens, (said he) was an university: whence i conclude (said he) that all universities are much given to superstition. what follows to the end of this chapter, is so thin spread, that i cannot bring it all to make up any thing like one solid reason; and it seems he is not studying reason, but every man in his humour, for (he tells us) man has a will as well as a reason, and will have his own will in many things: even the godly. so then the godly will have the ceremonies down, because they are our will-worship (as they use to call it;) but they will have their own will, that is, they will set up a certain idol, called propria voluntas, or self-will-worship. for the overture he makes us at last of a new sett of better ceremonies one day, if we will part with these; though we believe his interest may do much with the anticeremonian party; yet we dare not trust to that in this affair, because he would have the new ceremonies to be such as shall be edifying, but he does not consider that such would be significant ceremonies: which has been the great objection against ours, ever since bishop morton undertook their defence. so that if any be introduced in lieu of these, they must be insignificant, that is, impertinent ceremonies: therefore without trying his experiments, we desire to retain those we have already. but with what forehead does he charge us, in christ's name, with proceeding so severely against them in our courts of judicature, p. 20. and with our violent pressing of ceremonies, p. 21. which he humbly conceives hath been a great hindrance from embracing them; men fearing our intentions herein to be far worse (that is, more popish) then really they are? whereas every body may see with half an eye, what patience and gentleness has been exercised towards this party: and how that has emboldened them to stand upon such terms, and at such a distance as amazes the protestants abroad, those at geneva, and those in france: as the reverend and worthy dr. durel has made it sufficiently appear from the letters and expresses of his learned correspondents in those parts. in short, if there be no such fears of popery coming in, then has this author written a dangerous pamphlet to instill into the people such dreadful apprehensions of it, as of a thing almost unavoidable, unless this project of his can prevent it; and then there is not that danger which he supposes, of pressing the ceremonies, and standing our ground: and if there be just fears of popery coming in, then those he patronizes' against any severe proceed, are men of exceeding honesty and prudence to stand out all this while, and venture all, themselves and all, by not coming into the church of england; and if they have a reserve to themselves, that they will run into it one day; then is it well or wisely done of them, to weaken the fort, by pulling down as much as they can of it, when they mean to enter at last, and trust themselves in it? but as he is blaming us for being so hardhearted, and preaching to us not only comprehension but toleration, as i showed before, he has one expression towards the end of this chapter, p. 20. so extremely pleasant, that i confess it inclines me after a great deal of dulness to no unpleasant thoughts: that expression of his is this; that we may break the heartstrings of many in winding them up so high, and thus crack all their religion: and perhaps we should find it so ourselves, had the non-conformists the screwing us up, as we them. why, this of the screw is neater rhetoric than that of his nasty surplices, or the winding-sheet, or the nuts to an ape, or that of knocking faith into the head with a hammer, or that of a king leading on a morris dance, capering and frisking most featly, when his country was invaded. but although this author declares himself not much a friend to any thing that is mathematical, yet his cho●ce metaphor of screwing up the non-conformists as an instrument of music (as if we meant to make organs of them) puts me in mind of a rare engine, an extraordinary kind of organ, which i have seen described in words at length, and in a figure too a brass-cut, in gaspar schottus the jesuite's mathematics, or mag. univers. to● 2. l. 6. p. 2. rather mechanical tricks. he describes (or rather borrows from kircher, his brother mountebank, the description of) a musical instrument found out (he tells us) by an ingenious fellow, to divert a certain great prince from a fit of melancholy. so he took a company of cats all of a different size, and consequently (says he) of a different tone or note: all these he put together into a kind of chest that was framed for the purpose, and placed them so, that their tails should be gently screwed up through certain holes in a board; and so they should be fastened all along in a row, and needles under their tails so disposed or placed, that as the musician struck the keys, the needles pricked their tails, which so nicked the cats, when the organist came to play a lesson upon them, that still as they were touched they set up their notes, some high, some low, according to their several capacities: which made such harmony (says he) as made the rat's dance, and the men ready to burst with laughing. just such a machine of a church would this author make us, as this musical instrument, if instead of our screwing up the non-conformists (which we do not) or their screwing us up (which once they did sufficiently) he could screw them into the church, without more ado, by this project of his for universal toleration (at least of all, or very many sects, except the papists;) for by what he delivers, not only concerning the ceremonies, but also concerning articles of faith, we may well conclude, that he would not only have the presbyterians (who seem to stand out only upon punctilios of ceremonies) but also independents, anabaptists, and i know not how many more sects (if they call themselves protestant's) taken into the church: or rather into the drag-net (as bishop laney calls it in his sermon about comprehension) large and capacious enough to hold the leviathan himself: whom this author follows a great way in his notions of sufficient or insufficient means for people's conviction. and when all such are received into the church, what will they do but set up their cries, and make their rude noises in it, if any thing in it afterward happens to pinch them? then instead of any harmony or concord, i doubt there would be nothing in the church but such a discord, as would make us only ridiculous to all that come near us. animadversions upon his chapter concerning church-service. his next discourse concerning church-service is all of a piece with the foregoing one about ceremonies; but one comfort is, 'tis not of so great length, and every whit as remarkable for shortness of reason. yet here, as he makes his entrance, he is a pretender to reason; for he slights and passes by some, with whom he has no reason to expect that reasonable arguments should prevail. is he then for reasonable arguments? but he should have added this caution, provided they be not deduced from scripture, for you have seen he thinks it unsafe to make deductions, that is to reason, from thence. well, he supposes there is nothing in our common-prayer-book that is directly contrary to the word of god (and i may justly suppose, till the contrary be proved, that there is nothing in it contrary to the word of god, either directly or indirectly;) and p. 29. he also conceives it absolutely necessary to have some form prescribed to be used by all, etc. but now, in christ he humbly beseeches the governors of the church calmly to consider, were it not better to have such a form of service as would satisfy most? it is to be doubted, or rather 'tis out of doubt, that most who are so unsatisfied with this, are disgusted with all set forms, or would not be satisfied with any other. therefore we must be excused from trying his trick, till he or some other undertaker have corrected magnisicat, and the people, the people (whom he would have so caressed) have declared themselves satisfied with it, or else have subscribed a blank, to be satisfied with whatever the new projectors shall introduce. his next pique is at our saying the second service at the altar, which (he says) was retained by the fathers, and first reformers from popery, as carrying some resemblance with the mass, the people's delight, which being now become the people's hate, should for the same resemblance by the same reason be taken away. for our reading the second service at the altar, any one that can but read, and is not a mere stranger in the old liturgicks, knows that the prayers were at the altar, many whole ages before popery, either name or thing was heard of. therefore, unless this author knew the reformers thoughts, he can have no reason to put it upon them (not at all for their honour, though he would fain have it so) that they prescribed this as carrying some resemblance to the mass, the people's delight. why should he dream they did it to follow the multitude in the novelties of popery, and not rather to follow the primitive church? i suppose the reformers meaning in prescribing the priest's going up to the altar still, was to declare and testify to the christian world, that the church of england highly approves communion upon all high days, as the christian sacrifice of commemoration, and the most sacred office in our public worship: and as it was constantly used in the ancient church upon every lord's day, and every solemn festival. they would no longer allow the priest to receive the sacrament alone, because there was no ground either in the scripture or the fathers for such a solitary communion. the very terms sound like a contradiction: but for all that, the refor●ers from popery kept up the communion service at the communion table, and so the rubric order it still, where the place will bear it (for it must be confessed, many of our parish churches are so built, that the second service cannot be audibly read from the east end: but where it can, there it ought to be) for a very sufficient reason, that the memory at least of weekly (if not daily) sacraments might not be lost: and that, if the people's devotion could be raised again, which the monkery of those times had turned into the formality of communicating once a year (as the roman church requires no more of lay persons) than the priest should be in his station to show himself ready to administer, not only thrice a year (which is all our church has thought fit to exact hitherto) but every sunday and holiday. it were better than that we fell to our prayers and endeavours, that the people may be so well fitted and prepared to receive, as the primitive frequency of sacraments may be restored, than to sit and make wishes, that reading the second service at the altar may be taken away. how consistent he is with himself in that which follows in the same page, requiring uniformity and conformity after such and such amendments, i have already discoursed, and showed it unpracticable even upon his own principles. as for his varying the phrase, and saying that again p. 24. which he had said over and over, that certainly his religion is vain, that would abandon the substance for want of the ceremonies; which he acknowledges to be no way necessary; i answer, that certainly his religion is as vain, if not vainer, that would abandon the substance (as they do that are guilty of schism) for the ceremonies, which he must acknowledge to be no way unlawful. but his next figure is a rare one. surely a very uncharitable mind that would not leave ninety and nine unnecessary ceremonies, to bring one sinful strayed sheep into the congregation. an admirable metamorphosis! ninety sheep in the text, turned into ceremonies by this commentator. and would the author of naked truth have all these poor innocent lambs, otherwise called ceremonies to be left naked and shivering in the wilderness? but (as one replied upon the like exposition of another text, nun sunt decem mundi? englished by one, are there not ten worlds?) sed ubi sunt novem? where are the nine? much less ninety nine ceremonies. sure he must take in all the ceremonies at court, and the inns of court, the sergeants coifs, and their men's particoloured coats, and all our university ceremonies; (for we shall see anon, he is no great admirer of universities;) all these put together will hardly make up ninety nine ceremonies, though we take in the batchelor's hoods and lambskins: and why must these be exposed to be devoured by wolves? and yet we will go as far as he to bring one sinful strayed sheep into the congregation, and convert him from the error of his nonconforming ways; and therefore he does ill to reflect upon us thus, yet these men will most passionately (and pardon me if i say, most uncharitably and irreligiously) cry, away with these idiot-sectaries and fanatics: let them wander and perish in their own wild imagination: we will not leave one ceremony, nor any one line of our common prayer-book to gain thousands of them. no, if you altar that, we will rather leave the church and go the papists mass. whose words are these, but his own? which of us ever said so? therefore to retort him part of his own censure, this is said passionately, i will not say, as he speaks, uncharitably and irreligiously. after he has complemented both parties, calling us, too zealous ceremonists; them, blind and wilful separatists; he takes his leave: assuring us, that after our charitable condescension, their populous (i suppose he means popular) pretences will be so confuted, their mouths so stopped (or opened to ask the more, but that's all one;) as for mere shame, if not for reason or religion, they must come into the church: and their pastors coming in, the sheep will follow. (alas! it is rather the custom of these shepherds to follow the sheep, whatever toy they take.) so the shop-prating weavers will soon be deserted, seeing their own naked folly; (somewhat akin to this author's naked truth). animadversions upon his chapters concerning preaching, confirmation, and church-government. i knew a scholar, a man of wit, but no very hard student, that quickly after the church was restored, would needs become an author upon this subject, how necessary all the parts of university learning are for a divine. one of his books he presented to an eminent person, who told him pleasantly, that he was extreme happy in the choice of his subject, for he could not fail to demonstrate effectually, whether he writ upon it learnedly or unlearnedly, what need a divine had of university learning. our author in his chapter upon preaching has very sufficiently proved the same thing, even where he makes it his business to prove the contrary. little did we think at this time of day to hear of a second part of mr. del against universities. the two authors have many expressions in them so exactly parallel (if it were worth our while to set them in two columns, over-right one another) one would suspect the junior of the two for a plagiary. yet have i no quarrel to him for his blaming that way of preaching, upon this or that nice speculation, or that way of keeping always in universals, and never coming to particulars, the duty between man and wife, parents and children, etc. or that way of dividing and subdividing into generals and particulars, the quid, the quale, the quantum; though he will find, if he looks abroad, that this is at a very low ebb, and the tide runs now another and a better way. we care as little as he for a witty rhetorical harangue, or a cunning syllogistical discourse in the pulpit: and 'tis almost as ill a character as can be given of a sermon, or a catechising, to be ridiculously learned: yet to talk, as this author does, as if university-learning were unnecessary to a preacher, is to be ridiculously ignorant of the use, or rather the necessity of it as matters stand. he beseeches us to tell him, did not christ and his apostles preach the best way? and are not we to follow their example? and i beseech him to tell me, do not many good divines preach the same way, as far as it ought to be followed by those that only sit at the apostles feet? that is, do they not with all plainness prove from scripture all that they deliver as god's word? this is our unapostolic way of preaching (as he calls it) the vain unedisying practice we now are in. indeed we have no miracles at command to prove what we say (as the apostles had) and therefore must do it by reason, which serves us to prove the apostles did such miracles: and that again rationally demonstrates the scriptures to be god's word: and then by the testimony of the church in several ages (besides the understanding we must have of all the internal arguments for it;) we must be able to show that these are the books of scripture: and after all this, the same reason must be employed to establish the true sense and meaning of them. in order to these great ends, reason must be improved by the studying of arts, sciences, and languages; unless we had all these infused as we needed them, we must acquire them. therefore his argument is so far from holding good, god thought the gift of tongues needless after the gospel was once spread over the world: i pray let us be no wiser than god and his christ; that is, let us think the study of the languages needless: (for that he means, or nothing:) yea, ra●her the study of tongues is therefore necessary because the gift is ceased, and they cannot be had without study: for the certainty of the christian religion, and the verity of the original scriptures cannot be defended without a go●d measure of skill in the languages, arts and sciences, which every one that is not unworthy to wear the name of a divine, should be competently able to do. thus much the apostle st. peter (1 pet. 3. 15.) requires, even of the laity in their degree, that they be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh them a reason of the hope that is in them. now (to sum up the argument) where is it almost possible for these acquisitions to be made, except in universities? therefore we are still in that vulgar error which he taxes as the general opinion, p. 27. that (except some very few extraordinary instances to the contrary) none are fit to be admitted into holy orders, but such as have studied in the university. but i beseech you (says he in the same page) what have these sciences (falsely so called) to do with the gospel? and he instances presently in the mathematics as a science (it seems) falsely so called. his quarrel at the jesuits in china, i must needs say, is an idle one, for recommending themselves to the king and his courtiers by the skill some of the society, whom they sent for, had in the mathematics: whereas their errand thither was to preach the gospel. what of all that? are these so heathen-studies, that they are not to be tolerated even then, when they help to introduce christianity? but he seems to have the same compass of understanding in these arts and sciences) (falsely so called you must think) that a certain old head of a house had, who coming one day by chance into the colledge-library, and finding there an ingenious young man reading christoph. clavius (the jesuit) upon euclid, now a shame take thee (said he) why dost thou not get thee some protestant mathematics? but sincence his greatest pique is at logic, and he can never leave inveighing against syllogisms and human deductions, and still he is rating off his preachers from plato, aristotle, euclid, scotus, aquinas (so he puts them together, p. 28. very chronologically) and then very logically contradistinguishes mathematics, logic, physic (whether medicine or natural philosophy) to gravity, sobriety, meekness, diligence, and the like. i should not sufficiently acquit myself in the defence of universities (which i have undertaken, for the church of england no where looks more hopefully than in the universities) where the faculty of disputing is so well taught, as it can hardly be learned any where else, if i should not vindicate this faculty from being that, with which (he says p. 15.) god will not endure to be fettered, as with philosophical sophisms and human consequences, but beyond his promise (i suppose the very words of any promise, as he explains himself, ipsissimis verbis) he is not sure of any thing, though it seems ever so rational. it were in vain to produce st. augustine's testimony (l. de ordine c. 17.) where he praises logic, for he was one of the fathers who by this very means defaced and spoiled christianity. and i know not whether bishop davenant have any better credit with him, who in his learned commentary on the colossians, chap. 2. falls into the same heresy, and bestows great commendations on that noble art or science. perhaps it will be to no purpose to put him in mind that our blessed saviour was pleased to be a kind of quaestionist (as our university statutes call young logicians) when he disputed with the doctors, being himself but twelve years of age. and if i should tell him of st. stephen's disputing with certain of the synagogue of the libertines, who were not able to resist the wisdom, as well as the spirit by which he spoke. or if i should urge the example of apollo's an eloquent man, and mighty in the scriptures, as well as fervent in spirit, who mightily convinced the jews, and that publicly, showing by the scriptures that jesus was christ: that is (no doubt) by deductions from scripture; perhaps he would fancy still that they used some other logic than what we study at universities, for which we are so much beholding to some heathen philosophers, as if it were for the honour of christian religion, to have a logic made on purpose to justify its doctrines, and as if it were not much more for its honour to be able to maintain those doctrines by the same standing rules which all the world, even the heathen world, found out and established, as immediately founded upon natural reason. i will therefore show him that christ and his apostles did many times argue explicitly in mood and figure: and sometimes only so implicitly, that men may be damned for not making such deductions as they ought to make from scripture. as in st. john 8. 47. our saviour tells the multitude, he that is of god, heareth god's words; ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of god. 'tis a syllogism in the fourth mood of the second figure, and runs thus: whosoever is of god hears god's words: but ye do not hear god's words; therefore ye are not of god. st. paul, heb. 12. 7, 8. argues in the same mood and figure. every son is chastened by the father: but ye are not chastened by the father; (on supposition that they would not endure to be so) therefore ye are not sons: that is, ye are bastards. in the 22th of st. matthew, christ in his dispute with the sadduces calls that siripture, which was only a rational deduction from scripture: and they are pronounced by our saviour to err and not to know the scriptures, which did not know how to collect a true inference from scripture, though they knew the words well enough. and yet our saviour's argument cannot be explicated without two or three syllogisms, which may be these. 1. god is the god of the living: god is the god of abraham, isaac, and jacob; therefore abraham, isaac, and jacob live. 2. they that live not now in their persons, but live unto god, must be raised from the dead: but they (viz. abraham, isaac, and jacob) that live unto god, live not now in their persons; therefore they (viz. abraham, isaac, and jacob) must be raised from the dead. 3. they that now live only in their souls, live not now in their persons: but they (viz. abraham, isaac, and jacob) now live only in their souls; therefore they (viz. abraham, isaac, and jacob) live not now in their persons. now what if the propositions of such a syllogism happen to be disjoined in the scripture being about the same matter? is it not lawful and safe to put them both together, and make the deduction? for example, a great divine (who is now a reverend prelate, the present lord bishop of ely) was arguing with a person of honour and learning of the romish persuasion, against transubstantiation; and in that discourse the doctor asked him, if the substance of the bread and wine remained no longer, but was done away, than what did the wicked eat and drink, that eat and drank unworthily? nothing but accidents? the nobleman answered, that they eat the body, and drank the blood of christ. whereupon the doctor urged him with this syllogism: whosoever eats the flesh of christ and drinks his blood hath eternal life, abiding in him, joh. 6. 54. & 56. but no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him, 1 joh. 3. 15. therefore no murderer eats the flesh of christ, and drinks his blood. the major proposition is christ's own words; the minor is the apostle st. john's words; the syllogism is true in the form, as well as in the matter; therefore the conclusion is firm and certain. but that honourable person smiled, and asked the doctor (in this author's way) whether he would have him build his faith upon syllogisms? as if a true syllogism, both for matter and form, were any thing else but true reason: and as if any part of our faith were (not only above our reason, but) unanswerably contradictory to reason, and to the rules of reasoning. sure if the apostle prays for a deliverance from unreasonable men, for some men have not faith; implying that such men as have not faith are unreasonable in that, (however rational they be in other affairs); then we may safely and truly convert the sense of that proposition, and conclude, this or that (as transubstantiation in the case before us) is indeed unreasonable, therefore it ought to be no part of ●ny man's faith. a thousand more such instances may be raised out of other texts, but these may suffice. this is that which st. paul calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to convince gainsayers, the very word of aristotle, which is honour enough for that philosopher. if he had his wish (which is ours as well as his) that only grave, discreet, and conscientious persons we●e put into the ministry: then he foresees, and foretells that many persons of good rank and estate, would think it no dishonour, but rather an high honour to enter into it, as they did in the primitive times. though we cannot show so many heroic examples of this kind as were in those blessed times, yet, thanks be to god, many persons of good rank and estate do think it no dishonour to be clergymen: and perhaps there were never so many wellborn men in the church since the reformation, though he takes no notice of it, but rather implies the contrary, that men of quality count it a disparagement to be in holy orders. he might consider that two of our greatest prelates are sons to peers of the realm, and that my lord's grace of canterbury my l. bishop of winchester, and my l. bishop of hereford (besides several other bishops) are gentlemen of ancient families, and honourable names in this kingdom: and always must be. of such as these, the prefacer to mr. herbert's country parson speaks thus, with holy and lofty eloquence; these noble persons so excellently qualified with virtues, learning, and piety, by bringing along with them into the church, the eminency of their birth also, have cast a lustre upon the clergy, as greater stars help to brighten up their less shining neighbours: and have advanced their christian priesthood to the height it was at, under the law of nature, when it was the hereditary honour and prerogative of the firstborn, or chief of the family, to be the priest of the most high god. but whether university men or not it matters not, so as fully instructed in the doctrine of the gospel by sound commentators. and, why matters it not? where are they like to be so fully instructed in the doctrine of the gospel? or even in sound commentators (if they are all in all with him) as in universities? but, i suppose, he means some english commentators, such as the assemblies notes: for dr. hammonds will misled them concerning episcopacy. for such as were never academians, the latin they bring from school, together with some hebrew, and little or no greek, will hardly carry them farther, except into some renowned postillers. yet these are the men whom he would set up to preach, with that which he calls the demonstration of the spirit. by which i cannot gather what he means from all that he speaks, unless it be to speak (as he does) magisterialy: but that that is not to speak with demonstration of the spirit, i refer him to the first part of the friendly debate, where that is cleared sufficiently. but, to return to the point we were upon, the interest of universities, would he have men of quality come into the church, and not be capable of its highest dignities? and would not this be a rare breeding for such as should be designed for our greatest dignitaries and praelates, never to come near either of the universities, but to live in the country poring upon his commentators? a good way indeed to make them gentle-readers; as he tells us, julian the emperor's kinsman, and afterwards emperor himself, was admitted a reader in the church: or for a need, to make them such lecturers as he is forming in this chapter: or such, as one verily thought king henry the eighth had been, when reading his life as it is written by my lord herbert of cherbury; instead of the words of the noble historian, which are these (p. 2.) his education was accurate, being destined (as a credible author affirms † concil. ●r●d. l. 1. ) to the archbishopric of canterbury, during the life of his elder brother prince arthur, he mistook and read it, his education was a curate, being destined to the arch bishopric of canterbury. for confirmation, he is in the right where he urges the necessity of it: and perhaps not much in the wrong, where he proposes an expedient for the bishop to appoint some discreet conscientious ministers (as our deans rural should be) in several circuits to examine. though 'tis a little hard that he will not trust every parish-priest with examining, praeparatory to confirmation, when he makes them one and the same order with the bishops themselves. but whereas he adds, to examine and licence to the lord's table; (for i pass it as granted, that confirmation is no sacrament;) so do i take it for granted, that 'tis not only a licence to the lord's table, and to think it is only so, is to run into one extreme of speaking too meanly of it to avoid the other of such as call it a proper sacrament. for by his favour, our youth may receive the sacrament before they are confirmed. to what purpose then does he put the case so tragically against the bishops? it may often happen (says he) that a pious child, well fitted for the holy sacracrament, and perchance being weak, earnestly desires it before his death, yet must stay some years till next visitation, or take a long journey to the bishop, for which he may want strength or means to support him. no, his pious child need not stay some years, nor yet some hours for the sacrament, nor travel any farther than the rubric (which one would think this author never saw;) the words of which are these, and there shall none be admitted to the holy communion, until such time as he be confirmed, or be ready and desirous to be confirmed. it is indeed not possible for a bishop in a large diocese and triennial visitation to perform this necessary work as it ought, if there have not been good catechising and praevious examinations: but (supposing those) why may not priests, nor bishops, perform it? and why must confirmation be taken out of the bishop's hands upon this wild account? when st. philip had converted samaria, acts 8. 15. whilst the apostles were at jerusalem, can we think, when some of them came thither, that they personally examined all the people in that place, who with one accord gave heed unto those things which philip spoke? and yet they laid their hands on them, being i presume well satisfied with philip's account of them, and they received the holy ghost. for philip's examination of them was in order to baptism, and after that it was usual to administer confirmation, and the eucharist also to adults at the same time. for his exception at baptising, tolerated in necessity to midwives; and he would gladly see any such thing in antiquity. tolerated by whom? by the church? pray let him look upon the rubric concerning private baptism before he writes again, where the words are these, first let the minister of the parish, or in his absence, any other lawful minister that can be procured, with them that are present call upon god. yet were tertullian now alive, who knew the customs of the ancient church as well, i suppose, as this author; he would not have censured our church for tolerating so much in that point: for sure he goes much farther, and will show him somewhat more than this in antiquity, in case of necessity (such a necessity they did believe of baptism) his known words are these, that in such a case, quilibet laicus thing it. and i know not in this case, and according to this author's principles, what a layman can do more than a woman. for the great things he speaks of the power of the keys in his chapter of church-government, they are well and truly spoken: but so is not that which follows, yet this is in a manner quite relinquished to chancellors, laymen, etc. the church perhaps was never happier since the reformation in men of this profession, that fill up those places with great ability and integrity, and i add, with great deference to their superiors the bishops. no doubt they are most capable to examine and declare upon matter of fact, whether or no this or that person have done the fact, to which the canon has decreed excommunication: but they understand too well to think they have the power of the keys, wherefore the sentence (where things are regularly done) is pronounced by a priest, not by a lay-chancellour. and his similitude of the parish-clark jingling the keys when the rector has locked any one out of the church, to which he likens those proceed in the spiritual court, is a jingle itself and no better. you will answer me (says he) the bishops themselves pass it over, etc. truly in this you have reason, and the blame must wholly light on them. no, i will not answer him so, but i will ask him one plain question: are the bishops wholly to blame, that the canons of 1640 are not observed, which make abundant provision against such abuses? or rather, are not those to blame who explode these canons? he tells us, that in the times of popery, when spiritual and temporal affairs were all intermingled and horribly confounded, the bishops were frequently lordkeepers, treasurers, chief-justices, vice-roys: and what not? which is strangely unapostolical and unlawful. no men were greater blessings to their times, even in those times of popery when they sat at the helm, than the bishops. 'twas bishop morton's industrious brain that made up the fatal breach, and united the two houses of york and lancaster, in the happy marriage between king henry the seventh and the lady elizabeth; and it was under the ministry of bishop fox, who was lord privy-seal, and by his reaching parts, that the grounds were laid for a more happy union between the two kingdoms of england and scotland in that marriage, which was designed with a deep and long train of memorable policies, that the eldest daughter of henry should marry james of scotland, and the younger should ma●ch into france, that so if ever they should come to inherit, scotland might be the annexe to the imperial crown of this realm, and that england might never be in the nature of a province to france. in the old testament there are examples enough of priests that were ministers of state; those i confess were unapostolical, that is, long before the apostles, but he will have much ado to prove them unlawful. he might have omitted lordkeepers and treasurers for bishop williams and bishop juxon's sake: one of them as able in the chancery as the other in the treasury. and whereas the king is graciously pleased at this time to bestow the great seal of ireland upon a reverend praelate there, i hope this author will not deny, but his majesty has put him into a lawful calling. but whereas in the end of this chapter he justly complains of exempt jurisdictions as merely papal, and a thing altogether unknown to antiquity (wherein he is much in the right) i wonder he does not discern his own scheme concerning bishops and priests to be papal too, and that presbyterianism has no pretence to antiquity, but what it has from popery. it was pope innocent the 4th. (whom for such pranks as these his party celebrate for a most wise pope) who decreed, that ex dispensatione & deputatione solius pontificis romani, one priest might ordain another: whosoever then writes the history of presbytery should make it begin from rome, and not take its rise from geneva; who does not know that the popish schoolmen and canonists have made it their business to degrade their bishops, and confound them into one and the same order with the presbyters? to exempt the regular clergy from episcopal jurisdiction, and as many of the secular as they please? who made the cardinals, that were but mere parish-priests, and many of them no bishops to this day, superiors to all the bishops, nay, governors and judges over all prelates in the vacancy of the popedom? the consistory of cardinals is then their only head of the catholic church upon earth, which is all one as if it were headed with a geneva-consistory; both papists and presbyterians take down the superior order and advance the middle, only mr. calvin and his followers will have all this depend immediately on christ himself, whereas the romish party makes it depend immediately on one they call christ's vicar: for how vehemently did the papalins, even in their council of trent, urge and press it, that the power and jurisdiction was wholly given to the bishop of rome? and that every particular bishop being only de jure canonico, may be removed by the pope's authority? he that would see more to the same purpose, let him consult the cardinal pallavicino (if he will not trust padre paolo) where he may read the long speech of father laynez, all to this effect. but though i had prepared some animadversions upon this chapter too concerning bishops and priests, yet it has been so learnedly confuted in a sermon preached at whitehall, which i hear is to be published by his majesty's special command, that i shall not need, nor presume to touch that chapter. animadversions on his charitable admonition to all non-conformists. i find little to complain of in his charitable admonition, but that it is no longer: o si sic omnia dixisset! in the close he bespeaks them at this rate; and i will do him the courtesy to transcribe a great deal in his own words, that so they may be reprinted with a licence, though they were printed without one. i beseech you (says he) to consider the great mischief you bring upon this church and nation by your separation from the church; you pretend to be the great zealots against popery, and yet give me leave to say, your indiscreet disobedient zeal mainly brings it in; your separation, and many following divisions, have caused many to abhor our church and turn to popery, and doubtless you are to give an account to god for the ruin of those souls; for i can never yield that you have any reasonable and true conscientious cause of separation, but merely mistaken-reason and conscience which i much pity, but no way approve; and therefore i must lay the advance of popery to your charge, to your separation, for i am sure 'tis the main snare wherewith they catch unstable souls, persuading them our church is not guided by the spirit of truth, seeing it is so confounded by the spirit of division, it cannot be of god, who is both verity and unity. now, though it be well known to the learned, that their church hath neither verity nor unity, yet this is not so discernible to weak souls, etc. 'tis true indeed, after great search of heart occasioned by our divisions, many set up their rest upon popery: though the principles upon which the church of rome pretends to judge o● controversies do clash and fight even with one another, and therefore are most unfit to quiet other men's thoughts, yet because that church is a great promiser, they take sanctuary there, resolving as joab did, that if they perish, it shall be at the horns of the altar. but i would fain know of this author, if our divisions fright so many from our church, then would not straightening the terms of our belief, as in his chapter concerning articles of faith, and abolishing all our ceremonies, and blending our orders, be the cause of more divisions, and consequently of more separations from the church of england? would not this give the highest advantage to the romish party? and would not they be sure to urge it upon their coming proselytes, that we had abandoned our former principles? that we had receded from our own articles, by which we gave so good an account of ourselves to the whole christian world at the reformation? that we had banished not only all exterior beauty, but order and decency out of our public worship? that we had been false to god, and to the church of god, in breaking so many protestations as we had made heretofore against such proceed as these, and consequently false (as all cowards are) to ourselves? therefore whilst he has so much charity for some that will have their own will (as he tells us) he must be entreated to have a little charity too for our understanding; and not to expect we should give away our religion in a fit of complaisance, and throw our church out at window in a frolic. his greatest argument why all this aught to be yielded, is grounded only upon policy. and perhaps he is as much mistaken in his policy, as in his divinity. they are not born to be any repairers of our breaches, that are the authors of such rash counsels as these, which are worse than those dolabella gave cicero his father-in-law, when the commonwealth was in a manner lost, reliquum est, ubi nunc est respublica ibi simus, potius quàm dum illam veterem sequimur, simus in nullâ: but this author would not have us take things as we find them, but make them worse, because they are no better. thus, what the romans scorned to do after the battle of cannae, what the venetians never did, when they had lost all their terra firma; that men are now taught to think a virtue, and the sign of a wise and good man, desperare de republicâ. they are the words of the christian cicero (as i presume to style him) the present lord chancellor in his speech to both houses of parliament, april 13th. 1675. and since i am fallen by chance into the roman history, i will conclude with a remarkable passage out of livy (lib. 5.) when the gauls a barbarous people had sacked the city of rome, and cut the senators throats as they sat in the streets, and when afterwards camillus a banished man, had driven them away, and restored the commonwealth; yet the people seeing the city so defaced and spoiled, were importunate to remove the imperial seat from rome and settle at veii; whilst the senate were debating it very warmly, and rather inclining to remove; as the regiment that had the guard that day passed through the forum, the centurion that commanded gave orders aloud, so that the senate overheard him into the senate-house, signifer statue signum: sta miles: hic optimè manebimus. ensign set down the colours; soldiers stand; this is the best place for us to make our station. whereupon the senate took the omen, risen immediately from their consultation; and all the people approved their generous resolution. there is a thundering legion of those that are at their prayers and tears, and who keep as it were god-almighty's watch for the preservation of the most apostolical church in the world: and as a holy bishop bid monica the mother of st. augustine, before he was any saint, go away and be comforted, for it was impossible the son of so many tears as he had cost her should perish; (and this, says that good father, was received as a voice from heaven.) so i hope the mother, over whom so many of her own sons are weeping, and as it were, wrestling with god in secret, can never miscarry. but if the question be now, whither we shall remove the ancient landmarks, and carry our church either toward rome, or geneva; the miraculous providence of god in restoring it together with his majesty, after so many years' banishment, and ever since preserving it, may, as a voice from heaven, animate us to resolve, that this is the best place where we are fixed, and here may we keep our station. finis. zion-college visited. or, some brief animadversions upon a pamphlet lately published, under the title of, a testimony to the truth of jesus christ, and to our solemn league and covenant, &c. subscribed (as is pretended) by the ministers of christ within the province of london. calculated more especially for the vindication of certain passages cited out of the writings of j. g. in the said pamphlet, with the black brand of infamous and pernicious errors, and which the said ministers pretend (amongst other errors so called) more particularly to abominate. wherein the indirect and most un-christian dealings of the said ministers, in charging & calling manifest and clear truths, yea such as are consonant to their own principles, by the name of infamous and pernicious errors, are detected and laid open to the kingdom, and the whole world. by the said john goodwin, a servant of god and men, in the gospel of jesus christ. i write not these things to shame you: but as my beloved [brethren] i warn you, 1 cor. 4. 14. tantum religio potuit suadere malorum. non sentimus nos p●rire, dum perimus in turba. sen. london, printed by m. s. for henry overton, at the entering out of lombardstreet into pope's head alley, 1648 zion-college visited. it is a sad observation, but full of truth; that religion never had greater enemies, than those of her own house; yea then those, who were pretenders in the highest to her advancement. when a commodity is engrossed, and brought into few men's hands, it is so much the more like to suffer, to be adulterated, and embased. it was never well with christian religion, since the ministers of the gospel, (so called by themselves, and so reputed by the generality of men, for want of knowing, and considering better) cunningly vested that privilege of the church, of being the ground and pillar of truth, in themselves; claiming nebuchadnezar's prerogative amongst men, over the truths of god; whom he would, he slew, and whom he would, he kept alive: and whom he would, he set up, and whom he would, he put down b dan. 5. 19 . there came lately out of the press a few papers, styling themselves, a testimony to the truth of jesus christ, and pretending to a subscription, by the ministers of christ within the province of london. i wish, for these ministers sake, to whom (i appeal to him, who searcheth my heart and reins) i wish nothing but good, and for the truth's sake also, that i could conceive the impudence or boldness of any man, so great, as to present them in print unto the world for the authors, or subscribers of such a piece of weakness (to forbear words of more provocation, though of truth) without their knowledge, or consent. i should be enabled by such an apprehension, both to maintain in myself (at least for a time) those honourable thoughts of their persons, which (my witness is on high) i have always unfeignedly laboured to do, though still opposed by themselves, in my way; as also to comfort myself over that religion, which they, & i, jointly profess, that it should not suffer upon any such terms of disadvantage & dishonour, which those papers, if ever owned by the persons, whose names are subscribed to them, are like to expose it unto. the image and superscription stamped upon the piece, and the men, (especially some of them) whose names are affixed, if not enforced, to it, are so unlike and contradictious the one unto the other, that being not able to found an act of judgement or conjecture, who should be the author, or authors of it, upon both jointly, i am in some straight, on which hand to lean; whether to judge & conclude any of those learned and pious men, whose names are subscribed, or those weak and unworthy ones, whose image and superscription the piece beareth, for the authors of it. but that neither dr gouge, nor mr. calamy, nor mr case, nor mr. cranford, nor any of those great names of men, which parallel with these, were either the authors, or subscribers of the said pamphlet, these considerations (methinks) should be sufficient demonstrations unto any man. 1. the very title itself, and that in the first and principal part of it, contradicts the tenor of the book, and that in more places than one. the title pretendeth thus (in the first words of it) a testimony to the truth of jesus christ. whereas the book itself, testifieth against the truth of jesus christ, viz. by numbering the precious truths of jesus christ, amongst infamous and pernicious errors. witness 1. page 5. where this assertion, that no writing whatsoever, whether translations, or originals, are the foundation of christian religion, is made an infamous and pernicious error. for is not this a clear truth of jesus christ, and asserted (in part) in terminis, (but with fullness of evidence otherwise) by the great apostle, where he saith, that other foundation can no man lay, than that is laid, which is jesus christ a 1 cor. 3. 11. ? except jesus christ be transubstantiated into ink and paper, no kind of books or writings whatsoever, neither translations, nor originals, can be (in the apostles sense) any foundation of christian religion. again, is it not a precious truth of jesus christ, that no act of man whatsoever is any foundation of christian religion, the apostle affirming (as we heard) that other foundation can no man lay, but jesus christ: and yet the denial of the act of man to be a foundation of christian religion, (as viz. the believing of the english scriptures▪ to be the word of god) is by the said book (pag. 5.) ranked amongst infamous and pernicious errors? the scriptures indeed or the word of god, are (in a regular sense) the foundation of christian religion: but to believe them to be this foundation, cannot be the foundation itself, but only a superstructure, or building upon it. so that it is only the denial of a superstructure to be the foundation, which is charged by this learned province of subscribers to be an infamous and pernicious error against the divine authority of scriptures. more instances of this kind, by the light whereof the palpable interferings between the title, and the book itself, may be clearly seen, we shall have occasion anon to observe. and is it not a very hard piece of belief, to think that learned and pious men, should so far forget themselves in the body of their book, as to break the head and title of it? 2. in the latter part of the said title, in these words, and to our solemn league and covenant, there is too little good sense to answer the worth and parts of the men mentioned. for what can reasonably be meant, by a testimony to our solemn league and covenant? do they mean, that in the book itself, they give the same testimony to their solemn league and covenant, which they do to the truth of jesus christ? though the truth is, that it is a very poor and empty testimony given to the truth of jesus christ, to make infamous & pernjoyous errors of what opinions, assertions, & truths, they please, without any manner of conviction. to cry out: it is not meet that such, or such opinions should live, or be tolerated (as if life and toleration were an heritage appropriate, and belonging of right to their opinions only, how inconsistent soever either with reason, or with truth) is little better testimony to the truth of jesus christ, than that deportment of the jews was unto moses, when they cried out with a loud voice, stopping their ears▪ and ran upon stephen with one accord, to cast him out of the city, and stone him, acts 7. 57 but i trust their meaning is not, that they intend by their book, as solemn and sacred a testimony to their league and covenant as they do to the truth of jesus christ: 1. to assert the worth & excellency of it with as high an hand, with as much zeal, vigour, and vehemency of spirit, as they intend to the great truths of jesus christ, though they make no difference (in words) between the one, and the other. for otherwise, the solemn covenant they speak of, being only matter of engagement, not of assertion or opinion, i know not what testimony it is capable of: unless they will call a regular, full, and through observation of it, a testimony unto it: which is a testimony (if testimony it be) unpossible to be rendered unto it in this, or in any other book, or writing whatsoever; the best part of this testimony consisting in going before one another in a real, not verbal, reformation. but what it is they mean, or would have others to conceive they should mean, by calling their piece, a testimony unto our solemn league and covenant, i solemnly and seriously profess is above the reach of my understanding, or learning, reasonably to imagine. have i not then reason to doubt, whether any of those men of renown, and not rather some petty scribe, was the compiler of it? 3. whereas to amplify and enrich their title, they add (over and above the former expressions, of a testimony to the truth of jesus christ, and, and to our solemn league and covenant) these words: as also against the errors, heresies, and blasphemies of these times, & the toleration of them; i submissively demand of them, whether there be any thing more, any further matter of consequence held forth in these words, above what was contained in those first words, a testimony to the truth of jesus christ. if so, i desire to know where, or in what part of the book, they give testimony unto the truth of jesus christ? and again; where, and in what other part of it, they give testimony against errors and heresies? i can find no other testimony given in it to the truth of jesus christ, but only that (which i confess is very unproperly so called) which stands in a citation of certain passages, or sayings out of other men's writings, imperiously sentenced for errors and heresies; as if the chair of papal infallibility were of late translated from rome to zion-college. if not, they shall do honestly and well in the next impression of the book, (though it had been more honesty to have done it in the first) to leave out of their title, the false flourish, of, a testimony to the truth of jesus christ, as also those words, and to our solemn league and covenant (there being no such thing in all the book, as any testimony thereunto) and content themselves only with calling it, a testimony against errors and heresies, only mollifying it with this soft and christian explication [as we count and call errors and heresies.] for certainly there are in these papers, that are so called, errors many, and heresies many; which yet have nothing of the nature, but only the names of both. so than these words in the title, as also against errors, &c. being so merely and broadly tautological and empty, are a ground of conjecture unto me, that the men prenamed with their compeers, are wholly innocent from the offence committed in making the book. 4. whereas the title is yet further extended by the addition of these words, and the toleration of them; which is a mere non-ens, a thing not in being, i cannot conceive that the judgements or parts of the said persons should so far fail them, as to appear in print, and that {non-roman} {non-roman} {non-roman} {non-roman} {non-roman}, with a testimony in their pens against that, of which god made the world; i mean, nothing, or that which is not; i might further add, nor is ever like to be. for if a captious pen had the expression in hand, it would find no difficulty at all in carrying it into such a sense, which would import a calumniating insinuation against the parliament, as if they were so inclinable to grant an universal toleration of all errors, heresies, and blasphemies; that unless they were counterbalanced with the fear of displeasing these men's zeal, burning so vehemently in opposition thereunto, there were no other means under heaven to take them off from it; yea it may not without some ground of probability be conceived; that the authors of these papers proclaim so loud their enmity against toleration, to make the friendship of all lukewarm and formal professors round about them (being the great bulk of the kingdom) who know not what to do, what shift to make for a religion, if the state be not merciful unto them in providing one or other for them. but as far as yet i have understood, or do for the present apprehend the genius or temper of the parliament, in reference to an universal toleration, i have reason to judge them by many degrees further from it, than to stand in need of the importune heat of these men, to quench their inclinations to it. 5. the book itself being every whit as capable of bearing the title of, a testimony against truth, sound and orthodox opinions, as▪ against errors and heresies, (as hath already, in part, and will more fully appear hereafter) it is a piece of incredibility to me, that men of that note and interest, of which the persons named, with several others of the same line, are known to be, should so prevanicate with their respective reputations, as to prefix a single-coloured title before a particoloured book. 6. whereas all the errors mustered together in the book, are said (in the title page) to be collected out of their authors own books alleged in the margin, and yet (in fair and full contradiction hereunto) are said page 2. to be the very dregs and spawn of those old accursed heresies, which have been already condemned, dead, buried, and rotten in their graves long ago, and are now by evil men and seducers, raked out and revived (by which this present generation however is fairly acquitted from being the authors of them, revivers being no authors) i cannot so far undervalue the worth of the persons named, as to judge them conscious of so gross an oversight, or (consequently) interessed in the composure of the piece. 7. whereas the subscribers of the book, style themselves (in the title page) not partitively, some of the ministers, but collectively, the ministers of christ within the province of london, there being to my knowledge, several ministers of christ within the province of london, and those not of the abhorred order of independency neither, & yet commensurable too, both for parts & worth, with the tallest of the subscribers, though not equal (it may be) to some of them in church livings by two or three, for whom god (it seemeth) hath provided a better thing than to suffer them to fall into the snare of so unworthy a subscription, i must dispense very far with my thoughts concerning the goodness of the consciences of the men i have named, with their fellows, to judge them so much as acquainted with the first page of the book. i cannot so far suspect their skill in grammar, as to suppose them ignorant of the difference between some of the ministers of christ, and, the ministers of christ (simply,) nor would i willingly suspect the goodness of their consciences so far, as to think they would wittingly, and only to ferve a turn, as viz. to make the concurrence seem the greater and more entire in the eyes of their simple ones, write the one, when as the truth would only bear the other. 8 whereas they entitle their book, a testimony to our solemn league and covenant, and pag. 28. acknowledge, that neither is this, nor any other oath otherwise to be interpreted, than according to the common, plain, and true grammatical sense of it, confident i am, that according to such an interpretation as this of the said covenant, they have not done any thing at all in a regular and due pursuance of it in this piece, but several things most notoriously and palpably against it, and with the violation and breach of it. first, all they can with any tolerable colour pretend to be here done in pursuance of their covenant, may be recalled to these two heads. 1. that which is pretended to be done in order to the extirpation of errors, heresies, &c. 2. their pleading for presbyterian government. now (for the first) that here is nothing done in any regular or due way for the extirpation of errors, heresies, &c. is evident: for what is it they do in order hereunto? to scrapple together a few sayings, or passages out of several men's books here and there, without taking any notice, or giving any account of their true sense and meaning in them; yea, and some of these as fair, clear, obvious truths, as ever themselves delivered any; yea sometimes to falsify their sayings, by leaving out some material words in the bodies of them▪ and only to clamour and cry out upon them, and call them, horrid and prodigious opinions, (as pag. 23.) infamous and pernicious errors, (as pag. 5.) the very dregs and spawn of those old accursed heresies, &c. (pag. 4.) antiscripturism, popery, arianism, socinianism, arminianism, &c. (as pag. 33.) i say only, to pour out floods of such reproachful and foul language as this, upon men's sayings or opinions, without so much as levying one word of an argument against them to convince the assertors or maintainers of them, or without answering so much as any one reason or ground, upon which they build such assertions, is a course and practice, not only irrelative altogether to the extirpation of errors and heresies, but very pertinent & proper for the further propagation and radication of them. for when men shall speak evil of that, as an error, or heresy, against which they have nothing of moment, or which is solid, to oppose, the assertors may very reasonably suppose, that they speak this evil of it, not out of judgement, as knowing it to be an error, but out of affection only, not being willing it should be owned for a truth. in which case they cannot lightly but be further confirmed in their error (if error it be) than before. again 2o. when men shall rend or tear a parcel of words out of the body of a large and entire discourse, which may probably carry some face or appearance of an hard or unsound saying, which notwithstanding by the author's explication is reconciled, made fully and fairly consistent with the truth, without so much as mentioning or intimating the author's explication of himself in these words, and then to insult and stamp with the foot, and cry out, error, heresy, blasphemy, antiscripturism, arminianism, and i know not what, will any man call this a way, method, or means, for the extirpation of error and heresy? and not rather a direct course to harden and strengthen men in both? 3. when men for want of such sayings, which are erroneous and heretical indeed, in the writings of such men, whom their carnal interests call upon them to expose, to the uttermost of their power, to the public infamy and reproach of being counted erroneous and heretical; shall pitch upon such passages and sayings for their purpose, not which are ambiguous, or of a doubtful interpretation, and so capable of a sinister or erroneous sense, as well as of a good, but which are pergnant and generally acknowledged truths, yea and fairly consistent with their own principles; i refer to the judgements and consciences of all men, who lie not under the sad judgement of self-condemnation, whether there be any thing regular, or of any probable tendency in this, for the extirpation of errors and heresies; and not rather much, which directly tends to the further radication of them. they acknowledge and profess unto the world, (pag. 28.) that they still stand as firmly engaged to the real performance of their covenant with their uttermost endeavours, as at the first taking of it. i appeal to their own consciences; let these judge, whether barely to cite a few men's sayings, and several of these rational, orthodox, and sound (according to their author's sense and explication) without so much as showing or pointing, where, or in what part of these sayings, the supposed error should lie, be the utmost of their endeavours for the extirpation of errors and heresies. if it be, then are they most unworthy their places in the ministry: if it be not, then are they covenant-breakers by their own confession. and whether the authors of the subscribed piece now under examination, have therein done any more, than what hath been now mentioned in order to the extirpation of errors & heresies, i am freely willing to make themselves judges. the night is too far spent for them to think, that men even of ordinary judgement or consideration, will now measure or judge of error and truth, only by their magisterial votes, or imperious decisions, either because they are a multitude, or because they lay claim to moses chair, calling themselves, the ministers of christ. indeed when it was midnight, the gross darkness of popish ignorance and superstition as yet spread upon the face of the nation, it was enough for a province of priests, or clergymen, gravely met together in the name and authority of their sacred unction, to stigmatize what opinions they pleased, for errors and heresies, and so to render them unclean, and not lawful to be received or believed by their blind proselytes. but the dayspring from on high hath now (blessed be god) visited this nation, and men have put away those childish things from them, to believe as the church (i. as the clergy) believeth: to call error, whatsoever 52. churchmen, though in conjunction with threescore church-livings, or more, shall baptize by the name of error: to build their faith, and soul-provisions for eternity, upon the sandy and slippery foundations of the judgements (or affections rather) of such men, who have put the stumbling-block of their iniquity, (i mean this present world, and self-interests) before their faces. these things considered, evident it is, that the architects of the building called, a testimony to the truth of jesus christ, &c. have not laid so much as one stone aright in all this pile, for their purpose of extirpating errors or heresies. therefore, as to this point, they have done nothing at all in pursuance of their covenant, but several things (as hath been showed) to the violation of it. the covenant binds them to endeavour the extirpation of errors and heresies: and they have endeavoured, or at least directly acted towards, the establishment and further rooting of them. secondly, neither have they pursued their covenant (according to the plain and true grammatical sense of it) in pleading as they do for presbyterial government. for first, it is the assertion and confession of that great hyperaspistes of this government, mr. edwards, that the covenant of the kingdoms doth not tie us to the government of the church of scotland a antap. pag. 259. . if not so, hardly then to presbyterial government. and secondly, whether he had confessed it or no, the truth itself hereof had been never the further out of the way. for certain it is, that there is not so much as any one syllable, word, clause, or sentence in it, by which, according to the plain and true grammatical sense, it engageth any man to the contending for, or endeavouring of presbytery. presbyterian government is but apochrypha in respect of the covenant. and though with magisterial confidence enough they conclude (but without premises) pag. 24. that presbyterial government (truly so called) by presbyteries and synods, is that government which is most agreeable to the mind of jesus christ revealed in the scripture, yet as if their consciences had not taken the expression well at their hands, by that time they come to page 34. they abate of their former reckoning half in half. for here, speaking of the government they had declared for, which (say they) we conceive to be most agreeable to scripture. but upon these terms, they that should declare for the independent government conceiving it to be most agreeable to the scripture, should pursue their engagement by the covenant, every whit as much as they. therefore in whatsoever they say or plead in their testimony for presbyterial government, they do nothing at all in any pursuance of their covenant, according to the plain and true grammatical sense of it, but only in pursuance of such an interpretation or sense of it, which lying most commodious for their honour, profit, and ease, hath by the mediation of their affections, prepared itself a way into their judgements, and hath there obtained the pre-eminence above all others: it being very incident to men, to suppose (as the apostle expresseth it) gain, godliness. a 1 tim, 6. 5. i. in all matters of question and dispute, to judge that most agreeable to the mind of jesus christ in the scriptures, which is best consisting with worldly ends. so that howsoever they flourish in the front of their book, as if they meant to give such an high and honourable testimony to their solemn league and covenant; and again in the rear, as if they had accordingly avouched that covenant which they have sworn to god, b pag. 34. in this piece; yet the clear truth is, that their flourish, is all their fight; they have not struck so much as one stroke with their pen in any legitimate or direct prosecution of their engagement by it. and though it had been no great work of super-erogation in case they had done ten times more than now they have, of such a tendency and import, especially upon such a goodly frontispiece of pretence, being also numerous enough (if not many to spare, and of superabounding abilities for such a work yet had they not violated this their covenant, and that ten times over, yea and this in the most notorious and shameless manner (in stead of keeping it) they had consulted much better both for their credits and consciences, than now they have done. the truth is, they have made more breaches upon their covenant in this little piece, than can readily be brought to account, or ranged into form. for how often do they dissemble and prevaricate with their professions? and again, after all their shameless and most notorious prevarications, and unconscionable dealings, how do they in the close wipe their mouths (with you know who,) professing that all that they had done was in the integrity of their hearts to discharge their duty conscientiously, in appearing for god, his truth, and cause of religion. (p. 34.) but 1o. was it in the integrity of your hearis to discharge your duty conscientiously, that you charge him with errors against the divine authority of the scriptures (as you do page 5.) who you cannot but know hath bent himself with the uttermost of his endeavour for the vindication of their divine authority, yea and who you have reason to judge hath laboured in this argument, as much, if not more, and this with as much faithfulness, as any of you all? how did not your hearts smite you in drawing up this bloody charge against him, lest that very book of his, which you had in your hands when you did it, and which you cite in your margin, should rise up in judgement against you in the great day, considering that your consciences could not but tell you, that he had dealt faithfully, throughly, and sincerely, in pleading the cause of the divine authority of the scriptures therein? is this your real reformation, to cry out midnight when the sun shines in his might upon your faces? 2. was it to discharge your duty conscientiously, that you cite some of my words barely, suppressing (craftily) my sense and explication of them, being near at hand, as you do twice (for failing in your wickedness) pag. 5. of your book? or do i not, plainly, clearly, and distinctly enough, declare unto the world (in my treatise concerning the divine authority of the scriptures) in what sense i hold the scriptures, whether translations, or originals, to be the word of god, and consequently the foundation of christian religion, and in what not? let the 13th and 15th pages of my said treatise be looked upon. therefore for these men, to cite these words from my pen, questionless no writing whatsoever, whether translation or originals, are the foundation of christian religion, which clearly relate in the passage where they stand, to a sense a little before explained; without citing, or so much as intimating those other words of mine, wherein (in a true and orthodox sense) i assert them to be of divine authority, and none other but the word of god a divine authority of ser. asserted, p. 13. with more to this purpose) can it be by the mediation of any charity whatsoever conceived, to be any other appearing for god, his truth, and the cause of religion, than theirs was, who appeared before pilate to testify against christ, that he should say, i am able to destroy the temple of god, and to build it in three days b mat. 26. 61. ? 3. was it in the integrity of your hearts, and to discharge your duty conscientiously, &c. that you must needs make it an error or heresy (as you do, page 12.) to say, that it were a needless thing for satan to blind the eyes of natural men, lest the light of the glorious gospel of jesus christ should shine unto them, if they had not eyes to see, and to receive this glorious light of the gospel, when it was declared unto them? is this to appear for god, or his truth, to appear against evident reason, yea common sense itself? is there any need of charging a stone, that it do not speak; or a deaf man, that he do not hear; or a blind man, that he do not see? must we needs speak nothing but nonsense, and inconsistencies, to be free from errors and heresies? is this the suprcma lex in the republic of presbytery? 4. i beseech you, brethren, answer candidly, and in the integrity of your hearts, where, in what phrase or clause, of the period ensuing, lies the error, or heresy; for you charge it with one, or both, pag. 12. if god should not make men capable of believing, i mean, endue men with such principles, abilities, or gifts, of reason, judgement, memory, understanding, by the diligens improvement whereof, they might come to be convinced of a willingness or readiness in him to receive them into grace and favour, upon their repentance and turning to him (upon which conviction, that repentance and turning unto god, which we speak of, follows) they which are condemned, would have their mouths against god's proceedings with them thereunto, and furnished with an excuse? the period (setting the parenthesis aside, which i suppose is innocent) is but one plain hypothetical or connex proposition. now though i confess that consequences in such propositions may be weak and false, as well as categorical assertions; yet amongst all the old accursed heresies, so long since condemned (as you speak) and which you say are now raked out of their graves, and revived, i remember none that was ever put into any man's roll or catalogue of heresies, in an hypothetical form. if your reading or memory will instruct me better, you shall find me a disciple tractable enough. but for the consequence in the proposition rehearsed, which you put down in your catalogue for an error or heresy, it is built upon this principle, or maxim: that a true plea of want of power for the performance of what is commanded, is an excuse in the case of non-performance. if this principle fail, the said consequence is weak: but if strong and pregnant, the consequence is partaker with it in both. but however, doubtless neither the integrity of your hearts, nor the goodness of your consciences would have suffered in the least, though you had not compelled a poor plain hypothetical proposition, which never did, nor meant, either you, or any other man, the least harm, to bear the cross of being numbered amongst errors or heresies. 5. i desire also some ingenious shadow (at least) of a reason from you, how it relates to the conscientious discharge of your duty, to cite an whole page together (besides what you fraudulently leave out, as not serving your turn; and what you cut off, by an &c.) consisting of three or four and thirty lines, under the name and notion of one and the same error. was it to represent me to your reader as a man of monstrous and prodigious errors? one of which could not be expressed or contained in fewer words, than would fill an whole page in 4o; nor this without the interposal of an et caetera, and a false finger besides? or was it to edify the world in the knowledge and consideration of your great zeal, and unwearied pains, to discover errors; so that rather than one of these should escape you, you would undergo the labour of transcribing whole pages together? or was it for fear, in case you had determinately pitched upon any one line or sentence, you might more easily have missed the error, and have beaten a bush, where the bird was not? or was it in hope, that within so large a circuit or compass of ground, your reader possibly might find two or three errors, though yourselves could not well tell where to find any? but if you be unwilling to render unto me a reason of this your extraordinary quotation, give me leave to render one unto you. i suppose the reason might well be, because in that wherein you magnified yourselves, god had a mind to be above you for the propagating of his truth. for whereas you (it is like) meditated an unusual citation to show the world a more than ordinary error; god might suffer you to take this compass of matter, that so that great and precious truth of his, which you call error, contained therein, might be presented from your hand with so much the more advantage to be discerned, acknowledged, and received by men; yea by such men, who probably might never have had the opportunity to have seen so much of it, but by means of the book. {non-roman} {non-roman} {non-roman} {non-roman} {non-roman}. doubtless the passage though injuriously dealt with (as we shall show presently) and purloined of some of its strength, towards the beginning, yet carries light in abundance in it for the conviction of any ingenuous and unprejudiced man, that what is asserted therein, is truth. 6. would not the integrity of your hearts to discharge your duty conscientiously, suffer you to pass by similitudes, comparisons, and resemblances, but that these must be crucified too for errors and heresies? doubtless never were parables or similitudes arrested, or attainted of error or heresy, until now. a considerable part of that long error we spoke of, cited by you in folio (p. 11.) consists of a similitude. when you make errors and heresies of similitudes, you give us just occasion to think, that you are not so much troubled with some men's errors and heresies, when you find them, as you are with seeking errors and heresies in other men, until you find them. but they that will find knots in rushes, are necessitated to knit them themselves. but i beseech you, tell me seriously: is it matter of conscience indeed with you, to punish the innocent with the guilty? if so, i am not for your laws, nor commonwealth. but 7. what say you to the mangling, maiming, and deforming the sayings of your brethren, when you cite them, by leaving out very emphatical and material words, and clauses; yea such scripture expressions, as you found in them? or do you not in citing the passage (lately pointed at) with which you are pleased to adorn your catalogue of errors about natural man's free will (p. 11.) after these words, (line 11.) in a way of justice, leave out all this [and according to the law, an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth, this man having cut off the legs of another.] were you afraid, that the passage would not look so like an error, as you would have it, if any lineament of scripture should be seen in the face of it? what you express in your testimony, you say, (p. 3.) that you express not with a bitter, but with a bleeding heart: but what you leave out, relating to this, and to other passages cited by you (of which notice hath been already taken) i fear you leave out, rather with a bitter, yea and bloody, than bleeding heart. 8. do you in the integrity of your heart, and cut of conscience to appear for god and his truth, judge it an error, or heresy, to say, that if a doctrine be asserted by paul and peter, it ought to suffer no disparagement for being found among the tenets of arminius? for of this assertion of mine you make an error (page 13.) unless the words imprisoned in a parenthesis, which are these, [as most assuredly it is] must bear the blame. do you not want errors and heresies to complete your catalogue & roll, when you are necessitated to muster and take in such as these? are not most of your own doctrines found amongst the tenets of arminius? some of you (i suppose) cannot be ignorant, but that they are: but do you therefore judge them errors or heresies? yet 9 the testimony now under contest, is in nothing more unlike, at least more unworthy, the ministers of the province of london, than that importune, and most unnatural strain in it, which presenteth sayings and opinions, for errors and heresies, which are fairly and fully consistent with their own principles and grounds. hereof many instances might readily be produced, were not prolixity inconsistent with our present design. is not that of the apostle, other foundation can no man lay, than that which is laid, which is jesus christ, a 1 cor. 3. 11. one of their principles, and main grounds? and yet (p. 5.) they make me erroneous, for not granting another foundation besides jesus christ, viz. translations and originals: which notwithstanding, sensu sano, i do assert also for foundations. again, is it not one of their own principles, that no act performed by man, can be the foundation of christian religion? yet pag. 5. they stigmatize me as an erroneous person, for affirming the act of believing the english scriptures to be the word of god, to be no foundation of christian religion. yet again: is not that of paul, that was not first, which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and then that which is spiritual, b 1 cor. 15. 46. another of their principles? yet (pag. 14.) they represent it for an error in me, to say; doubtless men are natural men, before they are spiritual, and supernatural. once more, is it not a ground and principle of their own; that men are but natural men, till faith comes and makes them spiritual, or supernatural: yet they condemn it (pag. 14.) for an error in me to affirm, that we cannot be made spiritual or supernatural, but by believing. yet once more; is it not one of their own principles, that god hath promised favour, acceptation, yea and salvation itself, to those, who shall believe; yet they make me a transgressor in point of error, for saying, that if it be possible for natural men to believe, then may they do such things, whereunto god hath by way of promise annexed grace and acceptation. yet once again: i suppose it is a principle or supposition of theirs; that the apostle all along the 11th chapter of the epistle to the hebrews, speaks of such a faith, which is true and saving: and yet (p. 15.) they make me an erroneous offender, for saying, that to believe, 1. that god is: 2. that he is the rewarder of those who diligently seek him, is all the faith or belief that the apostle makes simply and absolutely necessary to bring a man unto god. 1. into grace and favour with him. caeterá de genere hoc adeò sunt multa, &c. 10. certainly it cannot be out of the integrity of your hearts to discharge your duty conscientiously, &c. to dissemble, connive at, and take no notice of, the very self same opinions published, printed, countenanced, recommended, by men of your own interest and party, yea by some amongst yourselves, honouring such with the titles of orthodox and sound men notwithstanding, for which you most unworthily, and contra-conscienciously defame others, who do not syncretize with you, labouring in the very fire day after day, in your preachings, in your printings, in your conversings, to render them the off-scourings and abominations of men. let all the passages and sayings, which with all your double diligence, and the help of an evil eye, you have discovered and found in all my writings, and presented upon the theatre of your testimony, as containing matter of error about natural man's free will, and power to good supernatural, be drawn together, and the rigidest extraction made of whatsoever imagination itself is able to imagine erroneous in them; there will be found the very same spirit and quintiscence of error (if yet it were error) clothed too with visibility enough, in that discourse of mr. john ball, entitled, a treatise of the covenant of grace, lately published by mr simeon ash (one of the subscribers.) recommended to the christian reader by three of them more, viz. daniel gawdry, edmond calamie, anthony burgess (besides two more of the assembly.) the said author, p. 44. of this discourse, writeth thus. no man is hindered from believing, through the difficulty, or unreasonableness of the command, or through his own simple infirmity, as being willing and desirous to believe, but not able; which inability deserves pity: but his inability is of corruption and wilfulness: he doth not believe, because he will not: he is unable, because he doth not covet or desire, which is inexcusable. is there not every whit as much power, and freedom of will here attributed unto natural men, as can be wrested or wrung out of any, or all those erroneous passages of mine, (erroneously so called) which are cited in the provincial testimony? do i there say any whit more, or doth mr ball here say any whit less, than that in case natural men were not wilful, they have a sufficiency of power to believe? and that it may not be pretended that this passage fell from this author's pen at unawares, or that the contents of it were not his settled and bestresolved judgement, you shall find the very same things, and almost in the very same words, reasserted by him, pag. 226. of the same discourse. are those opinions erroneous, or heretical in independents, which are orthodox and canonical in presbyterians? or if they be as erroneous in the latter, as the former, why is not i. b. brought upon the stage, as well as i. g. in the habit and reproach of an erroneous and heretical man? yea and why do not simeon ash for publishing, and daniel gawdry, edmond calamie, and anthony burgess, (together with edward reynolds, and thomas hill) for countenancing and recommending erroneous and heretical opinions, bear their proportions also in the censure and shame? accessaries deserve to suffer, as well as principals. it is said indeed of the donatists, that they disparaged and condemned all other christians, but were indulgent in point of censure, towards their own a donatistae qui praese omnes alios christianos condennabant, se veritatem censurae in suos relaxabant. p. mart. loc. p. 785. : and of eunomius the heretic, that he bare with all manner of wickedness in his own seat b eunomius suis sectatoribus quodvis scelus indulgebat. are not these sons of presbytery to be found in the same condemnation? is their love any whit more extensive, than only to cover the multitude of their own sins? or their zeal, than to censure and punish the sins of other men? is this their faithfulness unto god, for which they seem afraid (page 34.) lest the world should frown upon them? or is this the fruit and product of their glorious profession (page 5.) that as ministers of christ, and stewards of the mysteries of god, in zeal to god's glory— from their very hearts and souls, they utterly detest and abhor all the errors, heresies, and blasphemies whatsoever swarming amongst us in these times, howsoever minced, masked, and palliated, and by whomsoeverembraced and countenanced? can the children of this profession be ignorant, that there are amongst themselves discrepances in judgements, and contrarieties in opinions? or doth not this plainly imply, that there is apprehension of error in the respective dissenters amongst them? yea it is famously known, that some of the ablest and most learned amongst them, differ from the greatest part, if not from the generality, of his fellows, in matter of opinion, and that about a subject of as high a nature, as any within the whole compass of christian religion. if then in zeal to god's glory, they from their very hearts and souls utterly detest and abhor, all the errors, heresies, and blasphemies amongst us, by whomsoever embraced and countenanced, how cometh it to pass, that they do not declare with the same acrimony of spirit, and height of indignation, against their own errors (mutually so believed) wherein they rise up, like lions, against the supposed errors of other men? brethren, give me leave to be serious with you: i believe you are straightened in your own bowels, in comparison of the enlargement which you have in mine, (though i fear, you believe nothing less.) i hear of many complaints, and sad regrets from you; as that the ministers, and the ministry of christ, are of later times, much despised: your auditories, much depopulated: your respects with the people, brought well nigh to a morsel of bread. i beseech you consider what i shall say unto you: hath he that voluntarily puts his singer in the fire, any cause to complain, that the fire burns him, and puts him to pain? or he that sows only tares in his field, to find himself aggrieved, that the earth makes him not a return in wheat? or is it any wonder at all, if, when under a pretence of so much zeal to god's glory, such integrity of heart, such conscientiousness of appearing for god, his truth, & cause hf religion, such unpartial detestation of all errors, heresies, and blasphemies amongst us, by i plead for no error, truly so called: nor for any persons, worthy blame & censure. let malefactors and thieves be crucified, but let not christ be crucified▪ with them. whomsoever embraced and countenanced (with many such like glorious and glittering professions and protestations more, wherewith your testimony is garnished) you do in the very face of all these professions, all things contrary, stigmatize the truths of god, with the odious and hateful names, of infamous & pernicious errors & heresies, set yourselves to pull down with both your hands the precious names and reputations of the faithful servants of god, you brethren, & this without any cause at all given by them, report their sayings by halves, leaving out their explications, on purpose to defame them, represent such opinions & assertions as erroneous and heretical in them, which you allow for orthodox & sound in yourselves, exasperate and incense the sword of the magistrate against such as are peaceable in the land, and wish you no harm; foment divisions, multiply distractions, obstruct the quiet composure and settlement of things in the land, recompensing no degree of all this unworthiness, with any proportionable or considerable good; is it any marvel (i say) if, going thus to work, coupling such vile & unworthy actions with such precious and specious professions, you sink and fall in the hearts of men daily more and more? know this for a certain, that the hearts and consciences of men will never be able to rise up before you, & call you blessed, unless they be holpen up by the hand of some visible worth, and excellency in your ways. following showers of uprightness and sincerity from your hearts and hands together, will make your crowns of honour to flourish again upon your heads; which otherwise will certainly languish, fade, and die away. in the mean time (to return to our business in hand) though i find the best of you no better, than a briar unto me, in pursuing me with the out▪ cries of your pens for a man of i know not how many, nor of what, errors; yet are there four men amongst your 52. who have appeared in this ostracism against me, to their deeper shame, and confusion of face, than others. for what? they who publish and print books of errors, they who countenance and recommend books of errors, to be read; can these men find in their hearts to lift up their heel against those, who shall receive them from their hand? delicti fies idem reprehensor, & author? at scelus hoc meriti pondus, & instar, habet. i. what (man!) the author, and rough censor both of the same crime? the crime, if crime it be, which i committed have, yet merit doth praise, and approvement, not reproof, from thee. mr. ash, mr. candrey, mr. calamie, mr. burgess? how could these names of men anoint mr. john ball with oil, and salted me withfire, only for speaking what he speaketh, yea and what themselves speak in him, or in that book of his, which they recommend unto me (amongst others) let the sun of christian ingenuity be ashamed, and the moon of human candour be abashed. for (questionless) such a thing hath not been heard of, either amongst the sons of nature, or of god, for many generations. but for the opinions, or opinion rather; (for though the citations be many, yet the error, if error if must needs be, contained in in them all, is, for substance, but one) which this grand subscription voteth an error in me about natural man's free will, and power to good supernatural; i desire the whole covent, or college of the two and fifty, and all that dogmatise with them against the said opinion, to take knowledge, 1. that it is no new or strange doctrine in the reformed churches: 2. that it was a doctrine taught and avouched by some of the reformers themselves; and those not of the least note, either for learning or religion. one instance in either shall suffice for the present. for the former, that the doctrine condemned for error by the error-makers of the province of london, is the publicly-received doctrine of the reformed churches within the province of orleans in quo nihil, quod ecclesarum nostrarum orthodoxarum fidei ●repugnet, repe●imus; e●que nomine dig num publicà luce judicavi. mus. in france, appears from several passages in a treatise of paulus testardus, pastor of the reformed church at blois, entitled, {non-roman} {non-roman} {non-roman} {non-roman} {non-roman}, sen synopsis de natura & gratia; the said passages being compared with the approbation of the book printed in the beginning of it: the tenor whereof imports, that the said book was ordered by a synod of the reformed churches in the said province, to be perused and read by two of the ministers (there named) who give this testimony of it upon their reading, that they find nothing in it repugnant to the doctrine of their orthodox churches, and in that respect they judge it worthy publication. the said author in the treatise mentioned, having (p. 83, 84, 85. &c. asserted and cleared three several ways or means, whereby god calleth men unto communion in that covenant of grace, which he hath made with mankind, the first, by providence; the second, by the ministry of the word; the third, by the effectual workings of his spirit. p. 91. he affirmeth, that in all these ways or methods of calling men, god doth not only show unto the sinner what his duty is to do, but also exhibits and gives unto every man thus invited and called, power wherewith to perform it, and be saved, if he will: insomuch, that if he that is invited [or called] in the most general [& lowest] way of invitation of all, be not saved, he is altogether inexcusable before god. this the apostle paul teacheth expressly: that which may be known of god (saith he) is manifested in them, or unto them (meaning the gentiles) for god hath made it manifest, &c. that they might be without excuse. but certainly, excusable they had been, if they had been willing, and only wanted power a qòd in omnibus vocandi rationibus, deus peccatori, quid debeat non modo ostendit, sed & omni invitato, vocato, det posse illud praestare, & salvari, ●i velit: adeo ut si non salvaturis, qui generalissimâ tantum ratione invitatus est, fit prorsus inexcusabilis coram deo. id expressè▪ docet paulus, {non-roman} {non-roman} {non-roman} {non-roman} {non-roman} (inquit) {non-roman} {non-roman} {non-roman} {non-roman} {non-roman} manifestum▪ factum est in ipsis (gentibus scilicet) deus enim manifestum secit, etc▪ ut inexcusabilis ipsi sint. at certe si, etsi maximè voluissent, non potuissent, ●uissēt excusabiles. p. t●st●r does, synopsis. thesi 121. p. 91. there is not an hair's breadth of power to superuatur all good, more attributed by me unto natural men, than is clearly, and above all controversy asserted in this passage; which yet is avouched (as ye have heard) by two sufficient witnesses, and these of the approved order of presbytery itself, to be the doctrine of the orthodox reformed churches within the province of orleans in france. but whereas my london subscribers transcribe so many passages of mine under their title, or head, of, errors about natural man's freewill, etc. let all these passages be sifted, from the first to the last, by lines, words, syllables, and letters, yet will there not be found the least or lightest insinuation of any freeness of will in natural men to any good that is supernatural: yea they that have been the most constant and intelligent hearers of me in the course of my ministry, cannot but testify on my behalf, that i have still upon all occasions, resolved the condemnation and perishing of men into the most miserable and strange servility, bondage and thraldom of the will to corruption and vanity: yea and have urged and pressed the necessity of the grace of god for turning the captivity of it, and setting it at liberty. therefore, o province of london, study thy teachers, that thou mayst know what, and what not, to learn of them. it were easy to draw forth many more passages out of the treatise specified, of the same import and inspiration with that which hath been produced; but this is sufficient for these two ends and purposes; 1o. to demonstrate, that the authority of a province of ministers, though all receiving the honour of orthodox from one another, is yet a miserable support or stay for the judgements or consciences of men, in matters of doctrine. that which is asserted for orthodox and sound by a province of ministers in france, is importunely censured and condemned for an infamous horrid, and pernicious error, or heresy, by a province of the same profession in england. 2o. to show, with how good a conscience the subscribers jointly affirm, (as they do, page 3. that they find, to the abundant satisfaction of their judgement, and rejoicing of their spirits, the confession of faith humbly advised by the assembly of divines, singularly pious, prudent, sound, and agreeable to the scriptures, and confessions of other church's. if it be agreeable with the confession of those churches lately mentioned, they have as much, or more, need to confess their fault, as their faith. as to the second particular, wherein i affirmed, that that doctrine which these men call infamous, pernicious, horrid error and heresy, was also taught to the full extent and compass of what i deliver in it, by some of the chief reformers themselves, it appears sufficiently by this ensuing passage from m. bucer, who in his enarration of the epistle to the romans, chap. 2. vers. 14. writeth thus: a hic duo observemus; deum nullis unquam saeculis homines doctrina salutis destituisse: proinde, quicuuque unquam perierunt, suâ culpâ periisse. naturam ita perfundit suâ juce deus, ut hi tantum à justitiâ alieni maneant, qui eam ultrò à se rejiciunt. here let us observe two things; that god in no age whatsoever, left men destitute of the doctrine of salvation: therefore whoever at any time perished, perished through their own default [or neglect.] for god so bedeweth (or washeth) nature with his light, that they only remain strangers unto righteousness, who willingly, & of their own accord cast it from them. there are at this day nations not a few, to whom the gospel of christ is not sincerely preached: others there are, who hear nothing of it. but if these did not voluntarily put from themselves the desire of righteousness, the lord (questionless) would so animate them with his spirit, that they should, or might, perform the things of the law, commit themselves wholly to his (grace, or) goodness, and do unto their neighbours what they would that they should do unto them. hence it would come to pass, that god would sooner send an angel unto them, as sunt & hodiè gentes non paucae, quibus evangelium christi haud quaquam sinceriter praedicatur: sunt quae de eo nihil prorsùs audiunt▪ hi autem si non ultrò justitiae studium repudiarent, dominus indubiè spiritu suo sic eos animaret, ut quae legis sunt praestarent, committerent se totos ipsius bonitati, proximis facerent quae cucupiunt fieri sibi. hinc fierer, ut deus citius angelum eis mitteret, uti fecit cornelio, quam ut ignorare eos christum suum pateretur. sed dum impiè ingrati iniquitate suâ detinent revelatam jam ipsis veritatem, merentur, non solum ut nihil praetereà boni spiritus accipiant, sed etiam ut dentur in sensum reprobum, &c. alterum hic observandum est, ut ipsi quoque huic operi legis, quod in scriptum est cordibus nostris, recto illi, ut divinitùs impresso sensui, quo perpetuò vocamur ad sancta & honesta studia, revocamur à pravis, auscultemus, cogitationes nos accusantes, & conscientiam contrà nos testificantem, exaudiamus.— deum sanè ipsum rejicimus, cum sanctis hujusmodi cogitationibus non obsequimur. he did unto cornelius, than suffer them to remain ignorant of his christ. but whilst through impious ingratitude, they detain his truth revealed unto them, in unrighteousness, they do not only deserve to have no more of the good spirit given unto them, but even to be givenup to a reprobate sense, &c. the other thing here to be observed, is, that we ourselves also harken unto the work or effect of the law, which is written in our hearts, that same right and divinely-impressed sense of things within us, whereby we are continually called upon for holy and honest courses, and called back from those that are dishonest, and that we narrowly listen unto and mind, those thoughts which accuse us, and our conscience, when it witnesseth against us.— verily, we reject god himself, when we do not yield obodeince to such holy cogitations as these. i appeal to the consciences of the testimony-subscribers themselves, whether this passage be not much fuller and ranker of the spirit of that opinion, which they reckon amongst the very dregs and spawn of those old accursed heresies, amongst noisome, infamous, horrid, and pernicious errors, than any, than all the passages they have raked together out of my writings. yea if they please, they may read more of the same author's judgement upon the same point, and to the same purpose, in what he comments upon verse 25. of the chapter; where (amongst other things) he conceiveth, that paul offered this to the consideration of the jews, that the gentiles, even before christ was revealed unto them, were partakers of true righteousness a sed ut superiùs quoque ostendimus, magis id ex instituto pauli suit, ut objiceret judaeis, gentes etiam ante revelatum eis christum, verae justitiae fuisse compotes. . which is a saying ten degrees beyond the line of any of mine. and yet m. bucer was never (to my knowledge) counted an arminian by any, nor branded for an heretic, or a man of a rotten judgement, by any, unless it were by the ministers of the province of babylon, who (as the story saith) digged him out of his grave, and made a sacrifice by fire of his dead and buried corpse unto the genius of their bloody religion. it were easy to fill many pages with passages from other orthodox and reformed authors, as melancthon, musenlus, &c. wherein they deliver many things fully consonant with what i have written, and the subscribers branded with the broad seal of their authority, for erroneous. but miserable is the condition of truth, which must not be suffered to pass by the warrant of its own light, without letters of recommendation from the darkness of men. nor were it any matter of much more labour or difficulty, to bring in antiquity itself, and particularly those very authors who were the greatest opposers of pelagius, and the than errors denominated from him, as jerome, austin, and prosper by name, with their mouths wide opened in approbation, and coassertion of the same things, for which i am arraigned at the tribunal of sinon a the ancient records, (as i 〈◊〉 informed) m●ntion it by the name, not of zion, but sinon college. but they that have authority to make errors, may change names at pleasure. college, as an heretic. it is manichism manichaeorum est, hominum damnare naturam, & liberum auserre arbitrium. advers. pelag. in proem. (saith jerome) so condemn the nature of man, and to despoil it of freewill. (unless any man can find better, or more proper english for, liberii arbitrium. and elsewhere, thou blasphemest in vain, continually buzzing it in the ears of the ignorant, that we condemn freewill: let him be c●demned, who condemneth it c frustra blasphemas, & ignorantium auribus ingeris, nos liberum arbitrium condemnare. damnetur ille, qui damnat. ad c●esiphontem ▪ yet again in another place: we so maintain freewill, that we deny not the adjutory (of grace) to it in all things d sic liberum servamus arbitrium, ut ei per singula adjutorium non negemus. hicron. l. 1. dial. advers. pelag. . augustine himself, the famous antagonist of pelagianism, maintains to the full whatsoever is asserted by me, concerning the will and power of man. if there be no grace of god (saith he) how doth he save the world? if there be no freewill, how doth he judge the world e si non sit dei gratia, quomodo salvat mundum? & si non est liberum arbitrium, quomodo judicat mundum? aug. epist. 46. ? and again, the catholic faith, neither denies freewill, either in respect of a bad life, or of a good: nor doth it attribute so much to it, as if without the grace of god it could do any thing, &c. yet again, the pelagians conceit that they know some great matter, when they say, god would not command that which he knew could not be performed by men. i wonder who knows not th●●… f fides catholica non liberum arbitrium negat, sive in vitam malam, sive in bonam: neque tantum ei tribuit, ut sine gratiâ dei valeat aliquid, &c. aug. epist. 47. . it seems austin supposed no man ignorant of the truth of that, which these subscribers persecute under the name of a pernicious error. magnum aliquid pelagiagiani scire se putant, quando dicunt, non juberet deus, quod sciret non posse ab homine fieri: quis hoc nescit. aug. de grat. & lib. arbitr. c. 16. the fame author yet again, we exeorate the blasphemy of those, who affirm, that god enjoy●●… any thing that is impossible unto men, and that the commands of god cannot be observed and kept by every man in particular, but only by all men in common, or in general h execramur blasphemiam eorum, qui dicunt impossibile aliquid homini à deo esse praeceptum; & mandata dei non à singulis, sed ab omnibus in communi posse servari. idem. . i●…austins verdict will pass, the subscribers are the blasphemers, not the author of the divine authority of the scriptures asserted. consonant to the last recited saying of austin, is this of basil the great, it is impious to say, that the precepts of the holy ghost are impossible i {non-roman} {non-roman} {non-roman} {non-roman} {non-roman}. . so that evident it is, that these men confute pelagianism by plain manicheism; nay, that which only themselves call pelagianism. for it clearly appears by the writings both of jerome and austin, that the question between pelagius and them, was not whether man hath freedom of will, either in respect of good or evil: for these fathers constantly defend themselves under the shield of this assertion against pelagius his charge. b dicat pelagius, per gratiam nos posse praestare legem dei, & pax est. aug. but whether men, notwithstanding their freedom of will, did not still stand in need of ajutorium gratiae, the auxiliary or adjutory of grace, both for the performance of, and perseverance in, what was good. but these men have exchanged the fathers adjutorium, into their own compulsorium. for me, i never denied, but always have asserted the necessity of grace by way of adjutory; only the necessitation or compulsion of grace, is no article of my creed. reader, i had not troubled thee with so much as any one of these quotations, but that it is the calamity of these times, to judge truth and error still commensurable with the votes of those men, who having engrossed the honour and repute of being orthodox men unto themselves, square these votes of theirs concerning truth and error, not by any principles of the clearest reason, nor yet by the scriptures soundly interpreted and understood, but only by the traditions of the elders, and by what they read in the writings of such men, whom they are pleased to take into part and fellowship with themselves in their own glory, and vote, orthodox. but to leave this; there is yet one thing more in the testimony (so called) to the truth of jesus christ, &c. which hath too much shadow in it for the pencil of such exquisite artificers, as the ministers of the province of london: and therefore, represents it with much suspicion of being a spurious and suppositious piece, and not the genuine {non-roman} {non-roman} {non-roman} {non-roman} {non-roman}; of such masters. for doth not this testimony once and again (viz. p. 24. and 26.) commend the government, whereunto the hearts of the authors seem to be so impotently lifted up, by the success wherewith it hath been crowned? doubtless the real and true ministers of the province of london, having such abundant opportunity of converse with travellers from all parts, cannot but be full of the truth of this information, that there was more of the truth and power of religion in england under the late prelatical government, than in all the reformed churches besides. the best success, which they can with any colour of truth entitle this government unto, is but the success of the gardiner's shears, which prosper only to the keeping all even and smooth in the privet-hedge, by the snipping off, and keeping under those thriving twigs and branches, which otherwise would outgrow their fellows, and hinder uniformity. lastly, me thinks there is too palpable a reflection of prejudice and dishonour upon the parliament in several passages and strains of this piece, to issue from between the feet of the sacred conclave of zion-college; though wiser men (i confess) than myself, resent the affirmative stronger in this, than the negative; conceiving an evil eye looking out of a fair face of words upon the parliament, to be no dissenting character of the genius of the ministers (indeed) of the province of london. to draw towards a conclusion; if any man shall ask why i could not be content to sit down by my charge, with the same patience wherein others charged as well as i, possess their souls; no man's pen moving against his accusers, but mine? i answer. 1. i was loath, that either the stones in the walls, or tiles upon the houses, should take the honour and comfort of this service, out of my hand. if these should hold their peace (saith christ) the stones would crie a luk. 19 4. . the honour of christ must be vindicated: and if the jews, who are a people, will not do it, the gentiles, who are no people b rom. 10. 19 , shall and will. if men endued with reason and understanding, shall not appear in asserting the honour of god against those, who sin with an high a hand against it, the inanimate and senseless creature will certainly rise up, and take away this crown from them. 2. the demand proposed, supposeth that, which ought not to be supposed; viz. that my patience is not only exercised, but overcome, by my charge. the truth is, though i do not ●it down by it in patience, yet i rise up with it, and bear it upon my shoulder, with more than patience; even with joy and gladness; as i stand charged from heaven to do: my brethren, count it all joy, when you fall into divers temptations c iam. 1. 2. . i trust the tenor of my answer doth no ways imply, that there is so much as the least hair of the head of my patience fallen to the ground. 3. one part of the rest, who are compelled to drink of the same college cup with me, may possibly either have reversed the errors here charged upon them, or otherwise be conscious to themselves of insufficiency to defend them. another part of them, for aught i know, may rise up in their own defence, as i have done; yea, and possibly may prevent me. but for those assertions of mine, which these ministers have baptised by the name of errors, i neither know any reason why i should proscribe them, nor yet despair of strength from god, sufficient to maintain them against all contradiction whatsoever. but 4. (and lastly) the chief motive which engaged me to this undertaking, was, because i look upon myself as the chief, if not the only person, for whose sake the 52. hands were at this time drawn out of the bosom to smite the rest. when the chief priests and elders, had with more than ordinary diligence and importunity wrought pilate to sign his warrant for the crucifying of christ, because matters deserving death were not so clear against him, as they desired; they procured two thieves to be crucified with him, the one on his right hand, the other on his left a mar. 15. 27 , who in all likehood had not suffered death, at least at this time, but only to colour over the foul act of crucifying christ, with the justice of their execution (if yet this execution itself were allowable by the laws of god) and to represent the lord christ as a man only worthy such company. in like manner, i have some reasons importuning me to conceive, that this court of assize was called principally, if not only for my sake: and that no testimony had been given at this time, either to the truth of jesus christ, nor against the errors or heresies of other men, had not the two and fifty prudently judged it expedient that my name should be blasted, and not the reputation of a whole province of ministers suffer by the greenness of it. the grounds of my belief in this point are, 1. the sore wound given to their cause by hageomastix displayed, &c. was never mollified with oil, until now. they never eased themselves of that sorrow, till this congregatio magna being called to advice about the cure, prescribed this recipe in order thereunto; viz. that 4. or 5. innocent lines of this treatise should be cited to appear upon a stage, purposely built for errors and heresies, and here receive the shame due to innocency and truth. but in vain have they rubbed themselves & their sore upon this dictamnum a dictamnus, or dictamnum, is an herb (in english ditanie) having a property to draw out any thing fastened in the body; upon which wild beasts are said to rub themselves, when they are hurt, or wounded, for their ease and cure. the imflammation is never a whit allayed by it. yea to this day— haeret lateri aethalis arundo; nor have the 52. hands of this subscription, with all their versatile motions and endeavours, been able to wriggle, or wrest it out. 2. i judge the greatest part of the other errors and heresies produced upon this theatre, to be beneath their cognizance, by reason, partly of the silliness, contemptibleness, and irrationality of them; partly, of the obscurity and inconsiderableness of their authors. i can hardly believe that such eagles would have stooped to catch such flies, such dead flies, as these, but only to put into my ointment, to cause that to cast forth a stinking savour. 3. the said testimony produceth my errors & heresies (so called) by whole pages, & half pages, as if it were loath to leave any room for other men's? whereas my fellow-heretiques and erratiques, are quickly dispatched; little being cited out of their books in comparison; i suppose, lest their errors should seem as great, as large, as dangerous, as mine. 4. lest i should seem not to abound with errors above the rate and proportion of other delinquents in this kind, they cite sayings (almost) of all sorts out of my writings to make errors of, as parentheses, similitudes, suppositions, assertions of a most direct and clear consistency with their own principles, and what not? 5. this testimony to the truth of jesus christ, made all the haste was possible after the coming out of the divine authority of the scriptures asserted, to blast the credit, and waylay the acceptation of it with the generality of men. whereas there are very few, if any, of those other writings, which are attainted of error and heresy, with mine, but have been extant in print some considerable time, yea some of them (to my knowledge) several years. but by the way; is it not very in-harmonious, that these great professors of enmity and abhorrency against errors and heresies, should persecute the assertion of the divine authority of the scriptures? these, with some other considerations of like nature with them, render the jealousy very opportune and strong, that myself only was the standing mark, at which the arrow of the testimony was shot; and that the rest were made to stand by only to give aim. they are brought in to partake of my condemnation; that so i might partake with them in their guilt and shame; or at least with such of them, who being guilty, deserve shame. to conclude: whereas the subscribers, with many others of the same interest, are still instant upon all occasions, in season, and out of season, to declaim against me, as a friend to publicans and sinners (i mean, to errors and heresies) and cry out that i desire & plead for a toleration of them all; i here solemnly profess, in the sight of god, angels, and men, that whoever they are, that bear the errors and wicked opinions of the times, as a burden of sorrow upon their hearts and souls, i bear my share and part with them. nor do i believe that any of them all, who seek to render me the hatred of men, by the imputation of such a delinquency, have run, either faster, or further, in the way of god, for the pulling up those noisome weeds out of the fields of christ amongst us, than i have done. i have professedly engaged myself in the public court of my ministry against 4. of those errors (and am at this day in full prosecution of this my engagement) which are generally looked upon as the most predominant amongst us, and unto which, all others whatsoever, may (i conceive) easily be reduced; antinomianism, anabaptism, antiscripturism, querism, or seeking; unto which i might add a fifth also, called manicheism: which, had it not the countenance, which the other 4. want, would soon be found to be of as sad and dangerous a consequence to religion, as they. i am a fool to boast myself: but wise men have compelled me: and wise men (i hope) will pardon me. i have again & again in several of my writings, declared my sense and judgement to be, that no error whatsoever ought to be tolerated; but that every error sufficiently detected, and evicted, aught to be proceeded against, in such a method and way, and upon such terms, which are justifiable by the word of god, or by such principles of equity and good conscience, that are found in prudent, disengaged, and conscientious men. the height of my interposals in this kind, hath been this; 1. that men be very cautious and wary, lest intending only to crucify thieves, they crucify christ also. 2. that they do not make thieves of all those, who through infirmity or mistake in judgement only, declare themselves to be men. finis. errata. page 6. l. 34. deal, to. p. 11. l. 22. for you, r. you. p. 12. l. 35. after, mouths, r. open. p. 13. l. for consequence, r. consequences, p. 17. l. 1. for quintiffence, r. quintessence. p. 21. in the margiu, for inexcusabilis, (in some copies) r. inexcusabiles. innocency above impudence: or, the strength of righteousness exalted, above the quakers weakness and wickedness; in a reply to a lying pamphlet, called weakness above wickedness: published by j. nayler, in answer to a book, entitled, the quakers quaking. by which his notorious lies are made manifest, and the truth of the said book justified: by jeremiah ives. job 11.3. should thy lies make men hold their peace? isa. 9.15. the prophet that teacheth lies, he is the tail. zech. 3.13. thou speakest lies in the name of the lord. 1 tim. 4.2. speaking lies in hypocrisy. london, printed by j. cottrel for r. moon, at the seven stars in s. paul's churchyard. 1656. to the reader. reader, these lines are sent out after a lying pamphlet, published by the quakers, who are indeed quaking, or else they would never tell so many notorious lies, as i shall show thee they have told in their late book, called weakness above wickedness; wherein thou wilt find, that they have made lies their refuge, though they call themselves, the seed of god, and the generation of the just: for, did ever the seed of god, or the generation of the just, say, that a man hath not done that which he did do, or that a man hath done that which he never did? nay, it is rare to find any of the seed of the devil grown up to that degree of impudence, as to charge a man with publishing that which he never published, and with concealing that which is published to the world in print, as these men have done by me: but surely they think that no man will take pains to compare book to book, but will believe all that they say; but sure the wise have learned otherwise, though the simple believe every thing. i shall therefore desire thee to compare their answer to my book, with the book, and both with this reply, and see if ever any men have lied with that stock of impudence, as these men have done. indeed i am no prophet, nor the son of a prophet; but sure i am, that these men are filling up the measure of their iniquity, and that very greedily, as though their hearts were hardened from fear, and as though they had made a league with death, and with hell were at an agreement; otherwise the fear of either would have taught them to have laid aside their wickedness, which they still enlarge the borders of, till such time wrath comes upon them to the uttermost, and the lord say of them, that they shall be called the border of wickedness, and the pecple against whom he hath indignation for ever. oh therefore, that while god gives them space to repent, they may repent (if there be any place for repentance for them) before the lord give them over to the plagues of their own hearts, as i fear he hath done many of them already. these are the desires of my soul, in the behalf of those of them who have not sinned unto death; and i hope shall be, whatever they say of me, while i am jer: ives. innocency above impudence: or, the strength of righteousness exalted, above the quaker's weakness and wickedness. the apostle in his catalogue of the evils of the latter times, 1 tim. 4.2. reckons up such as speak lies in hypocrisy, having their consciences seared with a hot iron, to be none of the least, who by a show of self-denial in marriage and meats, etc. should introduce (by their heeding seducing spirits) doctrines of devils; and surely this prophecy aimed much at the men called quakers; which i shall make appear (god assisting me) by what follows, in answer to their book, called weakness above wickedness. and for the more orderly proceeding herein, i shall first speak to the title-page of it, where they are pleased to call their book, the quakers defence, etc. here i do observe one thing, that my book hath made these men own themselves quakers; for they were ashamed of their names before, and usually called themselves, such as were nicknamed quakers; yet now they call their book, the quakers defence. so that here they did tell a notorious lie, his first lie. in saying, the world did nickname them quakers, when they give that name to themselves. i now come to the book itself, where he gins, and says, pag. 1. that the apostle well knew what he said, when he desired the saints prayers, that he might be delivered from men without faith, etc. truly, the devil speaks truth sometimes, and so do you, in saying, the apostle well knew what he said; but surely, you are no apostles, that speak things you know not, and are vainly puffed up with a fleshly mind, as appears by what i have said in my last, and shall yet further make manifelt in due place. thou tellest me, his 2. lie. that i deny the faith of god, which is the gift of god in his saints, etc. this i never did, either by word or writing: and though he ought to have proved, that i denied the faith, being he chargeth it upon me, yet he brings no proof at all, but his bare assertion. i shall therefore give the reader some say of mine, and leave him to judge, whether they look like the words of a man that did deny the faith of god, and set up a faith of his own, as he falsely accuseth me. as first, in my epistle to the churches, i call upon them, to take heed that they were not spoiled of their joy and confidence they had in christ jesus; and, that they would let none of the words of our lord jesus slip out of their mind; and, that they would have high and honourable thoughts of the scriptures; and, that they would prise the ordinances of god; and pag. 16. of my book, i do exhort, that men would take heed of turning the truth of god into a lie: nay, doth not he tell me, that i did confess, that christ lighteth every man that comes into the world, in his answer, pag. 5? and do not i all along through my book, profess christ to be the saviour of the world, and judge of the world? and is not this the faith of god? and yet this man says, i deny the faith of god. in the second page he insists upon some things, which (he saith) i spoke at gerrard robert's house, which i shall take notice of hereafter; because he is so full of tautalogies, and speaks very often in his book, of something relating thereto, and therefore it will be lost labour to speak to any thing, till i come to speak to the whole. the rest of the second page hath little besides, but a pack of swelling words of vanity; as vain philosophy, deceitful craft, unreasonable blasphemous doctrines, cursed art, charging me with setting up the spirit of the devil; and, that i had mustered up a heap of lies, and a heap of subtlety, etc. let me tell thee, james, these words had done well, when thou hadst proved me so; and then they would better have become the conclusion, than the preface of thy book. thou goest on, and sayest, in the latter end of p. 2. that thou wilt not trouble thyself to answer every particular of my vain stories, etc. truly, i do believe, that thou wouldst be as much troubled to answer to them, and prove them so, as ever thou wast in thy life; and therefore it was cunningly thought on by thee, to ease thyself of the trouble, and call them lies, vain stories, and slanders: here thou hast done like thyself. thou goest on, and quarrelst with my epistle to the churches, and sayest, if my brethren, with me, have denied the faith of christ, and set up a faith of their own, it is like my work will be welcome. to this i have answered already in my reply to thy first page: and because i will not call this another lie, i shall only say it is the former lie reiterated the second time. thou leapest over my epistle to the reader, and sayest nothing to it, though therein thou wast more concerned, then in the epistle to the churches: and from thence comest to speak a little, to little purpose, in pag. 3. of thy book, and that is, that you shall not contend whether the world call you that which is true, or that which is false, when they call you quakers. if so, then why hast thou troubled thyself so fare, as to call them ishmaels' brood, that call you so? your juggling and lying at this turn, which i charge you with in the second and third pages of my book, thou sayest nothing to, but that thou wilt not trouble thyself whether the world truly or falsely call you so. oh shameless wretch! dost thou say thou art nicknamed, when thou art called quaker? and when i have used arguments to prove thee a liar, in saying, the world nicknames thee, because thou namest thyself so; thou shakest all of with this, that thou wilt not contend whether they called thee truly or falsely. his 3. lie. but by the way, if they did call thee truly, than thou art a liar, in saying they nicknamed thee. thou goest on, and in page 3. of thy book, thou tellest me, that i lied, in saying you foamed at the mouth in your tremble, etc. but james, remember, that it is not thy bare saying i lie, that proves it so: and thou dost pretend (that so i may repent) to inform me better. but am i better informed that you did not foam, because you say i lie, in charging you with foaming? read, and judge: and yet this is all you bring to inform me better. and whereas you say. that though it was cast upon you in the westmoreland petition, and you did not answer to it; it doth not follow (you say) that the charge was therefore true. to this i reply, that if you had overlooked those passages in the charge, than indeed there might be somewhat in what you say: but you printed those particular passages, how that you were charged with swell and foamings, and that in young children, and yet say nothing to the untruth of them. and though i have again urged the same things, yet you say nothing to your swelling and roaring, though it be charged to be in young children. and whereas in your answer you deny foamings, yet you do not deny any other part of my charge. by this the world may see thy wickedness, that thou wavest the most material things, and sayest nothing to them. and whereas thou sayest, i lied, and the petitioners lied, in saying, you foamed: i demand, why both myself and the petitioners have not better ground to say thou liest, in denying it, seeing thou hast waved answering to it, both when yourselves did print the charge, and also when i did charge you with it afresh in my book? but i do think, that this was one thing that james was not willing to trouble himself with answering: for i perceive, and so may the reader, if he minds my book and his answer, that he could not tell how to deny what i and the petitioners of westmoreland did charge against them. you now proceed, and in the latter end of page 3. and page 4. you say, that i can find nothing of the truth you preach that i dare accuse you of. well said, james, thou wilt speak truth sometimes, though it be against thy father the devils will: for tou sayest, that i can find nothing of the truth you preach that i dare to accuse you of. indeed that's true; for i dare not accuse any for holding truth: but than it seems, if i have accused you of any thing that you preach, it is of the lies you preach. this must needs follow; for if (as thou sayest) i dare not accuse thee of the truths you preach, and yet do accuse you of many things that you preach, as my book declares at large; than it follows, that all that i accuse you with, is of the lies you preach; for you have justified me, that i did not dare to accuse you of the truths you preach. but in the 3 and 4 pages of thy book, thou sayest, that i do accuse you of somewhat that you never preached; viz. that you say, nothing must be called god's word, but christ: this (you say) is none of your doctrine. his 4. lie. but i wonder who hath ever heard you (unless it be such as are deeply drenched in hypocrisy, and have learned your art of equivocation, but will say the same thing that i say of you.) you say also, that i lie, in saying you deny the scriptures to be the word of god, his 5. lie. etc. but have not i proved it from your own writings, pag. 6. of my book? and do you not reprove in many places of your books the people and priest, for calling the writings the word. oh shameless man! to call me a liar, for saying nothing of them, but what i have under their own hands. and where my arguments against thee are of that force, that thou knowest not how to answer them; thou tellest the reader, that it is false in my sense, to say thou deniest the scriptures to be the word of god. james, do not juggle; for i did not say you denied the scriptures to be the word of god in my sense, but in your own words, that may be found in the books i have cited, and which are owned by you. but to proceed: james jumps through the 7 and 8 pages of my book, where i make it appear, that they give those titles to their own pamphlets, that they will not give to the scriptures; and thereupon do demand a question: to all which james answers not a word. reader, remember what james said at first, namely, that he would not trouble himself to answer all; and by this he frees himself very cunningly from answering to the most material things i urge against him. he comes now to speak to the third error i charge them with, and that is, that they preach they are infallibly sent, and cannot prove it. to this he makes his defence, by saying, if he had come in his own name, i would have received him. but how doth this appear true? his 6. lie. for what though i will not believe a man that comes in god's name, when god never sent him; doth it therefore follow, that i must needs believe one that comes in his own name? and whereas he saith in this fourth page of his book, that it is plainly seen of what spirit i am of, because i set it down as an error, that he preacheth, viz. that they are sent immediately of god: now here he plays the serpent's part, for he leaves out that which is most material: for i never said it was an error for men to say they were sent of god, if they could prove it; but, that it was error and presumption for one to say it that could not prove it: which words, and could not prove it, though that be the scope of the charge, as any one may see, that reads the conferences contained in the 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16 pages of my book: for i never denied, but a man that could prove his sending, might say god sent him; but the thing i denied, was, that it was error and presumption to say it, when it could not be proved, as i have largely declared in the last forecited pages, which james leaps over, and saith nothing to, though therein the two chiefest of our conferences are published, with the arguments and answers, to which he saith nothing. he now comes to tell us, that the apostles said they were sent of god, who did not work miracles in the sight of all they preached to, page. 4. see this man's deceit: i challenge him to tell us he did a miracle at any time for to prove his ministry, and he answers, that the apostles did not work miracles before all they preached to. but james, canst thou prove thou hast wrought a miracle before any thou hast preached to? now i see thou art put to thy shifts: for thou didst say in thy letter to me, and also in thy conference at beech-lane, that there were many sent immediately of god, that did no miracle. and now my book hath put thee upon saying, that they that were sent immediately of god, did not do miracles at all times, before all they preached to. but how doth this justify thee, who canst not say thou hast done a miracle at any time? thou goest on still in page 4. and sayest, that i call that an error, which all the ministers of christ did own, p. 4. and thou also sayest, that that which i call error, thou ownest: and yet but a little before, thou sayest, that i can find nothing of the truth you preach, that i dare accuse you of, page 3. now if i dare not (as you say) accuse you of any truth you preach; than it must needs follow, that thou art an heretic condemned in thyself, and that those are errors that i charge upon thee; for i dare not (thou sayest) accuse any of the truth you preach. you go on, and say, page 4. that you make proof of your ministry as the apostles did, in partience, in affliction, his 7. lie. and necessities, etc. for shame, james, hold thy tongue at this turn, and let somebody else speak: for, where is thy patience, who fil'st thy mouth with great swelling words of vanity against all that oppose thee? when the saints did not give railing for railing, but (like christ) they when they were reviled, reviled not again: but i am sure, for railing, thou exceedest any of the society of billingsgate, and art fit to converse with oyster-women, then about the things of god: for fool, and sor, and devil, and trash, are thy frequent language to any that oppose thee. and though you say, you are persecuted; i do challenge thee to show me any that have opened their mouths against you in print, that have given you worse language than you have given them; and yet you brag of your patience: for it is no better than bragging, when your persecutors (as you call them) have better words in their mouths then yourselves. but further, you tell us, that you make proof of your ministry by afflitions and necessities, etc. i pray what affliction have you suffered, but others, whom you cry down, have shared in, as deep, if not more deep than yourselves? but as for your necessities, surely thou liest at this turn; for thou didst never go so well when thou followedst the plough (in point of apparel) as thou dost since: and it is believed (and that upon good ground) that thy necessities were more before thou wast a quaker, than they have been since. you go on, and spend the most part of the fifth page, to recite some things that thou sayest i left out at a meeting at gerrard roberts, his 8. lie. and this thou call'st, a diminishing truth to cover lies. if this be true that thou sayest, than thou art fearfully guilty of diminishing truth to cover thy lies with: for pray consider, if i had printed any part of the conference at gerrard roberts, and had left out other part of it, that had made most against me; then he might have had a ground of complaint: but i printed not a word of it. and must a man every time he prints, print every conference he hath been at, or else if he leaves out one, and makes no mention of it, be counted a man that diminisheth truth to cover lies? see the wickedness of this man! when himself undertakes to answer my book, he leaves out whole pages, and many arguments of great importance, together with many things that passed at our several conferences, that were of most weight; but this must not be called a diminishing of truth to cover lies: but he excuseth himself (as i have told you) by saying he would not trouble himself with them. again, the things which himself said at that meeting, he hath left out, and spoke not a word to the chief thing in controversy, and upon which the meeting was occasioned, to wit, about waterbaptism; and yet this man saith, that i leave out truth to cover lies, when he hath left out the whole business of that conference, and picked up somewhat that he thinks makes against me, and chargeth me with other things that i never said, as shall appear in due place. he goes on in this 5 page of his book, and repeats some things which (he saith) i said at that meeting. about this he spends a great part of this page; and yet for all that (as though he thought he could not repeat his lies fast enough) he spends three pages more to repeat the same things, which he saith he sent in a letter to me; as any one may see, that shall compare the 5 page with the 6 and 7 of his book. and though in his letter, he saith something about waterbaptism; yet that letter was not the conference, but a letter sent after the conference; and that appears, because he mentions not one argument brought by me at that time in favour to it, but in stead thereof charges me with something that i never said: whereas if that letter were the sum of the conference, as possibly he may make some believe, why then did not he write the arguments i brought for the proof of what i then said, and his answers to them, which the letter speaks nothing of? and as touching the particulars charged in his letter, and so often repeated by him, as though he wanted matter; i shall first speak to the first, and that is, that i said a man might understand the scriptures without the spirit of god. to this i answer, and that as i then told him, that though all the mysteries of the kingdom of god and christ could not be understood without god's spirit, which the scripture saith shall lead into all truth; yet much of the scripture might be understood by men that had not the spirit; as, thou shalt not kill; and, thou shalt not steal, and the like: and the scribes and priests, mat. 2.4. understood by the scripture, that christ should be born in bethlehem, as it was written by the prophet, though they had not the spirit: and surely they understood that scripture right; for accordingly he was born in the same place. this i did answer at that time, though he hath left it out; and yet omission of any thing that he saith, is counted an evil. the next thing is, that i said, the faith by which a man is saved, is not the gift of god. to this i did answer then, and so i do now, that it is not so the gift of god, as you imagine by your enthusiastical dotages; as, that men should meet together, and neither say nor do towards the work of faith, till they are immediately inspired with your quaking dotages: in this sense i do still deny faith to be god's gift; yet in the sense that all those scriptures say faith is the gift of god, i do freely own it, as my book doth declare, page 37. wherein i have these words, that men have nothing but what they have received, especially any light or knowledge of jesus christ, according to 1 cor. 4.7. the next is, that i said, the obedience of believers was not the gift of god. to this i answer, as before, that we being at that time discoursing about the point of baptism, and i then asserting, that god was to be obeyed in that, as well as others of his commands: thou didst answer, that they must wait till obedience was given them. to which i did reply, that god did not give obedience to his people, in the way that thou didst expect it, as to sit still and do nothing, till men were immediately inspired to it: and in this sense i do still deny, that obedience is the gift of god; though i do believe (and am generally known to teach) that to him that hath improved his talon, god will give more; and that he that doth his will, shall know of his doctrine. and in this sense i do believe obedience to be the gift of god, according to those scriptures by you alleged; and yet i say, none of those scriptures prove your obedient actions (which you so call) to be god's gift. you go on, and say that i said, whosoever speaks that which men understand not, is a fool, and a barbarian. his 9 lie. these were not the words, james: but indeed, when thou hadst spoke a great while to us, and then at last, when i made some reply upon thy words, thou didst answer, that thou spakest in a language that i could not understand; and so thou saidst upon the like occasion, at our meeting in beech-lane, before many witnesses, as i have showed in page 10. of my book, called quakers quaking: hereupon i did answer, according to that of the apostle, that he that speaks in an unknown tongue, is a barbarian; and if i said a fool, i think i might ã��â��ã�� prove it: not but that i did then, and do still believe, that christ spoke many things, and so did his apostles, that the world could not understand, because of their hardness of heart. you charge me further with saying, that none was baptised with the holy ghost, but they wrought miracles. i said not so, but that none were baptised with the holy ghost but they could work miracles; his 10. lie. and so i do say still, till thou canst prove it: for not one text by thee alleged proves the contrary. you tell me that i said, his 11. lie. all good was not of god. this is another of thy lies, and i leave it to thee to prove: though it may be i might say, that all the good you glory in, is not of god; and so i say still: for you are of the generation that call good evil, and evil good; but otherwise, i believe with all my heart, that god is the fountain of all good, according to the scriptures. you go on, and tell me that i said, christ was not a minister of circumcision: and so i say still, till thou canst prove it. and though in thy letter thou chargest this for an error; yet thou dost not bring one text, to prove he was a minister of circumcision. see thy deceit! again, thou chargest me with error in thy letter, in saying, the law was not given by christ: and yet dost not give me one text, to prove that it was given by christ: for the scripture saith, the law was given by moses; but grace and truth came by jesus christ, joh. 1.17. and yet thou hast the face to call this one of my blasphemous doctrines. thou tell'st me in thy letter, his 12. lie. that i said, the wilderness where john preached, was in jerusalem. james, this is like thee and thy father: for what man in his right wits ever said, a wilderness was in ã��â��ã��, unless there be one at the bull and mouth at aldersgate, which is the likest one, of any place in a city that ever i heard of? he further saith, his 13. lie. that i said the river jordan was in jerusalem. this is false: for i know that text well in mat. 3. that saith jerusalem went out to be baptised of john in jordan; therefore i could not think jordan was in jerusalem. but however, it is as reasonable to think that jordan should be in jerusalem, as it is for you to teach, that jerusalem is in you. you go on, and tell me that i said, his 14. lie. i could foretell things to come, without the spirit: this (thou sayest) is witchery. to this i answer, that this is another of thy lies, to say, that this is witchery: for the pharisees did foretell things to come, and had not the spirit, when they said, matth. 16.2. luk. 12.54, 55. they knew when it would be heat and rain, before it came to pass; and christ bore them witness that this was true: and the priests & scribes by the scriptures did know, that christ should be born in bethlehem, though they had not the spirit: was not this to foretell a thing to come? and yet this is not witchcraft, though thou art pleased to call it so. the rest of your letter consists of baptism: for answer thereto, i shall refer the reader to my book, called quakers quaking, pag. 25, 26, and 38. thus much as touching thy letter, and thy charge going before it, which is the same with the letter, except some things which thou chargest me for omitting, which were spoken at our conference at the bull and mouth near aldersgate; and them thou sayest are, first, his 15. lie. that (i should say) christ lighteth every one that comes into the world, and yet deny, that this light was within every one that comes into the world. this thou sayest i have omitted, to cover lies: but let me tell thee, james, that if this light spoken of in joh. 1. had been in thee, thou wouldst have been ashamed to tell thy reader, that i did diminish this from the discourse, to make myself a cover with a lie, when these very words are once and again repeated, as page 49. of my book, called quakers quaking, and page 51. in page 49. i have these words, viz. that i did not oppose the saying of joh. 1. (which is) that christ inlightens every one that comes into the world, but your saying (which is) that every one in the world hath the light within him, spoken of in that text. again, in page 51. i have these words, in like manner he (viz.) christ lighteth every one that comes into the world (inasmuch as he useth means for the bringing the world to the light) though all have not this light within them. james, i have put it into capital letters, that thou mayest (without a pair of spectacles) see thyself a capital liar: for thou art so impudent, as to tell me, if i had been honest, i would have published the whole truth; and this passage, is one of the say thou lyingly tell'st thy reader that i did diminish, to make a cover for a lie, when i printed it word for word. see his answer to my book, page 5. the next lie he tells his reader, is, that i omitted to print another passage that i spoke in the conference; his 16. lie. which was, that the heathen had a light that convinced them of sin, but this light was not within them. james, surely thou canst not forbear lying: for do not i say, page 52. that they might have a light among them, that might not be within them? what is this less, than what thou sayest i omitted? and is this false doctrine? may not god use means, and send his light among people to convince them of sin, that they may reject, and not receive into their hearts? was not the great light, jesus christ, among many, who did not receive him within them by believing? and yet thou art so ignorant and shameless, as to call this a deceit, and false doctrine. the next thing thou chargest me with, is, that i did omit the printing of that saying, which, thou sayest, his 17. lie. i spoke at the bull and mouth, viz. that christ pardoneth the sins of every one that comes into the world. now james, thou hast fearfully diminished the truth, to make thee a cover for thy lie: for thou leavest out these words that i said, namely, that christ was said to be the light of the world, or to lighten every one that came into it, as he was said to take away the sin of the world, inasmuch as he did graciously afford means for the pardoning the sins of the world, though every man should not have his sins pardoned. this indeed i said, and to this purpose i spoke in page 51. of my book; which is just contrary to what thou chargest: for i say, he doth not pardon the sins of every one; thou sayest that i said, christ did pardon the sins of every one. he now proceeds in his 10 page, to attempt an answer to the fourth error i charge upon them, and saith, his 18. lie. i count it an error that they bear testimony to the light of christ, which lighteth every one that comes into the world; and, that i count it an error in them, for holding, that the spiritual light of christ is sufficient to teach in all the ways of god, etc. and, that their error is, for saying the light of christ is spiritual, and within. to all this i answer, 1. that the reader may see that in thy foregoing letter thou hast laid to my charge things that i never said: for thou that wilt add to, and diminish from my words that are published in print, wilt not stick to do the like unto words that were spoken more privately: for where do i charge any of the fore mentioned things upon you for error? i challenge thee to show it me in any page of my book; or else confess thy wickedness before god and men: and that thy sin may appear at this turn, i shall desire the reader to peruse the fourth error i charge upon you, in page 18. of my book, where i do not charge it as error, that you testify to the light of christ that is spoken of joh. 1. but the words are, that (you say) every man hath a light within him, that will teach him to worship god rightly: and thereupon it is, that i do ground my twelve quaeres, page 19, 20, 21. of my book; and not whether it be an error to testify to the light of christ, as thou falsely suggestest: for though it be a truth, as i often declare in my book, that christ is the light of the world; yet it is an error, and an unwritten conceit, to say, that every man hath a light within him, that will teach him to worship god aright, without any other means vouchsafed. and in what page of my book do i count it an error in you, for saying, the spiritual light of christ is sufficient to teach in all the ways of god, as thou falsely saith i have? his 19 lie. nay, do not i say (and dost not thou confess in page 10. of thy book, that i say) it is sufficient? etc. and where canst thou show me, that i charge it upon you as error, for saying, the light of christ is sufficient, as thou falsely hast declared? again, where do i charge it upon you as error, for saying, his 20. lie. the light of christ is spiritual, and within, as you say i do? do i say any such thing in my whole book? no, no, i have not so learned christ; and yet this you say is the error i charge upon you. for shame, james, leave off lying, and speak truth from thy heart; for my charge is not, that you say the light of christ is spiritual and within, but that you say it is within every man that comes into the world; that's the error i charge: and in stead of answering that which i object, thou answerest that which i never objected, as my book at large will manifest. you proceed in page 11. to answer my quaeres, and therein thou answerest to that i never asked: for 1. i ask, what need there is of the scripture to declare the mind of god, if it may be known without it every whit as well: and you say i ask, his 22. lie. what need there is of the scriptures to declare the mind of god; importing to the reader, (as all may perceive) both in the question and answer, that i was a man that judged them needless. but might he not as well have accused paul for saying, preaching was vain, when he he saith, if there be no resurrection, than is our preaching vain; as tell his reader, that i ask what need there is of scripture, when i said, what need is there of scripture to declare the mind of god, if it may be known without it every whit as well, as they pretend? so that this fills up the measure of his lies. again, i ask, whether by the light which is in every man, all men may come to know a virgin had a son, etc. and you say i quaere, whether that light will show a virgin had a son: which was not my quaere; for i know that that light (which is christ) will show this and all other truths: but what's this to the question i ask, viz. whether this light be in every man, etc. which term, every man, all nations, and the whole world, thou deceifully leavest out of most of my quaeres, and so makes them speak another thing, and then goest about to answer them, as any one may see that reads my book, and compares thy answer to it; and therefore let these instances suffice for the rest, wherein the reader may see thy deceit, and also what-snuffling answers thou givest to the twelve quaeres, viz. that all those things i quaere (thou sayest) and much more, were made known by the light within, etc. this is the substance of thy answer. but james, how doth this answer the quaeres, which asketh thee, whether every man hath a light within him, that will bring him to know that a virgin had a son, and that christ risen from the dead in three days, & c? we believe, that by a light within, these things were revealed to some men, but that's not our question; but this, viz. whether there be in every man a light, that will show him these things proposed in the quaeres, page 19 and when i ask you, what need there is of your preaching and writing to inform the world, if the light within the world can do it without you? you answer in page 11. that there is need of preaching, to direct people to the light. oh miserable darkness! what can the light within, without any other means, direct people to the whole will of god, and cannot this light direct people to itself without you? is not this just as if a man should say, that the light of the sun will show men every thing but itself? you answer the fifth error i charge, which was, that one john lawson said, the day of judgement was passed already: saying, it may be seen whether he own it or no, by them that read the book: and so it may, if they read but the 35 page of saul's errand to damascus, which is the book i cited for that purpose. to the 6 and 7 errors i charge, which is against one george fox, for saying, that he was the eternal judge of the world, and the way, the truth, and life: you answer, that i prove this like the rest, viz. as i did foamings at your meetings, because you did not deny it: see page 12. of your answer. to this i reply, (and that as i have said, viz. that if any shall print to the world, that they are charged with swell, foamings, quake, and roar; and also that these things are found among them in little children; and when they come to answer it, shall only deny to be guilty of one of these, and say nothing to the rest; may not a man rationally conclude these men guilty of all the rest, especially considering it is testified by many witnesses, who are better to be believed then themselves? in like manner i still say, that the petitioners of lancaster did witness this against fox, and he did not deny it; viz. that he said he was the eternal judge of the world, and the way, truth and life. now what clearer proof can be made of any thing among men, then to witness what is charged, and the person charged deny it not? and yet james says this is no proof. i pray if this must not go for proof, how will you prove any thing to be true, that one doth not see? the eighth error i charge, is, that george fox said, he that took a place of scripture, and made a sermon of it or from it, is a conjurer. this thou wouldst excuse, by saying, these were not george's words, but the accusers. indeed this is like the rest: but how dost thou know they were not george's words? canst thou have the face to say, that they are not his words, when he, though he prints the charge, and answer to it, doth not deny it himself. here thou exceedest fox himself for impudence: nay, doth not fox answer in page 7. of saul's errand to damascus, that he that raiseth the spirit out of the letter, is a conjurer? and how far doth this differ from the charge? but however, is it not more reasonable to believe the men that witness this against him, seeing he denies it not, then thee, who wilt deny that for george, which he denies not for himself? the tenth error i charge, is upon george fox, for saying, the scriptures are carnal; and thou tell'st me, that this is a lye. but james, how darest thou say it is a lie, when george himself, in his printed answer to it, would not tell the petitioners that charged him with it, they lied; but in stead thereof, evades the charge, by saying, the letter of the scripture is carnal? the eleventh error i charge, is upon one leonard fell, which through the printers mistake, is printed hill: and that was, that he said christ had no body but his church. to this thou repliedst, that thou dost not know that name, and therefore thou makest no answer to the charge. herein thou wast glad to be ignorant, else thou mightest have looked into the book and page i cited for the proof of it, and easily have found it was the printers mistake. the eleventh error i charge, is against one john lawson, who said, he had been in hell, but was now in heaven: thou sayest, it is plain, the saints have witnessed being in hell and heaven also. what juggling is here! i charge him with saying he had been in hell, but was now in heaven; and you tell us of the saints of old, that some of them had been in heaven and hell, as jonah was in hell, when he was in the belly of the whale, and paul was in the third heaven, 2 cor. 12.2, 4. is not this thy logic, james? viz. jonah was in the whale's belly, and paul was in the third heaven; ergo, john lawson was in hell, but is now in heaven. and you say, this was not an error in them that witnessed this, nor in lawson, if he said true. now see if this answers the charge: for how hast thou proved he said true, when he said so? the twelfth error i charge, is, that you say you are perfect, and sin not. this you tell me is a lie: and yet in the next words you say, you own perfection; and you say, perfection is not that that you never had, as (you say) i falsely accuse you. but james, if thou hast perfection, what lie is it to say thou art perfect, any more than it is a lie to say one is rich, when he saith he hath riches? the thirteenth error that i charge, is, that james nayler said, none could come to god or christ, but they that come to perfection. by this (he saith) it seems i deny perfection to be in god or christ; but (saith he) if that be granted, than they that come to them, come to perfection. to this i answer, that it is one thing for men to come to perfection, and another thing for them to come before a god that is perfect: for paul was not come to persection, when he himself saith, not as though i had already attained: now he had attained to come to god and christ, as i plainly show in page 33. of my book; and therefore this cunning evasion will not serve thy turn: for who is there so sottish, as to think, that when they come to god or christ, that they come to a god or christ that is imperfect? and therefore if that should be thy meaning, than thou wast but beating the air, and fight and contending where none opposed thee. but by this the world may see, how janus-faced thy oracles are, that look two ways at once: nay, and doth not the latter end of thy answer to this particular, in page 14. of thy book, plainly show, that thou didst intent perfection in men, rather than god or christ, inasmuch as thou sayest, the children of god never pleaded for sin dwelling in them? and so say i too. the fourteenth error i charge, is, that james nayler said, that whensoever they did eat or drink, they could have communion with the body and blood of the lord in eating and drinking, though it were at the gentiles table. this he denies not, but saith, it must needs be counted an error with the belly-gods of this world, etc. but what is this to prove, that god doth anywhere require you to have communion with the body and blood of the lord, though it were at the gentiles table? and if he do not require it, how darest thou say thou canst do it? and how darest thou blame me for calling this an error, when thou hast not brought one text to prove it is a truth? and whereas thou sayest, thou canst have communion with the body and blood of christ at the gentiles table: doth not the scripture say, that the things which the gentiles sacrifice, it is to devils? and doth it not also say, that we cannot partake of the table of the lord, and the table of devils? and yet this man saith, he can have communion with the body and blood of christ, at the gentiles table. the fifteenth error i charge, is, that james parnel did deny all baptism, but of the holy ghost. to this thou repliest, that to own the baptism of christ, and to deny all else, is counted an error by me; and if so, than the apostles did err also. how doth this follow? when they did assert pluralities of baptisms, and did nowhere deny (as you do) all baptisms but that of the spirit. james now proceeds to tell me, page 14. that i go about to prove waterbaptism by questions and crooked consequences; and (he saith) that i cannot find a command for it, after christ's sufferings; and, that we cannot find a plain scripture for that which we worship, etc. and he further saith, that moses in all his house did leave his ordinances not to be proved after this manner; and therefore (he infers) we are not to think that christ will leave his ordinances with such kind of proof. to all which i answer, first, that i have asserted proof for waterbaptism, in the questions propounded by me upon that occasion: see my book, page 25, 26. which thou canst not answer. but secondly, how canst thou reject consequences and questions, when none have more questions and conceited consequences, to prove what they hold, than yourselves? as for instance (to give the reader a few among many:) 1 quest. where have you a plain text, without a consequence, that saith, that the light spoken of in joh. 1. is in every man that comes into the world? which you confidently affirm. 2. where have you a plain text, that saith, christ was the minister of circumcision? which, thou saidst, was one of my blasphemous doctrines to deny, pag. 5. of thy book. 3. where have you a plain text, that saith, the law was given by christ? the denial of which, thou sayest, is another of my blasphemous doctrines, page 5. 4. where have you a plain text, that saith, god sent some immediately, that could not work miracles, or to whose ministry he did not witness from heaven, since you boldly affirm, that you are so sent, though you can work none? 5. where hast thou a text, that saith, one may have communion with the body and blood of the lord at the gentiles table, as you affirm? 6. where have you a plain text, that saith, he that raifeth spirit out of the letter, is a conjurer? 7. where have you a plain text, that saith, the scriptures may not be called, the word of god? 8. where have you a plain text, that saith, there is no baptism but of the spirit; which you also affirm? 9 where have you a plain text, that saith, john lawson was in hell, but is now in heaven? 10. where have you a plain text, that saith, christ was not born after the flesh, but after the spirit? james, either give me express scriptures that do affirm these things in the words, as thou layest them down, or else be ashamed to accuse others for bringing consequences, when they bring the plain text; whereas thou haft neither text nor consequence for any of these thy fond conceits. and now i cannot but give the reader to take notice that thou sayest, i have not found one text that doth command waterbaptism after christ's sufferings; his 22. lie. when, whoever looketh over the 25, 26 pages of my book, shall find several texts to that purpose; and nine several questions upon that subject, to which james makes no answer at all, as anybody may perceive, that reads the 14 page of his book, where he answers all, by calling what i propose, crooked consequences. see if the man be not here at a nonplus! or else, how could he have the face to entitle his book an answer to mine, when he first leaves out the first two pages of my book, where i show their juggling about their name quakers; and that they have lied in saying, the world nicknames them so: and to this he saith nothing, but that he shall not contend whether the world call them truly or falsely, when they call them so? again, i spend other two pages to prove, that they do give such titles to their pamphlets, as they will refuse to give to the scriptures: and this i prove by their own books, as the reader may perceive; and to this he says not one word. again, i do print the substance of two conferences, where he is so miserably nonplused, that he cannot tell what to say to them, but only tells his reader, that i do add words that were never spoken, and diminish truth, to make myself a cover with a lye. this is all that he saith touching the two conferences, contained in the 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 pages of my book, as any one may see, that reads the fifth page of his book: and yet he hath got such a stock of impudence, as to call his book an answer to mine. again i propound twelve quaeres in the 19, 20, 21 pages of my book: and to these, in stead of answering them, he proposeth questions of his own, for so i call them, because he hath left out the most material terms of mine in his transcribing them, by which they become his own questions, and not mine: and to these twelve quaeres he saith as little as to the other. again, the like answer he gives to the nine quaeres in page 25, 26 of my book; and the sum of his answer is, that they are crooked consequences: see page 14 of his book. he now comes to answer the sixteenth error i charge upon them, which was, that one of their scribes did ask a minister of the nation, whether he had the light that did enlighten every one that comes into the world? when he had before told him, that every one had that light within him. this i charge as a piece of inconsistency in these, that would be counted perfect. to which he replies, that christ did ask the disciples who they said he was, and yet they had the light within them, that revealed him to be the son of god. but what's this to the case in hand? the case in hand is not, whether a man may ask a question for the further confirmation of a thing that is in question, as our lord did his disciples, in a time when there was various opinions of him: but, whether after a man hath preached a thing that concerneth every man, whether it be not very ridiculous to ask the same man to whom he hath preached, whether it concerns him? where doth christ, or any wise man, ask such a question? again, christ demands this question of them that owned him, what their opinion was of him; but he asked the question of a man that disowned the light to be in every one: so that this being considered, i demand, whether christ ever asked a man that did disown him and his light, whether his light was within them, or no? as this man hath done: for he asked the question of one that was a minister of the nation, whom they all say disown the light of christ. he passeth over the second instance of their inconsistency, and saith not a word to it: i do suppose, as he said at first, that these were some things he would not trouble himself with answering; and indeed, i think it would trouble him to answer them, and therefore he cunningly lets them alone. he comes to say something to the third in stance i bring of their inconsistency; and that is, that though they pretend to own the scriptures, yet one of them said to parson camelford of staveley-chappel, that he might as well have burnt the scriptures, as his quaeres: he answers, that it doth not prove all my false accusations cast upon them, etc. to this i reply, that i have not spoke or writ any syllable of untruth concerning you; and further, it doth prove all that i charge against you, about the case in hand, and all that i do urge in the foregoing pages, about your slighting the scripture: for, for any one to say that a man might as well burn the scriptures, as his quaeres, doth not this prove, that your design is to eat out the honour of the scriptures, and build up the honour of your contradictious stories? and whereas in a parenthesis, you question if there was any such that said so: fie james, do not i in p. 29. of my book, cite those passages, and tell thee, that they are in a book called truth's defence, which is owned by you all? and yet you question if there be any such: dost thou think that book did write itself? and if not, why shouldst thou question whether there be such a man as saith those words in his book? for the words are there asserted, as i have transcribed them. but james, thou wouldst willingly be ignorant of this story, because it doth so much lay open your hypocrisy and double-dealing about the scriptures. and further, is not this book bound up, and owned by you, among the rest of your works? and yet thou wouldst fain make the reader believe, that there was no man among you that published such a thing. thou passest over my fourth instance of your inconsistency, and sayest not a word to it, which would trouble thee too much to answer it; and that is, that one tomlinson in his book called a word of reproof, p. 11. did blame the ministers of the nation for doing that they had no rule for, when they prayed before or after sermon (this book is also owned by you, and bound up with the rest of your stories) and yet edward boroughs did pray after sermon, before hundreds of people, at the bull and mouth near aldersgate. to this inconsistency among themselves he says not a word, but leaps over it. he proceeds, and saith, the fifteenth error i charge is a lie, which is, that they study deceitful terms, that look with two faces, etc. james, it is not thy saying, i lie in charging you, that proves it to be a lie, as any one may see in page 30 of my book. and for all thou sayest, a man may affirm a negative, yet that will not serve thy turn, for that is not the question, but, whether a man being charged with speaking a thing that is negative (for that's the case) doth not equivocate, in saying, he spoke no such affirmative? he comes now to answer the eighteenth error i charge, and that is, their lying: first, in saying, they are perfect, and sin not: this (he saith) is a lie of mine own, and shall rest upon my head, till i prove they have said so. to this i answer, that i could prove this largely, if i should trouble the reader to look over many of your writings: but however, to save that labour, i shall cite that passage in page 28. of this thy book: where you make this your ninth quaere that you would have me answer, viz. what faith is that which pleads for sin, and preacheth against perfection? and that believes that they can never be free from sin, and come to perfection while they are in this world? show the saint that so believed, and so practised. let me tell thee, james, that if this be true, that men may be free from sin in this world, as one branch of the question doth plainly import; then if none of you are free from sin, you do not do that which you may do; and than you are self-condemned sinners, if you may be free from sin, and will not: is it not a shame for you to cry out against those that live in sin, (who, it may be, do think that they cannot live without sin) and for you that believe you may live without sin, to live in sin? oh the deceit of these men! but if anybody shall say, that the quakers do not live in sin: i answer, then what lie have i told, in charging them with saying, that they profess to be perfect? and doth not john lilburn call nayler once and again (in his book lately published, called his resurrection) that tall man in christ? and yet nayler saith, i lie, in saying, they profess to be perfect. now how can he be truly called a tall man in christ, that believes a man may be free from sin in this world, and yet is not free from it himself? again, may not a man believe that tall men in christ should be free from sin in this world, if anybody may? and yet james saith, i lie, in saying they profess to be perfect: indeed, this is such a bundle of imperfection, that if i had said they had been perfect, i had lied indeed. the second lie i charge, is, that they said, they were immediately sent of god. to this he answers, that it is a truth in them who are so sent, to say so; and the lie (he saith) is my own, till i prove the contrary. to this i reply: first, that this is no answer to the charge, but a mere evasion, to say it is truth for a man that is so sent to say so: and i wonder when james heard that denied by me, or anybody. but though it be a truth for a man to say that god sends him, when indeed god hath sent him; yet it is a lie for a man to say, god sent him, when he never did: and that he never sent these quakers, i prove at large, in pag. 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 of my book; to which (as i have said) he makes no answer: where i show at large, that the turk can say as much for his alcoran, and the pope for his infallible chair, as they can for their immediate sending. the third lie i charge, is, that fox said, the world did not know his name; and yet afterwards saith, he is known by the name of george fox. he answers, that the saints that overcome have a new name, etc. but what is this to george fox? unless we should take it for granted, that he was an overcoming saint? is not this a ridiculous argument, viz. every one that overcomes, hath a new name; ergo, george fox hath overcome, and hath a new name? again, he doth not say, the world did not know his new name, but his name, without any such distinction. again, did ever any of the saints of old subscribe themselves as these do? but surely such kind of canting hath never been about subscribing names; unless it were among thiefs, that would be known in the city by one name, and the country by another. the fourth lie i charge, is, that edward burough said, his book was sealed with the spirit of the eternal god: to this he answers, that this is called a lie, but not proved. but surely if any shall presume to utter such a saying, it is more rational for him to prove the thing affirmed, then for his respondent to prove what he denies: for, if god had scaled burough his book, we should have had more for the proof of it, than his bare say so. the fifth and sixth lies i charge, is about some passages that were in a letter that james sent me; where he saith, that i did tempt him to deny the lord; and that i did tell him, that if he came in his own name, i would have received him. these were both false, as many can witness; for i bid him either prove he was sent of god, or else disown his presumptions in saying so: and for my telling him, i would have received him, if he had come in his own name, etc. surely if i had been of that mind, i should have received him at that time, for i did then, and so i do still, believe, that he never came in any body's name but his own, as our whole discourse doth make manifest; though with the false prophets of old, they boast of their being sent of god. and where as he adds at the bottom of his letter in page 18. of his book, that i said, if he were sent of god, it were to no purpose to put my faith upon trial with him, for he would overturn all my proofs: james, thou needest not witness this; but then this doth show thy lies in thy letter: which was, that i did tempt thee to deny the lord; when i did at that time say, that if god sent thee, we would not stand to contend with thee, if thou couldst but prove that: i further added, that then i would fall down under all that he said; doth this look like tempting one to deny the lord? the seventh lie that i did charge upon them, was, that he being charged with those two lies writ in the letter, did deny that there was any such passages in the letter. and whereas he saith, that he did not know of the fetching the letter, etc. this is no answer to the charge; the charge is, that he denied he writ any such passages: and it is not his now printing them, that proves he did not then deny them; which is all he urgeth to prove it. and as for his running away, while the letter was fetching for to prove him a liar; that, i did urge as an aggravation of his sin of lying; and that he did so, though he knew the letter was gone for, (though he now denies it) will appear by certificate at the end of this book. he proceeds in the 19 page of his book, and saith, that i make a boast of something i will prove, his 25. lie. and that is (saith he) that i said, i would prove the writings of the scriptures to be the word of god. for shame james hid thy face: did i ever say any such thing? nay, do not i say, page 34. the writings may be burned, but the word of god contained in them, cannot; and, that the tables might be broken, but the commands contained in them did remain like mount zion? etc. and yet this man hath the impudence to tell his reader, that i say, i would prove the writings of the scripture to be the word of god. but at this turn the devil makes him speak nonsense as well as falsities; for is it not nonsense to say, the writings of the scriptures? what is that, but in plain english to say, the writings of the writings? which is absurd, and therefore the more like the author that devised it: for my words are these, that the written precepts and promises of god, together with his threaten of judgements, and exhortations to amendment of life, they are, and aught to be called, the words of god: and this i have used arguments to prove, to which he says little. his next lie, is, that he saith in page 14. his 26. lie. of his book, that i would prove that the letter of that roll is the word of god which baruch read; when there is no such passage in my whole book: and having thus set up a man of straw, he valiantly goes to fight with him; and saith, that baruches roll might be burned, but the word of god cannot. see if this man hath not belied me in his letters, that will thus holy me about things that are published in print, charging that to be in my book which is not in it, and then go about to confute it; for i say nothing of baruch, but the very words of the text, jer. 36.2, 5. he proceeds in page 20. and calls the next proof of mine as confused as the rest; because i charge them to deny the scriptures to be the word, and yet say, i will prove the scriptures to be the word of god out of their own mouths. but what confusion is this? doth not christ prove god to be just, and judge the unprofitable servant out of his own mouth? and yet the unprofitable servant said, god was not just; for he said, that he did reap where he sowed not: so may i judge you out of your own mouths, that deny the scriptures to be the word, who at some turns, to save your credit, own them: and because i prove from your own words, as doth appear by my book, page 35. that the scriptures must be called god's word, because you say, nothing can declare god's will, but god's word; you from hence would prove that balaams' ass was god's word, because he declared god's will; and this you would fasten as an absurdity upon me, which is an argument that i raised upon your own principles; and therefore the absurdity lights upon your own head, who say, nothing can inform into the will of god, but the word; and yet at another time say, the scriptures declare gods will, but are not his word. you go on still in page 20. of your book, and say, that i confess christ is the light that lightens every man that comes into the world; and yet say, it is an error for you to say, that this light will teach people to worship god rightly. now james, when did i count it an error in you to say, that the light of christ is sufficient to teach people to worship god rightly? this is another of thy lies. indeed, i have often said that every man hath not the light of christ in him; and that, that light which every man hath, is not sufficient to teach him to worship god rightly: but did i ever say the light of christ was not sufficient? do i not say the contrary, (viz) that the light of christ is sufficient, page 36. of my book? thou goest on, glorying in lies, and sayest, page 21. of thy book, that i do apply that text of gods purging israel, ezek. 24.14. to the light of christ, to prove it was not sufficient. see thy false tongue! when i do bring those words to parallel with joh. 1. to prove. that that light is sufficient to enlighten all, though all have not this light within them: see my book, page 36. you go on, and call this, the next piece of my divination, because i say, that if every man have received the light, than every man hath received christ, etc. all thou sayest to take off the edge of the argument, is, that because christ is that light, i would make that light christ. and james, what hast thou said to the contrary? for (is it not the same) christ is the son of god, ergo, the son of god is christ? and how canst thou deny this? and yet the like argument to this, thou callest divination. you answer the scripture i bring, joh. 11.10. where it is said, he that walks in the dark stumbleth, because there is no light in him, by telling us, there is no light in his way: for shame man, leave off thy adding to scriptures! dost not thou add to the words of the book? doth not the text say, there is no light in him, and thou sayest, there is no light in his way? but may not a man as well interpret joh. 1. and say, that when the text saith, he lightens every one that comes into the world, that it is to be understood, of his lightning the world's way, and not as you notion it, that every one hath this light in him? this is the man that would have nothing proved by consequences; and yet when we have a plain text for what we say, viz. that they that walk in the dark stumble, because there is no light in them; he shuffles it off, by telling us, he hath no light in his way. so that james, it seems we must believe thy conceited consequences, by which thou wouldst prove every man hath the light within him, spoken of in joh. 1. and not the plain text, that saith, he that is in the dark, hath no light in him. you come to the next thing, and that is, that i say, the day of judgement is not past: this thou seemest to own to be a truth, by bidding me prepare for it, etc. but if with lawson, thou didst not believe it past, thou wouldst never tell those untruths, as i have made appear thou hast told in thy book: for, didst thou believe judgement to come, thou wouldst tremble after another manner, than ever thou hast done in quaking delusions, and fear to lie at this rate. you go on still in page 22. and touching what i have asserted about baptism and the lords supper, in page 38, 39 of my book, you say, you have spoken somewhat already, and that must stand till it be disproved. i see a short answer serves your turn, or else you might have told us where we might have found it, that so it might be disproved: but though thou didst find something proposed by me about baptism, thou leapest over it, as though thou wast afraid to look on it, and saith nothing to several texts alleged, and nine questions proposed, but that i brought crooked consequences, and no plain text, etc. the next work is (he saith) to prove respect of persons, which are none of my words. and he saith, his 28. lie. i pervert that text in leu. 19.32. because i read it (as beza renders it) thou shalt honour the person of the old man: but why is this a perversion of the text, when i have as good reason to follow his translation as any? but 2. is not that which is done to the face of a man, done to his person, be it honour or dishonour? and 3. are not these terms, face and person convertible; as isa. 3.15. where it is said, that the face of the poor was grinded; was not this the person of the poor? and whereas you charge me with lying, in saying, you deny respect due to parents, masters, husbands, wives, etc. i cannot but wonder at you: for i did not say so in any place of my book; i say, you did deny respect to persons, which i prove aught to be, because i am commanded to honour my father and mother, etc. i brought this to prove, we ought to honour some more than others; and you say, i charge you with denying honour to father and mother, etc. but sure james, thy conscience is very guilty at this turn, or else thou wouldst never have said, because i brought those scriptures to prove what i laid down, that therefore i said you were guilty: but hadst thou done fairly, thou shouldst have spoke to the scriptures and arguments alleged, and have showed us in what sense the unjust judge was , in not reverencing man; and many other texts, which may be seen in page 39, 40. to all which thou sayest nothing, but quarrell'st about that i never said. you go on, and say, that i lie, because i say, not one in ten shall give the same answer to a question, if it be asked them severally: and this thou sayest is a lie, because (thou sayest) i never proved ten of you therein. but james, this is as true as the rest; for i have proved twenty of you herein: and to make it appear, i will meet thee at any time, and ask thee a question appertaining to the things of god, and not one of ten shall give the same answer with thee, the question being asked apart; if they do, i will be content to be called a liar, but not before. you say, the next thing i would prove, is, that christ had two bodies. but james, why couldst not thou as well lay down the proposition in my words, as thine own? my words are, that christ had a body besides his church; and to the arguments and texts alleged, thou sayest nothing, but tell'st us a few of your own notions; as, that thou wilt not dispute with me, but sayest, it serveth thee to know he is thy head, etc. but why didst not thou answer my arguments alleged to prove what i urged in the case? you go on, and say, you do not deny christ taking flesh, etc. james, i did draw thy veil from before the face of the people, which thou hadst cast upon them, and made thee speak somewhat plainly at the bull and mouth; and now thou wouldst fain speak somewhat to cover over thy vile say: but to this i shall speak anon. and as touching the next thing, which is, that one of them said, christ was but a figure: this he saith is a lie, because of the printers errata, who put page 54 of saul's errand to damascius, in stead of page 8. in which page he hath the words i charge, though he saith there is no such saying in the book; for this very thing was objected against him, and he answers, that christ in the flesh was a figure. and whereas i show you, that you have affinity with gnostics, manichees, and familists, etc. you answer in page 24. that it is not worth answering; a cunning shift indeed! but if i should say so to your questions by and by, you were well enough served. you go on, and tell me, that i have perverted the scriptures, etc. but hast not showed one text wherein, unless it be that of leu. 19 which i have already showed to be no perverting of it. he goes on: and because i say in page 45 of my book, that all that i have writ against you, is either from your own mouths or writings; you say, this is a lie: but james, in the same page, about the middle of it, you might have found these words, namely, that the errors i charge you with, are either such as fell from your own mouths, or else such as yourselves being charged with, could not deny. now put all this together, and what untruth have i told? for did you deny any of those things that i say you did not deny? and though you say the men were bloody persecuting priests, etc. that charged you, the more shame for you, that you should call your book an answer to their petition, and withal print their objections yourselves, pretending to answer them; and when all comes to all, never deny the charge in the particulars i mention, but say somewhat else in stead thereof, which is nothing to purpose, as you have done by me, as any may see, that reads your answer both to my book, and the westmoreland petition, which is a thing i never saw, any further than as yourselves did transcribe and print it. he now comes to the postscript at the end of my book, and saith, that because some saw my murderous mind, they did write down what he said. though that which they have writ to cover thy assertion, was not spoken at that time, as many can witness that came out with me, whatever you spoke after i was gone: and though you seem to carry it by witness, you must know, that your witnesses are parties, being of the same faith with thyself, viz. that christ was not born after the flesh: and it doth behoove them to make a cloak for thee, lest thy deeds & say should be made manifest. but whatever they have said, that matters not, since you confess all that i charge, which is, that christ was not born after the flesh: and how have you answered the thing i charge in the postscript, which is, that it is all one to be born after the flesh, as it is to be born according to the flesh? and though i prove it all one in the 52, 53 pages of my book, yet thou makest no kind of answer; which shows, that thou hast picked up this letter, to keep thee from the lash of the law, because thou sayest, some saw i had a murderous design, or else thou wouldst have answered what i say in the postscript, but that you did fear the light. you proceed, and in page 26. say, that i say, the scriptures make no such distinction, as born after the flesh, and after the spirit. his 29. lie. this is another of thy lies: where do i say any such thing in all my book? but this i said, that the scriptures made no distinction between a being born after the flesh, and born according to the flesh. and you say again, that christ, as he was born of mary, was not born after the flesh, but begotten and brought forth by promise. to this i answer, first, that this is nothing to the question; for though he was begotten and brought forth by promise, doth this prove, that therefore he was not borne after the flesh? for isaac was borne according to the promise, yet he was borne after the flesh likewise; so gods promise concerning christ's birth, doth not prove, that therefore he was not borne according to the flesh. and whereas thou sayest, he that was borne after the flesh, persecuted him that was born after the spirit; i say, that though this be true in sinful unregenerate men, that have no other birth and generation, than what was after the flesh: yet it is not true in christ, and his being borne after the flesh; for he being without sin, did not persecute him that was borne after the spirit, as sinful men do. and therefore james, because thou sayest christ was not borne after the flesh, show me a plain text for such a doctrine, without any of these conceited consequences; or else take shame to thyself, for finding fault with proofs that others bring, when they do not give the express text. thou tellest me of my promise to repent, if i should be better informed, etc. to this i answer, that thou hast rather strengthened my former opinions of thee, than any way better informed me, except i will take thy bare saying i lie, for a better information. thou now comest upon me with a pack of questions, to which i shall answer. his first question is, whose spirit that is which men understand the scriptures with, and try spirits with, who are without the spirit of god? seeing thou affirms, that a man may understand scriptures without the spirit of god? or whether god hath set up such a tryer, yea or no. answ. the greatest part of this question, is grounded upon a false bottom, (viz.) (something that i said) which is most part false; for i did never say those words: yet i have answered to them, so far as i am concerned, in my answer to thy letter which thou sentest to me, after our meeting at gerard roberts, in the former part of this book: but yet if by understanding the scriptures, thou dost mean all things contained in them; i say, this he cannot do without god's spirit: and if by trying spirits, thou meanest, to try between your spirits, and the spirit of christ; i can say again, that a man without the spirit of god, may by his own spirit understand, that you are not guided by the spirit of truth, that have told so many untruths. his second quest. seeing thou confesseth christ to be the true light, and that he lighteth every man that comes into the world, but denies that light to be within; show in plainness, where he doth enlighten every man that comes into the world, and not within; and how they come by it: and seeing thou sayest every man hath it; how have they it, and not within? this is answered already in page 51. of my book, called quakers quaking. the later part of the question is a lie: for i never said, that every man hath the light of christ, though christ hath used means to bring the world to the light, that their deeds may be reproved. but lest both my books should not come to the reader's hand, i do again answer, that christ is said to enlighten the world, as he pardoneth their sins; though none but them that believe shall receive remission of sins, yet he pardoneth their sins, by proposing a way for the pardon of them; so christ inlightens every man (i, and that within too, if you will have it) by giving them means to be enlightened within, though thousands (like yourselves) stumble, because there is no light in them. 3. quest. seeing thou confessest, that the heathen have a light that reproves them of sin, but not within, show where it is, and what it is; whether the light of christ or no, and how they came by it? answ. that the heathen may have a light among them, that may not be in them, i have already shown in my former book, page 52. but further, did not christ tell the pharisees, luke 17.2. that the kingdom of god was within them, when indeed it was but among them? and so the margin reads it: for they were far enough from having his kingdom erected in their inward man. in like manner may god send light among the heathen, which may not be within every individial man of them. and whereas you ask me, what light it is? i say, it is the light of nature, which taught them to do by nature the things contained in the law. and whereas you ask, how they came by it? i answer, that, that manifestation they have, is from god, for god hath showed it to them, rom. 1.19. 4. quest. whether that which reproves the heathen when they sin, be the same that reproves thee when thou sinnest, and the rest, who call yourselves believers? and whether it be in the same place? and wherein doth it differ, as to place, nature, and operation? answ. to which i answer, first, that, that which reproves the heathen of sin, doth reprove us and you too. and as touching the place, i confess it is an odd term: yet i answer, that it is the conscience that must be reproved of sin, according to rom. 2. but yet this light may differ in the nature of it, as the light of the moon differs from the sun; and as a man may see further by the light of the sun, than he can by the light of the moon; even so may them that have the light of christ, have a further inspection into the things of christ, than the gentiles who walk by the light of nature: yet that light of nature we have (together with the light of the gospel) which will convince us of sins against nature; but for sins in the particular circumstances, relating to god's worship, the light of nature will not convince: and here these lights differ in operation also. 5. quest. the fifth question is, whether your light, who call yourselves believers, be within you? and if within you, how came you by it, when you were in darkness, as the moving cause? and if without, how doth it enlighten, and not within? and where doth it abide for you, that is not in you? answ. to this i answer, that god which commanded the light to shine out of darkness, is he which hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of god in the face of jesus christ, 2 cor. 4.6. this being answered, there is no need of answering the later part of this quaere, for the light that is in believers doth abide in their hearts. 6. quest. whether that light which is not within, can enlighten the heart and understanding? whether the gospel be not hid to all who have their hearts and minds blinded? and whether it be not the work of the god of this world, to blind hearts? whether such as deny the light within, and preach against it, lest people should believe in it, be not in his work and ministry, yea or no? answer. to the former part of this question, i answer by concession: to the later part, if by preaching against light within, you mean preaching against the light of christ in his saints, we make one mind with you; but if you mean preaching against your notion, viz. that every one hath the light of christ in him; then i say, that a man may preach against this, and say with john, he that walks in the dark, hath no light in him. 7 quest. what kind of faith thine is, who hast denied the faith that is the gift of god? and how thou camest by it, which god did not give thee? and whether that faith which is not of god, he not of the devil, yea or no? answ. this question is grounded upon another of thy false suggestions, as i have showed already: for though i deny thy faith to be god's gift, yet i did never tell thee that my faith was not his gift: and though i do say, that no faith is the gift of god as you fancy it, to wit, that men must do nothing towards the obtaining it, but wait till they are puffed up with your quaking dotages; yet i do say, that we ought to contend for that faith that was once given to the saints. 8. quest. did ever any of the saints profess a faith which they received not of god? and whether thy contention be for the faith once delivered to these saints? and if so, from whom hadst thou it, seeing thou deniest it to be the gift of god? answ. this question is the same with the former, and therefore the same answer will serve to it, as to the former. however, i cannot but take notice, that thou multipliest words without knowledge, or else thou mightest have seen this question to be the same with the former, and grounded upon the same falsity. 9 quest. what faith is that which pleads for sin, and preacheth against perfection? that believes they can never be free from sin, nor come to perfection, while they are in this world? show the saints that so believed, and so preached. answ. this i have in part answered already, some pages before, when i proved, that by the import of this question, that you professed to be perfect men; which you were forced to deny, when i laid so many imperfections and inconsistencies upon you, that you leapt over many, and did not answer them; yet i shall add this further, that the faith which pleads for sin, is of the devil (if such a thing may be called faith) and from beneath: but where didst thou learn this dialect, as to call a pleading for sin, faith? whereas the scripture notes it for unbelief. 10 quest. is not the end of christ's ministry for the perfecting of the saints? and is not that antichrist, whose ministry is against it? or is christ's ministry now changed from what it was? answ. the end of christ ministry, is for the perfecting the saints; and that is antichrists ministry that is against it; and christ's ministry is not changed from what it was. 11 quest. whether that faith which is not of god can receive the things of god, or can be imputed for righteousness to him that hath it? and is not his righteousness of himself, whose faith is of himself? or can it be otherwise, if it be the righteousness of faith? a. this question is confused like the qerent that made it, or else he would never ask, whether the faith which is of god, can receive the things of god? and, is not his righteousness of himself, whose faith is of himself? and yet ask in the latter end of the same quaere, if it can be otherwise, if it be the righteousness of faith? therefore till he understand better how to make a question, i shall forbear to answer any otherwise, but that he that hath not the faith of god, is not of god; neither can any other faith be imputed for righteousness, then that which is of faith in christ jesus. 12 quest. whether he that hath not received the faith, be not an infidel? or is he to be believed in matters of god and christ? and being of a false faith, is it safe to believe what he saith against the children of light? answ. if by the faith of god, you mean the faith that you do profess, which is, that christ was not born after the flesh; then i say, that this faith is not the gift of god, neither is he an infidel that hath not received it; neither is he to be believed in matters of god and christ, whatsoever he talks and prates of, if he have such a false faith neither is it safe to believe what a man of such a â��aith saith, either against the children of light, or â��â��y body else. 13 quest. whether it be not plain nonsense to say, that christ doth enlighten every one that comes into the world, (as thou dost confess in thy book) and then to deny that light to be in that inlightens? answ. thou mightest as well ask, whether john did not speak nonsense, in saying, joh. 1. that christ is the true light, that lightens every one that comes into the world; and yet afterwards in joh. 11.10. says, if a man do walk in the night he stumbles, because there is no light in him. but to this i have spoke once and again, in my last and this also. 14 quest. whether paul was rightly called and endued to the ministry, who was not sent to baptise? and whether it was not a sign that john was decreasing, and christ increasing, that being left out in paul's command, who was called after christ was offered up? and cannot a man now be a minister of christ, and not sent to baptise? answ. i answer, first, paul was rightly called and endued, though (he saith) he was not sent to baptise. but james, how canst thou prove, that this relates to his not baptising with water; since thou wilt not have that text in matth. 28. so understood? but tell'st me, our understanding the text to be meant of water, is a crooked consequence, because the word water is not expressed: though thereupon i have said so much, that it would trouble thee to answer; and therefore thou cunningly slipst it over, and sayest nothing to it. and now james, how canst thou, without the like consequence, prove this was meant of water, since the word water is not here expressed? but 2. if that be granted, that it is meant of water, doth this prove (because it is said, he was not sent to baptise) that therefore he was not in any sense commanded to it? doth not the scriptures sometimes lay down such say, that are to be understood chief and eminently, and not exclusively? as, labour not for the meat that perisheth; doth this therefore prove, that believers are not to labour for earthly bread at all, but eat the bread of idleness, as you do? in like manner is this saying of paul's to be understood, who though he was not chief and eminently sent to baptise, but to preach the gospel, yet he also did baptise, as the same place, 2 cor. 1.14, 16. doth declare. now if paul did baptise, it was either in the name of god and christ, or his own name; but it was not in his own name, for this he denies, ver. 13. when he saith, either were you baptised in the name of paul? well then, if he did baptise in the name of christ, than i quaere, whether it be not great wickedness to do a thing in the name of god or christ, that christ never commanded? and therefore i say, paul's saying, he was not sent to baptise, doth not prove, that therefore john was decreasing; if by decreasing you mean, that the things that john was a preacher of should decrease; for, john was a preacher of repentance, as well as waterbaptism: and may you not as well say, that he decreased in one thing, as well as another? and to the last branch of the quaere, i say, that in the sense paul was a minister of christ, and was not sent to baptise, a man may be a minister of christ now: but did you ever find a minister of christ in all the new testament, that did not baptise at all, or that said as you do, that baptism with water is not god's command? 15 quest. your next question is, seeing the last of matthew is your strength for waterbaptism, i ask, whether one may not be baptised into the name of father, son, & holy ghost, without being dipped in carnal water? also, whether all you dip in water, you baptise into the name of the father, son, and holy ghost? if the first of these be yea, and the later no, than i conclude, that carnal dipping is not the thing. answ. as for thy word carnal water, it is a word of thy own; and therefore i have nothing to say to it. but as touching the rest of the question, i say, that the former is nay, and the latter yea, to use your own phrases; for none were ever baptised into the name of father, son, and holy ghost, that were not baptised with water; and do thou prove it if thou canst, without a crooked consequence, and i will believe all you say: and the latter is yea, for we do not baptise any, but we do it in the name of father, son, and holy ghost. 16 quest. doth every one that reads the bible, hear the word of god? or hath every one the word that hath a bible? and what difference is there between the ministration of the letter now, and that in the jews time, both denying the faith which is the gift of god? and will that save now more without the ministration of the spirit, then in their days? answ. first, every one that reads the bible, reads the word; though it is true, that many can read, that do not hear. again, 2. every one that hath the bible, hath the word; if by word you mean the written commands of god, and his promises to them that obey, and his threaten to them that obey not. and whereas you ask me, what difference is between the ministration of the letter now, and that in the jews time, since both denied the faith which is the gift of god, etc. i wonder at thy ignorance, james; doth not paul say, 2 cor. 3.7. that the ministration written with letters, was glorious? and was not that to the jews in the jews time? and yet thou hast the face to say, that the ministration of the letter in the jews time, did deny the faith of god; and so thou sayest now: but where hast thou a text for this, that proves the ministration of the letter to deny the faith of god at any time? is not this one of thy brainsick notions? and whereas you ask, if it would save now without the spirit, more than in their days? i say, that question is needless; for, neither then nor now can men be saved, without god's spirit: but what's this to thy purpose, who saith, that the ministration of the letter in the jews time, and now, do both deny the light and faith, which is the gift of god? for shame man leave off thy talking of god, without thou couldst speak more to purpose, and less to his dishonour! 17 quest. whether that righteousness that a man reads in the letter, sets him to do the like without faith, which is the gift of god, or the leadings of the light of christ, the ministration of the spirit, be the righteousness of faith, or self-righteousness? answ. the letter no where sets men to do the righteousness which it calls for, without the faith of god and christ. 2. to the latter part of your question, i answer, that the righteousness of faith which men have by the light of christ, and the ministration of the spirit, is not self-righteousness. thus have i plainly and faithfully transcribed thy questions, and answered them; which in reason thou couldst not expect, since thou hast left mine unanswered: and were it not but that thou wouldst have been wise in thy own conceit, i should scarce have taken the pains; and if thou shouldst joy in the strength of thy quaeres, know, that the joy of the hypocrite will be but for a moment, till my answer can overtake them. postscript. reader, some passages thou hast, for which there is but his yea, and my nay; and therefore, that you may know on which side the truth lieth, examine my former book, and his answer, and see if that he hath not accused that book of many things, that were neither in the book, nor the author's heart: and by that thou wilt perceive, that he that will not stick to belie me in a matter so publicly made known, as my book is, will not matter to do the like, and worse, concerning what i spoke more private. and also compare this reply with his answer, and see if i have falsely related or perverted any saying in his book, but have faithfully and impartially transcribed them; and see if i have omitted replying to any thing that is of weight, or indeed to the lightest thing that doth but look like an argument; and see also, if he hath not left out many arguments, and many pages, to which he saith nothing; and whether he hath not added to, and taken from most things that he mentions of my book, and then attempts to answer it. and whereas he would excuse his error of denying christ born after the flesh, by saying, that that which is born after the flesh, is flesh, and that which is born after the spirit, is spirit: whether by the rule of contraries, it doth not undeniably follow, that that which is not born after the flesh, is not flesh? and then, what doth he less, then deny christ to be made flesh, by the perverting those scriptures, joh. 3. and gal. 4. whatever he saith to the contrary? consider, and weigh things aright, and the lord give you understanding in all things. vale. reader, thou art desired to correct these two mistakes, and all others thou meetest with, of this or any other kind. page 30. lin. 21. for fifteenth read seventeenth. p. 35. l. 14. for page 14. read page 19 finis. reader, these may certify, that jer: ives did not utter any such thing as james nayler falsely charges upon him, viz. as that all good was not of god: neither did he deny faith and obedience to be god's gift, but in the sense mentioned in this reply: neither did he say any of those things; as, that the wilderness where john baptised was in jerusalem, etc. and we do further certify, that the account he hath given of that conference at gerard roberts, in this reply to james nayler, is true; we being there all the time, and heard none of those things, save what jer: ives hath here acknowledged, and given an account of in this his answer to that lying letter. witness our hands, john fry. rich. cleiveland. william nash. reader, whereas james nayler denies that ever he knew of the fetching the last letter mentioned in this book; which letter was to prove, he had writ some things that was false concerning jer: ives: now these may certify, that it was publicly declared to his face, that the letter should be fetched for to prove him a liar, and accordingly it was: and when the letter came, he was gone; though it was told him, if he would stay, the letter should be produced, to prove his false speaking (though in his book he denies he knew of the fetching of it.) witness my hand this 21 of july, 1656. john fry. a treatise of the causes of incredulity. wherein are examined the general motives and occasions which dispose unbelievers to reject the christian religion. with two letters, containing a direct proof of the truth of christianity. translated fròm the french of monsieur le clerc. london, printed for awnsham and john churchill, at the black swan in pater-noster-row. mdcxcvii. the translator's preface. mr. le clerc is a person so well known to all the learned world, that it could not be thought less arrogant than superfluous for me to give any character of his capacity or his writings. nor can it be said that i transgress either way in recommending the following treatise; for, setting aside all personal considerations, the subject of it is enough to justify my undertaking. the study of religion in general is so natural to man, that some would make this inclination to pass for the only essential distinction of our species from all other animals. but the study of the true religion must needs be of the highest importance, since the profession of it is not acknowledged to be more necessary, than the sects pretending themselves to be the only persons enjoying that happiness, are found to be different from one another in their opinions and practices. this diversity joined to the great number of parties that lay their claim to genuine christianity exclusively of all the rest, seems to render the discovery of the truth very difficult, if not impossible; and indeed thousands of well-meaning people have upon this very account given up themselves to scepticism and indifference in matters of religion; or, which is as bad, are content to be implicitly led by their teachers. now that person deserves best of the world who not only makes the truth plain and intelligible, separating it from all the false notions with which it is so mixed and overrun sometimes as to endanger the entire ruin thereof; but who likewise establishes such an excellent method that a man may be most certain he's on the right side, without being obliged to undergo the endless labour of examining every religion successively. how far our author has contributed to do mankind this desirable piece of service, the reader must determine; for we pretend not to lead his judgement. and though mr. le clerc is so modest as to think his own performance inferior to that of grotius upon the same subject, i must affirm, (and that with all imaginable impartiality) that in my opinion there is no comparison to be made between them; for were it for nothing else but that the evidence of mr. le clerc's reasons is obvious to men of all conditions, whereas most of the other's book is not intelligible but to profound scholars, (as if these only had a right to the privilege of understanding the grounds of their religion) this alone is sufficient to decide the controversy. but what is more, notwithstanding the extraordinary talents of grotius, he was not near so great a master of the oriental languages, nor so acute and solid a philosopher; nor yet superior in philology or history; to speak nothing of the advantages of writing after him. but let mr. le clerc's book speak for its author. as for my version, i shan't detain the reader with any apology, because it is not more correct or polite, if it be faithful and intelligible, which is all that is necessary for those who sincerely study for truth: and if i be so happy as to satisfy them, i care not much for the displeasure of others. to the reader. 'tis some years since i first formed a design of writing upon the subject of this small piece, which i publish at present; and had my other occupations purely depended upon my own choice, this had been performed long ago: but being necessarily engaged in some other things, i was forced to put it off till now. at length having finished my latin writings upon the pentateuch, i happily became master of time enough to turn my applications upon this subject. i can freely say, that i never thought of matters of this nature without extreme satisfaction; for, after what manner soever i could consider the christian religion, it always appeared to me grounded upon the firmest proofs, and the doctrines of it perfectly conformable to sound reason, or (to say all in one word) worthy the creator of heaven and earth. nor did i in my whole life labour with more ardour and delight than i did in composing this work, wherein i have, i think, evidently made out that unbelievers act against all good sense in refusing their assent to the gospel: and i persuade myself, that if they consider the same things that i have, they must necessarily acknowledge the truth of it. but whether i'm mistaken or not, that the world shall judge. if this book have the good luck to meet with that reception in french, which several others of this kind have had, i may one time or other put it into latin; and in my annotations upon it confirm all that i say by the authority of the most ancient apologists of christianity, and that too of the most considering heathens; as the incomparable grotius has done in his books of the truth of the christian religion. i'm far indeed from equalling my work to his, nor do i flatter myself with the same success, as to the judgement of the public: but if men had regard only to the intentions of those that writ, i think i may safely say that none in the world had better than mine, nor was more convinced of the goodness of that cause i have undertaken to defend. john le clerc. the contents of the chapters. the preface, or the design of the author in this work. pag. 1. part i. of the motives of incredulity which spring from the inward disposition or inclinations of unbelievers. chap. 1. that it is unreasonable and unjust to reject the christian religion, because it is contrary to the dispositions a man finds in himself. p. 9 chap. 2. that pride may be the cause why assent is refused to the proofs of the truth of the christian religion. p. 27. chap. 3. that what hinders unbelievers from yielding to the proofs of christianity partly consists, perhaps in mere prejudices, which all the while may be false. p. 45. chap. 4. that many are unbelievers, only because they know not how to reason well. p. 63. chap. 5. that the neglect of searching into truth is often the cause of incredulity. p. 75. chap. 6. that laziness keeps many people in ignorance, doubts and infidelity. p. 93. the conclusion of the first part. p. 107. part ii. of the motives of incredulity which proceed from the occasions given unbelievers to doubt of the christian religion, or entirely to reject it. chap. 1. that the truth of the christian religion ought not to be called in doubt, because several embrace it more out of credulity than upon good reasons. p. 110. chap. 2. that the immorality or ignorance of those who sometimes express the greatest zeal for religion, should not justly render it suspected to unbelievers. p. 131. chap. 3. that the incredulous are in the wrong for rejecting the christian religion, because interest seems to be the main cause of many people's devotion. p. 143. chap. 4. that the divisions which reign among christians, is no good reason why the christian religion should not be true. p. 165. chap. 5. that the incredulous object in vain, that christianity being so little known, and so ill observed in the world as it is, can't be so useful to mankind as a religion revealed from heaven for the good of all men should be. p. 180. chap. 6. that unbelievers can't conclude the christian religion to be false, because the divines of their acquaintance make bad answers to their objections against it, or because they maintain some false tenets as true, and as the doctrine of christ. p. 199. chap. 7. that the difficulties which may occur in the christian religion, ought not to bring the truth of it into doubt. p. 234. the conclusion of the second part. p. 277. of the truth of the christian religion. p. 282. letter 1. wherein is proved the sincerity of the apostles concerning the testimony they rendered to christ's resurrection. p. 283. letter 2. showing what a miracle is, and proving that from the miracles of jesus christ and his apostles, we ought to look upon them as persons truly sent of god. p. 307. errata. page 18. line 23. read angusta. p. 23. l. 8. deal and. of incredulity. the preface, containing the design of the author in this work. i cannot determine whether, during the first ages of christianity, more books were written by the christians to evince the truth of their religion, than there may have been for these two hundred years past. but that we have fewer remaining of the precedent ages than of the last two, is most certain. the teachers of the primitive church and their followers, whilst paganism was still considerable in the world, laboured more in confuting the religion of the heathens, than to prove the truth of that of jesus christ and his apostles. they thought if they could once convince the heathens of the falsity of their own opinions, that it would be no hard matter then to make 'em christians. and this i could most easily show, were it at all useful to my design. on the contrary, when paganism was abolished in europe, and christianity become the governing religion, the teachers of it then left paganism to attack the religion of the jews, and that of the mahometans, both which are yet in being amongst us. but, beside these two sorts of unbelievers, there is yet a third, who, acknowledging the falsity of the mahometan and rabbinic doctrines, doubt notwithstanding of the christian religion, or peremptorily judge it not true, without setting up any other religion in its place. now to reduce these, a new method was absolutely necessary. it was agreed therefore to prove directly the truth of christianity, without insisting upon the confutation of other persuasions. and it may truly be said, to the honour of the present age, and of that immediately preceding it, that this matter was never managed with better success. the heathens, the jews, and the mahometans were not ill confuted before, but the truth of the christian religion was far from being ever so well proved. i am of opinion nevertheless, that there is still one thing behind, which the most part of the writers upon this subject have either not touched at all, or but very slightly; i mean, the secret motives and general reasons which the incredulous have of not believing christianity to be divinely revealed. their internal disposition or inclinations do so strongly incline them to reject all the reasons offered them, (though they are not ware themselves of the motives by which they do this) that all speaking to 'em is in vain, before the unreasonableness of this disposition be made evident. just as if any should plead a good cause before prepossessed judges, without endeavouring to cure them first of their prejudices, which must needs make them look upon that thing as false, whereupon all the reasons alleged are grounded. 'tis certain, that the pleaders of such a cause, though never so just, would expose themselves to be cast or condemned. this has been notwithstanding the conduct of a great part of the champions of christianity. they have proved the truth of it well enough, but their reasons appear weak to the incredulous, considering the disposition wherein they are, and whereof they know nothing themselves. what is unreasonable therefore in this disposition must be discovered, and laid so clearly before them, that they may perceive how it imposes upon the light of their understandings. this is what the author of the christian religion has taught us, when he said, that every one that doth evil hateth the light, joh. 3.20. neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved: which signifies that unbelievers cannot look upon that as true which is contrary to the maxims by which they have long governed themselves, and to the habits they have been contracting for many years. on the contrary he says, that he that doth truth cometh to the light, ver. 21. that his deeds may be made manifest: that is to say, that such as are disposed to live according to the prescriptions of the gospel, are easily persuaded of the truth of it. in the same sense he says elsewhere, that if any will do his will, joh. 7.17. he shall know of the doctrine whether it be of god, or whether of himself. beside the disposition wherein those may be who disbelieve the gospel, and which deceives them without their perceiving of it, there are likewise certain general reasons drawn from without that help to lead them into error. these reasons must by all means be exploded, because they are to them so many prejudices whereby they determine the truth and falsehood of all that is said to them. whilst they think 'em good, all the proofs imaginable can make no impression upon them; because they never fail of opposing to them these reasons, which concluding to be solid, they cannot at the same time embrace christianity. there are a world of people, for example, who, discovering several of those doctrines that go under the name of christ to be false, judge of the rest by these, and reject the good with the bad. they are told of a thousand lying miracles, to whom those of jesus christ and his apostles are joined: but finding the modern miracles to be impostures, they give no greater credit to those upon which the christian religion is grounded. as long as they are of the mind that these miracles are not more certain one than another, all the consequences drawn from those of christ appear to them as built upon a rotten foundation, and the christian religion therefore but as a tottering fabric. it must be shown the incredulous then, that those reasons drawn from without which induce them to reject the gospel, have no solidity in them: and after this it may be hoped that the proofs of its truth may have some effect upon their minds. i design to proceed according to this method in the present discourse, where, after having examined the inward disposition of unbelievers, and also showing the unreasonableness of it, i shall discover the weakness of those arguments drawn from without, by which they judge of the christian religion. before i begin i must once more advertise my reader, that the unbelievers which i attack are neither the jews nor the mahometans, but those, who, making an outward profession of the christian religion, conceal in the mean time their real thoughts from the world; but when they think to do it without danger, they declare to their friends in private, that they believe not the truth of it. not but that the pagans, jews, and mahometans are frequently guilty of the same faults with those unbelievers whereof i treat; but it would be labour in vain to trouble ourselves with such as never read the writings of the christians; and who, because of their prejudices, are in a manner uncapable of reasoning rightly. i writ merely for the sake of those unbelievers among christians into whose hands this book is like to come, or for such as may happen to be seduced by their reasons. beside this sort of unbelievers, that commonly reject whatever is said to be revealed, there is yet another kind of men infinitely more numerous, who are unbelievers by halves, and to whom many things in this work may be properly applied. these own in general, that the gospel is true, but will be sure to admit of no particular therein that is absolutely incompatible with their own inclinations or habits. such doctrines they cannot persuade themselves to be evangelic, which is almost the same thing as if they rejected half the new testament, or rather entirely renounced it; seeing that jesus christ will not have the heart to be thus divided between himself and the world. whilst i prove against them who reject all the christian religion, that their dispositions or inclinations cannot be the rule of truth and falsehood, i show to those half-vnbelievers, that they grossly impose upon themselves in receiving nothing of the gospel, but only what serves their turn. finally, i don't pretend to have exhausted the subject i treat of. an infinite number of cases or questions may be raised about matters of this nature, without any possibility of examining them all. and there may be, i deny not, even some general maxims forgotten by me, which cannot be commodiously reduced to those i have laid down, worthy nevertheless to be discussed, and serviceable to my design. but this others may do, if they think fit; or i may do it one day myself, if i should ever enlarge this work. i have purposely said in the title-page, that i examined the general reasons of unbelievers, that the answers to many particular objections they are wont to make may not be expected in this book. they must be looked after in systems of theology, or in the commentators upon the holy scripture. but i'll presume to say, that these particular objections are to be little feared, when once all general difficulties are removed out of the understanding, because the same principles that answer the one, may serve to solve the other; or, at least, prevent their having any ill effect, if they cannot be answered; as it may be seen in the second part of this discourse. part i. of the motives of incredulity which spring from the inward disposition or inclinations of unbelievers. chap. i. that it is unreasonable and unjust to reject the christian religion, because it is contrary to the dispositions a man finds in himself. had men been pure intelligences, solely applying themselves to the search of truth and falsehood, disposed to regulate their lives according to the discoveries they should make, and all this without causing to them any pain or trouble; there could be no other thing needful, than to cure them of their errors, or to reform their conduct, but only to demonstrate those truths to them whereof they were ignorant before, and to show that they lived not accordingly. but the judgements which men form of most things, depend as much upon the habits they have contracted, and which they cannot easily correct, as upon the light of their understanding, and ratiocinations. such as are accustomed, for example, to live idly, never thinking of any thing that is useful, and that can thus pass away their time without any apprehensions of poverty; these, i say, look upon all reasons offered for painstaking or study, to be only the discourses of morose people, who are strangers to the enjoyments of life. the strongest arguments to prove that every one is obliged to be some way useful to the society whereof he's a member, appear to such without any foundation; though others judge 'em demonstrative. but how comes this to pass? 'tis because the habit they have got of living in idleness, keeps them from attentively considering what is said; for they fix their thoughts upon quite contrary ideas, the remembrance whereof is at the same time very grateful to them. they think upon that soft indolency, and that pleasing laziness, wherein they spent the best of their days without any chagrin; and their minds are so taken up with these contemplations, that there is no room left for any thing less agreeable. as much may be said of all good and ill habits of a long continuance, as it must be granted by all that are capable of making the least reflection; and this truth every person has learned a thousand times from experience, or may do it when he will. some body, perhaps, that has not sufficiently studied the heart of man, will be apt to say, that when a habit is found to be evil, it ought to be presently changed into a good one. this is indeed most easily said, but nothing more difficult to practise. when a man is used to a certain manner of living and thinking, it must be owned that he takes pleasure in it; for this is the necessary effect of all habits: now when once a thing is accompanied with pleasure, we cannot forbear loving it; and whilst we thus love it, there is no leaving of it without great struggle, and putting an extreme violence upon our inclinations. as the habits we already have, were contracted by degrees; so a great deal of time is requisite to acquire others: for as there is need of time to destroy an old habit, so there is likewise to form a new one. for if to be undeceived in any thing, it were only necessary to listen like pure spirits, we should in one quarter of an hour run from one extreme to the other. nothing makes time necessary in order to become virtuous, but because we are unwilling to be so: and did we desire it, we should quickly learn to live honestly and happily. longam facit operam, quod repugnamus: erevis est institutio vitae honestae beataeque, si credas. quintil. inst. orat. lib. 12. c. 6. should it happen then that we ha●● habits quite contrary to such as the christian religion requires of men, they would certainly dispose us to look upon every thing which that religion does teach to b● false, and to refuse submission to it● laws. i don't say yet, that those contrary dispositions to the gospel are good or bad; but i desire only the supposition which i now made to be granted me: and i think none can deny me this, without denying at the same time what i laid down at the beginning, concerning the influence our habits have over our reason, with the difficulty of conquering them. but these are truths so evident to all the world, that there's no possibility of disagreeing from them. this being so, behold the picture of man that rejects the christian religion because it is contrary to his present disposition, however he came by it. he's a man that says to himself, all that is taught by this religion is false, because it is repugnant to my condition. i'm too honest a man to deserve damnation; but this must nevertheless be, were the christian religion true: it is therefore false, and i shall never believe it. 'tis absurd, some will say, to suppose a man's disposition to be good, without any other proof, but that to believe the contrary is a troublesome thing, and that one is obliged to condemn himself. no body, say they, can reason after this manner, unless it be some fool. i grant it; but there are many more fools of this sort than we imagine. such as believe their own sentiments to be the only true ones in the world, (and these are almost all mankind) what judgement do they make of those, who, without examining, reject them? do they not conclude, that such as act in that manner, being well pleased with their own condition, judge every thing true that agrees with it, and the contrary false? 'tis true, nevertheless, that no body reasons formally so, distinctly considering every proposition, and their connection with one another. no person makes this formal paralogism: i'm an honest man; what is contrary to the ideas and the conduct of an honest man is false; therefore the christian religion, which is contrary to my ideas and conduct, is false. but 'tis certain, that the mind supposing the two first propositions without expressly reflecting upon them, does thence infer the mentioned conclusion we pass over the premises so quickly that we perceive not whence the conclusion is drawn; only we find our selve● strongly persuaded of its truth. let us imagine that we understand the language of the cannibals, and that we preach to them this maxim, received by almost all nations, that to fatten men in order to eat them, is a horrible thing can we believe that they would immediately agree to it? that they would detest their former customs, and live ever afterwards as we do? 'tis plain, that they would resist the truth we should preach to them, as long a time as other nations do all sentiments contrary to their own. but what reason can they pretend for this abominable manner of living? none at all, except what i have now mentioned. and 'tis so with all those whose passions will not permit 'em to renounce their errors: for neither the atrocity of the crime, nor the grossness of the mistake, will cause any change in their conduct. were any body assured that his disposition was good and conformable to reason; that is, if he had clear and evident proofs that he was what he really aught to be, and that he could not change into better; he might then justly conclude, that any doctrine repugnant to his disposition must be false. knowing, for example, as we do, that it is a horrible thing to eat one another; if any notwithstanding should persuade us to eat a man, we might reasonably do all that the horror of such an action could dictate to us. before we follow therefore the inclinations which custom begets in us, we ought to be fully convinced by clear and indubitable reasons, that such a custom is well grounded. and if the unbelievers who reject the christian religion because it is contrary to their passions, had good reasons to believe those passions lawful, we could not reproach them with their infidelity. but if, on the contrary, we can show that these passions are , and contrary to the light of reason, 'tis certain they ought to acknowledge themselves in the wrong, and we might justly complain of their obstinacy. i don't know how these maxims can be contested, seeing they are founded upon the evidence of common sense. it may be said, perhaps, that, without so many preambles, i should have come directly to the point, and show that unbelievers refuse assent to the gospel from ill-grounded prejudices. but i thought it necessary that the principles whence i draw the following consequences, should be seriously considered. as those who reason from their present disposition, do it without thinking on't, i take it for granted, that the greatest part of unbelievers commit the same fault; and i beg of them to retire, as it were, into themselves, there to examine all the principles by which they have determined not to believe the truth of the christian religion. seeing the morals of it are opposite to all the vices that reason condemns, it is impossible that any should reject it, without finding himself engaged in some of these vices: for why should any reject as false what is conformable to reason, except it be that he's in a disposition contrary to this same reason? although 'tis not always perceived, it follows not that the thing is otherwise. it merits therefore some attention. the morals of the gospel are reduced, according to the expression of one of christ's apostles, to live temperately, justly, and piously. temperance comprehends all the virtues which regard ourselves; justice them that concern our neighbour; and piety those which relate to god. our own good requires us to live temperately, as the heathen philosophers have demonstrated: now temperance consists in a moderate desire of honours, riches, and pleasures. we should not court honours but by lawful ways, not as a means to live great, but to be useful to the society wherein we live. and this cannot be, except we are capable of duly discharging those offices which we seek, and of using those honours we are ambitious of, to good purpose. as for riches, the gospel forbids us to desire 'em as a good; but if, without breach of any christian virtue, we become rich, it commands us, not to deprive ourselves of what is necessary, but to impart our superfluities to the needy. and as to pleasures, we may take none but such as are not contrary to any duty the gospel enjoins, and in such a measure as will not engage us to violate any of its laws. thus the gospel will have us to sacrifice all our pleasures to what it ordains us, and that we resolve upon suffering all sorts of evils, rather than neglect one of its commands. these are the principal duties very near, that regard ourselves: for i design not to make here a complete abridgement of the christian morals: for my subject does not require it; and it suffices that i bring to mind the chief heads of them. the justice which the gospel recommends to us, does contain two things: one is, to render every one his due; and this is what the heathens themselves called justice. the other is, to do for our neighbour all that we would wish him to do for us were we in his condition: that we should pardon him, for example, when he does us wrong, rather than to revenge it; and help him in all that we can, and that is no way contrary to the precepts of the gospel. the civil laws may compel us, in part at least, to render every man his due, and they are established for this purpose; but nothing can oblige us to do more, except the desire of living conformable to the christian morals. the heathens themselves have acknowledged, that to be good men there was need of a great deal more than the civil laws required. what a poor virtue is it, says a philosopher, to be only good according to the laws? how much larger is the rule of the duties we are obliged to, than that of the law? how many things are required by piety, humanity, justice, liberality, and fidelity, that are not expressed in the public records? quam augusta innocentia est ad legem bonum esse? quanto latius patet officiorum, quam juris regula? quam multa pietas, humanitas, liberalitas, justitia, fides exigunt, quae omnia extra publicas tabulas sunt? as it would be impossible to fulfil these duties upon all sorts of occasions, especially when the observation of them should endanger reputation, goods, or life, if there were no reward to be expected in this life nor after death by such as lived according to the gospel; so god has promised to protect good men here as far as should be needful for them, and to render them eternally happy hereafter. to believe these promises, and to have that gratitude for the divinity which his goodness requires of us, is what the gospel calls piety. this is an abridgement of the morals of jesus christ, and which no body can reject, but because he's not disposed to live accordingly; as i'm going to show by some examples. when jesus christ and his apostles began to preach the gospel, few persons of quality, or that pretended to considerable employments, embraced it, as we learn it from themselves. at this day such as doubt of the truth of christianity, or are resolved to believe it false, are frequently men of the same rank. all that are acquainted with the world know very well, that the common people, and those that have no aspiring thoughts, are more rarely troubled with incredulity or doubts than persons of quality, and those who pretend to great preferments, or think themselves worthy of such. if we look for the reasons of this in the persons themselves, we shall not find that the ambitious do reason better than others, or discover defects in christianity unknown to the rest of the world. on the contrary, such as think of nothing but advancing themselves, do not commonly study much in the gospel; and as they are ignorant of the beauties of it, they could not be more capable than others to find out the weakness of it if it had any. all the knowledge they possess above the rest of men, is only the art of so governing themselves in the world as to come at their ends. the true reason why they doubt, or that throws them into incredulity, is nothing else but their predominant passion ambition, which is too opposite to the morals of the gospel, to lodge in any heart throughly persuaded of its truth, or touched by its maxims. let us suppose a man very desirous to possess a considerable charge without having fit talents for it; or if he has, that he designs not to serve his country by his place, but only to live splendidly and luxuriously: we may suppose farther, that he makes use of all tricks to obtain it, and that he's ready to do any thing sooner than miss of it. this passion which entirely takes him up, and fills his whole imagination with the pleasure that accompanies all his desires, makes him look upon his own conduct as the most reasonable and the most innocent in the world. if a man in this disposition hears of the gospel (the first time we may suppose) and be told what christ said of ambition, can any wonder if he rejects it, or is the reason of it hard to be guessed? notwithstanding, it were easy to show that what the gospel teaches concerning ambition is conformable to the clearest evidence of good sense, and that many pagan philosophers have taught it likewise. if the disposition therefore of an ambitious man determines him to disbelieve the gospel, he must own at the same time, that he acts contrary to the clearest light of reason. the same reasoning may be properly made concerning the avaricious, the voluptuous, the unjust, the vindicative man, and all others that are engaged in habits opposite to the gospel. a certain portugueze called vriel acosta, who turned jew, and fell into sadducism, could not digest that precept of the gospel, viz. to love our enemies; because being naturally revengeful, and having been ill used by the jews of amsterdam, he could never find in his heart to forgive them. he concluded therefore, that the practice of this command being impossible, it was in vain to give it to men, and could not believe that god had revealed it. 'tis true, that a man extremely vindicative, and for many years indulging himself in this passion, cannot, without a miracle, be brought of a sudden to pardon, or patiently to suffer injuries. in this disposition he's always sure to reject the gospel, by reason of this one precept, or at least to refuse submission to this article, supposing that the rest are not too repugnant to his inclinations. but if in those intervals wherein his revenge is as it were suspended a while, he comes to consider the fatal effects of this passion, which would engage men, if they always obeyed it, in perpetual wars and quarrels that could never terminate but in the death of one or both the persons; he must acknowledge that revenge is a most dangerous passion, and that one or the other had better forgive his enemy, or rather to pardon one another, so to put an end to their mutual injuries. he will wish, it may be, that his enemies would entertain the same consideration, and cast off this spirit of vengeance, being ready to do as much on his side. the more this thought comes into his mind, the more reasonable it will appear to him, and the more conformable to the true interests of mankind. by little and little will the desire of seeing his enemies cured of so great an imperfection increase; and he will insensibly rid himself of it, to show them a good example. at length, instead of longing to revenge himself upon his enemies, instead of making imprecation against them, he'll ardently wish they may become better men, and will beg it of god in his prayers. nay, he'll on his side, as much as possible, contribute towards it, and after praying god, as he does for himself, that his enemies may become more virtuous, he'll wish 'em all that god is wont to bestow and more, as much as he would desire it for himself. now, this it is to love our enemies, for we cannot love them above ourselves, and the gospel requires no more. it will be granted that these thoughts are most reasonable, and that it were to be wished all mankind had the like ideas. and as men so disposed would very easily comprehend the possibility of loving our enemies, they would be far from doubting of the truth of christianity upon the score of this precept. all that can be said to this, is, that those who reject the religion of christ, do it not upon the account of its morals, which are beyond contradiction very good, and grounded upon the clearest light of reason; but because it contains, in their opinion, incredible mysteries, and supposes miracles that have no probability. two things we must remark then, that we may know whether the difficulty they pretend of believing the mysteries and miracles of religion, or whether the dislike of its moral precepts, is the true cause of their incredulity. the first is, if they don't believe many things as incomprehensible or perplexed: and the second, if the maxims of their morals be as reasonable as those of the gospel, or if they be not plainly opposite to it. if it happens that upon all other accounts they readily believe things they do not comprehend, and that the rules of their conduct be more than the gospel admits, do they not give us just occasion to suspect that their ill habits are the secret, but true cause of their disbelief of the gospel, whatever they pretend? there is nothing so common as to see unbelievers strongly persuaded of judiciary astrology, and believing that magicians can do several things beyond the power and order of nature. two great ministers of state, for example, whose actions will not let us think that religion was one of their greatest virtues, are both accused of believing the predictions of astrologers: and one of them of persuading himself that a man who vomited several sorts of liquors, did it by the help of magic. cardinal richlieu, says an historian, consulted, besides astrology, all kinds of divination, even silly women, whose knowledge consists in vapours that make 'em foretell by chance some fortuitous events. he was so credulous as to attribute to the operation of the devil the art of throwing out at the mouth all sorts of liquors, after having first drunk water, as was done by an italian mountebank. mazarin, who was not yet a cardinal, having at so simple a discourse burst out a laughing, had like to lose his favour by it: for the cardinal being provoked at this mirth, whereby he thought mazarin jeered him, said ironically to him, that he was not monsieur mazarin who had a profound and exact knowledge of every thing. mazarin very submissively replied, that giving the fifty pistols which the mountebank demanded for teaching his secret, it might be seen whether the devil had any hand in't. mazarin himself looked upon all divinations as fopperies, except astrology, which he strongly fancied, though he feigned the contrary. when madam mancini his sister died, and afterwards the duchess of mercaeur his niece, according to the prediction of an ginger, at rome, given in writing a great while before, he became extraordinary sad and melancholy, not out of tenderness to his relations, but because this same ginger had fixed the term of his own death to a time that was very near. he lost his appetite upon it, and slept not for many nights, etc. 'tis also known, that the emperor julian, who could not believe the prophecies of the old and new testament, was extremely addicted to the auguries and presages drawn from the entrails of victims, and the heathens themselves have blamed him for it. i take it for granted, that such things as these are as hard to be credited, considered in themselves, as the mysteries and miracles of the christian religion. but the incredulous believe them at the same time that they refuse their assent to the gospel; because these opinions do not regard the manner of any person's living, and are not at all incompatible, as the christian morals are, with their ill habits. moreover, if the unbelievers would strictly examine themselves, and compare their conduct with that which the gospel prescribes, i'll own myself much deceived if they find it proof against the rigour of its precepts. julian, of whom i was speaking, had many excellent qualities which he needed not to quit by any means, had he remained still a christian; and several bad ones he had likewise, which he must have rid himself of, would he follow the morals of the gospel. at least, it is certain that he could not be so injurious to the christians as he was, which appears by many of his letters. from all this i conclude, that notwithstanding whatever can be said, the disposition of a person does exceedingly contribute to make him receive or reject christianity; and that unbelievers ought to examine themselves hereupon, to see whether this, whereof we accuse them, be not true. chap. ii. that pride may be the cause why assent is not granted to the proofs of the truth of the christian religion. pride is inconsistent with a strong and lively persuasion that christianity is true; not only because the gospel condemns it, as it does all other passions contrary to the good of mankind, but also because those affected with it find themselves disposed by a particular effect of this vice to reject unexamined the proofs alleged for the truth of the gospel. this is what i design to show, after i have first described pride and its contrary virtue humility, lest what i am to say concerning it should not be so well understood. pride is no other thing but a disposition of mind that makes a man imagine he possesses more knowledge, endowments or virtues than he truly does; and that by consequence he should be more honoured and esteemed than he deserves. the proud cannot without vexation bear that the one or the other should be denied to them, especially if they are not refused to other persons. they have not only a high idea of themselves, but likewise despise others, who, they are easily persuaded, have not the same good qualities, nor any thing worthy of that esteem which they pretend to be their own due. the too good opinion any conceives of himself, is ever accompanied with a contempt of others, and both the one and the other are equally apparent outwardly. those who suffer themselves to be blinded with this passion, believe not only that there are no good qualities except in their own persons, and in such as admire them; but they also abhor all that to them appears ordinary, and think they should debase themselves, had they any thoughts that were common to several others. such were, for example, the ancient stoics, who imagined they had more knowledge than all the world besides, and that they were above those weaknesses remarkable in other men. they looked upon those with scorn and pity (if their principles would permit 'em to have any) who were not persuaded of their doctrines. they troubled themselves little with the sentiments of others which they considered as idle dreams, and never spoke of the most ordinary things but in strange terms. pain was not an evil, pleasure was not a good, all virtues were equal, there was no difference between vices; their sage only had common sense, all others were fools. they uttered a thousand paradoxes of this nature, only to distinguish themselves from the vulgar, who have ideas very opposite to these. on the contrary humility, which is the same virtue the heathens called modesty, consists in having no other sentiments of ourselves but what are proportioned to our good qualities, and not to pretend to honours that are not due to us. nay, this virtue goes yet further, and those whom we may call humble patiently suffer themselves to be debased much below their merit. as those who have this virtue esteem not themselves more than they ought, so they are far from despising others, and willing to do them all the justice they can reasonably wish. nor are they vexed to see people that are their inferiors in many respects exalted above them, and more considered than they deserve. this virtue may be remarkably seen in the primitive christians, who perfectly knowing the errors of the heathens, and the defects of their philosophy, did not reject however all that it taught, to distinguish themselves from the pagan philosophers. on the contrary, they readily approved all that was good in it, and were transported to discover a conformity between the notions of those sages admired by the multitude, and the doctrines of the gospel. they even confessed with great sincerity, that the heathen authors did much surpass in eloquence the first writers of the christian religion. clemens alexandrinus in his stromates, and eusebius in his evangelic preparation, can furnish a thousand proofs of it; as well as many other ecclesiastical authors whom i need not cite. such therefore as reject sentiments generally received, or at least received by a great number of persons, should take care that the love of singularity, rather than a demonstration that others are mistaken, has made them quit the beaten road. 'tis true indeed that the multitude of those who embrace a certain opinion, is not a good proof of the truth of it; but on the other hand it is no cogent argument that a thing is false, because many people believe it. it is certain notwithstanding, that to be distinguished from the crowd, a man frequently rejects what he believes true, for no other reason, but because it is a vulgar notion. a vain spirit cannot bear that he should be equalled in any thing to an infinite number of persons whose knowledge he believes inferior to his own, and whose mean inclinations aim at nothing but what is common. i'm persuaded that several are unbelievers, because at least the fundamental doctrines of christianity are extremely common. they think it noble to be indeceived concerning vulgar opinions, and to look upon others as people that feed themselves upon chimeras. a man thus conceited of himself, thinks he's elevated far above the credulous multitude, which is led rather by custom, than guided by reason. there is nothing so pleasant, says an epicurean poet, as to live in the exalted temple of wisdom, where you may enjoy a perpetual calm, and whence you may look down upon other men wand'ring and scattered in their different ways of living. — nil dulcius est benè quam munita tenere edita doctrinâ sapientum templa serena; despicere unde queas alios, passimque videre errare, atque viam palantes quaerere vitae. but at bottom, one exposes himself, as i have said already, as much to deception by contemning whatever the vulgar esteems, for no other reason than this; as by blindly embracing all that the multitude authorises. neither its aprrobation nor its hatred are the proper marks of truth or falsehood. if there have been chimeras generally received, there have been also as many ridiculous notions countenanced by a small number of people who imagined themselves more knowing than others. therefore when any finds himself inclined to forsake vulgar sentiments, he ought to take heed that he be not imposed upon by the agreeable thoughts of being exempted from those errors wherein he sees others engaged. this may be as well the delusion of a secret pride, as the effect of uncommon knowledge. it is by so much the more dangerous to fall out of vanity into any singular thoughts, as that when once a man is governed by this principle, it is the hardest thing in the world to make him change his mind. the same passion that leads him into it, confirms him in it insensibly, by reason of the pleasure wherewith it fills those who will be blinded by it, representing them, as i said, to themselves as persons highly elevated above the vulgar. beside all this, vain people imagining they are more clearsighted than others, easily believe themselves never mistaken, and that the rest of men have not the necessary sagacity for discovering the truth. this is the reason that when any, whereof they have not so good an opinion as of themselves, proposes to them sentiments contrary to their own, they will not so much as give him the hearing. the first thought that offers itself then to their minds, or, if you please, the sentiment that is awaked in their heart, is, that if this man spoke the truth, it would follow that a person whom they despise, and not, as they think, without reason, should have more penetration and a sounder judgement than themselves. but this is what they can never agree to; for so they must entirely change the pleasing idea they hitherto entertained of themselves and others. they would be obliged to allow those whom they always believed much their inferiors, a more considerable rank in their esteem than themselves, and, in certain regards, acknowledge their superiority. i shall illustrate this truth by some examples. let's take a jewish doctor, and, if you will, of the sacerdotal race. suppose him to have studied the laws of moses with great application, and the traditions currant among the jews in the apostles time. add likewise, that he succeeded well enough in this study, according to the notion men had of it then; that he thereby acquired a great reputation amongst the most considerable of his nation; and had been preferred to the greatest honours they could confer upon him. a man in these circumstances might very easily conceive a good opinion of his own person and understanding, and consequently despise such as were destitute of those things which procured him all that honour and esteem. now let us suppose, that one of the common people, not of the priestly stock, neither skilled in the law, nor of any esteem in the world, goes to see this eminent priest, and tells him of things directly contrary to his sentiments; maintains against him, for instance, that the best part of the traditions he had learned were contrary to the true sense of the law, and that a man may be acceptable to god without observing any of the mosaic ceremonies. now what would the priest, think you, answer to this? what opinion would he have of a person that should speak after this manner? 'tis no difficult business to guests, that he would treat this man with indignation and contempt; a little of his pity is the most he could expect. it is plain notwithstanding, that the priest would be more deserving of this treatment, whatever good opinion he had of himself. to set the effects of pride in another light, let us imagine an epicurean philosopher, a man of parts, and that by his writings and discourses had got himself a considerable reputation amongst the greeks, such as lucian was for example, or any other that you please. this man was accustomed for a great while to laugh at the heathen religion, wherein, doubtless, he was not to blame; but he also joined to it all other religions, without examining them. he looks upon religion in general as mere superstition, or as a trick of politicians to impose upon the simple. he has a hundred times declaimed among his friends against the infatuation and prejudices of mankind in this respect; nor did he miss the return of applause from those of the same disposition. his friend's and his own railleries' against religion have been a long time the best seasoning of their conversation and debauches. let us also send this philosopher to some vulgar person, who undertakes to prove against him, that his epicureanism is the most absurd thing in the world; and endeavours to inspire him with some awe of a divinity, whose providence governs the universe. i desire not that this should be granted me as true or probable, but let us suppose it so a minute or two. now, what will the epicurean say? he'll presently put on a jeering countenance, and laugh at all this man has said to him, without examining any part of it. and indeed, what probability is there that a person of wit should condescend to learn of one who seems to have none, and who is infatuated to boot with the opinions of the mob? these examples belong properly to the ages past; and to be sensible of their force, we must, as it were, forget our own time, and imagine ourselves living before we had yet a being. but such as have any knowledge of antiquity and the present time, and have compared our passions with those of our predecessors, know that the theatre of the world has only changed its ornaments, and that the heart of man is the same now as heretofore. men are proud, as they have always been; and it must be granted, that this passion may work the same effect now, as it could have upon a jewish priest or epicurean philosopher sixteen hundred years ago. we see every day, that a man prejudiced in favour of an opinion, defends it out of vanity, against the clearest evidence of reason. a professor, for instance, that in the university has long taught the old philosophy or the old physic, not only rejects the most ingenious and probable conjectures of the moderns, but even those demonstrations which show us the errors of the ancients as plain as the sun. the reason of this conduct is no other, but that if he acknowledged what the moderns say to be true, he must at the same time own that he taught nothing for many years but pure chimeras: nor can he find in his heart to humble himself so much to others, who have discovered truths whereof he's ignorant. those who doubt of the christian religion, or that reject it, aught to retire within themselves, and consider why they yield not to its reasons. they will find perhaps, that the imaginary pleasure of being above the common level, and their unwillingness to be in the same rank with such as they despise, are the true causes which retain them in their doubts and infidelity; or at least, that this disposition contributes towards it very much. as it cannot be denied that pride is a vice, and modesty a virtue, it must be granted, that such as act by a principle of pride do put themselves in danger, at least of being deceived; and that therefore pride should never be concerned in the search of truth. this every body will own; but i may be asked, how we shall know that a man judges by a principle of vanity, and by what means we can defend ourselves from the delusions of pride? for those who reject the common opinions, will not acknowledge that they do it out of vanity. to this i answer, that besides a man's own consciousness, we may know by two things whether the motive of pride comes into our judgements of things. the first is, that when we judge after that manner, we never carefully examine the matter in question. we content ourselves with a very general and superficial review; after which we peremptorily conclude, without ever beginning our examen anew. 'tis to no purpose for those who are condemned to beg a little patiented hearing, or to have their reasons exactly considered once more; for they shall no longer be listened to. they are condemned without appeal, and can never recover themselves. so a judgement once made without examination, serves for a principle to others, who continue to condemn on what they never well thought of, and will not grant any hearing to their adversaries. if any doubts of what i say, let those who out of pride have rashly decided against the truth they did not understand, endeavour exactly to repeat the reasons of them they have condemned. had they judged after a mature examen, which requires a long and strict discussion of all that was alleged in defence of what they condemned, they would so well understand it, as never to forget it. they could repeat, and show the weakness of each reason brought against them: as we see a judge, that has carefully read and examined all the parts and papers of a trial, report the particulars without any hesitation; especially when it is a matter of consequence, and deserving attention. but i take it for granted, that those who reject the truth of the christian religion, cannot distinctly report the reasons of such as defend it, nor tell what they except against in every one of them. this is what they should examine themselves about, and without which, they must confess they did pronounce a hasty sentence: nor can they, without injustice, refuse to examine once again a matter of so great importance. all the books that have been seen, and all the discourses we could hear upon this subject, contain only some lose difficulties, which seem by no means to be the result of an exact and methodical examination. these difficulties cannot be more sufficient to inform those who would judge solidly of so great an affair, than the objections of one of the parties are to inform equitable judges. we have therefore reason to believe, that those who declare themselves against the christian religion, after resolving out of vanity against the common sentiments, continue to reject them by the same principle. i confess they may have, and that they actually have, other motives; for it is very rare, that in a judgement which is made of a subject so full as the christian religion with all its consequences, there should not enter motives of divers sorts. but i maintain, that the particular one of pride, i have been speaking of, is found among the rest. i won't say here, that the other motives, whatever they may be, are not better than this. i shall prove it in the sequel of this work: for 'tis enough now to show that vanity is concerned in't. another thing whereby it may be known what great influence pride had upon a judgement made of any subject, is, that after having embraced an opinion that cannot be demonstrated, 'tis presumed that this opinion unexamined must serve as an infallible rule to judge of truth and falsehood. mathematicians have their axioms, their definitions, and their suppositions, which they do not demonstrate, by reason of their own great clearness and plainness, which puts 'em beyond the reach of all sorts of doubts. they have reason to suppose them therefore, without proving them; but to suppose most obscure and uncertain, not to say false things, and to make use of those suppositions as principles, is absurd. to expect this method should be approved of, and to treat scornfully those who reject it, is so sensible a mark of their being governed by vanity, that i do not know a greater proof can be given of it. the jews, for example, when the gospel begun to appear in the world, thought they had a right to suppose as indisputable the eternal duration of the mosaic law, and the necessity of observing it in order to become acceptable to god; that to demand a proof of it was sufficient to gain their hatred. the greek philosophers likewise of that time, looked upon themselves as so knowing, and upon their opinions as so well established, that every thing was false, in their judgement, which contradicted them the least in the world. nevertheless it may be said, that the particular principles of the jews and heathen philosophers, compared to christianity, were not even probable; as i could show, if those i have to do with doubted of it. so the jews, those blind guides of the blind, and the greeks conceited of a thousand chimeras, concluded the gospel to be false out of mere vanity. those who, being educated among christians, are got into the same fancy, should take heed they do not commit the like fault, unless they will be voluntarily deceived. let them examine then whether, in the judgement they form of christianity, they suppose nothing but what is clear and incontestable. they reproach christians with making suppositions without proofs; let them not be guilty therefore themselves of what they object to others. for my own part, i'm persuaded that if they go back to the first principles of their reasonings, and then reduce them to certain propositions, they will be convinced of their having built upon the most obscure and incomprehensible principles that ever were. to suppose, for example, that there is but one substance in the world, compounded of extension and thought, and which modifies itself, as we see the universe is, without having any supreme intelligence distinct from the universe itself concerned about it: to suppose, i say, so strange a proposition without demonstrating it, is certainly to imagine that the peremptory manner of saying such obscure things serves them for evidence or demonstration. when i say to demonstrate, i understand, as mathematicians do, what leaves no doubt nor difficulty behind in the minds of any who understand the terms of the demonstration. otherwise they must not talk of demonstrating, unless they would impose upon the weak by this word. let the writings of those be read over and over who maintain the proposition i have mentioned, and ground themselves upon it, to deny the truth of christianity, and it will appear that there is nothing in all religion which equals the obscuring of this principle. there are notwithstanding some people, who utter it as an incontestable truth, and judge thereby of whatever the christians say concerning god, the creation of the world, and providence. if these people would diligently examine themselves, i'm much deceived if they did not discover that one of the greatest reasons which brings them to think this a clear principle, is, their valuing themselves upon defending an opinion remote from vulgar notions, and of admitting rather the most obscure things imaginable, than they should mix again with the crowd, from which they endeavoured hereby to distinguish themselves. as credulity and superstition add to their objects, as it were, a false light, which serves them instead of evidence: so pride makes a geometrical principle of a thing that's in itself unintelligible. there are other persons to whom this dogmatical and peremptory air is so displeasing, that they equally condemn such as stick to the vulgar opinions, and those who, forsaking what is commonly received, endeavour to establish new principles. they think that seeing there are difficulties every where, and those sometimes insurmountable, the surest way is to affirm nothing, and to reject all without establishing any thing. i will not undertake to confute this principle here; i shall only say, that although this way seems very different from that whereof we have been speaking, it is probable nevertheless that it proceeds from the like disposition of mind. it is not much less agreeable to humane pride to consider itself secured from popular errors by doubting of every thing, than by establishing principles contrary to those that are commonly received. some look upon other men as the sport of their opinions, and the prey, to speak so, of a thousand chimaeras; whilst, under the shelter of doubt, they think themselves safe from the danger of error. it might be said nevertheless by some men, that not pride, but the mere impossibility of discovering the truth, which is a very mortifying thing, is the cause of their doubts. i won't say that they appear not over-mortifyed who are in this condition, nor will i set about to show the absurdity of scepticism; i shall only remark, that no body stops at a mere doubt in religion. those who say they have doubts, are not content to look upon others as possibly deceived, but as effectually so. they consider not themselves as persons who might well be in an error, but as having found the true secret of infallibility; and this may be the effect of humane pride, as much as the boldest determinations. let them have a great care therefore; and since it is manifest, that to doubt as well as to affirm out of vanity, is exposing of one's self to error, let them get rid of this fallacious passion; or, at least, suspend the influence of it whilst they judge of religion. we require not this of them from the principles of that religion whereof they doubt, or which they reject, but from this maxim of common sense, viz. that a passion, such as pride is, cannot be of any service in the discovery of the truth. chap. iii. that what keeps unbelievers from yielding to the proofs of the christian religion, partly consists perhaps in mere prejudices, which all the while may be false. were i writing against the pagans, jews, or mahometans, and should say that their prejudices kept them wedded to the religions whereof they made profession; then all the world, as well those who believe as those that disbelieve christianity, would conclude me in the right. but as i writ against men that have been educated in the christian religion, and that are not persuaded of its truth, it may be asked what it is i understand here by prejudices, when i say that they are the cause, perhaps, why unbelievers yield not their assent to it. they were brought up, as i said, in christianity, which, one would think, should prejudice them in favour of this religion. but there are two sorts of prejudices; the first are the effects of instruction, such as are those of the jews, of the heathens, and of the mahometans, against christianity. the second proceed from a particular depravation of the mind and understanding of some, and whereof it is somewhat difficult to render a reason. these people do easily conquer sometimes the prejudices of their education; but after slightly forming to themselves other notions without examining them as they should, they afterwards become prejudices to them all the rest of their lives: and 'tis of these prejudices i design to treat upon this occasion. i shall not determine how they are formed, because they own their original to such a complication of several motives, and to circumstances so different, that it is not possible, it may be, to distinguish them rightly. 'tis enough that they be true prejudices; that is to say, hasty conclusions, which serve 'em afterwards instead of a principle. let us suppose, for example, that a man born in any part of christendom, where very gross errors, as it happens but too often, are mixed with the doctrine of jesus christ and his apostles; let us suppose, i say, that this man comes to discern these errors by reading the books of those divines who are of the contrary party: he's presently cured of the prejudices of his education; for he was always told that the sentiments maintained in the place of his nativity were true. it may notwithstanding fall out that a person capable of discovering these errors, cannot go back to the very spring, and examine the christian religion in itself, such as it is in the writings of the apostles. there he stops then, and imagines not only that the religion of his country is false, but he makes the same conclusion concerning all religions, without excepting that of the first followers of christ. he may entertain such thoughts a great while before he can find any body to whom he dares open his mind, or that is able to undeceive him if he does: and these thoughts may take such deep rooting at length, that it shall not be an easy matter afterwards to eradicate them. if the man too be any thing speculative, he may in this condition form other principles, upon on which he shall reason all his life, though they be in themselves most false. these are the prejudices from which, i said, we must preserve ourselves, and that may contribute much to get the christian religion rejected. all those who are tainted with them, are not equally capable of expressing them clearly; and besides, they dare not always declare them freely to those with whom they discourse upon the subject; so that it is a most difficult business to examine them in such: manner as may turn to their advantage. nevertheless, it may be said in general of all judgements made of a thing from principles which are not certain that if men should thus hit upon the truth, it must be by pure chance, and consequently not to be relied upon. 〈◊〉 this rule is to be observed in the search o● all sorts of truth, how much more is it to be regarded in a truth of so great importance as religion is granted by all to be? this rule than is grounded upon common sense, and no body can disagree to it. now let us apply it to a prejudice very common amongst those who doubt of the truth of christianity, or that plainly reject it. they cannot, they say, believe the miracles upon which it is built because they never saw any miracles, nor ever spoke to any persons worthy of credit who assured 'em that he had seen the like. they cannot any better imagine that this earth whereupon we live had a beginning, or that ever there was a time when there were neither animals nor plants. the reason of this is, because they have always remarked in a manner the same state of things, and have never spoke to any that had seen this beginning. i maintain in the first place, that this is a mere prejudice, which may be reduced to this general maxim; a man cannot believe that whereof he has never seen any examples, nor spoke to any eye-witnesses worthy of credit who could give a relation of it. we shall find that this is very far from a geometrical axiom, if we examine the grounds of it. what has persuaded some people to a belief of this principle, is, that many times they discovered falsehoods by its means. some ancient philosophers, for example, have confuted the fables of the poets concerning the centaurs, the giants, the monster chimaera, and the like fictitious things, by this very maxim, what has been, now is; palephat. de reb. incredibil. and shall be for the future; i agree that this axiom may be of use, when such as affirm unheard-of things deserve no credit, as were the poets, who owned they had invented a great part of what they said. but i deny that it extends generally to all things, or that it can pass for a self-evident maxim. when a possible thing is attested by people in whom we see no appearance of dishonesty or fraud, this maxim is of no use, although we never saw any thing like that which we are told of, nor ever heard others speak of it. those who first discovered america, and spoke of the plants or animals they had found there, and which are strangers to our continent, were worthy of credit, and deserved to be believed, though we had never heard of the like before; nay though none had gone after them to america, and that we had not read their voyages till a long time after their decease. it is manifest, that such as should count their relations fabulous from this principle, would fall themselves into a very great error, as time has shown. the same may be said of what was declared by the first who affirmed they had been with our antipodes. what they said was not the less true, because till then it was not heard of; and had the art of navigation decayed so much after their return, that none had since undertaken the same voyage, such as should now read their travels could have no sufficient reasons to disbelieve what they said. it is plain by these examples, that this maxim cannot pass for a mathematical axiom, that admits of no exception; and that consequently nothing can be merely concluded from it without the addition of other proofs. if it be considered in itself, this will not be the more called in question, seeing there is no body such a fool as to make his present knowledge the measure or rule of true and false in all matters. who can, without extravagancy, flatter himself to have so extensive a knowledge of all possible things, as to pronounce that certainly false which is not contained in his own stock of knowledge? but it is not necessary to be more large in the confutation of so strange an imagination. nevertheless the incredulous suppose this, without perceiving it, as a geometrical principle; and from it conclude that what is said, for instance, of the creation of the world, and of miracles, is not true. let them seriously consider the point, and they'll find that from a prejudice so little reasonable they draw consequences which they think clear as the day. the good opinion they conceive of themselves and their knowledge, joined to experience, which upon some occasions does confirm this maxim, makes them shut their eyes upon this account, as i said, without perceiving it. i shall bring another example of a prejudice not better established than the former, and whereupon is grounded, notwithstanding, a great part of the reasonings of unbelievers. some who have sense enough to quit the opinions of their youth which they drew from their education, without knowing why, have not always penetration and exactness of judgement enough to substitute any thing better in their room: yet they cannot forbear searching out other principles; for none can absolutely stop there, as i could easily show, were this the proper place of doing it. as they are not satisfied with what they learned concerning god and religion, so they form to themselves new ideas of them, which are little better than their former ones; but they please them more, because they are the fruits of their own meditation, which never fail of delighting the understanding that is their parent. they imagine, for example, that if there were a god, who had created men, who would do 'em good, and in order to it had revealed himself to them, he ought to have done it in this manner. first, he should (according to them) have made himself known to all mankind, to render them equally happy, seeing he is their common father. secondly, this revelation should have begun from the creation of the first man, and so be continued throughout all the world, according as it was planted with men; seeing it is not less necessary to such as are born now, than to those of the ages past. thirdly, it should have been at the beginning so clear, and delivered with circumstances so convincing, that none could doubt of the sense or truth of the revelation; and the proofs of it ought to have still subsisted, that every one might examine them, without relying upon the relation of another; otherwise, if there be any revelation, it is useless, say they, as experience shows. in the fourth place, this law should have been proportionated to the present state of mankind, that so it might be obeyed; or else the creator of men ought to reform their nature, to the end it should not oppose itself to the observation of his laws; without which, they signify almost nothing, and are unworthy a wisdom that knows the condition of them to whom it prescribes them; or of a bountiful being who prescribes them to men, to render them more happy. these principles appear specious at first sight, because they seem to be built upon the high idea we ought to have of the divinity. and as the incredulous think they see the quite contrary in what the christians say of revelation, they hence conclude, that the christians are in an error; and they imagine to prove it the better against them, in as much as they build upon the same suppositions with them concerning the nature of god. but i'm going to show, that this way of reasoning is grounded upon a prejudice, which is manifestly false: for to come at the propositions we now read, they must proceed by these steps. 1. by reasoning we may exactly know what should be the carriage of god towards men, if there be a god, such as he is described. 2. we do in effect form an exact and complete idea of god, which is contained in the propositions we have been reading. 3. and if the supposed carriage of the creator is not conformable to it, than there is no such thing, and all that is said of it is false. 4. we see, by the history of times past, and by what we know of the present state of mankind, that the very contrary has always happened to this day. 5. therefore, etc. these are the propositions which those, i mentioned before, suppose; as all, who have any idea of the right method of reasoning must grant. but the first of these propositions is certainly false: for it is manifest that revelation is not clear enough concerning the designs of god with respect to mankind in general, as that we might thence form an exact or complete idea of his carriage towards men. and it is a thing not material for us to know; no body being obliged to learn more than he ought to believe and do, in order to become acceptable to god, without troubling himself about the methods of his providence with relation to mankind in general, nor yet about his secret designs. to be a good subject to a prince, it is no ways needful to penetrate into all the secrets of his politics and designs; it is sufficient to know what the laws of the state command him to perform. this is what moses taught the israelites, when he said to them, that secret things belonged to the lord, deut. 29.29. but the things revealed to them and to their children. the first proposition being false, the second, which is a consequence of it, cannot hold; and no person, without an extravagant presumption, can say that he has a perfect idea of the method whereby god ought to govern the world, if he would act conformable to the virtues that are attributed to him. for indeed, although we have some idea of these attributes, it follows not that we conceive them in their whole extent, or that we can exactly know what carriage is most agreeable to them. we know, for example, that god is most wise; that is to say, that this sovereign intelligence never acts, without proposing certain ends worthy of himself, and that he goes to those ends by the ways he judges to be most proper, and that are effectually so. but for all this, we know not, at least in a distinct manner, every end which he has proposed to himself, nor all the ways whereby he designs to come at them. no body could ever boast of gathering this from either revelation, or the events that happen in the world. we know by history, that some princes have governed their subjects with great wisdom; but who can value himself upon knowing all their particular designs, and the methods they have used to come at their ends, only from their writings or their conduct? it must be confessed then, that we may know something of the attributes of god, without being able to penetrate into all the secrets of his conduct; and common sense does teach us, that we ought not to judge rashly thereof. this being so, the third proposition cannot be looked upon, but as the most presumptuous and temerarious imagination that could possibly be. it would be absurd to reason thus concerning an earthly king, and boldly to affirm that he was guilty of ill management because he had not followed our idea of the conduct he should observe, without our having an exact knowledge of the state of his affairs, nor of his designs. and it is a thousand times more absurd so to judge of the divine understanding, infinitely exalted above ours; for we must remember, that unbelievers reason upon this occasion from the principles of revelation. to come to the fourth proposition, we cannot exactly judge of god's providence towards mankind during the ages past, by the histories we have. few of 'em are extant: but if we had all the histories that ever were written, yet that would not be enough to form such a judgement by. the exactest histories do necessarily omit a world of things, and relate only the most considerable events which regard states, rather than the opinions of nations, or the revelations they might receive from heaven. it must be granted then, that none can, without extreme rashness, take upon them to be judges of divine providence; or to conclude that there is no god, because he governs not the world after that manner they think he should. this answer might suffice to show the falsity of those prejudices which the incredulous form against revelation and providence, and which i have set down in this chapter. however, to show fully the danger of being imposed upon by prejudices of this nature, i shall examine them as they are in themselves, though i have already destroyed their foundation. i might, without any more ado, say concerning the first proposition, that god had sufficiently made himself known to all men, by revealing his will to the first patriarch from whom they are descended, to noah, for example, and to his children; and it is very probable, that the general belief of a god, and the service due to him has its origin hence rather than from the reasonings of any people. i might add likewise, that god having created men free, and contenting himself with giving them laws, they have abused their liberty by violating his commands, and so became unworthy that god should continue to make himself known to them, as perhaps he might have done, if they had made a better use of the favours he was pleased to heap upon them. but i shall only say, that he might very well, without any way blemishing his goodness, bestow more favours upon some people than others. there is nothing so free as the effects of beneficence which are not due; and no body can reasonably complain that he has not received from such a benefactor what he had given to others. on the contrary, he ought to be thankful that he gave him what he has, and which was no more due to him than what he has not. as there is a great diversity amongst creatures of several kind's, some having more and some less properties than others; and that all the while no person maintains that god ought to have made all equally perfect, without putting any difference between his works: why might not god also be pleased to place some variety in the same species of being's? since we see that the disposition of humane bodies does vary in a world of things, that their understandings are not more of a piece, and since it is not thought strange that god has thus differently distributed his gifts; why should it be accounted a wonderful thing that god has imparted more or less light to the several nations which compose mankind? the greatest difficulty in this matter, if i'm not mistaken, proceeds from this, that people, without perceiving it, confound god's justice with his beneficence; and withal they unreasonably suppose, that god requires an equal return of virtue from all men, and that he will judge them all by the same law. upon this supposition, it seems repugnant to the attributes of god to expect as much from the cafers of africa or the savages of america, as from more knowing people; and it is thought unjust that god should dispense his gifts so diversely, since he would judge all men upon the same foot. but though the beneficence of god be, according to revelation, perfectly free, insomuch that no nation can complain that another is preferred to it; rom. 9.10, etc. his justice follows the same rules that he ha● prescribed to the justice of men. he gives to whom he will, rom. 11.23. and in what quantity he pleases, but he judges according to what he has bestowed. he requireth no● what he has not given, mat. 12.21. and he reapeth no● where he has not sowed. rom. 2.12. those that sin without the law shall perish without the law and those that sin under the law shall b● judged by the law. as for the second question touching the continuance of revelation, all the difficulty is taken away by what is now said god will have all reasonable regard to every circumstance of those people to whom he has so differently distributed his favours. revelation does teach us the contrary not where; and if any christian doctors have added to the doctrine of the apostles, it is incumbent upon them to defend their own opinions, and not upon those who design only to defend the christian religion. none can, without injustice, impute to its founders all that has been since built upon the foundations they first laid, as it shall be made appear more at large in the second part of this work. the third proposition concerning the evidence of the proofs of revelation, its perpetual subsistence, and the perspicuity of its expressions, does suppose, that the design of god was to teach men his will mathematically, which is a supposition contrary to the present state of mankind; a state of liberty, wherein laws and not demonstrations are proposed to them. supposing that god would appoint rewards and punishments, he could not lead men to virtue, nor avert them from vice, otherwise than by laws whereof the sense could not be more clear, and yet the justice and authority of them be never mathematically demonstrated. if all mankind were convinced of the truth of revelation, and of the sense of it, by mathematical proofs, no body than could resist it. there could be, consequently, no punishments for the guilty, because none would be guilty; nor could there be any more reward; for what recompense can a man expect for assenting to a mathematical demonstration? it will be demanded, perhaps, why god should govern man after this manner, and not mathematically, as some unbelievers would have him? but i'm not bound to account for god's bounty, which he diversifies as he pleases, for reason's unknown to us: 'tis enough that i prove he cannot be accused of injustice; and this, i'm persuaded, i can perfectly demonstrate. to be short, the divine laws are proportionated to the nature of man, whatever they may say who have not studied them as they ought. 'tis an undoubted truth, agreed upon by all christian divines, that god does not damn any person barely for violating his laws, but for not leaving his ill habits, that being the man's own fault. i shall insist no longer upon this, lest i digress too far from the subject i treat of in this chapter. what i conclude from all i have said, is, that unbelievers do frequently take ill-grounded prejudices for clear principles, from which they hastily judge of the whole christian religion. i have alleged plain examples of it, and could have brought several more; but those cited by me may suffice to make a reasonable man take care of passing such precipitant conclusions. this is all that i require in this place, and which the most incredulous man living cannot, without extreme folly, refuse me. now, i'm persuaded if unbelievers would take the pains to look back upon the first propositions which they build upon, that they should perceive a great part of them could by no means pass for axioms; and then they would quickly acknowledge how little solidity was to be found in their other principles. chap. iu. that many are unbelievers, because they know not how to reason rightly. in the preceding chapters i supposed that unbelievers did not reason well, and that, without perceiving it, they suffered themselves to be seduced by their passions or prejudices; but i did at the same time suppose that they might be reclaimed by arguments, when they were showed that they followed not the rules of good sense. but there are more than one kind of unbelievers; and some of them, those i mean who are to be the subject of this chapter, are unbelievers upon no other account, but because they cannot reason well, as i shall presently demonstrate. but we must remark before, that, the christian religion consisting in doctrines and matters of fact, to prove both these we must make long reasonings, and allege many proofs depending upon one another. thus to perceive the force of those reasons brought to prove the divinity of the christian religion, we must be capable not only of understanding every proposition or every argument by itself; but likewise to enter into the discussion of all that is said, by examining the connection of the reasonings, and the relations which a great number of idea. have towards one another. but there are a world of people who entertain a good opinion of themselves, and are not capable, nevertheless, of this examination nor to consider distinctly so great a collection of such compounded and perplexed ideas. i shall be immediately told, no doubt, that if this be so, i do but lose my time in reasoning with them; since i suppose that they are not capable to know the solidity of an argument. yet two things oblige me to do it, whereof the first and principal is, that what i have to say upon this subject may contribute to keep those who are persuaded of the truth of christianity, from being seduced by the example of this sort of unbelievers. an infinite number of people who believe the christian religion true, know not the proofs of it so perfectly, and are not so much confirmed in their belief, but that they may be tempted by the example of those unbelievers who reason little. they are of all qualities and conditions; and the haughty air whereby they reject revelation, is not sometimes less dangerous that the most specious sophistry. in the second place, it may happen that such as are not masters of the true method of reasoning, may notwithstanding be in a condition of leaving their ignorance, and of making a better use of their understandings. it is very fit to convince this sort of people that they are only unbelievers, because they know not how to govern their thoughts. but i grant that those who are grown old in this kind of ignorance, and whose presumption is increased by their age, are in a manner incurable, go to work with them how you will; especially if any immorality be joined to this want of judgement, which never fails scarcely to happen: nor is it for such that we writ, as books of physic are not written about incurable diseases. to be persuaded ourselves that there are, in effect, some people who for want of knowing how to reason refuse their assent to the gospel, we need only reflect a little upon the present state of the heathens, and upon what we know of many unbelievers which live among christians. such as undertake to convert the indians, and the other idolaters of asia, america, and africa, after taking a great deal of pains to learn their language, are forced to take much more when they would by reasoning persuade them of the falsity of their religions, and of the truth of that of jesus christ. the monks may long enough make all imaginable efforts to become intelligible to those ignorant people, and to convince them of the absurdity of their idolatry, and the opinions whereupon it is built; but although this thing be so plain, yet there are but few of them who can be made to understand it, and fewer that conceive the reasons upon which christianity is grounded. 'tis not necessary that i speak here of the means which the missionaries have chosen to employ in their conversions, rather than reason. this makes nothing to my design. i shall only remark, that the difficulty of bringing those idolatrous nations to receive the gospel, proceeds not from any infidelity peculiar to them from the people of europe. they are, upon the contrary, the most credulous people in the world, and very seriously embrace a great number of incredible things, whereof their theology is made up. their incredulity, with respect to the gospel, proceeds from their not reasoning almost at all, except about things relating to life; and that nothing ever enters into their minds except from experience or education. they are not men that meditate, and are capable of attentively considering abstracted ideas, nor of comparing them with one another, to draw some consequence from them. so for want of meeting a little reasoning in these people, one is extremely puzzled how to get 'em to change their opinions. this cannot be said of the mahometans, since we know that their divines do sometimes write with subtlety and sense enough against some of the doctrines which the missionaries would have 'em embrace. nor can we treat them as infidels that reject the christian religion out of a spirit of scepticism; for they are every thing rather than pyrrhonians, seeing they most hearty believe all the alcoran. nevertheless, although they have sense enough (as i said) to make objections against some doctrines that are preached to them, yet they have not enough to examine the principles of their own religion, and to see upon what it is grounded. they don't so much as understand what is said to them upon that head, nor the reasons brought to prove the truth of christianity. and if the missionaries now and then convert some of 'em, it is not from any reasons they allege, but in gaining their love and esteem by some other ways. the jews are much in the same condition, as it may be seen by the books they have written to establish their own opinions, or to confute those of the christians. this may be easily discovered also by any that discourses with them upon these subjects. but between them and the mahometans there is this difference, that the latter give credit to a book full of impertinencies and falsehoods; whereas the jews ground their persuasion upon the books of the old testament, which contain a true revelation. and yet they can reason little better than the mahometans; which is one of the greatest obstacles to their conversion. whilst they are satisfied with the mere authority of some rabbins, though without any foundation, they are proof against the strongest reasons the christians can oppose to 'em; because from their infancy they are wont to believe what their rabbins tell them, and are never taught to reason justly. otherwise, if the jews were in a condition of pursuing an argument, and of distinguishing a good from an ill consequence, it would then be very easy to convince them of the truth of christianity. it should be only needful, as some christian divines have lately done, to put them upon proving the truth of the divine mission of moses, as they would prove it to a heathen they designed to proselyte to judaisme. for if they bring any solid proofs for this matter, it may be easily made evident, that these same reasons are incomparably stronger in favour of the divine mission of christ and his apostles, than in favour of that of moses; as it has been shown in the book whose title you may see in the margin. limborch amica collat. cum erudit. judaeo. now then, to convince the jews and other infidels by reason, they must be first taught the art of methodically digesting their thoughts, and be accustomed to reason stricly upon other heads, that they may learn to understand the force of the proofs upon which the gospel is founded. but this is what all the missionaries in the world are not able to do, especially to those insidels who are advanced in years. it were injustice to believe that 'tis only amongst infidels that men are found uncapable of discerning the goodness of an argument; and who, upon this account, reject the christian religion. there are unbelievers among christians themselves, who are not only such out of some disposition engaging them against the gospel, but likewise out of downright stupidity, and for want of understanding the reasons whereupon christianity is grounded. there are some people who from their childhood have been brought up to some trade, or other constant business, without any care taken about the forming of their minds, or even of instructing them in religion; and who, being moreover of a genius not very proper for conceiving of things revealed, though haughty and presumptuous, have grown to a full age without any farther instruction, or being cured of their pride. these are rarely persuaded of the truth of the christian religion; nay, they frequently reject it entirely, or at least, in part: not only because they know not the proofs of it, but also because they understand them not, when they hear them from those that do know them. these unpolished and ignorant creatures imagine that there is nothing true, but what they perceive by their senses, or what they have found by their own experience to be possible, or, in a word, what they find conformable to their passions. thus neither the speculative doctrines of religion, nor the practice of it, nor yet the history of those who taught it being within the verge of their knowledge, they refuse to believe them rather out of brutality and stupidity, than as deceived by captious reasonings. if they reject it not altogether, 'tis certain however that they retain only what is most pleasing to them; which is an evident demonstration that they are not persuaded of it from reasoning and knowledge; because the proofs which confirm a part of it, are the same that show the whole religion to be true. 'tis not only amongst people taken up with trade and business that this sort of unbelievers is to be found; for there are more of 'em, perhaps, amongst such as aspire to great preferments, amongst soldiers, and persons of quality. it may be said indeed, that persons of these ranks have had a better education than others, with relation to the affairs of the world, and those employments to which they were designed: but in very truth, it is as common a thing to hear them reason as wretchedly about religion, as the most ignorant among the populace. when once they are grown old in their prejudices against christianity, than their natural vanity, increased with their age, renders them more obstinate, and not seldom makes 'em altogether inaccessible to truth. you propose the most cogent arguments to them in vain; for they look upon them as mere sophisms, though they know not wherein sophistry differs from solid reasoning. i shall be told, perhaps, that this sort of men is not so ignorant of the art of thinking as i suppose them to be, seeing they reason not so ill concerning those things they know by experience, and that they govern themselves with prudence enough in the affairs of life. to this i answer, that i do not deny but those, i speak of, may reason very well about what are the objects of their passions, or when they confine themselves within the limits of their experience. but i maintain, that they have not as much as the notion of reasoning solidly about speculative things, that make no impressions upon the senses; such as are the proofs whereupon the truth of the christian religion is built. to be convinced of this, we need only examine them, if we can, upon these two heads. first, we must discourse 'em about some abstracted subject; such as are, for example, the general ideas of most things, the notions of virtues and vices: and if they reason exactly herein, we may justly conclude, that these persons are not of their number who continue unbelievers, for want of knowing how to reason rightly. but if we hear them talk of such matters without any principles or coherence, if we see that they do not comprehend what is said to them upon such occasions, be it never so clear, or notwithstanding all the pains taken to make it plain, (which happens but too frequently) than it will be easily granted me, that their infidelity does, at least, proceed in part from their ignorance of the art of reasoning. another way we have to discover this kind of unbelievers, is, when we find them distasted with all discourses upon abstracted matters, or with any thing that relates not to their passions; when they avoid the reading of all books requiring any attention, especially of such books as are written to prove the truth of what they disbelieve; finally, when they won't enter upon a discussion of any such subjects, nor will be at the pains of comparing the answers of believers with the objections of the incredulous. we may sufficiently know such persons, who are, so to speak, so filled with what they have learned from experience of the affairs of the world, that nothing else can enter into them, and are displeased when they hear other discourses. such was festus, for instance, the governor of judea, who is mentioned in the acts of the apostles. he could scarcely hear a short discourse from st. paul, and charged him with madness, after hearing from him another discourse full of evidence and good sense. were he told of some methods how to squeeze money dexterously out of his province, or were he acquainted with some intrigue that might contribute to prefer him to a more considerable post, he would immediately understand what was said to him; or he would get it repeated to him so often, and would have asked so many questions about it, that he should at least have an exact notion of the business. but because s. paul spoke to him of things no way relating to his designs or passions, he could scarce patiently hear him, and understood nothing of his discourse. there are a world of people at this day in the midst of christendom, who are very near in the same disposition. they speak very well of their temporal affairs, or any thing belonging to them; they willingly converse about the news of the times, and that sometimes with sense enough; but put them once by such things to talk of religion, they are presently tired, they speak of it ridiculously, they show, in a word, so great a contempt of such discourses, as if they were matters beneath them, and to which they cannot stoop without uneasiness. as these unbelievers, who reason not at all, are moreover entirely possessed with passions opposite to the gospel, and have been long habituated to obey them; so they are not accessible on any side, and i see not how, without a miracle, they can be convinced of their miserable state, nor reclaimed from their error. however it was fit to make some reflections upon this sort of unbelievers, that we might not be imposed upon when we meet with such, nor seduced by their ways. chap. v that the neglect of searching into truth is often the cause of incredulity. there are many men who have naturally a genius good enough for abstracted matters, and that also were not wholly neglected in their first education; but whom the course of their lives has engaged in occupations which have no affinity with the search of truth. the necessaries of their families, or the desire of satisfying their passions, do so take up their minds for several years together, that they neglect all other things, never improve their natural parts, nor distinguish truth from falsehood, with any application, in the business of religion. this negligence leads 'em insensibly into doubting; for if the connection of religious truths be not heedfully attended to, there arise a thousand difficulties in the mind, out of which we know not how to extricate ourselves. from doubt men easily fall into infidelity, whilst they neglect the search of what may remove their scruples: for when once they are got into the understanding, they are in motion upon all occasions; and as the solutions to them are not studied after at the beginning, we should not wonder if in time they take such deep rooting, as it shall not be an easy matter afterwards to extirpate them. if such as refuse to believe the truth of the christian religion seriously examine themselves, i am much mistaken if the greatest part of 'em won't confess that they have extremely neglected the care they ought to have used, in order to be informed of a thing of such importance. nay, i dare affirm that there is not any unbeliever who perceives not, if he minds it, that this negligence is one of the principal causes of his incredulity: and i shall bring many proofs of it in the sequel of this work. now, to make what i have said more evident, i will instance this fault in other persons, where people may remark it more impartially than in themselves. when christianity begun to make a noise in judea, that is, chief when the apostles declared every where the resurrection of their master, and showed that he wanted not faithful disciples on earth, though he was himself no more there; all the jews ought, one would think, to have informed themselves of what these disciples said, seeing they were things most nearly concerning them to know. they expected their messiah about that time; they groaned so heavily under the roman tyranny, that they wished for nothing so much as liberty, and they hoped the messiah should prove their deliverer. in this disposition they ought to hearken, i should think, to every one that spoke to 'em of a messiah, to get rid of their doubt, whether the wished deliverer was yet come or not. methinks too the apostles should have been heard of all the world, when they preached the doctrine and the miracles of their master, especially his resurrection; for indeed these miracles were so great and many, that more could not be expected from the messiah. the disciples of the apostles said in all places, that not only jesus of nazareth, whom the jews had crucified, did work numberless miracles whilst he dwelled among men; but that he also left the same power to his apostles, and that, in effect, they wrought miracles every day. what could be said more to excite the curiosity of the jews? they were not in the judgement of the epicureans, who thought no miracles were to be wrought; nor did they believe that god would send them no more prophets to work any: on the contrary, they expected the messiah the greatest of all the prophets. and notwithstanding, they gave so little heed to what the apostles said, that the chief of their nation never took notice of 'em, unless it was to use 'em ill, without examining in the least the ground of their doctrine. we have two jewish authors who lived in the time of the apostles, namely, philo and joseph; but nevertheless they did not vouchsafe to inform themselves about these matters, as may be seen by their writings. philo wrote a great many books, whereof the most part are allegorical discourses upon the old testament: now in some of these he had a thousand occasions to mention the gospel, if he had any idea of it. if he disbelieved the truth of it, he should, at least, have endeavoured to confute it somewhere: but he says not a word for or against it, which is sign enough that he knew not what it was. i know very well how eusebius * hist. ecclesiast. l. 2. c. 17. see jos. scaliger, l. 7. de emendat. temp. valesius upon eusebius, and thomas brown in his dissertation concerning the therapeutes. , and some learned men after him, pretended that the therapeutes of alexandria, whose encomium is written by philo in one of his pieces, were christians. but nothing, except a desire of confounding the jews by their own authors, could discover christians to eusebius, and those that followed him, in the description of the therapeutes, where one syllable is not spoken of jesus christ, nor of his doctrine; and where all that philo says does perfectly quadrate to some of the esseans, who formed, as 'tis well known, a particular sect among the jews. the desire of convincing infidels should not induce us to make use of weak proofs against them; for certainly such methods must needs render 'em more averse to christianity. what i have now said will be easily granted me by men of any tolerable reading or judgement: but it may be disputed with respect to † antiq. jud. l. 18. c. 4, & 8. joseph, by reason of a passage or two produced out of him, wherein he speaks of jesus christ. this is not the place to examine these passages, which learned men ‖ see le feure in his critical letters. believe were inserted by some christian into the text of joseph. but be this as it will, 'tis manifest that joseph says nothing of the slaughter of the children whereof st. matthew speaks, nor of most part of the circumstances of the life of christ, nor of his doctrine; nor can he be supposed by any to have been acquainted with christianity, except by such as never read his works. had he known a part of the discourses and miracles of jesus christ, he would not have been content to mention him only en passant, and in so few words; he would be large upon that subject, no doubt, as it well deserved. it may be therefore positively affirmed, that joseph, how exact soever reputed to be in other matters, did shamefully neglect informing himself about the christian religion, although nothing could have been more easy for him. nor can any excuse be pleaded on the behalf of the heathens who lived at that time, or a little after; and that notwithstanding their acquaintance with some christians, yet never desired to know what christianity itself was. * annak l. 15. c. 44. tacitus, † ep. l. 10. plinius, and ‖ in claud. c. 25. suetonius, have spoken of it, and wanted not opportunities to understand it, though it appears they did not. they were polite and learned men, and had spent, according to the custom of those ages, a great deal of time in the study of the greek philosophy. now this philosophy was not upon any account comparable to the doctrine or morals of the gospel; nor could the learned of rome neglect these things only because barbarians, as the grecians spoke, had declared them; for they well knew that the most famous sages of greece had undertaken long voyages to the barbarians, to learn their opinions. what made them contemn the christians then? we need not seek for any other reason, but a scandalous neglect, proceeding from the predominant passion of most people: for ordinarily they apply themselves only to what is esteemed in the world, and that may contribute to have them taken notice of in the places of their abode. the literature and philosophy of the * see the preface of diogen. laertius. greeks were for a long time in great repute at rome, and persons of the first quality did value themselves upon these sorts of knowledge: but the gospel was unknown there, because it contained not any doctrine proper to add more lustre to such as did aspire to the greatest dignities. something of this nature made the athenians neglect the opportunity they had in their hands of understanding the gospel, when st. paul was in their city to preach it, if they would hear him: and, questionless, they would have heard him, had they as much good sense as they had vanity. at the very first they called him a babbler; acts 17.18, 22. and after listening a while to him about the resurrection of the dead, some of 'em laughed at him, others put him off till some other time, and there were but a small number of them that received the doctrine which he preached to them. this proceeded in part from a neglect that would not let them inform themselves throughly about what st. paul declared, although on the other side, the athenians, and the strangers who followed their studies there, were men of much leisure, and great lovers of news. ver. 21.] but the apostle not teaching his doctrine after the manner of the philosophers they were wont to hear, whether in regard of the method or the elocution, they were out of conceit with his discourses. let us suppose with them, that the outward appearance of s. paul was not so taking as that of their philosophers; but should this extinguish their curiosity? is truth always necessarily accompanied with eloquence? none of them durst maintain such a thing. notwithstanding, s. paul's being there did 'em no good; and they neglected acquainting themselves with his doctrine, which was infinitely more reasonable than that of their philosophers. they lost a world of time in the study of very ridiculous doctrines, as were the physics of all their philosophers, without excepting any; and the morals of the greatest part, to speak nothing of their dialectic or logicks. there was not one philosopher who had any reasonable, no nor a probable hypothesis concerning god, except the platonists, who accommodated their opinions so much to vulgar notions, that by this medley of good and bad, they rendered all the good they spoke unprofitable and fruitless. notwithstanding, such as spent all their time to hear this sort of people, did not vouchsafe, out of an unpardonable negligence, to understand what s. paul said to them. one would think no body could at this time of day be guilty of the like fault among christians, since they generally profess to believe that none can better spend his time than in discovering the principles upon which christianity is grounded. but the actions of christians not being always conformable to their belief, it happens but too frequently, that their course of life produces an effect quite contrary to what the christian profession should beget in them. although it be not said by any, that it were better employing himself about any thing else than in the study of the christian religion; yet the carriage of most men is commonly such, as if they believed this. a man who entirely neglects this study, but duly makes his court to those that can advance him, or keep him in his present post; a man that passes all his life in heaping up riches, though he be in a profound ignorance about the grounds of christianity; this man, i say, is he for all this the less esteemed? the most understanding person in the world, but who is not respected for his preferments, nor considered for his riches, is he comparable to this other ignorant, but rich or honourable man? not at all, according to the constant practice of most christians. this practice cries much louder, if we may speak so, than the evangelical maxims it contradicts, and seems to say to those who are entering into the world, that it concerns 'em little to learn the reasons of assenting to christianity, but that it is of great importance to obtain some employment, or to enrich themselves, to which this same christianity contributes nothing. it falls out likewise but too often, that this dangerous lesson is confirmed by the example of many considerable persons, who after neglecting the study of religion as much as they cultivate the art of advancing themselves in the world, or of making their fortune, are nevertheless in great esteem, and in such advantageous posts, that their lot appears worthy of envy; whilst such as might inform others by their knowledge, live in contempt and obscurity. this general custom which obtains almost every where, does throw people into a neglect of religion so much the more easily as they find themselves disposed not to observe the precepts of it. thus slighting that science which signifies nothing as to their worldly affairs, and whose consequences would engage them to resist those passions to which they willingly abandon themselves, they think as little as possibly they can upon those proofs which persuade us of the truth of the gospel. after this it happens, that some occasion of doubt comes into their mind which begets difficulties, out of which they cannot extricate themselves for want of knowledge; and this at last produces a formal infidelity, which is not easily to be cured, especially if it be of any continuance. 'tis by so much the more dangerous to fall into this negligence i'm treating of, as the causes whence it springs are always in being, and act incessantly upon the understanding with a great deal of force; whilst that which might incline people to be instructed in the reasons of believing the gospel acts but weakly, and is stifled, as it were, every moment by the example of the more numerous party. but there is likewise another thing, that may greatly contribute in seducing such as are otherwise men of good sense. 'tis an argument they frame without perceiving it, and which at first sight appears solid enough. when they see that those who make a profession of believing the christian religion true, obey nothing of it but just as much as their worldly interest obliges them to do; they imagine that most men act a part only, and pretend to believe what they really do not; or else they conclude, that persons so injudicious as to contradict their belief upon all occasions, are but an ill example to follow in this respect, and that it were better done of men to regulate their persuasion by their conduct; seeing, as they suppose, they cannot change the latter. thus they imitate pretty well the actions of the greatest part of the world, but they believe themselves exalted above the multitude, in as much, at least, as they have principles conformable to their practice. if they neglect informing themselves in religion, this proceeds from their not believing the truth of it; and if they regulate not their manners according to its precepts, 'tis because they give no credit to the recompenses promised those who shall observe them, nor to the pains wherewith they are menaced that violate them. in a word, they act coherently; whereas the life of others is a perpetual contradiction. nevertheless, it is most certain, that they are hugely out in their judgement of the greatest part of christians. 'tis not true, that the multitude feigns only to believe the truth of christianity; and 'tis also false, that injudiciousness makes them contradict their belief by their practice. 'tis much better to preserve our persuasion entire, even when we contradict it by our actions, than to suit the doctrines of it to the conduct we follow. and i prove it thus. in the first place, a man may sincerely believe a principle to be good and reasonable, and yet not order his life accordingly. the reason hereof is, that what sets most men's actions a going, is not so much the light of the understanding as the disposition of the heart, and the passions, which are not seldom entirely repugnant to this knowledge. no body, for example, will deny but that bribery ought to have no place in a well-governed state, and that all employments should be conferred upon those only who deserve 'em; nay, the laws do every where condemn bribery. nevertheless there are few persons that do not solicit for themselves or for their friends when any opportunity of advancement offers itself. we find also, that men are agreed about the usefulness and excellency of a great number of laws, which they break nevertheless every day, when they reap any present advantage from it. we may allege a more evident example of this contradiction between our understanding and practice. a gouty man who contracted this troublesome distemper by drinking too much wine, doubts not in the least, but that the immoderate use of this liquor must needs prove very hurtful to him; notwithstanding, the present pleasure he finds in drinking carries it, and he cannot forbear drinking more than he should. and thus it is with several other passions. in like manner, people whose desires are contrary to the spirit of the gospel, may indulge those desires, without calling into question all the while the truth of christianity. in the second place, the manners of most christians are contrary to their persuasion, not that they perceive not this opposition well enough, and condemn it too, when they think of it; but the method of living generally received, and that's most agreeable to their passions, carries it over the judgement they make of themselves in their own consciences; and we may be convinced of it by the examples already alleged, and by thousands of the like nature. in short, it cannot be hence concluded that we must judge of religion according to our inclinations, nor that we may accommodate it rather to our manner of living, than continue to believe what we do not obey. who will maintain that a prince would do better in changing the laws according to his present passions, than to let them subsist, and break 'em every hour? no body. for if he observes not the laws as he should, he leaves them their authority however with respect to his subjects, and such other princes as are willing to observe them; which is of absolute necessity to society. what disorders would it cause in the commonwealth, if an adulterous prince, lest he should be thought to contemn their authority, would abrogate all those laws prohibiting adultery? herodot. l. 3. c. 31. 'tis said that cambyses the son of cyrus, being in love with his sister, and desirous of marrying her, enquired of the royal judges, who were the interpreters of the laws amongst the persians, whether it was lawful for a brother to have his sister to wife? they answered him, that there was no law which permitted it; but that there was another law that permitted the kings of persia to do whatever they pleased. upon this answer, cambyses married his sister; and the persians have not from that time scrupled to imitate their king in this practice. it had questionless been less criminal, and much less hurtful to the society, if cambyses had married his sister without saying any thing of it, and not endeavour to cover his incest by authority of law. if it be asked then, which carriage is most dangerous and , that of such as violate the laws of the gospel whom they believe to be divine, or that of the incredulous who reject the divinity of these laws because they have no mind to obey them. 'tis plain, that the latter is much worse than the former, supposing the laws of the gospel to be beneficial to society, which cannot be doubted, as i have shown in the first chapter. so, whatever be the conduct of those who profess the christian religion, unbelievers cannot however excuse themselves because others do not act coherently, seeing they neglect to understand what imports them most to know. the greatest part of christians are doubtless in the wrong herein, and they deny it not themselves; but the incredulous are much more to blame than they. if the latter would examine themselves, they might discover, perhaps, some other source of this negligence in their own persons; and it is, that generally they are not very solicitous about knowing the truth in matters of religion. there are some people so much taken up with the present, and having so good an opinion of themselves, that they shut their eyes and ears to all sorts of discourse or examples, which might convince them that they have reason not to be well satisfied with their opinions and practice. although they seem sometimes to love the truth, yet, if it be well remarked, it will appear that they love nothing but their passions, and are careful only how to indulge these; for they receive no more of the truth, but what is not incompatible with their desires. thus princes, and persons of great quality, cannot bear that such as are about them should ingenuously acquaint them with what is said of them, and tell besides their own thoughts of the matter. if any is a little too sincere, he's quickly banished from their presence. 'tis just so with many private persons, who take none for their friends but such as flatter them, and help to keep them up in the good opinion they have conceived of themselves. princes and private men do equally drive out of their minds all thoughts that might trouble their repose, and hinder them from quietly enjoying what they love. they cannot say therefore, that they are such mighty lovers of truth, who care for knowing no more of it than what is pleasing to them. and it may probably happen that many unbelievers deal after this manner with religion, neglecting to understand what might convince them, out of a secret averseness they have of searching into such truths as they cannot discover without extremely disquieting themselves. so s. paul reasoning before felix, of justice, acts 24.25. temperance, and future judgement, this trembling governor was quickly weary of hearing him, and put him off till another time. had s. paul entertained him with some other discourse, he would have heard him, it may be, as long as he pleased: but the virtues whereof this apostle began to speak to him, were too opposite to his manners to obtain a longer audience from him. 'tis evident then, that this disposition is entirely against all good sense, and the whole world does equally blame flattery and flatterers. 'tis generally agreed upon likewise, that there is nothing more remote from wisdom, than wilfully to continue ignorant of what is disadvantageous to us; for without knowing it, we can never bring a remedy against it, and our ignorance about it changes not the nature of the thing, but contributes not seldom to render our condition worse. the incredulous therefore ought to look to it, and not fear to hazard their repose in the search of disquieting truths. they ought to beware of that ill regulated self-love, which flatters our present passions, and avoids every thing that may mix some bitterness with the sweetness we taste in the enjoyment of them. for my part, i'm persuaded that their negligence of informing themselves about the grounds of christianity, proceeds in great part from this dangerous disposition; and they would agree to it, no doubt, were they capable of examining themselves. did we see unbelievers use much application in the search of truth, without omitting any thing that was necessary for their thorough information, and yet not quit their infidelity; we should, perhaps, be tempted to believe that they were in the right, seeing they did not conclude but after a long and requisite discussion. but we see not one of them so disposed, and they are all contented with a very superficial knowledge of religion, without endeavouring to penetrate into the proofs of it; which gives us occasion to confirm ourselves in the belief of the truth, and to be persuaded that their infidelity proceeds, as i have proved, from their neglect of due instruction. chap. vi that laziness may keep many people in ignorance, doubts, and incredulity. we may reduce those who make profession of believing christianity, to two orders of men. some embrace it rather from the authority of such as they esteem, than for having examined the proofs of it; and we may venture to say, that these are the greater number. there are, however, many understanding persons, who believe the truth of the gospel for no other reason, but because, after examining the proofs of it, they have been fully convinced. we may also divide unbelievers into two parties. the one have in some sort examined the reasons upon which christians build their belief, but have not judged them worthy of assent, either because they knew not how to examine them as they ought, or for some other reason which i will not stay to examine now. the other sort have never troubled themselves about examining them, and yet they stick not to pronounce our proofs not convincing. they might be led to this hasty judgement by divers motives; or several passions might contribute together to throw 'em into infidelity. 'tis not necessary that i enter upon a nice discussion of these motives and passions. what i have said in general or particular in the foregoing chapters, may suffice to oblige unbelievers to retire, as it were, into themselves, and to preserve them from the delusions of self-love. i must nevertheless add here some remarks upon one of the particular sources of incredulity, which is but too common, and whereof i have not yet spoken any thing. this source is laziness, which occasions many people to remove out of their minds whatever demands attention, and that makes no impression upon them by their senses, or by their passions. we meet with some who have understanding and judgement enough to examine rightly the proofs of christianity, if they would apply themselves to it. but the long habit they have acquired of not examining any of these abstracted ideas which require some application, makes them so averse to this examen, that it is not possible to persuade them to it, whilst they remain in this disposition. to conquer it, if this can be, and to cure those who indulge themselves in it; or to keep others, at least, from falling into it, we must examine it in its rise, progress, and consequences: for if we can show that it is the most unreasonable thing in the world in itself, and in its consequences the most dangerous, it must be necessarily granted, that it is not becoming a man of good sense to give way to it. in the present state of humane nature, it is certain that nothing can more quickly excite our attention than what strikes our senses, or awakens some of our passions. whatever is conveyed into the mind by either of these ways, does so move and occupy it, that if the sensations be lively, and the passions quick, no other thing can enter whilst they act there. and men have naturally an aversion to all things besides; for if a man continues long in this disposition without making any attempt to subdue it, it happens at last, that though he be extremely active with regard to sensible things, and those passions to which he has given up himself; he falls nevertheless into a surprising laziness as to all other matters, and will not hear of reading or examining any thing that has no relation to them. as the laziness of the body proceeds from such an extreme love to the pleasure of that repose to which we are accustomed, that we cannot think of losing it without trouble; so the laziness of the mind, which i'm now treating of, does so seize upon all those who entertain it, that they cannot shake it off without great pains and molestation. were we assured that nothing merited our attention, but what made impression upon our senses, or related to our passions, we should then give up ourselves to this pleasing laziness, and live, with respect to spiritual objects, in the same calm, wherein we live with regard to whatever we think can neither hurt nor benefit us. it were a folly to part with a state full of pleasure, only to disquiet ourselves in examining what would occasion pain, but procure us no advantage. but on the other hand, if our negligence of those things, which no way concern the senses, should occasion us infinitely more harm, than our laziness about them could procure us of pleasure; it must be granted, that it were downright madness for us to live in this carelessness. but we cannot assure ourselves that there is nothing to be feared, should we neglect spiritual things, such as the christian religion speaks to us of, without examining the reasons upon which this religion is grounded; and consequently, we must necessarily conquer this laziness, that keeps us from doing it; or else prefer the quiet of a fool, grounded only upon his stupidity, to the true knowledge of the state wherein we are, and of what we have to fear or hope. notwithstanding, those who once abandon themselves to this laziness, which hinders them from any examination of the principles of religion, have the hardest task in the world to reclaim themselves; some of them, whereof we speak nothing in this place, choose rather to believe whatever is told them of religion, than to be at the pains of examining it; and others again will believe nothing of it, because they are resolved not to examine any thing of that nature. 'tis of these last that we have undertaken to treat, and of whom it may be said, that how understanding soever they seemed to be before they took up this careless way of living, they are afterwards very difficulty brought off from it. tacit. in agricol. c. 3. subit quippe etiam ipsius inertiae dulcedo, & invisa primò desidia postremò amatur. the pleasure of laziness gets into the soul, and at last we love that idleness which at first we hated. he acts plainly against good sense, who condemns what he has never well examined, because he had not resolution enough to undergo the trouble of examining it; and he breaks the rules of common prudence who obstinately lives in this condition, when the question is about a matter of such great importance as religion. if he acted thus in relation to any other thing, that is, if he took sides without being at the pains of examining, who could he get to approve his conduct? none surely; unless he had to do with men void of common sense; since it cannot be denied, but this is visibly exposing himself to be deceived, and to all the consequences of the error he might fall into. let's suppose for a moment with unbelievers, that the christian religion is not true, although this cannot be known, till it be first examined; but what risk do they run in hearing the reasons of the christians? none at all; since if what they affirm be not conclusive, nothing can hinder them from rejecting it. all the loss they can fear is only the want of a little quiet, whereof they deprive themselves for some small time. but methinks a short term of carelessness ought not to be of so great value with a man, that nothing can be capable of making him quit it. is there any in the world who can live in this eternal indifference for all that requires application? if any leaves this laziness for other things, what reason can he bring for not quitting it in order to discover his own state as to religion? if indeed, after taking much pains to no purpose, a man could not enjoy his former quiet, he might plead very plausibly in defence of this carriage; but, on the contrary, after fatiguing himself a little, his repose is but the more pleasant. and so the lazy should by this principle, at least, be at the trouble of examining religion. but now if the christian religion be certainly true, as we maintain, a more deplorable state could not well be conceived in this life than that of the lazy gentlemen we have described: for what can be imagined more lamentable, than to precipitate one's self into eternal misery, rather than take the pains of learning the means to avoid it? that man could not be looked upon as a lazy person who would not rise at night for fear of breaking his repose, though the house was on fire; no, he would be taken for a fool or a madman. we see by these examples very clearly, how unreasonable that spiritual laziness is, which keeps men from examining religion. we perceive the dangerous consequences of it, or at least the miseries that may proceed from it. nevertheless there have been formerly men of this character, and there are now even among christians. such were those jews of thessalonica, acts 17.4. whereof very few were the better for s. paul's preaching, because they would not examine what he said; and whereof the most part, very zealous in all other things, raised a commotion in the town against the professors of christianity, as we are told by s. luke. this appears by the opposition which we find in the same history, of the jews of berea, another city of macedonia, to those of thessalonica. these, says the historian, were more noble than those of thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so; therefore many of them believed. if those of thessalonica had love enough for the truth to do as much, they would not have been less ready to receive their reasons who preached the gospel to 'em. but the laziness that detained them in judaisme, joined to their other passions, kept them from examining the doctrine of s. paul, and consequently they acknowledged not the truth of it. the present jews who live among the christians, and perhaps a part of the mahometans, may neglect the examen of christianity out of divers principles, such as those we have described in the preceding chapters; but i'm very apt to believe that they mix with them a great deal of that laziness we are treating of in this chapter. they are out of love with all meditation and discussion; nor can there be a better proof of it, than that they vouchsafe not even to examine why they give credit to judaisme or mahometanism. being altogether busy about sensible objects and the cares of life, they cannot without reluctancy think seriously and attentively of any other subject. they may be compared to people extremely weary after walking a great way on foot, but desired to take a longer walk to refresh and divert themselves. they would not hearken, be sure, to such a proposition, but indulging themselves in the pleasure of repose, they would think of no other thing except quietly enjoying their rest. thus, such as are busy about the affairs of life, and fatigued with the perpetual cares they occasion, are lazy as to all other things. christianity being at this time divided into several sects, whereof some must necessarily be in an error, may we not therefore place in the number of the lazy those persons, who, full of all other things but the love of the truth, have never carefully examined which of these sects is most conformable to the sentiments of the apostles? i own that divers other motives might lead them to remain, without knowing why themselves, in that party wherein they happened to be born, and to condemn all others without vouchsafing to examine their tenets; but if you remark it well, it will appear that one of the principles which occasion this conduct is a certain lazy aversion to the trouble of searching after the truth in matters of this kind. we may proceed yet further, seeing there are people who condemn not only their native religion without having ever sufficiently studied it, but likewise all other religions, though still less known to them: because first persuading themselves that they have discovered some falsity therein, they conclude next that all the rest is of the same nature; and so can never resolve upon seriously or throughly examining the truth. after having found out, as they think, that the ablest men they know teach a false doctrine for a gospel-truth, they judge by this sample of the religion of their own country as well as of all others: and that laziness which keeps 'em as it were enchanted, makes 'em think it more convenient to condemn all without any more ado, than to engage in a solicitous enquiry after the true principles of christianity. i have already shown the danger and unreasonableness of this laziness; nor are there any persons who disagree to it: but when they would actually get quit of this passion, they find themselves so much prejudiced in favour of it, that they have need of their utmost endeavours to be cured, or to form an opposite habit. besides all i have hitherto said, we ought to reflect upon the pleasure of being in a contrary disposition to this idle temper, which is not only infinitely more satisfactory, but likewise much more reasonable; and it may happen that the love of truth would be preferred to a shameful quiet, worthier of beasts than men. let us imagine now such a lazy person as we have been speaking of, and let us compare his condition to that of a man whose mind being accustomed to enquiry, finds no repose except in the certain knowledge of the truth. the first having perceived some false doctrine which was taught him as a true one (for we may grant this to several of the lazy unbelievers) he rejects this doctrine, and whatever else is affirmed to be true concerning religion, without considering that important truths might be mixed with falsehoods in the theology of his country; or that there may be people perhaps elsewhere exempted from those errors that were taught him; or finally, that the doctrine of the first founders of christianity might have been misunderstood. common sense would teach a man to suspend his judgement at least, till he had examined these three heads. but for this there is more caution and moderation requisite than unbelievers commonly have, who, looking upon such an examen to be impossible, choose rather to deny all at once. this is just as if any reader, because he had discovered by chance an error in some historian, would immediately conclude, without reading any further, that the whole was pure romance, and that there was no such thing in the world as a true history. notwithstanding such a ridiculous and hasty judgement, unbelievers seem to live in as profound a tranquillity, as a man could do who knew by mathematical demonstrations that all religions were false. they appear to have so great an indifference for truth in this respect, as if it did not concern them to know it. they are ready, while in this disposition, to do whatever may render the enjoyments of life more pleasing, nor will they hear a word of examining; and they indulge themselves in those pleasures as far as they judge it possible without doing 'em any harm. it is plain then that this opinion opens a door to numberless secret crimes, and gives encouragement in public to all that can be practised with safety. i will not insist upon it, that such people are bad friends, bad subjects, or bad citizens, because they sacrifice every thing to their pleasures; i shall only remark, that being no way certain of the truth of religion, or that god would have 'em to be of any religion, they can enjoy no other quiet but what must be an effect of the most notorious folly imaginable. they are, according to their own judgement, every moment in a condition of parting for ever with what they love, and which to acquire or preserve has frequently occasioned 'em infinite trouble. this loss may happen by a thousand unforeseen accidents, and at last it is sure to come unavoidably by death, beyond which they expect nothing. nevertheless they live securely. they behave themselves much worse than a man would do, who being seriously told that he is condemned to death, but that there were means of escaping it if he would be at the pains to know them; and yet would think of nothing but diverting himself, without vouchsafing to give attention to what was said to him, though with the hazard of losing his life, in case those advisers whom he would not believe spoke truth. if what christianity tells us be indeed true, there are pains infinitely surpassing death to be feared by such as reject it; and yet unbelievers who have no certainty that these things are not true, rest securely in their infidelity and lazines, without informing themselves any further. in good truth such as live in this disposition, and who imagine themselves exalted above the vulgar, are not in this respect much elevated above the brutes, which are only concerned about the present. now, on the contrary, let us suppose a man who has well studied the principles of true christianity, satisfied in himself with the truths he has discovered, he observes the precepts they enjoin him with all tranquillity in this life, and after death he expects the reward of his faith, with a contentment of mind that cannot be equalled. the most refined reason, and the laws of the society wherein men must necessarily live with one another, requires nothing of him, but he obeys it without hesitating; and whatever befalls him, he looks upon death only as a passage to a much better life than this. i dare affirm something beyond all this; and it is, that supposing this man deceived, yet his condition would be infinitely more desirable than that of such, as refusing to examine religion, reject it nevertheless with the hazard of losing themselves for ever, and are withal in a perpetual fear (if not quite bewitched with their incredulity and laziness) of losing for ever all that is dear to them. it is therefore infinitely more reasonable and more sure both for this and the other life, if there be one, to search after truth, and to examine the proofs of religion, than to live and die in the most extravagant carelessness imaginable. this is all that i desire should be granted me here, and that cannot be denied me by any, without acting against the clearest evidence of common sense. those who refuse to believe the truth of the christian religion, ought carefully to examine themselves, and see whether this laziness i have described be not at least in some part the cause of their incredulity. this examination is of the utmost importance, there is nothing to be lost by making of it, and you risk all by neglecting it. the conclusion of the first part. i have described in the preceding chapters those dispositions and motives contrary to reason, which might bring unbelievers to reject the christian religion. although i have considered these different dispositions one after another, and have distinguished them by particular characters, i am not of opinion however that they act separately upon any, or that there are unbelievers who may be reproached only with one of these faults. there is not any questionless that is not at the same time guilty of several of them; but there are such as may be more culpable in one than in another. immorality makes one an infidel; in another 'tis pride that chief opposes itself to the light of truth: you see some blinded by their prejudices which they take for undoubted maxims; there are others who do not reason well, or neglect informing themselves of what they should learn, or whom laziness keeps from entering upon a discussion, which to them appears too tedious and painful. and perhaps there be those in whom all these faults may meet in some degree, though but one of them may be their predominant passion. there is likewise infinite variety in men's genius and understandings with respect to their good or bad qualities, and their different conjunctions. did we meet with unbelievers who could say, that they renounced the truths of the gospel for no other end, but to follow the most conformable principles to sound reason, and to live in a more regular manner, or more useful to society; and could we meet with any of them exempted from the faults i have described, it might then be justly said, that my enumeration of the internal motives of incredulity was not sufficient, but i take it for granted that there is not one unbeliever, in whom several of these defects are not remarkable, and i take their own consciences to witness. they are herein to do justice to themselves: for such as exhort them, as i do, get nothing by it, but only the satisfaction of performing their duty; nor can the unbelievers lose any thing by examining, if they are not in some of those conditions by me described. if they are obliged to own themselves in the wrong, what risk can they run by reforming? and if after a serious discussion they find me deceived, they'll have reason to be more satisfied with their own conduct. the time they shall lay out upon this disquisition cannot be counted lost or vainly spent, seeing the matter in debate is the most important thing in the world, and that the discovery of truth must at all times necessarily produce joy, satisfaction and tranquillity; or augment them, if enjoyed already. the second part. of the motives of incredulity which proceed from the occasions given unbelievers to doubt of the christian religion, or entirely to reject it. chap. i. that the truth of the christian religion ought not to be called in question, because some embrace it more from credulity than reason. although, as i have already said, there is no unbeliever but is in some disposition which inclines him to reject the christian religion, it must be confessed however that there are many other things whereof they cannot be accused, but which nevertheless confirm them in these dispositions. 'tis true that it is ill done of them to forsake the truth upon any account whatsoever, but they are not much less to be blamed who furnish 'em with the occasions of doing so. i have undertaken to show the one and the other in this second part, where, granting to unbelievers that many of them who profess christianity are in the wrong in several things, i shall demonstrate that it no way follows from thence that the christian religion is not true, and that we ought not to attribute to the first teachers of it, those faults which we remark at this day in some of those who call themselves their disciples. the occasions which the latter give unbelievers to conceive an ill opinion of religion, proceed either from the persons or from the things themselves. i shall forthwith examine those which the persons give, and afterwards such as proceed from things. one of the most general and common scandals which occasions the obstinacy of unbelievers is, that they see a world of people who are christians not from reason and understanding, but from their education, and out of mere credulity. if these had been born in asia, they would, without changing their disposition, be idolaters or mahometans; and as zealously embrace the idle dreams of the bramins, or the errors of mahomet, as they believe in europe that the christian religion is true. they receive fables that are manifestly ridiculous with no less respect than the most certain histories; and they believe not less the most pernicious doctrines and the most contrary to the good of mankind, than the holiest and most useful precepts of the gospel. it is not the nature of the objects laid open by the teachers of religion to their understanding, which determines these to believe 'em true, or to look upon them with respect; but it is the authority of those who speak to them well or ill-grounded, and a certain credulity carefully cherished in their minds, because of the advantages drawn by some from it, as we shall show in the sequel. deceived by a faint resemblance, they call their credulity by the name of faith, and maintain that those want it who believe not as they do all that is told 'em by their preachers, and consequently that they have not such a disposition as the gospel requires of men, seeing it promises salvation only to those who have faith. if any person reasons about religion, and says that it can neither be known nor proved without reasoning, presently these people, who neither know the proofs nor the doctrines of it but very confusedly, are sure to suspect him of irreligion, especially if he forsakes any of the common sentiments, the falsity whereof he may have discovered by his application and study. these people so much persuaded, if you believe them, of the truth of christianity, cannot believe many times that a man who knows how to reason well should embrace it in good earnest, and they are alarmed at the least examination of it. in the mean time, the unbelievers who hear these discourses, and behold this conduct so visibly repugnant to common sense, laugh at this pretended faith, and draw from it this unhappy consequence, that the doctrine to be received so credulously is either false, or at least to be extremely suspected. thus the heathens formerly hearing the christians say, that they needed only to believe in order to be saved; and not understanding what this meant, * origen. count. cells. l. 1, & 6. laughed in like manner at the christian religion, as if none could receive it but credulous persons, and such as were not capable of reasoning. and indeed if it had for a main principle this doctrine, that people must embrace it without knowing why, and that such as should thus believe it should be saved: if they had maintained this, i say, the preachers of this religion might be justly suspected of imposture, and those who received it, without being able to render any reason, be condemned as too credulous. to speak in such terms would confound religion with all sorts of impostures, which are only established upon the credulity of the people: it would likewise open a door to all the falsehoods that could be told, if belief were all that was requisite; for there could be no reason to receive one thing without examen no more than another. were this so, how could the christians boast of being certain of the truth of their religion, and the falsity of others; since the belief of all religions would be built upon the same credulity? but 'tis false that the christian religion requires assent without examination, or that it is grounded upon a blind faith. it is also false, that such as receive it upon those scores can pass for christians whose faith is praiseworthy. to be certain of the first of these two things we need but consider the conduct and discourses of jesus christ. had he come into the world without any character to distinguish him from impostors who have frequently imposed upon the credulous; was he to be believed merely upon his own word, or had he required any such thing, the jews would have done well to reject him. nay, and had he in very deed been sent of god, if he did not offer cogent proofs of it, no body could be blamed for not believing on him: for then such as were the most persuaded of the truth of the jewish religion, and therefore the best disposed to embrace the doctrine of those prophet's god would be pleased to send to them, could not, without hazard of deceiving themselves, acknowledge any man to be effectually a prophet, who could give them no evident marks of his mission. therefore jesus christ came armed with the power of working miracles, and he wrought so great a number, if you credit the evangelists, that he infinitely surpassed all the prophets who were before him. now this is the mark which moses taught the israelites should discover the true prophets, and jesus christ grounded himself upon it when he required assent to his doctrine. he never desired any to believe in him purely upon his word, as it may be seen by divers passages in the gospels. if i bear witness of myself, says he, joh. 5.31. my witness is not true, that is, it cannot be looked upon as true, unless there be some other proofs of it besides my saying so. then, after telling that john baptist had boar him witness, he adds, ver. 36. i have a greater witness than that of john; for the works which the father hath given me to finish, the same works that i do bear witness of me, that the father hath sent me. he further says to those that desired him to declare if he were the christ, the works that i do in my father's name bear witness of me: ch. 10.25. and a little lower, if i do not the works of my father, believe me not; ver. 37. but if i do, though you believe not me, believe the works. what can be said more to the purpose than what you meet with in the same gospel, viz. if i had not done amongst 'em the works which none other man did, ch. 15.24. they had not had sin? by this it appears clearly that the author of the christian religion did not require assent to his bare word. his apostles have acted just after the same manner; for they did not only affirm that they had seen the miracles of their master, or that he had spoken to them from heaven after his ascension; but they have also joined to their testimony all the marks of truth that could be possibly desir'd. their doctrine considered in itself did not afford the least occasion to suspect imposture; they could not expect any temporal advantage by publishing it; on the contrary they met every where with an obstinate resistance from the jews and heathens; they were ill used every moment, and walked in perpetual dangers: in a word, many of 'em suffered death for constantly persevering in the profession of the truth. and to accumulate proofs, they wrought miracles like to those of jesus christ, as he promised them they should before he left them. the incredulous will object perhaps that i beg the question by supposing the truth of what is doubted of; but my design is not now to infer any consequences from these facts in favour of the christian religion: i only conclude from hence that the apostles did not preach a blind faith or obedience, as some christians do at this time: one of them exhorts those to whom he writes, not to believe every spirit, 1 john. 4.1. but to try the spirits whether they be of god, because may false prophets were gone out into the world. another advises them, to try all things, 1 thess. 5.21. and to hold fast that which is best. it cannot be said therefore that such as cry up implicit faith do act according to the genius of christianity; nor can the ridiculous pretences of those who require assent to their say-so, be justly attributed to jesus christ or his apostles. it may be demanded of me here perhaps, what that faith is which is so much commended in the writings of christ's disciples. this is not the proper place of discussing this subject throughtly, nor will i meddle with any more of it than is absolutely necessary to solve this difficulty. faith, as we have said before, being not an implicit belief, consists first in assenting to good proofs, that is, as strong proofs as the nature of the thing will bear. for instance, a man affirms himself to be sent of god, he preaches a certain doctrine to me, which he confirms by miracles. immediately i examine this doctrine in itself, without regard to any prejudices, and without considering whether it be conformable to my present disposition or not; and if i find that it contains nothing false, i conclude it may possibly come from god. then i proceed to the miracles, and if i see 'em wrought, or if i find the truth of them attested by persons worthy of credit, i cannot doubt but god has actually sent this man. those who are capable of making this examen as they ought, are worthy of great praise; for in the first place they must quit all their prejudices, and consider what is proposed to them, not as it relates to themselves, but with respect to the eternal laws of truth and falsehood. secondly, they must have a great love for the truth to go through with an examination, whose consequences may prove very opposite to their temporal interests, as i have shown in the first part of this work. there are times and places when a man cannot declare himself persuaded of the truth of the gospel, without exposing himself to most cruel persecutions; and it may be said, that the commands of christ cannot be exactly observed by us any where almost, without drawing upon ourselves the hatred and contempt of such as disobey them, that is, of the greatest part of men. so that to be a good christian, there is more courage and resolution necessary than is commonly imagined; nor can it therefore be doubted, but that faith, such as the gospel requires of us, is a very great virtue. it is also deserving of much commendation, if we consider that it is never found but in minds well-disposed. it engages us not only to believe that he who speaks to us in the name of god, and adds sufficient proofs of it, has been really so sent, but also to expect great things of god for the future, grounding ourselves upon the proofs he exhibits of his power. those who saw the persons brought to life again by jesus christ, who saw himself after his resurrection, and who could not doubt of the truth of these miracles, were obliged from hence to a firm persuasion of what he taught them concerning the general resurrection of all men. i'm of opinion that no reasonable man will look upon the last as impossible, if he holds the first to be true; for there is no greater difficulty in raising an hundred than one again: and it could not, without folly, be said by any, that god's power was all spent upon those first effects of it they had seen. nevertheless, men being accustomed to believe nothing but what they learn from their own experience, can scarcely be persuaded of any thing without seeing some examples of it. he must be a person of discernment and good sense who draws such a consequence as i have mentioned; and he must also have some equity, to expect for the future such great things from the marks that god has given of his power. an unjust and obstinate man will believe nothing except what he sees, and has no regard to any thing but the present. it cannot be denied therefore, but that such an enlightened and understanding faith as we have described, is a most commendable disposition of mind, and most agreeable to the purest light of reason. but here i foresee an objection, viz. i shall be told that i have described the faith of such as had seen the miracles of jesus christ and his apostles, and not their faith who live at this time. to this i answer, that what i have said of the persuasion of such as have seen those miracles, may be easily applied to them that now will examine the proofs we have that such miracles were really performed. to assent to these proofs one must be in a disposition like to theirs who first embraced christianity, by seeing the micracles of its founders. nay, in some sense it may be said, that such as relish those proofs, and draw from them their natural consequences, aught to be better disposed than those who were the eye-witnesses of the actions of christ and his apostles; because what is seen makes an impression upon the most ignorant persons; whereas abstracted proofs require more penetration and love of truth than most men have. this is the reason that jesus christ speaking to st. thomas, joh. 20.29. who without he saw him would not believe his resurrection, says to him, thomas, because thou hast seen me thou believest; blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed. he accused him of obstinacy, because having no just occasion of suspecting any fold in the other apostles who affirmed they had seen their master, yet he would not believe them. if this disposition be , as indeed it is, we must on the other hand commend their disposition, who, without seeing, assent to sufficient reasons. st. peter therefore praises those christians to whom he wrote, because they loved jesus christ whom they had not seen, 1 pet. 1.8. and because they believed in him, though then they saw him not. it will be easily granted perhaps that docility, the contrary disposition to obstinacy, is very praiseworthy; but it may be said to me, that the knowing faith which proceeds from it, must be a very rare thing, compared to the blind faith i condemn. it is well known that there are few men of all qualities and conditions fit to examine throughly such proofs as our belief is built upon, and that do not judge of the cause before understanding it. from thence it must follow, some will say, that you deny to a great many those commendations which you bestow upon discerning faith. the most simple, and these are such as were thought fittest to receive the gospel, are not capable to examine their proofs, and so excluded, according to you, from the kingdom of heaven. these difficulties, i confess, appear specious at first sight, but at bottom have no solidity. first; i agree that true faith is a thing infinitely more rare than credulity or infidelity, and herein i do but follow the doctrine of the gospel, which says, mat. 20.16 & 17.14. that many are called but few chosen. that virtue which the gospel requires of men is not a thing commonly met with, no more than extraordinary knowledge. nor ought the incredulous to wonder that the description i have made of the true faith agrees but to very few people. on the contrary, we might suspect the sincerity of the first teachers of christianity, had they taught a doctrine fit to draw in a great multitude without knowledge or virtue, promising them salvation notwithstanding their ignorance and vices. it would have been said not without reason, that they only designed to gain the multitude, and to augment the number of their followers. but the author of the christian religion has said, that straight is the gate of salvation, mat. 7.14. and that they are few who enter it. secondly; the simple, or the babes whom the gospel commends, are not ignorant or stupid men, who have no relish of truth. they are not selfconceited persons, they are troubled with few prejudices, and are ready to embrace truth and virtue when offered or taught them. on the contrary, the wise and prudent, who are not fit to receive the gospel, are men puffed up with pretended knowledge, full of prejudices, and so disposed as to reject whatever is not conformable to their ideas, and their present condition. such were the priests and scribes of the jews, and most of the best quality of that nation. they were so strongly persuaded that there could not be imagined a better way of serving god than that there was no theology more excellent than their own; that to offer at undeceiving them was enough to procure their hatred and indignation. moreover, they were not persons who knew how to reason strictly, or that had exact ideas of theology and morals. the law of moses explained by their teachers, and their traditions good or bad, made up all their knowledge. jesus christ calls 'em wise and prudent, only because they were commonly thought so. on the other hand, such as he calls babes, were people looked upon by the doctors of the law as children in comparison of the learned; but that indeed were much more capable of relishing truth than they, because they were neither blinded with prejudices, nor filled with a high conceit of themselves. they were also men of good sense, very competent judges of the truth of christ's miracles, and the sanctity of his doctrine. something of this nature may be met with every day in those places where theology is corrupted by the errors that are mixed with it. let any address himself to an unlearned person, but of good sense and morals, he can be easily persuaded that the divinity of his country is erroneous: he shall very well perceive the force of a good argument, and yields assent to truth as soon as he knows it. go on the contrary, and propose the same thing to a divine, there is no wrangling shifts nor chichaneries that he has not recourse to, rather than acknowledge the truth; and his pretended learning contributes often to render the clearest truths obscure to him. in the mean time, if you would represent to him the example of one amongst the vulgar, who had been convinced by your reasons, he would treat him immediately as an ignorant or fickle fellow, although he had much more sense and integrity than himself. this is what jesus christ remarked when he said, i thank thee, o father, mat. 12.25. because thou hast hidden these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes. but some will press upon me harder, it may be, and ask what i think of that great number of people, who not only have no sort of learning, but that cannot conceive an argument of two lines, that understand not the proofs of christianity, that consequently are not capable of examining them, and that nevertheless profess to believe in jesus christ. although an infinite number of people be comprehended under the name of rude and ignorant persons, we must however acknowledge that there are several degrees and sorts of ignorance. they cannot be all exactly distinguished, but this is not necessary to answer the question proposed. i shall remark in the first place, that those rude and ignorant persons who are men of ill morals, and continue such, are not of their number whose faith is acceptable to god, though they make profession of believing in jesus christ. he will make no more account of 'em for this, than if they had been in a quite opposite persuasion; and 'tis certain that no ignorance can excuse them, as we could easily show. secondly, if men not of such ill morals, at least not in so scandalous a manner, should embrace the gospel out of pure credulity, as they would receive the contrary were they taught it, 'tis evident this is not the faith so much extolled by the gospel. a proof whereof is, that those people ordinarily change from black to white, according as they altar their minds who have the conduct of their consciences. nor do i well know whether such men can be properly said to be of any opinion: for they have no conception of what is never so little abstracted, and only conform themselves externally to those for whom they have a respect. but among those that may be termed gross and ignorant persons, there are some who, without any learning, have much uprightness and integrity of mind, which makes them admire and receive the truths of the gospel as soon as proposed to them, though they are not always capable to express clearly all that they think. the beauty of the evangelic morals makes a great impression upon such men, and easily gains their souls; and as they discover nothing in the other doctrines of christianity that shocks their notions or desires, they cordially embrace them, and constantly persevere to believe them. this disposition and carriage is certainly very commendable, and conformable to the doctrine of jesus christ. such were, for example, the apostles, before they were extraordinarily illuminated. the miracles and discourses of jesus christ gained them in a small time; and the more they continued with him, the more they admired him, although they were still prepossessed with some jewish errors. we may place also in this rank the publicans and women of ill lives, who were converted by seeing the miracles and hearing the doctrine of christ. there are a world of people of this sort, who are for a time drawn into an evil and shameful manner of life by seducing temptations, and the force of certain conjunctures; but all the while the love of truth and virtue is not quite extinguished in them. and this is the reason that when providence lays the one or the other before them in a sensible and touching way, as in the time of jesus christ, and upon a thousand other occasions, they forthwith renounce their immoralities, and zealously take up the opposite method of living. at this day such as truly believe in christ, and that are not capable of making long deductions, have not indeed the same advantages as the apostles had, and the other disciples, who saw those miracles wrought which convinced them, without much reasoning, of the truth of his mission, and the divinity of his doctrine. but the doctrine of jesus christ being always the same, the holiness of its precepts recommends them as much as ever to the understanding of such as are not quite corrupted with the bad customs of the age. we see every day the excellency and usefulness of them, whether we consider them as practised by others, or remark the disorders which accompany all ways of living opposite to them. to perceive this, there is need only of a little virtue and good sense. on the other hand, if we cast our eye upon the doctrines contained in the gospel, and which solely tend to lead us to the observation of its precepts, to procure us eternal happiness, there is nothing herein but what is worthy of god, especially if they be drawn out of those fountains which the subtlety of modern divines has not corrupted. nor does the history of the first establishment of the gospel contain any thing but what is conformable to the doctrine of it, and proper to persuade us of its truth. this history written in so plain and natural a method, carries in itself all the characters of sincerity; insomuch that in reading of it, one has not the least suspicion to make him doubt, whether the writers of it believed it or not. the most part of the matters of fact mentioned in it are of such a nature that few could be deceived about them. all this joined together is more than sufficient to persuade a man whom vice, or i know not what science falsely so called, hath not blinded: and the difficulties which the incredulous find in them proceed rather from their disposition of mind than from the things themselves. it is indeed true that the persons we speak of are not capable to judge of those subtle and perplexed questions which divide the divines. but it cannot be said neither, that the distinct belief of doctrines above the reach of a discreet and sincere man that loves virtue, though he has no learning; it cannot be affirmed, i say, that such a distinct belief is necessary to his salvation. every man that loves the truth, that according to his best understanding embraces all that he conceives in the gospel, that orders his life by what he believes, and that endeavours as much as possible he can to increase his knowledge, does all that is requisite to obtain salvation from the mercy of god, according to the ideas we have of it from the gospel. for it may be said. that this man improves the talents he received as much as god indispensibly requires it of him; and nothing hinders, but we may apply to him what jesus christ said in the parable; good and faithful servant, mat. 25.23. thou hast been faithful over a few things, i will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord. if it be objected to me further, that there are some who are not by any means capable to see in the morals of the gospel, in its other doctrines, and in the history of it, that usefulness, excellence and sincerity which i said might be remarked therein, and nevertheless believe it to be true; i have nothing to reply to this but what i have said already. these people imitate others, but they have not that faith which the gospel demands. it is not calculated indeed for the learned alone, but no more is it for brutes. such as understand not, or are supposed not capable to understand any thing of it, should become men before they think of being christians; for there is no great difference between them and the savages of africa or america. so i may conclude that the incredulous do calumniate the christian religion when they accuse it of requiring from men a blind credulity, and to condemn examination. it has been shown that there is nothing more false, by reasons, if i'm not mistaken, that can never be answered. chap. ii. that the immorality or ignorance of those who sometimes show the greatest zeal for religion, ought not to render it suspected to the incredulous. the christian religion demanded not only that it should be thought true, but also that this belief be externally professed, and that a man let no opportunity slip of showing others by his life and discourse that he's firmly persuaded of it. 'tis by no means a speculative science to continue locked up in the memory, without bearing any fruit out of it, and without appearing in their manner of living who are convinced of its truth. it fills them with a certain ardour for the observation of what it commands, that the true christians are easily perceived to be in earnest. 'tis this disposition that is called zeal from a greek word which signifies jealousy, to show that we ought not to have less ardour for the honour of christianity than a bridegroom should be concerned to preserve that of his bride. this zeal extends generally to all the doctrines, and to all the precepts of the gospel, and not to some of them only. we ought zealously to defend the truths we learn from it, otherwise it were to betray and equal it to falsehood; nor ought we to manifest less ardour in observing its injunctions, seeing this is not less essential than the belief of its doctrines. the one and the other must be joined; for christianity is entirely ruined, if those things be separated which the author of it has united. the reason of this is, that the doctrines lead us to the observation of the precepts, being revealed to us for this end; and the observation of the precepts does indispensibly suppose a strong persuasion of the doctrines. all christians are agreed about this principle, and jesus christ and his apostles are very express about it, so that there is no necessity to prove it. nevertheless, it is evident that such as show the greatest zeal for the christian doctrines, and for the way of explaining them in their country, are frequently seen to violate the clearest precepts of it after a most scandalous manner, as if this ardour they show for the defence of the doctrines were all that the gospel requires of men. there are some people, for instance, whose discourses breathe nothing else, one would think, but the love of the truth, and the desire of preserving the knowledge of it, and of propagating it amongst men. they writ in favour of it, they defend it with much heat against opposite errors, and they stick at no difficulty to make truth triumph over falsehood. nay, they expose themselves sometimes to dangers for this with a surprising courage. but these very same people who seem entirely devoted to the service of god, and the defence of religion, are sometimes altogether intractable, when a man has any deal with them. selfish, proud, deceitful, slanderers, uncharitable, and breaking most of the commandments regarding their neighbour, they imagine themselves the best christians in the world; and the ignorant or corrupt multitude looks upon 'em as in effect good men. such were in christ's time the pharisees, whose zeal for the law we read of in the gospel, where at the same time they are represented as a very ill sort of men. there are too many such at this time, and every country will furnish frequent examples to all that have a mind to make their observations. what st. paul said long ago to the hypocritical jews, may be now said to many people; you that make your boast of the law, rom. 2.23 by breaking the law, dishonour god; for the name of god is blasphemed among the gentiles through you. the unbelievers who take notice of these men, draw a consequence very injurious to the christian religion; which is, that seeing those who pass for the pillars of religion, who have sometimes the best employments, and who are in most esteem, are such ill people, the religion itself is but a mere artifice to deceive the simple, and to cover their passions under a pretence which gains 'em respect: for in a word, all that the zealous do, if you believe 'em, is for no other end but the service of god. thus unbelievers come to imagine that the beauty of the christian morals, which they cannot deny, is only a fine idea to impose the more easily upon such as are not always upon their guard. they are much talked of, say they, but the most zealous observe no more of them than serves their turn. they would have others, perhaps, obey them exactly, that they might get by it, but as for themselves they laugh at them. you'll hear those, for example, preach charity and impartiality, who have neither the one nor the other, but are wonderfully pleased to find those they have to do with lemma ourself or uncharitable, because it makes for their advantage. this is what unbelievers say, and they are never unfurnished with examples to cite about all the christian virtues, whereof there is not one that has not been violated by some zealot, and many times without doing him any injury in the opinion of the world, because this appearance of zeal covers all defects. the fact we deny not, and we may add further, that jesus christ and his apostles have foreseen it, by exalting that charity which is principally violated by this false zeal, above not only orthodoxy, but even the highest knowledge, and the power of working miracles itself. not every one that cries unto me, lord, mat. 7.21. lord, says jesus christ, that is, who makes profession of the truth of my doctrine, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven: but he that doth the will of my father which is in heaven. many will say to me in that day, lord, lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name have done many wonderful works? and then will i profess unto them, i never knew you; depart from me you that work iniquity. this is a manifest admonition which the author of the christian religion gives to his disciples, to prevent the evil example of pretended zealots making any impression upon them. st. paul likewise expresses himself upon this occasion in such emphatical terms, that it was not possible for him to speak more home: tho i speak, says he, 1 cor. 13.1 with the tongues of men and angels, and have not charity, i'm become as a sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. and though i have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge: and though i have all faith, so that i could remove mountains, and have no charity, i am nothing. and though i bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though i give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing. it appears plainly hereby that the carriage of pretended zealots is directly contrary to the principles of the gospel, as i have shown from the beginning of this chapter. this may serve for an answer to unbelievers, who cannot, without injustice, confound some persons abuse of religion with religion itself. if any pretended to have very much studied a certain science, and that it appeared by some of his discourses that he understood nothing of it, could it be concluded from thence that this science was only a chimaera? no body durst maintain it. but 'tis just thus with the christian religion, and such as are carried away▪ with a false zeal. the incredulous object further, that since those who show the greatest zeal observe not the most important precepts of this religion, 'tis at lest a sign that they are not themselves persuaded of its truth; for otherwise, say they, they would not quit the best part of it, seeing, if the speculative doctrines be true, what concerns practice is not less so. but if the most zealous are not persuaded of their religion, what may be judged of its proofs? this is certainly a prejudice that is very difficultly conquered in the minds of those who have more regard to what is said than to what is done, and who look upon men's morals as the character of their belief. every person has not strength of thought enough to consider the laws of the gospel in themselves, without any respect to the manner how they are obeyed, or to the judgement that christians seem to make of them by their conduct. but at bottom this is an ill-grounded prejudice, from which no consequence can be inferred against the truth of the christian religion, as it will appear by the following remarks. first of all, we may grant that there are some of those zealots in show for a part of the christian doctrines, who are not in effect persuaded of any of them, and who make use of the cloak of religion to impose upon the multitude, the better to carry on their affairs in the world. but does it follow from hence that the christian religion is not true? by no means; since it is evident that these men may be deceived as well as others. they are not always such as make the greatest noise about an art that best understand it. and if all the discourses of these people were well examined, it might be easily perceived that the christian religion has beauties to which they are utter strangers. there might be also remarked in their dispositions some invincible obstacles to the sincere acknowledgement of the truth of christianity, which is entirely contrary to those dispositions. the greatest part of these people believe, for example, that force must be made use of to establish truth, and that the magistrates who favour them aught to use those hardly that are not of their sentiments. nay, they maintain, that without this christianity is lost, and that all other religions shall triumph over it. all had been still pagan, according to them, if constantine and the other succeeding christian emperors had not employed their authority to destroy heathenism. now what other thing can such discourses mean, but that they are strangers to the true proofs of christianity, as well as to the spirit of charity and moderation, which is the life and soul of the gospel? those who have well study●d these proofs, and carefully examined all the parts whereof the christian religion is made up, find it so well grounded, its promises so becoming god and men, and its precepts so useful to humane society, that to make it wholly triumph over error, it is enough in their judgement to obtain a liberty of preaching it, and that such as profess it may incur no danger for so doing; in a word, that it may oppose the contrary opinions with equal arms. these persons animated with that spirit of moderation, whereof i spoke, and equally pressing all the parts of christianity, do not contradict by their actions the doctrines they profess with their mouths. if religion therefore were to be judged of from the conduct and discourses of its professors, regard aught to be had rather to these men than to others. secondly, i have showed elsewhere that since men do not always act according to their knowledge, but most frequently follow the movements of their passions, their sentiments must not be always concluded from their carriage. this being so, it may probably happen that certain zealots might act very disagreeably to their profession, which is an argument that we ought not to judge of their persuasion from their manners. we must confess however, that if in those zealots there appears a continual series of actions contrary to the clearest commands of the gospel, or inveterate habits of walking contrary to what must be known to be an essential part of christianity, than we have great occasion to suspect them of hypocrisy, and a design of covering their infidelity with a show of zeal. for it is not possible but that a strong and sincere belief should at length eradicate out of the heart all habits which are directly contrary to it. but the most ingenuous men may act sometimes against their persuasion by surprise, or the sudden motions of a violent passion. thirdly, as it would be injustice to judge of the goodness of the laws of any government from the way how they are observed, so it would be very ill reasoning to condemn the christian religion, because such as profess it obey it not. there may be most excellent laws, and acknowledged too for such, yet not always strictly observed, by reason of the interests and passions of those who break 'em, as it may be remarked in all kingdoms of the world. 'tis just so with the christian religion. what causes this contradiction between the sentiments and carriage of men, besides the reasons already alleged, is perhaps because they know not how to apply the general laws to the particular cases which happen every day, and that they mistake the most prohibited actions for exceptions to the rules. arrian upon epictetus, l. 3. c. 26. a famous philosopher said, that most of men's errors proceeded from their not knowing how to apply general to particular ideas. if we consider it nearly, we shall find that the same thing occasions at least in part the violation of many laws, which are all the while thought just and well-grounded. zeal accompanied with very great ignorance, and the greater as the ignorance is grosser, furnishes the incredulous likewise with another pretence of looking upon religion as a blind persuasion merely built upon the credulity of the people. and indeed we see that in all religions such as have least examined things, and that are the less discerning, appear frequently the hottest in defence of the party with which they are engaged. the furious zeal of the jews and mahometans, as well as that of the pagan populace, is so well known, that i need bring no examples of it. in those sects also into which christianity is at present divided, the heat wherewith the ignorant multitude defend their sentiments, and endeavour to propagate them, is but too common. this blind zeal has so often broke out, and has made use of such ill methods to advance each party, that there is no sect but has some reason to be ashamed of it. but if this false zeal may be considered as a consequence of the principles of the heathens, the mahometans, the jews, and some of the christians; it is certain that true christianity gives it no approbation: so that if the falsity of these religions or sects may be hence concluded, yet it follows not that we can reason against christianity in the same manner. i have already shown in the precedent chapter that it requires no such thing as a blind obedience from such as embrace it, and that it expressly condemns the furious zeal which flows from this spring. one of christ's apostles acknowledging that the jews had a zeal for god, rom. 10.2 gal. 1.14. adds, that it was without knowledge, and blames it exceedingly. another says to those to whom he writes; jam. 3.14. if you have bitter zeal and strife in your hearts, glory not, and lie not against the truth: this wisdom descendeth not from above, but is earthly, sensual, devilish: for where this zeal and strife is, there is confusion and every evil work. this blind zeal then is not an effect of the christian religion, and cannot be reasonably attributed to it; it is a consequence of the temper and education of the ignorant populace, who instead of defending the truth by its proper light, and the virtues it does produce in their hearts who duly receive it, defend it with the same arms they would error, that is, with passion and fury. this sort of people cannot, without extreme injustice, be looked upon as models whereby to judge of the spirit and effects of christianity, since it clearly condemns their conduct. we must on the contrary cast our eye upon the understanding persons who make use of none but good reasons in its defence; and that, to procure themselves love and respect, practise only those calm and peaceable virtues they learn from truth. this is the character which the founders of christianity bestow upon them who ought to be considered as the true christians. the wisdom that is from above, says the same apostle, is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be entreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy. chap. iii. that unbelievers are in the wrong for rejecting the christiam religion, because interest seems to be the cause of most people's devotion. since christianity has flourished in the world, it has frequently proved an advantageous thing to show great zeal for the doctrines of it. although this makes no change in the thing itself, (truth not depending upon the interest one has or has not to defend it) yet the incredulous are sure to take an occasion from hence of doubting the truth of the christian religion. there are endeavours made sometimes to gain them over, by representing to them the consent of the clergy in so many places and ages: but they instantly reply, that 'tis no wonder if those men did make a profession of christianity, since they would be great getters by it in so doing, but must lose infinitely if they did not. and indeed we must confess, that no cogent conclusion can be drawn from the example of all such as have defended, or that now defend the christian religion against infidels. but their reasoning is still less solid, as i shall show after putting it in a greater light. it is not well done to give those occasions of saying, that the defenders of the christian religion diminish the force of their objections; and those who by their ill carriage put before them this stone of offence and stumbling, deserve to be reproached for it, not to speak of revenging in this place the wrong they do to christianity. moreover, i have from the very beginning of this work proposed to myself not only to deal with such as entirely reject it, but with those also who seem to embrace it only by halves. let us imagine then a cheating priest, (people but too much known in all christendom) who pretends to some benefice, if he has none already, or aspires to a greater dignity than what he possesses. he appears humble, gentle, moderate, and kind. he speaks of nothing but disinterestedness, and the vanity of all the enjoyments of this life. if he has a talon for the pulpit, he there principally shows his zeal against the corrupt manners of the times. nay, he's in a fury against scandalous clergymen, and the abuses committed in ecclesiastical matters, so long complained of, and not yet reformed. in a word, he uses all the discourses that should be made in that place, in order to pass for an honest man, and to make the world believe, that had his incomes been greater, he would put 'em to much better uses than most ecclesiastics do. after acting his part for some years, at last he obtains his end, that is, a dignity and income that render him considerable in the world and in the church. but than it may be said of him, quantum mutatus ab illo? for indeed he's not longer to be known. he's forthwith haughty, hardhearted, untractable, and passionate towards all such as he thinks his inferiors. those who were his friends before, and upon whose friendship too he valued himself, aught to be very well satisfied with him, if he now vouchsafes them a look. the obligations they laid upon him, while he continued a private person, and when they expected no returns from him, are quite lost. he thinks they were all due to his merit, and that more were owing him; but as for himself, he owes nothing to any body, and does 'em too much honour, when he coldly receives the incense they are base enough to offer him. if he prefers any man, he must be some blockhead or flatterer, people that have no idea almost of their duty, and that are ready to admire any thing, the bad as well as the good, so be you make 'em live at their ease. this man so disinterested heretofore, becomes oftentimes insatiable, and the revenues of the best benefices are not sufficient to satisfy his avarice. he procures therefore as many as he can, and has never too many. if he be naturally covetous, all that he preached before of liberality is quite vanished, all the invectives he made against avarice are laid in perpetual oblivion. he does good to no body, and thinks of nothing but laying up treasure. if on the contrary he be a voluptuous or stately person, he consumes his great incomes in keeping a magnificent table, in having a stately train, and living as the proudest men, or the most addicted to their pleasure in the world. the sordid avarice of the one is a frugality becoming a good clergyman, and the excessive luxury of the other is but an expense absolutely necessary to keep up his rank in the world, and to beget respect in the laity. far from making the least reformation in the clergy that depend upon them, they let them lose to all the ill customs and manners to which they are subject, on condition they be submissive to them, and meddle not with their particular method of living. when unbelievers consider such a conduct, they cannot help being persuaded that these prelates, even before they get those dignities which they so scandalously abuse, did not believe a word of the matter. they imagine that they were not devoted to the church to edify it, and to lead christians to a virtuous life by their discourses and their example, but out of ambition or avarice; and that they made use of the cloak of religion to come at their ends. they likewise draw hence a further consequence, which is, that the christian religion is not true in itself, since men of the first order, and that make a profession of defending it, believe it not, whatever they say by reason of those great advantages they get by it. it must be confessed, that the clergy who live after this manner, cannot reclaim unbelievers, their actions being directly contrary to their discourses. they may long enough say the finest things in the world, and use the most solid reasons; yet the prejudice which unbelievers imbibe from their morals is so violent, that it carries it over all that can be said or imagined. 'tis still much worse when clergymen, whose morals are not better, and who were preferred by ill arts, without being capable of discharging their office, take upon them to censure unbelieving laymen. all that they can say serves for nothing else but to recall into the minds of these laymen their unworthiness, or the artifices they made use of to get preferment; nay, and what they say upon such occasions does pass for a continuation of their unlawful ways. 'tis believed they persist in acting a part, and all the marks they give of their zeal procures them nothing else but the reputation of being the best comedians. men's eyes are fixed upon their evil actions, and their incapacity. they think always upon their solicitations, and the shameful practices they made use of to come at the dignity which they enjoy. 'tis remembered that they made assiduous court to such as could serve 'em, without being at the least pains, in the mean while, of acquiring the necessary talents and knowledge for discharging this employment they so much intrigued for. the flatteries they so liberally bestowed upon the great, to whom they were ready to sacrifice all in order to be preferred, are not forgotten; and there is reason to believe they have not changed their thoughts, when they are seen every day as servile towards such as are above them, as they are haughty towards their inferiors. if damasus bishop of rome had endeavoured to convert ammianus marcellinus, he had no sooner begun to speak, but this pagan historian would remember the way how damasus was elevated to the episcopal dignity: damasus and ursinus, says he, lib. 27. c. 3 burning with an excessive desire of obtaining the episcopal see, opposed one another with so much violence, that they and their parties came to blows, and to cut one another's throats after they had sent for arms. juventius (governor of the city) not being able to repress nor appease them, was constrained to force his way, retreating into the suburbs. damasus had the better, his party having been very zealous in this affair. 'tis certain that in one day there were found in the palace of sicininus, where there is a christian church, an hundred and thirty seven dead bodies; nor was it an easy matter to pacify the people, who for a long time had been as it were in a fury. for my part, when i consider the splendour of the city of rome, i must confess that such as aim at those things ought to oppose one another with all their might to obtain their desires: for after they enjoy it, they live at their ease, they every themselves with the offerings or gifts of women, they ride in their chariots, they are well clad, and make banquets so sumptuous that they exceed the tables of kings. this is what marcellinus writes of damasus, and which, no doubt on't, could not dispose him to hear this bishop. the good order and policy that at this time is almost every where established, does hinder indeed the committing of such irregularities; but the secret and public brigues, the solicitations for men neither of merit or capacity, are not less frequent now than formerly. we see as many persons who have nothing to recommend them to preferment, but their diligence in making their court to such as could assist them; persons who have no other talents for discharging the employment they seek, but that of living easily and idly, joined to an extreme desire of obtaining it. therefore we should not wonder if clergymen thus preferred increase instead of diminishing the number of the incredulous. another thing which contributes much to keep up infidelity among christians, is, not only that such as profess the study of religion, and of teaching it to others, are slight observers of it themselves; but also that they have often but a very confused idea of it, and even in things of the greatest consequence. i will give an example of it, whereby it appears that churchmen do violate almost every where one of the clearest precepts of the gospel, as much out of ignorance, i believe, as passion. there is nothing so strongly recommended in the new testament as the love of our neighbour; and this love consists not only in helping, and being compassionate to him, in the things of this life, but also in behaving ourselves charitably towards him, if he be in any erroneous opinion as to religion, especially when it has little or no influence upon his manners. this charitable carriage is one of the principal branches, so to speak, of that general love of our neighbour, whom the gospel commands us to love as ourselves; and it is by so much the more considerable as it has been of perpetual use since christianity came into the world; and that it shall be perhaps till god thinks fit to call all mankind to render an account of their actions. christians have been divided almost from the very beginning into divers opinions; they are so still, and so they will continue, it may be, for ever; so that charity towards such as are in error, or are looked upon so to be, has been always of great use, and will be so▪ for aught we know, to the end of the world. nevertheless it may be said, that no part of christian theology has been so long neglected as this has been. 'tis but in the last age, and especially in the present, that any reflection has been made upon it. nor have there been but a very few persons that made it their business, and dared to affirm that it was one of the principal points of the morals of christ, in the state of ignorance wherein we live here below. most of the teachers of religion treat with vigour and cruelty those they look upon as erring in their opinions, let their morals be never so good, though they commonly pardon in others crying vices. i will not as much as speak of the inquisition, whose cruel maxims are abhorred by a considerable part of christians, but of the management observed in many countries where it is not established. nor will i treat expressly here of this question, which would require a volume as great, at least, as this; i shall only touch as much of it as makes for my purpose, without making any digressions. how is a clergyman treated in many places if he forsakes the common opinions never so little? if he has a benefice, he is in great danger of losing it, or at least exposed to the cruel slanders of such as would fain get his place, and who are always a good number, although he punctually discharges all his duties, and that his morals be irreproachable. but if he be not yet preferred, an opinion contrary to the received doctrines, be it of never so little consequence, is sufficient to exclude him for ever from all sorts of ecclesiastical preferments. and so zealous are some about the conformity of opinions, that the least suspicion is enough to do a vast prejudice to any it falls upon. nevertheless a great number of clergymen are so uncharitable as to raise many suspicions against such as they do not love. there's not a consequence so odious but they boldly draw it from their sentiments, and accuse them thereof to those whereupon they depend; and whom they often find so credulous about the ill that is said of their neighbour, or so little inclined to believe the good, that those clergymen in many conversations ruin for ever some innocent persons in the opinion of such as listen to their calumnies. on the contrary, if a clergyman who is already in possession of a benefice, or that aims at one, be a blockhead, idle, spending his time in eating and drinking, smoking, slandering, or doing some very scandalous thing, provided he be orthodox, as they speak, he quietly enjoys what he has got, or is in a condition of being preferred in the church without changing his manners. good men censure in vain his manner of living, without objecting any thing to him except what is public; but they are not harkened to, and towards him alone are practised the duties of that charity which thinketh no evil, 1 cor. 3.5, 7. beareth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things. the unbelievers who have their eyes principally fixed upon the carriage of the clergy, conclude from hence two things; the one, that good morals, that is, the principal duties of christianity are the qualities they have least regard to; and the other, that the body of ecclesiastics is only a mere faction, where the discovery of truth is not intended, but to support by all ways what can procure or preserve their temporal interests. the incredulous add further, that the candidates or pretenders to the benefices look upon them as a prey whereupon they may seize whenever they are vacant; or which they may forcibly snatch from such as possess 'em by whatever means they can. they conclude that the end of all this zeal affected for the doctrines is no other thing but a good income, and that they would not vouchsafe even to inform themselves about those doctrines, if this income were not settled only upon such as should. 'tis in vain for the clergy to say the contrary to unbelievers; the constant practice of so many ages and nations makes more impression upon them than all the discourse that can be made to them. from hence it is that they come to consider christianity itself as they do the falsest religions, and so die in an incurable infidelity; by their own fault, it's true; but also by a specious occasion of judging wrong, which several clergymen give 'em. they are by so much the more confirmed in their infidelity, as they see the zeal for temporals very different from that concerning spirituals. and this they easily discover by the distinction that is made of those who defend and are passionate for the temporal interests of their party; and of them, who, defending christianity by the strongest reasons imaginable, and after the best method of clearing people's understanding, deny not but that there are some disorders in the discipline of the church which need reformation. those last who ought to be esteemed and advanced by such whose profession obliges to favour them, are put back for ever, and looked upon as very dangerous persons, whilst the first are in favour all the while, and are sure to obtain what they desire. the incredulous judge by this conduct that it is not christianity in general they mind, whatever they say, but the temporal interests of the party; since those who consecrate themselves for the defence and propagation of the first are disgraced, and no reward is thought too great for others. these are the principal prejudices which ecclesiastics by their fault occasion unbelievers to entertain. i could add several things much more home upon them, if i would speak of all the abuses committed in the places where christianity is most corrupted; but if what i have mentioned does an extraordinary injury to religion, what may we not say of the rest? and besides, the answer i design to make to these prejudices, may solve the difficulties which might proceed from greater disorders than those whereof i have spoken. to show that the occasions of scandal and stumbling which are given to the incredulous, and of which we have been now speaking, ought not to injure christianity in general, and that consequently they should not hinder any from acknowledging its truth; it must be considered in itself, and in its first original. if there have been additions made to it, and if it has been since corrupted, that is no defect in christianity, but their fault who made these additions or alterations. those who have read the gospel, and the other writings of the apostles, cannot say that the first founders of the christian religion have engaged such as would preach it to discharge this duty from any consideration of interest. jesus christ promises nothing but persecutions and miseries in this world to the first ministers of the gospel: i send you forth, says he, mat. 10.16 as sheep among wolves. they will bring you into their synagogues, and scourge you. you shall be brought for my sake before governors and kings. the brother shall deliver the brother to death, and the father the child; and the children shall rise up against their parents, and cause them to be put to death; and you shall be hated of all men for my name's sake. he also says unto one of his apostles, whom he called after an extraordinary manner; acts 9.16. i will show him how great things he must suffer for my name's sake. the event did quickly convince the apostles that these predictions of jesus christ were not vain. the jews and the heathens, for the most part, gave them a very ill reception; and many of christ's first disciples suffered death for discharging the function wherewith their master honoured them. it cannot be said therefore that it was interest which engaged them in it, or that confirmed them in their first undertaking. had jesus christ made a considerable provision for such as would preach his gospel (as he might, and his doctrine be never the falser) it must be confessed that it would have been somewhat difficult to show unbelievers that the apostles did not act at all by any interest, and we should want a most considerable proof of their sincerity, and consequently of the truth of those matters of fact which they preached. herein we have matter of praising divine providence that has taken such care about the first establishing of the gospel, as to prevent those disadvantageous suspicions which people might nourish concerning any establishment like the present state of christianity. if jesus christ himself had enjoyed all the conveniences of life; as if he had been exalted, for example, upon the temporal throne of the family of david, from whom he was descended; then his morals, as fine as they are, and even the sanctity of his life had never made any impressions upon men's minds; because, when any great temporal advantage is joined to virtue, or made the reward of it, we easily suspect then that such as adhere to it are more influenced by this advantage than by virtue itself. since that time the christian religion being well established, the piety of its professors has not only provided for the subsistence of those who succeeded in the apostolic functions; but also, considering all places, for their conveniences, and a considerable expense in which they were engaged. as soon as persons of quality became christians, and that the emperors themselves embraced it, it was thought fit that the principal guides of the church should live in some splendour, without which they must become contemptible, and unable not only to keep up their respect with the people, but likewise with kings, and men of the first order. to consider mankind such as it is now, and ever will be, and not such as it ought to be, it is evident that this settlement was necessary after christianity became the governing religion. upon this it happened that many of those who aimed at ecclesiastical dignities did look upon them as mere temporal settlements, whereby they might live great. but the worldliness of those people cannot, without injustice, be attributed to the christian religion, nor to the founders of it, as i have shown. nor can they be blamed neither, who have augmented the dignity and revenues of churchmen, because they did it with a good design, and that it is possible enough for such as enjoy those dignities and revenues, to make a better use of them than most do. if after making as modest expenses as can be for the external part, they spend the rest of their revenues to some good purposes; where is the harm of this? is there any law in being that prohibits it? no surely; neither is there any thing that hinders them from being obliging, humble, and moderate, or from remembering their former condition before they came to these dignities. who would not heap commendations upon them, if they did so manage themselves that it might appear as much as possible that it was not to satisfy their avarice, or any other passion, they endeavoured to obtain the dignities aforesaid; but to edify the church more, and to lead the people to piety and charity by their example, which is of much greater efficacy than their discourses? have there not been in divers places and times some clergymen that behaved themselves after this manner, and who drew upon themselves the respect and admiration of the whole world. such were the bishops whereof ammianus marcellinus speaks immediately after giving that description of those bishops of rome which i mentioned before. his testimony is of so much greater weight as he was a heathen, and shows every where clear tokens of his sincerity. they might, says he, be really happy, if despising the grandeur of the city of rome, wherein they concealed their vices, they had imitated the way of living of some prelates in the provinces whom the frugality of their tables, the simplicity of their habit, and their eyes always fixed upon the ground, did render acceptable to god, and to his true worshippers, as virtuous and modest persons. therefore it is unjustly done of unbelievers to attribute to the old or modern christianity the faults of those who abuse the ecclesiastical dignities; and to conclude from hence the falsity of the christian religion is the worst reasoning that can be. the same thing may be answered to the objections of unbelievers drawn from the scandalous manner after which several clergymen have been preferred, and spend the revenues destined by their founders for men fit to edify the church. if they make a mere trade of these employments, and look upon their revenues as pensions granted to their importunities or flatteries, is this either the fault of the religion itself, or of the founders of those benefices? do we not see many virtuous clergymen who have been advanced only by their merit, and that make an excellent use of their dignities and revenues? ‛ true it is indeed, that those who abuse them are not proper persons to cure the incredulous of their prejudices, and that, far from edifying such as know them, they cannot fail almost, considering men's dispositions, of corrupting or scandalising them. 'tis the duty therefore of all good men to provide a remedy against this disgrace of the christian religion, and to stop the mouths of unbelievers. if the author of the christian religion, or those who first spread it throughout all the world, had ordered their disciples to suffer no diversity of opinions, not even in things that are not essential, and to persecute those who would not in every thing follow the sentiments of the greatest number; the libertines might then questionless justly attribute to them all the sad consequences that proceed from that intolerating principle whereof some divines make profession. but 'tis just the contrary; the founders of the christian religion recommend nothing so much as moderation and charity in such dissensions. the jews and the heathens that were converted to christianity agreed not well with one another in the days of the apostles. the jews, among other things, would have the gentiles observe the distinction of meats which the levitical law introduced, and condemned all those who refused to do it. the gentiles, who knew that god required this observation only from the jews, and that too but whilst they had a separate government to themselves, denied submission to this yoke, and laughed at the superstition of the jews. now what did the apostles in this affair? what counsel does st. paul give his disciples? do they say that the one must follow the practice and opinions of the other in all things, under pain of excommunication? do they order the christian church to persecute, as soon as she could be able, all those whose sentiments should in any thing differ from the majority? nothing less than all this: for the apostles divide the controversy, as it were; and will have both the parties to have a condescension for one another. they do not enjoin the jews to eat without scruple the flesh of those creatures prohibited in their law; nor do they on the other hand subject the gentiles to the superstition of the jews. they only command them, acts 15.29. to abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled; because the jews were exceedingly offended to see those who believed in jesus christ, and kept company with the apostles, eat such things, whereof they thought the use forbidden all mankind. they declare, that it seemed good to the holy ghost and to them, to lay upon them no greater burden than those necessary things. st. paul, after telling the corinthians, that no man can lay any other foundation than what is already laid, which is jesus christ, adds, 1 cor. 3.11, etc. that if any man builds upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, (that is, true doctrines) wood, hay, stubble, (that is to say false doctrines, though not destroying the foundation) the fire shall try every man's work; and that if any man's work abide, he shall receive a reward; but that if any man's work shall be burnt, he shall indeed suffer loss, but yet shall be saved so as by fire. in his epistle to the romans, where he speaks distinctly of that controversy decided by the apostles, rom. 14.1, etc. hear what advice he gives them; him that is weak in the faith receive, but not to doubtful disputations: for one believeth that he may eat all things, another who is weak eateth herbs. let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not, for god hath received him. who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth; yea he shall be holden up; for god is able to make him stand; that is, to keep him from being led by weakness into fundamental errors. st. paul adds several things upon the same subject, which now i shall not relate; but all that he says does clearly suppose that we must bear with one another in such things as destroy not the foundation, that is, which do not hinder us from putting our trust in jesus christ, or keeping his commandments. now if after all this, other maxims are observed in our time, they cannot be attributed to the apostles, nor consequently be looked upon as doctrines of the christian religion. whatever imputations they may be liable to who violate this branch of charity relating to the erroneous, (for they give too great occasions of reflection) yet these disadvantageous characters cannot slain the christian religion. it is no way needful for me to prove, that according to the notions of the gospel, the care of the spiritual part is incomparably above that of the temporal. the whole system of the christian religion speaks no other language; and therefore they deserve much more esteem who endeavour to extirpate infidelity and vices, than they who defend the temporal interests of christianity; for the first are infinitely more useful to the church than the latter. wherefore if some convert the interest of religion to that of a party, they must be blamed, and not the religion which wholly condemns this practice. chap. iu. that the divisions reigning among christians should not hinder any from believing that the christian religion is true. we learn from ecclesiastical history, that from the very decease of the apostles, nay and during their lives too, the christians begun to be divided into parties. but it was principally in the second age that a world of sects grew up which tore christianity into pieces after a most scandalous manner; and since that time one sect has constantly succeeded another, so that it may be said the christian church was never without divisions. what is yet worse is, that most of those sects mutually condemn one another. each of them pretends that there is no salvation for such as embrace not the doctrines they teach. i need not enter upon particulars, or bring distinct proofs of these divisions and anathemas; for they are matters of fact but too well known to all the world. from hence unbelievers take an occasion of saying that the christian religion is like all others, and that if it had come from heaven, as 'tis said to do, christians would be better agreed than they are found to be. the same god, say they, who gave it to men, would take care to prevent those divisions that extremely lessen the effects of it. on the contrary, it seems to be the apple of discord, which no sooner appeared in the world, but it caused numberless divisions. they add, that this keeps infidels and such as have been educated in other religions from embracing it: for not knowing which of those sects it is that teaches the true christianity, and being not in a condition to examine them all, they are at a loss how to determine the affair. they ask further of such as write for the truth of christianity, as i do now, which christian religion it is we defend; whether it be that which the roman church professes, or that of any of the other sects that make a separate body? there is not, say they, any christianity in general, and therefore you must determine for some of the parties; which is it then you have undertaken to defend? there are another sort of people whose conduct is not more prudent than that of the incredulous, and who after another manner abuse the divisions which reign among christians. they say, that not being capable to examine all these different sentiments, they find no method more sure than implicitly to embrace the religion of the country wherein they live, since they must needs be of some party. the incredulous reject all the different opinions of christians, as equally ungrounded by reason of their divisions; and such as say that without any examination they believe the religion of their country, know not well themselves what they profess to believe, and are exposed to almost as much danger of mistaking as the incredulous: for, in short, to reject all opinions, and to embrace, not knowing why, the first opinion that offers itself, is much the same thing. at bottom the latter are not a greater honour to christianity than the first, seeing they both of them suppose it destitute of any marks to distinguish it from error or imposture; therefore i thought it necessary to examine in this chapter the conduct of the one and the other. to begin with the incredulous, and to answer their objections in the same order that i alleged them, i absolutely deny that it follows from the divisions of christians, that the christian religion is not divinely revealed. if the christians could produce a promise from the founder of their religion, assuring them that they should never be divided, than the reasoning of the incredulous might pretend to some force; they could say that this promise not being performed, it was a sign it did not proceed from god. but matters are quite contrary; jesus christ and his disciples considering the dispositions of men, and foreseeing likewise future events, have clearly prophesied of the divisions that should spring up among christians. suppose you, says jesus christ, that i am come to give peace on earth? luke 12.51. i tell you, nay; but rather division: for from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three, etc. there must be heresies among you, 1 cor. 11.19. says st. paul, that they which are approved may be also made manifest among you. here are express words signifying that jesus christ and his apostles were not ignorant of the divisions, which the christian religion ill understood, or rather the passions of men would occasion among christians. but some may say, that it is a thing unworthy of a religion revealed from heaven to cause so many divisions, especially having such fatal effects. i grant this, if it be supposed that this religion does of itself inspire the spirit of division and disorder; but if it be only the innocent occasion of them, there can be no ill consequence drawn from hence against it. now it cannot be doubted, but that christianity is directly opposite to the divisions of christians, since jesus christ presses no commandment so strongly as that of our loving one another, john 13.33, 34. & 15.12, 17, etc. and consequently of living peaceably one towards another. every one knows this. christ however knew so perfectly the heart of man, that he saw very well the new command of loving one another, which he left his disciples, should not be well obeyed; and that his doctrine, as peaceable as it was, would frequently serve for a pretence to the passions of men in occasioning infinite broils; so that if his design were to be explained by the event, it might be certainly said he came to bring divisions on the earth. this is the sense of those words i cited a little above. but what, some will say? does it not seem a thing becoming god, for the honour of religion and for the good of men, to prevent its producing any disorders, not even by accident? no surely, god ought not to intervene by the extraordinary effects of his power to keep the peace among christians. the reason of this is, that his design, as it appears both by revelation and the thing itself, was by no means to bring men, at least ordinarily, to his obedience by miracles of this nature; but only by laws to which he fixed rewards and punishments, as i have already said in * part 1. ch. 3. another place. this is what st. paul hinted to in one word in that passage i cited before, when he says, that there must be heresies, that they which are approved may be also made manifest. this plainly signifies that if god by extraordinary means would hinder all divisions about his doctrine among christians, it should be no longer a virtue to remain steadfast on the good side, or to quit the bad in order to join it. those who love the truth, and keep to it out of choice and knowledge, would be confounded with those who should embrace it without knowing why, and who are as ready to embrace an error, were they taught it. the constant profession of the truth could not expect any reward, since it would not be in any one's power to forsake it. in a word, it would be superfluous to propose any laws at all to men, since it could not be in their power to violate them; for god, according to our adversaries supposition, would prevent this by his omnipotency. but it will be said perhaps that a wise legislator who foresees that his laws may be ill understood, or cause division should he express them obscurely, would take care to use very clear expressions; and that god, who foresees all things, aught by consequence to express his will in so clear a manner as to prevent all the disputes which we see now among christians. to this i answer, that god has expressed himself plainly enough in the writings of the apostles, especially about what is necessary to be believed, hoped, and done, to obtain salvation according to the laws of the gospel; and that there would be no disputes about necessaries if men did content themselves with the scripture-notions. what made divisions spring among christians are the additions and ill-drawn consequences, and not the text of the new testament. such as look in it only for the truth, they easily find this, and are never deceived about any thing essential; but those who would find therein what vain subtlety and humane interests or passions have added to it, are apt, i confess, to be deceived every moment. in a word, to all sincere persons who love the truth preferably to every other thing, the gospel is as clear as the sun, and cannot occasion any considerable dispute: but to men governed by their passions, and conceited of their prejudices, the most evident things in the world are obscure. there is no law so clear, but a wrangler may raise a thousand difficulties about it; and if a legislator should not pass for a wise man, except he expressly prevented all possible difficulties, and marked all the cases wherein ill-disposed persons would abuse his laws, there had never been any legislator to whom any wisdom could be attributed. none ever undertook to perform such a thing, because than they would be obliged to write an infinite number of volumes, to which something new must be added every moment, since there might happen infinite cases every day. therefore if god had designed to prevent all those controversies already moved, or that shall hereafter arise about the sense of revelation, and rejected by name all possible errors, he must have made so great a number of volumes, that, to use st. john's expression, the world could not contain them, and their multitude would render them useless. for proof that the clearest laws, and the most proper to prevent all sorts of disorders, become obscure to such as are not disposed to observe them; we need only call to mind what is already said of the charity to be used towards those who are in an error about any article of religion. it was not possible to speak more clearly or effectually upon this head than the apostles have done: and nevertheless the most part of christians practise at this time what they ought to have done if they had said just the contrary. thus they dispute about the sense of the revelation, rather because they are blinded by prejudices, and willing to dispute, than because it is in itself obscure with regard to necessary doctrines; and god was not obliged by any means to condemn expressly all possible errors to prevent disputes, as i have now shown. the divisions that are among christians, should not hinder the incredulous or infidels from giving them the hearing when they exhort them to embrace the christian religion. the reason of this is, that all christians, notwithstanding their divisions, are agreed about certain articles, by the examination whereof unbelievers must necessarily begin; and not by those particular controversies which divide christians. all christians are agreed about the creation of the world, about revelation in general, the moral precepts of the gospel, with the rewards and punishments annexed to them. they agree likewise about the history of the gospel, the divine mission of jesus christ and his apostles, the resurrection, and last judgement. these are the things they undertake to prove first, when they deal with infidels or unbelievers; and this is what with common consent they call the principles of christianity, which they prove all with like reasons. 'tis just with religion as with several other sciences in which the learned are not less divided. there are very great disputes, for example, among the physicians, about the causes of diseases, the virtues of remedies, and the way of applying them; but, maugre all their contests, there are certain things wherein in they all agree. in anatomy, in the description of the symptoms of diseases, in the knowledge of simples, and in chemistry there are a thousand things whereof no body doubts, and which are the most important parts of physic, with which a learner of this science must first begin. and 'tis so, as i have already said, with the different sects of christianity. as the diversity in the opinions of physicians keeps none that has a mind to it from examining the principles of their art; so the difference of sentiments in religion cannot discourage the lovers of truth: and indeed, as we have shown in the first part, they are other sorts of motives which take off the incredulous from examining it. what i have called the principles of christianity, is the same thing with what we may name, christianity in general. although there be no christian society that comprehends all its belief within those ideas only about which all christians are agreed; yet this hinders not but that those ideas may include the fundamental doctrines of christianity, and that we must be determined about these before we examine any particular doctrine of those societies which profess our religion. this is also what i undertake to defend in this work, and from the truth or falsehood whereof depends all the rest. if it be acknowledged, for instance, that these general doctrines are true, we must then examine in what society they are most purely taught: but were they found to be false, than we needed not examine any particular sect; seeing that all defending the same general principles, if they were not true, than all the sects would be all equally false. it is manifest then that the divisions of christians ought not to be any prejudice against christianity in general, nor hinder the incredulous from examining it. nor is it less certain that they cannot take any person off from this examen, that has a mind to embrace any one sect. the divisions indeed render this disquisition somewhat difficult, but by no means impossible. i shall be told, no doubt, that this is true with respect to men of letters or understanding persons; but the question is, what the ignorant populace must do in these divisions? as they are commonly judged incapable of this disquisition; so the surest way for them, some think, is to engage with the first party that offers itself. to this i answer, first, that to pass for a good christian one must know, at least, those general principles we spoke of. if there be people so stupid as to comprehend nothing of 'em, though otherwise men of good morals, we leave the disposal of them to god; but, as i said in another place, they differ very little from the savages of america or africa. secondly, if such as have parts enough to comprehend the principles of the christian religion, and virtue enough to frame their morals according to this model, are not able however to take cognizance of those differences which divide christians; it is not very difficult to determine what they must do both in equity and prudence. they ought not to judge of what they do not understand. they ought neither to approve or condemn any party concerning the doctrines in dispute. he that requires more of them, makes them pass the limits of their understanding, and obliges them to form an unjust and hasty judgement. while they find themselves uncapable to receive true information of the reasons on all sides, or to distinguish certainly which is in the wrong, they ought to suspend their judgements about controversies. 'tis a rule authorised by common sense not to judge of what we do not understand; nor can we believe, without renouncing common sense, that god would have any body acquiesce without good reasons for it. st. paul tells us, rom. 14.23. that whatever is not of faith (or persuasion) is sin; that is, that before we resolve to act in point of religion (for this is what he there treats of) we must be persuaded that we are in the right: but this we cannot be, unless we evidently know why. it will be said perhaps that god may be pleased with this cautiousness and moderation, but that men will not bear it, since they commonly oblige those that live in the same society with them to declare for all their doctrines. notwithstanding whatever is required of men, it is certain that they keep to this wariness whereof i spoke; because they are luckily uncapable of understanding such controversies as divide christians; although they easily comprehend the ground of christianity, which is suited to all sorts of capacities that are not quite destitute of their reasoning faculty about what makes no impression upon the senses. those people giving little attention to what they do not understand, apply themselves wholly to what they comprehend. thus they leave their controversies to divines, whilst they mind only the essentials of christianity. such as are not more knowing, and yet venture further in their opinions, and act accordingly, do judge and act manifestly against common prudence and natural equity. to imagine that god would have any regard to so unreasonable a conduct, is to extinguish the most certain light of reason or religion. in the third place, if it be supposed that such as cannot enter into the detail of controversies have nevertheless a little more knowledge than those i have described, than they may easily determine themselves after this manner, without running any risk at all. by reading confessions of faith they may learn wherein all parties in christendom agree, and take that for the foundation and ground of religion; because it is not likely that so many different parties who dispute so eagerly against one another, should agree in acknowledging certain heads as the true doctrines of christianity, if they were not such in effect. by the different parties of christendom i understand not all the sects that ever have been, but such as subsist at this time. the greatest part of the old sects are unknown to us; and if we may judge of them by what we read in history, most of them did maintain such extravagant positions, or led such shameful lives, that it was no difficult thing to discover their errors. if to this they add the reading of the new testament, they will be entirely confirmed in this point. but if after all this any would oblige them to approve or condemn beyond what they understand, or what they learned in the new testament, and from the unanimous consent of all christians, they may desire to be rightly informed concerning those things. and if such informations be so obscure that they cannot understand them, after all possible application on their part; or if they plainly perceive that they are repugnant to that general idea of christianity which they found before, than they cannot look upon them but as false or suspected, or at least as unnecessary. but if they be not permitted to judge according to their knowledge, nor to search after truth, they must retire into those places where they may freely do it, rather than to live against the light of their consciences. i shall not enlarge more upon this subject; and 'tis an easy task to infer from what i have here said the necessary consequences to answer all questions that may be made hereupon. it is sufficient for me rightly to conclude, that the divisions of christians cannot engage a reasonable person either implicitly to embrace the first party that offers itself, or to reject all the christian religion. chap. v that the incredulous object in vain, that christianity being so little known, and so ill observed, is not so useful to mankind as a religion revealed by god in favour of all men ought to be. it is a doctrine generally received among christians, that the christian religion is not revealed for any one people, or any peculiar places, but for all nations, and the whole earth. and this is certainly the doctrine of christ and his apostles. hereupon the incredulous make two objections: the first is, that there are a great many nations to whom the gospel has not been yet preached, and who live still in a profound ignorance. the other is, that among christians themselves every party affirms that christianity is not so well known as it should be among the rest. thus most men know nothing of it, and great part of such as heard of it understand it so little, if you believe the rest, that it signifies nothing at all to them. the incredulous are of opinion that providence should have ordered this matter better; but we can easily answer these difficulties. jesus christ and his apostles have indeed taught us that the christian religion was not as the jewish, and that it should be preached to all nations; but they said no where that this should happen all of a sudden, or in a few ages. they have not excluded any people from the knowledge of the gospel, or from the worship which god requires of men, as the jewish religion did, which was given only to the jews, and could not be entirely observed by any that did not live in palestine. but they did not say, that at a certain time the gospel should be spread over all the earth, strictly taken, that is, in both the hemispheres; and that all the people of the world would acknowledge the creator of heaven and earth for their god, and jesus christ alone for their saviour, their priest, and their king. they cannot therefore be blamed if the gospel is not yet known to all men. this objection does no more concern them, than if they were charged with the ignorance of such as lived before the coming of christ. for as god did not think fit to send jesus christ sooner, so he was not yet willing, it may be, that all people should know him. however there are no people to whom he has not been gracious enough to expect their thankful returns, though he has been more kind to one than to another. there is no injustice in this, provided he requires no more than he has given; i mean if he judges all nations according to their portions of knowledge, as he infallibly will do. it might be said perhaps, that if the gospel be not yet made known to all the world, it is the fault of christians. some of 'em think of quite another thing, besides imparting their knowledge to those people who live yet in ignorance. they are at immense expenses to satisfy their desires, or to make war upon one another; but would not be at a very moderate one to declare the gospel to such as are ignorant of it. the hope of gain makes them run to the end of the world, and hazard all in order to be rich; but they will not put themselves to the least inconvenience to carry the gospel where it is not. nevertheless god's command of doing it to the apostles extends to all christians, as i could easily prove. others who seem more sensible of this command of christ do send indeed a great number of missionaries whithersoever they can. but without blaming their intention, which is undoubtedly good considered in general, it may be justly said that a great number of those missionaries are not themselves masters enough of christianity to convert true disciples for jesus christ among the heathens. they frequently carry with them the spirit of lying, and never gain those people but by imposing upon them. instead of the plain principles of the christian religion, and the admirable maxims of its morals, they teach 'em a thousand useless, not to say false things, and an infinite number of vain or frivolous practices which have no relation with charity at all. we ought not therefore to wonder if the gospel has not any great success, seeing those whom god has commanded to spread it, either wholly neglect this precept, or not duly perform it. men are to be blamed then, and not god, who has given them excellent laws, but not constrained them to obedience. but unbelievers pretend that providence should have looked to this by extraordinary means, and not vainly expect from christians the execution of those orders, which, according to us, were given so long a time since, though not hitherto observed as they ought. to this i answer, besides what i have already said of god's liberty to dispose of his favours as he pleases, that the conduct of providence ought not to be judged of by what is past. the time may come perhaps when divine worship shall be paid to none, except the creator of the universe, and no other doctrine be acknowledged but that of jesus christ. this time likewise may be infinitely longer than what is passed since the creation, and the ages of ignorance not go but for a very few years in comparison of the times of light; so that the duration of god's beneficence in this regard shall be infinitely more considerable, than were those ages wherein he seems to some to have neglected the greatest part of mankind. the christian religion does teach us, that one day the present state of men upon this earth shall be entirely changed, and that they must give an account of their actions to be rewarded or punished accordingly; but we are not informed when this time shall be: and such as thought it should happen soon after the coming of christ, from some obscure expression of him or his apostles, were altogether mistaken, as we see now. he before whom a thousand years are but as one day, 1 pet. 3.8. psal. 30.5. whose anger endureth but for a moment, but in whose favour is life, may have prospects infinitely more extended, and which require a great deal more time. we whose lives are short, and who look upon the future as a thing not relating to us; we, i say, grow impatient, and the ardour of our desires makes us think the time yet longer than it is: but god who changes not, and that sees all time as present, considers things after quite another manner than we do, and looks upon all limited durations as most short. we must not therefore judge of providence by that small time which is passed since the creation, seeing in the eternity that follows it, he may choose what space he pleases to bestow liberal favours upon all nations. this indeed is but a conjecture, but it must be granted that it contains nothing, except what agrees very well with that great idea which the christian religion as well as our own reason gives us of the goodness of god and his eternal duration. nothing demonstrative can be alleged against this notion, and unbelievers cannot suppose it to be false without they prove it so. what has been said is sufficient to solve their second objection, grounded upon that little knowledge of true christianity wherewith christian's reproach one another. 'tis through the fault of men that this happens, and god does not ordinarily oppose it otherwise than by laws accompanied with rewards and punishments. but some people there are who believe that god will one day reform christianity after an extraordinary manner. this might well be; but suppose it should never happen, we must remember that there is no sect of any consideration so corrupted, but that the essence of christianity is preserved among 'em, although the additions made by several of them strangely disfigure it. such as keep only to these essential points, (which is all that may be easily understood) and who leave the rest to the schools, have a just idea enough of religion, and cannot be said not to understand all that is necessary to salvation. the reproaches of controvertists fall rather upon the preachers than upon those upright and sincere persons, who take of religion as much as they understand, and live conformably to their notions. unbelievers make another objection against religion, which at first sight appears difficult to answer; and it is, that the most clear and essential precepts of christianity are very little observed among christians: whence the incredulous infer, that it has not a sufficient influence upon men's lives for a religion maintained to be revealed from god, and that consequently it is not originally divine. this consequence is very false, as i shall show: but i think it material, before i do this, to enlarge a little upon the disorders of christianity; because in effect the best answer we can make to unbelievers, and the properest to get them over to us, is to acknowledge frankly that we are greatly to blame in not better observing the commands of christ, and to endeavour for the future to reform our manners. whereas the christian religion obliges us to think frequently of god, to wean us from the vanities of this life, and to teach us our duties contained in his laws, that we may obey them, by reason of the great rewards and terrible punishments annexed to them; the quite contrary is commonly practised among christians. god is rarely thought of, and christians are almost as much blinded and possessed with avarice, ambition, or the love of pleasure, as those people to whom the gospel is unknown, although there be some difference as to the manner of their giving themselves up to these passions. there is a diversity, i grant, in their customs; but the three passions i named are the soul of almost all christians actions, as well as of those of the heathens. men are as much intoxicated among us with the vanities of this life, as among them; and the pride or insolence of riches are not much less in europe than in the midst of asia. christians study the art of satisfying their passions, and apply themselves so wholly to it, as if god had promised eternal happiness to them for so doing, and threatened those with damnation that would spend their time in the study of his will, or regulate their manners according to his laws. 'tis true that they spend some time at church, that they say some prayers, and read some pious books; but is this time to be compared with that which is spent in things they may very well be without? or, not to mention the time, will they say that they are more desirous to be instructed in their duties, and to practise them, than to grow rich, or satisfy some other passion? do they, for example, understand the morals of christ, as well as the cunning part of traffic, and speak of the former with as great a pleasure as those who follow trade speak of the latter? yet it should be otherwise, seeing men shall not be saved, because they were industrious merchants, but because they knew and practised christianity well. the same may be said of some other professions, wherein christians spend all their lives. can many of them say sincerely, that they had rather have their minds full of knowledge, and their hearts inclined to obey the gospel, and be poor, despised, hated and miserable, than to be rich, esteemed, and have but a small knowledge of the christian doctrine, and observe it as 'tis commonly done? notwithstanding this lamentable disposition, they profess to live like honest men, they put on the outside, and as it were the garments of religion; but they unluckily stop there, and the conduct of their life contradicts, as i have showed, their profession. they commonly behave themselves as if the christian religion was wholly shut up within the walls of churches, and consisted only in some outward practices; whereas the apostles teach us, that what religion, next to the worship of god, requires from us, chief consists in our manner of living and conversing with other men. if we examine somewhat carefully the public behaviour of most christians, we may take notice that they observe no rule of justice among themselves, but inasmuch as it agrees with their private interest. if they are the better for breaking the rules of justice, that is, if the doing of it will prove advantageous to them, and they neither endanger their reputation, nor expose themselves to the severity of the laws for so doing, they never fail to break them. they will be guilty of any fraud and cheat, provided they be not sued for it, and their reputation be not so blemished as to do them some prejudice in the world. they commonly call an honest man, a man who can't be punished by the laws, and lives not worse than others, according to the customs of the place he is in. a good man, according to the notions of the vulgar, is a man who keeps a better outside, with respect to what we call piety, that is, with respect to public exercises, the frequenting whereof is a very equivocal sign of a good inward disposition. we see every minute some men careful of that sort of duties, and who seem to be pious men by their discourses; but nevertheless they are as greedy and unjust as those who profess no virtue. if we examine throughly those good and honest men, we shall see very often that we are only beholden to the laws and custom for their outward and seeming virtue, and not at all to the gospel, which they know but very imperfectly, and observe but as far as it serves their ends. if justice is so generally violated, what shall we say of charity, which goes much farther? do we see many people who concern themselves in the reputation of their neighbours, as in their own? are they slow and reserved in judging of them? do they not presently pass an ill sentence upon them, without minding the wrong it may do them? on the contrary, have they not much ado to have a good opinion of them? their judgement of the sentiments of those who are not of the same christian society, is most unjust. they damn them without any more ado, without having any regard to their manners, or understanding their opinions: and then they do them all the harm they can in this life. nay, such a conduct, so contrary to charity, is accounted zeal and devotion; and christian's fancy (who would believe it, were it not to be seen every day?) that they shall inherit heaven, by cruelly tearing and persecuting their neighbours. meekness and charity, so often mentioned in the new testament, are looked upon by those false zealots as indifferency to any religion; and, if they are to be believed, fury and cruelty are the only characters of a good christian. those who should teach others to be modest in their judgement of their neighbours, and the doctrines they understand not, (which are duties humanity should teach us) spend their life in exasperating ignorant people, by their public and private discourses, against other christians; and are as good patterns of judging rashly, and persecuting without any pity, as they are ill examples of living like christians. as for the other temporal interests of our neighbours, how few are they, i will not say, who look upon them as their own, (as they should, according to the gospel) but who endeavour to procure them, as they might without prejudicing themselves? it seems, that provided we live well, and have nothing to fear for ourselves, 'tis no matter whether others groan, for example, under excessive labour, to earn what is absolutely necessary to them, and live in the fear of begging by the first misfortune that befalls them. others may be without any thing, but we must want nothing; there is no reward too little for them, and no profit too great for us; 'tis enough if they don't starve; but as for us no riches can be too vast. in many places a man is accounted even a person of exemplary virtue, when he endeavours not to hurt his neighbour, though he does him no good, being nevertheless able to help him, without prejudicing himself. charity, among that sort of men is, if i may say so, but a negative virtue, which consists in doing no harm, not in doing good, and eagerly promoting our neighbours interests, as the gospel commands. 'tis extremely difficult for these men to part with their indolence in the behalf of those who stand in need of them, when 'tis not their interest; but the least thing is sufficient to engage them to act against their neighbours, or at least to do nothing for them. if we consider the other part of charity which concerns the poor, who want our alms; how many are they, i will not say, who deprive themselves of what is necessary to them, or give away their overplus, but who keep any proportion between their vain or foolish expenses and their alms. if among christians we look for the virtues we own, if i may say so, to ourselves, such as modesty or humility, abstinence from unlawful pleasures, patience in adversities; i doubt whether we shall find more of them than among some of the ancient or modern heathens, provided we be willing to do justice to both; however 'tis certain at least, that they are very scarce, especially in an eminent degree. nay, it often falls out, that those who pretend to those virtues more than others, are mere hypocrites, as one may easily observe, if their whole behaviour be carefully examined. humility or modesty hinder them not from hunting after preferments, which they are not fit for; from making extraordinary expenses, when they have got them; nor from treating men contemptuously, whose virtues and talents shine infinitely above theirs. abstinence from pleasures hinders them not from enjoying at least all the conveniences, and when they can, all the delights of this life, whilst they preach frugality to others. they will do, or are ready to do any thing, rather than lose the favour of those, who gave them, or keep them in the employments they enjoy. the highest degree of their virtue consists in doing nothing but what will please the multitude; and if they are afraid to be censured, for having performed one of their christian duties, or to draw hatred on themselves by practising it, we must not expect to see them prefer obedience to god's commandments, to the reputation they endeavour to get, or keep among men. the rest of christians do the like, not to make their rulers ashamed. sixthly, the unbelievers who compare the christian morals with the manners of the christians, say they can't believe that those morals are revealed by god, seeing the effects of them are so inconsiderable. they say they can't apprehend that a religion revealed, as we affirm, for the good and happiness of mankind, and so excellent above all others, made not a greater alteration in the world in what concerns good manners. but if they had reflected enough upon the nature of the christian religion, and the state of europe and asia, before it was established, they would spare that objection. they should remember that the christian religion contains some laws, as i have already said, which though admirable in themselves, force no body to observe them, that there may be room for rewards and punishments. so that we must not wonder if they are violated, as all others are, especially if it be considered that those rewards and punishments concern another life. men, though persuaded of the truth of the christian religion, look upon them as remote, and are so affected with outward objects, which work upon their senses or imagination, that the present time prevails over the future. besides, it ought to be observed that there are different degrees of persuasion, though persuasion itself be most true. no body doubts of some considerable facts of ancient history; for example, that cesar overcame pompey; however there is some difference between the degree of this persuasion, and the degree of that whereby every body is persuaded of what he sees. tho those who have read the roman authors that were contemporary, and those who spoke of it in the next century, doubt not at all of cesar's victory; yet it must be confessed, that the persuasion arising from what we have seen, is stronger and more lively. the christians who believe the divinity of the laws of the gospel, and are sometimes moved with it, are, by the same reason i just now alleged, more moved with the present pleasure of giving up themselves to some passion; and so this last motion overcomes the other. jesus christ foresaw that disorder, and said that few men would observe his commandments, and many break them, * part ii. chap. 2. as i have already observed elsewhere. but it will be said, why does not god make the rewards and punishments of the gospel as sensible to men as what they see? why do they not see, if i may say so, paradise and hell opened; good men in the one, and wicked men in the other? i answer, that if it were so, those who obey god, not only because of the rewards and punishments, but out of thankfulness, and because they are convinced that his laws are just and reasonable, could not be distinguished from those who obey only out of fear, and wish that god had been pleased to let them satisfy their passions. for 'tis certain that if rewards and punishments were made sensible, every body would pay to god the same outward obedience. besides, though it is most certain that the christian religion is not observed as it should be, and that the difference between the manners of christians and heathens is not so great as it ought to be; yet it must be confessed that christianity hath several great advantages above paganism. first, there is a great difference between a commonwealth that hath good laws, which teach exactly to distinguish good from evil; and a commonwealth, the laws whereof approve or suffer some crimes which are very prejudicial to society. in the former, good laws keep at least part of the citizens to their duty, and hinder others from running themselves into great excesses; but in the other the lawgiver let's lose all manner of vices, and puts no bounds to them: from whence it comes to pass that an infinite number of men give up themselves to them. the same may be said, in several respects, of christianity and paganism; but i shall only allege two examples. indeed the notions of justice and charity, which the gospel hath brought into the world, have not been so effectual as they should have been; but however those notions are the reason why a horrible custom practised among the romans hath been condemned. they took great pleasure in seeing men kill one another, or fight with wild beasts. so cruel a diversion lasted during many ages at rome; nor was the humanity of the roman people, so much boasted of by their historians, so much boasted of by their historians, offended at it in the least. the same people as well as the grecians were so horribly addicted to fornication and sodomy, that they never imagined there was any harm it it, provided it might not prejudice their temporal interests. those who will read their comical and satirical poets, will not only see the matter of fact, but also the sad consequences of those debaucheries. among christians one of them has been always detested, and not so common; and the other has not been so great as amongst the heathens, because they are both condemned in the gospel. the heathens gave up themselves to a thousand infamous debaucheries, not only without being punished for it, but also without feeling any remorses of conscience, because they knew not that they were unlawful. hence it is that they never gave over their lewdness, but when the body being worn out, could no longer answer the disorder of the mind; and that they never showed any sorrow for it, whereby youth might be deterred from it. all that old men could say to young men was, to enjoy the pleasures of the flesh only as much as they were consistent with the welfare of their families. but under the gospel the knowledge men have of doing evil, when they give up themselves to lewdness, is as it were a bridle, which stops a great many in the midst of their pleasures; and a leaven which often works repentance, and excites men to deter others from doing the like. i will not say that justice is much better administered among christians than elsewhere, but it can't be denied that their civil and political laws are better. what may be the reason of it? 'tis because the laws of the gospel have settled the notions of good and evil, which were uncertain among other nations, or rather have introduced them anew: from whence it is that those who do evil dare not assert it; and that many crimes are not daily committed, which otherwise would be committed openly. to live somewhat modestly among the greeks and the romans, one needed to have been well bred up, or to have learned philosophy; nor did this hinder them from doing several unjust things, which excess only could make infamous. but among christians men learn whether they will or not, the laws that condemn them; and no body will be so bold as to say, that the least unjustice is allowed them. princes abuse not their authority, as they did in paganism, for the same reason; and subjects enjoy more quietly and safely the fruits of their labours, especially in the places where the knowledge of the christian religion is greater than in others. chap. vi that unbelievers can't conclude that the christian religion is false, because the divines, whom they know, answer not their objections well, or maintain some false doctrines, as true ones, and as being the doctrine of christ. if i say in general that one of the chief things that lead men into incredulity who have wit and judgement enough, is the weak answers which are often returned to their objections, and the absurd doctrines which are maintained against them as true ones: no christian society will contradict me, because they accuse one another of very great errors. thus, without naming any in particular, i leave to every one the liberty of making such applications as he thinks fit. forasmuch as there are many things difficult to apprehend in systems of divinity, which raise great difficulties in the minds of those who read, or hear talk of them; 'tis no wonder if men of sagacity and penetration propose some doubts to divines. nay, according to the supposition of every christian society, viz. that all others err in something, it cannot be wondered at, if it be said that unbelievers offer some objections to divines, which they can't resolve according to their hypothesis, or which they resolve by contradicting themselves. divines upbraid one another with it. let us therefore suppose that a man, not altogether ignorant, observes in the society in which he was born, that the manner after which some doctrines of the christian religion are explained, is subject to great difficulties, or is altogether false. let us suppose further, that the divines of his country are very learned men, and understand the christian religion better than others; an opinion common enough, especially among those who never went out of their country, or never read the books of other sects. when they perceive that the divines whom they consult satisfy them not, or maintain palpable falsities, they conclude from thence that the religion of their country is not true, and consequently that the christian religion is altogether false. if it happens that a man having such thoughts, never reads the works of other christians, who are free from the errors he is offended at; the more he lives, the more he confirms himself in his opinion; because as soon as an error hath been found out, the longer it is thought of, the better it is known. when men know nothing better about the subject in question, and have not penetration and learning enough to find out truth of themselves, they can hardly forbear doubting of every thing, because they presently suspect that the other parts of divinity which they have not examined, are not better; and observe that the same doctrine, whereof they have found out the falsity, is accounted as essential as others. but let us suppose again, that a man, taken up with other business, and who has no time to spare for such an examination, (as there are a great many) comes to read books of controversy written by ingenious men of both sides, he will often perceive that both parties attack very well, and defend themselves ill. that man will conclude from thence, and often with reason, that both parties are in the wrong; the more he hears them one after another, the more he'll be convinced of it, and at last he'll believe that there is nothing true, because he hath not parts enough to distinguish truth from falsehood. if we add that there are some other external and internal motives, which make him incline to unbelief, as there are but too many, that man will get into a scepticism almost incurable, or into a formal unbelief, out of which he will hardly be able to extricate himself. what i have proposed as suppositions, is really to be found in a great part of christendom; and there are a great many people in italy, france, spain and germany, (for i must tell it, and i ought not to conceal that i don't follow the particular opinions which prevail in those places) there is, i say, an infinite number of men in the same case, as i have described. they see some opinions manifestly false, established in those vast countries by a public authority: if they offer any objections, they are pitifully resolved; and than if they dare reply any thing, they are overwhelmed with censures and threaten, not to say that they are sent to the inquisition, and burned if they grow obstinate. nevertheless divines maintain those doctrines, though evidently false, with great heat; they make use of all their wit and eloquence to prove them. many laymen who want not penetration, but know no better, think that indeed this is the christian religion; and because they distinctly apprehend the falsity of what is said, they conclude from thence that religion is not true. others add to their meditations the reading of some controversial book of roman catholic and protestant authors; and they see that the latter altogether destroy the doctrines of the church of rome. they rightly conclude from thence, that they are false, and the utmost endeavours of their teachers can't free them from that opinion. on the other hand, they often find some books of roman catholic authors, who attack well enough some particular opinions of certain protestants; and those protestants are as unlucky in defending their own opinions, as they are successful in assaulting those of the roman catholics. they also think that those protestants are in the wrong, and because their examination reaches not to all the sects separated from the church of rome, they confound them one with another, and condemn them alike; so that at last they persuade themselves that truth is to be found no where. besides other motives which may confirm them in those thoughts, and which i have already mentioned; they see two things which affect them so much, that they retain their opinions for ever, if no better books come into their hands, or if no body frees them from the doubts they are in. the first is, that it clearly appears that 'tis the temporal interest of divines to maintain those doctrines. those who assert them with heat, and declaim with the greatest violence against other christian societies, are preferred, and get the most considerable dignities of the party they are in. on the contrary, if any one seems to be modest, and thinks himself obliged in conscience to be moderate towards those who are called heretics or heterodox; he must needs be very much favoured, if he be not excluded for ever from all sorts of employment, and ruins not himself. in some places that's enough to be altogether undone; and almost every where if any intimates that he approves not all the opinions of the party he is in, (though he does it never so modestly) they show him no pity, he must suffer whatever hatred and cruelty can do, when they are clothed with the pretence of religion. the second thing that confirms unbelievers in their disposition, is, that divines will be judges and parties in controverted doctrines, against the clearest principles of equity, though 'tis most evident that 'tis their interest to favour one of the parties. tho their decisions be never so unreasonable and unsatisfactory, they must be submitted to, because they look upon them as good and solid. nay, if they are to be believed, the books of their adversaries ought-not to be read; or those who read them aught to do it with a design of not approving their arguments, otherwise they must undergo the condemnation of their parties. unbelievers, who are convinced of the falsity of several particular doctrines, and observe that they are maintained out of a worldly interest, and by unjust and violent means, conclude that divines, and consequently all christians, are factious people, and enemies to truth, as well as those who profess the other religions which are seen in the world. it can't be doubted but these are most violent prejudices against some christian societies; but 'tis an easy thing to show, that they ought not to involve all christianity in general. first, unbelievers can't suppose without examination, as they do on this occasion, that the notion men have of the christian religion in their country, or that of some divines whom they have read, is really the same with that of its founders. some alterations may have by degrees crept into the doctrine of the christians whom they know, and so it may be very different from that of christ and his apostles. no body can be sure of the contrary, without going to the source, to compare it with the streams which are said to flow from it; that is, without reading the writings of the apostles, and comparing their doctrine with that which is now pretended to be the true doctrine of the founders of christianity. this unbelievers are necessarily obliged to do before they affirm that the doctrine of jesus christ is false. else they would imitate corrupt judges, who vouchsafe not to examine the instruments of a suit in law, but give their sentence at the first report of it. i am persuaded that if the unbelievers of the abovementioned places would undertake that examination, they would presently see that most of the doctrines which they dislike are not to be found in the writings of the apostles, and consequently that whatever christians think now, ought not to be ascribed to them. the same thing ought to be observed every where, and men ought not to judge of the gospel according to the opinions that are commonly received where they live; or, which is worse, to condemn it from hearing a silly preacher, who represents it quite otherwise than it is. yet there are many people who entertain no favourable thoughts of the christian religion, by reason of the explications thereof, which they hear from the pulpits, which are but too often ill provided. a great many things spoken there, are so far from bearing a severe examination of judicious men, that they could scarce be allowed in the conversation of any persons not altogether destitute of common sense. that sort of discourses can't, without great injustice, be confounded with the word of god; though there are some who affect to give them that name, as if such preachers were inspired apostles, and authorised with miracles. they should have a greater respect for the gospel than to call such meditations by the same name with the discourses of christ and his apostles. i had not made this remark, were it not that such expressions give occasion to unbelievers to despise christianity, which deserves as much to be admired by the most penetrating and solid wits, as many sermons deserve to be despised by the meanest and most illiterate persons. as no body could bear the injustice of that man, who should judge of the opinions of an author by the discourses of another, who perhaps understands them not, and whose interest it is to explain them otherwise, and then pretends he may with reason vent his explications as infallible: so unbelievers can't ascribe to the apostles the opinions which they hear preached, as apostolical doctrines, before they have carefully compared them with the writings of the apostles, unless they are willing to be looked upon as the most unjust of men. secondly, unbelievers are guilty of another fault, which is not much less than the foregoing, when by reason of the false doctrines which they have read in the writings of some divines, or heard them preach, they reject all christianity. for it must be granted, that 'tis not impossible but many truths may be mixed with lies: and as it can't be said that a book contains nothing but truth, because some few truths are to be found in it; so it can't be affirmed that every thing in it is false, because some lies have been found in it. is there, for example, any profane history, either ancient or modern, without a mixture of truth and falsehood? yet no body says that history contains nothing that's true and certain. they endeavour only to distinguish what is true from what is false. the like aught to be practised with respect to the explications of christians doctrines which we read or hear. we ought neither wholly to reject them nor embrace them, because there may be a mixture of truth and falsehood. we ought, as i said before, to compare them with the writings of the founders of christianity, and judge by those writings of religion itself, and of what is true in the opinions of modern divines; this is, if i may say so, the touchstone by which only the true doctrine of the apostles can be known. thirdly, unbelievers undoubtedly know, that a truth changes not its nature for being ill defended. we see every day very good causes ill pleaded by some lawyers, who understand not their profession. nay 'tis confessed among all christians, that there are a great many books whose authors are really engaged in the defence of truth, but they do it so ill, that it would certainly be condemned if it had no better support. many people, for example, who have not studied well the writings of the apostles, say they see no character of divinity in the doctrine of the gospel, and can't convince an unbeliever of it; but nevertheless they believe it to be divine with as great a certainty as if they perceived the finger of god in every part of it, because they are, say they, inwardly persuaded of it by the holy ghost, without knowing why. that's the cant of a perfect fanatic, who equals, without being ware of it, the gospel with the alcoran, and all the false religions, the followers whereof may all say, as he does, that they are persuaded of it by a secret and inward operation of god upon their hearts. but the apostles never said any such thing; all their preaching consists in some facts, and in good reasonings, attended with the miraculous gifts they had; and 'tis by such means they pretended to prove the divinity of their doctrine. so that we should wrong them very much should we believe that they taught their doctrine could not be embraced by the means of knowledge, but by a mere enthusiasm. others, to do the christian religion a greater honour, ascribe to the apostles an art which they themselves seriously * 1 cor. 1.17. & 11.4, 13, etc. say they have not. they set forth their style as an admirable pattern of eloquence, which exceeds that of the grecians and romans. what follows from thence? unbelievers read the writings of those holy men, to seek what they are told is contained in them; and because they don't find it, they fancy that those who said so, designed to deceive them; and thereupon being exasperated against them who grounded in part the truth of the doctrine of the apostles upon their wonderful style, they wholly reject it. they could not be blamed for that, if the apostles themselves boasted of their eloquence; but seeing they say quite the contrary, 'tis a great piece of injustice to condemn them as impostors, upon the assertion of those who ascribe to them what they never had, nor pretended to have. the true character of the apostles style, to say so by the by, is this. first, 'tis simple and plain, such as is the style of those who propose some things, of which they are fully persuaded. secondly, 'tis a style without any ornaments of rhetoric, whether it be with respect to the choice of the words, or the disposition. if a thousand sublime strokes are to be found in it, they come from the things they say, which are very sublime, not from the words or orders. thirdly, we must add to it that providence undoubtedly watched over their manner of writing, that they should always say truth; and lest, if they had expressed themselves ill, they should be misunderstood by their readers. but this is not a fit place to treat of that subject. i only made those remarks to hinder unbelievers from taking advantage at the ill rhetoric of some defenders of christianity, who contradict the apostles without being ware of it. 'tis manifest in general, that the defects of those who defend truth, ought not to prejudice it; and i declare as to myself, that i don't desire at all to be believed in any thing, but when it has been examined and compared with the writings of the apostles; or that any of my thoughts should be ascribed to them, but when they have been found in their works. if i have been mistaken in any thing, i desire those mistakes may be ascribed to me, and not at all to the religion i vindicate. there is no need i should say here, that the apostles had no temporal interest to move them to preach such a doctrine. i have already said so elsewhere, and i will prove it more at large in my first letter at the end of this discourse. i will not repent neither that they pretended not their doctrine should be received with any examination, because i have proved it in the first chapter of this second part. so that if self-interest and ambition are often the reason why divines maintain now some opinions, and after a manner unbecoming christianity; 'tis their fault, not the apostles, who can be charged with no such thing. after those general observations i must set down some particular examples of false doctrines, which hinder unbelievers from believing the gospel. 'tis but too true that one might write large volumes about that matter, but i shall be contented to allege three or four examples of doctrines which offend unbelievers, and are contrary to the doctrine of the apostles. there are some people now who pretend that we ought scarce to make use of reason in matters of religion. they maintain that we ought to believe its divinity, without knowing why; that when the question is about the sense of the revelation, or the books which contain it, we ought not to reason, neither to discover it; and that we ought to believe even the things that are most contrary to reason, rather than forsake the literal sense. they are so full of this thought, viz. that reason may overthrow all divinity, if those who apply themselves to it are allowed to make use of it; and if they see any body who reason better than ordinary divines do, or has any principles somewhat different from theirs, which he has embraced by using his reason, they slander him as a dangerous man, because he ventures to reason about the received doctrines. such a character is always attended with hatred, and stirs illaffected persons against those who received it from heaven; and if it were impossible for a divine to live quietly with a man who endeavours to reason well, and grounds the christian religion upon undeniable principles. others will have us humbly to submit to the decisions of those whose profession it is publicly to explain religion, without mistrusting them, or reasoning at all, because we ought to look upon on them as infallible, though we have no proof of it. they think 'tis impossible for most christians to examine those doctrines; and their best way is, as they say, blindly to follow their guides. such discourses which are commonly to be heard from the pulpits, and elsewhere, have made long ago a great many unbelievers. for the first thing that comes then into ones mind, is, that those who speak at this rate are not very sure of what they say, and design to deceive others, because there is nothing, though never so false and absurd, but what may be maintained by the same principle. if we were told the same thing in our ordinary affairs, we would really think that those who say so design to deceive us. if they would sell something to us, and we were told that we must not examine it, we would presently suspect that they designed to cheat us. in matters of religion, as well as in other things, we have no other guide but reason to distinguish a false religion from a true one. besides, 'tis only by the use of reason we can find out the sense of the words contained in those books wherein we know the revelation is. nevertheless those men would have us to read those books with an unlimited credulity, and be ready to receive whatever we are told, though it be never so contrary to all our notions. they are afraid, as soon as they hear of a man who is only for reason, and whom insignificant words and an ill-grounded authority can't satisfy. unbelievers conclude from thence that there is a design upon them, and that divines very well perceive that the doctrines which they would introduce can't be maintained, seeing they will not allow that they should be examined. and because that strange doctrine is cried up as one of the chief doctrines of christianity, those who have not carefully read the writings of the apostles, fancy that they have taught it, and involve them in the same suspicious with some modern divines. when divines have taught principles so contrary to the nature of men, they preach transubstantiation and other such doctrines to credulous men, which they insinuate by virtue of that maxim of not reasoning in matters of religion. but unbelievers fail not to perceive the falsity of those doctrines, and persist the more in their thoughts concerning the falsity of the christian religion. but they should observe that the apostles teach us not where that we ought not to use our reason to examine whether religion is true or not, or to know the sense of their words. on the contrary, they suppose every where that we ought to examine what they say, and not believe it before we are sure that they say nothing but truth. they also suppose that we are rational creatures, and able to put a good sense upon their words, by observing all the rules that are made use of to understand the language of other men. they not where say that they teach us some things that seem to be or are contrary to reason, and that we must part with our notions to embrace them. they knew very well that they were to deal with men who judge of nothing but by acquiescing in their own reasonings. 'tis true we comprehend not perfectly all the things mentioned in the writings of the apostles, such as are, for example, the divine properties; but we form at least some notions of them which are not at all contrary to reason; there is no need we should have an exact and adequate notion of them to be saved. reason also teaches us that we can't know exactly this sort of things, nor many others, and that we must not judge of things we understand not. 'tis also a critical and grammatical rule, to decide nothing about an equivocal or obscure expression. so that we ought not to sacrifice our reason and our grammatical rules to faith, as if it was contrary to them, in order to believe what the apostles say; but we must remember that we have not exact notions of every thing, and aught to judge only of such things as are known to us. we ought not neither to part with the rules of critics, which are grounded upon good sense and the constant use of languages, to understand what the apostles say. on the contrary, we ought to make use of reason and critical rules in their whole extent; and we shall see that there is nothing in the doctrine of the apostles that clashes in the least with the light of reason, or that cannot be explained, as much as 'tis necessary, by good critical rules. those who reject any of them, do it because they have introduced new doctrines into the christian religion, which they falsely ascribe to the apostles; and both because such doctrines can't bear the test of reason, and because they can't reason well themselves, or make a good use of critical rules: for example, what is called the real presence of the body of christ in the eucharist, or transubstantiation, which can't be believed without forsaking reason, nor be found in the writings of the apostles, by using good grammatical rules; the real presence, i say, or transubstantiation, are doctrines which the apostles never thought of. divines declaim against reason and critics in the behalf of those new doctrines, not at all in the behalf of the doctrine of the apostles. for my part, having studied those matters as much as i can, i think i may affirm that no proposition can be extracted out of the gospels, or any other writings of the apostles, which being expressed in their words, is not perfectly agreeable to reason, if it be interpreted by the same grammatical rules, as all other authors are. moreover, i affirm that one need suppose nothing but what is most reasonable, to know that the christian religion is of divine revelation. some divines who have not studied the holy scripture well, maintain another thing, which is not less proper to hinder infidels from believing in jesus christ, than the maxims i have confuted. they say that many commands of the gospel are arbitrary precepts, whereof no other good reason can be given but the mere will of god; or, that he gave them to men to humble them. they believe that god would have some mysteries in religion, such as the real presence, or transubstantiation, to mortify man's pride, who understands nothing of them. they say that to deny one's passions, as the gospel commands, is a commandment grounded upon no other reason but the will of god. it can't be doubted but that when we are sure a thing is of divine revelation, we must believe it, or practise it, though we should not apprehend the reasons of it; and this many divines say concerning several ceremonial precepts of the law of moses. some learned * marsham, spencer, etc. men undertook to show the contrary with respect to those ceremonies, and it may be said in general, that they have not been unsuccessful in it. but as for the commandments of the gospel, one may boldly assert that there is none, of which 'tis a hard thing to give a good reason, supposing humane nature in the state it is in. nothing can be more false and contrary to the nature of the gospel than to fancy that god designed in part to show only that he is master, by enjoining some commandments which have no relation with the good of mankind. religion was only revealed for us, not for god, who, absolutely speaking, neither wants what we think of him, nor the worship we pay him. he manifested himself to us, only to make us happy; and gave us some laws fit to make us enjoy a happiness as great as can be here, if all mankind would observe them; and at the same time fit to lead to an eternal felicity those who obey them, notwithstanding the ill examples of others. for example, the gospel commands us to deny our passions, or ourselves, which is the same thing; not only to give to god that mark of our submission to his orders, but for the good of humane society. to deny one's self, or ones passions, signifies only to prefer the observation of the commandments of the gospel to ones unruly desires. now all those commandments tend to the good of men, and there is none but what is of that nature. let us suppose that a man who has been injured by another desires to revenge himself; if he reflects upon what the gospel commands him, he will find that 'tis one of those desires he ought to deny. the reason of it is, because if he should revenge himself, he on whom he should do it would not fail to revenge himself too; and so there could be no end of it, which would altogether disturb the society. wherefore god who formed it, and protects it, forbids revenge, and declares he will punish those that shall break that commandment. let all other desires that are contrary to the commands of the gospel be examined, and it will be found that they can't be satisfied without hurting humane society. however it will be said, that when the gospel commands us to deny our desires rather than break any of its commandments, or to suffer death for it, if it be necessary; it has no regard to the good of the society, but the will of god. but if we carefully consider it, we shall find that men can scarce do any thing more useful to mankind than that. it is undoubtedly useful to them to observe the laws of christ, which are so advantageous to them; and there is no example more effectual to encourage them to that observation than that of those who hand rather die than break any of those laws. if all men were so disposed, 'tis manifest they would contribute as much as they could to one another's happiness, and would love their neighbours as themselves; so that those who sacrifice their life to bring others to the obedience of the gospel by their example, do a thing very useful to the society. 'tis therefore false that the laws of the gospel are arbitrary laws, and no commandments given to men for their good. 'tis also false, that god would have mysteries in religion altogether incomprehensible, only to humble man. the doctrine of the real presence of christ's body in the eucharist is no apostolical doctrine; and the apostles have taught none, of which we can have no notion, not so much as a confused one, as it may be said of that. to believe a thing, 'tis not necessary to have an exact and distinct idea of it, but we must have at least a general and confused notion of it. for no body can believe what he understands not at all; seeing to believe that a proposition is true, is to acquiesce in the relation which is perceived between the terms it is made of, as logicians teach, and none can acquiesce in a relation that is not perceived. for example: when i am told, the dead shall rise, i understand not only the meaning of those words, the dead, and to rise, but also clearly perceive the relation which is said to be between those two things, though i don't know distinctly the manner and circumstances of the resurrection. but if i was told, the dead shall rise and not rise at the same time, without any equivocation in the words dead and to rise, perceiving no relation between an affirmation and a negation, i could not believe it. the same may be said of all contradictory propositions, they can't be an object of faith, which receives nothing but what it understands, at least in some measure. such is the doctrine of the real presence, which contains several such propositions. when the miracles of christ and his apostles are proposed to unbelievers, as undeniable proofs of their divine mission, they fail not to question the truth of them. the chief reason they allege to make that history suspected, is the false miracles which are now given out as true ones, to keep people in their duty by this pious fraud. those who make use of that art, or endeavour to vindicate those pretended miracles, can reply nothing to unbelievers, without condemning themselves, or betraying the christian religion. they are far from confessing that they are in the wrong, they boldly maintain that there is no more reason to believe the miracles of christ and his apostles, than to acknowledge the truth of their modern miracles. in the mean time the unbelievers, who see that the latter are mere impostures, fancy the former were so too. those who cast in their way that stumbling-block, are bound to remove it, and acknowledge the truth, unless they will be looked upon as men of no judgement, or less conscience. but though unbelievers may triumph over that sort of men, who undertake to assert some facts which cannot be maintained, they can't say against christians in general, that the miracles on which their faith is grounded, are like those which are said to be wrought every day. first, christ and his apostles affected not to work miracles every minute, and out of ostentation; such as are those that are now talked of. secondly, christ and his apostles, and those in whose behalf those miracles were wrought, got no money by publishing them abroad, as 'tis now practised by those to whom those churches belong, wherein they are said to be wrought. that very thing, viz. that the opinion of miracles being wrought in a certain place, brings wealth to the master of it, is enough to make one rightly suspect whatever is said about it. thirdly, the miracles on which the gospel is grounded, were done in the midst of the enemies of the christian religion, among whom it was not safe to bear witness to those miracles; and on the contrary, those who having examined them, should have discovered the falsity of them, had nothing to fear. such a discovery had been very acceptable to the jews and heathens. but now miracles are wrought among men ready to believe any thing, or at least to say they believe it, for fear of being delivered to the inquisition, where it is set up, or of drawing on themselves the hatred of the mob, which sometimes is not less to be feaded than that dreadful tribunal. to be sure that the testimony of another is well-grounded, he ought to have the liberty to say the contrary: but when he exposes himself to danger, if he says the contrary, his testimony is of no weight. besides, to be sure of the truth of a fact, one ought to have the liberty of examining it, but no body dares do that now, with respect to modern miracles, in the places wherein they are looked upon as true. thus there is a vast difference between the certainty of the miracles wrought in the beginning of christianity, and what is said for those of our time. none but those who want either judgement or sincerity, will compare the one with the other. but i must not forget here, that unbelievers pretend to take advantage of what i have supposed, viz. that there are no miracles now. they say, that if there is no reason to make us believe that they are necessary now; there is none neither that can persuade us that there was any formerly, because the only reason that could oblige god to work miracles, many centuries ago, was the incredulity of men which could not be cured and other way, and that the same reason subsists still. so that if they are to be believed, god is not less obliged to work miracles out of his goodness, in the behalf of those who doubt now of the truth of the christian religion, than he was in the time of the apostles. in answer to it i say, first, that the proofs we have of the truth of ancient miracles make them as it were sensible, if we reflect upon it; so that they may also be of use to cure our doubts. it was necessary that god should work miracles to establish the christian religion; but being established, they are no longer necessary, because the history of religion preserves the proofs of those that were done, at its first establishment. but it will be said, that the truth of that history is doubted of, and that therefore new miracles are now required. i answer in the second place, that if the proofs of the truth of that doctrine are good, as we affirm, and if they are doubted of only out of an ill principle, they have no reason to complain of god's goodness. if there remained no proof of the truth of the history of christ and his apostles, it might be said that god has forsaken us, and deals with us much worse than with those in whose behalf he wrought miracles formerly. but having very good reasons to believe that history to be true, they ought to be to us instead of miracles. this being so, 'tis manifest that men have not now the same reason to wish for miracles, as when the christian religion was not yet established. thirdly, it ought to be observed, that to require new miracles from god, with and show of reason, men should have made a right use of the means they have to know the truth, so that after a careful and impartial examination they could not be satisfied about the thing they enquired after, but must doubt still of it whether they would or not. upon this supposition it might be said, that god would be in a manner obliged, by reason of his goodness, to help men's incredulity. hence it is that those who made a good use of the revelation of the old testament, and might be apt to doubt of the mission of christ and his apostles, not out of obstinacy, but because the proofs thereof were unknown to them, had the advantage of seeing many miracles in our saviour's time. but let us suppose some men of a quite contrary disposition, who perform not the duties which the light of reason teaches us, who have no love for the truth, who are full of a thousand ill-grounded prejudices, and blinded with unruly passions, who have examined nothing, but doubt of every thing out of a voluntary perverseness of their mind and inclinations. can such men complain because god works no miracles in their behalf? will they be so bold as to say that they are worthy of new favours, for having despised those which they had already received from him? if the unbelievers of our time would but examine themselves by this picture, they might easily find out the answer we can return to them. fourthly, i affirm that miracles would be of no use to such men. the unbelieving jews, in our saviour's time, are a manifest argument of what i say, seeing that being not able to deny his miraculous works, they ascribed them to the devils. the unbelievers of our time would never want shifts to bring into question miracles wrought in their presence, seeing they have found out several to hinder us from drawing any consequence from those of christ, supposing they are true. but of this i shall speak in my second letter at the end of this discourse. therefore it may be said, that god has more reason to work no miracles in the behalf of the unbelievers of our time, than to work any. and such was the method of christ. when he saw some obstinate men, who required from him some miracles, he wrought none, because he saw they would not make a better use of them than of other divine graces, and would but thereby increase their gild. the evangelists observe * mat. 13.58. mark 6.5. , that being come to nazareth, he did not many mighty works there, because of the unbelief of the inhabitants of that town. some unbelieving teachers having required of him a miracle more than once, † mat. 12.38. & 16.1. he denied them, and referred them to that of his resurrection, whereof notwithstanding they never had the honour to be eye-witnesses. wherefore he sometimes asked those who desired that he would cure their diseases, whether they believed ‖ mat. 9.29, etc. he could do it, to teach them that none deserves a new grace but he that made a good use of others. it would have been an absurd thing to expect or demand a cure from him, had they not certainly known, by other examples, or some good reasons, that he was able to do it. those who suppose that the goodness of god should incline him to deal otherwise with unbelievers, suppose at once two things most absurd and altogether unworthy of men who pretend to reason. the first is, that god ought to have no respect to the use men have made of his favours, but that the more they increase their unbelief, whatever the reason of it may be, the more he is obliged to grant 'em new graces; so changing the course of nature, as soon as they are pleased, doubt of revelation; whereby the conduct of god will depend upon the will and humour of men. the second absurdity that follows from thence is, that god would be obliged out of his goodness to satisfy as many parties as there are unbelievers in the world, and every one according to his own humour and method. for every one of them would see some miracles, and as it were put the divine providence to a trial, without minding what it might have done at other times, or in other places. if any can brook those consequences which necessarily follow from the unbeliever's objection; there is no need we should longer dispute with him. from what hath been said it appears that god is not obliged to work miracles now, because he wrought some formerly. in those places where the modern miracles are not believed, there is an ill custom, as well as in those where they are believed, which is very prejudicial to the christian religion, with regard to the incredulous; and it is this: several people who maintain some doctrines of no great moment and certainty, with too great a heat, are wont to say, to magnify their zeal, that if the opinion of their adversaries was true, the christian religion would be lost, that one could be sure of nothing, and such other things. in the mean time their adversaries endeavour to prove the truth of their opinions, and sometimes prove it so clearly, that the contrary opinion cannot be maintained without obstinacy. the unbelievers who are as it were a third party, and perform only the part of spectators of those quarrels, conclude from thence that the christian religion is not truer than the doctrines which they see so well confuted; and those who have exaggerated too much the importance of their opinions, can't hinder the unbelievers from drawing such a consequence against them. there are but too many examples of that ill manner of disputing; but i shall allege only one, which will be sufficient to make men sensible of what i say. there have been many disputes in this age about the antiquity of the jewish vowels. some have maintained that they were invented by the masorethes some centuries after christ. others have pretended on the contrary, that they were at least as ancient as esdras, and consequently grounded upon the authority of the prophets. the latter, to stir, if it were possible, all christendom against their adversaries, exclaimed after a tragical manner, that this dispute was about no less a thing than the authority of the old testament, and of the whole bible, which was destroyed by those who asserted the novelty of the vowels. but ludovicus cappellus has showed in his arcanum punctationis, and its defence, with as much evidence as can be desired in a thing of that nature, that the masorethes were the authors of those vowels. the most learned critics have embraced his opinion, and looked upon those who maintained the contrary as obstinate persons. the same happened with respect to another dispute which that learned man had concerning the various readins of the old testament. he proved that there are many readins which may be preferred before those of our modern copies. did it follow from thence, as his adversaries would have it, that the authority of the scripture should be destroyed, unbelievers would undoubtedly have reason to triumph, and it would be impossible to make any tolerable reply to them. but cappellus showed very clearly that nothing can be more false than this consequence, as well as that which is drawn from the novelty of the vowels; and so he freed the authority of the scripture from those insults of unbelievers, to which his adversaries had exposed it. 'tis manifest that there are scarce any more effectual means to confirm unbelievers in their obstinacy, than the drawing of such consequences. for they hear on the one side some grave and much esteemed teachers say after a doleful manner, that if certain opinions are not true, than religion is lost; and on the other hand, they see men of great learning not only acknowledge those opinions, but also maintain them with very good reasons. they conclude from thence that nothing can be less certain than religion, by the confession even of a part of those that profess it. 'tis to no purpose to undertake to prove the contrary to them, by rejecting some opinions grounded upon very solid arguments; whatever the defenders of the opposite opinion can tell them, will only serve to make them pass for conceited men, and of no great sincerity. this helps them also to perceive in many divines a strange disposition, which would dishonour the christian religion, if it had any hand in it, viz. it does plainly appear, that they seek not what's true, but what they think proper to maintain the doctrines they have embraced. when they fancy that if a certain thing was believed, some of their doctrines might be doubted of; they don't trouble themselves with enquiring whether their fancy be ill grounded, or whether that thing can be proved on not, as they should do; but they cry out in a woeful manner, that such an opinion is dangerous; that is to say, it cannot be easily reconciled with religion, as they fancy. this is the true character of a pleader, who is not very sure of being in the right; he suppresses whatever seems to him any way contrary to what he defends, whether it be true or false, if he is afraid it might appear from thence that he is in the wrong. such is the conduct of the governor of a place, who wanting skill or courage should say, that if some ill-fortified and inconsiderable out-work were taken by the enemies, he must unavoidably surrender the fortress. those who observed the conduct of both, would presently suspect the pleader to be in the wrong, and the governor to be sensible of the weakness of the place, and that neither of them hopes to make a good resistance. unbelievers have the same thoughts concerning divines, when they observe that they greedily collect and catch at whatever can in any manner make their cause better, or at least make it appear so. but what ought to be said, is, that those divines don't know very well the truth of religion, and stick to it only by a spirit of faction or interest. the christian religion is grounded upon clear and undeniable arguments; it stands in need of no weak reasons to support it; it needs but appear naked, and such as it came from heaven, to put an end to all sorts of difficulties. if any one who does not understand it, and loves not truth, but only the worldly advantages that attend it, seem to be afraid for religion; it will never want more able defenders, who will be devoted to it out of a principle worthy of so holy a doctrine. they will never be afraid as long as religion is only assaulted with reasons and arguments. chap. vii. that the difficulties which may occur in the christian religion, ought not to make any doubt of the truth thereof. 1. the abovementioned difficulties rather concern some modern divines than the christian religion, which they explain or defend not so well as they should. but because there is no science without some difficulties, however it be understood; it must be confessed that there are some in the christian religion: of which i speak in this chapter, wherewith i shall conclude this work. first i'll make some general reflections upon the difficulties which may occur in the christian theology; and then i'll allege some particular examples thereof, whereby i'll show, that they ought not to make any body doubt of its truth. there may be two sorts of difficulties in a science; some of which done't shake its principles; but others show it is no science at all, though so called, but a collection and a heap of ill-grounded opinions and conjectures. for example; there are indeed some difficulties in geometry, but no body doubts of the truth of its principles: the reason of which is, because they are all grounded upon clear proofs, and which can neither become obscure, nor doubtful. whatever difficulty there may be, with respect to a proposition following from those principles, they don't change their nature; and a man is more apt to accuse himself of not understanding geometry well, than to doubt of it, because he can't resolve a difficulty: or else they show that the proposition in question is of such a nature as not to be fully resolved. on the contrary, there are some difficulties raised against judiciary astrology, which not only perplex those who are fond of it, but also are the cause why all its principles are looked upon as false, and all that pretended science as a heap of chimerical thoughts. the reason of that difference is, because the principles of geometry are either mere definitions, or maxims clear of themselves, or demonstrated propositions: whereas judiciary astrology is only grounded upon false suppositions. so that assoon as the truths on which a science is grounded, have been demonstrated, and there is no fault in those demonstrations; whatever difficulty there may be in any proposition drawn from them, we don't look upon that science to be less certain. now to apply that observation to the christian religion, and to the difficulties which unbelievers find in it; the first thing to be done, when any objection is raised against christianity, is to see whether that objection directly shows that the proofs thereof are false. tho nothing could be answered to that difficulty, if those that raise it can't reply to the direct proofs of christianity, that difficulty does not weaken the strength of the proofs; and all that can be said is, that the objection is about a thing which we do not well understand, or that the christian theology is not perfectly known to us. wherefore the incredulous act not wisely, when they reject the christian religion, because of some difficulties, though they are not able to confute the proofs on which it is established. now i maintain that there is no difficulty can destroy those proofs; and if unbelievers will mind it, they may observe that most of their objections have no relation to them. that observation is of very great moment, when the question is about some facts, which happened many centuries ago, and are attested by some historians, whose knowledge and sincerity have been well proved. although one may raise some difficulties, with respect to some circumstances, which can't be now easily resolved; yet if those difficulties destroy not the direct proofs we have of the sincerity of the historians, and the exact knowledge they had of what they related, they ought not to make us doubt of the truth of the history. to be able to answer all the queries which may be made about a relation, one should have been an eye-witness of whatever it contains: and a history can't be looked upon as fabulous, because no body can satisfy us now about it, if we have no reason to suspect the historians from whom we have it, of want of honesty or knowledge. i could easily clear this matter with some instances; but it would carry me too far. to go on with the comparison i used, two sorts of objections may be raised against such a science as geometry, and the christian theology. some do only require the exact knowledge of two or three propositions, to be fully resolved; and so they may be answered in few words. but others require a long concatenation of many propositions, depending one upon another; so that one can't be convinced of the last, before he is sure of the truth and connexion of many others. in such a case 'tis impossible to satisfy in few words, those to whom all those propositions, or the greatest part of them, are unknown; because they ought to examine them one after another. notwithstanding, it has been observed several times, that some men who have some difficulties about religion, would have their objections presently resolved, without having any regard to what i said; though that resolution necessarily supposes the knowledge of several other things, which they are ignorant of. because 'tis impossible to satisfy them without instructing them in those things; and because they grow presently weary with a long discourse, 'tis a difficult matter to make them sensible of their mistake. tho it be their fault, if they retire without being well pleased with those to whom they proposed their objections, seeing they would not hear them; they fancy they have forced them to be silent, or to speak of something else. 'tis just as if a man, altogether ignorant of geometry, should hear another speak of asymptot lines, or that approach nearer and nearer in infinitum, without ever touching one another, and would know, in two or three words, how that can be. no mathematician could make him understand it in so short a time. if hereupon that man should say, that there are very great falsities in geometry, and that that science is not more certain than several others; what other judgement could be made of him, but that he is the most unreasonable of all men, seeing he would judge of a thing, the knowledge of which depends upon many more, without knowing them? the same may be said of those, who propose any difficulty about an article of religion, which can't be understood without the help of some others, and are angry because they are not answered in a word. some who want not wit, and doubt of the christian religion, or reject it because they find some difficulties in it, do most times make a most unreasonable supposition, without being sensible of it, viz. that whatever they do not distinctly comprehend, is not true; as if human knowledge ought necessarily to comprehend whatever exists, or is done in nature. i could easily show that there is an infinite number of things which our knowledge can't attain to; but it will suffice to observe here, that the principle of the unbelievers, which i mentioned just now, is a mere supposition they are pleased to make, because they imagine it raises them above what they are. i maintain that this proposition can't be denied, viz. that there may really be some things, the modus or manner of which humane nature can't know at present, though it studies for it never so much. it ought to be observed that i do not say, there may be some things contrary to our distinct notions, which is impossible; but only that it may be, we have not the knowledge that is required, or the means of acquiring it, to know some things; which notwithstanding are not contrary to what we certainly know. 'tis necessary to make that distinction, because several people, who are not ware of it, confound things that are extremely different. we cannot believe what is really contrary to our clear notions; but we believe an infinite number of things, though we know not how they come to pass. most unbelievers are commonly guilty of another fault, which is less excusable than the former. instead of being in such a disposition as is necessary for such as seek after truth, they act like men who only strive to get the better, without enquiring who is in the right or in the wrong. they wrangle as much as they can, and if those with whom they dispute, do it unsuccessfully, they'll be sure to take advantage of it, as if the truth of the christian religion depended upon that. they will not show those, who do not defend religion well, what mistakes they are guilty of, but only labour to make advantage of it, that they may the more easily triumph over them. but when the question is concerning a thing of that nature, about which no man can deceive others, without doing himself a greater prejudice: and when truth is equally advantageous to every body, men should only labour to find it out, and instead of insulting those who can't show the way to it, they should endeavour to put them in the right way. the spirit of dispute is altogether inconsistent with the search of truth; and a heathen philosopher said well, † arist. lib. 1. de coelo, c. 10. that those who will rightly judge of truth, aught to be arbitrators, not parties. assoon as one has put on the character of an adversary, he thinks no more of truth, but of the glory which may be gotten by triumphing over him whom he has assaulted. he is only intent upon his adversary's way of reasoning, to take him up upon all occasions, but not to endeavour to find out a better: he considers no longer the thing in question, as the subject of his enquiry, but of his censure: he views it on every side, to find fault with it, not to know what it is grounded upon. 'tis certain that this is an ill disposition of mind, and unbelievers themselves cannot deny it. after what has been said, 'tis no wonder if men, who shut their eyes against the clear and beautiful part of the christian religion, and only open them to see what's obscure and difficult in it, that they may find fault with something or other, should at last grow so conceited of their pretended sagacity, as to be almost incurable. such a disposition is not at all agreeable to the love of truth, which they profess, and can only serve to increase one's errors. and indeed what truth can he find out, who only seeks an occasion of disputing and overcoming? truth, which often flies from those that seek it with application, offers not itself to the sight of those that fly from it. after those general observations concerning the difficulties that are offered against religion, i must allege some particular examples of the chief doctrines which unbelievers are wont to assault. there is none they more frequently speak against, than what christians believe concerning the creation of the world; and it is of so great moment, that it may be said this doctrine being once well proved, 'tis no hard matter to get the rest admitted; whereas if it remains doubtful, the other doctrines of religion will necessarily be uncertain. all revelation depends upon this, viz. that there is a god, who created heaven and earth: and he that gins not with that, can make no progress in the knowledge of religion. so that it will be necessary to prove it in few words. there are two sorts of being's; some, called spirits, perceive, will, feel, and reason; the other, who have no understanding, are extended, divisible, and solid, and are called bodies. those spirits and bodies are variously modified, as we see or know by experience. this is all that we know in the world, besides god. the christian religion teaches us that those spirits and bodies, with all their properties, had a beginning, and that they were created by a being, who has no beginning. this is what unbelievers say they cannot apprehend, and it seems to them that every thing was always as it is now. to know whether there is any appearance of truth in what they say, we must examine those two sorts of being's, and see whether they contain any thing, whereby we may suspect that they are eternal. as to spirits, we only know our own souls well, and unbelievers acknowledge no other. now i ask of them whether they perceive any thing in their minds, which induces them to suspect that they are eternal? 'tis certain that there is no such thing, unless they will say that ignorance and weakness are characters of eternity. if we examine bodies, which are inferior to spirits, because they are without understanding, we shall see nothing in them neither, which may make one believe that they are eternal. there are but two things that can be considered in this latter kind of being's, viz. matter and form; and if neither of them affords us any reason to believe that they have always been, we cannot affirm it. as for the matter of bodies, 'tis but a substance extended, solid, divisible, and capable of motion, and all sorts of figures. that collection of qualities, which makes up the essence of all bodies, as far as it is known to us, contains nothing that looks like eternity. the notion of this property, however it be considered, cannot be found in that collection. so that it cannot be affirmed that the matter of bodies is eternal. all that can be said thereupon may be reduced to these two things. first, that one cannot conceive how mere extension had a beginning; because notwithstanding all our endeavours to think upon the time when god was alone, before bodies were created, a simple and boundless extension always offers itself to the mind. but a mere extension, in which we apprehend no solidity, is not a body; as it appears by the abovementioned definition of a body. there is another manifest proof of it, viz. because mere extension is indivisible and boundless, as we perceive it by trying to divide or put some bounds to it in our mind; whereas all bodies are divisible, and continued within bounds. so that all that could be concluded from thence, is, that the place of bodies is eternal. secondly, unbelievers say that they cannot apprehend how such a substance as that of bodies should be produced out of nothing, as the christians say. if to be created out of nothing, signified to have no preexistent cause, and yet to begin to exist, i confess that would be altogether impossible. for supposing that nothing exists but a mere extension, how can it be conceived that a solid and divisible substance should be formed in it? one might as well apprehend that all sorts of beasts, plants and minerals may spring forth out of the air, without any productive cause. but to be created out of nothing, signifies to have a cause, which contains in a more excellent manner the proprieties which we see in the things created, besides an infinite number of others; from which cause the things created have their existence, or by the will whereof they begin actually to exist. there is nothing in all this that's contradictory; and if we do not clearly apprehend wherein the action of the cause, which creates out of nothing, consists, 'tis because the nature of that cause is not perfectly known to us. to explain what i have said by an undeniable example, no man will deny that there is in nature a principle of motion different from matter, seeing we perceive that matter moves not of itself. all that we perceive in it, is mobility, but it cannot be said that we have any reason to believe that matter moves and modifies itself. this being so, the immaterial principle of motion, whatever it be, produceth motion in matter out of nothing; that is to say, being able to move, without having the imperfections of actual motion, he makes motion to begin to exist in matter, which before was in the state of rest. this is a fact which cannot be doubted of, seeing motion exists, and matter is not the cause of it. but 'tis not known how a being uncapable of motion, seeing it is not material, can produce it in matter. if any one should say that motion is eternal, because he can't apprehend how it can have a beginning; he might be referred to experience, which teaches us that we move our arms and feet when we please, after they have been at rest, though we don't know how it is done. i know some philosophers say, that we only determine the actual motion of the animal spirits, which move our members as many ways as we please. i will not here confute that conjecture, (for 'tis only a mere conjecture) but i maintain that 'tis as difficult a thing to apprehend that an immaterial being determines a motion a certain way, as to apprehend that he produces it anew. so that if those philosophers may be allowed to affirm the one; or if they cannot deny it, though they apprehend not how it comes to pass; it would be a great piece of injustice to find fault with those that say there is an immaterial principle which produced motion in matter, though it is not known how he did it. this being undeniable, i conclude from it, that though i have no distinct idea of the manner after which god may have produced bodies out of nothing, yet i can't deny it: especially if we observe in matter no character of eternity, 'tis an absurd thing even to suspect that it is eternal; and much more absurd still to find fault with christian divines, who say that it was created out of nothing. tho nothing can hinder us from grounding the creation of the world upon that foundation; yet it must be confessed that the christian religion, which was instituted for illiterate men, as well as for scholars, does not necessarily suppose these sorts of things which require a greater meditation than the vulgar is capable of. it's enough to apprehend that god imparted to matter the form it now has, to pay to him all the duties which he requires from us in the gospel. so that, without supposing what i have proved concerning the creation of the matter of bodies, we must inquire whether there is any reason to believe that the form they have is eternal. there is nothing in the form no more than in matter, which can make us suspect, that the world, as it is now, never had a beginning. tho we have not seen the formation of the great bodies that surround us, and not one eye-witness has left a relation of it; though it seems that little or no sensible alteration happens in the world in general; yet no body can say for all that, that it has been the same from all eternity; because the world might have been framed before there was any man upon the earth. but besides, we cannot say that the form of the world is eternal, and consequently that men, and other animals (which make a part of it) have always been upon earth; the perpetual succession, which we see in their kind's, does plainly teach us, that they had a beginning. it can't be said that the animals who live at present, are born of their fathers and mothers, and these after the same manner, and so in infinitum, so as never to come to the first. the reason of it is, because being's that have a limited duration, as that of every generation is, cannot equal eternity by such a duration: as a number of limited measures, though never so great, cannot be equal to an infinite extension. every generation singly taken having had a beginning, we must necessarily come to the beginning of those generations. 'tis therefore manifest, that men and beasts began to exist upon earth, and consequently that they were formed by some cause. epicurus, who said that they were formed by a fortuitous concourse of atoms, made more ridiculous suppositions, and more absurd conjectures, than what we find in the ancient fables. hence it is that no body maintains his hypothesis now. but others say, that whatever exists, is properly but one being, that modified itself by a necessary consequence from its nature. if any body knew what they mean, or if they knew it themselves, they might be confuted; but an opinion that is so absurd and nonsensical, though it has the outward appearance of a geometrical order, can deceive no body but those who will be deceived, and are inclined to it from some other reasons. wherefore seeing nothing can give a beginning to itself, it must be confessed that there is a being more excellent than all animals, who formed them upon this earth; and this is that being which christians call god: thus they must of necessity acknowledge a god who has created us. 'tis an easy thing to prove that he created the sun and the planets; because limited periods, as those of the planets are, can never exhaust eternity, though they be never so much multiplied. so that we may very well say, that there is a maker of heaven and earth; and no objection can force us to renounce that proposition, seeing we directly prove it by undeniable arguments; and the objections that may be opposed to them do not destroy them, and are but the natural effects of our ignorance. they object, for example, that they cannot apprehend how god, who is supposed to be immaterial, could create bodies out of nothing. none can give what he has not, say they; so that god being incorporeal, could not give to bodies the proprieties which they have. but it ought to be observed, that this very argument will prove that there is no motion in nature; for one may say, matter has no motion of itself; and that which is immaterial has less still: none can give what he has not; wherefore matter has no motion. let them try to answer this argument, and the answer, if it be good, will resolve the proposed objection against the creation of matter. it may be said, that god contains the real proprieties of all being's, but without having the imperfections and defects of them, seeing 'tis certain he has created them, and he is infinitely more perfect than all the things to which he gave a beginning. by this argument we ascend from the effects to the cause, but we don't learn by it, nor by any other argument, how the real proprieties of creatures are in god, nor how he made them to exist. the fact is as certain as the manner of it is above human understanding, as well as the origin of motion, though no body can doubt of its existence. there is another thing which the incredulous will not believe, viz. the revelation which we say is contained in the old and new testament. whatever they say concerning revelation in general, is grounded upon this prejudice, viz. that they themselves having no experience of a revelation, they can't be persuaded that there has been any. but nothing can be weaker than arguments grounded only upon our ignorance, and which suppose that what we know not is not true, as i have already observed. those who deny revelation, should either manifestly prove that god cannot reveal himself to his creatures after an extraordinary manner, which no body will ever be able to prove, or find out in that revelation some manifest characters of falsity, which no body can show in the revelation of holy scripture. this might be sufficient to stop the mouths of unbelievers; but their repugnancy to believe the christian religion arising partly from their being ignorant of the history thereof, and not perceiving how the wisdom of god appears in it, i shall set down that history in a few words. men knowing nothing but by experience and reflection; and experience being slow, and reflection oftentimes difficult, god showed them by some revelations, from the beginning of the world, what they ought to know concerning his nature, and the worship he required from them. tho moses has given us but a short abridgement of the history of what passed during above two thousand years, before he received the law of god; yet he mentions † gen. 3.3.9, etc. & 6.13. & 7.1. & 8.15. & 9.1. & 12.1, etc. several revelations, and every where supposes that they were very frequent, as all those who have read the book of genesis know very well. but it appears that men made not a very good use of them. the egyptians, one of the most ancient and happy nations in the world, were already in his time infected with a shameful idolatry, * see exod. 8.16. & 32.4. which made them worship beasts. the cananeans were also idolaters, as he says † leu. 20. 2. numb. 25.3, etc. in many places, and lived a very wicked life. there is no likelihood that the other neighbouring nations made a better use of those ancient revelations, or the light of reason, which god has given to all men. so that there was not one nation that could boast to have improved the talents it received from heaven, as it ought to do; and if god had given them up to their darkness and wickedness, none of them could have justly complained of him. notwithstanding, to pass by the nations whose history is not well known to us, god being moved with compassion towards men, would not permit that idolatry and corrupt manners should, as it were, overflow the whole world. he continued to reveal himself more particularly to the family of abraham and his posterity; and to make those revelations more useful, and hinder them from being corrupted by the mixture of the false opinions of other nations, he ordered the israelites to frame a commonwealth by itself, and forbade them to converse much with their neighbours. to frame that commonwealth, and enable it to maintain itself till he should think fit to call the other nations to the same knowledge the hebrews had, he gave them some laws, the observation whereof he required under most severe penalties. there are several things to be observed in those laws, which may help us to see the wisdom contained in them; but it will suffice to say that some of them are grounded upon the very constitution of nature and humane society; so that all nations are bound to observe them, at least in some measure, and that they cannot be violated without hurting the society. they are called moral laws. the other do so concern the commonwealth of the hebrews in particular, that other men are not the worse for not observing them; and they are called political laws. lastly, the other concern the ceremonies which god would have to be observed in his worship. they are styled ceremonial laws. the first sort of laws, as those which command to acknowledge a god, and to worship him, to honour our parents, and to do to our neighbour as we would be done by; that sort of laws, i say, was approved by the wisest heathen legislators and philosophers; and jesus christ has since confirmed them. the necessity of those laws can't be doubted of, seeing they can't be neglected without feeling the dismal effects of that neglect; and seeing the nature of humane society necessarily requires the observation of those laws, it can't be doubted but that they are worthy of him to whom humane nature owes its origin. tho this is manifest, it would be an easy thing to show that several nations had many laws contrary to them, because the interests and passions of some private men prevailed above the public good. lest therefore the light that was contrary to those ill customs should be wholly extinguished among men, it was necessary that there should be at least one nation upon earth, in which good and sound laws should be so clearly and undeniably established, that no body could doubt of them. this we find among the jews: god himself delivered part of those laws with his own mouth, and acquainted them with the rest by a prophet whom he authorised with miracles. those laws are, as i said, equally necessary at all times, and in all places, in order to the peace and happiness of humane society: but because it was necessary that the commonwealth of the jews should not be mixed with other nations, lest those laws should be destroyed, god gave them some other laws accommodated to the genius of that people, and to their state in the land of canaan, which they were to possess. such are the political and ceremonial laws; the chief excellency of which consists in having nothing that is contrary to the moral laws and in being suited to the people who received them. one may easily perceive that the political and ceremonial laws of moses contain nothing that's contrary to the moral ones: but to convince one's self that god could give no laws more suitable to the state and genius of the jews, one ought to have a competent knowledge of the manners of the nations among which they had lived, and with which they were then surrounded. those who have applied themselves to that study, have found out that a great part of those laws were like those of the neighbouring nations, and that they were also ‖ see my commentary upon the pentateuch. contrary to them in several things; so that it may be said that god, accommodating himself to the genius of the israelites, took care so to distinguish the form of their commonwealth and worship, from that of their neighbours, that it was impossible they should mix themselves with them, as long as they should observe those laws. i will not come to the particulars of those facts, because i have treated of them at large in the latin book which i just now quoted in the margin. as god had settled those laws chief by his authority, or that of a prophet authorised with miracles, so he still required the observation of them, not only by the ordinary magistrates who might themselves neglect them in time, but also by several prophets whom he sent to the jews from time to time to censure them for their vices, and excite them to obey him by some rewards and punishments, which they preached in his name. all the laws that have relation to a certain state of a nation, which makes them useful and necessary, do evidently suppose that they are only good, as long as that state lasts; and such were the political and ceremonial laws of the jews. notwithstanding the lawgiver, who would give no body an occasion of breaking his laws, on pretence that they were no longer necessary, and so of overthrowing the commonwealth of the jews before the time, speaks of them as of eternal laws. he kept to himself the power of abrogating them when the time should come, lest the jews should do it unseasonably, and atter a manner contrary to his intention. in the mean time the prophets whom he sent to keep the jews to their duty, or to bring them to it, were ordered to say many things, which by degrees disposed that people to what was to happen some time or other, that is, to see themselves mixed with all the other nations, and to observe only such laws as are of an eternal use, and grounded on the constitution of humane nature. for example, jeremiah was commanded to say to the jews of his time; * ch. 31.31, etc. the days come, saith the † so the word jehovah may be rendered. see my remarks upon exod. 6.3. creator, that i will make a new covenant with the house of israel, and with the house of judah: not according to the covenant which i made with their fathers in the day that i took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of egypt— but this shall be the covenant that i will make with the house of israel, after those days i will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; (that is, it will be of such a nature that reason only will almost teach it, and they will easily remember it) and i will be their god, and they shall be my people: and they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, know the lord; for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, etc. this clearly denotes some new laws, which one might easily learn and remember; whereas it was not so with the ceremonial laws of moses, which can neither be easily remembered nor understood. another prophet introduces god speaking thus; ‖ mal. 1.11. from the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the same, my name shall be great among the gentiles; and in every place incense shall be offered unto my name, and a pure offering; for my name shall be great among the heathen. there are also some promises in the prophets concerning him whom god was to send to instruct the jews more clearly in his last intention, as in the 53d chapter of ifaiah, wherein god says, amongst other things; by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many, and he shall bear their iniquities. elsewhere he is represented as a king: * mich. 5.2. see zech. 9.9. thou bethlehem ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me, that is to be ruler in israel. tho it is no easy thing to prove now to the jews or others, by some grammatical arguments, that those passages, and the like, concern the deliverer who was promised to the israelites; yet it appears by the history of the gospel, and their most ancient teachers, that the jews understood then the prophecies in that sense. it was a general opinion that a king was to come, (whom they named messiah by excellency, that is to say anointed, because kings were anointed) and that he would change the state of the commonwealth of israel. but neither the words of the prophets, nor what tradition might have preserved of their doctrine, were clear enough to give them a distinct and true notion of the person of that king, or the nature of his kingdom. hence it is that they expected a king like those whom they had formerly, who should subdue their neighbours to their empire. there are many such promises in the prophets which i will not insist upon, because some few examples will be sufficient to show the design of the revelation, and the effect it wrought in the minds of the people. the jews having had some prophets when they returned from the captivity of babylon, had none since, at least that we know of, to the time of the empire of augustus, which was the time appointed by the divine wisdom, to send not only to the jews, but to all mankind, a new lawgiver, to instruct them more fully in the knowledge of their duty. i must somewhat insist upon this place, to show god's wisdom in the choice of the time wherein he sent christ to the world. the jews stood no more in need of such prophets as the foregoing were, to require from them the observation of the law of moses, and censure their vices. the writings of the ancient prophets, which they read then more carefully than ever they did, were sufficient for that. there was no need neither to make further promises of a messiah by new revelations; they thought they perceived him clearly enough in the old. but they stood in great need of two things. the one was to learn that the true worship of god does not consist in ceremonies, but in entertaining noble thoughts of god, and in praying to, and trusting in him, and in loving one's neighbour as himself. it ought to be observed that by the word neighbour we must understand all men in general. the other thing the jews wanted then, was to know certainly that there is a future life, and that god will reward good men, and punish the wicked after this life. the jews entertained a most pernicious error concerning the first thing, viz. that the observation of the ceremonies was the chief thing men could do to be acceptable to god, whereas those ceremonies were but some laws which god had given them out of condescension, and to keep them separate from other nations, until a certain time; as it appears from the thing itself, and experience. besides, the romans being then ready to deprive them of a small remainder of liberty which they enjoyed, and to take from them the means of preserving their temple, it was very necessary that the jews should know that it was no great loss, seeing they would be no less acceptable to god, by worshipping him only, and obeying his moral laws, though they should observe no longer the ceremonial ones. forasmuch as they were to be mixed for ever with all nations, their commonweath being destroyed without any hope of a re-establishment; one of the most useful advices that could be given them, was to look upon all men as their neighbours. they were forbidden before to converse familiarly with them, as long as the commonwealth of israel should subsist; but after its total destruction there was no room left for that distinction; nay, it was impossible. the reunion of the jews with the rest of mankind was most worthy of god, the common father of all men, who had separated his children for a time, lest a general corruption should overflow them. as for what concerns a future life, together with its rewards and punishments, it was altogether necessary that christ should ground that belief upon a new foundation. the prophets spoke not clearly enough upon that point, and it can't be found in their writings but by the help of several consequences, and those sometimes extremely nice. that doctrine is not expressly treated of therein, and there is nothing concerning it where any would think it should be handled at large, and in express words, as in that part of the law wherein rewards are promised to those who shall obey god, and punishments denounced against those who shall break his commandments. hence it is that the sadduces laughed at that doctrine, and pretended it was a vain tradition. yet 'tis certain that religion runs a great danger without this doctrine, which is undoubtedly always necessary to excite men to the practice of virtue, as i could easily show; but it was especially necessary to the jews at that time. the persecutions of their neighbours, or their own dissensions, had reduced them to a miserable condition, and the temporal promises of the law were no more fulfilled. which made even good men murmur, and the learned men of that time were not at all able to hinder it, as it appears from the authors of the wisdom of solomon and ecclesiasticus, who are strangely perplexed with this question, * see wisdom, ch. 4, & 5, etc. why wicked men are often very happy in this life, and those that keep the law very miserable? that question could not be otherways answered, than by saying, that god being not willing that the commonwealth of israel should last longer, ceased to grant to the observers of his laws the rewards he had promised them; and that calling them now to a more sublime virtue, he would grant them in another life an infinitely more excellent reward than the temporal happiness they wished for. 'tis true that the pharisees asserted the resurrection of the dead, and an eternal life, but it seems they grounded their belief more upon tradition than the express words of scripture. nay, they spoke of another life as the heathens did, if we believe * ant. jud. lib. 18. c. 2. josephus. to build so important a doctrine upon a solid foundation, nothing less could be required than the authority of the messiah, who very clearly teaches it , and was himself a sensible example of what god will do for good men: which made one of his apostles say, † 2 tim. 1.10. that he has brought life and immortality to light through the gospel. it appears from what has been said, how necessary it was that christ should be born among the jews at that very time, and how necessary and useful his doctrine was to them. but perhaps it will be asked, why there was no reason then to fear the jews would corrupt themselves among the pagans, as they did formerly? the reason of it is, because the belief of the unity of a god, maker of heaven and earth, and his spirituality, were so rooted in the minds of the jews, that nothing could persuade them to the contrary hereafter. the jews were better qualified, and more like to convert the heathens, than the heathens to draw the jews to their opinions, though they had the uppermost. the most celebrated philosophers among the grecians believed the unity of a supreme god; and the religion of the mob, which was built upon fables, was not at all approved by men of sense, as may be easily proved. so that the jews ran not so great a danger, in that respect, as they did before. besides, it was none of the romans maxims to make proselytes, as the jews did; so that they endeavoured not, at least commonly, to make them embrace their opinions, either by cunning arts, or by force. they tolerated them , provided they would obey the laws which were not repugnant to their religion. besides, god, who was making every thing ready to call the gentiles to his knowledge, was shortly to form a great people in the midst of paganism, with whom the jews might live without any danger of corrupting themselves. but it will be asked, why god stayed so long before he manifested himself to the heathens? perhaps what i said just now, is one reason of it, viz. lest the jews being obliged to live amongst them, should altogether corrupt themselves, if heathenism should prevail . but besides, it may be said that the romans and grecians were never better qualified to receive the gospel. the study of philosophy had in some measure delivered them from the ignorance and superstition they lay under during many ages; and the grandeur of the romans, who were not very well persuaded of the truth of their ancestors religion, did not allow them to mind whatever might be said against their gods. the jews and christians have not more railed at them than the epicureans, as it appears by the example of lucian. tho the discourses of the epicureans arose from a principle of atheism, altogether contrary to the disposition of the jews and christians, yet they contributed much to facilitate the belief of the christian religion, because the epicureans knew very well how to destroy the pagan religion, but had no better principles to establish in its stead; whereas the jews and christians had a very rational system to supply the room of the heathenish errors. thus god, who can draw light out of darkness, made use of the effect the epicurean philosophy had wrought, to introduce his knowledge more easily among the heathens. the most civilised and frequented parts of europe and asia being at that time under one and the same empire, and under some laws that were just enough; the peace which was then more general than it had been before, and the safety wherewith men might travel through the roman empire, did very much contribute to the propagation of the christian doctrine; so that it may be said, that if god designed to have compassion on the heathens, it was then the time, or never, to call them to his knowledge. during those circumstances, which i desire the reader to recall to his mind, god was pleased that a lawgiver should be born among the jews, of another nature than he whom they expected, and infinitely more useful to them. instead of a temporal king, who might have increased their power and renown, but would not have lessened their ignorance nor their vices; god sent them a king worthy of him who taught them how they ought to live here, to be eternally happy after this life; and showed them, that instead of being members of a little commonwealth, and enemies to the rest of mankind, they ought to look upon the whole world as their native country, and all men as their fellow-citizens; a thought worthy of those who already professed to believe that all men are equally the work of god. as for those pagans who were not content with their own religion, they made use in vain of the light of their philosophers, to find out something better, when christianity happily offered itself to them, to free them from their doubts. there was a general corruption among them, proceeding from some having no religion, and others ridiculous ones. 'tis true that the philosophers opposed that corruption in some measure: but some of them exhorted men to virtue only as much as it was necessary for them in this life, as the epicurcans which took off all the force of their discourses; others, as the platonics and stoics, mentioned indeed the rewards, which may be expected after death, but only in a doubtful manner, and without any proof; so that their exhortations were in effect very weak. tho their morals were fine indeed, yet there were several things in them to be found fault with, and their theology was full of chimaeras, which now i will not insist upon. then the christian religion appeared with a theology altogether agreeable to the light of reason, with so perfect a system of morals, that it contains whatever the several sects of philosophers said, that was good, upon that matter; and with rewards and punishments so certain, that men are necessarily moved with them when they think of them. it must be confessed that god could reveal nothing to men that was more suitable to their needs, nor enlighten them in a more proper time. it appears from thence that god had very good reasons to manifest himself to the jews and heathens, as i have said. not that i will affirm that those are precisely the reasons of the conduct of providence, and that it had no other. my design was only to make it appear that 'tis a very easy thing to show the wisdom thereof, and to stop the mouths of unbelievers; for if men, notwithstanding their ignorance, can give very probable reasons of god's conduct, how great a light might he dart into our minds, if he were pleased to draw off the veil, if i may speak so, under which he hides himself? i must make some more observations upon the persons whom he made use of to manifest himself to men, because unbelievers fancy that they should have been quite other men than they were. they think that if god designed to send any in his name to men, he should have chosen men of authority, to keep them in awe; and eloquent enough to excite the attention of others, and write according to all the rules of eloquence what they designed to leave to posterity. i confess that most of those whose ministry god made use of to reveal his will to men, were not at all persons of authority. the gospel itself, which is his last revelation, was preached only by mean and ordinary men, without any dignity in the commonwealth of the jews. but i maintain that there are sensible marks of god's wisdom in that choice, which could not appear in a contrary choice. i will only speak of the first preachers of the gospel, because what i shall say of them may be easily applied to the prophets of the old testament, who were men of the same condition. tho christ was born of a royal line, his family was become so poor, that he could make no great figure among the jews upon the score of his extraction. most of his apostles were fishermen, or men of no greater account: so that they had no authority among their countrymen whereby they might command any respect. but that which seemed proper to expose them to contempt was the only thing that could authorise their doctrine, especially in future ages. to be convinced of it, let us suppose the contrary a little, and see what would be thought of it. if christ and his apostles had been men of authority, it might be said, with great show of reason, first, that they were men of great parts, who seeing the jews in such a corruption, which altogether destroyed the civil society amongst them, as we learn from the history of that time, undertook to reform them, by feigning new revelations, and authorising these pretended revelations by false miracles. 'tis a design that men of the first rank may easily think of, and several have been accused of it, as lycurgus, numa * see plutarch in their lives: diodorus siculus, bibl. lib. 1. towards the end. lactantius inst. diu. lib. 1. c. 22. , and other pagan lawgivers, who feigned to have received their laws from some deity, to make them more sacred. secondly, it might be said, that by giving better laws to their fellow-citizens, as being come from heaven, they not only did them good service in deceiving them, but also that they themselves got credit by it, because they were looked upon as ministers of the godhead. thirdly, it would be said that their miracles were false, because men of authority and power may easily deceive others, by appointing some men who favour their design, and frighting by their authority those who could discover their cheats. 'twas, for example, an easy thing for numa pompilius to pretend that he had a particular acquaintance with the nymph egeria, and persuade the romans that he went to see that goddess every night in a wood, wherein he might easily hid some body who made them believe, by a thousand cheats which may easily come into one's mind, that this wood was the residence of the goddess. he might reward those who favoured his design, and revenge himself of those who should endeavour to cross it. so that it must be confessed that men of authority preaching a new revelation, might have been so much suspected by their contemporaries, and especially by posterity, that it would have been a very difficult thing, to assure one's self of their sincerity. on the contrary, 'tis manifest, that such a design of reforming the jewish nation, and even all mankind, by feigning a false revelation, could not easily come into the mind of men who had no authority. so vast a project is not for ordinary men, who seldom entertain great thoughts; and the danger of being discovered and punished by the magistrates is more than sufficient to deter them from doing it, if they had any such thoughts. they would be so far from hoping with any probability to get more credit and authority by such a cheat, that they would be afraid of being discovered by their superiors, who always suspect such designs. lastly, such men can promise no rewards to those who assist them, nor threaten those that cross their designs of revenging themselves upon them. their superiors watch over their actions, and won't allow them to meddle with any thing that is out of their sphere, and will be sure to punish them upon the first motion they make. 'tis therefore much more likely that men of no authority may act sincerely on such an occasion, than those of the first rank. but there was nothing more necessary for all future ages than to choose for the preaching of the gospel, men whose honesty could not be suspected, seeing 'tis only upon their sincerity that all our belief is grounded. and besides, the success of the preaching of the gospel by men of no authority, is a plain evidence of the finger of god, and the strength of the apostles arguments; whereas the success of a design contrived and put in execution by considerable men, would be looked upon as an effect of their authority, rather than of their reasons. * 1 cor. 1.27, etc. god has chosen, says one of christ's apostles, the foolish things of the world to confound the wise: and god has chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty: and base things of the world, and things which are despised has god chosen; yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are, that no flesh should glory in his presence. i come now to the art and eloquence which unbelievers would require in the writings of the apostles, to believe that they are inspired: but i affirm again, that that very thing would raise suspicions against them, and doubts concerning the truth of their doctrine. before i show it, i must not forget to say, that i don't blame art and eloquence as being pernicious and useless on all occasions. on the contrary, those that make a good use of it, can't be too much esteemed, that is, those who use it to vindicate and clear truth, or to lead men to virtue. i only design to show that it fell out better that the first preachers of the gospel were destitute of it. let us suppose again the contrary of what happened; and that the apostles who left to posterity the life, discourses and doctrine of jesus christ, were men of great eloquence, and perfect masters of the art of writing exactly and methodically. let us suppose that their writings as well as their discourses were composed with great exactness, and all possible elegancy; i'll tell you the effect it would work upon the minds of men, especially of those who should read them now. they would think that they were very ingenious men, whose learning and eloquence had moved them to propagate their doctrine through the whole world, and get reputation by it; as it can't be doubted that 'twas plato's design as well as of many other philosophers. it would be said that those men, in order to convince others not only of the excellency of their morals, by the eloquence of their writings, but also to make them observe so excellent a doctrine, out of a more powerful motive, contrived all the miracles contained in the life of christ. the more exact they had been in observing the circumstances of time, places, and persons; the more careful they had been to set off the wonderful parts of that incomparable life, and the beauty of their master's thoughts, by their manner of expressing them, the more they would have been suspected of artifice, especially in the following ages, when what they said of christ would be the only reason of believing in him. thus plato * vid. diogenes laert. lib. 3. §. 3. & intt. in h. loc. was suspected to have adorned the discourses of socrates his master; nay it has been said, that he sent him some of his own thoughts, as those who have any knowledge of the master and his disciple can't doubt of it. the success of the gospel, which is no inconsiderable mark of its divinity, would be looked upon as the effect of the eloquence of its first preachers, not of an extraordinary providence. it would have been said at most, that the doctrine of the apostles was the most excellent and rational philosophy that had been taught till that time. but by granting the truth of their moral rules, they would have doubted of its divinity, and looked upon it rather as the effect of the apostles meditations, than a divine revelation. but having written the life of their master, and published his discourses without any art or method, they can't be suspected neither to have contrived what they said, nor to have used any artifice to make a lie look with the air of truth. their great simplicity, which appears every where, and their taking no care to impose upon the reader, are evident marks not only of their being not able to deceive, but also of their sincerity. the wonderful success of their preaching, though destitute of whatever raised the admiration of the orators and philosophers, is a convincing proof of their being favoured by heaven. * 1 cor. 2.4, 5. my speech and my preaching, says one of them, was not with enticing words of men's wisdom, but in demonstration of the spirit and of power, (to wit, in the miracles) that your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of god. if we reflect upon those circumstances of the revelation, and all the other, which at first seem to make one doubt of it, when they are not throughly examined, we shall see that god could not give more sensible marks of the care he took about it, but by choosing those whose ministry he made use of to propagate it through the whole world. i shall not undertake to resolve the particular objections which unbelievers may raise against the christian religion: the answer to which must be looked for in the writings of those who have directly proved the truth of it, or written upon the holy scripture. the conclusion of the second part. i think i may conclude now (nor can unbelievers accuse me of drawing a consequence that extends farther than the proofs i made use of) that nothing can be more false than to fancy that the christian religion is grounded upon mere credulity: that the ignorance or corrupt manners of those who profess it, ought not to prejudice it in the least: that though many profess it out of interest for many ages past, rather than out of persuasion, no such thing can be suspected concerning its first founders: that the divisions which are among christians ought not to make one doubt of the truth of it: that the gospel is very useful to the greatest part of mankind, both in this life and the next: that the falsities which are to be found in the doctrine of some christians now, must not be ascribed to the apostles. lastly, that the history of the creation of the world, and of god's revelation to men, such as the christians represent it, contains nothing but what is most agreeable to reason, and most worthy of the wisdom of the maker of heaven and earth. if unbelievers would seriously think upon what i have said concerning those propositions, i am persuaded that they would easily grant them; and then they might find, without any difficulty, an answer to all their particular objections. as soon as some undeniable principles have been laid down, which influence all the parts of the christian theology, several things, which before seemed difficult, cease then to be so; and thus one's knowledge may be increased every day. on the contrary, the general principles of religion remaining uncertain or unknown, every thing makes men perplexed, and the longer they live in such a state, the more the difficulties increase. as soon as men have learned to distinguish the religion of christ and his apostles from what is taught in several parts of europe, and the maxims of the first founders of christianity, from those of many christians of this time; they may easily perceive that a great part of the doctrines which they were offended at, and the behaviour which they dislike, are not at all like the doctrine of ancient christianity, or the manners of the primitive christians. the thing we treat of is not a dispute, wherein men only design to show their wit, and get the victory, but the question is about the search of a truth, the knowledge whereof is equally useful to both sides: unbelievers ought therefore to part altogether with that spirit of wrangling, which makes them so eager to find fault, as if they were sorry to be convinced that the christian religion contains nothing that clashes with right reason. on the contrary, they should be disposed as those who search a truth necessary to them, and think rather to discover it themselves, than to find some falsities in the doctrine of those who would lead them to it, and to whom it is not perhaps well known. if those to whom they make their application to resolve their doubts, do not satisfy them, they ought to apply themselves to the divines, or read the writings of another party, which perhaps will afford them greater satisfaction. nay, if no body did altogether satisfy them, they would not be less bound to seek the truth; and having known it in part, they should endeavour to go farther, if it were possible, and take care not to part with what seemed to them certain, because they are not convinced of the rest. this common sense would require from unbelievers, if christianity was now in so deplorable a condition, that of all the sects whereof it is made up, none knew it in its whole extent, or could defend it as they ought. but thanks be to god we are not reduced to that extremity. the method of reasoning about religion, as about all other things, and the manner of explaining the holy scripture, were brought in the last century, and in this, by some christians, to such a degree of perfection, as they never attained to before. those who lived in the first ages of christianity had reason to thank god for showing them clear a living proofs of the truth of the christian religion by the miracles that were wrought in the sight of all men, and the exact knowledge they had of the history of its first founders. if we have not the same advantages, we have at least reason to give him our thanks for teaching us that though the christian religion was founded without much reasoning or eloquence, for the reasons i have alleged, yet the more we are able to reason well, the better we may be convinced of it; and that the art of writing according to the rules grounded on reason, may be of great use to set all the beauties of the christian religion in their due light. the suspicions which those talents might have raised concerning its first founders, have no room left with respect to those who writ now. there can be no better service done to religion than by enquiring into its proofs with all the exactness that we are capable of, and setting before the eyes of the reader what has been discovered, with all the ornaments of true eloquence those who know the history of past ages, are not ignorant that in many of them false reasonings and great ignorance were the best talents of the interpreters of religion; so that a man who read them, was almost to part with reason and common sense. god be thanked we are no more in such a darkness! may the increase more and more the light we enjoy by his grace! finis. two letters concerning the truth of the christian religion. advertisement. when i began the foregoing discourse, i thought it not necessary to add any direct proofs of the truth of the christian religion: but, as i went on, i perceived that this work would not be complete enough, if i proved it not at least in few words. what i have said concerning incredulity, being designed only to remove the general obstacles which hinder the incredulous from believing it to be true, it would seem that i was contented to make part of that way smooth which may lead them to heaven, without caring to guide them to the end of it. therefore i thought myself obliged to add these two letters, one of which was published about ten years ago, but it will be found here larger, more correct, and in a better order than it was before. as for the other, 'tis almost but an extract, by way of a letter, of a chapter of a latin book, wherein i have treated of the nature of spirits, which was made public above these three years. letter i. wherein is proved the sincerity of the apostles in the testimony they bore to the resurrection of christ. 1. sir, you desire that i prove to you in few words the truth of the christian religion, that you may use my proofs to cure some gentlemen of your acquaintance, who are fallen into infidelity. i could refer you to others who have successfully treated of that matter, but because most of them have enlarged very much upon it, i'll endeavour to tell you more briefly what i think proper to convince your friends of the truth of christianity. the most common reproach unbelievers cast upon us, is, that we are full of prejudices, which hinder us from undeceiving ourselves. we say the same thing of them, and we affirm that 'tis commonly their ill disposition which raises some difficulties in their minds, which otherwise they would not so much as think of. besides, we upbraid them with supposing a thousand uncertain things in their reasonings, as if they were certain; and they fail not in their turn to accuse us of the same fault. 'tis not just that either of us should suppose our prejudices as principles that are either demonstrated, or that want no demonstration. let us therefore act on both sides, as if we had embraced no party, and let us say nothing but what is grounded upon some principles granted on both sides. 2. 'tis granted on all hands, that there are certain characters whereby we may often know whether a fact be true or not, and distinguish a false history from a true one. if this was not granted, men must be sceptics, or rather mad men; for one can't, without being stark mad, doubt of the truth of all histories. but another thing must be also granted, which is not less certain, viz. that to know the truth or falsity of a fact, several circumstances of things, time, places and persons, must be present to the mind, without which one can't judge solidly of that fact, and by which one may most certainly determine whether it be true or false. those who know those circumstances, and have examined them at their leisure, may certainly give their judgement about the facts in question; but they can't convince others, without having instructed them before, and convinced them of the same circumstances: for example, those who have read the roman history cannot doubt whether there was a julius cesar, who made himself master of the commonwealth, because the multitude of contemporary historians, and of the following ages, who attest the same thing, the series of the time and history, inscriptions, medals, and the air of sincerity which is to be perceived in all those things, do not allow them to doubt of it. but if a man was ignorant of all these reasons which we have to believe the facts i have mentioned, and would doubt of them, it would be impossible to free him from his doubt, without instructing him in all those circumstances. the divinity of the christian religion being established upon some facts, one judge of it neither but by the knowledge of the circumstances which attend them. wherefore those who desire it should be proved to them, without acquainting them with those circumstances, require a thing equally unjust and impossible. what i have said concerning julius cesar can't be proved to a man altogether ignorant of the roman history, whilst he remains in that ignorance; and consequently 'twould be unjust to require any such thing with respect to religion. 3. the first thing therefore that aught to be done, to prove the truth of the christian religion, is to set down the facts it supposes, with all their circumstances: but an objection offers itself, which must be resolved before. they ask what are the doctrines of that religion, for the christians have great controversies among themselves about their belief. but our business is not to prove the private opinions of any party of christianity. 'tis enough to show, that the doctrines about which all christians agree are true, by proving the truth of some facts, about which they agree too. those who are sure of the truth of its doctrines and facts, may, if they will, afterwards examine all the controversies they please. therefore without undertaking to decide those matters, i begin with the examination of the gospel-morals, * see are abridgement of them in ch. 1. of part 1. without coming to any particulars. it can't be denied, that if all men lived according to its precepts, and by reason of the rewards and punishments of another life were careful to worship the creator of the world; to live with modesty, temperance, sobriety and patience; and to deal with their neighbours as they would be dealt by them; it can't be denied, i say, that such a life would be most pleasant and advantageous to human society. we should not see a thousand impious extravagancies, and so many superstitions, which have very dismal consequences, as we see among idolatrous nations. the excessive love of dignities, riches and pleasures, would not be the cause of any disorder, and would be attended with no public or private sorrows. men should not know what it was to wrong their neighbours, or suffer any trouble, because of others inhumanity or malice. they would help one another in all their needs, with all the ardour and eagerness that can be wished for. if they should happen to give one another any trouble, without any premeditated design, they would forgive one another, and make amends for it by all sorts of good services. lastly, the mind enjoying a perfect tranquillity, and the body being as healthful as its natural weakness can allow, and both enjoying the harmless pleasures which the gospel allows us, men would not part with so pleasant a life, but to enjoy another that would be free for ever from the unavoidable inconveniencies to which nature has made those liable who live upon earth. such as have any notion of the morals of christ, will necessarily grant this truth, viz. that men would be most happy if they observed them all alike. it will perhaps be asked, whether any christian society does it? but that is not a proper question; 'tis enough if it be granted that a doctrine which can work so admirable effects, must needs make one entertain favourable thoughts of those who preached it at first. we can't forbear admiring those who first exhorted men to live one with another after a manner so agreeable to reason, so advantageous to society, and so pleasant and charming, that nothing can be preferred to it but the supreme happiness, which can't be enjoyed but in an endless life. 4. to know when that doctrine was brought into the world, and by whom, we need only examine from age to age the authors who spoke of it, by ascending from ours to that wherein christianity began first to be known. we shall learn from thence, or from the reading of some history, that above thirteen hundred years past the roman emperors having embraced the christian religion, it flourished in a great part of europe, asia, and africa. we may be convinced by a great number of christian authors, that from that time they professed to believe the divinity of the gospel-morals. if we go higher still, we shall find by the reading of heathen and christian authors, that there was already a great multitude of christians under those emperors, who taught the same doctrine. all those who spoke of the origin of christianity grant it began under the empire of tiberius, and that it was not heard of before. tacitus who was born towards the end of the empire of claudius, or in the beginning of nero's, says that nero having set on fire several parts of rome, charged the christians with it, and put them to horrible torments. he takes occasion from thence to speak of the origin of christianity in these words: * annal. lib. 15. c. 44. the author of that sect is christ, who was put to death under the empire of tiberius by pontius pilate, governor of judea. that pernicious superstition, though suppressed in the beginning, quickly broke out again, and spread itself not only throughout judea, the place where this evil had its origin, but also in rome, whither every villainous and shameful thing resorts, and finds abettors. those who confessed that they were christians, were presently seized, and then a great multitude of people, whom they discovered, but were not convicted of being incendiaries, so much as they were run down by the hatred that all men bore against them. it appears from hence that tacitus, though a man of sense, was not at the pains to know what christianity was, of which he speaks after a most absurd manner. 'tis a shameful effect of his negligence, as i have observed elsewhere, and perhaps of the roman vanity, which despised every thing, except the learning of the grecians. but two things may be observed in those words: one is the truth of the fact, which the evangelists teach us, that there was one jesus in the time of tiberius, who was looked upon as the christ or messiah, whom pontius pilate put to death: the other is, that the christians were not found guilty of the fire of rome, and could not be put to death, as tacitus believes, but upon that accusation which concerned also the jews, viz. that they were enemies to mankind. the interpreters of † see lipsius upon this place. tacitus. have showed that that historian confounded the jews with the christians. as it was but too true that the jews were enemies to other men, so nothing can be more absurd than to accuse the christians of it, who had drawn on themselves the hatred of the jews, by maintaining that all men are brethren, and freely conversing with all nations. we have also the testimony of another contemporary author, and a friend of tacitus, but who was somewhat more careful to know the opinions of the christians. 'tis ‖ ep. lib. 10. ep. 97. pliny the younger, who being proconsul of bythinia, about seventy years after pontius pilate was governor of judea, searched out, by trajan's orders, the christians who were in his province, and would know what opinions they had. afterwards he wrote to trajan about it, in a letter, which is extant still: they affirmed, says he, that all their crime and error consisted in their using to meet at night, on a certain day, and sing together a hymn to christ as to a god; that they bond themselves by an oath indeed not to perpetrate any crime, but to commit no theft, nor robbery, nor adultery, to deceive no body, to deny no trust: afterwards they went to eat together, which they did in common, without any harm; but that they had left off doing it after my edict, whereby, according to your orders, i had forbidden all sorts of fraternities. wherefore i thought it was necessary to extort the truth by torments from two maids who were said to be deaconesses: but i have only found a strange and excessive superstition. pliny as well as tacitus calls superstition some opinions contrary to those of the romans, according to the custom of that time. two such witnesses can't be rejected, who certainly favoured not the christians, and the first whereof acknowledges some facts that were known to every body: and the other relates what he knew from two christian women whom he put to the rack. the writings we have of the christians who lived from the time of pontius pilate to trajan's, tell us also the same things. they refer the beginning of christianity to that christ whom pilate put to death; and they say, that they had precisely the same morals. this we see not only in the writings of the apostles and evangelists, but also in the letter of st. barnabas, in that of st. clemens, in the books of hermas, and the genuine epistles of st. ignatius and st. polycarp. 5. it must therefore be granted, that under the empire of tiberius there was a man in judea who gave a beginning to the christian religion, and preached most excellent morals. all the christians who lived since attest it from age to age, and no body did ever doubt of it; the heathens themselves done't deny it. to be certain whether the apostles and other primitive christians were sincere persons, or whether there was any reason to suspect their honesty, let us see what sort of men they were. let us examine the letter which st. clemens, bishop of the church of rome, wrote to that of corinth about forty years after the death of christ, or in the beginning of the empire of vespasian. we see in that whole epistle a spirit of peace, charity, humility, and very pressing exhortations to obey the morals of the gospel. he severely chides those who observe them not, and praises the corinthians for having conformed their actions to its precepts during some time. one may see the beginning of his epistle, wherein he bears witness * §. 2. to the christians of corinth; that they had laboured day and night for all the brethren, that the number of the elect of god might be preserved with mercy and conscience; that they had been sincere, without malice, and without remembering the harm they might have done one to another; that all livisions and schisms were abhorred by them; that they were sorrowful for the faults of their neighbours; that they looked upon their wants as their own; that they never repent of having done well, but were always ready to do all manner of good works; that in their conduct full of virtue and worthy of respect, they did every thing in the fear of god, whose commands were written in their hearts. nay, he says towards the end, that he knew many christians who put themselves in chains to redeem others; and that many having sold themselves to be slaves, had fed others with the price of their own liberty. his whole letter is full of the like expressions. that clemens had for his masters the apostles of jesus of nazareth, who first taught christianity, and he bears them witness of a great piety. if we read their writings, we shall find nothing in them but what breathes a great respect for the deity, an extreme love to all men, and an extraordinary modesty in whatever relates to a man's behaviour towards himself. let any of these writings be pitched upon, nothing will be found in it but what tends to piety and charity. if some of their writings have been controverted, let us take those that were never doubted of; or, if you please, those which were quoted by st. clemens, st. luke's gospel, and the first epistle of st. paul to the corinthians; and we shall find in them the same morals, which they endeavour to infuse into the minds of their disciples. 6. the apostles therefore, by exhorting all those that would hear them, to live after a manner so rational and so advantageous to human society, could not be suspected thereby of want of sincerity. but it will perhaps be said, that they preached that doctrine only to insinuate themselves into the minds of the people; and then under pretence of piety to obtain from them what they desired. but it must be granted me, that this is a mere suspicion, not at all grounded upon the doctrine they taught, seeing they condemn alike the unlawful love of riches, dignities and pleasures, and all sorts of fraud and cheat. not one place of their writings can be quoted that favours ambition, covetousness, or voluptuousness. this being so, that suspicion can be grounded but upon one of these two things, viz. either that the apostles could expect some advantage by their doctrine, if it were generally embraced, or that they actually got some by it, as soon as they began to preach it. i call advantage a good greater in itself than all the toils and dangers which the apostles exposed themselves to by preaching the gospel, or at lest which they thought to be greater. 'tis not likely, that if they were deceivers, they would not propose to themselves a greater advantage than the trouble they were at. otherwise we should look upon them as mad men, which can't be supposed without extravagancy, by those who have read their writings. but the apostles could not expect any advantage from their doctrine, but on supposition that most of those to whom they preached it would embrace it. otherwise they could expect but a perpetual persecution; for none but a mad man would have expected to live quietly among men extremely conceited of some opinions contrary to those he professes, who think themselves obliged both for the good of the state, and the interest of their religion, to take away the estates and lives of those who oppose their superstitions, such as were generally the romans, grecians and jews, in the time of the apostles. they expected then that their preaching would be so successful as to work upon the greatest part of mankind? but this they could not expect, if they were never so little acquainted with the state wherein those nations subject to the roman empire then were. the jews were so addicted to their traditions and ceremonies, and besides so * see josephus in the history of that time. corrupt in their manners, that there was no likelihood of freeing them from their prejudices and vices. the romans and grecians were either atheists or superstitious; and generally so given to their pleasures, so covetous and ambitious, that the small number of those who had not lost all sense ‖ vid. sallust. in bel. catiline. senecam ep. 7. quaest. nat. lib. 4. praefat. & passim juvenal. persium, etc. of virtue, speak with horror and detestation of the manners of their time. the history of both represents to us, in the events of that time, an image of the most horrible corruption that ever was, if we judge of it according to the gospel-notions. after what has been said, can any man fancy that the apostles hoped to get their opinions embraced by most of those who lived in their time? how could they expect that men so blinded by their passions, and hardened in their crimes, would ever embrace opinions that are altogether contrary to them? indeed the apostles openly said after their master, that they expected not a great number of men would receive their doctrine, in proportion to those who should remain in their unbelief. but supposing the apostles simplicity had made them hope to convert the greatest part of the roman empire, experience would have soon undeceived them, seeing after having preached during many years, they were obliged to acknowledge, that they had converted but few people. the roman history plainly teaches us, that during three hundred years after the beginning of christianity, the number of christians was far less than that of heathens in the roman empire. thus the apostles were necessarily exposed to a cruel persecution during their whole life. being despised and hated by the jews and heathens alike, they could have no reward that might be compared with their labours, and the dangers they were in every minute. hence it is that they * 1 cor. 15.19. themselves say they expected all sorts of misery in this life. they were not mistaken, seeing after an infinite number of sufferings they were cruelly put to death, maintaining still the truth of the doctrine they had preached. † §. 5. 'tis out of an unjust envy, says clemens, whom i have cited already, that peter suffered not one or two, but several pains; and having undergone martyrdom, is gone into the place of glory, which was due to him. 'tis out of envy that paul got the price of patience. having been put seven times in irons, whipped and stoned; being the herald of the gospel in the east and west, he made his faith famous. having taught the whole world justice, and being come to the extremity of the west, when he had suffered martyrdom before the chief of the state, he went out of the world. that event of the apostles preaching destroys altogether the second thing on which the suspicion of their want of sincerity might have been grounded. if they were esteemed by a small number of men, * see 1 cor. 1.26. most of them of a low condition, they were despised by the rest of men, jews and heathens; ill-treated and persecuted, suffered an extreme poverty, and at last died by the hands of public executioners, as i have showed by clemens' words, and as all their other disciples affirm it. one of the apostles teaches us the same thing, when he says in one of his epistles; † 1 cor. 4.11. unto this present hour, we both hunger and thirst, and are naked, and are buffeted, and have no certain dwelling-place: and labour, working with our own hands. ‖ ib. c. 15.19. if in this life only we have hope, we are of all men most miserable. certainly no man of sense would become the execration of most men, by maintaining a forgery, to be esteemed by some few who have no credit or reputation, nor would he be † ib. c. 4.9. dealt with as those that were appointed to death in the amphitheatres, to be a spectate to the people. a man may be moved with the desire of glory, when he considers that most of those among whom he lives will applaud him; but no body ever thought fit to expose himself to long-sufferings, and at last to a cruel and shameful death, only to be esteemed by very few men, and be looked upon as an impious or mad man by the greatest part of those among whom he lived. 7. the truth of those facts can't be denied, viz. that the apostles have preached the doctrine we read in their books (which christians profess still) under the empire of tiberius, and some following emperors; that they lived in sorrows and afflictions; and at last some of them were put to a cruel death, maintaining the doctrine they taught during many years. if we suspected that the apostles lived after a voluptuous manner, and altogether contrary to the morals they preached, we should doubt of the testimony of their first disciples, who in imitation of their masters, as they themselves say, have courageously exposed themselves to an infinite number of sufferings, without getting any advantage by it in this life. * §. 6. to those men, says clemens, speaking of st. peter and st. paul, who lived after a divine manner, a great multitude of the elect were joined, who having undergone several torments, were a most noble example amongst us. it would be one of the greatest absurdities to say that the apostles preaching that men must suffer for religion, exhorting them to the practice of all manner of virtues, and yet living at ease, without caring to practise the precepts they gave to others, but as far as it might serve to cheat the world, made a great number of disciples, not only sincere imitators of the seeming virtues of their masters, but ready to die, and who really died for a doctrine, for which those of whom they learned it would suffer nothing. one may easily conceive that some seduced persons may be as strongly persuaded of a lie, as we are of the most evident truths, and do consequently, to maintain a falsehood, whatever the most resolute men can do for the most important truths. but one can't apprehend that men who have imbibed from their childhood some opinions altogether contrary to those of the apostles, suffered themselves to be seduced; so that after they embraced their doctrine, they suffered the most cruel torments for it, though they never saw their masters suffer any thing for it. but it appears from the passage i have quoted out of tacitus, that in the beginning of christianity a great many people declared themselves christians, though they saw that the public profession of the christian religion should expose them to the punishments inflicted upon incendiaries. it appears also from pliny, that some christian women suffered to be put to the rack for their christianity, without accusing the christians of any thing. from whence it necessarily follows, that some of the first preachers of the gospel gave an example to others, as their disciples affirm it. one can't apprehend otherwise how they could get their doctrine received by so many people, who suffered horrible torments for the religion they learned of them. from what has been said i only draw this consequence, viz. that the apostles were sincere men, as well as those, who, following their example, died for the same doctrine. the apostles having been therefore undeniably sincere men, it must be further confessed, that if there ever were any men whose virtue deserved our esteem, they are they. one can't think of a design more useful to mankind than theirs, as i have showed already, speaking of the morals they preached. no body could endeavour to make it succeed with greater zeal and ardour, than they who sacrificed to it their repose, pleasures, estates, hopes of raising themselves, honour, and life itself. now i ask, whether being convinced of the probity and sincerity of the apostles, and knowing besides from their discourses that they were far from being mad men, we may justly refuse to believe their testimony, when they affirm they have seen some facts which they relate with a vast number of circumstances, and heard some discourses which they set down from the beginning to the end, and which are full of sense? let every one put the question to himself, whether he would not believe a friend of his, whom he knew to be a sincere and judicious man, if he affirmed he had heard and seen several things which he relates, without having any interest to deceive him? can he look upon the testimony of a man of sense, who should give all imaginable marks of sincerity, as a lie, if he affirmed he had heard a friend of his say something, and afterwards had been present at his torments and death? i confess that those who knew not his sincerity and judgement, and that he had no interest to tell a lie, might doubt of what they should hear him say; but i affirm, that being persuaded of his honesty and wisdom, it were impossible not to believe him. every one may be convinced of it by his experience, and may imagine a thousand examples of what i said. the apostles tell us they lived some years with jesus of nazareth, of whom they learned all their doctrine; that they saw him crucified on such a day, giving up the ghost upon the cross, and afterwards buried in a sepulchre digged in a rock by a jewish counsellor, whose name was joseph of arimathea, who obtained from pilate leave to bury jesus, and who having put him in a sepulchre, caused a great stone to be rolled at the entrance; that they saw some roman soldiers guard that sepulchre, which the chief of the jews had sealed, lest the body of jesus should be taken away. can we, being persuaded, as we are, of the sincerity of the apostles, and having so strong proofs of it, refuse to believe them in this? certainly we should be out of our wits, did we believe that wise and sincere men would tell a lie, when they affirm a fact of that nature with so many circumstances. we cannot forbear having the same thoughts concerning the discourses of jesus, which the same apostles relate with so many circumstances, that we could not relate them better, if we had heard them. 'tis as clear as the noon-light to those who are persuaded that the apostles were men who had at least common sense and honesty, that they said truth concerning the facts i have mentioned. 9 this being so, we can have no good reason not to believe them when they affirm they have often seen their master heal in a moment incurable diseases, restore dead men to life, and himself raised at last, after he had been above thirty hours in his sepulchre, and then speaking and eating with them during many days, and at last ascending to heaven in a cloud, in their presence. i know that several men, who perhaps had never doubted of the truth of the apostles testimony, if they had said nothing of the miracles, resurrection and ascension of christ, doubt of it only for that reason. they could have easily believed that a man named jesus taught the morals we find in the gospel in judea, when pontius pilate was governor of it, and that the jews obliged the roman governor to put him to death out of envy and malice; and that his disciples went on after his death and taught his doctrine, and that the most cruel torments could not hinder them from preaching it. they would praise the whole doctrine of christ as the most excellent philosophy that ever was taught among men, and which contains the best principles that can be thought of, to oblige them to live well one with another. but they persuade themselves, that the apostles were impostors, only because they say they saw their master work miracles, that he was seen by them after their resurrection, and ascended into heaven in their sight. let's see why they do so. the falsity of a history can be known but two ways. first, when we perceive that the witnesses who relate it were deceived themselves, or designed to deceive others, though what they relate be very possible. secondly, when we know by clear and evident arguments that the facts in question are absolutely impossible in themselves. i have clearly showed that the apostles designed not to deceive others, and it can't be said that they themselves were always deceived in all the miracles they relate. if the question was about a small number of miracles, difficult to examine, one might have such a suspicion with some likelihood; but they relate so many, and of so many sorts, that if what they say be not true, they must necessarily have been deceivers. for example, they could not be imposed upon by christ's ascension into heaven, which they constantly preached, and of which the christians made from the beginning one of the chief articles of their faith. those who, as pliny relates it, sung hymns to christ as to a god, believed without doubt that he ascended into heaven. if we read only st. luke's * luke 24. 1 cor. 15. gospel, and the first epistle of st. paul to the corinthians, which contain several particular circumstances of many miracles of christ, especially of his resurrection, and his several apparitions after he came out of his grave, we may certainly know that those who spoke so, were not seduced; and that if what they say is not true, they must necessarily have designed to deceive those to whom they related such facts. but i have undeniably showed, that the apostles were sincere men, and consequently that their testimony can't be rejected. wherefore those who believe it not, accuse them not of having suffered themselves to be seduced, neither do they undertake to overthrow the arguments by which we prove the apostles sincerity. they are contented to offer some objections concerning the nature of miracles, and so confine themselves to the second way of knowing the falsity of a fact, which consists in discovering that 'tis a thing absolutely impossible. but i shall speak of this in another letter, wherein i shall explain the nature of miracles. i am, sir, yours. letter ii. wherein is showed what a miracle is, and that we ought to conclude from those of christ and his apostles, that they were truly sent of god. 1. sir, i promised you to discourse of the nature of miracles, and i must perform my promise, seeing without it i should but half prove the truth of the christian religion. 'tis not enough to believe that the general doctrines of christianity are true and agreeable to reason; we must be also persuaded that they are of divine revelation, and this we learn from the miracles of those who first preached them. that is the seal whereby we clearly discover the truth of the christian religion. to show that it was revealed by the same god who made heaven and earth, and gave to nature the laws, according to which natural causes act; they have often desired him to suspend the effects of those laws, though unavoidable; at their prayers they were suspended, and the contrary of what the experience of all ages had observed hitherto, and of what we still see, happened then. that's an undeniable proof, not only of their doctrines being agreeable to the will and designs of the maker of all things, as it seems to be if it be merely considered in itself, but also of their having an express order from god to publish it among men. wherefore i'll show first, what a miracle is, and how true miracles may be distinguished from false ones. secondly, i'll inquire into the author of them, and what consequence may be drawn from them. lastly, i shall say something concerning the extent of miracles, and their different kinds. i'll show at the same time the truth of the miracles of christ and his apostles, and i shall answer some objections of unbelievers. 2. to look upon an extraordinary effect as a miracle, and draw any consequences from it; first, it must be a thing above the power of men. secondly, it ought to be above the ordinary course of nature, or corporeal causes; and above the strength of humane souls; for nature, or natural causes, and the order or the laws of nature, are nothing but the souls and bodies of men, other bodies, and the laws according to which they constantly act, without being able to violate them. thirdly, he in whose behalf that thing is done, aught to know it beforehand, or at least it must happen when he wants it. i shall examine those three things one after another; for the whole strength of the proofs which can be fetched from miracles depends upon it. 3. there are some divines who maintain that a miracle is only the effect of an infinite power, and consequently that god only is the author of it; so that it is not only above the power of men, but also above that of all other creatures. i shall speak of that hereafter. 'tis enough to observe here, that nothing which men are able to do, can be looked upon as a miraculous thing. wherefore to be sure whether what is vented as a miracle is really so, the first thing that is to be considered, is, whether men can do it. for if it appears that it is not above the power of men, there would be no reason to believe that it is an extraordinary effect of god's power, or of some other intelligent being. thus if a man showed an usual skill in swimming, and boasted of it as of a miraculous thing, he might be justly accounted an impostor, because one may by use get a skill in swimming, which seems wonderful to those who have it not. but if any body walked upon the water as upon the land, without sinking in the least, it could not be doubted that he did a thing which is above all the strength and skill of men, provided he had nothing under his feet that might be seen, or elsewhere, to uphold him. every one knows that there being a certain relation of gravity between humane bodies and water, the laws of nature allow not that a man should stand upon the water. so that if it appears that any body walked upon the water as upon the land, without having under his feet, or elsewhere, any thing to hold him so, it must be granted that a power greater than that of men acted in his behalf. 4. but because there are an infinite number of natural causes which men make use of to produce some effects, which they themselves cannot produce by their mere skill and strength; a thing, to be looked upon as miraculous, ought not to be done by any other natural cause, such as are the bodies which surround us. for example, great weights, which would presently sink if they were thrown into the water, will lie upon it without sinking, if a body much lighter than water, as wood, be put between the water and those weights. there is nothing miraculous in that, because it is done by a corporeal and known cause. but it could not be denied to be a miraculous thing, if a man should walk upon the water as i have said. when a learned physician cures a sick person with some remedies, after he has spent a long time in studying the nature of diseases, and the effects of remedies, that cure is not looked upon as a miracle; 'tis ascribed to the natural effect of the remedies which have been well applied. but if we should see a man, who only by touching all sorts of sick persons, or by speaking to them, without using any sensible remedy, cures them upon the spot, that effect could be ascribed only to some supernatural causes. some * spinosa in tract. theologico-polit. cap. 6. unbelievers have endeavoured to make that character of miracles uncertain, by saying that we know not so perfectly natural causes and their effects, as to be able to distinguish what they can produce, from what is above their strength. nay, they pretend that what is called miraculous should only be looked upon as an extraordinary or rare accident, and the effect of natural causes, which were not well known. but though it be very true, that we are very far from having a perfect knowledge of natural causes, yet it is not less certain that we know most certainly some things by experience, especially when that experience is common and easy. for example, we perfectly know that no man can stand upon the water so as to touch it only with the sole of his feet, without using the help of any other body for it. if any one should say that it may be such a thing happened sometimes by an extraordinary effect of some natural causes which we know not; it is certain that such a conjecture could only be heard as a proposition which is not contradictory, but is not the less false for that, as the experience of all mankind teaches us. indeed those who use that argument to make miracles doubtful, do it only to perplex simple men who hear them. they know very well that we are perfectly sure of some things, and that they can't be made doubtful, by saying only that 'tis not contradictory that the contrary be true. if they durst deny the miraculous effects on which religion is grounded, they would roundly do it, and not have recourse to objections so little judicious; but not daring to do it, and being not able to make the contrary of what we believe look probable, they confine themselves to some such objections. i shall not undertake now to confute all their particular objections, because the principles i lay down destroy them. 5. 'tis therefore certain that we may know some things are above the power of men, and can't be the effect of any other natural or corporeal cause; and that if we see some happen, or learn from faithful witnesses that there happened some, we may say, without being mistaken, that they are miraculous things. such is, for example, the action of walking upon the water, and curing all manner of diseases without remedies. however, to draw any consequences from a miraculous fact in the behalf of any body, he ought to know beforehand that that miracle will happen; or at least it must happen just when 'tis necessary, for otherwise it would be insignificant. if when no body thinks of it there happened a thing wherein neither men nor other natural causes had a hand, and no body knew of what use it would be, nothing could be concluded from it; and he who should say that it happened in his behalf, aught to be suspected of fraud. some * see my dissertation de trajectu maris idumaei. historians, for instance, tell us that alexander going to meet darius, led part of his troops to pass at the foot of mount climax, where there was no passage when the south wind blue, because the sea covered that way; and that as soon as he came thither the north blew, so that they went through it. not to say the change of wind at that time might be natural, i affirm that alexander having not known it before, and being able to go another way, it can't be looked upon as a miracle, which providence wrought in his behalf; nor can it be concluded from it, that heaven approved his designs. to give another example fetched from the history of the same prince, * vid. q. curt. lib. 10. c. 10. 'tis said that his corpse remained seven days at babylon before it was embalmed, without smelling ill in the least; nor had his face a different colour than what it had whilst he was alive, though it be extremely hot in that climate wherein babylon was situated. let us suppose not only the truth of that fact, but also that natural causes had no hand in it; 'tis manifest that nothing can be concluded from such a thing either for or against alexander. for indeed what could the invisible power mean by preserving the body of alexander from corruption during seven days? none but that power can teach it; and if any one had undertaken to make his advantage of it, he had been justly laughed at. that character of a true miracle altogether destroys the objection i have confuted already: for if miraculous facts were extraordinary effects of natural but unknown causes, 'tis manifest they could not be foreseen. no man can foresee a thing which scarce ever happens, and is the effect of some causes which are unknown to him, unless that man be warned of it by an effect of the same causes, which is to suppose without reason a thing altogether incomprehensible. 6. wherefore if we can show that there happened some things that neither men nor other natural causes could do, which notwithstanding were foretold by those in whose behalf they were done; it must be granted us, that they are miraculous facts which happened in the behalf of those who foretold them. the gospels are full of the like miracles, but i shall only pitch upon one, to apply what has been said to it. it is of of great moment, that if it be granted that 'tis true, the rest can't be denied. i mean the resurrection of jesus christ, wherein we see all the characters of a true miracle. first, 'tis certain by the experience of all ages, that no man, or any other natural cause, can restore a dead man to life. tho the humane body is not perfectly known to us, no more than the virtue of an infinite number of things, yet we may affirm without rashness, that no body raises himself, nor by his own virtue, or that of any other thing. one can't affirm the contrary without being looked upon as a mad man among all the nations in the world. secondly, jesus christ * mat. 16.21. & 17.23. & 26.61. & 27.63. often foretold his resurrection, and said it should happen on the third day. he concluded from thence beforehand, that men would be obliged to believe that he was sent by god, his resurrection being the greatest sign of it that could be asked. † mat. 12.39, 40. an evil and adulterous generation, said he, seeks after a sign, and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet ionas; for as ionas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly, so shall the son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. if the apostles were sincere men, and were not deceived, that fact is undeniable, and consequently it must be acknowledged that he who raised jesus christ, bore him a testimony which can't be doubted of. i have showed in the foregoing letter, that the apostles were sincere men, and could not be deceived on that occasion. their master was not hid in a chamber when it was said that he was dead; 'twas upon a cross, and in a public place, surrounded with roman soldiers. he had been buried, his enemies sealed his sepulchre; they set a guard of soldiers about it, and he was above four and twenty hours in it. therefore no body could doubt of his being truly dead, and his apostles did not question it. afterwards they saw him several times, touched him, spoke with him, and ate with him; so that they could not be mistaken in it. wherefore if the thing had not happened, it were not possible to vindicate their sincerity; and if they were sincere men, which they certainly were, as has been showed, the truth of the fact cannot be doubted of. 7. the more we examine their testimony, the more we shall be convinced of it; and without insisting longer upon that, i had rather observe, against those who acknowledge a god and a providence, that what may be said of feigned miracles can't be objected against that miracle and other miracles of christ, viz. that there is no great likelihood that god would disturb the order of nature for so inconsiderable matters as those are for which he is said to disturb it every day. the unbelievers who lived in the apostles time, and had not attentively considered the circumstances which attend the preaching of the gospel, might perhaps have said then that they apprehended not how providence was so much concerned in the establishment of christianity, as to work an infinite number of miracles in its behalf, seeing it made so little a progress in the world. but those who live now can't raise the like objections against us, having seen the duration and progress of the christian religion. if it has not produced yet among men all the effects it should have produced, if they had known their true interest, it can't be said that such a thing will never happen hereafter. those who would have conjectured at the beginning of christianity, that it should always be a contemptible sect, because it was then despised, would have been grossly mistaken, as we see at present; and the knowledge we have of the time past aught to make us reserved with respect to the future. 8. let us see now what is the efficient and immediate cause of miracles. we have seen already, that they are neither men, nor other bodies, which act according to the order of nature. it must be therefore some invisible power, that is, either some intelligent being's more excellent than we, though they are created, or else god himself. some believe, as i said already, that miracles are the effects of an infinite power; and there is no doubt but god himself wrought several miracles: but the question is, whether they are all above the strength of all other creatures; so that they have no other efficient and immediate cause but god himself. to deny that intelligent being's, more perfect than we are, can work miracles, we should exactly know what is the extent of their power, and distinctly see that miracles are above it. 'tis true we know they are above the laws of nature, which god established from the beginning; but we know not whether he gives not to angels the power of altering sometimes that order. tho it be originally the effect of an infinite power, it follows not that none but an infinite power can make some alteration in it, if the power which established it will permit it. we can't therefore say that angels work no miracles; in effect it appears from sacred history that god often made use of them when miracles were wrought. but i will not insist upon it, because it belongs not to my subject. 9 it will perhaps be asked, supposing angels work miracles; first, how one may know whether 'tis god or an angel that wrought a certain miracle. and, secondly, how one may know that a miracle was done by a good or bad angel. a miracle being not of a nature which necessarily requires a cause, whereof the power is infinite, i confess we see no character in it, if it be considered in itself, whereby we may know whether it was wrought by god or an angel. but the more we see a thing above our power, the more it seems difficult to us, and the more we persuade ourselves that 'tis the effect of an infinite power. for example, to foretell a contingent event, or depending upon men's will, and which is to happen many ages after, seems to us to be a thing above the knowledge of created intelligent being's, though it be never so great. but the raising of a storm, though the air is not disposed for it, seems not to be a very difficult thing, though it be above our power; and we easily believe that angels either good or bad can do it. however it matters little to know whether god immediately wrought a miracle, or a good angel, seeing 'tis certain good angels do nothing but what is agreeable to the will of god, or is an execution of his orders. whether god himself acts, or an angel, 'tis the same thing with respect to us, seeing we neither see the cause that works, nor the manner of its operation. as for the other question concerning the manner of knowing whether a miracle was wrought by a good or a bad angel, one may say something more positive. truth being always the same contradicts not itself; 'tis a manifest principle to all those who are not pyrrhonians. wherefore the miracles of god and good anglels ought always to tend to the confirming or establishing some doctrines agreeable to truths, that are known either by revelation or reason, seeing 'tis certain that god and good angels always love the truth. if we see therefore that a miracle confirms or establishes something contrary to a certain truth, we may be sure that miracle is an effect of a power contrary to that of god and good angels. thus the design of a miracle discovers its author. if we can't apprehend what's the end of a miracle, we can give no certain judgement about it, nor draw from it any consequence for or against truth. a bad angel being not able to work miracles which favour truth and virtue, all those which contribute to it, aught to be looked upon as coming from a good principle. on the contrary, a good angel being not able to act for lies and vices, all the miracles which should favour either of them, aught to be looked upon as miracles of bad angels. this is an infallible rule to know by what sort of angels a miracles was wrought, supposing it were known that an angel was the author of it. 10. if the miracles of the gospel are examined according to those principles, it cannot be denied that they were wrought either by god himself or good angels, because their only aim is to establish or settle truth, and lead men to virtue. now this is altogether inconsistent with the notion one may form of a power which delights in doing ill, and deceiving men. this christ showed to the pharisees, who accused him of casting out devils, by virtue of a power he had received from the prince of demons. * mat. 12.25, 26. every kingdom, says he, divided against itself, is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself, shall not stand: and if satan cast out satan, he is divided against himself; how shall then his kingdom stand? that's a convincing proof of the divinity of the miracles of christ and his apostles, against the jews, who were so extravagant as to ascribe them to an ill power, that was an enemy to virtue. but because i writ not against them, i shall not longer insist upon it. the unbelievers who live among christians are not more persuaded of the power of the devil, than of god, and deny all sorts of miracles alike. but i have showed, from the sincerity of the apostles, and the thing itself, that they have no reason to deny those of christ. 11. last; if it be considered that miracles are the effects of the power of god or angels, one may easily apprehend that they are not contradictory things. that which is contradictory is the object of no power, 'tis a mere nothing, as all those who know the meaning of that word will grant it. no positive idea can be formed of it, and every contradictory proposition is unintelligible in itself. if the miracles mentioned in holy scripture are examined, not one of that nature will be found among them. there is none but what may be expressed in intelligible propositions. for example, god can make a man who lived to live no longer; that is, his blood shall no more circulate, and all his members shall cease to perform their functions. on the contrary, he can make a man whose blood was settled, and whose members performed none of their functions, to begin to live again, as it did before. those propositions are easily apprehended. but to make a man to live and not to live, at the same time, taking the word to live in one and the same sense, is a contradictory thing, which is not the object of the divine power. god never wrought any such miracles. those who rank among the miracles of christianity, that whereby they pretend that god makes a humane body to be extended, and not extended at the same time, and to be in many places at one time; those men, i say, feign a miracle, of which they have no idea, and rest contented with words they understand not. they ascribe to the christian religion a mystery absurd, and contrary to the clearest light to reason and revelation. what i said concerning miracles has no relation with that, and i pretend not to defend any such thing. my design was to show wherein miracles consist, to make unbelievers apprehend that they are very possible, that they can't be assaulted but by showing that there is an impossibility in the miraculous facts on which the christian religion is grounded. there is besides another sort of miracles, which though perhaps they happen every day, can't be of any use to prove the truth of the christian religion, because they are not sensible. god can very often do, either by himself or the ministry of angels, an infinite number of things without the intervention of natural causes, when he thinks fit, or good men pray him to do it. but because one can't perceive whether a supernatural cause acts or not on those occasions, because what happens is not in itself above the strength of natural causes, and 'tis not known whether they intervened, it can't be affirmed that a miracle was wrought. for example, a sick man whom remedies could not naturally cure, is restored by the prayers of his relations, because god or angels supply what is wanting in the natural virtue of remedies. but this can't be affirmed without a revelation. hereupon 'tis asked, how we come to suppose that god who works no more sensible miracles, according to us, performs every day some invisible ones, such as that which i have described; and why he should be desired to work this kind of miracles, not those which strike our senses? in answer to that i say, that we can know nothing of god's conduct but by sensible effects, or a revelation. wherefore seeing we see no more such miracles as strike our senses, we ought to say that god will work no more any such miracles; and if we can give some reasons of it, which are not unworthy of god's wisdom, nothing can hinder us from alleging them, * part ii. ch. 6. as i have done elsewhere. on the other hand, revelation commanding us to offer prayers to god in our necessities, and assuring us that if what we ask is truly advantageous to us, if we ask it as we ought, and it we obey the precepts of the gospel, we shall obtain what we pray for; we have reason to suppose that god will interpose after an extraordinary manner, if it be necessary, to hear our prayers, because he promised it. but why, will it be said, did god make such promises, which suppose that he works still some miracles of this latter sort, seeing he will no more do sensible ones? i have showed already, why he works no more miracles, that fall under our senses, and there is no need i should repeat what i have said about it. as for the other, they are a necessary consequence of god's providence, which consists not only in having given some laws to nature, according to which it acts; but in supplying the defects of those laws, and making such exceptions to them as god thinks fit. seeing therefore providence exists not less now than it did formerly, no body ought to wonder that god works miracles of that kind. there is nothing in it that's unworthy of him; and seeing he promised it, it can't be doubted whether he does it, and men have reason to pray to him on that supposition. it can't be said that 'tis an impossible thing, and proved thereby that our prayers are useless. i think i have undeniably showed it, by supposing that there is a god who made the world, and is consequently the author of the laws of nature; and that there are some other intelligent being's, who can do what is above the power of men. i proved the first thing in the last chapter of the 2d part of my discourse concerning incredulity; and the other can't be doubted of, if we acknowledge the authority of christ and his apostles, confirmed with undeniable miracles. christ and his apostles might have made their doctrine to be admired with mere reasonings, as we do now; but their business was not only to show that they said nothing but what was most agreeable to reason; they taught not their doctrine as mere philosophers or divines, but as men authorised by heaven; they were therefore to convince men that they were sent from god. to prove it undeniably, there was no better way than to do some things above the laws of nature, which were sensible signs of god's approving their doctrine, and whereby they undeniably proved that they were his messengers. if they had done or said nothing but what other men might have done of said, they would have been looked upon as divines or philosophers, who vented their own thoughts; but when men saw that after they had appealed to the maker of the world for the truth of what they said, that there happened at their prayers some things which are above the power of all men and all natural causes; they could not doubt but god declared himself in their behalf, especially if they considered that the doctrine they preached was most worthy of him. so that the finest doctrine that ever was, attended with unheard-of miracles, aught to excite the attention of all those who were not altogether blinded by their vices and prejudices, and make them look upon them as the true ministers of that god, who created the world. this is, sir, what i had to say to you concerning miracles; not to exhaust the matter, but only to show the possibility and truth of those of christ and his apostles. i hearty pray god, that it may contribute to reclaim those who out of ignorance or otherwise doubt of the truth of the christian religion. i am, etc. finis. books lately printed for awnsham and john churchill. a short discourse of the knowledge of christ jesus; to which are added some passages in the reasonableness of christianity, etc. and its vindication. with some animadversions on mr. edwards' reflections on the reasonableness of christianity; and on his book entitled, socinianism vnmasqued. by samuel bold, rector of steeple, dorset. 8ᵒ. prince arthur, an heroic poem in 10 books. by richard blackmore, m. d. and fellow of the college of physicians in london. several papers relating to money, interest, and trade, etc. writ upon several occasions, and published at different times. by john lock, esq 8ᵒ. mr. talent's chronological tables; or a view of universal history, from the creation, to the year of christ, 1695. wherein the most memorable persons and things in the known kingdoms and countries of the world, are set down in several columns, by way of synchronism, according to their proper centuries and years. in 16 copper plates. notitia monastica; or, a short view of the religious houses in england and wales, etc. by thomas tanner, a. b. 8ᵒ. the resurrection of the same body asserted, etc. by hump. hody, d. d. the gentleman's religion, with the grounds and reasons of it. 12ᵒ. the reasonableness of christianity as delivered in the scriptures, etc. with a vindication against mr. edwards' exceptions; by the same hand. 8ᵒ. an abridgement of mr. lock's essay of human understanding. by mr. john wynne, of jesus college, oxford. 8ᵒ. the holy scriptures clearing itself of scandals: or, an answer to a book written by richard farnworth, who is commonly called a quaker, bearing this title, truth cleared of scandals. in this answer, you have the substance of a dispute at harliston in staffordshire, between richard farnworth and the author, in the year 1654. written by tho. pollard, a member of the church of christ, gathered in, and about, leichfield. prov. 18.17. he that is first in his own cause, seemeth just; but his neighbour cometh and searcheth him. whereunto is added, certain considerations and queries concerning those people called quakers; with desire of an answer. as also, a postscript, manifesting their folly in pretending a necessity of using the terms thee and thou to a single person. by henry haggar, a servant of jesus christ, and of the congregations of his saints. printed at london, by j. c. for r. moon, at the seven stars in paul's churchyard, near the great north-door, 1655. the epistle to the reader. courteous reader, the lord hath been pleased to bring us into the world in such an age, that if we throughly weigh our mercies, they have been, and are, very great. surely we may say in this nation, that we are partakers of such blessings and high favours, that the generations past have not enjoyed 〈…〉 if we call to mind the days past, what superstition instead of a pure worship, our eyes beheld; and what tyranny was then exercised, in forcing men's consciences to such a worship, that was so exceeding contrary to the word of god. o that we were so sensible, as we should, who it is that hath wrought such a deliverance for us: surely we may say, this is the lord's doing. o that every soul that partakes of this mercy, by being delivered from such tyranny; that, i say, this godly resolution were in us, as was in the prophet david, psalm 71.6. my praise shall be continually of thee. and, psalm 145.2. every day will i bless thee, and i will praise thy name for ever and ever. o, i say, if we consider how many snares have been laid to ensnare poor creatures with; but we may say, hitherto hath the lord been with us, and hath broken the snares, and set us at liberty: yet, my dear friends, the great enemy of our salvation will be working; and if he cannot carry on his design by instruments that are openly profane, or in a superstitious habit, he can present himself in a show of glory, and pretend high things: and surely that day is now come upon the earth, that paul speaks of, 2 cor. 11. of a subtle people, that was endeavouring to beguile the corinthians, as the serpent beguiled eve, and from what? mind, the simplicity that is in christ; but, saith paul, vers. 13. for such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of christ; and no marvel, for satan himself is tranformed into an angel of light, therefore it is no great thing, if his ministers also, be transformed as the ministers of righteousness, whose end shall be according to their work. but as paul saith to the churches of galatia, so i say to you, chap. 1.8. though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you, then that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed: and john saith in his 2 epist. 10. if there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him god-speed. o, i say, with the prophet, if any speak not according to the scripture, it is, because they have no light in them. and, reader, whosoever thou art that perusest this small treatise, labour for an impartial spirit; & if any thing be to thy satisfaction herein, let god alone be glorified. i have desired plainness of speech, and to speak the words of scripture to answer him, whom thou wilt find is an opposer of the truth, as it is in jesus; and the lord give thee understanding. farewell. thine, in the work of the lord, to my poor power, tho. pollard. the method observed in this book: is, as followeth: 1. you have the unsoundness of richard farnworth's judgement laid down, in six particulars, as he at the meeting stood by to make good; and these i desire the reader to observe. 2. you have an answer to those things he charges me with, in his book; where the reader may see, that this poor man is full of lies, that instead of being free from sin, he too much takes delight in it. 3. you have that scripture answered that they so dwell on, against that ordinance of waterbaptism, 1 cor. 1.17. 4. to make their folly manifest, you have that cavil answered, about the term thee and thou to single person; which, say they, is a sin to use any other; but by the scripture in all ages, you will, as it is plain, find it to be no such thing, as is proved. 5. you have a discovery of the church of christ, how it cometh to mount zion, heb. 12.22. and what perfection i own, and how attained. 6. you have, what he saith in his book he owns, proved to be lies, and not according to truth. 7. you have his folly manifested, and the holy scripture counselling you to shun the way of such men. 8. some queries propounded; with a desire of an answer. and, reader, for your better satisfaction you have the testimony of three faithful witnesses, that these six things farnworth did utter; and also what is laid down in his book, that i here say he speaketh falsely of me, they are my witnesses: and upon what ground i then spoke, you have it laid down and witnessed: and for all the rest of the company there, was out of gospel-order. laurence spooner, ursula spooner, richard clewly. the holy scripture clearing itself of scandals. first, you have in this book the unsoundness of richard farnworth's judgement in fix particulars laid down, which being weighed will discover that those principles in his book, that he saith, he holds, are not really according to the rules of truth owned by him, but laid down on purpose to deceive. first, richard farnworth said, he was a man wholly free from sin, and not subject to any one temptation. now, dear friends, let us first make search into the scripture, to see if any of the lord's people have so boasted of themselves, to be in such a condition, while they carried about with them an earthly tabernacle. and first we will take notice of job; for it's clear, that he had more ground to have boasted of perfection than any of these men, if we mind what the lord said of him unto satan, hast thou considered my servant job, how there is none like him in all the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth god and escheweth evil? job 2.3. yet though the lord had so said of him, let us see what job saith of himself, read job 9.20. if i justify myself, my own mouth shall condemn me: if i say, i am perfect, it shall also prove me perverse. and, job 42.5. i have heard of thee by the hearing of the ear: but now my eyes see thee. wherefore i abhor myself, and repent in dust and ashes. from whence it is plain, that job did see imperfection in himself, and repent of it: but if job had been wholly perfect, then there was no need of repentance: for to abhor that which is good, and to repent of that, must needs be wickedness. secondly, see what the lord saith of david, acts 13.22. i have found david a man after my own heart. and yet we never find this man boasting of perfection; but goes humbly to the lord, and earnestly begs of him, psal. 19.12, 13. lord, keep thy servant from presumptuous sins, lest they get the dominion over me: so shall i be innocent from the great offence. and see psal. 18.1. how the lord is his rock, his fortress, his god in whom he will trust. and ver. 29. for by thee have i run through a troop, and by my god i have leapt over a wall. and vers. 30. as for god, his way is perfect, the word of the lord is tried: he is a buckler to all them that trust in him. this whole psalm, david speaks out much of the lords goodness to him; but i do not find one word of boasting. thirdly, see what the lord saith of paul to ananias, acts 9.15. he is a chosen vessel to bear my name; and i will show him how great things he must suffer for my name's sake. yet see what paul saith of himself, rom. 7.18. i know that in me, that is, in my flesh, there dwells no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good, i find not. for vers. 21. when i would do good, evil is present with me. and saith paul, 1 tim. 1.15. this is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that christ jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom i am chief. by all which we may see, that paul hath not a word of such boasting, but rather cries out against the fleshly part, how it attends him, and ofttimes keeps him from doing that which he would. fourthly, we will see what is said of john, who was an eminent apostle, who is called that disciple whom jesus loved; and the scripture saith, he lay in christ's bosom, john 13.2,. yet we find that he and peter, acts 3.12, to 17. said unto the people, ye men of israel, why marvel ye at this? or, why look ye so earnestly on us, as though by our own power or holiness we had made this man to walk? no, he tells them, it is the god of abraham, of isaac, and of jacob; the god of our fathers hath glorified his son jesus, whom ye delivered up. his name, saith peter, through faith in his name, hath made this man strong: not any thing in them, it's plain, doth he set up; but saith, it was the man's believing in jesus, that prevailed with jesus, who gave him this perfect soundness in the presence of you all. and in chap. 4.29. they pray to the lord for strength, that they may speak his word with boldness. by all which it's plain, that they had no dependence on themselves, by their looking to the lord, the rock of their strength, and their deliverer in their trouble. and further, see what john saith in his 1 epist. 1.8. if we say, we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. mind, it is such a deceit, that they that say so, the truth is not in them. and james saith, chap. 3.2. in many things we offend all. and now, dear friends, we see what the scripture saith of these men, how high in the lord's favour they were; yet we do not find, that any of these holy men of god, did so justify themselves as this man. now consider reader, and the lord give thee understanding. if these men, job, david, paul, and john, whose whole work it was, as i may say, to keep close to the commandments of god, to see how humbly they walked with god, and how sweetly the lord appeared to them in this their heavenly progress, as the scripture is full of witnesses, and that they did not boast of perfection. this than we may learn, that for these men in our days, who boast of perfection, and say, they are free from sin; and yet make it their whole work, to turn away poor souls from the truth, i mean, the holy scripture, and ordinances: that its pride in them; for they presume above what is written, as to call the scripture carnal, and a dead letter, and say, it will never bring a man to the knowledge of god. now, that these are proud and presumptuous, and selfwilled, see what paul saith of the scripture, 2 tim. 3.13, 14, 15, 16, 17. evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived: but to keep thee from these, (saith he) continue thou in the things thou hast learned, and hast been assured of; knowing of whom thou hast learned them, and that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in christ jesus. and he further saith, all scripture is given by inspiration of god, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of god may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works. by all which it's plain, that these men are of another mind then the apostle paul, for he vindicates the scripture and ordinances in all his epistles: then, i say, it is wickedness in these men to speak against the scripture and ordinances, as they do; calling it a dead letter, and carnal; and say, that all that is gotten from the scripture, is but brain-knowledge. now, dear friends, may we not see plainly how they strike at jesus christ in his ordinances, which do so lively represent him, and which he hath born witness to himself, and confirmed it to us, to be a sure word of prophecy, by many signs, and wonders, and gifts of the holy ghost? and further, dear friends, let us not forget how wonderfully the lord hath preserved this word from the rage of enemies, not only in the generations past, but our days have spoken out much to us. if we look back to those days of profanation, & wicked toleration, when nothing but superstition had countenance, and many for conscience-sake were sore oppressed: now for us to consider what we then did see, instead of pure ordinances, and to take notice of what we now, through mercy, enjoy; we may say, the lord hath wrought for us wonderfully: which being laid to heart, it may encourage us to follow the holy commandments of christ jesus, though we be reproached and called pharisees by these men, for observing the primitive pattern: for do but try them by their works, and you will find, that they carry on a design for satan, as it appears by the words of one foster to me at coulton in staffordshire, who said, it was all one to them if all bibles were burnt; as many of the lord's people can witness. but o you saints of god mind the progress of the lords people, how they followed after righteousness, godliness, faith, love, patience, meekness, as paul exhorts, 1 tim. 6.11, 12. again, let us consider how patiented job was under the hand of the lord, saying, the lord giveth, and the lord taketh away, blessed be the name of the lord. and he is brought in by the apostle, james 5.10. take, my brethren, the prophets for an example of suffering affliction, and of patience: and how they are accounted happy that endure. ye have heard of the patience of job, and have seen the end of the lord, that the lord is very pitiful, and of tender mercy to all them that wait patiently on him. and so we find david an excellent pattern for obedience: he made haste and delayed not to keep god's commandments, psalms 119.60. o (saith david) how i love thy law! it is my meditation all the day. thou through thy commandments hast made me wiser than my enemies; yea, i have more understanding than my teachers, for thy testimonies are my meditation. i understand more than the ancient, because i have kept thy precepts. i have refrained my feet from every evil way, that i may keep thy word. thus, dear friends, mind david and these men, and you will find they as far differ as light and darkness; and if david had so much wisdom in this way of keeping god's commandments, and ordinances of christ jesus, are proud men and fools, because they consent not to the wholesome words of christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness: he is proud, or a fool, as saith the margin, 1 tim. 6.3, 4. o what will these scorners do, when the lord comes from heaven with his saints to render vengeance on all that know not god, and obey not the gospel? mind that, and you may easily see, that all them that deride the word and ordinances of christ, under what term and title soever called, whether quakers, ranters or other reproachers of god, his son, his saints, his ordinances, and trample the blood of christ under their feet, and do despite to the spirit of grace, and sadden the hearts of his dear ones, and cause the truth of god to be evil spoken of: o to such i say, it had been better for them that they had never known the way of truth, then after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them: but it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, the dog is turned to his own vomit again, and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire, as saith the apostle, 2 pet. 2.21, 22. but o ye saints, and spiritual christians, who are troubled to hear the truth of christ abused by such men; see what paul's counsel is, 2 thess. 1.7. to you who are troubled, rest with us; abide in the doctrine of christ, quit you like men, be strong in the lord, labour to be steadfast, unmoveable, always abounding in the work of the lord; for you know your labour is not in vain in the lord. rom. 1.15, 58. the lord hath promised to you such a reward, that all these evil-speakers cannot rob you of. and seeing it is a righteous thing with god, to recompense tribulation on them that trouble you, be encouraged to run the race that is set before you. fellow the holy commandments, and the pattern of the apostles, as they followed christ, you may be born up above all the discouragements you meet with, by such as speak evil of the holy scripture and ordinances, which you own as a rule to walk by; for whatever is done against any of the lord's people, that are found doing his commandments, jesus christ will take all that is done against them, as done to himself, as you may see in that acts 9 by the words christ said to saul: for you are dear in his sight, and are continually before him, and his delight is with you, his heart is towards you; there shall be no want to them that fear him: rev. 22.14. blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter into the gates through the city. but o farnworth, and those with thee, that so impudently boast of perfection, and judge all to be in darkness, that throw not away the rule of truth, as you do; o call to mind your self-conceitedness. had you ever such ground of boasting as job, david, paul, and john? the lord never said so of you, or any that ever went your way, as he saith of these men, that you were after his heart, as david; or his chosen, as paul; or his beloved disciple, as john; or such a one, for doing that which was good, and hating that which was evil, as job, that the lord saith, there was none like him in all the land of uz 〈…〉 yet we do not find any of these men thus justify themselves, as you do; and they never judged so rashly of others, as you do of all men that are not of your mind, calling them carnal, and saying that they are devils, as i can show under some of your hands: surely you are coming on apace to them that say they are god; but your glorying is not good; for you glory in appearance, having a kind of voluntary humility; but this will not stand you in stead, because you go about to set up yourselves and not the lord; your own way, and not his way: and therefore you are the greater hypocrites. and see what job saith of all such, job 8.13. the hypocrites hope shall perish. and job 20.5. the joy of the hypocrite is but for a moment. and solomon saith, prov. 11.9. an hypocrite with his mouth destroyeth his neighbour. and do not you with your deluding tongues, and outside holiness, throwing dirt in the face of truth; and as much as in you lies, destroying all men by your doctrine, which had its rise from hell and darkness, and now reigns in the children of disobedience, such as you, who mind nothing less, than the holy commandments and ordinances, as they were delivered to the saints, and committed to faithful men, and are of great use to all the lord's people; which word discovers all your ways to be from hell and darkness, as in the following discourse it will be manifest, that your opinions are hatched in hell, and never came from above, whence, james saith, every good and perfect gift comes: and then it will plainly appear, that all that follow you are in the error, and are under a great delusion, to take your bare word for what you affirm, yea, though it cross the scripture never so much▪ but o consider, ye poor deluded ones, first, the heart of man is deceitful above all things, jer. 17.9. secondly, he that trusteth his own heart, is a fool, prov. 28.26. the second thing that this farnworth affirmed, that when paul spoke those words in the seventh of the romans, where he cries out of a body of death, and of the warfare he had in himself, he said, that paul was not converted. to which i answered, o man, mind thy error! what paul, a messenger of the gospel, and so eminent an apostle of christ, and unconverted? here let us try by the scripture whether it be so or no: first, see acts 9.5, 6. when the voice from heaven, which voice was christ, that said to him, saul, saul, why persecutest thou me? he trembling and astonished, said, lord, what wouldst thou have me to do? the lord sent him to ananias: and when he had manifested his faith in christ, by his obedience to christ, he straightway preached christ, in the synagogues, to be the son of god. and further, see vers. 27. of this ninth chapter, where it was made plain to the apostles. and he was with them, coming in, and going out at jerusalem: and he spoke boldly in the name of jesus christ, and disputed against the grecians. and this whole chapter makes it evident both in what he did and suffered, that he was converted. and further, see rom. 1.1. paul a servant of jesus christ; then sure converted, else no fit servant for so great a work; and not only so, but, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of god. and pray you mind who called him to this great work, not himself, but the holy ghost, acts 13.2. the holy ghost said, separate me barnabas and saul, for the work whereunto i have called them. by which it is plain, he was converted before, as i at that time told thee. then thou wouldst turn it, and didst say that he spoke of his condition before conversion in that rom. 7. and this is as false as the other, if the words be weighed, vers. 22. to 25. for i delight in the law of god after the inward man. pray you mind; at that time he did see a law in his members warring against the law of his mind. nay further, if all this had been before conversion, then how could he have said as he saith vers. 25. that with his mind he served the law of god? for it is evident that his mind before conversion was only to persecute the church and people of god. and here we will bring his own words to witness, 1 cor. 15.9. i (saith paul) am the least of the apostles not worthy to be called an apostle: mind the reason, because i persecuted the church of god. by all which we may plainly see how contrary to the scripture, and unfound, this opinion is. therefore take heed, poor souls, of following men any further than they follow christ, and keep his way. and you deluded ones, that speak against the holy scripture in the whole, it is no wonder that you make such tearing it in pieces as you do. and though you use the scripture so frequent in your writing, it is out of subtlety to ensnare souls, as that great deceiver did to christ, mat. 4.6. but one word to the lords people. take scripture-arguments to fight against deceivers: and for your progress in the lord's way, take jeremiah's counsel, chap. 6.16. stand ye in the way, and see, and ask for the old paths: where is the good way? and walk therein. and then mind the promise: ye shall find rest for your souls. and how we may find the way of the lord, read isai. 8.20. to the law, and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them. compared with gal. 1.8, 9 the third thing, farnworth affirmed, that where john spoke those words, if we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves; he said, john did not here speak of himself; but the people to whom he spoke these words were unconverted. in answer to this, mind the apostles words, 1 job. 1.3. that which we have seen and heard, that we declare unto you, that ye may have fellowship with us; and truly our fellowship is with the father and the son. and, these things we writ unto you, that your joy may be full: and this was joy to them: chap. 3.2. now are we the sons of god, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that when he shall appear we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is. and in chap. 2.24, 25. let that therefore abide in you, which ye have heard from the beginning: if that shall abide in you, ye also shall continue in the son and in the father: and this is the promise he hath promised us, even eternal life. and john saith, vers. 21 of this chap. 2. i have not written unto you because ye know not the truth, but because ye know it. by all which it is plain they were built on the foundation, for else it had been absurd for the apostle to have exhorted them to abide in christ and his commandments, if not converted; for then the exhortation was of no use; and beside, it is very improper to advise any man to keep that which he never had. again, 2. the apostle doth here press them to persevere, and to go on, and to walk in the light; then they must know it before. 3. i do not find any epistle written to any but to the saints; as rom. 1.7.1 cor 2.2 cor. 2. by all which it is plain, to the saints at rome, to the church at corinth, to the saints at ephesus, to the church at galatia, saints at philippi, saints at colosse saints at thessalonica. 4. the apostle put himself in: if we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves. here he puts himself one of the number. not that i go about, as farnworth falsely saith, to plead a continuance in sin: for i do own, that believers, as they are in christ, are justified from sin, and god is satisfied with his son, as isaiah saith; he looked on the travel of his soul and was satisfied. but that which i say, is this, that believers do see some defect in themselves, in their outward man, as they carry about with them an earthly tabernacle: but through grace, they overcome all defects by degrees. and we will see what the scripture faith from the mouth of other godly witnesses. see solomon, 1 king. 8.46. there is (saith he) no man that sinneth not: with prov. 20.9. who can say, i have made my heart clean, i am pure from my sin? with eccl. 7.20. saith the wise preacher, there is not a just man upon earth, that doth good, and sinneth not. now then, i say with the apostle, let god and his word be true, and all men liars. and i do appeal to every godly soul, for to witness this, who are sensible of flesh and self appearing in them at one time or other. but dear saints, look up to the lord for strength, and let us be sure, if we would conquer, to fight with spiritual weapons: and let us take heed of such an opinion, that will be judge himself in his own cause, and will not be tried by the scripture, accounting it dead and carnal, and of no use to bring men to christ. as when i asked farnworth how he would witness the truth of what he affirmed, in that he denied the scripture; he laid his hand on his heart, and said, i witness this. now mind this delusion, as i said before what jeremiah saith, chap. 17.9. 1. the heart of man is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked; who can know it? 2. he that trusteth in his own heart, is a fool, prov. 28.26. and now dear friends, let us take counsel of the lord, to try the spirits whether they be of god: for many false prophets are gone out into the world, 1 joh. 4.1. and vers. 6. we are of god: he that knoweth god, heareth us; and he that is not of god, heareth not us. hereby know we the spirit of truth and the spirit of error. from whence we may honestly argue, that if they, and they only, be the friends of god, that walk in obedience to the commands of god; then they must needs be enemies that oppose. but the first is clear, joh. 15.14. ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever i command you with joh. 14.23. if any man love me he will keep my words; and my father will love him. and 1 joh. 5.2▪ 3. for this is the love of god, that we keep his commandments; and his commandments are not grievous. and further, dear friends, let us embrace that advice that peter gives, 2 epist. 3.17, 18. beware lest you being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own steadfastness. and to prevent you from falling, his counsel is. but grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our lord and saviour jesus christ. now is the hour of temptation: for if these be not wicked errors, i know not what is: i mean these which are laid down to your view, which farnworth did stand by to vindicate, if his own testimony may stand. o then, what need have all the lords people to be upon their watch, now satan by his instruments is sifting poor souls out of the truth, if he can! it is high time to look to our foundation, that we be built on the rock christ, that you be firmly knit to him, and made one with him; and then the gates of hell shall not prevail against you. and you strong christians, help the weak lambs of jesus christ, that they may grow in that good way of christ's commandments, that the saints of old have walked in. o be stirring up one another by way of remembrance of the good path of christ, which discovers fully all the by-paths of iniquity. oh, i say, let there not be a want of care among you in your several societies, to watch over one another, lest any be entangled by these seducing spirits, and overcome, i say, by these that throw aside all the laws and ordinances of the lord jesus, as they were delivered to the saints, and aught now by us to be observed: for you know what the scripture saith of them that turn from the way of truth; it had been better for them that they had never known it, then after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them. 2 pet. 2.20▪ 21. o then, i say to all you that are employed in the lords work, whether by office or gift, that are faithful stewards, diligent in feeding the flock of christ; remember what the lord saith to such: when the chief shepherd shall appear. ye shall receive a crown of glory that fadeth not away, 1 pet. 5.4. and saith daniel▪ chap. 12.3. they that be wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament, and they that turn many to righteousness, as the stars for ever and ever. and if these men be so forward in pulling down the ordinances of christ, you have greater encouragement to follow christ in his way. 1. you have his own presence promised (matth. 2820.) in the work. 2. see your reward after the work, joh. 10.27, 28. fourthly, farnworth affirmed that christ had not a visible church in the world; and scornfully said to me. what, a church in the world! i answered, yea, in the world though not of the world, but gathered out of the world. and 1. see what paul saith, 1 cor. 1.2. unto the church of god which is at corinth, sanctified in christ jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call on the name of jesus christ. reader, pray you mind, this must needs be a visible church: 1. because this epistle is directed to a visible place, corinth. 2. it is as clear, that here were men, and that under this general term brethren; vers. 10. i beseech you brethren by our lord jesus, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no division among you, but that you be perfectly joined together in the same mind, and in the same judgement. 3. paul makes mention of households, vers. 11. the house of cloe; and stephanas, vers. 16. 4. he speaks of persons by name, as crispus and gaius, and others. by all which it is clear, this poor man is much beside the rule of truth. again, see what paul saith unto the churches of galatia; chap. 1.1. unto the churches of galatia. and mind rom. 16.1. commend unto you phebe our sister, which is a servant of the church at cenchrea. mind how full the scripture is to prove this thing, and makes manifest the blindness of this man's understanding, that will thus oppose the truth that is so full of wintnesses. and how doth the holy ghost write to the seven churches in asia? and how, i pray you farnworth, will you answer that place in acts 8. when steven was stoned, and the church at jerusalem all scattered? 1. this must needs be a visible company, because they were visibly scattered. 2. they were at jerusalem, which was a visible place, the scripture is full for. 3. see whither they were scattered; some into judea, and some into samaria. and saul he made havoc of the church, vers. 3: but here we may see your subtlety and cunning craftiness whereby you lie in wait to deceive: for if you can bring poor souls to this, that god hath not a visible church in the world, than you may easily persuade them to throw aside all the visible rule of scripture, and so make all doctrine and church-discipline of none effect: and thus you would put out the eyes of poor souls, and then bring them to see with your eyes; and then your words they may quickly learn, which are only thus, to say they must hearken to a light within: but, if the light in thee be darkness, how great is that darkness? and here thy darkness doth appear, in denying a visible church, which is so plainly proved. but reader, by these men, the rule of trial to try the spirits withal, is thrown away, and become of no use to these men, except it be for advantage. but dear souls, consider, first, that the heart is deceitful; and he that trusteth to it, is a fool. and then to have no other judge in thy own case but thyself, (as this is their principle) how doth it open a door to looseness? and many poor souls have been so far misled as to say, that which men call sin doth as highly honour god, as that which men call prayer or holy performances: i say, these things i have heard uttered by mouth, and have seen in print: and if this be not sad and dangerous, i know nothing. but to you of the church of christ that are by these men called pharisees and outward jews, and branded with reproach; see what peter saith, 1 pet. 2.20, if when ye do well and suffer for it ye take it patiently, this is acceptable with god: for even hereunto were ye called, because christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example that we should follow his steps. and in chap. 4. vers. 14. he saith, if ye be reproached for the name of christ, happy are ye: for the spirit of glory and of god resteth upon you. on their part he is evil spoken of, but on your part he is glorified. and further, friends, let us call to mind how sweetly the lord hath appeared to us in the use of ordinances; and then i hope you will take heed of entertaining such an opinion, that is so wicked as to overthrow all the ordinances of christ that belong to his church. o but labour for oneness of spirit, and you will be terrible to all your enemies as an army with banners. fifthly, farnworth affirmed, that all ordinances ceased when christ ascended and gave the spirit. but, dear friends, let us not take the thing for granted, upon his bare word, because he saith so; but let us be like the bereans, search the scripture, to see if the thing be so. and first, we will mind the commission, and the time when christ gave it; and that is clear it was after his resurrection, as the last chapter of matthew witnesseth at large. if so, than it must be that this commission was given when christ entered into his kingly office; and this his own words make good: for now saith christ, all power is given into my hands in heaven and in earth: go ye therefore and teach all nations, and baptise them. and the continuance of these ordinances is plain, in the last verse: lo (saith christ) i am with you always, to the end of the world. now this is to me so strong an argument, that surely it will make a gracious heart tremble to deny it. 2. if this be true that farnworth affirms, then see how short a time ordinances were to be of use in the world. read acts 1.1. the former treatise have i made, o theophilus, of all that jesus began to do and teach, until the day he was taken up, after that he through the holy ghost had given commandment unto the apostles whom he had chosen, to whom also he shown himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days. pray ye mind: it seems then by this man's judgement, that ordinances were to be of use but forty days: which is very corrupt. and further, than the end of the world should have been, if this he saith be true, when christ ascended: two great absurdities; 1. to 〈◊〉 that ordinances were of use but forty days. 2. then it must follow also, that at christ's ascension should be the end of the world: and so all the promises of the spirit had been nothing worth. but mind, dear friends, what christ saith to his apostles: tarry at jerusalem, and go not out thence, till ye have received power from on high: and when the holy ghost is come upon you, ye shall be witnesses unto me both in jerusalem, and in all judea, and in samaria, and in all the uttermost parts of the earth; acts 1. at large. by all which it is plain, if the scripture may be heard to speak for itself, that the apostles were not so fully fitted for that great work, to preach the gospel to every creature, until christ ascended & gave the spirit. read acts 2.3, 4, 5. and christ told them (joh. 14, 26.) the father he would send the comforter, which is the holy ghost: and this is his work; he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever i have said unto you. then mind; if it be the work of this spirit of truth that cometh from the father and the son, to bring to their remembrance what christ before spoke to them; than it is plain, that the commission is one part of what christ spoke to them before his ascension. yea, there is much wrapped up in it, that the spirit was to inmind the apostles of; and not them only, but all those now, that carry on the same work, by the same rule, for one and the same end; namely, to glorify god, to be useful to his church, and to all men. now we will see how the mind of christ was when he was gone to heaven; and we shall find he was of the same mind to maintain ordinances, as well as when he was on the earth: and for this, see a plain text of scripture, acts 9.6. and the lord said unto saul, arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do. and as the lord sent him into the city, mind the end the lord had, in sending ananias, who told him as he had received from christ, what saul must do: and this was one thing that ananias told him, as it is plain, acts 22.14, 15, 16. first, that he was chosen of the lord, that he should know his will, and see that just one, and should hear the voice of his mouth: for (saith he) thou shalt be his witness to all men, of what thou hast seen and heard. and now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptised, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the lord. by which it is plain, that christ was of the same mind to maintain ordinances in his church, after his ascension, as before. but when i instanced these scriptures, farnworth said, that this was not waterbaptism that paul was baptised with, but the baptism of the spirit; as many can witness. but i think no sober man will be of this man's judgement: for, 1. consider, if it were the baptism of the spirit, it were too high for ananias, as he was a disciple, to carry on: and without question, we should have found ananias answering paul, as john confesseth in another place; i indeed baptise with water; but there is one coming after me, he shall baptise with the holy ghost. 2. it would be very absurd to give that to men, that is christ's proper and peculiar right. but it is no wonder to find these men thus dealing with christ himself, that will thus wickedly speak against his ordinances. but then he asked me whether my baptism washed away sin. i told him i could prove that waterbaptism was an ordinance of christ, being administered on right subjects, which are men and women when they believe; and yielding obedience to it as a command of christ, i had the answer of a good conscience; and this no man can have, but by the washing away of sin: for obedience and godliness hath the promise of this life, and of that which is to come: for, blessed are they that do his commandments. but i do not affirm that any man can have salvation by virtue of his obedience; but this i say, that the obedient, and they only, are within the promises; and it will be assuredly performed to them: for, faithful is he that promiseth, and he will perform it. o then, dear saints, to you that prise the holy commandments of christ, and yet live in the use of them, though these men so speak against them; i shall give you another scripture, to show christ's care of his church, that it may be well ordered according to his mind, and how long ordinances are to stand: beside that of the commission, that shows to the end of the world; this in ephes. 4, 8. which plainly holdeth out the institution of it: when he ascended up on high, he gave some apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers. and let us mind the end christ had in so doing; which is, for the perfecting of the saints: by which it appears, that christ did well know that the church would stand in need of help from him. ah saints! see his care of you: prise it then. secondly, that the work of the ministry might be carried on in the church and world, for the enlarging of his kingdom. thirdly, that the body might be edified. now christ having thus carefully provided for his church, and for all men, that the gospel might be preached to every creature; then he tells us how long ordinances shall stand, vers. 13. till we all come in the unity of the faith. then it is plain, that ordinances are yet of force: for those who are beloved for the father's sake, the lord hath said he must bring in. the lord hasten the day of their coming in, that the gentiles fullness may be completed. secondly, the church shall be brought to a perfect man, unto the stature of the fullness of christ. but yet we see much incompleatness: but o that we were more looking for this day. fourthly, we may see another end christ had, vers. 14. that we henceforth be no more children tossed to and fro with every wind of doctrine: by the slight of men, and cunning craftiness whereby they lie in wait to deceive. if we well weigh these words, we may see that christ did well know, so many hundred years ago, what would come to pass in the last times. and sure now is the time: for we see men risen up, pretending high attainments, not in a superstitious habit, but in a show of glory, and filled with feigned words and fair speeches, deceive the hearts of the simple; and thus they lie in wait to deceive: when they cannot work downright at once with a man, than they will work by degrees: as first, to benumb or deaden his affection to ordinances, and put him out of love with something that the church lives in the practice of; as breaking of bread, calling it carnal: and when they have drawn away his affection, than they endeavour to stifle him in his judgement, and so ensnare him. i speak what i know in this thing. but you dear saints, that are faithful to the principles of truth, labour to embrace that exhortation, and to walk worthy of that commendation that paul speaks of, 1 cor. 11.1, 2. in the first verse you have the exhortation, in these words: be ye followers of me, even as i also am of christ. the commendation is in these words: now i praise you brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances as i delivered them unto you. and if this be well pleasing in the sight of god, that we keep his ordinances as they were delivered by his servants, and they had this authority from above, and his presence with them in the work; than it is plain, that these men who thus set themselves to overthrow the ordinances of christ, as they were once delivered, are the deceivers. for they that will deny a visible church, that the scripture is so full to witness; and will say, that all ordinances ceased when christ ascended: then paul was too blame to commend the church at corinth for keeping that which christ had put an end to at his ascension, if what farnworth says be true. again, it is plain, that paul was a persecutor at christ's ascension: then mind, it must be that christ did show to paul this, that he was worthy of commendation that did keep the ordinances; and if what paul spoke were by the spirit of god, as without all question he did, than it must follow, that these have a spirit of delusion coming from hell and darkness, that spits out such venom against the ordinances of christ jesus, that is so fully confirmed to us by so strong an obligation of his own making. i will be with you: mind, if the lord jesus will be with them that obey him, then surely satan will be & is with them that go contrary to the commands of christ. and mind rom. 6.16. to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are; whether of sin unto death, or obedience unto righteousness. and i am sure it is well for every soul that is found faithful to the death, for they shall receive a crown of life that fadeth not away, which god the righteous judge will give to all those that long and look for his appearing. o than they are the only happy men and women that are faithful in obedience to every command of christ. the sixth thing, farnworth affirmed, that the scripture was not of any use to any man▪ till he was brought into the condition of them that writ the scriptures. then it must follow, that the scripture is only in use for men in christ, and not to bring them to christ; for, saith the apostle, holy men of god, spoke as they were moved by the holy ghost. then mind, 1. the absurdity will be this, that the scripture is not of use to make men holy; but useful only to holy men, because holy. 2. then this must follow, that the scripture is not of use to teach or show men the way to christ; but to them that are taught or brought to him without it. 3. to destroy preaching upon this ground, namely, to convince and convert souls to christ, must needs destroy faith also: for saith the apostle, rom. 10. faith cometh by hearing; and if by it, than not without it, mind that: so then to take away the cause, the effect will cease. and it is plain by the scripture, that the gospel's preaching, is the cause of men's believing; for saith paul, vers. 14. how shall they believe in him, of whom they have not heard? o than reader, mind, how far this opinion will plunge a poor soul, whose condition is such, that he cannot please god without faith, heb. 11.6. without faith it is impossible, mind, to please god. and in rom. 14.23. whatsoever is not of faith is sin: so then, to deny the ordinance of preaching, by which faith comes, must needs tend to destroy faith, and then please god who can. but let us weigh the design of these men a little: if they can once bring a poor soul into this condition to disown the scripture when he most stands in need of it; that is to say, to bring him to christ, and to show him how he ought walk so as to please god: i say, if once the poor creature be brought into such a condition, than he knows he can easily keep him from prising it at all. but let us see how this crosses the end of god's sending his son into the world: john saith, chap. 3.16. god so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son into the world that whosoever believeth on him should not perish, but have everlasting life. again, luke 1. witnesses, that christ was sent of the father, to be a light to them that sit in darkness, and are in the shadow of death, and to guide our feet into the way of peace. and how should we know this great love of the father, much less believe it, without the gospel's preaching? again, christ saith, he came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance; and, he came to seek and to save that which was lost. by all which it is plain, that the end of the gospel's preaching to every creature, was not because every creature did believe this, but that they might hear and believe. again, if those three thousand, act. 2. were converted by the gospel, than not without it; and them of samaria by the gospel, than not any other way, act. 8. and the believing thessalonians were called by the gospel; and so were all the churches called to be saints, how i pray you, if not by the gospel's preaching? nay, how should we poor sinners of the gentiles have known of a door of hope open to us, but by the preaching of the gospel? nay should we have known of a christ that died at jerusalem, but by the scripture? or, how should we know sin to be sin, and righteousness to be righteousness, but by the scripture? again, see what paul saith, 2 tim. 3.2 last verse. all scripture is given by inspiration of god, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: mind, not that man is perfect; but, that he may be perfect, and thereby throughly furnished unto all good works. by all which it is plain, that the scripture is of greater use than these men will have it. and christ saith, the words that i have spoken the same shall judge you at the last day: and this word shall not return void, but shall be to all that entertain it a savour of life unto life, but to them that put it from them, and say it is useless, it will be a savour of death unto death. but to you who are through grace members of the church of christ, who were once sinners of the gentiles, and without god in the world, but are now made nigh by the blood of his son, as paul witnesses, ephes. 2.11. it is good for us, that we have often in our meditations, the great use that the scripture hath been to us, in helping us to know what sin is, that so we may avoid it; and it also hath showed what righteousness is, that we may be in love with it. and i pray you let your former experiences of what good we have received by the word and ordinances, not to be forgotten. and further, we find and are made sensible through grace, that the scripture is and hath been a sweet and perfect rule for us to walk by, and we thereby have been led and guided into the way of truth and peace. and we know that all those that are found faithful in obeying the commands of christ, and continue therein, they shall receive a crown of glory that fadeth not away. and therefore let us always look unto the law and to the testimony, and embrace that sweet counsel, for the trial of all doctrines; for saith the prophet, if any speak not according to this, mind, when they come from hell and darkness, for saith he, they have no light in them, isa. 8.20. o! than all those that go about to destroy this rule, they are so in darkness, that as the scripture saith, they know not at what they stumble, or whither they go, john 12.35. and though these men say, that they are the only men that know god, and love god, yet if we see what john saith, it will be found otherwise, 1 epist. 2.3, 4, 5. hereby, saith john to the church, we do know, that we do know him, mind, if we keep his commandments; and he that saith, i know him, and keepeth not his commandments, what follows? he is a liar; and mind, such a liar, that the truth is not in him. and he that saith, he abideth in him, ought himself so to walk, even as he walked. now this was christ's walk, to do the will of him that sent him, than these men go not christ's way, but their own, and walk by the imaginations of their own heart, rather than by the holy commandments of christ jesus. and also see who they are that love god, john 14.23, 24. and see who they are that are related to christ, matth. 12.50. he that doth the will of my father, the same man or woman, is christ's brother and sister. and now having given you his principles, as he then at the meeting in harliston did stand by to maintain, which before the close you have them weighed, which those principles he saith he owns in his book, and see how they stand together. but now in the second place, i come to answer to those false slanders he charges me with in his book. first, he saith, that i came on purpose to that meeting to cavil, and oppose the truth. to which i answer, that the ground of my coming with other friends, was to oppose all doctrines whatsoever, that was not warranted by the word of god; and in so doing, i have one greater with me and for me, than all you that so maliciously speak against me. but o farnworth! take heed of boasting so of perfection, until you show better fruit; and when you come to cease lying, i shall hope some better things of thee. now the substance of thy discourse before i questioned thee, was, that you did witness you were free from sin, and in the possession of the second covenant. then did i bring in those words of john, and told you, that if it were so with you, than you had attained higher, i said, than that eminent apostle john had. and therefore thou dealest wickedly, to say, i brought it in to plead a continuance in sin: surely, that light which thou sayest is in thee, is darkness, else thou wouldst not have spoken thus falsely: but having treated on this before, i pass it by. again, i said▪ where was your proof, that you was in this condition? then he laid his hand on his heart, and said, i witness this. then i said to the people, that to trust his own bare testimony without scripture, we should leave the word of god and trust the word of a man, and so bring ourselves under that curse, jer. 17.5. cursed be he that trusteth in man. and also said, as jeremiah saith in that 17 chap. the heart is deceitful. and therefore it was good for us to try our own and others by the scripture. read prov. 28.26. then thou, farnworth saidst, i told thee of a church in the world. answ. yea, christ had a church in the world, though not of the world; but gathered out of the world: and for the gathering of it, did not the holy ghost say, act. 13.2. separate me barnabas and saul, for the work whereunto i have called them. and i am sure, that paul makes this good by many scriptures, that he was a planter of a visible church. but thou sayest in thy book, that the officers and overseers of the church of christ were invisible: and why? because made by the holy ghost which is invisible. and here the reader may plainly see thy folly; for as i have already proved a visible church, so i will prove visible officers; as, what was paul and barnabas, but visible men? else their enemies could not have persecuted them. and read acts 6.2. then the twelve called the multitude of the disciples unto them. by which it is plain, this church were made up of a visible company. and the apostle said unto them, look you out among you seven men of honest report, full of the holy ghost. and the saying pleased the multitude, and they chose stephen with others, who are said to be full of the holy ghost. so that it is a clear truth, that visible men were here found in this church made visible officers. but farnworth, take heed of scorning so clear a truth. but one thing reader, i pray you observe; if it be so as farnworth saith, that the officers of the church of christ be invisible, then by his own grant he is none, because he is a visible man. and here is his folly made manifest. and also he denying a visible church, you may as plainly see from whence he is sent, and whose errand he goes on: not of christ's errand, for then his work would he do; but it is plain he is of his father the devil, who was a liar from the beginning, else he would never say, that christ had not a visible church; and say, all ordinances ceased when christ ascended; and, that the scripture would never bring a man to the knowledge of god; and say, that all ordinances contained in the scripture are carnal. again, farnworth saith in his book, that i said the letter and the spirit was inseparable. i do not so wonder of his taking boldness to lie of me, that dare so impudently lie of christ, and of his word and ordinances as he hath done. but to answer to this, thou chargest me with this, i then said unto thee, as i now say, that the word and spirtt were one or inseparable, and this, i said, i will prove by the word of god, 1 john 5.7. for there are three that bear record in heaven, the father, the word and the holy ghost; and these three are one. and further, when i said this, than thou farnwarth pulledst out thy bible, and not before, and laid it on the ground, and saidst to the people, if that be spirit and life, it would rise itself. i told thee at that time, that what was contained in that book, which it declared of, and held out to us, was spirit and life. and here reader, take not my words, but the words of christ, john 6.63. the words that i speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life; mind, that which christ spoke they are, and compare this with job. 12.48. the words, saith christ, that i have spoken, mind that, the same shall judge you at the last day: which word is established in heaven, and written for our learning, and is a perfect rule for us to walk by: and see what paul saith, rom. 15.4. for whatever were written ofore time were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope. and mind what paul said to the church, act. 20.32. at his departure, now, brethren i commend you to god, and to the word of his grace, which is able to make you wise to salvation, and to build you up, & to give you an inheritance among them that are sanctified. and paul commends timothy, that from a child he had known the holy scripture; and, which is very observable, paul presseth timothy to continue in the things he had learned, 2 tim. 3.13, 14, 15, 16. for, saith he, evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived. and farnworth, it seems you have not learned to distinguish between law and gospel; for i demand of thee, where any of the words of christ or his apostles are called letter: see what paul saith, 2 cor. 3.6. our sufficiency is of god, who hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter that killeth, but of the spirit that giveth life. now i am sure if paul & the other apostles were alive, you would call them pharisees, and outward jews, ministers of the letter, and call christ a water-ma 〈…〉 r outside-washer, as you call me; for i am sure, that they that carry on this work, they have their rules from christ, and they are the only wise men. and this i say, that for baby-sprinklers, and tythe-takers, and parish-men, we own no such thing; and therefore let them run in your number and rank, as men refusing and rejecting the holy commandments and ordinances of christ as you do; only this i believe, that many of them do what they do ignorantly: but i fear you do wilfully speak against truth. but o you scorners, how long will you delight in your scorning, to call the holy scripture a dead letter and carnal, as you do? but to all of you that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, of what rank soever you be, or by what name so ever called, see your portion, rom. 2.8. tribulation and anguish upon every soul of man that is contentious, and doth not obey the truth. and see what paul saith, 2 thes 1.9. where he speaks of some men that shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the lord, and from the glory of his power: and mind who they are, vers. 8. them that know not god, and obey not the gospel of our lord jesus christ. o then, what will you do, that speak reproachfully against the gospel of christ? but let me tell you, it is not all your say, that can put off or defer the lord's coming: and at that time shall the wicked be turned into hell, and all the people that forget god, psal. 9.17. with psal. 11.6. then thou farnworth saidst, i called the bible a history. now let the reader mind how this hangeth together: first, he said, i set up the letter, and made it one with the spirit: and now saith, i call it a history. now, reader, i will declare what i spoke, when i proved what i said all along by scripture. he said unto me, that is letter, and that i had nothing to do with it, being ignorant of the mystery. then i said, what will you call this? a history? yet this i say, that if there be a mystery in the scripture, than there must be a history, wherein it is kept, which doth declare of it: read, ephes. 5.31, 32. for this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and cleave to his wife, and they twain shall be one flesh. this is a great mystery, but i speak concerning christ and his church. compare this with col. 1.21. and you who were sometimes alienated and enemies in your mind, by wicked works, yet now he hath reconciled in the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy, and unblamable, and unreprovable in his sight, vers. 22. whereof i am made a minister, according to the dispensation of god which is given to me for you, to fulfil the word of god, vers. 23. even the mystery, which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints; to whom god would make known, what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the gentiles, which is christ in you the hope of glory, vers. 26, 27. again, god manifest in flesh is a mystery, 1 tim. 3.16. and the bringing in of the gentiles into the church, to be of christ's body is called a mystery: read ephes. 3.3, 4, 5, 6. and the word declares it. dear friends, mind the design of these men, that do not only destroy the ordinances of christ, but gospel-order also; as god is a god of order in all the churches of the saints, and we find, that christ came into all his offices when he was on earth, in an orderly way, 1 john 5.6. this is he that came by water and bood, even jesus christ; not by water only, but by water and blood: and it is the spirit that beareth witness. now this must needs be the coming of christ into his offices: for we know, that his coming into the world was as a man, and born of a virgin; but his coming into his offices by water and blood is witnessed by the spirit. and first, we will see how christ came into his prophetical office; and that is plain, he came by water: and the spirit bears witness to it, see matth. 3.13. then cometh jesus from galilee to jordan, to john, to be baptised of him. and there you may further mind, when john said, i have need to be baptised of thee, and comest thou to me? jesus answered and said, suffer it to be so now, for it becometh us: mind, not he only, but us; that is to say, all that will be followers of him. what is it that becomes us to do? to fulfil all righteousness. then he suffered him. and see how the spirit witnesss this orderly coming of christ into his prophetical office, v. 16. and when he was baptised, he strait way went up out of the water; mind that, no font nor basin, for that could not contain him, as is well known: and to the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the spirit of god descending like a dove, and lighting upon him. and further, see how the father commendeth this righteous act, in these words, thou art my wellbeloved son, in whom i am well-pleased. here the lord so fully declares him to be his son in whom he is well-pleased, as is not declared in the scripture that ever he said so before; though i grant that he were his beloved son before, though not so declared unto us, till this obedience to this ordinance. and see matth. 4.17. from that time jesus began preach, and to say, repent, for the kingdom of god is nigh at hand. see christ's second office, that is his priestly office, and that he came into by his blood, heb. 9.11. christ is become an high priest for ever of good things to come, not by the blood of others, but by his own blood, vers. 12. and this the holy ghost signified, v. 8. and read heb. 10.14, 15. by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified: whereof the holy ghost is witness to us. and his third office, namely, his kingly office, he came into at his resurrection, matth. 28.18. all power is given to me in heaven and in earth. and by virtue of this authority, he sends out his apostles to teach all nations, baptising them. but you farnworth, and all those with you, that go about to destroy order, that will not come into the prophetical office as christ came into his, i dare be bold to say, you are no ministers of christ, but of antichrist; for you are self-called, and not by the church of christ; and speak visions of your own heart, instead of the wholesome words of christ. surely, you would call christ and his apostles watermens and outside-washers, if they were now on earth. but you say, you have the baptism of the spirit, and therefore the other is nothing to you. methinks you should grant that christ had more of the spirit's baptism then ever you had; and yet we find it kept him not from waterbaptism: but he lays a necessity of it, suffer it to be so now, for it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. and we see peter speaking to cornelius and his household, whom the spirit was fallen upon, as on the apostles at the beginning, act. 11.15. yet this did not hinder them from waterbaptism, but rather fitted them for it: for saith peter, act. 10.47. can any man for bid water, mind, that these should not be baptised, which have received the holy ghost as well as we? and he commanded them to be baptised. without question, if peter were now alive, you would say he were an hypocrite, and one that rested in the letter; but indeed you show yourselves to be no messengers of christ; no, not qualified as the priests under the law; for they were such as could have compassion of the ignorant, and of them that are out of the way; but where is your pity and tenderness towards any that are not so black-mouthed as you, to rail against the scripture and ordinances, as you do? o poor creatures! this i say of you, that ye be objects of pity, and not of punishment: for i believe, that christ will never account such worty to suffer for him, that so deal with him, and his ordinances and saints, as you do. and now to that other slander you cast upon me in your book, saying, that i said▪ christ had not judgement committed to him while he was upon earth. but here you have spoken as falsely as you have in the other: but this i said, that jesus christ at his first coming came not speedily to execute judgement upon all that did not receive him: for i say, it is clear to me by his own words, that his first coming was rather to save the world; & for this, see christ's own words, john 12.46, 47. i am come a light into the wood, that whosoever believeth on me shall not abide in darkness: and if any man hear my words, and believe not, mind what follows, i judge him not; for i came not to judge the world, but to save the world. he that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that i have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day. and christ saith, i came to seek and to save that which was lost, matth. 18.11. and, to open the blind eyes, and to bring prisoners from the prison, and them that are in darkness out of the prisonhouse, isa. 42.7. and for this end, that is to say, his own glory, and for the good of poor creatures, did he send his son into the world: read john 3.16, 17. for god so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten son, that whosoever believeth in him, should not perish, but have everlasting life: for god sent not his son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. and having thus found out by the scripture the end of god's sending his son into the world, and of christ's coming; and it is plain, that neither father nor son did or doth take delight in the death of poor sinners, but rather, that they repent and live. but to say, that christ had not judgement committed to him while he was upon earth; this i did not say: for i say, that christ had all power in heaven and earth committed to him. but as i have said, so i say again, he came in an orderly way, and, as i may say, was willing to stay the good pleasure of his father, and did not take the power of judgement into his hands so as to execute it, till it pleased the father to give it to him, mat. 28. now all power is given; mind, it came by gift, and that from the father, col. 1.19. it pleased the father that in him, that is to say, his son, should all fullness dwell. now this i say, that in reference to his godhead, he was equal with the father: but as he took upon him our flesh, he humbled himself, and became obedient to the will of his father. and he himself saith, i came not to do my own will, but the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work, john 4.3, 4. and now having found out god's great love to us in sending his son, and for what end jesus christ came into the world▪ that they through him might be saved; and that he did not go about to judge or condemn to hell immediately them that refused him; but prayed for his worst enemies, luk. 23. father forgive them, for they know not what they do. and how full of pity was christ for jerusalem, that did not pity themselves; see at large mat. 23.37. his bemoaning of them; and luk. 19.41. you shall find christ weeping over them, or for them, and saying o that thou hadst known in this thy day the things belonging to thy peace! but now they are hid from thy eyes. but what will become of all those that slight his first coming; wherein there is held out so much love to poor creatures? o, i say, his second coming will be terrible to all those that refuse to own him for their prophet and king, to teach them and to rule over them. but o farnworth, what will all you do, that make it your work to draw away poor souls from the word and ordinances of christ? i say, what will you do at that day when he cometh to render vengeance on all that obey not his gospel? let me tell you, it is not your saying, that you are passed the eternal judgement, that will serve your turn: i am sure, that when the books come to be open, & every man to receive according to the works done in his own body, whether it be good, or whether it be evil, and receive accordingly; your justifying yourselves now, will not stand you then in any stead. and if you would cast your eyes upon these words of christ now in time, you might see abundance of pride, folly and ignorance in yourselves, in trusting your own testimony: read john 5.32, 33. if i bear witness of myself, my witness is not true; there is another that beareth witness of me; and i know, that the witness which witnesseth of me is true. now reader mind, first, the pride of these men, that will thus boast of perfection upon their own word, without any scripture-witness. secondly, see their folly, in slighting all godly examples; for so it is, that such precious words of christ, so pure a pattern, is by this their principle disregarded. and so in the third place is their ignorance made manifest, and darkness discovered, that they will presume above what is written, and so follow their own imaginations, and refuse such precious counsel as jesus christ hath left for us in the scripture of truth. o than it is plain, that these men are of that number that hearken to lying vanities, and so forsake their own mercies. but dear friends, let us see what the scripture saith; and if we be there enjoined to follow godly patterns, we shall do well in harkening to it, rather than to these men that speak thus against examples: read 1 pet. 2.21. where christ leaves us an example, that we should follow his steps, who is a blessed pattern of patience unto us. again, see phil. 3.17. brethren be followers of me, and mark them which walk so as you have us for an ensample. and see how paul commends the thessalonians, 1 epist. 1.7. saying, that they were ensamples to all that believed in macedonia and achaia. and in his 2 epist. 3. see how the apostle carried themselves, labouring night and day, that they might not be chargeable: and see the reason, that the church might observe this their good example, and follow them therein. again, poor creature, consider, how thou judgest all men by these terms, of dippers, sprinklers and water-baptizers, to be all of them in one nature, persecutors of christ. first, see thy folly in ranking all those that follow the holy commandments of christ, with these sprinklers that have not any word of christ for their rule and practice, which thou knowest we own not. secondly, see thy ignorance in judging all, without making any difference: for here thou must needs judge very many that thou didst never know or hear of, and so art guilty of this sin, in speaking evil of them that thou knowest not. and thirdly, thou givest all men to understand, that thou ownest not the word of god for thy rule, in condemning all that follow the ordinances as they were delivered by christ equally with those that observe traditions of men in the worship of god, as pope, prelate, and other sprinklers do. and again, thou sayest where did any of us water-baptizers cast out devils, and drink any deadly thing, and it not hurt us? and where did we shake the room when we assembled? and where did we give the holy ghost? all such unlearned questions as these, i shall answer in a few words, thus: these things at the first, namely miracles, were for the confirmation of the gospel; and so we may see the law was at the first confirmed by miracles: read exod. 20.18. with heb. 12.18, to the 22. so we find baptism was confirmed by miracles, mat. 3.16, 17. with luke 3.21, 22. and so was prayer, preaching, and laying on of hands, at the first, confirmed to us by miracles: and that it was for this end, to confirm the gospel, read heb. 2.3, 4. how shall we escape if we neglect so great salvation, which at the first began to be spoken by the lord, and was confirmed to us by them that heard him? god also bearing them witness, both with signs and wonders, and with divers miracles, and gifts of the holy ghost, according to his own will. and this is such satisfaction to us, that it is the word of god, that we need not look for a new confirmation of it; but we have recourse to all the commandments and ordinances of christ as they are written; and read mark 16.17, 18, 19, 20. and you will find, those signs were only to confirm the word. but it lies upon you, farnworth, and all those that go about to destroy the holy scripture and ordinances thereof: i say, it lies upon you to show us such a confirmation of that which you bring, and then we may come to give more credit to your words. but for many of these questions, i do not look upon them worth answering. but one word to you of the church of christ: i pray you let us mind what israel did in the days of hezekiah: when liberty was proclaimed by the king, that the passeover should be kept at jerusalem; we find that the people did not look for a new confirmation, but they had a care to keep it in such sort as it was written. and we find, that by reason of wicked kings that was before, the practice of it was lost, in such sort as it is written, from the days of solomon to the reign of hezekiah, there was many years: during the reign of about fourteen kings, was, i say, this practice lost, as it is witnessed 2 chron. 30.5. compared with vers. 26. yet we find notwithstanding, what they had observed in the days of tyranny; yet i say when liberty was proclaimed, they had then a care to keep it in such sort as it was written, without looking for a new confirmation, it being before confirmed unto them. and see how this their practice pleased the lord, vers. 27. their voice was heard, and their prayer came up to heaven. o! may not we in these days, learn much from these words? have not we lived in the days passed under tyrants, and by their means the ordinances of christ as they were practised by him and his apostles, i say, by reason of former tyranny, it hath not been of a long time observed in such sort as christ hath commanded; but now hath the lord brought us to a day of liberty, and that by establishment. o then in the first place, let us give the lord praise, who hath dealt so bountifully with us, as to set us at liberty from so great oppressors. secondly, let us learn to keep the commandments and ordinances of christ according to his appointment. thirdly, let us be sure that we fight against false worships with spiritual weapons, and no other ways. fourthly, take heed of setting up yourselves or your own practices in the worshipping of god, to infringe the liberties of others; and for thy help herein, mind that sweet counsel of christ mat. 7.12. therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets. fifthly, labour to walk humbly before god, and thankfully to god continually, speaking well of his name: it is the only way to enjoy greater mercies from him. we of this nation have as great if not greater▪ cause of returning praise to the lord, than israel had. o that we could in the fear of the lord weigh our mercies with those spoken of by david, ps. 107. and we may say, that what the lord then did for israel, he hath now done for england. i desire the reader to weigh those words well, and we may plainly see that it is our duty to praise him for his goodness, and declare his wonderful works done in our days to the sons of men. o that we were wise to observe the deal of god, and his mercies bestowed upon us in this generation! sixthly, you that profess to know god and christ, of what rank or employment soever ye be, labour to be of a peaceable spirit, as much as in you lies, live peaceably with all men; for let me tell you, if any be otherways minded in thirsting after blood, such, i say, will be very unfit to follow christ at his coming, who is the prince of peace. and i pray you mind what paul saith, tit. 3.1, 2. put them in mind to be subject to principalities and powers, to obey magistrates, to be ready to every good work, to speak evil of no man, to be no brawlers, but gentle, showing meekness to all men. and again, consider what paul saith, rom. 13. when rulers are for the punishing of evil doers and for the praise of them that do well, then ought every one professing christ to be subject, not only for wrath, but also conscience sake. o what cause of rejoicing have the lord's people to see how time after time there is a generation of men laying out themselves to deprive the lord's people of this liberty, that we at this day enjoy! consider how the lord hath found out instruments all along to be as a wall between you and them. o praise the lord for such instruments. now in the next place, i shall give an answer briefly to that saying of paul, christ sent me not to baptise but to preach, 1 cor. 1.17. i answer briefly, first, it is clear that paul was an apostle of jesus christ, as is undeniable; if so, than he was as much concerned in the commission, mat. 28. 19 as any other: then mind those words, and you will find preaching and baptising joined together, and, paul commanded to preach the whole counsel of god: and this was one part of god's counsel, that believers should be baptised, as read acts 10.47, 48. secondly, if paul was fit to be employed in the greater, than i am sure this lesser is required. but he was employed in the greater, that is to say, to preach the gospel; then baptism, which is the lesser, is required of him, i say, by virtue of the commission, mat. 28.19. thirdly, mind the reason why paul speaks these words, christ sent me not to baptise, but to preach; because these corinthians were so ready to set up men, as you may see 1 epist. 12.13. paul tells them, is christ divided? was paul crucified for you? or, were ye baptised in the name of paul? and this was the reason why paul thanks god he baptised no more of them, lest any should say, that i had baptised in my own name. fourthly, if the words be honestly interpreted, they will hold out thus much, that preaching to the dark world that lieth in wickedness, is the great work; and so, such men as paul fit to be employed in it: and to baptise, that might be carried on with any other disciple that did accompany paul in this great work. fifthly, if you mind the greek notes on the margin of can's bibles, it is thus read, verse 14. i thank god that ye were baptised. and this is then plain, that paul was commanded that it should be preached and practised, and this is all the reason why paul thanks god that he did it not, lest any should say i did it in my own name. in the sixth place, consider that text, mat. 15.24. i am not sent, but to the lost sheep of the house of israel. and he commands his disciples, mat. 10. into any city of the samaritans enter not, but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of israel. now, i say, as the jews were christ's own and he came of that stock, he came first and chief to turn them from their iniquity, as paul's work was firstly and chief to preach the gospel, it being the great work; and that christ was first sent first to the jews, as paul was sent first to preach, is plain, acts 3.25, 26. that they might be blessed: unto you first, god having raised up his son, sent him to bless you, in turning every one of you from his iniquity. but christ is a light to the gentiles, though not there spoke of; for john saith, god so loved the world, mind, that he sent his son to them; and so was paul by virtue of christ's commission sent to baptise as well as preach: and you may as well say from that text, that christ was not sent to any but to the house of israel, as to say, paul was not sent to baptise: for if you say, paul saith so himself, who did well know his work, and how far his commission extended, so may the same be said, and more, of christ. and now man stop thy mouth for shame, and cease to cavil with scripture. and whereas these men accuse us for not using the term thee and thou to every man: and they say, that it is a sin to use any other term to a single person. to which i answer, first, as to the term, i could myself freely own it, as it is a proper speech to a single person: but for to say it is sin, without any breach of a law, i cannot believe it; for i will rather believe the words of paul, than any of these men: read rom. 4.15. where there is no law, there is no transgression. but it may be said, if we have any example, may not that bind us? answ. if in all ages we find the lord's people using this term, and they only, than it is granted, that we err in this thing. and for our clearer understanding herein, we will make search into the scripture; and if there we find the worst of men as frequent in using of it, as the best of men, than the example is not binding. before the flood, read gen. 4.14. where cain thoued god in these words, thou hast driven me out this day from the face of the earth. after the law was given, there we find in numb. 16.13, 14. they whom the earth opened its mouth and swallowed up, they used this term to moses. and so read saul and the witch, 1 sam. 28, 11, 12, 13 with dan. 3. where the chaldeans the enemy of god's people, used this term as well as god's people: so read matth. 4.6. the devil thoued christ; so persecutors used this term, acts 26.24, 25. where festus said, paul, thou art beside thyself, much learning doth make thee mad: so read mat. 8.29, where the devil said to christ, art thou come to torment us before the time? by all which i gather, that this term was generally used by all sorts of men without offence, as the term you and ye to a single person, without offence is nationally practised amongst us; but though these men censure us & all men that go not their way, yet let us take paul's advice, i cor. 10.32. give none offence neither to the jews, nor to the gentiles, nor to the church of god. but if we consider the way of these men, we may say as matthew witnesseth, chap. 23.24. they strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel. and if it should be granted that this should be, yet it will be much like the scribes and pharisees, ver. 23. of this chap. in their observing those small things, as the paying of mint, and rue, and annis; but they omitted the great things, as judgement, mercy and faith. and we will make search into thy ways, and you will be found a pharisee in all these; for as they spoke against the doctrine of christ, and what was then practised by him and his saints, so do you now judge us for following the holy commandments of christ; and as they pharisees then judged all that went not their way, so do you, calling all men dead and carnal, and in the serpent's nature, under what form soever that differs from you. secondly, as to mercy, you will be found not like those priests spoken of heb. 5.1, 2. for they were such as could have compassion on the ignorant, and on them that are out of the way: but where is this compassion amongst you towards them that go not your way? for you make it your work to turn men from the truth, as it is recorded, and so are pharisee-like, and without mercy towards them that differ from you, as these were. thirdly, as to faith, the pharisees they were enemies to the gospel's preaching by which faith comes, rom. 10.14, 15. and they looked for justification by the law, as you do now by following the imaginations of an evil heart; & as they spoke against the ordinances of christ then, so do you now. and why? i say, there is an evil heart in you, because i say many of you are now through unbelief departed from the pure way of the lord, which evil heart the church is advised to take heed of, heb. 3.12. or more briefly thus: the pharisees they boasted more of themselves then any other people, as you may see in luke 18.10, 11, 12. and all along in christ's progress they were his great enemies; and by their resting in the law, and speaking against the gospel, it is clear, they were corrupted in their judgement. and so are these men boasting of perfection more than any other people, as this book declares, and in their whole progress they make it their whole work to overthrow the rule of scripture and all the ordinances thereof, as they are recorded, and as christ hath commanded us to observe to the end of the world, and so set up themselves and their own fancies, as the pharisees did. secondly, as to mercy, this was far from the pharisees: read john 9.22. this they agreed of, that if any man did confess christ, he should be put of the out synagogue; implying, that such men were not fit to be communicated with; by which it is evident, that all mercy and pity to such as forsaked them to follow christ, was turned into hatred. and is not your mercy and pity turned into hatred towards all men that go not your way, but declare against it as they commanded, your mercy is turned into bitterness as appears by your words calling men devils, and saints deceivers, and the church of christ antichrist, and the gospel letter, and the ordinances carnal; and so by your words we may easily see what your hearts be full of; instead of mercy, malice; instead of pity, persecution; i mean, with the tongue, which is a weapon that strikes deep; and such hands i shall suspect, if they had power, because i cannot but see the heart filled with malice, by the filth that proceeds from their mouth: for see what matthew witnesses, chap. 12.33, to the 38. out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaketh. a good man out of the good treasure of his heart bringeth forth good things; but an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things. and if this be not evil, to say the scripture is of no use to bring men to christ; and, that christ hath not a visible church in the world; and, that all ordinances ceased when christ ascended: i say, it is evident, this poor man is such an enemy to himself in so speaking against the truth, that mercy and good fruit is i fear far from him. thirdly, as to faith, the pharisees must needs be far from it, because they were such enemies to the gospel's preaching, by which faith comes: and that they were so, read matth. 12.24. mark 8.31. acts 4.18. and by their putting the gospel far from them, they were in such a sad condition, that paul saith, they were broken off: and how? through unbelief: mind, and read rom. 11.20. and thus by putting away the gospels preaching, they were without faith; and so all they did in the worship of god was nothing worth. so you in denying that the gospel should be preached or heard to this end that men may believe in christ; i mean, the word of the holy scripture, you yourselves must needs be pharisee-like, far from faith; and so like them also in this, in hindering others as much as possibly you can. now as faith in christ is manifest in obedience to christ, so ought all men to take the scripture for their rule in faith and obedience, and to observe what christ hath in his word of truth commanded. then thou, farnworth, and all the rest that speak against the words of christ as they are recorded: are pharisee-like without faith also. and to that scripture, heb. 12.22, 23, 24. where the author tells the church of the hebrews, they are come to mount zion, and to the city of the living god, and to the heavenly jerusalem, etc. i say, the church of christ are so come to mount zion, as the church of the jews was come to mount sinai. now let us mind what the lord said to moses, exod. 19.2. and the lord called to him out of the mountain, saying, thus shalt thou say to the children of israel, ye have seen what i did unto the egyptians, and how i bore you on eagle's wings, and brought you unto myself: now therefore if you will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then see what the lord promised unto them, than ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people; for all the earth is mine: and ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests & an holy nation. these are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of israel. and compare this with deut. 4. at large: but mind vers. 2. ye shall not add to word which i command you, neither shall you diminish aught from it; but keep the commandments of the lord your god as i command you. and mind two great encouragements. the first is from vers. 7. what people is there that have god so nigh unto them, as he is to us, if we walk in obedience to him? secondly, he tells them, that all this law is righteous which he set before them, that so they, might be in love with it. and you may see in chap 5, and 6. how fully moses holds out the law to them; and they that were found abiding in it, and walking by the rules thereof, all those privileges and promises aforementioned they had an interest in: but those that turned aside from the holy commandments, as the lord had commanded by his servant moses, they, i say, were deprived of all those privileges and promises there spoken of; for with many of them god was not well pleased, for they were overthrown in the wilderness. and read psal. 106. and 1 cor. 10.5, to the 13. so, i say, to the best of my understanding is the church of christ come to mount zion, and it is clear, that christ is king there by the father's appointment, psal. 2. isaiah 9 rev. 15.3. and when christ came into his kingly office, he gave out ordinances for his church to continue in; and to such as are found doing his commandments, and continue therein, they, i say, and only they, are within the pale of all those privileges & promises that the scripture bears witness to, and declares of. now see acts 3.23. that soul that will not bear jesus christ, that soul shall be cut off. and this is the wind of the father, that his son we should hear in all things. and see what christ lays upon his church, mat. 28.20. by way of duty, that they are to observe all things whatsoever i have commanded you. and they that come up to him in obedience, they, i say, have an interest in all those privileges; and my reasons are these: reas. 1. grounded on vers. 25. having before held out the promises; now (saith be) see that ye refuse not him that speaketh: and then see how the holy ghost in minds the church what sad judgements befell them that refused him that spoke on earth, which words relate to the law given by moses: much more shall we not escape, if we turn away from him that speaketh from heaven: for john saith, the law came by moses, but grace and truth came by jesus christ, john 1.17. reas. 2. grounded on vers. 28. we receiving a kingdom which cannot be moved, let us have grace, that we may serve god acceptably, with reverence and godly fear. but now the question between farnworth and myself, was whether he was in the possession of these privileges he sa●● he was? but reader consider, i pray you weigh the words a little with what he hath before affirmed, and you will find he lies, and speaks not the truth. first, it is clear, that these promises are to a visible church, as the law was given to a visible church▪ then he denying a visible church, he cannot have any right to these promises as he is a visible man. secondly, if these hebrews had been in the possession of these things, that is to say, the new jerusalem, then for the holy ghost to have warned them to take heed of refusing him that spoke from heaven, had been in vain. thirdly, then they needed not that exhortation, to hold fast grace, as the margin reads it; vers. 28. that we may serve god acceptably; for that were fully done already if in the possession of it. fourthly, the scripture saith, all liars are without; then they are not possessed of this enjoyment: and that farnworth is a liar, is plain, else he would never say, that all ordinances ceased when christ ascended; and, that christ hath not a visible church: and see what liars shall be possessed of, rev. 21.8. they shall have their part in the lake that burneth with fire and brimstone for ever, which is the second death. fifthly, if they, and only they are blessed, that do his commandments, and they shall have right to the tree life, than there is nothing but curses, woes and misery to all them that make it their work to keep poor souls out of these promises, by persuading them to a slight esteem of the ordinances of christ. and here is the pride of these men discovered, that will boast of privileges before they have any right to them. in the next place, i shall speak a word of perfection. and this i say, that i own a perfection in christ to be attainable in this life, thus: that is to say, by believing in christ, and obedience to christ: add this james tells us, that abraham's faith wrought with his works: & by works was faith made perfect. and abraham believed god, and it was imputed to him for righteousness: and he was called the friend of god, jam. 2.22, 23. now i say, this faith that worketh by love, persuadeth that soul wherein it is, to yield obedience to christ; and god the father is fully satisfied with his son in the behalf of such a one. now i say, that such a one may slip through infirmity or neglect of duty to god: but see what john saith to such, 1 ep. 1.9. if we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to for give us our sins, & to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. and this is by jesus christ, whom god hath set forth to be a propitiati-through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of god. to declare, i say, at this time his righteousness, that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in jesus. and truly reader, for my part, i know no way to attain perfection, but by believing in christ, and yielding obedience to christ; and this i own: the gospel's preaching doth fully hold out the great love of the father in giving his son to die for us; which gospel being preached, is the means of faith, and is a perfect rule for all to walk by. but for a perfection in glory to be attained on this side the grave, this i utterly disown. as also what farnworth said to me at harliston, that the resurrection and eternal judgement was then past in him; i own not but disown; for i believe the resurrection of the dead, both of the just and of the unjust, as paul saith, act. 24.15. and now reader, you having a view of these men, that their principles are very unsound: and why? i say, these men, because what farnworth then affirmed, others of his company stood by to maintain. and in a few words, i shall give you briefly what one daniel bott a brother in the gospel, resident at a town near tamworth in warwickshire, who was once deluded by them, but now through mercy is brought back, to the joy of his heart, and rejoicing of the lord's people; and this i received from his own moth, that the said farnworth and others did press him to lay aside the form of scripture, and he would (they said) have visions and revelations immediately. now consider, reader, whither would they plunge a poor soul, if they can once bring him to slight that form of sound words, and that form of doctrine which was delivered unto us? and further, he saith to me, that he heard one george fox say these words: i am that eternal spirit that gave forth the scripture: and he told me, he did believe, that fox did think when he spoke this, that there was none present but these of his own judgement. and i assure the reader this, that i cannot gather that the said daniel doth speak any thing out of malice; for i judge the man, to the best of my understanding, one truly fearing god, and one that can say much of their delusions, and that they are false prophets, by their endeavouring to turn him from consenting to the wholesome words of christ, and that doctrine which is according to godliness. now reader, if thou dost throughly consider what is before laid down, that this farnworth did stand by to maintain, you may plainly see what spirit this poor man is possessed with; and if it be the work of the spirit of truth, to lead his into all truth, than this man is led by an evil spirit; and this appears in its operation; and by the evil fruit it brings forth, you may see what the tree is. and this is evil to say, that all that is gotten from the scripture, is but brain-knowledge, and a great deal of suchlike stuff he is filled with. if any man make search into them by questioning them, else let them alone in their road of speaking, and they will present a fair gloss before you. this i have experience of. and now reader to his principles, that he saith in the beginning of his book he owns, as worship in the spirit he owns he saith. ans. to this, if the way of worship that jesus christ hath commanded, and hath promised to be present with them that so worship him to the end of the world, be spiritual worship, which worship is plainly laid down in the scripture; then all that refuse to take the words of the gospel for their rule and direction in the worship of god, as thou farnworth dost say falsely, that say you own the worship in the spirit, but by your denying the rules you are pharisee-like, that say and do not. secondly, thou sayest, thou ownest the church of christ. answ. but here thou liest, in thy saying christ hath not a visible church, and so thou shutest thyself out both of church and ministry of christ by thy own grant, as being a visible man. thirdly, thou sayest, the teachings of christ thou ownest. and here thou speakest a lie also, as is evident by thy calling the ordinances carnal, which christ taught his disciples, mat. 28. mark 16. fourthly, thou sayest, thou ownest the baptism of christ. answ. but here thou liest also; for believers to be baptised is by christ's commandment, and he gave himself and example to us herein; and this thou callest an image and idol. fifthly, thou sayest, prayer in the spirit thou ownest. and reader mind, for this man to pray for himself, &c is perfect and freed from all acts of sin, and past the eternal judgement, as he saith; then i say, by this we may see, that prayer is useless as to himself; and for his prayer for me, i do not desire it, neither do i believe it is his judgement to pray for others, by his wicked censuring all men that go not his way. but this i further say, that by his fruit he brings forth it is made evident, that he is a stranger to the spirit of truth; for this spirit it leads into truth, than it doth not lead out of the truth; & i demand of thee farnworth where ever the spirit of truth did or doth contradict the written word. but to ask thee such a question, who art, as it is evident, possessed with a spirit of error, i do not look for satisfaction from thee. and now saints, you having briefly a discovery of this man's folly, let us labour to take solomon's counsel, prov. 23.4. cease from thy own wisdom: with prov. 3.1. my son, forget not my law, but let thy heart keep my commandments. vers. 5. trust in the lord with all thy heart, and lean not to thy own understanding. it is high time for the lords people to be continually upon their watch, now satan is thus transforming himself like an angel of light, that we be not overtaken with his devices; but this i hope, dear friends, you well know, that it becometh the lord's people to speak the things which become sound doctrine, that so we may stop the mouths of all our adversaries: for now is that day come that paul speaks of, 1 tim. 4.3 for the time will come when they will not endure wholesome or sound doctrine, but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears, and they shall turn away their ears from hearing the truth, than mind what such come to, they shall be turned unto fables. and it is the apostles counsel to the hebrews, chap. 3.1 2. take heed, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief in departing from the living god: and for your direction herein, mind vers. 13. but exhort one another daily, while it is called to day, lest any of you be hardened through the deceit fullness of sin. for, vers. 14. we are made partakers of christ: how? if (saith the apostle) we hold the beginning of our confidence steadfast unto the end. for as it is plainly laid down in this chapter. that the unbelieving israelites came short of temporal canaan; so without question will it be with all those now, that turn back from the holy commandments delivered unto them: for the just shall live: how? by faith; but if any man draws back: what follows? my soul shall have no pleasure in him. heb. 10.38. and he that once puts his hand to the lord's plough and looks back, is not fit for the kingdom of god. and it is worth the observing, how paul tells the romans, chap. 1. 16. i am not ashamed of the gospel of christ, for it is the power of god unto salvation: to whom? to every one that believeth: mind that, for therein is the righteousness of god revealed from faith; to faith, and (saith paul) as many as walk according to this rule, peace be unto them. and let us mind paul's counsel, rom. 14.19. let us therefore follow after the things that make for peace, and things where with one may edify another. and as paul advises the church, phil. 4.8. whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, & it there be any praise, think on these things: those things you have both learned and received and heard, and seen in me, do and the god of peace shall be with you. and as paul said to the church at his departure, act. 20.32. so i say to you, brethren, i commend you to god, and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up, and to give you an inheritance among all them that are sanctified. and to thou farnworth, and the rest that walk up and down and live idly without a calling, if you would observe the scripture for your rule, you would see what paul saith, 2 thess. 3.10. for even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work he should not eat. o see thy folly in going about to deceive, which thou art not called to by god nor man according to the rule: and what would be the condition of all people in our nation, if this were generally practised? certain considerations and queries. dear brother in the lord, our near relation that we have one to another in the bonds of the gospel, doth engage me to manifest my unfeigned love unto christ and unto thee, in answering thy desires in propounding some queries, by which we may examine and try the spirits of these men, who say they are jews and are not, that so they may be found liars, and their falsehood and folly may be made manifest, and all that yet fear the lord may beware of giving heed to their cunning-devised fables, lest they be led away with the error of the wicked, and so fall from their own steadfastness: and to that end, my desire is, that they will consider their cunning craftiness, wherewith they lie in wait to deceive, by handling the word of god deceitfully; sometimes denying it to be of any authority at all, and sometimes confessing it to be indeed a declaration of the mind of god, but nothing comparable to that light which is within them; yet other times they will make use of it for their own ends, that so they may (as paul saith) by good words and fair speeches, deceive the hearts of the simple. and therefore, that their snares may be broken, and poor souls delivered; i shall commit certain things in the first place to their considerations, who desire to escape the error of the wicked, and to attain to the resurrection of the just, by patiented continuing in well doing, waiting for the appearance of christ. consid. 1. the words of paul, 2 cor. 11.13, 14, 15. that such are false apostles, deceitful workers transforming themselves into the apostles of christ; (and no marvel) for the devil himself is transformed into an angel of light, therefore it is no great thing, if his ministers be transformed into the ministers of righteousness, whose end shall be according to their works. and that this is so, consid. 2. that all the false prophets that came to deceive, did always preach their lies in the name of the lord; saying, thus saith the lord, when the lord had not spoken: and thus they covered their deceits over with the name of the lord, and by that means led people away from the word of god, to walk after the imaginations of their own hearts, or light within them, and to despise the word of the lord, even as these people do: see jer. 23.16, 17. consid. 3. that this is also the work of deceivers now under the gospel, to prophesy in the name of christ, yea, and to do wonderful works in his name, and yet christ bids them departed from him, for they were workers of iniquity, and he knew them not: see matth. 7.22, 23. consid. 4. that all those that teach in the name of christ, are commanded to preach the word of god and christ, even the holy scriptures, which are able to make us wise unto salvation; and if any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our lord jesus christ, and the doctrine which is according to godliness, is he proud, or a fool, knowing nothing: see 1 tim. 6.3, 4.2 tim. 3.15, 16, 17. ch. 4. 1, 2 3. consid. 5. that when paul left the church in a dangerous condition, because of deceivers that he knew would come after his departure, he did not commit them to the light within them, to be guided by that, but unto god, and to the word of his grace, saying, that was able to build them up, and to give them an inheritance amongst them that are sanctified: see acts 20.32. consid. 6. that when christ had to deal with those that boasted of the light within them▪ he answered, that if the light within them were darkness, how great was that darkness? from whence we may observe, that those that pretend to walk by the light within them, were in the greatest darkness, according to the words of christ: see mat. 6.22, 23. consid. 7. that god hath sent forth his light and truth into the world, to lead and guide men to his holy hill, and to his tabernacles; and that the light which he hath sent forth is his word and commandments: thy word is a lamp to my feet, and a light to my path. psal. 119.105. and the commandment is a lamp, and the law is light, and reproofs is the way of life, prov. 6.23. by all which it is clear, that the light which is in a man, is not able to lead a man to happiness; but the word and commandment of the lord is able to save our souls if we receive it with meekness, james 1.21. consid. 8. that the commandments of the lord are pure enlightening the eyes; and the entrance of his words give light and understanding to the simple, psal. 19.8. psal. 119.130. therefore let us, to the law and to the testimony; and if any man speak not according to that, it is, because there is no light in them, isa. 8.20. consid. 9 that none of the true prophets of the lord that ever came after god had given forth his law and testimonies by moses, did ever open their mouths against it, to undervalue it, or turn people's hearts away from it, to despise it, and to walk after the imaginations of their own hearts and light within them, as these people now, do. consid. 10. that it was the eminent work and evident mark of the false prophets so to do; for which cause the curse came upon them, and all the people that followed their pernicious ways. consid. 11. that all those teachers now, that come after god hath given forth the gospel of grace and peace by jesus christ, and do labour to turn people's hearts from the pure commandments thereof, by despising and undervaluing it, by calling it ink and paper, and a dead letter, are false apostles and deceitful workers, although transformed into ministers of righteousness, as the devil himself is transformed into an angel of light; which the apostle paul, gal. 1.8, 6. saith, are accursed. consid. 12. that all those teachers that come from christ, which contend earnestly for the faith once dlivered to the saints, and do preach the wholesome words of our lord and saviour, and labour to persuade people to hear his say and do them▪ and to walk in all his holy commandments and ordinances; they are that true and faithful servants of jesus christ, the children of god, and the seed of the woman that the dragon was wroth with, and made war against, because they keep the commandments of god, and have the testimony of jesus, rev. 12.17. now i shall propound certain queries, with a desire of an answer. 1. whether the light that is in any man, if it be of god, doth not lead him to his law and testimony, and not from it as some affirm? see isa. 8.20. 2. whether these men that despise and undervalue the holy scriptures (preferring the light that is within themselves, above and before the scriptures,) whether, i say, we may not justly conclude, that their light within them is darkness, and then, how great is that darkness? for if they speak not according to this word, it is, because there is no light in them? see matth. 6.23. compared with isa. 8.20. 3. what true light, which is of god, is there in any man, that the holy scriptures doth not speak, and declare according to psa. 119.130. the entrance of thy words giveth light, and giveth understanding to the simple? see also vers. 105. with psal. 19.8. prov. 6.23. 4. what doth that light that is in any man teach him that is good, more than the holy scriptures teacheth him? see psal. 110.96. i have seen an end of all perfection; but thy commandment is exceeding broad. now if an end of all perfection, than an end of that light that these men pretend to have in them; but no end of god's precepts, for they are exceeding broad. 5. what evil doth that light, which is in any man, reprove and forbidden him to do, that the holy scriptures doth not reprove and forbid? according to 2 tim. 3.16, 17. it is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness; that the man of god may be perfect, and throughly furnished unto good works. 6. whether was there not a greater light in the lord christ, then ever was in any man else, or ever shall be? according to these scriptures, john 1.9. chap. 8.12. 7. whether did he not declare it, and make it manifest to the sons of men, both by his words and actions, more than ever any man else could do? according to these scriptures, joh. 12.49, 50. whatsoever i speak therefore, even as the father said unto me, so speak i: and, as the father gave me commandment, even so do i, chap. 14.31. again, all things that i have heard of my father, i have made known unto you, chap. 15.15. 8. whether did not the apostles of the lord declare and testify the same things to others, that they heard, and saw, and learned of him? according to these scriptures, 1 john 1.3. that which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled of the word of life: that which we have seen and heard, declare we unto you: and acts 20.27. paul saith, he had not shunned to declare unto them all the counsel of god. 9 whether we came to know any of these things that christ or his disciples did, or, whether we can know them, but by the holy scriptures: or, how can we know, that either christ or his disciples were ever in the world, but by the holy scriptures? consider and judge. if these things be so, 10. then whether is there not a greater light shining to us in the face of jesus christ, through the new testament, which he hath sealed with his own blood, than we can possibly expect to come from the heart or brain of any man now living or to live until christ himself shall again appear? 11. if a greater light now shineth through christ by the new testament then ever hath, or by men or angels can shine to the sons of men; then whether is it not folly and madness for any man now to refuse this light of the glorious gospel of jesus christ, to walk by the light and dictates of his own heart, which is deceitful and desperately wicked, who can know it? jer. 17.9. even as a man should light a candle to walk by, when the sun shineth in his full strength. 12. whether may we not now, according to paul's directions, gal. 1.8, 9 account all men or angels accursed, that refuse the light of the glorious gospel thus shining unto us, and choosing rather to walk by another, that is to say, by the light within them? lastly, if the spirit of truth, when it cometh into a soul, shall lead him into all truth; then whether may we not safely conclude, that they have none of the spirit of god, which err from the truth of the gospel as it was once delivered to the saints, and under value those words of christ, which himself (who had the spirit without measure) said, they are spirit and they are life: and if they were not so to any man, it was because they believed not, john 6.63, 64. for how can we know, that the dead shall rise and come to judgements, but by the holy scriptures of truth? this much by henry haggar, a servant of the lord jesus christ, and the congregations of his saints: with a desire of an answer by any who will, or can. postscript. although there is much spoken in the former part of the book in answer to the vain conceit & impudedent practice of these foolish men, in using the term thee and thou to all single persons whatsoever, by which they break the commandment of the lord, which is, that we give no offence to jew, nor gentile, nor to the church of god: therefore i thought it fit to put down these following lines, to make their folly manifest. first, they affirm, that the word thee and thou is only proper to a single person, and none else; in which they belie the scriptures, and deceive themselves and others, as appeareth, thus: deut. 25.17, 18. remember what amalek did unto thee, how he met thee by the way, and smote the hindmost of thee, when thou wast faint and weary, etc. thus you see plainly the word thee & thou, is as well proper to thousands, as to a single person: see also 27.9, 10. secondly, that the word or term you was used by christ, and that to a single person, is evident, luk. 22.31. where christ saith, simon, simon, behold, satan hath desired to have you, that he might sift you as wheat; but i have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not. here we see, that the lord christ used the word you, as well as the word thee, to a single person: by all which it is evident, that it is no sin, nor yet an improper speech, and therefore the people of god may and aught to use it upon occasion: and they which do affirm it to be a sin, do blasphemously conclude, that christ was a sinner. and thus is their folly made manifest. henry haggar. finis. a sober answer, to an angry pamphlet: or, animadversions, by way of reply, to robert barclays late book (entitled, truth cleared of calumnies) in answer to a dialogue between a quaker and a stable christian. by william mitchell. matth. 24.24. for there shall arise false christ's, and false prophets, and shall show great signs and wonders: insomuch that (if it were possible) they shall deceive the very elect, 2. pet. 3.17. ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own steadfastness. aberdene, printed by john forbes, an. 1671 an epistle to robert barclay, which may serve for an admonition to the quakers in and about aberdene. sir, i have considered the preface prefixed to your book, wherein you give an account of the rise of quakerism in this place (under the notion of the lords raising up the witnesses of this day) and the opposition it met with. and first, it is alleged that your supposed witnesses (and yet real enough in bearing testimony against the truth) were reproached as demented distracted and bodily possessed. sir, did you ever hear any speak (in this place) thus of quakers? or rather, are you not too apt to take things upon trust; without weighing what truth or falsehood may be in a report? yet it is not to be thought strange, though quakers had been charged with all this: when as men of faith, credit, and eminent piety, (in our neighbour nation) have testified of their extraordinary quaking, going naked in the streets, (even the women of them) and some pretending to a power of raising the dead: and for this end taking them out of their graves, calling them by name to arise and walk; but their ineffectual attempts of this kind, made them to return covered with confusion and shame, and yet as much hardened in their delusions as ever! see sam clarks mirror, pag. 259. 262. 263. 267. see the perfect pharisee, published by the ministers of newcastle pag 41. 48. see pagits heresiography pag. 250. 257. secondly you say they were called nothing better than john of leyden, and his complices. sir, i hope you are not ignorant that john of leyden, and those that followed him, were much led by revelations and delivered their doctrines, as being moved of god; and that with as much confidence as any of you pretend unto: and at first they spoke against bearing arms and would not suffer a man to wear a ring, nor a woman a silken gown: they made a great show of humility, and their ordinary communication was about mortification. but what their after carriage was, we are sufficiently informed by those that have written of their principles; and of their practices, see pagits heresiography, pag. 13. thirdly, you speak of some serious and sober professors in and about aberdene, who (in the year 1663.) began to find the savour of that life, in the testimony of that so much reproached people, which some years before had stirred in others. sir, that people whom you call so much reproached, have with very much bitterness reproached others: and cast as much obloquy upon the best persons that have differed from them as ever a generation of men did: are not their opprobrious terms so far from any good savour, that they rather savour of a spirit of rancour, and bewray a root of bitterness to be within? and let not quakers think to shelter themselves under the practice of christ and his apostles, who were wont to speak of pharisees, and other open enemies of the gospel: as being a viperous generation, children of hell and of the devil; now let us search the records of scripture, and (as i suppose) it will not be found that christ and his apostles carried thus: to those that professed subjection to the gospel, and owned christ to be the messiah, showing earnestness of desire, that souls might be saved: being willing to take any course for promoting and furthering this great and glorious design. and sir, because you speak of professors who had found that savour of life in the testimony of quakers, which before had stirred in others: it is probable you will not take it well, to say, that those others were ignatius loyola and his followers; and yet in very deed, the quakers carriage is very like unto theirs: which doctor stillingfleet (in his late book of the idolatry of the church of rome) notably demonstrats; there he tells of a sect in spain called alumbrado s, or the illuminati: this sect under a pretence of mental prayer, divine contemplation, and union with god, they despised sacraments and religious exercises. of this sect ignatius loyola, the father of the jesuits, was vehemently suspect to be. those of his own order who have write his life (maffeius, orlandinus) say; first, that it was his custom not to give men any titles of respect, but to call them by their common names, and resolved he would not break this custom: because to do it; proceeded from too great fear of men. secondly, he preached in an enthusiastical manner, going up and down the streets: preaching to all persons, and to all sorts of men; and being examined, confessed he was unlearned. thirdly, when afterwards he was committed to prison, he preached to people with great zeal, and they gloried much in his sufferings: and the rest of the prisoners making their escape by the negligence of the keepers, ignatius and his adherents would not stir. fourthly, being to form a society, he had for that purpose used himself to all the arts of insinuation imaginable▪ obliging men with expressions of the greatest kindness, bearing all affronts with wonderful dissimulation. fifthly, having gotten persons to be of his mind, he used all means to prevent any difference hapening among them. sixthly, they preach in the streets and market places; and invited people to hear him: and no doubt (saith my learned author) he converted many from the use of laces and ribbons and saith he, i know not whether any of the innocent & religious order of the jesuits had any hand of forming this new society among us (as hath been frequently suggested) but if one may guests the father by the child's likeness, ignatius loyola the founder of the jesuits, was at least the grandfather of the quakers. see these things at length, in the above mentioned treatise, pag. 305. 313. 314. 315. 316. 317. 320. 321. 324. 325. moreover sir, if you would have others to savour and relish life in your testimony, ye must study more self-denial, and show forth first, less pride, be not too big in your own conceit, consider isaiah, 65.5. even be content with burying places, that better than yourselves do lie in; and do not separate from us as children of heth: this is intolerable sauciness. secondly, show forth less passion and anger, the scripture saith the man of god must be gentle and meek, 2. tim. 2.25. reviling doth better become shimei's then saints. thirdly; show forth less censoriousness, do not say that men (who can manifest their spiritual descent from christ upon as sure grounds, if not surer grounds, than any quaker) are smothering and resisting the light, because (forsooth) they will not dance after your pipe. fourthly, show forth less folly: it would be your wisdom to be well acquainted with your own hearts, and not to pretend so much to the knowledge of other men's hearts; when as it may be, ye know not their names. fifthly; show forth less contrariety in your doctrines to the good and holy word of god. set not yourselves against the ordinances of christ, and justification by his imputed righteousness. sixthly, show forth less ignorance, as to the nature of true conversion: crying out against forms, and wearing of ribbons, speaking thou and thee, and keeping on the hat, condemning all that are not of your gang, saying, ye were never well till now, (which is a great part of the religion of many of your proselytes) will never prove you nor them to be true converts. seventhly, show forth less endeavours for promoting the popish interest, if ye were under their hire, ye could not advance their interest more, then by decrying our ministry and churches: when once ye have persuaded people to the belief of this, than they are fit matter for priests to work upon: and they cannot but thank you, for doing their work to their hands. sir, if you listen not to my advice, yet i have followed my light in tendering it unto you. sir, in the close of your preface, you fall foul upon the author of the dialogue as having deceitfully misrepresented the quakers, which is a crime he is not sensible of: for his design in the dialogue, was not to tell the world all the scriptures which the quakers abuse; but only to give a true information of the grossest of their opinions, (and briefly to answer some of their arguments, and to lay down scripture grounds for instructing the ignorant, and confirming the weak in the truth) which he was in some capacity to do, having exchanged several papers with quakers: and would have continued in replying to their papers; but that he was told, it would prove no better, than (according to the proverb) lies ptolemaica, that is, a long and constant strife: quakers (as he heard) being like some froward and scolding women, who will be sure to have the last word: and indeed after this, he is resolved to let mr. barclay have it. some are of opinion that quakers are of their nature, who are best appeased by neglect; and soon quieted by silence: and yet a total neglect of them (though they be contemptible in the eyes of many) may make them formidable. sir, it is altogether unnecessary to be at pains in ripping up your wild comparisons, it were easy to be sharp in reflections; but these things can neither commend to god, nor good men: and therefore desiring you, and your brethren would allow some time for reading this my answer: (which was in readiness divers months ago; but a convenient opportunity was wanting to publish it till now) i take my leave, wishing the lord the great and mighty god to extend his power and mercy for your recovery: and that he would reclaim you according to the working whereby he is able to subdue all to himself. philipp. 3● 21. w. m. the epistle to the reader. christian reader. if a person who (really) affects retirement, hath adventured thus to appear in public (when hereby he brings himself under the lash of the censures of many, which otherwise he might escape) his plea is, that truth (even the least grain of truth) is so choice, and precious: that it calls to the denial of these things which would stand in the way, and hinder an undertaking of the defence of it. if it be said, that an abler hand had been meeter for a work of this importance: the authors apology is, that what is done, needs be no impediment to others; but rather a provocation of them to appear for the interest of truth which is so much trampled upon: in the mean time let none find fault with the author for doing that, which in other cases passeth for good service: when a house is on fire, he that brings water to quench it, though (it may be) he contribute but a little help; yet he is not blamed but encouraged. now the flame of error has more danger in it, than a flame of fire: and therefore an endeavour to quench it, cannot be justly censured. in case the author be twitted with this, that he has done nothing, but what was done before: his answer is, that if the adversaries of truth, have been at paine● to pluck out of the dunghill of heresy old errors, and to send them abroad in a new dress: then the author should not be quarrelled with; for making use of these weapons, by which heretofore good old truths have been defended: and he further saith, that popery from the mouth of a quaker will be swallowed down by some (as glorious discoveries) who yet would not listen to a popish priest speaking the same things? and therefore the author thinks that it may be good service to well meaning people, to take off the quakers arguments, by the same answers which proestants have used against papists: that so it may appear, that quakers and papists are sailing in one boat, though their faces look several ways; but not willing to detain the reader any longer, from perusing the following treatise: which that it may be blessed for reducing the misled, and establishing those that yet stand, is, and shall be the earnest desire of him, who is thy servant for christ's sake. william mitchell. good reader. be pleased to do me that favour, as to correct with thy pen these following mistakes. page 16. line 20 read incolis. p. 27. l. 15. r. have not always many. p. 52. l. 4. r. which is said to be more. p. 53. l. 1. r. causa infirma. epist. p. 1 l. 1. r. reproach, for reroach. p. 16. l. 20. r. it's rightly translated, p. 54. l. 17. r. now in that he saith p. 94. l. 23. r. repeal. reader, there are divers othter literal escapes, but seeing they do not obscure the sense, it's expected thou wilt in charity cover them: if any thing in the book seem dark, i desire thou wouldst look into the dialogue, to which the book hath reference: and by that means, thou mayest get some clearness. some animadvertions, by way of reply, to a book entitled, truth cleared of calumnies. i. head. wherein the lawfulness of salutations is justified. sect. i. concerning salutations by gestures. the author. having (after the quaker-rate) saluted me with reproaches, than page 10. 11. he telleth us that quakers dearly own salutations, warranted by the scriptures, such as christ commanded, and the saints practised, but the salutations that are amongst us, he calleth corrupt and idolatrous; and instanceth in bowing the body, and uncovering the head: the reason alleged to prove this to be idolatry, is, because these things are the signification of our worship to god, and what is religious worship but that which is given to god? answer, it is true, religious worship is given to god, and its that which is peculiar to god, and due to him alone, and giving to the creature, what is thus pecular to god? is idolatry, but bowing of the body and uncovering of the head is not of this nature. and therefore, worship is to be distinguished, it is either civil or sacred, (this distinction is founded on scripture, of civil-worship we read, luke 14.10 then shalt thou have worship in the presence of them that sit at meat with thee: we read of sacred religious worship; matth. 4.10. thou shalt worship the lord thy god, and him only shalt thou serve.) civil worship proceedeth from a reverencing of men, for their stations, relations, or some notable qualifications, and this kind of worship, hath been given and received by the holiest of saints, (neither is it any where forbidden in scripture) and so joseph upon his approach to his father jacob, he bowed himself with his face to the ground, genesis 48.12. abraham and lot bowed themselves to the angels, (supposing them to be men) genes. 18.3. and 19.2. compared with heb. 13 2. and the angels accepted this worship without any reproof of them for it; yea, abraham bowed himself twice before the people of the land, gen. 23.7.12. and though every practice of abraham is not to be so lowed, yet these practices which are not condemned in scripture, neither by repehension or prohibition, why should we be blaimed for an imitation of the saints in them? seeing we mantain sacred, religious worship to be due, only to god, and his glory must not be given to another as the papists give to their images, of which one of themselves affirms, that it is the constant opinion of their divines, that the image is to be honoured and worshipped with the same honour and worship which is given to him, whose image it is. none can say, (unless they will be peevish and perverse) that we bow to men, to worship god, in and by them. it is known that the papists speak of two kinds of religious worship, namely, absolute, which they give to god, or the saints, and relative, which they give to their images, and therefore papists have no advantage, as to their idolatrous worshipping of images, from our allowable practice of bowing to men, thereby to testify a mere civil respect to them. the gentleman disputeth against bowing of the body as idolatry, but he seemeth to justify moses his doing obeisance to his father in law; and yet what is obeisance, but civil reverence by bowing the body, in token of that regard which we own to some person of note? sect. ii. concerning salutations by words. and as salutations by gestures are warranted by the scriptures, so likewise are salutations by words, ruth 2. 4. and behold boas came from bethlehem, and said unto the reapers the lord be with you, and they answered him the lord bless thee. and that command of christ's, (matth. 10.5. when ye come into an house salute it; it's explained by the evangelist luke, chapter 10. verse 5. and into whatsoever house ye enter, first say, peace be to this house. now it's known that the jews in their ordinary salutations and greetings, when they wished all happiness unto one another, they expressed it thus, peace be to you: and from this, i infer that bowing of the body, and expressing our affections by words, comprehending desires and good wishes, (though persons be not friends, but foes, matth. 5.47.) is agreeable to scripture, and the practice of renowned saints. as for taking of the hat, seeing it is not manifest from scripture, that the saints did wear hats, (the word so rendered dan. 3.21. is varied on the margin turbans, which were head-garments peculiar to those eastern countries) it is no wonder that we do not read of their putting them off, and yet this being one harmless way, whereby we express outward honour to those to whom it is due, why should it be quarrelled against? we must not think it enough to give superiors inward honour, the scripture also calleth for outward honour, levit. 19.32. thou shalt rise up before the hoary head, and honour the face of the old man. sect. iii. containing an answer to the quakers objection. he saith, it's strange that we should say (considering our principles) the kingdom of god consisteth not in words, for what is our preaching, and the scripture itself, and the very gospel according to us, but a company of words. answer. truly by the scriptures we mean nothing else, but that heavenly doctrine, those divine instructions, or revelation of the mind and will of god, which the lord excited and moved holy men of old, to speak and write for the good of his church and people, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (or the gospel) according to us, is the doctrine of christ, (the good news and joyful tidings of salvation by him to poor sinners) contained in the scriptures; and the preaching of this gospel hath been found the power of god to the salvation of many a soul, rom. 1.16. now if quakers be for another gospel, than they may justly be reputed subverters of the christian religion, and enemies to the cross of christ, and therefore liable to that curse which is threatened gal. 1.8. and likewise know, that we use to distinguish between the subject matter of the scripture, or the doctrine which it contains, and the words or writings containing, or expressing this doctrine, the one is as the blood, the other as the veins in which it runneth. ii. head. wherein is warranted our way of speaking, in opposition to the quakers thou and thee. page 12. he findeth fault with me for saying, that to whom the singular number is agreeable, the plural may be applied without making a lie, and saith the proofs alleged, evince nothing in this matter. answer. though that place luke 22.31. be not understood of one, exclusively of others, yet christ there directeth his speech only to one, (viz. peter) and he saith not (after the quakers way) satan hath desired to have thee and you, that he might sift thee and you, but behold satan hath desired to have you, and to sift you as wheat. it is plain that the third epistle of john, is directed to a single person, verse 1. the elder unto the well beloved gaius whom i love in the truth, and yet verse 12. the apostle saith, ye know that our report is true. job. 18.2. there bildad speaking to job, saith, how long will it be ere you make an end of words? i am of that mind, that if our translators had translated attah, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, not according to the rigour of construction, but as use hath made the propriety of our language, that then the quakers would have kept their old tone, and said you instead of thou. but if men will needs make a contentious bustle about words, then let them read and ponder 1. tim. 6.4. he is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, rail, evil surmisings. iii. head. showing that the quakers departure from us, is not to be justified by our departing from papists. he confesseth that when they walked with us, the lord begat a measure of honesty and integrity in divers of them, turning the bent of their hearts towards him. answer. by what means was this honesty and integrity of heart wrought in them? was it not in the use of these very ordinances which now they cry down, their consciences cannot but force some of them to an acknowledgement of this? now when the lord first wrought this integrity in them; what was it that he countenanced for begetting of it? it could not be any antecedaneous measure of integrity, for they had not integrity before it was wrought, and therefore doubtless god hath regaird to his own appointments, blessing and making them effectual. may not some of the quakers remember that (even in their walk with us) by such a sermon, and the opening of such a scripture, the bent of their hearts, was drawn heaven-wards and god wards? which though they should refuse, yet there are many living witness who have found this effect of preaching, and do remember it, to their unspeakable comfort. he addeth page 13. that the lord visited some while they lived among papists, and at times refreshed them. ans. the question is whether these persons were visited in a way of conversion, by popish inventions and traditions? among papists themselves the scriptures are to be found, and god hath blessed to some (in times of popery) the reading of the scriptures, for their reformation, and illumination in the knowledge of the truth. when luther betook himself to the augustine monks college, there he met with a copy of the latin bible, which he read with great attention and admiration; and thereafter spent his time in searching the prophetical and apostolical writings, seeking thence to inform himself in the knowledge of god's mind and will. it is known that in the darkest times of popery, the lord wanted not his witnesses, who stood up in defence of the truth, whom the papists (when they could get their hands on them) cruelly butchered and murdered, and the labour of these servants of god was nor in vain, but attended with great success. now it remaineth for him to prove that such as were converted among papists, were converted by popery, that is by their invented corruptions. and yet if the primest of quakers were ever savingly wrought upon (as i cannot but think, thus it is with some of them) the work was begun by the lord's blessing, and countenancing these selfsame ordinances, which they reject as our traditions. he thinketh it meet to pass by that objection (calling it weak) from solomon's sacrificing at gibeon. answer. no wonder if it be weak, coming from a feeble person, and yet an apostle among the quakers, namely, p. l. in a letter of his (which no doubt he will justify as the immediate endytment of the spirit of god) to the people of aberdene. iv head. concerning the light, and their union with christ, that have saving grace and light in them. he quarrels at me for calling the light in us, our light. ans. though it be efficiently and originally the light of christ, yet is it nor subjectively ours: is it disingenuity, to say, that we are the persons in whom this light is? he saith page 14. 15. that sometimes the being of christ in men, signifieth the existence of christ in them to prepare for union with him and that christ must needs be in men, before thy have union with christ. ans. we grant that christ may be and is in men in respect of his general presence, and as to common operations before they be in union with him; but it is incumbent for him to prove, that chrst is in men as to saving grace and light, (which is the quakers principle) and that men who are thus savingly enlightened are without union to christ. as for those spoken of john 1.5.10. (the other scriptures shall afterwards be examined) in that they knew not christ, this showeth that saving grace was not their privilege: the scripture abundantly testifieth, that persons truly gracious and savingly enlightened, are in a state of union with christ; and therefore christ is said to be in them, rom. 8.10. to dwell in them, 2. cor. 6.16. and they are said to abide in christ. 1. john 4.16. and to dwell in him, joh. 6.56. all which expressions clearly import an union between christ and those that have saving grace and light in them. he subjoineth if it be thought strange that christ should be in the heathen, and they not know him. was it not as strange, that he should be among the jews who had the letter that did bear a testimony of him, and they not know him? answer. it is not so much for men to have the scriptures among them, and miracles wrought before them, as to have saving light and grace in them, though some that enjoyed the former, did sadly mistake christ, yet such as had christ in them, by his saving light, they cordially owned christ, and had the mysteries of his incarnation, passion, and resurrection revealed to them; see joh. 1.14. act. 1 3. page 16. he saith christ doth reveal himself in some measure unto all, in whom he bears witness against iniquity. answer. if it be a revelation of christ to persons in that they have a testimony in them against sin, than we must yield that the americans have christ revealed to them: yea more, the very devils have this revelation of christ, for they have that in them, which witnesseth against iniquity and sin: and therefore notwithstanding all the quakers plead for heathens (as having saving light in them) he doth them but small favour, in putting them in the same case with devils. sect. i. the danger of asserting saving and sufficient light to be in all. he calleth it difingenuity for saying, that the opinion of all men's having sufficient light in them tendeth to put christians in the same condition with pagans. ans. this doctrine of saving sufficient light in all, naturally tends to it, for if pagans have saving light, their state should be as safe as the state of of real christians. where saving illumination is, there is also saving faith, there being a concatination between these graces of the spirit. that scripture, while ye have the light, believe in the light, is understood of the person of christ, joh. 8.12. joh. 12.46. which the jews than had among them, and not of subjective inherent light, wrought in the soul by christ, for this being a created thing is not to be believed in. if the pagan's light be sufficient, then there is no spiritual benefit (let the quaker call it as he will, whether the raising of the seed in them, or refreshing of them, the seed being raised) necessary to salvation, that accrues to christians by the scriptures and the gospel, but pagans may have the same by their light, else their light is not sufficient. now is not the tendency of this opinion to make the gospel a vain and needless thing, and men's labour in preaching the gospel, wholly unnecessary? yea, it tends to make men impiously proud, as if they needed not to be beholden to god for more light; and therefore if any of the quakers judgdement, had been overhearing david, when be prayed, open mine eyes, that i may understand the wonderful things of the law, give me understanding that i may keep thy precepts. they might have been bold to correct david, saying look to the light within thee, (that's sufficient) what needest thou pray for more? whereas he saith, page 17. that men are said to be brutish in their knowledge and to have no understanding, because they turn their backs upon the light, and will not follow it. answer. this is but petitio principis, a begging of the question, (which yet must not be given upon alms, without solid proof) taking it for granted, that persons who are brutish in their knowledge, having no understanding, yet have saving light in them which they refuse to follow. before the quaker speak of men's being in darkness, because of their opposition to the light; it would concern him first to prove, that the wicked who in scripture, are called darkness, have saving grace and light in them. can dead men have this saving light? and is not every man by nature spiritually dead? ephes. 2.1. to assert that persons spiritually dead, have saving grace and light in them, looks like a contradiction, for than they should be spiritually dead, and not spiritually dead: and though according to scripture they be children of darkness, yet according to quakers they should be children of light; for to be a child of light, is as much as to be one in whom there is saving grace and light, sufficient to guide him to please god, luk. 16.8. if it may well be supposed (as he saith) that the light in some is darkness, than the quaker would do well in exhorting his disciples, to bid them take heed of their light, (and not to it.) this was christ's way of exhortation, luke 11.35. and as i remember that phrase, take heed to the light of god within (which is so common among quakers) is not to be found in all the scripture. neither can saving light, which is from christ in any sense be called darkness, as the quaker insinuateth, calling it darkness to them that reject it, in that it giveth them not comfort and joy, etc. we own that a disconsolate state wherein men walk without comfort, is called darkness, but this name is not where given to christ's saving light, which he setteh up in the soul; and though comfort and joy, be the result of the souls assurance and confidence of being in a state of light; yet this joy and comfort is not the proper effect of that light (which proceedeth from christ) but of that lord who gave the light, who is therefore styled the god of all comfort, 2. cor. 1.4. he denyeth, that having of saving light and grace presupposes conversion, which he illustrateth by the similitude of a wound and plaster, the being healed of a wound presupposes the plaster, but the application of the plaster presupposeth not the being healed. ans. what is this to the purpose? for when a man has saving light & grace, he is in part healed, cured of the dominion and reigning power of sin: and this supposeth an application of healing grace, which is conveyed into the soul, by the converting and sanctifying power of the spirit of god, and to make a difference between having of saving grace, and being in a state of grace, is but the figment of the quakers own brain. it's true, the wicked do not stand in grace; for how can they stand in that which they have not? he addeth page 18. that there may be a sufficient light in men, who may be said after a certain manner not to have the spirit; as wicked persons have not the spirit, bringing forth the fruits thereof in them, to wit, love, meekness, goodness, faith, etc. answer. can that person be said to have sufficient light, who is destitute of goodness, and wants faith which units to christ, in whom the christians strength and sufficiency lies? philp. 4.13. and without whom we can do nothing, joh. 15.5. besides having the spirit, implies the souls receiving of the spirit, and this phrase notes the implantation of the graces of the spirit in the soul, at its conversion and regeneration. where the spirit of the lord is, there is liberty, 2. cor. 3.17. this spirit is a spirit of faith, 2. cor. 4.13. and though the spirit reprove and convince the wicked, and by his motions call upon them, and strive with them, yet it will not follow, that they have sufficient light, or saving light; for men may have reproofs, strive, convictions, that are far from saving grace: and unless the quaker can make out that the spirit calls upon every man, and strives with every man, in order to his conversion, than he cannot conclude that all have the spirit, (even according to his own notion of men's having the spirit) and if all have not the spirit, than all have not sufficient light, as for that place joh. 16.8. it rests for him to prove that the word world (which is homonymous) is there taken for all and every one throughout the world. sect. ii. the necessity of the knowledge of christ's outward crucifixion. he telleth us, page 19 20. that the apostle, 1. cor. 2.2. speaketh not of christ as crucified outwardly, but of him, as he was inwardly crucified in the corinthians, as the word imports, being rightly translated out of the greek, i determined not to know any thing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. i e. in you. answer. here he hath no ground to except against our translation, the words being solidly and sound enough translated, for by an ordinary enallage, which particularly is called protheseon parallaga (which is the putting of one preposition for another) in, is rendered among, and this is consonant to the hebrew and greek, see genes. 34.30. ye have made me to stink, bejoshev haaretz, in incoll●s ter●ae, and yet it's translated among the inhabitants of the earth. then acts 6.8. stephen did great wonders and miracles, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in populo, and yet who justly quarrel, if it be said that the wonders and miracles were wrought among the people. then luke 1.28. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, benedicta tu in mulieribus, but yet it must be rendered (for making it good sense) blessed art thou inter mulieres, among women, 1. cor. 2.6. we speak wisdom 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in perfectis, in the perfect, and yet the skilfullest translators render it, inter perfectos, among the perfect; paul in delivering his message was not in them, though they wanted not inward fruits of that gospel which he preached to and among them. that it may appear how corruptly the quaker would be translating the words, it must be considered that the doctrine of quakers is, that christ was crucified in the corinthians, in the time of their unbelief, and at that time christ was crucified in them in his suffering seed; that seed of light and truth, suffered in them under the burden of their transgression. now remark, that the knowledge of christ mentioned, 1. corinth. 2.2. was that which paul rejoiced in, hence he saith, god forbidden that i should glory save in the cross of christ; now it would not have been the apostles joy, but his grief, to know that the light of christ was born down in them by their transgression: and therefore i must say it again, that text speaks of christ outwardly crucified, and the obediential, heart affecting knowledge of christ thus crucified, is the main thing that all who profess christianity, should aim to attain unto. and as it is a calumny to insinuate, that that which we plead for, is a bare naming of christ's death and passion, so it is a gross abuse of that scripture, 2. cor. 5.16. to infer from it, any thing against the knowledge of christ's outward crucifixion. for the thing which the apostle there condemns, is earthly and carnal thoughts of christ, as if christ as king of israel, should begin an earthly and temporal kingdom, in this manner (saith the apostle) from henceforth know we him no more, or we know him no more as a man living amongst us. he addeth page 21. that the blood of christ known and felt within for christ as he is within, is not without his blood, which he giveth to them, who know not distinctly, the outward shedding of the blood, as it was many hundred years ago. answer. it is hard to take up what the quaker means by christ's blood within, he calls it spiritual, even the pure blood of the vine. but seeing he speaketh of it, as distinct from the outward shedding of christ's blood; it would seem that either he inclines to justify that which hath been charged upon some of his brethren, for saying, that they are not such fools, as to hope to be saved, by that jesus, who was crucified at jerusalem above sixteen hundred years ago: or that which hath been charged upon others of them, who affirm, that christ as man dwells in them. a doctrine that tends to overthrow the ascension of christ to heaven, there to continue till the restitution of all things, act. 3.21. if the quaker design nothing by the blood of christ felt within, but the inward working of the spirit, helping men believingly to apply christ's blood which was shed at jerusalem, (besides this, there is no other heart cleansing and conscience purging blood, and every cleansing grace in the soul, is the fruit of this blood.) then it is his work to prove that they are wholly ignorant of this blood, (that is, know no such thing as christ's passion and suffering) who yet are helped to a believing application of it, which if he do, then true faith shall be a blind faith, contrary to esa. 53.11. by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many. sect. iii. the tendency of the quakers principle, to introduce paganism. he saith, as for thy deceitful insinuation to render us odious, that if our principles were generally owned, these nations would be overspread in an age or two with as palpable darkness, as the heathens at this day are; seeing it hath no just ground, we return it upon thee, as false and malicious, etc. answer. bona verba quaeso, soft words and hard arguments would become you better. if it be the quakers principle, that the light within is a sufficient teacher, and that taking heed to this, there needs no more, than it is no deceit to affirm that this tends to introduce paganism, and that the general owning of it would make these nations in a short time as the heathen nations at this day are. now that this is their principle, our quakers cannot deny, but by denying the writings of their infallible friends, who in their printed books call upon people to cease from their outside lights, and to return to the light of christ in them, saying, that they who look out at teachers without them, are strangers to that covenant, by which all come to know the lord, and need not that one teach another. i am credibly informed (by a reverend person whom i may trust) that upon occasion of his visiting a dying friend (in aberdene) there was at that time in the house two quakers, and both of them pressed so much upon the dying man, to take heed to the light within, (making this the chief and only matter of their discourse) that my informer found fault with them, that they spoke so much of taking heed to the light, and nothing of believing in christ: whereupon on of their further said, that if he took heed to the light there needed no more words, neither book without, nor teacher without: which in effect is, that the light within is so sufficient a teacher, that there needs no other to teach but that, neither the teaching of the scriptures, nor the ministry of men; and laying this teaching aside, what a woeful plight should these nations (in an age or two) be in? there is no doubt but dismal darkness would overspread them. it is like, that now the quakers do see, how much this principle contradicts their own practice (and must of necessity tend to make them odious) for they have teachers, and teaching among themselves. and therefore it's added, page 22. that the light must not only be taken heed unto, but believed, obeyed, and walked in, which who do, it will lead them to use the scriptures, and lead them to the assemblies of god's people, and to hear and receive the ministry of those whom god sends. but some of the quakers in england, to keep their principle from clashing with their practice, have been heard say, that their teaching is but to take people off from other teachers, that they may be brought to mind the light in them alone; and then they will cease teachings. now when all teaching ceaseth, except the inward teaching which the indians have, how quickly shall we be like them, among whom the name of christ is not in remembrance. sect. iv the light giver must not be confounded with the light given. he addeth page 22. that they do not confound the light giver with the light, or enlightening given. ans. ye do plainly confound them, for do ye not call that light jesus christ, wherewith all men are enlightened? and yet this light is but a ray or beam proceeding from christ, and therefore he is said to be that true light, which enlighteneth every man: clearly importing a difference between the light in all men, and christ the donator of this light. it is acknowledged that where the light, or enlightening from christ is, there is christ himself, namely, according to the nature of the light: which light in the wicked is common, but in the godly is saving, and so christ is in the one, as to a common, but in the other, in respect of a saving operation of light. now when he saith that christ is in all men, if his meaning be that as god, he is in all men, than we do not control him, for thus christ is every where. if his meaning be that as man, he is in all men, than the scripture controls him, which holdeth forth his manhood, must continue in heaven, until the time of the restitution of all things. if his meaning be that christ is in all men to enlighten them that they may believe, than his proof is not sufficient, which is joh. 1.9. compared with 7. for this seventh verse, speaketh expressly of john the baptist, the forerunner of christ, as is evident by looking back to the preceding verse, there was a man sent from god, whose name was john, the same came for a witness to bear witness of the light, that all men through him might believe. here the evangelist holdeth forth john's calling and the end of it, which was to bear testimony concerning christ. this was the special scop of john's ministry, to point out christ in his excellencies and usefulness to lost men, and to whom the offer of christ comes (in the ministry of the word) they are called upon to believe in christ, none being excluded. sect. v there is a consistency between man's lapsed state, and the remainders of the image of god in him. he asketh, how it is consistent (to affirm that some remainders of knowledge, and principles of good remain in man after the ruins of god's image in him) with what we say, to wit, that there is no good thing at all in men unconverted, and that man fell wholly from god, as to all things that are good. ans. who of us do say so, without adding any limitation? and yet there is no inconsistency between these things (even as set down by you) if rightly understood, for though men unconverted have not any saving good, yet it followeth not, ergo, they are destitute of all good. the unconverted have precious souls in them, which are of great excellency and worth; and there still remains in them some similitude of god, their souls being spiritual and immortal. it is true man by the fall was bereft of saving graces, in so much that true holiness, and saving knowledged he hath not; yet he is not denuded of all knowledge: in him there are certain notions concerning good and evil, which though they cannot direct to salvation and eternal happiness; yet if we live not up to them, they serve to leave us unexcusable. now it may be demanded, whether it be inconsistent to say, that a city is wholly demolished, whereas there is some rubbish, and some foundations of houses still remaining? if this be not inconsistent, why should it be thought an inconsistency: to say, that though men be fallen off from god, yet he retains some fragments, and relics of the image of god? as in very deed he doth, for the image of god is the conformity of the creature to the creator, and the soul of man is conformable to god in its nature, as it is a spiritual and immortal substance. likewise, man hath not lost all his dominion over the creatures. and it is to be observed, that though there be light in the consciences of men that are corrupt, yet this light is not the corruption of the conscience; but it is derived from christ and cometh from him, as a bountiful creator: and in this respect the light of knowledge, reason, and understanding, that is in man since the fall, may be called the light of jesus christ, for he is that true light that thus enlighneth every man, that cometh into the world. v head. concerning the scriptures. sect. i. showing how the quakers vilify the scriptures. look to page 24.25. and we may easily perceive the quakers disesteem of the scriptures, though in speaking to people, they would bear them in hand to the contrary. for, 1. they grant that they meet not to read the scriptures, but to wait on the lord, and they meet to worship god, whose worship is to be performed in spirit and in truth, and not in external reading. now do not these men's endeavours tend to disgrace the scriptures, in that they make an opposition, between reading the scriptures, and waiting on god, and spiritual worshipping of him; as if the lord could not be waited on, in the use of reading his word. was not the eunuch in the duty of waiting, when sitting in his chariot he read the prophet isaias? this work was so well pleasing to god, that the lord encouraged him in it, helping him to understand what before he knew not, act. 8.28. did not the saints under the old testament worship god in spirit and in truth? surely the lord required of them, sincere, spirit worship, which they performed, (lifting up their souls to god) and did not satisfy themselves with the bare outside and carcase of duty, lament. 3.41. and yet they were not enemies to external reading of the scriptures, act, 15.21. moses of old time, hath in every city them that preached him, being read in the synagogue every sabbath-day. and although reading the scriptures was a duty done under the law, it doth not cease to be a duty under the gospel, because it is not where repealed, but on the contrary, as it was commanded in the old testament, so it is confirmed in the new, this being a special means of having the word of god to dwell richly in us, coloss. 3.16. it is most agreeable to the scriptures, for a minister to take the bible and read a part of it, opening and applying it, see nehem. 8.5.8. and ezra opened the book in the sight of all the people, so they read in the book of the law of god distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading. christ himself took a text and applied it, luke 4.18.21. and albeit christ did this in the synagogue, quid inde? what then? did he not likewise preach in the synagogue? and yet preaching continues to be the minister's duty, 2. tim. 4.2. as for that scripture, 1. cor. 14.29.30.31. it conduceth nothing to keep up the successive talking of quakers. for the prophesying here mentioned was the act of prophets, and it is restrained to them, all the prophets who prophesy. now the gentleman will have much ado, to prove all his brethren, who at their meetings take upon them to preach, or rather (to use his own term) prate one after another to be prophets: especially, to prove their women preachers to be in the number of them, for their preaching is expressly prohibited, verses 34.35. let your women keep silence in the church, for it is not permitted, unto them to speak,— it is a shame for women to speak in the church. neither doth the scripture make any thing against our way; for ministers amongst us, sometimes speak two or three, and the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets. the quakers themselves have not many speakers; for at times they sit dumb, as if silence could promote their mutual edification: was this the church's way? or the custom of the apostles, and primitive christians? certainly this hemlock (or invention) hath sprung up since their late apostasy from the truth. secondly, they will not have the scriptures called their master's letter, no (forsooth) their master's letter is written in their hearts, and there they are to find it, neither is their master separated from them, as those who use to write letters to servants to set them on work. but is not christ as much separate from quakers, as from the seven churches of asia? or was he not as near those famous churches, as them? and yet they had letters sent to them from their great lord and master, to direct them in their duty, revel. 1.11. i am alpha, and omega, and what thou seest write in a book, and send it unto the seven churches which are in asia. now will ye observe how much these persons bend their strength to evacuate the authority of the scriptures; for they say, god requires us to do all our work by immediate counsel and direction, as if by the outward command contained in the scriptures, god did not require any work of them: yea they will not allow the scripture precepts the name of commands; but call them the outward testimony, and signification of the command, which (as they say) they regaird in its place, that is only when they have an inward command, and so while this inward command is wanting, through their neligence in waiting, all that time, the scripture loseth its authority, and is of no use to them. is this to regard the scriptures? doth it not tend to forward and confirm negligent atheists, in their contemptuous slighting, and undervaluing of the scriptures? oh! that all such would read and tremble at the reading of joh. 12.48. he that receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him, the word that i have spoken, the same shall judge him at the last day. thirdly, they prefer their silent waiting, to the reading of the scriptures, as if we must first come to this, ere we can know the scriptures aright. now they should prove (which is not so much as touched upon) that their way of waiting is a mean appointed by god for right understanding of the scriptures, or profitable speaking concerning them. waiting in their notion is apocryphal, not warranted by any scripture. some of them have defined it to be a silent posture of the heart without thinking good or evil. it seemeth to me, no better than misspent time, to be employed in seeking such a posture of heart: the heart is such a stirring & working thing, that if it be not upon good, it will be busy enough in evil, as may be found in our daily experience. according to scripture, faith, patience, and hope, must be exercised in waiting, psal. 40.1. lam. 3.26. and can we be in the exercise of these graces without thinking good or evil? what an odd conceit is this? fourthly, lest they should seem to be too great enemies to the scriptures, they confess it to be their desire to try doctrines by the scriptures. ans. if this be their desire indeed, how is it then, that one of the quakers seeing a religious woman (in this town) with a bible in her hand, told her, she might as well read a latin book as that book? and why is it, that they do not desire their hearers to bring their bibles, that so they may the better discern whether the doctrines taught at their meetings, be answerable to the scriptures? but happily they think not this convenient, lest their juggle should be found out; and i must tell the gentleman (that though he charge us with juggling) that the quakers have been suspected from their first rise, as notable jugglers, which r. farmer, in his mystery of ungodlyness showeth by this instance, saith he, it is usual for quakers to say, they own the scriptures, yea, we confirm and establish the scriptures, and witness the scriptures; now saith he, an honestman (that means plainly) would think they believed the scriptures to be the written word of god, and the rule of a christian to walk by, in things to be believed and practised, but saith he, these persons play the deceivers (not using words in that sense, they are usually understood) they mean otherwise, they say in express words else where, the scriptures are not the saints rule of knowing god and living to him. and indeed these are the words of one c. atkinson a quaker, (see his book, called the sword of the lord furbished, in answer to the ministers first principle) and a little after he insinuats, that to affirm the scriptures to be the rule, is to put darkness for light, and light for darkness. now let all persons, judge whether these men put the scriptures in their true place. sect. ii. proving the scriptures to be the word of god. he addeth page 26. that every declaration of a man's mind, is not his word, for signs may be a declaration of his mind. ans. though a dumb man may declare his mind by signs,; yet this maketh nothing against the scriptures, being the word of god, which are such a declaration of god's mind, as he uttered and spoke. if any thing can be accounted the proper word of one, that must be it, which he utters and speaks: now the truths, the commands, and precepts, contained in the scriptures, were uttered and spoken by god, exod. 20.1. and god spoke all these words, etc. he saith, people usually distinguish between a man's word and his write. ans. true: for they call the one verbum dictum, a word spoken, and the other verbum scriptum, a word written; but can it be inferred from this, that the scriptures are not the word of god, which he hath committed to writing, for the good of his church and people. he saith, the word of god is like unto himself, spiritual, yea, spirit, and life, and therefore cannot be read with the external senses. ans. the word of god is twofold, 1. there is the coessential, coeternal word, namely, jesus christ, who is one with the father, this word properly cannot be read, though we may, and do read of it. 2. there is the spiritual word, the temporal expressed word, or the word written in time, now the external senses may be employed in reading this word. he saith, that these scriptures (hos. 1.1. joel. 1.1. esay. 38.4.) are understood of that word from which the scriptures were given forth. ans. it is not denied, that the lord spoke by the prophets, and was the author of giving forth the scriptures, but yet that word of the lord which came to the prophets, is not meant of the word made flesh, (as quakers would have it) but of the mind and message of the lord contained in scripture jeremiah 14.1. the word of the lord that came to jeremiah: now what word was this, surely, none else but the message which the prophet was to deliver from god, to the persons therein concerned, having reference to that dearth which should make judah mourn and languish, verse 2. the same may be said of the other scriptures. he addeth, what the scripture saith and god saith, may be said, that they are one, because of their agreement. ans. this is to advance humane writings, and to equal them with the scriptures, when their say agree with what god saith. he saith, every one that reads and hears the scriptures read, heareth not god immediately. answer. god himself speaketh in the scriptures to them that have ears to hear him, rev. 3.6. and though all that read and hear the scriptures read, hear not god immediately, as the prophtts who had truths revealed to them by immediate inspiration; yet when we read the scriptures god speaks to us mediately, by his written word: and believers so hear his voice, that at the reading and hearing of the scriptures, they are forced to say the voice of god, and not the voice of man. page 27. he saith, (in answering 1. thes. 2.13.) that the word which they heard of the apostles, was the living word. answ. the word which they heard of paul, and received as the word of god, was the scripture or written word, which speaketh of the essential and living word, or it was the doctrine he preached concerning chtist, grounded on, and warranted by the scriptures, compare 1. thess. 2.13. with act. 26.22. he saith, that the pharisees in striking at the first command, did consequently strike at the living word which gave it forth. ans. the pharisees without doubt, were enemies to christ, and struck at him many ways; but yet the word, which they sought to make void, mark 7. is plainly held forth, to be that written precept, honour thy father and thy mother, compare verse 13. with verse 10. he concludeth the matter, saying, that the reason why they may not call the scriptures the word of god, is, that people may be directed to that inward living word. ans. if they believe the scriptures to be true, they may and aught to call them the word of god, for the scriptures call themselves the word of god, ephes. 6.17. the sword of the spirit which is the word of god, this sword of the spirit, is not a carnal, but a spiritual weapon, even the holy scriptures, (which are mighty through god, for repelling the temper, and cutting asunder temptations) this was the sword which christ made use of, in his conflict with satan, it's written, and again it is written, matth. 4. luke 4. by calling the scriptures the word of god, (which is a name due to them) this will make their testimony concerning christ to be more regarded, and therefore the more effectual means to our closing with the living word. it seemeth quakers have strange thoughts of the scriptures, as if they were set up as an idol, instead of that from whence they came. if we profess love to the scriptures, and desire to obey them, this is not to idolise them, and we are far from putting the scriptures in christ's stead; did they ever hear any of us call the scripture, the eternal son of god, that saviour who died and suffered, thereby paying a ransom for sinner's redemption? do we not say, that though the scriptures be the word of god, yet there is a vast difference between them and christ, he being the essential, eternal word, and the scriptures only the word written in time? why then should it be insinuate, that we call christ the scripture, and put the scripture in his stead, is not this unworthy dealing? we distinguish between christ, the word, and the word of christ, and though the scripture be not that word which is christ, yet it is the word of that word, colos. 3.16. let the word of christ dwell in you richly. sect. ii. clearing the scriptures to be the rule. he addeth, that it rests to be proved, that the law and testimony mentioned, esay. 8.20. was not the inward law. ans. the proof of this will not be difficult, for here the prophet opposes what is written (as being no light) if it agree not to the law and testimony. let people pretend what they will, to a law and word within: yet if they accord not with the scripture law, or scripture word, there is no light of truth in them. it is undeniable that the outward law gets the name of testimony, this name was given unto the law written in the two tables, in regard whereof, the ark was called the ark of the testimony, because those tables were laid up in the ark, exod. 25.16. 1. king. 8.9. my intent in bringing that scripture joh. 7.49. was only to prove the acceptation of the word law, for the outward law left upon record in the scriptures though the quaker maliciously glosses on it, as if in speaking for the law, we were crucifying christ afresh, therein comparng us to the pharisees: whereas the comparison will fit the quakers a great deal better than us, their known rash censuring abundantly declares their conformity to pharisees; for they can freely pronounce men damned and cursed, who will not take their gate of it, and this was the way of the pharisees, this people (said they) who know not the law are cursed. neither is it probable that christ checked the lawyer, luk. 10.26. in saying, how readest thou? but rather would have men in matters of religion to consult the scriptures, and therefore in convincing ignorant and erroneous persons of their ignorance and errors; he alleged the scriptures against them, matth. 22.31.32. when a question arose about divorcement, christ had present recourse to the scripture, matth. 19.4. have ye not read, that he that made them at the beginning, made them male and female? so when the pharisees accused christ's disciples for breach of the sabbath, christ said unto them, have ye not read, what david did, when he was an hungered, and they that were with him. matth. 12.3. christ then would have the scriptures the rule to walk by, and matters of religion to be tried by them: for he refers us to the scriptures for direction, and it's his will that we resort to them (in controversies and doubts) for resolution. he saith, page 28. that we seem to lay much stress upon this, that it cannot be made out to a jew or turk, that jesus the son of mary, is in very deed the christ without the scripture. answ. we lay so much stress on it, that we think quakers can never prove this fundamental truth referring them to the light within, for they pretend following of their light in opposing christ, as much as quakers do at this day in opposing the precious ordinances and truths of christ: and if paul's course was commendable, so must ours, if against the jews we should allege scripture in demonstrating christ to be the messiah; for the jews profess a belief of the scriptures, of the old testament. though the inward testimony of the spirit be of great use to persuade and assure us of the divine authority of the scripture, yet it is false to affirm that this can be proved no other way, but by the spirits inward testimony: there are other arguments whereby the authority of the scripture may be convincingly and solidly proved against turks and pagans, and all antiscripturists whatsoever. let me crave leave to put quakers in mind of one argument, which is excellently improved, by that judicious servant of god, mr. baxter, in his book of the saints rest, page 239. where he thus reasoneth, if the scriptures be neither the invention of devils, nor of men, than they can be from none but god, (he takes it for granted, that good angels could not be guilty of forging the scriptures) now he proves at length (it would be needless to set down here the full proof of this argument, because the book is common, and in the hands of many) that the scripture is not the invention of devils, that no mere men were the inventors of scripture, it was neither devised by good men, nor by bad men, then sure by no man, and consequently must of necessity proceed from god. when the ancient fathers had to do with pagans (who were strangers to the inward testimony of the spirit) they made use of other arguments, in proving the scriptures divinity: such as the heavenliness of the matter, the majesty of the style, the efficacy of the doctrine, the verity of the predictions, and by these and such like arguments, they confounded the learnedst pagans. and john calvin, lib. 1. cap. 7. of his instit: plainly supposeth that there are other arguments (besides the testimony of the spirit) to prove the divine authority of the scriptures, saith he, verum quidem est, si argumentis agere libeat, multa posse in medium preferri quae facile evincant, siquis est in coelo deus, legem, & prophetias, & evangelium ab eo manasse i. e. true indeed it is, that if we pleased to deal by arguments, many things might be produced, that may easily prove, that if there be a god in heaven, that the law, the prophets, and the gospel came from him. now seeing the quakers have cited calvin, i would advise them to look to the 9 chapter, wherein be fully showeth, that fanatical men, who (forsaking scripture) betake themselves unto revelation, do overturn all principles of godliness. he saith, that joh. 5.39. may be translated, ye search the scriptures, as pasor translateth the words. ans. the same pasor, speaking of that scripture, the kingdom of god is within you, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, he rendereth the words in medio vestro, in sinu gentis vestrae, that is, in the midst of you, in the bosom of your nation; and yet the quakers will not admit of this translation. it is confessed that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is taken by some (even protestant writters) in the indicative mood, though by that which follows, it appears to be imperative rather than indicative; for the great controversy at that time was, whether christ was the son of god, and the true messiah, now christ remits them to the scriptures (which the jews deservedly had in high esteem) as bearing witness unto him, search the scriptures and they are they which testify of me; as who would say, peruse them frequently, search them diligently, digging for these heavenly treasures, as men do for gold, who break every clod, that they may find the golden oar. neither doth christ check them, when he saith, in them ye think to have eternal life, this was a true thought, as to the scriptures pointing out the way to eternal life, 2. tim. 1.10. seeing the quaker (page 29.) granteth that the scriptures are profitable, for doctrine, correction, reproof, instruction in righteousness, why then, doth he not acknowledge them to be a perfect rule of faith and manners; what more can be requisite to prove their perfection, than their teaching truth, confuting error, reproving sin, and discovering duty. there is enough said, and delivered in the scripture, to direct us in things to be believed and practised, and if the scriptures do not actually profit us for this end, the blaime is to be laid at the door of our ignorance and perverseness. now the scriptures are thus profitabe that the man of god may be perfect. i e. that the minister of jesus christ may be complete, and every way fitted for the work of his calling, for though any man led by the spirit of god, may (in a general sense) be called the man of god; yet the lord honours his ministers with this tittle, and peculiarly attributs it to them, 1. sam. 2.27. and 9.6. 1. king. 17.18. sect. iii. showing that the spirit within is not the rule. in stead of answering my argument, proving that the spirit within is not the rule, he saith, did these jews receive christ who had the scriptures? did they not reject him, and why? because they harkened not to the inward voice and testimony of the father concerning him, and this was the testimony which he said, was greater than that of john. ans. look into the place where christ speaks of this testimony, and it will be found that it is no inward voice of the father, there spoken of. see joh. 5.36. i have a greater witness than that of john for the works which the father hath given me to finish, the same works that i do, bear witness of me: that is his works in doing miracles, these were a more convincing witness of christ's being the promised messiah, then that of john: and therefore, when john's disciples asked, saying, art thou he that shall come, or do we look for another? jesus answered, go and show john these things which ye do hear and see, the blind receive their sight, etc. as for that testimony which the father gave concerning christ, verse 37. it was not an inward voice and testimony, but an outward audible voice from heaven, matth. 3.17. compared with 2. pet. 1.17.18. and christ reproveth the unbelieving jews, in that they were ignorant of the father, though they gloried so much of him, as being the people whose progenitors had heard the voice of god, deut. 4.12. now christ showeth that all this was nothing to them; for they were strangers to such manifestations of god, and they looked not like that people whose ancestors had heard so much of god, ye have neither heard his voice, nor seen his shape. he saith, there is not any word 1. joh. 4.1. of trying the spirits by the scriptures. answer. it is sufficient if there be warrant in other places (though no express mention of it in this) for trying the spirits by the scripture. now seeing every spirit (is not to be believed) that is, every doctrine propounded as received by inspiration from god's spirit, false teachers will be as ready as any to boast of the spirit: and therefore we must try from what spirit their doctrine cometh. and what surer and safer way can there be of trying, then that for which the beraeans are commended, even in trying the apostles themselves? they searched the scriptures whether these things were so, act. 17.11. and christ appealed to the scriptures, joh. 5.39. he saith, cannot the spirits be tried by the spirit of god? how tried peter the spirit of ananias and saphirah? and is not the trial and discerning of spirits the privilege of the saints now? ans. we are speaking about the trying of doctrines, now ananias and saphirah, their failing was not in a matter of doctrine, but of fact, by lying in keeping back pa●● of the price of the possession, which peter knew extraordinarily: as appears by the miraculous effect, that attended his reproving of this sin, which was their sudden death, and present giving up of the ghost, act. 5.5. as for discerning of spirits (if thereby he either intent the knowledge of the secret conceptions and inward thoughts of men's spirits, or a certain infallible knowledge, who be truly spiritual, and who not.) it is not the privilege of the saints now, neither was it ever a privilege common to all the saints, 1. cor. 12.10. to another is given the working of miracles, to anothter discerning of spirits. though the saints have that anointing in them which teacheth them all things; yet as hereby external teaching is not excluded (for john himself was now teaching in writing this very epistle to them) so is not trying of the spirits by an external rule, the anointings, teaching, may well consist with bringing doctrines to the touchstone of the word, doth not the anointing (or the spirit) direct us to the law and testimony? and if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them. he saith, were there any more strongly deluded then the pharisees, yet how much did they lay claim to the scriptures, how came they to be deluded, who were so skilled in the scriptures according to the letter of them? ans. that the pharisees were deluded, the scripture is not to be blamed for this, the fault was in their blindness, hence they are so often called blind guides, matth. 23.16.24.26. it is granted that deluded souls, such as are unlearned and unstable, may and do wrest the scriptures unto their own destruction, 2. pet. 3.16. but yet there is enough said in the scriptures, by which delusions might be discovered, and controversies ended: if men would be humble and studious in the use of helps and means, bringing not discutiendi acumen, a disputing head, but discendi pietatem, a pious heart, desirous to be instructed. and for further clearing of our mind in this, it is to be considered, that albeit we look upon the scriptures, as a rule for finding out truth, and deciding controversies, yet that we may be right discerners, we judge a work of the spirit necessary, for removing our natural depravedness, perverseness, and ignorance, so that though the scripture be sufficient for discovering delusions, and ending differences in genere objecti, yet the spirit is necessary in genere causae effectivae. he addeth page 30. though the same deluding spirit, who deceived first may deceive over again, that makes nothing against the insufficiency of the spirit, to discover the delusion. answer. we blaime not the spirit for men's falling into delusion at first, or for their continuance in delusions; who can charge the spirit with insufficiency, as if he could not discover the tricks and deceits of satan? yet persons who reject the scripture, refussing it to be the rule, pretending only to an inward rule, they provoke the spirit to give them up to delusions, and open a gap for a deluding spirit to enter in. may not the history of i. galpen, once a quaker (be an admonition and warning to all that sect) who by casting off external teaching, and harkening to a voice within, was put upon mischievous and detestable practices. sometimes he was led to the fiddler's house, and being told it was such a man's house, he answered, be it whose house it will, christ led me hither, and hither i must go: then was his hand forced to knock at the door, and a voice bade him say, behold christ stands at the door and knocks: otherwhile, he was carried upon his hands and knees out of the doors into the street, and when his wife would have stopped him, he said, he must not be stopped, he must forsake wife, children, and all to follow christ. sometimes, he was forced to take up a knife, and to put it to his throat, and the voice said open a hole there, and i will give eternal life. but in the end the lord was pleased to give him repentance: whereupon he published a narration of those things, to discover the danger of these ways, and to be for caution of others, to take heed how they go out of god's ways, and forsake his ordinances: lest falling into the error of the wicked, they decline from their former steadfastness, and lest not receiving the love of the truth, that they might be saved, god give them over to strong delusions to believe a lie. see this history set down largely by mr. samuel clark, in his book called the mirror for saints and sinners. sect. iv the quakers way is ineffectual to convince an opposer. quakers in their way cannot convince a gainsayer, for what they call truth, others differing from them, call delusion and error, and how can they produce any evidence (that they are not deluded) for the conviction of an unbeliever, who knoweth not the testimony of the spirit in them? and himself hath not the spirit, being in the number of those who are without god, and without the spirit. suppose one say, that he hath a testimony of the spirit, to assure him of his gracious state, i would ask whether the testimony of the spirit be any otherwise then according to the word of god? it is like, quakers will confess that every testimony speaking peace (being contrary to the word) that testimony is not the voice of the spirit of the lord; but the voice of the spirit of delusion. now i would ask (if trial by the word be neglected) how is it possible to know whether this testimony speak according to the word, or whether it speak contrary to the word? if quakers say, that they are assured by the same spirit that gives the testimony that it is according to the word, and other evidence they need not look after: the voice of the spirit that speaks in them, is that beyond which there needs no enquiry. then i ask again, how can quakers convince deluded persons, who pretend to the testimony of the spirit, in reference to their gracious state? for they persuade themselves, that it is the voice of the spirit that speaks peace to them; and other evidence they will not look after, the testimony of the spirit, is that beyond which there must be no enquiry. now will not quakers according to their principles, be so far from convincing such of their mistake, that they will rather confirm them in their deceit? now according to us scripture is the rule (which lies patent & open to both parties. and therefore a papist of great note, is feign to acknowledge that scriptures nihil est certius, nihil est notius. i e. nothing is more certain and more evident than the scriptures.) and this is profitable 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, for conviction, and (as was said) though the scriptures do not actually convince the stubborn and stiff-heretick; yet there is so much in them as may satisfy an inquisitive adversary, who is willing to know right from wrong, and truth from error. apollo's mightily convinced the jews by the scriptures. it is inconsequential to argue, that the scripture or written word, is not the rule to us, (to whom god hath set down his mind in write) because it was not a rule to them who lived when the scripture or written word was not. as for the prophets, the event of what they foretold, was that whereby they were to be tried, deut. 18.22. when a prophet speaketh in the name of the lord, if the thing follow not, that is, the thing which the lord hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken presumptuously, thou shalt not be afraid of him. jerem. 28.9. the prophet which prophesieth of peace, when the word of the lord shall come to pass, then shall the prophet be known that the lord hath sent him. but because god for the trial of his people, may sometimes suffer such things to fall out, as false-prophets foretell, deut. 13.2. therefore when men pretend themselves to be prophets sent of god, their doctrine must be brought to the rule and touchstone of god's written word, and thereby examined, esay 8.20. he saith, page 31. that we disjoin the word and the spirit, because many preach and read the scriptures, and talk of them without the joined concurrence of the spirit, which they ought not to do. answer. he hath not offered to prove that the scriptures should not be read or spoken of, without the concurrence of the spirit, unless that be his proof (we say, they ought not to do) but upon what ground do ye say so? 1. the command for reading and speaking of the scriptures, hath not this condition annexed to it, that we should read and speak of the scriptures, only when we have a concurrence of the spirit, and never but then, where is there such a condition mentioned? 2. what shall be the carriage of wicked persons, who are strangers to the drawings and motion of the spirit, must the bible be to them as an almanac out of date? shall it be to them, as a book useless to look into? 3. when the saints want the concurrence of the spirit, may they not read and talk of the scriptures, as a mean of good to their souls? how many cold hearts have been rubbed and chaffed into spiritual heat, by reading and talking of the scriptures; in so doing the lord hath met with them, and made their hearts to burn within them: now though the scriptures may be read and spoken of, without the concurrence of the spirit. yet to affirm this, is not to disjoin the scriptures and the spirit, separating the one from the other; for still the scriptures remain to be the endytment of the spirit, being spoken and breathed forth by the spirit, act. 28.25. well spoke the holy ghost by isaias the prophet unto our fathers, act. 1.16. this scripture must needs have been fulfilled, which the holy ghost spoke by the mouth of david. mark the scriptures which dav d and others of the prophets penned, they are the breathe forth of the holy ghost himself. why doth the quaker complain so much, for my improving esay 59.21. as if it made so much against me; whereas it is directly to that purpose, which it was alleged for; namely, that god's spirit and word go together, and doth not the lord here promise, that the spirit and word should continue with his church and people, to direct and instruct them in all necessaries, throughout all ages sucessiuly, even unto the end of the world? he asketh, cannot dead things kill, if men feed upon them? answ. there is no doubt of it, yet the scripture or that part of scripture which is called the law, is said to be killing in such a way, as dead things are not: and therefore this kill letter is spoken of as being the ministration of death, and the ministration of condemnation; for the law threatens death against the sinner, and curseth every one that abideth not in all things that are written therein, 2. cor. 6.7.9. now are the dead things which the quaker reckons up, thus killing? it shall not be denied, but feeding upon sand, gravel, stones, etc. will prove deadly and destructive to the body, even as the drinking in of the lifeless poisonous opinions of quakers will prove hurtful and destructive to the soul. sect. v quakers have learned their language about the scriptures from papists. now any may perceive a popish design in all the quakers reasonings against the scriptures, for both papists and they join in studing to disgrace them. herein they very much resemble one another. ye may hear how quakers lisp after the papists, and concur with them in speaking the language of ashdod. do not papists call the scriptures, do not quakers say of them, 1. a nose of wax, or a rule of lead which may be bowed every way as men please? if the delusion be strong in the heart, will it not twine the scriptures without to cause the scriptures to seem for it 2. papists call the scriptures inky divinity, paper and parchment? quakers speak of the scriptures as a dead letter; 3. papists blaime the scriptures, (the reading of them by the laity) as that which causeth controversies, multiplieth both heresies and sects? quakers say, ye that set up the scriptures as a rule, what sects, what jangling, and contesting is among you; 4. papists prefer the church before the scripture? quakers prefer the light within, hence they say, that it is by the inward dispensation (that the outward dispensation of the gospel is serviceable) without which it hath no service at all. 5. papists contemn and vilify the scriptures? quakers will not have the scriptures to be so much as a copy to them, but the spirit is both their teacher and their copy, and if they walk according to this, by looking upon it, and eyeing it, they shall be good scholars and proficients, they need not go forth for a copy. 6. papists say the church was judge before the scriptures were written. quakers say, there was a rule before the scriptures were written? 7. papists deny the scriptures to be the principal & complete rule of faith and quakers do the same. so true is that of tertullian, christ is always crucified between two theives. he denyeth, that that more sure word of prophecy, 2. pet. 1.19. is the scripture. answer. had it not been meet, not only to have denied this, but likewise confuted what was said, proving it to be so; is not the apostle more to be believed (than any quaker) who expounds that more sure word of prophecy calling it, verse 20, not the word in the heart, but the prophecy rf scripture, or scripture prophesy, which is said to more 〈◊〉 sure then a voice from heaven; not as if there could be any uncertainty of the lords voice speaking from heaven: this is sure enough in itself, but yet scripture prophecy is more sure quoad nos, as to us, because a trans●ient voice is more easily mistaken, or forgotten, than a standing record. vi head. concerning justification. sect. i. wherein is cleared the quakers agreement with papists in the doctrine of justification. page 32. he raiseth a great storm against me, as displaying the banner of disingenuity, venting filthy imaginations, discovering vanity and malice, extending myself in a foolish and vain excursion. ans. i wish the gentleman would reflect how much his pen & spirit hath been dipped in the gall of asps, and remember that causa firma est semper querula. i have not leisure to answer his bitter revile and rail, and therefore passing them: i shall endeavour to trace him, according to the method he hath proposed, in giving (as he pretends) an honest, and plain, and true account of their belief in the matter of justification. he saith, page 33. that we are justified by jesus christ, both as he appeared and was manifest in the flesh at jerusalem, and also as he is made manifest and revealed in us, and thus christ and his righteousness without, are not divided from his righteousness within, but we do receive him wholly, and undivided the lord our righteousness in the sight of god, and which ought not, nor cannot be divided. ans. here he insinuats that our opinion is, to divide the the righteousness of christ without, from his righteousness within, which is the calumny of papists against us; as if we held that because christ's righteousness is imputed to men, there needed no other righteousness. when as we maintain that inherent righteousness and imputed are inseparably annexed: so that every one that is justified hath holiness and righteousness wrought in him. we may not confound justification and sanctification (seeing the scripture distinguisheth them) and yet we must not divide them. now that the quakers fraud and cheatry (which i suspect he is guilty of) in this thing, may be discovered; it will be necessary to inquire how the word justify (in the present affair, namely as it imports the sinner's justification before god) is used in scripture: and in this protestants and papists are at variance. papists say, that it signifies to make inherently just and righteous (as calefaction signifies to make inherently hot) on the other hand protestants affirm that it signifies not the making of a man just, by infused inherent righteousness; but to absolve, account, and pronounce a man righteous, prov. 17.15. he that justifies the wicked, and he that condemneth the just, even they both are abomination to the lord. mark, to justify is not to make inherently just and holy (for this would not be abominable, but acceptable to god) but it is to absolve and pronounce a man righteous, as to condemn, is to declare a man guilty, and accordingly sentence him to punishment. now in that he saith, that they are justified by christ revealed in them, by which he understands grace and holiness wrought in them by christ, (for he afterwards explains it to be that which in scripture is called christ form within.) here he falls in with the popish sense of justification, by righteousness infused. and his more full agreement with papists, will appear even in that, wherein page 34. 35. he saith, that they greatly differ from them. to make good this, i shall do two things. 1. set down the words of g. keith, in his paper to me, (which mr. barclay acknowledges to be in substance the same with that which he hath written) saith he, i perceive that by the righteousness of jesus christ imputed, by which thou queries, if we be justified thou understandest not his work of righteousness, he worketh in his saints, but his obedience and sufferings even unto death in the flesh (not excluding but including his souls sufferings) at jerusalem. to which i thus reply, that we are even justified by the righteousness of his obedience and sufferings, in that vessel or manhood not formally but causally; forasmuch, as by his obedience and sufferings therein, he was the procuring cause of that grace and power of his revealed in us, which produceth a work of righteousness wrought in us: by which we are formally (as the schoolmen speak) righteous, and this inward righteousness wrought by him in us, is truly and properly his righteousness, and that on a twofold account. 1. for that by his obedience and sufferings, he procured an entrance to men's hearts, to become a prince and a saviour in them. secondly, in that he is not only the remote procuring cause in the manner aforesaid, but the immediate worker of it in us, by his immediate arm and power, so that he is well called the lord our righteousness. now that there is no inconsistency between these two, to be justified by the obedience of jesus christ in the flesh at jerusalem, as the remote procuring cause, and to be justified by the work of righteousness wrought by him in us, as the formal cause is manifest, being causes of different kinds, which do not repugn one to another, but sweetly concur to the producing their effect. thus far g. keith. second thing to be done, is to show wherein protestants differ from papists in the matter of justification: which will be notably seen by the answer both of protestants and papists, to this important and weighty question, viz. what is that very thing, which causeth a poor believing sinner stand pardoned and so just before god, and for which he is pronounced righteous, or absolved from the accusation and condemnation of the law, and accepted unto eternal life. now the papists in answering this question, have recourse to infused, inherent righteousness, ass thing this to be the thing, whereby they are justified in the sight of god. but protestants though they look upon a principle of grace within, as an excellent gift of god; yet they cannot lean to that for justification, but think their only refuge to be the imputed righteousness of christ, (namely, the satisfaction and merit of his death, passion, and obedience in fulfilling the law) judging this to be the very thing by which believers may appear before god, and in the confidence whereof they may live and die: and for which they are accounted righteous, absolved from death, and accepted unto eternal life. now let us hear the quakers answer to the aforementioned question, and it will be found, that as papists make the formal cause of justification to be an inherent righteousness wrought in us, and inspired into us by the spirit of god, so the quakers do the same; for g. keiths' express words are; that we are justified by a work of righteousness wrought by christ in us as the formal cause: and therefore when in their printed book, they say, that they rely on christ himself revealed in them, indwelling in them, as the ground and foundation of their justification. what can their meaning be? (though they blind the eyes of the simple, by using words inoffensive in themselves) but as g. keith explaineth it, to wit, that christ by his obedience and suffering, was the procuring cause of that grace and power of his revealed in us, which produceth a work of righteousness wrought in us by which we are formally righteous. now is not this a manifest coincidency with papists? for even they make the obedience and sufferings of christ, the procuring cause of that grace and righteousness wrought in them, which they own as the formal cause of their first justification. so that both papists and quakers deny the imputed righteousness of christ, to be the very thing by which a believer stands pardoned & so just before god & for which he is pronounced righteous, or absolved from the condemnation of the law, and accepted unto eternal life: which is looked upon as carrying with it such danger, that some protestants are of opinion, that hereby the church of rome doth raze the very foundation. and upon this ground, mr. samuel hammond undertakes to demonstrate the impossibility of salvation, in and by the principles of quakers, in his book, called, the quakers house built upon the sand. sect. ii. that works are not meritorious of justification. he addeth, that he may not deny justification by works, but plead for it, according to the true sense and mind of the spirit. answ. let him hold there and we shall go along with him, for we readily yield that by works, a man is declared and manifested to be a justified person, so that good works justify our justification: being notable evidences thereof, and signs of that faith whereby we are justified; for we are not justified by a barren faith, but by a faith which is fruitful in good works, and this is that which the apostle drives at jam. 2. but justification by works, such as the quakers plead for, is not according to the true sense and mind of the spirit. is it the mind of the spirit, that good works are the meritorious cause of justification? which sam fisher (one of the quakers ringleaders) plainly asserts, exercit. 1. page 84. and page 88 he saith, there are good works which in different respects are called (truly enough) both christ's and ours, viz. ours, as done in and by our persons; christ's, as done only by his power in us: and by these (call them as ye will, christ's or ours) is the justification of all, that ever were, or shall be justified, both deserved and effected. object. we understand it not any other way then thus, that all their merit or worth is from christ. ans. where doth the scriptures say, that works wrought in us have merit in them (from christ) to deserve justification? this is a doctrine of your own forging and not of christ's teaching. though good works shall not want a reward, yet they do not merit. it is false to say, that reward and merit infer one another. protestants use to distinguish between a reward of merit, and a reward of grace: which distinction is grounded on scripture, compare the original words in matth. 5.46. with luk. 6.32. and in that you affirm the reward to be of grace, than it is not merited by works; the apostle opposeth these two, making them incompatible, rom. 11.6. and if by grace, than it is no more of works, otherwise grace is no more grace, but if it be of works, than it is no more grace, otherwise work is no more work. we acknowledge that god of his rich mercy and goodness, hath promised to reward good works, and being faithful he will not deny himself, 2. tim. 2.13. but a reward given by promise, doth not import merit and desert, the reward proceedeth from the bounty of the giver, and not from the merit of the receiver. now the quakers wisdom is much to be observed, in that they refuse to own the grossest sort of papists (for then their draught would be found out, and their tendency sufficiently known) but they (under the specious name of new lights) can creep towards the moderate sort of them: who say, that works are not meritorious, but as they proceed from grace, and by virtue of god's promise: when as indeed, if works be of, and flow from the free grace of god, this infers that they are not meritorious; for that which doth merit, must not be done by the strength of another; especially his, at whose hands we look to merit. it is evident that the gentleman is of a higher strain, then to be only for a reward or merit (as he phraseth it) of free grace, and upon the account of the promise: else how shall he be able to reconcile himself to his brother sam. fisher, who (exerc. 1. page 90.) maketh use of this popish argument, namely, evil works are the meritorious cause of our condemnation, therefore good works are the meritorious cause of our justification, (insinuating that there is a meritorious dignity in good works, even as there is a meritorious indignity and sinfulness in evil works) this argument hath been often answered by a denial of the consequence, because our evil works are perfectly evil, but our good works are but imperfectly good. and giving but not granting, that our works were perfectly good, yet all the requisits to make a work meritorious would not agree to them. he addeth, that the works that papists seek to be justified by, are such as they believe, none can be justified by. ans. though they do not go along with papists in some of their practices, yet they own their principle, as hath been abundantly cleared, and therefore their correspondence with rome being manifest, we must conclude, that in stead of coming out of babylon, they are rather running to it. his next work, page 36. is to make people believe, that we are near a kin to papists; but none who know what popery is, are like to give him credit, yet if any be of such an easy faith, as to take upon trust what he saith, than no wonder if the blind leading the blind, both fall into the ditch. we shall consider wherein he chargeth us as guilty of popery, which he brancheth forth into several particulars. 1. because we deny, that we are justified by christ dwelling in us. ans. we affirm that we are justified by the righteousness of christ, and when this righteousness is believingly applied and laid hold on, than christ dwells in us, is this popery? or can any that know the difference between papists and us, think that we agree with them in the matter of our justification? 2. he saith, according to us the way to attain to a state of justification, is not by believing in the light, wherewith christ inlightens every man that cometh into the world. ans. that being a created work of light, it is not the object of faith, we are not where warranted to believe in a creature, but threatened with a curse if we do it. 3. he saith, that we deny, that men are to know their justification, or that they are in a justified estate, by the immediate testimony of the spirit, and so do papists, ans. it is by us looked upon as an error in papists, that they are against the certain knowledge and assurance of justification, and do so much cry up doubtings; but though papists should oppose the knowledge of justification by an immediate testimony of the spirit, this will not prove it to be popery: every thing that papists maintain, is not popery, for it is known, they hold some truths in common with the orthodox: popery is their supper added inventions and corrupt additions to the truth, amongst which is their and your doctrine of justification by inherent righteousness. sect. iii. we are not justified by good and gracious works wrought in us. he saith, that rom. 3.28. gal. 2.16. the works of the law are excluded, but not the works of christ in us. ans. either the works of the law which in these scriptures are excluded from justification, must be evil and sinful works, or else good and gracious works: they are not evil and sinful, for here the apostle confutes such among the romans and galatians, as had corrupted the doctrine of justification; but it would be irrational to think, that their opinion was that sinful works did justify: could they imagine that to be the cause of justification, which deserveth and bringeth on condemnation? and therefore the apostle excludeth (from justifition) good and gracious works, and consequently the works of christ in us, as not being the meritorious cause of justification. further, we shall find that works simply and in general, are excluded from justification: and this is notably proved in the case of abraham, who though a gracious and godly man, yet was not justified by works, rom. 4.2.3.4.5. for if abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory, but what saith the scripture, abraham believed god, and it was counted to him for righteousness, now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt, but to him that worketh not, but believeth in him who justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. likewise works without that limitation (of the law) are excluded, tit. 3.5. which scripture was cited by me, in opposition to justification by works, as the meritorious cause thereof, (verse 7. that being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life,) and indeed works in us, and done by us, neither merit justification nor salvation, though they be the qualification of the persons that are justified and shall be saved, (for all such are regenerate and renewed by the holy ghost.) it is a known saying, good works are the way to the kingdom, and not the cause of reigning: and we only deny them to be meritorious causes of blessedness, in this respect the apostle excludes works generally. and therefore the gentleman might have kept in his insulting, triumphing words, why should he be at so much pains to make to himself a man of straw, and then take pleasure to undress him? there is no hazard to exclude the merit of works in justification, and yet to affirm them necessarily requisite in the subject justified. he telleth us page 38. that they justly cast off the accusation of popery, having express testimony of scripture, that we are justified by works, jam. 2.24. answer. papists allege the same scripture for justification by works, and therefore one answer shall serve you both: we must distinguish between justification before god, and justification before men: if we speak of god, and being justified in his sight, and before his tribunal, than works cannot serve the turn, job. 9.2.3. but how should man be just with god, if he will contend with him, he cannot answer him one of a thousand. yet works are useful in respect of men, to declare and clear our justification as to them: thus abraham was justified by works, jam. 2.21. that is, declared to be just; hereby he was approved as just and righteous in his own conscience, and before the world. he saith, that good works are not ours, in that signification, as where it is said, hebrews 4 10. he that hath entered to his rest, hath ceased from his own works. answer. none of us do affirm that that good and gracious works are ours in that way that sinful works are; and therefore his answer is but a shift: he cannot deny good works of christ in us to be called ours, for though we be enabled to them by christ, (and so efficiently his) yet they are subjectiuly our own, our own faith, and our own repentance (it is not christ but we, who repent and believe.) hence it is evident that if justification be by good works of christ in us (than our good works justify us) for these are ours in respect of subject and inherency. he addeth, that faith may be excluded from justification, if it were granted to be imperfect. answer. this is his groundless assertion, for the matter and substance of our justification is not faith; but the perfect righteousness of christ apprehended by faith: and upon the account of this object of faith, to wit, christ's perfect righteousness: which faith applieth, therefore faith is said to be accounted for righteousness, rom. 4.5. he saith, that little faith is perfect in the measure of it, and though the disciples had doubting, yet the faith was not doubting. answer. according to this he might as well say, that light in the air (at the very first breaking in, and dawning of the day) is perfect light; for though the air then be partly light and partly dark, yet the light is not darkness: yea, he might call gold (attended and mingled with a great deal of dross) perfect gold, because the gold is not dross. and page 39 he reasoneth no better, alleging that though we know but in part, yet our knowledge is not imperfect, we may know a thing in part, and that which we know of it we may know perfectly. ans. it is needful to inquire, what is meant by imperfection, is not that imperfection, when there is not that degree of grace in us, which ought to be? now when our faith is but little, and our knowledge in part, have we all that faith and knowledge that we ought to have? or rather have we not cause to complain, that we come short of the command? who can say they know god, believe in him, and love him, in the highest degree that they are bound to do, if not, than these grace● must be imperfect? object. it is said of abraham, that his faith was perfected by works, jam. 2.22. answer. this comes to no more, but that his faith was made known and discovered by his works; like that expression, where god's strength is said ro be perfected in our weakness, 2. cor. 12.9. in answering that place eccl. 7.20. he brings scriptures to prove, that there are righteous men who do good. but this was not the thing denied, he should have proved that righteous men on earth do good so purely, that there is not the least fault or blemish cleaving thereunto. as for that scripture 1. joh. 3.9. he that is born of god sinneth not (it doth not prove an absolute freedom from sin; for this is contrary to the experiences of the regenerate, and saints in all ages, who have bitterly bewailed, and ruefully mourned under the sense of their sins) the words in the greek are, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is he maketh not sin, sin is not his trade. now a man makes a trade of sin, when in sinning he is in his element, where he would be: there is no work so pleasing to him, as the work of sin. but this is not the disposition of a regenerate person. he addeth that the prophet isaiah 64.6. saith not all our righteousness which is of thy working in us, who are saints is as filthy rags. answ. neither doth the prophet say (as the quaker brings him in speaking) all our righteousness, which we, even the best of the saints can perform, of and from themselves are as filthy rags. the prophet speaketh in general (and plurally) of righteousnessess, and that in the person of the whole church; and not relating only to the wicked and ungodly, therefore he useth the word all, and our righteousness. to affirm the saints righteousness to be filthy rags, is no just ground to make us ashamed, for we do not reflect on the holy spirit of god (as if filthiness did proceed from him) he is good in giving us the least degree of grace: not being bound to give us any (his work of grace and holiness in us, is a special ornament to the soul, making it in beauty to resemble god) but in respect of us, imperfection cleaveth to this grace, in that it is not all the grace which the law of god requireth of us: being commanded to love god, with all our hearts souls, and minds, matth. 22.37. the best action and works done and performed by us (as instruments) have something of the taint of sin adhering to them; where is the soul that is carried out in prayer, and other spiritual duties, with that love and delight, with that purity and fervency of spirit, which the spiritualness of the law doth call for? now it is the sin which cleaveth to the saints good works, which is to be thrown away, this indeed is not an ornament but a deformity, for which we should be humbled and ashamed in the sight of god. he saith, page 40. 41. that the saints are subordinate coworkers with christ, but yet it followeth not that his works in them, and by them are defiled, and though it be said, who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean; this hinders not, but that the lord can, and doth make clean, those who have been unclean, and so out of them who are made clean, can bring forth clean things. answer. 1. we grant that there are thousands in heaven whom the lord hath made perfectly clean, and their actings have not the least impurity in them, heb. 12.23. revel. 21.27. 2. we grant that there be many on earth who are sanctified and cleansed: yet their cleansing and sanctification is but in part, they are not throughly cleansed and perfectly sanctified; there is yet an unclean part in them, they have in them flesh as well as spirit; and however this unclean part, viz. the flesh, should be chained and kept down; yet god's people to their smart and grief, find the stir and risings of it, and the resistance and opposition it makes; whereby they are hindered from doing good perfectly, gal. 5.17. the flesh lasteth against the spirit, and the spirit against the flesh, and these are contrary the one to the other, so that ye cannot do, the things that ye would. rom. 7.19. the good that i would, i do not, but the evil which i would not, that i do. now men being but in part holy, and in part carnal; therefore the works which proceed from them have some filth and taint of sin cleaving to them: there is sin in the best men to undo them, if god should deal with them in rigour, psalm. 130.3. if thou lord shouldst mark iniquity, o lord who shall stand, 1. king. 8.46. for there is no man that sinneth not: and yet we deny not, but by degrees the clean part increaseth, and the unclean is diminished; yea and at last all the uncleanness shall be wrought out: there is a happy time coming, when the children of god, shall not have spot or wrinkle, or any such thing; but this privilege is reserved for them till they come to heaven, for there is not a just man upon earth that doth good and sinneth not, eccl. 7.20. intimating that the just man's doing good is attended with sin: sinfulness cleaveth to his good actions, as was formerly cleared by that similitude (which the quaker hath not in the lest weakened) of clean water passing through an unclean pipe, and thereby receiving a tincture of uncleanness. the gentleman that supposeth himself so well skilled in the outward creation, should have instructed me, what that outward water is, which is not capable of defilment: and having first done this, he might then (the more freely) have come to his supercilious application. sect. iv justification is not by inherent righteousness, but by the imputed righteousness of jesus christ. he addeth that justification is taken for the making a man righteous, and then it is all one with sanctification. answer. is not this to confound what the scripture distinguisheth? now justification and sanctification in scripture are always spoken of, as distinct benefits, 1. cor. 6.11. but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified, rom. 8.30. whom he called (namely to a conformity to the image of his son) them he also justified. and it is to be observed, that we need not contest with quakers or papists, whether the word justify, signify to make righteous or no? only we say that the righteousness which doth make a man just, or justifyeth him, is not inherent in him. and to assert justification, to be the making of a man righteous, by infused, inherent righteousness (or righteousness wrought in him) is to confound what god distinguisheth, and to alter the scripture sense of the word justify. he addeth, page 42. that admitting the apostle phil. 3.9. speaketh not of his righteousness whilst he was a pharisee, yet he was still to deny the work and righteousness which was to proceed from his own will and spirit. answer. the apostle in the preceding verses, disclaimed righteousness proceeding from his own will and spirit: but verses 8.9. he riseth higher, and goeth a step further, even to the present time, (i account all things) intending the present graces and privileges which he enjoyed, and disclaiming them in the matter of justification; paul durst not lean to any work of grace in him (the best man's graces being imperfect) as that which can endure god's sight, his exact and severe trial: and therefore is that word, 1. cor. 4.4. i know nothing by myself, yet am i not hereby justified: notwithstanding his holy course of life, and obedience performed to the law, yet he saw a necessity to look after a more perfect righteousness then this: such as god himself cannot refuse as imperfect and insufficient, namely, the righteousness which is of god by faith. then in the following verse, there are the excellent fruits and advantages, which redound to them, who renouncing confidence in themselves, lay hold on christ for righteousness. such as 1. increase of knowledge. 2. mortification of the old-man. 3. resurrection to newness of life. to make these things the righteousness whereby we are justified (as the quaker doth) is to confound justification with sanctification, for here the parts of sanctification (namely, mortification, and vivification) are expressly mentioned. he saith, my last argument from 2. cor. 5.21. is most absurd and impious, for accordingly it would follow, that as christ was made sin for us, who of himself knew no sin, no not in the jest, so we may be made righteous before god, though we have no holiness, no faith, no good thing wrought in us. answ. he indeed impudently and absurdly wrists my argument, the strength of which lieth in this: that as our sins are inherent in us, and imputed to christ, so his righteousness is inherent in him, and imputed to us: or as christ was made sin for us, by the imputation of our sins to him, isa. 53.6. so we are made righteous before god, by the imputation of his righteousness to us, he hath made him to be sin for us who knew no sin, that we might be made the righteousness of god in him, upon which words, one thus excellently glosseth, he sin, and we righteousness, and not ours; but the righteousness of god, and not in us, but in him: even as he sin, not his own, but ours, nor in himself, but in us, so therefore are we the righteousness of god in him, as he is sin in us. the quakers inference is impious, and absurd to imagine, that god (considering his purity and justice) should accept one as righteous in his fight, and yet his person remain abhored of god, as an unholy sinner; for the righteousness of justification and sanctification are twin blessings, which go together in regard of god's actual application of them: and therefore it is a mistake arising (to speak fairest) from ignorance, to insinuate that we are against inward righteousness and holiness; seeing we profess that without this no man shall see the lord. and though we plead for the imputation of christ's tighteousness as to justification; yet we do nor hold, that there needs no other righteousness at all: we assert justification and sanctification to be inseparable companions, and that whosoever is justified, hath inherent godliness and righteousness. and therefore it is false to say, that we strengthen the profane and wicked in their presumption; for we declare to them that while they continue wicked they are without hope, and can lay no just claim to christ's righteousness: and that they must be new creatures, of they can never come to the new jerusalem. he asketh page 43. whether the apostles did sin in writing the scriptures? answer. there are two things that shall be said to satisfy this demand. 1. that this was a singular extraordinary case, and no doubt but god (he that made an immaculate conception, in the womb of her that was a sinner) can preserve extraordinarily some singular action from impurity, such as the penning of the scriptures was. but what is this to us, who can pretend to no such thing? 2. though the matter contained and delivered in the scriptures, remains inviolable and without the least defilment; yet what hazard is it to affirm, that the apostles in penning the scriptures were nor inflamed with love and zeal: according to the utmost extent of the law, though being tall cedars, their love and zeal was far above the love and zeal of others. vii. head. concerning the quakers groundless magnifying of their sect. i mean to be thrifty of my paper in answering the quakers self-advancing and exalting words. he saith, page 44. the flock of christ is like to him, and can it be an unsuitable thing, for one who supposeth himself to be of christ's flock, to say, the flock with whom he is, it likest to christ? answer. what though the flock of christ be likest to him? should the quakers therefore set up themselves above all the people of god on earth? are none of christ's flock but they? oh! it is intolerable pride to vilify all the saints and servants of god in the world, and to shut them out from being of christ's flock; for if this be their privilege, than quakers are not the most christ like people, others may call themselves so as well as they. he saith, that christianity stands not in flying the society of men, but the matter is for people, to have their occasions and business in the world using it, as if they were not using it. answer. this indeed is the great work and business; but can it be inferred from hence, that the true power and life of holiness is more truly known to quakers, and eminently held forth by them, then by any people else that have come forth since the apostles days? it were good that that parable were remembered, luke 18.9. and he spoke this parable unto certain which trusted in themselves, that they were righteous and despised others. and truly what ever thoughts the gentleman hath of the protestant churches, (which in disdain he calleth our flocks) there are many in them who live in the world very much dead to the world: and their communication and habitual course of life, holdeth forth their conversations to be in heaven; some of them have professed it were ill for them, if they lived not every day, as if it should prove their dying day. we are far from commending the way of monks and hermits; but their example was brought, to give check to ignorant well meaning people: who are apt to be too much taken with an outward show of mortification. he saith, page 45. such as have had so much of the fear of god upon their hearts, that they durst not adventure upon sin, would they not love to be perfect? answer. yes surely, perfection is their aim, and the white that they shoot at, and therefore they long to be in heaven, where they shall sin no more for ever; but they know that the saints while on earth shall be clogged with sin: and that the question is not, whether god can by the singular assistance of his grace, keep any in this bodily life totally pure from sin? but whether god hath not declared and revealed his mind to the contrary: and whether he seethe it not fit to have his people while in this world) exercised with relics of sin, to be as pricks and thorns in their sides, and to keep them humble, lest they should be exalted above measure. and though the saints do fear and dread to adventure upon sin; yet through the strength of remaining corruption, and violence of temptation, they may (to their heart's sorrow and grief) be drawn to it, which will be evident by reading over the seventh chapter to the romans. he asketh page 46. whether such as have lived in the sense of god's favour, would have pleaded for continuance in sin, and doth not continuance in sin take away and eclipse the sense of god's favour. an. there are conscience wasting sins and falling or continuing in them, will greatly eclipse the sense of divine favour; but there are sins of daily incursion which people may be guilty of, and yet enjoy the favour of god. the godly dare not plead for allowing themselves in the sin, approving of any sin will mar our peace, and let in a sensible damp upon the soul. the persons mentioned by me (in the dialogue) as having such notable enjoyments of & communion with god, were far from quakerism, they would have looked upon your opinions as monstrous, and to be abominated with the greatest detestation. viii. head. proving the quakers to be guilty of equivocating. he saith page 47. that it is a false challenge and a calumny to charge them as denying baptism and the lords supper, for they do own these things in the substance and reality, and in the true acceptation. answer. they are utterly against baptism with water, and the lords supper as instituted by christ in giving and receiving bread and wine. now in this sense baptism and the lords supper are commonly understood, and do not quakers dissemble and equivocate, when they speak one thing and mean another? when they speak plain words that other men use, saying, they are for baptism and the lords supper: but it is with a reserved sense, and not in that sense wherein the words are usualy taken; what is this but to speak lies in hypocrisy? as the apostle charges upon the seducers and false teachers in his time, 1. tim. 4.2. it is a slander to say that we place the shadow for the substance, the husk for the kernel. do we not make a difference between the outward signs, and the things signified? pressing people no to rest satisfied with the one without the other: and to seek not only the bread of the lord, but that bread which is the lord. we know and believe that outward privileges will not serve the turn, there must be reality and truth of grace in the heart, otherwise god will punish the circumcised with the uncircumcised, jerem. 9.25. ix. head. wherein the quakers objections (against our singing of psalms) are answered. page 48. he confesses that singing of psalms was used by the saints, that it is a part of god's worship, when performed by his spirit, and still may warrantably be performed, and it is not unusual among quakers, yea david's words may also be used as they suit the condition of the party. answ. it is good that he grants (and yet it is no more than he should) the lawfulness of singing david's psalms, yet truly i suspect his words have not so honest a meaning, as they have a look, for if quakers be for singing psalms; how cometh it to pass that the exercise of this duty is not kept up among them at their meetings? though they have been meeting in this place for about eight or nine years; yet none (for aught i can understand) have been witness to their practice in this thing. but happily the singing that the gentleman pleads for, is of the same nature with that of some of his friends, who leading the horse of i. nayler, in his entrance to bristol: and singing (with one bare before him) holy, holy, the holy one of israel; which they applied to the said nayler, and he for his part, professed that he might not refuse any thing, that is moved of the lord, and that he thought the father did command them to do it. a woman quaker said, that she witnessed the holy of holies was risen which moved her so to do. see naylers' trial, pag. 4.5. however, my arguments for singing of psalms remain untouched, yet he moveth two objections against our way of singing. object. 1. though singing of psams in the true sense of them be allowable, yet as used by us is abominable, because the persons using it, are a mixed multitude. answer. he hath not proved it unlawful to join in singing with a mixed multitude, hath god any where forbidden their singing? we find in scripture that all the creatures are called upon to sing praises to god, psalm 148.11.12.13 kings of the earth, and all people, both young men and maidens, old men and children, let them praise the lord. psalm. 96.1. o sing unto the lord a new song, sing unto the lord all the earth. as for that scripture 1. cor. 14.15. it doth not only speak of singing with the understanding, but also praying with the understanding. and if hereby he would infer that the mixed multitude should forbear singing, he may as well urge them to forbear praying: yea according to his way of reasoning, i know no spiritual duty that they should be employed in, because they are dead in their sins, and it is the living that serve god spiritually, and not the dead. 2. object. all lying is abomination, but many times it falls out, that by singing of psalms the people come to lie in the presence of god. answ. this objection saith nothing when we sing psalms that suit our condition (than we are not guilty of lying) and the truth is, there is such plenty and variety of spiritual matter in david's psalms, matter of such general and comprehensive concernment; that they readily offer matter to us, to present our own case to god. but suppose that the psalm do not suit with our condition, yet we do not lie in singing it, why should the singing of these words (my heart is not haughty, and i water my couch with tears) be accounted a lie, more than the reading of them? may we not sing these words as expressing the condition of former saints? and withal secretly wishing that the frame of our hearts were like unto theirs, is this to lie in the presence of god? x. head. concerning baptism. sect. i. there is no substantial difference between john's baptism, and christ's. page 49. he acknowledges that john's baptism (was with water) and that his baptism and christ's baptism agreed in the author, but he saith as to the matter they are not one, for john himself distinguisheth them, mark. 1.8. answer. in this place john maketh no difference between the matter of his baptism and christ's baptism, he only showeth a difference between his office and work, and the office and work of christ; all that john could do was to administer the outward element, but christ could give the spirit by means of the outward baptism: so that john here depresseth himself & advanceth christ, it being christ alone who bestoweth what the outward baptism signifieth. i indeed have baptised you with water but he shall baptise you with the holy ghost. he saith, they agree not in the end, for the end of john's baptism was but to point and show forth the other, as the end of the shadow is to point to the substance. ans. the scripture speaking of john's baptism, calleth it the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins, mark. 1.4. intimating that its end was to signify and seal remission of sin: which likewise is the end of christ's baptism, act. 2.38. now john's baptism and christ's agreeing not only in the author, but also in the matter and end, this proveth that there is no substantial difference between them. object. they differ in substance, for it is written act. 19, 2.3.4.5. that there were of the baptism of john who had not so much as heard of the holy ghost. answer. the meaning is not, that they heard not of the person of the holy ghost, being disciples and believers, they could not be totally ignorant of this, doubtless they were acquainted with the scriptures, and from thence they could not but know, that there was a holy ghost; but the thing they were ignorant of, was the visible, miraculous, and extraordinary gifts of the holy ghost: which then flourished in the church, and yet were not common to all that were baptised, act. 8.15.16. they prayed for them that they might receive the holy ghost, for as yet he was fallen upon none of them, only they were baptised in the name of the lord jesus. the apostle did not anew baptise those persons that had been baptised with the baptism of john: only he gave a right explanation of john's baptism, and then laid hands on them, upon which followed the gifts of the holy ghost, viz, speaking with tongues and prophesying verse 6. sect. ii. showing that baptism with water is an ordinance of christ and to be continued in the church. he addeth, that where christ commands his disciples to baptise, matth. 28. there is no command to baptise with water. answ. the subsequent practice of the apostles may satisfy sober persons, that christ's command had reference to baptising with water; can there be a better comment upon the command then apostolical practice? and it is observable that when philip had preached christ to the eunuch, and it would seem had informed him of the ordinance of baptism (however it is sure, the knowledge of it he had) immediately upon the sight of water he desired to be baptised, act. 8.37. see here is water what doth hinder me to be baptised. and that command of christ's (matth. 28.) to his apostles, as it doth not expressly speak of baptism with water; so neither of baptism with the spirit, and therefore if the quaker exclude the one, he may likewise exclude the other. object. it is said baptise into the name of the father, son, and holy ghost, and this is baptism with the spiritansw. this is affirmed, but without proof. the name of god hath various acceptations, and how doth he make good, that it is taken here in his sense, and not any other way? if by baptising into the name of god, he mean regenerating of men, making them just and holy like god: then i say, this was commanded before, when our lord said, go teach (or disciple) all nations, doth not this imply an endeavour to make them holy and righteous? and therefore if baptising them into the name of god, import the same thing: this would infer a needless tautology in the command of christ, which the god of wisdom will not own, in so short a sum of words. he addeth page 50. that peter's words in baptising cornelius after he had received the spirit imply no command. ans. is it not (totidem verbis) in plain terms said, he commanded them to be baptised in the name of the lord, act, 10.48. and the scripture phrase of doing a thing in the name of the lord, is as much as doing it at his command, and by authority and warrant from him, matth. 18.20. where two or three are gathered together in my name (that is, in obedience to my command) there am i in the midst of them. object. that the apostles received no commission to baptise with water, is clear from that of paul, where he saith, i thank god i baptised none of you, but crispus and gaius, and the household of stephanus for i was not sent to baptise, but to preach the gospel. 1. cor. 1. answer. if the apostle had no commission to baptise with water, how was it then, that he thus baptised some? he would not have done this of his own head and self-will, paul should have sinned in baptising any at all without commission: and therefore we gather that he was sent indeed to baptise, but his principal mission was to preach; and this is not an adding to scripture but the true meaning of it, which will be further clear by comparing it with hos. 6.6. for i desired mercy and not sacrifice. now it is certain that sacrifice was a thing that god required, but mercy was the principal thing, it was not so much sacrifice as mercy that god called for. even so christ sent paul not so much to baptise as to preach; he sent him principally to preach as being a more principal work. the quakers instance about worshipping of images, is altogether impertinent, the religious worshipping of them (more or less) is absolutely forbidden. but paul had not such an absolute prohibition as to baptising with water, otherwise he had not adventured upon the baptising of any. he saith, that scripture matth. 28.19. relateth to the baptism of the spirit, and not to baptism with water. arsw. because this is the main scripture, that the continuance of water baptism is grounded upon, it will be needful to clear that by baptism here, is intended (not the baptism of the spirit) but baptism with water. for making out of which, two things are to be remarked, 1. that the baptism here mentioned is held forth to be the action of the apostles: hence christ said to them, go and teach all nations baptising them. now to baptise with the spirit, is spoken of as the peculiar action of christ; to ascribe to men a power of baptising with the spirit, is to attribute to them, what is peculiar to christ, matth. 3.11. he that cometh after me is mightyer than i, he shall baptise with the holy ghost. 2. the baptism of the spirit, is a sanctifying, renewing, operation of the spirit in and upon the heart. now if this baptism were here intended, than the duty commanded should be confounded with the promise, for the promise is, i will be with you, that is, by the assistance, presence, and powerful operation of my spirit, accompanying your labours, making them effectual upon the hearts of people: so that understanding the words of the baptism of the spirit, there should be a confounding of the duty commanded, with the mercy and blessing promised: therefore the baptism which christ commanded is baptism with water (as is verified by the apostles practise) which is to continue as the preaching of the word, unto the end of the world. page 51. he undertaketh to elude the scriptures cited by me, as holding forth the excellent end; and uses of baptism, the first was act. 2.28. to this, he saith, that here is no mention of outward water. ans. neither is there mention of outward water, 1 cor. 1.16.17. and yet be grants that baptising there hath reference to water. 2. he saith that repentance and remission of sins may be, and are found without water baptism. ans. therefore, baptism with water is not absolutely necessary to salvation, which we readily yield. 3. he saith, where baptism with water is, both these are frequently wanting. answ. ergo, the papists are in an error, who affirm that baptism doth ex opere operato, confer grace. second scripture is 1. pet. 3.21. to this he saith, that the words following clear the meaning, not to be water baptism, not the putting away of the filth of the flesh. answ. these words do indeed manifest that baptism of itself, is not available unto salvation, and so the popish opus operatum, is struck at: as if by the mere receiving of baptism, grace were conveyed. the like may be said, to what he alleges in answering the other scriptures, viz. act. 22.6. ephes. 5.26. gal. 3.7. in all which he proceedeth upon a wrong supposition, as if we thought that baptism of itself (or by any force of the outward element of water) were effectual to cleanse the soul, and to work grace and regeneration: now this is far from our thoughts, who make the efficacy of it, to be only the power and operation of the holy ghost, accompanying the ordinance in the right use of it. he addeth, that baptism with water is but a figure, which was to give place to that one baptism epes. 4.5. answer. this one baptism was the baptism which christ commanded, and it hath been cleared, that this baptism was baptism with water: so that that one baptism, cannot be called the substance, and baptism with water the shadow seeing they are the same thing: and therefore it remaineth that baptism with water is an ordinance of christ, and (the lord concurring with it) a profitable means to further our salvation. and whereas he reflects upon our baptising of infants, and the manner ●f it: it must be adverted, that the quarrel betwixt quakers and us, is not whether baptism belong to infants, or whether it should be by sprinkling or dipping: but they are against all baptism with water (even of adult persons) not allowing this, so much as the name of an ordinance of jesus christ. xi. head. concerning the lords supper. he granteth page 52. that christ was the author of the lords supper, and that the disciples were enjoined the observance of it, but he saith, this prouss not that it was to be of perpetual continuance. answ. hereby is proved all that was intended, namely, that the ordinance of the supper, hath christ for the instituter of it: and therefore it is called the lords table, 1. cor. 10.21. and the lords supper, 1. cor. 11.20. why then doth the quaker vilify this ordinance, by speaking of it with that addition (the lord's supper so called) cannot he find in his heart to give it that name, which the scripture giveth it. he saith, that by breaking bread act. 2.42. is meant their ordinary eating. answer. the eating there, is not ordinary, but sacramental eating, which usually is expressed by this phrase of breaking bread, (a part being taken for the whole) act. 20.7. 1. cor. 10.16. neither doth act. 2.46. make it evident, that their breaking of bread was their ordinary eating. this text speaketh not of daily eating (but of continuing daily in the temple) and though they did eat from house to house; yet the syriak expoundeth it expressly of the eucharist: and it is thought that the faithful abode sometimes in one house, and sometimes in another for fear of persecution. it seemeth the gentleman knoweth not well the way of protestant churches, who thinketh that their sacramental eating is but once or twice in a year, they plead that it should be often: and the practice of some is answerable, in that they communicate once in a fortnight, and others once every month. and albeit we do not go to this ordinance to make a full meal for our bodies (liberal feeding of them at such a time would make the better part to be neglected) yet as much is made use of, as serveth to represent the spiritual nourishment of believers by jesus christ, and more is not requisite. he addeth page 53. that the eating mentioned act. 2.46. is conjoined with this, that they sold their possessions, and if we make the apostles example and practise our rule, why do we not sell our possessions as they did? answer. we hold not ourselves bound to follow the saints and apostles in every thing, all their practices are not to be imitated by us: and therefore we distinguish their practices, some of them were accidental or occasional, being occasioned by the special necessity of times and seasons; these are not always binding (but only when cases and seasons are alike) and of this nature, was their selling of their possessions. then some of their actions were upon such grounds as are of perpetual and common concernment, to one church as well a another, to one age as well as another, and these actions are still obligatory: thus we ought to follow them in breaking bread, or in the ordinance of the supper; because this concerns the churches of christ in this age as well as in their age: seeing the lord left it as a standing and lasting monument of his love, to continue until his coming again in the clouds, as shall be made good in due time. he asketh, why we do not abstain from eating blood, and things strangled, as they did? answer. the command in reference to these things was but temporary, and there is a plain repeal of it: in that christian liberty is extended to whatsoever is sold in the shambles, of that (saith the apostle) eat making no question for conscience sake, 1 cor. 10.25. he asketh again, why we do not wash one another's feet, which they were as solemnly commanded to do, as to take and eat? joh. 13.14. answer. how is it then, that we do not read in all the scriptures, that ever the disciples practised this thing? they continued in breaking bread, but where is there mention of their washing the feet of one another? the great design of this command, was to teach the apostles humility and love, and mutually to condescend for one another's good, even to the meanest and lowest services: our lord and master's pattern of humility, should make fellow servants ashamed of their statliness and pride. he denyeth that the apostle 1. cor. 11. recommended the practice of this ordinance by way of command. answer. what clearer command can there be then that verse 28. let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. mark, the apostle doth not only hold forth, that they were or might be in the use of this ordinance; but that they ought and should be in the use of it, plainly enjoining this by way of precept: & withal discovering the necessity of previous examination, before their partaking of this so solemn an ordinance. it is further to be observed that the corinthians were to be often in the use of this ordinance, as oft as ye eat this bread and drink this cup. now these ordinances which were abolished by the coming of christ (and yet for a season were practised) they were nor often used by the apostles and primitive christians: let me clear this, by instancing in circumcision (which is the instance very much talked of by quakers) we read indeed that paul circumcised timothy, (but whom other did he circumcise?) he refused to circumcise titus, gal. 2.3. and the reason of timothy's circumcision, was to prevent the scandal of weak brethren, act. 16.3. now where doth the apostle when he warrants christians to be often in the use of this ordinance of the supper, give this as a reason? namely, that it was for the sake of the weak, who could nor suddenly be weaned from it, (let the quaker show this from scripture if he can) the apostle had a higher rise, he saw divine authority stamped upon this ordinance, that (saith he) which i received of the lord, have i delivered unto you. 1. cor. 11.23. sect. i. the ordinance of the supper is not abolished, but to be continued till the coming of christ. page 54. he letteth of his great gun, (small shot will not serve his turn) thinking to give this ordinance deadly wound; but really, he maketh a noise without doing the least spoil. let us examine the scripture which he brings for the abolishing and ending of the lords supper, it is 1. cor. 10.15.16.17. i speak as unto wise men, judge ye what i say, the bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of christ. then saith he, the apostle proceeds to show what that bread was, for we being many are one bread, and one body, for we are partakers of that one bread. answer. there is not a word here concerning the abolishing of the the lords supper. this scripture affords a notable argument to promote union and oneness among the professing people of god: the drift of it being to show, that as many grains of wheat make up one loaf, so many members make up one body of christ; and partaking of that one bread, thereby they profess union in love towards one another. he asketh, what is that one bread, is it the outward, or the inward? ans. it is both the outward and the inward, and yet it is but one bread, in regard of the sacramental union, which if between the sign, and the thing signified: and by virtue of this union, the sign sometimes gets the name of the thing signified; as when christ took the bread, saying, this is my body. now by this answer, our intent only is to show how truly the bread may be called one bread (and that this ordinance is to be continued, we shall prove another way) and therefore it is a pitiful evasion for him to say, that we might as well plead for the continuance of all the sacrifices and offerings, etc. any one may see a non sequitur in his reasoning. he addeth, page 55. that the apostles and primitive christians who had a large measure of the spirit, did use this ordinance, but it was not by necessity of command. answer. it cannot be denied but once there was a command to be in the use of this ordinance, christ said, do this in remembrance of me. now there is no repeal of this command, neither in express terms, nor by due consequence from scripture: unless he can make (a formal or virtual appeal hereof) to appear, we have reason to think that the primitive christians set about this ordinance, by virtue of a command, and that still we are obliged to do the same. he addeth, that we have no ground to say, that christ enjoins the observance of this ordinance, till his outward coming so many hundred years after. answer. the scripture is plain that the duration and continuance of this ordinance must be, till christ come, 1. cor. 11.26. now this coming of christ is not to be understood of an internal coming, in a spiritual inward way of appearance in the hearts of his people; we deny not, but christ promised thus to come to them, and hath made his promise good, by a plentiful infusion of the graces of his spirit into their hearts; after this manner he came to the corinthians, who were called to be saints, 1. cor. 11.2. and had the spirit of god dwelling in them. 1. cor. 3.16. and were washed, justified, sanctified in the name of the lord jesus. 1. cor. 11.6. and enriched in all knowledge, 1. cor. 1.5. but notwithstanding this inward coming they continued in the practice of this ordinance; and that (as hath been cleared) necessitate praecepti, in regard of a command; and therefore that coming (until which this ordinance must be continued) what other can it be, but even christ's coming to judgement? spoken of by the angel at his alcention, when he shall come in like manner as he was seen go to heaven, act. 1.11. now surely, quakers must needs be great enemies to their own souls, who oppose this ordinance which the primitive saints (who had the substance more than any of them) conscientiously practised, and the lord expressly commanded: and plainly intimats his mind, that it should be perpetuated for the good and benefit of his church, until his second coming to judge the world. it is meeter to pass by the gentleman's empty words, which fill up page 56. then to make a repetition of, or any reply unto them. only it is to be considered that the difference between quakers and us, is not about the qualification of persons, who should be admitted to the lords supper; but they raze the very ordinance itself. head. xii. concerning the ministry. sect. i. quakers are against a mediate call to the ministry: and an immediate call they have not. he addeth page 57 that it cannot be asserted in opposition to quakers (who grant the same) that the ministry of the word is an ordinance of christ. ans. in the dialogue i pointed at a ministry mediately called, and are quakers for a mediate call to the ministry? at when men are set a part and ordained to that office, by fasting, prayer, and laying on of hands: it this be their mind, why do they speak against those who are thus ordained? as not being the ministers of christ, but having their ministry from men. he asketh, why i cite ephes. 4.11. answer. to show that christ appointed ministers to be in his church, and here is touched the principal and public officers given to his church: whereof the three first were extraordinary, and but temporary, and the three last ordinary and perpetual: for should these cease as the former? then christ (might come under that imputation, of not being faithful to his promise) who gave them to continue till we all come in the unity of the faith unto a perfect man. he addeth, that it is owned by them that the ministry is not common, yet that hinders not but that any of them may speak when the saints are met together, according to 1. cor. 14.31. answer. i would ask how he can make out, that the prophesying mentioned in that place is an ordinary office? and if it be extraordinary, than it can be no foundation, for quakers to build an ordinary practice upon. besides when it is said, ye may all prophesy one by one, it is not to be understood of all the members of the church indifferently; for some are forbidden expressly to speak in the church, verse 34. and therefore that all must be referred to the prophets: all the prophets may prophesy, and the same apostle saith, all are not prophets, 1. cor. 12.29. he allegeth, it is not proved that some are called to the ministry immediately without the intervention of men and some mediately by men authorized for that purpose. answer. were not the prophets and apostles called immediately? the lord sent them by his own immediate command, amos. 7.15. matth. 16.1.6.7. was nor timothy set a part to the work (mediately) by the laying on of the hands of the presbytery; 1. timothy. 4.14. and it was given him in charge to lay hands suddenly on no man, 1. tim. 5.22. we deny not but such (recorded in scripture) as had a mediate outward call to the ministry, had also an inward call (that is, competent qualifications, gifts and abilities for the work) but it must be observed, that the inward call, and immediate call, are not the same thing: in scripture the one is opposed to the other, paul who was immediately called to be an apostle; opposeth himself, 1. to false apostles, who were called by the mere authority of men. 2. he opposes himself to ordinary ministers: who might have an inward call from god, and an outward call from men appointed by god for this work, see gal. 1.1. paul an apostle not of men, neither by man, but by jesus christ. he addeth, that they who come preaching the gospel, not in speech only, but also in power and in the holy ghost, and in the evidence and demonstration of the spirit, give sufficient proof that they are called of god. answer. methinks then, he should have more favourable thoughts of protestant ministers: who have been and are powerful preachers of the gospel, being able to give as evidences of their mission from god (besides their competent qualifications, and ordination to the ministry) the success of and some daily assistance of the spirit in their labours; and yet the quaker; in the heat and anger of their spirits, do not spare such. but stepping up to the throne of judgement, they impiously censure them, as deceivers, hypocrites, and children of the devil. he maketh much ado, page 58. as if we were falling in with papists, in pleading for miracles; when as it is known we do not pretend to the doing of miracles; only if men be so bold, as to assert an immediate call (which the quakers do) such as the apostles had: we think it meet that they show the signs of their apostoleship, and the tokens of their immediate call; which hath been always accompanied either with the working of miracles, foretelling of things to come, or some other extraordinary thing. jonah foretold the destruction, which within forty days was to come upon nineveh. john's call was attended with extraordinary things at his conception and birth, and there were singular predictions concerning him. object. so there are special predictions concerning the lords pouring forth of his spirit, upon many in these latter days to prophesy. answer. i suppose the special prediction which he aims at, is, joel 2.28. now this prediction was accomplished in the extraordinary pouring forth of the spirit upon the apostles: when they were filled with the holy ghost, and began to speak with tongues: the apostle urgeth this, as the accomplishment of that promise in joel. see act. 2.15.16.17. when quakers can manifest that scripture predictions (of preparing the way of the lord) are applied to them by angels and confirmed by the testimony of christ, as they were to john, we shall then look upon them, as called as he was, but not till then. he saith that tit. 1.5. act. 14.23. prove not that those elders had not the call of the spirit of god in themselves. answer. what ever inward call they might have; yet they had not an immediate call, which is by the immed at voice and command of god, without the intervention of men: and therefore in that moses consecrated aaron, it followeth that his call was not immediate (but rather an extraordinary mediate call) and yet he was called of god: being set a part in that way which the lord had prescribed and appointed. sect. ii. proving the continuance of the ministry. he addeth that my proof from ephes. 4.12.13. is altogether impertinent, because we are against the perfection of the saints in this life. answer. this is a pregnant and pertinent proof to bold forth the continuance of the ministry, the term whereof is the day of judgement: for this ministry must continue till all the elect come & meet in that complete unity (not only of opinion, but also of he art and affection) which is called the unity of the faith, and it is that which the saints shall attain unto: being come to the state and degree of perfection in the life to come, which state is here called a perfect man. neither can it be gathered from verse 14. (that this perfection is on earth) where the apostle only showeth that the ministry of the word is a mean ordained by god, to preserve & keep his people from the poison of dangerous errors, and from the snares of subtle, crafty seducers. it is true, the ministry is given for perfecting of the saints, and hereby (as a mean) they are brought to perfection in parts, and pressed to seek after an absolute full perfection even in degrees. now in casting of the ministry that we plead for (namely a ministry according to the order delivered by the apostles and prescribed in the word.) quakers manifest themselves to be enemies to the ministry of christ, and injurious to their own souls. xiii. head. concerning the sabbath. sect. i. the observation of the sabbath is warranted by the fourth command. he addeth page 59 that as the fourth command requireth the observation of one day of seven, so it expressly instanceth that day, to be the seventh. ans▪ though the fourth command instance in the seventh day (that is for number) yet it speaketh not precisely of the seventh day in order from the creation. it is said six days shalt thou labour, but the seventh is the sabbath, mark, the seventh is the sabbath, the lord saith not the seventh from the creation. it is likewise worthy special observation to consider the preceptive and the benedictive part of the fourth command, or the beginning and conclusion of it. in the beginning it is said, remember the sabbath day to keep it holy. in the conclusion it is said, wherefore the lord blessed the sabbath day and hallowed it; observe the phrase, not seventh day, but sabbath day is blessed, so that the fourth command neither gins nor ends with that term the seventh day, but with that of the sabbath day: which is an evidence that the design of this command, is not to bind the church to a precise keeping of the seventh day from the creation; for there is no express mention of that day in all the fourth command: the main intendment therefore of the fourth command is to prescribe a seventh day to be kept holy (after six day's labour) which god appointeth: and this to the people of god under the old testament, was the seventh day of the week, (it being appointed by god in the first institution of the sabbath, gen. 2 3.) but to us it is the first day of the week; the sabbath being translated and changed to this day by divine authority, as will afterwards appear. 1. object. the keeping of one day of the week for a sabbath is not perpetual, but abolished, coloss. 2.16.17. let no man judge you in meat or drink, or in respect of a holy day, or new moon, or of the sabbath days. answer. here the apostle opposeth ceremonial ordinances, but not gospel institutions. indeed the old anabaptists, and familists (with whom quakers go along) they urged this text against all difference of days under the gospel; though the apostles only design be to decry the several sorts of days, which were in use among the jews, of which he gives an observable enumeration: proceeding from their yearly holy days, to their monethlie new moons, and from them to their weekly sabbaths: so that granting the weekly sabbath to be here taken in, yet it maketh nothing against the christian sabbath, but against the old seventh day sabbath. 2. object. rom. 14.6. plainly holdeth forth all days to be alike. answer. what was said before, serveth to clear this scripture, it speaketh of ceremonial days: of such days as are in the rank with ceremonial meats, and therefore opposeth not the moral weekly sabbath. 3. object. gal. 4.10.11. ye observe days and months, times, and years, i am afraid of you. ans. there is a twofold observation of days, moral and ceremonial, now the apostle speaketh not against the former, but the latter: he would not have jewish times (such a their sabbatical years, their annual feasts; their monethlie feasts, called new moons, their weekly seventh day, which is probably thought to be included in that clause ye observe days) to be observed (which the jewish false teachers cried up) but he was far from crying down the fourth command, which is no less binding then the rest of the decalogue: it being delivered in the same majestic manner pressed with the same severity, and written by the same finger of god, and put into the same ark, with the rest. he that said, thou shalt not commit adultery; thou shalt not steal; said likewise, remember the sabbath day keep it holy: and therefore if persons take upon them to sacrifice this command to their wild fancies, they need not spare the other commands. and in very deed the commands of god, are little beholden either to papists or quakers; for papists reject the second command, and quakers give the same usage to the fourth. and this puts me in mind of a story i have heard concerning an honest countryman, who travelling on the rod, there were two who denied the sabbath, came up to him, upon a design to try his knowledge; the question they propounded was concerning the number of the commands, the well meaning man, knew the persons and shaped an answer suitable to their principles, telling them there were eight commands: whereupon the querists made sport, and upbraided the poor man with his profession, and his ignorance; but he gravely replied, that the scripture indeed spoke of ten commands, deut. 4.13. but they had taken away one command, and the papists another: so that between them, they had brought the commands from ten to eight. in his answer to matth. 24.20. where christ intimats the continuance of a sabbath. he saith, that sabbath, is neither here nor else where said to be the first day of the week. answer. though there be no express mention in this place, of the first day of the week; yet in that it proves the continuance of a sabbath, it overthrows the quakers opinion: who would be levelling all days, making them alike. and it is to be remarked, that christ was come into the world, & relateth the sad things, which were to befall his disciples, after he was ascended to the father; and yet even then a sabbath was in being he addeth page 60. that as the outward jew ma● not be put to fly on his outward sabbath, so the inward jew desireth much more that he may keep hi● sabbath, which is his spiritual rest in christ, heb 4.9. answer. the apostle in this chapter speaketh of a rest, which believers only enter into; and showeth, 1. that this rest is not the rest of the sabbath, verse 4. 2. that it is not the rest of the land of canaan, verse 8. if jesus (that is joshua) had given them rest, than would he not have spoken o● another rest. it followeth then that the rest which believers only shall enter into, is the rest of heaven, verse 9 there remains therefore a rest for the people of god. now because there is an eternal rest promised to the believing, obedient people of god, saith this, any thing why they should not observe one day of seven, as a sabbath unto the lord, oh, the conscientious keeping of the sabbath is a comfortable evidence of those that shall be admitted to this rest. sect. ii. the first day of the week is set a part for the service of god by divine authority. he addeth, if we have the same authority for keeping the first day of the week, as the jews had for keeping their day, then let it be produced. answer. it was produced before, but he would not see it: however for the sake of others we shall consider again that scripture, rev. 1.10. i was in the spirit on the lord's day. now that by the lord's day is meant the first day of the week, will be clear, if we advert that there are peculiar grounds, why this day is singularly to be called the lords day, beyond other days; because, 1. on this day our lord arose, and ceased from the work of redemption, mark. 16.1.2. 2. on this day our lord graciously (and frequently) appeared unto his disciples, joh. 20.19. 3. on this day our lord declared himself to be the son of god with power, rom. 1.4. 4. on this day our lord plentifully poured his spirit upon his apostles, for penticost (or the fifthtieth day from the passover) is computed to have fallen out that year on this day, act. 2.1.2. thus it is apparent that the first day of the week may (beyond other days) be peculiarly termed the lords day. to this may be subjoined the observation of famous beza, who observes out of an ancient greek manuscript, wherein the first day of the week, is expressly called the lords day. now this day being called the lords, it imports that the lord is the author and instituter of it, this tittle (as i remember) the lords, is in the new testament attributed but to two things: namely, to the supper (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) and the day (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) now the supper is called the lords, because he did institute and appoint it, and so the day is called the lords, because christ is the author and appointer of it: and therefore in keeping this day we walk obediently to the fourth command, which requires on day (to be observed as a sabbath) which the lord appointeth: we then keep this day, because it is a day instituted and appointed by the lord. neither must those two expressions, the day of the lord, and the lords day, be confounded; for all days wherein god executeth judgement upon sinners are days of the lord, amos 5.18.20. but the lord's day mentioned revel. 1. is but one, which at that time was known to the churches to be the first day of the week. ignatius (who lived in john's time) speaking of this day, saith, omnis christi amator, dominicum celebret diem, reginam & principem dierum omnium: that is, let every one that loveth christ keep holy the lord's day, which is the queen and empress of all days. whereas page 61. 62. he insinuats that every day, even all the days of our life, are to be given up unto the lord and spent in his service. answer. it is true, we ought daily to be employed in the worship and service of god; but as this will not infer, that every day is to be keeps as a sabbath (which must be wholly consecrated to the service of god) so it makes nothing against the keeping of a weekly sabbath? for the jews before christ were bound every day to serve god; and yet they were tied to the observance of a weekly sabbath. thus my former charge is still made good against quakers, that it is for the inventions of men, but the ordinances of jesus christ which they disowne. head. xiv. concerning original sin which quakers deny. he affirmeth page 62. that the thing which we intent by original sin, is not expressed in scripture. ans. is it not expressed in scripture, that there is corruption and sin in us from our conception and birth? (and this is that which we intent by original sin) for this the scripture is plain, joh. 3.6. that which is born of the flesh is flesh, intimating that men by their natural birth are corrupt and fleshly. job speaking of man's birth uttereth these words, who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean, job, 14.4. david acknowledged that corruption and sin, wherewith he was defiled from his conception, psalm 51.5. he saith, the thing that we intent by original sin, is, that all infants are sinners before god only for adam's sin. answer. it seemeth he is not well acquainted with our doctrine about original sin. it is true we assert (and with good warrant) that infants are guilty of adam's sin, for in adam all die, and therefore in him all have sinned, 1. cor. 15.22. and though adam's first sin may be called original sin; yet we distinguish of original sin, it being either imputed or inherent. original sin imputed, is the disobedience of adam, which is imputed to his posterity, rom. 5.19. by one man's disobedience many were made sinners. original sin inherent, is that hereditary inbred corruption, which we brought with us into the world: and this is conveyed and derived to infants from their immediate parents, in sin did my mother conceive me. page 63. he denyeth that the guilt of adam's first sin lies at the door of infants who never actually sinned. answer. the apostle confutes the quaker rom. 5.12. where first he showeth, that by one man, (namely adam) sin came into the world. secondly, that death entered the world by sin. thirdly, that death (i. e. lyableness to death) passed upon all. fourthly, the reason why death (which came by the sin of one man) passed upon all; for that all have sinned, so that infants are not exempted from the guilt of that one man's sin: which will be further clear, if it be considered that the greek (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) will bear in whom, thus it is varied on the margin of our books; and so beza renders it, and they who are well skilled in the greek, think this the best reading. now it is only one of three things that can be alleged for the antecedent of this relative in whom, either sin, or death, or that one man: but it is not sin, for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (rendered sin) cannot answer the greek relative, because they are of different genders; neither is it death (as the quakers pretend) for what sense is it to say, in which death all have sinned? this is an improper speech. it was long since observed, that in peccato moriuntur homines, non in morte peccant, men die in sin, they are not said to sin in death: and therefore this in whom, hath reference to that one man, namely, adam; in him, all (without exception of infants) have sinned. object. it is plain that sin is not imputed to infants, for the apostle saith rom. 5.13. sin is not imputed where there is no law, now infants are not capable of a law. answer. infant's may be considered in respect of their own persons, or in respect of their representative: now though infants as to their own proper persons be not capable of a law; for they cannot discern between their right hand and their left, yet their representative was capable of a law; yea, to adam the representative of all mankind, a law was actually given, and this will serve to answer the quakers two other objections. 1. object. why should infants be guilty of adam's sin, and not of the sin of their other forefathers? answer. the reason is, because adam is to be looked upon, not as a single individual person; but as a public universal person: now that adam was a public person representing mankind, is evident from the miserable event of his sin, which made not only himself obnoxious to death, but likewise his posterity descending from him in an ordinary way, rom. 5.12. yea, such of his posterity have come under death, as never actually sinned in their own persons, verse 14. death reigned from adam to moses, even over them that had not sinned, after the similitude of adam's transgression; that is, over infants who sinned not actually as adam did, in their own persons, yet they were subject to death as well as others. 2. object. it is said ezek. 18.20. the soul that sinneth it shall die, the son shall not bear the iniquity of the father. answer. what if the son be a partaker of the father's iniquity, will not god then visit the iniquity of the fathers upon the children? exod. 20.5. now though infants partake not of adam's sin by imitation, yet they partake of his sin, in so far as adam was the root of mankind, and sinned as a public person representing them: the root dying all the branches died in it, and with it, 1. cor. 15.22. he saith page 64. that infants are subject to diseases, and death, this proves them not to be sinners. ans. the scripture gives ground to believe, that if man had not sinned he should not have died; because death is only threatened in case of man's sinning, gen. 2.17. and upon his sinning god told him (not till then) that he should return to the dust, gen. 3.19. it is true the inanimat creatures suffer for the sin of man. but it followeth not, that therefore all of mankind who suffer death are not sinners; especially, seeing the apostle plainly affirms, that death entered by sin, and death hath passed upon all, for that all have sinned: so that he concludes all persons who are liable to death, to be under the guilt of sin, and consequently sinners. christ indeed though innocent, was a man of sorrows, because our sins were laid upon him. he pleadeth for the salvation of all infants who die in their infancy, alleging that scripture mark. 10.14. suffer little children to come unto me, for of such is the kingdom of god. answer. the kingdom of god is taken either for the kingdom of grace, or for the kingdom of glory: and such infants as are subjects of his kingdom of grace, upon whom the lord exerciseth a gracious government, in regenerating and sanctifying them: all such infants shall be admitted to the kingdom of glory. but how will the quaker prove that all infants who die in their infancy, have such s gracious operation in and upon them? now the scripture is plain that there is that in infants, which makes them liable to destruction, ephes. 2.3. by nature we are children of wrath, that is from the very first receiving of our natures and beings, we receive withal a lyableness to the wrath of god. and that some infants do perish, may be gathered from that which befell sodom and gomorrha, none of the inhabitants were spared, no not the infants and sucklings: and they were not only consumed with fire and brimstone; but it is expressly said that they suffer the vengeance of eternal fire, judas verse 7. he saith, page 65. that christ is a saviour not only to save from sin, but also from the consequences of sin, not only from the fruits and branches of it, but from the seed. answer. christ indeed is a perfect saviour, and will completely save his people from every sin and evil, but whom he thus saveth, it supposeth that they had sin in them to be saved from; but if the quaker speak truth, infants have not sin in them to be saved from: for he saith, they are not guilty of adam's sin, and the seed doth not make them guilty of sin before god, because they do not close with it: now actual sin they have not, so that christ is not a saviour to save them from their sin; and consequently they are shut out from being in the number of christ's people. i cannot but take notice of the gentleman's impudence, or else ignorance, in bringing that scripture matth. 1.21. as making so much against us, as if we were for a salvation in our sins: whenas nothing can more unjustly be charged upon us. we assert that whom the lord saveth, he works in them a detestation of sin, and a purpose to come off from all their sins; and delivers them (in this life) from sin in part, compare rom. 6.6 with rom. 7.20.24. and at death he gives them a total riddance of sin, heb. 4.10. to say that infants are saved from sin, because they are not suffered to fall into it, (it might be as well said, that christ died to save the elect holy angels from sin, because they are not suffered to fall into sin.) this looks like the old evasion of the pelagians, viz. that infant's need christ, not to save them from sin, but to bring them to the kingdom of heaven: against whom augustin urged that they divided these two names of our saviour, jesus, and christ, making him a christ where he was not a jesus. head. xv. concerning the perseverance of the saints, which quakers are against. he addeth, that they hold no such matter as falling away from regeneration, and that these that fell away never attained to regeneration. ans. here he seeks to hid himself, but may easily be discovered: for is not this the doctrine of quakers, that saints may fall totally and finally away from true and saving grace? g. keith in his answer to my queries, sticks not to say, that this is clear both from experience, and abundant testimonies of scripture. now are not saints regenerate? what is regeneration but to be brought into such a state, wherein we are made like god in righteousness and holiness? and this being the state of saints, than it followeth, that if saints may fall away totally and finally (which quakers grant) then there may be a total and final falling away from regeneration. it is in vain to assert a total and final falling away from saving grace (because it is said, some who believed afterwards fell away, and some make shipwreck of the faith, and some who tasted the good word of god, and the powers of the world to come fell away.) seeing it is known that we use to distinguish between seeming, counterfeit grace, and sound, saving grace, between the common gifts of the spirit, and the saving graces of the spirit: now it is incumbent for the gentleman to prove, that they who believed & made shipwreck of their faith, (or others who finally fell away) had the sound and saving graces of the spirit, which is the thing that we deny. he saith, that philipp. 1.6. is to be understood no otherwise, then as the condition is made good on their part, as heb. 3.14. we are made partakers of christ if we hold fast unto the end. answer. the condition which the lord requires on his people's part, he promiseth to enable them to make good, jerem. 32.29. i will give them one heart, that they may fear me for ever. here is a promise that god's people shall persevere in cleaving to him: and the promise of god cannot fail, it is more sure than heaven and earth, mark. 13.31. page 66. in answering 1. pet. 1.5. he saith such as are kept by the power of god, it is through faith, but as they abide not in that power through faith but wander from it, they fall, and cannot but fall. answer. a goodly reply (forsooth) which is as if he had said, if the saints fall from faith, they must fall and cannot but fall. (remonstrants grant that a believer quatalis, as a believer cannot fall away, but qui talis est, he that is a believer may fall away.) now the design of that scripture 1. pet. 1.5. is to show that there are two things concurring to prevent the saints, total and final fall, namely, faith and the power of god: both work together to keep the saints unto salvation; that lord who gives faith unto his people helps them to persevere in it, for he is not only the author but the finisher of their faith, heb. 12.2. in answering jerem. 32.40. he saith, it should be translated thus, i will put my fear in their hearts, that they may not departed from me. answer. the words in the hebrew are, lebilti sur megnalai, which will as well carry shall not, as may not departed from me. but granting that the words were translated according to his own desire, yet they are full enough to prove the saints perseverance (the lord putting his fear into them for this end) god's love will not suffer him to departed from the saints, and fear will not let them departed from god: god principles their hearts with such a measure of his dread and fear, as stays them from an utter departur from him. he maketh short work with these other scriptures, joh. 10.27.28. joh. 13.1.1. joh. 2.19 saying, that they speak of those who were to come to a through regeneration. answer. this is a bare affirmation, without any proof. there is no mention in the texts themselves of a through regeneration; and if it be only throughly regenerate, or perfectly sanctified persons that shall persevere; then perseverance is the privilege only of saints in heaven, (whose attainment this perfection is) and not of saints on earth who groan under their imperfections. now seeing that saints who have true and saving grace are the regeneat children of god, (when by faith they receive christ, god owns them for his children, and they are truly regenerate, gal. 3.26. joh. 1.12.13.) on the other hand graceless persons are branded as being the children of the devil, joh. 8.44. is it not then manifest that to mantain the total and final apostasy of the saints from grace, will infer, that they who are the children of god, by true regeneration this day, may the next day become the children of the devil? because the grace that they have now, they may utterly lose it, err to morrow. he asketh, whether i look upon the quakers as having fallen away? answer. his book (containing nor only his private sentiments, but the common opinions of quakers) is a sufficient proof that they have apostatised and fallen from the truth: and such of them as have felt a gracious operation on their hearts, (but in this hour of temptation are under a sad snare) i trust the lord will convince them, and grant them repentance to the acknowledgement of the truth: that by their rising again they may edify and rejoice those souls whom they have wounded, and stumbled by their fall. head. xvi. concerning the hazard and danger of quakerism. sect. i. it tends to the neglect of that worship which is due to god. he saith page 67. that they deny not true worship, but only our idolatrous worship. answer. if our worship were idolatrous, they had reason to deny it; but it is unreasonable to call our worship idolatrous, when they have not a shadow of reason to prove it to be so, unless the gentleman think that (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) the quakers naked affirmation is a sufficient reason. now it is manifest that quakers refuse god the worship which is due to him in the use of the creatures, in that they can, and do adventure to use these, without seeking god's blessing upon them: which hath been (by former saints) accounted a profane custom, utterly unfit to be heard of, among christians professing the knowledge and fear of god! are we not commanded to eat and drink to the glory of god? 1. cor. 10.31. and must we not then look up to god, and desire his help to improve the creatures to his glory? besides the creatures of themselves cannot nourish us, if god deny his blessing, our eating and drinking can do us no good: and therefore we have need to address ourselves to god by prayer; for by this means the blessing is obtained, and the creatures come to be sanctified to us, 1. tim. 4.4. object. to receive the benefits and gifts of god with thanksgiving, and to witness it sanctified to us by the word and prayer is owned by us. answer. do quakers witness the creatures sanctified to them by prayer, when yet they do not pray for the sanctified use of them? pray, observe the way that christ took (his example is worth our imitation) at the receiving of the creatures he looked up to heaven for a blessing, mark. 6.14. and gave thanks, matth. 15.36. and this appears to have been his ordinary practice, he was known of his disciples in breaking bread: it being his ordinary manner to bless the bread (in some special way) which he break, whereby he was discerned and differenced from others luk. 24.30.31. object. it is usual among us, when we sit down, to wait upon the lord for sometime, that we may know ourselves stated in his fear, and as there we stand, outward expressions may be uttered by us. answer. when they are not thus stated in god's fear, yet they have liberty and freedom to fall to meat: so it would seem though they will not pray without fear, yet they can eat without fear, which is the character of wicked persons, judas, verse 12. as for their waiting (its but an engine to overthrow scripture precepts) seeing it hath reference to a new inward command, without which they do not hold themselves obliged, to express their desire in words, but as they are thus required of them. he addeth page 68 that to say, that a man cannot, nor ought not to pray without (an impulse) the spirits drawing, and motion, hath no bad tendency, because all such prayers, as are performed without the help of the spirit, are abomination, not true prayers, but hypocritical and deceitful. answer. we grant these things. first, that the spirit teacheth and helpeth the saints to pray, sometimes they are so stirred and moved to prayer, that they cannot be at quiet; but they must to some secret corner: and there pour out their complaints before the lord, gal. 4.6. secondly, that the season when the spirit moveth to duty, should be laid hold on, psal. 27.8. when thou saidst seek ye my face, my heart said unto thee, thy face i will seek. thirdly, when the spirit moveth the w●ek is sweetest; then the christian is cheerful in the exercise of duty. the joy that is in a little hearty praying, is beyond all the joys that the world can afford, isaiah. 56.7. fourthly, persons cannot pray aright without the spirit, and therefore the prayers of the wicked are said to be an abomination unto the lord. prov. 15.8. but it must be observed, that though prayer without the spirit be an abomination to god; yet omission of prayer is double abomination: the reason is, because to pray without the spirit, is a sin for the manner, but to neglect prayer is a sin, both as to matter and manner. he addeth, whosoever can pray to the lord indeed, let him pray, but that any can pray without the spirit, that we deny. answer. may he not according to this way of reasoning, take men off from eating? if they can eat to the glory of god indeed, then let them eat; but that they can eat to the glory of god, without the spirit: that's denied. likewise he may take men off from the works of their calling, for as the praying, so the ploughing of the wicked is sin, prov. 21.4. a motion of the spirit, is an encouragement to, but it is not our alone warrant for prayer: god in his word hath commanded prayer, 1. thess. 5.17. pray without ceasing: in obedience to this command we ought to set to the duty. and if it be alleged that we should pray (when we have the spirit) without ceasing; but not otherwise: it may as well be said, that children should honour their parents, and husbands love their wives, when they have a motion of the spirit to it; but in the absence of this motion, they may omit these duties. he asketh, what ground i have to believe, that some quakers for the space of a whole year, have not so much as once bowed a knee to call upon god in their families? answer. there is too much ground for the belief of it: their infrequency in family prayer, is too palpable. one of them confessed (whom i forbear to name) that now he was come to that pitch, that he prayed always: and though heretofore he was wont to call his family together, and pray with them; yet he had not done so for a twelve month past. is this a louly religion which takes men off from family prayer? it is a miserable shift, to tell that friends of truth, who have any whom they can join with: do meet, wait, and pray together. now grant that persons in quakers families were enemies to truth, would it not be a work of charity, and demonstration of love and tenderness to their souls, to pray with them, and for them? must not abraham keep up religion in his family, because an ishmael was in it? nor david because of the presence of absolom? page 69. he looketh upon me, as one wholly unacquainted with the ways and motions of the spirit, for supposing that an impulse of the spirit, may be denied for many years. answer. is there not ground to suppose, that men may turn lose negligent, and defective in waiting, even for several years: if so, than the motions of the spirit may be denied to them, (which he acknowledges are frequent, but to those that wait for them) and therefore all that time that they (who neglect to wait) want the motions of the spirit: they must not adventure upon prayer: yea they must not pray, though they were at the gates of death, and in danger of present drowning. it is true he conceives, that at such a season the breathe of the spirit will not be wanting to the saints; but what shall the wicked do in this case; must they keep silent? shall it not be lawful for them, to follow the advice which the apostle gave to simon magus? act. 8.22. pray god if perhaps the thoughts of thy heart may be forgiven thee. the quakers principle is, that men should not pray without a motion of the spirit. now suppose that persons contract guilt by their not waiting, hereby provoking the lord to withhold the motions of his spirit from them: then these motions being withheld, their not praying is not sin: and therefore they need not to be troubled for their omission of prayer. now doth not this tend to lull people asleep in security, and to keep them from charging themselves with that sin: which without repentance god will charge upon them? for he will call sinners to an account for their omissions, as well as for their commissions. sect. ii. quakerism tends to render mortification of sin useless. he asketh page 70. whether mortification of sin be useless, where the end of it (which is perfection) is attained? answer. there is a twofold perfection; namely, comparative, and absolute; the apostle speaketh of both these kinds of perfection, philipp. 3. and denyeth to himself an absolute, complete perfection, verse 12. not as though i had already attained, either were already perfect. yet he outstripped many others in holiness, and so had a comparative perfection, verse 13. let us therefore, as many as be perfect, be thus minded. now when there is an absolute, complete perfection (which is the thing the quaker pleads for) without the least indwelling corruption and sin: to such there is no use for mortification. persons need not to be taken up in kill sin (which is the importance of the word mortify) that have not sin in them to be killed. he quarrels at my saying, the opinion of a sinless perfection in this life wounds the very vitals of religion, and here the quaker triumphs (but it is before the victory;) ask, whether the vitals of religion consist in sinning or not sinning? answer. the vitals of religion consist in the means appointed by god, (and diligent thereof) for subduing and bearing down sin: such as prayer, repentance, mortification, believing, application of the blood of christ, and though the quakers grant that these things are needful for attaining unto perfection yet supposing a sinless perfection to be actually attained unto (by men in this world) what need is there then to pray for pardon of sin, to repent of sin, apply christ's blood for cleansing from sin? seeing there is no sin to be pardoned, repent of, or cleansed from. and therefore (the gentleman not denying that such consequences do flow from his principle) he is feign to shift, saying, that they who come to perfection witness the true use of these things; but in the mean time he should remember, that (under a pretence of perfection) he takes them off from the practice and use of the aforementioned duties and means; and so christianity in the vitals of it is struck at. he accuses me of confusion and contradiction, because (as he saith) i would infer a sinless man to be a sinning man. answer. is it either confusion or a contradiction to affirm one of the quakers conceitedly sinless men (to be sinful) who pretending to be without sin; yet discover much sin, by their pride, passion, bitterness, censuring and condemning others, and vilifying them by opprobrious terms, and railing accusations: if such say, they have no sin, they are but liars, and the truth is not in them, 1. joh. 1.8. it is remarkable, to consider whom the apostle speaketh of, if we (saith he) what we? look to verse 1. we that have heard and seen and handled the word of life; verse third, we who have fellowship with the father, and with his son jesus christ, verse 7, we who (by our justification) are cleansed from the guilt of all sin; yet it we say, we have no sin, we are not sincere but hypocrites, deceiving both ourselves and others. object. this scripture 1. job. 1.8. is conditional, otherwise it would contradict what follows, verse 9 and chapter 2.4. and chapter 3.9. answer. there is no contradiction; but sweet agreement between these scriptures: for verse 9 speaketh of forgiuness of sin, (which consisteth in freedom from the guilt of sin) and this may be where sin is nor utterly abolished. and 1. joh. 2.4. is understood of a sincere nor absolutely perfect keeping of the commands of god. and as for 1. joh. 3.9. it was formerly opened, and may be further cleared by comparing it with chapter 5.16. where the apostle speaketh of a sin unto death, which they that are born of god cannot commit, verse 18. we know that whosoever is born of god sinneth not, but he that is begotten of god, keepeth himself and the wicked one toucheth him not: that is, so as to draw him to that unpardonable sin, the child of god is secured from this sin. head. xvii. wherein truth is cleared of calumnies. page 72. he cometh to examine whether their or our principles will be most acceptable to the wicked. and first, he saith, wicked men and hypocrites love well to hear, that they can never be free from their sins in this life. answer. some wicked men, are so well conceited of the honesty and integrity of their hearts, that it is a hard thing, to get convictions of sin fastened upon them: and as for mortification of sin, which we urge as necessary to salvation; there is nothing more distasteful to the wicked then this. secondly, he saith, they love well to hear, to be justified by christ without them. answer. how is it then, that so many wicked men, scoff at justification by christ's righteousness without them? calling [in contempt] this imputed righteousness an imaginary, putative righteousness. is it not natural for persons to seek to be justified by something within them? thirdly, he saith, they love well to hear, that the words without them are the only rule. answer. doubtless there are many wicked persons, who could wish there were no such rule. hath it not been the attempt of the wicked to destroy the scriptures? in the tenth persecution the books of the holy scriptures were ordered to be burnt: and to this day there is a secret enmity in the hearts of thousands of sinners against the scriptures. fourthly, he saith, they love well to hear, that they may use the customs and fashions of this world, and that they may use sports, games, and plays, and wear laces, ribbons, etc. answer. they hear from none of us any thing to encourage them in following sinful customs and fashions: these we oppose, yea, we think that people should be sparing even as to lawful games and recreations. as for wearing ribbons, laces, gold-rings, etc. we judge it not simply unlawful; and yet persons sin, when in this they exceed their degree and rank: which is the thing condemned by the apostle, 1. tim. 2.9. fifthly, he saith, they love well to hear, that men must not expect to hear god immediately. ans. some of them know not what is intended by god's immediate speaking, and others have no liking to hear god mediately by the ministry of his word: this is a burdensome stone, that they would feign be rid of. sixthly, he saith, they love well to hear, that water baptism, and giving of bread and wine are the ordinances of christ; for than they think they are christians, if they partake of these outward things, answer. our endeavour is to take them off from their groundless thoughts: telling them that outward privileges must not be rested on, and that who ever build their hopes of heaven merely upon these, they build upon the sand, a foundation which will fail them in the day of their strait. seventhly, he saith, that none plead more for the observation of the sabbath, then profane light men. answer. the contrary is abundantly known, for none are greater enemies than they to the true observation of the sabbath: which must be devoted entirely to god, and spent in the public and private exercises of his worship and service. are not the wicked brought in saying, when shall the sabbath be gone? amos 8.5. eightly, he saith, they love well to hear, that they may be members of a church, though they have no infallible evidence of holiness. answer. have all the members of the quakers church infallible evidences of grace and holiness? i must be free to tell you, that your raw, conceity proselyts, are so ignorant, and yet so confident, that sober men suspect them to be in a fools paradise. ninthly, he saith, they love well to hear of our doctrine of election and reprobation. answer. i have heard divers of them (pelagians mocked at predestination) wrangle against this doctrine, and herein quakers join with them; but the truth will stand firm against them both. tenthly, he saith, they love our doctrine of once in grace and ever in grace. answer. what ground can graceless persons have to like this? (they being alienated from the life of god) the promise of persevering in grace doth not belong to them: and we do not plead for a wild perseverance, the saints who have had most persuasions of their perseverance, have been most closely and circumspect in their walk with god. thus it is evident that our principles do not gratify the wicked, nor give them the lest allowance in licentiousness and looseness: and if any of us be looss and licentious (as a lace, there be too many!) it is our principle, that the wrath of god will come upon such children of disobedience. head. xviii. the quakers tenants are pleasing to the wicked. the quakers religion is exceeding suitable to carnal hearts. first, they love well to hear, that a sufficient light is in them, that christ (and saving grace) is in them. secondly, they love well to hear that all days are alike, and that men may work and plough on the sabbath as well as on any other day. thirdly, they love well to hear, that family prayer is but a form. fourthly, they love well to hear that they must not pray in secret; but when they have an inward drawing and motion to it. fifthly, they love well to hear outward teaching cried down: and mind the light within, here is your teacher and this light is not a chapter without you, in a book. sixthly, they love well to hear the holiest ministers spoken against, as hirelings, and baal's priests. seventhly, they love well to hear, the lords ordinances vilified and reproached: carnal bread and wine, is lovely language to them. eightly, they love well to hear, that adam's sin is not theirs, and that the evil seed doth not make them guilty of sin before god, until they close with it. ninthly, they love well to hear, that they may sit down to eat, and drink, and rise up again without a word of thanksgiving or prayer to god. but i am tired with raking in this dung hill. i leave it to persons to judge, whether these principles will not sure with carnal hearts? will not the wicked be glade to hear these things cried down, which they themselves live down, and cannot be brought up to the practice of them? he shuts up his book charging me with a notorious lie. ans. wherein am i guilty of lying? the dialogue supposed a conference between an enemy to, & a lover of the truth; and might i not (without a lie) testify so much love to men's souls, as to express pity toward the seduced, wishing god too (reclaim them, and to) confirm his people in his ways? what is it that some will not carp at? epecially, the persons that i have to do with: of whom a pious minister in england, giveth this testimony, saith he, we have a strange generation of men abroad, whose very religion consists in railing, reviling, reproaching the servants of the living god, not the best men, nor the best ministers under heaven can escape them. then he sets down a letter, wherein the quakers gave the ministers of christ these following names; conjurers, thiefs, robbers, anti-christs', witches, blind-guides, devils, liars, dissemblers, baal's priests, a viperous and serpenti●● generation, bloody herodians, blasphemers, scarlet coloured beasts, babylon's merchants, busybodies, whited walls, painted sepulchers, reavening wolves, persecutors, tyrants, greedy dogs, pharisees! then he gives good advice, christians (saith he) when ye hear this language learn to conform yourselves to christ, go ye first to god with the lords own plea. zach. 3.2. now the lord rebuke thee o satan, even the lord that hath chosen jerusalem rebuke thee. see ambrose his looking unto jesus, pag. 1006. finis. a brief declaration and vindication of the doctrine of the trinity: as also of the person and satisfaction of christ. accommodated to the capacity and use of such as may be in danger to be seduced: and the establishment of the truth. john 5. 39 search the scriptures. by j. owen d. d. london, printed by r. w. for nath. ponder, at the sign of the peacock in chancery-lane near fleetstreet. 1669. imprimatur, rob. grove, r. f. d. episcop. lond. à sac. dom. feb. 3. 1668/ 69. to the reader. christian reader, this small treatise hath no other design but thy good, and establishment in the truth. and therefore as laying aside that consideration alone: i could desirously have been excused from the labour of those hours which were spent in its composure, so in the work itself, i admitted of no one thought, but how the things treated of in it, might, and aught to be managed unto thy spiritual benefit and advantage. other designs most men have in writing what is to be exposed to public view, and lawfully may have so; in this i have nothing but merely thy good. i have neither been particularly provoked, nor opposed by the adversaries of the truth here pleaded for; nor have any need from any self respect, to publish such a small plain discourse as this; love alone to the truth, and the welfare of thy soul, have given efficacy to their importunity who pressed me to this small service. the matters here treated of, are on all hands confessed to be of the greatest moment; such as the eternal welfare of the souls of men, is immediately and directly concerned in. this all those who believe the sacred truths here proposed and explained, do unanimously profess and contend for; nor is it denied by those by whom they are opposed. there is no need therefore to give thee any especial reasons to evince thy concernment in these things, nor the greatness of that concernment, thereby to induce thee unto their serious consideration. it were well indeed that these great, sacred, and mysterious truths, might without contention or controversies about them, be left unto the faith of believers as proposed in the scripture, with that explanation of them which in the ordinary ministry and dispensation of the gospel is necessary and required. certainly these tremendous mysteries, are not by us willingly to be exposed, or prostituted to the cavils of every perverse querist, and disputer; those 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; whose pretended wisdom, indeed ignorance, darkness and folly, god hath designed to confound and destroy in them and by them. for my part, i can assure thee, reader, i have no mind to contend and dispute about these things which i humbly adore and believe as they are revealed. it is the importunity of adversaries, in their attempts to draw and seduce the souls of men from the truth and simplicity of the gospel in these great fundamentals of it, that alone can justify any to debate upon, or eristically to handle these awful mysteries. this renders it our duty, and that indispensibly, in as much as we are required to contend earnestly for the faith once delivered unto the saints. but yet also when this necessity is imposed on us, we are by no means discharged from that humble reverence of mind, wherewith we ought always to be conversant about them; nor from that regard unto the way and manner of their revelation in the scripture, which may preserve us from all unnecessary intermixture of litigious or exotic phrases and expressions, in their assertion and declaration. i know our adversaries would upon the matter decry any thing peculiarly mysterious in these things; although they are frequently, and emphatically in the scriptures affirmed so to be. but whilst they deny the mysteries of the things themselves, which are such as every may become the glorious being and wisdom of god, they are forced to assign such an enigmatical sense unto the words, expressions and propositions wherein they are revealed and declared in the scripture, as to turn almost the whole gospel into an allegory, wherein nothing is properly expressed, but in some kind of allusion unto what is so elsewhere; which irrational way of proceeding, leaving nothing certain in what is or may be expressed by word or writing, is covered over with a pretence of right reason, which utterly refuseth to be so employed. these things the reader will find afterwards made manifest, so far as the nature of this brief discourse will bear. and i shall only desire these few things of him that intends its perusal. first, that he would not look on the subject here treated of, as the matter of an ordinary controversy in religion. — neque enim hic levia aut ludicra petuntur praemia; lectoris de vita animaeque salute certatur; they are things which immediately and directly in themselves concern the eternal salvation of the souls of men; and their consideration ought always to be attended with a due sense of their weight and importance. secondly, let him bring with him a due reverence of the majesty and infinite, incomprehensible nature of god, as that which is not to be prostituted to the captious and sophistical scanning of men of corrupt minds, but to be humbly adored according to the revelation that he hath made of himself. thirdly, that he be willing to submit his soul and conscience, to the plain and obvious sense of scripture propositions and testimonies, without seeking out evasions and pretences for unbelief. these requests i cannot but judge equal, and fear not the success, where they are sincerely complied withal. i have only to add; that in handling the doctrine of the satisfaction of christ, i have proceeded on that principle, which as it is fully confirmed in the scripture, so it hath constantly been maintained and adhered unto by the most of those, who with judgement and success have managed these controversies against the socinians. and this is that the essential holiness of god, with his justice or righteousness, as the supreme governor of all, did indispensibly require that sin should not absolutely go unpunished; and that it should do so, stands in a repugnancy to those holy properties of his nature. this i say, hath been always constantly maintained by far the greatest number of them, who have throughly understood the controversy in this matter, and have successfully engaged in it. and as their arguments for their assertion, are plainly unanswerable, so the neglect of abiding by it, is causelessly to forego one of the most fundamental and invincille principles in our cause. he who first laboured in the defence of the doctrine of the satisfaction of christ, after socinus had form his imaginations about the salvation that he wrought, and began to dispute about it, was covetus, a learned man, who laid the foundation of his whole disputation in the justice of god, necessarily requiring and indispensibly the punishment of sin. and indeed the state of the controversy as it is laid down by socinus, in his book de jesus christo servatore, which is an answer to this covetus, is genuine, and that which ought not to be receded from, as having been the direct ground of all the controversial writings on that subject, which have since been published in europe. and it is in these words laid down by socinus himself. communis & orthodoxa (ut asseris) sententia est, jesum christum ideo servatorem nostrum esse, quia divinae justiciae per quam peccatores damnari merebamur, pro peccatis nostris plene satisfecerit; quae satisfactio per fidem imputatur nobis ex dono dei credentibus. this he ascribes to covet. the common and orthodox judgement is, that jesus christ is therefore our saviour, because he hath satisfied the justice of god, by which we being sinners deserved to be condemned, for all our sins. in opposition whereunto he thus expresseth his own opinion. ego vero censeo & orthodoxam sententiam esse arbitror, jesum christum ideo servatorem nostrum esse, quia salutis aeternae viam nobis annuntiaverit, confirmaverit, & in sua ipsius persona, cum vitae exemplo, tum ex mortuis resurgendo, manifest ostenderit, vitamque aeternam nobis ei fidem habentibus ipse daturus sit. divinae autem justitiae, per quam peccatores damnari meremur, pro peccatis nostris neque illum satisfecisse, neque ut satisfaceret, opus fuisse arbitror. i judge and suppose it to be the orthodox opinion, that jesus christ is therefore our saviour, because he hath declared unto us the way of eternal salvation, and confirmed it in his own person; manifestly showing it, both by the example of his life, and by rising from the dead; and in that he will give eternal life unto us believing in him. and i affirm that he neither made satisfaction to the justice of god, whereby we deserved to be damned for our sins, nor was there any need that he should so do. this is the true state of the question; and the principal subtlety of crellius, the great defender of this part of the doctrine of socinus, in his book of the causes of the death of christ, and the defence of this book de jesu christo servatore, consists in speaking almost the same words with those whom he doth oppose, but still intending the same things with socinus himself: this opinion as was said of socinus, covetus opposed and everted on the principle before mentioned. the same truth was confirmed also by zarnovitius who first wrote against socinus his book; as also by otto casmannus who engaged in the same work; and by abraham salinarius. upon the same foundation do proceed, paraeus, piscator, lubbertus, lucius, camero, voetius, amiraldus, placaeus, rivetus, walaeus, thysius, altingius, maresius, essenius, arnoldus, turretinus, baxter, with many others; the lutherans, who have managed these controversies, as tarnovius, meisnerus, calovius, stegmannus, martinius, franzius, with all others of their, way, have constantly maintained the same great fundamental principle of this doctrine of the satisfaction of christ; and it hath well, and solidly been of late asserted among ourselves on the same foundation. and as many of these authors do expressly blame some of the schoolmen, as aquinas, durandus, biel, tataretus, for granting a possibility of pardon without satisfaction, as opening a way to the socinian error in this matter; so also they fear not to affirm, that the foregoing of this principle of god's vindictive justice indispensibly requiring the punishment of sin, doth not only weaken the cause of the truth, but indeed leave it indefensible. however i suppose, men ought to be wary how they censure the authors mentioned, as such who expose the cause they undertook to defend, unto contempt; for greater, more able, and learned defenders, this truth hath not as yet found, nor doth stand in need of. j. o. the preface. the disciples of our lord jesus christ, having made that great confession of him, in distinction and opposition unto them who accounted him only as a prophet, thou art christ the son of the living god, mat. 16. 14, 15, 16. he doth on the occasion thereof, give out unto them that great charter of the church's stability and continuance; upon this rock i will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it, v. 18. he is himself the rock upon which his church is built; as god is called the rock of his people, on the account of his eternal power and immutability, deut. 32. 4, 18, 31. isa. 26. 4. and himself the spiritual rock which gave out supplies of mercy and assistance to the people in the wilderness, 1 cor. 10. 4. the relation of the professing church unto this rock, consists in the faith of this confession, that he is christ the son of the living god. this our lord jesus christ hath promised to secure against all attempts; yet so as plainly to declare, that there should be great and severe opposition made thereunto. for whereas the prevalency of the gates of hell in an enmity unto this confession is denied, a great and vigorous attempt to prevail therein is no less certainly foretold; neither hath it otherwise fallen out. in all ages from the first solemn foundation of the church of the new testament, it hath one way or other been fiercely attempted by the gates of hell. for some time after the resurrection of christ from the dead, the principal endeavours of satan, and men acting under him, or acted by him, were pointed against the very foundation of the church, as laid in the expression before mentioned. almost all the errors and heresies wherewith for three or four centuries of years it was perplexed, were principally against the person of christ himself, and consequently the nature and being of the holy and blessed trinity. but being disappointed in his design herein, through the watchful care of the lord christ over his promise; in the following ages, satan turned his craft and violence against sundry parts of the superstructure; and by the assistance of the papacy cast them into confusion, nothing as it were remaining firm, stable, and in order, but only this one confession, which in a particular manner the lord christ hath taken upon himself to secure. in these latter ages of the world, the power and care of jesus christ reviving towards his church in the reformation of it, even the ruined heaps of its building have been again reduced into some tolerable order and beauty. the old enemy of its peace and welfare falling hereby under a disappointment, and finding his travail and labour for many generations in a great part frustrate, he is returned again to his old work of attacqueing the foundation itself; as he is unweary and restless, and can be quiet neither conqueror nor conquered; nor will be so, until he is bound and cast into the lake that burneth with fire. for no sooner had the reformation of religion firmed itself in some of the european provinces, but immediately, in a proportion of distance not unanswerable unto what fell out from the first foundation of the church, sundry persons by the instigation of satan attempted the disturbance and ruin of it, by the very same errors and heresies about the trinity, the person of christ, and his offices, the person of the holy ghost and his grace, wherewith its first trouble and ruin was endeavoured. and hereof we have of late an instance given among ourselves; and that so notoriously known, through a mixture of imprudence and impudence in the managers of it, that a very brief reflection upon it will suffice unto our present design. it was always supposed, and known to some, that there are sundry persons in this nation, who having been themselves seduced into socinianism, did make it their business under various pretences to draw others into a compliance with them in the same way and persuasion. neither hath this for sundry years been so secretly carried, but that the design of it hath variously discovered itself by overt acts of conferences, disputations, and publishing of books; which last way of late hath been sedulously pursued. unto these three is now a visible accession made, by that sort of people whom men will call quakers, from their deportment at the first erection of their way, long since deserted by them; until by some new revolutions of opinions, they cast themselves under a more proper denomination. that there is a conjunction issued between both these sorts of men, in an opposition to the holy trinity, with the person and grace of christ, the pamphlets of late published by the one and the other do sufficiently evince. for however they may seem in sundry things as yet to look divers ways, yet like sampson's foxes, they are knit together by the tail of consent in these firebrand opinions, and jointly endeavour to consume the standing corn of the church of god. and their joint management of their business of late, hath been as though it were their design, to give as great a vogue and report to their opinions, as by any ways they are able. hence besides their attempts to be proclaiming their opinions under various pretences, in all assemblies whereunto they may intrude themselves, as they know without trouble, they are exceedingly sedulous in scattering and giving away, yea imposing gratis, and as to some ingratiis, their small books which they publish, upon all sorts of persons promiscuously, as they have advantage so to do. by this means their opinions being of late become the talk and discourse of the common sort of christians, and the exercise of many, amongst whom are not a few, that on sundry accounts, which i shall not mention, may possibly be exposed unto disadvantage and prejudice thereby, it hath been thought meet by some, that the sacred truths which these men oppose, should be plainly and briefly asserted and confirmed from the scripture; that those of the meanest sort of professors, who a●e sincere and upright, exercising themselves to keep a good conscience in matters of faith and obedience to god, may have somewhat in a readiness, both to guide them in their further enquiry into the truth, as also to confirm their faith in what they have already received, when at any time it is shaken or opposed by the cunning sleights of men that lie in wait to deceive. and this compriseth the design of the ensuing discourse. it may possibly be judged needless by some, as it was in its first proposal by him by whom it is wri●●●●, and that because this matter at present is by an especial providence cast on other hands, who both have, and doubtless, as occasion shall require, will well acquit themselves in the defence of the truths opposed. not to give any other account of the reasons of this small undertaking, it may suffice, that in publico discrimine omnis homo miles est. every man's concernment lying in a common danger, it is free for every one to manage it as he thinks best, and is able, so it be without prejudice to the whole, or the particular concerns of others. if a city be on fire, whose bucket that brings water to quench it ought to be refused? the attempt to cast fire into the city of god, by the opinions mentioned, is open and plain, and a timely stop being to be put unto it, the more hands are orderly employed in its quenching, the more speedy and secure is the effect like to be. now, because the assertors of the opinions mentioned do seem to set out themselves to be some great ones, above the ordinary rate of men, as having found out, and being able publicly to maintain such things, as never would have entered into the minds of others to have thought on, or conceived; and also that they seem with many to be thought worthy of their consideration because they now are new, and such as they have not been acquainted withal; i shall in this prefatory entrance, briefly manifest that those who have amongst us undertaken the management of these opinions, have brought nothing new unto them, but either a little contemptible sophistry and caption of words on the one hand, or futulous, affected, unintelligible expressions on the other; the opinions themselves being no other; but such as the church of god having been opposed by, and troubled with from the beginning, hath prevailed against, and triumphed over in all generations. and were it not that confidence is the only relief which engaged impotency adheres unto, and expects supplies from, i should greatly admire that those amongst us who have undertaken an enforcement of these old exploded errors, whose weakness doth so openly discover and proclaim itself in all their endeavours, should judge themselves competent to give a new spirit of life to the dead carcase of these rotten heresies, which the faith of the saints in all ages hath triumphed over; and which truth and learning have under the care and watchfulness of christ, so often baffled out of the world. the jews in the time of our saviour's converse on the earth, being fallen greatly from the faith and worship of their forefathers, and ready to sink into their last and utmost apostasy from god, seem amongst many other truths, to have much lost that of the doctrine of the holy trinity, and of the person of the messiah. it was indeed suited in the dispensation of god, unto the work that the lord jesus had to fulfil in the world, that before his passion and resurrection, the knowledge of his divine nature as unto his individual person, should be concealed from the most of men. for this cause, although he was in the form of god, and thought it no robbery to be equal with god, yet he made himself of no reputation, by taking on him the form of a servant, and made in the likeness of men, that being found in the fashion of a man, he might be obedient unto death, phil. 2. 7, 8, 9 whereby his divine glory was veiled for a season, until he was declared to be the son of god with power, according unto the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead, rom. 1. 4. and then was glorified with that glory which he had with the father before the world was, john 17. 3. and as this dispensation was needful unto the accomplishment of the whole work which as our mediator he had undertaken, so in particular, he who was in himself the lord of hosts, a sanctuary to them that feared him, became hereby, a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence to both the houses of israel, for a gin and for a snare to the inhabitants of jerusalem, isa. 8. 13, 14. see luke 2. 34. rom. 9 33. 1 pet. 2. 8. isa. 28. 26. but yet notwithstanding, as occasions required, suitably unto his own holy ends and designs, he forbore not to give plain and open testimony to his own divine nature and eternal pre-existence unto his incarnation. and this was it, which of all other things most provoked the carnal jews with whom he had to do. for having, as was said, lost the doctrine of the trinity and person of the messiah in a great measure, when ever he asserted his deity, they were immediately enraged and endeavoured to destroy him. so was it plainly, john. 8. 56, 57, 58 59 saith he, your father abraham rejoiced to see my day, and he saw it and was glad; then said the jews unto him, thou art n●t yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen abraham? jesus said unto them, verily i say unto you, before abraham was i am: then took they up stones to cast at him. so also, john 10. 30, 31, 32, 33. i and my father are one: then the jews took up stones again to stone him; jesus answered them, many good works have i showed you from my father, for which of those works do you stone me? the jews answered him saying, for a good work we stone thee not, but for blasphemy, and because that thou being a man makest thyself god. they understood well enough the meaning of those words, i and my father are one; namely, that they were a plain assertion of his being god. this caused their rage. and this the jews all abide by to this day; namely, that he declared himself to be god, and therefore they slew him. whereas therefore the first discovery of a plurality of persons in the divine essence consists in the revelation of the divine nature and personality of the son, this being opposed, persecuted, and blasphemed by these jews, they may be justly looked upon and esteemed as the first assertors of that misbelief, which now some seek again so earnestly to promote. the jews persecuted the lord christ, because he being a man, declared himself also to be god; and others are ready to revile and reproach them, who believe and teach what he declared. after the resurrection and ascension of the lord jesus, all things being filled with tokens, evidences and effects of his divine nature and power, rom. 1. 4. the church that began to be gathered in his name, and according to his doctrine, being by his especial institution to be initiated into the express profession of the doctrine of the holy trinity, as being to be baptised in the name of the father, and the son, and the holy ghost, which confession compriseth the whole of the truth contended for, and by the indispensible placing of it at the first entrance into all obedience unto him, is made the doctrinal foundation of the church, it continued for a season in the quiet and undisturbed possession of this sacred treasure. the first who gave disquietment unto the disciples of christ by perverting the doctrine of the trinity was simon magus, with his followers; an account of whose monstrous figments, and unintelligible imaginations, with their coincidence with what some men dream in these latter days, shall elsewhere be given. nor shall i need here to mention the colluvies of gnostics, valentinians, marcionites and manichees, the foundation of all whose abominations lay in their misapprehensions of the being of god, their unbelief of the trinity and person of christ, as do those of some others also. in especial there was one cerinthus, who was more active than others in his opposition to the doctrine of the person of christ, and therein of the holy trinity. to put a stop unto his abominations, all authors agree that john writing his gospel, prefixed unto it that plain declaration of the eternal deity of christ which it is prefaced withal. and the story is well attested by irenaeus, eusebius, and others, from polycarpus who was his disciple, that this cerinthus coming into the place where the apostle was, he left it, adding as a reason of his departure, lest the building through the just judgement of god should fall upon them. and it was of the holy, wise providence of god, to suffer some impious persons to oppose this doctrine before the death of that apostle, that he might by infallible inspiration farther reveal, manifest and declare it to the establishment of the church in future ages. for what can farther be desired to satisfy the minds of men, who in any sense own the lord jesus christ, and the scriptures, than that this controversy about the trinity and person of christ (for they stand and fall together) should be so eminently and expressly determined, as it were immediately from heaven. but he, with whom we have to deal in this matter, neither ever did, nor ever will, nor can acquiesce or rest in the divine determination of any thing which he hath stirred up strife and controversy about. for as cerinthus and the ebionites persisted in the heresy of the jews, who would have slain our saviour for bearing witness to his own deity, notwithstanding the evidence of that testimony, and the right apprehension which the jews had of his mind therein; so he excited others to engage and persist in their opposition to the truth, notwithstanding this second particular determination of it from heaven, for their confutation or confusion. for after the more weak and confused oppositions made unto it by theodotus coriarius, artemon, and some others, at length a stout champion appears visibly and expressly engaged against these fundamentals of our faith. this was paulus sa nosatenus bishop of the church of antioch about the year 272. a man of most intolerable pride, passion, and folly; the greatest that hath left a name upon ecclesiastical records. this man openly and avowedly denied the doctrine of the trinity, and the deity of christ in an especial manner. for although he endeavoured for a while, to cloud his impious sentiments in ambiguous expressions, as others also have done, (euseb. lib. 7. cap. 27.) yet being pressed by the professors of the truth, and supposing his party was somewhat confirmed, he plainly defended his heresy, and was cast out of the church wherein he presided. some sixty years after, photinus' bishop of syrmium, with a pretence of more sobriety in life and conversation, undertook the management of the same design, with the same success. what ensued afterwards among the churches of god in this matter, is of too large and diffused a nature to be here reported. these instances i have fixed on, only to intimate unto persons whose condition or occasions afford them not ability or leisure of themselves, to inquire into the memorial of times passed amongst the professors of the gospel of christ, that these oppositions which are made at present amongst us unto these fundamental truths, and derived immediately from the late renewed enforcement of them made by faustus socinus and his followers, are nothing but old baffled attempts of satan, against the rock of the church and the building thereon, in the confession of the son of the living god. now, as all men who have aught of a due reverence of god or his truth remaining with them, cannot but be wary how they give the least admittance to such opinions as have from the beginning been witnessed against, and condemned by christ himself, his apostles and all that followed them in their faith and ways in all generations; so others whose hearts may tremble for the danger they apprehend which these sacred truths may be in, of being corrupted or defamed, by the present opposition against them, may know that it is no other, but what the church and faith of professors hath already been exercised with, and through the power of him that enables them have constantly triumphed over. and for my part, i look upon it as a blessed effect of the holy wise providence of god, that those who have long harboured these abominations of denying the holy trinity, the person and satisfaction of christ in their minds, but yet have sheltered themselves from common observation under the shades of dark obscure and uncouth expressions, with many other specious pretences, should be given up to join themselves with such persons, and to profess a community of persuasion with them in those opinions, as have rendered themselves infamous from the first foundation of christianity, and wherein they will assuredly meet with the same success as those have done, who have gone before them. for the other head of opposition made by these persons unto the truth in reference unto the satisfaction of christ, and the imputation of his righteousness thereon unto our justification, i have not much to say as to the time past. in general, the doctrine wherein they boast, being first brought forth in a rude misshapen manner by the pelagian heretics, was afterwards improved by one abailardus a sophistical scholar in france; but owes its principal form and poison unto the endeavours of faustus socinus, & those who have followed him in his subtle attempt to corrupt the whole doctrine of the gospel. of these m●n, are those amongst us who at this day so busily dispute and write about the trinity, the deity of christ, and his satisfaction, the followers and disciples. and it is much more from their masters who were some of them men learned, diligent, and subtle, than from themselves that they are judged to be of any great consideration. for i can truly say, that upon the sedate examination of all that i could ever yet hear, or get a sight of, either spoken or written by them, that is any amongst us; i never yet observed an undertaking of so great importance managed with a greater evidence of incompetency and inability, to give any tolerable countenance unto it. if any of them shall for the future attempt to give any new countenance or props to their tottering errors, it will doubtless be attended unto, by some of those many, who cannot but know that it is incumbent on them, to contend earnestly for the faith once delivered unto the saints. this present brief endeavour is only to assist and direct those, who are less exercised in the ways of managing controversies in religion, that they may have a brief comprehension of the truths opposed, with the firm foundations whereon they are built, and have in a readiness to shield their faith, both against the fiery darts of satan, and secure their minds against the cunning sleights of men who lie in wait to deceive. and wherein this discourse seems in any thing to be too brief, or concise, the author is not to be blamed; who was confined unto these straight bounds, by those whose requests enjoined him this service. the doctrine of the holy trinity explained and vindicated. the doctrine of the blessed trinity may be considered two ways. first, in respect unto the revelation and proposal of it in the scripture, to direct us unto the author, object, and end of our faith, in our worship and obedience. secondly, as it is farther declared and explained, in terms, expressions, and propositions, educed from the original revelation of it, suited thereunto, and meet to direct and keep the mind from undue apprehensions of the things it believes; and to declare them unto farther edification. in the first way, it consists merely in the propositions wherein the revelation of god is expressed in the scripture; and in this regard two things are required of us. first, to understand the terms of the propositions, as they are enunciations of truth; and secondly, to believe the things taught, revealed, and declared in them. in the first instance, no more, i say, is required of us, but that we assent unto the assertions and testimonies of god concerning himself, according to their natural and genuine sense, as he will be known, believed in, feared and worshipped by us; as he is our creator, lord, and rewarder; and that because he himself hath by his revelation, not only warranted us so to do, but also made it our duty necessary and indispensible. now the sum of this revelation in this matter is, that god is one; that this one god, is father, son and holy ghost; that the father is the father of the son; and the son, the son of the father; and the holy ghost, the spirit of the father and the son; and that in respect of this their mutual relation, they are distinct from each other. this is the substance of the doctrine of the trinity as to the first direct concernment of faith therein. the first intention of the scripture in the revelation of god towards us is, as was said, that we might fear him, believe, worship, obey him, and live unto him, as god. that we may do this in a due manner, and worship the only true god, and not adore the false imaginations of our own minds, it declares, as was said, that this god is one, the father, son, and holy ghost; that the father is this one god, and therefore is to be believed in, worshipped, obeyed, lived unto, and in all things considered by us as the first cause, sovereign lord, and last end of all: that the son, is the one true god, and therefore is to be believed in, worshipped, obeyed, lived unto, and in all things considered by us as the first cause, sovereign lord, and last end of all. and so also of the holy ghost. this is the whole of faith's concernment in this matter, as it respects the direct revelation of god made by himself in the scripture, and the first proper general end thereof let this be clearly confirmed by direct and positive divine testimonies containing the declaration and revelation of god concerning himself, and faith is secured as to all its concerns. for it hath both its proper formal object, and is sufficiently enabled to be directive of divine worship and obedience. the explication of this doctrine unto edification suitable unto the revelation mentioned, is of another consideration. and two things are incumbent on us to take care of therein. first that what is affirmed and taught, do directly tend unto the ends of the revelation itself, by informing and enlightening of the mind in the knowledge of the mystery of it, so far as in this life we are by divine assistance capable to comprehend it; that is, that faith may be increased, strengthened and confirmed against temptations and oppositions of satan, and men of corrupt minds; and that we may be distinctly directed unto, and encouraged in the obedience unto, and worship of god that are required of us. secondly, that nothing be affirmed or taught herein, that may beget, or occasion any undue apprehensions concerning god, or our obedience unto him, with respect unto the best, highest, securest revelations, that we have of him and our duty. these things being done and secured, the end of the declaration of this doctrine concerning god is attained. in the declaration then of this doctrine unto the edification of the church, there is contained a farther explanation of the things before asserted, as proposed directly, and in themselves as the object of our faith, namely, how god is one, in respect of his nature, substance, essence, godhead, or divine● being. how being father, son, and holy ghost, he subsisteth in these three distinct persons, or hypost●sies: and what are their mutual respects to each other, by which as their peculiar properties giving them the manner of their subsistence, they are distinguished one from another; with sundry other things of the like necessary consequence unto the revelation mentioned. and herein as in the application of all other divine truths and mysteries whatever, yea, of all moral commanded duties, use is to be made of such words and expressions as it may be are not literally and formally contained in the scripture; but only are unto our conceptions and apprehensions expository of what is so contained. and to deny the liberty, yea, the necessity hereof, is to deny all interpretation of the scripture, all endeavours to express the sense of the words of it, unto the understandings of one another; which is in a word to render the scripture itself altogether useless. for if it be unlawful for me to speak or write what i conceive to be the sense of the words of the scripture, and the nature of the thing signified and expressed by them, it is unlawful for me also to think or conceive in my mind what is the sense of the words or nature of the things; which to say, is to make brutes of ourselves, and to frustrate the whole design of god in giving unto us the great privilege of his word. wherefore in the declaration of the doctrine of the trinity, we may lawfully, nay we must necessarily, make use of other words, phrases and expressions that what are literally and syllabically contained in the scriptures, but teach no other things. moreover whatever is so revealed in the scripture, is no less true and divine as to whatever necessarily followeth thereon, than it is, as unto that which is principally revealed and directly expressed. for how far soever the lines be drawn and extended, from truth nothing can follow and ensue but what is true also; and that in the same kind of truth, with that which it is derived and deduced from. for if the principal assertion be a truth of divine revelation, so is also whatever is included therein, and which may be rightly from thence collected. hence it follows, that when the scripture revealeth the father, son, and holy ghost, to be one god, seeing it necessarily and unavoidably follows thereon that they are one in essence, wherein alone it is possible they can be one; and three in their distinct subsistences, wherein alone it is possible they can be three: this is no less of divine revelation, than the first principle from whence these things follow. these being the respects which the doctrine of the trinity falls under, the necessary method of 〈◊〉 and reason in the beheving and declar●ing of it, is plain and evident. 1. the revelation 〈◊〉 it is to be asserted and vindicated, as it 〈◊〉 proposed to be believed for the ends mentioned. now this is, as was declared, that there is one god, that this god, is father, son, and holy ghost, and so, that the father is god, so is the son, so is the holy ghost. this being received and admitted by faith, the explication of it is, (2.) to be insisted on, and not taken into consideration until the other be admitted. and herein lies the preposterous course of those who fallaciously and captiously go about to oppose this sacred truth. they will always begin their opposition, not unto the revelation of it, but unto the explanation of it which is used only for farther edification. their disputes and cavils shall be against the trinity, essence, substance, persons, personality, respects, properties of the divine persons, with the modes of expressing these things, whilst the plain scriptural revelation of the things themselves from whence they are but explanatory deductions, is not spoken to, nor admitted unto confirmation. by this means have they entangled many weak unstable souls, who when they have met with things too high, hard and difficult for them, (which in divine mysteries they may quickly do) in the explication of this doctrine, have suffered themselves to be taken off from a due consideration of the full and plain revelation of the thing itself in scripture; until their temptations being made strong, and their darkness increased, it was too late for them to return unto it; as bringing along with them the cavils wherewith they were prepossessed rather than that faith and obedience which is required. but yet all this while these explanations so excepted against, are indeed not of any original consideration in this matter. let the direct express revelations of the doctrine be firmed, they will follow of themselves, nor will be excepted against by those who believe and receive it. let that be rejected, and they will fall of themselves, and never be contended for by those who did make use of them. but of these things we shall treat again afterwards. this therefore is the way, the only way that we rationally can, and that which in duty we ought to proceed in, and by, for the asserting and confirming of the doctrine of the holy trinity under consideration; namely, that we produce divine revelations, or testimonies, wherein faith may safely rest and acquiesce, that god is one; that this one god, is father, son, and holy ghost; so that the father is god; so also is the son, and the holy ghost likewise, and as such are to be believed in, obeyed, worshipped, acknowledged as the first cause, and last end of all, our lord and reward. if this be not admitted, if somewhat of it▪ be not particularly denied, we need not, we have no warrant or ground, to proceed any farther, or at all to discourse about the unity of the divine essence, or the distinction of persons. we have not therefore any original contest in this matter with any, but such as deny either god to be one, or the father to be god, or the son to be god, or the holy ghost so to be. if any deny either of these in particular, we are ready to confirm it by sufficient testimonies of scripture, or clear and undeniable divine revelation. when this is evinced and vindicated, we shall, willingly proceed to manifest that the explications used of this doctrine unto the edification of the church are according to truth; and such as necessarily are required by the nature of the things themselves. and this gives us the method of the small ensuing discourse, with the reasons of it. the first thing which we affirm to be delivered unto us by divine revelation as the object o● ou● faith is, that god is one. i know that this may be uncontrollably evidenced by the ●ight of reason itself, unto as good and quiet an assurance as the mind of man is capable of in any of its apprehensions whatever. but i speak of it now, as it is confirmed unto us by divine revelation. how this assertion, of one god, respects the nature, essence, or divine being of god, shall be declared afterwards. at present it is enough to represent the testimonies that he is one, only one. and because we have no difference with our adversaries distinctly about this matter, i shall only name some few of them, deut. 6. 4. hear o israel, the lord our god is one lord. a most pregnant testimony; and yet notwithstanding, as i shall elsewhere manifest, the trinity itself, in that one divine essence is here asserted, isa. 44. 6, 8. thus saith the lord, the king of israel, and his redeemer, the lord of hosts, i am the first, and i am the last, and besides me there is no god; is there a god besides me? yea there is no god, i know not any; in which also we may manifest that a plurality of persons is included and expressed. and although there be no more absolute and sacred truth than this, that god is one; yet it may be evinced, that it is no where mentioned in the scripture, but that either in the words themselves, or the context of the place, a plurality of persons in that one sense is intimated. secondly, it is proposed as the object of our faith, that the father is god. and herein as is pretended there is also an agreement, between us, and those who oppose the doctrine of the trinity. but there is a mistake in this matter. their hypothesis as they call it, or indeed presumptuous error, casts all the conceptions that are given us concerning god in the scripture, into disorder and confusion. for the father, as he whom we worship, is often called so, only with reference unto his son; as the son is so, with reference to the father. he is the only begotten of the father, john 1. 14. but now, is this son had no praeexistence in his divine nature before he was born of the virgin, there was no god the father seventeen hundred years ago, because there was no son. and on this ground did the marcionites of old, plainly deny the father whom under the new testament we worship, to be the god of the old testament, who made the world and was worshipped from the foundation of it. for it seems to follow, that he whom we worship being the father, and on this supposition that the son had no praexistence unto his incarnation, he was not the father under the old testament, he is some other from him that was so revealed: i know the folly of that inference; yet how on this opinion of the sole existence of the son in time, men can prove the father to be god, let others determine. he who abideth in the doctrine of christ, he hath both the father and the son, but whosoever transgresseth and abideth not in the doctrine of christ, he hath not god, 2 john 9 whoever denies christ the son, as the son, that is the eternal son of god, he loses the father also, and the true god; he hath not god. for that god which is not the father, and which ever was, and was not the father, is not the true god. hence many of the fathers, even of the first writers of the church, were forced unto great pains in the confirmation of this truth, that the father of jesus christ was he who made the world, gave the law, spoke by the prophets, and was the author of the old testament; and that against men who professed themselves to be christians. and this brutish apprehension of theirs, arose from no other principle but this, that the son had only a temporal existence, and was not the eternal son of god. but that i may not in this brief discourse digress unto other controversies than what lies directly before us, and seeing the adversaries of the truth we contend for, do, in words at least, grant that the father of our lord jesus christ is the true god, or the only true god, i shall not further show the inconsistency of their hypothesis with this confession; but take it for granted, that to us there is one god the father, 1 cor. 8. 6. see john 17. 3. so that he who is not the father, who was not so from eternity, whose paternity is not equally coexistent unto his deity, is no god unto us. thirdly, it is asserted and believed by the church that jesus christ is god; the eternal son of god; that is, he is proposed, declared and revealed unto us in the scripture, to be god, that is to be served, worshipped, believed in, obeyed as god, upon the account of his own divine excellencies. and whereas we believe and know that he was man, that he was born, lived, and died as a man, it is declared that he is god also; and that as god, he did preexist in the form of god before his incarnation, which was effected by voluntary actings of his own; which could not be without a preexistence in another nature. this is proposed unto us to be believed upon divine testimony, and by divine revelation. and the sole enquiry in this matter is, whether this be proposed in the scripture as an object of faith, and that which is indispensibly necessary for us to believe. let us then nakedly attend unto what the scripture asserts in this matter, and that in the order of the books of it in some particular instances which at present occur to mind; as these that follow, psalm 45. 6. thy throne o god is for ever and ever, applied unto christ, h●b. 1. 8. but unto thy son he saith, thy throne o god is for ever and ever. psalm 68 17, 18, 19 the chariots of god are twenty thousand, even thousands of angels, the lord is among them as in sinai in the holy place; thou hast ascended on high, thou hast lead captivity captive, thou hast received gifts for men, yea, for the rebellious also, that the lord god may dwell among them, applied unto the son, ephes. 4. 8. wherefore he saith, when he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men. now that he ascended, what is it but that be also descended first into the lower parts of the earth; he that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things. psalm 110. 1. the lord said unto my lord, sit thou at my right hand; applied unto christ by himself, mat. 22. 44. psalm 102. 15, 16, 17. of old th●u hast laid the foundation of the earth and the heavens are the work of thy hands; they shall perish but thou shalt endure, yea, all of them shall wax old like a garment, as a vesture shalt thou change them, and they shall be changed, but thou art the same, and thy years shall have no end. declared by the apostle to be meant of the son, heb. 1. 10. prov. 8. 22. to the 31. the lord possessed me in the beginning of his ways; before his works of old: i was set up from everlasting, in the beginning or ever the earth was, when there were no depths, i was brought forth when there were no fountains abounding with waters, before the mountains were settled, before the hills was i brought forth; while as yet he had not made the earth, nor the fields, nor the highest part of the dust of the world; when he prepared the heavens i was there; when he set a compass upon the face of the earth, when he established the clouds above; and the fountains of the deep; when he gave to the sea his decree that the waters should not pass his commandment; when he appointed the foundations of the earth; then i was by him as one brought up with him, and i was daily his delight, rejoicing always before him; rejoicing in the habitable parts of his earth, and my delights were with the sons of men. isa. 6. 1, 2, 3. i saw also the lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up and his train filled the temple; above it stood the seraphims, each one had six wings, with twain he covered his face, with twain he covered his feet, and with twain he did fly: and one cried unto another and said, holy, holy, holy is the lord of hosts, the whole earth is full of his glory. applied unto the son, john 12. 41, 42. isa 8. 13, 14. sanctify the lord of hosts himself, and let him be your dread; let him be your fear, and he shall be for a sanctuary, but for a stone of stumbling, and for a rock of offence to both the houses of israel, for a gin and for a snare to the inhabitants of jerusalem, applied unto the son, luk. 2. 34. rom. 9 33. 1 pet. 2. 8. isa. 9 6. for unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given, and the government shall be upon his shoulders; and his name shall be called wonderful, counsellor, the mighty god, the everlasting father, the prince of peace; of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end. jer. 23. 5, 6. behold the day is come saith the lord that i will raise unto david a righteous branch, and this is his name whereby he shall be called, jehovah our righteousness. host 12. 3, 4, 5. he took his brother by the heel in the womb, and by his strength he had power with god; yea, he had power over the angel and prevailed, he wept and made supplications unto him; he found him in bethel, and there he spoke with us, even the lord god of hosts, the lord is his memorial. zach. 2. 8, 9 for thus saith the lord of hosts, after the glory hath he sent me unto the nations which spoilt ye, and ye shall know that the lord of hosts hath sent me. mat. 16. 16. thou art christ the son of the living god. luk. 1. 35. the holy ghost shall come upon thee, the power of the most high shall overshaddew thee, therefore also shall that holy thing which shall be born of thee, be called the son of god. john 1. 1, 2, 3. in the beginning was the word, and the word was with god, and the word was god. the same was in the beginning with god; all things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. ver. 14. and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the father. john 3. 3. and no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that▪ came down from heaven, even the son of man which is in heaven. john 8. 56, 57, 58. then said the jews unto him, thou art not fifty years old, and hast thou seen abraham? jesus saith unto them, verily, i say unto you, before abraham was, i am. john 10. 30. i and my father are one. john 17. 3. and now o father glorify thou me with thine own self, with the glory which i had with thee before the world was. john 20. 28. and thomas answered and said unto him, my lord and my god. acts 20. 28. feed the church of god which he hath purchased with his own blood. rome 1. 3, 4. concerning his son jesus our lord, which was made of the ●eed of david according to the flesh, and declared to be the son of god with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead. rom. 9 5. of whom as concerning the flesh christ came; who is over all, god blessed for ever. amen. rom. 14. 10, 11, 12. for we shall all stand before the judgement seat of christ; as it is written, as i live, saith the lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to god. so then every one of us, shall give an account of himself to god. 1 cor. 8. 6. and one lord jesus, by whom are all things, and we by him. 1 cor. 10. 9 neither let us also tempt christ as some of them also tempted, and were destroyed of serpents; compared with, numb. 21. 6. phil. 2. 5, 6. let this mind be in you which was also in christ jesus; who being in the form of god, thought it not robbery to be equal with god. col. 1. 15, 16, 17. who is the image of the invisible god, the first born of every creature; for by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers, all things were created by him and for him, and he is before all things, and by him all things consist. 1 tim. 3. 16. without controversy great is the mystery of godliness, god was manifested in the flesh. tit. 2. 13. looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearance of the great god and our saviour jesus christ, who gave himself for us. hebrews the first throughout. chap. 3. 4. for every house is builded by some man, but he that built all things is god. 1 pet. 1. 11. searching what, or what manner of time the spirit of christ which was in them did signify. chap. 3. 18, 19 but christ also hath once suffered for sinners, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the spirit; by which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison which sometimes were disobedient, when once the long suffering of god waited in the days of noah. 1 john 3. 16. hereby we perceive the love of god, because he laid down his life for us. chap. 5. 20. and we are in him that is true, even in his son jesus christ, this is the true god and eternal life. rev. 1. 8. i am alpha, and omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the almighty. ver. 11. i am alpha and omega, the first and the last, and what thou seest, write in a book: and i turned to see the voice that spoke with me; and being turned, i saw seven golden candlesticks, and in the midst of the seven candlesticks, one like unto the son of man. ver. 17. and when i saw him, i fell at his feet as dead; and he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, fear not, i am the first and the last. chap. 2. 23. i am he which searcheth the reins and hearts, and will give unto every one of you according to your works. these are some of the places wherein the truth under consideration is revealed and declared; some of the divine testimonies whereby it is confirmed, and established; which i have not at present enquired after, but suddenly repeated as they came to mind. many more of the like nuture and importance may be added unto them; and shall be so as occasion doth require. let now any one who owns the scripture to be the word of god, to contain an infallible revelation of the things proposed in it to be believed, and who hath any conscience exercised towards god for the receiving and submitting unto what he declares and reveals, take a view of these testimonies, and consider whether they do not sufficiently propose this object of our faith. shall a few poor trifling sophisms, whose terms are scarcely understood, by the most that amongst us make use of them, according as they have found them framed by others, be thought meet to be set up in opposition unto these multiplied testimonies of the holy ghost, and to cast the truth confirmed by them down from its credit and reputation in the consciences of men. for my part, i do not see in any thing, but that the testimonies given to the godhead of christ, the eternal son of god, are every way as clear and unquestionable, as those are, which testify to the being of god, or that there is any god at all. were men acquainted with the scriptures as they ought to be, and as the most, considering the means and advantages they have had, might have been, did they ponder and believe on what they 〈◊〉, or had any tenderness in their consciences as to that reverence, obedience, and subjection of soul, which god requires unto his word, it were utterly impossible that their faith in this matter should ever in the least be shaken, by a few lewd sophisms, or loud clamours of men destitute of the truth, and of the spirit of it. that we may now improve these testimonies unto the end under design, as the nature of this brief discourse will bear, i shall first remove the general answers which the socinians give unto them; and then manifest farther, how incontrolable they are, by giving an instance in the frivolous exceptions of the same persons to one of them in particular. and we are ready, god assisting, to maintain, that there is not any one of them, which doth not give a sufficient ground for faith to rest on in this matter concerning the deity of christ; and that against all the socinians in the world. they say therefore commonly, that we prove not by these testimonies what is by them denied. for they acknowledge christ to be god, and that because he is exalted unto that glory and authority that all creatures are put into subjection unto him; and all both men and angels are commanded to worship and adore him. so that he is god by office, though he be not god by nature. he is god, but he is not the most high god. and this last expression they have almost continually in their mouths. he is not the most high god. and commonly with great contempt and scorn they are ready to reproach them who have solidly confirmed the doctrine of the deity of christ, as ignorant of the state of controversy, in that they have not proved him to be the most high god, in subordination unto whom, they acknowledge christ to be god, and that he ought to be worshipped with divine and religious worship. but there cannot be any thing more empty and vain than these pretences. and besides they accumulate in them, their former errors, with the addition of new ones. for, first, the name of the most high god, is first ascribed unto god in gen. 49. 18, 19, 22. denoting his sovereignty and dominion. now, as other attributes of god, it is not distinctive of the subject, but only desscriptive of it. so are all other excellencies of the nature of god. it doth not intimate that there are other gods, only he is the most high, or one over them all, but only that the true god, is most high, that is endued with sovereign power, dominion and authority over all. to say then, that christ indeed is god, but not the most high god, is all one as to say he is god, but not the most holy god, or not the true god. and so they have brought their christ into the number of false gods, whilst they deny the true christ who in his divine nature, is over all god blessed for ever, rom. 9 5. a phrase of speech, perfectly expressing this attribute, of the most high god. secondly, this answer is suited only unto those testimonies which express the name of god with a corresponding power and authority unto that name. for in reference unto these alone can it be pleaded with any pretence of reason, that he is a god by office; though that also be done very futilously and impertinently. but most of the testimonies produced, speak directly unto his divine excellency's, and properties, which belong unto his nature necessarily and absolutely. that he is eternal, omnipotent, immense, omniscient, infinitely wise, and that he is, and worketh and produceth effects suitable unto all these properties, and such as nothing but they can enable him for, is abundantly proved by the foregoing testimonies. now all these concern a divine nature, a natural essence, a godhead, and not such power or authority as a man may be exalted unto. yea, the ascribing any of them to such a one, implies the highest contradiction expressible. thirdly, this god in authority and office, and not by nature, that should be the object of divine worship, is a new abomination. for they are divine, essential excellencies that are the formal reason and object of worship religious and divine. and to ascribe it unto any one, that is not god by nature, is idolatry. by making therefore their christ such a god as they describe, they bring him under the severe commination of the true god, jer. 10. 11. the gods that have not made the heavens and the earth, even they shall perish from the earth, and from under these heavens. that christ they worship, they say is a god; but they deny that he is that god that made the heavens and the earth: and so leave him exposed to the threatenings of him, who will accomplish it to the uttermost. some other general exceptions sometimes they make use of, which the reader may free himself from the entanglement of, if he do but heed these ensuing rules. x. distinction of persons, (of which afterwards) it being in an infinite substance, doth no way prove a difference of essence between the father and the son. where there fore christ as the son, is said to be another from the father, or god, spoken personally of the father, it argues not in the least that he is not partaker of the same nature with him. that in one essence, there can be but one person, may be true where the substance is finite and limited, but hath no place in that which is infinite. 2. distinction and inequality in respect of office in christ, doth not in the least take away his equality and sameness with the father, in respect of nature and essence, phil. 2. 7, 8. a son, of the same nature with his father, and therein equal to him, may in office be his inferior, his subject. thirdly, the advancement and exaltation of christ as mediator to any dignity whatever, upon, or in reference to the work of our redemption and salvation, is not at all inconsistent with the essential honour, dignity, and worth which he hath in himself as god blessed for ever. though he humbled himself and was exalted in office, yet in nature he was one and the same, he changed not. fourthly, the scriptures asserting the humanity of christ with the concerments thereof, as his birth, life, and death, do no more thereby deny his deity, than by asserting his deity with the essential properties thereof, they deny his humanity. fifthly, god working in and by christ as he was mediator, denotes the father's sovereign appointment of the things mentioned to be done, not his immediate efficiency in the doing of the things themselves. these rules are proposed a little before their due place in the method which we pursue. but i thought meet to interpose them here, as containing a sufficient ground for the resolution and answering of all the sophisms and objections which the adversaries use in this cause. from the cloud of witnesses before produced, every one where of is singly sufficient to evert the socinian infidelity; i shall in one of them give an infiance both of the clearness of the evidence, and the weakness of the exceptions which are wont to put in against them as was promised. and this is, john 1. 1, 2, 3. in the beginning was the word, and the word was with god, and the word was god, the same was in the beginning with god. all things were made by him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. by the word, here, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, on what account soever he be so called, either as being the eternal word and wisdom of the father, or as the great revealer of the will of god unto us, jesus christ the son of god is intended. this is on all hands acknowledged, and the context will admit of no haesitation about it. for of this word, it is said, that he came into the world, v. 10. was rejected by his own, v. 11. was made flesh and dwelled amongst us whose glory was the glory of the only begotten son of the father, v. 14. called expressly jesus christ, v. 17. the only begotten son of the father, v. 18. the subject then treated of is here agreed upon. and it is no less evident that it is the design of the apostle to declare both who, and what he was of whom he treateth. here then, if any where, we may learn what we are to believe concerning the person of christ; which also we may certainly do, if our minds are not perverted through prejudice, whereby the god of this world doth blind the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of christ who is the image of god, should shine unto them, 2 cor. 4. 4. of this word then, this son of god it is affirmed that he was in the beginning. and this word if it doth not absolutely and formally express eternity, yet it doth a preexistence unto the whole creation which amounts to the same. for nothing can preexist unto all creatures but in the nature of god which is eternal; unless we shall suppose a creature before the creation of any. but what is meant by this expression, the scripture doth elsewhere declare. prov. 8. 23. i was set up from everlasting before the beginning, or ever the earth was, john 17. 5. glorify thou me with thine own self, with the glory which i had with thee before the world was. both which places as they explain this phrase, so also do they undeniably testify unto the eternal pre-existence of christ the son of god. and in this case we prevail against our adversaries, if we prove any pre-existence of christ unto his incarnation, which as they absolutely deny, so to grant it, would overthrow their whole heresy in this matter. and therefore they know that the testimony of our saviour concerning himself, if understood in a proper intelligible sense, is perfectly destructive of their pretensions. john 8. 58. before abraham was, i am. for although there be no proper sense in the words but a gross equivocation, if the existence of christ before abraham was born be not asserted in them, seeing he spoke in answer to that objection of the jews, that he was n●t yet fifty years old, and so could not have seen abraham, nor abraham him; and the jews that were present understood well enough that he asserted a divine preexistence unto his being born so long ago, as that hereon, after their manner, they took up stones to stone him, as supposing him to have blasphemed in asserting his deity as others now do in the denying of it; yet they seeing how fatal this preexistence, though not here absolutely asserted to be eternal, would be to their cause, they contend that the meaning of the words, is, that christ was to be the light of the world before abraham was made the father of many nations. an interpretation so absurd and sottish, as never any man not infatuated by the god of this world could once admit and give countenance unto. but in the beginning, as absolutely used, is the same with from everlasting, as it is expounded, prov. 8. 23. and denoteth an eternal existence, which is here affirmed of the word the son of god. but let the word beginning, be restrained unto the subject matter treated of which is the creation of all things, and the praeexistence of christ in his divine nature unto the creation of all things is plainly revealed and inevitably asserted. and indeed, not only the word, but the discourse of these verses, doth plainly relate unto, and is expository of the first verse in the bible, gen. 1. 1. in the beginning god created heaven and earth. there it is asserted that in the beginning god created all things, here, that the word was in the beginning and made all things. this then is the least that we have obtained from this first word of our testimony; namely, that the word or son of god had a personal praeexistence unto the whole creation. in what nature this must be, let these men of reason satisfy themselves, who know that creator and creatures, take up the whole nature of being's; one of them he must be; and it may be well supposed that he was not a creature before the creation of any. but, secondly, where, or with whom, was this word in the beginning? it was saith the holy ghost, with god. there being no creature then existing, he could be no where but with god; that is, the father as it is expressed in one of the testimonies before going, prov. 8. 22. the lord possessed me in the beginning of his ways before his works of old; ver. 30. then was i by him as one brought up with him, and i was daily his delight, rejoicing always before him; that is, in the beginning, this word or wisdom of god was with god. and this is the same, which our lord jesus asserts concerning himself, john 3. 13. and no man, saith he, hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the son of man which is in heaven. and so in other places. he affirms his being in heaven, that is, with god, at the same time when he was in the earth; whereby he declares the immensity of his nature, and the distinction of his person; and his coming down from heaven before he was incarnate on the earth, declaring his preexistence; by both manifesting the meaning of this expression, that in the beginning he was with god. but hereunto they have invented a notable evasion. for although they know not well what to make of the last clause of the words, that say, than he was in heaven when he spoke on earth; the son of man which is in heaven, answerable to the description of god's immensity, do not i fill heaven and earth saith the lord, jer. 23. 27. but say, that he was there, by heavenly meditation as another man may be; yet they give a very clear answer to what must of necess●●y be included in his descending from heaven, namely his preexistence to his incarnation. for they tell us, that before his public ministry, he was in his humane nature, (which is all they allow unto him) taken up into heaven, and there taught the gospel; as the great impostor mahomet pretended he was taught his alcoran; if you ask them, who told them so, they cannot tell; but th●y can tell when it was; namely, when he was led by the spirit into the wilderness for forty days after his baptism. but yet this instance is subject to another her misadventure; in that one of the evangelists plainly affirms that he was those forty days in the wilderness with the wild beasts, mark 17. 13. and so surely not in heaven in the same nature by his bodily presence with god and his holy angels. and let me add this by the way that the interpretation of this place, joh. 1. 1. to be mentioned after wards; and those of the two places before mentioned, john 8. 58. chap. 3. 31. faustus socin●s learned out of his uncle laelius papers as he confesseth, and doth more than intimate that he believed he had them as it were by revelation; and it may be so; they are indeed so forced, absurd, and irrational, that no man could ever fix upon them by any reasonable investigation. but the author of this revelation, if we may judge of the parent by the child, could be no other but the spirit of error and darkness. i suppose therefore that notwithstanding these exceptions, christians will believe, that in the beginning the word was with god; that is, that the son was with the father, as is frequently elsewhere declared. but who was this word? saith the apostle, he was god. he was so with god, that is the father, as that he himself was god also. god, in that the notion of god, which both nature, and the scripture doth represent. not a god by office, one exalted to that dignity, (which cannot well be pretended before the creation of the world) but as thomas confessed him, our lord and our god, john 20. 28. or as paul expresses it; over all god blessed for ever; or the most high god, which these men love to deny. let not the infidelity of men excited by the craft and malice of satan s●ek for blind occasions, and this matter is determined; if the word and testimony of god be able to umpire a difference amongst the children of men. here is the sum of our creed in this matter; in the beginning the word was god; and so continues unto eternity; being alpha and om●ga, the first and the last, the lord god almighty. and to show that he was so god in the beginning, as that he was distinct, one, in some thing from god the father, by whom afterwards he was sent into the world, he adds, ver. 2. the same was in the beginning with god. father also to evince what he hath asserted, and revealed for us to believe, the holy ghost adds, both as a firm declaration of his eternal deity; and also his immediate care of the world (which how he variously exercised both in a way of providence, and grace, he afterwards declares) verse 3. all things were made by him. he was so in the beginning, before all things, as that he made them all. and that it may not be supposed, that the all that he is said to make, or create, was to be limited unto any certain sort of things, he adds, that without him nothing was made that was made; which gives the first assertion an absolute universality as to its subject. and this he farther describes, v. 10. he was in the world, and the world was made by him. the world that was made, hath an usual distribution in the scripture, into the heavens and the earth, and all things contained in them; as acts 4. 24. lord thou art god which hast made heaven and earth and the sea, and all that in them is; that is the world, the making whereof is expressly assigned unto the son, heb. 1. 10. thou lord in the beginning, hast laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the works of thine hands. and the apostle paul to secure our understandings in this matter, instanceth in the most noble parts of the creation, and which if any might seem to be excepted from being made by him, col. 1. 16. for by him were all things created that are in heaven, and that are in earth visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers, all things were created by him and for him. the socinians say indeed, that he made angels to be thrones and principalities; that is, he gave them their order, but not their being; which is expressly contrary to the words of the text; so that a man knows not well what to say to these persons, who at their pleasure cast off the authority of god in his word: by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth. what now can be required to secure our faith in this matter? in what words possible, could a divine revelation of the eternal power and godhead of the son of god, be made more plain and clear unto the sons of men? or how could the truth of any thing more evidently be represented unto their minds? if we understand not the mind of god, and intention of the holy ghost in this matter, we may utterly despair ever to come to an acquaintance with any thing that god reveals unto us; or indeed with any thing else that is expressed, or is to be expressed by words. it is directly said that the word, that is christ, as is acknowledged by all, was with god; distinct from him, and was god, one with him; that he was so in the beginning, before the creation; that he made all things, the world, all things in heaven and in earth; and if he be not god, who is? the sum is, all the ways whereby we may know god, are his name, his properties, and his works. but they are all here ascribed by the holy ghost to the son, to the word; and he therefore is god, or we know neither who, nor what god is. but say the socinians, these things are quite otherwise, and the words have another sense in them than you imagine. what is it i pray? we bring none to them, we impose no sense upon them; we strain not any word in them, from, besides, or beyond its native, genuine signification, its constant application in the scripture, and common use amongst men. what then is this latent sense that is intended, and is discoverable only by themselves? let us hear them coining and 〈◊〉 this sense of theirs. first, they say that by in the beginning, is not meant of the beginning of all things, or the creation of them; but the beginning of the preaching of the gospel. but why so i pray? where ever these words are else used in the scripture, they denote the beginning of all things, or eternity absolutely, or an existence preceding their creation. in the beginning god created heaven and earth, gen. 1. 1. i was set up from everlasting from the beginning ere ever the earth was, prov. 8. 23. thou lord in the beginning hast laid the foundations of the earth, heb. 1. 10. and besides, these words are never used absolutely any where for the beginning of the gospel. there is mention made indeed of the beginning of the gospel of jesus christ, mark 1. 1. which is referred to the preaching of john baptist. but in the beginning absolutely, is never so used or applied. and they must meet with men of no small inclination unto them, who will upon their desire in a matter of so great importance, forego the sense of words, which is natural and proper, fixed by its constant use in the scripture, when applied in the same kind; for that which is forced, and strained, and not once exemplified in the whole book of god. but the words they say are to be restrained to the subject matter treated of. well, what is that subject matter? the new creation by the preaching of the gospel. but this is plainly false; nor will the words allow any such sense; nor the context: nor is any thing offered to give evidence unto this corrupt perverting of the words, unless it be a farther perverting of other testimonies, no less clear than this. for what is according to this interpretation the meaning of those words, in the beginning was the word? that is, when john baptist preached, and said, this is the lamb of god, which was signally the beginning of the gospel, than he was. that is, he was when he was, no doubt of it. and is not this a notable way of interpreting of scripture, which these great pretenders to a dictatorship in reason, indeed hucksters in sophistry, do make use of? but to go on with them in this supposition; how was he then with god, the word was with god. that is, say they, he was then known only to god, before john baptist preached him in the beginning. but what shall compel us to admit of this uncouth sense and exposition. he was with god, that is, he was known to god alone. what is their singular herein, concerning how many things may the same be affirmed? besides, it is absolutely false. he was known to the angel gabriel who came to his mother with the message of his incarnation, luke 1. 35. he was known to the two angels which appeared to the shepherds upon his birth, luke 2. to all the heavenly host assembled to give praise and glory to god on the account of his nativity, as those who came to worship him, and to pay him the homage due unto him, luke 2. 10, 13, 14. he was known to his mother, the blessed virgin; and to joseph; and zachariah; and to elizabeth; to simeon and anna, to john baptist; and probably to many more to whom simeon and anna spoke of him, luke 2. 38. so that the sense pretended to be wrung out and extorted from these words, against their proper meaning and intendment, is indeed false and frivolous, and belongs not at all unto them. but let this pass. what shall we say to the next words, and the word was god. give us leave without disturbance from you, but to believe this expression which compriseth a revelation of god proposed to us on purpose that we should believe it, and there will be, as was said, an end of this difference and debate. yea, but say they, these words have another sense also. strange i they seem to be so plain and positive, that it is impossible any other sense should be fixed on them, but only this, that the word was in the beginning, and was god, and therefore is so still, unless he who is once god can cease so to be. but the meaning is; that afterwards, god exalted him and made him god, as to rule, authority and power. this making of him god, is an expression very offensive to the ears of all sober christians, and was therefore before exploded. and these things here, as all other figments, hang together like a rope of sands. in the beginning of the gospel he was god, before any knew him but only god. that is, after he had preached the gospel, and died, and rose again, and was exalted at the right hand of god, he was made god, and that not properly, which is absolutely impossible, but in an improper sense. how prove they then this perverse nonsense to be the sense of these plain words. they say it must needs be so. let them believe them who are willing to perish with them. thus far then we have their sense; in the beginning, that is, about sixteen or seventeen hundred years ago; the word, that is, the humane nature of christ before it was made flesh, which it was in its being; was with god; that is, known to god alone; and in the beginning, that is afterwards, not in the beginning, was made god; which is the sum of their exposition of this place. but what shall we say, to what is affirmed concerning his making of all things, so as that without him, that is, without his making of it, nothing was made that was made; especially seeing that these all things are expressly said to be the world, vers. 10. and all things therein contained, even in heaven and earth, col. 1. 16. an ordinary man would think that they should now be taken hold of, and that there is no way of escape left unto them. but they have it in a readiness. by the all things here are intended all things of the gospel, the preaching of it, the sending of the apostles to preach it, and to declare the will of god; and by the world, is intended the world to come, or the new state of things under the gospel. this is the substance of what is pleaded by the greatest masters amongst them in this matter, and they are not ashamed thus to plead. and the reader in this instance may easily discern what a desperate cause they are engaged in, and how bold and desperate they are in the management of it. for, first, the words are a plain illustration of the divine nature of the word, by his divine power and works, as the very series of them declares. he was god, and he made all things; for he that made all things is god, heb. 3. 4. secondly, there is no one word spoken concerning the gospel, nor the preaching of it, nor any effects of that preaching, which the apostle expressly insists upon and declares afterwards, verse 14. and so onwards. thirdly, the making of all things here ascribed unto the word, was done in the beginning. but that making of all things which they intent, in erecting the church by the preaching of the word, was not done in the beginning, but afterwards; most of it as themselves confess, after the ascension of christ into heaven. fourthly, in this gloss what is the meaning of all things? only some things say the socinians. what is the meaning of were made? that is, were mended? by him that is the apostles principally preaching the gospel; and this in the beginning; after it was passed; for so they say expressly that the principal things here intended, were effected by the apostles afterwards. i think since the beginning, place it when you will the beginning of the world, or the beginning of the gospel, there was never such an exposition of the word; of god or man contended for. fifthly, it is said he made the world, and he came into it; namely, the world which he made and the world, or the inhabitants of it, knew him not. but the world they intent did know him; or the church knew him, and acknowledged him to be the son of god. for that was the foundation that it was built upon. i have instanced directly in this only testimony to give the reader a pledge of the full confirmation which may be given unto this great fundamental truth, by a due improvement of those other testimonies, or distinct revelations which speak no less expressly to the same purpose. and of them there is not any one, but we are ready to vindicate it, if called thereunto, from the exceptions of these men; which how bold and sophistical they are, we may in these now considered, also learn and know. it appeareth then that there is a full sufficient revelation made in the scripture of the eternal deity of the son of god; and that he is so, as is the father also. more particular testimonies i shall not at present insist upon, referring the full discussion and vindication of these truths, to another season. we are therefore in the next place to manifest that the same, or the like testimony, is given unto the deity of the holy spirit; that is, that he is revealed and declared in the scripture, as the object of our faith, worship, and obedience on the account, and for the reason of those divine excelleneys which are the sole reason of our yielding religious worship unto any, or expecting from any the reward that is promised unto us, or to be brought by them to the end for which we are. and herein, lies as was showed, the concernment of faith. when that knows what it is to believe as on divine revelation, and is enabled thereby to regulate the soul in its present obedience and future expectation, seeing it is its▪ nature to work by love and hope, there it rests. now this is done to the utmost satisfaction in the revelation that is made of the divine existence, divine excellencies, and divine operations of the spirit as shall be briefly manifested. but before we proceed, we may in our way observe a great congruency of success in those who have denied the deity of the son, and those who have denied that of the holy spirit. for as to the son, after some men began once to disbelieve the revelation concerning him, and would not acknowledge him to be god and man in one person, they could never settle nor agree, either what, or who he was, or who was his father, or why he was the son. some said he was a phantasm or appearance; and that he had no real subsistence in this world, and that all that was done by him was an appearance, he himself being they know not what elsewhere. that proud beast paulus sam●satenus, whose flagitious life, contended for a pre-eminence in wickedness with his prodigious heresies, was one of the first after the jews, that positively contended for his being a man and no more, who was followed by photinus and some others. the arians perceiving the folly of this opinion, with the odium of it amongst all that bore the name of christians, and that they had as good deny the whole scripture as not grant unto him a preexistence in a divine nature antecedent to his incarnation, they framed a new deity which god should make before the world, in all things like to himself, but not the same with him in essence and substance; but to be so like him, that by the writings of some of them, ye can scarce know one from the other; and that this was the son of god also who was afterwards incarnate. others in the mean time had more monstrous imaginations; some that he was an angel, some that he was the sun, some that he was the soul of the world, some the light within men. departing from their proper rest, so have they hovered about, and so have they continued to do, until this day. in the same manner it is come to pass with them who have denied the deity of the holy ghost. they could never find where to stand or abide; but one hath cried up one thing, another another. at first they observed that such things were every where ascribed unto him in the scripture, as uncontrollably evidenced him to be an intelligent voluntary agent. this they found so plain and evident, that they could not deny, but that he was a person or an intelligent subsistence. wherefore seeing they were resolved not to assent unto the revelation of his being god, they made him a created spirit, chief and above all others. but still whatever else he were, he was only a creature. and this course some of late also have steered. the socinians on the other hand, observing that such things are assigned and ascribed unto him, as that if they acknowledge him to be a person, or a substance, they must upon necessity admit him to be god, though they seemed not at first at all agreed what to think or say concerning him positively, yet they all coneurred peremptorily in denying his personality. hereon, some of them said he was the gospel, which others of them have confuted; some that he was christ. neither could they agree whether there was one holy ghost or more; whether the spirit of god and the good spirit of god, and the holy spirit, be the same or no. in general now they conclude that he is vis dei, or virtus dei, or efficacia dei; no substance, but a quality that may be considered either as being in god, and then they say it is the spirit of god; or as sanctifying, and conforming men unto god, and then they say, it is the holy ghost. whether these things do answer the revelation made in the scripture concerning the eternal spirit of god, will be immediately manifested. our quakers, who have for a long season hovered up and down like a swarm of flies with a confused noise and humming, begin now to settle in the opinions lately by them declared for. but what their thoughts will fall into be, concerning the holy ghost, when they shall be contented to speak intelligibly, and according to the usage of other men, or the pattern of scripture, the great rule of speaking or treating about spiritual things, i know not; and am uncertain whether they do so themselves or no. whether he may be the light within them, or an infallible afflatus is uncertain. in the mean time, what is revealed unto us in the scripture to be believed concerning the holy ghost, his deity, and personality, may be seen in the ensuing testimonies. the sum of this revelation is, that the holy spirit is an eternally divine existing substance, the author of divine operations, and the object of divine and religious worship; that is, over all god blessed for ever; as the ensuing testimonies evince. gen 1. 2. the spirit of god moved upon the face of the waters. psalm 33. 6. by the word of the lord were the heavens made, and all the host of them by the spirit of his mouth. job 26. 13. by his spirit he hath garnished the heavens. job 33. 4. the spirit of god hath made me. psalm 104. 30. thou sendest forth thy spirit; they are created. mat. 28. 19 baptising them in the name of the father, and of the son, and of the holy ghost. acts 1. 16. that scripture must needs have been fulfilled which the holy ghost by the mouth of david spoke. acts 5. 3. peter said to ananias, why hath satan filled thy heart to lie to the holy ghost? vers. 4. thou hast not lied unto men but unto god. acts 28. 25, 26. well spoke the holy ghost by esaias the prophet unto our fathers, saying, go unto this people and say— 1 cor. 3. 16. know ye not that ye are the temple of god, and that the spirit of god dwelleth in you. 1 cor. 12. 11. all these worketh that one and selfsame spirit, dividing to every man as he will, 2. 6. and there are deversities of operations, but it is the same god which worketh all in all. 2 cor. 13. 14. the grace of the lord jesus christ, and the love of god, and the communion of the holy ghost be with you all. acts 20. 28. take heed to the flock over which the holy ghost hath made you overseers. matth. 12. 31. all manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men, but the blasphemy against the holy ghost shall not be forgiven unto men. psal. 139. 7. whither shall i go from thy spirit? john 14. 26. but the comforte● which is the holy ghost, whom the father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things. luke 12. 12. the holy ghost shall teach you in the same hour what you ought to say. acts 13. 3. and as they ministered to the lord and fasted; the holy ghost said, separate me barnabas and saul for the work whereunto i have called them. vers. 4. so they being sent forth by the holy ghost, departed into, etc. 2 pet. 1. 21. for the prophecy came not in old time by the will of men, but holy men of god spoke as they were moved by the holy ghost. it is evident upon the first consideration, that there is not any thing which we believe concerning the holy ghost, but that it is plainly revealed and declared in these testimonies. he is directly affirmed to be, and is called god, acts 5. 3, 4. which the socinians will not say is by virtue of an exaltation unto an office or authority, as they say of the son; that he is an intelligent voluntary divine agent; he knoweth, he worketh as he will, which things if in their frequent repetition, they are not sufficient to evince an intelligent agent, a personal subsistence, that hath being, life and will, we must confess that the scripture was written on purpose to lead us into mistakes and misapprehensions of what we are under penalty of eternal ruin rightly to apprehend and believe. it declareth also, that he is the author and worker of all sorts of divine operations requiring immensity, omnipotency, omnisciency, and all other divine excellencies unto their working and effecting. moreover, it is revealed, that he is peculiarly to be believed in; and may peculiarly be sinned against; the great author of all grace in believers, and order in the church. this is the sum of what we believe of what is revealed in the scripture concerning the holy ghost. as in the consideration of the preceding head, we vindicated one testimony in particular from the exceptions of the adversaries of the truth, so on this we may briefly sum up the evidence that is given us in the testimonies before produced, that the reader may the more easily understand their intendment, and what in particular, they bear witness unto. the sum is, that the holy ghost is a divine distinct person, and neither merely the power or virtue of god, nor any created spirit whatever. this plainly appears from what is revealed concerning him. for he who is placed in the same series or order with other divine persons, without the least note of difference or distinction from them, as to an interest in personality, who hath the names proper to a divine person only, and is frequently and directly called by them, who also hath personal properties, and is the voluntary author of personal divine operations, and the proper object of divine worship, he is a distinct divine person. and if these things be not a sufficient evidence and demonstration of a divine intelligent substance, i shall, as was said before, despair to understand any thing that is expressed and declared by words. but now thus it is with the holy ghost according to the revelation made concerning him in the scripture. for, first, he is placed in the same rank and order without any note of difference or distinction as to a distinct interest in the divine nature, that is, as we shall see, personality, with other divine persons, matth. 28. 19 baptising them in the name of the father, and the son, and of the holy ghost, 1 john 5. 7. there be three that bear witness in heaven, the father, the son, and the spirit, and these three are one, 1 cor. 12. 3, 4, 5, 6. no man can say the lord jesus christ is the lord, but by the holy ghost; now there are diversities of gifts, but the same spirit, and there are differences of administrations, but the same lord; and there are diversities of operations, but it is the same god which worketh all in all. neither doth a denial of his divine being and distinct existence leave any tolerable sense unto these expressions. for read the words of the first place from the mind of the socinians, and see what is it can be gathered from them. baptising them, in the name of the father, and of the son, and of the virtue or efficacy of the father. can any thing be more absonant from faith and reason, than this absurd expression? and yet is it the direct sense, if it be any, that these men put upon the words. to join a quality with acknowledged persons, and that in such things and cases, as wherein they are proposed under a personal consideration, is a strange kind of mystery. and the like may be manifested concerning the other places. secondly, he also hath the names proper to a divine person only. for he is expressly called god, acts 5. he who is termed the holy ghost, ver. 3. and the spirit of the lord, verse 9 is called also god, ver. 4. now this is the name of a divine person on one account or other. the socinians would not allow christ to be called god, were he not a divine person, though not by nature, yet by office and authority. and i suppose, they will not find out an office for the holy ghost whereunto he might be exalted on the account whereof he might become god, seeing this would acknowledge him to be a person which they deny. so he is called the comforter, john 16. 7. a personal appellation this is also; and because he is the comforter of all god's people, it can be the name of none but a divine person. in the 〈…〉 it is frequently 〈…〉 come, that he shall, and will do such and such things, all of them declaring him to be a person. thirdly, he hath personal properties assigned unto him, as a will, 1 cor. 12. 11. he divideth to every man severally as he will; and understanding, 1 cor. 2. 10. the spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of god. as also all the actings that are ascribed unto him are all of them such, as undeniably affirm personal properties in their principle and agent. for, fourthly, he is the voluntary author of divine operations. he of old cherished the creation, gen. 1. 3. the spirit of god moved upon the face of the waters. he form and garnished the heavens. he inspired, acted and spoke, in and by the prophets, acts 28. 25, 26. well spoke the holy ghost by isaiah the prophet unto our fathers, 2 pet. 1. 21. the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man, but holy men of god spoke as they were moved by the holy ghost. he regenerateth, enlighteneth, sanctifieth, comforteth, instructeth, leadeth, guideth, all the disciples of christ, as the scriptures every where testify. now all these are personal operations, and cannot with any pretence of sobriety or consistency with reason be constantly and uniformly assigned unto a quality or virtue. he is, as the father and son, god with the properties of omniscience and omnipotency, of life, understanding and will; and by these properties, works, acts, and produceth effects according to wisdom, choice, and power. fifthly, the same regard is had to him in faith, worship, and obedience, as unto the other persons of the father and son. for our being baptised into his name, is our solemn engagement to believe in him, to yield obedience to him, and to worship him, as it puts the same obligation upon us to the father and the son. so also in reference unto the worship of the church. he commands that the ministers of it be separated unto himself, acts 13. 2. the holy ghost said, separate me barnabas and saul for the work whereunto i have called them. ver. 4. so they being sent forth by the holy ghost departed, which is comprehensive of all the religious worship of the church. and on the same account is he sinned against, as acts 5. 3, 4, 9 for there is the same reason of sin and obedience. against whom a man may sin formally and ultimately, him he is bound to obey, worship, and believe in. and this can be no quality, but god himself. for what may be the sense of this expression: thou hast lied to the efficacy of god in his operations; or how can we be formally obliged unto obedience to a quality. there must then an antecedent obligation unto faith, trust, and religious obedience be supposed as the ground of rendering a person capable of being guilty of sin towards wards any. for sin is but a failure in faith, obedience or worship. these therefore are due unto the holy ghost; or a man could not sin against him so signally and fatally as some are said to do, in the foregoing testimonies. i say therefore unto this part of our cause, as unto the other, that unless we will cast off all reverence of god, and in a king of atheism, which as i suppose the prevailing wickedness of this age hath not yet arrived unto, say that the scriptures were written on purpose to deceive us, and to lead us into mistakes about, and misapprehensions of what it proposeth unto us, we must acknowledge the holy ghost to be a substance, a person, god; yet distinct from the father and the son. for to tell us, that he will come unto us, that he will be our comforter, that he will teach us, lead us, guide us, that he spoke of old, in and by the prophets, that they were moved by him, acted by him, that he searcheth the deep things of god, works as he will, that he appointeth to himself ministers in the church; in a word, to declare in places innumerable, what he hath done, what he doth, what he will do, what he says, and speaks, how he acts, and proceeds, what his will is, and to warn us, that we grieve him not, sin not against him, with things innumerable of the like nature, and all this while to oblige us to believe that he is not a person, an helper, a comforter, a searcher, a willer, but a quality in some especial operations of god, or his power and virtue in them, were to distract men, not to instruct them, and leave them no certain conclusion but this, that there is nothing certain in the whole book of god. and of no other tendency are these and the like imaginations of our adversaries in this matter. but let us briefly consider what is objected in general unto the truth we have confirmed. first, they say, the holy spirit is said to be given, to be sent, to be bestowed on men, and to be promised unto them; and therefore it cannot be that he should be god; for how can any of these things be spoken of god. i answer, as these expressions do not prove him to be god, nor did ever any produce them to that purpose, yet they undeniably prove him to be a person; or an intellingent voluntary agent, concerning whom they are spoken and affirmed. for how can the power of god, or a quality as they speak, be said to be sent, to be given, to be bestowed on men; so that these very expressions are destructive to their imaginations. secondly, he who is god equal in nature and being with the father, may be promised, sent, and given, with respect unto the holy dispensation and condescension wherein he hath undertaken the office of being our comforter and sanctifier. thirdly, the communications, distributions, imparting, divisions of the spirit, which they mention, as they respect the object of them, or those on whom they were, or are bestowed, denote only works, gifts, operations and effects of the spirit, the rule whereof is expressed, 1 cor. 12. 7. he workeeth them in whom he will, and as he will. and whether these, and the like exceptions, taken from actings and operations, which are plainly interpreted and explained in sundry places of scripture, and evidently enough in the particular places where they are used, are sufficient to impeach the truth of the revelation before declared, all who have a due reverence of god, his word and truths, will easily understand and discern. these things being declared in the scripture concerning the father, the son, and the holy ghost, it is moreover revealed, and these three are one; that is, one god, jointly to be worshipped, feared, adored, believed in and obeyed, in order unto eternal life. for although this doth absolutely and necessarily follow from what is declared and hath been spoken concerning the one god, or oneness of the derty, yet for the confirmation of our faith, and that we may not by the distinct consideration of the three be taken off from the one, it is particularly declared, that these three are one, that one, the one and same god, but whereas, as was said before, this can no otherwise be, the testimonies given thereunto are not so frequently multiplied as they are unto those other heads of this truth, which through the craft of satan, and the pride of men, might be more liable to exceptions. but yet they are clear, full, and distinctly sufficient for faith to acquiesce in immediately, without any other expositions, interpretations, or arguments, beyond our understanding of the naked importance of the words. such are they, of the father the son, john 10. 30. i and my father are one. father, son and spirit, joh. 5. 7. three that bare witness in heaven, father, son and spirit, and these three are one, mat. 28. 19 baptising them in the name of the father, son, and spirit. for if those into whose name we are baptised be not one in nature, we are by our baptism engaged into the service and worship of more gods than one. for as being baptised, or sacredly initiated into, or in the name of any one doth sacramentally bind us unto a holy and religious obedience unto him, and in all things to the avowing of him as the god whose we are, and whom we serve, as here we are in the name of the father, son and spirit, so if they are not one god, the blasphemous consequence before mentioned must unavoidably be admitted; which it also doth upon the socinian principle, who whilst of all others they seem to contend most for one god, are indeed direct polutheists, by owning others with religious respect, due to god alone, which are not so. once more! it is revealed also, that these three are distinct among themselves by certain peculiar relative properties, if i may yet use these terms. so that they are distinct, living, divine, intelligent voluntary principles of operation or working, and that in, and by internal acts one towards another, and in acts that outwardly respect the creation and the several parts of it. now this distinction originally lieth in this; that the father begetteth the son, and the son is begotten of the father; and the holy spirit proceedeth from both of them. the manner of these things, so far as they may be expressed unto our edification, shall afterwards be spoken to. at present it sufficeth for the satisfaction and confirmation of our faith, that the distinctions named are clearly revealed in the scripture, and are proposed to be its proper object in this matter. psalm 2. 7. thou art my son, this day have i begotten thee. matth. 16. 16. thou art christ, the son of the living god. joh. 1. 14. we saw his glory, the glory of the only begotten of the father. ver. 18. no man hath seen god at any time, the only begotten son which is in the bosom of the father he hath revealed him. john 5. 26. for as the father hath life in himself, so hath he given to the son to have life in himself. 1 joh. 5. 20. the son of god is come, and hath given us an understanding. joh. 14. 26. but when the comforter is come, whom i will send unto you from the father even the spirit of truth which proceedeth from the father, he shall testify of me. now as the nature of this distinction, lies in their mutual relation one to another, so it is the foundation of those distinct actings and operations, whereby the distinction itself is clearly manifested and confirmed. and these actings as was said, are either such, as where one of them is the object of another's actings, or such as have the creature for their objects ● the first sort are testified unto, psalm 110. 1. john 1. 18. chap. 5. 20. chap. 17. 5. 1 cor. 2. 10, 11. prov. 8. 21, 22. most of which places have been before recited. they, which thus know each other, love each other, delight in each other, must needs be distinct; and so are they represented unto our faith. and for the other sort of actings the scripture is full of the expressions of them; see▪ gen. 19 24. zachariah 2. 8. joh. 5. 17. 1 cor. 12. 7, 8, 9 1 cor. 8. 9 our conclusion from the whole is; that there is nothing more fully expressed in the scripture, than this sacred truth is; that there is one god, father, son, and holy ghost; which are divine, distinct, intelligent, voluntary, omnipotent principles of operation, and working, which whosoever thinks himself obliged to believe the scripture must believe; and concerning others, in this discourse, we are not solicitous. this is that which was first proposed; namely, to manifest what is expressly revealed in the scripture concerning god the father, son, and holy ghost; so as that we may duly believe in him, yield obedience unto him, enjoy communion with him, walk in his love and fear, and so come at length to be blessed with him for evermore. nor doth faith for its security, establishment and direction, absolutely stand in need of any farther exposition or explanation of these things; or the use of any terms not consecrated to the present service by the holy ghost. but whereas it may be variously assaulted by the temptations of satan, and opposed by the subtle sophisms of men of corrupt minds; and whereas it is the duty of the disciples of christ to grow in the knowledge of god, and our lord and saviour jesus christ, by an explicit apprehension of the things they do believe, so far as they are capable of them; this doctrine hath in all ages of the church, been explained and taught, in and by such expressions, terms, and propositions, as farther declare what is necessarily included in it, or consequent unto it; with an exclusion of such things, notions, and apprehensions, as are neither the one, nor the other. this i shall briefly manifest, and then vindicate the whole from some exceptions, and so close this dissertation. that god is one, was declared and proved. now this oneness can respect nothing but the nature, being, substance or essence of god. god is one in this respect. some of these words indeed are not used in the scripture. but whereas they are of the same importance and signification, and none of them include any thing of imperfection, they are properly used in the declaration of the unity of the godhead. there is mention in the scripture of the godhead of god, rom. 1. 20. his eternal power and godhead. and of his nature, by excluding them from being objects of our worship, who are not god by nature, gal. 4. 8. now this natural godhead of god, is, his substance or essence with all the holy divine excellencies which naturally and necessarily appertain thereunto. such are eternity, immensity, omnipotency, life, infinite holiness, goodness, and the like. this one nature, substance or essence, being the nature, substance, or essence of god, as god, is the nature, essence and substance of the father, son, and spirit, one and the same absolutely in and unto each of them. for none can be god as they are revealed to be, but by virtue of this divine nature or. being. herein consists the unity of the godhead. secondly, the distinction which the scripture reveals between father, son, and spirit is that whereby they are three ●●p●stasis, or persons, distinctly subsisting in the same divine essence or being. now a divine person, is nothing but the divine essence upon the account of an especial property, subsisting in an especial manner. as in the person of the father, there is the divine essence, and being, with its property of begetting the son, subsisting in an especial manner as the father. and because this person hath the whole divine nature, all the essential properties of that nature are in that person. the wisdom, the understanding of god, the will of god, the immensity of god, is in that person; not as that person, but as the person is god. the like is to be said of the persons of the son and of the holy ghost. hereby each person having the understanding, the will, and power of god, becomes a distinct principle of operation; and yet all their actings ad extra being the actings of god, they are undivided, and are all the works of one, of the self same god. and these things do not only necessarily follow, but are directly included in the revelation made concerning god, and his subsistence in the scriptures. there are indeed very many other things that are taught, and disputed, about this doctrine of the trinity, as the manner of the eternal genera●●on of the son, of the essence of the father; of the procession of the holy ghost, and the difference of it from the generation of the son; of the mutual in-being of the persons, by reason of their unity in the same substance or essence; the nature of their personal subsistence, with respect unto the properties whereby they are mutually distinguished, all which are true and defensible against all the sophisms of the adversaries of this truth. yet because the distinct apprehension of them, and their accurate expression, is not necessary unto faith, as it is our guide and principle in and unto▪ religious worship and obedience, they need not here be insisted on. nor are those brief explications themselves before mentioned, so proposed as to be placed immediately in the same rank or order with the original revelations before infisted on, but only are pressed as proper expressions of what is revealed to increase our light and further our edification. and although they cannot rationally be opposed or denied, nor ever were by any, but such as deny and oppose the things themselves as revealed, yet they that do so deny or oppose them, are to be required positively in the first place to deny or disapprove the oneness of the deity, or to prove that the father, or son, or holy ghost in particular, are not god, before they be allowed to speak one word against the manner of the explication of the truth concerning them. for either they grant the revelation declared and contended for, or they do not: if they do; let that concession be first laid down, namely, that the father, son, and spirit are one god; and then let it be debated whether they are one in substance and three in persons, or how else the matter is to be stated. if they deny it; it is a plain madness to dispute of the manner of any thing, and the way of expressing it, whilst the thing itself is denied to have a being: for of that which is not, there is neither manner, property, adjunct, nor effect. let then such persons, as this sort of men are ready to attempt with their sophistry, and to amuse with cavils about persons, substances, subsistences, and the like, desire to know of them what it is that they would be at. what would they deny, what would they disapprove. is it that god is one; or that the father is god, or the son, or the holy ghost is so. if they deny, or oppose either of these, they have testimonies and instances of divine revelation, or may have, in a readiness, to confound the devil and all his emissaries. if they will not do so, if they refuse it, then let them know, that it is most foolish and unreasonable to contend about expressions and explanations of any thing, or doctrine, about the manner, respects, or relations of any thing, until the thing itself, or doctrine, be plainly confessed or denied. if this they refuse, as generally they do and will, which i speak upon sufficient experience, and will not be induced to deal openly, properly and rationally, but will keep to their cavils and sophisms, about terms and expressions, all farther debate, or conference with them, may justly, and aught both conscientiously and rationally to be refused, and rejected. for these sacred mysteries of god and the gospel, are not lightly to be made the subject of men's contests and disputations. but as we dealt before in particular, so here i shall give instances of the sophistical exceptions that are used against the whole of this doctrine; and that with respect unto some late collections, and representations of them: from whence they are taken up and used by many who seem not to understand the words, phrases and expressions themselves, which they make use of. the sum of what they say in general, is, how can these things be? how can three be one, and one be three? every person hath its own substance, and therefore if there be three persons, there must be three substances; and so three gods. answ. 1. every person hath distinctly its own substance, for the one substance of the deity, is the substance of each person, so it is still but one. but each person hath not its own distinct substance, because the substance of them all is the same, as hath been proved. 2. they say, that if each person be god, than each person is infinite, and there being three persons there must be three infinites. answ. this follows not in the least; for each person is infinite as he is god. al● divine properties, such as to be infinite is, belong not to the persons on the account of their personality, but on the account of their nature, which is one, for they are all natural properties. but they say, if each person be god, and that god subsist in three persons, then in each person there are three persons or gods. answ. the collusion of this sophism consists in that expression, be god; and that god; in the first place, the nature of god is intended; in the latter a singular person. place the words intelligibly and they are thus; if each person be god, and the nature of god subsists in three persons, then in each person there are three persons; and then the folly of it will be evident. but they farther infer; that if we deny the persons to be infinite, than an infinite being hath a finite mode of subsisting, and so i know not what supposition they make hence; that seeing there are not three infinites, than the father, son, and spirit are three finites that make up an infinite. the pitiful weakness of this cavil is open to all: for finite and infinite are properties and adjuncts of being's, and not of the manner of the subsistence of any thing. the nature of each person is infinite, and so is each person, because of that nature. of the manner of their subsistence, finite and infinite cannot be predicated or spoken, no farther than to say, an infinite being doth so subsist. but you grant, say they, that the only true god is the father, and then if christ be the only true god, he is the father. answ. we say, the only true god is father, son, and holy ghost. we never say, the scripture never says, that the father only is the true god, whence it would follow, that he that is the true god, is the father. but we grant the father to be the only trne god: and so we 〈◊〉 is the son also. and it doth not 〈◊〉 all thence follow, that the son is 〈◊〉 father. because in saying the 〈…〉 the true god, we respect not his paternity, or his paternal relation to his son; but his nature, essence and being. and the same we affirm concerning the other persons. and to say, that because each person is god, one person must be another, is to crave leave to disbelieve what god hath revealed, without giving any reason at all for their so doing. but this sophism being borrowed from another, namely crellius, who insisted much upon it, i shall upon his account, and not on theirs, who as far as i can apprehend, understand little of the intendment of it, remove it more fully out of the way. it is proposed by him in way of syllogism, thus, the only true god is the father; christ is the only true god; therefore he is the father. now this syllogism is ridiculously sophystical. for in a categorical syllogism the major proposition is not to be particular, nor equipollent to a particular. for from such a proposition, when any thing communicable to more is the subject of it, and is restrained unto one particular, nothing can be inferred in the conclusion. but such is this proposition here, the only true god is the father. it is a particular proposition; wherein the subject is restrained unto a singular, or individual predicate, though in itself communicable to more. now the proposition being ●o made particular, the terms of the subject or predicate are supposed reciprocal; namely, that one god, and the father, are the same; which is false: unless it be first proved, that the name god, is communicable to no more, or no other, than is the other term of father; which to suppose, is to beg the whole question. for the only true god, hath a larger signification than the term of father, or son. so that though the only true god be the father, yet every one who is true god, is not the father: seeing than that the name of god here, supplies the pla●e of a species, though it be singular absolutely, as it respects the divine nature which is absolutely singular, and one, and cannot be multiplied; yet in respect of communication it is otherwise, it is communicated unto more, namely, to the father, son and holy ghost. and therefore if any thing be intended to be concluded from hence, the proposition must be expressed according to what the subject requires, as capable of communication or attribution to more than one, as thus; who ever is the only true god, is the father; which proposition these persons and their masters, shall never be able to prove. i have given in particular these strictures thus briefly, upon these empty sophisms; partly, because they are well removed already, and partly because they are mere exscriptions out of an author not long since translated into english, unto whom an entire answer may ere long be returned. that which at present shall suffice, is to give a general answer unto all these cavils, with all of the same kind, which the men of these principles do usually insist upon. i. the things, they say, which we teach concerning the trinity, are contrary to reason; and thereof they endeavour to give sundry instances, wherein the sum of the opposition which they make unto this truth doth consist. but first, i ask what reason is it that they intent? it is their own, the carnal reason of men. by that they will judge of these divine mysteries. the scripture tells us indeed, that the spirit of a man w●ich is in him knows the things of a man. a man's spirit, by natural reason, may judge of natural things. but the things of god, knoweth no man but the spirit of god, 1 cor. 2. 11. so that what we know of these things, we must receive upon the revelation of the spirit of god merely; if the apostle may be believed. and it is given unto men to know the mysteries of the kingdom of god. to some, and not to others; and unless it be so given them they cannot know them. in particular, none can know the father, unless the son reveal him. nor will, or doth, or can, flesh and blood reveal or understand jesus christ to be the son of the living god, unless the father reveal him, and instruct us in the truth of it, matth. 16. 18. the way to come to the acknowledgement of these things, is that described by the apostle, ephes. 3. 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 for this cause i bow my knees unto the father of our lord jesus christ, of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named, that he would grant ye, according to the riches of his glory, to be strengthened with might by his spirit in the inner man; that christ may dwell in your hearts by faith; that ye being rooted and grounded in love may be able to comprehend with all saints, etc. as also col. 2. 2. that ye might come unto all riches of the full assurance of understanding, to the acknowledgement of the mystery of god, and of the father, and of christ. in whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. it is by faith and prayer, and through the revelation of god, that we may come to the acknowledgement of these things; and not by the carnal reasonings of men of corrupt minds. 2. what reason do they intend? if reason absolutely, the reason of things; we grant that nothing contrary unto it, is to be admitted. but reason as it is in this or that man, particularly in themselves, we know to be weak, maimed and imperfect; and that they are, and all other men, extremely remote from a just and full comprehension of the whole reason of things. are they in such an estate, as that their apprehension shall pass for the measure of the nature of all things; we know they are far from it, so that though we will not admit of any thing, that is contrary to reason, yet the least intimation of a truth by divine revelation, will make me embrace it, although it should be contrary to the reason of all the socinians in the world. reason in the abstract, or the just measure of the answering of one thing unto another, is of great moment: but reason, that is, what is pretended to be so, or appears to be so unto this or that man, especially in and about things of divine revelation, is of very small importance; of none at all where it riseth up against the express testimonies of scripture, and these multiplied to their mutual confirmation and explanation. 3. many things are above reason, that is, as considered in this or that subject, as men, which are not at all against it. it is an easy thing to compel the most curious enquirers of these days to a ready confession hereof, by multitudes of instances in things finite and temporary. and shall any dare to deny but it may be so, in things heavenly, divine, and spiritual? nay, there is no concernment of the being of god, or his properties, but is absolutely above the comprehension of our reason. we cannot by searching find out god, we cannot find out the almighty to perfection. 4. the very foundation of all their objections and cavils against this truth, is destructive of as fundamental principles of reason, as are in the world. they are all at best reduced to this; it cannot be thus in things finite; the same being cannot in one respect be one, in another three, and the like, and therefore it is so in things infinite. all these reasonings are built upon this supposition, that that which is finite can perfectly comprehend that which is infinite. an assertion absurd, foolish and contradictory unto itself! again, it is the highest reason in things of pure revelation, to captivate our understandings to the authority of the revealer, which here is rejected. so that by a loud specious pretence of reason, these men by a little captious sophistry endeavour not only to countenance their unbelief, but to evert the greatest principles of reason itself. 5. the objections these men principally insist upon, are merely against the explanations we use of this doctrine; not against the primitive revelation of it, which is the principal object of our faith, which how preposterous and irrational a course of proceeding it is, hath been declared. 6. it is a rule among philosopher's; that if a man on just grounds and reasons have embraced any opinion or persuasion, he is not to desert it, merely because he cannot answer every objection against it. for if the objections wherewith we may be entangled, be not of the same weight and importance, with the reason on which we embraced the opinion, it is a madness to forego it on the account thereof. and much more must this hold amongst the common sort of christians, in things spiritual and divine. if they will let go, and part with their faith in any truth, because they are not able to answer distinctly some objections that may be made against it, they may quickly find themselves disputed into atheism. 7. there is so great an intimation made of such an expression, and resemblance of a trinity in unity, in the very works of the creation, as learned men have manifested by various instances, that it is most unreasonable to suppose that to be contrary to reason, which many objects of rational consideration, do more or less present unto our minds. 8. to add no more considerations of this nature; let any of the adversaries produce any one argument or grounds of reason, or those pretended to be such, against that that hath been asserted, that hath not already been baffled a thousand times, and it shall receive an answer, or a public acknowledgement that it is indissoluble. of the person of christ. the next head of opposition made by the men of this conspiracy, against this sacred truth; is against the head of all truth, the person of our lord jesus christ. the socinians indeed would willingly put a better face, or colour upon their error, about the person of christ, than it will bear, or endure to lie on it. for in their catechism unto this question, is the lord jesus christ, purus homo, a mere man? they answer; by no means. how then? hath he a divine nature also? which is their next question: to this they say, by no means, for this is contrary to right reason. how then will these pretended masters of reason reconcile these things? for to us it seems, that if christ have no other nature but that of a man, he is as to his nature, purus homo, a mere man, and no more. why, they answer, that he is not a mere man, because he was born of a virgin; strange! that that should be an argument to prove him more than a man, which the scripture and all men in their right wits grant to be an invincible reason, to prove him to be a man, and as he was born of her, no more. rom. 1. 3. concerning his son jesus christ our lord which was made of the seed of david according to the flesh, rom. 9 5. whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh christ came. gal. 4. 4. god sent forth his son, made of a woman, made under the law. but say they; he was endowed with the spirit, wrought miracles, was raised from the dead, had all power given in heaven and earth; for by these degrees, he became to be god. but all men see that the inquiry is about the nature of christ; and this answer is about his state and condition. now this changeth not his nature on the one hand, no more than his being humbled, poor and dying, did on the other. this is the right reason we have to deal withal in these men. if a man should have enquired of some of them of old, whether melchizedeck were purus homo, a mere man? some of them would have said, no, because he was the holy ghost; some no, because he was the son of god himself; and some no, because he was an angel; for such foolish opinions have men fallen into. but how sottish soever their conceptions were, their answer to that enquiry would have been regular, because the question and answer respect the same subject, in the same respect. but never any was so stupid, as to answer, he was not a mere man, that is by nature, because he was a priest of the high god, which respects his office, and condition. yet such is the pretence of these men about the person of christ to incrustate and give some colour unto their soul mis-belief; as supposing that it would be much to their disadvantage to own. christ only as a mere man, though the most part of their disputes that they have troubled the christian world withal, have had no other design nor aim but to prove him so to be, and nothing else. i shall briefly, according to the method insisted on, first lay down what is the direct revelation which is the object of our faith in this matter; then express the revelation itself in the scripture testimonies wherein it is recorded; and having vindicated some one or other of them from their exceptions, manifest how the doctrine hereof is farther explained, unto the edification of them that believe. that there is a second person, the son of god, in the holy trin-vnity of the godhead▪ we have proved before. that this person did of his infinite love and grace take upon him our nature, bumane nature, so as that the divine and humane nature should be come one person, one christ, god and man in one; so that whatever he doth in, and about our salvation, it is done by that one person, god and man, is revealed unto us in the scripture, as the object of our faith. and this is that which we believe concerning the person of christ whatever acts are ascribed unto him, however immediately performed, in, or by the humane nature, or in and by his divine nature, they are all the acts of that one person, in whom are both these natures. that this christ, god and man, is because he is god, and on the account of what he hath done for us as man, to be believed in, worshipped, with worship religious and divine, to be trusted and obeyed; this also is asserted in the scripture. and these things are as it were the common notions of christian religion; the common principles of our profession; which the scriptures also abundantly testify unto. isa. 7. 14. behold a virgin shall conceive and bare a son, and shall call his name emanuel; that is, he shall be god with us, or god in our nature. not, that that should be his name whereby he should be called in this world; but that this should be the condition of his person, he should be god with us; god in our nature. so are the words expounded, mat. 1. 21, 22, 23. that which is conceived in her is of the holy ghost; and she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name jesus; for he shall save his people from their sins. now all this was done that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the lord by the prophet, saying, behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name emanuel, which being interpreted, is god with us. his name whereby he was to be called, was jesus, that is a saviour. and thereby was accomplished the prediction of the prophet, that he should be emanuel, which being interpreted, is god with us. now a child born to be god with us, is god in that child taking our nature upon him, and no otherwise can the words be understood. isa. 9 6. unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given, and his name shall be called the mighty god. the child that is born, the son that is given, is the mighty god; and as the mighty god, and a child born, or son, given, he is the prince of peace, as he is there called, or our saviour. john 1. 14. the word was made flesh. that the word was god, who made all things he had before declared. now he affirms that this word was made flesh. how! converted into flesh, into a man, so that he who was god ceased so to be, and was turned or changed into flesh, that is a man? besides that this is utterly impossible, it is not affirmed. for the word continued the word still, although he was made flesh, or made of a woman, as it is elsewhere expressed, or made of the seed of david, or took our flesh or nature to be his own. himself continuing god, as he was, became man also, which before he was not. the word was made flesh; this is that which we believe and assert in this matter. see john 3. 13. and ver. 31. john 6. 62. chap. 16. 28. all which places assert the person of christ to have descended from heaven in the assumption of humane nature, and ascended into heaven therein being assumed; and to have been in heaven as to his divine nature, when he was in the earth in the flesh that he had assumed. acts 20. 28. feed the church of god, which he hath purchased with his own blood. the person spoken of is said to be god absolutely; the church of god. and this god is said to have blood of his own; the blood of jesus christ, being the blood of him that was god, though not the blood of him as god; for god is a spirit. and this undeniably testifies to the unity of his person as god and man. rom. 1. 3, 4. concerning his son jesus christ our lord, who was made of the seed of david according to the flesh, and declared to be the son of god with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead. rom. 9 5. whose are the fathers, and of whom concerning the flesh, christ came, who is over all, god blessed for ever, amen. this is all we desire; that we may believe without disturbance from the clamours of these men. namely, that the same christ, as concerning the flesh, came of the fathers, of david, and in himself, is over all god blessed for ever. this the scripture asserts plainly, and why we should not believe it firmly, let these men give a reason when they are able. gal. 6. 4. god sent forth his son made of a woman; he was his son, and was made of a woman; according as he expresses it, heb. 10. 5. a body hast thou prepared me; as also, rom. 8. 3. phil. 2. 5, 6, 7. let this mind be in you, which was also in christ jesus, who being in the form of god, thought it not robbery to be equal with god; but made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of m●n. it is the same christ that is spoken of. and it is here affirmed of him that he was in the form of god, thought it no robbery to be equal with god; but is this all; is this jesus christ god only? doth he subsist only in the form or nature of god? no, saith the apostle, he took upon him the form of a servant, was made in the likeness of men, and was found in fashion as a man; that his being truly a man is expressed in these words our adversaries deny not; and we therefore believe that the same jesus christ is god also, because that is no less plainly expressed. 1 tim. 3. 16. and without controversy great is the mystery of godliness, god was manifest in the flesh, justified in the spirit, seen of angels. it is a mystery indeed, under which name it is despised now and reproached; nor are we allowed so to call it, but are reflected on, as flying to mysteries for our defence. but we must take leave to speak in this matter, according to his directions, without whom we cannot speak at all. a mystery it is, and that a great mystery; and that confessedly so, by all that do believe. and this is, that god was manifested in the flesh. that it is the lord christ who is spoken of, every one of the ensuing expressions do evince, justified in the spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory. and this also is the substance of what we believe in this matter; namely, that christ is god, manifest in the flesh, which we acknowledge, own, and believe to be true, but a great mystery; yet no less great and sacred a truth notwithstanding. heb. 2. 14. for as much then as the children were partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same. ver. 16. for verily he took not on him the nature of angels, but he took on him the seed of abraham. and this plainly affirms his pre-existence unto that assumption of our nature, and the unity of his person in it being so assumed. 1 john 3. 16. hereby perceive we the love of god, because he laid down his life for us. he who was god laid down for a season, and parted with that life, which was his own in that nature of ours which he had assumed. and that taking of our nature is called his coming in the flesh, which who so denies, is not of god, but is the spirit of antichrist, 1 john 4. 3. these are some of the places, wherein the person of christ is revealed unto our faith, that we may believe on the son of god, and have eternal life. the method formerly proposed would require that i should take off the general objections of the adversaries against this divine revelation; as also vindicate some peculiar testimonies from their exceptions. but because a particular opposition unto this truth, hath not as yet publicly and directly been maintained and managed by any that i know of among ourselves, though the denial of it be expressly included in what they do affirm; i shall leave the further confirmation thereof unto some other occasion, if it be offered, and it be judged necessary. and this is that which the faith of believers rests in, as that which is plainly revealed unto them; namely, that jesus christ is god and man in one person; and that all his actings in their behalf are the actings of him who is god and man; and that this son of god, god and man, is to be believed in by them, and obeyed that they have eternal life. what is farther added unto these express testimonies, and the full revelation of the truth contained in them in this matter, in way of explication educed from them, and suitable unto them, to the edification of the church, or information of the minds of believers in the right apprehension of this great mystery of god manifested in the flesh, may be reduced to these heads. (1.) that the person of the son of god, did in his assuming humane nature to be his own, not take an individual person of any one into a near conjunction with himself, but preventing the personal subsistence of humane nature in that flesh which he assumed, he gave it its subsistence in his own person, whence it hath its individuation and distinction▪ from all other persons whatever this is the personal union. the divine and humane nature in christ have but one personal subsistence; and so are but one christ, one distinct personal principle of all operations of all that he did, or doth, as mediator. and this undeniably follows from what is declared in the testimonies mentioned. for the word could not be made flesh, nor could he take on him the seed of abraham, nor could the mighty god be a child born and given unto us, nor could god shed his blood for his church, but that the two natures so directly expressed, must be united in one person; for otherwise as they are two natures still, they would be two persons also. 2. each nature thus united in christ, is entire, and preserves unto itself its own natural properties. for he is no less perfect god, for being made man, nor no less a true perfect man, consisting of soul and body with all their essential parts by that natures being taken into subsistence with the son of god, his divine nature still continues immense, omniscient, omnipotent, infinite in holiness, etc. his bumane nature, finite, limited, and before its glorification, subject to all infirmities of life and death, that the same nature in others absolutely considered, is obnoxious unto. 3. in each of these natures, he acts suitably unto the essential properties and principles of that nature. as god, he made all things, upholds all things, by the word of his power, fills heaven and earth, etc. as man, he lived, hungered, suffered, died, rose, ascended into heaven. yet by reason of the union of both these natures in the same person: not only his own person is said to do all these things, but the person expressed by the name which he hath on the account of one nature, is said to do that which he did only in the other. so god is said to redeem his church with his own blood, and to lay down his life for us; and the son of man to be in heaven, when he was in the earth. all because of the unity of his person as was declared. and these things do all of them directly and undeniably flow from what is revealed concerning his person, as before is declared. of the satisfaction of christ. the last thing to be enquired into, upon occasion of the late opposition to the great fundamental truths of the gospel, is the satisfaction of christ and the doctrine hereof is such, as i eonceive needs rather to be explained than vindicated. for it being the centre wherein most, if not all the lines of gospel promises, and precepts do meet, and the great medium of all our communion with god in faith and obedience, the great distinction between the religion of christians, and that of all others in the world, it will easily on a due proposal be assented unto by all, who would be esteemed disciples of jesus christ. and whether a parcel of insipid cavils, may be thought sufficient to obliterate the revelation of it, men of sober minds will judge and discern. for the term of satisfaction, we contend not about it. it doth indeed properly express and connote that great effect of the death of christ which in the cause before us, we plead for. but yet because it belongs rather to the explanation of the truth contended for, then is used expressly in the revelation of it, and because the right understanding of the word itself depends on some notions of law, that as yet we need not take into consideration, i shall not in this entrance of our discourse, insist precisely upon it, but leave it as the natural conclusion of what we shall find expressly declared in the scripture. neither do i say this, as though i did decline the word, or the right use of it, or what is properly signified by it, but do only cast it into its proper place answerable unto our method and design in the whole of this brie● discourse. i know some have taken a new way of expressing and declaring the doctrine concerning the mediation of christ, with the causes and ends of his death, which they think more rational, than that usually insisted on. but as what i have yet heard of or seen in that kind, hath been not only unscriptural, but also very irrational, and most remote from that accuracy whereunto they pretend, who make use of it; so if they shall publish their conceptions, it is not improbable but that they may meet with a scholastical examination by some hand or other. our present work, as hath been often declared, is for the establishment of the faith of them, who may be attempted, if not brought into danger to be seduced by the slights of some who lie in wait to deceive, and the clamours of others who openly drive the same design. what therefore the scripture plainly and clearly reveals in this matter, is the subject of our present enquiry. and either in so doing, as occasion shall be offered, we shall obviate, or in the close of it remove those sophisms that the sacred truth now proposed to consideration hath been attempted withal. the sum of what the scripture reveals about this great truth, commonly called the satisfaction of christ, may be reduced unto these ensuing heads. 1. that adam being made upright, sinned against god, and all mankind, all his posterity in him. gen. 1. 27. so god created man in hit own image, in the image of god created he him, male and female created he them, gen. 3. 11. and he said, who told thee that thou wast naked? hast thou eaten of the tree whreof i commandeded thee that then shouldst not eat? eccles. 7. 29. lo, this only have i found, that god made man upright, but he hath sought out many inventions. rom. 5. 12. wherefore as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin, and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned. ver. 18. therefore by the offence of one, judgement came upon all men to condemnation, ver. 19 by one man's disobedience many were made sinners. 2. that by this sin of our first parents, all men are brought into an estate of sin, and apostasy from god, and of an enmity unto him, gen. 6. 5. god saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart, was only evil continually, psal. 51. 5. behold, i was s●●●pen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me. rom. 3. 23. for all have sinned and come short of the glory of god, rom. 8. 7. the carnal mind is enmity against god, f●r it is not subject to the law of god, neither indeed can be ephes. 4. 18. having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of god through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart, chap. 2. 1. col. 2. 13. thirdly, that in this state all men continue in sin against god, nor of themselves can do otherwise, rom. 3. 10, 11, 12. there is none righteous, no not one, there is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after god; they are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable, there is none that doth good, no not one. fourthly, that the justice and holiness of god, as he is the supreme governor and judge of all the world, require that sin be punished, exod. 34. 7. that will by no means clear the guilty, josh. 24. 19 he is an holy god, he is a jealous god, he will not forgive your transgressions nor your sins, psalms 5. 4, 5, 6. for thou art not a god that hath pleasure in wickedness, neither shall evil dwell with thee; the foolish shall not stand in thy sight; thou hatest all workers of iniquity, thou shalt destroy them that speak leasing. hab. 1. 13. thou art of purer eyes than to behold evil, and canst not look upon iniquity. isa. 33. 14. who among us shall dwell with the devouring fire, who among us shall dwell with everlasting burnings? rom. 1. 32. who knowing the judgement of god, that they which commit such things are worthy of death. rom. 3. 5, 6. is god unrighteous who taketh vengeance? i speak as a man, god forbid! for then how shall god judge the world? 2 thes. 1. 6. it is a righteous thing with god, to recompense tribulation to them that trouble you. heb. 12. 29. for our god is a consuming fire. from deut. 4. 24. fifthly, that god hath also engaged his veracity and faithfulness in the sanction of the law not to leave sin unpunished, gen. 2. 17. in the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. deut. 27. 26. cursed be he that confirmeth not all the words of this law to do them. in this state and condition all mankind had they been left without divine aid and help, must have perished eternally. sixthly, that god out of his infinite goodness, grace and love to mankind, sent his only son to save and deliver them out of this condition, matth. 1. 21. thou shalt call his name jesus, for he shall save his people from their sins, john 3. 16, 17. god so loved the world, that be gave his only begotten son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life: for god sent not his son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through him might be saved. rom. 5. 8. god commendeth his love towards us, in that while we were ye● sinners christ died for us, 1 john 4. 9 in this was manifested the love of god towards us, because god sent his only begotten son into the world, that we might live through him, v. 10. herein is love, not that we loved god, but that he loved us, and sent his▪ son to be a propitiation for our sins, 1. thes. 1. 10. even jesus which delivereth us from the wrath to come. seventhly, that this love was the same in father and son, acted distinctly in the manner that shall be afterwards declared; so vain are the pretences of men who from the love of the father in this matter, would argue against the love of the son; or on the contrary. eightly, that the way in general whereby the son of god being incarnate, was to save lost sinners, was by a substitution of himself according to the design and appointment of god in the room of those whom he was so save, 2 cor. 5. 21. he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin, that we might become the righteousness of god in him, gal. 3. 13. christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us. rom. 5. 7, 8. for scarcely for a righteous man will one die, yet peradventure for a good man some will even dare to die; but god commendeth his love towards us, in that while we were yet sinners christ died us. rom. 8. 3. for what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, god sending his own son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh; that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us. 1 pet. 2. 24. who his own self bore our sins in his own body on the tree; chap. 3. 18. for christ also hath once suffered for us, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us unto god. all these expressions undeniably evince a substitution of christ as to suffering in the stead of them whom he was to save; which in general is all that we intent by his satisfaction; namely, that he was made sin for us, a curse for us, died for us, that is in our stead, that we might be saved from the wrath to come. and all these expressions as to their true genuine importance shall be vindicated, as occasion shall require. ninthly, this way of his saving sinners is in particular, several ways expressed in the scripture. as, 1. that he offered himself a sacrifice to god, to make atonement for our sins, and that in his death and sufferings. isa. 53. 10. when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin. john 1. 29. behold the lamb of god who taketh away the sins of the world, eph. 5. 2. christ hath loved us, and hath given himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to god for a sweet smelling savour, heb. 2. 17. was a merciful high priest in things pertaining to god, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people, heb. 9 11, 12, 13, 14. but christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building, neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood, he entered in once into the holy place; having obtained eternal redemption for us; for if the blood of bulls, etc. how much more shall the blood of christ, who through the eternal spirit offered himself without spot to god, purge your consciences from dead works? 2. that he redeemed us by paying a price, a ransom for our redemption. mark 10. 45. the son of man came to give his life a ransom for many. 1 cor. 6. 20. for ye are bought with a price, 7. 23. 1 tim. 2. 6. who gave himself a ransom for all to be testified in due time. tit. 2. 14. who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, 1 pet. 1. 18. for we were not redeemed with silver and gold and corruptible things. 19 but with the precious blood of christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot. 3. that he bore our sins, or the punishment due unto them. isa. 53. 5. he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities, the chastisement of our peace was upon him, and with his stripes are we healed; all we like sheep have gone astray, we have turned every one to his own way, and the lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all. 11. for he shall bear their iniquities. 1 pet. 2. 24. who his own self bore our sins in his own body on the tree. 4. that he answered the law and the penalty of it; rom. 8. 3. god sent forth his son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh; that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us. gal. 3. 13. christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us. chap. 4. 4, 5. god sent forth his son made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law. 5. that he died for sin, and sinners, to expiate the one, and in the stead of the other. rom. 4. 25. he was delivered for our offences. rom. 5. 10. when we were enemies, we were reconciled to god by the death of his son. 1 cor. 15. 3. christ died for our sins according to the scriptures. 2 cor. 5. 14. for the love of christ constraineth us, because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead, 1 thes. 5. 9, 10. 6. hence on the part of god, it is affirmed that he spared him not, but delivered him up for us all; rom. 8. 32. and caused all our iniquities to meet upon him, isa. 53. 7. 7. the effect hereof was, 1. that the righteousness of god was glorified, rom. 3. 25, 26. whom god hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins. (2.) the law fulfilled and satisfied, as in the places before quoted. rom. 8. 3. gal. 3. 13, 14. gal. 4. 5. (3.) god reconciled, 2 cor. 5. 18, 19 god was in christ reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them. heb. 2. 17. he made reconciliation for the sins of the people. (4.) atonement was made for sin, rom. 5. 11. by whom we have now received the atonement; and peace was made with god, eph. 2. 14. for he is our peace, who hath made both one, that he might reconcile both unto god in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby. 〈◊〉 made an end of sin, dan. 9 24. to finish transgression, to make an end of sins, to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness. the glory of god in all these things being exalted, himself well pleased, righteousness and everlasting redemption or salvation purchased for sinners, heb. 9 14. in that the chastisement of our peace was upon him, and that by his stripes we are healed, he being punished that we might go free, himself became a captain of salvation unto all that do obey him. i have fixed on these particulars; to give every ordinary reader an instance how fully and plainly what he is to believe in this matter is revealed in the scripture. and should i produce all the testimonies which expressly give witness unto these positions, it is known how great a part of the bible must be transcribed. and these are the things which are indispensibly required of us to believe, that we may be able 〈◊〉 and regulate our obedience according to the mind and will of god. in the explanation of this doctrine unto further edification, sundry things are usually insisted on, which necessarily and infallibly ensue upon the propositions of scripture before laid down; and serve to beget in the minds of believers a due apprehension, and right understanding of them. as, 1. that god in this matter is to be considered as the chief, supreme, absolute rector and governor of all; as the lord of the law, and of sinners; but yet so as an offended ruler. not as an offended person, but as an offended ruler, who hath right to exact punishment upon transgressor's, and whose righteousness of rule requires that he should so do. 2. that because he is righteous and holy, as he is the supreme judge of all the world, it is necessary that he do right in the punishing of sin, without which the order of the creation cannot be preserved. for sin being the creatures deduction of itself from the order of its dependence upon and obedience unto the creator, and supreme lord of all, without a reduction of it by punishment, confusion would be brought into the whole creation. 3. that whereas the law and the sanction of it is the moral or declarative cause of the punishment of sin, and it directly obligeth the sinner himself unto punishment; god as the supreme ruler, dispenseth, not with the act of the law, but the immediate object; and substitutes another sufferer in the room of them who are principally liable unto the sentence of it, and are now to be acquitted or freed; that so the law may be satisfied, requiring the punishment of sin, justice exalted, whereof the law is an effect, and yet the sinner saved. 4. that the person thus substituted was the son of god incarnate, who had power so to dispose of himself with will and readiness for it; and was upon the account of the dignity of his person, able to answer the penalty which all others had incurred and deserved. 5. that god upon his voluntary susception of this office, and condescension to this work, did so lay our sins in and by the sentence of the law upon him, that he made therein full satisfaction for whatever legally could be charged on them for whom he died or suffered. 6. that the special way terms and conditions whereby and whereon sinners may be interested in this satisfaction made by christ, are determined by the will of god, and declared in the scripture. these and the like things are usually insisted on in the explication or declaration of this head of our confession. and there is not any of them but may be sufficiently confirmed by divine testimonies. it may also be farther evinced that there is nothing asserted in them, but what is excellently suited unto the common notions which mankind hath of god and his righteousness; and that in their practice they answer the light of nature, and common reason exemplified in sundry instances among the nations of the world. i shall therefore take one argument from some of the testimonies before produced in the confirmation of this sacred truth, and proceed to remove the objections that are commonly banded against it. if the lord christ according to the will of the father, and by his own counsel and choice, was substituted, and did substitute himself as the mediator of the covenant, in the room and in the stead of sinners that they might be saved, and therein bore their sins, or the punishment due unto their sins, by undergoing the curse and penalty of the law, and therein also according to the will of god offered up himself for a propitiatory, expiatory sacrifice to make atonement for sin, and reconciliation for sinners, that the justice of god being appeased, and the law fulfilled, they might go free, or be delivered from the wrath to come; and if therein also he paid a real satisfactory price for their redemption; then he made satisfaction to god for sin. for these are the things that we intent by that expression, of satisfaction. but now all those things are openly, and fully witnessed unto in the testimonies before produced; as may be observed by suiting some of them unto the several particulars here asserted. as 1. what was done in this matter, was from the will, purpose, and love of god the father. psalm 40. 6, 7, 8. heb. 10. 5, 6, 7. act. 4. 28. john 3. 16. rom. 8. 3. 2. it was also done by his own voluntary consent, phil. 2. 6, 7, 8. 3. he was substituted, and did substitute himself as the mediator of the covenant in the room and stead of sinners, that they may be saved, heb. 10. 5, 6, 7. chap. 7. 22. rom. 3. 25, 26. rom. 5. 7, 8. 4. and he did therein bear their sins, or the punishment due to their sins. isa. 53. 6, 11. 1 pet. 2. 23. and this, 5. by undergoing the curse and penalty of the law, gal. 3. 13. or the punishment of sin required by the law, 2 cor. 5. 21. rom. 8. 3. 6. herein, also according to the will of god, he offered up himself ● propitiatory and expiatory sacrifice to make atonement for sin, and reconciliation for sinners, ephes. 5. 2. rom. 2. 17. heb. 9 11, 12, 13, 14. which he did that the justice of god being satisfied, and the law fulfilled, sinners might be freed from the wrath to come, rom. 3. 25. 1 thes. 1. last. 7. and hereby also, he paid a real price of redemption for sin and sinners, 1 pet. 1. 17, 18. 1 cor. 6. last. these are the things which we are to believe, concerning the satisfaction of christ; and our explication of this doctrine, we are ready to defend, when called thereunto. the consideration of the objections which are raised against this great fundamental truth, shall close this discourse. and they are of two sorts. first, in general, to the whole doctrine, as declared, or some of the more signal heads, or parts of it. secondly, particular instances, in this or that supposal, as consequences of the doctrine asserted. and in general, 1. they say, this is contrary to, and inconsistent with the love, grace, mercy, and goodness of god, which are so celebrated in the scripture as the principal properties of his nature, and acts of his will, wherein he will be glorified. especially contrary to the freedom of forgiveness, which we are encouraged to expect, and commanded to believe. and this exception they endeavour to firm by testimonies, that the lord is good and gracious, and that he doth freely forgive us our sins and trespasses. answer: first, i readily grant that whatever is really contrary to the grace, goodness and mercy of god, whatever is inconsistent with the free forgiveness of sin, is not to be admitted. for these things are fully revealed in the scripture, and must have a consistency with whatever else is therein revealed of god, or his will. secondly, as god is good and gracious, and merciful, so also he is holy, righteous, true and faithful. and these things are no less revealed concerning him than the other; and are no less essential properties of his nature than his goodness and grace. and as they are all essentially the same in him, and considered only under a different habitude or respect as they are exerted by acts of his will; so it belongs to his infinite wisdom, that the effects of them, though divers, and produced by divers ways, and means, may no way be contrary one to the other, but that mercy may be exercised, without the prejudice of justice, or holiness; and justice be preserved entire, without any obstruction to the exercise of mercy. thirdly, the grace and love of god that in this matter the scripture reveals to be exercised, in order unto the forgiveness of sinners, consists principally in two things. 1. in his holy eternal purpose of providing a relief for lost sinners. he hath done it, to the praise of the glory of his grace, eph. 1. 6. 2. in the sending his son in the pursuit▪ and for the accomplishment of the holy purpose of his will and grace. herein most eminently doth the scripture celebrate the love, goodness, and kindness of god; as that whereby, in infinite, and for ever to be adored wisdom and grace, he made way for the forgiveness of our sins. joh. 3. 16. god so loved the world, as he gave his only begotten son, rom. 3. 24, 25. whom he hath set forth to be a propitiation through saith in his blood, rom. 5. 7, 8. god commendeth his love towards us, in that while we were yet sinners, christ died for us, titus 3. 4. 1 john 4. 8, 9 herein consists that ever to be adored love, goodness, grace, mercy and condescension of god. add hereunto, that in that act of causing our iniquities to meet on christ, wherein he immediately intended the declaration of his justice, rom. 3. 25. (not sparing him, in delivering him up to death for us all, rom. 8. 32.) there was a blessed harmony in the highest justice, and most excellent grace and m●rcy. this grace, this goodness, this love of god toward mankind, towards sinners, our adversaries in this matter neither know, nor understand; and so indeed what lies in them, remove the foundation of the whole gospel, and of all that faith and obedience, which god requires at our hands. fourthly, forgiveness, or the actual condonation of sinners, the pardon and forgiveness of sins, is free; but yet so, as it is every where restrained unto a respect unto christ, unto his death and bloodshedding, eph. 1. 7. we have redemption in his blood, even the forgiveness of sins, chap. 4. 32. god for christ's sake hath forgiven you, rom. 3. 25, 26. god hath set him forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the forgiveness of sins. it is absolutely free in respect of all immediate transactions between god and sinners. free on the part of god. first, in the eternal purpose of it, when he might justly have suffered all men to have perished under the guilt of their sins. 2. free in the means that he used to effect it unto his glory. (1.) in the sending of his son; and (2.) in laying the punishment of our sin upon him. (3.) in his covenant with him, that it should be accepted on our behalf. (4.) in his tender and proposal of it by the gospel unto sinners to be received without money or without price. (5.) in the actual condonation and pardon of them that do believe. secondly, it is free on the part of the persons that are forgiven. in that (1.) it is given and granted to them without any satisfaction made by them for their former transgressions. (2.) without any merit to purchase or procure it. (3.) without any penal satisfactory suffering here, or in a purgatory hereafter. (4.) without any expectation of a future recompense; or that being pardoned, they should then make or give any satisfaction for what they had done before. and as any of these things would, so nothing else can impeach the freedom of pardon and forgiveness. whether then we respect the pardoner or the pardoned, pardon is every way free; namely, on the part of god who forgives, and on the part of sinners that are forgiven. if god now hath besides all this, provided himself a lamb for a sacrifice; if he hath in infinite wisdom and grace found out a way, thus freely to forgive us out sins, to the praise and glory of his own holiness, righteousness and severity against sin, as well as unto the unspeakable advancement of that grace, goodness and bounty which he immediately exerciseth in the pardon of sin, are these men's eyes evil, because he is good? will they not be contented to be pardoned, unless they may have it at the rate of dispoiling god of his holiness, truth, righteousness and faithfulness? and as this is certainly done by that way of pardon which these men propose, no reserve in the least being made for the glory of god in those holy properties of his nature which are immediately injured and opposed by sin; so that pardon itself which they pretend so to magnify, having nothing to influence it but a mere arbitrary act of gods will, is utterly debased from its own proper worth and excellency. and i shall willingly undertake to manifest, that they derogate no less from grace and mercy in pardon, than they do from the righteousness and holiness of god by the forgiveness which they have feigned; and that in it both of them are perverted, and despoiled of all their glory. but they yet say, if god can freely pardon sin, why doth he not do it without satisfaction; if he cannot, he is weaker and more imperfect than man, who can do so. answ. first, god cannot do. many things that men can do; nor that he is more imperfect than they, but he cannot do them on the account of his perfection. he cannot lie, he cannot deny himself, he cannot change, which men can do, and do every day. secondly, to pardon sin without satisfaction in him who is absolutely holy, righteous, true and faithful, the absolute necessary supreme governor of all sinners, the author of the law, and sanction of it, wherein punishment is threatened and declared, is to deny himself, and to do what one infinitely perfect, cannot do, thirdly, i ask of these men, why god doth not pardon sins freely without requiring faith, repentance and obedience in them that are pardoned; yea, as the conditions on which they may be pardoned? for seeing he is so infinitely good and gracious●, cannot he pardon men without prescribing such terms and conditions unto them, as he knoweth, that men, and that incomparably the greatest number of them will never come up unto; and so must of necessity perish for ever. yea, but they say, this cannot be; neither doth this impeach the freedom of pardon. for it is certain that god doth prescribe these things, and yet he pardoneth freely. and it would altogether unbecome the holy god to pardon sinners that continue so to live and die in their sins. but do not these men see that they have hereby given away their cause which they contend for? for if a prescription of sundry things to the sinner himself, without which he shall not be pardoned, do not at all impeach, as they say, the freedom of pardon, but god may be said freely to pardon sin notwithstanding it▪ how shall the receiving of satisfaction by another, nothing a● all being required of the sinner; have the least appearance of any such thing? if the freedom of forgiveness consists in such a boundless notion as these men imagine, it is certain that the prescribing of faith and repentance in and unto sinners antecedently to their participation of it, is much more evidently contrary unto it, than the receiving of satisfaction from another who is not to be pardoned, can to any appear to be. secondly, if it be contrary to the holiness of god to pardon any, without requiring faith, repentance and obedience in them, as it is indeed; let not these persons be offended, if we believe him when he so frequently declares it, that it was so to remit sin without the fulfilling of his law and satisfaction of his justice. secondly, they say, there is no such thing as justice in god requiring the punishment of sin, but that that, which in him requireth and calleth for the punishment of sin, is his anger and wrath, which expressions denote free acts of his will, and not any essential properties of his nature. so that god may punish sin, or not punish it at his pleasure. therefore there is no reason that he should require any satisfaction for sin, seeing he may pass it by absolutely as he pleaseth. answ. is it not strange that the great governor, the judge of all the world, which on the supposition of the creation of it, god is naturally and necessarily, should not also naturally be so righteous, as to do right, in rendering unto every one according to his works? (2.) the sanction and penalty of the law, which is the rule of punishment, was as i suppose, an effect of justice, of god's natural and essential justice, and not of his anger or wrath. certainly never did any man make a law for the government of a people in anger. draco's laws were not made in wrath, but according to the best apprehension of right and justice that he had, though said to be written in blood. and shall we think otherwise of the law of god? (3.) anger and wrath in god express the effects of justice; and so are not merely free acts of his will. this therefore is a tottering cause, that is built on the denial of god's essential righteousness. but it was proved before, and it is so elsewhere. (3.) they say that the sacrifice of christ was metaphorically only so. that he was a metaphorical priest, not one properly so called. and therefore that his sacrifice did not consist in his death and bloodshedding, but in his appearing in heaven upon his ascersion, presenting himself unto god in the most holy place not made with hands as the mediator of the new covenant. answ. when once these men come to this evasion, they think themselves safe, and that they may go whither they will without control. for they say it is true, christ was a priest, but only he was a metaphorical one. he offered sacrifice, but it was a metaphorical one. he redeemed us, but with a metaphorical redemption; and so we are justified thereon, but with a metaphorical justification; and so for aught i know they are like to be saved, with a metaphorical salvation. this is the substance of their plea in this matter. christ was not really a priest, but did somewhat like a priest. he offered not sacrifice really, but did somewhat that was like a sacrifice. he redeemed us not really, but did somewhat that looked like redemption. and what these things are, wherein their analogue consisteth, what proportion the things that christ hath done, bare to the things that are really so, from whence they receive their denomination, that it is meet it should be wholly in the power of these persons to declare. but, (2.) what should hinder the death of christ to be a sacrifice, a proper sacrifice, and according to the nature, end, and use of sacrifices to have made atonement, and satisfaction for sin? (1.) it is expressly called so in the scripture; wherein he is said to offer himself, to make his soul an offering, to offer himself a sacrifice, eph. 5. 2. heb. 1. 3. heb. 9 14, 25. 26. chap. 7. 27. and he is himself directly said to be a priest or a sacrificer, heb. 2. 18. and it is no where intimated, much less expressed that these things are not spoken properly but metaphorically only. (2.) the legal sacrifices of the old law were instituted on purpose to represent and prepare the way for the bringing in of the sacrifice of the l●mb of god, so to take away the sin of the world. and is it not strange, that true and real sacrifices, should be types and r presentations of that which was not so? on this supposition all those sacrifices are but so many seductions from the right understanding of things between god and sinners. (3.) nothing is wanting to render it a proper propitiatory sacrifice, for, (1.) there was the person offering, and that was christ himself, heb. 9 14. he offered himself unto god. he, that is the sacrificer, denotes the person of christ god and man; and himself as the sacrifice denotes his humane nature; whence god is said to purchase his church with his own blood, act. 20. 28. for he offered himself through the eternal spirit; so that (2.) there was the matter of the sacrifice, which was the humane nature of christ soul and body; his soul was made an offering for sin, isa. 53. 10 and his body, the offering of the body of jesus christ, hob. 10 11. his blood especially, which is often synecdochically mentioned for the whole. (4.) his death had the nature of a sacrifice: for (1.) therein were the sins of men laid upon him, and not in his entrance into heaven; for he bore our sins in his own body on the tree, 1 pet. 2. 23. god made our sins then to meet upon him, isa. 53. 6. which gives the formality unto any sacrifices. quod in ejus caput sit, is the formal reason of all propitiatory sacrifices, and ever was so, as is expressly declared, leu. 16. 21, 22. and the phrase of bearing sin, of bearing iniquity, is constantly used for the undergoing of the punishment due to sin. (2.) it had the end of a proper sacrifice; it made expiation of sin, propitiation and atonement for sin with reconciliation with god, and so took away that enmity that was between god and sinners, heb. 1. 3. rom. 3. 25, 26. heb. 2. 17, 18. heb. 5. 10. rom. 8. 3. 2 cor. 5. 18, 19 and although god himself pesigned, appointed, and contrived in wisdom this way of reconciliation, as he did the means for the atoning of his own anger towards the friends of job, commanding them to go unto him, and with him offer sacrifices for themselves which he would accept, chap. 4. 28. yet as he was the supreme governor, the lord of all, attended with infinite justice, and holiness, atonement was made with him, and satisfaction to him thereby. what hath been spoken, may suffice to discover the emptiness and weakness of those exceptions which in general these men make against the truth before laid down from the scripture. a brief examination of some particular instances, wherein they seek not so much to oppose, as to reproach the revelation of this mystery of the gospel, shall put a close to this discourse. it is said then, 1. that if this be so, than it will follow, that god is gracious to forgive, and yet impossible for him unless the debt be fully satisfied. answ. i suppose the confused and abrupt expression of things here, in words scarcely affording a tolerable sense, is rather from weakness than captiousness; and so i shall let the manner of the proposal pass. (2.) what is this should follow, that god is gracious to forgive sinners, and yet will not, cannot, on the account of his own holiness and righteousness, actually forgive any, without satisfaction and atonement made for sin? the worst that can be hence concluded is, that the scripture is true which affirms both these in many places. (3.) this sets out the exceeding greatness of the grace of god in forgiveness, that when sin could not be forgiven without satisfaction, and the sinner himself could no way make any such satisfaction, that he provided himself a sacrifice of atonement, that the sinner might be discharged and pardoned. (4.) sin is not properly a debt, for than it might be paid in kind, by sin itself; but is called so, only because it binds over the sinner to punishment, which is the satisfaction to be made for that which is properly a transgression, and improperly only a debt. it is added, 2. hence it follows that the finite and impotent creature is more capable of extending mercy and forgiveness, than the infinite and omnipotent creator. answ. god being essentially holy and righteous, having engaged his faithfulness in the sanction of the law, and being naturally and necessarily the governor and ruler of the world, the forgiving of sin without satisfaction, would be no perfection in him, but an effect of impotency, and imperfection; a thing which god cannot do; as he cannot lie, nor deny himself. (2.) the direct contrary of what is insinuated, is asserted by this doctrine; for on the supposition of the satisfaction, and atonement insisted on, not only doth god freely forgive, but that in such a way of righteousness and goodness as no creature is able to conceive or express the glory and excellency of it. and to speak of the poor halving pardons of private men, upon particular offences against themselves, who are commanded so to do, and have no right nor authority to require or exact punishment nor is any due upon the mere account of their own concernment, in comparison with the forgiveness of god, ariseth out of a deep ignorance of the whole matter under consideration. 3. it is added by them, that hence it follows, that god so loved the world, he gave his only son to save it; and yet that god stood off in high displeasure, and christ gave himself as a complete satisfaction to offended justice. answ. 1. something these men would say, if they knew what or how; for (1.) that god so loved the world, as to give his only son to save it, is the expression of the scripture, and the foundation of the doctrine whose truth we contend for. that christ offered himself to make atonement for sinners, and therein made satisfaction to the justice of god, is the doctrine itself which these men oppose, and not any consequent of it. (3.) that god stood off in high displeasure, is an expression which neither the scripture useth, nor those who declare this doctrine from thence, nor is suited unto divine perfections, or the manner of divine operations. that intended seems to be that the righteousness and law of god required the punishment due to sin, to be undergone, and thereby satisfaction to be made unto god; which is no consequent of the doctrine, but the doctrine itself. 4. it is yet farther objected, that if christ made satisfaction for sin, than he did it either as god, or as man, or as god and man. answ, (1.) as god and man, acts 20. 28. god redeemed his church with his own blood, 1 john 3. 16. herein was manifest the love of god, that he laid down his life for us, heb. 9 14. (2.) this dilemma is proposed as that which proceeds on a supposition of our own principles, that christ is god and man in one person, which indeed makes the pretended difficulty to be vain and a mere effect of ignorance. for all the mediatory acts of christ being the acts of his person, must of necessity be the acts of him as god and man. (3.) there is yet another mistake in this inquiry; for satisfaction is in it looked on as a real act or operation of one, or the other nature in christ; when it is the ap●telesma or effect of the actings, the doing and suffering of christ; the dignity of what he did in reference unto the end for which he did it. for the two natures are so united in christ, as not to have a third compound principle of physical acts and operations thence arising; but each nature acts distinctly according to its own being and properties; yet so, as what is the immediate act of either nature, is the act of him who is one in both, from whence it hath its dignity. (4.) the sum is; that in all the mediatory actions of christ we are to consider, (1.) the agent, and that is the person of christ (2.) the immediate principle by which, and from which the agent worketh; and that is the natures in the person. (3.) the actions, which are the effectual operations of either nature. (4.) the effect or work with respect to god and us; and this relates unto the person of the agent, the lord christ, god and man. a blending of the natures into one common principle of operation, as the compounding of mediums unto one end, is ridiculously supposed in this matter. but yet again it is pretended that sundry consequences irreligious and irrational do ensue upon a supposition of the satisfaction pleaded for. what then are they? 1. that it is unlawful and impossible for god almighty to be gracious, and merciful, or to pardon transgressor's. answ. (1.) the miserable confused misapprehension of things, which the proposal of this, and the like consequences doth evidence, manifests sufficiently how unfit the makers of them are to manage controversies of this nature. for (1.) it is supposed that for god to be gracious and merciful, or to pardon sinners, are the same; which is to confound the essential properties of his nature, with the free acts of his will. (2.) lawful, or unlawful, are terms that can with no tolerable sense be used concerning any properties of god, all which are natural and necessary unto his being; as goodness, grace, and mercy in particular are. (3.) that it is impossible for god to pardon transgressor's according to this doctrine, is a fond imagination, for it is only a declaration of the manner how he doth it. (4.) as god is gracious and merciful, so also he is holy, and righteous, and true; and it became him, or was every way meet for him, in his way of exercising grace and mercy towards sinners, to order all things so, as that it might be done without the impeachment of his holiness, righteousness and truth. it is said again, 2. that god was inevitably compelled to this way of saving men; the highest affront to his uncontrollable nature. answ. were the authors of these exceptions put to declare what they mean by god's uncontrollable nature, they would hardly disentangle themselves with common sense. such masters of reason are they indeed, whatever they would fain pretend to be. controulable, or uncontrollable, respect actings and operations, not being's or natures. (2.) that upon the principle opposed by these men, god was inevitably compelled to this way of saving men, is a fond and childish imagination. the whole business of the salvation of men according unto this doctrine, depends on a mere free sovereign act of gods will exerting itself in a way of infinite wisdom, holiness, and grace. (3.) the meaning of this objection (if it hath either sense or meaning in it) is, that god freely purposing to save lost sinners, did it in a way becoming his holy nature, and righteous law. what other course infinite wisdom could have taken for the satisfaction of his justice we know not; that justice was to be satisfied, and that this way it is done, we know and believe. 3. they say it hence follows, that it is unworthy of god to pardon, but not to inflict punishment on the innocent; or require a satisfaction where there was nothing due. answ. (1.) what is worthy or unworthy of god, himself alone knows, and of men not any but according to what he is pleased to declare and reveal. but certainly, it is unworthy any person pretending to the least interest in ingenuity or use of reason, to use such frivolous instances in any case of importance which have not the least pretence of argument in them but what ariseth from a gross misapprehension, or misrepresentation of a doctrine designed to opposition. (2.) to pardon sinners, is a thing becoming the goodness and grace of god; to do it by christ, that which becometh them, and his holiness and righteousness also. rom. 3. 25. ephes. 1. 6, 7. (3.) the lord christ was personally innocent; but he who knew no sin was made sin for us, 2 cor. 5. 21. and as the mediator and surety of the covenant, he was to answer for the sins of them whom he undertook to save from the wrath to come; by giving himself a ransom for them, and making his soul an offering for their sin. (4) that nothing is due to the justice of god for sin, that is, that sin doth not in the justice of god deserve punishment, is ● good comfortable doctrine, for men that are resolved to continue in their sins whilst they live in this world. the scripture tells us, that christ paid what he took not; that all our iniquities were caused to meet upon him; that he bore them in his own body on the tree; that his soul was made an offering for sin, and therei by made reconciliation or ationement for the sins of the people; if these persons be otherwise minded, we cannot help it. 4. it is added; that this doctrine doth not only disadvantage the true virtue and real intent of christ's life and death, but entirely deprives g●d of that praise which is o●ing to his greatest love and goodness. answ. i suppose that this is the first time, that this doctrine fell under this imputation; nor could it possibly be liable unto this charge from any, who did either understand it, or the grounds on which it is commonly opposed. for, there is no end of the life or death of christ, which the socinians themselves admit of, but it is also allowed, and asserted in the doctrine now called in question. do they say, that he taught the truth or revealed the whole mind and will of god concerning his worship and our obedience? we say the same. d● they say, that by his death he hare testimony unto, and confirmed the truth which he had taught? it is also owned by us. do they say that in what he did, and suffered, he set us an example that we should labour after conformity unto? it is what we acknowledge and teach. only we say that all these things belong principally to his prophetical office. but we moreover affirm and believe, that as a priest, or in the discharge of his sacerdotal office, he did in his death and sufferings, offer himself a sacrifice to god, to make atonement for our sins, which they deny; and that he died for us, or in our stead, that we might go free; without the faith and acknowledgement whereof no part of the gospel can be rightly understood. all the ends than which they themselves assign of the life and death of christ, are by us granted; and the principal one, which gives life and efficacy to the rest, is by them denied. neither (2.) doth it fall under any possible imagination, that the praise due unto god should be eclipsed hereby. the love and kindness of god towards us, is in the scripture fixed principally and fundamentally, on his sending of his only begotten son to die for us. and certainly the greater the work was that he had to do, the greater ought our acknowledgement of his love and kindness to be; but it is said, 5. that it represents the son more kind and compassionate than the father; whereas if both be the same god, then either the father is as loving as the son, or the son as angry as the father. answ. (1.) the scripture referreth the love of the father, unto two heads. (1.) the sending of his son to die for us, john 3. 16. rom. 5. 8. 1 john 4. 8. (2.) in choosing sinners unto a participation of the fruits of his love, ephes. 1. 3, 4, 5▪ 6. the love of the son, is fixed signally on his actual giving himself to die for us, gal. 2. 20. ephes. 5. 25. rev. 1. 5. what balances these persons have got, to weigh these loves in, and to conclude which is the greatest or most weighty, i know not. 2. although only the actual discharge of his office be directly assigned to the love of christ, yet his cond●scention in taking our nature upon him expressed by his mind, ephes 6. 7. and the readiness of his will, psalm 40. 8. doth eminently comprise love in it also. thirdly, the love of the father in sending of the son, was an act of his will, which being a natural and essential property of god, it was so far the act of the son also, as he is partaker of the same nature; though eminently and in respect of order it was peculiarly the act of the father. (4.) the anger of ●od against sin, is an effect of his essential righteousness and holiness which belong to him as god; which yet hinders not, but that both father, and son, and spirit acted love towards sinners. they say again, 6. it robs god of the gift of his son for our redemption, which the scriptures attribute to the unmerited love he had for the world, in affirming the son purchased that redemption from the father, by the gift of himself to god as our complete satisfaction. answ. (1.) it were endless to consider the improper and absurd expressions which are made use of in these exceptions; as here the last words have no tolerable sense in them according to any principles whatever. (2.) if the son's purchasing redemption for us, procuring, obtaining it, do rob god of the gift of his son for our redemption; the holy ghost must answer for it: for having obtained for us, or procured, or purchased eternal redemption, is the word used by himself, heb. 9 14. and to deny that he hath laid down his life a ransom for us, and to have bought us with a price, is openly to deny the gospel. (2.) in a word, the great gift of god consisted in giving his son to obtain redemption for us. (3.) herein he offered himself unto god, and gave himself for us; and if these persons are offended herewithal, what are we that we should withstand god. they say, 7. since christ could not pay what was not his own, it follows that in the payment of his own, the case still remains equally grievous. since the debt is not hereby absolved or forgiven, but transferred only; and by consequence we are no better provided for salvation than before, owing that now to the son, which was once owing to the father. answ. the looseness, and dubiousness of the expressions here used, makes an appearance that there is something in them, when indeed there is not. there is an allusion in them to a debt and a payment, which is the most improper expression that is used in this matter, and the interpretation thereof is to be regulated by other proper expressions of the same thing. but to keep to the allusion, (1.) christ paid his own, but not for himself, dan. 9 26. (2.) paying it for us, the debt is discharged, and our actual discharge is to be given out according to the ways and means, and upon the conditions appointed and constituted by the father and son. (3.) when a debt is so transferred as that one is accepted in the room, and obliged to payment in the stead of another, and that payment is made and accepted accordingly, all law and reason require that the original debtor be discharged. (4.) what on this account we owe to the son, is praise, thankfulness, and obedience, and not the debt which he took upon himself, and discharged for us, when we were non-solvent, by his love. so that this matter is plain enough, and not to be involved by such cloudy expressions and incoherent discourse, following the metaphor of a debt. for if god be considered as the creditor, we all as debtors, and being insolvent, christ undertook out of his love to pay the debt for us, and did so accordingly, which was accepted with god; it follows that we are to be discharged, upon god's terms, and under a new obligation unto his love, who hath made this satisfaction for us, which we shall eternally acknowledge. it is said, 8. it no way renders men beholding, or in the least obliged to god, since by their doctrine he would not have abated us, nor did he christ the least farthing; so that the acknowledgements, are peculiarly the sons, which destroys the whole current of scripture testimony for his good will towards men. o the infamous portraiture this doctrine draws of the infinite goodness; is this your retribution, o injurious satisfactionists? answ. this is but a bold repetition of what in other words was mentioned before over and over. wherein the love of god in this matter consisted, and what is the obligation on us unto thankfulness and obedience, hath been before also declared. and we are not to be moved in fundamental truths, by vain exclamations of weak and unstable men. it is said, 9 that god's justice is satisfied for sins past, present and to come, whereby god and christ have lost both their power of enjoining godliness, and prerogative of punishing disobedience; for what is once paid, is not revokable; and if punishment should arrest any for their debts, it argues a breach on god or christ's part; or e●se that it hath not been sufficiently solved; and the penalty complete sustained by another. answ. the intention of this pretended consequence of our doctrine is, that upon a supposition of satisfaction made by christ, there is no solid foundation remaining for the prescription of faith, repentance, and obedience on the one hand, or of punishing them who refuse so to obey, believe, or repent, on the other. the reason of this inference insinuated, seems to be this; that sin being satisfied for, cannot be called again to an account. for the former part of the pretended consequence, namely that on this supposition, there is no foundation left for the prescription of godliness, i cannot discern any thing in the least looking towards the confirmation of it, in the words of the objection laid down. but these things are quite otherwise; as is manifest unto them that read and obey the gospel. for (1.) christ's satisfaction for sins, acquits not the creature of that dependence on god, and duty which he owes to god, which notwithstanding that, god may justly, and doth prescribe unto him, suitable to his own nature, holiness and will. the whole of our regard unto god, doth not lie in an acquitment from sin. it is moreover required of us as a necessary and indispensible consequence of the relation wherein we stand unto him, that we live to him and obey him, whether sin be satisfied for, or no. the manner and measure hereof are to be regulated by his prescriptions, which are suited to his own wisdom and our condition. and they are now referred to the heads mentioned of faith, repentance, and new obedience. (2.) the satisfaction made for sin, being not made by the sinner himself, there must of necessity be a rule, order, and law-constitution how the sinner may come to be interested in it, and made partaker of it. for the consequent of the freedom of one by the suffering of another, is not natural or necessary, but must proceed and arise from a law-constitution, compact, and agreement. now the way constituted and appointed, is that of faith, or believing, as explained in the scripture. if men believe not, they are no less liable to the punishment due to their sins, than if no satisfaction at all were made for sinners. and whereas it is added, forgetting that every one must appear before the judgement seat of christ, to receive according to things done in the body; yea and every one must give an account of himself to god; closing all with this, but many more are the gross absurdities and blasphemies that are the genuine fruits of this so confidently believed doctrine of satisfaction. i say it is (3.) certain, that we must all appear before the judgement seat of christ, to receive according to the things done in the body; and therefore woe will be unto them at the great day, who are not able to plead the atonement made for their sins by the blood of christ, and an evidence of their interest therein by their faith and obedience, or the things done and wrought in them, and by them whilst they were in the body here in this world. and this it would better become these persons to betake themselves unto the consideration of, than to exercise themselves unto an unparallelled confidence in reproaching those with absurdities and blasphemies, who believe the deity and satisfaction of jesus christ the son of the living god, who died for us, which is the ground and bottom of all our expectation of a blessed life and immortality to come. the removal of these objections against the truth scattered of late up and down in the hands of all sorts of men, may suffice for our present purpose. if any amongst these men, who judge that they have an ability to manage the opposition against the truth as declared by us, with such pleas, arguments, and exceptions, as may pretend an interest in appearing reason, they shall, god assisting, be attended unto. with men, given up to a spirit of railing or reviling, though it be no small honour to be reproached by them who reject with scorn the eternal deity of the son of god, and the satisfactory atonement he made for the sins of men, no person of sobriety will contend. and i shall further only desire the reader to take notice, that though these few sheets were written in few hours, upon the desire, and for the satisfaction of some private friends, and therefore contain merely an expression of present thoughts, without the least design or diversion of mind towards accuracy or ornament; yet the author is so far confident that the truth, and nothing else is proposed and confirmed in them, that he fears not but that an opposition to what is here declared will be removed, and the truth reinforced in such a way and manner as may not be to its disadvantage. finis. an appendix. the preceding discourse, (as hath been declared) was written for the use of ordinary christians; or such as might be in danger to be seduced, or any way entangled in their minds, by the late attempts against the truths pleaded for. for those to whom the dispensation of the gospel is committed, are debtors both to the greeks, and to the barbarians; both to the wise and to the unwise, rom. 1. 14. it was therefore thought meet, to insist only on things necessary, and such as their faith is immediately concerned in; and not to immix therewithal, any such arguments or considerations, as might not, by reason of the terms wherein they are expressed, be obvious to their capacity and understanding. unto plainness and perspicuity, brevity was also required, by such as judged this work necessary. that design we hope is answered, and now discharged in some usesul measure. but yet because many of our arguments on the head of the satisfaction of christ, depend upon the genuine signification and notion of the words and terms wherein the doctrine of it is delivered, which for the reasons before mentioned could not conveniently be discussed in the foregoing discourse, i shall here in some few instances, give an account of what farther confirmation the truth might receive, by a due explanation of them. and i shall mention here but few of them, because a large dissertation concerning them all, is intended in another way. first, for the term of satisfaction itself; it is granted that in this matter it is not found in the scripture. that is, it is not so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or syllabically, but it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the thing itself intended is asserted in it, beyond all modest contradiction. neither indeed is there in the hebrew language any word that doth adequately answer unto it; no nor yet in the greek. as it is used in this cause, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which is properly sponsio or fide jussio, in its actual discharge, maketh the nearest approach unto it. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used to the same purpose. but there are words and phrases both in the old testament, and in the new, that are equipollent unto it, and express the matter or thing intended by it: as in the old are, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 this last word we render satisfaction, numb. 35. 32, 33. where god denies that any compensation, sacred or civil, shall be received to free a murderer from the punishment due unto him; which properly expresseth what we intent. thou shalt admit of no satisfaction for the life of a murderer. in the new testament; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; and the verbs; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, are of the same importance; and some of them accommodated to express the thing intended, beyond that which hath obtained in vulgar use. for that which we intended hereby, is, the voluntary obedience unto death, and the passion or suffering of our lord jesus christ, god and man, whereby, and wherein he offered himself through the eternal spirit, for a propitiatory sacrifice, that he might fulfil the law, or answer all its universal postulata, and as our sponsor, undertaking our cause, when we were under the sentence of condemnation, underwent the punishment due to us from the justice of god, being transferred on him; whereby having made a perfect and absolute propitiation or atonement for our sins, he procured for us deliverance from death, and the curse, and a right unto life everlacting. now this is more properly expressed by some of the words before mentioned, than by that of satisfaction; which yet nevertheless as usually explained, is comprehensive, and no way unsuited to the matter intended by it. in general, men by this word understand either reparationem offensae, or solutionem debiti: either reparation made for offence given unto any; or the payment of a debt. debitum is either oriminale, or pecuniarium; that is, either, the obnoxiousness of a man to punishment for crimes, or the guilt of them, in answer to that justice and law which he is necessarily liable and subject unto; or, unto a payment or compensation by, and of money, or what is valued by it; which last consideration, neither in itself, nor in any reasonings from an analogy unto it, can in this matter have any proper place. satisfaction is the effect of the doing or suffering, what is required for the answering of his charge against faults or sins, who hath right, authority and power to require, exact, and inflict punishment for them. some of the schoolment define it, by voluntaris radditio aequivalentis indebiti; of which more elsewhere. the true meaning of to satisfy, or make satisfaction, is tantum facere aut pati, quantum satis sit juste irato ad vindictam. this satisfaction is impleaded, as inconsistent with free remission of sins; how causelessly we have seen. it is so far from it, that it is necessary to make way for it, in case of a righteous law transgressed, and the public order of the universal governor and government of all, disturbed. and this god directs unto, leu. 4. 31. the priest shall make an atonement for him, and it shall be forgiven him. this atonement was a legal satisfaction; and it is by god himself premised to remission or pardon. and paul prays philemon to forgive onesimus, though he took upon himself to make satisfaction for all the wrong or damage that he had sustained, epist. v. 18, 19 and when god was displeased with the friends of job he prescribes a way to them, or what they shall do, and what they shall get done for them, that they might be accepted and pardoned, job 42. 7, 8. the lord said unto eliphaz, my wrath is kindled against thee and against thy two friends, therefore take unto you now seven bullocks and seven ramms, and go to my servant job, and offer up for yourselves a burnt offering, and my servant job shall pray for you, for him i will accept; lest i deal with you after your folly. he plainly enjoineth an atonement, that he might freely pardon them. and both these, namely satisfaction and pardon, with their order and consistency, were solemnly represented by the great institution of the sacrifice of the escape goat. for after all the sins of the people were put upon him, or the punishment of them transferred unto him in a type and representation with quod in ejus caput-sit, the formal reason of all sacrifices propitiatory, he was sent away with them, denoting the oblation or forgiveness of sin, after a translation made of its punishment, leu. 16. 21, 22. and whereas it is not expressly said, that that goat suffered, or was slain, but was either 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hircus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a goat sent away, or was sent to a rock called azazel in the wilderness, as vatablus and oleaster, with some others think, (which is not probable, seeing though it might then be done whilst the people were in the wilderness of sinai; yet could not by reason of its distance, when the people were settled in canaan be annually observed;) it was from the poverty of the types, whereof no one could fully represent that grace which it had particular respect unto. what therefore was wanting in that goat, was supplied in the other, which was slain as a sin offering, v. 11. 15. neither doth it follow, that on the supposition of the satisfaction pleaded for, the freedom, pardon, or acquitment of the person originally guilty and liable to punishment, must immediately and ipso facto, ensue. it is not of the nature of every solution or satisfaction, that deliverance must ipso facto follow. and the reason of it is, because this satisfaction by a succedaneous substitution of one to undergo punishment for another, must be founded in a voluntary compact, and agreement, for there is required unto it, a relaxation of the law, though not as unto the punishment to be inflicted, yet as unto the person to be punished. and it is otherwise in personal guilt, than in pecuniary debts. in these the debt itself is solely intended, the person only obliged with reference thereunto. in the other, the person is firstly and principally under the obligation. and therefore when a pecuniary debs is paid, by whomsoever it be paid, the obligation of the person himself unto payment ceaseth ipso facto. but in things criminal, the guilty person himself, being firstly, immediately and intentionally under the obligation unto punishment, when there is introduced by compact, a vicarious solution in the fubstitution of another to suffer, though he suffer the same absolutely which those should have done for whom he suffers; yet because of the acceptation of his person to suffer, which might have been refused, and could not be admitted, without some relaxation of the law, deliverance of the guilty persons cannot ensue ipso facto, but by the intervention of the terms fixed on in the covenant or agreement for an admittance of the substitution. it appears from what hath been spoken, that in this matter of satisfaction, god is not considered as a creditor, and sin as a debt, and the law as an obligation to the payment of that debt, and the lord christ as paying it; though these notions may have been used by some for the illustration of the whole matter; and that not without countenance from sundry expressions in the scripture to the same purpose; but god is considered as the infinitely holy and righteous author of the law, and supreme governor of all mankind, according to the tenor and sanction of it. man is considered as a sinner, a transgressor of that law, and thereby obnoxious and liable to the punishment constituted in it, and by it, answerably unto the justice and holiness of its author. the substitution of christ was merely voluntary on the part of god, and of himself, undertaking to be a sponsor to answer for the sins of men, by undergoing the punishment due unto them. that to this end there was a relaxation of the law, as to the persons that were to suffer, though not as to what was to be suffered. without the former, the substitution mentioned could not have been admitted. and on supposition of the latter, the suffering of christ could not have had the nature of punishment properly so called. for punishment relates to the justice and righteousness in government of him that exacts it, and inflicts it. and this the justice of god doth not, but by the law. nor could the law be any way satisfied, or fulfilled by the suffering of christ, if antecedently thereunto its obligation or power of obliging unto the penalty constituted in its sanction, unto sin, was relaxed, dissolved, or dispensed withal. nor was it agreeable to justice, nor would the nature of the things themselves admit of it, that another punishment should be inflicted on christ, than what we had deserved, nor could our sin be the impulsive cause of his death: nor could we have had any benefit thereby. and this may suffice to be added unto what was spoken before, as to the nature of satisfaction, so far as the brevity of the discourse whereunto we are confined, will bear, or the use whereunto it is designed doth require. secondly, the nature of the doctrine contended for, being declared and cleared, we may in one or two instances manifest how evidently it is revealed, and how fully it may be confirmed or vindicated. it is then in the scripture declared, that christ died for us; that he died for our sins, and that we are thereby delivered. this is the foundation of christian religion as such. without the faith, and acknowledgement of it, we are not christians. neither is it in these general terms, at all denied by the socinians. it remains therefore, that we consider, (1.) how this is revealed and affirmed in the scripture: and (2.) what is the true meaning of the expressions and propositions wherein it is revealed and affirmed; for in them, as in sundry others, we affirm, that the satisfaction pleaded for, is contained. 1. christ is said to die, to give himself, to be delivered, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. for us, for his sheep, for the life of the world; for sinners, john 6. 51. chap. 10. 15. rom. 5. 6. 2 cor. 5. 14, 15. gal. 2. 20. heb. 2. 9 moreover he is said to die 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for sins, 1 cor. 15. 3. gal. 1. 4. the end whereof every where expressed in the gospel, is, that we might be freed, delivered, and saved. these things as was said, are agreed unto, and acknowleded. 2. the meaning and importance, we say of these expr●ssions, is; that christ died in our room, place, or stead, undergoing the death or punishment which we should have undergone in the way and manner before declared. and this is the satisfaction we plead for. it remains therefore, that from the scripture, the nature of the things treated of, the proper signification and constant use of the. expressions mentioned, the exemplification of them in the customs and usages of the nations of the world, we do evince and manifest, that what we have laid down, is the true and proper sense of the words, wherein this revelation of christ's dying for us is expressed; so that they who deny christ to have died for us in this sense, do indeed deny that he properly died for us at all; what ever benefits they grant, that by his death we may obtain. first, we may consider the use of this expression in the scripture, either indefinitely, or in particular instances. only we must take this along with us, that dying for sins and transgressions, being added unto dying for sinners or persons, maketh the substitution of one in the room and stead of another, more evident, than when the dying of one for another only, is mentioned. for whereas all predicates are regulated by their subjects, and it is ridiculous to say, that one dyeth in the stead of sins, the meaning can be no other, but the bearing or answering of the sins of the sinner, in whose stead any one dyeth. and this is in the scripture declared to be the sense of that expression, as we shall see afterwards. let us therefore consider some instances. john 11. 50. the words of caiaphas' counsel are, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not: which is expressed again, chap. 18. 14. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, perish for the people. caiaphas' feared, that if christ were spared, the people would be destroyed by the romans. the way to free them, he thought was by the destruction of christ; him therefore he devoted to death, in lieu of the people. as he vnum pro multis dabitur caput. one head shall be given for many. not unlike the speech of otho the emperor in xiphilin, when he slew himself to preserve his army; for when they would have persuaded him to renew the war after the defeat of some of his forces, and offered to lay down their lives to secure him; he replied, that he would not; adding this reason, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. it is far better, and more just that one should perish or die for all; than that many should perish for one; that is, one in the stead of many, that they may go free; or as another speaks; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. eurip. let one be given up to die in the stead of all. joh. 13. 38. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. they are the words of st. peter unto christ; i will lay down my life for thee; to free thee, i will expose my own head to danger, my life to death; that thou mayst live and i die. it is plain that he intended the same thing with the celebrated 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of old, who exposed their own lives, (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) for one another, such were damon and pythias, orestes & pylades, nisur & euryalus. whence is that saying of seneca, succurram perituro; sed ut ipse n●n peream; nisi si futurus ero magni hominis, aut magnae rei merces. i will relieve or succour one that is ready to perish; yet so as that i perish not myself; unless thereby, i be taken in lieu of some great man, or great matter. for a great man, a man of great worth and usefulness i could perish, or die in his stead, that he might live and go free. we have a great example also of the importance of this expression in those words of david concerning absolom, 2 sam. 18. 33. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who will grant me to die, i for thee, or in thy stead; my son absolom. it was never doubted, but that david wished that he had died in the stead of his son; and to have undergone the death which he did, to have preserved him alive. as to the same purpose, though in another sense, m●zentius in virgil expresseth himself, when his son lausus interposing between him and danger in battle, was slain by aeneas. tantane me tenuit vivendi nate voluptas, vt pro me hostili paterer succedere dextrae quem genui? tuane haec genitor per vulnera servor? morte tuâ vivam? hast thou o son, fallen under the enemy's hand in my stead; am i saved by thy wounds; do i live by thy death? and the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 used by david doth signify, when applied unto persons, either a succession, or a substitution; still the coming of one into the place and room of another: when one succeeded to another in government, it is expressed by that word, 2 sam. 10. 1. 1 kings 7. 7. chap. 19 16. in other cases it denotes a substitution. so jehu tells his gurad, that if any one of them let any of baal's priests escape, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 2 kings 10. 24. his life should go in the stead of the life that he had suffered to escape. and this answereth unto 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the greek, which is also used in this matter; and ever denotes either equality, contrariety, or substitution. the two former senses, can here have no place; the latter alone hath. so it is said, that archelaus reigned, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; mat. 2. 1, 2. in the room or stead of herod his father. so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, matth. 5. 38. is an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth, and this word also is used in expressing the death of christ for us. he came, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. matth. 20. 28. to give his life a ransom for many; that is, in their stead to die. so the words are used again, mark 10. 45. and both these notes of a succedaneous substitution are joined together, 1 tim. 2. 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. and this the greeks call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to buy any thing, to purchase or procure any thing, with the price of ones life. so tigranes in xenophon, when cyrus asked him what he would give or do for the liberty of his wife whom he had taken prisoner; answered, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; i will purchase her liberty with my life, or the price of my soul. whereon the woman being freed, affirmed afterwards, that she considered none in the company, but him who said, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; that he would purchase my liberty with his own life. and these things are added on the occasion of the instances mentioned in the scripture, whence it appears, that this expression of dying for another, hath no other sense or meaning, but only dying instead of another, undergoing the death that he should undergo, that he might go free. and in this matter of christ's dying for us, add that he so died for us, as that he also died for our sins, that is, either to bear their punishment, or to expiate their guilt, (for other sense the words cannot admit) and he that pretends to give any other sense of them than that contended for, which implies the whole of what lies in the doctrine of satisfaction, erit mihi magnus apollo; even he who was the author of all ambiguous oracles of old. and this is the common sense of mori pro alio, and pati pro alio, or pro alio discrimen capitis subire; a substitution is still denoted by that expression, which sufficeth us in this whole cause; for we know both into whose room he came, and what they were to suffer. thus entellus killing and sacrificing an ox to eryx in the stead of dares whom he was ready to have slain, when he was taken from him, expresseth himself; hanc tibi eryx meliorem animam pro morte daretis persolvo. he offered the ox, a better sacrifice, in the stead of dares, taken from him. so fratrem pollux alternà morte redemit. and they speak so not only with respect unto death, but where ever any thing of durance or suffering is intended. so the angry master in the comedian, verberibus caesum te dave in pistrinum dedam usque ad necem. eâ lege atque omine, ut si inde te exemerim, ego pro te molam. he threatened his servant to cast him into prison to be macerated to death with labour, and that with this engagement, that if he ever let him out he would grind for him; that is, in his stead. wherefore without offering violence to the common means of understanding things amongst men, another sense cannot be affixed to these words. the nature of the thing itself will admit of no other exposition than that given unto it; and it hath been manifoldly exemplified among the nations of the world. for suppose a man guilty of any crime, and on the account thereof, to be exposed unto danger from god or man, in a way of justice, wrath, or vengeance, and when he is ready to be given up unto suffering according unto his demerit, another should tender himself to die for him that he might be freed, let an appeal be made to the common reason and understandings of all men, whether the intention of this his dying for another, be not, that he substitutes himself in his stead to undergo what he should have done, however the translation of punishment from one to another may be brought about and asserted. for at present we treat not of the right, but of the fact, or the thing itself. and to deny this to be the case as to the sufferings of christ, is as far as i can understand, to subvert the whole gospel. moreover, as was said, this hath been variously exemplified among the nations of the world; whose actings in such cases, because they excellently shadow out the general notion of the death of christ for others, for sinners; and are appealed unto directly by the apostle to this purpose, rom. 5. 7, 8. i shall in a few instances reflect upon. not to insist on the voluntary surrogations of private persons, one into the room of another, mutually to undergo dangers and death for one another, as before mentioned, i shall only remember some public transactions in reference unto communities, in nations, cities, or armies. nothing is more celebrated amongst the ancients than this; that when they supposed themselves in danger, from the anger and displeasure of their gods, by reason of any guilt or crimes among them, some one person should either devote himself, or be devoted by the people, to die for them, and therein to be made as it were an expiatory sacrifice. for where sin is the cause, and god is the object respected, the making of satisfaction by undergoing punishment, and expiating of sin by a propitiatory sacrifice, are but various expressions of the same thing. now those whoso devoted themselves, as was said, to die in the stead of others, or to expiate their sins, and turn away the anger of the god they feared by their death, designed two things in what they did. first, that the evils which were impendent on the people and feared, might fall on themselves, so that the people might go free. secondly, that all good things which themselves desired, might be conferred on the people; which things have a notable shadow in them of the great expiatory sacrifice concerning which we treat, and expound the expressions wherein it is declared. the instance of the decii, is known; of whom the poet, plebeiae deciorum animae, plebeia fuerunt nomina; pro totis legionibu● hitam●n, & pro omnibus auxiliis, atque omni plehe latin's. sufficiunt diis infernis. the two decii, father and son, in imminent dangers of the people, devoted themselves, at several times, unto death and destruction. and saith he; sufficiunt diis infernis; they satisfied for the whole people; adding the reason whence so it might be; pluris enim decii quam qui servantur ab illis. they were more to be valued, than all that were saved by them. and the great historian doth excellently describe both the actions, and expectations of the one and the other in what they did. the father, when the roman army commanded by himself and titus m●nlius, was near a total ruin by the latins, called for the public priest, and caused him with the usual solemn ceremonies, to devote him to death, for the deliverance and safety of the army: after which making his requests to his gods, (dii quorum est potestas nostrorum hostiumque) the gods that had power over them and their adversaries, as he supposed, he cast himself into death by the swords of the enemy. conspectus ab utraque acie aliquanto augustior humano visu, sicut coelo missus, piaculum omnis deorum irae, qui pestem ab suis aversam in hosts ferret. he was looked on by both armies, as one more august than a man, as one sent from heaven, to be a piacular sacrifice; to appease the anger of the gods, and to transfer destruction from their own army to the enemies, liv. hist. 8. his son in like manner in a great and dangerous battle against the galls and samnites; wherein he commanded in chief, devoting himself as his father had done, added unto the former solemn deprecations; prae se, agere sese, formidinem ac fugam, caedemque ac cruorem, coel stium, infernorum iras, lib. 11. that he carried away before him, (from those for whom he devoted himself) fear and flight, slaughter and blood, the anger of the celestial and infernal gods. and as they did in this devoting of themselves design, averuncare malum, deûm iras, lustrare p●pulum, aut exercitum, piaculum fieri or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, expiare crimina, scelus, reatum, or to remove all evil from others by taking it on themselves in their stead; so also they thought they might, and intended in what did, to covenant and contract for the good things they desired. so did these decii, and so is menaeceus reported to have done▪ when he devoted himself for the city of thebes in danger to be destroyed by the argives. so papinius introduceth him treating his gods, armorum superi, tuque, o quifunere tanto indulges mihi phoebe mori, date gaudia thebis, quae pepegi, & toto quae sanguine prodi gus emi. he reckoned that he had not only repelled all death and danger from thebes, by his own, but that he had purchased joy, in peace and liberty for the people. and where there was none in public calamities, that did voluntarily devote themselves, the people were wont to take some obnoxious person, to make him exercra●le, and to lay on him according to their superstition, all the wrath of their gods, and so give him up to destruction. such the apostle alludes unto, rom. 9 3. 1 cor. 4. 9, 13. so the massilians were wont to explate their city by taking a person devoted, imprecating on his head all the evil that the city was obnoxious unto, casting him into the sea with th●se words, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be thou our expiatory sacrifice; to which purpose were the solemn words that many used in their expiatory sacrifices; as herodotus test●fieth of the egyptians, bringing their offerings, saith he, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; they laid these imprecations on their heads; that if any evil were happening towards the sacrificer, or all egypt, let it be all turned and laid on this devoted head. and the persons whom they thus dealt withal, and made execrate, were commonly of the vilest of the people, or such as had rendered themselves detestable by their own crimes; whence was the complaint of the mother of m●naeceus upon her sons devoting himself, lustralemne feris, ego te puer inclyte thebis, d●votumque caput, vilis seu mater alebam? i have recounted these instances to evince the common intention, sense, and understanding of that expression, of one dying for another; and to manifest by examples, what is the sense of mankind, about any one's being devoted and substituted in the room of others, to deliver them from death and danger; the consideration whereof, added to the constant use of the words mentioned, in the scripture, is sufficient to f●●nd and confirm this conclusion. that whereas it is frequently affirmed, in the scripture, th●ir christ died for us, and for our sins, etc. to deny that he died and suffered in our stead, undergoing the death whereunto we were obnoxious, and the punishment due to our sins, is; if we respect in what we say or believe▪ the constant use of those words in the scripture, the nature of the thing itself concerning which they are used, the uncontrolled use of that expression in all sorts of writers, in expressing the same thing, which the instances and examples of its meaning and intention among the nations of the world, is to deny that he died for us at all. neither will his dying for our good or advantage only, in what way or sense soever, answer or make good, or true, the assertion of his dying for us, and our sins. and this is evident in the death of the apostles and martyrs; they all died for our good; our advantage and benefit was one end of their sufferings, in the will and appointment of god; and yet it cannot be said, that they died for us, or our sins. and if christ died only for our good, though in a more effectual manner than they did, yet this altereth not the kind of his dying for us; nor can he thence be said properly, according to the only due sense of that expression, so to do. i shall in this brief and hasty discourse, add only one consideration more about the death of christ to confirm the truth pleaded for. and that is that he is said in dying for sinners, to bear their sins, isa. 53. 11. he shall bear their iniquities, v. 12. he bore the sins of many; explained, v. 5. he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities, the chastisement of our peace was upon him, 1 pet. 2. 24. who his own self bore our sins in his own body on the tree, etc. this expression is purely sacred. it occurreth not directly in other authors, though the sense of it in other words do frequently. they call it luere peccata; that is, delictorum supplicium far; to bear the punishment of sins. the meaning therefore of this phrase of speech, is to be taken from the scripture alone, and principally from the old testament, where it is originally used; and from whence it is tranferred into the new testament in the same sense, and no other. let us consider some of the places. isa. 53. 11. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the same word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used, vers. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and our griefs he hath born them. the word signifies, properly to bear a weight or a burden, as a man bears it on his shoulders; bajulo, porto. and it is never used with respect unto sin, but openly and plainly it signifies the undergoing of the punishment due unto it; so it occurrs directly to our purpose, lam. 5. 7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 our fathers have sinned and are not; and we have born their iniquities; the punishment due to their sins. and why a new sense should be forged for these words, when they are spoken concerning christ, who can give a just reason? again 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used to the same purpose. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vers. 12. and he bear the sin of many. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is often used with respect unto sin; sometimes with reference unto god's actings about it, and sometimes with reference unto men's concerns in it. in the first way, or when it denotes an act of god, it signifies to lift up, to take away, or pardon sin; and leaves the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where with it is joined under its first signification, of iniquity; or the g●ilt of sin, with respect unto punishment ensuing as its consequent. for god pardoning the guilt of sin, the removal of the punishment doth necessarily ensue; gild containing an obligation unto punishment. in the latter way, as it respects men or sinners, it constantly denotes the bearing of the punishment of sin, and gives that sense unto 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, with respect unto the guilt of sin as its cause. and hence ariseth the ambiguity of those words of cain, gen. 14. 13. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 denotes an act of god, if the words be spoken with reference in the first place to any acting of his towards cain, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 retains the sense of iniquity, and the words are rightly rendered, my sin is greater than to be fogiven. if it respect cain himself firstly, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 assumes the signification of punishment, and the words are to be rendered; my punishment is greater than i can bear, or is to be born by me. this i say is the constant sense of this expression, nor can any instance to the contrary be produced. some may be mentioned in the confirmation of it. numb. 14. 33. your children shall wander in the wilderness forty years, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and shall bear your whoredoms, v. 34. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ye sh●ll bear your in quities forty years; that is, the punishment due to your whoredoms and iniquities, according to god's provideneial d●aling with them at that time. leu. 19 8. he that eateth it, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 shall bear his iniquities, how? 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that s●ul shall be cut off. to b● cut off for sin, by the punishment of it, and for its guilt, is to bear in quity. so chap. ●0 16, 17 18. for a man to bear his iniquity, and to be killed, slain, or put to death for it, are the same. ezek. 18. 20. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; the soul that sinneth it shall die; the son shall not bear the sin of the father. to bear sin, and to die for sin, are the same. more instances might be added, all uniformity speaking the same sense of the words. and as this sense is sufficiently indeed invincibly established by the invariable use of that expression in the scripture, so the manner whereby it is affirmed that the lord christ bore our iniquities, sets it absolutely free from all danger by opposition. for he bore our iniquities when 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the lord made to meet on him, or laid on him, the iniquity of us all, isa. 53. 6. which words the lxx. render, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the lord gave him up, or delivered him unto our sins. that is, to be punished for them; for other sense the words can have none; he made him sin for us, 2 cor. 5. 21. so he bore our sins, isa. 53. 11. how? in his own body on the tree, 1 pet. 2. 24. that when he was, and in his being stricken, smitten, afflicted, wounded, bruised, slain, so was the chastisement of our peace upon him. wherefore to deny that the lord christ in his death and suffering for us, underwent the punishment due to our sins, what we had deserved, that we might be delivered, as it everts the great foundation of the gospel, so by an open perverting of the plain words of the scripture, because not suited in their sense and importance to the vain imaginations of men, it gives no small countenance to infidelity and atheism. finis. calumny arraigned and cast. or a brief answer to some extravagant and rank passages, lately fallen from the pen of william prynne, esquire, in a late discourse, entitled, truth triumphing over falsehood, &c. against mr john goodwin, minister of the gospel. wherein the loyal, unfeigned and unstained affection of the said john goodwin to the parliament, and civil magistracy, is irrefragably and fully vindicated and asserted against those broad and unchristian imputations, most untruly suggested in the said discourse against him. by the said john goodwin. psal. 56. 5. every day they wrest my words: all their thoughts are against me for evil. psal. 120. 2. deliver my soul, o lord, from lying lips, and from a deceitful tongue. gal. 3. 4. have ye suffered so many things in vain? if yet it be in vain. praeceptum trahit praeceptum, & transgressio trahit transgressionem. dictum hebraeorum. ex mercero in prov. 22. 4. apologiae nullas aures inveniunt: calumniae omnes praeoccupant. oecolam. epist. licenced entered and printed according to order. london; printed by m. simmons for henry overton, and are to be sold at his shop in popes-head-alley. 1645. to the reader. reader; my business with thee (at present) is not much. only upon occasion of those passages of my antagonist, replied unto in the following discourse, i could not without breach of duty, but administer this preservative unto thee against the danger of very many writings on that side; that if thou believest them, especially in what they present concerning either the persons or opinions of their adversaries, without strict examination, thou art like to embrace nubem pro junone, and to match thy understanding with untruth. which kind of marriage ofttimes and in many cases, proves of as sad and unhappy consequence unto men, as ahab's joining himself in this relation with jezabel did unto him; concerning whom the sacred record avoucheth this; that there was none like ahab, who did sell himself to work wickedness in the sight of the lord, whom jezabel his wise provoked a 1 king. 21. 25. . errors and misprisions concerning the persons, practices, and opinions of men, having taken the fancies and imaginations of some men, many times work them into very uncouth, violent, unseemly, and unchristian distempers, which makes them out of measure forgetful of themselves, and of all rules of reason, equity, and good conscience, in their representations of, and contestations against both the one and the other. especially when the special and particular points of difference between them and others, are of a difficult eviction and clearing on their parts, the resentment hereof is a sore temptation upon them to make many a voyage beyond the line of truth, to fetch apes and peacocks, and i know not what monsters both of practices and opinions to bestow upon them; that so the uncontroverted disparagement which they hope to derive upon their opposites by such imputations as these, may help to mediate the like disparagement of their judgements in those other matters of difference, in the thoughts and minds of men. nor doth an accuser (ordinarily) open his mouth to that wideness, or lift up his voice to that strength and strain of clamour, when he can come by any thing that is real and matter of truth, to make his accusation, as when he is constrained to serve his disposition in that kind, with that which is fictitious, and pretended only. the jews that sought the suppression and ruin of our saviour, not being able to prove any thing of real demerit against him (for pilate himself knew well that they had delivered him out of envy a mat. 27. 18. ) thought to fill up the emptiness of their cause or accusation, with the abundant loudness and importunity of their clamour and cry: but they cried, away with him, away with him: crucify him. and in another place, because they could not with truth reprove him of any sin b joh. 8. 46. ; being put upon it to feign, they did it to purpose, and charged him with being a samaritan and having a devil c vers. 48. . who would have thought that the gentleman (my antagonist in the ensuing pages) or a. s. the duplicator against m. s. and some others of the same engagement, that i could name, would ever have sought protection for the cause they desire to maintain, at those polluted sanctuaries of untruth! if our opinions know not how to maintain themselves and live, without the undue disparagement, or collateral impeachment of those who are of opposite judgement to us therein, it is a sore testimony against them, that they are but counterfeits, and not of the royal line and race of truth; who is able to maintain all her legitimate offspring, with her own demeans, and native inheritance, without the unjust taxations of the reputation, practices, or opinions of her adversaries. till the sons of difference in matters controversial, give over all wresting (at least, all wilful wresting) and perverting of the sayings, doings, and opinions of their opposites, and catching at impertinencies and lighter oversights, and lie close in their reasonings to the points in difference; they will never do any great matter, either for the truth, or for their own repute, amongst sober and advised men. this brief advertisement i thought needful to impart unto thee; and if thou hast the taste and relish of it in thy spirit, i have nothing by way of transaction further with thee (for the present) but only to express my desires unto god on thy behalf, that the perusal of the little piece ensuing, may either make or keep thy thoughts straight concerning the man, (a friend of thine, who ever thou be'st) whom thou shalt find fiercely accused, and yet (i hope) sufficiently (though calmly) acquitted therein. it is a special grace of god vouchsafed unto thee, to be preserved, from making that crooked, which he hath made straight. from my study in colemanstreet. london. jan. 30. 1644. thine in him who is our all in all, john goodwin. faults escaped in some copies. pag. 5. l. 24. for, confidence, r. confidence. pag. 18. l. 24. for, rerum, r. reum. ibidem. l. 30. for, contemned, r. continued. pag. 28. l. 6. for, rf, r. of. pag. 32. l. 30. for, right, r. law. pag. 35. l. 18. for, declare, r. decline. pag. 39 l. 15. for, not only, r. not only not. pag. 42. l. 13. for, shacking, r, sharking. pag. 44. l. 31. for, commodious, r. commodiously. pag. 46. l. 20. for, yet (and, r. (and yet. calumny arraigned and cast. since the finishing of my lately published a innocency and truth triumphing together. discourse, my antagonist having (as it seems by his own expression b my nocturnal lucubrations, borrowed from the hours allotted to my necessary natural rest, &c. epist. dedic. ) sacrificed the necessary natural rest of his body, upon the service of the unnecessary and violent restlessness of his spirit, hath thereby gotten the opportunity of doing very good service to the way of independency (so called) by sending forth a discourse into the world, entitled truth triumphing over falsehood; i. (by the figure hypallage) falsehood triumphing over truth: for whereas the weight of his credit and reputation before lay somewhat heavy upon the shoulder of independency, and oppressed it; by the unchristian extravagancy and impertinency of this discourse, he hath so far eased and reduced the burdensomeness of it, that it may now be endured and borne without much detriment or disadvantage. and doubtless, divine providence was above him in drawing this acknowledgement and confession from him, that these collections or lucubrations of his are distracted c epist. ded. propè finem. and impotent d epist. to the reader. propè finem. : distracted they are in point of argument or reason; impotent, in point of heat, height, and passion. or did we wave his own confession of the distractedness of them, his expectation of such preferment for them as the satisfaction of the learned e epist. to the reader. versus finem. , yea, and conviction of all the world f pag. 110. versus finem. , were a demonstration, and that à priori, of such a {non-roman} {non-roman} {non-roman} {non-roman} {non-roman}, or affection cleaving to them. for can any man, with any consistency of reason, expect or think, that learned men, who have risen early, and gone to bed late, bestowed much time and pains to inquire out the truth and certainty of what they hold and profess, should yet be so desultorie and light in their judgements, as by a few indigested, nocturnal a epist. delic. non longè à fine. , subitane b ibid. & p. 1. , impotent c epist. to the reader. collections and lucubrations to be turned out of their way; especially when the collector makes no more conscience of speaking truth in matters of fact and of the most obvious and easy cognizance, then mr. prynne in many passages doth in these his lucubrations? doth he think that the elaborate and long-studied notions and apprehensions of learned men, are of no better use or worth, then only to adorn the trophies and triumphs of his extemporany pen? if he expected such obsequiousness of faith from the judgements of learned men to his subitane and indigested collections, in matters of more difficulty and weight, his method had been to have laid the foundation of such credence, by speaking truth in those things, which are every man's inquiry and cognizance, and wherein the miscarriage of his pen is obvious unto all. for he that hath not so much policy as in parvis sibi fidem praestruere, will never get an opportunity magnâ mercede fallendi. and he that will not deal honestly in the light, who will trust in the dark? i shall not (for the present) insist upon the refutation of those twelve imputations in his epistle to the reader, sect. 2. wherewith he labours to render the independents odious; all and every of which, (except the fift) are every whit as appliable (as i am able to demonstrate in the sight of the sun) to his party, as to the independents, and some of them with far more truth to the former, then to the latter. and for that inference which he deduceth from the fift particular there charged upon the independents (which is the sting of the charge) as viz. that denying there is any national church under the new testament, they must of necessity deny one article of their creed, that there is a catholic church; this collection (i say) is so impotent and undigested, that he that runs may read non sequitur written in the face of it. nor secondly, do i intend to unbind or meddle with that farrago, that bundle of blind learning; i mean, those transcriptions and quotations, fetched many (if not most) of them, out of the darkest times of popery, (as himself somewhere doth little less than confess) d pag. 106. which are the bulky and unwieldy part of his discourse: for, what communion hath light with darkness? old obsolete, exolete records, fetched out of the darkest times of popery, are no urim and thummim, no oracles to be consulted about the mind of jesus christ; no competent judges or interpreters of the laws and statutes of heaven. the saying of cyprian is seasonable upon this occasion: this is not to be esteemed true antiquity to understand, quid hic aut ille ante nos fecerit, aut docuerit, sed quid is qui ante omnes est christus, &c. i. what this or that man did or taught before us, but what he did and taught who was before all, even christ himself, who only is the way, the truth, and the life, from whose precepts we ought not to digress a cyprian ad caecil. lib. 2. ep. 3. . and besides, if mr prynne's hand was no steadier, in transcribing these old matters, than it hath been in some things of later date concerning me, his antiquity itself may have cause enough to complain of being perverted into novelty. nor thirdly, shall i thrust my sickle into my brother burton's harvest; but leave the latter part of the discourse unto him, either to neglect, or answer, as god shall direct him. but fourthly, (and lastly) i shall briefly acquaint the reader, how unworthily my antagonist hath dealt by me, (that i say not by himself, and his own reputation) first, by assertion of untruths; secondly, by cruel and unreasonable wrestings and torturing of my words, to make them speak what they never meant; thirdly, (and lastly) by slight and empty replies to things asserted and laid down by me. for the first, sect. 3. he citys my two sermons (entitled theomachia) and my innocency's triumph, as denying (he means dissuading) all opposition in word, deed, or thought against the way of independency, as a direct fighting against god b epist. ded. p 3. paulò ab initio. ; which is a most notorious untruth; all that i drive at in these discourses, is to dissuade men from opposing this way with an high hand, lest in so doing, men should fight against god: there is no such assertion as this which mr pryn chargeth upon me, nor any near it, or like unto it, in either of those tracts. i nowhere affirm, all opposition to this way, whether in word, deed, or thought, to be a direct fighting against god. nay, p. 12. of my theomachia, i affirm the quite contrary, viz. that it is not every degree or kind of opposing a way or doctrine which is from god, which either the text or the doctrine calleth a fighting against god; but only such an opposing which is peremptory, and carried on with an high hand, &c. 2. he citys my sermon, sect. 4. preached febr. 25. 1643. my theomachia and innocency's triumph, as holding forth this position, that every particular congregation of visible saints, and independent church, is under the government of christ alone, as the only head, king, governor, lawgiver of it; and subject to no other jurisdiction, then that of christ, his word and spirit, &c. a ibidem. which conclusion, though generally held and maintained by protestants against papists; and in that respect i need neither be afraid, nor ashamed to own it; yet if he can find, or make out with any tolerable construction of words and saying, of any, or all of those pieces of mine which he chargeth with it, let mr pryn be true, and me the liar. but if otherwise, currat lex, &c. 3. he chargeth me with affirming (in the forementioned sermon) that it would be more easy for me, sect. 5. and i should rather yield to be torn in pieces by wild horses, then submit to such a government which proceeded from a parliament chosen by the riffraff of the world, b ibidem. &c. never was there an innocent and harmless expression more cruelly and despitefully handled, since the world was first haunted with a spirit of unrighteousness and untruth. the passage of mine, represented by mr prynne, as you have heard, was only this (i shall go as near the very words as my best memory will lead me; but the effect and substance of the saying i perfectly remember) it were as easy for me to be torn in pieces by wild horses, as to submit to any church-government whatsoever, which is not agreeable to the scriptures, and mind of christ. but to deny subjection unto a government which should proceed from a parliament, because chosen by the riffraff of the world (which terms i mean the riffraff of the world, are suppositious too, and none of mine) was so far from my thoughts in that sermon, that i expressly declared, and said (as several of those that were examined about the sermon before the committee, there testified, and i nothing doubt, but to this day, do perfectly remember the saying) that as a church-government was not therefore to be received or submitted unto, because it is enjoined by men; so neither is it therefore to be rejected, because it is commanded by men. 4. he citys the forementioned sermons (called theomachia) as holding forth this assertion, sect. 6. p. 48, 49, 50. that perchance all, or the greatest part of the parliament and assembly are not endued with the sanctifying spirit of god, c pag. 156. &c. if there be so much as the least hint or insinuation of any such matter in any, in all of those pages, i shall mistrust either my eyes, or my sensus communis for ever. but if it be otherwise, mr. prynne's tongue and pen (as well they deserve) are like to bear the burden of this my diffidence. 5. he citys the prementioned, theomachia, with my two books since, for crying up the independent way, as the very government, discipline, kingdom and ordinance and christ himself, a pag. 134. &c. whereas, first, since the coming out of my theomachia, i had put forth only one book (and that a very small one too, and which the violent and merciless proceedings of himself against me, extorted from me,) when this was affirmed and printed by him. and secondly, there is no such cry, as that which his fancy is troubled with, to be heard throughout either the one of those books, or the other. so that here is a double notorious untruth in this quotation: 1. that i had set forth two books, since my theomachia: 2. that in these two, as also in my theomachia, i cried up the independent way, as the very government, discipline, kingdom and ordinance of christ. 6. whereas he avers, sect. 7. that pending the complaint against me before the committee for plundered ministers, for some antiparliamentary passages (so called by him) with other particulars, i justified the said passages again very unseasonably in the pulpit on a solemn first day, and likewise in two printed books, to the one whereof i prefixed my name b pag. 106. ; the truth is, first, that (if my memory serves me not as ill as mr. prynne's confidence serveth him) i never justified, nor meddled with those passages he speaks of in the pulpit, either on any solemn fast day, or any other, within that compass he speaks of: nor secondly, had i justified them in two books, when mr. pryn's pen avouched it, though by this time it may be interpreted that i have; nor thirdly, have i put forth any book since, to which i have not prefixed my name; or at least suffixed it to an epistle, if not at large, yet by the initial letters of it. therefore if mr. pryn implies, that i have published any book within the time he speaks of, which i do not publicly own, he is implicated with a further untruth in such his implication. 7. whereas he affirms (with no want of confidence) that he hath elsewhere answered, and fully refuted c pag. 106. the passagers aforesaid; what truth there is in this affirmation, let my last discourse d innocency and truth triumphing together. testify. he hath answered those passages of mine he speaks of, much in such a sense, and after such a manner, as mr. walker and mr. roburrough, have answered my socinian errors: which answers he adviseth his reader to see (p. 109. in the margin) but tells him not where they are to be seen. 8. whereas he chargeth me in my innocency's triumph (quarrelling with the very title, sect. 8. as if it were unfit, and he unwilling that innocency should triumph) with denying those very matters of fact which i voluntarily confessed in his hearing before the committee a pag. 107. paulo ante medium. , for which i was sequestered; the truth is, that there is no truth at all in this his allegation or charge. for, first, i am certain, that jesus christ was present at the committee, as well as mr. prynne; and certain i am that in his hearing (which is every whit as good as mr. pryn's) i confessed nothing there, which is denied by me in my innocency's triumph. i neither confessed that i neglected my parishioners, nor that i seldom preached unto them, nor that i prescribe a covenant to my independent congregation, with in stead of my parishioners i have gathered to myself, before they be admitted; nor that i receive tithes of my parishioners in any other way, or after any other manner, then as i declare and express in my said book. if i had confessed any of these things, either before the committee, or any others, i had been of mr. prynne's confederacy against mine own innocency, and the truth. but what i did confess before the committee, i confess as plainly in my innocency's triumph; as viz. first, that i had refused to baptize some children of my parishioners b innocency's triumph. p. 18. 19 . secondly, that i had not administered the sacrament to my parish for some months c ibidem. . again, secondly, whereas he saith that i was sequestered d ibidem. by the committee, for the matters before mentioned, and denied by me in my innocency's triumph, in this he asperseth the honourable committee every whit as much (if not more) than me. for (doubtless) it no way stands with their honour to sequester a man for that which was never done by him. nor thirdly, do i know whether i may take mr. prynne's word (it is now grown so unstable) that i am suspended, censured, or sequestered by the committee, either for the one thing, or the other; and besides, a friend of mine, inquiring of some that are members of the said committee concerning that suspension or sequestration which mr. prynne speaks of, received this answer from them, that they knew no such thing. i suppose it is not ordinary, that a sentence or censure should pass in a court of justice against any man, and he not to have any knowledge of it for several months together: but if it be so, god's will, and mr. prynne's wish, (fiat justitia) in mr. prynne's sense, are fulfilled together. 9 he is not ashamed to avouch, sect. 9 that i publish my brainsick jealousies and suspicions of the parliament behind their backs in open pulpit, and then to the whole world in print (a strange misdemeanour indeed, and more monstrous and incredible, then ever committed by the very pope or turk himself, or the great antichrist, or the arch-prelate, or oxford aulicus, or the most venomous malignant, that a man should do that behind men's back, which he doth in print to the whole world) of purpose to make my auditors, readers, jealous of them, as men who invaded the very incommunicable royalties and privileges of heaven a pag. 108. circà medium. : whereas the god of heaven, who knows my purpose and intent in those passages (as in all my actions besides) much better than mr. prynne knows the contrary; and that my purpose therein was singly and simply, and with all faithfulness, as becomes a minister of jesus christ, to caution those worthy persons of honour and trust, against that snare of sinning against god, into which great places of power and interest in the world are apt to lead men before they are aware. 10. he chargeth my late sermons and pamphlets to have kindled such unhappy flames of contention in our church and state, sect. 10. as all the tears of repentance which i may shed, will not be sufficient to quench. for my part i know of no such, i hear of no such, i know no cause why i should imagine that any such unhappy flames as he speaks of, should be kindled by any of my sermons or writings. i have much more reason to conceive and think, that mr. prynne's writings charge mine with kindling flames of contention, much after the same manner, and upon the same terms, that one charged eliah with being the troubler of israel b 1 king. 18. 17. : and that mine may recharge his, as the prophet did that king c 1 king. 18. 18. . 11. whereas he further chargeth me, sect. 11. that in my innocency's triumph, i slander the parliament more than before, and show myself a man despising government (at least any church-government the parliament shall establish not suitable to my fancy) self-willed, and even speaking evil of dignities, &c. d pag. 110. circà medium. ; the truth is, that there is far more slander in the charge, then in the crime: the best is, that that book is open before the world, to see and judge whether therebe, i do not say any aspersion of slander, but so much as the least touch or tincture of any thing dishonourable to the parliament, or to any government or dignity whatsoever, because not suitable to my fancy. 12. whereas he insinuates a guilt upon me of socinian errors a pag. 109. paulò post ini●●●●. , sect. 12. and in his margin invites his reader to see mr. walker's and mr. roburroughs answers to them; the truth is, that in the answers he speaks of, his reader may see and find mistakes of my opinion, and confutations of those mistakes, as substantially managed as want of apprehension of my thoughts, and somewhat else, was able to manage such an enterprise: but for any socinian errors of mine, they are only to be seen in such books as were never written: and then where the answers to them are to be seen, remains yet as matter of further inquiry for mr. prynne. for the second head propounded, sect. 13. the unreasonable wresting, torturing, and tormenting of my words, i shall chiefly insist upon his paraphrase upon that passage, recited (in part) by him, p. 107. (but miscited in the margin, as touching the page, where it stands in my book). the tenor of the passage in this; if i have denied the least dram or scruple of that power which is truly parliamentary, and consistent with the word of the great and glorious god (of which misdemeanour i am not in the least measure conscious unto myself as yet) i most seriously and solemnly profess in the presence of this god (my conscience bearing me witness in the holy ghost that i lie not) that i did it out of a loving, tender and affectionate jealousy over the parliament, lest possibly they might dash their foot against that stone, by which all rule and all authority and power will one day be broken in pieces. so that if either my tongue or pen have in the least miscarried, it was, error amoris, not amor erroris, &c. you have heard the text: and if you have any mind to see darkness brought out of light, harken to the interpretation. but good sir (saith this intepreter, one, i may say of twenty thousand) can any rational man think (though you should protest it ten thousand times over) that such anti-parliamentary passages as yours are, should proceed from your love to the parliament? suppose the passages he speaks of were anti-parliaentary (an aspersion i conceive fully atoned in the foregoing discourse) yet is it so highly irrational to conceive they should proceed from love to the parliament, (especially upon ten thousand affidavits made for it) that it must be made matter of a doubtful disputation, whether it be possible for a rational man so to think or conceive? did mr. prynne never hear of a vein of people, who did bona animo malè precaris, wish that which was hurtful to their friends, out of good affection towards them? seneca (i am certain) speaks of such. and god himself is said to have testified things against his people (as the former english translation, and junius out of the original reads the place, gen. 32. 46.) cannot a rational man conceive that these things might proceed from love and good affection in god towards this people, because they were against them? i cannot but think that mr. prynne himself hath been anti-parliamentary, i mean, hath done some things, (if not many) in their natures at least, if not in their fruits and effects, prejudicial to the honour and safety of the parliament, as (by name) in representing their cordial friends (as sometimes his conscience, or something else prevails with him to call them a though for the most part really cordial in their affections, actions to the parliament and church of england (speaking of independents) epist. dedic. circa initium. ) unto them as disaffected unto them, and as acting, and that successively against their jurisdiction more desperately than the worst malignant, royalist, cavalier, on the arch-prelate himself b pag. 107. circa finem. ). doubtless, such a practice as this, is in the nature and tendency of it very disserviceable to the parliament; as making sad (and so indisposing) the hearts of those, whose inclinations otherwise stand ready bent with all cheerfulness, to serve the parliament with all their strength and all their power, as (blessed be god) they are resolved to do; after the example of christ, who continued still to cast out devils, though represented by the pharisees unto the people, as dealing by beelzebub the prince of the devils, in casting them out. compare mat. 9 34. with mat. 12. 22. &c. so again by representing unto them as peaceable, innocent and harmless a generation of men, as the land bears any, yea, persons as deeply and dearly devoted unto, of as high and honourable endeavours to promote the public peace both of church and state, as those that are extremely derogatory and destructive unto both, yea, and great disturbers of our peace and unity c epist. dedic. paulo post initium . yet again when he infuseth such notions and principles into kings, magistrates, highest civil powers, as this, that christ hath delegated his kingly power unto them, &c. d full reply. p. 7. circà initium. . he spreads snares of death in their way, and tempts them to think higher thoughts of themselves than he that is higher than the highest of them will bear. now however in these and several other things of like consideration (which are ready too for instance) i absolutely conceive him to be very whit (yea, and much more) anti-parliamentary, then ever i have been in any passages whatsoever, whether from my tongue or pen; yet do i not think but that i may very lawfully, and without trespassing upon the reputation of my reason, conceive and think, that he did both the one and the other of the things mentioned, out of love to the parliament. secondly, sect. 14. the honey of the foresaid passage, by reason of an ill digestion in his stomach, breeds this choleric argumentation: if this proceeded from such affectionate jealousy over the parliament, i pray what made you so strangely, if not malignantly, jealous over them, as to fear and presume they might dash their foot against that stone, which, &c. good sir, let me seriously entreat you to be more jealous over your pen for the time to come, and see to it, that in repeating and arguing men's words and sayings, it deal more honestly, then to adulterate and embase them, as you do both here and elsewhere in this discourse. do i anywhere say that either i fear, or presume the parliament might dash their foot against the stone spoken of? why then do you represent me so strangely, if not malignantly, jealous over them, as to do both, both fear and presume? i confess, i should be very strangely jealous, or (however) very strangely affected in one kind or other, both to fear and presume in respect of one and the same thing, as you fear not, but presume to say here that i do. you find out i know not how many significations (i believe more than ever any man did before you) of the word presume, p. 109. to salve the reputation of your pen in charging me to have done that presumtuously, which i never did at all, or at most very ignorantly; but is there any one amongst them all, that is able to reconcile presumption and fear, and make them draw together in the same yoke? but this by the way. only this i desire you would candidly account unto me, why you translate my expression, lest possibly they might dash, by fearing and presuming they might dash. i beseech you deal ingenously with yourself and me: is there not far more malignancy in the interpretation, then in the text? or did you not strain the root overhard, to make such an extraction as this out of it? nay, out of the vehemency of your intention to make an unchristian advantage of your brother's words, did you not almost forget the propriety of your own? i conceive i should speak much beneath the line of mr. prynne's reputation for a scholar, if i should express myself thus; i fear and presume that mr. prynne might do that which is very possible for any man to do. an english care any thing well palated, would find no pleasant taste in such words. but let us give mr. prynne the liberty of an interpreter or translator, who is not bound verbum verbo reddere a nec verbum verbo curabis reddere fidus interpres. hor. de art. , sect. 15. and accept of his substitues, presumption and fear; is either a fear, or a presumption (or both) that a parliament might, or may, dash their foot against that stone i speak of, any demonstration or argument at all of so strange a jealousy as he speaks of, and which he is at a stand with himself, whether he should not call malignant? if any of the other apostles had feared or presumed, that peter possibly might fall (as he did) by denying his master, (as they had reason enough to have done, in respect of that human frailty whereof the best men are partakers, and peter himself was with the rest) and had dealt lovingly and faithfully with him to have kept him upright, by caution, counsel, or advice; had this been any argument at all, or so much as a colour of any such jealousy in them, which should have carried in it any touch of malignancy towards him? when paul feared in the behalf of the corinthians, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled eve through his subtlety, so their minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in christ b 2 cor. 11. 3. ; was this so strange a jealousy over them? indeed himself calls it a godly jealousy c ver. 2. : and in such a sense, as godliness is strange d isa. 8. in the world, let mr. prynne vote my jealousy over the parliament, strange; and then he shall be eased of his scruple, whether he should call it malignant, or no. but jacta alea est; and he intends not to make a stand here, but advanceth thus. did the parliament ever give you the least colour or occasion of such uncharitable, sect. 16. unchristian, that i say not detestable, jealousy? could you have harder or more jealous thoughts than these of the very pope or turk himself, or of that great antichrist, who exalts himself above all that is called god? can such jealousies as these issue from any, but from a rancorous or disaffected heart towards the parliament? or did ever such execrable jealousies as these proceed from the heart, tongue, much less the pen of any oxford aulicus, or most venomous malignant to our parliament? the strain of eloquence in these passages, may be thought above the line of mr. prynne's rhetoric; nor can i believe but that he had some supernatural assistance in the raising and composure of them. and therefore whereas others (it's like) will be apt to censure him more for a few such lines as these, then for many others of a softer temper, and more plausible allay; i on the contrary, can better bear with him in these, and be content to pass by and spare him, as our saviour spared peter, when he rebuked satan in his stead a mat. 16. 23. . but did i know that mr. prynne would not accept of this purgation, but when recovered out of that tartarean ecstasy, wherein he spoke this dialect of dragons, would still stand by and own those ebullitions of blood, as the natural and genuine productions and fruit of his pen; i should hardly refrain from taking a solemn vow and protestation upon me in the sight of god, angels, and men, never more to have to do with him in word or deed, at least until he repented, and turned christian. well might the apostle paul pray to be delivered from unreasonable men b 2 thes. 3. 2. : they that neither make use of their reason nor goodness, (or charity) dwell in such a darkness which is inaccessible to all principles both of nature and grace. for the present, though i think it not meet for me so far to disinteress myself of my liberty to comply with such opportunities from heaven, which may possibly and unexpectedly come in my way, as absolutely to abjure all commerce with him by pen; yet this i profess, that i am as near the brow of such a resolution, as ever i can go without falling into it. from henceforth i shall give mr. prynne leave to write storms and tempests, whirlwinds and earthquakes, thundering and lightning, millstones and mountains, (or if his pen knows how to utter itself in any thing more formidable than these) better cheap, then hitherto i have done: i see there is no mercy with him; and therefore i shall not fear him; no, nor in the mind i am in for the present, ever look after him in his writings more, this answer finished. but to his lines (or, whoseever they be). first, sect. 17. doth mr. prynne think that he is heir to that laurel which was long since wreathed for the head of socrates, reputed in his days the grand-matter of wisdom in the world; tanquam umbrae velitant alii; solus sapit iste? other men generally as well learned and scholars by profession, as others, yea, even those in whose affections neither my person nor cause were any ways interessed, gave testimony to my innocency's triumph (and consequently to that passage also so cruelly handled by mr. prynne) as moderately and inoffensively written: only mr. prynne, as if his eyes were given him to condemn all the world besides of blindness, espies bears and tigers, lions and dragons, where other men saw nothing but doves and sheep; discovers fanatic jealousies, rancorousness and disaffection of heart, execrableness of jealousies, oxfordian aulicism, venomousness of malignancy, and i know not how many other strains of most portentous and hideous outrage against the parliament, where no man besides himself either saw or could see, any jot, tittle, letter, syllable, word, or sentence, but what both was and is of the fairest consistency with the honour, dignity, peace and safety of the parliament. but secondly, how irrational and weak is that demand of his; did the parliament ever give you the least colour or occasion of any such uncharitable, unchristian, that i say not detestable jealousy? as if to fear, or think it possible that men might be men, that is, do weakly or unworthily, were an uncharitable, unchristian, detestable, execrable jealousy over them; or, as if there were not ground and reason enough, yea, and more then enough, in the very natures of the best and holiest of men, to judge that they may very possibly miscarry, and that dangerously, unless they should add ex superabundanti, such personal irregularities, as might further presage their future falls, i wonder what epithet or name mr. prynne will find for that jealousy of an ancient father over kings, out of which he uttered this saying: miror si aliquis rex salvahitur; i wonder that any king should ever be saved. if so be such a jealousy over them, which only conceiveth a possibility of their perishing, be uncharitable, unchristian, detestable exeorable; of what censure is that jealousy worthy of, which makes it matter of admiration that any of them should be saved? considering that there hath scarce (if at all) been any council or synod since the apostles days, but which hath miscarried and heterodogmatized, more or less; would it be my uncharitable, unchristian, detestable, execrable jealousy over any synod or council now fitting, to think that they also might possibly miscarry, unless they gave some particular and special occasion so to think and conceive of them? but my adversary hath not yet finished his severe commentaries sect. 19 mr. pryn, p. 108 upon his gentle and harmless text; his pen moves forward thus: had you had any just cause of such a jealousy, yet it had been your duty privately to have informed your friends in parliament with it in a brotherly christian way: but to publish these your brainsick jealousies of them behind their backs in open pulpit, and then to the whole world in print, of purpose to make your auditors, readers, jealous of them, as those who invaded the incommunicable royalties and privileges of heaven, &c.— or to defame or draw an odium or contempt upon them, and prepare the people beforehand to oppose or reject whatsoever church-government they shall establish, &c.— is such a transcendent crime and high affront against the parliament, as you are never able to expiate: and is so far from extenieating, that it aggravates your former offences beyond expression. i answer, first, that howsoever by reason of my years, profession, and tenor of studies, it is (i confess) a shame to me, that i should not be as able to teach mr. prynne his duty, as (it seems) he is to teach me mine; yet glad and willing shall i be to receive instruction, were it from a far meaner hand than mr. prynne's, in any thing that becomes me in a way of duty to do. but, secondly, sect. 20. whereas the tenor of his instruction to me is this, that it had been my duty privately to have informed my friends in parliament with it in a christian brotherly way; i perceive he hath heard of dealing with his friends in a way which well becomes him, as well as it doth me; i mean, that which is christian and brotherly. but it seems, he that teacheth another, doth not always teach himself. for since the mountains were brought forth a psal. 90 2. and settled b prov. 8. 25. , it may very probably be thought, that there was never any son of adam, whose pen made a broader digression from that christian brotherly way he speaks of, than his own. for look as low as the earth is beneath the heavens; so far is mr. prynne's way of dealing with his friends, beneath that which is christian and brotherly. thirdly, sect. 21. whereas he conceives it had been my duty to have informed my friends privately of what i preached and printed publicly in the premises; i conceive it had been his duty to have understood himself better in the point, before he had taken the chair. for first, the greatest part of the things which i either preached or printed in the premises, concerned only or chiefly those to whom i preached, and the generality of men to whom i printed, not the parliament. that it is a terrible and most dreadful thing for men to be found fighters against god, that it is better and more righteous to obey god than men; that men in great places, men of great parts, learning, and grace, may possibly err, and de facto have erred from time to time, with some few particulars more of like consideration (which are the substance of what was either preached or printed by me in the premises) are doctrines of equal (if not of superior) concernment to the generality of the people, with the parliament. as for that passage in my innocency's triumph, wherein i mention my tender and affectionate jealousy over the parliament, &c. (the passage so tentered, tortured and tormented by the evil spirit which so much haunts mr. prynne's pen) it was occasioned (indeed necessitated) by his own most unreasonable, bloody, and importune suggestions, clamours and instigations of authority against me: in regard of which i had no other course but to give a fair and real account out of what principle and motive (in reference to the parliament) i spoke such and such things, which were most unchristianly handled and misused by his pen. now then to whisper those things in the ears only of a few, the knowledge whereof concerns so many thousands, is not the duty, but an high prevarication of the duty of a minister of jesus christ. secondly, neither doth he know whether the doctrines so much questioned and quarrelled by him, did, or do so particularly concern my friends in parliament (by my friends, i suppose he means my acquaintance: for otherwise i trust the whole number of that honourable assembly are my friends; at least i know no cause but why they should) as many other members of this assembly. if so, his ignorance in such a circumstance as this, plainly proves that he hath here prophesied above the analogy or proportion of his faith a rom. 12. ; and consequently, (even in his own notion of the word b pag. 109. paulò ante medium. ) hath done it presumptuously. yea, thirdly, how doth he know but that i did prevent the admonition or reproof of his pen, by doing the very duty, for the neglect whereof i am so deeply censured by him. i presume that my acquaintance in the parliament have not communicated unto him all things that have passed between me and them; therefore his ignorance in this particular also, proves him (according to the responsal of his own oracle, even now intimated) to have been somewhat presumptuous in his charge of neglect of duty in me. fourthly, and lastly, there being nothing in the particulars excepted against, either preached or printed by me, which in the judgement of any indifferent or christian-spirited man, is of any hard or disparaging reflection either upon any particular person in the honourable assembly of parliament, or upon this assembly itself, there could be nothing in the publishing of them, whether by preaching or printing, any ways repugnant to any duty lying upon me. that which follows in the late transcribed passage, sect. 22. as that i publish my brainsick jealousies and suspicions against them behind their backs, of purpose to make my auditors, readers jealous of them, as men who invaded, &c. or to defame or draw an odium or contempt upon them, to prepare the people beforehand to oppose or reject, whatsoever, &c. these things (i say) with many others of like calculation, both in this and many other of his writings, are but the reasonless presumptions of his exasperated, transported, unchristianized spirit, overheat (it may be) with his nocturnal lucubrations, and in part occasioned by the fuliginous vapours breathing still upon him from his lamp; and in this regard, i judge them unworthy to have daylight bestowed upon them for their refutation. he talks of my brainsick jealousies and suspicions; but these are more than brainsick, even brain-dead calumniations and slanders; ten degrees (to speak in his own language) more unchristian, uncharitable, detestable, execrable, than any (even the worst of) jealousies or suspicions whatsoever. if he would but authorise me to reason after the rate of his logic in raising conclusions from his premises, i could prove (according to the tenor of such authority) that mr. prynne hath written against the congregational way, hath represented those that walk in it as extremely derogatory and destructive both unto the parliament and church of englend a epist. dedic. non longè ab mitio. , as great disturbers of our public peace and unity b ibidem. ; hath slandered them in their spirits, principles, practices, over and over c epist. to the reader, all most throughout, and elsewhere in several other of his writings, as his full reply, &c. ; hath presumptuously attempted to infuse such dangerous principles as these into kings, magistrates, and highest civil powers, that they are christ's substitutes, vicars, in point of government (church-government he speaks of a full reply pag. 7. ) that christ hath delegated his kingly power unto them b ibidem. , that it may pass as tolerable, that christ is king alone over his churches in matters of faith, c full reply p. 6. propè finem. &c. with many others of like undue insinuation; i could prove (i say) by the commission aforesaid, that mr. prynne hath done all these things on purpose to despite the spirit of god, to defame the gospel, to make the ways of godliness and religion hateful unto the world, to increase divisions, to multiply distractions, to bring a snare and evil day upon the parliament, to expose the whole kingdom to utter ruin and destruction. yea, the truth is, that there is a far more rational connexion between the premises last mentioned from mr. prynn's pen, and such collections and conclusions as these; then there is between those premises of mine transcribed by him, and the inferences which he extracts and deduceth from them. a man might think that the gentleman had by this time laid out himself to a sufficient proportion, in depraving both the expressions and intentions of him, that never (to his best knowledge) did him the least wrong, nor ever administered the least occasion of provocation;— sed audi facinus majoris abollae. your last clause (saith he, yet further, p. 108.) and if continued, &c. intimates and speaks, aloud without any straining that the parliament for the present are guilty of dashing their foot against christ the rock: of claiming the most sacred incommunicable royalties and privileges of heaven, and making themselves equal with god: and that if they persevere in the course they have begun (to reform our church, &c.) it is such an high provocation against the most high, as will kindle a fire in the breast of him whose name is jehovah; he should have said jealous, (but that his pen hath contracted an ill habit of stumbling) which will consume and devour, &c. could all the malignant and prelatical party in england lay a greater, wickeder, or more unjust scandal in our parliament then this, or more defame them then by such a false report? enough to fire the whole kingdom against them, as well as god's wrath, &c. as it followeth in his most unjust and ignoble strain of calumny. but for answer, 1. doth a wicked or unjust scandal use to fire god's wrath against those upon whom it is cast, and who are the sufferers. though the sin committed be enough to kindle a fire in the breast of him whose name is jealous, against those, whosoever they be, that lie under the guilt of such a commission; yet is there not the least colour to imagine, that the false or scandalous imputation of it unto any, should have the like operation, in respect of those that are so scandalised. he tells me of my being a mere divine, p. 109. and a man altogether ignorant in the ancient rights and privileges of our parliament, (with how little pertinency or advantage to his cause, shall be taken into consideration in due place.) and by such passages as this, it seems he is every whit as mere a lawyer as i a divine (and consequently of no such super-transcendent abilities neither, to discern and judge of the rights and privileges of parliament, as will be manifested in due time.) for he that knows not, that god is no ways offended with men for having wicked & unjust scandals cast upon them, surely had need to be taught what are the first principles of the oracles of god a heb. 5. 12. . and 2. whereas in the beginning of the last transcribed passage, he speaks thus, your last clause, and if continued, &c. intimates and speaks loud without any straining, that, &c. doth he not seem to rejoice, as if now he had met with a full feast, and had only scrambled for all he had gotten and satisfied his hunger with till now? and doth he not without any straining, seem to imply, that all my former clauses without straining, would have spoke none of those things, which now by his racks, screws, and engines, he hath made them to speak? so that here we have confitentem rerum: oh that we had but the participle as well matched as the adjective, that is (by interpretation) emendantem confitentem, and then let both our books to the fire together, to purge out the dross of them b what ever censure you deserve, i fear your book demerits the fire to purge out this dross. p. 109. . but 3. the grand unhappiness of the man is, that what i speak only in thesi, or in the general throughout the whole period or passage, wherein this clause, and if contemned, &c. stands, he here represents upon the stage of his passion, as if it had been spoken in hypothesi, with particular and precise application to the parliament. the whole period, though it be somewhat long, yet that the reader may not be denied any part of his due in point of satisfaction, i shall transcribe, ab ovo usque ad mala, as it begins at the bottom of page 2. of my innocency's triumph. i confess i am in the habitual and standing frame of my heart and spirit, tender and jealous over all the world, and much more over those who are dear unto me, but most of all over those who being dear unto me, are likewise more exposed than others unto the tentation and danger of the sin; extremely jealous and tender (i say) i am over such, lest they should touch with any title, or claim the most sacred and incommunicable royalties and privileges of heaven, and so count it no robbery to make themselves equal to god; knowing most assuredly, that this is a high provocation in the eyes of the most high, and if continued in, will kindle a fire in the breast of him whose name is jealous, and will consume and devour. i confess i spoke in some passages before this, of the parliament by name; nor do i deny all relation between this and the former: but all the relation that can reasonably be imagined between the one and the other, will not amount so much as to a colourable justification of this high-handed and full-mouthed charge, that the latter speaks aloud without any straining, that the parliament is guilty of dashing, &c. of claiming, &c. and that if, &c. these are every whit as pure and clean strains of that disposition which acted in the former part of this exposition, as any of those other which have played before us already. and 4. suppose the period had been perfectly hypothetical, and the contents of it applied to the parliament by name, yet it is far from speaking the dialect that mr. prynne would fain force into the mouth of it. he that shall represent the great evil or danger of a sin, as suppose of oppression, drunkenness, adultery, or the like, unto a man, in these or the like terms, know most assuredly, that such a sin is a most high provocation in the eyes of the most high: and then should add, and if continued in, will kindle a fire in the breast of him whose name is jealous, &c. doth no ways suppose, that the person to whom such an address or representation is made, is under the present actual guilt of the perpetration of such a sin; but only demonstrates the dangerous and deadly consequence of it unto him, in case he shall be entangled with the guilt, and continue in the perpetration of it without repentance. therefore mr. prynne's lucubration and collection, that this clause, and if continued, &c. speaks aloud without any straining, any such parliamentary guilt as he deciphers with his pen, is nocturnal, neither is there so much as a beam of the light of truth in it. 5. whereas he chargeth that innocently-offending clause of mine, and if continued, &c. both to intimate and speak aloud, and that without any straining, that high misdemeanour lately mentioned, (little less than capital to him that shall avouch it) i cannot conceive any regular consistence in the charge. for though one and the same man, who hath a liberty and power both to alter his tone and voice, and tenor of expression, may one while only intimate, i. whisper, or express a thing sparingly: and otherwhile, speak it out aloud, with a full and strong voice, (though hardly thus without any straining at all) yet how one and the same clause in writing, which hath neither principle nor shadow of any variation or change of expression in it, but is still uniform and standing both in the matter which, and in the manner wherein, it speaketh, should both intimate (or whisper) and yet speak aloud too, one and the same thing, is a saying divided in itself, and which my understanding knoweth not how to make to stand. but thus, god many times makes both tongues and pens which imagine evil against others, to f●ll upon themselves a psal. 64. 8. . 6. and lastly, whereas he pretends the forementioned clause, and if continued, &c. guilty of speaking aloud and without any straining, the prenamed enormity, the truth is, that this charge speaks aloud and without any straining, that mr. prynne loves all devouring words b psal. 52. 4. , whether they be words of soberness and truth c act. , or of another inspiration. is it not very strange, and a miracles fellow (at least) if not a miracle, that mr. prynne's hearing should be so predominant in the world, that he alone should hear a loud s●eaking, where all the world besides could not hear the least muttering or whisper? but when men have brick to make, and want straw, they must be content to gather stubble in stead of it d exod. 5. 12. . the builders of babel were fain to make use of slime in stead of mortar e gen. 11. 4. . {non-roman} {non-roman} {non-roman} {non-roman} {non-roman}, were a generation of men in plato's days, & the line (it seems) is not yet extinct. many other passages there are in this triumphing discourse, wherein the author doth miserable carnifice other words and passages of mine; but caesar's image and superscription may be seen in a penny f mat. 22. 19, 20. , as well as in a pound. but because the great guerdon and crown for which mr. prynne runs in this and other his lucubrations against me, is to transform me into a man of a ranc●●ous and disaffected heart against parliaments g pag. 108. , and to couple me with the worst malignants, royalists, cavaliers, yea with the arch-prelate himself a pag. 107. ; before i leave the point in hand, i shall briefly specify, both what, in what degree i have done, and continue yet doing from opportunity to opportunity, to the utmost of my power, for the parliament: and withal solemnly profess in the sight of god and men, that if either mr. prynne, or any other man, can direct or say unto me, how, or what, when, or wherein i may yet do more for them, or show and express more love or affectionateness unto them, than i have already done, and still do (upon occasion) daily; provided only that i may see and understand, that what shall be required of me in this kind, doth really and indeed, not in show and pretence only, tend to the benefit, honour and safety of the parliament; i am ready and willing, and do by these presents oblige and bind myself, testibus coelo & terrâ, to perform. i have once b see my anticavalierism. and again c see my bonc for a bishop. in print, with the utmost engagement of my weak abilities in that kind, asserted the parliamentary cause against the oxfordian; yea (as far as i yet understand) i was the first amongst all my brethren who serve at the altar, that rose up in this kind, for the parliament: with what exposal of myself to danger, on the one hand, and with what success and advantage to the cause undertaken by me on the other, many there are that know, and (i make no question) are ready upon occasion to declare and testify. how frequently, yea for many months together, when the parliamentary occasions were most urging and pressing, (almost) uninterruptedly, and with what fervency and contestation of spirit, i laboured by preaching to advance the service; yea with what alacrity and importunity, i continually solicited and promoted all parliamentary occasions, suits, and motions recommended by ordinance or otherwise; was openly testified by a member of that honourable committee before which i was called, pending the complaint against me there. how many young men and others, as faithful as useful in the army as any others of their rank and employment whatsoever, what by preaching, what by conference and persuasion, were through the blessing of god, armed with courage and resolution by me for the wars, there are both in the city, and in the army, more than a few that can inform. nor is it unknown to thousands, with what contention and striving of spirit, with what earnestness of prayer and supplication i have without ceasing in my public prayers, commended the parliament with all their proceedings and affairs unto god; nor have my later intercessions for them, either in strength of affection, or in any other desirable respect whatsoever, given place unto my former. without any disparagement to mr. prynne's orisons a epist. dedic. in sine. be it spoken, i may conjecture i have been both as frequent, and desired to be as fervent in commending that honourable assembly with all their pious endeavours to the divine benediction, as himself. as touching pecuniary expressions of myself to and for the parliament, my affections may (perhaps) suffer loss and disadvantage in the thoughts of some, who measure by the arithmetical, in stead of the geometrical proportion (by which our saviour measured the poor widow's gift, cast into the treasury b mar. 12. 43. , and every man's expressions of himself in this kind should be measured) yet i make no question but i can produce speaking papers, (yea and men too, if need be) that will abundantly testify, that i have not been behind many of those who are before me for matter of estate, and who are looked upon too as men sound-hearted to the parliament. there hath no proposition for advance of moneys, been at any time recommended by the parliament unto the city, that i know of, but hath been entertained by me with a full proportion of my estate. and look what i have been, and have appeared to be in public, and in view of many; the same have i been also in all my more private intercourses and colloques with men; strengthening the hands of some which began to be feeble and to hang down, losing the bands, resolving the doubts of others, so setting them at liberty to serve the parliament, who before were bound up, and could do nothing. nor have i quitted myself at this rate in the parliamentary service, in or about the city only: but have been as diligent and faithful an agent for them in the country also where i have become, and that not without some considerable success. i am a fool (i confess) to speak all this of myself: but mr. prynne hath compelled c 2 cor. 12. 11. me. if i be yet defective and wanting in any thing that is my duty to do for the parliament, if there be any other service or labour of love wherein i may yet further express myself to, and for them; all the powers of my soul stand ready bent and pressed within me to embrace the opportunity, and to fall on upon the work. if for all this i must be numbered amongst men of rancorous and disaffected hearts against the parliament, i shall congratulate the felicity of those that are better thought of; and yet shall think mine own the more princely portion a reglum est malè audire, cum bene feceris. . mala opinio benè parta delectat. a good conscience is never at the full of her sweetness, light, and glory, but when uprightness suffers and is eclipsed: the antiperistasis of outward sufferings, intends the inward vigour and strength of that principle, out of which a good conscience acteth, when she comforteth. if the affections of men to the parliament, must be compelled to hold up their hand and be tried at mr. prynne's bar, and the law ruling there be this, that whosoever will not adore mr. prynne's notion of an ecclesiastical jurisdiction in the civil magistrate, and submit the clear and lightsome decisions (at least in the eye of their judgement & conscience) of the oracles of god to the spirit that spoke in old stories, statutes and records in the darkest times of popery, though they have given never so satisfactory and abundant an account of the goodness of their affection in this kind otherwise, must be condemned and cast as venomous malignants and underminers of the undoubted privileges of parliaments, &c. i confess, that my affection will not abide the trial of this fire. nevertheless, this i solemnly promise and profess, that if mr. prynne or any other, shall reasonably demonstrate unto me truth in either of these positions; either 1. in this, that any thing is to be esteemed a privilege, which is not for the benefit, good, or safety of those that shall enjoy it; or 2. in this, that such an ecclesiastical jurisdiction or power, as mr. prynne in all or most of his discourses upon this subject portraitures and sets out, tends in the nature and constitution of it, to the benefit, safety or good of the parliament; i shall soon be his convert, and cause my present apprehensions in the point to bow down at the feet of his. this for the second head propounded. for the third and last, the insufficiency, or (to speak the dialect of his own pen) the impotency, of those few exceptions which he makes against some few particulars in my innocency's triumph, such as he conceives (it seems) to be more soft and tractable under his exceptious pen. first, to salve a sore that will never be perfectly healed, to justify (i mean) his indictment against me, that i did not only or simply undermine the undoubted privileges of parliament by the very roots, (this being not a charge, as it seems, worthy the indignation or discontent of mr. prynne's pen) but that i perpetrated this high misdemeanour presumptuously; he informs us as matter of high concernment to his cause and honour, that grammarians, lawyers, and divines inform us, that the word, presumptuous, comes from the verb, praesumo: which verb he presumes will accommodate him with one or other of those various significations, which with great care and circumspection that none be wanting, he there musters and enumerates. and because the honour and validity of this his purgation rests altogether upon such significations or acceptions of his verb, as are most men's mysteries; therefore in his margin he calls in thomas aquinas, calepine, with some others, for his compurgators. but good sir; did you either expect or intend, that either the parliament or your other readers, should be so above measure tender either of your reputation or of mine, as that meeting with the word presumptuously in your indictment against me, they would go and search calepine, thomas aquinas, holy-oak, mediavilla, and i know not how many more, to inform themselves in how many senses or significations the word might be taken, lest otherwise they should take you tardy with an unjust crimination, or me with a foul crime? what you may conceive them likely to do in this kind out of tenderness of respect to your reputation, i will not prejudge: but to deal plainly with you, i expect no such quarter from any of your readers, for the preservation of mine. they that have a mind to believe you in that point of your charge, (yea and indeed any other, considering other expressions of yours of the like importance) are like to take the word presumptuously, according to the vulgar and most familiar signification of it in common parlance, and that which is next at hand: in which signification, it doth nothing less than import all that variety you speak of, but a plain wilful (as your word elsewhere is) perpetration of an evil; and as for the three last significations which you fasten upon it, as that it signifies, against authority, or laws, or upon hopes of impunity; though i have not the authors by me upon whom you father the propriety of these significations, to examine the truth of what in this you affirm; yet am i very strong of faith, that men of learning and judgement (as most of the authors you cite were) never assigned any of these three senses or importances, as the proper and legitimate acceptions or significations of the word. when john the baptist told herod (a man in great authority) to his face, that it was not lawful for him to have herodias his brother philip's wife a mat. 14. 4. , was this done presumptuously, especially in the proper signification of the word? again, when shadrach, meshach and abednego refused to submit to that decree or law which nabuchadnezzar and his nobles had made, which commanded all to fall down and worship the golden image which the king had set up b dan. 3. 18. ; and so when daniel trangress'd that law or statute which darius and his nobles had decreed and established according to the law of the medes and persians, which altereth not c dan. 6. 8. 10. , by kneeling upon his knees three times a day, praying unto, and praising god, with his chamber-window open towards jerusalem; did either of these sin, or do any thing (under the interpretation aforesaid) presumptuously? mr. prynne himself (i presume) dedicated these his lucubrations to the parliament, upon hopes, yea upon more than hopes of impunity, upon hopes of grace and acceptation: hath he therefore done presumptuously? i am content in this sense to own the word presumptuously, in my prementioned charge; and confess that i did that, which he (calling it quite out of its name) calls an undermining of the undoubted privileges of parliament, &c. presumptuously. i. i did upon hopes, yea and somewhat more than upon hopes of impunity, upon hopes of acceptation both with god and men. and if mr. prynne would have pleased but to have declared in his margin or otherwise, that in the aforesaid indictment he meant the word, presumptuously, in this sense, and no other; he had saved me a double, and himself a single labour, (if not a double also) for i should not have lift up so much as a word of exception against it. but let us see a little, how like a man he quits himself in vindicating the truth and equity of his so-dearly-beloved term, presumptuously, as it stands, or lies, (which you will) in the controverted indictment. his first signification of the verb praesumo, is to forestall; and to prove that in this sense of the word, i committed the capital crime objected presumptuously, he reasons, or rather talks, thus. first you preached and printed those passages of purpose to forestall the parliaments and assemblies pious resolutions, &c. but mr. prynne, there is a rule in the civil law (and because there is so much reason in it, i conceive your common law complyes with it) which sounds thus; non esse, & non appaerere, aequiparantur in jure. how will you do for witness, or evidences competent in law, to make it appear that i printed and preached the passages you speak of, for such a purpose as you pretend? can you find the present thoughts or purposes of all particular men in this age, in the ancient records which bear date, from the darkest times of popery? or hath the omniscient anointed your eyes with any such eyesalve, which makes you able to see into the hearts and reins and spirits of men? or have i acknowledged either in writing or otherwise, any such intent or purpose as you speak of, in those passages? or is it beyond the upper region of possibilities, that i should have any other purpose in them, than what you affirm? when you print, that i printed the passages you mention of purpose to forestall the pious resolutions of the parliament; do you print this of purpose to forestall the pious inclinations or resolutions of the parliament, not to make more offenders by punishment, then were made such before by delinquency? or when you printed, that christ hath delegated his kingly office unto kings, magistrates, and highest civil powers a full reply pag. 7. circa initium. , did you print it of purpose to make them think that they had as much power and authority to make laws for his churches, as christ himself hath? such affirmations and right-down conclusions as these, are worse than the most uncharitable, unchristian, detestable, execrable, groundless, fanatic jealousies b pag. 108. . the second signification of the auxiliary verb, praesumo, is (as mr. prynne from his authors, or otherwise, informs us) to conceive beforehand: and to prove that in this sense i trespassed the trespass of his complaint, presumptuously, he advanceth with this demonstration. 2. to establish and support that independent way which you had beforehand without any lawful warrant conceived, ere the parliament had made choice of, or settled any church-government for them, &c. but good sir, hath no man a lawful warrant to consider, inquire after, (and consequently, to conceive) what christ hath established in point of church-government, until the parliament hath made choice of, or settled such a government? every man hath warrant enough, yea and that which is more than a warrant, an engagement by way of duty lying upon him; especially divines (as you call them) whose particular calling and profession it is to search the scriptures, and to discover the mind of christ there, to conceive beforehand, if they be able, what tenor or form of church-government is most agreeable to the mind of christ; and not to suspend their studies, inquiries, conceptions in that kind, until men have framed their conceptions or apprehensions for them. the parliament had not made choice of, nor settled any church-government for mr. edwards, when he composed and printed his antapology? did he therefore presumptuously, to conceive it beforehand, and so peremptorily conclude for it as he hath done? whether yet they have made choice of any, or no, i cannot say; i have no demonstrative grounds to think they have: but certain i am that they as yet have settled none, and so are still at liberty to choose another, in case they have chosen any. hath not mr. prynne then done presumptuously, to conceive a government beforehand, and to print for it, the parliament as yet having chosen none, or however, settled none? if mr. prynne being a lawyer, had a lawful warrant to, conceive a church-government beforehand, as he hath done, church-matters being eccentrical to his profession; much more hath he that is a divine, and nevertheless because he is a mere one. neither can the five apolog. be said to have done this first, because they rather show their own practice and desire liberty therein, then peremptorily, (as some others) prescribe to others under the notion of schismatics and troublers of the public peace, if they be not of their minds in all things, about what they practise and profess, as (in their judgements) most agreeable to the truth. a third signification of the verb we wot of, is according to mr. prynne's lexicography, to usurp or take that upon a man which belongs not to him. and to prove that in this sense also i am a son of presumption in the transgression voted by mr. prynne's pen, upon me, he riseth up higher than yet in this insulting strain. it was no less than high presumption in you, being a mere divine, and a man altogether ignorant of, or unskilful in the ancient rights and privileges of our parliament (as your writings demonstrate, and yourself intimate, p. 5.) to undertake and judge of them so peremptorily— when as if you had known any thing concerning them, you might have learned this among other things, that divines are no competent judges of parliaments privileges: that the privileges, rights and cujiomes of our parliaments, are only to be judged and determined by the parliament itself, not in or by any other inferior court, &c. in this passage there are some things true, and some things false; and both the the one and the other make aloud and without straining, against the author, and neither of them against me at all. for, 1. if i be a man altogether ignorant if the ancient rights and privileges of parliament, how come i to be charged, as a wilful underminer or violator of them a full reply in the very last clause. ? ignorance though it be good for little, but to cause men to stumble and do amiss; yet it is (for the most part) a preserver of men from offending wilfully, how ever itself may be a wilful offence. those things (saith aristotle) appear to be involuntary, b {non-roman} {non-roman} {non-roman} {non-roman} {non-roman}. arist. ethic. ad nichom. l. 3. c. 1. or unwillingly done, which are done either by external compulsion, or out of ignorance. if i judge mr. prynne ignorant of that government which the scriptures hold forth, i cannot reasonably judge him a wilful opposer of it. 2. if the privileges, rights and customs of our parliaments, be only to be judged and determined by the parliament itself, and not in or by any other inferior court, how comes mr. prynne by his authority or commission to judge and determine, that i have wilfully violated, presumptuously undermined the undoubted privileges of parliament, by the very roots? surely he hath not the power which an inferior court of judicature hath, much less is he the parliament itself: and yet he undertakes to judge and determine, & that positively and negatively, (which i do not) not only the privileges themselves of parliament, but the very roots also of these privileges. if according to his own assertion, he hath no power or authority to judge or determine of the privileges we speak of, why doth he judge and censure me as a presumptuous underminer and violator of these privileges? can any man reasonably pass a sentence against another as a delinquent in such and such cases, when as the cases themselves are not of his cognizance, nor lawful for him to judge of? 3. if the privileges and rights of our parliament be only to be judged by the parliament itself, upon what christian or indeed reasonable foundation, shall we a vouch the taking of the late national vow and covenant, wherein with our hands lifted up to the most high god (among other things) we swear, that we would sincerely, really, and constantly, in our several vocations, endeavour with our estates, and lives, mutually to preserve the rights and privileges of parliament, &c. did we swear in this most tremend and solemn manner, to preserve those things, not only that we know not what they are, but which it is not lawful for us to inquire after, at least, not to judge and say what they are after our most diligent and faithful enquiry after them? if before the taking of this covenant, i had conceived, that whatsoever mr. prynne should please to avouch for privilege of parliament, i should have stood bound by the covenant taken, to maintain with my estate and life, for such; i should rather have exposed both to the mercy and equity of the parliament by refusing it, then both these and myself besides, to the displeasure of god, by such an unchristian, yea unreasonable and unmanlike action. besides, parliament privileges are either fundamental, general, and common rights of all national bodies, or else peculiar to this state; and so also they are either such as are by their constant practice commonly declared, or else more reserved for occasional emergencies. the two former are obvious to judge of; and the latter also apprehensible upon their discovery of them, especially with their grounds, else how could they have been assisted in the defence of them all this time? 4. whereas he vilifies, or insults over me as being a mere divine, i confess i have not much to except against the disparagement; yet i desire leave to speak these three things. 1. that if mr. prynne himself had been a mere divine, he had chosen the better part: and if he yet knew how to tranforme the skill which he hath in the law, into a like proportion of sound divinity, he and the church should gain by it; so great plenty is there of good lawyers, and so few faithful labourers in god's harvest. 2. though i pretend to no great knowledge in any other science, but to that which is the glory of all the rest (divinity i mean) no nor yet to one half of that knowledge in this, which my years and opportunities, had not i been a son of folly and infirmities above many, might well have furnished me with; yet can i not with truth yield myself so merely a divine, as not to understand many principles and maxims of reason, besides those which i have learned from the scriptures; as that every whole is more than any part of it: that no effect can possibly exceed the virtue or efficacy of the total cause thereof: that one part of any contradiction is verifiable of every thing: that the good of many other circumstances being alike, is to be preferred before the like good of one, or of a few: with many others of affinity with these. by the authority and aid of which alone, without the concurrence or assistance of any principle at all, proper to the science of divinity, i know (god assisting) i am able to make good the ground which i have chosen to stand upon in the controversies depending between mr. prynne and me. yea, i should injure mine own ignorance and weakness, and censure them too deep, if i should deny but that i know somewhat in other arts and sciences also. 3. and lastly, if i be a mere divine, i remember i have read some such observation as this for my comfort, that when the stream of endeavours is divided, the waters of knowledge run but shallow in a plurality of channels, {non-roman} {non-roman} {non-roman} {non-roman} {non-roman}. but 5. whereas he lifts up this iron mace on high, and thinks to break all in pieces like a potter's vessel, that i have either said, or ever shall be able to say, to escape the push of his pike, presumptuously, wherewith he makes at me in the pre-recited charge, that divines are no competent judges of parliaments privileges; and that therefore it was no less than presumption, nay then presumption upon presumption, then high presumption for me being a mere divine, and a man altogether ignorant in the ancient rights and privileges of our parliaments, to undertake to determine and judge of them so peremptorily, &c. i answer. 1. if i had been altogether ignorant of the rights and privileges of parliament, i was not so capable of engaging myself by that solemn vow, which is now upon me, for the maintaining of them sincerely, really, constantly, &c. for though a man may indefinitely swear to maintain the just rights of such or such a body, though he know them not all distinctly, yet that he may swear in judgement, it is requisite he be not altogether ignorant of them. so that if mr. prynne's doctrine in this point be true, it is more than time for me to fly from my covenant, as from a serpent, and to abhor myself in dust and ashes before the presence of god, that ever i took it. but blessed be god, my ignorance of the rights and privileges of parliaments, is not such, but that i know many of them: these by name (questionless) are some of them; to be the sovereign tribunal, and supreme judicatory in the kingdom: to have a legislative power in civil affairs in respect of the whole kingdom: to have a power of discharging or repealing all former laws and statutes that are found inconvenient for the state and kingdom: to dispose of the militia of the kingdom, for the safety and best advantage thereof: to impose rates and taxes of money for the necessary occasions of the kingdom; to call even the greatest delinquents in the kingdom to account, and to inflict punishments upon them according to the nature of their crimes: to defend, protect, and encourage, and that with an higher hand than others can do, those that do well, and live peaceably, and are serviceable in their callings and employments to the state. besides many others like unto the stars in the firmament of heaven, which cannot be numbered. 2. whereas mr. prynne to make light of darkness, and to cover the shame of his darling (presumptuously) with honour, thrusts divines out of doors, as no competent judges of parliaments privileges, he must know from a mere divine (if there be any place left in him for an addition in that kind, and intus apparens doth not prohibere alienum, with too strong an hand) that divines in one respect, & that of sovereign consideration, are judges of a better & more regular competency of such things, than lawyers are, (without prejudice to that profession be it spoken) yea & the merer divine (in m. pryn's sense) the more competent judge in this kind, as the mere physician a more competent judge of medicines than others. there is a double judgement or dijudication of parliament privileges: the one positive or affirmative, the other privative or negative. the positive or affirmative judgement we speak of, consists in a faculty or ability of discerning what really and indeed are the privileges of parliament: the judgement which i call negative, consists in the like faculty or ability of discerning, what are not. for this is a most certain and undoubted maxim, that nothing that is sinful, or contrary to the will and word of god, can possibly be a privilege of parliament. the reason whereof is plain: nothing that in the nature and direct tendency of it, is dishonourable or destructive to a creature, can possibly be any privilege thereof. now whatsoever is sinful, and displeasing unto god, is in the nature and direct tendency of it, dishonourable and destructive to the creature, as the whole tenor of the scriptures (almost) yea and the impressions of natural light and conscience in all men, do abundantly confirm. ergo. so than the scriptures or word of god being the standard or supreme rule whereby to judge what is sinful, and consequently destructive to the creature, and what not; evident it is, that they who reasonably may be presumed to have the best knowledge and soundest understanding in these, are the most competent judges (from amongst men) in all cases and questions, about what is sinful, and what not. and whether mere lawyers, or mere divines, may with more reason be presumed to be men of this interest, let either lawyers themselves, or divines, or who ever will, judge. i had not known sin (saith the apostle a rom. 7. 7. ) but by the law: he speaks of the law of god, not of any law of men. and another apostle to like purpose: whosoever committeth sin, transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law b 1 ioh. 3. 4. ; speaking as the other did, only of the law of god. now howsoever mr. prynne's mere divines cannot reasonably be supposed to have spent so much of their time in traversing and reading over the ancient records of parliamentary transactions, as lawyers have, nor consequently to be so able or ready as they, to tell stories in this kind, of what parliaments formerly have done; yet when any case of conscience, or question ariseth, about such and such customs or passages in parliaments, (call them rights, privileges, or what you will) whether they were lawful in point of conscience, and justifiable in the sight of god, or no, the mere lawyer with his books and records, must stand by, as having neither part nor fellowship in this judicature; the mere divine is the only competent judge in the case; yea, and this is confirmed by parliaments themselves, who have decreed that in some courts and cases, clergymen, as some call them, should fit, and was the custom till very lately in london itself, the bishop usually and by right sitting at the sessions of life and death; yea, and in case of life, if the clergyman saith, legit ut clericus, the law saves the man. and if mr. prynne conceives, that all customs or precedents of parliaments will make privileges of parliament, i conceive the present parliament will abhor his conception; many of them being only matter of sorrow, shame and caution, not of privilege or example. so then to deal clearly and unpartially between lawyers and divines, touching their respective abilities and interests for discerning and judging of the customs, rights and privileges (so called) of parliaments; the lawyer's interest and faculty (if he be a master in his profession) as such (i mean as a mere lawyer) is to collect, draw together, and present to view, all, and all manner of parliamentary transactions, passages, statutes, customs, precedents, &c. good and bad, one with another, without distinction, out of their respective records: but the interest and faculty of the divine (if he be a man worthy his profession) is to survey this collection presented unto him, to consider whether there be nothing in them contrary to the will and mind of god declared in his word: (which contrariety dissolves the authority and interest of any statute, custom, precedent, whatsoever) and so to separate the vile from the precious a ierem. 15. 19 , that which hath a consistence with the word of god, from that which opposeth and contradicteth it. the entry series or story of parliamentary passages, is like the polypus head, wherein there are observed to be {non-roman} {non-roman} {non-roman} {non-roman} {non-roman}, many good things, and many bad; the statutes of moses, and the statutes of omri, the manner of the house of david, and the manner of the house of ahab, are intermixed and wrapped up together there. now alas, with the mere lawyer (i speak of him, as such, and not as christian or godly) all is fish that comes to net, all this congregation is holy, even every one of them b numb. 16. 3. ; every statute without exception, if unrepeal'd on earth, though nullified in heaven before it was made, is still valid, and good in law; every custom, without difference, an undoubted privilege of parliament: every passage a sufficient precedent for after-imitation, the statutes of omri as good for his turn, and in his eye, as the statutes of moses: the manner of the house of ahab, as laudable as the manner of the house of david, or of the house of god himself: as is the good, so is the bad, (to him) the statute that curseth, as that which blesseth a land. all this is evident from that voluminous coacervation of old matters, passages, precedents, &c. by mr. prynne himself in the former part of this discourse, many of them (as himself intimates c pag. 106. l. 9 10. ) fetched out of the darkest times of popery, and highest ruff of pope, of prelates: and yet thinks that these are enough to evict and convince me and all the world besides, that i have not only violated, but denied, oppugned the privileges of parliament in ecclesiastical affairs d pag. 110. in fine. . in the case last presented, except the divine shall come with his fire from heaven, to separate and purge the tin from the silver, and the dross from the gold, and be as the mouth of the lord to take away the vile from the precious a jer. 15. 9 , that enmity unto god, and that unrighteousness which cleaveth, and is like to cleave (notwithstanding all that the mere lawyer is able to do by way of relief) unto many the laws and statutes of a state or kingdom, is like to be first an heavy scourge, and rods of scorpions, for the punishment of the state; and in fine, the utter ruin and destruction of it. {non-roman} {non-roman} {non-roman} {non-roman} {non-roman} (saith the apostle b rom. 8. 6. ) i. the wisdom of the flesh is death: the reason whereof he gives in the next verse, which is this, because the wisdom of the flesh is enmity against god. so that wheresoever there is any enmity against god, especially if it utters itself in any the consultations, acts, or results of the wisdom of the flesh, it disposeth the subject wherein it is sound, whether it be person, family, state, or kingdom, unto death. and whether this enmity against god which we speak of, sound in some of our laws & statutes yet unrepeal'd (if not in more than is generally observed and known) hath not made god an enemy unto us, and strengthened the arm of his displeasure and indignation against us, i leave to divines of sound judgement and conscience, to consider: yea and to such lawyers who have sanctified their profession with the sound knowledge of the word of god and prayer. by what hath been argued in this last passage, evident it is, that the skill, faculty, and interest of the divine, (yea of the mere divine) to discern and judge of the customs, rights, privileges of parliament, is far more useful and necessary, then that of the mere lawyer. the reason is plain; because there is no manner of doubt or question to be made, but that whatsoever is not sinful & prohibited by the word of god for them to do, is an undoubted privilege of parliament, without the authority or contribution of former passages or records: and on the contrary, whatsoever is sinful and displeasing unto god, can never make privilege, as hath been already argued and proved. now than the faculty or skill of the lawyer, as such, excending itself only to the conquisition and mustering together former transactions, passages and records of parliament, or at most to assist in the literal explanation or interpretation of them; but matter of sin, and what is lawful by the law of god, belonging properly to the cogniance of the divine, it is as evident as evidence itself in her highest exaltation can make is, that divines are more useful, necessary, yea and competent judges (in the saense declared) of parliamentary privileges, than lawyers are: notwithstanding to the last recited passage i answer 3. and lastly; that whereas my adversary chargeth me, to have determined and judged of the ancient rights and privileges of our parliaments so peremptorily, &c. that this charge is like all or most of the rest, undue untrue; i do not meddle with any ancient right or privilege of parliament; i only argue and work upon the principles of mine own profession, the scriptures and word of god: if these in their natural and proper inclination, ducture, and tendency, lead me to any such position or conclusion, which enterfeers with something which mr. prynne will needs call an ancient right or privilege of parliament, it is merely accidental, and which i cannot with my allegiance to heaven, nor otherwise then at the utmost peril of my soul, no nor without a sinful prevarication with that duty which i owe to the state i live in, decline. and therefore whereas the 4th signification which the gentleman finds of the verb praesumo (to salve the miscarriage of his pen, in the word, presumptuously) is to do a thing before a man be lawfully called to it, and hereupon tells me that i had no lawful calling or warrant from god's word or our laws to handle the jurisdictions and rights of parliament in my pulpit, &c. and concludes against me without bail or mainprize, that in this i was presumptuous by the scriptures own definition, 2 pet. 2. 10. i answer, 1. that the apostle peter in the place cited, gives no definition at all, of the word, presumptuous, but only speaks of a wicked generation of men, who walk after the flesh in the lust of uncleanness, and despise government, presumptuous, self-willed, and they are not afraid to speak evil of dignities. can a man gather any definition of presumption, or of a presumptuous man, from hence? when the apostle paul confesseth himself to have been a blasphemer, persecutor a 1 tim. 1. 13. , &c. doth he give any definition of either? i had rather mr. prynne should call me a presumptuous man a thousand times over, then that he should be able once to prove it out of any definition of st peter. the scriptures which mr. prynne still citeth, are acknowledged to be very good; but he employeth them against their wills; and so their goodness and his purpose, do not greet or kiss each other. but 2. whereas he tells me i had no warrant from god's word, or our laws to handle the jurisdictions or rights of parliament in my pulpit, &c. i first demand what warrant from god's word or our laws hath he, thus to calumniate a minister of the gospel, only for his faithfulness to god and men; to wring, wrest, and wire-draw his words and sayings, as he hath done these ten times (at least) in this and his other writings? i shall have my warrant, and that authentic enough, to show for what i have done, when his will be to seek for what he hath done, and (that which is worse) will nowhere be found. as for his charge, that i handle the jurisdictions and rights of parliament in my pulpit, &c. it is but a dead corpse of an accusation, without any life or soul of truth in it at all; and may well be reputed free of the company of his other not more foul than false criminations. i never handled any such theme or subject in my pulpit as he talks of, except it were in pleading the justness of their cause in the present wars, against the determinations of the oxford schools. i trust mr. prynne will forgive me this offence. but 3. if by handling the rights and jurisdictions of parliaments, he means those passages wherein i argued against the lawfulness of submitting unto any government from men, except it be agreeable also to the word of god, and mind of christ; or against any lawfulness of power in any civil magistrate or magistracy whatsoever, to make any such laws or statutes in matters of religion, and which concern the worship of god, whereunto the servants of god shall stand bound under mulcts and penalties to submit, whether they can with a good conscience submit unto them, or no; if this be the tenor of my charge, i answer, that i have warrant both from the law of god, and from the laws of the land also, as far as i understand them, (and i hope i understand them sufficiently in this) to do whatsoever i have herein done. the warrant of a law, (whether we speak of the law of god, or of the law of men) for an action, doth not stand only in a positive or express injunction, or declaration in the law, that such or such an action, either must, or may be done: but also in the total silence of the law, (directly and by evident consequence) as touching any restraint or prohibition of the action. it is true, the total silence of human laws concerning many actions, doth not simply and absolutely warrant them for lawful or good, (though this be true concerning the divine law) but it warrants them sufficiently against any crime imputable, against any censure or punishment infligible by the authority of such laws. where no law is (saith the apostle a rom. 4. 15 ) there is no transgression. so then, if amongst all the laws and statutes of the land, there be no one law or statute to be found, which prohibiteth or restraineth a minister of the gospel from declaring and making known the whole counsel of god b act. 20. 27. unto men, (of which wretched import i know none, yea i am securely confident that there is none) then have i warrant sufficient, in respect of our laws, both to preach and print whatsoever i have done either in the one or in the other, in the passages aforesaid: because in them i have neither preached nor printed any thing, but what is part of the counsel of god, as i have abundantly manifested & made good, in several tracts, especially in that which was last published c innocency and truth triumphing together. , against all opposition and counter-reasonings whatsoever. as for the word of god, i have not only a warrant from thence, to do all that i did in the premises, but (that which is more than a warrant, in the sense specified) precept upon precept, injunction upon injunction, command upon command: yea i stand here most deeply and dreadfully charged, as i will answer it at the great and terrible day, when the lord jesus christ shall be revealed from heaven, with his mighty angels, in flaming fire, taking vengeance on them that know not god, and that obey not the gospel of our lord jesus christ d 2 thes. 1. 7, 8. , to do that which i did in the passages excepted against. i charge thee therefore (saith the apostle to timothy, a minister of the gospel) before god and the lord jesus christ, who shall judge the quick and dead at his appearing and his kingdom: preach the word: be instant, in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all long-suffering and doctrine. for e 2 tim. 4. 1, 2. , &c. peruse the other scriptures presented unto you in the margin f ezek. 3. 10, 11. 18, 19, 20. jer. 1. 17. esa. 58. 1. mat. 10. 27, 28 act. 4. 19, 20. & 20. 24, 25, 26, 27. rom. 12. 6. 1 pet. 4. 10, 11. 1 cor. 9 16. tit. 1. 9 & 3. 15, &c. ; behold, they lift up their voices together, calling, crying out amain for all diligence, faithfulness, zeal, undauntedness of courage and resolution in those who are entrusted with that great dispensation of the mind and counsel of god in the behalf of the world, in the discharge of this most high and honourable trust committed unto them. and therefore for mr. prynne to charge me with boldness, daringness, audaciousness, &c. for sticking to, standing by, and maintaining what i have said and done out of faithfulness both unto god and men, and according to the true tenor and intent of my commission from heaven; is as childish and weak, as if i should charge him with boldness, daringness, audaciousness, for eating his bread, or pleading the righteous cause of his honest client. he mistakes his mark day and way, if he thinks either to (rail i might truly say, or) threaten me out of the way and course of my duty, by his great words. through christ strengthening me, it is as easy for me to bear all his unjust and hard sayings, as it is for him to speak them: to stand under, and carry the greatest burden of infamy and reproach, as it is for him to lay it on; yea to suffer the worst and hardest of sufferings, as it is for him to procure them. he that cannot {non-roman} {non-roman} {non-roman} {non-roman} {non-roman}, and that at any rate whatsoever, will never make good soldier indeed for jesus christ. his pen (i hope) you see, hath not prospered hitherto, in pleading the cause of his client, presumptuously: he cannot find any one signification of the word, that will stick or fasten. the fift and last signification, which he insists upon, is this. the verb ye wot of, praesumo, yet further signifies, to do a thing boldly, confidently, or rashly, without good grounds, &c. to help himself at the dead lift he is now at, by this signification of his verb, he sets on thus; after you were questioned before a committee of parliament for those very passages in your first sermon, as exceeding scandalous and derogatory to the members and privileges of parliament, yet you in a daring manner, whilst you were under examination, audaciously preached over the same again for substance in your pulpit on a solemn fast day, and published them with additions in no less than two printed books: yea since your very censure by the committee for them, you have in a higher strain than ever gone on to justify them in print once more, in your innocency's triumph (like an incorrigible delinquent) wherein you slander the parliament more than before, &c. where before i answer, observe 1. that the signification here insisted upon is, lower than the charge; it signifies to do boldly, &c. but his charge is, that i did it presumptuously. 2. in this great muster-roll of the several significations of his verb praesumo, he passes over, and forgets to list the common or general acceptation of the word, as it is usually taken amongst us, and as any author that writes english uses to be understood; viz. for a wilful and high-handed commission of some wicked thing. but for answer; 1. what logic is there in all this rhetoric to prove, that what i did in the passages under contest, i did rashly or without good grounds? here is nothing so much as in pretence (in reality nowhere else) to disable those grounds upon which those passages stand. 2. how unkindly he deals with the truth, in affirming, 1. that i preached over the same again for substance or a solemn fast day. 2. that i published them with additions in no less than two printed books, whilst i was under examination; hath been already presented to view towards the beginning of this discourse. and here we have yet more (besides these) ejusdem farinae, (seu potius, furfaris) as 1. that the passages in my first sermon were exceeding scandalous, and derogatory to the members and privileges of parliament: there hath been nothing yet proved, nor (i believe) ever will or can be proved, that there was any thing in this sermon, not only not exceeding scandalous and derogatory, &c. but not scandalous or derogatory in the least or lightest manner or degree either to any member, or any privilege of parliament whatsoever. 2. that since my very censure by the committee for them, i have gone on to justify them in an higher strain than ever, in my innocency's triumph. mr. prynne i see is no astronomer, to take the altitude or elevation of a strain in rhetoric; if he were, he would be ashamed of this calculation, that in my innocency's triumph i justify my passages in a higher strain than ever. whosoever reads this little piece, cannot lightly but see and confess, that all along i creep as near the ground as any man (lightly) can go. 3. that in my said innocency's triumph i slander the parliament more than before. here we have untruth upon untruth, position upon supposition, and both vanity. for this assertion 1. supposeth, that i had slandered the parliament before, (wherein i am certain mr. prynne slanders me:) and 2. i. affirmeth, that i slander it a second time more than i did before. if he had contented himself only to have said, that in my innocency's triumph i slander the parliament as much as i did before, he had spoke a kind of truth, though of very slender importance. 4. that i was censured by the committee for the passages in my sermon. if by censured he means sequestered (as by the tenor of all he writes concerning me in this discourse, it should seem he doth) granting the truth of the act or censure itself (which yet to me is very questionable, upon the reasons formerly mentioned) yet i cannot believe but that mr. prynne's pen falters in assigning the grounds or reasons of the censure. it will not enter into me, to conceive a thought so dishonourable to that honourable committee, as that they should suspend or sequester a minister of jesus christ, who hath in all things from the first to the last, approved himself faithful unto them, and to that honourable cause wherein they are engaged, for preaching his judgement and conscience in a point of doctrine, having such substantial and weighty grounds both from the scriptures themselves, and otherwise, (which i then in part accounted unto them, and am still ready to perfect the account, if called to it) to conceive and judge is none other but the very truth of god. 3. and lastly, whereas he brands me for an incorrigible delinquent, and elsewhere for one impenitent after censure a pag. 107. circa medium. . i answer and confess, 1. that i am incorrigible indeed, by a crooked rule, as the apostles themselves were, when being charged and commanded by a whole council, not to speak at all, or teach in the name of jesus, they notwithstanding professed, that they could not but speak the things which they had seen and heard b act. 4. 18. 20. . rectitude is always unrectifiable, i. incorrigible: and 2. i answer and confess yet further, that i am impenitent also in respect of that wherein i know no unrighteousness, or sin. the truth is, i am conscious to myself of too many sins and failings in myself, to cast away my repentance upon such things as need it not if i can find repentance for all my fins, i shall leave all my other actions to be lamented and mourned over by the world. if mr. prynne will indict me for such incorrigibleness and impenitency as these, so be it: i know the great judge of heaven and earth will acquit me. and thus you see that mr. pryn still stands as a man convicted of an unrighteous charge in the word presumptuously; haeret lateri lathalis arundo: the arrow sticks still in his sides, and all his wringling and wresting, and pulling, cannot get it out. his last charge and contest against me in this piece, is, that the authors which i cite to justify myself, are miserably wrested and mistaken for the most part. the common saying is, that it's ill halting before a cripple; the proverb seems to import some dexterousness of faculty in him that halts continually, to take those tardy who only counterfeit, and do that by way of design, which himself doth out of necessity. the truth is, though mr. prynne may reasonably be conceived to have a more sagacious faculty than other men, of taking those with the very manner, who wrest authors and mistake their meaning, as being a man so familiarly exercised in the practice himself (i speak of his writings against myself) yet either his skill fails him, or his will stands too fast by him, in the sentence pronounced against me in this kind; as will appear presently. in the mean while, i cannot but take notice of that expression, mistaken for the most part, as an expression of the greatest caution and care, that (to my best remembrance) i have met with in all that he hath written against me. it is very rare to find any of his uncharitable assertions concerning me, at all bridled or corrected with any allay of any diminutive, lenitive, limitation or restraint: but the saying (i remember) is, that he goes far, that never returns. but let us harken unto his complaint of the behalf of those authors, whom he so bewaileth, as being miserably wrested by me. the first is his friend mr. edwards, from whose unaunswerable a piece of presbytery, i cite this passage, the parliament interposeth no authority to determine, what government shall be; and gather upon it thus; therefore his opinion appears to be (not, as mr. prynne, whose pen i see loves to play at small game in misreports, rather than sit out, recites it soon after; therefore his opinion is) either that the parliament hath no authority, or at least intends not to make use of it, it determining a government. how miserably this good well-meaning author is by me wrested, he declares thus: it was written only with reference to the present time, the parliament having at that time when he writ (during the assemblies debate and consultation) interposed no authority is determine what government shall be. but good sir, though you (it may be) hit the meaning of the author better than i, having and the opportunity to consult with him about it, which i have not; yet i am sure i hit the meaning of his words better than you. if men and their words will be of two different minds and meanings, i confess their meanings may very easily be mistaken, not by me only, but by those that are wiser, and far more able than i to understand stand the force and proper import of words. and yet now i come upon this occasion to review my expression, i find it more cautions and wary, than i can remember myself to have been in the calculation or inditing of it; and altogether free even from that cavilling and shifting exception, which is here made against it. for i do not absolutely say or conclude, that his opinion was or is either so or so, (as mr. prynne, pro more suo, chargeth me to do) but only that it appears to be either the one or the other: and i think there is scarce any that understands english, from the child that hath new learned his primer, to the greatest master in the language, but will acknowledge an appearance at least of one or other of those opinions in the words. and how anomalous and sharking that interpretation of the words, which mr. prynne would force upon them, is, will best appear by comparing the words and interpretation with other expressions of the same grammatical character and construction both in the same author, and in others. when (p. 170. of his antapology) he citys this saying out of zanchie; that which doth not disturb the public peace— the magistrate proceedeth not against; doth he imagine that the meaning of this author was to confine that non-proceeding of the magistrate he speaks of, to the particular and precise time of his writing; as if then indeed he did not so proceed, but at all other times he did. so again when himself (p. 169. of the same tract) saith thus, the power of the magistrate by which he punisheth sin, doth not subserve to the kingdom of christ the mediator; can any reasonable man think that his meaning only should be, that this power of the magistrate which he speaks of, doth not thus subserve whilst he is in speaking or writing it; but that afterwards it may, or doth subserve in such a kind? apagè nugas! when the evangelist john, speaking of christ, saith thus: this was the true light that lighteth every man that cometh into the world b ioh. 1. 9 ; is his meaning that christ performed that act of grace he speaks of, enlightened men coming into the world, only whilst he was writing his gospel, and that afterwards he suspended it? in such constructions of speech as this, the common rule of divines (touching matter of interpretation) is, that verbum praesentis notat actum continuum seu consuetum: i. a verb of the present tense noteth a continued or still accustomed act. so that whilst mr. prynne goes about to prove, that i miserably wrest his author, how favourably soever he may deal with his author in comparison of my dealing with him, certain i am that he miserably wrists his words, with which i deal as favourably, as their genuine and native signification, according to all rules both of grammatical and rhetorical construction will bear. as for that reason which mr. prynne allegeth, to countenance the sense which he puts upon the words now contested about, to the disparagement of mine, viz. that be maintains point-blank against me throughout his treatise a legislative and coercive power in parliaments; and that the inference which i draw from the said words is quite contrary to the next ensuing words and pages; i answer, 1. (to the former part of the reason) that it is most untrue: he doth not maintain point-blank against me throughout his treatise a legislative and coercive power in parliaments and civil magistrates. i everywhere acknowledge and assert a civil legislative power in both; therefore mr. edward's maintaining such a power in them, maintains nothing point-blank against me. and whether he maintains a spiritual or ecclesiastical legislative power in them, especially throughout his treatise, let this passage be witness between me and my adversary: there is nothing more common in the writings of the learned and orthodox, then to show that the civil power and government of the magistrate, and the ecclesiastical government of the church, are to genere disjoined: and thereupon the power of the magistrate by which he deals with the corrupt manners and disorders of his people, it in the nature and specifical reason distinct from ecclesiastical discipline a mr. edward's antap. p. 169. . i know not what artificial construction and meaning mr. prynne may possibly find out for these words; but surely he that hath not affirmed the contrary, as mr. prynne very inconsiderately (that i say not presumptuously) hath done, will not affirm, that mr. edw. in this passage maintains an ecclesiastical legislative power in parliaments or civil magistrates, but the contrary; yea and affirms this to be the common judgement of men learned and orthodox. so again when he affirms, p. 282. that it is their duty (speaking of the parliament) by their power and authority to bind men to the decrees of the assembly, he doth not (doubtless) maintain an ecclesiastical legislative power in the parliament: for they that have such a power, cannot be bound in duty to own the laws or decrees of others, much less to bind others to subjection to them. i omit many other passages in this book of like importance. the truth is, that mr. prynne's opinion concerning an ecclesiastical spiritual jurisdiction in the civil magistrate, which yet is his grand notion in all that he hath written upon the subject of presbytery, overthrows the main grounds and principal foundations upon which the doctrine of presbytery is built by all her ablest and most skilful workmen. insomuch that i wonder not a little, that the masters of that way and judgement, have not appeared at another manner of rate then yet they have done, for the vindication of their principles against him that hath made so sore a breach upon them, and laid their honour in the dust. somewhat i know some of them have done in this kind: but the prophet elisha reproved the king of israel, for smiting thrice only upon the ground, and then ceasing, telling him that he should have smitten five or six times. 2. to the latter part of the reason, i answer and confess, that the inference i draw from the words mentioned, may very possibly be quite contrary to the next ensuing words and pages, and yet the sense of them no ways wrested, nor mistaken by me; because it is familiar in the discourse, for the author to contradict himself, as well as other men; according to one of the ingredients in that most true and happy character of the discourse, given by a woman, who describes it to be wrangling-insinuating-contradictory-revengeful story b katherine chidley newyears gift. epist. to the reader. . and the truth is, that in the eye of an unpartial and disengaged reader, there is scarce any passage or period throughout the whole discourse but may be commodiously enough reduced under one of these 4. heads. and therefore whereas mr. prynne gives this elogium of it, that it is in truth unanswerable c epist. dedic. non longe à finè ; i confess that unanswerable it is in several respects and sundry ways. first, it is unanswerable to that esteem which myself with many others had of the author formerly. secondly, unanswerable it is to that opinion, which he would have the world conceive of his parts and learning, and in special manner of his abilities to deal in the particular controversy. thirdly, it is unanswerable to his profession as he is a christian. fourthly, much more unanswerable is it to his calling, as he is a minister of jesus christ and of the gospel: and fifthly (and lastly) most unanswerable it is to those frequent, solemn and large professions which he makes both in his epistle and elsewhere, of his love to the apologists, and candour and fairness in writing. but for any such unanswerableness as mr. prynne intends, the one part of it will not endure that such a thing should be spoken of the other; there being enough in the discourse itself to answer whatsoever is to be found in it, of any material consideration against the congregational way; as will in time convenient be made manifest in the sight of the sun, god not preventing, by more than an ordinary (or at least expected) hand. and whereas mr. prynne glorieth (and that twice over at least, for failing) that it hath not been hitherto answered by the independents d epist. dedic. non longe à fine. and again, p. 111. non longè à fine. ; i answer three things: first, that neither hath mris katherine chidley's answer to mr. edward's his reasons against independency and toleration, been yet replied unto or answered, either by mr. edwards himself, or any other of his party; notwithstanding the said answer be but a small piece in comparison of the antapology: and besides hath been some years longer abroad, than this. besides this, there are many other tractates and discourses extant (and so have been a long time) in defence of the congregational way, which as yet have not been so much as attempted by any classic author whatsoever. a particular of some of these you may see, p. 65. of my innocency and truth triumphing together, in the margin. as for that which a. s. or (in words at large) adam stevart hath lift up his pen to do against m. s. if men will needs vote it for an answer, an answer (so called) let it be: * whereas m. s. hath these words: better a thousand times is it that such distempers as these, though found in millions of men, should suffer, then that the least hair of the head of one of those men should fall to the ground: this passage a. stevart (〈…〉) interprets this: better that millions of us, who desire the suppression of all sects, should suffer, then but any of them should lose but one, yea the least hair of their heads. the second part of the duply, &c. by adam stevart, p. 180. what m. s. calls, distempers, a. s. interprets, presbyterians; and is not able to conceive how the one should suffer without the other. and this line of interpretation he stretcheth over this whole discourse: 〈…〉. but (doubtless) he that wants either will or skill to distinguish between the persons and the distempers of men, is in an ill capacity (or incapacity rather) of framing any sober answer to a sober discourse. secondly, mr. edwards himself, the smallness of the content of the apologetical narration considered, took not a whit less time to give answer to it, than hath yet been taken by the independents to answer the antapology. but thirdly (and lastly) if mr. prynne knew and considered, who it was that hath hindered the independents, and that once and again from answering it as yet, viz. he that sometimes hindered paul's coming to the thessalonians e 1 thes. 2. 18 , though (in mr. edward's apprehension) he both hastened and furthered the coming back of the apologists into england f actapol. p. 191. ; he had little or no cause to glory in that privilege. but quod defertur, non anfectur: quicquid sub terrâ est in apricum proferet aetas. having (as you have heard) befriended mr. edward's (his fellow-labourer in the presbyterian cause) with the best accommodation he could to make one piece of him hang to another (but alas, who is able to compromise between fire and water?) he proceeds and tells me behind my back, (and yet with an intent i presume that all the world should take notice of it) that my passages out of mr. hayward, bishop jewel, mr. fox, mr. calvin, jacobus acontius, &c. make nothing at all against the legislative authority of parliaments in matters of religion and church government, and have no affinity with my passages, words, most of them propugning the very ecclesiastical power of parliaments, which i oppugn: and yet in the very next words adds; that indeed some of their words seem to diminish the coercive power of magistrates, and enforcing of men's consciences in matters of religion; as if i ever oppugned or denied any other authority or power in magistrates, than this. if he will please but to peruse my innocency's triumph, pag. 8. and my innocency and truth triumphing together, pag. 72. 73. 78. with several other passages in these and other my writings, he will (or at least very easily, may) see that i oppugn, deny no other authority, power in parliaments, civil magistrates, but only that which is enforcing of men's consciences in matters of religion. whereas he promiseth or undertakes that he shall in due place answer these words of theirs, which (as he saith) seem to diminish the coercive power of magistrates in matters of religion, and manifest how i abuse the authors herein as well as mr. edwards; my answer only is, that he may indeed soon answer them after that rate of answering, at which he hath answered any thing of mine hitherto, and he may show how (i. say that) i abuse them; and without writing or speaking, as well as by either, manifest that i abuse their authors herein, as well as i do mr. edwards. but for this last particular, i am willing to save him the labour and pains of writing for the manifestation of it. for i here freely confess, that i have abused these authors in what he speaks of, just as i have abused mr. edwards: and both of them just as much as amounts to no abuse at all. i wonder by what art or way the gentleman means to go to work, to prove that i have miserably wrested, or abused the authors he here speaks of, or their words, when as i have put no construction at all or interpretation upon their words, nor drawn any inference or deduction from them, but only transcribed them with as much diligence and faithfulness as i could, and presented them clearly as they stand in their respective authors. if his meaning be, that i have miserably wrested and abused them by my quotation of them, as subservient to my cause or purpose, (a deed of folly which himself commits with the holy scriptures themselves many a time and often) my answer is, that were this assertion true, that they are not subservient to my cause or purpose, yet my recourse unto them, for aid to my purpose, were no miserable wresting or abusing of them. our saviour being an hungry, did not abuse the figtree by repairing to it, though there proved nothing upon it for his purpose. nor should mr. prynne abuse a tavern by going into it to drink a cup of wine that pleaseth him, though he should be disappointed in his expectation when he comes there. nay in this case would he not rather think (and that much more reasonably of the two) that the tavern had abused him, than he it. in like manner, if those authors and sayings which i have produced, and which mr. prynne speaks of, have no affinity with my passages and purpose, i may much more truly and reasonably say that they have abused me, then mr. prynne can either say or ever prove, that i have abused them. for the truth is, if they do fall me, or refuse to stand by me in the defence of those passages spoken of when mr. prynne hath done his worst to them, they are the greatest dissemblers that ever wore the livery of paper and ink. never were there sentences or sayings that more fully and freely complied with any man's notions whatsoever in terms and words, then far the greatest part of these do with my passages and purpose. if mr. prynne can dissolve or abrogate the authority of grammar rules, and destroy the natural and proper signification of words, than may i have some cause to fear, that he may possibly evict me to be a miserable wrester and abuser of authors and their sayings. but if words be able to defend themselves, and make good the possession of their known significations and rules of construction, their both ancient and modern interest in the understandings of men, against the authority or violence of mr. prynne's pen; i defy all his interminations and threatenings of manifesting me either a miserable wrester or abuser of my authors. the last parcel of his high contest against me in this discourse, is, that i pervert the meaning of the divines of scotland, in one, or more, or i know not, he knows not, how many or how few, of those passages which i cite from them; whereas i meddle not little or much with any sense or meaning of any of them; but only barely tender them unto the reader, leaving it free unto him to judge of the sense and meaning of them, and whether they consort with my apprehensions, or no. and though he be doubtful of that interpretation or meaning which himself (however) adventures to put upon them (as there is reason more then enough, why he should) delivering himself with this sub-modest caution, if i mistake not; yet am i rated and chidden at no lower rate, than this: you may therefore blush at this (i wonder, which) your perverting of their meaning, as if they held, that the parliaments of england or scotland had no power to make ecclesiastical laws for religion and church government. therefore may i blush: wherefore? what? because mr. prynne hath put such a sense and interpretation upon the passages in hand, of which he knows not (it seems) what to make, but suspects a mistake in it? blush in this respect i confess i may: but what cause have i to blush, at my perverting of their meaning, when as 1. i do not interpose to put any meaning (i mean any particular or special meaning) upon any of them. 2. why should i blush upon mr. prynne's injunction, at any meaning which i put upon them, when as that very meaning which himself puts upon them, by way of confutation and disparagement of that which he pretends to be mine, is by himself little less than suspected for a mistake? the tax of blushing which mr. prynne imposeth upon me, should in reason be rather levied upon the estate of his own modesty, who by his own confession runs the hazard of perverting the meaning of those passages under debate, whereas i never came so near the crime of such a perversion, as to engage myself in any interpretation of them at all. but if you will please to hear his interpretation, and compare it diligently with his text (the passages cited by me from the divines of scotland) you may very fairly translate mr. prynne's, if i mistake not, into, certainly, mr. prynne mistakes. i answer, (saith he) 1. that their only meaning (if i mistake not) in these passages, is, that the prince or chief civil magistrate of himself, without a parliament, or without the assistance and consent of his nobles, commons, clergy, cannot legally make any ecclesiastical laws to oblige his people. mark this saying well; and see how like it looks to the genuine interpretation, sense or import of these (and the like) ensuing sentences. all men, as well magistrates, as inferiors, aught to be subject to the judgement of the national assembly in ecclesiastical causes without any reclamation or appellation to any judge, civil or ecclesiastical, within the realm. again; it belongeth to the synod (the clergy having the chief place therein to give direction and advice) not to receive and approve the definition of the prince in things which concern the worship of god, but itself to define and determine what orders and customs are fittest to be observed, &c. we see here in the text, that the chief place, yea the sole power (for what other sense can be put upon those words, it belongeth to the synod itself to define and determine) of defining and determining orders and customs in things which concern the worship of god, is ascribed unto the synod, (wherein also the direction of the clergy ought to be predominant) not only without the definition of the prince, or chief civil magistrate, but with rejection of his definition: not to receive or approve the definition of the prince (saith this text.) whereas in mr. prynne's interpretation, the prince or chief civil magistrate (as we heard) hath the pre-eminence and precedency in all such definitions and determinations assigned unto him; and next to him, the nobles, and next to them the commons, (of neither of which ne {non-roman} {non-roman} {non-roman} {non-roman} {non-roman} quidem in the text) are interessed in the same; and the clergy, or synod, which are made the head, and have the chief place, if not the sole power, about such definitions and determinations in the text, are in the interpretation made the tail, and compelled to come behind all the rest, as a party borne out of due time, or at least in the lowest influence of power, for any such interest. if mr. prynne be not (at the softest) mistaken in this interpretation, the sense and meaning of those words, abraham begat isaac a mat. 1. 2. , may very possibly be this, that judas went and hung himself b mat. 27. 5. . judge, reader, between me and my adversary, who hath more cause to blush, and who is the more miserable wrester of words, and perverter of meanings. and whether there be not an air or gentle breathing of a contradiction in this period which he subjoins, within itself, and in one part of it to the premised interpretation, i desire the reader attentively to consider. but that the king (saith he) or supreme temporal magistrates, assisted by a parliament and orthodox divines, may not make binding ecclesiastical laws, or, that their or our parliaments have not a real legislative power in any matter ecclestiastique (the only point controversed) is directly contrary both to the constant doctrine and practice of our brethren and their church, &c. i believe that neither our brethren, nor their church, will con mr. prynne thanks for this his vindication and plea for them: but however, i shall not speak in his cast, nor forestall his market. only i desire to know of him, if their, and our parliaments have a real legislative power in matters ecclesiastic (as he affirms in the latter part of the sentence) why he requires an assistance of orthodox divines in the former part of it, to make binding ecclesiastical laws. they that have a real legislative power in, or within themselves; need no forinsecal assistance of others, to make their laws binding, though they may need forinsecal advice for the better constitution of them, as in laws about any particular trade; yea he had given this judgement in the case a little before (as we heard) that the prince or chief civil magistrate cannot legally make any ecclesiastical laws to oblige his people, not only not without a parliament, but not without his clergy also. doth he not here interesse the clergy every whit as far, and as deep in the very essence or substance of the legislative power to make binding ecclesiastical laws for the people, as he doth the parliament itself? and whereas in the passage last recited, he affirms the only point in controversy to be, whether our parliaments have not a real legislative power in any matters ecclesiastic; i wonder why he storms me and my writings with so much indignation, pag. 106, 107. &c. for printing passages only charged by him as being against the ecclesiastical jurisdiction of parliaments a pag. 106. ante medium. ; which likewise is his usual expression elsewhere. doth he apprehend no difference at all, between an ecclesiastical jurisdiction, power, authority; and a legislative power in or about ecclestiasticall matters, or things? mr. edwards, if he will vouchsafe to learn of him, will teach him a wide difference; who in many places gives and grants unto the magistrate a power and authority about ecclesiastical causes, and businesses b antapol pag. 159, 160, 163, &c. of many kinds, (though not of any c pag 166. 169. 170, &c. , as mr. prynne bounty extendeth) but nowhere (to my remembrance) grants any ecclesiastical jurisdiction or power to him: yea p. 163. of his antapology, he interrogates his apologists, whether there doth not reside in the church all ecclesiastical power absolutely necessary to the building up of the kingdom of christ, and salvation of men, even when the magistrate is not of the church? the import of which interrogation agrees well with that assertion of the same author; and tract p. 169. that the civil power and government of the magistrate, and the ecclesiastical government of the church, are toto genere disjoined; and thereupon the power of the civil magistrate, by which he deals with the corrupt manners and disorders of his people, is in the nature and specifical reason distinct from ecclesiastical discipline. if there be an ecclesiastical jurisdiction or legislative power in civil magistrates, parliaments, to make ecclesiastical binding laws; why may not the exercise of this power in the administration or execution of these laws, be called ecclesiastical discipline or government? yea, why not rather ecclesiastical, then civil? so that mr. prynne confounding an ecclesiastical power, with a power about ecclesiastical things, plainly shows that he is not perfectly initiated in the mystery of presbytery: and did not his writings more accommodate that cause and party by the weight of their authority, and height of language, and confidence, together with unparalleled bitterness against his opposites, then by their worth in strength of reason, i believe they would hardly think them worthy to be numbered amongst their benefactors. but notwithstanding all that mr. prynne hath done or said to, or against me, or my innocency's triumph, in particular; in the 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112 pages of this his discourse, yet his spes gregis, the strength of his hope that he hath done sufficient execution upon me, rests only upon his former sections; however the question of many concerning them, is, cui bono? he tells me, that my own conscience and judgement cannot but inform me, that he hath written enough in the former sections to convince me and all the world besides, that i have not only violated, but denied, oppugned those privileges of parliament in ecclesiastical affairs, which our own parliaments in all ages, and parliamentary assemblies in all other kingdoms have unquestionably exercised, &c. i answer, 1. i confess that in the former sections he hath written enough, quantitativè, to convince any reasonable man (if not all the world) of any error or mistake whatsoever: but much too little qualitatiuè, to convince either me, or any reasonable man, that i have violated, or oppugned any privilege of parliament; i have far more reason to conceive and hope, that in this and my last-published discourse, i have written enough both ways to convince both him and all the world, that i have not violated or oppugned any privilege of parliament, truly, or with the consent of heaven, so called. if he intends to conclude, that therefore i have violated, oppugned the privileges of parliament, because i have argued against some positions or opinions, which mr. prynne, with some others, are pleased to call privileges of parliament; the logician, who is a man of reason, will answer for me, that à terminis diminuentibus non sequitur argumentatio. it doth not follow, that a piece of metal or coin is therefore gold, because it is counterfeit gold; nor that mr. prynne's great grandfather is a man, because he is a dead man. if he can, or shall fairly demonstrate unto me (though in a far less content of words, than his three former sections amount unto) that any act, practice, or exercise, either by continuance or succession of time, or by frequency of repetition, or customariness of reiteration, by connivency or want of opposition from men, must needs change the nature and kind of it, and of sinful become lawful, he shall by such a demonstration as this, put life into his former sections, and render them potent for that conviction which he expects from them; but till this be done, that great bulk and body of things done in the dark, and time out of mind, will partake of that infirmity which the author himself acknowledgeth as cleaving to the discourse, i mean, impotency a these my impotent endeavours. epist. to the reader, versus finem. ; and can with no tolerable pretence of reason or equity, demand that interest in the judgements, consciences, understandings of men, which he challengeth (it seems) on their behalf. it is as poor and low a design, only by alleging the examples, opinions, or judgements of men, to attempt the conviction of him that builds his opinion upon the scriptures & word of god, yea though he builds besides his foundation; as it would be in a man to carry a sack of chaff to the market, hoping to bring home a like quantity of wheat for it, without giving any other price. yea to allege and cite the scriptures themselves, though in never such an abundance, without close arguing and binding them to our cause; is a means of very small hope, whereby to prevail or do good upon such a man who holds his opinion, not barely or simply upon a supposal of scripture-authority for it, but upon scripture thoroughly debated, and by principles of sound reason and natural deductions, brought home unto his judgement and cause. again, 2. in all that great body of premises contained in all the former sections he speaks of, there is not one word, syllable, letter, or tittle to prove that main ingredient in his conclusion, unquestionably exercised. logicians justly reject and exauthorize all such conclusions, which swell above the line of their premises. by all the tables and donaries presented unto neptune by those that in shipwrecks escaped with their lives, it could not be known, who, or how many they were, that were drowned. 3. nor is there any whit more in any, in all the said sections or premises, that reacheth home, or indeed comes near, to that speciality in the conclusion, in all ages. evanders' mother lived many ages agone; yet the mother of abel had the precedency of her by many generations. therefore surely all the world will never accept of the conclusion so insufficiently and lamely proved. 4. and lastly, whereas mr. prynne tells me, that if i now make not good my promise, few or none will ever credit me hereafter; i should be very glad to meet with my condition, that so i might perform my obligation. but in the mean time, whether any or none will credit me hereafter; i know not well how i, or any other should credit him for the present, as touching the authentiqueness and truth of those citations and transcriptions, upon which the principal weight of that conclusion depends, whereof he expects conviction both from me, and all the world to boot. is it lightly possible for any man to refrain jealousy in this kind, that doth but consider how oft his pen hath dashed against the rock of truth, in representing me, my opinions and sayings, (yea, i can say further, affections, intentions) upon the open theatre of the world, where any man that will, may see his nakedness in this kind? is boldness in the sun, like to prove modestien in the shade? as for satisfaction by examination of all particulars, it is not every man's, indeed very few men's, opportunity. the respective authors and records, wherein particularities must be inquired after, and found, for satisfaction in that kind, are in few men's hands; and not of all men's understandings. so that mr. prynne by dealing so unfaithfully and unchristianly by me and my sayings, as he hath done, hath not only obstructed the course and passages of his own reputation and credit; but hath further also injured the world round about him, by rendering those good parts and abilities wherewith god hath entrusted him for public accommodation, if not wholly unserviceable, yet of very mean usefulness and concernment, in comparison of what their line and tenor would well have borne. it is a saying in the civil law, that he that hath injured one, hath threatened many. i end, with a word of christian admonition and advice, both to the gentleman my antagonist, and myself. sir, the great and glorious god that made us, in mercy remembers both our frames, and considers that we are dust a psal. 103. 14. . this gracious remembrance of his we enjoy both by night and by day, in whatsoever we enjoy in the comforts of this world, yea or in the opportunities we have of laying hold on that which is to come. our dust which abaseth us, in this respect, yet relieveth us, and becomes a mediator for us with the bountifulness of god: were we creatures of a more excellent line, those sins and infirmities would (in all likelihood) were they found upon us, be our ruin, which now do not so much as shake the least hair of our heads. if we would but remember and consider one the other, as god doth us both, that common principle of frailty, out of which we act to a reciprocal discontentment and offence, would be of sovereign use to mollify and supple, if not perfectly to heal, both our wounds. not to think any thing that befalleth us strange, is almost (being interpreted) not to think it evil. we shall not quit ourselves like men, if we make any great matter of it, to be evil entreated by men. mutual discontentments now and then are a known tribute which men must look to pay for the commodity of living & conversing together in the world. if we have offended one the other, happy shall we be in forgiving one the other, and circumvent him whose design was to have circumvented us, and made hatred (a kind of upper hell) of our contestation. if i have offended you otherwise then by speaking the truth, and so as the defence of it, all circumstances duly poised, required, you shall not need long to complain of want of christian satisfaction, as far as i am able either to do or to speak any thing that may accommodate you, if you please, but to signify your aggrievance, and make your demands in a christian and loving way. and if your heart will but answer mine in these inclinations, the storms and tempests of our contestations, shall yet end in a sweet calm; and men shall look upon us, as if we had never been they: if you reject the motion of a christian compliance by the way, i can very patiently, and with comfort enough, await the decisions of that great tribunal, whose awards will shortly seal all the righteousnesses and unrighteousnesses of men, against all further disputes or inquiries to the days of eternity. finis. mr. smirke; or, the divine in mode: being certain annotations, upon the animadversions on the naked truth. together with a short historical essay, concerning general councils, creeds, and impositions, in matters of religion. nuda, sed magna est veritas, & praevalebit. by andrea's rivetus, junior, anagr. res nuda veritas. printed anno domini mdc lxxvi. to the captious reader. all that i have to require of thee is, that wheresoever my style or principles strike out, and keep not within the same bounds, that the most judicious author of the naked truth hath all along observed; he may not therefore be traced. he could best have writ a defence proportionable to his own subject; had he esteemed it necessary, or that it was decent for him to have entered the pit with so scurrilous an animadverter. but i thought it a piece of due civility from one of the laities, to interest myself for one of the clergy, who had so highly obliged the people of england. and i will answer for mine own faults, i ask thee no pardon. nor therefore is either the author, or any other particular person, or any party, to be accused, or misrepresented upon my private account. for the rest, neither let any particular man, or order, enlarge my meaning against themselves, further than in conscience they find they are guilty. nor let the body of chaplains think themselves affronted. none more esteems them, nor loves their conversation better than i do. they are the succeeding hope of our church, the youth of our clergy; and the clergy are the reserve of our christianity. some of them, whom i know, have indeed, and do continue daily to put very singular obligations upon me; but i write to a nobler end, than to revenge my petty concernments. adieu. the erratas are too many to be corrected; but p. 7. l ult. eighth is to be struck out. mr. smirke, or the divine in mode. it hath been the good nature (and politicians will have it the wisdom) of most governors to entertain the people with public recreations; and therefore to encourage such as could best contribute to their divertisement. and hence doubtless it is, that our ecclesiastical governors also (who as they yield to none for prudence, so in good humour they exceed all others,) have not disdained of late years to afford the laity no inconsiderable pastime. yea so great hath been their condescension that, rather than fail, they have carried on the merriment by men of their own faculty, who might otherwise by the gravity of their calling, have claimed an exemption from such offices. they have ordained from time to time several of the most ingenious and pregnant of their clergy to supply the press continually with new books of ridiculous and facetious argument. wherein divers of them have succeeded even to admiration: in so much that by the reading thereof, the ancient sobriety and seriousness of the english nation hath been in some good measure discussed and worn out of fashion. yet, though the clergy have hereby manifested that nothing comes amiss to them, and particularly, that when they give their minds to it, no sort of men are more proper or capable to make sport for spectators; it hath so happened by the rewards and promotions bestowed upon those who have laboured in this province, that many others in hopes of the like preferment, although otherwise by their parts, their complexion and education unitted for this jocular divinity, have in order to it wholly neglected the more weighty cares of their function. and from hence it proceeds, that to the no small scandal and disreputation of our church, a great arcanum of their state hath been discovered and divulged: that, albeit wit be not inconsistent and incompatible with a clergyman, yet neither is it inseparable from them. so that it is of concernment to my lords the bishops henceforward to repress those of 'em who have no wit from writing, and to take care that even those that have, do husband it better, as not-knowing-to what exigency they may be reduced: but however that they the bishops ●…e not too forward in licensing and perfixing their venerable names to such pamphlets. for admitting, though i am not too positive in it, that our episcopacy is of apostolical right, yet we do not find that among all those gifts then given to men, that which we call wit is enumerated: nor yet among th●…se qlifications requisite to a bishop▪ and therefore should they out o●… comp●…cy for an author, o●… deli●…ht in the argument, or 〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of a ●…ll book, their own understandings will be answerable, and irreverent people, that cannot distinguish, will be ready to think that such of them differ from men of wit, not only in degree, but in or●…▪ for all are not of my mind, who could never see any one ele●…ted to that dignity, but i presently conceived a greater opinion of his wit then ever i had formerly. but some do not 〈◊〉 to 〈◊〉 that even they, the bishops, come by their●… not by inspiration, 〈◊〉 by teaching, but even as the poo●… laity do sometimes light upon i●…, by a good mother? which has ●…sioned the homely scotch▪ proverb that, an ounce of mother ●…it is worth a pound of clergy▪ and as they come by it as do other men, so they possess it on the same condition▪ that they cannot transmit it by breathing, touching, or any natural 〈◊〉 to other persons●… not so much as to their most domes●… chaplain▪ or to the closest re●…identiary. that the king himself, who is no 〈◊〉 the spring of that, than he is th●… fountain of honour, yet has never used the dubbing or creating of wits as a flower of his prerogative: much less can the ecclesiastical power confe●…re it with the same case as they do the holy orders. that whatsoever they can do of that kind is, at uttermost, to 〈◊〉 power men by their authority and commission, no other 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the 〈◊〉 of midwife's o●… physicians. but that a●… to their collating of any internal talon or ability, they could never p●…tend to it▪ their grants and their prohibitions are alike invalids, and they can neither capacitate one ma●… to be witty, nor hinder another 〈◊〉 being so, further than as the press is at their dev●… 〈◊〉 which if i●… be the case, they cannot be too 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and should be very exquisite, seeing this way 〈◊〉 w●…iting is ●…und so necessary, in making choice of ●…it 〈◊〉. the church's credit is more interested in a●… ecclesia●… 〈◊〉 then i●… 〈◊〉 lay chancellor. it is no small ●…rust 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to whom the bishop shall commit: omne & omnimodum suum ingenium tam temp●…rale quam spirituale: and, however it goes with excommunication, they should take good heed to what manner of person they delegate the keys of laughter. it is not every man that is qualified to sustain the dignity of the church's jester: and, should they take as exact a scrutiny of them as of the non-conformists thorough their dioceses, the number would appear inconsiderable upon this easter visitation. before men be admitted to so important an employment, it were fit they underwent a severe examination; and that it might appear, first, whether they have any sense: for without that how can any man pretend, and yet they do, to be ingenious? then, whether they have any modesty: for without that they can only be scurrilous and impudent. next, whether any truth: for true jests are those that do the greatest execution. and lastly, it were not amiss that they gave some account too of their christianity: for the world has always hitherto been so uncivil as to expect something of that from the clergy▪ in the design and style even of their lightest and most uncanonical writings. and though i am no rigid imposer of a discipline of mine own devising, yet had any thing of this nature entered in to the minds of other men, it is not impossible that a late pamphlet, published by authority and proclaimed by the gazette, animadversions upon a late pamphlet, entit●…led the naked truth, or, the true state of the primitive church, might have been spared. that book so called the naked truth, is a treatise, that, were it not for this its opposer, needs no commendation: being writ with that evidence and demonstration of spirit, that all sober men cannot but give their assent and consent to it, unasked. it is a book of that kind, that no christian scarce can peruse it without wishing himself had been the author, and almost imagining that he is so: the conceptions therein being of so eternal an idea, that every man finds it to be but the copy of an original in his own mind, and though he never read it till now, wonders it could be so long before he remembered it. neither, although there be a time when as they say all truths are not to be spoken, could there ever have come forth any thing more seasonable. when the sickly nation had been so long indisposed and knew not the remedy, but (having taken so many things, that rather did it harm then good,) only longed for some moderation, and as soon as it had tasted this, seemed to itself sensibly to recover. when their representatives in parliament had been of late so frequent in consultations of this nature, and they the physicians of the nation, were ready to have received any wholesome advice for the cure of our malady: it appears moreover plainly that the author is judicious, learned, conscientious, a sincere protestant, and a true son, if not a father, of the church of england. for the 〈◊〉▪ the book cannot be free from the imperfections in●…ident to all humane endeavours, ●…t those so small, and guarded every where with so much modesty, that it seems here was none left for the animadverter, who might otherwise have blushed to reproach him. but some there were that thought holy church was concerned in it, and that no true born son of our mother of england but aught to have it in detestation. not only the churches but the coffeehouses rung against it, they itinerated like excise-●…pyes from one house to another, and some of the morning and evening chaplains burned their lips with perpetual discoursing it out of reputation, and loading the author, whoever he were, with all contempt, malice and obloquy. no●… could this suffice them, but a lasting pillar of infamy must be erected to eternize his crime and his punishment. there must be an answer to him, in print, and that not according to the ordinary rules of civility, or in the sober way of arguing controversy, but with the utmost extremity of j●…ere, disdain, and indignation: and happy the man whose lot it should be to be deputed to that performance. it was shrove-tuesday with them, and, not having yet forgot their boyes-play, they had set up this cock, and would have been contet some of them to have ventured their coffee-farthings, yea their easter-pences by advance, to have a sting at him. but there was this close youth who treads always upon the heels of ecclesiastical preferment, but hath come nearer the heels of the naked truth than were for his service, that rather by favour the●… any tolerable sufficiency ●…ied away this employment, as he hath done many others from them. so that being the man pitched upon, he took up an unfortunate resolution that he would be witty. infortunate i say, and no less criminal: for i dare aver that never any person was more manifestly guilty of the sin against nature. but however to write a book of that virulence, and at such a season was very improper: even in the holy time of lent when, whether upon the sacred account, it behoved hi●…●…ther to have subjugated and mortified the swelling of his passions▪ or whether upon the political reason, he might well have forborn his young wit, as but newly pigged or calved, in order to the growth of the yearly summer provisions. yet to work he fell, not omitting first to ●…m himself up in the whole wardrobe of his function▪ as well because his wit consi●…ing wholly in his dres●…e, he would (and 'twas hi●… concernment 〈◊〉) have it all about him▪ as to the end that being hu●…'d up in all his ecclesiastical 〈◊〉, he might appear more formidable, and in the pride of his heart and habit out●…niface an humble m●…derator. so that there was 〈◊〉 to do in ●…quipping of mr. smirke then there is about 〈◊〉, and the di●…ine is m●…de ●…ight have vied with sir fopling flutter. the vestry and the tir●…ng-roome were both exhausted, and 'tis hard to say whether there went more attendants toward the composing of himself, or of his pamphlet. being thus dressed up, at last forth he comes in print. no poet either the first or the third day could be more concerned, and his little party, like men hired for the purpose, had posted themselves at every corner to feign a more numerous applause: but clapped out of time, and disturbed the whole company. annotations upon his animadversions on the title, dedication, etc. at first bolt in his animadversions on the title, the dedication, and the epistle to the reader, he denounces sentence before inquiry but against the book itself, forgetting already his subject, so early his brain circulates; and saith, that, having perused the book thoroughly he is abundantly satisfied not only from his style, which is something enthusiastic (his speech bewrays him) but from his matter and principles if he stick to any, that the author is a borderer upon fanaticis●…e and does not know it. even as the animadverter is upon wit and reason; for i have heard that borderers for the most part, are at the greatest distance, and the most irreconcilable. what the style is of a title, and what the principles of a dedication and epistle to the reader (for these, if any, the animadverter ought here to have stuck to) it's indeed a weighty disquisition fit for a man of his talon. but i have read them over, and so have others of better judgement, and find every sentence therein poised with so much reverence, humility, and judicious piety, that from an humane pen (allowing the reader any tolerable share too of humanity) i know not what more could have been expected. and as to the matter, it seems to be but a paraphrase upon the principles of the song of the angels; glory to god on high, on earth peace, good will toward men. if to speak at that rate, and upon such a subject, with so good an intention, be to have an enthusiastic style or fanatical principles, it is the first crime of which i should be glad to be guilty. what in the mean time shall we say to these men, who out of a perverse jealousy they have of the non-conformists, ru●…, which few wise men do into the contrary extreme, affixing such odious names to every word or thing that is sober and serious, that with their good will they would render it impracticable for men even to discourse pertinently concerning religion or christianity? put it upon this short issue: if the stile of the epistle before the naked truth be enthusiastic and fanatical, the stile of the animadverter is presumed, and so allowed of, as spiritual, divine, and canonical. the first evidence that he produces after so hasty a sentence against the author, is out of the book too, not out of the title, dedication, or epistle; that he has said p. 17. in the primitive times when the whole world of jews and gentiles were enemies to the church and not one of your ceremonies to preserve it, the simple naked truth without any surplice to cover it, without any ecclesiastical policy to maintain it, overcame all, and so it would do now did we trust to it, and the defender of it. and upon this he runs division. the defender in heaven, god; the defender of the faith his majesty; and the many defenders (among whom i suppose he reckons himself of the principal) who may be trusted, this is all fooling, whereas the author does manifestly intend it of god almighty, and could not otherwise. for though his majesty may well be trusted for his reign with the defence of the naked truth, yet most of us know that in the primitive times, his majesty was too young for that employment, and that it was god alone who could then protect it, when the defenders of the faith were all heathens, and most of them persecutors of christianity. he than descants no less upon naked truth; the naked truth of our cause, or the naked truth of the pamphlet, or, he knows not what naked truth. but he saith it should have been truth fleed (so he had the butchery of it) which is like pilate and no worse man, who when our saviour told him, he came into the world john 18. 37. that he might bear witness to the truth, asked him, what is truth? and than though he confessed he found no evil in this man, delivered him over, against his conscience, to be stripped, scourged, fleyed, and afterwards crucified. such like also is his talking, that this is stripping the church to skin, nay skin and all, and skin for skin: so wretchedly does he hunt over hedge and ditch for an university quibble. the casual progress and leaping consequences of any man's memory are more rational than this method of his understanding, and the non-conformists concordance is a discourse of more coherence than such ammadversions: i have heard a mad man having got a word by the end ramble after the same manner: in this only he is true to himself, and candid to the author, having avowed that he had s●…nn'd the book thorough, this hacking and vain repetition being just like it, when we were at our montibus inquit erant & erant, sub montibus illis: rifit atlantiades, &, me mihi perfide prodis, me mihi prodis, ait. for as i remember this scanning was a liberal art that we learned at grammar-school; and to scann verses as he does the author's prose, before we did, or were obliged to understand them. but his tugging all this while at skin, and skin for skin, and all that he has he will give for his life, merely to hale in an ill favoured jeer at the author, and truly with some profaneness, for proposing the naked truth as necessary for the self preservation of our church, and an expedient against popery; is, (whatsoever the animadverters judgement be) a retchlesness and mockery ill becoming his character. and it savours of the liquorishness of a trencher-chaplain, little concerned in the curâ animarum, so he may but curare cuticulam. but as to his fastidious reproach of the authors seeking of god, his fasts and his prayers, the animadverter is more excusable, having doubtless writ his pamphlet without practising any of these fanatical superstitions, as neither was it requisite; but if he had, 'twas such an answer to his prayers as never before came from heaven. the animadverter is proof against all such exorcisms and although our saviour prescribed these remedies against the most obstinate devils, this man it seems is possessed with a superior spirit which is not to be cast out, no not by prayer and fasting, but sets them at defiance. nor had the animadverter, when he considered himself, less reason to blame the author for deliberating so long before he published his book, and for doing it, then with so much modesty. these are crimes of which the animadverter will never be suspected or accused by any man at least they will do him very much wrong, but however it will be impossible ever to convict him of them. but to word it too so superciliously! this has been the travel of his mind, since he had these thoughts, which he has been humbly conceiving these two years; time enough for an elephant to bring forth in. why there is, 'tis true, a winged sort of elephant, hath a peculiar trunk too like the other, is not so docile and good-natured; but impudent flying in every man's face, and sanguinary thirsting always after blood, and as if it were some considerable wild-beast, makes a terrible buzz; but in conclusion 'tis a pitiful, giddy, blind, troublesome insect, engendered in a night's time in every marish, can but run a poor thorough and give a skinne-wound, and the least touch of a man's finger will crush it. in the naked truth it is but a gnat: and such is the animadverter compared with the author. but in this next paragraph the animadverter seems to have outshot himself, that not content with having passed his own ecclesiastical censure upon the author, he forges too in his mind a sentence of the lords and commons assembled in parliament: who, he believes and 'tis probable, would have doomed the book to be burnt by the hangman. in this he hath meddled beyond his last: but it is some men's property: yet neither is it so likely they would have done it, at the same time when they were about passing an act for the easing all protestant dissenters from penalties, had he vouched for the convocation, his belief, or his probability might have been of more value. but what has he to do, (yet they have a singular itch to it) with parliament business: or how can so thin a scull comprehend or divine the results of the wisdom of the nation? unless he can, as in the epilogue. legion his name, a people in a man, and, instead of sir fopling flutter, he mr. smirke. be knight oth'-shire and represent them all. who knows indeed but he may, by some new and extraordinary writ, have been summoned upon the emergency of this book, to represent in his peculiar person the whole representative? yet by his leave, though he be so, he ought not to undertake before he be assembled. i know indeed he may have had some late precedents for it, and for some years' continuance, from men too of his own profession. and if therefore he should undertake, and to give a good tax for it, yet what security can he have himself, but that there may rise such a contest between the lords and commons within him, that, before they can agree about this judicial proceeding against the book, it may be thought fit to prorogue him. the crimes indeed are heinous, and if the man and book be guilty, may when time comes, furnish special matter for an impeachment. that he has made a breach upon their glorious act of unniformity, violated their act, their most necessary act (the animadverter hath reason by this time to say so) against printing without a licence: and i suppose he reserves anotherfor aggravation in due time; the act against seditious conventicles. for these three are all of a piece, and yet are the several pieces of the animadverters armour: and are indeed no less, nor no more than necessary: for considering how empty of late the church magazines have been of that spiritual armour, which the apostle found sufficient against the assaults of whatsoever enemy, even of satan; what could men in all humane reason do less, then to furnish such of the clergy as wanted, with these weapons of another warfare? but, although these acts were the true effects of the prudence and piety of that season, yet it is possible (but who can provide for all cases?) that, if there have not already, there may arise thereby in a short time some notable inconvenience. for suppose that truth should one day or other come to be truth and every man a liar, (i mean of the humour of this parliamentum indoctum, this single representativer, this animadverter) you see there is no more to be said, as the case stands at present, but executioner do your office. nor therefore can it ever enter into my mind, as to that act particularly of printing, that the lawgivers could thereby intend to allow any man a promiscuous licentiousness, and monopoly of printing pernicious discourses, tending to sow and increase dissension thorough the land (of which there is but too large a crop already;) as neither of prohibiting books dictated by christian meekness and charity for the promoting of truth and peace among us, and reconciling our differences; no nor even of such as are writ to take out the blots of printing-inke, and wipe off the aspersions which divers of the licenced clergy cast upon men's private reputations: and yet this is the use to which the law is sometimes applied. and this animadverter, who could never have any rational confidence or pretence to the press or print, but by an unlucky english saying men have, or by the text-letters of his imprimatur, arraigns' this worthy author for printing without allowance, as if it were a sin against the eleventh commandment. though a samaritan perhaps may not practise physic without a licence, yet must a priest and a levite always pass by on the other side and if one of them, in an age, pour oil and wine into the wounds of our church (instead of tearing them wider,) must he be cited for it into the spiritual court and incur all penalties? this high charge made me the more curious to inquire particularly how that book the naked truth was published, which the animadverter himself pretends to have got a sight of with some difficulty. and i am credibly informed that the author caused four hundred of them and no more to be printed against the last session but one of parliament. for nothing is more usual then to print and present to them proposals of revenue, matters of trade, or any thing of public convenience; and sometimes cases and petitions, and this, which the animadverter calls the author's dedication, is his humble petition to the lords and commons assembled in parliament: and understanding the parliament inclined to a temper in religion, he prepared these for the speakers of both houses and as many of the members as those could furnish. but that, the parliament rising just as the book was delivering out and before it could be presented, the author gave speedy order to suppress it till another session. some covetous printer in the mean time getting a copy, surreptitioufly reprinted it, and so it flew abroad without the author's knowledge, and against his direction. so that it was not his, but the printers fault to have put so great an obligation upon the public. yet because the author has in his own copies, out of his unspeakable tenderness and modesty begged pardon of the lords and commons, in his petition, for transgressing their act against printing without a licence, this indoctum parliamentum mistaking the petition as addressed to himself, will not grant it, but insults over the author and upbraids him the rather as a desperate offender, that sins on he saith, goes on still in his wickedness, and hath done it against his own conscience. now truly if this were a sin, it was a sin of the first impression. and the author appears so constant to the church of england, and to its liturgy in particular, that, having confessed four hundred times with an humble, lowly, penitent, and obedient heart, i doubt not but in assisting at divine service he hath frequently since that received absolution. it is something strange that to publish a good book is a sin, and an ill one a virtue; and that while one comes out with authority; the other may not have a dispensation. so that we seem to have got an expurgatory press, though not an index, and the most religious truth must be expunged and suppressed in order to the false and secular interest of some of the clergy. so much wiser are they grown by process of time than the obsolete apostle that said, we can do nothing against the truth. but this hath been of late years the practice of these single representers of the church of england, to render those peccadillioes against god as few and inconsiderable as may be, but to make the sins against themselves as many as possible, and these to be all heinous and unpardonable. in so much that if we of the laity would but study our self-preservation, and learn of them to be as true to our separate interest as these men are to theirs, we ought not to wish them any new power for the future, but after very mature deliberation. forasmuch as every such act does but serve, as some of them use it, to make the good people of england walk in peril of their souls, to multiply sin and abomination thorough the land, and by engaging men's minds under spiritual bondage, to lead them canonically on into temporal slavery. whereas the laity are commonly more temperate and merciful (i might say more discreet) in the exercising of any authority they are entrusted with, and what power they have, they will not wear it thread bare: so that if i were to commit a fault for my life, (as suppose by printing this without a licence) i would choose to sin against good mr. oldenburg. but this animadverter is the genuine example of ecclesiastical clemency, who proceeding on cannot bear that the author should use the title of an humble moderator (he thinks him sure guilty herein lasae majestatis ecclesiasticae, and that both these qualities are incompatible with one of their coat, and below the dignity of any man of the faculty) much less will he endure him when he comes, in the following discourse, to justify his claim to that title, by letting his moderation according to the apostles precept, be known to all men, for the lord is at hand. but he saith that the author assumes, imposes, and turns all upside down, and witnesses an immoderate zeal for one (that is the non-conformists) party: than which the animadverter could never have invented a more notorious, studied, and deliberate falsehood, to prepossess and misled the gentle reader: wherein does he assume? he speaks like a man, a creature to which modesty and reason are peculiar; not like an animadverter, that is an animal which hath nothing humane in it but a malicious grin, that may provoke indeed, but cannot imitate so much as laughter. wherein does he impose? in nothing but by declaring his opinion against all unreasonable imposition? and though it appears natural to him to speak with gravity, yet he usurps not any authority further, then as any man who speaks of a truth which he thoroughly understands, cannot with all his modesty and humility hinder others from paying a due reverence to his person and acquiescing in his doctrine. but wherein does he turn all upside down? this hath been a common topick of ecclesiastical accusation. our saviour was accused that he would destroy the temple. the first martyr steven was stoned as a complice. and saint paul (as ill luck would have it) was made odious upon the same crimination of the animadverters, acts 17. v. 5, 6. for, certain lewd-fellows of the base sort, set all the city in an uproar, crying those that have turned the world up-side-down are come hither also. and yet notwithstanding all these calumnies, the naked truth, christianity, hath made a shift, god bethanked, to continue till this day: and there will never want those that bear testimony to it, even to the primitive christianity, maugre all the arts that the men of religion can contrive to misrepresent and discountenance it. but as for the turning all up-side-down, the animadverter is somewhat innocent, if by the defect of his organt, as it fares with those whose brain turns round, (' so we vulgarly express it) he have imagined that the world is tumbling headlong with him. but as to the prejudice, which he therefore reserved as the most effectual and taking to undo the author by, that he is immoderately zealous for the non-conformists; it is the effect of as strong a fancy, or as malicious an intention as the former; it being scarce possible to open the book in any place without chancing upon some passage where he makes a firm profession, or gives a clear proof of his real submission and addiction to the church of england: all his fault for aught i see being, that he is more truly and cordially concerned for our church then some men's ignorance is capable of, or their corrupt interest can comply with. but therefore whoever were the adviser it is not well done to use him in this dirty manner. there is no prudence in it, nor whereas the author, in excuse that he sets not his name, saith it is, because he is a man of great passions, and not able to bear a reproach (the animadverter had done fairer to cite the whole, or commendations: my small ability puts me out of danger of the last, but in great fear of the former.) therefore to resolve thus (whereas they might have undone him you see by commendation) the rather to reproach him, now they have learned his feeble holy church, i can tell you hath suffered upon that account so of ten that it were time for her to be wiser. for by exasperating men of parts, who out of an ingenious love of truth have temperately writ against some abuses, she hath added provocation to men's wit to look still further; insomuch that at last it hath sometimes produced (than which nothing can be more dangerous to the church) a reformation. therefore, though christ hath commanded his followers (so it be not i suppose out of his way) that if any man press them to go one mile, they should go two; yet it is not wisdom in the church to pretend to, or however to exercise, that power of angariating men further than their occasions or understandings will permit. if a man cannot go their length 'tis better to have his company in quiet as far as his road lies. for my part i take the church of england to be very happy in having a person of his learning and piety so far to comply with her; and, if my advice might be taken, she should not lose one inch more of him by handling him irreverently. for if once she should totally lose him, god knows what an instrument he might prove, and how much good he might do in the nation, more than he ever yet thought of. what a shame it is to hear the animadverter abuse him (who by the very character of his style appears no vulgar person, and by how much he hath more of truth, hath more of god's image, and should therefore have imprinted that awe upon him that man hath over most brutes:) he to trifle with so worthy a person at that rate, that one would not use the meanest varlet, the dullest schoolboy, the rankest idiot, no nor the veriest animadverter! however he saith, the author hath done himself and him the animadverter a great favour, by concealing his name, in making it impossible for him to reflect upon his person (otherwise it seems he should have had it home) which he knows no more than the man in the moon. but therefore i am the rather jealous he did know him: for the animadverter having a team of gnaz'as always a his devotion, and being able if any one tired by the way to relieve it and draw in person, never think that he would want intelligence in that region. come 'twas all but an affected ignorance in the animadverter, and he had both inquired and heard as much as any of us who was the probable author: and all the guard that he lies upon is, because the author had not given him legal notice that he writ it. and this was even as the animadverter would have wished it. for if a reverend person had openly avowed it, he could not have been saucy with so gooda grace: but under the pretence of not knowing, sir, that it was you, but only, sir, as you were the patron of so vile a cause, many a dry bob, close gird, and privy nip has he given him. yet he saith, the author would have done well, and a piece of justice to have named himself, so to have cleared others: for it hath been confidently laid to the charge of more than one reverend person (how slily!) who (i have great reason to believe, and am several ways assured) had no hand in it. truly the animadverter too would have done a piece of justice to have named himself; for there has been more than one witty person traduced for his pamphlet, and i believe by this time he would take it for a great favour if any man would be such a fool as own it for him. for he very securely reproaches the author, and yet i have been seeking all over for the animadverters name, and cannot find it. not withstanding that he writes forsooth in defence of the church of england; and against so vile a cause, as he styles it, and under the public patronage. which is most disingenuously done, as on other accounts, so in respect of my lord bishop of london, whom he has left in the lurch to justify another man's follies with his authority. but however that venerable person, who has for learning, candor, and piety, as he does for dignity also, outstripped his age and his fellows, have been drawn in to licence what certainly he cannot approve of, it was but his first fruits, and a piece of early liberality, as is usual, upon his new promotion, and i am given to understand that, for the animadverters sake, it is like to be the last that he will allow of that nature. but this is not only a trick of the animadverters, but ordinary with many others of them, who while we write at our own peril, and perhaps set our names to it, (for i am not yet resolved whether i can bear reproach or commendation) they that rail for the church of england, and under the public licence and protection, yet leave men, as if it were at hot-cockles to guess blindfold who it is that hit them. but it is possible that some of these too may lie down in their turns. what should be the reason of it? sure theirs is not so vile a cause too that they dare not abide by it. or are they the writers conscious to themselves that they are such things as ought not once to be named among christians? or is it their own sorry performance that makes them ashamed to avow their own books? or is there some secret force upon them that obliges them to say things against their conscience? or would they reserve a latitude to themselves to turn non-conformists again upon occasion? or do they in pure honesty abstain from putting a single name to a book, which hath been the workmanship of the whole diocese? but though he know not his name, seeing he has vented his own amusements to the churches great and real prejudice he saith, (and that is this case) he must not think to scape for the godliness of his style: impious and most unmerciful! poor david was often in this case. psal. 22. they gaped upon him with their mouth. he trusted, said they, in the lord that he would deliver him, let him deliver him seeing he delighted in him. and psal. 71. 11. persecute and take him, there is none to deliver him. and yet there are many places too in scripture, where god spared men even for their outward formalities, and their hypocrisy served to delay his judgements; and should he not still do so, the church might re-receive greater prejudice. but the church, and god are two things, and are not it seems obliged to the same measures: insomuch that even the sincerity of one person, which might perhaps atone for a whole order and render them acceptable both to god and man, yet cannot hope for his own pardon. neither must be think to scope for a man of good intentions: yet sure he is, else would not give the devil so much more than his due, saying he would never condemn any good action though done by the devil, as if saith the animadverter, be supposed the devil might do some such. here he thinhs he has a shrewd hit at him, and this if a man had leisure might beget a metaphysical controversy: but i desire him rather to comment on that text: dost thou believe? thou dost well, the devils also believe and tremble. whereas he goeth on to mock at the author's good intentions, and tells him pleasantly that, hell itself is full of such as were once full of good intentions: 'tis a concluding piece of wit, and therefore, as well as for the rarity, should be civilly treated and encouraged; so that i shall use no further 〈◊〉 there, that if this be the qualification of such as go to hell, the animadverter hath secured himself from coming there and so many more as were his partners. and thus much i have said upon his animadversions on the title, etc. wherein, he having misrepresented the author and prejudicated the reader against him by all disingenuous methods, and opened the whole pedlers-pack of his malice, which he half-p— worths out in the following discourse to his petty chapmen, i could not properly say less, though it exceeds perhaps the number of his pages. for it is scarce credible how vuluminous and pithy he is in extravagance: and one of his sides in quarto, for falsehood, insolence, and absurdity contains a book in folio. besides, the reader may please to consider how much labour it costs to bray even a little thing in a mortar: and that calumny is like london-dirt, with which though a man may be spattered in an instant, yet it requires much time, pains, and fullers-earth to scour it out again. annotations upon the animadversions on the first chapter, concerning articles of faith. the play begins. i confess (do so then and make no more words) when first i saw this jewel of a pamphlet, and had run over two or three pages of this chapter, i suspected the author for some youngster that had been dabbling amongst the socinian writers, and was ambitious of showing us his talon in their way. i was quickly delivered from this jealousy, by his orthodox contradictory expressions in other places. that word jewel is commonly used in a good sense, and i know no reason why this book of the authors might not be properly enough called so, though the animadverter hath debased the meaning of the word to deprave and undervalue the worth of the treatise. for i perceive that, during his chaplainship, he hath learned it in conversation with the ladies, who translate it frequently to call whore in a more civil and refined signification. but to say thus, that he suspected him at first for a socinian, yet was quickly cured of his jealousy, because he found the author was honest and orthodox. why should he vent his own amusements thus to the great and real prejudice of any worthy person? it is indeed a piece of second ingenuity for a man, that invents and suggests a calumny of which he is sure to be convict in the instant, therefore with the same breath to disclaim it: but it manifests in the mean time how well he was inclined if he thought it would have passed upon the author; and that could the animadverter have secured his reputation, he would have adventured the falsehood. what would he not have given to have made the world believe that he was a socinian! in this beginning you have a right pattern of the animadverters whole stuffe, and may see what measure the author is to expect all thorough. but he finds, he faith, that he is one of the men of the second rate, (as he takes leave to style them) that scarce ever see to the second conseqnence. at first i suspected from this expression that the animadverter had been some ship-chaplain, that had been dabbling in the sea-controversies, a tarpawlin of the faculty: but i was quickly delivered from this jealousy by his magisterial contradictions, that show him to be a man of more consequence, one of them whose eccleastical dignities yet cannot wean them from a certain hankering after the wit of the laity, and applying it as their own upon (or 'tis no great matter though it be without) occasion. yet therefore once for all he protests, too, that he does not charge him with any of his own most obvious consequences as his opinions (for who would believe the one or other that reads the author?) for 'tis plain that he does not (nor any man that hath eyes) discern them. this is a candour pregnant with contempt. but in the mean time he thinks it ingenuous to load this second rate frigate, (that was fitted out for the kings and the nations service) so deep that she can scarce swim, with a whole cargo of consequences which are none of the authors, but will, upon search, be all found the animadverters proper goods and trade, his own inconsequences and inanimadversions. so men with vicious eyes see spiders wove from the brim of their own beavers. as for example. p. 1. he saith that this chapter does admirably serve the turn of the rankest sectarian. that in his two or three first pages he appeared a socinian. p. 12. that his pique at the new word homoousios carries such an ugly reflection upon the nicene creed, that be, the animadverter, scarce dares understand him. p. 6. the author speaking against introducing new articles of faith, the adversary tells him; he hopes he does not mean all our thirty nine articles; and defends them as if they were attaqued. that he does implicitly condemn the whole catholic church both east and west for being so presumptuous in her definitions. p. 9 that upon his principles the prime and most necessary articles of faith will be in danger. the old dormant heresies, monothelites, nestorians, etc. may safely revive again. p. 13. that his are the very dregs of mr. hobbs his divinity, and worse, p. 14. that he would have some men live like pagans and go to no church at all, p. 16. so for aught we know this author is a jesuit, and writes this pamphlet only to embroile us protestants. p. 25, that he is guilty of unthought, of popery. p. 33. that our author like her (the foolish woman) in the proverbs, plucks down our church with his own hands and that she had need therefore be upheld against such as he is. of these inferences which, not being natural, must have required some labour, he is all along very liberal to the author; but the vile and insolent language costs him nothing, so that he lays that on prodigally and without all reason. now whether a man that holds a true opinion, or he that thus deduces ill consequences from it, be the more blame-worthy, will prove to be the case between the animadverter and the author. and (to show him now from whence he borrowed his wit of the second rate, and at the second hand) — all the subject matter of debate, is only who's the knave of the first rate. but he saith, because of these things, the mischief being done, to undo the charm again it is become a duty to expose him. alas what are they going to do with the poor man? what kind of death is this exposing? but sure, considering the executioner, it must be some learned sort of cruelty. is it the taeda, in which they candled a man over in wax, and he instead of the wick, burnt out to his lives end like a taper, to give light to the company? or is it the scapha, wherein a man, being stripped naked and smeared with honey, was in the scorching sun abandoned to be stung and nibbled by wasps; hornets, and all troublesome infects till he expired? or is it rather ad bestias, turning him out unarmed to be bated, worryed, and devoured, by the wild beasts in the theatre? for in the primitive times there were these and an hundred laudable ways more to expose christians; and the animadverter seems to have studied them. but the crime being of sorcery, and that there is a charm which hath wrought great mischief and it not to be undone but by exposing the malefactor (charm he never so wisely) 'tis more probable that it may be the punishment usual in such cases. and indeed the animadverter hath many times in the day such fits tale him, wherein he is lifted up in the air that six men cannot hold him down, tears, raves, and foams at the mouth, casts up all kind of trash, sometimes speaks greek and latin, that no man but would swear he is bewitched: and this never happens but when the author appears to him. and though in his animadversions on the title etc. he hath so often scratched and got blood of him (the infallible country cure) yet he still finds no ease by it, but is rather more tormented. so that in earnest i begin to suspect him for a witch, or however, having writ the naked truth, 'tis manifest he is a soothsayer, that's as bad. many persons besides have for trial run needless up to the eye in several remarkable places of his naked truth, that look like moles or warts upon his body, and yet he, though they prick never so much, feels nothing. nay some others of the clergy, whereof one was a bishop, have tied him hand and foot and thrown him into the thames betwixt whitehall and lambeth, for experiment; laying so much weight too on him as would sink any ordinary man, and nevertheless he swims still and keeps above water. so dangerous is it to have got an ill name once, either for speaking truth or for incantation, that it comes to the same thing almost to be innocent or guilty: for if a man swim he is guilty, and to be burnt; if he sink, he is drowned, and innocent. but therefore this exposing must surely be to condemn the author, as he has done his book already, to the fire, (for no man stands fairer fort as being first heretic, and now witch by consequence) and then the devil sure can have no more power over the animadverter. yet when i considered better that he does not accuse him of any harm that he has suffered by him in person, but that it is the church which may justly complain of him, and having done her so much mischief, therefore it is become a duty to expose him, i could not but imagine that it must be a severer torment. for if our church be bewitched, and he has done it, huic mites nimium flammas, huic lenta putassem, flumina, fumiferi potasset nubila peti. though i never heard before of a church that was bewitched except that of the galatians, gal. 3. 1. whom saint paul asks o foolish galatians who hath bewitched you? taking it for evident that they were so, because (they are his very next words) they did not obey the truth. (and that was a naked truth with a witness, the apostle teaching, that christ is become of none effect to them, that from their christian liberty returned to the jewish ceremonies. gal. 5. 4.) but therefore i looked over the canons, the rational, the ceremonial, the rubric, imagining the exposing mentioned, must be some new part of our ecclesiastical discipline, that i had not taken notice of before, and i should find it in one or other of the offices. but i lost my labour, and 'twas but just i should, for being so simple, as not to understand at first that to expose a man, is to write animadversions upon him. for that is a crueler torment than all the ten persecutors (and which none but this clergyman, could have) invented. to be set in the pillory first, and bedaubed with so many addle eggs of the animadverters own cakle as he pa●…ts him with! how miserable then is the man that must suffer afterwards, sub 〈◊〉 le●…to ingenio! to be raked and harrowed thorough with so ●…usty a saw! so dull a torture that it contains all other in it, and which even the christian reader is scarce able to endure with all his patience! had he been a man of some accuteness, the pain would have been over in an instant: but this was the utmost inhumanity in whoever it was that advised (whereas several witty men, were proposed that would have been glad of the the employment) to choose out on purpose the veriest (animadverter) in all the faculty. this it is to which the author is condemned. and now that i know it, and that it is an office a duty to which our church it seems has advanced the animadvertur; i wish him joy of his new preferment, and shall henceforward take notice of him as the church of englands' exposer, for i can never admit him by any analogy to be an exposito●…. it is no less disingenuously, then constantly done of the exposer in this same; p. 1. to concern the author in the non-conformists, that may have reflected any where, as if there were socinian, or pelagian doctrines; allowed to be preached and maintained in the city pulpits. for the author hath not in his whole book the least syllable that can be wrested to any such purpose. only it serves the adversaries turn, as he thinks, to preingage the whole clergy and church of england against him, if they were so simple, and by giving him an odious badge and jumbling them altogether, to involve him in all the prejudices which are studioufly advanced against that party. but neither have i any thing to urge of that nature further then, because he will out of season mention these matters, to observe that our church seems too remiss in the case of socinus and volkelius, who had many things to great value stolen from them by a late plagiary, but as yet have not obtained any justice or restitution. but seeing the exposer is thus given to transform not only the author, but his words and his meaning; it is requisite to state this chapter in his own terms: as men set their arms on their plate, to prevent the nimbleness of such as would alter the property. the sum of what he humbly proposes is: that nothing hath caused more mischief in the church, than the establishing new and many articles of faith, and requiring men to assent 〈◊〉 them with divine faith. for the imposing such on dissenters, hath caused furious wars and lamentable bloodshed among christians. that it is irrational to promote the truth of the gospel by imposition, which is contrary to the laws of the gospel, and break an evident commandment to establish a doubtful truth. for if such articles be not fully expressed in scripture w●…ds, it is doubtful to him upon whom it is forced, though not to the the imposer. if it be fully expressed in scripture words, there needs no new articles: but if not so, and that it be only deduced from scripture expressions, than men that are as able and knowing as the imposer, may think it is not clearly deduced from scripture. but there is nothing more fully expressed, or that can be more clearly deduced from scripture, nor more suitable to natural reason, then that no man should be forced to believe. because no man can force himself to believe, no not even to believe the scriptures. but faith is a work of peculiar grace and the gift of god. and if a man believe what is clearly contained in scripture, he needs not believe any thing else with divine faith. to add to, or diminish from the scripture, is by it unlawful, and liable to the curse in the revelation. if the imposer answer, he requires not to believe it as scripture, he doth, if he urge it to be believed with divine faith. if he say he requires it not to be believed with divine faith, he does, if he make it necessary to salvation. there is no command nor countenance given in the gospel to use force to cause men believe. we have no comprehensive knowledge of the matters declared in scripture, that are the prime and necessary articles of faith, therefore it is not for any man to declare one tittle more to be believed with divine faith, than god hath there declared. he cannot find the least hint in the word of god to use any force to compel men to the churches established doctrine or discipline: and from reason there can be no motive to be forced beyond their reason. to attempt any such force, though to the true belief, is to do evil that good may come of it. but the pastor ought first by plain and sound doctrine to stop the mouths of gainsayers. when the ministers have preached and prayed, they have done all they can in order to men's believing, the rest must be left to the justice or mercy of god. but if turbulent spirits broach new doctrines, contrary to scripture, or not clearly contained in the gospel, and neither by admonitions nor entreaties will be stopped, the pastors may proceed to the exeroise of the keys. which if it were duly performed as in the primitive times, and not by lay chancellors and their surrogates, would be of great effect. the magistrate ought to sili●…ce and oppose such at preach what is contrary to or not clearly contained in the gospel, and if they persevere in their perversuess, he may use his power with christian moderation. for his power reaches to punish evil doers, who publi●… or practise something to subvert the fundamentals of religion, or to disturb the peace of the state, or to injure their neighbours: but not to punish evil believers. but if the magistrate shall conceive he hath power also to punish evil believers, and on that pretence shall punish. true believers, the subject is bound to submit and b●…ar it, to the loss of goods, liberty or life. the reader will excuse this one long quotation, for it will much shorten all that follows. but now for which of these is it that 'tis become a duty to expose him? what is there here that seems not, at first sight, very christian, very rational? but however, it is all delivered in so grave and inoffensive manner, that there was no temptation to alter the stile into ridicule, and satire. but like some carl, the animadverter, may browse upon the leaves, or peel the bark, but he has not teeth for the solid, nor can hurt the tree but by accident. yet a man that sees not into the second, but the thirteenth consequence that is one of the disputers of this world, and aught to be admitted to these doubtful disputations (from which he ironically by st. paul's rule forsooth excludes the author) what is there that such an one, so subtle so piercing, cannot distinguish upon and controvert? truth itself ought to sacrifice to him that he would be propitious. for if he appear on the other side, it will go against her avoidable. in his 27. p. he is ravished in contemplation how rarachose it is, to see or hear a material question in theology defended in the university-schools, where one stands a respondent, enclosed within the compass of his pen, as popilius the roman ambassador, made a circle with his wand about antiochus, and bid him give him a determinate answer before he went out of it; a most apt and learned resemblance, and which shows the gentleman's good reading! but it is, i confess a noble spectacle, and worthy of that theatre which the munificence of the present archbishop of canterbury hath dedicated in one (may it be too in the other) of our universities; where no apish scaramuccio, no scenical farces, no combat of wild-beasts among themselves, or with men condemned, is presented to the people; but the modest skirmish of reason, and which is usually performed so well that it turns to their great honour, and of our whole nation. provided the chair be well filled, with an orthodox professor, and who does not by solaecismes in latin, or mistake of the argument, or question, render the thing ridiculous to the bystanders. that the pew be no less fitted with a respondent, able to sustain and answer in all points the expectation of so learned an auditory: that the opponent likewise exceed not the terms of civility, nor cavil where he should argue; and that the questions debated be so discreetly chosen; as there may be no danger, by controverting the truth, to unsettle the minds of the youth ever after, and innure them to a disputable notion about the most weighty points of our re-religon; by which sort of subtilizing the church hath in former ages much suffered, nor hath ours in the latter wholly escaped. now, seeing the exposer seem●… to delight so much (as men use in what they excel) in this exercise, he and i, because we cannot have the conveniency of the schools and pew, will play as well as we can in paper, at this new game of antiochus and (popilius. i must for this time be the roman senator, and he the monarch of asia●… for by the rules of the play, he always that hath writ the last book is to be antiochus, until the other has done replying. and i hope to gird him up to close with●… in his circle, that he shall appear very slender. for i am sensible, yet could not avoid it, how much of the readers and mine own time i have run out in examining his levity; but now i am glad to see my labour shorten: for, having thus plumed him of that puff of feathers, with which he buoyed himself up in the air, and flew over our heads, it will, almost by the first consequence, be manifest in his argument, how little a soul it is, and body, that henceforward i am to deal with. the author having said that, that which we commonly call the apostles creed, is, and was so received by the primitive church, as the sum total of christian faith, necessary to salvation. why not now? is the state of salvation altered? if it be complete, what need other articles? the exposer p. 2. answers. there may have been needful heretofore, not only other articles, but other creeds for the further explication of these articles in the apostles creed: and yet in those new creeds not one new article. 'tis safely and cautiously said, there may, and not there were other articles and other creeds needful. but the whole clause besides is so drawn up, as if he affected the academical glory of justifying a paradox: nor is it for the reputation of such creeds, whatever they be, to be maintained by the like methods. but seeing he disdains to explicare further, how there can be a new creed, and yet not one new article; i will pres●… to understand him, and then say, that in such creeds, whatsoever article does either explain the apostles creed contrary to, or beside the scripture, or does not contain the same express scriptural authority (which only makes this that is called the apostles creed to be authentic) that is a new article to every man that cannot conceive the necessary deduction. but then he galls the author. the apostles creed is the sum of the christian faith true. yet i hope he will not think the nicene, the constantinopolitan, and the athanasian) creed superfluous and and unnecessary. first, it is not necessary to take all those three in the lump, as the exposer puts it: for perhaps a man may think but one, or but two of them to have been superfluous, and unnecessary. next it is an hard thing for the exposer, who ought rather to have proved that they were necessary to shift it back thus upon the author. i have not spoke with him, nor know whether i shall as long as i live, (though i should be glad of the opportunity,) to know his mind. but suppose he should think them, one, two, or three unnecessary, who can help it? but so much i think, upon the state or sum of this controversy in his own 〈◊〉, i may adventure for him; that 〈◊〉 confessions of faith he does not disapprove them, (taking it granted there is nothing in any of them flatly against the word of god) but that if any thing be therein drawn up in such or such an exact form of words, not expressed in scripture, and required to be believed with divine faith, as necessary to a mans own salvation, and without believing which he must declare too that no man else can be saved that this is dangerous, and the imposing of it is unwarrantable by reason or scripture, he adds in this same paragraph, that the author's censure upon constantine is so bold and upon some godly bishops, (whom he conceives more zealous than discreet, and so do some godly bishops conceive of this author) and his pique at the new word homoousios carries such as ugly reflection upon the creed, that he scarce 〈◊〉 understand him, and i on the other side take his fears and his hopes to be alike inconsiderable. his words are p. 6. i am confident had the most prudent and pius constantine, the first and best of christian emperors pursued his own intention, to suppress all disputes, and all new questions about god the son, both homoousian, and homoiousian, and commanded all to acquiesce in the very scripture expressions, without any addition, that the arrian heresy had soon expired. i note that the exposer very disingenuously, and to make it look more ugly, take not the least notice of his pique against 〈◊〉 too and the arrian heresy. but what is there here to fright the understanding animadverter out of his wits, or what to make some godly bishops (who it seems must be numberless or nameless) to conceive the author 〈◊〉 zealous then discreet? but for this censure of the author, as well as for the godliness of the bishops, we must acquiesce it seems upon the credit, or gratitude of one nameless exposer. he than blames the author p. 3. for saying p. 1. that he would have men improve in faith rather intensive, then extensive, to confirm it, rather than enlarge it. still and always, to make things a little more ugly and of less value, he eclipse the author's good english. you would have men improve in faith, so would i, but rather intensive then extensive. 'tis good to know all gospel truths, no doubt of that, the more the better still; but the question is not what is good, but what is necessary. this is a pious and undonbred truth and confirmed by the author out of several places of scripture: may i add one mark the 9 17. where one brought his son, being troubled with a dumb spirit to our saviour. v. 23. jesus saith to the father, if thou canst believe, all things are possible to him that believeth. the father coys out with tears, lord i believe, strengthen thou my unbelief. and this confession of the intensive truth of his faith, with his reliance upon christ for the strengthening of it, was sufficient to cooperate with our saviour toward a miracle, and throwing that dumb and deaf spirit out of a third person. whoever indeed will deny this truth, must go against the whole current of the new testament. but the exposer is deaf to that, 'tis all one to him. yet he is not dumb, though as good he had, for all he has to say to it is: and yet it is certain that all formal and mortal heretics, that are not atheists, are justly condemned for want of due extension in their faith. what pertinence! but there goes more faith i see to the ejecting of a talkative then of a dumb spirit. there is no need of further answer to so succinct a bob, then that it had been well those terms of formal, and mortal, and heretics, and no less that of condemned had in this place been thoroughly explained. for we know that there was a time when the protestants themselves were the format, and, to be sure, the mortal heretics, even here in england, and for that very crime too, for want of due extension in their faith, they were condemned, whether justly or no it is in the exposers power to determine. for some of our ruling clergy, who yet would be content to be accounted good protestants, are so loath to part with any thank they have got, at what time soever, over the poor laity, or what other reason, that the writ de haeretico comburendo, though desired to be abolished, is still kept in force to this day. so that it is of more concernment than one would at first think, how far men's faith (lest afterwards for believing short their persons and estates) be extended, or taken in execution. he proceeds page the 3. and several that follow, to quarrel the author for quoting to this purpose acts 8. and then saying: i pray remember the treasurer (the exposer will do it i warrant you, and the chancellor too, without more entreaty) to candace queen of ethiopia, whom philip instructed with in the faith. his time of catechising was very short and soon proceeded to baptism. but philip first required a confession of his faith, and the eunuch made it, and i beseech you observe it. i believe that jesus christ is the son of god, and strait way he was baptised: how, no more than this? no more. this little grain of faith, being sound, believed withal his heart, purchased the kingdom of heaven. 'tis not the quantity but the quality of our faith god requireth. here the exposer, pretending now to be a learned expositor, hopes to win his spurs, and lays out all his ability to prove that philip (in a very short time for so much work as he finds him) had instructed the treasurer thorough the whole athanasian creed; concerning the equality, inseparability, coeternity of the three persons in the trinity. for, saith the ezposer, the very form of baptism, if thoroughly explained, is a perfect creed by itself: in the name of the father, the son, and the holy ghost: for it seems the name of the son, was by a divine criticism interposed between the other two persons, whose godhead was confessed and acknowledged by the jewish church, rather than that of the word, to de●…te the second person, etc. i should be glad to know where the exposer learned that the jewish church acknowledged the godhead of the holy ghost, as of a distinct person; which if he cannot show, he is very far out in the matter, as he is in that expression of divine criticism. therefore he may do well to consider. but it is simply, to say no worse, done of him, to call that form of words as it is ordered by our saviour himself, a divine criticism, as if christ had therein affected that critical glory, which the exposer himself in so subtle a remark doubtless pretends to. but the exposer will not only have philip to have instructed the treasurer in this criticism, but to have read him so long a lecture upon baptism, as must for certain have been out of the assemblies, and not noel's catechism: acquainting him and instructing him abundantly, in those great points of faith, the dying, burying, and rising again of christ for our justification from our sins, together with the thing signified, death unto sin, mortification, the new birth unto righteousness, than the mystery of the first and second covenant, original sin, how thereby he was a son of wrath, had hereby forgiveness; of sins, adoption, being made a child of grace, coheir with christ, to live with him in the communion of saints, after the resurrection, in life everlasting; i am glad to see that, at least when it serves to his purpose, this exposer will own all the doctrines, which another exposer would have called so many stages of regeneration, and have thought them too many to have driven over in one day's journey, but would rather have turned out of the road, and laid short all night somewhere by the way. here is a whole calvinistical systeme of divinity, that, if the treasurer had been to be baptised in the lake of geneva, more could not have been expected. and he has in a trice made him so perfect in it, that, as soon as the christening was over, he must have been fit to be received not only ad communionem laecam, but the clericam also, if it were then come into fashion. these exposers are notable men, they are as good as witches, they know all things, and what was done, and what was not done equally. in earnest, he has made us as formal a sto●…y of all ppilip said, and the treasurer believed; as if he had sat all the while in the coock-boot, and knows how long the discourse lasted, as well, as if he had set his watch when they began, and looked upon it just as the spirit caught up philip to azotus. but (suppose, for the exposers sake, that the treasurer) were in a coach, discourse, and for all the rumbling, so distinctly and thoroughly, in so short a time too, if it had been, which is the uttermost, a day's passage catechumeniz'ed) it came to this short print between them: the treasurer desires to be baptised, philip replies; if thou believest with all thine heart thou mayest, which can never signify otherwise then with all the intention of our spirit, as when we are said to love god wi●…h all our heart: the treasurer replies, and that's all, i believe that jesus christ is the son of god. now it is worth the readers observation, that out of a desire of c●…villing and the luxury the exposer takes in it, he has quite forgot the matter he brought in controversy. for the dispute is concerning new creeds, imposed beyond clear scripture: the author's arguments and proofs tended wholly thither, and to that purpose he urged this passage of philip, to prove that god considers both, but rather the quality, than quantity of our faith. the exposer amuses himself and us, to tell what philip preached to the treasurer, but never minds that, let that have been as it will, and the eunuch have believed all that this man can imagine, yet all the creed demanded, and all that he professes is no more than those formal words, believed with all his heart. i believe that jesus christ is the son of god, wherein the author has clearly carried, and the exposer thus far lost the question. and indeed antiochus, you are much too blame to have put the romans to all this trouble, to no purpose. but any thing to stuff out the dimensions of a book, that no man may imagine he could have said so little, in so much (which is the new way of compendiousness found out by the exposer) whereas he might have known, that, not god only, but even men always do respect the quality of any thing, of a book, rather than the quantity. one remark i must make more, before i take leave of this page, how, having thus liberally instructed both philip and the treasurer, he immediately chaps in p. 5. now this author may see what use and need there was of the constantinopolitan creed. that puts in one baptism for the remission of sins. i read it over and over, for there was something in it very surprising, beside the elegancy of the verses. for the now in that place is a word of immediate inference, as if it appeared necessarily, from what last preceded, that he had notably foiled the author in some arguments or other, and therefore exulted over him. to any man of common sense it can signify nei●…her more nor less than that, (whereas i upon prospect of this spoke merrily of the athanasian creed, noel's and the assemblies catechism, etc. wherein philip instructed the treasurer) the exposer means in good earnest (if men mean what they say) that philip, having studied the constantinopolitan creed himself very ex●…ctly, explained every article of it thoroughly to the eunuch, and in especial manner that of baptism for the remission of sins: which happening to have been so many hundred years before that council was in being, must needs be an extraordinary civility in philip, and which he would scarce have done, but for the particular sa●…isfaction of so great a personage, that had the whole manage of the revenue of the queen of ethiopia. i am sure it is more than our church will vouchsafe in baptism, 〈◊〉 of infan●…s or those of riper years, with their godfathers', but fobbs them of with the plain apostles creed: and truly the easier the better, if afttr that, and by powering water upon them, these persons be without any more ado (as the priest according to our rubric, shall then say) regenerate. to as little purpose doth he trouble in this same 5. p. another scripture the first of john 4. 2. every spirit that confesses that jesus christ is come in the flesh, is of god: which the author urges in confirmation of what he said before concerning the intention of faith. but, saith the exposer, will a mahometan, or a socinian confession of faith suffice? this is i trow what they call reducing a man ad absurdum, and i doubt he has hampered the author mischievously. no it will not suffice in the mahumetam or socinian interpretation: but a confession according to the true sense of this, and the clear express words of scripture in other places will do it, especially if st. john, as most men are of opinion, writ his own gospel. nay, though the exposer contends against this place, he admits another concerning peter, that is not much more pregnant. all the few primary fundamentals of christianity, saith he, were virtually contained in st. peter's short confession of faith. thou art christ the son of the living god: for which confession he was blest, and upon which faith christ declared that he would build his church as upon a rock. in conclusion i see antiochus has ex mero motu & certâ scientiâ, and prince— like generosity, given us the question: for i would not suspect that he hath hunted it so long till he lost it, or let it go of necessity, because he could hold it no longer. for the extension as well as intention of peter's faith, was terminated in these few words. for it is no irreverence to take notice how plain the apostles were under that dispensation. the same john the apostle and evangelist c. 14. v. 26. and in the following chapters, shows how little it was, and in how narrow a compass, that they knew and believed, and yet that sufficed. insomuch that where c. 16. v. 17. our saviour promises the holy ghost, to instruct them further, he saith only, it is expedient for you that i go away, for if i go not away, the comforter will not come to you. he saith not it is necessary. for that measure of true belief would have sufficed for their own salvation, but there was a larger knowledge requisite for the future work of their apostleship, in how many of them, and st. peter himself as much as any, were there such ignorances', i humbly use the word, in matters of faith, that our saviour could not but take notice of it and reprove them! as for peter, when our saviour was so near his death as to be already be●…ray'd, yet he, upon whose faith he built his church as on a rock, knew not the effect of his passion, but was ready with his sword, against christ's command and example, to have interrupted the redemption of mankind. and this short confession, in which all the fundamentals were virtually contained (as the exposer here teacheth us, and so hath reduced himself to that little grain of faith, against which he contends with the author) was upon occasion of our saviour's question; when peter doubtless did his best, to answer his lord and master, and told him all he knew. for that similitude, taken from so small a g●…aine by our saviour, did equal the proportion of faith then attainable and requisite. and as in a seed, the very plain and upright of the plant is indiscernably expressed, though it be not branched out to the eye, as when it ge●…minates, spreads, blossoms, and bears fruit; so was the christian faith seminally straitened in that virtual sincerity, vital point, and central vigour of believing with all the heart that jesus christ was come in the flesh, and was the son of the living god. and, would men even now believe that one thing thoroughly, they would be better christians, then under all their creeds, they generally are both in doctrine and practice. but that gradual revelation, which after his death and resurrection shined forth in the holy ghost, must now determine us again within the bounds of that saving ignorance by belief according to the scriptures, until the last and fu●…l manifestation. and the intention of this faith now also, as it hath been explained by the inspiration of the holy spirit in the sacred writers, is sufficient for salvation, without the chcianrey and conveyancing of humane extentions. and the controverter himself hath, if not by his own confession, yet, by his own argument all along hitherto proved it. in the 6. p, he saith that, where the author charges some with introducing many and new articles of faith, he●… hopes he does not mean all our thirty nine articles. if he hopes so, why doth he raise the suspicion, for which indeed there is no cause imaginable, but the e●…posers own disingenuity; the author appearing thorough his whole book a true subscriber to then●…e, without that latitude of equivocation which some others use, or else they would not publish those doctrines they do, and be capable nevertheless of ecclesiastical places? but here, as though any man had meddled with those articles, he explica●…es his learning out of bishop l●…y and of the communio laica, which is but his harping upon one string and his usual scanning on his fingers. for the author having named many and neew articles of faith, the exposer revolves over in his mind articles, articles of— and, the word not being very pregnant, he hits at last upon the thirty nine articles of the church of england: which yet the exposer saith himself, are articles of peace and consent not of faith and communion. why then does he bring them by head and shoulders, when the author he knows was only upon articles, of faith? he might as well have sa●… the lords of the articles. but this, he saith is one, as he takes it, of our church's greatest ecclesiastical policies, that she admits the many in thousands and hundred thousands, without any subscription, ad communionem laicam. truly she is ve●…y civil, and we are an hundred thousand times obliged to her. but i know not whether she will take it well of him, that he, not being content with so good an office as that of her exposer, should pretend to be her ecclesiastical politician, over an other man's head that is fitter for both, and not expect the reversion. and she cannot but be offended, that he should thus call her fool by craft, assigning that for her greatest ecclesiastical policy, when to have done otherwise would have been the greatest impertence and folly. but who are these the many, whom she so graciously receives communionem laicam without subscription? truly all of us whom she trusts not with teaching others or with university degrees. the whole body of the laity. (there again is another name or us, for we can scarce speak without affronting ourselves with some contemptuous name or other that they (forsooth the clergy) have affixed to us. nos numerus sumus the many, & fruges consumere nati. even his majesty too, god bless him, is one of the many, and she asks no su●…scription of him neither, although i believe he has taken his degree in the university. well we must be content to do as we may: we are the many, and you are the few, and make your best of it. but now, though i am none of you, yet, i can tell you a greater ecclesiastical policy, than all this you have been talking of. it is a hard word, and though it be but one syllable, i cannot well remember it, but by good luck it was burnt by the hand of the hangman, about that time that the naked truth was printed. and had that policy succeeded, the many must have taken not only all the thirty nine articles, but all the ecclesiastical errors and encroachments that escaped notice, all in the mass at once, as if they had been articles of faith, infallible, unalterable; but the state of the kingdom had been apparently changed in the very fundamentals. for a few of the few, for above these forty years, have been carrying on a constant conspiracy to turn all upsidedown in the government of the nation: but god in his mercy hath always hitherto, and will; i hope, for ever frustrate all such counsels. in his 7. p. it is that he saith, the author in his 4. p. implicitly condemns the whole catholic church, both east and west for being so presumptuous in her definitions. however if he does it but implicitly, the exposer might have been so ingenuous or prudent as not to have explicated it further, but concealed it lest it might do more harm, but at least not to have heigh●…en'd it so; the whole catholic church, and not only so, but, the whole catholic church both in the east and west too (why did he not add in the north and south too?) for being so presumptuous, a term far beyond and contrary to the modesty and deference of the author's expressions. but this is the art and duty of exposing, here it is that he brandishes the whole dint of his disputative faculty, and if it be not the most rational, i dare say (and yet i should have some difficulty to persuade men so) that it is the most foolish passage in the whole pamphlet. it is impossible to clear the dispute but by transcribing their own words. in the mean time therefore i heartily recommend myself to the readers patience. the author, pursuing his point how unsafe and unreasonable it is to impose new articles of faith drawn by humane inferences beyond the clear scripture expressions; instanceth in several of the prime and most necessary principles of the trinity, especially that of the holy ghost. are they not things, saith he, far above the highest reason and sharpest understanding that ever man had? yet we believe them because god, who cannot lie, hath declared them. is it not then a strange thing for any man to take upon him to declare one title more of them then god hath declared? seeing we understand not what is declared, i mean we have no comprehensive knowledge of the matter declared, but only a believing knowledge? to which the exposer will have it that, if the author be here bound up to his own words, (and 'tis good reason he should) he hath said that we understand not that the matter is declared, and moreover he saith that he is sure he has done him no wrong in fixing this meaning to the author's words. no, it is no wrong, it seems then, to say that to understand that, and to comprehend what is the same thing, as for example, (if our ignorance may be allowed in things so infinitely above us, to allude to things as far below us) because i understand that the exposer here speaks nonsense; i must therefore be able to comprehend what is the meaning of his nonsense, and be capable to raise a rational deduction from it. i am sure i do the exposer right in this inference, and should be glad he only would therefore wear it for my sake, for it will fit none but him 'twas made for. but let us come down to the particular, the scripture, saith the author, plainly tells, that the holy ghost proceeds from the father, and that he is sent also by the father, that he is sent also by the son: but whether he proceeds from the son, or by the son, the scripture is silent. i grant that by rational deduction, and humane way of argument 'tis probable that the holy ghost proceeds from the son, as from the father. but we understand not what the procession or mission of the holy ghost is, and therefore we cannot prove they are both one. and therefore to determine it or any such divine and high mysteries by humane deductions, in humane words, to be imposed and believed with divine faith is dangerous: and much more the author adds demonstratively to the same purpose,, but the exposer culls out, by the duty of his place, what may best serve for his, neither will that do the turn unless he also pervert it. here again is the that and the what the same thing●…, is it the same thing to say or understand that the holy ghost is sent by the son (which is declared in scripture) and to understand and comprehend what the nature of that mission is, or what the nature of procession that a man may safely say that he proceeds from or by the son, as from the father (which is not declared in scripture but by humane deduction) and exact the divine belief thereof under eternal and temporal penalties? yet this is the exposers logic. and away he goes with it, as if the world (as this inference is) were all his own, and knocks all on the head with a kill instance which that i may still open more visibly to the readers, i must beg pardon that i am necessitated to repeat over again their own words sometimes upon occasion. the exposer saith, but he means we have no comprehensive knowledge. his meaning is good and true but his inference is stark naught, if he means therefore we understand not at all that this or that is declared. but the author neither says nor means any such thing, and the exposer does him notwit●…hstanding his ave●…ment to the contrary, the most manifest wrong imaginable: for as much as he would not only fix a false meaning upon the author's words which i first mentioned in the beginning, but upon these other words also which, contrary to their plain signification, he produces for proof against him. they are by the exposers own relation, if then our reason understand not what is declared (which is the very equipollent of what the author had said, that we have no comprehensive knowledge of the matter declared) how can we by reason make any deduction by way of argument from that which we understand 〈◊〉? no more. from whence it is evident from that virtual repetition and natural reflection that every conclusion hath of and upon its premises, that the full sense of the words must be— from that which we understand not, comprehensive, and yet he saith that he does him no wrong, he is sure he does not in affixing this meaning unto those words. and proceeds, is it even so? then let us put the case with reverence that almighty god, who assuming i suppose, the shape of an angel, treated with abraham face to face, as a man doth with his friend. should for once have spoken in the same manner, to arrius or socinus, and made this one declaration, that the catholic churches doctrine of the trinity was true, and his false: then i demand, would not this have been demonstration enough of the faith which we call catholic either to socinus or arrius? and yet all these contradictory arguments which either of them had once fancied so insolable, supposing them not answered in particular, would remain against it, and stand as they did before, any such declaration, and yet all this without giving him any comprehensive knowledge. this instance is made in confutation of his own false supposition that the author's words, if then our reason understand not with comprehensive knowledge what is declared, how can we then make any deduction by way of arguments from that which we understand not, did in their true meaning signify how can we by reason make any deduction by way of argument, from that which we understand not to have been declared, or, that i may p●…t it the furthest i can imaginable, to the exposers purpose or service, how can ●…e by reason understand that it is declared, which is to impose a most ridiculous and impossible sense upon the author's plain words; for if we neither understand that nor what, there is an end of all understanding. yet admitting, here, says the exposer, i have stated you a case which proves the contrary, for here arrius or socinus have no comprehensive knowledge of what is declared, and yet they understand that it is declared; and doubtless the author would say so too, without ever meaning the contrary: yea and that this revelation would have been demonstration enough of that faith, which we call catholic. but what would become of their former contradictory arguments which the exposer saith, would stand as they did before, and remain against it. i cannot vouch for the author, that he would be of the same opinion. for i cannot comprehend though god had not answered those arguments of theirs, in particular as the exposer puts it, that those arguments would or could remain against it, and stand as they did before any such declaration, to arrius and sacinus after they had received a sufficient demonstration from gods own mouth by new revelation. they would indeed remain against it, and stand as they did before to mr. sherlock. but when i have thus given the humorous exposer his own will and swing in every thing, yet this superlunary instance does not serve in the least to confirm his argument that he makes against the author's words, after his transforming them: for here arrius and socinus only bring their sense of hearing, and having heard this from god, do not by reason make any deduction by way of argument, but by a believing knowledge do only assent to this, second further revelation: nor can they then from this second revelation make any third step of argument to extend it beyond its own tenor, without incurring the author's just & wise argument again, that seeing our reason understands not what is declared, i mean we have no comprehensive knowledge of this doctrine of trinity. (which the exposer supposes to be declared) how can we by reason make any deduction by way of argument from that which we understand not, to wit, not comprehensively? as i have abundantly cleared. but this instance was at first extinguished, when i showed in the beginning that he did impertinently tradnce the author's words, and forge his meaning. in the mean time, though he saith put the case with reverence, when the case so put cannot admit it, i cannot but at last reflect, upon the exposers unpardunable indiscretion, in this more than absurd and monstruous representation of god almighty, assuming the shape of an angel as he saith he treated with abraham face to face as a man do●…h with his friend, to discourse with arrius and socinus. these are small escapes wi●…h which he aptly introduces such an interview and conference, that he treated our 4th. abraham face to face, as a man doth with his friend: for it is true abraham is styled the friend of god, and that god spoke to him; but it is never said in scripture that god did treat, that is a word of court, not of scripture: no nor that god spoke to him face to face. but it is said in sripture only of moses, exod. 33. 11. the lord spoke to him face to face as a man speaketh unto his friend. but that was a privilege peculiar to moses. numbers 12. 5. and the lord came down in a pillar of cloud, and stood in the door of the tabernaele of the congregation, and called aaron and miriam, and they both came forth, and he said, hear now my words if there be a prophet among you, i the lord will make myself known to him in a vision, and will speak unto him in a dream: my servant moses is not so who is faithful in all my house, with him will i speak mouth to mouth even apparently and not in dark speeches, and the similitude of the lord shall he behold, wherefore then were not you afraid to speak against my servant moses? (the exposer is not afraid to do him manifest injury.) for deut. 34. 10. and there arose not in israel a prophet like unto moses, whom the lord knew face to face, etc. and much more might be said of this matter, were the man capable of it: but i perceive he neither reads nor understands scripture, and one divine criticism is stock enough it seems to set up an exposer. neither is it so notorious an error that he saith god assumed the shape of an angel to treat with him. i would be glad to know of the exposer, seeing he is so cherubick▪ what is the shape of an angel? some humane critics have told me that it was the similitude of a calf. but gods appearing in a sha' e to abraham, when he treated with him face to face was in the shape of a man. gen. 18 1. the lord appeared to him in the plane of mamre as he sat in the tent door, and so three men stood by him, etc. these are easy slips and he that stumbles and falls not, gains a step. yet for one as he mocks the author p. 2. that appears as one dropped down from heaven, vouching himself a son of the church of england, teaching as one having authority like a father, to trip in this manner, is something indecent. but to bring god in to so little a purpose, contrary to all rules, that i have seen one with a better grace brought down by a machine to treat with arrius and socinus, no other company, those who have contended against the son of god and his holy spirit, whose opinions have been the pest of the clergy for so many ages, to have them now at last brought in as privadoes to the mysteries of heaven, and the trinity; what divine in his wits but would rather have lost an argument! what will the gentleman i last named say, to see such a reconciliation, to behold arrius and socinus in so close communion with god, as to be admitted even to single revelation: he cannot then avoid thinking, what he lately printed, and now with more reason: that god is all love and patience when he has taken his fill of revenge, as others use to say the devil is good when he is pleased. what a shame is it to have men like the exposer, who are dedicated to the service of the church, and who ought as in the place quoted by the author in the present argument, they of all other to hold fast the form of sound words, thus by their rash levity administer so much occasion upon the most revered subject, that one can scarce answer them in their own dialect without seeming though never so averse to border upon their profaneness. but those are the divines in mode, who being by their dignities and preferments plumped up beyond humane proportion, do whether for their pride or ignorance, neither understand to speak of god, which ought to be their study, with any tolerable decorum; these are the great animadverters of the times, the church-respondents in the pew, men that seem to be members only of chelsey college, nothing but broken windows, bare walls, and rotten timber. they with a few villainous words, and a s●…ared reason, are the only answerers of good and serious books: but then they think a book to be sure fully answered, when as the exposer has by an humane criticism, they write or scribble the same number of pages. for the author's book of the naked truth, chancing to be of sixty six pages, the exposer has not bated him an ace, but paid him exactly, though not in as good billet, yet in as many notches. this being done, than the exposer ubiquits himself, peeping at the keyholes, or picking the locks of the bedchambers of all the great ministers, and though they be reading papers of state▪ or at the stool, more seasonably obtrudes his pamphlet. next he sends it by an express to his friends at the universities, but especially to his own college, and can scarce refrain from recommending it to the tutors to instruct their pupils, reading it to them in lieu of their lectures. but they are laid in for provision by the manciple and butler, and that quarter few escape without being sconced for an animadversion. the country cathedrals learn it latest, and arrive by flower degrees to their understanding, by the carrier. it grows a business of chapter, and they admire it in body as a profound book of theology. those of 'em that can confide in one another, discourse it over in private, and then 'tis odds, but, before the laity get notice of it, they first hear it preached over by him whose turn it is next sunday in the minster, the rest conceal the fraud for the reputation of the diocese. after the book is grown common the plagiary wonders how, but that proportionable wits jump together, the exposer could hit so right upon his motions. but if the dean foresee that 'tis a very vendible book, he you may imagine forestalls the market, and sends up for a whole dicker of 'em to retail at his last advantage. all this while the little emissaryes here in town are not idle, but hawk about from london to westminster with their breeches stuffed with the copies, and will sell them to any one for commendation. nor do the grudge this drudgery out of the hope and vision that they themselves also may, at some happy hour or other, be received into the band of answerers, and merit the same applause and advancement. but if they found it so hard a task as i do this, sure they would be better advised. 'tis a great pain to answer, even an animadverter; they are much happier of the rwo 'tis better by far preaching, and a sermon is soon curried over. yet sometimes it happens the printing of a sermon is toilsome afterwards and hazardous: for even one that was preached before his ma●…esty, and by his special command to be printed, is it seems making over again, there having been sure some error in the fonte, and has laid several months in disobdience. but when it shall come out new vamped and refitted, it will be a question worthy the schools, whether it be the same sermon, and whether he has not prevaricated against his majesty's special command, and sinned on, by printing without a licence. yet i rather expect that after all, it will incur the same fate with that memorable sermon preached before the house of commons, at their receiving the sacrament upon the first opening of the parliament: which for some dangerous opinions there vented, was so far from ever coming forth, that one might sooner have obtained his majesty's special command against over printing it. but to return to the exposer, who by this impertinence has forced an occasion upon me to effect on some few who are guilty of the same, and may thank him for the favour. may not, with more reason p. 1. than he saith it of the author, the church justly complain of him for thrusting out such crude indigested matter, without communicating these conceptions of his to some that would have showed him the weak and blind sides of them? i profess after those passages of his that i have already taken notice of, and this egregious one the last, wherein by so few lines he hath so amply molested the judicious reader, i do not think i owe him the patience to consider what remains with the same exactness, every thing that he adds henceforward growing methodically slighter and worse as it hastens to, the centre of levity, the conclusion of his pamphlet. yet something i will reply all along, with more justice than he practices toward the author, for whereas he picks out here and there what he thinks; tenderest in him to tyre upon, and render it by his affected misrepresentation obnoxious, but shuts his eyes as not being able to endure the resplendence of those evident truths which he delivers with great demonstration; i shall in the exposer only observe and deal with what seems the least impertinent. only i may not perhaps think him worth the transcribing so punctually as i have done hiterto, but for brevity more often refer to his own pages. therefore be pleased to look on his p. 7. where, relating to what the author had said p. 4. of the procession of the holy ghost, wherein the greek creed and ours differ, he muffles it all up with saying that yet this breaks 〈◊〉 communion between us, the difference arising only from the inadequation of languages. which is a mathematical and more civil way, either of owning his ignorance in so weighty a point, or confessing that he cannot answer what the author hath said upon it. if by reason of the inadequation of languages a mystery so inexplicable could not be expressed why did either our church or theirs meddle in it beyond the scripture? there is no inadequation between the languages, in speaking of it, dia and apo a patre filioque, and a patre per filium: from the father and son, or from the father by the son: proceeding or sending: but no language can reach the nature of profession or mission, nor to represent to humane understanding how they can both be the same, or wherein they may differ. he does in this as the arrian bishops in their subscription of the nicene creed to jovianus socr. l. 3. c. 21. which now they said they could do with a good conscience, understanding neque vocabulum substantiae apud sanctos patres ad consuetudinem graeci sermonis capi. 'tis an happy thing i see to find our church in good humour, else she might have made more ado about an article of faith, as she does about much lesser matters. 'tis not strange that the exposer finds no greater difference or distinction between terms so distant, seeing in the last paragraph above, he was so dull that he understood not what is what. but he most aptly concludes how demosthenes once answered the orator aeschines, who kept much ado about an improper word. the fortunes of greece do not depend upon it. so trivial a thing it seems does the exposer reckon it, to have improper words obtruded upon christians in a creed, without believing of which no man can be saved, and whereupon the eastern and western churches divided with so much concernment. but how proper and ingenious a contrivance was it of the author (who is the very cannon of concinnity) to bring in demosthenes and aeschines, as being doubtless both of the greek church, to decide the matter in controversy of the procession or mission of the holy ghost between them and the west. antiochus, whensoever you take the pew again, be sure you forget not demosthenes and aeschines: for it will be to you as good as current money, which answers all things. the exposer, though here so gentle, yet, in the very page before this was as dogged, to as good men as the greeks some of them, the papists, lutherans, and calvinists. the author, he says, may make as bold with them as he pleases, for we are none of these, i am not bound to make war in their vindication. but if he should once kyrie elieson, what would become of us? good mother church of england maintain this humour thorough, carrey it on, but above all things make much of this thy exposer; give him any thing, think nothing too good for him, happy the church that hath, and miserable that wants such a champion! but i must find some more expeditious way of dealing with him, and walk faster, for really i get cold. the force of all that he ●…aith in the 8, and 9, pages, is to represent the author ●…idiculously and odiously, as if upon his wishing that constantine had commanded both party's homoousian, and homoiosian to acquiece in the very scripture expressions, without any addition, whereby he is contident the arrian he esie had soon expired, he did by consequence cut, poe-dike to let in a flood of heresies, upon the fens of christianity. but the words with which he cuts the author down, are why this was the design of the arrians themselves, that which they drove at court, that silence might be imposed on both parties. well, and 'twas very honestly done of them, and modestly, and like christians, if the controversy arose, as men think, about the imposing of a creed, or article co●…ncerning a question so fine, in words so gross, which yet a man must believe that without believing it, no man can be saved; though no humane understanding can comprehend the subject of the question, nor the scripture expressions, as they conceived, did reach it. there is field enough for faith in the scriptures, without laying out more to it; and to resign their reason to be silenced in a question, stirred up by others, that peace might be established in the church, was ingenuity in them: and the contrary proceeding of the church, was the occasion of many other heresies that else had never been heard of. but the exposer had said something, if he could have divined that they would have used this silencing the disputes by constantine as the arminians (so they were at that time called) did the same in the reign of his late majesty, who procuring a command from him to prohibit all writing or preaching about those points, having thereby gagged their adversaries, did let the press and the pulpit lose more than ever to propagate their own doctrines. that which the exposer drops in the ardour of this argument. p. 9 how many terms in the athanasian creed, which to seek for in the apostles creed, or in the whole bible, were to as much purpose as it was for the old affected ciceronian in erasmus, to labour and toil his brains to turn that creed into ciceronian latin. yet these are the terms in which the catholic church thought she spoke safely in these divine matters; is totidem verbis, either to beg the question, or make a formal resignation of it. and our church (howsoever else he may have obliged her) has reason to resent this indiscretion. why was she herself so indiscreet to admit such a blab into her secrecies? how if no man else aught to have known it? it is an ill matter to put such things in men's minds, who otherwise perhaps would never have thought of it. 'tis enough to turn a man's stomach that is not in strong health, not only against the athanasian creed, but against all others for its sake. he saith p. 8. scoffingly that the author is one of those whom st. paul forbids to be admitted to any doubtful disputations: but let the exposer see whether it be not himself rather that is there spoken of. and withal that he may make some more proper use of the place, which he warily citys not, i recommend it to him in order to his dispute about future ceremonies: 'tis the 14. rom. v. 7. where st. paul calls them that contend for him the weak brother, weak in the faith; and such therefore the apostle excludes from doubtful disputations, so that one gone so far in ceremony as the exposer, had no licence from him to print animadversions. as to what he patches in p. 10. upon the matter of school-divinity, as if the author poured contempt upon the fathers, i refer it to the animadversions on the chapter about preaching, and should i forget, i desire him to put me in mind of it. and p. 11. and 12. where the author having in his 2. and 3. p. said that, none can force another to believe, no more then to read where the candle does not give good light, and more very significantly to that purpose; the exposer flying giddily about it, burns his wings with the very similitude of a candle. sure if a man went out by night on travelling, or batfowling, or proctoring, he might catch these exposers by dozen. but the force of his argument is p. 13. whereas the author says, you can force no man's sight, nor his faith. ●…he replies, if it be not in any man's truth to discern fundamental truths, (of which this chapter treats) when they are laid before his eyes when there is a sufficient proposal, than it is none of his fault. yet this is as weak as water: for, supposing a fundamental truth clearly demonstrated from scripture, though a man cannot force himself to believe it, yet there is enough to render a man inexcusable to god. god hath not been wanting (one of the exposers scraps) in necess●…iries: but i hope he will not compel god too, but that he may dispense his saving and efficatious influence (without which all that sufficient proposal he speaks of will have been insufficient,) only to the minds of whom he pleases. the animadverter in defending that a man can force himself to believe, argues against experimental demonstration (try it in any man, in every man) but raises only a malign ignorant and caviling dispute, herein to reduce the author to the dregs, forsooth, of mr. hobb's his divinity, i. e. it is not in the man's fault saith he, if he cannot believe after a sufficient proposal, he saith, he is sure, too it is not then the man's fault (so in the dispute lately about that and what, he said, he was sure he did the author no wrong) but i desire him first to read romans 3. the 4, 5, 6. verses, with the context: but especially romans 9 from the 13. to the 22. verse, where the apostle introduces a man objecting in the same words to the same purpose, thou wilt say unto me why doth god yet find fault, etc. and if the exposer will not take the apostles answer, but be sure of the contrary, than he too cannot, it seems force himself to believe after what he ought to have allowed for a sufficient proposal. but where the author supposes that any man does clearly or sufficiently demonstrate a fundamental truth from scripture: yet unless a man's brains be clear it is to him no demonstration. you suppose that all of you do clearly demonstrate, so that if they don't believe you may justly open their eyes with a pair of pincers. whereas there are some few among the few, such spermologers, that unless a grain of faith fall down, by the by, from heaven your seed is barren. i do not reckon much upon a church historical devilish belief. unless a thing be in the express words of scripture, there are some of the laity to whom a counsel cannot demonstrate clearly, a preacher cannot demonstrate, sneezing powder cannot demonstrate, no earthly can do it. christ used clay indeed, but it was his spital that gave the healing quality, and cured the blind man. alas you are so wise in your own conceit, that you cannot conceive how simple some poor men are. he saith, the reason which helps every man to see these fundamental truths, at least when they are showed and pointed out to him (such truths you must conceive as the creed doctrines of the trinity) is a vulgar and popular thing (what need then so many disputes in the councils? and sure the author, that he may not admit any man's hypocrisy and wilfulness to be gross and palpable, imagines there are a world of idiots. so the exposer would now coke's the lay-multitude, whom before he called the hundred thousands, and the many, and for their simplicity excusable from subscribing the 39 articles, to be grown on the sudden so very wise men, that he may with justice therefore compel them by corporal punishments or penalties to believe in spite of their teeth or their understandings. alas if any men consider those fundamental truths, so subject he saith to vulgar and popular reason, it is one of the difficultest things in the world, and yet more to those who are most removed from being idiots to believe them; and some men by their clear demonstrations, by their sufficient proposals, by their creeds have rendered it still more difficult. why have i wasted all this on the exposer who, (whether it be his fault or no) yet cannot force himself to believe even the naked truth, though so clearly demonstrated from scripture (and the exposer i suppose believes the scripture▪) though so consonant and obvious to the most vulgar and popular reason, but believes his own animadversions, against the most vulgar and popular reason, to be a sufficient proposal to the contrary? in the 13. and 14. p. speaking of that place gal. 5. 12. which the author understands of the magistrates power, but the exposer will have to be excommunication; i crave leave to descent from both of them, humbly conceiving that the word there of cutting off is rather meant in the usual sense▪ of scripture in a multitude of places, for gods taking them of by his hand. but whatsoever it be, i desire the exposer for his own sake to take good heed that, whether it be executing, or punishing, or banishing, or excommunicating, or taking them away god's hand of justice, the apostle speaks of such as taught for circumcision, and alluding to the word wishes that they were rather cut off, who trouble the galatians about the retaining of that, and who would oblige them contrary to their christian liberty to such jewish ceremonies. for what he ha●…es in of the great and notable effect p. 14. of conferences, wishing that there were such held publicly or privately to satisfy the non-conformists; truly though they be no great men; yet perhaps it were fit they were first satisfied what kind of reception they should meet with. but i doubt such conferences in public are but the resemblance and epitome of general councils. for that of the savoy in which he instances it might almost as well have been in piedmont. a man disintessed either way, might make a pleasant story of the anecdota of that meeting, and manifest how well his majesty's gracious declaration, before his return, and his broad-seal▪ afterwards were pursued. but it is not my present business. but for shortness sake, as to his desire that he that does not believe the notable effect of them would but read what my lord bishop of winchester printed of that conference, where the adverse party was driven immediately to assert that whatsoever may be the occasion of sin to any must be taken away: i shall as civilly as i can, though i defer much to his extraordinary veracity, tell the exposer i do not believe him. i come now to what he p. 14, 15, 16, 17. and in other places declares to be his judgement, as to compulsion in matter of faith and religion. the author's opinion appears in the beginning, where i stated his own words thorough this chapter. the expose does beat the air. p. 14. concerning the donatists, a must seditious and turbulent sect. who saith the author (as it is objected by those that would have force used) some of them came to st. augustine and gave thanks, that the civil power was made use of to testraine them, confessing that was the means that brought them to consider more calmly their own former extravaga●… opinions, and so brought them home to the true church. but he quarrels the author for his four answers, against the magistrates using that as a precedent. the first, our case is not in repressing seditious practices, but enforcing a confession of faith. i will return strait to the exposers answer to this. the author's second is; unless it can be evidenced that their hearts were changed as well as their profession (a thing impossible to prove) all this proves nothing. neither does it. for the dispute now betwixt the author and his adversary is, whether it be possible to compel a man to believe. this instance proves only that those donatists were forced to come to church. therefore there cannot be a more uncharitable and disingenuous thing invented, then for the exposer to upbraid him with such a retort, for aught he knows they were hypoorites: (the author does say so) so for aught we to know this author is all this while a jesuit, and writes this pamphlet only to imbroile us protestants. but he must make some sputter, rather than be held to the terms of the question: and truly i perceive. antiochus is very weary and shifts like a crane (not to instance in a worse bird) first one foot and then another to rest on, being tired to stand so long within so close a circle. for thirdly the author answers, put the case their hearts were really changed, as to matter of belief, 'tis evident their hearts were very worldly still, grovelling on earth not one step nearer heaven: he will not be candid without compulsion, but leaves out what follows; and sure their heart was evil, which was far m●…re moved for the quiet enjoyment of this world's good, then for the blessed enjoyment of christ. in earnest i begin to think an exposer is a rational creature. for had he not on pu●…pose left these last words out, he could not have cried, a horrible 〈◊〉 saying! we may forgive the author any thing after this; which is all the answer he gives: so charitable is the exposer grown to the donatists, for every man that will come to church is ipso facto with him, a true believer. but it did in truth appear to have been so, and there is not the least uncharitableness in this that the author has said. for by those donatists own confession, it was not any love to that which they now owned for the truth to st. austin, not any convicton of conscience, not so much as even 〈◊〉 inclination to obey the magistrate; but mere fine force and fear of punishment that brought them to church, and whatsoever good came on't was by accident. whether might not a man add that their giving thanks for that force, and so owning that principle of compulsion, was a further evidence that their heart was naught still, even while they were with st. augustine? i think a man might, until i be better informed. but the author having given a fourth answer, that, suppose they were now really brought over to the truth of the church of belief, and religion by the magistrate's severity, (i express it thus that i may with the exposer trifle about the jews care) yet st. paul hath said, god forbid we should do evil that good may come of it? this is answer enough for a man of understanding. for it is not lawful, suppose for st. austin himself, to beguile any man even into christianity: unless as st. paul perhaps, 2 cor. 12. 16. being crafty, caught the corinthians with guile, by preaching the gospel without being burdensome to the people. no man ought to cheat another though to the true belief: not by interlining the scripture. not by false quotation of scripture, or of a father. not by forging a heathen prophecy, or altering an author. not by false syllogism: not by telling a lie for god. and if no petty fraud much less can a pia vis be allowed, to compel them to faith, to compel them to a creed, seeing it were to do evil that grod may come of it: much less to a creed not perfectly scriptural, and, instead of being enforced, indeed weakened by compulsion, seeing it is impossible to compel a man to believe, and some divines teach us to believe (though i suspend,) that even god himself cannot, or doth not compel men to believing. but now it falls in naturally to me to be as good as my word, to consider what the exposer replies to the author's first answer concerinig the donatists, that our case is of enforcing a confession of faith, not concerning seditious practices, of which the donatists were notoriously guilty, in which case he had shown before, that the civil magistrate may proceed to punishment. wherein the author reasons with his usual justness, and i though a very slender accession, cannot but come into him. for st. paul, in the 13. chapter of the romans, laying out the boundaries of the duty of christian subjects and the magistrates power; saith, rulers are not (ought not to be) a terror to good works, but to evil, and so forward: but to the christian people he saith, they must be subject not only for wrath as those donatists were afterwards, but for conscience sake. and the subjection he defines is in doing good, walking up●…ightly, keeping the moral law, fearing, honouring, and paying tribute to the magistrate. but not one word saith the apostle of forbearing to preach out of that obedience; saying in another place necessity is laid upon one and woe is unto me if i preach not the gospel: (and that supposes too meeting) and as little of compelling to hear. for in those times and a great while after, there was no enforcing to christianity. it was very long before that came in fashion: and, writing on the sudden, i do not well remember whether it did ever before the days of picarro and almagro, the apostles of the indians. yet upon recollection it was sooner. but what saith the exposer to this of the donatists, whom the author allows only to have been punishable only for seditious practices, having before declared that for such as only refuse to conform to the churches established doctrine and discipline (pardon him if he say really he cannot find any warrant or so much as any hint from the gospel to use any force to compel them: and from reason sure there is no motive to use force, because as he showed before, force can't make a man believe your doctrine, but only as an hypocrite, profess what be believes not. i expect that the exposer, in this place above all other, which i guess was his greatest motive to this employment, should ply and overly him now with reason, but especially with scripture, let us hear how he answers. i say only this p: 5. (for he speaks now of our non-conformists) the very act against them calls them seditious conventicles, and openly to break so many known laws of the land, after so many reinforcements, is not this to be turbulent? this now you must understand to be reason, and not scripture: that i suppose as the strongest is reserved for the rear. truly, (as far as a man can comprehend by comparing that with other acts of this parliament,) they did only appoint that the penalty of sedition should lie against those that frequent such meetings: as in the act against irish cattle, if it be not in itself a nuisance no lawgivers can make it so. nor can any legislators make that to be sedition which is not sedition in its own nature. so prohibitions of that kind operate no more as to the intrinseque quality, than a public. allowance of taking away any honest men's goods by violence and giving it another name, would extinguish the robbery. it was the king and parliaments prudence to make such laws, and as long as they shall continue of that mind, it is reason the non-conformists should lie under the penalty, which i humbly conceive is all that could be intended, but the exposer rivets this with reason again, not gospel. and was it not ever understood so in all religions; even in heathen rome? the most learned p. aerodius tells us (does he so? what is it i beseech you) that the roman senate (the exposer quotes it at large as a story of great use and not to be huddled over; i must be glad to contract it) made an act against the conventicles of certain innovators in their religion; if any particular person judged such a sacrifice to be necessary, he must repair first to the praetor, he to the senate, where the quorum must be an hundred, and they must not neither give him leave if at all to have above five persons present at the meeting. the self same number, beside the dissenters own family, is so far forth endured by an act of this present parliament, that there must be more than five to make it a conventicle. this is a very subtle remark that he has made, as if it were one of those witty accidents of fortune, or an extraordinary hand of providence, that the senate of rome and the parliament of england should hit so put, upon an act of the same nature: and upon that number of five. however they are obliged to him, and he deserves the public thanks for furnishing them, so long after, with a precedent. i confess i always wondered they would allow them so many as five, for fear when, not two or three, but five of'em were gathered together god should bear their request: and it seemed therefore to me a formidable number. but where has the example been hid so long? i believe the exposers study has laid much this way. but this was so deep an arcanum that was fit for none but an arch-bishops closer. i wish he have come honestly by it. but murder i see and theft will out, and so this comes to light by a blabbing animadverter, that cannot keep counsel, but will violate the ecclesiastical secret rather than lose the lechery of his tattle and the vainglory of his pedantry. i could be glad to know what complexion this exposer is of. i am persuaded, whatsoever he may be now, he was once extreme fair: for i remember since i was at school: that the learned p. ovid told me, that the crow was once a white bird, and much in apollo's favour till for telling of tales, sperantem non falsae praemia linguae, inter aves albas vetuit consistere corvum. and of another, the fairest thing that ever eyes were laid on, but for carrying of stories, was turned into a jackdaw, and grew as black as a crow, filching, and kaw me and i'll kaw thee, ever after. and that which sure must make him more black, more a jack-daw, and like it, worthy to be expelled from the guard, and from the protection of minerva, and who henceforward — ponatur post noctis avem, is, that he does with open mouth proclaim the naked design of all the few that are of his party. p. 12. the jews in rome are constrained once a week to hear a christian sermon. the same p. 12. we that would oblige him to open his eyes whether he will or no. p. 14. jean only wish for the present, that by forcing them into our churches, they may hear our defences, p. 17. i speak nothing more against them than that they may he brought to our churches, etc. all this as the last result and greatest condescension of his ecclesiastical clemency. in conclusion he declares he would have them forced: and for what manner of force, violence, punishment or penalty he leaves it all open, go as high as men will. these things still are not scripture neither, but reason. his first was an heathenish reason in one sense, and this a jewish in another. for i confess it is a very pregnant and adequate example, and of great authority for us to imitate; that the jews in rome are constrained once a week to hear a christian sermon. what could there be more proportionable, then to resemble the proceeding with christians among themselves here in england, not differing in any point of faith, with the proceeding at rome against the jews? but that the exposer should implicitly liken and compare our bishops to the pope, may perhaps not be taken well by either party. so that i dare say, had he consulted with his usual prudence, he would not have disoblidged both sides at once. but for the precedent, i have nothing to oppose to this more than the first, it being doubtless of notable effect, as notable as that of the piedmont conference. only out of the affection i have for him, i would wish him to correct here one slip, if i be rightly informed; for some that have been abroad say his intelligence from rome has failed him, for that it is not once a week, but once a year that the jews at rome are, obliged, forced, to hear a christian sermon. and therefore, when the parliamentum indoctum sits again, i would advise him not to make his act too severe here upon this mistake, than it is against those judaic non-conformists at rome. but the next reason would be so extraordinary troublesome to the few, that are of the exposers party and to himself, that, if he had thoroughly considered it, i question whether he would have been so charitable to the fanatics, that he would oblige them to open their eyes whether they will or no. for it would require two of the church of england to every nonconformist, unless 'twere here and there one that had lost an eye in the service. less would not do the business decently, and those two also must be well in order, to open the non-conformists eyes both at once, lest one eye should be of one and the other eye of a contrary opinion. and then they should in humanity, give them some interval for winking. else they had as good cut off their eyelids, as the episcopal carthaginians used the presbyterian regulus, for keeping in the true sense to his covenant. but on the other side, it would look too big for a company of beggarly fanatics, to be waited upon in as much majesty as obeshankanogh the king of virginia, that had two squires of the body in constant attendance, to lift up his eyelids as oft as he conceived any man worthy to be looked upon. but let the exposer order it as he pleases, i am not bound to be any of his sight-supporters. only this, it would be very improper for him to choose any one that is blind to that employment. for his several times repeated wish, that they might be forced to come to church to give them a fair hearing, and to bear their discourses: truly i believe they know the lion by the claw, there is a great part of oratory consists in the choice of the person that is to persuade men. and a great skill of whatsoever orator is, to persuade the auditory first that he himself is an honest and a fair man. and then he is like to make the more impression on them too, if he be so prudent as to choose an acceptable subject to speak on, and manage it decently, with fit arguments and good language. none but the very rabble love to hear any thing scurrilous or railing; especially if they should hear themselves railed on by him, they would be ready to give him the due applause of petronius his orator, with fl●…ging the stones about his ears, and then leaving him to be his own auditory. now, they have had so ample experiment of the exposer as to all these points, in his defence against the naked truth, that i doubt his persuasion to this coming to hear him or others, will be of little force with them, and nothing would oblige these donatists to it, but the utmost extremity; nor then would they find themselves one step nearer heaven. his book is as good to them as a sermon, and no doubt he has preached as well as printed it, and took more pains in it than ordinary; did his best. must they, will they think, be compelled to make up the pomp of his auditory? must they, while the good popish fathers suffered those of chiapa to come to church with their 〈◊〉 pots, to comfort their hearts, be enforced to come to church by him, to have snush thrust up their noses, to clear their brains for them 'tis the only way to continue and increase the sch●…sme. but in good sober earnest, 'tis happy that some or other of this few chances ever and a non to speak their minds out, to show us plainly what they would be at. being conscious of their own unworthiness, and hating to be reform, it appears that they would establish the christian religion by a 〈◊〉 way, and gather so much force that it might be in their power, and we lie at their mercy, to change that religion into heathenism judaisme, turkism, any thing. i speak with some emotion, but not without good reason, that i question whether, which way soever the church revenues were applied, such of them would not betake themselves to that side as nimbly as the needle to the load stone. have they not already, ipso facto renounced their christianity, by avowing this principle, so contrary to the gospel? why do not they peter hermit it, and stir up our prince to an holy war abroad, to propagate the protestant religion, or at least our discipline and ceremonies, and they take the front of the battle? no 'tis much better lurking in a fat benefice here, and to domineer in their own parishes above their spiritual vassals, and raise a kind of civil war at home, but that none will oppose them. why may they not, as well as force men to church, eram the holy supper too down their throsts (have they not done something not much unlike it) and drive them into the rivers by thousands to be baptised or drowned? and yet this, after the king and parliament by his, their, gracious indulgence have enacted a liberty for five beside their own family to meet together in their religious worship: and could not therefore in end at the same time to force them to go to church with the utmost or any severity. what can be the end of these things, but to multiply force with force, as one absurdity is the consequence of another, till they may again have debased the reason and spirit of the nation, to make them fit for ignorance and bondage? is it not reason, if they had care or respect to men's souls (which they only exercise it seems the cure of, perhaps not that neither, but evacuate one residence by another) to allow that men should address themselves to such minister as they think best for their souls health? men are all infirm and indisposed in their spiritual condition. what sick man, but, if a physician were enforced upon him, might in good prudence suspect it were to kill him, or that, if the next heir and the doctor could agree, he would certainly do it? i shall conclude this reasonable transport with remarking that although the author did modestly challenge any man to show him a warrant or colour or hint from scripture, to use force to constrain men to the established doctrine and worship, and offered to maintain that nothing is more clear to be deduced or is more fully expressed in scripture, nor is more suitable to natural reason, than that no man be forced in such cases; the exposer took notice of it, yet hath not produced one place of scripture, but only made use of force at an invincible reason; so that upon supposal, which none granted ●…m, that all his few do clearly demonstrate from scripture, what is at best therefore but deducible from scripture, she thinks it reasonable to oblige all men by force to come to all their parishes. and yet he himself who does (i suppose it only for the cases sake) believe the scripture, although he cannot produce one place of scripture for using this force, and though the author has produced so many, and urges the whole scripture that such force is not to be used, hath his brains nevertheless so confused, or so obdurate, that he cannot force himself to believe the author: but persists in his unchristian and unreasonable desire that men may be compelled, and hereby deserves to be made an example of his own principle. for herein he exceeds phara●…h, who had ten sufficient proposals, and yet his heart was so hardened, that he would not let israel go out of egypt, but was proof against miracles. but he only would imagine that the israelites were idle, and would therefore force them to make brick without straw: but the exposers heart and brains are so hardened, that he will conceive all the nonconformists to be obstinate fools or hypocrites, and therefore will compel them all to go to all their parish churches, and to make therefore faith without reason. and hence it is not only probable but demonstrable, if they were compelled to go and hear him and the few of his party, how well he or they would acquit themselves too, in clearly demonstrating from sciprture the prime articles of faith, as it is extended in all the creeds, of which it was treated in this chapter that i have now done with, and truly almost with those remaining. for i had intended to have gone chapter by chapter, affixing a distinct title, as he does to every one of them (that men may believe he has animadverted thoroughly without reading) except that concerning the difference between bishops and presbyters, which, as being the most easy to be answered, he therefore referred to a bishop. but in good earnest, after having considered this last chapter, so brutal whether as to force or reason, i have changed my resolution. for he argues so despicably in the rest; that even i, who am none of the best disputers of this world, have conceived an utter contempt for him. he is a mere kitchin-plunderer, and attacks but the baggage, where even the sutler's would be too hard for him. p. 18. does the exposer allow that under constantinus pogonatus to have been a free general council? in the same page, if the exposer would have done any thing in his, dic ecclesiae, he should have proved that a general council is the church, that there can be such a general council, or hath been; that the church can impose new articles of faith beyond the express words of scripture; that a general council cannot err in matters of faith; that the church of his making cannot err in matters of faith; whereas our church, article 19 saith thus far, the church of jerusalem, alexandria, and antioch, have erred, so also the church of rome hath erred, not only in their living and manner of ceremonies, but also in matters of faith. this is an induction from particulars, and remark the title of the article, being of the church, ours defines it, the visible church of christ is a congregation of faithful men, in which the pure word of god is preached, and the sacraments be duly ministered, according to christ's ordinance in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same. and then, if the reader please to look on the 20. and 21. articles following, one of the authority of the church, the other of the authority of general councils, unless a man will industriously misapply and misconstrue them, those three are a compendious and irrefragable answer, not only to wh●… he saith here upon the appendix, but to his whole book, from one end to the other, p. 19 i ask him when the greek church is excommunicate by the roman, when the protestants left the roman church, when we in england are neither papists, lutherans, nor calvinists, and when in queen mary's time we returned to the roman church, what and where then was the catholic church, that was indefectible and against which the gates of hell did not prevail? was it not in the savoy? moreover i ask him what hinders but a general council may err in matters of faith, when we in england, that are another world, that are under an imperial crown, that are none of them, as the exposer words it, but have a distinct catholic faith within our four seas, did in the reign before mentioned (and reckon how many in that convocation those were that dissented) again make ourselves one of them? unless he has a mind to do so too, which would alter the case exceedingly. p. 20. he quotes the act i eliz. cap. i. let him mind that clause in it, by the express and plain words of canonical scripture▪ and then tell me what service it hath done him: whether he had not better have let it alone, but that it is his fate all along to be condemned out of his own mouth, which must always succeed so, when man urges a real truth against a real truth. p. 23. i have reason to affirm and he will meet with it (and has already in the author) that those general councils howsoever called, were no repraesentatio totius nominis christiani, but nominally: yea that such a representation could not be. p 22. he expounds scriptures here, and thinks he does wonders in it, by assuming the faculties of the whole body to the mouth, which mouth, he saith (and in some sense 'tis very true, if a man would run over the concordance) is the clergy. but i know not why the mouth of the church should pretend to be the brain of the church, and understand and will for the whole laity. let every man have his word about, and 'tis reason. we are all at the same ordinary, and pay our souls equally for the reckoning. the exposer's mouth, which is unconscionable, would not only have all the meat but all the talk too, not only at church, but at council table. let him read bishop taylor of liberty of prophecy. p. 25 the exposer, that always falsely represents his adversary, as an enemy to creeds, to fathers, (as afterwards he does to ceremonies, to logic, to mathematics, to every thing that he judiciously speaks and allows of) here. p. 25. saith the author (who delivers but the church of england's doctrine herein, and would not have divine faith imposed upon, nor things pressed beyond scripture) in this matter of general councils is guilty of unthought of popery, for the papists (really i think he partly slanders them herein) cannot endure councils, general and free. they allow many a general council more than we do. if the pope do not, for some reason or other, delight in some that are past, or in having new ones; it does not follow that the papists do not. i think those were papists that ruffled the pope too here in the west, and that at the council of constance burnt john hus and hierome of prague, and resolved that faith was not to be kept with heretics. but pray mr. exposer, if we must give divine faith to general councils, let the author ask you in his turn which are those general councils? how shall we know them? why, only such as accord with scripture. why, then we, i mean you mr. exposer, make ourselves, you still, judges of the general councils, the fault you so much condemn the author for. but what popery, thought or unthought of, are you, in the very next line, guilty of, that call the pope's supremacy the quintessence of popery? so that it seems the quintessence of the controversy betwixt ou●… church and theirs, is only which shall be pope: for the articles of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 compulsion, though the non-conformists may. i thank you, mr. exposer, for your news: i had often heard it before, i confess, but till now i did never, and scarce yet can, believe it; it is rather to be wished then hoped for, a thing so surprisingly seasonable. but for the good news, mr. exposer, i will give you four bottles (which is all i had by me, not for mine own use, but for a friend upon occasion) of the first, second, third, and fourth essence. but the quintessence i doubt would be too strong for your brain, especially in the morning when you are writing animadversions. p. 28. of ceremonies he sport's unworthily, as if the author spoke pro and con, contradictions: while, as a moderator, he advises our church to condescension on the right, and the dissenters to submission on the left (how are men else to be brought together?) he had as good call every man, because he has two hands, an ambidexter. he would turn every man's stomach, worse than the singing-mens' dirty surplices, to hear him defend it so foolishly. p. 29, 30, 35, 36. the best of his reasons for it are the apparitions in white, in the evangelists. the transfiguration. the saints in white linen. the purity of a minister, why then does he not wear it all the week? the bishop sisynnius did so, and a churchman ask him, why not in black? as 'twas then the mode, he gave the same reasons; and i believe gurnay the nonconformist, if, as they say, he went to market in it, learned them of him. why does not the exposer (there is more reason in scripture. col. 4 6. let your speech be always seasoned with salt, that ye may know how ye ought to answer every man) carry a salt-box always in his pocket, to be tasting of? for i doubt he is of the salt that has lost his savour: however i am sure he is very insip●…d, and this might correct it: beside it must have been of great virtue, when he was to animadvert on the naked truth, that he might have known how to answer him. see fox vol. 3. p. 500 col. 2. what the martyr, the conformable bishop ridley saith, would not be forced to wear it, he was no singer. see as to all these thing, his beloved tertullian, de cor. mil. si ideo dicatur coronari licere, quia non prohibeat scriptura, aequè retorquebitur, ideo coronari non licere, quia scriptura non jubeat. bishop chrysostom or. 1. adversus judaeos, ostendite eos ex dei sententi●… jejunare quod ni id fiat q●…vis eb●…ietate sceleratius est jejunium. etenim contra-quod fit praeter dei voluntatem est omnium p●…ssimum. non enim ipsa corum quae fiunt natura, sed dei voluntas ac decretum essicit ut eadem vel bona sint vel mala. p. 33. 〈◊〉 jeering at the authors oh my fathers, is inhuman and impious: but changed the pity of it that twenty such oh's will not amount to one reason they will, heb. 4. 12, 13. that day, which the devils believe and tremble, when all things shall be naked and bare before the word of truth. p. 37. he is scarce proper to come in a pulpit, after what he saith, that the apostles received not the sacrament sitting; much less after p. 41. he has said, we read that our saviour kneeled in several places, much less after p. 59 where of preaching he saith, he knows not what the author means by the demonstration of the spirit, unless to speak as he does, magisterially. he never read 1 cor. 2. 4. of preaching in demonstration of the spirit, nor mat. 7. 29. how christ taught as one having authority; there is such an art if he knew it. p. 42. he can never answer the author upon rom. 14. where the zeal us observer of ceremonies is the weak brother. he whiffles, those were the jewish ceremonies. the jews had a fairer pretence than we: for theirs were instituted by god himself, and they know not they were abrogate. his intolerably ridiculous story out of scholtus p. 15. of contriving a pair of organs of cats, which he had done well to have made the pigs at hogs norton play on, puts me in mind of another story to quit it, relating as his does to screwing the non-conformists into church; and i could not possibly miss of the rencontre, because the gentleman's name of whom it is told, is the monosyllable voice with which cats do usually address themselves to us. 'twas (you have it as i had it) the vicechancellor of one of our universities, but now a bishop, octob. 22. 1671. and 12. febr. 1669, he came to a fanatics house, they not being then at worship, yet one of them said, they were come to pray to the god of heaven and earth; he said, then they were within the act. he would force them to church to saint mary's, himself laid hands on'm. he commanded them to follow him in the king's name. his beadle told them, he would drive them thither in the devil's name. the vicechancellor said he had converted hundreds so at reading. they spoke of queen mary's days, he said, he could burn them too now, if the law required it. there was old tugging, he had the victory. they were placed in saint mary's, with beadles to attend them. as he carried them in he quoted luke 14 23 compel them to come in. what pity 'tis the exposer knew not of this text, that he might have had one scripture for his doctrine of compulsion! but it chanced the minister there preached one time acts 5. 41. the other time mat. 10. 16. afterwards he took the penalty nevertheless for not having been at church that same sunday that he had hurried them thither. p. 62. he speaks of bishop morton, whose industrious brain made up the fatal breach between the two houses of york and lancaster. much good do the clergy with their lay offices he cogs p. 7. with the bishop of ely for his short syllogism: he made a longer of the holiness of lent. he compliments (i said he would not forget him) my lord chancellor the christian cicero. 'tis true of him, but contradictorily expressed. ps. 35. 16. with the flatterers were busy mockers, that gnashed with their teeth. the exposer has commenced in both faculties. but the printer calls: the press is in danger. i am weary of such stuff, both mine own and his. i will rather give him this following essay of mine own to busy him, and let him take his turn of being the popilius. a short historical essay, touching general councils, creeds, and imposition in religion. the christian religion, as first instituted by our blessed saviour was the greatest security to magistrates by the obedience which it taught, and was fitted to enjoy no less security under them by a practice conformable to that doctrine. for our saviour himself, not pretending to an earthly kingdom, took such care therefore to instruct his followers in the due subjection to governors; that, while they observed his precepts, they could neither fall under any jealousy of state as an ambitious and dangerous party, nor as malefactors upon any other account deserve to suffer under the public severity: so that in this only it could seem pernicious to government that christianity, if rightly exercised upon its own principles, would render all magistracy useless. but although he, who was lord of all, and to whom all power was given both in heaven and in earth, was nevertheless contented to come in the form of a servant, and to let the emperors and princes of the world alone with the use of their dominions; he thought it good reason to retain his religion under his own cognizance and exempt its authority from their jurisdiction. in this alone he was imperious, and did not only practise it himself against the laws and customs then received, and in the face of the magistrate; but continually seasoned and hardened his disciples in the same confidence and obstinacy. he tells them, they shall be brought before kings and governors for his name but fear them not, he will be with them, bear them out and justify it against all opposition. not that he allowed them hereby to violate their duty to the public by any resistance in defiance of the magistracy; but he instructed and animated them in their duty to god, in despite of suffering. in this manner christianity did at first set out and accordingly found reception. for although our blessed saviour, having fulfilled all righteousness and the time of his ministry being completed, did by his death set the seal to his doctrine, and show the way toward life and immortality to such as believing imitate his example: yet did not the heatken magistrate take the government to be concerned in the point of religion or upon that account consent to his execution. pontius pilate, than governor of judaea, though he were a man unjust and cruel by nature, and served tiberius, the most tender, jealous, and severe in point of state or prerogative, of all the roman emperors; though he understood that great multitudes followed him, and that he was grown the head of a new sect that was never before heard of in the nation, yet did not be intermeddle. but they were the men of religion, the chief-priests, scribes and elders and the highpriest caiapkas. and yet, although they accused him falsely, that he taught that tribute was not to be given to caesar that he was a fifth monarch and made himself a king, and (as it is usual for some of the clergy to terrify the inferior magistrates out of their duty to justice under pretence of loyalty to the prince) threatened pilate that if he let that man go he was not caesar's friend; he understanding that they did it out of envy, and that the justice and innocence of our saviour was what they could not bear with, would have adventured all their informing at court, and first have freed him and then have exchanged him for barrabas; saying, that he found no fault in him: but he was overborne at last by humane weakness and poorly imagined that by washing his own hands he had expiated himself and wiped off the guilt upon those alone who were the occasion. but, as for tiberius himself, the growth of christianity did never increase his cares of empire at rome, nor trouble his sleep at capri: but he both approved of the doctrine, and threatened the informers with death; nor would have stayed there, but attempted, according to the way of their superstition, upon the intelligence he had from pilate, to have received christ into the number of their deities. the persecution of the apostles after his death, and the martyrdom of stephen happened not by the interposing of the civil magistrate in the matter of religion, or any disturbance occasioned by their doctrines: but arose from the highpriest and his emissaries, by suborned witnesses, stirring up the rabble in a brutish and riotous manner to execute their cruelty. how would the modern clergy have taken and represented it, had they lived in the time of st. john baptist and seen jerusalem, judaea and all the region round about jordan go out to be baptised by him! yet that herod, for any thing we read in scripture, though he wanted not his instillers, apprehended no commotion: and had not calig●…la banished him and his herodias together, might in all appearance have lived without any change of government. 'twas she that caused john's imprisonment for the convenience of her incest, herod indeed seared him, but rather reverenced him, as a just man, and an holy, observed him and when he heard him he did many things and heard him gladly. nor could all her subtlety have taken off his head, but that herod thought himself under the obligations of a dance and an oath, and knew not in that case they ought both to be dispensed with. but he was exceeding sorry at his death, which few princes are if men have lived to their jealousy or danger. the killing of james and imprisonment of peter by that other herod was because he saw he pleased the people; when the priests had once set them on madding: a complaisance to which the most innocent may be exposed, but which partakes more of guile than civility or wisdom. but, to find out what the disinteressed and prudentmen of those days took to be the wisest and only justisiable way for the magistrate to proceed in upon matters of religion, i cannot see any thing more pregnant than the concurrent judgement of three persons, of so different characters, and that lived so far a sunder, that there can be no danger of their having corrupted one another's understanding in favour to christianity. gamaliel, the deputy of achaia, and the town clerk of ephesus; the first a jewish doctor, by sect a pharisee, one of the council, and of great authority with the people, who (when the chief-priest had cast the apostles in prison, and charged them for preaching against the command he had before laid upon them) yet gave this advice, confirming it with several fresh precedents, acts 5. that they should take keed to themselves what they intended to do with those men and let them alone, for if this counsel, saith he, or this work be of men, it will come to nought, but if it be of god you cannot overthrow it, lest ye be found fight with god. so that his opinion grounded upon his best experience, was that the otherwise unblameable sect of christianity might safely and aught to be left to stand or fall by god's providence under a free toleration of the magistrate. the second was gallio, acts 18. a roman, and deputy of achaia. the jews at corinth hurried paul before his tribunal, laying the usual charge against him. that he persuaded men to worship god contrary to the law: which gallio looked upon as so slight and without his cognizance, that, although most judges are willing to increase the jurisdiction of their courts, he drove them away, saving paul the labour of a defence, and told them, if it were a matter of wrong or wicked lewdness▪ reason would that he should bear with them, but if it be a question of words and names and of your law, look ye to it i will be no judge of such matters: and when he had so said, paul was released, but the greeks that were present took barrabas, and before the judgement seat beat so●…henes the chief ruler of the synagogue, and ring leader of the accusers. his judgement therefore was that, to punish christians merely for their doctrine and practice, unless they were malefactors otherwise, was a thing out of the magistrates province and altogether unreasonable. the third case was no less remarkable. for one demetrius, that was a silver-smith by trade and made shrines for diana, stirred up all the free men of his company against paul, and indeed he stated the matter very fairly and honestly, assigning the true reason of most of these persecutions: ye know that by this craft we have our wealth, but that by paul's preaching that they be no gods which are made with hands, not only our craft is in danger to be set at naught, but also the temple of the great goddess and her magnificence, whom all asia and the world worship, should be despised and destroyed. and it is considerable that even the jews, though of a contrary religion yet, fomented, as it usually chances, this difference and egged the ephesians on against the apostle and his followers. but when they had brought alexander, one of paul's companions into the theatre, the recorder of ephesus (more temperate and wise than some would have been in that office) would not make any inquisition upon the matter, nor put alexander upon his trial and defence, but, (although he himself could not have born that office without being a great dianist, as he declared too in his discourse) he tells the people, they had brought those men which were neither robbers of churches nor blasphemers of their goddess, (for that judge would not condemn men by any inferences or expositions of old statutes which long after was julian's practice and since imitated) and therefore if demetrius and his craftsmen had any matter against them the law was open, and it should be determined in a lawful assembly, but that the whole city was in danger to be called in question for that uproar, there being no cause whereby they might give account of that concourse. and by this he plainly enough signified, that if paul and his companions had stolen the church-plate they might well be i●…ed, but that demetrius had no more reason in law against them, than a chandler might have had, if by paul's preaching wax tapers, as well as silver-candlesticks had grown out of fashion. that it is matter of right and wrong betwixt man and man that the justice of government looks too: but that, while christianity was according to its own principle carried on quietly, it might so fall that the disturbers of it were guilty of a riot and their great city of ephesus deserve to be fined for't. and taking this to have been so, he dismissed the assembly, acts 19 after these testimonies which i have collected out of the history of the acts, as of greatest authority, i shall only add one or two more out of the same book, wherein paul likewise was concerned before heathen magistrates of greater eminence, acts 23. ananias the high priest (these always were the men) having countenanced and instigated the jews to a conspiracy, in which paul's life was endangered and aimed at lysias the chief captain of jerusalem interposes and sends him away to foelix then governor of judaea; signifying by letter that he had been accused only of questions of their law, but he found nothing to be said to his charge worthy of death or of bonds. whereof foelix also, though the highpriest was so zealous in the prosecution that he took the journey on purpose, and had instructed an exquisite orator tertullus to harangue paul out of his life, as a pestilent-fellow, a mover of sedition and ringleader of the sect of the nazarenes, not omitting even to charge lysias for rescuing him by great violence from being murdered by them, was so well satisfied of the contrary upon full hearing, that he gave him his libery and a centurion for his guard, with command that none of his acquaintance should be debarred from coming and ministering to him. but being indeed to leave his government afterwards; left him in prison, partly to show the jews and their highpriest another piece of complaisant policy, which; 'tis possible they paid well for, seeing the other reason was, because though he had sent for paul the oftener and communed with him, in hopes that he would have given him money to be discharged, there came nothing of it. which was so base a thing in so great a minister, that the meanest justice of the peace in england would scarce have the face to do so upon the like occasion. but his successor f●…stus, having called agrippa and berenice to hear the cause, they and three were of opinion that 'twas all on the jews side calumny and impertinence, but that paul had done nothing worthy of death or of bonds, and might have been set free but that having appealed to caesar he must be transmitted to him in safe custody. such was the sense of those upon whom the emperors then relied for the government and security of their provinces: and so gross were their heathen understandings, that they could not yet comprehend how quietness was sedition, or the innocence of the christian worship could be subject to forfeiture or penalty. nay, when paul appeared even before nero himself and had none to stand by him but all forsock him: he was by that emperor acquitted, and permitted a long time to follow the work of his ministry. 'tis true that afterwards this nero had the honour to be the first of the roman emperors that persecuted christianity; whence it is that tertullian in his apologetic saith; we glory in having such an one the first beginner and author of our punishment, for there is none that hath read of him, but must understand some great good to have been in that doctrine, otherwise nero would not have condemned it. and thence forward christianity for about three hundred years lay subject to persecution. for the gentile priests could not but observe a great decay in their parishes, a neglect of their sacrifices and diminution of their profits by the daily and visible increase of that religion. and god in his wise providence had so ordered that, as the jews already so, the heathens now having filled up their measure with iniquity, sprinkling the blood of his saints among their sacrifices, and the christians having in a severe apprenticeship of so many ages learned the trade of suffering, they should at last be their own masters and admitted to their freedom. neither yet, even in those times when they lay exposed to persecution, were they without some intervals and catching seasons of tranquillity, wherein the churches had leisure to reap considerable advantage, and the clergy too might have been enured, as they had been exemplary under affliction so, to bear themselves like christians when they should arrive at a full prosperity. for as oft as there came a just heathen emperor and a lover of mankind, that either himself observed, or understood by the governors of his provinces, the innocence of their religion and practices, their readiness to pay tribute, their prayers for his government and person, their faithful service in his wars, but their christian valour and contumacy to death, under the most exquisite torments, for their holy profession; he forthwith relented, he rebated the sword of the executioner, and could not find in his heart or in his power to excercise it against the exercise of that religion. it being demonstrable that a religion instituted upon justice betwixt man and man. love to one another, yea even their enemies, obedience to the magistrate in all humane and moral matters, and in divine worship upon a constant exercise thereof and as constant suffering in that cause, without any pretence or latitude for resistance, cannot, so long as it is true o itself in these things, fall within the magistrate's jurisdiction. but as it first was planted without the magistrates hand, and the more they plucked at it, so much the more still it flouricted, so it would be to the end of the world, and whensoever governors have a mind to try for it, it will by the same means and method sooner or later foil them, but, if they have a mind to pull up that mandrake it were adviseable for them not to do it themselves, but to choose out a dog for the employment. i confess whensoever a christian transgresseth these bounds once, he is impoundable or like a wafe and stray whom christ knows not, he falls to the lord of the manor. but otherwise he cannot suffer, he is invulnerable by the sword of justice: only a man may swear and damn himself to kill the first honest man he meets, which hath been, and is the case of all true christians worshipping god under the power and violence of their persecutors. but the truth is that, even in thosetimes which some men now, as oft as it is for their advantage, do consecrate under the name of primitive, the christians were become guilty of their own punishment, and had it not been, as is most usual, that the more sincere professors suffered promiscuously for the sins and crimes of those that were carnal and hypocrites, their persecutors may be looked upon as having been the due administrators of god's justice. for (not to go deeper) if we consider that which is reckoned the tenth persecution under dioclesian, so incorrigable were they after nine preceding, what other could be expected when eusebius l. 3. c. 1. sadly laments having related how before that the christians lived in great trust and reputation in court, the bishops of each church were beloved, esteemed and reverenced by all mankind and by the precedents of the provinces, the meetings in all the cities were so many and numerous, that it was necessary and allowed them to erect in every one spacious and goodly churches, all things went on prosperously with them, and to such an height that no envious man could disturb them, no devil could hurt them, as long as walking yet worthy of those mercies they were under the almighty's cure and protection: after that our affair by that too much liberty, degenerated into luxury and laziness, and some prosecuted others with hatred, contumely, and almost all of us wounded ourselves with the weapons of the tongue in ill language when bishops set upon bishops, and the people that belonged to one of them stirred sedition against the people of another; then horrible hypocrisy and dissimulation sprung up to the utmost extremity of malice, and the judgement of god, while yet there was liberty to meet in the congregations, did sensibly and by steps begin to visit us, the persecution at first discharging itself upon our brethren that were in the army. but having no feeling of the hand of god, not endeavouring to make our peace with him, and living as if we believed that god did neither take notice of our transgressions nor would visit us for them, we heaped up iniquity upon iniquity. and those which seemed to be our pastors, kicking under foot the rules of piety, were inflamed among themselves with mutual contentions, and while they minded nothing else but to exaggetate their quarrels, threats, emulation. hatred and enemies, and earnestly each of them pursued his particular ambition in a tyrannical manner, than indeed the lord, than i say, according to the voice of the prophet j●…emy, he covered the daughter of zion with a cloud of his anger, and 〈◊〉 down from heaven unto earth the beauty of israel; and remembered not his footstool in the day of his anger. and so the pious historian pathetically goes on, and deplores the calamities that 〈◊〉, to the loss of all that stock of reputation, advantage, liberty and safely, which christian people had by true piety and adhering strictly to the rules of their profession formerly acquired and enjoined, but had now forfeited and smarted deservedly under dioclesian's persecution. and it was a severe one, the longest too that ever happened, ten years from his beginning of it and continued by others: by which 〈◊〉 one might have thought the church would have been sufficiently winnowed, and nothing left but the pure wheat, whereas it proved quite contrary, and the holiest and most constant of the christians b'ing blown away by martyrdom, it seemed by the succeeding times as if nothing but the chaff and the ta●…es remained. but there was yet such a seed le●…, and notwithstanding the defection of many, so internal a virtue in the religion itself, that dioclesian could no longer stand against it, and tired out in two years' time, was glad to betake himself from rooting out christianity, to gardening and to sow potherbs at salona. and he with his partner maximi●…s, resigned the empire 〈◊〉 galer●…s and constan●…, the excellent father of a more glorious and christian son, constantine the g●…a, who in due season succeeded him, and by a chain of god's extraordinary providences seemed to have been 〈◊〉 down from heaven to be emperor of the whole world, and as i may say, the universal apostle of christianity. it is 〈◊〉 pressible the virtue of that prince, his care, his indulgence, his litera●…y his own example, every thing that could possibly tend to the promotion and encouragement of true religion and piety. and in order to that he though 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not do better▪ neither indeed could he, then to show a, 〈◊〉 respect o●… the clergy and bishops, providing largely for their subsistence and they too on their part behaved themselves worthy of their high 〈◊〉 are known to make right use of the advantages of his bounty to the same ends that they were by him intended. for if the apostle 〈◊〉 tim. 5. 17. re●…uires that an elder, provided he rule well, be accounted worthy of double honour, especially those who lab●…ing in the word and doctrine, it excludes not a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 any further proportion, and indeed these cannot be too high a value 〈◊〉 upon such a pe●…son: and god forbid too that any measure of wealth should render a clergy man uncanonical. but alas, bishops were already grown another name and thing, then at the apostles institution; and had so 〈◊〉 their 〈◊〉, that paul would have had much difficulty by all the marks in the 〈◊〉 tim. 〈◊〉. to have known them. they were ill enough under persecution many of them, but that long and sharp winter under dioclesian, being seconded by so warm a summer under constantine, produced a pestilence, which as an infection that seizes sometimes only one sort of 〈◊〉▪ diffused itself 〈◊〉 remarkably thorough the whole body of the clergy. from his reign the most sober historians date that new disease which was so generally propagated then, and ever since transmitted to some of their successors, that it hath given reason to inquire whether it only happened to those men as it might to others, or where not inherent to the very function. it showed itself first in ambition, then in contention, next in imposition, and after these symptoms broke out at last like a plaguesore in open persecution. they the bishops who began to vouch themselves the successors of christ, or at least of his apostles, yet pretended to be h●…irs and executors of the jewish hiah-priests and the heathen tyrants, and were ready to move the will. the ignorant jews and infidels understood not how to persecute, had no commission to meddle with religion, but the bishops had studied the scriptures, knew better things, and the same, which was cruelty and tyranny in the heathens, if done by a christian and ecclesiastical hand, was hallowe●… to be church-government and the care of a diocese. but that i may not seem to speak without book or outrun the history, i shall return to proceed by those degrees i newly mentioned whereby the christian religion was usurped upon, and those things became their crime which were their duties. the first was the ambition of the bishops, which had even before this taken its rise when in the intervals of the former persecutions the piety of the christians had laid out ample provisions for the church, but when constantine not only restored those which had been all 〈◊〉 under dioclesian, but was every day adding some new possession, privilege, or honour, a bishopric became very 〈◊〉, and was not only a good work but a good thing, especially when there was now no danger of paying as it was usual, formerly their first-fruits to the emperor by martyrdom. the arts by which ambition c●…mes, are calumny, dissimulation, cruelty, bribery, adulation, all applied in their proper places and seasons; and when the man hath attained his end he ordinarily shows himself then in his colours, in pride, opiniastry, contention, and all other requisite or incident i'll qualities. and if the clergy of those times had some more dextrous and innocent way then this of manaing their ambition, it is to be lamented inter artes 〈◊〉, or lies enviously hid by some musty book-worm in his private liberary. but so much i find that both before and then and after, they cast such crimes at one another, that a man would scarce think he were reading an history of bishops, but a legend of devils: and each took such are to blacken his adversary, and he regarded not how he smutted himself thereby and his own order, to the laughter or horror of the bystanders. and one thing i remark particularly, that as son of a whore is the modern word of reproach among the laity, of the same use then among the clergy was heretic. there were indeed heretics as well as there are bastards, and perhaps it was not their fault, (neither of 〈◊〉 could help it) but the mother's o●… the fathers, but they made so many heretics in 〈◊〉 days, that 〈◊〉 hard to think they really believed them so; but adventured the name only to pick a quarrel and one thing that makes it very suspicious, is, that in the ecclesiastical history the ringleaders of any heresy for the most part accused of having a mind to be a bishop, though it was not the way to come to it. as here was the damnable heresy of the novatians, against which constantine, not withstanding his declaration of general indulgence at his coming in, was shortly after so incensed, that he published a most severe proclamation against them; cognoscite jam per legem hanc que in me sancita 〈◊〉 o nova iam etc. prohibiting all their meetings, not only in public but in their own private houses, and that all such places where they assembled for their worship, should be razed to the ground without delay or controversy, etc. eus. l. 3. c. 62. de vita constantini. now the story the bishops tell of novatus the author of that sect. euseb. l. 6. c. 24. is in the words of cornelius the bishop of rome, the very first line. but that you may know that this brave novatus did even before that affect to be a bishop (a great crime in him) that he might conceal that petulant ambition, he for a better cover to his arrogance, had got some confessors into his society, etc. and goes on calling him all to naught, but then, saith he, be came with two reprobates of his own heresy into a ●…uite, the very lest, shire of italy and by their means seduced three most simple high shoes bishops, wheedling them that they must with all speed go to rome and there meeting with other bishops all matters should be reconciled. and when he had got thither these three silly fellows, as i said, that were not aware of his cunning, he had prepared a company of rogues like himself, that treated them in a private room very freely, and having thwacked their bellies and heads full with meat and drink, compelled the poor drunken bishops by an imaginary and vain imposition of hands, to make novatus also a bishop. might not one of the same order now better have concealed these things had they been true, but such was the discretion. then he tells that one of the three returned soon after, repenting it seems next morning, and so he received him again into the church unto the laic communion. but for the other two he had sent successors into their places. and yet after all this ado, and the whetting of constantine, contrary to his own nature and his own declarations against the navatians, i cannot find their heresy to have been other then that they were the puritans of those times, and a sort of non-conformists that could have subscribed to the six and thirty articles, but differed only in those of discipline: and upon some inormities therein separated, and (which will always be sufficient to quality an heretic) they instituted, bishops of their own in most places. and yet afterwards in the times of the best homotusian emperors, a sober and strictly religious people did so constantly adhere to them, that the bishops of the church too found meet to give them fair quarter; for as much as they differed not in fundamentals, and therefore were of use to them against heretics that were more dangerous and diametrically opposite to the religion. nay in so much, that even the bishop of constantinople, yea of rome, not withstanding that most tender point and interest of episcopacy, suffered the novatian bishops to walk cheek by joul with them in their own diocese; until that, as secretary l. 7. c. 11. the roman episcopacy having as it were passed the bounds of priesthood, slipped into a secular principality, and thenceforward the roman bishops would not suffer their meetings with security, but, though they commended them for their consent in the some faith with them, yet took away all their estates. but at constantinople they continued to far better, the bishops of that church embracing novatians and free liberty to keep their conventicles in their churches. what, and to have their bishops too, altar against altar? a condescension which as our non-conformists seem not to desire or think of, so the wisdom of these times would, i suppose, judge to be very unreasonable, but rather that it were fit to take the other course, and that whatsoever advantage the religion might probably receive from their doctrine and party, 'tis better to suppress them, and make havoc both of their estates and persons. but however the heretics in constantine's time had the less reason to complain of ill measure, seeing it was that the bishops meated by among themselves. i pass over that controversy betwixt cecilianns, the bishop of carthage and his adherents, with another set of bishops there in afric, upon which constantine ordered ten of each party to appear before mil●…iades the bishop of rome and others to have it deceived. yet after they had given sentence, constantine found it necessary to have a council for a review of the business, as in his letter to chrestus the bishop of syracuse, euseb. l. 10. c. 6. wrensas several have formerly separated from the catholic heresy, (for that word was not yet so ill natured but that it might sometimes be used in its proper and good sense:) and then relates his commission to the bishop of rome and others; but for as much as some having been careless of their own salvation, and forgetting the reverence due to that most holy heresy (again) will not yet lay down their enmity, nor admit the sentence that hath been given, obstinately affirming that they were but a few that pronounced the sentence, and that they did it very precipitately, before they bade duly inquired of the matter: and from hence it hath happened that both they who ought to have kept a brotherly and nuanimous agreement together, do abominably any flagitiously descent from one another, and such whose minds are alienated from the most holy religion, do make a mockery both of it and them. therefore 1, etc. have commanded very many bishops out of innumerable places to meet at arles, that what ought to have been quieted upon the former sentence pronounced, may now at least be determined, etc. and you to be one of them, and therefore i have ordered the perfect of sicily to furnish you with one of the public stage-coachers and so many servants etc. such was the use then of stage coaches, post horses, and councils, to the great disappointment and grievance of the many: both men and horses and leather being hackneyd-jaded and worn out upon the errand of some contentious and obstinate bishop, so went the affairs hitherto, and thus well disposed and prepared were the bishops to receive the holy ghost a second time at the great and first general council of nice, which is so much celebrated. the occasions of calling it were two. the first a most important question in which the wit and piety of their predecessors and now their successively had been much exercised and taken up: that was upon what day they ought to keep easter, which though it were no point of faith that it should be kept at all, yet the very calendiny of it was controverted with the same zeal, and made as heavy a do in the church as if both parties had been heretics. and it is reckoned by the church historians as one of the chie●… felicities of constantine's empire to have quieted in that council this main controversy. the second cause of the assembling them here was in seed grown, as the bishop had ordered it, a matter of the greatest weight and consequence to the christian religion, one arrius having as is related, to the disturbance of the church, started a most pernicious opinion in the point of the trinity. therefore from all parts of the empire they met together at the city of nice, two hundred and fifty bishops, and better, saith eusebius, a goodly company, three hundred and eighteen say others, and the animadverter too, with that pithy remark, pa. 23. equal almost to the number of servants bred up in the b●…se of abraham. the emperor had accommodated them every where with the posts, or laid horses all along for the convenience of their journey thither, and all the time they were ●…heir supplied them abundantly with all sorts of provision at his own charges. and when they were all first assembled in council, in the great hall of the imperial palace, he came in having put on his best clothes to make his guests welcome; and saluted with that profound humility as if they all had been emperor, nor would sit down in his throne, no it was a very little and low stool, till they had all beckoned and made signs to him to sit down. no wonder if the first council of nice run in their heads ever after, and the ambitious clergy, like those who have been long a thirst, took so much of constantinus kindness, that they are scarce come to themselves again after so many ages. the first thing was that he acquainted them with the causes of his summoning them thither, and in a grave and most christian discourse exhorted them (to keep the peace or) to a good agreement as there was reason. for (saith ruffin l. 1. c. 2. the bishops being meet here almost of all parts, and as they use to do, bringing their quarrels about several matters along with them, every of them was at the emperor, offering him petitions, laying out one another's faults, (for all the good advice he had given them) and were more ●…tent upon these things then upon the business they were sent for. but he, considering that by these scold and bicker the main affair was frustrated, appointed a set-day by which all the bishops should bring him in whatsoever complaint they had against one another. and they being all brought, he made them that high asiatic compliment▪ god hath made you priests, and hath given you power to judge me, and therefore it is in you to judge me righteously, but you cannot be judged by any men. it is god only can judge you, and therefore reserve all your quarrels to his tribunal. for you are as gods to me, and it is not convenient a man should judge of gods, but he only of whom it is written, god sta●…deth in the congregation of the gods, and discerneth in the midst of them. and therefore setting these things aside, apply your minds without any contention to the concernments of god's religion. and so without opening or reading one petition commanded t●…m all together to be burnt there in his presence. an action of great charity and excellent wisdom, had but some of the words been spared. for doubtless, though they that would have complained of their brethren, grumbled a little; yet those that were accusable were all very well satisfied: and those expressions, you can judge me righteously, and you cannot be judged by any man, and god only can judge you. you are gods to me, etc. were so extremely sweet to some of the bishop's palates, that they believed it, and could never think of them afterwards▪ but their teeth wa●…ered▪ and they ruminated so long on them that constantine's successors came too late to repent it. but now the bishops, having missed of their great end of quarrelling one with another, betake themselves though somewhat aukwardly to business. and it is necessary to mind, that as shortly as possible for the understanding of it, i give a curiory account of alexander and arrius, with some few others that were the most interessed in that general and first great revolution of ecclesiastical affairs, since the days of the apostles. this alexander was the bishop of alexandria, and appears to have been a pious old man, but not equally prudent, nor in divine things of the most capable, nor in conducting the affairs of the church, very dextrous; but he was the bishop. this character that i have given of him, i am the more confirmed in from some passages that follow, and all of them pertinent to the matter before me. they were used sozom l. 2. c. 16. at alexandria to keep yearly a solemn festival to the memory of peter one of their former bishops, upon the same day he suffered. martyrdom, which alexander having celebrated at the church with public devotion, was sitting after at home expecting some guests to dine with him, sozom. l. 2. c. 16. as he was alone and looking towards the sea side he saw a pri●…y way of the boys upon the beach, at an old recreation, imitating it seems the rites of the church and office of the bishops, and was much delighted with the sigh●…●…s long as it appeared an innocent and harmless representation: but when 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 them at last how they acted, the very administration of the sacre●… mysteries, he was much troubled, and sending for some of the chief of his clergy, caused the boys to be taken and brought before him. he asked them particularly what kind of sport they had been at, and what the words, and what the actions were that they had used in it. after their fear had hindered them a while from answering, and now they were afraid of being silent, they con●…essed that a lad of of their play-fellows, one athanasius, had baptised some of them that were not yet initiated in those sacred mysteries: whereupon alexander inquired the more accurately what the bishop of the game had said, and what he did to the boys he had baptised, what they also had answered or learned from him▪ at last, when alexander perceived by them that his pawn bishop had made all his removes right; and that the whole ecclesiastical order and rites had been duly observed in their interlude, he by the advice of his priests about him approved of that mo●…k baptism and determined that the boys, being once in the simplicity of their minds dipped in the divine grace, ought not to be rebaptized, but he perfected it with the remaining mysteries, which it is only lawful for the priests to administer. and then he delivered athanasius and the rest of the boys that had acted the parts of presbyters and deacons to their parents calling god to witness that they should be educated in the ministry of the church, that they might pass their lives in that calling which they had chosen by imitation. but as for athanasius, in a short while after alexander took him to live with him and be his secretary, having caused him to be carefully educated in the schools of the best grammarians and ●…hetoricians: and he grew in the opinion of all that spoke with him a discreet and eloquent person, and will give occasion to be more than once mentioned again in this discourse, i have translated this in a manner word for word from the author. this good natured old bishop alexander that was so far from anathemising, that he did not so much as whip the boys for profanation of the sacrament against the discipline of the church, but without more doing, le●… them, for aught i see, at liberty to regenerate as many more lads upon the next holiday as they thought convenient: he socr. l c. 3. being a man that lived an easy and gentle life, had one day called his friests and the rest of his clergy together, and fell on philosophying divinely among them, but something more subtly and curiously (though i dare say he meant no harm) then was usual, concerning the holy trin●…ty. among the rest, one arrius a priest too of alexandria was there present, a man who is described to be a good disputant, and others add, (the capital accusation of those times) that he had a mind to have been a bishop and bore a great pique at alexander, for he having been preferred before him to the see of alexandria: but more are silent of any such matter, and soz m l. 1. c. 14. saith he was in a great esteem with his bishop. but arrius socr. l. 1. c. 3. hearing her discourse about the holy trinity and the unity in the trinity conceived that, as the bishop stated it, he had reason to suspect he was introducing afresh into the church the heresy of sabellius the african who fate●…atur unum esse deum & eta in unam essentiam trinitatem adducebat, ut assereret in nullam esse vere subjectam proprietatem personis, sed nomina maturi pro eo atque usus poscant, ut nunc de illo ut patre, nunc ut filio, nunc ut spiritu sancto disseratur: and thereupon it seems arrius argued warmly for that opinion which was directly contrary to the african, driving the bishop from one to a second, from a second to a third, seeming absurdity; which i studiously avoid the relation of, that in all these things i may not give occasion for men's understandings to work by their memories, and propagate the same errors by the same means they were first occasioned. but hereby arrius was himself blamed as the maintainer of those absurdities which he affixed to the bishop's opinion, as is usual in the heat and wrangle of disputation. whereas truth for the most part lies in the middle, but men ordinarily seek for it in the extremities. nor can i wonder that those ages were so fertile in what they called heresies, when being given to meddling with the mysteries of religion further than humane apprehension or divine revelation did or could lead them, some of the bishops were so ignorant and gross, but others so speculative, acute and refining in their conceptions, that, there being moreover a good fa●…t bishopric to boot in the case, it is rather admirable to me how all the clergy from one end to t'other, could escape from being or being accounted heretics. alexander hereupon soz. l. 1. c. 140. instead of stilling by more prudent methods this new controversy, took, doubtless with a very good intention, a course that hath seldom been successful: makes himself judge of that wherein he had first been the party, and calling to him some others of his clergy, would needs sit in public to have a solemn set disputation about the whole matter. and while arrius was at it tooth and nail against his opposers, and the arguments flew so thick that they darkened the air, and no man could yet judge which side should have the victory; the good bishop for his part sat hay now hay, neither could tell in his conscience of a long time which had the better of it; but sometimes he leaned on one side and then on the other, and now encouraged and commended those of one party, and presently the contrary, but at last by his own weight he cast the scales against arrius. and from thence forward he excommunicating arrius for obstinacy, and arrius writing in behalf and his followers to the bishops, each one stating his own and his adversaries case with the usual candour of such men in such matters; the bishops too all over began to divide upon it, and after them their people. insomuch that constantine out of a true paternal sense and care, found necessary to send a very prudent and eminent person to alexandria, to try if he could accommodate the matter, giving him a letter to alexander and arrius; how discreet, how christianlike, i never read any thing of that nature equal to it! it is too long for me here to insert, but i gladly recommend my reader to it in the 20 eus. de vitâ const. c. 67. where he begins i understand the foundation of the controversy to have been this, that thou alexander didst inquire of thy priests concerning a passage in the scripture, nay didst ask them concerning a frivolous quillet of a question what was each of their opinions: and thou arrius didst inconsiderately babble what thou neither at the beginning couldst conceive, and if thou hadst conceived so, oughtest not to have vented, etc. but the clergy having got this once in the wind, there was no beating them off the scent. which induced constantine to think the convening of this council the only remedy to these disorders. and a woeful ado he had with them when they were met to manage and keep them in any tolerable decorum. it seemed like an ecclesiastical cockpit, and a man might have laid wagers either way: the two parties contending in good earnest either for the truth or the victory, but the more unconcerned, like cunning betters, sat judiciously hedging, and so ordered their matters that which side soever prevailed, they would be sure to be the winners. they were indeed a most venerable assembly, composed of some holy, some grave, some wise, and some of them learned persons: and constantine had so charitably burnt the accusations they intended against one another, which might otherwise have depopulated and dispirited the council, that all of them may be presumed in one or other respect to have made a great character. but i observe soz. l. 1. c. 16. that these great bishops, although they only had the decisive voices, yet thought fit to bring along with them certain men that were cunning at an argument, to be auxiliary to them when it came to hard and tough disputation; beside that they had their priests and deacons ready at a dead lift always to assist them: so that their understandings seemed to be sequestered, and for their daily faith, they depended upon what their chaplains would allow them. and in that quality athanasius there waited upon alexander, being his deacon, (for as yet it seems archbishops nor arch-deacons were invented.) and it is not improbable that athanasius having so early personated the bishop, and seeing the declining age of alexander, would be careful that arrius should not step betwixt him and home upon vacancy, but did his best against him to bar up his way, as it shortly after happened; athanasius succeeding after the council in the see of alexandria. in the mean time you may imagine that hypostasis, persona, substantia, subsistentia, essentia, coessentialis, consubstantialis, ante saecula coaeternus, etc. were by so many disputants picked to the very bones, and those too broken afterwards to come to the marrow of divinity. and never had constantine in his life so hard a task as to bring them to any rational results: meckly and patiently, euseb. l. 3. c. 13. de vitâ const. listening to every one, taking each man's opinion and without the acrimony with which it was delivered, helping each party where they disagreed, reconciling them by degrees when they were in the fiercest contention, conferring with them a part courteously and mildly, telling them what was his own opinion of the matter: which though some exceptious persons may allege to have been against the nature of a free council, yet truly unless he had taken that course, i cannot imagine how possibly he could ever have brought them to any conclusion. and thus this first, great, general council of nice, with which the world had gone big so long, and which looked so big upon all christendom, at last was brought in bed, and after a very hard labour delivered of homoousios. they all subscribed to the new creed, except some seventeen, who it seems had rather to be heretics than bishops. for now the anathemas were published, and whoever held the contrary was to be punished by deprivation and banishment, all arrian books to be burned, and whoever should be discovered to conceal any of arrius his writings, to die for it. but it fared very weil with those who were not such fools as to own his opinion. all they were entertained by the emperor at a magnificent feast, received from his hand rich presents, and were honourably dismissed, with letters recommending their great abilities and performance to the provinces, and enjoining the nicene creed to be henceforth observed. with that stroke of the pen: socr. l. 1. c. 6. for what threo hundred bishops have agreed on, (a thing indeed extraordinary) ought not to be otherwise conceived of then as the decree of god almighty, especially seeing the holy ghost did sit upon the minds of such and so excellent men, and opened his divine will to them. so that they went i trow with ample satisfaction; and, as they could not but take the emperor for a very civil, generous, and obliging gentleman, so they thought the better of themselves from that day forward. and how budge must they look when they returned back to their dioceses, having every one of them been a principal limn of the aecumenical, apostolical, catholic, orthodox council! when the ca●…achrestical titles of the church and the clergy were so appropriate to them by custom, that the christian people had relinquished or forgotten their claim; when every hare that crossed their way homeward was a schismatic or an heretic, and if their horse stumbled with one of them, he incurred an anathema. well it was that their journeys laid so many several ways, for they were grown so cumbersome and great, that the emperor's highway was too narrow for any two of them, and there could have been no passage without the removal of a bishop. but soon after the council was over, eusebius the bishop of nicomedia, and theognis the bishop of nice, who were already removed both by banishment and two others put in their places, were quickly restored upon their petition: wherein they suggested the cause of their not signing to have been only, because they thought they could not with a safe conscience subscribe the anathema against arrius, appearing to them both by his writings, his discourses, and sermons that they had been auditors of, not to be guilty of those errors. as for arrius himself, the emperor quickly wrote to him. it is now a considerable time since i writ to your gravity to come to my tents, that you might enjoy my countenance; so that i can scarce wonder sufficiently why you have so long delayed it: therefore now take one of the public coaches and make all speed to my tents, that, having had experience of my kindness and affection to you, you may return into your own country. god preserve you most dear sir. arrius hereupon (with his comarade euzoius) comes to constantine's army, and offers him a petition, with a confession of faith that would have passed very well before the nicene council, and now satisfied the emperor socr. l. 1. c. 19 & 20. insomuch that he writ to anathasius, now bishop of alexandria, to receive him into the church: but anathanasius was of better mettle than so and absolutely refused it. upon this constantine writ him another threatening letter: when you have understood hereby my pleasure, see that you afford free entrance into the church to all that desire it: for if i shall understand that any who desires to be admitted into the church should be either hindered or forbidden by you, i will send some one of my servants to remove you from your degree, and place another in your stead. yet athanasius stood it out still, though other churches received him into communion: and the heretic novatus could not have been more unrelenting to lapsed christians then he was to arrius. but this, joined with other crimes which were laid to athanasius his charge, at the council of tyre, (though i suppose indeed they were forged) made athanasius glad to fly for it, and remain the first time in exile. upon this whole matter it is my impartial opinion that arrius or whosoever else were guilty of teaching and publishing those errors whereof he was accused, deserved the utmost severity which consists with the christian religion. and so willing i have been to think well of athanasius and ill of the other, that i have on purpose avoided the reading, as i do the nameing, of a book that i have heard tells the story quite otherwise, and have only made use of the current historians of those times; who all of them tell it against the arrians. only i will confess, that as in reading a particular history at adventure a man finds himself inclinable to favour the weaker party, especially if the conqueror appear insolent; so have i been affected in reading these authors: which does but resemble the reasonable pity that men ordinarily have too for those who though for an erroneous conscience suffer under a christian magistrate. and as soon as i come to constantius, i shall for that reason change my compassion and be doubly engaged on the orthodox party. but as to the whole matter of the council of nice, i must crave liberty to say, that from one end to the other, though the best of the kind, it seems to me to have been a pitiful humane business, attended with all the ill circumstances of other worldly affairs, conducted by a spirit of ambition and contention, the first and so the greatest aecumenical blow that by christians was given to christianity. and it is not from any sharpness of humour that i discourse thus freely of things and persons, much less of orders of men otherwise venerable, but that where aught is extolled beyond reason and to the prejudice of religion, it is necessary to depreciate it by true proportion. it is not their censure of arianism, or the declaring of their opinion in a controverted point to the best of their understanding, (wherein to the smallness of mine they appear to have light upon the truth, had they likewise upon the measure,) that could have moved me to tell so long a story, or bring myself within the danger and aim of any captious reader, speaking thus with great liberty of mind but little concern for any prejudice i may receive, of things that are by some men i dolized. but it is their imposition of a new article or creed upon the christian world, not being contained in express words of scripture, to be believed with divine faith, under spritual and civil penalties, contrary to the privileges of religion and their making a precedent followed and improved by all succeeding ages for most cruel persecutions, that only could animate me. in digging thus for a new deduction they undermined the fabric of christianity; to frame a particular doctrine they departed from the general rule of their religion; and for their curiosity about an article concerning christ, they violated our saviour's first institution of a church not subject to any addition in matters of faith, nor liable to compulsion either in belief or in practice. farr be it from me in the event as it is from my intention, to derogate from the just authority of any of those creeds or confessions of faith that are received by our church upon clear agreement with the scriptures: nor shall i therefore, unless some men's impertinence and indiscretion hereafter oblige me, pretend to any further knowledge of what in those particulars appears in the ancient histories. but certainly if any creed had been necessary, or at least necessary to have been imposed, our saviour himself would not have left his church destitute in a thing of that moment. or however, after the holy ghost, upon his departure, was descended upon the apostles, and they the elders and brethren (for so it was then) were assembled in a legitime council at jerusalem, it would have seemed good to the holy ghost and them to have saved the council of nice that labour, or at least the apostle paul 2 cor. 12. 2. and 4. who was caught up into paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for any man to utter, having thereby a much better opportunity than athanasius to know the doctrine of the trinity, would not have been wanting, through the abundance of that revelation, to form a creed for the church, sufficient to have put that business beyond controversy. especially seeing heresies were sprung up so early, and he foresaw others, and therefore does prescribe the method how they are to be dealt with, but no creed that i read of. shall any sort of men presume to interpret those words, which to him were unspeakable, by a gibberish of their imposing, and force every man to cant after them what it is not lawful for any man to utter? christ and his apostles speak articulately enough in the scriptures, without any creed, as much as we are or aught to be capable of. and the ministry of the gospel is useful and most necessary, if it were but to press us to the reading of them, to illustrate one place by the authority of another, to inculcate those duties which are therein required, quickening us both to faith and practice, and showing within what bounds they are both circumscribed by our saviour's doctrine. and it becomes every man to be able to give a reason and account of his fa●…th, and to be ready to do it, without officiously gratifying those who demand it only to take advantage: and the more christians can agree in one confession of faith the better. but that we should believe ever the more for a creed, it cannot be expected. in those days when creeds were most plenty and in fashion, and every one had them at their fingers-ends, 'twas the bible that brought in the reformation. 'tis true, a man would not stick to take two or three creeds for a need, rather than want a living, and if a man have not a good swallow, 'tis but wrapping them up in a liturgy, like a wafer, and the whole dose will go down currently; especially if he wink at the same time and give his assent and consent without ever looking on them. but without jesting, for the matter is too serious. every man is bound to work out his own salvation with fear and trembling, and therefore to use all helps possible for his best satisfaction: hearing, conferring, reading, praying for the assistance of god's spirit; but when he hath done this, he is his own expositor, his own both minister and people, bishop and diocese, his own council; and his conscience excusing or condemning him, accordingly he escapes or incurs his own internal anathema. so that when it comes once to a creed, made and i●… posed by other men as a matter of divine faith, the case grows very delicate; while he cannot apprehend, though the imposer may, that all therein is clearly contained in scripture, and may fear being caught in the expressions to oblige himself to a latitude or restriction, further than comports with his own sense and judgement. a christian of honour, when it comes to this once, will weigh every word, every syllable, nay further, if he consider that the great business of this council of nice was but one single letter of the alphabet, about the inserting or omitting of an jota. there must be either that exactness in the form of such a creed, as i dare say, no men in the world ever were or ever will be able to modulate: or else this scrupulous private judgement must be admitted, or otherwise all creeds become mere instruments of equivocation or persecution. and i must conf●…ss, when i have sometimes considered with myself the dulness of the non-conformists, and the acuteness on the contrary of the episcoparians, and the conscienciousness of both; i have thought that our church might safely wave the difference with them about ceremonies, and try it out upon the creeds, which were both the more honourable way, and more suitable to the method of the ancient councils, and yet perhaps might do their business as effectually. for one that is a christian in good earnest, when a creed is imposed, will sooner eat fire then take it against his judgement. there have been martyrs for reason, and it was manly in ●…hem: but how much more would men be so for reason religionated and christianized! but it is an inhuman and unchristian thing of those faith-stretchers, whosoever they be, that either put men's persons or their consciences upon the torture, to rack them to the length of their notions: whereas the bereans are made gentlemen and ennobled by patent in the acts, because they would not credit paul himself, whose writings now make so great a part of the new testament, until they had searched the scripture daily whether those things were so, and therefore many of them believed. and therefore, although where there are such creeds, christians may for peace and conscience-sake acquiesce while there appears nothing in them flatly contrary to the words of the scripture: yet when they are obtruded upon a man in particular, he will look very well about him and not take them upon any humane authority. the greatest pretence to authority is in a council. but what then? shall all christians therefore take their formularies of divine worship or belief, upon trust, as writ in tables of stone, like the commandments, delivered from heaven and to be obeyed in the instant not considered: because three hundred and eighteen bishops are met in abraham's great hall, of which most must be servants and some children, and they have resolved upon't in such a manner? no, a good christian will not, cannot atturn and indenture his conscience over; to be represented by others. it is not as in secular matters, where the states of a kingdom are deputed by their fellow subjects to transact for them, so in spiritual: or suppose it were, yet 'twere necessary, as in the polish constitution, that nothing should be obligatory as long as there is one dissenter, where no temporal interests, but every man's eternity and salvation are concerned. the soul is too precious to be let out at interest upon any humane security, that does or may fail, but it is only safe when under god's custody, in its own cabinet. but it was a general council. a special general indeed if you consider the proportion of three hundred and eighteen, to the body of the christian clergy, but much more to all christian mankind. but it was a general free council of bishops. i do not think it possible for any council to be free that is composed only of bishops, and where they only have the decisive voces. nor that a free council that takes away christian liberty. but that, as it was founded upon usurpation, so it terminated in imposition. but 'tis meant that it was free from all external impulsion. i confess that good meat and drink, and lodging, and money in a man's purse, and coaches and servants, and horses to attend them, did no violence to them, nor was there any false article in it. and discoursing now with one and then another of them in particular, and the emperor telling them this is my opinion, i understand it thus, and afterwards declaring his mind frequently to them in public; no force neither. ay! but there was a shrewd way of persuasion in it. and i would be glad to know when ever and which free general council it was that could properly be called so: but was indeed ameer imperial or ecclesiastical machine, no free agent, but wound up, set on going, and let dow by the direction and hand of the workman. a general free council is but a word of art, and can never happen but under a fifth monarch, and that monarch too, to return from heaven. the animadverter will not allow the second general council of nice to have been free, because it was over awed by an empress, and was guilty of a great fault (which no council at liberty he saith could have committed) the decree for worshipping of images. at this rate a christian may scuffle however for one point among them, and choose which council he likes best. but in good earnest i do not see but that constantine might as well at this first council of nice, have negotiated the image worship, as to pay that superstitious adoration to the bishops, and that prostration to their creeds was an idolatry more pernicious in the consequence to the christian faith, then that under which they so lately had suffered persecution. nor can a council be said to have been at liberty which laid under so great and many obligations. but the holy ghost was present where there were three hundred and eighteen bishops, and directed them or three hundred. then, if i had been of their counsel, they should have sat at it all their lives, lest they should never see him again after they were once risen. but it concerned them to settle their quorum at first by his dictates; otherwise no bishop could have been absent or gone forth upon any occasion, but he let him out again: and it behooved to be very punctual in the adjournments. 'tis a ridiculous conception, and as gross as to make ●…m of the same substance with the council. nor needs there any strong argument of his absence, than their pretence to be actuated by him, and in doing such work. the holy spirit! if so many of them when they got together, acted like rational men, 'twas enough in all reason and as much as could be expected. but this was one affectation, among many others, which the bishops took up so early, of the stile, privileges, powers, and some actions a●…d gestures peculiar and inherent to the apostles, which they misplaced to their own behoof and usage: nay, and challenged other things as apostolical, that were directly contrary to the doctrine and practice of the apostles. for so because the holy spirit did in an extraordinary manner preside among the holy apostles at that legitime council of jerusalem, acts. 15. they, although under an ordinary administration, would not go less whatever came on't: nay, whereas the apostles, in the drawing up of their decree dictated to them by the holy spirit, said therefore no more but thus: the apostles, elders, and brethren, send greeting unto the brethren of, etc. forasmuch as, etc. it seemed good to the holy ghost and us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: that ye abstain from, etc. from which if ye keep yourselves, you shall do well. fare ye well. this council denounces every invention of its own; (far from the apostolical modesty, and the stile of the holy spirit) under no less than an anathema. such was their arrogating to their inferior degrees the style of clergy, till custom hath so much prevailed, that we are at a loss how to speak properly either of the name or nature of their function. whereas the clergy, in the true and apostolical sense, were only those whom they superciliously always call the laity: the word clerus being never but once used in the new testament, and in that signification, and in a very unlucky place too, peter 1. 5. 3. where he admonishes the priesthood, that they should not lord it or domineer over, the christian people, clerum domini or the lord's inheritance. but having usurped the title, i confess they did right to assume the power. but to speak of the priesthood in that style which they most affect, if we consider the nature too of their function, what were the clergy then but laymen disguised, dressed up perhaps in another habit? did not st. paul himself, being a tentmaker, rather than be idle or burdensome to his people, work of his trade, even during his apostleship, to get his living? but did not these, that they might neglect their holy vocation, seek to compass secular employments, and lay offices? were not very many of them, whether one respect their vices or ignorance, as well qualified as any other to be laymen? was it not usual as oft as they merited it to restore them, as in the case even of the three bishops, to the lay-communion? and whether, if they were so peculiar from others, did the imposition of the bishop's hands, or the lifting up the hands of the laity confer more to that distinction? and constantine, notwithstanding his compliment at the burning of the bishop's papers, thought he might make them and unmake them with the same power as he did his other lay-officers. but if the inferior degrees were the clergy, the bishops would be the church: although that word in the scripture-sense is proper only to a congregation of the faithful. and being by that title the only men in ecclesiastical councils, then when they were once assembled they were the catholic church, and, having the holy spirit at their devotion, whatsoever creed they light upon, that was the catholic eaith, without believing of which no man be saved. by which means there rose thenceforward so constant persecutions till this day, that, had not the little invisible catholic church and a people that always searched and believed the scriptures, made a stand by their testimonies and sufferings, the creeds had destroyed the faith: and the church had ruined the religion. for this general council of nice and all others of the same constitution, did, and can serve to no other end or effect, then particular order of menby their usurping a trust upon christianity, to make their own price and market of it, and deliver it up as oft as they see their own advantage. for scarce was constantine's head cold, but his son constantius, succeeding his brothers, being influenced by the bishops of the arrian party, turned the wrong side of christianity outward, inverted the poles of heaven, and faith (if i may say so) with its heels in the air, was forced to stand upon its head, and play gambols, for the divertisement and pleasure of the homoiousians. arrianism was the divinity then in mode, and he was an ignorant and ill courtier, or church man, that could not dress, and would not make a new suit for his conscience in the fashion. and now the orthodox bishops (it being given to those men to be obstinate for power, but flexible in faith;) began to wind about insensibly, as the heliotrope flower that keeps its ground, but wrists its neck in turning after the warm sun, from daybreak to evening. they could look now upon the synod of nice with more indifference, and all that pother that had been màde there betwixt homoousios and homoiousios, etc. began to appear to them as a difference only arising from the inadequation of languages: till by degrees they were drawn over, and, rather than lose their bishoprics, would join, and at last be the headmost in the persecution of their own former party. but the deacons, to be sure, that steered the elephants, were thoroughpaced; men to be reckoned and relied upon in this or any other occasion, and would prick on to render themselves capable and episcopable, upon the first vacancy. for now the arrians in grain, scorning to come behind the clownish homoousians, in any ecclesiastical civility, were resolved to give them their full of persecution. and it seemed a piece of wit rather than malice, to pay them in their own coin, and to burlesque them in earnest, by the repetition and heightening of the same severities upon them, that they had practised upon others. had you the homoousians a creed at nice? we will have another creed for you at ariminum, and at seleucia. would you not be content with so many several projects of faith consonant to scripture, unless you might thrust the new word homoousios down our throats, and then tear it up again, to make us confess it? tell us the word, ('twas homoiousios) we are now upon the guard, or else we shall run you thorough. would you anathemize, banish, imprison, execute us, and burn our books? you shall taste of this christian fare, and as you relish it, you shall have more on't provided. and thus it went, arrianism being triumphant, but the few sincere or stomachful bishops, adhering constantly, and with a true christian magnanimity, especially athanasius, thorough all sufferings unto their former confessions; expiated so in some measure, what they had committed in the nicene council. sozom●…ne, l. 4. c. 25. first tells us a story of eudoxius, who succeeded macedonius, in the bishopric of constantinople; that in the cathedral of sancta sophia, being mounted in his episcopal throne, the first time that they assembled for its dedication, in the very beginning of his sermon to the people (those things were already come in fashion) told them: patrem i●… esse, filium 〈◊〉 pium; at which when they began to bustle, pray be quiet, saith he; i say, patrem impium esse, quia colit neminem, filiem vero pium quia colit patrem; at which they then laughed as heartily, as before they were angry. but this i only note to this purpose, that there were some of the greatest bishops among the homoiousians, as well as the homoousians, that could not reproach one another's simplicity, and that it was not impossible for the many, to be wiser and more orthodox than the few, in divine matters. that which i cite him for as most material, is, his remark upon the imposition then of contrary creeds: which verily, faith he, was plainly the beginning of most great calamities, for as much as hereupon there followed a disturbance, not unlike those which we before recited over the whole empire; and likewise a persecution equal almost to that of the heathen emperors, seized upon all of all churches. for, although it seemed to some more gentle for what concerns the torture of the body, yet to prudent persons it appeared more bitter and severe, by reason of the dishonour and ignominy. for both they who stirred up, and those that were afflicted with this persecution, were of the christian church. and the grievance therefore was the greater and more ugly, in that the samethings which are done among enemies, were executed between those of the same tribe and profession: but the holy law forbids us to carry ourselves in that manner, even to those that are without, and alien's. and all this mischief sprung from making of creeds, with which the bishops, as it were at tilting, aimed to hit one another in the eye, and throw the opposite party out of the saddle. but if it chanced that the weaker side were ready to yield, (for what sort of men was there that could better manage, or had their consciences more at command at that time than the clergy?) then the arrians would use a yet longer, thicker, and sharper lance for the purpose, (for there were never vacancies sufficient) that they might be sure to run them down, over, and thorough, and do their business. the creed of ariminum was now too short for the design, but, saith the historian, they affixed further articles like labels to it, pretending to have made it better, and so sent it thorough the empire with constantius his proclamation, that whoever would not subscribe it, should be banished. nay, they would not admit their own beloved similis substantia, but, to do the work throughly, the arrians renouneed their own creed for malice, and made it an article; filium patri tam substantia, quam voluntate, dissimilem esse. but that is a small matter with any of them, provided thereby they may do service to the church, that is their party. so that one (seriously speaking) that were really orthodox, could not then defend the truth or himself, but by turning old arrian, if he would impugn the new ones; such was the subtlety. what shall i say more? as the arts of glass coaches and perriwags illustrate this age, so by their trade of creed-making, than first invented, we may esteem the wisdom of constantine's, and constantius his empire. and in a short space, as is usual among tradesmen, where it appears gainful, they were so many that set up of the same profession, that they could scarce live by one another. socr. l. 2. c. 32. therefore uses these words: but now that i have tandem aliquando, run through this labyrinth of so many creeds, i will gather up their number: and so reckons nine creeds more, besides that of nice, before the death of constantius, (a blessed number.) and i believe, i could for a need, make them up a dozen, if men have a mind to buy them so. and hence it was that hilary, than bishop of poitiers, represents that state of the church pleasantly, yet sadly, since the nicene synod, saith he, we do nothing but write creeds. that while we fight about words, whilst we raise questions about novelties, while we quarrel about things doubtful, and about authors, while we contend in parties, while there is difficulty in consent, while we anathematise one another, there is none now almost that is christ's. what a change there is in the last years creed? the first decree commands, that homoousios should not be mentioned. the next does again decree and publish homoousios. the third does by indulgence excuse the word ousia, as used by the fathers in their simplicity. the fourth does not excuse, but condemn it. it is come to that at last, that nothing among us, or those before us, can remain sacred or inviolable. we decree every year of the lord, a new creed concerning god: nay, every change of the moon our faith is altered. we repent of our decrees, we defend those that repent of them; we anathemize those that we defended, and while we either condemn other men's opinions in our own, or our own opinions in those of other men, and bite at one another, we are now all of us torn in pieces. this bishop sure was the author of the naked truth, and 'twas he that implicitly condemned the whole catholic church, both east and west, for being too presumptuous in her definitions. it is not strange to me, that julian, being but a reader in the christian church, should turn pagan: especially when i consider that he succeeded emperor after constantius. for it seems rather unavoidable that a man of great wit, as he was, and not having the grace of god to direct it, and show him the beauty of religion, through the deformity of its governors and teachers; but that he must conceive a loathing and aversion for it, nor could he think that he did them any injustice, when he observed that, beside all their unchristian immorality too, they practised thus, against the institutive law of their galilean, the persecution among themselves for religion. and well might he add to his other severities, that sharpness of his wit, both exposing and animadverting upon them, at another rate than any of the modern practitioners with all their study and inclination, can ever arrive at. for nothing is more punishable, contemptible, and truly ridiculous, than a christian that walks contrary to his profession: and by how much any man stands with more advantage in the church for eminency, but disobeys the laws of christ by that privilege, he is thereby, and deserves to be the more exposed. but julian, the last heathen emperor, by whose cruelty it seemed that god would sensibly admonish once again the christian clergy, and show them by their own smart, and an heathen hand, the nature and odiousness of persecution, soon died, as is usual for men of that employment, not without a remarkable stroke of god's judgement. yet they, as if they were only sorry that they had lost so much time, upon his death strove as eagerly to redeem it, and forthwith fell in very naturally into their former animolities. for jovianus being chosen emperor in persia, and returning homeward, socr. l. 3. c. 20. the bishops of each party, in hopes that theirs should be the imperial creed, straight to horse, and road away with switches and spur, as if it had been for the plate, to meet him; and he that had best heels, made himself cocksure of winning the religion. the macedonians, who dividing from the arrians, had set up for a new heresy concerning the holy ghost, (and they were a squadron of bishops) petitioned him that those who held, filium patri dissimilem, might be turned out, and themselves put in their places: which was very honestly done, and above-board. the acacians, that were the refined arrians, but, as the author saith, had a notable faculty of addressing themselves to the inclination of whatsoever emperor, and having good intelligence that he balanced rather to the consubstantials, presented him with a very fair insinuating subscription, of a considerable number of bishops to the council of nice. but in the next emperor's time they will be found to yield little reverence to their own subscription. for in matter of a creed, a note of their hand, without expresting the penalty, could not it seems bind one of their order. but all that jovianus said to the macedonians, was; i hate contention, but i lovingly embrace and reverence those who are inclined to peace and concord. to the acacians, who had wisely given these the precedence of application, to try the truth of their intelligence, he said no more (having resolved by sweetness and persuasions to quiet all their controversies) but, that he would not molest any man whatsoever creed be followed, but those above others he would cherish and honour, who should show themselves most forward in bringing the church to a good agreement. he likewise called back all those bishops who had been banished by constantius and julian, restoring them to their sees. and he writ a letter in particular to athanasius, who upon julian's death, had entered again upon that of alexandria, to bid him be of good courage. and these things coming to the ears of all others, did wonderfully assuage the fierceness of those who were inflamed with faction and contention: so that, the court having declared itself of this mind, the church was in a short time in all outward appearance peaceably disposed; the emperor by this means having wholly repressed all their violence. verily, concludes the historian, the roman empire had been prosperous and happy, and both the state and the church (he puts them too in that order) under so good a prince, must have exceedingly flourished, had not an immature death taken him away from managing the government. for after seven months, being seized with a mortal obstruction, he dparted this life. did not this historian, trow you, deserve to be handled, and is it not, now the mischief i●… done, to undo the charm, become a duty, to expose both him and jovianus? by their ill chosen principles what would have become of the prime, and most necessary articles of faith? might not the old dormant heresies, all of them safely have revived? but that mortal obstruction of the bishops, was not by his death (nor is it by their own to be) removed. they were glad he was so soon got out of their way, and god would yet further manifest their intractable spirit, which not the persecution of the heathen emperor julian, nor the gentleness of jovianus the christian, could allay or mitigate by their afflictions or prosperity. the divine nemesis executed justice upon them, by one another's hand: and so heinous a crime as for a christian, a bishop, to persecute, stood yet need, as the only equal and exemplary punishment, of being revenged with a persecution by christians, by bishops▪ and whoever shall seriously consider all along the succession of the emperors, can never have taken that satisfaction in the most judicious representations of the scene, which he may in this worthy speculation of the great order and admirable conduct of wise providence, through the whole contexture of these exterior, seeming accidents, relating to the ecclesiasticals of christianity. for to jovianus succeeded valentinian, who in a short time took his brother valens to be his companion in the empire. these two brothers, did as the historian observes, socr. l. 4. c. 1. (alike, and equally take care at the beginning, for the advantage and government of the state) but very much disagreed, though both christians, in matter of religion: valetinianus the elder being an orthodox, but valens an arrian, and they used a different method toward the christians. for valentinian (who chose the western part of the empire, and left the east to his brother) as he embraced those of his own creed, so yet he did not in the least molest the arrians: but valens not only laboured to increase the number of the arrians, but afflicted those of the contrary opinion with grievous punishments. and both of them, especially valens had bishops for their purpose. the particulars of that heavy persecution under valens, any one may further satisfy himself of in the writers of those times: and yet it is observable, that within a little space while he pursued the orthodox bishops, he gave liberty to the 〈◊〉 (who were of the same creed, but separated from them, as i have said, upon discipline, etc.) and caused their churches, which for a while were shut up, to be opened again at constantinople. to be short, valens (who outlived his brother, that died of a natural death,) himself in a battle against the goths, could not escape neither the fate of a christian persecutor. for the goths having made application to him, he, saith socrates, not well foreseeing the consequence, admitted them to inhabit in certain places of thracia, pleasing himself that he should by that means, always have an army ready at hand against whatsoever enemy; and that those foreign guards would strike them with a greater terror, more by far than the militia of his subjects. and so, slighting the ancient veterane militia, which used to consist of bodies of men raised proportionably in every province, and were stout fellows that would fight manfully; instead of them he levied money, rating the country at so much for every soldier. but these new inmates of the emperors soon grew troublesome, as is customary, and not only infested the natives in thracia, but plundered even the suburbs of constantinople, there being no armed force to repress them: hereupon the whole people of the city cried out at a public spectacle, where valens was present neglecting this matter, give us arms and we will manage this war ourselves. this extremely provoked him, so that he forthwith made an expedition against the goths: but threatened the citizens if he turned in safety, to be revenged on them both for those contumelies, and for what under the tyrant procopius, they had committed against the empire, and that he would raze to the ground, and blow up the city. yet before his departure, out of fear of the foreign enemy, he totally ceased from persecuting the orthodox in constantinople. but he was killed in the fight, or flying into a village that the goths had set on fire, he was there burnt to ashes: to the great grief of his bishops, who, had he been victorious, might have revived the persecution. such was the end of his impetuous reign and rash counsels both as to his government of state, in matters of peace and war, and his manage of the church by persecution. his death brings me to the succession of theodosius the great, than whom no christian emperor did more make it his business to nurse up the church, and to lull the bishops, to keep the house in quiet. but neither was it in his power to still their bawling, and scratching one another, as far as their nails (which were yet more tender, but afterwards grew like talons) would give them leave. i shall not further vex the history, or the reader, in recounting the particulars; taking no delight neither myself in so uncomfortable relations, or to reflect beyond what is necessary upon the wolfishness of those which then seemed, and aught to have been, the christian pastors, but went on scattering their flocks, if not devouring; and the shepherds smiting one another. in his reign, the second general council was called, that of constantinople, and the creed was there made which took its name from the place: the rest of their business, any one that is further curious, may observe in the writers. but i shall close this with a short touch concerning gregory nazianzen, then living, than whom also the christian church had not in those times (and i question whether in any succeeding) a bishop that was more a christian, more a gentleman, better appointed in all sorts of learning requisite, seasoned under julian's persecution, and exemplary to the highest pitch of true religion, and practical piety. the eminence of these virtues, and in special of his humility (the lowliest but the highest of all christian qualifications) raised him under theodosius, from the parish-like bishopric of nazianzum, to that of constantinople, where he filled his place in that council. but having taken notice in what manner things were carried in that, as they had been in former councils, and that some of the bishops muttered at his promotion; he of his own mind resigned that great bishopric, which was never of his desire or seeking, and, though so highly seated in the emperor's reverence and favour, so acceptable to the people, and generally to the clergy, whose unequal abilities could not pretend or justify an envy against him; retired back far more content to a solitary life to his little nazianzum. and from thence he writes that letter to his friend procopius, wherein, p. 814. upon his most recollected and serious reflection on what had fallen within his observation, he useth these remarkable words: i have resolved with myself (if i may tell you the naked truth,) never more to come into any assembly of bishops: for i never saw a good and haypy end of any council, but which rather increased then remedied the mischiefs. for their obstinate contentions and ambition are unexpressible. it would require too great a volume to deduce, from the death of theodosius, the particulars that happened in the succeeding reigns about this matter. but the reader may reckon, that it was as stated a quarrel betwixt the homoousians, and the homoiousians, as that between the houses of york and lancaster: and there arose now an emperor of one line, and then again of the other. but among all the bishops, there was not one morton, whose industrious brain could or would (for some men always reap by division) make up the fatal breach betwixt the two creeds. by this means every creed was grown up to a test, and, under that pretence, the dextrous bishops step by step hooked within their verge, all the business and power that could be catched in those turbulences, where they mudled the water and fished after. by this means they stalked on first to a spiritual kind of dominion, and from that encroached upon and into the civil jurisdiction. a bishop now grew terrible, and, (whereas a simple layman might have frighted the devil with the first words of the apostles creed, and i defy thee satan) one creed could not protect him from a bishop, and it required a much longer, and a double and treble confession, unless himself would be delivered over to satan by an anathema. but this was only an ecclesiastical sentence at first, with which they marked out such as sinned against them, and then whooped and hollowed on the civil magistrate, to hunt them down for their spiritual pleasure. they crept at first by court insinuations and flattery into the prince's favour, till those generous creatures suffered themselves to be backed and ridden by them, who would take as much of a free horse as possible: but in persecution the clergy as yet, wisely interposed the magistrate betwixt themselves and the people, not caring so their end were attained, how odious they rendered him: and you may observe that for the most part hitherto, they stood crouching and shot either over the emperor's back, or under his belly. but in process of time they became bolder and open-faced, and persecuted before the sun at midday. bishops grew worse, but bishoprics every day better and better. there was now no eusebius left to refuse the bishopric of antiochia, whom therefore constantine told, that he deserved the bishopric of the whole world for that modesty. they were not such fools as ammonius parotes', i warrant you, in the time of theodosius. he, socr. l. 6. c. 30. being seized upon by some that would needs make him a bishop, when he could not persuade them to the contrary, cut off one of his ears, telling them that now, should he himself desire to be a bishop, he was by the law of priesthood incapable: but when they observed that those things only obliged the jewish priensthood, and that the church of christ did not consider whether-a priest were sound or perfect in limb of body, but only that he were entire in his manners; they returned to seize on him again: but when he saw them coming, he swore with a solemn oath, that, if to consecrate him a bishop they laid violent hands upon him, he would out out his tongue also; whereupon they, fearing he would do it, desisted. what should have been the matter, that a man so learned and holy, should have such an aversion to be promoted in his own order; that, rather than yield to be a compelled or compelling bishop, he would inflict upon himself as severe a martyrdom, as any persecutor could have done for him? sure he saw something more in the very constitution, than some do at present. but this indeed was an example too rigid, and neither fit to have been done, nor to be imitated, as there was no danger. for far from this they followed the precedent rather of damasus, and ursinus, which last, socr. l. 4. c. 24. in valentinian 's time, persuaded certain obscure and abject bishops (for there were it seems of all sorts and sizes) to create him bishop in a corner, and then (so early) he and damasus, who was much the better man: waged war for the bishopric of rome, to the great scandal of the pagan writers, who made remarks for this and other things upon their christianity, and to the bloodshed and death of a multitude of the christian people. but this last i mentioned, only as a weak and imperfect essay in that time, of what it came to in the several ages after, which i am now speaking of, when the bishops were given, gave themselves, over to all manner of vice, luxury, pride, ignorance, superstition, covetousness, and monopolising of all secular employments and authority. nothing could escape them: they meddled, troubled themselves and others, with many things, every thing forgetting that one, only needful. insomuch that i could not avoid wondering often that, among so many churches that with paganick rites, they dedicated to saint mary, i have met with none to saint martha. but above all, imposition and cruelty became inherent to them, and the power of persecution was grown so good and desirable a thing, that they thought the magistrate scarce worthy to be trusted with it longer, and a mere novice at it, and either wrested it out of his hands, or gently eased him of that and his other burdens of government. the sufferings of the laity were become the royalties of the clergy; and, being very careful christians, the bishops, that not a word of our saviour's might fall to the ground, because he had foretold how men should be persecuted for his names sake, they undertook to see it done effectually in their own provinces, and out of pure zeal of doing him the more service of this kind, enlarged studiously their dioceses beyond all proportion. like nostradamus' his son, that to fulfil his father's prediction of a city in france, that should be burned; with his own hands set it on fire. all the calamities of the christian world in those ages, may be derived from them, while they warmed themselves at the flame; and, like lords of misrule, kept a perpetual christmas. what in the bishop's name is the matter? how came it about that christianity, which approved itself under all persecutions to the heathen emperors, and merited their favour so far, till at last it regularly succeeded to the monarchy, should under those of their own profession be more distressed? were there some christians then too, that feared still lest men should be christians, and for whom it was necessary, not for the gospel reason that there should be heresies. let us collect a little now also in the conclusion what at first was not particularised, how the reason of state and measure of government stood under the roman emperors, in aspect to them. i omit tiberius, mentioned in the beginning of this essay. trajane, after having persecuted them, and having used pliny the second in his province to that purpose, upon his relation that they lived in conformity to all laws, but that which for bad their worship, and in all other things were blameless, and good men, straight by his edict commanded that none of them should be farther enquired after. hadrian, in his edict to minutius fundanus, proconsul of asia, commands him that, if any accuse the christians, and can prove it, that they commit anything against the state, that then he punish them according to the crime: but if any man accuse them, merely for calumny and vexation, as christians, then t'saith let him suffer sored, and take you care that he ●…eel the smart of it. antoninus pius writ his edict, very remarkable if there were place here to recite it, to the states of asia assembled at ephesus; wherein he takes notice of his father's command that, unless the christians were found to act any thing against the roman empire, they should not be molested and then commands that, if any man thereafter shall continue to trouble them, tanquam tales, as christians, for their worship, in that case he that is the informer should be exposed to punishment, but the accused should be free and discharged. i could not but observe that among other things in this edict, where he is speaking, it is desirable to them that they may appear, being accused, more willing ●…dy for their god then to live, he adds. it would not be amiss to admonish you concerning the earthquakes which have, and do now happen, that when you are afflicted at them, you would compare our affairs with theirs. they are thereby so much the more encouraged to a confidence and reliance upon god, but you all the while go on in your ignorance, and neglect both other gods, and the religion towards the immortal, and banish and persecute them unto death. which words of that emperors, fall in so naturally with what, it seems, was a common observation about earthquakes, that i cannot but to that purpose take further notice, how also gregory nazianzen, in or. 2d. contra gentiles, tells, besides the break in of the sea in several places, and many fires that happened, of the earthquakes in particular, which he reckons as symptoms of julian's persecution. and to this i may add. socr. l. 3. c. 10. who in the reign of valens, that notorious christian persecutor, saith, at the same time there was an earthquake in bythinia, which ruined the city of nice, (that same in which that general counsel was held under constantine) and a little after there was another. but although these so happened, the minds of valens and of eudoxius, the bishop of the arrians were not at all stirred up unto piety, and a right opinion of religion: for neverthless they never ceased, made no end of persecuting those who in their creed dissented from them. those earthquakes seemed to be certain indications of tumult in the church. all which put together, could not but make me reflect upon the late earthquakes, great by how much more unusual, here in england, thorough so many counties since christmas, at the same time when the clergy, some of them, were so busy in their cabals, to promote this (i would give it a modester name then) persecution, which is now on foot against the disfenters; at so unseasonable a time, and upon no occasion administered by them, that those who comprehend the reasons, yet cannot but wonder at the wisdom of it. yet i am not neither one of the most credulous nickers or applyers of natural events to human transactions: but neither am i so secure as the learned dr. spencer, nor can walk along the world without having some eye to the conjunctures of god's admirable providence. neither was marcus aurelius (that i may return to my matter) negligent as to this particular. but he, observing, as antoninus had the earthquakes, that in an expedition against the germans, and sarmatians: his army being in despair almost for want of water, the melitine (afterwards from the event called the thundering) legion, which consisted of christians, kneeled down in the very heat of their thirst and fight, praying for rain, which posture the enemies wondering at, immediately there broke out such a thundering and lightning as together with the christian valour, routed the adverse army, but so much rain fell therewith, as refreshed aurelius his forces that were at the last gasp for thirst, he thence forward commanded by his letters; that upon pain of death none should inform against the christians, as tertulian in his apology for the christians witnesses. but who would have believed that even commodus, so great a tyrant otherwise, should have been so favourable as to make a law, that the informers against christians should be punished with death? yet he did, and the informer against apollanius was by it executed. much less could a man have thought that, that prodigy of cruelty maximine, and who exercised it so severely upon the christians, should, as he did, being struck with god's hand, publish when it was too late edict after edict, in great favour of the christians. but above all, nothing could have been less expected than that, after those heathen emperors, the first christian constantine should have been seduced by the bishops, to be, after them, the first occasion of persecution, so contrary to his own excellent inclination: 'twas then that he spoke his own mind, when he said, eus. de vitâ consti. 60. you ought to retain within the bounds of your private thoughts those things, which you cunningly and subtly seek out concerning most frivolous questions. and then much plainer, c. 67. where he saith so wisely. you are not ignorant that the philosophers all of them do agree in the profession of the same discipline, but do oftentimes differ in some part of the opinions which they dogmatise in: but yet, although they do descent about the discipline that each several sect observeth, they nevertheless reconcile themselves again for the sake of that common procession to which they have concurred. but against compulsion in religious matters so much every where, that it is needless to insert one passage. and he being of this disposition, and universally famous for his care and countenance of the christian religion. eusebius saith these words: while the people of god did glory and heighten itself in the doing of good things, and all fear from without was taken away, and the church was fortified as i may say, on all sides by a peaceable and illustrious tranquillity, than envy lying in wait against our prosperity, craftily crept in, and began first to dance in the midst of the company of bishops: so goes on, telling the history of alexander and arrius. i have been before large enough in that relation, wherein it appeared that, contrary to that great emperors pious intention, whereas envy began to dance among the bishop's first, the good constantine brought them the fiddles. but it appeared likewise how soon he was weary of the bal, and toward his latter end, as princes often do upon too late experience, would have redressed all and returned to his natural temper. of the other christian emperors i likewise discoursed, omitting, that i might insert it in this place, how the great heathen philosopher themistius, in his consular oration, celebrated jovianus for having given that toleration in christian religion, and thereby defeated the flattering bishops, which fort of men, saith he wittily, do not worship god, but the imperial purple. it was the same themistius that, only out of an upright natural apprehension of things, made that excellent oration afterward to valens, which is in print, exhorting him to cease persecution: wherein he chances upon, and improves the same notion with constantine's, and tells him: that he should not wonder at the dissents in christian religion, which were very small, if compared with the multitude and crowd of opinions among the gentile philosophers; for there were at least three hundred differences, and a very great dissension among them there was about their resolutions, unto which each several sect was as it were necessarily bound up and obliged: and that god seemed to intend more to illustrate his own glory by that divers and unequal variety of opinions, to the end every each one might therefore so much the more reverence his divine majesty, because it is not possible for any one accurately to know him. and this had a good effect upon valens, for the mitigating in some measure his severities against his fellow christians. so that after having cast about, in this summary again, (whereby it plainly appears that according to natural right and the apprehension of all sober heathen governors, christianity as a religion, was wholly exempt from the magistrates jurisdiction or laws, farther than any particular person among them immorally transgressed, as others, the common rules of human society) i cannot but return to the question with which i begun. what was the matter? how came it about that christianity, which approved itself under all persecutions to the heathen emperors, and merited their favour so far, till at last it regularly succeeded to the monarchy, should, under those of their own profession, be more distressed? but the answer is now much shorter and certainer, and i will adventure boldly to say, the true and single cause then was the bishops. and they were the cause against reason. for what power had the emperors by growing christians, more than those had before them? none. what obligation were christ an subjects under to the magistrate more than before? none. but the magistrates christian authority was, what the apostle described it while heathen, not to be a terror to good works, but to evil. what new power had the bishops acquired, whereby they turned every ponti●… into a gaiaphat? none neither? 2 cor. 10. 8. had they been apostles, the lord had but given them authority for edification, not for destruction. they, of all other, aught to have preached to the magistrate, the terrible denunciations in scripture against usurping upon and persecuting of christians. they, of all others, ought to have laid before them the horrible examples of god's ordinary justice against those that exercised persecution. but, provided they could be the swearers of the prince to do all due allegiance to the church, and to preserve the rights and liberties of the church, however they came by them, they would give him as much scope as he pleased in matter of christianity, and would be the first to solicit him to break the laws of christ, and ply him with hot places of scripture in order to all manner of oppression and persecution in civils and spirituals. so that the whose business how this unchristian tyranny came and could entitle itself among christians, against the christian privileges, was only the case in zech. 13. 6. 7 and one shall say unto him, what are these wounds in thy hands? then he shall answer, those with which i was wounded in the house of my friends. because they were all christians, they thought forsooth they might make the bolder with them, make bolder with christ, and wound him again in the hands and feet, of his members. because they were friends they might use them more coarsely, and abuse them, against all common civility, in their own house, which is a protection to strangers. and all this to the end that a bishop might sit with the prince in a junto, to consult wisely how to preserve him from those people that never meant him any harm, and to secure him from the sedition and rebellion of men that seek, nor think, any thing more but to follow their own religious, christian worship. it was indeed as ridiculous a thing to the pagans to see that work, as it was afterwards in england to strangers, where papists and protestants went both to wrack at the same instant, in the same market, and when erasmus said wittily, quid agitur in augliâ? consulitur he might have added though not so elegantly comburitur) de religione. because they knew that christian worship was free by christ's institution, they procured the magistrate to make laws in it concerning things unnecessary; as the heathen persecutor julian introduced some bordering ragan ceremonies, and arguing with themselves in the same manner as he did, soz. l. 5. c. 16. that if christians should obey those laws they should be able to bring them about to something further which they had designed. but if they would not, than they might proceed against them without any hope of pardon, as breakers of the laws of the empire, and represent them as turbulent and dangerous to the government. indeed, whatsoever the animadverter saith of the act of seditious conventicles hero in england, as if it were anvilled after another of the roman senate, the christians of those ages, had all the finest tools of persecution out of julian's shop, and studied him then as curiously as some do now machiavelli. these bishops it was who, because the rule of christ was incompatible with the power that they assumed, and the vices they practised, had no way to render themselves necessary or tolerable to princes, but by making true piety difficult, by innovating laws to revenge themselves upon it, and by turning makebates between prince and people, instilling dangers of which themselves were the authors. hence it is that having awakened this jealousy once in the magistrate against religion, they made both the secular and the ecclesiastical government so uneasy to him, that most princes began to look upon their subjects as their enemies, and to imagine a reason of state different from the interest of their people: and therefore to weaken themselves by seeking unnecessary & grievous supports to their authority. whereas if men could have refrained this cunning, and from thence forcible, governing of christianity, leaving it to its own simplicity, and due liberty, but causing them in all other things to keep the king's and christ's peace among themselves and towards others, all the ill that could have come of it would have been that such kind of bishops should have proved less implemental, but the good that must have thence risen to the christian magistrate and the church, then and ever after, would have been inexpressible. but this discourse having run in a manner wholly upon the imposition of creeds, may seem not to concern (and i desire that it may not reflect upon) our clergy, nor the controversies which have so unhappyly vexed our church, ever since the reign of edward the sixth unto this day. only, if there might something be picked out of it towards the compromising of those differences (which i have not from any performance of mine the vanity to imagine) it may have use as an argument a majori ad minus, their disputes having risen only from that of creeds, ours from the imposition only of ceremonies, which are of much inferior consideration. faith being necessary, but ceremonies despensable. unless our church should lay the same weight upon them as the animadverter has done thorough his whole studious chapter on that subject, and because p. 34. this is the time of her settlement, that there is a church at the end of every mile, that the sovereign powers spread their wings to cover and protect her, that kings and queens are her nursing fathers and nursing mothers, that she hath stately cathedrals, there he so many arguments now to make ceremonies necessary: which may all be answered with one question that they use to ask children. where are you proud? but i should rather hope from the wisdom and christianity of the present guides of our church, that they will (after an age and more, after so long a time almost as those primitive bishops i have spoke of, yet suffered the novatian bishops in every diocese) have mercy on the nation, that hath been upon so slender a matter as the ceremonies and liturgy so long, so miserably harassed. that they will have mercy upon the king, whom they know against his natural inclination, his royal intention, his many declarations, they have induced to more severities, than all the reigns since the conquest will contain if summed up together: who may, as constantine among his private devotions put up one collect to the bishops. euseb. de vitâ const. c. 70. date igitur mihi dies tranquillos & noctes curarum expertes. and it runs, thus almost altogether verbatim in that historian. grant, most merciful bishop and priest that i may have calm days, and nights free from care and motestation, that i may live a peaceable life in all godliness and honesty for the future by your good agreement; which unless you vouchsafe me, i shall waste away my reign in perpetual sadness and vexation. for as long as the people of god stands divided by so unjust and pernicious a contention, how can it be that i can have any ease in my own spirit. open therefore by your good agreement the way to me, that i may continue my expedition towards the east; and grant that i may see both you and all the rest of my people, having laid aside your animosities, rejoicing together, that we may all with one voice give laud and glory, for the common good agreement and liberty, to god almighty for ever. amen. but if neither the people, nor his majesty enter into their consideration. i hope it is no unreasonable request that they will be merciful unto themselves, and have some reverence at least for the naked truth of history, which either in their own times will meet with them, or in the next age overtake them: that they, who are some of them so old that, as confessors, they were the scars of the former troubles, others of them so young, that they are free from all the motives of revenge and hatred, should yet join in reviving the former persecutions upon the pretences, yea even themselves in a turbulent, military, and uncanonical manner execute laws of their own procuring, and depute their inferior clergy to be the informers. i should rather hope to see not only that controversy so scandalous abolished, but that also upon so good an occasion as the author of the naked truth hath administered them, they will inspect their clergy, and cause many things to be corrected, which are far more ruinous in the consequence than the dispensing with a surplice. i shall mention some too confusedly, as they occur to my pen, at present, reserving much more for better leisure. methinks it might be of great edification, that those of them who have ample possessions should be in a good sense. mult as inter opes inopes. that they would inspect the canons of the ancient councils, where are many excellent ones for the regulation of the clergy. i saw one, looking but among those of the same council of nice, against any bishops removing from a less bishopric to a greater, nor that any of the inferior clergy should leave a less living for a fatter. that is methinks the most natural use of general or any councils to make canons, as it were by-laws for the ordering of their own society, but they ought not to take out, much less forge any patent to invade and prejudice the community. it were good that the greater churchmen relied more upon themselves, and their own direction, not building too much upon stripling chaplains: that men may not suppose the master (as one that has a good horse or a fleet-hound) attributes to himself the virtues of his creature. that they inspect the morals of the clergy: the moral heretics, do the church more harm than all the non-conformists can do, or can wish it. that before they admit men to subscribe the thirty nine articles for a benefice, they try whether they know the meaning. that they would much recommend to them the reading of the bible. 'tis a very good book, and if a man read it carefully, will make him much wiser. that they would advise them to keep the sabbath: if there were no morality in the day, yet there is a great deal of prudence in the observing it. that they would instruct those that came for holy orders and livings, that it is a terrible vocation they enter upon, but that has indeed the greatest reward. that to gain a soul is beyond all the acquists of traffic, and to convert an atheist more glorious than all the conquests of the soldier. that, betaking themselves to this spiritual warfare, they ought to disentangle from the world. that they do not ride for a benefice as if it were for a fortune or a mistress, but there is more in it. that they take the ministry up not as a trade, and, because they have heard of whittington, in expectation that the bells may so chime that they come in their turns to be lord mayors of lambeth. that they make them understand, as well as they can, what is the grace of god. that they do not come into the pulpit too full of fustian or logic, a good life is a clergy man's best syllogism, and the quaintest oratory: and till they outlive them they will never get the better of the fanatics, nor be able to preach with demonstration of spirit or with any effect or authority. that they be lowly minded, and no railers. and particularly, that the archdeacon of canterbury being in ill humour upon account of his ecclesiastical policy, may not continue to revenge himself upon the innocent walloons there, by ruining their church which subsists upon the ecclesiastical power of his majesty and so many of his royal predecessors. but these things require greater time, and to enumerate all that is amiss, might perhaps be as endless as to number the people: nor are they within the ordinary sphere of my capacity, and our exposer will think i have forgot him, i shall take my leave of him for the present, being only troubled to find out a compliment for so civil a person. it must be thus. i will not say as popilius said to antiochus, nor as demosthenes said to eschines, nor as the most learned p. aerodius, or the jesuit gaspar schottus said to the animadverter, nor as dolubella said to cicero, nor as the christian cicero said to the english parliament, nor as the roman centurion said to the roman ensign: but i will say something like what leonas (that presided from constantius at the council at seleucia, when they made an endless disputing to no purpose) said to them: not, abi●…e igitur & in ecclesiâ nugas agite, but, good mr. exposer, what do you loitering like an idle scholar, and animadverting here in town? get you home again, or it were better for you, and expose and animadvert, as long as you will, at your own college. but as to a new book fresh come out, entitled, the author of the naked truth stripped naked (to the fe●…, or to the skin) that hieroglyphical quibble of the great gun, on the title page, will not excuse bishop gunning. for his sermon is still expected. but to the judicious and serious reader, to whom i wish any thing i have said, may have given no unwelcome entertainment, i shall only so far justify myself, that i thought it no less concerned me to vindicate the laity from the impositions that the few would force upon them, then him to defend those impositions on behalf of the clergy. and moreover i judged myself most proper for the work, it not being fit that so slight a pamphlet as his should be answered by any man of great abilities. for the rest i take the naked truth to have been part of that effect which reverend mr. hooker foretold praef. to e●…l. policy. p. 10. the time will come when three words, uttered with charity and meekness, shall receive a far more blessed reward, than three thousand volumes written with disdainful sharpness of wit. and i shall conclude with him in his close. i trust in the almighty that with us contentions are now at the highest float, and that the day will come (for what cause is there of dispair) when the passions of former enmity being allayed, men shall with ten times redoubled tokens of unfeignedly reconciled love, show themselves each to other the same which joseph and the brethren of joseph were at the time of their interview in egypt. and upon this condition, let my book also (yea myself if it were needful) be burnt by the hand of the, animadverter. finis. vindiciae vindiciarum; or, a vindication of a late treatise, entitled, infant-baptism asserted and vindicated by scripture and antiquity. in answer to mr. hen. d'anvers his reply. to which is annexed, the right reverend dr. barlow (now bishop-elect of lincoln) his apologetical-letter. also an appeal to the baptists (so called) against mr. danvers, for his strange forgeries, and misrepresentations of divers councils and authors, both ancient and modern. by obed wills, m. a. he that is first in his own cause, seemeth just; but his neighbour cometh and searcheth him. prov. 18. 17. london, printed for jonathan robinson, at the golden-lion in st. paul's churchyard, 1675. the preface. the wise man tells us pro. 17. 14. that the beginning of strife is as when one setteth out water, therefore leave off, saith he, contention before it be meddled with. the original is big with an emphasis, and is rendered by arius montanus, [aquas aperiens, or qui aperit aquam] that is to say, opening the bay, or making a gap in the banks for the water to run out; so that at first, though the matter may seem inconsiderable, yet the waters widening their passage, become impetuous, grow stronger and stronger, carry all before it, drown the country, and cause great devastations: in like manner from small beginnings of controversy, breaches are enlarged, animosities fomented, the world filled with variance, noise, and clamour: so that he that first starteth the same, without being compelled thereunto, especially if it be about theological points, and those circumstantials and punctilios, shows himself to be a man of little judgement, and less affection to the church's peace. for though disputes about religion are sometimes necessary, yet are they always dangerous, too often emptying the heart of christian charity, and filling it with carnal zeal, and passion: upon which account few there are to be found, who are fitly qualified to manage such undertake, which are usually carried on with more heat than any other subject. for that besides reason, learning, reputation, confidence of verity, and interest, which warm men in other polemical encounters, they are in this inflamed with a zeal for god, and the impulse of conscience to appear in his cause, and for his truth impugned. the concurrence of all which, or some of them, have perhaps induced mr. danvers to appear once more upon the stage, and thereby given the ansa, or occasion of another duel, between him and me, who both being of no great strength, might well have given place to others, as fitter champions for the truth, on which side so ever it be. i must therefore acquaint thee, reader, that my antagonist having formerly published a treatise for the baptism of believers only, i presumed to declare my dissent from him, and in my preface to the answer have expressed the reasons that obliged me thereunto. and besides my endeavours to refute all his arguments against infant-baptism, i did more especially detect his failings in the historical part of his discourse, and how extremely culpable he was in his collections, and in perverting the sense of authors, contrary to their intentions: and though some thought it was impossible for him, not to be convinced of the offence he had done antiquity, yet instead thereof, and an ingenuous acknowledgement of his aberrations, he hath attempted to vindicate himself, and by all artifices imaginable to cover or gild over his defects; and for a pretext to hide them, hath as much as in him lies, insinuated a disesteem of my labours, making use of the politic engine of repercussion, retorting and bandying back the charges which i bring against him, with a sufficient talio, and large requital. herein much resembling verres, who when tully framed an oration against him for thievery, he knew no better way to discountenance the same, than by accusing tully, a true man, that he was a thief. but this will prove but a poor salvo; for when the vanity and injustice of such a procedure appears, will not his face be covered with redoubled shame? i am sorry he hath obliged me to consume more precious time with him, and am not willing to say any thing that may disturb the tranquillity of his soul, and that because he is deeply touched at what is past; for however he pretends to patience, and suffering, 'tis easy to observe in him the marks of a great animosity and discomposure: and can any man blame him? since he (as he tells us) had form his treatise in a new method preface to the reply. for the benefit of this age, and consequently might expect it should have been a standing-book for the whole nation, to be universally received without contradiction. but instead thereof, to have the mummery discovered, the mask and vizard plucked off, to have his darling child, his first born in this kind, anatomised, it's unsoundness and rotten parts laid open, and exposed to shame, censure, and loathing, this must needs exasperate a great spirit. this was such a provocation, that his fancy hath been more busily employed in inventing charges against me, then in clearing himself. he hath mainly improved his study (in conjunction with what help he could get from the wits of his party) to disparage my book, vilify my person, and to render both odious, and to be suspected. and what a noise doth he make in the preface, with the remarkable exaggerations of my curtilations, misquotations, mistranslations, misapplications, when all this while he looks upon what i have written through the multiplying-glass of prejudice, taking molehills for mountains, and peccadillo's and little escapes for unpardonable crimes; and what is wanting in weight, he makes up in number. never did any momus more industriously set himself to carp; and some of his accusations are so trivial, that they may be brought against the exactest writer living. and yet after all these exclamations, having compared notes with him, and examined quotations, i find myself little more concerned, then in the mistake of a name, a century, and a passage of cassander. and since my antagonist hath the confidence to refer matters in debate between us to the tribunal of the reader, i willingly join issue with him, not doubting (if he hath honesty and ability to judge) but that he will find me innocent, and this accuser a delinquent. there is no way to try our metal, but to bring it to the touchstone of the original authors, from whom we pretend our authorities. there are some things in debate▪ that they who understand only their mother tongue, cannot possibly be competent judges of which side the truth lieth: some other things are obvious to the unlearned, and they that have read only p. perin in english, and mr. fox's book of martyrs have wondered at mr. danvers errors. in respect of these i have the less need to vindicate myself from some of his charges. and truly if the satisfying some men's importunity, that i would endeavour to disabuse credulous souls, had not been more important than any fear of suffering my reputation by this satirist, i should have been altogether silent: for though it be certain, there is nothing so far from truth, which a craftily composed discourse cannot make to appear probable, yet my private thoughts were, that i might have saved this labour: since the learned are well satisfied of the truth of what i have written, and the more illiterate that are paedobaptists are not overforward to believe what mr. danvers saith, and for his own party, many of them will boast still. partiality and prejudice will not suffer them to believe what is said in opposition to him, and from them i must expect no milder penalty, than what i suffered for the first piece, viz. to be looked upon with a squint-eye, and wounded in reputation. but methinks there should have been so much nobleness in mr. danvers, being a gentleman, and a christian, as to have forborn his invectives, and instead thereof, have attacked some of our arguments for pedobaptism, against which he hath brought no other weapons than what every xanthippe can afford, viz. the sword of the tongue, and the arrows of bitter words. but i must expect an after-clap of thunder, for he saith he hath much to reckon with me for mistakes in the doctrinal part. i would advise him rather, first to take off the exceptions i have made against his historical part of baptism, which he cannot but be convinced of, unless he wink hard. let him clear his accounts with me in respect of that, before he enters upon new work; or rather, which is most ingenuous, let him publish a retractation of his errors, and so desist: for experience at tests the truth of that maxim, veritas non quaerenda in cristicis. moreover he cannot be ignorant that the nation hath taken a surfeit of these baptismal-controversies; there is more said already pro and con, than we are able to speak, and few have patience to read any more, and if we fall to it again, doubtless our books will prove waste paper. and i must further acquaint mr. danvers that he having treated me with so much rudeness in what is past, i have little heart to have any more to do with him, (unless i see better cause) and do hereby promise him security, as from me, from all contradiction, whenever he lets fly. there is no gaping i find before an hot-oven; and silence is accounted the best answer to such as superadd contumacy to their mistakes: for when men are grown so tenacious of an opinion which once they have espoused, as never to admit of a divorce, though by conviction they find it adulterate, all disputing is to no purpose: such were anciently condemned, quos non persuadebis, etiamsi persuaseris. if mr. danvers be not to be numbered amongst them, i should be glad; for what ever he hath said of my malignity against his person (altogether unknown to me) i here declare before all men the contrary, and that i love him as a brother, though erring, and had mu●h rather convince, than shame him, heartily advising him to cease tossing the ball of contention; to be humble and loving to all christians; to mortify his passions, and follow peace with all in every place that call on the name of the lord jesus. mr. danvers' defence from the charge of prevarication, falsehood, and perverting the testimonies of the ancients, found insufficient; and the same further made good against him. in the 20th page of his reply, entitled innocency and truth vindicated, he tells us, that he doth not quote the sayings of the ancients as if they had been anabaptists, or to prove, that believers baptism is the only baptism of those centuries; for, he saith, that would have been madness and contradiction: and indeed to quote them for such an end had been little less; and i presume, if that were not his design, he will be hardly put to it, to give any rational account why he produced them, and not be found at last to contradict himself: for in his treatise of baptism edit. 1. (which was the book i answered) next to the preface we have the contents of his book, consisting of two parts: the first proving believers, the second disproving (as he tells us) that of infants-baptism, under these two heads. 1. that the baptising of believers is only to be esteemed christ's ordinance of baptism. 2. that the baptising of infants is no ordinance of jesus christ. the first of these he attempts to prove in seven chapters, and the last is from the testimonies of learned men in all ages since christ, witnessing to it. witnessing to what? why, to the truth of his first assertion, viz. that the baptism of believers is the [only] true baptism: had he said no more than a true baptism, he had been safe. and again, in his 7th chapter of the same treatise, p. 56. he thus expresseth himself: not only scripture, but even antiquity itself (of which they so much boast) is altogether for believers, and not for infants-baptism: now whether these sayings of his, compared with that abovementioned, that he doth not quote the ancients to prove that believers baptism is the only baptism of those centuries, be not pro and con, and evident contradiction, i will not say madness; and whether he hath not shamefully relinquished his thesis, yea whether he doth not prevaricate to free himself from the charge of prevarication, is submitted to the judgement of the reader. and although it must needs be obvious to every impartial eye, that mr. d. is herein found tardy; yet, as one that hath quite forgotten himself, he doth also in the third page of his reply tell us, that he hopes it will be acknowledged he doth not prevaricate and pervert the testimonies in the three first centuries, and that believers baptism was the only baptism for near 300 years, flatly gain saying what he hath in the 20th pag. of the same book, as we have above mentioned. thus, proteus-like, he often changeth shapes, and being so wavering and fickle, as we have noted, it is a shrewd sign he will also falter in making good what he pretends to as to the 3 first centuries; namely, that he hath not prevaricated or perverted the testimonies thereunto belonging. which whether it be so or not, we cannot come to know but by making some reflections upon the 7th chapter of his treatise of baptism, where he begins with the first century, thus— the magdiburgenses in their excellent history do tell us, that as to the subject of baptism in the first century, they find they baptised only the adult or aged, whether jews or gentiles. how well mr. danvers doth excuse himself for adding the word only, we shall hereafter see. we are now upon the trial of prevarication; which is a concealing or letting pass that which ought to have been declared, on purpose to deceive; and this i charge him with: for though the magdiburgs do say (what every one knows) that we have examples of adult persons both jews and gentiles that were baptised, but as touching infants there are no examples recorded, exempla annotata non leguntur; yet they add in the very next line, that origen and cyprian affirm, that even in the apostles days infants were baptised, & since these fathers lived in the next century after the apostles, they may very well be thought to understand what the apostles did. in the 2d century, mr. danvers quotes from the magdiburgs some of justin martyr's words in his apology to antoninus pius, where mention is made of instruction and fasting, and prayer before baptism, but withal conceals what in the same place the magdiburgs tell us, that this was the method which was used in reference to aliens upon their conversion to christianity; for these are their words— cum qui ad fidem christianam conversus esset sat instructus etc. that is, when any one was converted to the christian faith, he was sufficiently instructed before baptism. in the 3d century he doth egregiously prevaricate in telling us, that the magdiburgs say, as to the rites of baptism they have no testimony of alteration: for hereby he doth suggest to the reader, that in this age as well as in the former there was no baptism owned but that of the adult: whereas, 1. those words [as to the rites of baptism they have no testimony of alteration] are his own words, and not the magdiburgs, who say only this, viz. baptizandi ritus in ecclesiis asianis observatos hoc seculo, quia omnium ferme doctorum asiaticorum scriptis destituimur, commemorare non possumus; that is, we cannot rehearse the rites of baptising observed in the asiatick-churches, because we want for the most part the writings of the asiatic [doctors.] 2. he silently passeth by what they do expressly say was in use in this age, namely, that adult persons of both sexes, and also infants, were baptised; baptizabantur in utroque sexu, adulti simul et infants, cent. 3. c. 6. p. 124. 3. further: under this head he perverts the sense of mr. baxter's words, and carries them quite off from the intent and scope of his discourse, as you may see in his saints rest, part 1. c. 8. sect. 5. for what is there spoken from origen and cyprian of an express covenanting before baptism, is meant of adult strangers; nor is mr. baxter treating there of baptism, but something else. and at this rate what author can be secure from the violence of his interpretations? and if he had thought on it, he might have urged for adult baptism that of the magdiburgs, cent. 3. c. 6. p. 124. where having said as before, that persons of both sexes, both aged and infants, were baptised; the words immediately following are these, adultorum autem aliquandiu antequam baptizabantur, fides explorabatur, i. e. but as touching the adult, they enquired after faith and repentance before they were baptised. thus much for the 3 first centuries, wherein as you see mr. danvers is sufficiently faulty; and yet as if he were most innocent, he doth (in the preface to his innocency and truth) most confidently address himself to the reader, and compliments him in a high strain, saying, that at his bar the matter is now brought betwixt me and him; and all that he asks, is only to do themselves and the truth in question so much right, as to afford the common justice of an open ear; that having heard the recrimination (he means crimination) they will also attend to what is said for vindication. but the specious title of a book, or daring preface, will never blind an intelligent reader, who will judge of things not by a parcel of confident words, but secundum allegata & probata, according as things are alleged and proved. in the next place we come to the 4th century, concerning which mr. danvers saith, i make a great cry; though i know no such vociferation, but only a just censure made against him, by reason of the authorities of this age which he hath so much abused. for in his treatise of baptism in both editions he thus speaks— in this age they [the magdiburgs] tell us, that it was the universal practice to baptise the adult upon profession of faith: if he quotes it not to show that it was the practice to baptise only the adult, it is impertinent; but his grand assertion both in his treatise of baptism and in his reply, p. 4. that adult baptism was only practised in the 4th century, denotes in what sense we are to understand him. now for mr. danvers thus to father on the magdiburgs what they never spoke, and also to pervert what they did speak, renders him chargeable with falsehood and prevarication; for, 1. they say no such thing, that it was the universal practice to baptise only the adult upon profession of faith. but of this in its proper place, when we shall make good the charge of falsehood against him in divers other things as well as this. 2. they do indeed tell us, that in the churches of asia the baptised were for some time first instructed, and were called catechumen; wherein then lies the prevarication? why, 1. because the instances there given by the magdiburgs were aliens: for they tell us of some jews (taking it from athanasius) that being newly converted to christianity, prostrated themselves at the feet of the bishop, and desired baptism. narrat de judeis berythi athanasius in lib. de passione domini, quod ad episcopi ejus urbis genua advoluti baptisma petierint, quos ipse cum clericis suis suscipiens per dies multos in doctrina christianae pietatis, erudierit; which jews, after they had been for many days instructed in the doctrine of christian piety, the said bishop with his clarks baptised. 2. because a little before in the same chapter the magdiburgs have these words— baptizabantur autem aquâ publicè in templis cujuscunq▪ sexus aetatis et conditionis homines; men of all ages, sexes and conditions were baptised publicly in the temples, (how could this be by dipping) and lest it should be thought children were not comprehended under those universal terms, they say in the same chapter— de asianis ecclesiis nazianzenus loquens infantes baptizandos esse ait etc. nazianzen speaking of the churches of asia saith, that children were to be baptised. and note here by the way, reader, that because in my answer i have not gone on with the following words of nazianzen, si aliquid immineat periculi, that is, in case any thing of danger happen, mr. danvers doth in his preface exclaim against me for curtailing that father: but the judicious reader may understand▪ that he quarrels at me without a cause; for my business was to prove, that infant's baptism was owned in that century, as to matter of fact, and not to discourse the ground of it, or to inquire in what cases it was done, and therefore he might have spared his frivolous charge about that matter. it is truly observed by one of the anabaptists party, that my antagonist is so tenacious that he will stand in a thing, although all the world gainsay it: for though the baptism of infants in this 4th century, be so frequently attested by the magdiburgs, yet he will not receded from his former position; but hath invented a threefold evidence (as he calls it) to prove, that adult baptism was only practised in this age. 1. from the sayings of the fathers and great men of this century, both in africa, asia, and europe. 2. from the positive decrees of the three eminent councils of this age. 3. from the pregnant instances of the most eminent men that were not baptised till aged, though the children of christian parents in this century. 1. he begins with the sayings of the african doctors, athanasius and arnobius, two of the most eminent of this age, who (saith he) do positively affirm, that teaching, faith, and desire, should, according to christ's commission, preceded baptism; whereby it appears that no other than adult baptism was practised in the churches of africa. to this i answer, that having searched after the doctrine of athanasius in the 4th century of the magdiburgs, i find not any thing of him mentioned about baptism, but only one saying contra arrianos sermone tertio, viz. that the son is not therefore commemorated in baptism, as if the father was not sufficient, but because the son is the word of god, and the proper wisdom and brightness of the father, with a passage or two more concerning christ's divinity. nor is there any word concerning baptism to be found in athanasius his life, cent. 4. c. 10. from pag 1027 to 1053, for so far it reacheth. but suppose this father hath something of that import elsewhere, according as mr. danvers reports of him in his treatise of baptism, namely, that our saviour did not slightly command to baptise; for first of all he said, teach, and then baptise, that true faith might come by teaching, and baptism be perfected by faith. will this think you do the business? will this prove that he owned no other baptism but that of believers in opposition to that of infants? no such matter: for, as hath been shown in our answer, the commission itself for baptism doth not exclude infants that privilege, as appears by the consideration of the condition of the persons to whom christ sent his apostles who were aliens; and of such ought we to interpret the sayings of athanasius, because of the instance beforementioned from him, viz the jews at berythrum, who being proselyted to the faith of christ craved baptism of the bishop, and they were made catechumen, and instructed & fasted 3 days, & baptised by the bishop. but mr. cobbet in his just vindication, examining a book called a well-grounded treatise etc. takes notice of this very passage mentioned by mr. d. from whom i suppose he therefore had it. and page 219, 220. mr. cobbet demonstrates that athanasius' words are wrested to another sense than the scope of his discourse tended, and some words left out which served to declare his meaning, and other words so palpably mistranslated, that the reader is grossly abused thereby as well as the author. the next is arnobius upon the 146 psal. it is very strange to me that when mr. danvers had rejected origen upon the romans. as spurious, though perkins only tells us, it was not faithfully translated by ruffinus; he should quote arnobius upon the psalms for his own opinion, which is altogether spurious; being (as perkins saith) of a far more modern forge. it seems it is lawful for mr. danvers to quote spurious authors, though not for the pedobaptists. but i hope the judicious reader will hereby be satisfied that this testimony doth not prove his assertion, that no other than the adult-baptism was practised in the churches of africa in the 4th age. he also adds a saying of optatus milevit. out of the magdiburgs, cent 4. p. 237. namely, that none deny but that every man by nature, though born of christian parents, is unclean, and that without the spirit he is not cleansed; and that there is a necessity of the spirit's cleansing before baptism; so that the house must be trimmed and fitted for the lord, that he may enter in and dwell in it. but this authority signifies as little as the other: for suppose this passage rightly translated, as it is not, yet the quotation is very insignificant to prove that for which he brings it, viz. that no other than adult-baptism was practised in the churches of africa in the 4th cent. for optatus presently adds, hoc exorcismus operatur, exorcism doth this; which mr. d. knows an infant as capable of as the adult, and which was equally practised on both; and therefore he did discreetly to leave it out, but how honestly, is left to the reader to judge, and to his own conscience. but indeed the whole sentence is miserably mistranslated, as all scholars may see by the latin which runs thus: [neminem fugit quod omnis homo qui nascitur quamvis de parentibus christianis nascatur, sine spiritu mundi esse non possit, quem necesse sit ante salutare lavacrum ab homine excludi & separari. hoc exorcismus operatur, per quem spiritus immundus depellitur & in loca deserta fugatur. fit domus vacua in pectore credentis, fit domus munda, intrat deus & habitat, apostolo dicente, vos estis templum dei, et in vobis deus habitat.] another by this true translation viz. [every one knows that every man that is born, though of christian parents, cannot be without the spirit of the world (the unclean spirit he means) which ought to be cast out and separated from a man before baptism. this exorcism doth, by which the unclean spirit is driven away and flies into desert places. the house is made empty in the breast of a believer, the house is made clean, god enters and inhabits there according to the apostle, ye are the temple of god, and in you he dwells.] and is it not strange that mr. danvers who in his preface charges me with the notorious abuse of authors in curtilations and mistranslations, should be thus notoriously guilty of both himself? qui alterum accusat moechum, seipsum intueri oportet. 2. thus having traveled through africa, we shall now set footing in asia, where mr. danvers would have us believe, that it was the faith and practice of the churches, to baptise the adult, in opposition to that of infants. and this he saith appears by the like sayings of bazil, gregory nazianzen, ephrim syrus, epiphanius. reader, thou must know that mr. danvers cuts out work for me that i am not concerned to take notice of; for my business was to answer his first treatise of baptism, and these two last men are not therein mentioned, but brought in since, as auxiliary forces: nevertheless i shall not wave them. 1. for bazil, the passage which mr. danvers quotes from him and inserts in both his tratises of baptism is this, viz. must the faithful be sealed with baptism; faith must needs preceded and go before. contra eunomium. in answer to which, 1. i deny that any such sentence is to be found in bazil, for i have perused all that he saith in reference to baptism in his 3 tomes, nor have the magdiburgs any such saying of his where they repeat his doctrine and sayings, contra eunomium; they mention only this against eunomius, that baptismus est sigillum fidei, baptism is the seal of faith, cent. 4. c. 4. p. 234. 2. there is a great absurdity in the words, as they are placed by mr. danvers. for the interrogation is, must the faithful be sealed with baptism? and the answer is, faith must needs preceded and go before; and how absurd is it? for it supposeth that the faithful could be without faith. but what can be said to that which is further urged from bazil? that none were to be baptised but the catechumen, and those that were duly instructed in the faith. i answer, that those words are not to be found in terminis in any part of his discourse about baptism: but do not the magdiburgs say thus, bazilius ait non alios quam catechumenos baptizatos esse; bazil saith none but the catechumen were to be baptised? but when i tell mr. danvers that cyprian held infant's baptism an apostolical tradition, as the magdiburgs inform us, he replies, that is just as much as if mr. wills should so affirm except some authentic authority be produced for the same, pag. 91. of his innocency etc. and may not i be bold to assume the same freedom, and retort, that if we cannot find the aforementioned words in bazil, though the magdiburgs tell us so, 'tis just as much as if mr. danvers should so affirm. but suppose bazil had said it, what will it amount to? surely no convincing testimony: since whether the non alii quam catechumeni, no other than the catechumen doth exclude the infants of believers from baptism, we are yet to seek; for that passage may very well be interpreted that no pagans were baptised till first they were made catechumen or instructed; so that it is left to the reader to judge whether from that speech of bazil (if it were his) it may groundedly be concluded, he was against infants. baptism, which that he was not, i shall give you reasons shortly. the next is nazianzen, who was very positive and express for children's baptism, as shall be demonstrated when we come to discover the weakness of our antagonists cavils against it. the third man is ephrim syrus, the monk, whom the magdiburgs so much blame for ascribing such wonders to the cross, that (if you will believe him) the devil flies and is not able to stand before it, as the other said of baptism (strange anabaptists as ever the world heard of!) this ephrim termed the cross daemonum expultrix, et paradisi reseratrix; that which routs devils, and opens heavens-gate, and therefore adviseth all christians to cross themselves in divers places of their bodies, which will notably fortify and preserve them from the devil. madg. cent. 4. c. 4. p. 302. this is a witness that seems to be spit out of the pope's mouth, for he is for praying to the martyrs and saints departed, and helps us to some pretty little forms, as, pro nobis miseris peccatoribus interpellate; pray for us miserable sinners. and, o gloriosissimi martyres dei me miserum vestris juvate precibus; o ye most glorious martyrs of god help me a miserable wretch with your prayers. but it may be said what of all this, he may not withstanding his superstition be an authentic witness of what was in his day as to matter of fact: it may be so: what then is his testmony as to baptism? why, this: those who were to be baptised did profess their faith before many witnesses, & renounce the devil and all his works, etc. as it is in the church-catechism. and ambrose that was so much for infants-baptism, and lived in the same century with ephrim, speaks his very words, as the magdiburgs inform us from his 3d book of the sacraments. chap. 2. confessos baptizandos scribit etc. ambrose writes there, that those who confessed were to be baptised, where he recites, how that the baptised declared, he renounced the devil and all his works; and then withal in the same place tells us, that in his 84 epistle of his 10th book of epistles, he is for infant-baptism, cent. 4. p. 239. which clearly makes this quotation of ephrims very insignificant as to his purpose; because he might say that, and yet be for infant-baptism as ambrose was. but mr. d. quotes his 3d orat. of baptism for this passage; which i presume is a manuscript, as not being to be found among his printed works. and if so, i hope mr. d. will discover himself such a friend to the commonwealth of learning, as to bless the world with its publication. but i am afraid at last it will appear that mr. danvers is every whit as guilty in mistaking nazianzens 3 orations of baptism for ephrims book de paenitentiâ cap. 5. as i was for mistaking bazil for nazianzen. and it is as much a making an authority. 3. mr. danvers tells us, it was the universal practice of the western or european churches, as appears from hilary, ambrose, jerom, and marius-victorinus, to which i reply more generally. 1. that in this he doth designedly go about to delude the reader, for these four ancients were contemporaries, and flourished in the 4th century; and they are all put together by the magdiburgs in one chapter, where they give us their saying from their several works. one of them speaks of baptism upon profession, and there is no sentence quoted from him in reference to infants, whereas they give the words of all the rest of these fathers concerning profession before baptism, and withal divers passages of the same men asserting infants-baptism▪ which being so, mr. danvers can never be excused for his partiality and falsehood, in saying as he doth, that it was the universal practice of the western churches to baptise the adult, that is, only such, which is the point prae manibus. 2. particularly. 1. for hilary, he doth very ill in saying as he doth expressly, treatise of baptism, edit. 1. that all the western-churches did only baptise the adult, quoting hilary lib: 2. de trinitate; whereas hilary hath no such saying there, but is for infant's baptism, as appears in his 2d epistle to austin. then for ambrose, he is large for it in his 2d. book of abraham, chap. 12. which the magdiburgs have amply set down, cent. 4. c. 5: p. 239. and in the same chapter nazianzen is mentioned for it, whom we shall suddenly vindicate, and evince, that he was absolutely of our side, notwithstanding the frivolous distinction whereby mr. danvers would render him otherwise. 2. marius victorinus speaks nothing about infants. but lastly, as for jerom, the magdiburgs give his testimony for infant's baptism in words at length, and not in figures, cent. 4. c. 5. p. 239. hieronimus quoque lib. 3tio dialogorum adversus pelagianos critobulo sic scribit: jerom also (having spoken of ambrose just before) in his 3d book of dialogues against the pelagians writes thus to critob. tell me, i pray, and resolve the question, why are infants baptised? attic. that their sins may be done away in baptism. critob. but what sin have they committed? is any one loosed that is not bound? attic. dost thou ask me the question? the evangelical trumpet or dr. of the gentiles, that vessel that shineth throughout all the world will answer thee— death reigned from adam unto moses, even over them that have not sinned after the manner of adam's transgression, which is the figure of him to come: but all men are guilty either in respect of themselves, or adam; qui parvulus est parentis in baptismo vinculo solvitur: he that is a child, is freed in baptism from the bond of his parent [that is, original sin, or guilt contracted from them]. 2. his second medium or argument, to prove that adult baptism was only practised in the 4th century, is the positive decrees of the 3 eminent councils of this age, viz the garthaginian, laodicean, and neocesarean; which, he saith, do positively decree that teaching, confession, faith, and free-choice ought to preceded baptism. we omit speaking to these councils for the present, intending to do it in a more convenient place. 3d argument that adult baptism was the only approved baptism of this age, is, his ten remarkable instances in this century, that were not baptised, though the children of christian parents, till they were able to make profession of faith, viz constantine, basil, gregory, nazianzen, ambrose, chrysostom, jerom, austin, nectarius, valentinian, and theodosius. here mr. danvers (and others of his party, as i hear) triumphs over me, because in my answer i speak not to every one of these, and besides i am upbraided by him for excepting only against 4 of the ten testimonies of the fathers, viz athanasius, bazil, ambrose, and nazianzen, who, as i told him in my answer, were for infant's baptism. to which he replies; 1. that if but four of the ten be excepted against, than he hath six more stands good, besides the former (viz. 15 not excepted against as perverted). but really i have endeavoured to understand his account, but cannot: and therefore either he is very confused, or i am very dull. 2. the four that i lay claim to, viz. athanasius, bazil, ambrose, nazianzen, he will not grant me, being, as he saith, full in their testimonies for adult baptism; he begins with bazil's saying, that faith must preceded baptism. to this i have already replied, that notwithstanding this he might be as much for infants-baptism, as ambrose, who spoke the same words; and moreover, i shall now give you some reasons from whence we may conclude, that bazil was for infants-baptism. 1. because two of the most eminent greek fathers his contemporaries, were for it, viz. as nazianz. appears in his oration in sanctum lavacrum, madg. cent. 4. c. 6. p. 417. likewise chrysostom in his homilies ad neophytos, besides those eminent latin fathers, as ambrose, jerom, and others that were such zealous assertors of infants-baptism who lived in the same age with bazil. 2. because in all the three tomes of bazil, there is not one word to be found against infants-baptism (though he be very large in his discourses about baptism) and certainly he would have said something against it, had he deemed it an error, for as much as it was practised not only in the age wherein he lived, but in the churches of asia, where he was bishop. nazianzen speaking of the churches of asia, saith, infants were to be baptised. mag. cent. 4. c. 6. p. 461. because nazianzen his most intimate friend and fellow-student was for infants-baptism. the magdiburgs say there was so great an endearedness between these two fathers, that they had as it were but one soul. nazianzen is called animae bazilii dimidium, the half of bazils soul, if in them both, say the magdiburgs, there was not una prorsus atque eadem anima. they further tell us that from the time of their first acquaintance there was such a conjunctio animorum et studiorum, such a conjunction of spirits and studies that they continued in most entire friendship ever after. cent. 4. c. 10. p. 939, 940. 4. we do not find that in any of their epistolary intercourses, any thing that may argue them to be of different judgements in this point; hence i suppose it may be rationally concluded, that as nazianzen was for baptism after preparation and confession, and condemns those that enter upon it rashly, magd. cent. 4. c. 6. p. 417. and yet in the foregoing page tells us, the churches of asia owned infants-baptism in case of danger, and declares his own judgement absolutely for it, without respect to danger. orat. quarta ad baptismum, as you shall hear more anon; so might also bazil be notwithstanding he hath anywhere said, faith should preceded, or go before baptism. 5. 'tis no wonder we read not of bazils insisting upon infants-baptism, for such was the error, and superstition of those times wherein he preached, ascribing such virtue to baptism to do away the guilt of sin, that they would delay the taking up that ordinance, till they thought they should die, that so they might depart with pure souls; so that, as far as i can find, bazil had much ado to persuade his hearers to be baptised, and spends abundance of his pains in quickening them to take up baptism, without longer delay: as appears in his exhortation to baptism, where he doth most sharply inveigh against procrastinating the same. if mr. d. would but weigh these things without prejudice, i doubt not but 'twould abate much of his confidence that bazil is on his side. nor will he allow me athanasius, but concerning him we shall speak in another place. then for ambrose he saith, that he is full also, that the baptised should not only make profession but desire the same. but then (as conscious of prevarication) he adds, that if any of them should contrary hereto say, they would contradict themselves and the practice of the age: but this is mere shuffling. since the practice of the age, as to profession, had respect to pagans as we have often told him, and in this sense we are to understand ambrose; and whereas in my infants-baptism asserted, i prove ambrose was for us from those words of his lib. 2. de abraham. c. 12. being these— because every age is obnoxious to sin, therefore every age is fit for the sacrament; to this he replies, that this is no proof that he was for infant's baptism. first, because circumcision is hereby meant. secondly, if baptism, than those of every age that are fit for that sacrament, must not be supposed, viz. those that are capable to confess faith, and desire baptism, otherwise not only children but all good and bad, being obnoxious to sin are to be esteemed fit subjects for baptism. neither will this evasion serve mr. danvers turn to put by this our testimony; and i wonder, he should labour thus to darken truth, and delude the reader; for 'tis true, those words beforementioned were spoken of circumcision, but he knows it was by way of introduction to the baptism of infants; and therefore that he may not impose upon the reader, i will give the whole sentence of ambrose from the magdiburgs, cent. 4. c. 5. p. 240. the law commands the males to be circumcised when newly born, and as soon as they begin to cry; because as circumcision was from infancy, so was the disease [sin]: no time ought to be void of a remedy, because no time is void of sin— neither the old man that is a proselyte, nor the newborn infant is excepted; then comes in those words, because every age is subject to sin, every age is fit for the sacrament; and the very next words are these, eadem ratione baptismum asserit pervulorum, lib. 10. epistolarum, epistola 84. that is, by the same reason he asserts infants-baptism in the eighty fourth of his 10th book of epistles. whether now mr. danvers hath not weakly opposed and dealt sophistically with this quotation of ambrose, and whether it be not a pitiful shift in him to say, the being fit for the sacrament of which ambrose speaks, must be supposed to be meant of those only who are capable to confess faith, is submitted to the judgement of the impartial reader. as for what he objects that if every age be fit for the sacrament, in regard every age is obnoxious to sin, than infidels are fit subjects of baptism: i answer that the foregoing words of ambrose, viz. neither the old man that is a profelyte, nor the newborn infant is excepted, show, that he speaks of those who are within the church. the last man that we bring for infants-baptism, and excepted against by mr. danvers is nazianzen; and 'tis observable, that he confesseth what we urge from him hath most in it: it seems than i was mistaken, for i thought what we bring from chrysostom and ambrose, had altogether as much in it, as what is re-urged from nazianzen. the words quoted from this father are out of his 40 oration, viz. hast thou a child? let it be early consecrated 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from its infancy. to which he replies, that i impose a fallacy upon the reader, for translating the greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, infants, thereby concluding him absolutely for infants-baptism, and that because, saith he, the word signifies a state of childhood, as 2 tim. 3. 15. and therefore nazianzen must be understood by his early consecration to mean, not in the cradle, but as he explains himself, so soon as they are able to understand mysteries, except in case of death: and when i pray according to nazianzen were they capacitated for the understanding mysteries? the magdiburgs inform us from his 3d oration, it was about the age of three years: extra periculum, triennium aut eo plus minusve expectandum esse censet, cent. 4. c. 6. p. 416. that is, if there be no danger of death, his judgement was, they should stay till they are about 3 years old or something less, and so be baptised; nevertheless, say they, in some other place of that oration nazianzen declares, omni aetati baptisma convenire, that baptism is fit for every age, comporting herein with ambrose as before: but whether i or mr. danvers do impose a fallacy, let the reader judge by what follows. 1. nazianzen was for baptising children in case of danger, though as young as the children of the jews that were circumcised the 8th day, as appears by the reason which he gives for their baptism, viz. it is better to be sanctified (by which he means baptised) without knowledge, than to die without it; for, saith he, it happened to the circumcised babes of israel, upon which vossius hath this note, in his thesis of baptism, non igitur nazianzenus etc. nazianzen was not against infants-baptism, and his judgement will be taken as soon as most men's. 2. though [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] should be taken for a state of childhood, yet in that place of nazianzen we mention, it is not to be taken so largely (that is, children of some understanding,) as mr. danvers doth suggest, because of the instance of circumcision given by the father. 3. nazianzen being a greek-father, intends the word according to its proper signification, and as it is generally taken in the new-testament as well as in profane authors, and that is a state of infancy; for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies an infant, saith mr. leigh, crit. sac. and is properly spoken de partu recens edito, of a child newly born, quoting beza on luke 18. 15. who saith, the word properly is taken for infants teneri nimirum, & adhuc ab uberibus pendentes parvuli, (i. e.) sucking babes, such as are carried in arms. the same word is given to christ, when the wisemen found him in swadling-clouts, luke 2. 12. and we have it again for a newborn babe, 1. pet. 2. 2. as newborn babes desire the sincere milk of the word etc. but mr. danvers hath not done with nazianzen yet, and therefore frames an objection for us and answers it himself thus. it is not manifest that in case of death, he would have an infant baptised? to which he answers, it is true, but that was not quà infant, but as a dying person. we see by this acute distinction that our antagonist is not only a critic, but that he hath some logic too, in which he saith he owneth little skill; but that little, i suppose, is in that part which they call sophistry, or the abuse of logic. but that the weakness of this distinction may appear, consider, 1. that it is true nazianzen would not have an infant baptised quà infant. 2. it is untrue, that nazianzen would have an infant baptised quà a dying person; for if they were to be baptised under either of these considerations, than had he been for the baptising all infants, and dying persons promiscuously. 3. but nazianzens' judgement was to have them baptised because they were the children of christians in imminent danger of death; they were such as were capacitated for that ordinance on the account of god's covenant; else why doth he speak of circumcising children in the very place which is now under debate; melius est enim nondum rationis compotes sanctificari quam non signatos et initiatos vitâ excedere, nazianz. orat. 40. it is better, saith he, they should be consecrated without their knowledge, than to die without the seal, and not be initiated, idque nobis designat octavum diem circumcisio illa, itaque fuit figurale signaculum ac propter irrationales introducta: for so it happened to the circumcised babes of israel. but let the account be what it will upon which nazianzen would have children baptised, it is not material; since he owned their baptism in some case, which is sufficient, if we had no more to overthrow mr. danvers' position, that the baptism of adult persons was the only baptism owned in this age; and it is excentrical to the question to talk of the consideration on which they were baptised but to give mr. d'anvers full measure, pressed down, and running over, we shall acquaint him with some other place of nazianzen, where he is for the baptising children absolutely without respect to dying state, and that is in his 4th oration, p. 648. edit. lutetiae par. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 1. it belongeth to all degrees of ages, to all kind's and manner's of life. wherefore it should be carried through all: art thou a youngman? then 'tis of use against the turbulent motions of the soul: so he speaks of its conveniency for old age. then he comes to infants, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. hast thou an infant? let him be sanctified [baptised] from his infancy, let him be dedicated to the spirit, lest wickedness should take occasion, etc. and then he concludes, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. art thou afraid of the seal (mr. d'anvers will not have baptism to be a seal) because of the tenderness of his nature? 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; thou art a pusillanimous mother, and of a weak faith. as for that jeer with which he concludes, that we may as well bring protogenes for an authority, that pretended to baptise children in this age to cure diseases, as gregory nazianzen to save their souls; i shall retort what i find in his friend haggar, in his book called the foundation of the font discovered, pag. 94. where he thus speaks i can boldly say with a good conscience, in the presence of god to his glory, i have known many weak and sickly before, that have recovered health and strength afterwards (that is, after being dipped) and some immediately in a few days, yea and that when they have been so ill, that all doctors have given them over. a good encouragement to proselyte credulous souls to their way, and to augment their churches apace; for if dipping prove usually so medicinal and successful, even in desperate cases, it will undoubtedly impair, if not render altogether useless, the practice of physic. but whether this story of haggar be not as fabulous as that of protogenes, i leave to the reader to judge. 2. mr. danvers in the next place comes to the decrees of the three councils, to prove that it was the universal practice of this age to baptise upon the profession of faith. to which i gave this answer: 1st, that we have ten-times three for infants-baptism, and if we must go by number of councils, we shall carry it. 2. i told him that the 3 councils, which he mentions for adult baptism, had respect only to pagans; to which he gives this answer, it is granted i think (as i have made it ready to his hand) he may quote the canons of thirty councils for infants-baptism in the following ages (and a stout argument no doubt for it): but what are such decrees saith he to this 4th century, which are for believers-baptism on profession, and free choice, and 'tis impossible to produce one for infants-baptism till after this century. to this i reply: 1st, mr. danvers boasts too much in saying he made the 30 councils ready to my hand for infants-baptism; and he is too vainglorious to confess who made them ready to his hand; but, without disparagement to his reading, i think verily 'twas baronius or vossius, or some other. 2dly, he confesseth that we have 30 councils for infants-baptism; what then is become of his stout assertion in his treatise of baptism? chapt. 7. p. 56. that not only scripture but antiquity itself, which (saith he) hath been so much boasted of, is altogether for believers and not for infants-baptism. 3dly, let it be further noted, that we can produce 30 for it, and he not one against it; but he tells us 'tis impossible for us to produce one for infants-baptism till after the 4th century. but 4thly, mr. danvers hath forgotten himself; for we have an african council about an age before his three councils, consisting of 66 bishops (where cyprian was present that flourished in the year 250) who determined, that children might & aught to be baptised, before the eight day. cent. 3. cap. 9 p. 205. synodus africana de infantibus baptizandis, and to which synod jerom refers for the antiquity of infants-baptism, mentioning cyprians epistle to fidus, as the magdiburgs have it, cent. 4. c. 5. p. 239. nor is that to be slighted which austin speaks concerning this synod, cyprianus non novum aliquod decretum condens, sed ecclesiae fidem firmissimam servans etc. cyprian was not devising any new decree, but followed the most sure faith of the church, aug. epist. 28. ad hieronimum. but if infant-baptism was owned in the 4th century why is it not mentioned in any of those three eminent councils which were then held, the carthaginian, the laodicean, and neocesarean? they speak not a word of it, but positively decree that teaching, confession, faith and free choice, aught to preceded baptism. i answer, that as it is certain that almost all the canons of those councils are taken up about discipline, and have hardly any thing of doctrine in them; so it is to be observed that councils do not mention all things controverted in one age, but rather are concerned in resolving the doubts which troubled the church when such councils were convened; since therefore there is no canon in those three councils before-specified for infants-baptism, it may well be thought the reason was, because in those days none did scruple it; which we may the rather believe because it was in practice before those councils and in the same century also, as is before fully shown. but since mr. danvers glories so much in these councils, and prefers them before all those many ones that follow after, it will not be amiss to examine what they are that he stands so much upon; for certainly if we must give them the pre-eminence, it must be upon account of their purity, whereas truly we shall find if they are not altogether as corrupt as those that follow, yet certainly in some things as gross for error and superstition, as the popish councils themselves. the 4th council of carthage, which synodus 4tae carthaginensis cent. 4. cap. 9 pag. 873. is that mr. danvers intends, and it is the 85th article, those who are to be baptised, must give in their names, and abstain for a long time from wine and flesh, and after often examination may receive baptism. the 7 and 90 canons owneth exorcism, or conjuring out the devil. though, if mr. danvers is to be believed, exorcism was added to the former filthy customs in the 9 cent. as he tells us in his 2d ed. p. 11, 7. the 74, 75, 76, canons are for penance. also the 76 canon is for pouring in the eucharist into men's mouths that are upon the point of dying. but notwithstanding mr. d's. confidence, it is very clear that that 85 canon was not intended by the council to exclude infants from baptism, because augustin, who was (as mr. d. tells us 2d ed. p. 108) a great patron and defender of infants-baptism, subscribed all the decrees of this council: so that only the adult are herein intended. next for that of laodicea, the laodicens. concilium cent. 4. cap. 9 p. 833. 2d canon is for penance according to the quality of the sin. the 26th owneth exorcism, the 48th for anointing with oil after baptism; the 59th contains the canon of scripture, and rejects the revelation, and what then will become of mr. danver's theopolis, or discourse made upon some part of it, which is in print? but what doth this council say against infant-baptism? why, that the baptised should rehearse the articles of the creed (2 ed. p. 59) but do they say that none must be baptised but such? and why may not this intent only the adult as well as that above? let mr. danvers render a satisfactory reason against it if he can. synodus neocaesariensis, lastly the neocaesarean council, upon which mr. danvers lays so much stress, determines in the 6th canon, that a woman with child might be baptised; because the baptism reached not her womb, for in the confession made in baptism each ones free choice is showed; hence mr. danvers from mr. tombs concludes against infants-baptism. to this i answered in my infants-baptism asserted etc. that the canon respected pagans, as mr. marshal notes from balsamon the glossator, who saith, such women as went with child, and come from the infidels▪ and what is this to the question which is about children born in the church, of believing parents? and balsamon himself upon this canon, saith with respect to these, they may be said to answer by such as undertake for them. but mr. danvers out of self-opinion that he is still right in his baptismal notions, and that no gloss can be good that thwarts with him, rejects it, and tells us we do miss the case. but what thinks he of dr. hammon: he may be thought to hit the case as likely as mr. danvers. the said dr. speaking of this cannon brought against the baptising the children of christians, saith, is it far enough from it, for as for the words of the latter part of the canon: each one's will or resolution, which is professed or signified in the confession, or profession, (for so he words it in his translation of the greek) it imports no more than that the confession or) profession of a woman that being with child is baptised, doth only belong to herself, not to the child, and consequently that her baptism belongs only to herself; [so as the child cannot be said to be baptised because the parent is]. and all, saith he, that can be concluded from hence, is, that the child of such a parent that was baptised when that was in her womb, must when it is born have a baptism for itself, and the baptism of the parent not be thought to belong to it. and this, as he observes, in opposition to the conceit of the jewish rabbis, who say, si gravida fiat proselyta, adeoque lavacro suscipiatur, proli ejus baptismo opus non est; that is, if a woman great with child become a proselyte, and be baptised, her child needs not baptism. but if this will not satisfy mr. danvers, i must tell him that the magdiburgs do question (if i understand them aright) whether that council ever made this canon. canon concilii neocaesariensis (si unquam fuit) permittit, etc. and certainly those excellent historians (as mr. danvers calls them) would never have put such an if to it, if they had wanted ground for so doing. and mr. d. cannot be ignorant how usual it hath been, to have canons foisted in by others that were never thought one by the councils themselves. nay, i think i have more reason to deny the very being of this council, than mr. danvers hath that of cyprians 66 bishops. for neither eusebius, nor socrates, nor theodoret, nor sozomen, nor evagrius, those ancient ecclesiastical historians, make any mention of it, that i can find; nor our modern collector of the councils, sympson: but however suppose there was such a council, and that they made such a canon, just as mr. danvers words it; there is nothing positive against infant-baptism, (which certainly there would have been, had their judgements been against it): and mr. danvers only gathers it by consequence, because they say, that confession and free-choice was necessary to baptism. but this is not sufficient; for our saviour tells us, that he that believes not shall be damned; which is as much against the salvation of infants, as these words of the council against their baptism. and yet mr. d. will not deny but that some infants are saved. and why may not the other expression be as well taken in a limited sense? but suppose not; mr. d. must remember that he tells us in his second ed. p. 65 that austin saith, that none without due examination, both as to doctrine and conversation, aught to be admitted to baptism; and yet austin was for the baptising of infants. and why may not this council be supposed to be as inconsiderate? certainly they were corrupt eonugh in mr. d's. judgement, to take up such an antichristian error (as he is pleased to call it.) for the 1st. canon is against minister's marriage. the 2d. is for penance. the 3d. against often marriages, and penance for the same, etc. thus far we have tried mr. danvers his strength, and let the reader judge upon the whole, whether he hath any ground to conclude himself free from prevarication both in councils as well as fathers: for after all this clutter, and great noise of councils and fathers, he hath not produced so much as one man that denied, and condemned the practice of infants-baptism, nor one canon that ever was discharged against it. thirdly, in regard i except only against four of those eminent men beforementioned, as not baptised till aged, though born of christian parents (as mr. danvers will have it) and they are, constantine, nazianzen, chrysostom, and austin, he therefore triumphs, and saith▪ he hath six other unperverted authorities unexcepted against, who were not baptised till they could make confession of faith, which he conceives, is a substantial argument, that believers baptism was the baptism generally owned in this age. to this i answer. 1 that for to say believers baptism was generally owned in this age, comes short of his former assertion, that it was the only baptism owned; 2. and that it was generally owned because of those six men's not being baptised till aged, is a nonsequitur; and the quite contrary may be much more rationally argued: for, if upon his inquisition through asia, africa, and europe, [that is, all the world where christianity was professed] he can find but six persons born of christian parents remaining unbaptised, till they were able to make a profession of their faith, will it not follow, that the baptising of believers children in their infancy, was generally owned in that age? especially if we consider, upon what suspicious grounds baptism was retarded in those days; sometimes to the very point of dissolution, concerning which we have spoken before. but i shall not contend with mr. danvers about the grounds, why the baptism of all those ten was delayed, since neither of us, without great presumption, can absolutely determine; and unless we are instructed by a sure light, from the records of antiquity, when all is said that we can say, we shall but impose upon the reader our uncertain guesses. but having a good foundation in history for what i have formerly said, concerning constantine and austin not being baptised till aged, which was their father's being infidels at their birth, and so continuing (for aught we can learn to the contrary even to their death. i conceive mr. danvers cannot clear himself from perverting their testimonies, being unserviceable to his purpose: for, 1st. for constantine, we have told him (in our infant-baptism) from mr. marshal, that it doth not appear that his mother helena was a christian at his birth; and for his father, constantius, every one knows that is acquainted with history, that he was none, although he favoured the christians, and grew into a good esteem of their religion, especially towards his latter end. mr. danvers hath only this to say against it, that good historians are of another mind, and that helena was a christian, before the birth of constantine, quoting grotius and daily for it: but if this were so, what hath he to say for constantius his father? why, the magdeburg's give this account of him from eusebius, that constantine was bonus a bono, pius a pio; a good man from a good man, a holy man from a holy man. to this i reply; 1. that constantius his being denominated a good man, doth not argue him to be a christian, but only morally good, as many other heathens were; nor is pius always taken for a holy man though sacer be: for antoninus, the pagan emperor, (to whom justin writ an apology for the christians as mr. danvers notes, (treatise of baptism. p.) was called pius for his clemency, and modest behaviour, having raised no persecution against the christians, and putting a stop to the same, when moved, by sending edicts into asia, prohibiting all persecution, merely for the profession of christianity. fox act. & mon. v. 1. p. 37, 38. but if it could be proved that constantius was at any time a christian, yet that would not serve our antagonists turn, unless it could be made out, that he was such at constantine's birth, which no man will affirm. neither is it likely he was a christian, when constantine was grown up; for then how could he have permitted his son to be educated in the court of that tyrannical pagan emperor, dioclesian; so that it is no wonder constantine was not baptised till aged, especially if it be considered, that he continued a pagan sometime after the imperial crown was put upon his head. for socrates in his first book and first chapter, tells us at large, qua ratione constantinus imperator ad fidem christianam se contulerit, by what means constantine the emperor became a christian; and the story is to this effect, viz. that when he heard how maxentius ruled tyranically at rome, he was resolved to go against him, and as he was marching with his army thither, he considered with himself (being not without some fear of maxentius, by reason of his sorceries and devilish arts) quem deum sibi adjutorem ad bellum gerendum advocaret, what god he should invoke for his assistance in the war; and being in doubtful deliberation, he saw a pillar of light representing the effigies of a cross. and for the more credit of this apparition, eusebius in the first book of the life of constantine witnesseth, that he hath heard constantine himself oftentimes report it to be true, and that not only he, but his soldiers saw it. at the sight of which being much astonished, and consulting with his men upon the meaning thereof, it so happened that in the night-season, in his sleep christ appeared to him, with the sign of the same cross which he had seen before, bidding him to make the figuration of it, and to carry it in his wars before him, and he should have the victory. where by the way, let us observe what mr. fox saith concerning this story: it is to be noted, saith he, that this sign of the cross, and these letters added withal, in hoc vince, that is, in this overcome, was given to him of god, not to induce any superstitious worship, or opinion of the cross, as though the cross itself had any such power or strength in it, to obtain victory: but only to bear the meaning of another thing, that is, to be an admonition to him, to seek and aspire after the knowledge and faith of him, who was crucified upon the cross▪ for the salvation of him and all the world, and so to set forth the glory of his name; as afterward it came to pass. fox act. and mon. lib. 1. p. 77. 2. that austin had christian parents mr. danvers cannot prove by any antiquity, but recommends us to dr. taylor, and mr. baxter, who have, it seems, said something to that purpose, when in the meanwhile he makes no reply to what i allege to the contrary, in my infants-baptism asserted etc. part 1. p. 21. where i prove from austin's own pen that his father was an infidel, when he was grown up to understanding, and he relates how he came afterward to be converted: aug. confess. lib. 2. c. 6. and though dr. taylor and mr. baxter may be of another mind, yet dr. owen, who is not inferior in learning to either, tells us in his late book of the spirit, p. 294. sec. 11. that the reason why austin was not baptised in his infancy was, because his father was not then a christian. by this time i suppose the reader may guests how well mr. danvers hath purged himself from the charge of prevarication, and proved his grand assertion, that believers baptism was the only baptism for the four first centuries. for if he reflects upon the whole that hath been hitherto disputed between us, he shall find that as to the first century, the magdiburgs (from whom we have our light in the history of baptism) tells us, that origen and cyprian affirm, that infants were baptised in the apostles days. in the 2d century, he perverts the words of justin martyr by applying that which was spoken of baptising pagans against the baptising of believers children, as appears by what the magdiburgs say in that very place. in the 3d century, he suggests that no baptism was owned but that of the adult, when they tell us plainly, both persons grown up, and infants of both sexes were baptised. and for the 4th century, mr. danvers is so bold as to say, that the magdiburgs tell us it was the universal practice to baptise the adult upon profession of faith; treatise of baptism, edit. 1. p. 64. when they say otherwise, namely, that persons of all ages were baptised in the temples, and cite nazianzen for baptising of infants in the churches of asia, to which also we have added the testimonies of hillary, ambrose, jerom, chrisostom, austin, all of the 4th century: and for infant's baptism, lastly he brings the canons of the 3 councils of carthage, laodicea, and neocaesaria, which have not a word in them against infant's baptism, and what is decreed about confession before baptism relates to strangers, as i presume i have made it appear beyond all doubt in the two last of them (if that of neocaesaria ever had a being.) but i must proceed on, and follow mr. danvers, for he tells us he is not alone in his opinion, and therefore brings in divers authorities to confirm it; that only the adult upon confession of faith were the subjects of baptism in the first times, p. 14, 15. he begins with strabo, that saith, in the first times baptism was wont to be given to them only that could know and understand, what profit was to be gotten by it. but it seems by the story, that strabo his firsttimes go no higher than augustine's days; for he instanceth in his being baptised at age, when-as we have testimony that children's baptism was in use in the church above a hundred years before austin was born. and austin (that lived about four hundred years nearer the primitive times than strabo) affirms, that the church always had it, and always held it. besides, the testimony of strabo) is not to be valued, being condemned by vossius and others for a false historian: we have formerly in our answer given instances thereof, and particularly we noted that gross mistake of his, that sureties (called godfathers', and godmothers', were first invented in austin's days, when tertullian speaks of them, above a hundred years before. next follows beatus rhenanus, rupertus, boemus, dr. hammond, and mr. baxter; the eldest of whom lived but in the 12th cent. according to mr. danvers, and had no other way of knowing what was done in the first times than we: and therefore let them affirm what they please, unless they can prove it by the records of those times, it signifies no more than if mr. danvers told us so. and the contrary to what he asserts is apparent from antiquity. but because mr. danvers shall not say i slight his authorities, i shall particularly examine them. and as for b. rhenanus (who lived in 15. cent.) what mr. danvers makes him say is very impertinent to his purpose. for his business is to prove, that only the adult were then baptised, which his quotation affirms not: and what then doth it signify, but to help to swell his book? but i shall make it appear that mr. d. hath shamefully mistaken rhenanus' sense, and thereby exceedingly abused him. for b. rhenanus in his annot. upon tertullian's corona militis, on those words, aquam adituri, saith thus, p. 500 baptizandi ritum ostendit, qui in usu veterum fuit, de quo consuetudo quaedam mutavit. nam tum adulti regenerationis lavacro tingebantur, quotidie externis e paganismo ad nostram religionem confluentibus. siquidem id temporis ubique reperire erat ethnicos christianis admixtos. postea statis temporibus nempe bis in anno celebrari baptismus caeptus, ejus enim rei nullam hic facit mentionem, alioqui non omissurus. qui mos antiquus etiam per tempora caroli magni et ludovici augusti servatus est. judicant hoc leges ab illis sancitae, quibus cavetur ne quemquam sacerdotes baptizent (excepto mortis articulo) praeterquam in paschate & pentacoste. that is, he (tertullian) shows the rite of baptising that was in use among the ancients, from which a certain custom hath made a change. for then for the most part the adult were baptised, strangers daily flocking from paganism to our religion: because at that time heathens were everywhere to be found mixed among the christians. afterwards baptism began to be celebrated at stated times, to wit, twice in the year, for of this thing [the two stated times of baptism] he [tertullian] makes no mention here; otherwise [had it been in use] he would not have omitted the mention of it. which ancient custom [to wit of celebrating baptism at two stated times of the year] was also observed in the days of charles the great, and ludovick the emperor, as appears by the laws made by them, whereby care is taken that the priests baptise none (except those at the point of death) but at easter and whitsuntide. by this it is apparent (1st.) that by the adult he means only heathens newly converted, and (2.) by the ancient custom▪ baptising at the two stated times of easter and whisontide; and not the baptising those that were come to their full growth, as mr. d. saith. and to assure him infants are not hereby excluded, rhenanus presently adds, hoc sic accipiendum ut sciamus infantes post pascha natos ad baptismum pentacostes reservatos, et natos post pentacostem, ad paschatem festum diem bapismo offerri solitos, excepta, seu dixi, necessitate, una cum adultis catechumenis qui de externis nationibus danorum, etc. & similium populorum, christianae religioni initiabantur. that is, this is so to be understood that we may know that these infants that were born after easter were reserved to the baptism of whitsuntide, and those that were born after whitsuntide to the easter following, except in case of necessity, etc. and now i persuade myself mr. d. for very shame, will take no more notice of this quotation, unless it be to acknowledge his inadvertency in producing it. his next author is rupertus in his 4th book of divine offices, c. 18. here mr. d. is guilty of most notorious forgery. for in his second edition, p. 73. he hath the same quotation, and there he tells us rupertus saith, that in former times the custom was that they administered not the sacrament of regeneration but only at the feast of easter and pentecost. and here in his reply, p. 15. he altars the words and makes him say, that they administered but only to the catechumen, etc. if mr. d. must have the liberty thus to deal with authors, i confess there is no standing against him. but i hope the reader will hereby be satisfied, that this signifies no more as to his purpose, than the former, but deservedly renders him unworthy of belief in his quotation of authors. boemus follows who lived in the 16 cent. (though m. d. brings him into the 12th (2. ed. p. 73.) and he tells us there, that he saith, that in times past the custom was to administer baptism only to those that were instructed in the faith, and seven times in the week before easter and pentecost, catechised. suppose this to be a right translation, it makes no more against the baptising of infants than the other of rhenanus: for it clearly appears that by in times past, boemus intended then when persons were appointed to be baptised at easter and pentecost; at which very time rhenanus tells us infants were baptised. and it is most certain that baptising of infants was before then, because cyprian, origen, tertullian, do all mention it, who lived before that custom was brought into the church. dr. hammond is the next; and i need not search to see whether he is rightly quoted; for he makes the dr. say nothing but what all the paedobaptists acknowledge, viz. that all men were instructed in the fundamentals of faith anciently, before they were baptised. but how doth this prove that only the adult. were then the subjects of baptism? i wonder mr. d. is not ashamed to quote authors at this rate. his last is mr baxter. and he tells us that tertullian, origen, and cyprian do all of them affirm that in the primitive times none were baptised without an express covenanting. but this falls out very unluckily for mr. d. for those three fathers being every one of them for infants-baptism could intend no other than heathens converted to christianity; which all acknowledge; and it is plain mr. baxter so intended it, because he hath written largely to prove that none are to be baptised but such, and the children of such. and after this manner doth mr. d. prove his assertions. but i am confident it will prevail with none that have not given themselves over to an implicit faith. his next testimonies for it (beginning with particular persons) are from dutch authors: we shall speak with them in due time and make it appear, how grossly they err in their relations of divers things, as particularly about cresconius; but of this when we come to examine his pretended witnesses. then we have faustus regiensis named, who said, that personal and actual desire was requisite in every one that was to be baptised, which that it was meant of adult pagans, needs no other proof than this, that he was a pelagian, and they were for the baptism of children by the confession of mr. tombs, and i presume mr. d. will not persist in denying it. concerning alban that suffered for opposing infants baptism in the 6th century, i cannot give credit to the dutch martyrology which it seems affirms it, because there is nothing to be found in the century-writers, nor any martyr of that name noted, but only st. alban the first (as mr. fox tells us) that ever suffered martyrdom in this island; but that was under dioclesian, and not for opposing infants-baptism, but refusing to offer sacrifice unto devils. i cannot find the swermers under the 6th century in the magdiburgensian history, as suffering under justinus, or justinianus for being anabaptists: nor in sympson's history of the church, nor in any other authors as i have met with. and certainly, if indeed they had convinced the imperial council to leave off children's baptism, as mr. d. mentions it twice in the compass of twelve lines, all historians would have taken notice of so remarkable a story, which yet i can find mentioned by none. as for peter bishop of apamen, and zoaras the monk, we told him formerly that the magd. told us, they were for rebaptisation; but that did not prove them against infants-baptism: their words are these. cent. 6. c. 5. de anabaptis. anabaptismum defendisse petrum apameae syriae episcopum, et zoaram monachum cyrum, scribit nicephorus. but saith mr. d. in his reply, p. 106. the late century-writers calling them anabaptists in a modern sense [that is, for those that deny infants-baptism] we have no reason to doubt it. but how doth m. d. prove this? because they say nicephorus writes they defended anabaptism [that is rebaptising] risum teneatis amici! but let mr. d. take them and make the best of them he can; i shall not envy him such patrons. for the magdeburg's tells us in the same place, out of niecphorus, that they owned but one nature in christ: and were guilty of most wicked obscenities. another which mr. danvers quotes is adrianus bishop of corinth. i granted in my answer that this man was against infants-baptism, whereas since i have understood from a learned divine, well-read in church-history, that adrianus was falsely accused to have turned away children from baptism (for that was the charge) when-as in truth his fault was only his remissness, not taking care in his diocese for the timely baptising of them, whence it happened that many died unbaptised, which was judged dangerous. nor should i have granted hincmarus to be of mr. danvers party, who is brought in next to adrianus, for refusing infants-baptism. i was told of the mistake (though led into it by what i found in the magdiburgs, who represent him as accused by his enemies for denying children's baptism) by the aforementioned learned person: and having since met with sympson's history of the church, i find this following account of hincmarus under century 9 and in pag. 566. edit. 3 that in the council of acciniacum in france, hincmarus, bishop of rheims, accused his own nephew hincmarus' bishop of laudum, a man disobedient to his metropolitan, and a man who for private injuries had excommunicated all the presbyters of his church, debarring them from saying mass, baptising infants, absolving the penitents, and burying the dead, and was condemned of petulancy and deprived of his office. judge reader by this, whether this man be to be looked upon under the notion of an anabaptist by the character yet given. but (to go on with what sympson saith afterwards) he was restored to his office by pope john the ninth, and that because he made his appeal from his metropolitan, and the synod of his own country to be judged by the chair of rome. a pure anabaptist indeed! there are three other of mr. danvers' witnesses yet behind, (and had there been but one more it would have made a complete jury) but those three speak nothing at all of infants; so i let them pass. the dutch-martyrology (mr. danvers' common-place book) name also smaragdus: but he hath the wit now to leave him out, though he is in his treatise of baptism, edit. 1. under cent. 10. but i minded him in my answer with those words of smaragdus, that little children are to be baptised, grounding it upon mat. 19 15. suffer little children to come unto me etc. thus reader thou hast heard what mr. danvers' witnesses can say, and what exceptions i have made against them; they all stand at thy bar, and i hope thou wilt give righteous judgement, and dost by this time see, that my antagonist hath no need to complain, that i allow him but two witnesses, viz. hincmarus, and adrianus, having been too liberal in that. 2. in the next place he produceth another parcel, that he saith denied infants-baptism; but as the donatists, waldenses: but how false this is we shall hereafter show. and as for those of germany we are contented he shall have them, some of which he may be ashamed to own. as for what he saith of the churches of helvetia, flanders, bohemia, hungaria, poland, france, and silvania; as i take it, those of them who were really anabaptists, are of no higher antiquity than luther's days: and for his pretending to the ancient britain's, i shall reckon with him for that in its proper place; so for the lollards, they are of the same stamp with the waldenses, whose confessions will confute mr. danvers. for the wickliffians; the council of constance that accused wicklif for other things and condemned him, never charged him with denying infants-baptism; and walden that writ against him shows from his own works, that he was for it. lastly, since henry the eight's time, there hath been of this sect here in england. but what dangerous errors some of them held in that king's reign, and in queen elizabeth's, we have shown in our infants-baptism asserted, part 2. p. 90, 91. to which mr. danvers saith nothing in his reply. and really i wonder he should not publicly disown munzer, john of leiden, phifer, knipperdoling with their comragues; i hope he reckons not those synagogues of satan into the number of the churches of christ, though 'tis to be feared, since he is so much their advocate. but concerning the anabaptists of this age here in england i have sufficiently published to the world, that i believe many amongst them are persons truly fearing god. 3. mr. danvers brings testimony for adult-baptism from paedobaptists; and it seems a strange design to all that i have spoken with about the same, that he should offer to bring chrysostom, austin etc. against infants-baptism, so making the fathers to contradict themselves, and for which i rebuke him in my answer. but he takes much pains to vindicate himself, in which undertaking i find him so full of meanders and tedious circumlocutions, that i judge it not worth while to follow him, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, step by step; and there is no great reason i should take notice of it. since he confesseth, 1. the sayings of those men [pedobaptists] are expressly for his opinion, though it may be [o sad is it but a may be?] not intended so, and therefore saith he, i have done them no injury. 2. he saith, he quotes them not to prove believers-baptism was the only baptism of those centuries: why then did he quote them? why, to show how they contradicted themselves, and likewise his dexterity, how well he can beat them with their own weapons. o prodigious self-conceitedness! what doth he think he can see (having washed his eyes so profoundly) the folly of contradiction in the sayings of such a numerous company of fathers, and learned godly divines? and yet he is so blind as not to see in how many things he contradicts himself. i shall give you a catalogue of some of them before we part. mr. danvers might have forborn his wrangling, and attended to the distinction which we gave in our answer of ecclesia colligenda and collecta, which serves very well for the reconciling the fathers, and modern divines to themselves: for when they speak of teaching, confession and examination, requisite before baptism, they intent it of the way that is to be taken in the first planting of a church, when pagans are brought into the faith of christ; and when they speak of the right of infants, it is in a church already gathered, of which infants being a part they must not be denied baptism. but this mr. d. likes not, and therefore, hath invented a way to reconcile the seeming difficulty (as he calls it) and what is that? why all the sayings of the later doctors and learned men (why not of the ancient ones too?) wherein confession and profession is required, are to be understood, not, saith he, as mr. wills would have it, to intend only adult persons and pagans, but infants also, because they hold infants to repent and believe by their sureties. which he conceives he hath sufficiently proved by the instance which he gives from the catechism of the church of england, just before mentioned, which (after his usual manner) he doth pervert. for it being said in the catechism, that faith and repentance, is required in persons to be baptised; the question is, why then are infants baptised, when by reason of their tender age, they cannot perform them? to which mr. danvers makes the catechism give this answer, they do perform them by their sureties; as if that was all the answer they gave: whereas indeed the answer in the catechism runs thus; they perform them by their sureties who promise and vow them both in their names; which when they come to age, themselves are bound to perform. and as if the bishops foresaw that such as mr. danvers would cavil at the word perform; in the last edition of the common-prayer book, they common-prayer book last edit. have left it out, and only say, because they promise them by their sureties, which promise when they come to age, themselves are bound to perform. so that it appears, the sense of the answer in the catechism is to be understood, according to what we find mentioned by the magdiburgs, cent. 4. c. 6. p. 422. neque enim hoc ille ait, ego pro puero abrenunciationes facio, aut fidei sacramenta profiteor; sed ita puer renunciat et profitetur, id est, spondeo puerum inducturum cum ad sacram intelligentia venerit, sedulis adhortationibus meis, ut abrenunciet contrariis omnino, profiteaturque etc. which in english is to this effect; the sponsor doth not say, i do renounce the devils works etc. and profess faith for the child, but promises, when the child comes to understanding, he will exhort him to renounce the devil, and world etc. but mr. danvers conceives that the sayings of the doctors and learned men, when they speak of profession before baptism, is not by them intended of adult persons, and pagans, but of infants also: otherwise it would be, saith he, to make two baptisms and necessitate two commissions; one for the adult, and the other for infants. to this i answer, there is no such need of two baptisms, for the baptism of adult persons and infants is one and the same, as to the matter, both being baptised with water, and so also, as to form, in the name of the father etc. nor doth it necessitate two commissions, one will serve the turn very well, and comprehend both parent and child; and to make this clear, i will give the judgement of some of our modern doctors and learned men as to the sense of the commission for baptising, differing toto caelo from mr. danvers' fancy. perkins upon mat. 28. 29. go teach all nations baptising them: in these words, saith he, the baptism of infants is prescribed, and the apostles by virtue of this commission, baptised whole families, as knowing in god's former administration to his people, the children were taken into covenant with the fathers. as the nation of the jews, were first taught, and then they and their infants being confederates were circumcised; so saith our saviour, go disciple the nations, and baptise them. paraeus upon matth. 3. 7. hath those words: ad eos [infant's] etiam pertinet universale christi mandatum, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; nec obstat, quod infantes doceri nondum possunt: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 enim christo proprie non est docere (ut vulgo redditur) sed discipulos facere, sicut exponitur, joh. 4. 1. in christi enim mandato, doctrina etiam sequitur baptismum, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, facite discipulos baptizando et docendo, etc. non quod doctrina non debeat praecedere baptismum in adultis, sed quod debeat etiam sequi in infantibus baptizatis. 1. the general command of christ; go, disciple all nations, appertains to infants; neither doth it hinder because infants can not be taught, for the greek word doth not properly signify to teach as it is commonly rendered, but make disciples as it is expounded joh. 4. 1. according to christ's command teaching doth follow baptism: for it is baptising them, and then teaching them to observe. make disciples by baptising and teaching &c. not that teaching ought not to go before baptising in the adult, but that it ought also to follow in baptised infants. spanhemius in his dubia evangelica, tells us that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which we render [teach] signifies to make disciples, which is done, saith he, by baptising and teaching; and he gives this reason for this his analysis; because, if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should signify only to teach, there would be found a tautology in christ's words. thus, go, teach all nations, baptising them, teaching them: the sense therefore (saith he) of christ's words, is this, go ye, make disciples to me out of all nations by baptising and teaching, and the former way of making disciples, infantibus etiam aptari poterat, may be applied to infants. 4 i think i could bring some scores that understand the commission in this sense, and therefore argue against the anabaptists thus— the gospel is to be preached to every creature: all nations must be discipled; but infants are a part of this creation, are included in all nations; therefore they must be made disciples also: for [them] in the commission, must refer to nations, or else it relates to nothing, for it hath no relative besides to answer to, and therefore infants being a part of the nation, where the gospel is preached, must be baptised. thus we see hitherto mr. danvers cannot discharge himself of the charge of prevarication, and perverting the authorities produced by him, but like a discontented man, is angry with every body he meets with, that crosseth his humour, and therefore falls a skirmishing with the lutherans, calvin, baxter, and concludes bitterly against me with an appeal to the reader, whether it can be supposed, i did read his book, and answer it with consideration, and so whether i ought not to be esteemed a person extremely void of reason and conscience. and let the reader likewise judge whether this be suitable to the title of his book, a sober reply to mr. wills, against whom i may rightly object that of ambrose on the 119 psal. quem veritate non potest, lacerate convitiis secondly, concerning the falsehood chargedu 'pon mr. danvers which is fully proved in what follows. page 30. after some scornful jeers which he is pleased to cast upon me, as that i profess myself a solid grave person, a minister of the gospel, a master of arts and a learned man, and one that hath spent much time in the university (which is more than ever i professed or pretended to) he thinks it not enough to render me ridiculous, but wicked also, and therefore insinuates, that i have a peculiar malignity against his person (whom i never saw) as well as against the truth. to which i shall only say, that mr. danvers hath cause to repent of his great uncharitableness, especially because i have expressed my charity towards him, declaring in my infant-baptism asserted, part 2. page 224. that i hope he is a godlyman, and i appeal to the searcher of hearts in this matter (who knows that he wrongs me) that i look upon him rather as an object of pity than hatred. and for that other which is much worse, that i have a malignity against the truth, i can speak it in sincerity, (my conscience bearing me witness) that i can do nothing willingly and knowingly against the truth, 2 cor. 13. 8. wherefore i desire him to search his own heart, whether the malignity be not there, and so i shall leave him to our great master, whose prerogative it is to judge, and who i hope, may in time convince him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, judas 15. of all his virulent speeches. mr. danvers having thus discharged his stomach, offers to join issue with me, in order to the speedy trial, at whose door the falsehood lies. he hath made a good beginning, hath he not? and 'tis very like we shall have as good an end. 1. first i charge him with falsehood, for saying the magdeburg's tell us, that in the first century the apostles baptised only the aged; i told him the falsehood lay in this, because he addeth the word only, which is not spoken by them. and how doth he clear himself of this? why, by inveighing against me suo more, and telling the world, that i am an injurious man, and charge on him a falsehood of my own making; how so? since, saith he, my words are thus; as to the subjects of baptism the magdeburg's tell us, that in this age they find, they baptised only the adult or aged, i do not say, saith he, that they tell us, that in this age they baptised only the adult: risum teneatis amici! reader, i think thou art hard put to it, to find how i have injured him; for it seems by his own confession, they tell us they baptised only the adult, but i wrong him, for not putting in his other words [that they did find it]; but it is to be supposed that whatever they did tell us, they did find it. but i must tell mr. danvers that they do not say that they find, they [only] baptised the adult. this is all they say, baptizatos esse adultos exempla probant, de infantibus baptizatis exempla quidem annotata non leguntur. examples prove that the adult were baptised, and as for the baptising of infants, we read not any examples upon record. now for to say that the magdeburg's tell us, they find, they baptised only the adult, is (as he brings it in) a subtle insinuation to deceive the reader) for the words being placed in that order by themselves, do import, as if the magdeburg's did not look upon infants-baptism as apostolical, or that any such were baptised in the apostles days; whereas their very next words are: nevertheless origen and cyprian tell us, that even in the apostles days infants were baptised; and that it is evident from the apostles writings, that infants were not excluded from baptism: which words being concealed by mr. danvers, show him▪ to be as guilty of substraction in this latter as of addition in the former. had mr. d. said, they only find they baptised the adult, i should have let it pass; because there are no particular examples thereof upon record; but there is a vast difference between that, and they find they baptised only such: the first leaves room for infants-baptism, for a non dicto ad non factum, nonꝰvalet consequentia, but the latter is totally exclusive thereof; could mr. d. find it; but he is as unable to do that, as to prove the magdeburg's said so. and yet he would have his reader believe, it is most manifest that i am an injurious man in charging this falsehood of my own making upon him, there being no such words in his book, though but three lines after he fully acknowledges what i charged him withal; as may be seen p. 31 of his reply, where he saith, my words are expressly thus, that in this age they find they baptised only the adult. and now let any sober man in his senses (to use mr. d's own words) judge whether indeed i have done him injury in charging this upon him, or those ministers he informs us of, who said upon the reading thereof, he wanted morality in so dealing with authors. a second falsehood for which i censure him is for saying the magdeburg's tell us, that the custom of dipping the whole body in water, was changed into sprinkling a little water in the face, in the first century; whereas they say no such thing in this century, nor any of those that follow. so that i charge him with a double falsehood. 1. for representing them, as if they asserted the ceremony of baptism was only by dipping, which they do not, but the contrary. 2. in affirming that the rite was changed in that century from dipping into sprinkling. let us now observe, how mr. danvers vindicates himself as to this. 1. he saith, the magdeburg's own words will clear him for dipping, and refers us to cent. 1. c. 6 p. 148. where they speak nothing at all of this matter: indeed i find in cent 1. lib. 2. c. 6. p. 497. we have these words; as to the place of baptism, it was as occasion was offered, in rivers and fountains, and the manner was thus; minstrum baptismi in aquam baptizandos immersisse seu lavasse in nomine patris etc. probat verbum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; which mr. danvers thus translates, the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, signifying immersion or dipping in water [thus far he is right] proves that the minister of dipped by washing is nonsense. baptism did dip the baptised, washing them in the name of the father; which is a very corrupt translation of the words, as all scholars know: for it ought to have been translated, the minister of baptism doth dip or wash them, according to the genuine signification of the word, as they give it us, cent. 1. lib. 1. c. 4. p. 152. vocabulum baptismus significat tinctionem seu lavationem a graeco verbo 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, so mar. 7. 4. say they; for it is taken a judaica l●tione, the jews washing which [was otherwise besides dipping]: the words of mark are; the yet not except they wash. how now can mr. danvers justify himself to represent them, as restraining the word only to dipping, when they give us to understand, it signifies any kind of washing, rinsing, or cleansing, as a man will wash his hands, as well by pouring water on them, as by dipping, 2 king. 3. 11. here is elisha which hath poured water on the hands of elijah, being his servant, as 'tis noted in the margin. 1. the other falsehood is for saying that the magdeburg's tell us, that the custom of dipping the whole body was changed into sprinkling in this century: let the reader judge, how lamely he comes off here; for he saith, those words of changing the custom were his own, not the magdeburg's: but what had he to do, to interpose his own words, when he undertakes to tell us what the magdeburg's say as to the manner of baptising, when he repeats their words all along, and then concludes, which said custom of dipping the whole body was changed into sprinkling a little water in the face. there is no man living but would have taken those words, to have been the magdeburg's as well as the rest, being all joined in the same sentence, and one and the same character. see his treatise of baptism edit. 1. pars 1. p. 58. surely in this any ordinary reader may see, we have found mr. danvers faulty, nor will any evasion serve his turn for an excuse; yet hath he still something to say for himself, and that is, that in the 2d. impression of his book, he did for the better distinction (that all men might know those words of altering the custom of dipping the whole body into sprinkling a little water in the face, were his own, not the magdeburg's) put them into a different character; and then saith, that prejudice blinded my eye, my business being to make a hole if i could not find one. what unparalelled confidence is this! but be it known unto him; (and his eye might have seen it in my preface to infants-baptism asserted, that my business was to answer his 1st edition, and he knows very well, (by a good token which i shall forbear to mention) that my book was printing, when his 2d edition came forth; which is sufficient, (i doubt not) with an impartial reader to clear me from blame in not taking notice of his different character, had he really made it. but when upon examination the reader will find no such thing, to convince him of mr. d. care in this particular; (there being only a semi-colon between, and not the least distinction to make it possible for the most intelligent reader so much as to suppose it;) i presume he will wonder at it, that a good man should talk at such a rate. but if he did indeed on purpose put those words in this fifth head into a different character, left they should be supposed not to be his own; why did he not do so in the 2d. head, the four last lines being his own? nor in the 3d. head where the three last are his own? nor in the 4th head where the last is his own? as the reader may see ed. 2d. p. 46. certainly if he had so honest a design, as he pretends, he would have done so throughout, and, i appeal to his conscience whether he ever thought of such a thing as a different character before he saw my answer to his book. a third falsehood, which i lay at his door, is for saying, the custom of dipping was changed into sprinkling in the third century. to this mr. danvers answers p. 36. of his reply, i do him manifest injury: how so? why, because he tells us, he saith only this, viz. many were the corruptions about baptism, that were creeping in, some whereof he confesseth, he mentions, and amongst the rest, altering the form from dipping to sprinkling. where then is the manifest injury? i know not, unless it be because i say he changed and altered: and being it seems pinched with this charge, he calls me unfaithful man: and though as above, he confesseth, that he said among other corruptions that was one, the altering the form from dipping to sprinkling; yet he denies it again presently with a severe increpation, and wonders that i am not ashamed to assert, that he saith the custom of dipping the whole body was changed into sprinkling in the third century. i suppose reader, thou hast seldom met with the like ridiculous contradiction in any author; i assure thee some have set their wits on work to find out the injury i have done him, and cannot hit upon it, unless it be because i have asserted that he saith the custom of dipping the whole body when he only names dipping: i thought indeed when ever people are dipped it had been the whole body, and i borrowed the form of expression from himself, p. 57, 58. of his first edition; so that he is the man that hath cause to be ashamed, and is found very unfaithful, in speaking thus forward and backward at his pleasure, yea that which is manifestly false, and then denying it in the same breath, so adding one falsehood to another; which is a sorry way of vindication. but he would say something if he knew what, to clear himself; but 'tis very confused, and impertinent, as that he did not quote p. 125, 126. for that, but for the superstitious rites, and did thereby only intend, etc. with more such stuff which i let pass, and think it necessary to give the reader an account of the whole that he hath upon this matter in his treatise of baptism 1 edit. p. 113. 2 edit. p. 101, 102. and so he will be the better able to judge, whether i have wronged him, or he me. thus he speaks there verbatim. [many were the corruptions about baptism, that in this age were creeping in, as the confining baptism ordinarily to be performed by a bishop] quoting magd. cent. 3. p. 123. limiting the time to easter and whitsuntide, p. 129. altering the form from dipping to sprinkling; (there's that for which i accuse him) and the place from rivers and fountains to baptisterions; with divers superstitious rites, as p. 125, 126. the 4th. falshood i charge him with is for fathering several things upon the magdeburg's respecting the 4th. century, when not a word of it is to be found in them; as 1. that they tell us it was the universal practice to baptise the adult upon profession of faith; and how he clears himself of this, let the reader observe: all the reply, that he makes to it, is, that he doth not say, that the magdeburg's do say in so many words, that it was the universal practice of this age, to baptise the adult upon profession of faith, as he saith, i would insinuate. but for this, let mr. danvers' own book decide the business. i confess i wonder he should deny it when there are a thousand witnesses to prove it (for so many books were the first impression as they say). for my part i have expressed the very syllabical words without altering one tittle, as the reader may see if he please to look on mr. danvers' treatise of baptism, edit. 1. p. 64. under century the 4th these are his words,— in this age they tell us, that it was the universal practice to baptise the adult upon profession of faith, and for which they give us several authorities, out of the learned fathers, and councils at that time, some whereof you have as followeth. if mr. danvers can excuse himself no better than he hath done in this, it had been more for his credit to have been silent. and whereas he excepts against the two instances i bring from the magdeburg's that baptising of children was owned in the eastern-churches. the 1st was nazianzen: mr. danvers puts this off easily, telling us: he hath answered that already, and refers the reader thereto, and so do i, to the reply i make him, where is manifested the vanity of his distinction that nazianzen was not for baptising children quà children, but as dying persons. the other instance given by me from the magdeburg's is, that of athanasius question to antiochus, which they bring for infant-baptism, used in the african churches: the words are, quod et in africanis ecclesiis receptum fuisse athanasius testatur, quest. 124. (1) athanasius doth witness in his 124. question, that it was received in the african churches. and for quoting this mr. danvers is in a pet, and saith, i produce a spurious piece [is the magdeburgensian history such?] why then doth he call it an excellent history? and further addeth, that i was not ignorant of this, but went on purpose to abuse the world. this is very harsh, but i will not be moved, but only tell him, he does very ill thus to load me with undeserved calumnies; for, 1. i took up the quotation from the magdeburg's: cent. 4. c. 6. p. 419. where they produce it for a testimony for infants-baptism in the african-churches. 2. they give not the least hint in that place, of its being spurious, but introduce it, with other testimonies that are authentic, without the least censure. 3. i never understood that it was reputed spurious (as mr. danvers presumptuously saith i did) for, i never read the life of athanasius, till after i received this severe correction; who also saith, i did, out of mere design, fall in with the wicked cheat. this is more of mr. danvers' charity and sobriety, and another of his great charges in the preface, saying, that i abused the reader with a supposititious testimony of athanasius, etc. but is this so great a crime in me as to deserve such severe reprehensions? certainly not from mr. d. who is equally guilty with me in this particular: for in his 1. ed. p. 66. p. 2. ed. p 56. he quotes arnobius upon the psalms for his opinion, which perkins tells us is spurious. now if i should have told mr. d. that he was not ignorant of this, but went on purpose to abuse the world; and that he did of mere design fall in with the wicked cheat, and abused his reader with the supposititious testimony of arnobius; how would he have liked it? i believe he would have called me the most disingenuous person in the world; when yet i took mine out of the magdeburg's (his excellent history) where i think his is not to be found; though his expressions would induce us to believe he had it from them. a fifth thing charged upon him is the curtailing and leaving out part of a sentence quoted by bazil, vix. must the faithful be sealed with baptism? faith must needs preceded. and i do in my answer censure him for stopping there, when he should have proceeded with what follows, which is this: what then say you of infants, which neither know good nor evil? may we baptise them? yea for so we are taught by the circumcision of children. now how doth mr. danvers clear himself of this? why by telling us there are no such words to be found in bazil: and i do freely confess my mistake of a name, and fathering upon bazil the words of nazianzen: but withal i must tell mr. danvers that he in his treatise of baptism 1 edit. cent. 4. pag. 66. 2 edit. p. 56. fathers upon nazianzen that which he never spoke, viz. that the baptised used in the first place to confess their sins, and to renounce the devil and all his works before many witnesses; and that none were baptised of old but they that did so confess their sins: and for which he quotes no place, where we may find it in that father, which put me and another to some trouble in perusing all that nazianzen hath writ upon the subject of baptism; so that i can confidently affirm those words; that none were baptised of old, but they that did confess their sins, are coined by mr. danvers and none of nazianzen's. and i am apt to think he cannot find in nazianzen, that the baptised renounced the devil and all his works before many witnesses; because the magd. have no such quotation out of him as i can find; but they tell us indeed ephrim said so. by which it appears to me that mr. d. is as guilty in making an authority of his own as i am. for he saith pag 47. of his reply, it is true the words i find to be exactly the words of gregory nazianzen: and then withal let me mind him that nazianzen's authority for infants-baptism in the 4th century is altogether as good as bazil's being of as great repute in in the church as he; and what pregnant grounds we have to believe that bazil was for infant-baptism likewise you have heard before. to conclude this, although it be not possible for any unprejudiced man to conceive otherwise of my naming bazil instead of nazianzen, than that it was an innocent mistake; yet doth mr. danvers (according to his accustomed charity) declare his fear that i did knowingly impose upon the reader, and that it was not lapsus calami, but mentis, not a sin of ignorance or a mere mistake, but a wilful mistake. but in these his uncharitable surmises he is very injurious to me, but most of all unto himself who is more guilty in this very particular. a sixth falsehood he is censured for is for bringing in the waldenses as witnesses against infants-baptism, etc. but as for this, he tells us he will examine it in his 3d chapter whereto he refers the reader, and so do i to my reply to him under that head, where is sufficiently discovered his falsehood and weakness. the seventh charge is for dealing craftily with mr. baxter and traducing his sayings, quoting divers of his arguments to mr. blake, as though he had been only for believers baptism, when in the same place he so fully explains himself, that as for infants right to baptism he takes that for granted, upon the account of their parents, and that the dispute is wholly managed with respect to adult, not infants-baptism. now as to this mr. danvers hath nothing to say, but that mr. baxter contradicts himself, as before he hath said of the fathers and doctors of the church, and all our learned and godly divines, according to the verdict of his modest intellect. the eight and last i charge him with is that of delusion, which he endeavours to fasten upon the reader in reference to dr. taylor, by improving that argument which he hath in his liberty of prophecy as though he were against infants-baptism; when the dr. himself saith, his design in that piece was only to draw up a schem of the anabaptists arguments, and to represent their fallacious reasonings, and declares, that he conceives them to be in an error, and that he was for infants-baptism. to this mr. danvers replies, in way of vindication, that whatever the drs. judgement or end was in writing, yet god's wisdom and power in it the more appears, if an enemy, to bring forth such convincing arguments from his own mouth, to witness to his despised truth. to all which this may suffice for answer. 1. god is infinite and unsearchable in his wisdom and power, and hath made even satan himself to bear witness to the divinity of christ; but whether mr. danvers' opinion be a truth sub judice lis est, is the thing in controversy. 2. as touching his arguments, how convincing they are, we do not deem mr. danvers a competent judge. 3. the dr. himself who hath so much discussed the point, and examined what can be said pro and con is more likely to give a right judgement, and to penetrate into the strength of the arguments on both sides, and he hath declared himself fully for infants-baptism, and given us his arguments for the same, in a book entitled the consideration of the church in baptising the infants of believers; the which he published since his liberty of prophecy. but notwithstanding all this mr. danvers takes much pains to make the world believe, that the dr. in his liberty of prophecy, spoke his own judgement as well as theirs. and in his preface to his treatise of baptism, edit. 1. says, surely dr. taylor had the reputation of a person of more integrity, conscience and honesty, than so egregiously to prevaricate in the things of god. but what prevarication is it in him when he gives us to understand he doth but personate an anabaptist, and tells us he will draw a scheme of what they can say for their opinion, which he looks upon as erroneous, and in the same place positively declares himself for infants-baptism? and whereas dr. hammond hath answered that collection of antipaedobaptistical arguments put forth by dr. taylor, mr. danvers tells us dr. hammond hath rather confirmed than answered them: but i hope not all of them; for that had been a strange way of answering indeed: there is one of his mediums to prove infants-baptism by, which mr. danvers saith i much glory in, and which he is pleased to except against; the rest, it seems are not worthy of his notice, and that is the drs. argument taken from the use of baptism amongst the jews, as a kind of initiation (of which mr. ainsworth gives divers testimonies upon the 17. gen.) and saith he, the institutions of christ (who came first messias to that people, was born of that nation, lived regularly under their law, and observed their customs) were by him drawn from their former practices in the oldtestament, and so were lightly changed, and accommodated to his own purposes. and after that he had instanced in divers things, he pitcheth upon the lords-supper instituted and taken from their postcaenium, and cup of blessing, solemnly used by them at the close of a festival, and from thence passeth on to that of baptism, or washing, a known rite solemnly used among the jews as a form of initiation into the covenant of god, and so into the congregation: and shows out of the talmud, that the way of entering into covenant was by circumcision and baptism, and then comes to improve the argument thus: that as the natural jews were thus entered, so were the proselytes; and as the proselytes of age, so also were their infant-childrens. from which it appears that the jewish ceremony of baptising, was accommodated by christ to the right of our initiation of the profession of christ, whereof, saith the dr. we have as little reason to doubt, as that a picture was taken from that face which it resembles to the life, and from whence we have, as he conceives, no obscure ground for our practice of baptising, not only those who make profession of faith, but also their children with them. in answer to which mr. danvers refers us to the animadversions of sir norton knatchbul where we have such censured, that fetch the foundation of truth from the rabbis, and no doubt deservedly. but as for infant-baptism, the foundation thereof is laid in the covenant of god's grace that takes in the child as confederate with the parent, and consequently the child must not be denied that seal, which under the gospel-administration, is baptism. but that baptism was a way of initiating the proselytes of age with their little ones, we have it several ways attested. see godwin of the jewish antiquities, c. 3. p. 10. quoting moses kotsen, moses aegyptius, drusius de trib. sec. p. 102. who saith, that to the making of males proselytes were required circumcision, and purification by water; and for the females, only purification by water. from whence mr. godwin concludes thus; hence we may observe that a kind of initiation by water was long in use among the jews (having before found it to be as high as david's time) though, as he saith, it was not sacramental till christ his institution: yea therefore it may seem to have been used by them, because they expected it at the coming of the messias, as appeareth by their coming to john, questioning not so much his baptism as his authority: by what authority he baptised, joh. 1. 15. but what need more be said to this? when mr. tombs himself (to whom i hope mr. danvers will subscribe) acknowledgeth, examen p. 89. that it is well known, baptism was in use among the jews, in the initiating proselytes, for many years together with circumcision. chap. ii. wherein mr. danvers pretends to show that infants-baptism hath neither foundation in scripture, nor antiquity, with an answer thereto. § 1. the arguments used in his treatise of baptism, we have again in this his reply thus. that if infants-baptism had been any appointment, or ordinance of jesus christ, there would have been some precept or example; but the scripture is wholly silent as to either, etc. to which i gave this answer, in my infants-baptism asserted etc. first, a thing may be said to be commanded in scripture two ways: 1. expressly, or literally and syllabically, that is, totidem verbis, in so many words: thus we acknowledge infants-baptism is not commanded; it is nowhere said, go baptise infants, if it had there would have been no controversy. 2. a thing may be commanded in scripture implicitly, and by good consequence; and what is thus commanded is as valid and obliging, as if it were in so many letters and syllables, and thus we affirm infants-baptism is commanded. there are in scripture clear grounds and principles, from whence by just and warrantable consequences it may be deduced, that beleivers children ought to be baptised; for if they belong to the covenant and are holy, if they are members of the visible church etc. then they have right to baptism with more to this purpose, infants-baptism asserted, pars 1. p. 36. to which mr. danvers says nothing in his reply, but plays the sophister, mangles my discourse, picks up words scattered in my book about a hundred pages each from other, and spoken upon different accounts, and withal foisteth in some of his own with them, and then falls a-skirmishing with the man of clouts which he hath made. to give you some instances of his disingenuity herein. 1. he represents this to be my argument for infants-baptism, viz. that as there is no scripture expressly commanding, so neither is there any scripture excluding infants from baptism, nor any scripture that saith there was no infants baptised, and then refers the reader to p. 36. 38, 101, 131, 132, where note, what a compass he fetcheth to glean up words and then patcheth them togetther for an argument: and after all this, the words are not to be found in those pages, but are more his than mine: i have told you before, what is asserted by us, namely, that infants-baptism is implicitly, though not expressly commanded in scripture: pag. 36, and pag. 38, i speak thus— to say, infants-baptism is no ordinance of christ because we have no examples in scripture, of any that were baptised, is a pitiful argument: for we have no examples of most of the apostles that they were baptised, and shall we say therefore they were not baptised? pag 101. which is another of my places that mr. danvers turns the reader to; i show, that the want of an express command makes not against the lawfulness of it, and that the anabaptists want an express command or example (there being neither to be found in the book of god) to plunge men head and ears under water, as they use to do; nor have they any precept or example, to baptise people with their clothes on. and in p. 131. and 132, the last of my pages he refers to, i thus express myself, that there is nothing in christ's commission that is against children's baptism; for the teaching that is therein required, excludes not the children of believers (if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, be restrained to teaching) as appears by the consideration of the conditions of the persons to whom christ sent his apostles to baptise who were aliens, and though believing goes before baptism in mark it doth not exclude infants; because the same condition, that is required there to preceded baptism, is required to precede salvation: so that if the sense be that infants must not be baptised, because they cannot believe, it will as directly follow they must not be saved, because they cannot believe. the way of answering one answers both, by the same distinction the salvation of infants may be maintained, their baptism may. thus reader, i have given thee the whole which mr. danvers improves into an argument against me, as before; but how justly i shall leave to thy consideration. and i must crave leave to say that this argument: infant-baptism is lawful because nowhere forbidden in scripture, nor nowhere told where it was not done, is a brat of his own begetting, which he would fain lay at my door. next follow some passages quoted from divines that are pedobaptists; as, first from dr. owen in his book called innocency and truth vindicated (by which name mr. danvers hath baptised his book, though little of either is found in it); who lays down this position, that no part of god's worship, either in the old or new-testament, was lawful, but what had some express warrant from his word for the same; in opposition to what dr. parker asserts, that what is not forbidden may be lawful: to this i answer that i humbly conceive, that his position of express warrant is to be understood with some limitation: for i have learned from mr. ger●●, and some other divines, that there is a great difference between an ordinance itself, and some particular circumstances or the subject to which that ordinance is to be applied: for the ordinance itself, as the setting up baptism as a sacrament of the gospel-covenant, renewed by christ, it requires express warrant in the word of god: but when we have such warrant for the ordinance itself, to whomsoever we find by grounds or principles in scripture that it doth of right belong, there we may apply it though we want express testimony for it, if we have none against i●. and that this is the doctor's meaning is clear from what he tells us in his exposition of heb. c. 1. p. 86. viz. that it is lawful to draw consequences from scripture-assertions, and such consequences rightly deduced are infallibly true, and de fide: nothing will rightly follow from truth, but what is so also, and that of the same nature with the truth from whence it is derived; so that whatsoever by just consequence is drawn from the word of god, is itself also the word of god, and of truth infallible. and if mr. d. will please to ask the doctor what he intended by express warrant, i am confident he will find him exactly of bucers' mind who thus expresses himself on rom. 6. lex dei perfecta est, docet que quibus totam vitam ad voluntatem dei instituere licet, quare contineri in scriptures necesse est certa, & non expressa nominatim, oracula, de omnibus quaecunque afillis dei, sive publice, sive privatim suscipi convenit. mr. danvers hath picked up another saying of mr. collins before his vind. minist. evang. viz. that in things relating to the worship of god nothing aught to be done without express warrant in the gospel. this assertion of mr. collins' in that latitude as it is laid down is liable to exception; for there are many circumstances relating to god's worship, as time, place, and order, that are not so expressly set down in the word, which nevertheless may lawfully be prescribed by the church, provided that it agrees with the general rules set down in the word: and i find this was written in opposition to soldiers that took up the practice of preaching without ordination: and his endeavouring to make the bow strait might make him bend it a little too much the other way. but i am confident if he was to explain what he meant by those words, mr. d. would find them very little for his purpose. but to come more closely to the matter, what express command have we for the observation of the christian sabbath? for want of which, many anabaptists (notwithstanding the apostles met on the first day of the week) own not the morality of it. again, what express command, or example have we, for women's receiving the lords-supper; good consequence there is for it, but no express mention of it. but this satisfies not mr. danvers, for he is for express scripture, to prove women received the lord's supper; as you have it in his reply to mr. blinman: who very rationally and truly argues against mr. danvers that the words upon which he lays the stress of women's receiving the lord's supper are in express terms against him, it being these [all that believed were together] and as he argues rightly, the greek phrase is expressly of men and not of women, viz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the article 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, being masculine expressly limits it to men and not to women, etc. mr. danvers replies very confidently, that the exception of mr. blinman seems to be as defective in grammar as in divinity [and why in divinity, since mr. blinman holds that women received the lords-supper, and this is not the thing disputed] and then he paedagogue-like, sends the reverend learned man to his grammar to learn what syllepsis means: which is nothing to the purpose but to make a noise. to gather up then the discourse, we grant all this is good by consequence, that the firstday ought to observed as a christian sabbath, that women ought to receive the lord's-supper, but we cannot prove either by express terms. to conclude then, how injurious and no less ignorant a spirit appears in those words of mr. danvers; that mr. blinman trifles in the things of god, and plays with words to pervert the truth, when he only tells him (being challenged thereunto) that as much might be said for infant-baptism as women's receiving the lords-supper, there being no express command for either, but only implicit, and both warranted by consequence. there is a third author quoted by mr. danvers, viz. dr. hammond, who saith, that an institution of christ, such as each sacrament is, should not be judged by any other rule, than either the word wherein the institution is set down, or the records of the practice of christ or his apostles. a sound position, but such as toucheth not the case before us, for we judge of the sacrament of baptism as belonging to the infant-seed of believers by the word wherein the institution is set down, as before is shown. thus we have manifested the sophistry and weakness of mr. danvers' arguings together with the impertinency of his quotations. nevertheless he concludes, as if he had done some great thing. by all this evidence it appears that mr. wills is so heterodox in his positions, that he hath neither scripture reason, antiquity, or the learned protestant-writers to stand by him, and wherein if he persists, he gives up not only the independent, but whole protestant cause (as if all the protestant cause depended upon the sayings of those three men before mentioned, or on my opposing him for wresting and misapplying the same against infant-baptism). but what should make him fancy the protestant cause depended upon the sayings of this triumvirs, i cannot imagine, unless it be because one is an independent, the other a presbyterian, and the third man an episcoparian, and protestantism is only found among the men of these professions, the anabaptist being not concerned in it. and truly if we consider what mr. danvers hath said of the protestants in some parts of his discourses, we had need of much charity to believe, it would be at all grievous to him, if the protestant cause miscarried; for we are all in his esteem a company of erroneous persons, not of the church of christ, having no true ministry or baptism, antichristian enemies to the truth, as well as to them, and ever and anon linked by him with the papist, as conspiring togethher in upholding the tradition of infants-baptism, and therein grounding all our christianity, and against which he bids defiance; and declares against all possibility of communion with us, whilst we adhere thereto, as may be seen in his preface to his treatise of baptism, edit. 2. but will mr. danvers allow of no consequences, or are not implicit commands obligatory? you have his judgement in what follows. 1. he tells, us he will allow of consequences when there is express scripture for the thing elsewhere, as in the case of the resurrection, else not: and i pray, who now is heterodox? no thanks to him for his grant, for we have no need of consequences to be drawn, where the thing is set down in express terms: it seems if the doctrine of the resurrection had not been delivered in scripture plainly in so many words, all consequential arguings from the infinite power and justice of god requiring it, would little have availed with him. but he might have learned from mr. sydenham (with whom he is acquainted) that to deny consequences to have the strength of commands is to leave very few duties to be practised, or sins to be avoided: expound the ten-commandmentss without consequences, and very few will be found literal transgressors, but most deplorable debauched persons. and since the bible is but a short system of religion, every place is fitted to expound each other, and this must be done by rational, spiritual, comparisons and inferences: and how doth mr. danvers prove that those of his way, must be covered when baptised, have they any express word, or example for it? doth he not fly to rational inference? how doth he know baptising is by plunging? hath he any other way for it than consequential reasonings? it must be so, he conceives, for the word signifies it; see his reply, p. 34. 2. he saith, he will admit of plain consequences, which mends the matter very little. for now we shall want some supreme judge to determine, which are plain, which not; must we go to him and his party for resolution? certainly it must be so according to his mode of arguing, for though he will admit of plain consequences he presently adds, therefore we deny the inferences usually drawn from circumcision under the law for baptism under the gospel to be either plain, proper, or true: how blind was nazianzen, jerom, austin, and the rest of the fathers, to infer infants-baptism from circumcision? and how irrational are the deductions of such an innumerable company of doctors and learned divines? had they lighted their candles at mr. danvers' torch, they might have seen what had been plain, proper and true inferences; but the vanity of his discourse in this kind, we have showed in our infants-baptism asserted, part 1. 116, 117. and answered their objections against our arguments for infants-baptism drawn from circumcision. in the next place he saith, that as to the antiquity of infants-baptism, with its impious concomitants of salt, oil, spital, chrism, exorcism, it was not about 400 years after christ, in the milevitan and carthaginian council, and that according to my own grant. to this i answer, that here mr. d. doth impose: for in the 106 page of my infant-baptism (the place which he intends) i do not calculate the antiquity of infant-baptism, from those councils 400 years after christ; nor is there any thing there spoken of salt, oil, spital, etc. this trumpery is an addition of his own, to render infant-baptism odious, although he knows it was used also in the baptising of grown persons in those days. 2. what is there spoken of infants-baptism is from dr. taylor, and no grant of mine, about the necessity of infant-baptism not determined till the canon of the milevitan council. 3. he makes me to say positively, that the reason why it was not enjoined sooner was, because the lawfulness of it was rarely, if at all questioned before, and then glories that i have confirmed his witness against infants-baptism; whereas all that i say amounts but to a conjecture, and that upon a supposition of the truth of dr. tailor's speech concerning the time when infant-baptism was established by canon; for these are my words: belike the reason why it was not established sooner by council, under an anathema, was, because it was rarely, if at all, questioned or opposed till then. it was indeed determined in cyprian's council about a hundred and fifty years before, that infants might be baptised before the eight day, but no anathema was made about this point of baptism so early. 4. observe reader what an idle inference my antagonist draws from the pretended grant of mine; then saith he, if it be so, that the canons in the milevitan council, and enforcing infants-baptism [with thirty more councils doing the same] were only made upon the occasion of those that denied, or opposed it. we have then, saith he, our witnesses throughout all ages confirmed by himself, the reader must needs see how precarious he is in his reasoning, and if he hath no more to say for his witnesses in all ages than this, i am sure he will never carry it at the bar of an impartial judge: he must seek elsewhere for his witnesses than in my writings, or he is never like to find them, and if i had argued at the rate as mr. danvers doth in this thing, i might justly have deserved his censure for folly, and falsehood. lastly, he concludes that till any instance be produced of any child that was baptised, as an ordinance of christ, within the first 300 years, he is yet unreprovable in his assertion, and very safe in what he hath said. i answer, 1. that this is very weakly spoken, in as much as he confesseth just before from the magdeburg's, that the records of antiquity say nothing of the particular persons, either infants or adult, that were baptised in the third century, but only; there is mention made of one family baptised, in which there was a young man named symphorianus, magd. cent. 3. c. 6. p. 1. 25. 2. what though we have not the particular names of children (having not the church-registers) it is sufficient that we are informed in general that it was then the practice of the church to baptise children, as we have it in the same place beforementioned, p. 125. significat cyprianus in epistola ad fidum, etiam osculum infanti a ministro baptizante dari solitum, that is, cyprian in his epistle to fidus doth likewise intimate, that the minister used to kiss the child when he baptised it: let mr. danvers' friends judge, whether this be not enough, if no more could be said, to confute all his discourse about antiquity. add hereunto this consideration, that in this century tertullian persuading to defer both the baptism of children, and others who are of age, doth thereby intimate that it was the custom of the church at that time to baptise the one as well as the other; otherwise there was no reason why he should desire that they would defer the one as well as the other. concerning tradition, which mr. danvers saith, is the principal ground that hath been urged for infants-baptism, with an answer thereto. sect. 2. to make out this he quotes austin, who calls it an apostolical tradition; to which i said in my answer, that anciently the greatest points of faith were by the fathers named 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; so they are called by the apostle, 2 thes. 2. 15. which is all one with divine doctrines or ordinances, for so the word is rendered, 1 cor. 11. 2. and to make this more fully appear, the magdiburgs tell us, that bazil calls the manner of baptising in the name of the father, son and holy ghost, a tradition, by which he means the doctrine of the lord christ. magd. cent. 4. c. 4. p. 235. egregie & basilius hâc de re scribit, lib. 3. contra eunomium, baptismus noster est secundum traditionem domini in nomine patris, etc. that is, our baptism is according to the tradition of the lord, in the name of the father, etc. again bazil in his book de spiritu sancto, by tradition means the scripture, as hermannus hamelmannus observes de tradit. apost. & tacitis. p. 355. certum est quod basilius per vocabulum traditionis, aliquando scripturam intelligit; it is certain that bazil doth sometimes understand by the word tradition, the scripture; for so he speaks to amphilochius in his 10th chapter of the abovementioned book of the holy-spirit. hanc traditionem quae me perduxit ad lucem ac dei cognitionem largita est, etc. if austin then means the same that bazil doth by tradition, viz. the scripture, he says true, when he tells us that infants-baptism were not to be believed, unless it were an apostolical tradition, and although he intends the word otherwise in that famous speech of his in his 4th book against the donatists, chap. 24. (which mr. danvers doth ill in curtailing) namely, that if any do inquire for a divine authority for the baptising children, let them know, what the universal church holds, nor was instituted in councils, but always retained, is most rightly believed to have been delivered by no other than by apostolical authority; to which this is added in the next words▪ tamen veraciter conjicere possumus quid valeat in parvulis baptismi sacramentum, ex circumcisione carnis quam prior populus accepit, that is, nevertheless, we may conjecture how much the sacrament of baptism is available to children, by the circumcision of the flesh which the former people received. his next instance is from bellarmin, that it is an apostolical tradition, etc. but mr. danvers is not ignorant that bellarmin saith, satis aperte coll●gitur ex scriptures, to which purpose we have him, tom. 3. lib. 1. c. 8. the sacrament. it is clearly gathered from scripture. a third passage mr. danvers brings from dr. field in his book of the church, chap 20. where speaking of the several senses in which the word tradition is taken he saith, that infants-baptism is therefore called a tradition because it is not delivered in the scripture that the apostles did baptise infants, or that they should do so: and is it fair dealing for mr. danvers to stop here, when the following words would have cleared the point, which are these; yet is not this received by bare and naked tradition, but that we find the scripture to deliver unto us the grounds of it, lib. 4. p. 375. and the more inexcusable is our antagonist being formerly minded of this unfaithfulness in our infant-baptism asserted, etc. and when i showed to a friend that hath a great respect for the anabaptists, how he had served dr. field, the said person presently said, certainly mr. danvers is either weak or wicked. the last instance is from the convocation at oxford, and he deals unfairly with them likewise, by altering, and disordering their words; for he quotes them thus. that without the consentaneous judgement and practice of the universal church they should be at a loss when they are called upon for proof in the point of infant-baptism: whereas they are expressed in another strain, and less advantageous to mr. danvers' purpose, being thus. that the consentient judgement and practice of the universal church is the best interpreter of scripture in things not clearly expressed; and then they say, that without it they should be at a loss in sundry points of faith and manners, believed and practised when by socinians and anabaptists, they are called upon for proofs, instancing in the trinity, and coequality of persons in the godhead: baptising infants, ●●e observation of the lords day, and even the canon of the scripture itself, etc. mr. danvers having as he thinks cleared his position, proceeds to draw a parallel between papists and protestants, to show that there is no great difference between them, after the manner as i have represented the protestant sentiments in the point. to which i reply, 1. that the papists hold many things that are orthodox and sound, especially in doctrinals, but are very corrupt in discipline, and abominably unsound in the point of tradition, for they equal it with scripture: and the council of trent determined that tradition was to be entertained pari pietatis affectu, with the like affection as the scripture, etc. the protestants abhor this, as may be seen at large in the aforementioned author hamelmannus in his book of traditions, where disputing against staphilus, and cassander, and speaking particularly of infants-baptism, p. 818. he saith non nobis satisfaeceret, nisi peteretur probatio paedobaptismi ex scriptures; tradition would not satisfy us unless we had scripture-proof for it. now for his parallel. 1. do the papists, saith he, maintain that the ecclesiastical tradition of infants-baptism, as it is gathered from the scripture, and appointed by the church, is of equal authority with scripture itself? so, saith he, doth mr. wills assert for protestant doctrine, that the tradition of infants-baptism, proved by consequential arguments from the scripture, aught to be esteemed as firm and good, as the scripture itself; and to prove that i say so, mr. danvers refers the reader to p. 117. of my book, where there is nothing spoken of tradition; but only a position quoted from mr. baxter's scripture-proof, viz. that evident consequences, or arguments drawn by reason from scripture, are as true proof as the very words of a text. and is there any hurt in this? can any man that is rational deny it? doth not dr. owen positively assert it? nay, doth not mr. danvers himself tell us we admit of plain consequences? reply p. 69. though he will not grant infants-baptism to be of the number of them. but what saith mr. baxter in the forementioned place? if i prove, saith he, that all church-members must be admitted by baptism, and then prove that infants of believers are church-members, is not this as much as to prove they must be baptised? what thinks mr. danvers of that passage of nazianzen in his 5th book of theology? quae colliguntur ex scripturis sacris, perindè habenda sunt, ac si in illis scripta essent: those things that are gathered out of scripture are to be of like esteem with us, as that which is written in scripture. without doubt mr. danvers looks upon this as a popish saying in nazianzen. the rest of his parallel is so frivolous, that i will not trouble myself, nor the reader with it. and truly if one were minded, how easy is it to retort upon him, and show the vanity of his discourse in such a manner? as for instance. doth mr. danvers say that the promise gen. 17. 7, pertains not to the carnal seed of abraham, but to the spiritual? so doth estius the jesuit against calvin, about which mr. danvers committed so great a mistake, that if i had done the same he would have said i had belied calvin, and abused the world. doth mr. danvers say, circumcision was only a seal to abraham, not to believers and their seed? so saith cardinal bellarmin, in his first book of the sacraments, and after him other papists, affirming that circumcision is not said to be a seal universally to any faith, but only a seal of the individual faith of abraham. doth mr. danvers say, it could not be a seal to an infant that had no faith? bellarmin speaks the same; if it be a seal, saith he, (in that baptism comes in the place of circumcision) it is in vain to baptise infants, because they have no faith: so that it seems, his sentiments about these points are the same with the papists also. mr. danvers exceptions against our testimonies for infants-baptism from the ancients, examined and confuted. his first exception is against that passage we bring from justin martyr in his dialogue with triphon, part. 2. propos. 3. where he saith, it was lawful for all to receive the spiritual circumcision, which was done by baptism: from whence we argue, that if it was lawful for all to receive it; then infants who were the subjects of the legal circumcision, for they must be part of the all, and not excluded. to this mr. danvers saith two things. 1. that it is a mere impertinency, and nothing to the purpose, why so? 1. because there is not one wo●d of infants, nor of infants-baptism, nor its apostolicalness: and what of that? doth he not know that omne universale continet in se particular, every universal contains within itself the particular? and doth not justin say it was lawful for all to receive the spiritual circumcision, which is baptism? nor do we stand in need of a word for its apostolicalness here, since the only end for which the quotation is urged is to prove that justin was for infants-baptism. 2. he tells us it is not only impertinent, but absurd, to interpret the word [all] to be all men, for than it must comprehend wicked as well as good, unbelievers as well as believers. but this is a shift; for i say, [alderman] is here to be limited to those who are within the church, for to them only appertained the legal circumcision under the law, of which justin speaks, and by proportion to such only, the spiritual circumcision [baptism] now under the gospel. as to what he further objects, that justin in this very dialogue tells us, that by the word and baptism regeneration was perfected in all mankind: as it is more than the magdiburgs say, for their words are, per aquam et fidem regenerationem fieri humani generis; so it makes nothing at all against us, because this is added by the magdiburgs in the same place (speaking how they baptised in justin's time) de adultis paenitentiam requirunt etc. they required repentance of the adult before baptism. if mr. danvers had set this down, he could not have framed his objection. just thus he deals with mr. baxter's treatise of baptism, ch. 7. p. 49. 2d edit. where he quotes mr. baxter as rendering some part of justin martyr's apology in these words in his saints rest, ch. 8. sect. 5. viz. [i will declare unto you how we offer up ourselves to god after that we are renewed by christ etc. where if you will compare, you shall see both how considerably he varies it in the words from mr. baxters' words, and likewise how he leaves out that which would have shown the quotation nothing to his purpose, viz [justin martyr speaking of the way of baptising the aged.] in the next place he excepts against what we urge for infants-baptism, from irenaeus, who lived in the same century with justin, in the age of those that saw the apostles, and so must needs know their practice: it is a passage of his in lib. 2. advers. haeres. c. 39 where discoursing of christ that came to save all ages, he specifieth particulars, as infants et parvuli, infants and little ones, as well as pueros et juvenes, et seniores; boys, young men, and old men: and then concludes, omnes inquam qui per eum renascuntur in deum; all, i say, who by him are born again unto god. where, by infants being born again unto god, must needs be understood, after the scripture-notion and sense, and as the ancient fathers usually took the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, baptism. for as mr. mede observes, that by the washing of regeneration, tit. 3. 5. none will deny is meant baptism: and vossius, upon that scripture saith, that to call baptism renascentia, [regeneration] is usitata veteribus loquendi forma, an usual form of speaking among the ancients. and to put this out of all doubt, justin martyr, in his apology beforementioned, speaking of the manner how they were baptised, saith, the party was brought to the place where the water is, and regenerated in the same manner, wherein we were regenerated. to this mr. danvers hath little to say, and if i mistake not, very little to purpose, as, that it is impertinent as before and farfetched, and that there is not a word of infants-baptism in it, or apostolicalness: which is just the 2d part of the same tune which was sung but now: and further he adds, that as the interpretation upon which it is founded is fallacious; so neither scripture nor justin, doth call baptism, regeneration absolutely [who saith they do?] but only the symbol of regeneration. and this is very true, and which no body denies but i must tell mr. danvers that this is altogether impertinent, and far off from the matter we are upon. but his confidence doth not abate, for he tells us, 'tis manifest these authorities are to little purpose, yea wholly insignificant, and nothing to the purpose [do not only tell us this story, but give us reason for it, or say nothing] and that they failing, as he concludes they do, there is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pedobaptismi, a fearful tumbling down of the whole fabric of infants-baptism, repl. p. 79. and to help after, he presents us with a pretended saying of dr. barlow, but he doth not point to any book or page where we shall find it. the words which mr. danvers saith the doctor speaks are, these; viz. i believe and know that there is neither precept nor practice in scripture for pedobaptism, nor any just evidence for it for above two hundred years after christ. reader, thou must understand that mr. danvers hath made mention of this reverend and learned man's name, above twenty times in his treatise of baptism, edit. 1, 2. and in his reply, as if he had spoken much in derogation of the antiquity of infants-baptism. for in the 1st edition of his treatise of baptism p. 74. we have him thus, dr. b. late doctor of the chair, a person of great learning and eminency, hath these words in a letter i have seen in print; i do believe, and know, there is neither precept nor example in scripture etc. as before: and for as much as i questioned the truth of this, [that is, that the doctor was of this opinion] and being desirous to know his judgement, and whether he owned any such printed letter, i did therefore write to him, and received this following letter from him, viz. dr. barlow's letter. sir, i understand by your letter (and the books you mention, which i have since read) that some late writers have made use of my name, (giving me the title of dr. of the chair in oxon) and cite (as they say) a printed letter of mine, wherein i declare my judgement against infant-baptism. you desire to know of me, (who should best know my own opinion) whether or (how far) those things are true which they say, and cite in my name? and therefore out of that respect, which is due, and i owe to truth and you; and that i may undeceive others, and give you that satisfaction which you so civilly desire, i shall crave leave to tell you (and all whom it may concern) these few things. 1st. that 'tis a great mistake, to call me doctor of the chair in oxon, when it cannot be unknown to any who know that university, that a very reverend and far more worthy * dr. richard allestree, the worthy provost of eaton-colledg. person possesseth, and (with great learning and general approbation of all) performs the duties of that great place. 2dly. that never any thing of mine was printed (by any knowledge or permission of mine) against the received doctrine or practice of paedo-baptism, as it is warranted and approved by the church of england. 3dly. that (about twenty years ago) mr. tombs writ to a then reverend (since a right-reverend) person of the university, desiring himꝰ to examine, and give him the true meaning of certain places in tertullian, and some of the ancient fathers, which were usually produced for infant-baptism. that reverend person, whom i was bound (for many reasons) to obey, commanded me (who had more time, though less ability) to examine those quotations, and return an answer to mr. tombs: which i did, in a letter then sent him: and (as mr. baxter † in his book entit. more proofs of infants church-membership, pag. 343. truly says) this is that secret letter which they are pleased to cite. 4. i acknowledge that such words as are cited by mr. * in his treatise of baptism. london, 1674. pag. 65, 66. danvers (and such others, spoke and writ then, with more confidence than judgement or discretion) are in that letter, which had been secret still, if some had not betrayed that trust which was reposed in them. 5. lastly, it is to be considered, that that letter was † anno. 1656. writ about twenty years ago, (when i talked more, and understood less) and yet whatever doubts or objections i had then against infant-baptism; i never thought them so considerable, as to warrant any division, or schismatical disturbance of the peace of my mother the church of england: and therefore i did then, and since, and (when i have a just call, god willing) ever shall baptise infants, according to that form and those rites, which our church has prescribed in her sacred office for infant-baptism. in short, mr. baxter's candid and charitable * pag. 343. of his book before cited. answer for me, [that 'tis not likely that i, who have subscribed the articles and liturgy of the church of england, will be against infant-baptism] i shall endeavour to make good. i have (with assent and consent) subscribed our liturgy and articles: and (god willing) never shall practise, or print, or say any thing in contempt of, or contradiction to the doctrine, or those innocent ceremonies contained in them. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. t. b. oxon apr. 13. 1675. our 3d testimony is origen, who in divers places of his works, as in his homilies upon rom. 6. saith, the church received a tradition from the apostles to give baptism to little children: the same we have again in his homilies and luke 14. to this mr. danvers objects. 1. that of dr. taylor, that origen is but one single testimony. 2. that his writings are notoriously corrupt, and particularly in the point of baptism. 3. many of his works, and particularly those that treat of baptism, fell into ill hands. in answer to the first; let dr. taylor in his later discourse of the consideration of the church in baptising the children of believers, answer dr. taylor in his former book of the liberty of prophecy, where he saith, that origen is but one single testimony. in his later discourse (put out since) he citys justin and irenaeus, saying positively, that the tradition of baptising infants passed through irenaeus his hands. so then he, by this acknowledgeth that we have more than the single testimony of origen: and if he hath put forth any thing else since in contradiction to it, i may say his words are not much to be credited, for we know not where to find him. 2. origen's writings (saith he) are corrupt: who denies it in some things? so are tertullian's, so are all the fathers. to which mr. danvers vauntingly replies, let both origen and tertullian go together, only i shall thereby have the better bargain; for mr. wills in parting with origen parts with all, but i have many more to witness for me besides. to which i only say, i wish i could see them, or if it were possible to speak with them face to face, as i lately did with dr. barlow, 'tis very like i should have the same account of their judgements, as i had of his; and let mr. danvers know, that one word of solid reason, hath more weight in it, and is more taking with the judicious, than all his thrasonical boasts and calumniating reflections? 3. his works fell into ill hands; which is true of some, yet not all of those that treat of baptism: for i tell him in infant-baptism asserted p. 135. that origen's homilies on the romans and luke, are translated by jerom, and to be esteemed authentic, quoting erasmus for it: and for this mr. danvers falls foul on me, this being another of his great charges in his preface, that i abuse erasmus, who saith quite contrary to what he saith i father on him. as 1. that the translation of the homilies on the romans appeared to him to be ruffinus' and not jeroms. 2. that the preface to the translation which represents it as jerom's was a cheat of the bookseller, as erasmus notes. to this i answer, 1st. that erasmus doth not say that the homilies upon the romans, set forth as translated by jerom, were ruffinus' homilies, and not origen's. 2. the magdeburg's reckoning up the legitimate works of jerom in the story of his life, do mention that of translating origen on the romans to be one, and that according to the judgement of erasmus, cent. 4. cap. 10. p. 1218. extant inter origenis opera latinè facta quaedam quorum interpres fuit hieronimus, erasmi judicio: that is, among the works of origen, some are translated into latin by jerom, in the judgement of erasmus; and then they name which they are, as follows. as the homilies upon jeremy, which have jerom's preface to them, the homilies upon ezekiel, the 39 homilies upon luke cum praefatione hieronymi, with jeroms preface, and ten books of origen's comments upon the romans. [there's that which will clear me against all mr. danver's reproaches] cum ejusdem praefatione, with jerom's preface. i appeal now to the reader, whether i had not good authority for what i said, that according to erasmus' judgement jerom translated origen on the romans. you see from whence i had mine information, the magdeburg's affirm that both translation and preface too were jerom's, and mr. danvers knew it to be so, for in my answer i directed him to the century and page in the magdeburgensian history, from whence i had it. and therefore 'tis a sorry trick, of him to slur me as he hath done in this thing, and make such an exclamation against me. what credit is to be given unto mr. wills let all men judge! he might rather have said what credit is to be given to the magdeburg's (and their excellent history as mr. d. calls it) let all men judge! for if i was deceived, they deceived me. 3. i have yet further to say, and that is that i have another to speak on my behalf, dr. hammond (of no small note for his knowledge in antiquity, and perhaps not inferior to erasmus) who tells us in his letters of resolution, p. 215. that though we have not origen upon the romans in greek, yet being translated by jerom, and so owned by him in his epistle to heraclius, prefixed before the commentary, we have his authority to secure us that the words [about infant-baptism] were origen's. and let it be supposed that jerom did not translate those on the romans, and that the homilies themselves are spurious, and none of origen's; yet those on luke pass for current without control, and there the point of infant-baptism is as fully asserted, as in the other place on the romans. against this also mr. danvers hath borrowed a scrap from mr. tombs (who finding nothing in erasmus censures) hath yet by good hap hit upon a word in erasmus comment on luke 1. 3. the words of erasmus are [for so he seems to think, whosoever he was, whose commentaries are extant upon luke under the title of admantius] which shows (saith mr. tombs) that erasmus took them not to be origen's, or at least doubted thereof. it is very remarkable that mr tombs should spy out this passage, much more that he should comment thus upon it. for what erasmus speaks of origen upon luke, might as well be said of every book; nor can any man say posatively these are the books written by justin martyr, or tertullian; so that to interpret that passage of erasmus for a doubt is but a mere cavil. but that he doubted not that jerom translated origen on luke, take his own clear word for it in his censure, homil. in lucam, dubium non est quin 39 homilias in lucam verterit hieronimus, quod ipse palam in praefatione profitetur. there is no doubt to be made of it, saith he, that jerom translated the 39 homilies on luke: and if jerom translated them (as there is no doubt according to erasmus) than we need not doubt but he did it from the original copy of origen. judge now reader what mr. d. hath got in this business, notwithstanding all the clutter he hath kept with his boastings and defame: we see by what is said, that we have infants-baptism owned as from the apostles by origen on luke [whatever becomes of that on the romans,] and translated by jerom, of which erasmus doth not in the least doubt; so that the fabric stands yet upright never like to be demolished by mr. danvers, whatever great exploits he hath done heretofore in the days of his colonelship. our last testimony is from cyprian against whom also he hath something to say, though methinks that of vossius is enough to silence all ☞ cavils, viz. that the testimony of cyprian, for infants-baptism both in his time and before, is beyond all exception. and grotius speaks to the same purpose, viz. that the epistle of cyprian to fidus makes the matter plain that there was then no doubt of infants-baptism. against this he gives in three exceptions, ☞ in his treatise of baptism, presented again in his reply; as first, infants-baptism is not urged by cyprian for an apostolical tradition, nor upon any authority of scripture, but upon his own, and bishops arguments; though if he should have said it was an apostolical tradition, his word, he saith, would have no more been taken than when he tells us chrysm was so. to which i replied, in my answer, that though cyprian did not say it was apostolical; yet it follows not he did not own it as such: yea, to put it out of doubt, the magdeburg's tell us he did own it as apostolical, cent. 1. l. 2. c. 6. p. 496. but what though the magdiburgs tell us so (saith he) that's no more than if mr. wills had said it: strange! that such venerable persons as those famous divines were, that have written such an excellent history, as mr. danvers elsewhere terms it, should be of no more credit with him than myself, whom he so much vilifieth? but hath he not forgotten what he speaks just before, that cpyrian held chrysin to be an apostolical tradition? and is it not strange! that he should not hold the same of pedobaptism? but whether he did or not, is not material to the point which is now before us; for we are enquiring the facto, what was done in cyprian's time, as to the baptising children; not the jure, upon what ground they did it, or whether 'twas esteemed apostolical: if the practice was owned 'tis as much as we need to put by mr. danvers' cavil; and that it was so, mr. tombs his great tutor, had never the face to deny, but confesseth plainly, that it was a truth, that cyprian assured fidus, that by the unanimous consent of sixty-six bishops gathered together in a council, baptism was to be administered to infants, as well as grown men. tombs examen, page 11. and since cyprian flourished in 250 according to perkins, and usher placeth him in 240, what is become of mr. danvers proposition, that believers baptism was the only true baptism for near 300 years after christ, page. 3. of his reply? mr. tombs himself doth lend us his helping hand to pluck down this rotten fabric. i am not willing to let any thing pass, that may blind the weaker sort of readers, and therefore shall go on with him: if cyprian (saith he) should have said infants-baptism had been an apostolical tradition, his word would have been no sooner taken, than when he tells us, chrysm was so. this cram we had in effect long since by mr. tombs in his exercitation: there were many other things (saith he) went under the name of a tradition, which were but mere humane inventions: what then? ergo infant-baptism, which went under the name of a tradition, is also human invention. shall i show (saith mr. marshal) the natural face of this argument in a glass? such and such men, who went under the name of honest men, were knaves, ergo all that go under the name of honest men, are knaves: 'tis true (saith he) many things in those days went under the name of apostolical tradition which were but humane inventions; and 'tis as true, [as before is fully shown] that many points of faith went in the same ages, under the name of tradition. but to proceed, his second exception is, because it is questionable, whether there were ever such a council. this is to lay the axe to the root of the tree. but to this i answer: 1. the magdiburgs do not question it, but own it as authentic, as any of the rest of the councils, cent. 3. c. 9 p. 203. 2. mr. tombs was so wise as never to question it, in all the contest he had with mr. martial, and others that ever i observed. but why should we question it? why? because (saith he,) there is no place mentioned where that council was kept. what if i say 'twas at carthage? no doubt mr. danvers would then give me the lie: and yet dr. featly calls it the council of carthage; and well he might, because cyprian was bishop of that place. and for his further satisfaction, that he might not cavil against the being of this council, i reckon up in my infants-baptism divers of the ancients that make mention of it with high esteem; as nazianzen, crysostom, [greek fathers] ambrose, austin, jerom, of the latins. so that i conceive mr. danvers is very perverse to question it. and as much weakness follows, in that he saith; it was no argument, it was a decree of such a council, because so many had a good esteem of it, for the same fathers esteemed very well of chrysm, etc. but when i speak of an esteem of it, my meaning is, that they did not judge it a fictitious council, but a real one, which is obvious. i wonder mr. danvers should not apprehend it. but since he is not a man of that sagacity as i thought him, but runs on upon a fall scent, i shall leave him. a second reason of his doubt, is because the grounds brought by cyprian for infant-baptism are weak: and because i gave no answer thereto in my infant-baptism, mr. d. taxeth me, and it is one of the charges in his preface to the reply, that i am notoriously partial in my answers all the book through, replying to what i judge weak, and leaving other unanswered. whenas i profess, i let many things pass because of their weakness, and have even wearied myself out with making answers to his impertinencies. i could have given him the same answer, which mr. martial did to mr. tombs near 30 years since, when he objected the weakness of cyprian's grounds, viz. if what cyprian spoke was weighed in the balance of his judgement, it would not be found light: and even mr. tombs himself confesseth, that jerom and austin, relied upon that epistle for the proving of baptising infants: which acknowledgement (saith mr. martial) strengthens my opinion of the worth of cyprians grounds; for two such eminent men would not have relied on that which had no weight in it. but what are the weak grounds which mr. danvers mentions? 1. because he and his council held, that baptism was simply necessary to salvation. but is not this more than mr. danvers can prove? i do not find the magdiburgs mention it; although mr. tombs saith, tossanus notes it for cyprian's error, that infants should be baptised ne pereant, lest they perish. 2. that it washeth away original sin, so as it is never to be imputed. this is the judgement of many learned protestant divines, especially the famous dr. davenant in his epistle speaks positively, omnes infantes baptizati, ab originalis peccati reatu absolvuntur. others are not so general, but conceive it to be a truth with respect to elect infants: and they judge they have good reason to conclude, that since they must be discharged from the guilt of original sin, or cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven, god doth apply the blood of his son to them, in the use of that ordinance of baptism. 3. because the grace of god is to be tendered to all, therefore all children should be baptised. i see no such weakness in this; for though it be laid down in such general terms, that grace is to be tendered to all, and none hindered from coming to christ; yet, as mr. marshal observes, what he saith, aught to be understood of the church, because he speaks of such as god hath cleansed, or purified; and 'twas concerning such, that fidus stood in need to be informed, as to the time of baptising; and the magdeburg's conjecture, that fidus episcopus ad cyprianum scripserat, he had written to cyprian about it. 4. because children have lesser sins than others. this is harsh: but you must know, this is mr. danvers' dress. the magdeburg's express it otherwise, thus; si quid hominem impedire a baptismo, potius adultos, peccata sua arcere deberent, quam infants, qui nihil peccaverunt, nisi quod ex peccato originis vitia trahant; which is to this effect: grown persons should rather keep off from baptism by reason of their sins, than infants, which have contracted no guilt but that which is original. i hope there is no great hurt in this. 5. because in their first birth they do nothing but pray, crying, and weeping. well said mr. danvers! the words are these; because in their first beginning (or birth) crying and weeping, they can do nothing but call for mercy: which (what ever ignorant people may think of it) is a high strain of rhetoric in cyprian, importing only, that children are objects of mercy. 6. because the soul that is not baptised is lost. this is to the same purpose with the first: but the magdeburg's have it not, nor dr. taylor, who translates the epistle to fidus out of the greek, at the end of his consideration of the practice of the church of baptising infants. therefore mr. danvers must find it elsewhere, or else he split the first reason into two; cujus est dar●, ejus est disponere. there are two other things which he brings as reasons why he questions this council, which are very frivolous; as that tertullian, cyprian's master, was against infants-baptism; which is not so absolutely, for he was for it in danger of death: and the other is, that many things were fathered on cyprian which were none of his. if i should let but this one pass, mr. danvers would cry out against me for partiality. but, why should he fancy that this of infants-baptism, was one of those things fathered upon cyprian? when the council is owned by the magdeburg's, the father's greek and latin, and even by mr. tombs himself, as before. his third reason i have spoken to already, being co-incident with the latter part of his first. one thing i had almost forgotten, and that is; whereas in my infant-baptism asserted, i tell mr. danvers, that his pretended witness tertullian was as corrupt as cyprian, and that the magdeburg's inform us that he was the first inventor of chrysm, and that cyprian belike took it up from him; he retorts in his reply thus, that if tertullian was the first inventor of chrysm, which cyprian calls an apostolical tradition, what credit then (saith he) is to be given to his testimony that dare to avouch so fearful a lie? a rude speech! altogether unfit to be uttered against so glorious a martyr as cyprian was; but any thing is good enough to be spoken in contempt of those who are for infant-baptism. but i assure the reader, that as there is no good manners, so neither is there truth in that passage of mr. d's: for i cannot find that cyprian held chrysm an apostolical tradition; it being not reckoned amongst his naevi, which after the magdeburg's account are six, and the last is, sumpsit ceremonias, ex traditionibus montani a tertulliano, consecrationem & unctionem post baptismum; that is, he took up the ceremonies, viz. consecration and unction, (that is, chrism) from tertullian out of the traditions of montanus. here's nothing of apostolical tradition. and hamelmannus shows what traditions cyprian held, that he took up the ceremonies of consecration and unction from tertullian, but not a word of calling it an apostolical tradition. there is nothing in this section more, but only that mr. danvers doth endeavour to vindicate himself from a mistake about austin's words, which i charged upon him; but it is so intricate and dark, that i do not very well understand him. also there is some disparagement cast by him upon that blessed martyr of jesus christ, mr. philpot, and a fling against the new-england way of baptising the children only of inchurched parents, with some other reflections which i let pass as futilous, having no mind to spend time in such small matters. chap. iii. wherein mr. danvers endeavours to vindicate his witnesses against my exceptions, and the same examined and found insufficient. 1. he begins with particular persons; but first minds me, with my penuriousness in my preface to infants-baptism, where i allow him from the first century to the end of the twelfth only two persons against infant-baptism, viz. adrianus, and hincmarus. but what will he think of me now? for i have denied him those two also, as before; and have showed the ground of the mistake why they have been looked upon under the notion of antipedobaptists. the first witness mentioned is tertullian, who (saith mr. danvers) opposeth it in six arguments. we shall inquire into them by and by. mr. danvers saith true, that i acknowledge tertullian hath divers passages seemingly against infants-baptism: but, according to his humour, he is catching me up before i am down: for he calls upon the reader to take notice, that his witness is owned by me. and is it not a very great owning indeed, to say, he hath divers passages that seem to be against it? but in the 38 page of my infant baptism, i give a reason why it's more than probable that tertullian was for infant-baptism; in the 41 page, that he was no more against their baptising, than of grown persons baptising; and in the 43 page, we showed that the reason why he would have infants-baptism delayed, was, not because he judged it unlawful, but inexpedient; for he was for it, rather than the child should die unbaptised. and now i tell mr. danvers further, that as for those seeming passages against infant-baptism, they are spoken in reference to the children of pagans, not believers, according to the judgement of estius and other learned men: for (as mr. marshal observes) tertullian in that book of his de baptismo c. 18. speaks of the baptism of such as were not born of christian parents, and therefore desires the baptism of such infants should be deferred till they come to years, and be able to make confession of their sins, and profession of faith, their parents being infidels, and their sponsors mortal. and that this is the meaning of the place, seemed evident to him, because in the 39 chap. of his book de anima, tertullian acknowledgeth that the children of believers had a privilege tam ex seminis praerogativa, quam ex institutionis disciplina; a prerogative by their birth, besides that of their education. and by this time me thinks mr. danvers should be sick of his witness tertullian, as mr. marshal said to mr. tombs in the same case. as touching the reasons which tertullian urgeth for the delay of the baptism of infants, and which mr. danvers undertakes to vindicate as proper and good, against those who would make those words, suffer little children to come unto me, to be a coming to baptism, i shall only remind him with two or three things. 1. with what we have from the magdiburgs cent. 3. c. 4. p. 83. sentit tertullianus in libro de baptismo, mira opinion, pueros non tam cito baptizandos osse, atque ad illud matthaei 19 nolite parvulos prohibere etc. tertullian (say they) is of a strange opinion to dissuade the baptising of children by such reasons as he gives in his paraphrase upon the 19 of matthew. 2. none that ever i heard of, have brought this text of coming to christ, as a full and direct proof for baptising of children, or have urged that the coming there was a coming to christ for baptism, who never baptised any; nevertheless it proves two points, which lay a good foundation for infants-baptism. 1. that the kingdom of god is made up as well of infants as grown persons. 2. that infancy is no bar or exclusion of any from coming to christ and receiving a blessing. infants are capable of receiving benefit by christ, though they do not actually believe; though they cannot lay hold on christ, yet christ can lay hold on them, and bless them. object. but baptism is not concerned in the text, except it can be made out that blessing was baptising. to this i replied in my former answer, that it's true, blessing is not baptising, but 'tis something more; and christ in blessing them, vouchsafed that to them, which usually was as an ordinance administered after baptism, and which is of an higher nature, and so we may argue from this to baptism inclusively, or à majori, from the greater to the less. 2. and further, though blessing be not baptism, yet in as much as they were of the kingdom of heaven whom he blessed [let it be meant if you will of the kingdom of glory, it supposeth that they must be first of the kingdom of grace, and were of the visible church, and so it comes all to one] it follows, they were qualified subjects for baptism. for, grant to children a church relation (as i have proved it is their right), and their right to baptism will unavoidably follow upon it. mr. danvers might have done well to have shown us the weakness of our arguings from this text, as containing in it a good foundation for infants-baptism, instead of undertaking to vindicate tertullian's paraphrase thereon, grounded on a mistake, as if pedobaptists made the word come in the text, to be a coming to baptism. and for tertullian's reasons against children's coming to baptism, i shall not scruple upon second thoughts, to say they are childish ones, and the magdeburg's wonder at their silliness. for, 1. (saith he) children cannot come till they are elder, till they know & are taught why they come; and may not the same be as well urged against the circumcising children of old? let them stay till they are older, till they can know what the ordinance meaneth. 2. and then for the weightiness of the ordinance, in which regard he would have them forbear; were there not also many deep mysteries wrapped up in circumcision? as that it was a seal of the covenant. did it not shadow forth the mortification of sin, regeneration, and redemption by the blood of christ? and was it not a ridiculous reason which he gave why young men, and those who were newly married, and young widows should delay baptism? namely, that the lust of concupiscence should be first extinguished. one would rather have supposed, that the ordinance might have proved a remedy against such violent passions as they were supposed to be subject to: for the more temptation any state is obnoxious to, the more need it hath of helps, specially such as do not only lay engagements, but contribute strength, as mr. geree speaks. most of the rest of his reasons, as our divines observe, do argue that his words for the putting off infants-baptism, are to be expounded of aliens; as that about not giving holy things to dogs; and that of the inconveniency by reason of the mortality of sponsors, or sureties, for in that chapter he is speaking of infidels as we have showed before. but mr. danvers being willing to make the most of a little, will not by any means part with this witness (such as it is) and therefore brings in dr. barlow to confirm it, that tertullian disliked infants-baptism, as unwarrantable and irrational: but the doctor having now declared his judgement, i hope mr. danvers will for the future forbear quoting him as he hath done. then we have daille, scultetus, and the magdiburgs etc. but we have told you before, from learned men, that it is to be understood of the children of pagans; to which we may add, the judgement of junius (that famous expositor) concurring with them. as for the testimony he brings from b. rhenanus of the ancient custom of baptising those of full growth, we have spoken to it already, and showed how grossly mr. danvers did mistake him. and for the rest of his regiment, vincentius, victor, heribertus, cresconius, fulgentius, regienses, albanus, the swermers, arnoldus, henricus, etc. we shall confer with him about these, or the most of them, very shortly; and when this is over, he will have no need to complain of my silence (which he saith gives consent to the whole) or of my unfair and disingenuous dealing. lastly, he endeavours to clear himself from some exceptions, which i have made against some of his witnesses, saying they are frivolous; which whether it be so, i leave to the reader to judge. 1. i tell him berinus is nothing to his purpose: because it is evident that his sayings have respect to pagans: but that he conceives will not do, because berinus saith, baptism ought not to be administered to any without instruction. but i must tell mr. danvers, that bede saith no such thing, lib. 4. c. 16. nor anywhere else that i can find. indeed l. 3. c. 7. bede tells us of berinus, that britanniam perveniens, ac primum genissorum gentem ingredients, cum omnes ibidem paganos inveniret, utilius esse ratus ibi potius verbum dei praedicare, quam ultra progrediens eos quibus praedicare deberet requirere: itaque evangelizante illo in prefata provincia, cum rex ipse catechizatus fonte baptismi cum sua gente ablueretur etc. but what is this to mr. d's. purpose? berinus herein did as all pedobaptists would have done: and if mr. d. can gather from hence that berinus affirmed that baptism ought not to be administered to any (be they within the church or without) without instruction, i think he will go far beyond either t. aquinas or mr. baxter in the profoundness of his speculation, and subtlety of his distinction; there being none, i am confident besides himself, able to perform such an undertaking. 2. next i blame him for bringing in durandus for believers baptism in opposition to that of infants, when he expresseth himself positively for infants-baptism, and most severely against the anabaptists. for this he hath nothing to excuse himself, but that durandus is in his index, but he doth not know how, put in among the witnesses. 3. i charge him with another falsehood, in b●inging in the bishop of apamen among his witnesses: because, though he were for rebaptisation of such as he conceived were not rightly baptised, yet was he not an anabaptist, as the word is now taken, for being against infants-baptism. of this he would excuse himself if he could, by telling us the late century-writers do call him so in a modern sense; which is notoriously untrue. 4. i charge him for abusing peter bruis, having nothing to evidence that he denied infants-baptism but the lying stories of abbots: but he saith he produced three or four evidences more to prove it. but i can find only two, treatise of baptism, edit. 1. in the 290 page. the first is that of the magdeburg's, cent. 12. p. 843. where they tell us nothing but what they take from cluniacensis, and so name his hypotheses, or opinions, quoting that abbot for every thing: but withal manifest their suspicion that he wronged him with an utinam vero ipsius petri scripta extarent, ex quibus multo rectius facere judicium liceret, quam ex illis, qui in defensionem pontificiarum abominationum conspirarunt: would to god the writings of peter bruis were extant, for out of them we might give a truer judgement, than from them who have conspired to defend the popish abominations. and then again (say they) non est certum etc. it is not certain, that they were for the rebaptisation of children baptised in their infancy, when they come to be of age, nam malevoli quaedam commentiti sunt, p. 836. they feign some things, & then fasten them per vitiosas consequentias, by vicious consequences. the other is osiander, & he takes it up at second hand from the magdiburgs; & saith withal, that what peter bru●● and others are charged with, 'tis from their enemies; and 'tis uncertain whether they held those things: for the papists did charge them with gross things, because they inveighed against their idolatry; osiander cent. 12. l. 3. c. 3. and when i read these passages in the century-writers, i could not but wonder mr. danvers should have no more conscience of what he writes; and thus go about to delude the reader, by telling him he quotes others besides those lying abbots in this matter. 5. i accuse him for traducing wickliff, he having no ground at all to say he denied infants-baptism; and when i discoursed with dr. barlow, i told him this story that mr. danvers confidently reports that wickliff was of their way: to which he presently said, i have wickliff by me, and could never observe any such thing in him. but how doth mr. danvers make good what he affirms of wickliff? why, he tells us he hath produced much evidence to prove it pag. 283: even to 289 of his treatise of baptism edit. 2. demonstrating not only that believers were the only subjects of baptism, but withal, that children were not sacramentally to be baptised. to this i replied in the recapitulation at the end of my answer, that the name of wickliff being famous, mr. danvers would fain get something out of him for his turn. but i must tell mr. d. that all that he hath produced to prove wickliff against infant-baptism, is very insufficient to prove him so. his asserting, that there are only two sacraments; and that believers are to be baptised in pure water, though they have received the baptism of the spirit, is very insignificant to his purpose. his 3d assertion indeed is considerable, if mr. danvers can prove he ever said so, viz: that believers are the only subjects of baptism; as appears (says he) in his 11 chap-trial: where he saith, that persons are first to be baptised with that he calls the first or insensible baptism, viz. in the blood of christ, before they are baptised in water; without which their baptism in water profits not. one would think this was certainly so, because mr. danvers is so free as to give us wickliffs' own words, which he subjoins to his translation. but it thereby appears he hath so grossly perverted the sense, that i cannot conjecture the reason of his so doing, unless he presumed his quoting the original would satisfy the reader he had rightly translated it, and so supersede any further examination. if that was his design 'twas boldly done; but the discovery doth not advance his reputation. for wickliff doth not say that persons are first to be baptised with the insensible baptism, as mr. d. would make us believe, but only this, that one without the other avails not to salvation. and how doth this prove believers the only subjects of baptism? the rest of his proofs are just like these, that is, very insignificant; because indeed wickliff was for infant-baptism, as i could plainly demonstrate from his own words. but mr. baxter hath saved me that labour, having done it so substantially already in his answer to mr. d. (see his more proofs for infant-baptism, lately printed) p. 354, etc. as must needs satisfy all impartial readers, and convince mr. d. himself of his mistake, if he is not resolved to stand out against the clearest evidences: to him therefore i refer them both. but suppose wickliff had not been so very express in his words as to this point; yet his making an apparent difference between the children of believers and others, in his saying, quod definientes, not, desinentes (as mr. d.) parvulos fidelium sine baptismo sacramentali, decedentes non fore salvandos in hoc presumptuosi et stolidi. and that ample testimonial which the university of oxford gave him, is enough (if we had no more) to confront mr. d. although he had the confidence to print them both in his treatise of baptism, from whence the reader hath ground enough to infer (unless he first supposes wickliff considered not what he wrote, and the whole university were anabaptists) that he was not against infants-baptism. and give mr. d. as good ground to expunge wickliff out of his index of witnesses as durandus. in the last place, he complains of another piece of injurious dealing in me, and that is for fathering so notorious a fallacy upon the reader, and abuse upon him; because i charge him for bringing in a great beadroll of witnesses against infants-baptism, when those men were so firmly for it, as austin, chrisostom, etc. and that mr. danvers is blame-worthy for so doing (nowithstanding his equivocation) appears by this: for though he would excuse himself, by saying they were not in his catalogue, yet they are found in his 7th chapter of his treatise of baptism, edit. 1. which serves to prove that believers baptism is the only true baptism; and that i do not wrong him, let the reader judge, when he hath looked upon the contents of the same just▪ after the preface, as also the 56 page of the first edition chap. 7. his pretended witnesses the waldenses, found not to be against infants-baptism, but for it, and what is said to the contrary, answered. that the waldenses were against infants-baptism he labours to prove by a fourfold demonstration. (1) from their confessions of faith: (2) the witness thereto by their most eminent men: (3) from the decrees of councils, popes, and emperors, against the body of the people for the same: (4) from the footsteps thereof they have left in the several regions, and countries where they have been dispersed. to which i replied in the first place: (1) that there are no such confessions to be found; infants-baptism asserted p. 46. (2) that the quite contrary appears by their confessions of faith, witnessing how firmly they did assert infants-baptism, p. 40. and 64. of the same book. to both which mr. danvers makes reply, (viz) that it may be manifest to the reader that their confessions do exclude infants from baptism, and witha gives in a parallel betwixt what their confessions say, and what (as he words it) i make them to say, and so leaves it to the reader to judge, how fairly i have dealt therein; and truly 'tis my desire also that the reader compare us with the confessions, and see which of us hath dealt most fairly or foully with them. there are five confessions of the waldenses, besides some passages out of a treatise, to which mr. danvers hath recourse for information touching their faith and practice about baptism. there are two things, to be observed in us, in reference to these confessions. 1. what mr. danvers picks out of them for his purpose as he conceives. 2. whether i have offered any violation, by mangling the confessions, or leaving out any thing that is material against infants-baptism, which i desire the reader the more diligently to note, because this is another of his great charges against me in his preface. 1. the first confession that is quoted by mr. danvers in his treatise of baptism bears date 1220, of which this is the 13 article (viz.) they say we acknowledge no other sacraments but baptism, and the supper of the lord. i have not left out a word of this; and i told him in my answer, that to bring this article, was rather a witness of his own weakness than against infants-baptism, and therefore upon second thoughts this is cashiered, for we have it not in the reply. the next is the 28 article of another confession, that god doth not only instruct us by his word, but has also ordained certain sacraments to be joined with it, as a means to unite unto, and to make us partakers of his benefits, and that there be only two. in my answer, i left out the beginning of this article, that is, [that god instructs us by his word] which i am sure containeth nothing in it against infants-baptism; and also the latter part of the article, which runs thus [belonging in common to all the members of the church, under the new-testament (viz) baptism and the lords supper.] another ancient confession of faith hath this, artic. 7. we do believe that in the sacrament of baptism, water is the visible and external sign, which represents unto us that (which by the invisible virtue of god operating) is within us, the renovation of the spirit, and mortification of our members in jesus christ, by which also we are received into the holy congregation of the people of god, there professing and declaring openly our faith, and amendment of life. here was left out a parenthesis (viz) (by the invisible virtue of god operating) and the last clause, by which also we are received into the congregation etc. and with respect to this article, i have this saying in my answer, namely, that there is a harmony between all the protestant churches in the world, and the waldenses (in this article.) the next is out of vigniers history, where the words are thus: they expressly declare, to receive the canon of the old and new testament, and to reject all doctrines which have not their foundations in it, or are in any thing contrary to it: therefore all the traditions and ceremonies of the church of rome they condemn and abominate, saying she is a den of thiefs, and the apocalyptical harlot. this confession mr. danvers hath left out in his reply, and i know not the reason, unless it be because i have every word of it exactly, and it would have hurt his parallel if it had been set down. in their ancient confession, artic. 11. we esteem for an abomination and antichristian, all humane inventions, as a trouble & prejudice to the liberty of the spirit. and in their ancient catechism thus; when humane traditions are observed for god's ordinances, then is he worshipped in vain, and which is done when grace is attributed to the external ceremonies, and persons enjoined to partake of sacraments, without faith and truth. i have also set down every word of this, and made this paraphrase on it in my answer. this is a good testimony against humane traditions, but doth not in the least touch infants-baptism, as also against the popish error, that baptism confers grace ex opere operato, from the work done: for that's the meaning of attributing grace to the external ceremony here mentioned. in their ancient treatise concerning antichrist they say, that he attributes the regeneration of the holy-spirit unto the dead outward work of baptising children into that faith, [that faith was omitted] and teaching that thereby regeneration must be had: the words are, [baptism and regeneration, must be had] i left out [baptism] because it seems to make it nonsense, as it is there placed. also the conclusion of the sentence was pretermitted, which is [grounding therein all his christianity, which is against the holy-spirit.] upon this article i have thus paraphrased in my answer. here at last, by good hap, we have the word children named, but not a jot serving mr. danvers his design, for they do not hereby except against childrens-baptism, but only against the corrupt ends that antichrist hath in it; for whether it be in children or grown persons, it is an antichristian, or popish tenent, to ascribe regeneration to the dead outward work of baptism; and this is that before mentioned, that baptism confers grace, ex opere operato. and because the waldenses did deny that it did thus conser grace, the papists, did accuse them that they denied gratiam baptismi: and for refusing to have their children baptised with the superstitious rites of salt, oil spital, etc. they charged them with denying insant-baptism. this is the judgement of bishop usher in his succession of the church, where he treats of the waldenses, and their faith at large. if i had been mistaken in my paraphrases upon the abovementioned confessions, mr. danvers should have rectified me, and forborn the outcry which he makes in his preface, for abusing the concessions of the waldenses; and some that look no further into a book than the preface will suppose me to be guilty of a notorious crime. but as to this also i freely submit myself to the judgement of the reader, and refer it to his consideration, whether innocency and truth be not by him rather abused, than vindicated. he chargeth me deeply of unfaithfulness in misrepresenting their confessions in many material and considerable parts; but i persuade myself an impartial eye cannot discern it; but 'tis easily observed how unfaithful he is at the same time in misrepresenting my words, and fathering that on me, which is not mine, but his own invention, on purpose, forsooth, that he might have a substratum for his following queries; for he makes me to say, that there was a harmony betwixt all the protestant churches in the world, (in those articles) and the waldenses, because all that are for infants-baptism believe the same. had i said those words in reference to every article, it had been truth; whereas i do only speak it with respect to one of them, and that is to the third; and what is spoken by me, with respect to one of them, he represents as spoken of all, the better to accommodate his quibbling queries. it is sad to see how much he doth abuse those confessions, how he doth wiredraw them; as if they were homogeneal with anaxagoras his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 upon aristotle's record; how he draws quidlibet ex quolibet, every thing out of any thing. never was any confessions in the world so prostituted to a corrupt fancy; for thus he begins: 1. do all the pedobaptists believe that baptism and preaching the word are joined together to instruct the baptised parties, and that thereby they have union with christ, and partake of his benefits? observe how mr. danvers stumbles at the threshold, how he preverts the article. for look back upon the article, and you will find it doth not say that baptism and preaching are joined together to instruct the baptised party; baptism is not mentioned in the article, though it be included in the word [sacraments]; afterward the article speaks thus, that we are instructed by the word, and then that god hath ordained the sacraments to be joined with it, as a means to unite us to him. 2. do they indeed, saith he, believe the lord's supper to belong in common with baptism to all the members of the church? why then do not infants partake of one as well as the other, since it belongs to them in common, if members of the church? why, if mr. danvers would know the reason, it is this, because though the child has a right as a member to all the ordinances, yet he is not in a capacity to enjoy his right, thus; that persons may have a right to ordinances, and yet in no capacity to enjoy them, appears in such as are sick, or those that lose their reason, that are church-members. 3. do paedobaptists indeed with the waldenses believe, that water in baptism is the usual sign, representing to the subjects thereof the invisible virtues of god operating in them, (viz.) the renovation of the spirit, and mortification of their members? and can it be truly said it is so to an infant that is not capable to put forth any act of faith, repentance, or mortification, or discern the least sign in the water? yes, it may be said, it is so to an infant, very well, and that upon as good a ground, as circumcision shadowed forth mortification of sin, regeneration, though the israelitish babes understood none of this. but mr. danvers doth ill again in altering the article, as you may perceive by looking back, for it is not as he represents it: the article runs thus; we believe that in the sacrament of baptism, water is the visible and external sign (which represents to us) [not representing to the subjects] for unless i mistake, as it is so worded, it serveth more to his purpose. 4. we agree with the waldenses in the 4th article; for we have told mr. danvers formerly that baptism itself is a real, though implicit, profession of faith, and the express verbal confession of the parent is reputed by god to be the child's, and so it was under the law, when the parents humbled themselves, and confessed their sins, and brought their little ones with them, even they also are said to be humbled before the lord. 5. the 5th query is precarious, taking that for granted, which we utterly deny, and that is, that the baptising children, is an antichristian humane invention. 6. do they believe, saith mr. danvers, that antichrist grounds all christianity, and religion in the baptising of children, attributing regeneration to the outward work done contrary to the holy-spirit, why then, saith he, do they baptise children, which as acknowledged is the basis and foundation of the false church, and contrary to the spirit, and for which there is nothing but the doctrine of popes, and antichristian councils, to warrant it? not to say any thing of these unworthy reflections, let the reader once more take notice how he hath also perverted this article, look back, and you will see what a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he makes of it, and metamorphoseth the article into another thing; for do but observe, (1.) they do not say antichrist grounds all christianity in baptising children; but if they had spoken it, it had not been against infants-baptism, but against placing too much in it. (2.) they say antichrist attributes regeneration to the dead outward work of baptising children, and that regeneration must be had thereby, and herein they say, he grounds all christianity. (3.) it is extremely scandalous and false for mr. danvers to say, that there is nothing for infants-baptism, but the decrees of popes and antichristian councils, when we have so fully proved the use of it some hundreds of years before the coming of the pope, in the sense that the word is commonly taken, (viz.) for ecumenical bishop, challenging to himself, and usurping authority over the whole church: have we not before told him, of cyprian, and nazianzen, and chrysostom, etc. and was there not a canon for it in the milevitan council, and that before the pope came in, or any of his decrees? so that now, upon consideration of the premises, i suppose the unprejudiced reader may be confirmed that the waldenses were for infant-baptism, by those very confessions which mr. danvers citys against it▪ we shall now give you some account of some of their confessions, which speak them expressly for it. there is an ancient confession that we meet with in dr. ushers succession of the church. c. 8. p. 242. made by the waldenses about the year 1176. as he takes it from jacobus gretserus his proleg. in script. edit. contra waldenses. c. 1. and hovenden's annal. fol. 329. the words are, nos credimus unum deum trinum & unum patrem, & filium, & spiritum sanctum, etc. and in the body of the confession there is this article, credimus parvulos salvari per baptismum, we believe children are saved by baptism: which though it speak error according to the darkness of those times, being about five hundred years since; yet it proves they were for infant-baptism, for gretserus saith they were waldenses that made this confession, and not as is falsely suggested, that it was the inquisitors confession; for it was made before the inquisitors, to purge themselves from the arrian and manichean heresies, of which they were accused. another confession, is that published by balthasar lydias, which was presented to uladislaus king of hungary, where after they have given an account of their faith in other points, they come to that of baptism, and having spoken of adult baptism, they add, professio ista nostra etiam in pueros extenditur, our profession concerning baptism extends also to children, but against this mr. danvers objects, that this confession said to be made by the waldenses in bohemia to king uladislaus, were not waldenses, as they themselves acknowledge in the preamble. and further tells us out of osiander, that they were a mixed people of calextines that separated from rome in the business of the cup: hussites that went further than they; thaborites that were more thorough for reformation, and under these were comprehended the brethren, or picards, many of whom did oppose infants-baptism, whereas dr. burigenus that writ their apology speaks otherwise, and gives this title to it, apologia verae doctrinae eorum, qui vulgò appellantur waldenses, vel picardi, qui retinuerunt johannis hus doctrinam; (i. e.) the apology of the true doctrine of those, who are commonly called waldenses or picards, who have retained the doctrine of john hus: so that this differs quite from the tale which mr. d. hath told us again and again. and whereas he speaks of the title of the confession, whereby it appears they disclaimed the denomination of waldenses, he might have done well to have quoted some author where we might find it: but in defect thereof, i shall bring you an author, that gives the title without any hint thereof, and that is orthuinus gratius in fasciculo rerum expetendarum, etc. thus. nos homines depressi ac vestrae majestati humiliter subjecti, contemptibili quoque nomine amicti, etc. burigenus that translated into latin their confession from a bohemian copy, mentions this article concerning baptism, jam baptismus christi aeque ad pueros, qui ex fide illi offeruntur & consecrantur, atquè ad adultos attinet: the baptism of christ doth as well belong to children, who are offered up in faith, and consecrated to him, as unto grown persons. in the history of the waldenses lib. 1. c. 4. p. 15. so cent. 6. p. 43. the waldenses purge themselves from the charge of denying infants-baptism, and show the reason why for a long time they forbore it, namely, because they could not endure to have it done in the corrupt popish way: and in the third part of the aforesaid history, we have their doctrine set down thus; and whereas baptism is administered in a full congregation, and for this cause it is that we present our children in baptism, which they ought to do to whom the children are nearest, as parents. but mr. danvers objects against the confessions of provence, so full to the point, that they were in a declining condition, that some of them went to mass: what then? were they against infant-baptism before they declined? and did they take up the practice with the mass? i believe mr. danvers doth not think it: and he knows very well they recovered out of this apostasy, after they had received those godly admonitions from oecolampadius and bucer, and were confirmed in the truth, and gave proof thereof by their sufferings, in the violent persecution, which happened soon after, and was more raging than ever. there is one confession more which mr. danvers' invention will not serve him to say any thing against, and therefore silently pretermits it, and it is that of angrogne in the year 1535. where an assembly of the waldenses, from all the valleys met, and there they signified what they understood of their brethren of provence and dauphine, namely, that they sent into germany their pastors, to confer with oecolampadius and bucer touching the belief they had time out of mind, where saith perin in his history of the waldenses lib. 2. cap. 4. pag. 57 when they had read certain letters of encouragement sent from oecolampadius to those of provence, concluded on certain articles as being conformable to the doctrine which hath been taught from father to son for these many hundred years out of the word of god: and art. 17 is for infants-baptism, thus, touching thematter of the sacrament it hath been concluded by the h. scriptures that we have two sacramental signs, the which christ jesus hath left unto us, the one is baptism, the other the eucharist, which we receive to show what our perservance in the faith is, as we have promised when we were baptised being little ones. this expression, as we have promised when we were baptised being little ones, mr. danvers tells us, 2d ed. pag. 313. is foisted into the article, though impertinent and nonsensical, because an infant is not capable to make a promise. but i don't judge mr. danvers the fittest in the world to determine what is impertinent and nonsensical. and as wisemen as he, or any of his party, have affirmed the same, and therefore that doth not prove it to be foisted in. for instance, the assembly in their larger catechism tell us, that, baptism is a sacrament, etc. whereby the parties baptised are solemnly admitted into the visible church, and enter into an open and professed engagement, to be wholly and only the lords. and in their very next answer, tell us, the infants of believers are to be baptised. and dr. manton in the supplement to the morning exercise serm. 10. tells us, that baptism is an open and real profession of christ crucified, and that we must personally and solemnly own the covenant made with god in infancy. and many more i could produce, if need were, speaking▪ after this manner; that yet understood themselves as well as mr. danvers. and why may we not suppose these waldenses to be guilty of as much impertinency and nonsensicalness as the assembly and dr. manton? 2. his 2d. demonstration (as he calls it) is from particular eminent persons amongst them, which he would have us believe denied infants-baptism. as berengarius in the 11th. cent. peter bruis, henricus, and arnoldus in the 12th. 1. for berengarius he goes about to prove that he denied infant-baptism from lanifrank, by cassander out of guitmond, by a council called by h. 1. of france, and by thuanus, and then saith, that i except against none of these, but have this only for a reply, that there were several councils in which berengarius was persecuted for the real presence, but no mention made of his denying infants-baptism. seeing this general reply doth not give mr. danvers satisfaction, i shall now be more particular; and convince him he had better have taken that answer, than thus forced me to a more particular examination; by which i have made a further discovery of his guilt in abusing authors. he begins with launifrank to prove beringarius against infant-baptism, and he tells us (2. ed. p. 241, 242) out of the magdeb. cent. 11. cap. 5. p. 240, 243. [that beringarius did publicly deny transubstantiation, and infant-baptism under five heads; which launifrank in his book called scintillaris answered at large. and as for his denying infant-baptism, he answers (that is, launifrank) by saying, he (that is, beringarius) doth thereby oppose the general doctrine and universal consent of the church.] and this is all mr. danvers hath from launifrank to prove beringarius against infant-baptism. but this is a shameful mistake, and the magdeburg's say no such thing. they give us his hypotheses de caenâ domini: and his 6th argument against transubstantiation, and launifrank's answers to each: and tell us that ad quintum & sextum, (that is to beringarius his 5th and 6th arguments against transubstantiation, (not against infant-baptism) launifrank answers, opposuit doctrinam perpetuam & consentientem ecclesiae dei: so that this authority is quite cashiered; and mr. danvers must have an unparallelled confidence to attempt the retrieving him. the next is cassander out of guitmundus, who saith, that with the real presence, he denied baptism to little-ones, though the latter not so publicly as the former: but guitmund and cassander say, quem tamen errorem in publicum non produxit; that is, he never publicly denied infant-baptism. mr. d. translates it not [so] publicly, because else it might be presently queried, how then could guitmund tell? and rather than lay such a stumbling-block in the way, he thinks it expedient to make bold with his authors, and abuse them, than by telling truth, undeceive his reader. this might be a sufficient answer; but to give mr. d. fuller satisfaction, i shall make a more particular inquiry into this business. and as for guitmundus the magdeburg's tell us, ait eum (beringarium) de baptismo infan: & de conjugio non recte docuisse. which proves him as much against marriage as against infant-baptism. but bp. usher tells us in his book the successione, cap. 7. § 37. that deoduinas leodiensis, took it upon common fame that bruno and beringarius did quantum in ipsis erat baptismum parvulorum evertere. and adds, deinde ex leodiensis fide refert guitmundus, so that guitmundus took it from leodiensis, who had it from common fame; which indeed arose from their denying it to be necessary to salvation. as clearly appears, by walden, charging wickliff to deny it, who yet was so positive in the point as mr. baxter hath proved. and usher also tells us that, in tot synodis adversus beringarium habitis nullam de anabaptismo litem illi intentatam invenimus. which further proves it. and whereas mr. danvers insinuates (2 ed. pag. 243, 244.) that beringarius recants this opinion against infant-baptism, and then recanted his recantation; there is not a word of infant-baptism in his recantation. he produceth also thuanus to prove beringarius and his followers were great asserters of baptism after faith (2. edit. pag. 73.) and in his reply pag. 116. he quotes his preface to his history to prove that the archbishop of triers did persecute the beringarians for denying infant-baptism; it is true he tells us that the archbishop did eos diocesi sua expellere, because illius doctrinam populis disseminarent; but that thuanus should say he did it because they denied infant-baptism, is one of mr. danvers' mistakes, there being not the least syllable of any such thing in that preface, or in the whole history that i can find. his last evidence to prove it, is a council called by h. 1. of france, to suppress the heresies of bruno and beringarius for denying transubstantiation and infant-baptism: for which he quotes bibliotheca patrum pag. 432. but i can't find either in bibl. pat. or the councils, or any where else, (but in mr. danvers' book) that that council ever charged beringarius with denying infant-baptism. let mr. danvers prove it if he can. and just after this rate doth he prove his matters. but suppose these authors had affirmed what mr. d. would make us believe they did, yet it falls short of sufficient proof because the same sort of men charged luther and calvin to be against infants-baptism, and this we have acknowledged from mr. danvers' own pen in his innocency and truth vindidicated, p. 127. the next of his witnesses are peter bruis, henricus, arnoldus; but of this i have spoken already that even the magdiburgs and osiander (who relates what peter cluniacensis and bernard say of them) do question the truth of what their wicked adversaries lay to their charge, to which i refer the reader, and shall only add what mr. martial says to mr. tombs: the truth is, saith he, these two men did for 20 years together so much spread the doctrine of the waldenses, and so plague the bishop's mitre, and the monk's bellies, that i wonder not though they charged any thing upon them, that might make them odious to the people. he that reads the railing book of cluniacensis will find, that he acknowledgeth most of what he layeth to their charge to be upon the report of others: he lays this to their charge, that children that die before they could actually believe were damned, and that they did not altogether believe the apostles, prophets, no nor christ himself. by their corrupt consequences, say the magdiburgs, they would make them hold any thing, as before; to deny chrism, and oil, and spital in the baptising of children was all one with them. and if mr. danvers believes cluniacensis did slander them in the other things, he must excuse us if we believe he did also in this about infant-baptism: one thing i shall mind the reader with, and so pass on, and that is, the good intelligence mr. danvers holds, ☜ since almost all the testimonies that he brings throughout all his book, are borrowed either from monks, abbots, jesuits, inquisitors, or some cankered popish priests that make no conscience of loading the professors of the truth with all manner of calumnies. but, saith he, cassander witnesseth the same in his epistle to the duke of cleave (viz.) that peter bruis, and henricus denied baptism to little ones, affirming that only the adult should be baptised. 'tis true, he saith so: and withal tells us [cum baptismo & fide etiam salutem et regnum dei infantibus ademerunt, quod ad credentes tantum et baptizatos pertinere sensuerunt] with baptism and faith they took salvation also from infants, as judging it belonged only to believers that were baptised: but how comes cassander by this good intelligence? why, the abbot of cluni told him so; and if mr. danvers will not believe they damned all infants, though the abbot affirms it, why should we believe they denied them baptism for which he can produce no better proof? but if cassander is a person of such credit with mr. danvers, i hope he will no longer reckon peter bruis and henricus among the waldensian barbes; because he tells us in this very epistle, that the waldenses were for infants-baptism. dr. prideaux is also introduced to confirm it, how that they were condemned in the second lateran council, for rejecting infants-baptism: it is common for the popish councils to condemn men for that which they never held. but mr. baxter tells us there is not the least proof of any such matter meddled with in that council. i let pass also vicecomes, because he writes palpable lies; how that luther, calvin, beza, denied infants-baptism; and why? because (as mr. danvers says truly in his reply, page 127) they did oppose and neglect to do it as the church ☜ of rome ordained it, without the ceremonies of their church, which was all one to them, as if it was not practised at all. we are much engaged to mr. danvers for this, he hath as it were spoken all in a word, given us a key to open the mystery of the business, and rightly to understand why beringarius, peter bruis, arnoldus, were charged for denying infants-baptism. i must now prepare myself with patience, for mr. danvers is come to his paroxysm, and would even move a stoic. i perceive he is strangely transported with passion, and makes proclamation against me. know, saith he, that hence you have a further discovery of his unfaithfulness, and want of conscience, for daring thus to abuse the world with a cheat, and that which he knows to be a mere forgery of his own— the flame is not yet extinguished, but spreads into two pages more, and is rather increased. he hath injuriously belied osiander, belied cluniacensis, belied peter bruis, belied the truth, which by this forgery he would cover; abused the world, belied and abused me, and much to be feared his own conscience, by this piece of folly and falshood. now what shall i say to all this? shall i implore an increpation from above, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉? judas 14. or shall i bespeak mr. danvers in the language of croesus to solon in lucian's dialogues 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 good words o man? would any one have expected such polluted feet of clay, with which he kicks at me, should be attendants to that head of gold, i mean those christian words in mr. danvers' preface, i will not render railing for railing, it being ever judged the sign of a bad cause, for persons to betake themselves to such courses, and thereby supply the want of matter with, rage, clamour and noise. who would not have judged mr. d. by those lines a person able to command his passion, yea a second moses? parsons the jesuit, notwithstanding he wanted nothing but a glass to view the effigies of a railer, yet he censureth the practice as unworthy. but to speak something for vindication from these foul, and shamefully-invective accusations: first, i confess my inadvertency in mistaking the century, and from hence it was that i related things, charged upon the albigenses of the 12 cent. and applied them to peter bruis, and henricus of the 11th (though i find all of them joined together by the magdiburgs under cent. 12th.) the occasion of this mistake was a cursory reading of dr. homes his answer to mr. tombs (the book being lent only for a day or two) where the said doctor reckons up about 20 errors charged upon the albigenses, as he hath it from osiander. i profess, that i speak the truth, i had no design to misrepresent mr. danvers' pretended witnesses, and to cast a slur upon it; and i hope this is enough to satisfy the ingenuous reader, and may also work some conviction in mr. danvers of his uncharitableness of spirit, and the intemperancy of his pen in such frequent judge of my heart and conscience, that i did knowingly and out of design, go about to deceive the reader: and what should tempt me hereunto? was it to cast dirt on his witness? how blind a thing is prejudice! mr. danvers is not ignorant, that if that▪ had been my aim, i might have furnished myself with sufficiency of that nature even from cluniacensis and bernard: but he saith, i did it knowingly and went on purpose to deceive; why so? because i picked only five particulars out of those twenty articles that were laid to the charge of the albigenses: a convincing argument! no doubt, though no body can fathom the mystery of the policy in so doing, unless i open it, which plainly is this. the reason why i transcribed no more out of dr. homes was, because i do not judge it commendable to write whole pages and more out of authors, and to conceal their names, as mr. danvers useth to do (2) it was done out of design, as he saith, because i knew osiander saith, these things are not reported by cluniacensis and bernard, but by others; whereas i never read those things in osiander, until mr. danvers' reply came forth. (3) it must be so he concludes, because i neither mention century, book chapter, or page (for the greater blind no doubt) as he saith i use to do in other quotations out of osiander; whereas i have not mentioned, so much as one chapter or page out of osiander in all my answer to him. thus reader, thou see'st what this mighty charge amounts to, and which is one of these heinous crimes i have committed, mentioned in the preface to work prejudice against me: and if i were now given to revenge, i could presently balance accounts. he knows i have advantage enough against him for that shameful mistake of his in saying calvin interprets that promise gen. 17. 7. to be understood of the spiritual seed of abraham, when it was estius the jesuit, and calvin doth most expressly say the contrary (viz) that 'tis meant of the fleshly and natural seed; and estius declares his judgement against him. and if i were addicted to such billingsgate language, i could retort upon him; he belies calvin, he belies the truth, which by that forgery he would cover and hide, he abuseth the world with a cheat, and much more fear his own conscience by this piece of folly and falshood. 3. as for his 3d demonstration, that the waldenses were against infants-baptism, fetched from the catholic emperors, and pope's councils, and the rest of the tribe that follows, monks, abbots, inquisitors, i shall believe it as much as that of vicecomes, who saith not only peter bruis etc. was against infants-baptism, but also calvin, luther; nor will that serve mr. danvers turn to tell us that they were so reputed, because they did oppose, and neglect to baptise children as the church of rome ordained and practised, unless he can give us some assurance that the waldenses were not accused and condemned by these councils upon the same account. moreover he tells us, rainerius the inquisitor in his book contra waldenses, saith, de baptismo dicunt quod ablutio quae datur infantibus nihil prosit, etc. concerning baptism they say that that which is given to little ones profits nothing. and this evidence mr. danvers would have noted, because i do positively deny, that rainerius in the catalogue of their errors gives the least hint of any such thing, that they denied infants-baptism. this is another of his great charges against me in his preface, where he saith rainerius tells us totidem verbis (i e) in so many words they denied it. for vindication of myself, let the reader (1) know, that in my infants-baptism asserted p. 96. i quote dr. featly's roma ruens for what i have said; who gives us a catalogue of the errors which rainerius charged the waldenses with in his book contra waldenses, chap. 4. and this of denying infants-baptism is not amongst those which he recites. (2) i must tell mr. danvers that the words he quotes done't prove, rainerius charges them with denying infants baptism, for by nihil prosit, they intent only ad salutem. but can mr. danvers find anywhere in rainerius where he positively saith, the waldenses were against the practice of baptising infants? this i confess would be something to his purpose; but till then i persuade myself the impartial reader will acquit me from having abused this author, though mr. danvers will not. next he brings favin the french-chronologer testifying that in those times (viz) 12 and 13 centuries the albigenses did deny infants-baptism esteeming it superstitionus; no doubt as we have often made appear, their refusing those superstitious additions of chrism, oil, spital, annexed to the sacrament by the papists, is the ground why they are by all popish writers represented to deny infants-baptism. those two abbots cluniacensis and bernard of the 12 cent. gave favin this information; but osiander says well, hi autem articuli petro bruis ab adversariis adscribuntur; the articles were charged by adversaries: and then he adds, whether those tenants were theirs, or no, non satis certum est, it is not enough certain. we are now come to another of mr. danvers' charges, which will appear to be a strange mistake; so that i may truly say of him, if he cannot find a hole he will make one, to his own shame. in his calumniating preface he falsely represents me to have quoted vicecomes, to prove that the doctrine of opposing the baptising infants of believers, was no ancienter than the anabaptists of germany, and to make this good, he (with great confidence) turns the reader to page 60. of my infants-baptism asserted, as if he should be sure to find it there: whereas any body that will but peruse the page shall see, i quote vicecomes to show what a false account he gives of luther, calvin, beza, as if they denied infants-baptism; and besides, his name is only in one place, in the margin of my book, and that borrowed from mr. marshal, who also quotes him for the same end, as is signified (viz.) to show what little credit is to be given to proofs from popish-writers against the waldenses for denying infants-baptism, when they are so impudent, as to charge luther, and calvin with the same; who, (saith he) did in a special manner oppose this error, and then he concludes thus: unless some one dothout of their own confessions give better evidence, i shall believe that this doctrine of opposing of the baptising of the infants of believers is an innovation no ancienter than the anabaptists of germany. and now let any man judge whether mr. danvers doth not deal very unworthily, in accusing me, that i have abused the reader by a quotation from vicecomes. but how can the opposing the baptising the infants of believers be an innovation no ancienter than the anabaptists of germany when we are otherwise informed by vicecomes in the same place where he accuseth luther, calvin, beza, for being anabaptists. for vincentius, victor (two witnesses made of one man's name) hincmarus of laudum, the henerici and apostolici (in bernard and cluniacensis time) john wickliff in his 4th book of trialog. walfrid, strabo, (another dichotomic making two of one man, an excellent way to increase the number of mr. danvers' witnesses) ludovicus vives witnessed against it. in answer to these; as for vincentius victor i shall presently show when i speak of the donatists, that he was not against infants-baptism. for hincmarus of laudum, we have more than once vindicated him from this blot: the same we have done in the behalf of the henricians, or waldenses. and for wickliff we have brought sufficient evidence to satisfy any rational man, that he is so far from speaking a word in derogation of infants-baptism, that he is expressly for it. as for strabo he was highly for infant-baptism, and therefore when he saith none were anciently baptised, but those who could profess their faith, he intended only none that were adult: but however we have given sufficient reason, why his word is not to be taken, being a false historian and a heedless writer, condemned by vossius, and others. lastly, for ludovicus vives, who is yoked to the former, hear what mr. marshal speaks of them both. must we (saith he) take the bare word of vives, a man of yesterday, or of strabo in matters of fact, in things done so many hundred years before they were born? and that against the express witness of so many worthy men, who lived a hundred years before them? and i conceive he speaks to the purpose. for any indifferent man will acknowledge, that austin (who saith the church always had, and always held infant-baptism) was more likely to know what was done in the primitive times, than strabo, who lived 400 years remoter from them, or than ludovicus vives that was above a thousand years further off from the times of which he witnesseth, than that ancient father was. 4. in the last place he attempts to prove the waldenses denied infants-baptism, by the footsteps found thereof, in those respective regions and places where they had heretofore imprinted it, as germany, switzerland, flanders, holland, bohemia, hungaria, transylvania, poland, england, etc. but as to this, i said in my infants-baptism asserted, that for mr. danvers to tell us that the opposers of infants-baptism, in upper and lower germany, (and in those other countries) were the remains of those the waldenses had before instructed, was his own private conceit, foreign to all history and hath no foundation in reason or truth; and whether i have not ground for that assertion, let the reader judge, when he hath perused what i have written in my book from page 69, to 112. to most of which mr. danvers saith nothing at all, and therefore i conceive he is drained dry; only 'tis true he persists in his former endeavours to palliate the horrid actings of the germane anabaptists, and asperseth me for my reflections upon the story of thomas munzer, and john of leyden. lastly he presents us with further testimony from a novel piece the dutch martyrology, that the waldenses and albigenses, were against infants-baptism; concerning which i only say: 1. that herein mr. danvers produceth more testimony than the university of oxford doth afford; for this book is not to be found in the public or private libraries, or the booksellers shops. 2. it being it seems not yet translated into the english-tongue, though he hopes it may be in good time; if i could have met with it, i should not have understood, whether he relates things truly for want of an interpreter. 3. therefore we must take mr. danvers' word for all; both that there is such a book, and that the passages he presents us with from thence, are truly translated. 4. we dare not say of it, as the papists do of mr. foxe's book of martyrs, that it is a book of lies; but this we say with confidence, that divers of those testimonies mr. danvers takes from thence, are notorious untruths; and that jacob merning and sebastian frank, are not to be credited having abused the world with such palpable falsehoods: neither is twisk (another of them) found to be a true chronologer, all which we shall suddenly make appear, when we come to show their aberrations. 5. yea, some are of opinion that this dutch martyrology wherein we have such a collection of pretended martyrs for anabaptism, is designedly calculated for the meridian of anabaptistery, which whether it be probable, i leave to the reader to judge, when he hath pondered the meaning of one passage, which mr. danvers hath quoted in his treatise of baptism, edit. 2. p. 232. viz.) sebastian frank (one of the principal authors frequently named in the martyrology) saith, that about the year 610 childrens-baptism was held in many places, of little esteem, by the learned endeavours of adrianus, and others, and therefore the popes set themselves to uphold it by the braceren-council: that the vanity and falsehood hereof may appear, let it be considered. 1. that there is nothing of adrianus extant against infants-baptism, in the century-writers; but only the magdeburg's say, he was complained against by gregory, to john bishop of larissa, that he turned away young children from baptism: but we have shown before, that he was not against their baptism, but only remiss in looking after the same in his diocese; so that many children died unbaptised, which was then judged dangerous, and from hence he was reported to have turned them away from baptism. 2. there is none else in this age, so much as suspected against the baptism of children, mentioned by the century-writers; and how grossly then is it said, of sebastian frank, that the practice thereof was of little esteem in this century? 3. how weakly and falsely, is that said that the popes set themselves to uphold infant-baptism in the braceren council [in the 7th century] because it was of so little esteem when the magdeburg's make mention of so many for it in this century? as maxentius gregory, and bishop of larissa; else gregory would not have complained to him about adrianus: and besides particular persons they mention the council of matiscons, 3 canon for it, cent. 6. c. 9 p. 613. and by this we see what a false historian sebastian frank is, and jacob merning, whom mr. danvers brings as avouching the same, quoting the 204 pag. of the dutch martryology for it. and as for sebastian frank, osiander cent. 16 p. 121. tells us in plain terms, he was a ringleader of the anabaptists, from whom his followers were called frankists; and they taught, omnia in sacris literis incerta, dubia, & contradictoria esse; that is, all things in the holy scriptures are uncertain, doubtful, and contradictory, which is a most horrid blaspheming of the holy scriptures; but may be true when applied to his own history. having thus found these dutch authors so tardy, we shall leave them for the present, and conclude with what we find related from our own countryman, the famous bishop usher, in his succession of the church, chap. 7. sect. 23. p. 196. being a saying of windelstinus, qui hodie dicuntur protestants, novi sunt waldenses; they who at this day, are called protestants, are new waldenses, which is confirmed by another saying of poplinerus, who tells us, that albigensium religionem parum admodum ab ea discrepasse, quam hodie profitentur protestants, etc. the religion of the albigenses doth very little differ from that which the protestants at this day profess; as appears by the fragments and monuments of history written in their ancient language; and then he further saith, that it appears by very ancient manuscripts, that their articles of faith are doctrinae protestantium usquequaque conforms. tout conformez a ceux des protestans, altogether agreeing with the protestants, usher succession, chap. 10. sect. 19 p. 308. mr. danvers' pretended witness born by the donatists against infants-baptism confuted. mr. danvers is full of complaints of the great injuries he hath received; and amongst others this is one, that i tell him he hath nothing in his treatise of baptism, to prove that the donatists were against infants-baptism, but his ipse dixit; whereas he saith he hath given us divers authorities for it. and the reason of my saying so, was, because the magdeburg's that do in a particular manner set before us what the donatists held from point to point, do not charge them with antipedobaptism; nor do any of the church-historians, eusebius, socrates, theodoret, sozomen, or evagrius, mention it. neither do any of our modern writers give any hint of it. further i told him in my answer that danaeus (who gives us the sum of their tenants, and of all austin's disputes with them, in his opusculum) mentions not one word of their denying infants-baptism. neither doth zanchy who treats of them, and shows what they held in divers places of his works, nor mr fox in his act. and mon. nor mr. clark in his martyrology (where there's a great story of them) speak any thing of their being against infants-baptism; no nor any other that ever i could hear of, but only mr. danvers, and therefore i said as i did. and if our antagonist had not been extremely tenacious of his opinion, this had been (as is conceived) enough to have taken him off from his mistaken conceit. but all the thanks i have for endeavouring to rectify him, is still more and more reproaches. mr. wills, saith he, deals according to his wont manner very disingenuously with me; but wherein i pray? 1. that i, saith he, having given so many authorities and of such antiquity to prove it, he yet tells me [as before.] to which i answer; i must needs say the same still, being not in the least convinced by mr. danvers' reply. for whereas he saith he hath given many authorities and of great antiquity, to prove it; most of them mentioned not only in the treatise but reply, are but of yesterday. viz. seb. frank, jac. merning, and twisk, (if i mistake not, three germane anabaptists) vicecomes, spanhemius, osiander, fuller, and bullinger. as for the three first, it is sufficient to say concerning them, istis authoribus non stamus, we own them not; because they speak falsely in many things, and that which none of the ancient writers do affirm. as for instance, mr. danvers tells us, seb. frank, and twisk, affirm that donatus taught that no infant should be baptised, but only those that believed and desired it, which is false; and neither they nor mr. danvers can prove it out of austin or any ancient writer. but suppose donatus himself had been against infant-baptism; yet una hirundo non facit ver; one swallow doth not make a spring; it will not follow that the rest of the donatists were so likewise; no more than because mr. tombs the head of the anabaptists doth conform, therefore all the anabaptists of england do conform. again, jac. merning saith, that cresconius opposed austin in that point, viz. of infants-baptism. but in the whole dispute between austin and cresconius, i can find nothing like it. and vicecomes is as false as them; for he tells us, luther, calvin, beza, etc. were all of them against infants-baptism; and that fulgentius a learned donatist did deny, (if mr. danvers mistakes him not) infants-baptism, and asserts only that which was after faith. whereas fulgentius himself (de fide ad petrum cap. 30.) expressly tells us, that baptism is sufficient to take away original sin from infants; and mr. danvers hath so branded spanhemius (in his reply,) as a very partial and unfaithful writer, one guilty of lying fictions and chimaeras, that 'tis strange to me he should produce him. and what do osiander, fuller and bullinger say? why, that the donatists and our modern anabaptists were all one. but do they say in all things? i have already told mr. danvers that they were one in regard of their concurrence in very many things, and drew the parallel between them. and we say denominatio sumitur a majori. and indeed the rigid anabaptist does symbolise with the donutists in nothing more than in confining the church of christ to their party, so no true church out of mr. danvers' party. and if we will not renounce infants-baptism and be dipped after their way, he bids defiance to all overtures of union and communion; for he saith in his preface to his treatise of baptism, that whilst such a foundation of antichrist is held fast, all exhortations to union, viz. in church-fellowship and communion, will signify little. his other authorities i confess are more significant to wit; austin, tho. walden, eckbertus and emerieus; and therefore i shall a little examine his quotations out of them. (1) he tells us, reply 134 [that austin against the donatists, tom. 7. l. 3, 4. c. 23. doth with much zeal and fury manage the argument for infants-baptism against them, bitterly cursing them that oppose it.] but i cannot find that austin takes the least notice of infant-baptism throughout the whole 3d book; wherein yet (if mr. d. may be believed) he manages that argument with much zeal and fury: nor in the 4th book, till he comes to the 23d chap. and there (as mr. baxter hath already informed him) he is so far from controverting infants-baptism with the donatists, that he makes use of it as a medium in his arguing against them. (2.) he tells us, that austin in his epistle to marcellus (it should be marcellinus) tom. 7. c. 6. p. 724. opposed himself against them (the donatists) for denying infants-baptism. a great mistake! for all he saith of marcellinus there as touthing infant-baptism, is this, viz. octavum errorem fuisse de infantibus, qui priusquam renascantur in christo praeveniuntur occiduo, scriptum esse, raptus est ne malitia illius intellectum mutaret. sap. 4. that is, his eight error was concerning infants that die before they were baptised, that they were taken away lest malice should change [corrupt] their understanding, quoting the 4. wisdom in the apochrypha for it. and let the reader judge whether this is to deny infant-baptism. (3.) he tells us that austin and walden do both affirm, that vincentius victor a donatist, denied baptism to little ones: austin in his third book de anima c. 14. and walden in his book de sacrament. tit. 5. c. 33. fol. 118. as for austin, there is not the least syllable to be found of any such matter in that 14 chap. nay, so far is austin from charging vin. victor with denying infant-baptism, that in the preceding chapter he tells you, his opinion was that only those infants that died baptised went immediately to heaven; and as for others, they continued in paradise till the last resurrection, and were not till then admitted to the happiness of heaven. haec verba tua sunt (saith austin to vincentius) ubi te confiteris consentire dicenti, quibusdam non baptizatis sic temporarie collatum esse paradisum ut supersit illis in resurrectione praemium regni caelorum, contra sententiam principalem, qua constitutum est non intraturum in illud regnum qui non renatus fuerit ex aqua & spiritu sancto. quam sententiam principalem timens violare pelagius, nec illos sine baptismo in regnum caelorum credidit intraturos quos non credidit reos. tu autem & originalis peccati reos parvulos confiteris, & tamen eos sine lavacro regenerationis absolvis, & in paradisum mittis, & postea etiam regnum caelorum intrare permittis. and walden (in the place mr. d. quotes) saith the same directly. vincentius dixit eos (scil. infant's) trahere originale peceatum, sine baptismo tamen duci posse in regnum caelorum in resurrectione finali. as for eckbertus the monk and emericus, i can find no such matter in the magdeb. that they likened the waldenses in the 12 cent. to the donatists. and yet i deny not, but it might be so, because, as perin saith, the popish priests did reproach them with the odious name of cathari, because they pressed after purity; by which name the donatists were heretofore called, because they held a sinless state of perfection attainable in this life. and this may serve as a sufficient answer also to mr. d's. last argument to prove the donatists against infant-baptism, because they and the novatians were the same in principle with the waldenses. it being only a foul aspersion cast upon them by their malicious adversaries. posterior aetas (saith danaeus) ad praegravandam bonam evangelii causam, homines vere evangelicos infami catharorum nomine calumniata est. thus reader, it is left to thy judgement (as mr. danvers speaks) whether he hath sufficiently justified his sixfold testimony, that the donatists did deny infants-baptism. i hope (whatever mr. danvers may say to the contrary) i have sufficiently invalidated all that he hath brougat for that end, and that thou wilt acquit me from the charge of disingenuity in condemning his witnesses without cause. so we are come to his last witnesses the ancient britain's; which may well be called his, because no man ever before him affirmed they were against infants-baptism. of the witness pretended to be born against infants-baptism by the ancient britain's. mr. danvers is singular in his opinion; for never did any anabaptist that i have read of hit upon this topick, to prove the antiquity of their way; no not mr. tombs (whose invention is admirable for arguments, in that part of his anti-paedobaptism which i have lying by me, which consists of above 260 pages in quarto being part of the 1500 which mr. danvers says in his preface was never yet replied to. and 'tis no wonder that no body hath undertaken it; for as the author of the history of the pope's nephews speaks, the jesuits are politic in writing large volumes, on purpose to discourage the protestants from answering them. mr. danvers gives four arguments that the ancient britain's that inhabited wales, when austin the monk was sent by pope gregory into this island to preach the gospel about the year 604. did bear their testimony against infants-baptism. 1. because mr. fox out of bede tells us, they refused to baptise after the manner of rome, which fabian particularly explains to be in the point of infants-baptism. in answer to this i did (in my infants-baptism asserted) 1. except against fabian's paraphrase upon the words, which bede gives us from austin; and that for these reasons, 1. because in the preface to fabian, we there read that what he relates of these matters is taken from bede's ecclesiastical history, in which there is no mention of the britain's denying to give christendom to children, for all that he saith is in his second book, and the words are,— in as much as you do contrary to our custom, yea to the custom of the universal church, nevertheless if you will obey me only in these three things, soil. that you keep your easter in its proper time; administer baptism, whereby we are born again to god, after the manner of the holy church of rome; and the apostolical church, and preach the word of god together with us unto the english nation, we will patiently bear all other things which you do, although contrary to our customs. but they answered they would do none of these. mr. fox relates it thus, that they would not agree, refusing to leave the custom which they so long time had continued without the assent of them all which used the same. fox. act. mon. 1. book, p. 107. 2. because fabian is not looked upon as a faithful historian, and therefore mr. fox in the aforesaid book suspecteth him of divers mistakes, and follows not his relation of giving christendom to children in this story, as it is set down by him; for he gives us it in the words of bede, viz. that they refused to baptise after the manner of rome. 3. none of the other ancient historians, as cretensis in polychron. huntingdon, etc. mention their refusing to give christendom to children; they only speak generally of refusing to baptise after the manner of rome. some other reasons were given which i let pass, having already said enough to show on what a sandy foundation mr. danvers builds this his peculiar assertion, that the ancient britain's denied infants-baptism, he having nothing for it but fabians conjecture, wherein he differs from all other historians in the world. but saith mr. danvers, fabian hath fully hit bede's meaning: why? 1. because austin tells the british christians, that among many things, wherein they were contrary to the custom of rome, and to the universal church, one was in this particular of baptism; and this he conceives must needs be in their refusing to baptise children: and his reasons are; 1. because as to the baptising the adult they were not contrary to the church of rome. i answer, though they were not contrary to them, as to the subject of baptism, viz. the adult; yet they might be, and were so (if so pure as mr. danvers represents them) in regard of the adjuncts which the church of rome annexed to baptism, viz. those superstitious additions of chrysm, oil, etc. they both baptised the adult, but not after the same manner: and this was that which austin stood upon, he would have had them baptise after their manner: but mr. danvers objects, 2. it could not respect the mode of baptism, that's strange; for doth he not tell us just before, p. 38. of his reply, from mr. fox, who takes it from bede, that they refused to baptise after the manner of rome; and can he tell wherein the difference lies between mode and manner. but let us weigh his reasons (which are as light as a feather) why it could not respect the mode of baptism. his first is, because the custom of the church of rome was not universal, but opposed by the greeks and eastern churches, & not at all to be made out to be apostolical. he says true indeed, though it be not ad rhombum, and though the church of rome was not so universal, neither could be made out to be apostolical; yet they are so proud as to term it so, and say what we can to the contrary, they do still arrogate as much to this day. 3. therefore, saith he, it must needs respect infants-baptism; whether this be intended as an argument, or a conclusion, who can tell? it is brought in as a third argument, and then it is idem per idem: it must needs respect infants-baptism, because it must needs. but he wheels about again after a confused manner, and comes in with five other arguments. 1. because the church of rome had particularly enjoined, and imposed it to beget infants to regeneration, and therefore must intend the substance and not the ceremony. to which i reply; 1. it is very strange, that mr. danvers' mind should thus run altogether upon children's baptism, when the work which austin would have had them gone upon, was to baptise the adult pagans, such as the saxons than were, and to preach the gospel to them, and we read not (unless i mistake) of any children that he baptised at all, nor any of his company, although he sent to gregory to know how long the baptising of a child might be deferred, there being no danger of death. 2. how came the canon of the church of rome into mr. danvers' mind, of children's being born of god by regeneration? for austin spoke not of this; but only exhorts the britain's to administer baptism, whereby, saith he, we are born again, as holding that grown persons are born again to god as well as children, according to the judgement of the church of rome, as well as the ancient fathers. doth not just in martyr say the same, speaking of the manner how the christians were baptised: they go (saith he) to the water and are regenerated, as we ourselves were regenerated, etc. so that these are but childish cavils against childrens-baptism. 2. he urge● another, and that is, because infants-baptism was universally received in this seventh age, in other parts of the world for this end. this is such an argument that i know not well what to say to it, unless it be that since infants-baptism was so universally received in other parts of the world, it's altogether improbable it should be shut out of wales. the third and fourth arguments make but one, which is, because infant-baptism was received, and enjoined as an apostolical practice, and it had been childish and ridiculous to have said baptism in general was apostolical. mr. danvers says true, it had been indeed ridiculous for austin to have said baptism in general was apostolical, and therefore he speaks of the manner of baptising, which he would have the britain's observe as they did, that is, to do it in that superstitious way with chrysm, oil, etc. which is held by the church of rome to be apostolical. and whereas i say the britain's did no more reject infants-baptism, than they did preaching to the saxons. he thus replies; true, having as much reason to reject the one, as the other. a strange assertion! for though infants-baptism be in his account unlawful, yet the preaching of the gospel, one would think, should be lawful, and more reason there is to preach the gospel, than to baptise either the adult or infants. but what makes mr. danvers judge otherwise as to these britain's? it is because he conceives, by preaching here must be understood authoritatively, by being ordained by them, and not as a company of laymen, or mechanics. it seems than this gentleman is for mechanics preaching; but that which is remarkable is, to see how much he hath overshot himself in the heat of disputation: for the britain's, to whom austin addressed his speech, were not laymen or mechanics, but seven bishops and an archbishop, as mr. fox informs us, act. mon. 1. book, p. 107. although 'tis true they admitted not rome's supremacy over them, which was the main quarrel, as mr. fox tells us out of cluniacensi, who gives this reason why they would not comply with austin, because they would not admit of the bishop of rome's supremacy over them, ex pet. cluniacensi ad bernardum. reader, thou must know that mr. danvers gave five other reasons in his treatise of baptism to confirm his former position; and because i said in my answer they were trifles, he tells me in his reply that that is an excellent way of answering, & next to bellarmin, thou liest. but i must tell mr. danvers, i did not only say they were trifles, but proved them such. and because he doth so cunningly insinuate the contrary, i shall now repeat my answer to his reasons, adding a little, and submit it to judgement. 1. his first argument, that the britain's were against infant-baptism, was, because they kept themselves both in discipline and doctrine expressly to the scripture. before i speak to this, know, that he hath altered his note; for his first argument in both his treatises of baptism was this, because the britain's received the christian faith, doctrine and discipline from the apostles and asiatick churches, who had no such thing as baptising children. now this being more than he can tell, and a negative argument as to matter of fact, is not valid, as i told him in my answer: and besides, i minded him with that of the magdeburg's, who expressly tell us that infants-baptism was in use in the asiatic churches, cent. 3. c. 6. p. 124. he is so ingenious as to wave that argument. but to the 1st, as it is here in the reply, which is, because they kept themselves in discipline and doctrine expressly to the word. this he thinks will effectually do the business, that is, cashier infants-baptism from them. to this i answer. 1. to say they kept themselves expressly in discipline and doctrine to the word, is more than mr. danvers can prove, and it is more than jeffery monmouth speaks, from whom he hath his intelligence. this therefore, that they keep to the express word is his own dictate. 2. it is not true what he saith, nor can i apprehend how mr. danvers should believe himself; for no anabaptist believes episcopal government to be so expressly set down in the word, and mr. fox tells us as before, that no less than seven bishops and an archbishop came out of wales at austin's summons; who were also so proud, that wanting some ceremonious observance at their first coming to austin they took such offence, that in disdain and great displeasure they went away. and observe, reader, the sense of mr. fox upon this their carriage; i profess, saith he, i cannot see but both austin and them were to be blamed, who so much neglected their spiritual duties in revenging their temporal injuries, that they denied to join their helping hand to turn the idolatrous saxons to the way of life and salvation, in which respect all private respects ought to give place, and be forgotten, and for which cause he conceived the stroke of god's punishment did light upon them afterward. the business of infants-baptism never entered into this goodman's mind, as if they refused to comply with austin on that account, nor is it like that ever the britain's thought of it. 2. his next argument is, because they were zealous impugners of tradition. but by the story we find no such zeal unless it was against austin for not honouring them: and besides, this argument of mr. danvers is altogether precarious; for we have showed before that though austin held infants-baptism a tradition, yet withal it was in his opinion grounded on circumcision, and the papists (as bellarmine) affirm the warrantableness of it may be collected from scripture. but to make short work with it, i deny that they were such impugners of tradition, if the discpline of arch-bishops, and the observation of easter be traditions (as mr. danvers judgeth them to be;) for as the difference between austin and them was not about the subject of baptism, but the ceremony; so they differed not about keeping easter, but only as to the circumstance of time, when it was to be kept. that the britain's and picts kept easter, though not at the same time as the romish church did, see mr. fox act. mon. page 111. where mention is made of a synod in which the controversy about keeping easter was debated before king oswie, alfrid's father; and 'tis said coleman then bishop of northumberland, followed not the custom of rome, nor of the saxons, but the picts and britain's in celebrating easter from the 14th day of the first month, till the 28th of the same, against whom wilfrid replied,— the easter we keep, we have seen at rome,— the same is used in italy and france, and finally all the world over, save only by these here present, with their accomplices the picts and britain's. 3. reason is, because constantine the son of christian parents was not baptised till aged, so in his treatise of baptism; but in his reply, 'tis, not baptised in this island. but we have shown constantius his father was no christian at constantine's birth, and in all likelihood lived and died a pagan, though he had much respect for christians; and even constantine himself was a pagan for sometime after he was emperor. 4. another of his reasons is, because the custom of the britain's was to baptise after confession of faith, being in union and communion therein with the french christians; and i told him this was a good argument to prove they were for infants-baptism, because the french christians afterward called waldenses were for it, and had used it so many hundred years; witness the confession at angrogne. nor will mr. danvers his old salvo serve his turn, which is, that the ancient waldenses were against infants-baptism, though he cannot but grant the more modern were for it. for we have met with something of late that must needs convince him, and that is, that infants-baptism was practised in the country where the waldenses do inhabit, near twelve hundred years since. for the famous french historian, john de serres, in his history of france translated into english, tells us, p. 12. that anno christi 500, clovis the great king of france, than an heathen, desired to marry clotilde daughter of chilperic brother of gondebault, king of the burgundians, (whose seat was then at arles in provence) gondebault denied clovis, because of the difference of religion: clovis to remove this, promised her liberty of conscience, so the marriage was concluded. and (saith the author) although clovis were a pagan, yet he was no enemy to the christians, sitting himself to the humour of the gauloys, who generally followed the christian religion: he suffered his wife likewise to baptise her children. so it's plain the burgundians (from whence the waldenses sprang) were for baptising infants; and belike it was also at that time the universal practice of the gauls. 5. the last of mr. danvers' arguments, that the britain's were against infants-baptism, is, because austin himself was so raw and ignorant in the rite, that when he came into britain, and the question was here put to him (i know not by whom) how long a child that was in danger of death might stay unbaptised? he was fain to send to rome for solution. this is so raw an argument indeed to prove the britain's were against infants-baptism, that instead of an answer, it deserves to be laughed at. for at this very day wherein infants-baptism is so generally practised, some take a liberty to delay longer than others who are for the speedy administration thereof. and if this argument doth import any thing, it is, that austin himself was not so well studied as he ought to have been as to the time when children should be baptised. what in the last place he speaks of hilary, that none were baptised in the western churches but the adult, is confronted in the beginning, where we have shown that he hath no such saying in lib. de trinitate, the book referred to, and how he himself was for infants-baptism from his 2d epistle to austin. as for his other witnesses, munzer and john of leyden, with the rest of that faction, though he doth pertinaciously persist against the clearest evidences, in palliating or rather denying the horrid crimes laid to their charge, and withal (very disingenuously) reflects dishonour upon those of the reformation, i shall not be at so much expense of time and paper as to expose his gross aberrations herein, but quietly permit him to enjoy the comfort and honour of such witnesses. finis. truth tried: or, animadversions on a treatise published by the right honourable robert lord brook, entitled, the nature of truth, its union and unity with the soul. which (saith he) is one in its essence, faculties, acts; one with truth. by i. w. london, printed by richard bishop, for samuel gellibrand at the sign of the brazen serpent in paul's churchyard, 1643. to the right honourable robert lord brook. my noble lord, your lordship being pleased to do the world that honour, to impart to it somewhat of yours (and therefore honourable,) it was my happiness, amongst the rest, to be an object of that favour; and yet my unhappiness so far, as not in all things to fall in with your lordship: like a mariner at sea, descrying within ken a fair vessel under sa●le, promising a rich lading, makes up to her; and understanding whence she is, and whether she is bound, desires to view her fraught; but coming so near as to go aboard, falls foul of her (as they speak) and is entangled, and perhaps may both have work enough to get clear. the ●●ire vessel i had in view, was your lordship's treatise, now under sail, (when made public;) which however directed▪ to a private port or sinus (a friend's bosom) yet passes the ocean to arrive at it: your lordship's name enforms me whence it is, and withal promises a rich fraught; which the bill of lading tells me what it is, the nature of truth; and blame me not if i were ambitious to see it, that i might adore it: if, by mischance, i be entangled, i hope your lordship's hand will help me to get clear. our first fathers, which had never seen fire before, while every one was catching at that which shone so bright, no marvel if he that first meddled with it, burnt his fingers: the beauty of truth is likewise bright and glorious; so glorious, that some have found her dazzle their eyes, (he might have said, others have burnt their fingers, and i, perhaps, am one of them.) truth is a glorious object, a fit object only for a noble hand: yet suitor sometimes, though he presume not to better apelles' picture, may yet find fault with the shoe; and that without blame, while he go not ultra crepidam. your lordship, sometimes, in this divine treatise, for fear of dazzling our eyes, hath left us in a want of light. naked truth, which your lordship had the happiness to behold, is proposed to us clothed, and guilded (rather then painted) in a most curious dress indeed, yet such as hides the body; the beauty whereof being so well worth beholding, we had rather have seen her (as your lordship did) without her gown, without her crown, the better to have discerned her true proportion. rhetorical embellishments being the same sometimes in a philosophical discourse, that varnish on a fair picture, which helps to set it off, but withal hides it, and presents it more glossy but less distinct. for what the orator useth to illustrate, that the philosopher finds to obscure. and thus much perhaps, if no more, may be gained by the ensuing discourse, that your lordship taking occasion from thence, may afford more light to that which divers desire better to understand, and vnmask so fair a face. (at least those who have once seen her naked, may take the pains to undress her.) and perhaps having taken a second view, through this a more thick perspective of not so high raised a fancy, may give us a more distinct delineation of what its own dazzling brightness presented at first more confused. i hope i shall need no large apology to obtain acceptance, at least a pardon from so noble a lord, (to whom, i am told, nothing can be more grateful, and who promiseth the fairest answer,) if i accept the challenge: which it's like your lordship would perform, (if at least encounters of another nature would give way to those of the penne.) if i be demanded therefore of what i do, why at all? i reply, because, in your lordship's name, invited: if why so late? i have nothing to reply but this, qui serò dat, diu noluit. what was at first, in a few days, written to a private friend, having lain so long in your lordship's hands, is a sufficient testimony that i made no haste to publish it. i have but one request to make, and kiss your lordship's hand, that you would vouchsafe, if i have done well, to accept, if otherwise, to pardon your lordship's most humble servant, john wallis. to the worshipful, and my worthy friend, henry darley esquire. worthy sir, the sad news of so unhappy a loss as his lordship's death, forceth me to give an account of what might else seem a solecism. the book was newly finished in the press, before his lordship's death, and expected only to be first presented to his noble hands, before it was presented to the world; to whom it was then a going, when that unhappy news stopped it, and some copies were gone abroad. i have suppressed it since, to add that which you see adjoined; in testimony of mine own sadness for so great a loss. which yet cannot be so fully expressed by a private pen, as by the common tears of all those to whom religion is dear. a sad loss it was, had it been in the best times, to lose so many excellent accomplishments in one noble breast; but now most unhappy, when there is so much work and so few hands; in which, i am confident, none was guided by a more single eye, with less obliquity to collateral aims. unhappy then was that accident, that deprived us of one so well worthy to live; unhappy hand! by one sad stroke who shot religion, learning, piety, what not? sir, the treatise penned long since at your request, had once passed in another character through yours to his lordship's hand, not then intended to be made public, nor directed to any other than your own eye; what entertainment it then found (such candour and nobleness dwelled in that breast) you know as well as i: and now, being oft solicited, as well by you as others, it was a second time advancing, ambitious again to be made happy by the same hand; (and indeed i had been extremely injurious to his candour, if i should have seemed to decline his eye and present it to another, who taking liberty sometime to descent from others, did with the same freedom allow others to descent from him, willing to accept of any assistance in the search of truth;) but being there prevented, it is fain to retreat, and fall back to the same hand where it first lodged, as being, next after his lordship, due to you; from your humble servant j. w. march. 11. 1642 the contents of the ensuing chapters. the preface. divers acceptations of truth. pag. 1. logical and moral truth, their nature, and difference. ibid. whether breach of promise be formally a ly. 3. metaphysical truth. 4. veritas essendi & cognoscendi, or cognoscibility. ibid. none of these are truth or light as here taken. 5. the object not identically the same with the faculty. ibid. by truth or light is meant the light of reason. 7. 9 27. 63. chap. 1. a double notion of truth. 8. his first position, that truth in the first notion is the understanding in its essence, the argument because both, a ray of divinity cousidered 9 chap. 2. a second argument from the three requisites to every being, a fountain imparting, a channel receiving, and wa●ers imparted, considered; and where we may find these in the understanding, if a faculty 12. whence ignorance, and error in the understanding. 13. reason and the understanding, ratio & facultas ratiocinand●, all one. 1●. the efficient of accidents. 14. what is the recipient of truth. 15. how reason in the ●nderstanding, ●an make the soul rational, and give it an essential difference from the irrational. ib. whether the qualities be formae ●ementorum. 17. the efficient or fountain whence reason comes to the soul; internal, external, from the soul itself, from the parent, from god. 18. whether the recipient of truth must be truth. 21. whether light pass from the understanding to the soul; from the understanding to the will; and how the soul acts by its faculties. 22. chap 3. how these are found if the understanding be truth. 24. how every thing is its own recipient. ibid. to receive a being, and to receive a form do esse, & do habere; differ. ibid. chap. 4. whether the vnderstanding-faculty may not be the recipient of truth. 26. chap. 5. a second assertion (or the first improved) that both truth, and the understanding, be the same also with the soul, considered. 27. chap. 6. a corollary, that all things are this one truth, considered. 28. whether a consequent of the former assertions. ibid. whether true in itself, viz. whether all things one. 32. 5. whether physically, integrally, specifically; one thing, one whole, of one kind. 32. how all from one fountain. 34. simplicity in god hinders not variety in the creatures. 28. 34 unity in god equivalent to an infinite variety. ibid. whether the divine attributes be distinct ratione ratiocinate. 35. whether all being's be homogeneal; of the same specifical nature, only gradually distinct. 36. how all received in the same manner. 37. whether number be real. ibid. chap. 7. a farther corollary, that unity is the essence of all things, considered. 38. whether unity be the essence of god. ibid. whether infiniteness or unity in god be first. 39 whether unity be the essence of created being's. ibid. how the commandments are comprised in love: and moral virtue's concatenate in prudence. ibid. whether quantity may be divided in semper divisibilia. 40. unity as opposed to multitude, is purely negative. 43. yet, not imaginary. 44. negatio realis & negatio rationis. ibid. ens rationis & negatio rationis. 45. chap. 8. the nature of habits. a third assertion, that habits also are the same with the souls essence, considered. 46. faculties and habits how they differ, and how distinct from the soul. ibid. habits infused and acquisite. 47. plato's reminiscentia, and aristotle's rasa tabula, compared. 49. whether former acts do help subsequent acts or only seem to do. ibid. whether reason and faith differ only in degrees. 51. the liberty of the will, wherein it consists. 53. 55. why some of more knowledge have less faith. 54. whether the will always follow the understanding, and how. 55. libertas contrarietatis & contradictionis. 56 it is no perfection to the will, to be able to disobey reason. ib. how all sinful acts may be called omissive. 58. the understandings dictates are declarative, not imperative. 59 speculative & experimental knowledge. 60 this latter the will cannot reject. ibid. whether god be all mercy to the devils. 6●. how mercy and justice are one in god. ibid. chap. 9 how knowledge and affection differ. 62. whether knowledge extinguish affection. ibid. why some of less knowledge have larger affections. ibid. how far we may admit, reason, the understanding, the soul, its habits, and actions to be the same. 63. chap. 10. a fourth assertion, that the operations are the souls essence, considered. 64. how the soul is actus 64. several acceptions of actus. 65. an materia individuetur a formâ. 66. whether the act or the power be first, in order, dignity, and nature. 67. how omnis virtus consist it in actione. ibid. the difference between actus primus & secundus, ibid. chap. 11. an objection against his last assertion, whether the actions being divers, there be not so many souls, considered, and whether time and p●ace be only imaginary. 69. distinction of operations proceeds not from time and place. ibid. whether all the souls actions be one. 70 how all things are present to ●od. 71 how permanency in god may consist with succession in the creature. 72 whether good and evil may be in the same act. 72 whether contradictions may be conscistent. ibid. whether copernicus' opinion be confused by sense. 73 chap. 12. another objection against the same assertion, concerning falsehood in the souls operations; whether it cease to be, when it ceaseth to act truth, considered. 75 whether it cease to be, when it ceaseth to act. ibid. whether succession of moments be only imaginary. ibid. whether all acts be the same. 76 whether it cease to be when it acts falsehood. 78 whether the reality of the object be requisite to make the act real. ibid. distinction of metaphysical goodness and truth, from moral and logical goodness and truth. 79 whether evil be merely privative. ibid. whether any individual action be indifferent. 82 whether falsehood be merely privative. 83 how ens & verum convertuntur. ibid. the difference between ensrationis and error intellectus. 84 whether pain be merely privative. 86 whether better to be miserable, than not to be. ibid. whether god be the author of falsehood, or evil. 88 relations, how produced. ibid. chap. 13. corollaries or general consequents from his whole assertion, (that all things are one truth:) whether useful in practicals. 89 chap. 14. whether knowledge and sciences receive benefit from this assertion. 91 curiosity in searching, blamed. 92 chap. 15. whether confusion in the knowledge of causes be redressed by this unity. 92. chap. 16. whether divisions in other parts of learning be redressed by it. 93. wherein the nature of faith consists. 94 and bellarmine's dilemma avoided. 95 whether faith save only declarative. ibid. whether we be saved, even in the execution of the decree, without faith. ibid. scientia simplicis intelligentiae and scientia visionis. 96. whether god will do what ever he can do. ibid. chap. 17. of curiosity in the search of causes, with a close of all. 97 the postscript. a breviate of the whole discourse. 100 errata. pag. ●9. l. 6 read ●i●t. l. 11. r. first. pag 48. l. 36. r. produced. p. 90. l. 37. r. and ●ood. p. 117. l. 38. r. contrariè, sin●ulares verò contradictoriè. p. 11●. l. 19 r revera singulares. truth tried: or, animadversions on a treatise, entitled, the nature of truth. sir, i have, according to your desire, perused that treatise concerning the nature of truth. (the which how far it serves to the expounding the 24. chapter of math. i examine not.) one thing that may make it seem somewhat dark, is, that his lordship speaking of a matter somewhat unusual, is forced to use such metaphors, for want of native words, which may somewhat obscure it: and his lordship was the less careful to avoid it, because they being with himself of frequent use, and sufficiently understood by him to whom he wrote, there was the less fear of being not understood, or misunderstood: and so the less need to prevent it, by seeking for such words as might better suit with an ordinary reader. before i proceed to state the question, whether truth and the soul be one; it is very requisite to search, in what sense his lordship understands truth; that through the ambiguous sense, and divers acceptations of the word, we be not confounded in the progress. truth in logic, is when the proposition agrees with the thing; and falsehood, when they disagree. truth in ethics, is when our words and actions agree with our mind; and is opposed to a lie, to hypocrisy. and truth in these acceptations is nothing else but an agreement or conformity of a type with its prototype, archetypi & ectypi; of a transcript with its original▪ of an idea, or thing representing, with that represented; signi & signati. thus in logic, vox est signum rei, or imago r●i. if therefore we have that expressed in words, to which in the order of things there is nothing agreeing; it is a false copy, or rather no copy, being drawn according to no pattern. if that be, which is affirmed to be; it is true, because they are a copy or representation of the things so being. as it is in words, so it is also in apprehensions, in conceptibus; if our mind conceive a thing to be, which is not, or to be otherwise then it is, this is a false apprehension, because the idea in our understanding is not a true representation of the thing. in ethics, our words are to be compared with another copy; because (thuss they are not the representation of the things (immediately) but the representation of our thoughts, or intentions: therefore, if our words do truly express or represent what we think; it is morally true, that is, it is not a lie, because they agree with this copy; but yet they may be logically false, as not being a true expression of the thing. if the idea in our apprehension agree with the things, so that we conceive a ●ight of them; and our word▪ be a true representation of this idea; they do truly also represent the things: there is both v●ritas logica, and veritas moralis if we conceive a right of things, and our words express otherwise then we think; this proposition is both ways false; for it neither agrees with the thing, nor with our judgement: but our judgement is logically true▪ because the idea in our mind is a true expression of the thing. if we conceive amiss, and yet affirm as the thing is (if we affirm snow to be white, which we conceive to be black,) our proposition is logically true, but morally false; and our conceptus is also logically false. if lastly, we conceive amiss, and speak otherwise then we conceive, and yet divers from what we ought both to think and speak (as if we conceive snow to be bl●●k, and affirm it to be red:) our idea or conceptus is logically false, our proposition logically false, and morally false. thus i● one▪ intending upon a signet to grave the kings▪ image, mindeth of the true proportion, and with this signet maketh impression in wax▪ the wax cont●●nes a true representation of the seal▪ but not the true image of the king; whereas, if the signet had been truly graven, and then impression made in the wax; the wax had truly represented both the one and the other. thus is it in moral and logical truth. accordingly, one making a promise with intention to perform it, yet afterward breaks it; this promise is morally true, because it is a true representation of his intentions; but it is not logically true, as not being a representation of his future actions. and in his subsequent actions there is also a kind of moral falsehood; because they are not conformable to his promise, by which they should be regulated. or you may say, his promise was (morally) a true expression of his intention; but his intention was (logically) false, as not agreeing with the thing, because he intended that which was not futurum whereas, if he had promised, with a purpose to break it, his promise had been morally false, but his intention logically true▪ if, intending to break it, he yet perform it, his intention is logically false, and his promise morally false, though logically true. and thus breach of promise will come under the nature of injury, or injustice; but not under the nature of a lie, except it were made to deceive; because it is the true expression of the intention, which is the immediate rule of veracity or moral truth. thus hypocrisy, or dissimulation, is a branch of moral falsehood; because actio and jests, are index animi, as well as words. and this i conceive to be the nature of, and difference between logical and moral truth. there is yet another truth, and you may call it a physical truth, ● formal or essential truth: thus that which hath the essentials of a man, is verè homo; so an infant is a true man. thus we say, a true church, true faith, true grace, true gold, (not counterfeit:) thus a syllogism in a right form, is a true syllogism, though the propositions be false. and the like. (but mistake me not; by moral truth, or natural truth, etc. i understand not, truths about natural things, or moral things, (though the words be ofttimes so taken:) for i am not now distributing truth into its several species, or several parts; but am showing the ambiguity of the word, and so distinguishing it into its several acceptations. thus moral or ethical truth, is that acceptation of truth that is usual in ethics: logical truth, is that acceptation of ●●uth, which is used in logic, etc.) but ●●●pp●●●, we ●●● y●t ●●rre from that acceptation of truth, in which ●●● lo●●▪ speaketh: i will therefore come somewhat ne●rer. ●●●●● the logical and morall●…ptat●●n ●…ptat●●n ●● truth, we have a metaphysical acc●ptat●… ●●s and v●rum are ●ermini conv●r●ib●les. and truth is taken in ●●●● such acceptation, when it is divided into veri●●s essendi and cognosc●ndi. veritas essend●, or the truth of being, is that per quam res veriest: and thus ens & verum conver●untur. quicksands ●uid est, ver● est▪ for except it have a real and true being (and not a supposed being) it is not ●ind●●d) a being, but is supposed ●o be. veritas ●ognosce●di is that per quam res ver● cognoscitur. and thus also ens & verum conver●u●t●r: for whatsoev●r is, may b●e ●n●wn to be. this veritas i● nothing ●lse but cognoscibilitas: therefore veritas, as it is affectio entis, is defined by some to be convenie●●ia r●i, seu co●formit●s rei, ●um i●tell●ct●; (●ive humano ●ive di●●●●.) thus truth in the things and knowledge in the understanding have ●elation to each other as objectum a●● p●tentia. as colour in the object to sight in the eye. colour, as it is inherent in a body, makes it to be coloured (cor●us coloratum:) the same colour, as it stands in relation to the eye, makes it to be visible (corpus visibil●.) thus essence, or being, as it is in the ●hing, constitutes it in the nature of a thing, or a being: and the sa●e ●●●●nce in the thing, as it hath relation to the understanding, makes it ●ognos●ibile. ●n the first sense it is veritas essendi▪ in the second it is veritas cognos●end●. (where t●e construction will be somewhat hard, exc●●t you give philosophers leave to use the g●●●●d in a possive signification, which amongst pure grammarians is more ra●●ly ●●und.) for by the s●me e●se●c● by which it is ens, by the same it is cognoscibile; that being by which it is, by the same it ●●y be ●●own to be: as by the same colour, by which the object is color●tum, it is also visibile. and this ● conceive to be the right acceptation of metaphysical truth, or truth as it is taken in metaphysics for an affection of being: not being a thing really di●●inc● for that thing, that truly is, and may be truly known to be; but (as they call it) modus entis. and now we be come somewhat n●e●er that acceptation of truth wherein his lo●●▪ takes it; though (if i mistake him not) that sense wherein he useth it, is somewhat distinct from all these: for whether you consider the truth of ●eing, or the truth of knowledge▪ they are in themselves really the same, and the same ●l●● really with that ens, t●●● being, which tru●y is, and is truly k●o●n ●● be: which thing 〈…〉 a being, and as truly cognoscible, when there is no understanding present to take notice of it, as when it is actually unders●●●d. ●●●e a● an object is ●●uly col●u●ed, and truly visible, even then when ●●●re is no ●ye present to behold it. and therefore this truth cannot be one with the understanding▪ because it may be then and there where the understanding is not. again, truth being (as i said) one with the thing known, if it ●● also one with the understanding, or the soul; the understanding or soul knowing shall be one with the thing understood: a s●one and the soul shall be one individual being: for how can truth be the same with the stone, and the same with the soul, except the soul and the stone be the same. object. but you will say thi● is that he contends for, not only, that truth understood is one with the soul; but that both the thing understood, and the sou● understanding, are this truth. answ. 1. to proceed therefore. if the stone understood, and the soul understanding, be the same; then when began this unity, ●●●● identy? were they the same before the stone was actually understood? or did they then contract this unity, when first the soul did actually know it? why they should be the same, before the act of knowing; there 〈…〉 no more reason, then why one ●●●ne should be the same with ●…ne; ●●y one man should be the same with another man: and so peter or paul might be ●s truly said to b●●ray christ, as ju●●●, if peter and judas be one and the same. and if they should ●●●n ●●ntr●●● a● unity, (and not before when the understanding ●o●h ●●●s● actually understand it; we must ta●e ●●●● saying, intell●ct●s i●●ellig●●do ●m●●a ●it ●mn●a▪ in a more gr●●●e 〈…〉 it w●● m●●●●. a●●, ●●●y judgement, it i● utterly impossible, for that which hath ●●●● been al●ud●● ●● be made idem; ●s also for that which is o●●, to ●e made a●●ud a s●ips●. i say, ●● i● impossible for two things to be made one●nd ●nd the s●me, by a re●ll identity. 'tis true, two things may be so united as to be made one aggrega●um; as the body and the soul make one m●n, the divi●●●y and humanity of christ make ●n● person: but that two things can become the same; that the soul is the body, and the body the soul; that the humanity of christ is his divinity, and his divinity his humanity; i conceive not only false, but impossible. the hand and the foot (with the rest of the members) make one body; but neither the hand is the foot, nor is the foot the hand, but really distinct. answ. 2. but further, as it is hard to show, when this near kindred either of affinity, or consanguinity; this union either of identity, or of identification, had its first original: so, if there be any such union, (either connate or contracted) between the soul and a stone: then will not only one but all souls (at least, all souls actually understanding and apprehending it) be the same with this stone. and these souls, being one and the same with this one individual stone, they will be one and the same with each other. thus we shall have but one soul informing all bodies; not by a pythagorical metempsychosis▪ by translating of souls from one body to another, but as a●●mus averroisticus, one soul extended through the whole universe, informing so many men as there be bodies, whereof every man is partaker tanquam communis aur●: nay nearer, for of the air each takes a part; but as for this soul, each is, each hath this soul entire. neither doth it infer only an identity of souls, but an identity of objects also: for all▪ objects being apprehended by one soul, they become all one with it: and being all one with the same numerical soul, they must be also one with each other. so that all souls will thus be one, all objects will be but one, and this one object one and the same with that one soul; and all the world but vnum ens, whose every parcel is alteri ●dem; the same with each other. object. you'll say, all this is no more than he contends for; to make truth▪ one with the soul; and that all things that are, are nothing but this one truth. answ. if this be his opinion, to prove an identity of all creatures, because their being, from whence proceeds their cognoscibility, is all one with the soul, or understanding: his lord▪ must give me leave to descent from him, if for no other reason, yet because ●e dissents from himself: for if his argument be good, that all things are one with the soul, because truth or cognoscibility, (which differs not really from their essence) being the object of the souls operation, must also be one with the soul; it will follow also, that god is likewise one and the same with the soul, because he also is cognoscibilis, and may be known by the soul: and also, that all things else are one with god, because they are all known by him. and so he falls upon the first of those errors, which he mentions in the ●nd of his prooemium, immediately before the first chapter; which is, by mounting too high in the exalting of truth, to confound the creator with the creature▪ by making her god. neither doth it only make truth to be one with god; but even all things else, being one with truth, to be one with god. again, if so, how is it that in the end of his 3. chapter, concerning the body and the soul he tells us, not that they are the same, or that the body is the soul, but as husband and wife each bringeth his part towards the making up of the compositum. at lest m●. sadler is mistaken as well as i, (who is presumed at least to understand his lor●▪ mind, sufficiently,) who ●ells us in his epistle, that corporal union ●● materials is sometimes [miscalled] identity, which is at best but a ●●ld touch in a point or two. but i suppose there may be another acception of truth, which may better suit with (at least the first part of) his lordship's discourse. you may call it veritas cognoscendi, as well as the former, bu● in a different sense. there knowledge was taken in a passiveness ●●●se, and truth was that which makes the thing cognoscib●le, or fit to be understood: here you must take it in an active sense; and so veritas cognoscendi, or the truth of knowledge, will be that which makes the understanding cognoscitivum, or fit to conceive and apprehend that cognosc●●li●y which is in the object. and thu● truth will be that principle, whereby the soul is able to ●…hend or conceive that which may be known. veritas cognoscendi in the former sense, and that in this sense, are both principia cognoscendi, principles of knowledge, but in a several way. (you may distinguish them, if you please, thus; truth of knowing, and truth of being known, and veritas cognosce●di may be 〈…〉 both) they differ as colour in the object, from the power of seeing in the eye: the former makes the object visible, and fit to be perceived; the other makes the eye visive, and fit to discern it. if the first were wanting, vision would be hindered, because there is nothing visible: (hence it is that the air, and spiritual substanc●● are not seen even by the sharpest sight.) if the latter be wanting▪ ●●● sight is hindered from a desect in the organ: (thus▪ the most perspicuous colour's are not discerned by a blind eye; whereas the ●ame colours are in themselves sufficiently visible, and actually discerned by others▪) thus veritas cognoscendi, in the former sense, makes the object to be cognoscible; truth, in the latter sense, gives the understanding, or soul, ability to know it. now if you call the power of se●ing, which is in the eye, by the name of ●●●ate light (●o distinguish i● from light either in the object, or in the medium:) you may also call reason, which is this principle of knowing in the soul, or understanding, by the name of innate truth, or light. and this signification of truth i conceive to be most suitable to his lor●▪ meaning. (but verum, or truth, in this sense, is not convertible with ens: for though all being's have in them truth, whereby they may be known, yet all have not this truth, or power to know-worth) and thus if you understand it, it will not seem so strange a paradox, ●o 〈…〉 th●● reason (which he calls truth) is all one with the understanding; and that the understanding is not distinct from the soul. for this will be granted by all those, which affirm that potenti● non real●ter distinguuntur ab animâ; that the powers or faculties of the soul, are not really distinct from the soul itself: and these a●e 〈…〉 i mistake not) the greater part of ●ound philosophers. and ●●us his lor●▪ opinion is but the same with theirs in other words. (yet may we ●●●ll speak distinctly of these several faculties; as w● do of the wisdom of god, the power of god, the will of god, etc. which are as entirely one with god, as these faculties can be with the soul.) and thus much for explaining the state of the 〈…〉. ● proceed next to examine the grounds of this his lor●▪ opinion. chap. ●. whether the understanding, and truth understood, be one. in his first chapter he tells us, that truth (that is reason) is enthron▪ d in the understanding; and there appears under a double notion th●●●●● the fountain or groundwork (which is reason itself,) we call it (saith he) the form or substance. and then those workings which breathe from thence (the streams issuing from it) viz. the operations and exercise of reason, the effects of a reasonable soul. (we call them usually, actus primus, and actus secundus.) the first of these he begins with, proving it to be the understanding in its essence: (the second he proceeds to in the tenth chapter.) his argument is this, what is the understanding other than a ray of the divine nature, warming and enlivening the creature, conforming it to the likeness of the creator? and is not truth the same? if you take truth in any other acceptation beside that last mentioned, i see not how the argument will hold: for if you take it either for the truth of being, or the truth of knowing (in the common acceptation;) for that essence, whereby every creature both is and may be known to be: it may be granted, that the understanding is one of those rays of the divine nature, somewhat of that excellency implanted in man, of that image of god whereby man is conformed to the likeness of the creator: it will be granted also, that the essence or truth of every creature, whereby it is or is known to be, is a ray proceeding from the same centre, (though to another point of the circumference,) a stream issuing forth from the same fountain of being; and carries some weak resemblance, some sparkling of that primitive light, or truth, that original essence which is in god; (for thus every creature hath something of god in it, refert quaelibet herba deum.) yet will it not follow from hence, that this communicated ray of being is the same with the understanding. for the argument will prove erroneous, as being affirmative in the second figure, in which no affirmative proposition can be concluded: and the consequence will be the same with this, [what is the body of man but a material substance? and is not a stone the same?] which you would hardly admit as a sufficient argument to prove our body to be a stone. if you take truth for reason, the argument will admit of a reduction into an exact form, thus, [that ray of the divine nature, which doth (solely, or principally) express god's image in man, is the understanding; but truth or reason is this divine ray; therefore truth (that is reason) is the understanding.] and this argument will hold good, if we grant the soul to be the immediate worker in rational operations, without an intervenient faculty: but (otherwise) those that are of the contrary opinion would deny (or distinguish) the major, and say, that this divine ray, this image of god, consists not wholly in the understanding by itself, but in the soul or understanding, accompanied with its several faculties and operations. and indeed it cannot be denied, but that the operations of the soul do contain part of this divine image, ●s well as the soul in its essence; and yet they are the souls (immediate) progeny, and are not immediately produced by god. now what others admit concerning the operations, they will a●●●rm concerning the faculties; that they are but parcels of this ray or divine image, that they are but lesser rivulets derived from the greater stream▪ or branches annexed to it. now from hence, [that the soul in its essence, together with the several faculties and operations wherewith it is endowed, doth make up the chiefest part of god's image in man] to prove, [that every part of this image are the same with each other▪] and so [the faculties to be the same with the soul;] is that which they will not allow. and to presume, or take for granted, that this image of god consists but in one single ray; i● but petere principium, it being no less hard to prove, then that the faculties and the soul are one; that truth (or reason) is one and the s●●e with the understanding, or reasonable soul. they would say rather, that the soul is one of those bra●●he●, which (issuing from the same root of being in god, from whence all other created being's do arise) divides itself into several twigs. and we have no way to convince them of falsehood in this particular, till we have first proved the soul and its faculties to be one simple o● single essence. the prosecution or explication of his lor●▪. argument doth no way oppose this acceptation of truth which i have given, but confirms it; which (if i rightly understand it) may be thus explained; that truth (reason) is light, none will deny▪ (by light understand, that internal principle whereby the soul can see o● know, which is so called by a metaphor drawn from the innate light, (we call it potentia visiva) whereby the eye is enabled to see:) that light (this power or principle of knowing or reasoning) i● a reasonable creature i● the fountain of life, i● manifest: (by life understand the life of the soul, if i may so speak, that which specificates the rational soul, and makes i● 〈…〉) for ●●●●●●● of a reasonable soul, (that which makes it to be reasonable) is light, (that principle whereby it know● and understands:) and therefore when the soul informeth, or giveth life to animal rationale, (making it rational) it enableth the creature to work according to that light, (according to this principle of knowing: that is, it enableth the reasonable creature to know or understand, etc.) thus whilst life (that which makes a reasonable creature to be reasonable) and light (this power of knowing) is truth (or reason; and truth (or reason) is conformity to god (or god's image in us:) and the understanding also, as we yet discourse of it, is this light (this principle of reasoning) to the soul; the understanding and truth (or reason) can be but one. the whole argument i● briefly thus; [the image of god in us, is our understanding; and this image or divine radius, consists in reason (which he calls truth;) therefore truth or reason is our understanding.] his minor (that this ray or beam of divinity in us, is truth or reason) is thus proved; [because reason in us is ● derivative beam, a sparkling, of that primitive light (or wisdom) which is in god:] and so that which enlightens us, and enables us to know, or understand, according to our measure (that which furnisheth us with knowledge) is a representation of god's sapience or wisdom whereby he is said to know. now, [that truth or reason (which is all one) is this derivative beam of light, whereby we are able to know;] and [that this ability to know or understand, is that which makes u● to be reasonable,] is manifest. wherefore he concludes, that, whilst ●ur life (or rationality) consists in light, (that is, in an ability to know and understand) and this ability consists in truth (or reason) which is a conformity to god (as being a stream issuing from his ocean of wisdom;) and whilst (as reason is this ability of knowing, so) the understanding also is this light (this ability or power of knowing;) the understanding and truth (that is, reason) must be all one. those, who deny his conclusion, would answer, that both reason and the understanding, do enable the soul to know, or understand, but in a several way, as distinct principles (and therefore are not the same:) the one instrumentally or ministerially; the other, by using this as its minister. thus fire, by its heat, burns; a stone, by its heaviness, descends; glass, by its levity or smoothness, re●●ecteth; and the like. if you say, the weight of the stone, or smoothness of the glass, are not things distinct from the stone and glass, but rather modifications of these things; i contend not: for neither do i hold the understanding, or any other of the souls faculties, to be a thing distinct from the soul; but, at the most, only an accidental modification of it, not really distinct from it: yea rather, that it is the soul itself, quatenus intelligens, (as the power of god, is god himself quatenus potens) admitting no other but a distinction of reason. chap. ii. a second argument (from the three requisites to every being) examined. in the second chapter, he proposeth first the opinion of those that style the understanding a faculty, whereby the soul receiveth or entertaineth truth, and acteth accordingly. but here his lordship (if i mistake not) varieth from his former acceptation of truth; comparing it not to the innate light, or power of seeing, in the eye; but to the advenient light, which streams to it through the air, bringing with it the idea, or visible species, of the object seen. for, soon after, he calls it, those sweet beams of light which beat upon us continually; which cannot be meant of any innate light, but of an advenient light. and thus i see no inconvenience at all, to say, that the soul, or understanding, by its innate light, of reason, (which whether you say to be distinct from the soul, or not, it is not much material) doth daily receive or entertain new truths, or new representations of that truth of being which is really existent in things; either by a reiterate actual understanding of those things which it had formerly understood, or by a new apprehension of somewhat whereof before it was ignorant. like as the eye by its innate power of seeing, discerns new species (conveyed to it by advenient light) either from objects formerly seen, or now first represented. next he lays down three requisites to the constitution of every being. a fountain communicating; a channel entertaining; and waters imparted. (conferent, collatum, recipiens.) and he asks where we shall find these three, if the understanding be a faculty. i answer. if you speak of advenient light (last mentioned) which is a representative truth, or an idea of that r●all truth which is in the things known; i say, the real truth (or veritas ess●ndi) sends forth this representative truth, or idea, which is conveyed by a deferent light (either of discourse, or information, or the like) till it come to the understanding, where it is received and entertained by the innate light (or truth) of reason. like as the inherent light of colour in the object sends forth a representative light of visible species, which is conveyed by a deferent light in the air, till it come to the eye, where it is entertained by the innate light, which is the faculty of seeing. and, as the remoteness, or obscurity of the object; the darkness of the medium; or the weakness of the faculty, may hinder sight, so that we see not at all, or not perfectly: in like manner the distance of the object, as in things quite out of our reach; or the obscurity of them, which send forth no species, or manifestation of their essence towards us; our imperfect discourse, or insufficient information, which is as a dark medium; and lastly, the weakness of our apprehension; do cause ignorance in the understanding, which is answerable to notseeing in the eye. again, as in ignorance so in error. a reflection of a false light upon the object, casting a false seeming colour, which may be mistaken for the true colour of it; an indisposed medium, as when we see through red glass, etc. and a distempered organ, by reason of some vicious humours accidental in the eye, etc. may cause a mistake and error in sight: so here, when there is a false light upon the object, as when we conceive that to be the effect of one thing, which indeed proceeds from some other cause, fallacia non causae pro causâ, or the like; a false discourse or inference, or a false relation, which is as a stained medium; or a distempered understanding, by reason of passion, of l●sa phantasia, or the like; may cause an erroneous judgement, apprehending things to be otherwise then indeed they are. and thus i have showed not only those three requisites which his lordship requires, but some others besides them; supposing in the mean time the understanding to be a faculty; and taking truth for those sweet beams of light, which beat upon us; advenient light. if you take truth for reason; and withal suppose reason to be distinct from the understanding, and ●t also from the soul. you may say, the understanding is the recipient; reason the thing received in it; and that then and from those, when and from whence it received its essence, to which reason is a connate and appendent faculty; that is, either from god, by immediate creation, which many think; or from the parents, by propagation, which others▪ ●old. but i suppose there be few or none, that hold, reason to be distinct from the understanding, and that also from the soul. for when they speak of reason, as a faculty of the understanding; by understanding they mean, the soul itself, quatenus intelligens, being considered a● the subject of reason: and when they speak of the understandingly ●● a faculty, whereby the soul is able to conceive and judge of truth; then they take the understanding to be the same with reason. i should rather say, that reason, and the understanding (as it denotes a faculty) are two words synonimons, denoting the same faculty or power of knowing and judging. which faculty i would not grant to be another thing from the soule-knowing, or the soule-understanding but a modus▪ asdruball neither do i allow to any naturall-power, or faculty, (which they make the second species of quality) any other being then the being of a modus, and not the being of ● thing. and thus we may safely say, the soul receives the faculty of reason or understanding; thence, from whence it receives its being: (as a stone receives its heaviness from that which produceth it:) that which gave it to bee gave it to be thus. sometimes indeed accidents are not received from that which produceth the substance, but from some other efficient; as the smoothness of marble proceeds not from the producer, but from the polisher: and yet i hold not, the smoothness to be one thing, and the marble to be another thing▪ but the marble to be a thing, and the smoothness to be modus. and thus it must be granted in acquisite habits; where the giver and receiver are the same, and the thing received modally, but not really, distinct from either. but for faculties, or naturall-powers; if you look for an external efficient or giver, it will be the same that produceth the substance; but if you be contented with an efficient per emanationem, thus they are said to flow or arise from the form, or substance. and then the giver and receiver is the same; (for the form which i● the subject receiving, is also per emanation●m effectiva, from whence it ariseth as an essential consequent:) and if you say the faculty received is not so much as modally distinguished from it but only ratione 〈…〉; i contend not. but so much▪ distinction at least, i suppose, we must allow it. having thus answered his lordship's cue re, i proceed to answer his objections. if the understanding (saith he) be the recipient, than the light (of reason) which differenceth us from the vegetative and sensitive creatures, lieth in the understanding, and not in the soul: and so the soul is either not enlightened at all, but only a theca to the intellect; or else there be two enlightened (rational) being's in ●●● reasonable creature. for answer, first, i suppose (as i said before) that there are few, if any, that will affirm, the soul, the understanding, and reason, to be three things: but they will either say, reason is the understanding, and not in the understanding: or else, reason is in the understanding, which understanding is the soul, considered only under this notion▪ quatenus intelligens, as it is the subject of reason. and thus the difficulty appears not; for the light which differenceth us from unreasonable creatures, whether you call it reason, or call it the understanding▪ is seated in the soul, and so denominates it intelligent or understanding. but secondly, we want not a recipient for truth though the soul be not it, it may be the understanding. yet thirdly, though the soul be not the immediate subject, it may yet be the ultimate, which is more than a theca. object. but you will reply, however it be so, that we make this light to be inherent in the soul; yet it is not sufficient to make an essential difference between the reasonable and unreasonable soul. for though reason be in the soul, except it also be the soul, it makes the difference but accidental; for thus the reasonable and unreasonable soul will not differ in their essence, but only in their adjuncts. answ. to this i answer▪ first, this is a new difficulty not arising out of his lordship's argument: for though this light (of reason) be an accident, yet this hinders not but that there may be his three requisites: for an accident may be truly received, in the subject, from the producer. and yet (secondly) this, though a faculty of the soul, and not the soul itself, makes notwithstanding a noble difference between a rational and irrational soul; so that the soul loseth not its dignity▪ neither becomes a bare theca to the understanding or reason: and is sufficiently dignified to have such a divine faculty in it, and of it, by which it produceth it operations, which the irrational soul hath no●. we account those s●ones precious, that have in them some rare virtues: and why not the soul, endued with so divine a faculty? especially (which is the third thing i reply) since it is so in the soul, that is also of the soul. the honey which samson found in the dead lion's carkas●, proceeded not from it, but was only accidentally or casually in it. a knife touched with a loadstone will take up a needle, or the like; but this attractive virtue is not from itself, but from the loadstone: and you may call the knife, if you please, a theca or receptacle of this virtue▪ and say, it hath no other than a relative excellency, as it is the receptacle of an excellent virtue; (though indeed to be the subject of inhesion, is more than a theca, or a bare receptacle.) but in the loadstone it is otherwise, for there the attractive virtue is not only in it, but of it, or from itself: it is so received in it, that it ●●owes from it, it is sui partus. thus in the soul, though reason be a faculty of the soul, yet is it such a faculty as floweth from it; and so the soul not only its receptacle, but also its original. thus is light in the sun, and from the sun, it is not received aliunde. and it is a real excellency in the sun, and not only relative, to be the author and original of that which enlightens the whole world. and it is a real excellency in the soul (and more than the excellency of a theca) to have from itself, from its own essence, such a faculty whereby it is able to know and understand. but you will say still, however reason may thus dignify and distinguish it from irrational being's; yet this is but an accidental dignity, an accidental distinction, no● essential; as consisting in that which is in the soul, but distinct from it. therefore fourthly, reason in the soul, is not only an accidental, but an essential perfection, an essential consequent flowing immediately from the essence of the soul, as an inseparable endowment: and so may make an essential difference; (it is essential to the soul that reason should arise from it.) and thus that which is distinct from a thing, may yet be essential to it, viz. essentiale consequens, though not essentiale constituens. but fifthly, (which i conceive to be of the greatest force) though reason, or the understanding (as a faculty) be only essentiale consequens▪ and so, in its formality, makes only an external difference (aposteriori;) yet it points out unto us an essentiale constituens, an essential ingredient (as i may so call it) from whence this consequent doth arise. which is somewhat in the essence of the soul: whereof we can take no other notice then from its operations▪ (and this answer holds good, though you suppose reason to be distinct from the understanding, and both from the soul: for so, that essence (from whence the understanding flows, together with its immediate and remote issue, viz. reason and its operations) will make this essential difference between the rational and irrational soul.) thus they say, prim● qualitates are not formae elementorum, but that from whence these first qualities do essentially flow. and though the qualities make but an accidental difference between them, yet the substantial forms from whence the qualities do arise make an essential difference. (so here: the rational soul is such a substance as is able to give rise to such faculties, which the irrational soul is not.) if you ask what this substantial form is? you know the ordinary answer; dic formam lapidi● & eris mihi magnus apollo. (it is a hard thing, by his own confession, to find out the form of any being, much more to discover the being of a form, pag. 32.) tell me the being of any thing, and i will tell you the being of this. if i ask what the soul is? (which to be we are sure:) you will say perhaps, a spiritual substance: and that is all you can say, for the essence of it. but if i ask, what it is to be spiritual? what, to be a substance? i suppose you cannot tell me otherwise, then by negations, or effects. and (thus) they will do in the elemental forms; they are not these qualities, but something from whence they arise. (and so for the substance of the soul, it is not these faculties but the original of them.) if you will say, there is no such something, as this substantial form of the elements; because we cannot tell you what this something is. (to omit, that by the same reason you might banish all being, because none can tell you, what being is: for if you say (and that is all you can say) that being is a ray communicated from the original entity in god: this tells us at the most, but whence it is, not what it is.) i say, if you deny, that there be any other forms of the elements (beside their qualities) whereby they differ one from another; then need we look no further: for then these faculties, though but accidents, may be sufficient to make an essential difference in the rational soul from the irrational. but further, if you can persuade them, that the essence or form of the elements, and their accidents or prime qualities, are the same: i doubt not, but then they will as easily grant, the soul and its faculties to be the same also. and thus i have answered according to their opinion that hold the soul and its faculties distinct: and have showed, that we are not so far to seek for a recipient of reason, or truth, as his lordship might imagine. and indeed there is nothing more difficult in this particular, then in all accidents whatsoever; their subject is their recipient, and so is the subject of truth, or reason, it's recipient. but there is another kind of recipiency (which i shall touch in the next chapter) which (if i mistake not) will cut the sinews of this argument, and leave it of no force. but in the mean time (having found a recipient) we must seek for a fountain, from whence this light of reason, or truth, is derived. for that is his lordship's next demand; who is it that communicateth this light? for the answering of this, i shall first propound another qu●re of the same nature, and then apply mine answer jointly to both. i ask therefore first, whether fire (supposing it to be an element) be not the true recipient of heat? and the loadstone the true recipient of the attractive virtue that is in it? and the sun, the true recipient of light? if so, than i demand, from whence they are received? what is the fountain from which they are communicated? if you speak of an internal fountain, from whence they flow by an essential emanation; the recipient and the fountain will be the same. and so, if you say the body of the sun, of the fire, of the loadstone, be the immediate recipients of their light, heat, and virtue; then must i say, that these several bodies are the several fountains from whence (respectively) those qualities do proceed. if you s●y, that these qualities are received (subje●tantur) immediately, in the form or essence of these bodies, and not in the entire substance; i must say also, they do arise from these forms, and flow from them by an essential emanation. and the definitive resolution of this quare depends upon the determination of that question in philosophy, whether accidents be subjected immediately in the form, or in the comp●situm: and (consequently) whether they flow from the form immediately, or jointly from matter and form together. which questions it is not material for me to determine; for take which side you please, i shall soon find both the fountain and a recipient. if you look for an external, physical fountain, or efficient; we must say, that the same fountain from whence they have their essence, from the same do they receive with their essence their inseparable accidents, or essential consequents, by a comproduction. thus the sun received its inherent light by creation, together with its essence, from god: for in the creation of the substance, the accidents are also concreated. so fire produced by a natural agent, receives its heat comproduced, or congenerated, and conferred upon it together with its essence from the same efficient. now in any of these ways, it will not be hard to find a fountain of truth, an original from whence the light of reason or truth may be conferred; though we hold the understanding and the soul to be distinct. if you ask an internal fountain; it will be answered, that reason▪ or the faculty of understanding, flows from the essence of the soul, as an essential consequent; and is received and inherent in the soul▪ (for i think not fitting to say, that it is inherent in the whole reasonable creature (jointly) consisting of body and soul; because it remains in the soul separate, without the body.) or (if you look at them as three things) than reason must be said to flow from the understanding, and it from the soul; and to be received, by inherence, in the understanding, as that also is received in the soul. if you inquire for an external efficient; so the faculties are either concreated with the soul by god; or else comproduced by the parents by propagation. and so we want not a fountain, from whence reason may be communicated. i proceed to his lordship's prosecution of this quaere. this light (of truth or reason) must be conveyed (saith he) to the understanding, from the soul, from some other creature, or from god himself; but neither of these▪ ways; therefore not all. i see not why any or all of these fountains may not be admitted to be the source of reason, in a several way. first, why may not the soul be the fountain of reason or the underding faculty; as well as the essence of fire is the fountain of its heat, and the essence of the magnet the fountain of its virtue? not by physical production, but by essential emanation? indeed, i like not to say, the soul communicates reason to the understanding, (as to a third thing;) for i have said before, the recipient and the fountain in this way of conveyance, viz. per emanation●m, are the same: like as in immanent acts, the agent and the patient are the same. but i say, that reason or the understanding faculty, which the soul as recipient entertains in itself; it hath also from itself, as being the fountain. (but if you take the understanding as a third thing from both; then the soul must not be said to be the immediate fountain, but the understanding must be said to be the (immediate) both source and channel.) and thus his lordship's reason troubleth me not, viz. if the soul communicate light, then hath it light already, and so this faculty, the understanding, is in vain. i say, the soul hath this light, which both flows from the soul as an essential consequent, and is inherent in the soul as an inseparable accident. next, why may not the soul, or understanding (whether you will) receive this light of reason from another creature? i mean, from the parent, by procreation; producing both its essence, and adjuncts, as well essential as accidental, together▪ not by essential emanation, as before, but by physical production? to the reason annexed, viz. that if a creature produce a faculty in the soul or understanding that creature must produce it by an intervenient faculty, and that faculty must be produced by another faculty, and s● in infinitum; i answer, the faculty of reason (together with the soul) was produced by the parent (according to this supposition,) and that by an intervenient faculty, viz. the generative faculty in the parent● and yet shall we not proceed in infinitum, for this generative faculty was produced by another, and that again by another, ascending still upwards till we come to the generative faculty of adam, which was immediately produced of god, without an intervenient faculty▪ either by concreation with the soul; or by infusion, when he pronounced that blessing increase and multiply. lastly, why may not this and other faculties be produced in the soul and with the soul, by immediate creation, from god? i mean, if souls be daily created, as most suppose; or, if not, yet at least the faculties in adam's soul might be by god created or concreated with it, notwithstanding that they be distinct. but you ask, why then did not god immediately and intrinsically communicate this to the soul itself, rather than as a faculty, or by a faculty? if he did not, it was because he would not; and we cannot give account of this will. god might have created immediately all mankind, as he did the angels; yet we see he pleased rather, that they should be produced by generation, one from another: but who can give us any other account of this his pleasure, save only his will? so neither, why reason should be an accidental faculty, rather than m●d●● substan●i●li●; that is, why he should produce it mediante animâ, rather than by himself immediately, together with it: he might do either. but, in general, by what means soever (saith he) truth (or reason) be conv●yed; if the understanding do at all, receive truth, than it is truth▪ for god doth not communicate light, but to light. if he mean, god gives lucem non nisi lucido; or lumen non nisi luminoso; i grant it, saking the words i● sensu composito, but not insensu diviso. (and so god gives not animam nisi animato, nor rationem nisi rationali) that is, god gives not light but to that which is light (●. lucide or illuminate,) viz. when that light is bestowed: but in s●nsu diviso, that this was (before) lucid, it is not to be admitted. light communicated to the air, makes it illuminate, but finds it not so. god inspires not a soul, but into a living-creature: and so breathing into adam the breath of life, he made him a living-creature; but found him (his body) inanimate, a ●ump of earth. so here; god gives not the light of reason, but to that which is light, or enlightened, viz. then enlightened when this light of reason is bestowed. but if by this, god gives not light but to light, he means, lucem non dat nisi luci, or lumen non nisi lumini; i cannot admit it, either in sensu composito, or in diviso. when the sun imparts light (lumen) to the air; the air is illuminate or enlightened: but, that the air is lumen, i must never grant, till we cease to hold, lumen non est corpus. so if god communicate to the soul or understanding the light of reason; the soul or understanding becomes thereby illuminate or enlightened with reason: but, that the soul or understanding, is this light, this reason; follows no more than if you would say, that water is heat when it grows hot; the air is light (lumen,) when it is enlightened; a body becomes a colour when it is coloured; any substance whatsoever is metamorphised into an accident, when (as a subject) it receives that accident; or that the body of adam, form out of the dust, was made a soul, when it received a soul inspired. that which is annexed as a proof; because quicquid recipitur, recipitur ad modum recipientis, (together with the illustrations following;) proves no more but this, whatsoever is conferred▪ is no further forth conferred, then as the subject is capable of, and actually doth receive it. and this we grant, that the soul or understanding, upon which the light of reason is conferred; is a fit subject to receive or entertain reason, and is actually endued with reason. and so i admit that which he citys of dr. twisse, neither a quality permanent, nor an act immanent unless they be made inherent in the soul, (observe the phrase) and the latter also produced by it, can be said to be given to the soul. he saith, it is inherent in the soul, not that it is the soul. lastly, how passeth (saith he) this light from the understanding to the soul? there being as vast a distance between it and the soul, as between it and the will, (supposing them distinct faculties) whence grow those inextricable disputes, how the will is made to understand, what the understanding judgeth fit to be willed. but here his lordship varies somewhat the state of the question in altering the acceptation of the word truth, from truth understanding, to truth understood, and instead of innate truth of reason, speaks of the advenient truth, which is a conceptus or idea framed to represent the truth of being in the object. for we cannot conceive reason, which is now looked upon as a permanent faculty, to be transient from one subject to another. but truth understood, how it may be conveyed from the understanding to the soul; i shall then perhaps better tell when he shows me, how the visible species are conveyed from the organ to the soul, or faculty, seeing. that the organ receives species, he will not deny; for else the soul might as well see, when the eye is out: that the soul also (by the organ) doth apprehend these species, must likewise be yielded; else why should not the eye of a dead man see? that the soul and the organ are distinct, must needs be granted; for we see them really separated by death, whereas nothing can be separated from itself: and when i am informed, how the soul and the organ, being distinct, are conjoined in seeing; i shall better be able to resolve, how the soul and the faculty, though distinct, may jointly understand. till then, it might suffice, in general to say, that, as by the organ the soul s●●th, so by reason or the understanding-faculty, the soul knows and understandeth: (only allowing such disproportion as must be allowed between a material and immaterial instrument.) and it seems to be no more vast distance between a faculty and the soul, then is between an organ and the soul. so that if by visible species in the organ, the soul may see; why not by intellectual species in the understanding (though a faculty) may the soul understand? but, because i love not to answer a difficulty only by opposing another; you may resolve it thus. we are not to conceive, there is any such vast gulf between the soul and the understanding (though a faculty) as that truth should need a ferry-boat to wa●t it over: for as the eye doth not first see, and then inform the soul or visive faculty, what it hath seen; but the organ and the faculty jointly concur to the act of seeing: so neither doth the understanding first receive and entertain truth, and afterward inform the soul, what it hath understood: but the soul with and by this faculty of reason or understanding, doth know and understand; both concurring to the same act. (thus a stone, by its heaviness, descends; fire, by its heat, warms; by its light▪ shines; glass, by its smoothness, reflects light; a knife, by a communicated faculty from the magnet, draws iron: and yet (in some of these at least) you must of necessity grant a distinction ex parte rei.) there is indeed sometimes a reflex act of the soul, whereby it knows▪ what is understood: but we must not think, that it is an act of the souls essence, surveying or taking account of the understanding faculty, what it hath done; but the soul, by this understanding faculty, reflects upon a former act, which itself by the same faculty had formerly performed. the gulf is likewise fordable between the understanding and the will, though they be distinct faculties. not as if the will by an act of knowledge should understand what the intellect doth dictate: but the soul, which by its faculty of understanding knows, doth by its willing faculty command, and by its loco-motive execute. so that neither the will knows what the understanding judgeth, nor the inferior faculties what the will commands; but the soul by several faculties executes several functions. thus when the soul by the eye discovers a danger imminent, by the hand it endeavours to divert it: and yet there is no messenger dispatched between, to inform the hand, what the eye hath seen; notwithstanding that the hand and the eye are really distinct, yea locally distant. as for mine own opinion, i could easily grant, the distinction of the faculties, from the soul, and among themselves, to be neither real, nor a part rei. and concerning the first, i am sufficiently confident: but for the second, whether the distinction be modall (i à parte rei) or merely rational (rationis rati●cina●●,) i do yet desire a convincing demonstration to determine. chap. iii. the same argument further prosecuted and examined, in this and the ensuing chapters. in the next chapter he shows, that if we make the understanding and truth to be one, (which i suppose will be easily granted; there being but few or none which make the soul, the understanding, and reason (that is, truth) to be three distinct things:) then will it be easy to find these three requisites: for thus light or truth is dispensed; by the father of light; and hath for its recipient, the whole reasonable creature, consisting of body and soul. all which i admit, (as likewise will those that be his greatest adversaries:) only with this proviso, that he make the entire reasonable creature to be subjectum denominationis, and not subjectum inhaesionis, to reason or truth. next, he spends some time to clear this, how the whole reasonable creature can be said to be the recipient; which labour, in my judgement, might have been spared: for i cannot see any reason to fear, but that it will as easily be granted, that the reasonable creature may be the subject of reason; as that the air illuminate is the subject of light: without any fear of identity in the thing received with the recipient. but it seems his lordship speaks of another kind of recipiency beside the recipiency of a subject: such a kind of recipiency as where the recipiens and receptum be the same. no being (saith he) but it is the thing receiving and received: for consider any individual being you please, vegetative or rational, or what you will; who is it that entertaineth this being, but the being itself which is entertained? who is it that receiveth from the womb of eternity that reasonable creature, but the creature received? you may distinguish them thus, the recipiency of a being, and the recipiency of a form: and so, the fountain or efficient, that esse, and that habere. in the first kind of giving and receiving, the recipient and the thing received must of necessity be the same; thus the efficient or producer of light, that lucido esse lucidum, that luci esse lucem, not that lucido esse lucem. but in the second it is otherwise, not that lucido habere lucidum, nor luci habere lucem, but lucido habere lucem. thus the efficient or fountain of reason, that rational● esse rationalem, habere rationem. (but how his marginal note stands good, viz. that in all things the agent and the patient must be one, because the thing receiving and received are one, i cannot conceive; for thus he makes god and the reasonable creature to be one: for, if i mistake no●, the fountain or efficient is the agent, and the recipient the patient.) and indeed he must of necessity admit this distinction of recipiency: for otherwise his fundamental axiom would have failed. for if we allow no recipiency, but the recipiency of a subject, whereby it receives or entertains a▪ form▪ it will not be universally true, that to the constitution of every being, there must be the three requisites formerly mentioned. for substantiae non sunt in subject; complete substances are not communicated or imparted to a subject receiving (a●d so would want a recipient,) but are only made to be, and to be the subject receiving other things. but ● desire his lordship to consider, whether, admitting such a reception, wherein every thing is its own recipient; he do not lay open so wide a gap, that his adversaries may make an escape; and himself break that net wherein his adversary should have been taken? whether, in answering an objection, he do not overthrow his principal argument? for how easy is it to say, that truth, though it be neither soul, intellect, nor reason; yet it is a faculty (or what you will) proceeding from god, and its own recipient. and so, though they imagine an hundred faculties in the soul, one dependent upon another; yet they shall never be put to a strait to find either a fountain or a recipient: for god, of necessity, must be the fountain of all being whatsoever (either mediatè or immediatè;) and that being whatsoever it is, shall be its own recipient. therefore the soul (in this sense) hath not the body for its recipient; neither did god communicate or bestow a living soul upon adam's earthly body, when he breathed into it the breath of life: but he gave to the soul, to be a soul. neither is the soul a recipient to the understanding, nor it to reason, no● any of these to truth, (if they be distinct things:) but each of these their own recipient. neither (lastly) is the entire reasonable creature a recipient of truth or reason (as he would have it) but truth is its own recipient. and then must he hold his hand from concluding as he doth in the close of this chapter, that the totum existens consisting of matter and form: the reasonable creature, is the recipient of this truth: except he will say, veritas est animal rationale, & animal rationale est veritas▪ but how, the ignorance of this point should give the ground to that question, whether the soul or the body be contentum; (which he admonisheth us of) i cannot see. for though it be granted, that every thing be its own contentum; yet this difficulty remaineth as firm as before. for, is not water its own contentum: is not the vessel also its own contentum? yet he will not deny, but that (in another sense) the water is contained in the vessel; nor can he say, that the vessel is contained in the water: so though the soul and body be either of them their own contentum and recipient (quia datur animae▪ ut sit ani●a; datur corpori, ut sit corpus:) yet that the one may not be locu●▪ and the other locatum; one the subject, and the other an adjunct (which is the meaning of that question) will not from hence appear. chap. iu. whether the understanding, faculty may not be the recipient of truth. in the 4. chapter he proceeds, further to show, that the understanding cannot ●● this recipient. and if he speak of such a recipiency as where the recipient and the receptum be the same; his adversaries, that say, truth and the understanding to be distinct, will contend for this as well as he: for neither will they say, datur intellectu● se esse rationem, nor datur rationi ut sit intellectus. but if he speak of the recipiency of a subject, i see not from what hath yet been said, why the understanding (if distinct) may not be the subject of reason; why they may not say, datur intellectui habere rationem: since it is granted in logic, that one accident may be the immediate subject, though not the ultimate subject of another. and so, if any will have the soul the intellect, and truth or reason, to be tria distincta: they must say, the intellect is the immediate subject of reason, and the soul the ultimate. and then call the understanding either a quality, a faculty, or virtus quâ, it is no great matter; (we will not contend with his lordship for the name.) for virtus quâ i● but a faculty, and a faculty, (or po●●●tia naturalis) is the second species of quality. chap. v. whether the soul and truth in the soul, be one. the like answer must be given to that in the 5. chapter, whether the soul (without an intervenient faculty) may not be the recipient of truth? for we cannot say, datur animae ut sit veritas; except we agree to make the soul and reason one: but we may say datur animae ut sit subjectum veritatis, or subjectum rationis, though we ●old them distinct. as may appear at large by what i have said upon the second chapter. that which is further added in this chapter, whether as a suasive to enforce this, or as a new argument▪ viz. that our soul resembles god, who is vnus & simplex actus, and therefore itself must be simple in its operations▪ and we must not expect first an essence, and then a faculty whereby it worketh, etc. may as well be urged, to prove, that our soul and body are the same, because man was made after god's image, who is ●nus & simplex, not consisting of parts. or (if you instance particularly in the soul) it may as well follow, that we know not one thing (successively) after another, nor (discursively) by another; but by one entire act like god, because the soul bears the image of god, and vnitas (which i grant not) is formalis ratio dei. that which is lastly added, concerning a resemblance of the trinity, in truth thus understood: is no way peculiar to this acceptation of truth; but holds as well in every degree of being whatsoever. all entity or being, as it lieth involved in the original▪ fountain of being, which is god's essence, may represent patrem intelligentem; as it descends from above, filium intellectum; as it is received in the creature, and maketh it to be, spiritum dilectum. and thus i have surveyed his lordship's reasons to prove, the soul and truth to be one. understanding by truth, or light, the light of reason; which is the original or actus ●rimus, from whence rational operations do proceed; and therefore must needs be the first of those nations of truth laid down in his first chapter. and, that it cannot be any other acceptation of truth, that is here meant, is very apparent; if we look upon the other acceptations of truth; which we shall find to be no way consonant either with his method or his arguments. for if you consider of truth understood, or the idea of truth entertained in the mind by actual apprehension; this will have no being, either in the understanding, or elsewhere, till such time as the understanding itself frames this conceptus: but (as ye●) we have nothing to do with the operations of the intellect▪ (for he proceeds not to consider the operations or effects of the reasonable soul, till he come to the 10. chapter▪) but with something antecedent them, which is the fountain from whence these operations do proceed; which can be no other but reason. yea, himself affirms it in this 5. chapter, pag. 23.) and likewise that acceptation of truth, for the truth either of being, or of cognoscibility, in the object hath no conjunction with the understanding, till it be actually understood: and, even then, we cannot make it to be one with the understanding, except we make those things to be one, which have neither coexistence of place, nor coexistence of time; for those things may be understood, which were many thousand years past, and many thousand miles distant. chap. vi whether all things be this one truth. in the next place he proceeds to a consequent or corollary, arising out of his former thesis, viz. that all things, are this one truth. i confess, i was at a stand a great while, and could not imagine any show of consequence between these propositions: if truth or reason, be the same with the soul or understanding; then is it also the same with all things else. why so. this argument (saith he) will press all things that are. this argument? which argument? doth he mean that argument which was last propounded, towards the end of the fifth chapter, [that because god is one simple act; therefore, not only the soul and its faculties must be one, but even all creatures must be one, because there is in all somewhat of god's image, whose essence is unity?] if this be his argument, i shall content myself with a bare denial of the consequence, till i see some show of proof. for, that unity is god's essence, is (in my judgement) grossly false▪ or, were it true, yet, that because god is one, therefore the creatures must also all be one; hath no strength: for this unity in god is equivalent to an infinite multiplicity. and, that one simple efficient, may not produce distinct effects, seems to me a paradox. or is it his second argument, propounded in the second chapter, and prosecuted in those that follow; [that, to the constitution of every creature there must be a being communicated, a fountain from whence, and a recipient to which; the which recipient must be the same with the being received?] from hence perhaps he might prove, that every thing is the same with its own being: but that very thing should be the same with each other, or the same with reason, or the understanding; follows not. is it then his first argument, propounded towards the end of the first chapter? which perhaps his lordship looks at as the principal argument; and at all that follows, only as a prosecution of that; (though his marginal notes, and the titles of chapters (which i question whether or no they be of his lordships doing) point out to us distinct arguments, in the beginning of the second, and in the end of the fifth chapter.) the argument was this, the understanding is nothing but a ray of the divine nature, etc. and is not truth the same? which i understood, as you may see, thus, [the understanding is god's image in man, and this image consists in truth, or the light of reason; therefore truth, or reason, is the understanding.] and thus the syllogism will be true in the first figure, if you transpose the premises and convert the conclusion. or thus, [the image of god in man is the understanding; and this image is truth▪ therefore (some) truth is the understanding:] and thus it will be true in the third figure. and beside these two forms, ● see not how that argument can be reduced to a true syllogism. now choose you which form you please; yet how ●● should follow from hence, [that all things else are this one truth,] i do not yet perceive. it may be his lordship would have his argument thus ordered (in the second figure) [the understanding is a ray of divinity; and truth also is a ray of divinity: therefore truth is the understanding, or truth and the understanding are one.] and if this be the form of his argument; i will easily grant, that it presseth all things that are, as much as this. for, is not this syllogism in the same form, [the blessed angels are spiritual substances; and the damned spirits are spiritual substances; therefore the damned spirits are blessed angels, and the blessed angels damned spirits?] then which consequent, scarce any thing could be less probable. and thus indeed he may prove all things that are to be one truth, one understanding, yea one stone, or what you will: for take any two being's whatsoever, and they will both be sound to be rays of divinity, because both proceed from the ●ame original and fountain of being in the divine essence; and therefore (according to this argument) they will be both one. but his argument thus ordered, will prove but a plain fallacy, offending against the laws of the second figure, wherein no affirmative proposition can be concluded. the most that he can prove from hence will be this, that there is some common predicate, which may be affirmed of both; and so that there is some general nature in which they both agree. and this i am confident there is none will ever deny that grants but this proposition, quicquid est, est e●s, that all being's, whatsoever agree in the general nature of a being. for than they may all be the subjects of the common praediate ens. but this is far enough from proving, all things to be one and the same. for to assume [that whatsoever things agree in a universal nature, are also the same numerical and individual existence;] is such a proposition as logic will not admit of. yea, though his argument should proceed thus, [the specifical essence of the understanding, consists in this, that it is a ray of the divine nature; and the specifical essence, as well of truth, as of all being's whatsoever, is the same, viz. that it is a ray of the divine nature; and therefore all things whatsoever agree in the same specifical essence;) and (consequently) all things whatsoever, having the same specifical essence with each other, must also be one and the same with each other.] i say, though his argument proceeded thus, yet would it little avail to prove all things to be one and the same. for, besides, that the specifical essence of the understanding (and so of other things) consisteth not in being a ray of divinity; besides this, i say, although they had all the same specifical essence; yet doth it not follow that they must be all one and the same. for are there not many individuals under the same species, whereof one is not the other? doth not the soul of peter and the soul of judas agree in all the ●ame specifical and essential predicates, whilst notwithstanding it may be truly said, that the soul of peter is not the soul of judas, and again, that the soul of judas is not the soul of peter? what essential difference is there beeween water in the baltic sea, and that in the mediterranean, ●ince they are both but integral parts of the same homogeneal ocean? yet how true it is withal, that the baltic sea▪ is not the mediterranean sea; and that the water which is now in the baltic, is distinct from that which at the same time is in the mediterranean sea? two drops of water taken out of the same spoonful, be they in their essentials never so consonant, in their accidents never so like; yet we may truly say this is not the other, nor the other this. how then can it follow, that truth is one with the understanding, and that all things are this one truth, because all being is but a ray of divinity. it follows indeed, that if all things have the same specifical essence, then are they all, things of the same nature; (but that they are all the same thing, it follows not.) thus much therefore i suppose will be granted him by all, that all things are of the same (at least generical) nature, because all things have a being; and, when he hath proved their specifical essence to be the same, it will be granted also, that they are all, things of the same specifical nature; and (if you will) that all being falls under the same predicament▪ (though yet a predicamental distinction be not always a real distinction; no, not a par●e rei.) but is this all he seeks to prove? i supposed he had laboured to show that the light of truth or reason was not only of the same nature with the understanding, but that it was the understanding. otherwise he proves less than his greatest adversaries would have granted him. for those that contend for the greatest distinction between the soul and its faculties, do not yet maintain a more real or physical distinction between them, than is between one soul and another, which yet agree in the same essential predicates. and if you allow them the same distance between the soul and the understanding, which is between the soul and a stone, yea between two souls, they will tell you it is more than they desire: for they will grant that the soul with all its faculties, and the body with all its members, do constitute the same suppositum; which is a more physical, a more real union, then is between two souls, though agreeing in every essential predicate. but (if i mistake not) that which he was about to prove, was, not that the understanding is of the same nature with truth, but that it is truth. his supposition in the first words of the ●. chap▪ is, if the intellect, the soul, light, and truth are all but one, etc. not, a like, or of the same nature. and p. 22. if you make the understanding▪ the soul, light, truth one, then are you delivered out of these straits, etc. and pag. 10. if the understanding be enriched with truth, then is it, itself that truth, that light; thus he frequently calls them one and the same▪ now to be, ●● self that truth▪ and to be of the same nature with truth, is far different. and if he prove no other but a logical union, that truth and the understanding are of the same (generical or specifical) nature; we may y●t safely deny a physical or real union or identity; and say, truth is not the understanding, nor is the understanding truth, (though of the same nature with truth) as well as say, this drop of water is not the other drop, though this and the other be of the same nature. neither can the same argument (taken in the same sense, without equivocation and ambiguity) possibly prove a physical and real identity between the soul and its faculties; and also a logical or specifical identity between it and all things else. it is impossible by the same argument to prove, the soul and its faculties to be one thing, and, the soul with all things else to be things of the same nature: these to be t●lta, and those to be id●m. but to omit the consequence and dependence of this, upon that which went before: i will examine it as an entire proposition by itself, whether all things are one? and if so, then must it be either thus understood, that all things are one and the same by a physical identity; this is the other, and the other is this; bucephalus is alexander, and alexander is bucephalus: and (by the same reason) the bread in the lord's supper is the body of christ, and the body of christ is this bread, by consubstantion. in which sense it seems so impossible, that (in my judgement) it needs no refutation. or thus, that all things are one and the same by an integral identity; that is, they be all parts of the same whole: all members of the same integrum, the same aggregatum. and in this sense it is true indeed, but there is nothing new in it, nothing strange: for who ever denied, that all things, as parts, as members, do constitute the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, one universe? that the whole aggregatum, the whole heap or multitude of creatures do make one world? or (lastly) thus, that all things whatsoever are one, by a logical identity, as being all of the same nature. and if he speak of a generical nature, this will be as easily granted as the former: for none deny, that all things agree in the generical universal nature of a being: and whether ens be genus vnivocum, or gen●● anagolum, yet it is predicated or affirmed of all being's; only that which he calls truth, others call being, both meaning no other than the formalis ratio entis, propter quam dicitur esse. put if he speak of a specifical nature, wherein he would have all things to agree; making the universe to be one homogeneal body, (which ●e seems to mean here; though he meant, i suppose, a physical unity, when he said, the soul and truth w●re one:) then are we to inquire, whether those things which agree in a universal generical nature, may not admit of a specifical difference? and for this, it will not be sufficient to prove that every being is a ray of divinity issuing from the centre of being in god, or that the essence and form of every particular thing is a roy of divinity: except it be proved▪ that every being is this ray, that it is such a ray. if therefore all those rays that have issued forth of that centre of infinite being, if the streams derived from this fountain be exactly of the same nature, without any specifical difference; then is it because god could not send forth distinct and different rays, or because he would not. if we make god an agent so uniform, as that we will admit no possible variety, not so much as in the object, or manner of his actions; what difference is there between the most determinate natural agent, and god the most absolutely free agent? if in his operations we admit not of this choice, to work thus rather than th●●? but if he could work in several manners, by communicating rays of divers natures, but would not; how then hath he manifested 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the exceeding great var●●●y of his wisdom and power? for there cannot be so much as an accidental variety in the creatures, except there be somewhat real produced in the one which is not in the other; which cannot be, if all being, all entity whatsoever be exactly of the same specifical nature. i grant therefore, an integral unity; whereby all things are parts of the same aggregatum, the same world: i grant likewise a generical unity▪ whereby all things agree in the general nature of a being: but if he cont●nd further for an identical or an homogeneal unity (whereby each is other, or of the same particular nature, without any other than a gradual difference;) i must deny both. and mr. sadler (his lordship's champion) denies it with me: for so he, corporal union in materials which ●● [mis●●ll] 〈…〉 identity, i● at best but a ●old touch in ● point or ●●o, ● most disdainful embrace (at 〈…〉 dista●●●) of those being's which hav● much 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but lit●l● 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. if the unity of all things be identical, how is i● [miscalled] identity▪ if homogeneal, how is there much 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and ●●t little 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉▪ his lordship's reasons to persuade this identity▪ come next to be examined▪ why (saith he) may it not be so▪ since ● all being is derived from the same vn●f●r● fo●●tai●; since ² all i● the same in nature (〈…〉) a beam of that excellent light; and▪ all entertained in the same manner by every individual existence, viz. by a similitude and union of nature▪ if his lordship speak of a physical identity, it is easy to say, this soul is not the other soul▪ this drop of water is not the other drop▪ though both produced by the same uniform agent, and in the same manner: this beam of light is not the other beam, though both shining forth from the ●ame sun: because one (uniform) agent may produce two effects. if he speak of a likeness in nature, it will be said, that the same agent may produce not only two effects, but unlike effects. e. g. the same sun produceth heat and light. here these several being's are ¹ derived from the same fountain the sun, which hath either virtually or formally both▪ heat and light; they are ² both beam● issuing in the same manner from their fountain; and ³ their essence is in the same manner received, viz. by being what they are, and informing a subject recipient: yet can i not think that light, and heat are either the same thing, or of the same (specifical) nature: (however some fond dream that light and heat are the same:) for then whatsoever is h●t, must also be light (lucide▪) which holds not in scalding lead: and whatsoever is light, must also▪ even in the same degree▪ be h●t, which holds not in snow, which is lucide; nor in ice, which being transparent ●i● also illuminate. object. if you object a disparity in the example, because light and heat, though they both proceed from the sun, yet the one from the sun's heat, the other from the sun's light, and that therefore their fountain is not the same; whereas in god's essence being absolutely simple in itself, and uniform in its operations, we may not imagine several fountains from whence several streams may proceed. answ. i answer, that god's essence, however simple, is yet equivalent to an infinite variety: and though we cannot in god suppose to be light distinct from heat, and heat from light; yet gods simple essence hath virtually both heat and light, and all things possible. his essence therefore being equivalent both to heat and light▪ why may it not produce heat in one thing, and light in another thing, and so several being's in several creatures? (except you will suppose, that god's essence, being equivalent to, and productiv● of, all essences possible▪ must of necessity exercise all this equivalency in the production of every being, and actuate all his efficacy in every product, and so agere ad extr●m●m virium, which in a voluntary agent is not necessary; in an infinite agent is impossible.) all the radii or semidiameters of a circle proceed from the same c●●t●r, but they tend not all to the s●me point of the circumference: but the same indivisible centre, which lies equally opposite to every point of the circumference, as it i● supposed to lie opposite to one point, it sends ●orth one radius to it, as it lies opposite to another point, it sends forth another radius to that other point, though the centre remain indivisibly the same. thus gods simple essence quatenus productiv● angeli, or, as it virtually contains the essence of an angel, may produce that essence: and the same simple divine essence, as it contains virtually the essence of a stone, may produce a stone. and if you say, as dr. ames concerning the divine attributes, that these two considerations esse productivum angeli, and esse productivum lapidis, be distinct ratione ratioc●●atâ, perhaps there will be no great error; although his lordship admit not of dr. ames his opinion; p. 23. for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 esse productivum angeli, or posse producere angelum is not the same with posse producere lapidem. for although it be the same simple essence of god whereby he is able to do both, yet this hindereth not but that this simple essence may be by us apprehended per i●ad●quat●s conceptus, which is no other but distincti● rationis ratiocinate. the same centre considered as it is the beginning of one radius, is distinct ratione ratiocinatâ from itself considered as the beginning of another radius. and so the divine essence, quatenus productiva angeli, may perhaps be distinct, ratione ratiocinatâ, from itself quatenus productiva lapidis, without any violation to its simplicity. they are only inadaequati conceptus ejusdem simplicis essentiae; and a metaphysical abstraction may be sufficiently consistent with a physical simplicity of essence. thus therefore may it appear, how the unity or simplicity of the fountain, hinders not but that the streams may admit of specifical and essential distinctions. but he saith secondly, all being is also of the same nature, viz. a beam of that excellent light. therefore what? is therefore all being the same? how? physically the same, (as if that soul which is of the same nature with another▪ must needs be that other soul;) or metaphysically, logically, the same; that is, of the same nature? if he mean, the first; i see not how it follows. if the second; his antecedent and consequent is the ●ame; and so he assumes what was to be proved. but for the proposition itself, all being, saith he, is of the same nature, s●il. a beam of that excellent▪ light. and this i grant; all being is of the same (generical) nature; all being is a stream communicated from the fountain of being, all being is a beam, etc. but (specifically▪) all is not such a beam. if his lordship yet contend, that this being is also specifically the same, only with a gradual distinction. i desire, first, to know whence the great variety in the creature doth proceed, if all being be absolutely homogeneal? add water to water, and it remains water still; in a greater quantity indeed, but yet without any alteration at all in its essence, it is still but water. add heat to heat, it remains heat still; in a more intense degree indeed, but yet it changeth not its nature: increase its intention as long as you will, yet you shall never make this colour to become color. a deaf man though he see never so acutely, it will not help his hearing. repl. if he urge, that the ●ame light proceeding through divers mediums is stained with divers colours; and why may not therefore this beam of essence, though homogeneal, being received by divers creatures, appear in a divers form? answ. i answer, the variety of those appearing colours proceeds from the variety of the medium: but here can be no variety in the recipient at all: for if there be no recipient but the being received, then will the medium be every way as uniform as this light or essence received, and so cannot cause this variety. it must be therefore various in itself, or else it cannot be variegated in the recipient. secondly, if all being's be but gradually distinct: i demand whether the essence of a man, or the essence of a magnet be the more intense degree? if the magnets essence be the higher degree of light, why hath not the magnet the use of reason? if man's essence be the higher degree, why hath not man the lodestones magnetic faculty? for if there be only a bare gradual distinction in their essence: then the inferior essence is actually included in the superior, with an addition of somewhat more: and if included, whence comes it to pass that it cannot operate? again if the body and the soul be absolutely of the same nature ●which they must be, if being admit only of a gradual distinction▪) then the essence of the soul (being the superior degree) includes in it the essence of the body, and somewhat more▪ therefore is it able to operate according to that essence, and to do of itself, whatsoever the body can do. if so, then how comes it to pass, that the soul needs the service of the body? why may not the soul separate, perform all corporeal operation●, since it hath in it corporeal essence, and somewhat more. (yea, why may not the soul see, when the eye is put out?) for the adding of another degree hinders not the operation of the former degree, but rather perfects it. yea what need is there of the body▪ at all? non bellè quaeda● faci●● d●o, sufficit unus huic op●ri; as his lordship saith, out of marshal. to his third consideration, i must answer accordingly as to the second; all being is received in the same manner by every individual existence: that is, every creature receives its being, by being what it is: a stone and a plant receive their several being's, by being (severally) what they are. but come to particulars, and the case is altered: a stone receives its being, by being a stone; and a plant receives its being, by being a plant. that which followeth in the ensuing part of this chapter (besides what i have already touched by the way) i pass over as being explicatory, rather than probatory. only thus much; the doctrine of the platonists, reducing all being to number, must either be taken in a metaphorical, analogical sense, or not taken at all. and being so, it availeth little to prove either a physical or specifical identity of being. whence they had this doctrine, i inquire not, as not belonging to the present matter in hand. neither will i stand to debate the controversy, concerning the nature of number▪ whether it be a real, or rational being; which ● conceive to have as much reality as a relation hath, and no more; that is, hath fundamentum i● re, but in its formality, it is only ●●li●… the birth of reason. and when i am convinced, that paternity, or ●iliation, are essential to humanity; that fatherhood, or sonship do constitute manhood▪ or humane nature; i shall also grant, that 〈…〉 est prin●ipi●● essend●▪ rather then consequent essentians. but, not to projudge the discourse of the next chapter, (wherein unity is made to be the essence of all things, yea of god himself) i proceed rather to consider the large 〈…〉 of unity there expressed. chap. vii. whether unity be all in all things, or, the essence of all things. and there we have it first proposed to consideration, whether unity be not in nature so glorious, and of that dignity, that it is able to inform a being, yea, to be the essential form of all things? it is prosecuted in the several kinds of being's. uncreated, and created, whether spiritual, moral, physical, or mathematical. in all these, saith he, you shall find unity as it were the form of their being. and first, whether unity be not all in god? (the humility and reverence, which his lordship useth in proposing of it, may be a fit pattern for all to imitate, in all approaches to a deity; not only in duties of worship, but even in scholastic discourses. and so neither to be peremptory in affirming, nor rash in censuring: since the vast disproportion between an infinite object, and a finite faculty, subjects our understanding both to ignorance and error; suntque oculit tenebrae per tantum lumen.) there is (saith he) but one god; and more there could not be, since there cannot be two infinites, two eternity's; neither could this one be otherwise, for than were he not infinite. unity then being so inseparable, as without which god could not be what he is, may it not be said to be coessential to him? and if of his essence, then is it in him all; for god's essence is all in god. the objection which his lordship moves, viz. that there is the same reason for all other divine attributes, they being all essential to god, as well as unity: will bring the question to this issue, whether of these attributes may be supposed in nature to be first? (for that every of them should be the formalis ratio of a simple essence is impossible:) and so, whether infinity, etc. do arise from unity, or unity from thence? i should rather say, that neither of these, or any other divine attribute, may be said to be formalis ratio, or the essential form of the deity; but somewhat else, in itself simple, and yet comprehending all these: which because we cannot apprehend at one discovery, we are fain to take several views of it per inadaequatos conceptus. but if we must needs seek for a seniority in god's attributes; i suppose, i might derive as clear a pedigree of them from his infiniteness, from his perfection, from his absoluteness or independency; as can be showed either from his unity, or from his verity. but not to be too extravagant, it shall be sufficient for the present to sh●w, whether his infiniteness flow from his unity, or his unity from his infiniteness? whether he must needs be infinite, because he is one; or one because he is infinite? if we say, god must needs be one, because he is infinite; his lordship will not only assent, but furnish us with a reason, because (saith he) there cannot be two infinites. but if otherwise we say, that god must of necessity be infinite, because he is one; it is not so easily proved, since there is but one sun, and yet that one sun not infinite. how then can we say, that god is essentially infinite, or that infiniteness is essential to him: if the formalis ratio, the essential form of divinity, may consist without infiniteness? sed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. to his instances in created spiritual being's. that all the commandments are comprised in love, shows that there is somewhat general, that is common to them all; or rather love (as likewise obedience, and the like) is a collective word, and an integrum, whereof all those are parts: but that unity is either the general form of all the commandments, or the particular of any, it shows not. the like may be said of the saints which agree in the common nature of saint ship, and do jointly make up the body mystical, whereof christ is head. yea of all creatures, they all agree in the common nature of a being, and they all make up one universe; yet is not unity either the general of all, or particular form of any creature. the moral virtues are said to be conjoined or concatenate, because they all proceed from one fountain, viz. the absolute subordination of the will and affections to the understanding: which subordination they call prudence, (and is of the same extent in morality, that obedience is in divinity) whereof all the moral virtues are but integral parts. (but i had rather apply prudence to the understanding only; as that whereby it is able to judge in all practical things, what is fit to be done; and the universal conformity of the will to this universal rule of reason, i should call justitia vniversali●, universal justice.) and thus i understand that axiom, that moral virtues are concatenate in prudence: because where there is this universal subjection of the will to reason, there will be an observance of it in all particulars. but if the rules of some virtues are observed, and not the rules of others; there this observance is not a virtuous action, as not proceeding from the subordination of the will to reason, (which would have as well prevailed in others also) but from some other principle. now this shows perhaps, that the moral virtues are united in one general essence: but how appears it, that this essence is unity? physical being's, as water-drops (and other connaturalls, either of the same, or concordant species; as the loadstone and iron) desire to preserve their union and neighbourhood one with another: but let us consider the ground; do they desire to preserve their essence that they may be one, that is, united or joined together; or do they desire union and conjunction, that they may preserve their essence? this latter i suppose; and therefore a drop of water doth not desire to be, to the end that it may be conjoined with the rest, but desires to be conjoined for its preservation, lest it should cease to be. but how doth this prove its essence to be unity? in sum, all those instances in nature (which doubtless are very many) whereby it may appear that all things naturally do desire unity (or conjunction rather) either for conservation, or for consummation of their natural perfection; that by unity their vigour is increased, quia vi● unita fortior, and the like; will show no more but this, that unity is a perfection of being, not a principle of being; or that things of the like nature conjoined together are able mutually to help each other in their conservation or operation. but what is there in all this to persuade us, that unity is their essence? as for the mathematical unity of harmony, proportion etc. it being only relative (for they denote but the relation of one thing to another) can confer nothing to the constitution of an absolute essence, as of sounds, etc. but how this should any way confer to the deciding of that question, whether quantity be divisibilis in semper divisibilia: seems to me a greater mystery, than this mystery that is to be cleared. for as long as mathematical demonstrations shall be thought worthy of credit, it shall never be granted, that continuum constat ex indivisibilibus. and however some naturalists, that know little what belongs to the nature of quantity, make much ado to the contrary, and thereby bewray their gross ignorance in these things; yet i am confident, that not any one mathematician (deliberately, and in a mathematical way) either ever did, or ever will assent to them. and i cannot without indignation (or pity rather) read sometimes how fond and vainly some (otherwise) able scholars think to shift off mathematical arguments in this and the like cases; which will not be so easily baffled by an empty verbal distinction, as some of their idle fallacies may. and if i make it not evident (to those that are acquainted with mathematical terms) that a continuum consists not of indivisible points, by as certain and infallible mathematical demonstrations, as that 2. and 2. make 4. i will hereafter turn sceptic, and affirm confidently that we are sure of nothing. if a line consist of indivisible points, each point is supposed to be minimum possibile, by those that do maintain it; (or else how are they indivisible.) then must all points be equal; (for if they be unequal, they cannot all be minima.) then no two lines can possibly be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or incommensurable; (for if all lines do consist of points whereof each is equal to other, then are all lines whatsoever measurable by this common measure of a point; qu● aliquoties applicata, & hanc & illam commensurabit. contrary to what hath been often demonstrated mathematically, that some lines are absolutely incommensurable with some other, admitting of no common measure, (as for example, the diameter and the latus of a quadrate, (whose proportion therefore cannot be expressed by rational numbers. now that two contradictory propositions should be true by mathematical demonstration, is utterly impossible. thousands of the like demonstrations might be brought to prove it; as, that from hence, all angles may be demonstrated to be equal; the same line, to be shorter, to be longer than itself, to be equal to two or more conjoined, and yet to be shorter than either; yea, all lines to be equal, all circles of the same bigness, the equinoctial circle to be no bigger than a cipher, all motions to be of the same swiftness, all bodies of the same weight, and of the same bigness: and yet in the mean time all these to be unequal, in length, weight, swiftness, etc. and infinite the like absurdities; as might be showed, if this were the question i had in hand. take an instance or two. let two circles be described upon the same centre, of what greatness you please; let a thread be fastened at the common centre, and so extended that it cut the circumference of both circles; thus extended, the one end being fastened at the centre, let the other end be moved round: now while this thread passeth over one point in the greater circle, i demand how much it passeth over in the lesser? less than a point it cannot be, because ex hypothesi, a point is minimum possibile; for every point therefore that it passeth over in the greater circle, it passeth over a point answerable in the lesser circle; there be therefore as many points in the lesser as are in the greater circle; and these points being all equal, because every one is minimum possibile, the lesser circle must needs be equal to the greater circle, because it consists of as many points; and by the same reason, all circles equal. now the thread thus moving, move it never so slowly, it passeth over a point in a moment; and move it never so swiftly, it passeth but a point in a moment: and therefore all motions are alike swift, as passing over equal distances in equal time. again, let two lines concurring in the same point make an angle, (of what greatness you please;) their two next points, joining upon this common point of concurrence, will terminate a basis of two points, (not more, for then the subtendent would be equal to both the crura.) the two third points will terminate a line somewhat longer than the other, and therefore at least of three points; and so on, for every point added to the crura, (be the angle greater or less) you must add one point to the length of the basis, subtendent to that angle (and more than one it cannot be, for then the increase of the basis will be equal to the increase of both the crura:) whence it will come to pass that all angles (at an equal distance from the point of concurrence) will have their subtendents equal (the basis or subtendent being thus measured by the length of the crura, or lines containing the angle●) wherefore themselves also must be equal. now also it is sufficiently apparent to a mathematician, that upon all lives whatsoever, you may erect (as from a basis) lines of the same length containing an angle; and therefore (both the angle and the basis being measured only by the length of the crura) not only all angles may be equal, but also all lines, (as being subtendents to equal angles at the same distance.) i need not add more demonstrations to show the impossibility of that opinion which makes every continuum to consist ex indivisibilibus. it is certain then, that continuum non constat ex indivisibilibus: but, how this doctrine of unity serves either to confirm the truth, or to clear the doubts; i see not. but to return. his lordship hath been copious to show some union, ●ome relation, of one thing to, or with another, in the several kinds of being. from whence he is ready to infer, that the essence of all things is one, that it is unity. but be it granted, that there be divers particular species under the same generical nature; (as when all particular acts of duty are comprised in one general name of love, or obedience:) be it so, that many effects may proceed from the same cause; (as all virtuous acts from the subordination of the will to reason:) that there be many combinations of being's or persons, natural, voluntary▪ economical, political, logical, etc. whence may arise one aggregatum, one predicament, one city, or kingdom, one world: be there supernatural or spiritual societies, one church, paroch●all, national, ecumenical, visible, invisible, one mystical body: be there also in lines, bodies, sounds, etc. (besides their absolute affections, length, bigness, loudness, etc.) some mutual relations of proportion, harmony, discord, etc. be there in physical bodies, a desire of union or conjunction in one to another; yet will not this prove, that all things have one nature, one essence; much less, that this essence is unity. if iron desire union, (or conjunction rather) with the loadstone, doth this prove their specifical essence to be one? or (if it do) doth it pro●e▪ that this one essence is unity? and so of the rest. all that can arise from hence, is, that god hath so ordered the several natures of particular creatures, as that his wisdom doth not only appear in their absolute and simple natures; but hath also put relative or respective natures in them, whereby his wisdom may appear in their mutual oppositions, conjunctions, similitude, dissimilitude, sympathy, antipathy, help, and hindrance of one thing to another; whereby not only every thing (severally) in its absolute nature doth set forth god's glory, but also all things (jointly) do 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and work together in their respective relations, as well for the good of those that love god, as for their mutual advancing of god's glory. all which may be, though neither unity, nor any one specifical being, be the formalis ratio, the essential form of all things; but each species have a several kind of being. for my own judgement; i am as confident, that unity is nothing; as his lordship is, that it is all things. 'tis a mere rational, nominal notion, that hath no more reality in it, than darkness, then non esse. yea, to be one, is a pure negative proposition; and what reality you can allow to a negation, so much you may allow to unity. it is true, vnus, as it is opposed to nullus, is affirmative, and is the same with aliquis, or nonnullus: but if it signify the same with vnicus, and be opposed to multitude, (according as we now take it,) it is a mere negation, and no more. which to make clear, observe but this syllogism, [whatsoever is in england, is in europe; but in england there is rex vnicus, one only king; therefore in europe there is rex vnicus; but one king.] where you shall find no fault in the syllogism, save that the minor is negative in the first figure. whence it is apparent, that unity, as it is opposed to multitude, is a mere negative term. there is one sun; but is this unity essential to it? whether another sun be, or be not; it nothing concerns the essence of this sun, but only grounds an external relation, which is yet but relatif rationis. was not the essence of adam the same, and he equally a man, before the production of eve, while he was vnicus; and after both the production of eve, and the generation of sons and daughters, when he ceased to be vnicus, there being more beside him? was there any detraction, or addition of essence, or any reality, that concerned adam's person, at such time as his children were born? or would there have been afterwards, if all except adam had been swept away? nay when two drops of water are separated, or conjoined, is there any essential or real mutation in either? surely, if unity may come, and go, without any real alteration; then is unity so far from being essential to all things, that it is not so much as real. object▪ you will say; but god is indeed one, vnus et vnicus; and not only supposed to be one: therefore his unity must needs be real, and not imaginary. answ. i grant it; but what then? must therefore unity be positive or real? the air, in the night time, is indeed dark, and not only ●●●posed to be dark; will you therefore infer that darkness hath a real, a positive being, and is not a privation of light? when the moon is eclipsed, it doth really and indeed want the illumination of the sunbeams, and is not only supposed to want them; but you will not, i suppose, say that this want of light, hath a real essence. so here▪ god is indeed one, and not only imagined so to be, yet hath not vnity●ny ●ny entity or positive being in it. there is negatio realis, and negatio rationis; a real absence and a supposed absence. of the one you may truly frame a negative proposition▪ of the other you cannot; there may be indeed in the understanding concerning thi●, negatio actus, (which is all one with abstraction) but not actus negationis, actus negativus. when the air, in the night time, is dark; there is a real absence of light: when, in the day time, i conceive of the air according to its essence, or according to some other qualities, not at all regarding its being light; this is negatio rationis, or negatio abstractionis, there is only a supposed absence of light, but indeed a (real) presence. yea, ipsum non-esse, is a real praedication though it be not a real praedicate (like as mendacium esse falsum, is a truth:) therefore when i say, centaurus non est; i do not forge this proposition, or suppose a nonentity in a centaur where indeed there is none, but i affirm that nonentity to be, which is; for a centaur, is nonens, and not only supposed to be nonens. and of negations, or privations, that is only negatio rationis, when by abstraction things are supposed to be separate, which are indeed conjoined: other negations though they have not realiter esse, yet they have realiter non-esse; their nonentity is not imaginary. (i speak of negatio physica, not negatio logica; for a logical negation, that is, a negative enunciation, is as real as an affirmation.) a supposed being is ens rationis, and a supposed absence is negatio rationis. negations and privations are non-entia, and not entia rationis; for they have not in themselves so much as esse cognitum, which is requisite to ens rationis; and when as sometimes a negation is said to be ens rationis▪ it is not to be understood of its internal entity, for so darkness in itself doth not include esse cognitum, but when the understanding considers of a negation, and so makes it objectum cognitionis, then of a nonens it becomes ens rationis. but then (i say) it is ●●trationis, not negatio rationis. yet all this hinders not but that unity, and all other negations, may have a kind of reality, as it is opposed to a fiction. and therefore the air ●● really dark, god is really vnicus, and not only supposed so to be: and yet darkness and unity are not in themselves real, but negative term▪ i purposely pass over several particulars, (as well in this chapter, as in others) which his lordship lights upon by the way; to avoid tediousness: and look principally at those things, to which his lordship's aim doth especially tend. chap. viii. the nature of habits whether they be one with truth or the souls essence. in the eighth chapter, he speaks somewhat concerning the nature of habits. and this is to be adjoined to the end of the 5. chapter: the 6. and 7. chapters, (wherein he infers a corollary, concerning the essence of all things▪ that it is one, that it is unity;) being inserted as a parenthesis. he had in the fifth chapter affirmed that the soul is nothing but truth; yet (saith he) while i affirm, that the soul is nothing but this truth, i do not refuse the doctrine of habits, either infused or acquisite. but before i proceed, it is not amiss to give notice of a different acceptation of truth here, from that before. he spoke before of the truth or light of reason, which he contended, to be one with the soul, and not a distinct faculty. this light was an innate or connate light, which hath its original and its period with the soul: for when the soul begins, the light of reason begins, and this light of reason is no sooner extinct, then when the soul shall cease to be. but the light of habitual knowledge, (whether infused or acquisite,) is not an innate light, but an advenient light; subsequent to the souls first existence, and really separable from it. yet may it be antecedent to another degree of advenient light, viz. actual knowledge, which may proceed from habitual. this advenient light of habitual knowledge differs from innate light of reason; as a habit in the first species of quality, from naturalis potentia, or a faculty, in the second species. and so, howsoever it may be true, that a faculty or natural power, may be so far the same with the soul, as that it differ only ratione ratiocinatâ; yet in a habit, we must of necessity grant a distinction ex parte rei. for where there may be a real separation (and not only mental) there must needs be granted a distinction in re. now that in all habits there may be a real separation, is apparent: for (though, it may be, some habits acquired or infused cannot be lost when they are once had, as grace, etc. yet) before the acquisition or infusion of such habits, the soul was actually without them. indeed it is true, that these habits cannot subsist without the soul; and therefore they may not be imagined to be really distinct, as res & res; yet because the soul may exist without these; therefore they must have a modall distinction in re, as res & modus. thus the roundness of a piece of coin, though, when it is, it is the same thing with the silver, not being a thing added, but only a modification, a moulding or fashioning of the former thing; yet must it be distinct from the essence of the silver, though not a thing distinct: otherwise when this silver looseth its roundness, it should lose its essence and become somewhat else; whereas the silver in this form, is not really distinct from itself in another form, but the same metal, the same silver. there being then this difference between a habit and a faculty: though reason should be one with the soul without so much as a modall distinction; yet follows it not, that a habit hath the same real identity, but that it may be distinguished ex parte rei. habits he distinguisheth into infused and acquisite. when the soul (saith he) by virtue of its being is clear in such a truth; it is said to be an infused habit: when by frequent action, such a truth is connatural to the soul, it may be styled an habit acquisite, though etc. whether or no this be the genuine distinction between an acquisite and infused habit, it is not material strictly to examine. if the soul by its essence be clear in such a truth; that is, be ready to act according to such a truth: i should call this a faculty or natural power, rather than an habit. thus gravity in a stone, whereby it is naturally prone to descend, i should not call an habit, but a faculty. (though heaviness, in another relation, be neither a faculty nor an habit, but qualitas patibilis. and so perhaps may knowledge, as it is an accidental form informing the soul, be referred to the same species of quality, though it can hardly be called by that name: for a habit quatenus sic, is so called, not with any relation to the subject, but in relation to acts, which slow from it, or are produced by it.) this proneness or aptness for operation which is in any thing immediately from its essence, is a natural power or faculty; and a habit, is a further readiness, and pliableness, or facility of working according to this faculty: a habit therefore always presupposeth a faculty, as being but a facilitation of it. and when as by reason a man hath an ability to understand: by habitual knowledge, he hath a readiness to understand. now this readiness or facility, if it proceed from often acting; so that from the iterating of former acts it becomes more prone either to continue or repeat those acts; it is an acquisite habit: (somewhat of this may be seen in natural things; a wheel being once in motion, it will by a smaller force be continued, then at first begun; yea for a while persist without help.) if this facility proceed from some accidental form produced in it by an external agent, it is an infused habit: the difference between an infused and an acquisite being no other but only in respect of the efficient. thus the knowledge of divers tongues and the ability to speak them, which was in some of the apostles by immediate infusion, was an infused habit; whereas in others (as in paul) it was acquisite; differing from the other, not in form, but in the efficient. a habit therefore, whether infused or acquisite, being but a facilitation of the faculty, cannot be a thing distinct from that faculty, but only a modus of it, which hath not in itself a positive absolute being of its own; but is a modification of another being: and its physical being, existentia rei, must be the same with the being of that, which is thus modificated; for it is not ipsum existens, but modus existendi: and this manner of existing hath not an existence of its own, distinct from the existence of that which doth exist in this manner: yet its formal and metaphysical being is distinct. yea and its physical existence, such as it is capable of, that is, existentia modi; for not being res, but modus rei, we must not expect that it should have any existence of its own besides the existence of a modus: and this existentia modi is the actual modificating of the thing existing after this manner. the which existence though it be not existentia rei, yet it is a real existence, (existentia in re) and not mental: for the thing existent is not only supposed to exist in this manner, but indeed doth so, thus ordered, thus modificated: and therefore that modus doth actually, & really modificate, and is not only supposed so to do. but if you will not admit (with scotus) of any modus entis, as a medium between ens & nonens, res et nihil, a thing and nothing; you must then say, it is res: for nothing i am sure it cannot be: for doubtless there is some difference more than imaginary between knowledge and ignorance, between a square stone and a round stone, between silver stamped and the same smooth and plain. this difference i should call modall, accounting the roundness etc. not res but modus rei; affirming, that when wax etc. is put out of one form or fashion into another, thereiss no new thing propounded; but that which before was, is now otherwise ordered. and thus it is most true which his lordship speaks, that habitual knowledge, is nothing but light more or less glorious; it is reason cleared; it's only facultas facilitata, or facultatis facilitas: and to this facility or readiness to operate, i cannot allow a physical existence of its own; as neither to any habit whatsoever, as being but modi and not entia; it's not a being, but a manner of being; not ens but aliquid entis. and i should easily be persuaded to grant the same concerning all accidents whatsoever, which have long since been called entis entia: and however an accident hath been accounted to be res, and so to have existentiam rei; yet not subsistentiam rei: though it have an existence of its own, yet its subsistence is no other but subsistentia subjecti. yet i cannot with his lordship subscribe to the platonists, to make knowledge nothing but a remembrance. (as if there were naturally in our understanding, the pictures or pourtraictures of all truths, but so obscured and covered as it were with dust, that these glorious colours do not appear, till such time as they be rubbed and washed over anew.) i approve rather of aristotle's rasa tabula, (than plato's reminiscentia) making the understanding, of itself, to have no such idea or picture at all, but capable of all. or thus (i know not how it can be better expressed;) the understanding is not as a table, wherein the king's picture is portrayed in lively colours, but (hanging in the dark) it appears not, that there are any such lineaments, till it be enlightened with the sun, and then it presents us with a fair description: but rather as a glass which is able to receive and reflect whatsoever colours fall upon it, though (before) it had none of them. for i demand, what principle is there implanted in nature to inform me, whether there ever were such a city as troy? whether it were so destroyed? whether this or that were plato's or aristotle's opinion? what principle to inform, that it reigned yesterday & is fair to day? certainly, matters of fact have not such ideas implanted in nature; for than might they by discourse be known to have been or not to have been, without the help either of sense or information. and if historical knowledge may be acquired without any fore-implanted ideas of those truths so known; why also may not discursive truth be also known without a reminiscentia, or a review of forgotten o● obscure principles? next he tells us, that we may seem by frequent actings to help the soul, and so to create acquisite habits; whereas indeed it is not so, but all actings are only new discoveries. but how this can stand with his former doctrine of reminiscentia, i do not see: for this takes away not only plato's reminiscentia, but all remembrance whatsoever. if all actings be new discoveries, how and when can we be said to remember? but is it so? do former actings no way help our subsequent acts? i● so, how can a learned scholar be said to know more than an ignorant peasant? for the one is as capable of a new discovery as the other, i● his former acts make no preparation or fitness for future acts. how comes it to pass, that learned men shall apprehend those truths at the first relation, which another cannot without much ado be brought to conceive? nay why should an artist be more skilful in his trade then another? why may not an infant new born plead his cause as well as the best experienced lawyer? certainly, if former acts do not indeed produce an habitual knowledge (but only seem to do) in the one which is not in the other, the one may as well act as the other, for there is the same reasonable soul in a child, which is in him afterwards. the difference surely must proceed from hence, that the former actings have produced a facility and readiness for future acts: that so, what was before more difficult, becomes now facile. nay more, that which before was utterly impossible, becomes now both feazi●le and easie. all the most refined wits in the world joining their acutest discoveries, their strongest judgements together, are not able without the help of historical relation, ever to know such a thing as the destruction of troy: yet when this, or the like, hath been either seen by ourselves, or related to us, it is then easy to tell afterwards, what we have seen, what we have heard, without a second view or a new relation. now if the former actings, do no● way prepare for a future act; why might not the first discovery have been made by our own light of reason, without an external supply, from our senses, or from information, as well as the second? philosophers (saith he) affirm this boldly of the unreasonable creature, ●teributing it to an instinct or new influence▪ why then may we not conclude the same of man? that philosopher's attribute much to instinct in unreasonable creatures, i grant: but that by an instinct, they meant a new influence, i was not aware. certainly memory hath been accounted one of the sensus ●nt●rni, and so belonging to the sensitive soul, and therefore not to be denied to brutes: and doubtless daily experiments put it out of question, that brute creatures make use of memory, and by former acts, are fitted for following acts; not doing all from a new instinct. i am called in the next place, to search out the difference between reason and faith. they differ (saith he) only in degrees, not in nature: for if soul, understanding, habits be all the same, then neither do reason and faith differ. i grant that there is the same ground, why we should make reason and faith the same; that there is to make the faculty and the habit the same. reason is a faculty, faith a habit: now a faculty and a habit, i have before said not to be res & res, but res & modus. their physical difference therefore (i mean, if you consider faith and reason in the same man) is but modall. but it doth not follow from hence, that they differ not in nature. for though an habit have not entitatem rei, distinct from the faculty; yet it hath entitatem modi; so that the habit is not a faculty, neither is the faculty an habit. to inquire of a physical identity, and of a metaphysical or formal identity, are quaeres far distinct. the faith of peter is really and physically distinct from the faith of paul; and yet their metaphysical formal nature is exactly the same. again, all the modall being's in the same subject, though their essence and nature be never so distinct (v. g. duration, augmentation, situation &c, in the same man) be really the same; (for neither of them, being modi, have any entitatem rei, beside the entity of their common subject, and so cannot make a real distinction, because there is not res & res:) yet each modus hath a distinct formal nature of its own: the nature of a figure, is not the nature of a habit, though both in the same subject. but yet, though it do not follow from that real identity between res & modus, that the nature of reason and the nature of faith be the same: yet if he change but the terms, and say (in stead of reason) that knowledge and faith are the same in nature, i will not contend: so that he mean faith as it is an act or habit of the understanding, and not of the will. for so, faith is an assent to a truth reveiled: & the same individual assent to the same truth, may be both cognitio scientiae, and cognitio fidei▪ i will instance in the creation of the world: by faith we know that the worlds were made, and assent to it: and by natural demonstrations it may be proved, that the world was made; and these also are sufficient to persuade assent. now we from both grounds (jointly) assent to this proposition, that the world was made. the which assent in respect of the one ground (propter evidentiam rei) is an assent of science or natural knowledge; in regard of the other ground (propter authoritatem dicentis) is an assent of faith, or supernatural and revealed knowledge. the assent of science, and of faith, differ not in their form, but in their efficient. but if he speak of saving faith (quatenus salvifica) as it doth save: so it is an act of the will, and not of the understanding; and therefore differs from knowledge. but, to conclude this: if we speak of a physical difference or distinction, then all the modi that belong to the same thing, can admit of no more than a modall distinction: because having no other entitatem rei, but that of the common subject, their entitas rei must be common; there cannot be res & res: the difference must be either tanquam res & modus, or tanquam modus & modus: and here is no consideration of the nature of these modi. in distinct things; the modi are really distinct and not modally though these modi be exactly of the same nature; as the roundness of several circles; for they not having entitatem rei besides the entity of their subjects; their subjects being really distinct, they must be really distinct also. (thus in the present case, the faith of peter is really distinct from the faith of paul: but faith in peter from reason in peter is only modally distinct, tanquam res & modus; (viz. if you make reason to be res, or a faculty really distinct from the soul:) and the habit of faith in peter will be distinct from all other habits in peter (v. g. from the habit of knowledge) tanquam modus & modus.) but if we speak, not of a physical, but of a metaphysical difference; here it little avails to inquire of their physical difference, or identity. for those things that are really distinct, as two souls, may yet agree in the same specifical nature: and those which are not really distinct (as several modi of the same thing) may have their formal specifical differences. again, though it be granted that natural knowledge (attained by by the use of reason, without a supernatural revelation) be of the same nature with faith; yet doth it not presently follow, that their difference is gradual, and the one but a greater degree of the same light: for skill in music and skill in metals or minerals, are both natural habits; yet the skill of a musician, and the skill of a chemist are not the same (though of the same nature;) neither yet is their difference gradual; for the one is not the way to attain the other and the other a perfection of that former. and moreover a man may be skilful in either of them without a knowledge of the other, whereas a greater degree of knowledge in the same kind cannot be without the lesser. that which follows, concerning falling from grace, and the freedom of the will, (as also what proceeds, how far we do acti agere, that is, how far, and in what manner, the first cause doth concur with the second in its operations) require a larger discourse for the deciding of them, then to be touched at in transitu, and by the way. i shall therefore say only this (and so pass them over;) liberty and servitude are opposite; and both are relative terms. he that is free from the dominion of one master, may be a servant, a slave, to another. thus the will, though it be free from any natural necessity, either from within, or without; so that it be neither determined by an inward principle, as mere natural agents are; neither can have either compulsion, or necessity, imposed upon it by the command of another creature: yet is it not free from the command and power of god, by whose absolute decree it is determined. we must not so far affect to be liberi, that we become sacrilegi; we must not vindicate our liberty by committing sacrilege, exempting ourselves from being under the power of a deity. if i were now to examine the nature of freedom, wherein it consists: i might perhaps place it in a spontaneity, that it acts without reluctancy, sponte agit: were it not that even natural agents (as a stone falling) have such a free action, without constraint, without reluctancy. or it might be placed perhaps in a reflection upon its own act; whereby it doth not only agere, yea and sponte (or volens) agere, without a nolition, a renitentia; but also vult agere: whereas a natural agent, though perhaps sponte or volens agit, yet you cannot say vult agere, because there is not a reflection whereby it willeth its action. that which hinders me from placing it in this, is, because i allow not any reflex act of willing in god, besides that direct act of working, who is yet a most free agent. for (beside other reasons, that if need were, might be produced) it stands not with god's simplicity, to admit distinct acts in god, whereof one should be the object of another. now what strength there is in this, to hinder the placing of freedom in this reflex act, i propose to be considered, rather than affirm. but i rather place the nature of the wills liberty, in a freedom from servitude, that it is not under the command of any creature, or a natural determination of its own. and therefore though it be free from such servitude as a natural agent, or such as may be forced, is subject to; yet it is not free from god's command; nor (perhaps) from the dictate of reason neither, or, if it be, yet is not this its freedom, but its weakness. and this is not far distant from the received opinion, which makes it consist in indifferentiâ. for the will can agere vel non agere notwithstanding anything to the contrary from the creature; but it cannot agere vel non agere notwithstanding the decree of god; and therefore is not free from that determination. and whereas other things are from god determined mediante causa secundâ, the will is immediately determined a causa primâ. and therefore what he citys out of rutterfort, that granting all things to be under an absolute decree, it is fond to ask, whether the free creature remain indifferent to do or not to do; i willingly assent unto. but you must consider withal, that this freedom neither the angels have, nor had adam in his innocence. and therefore, when divines tell us, that by the fall we have lost our liberty, or freedom of will, in spiritual things, which yet we retain in moral and civil actions; i desire that they would more punctually set down, what the liberty is, which we retain in natural things, but want in spiritual; what liberty that is, which the angels have, and man once had, but hath now lost: and not speak of such a liberty as neither man or angel ever had, nor is it possible for any creature to have; nay not for god himself, for god having once decreed, cannot with his truth revoke it, nor is indifferent to execute it or not; but, as they say of jupiter, which make him to be the author of their stoical unavoidable fate (understanding it cum grano salis) he once commanded, and ever after obeyed. there follows in the next place, an objection, how it comes to pass, if faith and knowledge be one, that some who have more knowledge have less faith. i need not recite his lordship's answer, i will only propose my own. if there be meant a physical identity, whereby two modi of the same thing do subsist by the subsistence of their common subject, it is not hard to determine: for two modifications of the same thing may yet be independent of each other: and therefore it is not requisite they should be both in the same measure, or degree. 2. if by knowledge be meant an assent to natural truths, and by faith, an assent to supernatural truths; neither is here any difficulty: for the knowledge of one thing is not inconsistent with the ignorance of another thing. 3. ●f knowledge and faith be considered in relation to the same object, spiritual truths, or saving truth, and faith be taken for an intellectual assent to them: then is it not true, that there is in any (if you speak adid●m▪ more knowledge and less faith; what any knows to be thus, he cannot believe to be otherwise. for the understanding is not a free faculty, that it can either accept or reject a revealed truth. 4. if by faith be meant, not an assent in the understanding to the truth known, but a consent in the will, an embracing of it (which is the justifying act of faith:) neither is this difficulty much greater than the former▪ for the too too frequent sins, even in god's children, against light, makes it over manifest, that the action of the will doth not always follow the knowledge of the understanding. and yet if this too clear experience be not able to prove it, but that you still lay all the blame upon the understanding, as not being clear enough in its apprehensions, or not sufficiently peremptory in its dictates; and so excuse the will of all remissness: i demand then, what disability there is in the will of man since the fall more than in the confirmed angels and saints in heaven? i cannot think but that the image of god, by the fall, is defaced in the will as well as in the understanding; and yet if the will do never disobey the light of reason, which is its sole (immediate) guide, i see not wherein this disability doth appear. i grant that the will doth always follow the understanding, that is, it never goes before it, or without it; it goes never but where the understanding hath led the way, in discovering some good, (more or less,) something desirable. for the will is caeca potentia▪ and knows of nothing desirable, but what the understanding discovers. and knowing nothing, can desire nothing; ignoti nulla cupido. but yet i grant not that proposition in this sense, the will always follows the understanding; that is, it never stays behind. for to omit what the understanding commands, requires not a discovery of some other good, but only an impotency, a backwardness, or remissness to do its duty. to go without direction, requires a positive cause, because it is a positive act; but not to go when it is directed, may proceed from a negative cause (negatio causae,) because it is a negative act, or a not-doing. a lame man doth not run, when he knows, that he ought to run; yet here is no need of a positive cause to stay him, but his impotency (a negative cause) sufficeth. and thus far do i admit that distinction of libertas contrarietatis, and libertas contradictionis, though in that way in which it is ordinarily made use of, i do wholly reject it. there is not in the will an indifferency to choose good or to choose evil; neither yet to choose good, or reject good (velle & nolle;) both which they call libertas contrietatis. for the understanding doth not show any amiableness or lovelines in evil; nor any odiousness in good (quatenus sic;) and therefore the will cannot desire evil, nor reject good (nolle, or velle non.) for bonitas is objectum formale appetitûs; and malum is the formal object of nolition. now the soul cannot velle quatenus bonum, that in which no good is apprehended; nor nolle quatenus malum (that is, velle ut non sit) that wherein it apprehends no evil. but for the other kind of indifferency, (which they call libertas contradictionis,) to will good, or not will it; too nill evil, or not to nill it; this i acknowledge to be in the will. for that by reason of its imbecility, it is not so ready to execute its functions as it ought to be. but yet i do not conceive the liberty of the will to consist in this; or, that this is any perfection to the will, to be able to suspend its act, notwithstanding the understandings direction to the contrary. (for this the angels confirmed cannot do, nor the saints glorified; for if their will could act contrary to their understanding, then could they sin; and yet these agents are no less free, than man is: yea god, who is the most absolutely-free agent, yet cannot will or decree that which is contrary to his sapience, (intellectus divinus;) his will never thwarts his wisdom.) but i conceive it to be an imperfection or weakness in man's will; which, before the fall, was not so stable, but that it might fall; and is now become so weak, that it is unable to stand. the common opinion is, that, if the will cannot disobey the judgement of the understanding, then is it not a free faculty but all its actions are determined by the understanding, while it dictates, that this or that is to be done or omitted; and so freedom should be placed in the understanding and not in the will. i may add, (to help their cause forward) that there may seem to be no freedom at all: for the will is determined by the dictate of the understanding, and therefore in it is no freedom, no election; and the understanding (by general consent) is not free, to judge this or that as it pleaseth, but must assent or descent according to its light: so that here will be no freedom neither. for this reason they say, that the will is not necessitated to follow the dictate of reason; but when the understanding hath declared what it can, it is yet in the power of the will to choose. but then, lest they should fall upon another rock, viz. that, if the will may reject the understandings advice; then may it desire that which the understanding affirms to be evil; contrary to that principle, that good is the only object of desire: to avoid that danger, they have found out this distinction of libertas contrarietatis and libertas contradictionis, which they apply thus; the will hath power indeed to disobey that which the understanding propoundeth: but yet not so, as if, of two objects, whereof the understanding allows of one, and disallows of the other, it were free notwithstanding to embrace either; but when an object is commended by the understanding, though the will cannot elect its contrary, yet it may not-elect this, it may choose whether or no it will embrace it. and thus they think the whole matter is salved. this answer may seem plausible, and hath passed for current: but yet (with their leaves) the wound, though perhaps skinned over, is not so easily healed. for if they may not admit the liberty of contrariety: they may not (in my judgement) admit the other. for when the understanding commends an object to the will, as that which ought to be desired, here are two opposite terms, to embrace, or not imbrate; (agere, suspendere:) the understanding saith, agendum est, it ought to be embraced; the will chooseth rather not to embrace it, but to suspend its act. the understanding adviseth one extreme; the will chooseth the other extreme. the understanding saith, it is good to act, and (consequently) it is ill to omit, to suspend; the will notwithstanding chooseth to suspend (which the understanding affirms to be evil,) rather then to act, which the understanding commends as good. thus that libertas contradictionis, appears upon trial to include also a liberty of contrariety: and if it may not-choose the term commended, than it may choose the term forbidden, yea it must choose it, where the terms are contradictory without a medium. all that can be said to help it, will be this; willing and suspending are indeed opposite terms; and therefore when the understanding adviseth to will, if the will do [velle] suspendere, it chooseth the term opposite, and (consequently) that which is proposed as evil; but (they may say perhaps) the will doth only suspendere, and not velle suspendere; and so this suspending is not an object of choice, but only the absence or negation of an act; and therefore though it do ire in contrarias parts, yet it doth not contrariam partem eligere, it doth not choose, or elect, the opposite term, because there is no positive act of election or willing exercised about it. and this answer i confess may seem to weaken the objection immediately foregoing; for thus the will is not made to choose an opposite term; but then let them consider, how this answer will stand with their opinion: they tell us first that the freedom of the will is manifested in suspending when the understanding commands to act; and yet when it doth suspend, they say this suspension is not an object of choice or election; and (consequently) there is no liberty exercised. if they think thus to evade, in saying, that this liberty is exercised, not in suspending when it might act, because there is no election, & therefore no freedom exercised; but in acting, when as it might have suspended. i answer, that neither will this serve the turn. for as suspension is not objectum volitionis, an object of choice; so neither is acting an object of choice. and as we say not volo suspendere, or volo non-velle, so neither do we say volo velle: for by the same reason that any may say volo velle, he may say also volo non velle. so that willing can no more be said to be an object of choice, then suspending. their libertas contradictionis therefore must either be also ibertas contrarietatis, and so by themselves rejected: or else it will be no exercise, no manifestation, of liberty, and therefore useless for their purpose. i admit (as i said before) the distinction in this sense; that the will, though it cannot elect a contrary object, ye● it may not-elect this. and thus there is no action (of choice or desire) in the will, but tending to some good that the understanding proposeth; for what is not known cannot be desired: but yet there may be a negligent omission or suspension, when it ought to act which i do not account ●o be the liberty, or perfection of the will, (for angels etc. have it not,) but an imperfection and weakness. neither do i say, that the will doth voluntarily suspend, or velle suspendere, without direction, (for that were a positive act;) but (either by negligence, or weakness,) doth not-will. for which there is no● requisite a positive cause, but a negative, or the want of a cause. you will say, if this be so, then will there be only a sinful omission●● ●● the will, and not a sinful commission: for sin of commission (doing or willing that which ought not) is positive, and therefore cannot proceed from the will, when the understanding dictates to the contrary. whereas the will doth as often fail in choosing a wrong object, which the understanding acknowledgeth to be evil; as in not choosing a good object. i answer, it is true, the will doth often choose what it ought not: and yet i affirm, that the wills error is only negative and not positive; it is omissive only, in not-obeying some directions of the understanding. i shall make it clear by an instance. pleasure and virtue may be competitors, and rivals (as it were) both courting the will; (as in an act pleasant, but sinful.) the understanding proposeth pleasure as quid bonum, 'tis good, 'tis desirable; it proposeth virtue as quid melius, 'tis better, 'tis more desirable. now the will perhaps follows the first direction; it embraceth pleasure as being good, and so desirable; (for bonum jucundum is desirable as well as bonum honestum:) but the second precept, or direction rather, whereby virtue is proposed as better, and therefore should countermand the form●●, this it hears not, it follows not. if you say, the understanding doth indeed discover some good (though a less good) in the object; yet this is not to be accounted the understandings practical direction (dictamen:) but, that the understanding having examined the good and the evil that is in every act, and comparing them together; upon this comparison, as it observes the good or evil to be more, so it prescribes, to do, or not to do, h●● age, or hoc non age: and if the will do act, when the understanding forbids, it must be said to perform a positive act without direction. i answer▪ i admit not the understandings dictate to be imperative, but only declarative: it only informs, this is good, this is evil; but commands not, do this, or omit it. but the will upon proposal of good, embraceth it; upon proposal of evil, it rejects it: yet not so, but that, by negligence, it may not-embrace good, and notreject evil. and thus the proposal of pleasure, as good; is as truly declarative as the other; and this the will follows: but a further declaration, whereby it declares, that although pleasure be good, yet it is evil to embrace this good, because there is a greater evil annexed; this direction, by omission, it embraceth not. and this i conceive to be the true nature of the acts of the will and understanding. if you would have the will and the understanding to be the same, (and therefore think these distinctions superfluous,) understand by the intellect, anima intelligens; by the will, anima volens, or anima quatenus volens, and then you are pleased. and thus you see, how there may be more knowledge (even of spiritual and saving truths) and yet l●sse faith: because there may be ●n asse●t, a believing, in the understanding, (which is knowledge, or historical faith;) without a fiducial trust, a reliance, and resting upon it; which is the justifying faith, or the justifying act of faith. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yea, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, without 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 5. but if you speak of a knowledge peculiar to god's children, whereof others partake not; such a knowledge of god whereby no man knows him but he that hath him; that knowledge which is life everlasting: this knowledge, and faith, always go together; the more there is of one, the more also of the other. a speculative knowledge, whereby we assent to the truth reveiled, is found even in the devils, and that in as large and ample measure (i suppose) as in the saints on earth: for i cannot be persuaded, but the devils (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) being knowing spirits, do know and assent to the truth of every proposition that a child of god knows. but there is an experimental knowledge distinct from the former, knowledge of another nature, whereby we know, what we know, in another manner: we do not only know that it is so, but we taste and see it to be so. a blind man knows perhaps that the sun shines, but he doth not s●● it: i know that at midnight the sun shines to our antipodes, but i do not see it shine to them: i know that at such a time there is such an i 'clipse visible to such a part of the world, yet do i not see the eclipse. the confectioner that provides a banquet knows that this or that dish is sweet, but they only taste the sweetness that eat of it. a wicked man may know that god is good, (as a blind man knows that the sun shines, by the report of others; or as an astronomer knows of an eclipse before it come, by calculation, or rational discourse and illation;) ●ut he s●es it no●, he tastes it not. now we read of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, h●b. 5. 14. some that have their senses exercised to discern of good and evil; there is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, phil. 1. 9 a kind of spiritual sense, whereby we do 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, super●a s●pere, relish those things that are above. and where there is this spiritual taste, this experimental knowledge; there must needs be faith also▪ for truths thus clearly, and sensibly (as it wer●) revealed to the soul, it seems no● to be in the power of the will to reject: no more than it is in the power of the ear not to be pleased with harmonious music; or in the power of the palate, not to be delighted with the sweetness of a taste. and thus i suppose it may appear, how far, and from what ground there may be knowledge without faith. that god is all mercy and sweetness to the devils, is no article of my faith, those miserable creatures, saith he, cannot consent to it. no more can i: and yet i deny not, that mercy and justice are one thing in god. god's simple essence is the same with both; yet are not they so properly the same with each other. the torment of the devils proceeds from that divine essence which is love; (as likewise the mercies of god's children proceed from that divine essence which is justice: for the justice of god is equally himself as is his love:) yet may we not say, the torments of those are an effect of love, no more than that the mercies of these are the effects of anger; yet both are the effects of that simple essence, which is both. it is a far different thing therefore, to say, a loving god doth notwithstanding punish; and to say, a loving god doth therefore punish: punishment and revenge are sufficiently consistent with love; but not the immediate effects of love. thus we say, musicus aedificat; yet not his skill in music, but his skill in architecture, is exercised in building. the love of god (as likewise his anger, justice, power, etc.) is (i confess) the divine essence; we allow no accidents in god at all: quicquid est in deo, est deus. but i ask, whether he think this attribute love (and so of the rest) to be an adequate expression of that whole essence? if so, then is it all one to say, god loves his children, and, god is angry with his children, or god hates them: if not, then is it only inadaequatus conceptus, and there remains somewhat to be expressed by other attributes, which is not expressed in this. the attributes of god therefore (as likewise it is in other inadaequati conceptus) may be all affirmed of the same simple essence; but not (mutually) of each other: and the effects of each may be said to be the effects of the same essence; but not (promiscuously) of every attribute: (unless we take them materialiter, not formaliter:) and consequently, the ruin (of the damned) is not (as he affirms) an effect of infinite sweetness (though of that (essence) which i●, infinite sweetness;) nor is god, (in this) merciful to them. again, what we know, we are, (saith he:) i assume; sed deum scimus, ergo dii sumus. chap. ix. how knowledge and affection differ. from what hath been spoken in the former chapter, without adding any more, may appear what is to be said concerning his ninth chapter: how it comes to pass that some of mean knowledge have large affections. for a speculative knowledge doth not always breed affection, (because the will doth not always follow the understanding,) though neither doth it extinguish it. it is true, there is an affection, which is rather a blazing (then a warming, enlivening) love, (as the fool's mirth like the crackling of thorns;) which ariseth either from a false apprehension, or else from the novelty, rather than the sweetness, of the object, (as the smell of flowers at the first approach doth most affect the sense, though they be as sweet afterwards;) and this perhaps may vanish, at the presence of a more clear or more continued light. but the true warmth of zeal is not extinguished by the light of knowledge, (though speculative,) but feeds upon it as fewell: and the greater growth there is in (especially experimental) knowledge, the greater is the strength of affection from it: and, thus, they that know most (experimentally) do always love most: knowledge and affection go together. yet are we not forced from hence to grant, that knowledge and affection are the same: betwixt which i must needs allow the same difference (be it more or less, that is, real, or modall) which is between the understanding and the will: knowledge is not affection, and affection is not knowledge. and that objection which his lordship from hence makes to himself, that (since men of largest affections, do not always know most of god, but some of weaker affections may know more;) it might appear from hence, that all being is not one, differing only in degrees; but that there are even different natures, amongst which one may excel, while the other is depressed: this objection, i say, i● of that force, that i see not how all which his lordship brings, can take it away. the large encomiums, which he brings for affectionate knowledge, preferring it before speculative, (which he prosecutes very piously, very judiciously, very affectionately;) though it prove, that affectionate knowledge is the more excellent; yet doth it not show that speculative knowledge is nothing; or that the measure of affection always follows the measure of speculative knowledge: one of which he ought to have proved, if he conclude that knowledge and affection are the same. a man may truly know, that sugar is sweet, though he neither taste its sweetness, nor be delighted or pleased with that taste. and a christian is sometimes to live by faith and not by sense; that is, he is to trust, and rest upon the speculative knowledge of god's goodness, and his own interest in it; even then when for the present he wants the sense of it. he may know and believe that the lord is good, though he do not taste and see it. i will wait upon god (saith isay) which hath hid his face from the house israel. he that walketh in darkness, and sees no light, must yet trust in the name of the lord, etc. and thus much for the first notion of truth, or reason, as it is the groundwork of rational operations. in which, thus far i may go along with his lordship, that reason is but the soul intelligent; that intellectual habits are but reason advanced; as likewise that its operations are but reason actuated. the first, distinguished from the soul at least ratio●e ratiocinatâ: the two last, modaliter. if he mean no more, i wish his expressions had been clearer: for then the notions are not new, but the words. if he do aliquid grandius moliri; i either understand him not; o● cannot assent to him. but you will tell me perhaps, that i am mistaken all this while; his lordship by truth intends not reason, as i take it; for the very title of his first chapter, calls it truth understood, and this cannot be reason, for reason is not that which is understood, but that whereby we understand. it is true, it do●h so: but (shall i speak it once for all?) the titles of his ●hapters, and his marginal notes, do so often clash with the text, that i cannot believe they were done by the same pen. i● i● like his lordship, writing it but as a letter to a private friend, by whom i● i● since published, did not at first distinguish it into chapters, and give it that analysis that now appears; and since its first writing, as the epistle tells us not having so much as perused it, it is not like he hath added them since; but the publisher (as in the like cases is frequent in treatis●s of all sorts) not to trouble his lordship with so small a matter, did it himself. who ever did it, it is like (as else where, so here) he either did not apprehend, or not attend punctually▪ his lordship's meaning. for it is clear enough, if we attend it, that that which he there contends to b● the s●me with the understanding, cannot be truth understood; but the rise or groundwork from whence all actions and sayings, the effects of a reasonable soul, breathe forth. it had been more agreeable to his lordship's mind, to have said, intellectus and principium intelligendi are the same; and not, that the understanding▪ and truth-understood, are one▪ and so his lordship's method will be exact, making the soul or understanding▪ one with its faculties, chap. 1. with its habits, chap. 8. with its operations, chap. 10. whereas, how the object of all these, should come first, and be that from whence all these breathe forth, appears not. chap. x. whether the operations of the soul be the souls essence. having done (in the former chapters) with the first notion of truth, as it is the fountain or source of knowing, as well natural as habitual. in this tenth chapter, he comes to the second consideration, or notion of truth; denoting the streams proceeding from this fountain: the actions, and effects of a reasonable soul. endeavouring to prove, the particular and various workings of the soul, in conclusions, simple apprehensions, negations, and affirmations etc. to be all one and the same, both with each other, and with the soul. the fountain and the stream (saith he) make but one river: i add, the root and the branches make but one tree. yet the root is not a branch, neither are the branches the root. to prove this, he compares the nature of the soul or understanding (for, saith he, we have proved them both one) with their irradiations and actings. his argument tends to this effect: the souls essence, saith he, is no other thing than activity (actus) and therefore must be either potentia agendi, or ipsa actio; actus primus, or actus secundus. and if it be actus, either primus or secundus,▪ which he conceives to differ only in time) it must be still in work, and is no longer than it acts: which act can be no other but a work of reason; else how can it constitute a rational soul? and if so, then how doth it differ f●om thought or ratiocination? the operations therefore of the soul (conclusions, sayings, actions) are the being, the form of the soul. are they so? but, i suppose, the soul at some times produceth no (rational) act at all, (as in sleep: doth it then cease to be a rational soul, when it ceaseth to produce rational operations? (for when its essence ceaseth, itself ceaseth to bee. doth a stone cease to be heavy, when it ceaseth to fall downwards? i think not. but i will consider the argument distinctly. he hath proved (he saith) that the soul and the understanding are both one. this, though i would not stick to grant, yet (as i have formerly said) i see not any argument, in his foregoing discourse, to prove that the soul and understanding are all one; but what will be of equal force to prove, the soul and the body to be all one. and if he will allow between the soul, the understanding, and its operations, a distinction as real, a● essential, as there is between the body and the soul; i am confident there is no rational man that will desire more. the nature or being of the soul (saith he) is nothing but activity. that the soul is actus, is confessed, i grant, by all: but whether activity may be taken in the same sense, i question. this actus (saith he) whether primus or secundus (which differ but in time, and so differ not at all, because time is nothing) c●● be no other but a work of reason: and so the souls operation will be its form and essence. that actus primus and actus secundus, (gravity and descension) differ only in time, i grant not: for this is not a distribution of actus into its species; but a distinction of an ambiguous term. actus in the first sense signifies actuality (not action) and it is opposed sometimes to potentia ad esse, sometimes to potentia ad formam; sive sit forma substantialis, sive accidentalis, (but never to potentia ad operari;) and thus actus is no other but that essence, per quam res aut actu-est, aut est actu-tale. actus in the second sense signifies, not actuality, but action, or operain; and is opposed to potentia ad operari. i say therefore, the essenc● or nature of the soul or understanding is actus; it is actus primus; it is that whereby the soul & actu est, & est hoc, or est tale (viz. in genere substantiae,) such a being, such a substance. its faculties (if distinct) are also actus, (yet not actions:) which you may say to be actus secundi (as some do) because they are a secondary actuality, whereby the soul becomes, not a being, or such a being; but a being so qualified, so adorned: or rather i should say they be actus primi, because (though accidental, yet) they are not operations (which i conceive to be the truest meaning of actus secundus, though i confess some attribute it to all accidents,) but forms; operative indeed, but not operations. if you ask what is the form of this activity (or actuality rather) of this actus primus which is the souls essence, if it be not rational workings? (which is all one as if you should ask what is the essence of an essence? and again, what is the essence of that essence? in infinitum. i answer, the form of this actus is itself, its essence. what can be the form of rationality, but ipsa rationalitas? humanitas you may say is forma hominis; but will you ask again, what is that which is forma humanitatis? if you do we must answer still, that it is humanitas, and stay there. except you would have us invent one abstract upon the neck of another, and say humanitatitudo. and thus i think somebody hath been trying practices; for if you ask what is the form of honorificum, or honorificabile, they can tell you it is honorificabilitas, or honorificabilitudo; and ask again what shall be forma honorificabilitudinis, they will tell you, it is honorificabilitudinitas.) i say, we must not inquire for the form of a form, or the essence of an essence: for every thing hath its essence (positive) and its hae●ciety, not from any other thing, but from itself; though it may have an external, a relative, or accidental denomination from some adjunct. (and therefore to say, materiae individuatur a formâ, as though the matter of a dead corpse, were not the same matter that was in the living man, is a doctrine which i could never digest. for so all generation, will become creation; for if it be the form which makes this matter to be this, then cannot one form succeed another in the same matter: because if the form precedent gave it its individuation, and made it to be this, and not other matter; when this form is abolished, the matter which is joined with the succedent form will not be this, but other matter: if this form make it to be this matter, than another form will make it to be other matter. and if so, then is both matter and form produced de novo; which must needs be creation, because it is not made of any thing preaexistent, nothing remaining of what before was.) he proceeds thus, if the form of this activity (actus) be not th●se reasonable workings; then must it be either of a base allay, or of a higher stamp. for answer, i will but demand in general, which his lordship judgeth to be most excellent, the end, or the mean●? that which is willed, not for its own sake, but for somewhat else, seems to be of less worth than that for whose sake it is desired: and yet the mean●, being the ends efficient, how can it be inferior? i say therefore that a●●us primus is the efficient of actus secundus; and this the (partial) end of the other: and leave it to his lordship's consideration, whether he will esteem thee more noble. he tells us soon after, that if we distinguish between the act and the power, the act must ever be first in order, dignity, and nature. but (under his lordship's favour) i conceive that the act is first neither in order, in dignity, nor in nature. the cause is before the effect, in excellency, because causa (aequivoca) est nobilior effecto; for nothing can produce an effect more noble than itself. ² in nature, causa est prior effecto; for that is defined to be naturâ prius, a qu● non redit essendi consecutio; now i demand, whether of these two may be without the other? the act, or the power? and ³ in order: for he speaks i suppose either of the order of production, or the order of intention; if he speak of the first; the order of production, is ordo naturae generantis, and so that which is first in nature, must be also first in order: if he speak of the order of intention; then the end (if it be the sole end) may seem to be preferred before the means; but this is a moral excellency, and a moral order; not a natural or physical excellency, such as we are now speaking of. but i demand withal, whether action be the sole end of the soul? that is, whether the soul in its essence might not be produced either for its own excellency or for the excellency of some other end beside the excellency of its operation or actus secundus? and if so, then can it not be concluded that even its moral excellency, in genere finis, is inferior to the excellency of its operation. but his lordship admits not at all of this distinction between actus primus and actus secundus; so as that actus primus should be the being or substance, and actus secundus the product. but why? they forget, saith he, that omnis virtus consistit in actione. nay we forget it not, but we deny it. for if you speak of moral virtue, est virtus tacuisse, etc. but▪ to hold one's peace, is no action: if he speak of physical virtue or excellency, of natural perfection; then do i deny, that all natural excellency consists in action; for the essence itself is bonum physicum: but if he speak of physical efficiency, than i grant, that virtus efficientis, or efficientis efficientia, consistit in actione; the efficacy, or efficiency of a thing consists in its operation: but what then? may not an essence be without action, because it cannot act without action? must its essence be action, because its efficacy is action? in ordinary philosophy, operatio sequitur esse, operation proceeds from the essence, and not constitutes it. but, saith he; what is this their actus primus? what is the form of it? (i have said, it's own essence; it is itself its own form, and the form or essence of the soul: we must not inquire for the essence of an essence, nor for the essence of a thing out of itself:) what is with them, the form of a reasonable soul? is it not reason? (yes it is) and this reason i● not potentia ratiocinandi, but ratio: (he meaneth, i suppose ratiocinatio, rather than ratio; for ratio and potentia ratiocinandi are all one:) for if you distinguish between the act and the power the act must ever be first, in order, dignity, and nature: (but this i grant not.) so then, what is the form of this primus actus? is it not some act? (yes, but not an action or operation.) if it be, then must it exist, else you allow it but a bare notional being; and if it exist, mu●t it not be that which you call actus secundus? i answer, it is actus, (aliquid actu) but not an action; it exists also, and yet is not actus secundus, but the form from whence actus secundus flows. he proceeds; if it be not an act (or action) then is it nothing else but a power or faculty depending upon somewhat else (viz upon the soul;) and if this be the nature of the first, what shall the second being (which is its effect, and so lower) be but a notion. (yet he said even now, that the act is before the power in order, dignity, and nature▪ and yet the act is the powered effect: how then ●oth he now affirm, that the effect is somewhat lower than the first being?) i answer, it is not an action; neither yet is it a distinct (dependent) faculty, (if we make the soul and the faculty to be the same;) but the souls essence. but yet though we should admit reason to be a distinct faculty, (as s●me do) and so, not to be the souls actus primus, but actus afficiens: yet doth, it not follow that the operation must be only a notion. heaviness is not the stones essence, but an accidental form, a power or faculty of gravitation; yet is not its descension only imaginary but real. heat in water is not its essence, but a separable accident; yet its calefaction, it heating or scalding, is not merely notional, but real. so might it be here: there may be (notwithstanding this argument) a faculty or accidental form in the soul, which may be an actus primus in respect of its operations, (though, no● actus primoprimu● which is the souls ●ssence,) from whence those operations, or actus secundi may proceed, which ye● might be real, and not imaginary. ●● he had (as he speaks) set that distinction of substance and accident▪ (which he seems to challenge as an aged imposture) upon the rack; i would willingly▪ have examined its forced confession. ●● the mean time, i see not from what ground ●e can strongly conclude, that this activity (as he speaks,) this actus primus, consists in action; or that it and actus secundus are the s●me; and both one with truth. you will ask me, what distinction therefore will i allow between actus primus and secundus; between the agent and its action? i answer, the one is res, the other is modus; and so the distinction is modall: neither more nor less distinction will i admit of. and so doing, i descent not from the opinion of others: for (as i remember) suarez (not to instance in others) makes action to be a modus; and though he make a transient action to be modus patientis, (in which i assent not to him;) yet an immanent act (such as are rational operations) is with him, modus agentis. chap. xi. whether time and place be only imaginary. in the next chapter, we are called to consider of the nature of time and place: which his lordship occasionally falls upon, by reason of an objection, that lays so strong a siege to his opinion, that i doubt hi● lordship's answer will hardly raise it. it ariseth from hence; there a●e in the soul various operations and workings, distinct in time, and distinct in place: which distinction, though it may have an external denomination in respect of time and place; yet ariseth not from thence, but is internal or intrinsecall to the operations themselves; this operation is not the other, and the other is not this. and thi● distinction would remain though the distinct operations were performed in the same time, in the same place: cas●r and pompey were not the same man, though contemporary. the water which to day runs down a river, is not the same water with that which yesterday ran in the same place, the same channel. two angels, though coexistent at th● s●me time in the same place▪ the same part of the air, are not yet the same angel. thus nutrition, and volition, or intellection, though at the same time, performed by the same soul resident i● the same body, are yet distinct acts. and on the contrary, a man remains the same man to day, that he was yesterday; at this place, that he was ●t another place; though both time and place be altered. now there being in the soul various actings, distinct both in time and place (though they receive not their distinction from either are there not then so many several souls▪ (viz. if the operations be the souls essence?) this is the objection. his lordship supposing all the difference between these acts to arise from time and place, thinks that if he prove time and place to be nothing, than these acts will not be distinct, but the same,; and so may constitute the same soul. but, whether place and time be any thing or nothing, whether they alter any thing or nothing in this point; yet sure we are that this man is not the other man. this soul not another soul, this action is not the other action: and so the difficulty remains as hard; there will be various operations still. he brings several similes to illustrate it. complexion lineaments, harmony, though they be in themselves divers, yet they make up one pleasing being, which we call beauty. a flame arising from divers thorns is but one flame. a stream supplied from several springs, is but one stream. i may add, many members make up one body; many creatures one world. (yet still one member is not the other; the water received from one spring, is not the same water which came from the other spring, though both run in the same channel.) but will he say, so is it in our case? that (in the same manner) several acts do constitute one soul? are these actions its integral parts, as the members are of the body; and several waters of one stream? etc. are they a piece of the whole and make up the totum compositum? then is the soul divisible; then doth it lose some part of itself, and becomes maimed at the cessation of every action. but he makes not the soul perhaps to be constituted of these actions, as so many integral parts; but, saith he, the soul is one act, distinguished to our notton by several apparitions. if so, than his similes drawn from integral parts constituting the whole compositum, will not hold. but (secondly) i deny that all these operations are but one action in various shapes. they are all actions of the same soul, but they are not all the same action. the soul, if you will may be called, one soul under various shapes; but these various shapes cannot be said to be one shape. like as wax fashioned successively in several moulds, is the same wax in several figures; but that these are all the same figure, we cannot say. actions performed by the same soul, are all modi of the same thing, of the same soul; but they are not all the same modus. this is not the other. and this we may hold, whatever become of time and place for this distinction ariseth not from them. a man is the same man to day, that he was yesterday, though the time be not the same. he is the same man at york, that he was at london, though the place be not the same. time and place do neither make the same to be two, nor two to be the same; one to be two, nor two to be one: yet what hinders but that things and actions may have an intrinsical difference one from another. these various being's, therefore, not being differenced by these circumstances of time and place, (though different in both,) it is less material for me to inquire what they are? or whether they be some thing or nothing? only i desire to know, wherein the strength of that argument consists, which is by us so often urged against papists and lutherans, concerning their transubstantiation, and consubstantiation; viz. how christ's body can be at the same time in several places? for, that i● might be successively in all these places at several times, we deny not: now, if at several times it may be in divers places; why may it not be so, at the same time, if time and place be nothing? again, several places at the same time may contain several bodies (v. g bread, and christ's body;) now why may not the same place con●●ine them, if place be nothing? why not together, as well as successively, if time be nothing? all actions, saith he are nothing if time be anything; because the time allotted for every action, be it never so short, may be divided into several parts, many subdivisions of time. true. but is there not t●e same reason of actions that is of time? are not they divisible into as many parts, whereof every parcel answers to a portion of that time? there is the same reason in every continuum, be it magnitude, distance time, place, duration, motion, action, or whatever: they are all equally divisible in semper divisibilia. if it be actio instantanea, it is dispatched in an instant, not in time: if it be actus continuus, it is capable of as many divisions as is that time in which it is performed. this not being well weighed saith he, hath raised that question, [how god should see all things?] if in their existences▪ then they are coeternal with him: if only in their causes, then are they not present. which difficulty, he supposeth, is dissolved, by making time to be nothing, and all things to be exi●●ent, in their being's, with god from all eternity. (which of how dangerous a consequence it may prove his lordship is not aware.) that god before the world's creation, did co-exist to this instant; i do confidently affirm; y●t, that all things present, d●d exist before they were produced, i cannot assent; which i doubt not but to reconcile, (if i were now discussing that question ex professo, and not glancing at it in transitu) allowing notwithstanding to time and place, their due reality; not making temporal and local difference to be only imaginary. as likewise, how permanency in god may consist with succession in the creature; and how acts (of creation, preservation, redemption, decree, the execution of that decree) may be eternal, as they proceed from god, though in the creature recipiantur in tempore▪ in place we make no scruple of it, to affirm that anima est tota in toto & t●ta in qualibet parte, that the whole soul may be present to one point, or part of the body, without ceasing to be wholly present to another part; (or, if possibly in the soul, and created spiritual substances, it may be questioned; yet doubtless, in god himself, it must needs be granted, that he is vbique totus:) now, if it be not repugnant to be coexistent to one point of place, without ceasing to coexist to another point though distant; why not to one point of time, without ceasing to be present to another, though successive? the next objection, concerning the nature of evil, is of less force against his tenet. for, that good and evil may coexist in one entire act; that there may be some degrees of goodness in an action, and yet not that perfection of goodness, that aught to be; may as well be granted, as that the twilight hath not [so much] light, and [so much] positive darkness, but that it hath not so [much] light as the midday. but yet in the mean time it may be doubted, whether the nature of evil be merely privative. it is true indeed, the nature of (moral) evil is a nonconformity (or difformity rather) to god's law: but why may not this nonconformity arise ex praesentiâ non debiti, as well as ex absentiâ debiti, or ex defectu debiti inesse? may not a line disagree from its measure, by being too long, as well as by being too short? the not distinguishing between bonum metaphysicum, and bonum morale, may perhaps have caused some error in this assertion. but i stand not now to decide it: you shall find more of it in the next chapter. but that which is assumed as a ground of this assertion, is far more improbable than the assertion itself. viz. that contradictions may be simul, semel, & eodem respectu, in the same subject. what necessity his lordship had to embrace this opinion of anaxagoras, democritus &c. (as he saith,) against aristotle; i do not discern. neither can i see, wherein this coexistence of contradictions doth appear. for the presence of an inferior degree, and the negation of a farther degree, are no contradictions, because they are not ad idem. and such a coexistence aristotle and his followers will not deny; else how can they speak of qualitates remissae? nay more, they will grant an inferior degree, to consist, not only with the negation of a farther degree, but even with the presence of its contrary; for they deny not but that there may be contrary qualities in the same subject in remissis gradibus, (as heat and cold in warm water, though not in gradibus intensis. but if anaxagoras, or any other, will contend, that perfect contradictions may ●t and together, that the presence of an inferior degree, may stand with the absence or negation of the same degree; it will be in vain to dispute against it. for when i have proved it to be false, they will grant it is so, and affirm withal, that notwithstanding its falsehood, yet may it also be true, because contradictions are not inconsistent. (another adversary perhaps would deal more sharply with his lordship upon this point: i pass it.) he proceeds to show by divers similitudes, how the same thing may take divers shapes in our apprehension; and consequently, that the several apparitions of truth do not forthwith evince the variety of truth. all which we deny not, for otherwise we cannot acknowledge that there is any distinctio rationis; rational distinctions being no other but inadaequati conceptus ejusdem rei. that there is therefore a rational distinction, we deny not; but that there is only a rational distinction, and not also a real distinction; this is that we deny. some things we acknowledge to be only ratione distincta, but other things we contend to have a real distinction. which must be overthrown before he can conclude, that all the actions of reason which seem several, are but on●, a fixed entire unity. he toucheth lastly, upon copernicus his opinion, which, he saith, hath been confuted these many years by the three leading senses. (and yet his margin saith, that sense is confuted by him.) for we [see] the circumvolutions of the heavens: we [feel] ourselves upon a stable foundation; we [hear] not from the volutations of the earth such a black cant as her heavy rollings would rumble forth. but (not to dispute the truth of copernicus his opinion) i think i may affirm that neither of these testimonies of sense do any way contradict his assertion. for, first, i deny that we [see] the revolution of the heavens. we discern indeed, (and that truly,) that the stars at several times have several positions in respect of our horizon; (and this is all:) but whether this diversity of position arise from the motion of the one, or the other, or both, our sight determins not; affirming only that there is such a divers positure. ² our sense of [feeling] assures us of thus much, that the earth is such a foundation as upon which we rest; and, that we remain in the same positure in respect of the earth and the air circumstant; which may be as well if all jointly move together, as if all jointly stand still. a man in a ship under hatches upon a smooth water, supposeth himself to sit fast upon his seat, (and he doth so;) and he seeth all things about him to remain at the same distance, in the same positure, discerning no alteration: yet this hinders not but that he and they may be jointly moved together, without being thrown from off his seat, upon which he may sit as firm as if he were on shore. and ³ for the sense of [hearing,] i see no reason, why it should be more blamed for not hearing the sound of the earth's volutation; then for not hearing the pythagorean harmony. if the vast celestial spheres, whose almost every star doth far exceed the terrestrial globe, be whirled about with such a silent motion, as that the quickest ear cannot discern it; why may not the earth, a farrelesser body, pass as quietly, without such a dismal cant, such an hideous noise, as his lordship doth suppose? for noise doth not arise merely from motion; but from the crossing or thwarting of several motions, from the clashing and collision of one body against another, by reason that the one (standing) interrupts the other in its motion, or both moving according to several motions do mutually hinder each others progress: whereas, if all moved the same way, with the same speed, (as is supposed in the motion of the earth, and the things adjoining) there would be no such clashing, or interruption of one another, and (consequently) no noise. the senses testimony therefore doth not contradict the opinion of copernicus, the eye tells us, that the stars and we are at several times in several positures, but, whether it proceed from their motion or from ours, it affirmeth not. our feeling informs us, that we are not tossed from place to place, that is, from one part of the earth's superficies to another, but remain upon the same part of its surface: but whether we jointly move together, or jointly rest immovable, it determins not. the ear can tell us, that it hears no noise, (for how can it since there is none?) but it doth not say, there is no motion. these witnesses therefore can testify nothing in this cause; except we should suborn them, and put that into their mouths, which is not within their knowledge, or falsify the records, by supposing them to say that, which they say not. chap. xii. concerning falsehood in the souls operations. whether it cease to be, when it c●aseth to act truth. in the twelfth chapter, he comes to another objection if actings of truth, be truth, (that is, if rational operations be the soul, the souls essence) than when the soul acteth not truth, it ceaseth to be: and so when it entertaineth or pronounceth a false position, the soul is no more itself. this objection i conceive to have two branches; for the soul may cease to act truth, either by not acting at all, or by acting falsely. for whether it act not, or act falsely, it ceaseth to act truth; and therefore (if acting of truth be its essence) it ceaseth to bee. his first answer may be equally applied to both; that, granting the soul when it acts upon falsehood, to be as when it acteth not, and so is not; yet shall we advance nothing, till we prove the succession of moment's to be real and not imaginary. where he presupposeth, that when it acteth not, than it is not; and, though the same be granted in a false acting, yet neither that, nor this, will prove of any force, since succession of moment's is only imaginary. the ground of this reply, i conceive to be this; if there be not any real succession, if there be no prius and posterius indeed, but be only supposed so to be by our imagination; then any one act of the soul, is able to give it a coexistence to all eternity: (according to what he affirmed in the former chapter.) for of this one act, being real, it cannot be affirmed, that it was but is not, or it is but hath notbeen; but if it at all be, it must be always; because, if succession be only imaginary, then to be and to have been is all one; then there was not a time when it was not, neither will there be a time when it shall not be. but if the issue of the question depend upon this, whether succession be real, or imaginary; i doubt not but this might be soon decided. therefore first, i ask, whether there be not the same reason for succession in time, that is for extension in place? whether there may be pars extra partem, punctum extra punctum, though not momentum extra momentum; or there be the same reason of both, and both be imaginary? if there be in both the same reason, (which i suppose he he will affirm;) then must every being have a coexistence to all places, as well as a coexistence to all times; it must have an ubiquity as well as a perpetuity. then is it in vain to dispute whether christ's body be really present in the sacrament, whether peter were ever at rome, etc. if every body, every thing▪ be every where. for if difference of place be nothing, then that which hath a real existence in any place, hath a real existence in all places; because this place and all other places have only an imaginary difference, and are indeed all one. secondly, if one action give the soul a coexistence to all eternity, than what doth the second and subsequent acts produce? do they give it a new being, a new eternity? answ. you will say (i suppose) that there is not a second act, an other act, but all acts are one act: and this one act, which appears to our imagination to be first and second, etc. gives the soul one essence, one eternity. repl. if so, than what is the difference between an act of sinning, and a course of sinning? what is the difference between the once committing of a sinful act, and the oft reiterating of it? between david's one act of adultery, and the lascivious persons constant practice? why are we exhorted to cease from evil; if every act be eternal, and whatsoever succeeds can be but the same? he that stole, let him steal no more: to what end serves this counsel, if there be no other act feazible, but what is already, and that to remain for ever? answ. 2. if you would say, that the same act is again reiterated▪ rep. i ask, if the iteration be somewhat more than the first commission? if not, then to commit it once, and to iterate it often, is all one: if it be somewhat more, then is it either a real addition, or imaginary: if imaginary, then are we where we were before; if it be real, then why may there not be a real act distinct from the former, as well as a real commission (of the same act) distinct from the former? thus you see if time be nothing, if succession be only imaginary; then is it all one to commit many sins, and to commit one sinne. thirdly, if succession and difference of moment's be only imaginary, if all duration be eternal, all simultaneous; then what is the difference between the long life of the aged, and the few days of him that dy●th in his youth? for the real existence of one as well as the other is equally eternal; since the length and the shortness of time is but imaginary, all duration being indeed simultaneous. thus the youngest child (if he do but think so) hath lived as long as the most aged. again, 4. if succession and difference of time be only imaginary; then why do i not n●w know, that which i shall know to morrow? what hinders but that every man should be praescius futuri? i shall know it to morrow, because i shall see it; but why should i not now both know it and see it as well as to morrow, since it is now as really present as it will be then? why do we dispute concerning matters of fact; as whether peter were at rome, and the like? can we not see whether he be there or not? for if he were there, than he is there: since then and now are all one: and if he be there, why do not i see him there? for i am as really there as he is: for if i be any where, then am i there, since there and here are all one; time and place making only an imaginary (and not real) difference. ans. if you say, things that seem to be future, are even now as really present as they shall be hereafter, but they appear not to be present, and therefore are not now known and seen, (like colours in the dark;) but when they shall receive a new luster, they shall both appear to be, and be seen to be. rep. i reply, if they shall appear, than they do appear; because then and now are all one. again, if there be apparet and apparuit, why not est and erit? if there be a prius and posterius in appearing why not in being? or ³ i ask, whether appearing and not-appearing be a real or only imaginary difference? if a real difference, then will there be somewhat real then, which is not now; and consequently all reality will not be simultaneous, there will be somewhat real afterwards which before was not: if appearing, be only imaginary; what shall i have to help my knowledge then, which i have not now? ans. 2. if you say, things future are both now present, & we know them so to be, but do not seem to know them, or seem, not to know them: repl. then i reply as before, if we shall seem to know them, we do seem to know them; because then and now are all one. so that if succession of time be only imaginary; then do we already know, whatsoever we shall know, (whereas christ himself increased in wisdom, luk. 2.) and the foreknowledge of things to come, would not be such a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as might distinguish between the true and false gods. and thus (if i mistake not) i have sufficiently showed (though much more might have been added) that there is a real succession, a real priority of duration, and not only imaginary. and therefore (notwithstanding his first answer) the soul must really cease to be, when it ceaseth to work, or to work truth; if these workings of truth be the souls essence: and the soul must be (during that cessation, or error) as truly non ens, as before its first production; for the precedent and subsequent workings cannot (then) give it an existence, as not (then) being. his second answer, to the objection propounded in the beginning of this chapter, toucheth not at all the first branch of it, wherein it is objected, that if particular actings of truth, be truth, or the souls essence, how is it that the understanding should not cease to be, when it ceaseth to work; (for this in his first answer he seemed to grant:) but it is applied to the second branch of it, viz. that if particular actings of truth be truth, or the souls essence, than the soul entertaining a false position should be no more itself. to which he answers, by denying that the soul doth at all act upon falsehood: and that upon this ground, because falsehood is not a real being upon which the soul can work. for its nature being privative, and no real being, how can the soul or truth work upon nothing? i might answer here, that it is not requisite to the souls act, that its object should have a real being: (as appears by the souls apprehending ens rationis; which apprehension is a positive act, and yet hath no real object.) for the object of intellection, is not real, but cognoscibile. and therefore, that falsehood wanteth a real being, is not enough to show, that the understanding cannot work upon it. and this (in effect) he granteth soon after. for, it being objected, that the soul while it pronounceth a false position, doth really act, (verè agere; he replies, that there are in this action two things, a thinking, and a so-thinking. to think is a positive action, a good action, but the formalis ratio of so-thinking lieth in thinking an error, which is nothing; and so a not-thinking. when (mistaking) a man catcheth at a shadow; in catching he doth truly act; but to catch a shadow, is to catch nothing; now to catch nothing, and not to catch; to act nothing, and not to act, is all one. so to think is real, but to think amiss is nothing, and all one with not-thinking. he grants therefore, that the soul pronouncing or understanding a false position, or thinking amiss, doth really think, really act: now i ask, while it doth really think, what doth it think? what doth it act? (or upon what rather?) certainly it must either be falsehood▪ or nothing: (for what else it should be, neither doth his lordship show, nor can i imagine) if it act upon falshood▪ the false position; then may falshood be the object of a real act; if it act upon nothing, than what hinders, but that falsehood▪ although it be nothing, may yet be the object of this act? object. but he will say, if the soul do act upon falsehood, then must it become falsehood, that is, a vanity, a lie, a nothing: for i conceive (●aith he) the agent itself, together with the subject acted upon (the object) to be one in the act. ans●. but this supposition must i deny; for if so, then when the soul acteth upon god (by knowing, loving, &c) then doth it become god: and if so, why doth his lordship (at the end of his preamble) blame those for mounting too high, who, confounding the creator with the creature, make her to be god? but for the better clearing of this whole discourse, concerning falsehood and error in the souls working; i shall desire you to take notice of a distinction, which all know, and yet but few think of, when they have occasion to use it. the non attendency whereof, hath produced much obscurity, much error, and inextricable perplexities concerning this and the like subjects. it is, to distinguish between verum metaphysicum▪ and verum logicum; between bonum metaphysicum, and bonum morale: to distinguish, i say, metaphysical truth and goodness, from moral and logical goodness and truth: to distinguish the truth of being from the truth of a proposition; the goodness of being, from the goodness of an action. now this being premised, let us examine the truth of some tenants which are almost generally received by all. 1 the nature of evil, say they, is privative, not positive; evil is nothing. and why? because ens & bonum convertuntur, and therefore malum must needs be nonens; now nonens is nothing. be it so; evil is nothing. but what evil do they mean? evil in metaphysics▪ or evil in ethics? goodness, in metaphysics, is no other th●n entity, (for none ever acknowledged a greater distinction between ens & bonum then a distinction of reason,) and therefore malum (in metaphysics) must be non ens. but will they say that moral evil is so too? if they do, then must they say also, that bonum morale is convertible with ens; (otherwise their argument will not hold:) that all being is honesty, or moral goodness; and all moral goodness is being or entity. i ask therefore, whether moral goodness, or honesty, ●e the essence, the entity of a stone? if not, then is not every being, bonum morale▪ i ask again, whether silence be not morally good, at such a time as when a man ought to hold his peace? yet to ● silent, or not to speak, hath no metaphysical goodness, no goodness of being, for it is a mee● negation. there may be therefore moral goodness, where there is no metaphysical goodness, no positive being; and there may be metaphysical goodness, goodness of being, without moral goodness or goodness of honesty. now if malum metaphysicum, a negation, a nonens, may be bonum morale, what shall be the malum morale opposite to this bonum? shall that be also a non-en●● if it be, then how can it be contrary to the other? since that nothing cannot be opposite to nothing, but something to something, or something to nothing. i say therefore, that metaphysical evil, is merely privative, as being opposite to the goodness of being; and it is no other but nonentity▪ but moral evil is every way as positive as is moral good. for what is the nature of moral good, or evil? is it not, a conformity, or a difformity to a moral precept? then the goodness or evil of it is not in the being of the action, but in the so being; it lies not in the positive or absolute entity of the action, but in the relative nature. moral goodness therefore, and moral evil, have not an absolute essence, but a relative; an agreeing, or disagreeing; a likeness, or unlikeness, to its rule. now if likeness be a real relation; why may not unlikeness be also a relation real? if simile be real, why not dissimile? if the one be positive, why not the other? object. they will say perhaps, that the nature of moral evil, is not a difformity but a nonconformity, to its rule; not to be (positively) unlike, but only not to be like. answ. if so, than not to be is a sin; for not to be, includes not to be like, or not to be obedient. if the blessed angels had never been created, they had been eo ipso sinful: for if they had never been, they must of necessity not be obedient; (though not disobedient;) for how can they be obedient, if not at all being? a stone must then be sinful, when it doth not-understand the nature of god, as a man doth and aught to do; for though it be not disobedient to the precept of knowledge, (because this precept was not made to a stone but to man,) yet you cannot say that it is obedient, and therefore must of necessity be not-ob●dient, or notbe obedient; wherefore if a bare not-obedience, or a not conformity to the command be a sin, then doth a stone sinne. scire deum is morally good, and therefore (if moral evil be only an absence of good) since there is not in a stone this scire deum, how can it be but that a stone must sin? god commanded moses to go down into egypt, etc. and aaron to offer sacrifice: do i sin therefore when i do not-obey this command made to them? how is it possible that i can obey the command for moses his journey, or aaron's sacrificing; for my going is not moses his going, nor is my sacrificing, aaron's sacrificing; yet do i not sin in not-obeying. when moses made the brazen serpent, he did not (in that) obey the precept of going into egypt, (for to go into egypt, and to make the serpent, is not the same,) yet was it not sinful to make the brazen serpent, though it werenot an obedience to that command, for neither was it a disobedience; for that precept, did neither enjoin nor forbid it. thus every action, though never so good, will be a sin; for there is in the most perfect act, a not-obeying of many precepts, (yea of all precepts, except that which enjoins this action,) though there be not perhaps a disobedience of any. the nature of sin therefore, or moral evil, is not barely a not-obeying▪ but a disobeying; it is not a not-conformity, but a difformity, a crossing or thwarting of some command. therefore the stone sins not, because there is no disobedience in its notknowing, because it was not commanded; moses his making the brazen serpent, was not a breach of his former injunction, although not an obeying of it; for in his commission to go into egypt, his making the brazen serpent was neither forbidden nor commanded. the act of one moral virtue, is not an offence against the rest; for it is no breach of their rules, though it be not an observance of them: it is praeter, but not contra. ans. 2. but if i should say on the contrary, that the nature of moral good, were not a conformity, or positive likeness; but only a not-difformity, a not-disagreeing, or not crossing its rule; might not this be said with as good probability as the other? you would think it strange perhaps, that evil should be positive, and good negative: but (if i mistake not) there is more truth in this, then is in the other. for a bare not-agreeing doth not make an action sinful, but a not-disagreeing d●th make it lawful, and so morally good; for where there is no law, there is no sinne. if i walk for my refreshing in one part of the garden to day, and in another to morrow; or in that other to day, & in this to morrow; i sin not in either: not because i have a command to walk in this first, or in the other part first: but because neither is forbidden, therefore is neither unlawful. i ask therefore, whether the lawfulness of this action, in walking first in this part of the garden and not in the other part, do depend upon its conformity to some rule, or its not-disagreeing from any? now, what is the lawfulness of an action, but its moral goodness? ans. 3 yet thirdly, i affirm not the nature of moral good or evil to be negative, but both equally positive; if by good, you understand, that which ought to be, not, that which may be. and therefore i make three sorts of moral being's; bonum, malum, indifferens▪ good, which must be done; indifferent, which may be done; evil, which may-not be done. the first, commanded; the last, forbidden; the other, of a middle nature, neither commanded, nor forbidden; which being indifferent, is often called good, but never evil. the first consists, in a conformity to its rule; the last, in a difformity; the other in a bare not-disagreeing. the first and last are of a positive nature; the other of a negative. (and yet sometimes this positiveness, whether in good or evil, is rather positivum logicum (the praedicat of a positive or affirmative proposition,) then positivum real. for an omission, negatio acts, may be good or evil: which having in itself no real being, cannot be the subject of a real relation.) yet doth not this contradict their opinion who affirm, that non datur actio indifferens in individuo. for by good and evil, they mean licitum & illicitum, lawful and unlawful; including under the name of good, or lawful, not only that which ought to be done, but whatsoever may be done; as when (in civil matters) we say, it is lawful for me to give such a portion of my estate to such a man, not because the law of the kingdom injoins me so to do; but because it doth not inhibit me. and thus licitum will be a negative term, and illicitum a positive, (though by the grammatical notation it might seem contrary;) for illicitum affirms, that there is a law to the contrary; licitum denies only that there is such a law to forbid it, but whether there be any to command it, it affirms not. and thus much concerning the nature of evil. (wherein if i may seem prolix, it being but a digression in this place: yet because i was called to it in the former chapter, where his lordship gave me occasion to handle it; i thought it more fit to refer the discussing of it to this place, where i meet with more questions of the like nature.) 2. now, as it is in good and evil, so also in truth and falsehood. falshood, saith he, is a vanity, a lie, a nothing and why so? because ens & verum convertuntur, and therefore falsum must be nonens. to this i say, as to the former; truth of being, or metaphysical truth, is positive, and of the same extent or latitude with entity, or being. and this truth i have formerly said to be cognoscibility, making verum in this metaphysical acceptation to be all one with intelligibile. i affirm also, that ens & verum (or intelligibile) convertuntur. and (consequently) according to the manner of being, must be the manner of intellection. that which hath a real being (as ens real) may be known to be; that which hath an apparent, or supposed being, may be supposed to be. i affirm likewise, that falsehood in this sense cannot be understood, or that the soul cannot act upon (metaphysical) falsehood: for how can that be known, which is not cognoscible; or understood, which is not intelligible? but, when i affirm, that verum and ens are convertible; i restrain it not to real entity; for there may be esse cognitum, where there is not esse real: but i proportion its cognoscibility to its being; and therefore if it have not a real being, but only imaginary; it may be supposed, but cannot be known, to be. neither yet do i so proportion the reality of intellection, to the reality of the object, as if when there is no real object, there could be no real act: for it is cognoscibile that is convertible with ens, and hath its reality proportionable to the reality of being; not cognos●itivum. the understanding, whether it know to be, or suppose to be, doth yet really act; and his lordship also granteth, that when the understanding doth act amiss, it doth yet really act; the opining, or thinking, (saith he) is a good act. but where the object is not real, there the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cognosc●, cannot be real; for how can a real relation be founded in a nonentity? yet the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cognoscere is real; for the reality of ●t, depends not upon the reality of the object, but upon the reality of the act. that therefore which is so understood, is the supposed object of a real act. but now logical truth, the truth of a proposition, which is opposed to falsehood, ●o error, hath nothing to do with the reality either of the object or of the act; for a true proposition may be framed concerning an imaginary object (as when we affirm a chimaera to be ens rationis, or only imaginary▪) and an act metaphysically true (a real act) may be logically false. logical truth and falsehood (like as moral good and evil) have not an absolute being, but relative. they consist not in the being or not-being of the act; (for when the understanding doth act falsely it doth verè agere, though not agere verè; it is verè actus, though not verus actus:) but in the agreeing, or disagreeing with the object. for when the intellect doth understand, it frames an idea, a picture, or representation of the thing understood▪ which picture, or idea, is a real picture, (it hath the truth of being) whether it have the truth of representation or not; that is, whether it be like or unlike, whether it agree or disagree, with the copy or object which it represents. a picture in a painter's shop is truly a picture, it hath real colours and lineaments; but perhaps it is a false picture, it represents not that visage by which it was drawn. when the understanding conceives an ens rationis, the idea or conceptus is not this imaginary being, (for this conception is as real as the conception of a real ens,) but the supposed object of this conception; there being indeed no such thing as this conceptus doth represent. when a painter describes in a table some antic shapes or strange chimaeras; his description, his draught, is not a fiction, but as real as the true pourtraicture of a living man: but that which by this description is represented, that is the fiction, there being no such antic forms, no such chimaeras, as he expresseth. when the understanding draws a real picture, a real idea or conceptus, without a copy, without a pattern; it is ens rationis: when, endeavouring to imitate a copy, to represent the nature of things, the truth of being; it yet misseth of it, not making its picture agreeable to its pattern; this is a false apprehension. and this is the difference between ens rationis, and error intellectûs: both in the mean time being real acts. the logical truth and falsehood of a conception or proposition, are but relations of likeness or unlikeness, conformity or difformity, in the act to its object; and are both founded in the reality of the action, or its truth of being: and are both equally real, equally positive▪ for falsehood is not a mere not-conformity, or not-expressing of things existent; but a difformity, a crossing or thwarting of them. for else, when a man ceaseth to think or speak of this or that truth, he there by errs, and lies: for when he thinks not at all, he cannot think conformably; when he speaks not at all, he cannot speak conformally, either to the existence of things, or to his own opinion of them. yea every proposition, every thought will have so many falsehoods in it, as there be other truths which it doth not express: for if the not-expressing of a truth, be falsehood: then to affirm that the sun shines, is a falsehood, because it doth not express the fires hea●, or the charcoals burning: and thus that proposition which expresseth not every truth, is a false proposition; yea contains infinite falsehoods, opposite to the infinite number of true propositions possible. object. if you say (to avoid this) that it is not the not-expressing of one truth, the not-conformity to one existence, that makes a proposition false; but the not-expressing of any truth: whereas the conformity to, and the expressing of any truth, makes the proposition or conception true: ans. i answer first, that this is contrary to the general proposition, which affirms, that perfectio oritur ex integris, imperfectio verò ex particulari defectu: which is applied to several kinds of imperfection; that action is good, whose every circumstance is rightly ordered; that proposition true▪ whose every branch doth agree with the thing, etc. whereas one bad circumstance, one false branch makes the action bad, the proposition false. the contrary to which must have been affirmed, if the expressing of one truth, make the proposition true; and the concurrent not-expressing, or not-conformity to all truths be requisite to make it false. 2. again, if there be requisite a not-expressing of any truth to make it false; then must this (and the like propositions) be true, if i affirm virgil & homer to be greek poets, if i affirm a stone to be a reasonable creature: for it expresseth one truth, viz▪ that it is a creature although it be not reasonable, (as likewise the one was a greek poet, though not the other:) and the not-expressing of a further truth, doth not hinder its expressing of this. then must that action be good whose one circumstance is good; if the intention be right, though the formality of the action be never so unlawful, yet will not the act be blamable. logical falsehood therefore is as positive, as logical truth; the one consisting in a positive conformity, the other in a positive difformity to the things. yea, of the two, the nature of truth is rather negative, then the nature of falsehood; for a not-conformity makes not a proposition false; but the not-difformity makes it true. for that is a true proposition that is not opposite to any truth▪ though it do not express all truths. neither can there be a medium between truth and falsehood, as there is between good and evil; for though there may be an indifferent action, which is neither good (positively) nor evil; yet is there not an indifferent proposition which is neither true nor false. truth and falsehood in propositions, are opposed as lawfulness and unlawfulness in actions, (whereof lawfulness, as i have said, is negative;) rather then as good and evil, laudabile & vituperabile. yet if we desire a medium, i can show you one; but than it must not be actus, but negatio actûs. and that is, in abstraction; when the understanding conceives of one thing, without considering of another▪ for than it doth neither affirm, nor deny, and so that conception is (thus far) neither true nor false; as likewise the proposition expressing this thought. when i conceive of the air, not regarding whether it be light or dark; of a man not considering whether he be learned or ignorant: this abstracting, or considering the air without considering light in it; considering aristotle to have been a man, not considering withal that he was learned; is neither true nor false: according to that, abstrahentis non est mendacium: whereas if i affirm the air (in the day time) to be without light, or aristotle without learning; the proposition is false. falshood and truth therefore being relations, equally real, equally positive▪ the understanding may be said as well to act falshood, as to act truth, while it produceth that absolute act, in which these relations are founded. otherwise▪ what will be the difference between ignorance and error, between silence and a lie? 3. there is yet another question, to which by his lor●. i am invited; the same (saith he) may be said of pain; which he conceiveth cannot act upon the soul, nor the soul upon it; because it is but a bare privation. and therefore subscribes to the opinion of dr. twisse, (whom if anagrams may be credited, you may style wisest;) that it is better to be in perpetual pain, than not to be at all; because if pain be a bare privation, then is any being more desirable, then for fear of a privation (a nothing) to become no being. his ground you may easily perceive; because if misery be but a privation of happiness; then is it better to have the goodness of being, without the goodness of happiness, then to want both the one and the other. but i cannot with his lordship (saving always the deserved respect due to that reverend divine) subscribe to the opinion of dr. twisse in this particular. for (beside that thus paena damni, and paena sensus will be all one) i conceive pain to be as real as pleasure. motion hath been accounted by all (if i mistake not) to be positive, and rest (quies) to be only privative, negatio motûs. now in my opinion, ease, and pain or torment, are opposite in the same manner that rest and motion. and so i conceive pain or torment (whether you speak of dolour corporis, or dolour animi; the grief of mind, or bodily pain) to be real; the negation whereof is called ease; and its contrary, pleasure or delight. neither doth it at all trouble me, that ens & bonum convertuntur; that all real entity, hath a real goodness, or the goodness of being: for nothing hinders but that bonum metaphysicum, may be malum physicum▪ that which is real may notwithstanding be inconvenient; that which is, in se bonum, may notbe bonum huic, whether you speak of bonum jucundum or bonum vtile. goodness of being (metaphysical goodness) is but a common subject capable either of (physical) good or evil; (like as the same real action may be morally good or evil.) and according as the physical good, or evil (annexed to being metaphysically good) doth exceed, so is that being desirable, or not desirable. otherwise, how could it be better for that man (which betrayed our saviour) that he had never been born? i urge not the judgement of sense in this particular; because his lordship appeals from sense to reason: i shall therefore examine what reason can allege, why credit should not be given to the judgement of sense. for, shaving a judgement confessed in the court of sense; i must suppose▪ it to be in force, till such time as i see it revoked by reason: and when reason hath reversed it, i will grant the former sentence to be void. object. you will say being, though miserable, hath some goodness: whereas not-being hath none: and therefore being, though with misery, is more desirable. ans. i reply, misery hath much evil, not-being hath none: therefore misery is more to be shunned then not to be. but if this satisfy not; i desire to know whether there be not the same strength of reason in this argument, that is in theirs. viz: a sinful act hath in it the goodness of being; and its sinfulness i● only a privation of further goodness, the goodness of conformity to gods law. therefore, it is better to sin then not to act; to commit a sin than not to commit it: for if i sin, i produce ●ome good; because it is a real action, and so hath the goodness of being; but in not-acting, not-committing, i produce no goodness at all. therefore it is better to sin, than not to sin: because acting, though sinful, hath some good, but not-acting hath none. now if this argument do not hold good to prove it better to sin (be the sin as great as can be possible) than not to act, not to sin: then must i needs think that their argument, being exactly in the same form, is of as little force, to prove misery (though never so great) to be better than not-being. but let us hear his lordship plead at reason's bar, for the revoking that sentence which hath passed in the court of sense. reason telleth us (saith he) that pain must be something, or nothing: if nothing, than it is but a privation; ●f something, then must it be good or evil; if good, it cannot hurt us; if evil, it is either a nominal evil, or real▪ if named an evil and is not, it will not be disputed; but if it be a real evil, then is it nothing▪ for evil is only a privation of good. i answer to this discourse; that pain is something, it is evil, it is a real evil, (malum physicum.) and this real evil is also posi●ve, and not a bare privation of good: for i conceive not a stone to be in pain, though it have not pleasure, (bonum jucundum;) nor to be grieved, though it do not rejoice. there is one great rub that yet remains against what i have said, concerning these three last mentioned questions; which i have referred to the end, that so once mentioning might suffice, without particular repetition in the discussing of each question. and it is this. if falsehood and evil, whether moral or physical, have a being, (if it be real) then must we with the manichees make two sources of being; or else god must be the author of it, which none will affirm. for answer to this, i intent not ex professo to handle at large that question, whether, and in what sense, god may be called the author of sin, of evil, of falsehood. for, if i durst to encounter that difficulty, which hath troubled able divines; yet would it be too tedious to insert here, especially when i have already transgressed with over much prolixity. only thus. all relations, you know, have their original, not from any peculiar act whereby they are produced, distinct from that act by which is produced that in which they are grounded; but arise and flow from that absolute being, upon which they depend, per nudam resulta●tiam, by a resultation from it, without a new intermediate act. the father doth not by one act beget his son, and by another act (he, or his son) produce filiation: but the terminirelationis being once produced, the relation doth unavoidably follow: two white things being produced, it is impossible (etiam per divinam potentiam) but that they must (in this) be like. now falsehood and truth, good and evil, being (as i have said) relations; and consequently having no other production, but their resultance from their foundation; i leave it to others to judge, how far god doth concur with the operation of the creature in producing that act, which is good or evil, true or false; and how far the efficient of this act may be affirmed the cause of that relation which doth result from it. chap. xiii. the consequents of this assertion, that all things are one truth. whether useful in practicals. i have now done with his lordship's thesis laid down in the full extent in the several branches of it. the chapters ensuing are but a declaration of the consequents, the vsefullnesse of this position. which, saith he, if we consider, viz. that all things are but one emanation from divine power; it would make our lives more cheerful, more christian, both in the practical and theoretical part. that all things are but one emanation, if he speak of unum per aggregationem, i grant; and so i suppose will all else. god alone hath his being of himself, and gives being to all his creatures: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. and whatsoever being they have, it is only a communication of that being which he hath in himself. but that the parts of this one aggregatum are not really distinct from each other; hath not yet been so clearly proved as to convince me. his arguments, if they prove any thing, will prove, that god cannot produce creatures really distinct. for if it be enough to prove, all things that now are to be really the same, because the fountain of them all is god; the thing communicated, their own essence; and the recipient, themselves; (because the essence produced, receiveth of god 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 esse:) then is it impossible for god to produce any thing that shall not be the same with these: for whatsoever can be possibly produced, if god be the author of it, then must he be the fountain, and itself the recipient, receiving from god 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 esse. this being premised, i ask, whether this one emanation which his lordship seeks to establish, be really distinct from god or no? if not, then must not his lordship blame those that confound the creator with th● creature, making it to be god. but if this one emanation be distinct really, if this fountain have sent forth one stream really distinct from itself, what hinders but that it may send forth more streams? hath god (like isaac) but one blessing? or can he produce more but will not? if he can; then is it possible that two emanations, two creatures, may be really distinct, though receiving their essence from the same fountain. and if any creatures may be possibly distinct from other, why not these creatures that now are? there being no more to be alleged for their unity, then for the unity of all possible. god's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, his power also, and the emanation of it, is so uniform, as that it is equivalent to an infinite variety. he proceeds to this purpose. in the practic part of our lives (saith he) if we knew that all things were one, with what chieerfulness, what courage, should we undertake any action, any difficulty; knowing the distinction of misery and happiness, to have no being but in the brain; that misery is nothing, and cannot hurt us, that every thing is good, and good to me, because i and it are being's and so good, and these two goods falling under no other difference but of degrees, good and good must needs agree, that which is good is good to me: yea how void of envy at another's good, and of thoughts of revenging injuries; since i have a propriety, a possession of that which is another's, he and i being one; injuries are nothing and cannot hurt; good things, though another's, do serve me. that all things are one; that the difference between happiness and misery is only in the brain; that misery, that injuries, are nothing and▪ cannot hurt; that whatsoever is good must be good to me; and (which is the ground of it) that good and good, ens & ens, admit of no difference but of degrees: i have already denied. i will only add, that by this discourse you prove the devils as happy as the blessed angels: and if it be a good consequent of this position. that it will make us no● be afraid of misery and danger: i am sure it is as bad a consequent, that it will make us not afraid of sinning. the devils are being's, and therefore good; every thing that is, is good, and good to them, for both they and it being good, and admitting of no difference but of degrees, good and good cannot but agree, and so, be good to them: the happiness of the blessed angels doth serve them, since (as his lordship speaks) it is not only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, they have a propriety in it: their own misery and torment is nothing, and cannot hurt them; and (which is the only difference which you can imagine) if they think otherwise (i use still his lordship's expression) this must be a lie, and cannot hurt. and if this be hell; who will be afraid to sin? my judgement cannot assent to make the torments of the damned, only imaginary; to make hell a fancy. yea to affirm, that it is good to sin, because the act of sinning is a real good; and its evil, only imaginary, a lie, and cannot hurt. chap. xiv. whether knowledge and sciences receive benefit from this assertion. he proceeds to show the usefulnesse of unity in theory; and complains, that learning is broken into so many sciences: wishing that it were all like the chain fastened to jupiter's throne, all of a piece. and indeed i wish as heartily as his lordship, (whether all things be one emanation, or many) that comenius his design, (of which his lordship speaks) of reducing all into one, might proceed: of reducing, i say, all knowledge into a body, all sciences into one system; (for this is it comenius designs; he never fancied his lordship's unity.) and great pity it is, that so worthy a design is not prosecuted at a public charge, that such a shining light should be extinct for want of oil; if there may be hopes of effecting it. he shows what a multitude of inquiries we must needs make for the perfecting of knowledge, whilst we acknowledge a distinction in things; which labour might be much contracted, if we could be content to see all things to be but one, bearing only different shapes. but though this were allowed; yet must we then, either look at all things with a confused eye; or else shall be as much troubled in taking notice of different shapes, as we are now in observing different things. he reckons up many doubts, as not yet determined, concerning the existence of being's; what things there are, and what they are; qu●nam sunt, & qualia (vel quid) sunt. but i see not how his doctrine, of unity in all things, will resolve any of these. for granting all things to be one, yet how shall i know, whether there be an unicorn, a phoenix a mermaid, or ebur f●●●il●? whether the philosopher's stone, or a perpetual motion, be possibile? whether dictamnum be a sovereign balm? whether tobacco be hot or cold? what are the degrees of heat or cold in this or that simple? if then this opinion serve no way to inform us concerning these questions wherein we doubt; how can he commend this opinion, as useful, from the manifestion of our ignorance in these particulars? if he would exhort us, not to inquire; this he may do though they may be many; if he would have us search, whether or no there be these several shapes, how doth their common unity help forward the enquiry? you see (saith he) in what a maz● you are meandred, if you admit of any division. i wish we could see how to help it, by allowing his unity. yet notwithstanding their multitude) he accounts the knowledge of existences, and the being of things, to be necessary; although those things are all of one nature, variegated only in our apprehension. (but for aught i see, it is as little labour for us to find, that there are so many things, as for his lordship to find out so many shapes.) but to inquire the causes of these being's, is (in his lordship's opinion) to become majestatis rei▪ for prying into th●se arcana imperii. in my judgement, there may be as great a vanity and emptiness in the curious enquiry after the being of things, as in the too nice search of their causes. vain philosophy may be as well in the historical as in the discursive part. a modest inquiry both into the being's, and into the causes of things, is both lawful and commendable; a nice curiosity is blamable in either: it will prove but vanity, if not vexation; weaving a spider's web, if not hatching a cockatrice's egg. t●las quasdam doctrinae pariunt, t●nuitate fili operisque admirabiles, sed quoad usum frivolas & inanes. bacon. l●ke a razor of too keen an edge; as seneca speaks of chrysippus, magnum ●●hercle virum, sed cujus acumen nimis tenue retunditur, & in se saepe replicatur▪ etiam cum agere aliquid videtur, pungit, non perforat. chap. xv. whether confusion in the knowledge of causes be redressed by this unity. of causes▪ he tells us) there are two lie open to our view, the universal efficient of all things, god; and the materia prima, 〈…〉 common essence; other causes (saith he) are better known by name then in the natures of them; (as efficient, final, material, formal, etc.) we are ignorant, i grant, in the particular causes of divers things; and therefore when we have no other but those two generals, we must rest there. but if the other appear and show themselves; we need not shut our eyes for fear of seeing them. it is not like to cost us so dear as ovid's, or action's sight, or as those that saw medusa's head. till numeri platonici (saith he) cease to be a proverb, in vain shall any undertake to teach him how and whence it is, that the various rowlings of the tongue should send forth so many articulate voices, and so many several languages. we say already, that the different articulation of sounds, ariseth from the divers figuration of the organs. if his numeri platonici can give us a better account, i would be glad to hear it. till then, he will give no credence to any who promiseth an account of the estuation of the sea; whether from the moon, etc. that numeri platonici will furnish us with a better reason; i will then believe, when i see it. in the mean time i see nothing to hinder us from an enquiry after a physical cause. and i doubt his lordship will have a hard task to give a reason in numbers, why the sea ebbs and ●lows. cha●. xvi. whether divisions in other parts of learning be remedied by it. next he shows us many doubts in moral philosophy, as well as those precedent in natural philosophy. but i do not see that his lordship's position will help to clear any one of them whatsoever. whether the understanding and the will be really the same, or distinct, is nether material nor determinable, in moral philosophy: it belongs only to natural philosophy, viz. to that part of physics that treats de animâ. how the will may sometimes omit the prosecution of the understandings direction; i have already showed, without making the will an understanding. he glanceth at aristotle's maintaining the eternity of the world against hermes, orpheus, anaxagoras, etc. for my own part, i would be thankful to him, that would solidly demonstrate the world's creation from principles in nature, and make it appear from natural light, that the world could not have been from eternity. for though i deny not, but that there may be in nature, demonstrative arguments; yet i confess, i have not as yet seen those (and yet i have examined many) that have given me so full satisfaction as i desire concernng an absolute impossibility; but that i have seen (at least seemed to see) some just exception. but if his lordship's opinion be true, i shall have more cause to doubt than i have formerly had. for if all things did exist in their being's with god, ab omni aeterno; and their temporal existence be only imaginary, to our apprehension: (as his lordship affirms in his 11. chapter, pag. 99) i cannot imagine any hindrance at all, why that which did really exist from all eternity, might not be without a beginning; why that which was ab aeterno, might not (though it did not) ab aeterno appear to be, and be apprehended. i will not therefore blame aristotle for maintaining the world's eternity as a disputable problem, till i see some light which might have convinced him, whilst he enjoyed not the benefit of revealed light; at least, till this opinion of his lordship be rejected. in the next place, i grant to his lordship that there are doubts also in metaphysics, in logic, in mathematics. but i perceive not how this opinion dissolves them. there be doubts also in divinity, (though i do not see how this doth clear them▪) whether faith, or repentance be precedent: whether faith be a particular application of christ to myself: or only a bare spiritual belief, that christ is the son of god. i as●ent not, to place (the saving act of) faith, either with mr. cotton, (as his lordship citys him) in the laying hold of, or assenting to that promise, that, he that believeth that christ is the son of god, shall be saved; nor yet in a particular application of christ to myself in assurance, or a believing that christ is mine: (for though these also be acts of saving faith, yet they are not the saving act of faith.) but i choose rather to place it in an act of the will, rather than in either of these forenamed acts of the understanding. it is an accepting of christ offered, rather than an assenting to a proposition affirmed. to as many as [received] him, etc. that is, to them that believe in his name, joh. 1. god makes an offer of christ to all, (else should not reprobates be condemned for not accepting of him; as neither the devils are, because he was not offered to them) whosoever will, let him come, and take of the water of life freely rev. 22. 17. whereupon the believing soul replies, i will, and so takes him. when a gift is offered to me; that which makes it to be mine, is my acceptation, my taking it; not the knowing that it is offered; nor the knowing that it is mine; for the one of these precedeth, the other followeth, the appropriating it to myself. if you call this taking of christ, (or consenting that christ shall be my saviour▪ a depending, a resting, or relying upon christ for salvation; (if you speak of an act of the will:) it is all one. for, taking of christ to be my saviour, and committing myself to christ to be saved, is the same: both of them being but a consenting to this covenant▪ i will be your god, and you shall be my people; i will be thy father, and thou shalt be my son. and if you make this the saving act of faith; then will repentance (so far as it is distinct from faith) be a consequent of it. confidence also or assurance that christ is mine ariseth from it: for christ must first be ours, before we can know him so to be. then also that, whether faith be a believing that i am saved; (he means, in statu salutis.) or a depending upon god for salvation, (to be put into such a condition of salvation,) will be easily resolved, and beauties' dilemma soon answered. viz. if belief be to believe that i am saved, (that christ is mine,) then was▪ i saved without faith: if it be, to believe that god will give me grace to be saved, then do i believe before▪ i have grace, before i have faith. i say, it is easily answered, by making the saving act of faith, an acceptance or taking of christ: for although the gift be mine, before i know; or am assured, that it is mine; yet is not the gift mine, before my accepting of it, but by my acceptance it becomes mine. if (with mr. cotton) we should make faith to save us, only declaratiuè (which we must by no means admit;) then, why is it said, that we are saved by faith, and not by works? why do we allow, that faith doth concurrere effica●iter ad salutem, but deny the same to works? seeing that good works do save us declaratiuè, as well as faith. that we are saved not only in the eternal decree without faith, but even in the execution, is strange divinity. for if without faith, then without christ; for christ is no further ours, then apprehended by faith. as for the eternal decree (of election, he means,) it is true, we are not▪ through faith, elected to salvation; but we are elected, to salvation through faith. faith is not the cause of the decree, but faith is decreed to be the cause of salvation. to that question, whether there be a prescript form of church-government, i shall say nothing; for it being a question maintained both ways, i will not oppose either of them, unless i had leisure, to confirm what i say, to prosecute what i affirm. only to his argument i may lay an exception. church-government, (which he presumeth to be enjoined in the second commandment,) is not of the nature of moral precepts, because not of perpetual continuance: (for such a prescript form, as by which the church since christ should be governed, had not its beginning till since christ: and therefore not commanded in the second commandment any otherwise then by consequence; (as particular temporary duties are.) however, it is like, church government is not more expressly commanded in the second commandment, then civil government in the fifth; and yet none ever inferred from thence, a prescript form of civil government. if he ask therefore, do they leave us any latitude in any other commandments? i say, yes: and i instance in that. he must search for a prescription, in the evangelists, and apostles writings, if he would find it, not in the second commandment. (only, by the way, i wish his lordship would do us the favour, from his doctrine of unity, (which he makes the salve to cure all controversies,) to demonstrate to us, whether there be a prescript form, and what it is. and i should then judge his opinion well worth embracing, though for nothing else. wherein yet i shall wish him to beware, that he say not of this as of the division of quantity, pag. 42. that all must at last be reduced to an unity; nor, as pag. 98. that it is divisibilis in infinitum. lest we establish episcopacy▪ (which himself likes not;) or become independent; which others like as ill.) the distinction between scientia simplicis intelligentiae, and scientia visionis, if it be taken only for distinctio rationis (and i suppose none ever took it otherwise) may well enough be admitted. by the one, god knows the nature of all things possible: by the other he sees, that these things are. the object of the one, is all things possible, all things intelligible: the object of the other is only, things existent, either past, present, or to come but (saith his lordship) if god's power, and will be all one; if god be p●r●● actus and not potentia; then all things that ever shall be, were ab aeterno under ● decree; and so what god could do, he did do, and can do no more. (he had said before, pag. 99 that all things did exist [in their being's] ab omni aeterno; and are they now but under ● decree?) but for answer. i grant, that god cannot do, what he hath not decreed; for than were his decree either void, or imperfect: and, supposing such a decree, the power of god is limited by his will. but a conditional, and hypothetical impossibility, doth not infer an absolute impossibility and therefore we affirm, that deus potest ea quae non vult. he can do more than he will, (in sensu diviso, not in sensu composito.) god is able (saith christ) of these stones to raise up children unto abraham; yet he doth not. knowest thou not that i can pray to my father, and he will send ●e more than twelve legions of angels? but neither did christ pray, nor the father send them. the god which we serve is [able] to deliver us (said the three men in daniel;) yet they were not certain that he would do it. and if media scientia, (whereby god is supposed to know an hypothetical proposition; as that the men of keilah would deliver up david, if he stayed there) had no other hindrance but this; it might well enough be admitted. chap. 17. concerning curiosity in the search of causes. with a close of all. and now he returns again to his former complaint, of too much curiosity in the search of causes. there is (he grants) a secondary intermediate being, which we may call a cause; which doth precede and produce another: the observation of which, saith he, is very ●itting, so that we search, and puzzle not ourselves with the grounds and reasons of this precedency. as, to observe, that fire, applied to combustible matter, will burn it: without enquiring how the fire doth work upon the wood, etc. he would have us therefore observe what is the cause of this effect, and what is the effect of this cause; without any curious search how this cause comes to produce such an effect. there is no general rule, can be prescribed in this case; sometimes it is needless to inquire so much as, by what cause this or that was produced: sometimes again it is useful to know, not only what did produce it, but also how it did produce it. thus far i allow, curiosity in searching trifles, also how it did produce it. thus far i allow, curiosity in searching trifles, hinders the finding of more solid and profitable truths; fo● (as he speaks) intus existens prohibet alienum. what his lordship hath, concerning the holiness of time and place, i assent to; that they are not capable of any other sanctification, than a holiness of separation, a relative holiness: and the contrary opinion is disclaimed, by him on whom his lordship fastens it. that the heart also should be always in such a holy frame, as that it be fit for a sabbaths employment, fit for a sacrament; i hold for an an undoubted truth. yet are we not always to be employed in such services of god's worship; for even adam in paradise had a particular calling, besides his general calling; and the exercise thereof, being done in obedience to god's command, was no doubt pleasing and acceptable ●o god. nor can i assent that all things are ordinances, though in all things we should acknowledge god. the rest of the chapter is but a recapitulation of his position, and its consequents; which needs no further consideration, besides what i have already given you in the examination of those several particulars. i need not make answer to the conclusion, having already delivered my judgement concerning the premises. but leave it to another to pass censure. and thus, (sir) i have finished that task, which at your request i have undertaken: which, beyond my expectation, is grown into a far larger body than i intended. you expect not accurateness, in that which is drawn up in so short a time: nor the judgement of authors in these points; for that was not the task imposed, to give you account of others opinions, but of mine own. i have therefore spared the labour of turning over any other books, save his lordships own; nor have made any farther use of any, then as my present memory did supply▪ i may seem too prolix perhaps in some digressions, prosecuting somewhat largely occasional questions, lighted on by the way: but if i have discovered any truth, though with some breach of method; if (with samson) i can impart to my friends some honey, though i step a little out of the way to fetch it; if, (as he found that honey in the conquered lion, which yet was not of it, but only accidentally there, so) i in the examining the main question, have withal cleared some doubts, which though not directly contained in it, were yet occasioned by it; i hope a small error in method will be passed over. sir, i am sorry it so falls out, that the first occasion, wherein i should have to do with so noble a lord, should be by way of encounter. but being partly enjoined by your request, which is to me a command, (whom therefore it concerns, to excuse my presumption to his lordship;) and having also so fair an invitation in mr. saddler's epistle prefixed to his lordship's treatise; as being that, than which nothing could be more grateful to this noble lord; i have adventured to commit this, with myself, to be at your service. j. w. a postscript. sir, i sent you (a while since) certain animadversions upon my lord brook's treatise concerning the nature of truth. which (briefly) tend to this purpose. by truth, or light, his lordship understands, that light whereby the soul and understanding is able to see or understand: which can be no other than the light of reason. which he considereth first in itself, then in its operations: that is truth in the fountain, this in the streams; (that the spring, this the offspring.) propositio 1. arg. 1. chap. 1. which truth or light (of reason) he contends to be the same with the understanding, because the understanding in man is that ray of the divine nature, enlivening the creature, or making it rational, whereby it is conformed to the creator, who is the primitive light, or fountain of knowledge. now that which doth thus inform animal rationale, enlivening it, or making it rational, is reason; and therefore reason (which he calls truth) is the same with the understanding. but this (if i mistake not) none will deny; for reason and the understanding-faculty are all one, ratio and facuitas ratiocinandi is the same. 'tis true, they say sometimes, that reason is in the understanding, or that the understanding is endued with reason: but then by understanding, they do not mean, the understanding-faculty, but the soul itself quatenus intelligens. and so this proposition, intellectus est subjectum rationis, is the same with this anima intelligens est subjectum intellectûs. anima, intellectus, and ratio, are not three. arg. 2. chap. 2, 3 4. his second argument to prove it is drawn from hence, that there is required to the constitution of every being, an essence received▪ a fountain imparting, and a channel receiving. the which channel or recipient must be the same with the essence received; because every thing is the recipient of its own essence; nothing can receive the essence of a stone, but by being a stone, for to be stone, and to have the essence of a stone, is all one. therefore the understanding being the recipient of truth, must needs be truth, that is, reason. propositio 2. chap. 5. which truth, or reason, whether it be in the understanding, or be the understanding; yet it cannot make the soul to be rational, unless it be also in the soul: for how can reason make the soul reasonable, if it be not in ●t, but in somewhat else. and if it be in the soul, then must i● be the soul: because to be in the soul, and to be the soul i● all one; every thing being its own recipient. thus truth, or light (of reason) will be the same with the understanding; and both that and this the same with the soul. but i hope his lordship will not deny, but that there is another kind of receiving▪ beside that receiving that he speaks of. (they tell us in logic of ●cto modi habendi; and there are as many manners of receiving, as there are of having.) to receive the essence of a man, and to be a man, is all one; to have the essence of money, and to be money, is all one; but yet, i hope, a man may receive money, without being coined, and made money. to receive the essence of water, and to be made water; to receive the essence of a vessel, and to be a vessel, is all one; yet a vessel may contain water, without being made water. thus a substance may receive an accident, a subject may receive a form, without being made that accident, that form. thus datur animae esse animam datur rationi esse rationem, (each being its own recipient:) but withal datur animae habere rationem, though the soul be not reason, nor reason (in this sense) its own recipient. if there be any strength in this argument, it lies in this, that if reason (or truth) be only in the soul as an accident, and not the souls essence, than it cannot make an essential difference between the rational and irrational soul. and to this we must answer, (if we maintain reason, and the rest of the faculties, to be distinct from ●he soul) that it is not the faculties, it is not reason, that makes the essential difference; but the substance or essence of the soul from whence these faculties proceed as essential consequents. like as it is not heat, and cold, and the rest of the primae qualitates, which make the essential difference between one element and another; but that essence or form, from whence these qualities do proceed. corollarium. 1. chap. 6. from hence he proceeds to a further corollary, that not only the soul, but all things else, are also the same with truth. but why so? because every thing is its own recipient? if it be; it doth not follow that every thing is the recipient of truth. if every thing be the recipient of its own essence, must therefore this essence needs be truth? if his lordship had well considered, that truth, as he hath formerly spoken of it, is but the same with that which others call reason; he would scarce have made this consequence, unless he could think to persuade us, that all things whatsoever are reasonable creatures▪ there is therefore too great an hiatus, to make this proposition, a corollary of the former. but indeed his lordship is by this time fallen off from his former acceptation of truth. for having (as he supposeth) proved reason to be the souls essence, the souls entity; he begins to take that word (which formerly signified reason,) to signify entity, or being: so that truth now, must be the same with entitas. and the emphasis of this last assertion lies in this, not that the essence of all things is truth, or entity, (for that were no great news,) but that the essence of all things is this one truth: meaning, that all entity is homogeneal and of the same nature. he was proving before, that truth or reason was the same thing with the soul: he hence infers, not that all things are the same thing; (for i cannot understand him to speak so harshly, as that one drop of water were the same drop with another drop of water, though homogeneal; that the soul of peter is the soul of judas, though of the same species;) but that they are alike things, or things of the same nature. the consequence, (that all things must be of the same species, because the soul and its faculties are the same thing) will not hold. the thing itself, hath only this ground (so far as i can discover,) because all being proceeding from god, who is in his actions uniform, must therefore be alike: for the same agent, acting in the same manner, cannot but produce like effects. but this uniformity in god ' is equivalent to an infinite variety; and god can by one act in itself simple, produce effects variously distinct▪ and if his lordship grant, that this uniformity hinders not but that god may produce various shapes, i see not why he may not produce various species. corollarium. 2. chap. 7. but from hence he draws a further consequent. he is not contented to say, that the nature of all things is one, but that it is unity. and here is as great an hiatus as the former. the essence of all souls is one and the same; but that this one essence is unity, i have not formerly heard, nor do yet believe. and i am so far from thinking that unity is the essence of all things, that i esteem itself to be nothing. unity, is but a negative term, a negation. vnus indeed, as it is opposite to nullus, is positive, and is the same with nonnullus, or aliquis: but vnus, or vnicus as it is opposed to multitude, (and so we now take it) is negative. else, where is the fault in this syllogism? quod est in angliâ, est in europâ; sed rex vnicus est in angliâ; ergo rex vnicus (veltantùm vnus) est in europâ. propositio. 3. chap. 8. 9▪ he returns next, to his former discourse; and what he had said of the light of reason, he saith also of the light of knowledge, both habitual and actual. he allows not that habits, either infused or acquisite, are any thing new brought into the soul, but only former principles enlightened: and therefore rejecting aristotle's rasatabula, he embraceth plato's reminiscentia, which may be thus expressed; he supposeth the soul to be as a table, wherein be many rare lineaments, and lively colours described, but hanging in the dark they appear not till such time as they be illustrated by some advenient light; which light doth not bring with it any new colours, or more lineaments, but only illustrateth those that were formerly there but appeared not: whereas aristotle rightly supposeth it as a table prepared, void of any, yet capable of all; or rather as a glass, which having of itself none of those colours, is yet fit to receive and reflect all those rays or visible species, which from the adjacent objects fall upon it. and indeed, as for historical knowledge, i suppose, his lordship himself, if he well consider of it, will not affirm that to have any ideas originally in the soul: it being utterly impossible by discourse to find out a bypast history, without historical relation. and if there may be new ideas of historical truths imprinted in the soul which were not there before, why not also of discu●sive knowledge. but his lordship stays not here, dissenting from us in the nature of habits, whether they be new ideas, or the illustration of former ideas▪ but in effect, he takes away all habits wholly. telling us, that we seem only by frequent acts to help the soul, and create new habits, but that indeed all actings are but new discoveries. now this is not to establish plato's reminiscentia; but to take away all memory whatsoever. how can we be said to remember? how is one said to be learned, another ignorant? what is the benefit of study, and of experience? if former acts do not at all help future acts, but only seem so to do▪ how comes it to pass, that we are able out of our own memories to furnish ourselves with historical truths formerly heard or read, without a second relation, which at the first we could not do? if our former acts do not at all help latter acts, but all things be new discoveries. proposition. 4. chap. 10. and what hath been said of natural and habitual light of reason and habitual knowledge, he now affirms of actual knowledge. the several operations of the soul, in apprehensions, affirmations, negations, etc. the several actings of truth, are also the souls essence. and why? but because the soul is actus primus, and therefore its essence must be action; this action likewise must exist; which what else can it be but rational workings? and so the same with actus secundus. but his lordship is much mistaken to think that actus primus is latin for action. actus is of as large an extent as potentia: now there is potentia ad esse, and potentia ad formam, as well as potentia ad operari. when ens in potentiâ becomes ens actu, when that which was possible, is actually produced; it's own essence o● being is that actus, which makes it ens actu, which was before ens in potentiâ: and this we call actus entitativus, and it is better translated actuality, than either action, or activity. again the matter is capable of this or that form, which we call potentia ad formam (substantialem;) whereby it is potentiâ tale (in genere substanti●;) as materia putris is in potentiâ ad formam vermis: now when this form whereof it is capable is actually introduced, that which was before potentià tale, becomes now actu tale (in genere substantiae;) and this form is called actus substantialis▪ (but not actio substantialis,) or actus primus; and (thus) the soul is actus. again, a substance of this or that species, constituted by this or that form, is capable of this or that accident, and is therefore potentiâ talis, accidentaliter; or in potentiâ ad hanc formam ac●identalem; as water is potentiâ calida, when heat is produced, it becomes actu calida, and the heat is this actus whereby it is actu talis; and it is actus primus accidentalis, (though perhaps some would call it actus secundus: yet none call it actio) this actus acciden alis, or forma accidentalis, if it be operative, stands in a double relation; to its subject, and so it is actus informans; and to its operation, and so it is actus operativus (but not operatio) and belongs either to the first, or the second species of quality, it is either a habit or a faculty; this, if you please, you may call activity, though not action▪ now a subject endued with this actus operativus is in potentiâ ad operandum: when this power is reduced into act, it is actu operans; and this actus whereby it doth actu operari, is properly actus secundus, actio, or operatio, and belongs to the predicament of action. but such an actus the soul is not, and therefore its operations cannot be its essence. objectio. 1. chap. 11. but now lest by making the souls operations to be the souls essence, he should make so many souls as there be acts; (which is indeed a good consequence;) he is put upon another invention, to make all these operations to be but one; the second action is but the same with the former: (so that with him, one sinful act is all one with a continued course of sinning.) and therefore tells us, that actions performed in distinct times and places are not therefore distinct actions, because time and place are nothing, but merely imaginary. but this plaster is not large enough to cover the sore; for, it is true indeed, different actions may receive an external denomination from difference in time and place, but they receive not their difference from hence, but from themselves: time and place can neither make different things to be the same, nor the same to be different. a man is the same to day that he was yesterday, the same at london that he was at york▪ yet both time and place be different: again, two angels being at the same time coexistent in the same place are not therefore the same angel. so that whether time and place be any thing or nothing, yet this man is not the other man, this action is not the other action. but if difference of time and place be only imaginary; then why do we deny to the papists, that christ's body is corporeally present in the sacrament? since if it be any where, it must be every where, all places being indeed the same, admitting only of an imaginary difference. why do we cry down the lutheran consubstantiation, as absurd? for if several bodies may be in several places, then may they be in the same place, if difference of place be only imaginary: if the same body may be at several times in several places, why not at the same time? since difference of time is only imaginary. object. 2. chap. 12. there is another objection as strong as this former: if acting truth be the souls essence, than what becomes of the soul when it doth either not act, or act falsely? to the first he applies his former remedy; any one act is able to give the soul a being at all times; for succession of moments being only imaginary, that which at all is, must be always, and whatsoever hath at all a being, is indeed coexistent to all eternity; succession, beginning, and ending being only imaginary: (so that a child that is new born, had lived as long as the most aged, if he could but think so. and as for the other, he denies that the soul can at all act falshood, because falsehood is only privative, it is nothing▪ now to act nothing and not to act is all one. which he affirms likewise of evil, and of pain; and tells us, with dr. twisse, that it is better to be miserable, than not to be: which is grounded upon this, that evil is only a privation of good, and therefore to have the goodness being without the goodness of happiness, is better than to want both the one and the other. but withal i wish them to consider, whether the same argument do not prove, that it was better for david to commit adultery, than not to commit it; for the substance of the act, in its physical essence, was positive, and therefore good; the fault was only the want of a further good, to wit, the goodness of conformity to gods will; now to produce the goodness of an act, without the goodness of conformity, is better than to produce neither the one nor the other. corollaria. chap. 13. etc. this is his lordship's opinion. which he commends to us as useful to make our christian life more cheerful both in the theoretical and practic part. for if we knew, that all things are one, what need we fear either difficulty or danger? knowing, that misery is nothing and cannot hurt us, and hath no being but only in the the brain; that whatsoever is, is good, and good to me, because both i and it are being's, and so good; and these two goods falling under no other difference but of degrees, good and good must needs agree, that which is good is good to me. yea, how void of envy at another's good, and thoughts of revenging injuries? since that i have a propriety, a possession, in that which is another's, he and i being one: injuries are nothing and cannot hurt; good things, though another's, do serve me. but to this good consequent of his lordship's tenet, i can oppose another every way as bad: for as it would make us not afraid of misery, so withal, not afraid to sinne. it proposeth such an impunity to sinning, as that it makes the devils as happy as the blessed angels. for thus we might argue; the devils are being's, and therefore good, because ens & bonum convertuntur: every thing that is, is good, and good to ●hem; for both they and it being good, and good admitting of no other difference but of degrees, good and good must needs agree, and so be good to them: the happiness of the angels doth serve them, since (as his lordship speaks) it is not only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, they have a propriety in it; all things being one. their own misery and torment is nothing▪ and cannot hurt: and (which is the only difference can be imagined) if they think otherwise, (i use still his lordship's expression) this must be a lie, and cannot hurt. and if this be hell, who will be afraid to sin? my judgement cannot assent, to make the torments of the damned only imaginary, to make hell a fancy; yea, to affirm, that it is good to sin, because the act of sin is really good, and the evil of it is only imaginary, a vanity, a nothing, and cannot hurt. as for the theoretical part; it is confessed, that there be many doubts in natural philosophy, concerning the being, the nature, the causes of things; there be doubts also in moral philosophy, in metaphysics, in mathematics, in divinity: but in telling us this, his lordship advanceth nothing for the commendation of his new invention; except he could show us how this tenet will resolve them. and thus sir, i have given you a short account of the chief things in his lordship's treatise, and my reply, so far as concerns the state of the main question controverted: wherein you may take a brief survey of what is there more largely prosecuted. which may give some light for the better discovering the principal intent of his lordship's tenet; and may be a guide in your perusing the larger discourse that you lose not yourself in the prolixity of the prosecution, and the variety of digressions. when i first undertook the task, i intended no more in all, than some such brief notes as these, to satisfy your desire: but being once entered i have not always the command of my own pen; variety of matter carrying me beyond my intended bounds. the faults if you will be pleased to pardon, and to accept the rest, i shall commit the whole to be as i am, that is yours to command, j. w. april. 10. 1641. finis. dum haec qu● praecedunt sub praelo erant, subiit animum cogitatlo ea quae sequuntur prioribus subjungendi; (theses nimirum aliquot aliquando in academiâ habitas:) partim quòd subjecto sint non adeò dispari; partim quòd, ut ut puerilia, ejusmodi tamen sint quae ●on ab omnibus attendantur. non tanti (fateor) sunt, ut in jucem prodeant; nec (forsan) tan●illi tamen, ut nemini placeant. sicui displi●●a●t, excuset ut puerilia; sicui placeant, fruatur. propositio singularis in dispositione syllogisticâ semper habet vim vniversalis. nihil in●e●icius est iis in e●iis (si scaligero credamus) quae mordi●us sentiunt, majores nostros nihil ignorâsse; quae▪ que pettinaciter tuentur errores, quos two qui commisere, si viveren▪ emendarent. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. unde mihi nunquam absurdum visum est, a communi sententiâ cum ratione dissentire. propositio singularis, apud logicos, vel pro particulari, vel pro no●● quadam specie semper habita est: cum mihi tamen ad universalium classem pertinere luce meridiana clarius semper vi ●m est. cujus in examine pro lemmate habeatur; formalem rationem propositionis constare in compositione praedicati cum subjecto? quod statuit smiglecius, disp. 12. qu. 7. (quae compositio sive nexus p●aecipuè in copulâ attenditur.) ex va●io igitur modo compositionis horum extremorum, alius atque alius prepositionis modus oritur. ubi itaque compositio seu nexus praedicati cum subjecto verè fit, & ut se res habet, propositio vera est; ubi nexus seu applicatio falsè fit, e● falsa est propositio, sint partes ●. e. termini simplices, sive verae, sive falsae: unde haec propositio [hircocervus est quoddam con●latum ex hirco & cervo] vera est, licètuterque terminus falsus, falsitate scilicet simplicium terminorum, h. e. non-ens, sive ens rationis; ens enim & verum convertuntur: illa verò [lapis est homo] falsa est, licèt termini veri veritate simplicis app●ehensionis, quia falsò applicantur. item, quum necessarius est nexus terminorum, propositio necessaria est; sint licèt termini entia contingentia: & sic in reliquis affectionibus propositionis. ●ùm autem compositio sive ne●us terminorum, in quâ constat formalis ratio propositionis in vinculo atte●datur, hinc sequitur, affectiones propositionis judicandas esse, non ratione terminorum, sed poti●s respectu vinculi. unde axioma affirmatum a ramo definitur, cujus vinculum affirmatur; negatum, cujus vinculum negatur; sive termini sint affirmat● sive negati, parum interest. haec propositio igitu● [omne non rationale est non homo] est propositio affirmativa, licèt extremum utrumque sit negans▪ hoec verò [lapis non est homo] est propositio negans, ex terminis utrisque affirmativis. idem dicendum est de propositione simplici, & compositâ; ad vinculum scilicet attendendum esse. unde gutberlethus hanc propositionem [animal est vel homo vel brutum] inte● axioma simplex esse statuit, non disjunctivum, cum uno verbi vinculo contineatur; licèt posterior terminus sit disjunctus; hanc verò propositionem [omne animal vel est homovel est brutum] credo illum inter inter axiomata composita numeraturum. hinc colligo▪ ut alias propositionis affectiones, ita etiam universalitatem & particularitatem sumendas esse, non a terminis, sed a terminorum compositione & nexu. affectiones enim formam sequuntur, non materiam. malè ●gitur a plerisque logicis distribuitur axioma, seu propositio, in universalem, cujus subjectum est universale; particularem, cujus subjectum est particulare; & singularem, cujus subjectum est singulare: cum distributio petenda esset a modo compositionis, quod est formale in propositione, non a quantitate terminorum, h. e. a parte materiali. propositio ergo universalis, est in quâ applicatio praedicati ad subjectum est universalis; particularis, in quâ applicatio est particularis: nec alias species agnosco. quid a● tem velim per praedicationem vel applicationem universalem & particularem, mel●ùs ex graecâ aristotelis appellatione, quam ex latinâ interpretum, elucescet. quod enim nobis est universale & particulare, illud aristoteli est, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, de toto, & parte, sive secundum partem, h. ●. de subjecto vel toto, vel secundum partem; non autem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, de omnibus & quibusdam. quare non minùs rectè interpretaretur totalis & partialis praedicatio, quam universalis & particularis; nisi quòd mos aliter obtinuerit. universalis ergo praedicatio est quando praedicatum dicitur 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, de toto subjecto, (●otum intelligo praedicationis, sive totam ejus latitudinem & ambitum praedicandi,) quando scilicet praedicatum totaliter attribuitur subjecto, non partialiter cum restrictione ad aliquam subjecti partem, seu ad peculiare quiddam intra subjecti ambitum comprehensum, tunc nimirum quando de quocunque dicitur subjectum, de eodem dicatur etiam & praedicatum. igitur haec propositio [omnis homo est animal] est universalis, quia nihil continetur sub ambitu hominis, seu de nullo dicitur homo, quin et de eodem dicatur animal: haec autem [aliquis homo est doctus] particularis, quia non de totâ hominis specie dicitur, sed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, secundum partem aliquam, h. ●. de aliquo individuo sub eâ specie. non autem ideo universalis est prior propositio quia nota omnis praefigitur, & posterior particularis quia ei praeponitur aliquis, (uti nonnulli, ex tyronibus praecipuè, arbitrantur:) non enim propositio ideo universalis est, quia notam habet universalitatis, sed quia universalis est, ideo nota praeponitur, ut agnoscit dounamus. nota igitur universalitatis designat aliquando universalem propositionem, non autem facit. idem dic de notâ particularitatis. jam verò, ut ad praesentem controversiam accedamus; in propositione singulari necesse est ut praedicatio sit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, de toto, cum subjectum singulare 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, sit & individuum in partes; (subjectivas intelligo, loquimur enim de toto p●aedicationis, non integrali;) impossibile enim est ut aliquid 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 secundum partem dicatur, de illo quod 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 est & partes nullas habet. neces●e igitur est, ut quicquid de individuo dicitur, sive subjecto singulari, dicatur de toto; & per consequens propositio singularis semper erit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. atque hoc ipsum est quod vult aristoteles; & qui aliter aristotelem exponunt, detorquent non interpretantur. audiamus igitur aristotelis mentem de propositione universali, sive, quod idem est, de dicto 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, de omni & de nullo: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quid dissertiùs dici posset pro causâ nostrâ? tunc demum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (non 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) de omni sive de toto dicitur aliquid, quando nihil subjecti accipere licet, de quo alterum h▪ e. praedicatum non dicetur. assumo; in propositione singulari affirmante, nihil subjecti sumere licet, de quo praedicatum non dicatur. concludo igitur; propositio singularis affirmans, est 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. (eodemque modo propositio▪ singularis negans erit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.) v. g. si dixeris [socrates est doctus] quaero, quidnam illud est intra ambitum socratis. c● quo non dicatur doctus? si nihil, igitur erit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 per aristotelis definitionem▪ at verò cum socrates de uno solo homine dicatur, & de illo etiam dicatur doctus, nihil aliud socratis superest, de quo negetur, ut patet. idem licet concludere ex ipsius rami definitione; cum definiat axioma speciale (quod postea subdividit in particulare, & proprium) esse, quando consequens non omni antecedenti attribuitur. sed quam benè convenit haec definitio axiomati proprio, quod tamen illi est altera species axiomatis specialis? si in axiomate proprio consequens non omni antecedenti attribuatur, ostendat quaeso, ●ui non: si autem hoc ostendi non possit (ut quidem non potest) quâ ratione dicat non omni attribui non video, cum non omnis & quidam non idem valere, ex regulis aequipollentiae certissimum est. vel igitur ostendat ramus axioma proprium affirmans alicui non attribui, velego illi negabo, non omni attribui, & per consequens definitionem axiomatis specialis non convenire axiomati proprio; mala igitur definitio illa sit necesse est, quando definitio generis non convenit utrique specie. imò ve●ò, si rem expendamus, inveniemus alteram speciem, s●. axioma particulare, quod contradi●ti●guitur axiomati proprio, ejusdem prorsus esse latitudinis cum genere, sive axiomate speciali. nam axioma speciale est, quando consequens non omni antecedenti attribuitur; particulare, quando consequens particulariter antecedenti attribuitur. tantum igitur distant axioma speciale & particulare, (h. e. genus & species) quantum non omni & particulariter: quod quantillum sit, ex gutbe●letho discas, qui explica●urus quid velit ramus per particulariter, expressis verbis confundit; particulariter, inquit, h. e. non omni. patet igitur, quam leviter agant ramis●ae, dum genus a specie illis vocabulis distinguant inter quae ne ipsi quidem ullam agnos●unt differentiam. sed ad aristote●em revertor: qui duos tantùm agnoscit modos praedicandi, de toto, & de parte, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, universalem & particularem. nec quidem potuit plures admittere: quicquid enim de alte●o dicitur necessarium est ut vel de illo toto vel de ipsius parte aliquâ dicatur; quicquid etiam ab altero removetur, vel a toto vel a parte tantùm remov●a●ur necesse est. nec enim possibile est medium invenire, quod de altero dicatur, nec tamen de toto, neque secundum pa●tem. pro certo igitur & indubitato principio pona●ur, omnem propositionem (categoricam intelligo) quaecunque demum ipsa sit, vel universalem esse, vel particularem; h. e. vel 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, vel 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. atque hinc patet, perperam fecisse ramum, ipsisúque sequaces, dum praeter syllogismum generalem & specialem, proprium adjunxe●in●. quum enim propositiones proprias seu singulares non potuerunt particularium regulis co●ree●e, commenti sunt novam quandam syllogismi speciem alis antea inc●gnitam, quam proprium appellant: & axiomata p●op●ia, quae illi inter specialia numerabant, a reliquis specialibus discrepare videntes, ab omni syllogismo●um specie antea notâ abhorre●e arbitrati sunt; nescientes interim, saltem non advertentes, iisdem quibus general●a regulis contineri. patet etiam, quid judicandum sic de quadrupli●i propositionis divisione, in universalem▪ particularem, indefinitam, & singularem; nimirum, species sine necessitate multiplicari; cum singularis semper reducenda sit ad universalem, indefinita verò nunc ad hanc, nunc ad particularem. atque hoc secundum mentem aristotelis; qui quadrifariam illam divisionem nusquam (ni fallor) tradidit. nominat, fateor, indefinitam propositionem, praeter praedictas duas species, universalem & particularem, non autem acsi quid esset ab utrisque distinctum, sed quòd ex ipsis propositionis verbis vix satis constet, ad utram duarum reducenda sit (cum signum indicem non habeat appositum,) & pro subjectâ materiâ nunc ad hanc nunc ad illam referenda sit, semper tamen ad alterutram. de singulari verò propositione ne verbum habet; nec opus est, cum semper reducenda sit ad universalem; perperam verò a logicis plerisque intruditur quasi nova species, omnino contra rationem, mentemque aristotelis. atque hactenus probata est thesis nostra a priori, & quidem demonstratiuè; subnectam & argumenta a posteriori nonnulla. ut lucidiús appareat veritas. sed praemonendum est, eorum aliqua universaliter concludere de omni propositione singulari: alia verò particulariter, ita tamen ut quod illic concluditur de unâ, potuit de qualibet; atque haec inductione factâ idem valerent ac si▪ concluderent universaliter: alia denique ducta esse ab ejusmodi proprietatibus quae solis universalibus conveniunt non autem omnibus, unde n●c omnibus singularibus; quae licè t vi suâ probent tantùm aliquas singulares universalium vim habere, cum tamen hoc concesso pauci sint qui reliquum negarent cum nulla sufficiens ratio assignari possit cur quaedam sint universales non autem aliae, valebunt & haec argumenta non multò minùs quam si essent universalia. primò igitur. major in primâ & secundâ figurâ semper est 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, (ut a pluribus antehac demonstratum est,) at aliquando est singularis; ergo aliqua saltem singularis est 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. vel sic; quaecunque propositio potest esse maior in primâ vel secundâ figurâ, ea est 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. sed quaelibet propositio singularis potest esse major & in primâ & in secundâ figura. ergo. etc. insto in primâ, in barbara. baraugustus fuit imperator. baoctavius fuit augustus. ergo ra. octavius fuit imperator. in secundâ, in camestres. cam▪ virgilius fuit romanus. es. homerus non fuit romanus. tris. homerus ergo non fuit virgilius. et idem fieri posset in quibuslibet modis utriusque figurae: imò in quocunque modo cujuscunque figurae assumtâ quacunque propositione singulari in locum universalis; ut experienti videre erit cuilibet. secundò, ex puris particularibus nihil concluditur, at ex puris singularibus aliquid concluditur: ergo singularis non est particularis; &, per consequens, est universalis, cum antea probatum sit nullam posse fieri praedicatione● quin erit vel 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vel 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. major in confesso est. minor exemplis suprà adductis probata est. non solùm autem ex singularibus puris concluditur aliquid, sed ex mixtis singulari cum particulari, non minùs quám ex universall & particulari: sed (ut illic) semper concluditur particulariter, cum particularis propositio sit debilior pars. v. g. davirgilius fuit doctus. r●aliquis poeta fuit virgilius. i. ergo, aliquis poeta fuit doctus. item, fesvirgilius non fuit graecus. tialiquis poeta fuit graecus. ergo noaliquis poeta non fuit virgilius. ubi notandum obiter, hos syllogismos & hujusmodi alios▪ constantes ex singulari & particulari in praemissis, ad nullos rami modos reduci posse, cum tamen consequentia & satis firma sit & perspicua; nostrâ tamen hypothesi positâ facilè ad aristotelis modos reducuntur. (in tertiâ figurâ non insto; cum enim intertiâ figurâ idem sit subjectum in utrâque praemissarum, fieri non potest ut altera ●●t propositio singularis, altera particularis, quoniam de subjecto singulari non potest praedicari particulariter.) tertiò, tres ponuntur gradus necessitatis, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. confessum est etiam apud omnes, super●orem gradum necessitatis semper etiam includere inferiorem▪ unde propositio 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 est etiam propositio 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, propositio verò 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 est & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. at propositio singularis saepe est 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ergo & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. v. g [socrates est animal, plato est substantia, bucephalus est equus;] sunt propositiones essentiales in primo modo dicendi per se: sunt ergo 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. quartò, omne genus praedicatur universaliter de suis speciebus, (ut & essentialiter;) at individuum (saltem secundum ramum) est species; ergo de individuo praedicatur genus universaliter. au●▪ si non sit species, tamen u● se habet genus ad speciem ita species ad individuum; at genus praedicatur universaliter & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 de suâ specie; ergo & species de individuo▪ potestergo individuum universalis propositionis esse subjectum. quintò, probatur e● regulis conversionum. [socrates non est equus] est propositio negans, eaque vel universalis, ut nos dicimus, vel particularis, ut alii: non autem particularis; ergo etc. probatur minor▪ quia propositio particularis negans convertitur tantum●odo per contrapositionem; at haec propositio convertitur, primò conversione simplici, [nullus equus est socratis,] secundò per accidens [aliquis equus non est socrates.] utroque hoc modo convertitur universalis negans, (eaque sola,) neutro verò particularis negans: est ergo haec propositio non particularis sed universalis. patet etiam ulteriùs ex hac ipsâ conversione; convertitur enim singularis negans in universalem, at in conversione nunquam augetur quantitas, saepe minuitur. iterum, [socrates non est plato] convertitur [plato non est socrates,] at particularis negans non convertitur nisi per contrapositionem. sextò, ex regulis reductionum. propono enim hunc syllogismum; cesqui interfecit hectoremnon supervixit bello trojano. aomnes graeci reduces supervixere bello trojano. ergo re. nullus graecorum reducum interfecit hectorem. dico hunc syllogismum esse in c●sar● ex majori universali, duplici ratione: primò, si major esset particularis, conclusio esset particularis, (quia semper sequitur debiliorem partem;) at non est; ergo. secundò, per modum reductionis, r●●ucitur enim ad celarentt per simplicem conversionem majoris; sic cenullus qui supervixit bello trojano fuit interfector hectoris. laomnes graeci reduces supervixere bello trojan●▪ ergo rent. nullus graecorum reducum fuit interfector hectoris. hic syllogismus si esset ex majori particulari, non esset in ullo modo; nec usquam apud ramum invenietur hujusmodi syllogismus, (cum tamen & verissimus sit & utilissim●s,) imò nec (positâ illorum hypothesi, scil. quòd sit particularis) reduci posset ad alium modum. alium accipe, cesauthor epistolae ad hebraeos non fuit auditor christi, heb. 2. 3. aomnes duodecim selecti fuerunt auditores christi. ergo re. nullus ex duodecim selectis fuit author epistolae ad hebraeos. impossibile autem est in ullo ex rami modis per hoc medium probare hanc conclusionem. septimò, hunc syllogismum propono, omnes magnanimi sunt fortes. thersites non est fortis. ergo thersites non est magnanimus. hic syllogismus vel est in camestres ex minore & conclusione universalibus, vel in baroco ex iisdem particularibus. sed non esse in baroco, sic probatur. syllogismus in baroco non potest reduci nisi reductione per impossibile; at hic syllogismus reduci●ur ad ceiarent reductione ostensiuâ, eo modo quo camestres, scil. transpositis praemissis▪ & minore conclusion●que simpliciter conversis, hoc modo, cenullus fortis est thersites. laomnes magnanimi sunt fortes. ergo rent. nullus magnanimus est thersites. erat igitur in camestres ex minore & conclusione universalibus, non in baroco ex iis particularibus. infinitus essem si singulis insisterem quae hac in redici possent: unico argumento concludo. octauò igitur & ultimò, propositio singularis nec fortiorem nec debiliorem vim habet quam universalis; ergo eandem & aequalem. non fortiorem, quia ex praemissis universali & singulari aliquando concluditur singulariter, quod non esset si universalis esset debilior, quia conclusio semper sequitur debiliorem partem. ut in hoc & similibus innumeris. camomnes magnanimi sunt fortes. esthersites non est fortis. ergo tres. the●sites non est magnanimus. nec debiliorem habet, quia ex singulari & universali, aliquando concluditur universaliter, (quod non esset si singularis esset pars debilior:) ut in hoc syllogismo, & aliis, cesinterfector hectoris non supervixit bello trojano. aomnes graeci reduces supervixere bello trojano. ergo re. nullus graecorum reducum fuit interfector hectoris. cum igitur nec fortiorem, nec debiliorem vim habeat singularis quam universalis, sequitur necessariò propositionem singularem eadem vim in disposition● syllogisti●â semper habere quam habit universalis▪ quod erat demonstrandum. corollaria, & objectiones. hinc sequitur primò, propositionem singularem affirmantem & negantem opponi immediatè, hoc est, contradictoriè. nam sublatâ universalitate affirmantis ponitur negans 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, quoniam praedicatio partialis non potest esse de eo quod est 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. sequitur secundò, propositionem universalem affirmantem converti conversione simplici, & particularem affirmantem convertibilem in propositionem▪ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉▪ quoties praedicatum convertendae est individuum. posito enim praedica●o in loco subjecti, quicquid de individuo subjecto dicitur, dicitur 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. sequitur tertiò, conclusionem in tert●â figu●â esse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (contrà quam docent logici,) quoties minor terminus syllogismi, h. e. praedicatum minoris, est individuum. quia praedicatum minoris in tertiâ figurâ est subjectum conclusionis, quod cum sit individuum, de eo quicquid dicitur, dicitur universaliter. objiciet forsan aliquis; an igitur [socrates est doctus] perinde est ac [omnis homo est doctus?] non est. at, inquie●, quidni? cum utratraque propositio sit universalis. rectè. sed replico; an [omnis homo est rationalis] idem valet ac [omne animal est rationale?] negabit credo. at, inquam, quare? annon utraque est universalis? est certè. conjicio quid responsurus est; utraque propositio est quidem universalis, non tamen aequipollent, quia in alterâ rationalitas universaliter attribuitur homini, & rectè, in alterâ verò universaliter attribuitur animali, sed malè. pariter ego, non (inquam) perinde est socratem doctum dicere & omnem hominem; subjectis enim differunt, quamvis utraque propositio sit universalis. doctus universaliter praedicatur de socrate non de homine. urget, dici universaliter, est dici de multis. fateor, in praedicatione simplicium terminorum, non in praedicatione propositionis. aliud est dici de multis, in tractatu de praedicabilibus, aliud dictum de omni, in tractatu de propositione. at nunc agitur non de quantitate simplicium terminorum, sed de quantitate propositionis, & terminorum nexu. universale, seu vox communis, potest est subjectum propositionis particularis; & individuum pariter, seu vox singularis, subjectum propositionis universalis. fatendum tamen est, propositionem singularem leviculam aliquam discrepantiam habere ab aliis universalibus (ut in corollariis videre est) non tamen talem quae illas ex universalium numero eximat. tria sunt, nec scio plura, (& ple●ique forsan ne haec attenderent,) quae discrepant●ae speciem exhibent: ubique tamen provenit a materiâ propositioni substratâ, potius quam a formali propositionis dispositione; nusquam tollitur illud in quo formale propositionis universalis consistit, quod hoc est, ut nihil inveniatur intra subjecti ambitum de quo no● dicatur praedicatum. exp●ndam singula. primum hoc est▪ universalis propositio affirmans & negans opponuntur contrariè: earum utraque potest esse falsa, harum non ita. siquis hinc argueret, propositionem singularem, vim universalis non habere, respondeo primò, eodem argumento probari posse non esse particularem; quia neque propositio particularis affirmata & negata opponuntur contradictoriè, sed subcontrariè, & earum utraque potest esse vera, harum non ita. sicui ramus videatur satis cavisse, dum syllogismum proprium diversam speciem constituit tam a generali quam speciali: regero, 1. ad hominem. malè pro ramo arguitur ex iis quae ipse pro nugis habet, & ex logicâ suâ exulare fecit: ille enim de oppositione, aequipollentiâ, & conversione propositionum nihil habet, ut nec de reductione syllogismorum: 2. novum praedicandi modum facere non potest, cum impossibile sit aliquid de alio dici, quod tamen nec de toto necsecundum partem dicatur. ut supra fusiùs explicavimus. respondeo secundò. non singularibus tantùm hoc accidit, sed & aliis universalibus quibusdam. nam 1. in materiâ necessariâ & impossibili, ex negatione & affirmatione universali, altera semper vera est altera falsa. unde regula illa, quòd contrariarum in materiâ contingenti utraque potest esse falsa. 2. idem accidit in propositionibus factis per omne collectivum; quas tamen universales esse, nemo quem scio negavit. (possent tamen, fateor, eâdem ratione quâ negant singulares; sunt enim reverâ universales, cum praedicatum non nisi uni antecedenti attribuatur.) hujusmodi namque propositiones [omnes apostoli sunt duodecim, &, omnes apostoli non sunt duodecim] item [omnes planetae sunt septem, &, omnes planetae non sunt septem,] non minùs sunt contradictoriae, quam [virgilius est poeta, &, virgilius non est poeta.] si igitur illas pro universalibus agnosc●nt, cu● non & singulares. respondeo tertiò. ratio hujus contradictionis inter propositionem singularem affirmantem & negantem, pendet ex necessitate materiae, potius quam ex ipsa propositionis naturâ & formâ. quoties enim subjectum universalis propositionis est divisionis capax (ut in distributivis, & de materiâ contingenti,) & praedicatum sigillatim applicatur subjecti partibus, affirmans & negans universaliter, non opponuntur immediatè & contradictoriè, quia licèt aliquid de toto non rectè affirmetur, de parte forsan affirmari poterit, ergo nec de toto negabitur: ubi verò materiae necessitas particularem praedicationem omnino prohibet, & necessariò requirit ut quod de illo subjecto dicitur dicatur de eo toto, ut in materiâ necessariâ & impossibili, & in universali collectiuâ, ut & in prositione singulari,▪ ibi praedicatum vel de toto dicitur, vel de toto negetur, cum de parte dici de parte verò negari non posset propter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 & indivisibilitatem subjecti. respondeo quartò. consequitur hoc ex nostrâ thesi, non oppugna●. si enim quicquid de individuo dicitur dicatur 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, impossibile est ut secus esset quin affirmatio & negatio sint opposita immediata, particularis enim intermedia eo ipso excluditur. nec aliunde patet ratio hujus oppositionis immediatae, quam ex hoc fundamento. vel enim semper 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 praedicatur (prout nos afferimus) vel semper 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, vel aliquando de toto aliquando secundum partem. si semperde parte▪ licèt de unâ parte dicatur, quid impedit quin de aliâ negetur, ita ut & affirmatio & negatio sint simul verae? cum affirmatio particularis quoad unam partem non impediat negationem partialem quoad aliam partem. si aliquando 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 aliquando 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, (prout ramistarum doctrina videtur innuere, qui quoties una praemissarum propria est eam pro particulari habent, non autem si utraque sit propria;) si sic, inquam, (quamvis gratis dictum sit, nec ulla appareat ratio cur haec & nonilla sit universalis, imò cur eadem promiscuè nunc sit universalis nunc particularis,) oppositio nec sic esset immediata: licèt enim affirmatio 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 falsa sit, posset tamen quoad aliquam partem (si aliquando partialiter praedicetur) vera esse, unde nec negatio 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vera; possent ergo & negatio & affirmatio simul esse falsae, & non contradictoriè oppositae. necesse est igitur ut, si opponantur immediatè, ideo sit quia singularis propositio semper est 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, unde vel de toto dicetur vel de to●o negabitur. confirmat igitur thesin nostram, non oppugnat, quod videbatur primâ fronte debilitare. et hoc telo repercusso eâdem operâ repercutientur & reliqua. secundum sequitur. propositio particularis affirmans converti aliquando potest in singularem. unde singularis videri posset non majorem habere quantitatem quam habet particularis, quia in conversione non augenda est quantitas. v. g. [aliquis homo est socrates] ergo [socrates est homo.] respondeo. vi conversionis, sequitur [hominem] dici de [socrate:] necessitate materiae, dicitur 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, quoniam de 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nihil praedicatur 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉▪ hinc sequitur, necessitate consequentis, convertens 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 conversae 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. idem fieri necesse est, quoties propositio singularis affirmans convertenda est in singularem. v. g. [virgilius est maro] ergo [maro est virgilius.] quae conversio non est ex particulari in particularem (ut plurimi autumant,) nec ex universali in particularem, sed ex universali in universalem. ubi, necessitate consequentiae sequitur, virgil●um de maron● dici, necessitate verò consequentis, sequitur dici catholi●è. respondeo. 2. eadem esset difficultas, si pro particulari haberetur: nam singularis negans convertitur in universalem negantem; v, g. [socrates non est brutum] ergo [nullum brutum est socrates;] quare, si prior esset particularis, in conversione augenda esset quantitas. singularis igitur negans convertitur simpliciter (ad modum universalium) nunc in singularem, nunc in universalem. v. g. [socrates non est plato] ergo [plato non est socrates:] item [socrates non est brutum] ergo [nullum brutum est socrates:] sicut è contrà [nullum brutum est socrates] ergo [socrates non est brutum.] sin essent hae propositiones negant●s particulares, non essent convertendae nisi per contrapositionem. respondeo. 3. non in singulares tantùm, sed & in alias universales aliquando convertitur particularis. v. g. [aliquot homines sunt omnes apostoli] ergo [omnes apostoli sunt homines] vel [omnes apostoli sunt aliquot homines.] hactenus vidimus, quomodo singulares differant a reliquis universalibus in affectionibus propositionis, oppositione, scilicet, & conversione; & istius differentiae rationem reddi non posse, ni ex nostrâ these▪ propugnat igitur thesin nostram, non adversatur. utut autem maximè nobis adversaretur, ramistas tamen nequaquam adjuvat, (quos habeo 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 opponentes; reliqui tacitè adversantur dum in paradigmatis modorum propositiones singulares ponunt pro particularibus;) ramistae namque oppositionem, conversionem, etc. nihil curant: si igitur in reliquis, de quibus ipsi agunt, cum universalibus conveni●ent satis est cur ipsi saltem nostram thesin admittant. tertium sic est. proposi●io universalis non concluditur in tertiâ figurâ, (h. e. secundum ramum, in syllogismo simplici contracto;) at propositio singularis hic concluditur. sed neque hoc ramistis opitulatur magis quam priora, illi enim rem negant, nec admi●tunt conclusionem propriam in syllogismo contracto: qui definitur a ramo, quando argumentum pro exemplo ita subjicitur particulari quaestioni, ut utramque partem antecedens, & assumptione affirmatum intelligatur; (si ergo quaestio semper sit particularis, cer●è nunquam propria secundum illos:) explicat hoc dounamus; quaestio, inquit, debet esse particularis, non generalis, aut propria; item, rationem reddens cur syllogismus proprius esse dicitur ex ut●âque prop● â non autem ex omnibus propriis, hanc assignat, quia in contracto syllogismo conclusio semper particularis est, etiam quum utraque pars antecedentis est propria. hoc igitur a ramistis non urgendum muni dici praedicatum, nondum constat an ea praedicatio universalis sit an particularis, quoniam utriusque capax est. dari vero conclusiones singulares in tertiâ figurâ certissimum est (lic●t vix quisquam hoc adverte●it.) basiliusdammaro est poeta. rasrap. maro est virgilius. ergo ta. ti. virgilius est poeta. item, cefemaro non fuit ovid. laslapmaro fuit virgilius. ergo ten. ton. virgilius non fuit ovid. etiam quum neutra praemissarum sit singularis. v. g. cefenullum brutum est socrates. liprisaliquod brutum est bucephalus. en. on. bucephalus ergo non est socrates▪ item, badamomne brutum est animal. tiptis. aliquod brutum est bucephalus. ergo a. i. bucephalus est animal. (ubi, si major esset particularis, nihil conclude●et, esset enim ex puris particularibus.) hoc toties fiet quoties praedicatum minoris est individuum. consequentiae horum syllogismorum ex se satis patent: quod si non, possent (si opus esset) ad primam figuram reducendo demonstrari. sed neque hoc officit nostrae assertioni; nam respondeo, (ut prius.) vi consequentiae sequitur de [bucephalo] praedicari [animal] affirmativè [socratem] negativè, etc. necessitate consequentis praedicantur 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, quoniam subjectum est 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 2 sed & in aliis quibusdam universalibus eadem est difficultas. v. g. deseptem planetis, hi septem sunt stellae erraticae. sed hi septem sunt omnes planetae. ergo omnes planetae sunt stellae erraticae. triplex igitur haec differentia in propositione singulari ab aliis universalibus, neutiquam enervat assertionem nostram, nec debilitat quicquam, (nisi propositionem singularem ideo diceremus universalem non omnino esse, quia semper est,) sed supponit & confirmat. in singulis enim instantiis, posito (vi consequentiae) de tali subjecto fieri praedicationem, supposito interim quicquid de hoc subjecto dicitur dici 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, infertur hujusmodi praedicatio universalis: quod ubi subjectum est vox communis secus accidit, posito enim de subjecto communi propositio ergo categorica, vel est 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, vel 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. haec 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quae non de subjecto toto dicitur sed quoad partem aliquam subjectivam: illa 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, quae de subjecto dicitur quoad totam ipsius latitudinem praedicandi. h. e. de partibus singulis subjectivis. cujus subiectum si sit vox communis & multis applicabilis, iis omnibus applicatur etiam praedicatum, prout in plerisque universalibus; sin vox sic singularis & uni tantùm applicabilis, huic uni & praedicatum applicatur; prout in singularibus, & in propositionibus per omne collectivum; (non enim eodem modo dicitur [omnes planetae sunt septem] & [omnes planetae sunt stellae▪] alterum enim collectiuè dicitur, alterum distributiuè: omnes distributiuè idem est ac singuli; omnes collectiuè est singulorum collectio, at singulorum collectio est singularis, est que totum (non universale▪ sed) integrale; planetae sunt septem, at planetarum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 unica est: omne distributivum est syncategorematicum, omne collectivum est categorematicum, est que pars subjecti; unde non rectè concluditur, [omnes planetae sunt septem, sol & luna sunt planetae, ergo, sol & luna sunt septem,] nisi assumeretur [sol & luna sunt omnes planetae] non enim [planetae] sed [omnes planetae] est subjectum majoris, essetque praedicatum minoris, su●itur enim collectiuè.) sive autem de singulis quibus attribuitur subjectum universale, sive de uno cui attribuitur subjectum singulare, dicatur praedicatum, ●trobique tamen nihil subjecti accipere licet de quo non dicetur praedicatum, quod secundum aristotelem est formalis ratio propositionis universalis; quare & propositio de subjecto singulari est praedicatio 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, sive dictum de omni. quod erat demonstrandum. quantitas non differt realiter a re quantâ. ad quaestionis resolutionem, necessarium est de distinctio. nibus in genere, aliquid praemittere. distinctio ergo est vel realis, rationis, vel modalis. realis, quando extrema differunt ut res & res, sine aliquâ intrinsecâ dependentiâ unius ad aliud; unde statuuntur vulgò per divinam potentiam posse mutuò separari. modalis, quando differunt quidem ex parte rei▪ ita tamen ut alterum includat essentialem▪ respectum seu con●exionem ad alterum; unde non possunt separatione mutuâ (h. e. ut utrumque separatum existat) separari; est que inter rem & modum, vel (secundariò) inter modos ejusdem rei, (modi tamen plerumque separari possunt mutuò, ab invicem, non a subjectis.) distinctio rationis, quando unum aliquod a parte rei, concipitur ab intellect● ut diversum; est que vel rationis ratiocinantis, vel ratiocinatae; haec ●it per inadaequatos conceptus ejusdem rei, & fundamentum aliquod habet in re; illa verò quando quid intelligitur sub diversis conceptibus sine fundamento in re. per rem quantam, intelligo materiam, quae est adaequatum subjectum quantitatis, cui primò in●ae●et, sic thomas. 1. q. ●. a. 2. forma nempe substantialis non est per se subjectum quantitatis, neque extenditur aut dividitur per se, sed ad extensionem & divisionem materiae, non secus ac existentia, & praesentia localis, aut situs, aliique modi, ut & accidentia absoluta, calor, color, etc. (unde vel est modus substantialis, vel in hoc saltem imitatur naturam modorum. siquis mallet totum compositum dici subjectum quantitatis, mihi non nocet. assertio prima▪ quantitas non diff●rt a substantiâ quantâ plus quam modaliter. probatur ex natu●â modi, quam assignat suarez. disp. 7. sect. 1 num. 17. ubi supponit in rebus creatis praeter enti●ates earum quasi substantiales & radicales (ut appellat) inveniri quosdam m●dos reales, quae & sunt aliquid positivum, & afficiunt ipsas entitates per seipsos, dando illis aliquid, quod est extra e●istentiam totam ●● individuam & existentem; high tamen modi sunt ejusmodi entitatis ut non addant propriam entitatem novam, sed solùm modificant praeexistentem: & sect. 1. n. 10. tam essentiale est, inquit, modo esse actu affixum & modificantem rem cujus est modus ut repugnet de potentiâ absolutâ conservari sine illâ re, seu aliter quam actu modificando illam. e contra verò, quae realiter differunt ut res & res, possunt saltem per divinam potentiam separari, ut n. 22. & seq: unde sic disputo, quae non possunt per divinam potentiam separari separatione mutuâ, e● non differunt realiter; sed quantitas & substantia quanta etc. ergo. major patet ex supra dictis. minor probatur; repug●at enim▪ quantitatem separatam a re quantâ existere, propter intrinsecam dependentiam quantitatis a materiâ; sive enim essentia quantitatis consistat in mensurabilitate, sive in divisibilitate, sive in extensione & positione partium extra partes, semper tamen manet necessaria connexio cum partibus materialibus; quomodo enim erit pars extra partem, ubi partes nullae sunt? quomodo mensurabitur aliquid aut dividetur ubi nulla extensio, nullae partes? quomodo dabitur figuratio & situatio seu partium positio ubi partes non sunt. dices, dantur partes quantitativae, licèt non materiales. sed contra, vel partes extensae sunt partes materiales, vel materia non est quanta: sin per quantitatem materia est quanta, erit quantitas extensio partium materialium, quod quî fieri potest ubi non est materia? iterum, figura & situs necessario conjunguntur; hinc suarez d. 52. s. ●. ●. 10. figura ut sic non est positio (seu situs) sed illa dispositio totius in ordine ad locum secundum talem ordinem partium ex quâ sequitur talis figura; (quis non hic videt partes figuratas & sit●atas easdem esse?) si ergo figura sequitur ad situm, non erit ubi non est situs, situs autem cum sit modus substantiae non potest esse ubi non est substantia, & per consequens nec figura, ergo nec quantitas, quae sine figurâ non est. dices, quidni quantitas possit esse sine figurâ? h. e. res sine modo? respondeo, potest esse quantitas sine qualibet figura, non sine omni; sicut & corpus potest esse sine quolibet particulari ubi, non tamen ita quin sit alicubi; nec tamen ubicatio definit esse modus; possunt ergo modi quilibet in actu exercito abesse a re modificatâ, non semper in actu signato, nempe quoties formaliter resultant ex it sà naturâ rei positâ: datâ verò tali extensione & dispositione par tium per quantitatem resultat talis figuratio v. g. tribus lineis taliter dispositis, resultat protinus figura ●ringularis. argumentum secundum. quorum modi non differunt realiter ea nec ipsa differunt realiter; at modus substantiae & modus quantitatis non differunt realiter, ergo nec ipsae. majorem suppeditat ●uarez, d. 7. s 1. n. 25. ubi statuit duos modos ejusdem rei differre modaliter, duos autem modos diversarum rerum differre realiter; modi, inquit, in re distincti, ut sunt praesentia localis v. g. & subsistentia humanitatis▪ aut comparantur tantum ut sunt in ●âdem re, & sic distinguuntur solùm modaliter, qui quum ex se non habent propriam entitatem, etiam ex se non habent unde plus quam modaliter distinguantur, neque ex re quam afficiunt plus distinguuntur, quia supponimus esse eandem, non habent ergo majorem distinctionem quam modalem, & confirmatur, quia unusquisque eorum habet identitatem aliquam cum illa re quam afficit, ergo in illâ & per illam habent aliquam identitatem inter se, ergo retinent solùm distinctionem modalem; at verò si inter se comparentur modi afficientes res diversas, sive illi modi sint ejusdem rationis ut duae subsistentiae duorum hominum, sive diversarum rationum ut sessio unius & subsistentia alterius, sic distinctio est realis, non ratione ipsorum, sed rerum in quibus sunt, nam unusquisque habet identitatem aliquam cum re quam afficit, & illae res distinguuntur inter se realiter, ergo & modi ratione illarum. haec ille. realis igitur identitas modorum arguit realem identitatem rerum modificatarum. ad minorem devenio, quòd modus quantitatis non differt realiter a modo substantiae; insto in figurâ & situ. figura enim est modus quantitatis, & situs modus substantiae, nec tamen differunt realiter. quòd figura sit modus quantitatis, in confesso est apud omnes; sic smiglecius, figura non est terminus quantitatis, sed terminorum quantitatis dispositio. quid hoc aliud quam modus? scheiblerus in metaph. figura, inquit, est qualitas modificans quantitatis terminos, unde ●● non convenit quantitas, ei consequenter nec figura, quae modus illius est, convenire potest. scaliger etiam ait, figuram non esse quantitatem, sed in quantitate. suarez item disp. 7. s. 2. n. 10. est ergo figura modus quantitatis▪ situm esse modum substantiae non minùs patet. smigl. situs est dispositio partium corporis in loco; quid hoc aliud quam modus? scheiblerus, ex●stimo, inquit, situm non significare peculiarem entitatem, sed significare modum quendam in ●â re quae denominatur, neque enim apparet indicium unde sumatur realis distinctio; unde definit situm, accidens secundum quod corpus habet ordinem suarum partium in ubi. suarez, relinquitur, inquit, ut dicamus situm seu positionem esse aliquem intrinsecum modum corporis situatia quo sic denominatur sedens au● jaciens aut aliquid simile. est ergo situs modus substantiae. figuram verò & situm non differre realiter patet; nam eadem partium dispositio quae in ordine ad totum dicitur figura, in ordine ad locum dicitur situs; quod cum sit tantum respectus rationis, non sufficit ad distinctionem ●ealem, imò vix rationis ratiocinatae. hinc smiglecius, est situs, inquit, figura quaedam corporis prout existit in loco, eademque figura ut respicit corpus in seipso est figura corporis pertinens ad qualitatem, ut verò est figura corporis in ordine ad locum se● figura positionis partium corporis in loco, ita pertinet ad praedicamentum sitûs. nec aliter suarez; quum enim inter species sitûs enumerâsset asperum & laeve, hinc, inquit, videtur sequi etiam curvum & rectum, prout praecisè oriuntur ex positione partium in loco pertinere ad praedicamentum sitûs, quia etiam illae differentiae dicunt quandam dispositionem totius consurgentem ex positione partium, quod, inquit, admittere non est magnum inconveniens, nam revera statio & sessio ratione rectitudinis & curvitatis maximè differunt, non quòd ipsa figura ut sic sit positio (seu situs) & pertineat ad hoc praedicamentum, sed illa dispositio totius in ordine ad locum secundum talem ordinem partium, ex quâ sequitur talis figura. figura ergo & situs, quorum illa quantitatis, hic substantiae modus est, non magis differunt quam ratione; quare nec eorum subjecta. argumentum tertium. entia realiter distincta non possunt fundare ●undem modum; sed substantia & quantitas fundant ●undem modum. ergo. praecedens argumentum processit de subjectis adaequatis, quòd duo modi in diversis subjectis realiter differant, hoc procedit de subjectis partialibus & inadaequatis, quòd duo entia realiter distincta non possint esse subjecta partialia ejusdem modi; sed substantia & quantitas sunt subjecta partialiae ejusdem numero modi. ergo. majorem ponit suarez, d 7. s. 2. n. 16. patet etiam: sic enim idem realiter differ●et a seipso: nam situs v. g. si fundatur in substantiâ simul & quantitate, cumutrisque identificatur, quae si realiter distinguantur, ●a, quae cum his sunt realiter eadem, realiter inter se differunt, & situs, si utrisque idem, a seipso differet: dices, unio formae cum materiâ est modus, fundatur tamen in utroque extremo quae realiter differunt, nam materia & forma uniuntur, quare & idem modus in rebus realiter distinctis. respondeo, unio qua uniuntur materia & forma non simplex est, sed duplex, una in materiâ per quam ipsa unitur formae, alia in formâ per quam ipsa unitur materiae. sicut in relationibus, v. g. socrates & plato sunt similes (puta in albedine) non tamen per eandem similitudinem sed per diversam, relatum enim & correlatum referuntur ad invicem per relationes diversas; nec enim relatio patris ad filium eadem est cum relatione filii ad patrem; & licèt in relationibus ejusdem nominis res non sit adeò perspicua, ratio tamen eadem est, habent enim distincta fundamenta; sic similitudo socratis ad platonem fundatur in albedine socratis, similitudo platonis ad socratem in albedine platonis, quae fundamenta cum sint realiter distincta, ita & relationes quae cum fundamentis identificantur: ut autem socrates & plato sunt similes per duas realiter distinctas similitudines, ita materia & forma uniuntur per duas realiter distinctas uniones (si saltem ipsae materia & forma realiter distinguantur.) minor sequitur, insubstantiâ simul & quantitate fundatur idem modus. quod enim fundatur in subst●●tiâ quatenus qu●tâ, & resultat ex ips● quantitate, illud fundatur in substantiâ simul & quantitate; sed sic figura, & situs. ergo. quòd figura sit modus quantitatis, suprà ostensum est; quòd non ultimatim fundetur in quantitate quin & substantiam modificet, patet ex ipsâ descriptione quam habet suarez, disp. 42. s. 3. n. 15. quòd sit, `` modus quidam resultans ex corpore `` ex terminatione magnitudinis; est ergo modus in corpore resultans ex quantitate, substantiam pariter & quantitatem modificans▪ nec enim negari potest, ipsum corpus, ejusque partes substantiales & entitativas (quas vocant) eandem figurationem & eosdem terminos habere quos habet quantitas. idem de situ dicendum est. quòd ●itus sit modus substantiae ita notum est ut nihil magis; quòd autem non in substantiâ purâ fundetur, sed in substantiâ quantâ▪ aequè patet. smiglecius, restri●gitur (inquit) situs ad corpus; ad situationem enim requiruntur extensio, & multitudo partium materialium, at extensio & materialitas non reperiuntur nisi in materialibus. duo nempe requirit ad situationem, extensionem, quae est a quantitate, & partes materiales, a substantiâ; fundatur ergo situs in substantiâ simul & quantitate. pariter suarez. disp. 61. eâdem ratione negat situm substantiis incorporeis, nempe quia partes non habent sed sint●otae in toto & totae in qualibet parte▪ figura igitur quae est modus quantitatis, & situs, qui est modus substantiae, non fundantur vel in substantiâ solâ, vel in solâ quantitate, sed in substantiâ simul & quantitate, seu in substantiâ quantâ; cum autem idem modus non fundetur in diversis realiter subjectis ne quidem partialibus sequitur, substantiam & quantitatem non esse realiter diversa. nec dicendum est, unum esse situm substantiae, alterum quantit●tis: si corpus enim tuetur a proprio situ sine quantitate (idem valet de extens●one, positione partium extra partes, & reliquis officiis quan●i●atis) quid opus est aliâ situatione à quantitate? imò substantia esset quanta sine quantitate, situs enim ponit partes extra partes in toto, quod est formale quantitatis▪ confirmari posset ulteriùs ex ●o quòd figura sit modus quantitatis, situs verò modus substantiae, figura autem & situs non differant realiter, nedum modaliter, & quidem vix ratione ratiocinatâ; idem ergo modus in substantiâ fundatur simul & quantitate; sed de his supra. atque hactenus assertio prima. assertio secunda. probabile est neque modaliter differre substantiam a quantitate, sed tantùm ratione ratiocinatâ. ad distinctionem rationis ratiocinatae requi●itur distinctio conceptuum cum unitate & indistinctione a parte rei: hinc suarez, d. 7. s. 2. n. 28. ut distinctio (inquit) judicetur rationis & non rei, satis est ut praeter distinctionem conceptuum nullum inveniatur signum ad distinctionem modalem aut realem cognoscendam, nam cum distinctiones non multiplicandae sint sine causa, & sola distinctio conceptuum non sufficiat ad inferendam majorem distinctionem, quandocunque cum illâ distinctione conceptuum non adjungitur aliud signum majoris distinctionis, judicanda semper est distinctio rationis & non rei: hinc infert, `` quandocunque constat aliqua, quae in re unita & conjuncta sunt, ita esse in conceptibus objectivis distincta, ut in re & individuo sint prorsus inseparabilia, tam mutuò quam non mutuò, tum magnum & fere certum est argumentum non distingui actu in re sed ratione ratiocinatâ. haec ille. cum ergo in materiâ & quantita re nullum appareat signum realis aut quidem modalis distinctionis, separationis mutuae vel non mutuae, tam ex potentiâ ordinar●â quam absolutâ, cum quantitativa extensio formaliter resultet ex partibus entitativis; probabile est, non differre plus quam ratione. atque hoc concedit suarez paenè, nisi quod mysterium eucharistiae impediret, dist. 7. s. 2. n. 10. per mysterium (inquit) eucharistiae certiùs nobis constat, quantitatem esse rem distinctam a materiâ, quam per cognitionem naturalem constare potuisset. videmus ergo unde jesuitarum pertinacia de reali quantitatis distinctione, ne scilicet periret mysterium transubstantiationis; quod illi de fide tenent, nos pari confidentiâ negamus. adjungam argumentum ipsius suarez, quo probat ille durationem non distingui ex parte rei ab existentiâ rei durantis, dist. 59 s, 1. n. 8. quia existentia inseparabilis est a parte rei a duratione▪ & ● contrario duratio ab existenti●, & in unaquaque re utraque est aequè variabilis vel invariabilis, ut si existentia sit omnino necessaria, etiam duratio; si illa corruptibilis vel incorruptibilis, haee similiter; si altera permane●s, etiam altera; si una successiva, etiam altera; ergo a parte rei non distinguitur. haec ille, de existentiâ & duratione. pariter ego desubstanti● & quantitate, ubi materia ibi quantitas & contra, si materia non existat sine quantitate (ut fatetur ipse, d. 7. s. 2. n. 11.) nec etiam quantitas sine materiâ (quicquid ille contrà garriat in transubstantiatione,) si materia ingenerabilis & incorruptibilis sic quantitas, si in augmentatione acqui●itur aut in diminution deperditur aliquid materiae sic & quantitatis, si in raresactione & condensatione manet eadem materia sic & eadem quantitas, si in his motibus variantur termini materiae sic & quantitatis, denique cum sint aequè separabiles aut ●nseparabiles, aequè variabiles & invariabiles, nullum apparet indicium cur plus quam ratione ratiocinat▪ distinguantur. concludo igitur, quòd materia & quantitas non distinguuntur inter se realiter, ut res & res, & (probabiliter) neque modaliter, sed tantùm ratione ratiocinata, h. e. ut inadaequati conceptus ejusdem rei. alia prae manibus erant quae put●ssem annexuisse; sed editio posthuma, esto & abortiva. finis. goliahs' head cut off with his own sword; in a combat betwixt little david, the young stripling, who stands in the power and strength of his god, and great goliath the proud boaster, who stands in his own strength, glorifying in the arm of flesh, and contemning and despising little david, because of his youth. in a reply to a book, set forth by an un-named author, under pretence of an answer to thirty six queries, propounded by james parnell, whom he in scorn calls, the young quaker. and also an answer to several counter-queries, propounded by the same unnamed author, whom i understand to be one thomas draton, a teacher of the world, at abbey rippon, in huntingtonshire, wherein his folly and ignorance, is much laid open, and the pride and deceit of his spirit much manifested; and also he that takes his part, who writes himself w. p. who knows not the power of god, and therefore glories in the length of time, and the multitude of years. but solomon, who was a wiser man then great goliath, said, that the honourable age is not that which is of long time, neither that which is measured by the number of years; but wisdom is the grey hair: and an undefiled life is old age. and therefore let not the wise man glory in his wisdom, nor the strong man glory in his strength, for it is vanity. given forth from the spirit of the lord in the behalf of israel against the armies of the aliens, who muster up themselves against the lord, and his authority: by a friend to the commonwealth of israel, who is known to the world, by the name james parnel. who is a sufferer in outward bonds, for the testimony of the everlasting truth, in colchester castle. 1655. london, printed for giles calvert, at the black-spread-eagle, at the west end of paul's, 1655. the title of the aforesaid book. an answer according to truth, that trembles not, nor quakes, nor quaileth; given to thirty six queries, propounded by james parnell (commonly called the young quaker) to an ancient country minister: with some counter-queries by the said minister, unto the said young quack and his fellows. here thou mayst be ashamed to style thyself an ancient minister, reply. heb. 12.21. jer. 23.9. job 4.14 ezek. 12.10. who manifests such an ishmaels' spirit, who with reproachful words, makes a scoff at the power of truth, which the ministers of god in all ages witnessed, which made them to quake and tremble: and though the truth neither quake, nor quaileth, yet all that owned the truth, owned and witnessed quaking and trembling: which truth thou manifests thyself but a professor of, and a stranger to the power, and a despiser thereof: and therefore out from among the ministers of christ thou art raised, eccles. 12.3. and thy answer is not according to truth, but a lie, as shall further be made to appear hereafter, by him whom thou calls the young quack, and it seems fear surpriseth the heart of the hypocrite, p: f. 22.14, 15. priest. so that thou art ashamed to own thy work with thy name; and whereas thou sayest, courteous reader, we are forced, notwithstanding so many pamphlets extant against the people called quakers, to give answer to thirty six queries of james parnels, the young quaker. although thou hast boasted thyself an ancient minister, rep. and contemns me as a young boy, yet here it appears, that thou art glad of others to help thee to answer my queries, as these words before mentioned doth testify. and yet it is but a pamphlet, as thou and thy helpers do confess, that those many are, that are extant against the people called quakers. and then thou run on in way of reproach, and scorn against me, because of my youth; but the wisdom of solomon answereth you, that a poor and wise child, is better than an old foolish king, who will no more be admonished; eccles. 4.13. and therefore, when you think of your age, consider also your folly, and let that stop your mouths, from professing yourselves ancients, who manifests such a light scornful spirit, and hates to be reform. and whereas thou sayest thou doubtest not, priest. but his queries are the dictates of others, deceiving, and being deceived, which they yet put under the boy's name, for the credit of their cause. here also without doubt, rep. thy unbelieving heart is manifested, who without ground, measurest others, according to thine own heart, who because thou makest use of the dictates of others, as here doth plainly appear: therefore censurest others, which doth not add credit to thy cause, because thou boasts of thy age. but according as thou believes, priest. so be it to thee: yet nevertheless, thou shalt find that the truth i shall maintain against thee, who with thy unbelieving heart, art deceiving and being deceived, and then thou runs on in the pride of thy spirit, accusing of me, to be ignorant of the truth of god, because as thou sayest, priest. of the false wording of my queries. but with shame might thou speak it; rep. for openly hast thou manifested to the understanding reader, thyself to be a mere stranger, both to god and his truth also, who would limit the truth of god, to a humane art, which many of the children of god had not; act. 4.13. and therefore the power of god was the more manifested. and when peter and john was brought before the learned men, to wit, (the chief priests and the rulers) and they wondered at them, because they perceived they was unlearned men; and thus with thy wisdom, and thy great learning, thou art shut out of the truth in the natural; but by this i do not own thy accusation to be truth against me; for i have a copy of the queries of my own hand writing, which was the original of those that was sent to thee, which will bear testimony against thee, to be a false accuser, and how thou thyself hast wronged them, and misworded them, because they was in the cross unto thy wisdom. and to maintain this, thou bringest a story in erasmus: nevertheless, the story which thou bringest, doth not at all touch me, but may fitly be returned into thy new bosom, where it shall lie▪ then thou and thy agent beseeches the reader, to read without partiality; which if he do, he will judge no otherwise of you, then as i have declared, but will see how you have uttered forth your folly, and foamed out your shame, in going about to contradict the truth. and at the end of this your epistle to the reader, i find w. p. which i judge to be one of thy agents, to this your shameful work, to which thou dar'st not own thy name. my first querie. where, 1 queen p: an. and how, and by, what wast thou called to the ministry which thou professest? and in thy answer to this querie, thou goest about to plead many excuses, whereby to fly the answering of my queries, saying it is easier for him that is yet in darkness to propound doubts and queries, then for some of the children of light to answer them, on a sudden, which to prove thou quotes daniel: & that our saviour (thou sayest) himself refused to answer the pharises interogatories till they had first answered his, math. 21.23, 24.: and, albeit thou sayest thou might put me off with solomon's words pro. 26.4. answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him, i did not propound the queries unto thee, as any doubts of mine, rep: but that thou in thy answer thereunto might either prove thy practice, by the scriptures unto them that are in doubt thereof, or unto them manifest thyself to be a deceiver: which last thou hast plainly done to the least child of light, and therefore it doth not follow that i am in darkness, or that thou art a child of light. neither did thou suddenly answer the queries, though they concerned thy own condition, and therefore this place in daniel, doth not at all stand for thee, for it was for daniel to tell and interpret nebuchadnezers' dream, which was a hard thing for any to tell unless it was immediately revealed to them by god's spirit, as it was to daniel; but all the magicians and learned men, could not find it out by their arts, but most of these queries unto thee was concerning thy present condition and practice, and herein thou manifests thyself to be in darkness, who thus wrists the scripture out of its place, dan. 10.11. for thy own ends: and also daniel was a man that feared the lord, and trembled at his power, which now thou denies and scoffs at, and yet art not ashamed, to take daniel's words for a refuge against the light: and as for that scripture in mat. 21.23, 24. it shall be returned into thine own bosom, for it is thee, and such as thee who are set up by the will of man, and authorized by the authority of man, who join with the pharises, and scribes of these times, and combine together with the earthly powers to call us to question, by what authority we go abroad preaching the truth from place to place, and crying against deceivers, & where we had our commission, because we receive it not from man as you do, but do witness the same power & authority as the ministers of god did in all ages, & the same commission: for they received not their commission froon man, but was immediately called & immediately fitted, and sent forth into the work of the ministry freely to give as freely they had received, and was persecuted by them that was set up by the will of man; which also we do witness, and therefore the scripture aforementioned, belongs unto thy generation who was ever persecuters, and if by propounding queries thou judgest me to be in darkness, then much more thou judgest and condemns thyself: for, for my 36. queries thou hast propounded me 100; and here also thou accounts me a fool, as by the scripture which thou quotes in pro. 26.4. and therein manifests thyself so much the greater fool, in propounding so many queries to me, whom thou accounts a fool: and thus the pride of thy heart hath deceived thee. and whereas thou sayest thou wast inwardly called to the ministry, by the motion and gifts of god's spirit, p. an: long before i was borne, which thou sayest hath been god's ordinary way, which to prove, thou quotes job. 32.8.2. chron. 20.14. amos 5.7.15. m●ch. 3.8. though it hath been, and is god's ordinary way by his own power and spirit, rep: to call and fit his own ministers, for his own work, as those scriptures aforementioned doth prove, which we also do witness and do come no other way, yet these scriptures do not at all prove where and how and by what, thou wast called and jahaziell, and amos, and micha, which those scriptures aforesaid bears testimony of, to be thus called, was men that spoke the word of the lord freely, against sin and transgression, and false-prophets and hirelings, and their lives, sealed their testam : and these scriptures also bears testimony, how and where they was called, from their outward callings to speak the word of the lord, and so from those scriptures thou art shut & hast nought to do to take them into thy mouth forthey do not prove that thou wast thus called from thy labour, for thou wast brought up all thy days in idleness, and at an university (as you call it) to learn arts and sciences without which those was called and fitted; and for any other call than as the common national ministers are called (who deny both immediate revelation, and inspiration) thou hast brought no proof that will stand for thee, but only thy own bare words, wherein thy life and practice will condemn thee, for it is one with the nationall priests and thou art maintained and upheld by the same power as the national teachers are, neither dost go from place to place, reproving sin in the gate as amos and micha did, who was thus called, neither dost speak freely as they did, and therefore art a false prophet, who saith the lord saith, when he never spoke to thee, but run, and the lord never sent thee; and therefore thou profits not the people at all, as is manifest by the fruits of thy ministry, and thus thou wast a deceiver before i was borne, and the lord hath raised me up to tell thee of it. whether is thy call & means which thou professeth mediate or immediate. and in thy answer thou sayest, it was both: for sayest thou besides the immediate aforesaid, thou wast ordained a minister by the superiors, and governors of the church, as the elders and pastors of the churches were formerly by paul and barnabas, act. 14.23. but thou sayest thou doubtest whether james parnell well was called either way to be teacher; if so let him prove it by an infallible testimony. those that have an inward call to the ministry do not stay for an outward call by man, rep. but go forth in bedience to the word of the lord: whosoever was called to the ministry of the gospel, it was immediately, and not mediately; but thine mediately by the will of man, and not immediately as before is proved, and also out of thy own mouth is made manifest. for thou sayest thou doubtest whether i was called either way, but if thou was called and guided by the spirit of the lord, thou wouldst know, without doubts, whether i was so called yea or nay: for the true ministers was epistles writ in one another hearts, and they also know the false prophets, and the false apostles, and the false ministers, and declared against them as i do against thee, and without doubt i do know thee to be a deceiver, 2 cor. 3.2.2 cor. 11.13.14. 15 02 by an infallible testimony, and those that thou speakest of, in act. 14.23. whom paul and barnabas ordained elders, they did not ordain them ministers of the gospel, neither sent them abroad to preach the gospel, 0 neither allowed them 100 or 200 pounds by the year, as thou hast; but they chose out those that were strong in the faith and set them to watch over the weak; but those churches, was gathered by the power and spirit of god and was turned from darkness to light, and was washed, cleansed, and sanctified, in the name of the lord jesus, and by the spirit of our god; but out of your church, cast drunkards, and swearers, and liars, and proud, and covetous ones, and adulterous, and idolaters, and quarrellers, and fighters, and scoffers, 1 cor. 6.11. and scorners, and backbiters, and envious ones, and profane and wanton ones, and the like, who are neither washed nor sanctified; and then see where will be the church of england, and the pastors, teachers, and elders, ru. 3. and all; than you that profess yourselves to be the church of christ, will be found the synagogue of satan, whose minister thou art: and also paul and barnabas who ordained them elders, was men endued with the holy spirit of the lord, and was immediately called and chosen to the ministry, and had a spirit of discerning to know who was fitted, for the elder-ship; and all this was done without an university or serving seven years to learn arts and sciences, or taking degrees, without which, you can do nothing: and also those superiors and governors, that ordain you teachers and governor's, have nothing but what they have gotten by art and study, and reading of others experiences; but are ignorant of the power of god, neither knows whether there be any holy-ghost, yea, or nay, but by the hearing of the ear: but scoffs and scorns, and and persecutes those that now do witness these things; and they themselves was also first ordained by the will of man, and thus thou hast but so much the more manifested thyself to the world, in going about to prove thyself a called minister by the scripture, which doth altogether witness against thee. and whereas thou wouldst have me to prove my call by an infallible testimony, i tell thee without an infallible testimony i do not go, neither without an infallible testamony do i desire to be received or owned, and to this the infallible spirit of truth bears testimony in all the children of truth, and thou that hast not an infallible testimony either with me or against me, art still in darkness and knows not the truth then fare unfit to be a teacher to others. whether thou art guided by the same infallible spirit that gave forth the scripture. 3 query and in thy answer thou sayest, p. ans. that we ourselves teach that all men are taught and guided by that spirit at times: and secondly thou sayest, thou praises god for it, thou art guided and assisted by that spirit which is always infallible: and thirdly thou sayest thou doubt whether any of those that are called quakers are always guided by that spirit. here all that are guided by any measure of that spirit may easily see thy lies and confusion, for thy first is a lie, rep. that any of us do teach: that all men are taught and guided by that spirit at times: for i deny that thou art, who art now taken with a lie in thy mouth, which all that understands our doctrine will witness against, and secondly that thou art guided by an infallible spirit, is a lie against the holy-ghost, for no lie comes from that spirit. and again thou belies the spirit of truth to say thou art guided by it, and yet cannot give an infallible testimony, whether those thou calls quakers are guided by an infallible spirit, yea or nay, but art in thy doubts; joh. 8.44. but that spirit is without doubts which now judgeth thee to be a liar, and thy god thou praises to be the devil, the father of lies, who must both be tormented together. whether they that are guided by that spirit need study how or what to say. 4 qu. and in thy answer thou sayest, p. an: timothy had that spirit in a greater measure than james parnell; yet paul saith thus unto him as in 1 tim. 4.13, 14, 15, 16. and thou sayest, if the apostles had been put to it to preach upon a short text or theme, methodically, as by long practice in the church is expected from you, they must oft times have studied for it, as thou conceivest; though if you were left at large, to speak as the spirit of god more es you, and giveth matter in, thou hopes some of you by god's assistance, should speak as togood or better purpose than any whonow pretend to the spiritsactings. here thou hast sufficiently manifested thy spirit, rep: and thy ignorance of the spirit of god, to any who understands the things of the spirit of god: and all these scriptures which thou hast brought concerning timothy, doth not at all prove, that he that is guided by the spirit of god, need study how or what to preach. but paul exhorted timothy to the gift that was in him, which was given him by, or for prophesy; for in so doing, he should save himself, and those that heard him, which you never do, by the fruit of your study, but rather destroys them; witness the fruits of your ministry, this many years in this nation, who have wrought no better reformation amongst your hearers; and also this scripture doth not at all prove, that paul bid timothy study old authors, and heathenish commentators, as you do: neither to study arts and sciences, as you do, who with your philosophy, col. 2.8. and vain deceit, do spoil the people; for thou hast manifested thyself to be altogether ignorant of the spirit of god, who by thy own conceivings, judgest the spirit of god to be unsufficient to instruct and teach the apostles what to speak at all times, without study: when as christ himself exhorteth them, to take no thought what to speak; for it should be given them in the very same hour; mat. 10.19, 20. for saith he, it is not you that speaks, but the spirit of your father that speaketh in you, (which spirit speaketh not without method) which spirit you teachers of the church of england, are great strangers to, who think that the spirit of god can be limited to a text, or a theme; as thou confessest you are; but thou liar, where is now thy infallible spirit, who thus speakest thy own conceivings, and therefore be ashamed hence forward, to pretend to an infa lible spirit, who hast here so openly manifesied thy ignorance of it, and its move, so that if thou wast left at large to speak from that spirit in thee, & was shut out of thy liberary & from any text or writing, isay 56.10. thou wouldst plainly manifest thyself, to be one of the dumb dogs that could not bark, which i saiah from the spirit of the lord declared against, without study: for i do believe, that if thou and the rest of the national teachers, whom thou confessest, are tied to a text or theme, could tell how to pleafe the people, and get gain without studying or speaking from a text, you would for the credit of your cause, (as thou sayest): for i know nothing that ties you to it, but your own covetous ends, to make a gain of these scriptures, and to deceive the ignorant with feigned words, 2 pet. 2.3. whom peter without study foretold of; and therefore thou hypocrite, pretend no more to an infallible spirit, but with the rest of thy brethren, confess thou art void of it, as many of them have done; for in such pretences thou art but the greater deceiver, and thy folly doth the more appear. whether is it as lawful now for tradesmen, 5. query. shepherds, or plowmen, to preach if they be led by the spirit of god, as those that spoke forth the scripture. and in thy answer thou sayest, p. answ. if this was wholly granted, james parnell cannot claim any interest therein, as thou conceivest; for, thou sayest, he is neither tradesman, ploughman, or shepherd, nor will take any course to maintain himself by his labour, for he hath been tried. but herein james parnell can plainly tell thee, reply. thou art a liar; for he followed a trade with his father, until the lord by his spirit called him from it, into his own work, & so i obeyed the word of the lord, and left my father with his trade, mat. 4.21. mat. 10.37, 38. as james and john did their father in the ship; for he that will not forsake father and mother, lands and live, wife and children, and all for christ's sake, is not worthy of him; in which work, neither thou nor any other can tax me for idleness; but i believe my labour and diligence in the same is more offensive to you deceivers, then if i had been idle. but he that would call me from this work that i am set about, into the work of man, i should answer him, god must be served before man; for if it had not been the will of god, to call me forth into his work, i should stall have served my earthly father, sooner than any other man, notwithstanding the evil thoughts and conceivings of such like as thee, who art given up to believe lies, and tell lies; but where is now thy infallible spirit, who speakest by thy own conceivings, and thus the thoughts of thy heart deceives thee; and as for my maintenance, i need not a law, to compel it as thou dost, neither am chargeable to the world, as thou art, who by a law of man, takest nigh 300. l by the year of them: therefore in this thou might have laid thy hand upon thy mouth, for thou and hundreds more of thy brethren, never followed any honest calling, whereby to get an honest livelihood, without being chargeable to the world, but was from your youths brought up at babylon's schools, learning her witchcraft and sorcery, thereby to deceive the nations, and through covetousness with feigned words, make merchandise of them, which you nowspare not. and secondly thou grants, p. answ. that if men be made of god spiritual, whether shepherds or plowmen first, they may teach; but thirdly, thou sayest, every man that hath the spirit in some measure, doth not attain to that height, growth, and degree, that they did, who gave forth the scriptures, and therefore may not as lawfully, nor as infallibly teach as they did; and thou sayest, nor can thou discern clearly, that the best amongst them called quakers, have yet reached that degree or dispensation of the spirit; and after much dissembling speeches, thou manifests thy light and frothy spirit, still despising me, because of my youth, but thy words are not worth mentioning. and thu swhen thou opens thy mouth, reply. concerning the spirit, thou manifests thy folly, and ignorance of the spirit, so that a babe may comprehend thee, and tell thee of thy folly, and when thou thinkest of thy beard or age, (as thou sayest) confusion of face may cover thee; for though every one, that hath the spirit in some measure, doth not attain to that height, growth and degree, that they did who gave forth the scripture: yet it doth not follow, that none doth attain to that growth, height, and degree; and they that have attained to the same spirit in a measure, and by the same spirit are moved and called forth, may as lawfully, and as infallibly teach as they did, (in their measures) for the same spirit is infallible in the least measure, and its call is lawful; and thus thou showest, thou was never called, nor led by it, who art so ignorant of it; and as here also doth further appear, in that thou confessest, thou discernest not the people called quakers; and therefore art blind, and from thee the secrets of god are hid; and it doth not follow, that they are ever the less spiritual, but rather more, (because thou canst not discern them) who pretends thyself a spiritual man; and thus they are attained to that degree, they can discern thee to be a blind guide, and deceiver of the world; and therefore is thy spirit the more against them, for all thy flattering and dissembling speeches from thy hypocritical heart, who bends thy tongue like a bow against them, uttering forth lies in hypocrisy, and with thy sconrful spirit, reproachest me with lies; but it was thy generation that quaked for fear of the downfall of their kingdom; and therefore persecuted me, and imprisoned me: yet their fear did not overtake me; for i was made as willing to suffer, as they was to inflict, as knowing it was for his cause, who will make you all to quake and tremble, who lift up your heels against him; and as thou compares cambridg to jericho, so the curse of jericho shall come upon it, for its whoredom and sorceries, and stifneckedness against the lord and his anointed; and though thou thus scornest me, and despisest me, because of my youth, yet it is because thou knowest not the scripture, nor the power of god. whether any are the ministers or messengers of christ, but those that are guided by his spirit, query 6. and abide in his doctrine, as the holy men of god was in scripture, and whether the wind doth not now blow where it listeth. and in thy answer to the first part, p. ans. thou grants, that none are the true ministers, & messengers of christ, but those that are in some measure guided by his spirit, and abide in his doctrine. but secondly, thou sayest, men may think, that they have that spirit, and yet be led by the lying spirit, as zedekiah who smote michajah, was, 1 king. 22.24. herein thou markest out thyself for a deceiver, who pretends to the spirit, reply. and it is the lying spirit, as is before proved, and so art shut out from the ministers and messengers of christ, who art not guided by his spirit, and therefore abides not in his doctrine, as is before proved by thy ignorance of the true spirit: and therefore thou, and such false prophets as thou, thus smites at, and persecutes us that are called quakers, because the lord is pleased to bestow his spirit upon us, whereby we are able to declare your deceit, and manifest your lying spirits, who have professed yourselves, the ministers of christ, yet strangers to his spirit, and opposers of his truth, like jannes and jambres, who are men of corrupt minds, and reprobates concerning the faith, 2 tim. 3.8. and to the second part of the query thou sayest, p. ans: that the wind doth blow where it listeth, if it be not stopped; yet are there many false winds, which blow likewise from a deceitful spirit, which to prove, thou quotest eph. 4.14. that we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro with every wind of doctrine; and sayest, mind this james. this i do mind, and still sees how thou markest out thyself with thy deceitful spirit; rep. for if the wind do blow where it listeth, which thou acknowledgest: than what is that in you professed ministers, which goes about to stop it with gainsaying and persecution, and would limit the spirit of god unto a text or theme, from which you with your deceitful spirits do raise, uses points, trials and motives, etc. whereby many poor creatures are tossed to and fro, and carried about with your airy spirits, with the slight and cunning craftiness of your brains, whereby you study to deceive, as thou mayst read in the latter end of the verse, which thou hast quoted, ephes. 4.14. which here shall stand against thee, and so, many are the children which are tossed to and fro by you, although they have both beards and age, (as thou sayest) yea some are 30. some 40, some 50, some 60, yea 80. and never yet come to the knowledge of the truth: and thus with feigned words, through covetousness, you make merchandise of the people, beguiling unstable souls; but think not, that all you false prophets, with the beast that upholds you, can stop or quench this spirit, which now bloweth where it listeth; for with all the slight and craftiness that you can use, you shall be made to fall before it, and the fruits of your labours shall be given you. whether thou wilt own immediate revelation now, query 7. yea or nay? and in thy answer, thou sayest, p. ans. the apostle teacheth you to pray, for the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the acknowledgement of god: which to prove, thou quotes ephes. 1.17. but sayest, there are many false lights and delusions of satan, who too often transforms himself as an angel of light, 2 cor. 11.14. which thou sayest, are entertained by unwary men, for the illuminations and revelations of god's spirit, as appears in zedekiah aforesaid; which to prove, thou quotes, ezek. 13.6. 2 thes. 2.11. here again, thou hast marked out thyself, reply. and also belies the apostle; for that scripture in ephes. 1.17. only makes mention how the apostle prayed, for the ephesians that believed▪ but it doth not at all prove, that the apostle taught you that are of the world to pray; for the prayers of the wicked are abominable, prov. 15, 8. and the apostle would not teach such to pray; and though in thy answer, the substance of my query is confessed, yet it doth not serve to prove that thou dost witness it in thyself, or own it, where it is possessed; who would bar it from youth, and limit it to time and age, and so shows thy ignorance of it, and that by the false lights and delusions of satan thou art deceived, who in thee rules as an angel of light: and so thou art one of those unwary men who takes a lying spirit for an infallible spirit, as is both here and often before proved, who art found in zedekiahs' steps, and so art one of those false prophets, which the prophet speaks of, who saith, the lord saith, when he never spoke to thee, as is before proved; and how long have you professed ministers of this nation, fed the people with expectations, and hopes that you would confirm what you have spoken unto them, which is not yet come to pass, neither likely; and thus you have deceived them by your lying divinations, for your dishonest gain; and therefore for this cause god hath given you up to strong delusions, that you should believe a lie, that you all might be damned who believe not the truth now it is come unto you; but still take pleasure in unrighteousness, as in those scriptures aforesaid, which thou hast quoted against thyself, and so they shall stand. what is the gospel which thou art a minister of, queen 8. and whether thy gospel be free and without charge? and in thy answer thou sayest to the first part, p. ans. that the gospel which thou preachest, is the same which christ and his apostles taught, which thou sayest is summarily contained in these four verses, tit. 2.11, 12, 13, 14. wherein the apostle speaks of the grace of god to be their teacher, to deny all ungodliness and worldly lusts, and to live soberly, justly, and godlily in this present world etc. and to the second part, thou sayest the apostles gospel was not every way without charge; which to prove, thou quotes 2 cor. 11.8. and again thou sayest, nor hath christ, or any of his apostles, imposed it upon you, that the gospel should be altogether without charge, unto them which have it taught: which to prove, thou quotes rom. 15.27. and again thou sayest, nor is james parnels gospel, be it right or wrong, without charge: if he do not take more than it is worth, if duly examined, it is well. thy spirit is much against james parnell, rep. as zedekia's was against michajah, yet here he can prove thee to be a liar, and not only against him but of his lord also: and therefore if thou beliest the lord, how much more the servant? joh. 1.29. for christ jesus the lamb of god was the gospel which the apostles preached, which was free and not chargeable to any, though he was and is a burdensome stone, to them that believe not in him; yet not chargeable. and therefore thou blasphemer, how darest thou to open thy mouth thus against the lord and his anointed, who art still in thy ungodliness and worldly lusts, who art pleading for the earth and art a stranger to the free grace of god, and therefore these verses which thou hast set down, shall stand to witness against thee, which thou sayest containeth the gospel which thou preachest, but the apostles gospel could not be contained in paper & ink, for the heavens could not contain him, for he ascended far above all heavens that he might fill all things: and also of thy gospel thou makest a trade and a gain, eph. 4.10 being many years at an university as thou calest it to learn to preach it: all which the apostles did not, and so thou bringest another gospel, and so art not to be received but held as accursed, as thou art, who art not ashamed to presume to say, thy gospel is the same with the apostles, and thou dost here yield thy gospel to be chargeable, but this scripture in 2 cor. 11.8. doth not at all prove the apostles to be chargeable, gal. 1.8.9. who saith he took wages of other churches to do them service, for it was but for his necessities, & it was freely communicated to him & therefore no charge; but now you professed ministers instead of robbing other churches you rob & oppress the world, ruling over them by a law with force and cruelty, for the which you have no scripture rule, ezek. 34.4. but amongst the false shepherds. but whom do you spare, whether you do them service or nay, if you can but get it either by fair means or foul? and therefore in this thou before many other might well have laid thy hand upon thy mouth. for whereas the apostle there took some necessaries which was freely communicated to him by the churches, thou takes nigh three hundred pounds by the year of the world, by a law of man, and none will spare who comes within thy bounds, whether thou dost them service or nay, and that christ or any of his apostles hath not imposed it upon you that the gospel should be altogether without charge, j. 〈◊〉. 14. ●4 it is true, for they never entrusted you with it, though for sucre sake ye have run, though he never sent you, and speak a divination of your brain, but not from his mouth, and so profit not the people at all, but like ravening wolves makes a prey upon them; but your end shall be according to your works, but they that are entrusted with the ministry of the gospel, mat. 10.8. 1 cor. 9.16, 17, 18. have this charge imposed upon them, as they have received freely, freely to give: the apostle paul also shown the same example, whose care was to make the gospel free and without charge, and said woe unto him, if he preached not the gospel, and therefore because he would not make the gospel chargeable, he took necessaries of some, and spared others, and this was wisdom (which you earthwormes are void of) and thus he that is taught in the word may communicate to him that teacheth in all good things and yet without charge, he that can receive it, let him; the workman is worthy of his meat: and in that thou taxest james parnell, mat. 10.10. he hath not been chargeable to thee nor to thy generation, neither doth any of him complain, although thou judgest him according to thy own corrupt heart, yet the answer of the just witness in my conscience shall be for me, before the righteous judge of all hearts, when you hirelings and false prophets, shall wish the mountains to cover you, and the rocks to fall upon you, and hid you from his presence who will give you your reward in the lake that burneth, with the beast that now upholdes you in this your wickedness. whether thou dost hold up the first priesthood that took tithes, 9 query, or the second▪ priesthood that took no tithes & which thou dost deny, seeing thou takest tithes? and in thy answer thou sayst, p. an. melchizedeck whose preist-hood was the first priesthood took tithes and the levitical priesthood, which was the second and not the first took tithes also, so that thou fairest there is no priesthood mentioned in the scripture that took no tithes: then thou queries how thou or any other doth deny either of those preist-hoods by taking tithes which to prove thou quotes, gen. 14.20. heb. 7.2, 3, 4.5. etc. here, thou serpent! although thou thus twines about to cover and shelter thy deceit, rep. under others wings it will not at all serve to prove, that thereby thou dost not deny jesus christ come in the flesh, who is the everlasting high priest for ever after the order of melchizedeck which is the unchangeable priesthood, the end of the changeable, which took tithes, and so, the end of tithes, as is proved by that scripture which thou hast quoted, heb. 7. and chap. 8.1. wherein the apostle speaks how abraham paid tithes to melchizedeck of the spoils which he▪ got in the war which was a free gift without either law or compulsion; neither did stand for a law or rule to the generations following until the law was given to israel after the flesh, and the changeable priesthood established: which i say was the first priesthood, to which tithes was due, for it was so the command of god, that the tithes should be paid unto the changeable priesthood, and they was to have a store-house, wherein the tithes was to be put. and the widows and the fatherless and the strangers was to come and be filled within their gates that there should not be a beggar in israel; deut. 14.28, 29. which statute is now rejected by you who now so gape for tithes: for ye instead of doing this, do grind the faces of the poor, and oppress the widows, the fatherless, and the strangers if they do come within your bounds, and, so makes beggars rather than otherwise, isa. 3.15. so that if you profess tithes by this law, it will witness against you, and also in so doing you deny christ jesus come in the flesh, who when he was offered up, was the everlasting offering, and the everlasting high priest over the household of god, and so the fulfilling and the end of the changeable who took tithes by a command. and so, saith the apostle, the priesthood being changed there must of necessity be a change of the law, and so the command was disannulled and tithes ended: for saith the apostle in heb. 8.1. now of the things that we have been speaking, heb. 7.12. here thy 66 qu. is ans. this is the sum, we have such an high priest, that is set on the right hand of the throne, etc. now tithes was one thing, and the priesthood was another thing and the law (by which they both was upheld) was another thing, of which the apostle had been speaking of which he saith this is the sum, christ jesus the high priest that is set on the right hand of the throne, and so the fulfilling and the end of these things before mentioned, of which tithes is one: so by this new covenant he hath made the first old; heb. 8.13. now that which decayeth or waxeth old is ready to vanish away. now mark then, which priesthood the apostle here accounts first, because thou accusest me, that i know not which was the first and which was the last, but by this it is proved that you that now so gapes for tithes under the profession of the gospel, are razed out from melchizedeck, who once took tithes, only of the spoil which was taken in the war, which was a free gift unto him, (which now you have not) and also are razed from the changeable priesthood which was the first to which tithes was due, by a command for its time; and also do deny christ come in the flesh who is the end and fulfilling of those things, which without command, for lucre sake, you now uphold, and cry up; and so are found only the ministers of antichrist, who oppose the true christ, (where he is witnessed and held forth) yet under a profession of his name: therefore he will profess unto you workers of iniquity, that he knows you not, when you knock & are not able to enter. where is thy rule in the scripture, query 8. from the ministers of the gospel to take tithes? and in thy answer, p. ans. thou much endeavours to shelter and cover thyself by the scripture, but it will not hid thee, nor stand for thee; to prove that the ministers of the gospel ever took tithes, or that unto them tithes belonged, as any who reads thy answer with understanding, may see & also see thy shuffing, who runs into the old covenant to maintain tithes due to the ministers of the new covenant, which is the end of the old, as in my last reply is plainly proved; and thou out of both to be shut▪ & therefore thou sayest, it is sufficient for thee, & other ministers of the gospel, that there is no commandment in the gospel against the taking of tithes, which thou sayest, we must produce ere we can make the thing unlawful. now all people may consider, how they have been blinded and deceived by you professed ministers of the gospel in this nation, who upon such slender grounds as these, have and do take the tenth of the increase of the fruits of the people's labours, who many of them, themselves do rend and hire what they have, whereby you have and do live at ease, in pride, idleness, and fullness, sporting in the day time, and living in the pleasures, and wantonness upon the earth, contrary to any rule or example in the scripture, from the ministers of the gospel; and therefore this your ground and foundation which thou hast here laid besides the scripture, to uphold tithes contrary to the scripture, will not stand, and therefore your building must fall; for although there were no command in the gospel against the taking of tithes: yet it doth not prove, that the ministers of the gospel are to take tithes, being it was never allotted them; but that by the gospel, tithes are disannulled, and the priesthood changed, and the law by which they both was established; is fulfilled and done away, is clear by the scripture; and therefore unlawful now for any to practise without a command from god, as before is proved in my last reply, ând thou to be a liar, who saith, i could not prove it by clear scripture, that christ or his apostles hath taken away that maintenance; and therefore that scripture which thou hast quoted in mat. 23.23. shall stand and witness against thee; for when christ spoke, that was before he was offered up, and then the law of tithes was not yet fulfilled, and therefore not disannulled; and therefore strictly to be observed, until christ the everlasting sacrifice was offered up; and then the apostles said, the priesthood being changed, there must of necessity be a change of the law, and so tithes ended, as before is proved; and therefore not for the ministers of the gospel, to take them as their maintenance; and that scripture which thou hast quoted in 1 cor. 9 shall stand and witness against thee; for the whole chapter doth not at all prove tithes due to the ministers of the gospel, as any who reads the chapter with honesty will witness; for it doth not at all mention tithes, but only speaks of the apostles power, that as they had planted vineyards, so they might eat of the fruit thereof; and as they preached the gospel, so they might live of the gospel; and this the apostle writ to those whom he said was the seals of his ministry; but where is the seals of your ministry? 1 john 5.19. are they not the world who lie in wickedness? where is the vineyard that ye have been planting this many years? is it not still full of briers and thorns, and weeds, and wild plants, which bring forth no fruit, but cumber the ground: but keep in your own vineyards, and rob not others, and then you will not be such thiefs as you are, but it will make you plant better, or else to fall to some other trade; and the apostles power was not of man, nor by man, being he was not set up by man; but yours is of man, and by a law of man, by whom you are set up, and by whom you stand, as here in thy answer thou hast confessed; and yet the apostle refused to use this power, and yet said, necessity was laid upon him to preach the gospel; but what power do you refuse, be it right or wrong? and if that earthly power should be taken from you, which you have, what would become of your gospel? nay some of you have said, that down with the maintenance, and down with the ministry; and therefore for ever stop thy mouth, from taking the apostles words, for a cloak for thy covetousness, who himself cast out such from the ministry, 1 tim. 3. and therefore thou knew, that none of these scriptures would serve for thy ends; and therefore thou would shelter thyself under the powers of the earth, by whom thou art set up, whom thou sayest, did give to the ministers of the gospel in this nation, and else where, and to their successor for ever, the tenth of all their grounds, and caused them to be settled by a law. and thou askest, if this was not a lawful and pious gift, and suitable to what was paid in the old testament. this i do deny to be lawful, but altogether unlawful; reply. thy 6th query is answered in this reply. 2 pet. 3.16. for that hath made so many pretended ministers as there are, who for greediness of the gain and pleasure, have pretended to the things which you never had in you, neither know any thing of them, but by others declarations, which for your own ends, you have wrested to your own destruction and others, and so through your philosophy and vain deceit, have spoiled the people, and by feigned words through covetousness, have made merchandise of them, and so have deluded and led in blindness the people this many years, only for your own carnal ends; and that this is suitable to what was paid in the old testament, i also do deny (and if it was, what is that to you? that which was given in the old testament is disannulled by the new, and therefore no rule for you) and also that was given by the lord to the levites, who had no other inheritance in the land, and the lord gave that which was his own, and he gave a strict command, that it should be paid, which stood in force so long as the priesthood endured, as is proved by the scriptures, which thou thyself hast quoted which shall here stand against thyself, levit. 27.30, 31, 32. and numb. 18.24. but the lord did not give it since to the professed ministers of england; but thou sayest, man gave it, and therefore gave that which was none of their own; for it is unjust for any prince or ruler, to give away the labour or inheritance of his subjects unto them that never laboured for it, and unto these who under pretence of the gospel do delude, and beguile the souls of his subjects, for their dishonest gain, as you professed ministers of england do; and therefore they whose eyes are opened, mich. 2.5. do see you, and therefore accounts it a sin unto god, to uphold you, or put into your mouths, whom the lord is against; and therefore you even prepare war against them, and it is neither pious nor lawful, for any prince or governor, to force any of his subjects by a law, contrary to their consciences; and also the inheritance of the levites, was stated by a law of god, and yours by a law of man, and they was ordained, and set up by god, but you by man, by whom you are upheld and maintained contrary to scripture: so they come by the will of god, & you by the will of man; & they was maintained by the will of god, & you by the will of man, & they were of god (as all his true ministers are now,) and you are of man, (as all the false prophets, and false ministers ever was,) so that there is much difference betwixt you and them, and betwixt the interest, that they had in tithes, and the interest that you now claim: so that they that rob them, rob god, as in the scripture which thou hast quoted, mal. 3.8. which shall stand against thee; and if the ground of your interest was well searched, it would be found that you have it from the pope and his upholders, whose supremacy yourselves deny in words to blind the world; but in practice you own it, and claim it: and again, if this which thou speaks of, was given to the ministers of the gospel, than you that are hirelings, and the ministers of antichrist have no right nor title in it; and the ministers of the gospel, they also do deny it, whose care is to make the gospel free and without charge; and therefore cannot oppress any, neither will their consciences serve them to take the increase of others labours, by law or compulsion, and therefore it is most just, that the labourer should in peace, enjoy the fruits of his labours, and such idle drones as you (who neither labour for god, nor for the good of man, but are the destroyers both of body and soul) should not eat according to the apostles rule, in 2 thes. 3.10. and thus unto it you have no legal nor civil claim, (as thou calls it,) but your birthright is as a mess of pottage: neither is your claim and title, as lawful as a sons is to the inheritance of his father (as thou sayest;) but you climb up another way & so are thiefs & robbers, john 10.1. whether ever the ministers of christ had or stood in need of an outward law, queen 11. to compel people to maintain them, as thou, and such as thou now hath and doth. and in thy answer thou confessest, p. answ. that those that are righteous or truly spiritual, needs no such compulsive law to force them; for they are a law unto themselves; but thou sayest, that the greatest part of the professors in the visible church, always were, and yet are earthly-minded, and neither do nor can, rightly value spiritual and heavenly things. but in all thy pretended answer, thou dost not at all, resolve the substance of my query, but rather in thy silence in it, dost yield thyself out of the practice of the apostles, and by thy own confession it is manifest, that neither you professed ministers, nor your auditors are righteous, nor truly spiritual, for you stand in need of a compulsive law, to force people to maintain you, and the people stands in need of a compulsive law to force them to maintain you, which thou confessest the righteous need not; but though you have a compulsive law, the righteous will not maintain you: and thus out of thy own mouth thou art judged, and the rest of thy brethren to be the false prophets, who profit not the people at all; and again, thy own confession proves it, that the greatest part of your church is earthly minded, and no wonder while the teachers themselves are so; and thus your church is the synagogue of satan, which is built up of such professors; and therefore blush and be ashamed of your ministry. oh what have you been doing this many years! who have wrought no better reformation: and herein you show your ministry to be earthly, who have no better seals then earthly minded professors, who stand in need of a law to compel them to maintain you; and this is as true a saying, as any thou hast in thy book that the greatest part of the professors in your church are earthly minded; but, in that thou accusest the church in the apostles days to be the same, thou art a liar and a false accuser, neither canst bring any proof in the scripture, to maintain what thou sayest, but it will witness against thee; act. 4.33, 34, 35. act. 5.1.8. for the multitude that believed, were of one heart, and one soul, so that they sold their possessions, and laid it at the apostles feet; and it was distributed to every one, according as they had need: the ministry took such place in them. and whereas there was two found that was earthly minded, yet there needed not a law of man to compel them; and the law of man also was against the apostles, as it is against these now that walk in the same steps, yet they do not need a law of man to force a maintenance for them, from worldly or earthly minded professors, as the false prophets and deceivers always did, who was always sheltered and upheld by the will of man, because they could wink at their iniquity, and cry peace to them as thou here dost, because they put into thy mouth: therefore thou flatters them, and daubs them up, but it is with untempered mortar. but the commission which christ gave to his ministers, was, ezek. 22 22.28. mat. 6.25. mat. 12 11, 12, 13, 14. take no thought, but into whatsoever city or place they entered, they was to inquire who was worthy; and if they was not willingly received, they was to shake off the dust of their feet, and so leave them; but is it not well known, that all your care is to take thought, where to get a fat living, instead of enquiring who is worthy; and there if you have but authority from man, you will have it, whether they receive you, yea or nay: so with shame mightest thou bring any example from the apostles, or the church in their days, who were men that coveted no man's silver nor gold nor apparel but had forsaked all for the gospel's sake, and many of the church suffered the spoiling of their goods willingly by your forefather's the chief priests and scribes and pharises, who was their persecutors, as you are now of them who the gospel do own, act. 20.33. heb. 10.34. (and your professors also) who as thou sayest doth not rightly value spiritual things, such as are holden forth by the true ministers and messengers of god, (neither can) because, by such blind guides as thou art, they are kept in blindness, and darkness, lest their eyes should be opened and they come to see you, and decline from you, who was never tied to you by any command of god, and therefore you are glad to make use of a law of man, contrary to the practice of christ and his apostles: and as for the express provision, which the lord made for his ministers and messengers in the new testament, i reply, when christ gave them their commission, he said also in whatsoever house they entered they was to eat such as was set before them, for saith he the workman is worthy of his meat: and this is all the express provision that thou canst find allotted to them in the new testament, and this was without any law of man too; for there was no need of any, for if they did not willingly receive them, they was not to eat with them, but to shake of the dust of their feet against them, and that was all the law they was to take against such which was earthly minded, and regardless of them: but this will not serve you because yourselves are earthly minded, and therefore will have it of every one, whether they receive you yea or nay, or else you have a law of man to take triple damage; and instead of eating such as they will set before you, you will have the tenth part of what they have by compulsion, you are such greedy devouring woolus: and what was before allotted to the priests in the old testament, is before sufficiently proved to be nothing concerning you, who profess yourselves ministers of the new testament, and as for those scriptures which thou quotes in 2 chron. 31.5, 6. &c: are also as nothing to my query, but are before answered in my last reply, but yet these shall stand to witness against thee to be a liar: for let any who reads these verses, see if there the isralites did show any earthly mindedness, or stood in need of a law to compel them, after they knew the king's mind, (as thou accusest them) and thus thou canst find nothing either in the old or new testament that will cover thy deceit but altogether witness against thee, and therefore again thou flees into thy old shelter which is the will of man, by which thou art set up and upheld, therefore a false prophet, and a deceiver, who abides not in the doctrine of christ, and it is no pious nor just act for them as i said before, to take away the fruits of their subjects labours by a compulsive law to give unto such earthworms as thee, who cares not how you get it so you get it, as thy own mouth confessest, for thou sayest it is a competent though not a liberal maintenance; and yet thou canst take it and plead for it too, yea and of worldly minded people, which is altogether contrary to the apostles practise, and so thou fulfilleth the words which before i have spoken of thee, and whosoever denies you of tithes do not unjustly detain them, (as thou sayest they do) being you have no right to them by any law or command from god, or example in the scripture, as before is proved, but only claims a title by the unjust supremacy of the pope, by which your forefather's, the persecuting bishops was upheld, and therefore we called quakers do teach people them you to deny, which is not contrary to the practice of christ or his apostles (as thou accusest us) for saith christ, beware of false-prophets that appear in sheep's clothing, mat. 7.15.16. but inwardly ravening woolves; by their fruits they are known, and by which sufficiently you are here marked our, and the apostles bids from such turn away as in 2 tim. 3.5. and again the apostle john forbids to receive such as abides not in the doctrine of christ, or to bid them god speed 2 joh. 9.10. and here both christ and his apostles sufficiently taught people to deny you, and here thou art proved a liar who thus falsely accusest us called quakers, in this to act contrary to the practice of christ or his apostles, and so here thou and the rest of the professed ministers of this nation, are sufficiently manifest what you are; so that all men may see your folly and deceit, but those who are blind, and love to have it so, and so the scripture is fulfilled upon you, jer. 5.30.31. whether ever the ministers of the gospel took any necessaries of the world, 12 que. as thou and such as thou doth all your tithes and maintenance yea or nay? and in thy answer thou sayest, yea they have, p. ans. which to prove thou quotes, ast. 28.1.9. where thou sayest paul took necessaries of the barbarians, yet this not serving thy turn, thou runs to old histories which thou calls ecclesiastical records, and saith they for 1500 years do testify the same, but yet doubting of this, thou sayest as thou said before, it sufficeth you that there is no law nor command of god, to the contrary; nor are examples thou sayest needful for every thing; as to prove that christ called any shoemaker or cobbler to be a prophet. reply. but here again thou hast marked out thyself to be a false prophet, who runs, and the lord never sent thee, and therefore thou teachest for doctrine the traditions of men; for the which thou hast no scripture & therefore runs to old stories, to which i am not to give any credit, be they never so old, being they are not according to scripture, (and therefore not ecclesiastical) for the oldness of the thing doth not make it truth; though you have long thereby deceived the ignorant. and as for that scripture which thou quotest in acts 28.1.9. then paul was a prisoner, and he and the soldiers that kept him and the rest of the people, was driven there by storm upon the sea, so that in that cause the barbarians took pity of them, and received them; but there was many besides paul, and the centurion, to whom paul was committed, was to take care of him, and also that which the barbarians did was freely, and that which nature bond them to, being they was in that straight; which was done to many besides paul, who were heathen, so that this doth not at all stand for thee, who art in thy own country, and yet takes all thy tithes and maintenance of the world by compulsion: neither will this excuse serve to shelter you hirelings and deceivers, to say that there is no law nor command of god to the contrary; for it is false; for christ commands his ministers expressly, freely to give, as freely they had received; and also charged them where they was not freely received, levit. 25.14. mich. 1.2. to departed thence, shaking off the dust of their feet, as before is proved, and also oppression is the law of god against, and to take the tenth, or increase of the fruits of the people's labours, is a sore and great oppression which the land groans under, and therefore a sin, and yet the gift doth so blind your eyes, that you cannot see all this, but thinks, because there is no scripture for you, therefore none against you: and though there needs no example to prove any shoemaker or cobbler to be a prophet (as thou confessest) though in scorn,) for it is a thing that none doth, who understands the scripture, being there is sufficient proof, that he called other tradesmen; yet there is a need, that you might find so much as a scripture proof, or example, for your tithes and maintenance, (who profess it to be your rule) being it is a great oppression of the land; and yet sayest thou, it doth suffice you, that there is no law or command to the contrary: therefore this shows your avaricious minds, who are so willing to be blind in this things; but it will not, neither doth so easily suffice those that are oppressed by you, though you regard it not, according to the prophet ezekiel's words, you seek for the fleece, and regard not the flock, but make a prey upon the sheep: and so with this stop thy mouth, and own thyself amongst the false shepherds and hirelings, ezek. 34. john 10. whether ever they had a set maintenance, que: 13. or so much a year for preaching, as 40.60.100. or 200 l. as thou, and such as thou hath. and in thy answer, p. ans. i thou canst not bring one scripture for thy rule, to prove this your common practice, but flees to the records, that thou sayest are to be found in several parts of christendom, (as thou calls it) where i do not intent to seek for them, to see whether these things be true or no, which thou speakest of them; but as i said before, will conclude them to be false in this thing, being the scripture is altogether against it, so that thou canst not find one scripture to justify it; but sayest, if we say where do you read of this in the scripture; thou answers as far off again to the same purpose still, without any scripture proof, and therefore i shall leave it for any understanding reader of thy book to judge, and see how weak you are, if you had not a law of man to uphold you, who have not one scripture that will strengthen the foundation of your ministry, which is your maintenance: then how have you deluded the people to make them believe, that the scripture is your rule, when it is altogether against you, let the honest hearted judge. and whether such be not the hirelings which cares not for the sheep yea or nay; que. 14. and whether such be not the greedy dogs which the prophet isay freely declared against isay 56.11. and makes a prey upon the sheep, which ezekiel declared against, ezek 34. and are the ravening wolves which jesus christ declared against, mat. 7.15. and are such as through covetuousness, makes merchandise of the people, which peter a minister of christ declared against, 2 pet. 2.3. and such as go after the error of balaam, for gifts and rewards, which judas a servant of jesus christ, cried woe against, judas 11. and in thy answer, p. ans. after many excuses thou plainly confessest, thou canst not justify all of your calling, and therefore thou wilt answer for thyself; and first thou sayest, thou art none of these hirelings; for he is not an hireling which takes the wages allotted to him for his work; for than thou dost accuse kings & governors to be hirelings, who takes tribute and custom, yea and the apostles and christ himself, which to prove, thou quotes 2 cor. 7.8, and luke 8.23. but thou confessest, that he is one, that sets his heart upon the wages only, and delights not in the work, but is weary of the same, and longs for the shadow or rest, which to prove, thou quotest job 7.1.2, 3. reply. here, thou impudent liar, for all thy shuffelings and thy cover, thou canst not hid thyself, but out of thy own mouth shalt be judged, though thou here plainly denies thy brethren, and thinks it enough to answer for thyself, thy cause is so bad; for thy wages is not allotted by god, neither haste thou any scripture rule to prove them, (as is before proved) and therefore it follows, that thy heart is set upon thy hire; for which sake thou undertakes that work which thou professest, and it is for thy hires sake, that thou art not weary of thy work, or else thou wouldst not own that which is so contrary to the scripture: so that thou canst not bring one scripture proof for this thy practice: and, that it is thy hire that thou delights in, is sufficiently apparent, by thy thus gaping for it, and seeking to defend it, though altogether contrary to scripture: and as for the work thou and thy brethren professeth, you are as idle in it as you can, so that you can but hold up the world's custom, and blind the people that still you may rule over them by your means, and thus it may plainly be seen, wherein is your delight, and so out of thy own mouth judge thee to be neither conscionable nor faithful, who art not ashamed thus to seek to justify thyself in thy deceit, when as thy own mouth confesseth that it is not a liberal maintenance, and that thou canst take it and plead for it: and therefore this scripture which thou quotest, in job. 7.2. shall stand and witness against thee, who as a hireling agrees with the people for so much a year, and as a hireling looks for thy wages at the years end, but of thy work there is no profit to any, and so with the shadow thou deceivest them for gain which doth so blind thy eye, that thou thinkest all are like thee, though they take that which is freely administered to them for their temporal necessities; which is not agreeing with the people, for so much a year, and to take it by a law whether they will agree with you yea or nay; which weapons christ or his ministers never made use of, and therefore thou liar how dar'st thou to accuse christ or his apostles to take wages for their work? did christ heal the sick or the diseased, and the lame, and the blind, or teach the people, for money or wages? oh thou blasphemer for ever stop thy mouth from nameing his holy name who doth so slander him: well mayst thou accuse and slander his servants and messengers, which so impudently dost it to him, who is our lord and master: but as for paying tribute, 3. to kings and goverours in their places it is allowed of by scripture, which thine is not, and they are set about temporal affairs and are the ordinance of god for that purpose, for to govern and protect the people in bodily peace and quietness, which if they neglect, will be laid to their charge: but thou and thy brethren pretend to spiritual affairs, and therefore are to have your rule and example from christ and his ministers who was set about spiritual affairs, the which thou canst not but would creep into any hole, to hid thyself and thy brethren from the light, but by it are you found out, and seen, to be the deceivers who out of the doctrine of christ are found, and therefore not to be owned nor received. and secondly thou sayest, thou art no such greedy dog, p. ans. whatsoever foulmouthed curs do bark to the contrary; for thou sayest, thou contents thyself with thy legal salary, which yet thou sayest is not contrary to evangelical, (wherein thou hast already been proved a liar sufficiently.) here thy foul mouth thou hast opened wide, who accounts the prophet isaiah, reply. a foul mouthed cur, who this language first did speak unto the false prophets, in whose steps thou art found, and therefore unto thee the same language belongeth, who seeks for thy gain from thy quarters as they did; and what hast thou else manifested but greediness of gain all along, isay. 56. who rather than thou would yield thy error in it (though thou couldst not produce one scripture that would stand for it:) yet thou runnest to old histories & records, thereby to maintain it, contrary to scripture: therefore with shame & confusion of face might thou say, thou contents thyself with thy legal salary, who hast nigh 300 l. by the year, and yet thou wouldst have more, if thou couldst get it, thou art so greedy, as may be well understood by thy saying: that in former time, that the bishops and pastors had not only a settled maintenance of that value, but of a great deal more, which is an unheard off thing in all the scripture, and therefore thy own mouth confessed, what greedy dogs you priest have been since your beginning, & yet with the deceit of thy heart thou wouldst still cover; but the day doth make you manifest, to be such who run, and the lord never sent you; and therefore you profit not the people at all: therefore what is thy teaching and warning of the people which thou here boasts of, and therefore art found one of the dreamers, and studiers, and mutterers, who speaks a divination of thy own brain, and not from the mouth of the lord, and so feeds the people with wind, and air: therefore silence thou deceiver, for going about to excuse thyself from these things, as if thou wast more holy than thy brethren; for in so doing, thy lying and hypocrisy doth but the more appear; and therefore this shall serve to prove thee a liar in all the rest of thy excuses, and it is not uncharitable, nor censorious to tell thee so, though thou so accusest me; but a lie in thy mouth is no wonder. whether ever thou laboured with thy hands, to make the gospel free, and without charge, qu. 15. as paul a minister of the gospel did. and in thy answer thou dost not at all resolve my querie; but shufflest too and fro to hid thyself, p. ans. and excuse thyself by pleading paul's power, in 1 cor. 9.6. and sayest that christ your master did not enjoin you so to do, which to prove thou quotes luk. 10.7. and deut. 25.4. and also pleads that in 2 tim. 2.4. and also pleads a liberty by the counsels and synods in the church in former ages, etc. yet all this doth not prove, that ever thou laboured with thy hands to make the gospel free and without charge, reply which any who reads these scriptures may see and by thy silence in the same judge thee guilty and to be out of the apostles practice: and therefore these scriptures will witness against thee, (which thou hast quoted) for thou art not as paul and barnabas was, neither waist called to the ministry as they was, neither preachest freely as they did, neither labourest with thy hands as paul did, but only makest a trade and a gain of the apostles words for thy own ends: and therefore what hast thou to do, to mention christ or his ministers who art so plainly found out of their practice, or to call christ thy master who art thyself called master and so robs him of his honour, and art not in his doctrine, (who saith, be not ye called masters) and so art none of his, and therefore hast nothing to do with that liberty which he hath given to his faithful labourers whom he himself hath called into his vineyard: and as for that scripture in luk. 10.7, it is not against labour, but for labour before thou canst have thy hire, but thou wouldst have it and be maintained in idleness by others labours as the clergy men (as thou callest them) in england are, who are no ministers of christ who are called of men master, and so are out of his doctrine in the steps of the pharises whom the woe is unto, and therefore in this these, counsels and synods (as thou call'st them) in your church in former ages have acted contrary to scripture, in ordaineing that you should not work, and labour with your hands for yourselves and your families, but that you should live in pride and idleness, by the sweat of others brows, to be maintained as you are: which ordinance is not of god but of man by which you stand, and how hast thou before falsely accused me for not working, though i am not chargeable to the world, and now thou art striveing by scripture wresting and false applying and all the ways thou canst, for to excuse thyself from labouring with thy hands, as the apostle did, though thou and thy family are altogether chargeable to the world. all which scriptures shall stand against thee, for they all maintain working before the benefit of the work come to them, be it spiritual or temporal, for the ox treads not out the come without labour: but what corn have you clergy men trodden forth? and what spiritual things have you sown? and what gospel you have preached, this many years in england? doth not the fruits of your ministry condemn you, and witness against you, to be such as run, and the lord never sent you, and so the curse follows you and is upon your ministry, and therefore profits not the people at all, but as drones lives upon the painful labour of others, yea though you do not labour with your hands yet who more entangles themselves in the affairs of this world, than you that calls yourselves clergy men both by law and cunning craft and deceit, and bargaining and oppressing thereby, to make yourselves rich with the things of this life, yea what thing is there in this nation to get riches by, (though never so unbeseeming spiritual men) but you have a hand in it, and therefore none of those spiritual soldiers which paul speaks of, in 2 tim. 2.4. therefore silence thou deceiver for meddling with the scripture, with thy babylonious language (as prohibit, mechanic, synod, and clergy) which are the words of man's wisdom, and contrary to the plain language of the scripture, out of which thou art shut, in babylon where thou wast bred, with thy clergy as thou callest them. whether thou dost not walk in the steps of the scribes and pharises who art called of men master or doctor, and hast the chiefest seat in the synagogues, que. 16. and uppermost rooms at feasts and greetings in the markets contrary to the practice of the apostles, and so art under the woe which christ pronounced against such, yea or nay? and here thou wouldst shuffle off with questioning instead of answering, and sayest, p. ans. what if christ gave the name of master to nicodemus, john. 3.10 and luke the name of doctor to gamaliel in act, 5.3.4. and thou sayest, is it then the giving or taking of these names, which christ forbiddeth or the arrogant using of them, out of an high or proud spirit that desires to be idolised? and thou confessest the word rabbi signifies doctor or master, which names thou sayest was familiarly given both in the old and new testament, which to prove thou quotes, eccles. 12.11. eph. 4.11. 1 cor. 12.28. reply. the 89 and 90, que: are answered in this reply; and thy 92 query also. here thy blindness doth appear, and thou wilt need no other proof against thee but thy own words, though here thou wouldst go about to slander christ, and his apostles, whom thou art not worthy to name, neither dost thou thereby answer my query, but would justify that which christ cried woe against, & therefore a minister of antichrist art found to which the woe belongs for that scripture in john 3.10. doth not prove that christ called nicodemus master, as thou wouldst feign slander him, neither doth that, act. 5.34. prove, that luke gave gamaliel the name of doctor, but in way of declaration what he was accounted amongst the jews, as any that reads with understanding may see: yea thou thyself canst not deny it, but that thou wouldst be glad of any thing to shelter thy deceit; but christ expressly forbids his to be be called master, and therefore it is concluded that you take these names unto yourselves, from an arrogancy and pride of spirit that you might be idolised as is well known, how you swell and are puffed up in wrath and rage, if you be not so called by those you account your inferiors; or else you would not own it, being christ hath so expressly forbidden it, to his ministers; and you professing yourselves to be his ministers; & the word minister signifies servant; & paul, who was his minister said he made himself servant to all, but you would be masters over all, 1 cor 9.19. bearing rule by your means though hired as servants, yet more unreasonable & unjust, for you will have it of them you do no work for: and also whatsoever thou sayest doctor or master signifies, christ hath forbidden it, and therefore in useing of it thou art out of the doctrine of christ, and the woe is unto thee, and the more for wresting the scripture to maintain it, and uphold it which christ hath cried down, and it is well known to them that are not wilfully blind, that master or doctor are names that are given and taken, amongst you clergymen (as you call yourselves (as titles of honour; witness your degrees in your nurseries of deceit, (which you call universities) as first bachelor, then from bachelor to master of arts, and from that to bachelor of divinity and from that to doctor of divinity; which highest title is given to thee, and therefore it is no wonder that thou so pleads for it, but the least child of light, will judge these traditions to be upheld by the pride; and arrogancy of the flesh that would be idolised, but the old man must needs plead for his life: neither doth these scriptures in, eph. 4.11. and 1 cor. 12.38. at all advantage thee, for neither doctor nor master is mentioned in these scriptures, and thus thou art ignorant of the letter, then far unfit to be a teacher of others which thou dost assume to thyself by the name of doctor, according to thy own meaning. and as for the chief seats in the synagogues and uppermost rooms at feasts, p. ans. some thou sayest that are worthy, were allowed them by christ himself which to prove thou quotes, lnk. 14.7.8. etc. mark. 5.22. and by luke, ast. 13.15. and chap. 18.8.17. and as for salutations they are allowed thou sayest, as well in the market places as any where else. this is the truest word that thou hast yet spoken in one respect, though from a false spirit: reply. for your heathenish customs and salutations, are allowed-of no where, by the scripture, neither haste thou brought any proof to the contrary, and it is also easily discerned, you rather choose them in the markets, or in pudlique to be seen of men, that you might be accounted courteous, and looked upon for your breeding, witness your congying and bowing, with your hats off in admiration, and idolising of one another's persons, wherein you exalt yourselves above the angel, who would not suffer john to bow unto him, rev. 22.8.9. but said, he was his fellow servant: therefore let this judge you and condemn you in these practices, which by you are used from an ambitions and an in ordinate desire of them, and therefore are the most unworthy as thou confessest the scribes and pharises were, and therefore art out of thy own mouth judged, 1 john 5.19. although thou wouldst cast it upon the quakers as thou callest them, but we can justly clear ourselves and cast it into thy own bosom for we use no such heathenish customs, yet we can justly say with john, we are of god, and the whole world lieth in wickedness, which thou accounts an exhalting of ourselves, and in that thou beliest christ and the scriptures in saying he allowed these things to any (which he cried down) thy impudence doth the more appear that thou wouldst not stick to belly us, whom thou callest quakers, for none of these scriptures which thou quotes, to uphold the chiefest seats in the synagogue & uppermost rooms at feasts, doth at all concern the matter, but only luk. 14.7. etc. which christ spoke as a parable to the pharises, who loved the uppermost rooms at feasts; which also may fitly be applied to you now who take the uppermost reome, how thy 9th query is answered. mat. 20.25, 26, 27. jam. 12. john 13. john 5.44. and thinks scorn to take the lowest, which may easily be discerned by you, with an impartial eye, or else you would not own these things, which christ declared against, to his ministers, and also taught them that he that would be the greatest, should be the least, and the apostle forbids all respect of persons, and christ shown an example of humility to his ministers, when he washed their feet, and condemned the pharises who received honour one of another, which thou art here pleading for: then if thou be'st not in their steps, let the understanding judge. what is the church and whether it be not a delusion to the people, que. 17. and a dishonour to christ to call a house of lime and stone, a church? and in thy answer, p. ans. thou pleadest it a custom in most ages, and by a trope of figure; but thou confessest the word church is first and properly a congregation of saints, or of such as profess so to be, as in 1 cor. 1.2. and in the second place thou sayest, this word is used for a place where such a congregation use to assemble; which to prove thou quotes; cor. 11.22. and ver. 18. and chap. 14.5.23. compared with ver. 19.28. neither is this any delusion to the people thou sayest, nor more dishonour to god, then to use this phrase, the house of god; which to prove thou quotes, isa. 60.7. and eph. 42.4. therefore here we seek a knot in a bulrush, thou sayest. and thus thou blasphemer values thy blasphemy covering it with lies, reply. that thou might still keep the people in blindness who makes such a small light matter of it, to put a house of lime and stone for the body of christ which is the church, and thus you have long fed the people in blindness with your vain customs and traditions, and they put you out of your customs, col. 1.24. and you are vexed and troubled, as the heathen was at paul and silas, and said they came to turn the world upside down: and then, to cover your blasphemy and lies, act. 17.6. you have tropes and figures, which is the wisdom of man to cover lies; and thus you learned ones make use of your learning to make lies in hypocrisy contrary to the scripture, for the types and figures in the scripture figured forth something to come, but your steeple houses are no figures of christ, nor his body (which is the church) and when the substance is come, of what use is the figure? for the temple which god commanded solomon to build him, which was called the house of god, (where them that feared the lord worshipped him) was a figure of christ, but when christ the substance came he prophesied of its destruction, math. 24. and steven after him declared against it, and by them that upheld, it was stoned to death, act. 7.47.48.49. &c: and paul declared against it and by them that upheld it, was persecuted, acts 17.24.25. acts 19.26.27. as we are by you now, that uphold your idols temples, that figure forth nothing but the imaginations of man, neither was ever commanded by god to be built, as solomon's temple was, which for its time was called the house of god; but the prophet isay saw the end of it, when he spoke that in isay 66.1, 2. but that you should call your popish houses, the house of god, which was built by the papists, and such like, without any command of god, thou hast no scripture proof to maintain it: neither are those fit examples to bring to prove it, as the scholars and the school, and the jews and their synagogues: what doth this at all prove, that you should call your idols temples as the body of christ, which was made of living stones, elect and precious; for the scripture all along witnesses, that the church is the body of christ, which is the saints, as this scripture doth witness, which thou hast quoted in 1 cor. 1.2. but it doth not at all prove thy lie, that the church is a congregation of such as profess to be saints; for it is more than a profession, though with a profession you have long deluded the people: yet many there are that profess christ in words, but in life deny him, who are no saints, nor the church of christ, tit. 1.16 though thou art blind, & sees no difference: yet according to thy own meaning, you do not call your assemblies, and the place where your assemblies meets, all one; for you call your meeting places churches, and the people a congregation; and so here out of thy own mouth thou art judged, yet it would be as much blasphemy, to call your people a church, as the place where they meet, a church; for it is well known, that all manner of unrighteous persons meets there, as thou confessest the greatest part of the professors are earthly minded, as in thy answer to my 11th query; and i am sure the chiefest of them are blind, and led by customs and traditions, as thou here makes it appear, who thyself hast been a teacher so long, and now goes about to justify it lawful, to call a house of lime and stone, a church, which thou goest about to prove, by wresting the scripture; but let any with a single eye, read these scriptures, which thou hast quoted in thy answer, concerning the church, 1 cor. 16.19. col. 4.15 act. 20.16. and see if they do at all mention any house to be a church; but only the saints whose bodies are the temples of the holy ghost; for they commonly met in dwelling houses; but you call none churches, but your steeple-houses, which hath been your custom long; and it is well known, how the ignorant people that go to them, have long idolised them as the houses of god, and looked upon them to be far more holy than any other place, and have envied and hated, and even murdered those in their hearts, that should say to the contrary, and you priests have been their great agents in it, though you have known in your consciences to the contrary: yet you know, that where the people are the most blind, you are the more idolised and set up; and it is your greatest grief, where the light appears, as is openly manifest by the chief priests, who now rage and rail against the light, where it appears, and persecutes them that holds it forth, that you might, if it were possible, put it out, and still uphold your father's kingdom, which is in darkness, and then you think you are safe, and all will be yours; but your calamity will come on a sudden, and your downfall is nigh at hand, 1 thes. 5.2.3. whether thou, and such as thou, be not the creepers into houses, que. 18. who would confine all to your steeple-houses, yea or nay. and in thy answer thou grants, that paul speaks of seducers, that creep into houses, etc. as in 2 tim. 3.6.7. but whether this best suits with your manner of teaching, or ours, thou sayest, judge ye; for thou sayest, you do not creep into the churches, who have the doors set wide open, and have your congregations or assemblies publicly called together by a bell, and then thou vents forth a deal of frothy stuff, and sayest, why must your houses of lime and stone be called steeple-houses, more than the glaziers' hall, or the bull and mouth near aldersgate, be called a glass-house, a chimney-house, or a storehouse, or a stable-house; but thou askest, where did christ or his apostles reproach the synagogues with reproachful names, as we do your churches. here thy malicious and scornful spirit is much more made manifest, reply. together with thy folly and ignorance, so that i am able to judge thee, and the rest of the parish preachers, to be those creepers into houses, that paul there speaks of, 2 tim. 3.6.7. who have led silly women and people captive these many years, full of sin, and led away with divers lusts, who some have learned 40. years, some 50. some 60. yea some 80. and yet strangers to the truth, yea as blind and carnal as ever they was, so that they take a house of lime and stone for a church and a house of god, as you have taught: and ask them why they call it so, and they will answer, it was called so before they was born, and will be after they were dead: then judge ye, whether these creatures be not blind and carnal, and led by your own customs and traditions, and you are their teachers, who would bear rule in your steeple-houses, so that none shall speak but yourselves: if they do, you have a law to lay upon them, contrary to the order of the true church, as in 1 cor. 14.30, 31, 32. that all might speak one by one; and if any thing be revealed to him that stands by, let the first hold his peace; but this is called disorder amongst you, that call yourselves saints, and are not, but the synagogue of satan; and by thy own confession are led together by a bell; for which you have no rule in the scripture, and so you lead them by custom and tradition; and also thy own words here proves what i said in my last reply, that you do not call your assemblies, and the place where your assemblies meets both by one; for here thou callest the place a church, and the people the congregation, as i said before; and thou blind guide, where dost thou read in the scripture of church-doores be ashamed and blush, thus to presume in thy blasphemy; and therefore how soever thou have taken these houses to be, wherein deceivers creeps, as before is proved, and have taught the people so, to put them out of jealousy of you to be the deceivers, doth not at all excuse you from it; for the apostle himself taught in private houses and chambers, and private places; act. 20.20. and therefore by that account, thou would tax the apostle to be a deceiver, if he was here, as thou dost james parnel, and those whom thou scornfully calls his gang: but where dost thou find such a word in the scripture, which proceeds out of thy malicious and evil heart; but thy reproaches unto us are riches, (and thy shame.) and the reason why those houses near aldersgate (which thou so spits thy venom at, because the people of god have used to meet there,) may not be called (as thou in contempt dost term them) as well as your stone-houses be called, steeple-houses, is, because they have names fitting for them already, for to distinguish them from other places; and so also the word steeplehouse, is the fittest name to distinguish your meeting places from others, and also to take from them that holy name, which only belongs to the body of christ, and also to wear out that idolatry of the people's minds, which they through long custom have born to those idolatrous places: neither do we any more reproach them in so saying, than christ and his apostles did, in calling the jews meeting places, synagogues, though thou highly dishonourest christ in calling them churches, which signifies his body: have you no other names to bestow upon your stone houses, and high places; but most blasphemously to call them by the name of god's, and holy men, whom you are not worthy to name, as you call your colleges, (which are synagogues of satan, and cages of unclean birds,) by the name of immanuel, and by the name of christ and trinity, and the like: if you had called them by the name of glaziers' hall, or bull and mouth, or synagogue, and the like: we should not gainsay it, and therefore in this, the jews will condemn you, who did not presume to call their meeting places, by such holy names, as you presumptuously do, which is, and hath been a great provocation of the people to idolatry, to idolise the places, because of their names which was given to them by the papists, who ignorantly worship names, and you cast out the papists for idolatry, and yet upholds their idols: therefore woe unto you blind guides, and deluders of the people, your wickedness is had in remembrance before the lord. whether it was the practice of the apostles, to take a text of the prophet's words, que. 19 and from thence to raise uses, points, traills and motives, as thou and such as thou dost, who makes a trade of their words. and in thy answer, p. ans. thou sayest, that it hath been the practice of the church and her teachers this many hundred years; (for the which thou hast no scripture proof) and thirdly, thou sayest, that none will deny, that this is an useful and profitable way of teaching, (which is an abominable lie, which i, and hundreds more can testify against) and fourthly thou sayest, it may be proved out of the scriptures, that all this hath been done by christ and his apostles, (which is another lie; and those are the scriptures upon which thou wouldst ground thy lies, in which they will witness against thee, as luk. 4.18. and mat. 22.31. act. 8.35. and for to maintain thy uses, points, trials and motives, thou quotes rom. 15.4.2 tim. 3.16.17. john 8.31. and 13.35. and matth. 25.34. oh thou liar, reply. thy lies will not cover thee, nor the scripture stand for thee, who art found out of the life and practice of them that gave them forth, who art one of the lying false teachers, who have deluded the people this many hundred years, col. 2.8. which deluded one's are your church, amongst whom you have used your philosophy, and vain deceit, by which you have long spoiled them, so that the greatest part of the professors therein are earthly minded, by thy own confession; and i am sure that another part are drunkards, and swearers, and adulterers, and scoffers, and scorners, and proud and envious ones, and the like; and now where is the fruits and profitableness of your teaching? therefore for shame stop thy mouth for boasting of your church, and her teachers, and saying, none will deny the profitableness of your teaching; for, like people, like priest, hos. 4.9. 2 tim. 4.3. as the prophet said; and you are the heaps of teachers, that deceive the world, and draw itching ears after you, (who cannot endure sound doctrine) with your feigned enticing words of men's wisdom; but the teacher of the true church is but one, which is its head, even christ, who speaks with power and authority, (and not as you scribes) whose teaching is a profitable teaching, as is much witnessed in these latter days, mat. 7.29. to your great shame and grief, who have been the professed teachers of the church of england, this many years: neither doth any of these scritpures prove, that ever christ or his apostles took a text of scripture; and by humane art and study, did raise uses, points, trials and motives, as you do, which is a commendable teaching, 1 cor. 1.18. 1 cor. 2.4 by the wise ones of the world, who know not the wisdom of god; but to them the preaching of the cross is foolishness, as was accounted amongst the greeks, because the apostle came not with enticing words of men's wisdom, (as you do to please men) but in plainness of speech, spoke the word of the lord faithfully, and also said, if he yet sought to please men, he should not be the servant of christ; gal. 1.10. but this is all your care, whose trust is in man and not in christ: and in all those scriptures, when christ or his apostles spoke of a text of scripture, out of the old testament, it was to show the fulfilling thereof, or to witness to what they had said; but you will take these scriptures, for to give your carnal meanings, and interpretations of them, and so from them speak a divination of your own brain, for gain and lucre; and this is the use you make of these points, as thou calls them, which the scriptures before mentioned will not at all maintain, and yet thou canst impudently quote this scripture in mat. 6.25.34. which forbids taking thought what to eat, what to drink, and wherewithal to be clothed, when it is so publicly known, that it is your greatest care, and that which thou hast been here much labouring to maintain all along, to prove it lawful, for thee to take nigh 200. or 300. pounds by the year, of the world: yea and for a law to compel them, if they refuse to give it; and yet thou art not ashamed to say, that thou dost not go in the way of balaam, for gifts and rewards; and the chiefest scripture which thou hast here quoted, will witness against thee, as 2 tim. 3.16, 17. which saith, the scripture was given by inspiration of god, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, and instruction in righteousness, that the man of god may be perfected, throughly furnished unto every good work; but thou hates to be reproved, and calls them foulmouthed curs, and the like, that do reprove thee, and thou teachest for doctrine, the traditions of men, as to call a house of lime and stone, a church and the like, as is before proved. and how have you by all your doctrines, reproof, correction, and instruction, this many years perfected any, when as the professors therein are earthly minded (as thou sayest; p. ans. ) and you that are therefore teachers the most of all, and most of you denies perfection in this life; and though thou with thy tongue profess it; yet in life denies it, which is worst of all, and so i take thee: and though thou hast been so pleading for thy way, yet thou sayest, you would change it for a better, if any can show it you, and make your hearers believe, that it would be more advantages for them, but thou sayest this trade of interpreting the scripture is an old and a good trade, which to prove thou quotes job. 33.23: psal. 10.2, 3. pro. 1.6. act. 8.3. here thou blind guide, reply, thy nakedness is open to the world, and thy hearers may consider it who have looked upon thee as their teacher this many years, and yet thou thyself still to learn which is the best way, when as there is but one true way, than thou who art ignorant of this true way, must needs be in a false way: then how hast thou deluded thy hearets this many years, jer. 32.39. and also belied thyself in thy book? and if the teacher be ever learning, then what must the hearers of such a one be, let the judge; and i believe and know, that your hearers would soon believe the same, if the preachers of truth might have liberty to speak, when they come amongst you: but if any come in that intent, you are ready to set your people upon them to hale them out with force, and also you have a law to cast them into prison, as many of us do witness at this day: and therefore thou liar, the convincing of your hearers of a better way, is not your greatest care, but rather your greatest fear, lest any should be drawn from you, and so your trade come to fail (as thou callest it): but this i know is your greatest care, that any body would show you, a better way to get money by, and also persuade your hearers into it, (or else thou thinks, you are never the better) and then you would leave interpreting the scripture, which now thou calls a good trade, but thou merchant of babylon, where doth any of these scriptures which thou hast quoted, prove or term interpreting the scripture, a trade? though you merchants of babylon, make a trade of it, to get lucre by, and so call it a trade, who think gain is godliness: but well may others accuse you, for making a trade and a gain of the scriptures, while you yourselves confess it, and thus thou wrists the scripture, for thine own ends and paints thy work with scripture, for to make the ignorant believe it is grounded upon scripture: oh be ashamed to take it into thy mouth, to make a trade of it, which was freely spoken forth by the holy men of god as they was moved by the holy-ghost, and thou makes the people believe, it is of some private interpretation, and so thou makes merchandise of the people, and so out of thy own mouth art judged to be a liar, who before denied it. whether thou dost speak as thou art moved by the holy-ghost, que. 20, as they did, who spoke forth the scripture? and in thy answer thou sayst that thou hast answered to this already, p. ans that thou usually dost speak at the motion or assistance of the holy-ghost, thou praises god for it. but thou hypocrite i have also in this already proved thee a liar, reply. 2 cor. 4.4 and thy god to be the father of lies, who is the god of the blind world, in which thou art a blind guide, and an enemy to the holy-ghost, where he is witnessed to rule, and this james parnel and those thou calls his fellows, can discern in thee though thou art blind and cannot them see. what scripture hast thou for sprinkling infants with water on their faces? que. 21 and whether all are christians and in the faith of christ, that are so done by, or what doth it profit? and in thy answer, p. ans. the deceit of thy heart thou utters, so that the simple may easily discern the folly, and also see how thou and the rest of thy brothers, have deluded and bewitched the nation, for thou sayest thou holds not the baptism of infants absolutely necessary but lawful only, and to prove the lawfulness of it thou sayest, it is sufficient, that thou hast no command in the scripture against the sprinkling of infants in the face with baptismal water, but thou sayest thou hast the commandment of governors, & thou art commanded to be subject to every ordinance of man for the lords sake. here the people now may see how they have been long deluded, for thy own mouth utters it, reply. for whenas many of the people of this nation who follow you blind guides, have persuaded themselves through your evil incensing, and leavening of their minds to this day, this to be absolutely necessary to salvation, and that their children could not be saved, if they died without it: and now thou comes to the trial, to prove it, thou confessest it is not necessary, but lawful only, and that is because there is no command of god against it, thou sayest: neither a command for it, but by man; and thus you have long deluded the nations, with your own inventions, for the which you have no scripture, then how is it your rule? here you run besides your rule, teaching for doctrine the commandments and traditions of men, which the scripture is against, and therefore against infant's baptism, math. 15.9. col. 2.22.23. which by thy own confession is but an ordinance of man, here thy 53. que. is answered. but god is to be obeyed rather than man, and you do it not for the lords sake, but for to please man: for the lord doth not require it at your hands, and now all the ignorant people who have been in this bewitched by you, may see your blindness who have long made them believe that it was an ordinance of christ, that their children should be sprinkled (and one of the points of salvation) (as you call them) and now nothing but an ordinance of man, which will not stand for thee neither; for in that thou liest also, to say it is the commandments of thy governor's, for in that they leave every one to the liberty of their consciences, and all laws and ordinances afore time to the contrary are made by this nul and void: and now, doth the holy-ghost teach thee to lie? oh thou liar and blasphemer of the holy-ghost, who said that usually thou speakest by the motion of the holy-ghost, and now art taken in a lie: oh satan is high in thee, and thy wickedness is great, and which dost thou call thy baptismal water, this also is the deceit of thy heart, and that which is not of saith is sin, rom. 14.2▪ therefore infant's baptism: for you say your faith is grounded upon scripture, then where is your scripture for infant's baptism, and thus out of the doctrine of christ you are found, acting and doing your own works, and therefore the rest of thy pretended answer i shall leave to the impartial reader to judge of; wherein thou hast much manifested thy ignorance and bindnesse, and in vain hast thou quoted any scripture: for if any of it would stand for infant's baptism, than it would be necessary, which thou confessest it is not, and therefore thou serpent why wrestest thou the scripture, thus to uphold that which is not necessary, and where as thou speakest of the promises made in the seed (but that seed is not the seed of the serpent, which rules in all you children of disobedience, therefore) what hast thou to do with the promises, and where dost thou prove that infant's baptism is the seal of the covenant or the badge of the kingdom, as thou termest it: but thou liar, read what the seal is, in eph. 1.13. and with that stop thy mouth. and whereas thou speakest of christ's calling little children, here thy 54, and 55. qu. is ans. john. 4.2 eph. 2.3. john. 3.3 what of that? christ baptised none; therefore silence babbler: and how are your children sanctified from the womb, (as thou sayest john was) when as all are by nature the children of wrath, and except they be borne again, they cannot enter, and therefore thou manifests, that your church is made up of unregenerate persons, into which thou sayest they are admitted by water, and 20 or 30 years after they are thus baptised, you preach repentance to them, and this is the cause why the professors therein are earthly minded, as thou complainest, and therefore no christian parents but blind carnal creatures, who thinks it profits their children to be admitted into such a church: and as the children grow up, they show what seal you have given them, which is more like the mark of the beast than the seal of the covenant, and therefore your prayers which thou talkest of, are an abomination and availeth not, and thus hast thou foamed out thy shame and folly, to the sight of all but those who are blind and love to have it so, for here is one of the main points of your religion proved a mere delusion. qu. 22. p. ans. what is the estate and condition of a christian? and in thy answer, thou hast stolen the apostles words, which he speaks concerning this matter, and says, there are three ages, steps, and degrees of christianity; and the first age, step, and degree thou confessest is in christ, and begotten of the father in the hatred of sin, and love of righteousness, and by him brought to the knowledge of redemption, from all iniquity, and renovation in all righteousness. here thou hast destroyed the whole faith of your visible church; for they generally believe, reply. that they shall never be wholly set free from all iniquity, nor be perfect in righteousness, while they are upon the earth; and if this be the lowest estate of christianity, to be in christ, and redeemed from all iniquity, and begotten by the father, and renewed in all righteousness, (which is perfection in righteousness) then by thy own confession none of them are christians, neither thou who art a teacher of them; for thou hast been openly found in sin and iniquity, as in lying, covetousness, lightness, scornfulness, oppression, and deceit, as before is proved; and now thou art again found a liar, in saying, that we know not the first estate of a christian from the last; but we are able to discern thee, yet uncome to the first, and therefore far off the last, although in years an old man: yet a child can tell thee thy confusion, therefore stop thy mouth thou deceiver, and sit thee down and consider, how thou and thy brethren have for this many years deceived this nation, and labour thyself, and repent in dust and ashes, lest the lord in thy destruction make thee an example to all thy brethren-deceivers. what doth the faith which thou professeth, qu. 23. differ from the faith of the hypocrite, and what is the faith of the hypocrite? and in thy answer thou sayest, p. ans. thy faith is a trust in the lord jesus, to be helped up again from the fall, or to be saved from the hand of thine enemies, or of all that hate thee, and so to be renewed; through him, to be enabled to serve him, cheerfully and without fear, in holiness and righteousness before him, all the days of thy life; and thou sayest, this faith brings forth obedience, and purifies the heart, and makes you conformable to jesus, so that thou hopes for no benefit by his death, unless thou diest with him, to all known sins: but the faith of the hypocrite, seeks all ways something by or through christ, than what it should seek, (to wit) the putting off the old man, and the putting on the new, which is created after god in righteousness, and true holiness; and herein thou sayest, doth thy faith differ from the faith of the hypocrite, and perhaps from james parnell. yea it doth, reply. for my faith is, that there is no putting off the old man, and putting on the new, but by and through christ, john 15.5. which is no more than what i should believe: and thy faith which is contrary, is the faith of the hypocrite, which will perish; yea and out of thy own mouth i shall prove it; for by thy own confession, thou art still in the fall, in saying, that thou trustest in the lord jesus, to be helped up out of the fall again: hereby it is concluded, that thou art still in the fall; for if thou wast helped already out of the fall, than thou wouldst have the end of thy hope; but it's like this faith, thou hast professed this many years, and hast been a teacher so long, and yet it hath not brought thee out of the fall; and therefore it is but a borrowed faith, and most of those expressions thou hast stolen out of luke 1.71.72, 73, 74, 75. which hath not purified thy heart from lies and deceit: neither art thou in obedience, or conformable to jesus christ, who abides not in his doctrine, but teachest for doctrine the traditions of men neither art thou dead with him unto all known sins, for this is one to departed from his doctrine, and such hath not god: and this is proved against thee in many things, as in taking thy tithes and maintenance, of the people's labours, which many of them its like do want it themselves, which is a great sin and oppression: and secondly in sprinkling infants which is a great delusion to the people; and many other things which is before proved against thee, which that in thy conscience cannot but testify against. and to prove another word, which thou callest the ingiven and inspoken word thou quotest, jer, 2.1. and 4.11, 13. and to prove another word which thou callest the out spoken word thou quotes, psal. 68.11. and to prove another word, which thou callest the written word of the lord thou quotest 2 tim. 3.16, here thy ignorance of god is not hid, reply. who by thy wit and deceitful wisdom would make four of one: but all these scriptures which thou hast quoted doth not prove any other then one, jer. 23.29. which word was in the beginning by which all things was made, which thou confessest to be eternal powerful and living, and that word which came unto the prophets was as a fire and a hammer to beat the rocks in pieces, heb. 4.12. than was it not powerful and living, and one and the same with that the apostle speaks of which is quick and powerful, john. 1.1 1. and sharper than a two edged sword, and this is the same word of life which the apostles spoke from and published which was from the beginning, 1 pet. 1.23. and this was the same word which was published, which david there speaks of; and by this word was the prophets all begotten and borne again, and this word is invisible, hid from the carnal eye, as thou thyself confessest though in confusion, but that scripture which thou quotest in the 2 tim. 3.16. to prove a written word, doth not mention any such thing; but if thou meanest that the scriptures is that written word, i answer there are many words in the scripture; but the word is but one, of which the scriptures bears testimony. and thus thy ignorance is manifested, and returned into thy own bosom, what is the end of christ's coming and what is the redemption? and in thy answer thou goest about to prove that many-fould which is but one, p. ans. and so runs into thy sundry divisions in thy imaginations: and though thou accusest james parnel, that he knows it not, yet he is able to discern thy confusion, for in one place, thou sayest there is a redemption from all sin, and another redemption from all evil, and this thou calls twofold; and thou sayest there is a redemption from the curse of the law, and another redemption from the guilt of sin, which also thou callest twofold. how many redemptions wouldst thou here make, of one, reply, thou blind guide? can any be redeemed from all sin? and not from all evil, and from the curse of the law, and not from the guilt of sin? and is not all this one, and by one, and fulfilled in one? but it may easily be concluded that thou canst witness none of this; for so long as thou art in the fall, thou art under the curse of the law, and the guilt of sin, as before out of thy own mouth is proved; and they that can witness this redemption, are christians indeed, and cleasned from earthly mindedness: all which thou nor thy church is not, as before out of thy own mouth is proved, but are still in your iniquity upholding the works of the devil, and are not saved from your enemies that are of your own house; neither is the righteousness of the law fulfilled in you, neither is your souls delivered out of the house of bondage, neither is jesus your high priest, who set up yourselves to be priests in his stead, holding up the changeable priesthood which took tithes, and so denies christ come in the flesh and therefore shall be judged by him, whom thou confessest is the judge of the world, all which thou sayest is the end of christ's coming. whether thou wilt own that christ hath enlightened every one that cometh into the world, que. 30. and whether they that know that light need any man to teach them, and whether thou leadest up any under thy ministry, that they need not thee to teach them. and in thy answer thou confessest that christ doth enlighten every one that cometh into the world, p. ans. because the apostle affirms it, joh. 1.9. and secondly thou confessest, that they which have attained to the true knowledge of this light, need not that any man should teach them for they are sufficiently taught of god, thou sayest jer. 31.34. but thou sayest thou deniest that we are so taught, or in such a measure; but thou sayest till that full light shine in you, you may have other helps and teachers which to prove, thou quotest, 2 pet. 1.19.20. etc. but thou deceiver! thou run, and the lord never sent thee, who hath been a teacher of the people, and a professor of the light so many years, and hast not yet brought any of thy hearers to the knowledge of the light; yea thou numberest thyself, amongst them whom this full light doth not yet shine, but stands in need of other helps, and teachers: then, thou hypocrite and dissembler, how shouldst thou teach thy hearers the full knowledge of the light, (as thou sayest they will witness for thee) when as thou thyself stands in need to be taught it, by thy own confession? therefore it may well be resolved, that thou knowest not that christ hath enlightened every one that cometh into the world neither wouldst confess it, but that the apostle affirms it, in that scripture which thou quotest in john 1.9. yea that scripture which thou quotestin, jer. 31.34. doth witness against thee, and thy hearers to be yet strangers to the promises: therefore thou hypocrite how hast thou belied thy own conscience, in saying that thou wouldst bring them to the knowledge of the light, that they should not need thee or any man to teach them, when as that is it, thou openly strivest against; for than thy dianah would bring thee in no gain, which is thy greatest care to uphold, and this is witnessed in thy conscience, for a truth against thee; yea and this scripture, which thou quotest in 2 pet. 1.19, 20. will witness against thee to be a liar of the apostle, for that speaks of the world within which shines as a light in a dark place which thou art not, yet come to know, and therefore thou denies the truth, but i tell thee we are in that measure of light, so that we are able to comprehend thee, and show thee thy confusion, and deceit; therefore silence, from bringing the prophets or apostles for thy proof, for they testify against such as thee, who pretendest to teach others, and to be a guide to the blind, a light of them which are in darkness, and an instructor of the foolish, rom. 2.19.20. and art not yet taught thyself but art dark and blind, and ignorant of the light, and wants instruction thyself: by thy own confession therefore what an impudent liar art thou, who before said thou usely spoke by the motion of the holy-ghost, and guided by an infallible spirit, and now not come to that full knowledge of the light that thou needest no man to teach thee: but the prophets and apostles was come to that before they was made teachers, and they by the effect of their ministry turned many from darkness to light, act. 16.7. eph. 8.5.1 jonn. 2 22.31. que. and brought them to the knowledge of the anointing so that they needed no man to teach them therefore silence thou deceiver, for thy blessings is curses, and therefore profits not the people at all. whether they be not the deceivers, that cry lo here, and lo there, that draw people to look at a christ, in a heaven far off, without them, or at a jerusalem, far off without them, when as they that cannot witness christ in them are reprobates. and in thy answer, thou confessest, p. ans. that they that cannot witness christ in them, are in a reprobate condition: but thou confessest, that thou wilt not say, that all who speak of a christ within them, shall be saved, yet thou grants, that those teachers who points only at a christ without them, or to any other spiritual kingdom of god, then what must be within, saying, lo here is christ, and lo there is his kingdom, may be both deceivers, and deceived themselves for the present. herein thou condemnest thy brethren, reply. to be deceivers, and deceived, who are set up, unpheld, and maintained, by the same earthly power as thou art, who are such as cry all, lo here and lo there without, and wholly draw the people's minds without, from the light within them, that should lead them to the knowledge of christ and his kingdom, incensing them that it is natural, and insufficient; and though thou dost here profess to the contrary, yet art out, of thy own mouth, judged to be out of the state of salvation, who only professest christ within, yet art found as deep in sin and deceit, and as void of christ or his light, as the rest of thy brethren, who art doting without, as before out of thy mouth is sufficiently proved, and so thyself art the greatest deceiver, only the serpent's subtlety more resined; but that thou accusest us, that we cry, lo here amongst the people called quakers, christ a loan is to be found; thou art a liar, and speakest not from an infallible spinit, but from a lying spirit, which many can witness against; yet they that are of god hear, as he that can receive it let him. whether they be not out of the faith of christ, que. 32. that receive honour, or respect persons? and in thy answer thou sayest, men may receive honour, and yet be in the faith of christ, which to prove, p. answ, thou quotest phil. 2.19, 20.2 cor. 6.16, 17.1 cor. 11.1, 2, 3.2 cor. 8.23. and many other which doth not at all concern the matter of my query; yea thou sayest, men may respect persons, and be in the faith, which to prove thou quotest act. 26.25. 2 kings 3.14. psal. 15.4. but thou confessest it is a great hindrance to the faith, and the believing in the true word, for men to seek the honour of men, more than the honour that comes from god, john 5.44. and thou sayest, it is also a blot and blemish to the true believers, to respect the ungodly, that are great and rich in this world, before the true saints that are poor; yea thou sayest, it is a plain denial of the faith, and a good conscience also, to respect persons in doing of justice, whether for favour or reward, exod. 23.2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. all these scriptures which thou hast here quoted, reply. doth not at all justify the earthly honour, which you earthly ones give and receive one of another: neither was these things written to the world, as thou makes use of them; neither did those whom the apostle speaks of, seek after, or receive earthly honour, as you do, who are called of men master, who are set up in the chief seats of the synagogues and love greetings in the markets and uppermost rooms at feasts, and all the earthly honour as may be: all which christ declared against to the pharisees, and judged them to be in the unbelief; in whose steps ye are found, and therefore in the unbelief also: neither doth any such earthly honour belong to any virtue or grace, john 5.4 42, 43, 44 act. 26.31, 32. ast. 24.5. act. 22.22. for christ hath declared against it; but they that honour god, them will god honour: neither doth any of these scriptures which thou hast quoted, justify the respect of persons, which the apostle declared against in james 2. neither did paul respect the person of festus, when he called him noble festus; for in that he did not adore his person, nor bow to, nor worship it; but festus did that which was noble towards paul, and judged him not worthy to suffer bonds according to their law: which few of the rulers of these days will do; but rather will wrest and pervert their law to their own wills, to persecute those that now are in paul's condition, and guided by paul's spirit, and such they now call pestilent fellows, and raisers of sedition, and adjudge them not worthy to live amongst men, though they have nothing more against them, than the heathen had against paul; and notwithstanding, all this doth not justify your adoring, worshipping, and respecting men's person, having them in admiration for advantage sake, yea though wicked corrupt men, though you do not see it, because the gift blinds your eye) for they that are proud and persecuters, are wicked and corrupt, and by such you are set up, upheld and maintained, and therefore adore and worship their persons, having them in admiration, because of this advantage; but the poor saints are both by you and them persecuted and despised, and you join together against them, because they cannot worship the beast and his image as you do; rev. 13.8. and thus out of thy own mouth, art thou judged; and that scripture which thou quotest in james 2. will witness against thee, and that also in exod. 23. for it is well known, that you professed ministers have been the greatest actors ever, in stirring up the rulers to persecute the innocent, yea any in whom the appearance of god was manifested, in testimony against your deceitful ways: and the rulers through favour and respect to you, have and do act in their corrupt wills, contrary to all law or equity against such, and have oppressed the strangers as vagabonds and idle fellows, though the law of the nation allow them liberty, being freeborn in it, which to this day is witnessed in divers places of the nation, which that of god in your consciences will also witness: & such as those deserves neither honour nor respect, but must perish in their iniquity; but in thou accused us to deny deserved honour and respect to be lawful is a very falsehood, for we honour and respect justice, grace, ertue, and all goodness in our hearts; but you that are blind put injustice, for justice, and evil for good, and turn the grace of god, into laciviousness, isa. 5.20 qu. 33. judas 4. wilt thou own trembling and quaking now, yea on nay? and in thy answer, p. ans. thou seems to own it in words, also stealing others expressions out of the scripture, to answer my query; but thy life doth not steal it, neither dost thou own it where it is witnessed, but makes a scoff at it, as before is proved; and thy ignorance of the same may easily be discerned, (in this thy answer) by any who have tasted of the power of god, who are come to the earth's trembling and quaking; and whereas thou denies to tremble and shake, as john gilpin and others did, comparing them with the man possessed with the unclean spirit, in mark 9.20. and to be a quaker always thou deniest. thou never wast a true quaker yet, reply. as may easily be discerned, by this thy discourse of it, who judgest by reports; and compares the power of god unto an unclean spirit, which power made the devils to tremble in john gilpin, unto which thou art not yet come; though john gilpin from that departed, and followed the deceit, and so was led into deep deceit and imitation, and so gave occasion to such as thee, who wait for occasion to blaspheme the truth, and speak evil of the things thou knowest nothing of, but by reports, which if the true fear of god was in thy heart placed, thou durst not do: therefore thou and john gilpin shall receive your reward, where thou shalt quake for ever, if thou dost not speedily repent, and own the truth which in thy conscience is witnessed: but those others of ours, whom thou accusest, thou dost not nominate; and therefore accusest thou knowest not who: but any such foaming at the mouth, and the like, which thou here speaks of, we do deny, and returns it into thy own bosom, who art foaming out thy own shame. what is the pure religion, and whether in it thou dwellest? 34. qu. and in thy answer, thou hast nothing to say, p. ans. but what thou stealest out of the scripture, from their experience, who spoke it forth, and thou quotest that in james 1.27. which saith, the pure religion and undefiled before god, is this, to visit the widows and fatherless in their affliction, and to keep themselves unspotted of the world, and thou also quotest that in mat. 23.33.38.39, 40. and saith, it is to love the lord our god, with all our hearts, mind and might, and our neighbour as ourselves; and in this religion thou sayest, thou desirest to dwell, and walk, and remain for ever, without being shaken. but thou must be much shaken before thou comest into this religion; for thou hast not yet proved, reply. that thou art yet in it; but these scriptures which thou hast here quoted, will witness against thee, to be a stranger to it, though it is an easy thing for to set down others declarations, when they are before thee; but how dost thou keep thyself unspotted of the world, when as thou art drowned in, and art so greedy of it, that thou carest not how thou gettest it, so thou gettest it, as before is sufficiently proved out of thy own mouth, and hast been all along labouring contrary to scripture, to justify thy taking of gifts and rewards of the world: and how dost thou visit the widows and fatherless, unless it be for thy tithes, or that they have to maintain thee, and so rather to add affliction upon them? or what dost thou do in this kind, but thou hast a selfe-end in it, let that in thy conscience judge thee; and if thou didst love the lord god with all thy heart, thou wouldst not have thy heart so in the earth, thus to delude and deceive people's souls for gain and lucre, and to take away the fruits of their labours by compulsion, (if they will not give it thee) though thou dost nothing for them, as before is proved against thee, to thy shame and confusion of face; and thus thy heart is adulterated from god into the earth, 1 john 2.15. and the love of god abides not in thee, who art in love with the world; and thus thou loves thy neighbour as thyself, when for selfes-sake thou wouldst destroy him both body and soul; and thus i need no other weapon to cut off thy head, than what thou thyself bringest. what is the difference betwixt the jew outwardly, 35. qu. and the jew inwardly, and how shall we know the one from the other? and in thy answer thou sayest, the jew outwardly desires to make a fair show in the flesh, p. ans. or external man, with his outward circumcision or reformation, gal. 6.12.13. in voluntary worship, and not sparing the body, col. 2.23. he observes the lesser commands, & leaves the greater undone, mat. 23.23. & in one point he goes beyond, as thou sayest, he pays tithes exactly; he makes clean the outside of the cup and platter, reply. and makes all foul within, mat. 23.15, 26. etc. and so here is enough to manifest that thou art the man; for here thou hast plainly read thyself, and out of thy own mouth shalt thou be judged, without contending or reviling, as thou accusest us; for thou hast been striving all along hitherto, to set out thyself, and make a fair outside, like a reformation, though the hypocrisy of thy heart thou couldst not thereby hid from the light; and who are more strict in voluntary worship? but you can pamper your bodies, which shows your zeal is not so hot; and instead of observing the lesser commands, and leaving the greater undone: you leave all undone that will not stand for self; and preach up, and uphold these things for commands, for which you have no scripture, and so preach for doctrine the commandments of man, mat. 15.9. as the outward jew did; but if one ask you for your proof for these things, thou sayest, it sufficeth you, that there is no command to the contrary; yea for thyself covetous ends thou art not ashamed to fetch up old commands, (that were fulfilled, and so ended) for a cover for thy deceit; as here also thou wouldst seem to do in accusing us for not paying tithes exactly, as the pharisee did, which i know is the great grief of thee, and thy brethren, because we put not into your mouths; mich. 3.5. and therefore ye even prepare war against us, but when the pharisee said he paid tithes, they was then due; for the priesthood to which tithes belonged, was not yet fulfilled, and therefore not changed, and therefore it was his duty so to do; but you priests have so blinded the pharisees, and professors of these times, that they are so exact in paying you tithes, and putting into your mouths, because you daub them up, ezek. 22.28. crying peace to them, though they have no command from god for it; and you take it as exactly, but you have but few such that you dare trust without a law; for (as thou sayest) the greatest part of them are earthly minded, (like their teachers,) and how hast thou been cleansing thy outside of the cup, as if thou wast unblameable in this outward righteousness, and so holy in thine own eyes, that in words thou professest perfection, and as if thou knewest the highest estate of christianity, and waste in the pure religion without spots, & guided by god's spirit, usualy speaking by the motion of the holy ghost, but even condemned thy brethren, and wouldst not answer for them; but said, thou was none of these hirelings, nor greedy dogs, etc. but yet could not keep thy tongue for uttering forth the foulness of thy heart, which hath overwhelmed thee all along, and out of thy own mouth hast been proved a liar; and thus thou art plainly dealt with, and judged out of thy own mouth; and the scriptures aforesaid, which thou hast quoted, shall stand and witness against thee. but the jew inwardly thou sayest, trusts in the lord christ, p. ans. and hath no confidence in the flesh; but this thou dost not, for than thou wouldst trust him for thy maintenance▪ and not stand in need of the arm of flesh, upon which thou relyest: neither dost thou first make clean the inside of the cup, that the outside may be fair also, as thou sayest, the inward jew doth; but though thou hast been much labouring with feigned words of thy own wisdom, and selfe-justification, to deck and adorn the outside, painting it with scripture-words and expressions, yet thy inside is so foul, that it defiles the outside also, so that it makes thee odious to all but the blind; and manifests thy heart to be yet uncircumcised from sin, and a stranger to the inward cross, by which thou art not crucified to the world, nor the world to thee; for than it would not suffice thee to take the tenth part of the increase of the labour of the labourers, by the will of man, without any command from god, as thou dost, living at ease like a drone upon the same, and therefore thy heart is far off uprightness: all which the jew inwardly, thou sayest doth witness; and thus in a word, thou seest there is as much difference betwixt the one and the other, as betwixt saul and paul, a persecutor and an executor of christ's doctrine and way; and thus in a word, thou hast marked out thyself, and art found out of the way and doctrine of christ, persecuting, despising, and gain, saying those that abide in it; and thus by thy fruits art thou known, as thou sayest, the one may be known from the other; and thus proud goliath, thy head is cut off with thy own sword. whether they that profess themselves the ministers of christ, que. 36. and cannot give account of their ministry and faith, but acts contrary to the scripture, the doctrine and practice of the ministers of christ, and teacheth people so, be not such as abides not in the doctrine of christ, but brings another doctrine, and so are the witches, magicians, and deceivers, antichrists and false teachers, who are not to be received, but denied. and in thy answer thou confessest, p. ans. that they which are truly such in doctrine and life, as this query describes, may be truly termed spiritual witches and magicians, and must be rejected as false teachers, and antichrists. here thou hast passed the sentence unto thy own condemnation; reply, for thou art the man, as sufficiently is proved, both out of thy own mouth, and the scriptures, which thou thyself hast quoted as aforesaid; and so henceforward, let all people take notice, that thou thomas draton of king rippon in huntingtonshire, art a spiritual witch and magician; and they are to reject thee, as a false teacher and an antichrist, as here out of thy own mouth is plainly proved; and this, him thou callest james parnell, doth testify, and deny thee with thy sorcery, ribbons, stones, waters, glasses, powders, charms, and other like enchantments, which thou, who art given up to believe lies, impudently would cast upon him, and those thou callest his confederacy, who abhors all such abomination, and therefore returns it into thy own bosom, from whence it comes. and thus thou sayest by clear scripture and experience, priest. thou hast answered the bold queries, of him who is known to the world, to be out a boy, or stripling. as thou begannest with a lie in thy mouth, reply. so also thou endest with a lie; for by plain scripture, and true experience, thou hast not answered these queries; for in many things thou mayst find no scripture at all in the least to countenance thee, than thou pleadest old stories and records, and saith also, it sufficeth thee, that there is no scripture to the contrary; but thou shalt know, that in any thing that thou dost, in which the scripture will not stand for thee, it will in the same stand against thee; and also when thou didst wrest any scripture for thy own ends, it was made use of to witness against thee in the same; and how hast thou answered by thy own experience, when as thou stole the apostles declaration, and set it down, even word for word, to prove the estate of a christian, when as it was proved out of thy own mouth, that thou art not come to witness in possession, the lowest estate of a christian; and thus thou might have been ashamed to boast of thy age, who art found such an impudent liar, as to say by clear scripture and experience, thou answered these. queries, (which are not so bold as true,) in which all that are not wilfully blind, will witness against thee; and thus him thou contemnest, as a boy or stripling, is made able to cut off thy head with thy own sword; and therefore henceforward, let shame and confusion of face cover thee, for boasting of thy age, who yet knowest not, that the wisdom and power of the almighty, stands not in the number of years, or the arm of flesh; but the righteous are as bold as a lion, prov. 28.1. and now to thy counter-queries, as thou callest him, which for a compeiment, thou biddest me give he leave to propound, but meaned not to stay to know whether i did so or nay. first concerning honour and respect to be given to men. and to the substance of these querie, i answer, that christ himself cries down all earthly honour and admiration, and respect of man's person, and only attolerates the honour that is of god, and cometh from god and belongs unto the seed of god which is not known amongst you children of this world, whose honour and glory is of this world, in whom the seed of the serpent rules head, to which no worship not honour is due, the which all the world wonders after & worship the beast & his image, but none of these scriptures which thou hast quoted, doth at all maintain, your heathenish breeding, worship, honour, manners and respect as you call it, but now he is risen and reigns to whom all nations must bow, to whom alone, belongs all honour, praise, dominion and thanks: therefore silence proud flesh that would go about to rob him, it's you that are offended in him, and persecute him because he cannot bow unto you, and as for that scripture, honour all men, i answer with another scripture which thou hast quoted, psl. 15.4. in whose eyes a vile person is contemned: here all men are not honoured but in the lord, therefore you that abide not in the doctrine of christ, must not be received nor bidden god's speed: and as for that scripture, leu. 19.22. which thou quotest in thy seventh query i answer with solomon's words, wisdom is the grey hair, and an undefiled life is old age: wisd. 4.8.9. and this is not without honour, though by the world condemned. and to thy 9 query, whether standing bare, 9 query. with the head uncovered, before the magistrates be not a decent posture, sense it is a posture that the apostle requires in the behalf of god; which to prove thou quotest, 1 cor. 11.4.5, 6, 7, 8. i answer, no man must be honoured in respect to his person, ans. and the honour of justice and equity lieth not in the putting off the hate, or keeping it on, but it is a heathenish custom, contrary to any scripture rule or example, and therefore not a decent but an unseemly posture, (as thou callest it) for men so to adore one another's persons: and that magistrate that seeks for, or owns such a thing, stands in his own will and is partial, and rules not for god, but for himself, and such god doth not stile as gods upon earth, (as thou sayest) but rather unjust stewards: and thou blind guide read in the 3 verse of the chapter aforesaid, jam. 1.2 and see what is the head of the man: but thy head is the serpent, and according to thy own meaning most of ye priests condemns yourselves in this, who commonly have your heads covered with caps, when you pretend to pray or prophecy. and that scripture, 1 tim. 6.11. which thou hast quoted in thy 10. querie, and rom. 10.10. which thou hast quoted in thy 11. querie, was not spoken to the world, who accounts man in gay clothing, and a gold ring as a superior, and a man in vile and poor raiment as an inferior, and accordingly prefers them & respects them, contrary to scripture, and you leaders cause them to err, therefore wrist not the scripture, for your own ends, lest in turn to your destruction 2 pet. 3.16. whether the pronounce of the second person, q. 12. singular, may not out of the hebrew and greek be as well rendered you as thou, especially since in the plural number, it is always rendered ye & not thee, & the dutch tongue, whence we borrow much of our language hath (you.) here thou son of babylon, ans. who art thy carnal reason in thy languages confused, who stumblest at the plain language (thou:) what is that in thee that cannot bear the word thou, which is the single proper language to a single person, as well as you, which thou confessest is a borrowed language: & thus the hebrews & the grecians & the romans & the dutch will condemn you, who are content with their natural language. whether it hath not been ever accounted rude q. 13. and rustical in this nation for inferior men to speak unto others their superiors by the word (thou) and not you, and also to stand with their hats on, unless leave were given them so to do. thou blind sot, thou hast laid thyself naked to the world (with thy rude and rustical querie) it was never accounted so, but by dives-nature which is swelled with pride and arrogancy, yea that which would be above god, which must come down into the pit: is not god the superior of all, then why do you give unto him that rude and rustical language, (as thou callest it): here thou manifests thyself amongst the heathen, who know not god, who excercise lordship and authority one of another, and so you rule in your own wills, mat. 20.25. and would not suffer your fellow creatures to put their hats on their heads, but as you give them leave, and so are out of the doctrine of christ, with your rude and rustical spirits; and was not (thou) the language betwixt god and adam, and betwixt god and moses, and so all along the scripture to one particular person, gen. 3.11.12. exod. 10 11.12. then whether or nay is thine a rustical proud spirit, that canst not receive the language thou givest unto god: and thus thou hast sufficiently foamed out thy shame: and i am sure now thou speakest not by the motion of the holy-ghost. whether ever christ or his apostles taught us to alter or violate the civil speeches and customs of the nation where we live, que. 14 by which our reverence to others is expressed, and accordingly expected, if not commanded also and thou quotest, 1 cor. 10.32. christ is not your teacher, for out of his doctrine ye are found, in the pride of your hearts, answ. contemning his speech and language, and are not contented with your natural language, but borrows of others, in which custom we are not to follow you, out of the language of the scripture, and so here by thy querie, you express no reverence of god, because to him you use the word thou, which you do account an uncivil speech therefore now see what is that which takes offence, at that which god accepts; it must needs be of proud lucifer, and that same took offence at the apostle, who said give no offenre, yet the truth is a stumbling stone, and a rock of offence, therefore now see how thou stumblest at the noon day: isa. 59.10. thy next is concerning salutations at your meetings with others, or departings from others. unto which i answer, that your heathenish customs traditions and salutations i do deny, and know them to be contrary to scripture: for, saith it, let him that nameth the name of god depart from iniquity; therefore you that are in iniquity do take his name in vain, and make a custom and byword of it, amongst yourselves when you meet with or departed from one another, and so your children learn it at you, and by imitation use his name before they do know whether there be a god or nay. and to that in ruth 2.4. and to that in psal. 1 29.8. which thou hast quoted in thy 15. and 16. qu. i answer, they that there named the name of the lord knew him and that in the psalm will witness against you, that you have nothing to do to name his name, nor to have such words spoken to you, who know him not: and read what god saith to the wicked, in psal. 16. and why call ye me lord and do not the things which i say: but the salutations of the saints i own, who are not by custom lead; luk. 6.46. and to math. 10.12. and luk. 10.5. which here thou hast quoted, i answer that you are no ministers nor messengers of christ, who are found out of his doctrine, therefore peace is not given you to speak, but as false prophets you speak it to that which is for death, because that puts into your mouths; and even prepares war against those that do witness the son of peace. thy next is concerning meat, drink, and apparel. and to thy first query of that, i answer, all the creatures of god are good in their places, and all things for the use of man who dwells in the moderation, but cursed to you, who live under the curse, in the lust, under whom the creation groans, who know not the pure wisdom, that made all things, 1 cor. 10.31. rom. 14.17. to teach you how to use all things, to the glory of god, and therefore are out of the right: and thy 23.24. qu. are here answered, but you are they whose kingdom stands in meats and drinks and apparel, who are taking thought what to eat, what to drink, and where withal to be clothed, math. 6, 15. and to this querie, qu. 22. where hath god enjoined men to drink water, in any part of his word. i answer thou may'st be ashamed to boast of thy age, who askest such a childish querie: i might as well ask thee, where god enjoined men to drink bear, for water is the original of all drinks, for in the days of old, water was the common drink; hast thou not read of jacob's well, where christ drunk, then who art thou that despisest water, it is a sign thou servest the lust, but if any drink water who know the goodness of it, what is that to thee? who enjoins thee to drink water? and in thy 25. querie, thou answerest thyself. and this querie is, whether one may not satisfy the flesh even in over fasting and overwatching the body which to prove thou quotest, col. 2.23. qu. 23. but i perceive thou wilt have a care of that, who hast been pleading so much for the body which is the most thou mindest; thy zeal is not so hot: but they that dwell in the power of god are free from this, and yet know how to keep under the body and not satisfying the last, but you that know not the creator, trust in the creature. and here thou askest, qu. 27. whether are not the saints to sanctify their meats and drinks, by prayer and thanksgiving, before and after they eat and drink, which to prove, thou quotest 1 tim. 4.5. & rom. 14.16. to the pure all thingsare pure, ans. but thy prayers are abomination, who art in the lust; but which of these scriptures maintains your custom after meat; tit. 1.15. but the saints receives nothing of god, mal. 1.2 but with thanksgiving, and glory to god, but your blessings are cursed, and here is thy 28. query answered also. whether the apostles interdiction be absolute against all ornaments, queen 29. or comparative only; and thou hast quoted a scripture in 1 pet. 3.3, 4. which answereth thee: where thou mayst read, what ornaments he approves of, and here thy 30.31.32. query is answered; but moderation in every thing i own, but what is waist is for the lust, both in kings, princes, and great personages, (as thou callest them) but with us there is no respect of persons, neither taking thought, what to eat, what to drink, or wherewithal to be clothed, as the children of this world do, amongst whom thou art found; but our kingdom is not of this world: and israel after the flesh was a figure of israel after the spirit: therefore now read their adorning if thou canst, and remember no creature was made for the lust, though lustful men abuse them. thy next is concerning pride. and thy first question of this is, whether pride doth lie in apparel (though there may be much wastfulness, vanity, and ostentation committed therein) or inwardly, in the heart and mind of the poor, as well as of the rich, and thou quotest mark 7.21.22, 23. the scripture which thou hast quoted, answ. doth answer thy question, where pride lieth; but apparel is a dead thing, and no pride in it, but the vanity and wastfulness (which thou confessest is committed therein) figures forth the pride of the heart; and where riches is, this is shown: (therefore you priests, look at home, and judge yourselves) though poor and rich be both in one nature before the regeneration, eph. 2, 3. whether one of the greatest things, that puffs up the hearts of men, be not knowledge? queen 34. whether it be true or false, and imagined only: and thou quotest 1 cor. 8.1, 2. you that are carnal, and fleshly, ans. are puffed up with your fleshly notional knowledge; and in that yo usteal from others experiences; but the true knowledge of the spirit puffs not up, but judges down that which would be exalted; but this unto thee, is a mystery, because thy knowledge hath blinded thy eye, who art confused in thine imaginations; so read thyself in the scripture aforesaid, which thou hast quoted. whether another thing that exalts a man in pride, queen 35. and makes him despise his brethren (and perhaps, those that are better than himself) be not a conceited & selfe-chosen holiness, seeing such a proud saint is brought in isay 65.5. which thing also (thou sayest) is verified in the pharisee and the publican, luke 18.15. thou hast here answered thyself, with these scriptures, wherein thou mayst read thyself, answ. who thinkest thyself more holy than thy brethren, and would only answer for thyself, and not for thy brethren, though thou art found in the same practices; but thou blind pharisee, he was not a saint, which was spoken of in isay 65.5. but he was a saint, which said, we are of god, and the whole world lieth in wickedness, 1 john 5.19. and here also thy 36. question is answered, with the scripture which thou hast quoted, 1 tim. 3.6. who art a false teacher, doting about questions. and here thou askest whether a young man be not the pronest of all other, que. 31. to be thus seduced and puffed up: and thou quotest 1 tim. 3.6. thy spite is much against youth; but him thou shoots at, ans. thou canst not hit, because thou art blind, and canst not divide the word aright; but thou mayst plainly have readthy self in that chapter aforesaid, and find that thou art the novice who knows not the truth, but despisest the young man, because of his youth, which is contrary to paul, 1 tim. 4.12. and thy next is, to maintain swearing. and thy first query of this is, whether it be lawful now, qu. 31. in the new testament to take an oath before lawful authority, to put an end to controversies, and thou quotest heb. 6.16. this which thou goest about now to uphold manifests thee an enemy to christ and his doctrine, ans. who saith, swear not at all; for saith he, it hath been said in the old time, thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the lord thine oath; but i say unto you, swear not at all, but let your yea be yea, and your nay be nay; for what is more is evil: now here he doth not only forbid false swearing, but also all swearing, mat. 5.33.34. etc. and also the apostle james doth the same, in james 5.12. both which scriptures thou hast quoted in thy 39 query, and so here out of the doctrine of christ, again thou art found in the evil; and all you that cannot believe one another without swearing, and so are more than yea and nay; and what is more is evil, (saith christ:) now read your condemnation, and as for that in heb. 6. there the apostle was speaking by way of comparison, how the lord made a covenant, and confirmed it with an oath, which is christ jesus the everlasting oath, who saith, swear not at all: and the apostle brought a comparison▪ from men in strife and controversy; but this doth not at all maintain swearing now; for strife and controversy is out of the doctrine of christ, and such runs into the swearing, and into the evil, amongst whom thou art found upholding the evil and opposing christ's doctrine, and so art found in the condemnation of the devil, james 5.12. this was not the saints practise; for in the new covenant, neither strife nor swearer is; and thus you leaders cause men to err, by upholding that which christ is against, & here thy 39 query is answered. here thou askest whether paul himself did not swear, que. 40. in these words, 2. cor. 11.10. as the truth of christ is in me, etc. oh thou enemy of truth, that would hear scandal, and accuse paul for swearing, that so thou might uphold swearing: but by what doth he here swear? this is plain language. and thy next is concerning outward material churches, and the public exercises therein. most of these queries are answered in my reply to thy answer to my 17th query, answ. wherein i have declared why i object against your steeple-houses, which thou callest churches. here thou askest if such meetings may not be mixed assemblies, qu. 44. of learned, & unlearned, of believers and unbelievers, and thou quotes 1 cor. 14.23. but the un-believers are not owned by the believers, answ. though he come amongst the believers, as in 2 cor. 6.14. 15, 16, 17, 18. then the ministers are far off, being maintained by unbelievers, as thou art; for though thou confessest the greatest part are earthly minded, and worldly minded: thou yet art maintained by them, and i am sure, they that come into the true faith, which purifieth the heart, come out from amongst you, so that you are not much mixed; for you are all one nature, like priest, like people. and in thy 47. & 48. query, thou askest, if christ and his apostles, did not frequent the synagogues. yea they did, answ. and so do we your idoll-temples; but therein the jews will condemn you, who suffered them to speak, as in that scripture which thou hast quoted in acts 13, 14, 15. which shall stand and witness against you, who will not suffer us to speak in your steeple-houses, but suffers your flocks to hale us forth, and fall upon us like wolves, and your magistrates to hale us to prison; therefore read your condemnation, you persecuters, and thy 49. query is answered already with the other aforesaid. here thou askest, qu. 50. if the prophet did not complain to god, against the profaners, and destroyers of the synagogues, in psal. 74.4, 5, 6, 7. this scripture which thou hast quoted, doth answer thee, but it doth not uphold your idols temples, answ. who worship you know not what, wherein you teach for doctrine the traditions of men, and there are found in the steps of the pharisees, offering up your abominations, as christ marked you out in mat. 6.5. where he meant as he spoke; and all you do there, is for self, and not for god; for he saith, in vain do you worship him, mat. 15.7, 8, 9 and here thy 51. query is answered, but take notice, your steeple-houses are not the houses of god, as before is proved. is it unlawful to call, either baptism, que. 52. or the supper of the lord, a sacrament or obliging mystery? since that name imports no more, and you cannot deny, but that both these are mystical things, and obliging mysteries, to the washing away of sin, and the following of christ into his life & death. is thy baptism now become an obliging mystery to the washing away of sin, answ. which in thy answer to my 21. query, thou said, was not absolutely necessary, but lawful only? can it wash away sin, and yet not be necessary; but this is all thou knowest of that mystery that washeth away sin, or deire after it; for where sin is washed away, this confusion stays not behind. yea i do deny that there is any thing in your sprinkling infants, or your bread and wine (which doth profit) as is manifest by these that receive them of you, who never yet was washed from their sins and pollutions, or ever tasted of the death of the cross; 1 cor. 12.13. but the baptism i own, and the supper of the lord i own; but the word sacrament i deny, for the which you have no scripture, whatsoever thou sayest it doth import. and thy 53.54. & 55. queries are answered in my reply to thy answer, to my 21. query, and thy 56. and 57 queries are answered in my reply to thy answer, to my 25. query. who is there among you who are called quakers, que. 58. or the other sectarians your forefathers, that hath rightly declared the mystery of christ's body and blood in your dissentings from us? since none of you have declared this according to our lord's intent, john 6.33. as for sectarians (as thou callest them) they are in your generation: ans. and art not thou ashamed to call them our forefathers, when as they now join with you against us, yea and in this very thing, wherein they are blind as you are; but the mystery we know, and have declared to the comfort of many a restless soul, who never could find true comfort in your dark and dead forms, as thousands in the nation will witness; and this we have declared according to our lord's intent: therefore thou liar and slanderer, stop thy mouth, and take not his name in vain, and that scripture in john 6.33. which thou hast quoted, will witness against thee, in that thou wouldst uphold: and thy 59 query is answered with thy 56. & 57 and thy next is concerning the present ministers and teachers, and their maintenance. were there no ministers in this nation, qu. 60. that held forth the truth amongst us, till you and your associates risen up? since we have our lords promise, the gates of hell shall not prevail against the church, and, be hold i am with you to the end of the world. what is become then of all your forefathers, que. 61. theirs and ours, who died since the apostles days, till your rising up with a pretended spirit? thou carnal one, answ. hast thou nothing to do, but to raise the dead, to dispute about? but, to answer a fool, i say they are gone, as the just and righteous judge hath disposed; but now he calls all every where to repent, his trumpets are sounding a warning, and there was none that preached for hire, that held forth the truth in the life and power of it, but made a trade and gain of the letter, from it speaking a divination of their own brain, as you do now, and those was your forefathers; but if you had the lords promise, that the gates of hell shall not prevail against you; for the lord will be with you; then what need you a law of man to set you up, uphold you, and maintain you: therefore it follows, the lord is against you and his promises doth not belong unto you, who dare not trust him; and therefore are but pretenders, and this the spirit of truth in us can tell you. if there were some taught of god before you were called, que. 62. why are they not owned by any of you? thou art not one that art so taught; for thou art found out of his doctrine, therefore with that stop thy mouth, and do not belly us: for who receive and obey the truth, we do own, whatsoever they have been, and here also thy 63▪ and 64. query is answered. and thy 65.66. & 67. queries are answered in my reply to thy answer to my 9 & 10th query. ans. is the teaching priesthood to cease, que. 68 till the spiritual melchizedeck come unto us, to bless us after the slaughter of all our enemies, with the heavenly bread and wire, gen. 14.18.19. heb. 2.1, 2, 3. that you say the priesthood of aaron with the law annexed of tithes, is ceased under the gospel. yea, so it is ceased: and those scriptures doth not prove to the contrary but that in heb. 7. doth affirm it, answ. 〈…〉 before proved; but in that you uphold it, in taking tithes, you deny the spiritual melehizedeck; and if that be the teaching priesthood, which thou meanest, it is already ceased, to many who are come to see the end of it; but the gift blind your eyes, and therefore you still uphold it, and lead the blinds into the ditch, and so the woe is to you, and not the blessing; and this scripture in eph. 4.11, 12. etc. doth not at all maintain you, and here also thy 69. query is answered. and thy 70.71.72, & 73. queries are answered in my reply to thy answer to my 14th query. did ever the church of rome cast greater reproaches upon the protestant ministers, que. 74. than you do; and are you not jesuited by some of her emisseries, that you would have them all one with another, rooted out at once; yea can the devil himself desire more in this kind? i see no difference in the ground betwixt the church of rome and you; answ. for they are bloody persecuters, and upheld by a persecuting law, and so are you (who call yourselves protestant's) and therefore no reproaches, to call you persecuters, hirelings, false teachers, and greedy dogs, as the prophets of old called your forefathers, in whose steps you are found, as is before proved; but howsoever, thou with thy lying spirit termest us of the jesuits, both thou and thy brethren have in this been sufficiently proved liars: therefore by the sword of the lord you must all be rooted out, yea ye must all fall together, zach. 13.7. ezek. 21.91.10, 11. he will make a grievous slaughter, from the least to the greatest; for his hand is stretched out against you; and therefore your father the devil bestirs himself amongst you, to stand up for his kingdom; and where did ever the church of rome persecute any, sparing the life, more than you do: therefore let guilt strike you, and put not the devil so far from you, when as he fights for you; ●or. 10.4, ● but carnal weapons we shall not use against you, to root you out, but our weapons are spiritual and mighty through god to the pulling down of strong holds: therefore tremble all ye enemies of god. thy next is concerning the inward light. is there not a false light as well as a true light, qu. 75. & thou quotes, 2 cor. 11.13, 14. thou hast answered thyself with this scripture, and i have already proved that this false light rules in thee, as an angel of light, who art a minister of antichrist, transforming thyself as a minister of christ, but out of their life and practice art found, and therefore guided by a false light, which is an evil eye, and dangerous darkness, so that thou canst accuse others, but canst not see the falseness and deceit of thine own heart, but thinks that thou speakest by the motion of the holy-ghost, when as therein thou hast sufficiently been proved a liar, and thus satan rules in thee, and makes thee believe he is god, 2 thes. 2.4. and here is thy 76, querie answered also, and that scripture which thou quotest in math. 6.23. shall stand and witness against thee. are we not therefore, to try men's pretended light by the law and word of god, and thou quotest isa. 8.20. you neither know the law nor word or god, p. ans. and therefore relies upon the law and word of man, contrary to the law & word of god▪ & yet pretendest to the light & the law and the word of god and so by it art tried, and found to be a deceiver who puts the letter for the word and the letter for the law, both which is within: but according to thy own meaning, thou art out of the light, who attest many things contrary to the law and testimony as before is proved. what may men think of your pretended light, who hate so many of your brethren in the ministry of england? que. 78. and thou quotest, 1 joh. 2.9. the thoughts of man is vain, ans. and wouldst thou have the light tried by that? here thou errs from the law, and from the testimony, and so confirms my former answer: therefore cease thy false accusing, from the evil thoughts of thy heart, for none of my brethren in the ministry of god do i hate: but i deny that thy brethren are mine, mat. 23.35. for you are spring of another seed, and so are become another generation, in which the righteous blood is found shed, and therefore murderers; unto whom belongs this in 1 john 2.9. and chap. 3.15. where you may read yourselves. is there not another light to go before the light of christ, qu. 79. seeing the wise men that came from the east, were guided unto christ by a star? mat th' 2. thy ignorance of christ and his light, answ. thou hast here manifested, and so confirmed my reply to thy answer to my 30. querie, that thou wouldst not have confessed that christ doth enlighten every one that cometh into the world, had not john so plainly affirmed it in, joh. 1. and that thou never yet saw his star, who thinks that it is not his light: therefore thou that wouldst set up another light before the light of christ, art a deceiver and a bringer in of false lights. is not the sure prophetical word, qu. 86. a light that shines in a dark corner, till the true day light arise, in your hearts? 2 pet. 1.19. but it is the light of christ, that leads unto christ the perfect day? ans. which light shines in darkness, and darkness comprehends it not, and therefore thou looks without, john 1.5. for another light before the light of christ. whether the life of christ be not the true light that men are to wait for, qu. 8 1. and wherein the true children of light are to walk? and thou quotest, john 1.4. and eph. 5, 9 thou hast here answered thyself, ans. for his life is the light of men, which they must wait to know within them, to guide them: and thou that wouldst set up another light, before this light, art a deceiver; and this is the light which now is come into the world, testifying against the world, john. 3.19.20. and manifesting you to be the de●●●ers of the world, who have long set up false lights to draw from this true light, the minds of people: therefore now you can no longer hid yourselves from this true light, you stand up to oppose it where it is set up, and some calls it a natural light, and an insufficient light, but it is your condemnation. thy next is concerning prophets and prophetesses whether some men may not be acted with a spirit of falsehood, que. 82. and delusion, even then when they think they prophesy by the spirit of god as zedekiah was, 1 king 22. this is already answered in my reply to thy answer to any 6th. query: ans. and thou in divers places to be thus acted. whether the lord did ever send forth boys or striplings to be his prophets & public teachers, q. 83. seeing john the baptist who was born to be a prophet, of the most high, and was filled with the holy-ghost from his mother's womb, was not sent forth to preach and prophesy till he was 30 years old luk. 1.15. how often have i made thy folly and ignorance, ans. in this to appear? and that thou might be ashamed to boast of thy age, who so often hast erred not knowing the scriptures nor the power of god, who would limit it to time & age, in which i have before sufficiently answered thee and now i say the lord sent forth jeremiah when he was but a child, jer. 1.6.7. psal. 8.2. mat. 21. and out of the mouths of babes and sucklings, the lord hath perfected his praise, therefore henceforward stop thy mouth, for despising any be-because of their youth, but know this that whomsoever god calls to his ministry, he by his power and wisdom doth fit them, for the same, and contrary to the reason of man, doth the lord work, therefore if thou wast not blind, thou wouldst not so much look at the creature, math. 11.25. but at the power of god in the creature: but as it is written, he hath hid these things from the wise and prudent, and revealed them unto babes: and here thy 84. querie, is also answered. whether the lord will break his own orders and commands, qu. 85 expressly set down in his word, where he saith (as you already heard) by paul 1 tim. 3.6. and unto this i have already answered, answ. at to thy 37, querie: therefore thou blasphemer, stop thy mouth and be ashamed thus to accuse the lord, because he is pleased to make his power known, in babes and youth, for timothy, to whom paul writes this epistle was himself but a youth, as paul writes 1 tim. 4.11.12. and there read thy rebuke, where did christ or his apostles send forth women to be public prophetesses as you have done many and some of them not long since infamous for lewdness of life. qu. 86. oh thou impudent one, answ. how dost thou provoke the lord to indignation against thee, that dar'st lay any such thing to the charge of gods elect? oh thou liar, whom dost thou accuse of lewdness? we abhor thy words for all lewdness, and profaneness we testify against, wheresoever it doth appear, or any thing contrary to the pure divine light, which now in thy conscience, and many other consciences doth here witness, for us, against thee who art given up to beleivelies, and report them: therefore read thy portion in rev. 21.8. and read an answer to thy querie, in joel. 2.28. where the lord saith the sons and daughters shall prophecy, rom. 16.1.2.3.4. and none other do we own but who immediately are carried forth by the spirit of the lord, without the commission of man: therefore thou falsely accusest us, who sayest we send forth any. if you be extraordinary prophets immediately inspired as many of you pretend to be, qu. 87. where are the miracles which such inspired men wrought in times past? but that we are so inspired thou dost not believe, ans. (as may easily be discerned by thy querying) and therefore unto thee no sign shall be given who art in the adulterous generation who cannot see the signs that follow the truth, math. 16.4. what have you foretold by way of predication, qu. 88 which hath accordingly come to pass as the prophets, apostles and inspired men were wont to do? if thou canst tax us to the contrary thou mayst, answ. we bear not witness of ourselves, but he that believes hath the witness within himself. and as for thy 89.90.91. and 92. queries, they are answered in my reply to thy answer to my 16. querie, and thy 93. querie, is answered in my answer to thy query concerning salutations. whether is a multitude of disciples and followers, que. 94. sure signe that his doctrine is from heaven, who is followed, seeing the way is broad that leads to destruction and many there be that find it, and thou quotest, math. 7.13. and 2, pet. 2.22. many are called but few chofen, answ. and many for a time followed christ, so that the ruler said if we let this fellow alone, all men will go after him, which is the cry of you and your rulers, now against the messengers of truth, and hast thou never read of the multitudes that followed christ, but few there be that enter, john 11.48. mat. 7.14. because strate is the gate; but divide england into parts, and see if the greatest number belong not unto you, who are in the broad way: your lives preach you forth, therefore now thou should have first asked thyself this query, and said is it i, and so have laid thy hand upon thy mouth. seeing this age is earthly-minded and willing to serve god, qu. 95. with that which costs them nothing contrary to the pious and noble spirit of david 2 sam. 24.24. is it any great wonder that your doctrine against tithes, should find so many willing yea greedy entertayners of it, as it hath done since it was first broached? the more is your shame, who are teachers in this age, that are so earthly-minded, answ. who have so long taken their moneys for that which is not bread, and their labour for that which profiteth not: isa. 55.2. do you not herein manifest yourselves to be such as run, and the lord never sent you, jer. 23.21.22.32. and therefore you profit not the people at all, but they are still earthly-minded, how have you then sown spiritual things? but i shall prove that the earthly-minded ones still stick unto you, for you have a law made by the will of man, so that if they refuse to pay you, and forsake you, then by it you cast them into prison, and by your law take triple damage, and this they know, and therefore consult with their earthly minds, that it is better to pay the lesser than the greater, there is much difference betwixt servings god and your bellies. though the lesser is a greater oppression: and thus mank deny the truth, though they are convinced in their consciences thereof, therefore that which leads any from you, to take up this cross to own the truth, and deny you of tithes, the same crucifies the earthly mind, and lead to suffer for conscience. and the noble spirit of david condemns you: for whereas he refused upon gift, you will take upon gift, and if they will not give it you, you will take it by force, therefore this scripture affords witnesses against you, but hereby thou confessest, our doctrine costs them nothing; then how saidst thou before that james parnels gospel was not without charge, and thus out of thy own mouth art thou proved a liar. did ever christ or the apostles disturb the priests, and ministers of these times, qu. 96. while they were teaching the people, as many of you and yours have done? both the prophets, christ and the apostles, answ. declared against the deceivers, false prophets, mat. 24.24. jer. 23. ezek. 34. joh. 10. jer. 5.31. false priests and hirelings, and the apostles was haled out of the synagogues, and out of the temple, as christ told them john 16.2. as we by the same spirit do now against you, whom we find in the same steps, and here thou art answered, if this be it thou callest disturbance; but it is because you would bear rule by your means, and suffer nothing to be published, that is against you, or strikes at your diana. doth the gospel ordinarily call any man from his lawful calling, queen 97. whereby he should maintain himself and his family? and thou quotest 1 cor. 7, 20. eph. 4.28. yea it doth, and the scripture holds forth the same that they was ordinarily called from their outward callings, answ. to preach the gospel to every creature: amos. 7.14.15. mark. 16.15. math. 4.18.19.20.21.22.23. neither doth either of these scriptures which thou hast quoted prove to the contrary; & how many scriptures didst thou quote in thy answer to my 15th query to prove that the ministers of the gospel might forbear working, and not to entangle themselves with the affairs of this life: yet in all could not prove thyself a minister of the gospel, and now thou questions the truth of the scripture, because neither thou nor thy brethren was called, according to scripture; but whomsoever the lord calls unto his work, he doth take care both for him and his family; but you that are not called by him, dare not trust him, without a law of man. and in thy 98. & 99 query, 2. thes. 3. mat. ●8. 7. thou seems to accuse us with some that turned from the truth, and yielded to the deceit of their hairs, and so gave occasion to such as thee, who wait for occasion to blaspheme the truth; but it is no new thing, 1 tim. 14.15. but the same which the scripture declares of in divers places: therefore saith christ, offences must come, but woe unto them by whom they do come; mat. 26 mat. 27.5. for there was then many such as thee in that age who (as thou dost) waited for occasion to blaspheme the truth; but if thou hadst been then, how wouldst thou have accused christ, who had but twelve apostles, and one of them betrayed him, and then hanged himself, and another denied him: therefore let this stop thy mouth, for speaking evil of the things thou knowest not; and as for spencer and gilpin, whom thou here nominates, the truth is sufficiently cleared of them in other books; and the priests have owned them, as they did judas, which is the name of all that turn from the truth, after they have received it. have so many fallen into distraction or madness in any sect, queen 100 or under any doctrine, as there hath done amongst your hearers, especially where the number of disciples was no more? look at home, and answer thyself, witness your universities, ans. as you call them; for it is the fruit of your studies, who would find out that by your wit and wisdom, which the lord hath hid from you; and all that you cannot settle in security and blindness, you lead them into madness, confusion, and distraction, if they do not in time forsake you, as many will witness at this day that they are led by you into such a wilderness, that they know not which way to get out, neither do you know how to direct them, for you are in confusion yourselves, mat. 15 14. and so the blind leads the blind into the ditch: therefore this might have stopped thy mouth from falsely accusing us; but i remember truth was ever accounted madness and folly by the blind world, who know not that godliness is great gain. and in thy 94. query, thou wast questioning the truth of our doctrine, because of the multitude of disciples, and now by the fewness; and thus thou contradicts thyself, and then after much of thy filthy stuff, which all along thou hast vented forth of thy old bottle against us, which upon thee i have returned again from whence it came: thou seemest to accuse our book, but dost not show wherein, and therefore i pass it by, as knowing thy lying spirit, and then thou stealest the apostles words, for a cloak for the deceit of thy heart, 2 cor. 13.7, 8, 9 which the apostle spoke from a true and upright heart, but thou from a false deceitful heart, as all along hath been sufficiently proved, and thy prayers to be abomination, and that thou hast nothing to do to name the name of god in thy mouth, who art a worker of iniquity, and a stranger unto god, who art found out of his doctrine; 2 tim. 2, 19 2 joh. 9 and therefore with this scripture i shall mark thee, 2 john 9.10. that all may know thee, and turn away their ears from thee, who art not to be received, but denied; and therefore whosoever receives thee, or thy doctrine, the same departs from the doctrine of christ; and therefore let this be a caveat to all people, to whom it shall come, and look upon thee to be as anathema, maranatha, 1 cor. 16.22. this from a friend, to all souls witnessed in all consciences by the eternal light of god, by which i am known and received. i. p. the end. the anabaptists meribah: or, waters of strife. being a reply to a late insulting pamphlet, written by thomas lamb, merchant, intitulled, truth prevailing against the fiercest opposition; or, an answer to mr. john goodwin's water-dipping, no firm footing for church-communion. wherein the impertinency of m. lamb's answer, and the validity of m. goodwin's water-dipping, etc. are manifested by i. price a member of the church of christ, whereof the said mr. goodwin is pastor. isa i. 44.20. he feedeth on ashes, a deceived heart hath turned him aside, that he cannot deliver his soul, nor say, is there not a lie in my right hand? gal. 1.6.7. i marvel that you are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of christ, unto another gospel, which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of christ. london, printed by t. lock for henry eversden, and are to be sold at his shop at the sign of the greyhound in st. paul's churchyard. 1656. the epistle dedicatory. to the reverend, my honoured and beloved pastor, mr. john goodwin, and the church of christ, walking with him in the order of the gospel, usually meeting together in coleman-street, in london. honoured, and beloved: although the separations, rents, and divisions, together with the distempers and distractions lately made by our brother lamb, and some few others, from, and in, the church, were of a very sad and dangerous import, threatening not to leave one stone of god's building upon another, which should not be thrown down; yet, god, (whose only prerogative it is, to bring light out of darkness, and good out of evil) hath graciously produced a very comfortable, orderly, and regular settlement out of that chaos and confusion, in so much, that as the false doctrines concerning the necessity of circumcision unto justification (as some now speak little less of baptism, and that according to their way and manner) introduced by false apostles amongst the churches, in the first plantation of the gospel, did occasion several epistles to be written by the apostle paul, and others, for the vindication and clearing up of the truth, as it is in jesus, not only in that particular, but also in many other truths of rich and high concernment, and a firm establishment of the churches in the doctrine of faith, towards god, and love amongst the brethren: even so these late and unhappy differences (through god's blessings and goodness) have had the like success amongst you, setting both pastor and people upon a diligent and studious inquiery into, and discovery of the truth, and establishing them therein. so that out of this eater hath come meat, the weak are made strong, and the strong stronger; they that seemed to stagger, do now stand, and the feet of them that stood are now established, none being in such danger (as formerly) to be turned out of the way: but those things which formerly hindered being removed out of the way, faith and love, piety and charity, will (as they do) go on and prosper, yea run and be glorified in the midst of you; you did lament and mourn, but your sorrow is turned into joy. god hath taken away your sackcloth and ashes, and girded you with joy and gladness: the foundations of your building did seem to be removed out of their places, and the pillars thereof did tremble; but the highest himself hath established you, and will guide your feet in the way of truth and peace. and as for our brethren, have they stumbled (indeed at ceremonies, as the jews did) that they should fall? god forbidden. but if through their fall establishment be unto you, shall not their restoration belife from the dead? and let every one of us that stand, take heed lest we fall. if we ponder the paths, of our feet, our ways will be established: prov. 4.26. though i am not able to add unto your spiritual stature, or increase in knowledge in the business in controversy, who are so richly instructed herein, and that very lately by our honoured and beloved pastor, and others; yet if i do but put you in mind of the things which you know, after mine own wont dialect and plain manner, (being moved hereunto by some of yourselves) i doubt not its christian acceptance with you; and who knows whether god may not make five loaves and two fishes, (i mean a little of mean fare) to be as a feast of fat things unto you. my heart's desire and prayer unto god for you all is, that henceforth none of you may stumble and fall, isa. 8.15. 2 coll: 8. 2 tim. 3.6, 2 pet. 2.3. 2 cor: 11.20: and be broken, and snared and taken; that no man may spoil you (as sheep-stealers, snatching you away from the fold or flock of christ) nor take you prisoners, nor make merchandise of you, nor bring you into bondage, but that you may flourish in the courts of the house of our god, running without weariness, and walking on without fainting; that it might be with you yet after many, and many years to come, as it was with moses in his old age, whose sight did not was dim, neither was his natural strength abated; that as you have received christ jesus the lord, so ye might walk in him, rooted and built up in him, and established in the faith, as you have been taught; that your hearts may be comforted by daily refresh from the presence of the lord, being knit together, yea rooted and grounded in love, increasing still with the increasings of god, and thriving in all riches of spiritual understanding, to the perception and acknowledgement of the mystery of god, and of the father, and of christ, that every one of you may be made up of god amongst his jewels, and be found on the right hand of jesus christ among his sheep at that great day, and may live and reign with him for ever, and ever. amen. so prayeth, the meanest of you all j. price. septemb. 24. 1655. the anabaptists meribah: or, waters of strife. sect: i. the injuries which david received from his enemies were much more tolerable, than those which he suffered from his friends. the lifting up of the heel of his own familiar, the man whom he trusted; this was a sword piercing through his soul. and (doubtless) it was none of the least of christ's sufferings, that one of his family, his society, of his own disciples, should betray him into the hands of sinners. that julius caesar should be slain by his own son brutus among the rest, this pierced him worse, than any poniard it was queen elizabeth's complaint, that she had found treason in trust. how unkindly, unnaturally, and unchristianly mr. mr: lambs a buse of love. lamb in his late book hath dealt (shall i say) with his old friend (nay) his spiritual father, and pastor, mr. john goodwin, whom (by his own acknowledgement) god hath made seventy times seven times a messenger, and angel of light, life, and peace unto him; is not only the observation, but the very astonishment of all that know him, there being not many leaves, pages, or paragraphs therein, not importing rancorous, and malign reflections upon him, as if to prey upon his honour, and feed upon the blood of his reputation; were the firstborn of his desires, and the longing of his soul, as after the first ripe summer fruits. thence it is, that this division (which he loveth) he so eagerly hunts after his pen (2s it were) scenting the tract of his former writings, mr: lambs unkindness. that it might by't him (if it were possible) at every turn and ever and anon he spends an arrow out of his quiver, seeking to hit him, and fears not. and having (as he supposeth) sped in his sport, what a merry meeting is in gath; he rejoiceth mr: goodwin's adversary's: and feast made herewith in askelon? whereat the daughters of the uncircumcised rejoice, and the daughters of the philistines triumph well, offences will come— how cruelly the man of his contention hath been dealt withal by the world; yea, and by men of better pretensions, and that for the many good works which he hath done amongst them, and for them, is not unknown unto him. but alas, these are but the mint and cummin of his troubles, he grieveth m: goodwin the molehills in his way. but that his own disciples, and scholars should be his executioners, and that for nothing, but his very judgement, and conscience, in, and about the matters of his god, that the sheep of his flock, yea the lambs thereof should convert into lions, and tigers against him; that his most hopeful, and choicest trees and vines, should yield the apples of sodom, grapes of gall, and bitter closters, that his pains and labour for their peace should at last prove not only vanity, but vexation of spirit; that (like the bird supposing it her own egg, and in hopes to bring forth in her own likeness) he should hatch up even serpents eggs, that strive to sting and devour him; these cannot be but the great things of his affliction, the mountains of grief threatening to bring his grey hairs with sorrow to the grave; that those who were his late joy, and crown of rejoicing, while they stood fast in the lord, should now prove a crown of briars, goads in his sides, and thorns in his eyes; what can this be, but the very anguish of his soul? but because mr. lamb pleads the glory of god, the good of men, the service of the truth, in all that he hath written, let us with all readiness of mind search the scriptures, and see whether those things are so or no, which (with little less than even an apostolical authority) he would obtrude, and impose upon our judgements, and consciences, for the oracles of god, and for that end let us consider the title (with all that follows) the title of his book runs thus in capital letters: truth prevailing against the fiercest opposition: m: lamb or an answer to mr: john goodwin's water-dipping, etc. sect: ii. mr: lamb having built, and trimmed, and rigged his ship, reply: and (as he supposeth) rightly freighted her, ventures her to sea, hoiseth up all his sails, mainsail, and foresail, main topsail, top-gallant sail &c: not doubting but he shall ride it over the proudest waves in all storms, or tempests, or fiercest oppositions that have, or can be made against him. at his first launching and setting of her forth, here is the discharging of gun upon gun, and gun after gun, as if he would scare all the inhabitants of seas, and shores with the thundering noise thereof: harken, truth prevailing against the fiercest opposition; there's one. or an answer to mr: goodwin's waterdipping, &c: there's another. wherein the invalidity of his (mr. goodwin's) 23 considerations, etc. there are 23 in one volley together. together with a discovery of his great mistakes in the exposition of eight chief scriptures &c: what a noise is here, as if great fleets of arguments under the government of the most able generals in the world, must all vale, and strike sail at this one vessel the truth is, m: lamb highly conceited of his book: the title of his book is like a glittering gloworm, seemingly full of light and heat; but if you touch it, it hath neither. apothecaries boxes have sometimes goodly titles, when there is never a good drug, nor any thing medicinal in them. it is like the name of a nunnery, on the out. side upon the walls over the gates, pretending nothing but virginity within doors, but a little search may discover (as once to gregory the great) thousands of infant's skulls cast into fish ponds; which did argue foul doing, under fair shows. we have here truth in the title: and all that is within must be of the same denomination (doubtless) how often is god entitled to that which his soul abhors! 1 sam: 23.7 god hath delivered david into my hands (saith saul) because he was in keilah; therefore he bears an alarm to all the people to march thither to take him. zecharie speaks of shepherds that slay the flock, fleecing them instead of feeding them; and yet entitle god to the benefit that came thereby. zach: 11.5 deut 23 18. they say, blessed be god for i am rich. we read of the hire of an whore brought into the house of the lord: and i have heard that in rome, a jewish maid might not be admitted into the stews of whoredom, unless she should be first baptised: 2 sam. 11 45 david would not commit folly with bathsheba until she was purified. i have paid my vows (said the whore at her doors in the proverbs) an holy whore, as edward the 4th; was wont to call one of the nuns, who attended him at pleasure out of the nunnery. here is truth in the title, without truth in the pamphlet; like a window cushion, beautiful without, but rip it up, you 〈◊〉 find it stuffed up with nothing but trash and trumpery. let us but examine what is within these great swel●ing words, in his epistles, and their retinue. to the reader: sect: reply. an apt similitude, setting forth mr, lamb's conceit of truth, without truth on his side. iii. upon the perusal of the prescripts, and manuscripts, and postscripts of the book, i called to remembrance a story, that i have heard of some devout papists, who through the cunning, and cheating artifice of their ghostly fathers, were charmed into very large and bountiful offerings, unto a certain pretended holy relic, wrapped up in several embroidered and rich mantles and laid up in a certain place in a chapel consecrated for that purpose. among the troops of those zealous votaries, some (diseased with the itch of curiosity) were very importunate to see the said relic so famously spoken of abroad in the world, & were willing to purchase the same at a very considerable rate. this relic being depolited in the hands of ●he reverend father the keeper thereof, upon a certain day appointed for that purpose, he came to give them a vision of it; and causing them to stand at a convenient distance from it, having prepared and raised up the devotion of their minds, with much gravity of speech, at last with very low genuflections once and again, and the third time also, with all reverence he took off one mantle, and then (with the like ceremony) he took off another; and another, until he came to the very last, which was of very rich scarlet. when he came to that, he required them with all serious devotion of mind, and thought, to gather up all their visive faculties; and to look steadfastly, and fixedly upon the said relic, when he should unfold that last mantle, which he said he was to do and to sold it up again, with all holy celerity and expedition; and having most nimbly opened the said mantle, and with the like speed folded it up again, he demanded whether they did not see it. some held their peace, others said they faw nothing. how? (said the priest,) what, saw you nothing? did you shut your eyes? are you wilfully blind? pray sir, said some of them (having a little more courage than the rest) pardon us; but tell us what it was, what it was (said the priest?) i am sorry that you have eyes, and cannot see, or (which is worse) you will not see; but i'll tell you what it was; marry it is the breath of the ass upon which christ road to jerusalem, when the people cried hosanna unto him. at which they that were silent before, did profess they saw it very plainly and wondered that the rest did not see it; and so they departed very thankful, very much satisfied, and well paid at their bargain. in like manner mr lamb hath filled the ears of the world round about him with the mighty noise of the great truth of god concerning baptism on his side, that it is most apparently evident in his book, and by the light thereof, that the baptism of believers at age, in opposition to insant baptism, is the great truth of god, and that the separation from such societies, as are not of the same saith, and practice therein, is justifiable by the word or god; that the baptism of such persons only (and that by dipping them under water) is the initiating ordinance into church-fellowship: that all congregations (otherways gathered) are little betterthen the synagogue of satan, though they call themselves jews (i mean) the churches of jesus christ; that it becomes all men and women that would be accounted visible christians, to become devout voraries hereunto. and this grand truth is as visible in hi● book, that ever and anon heaven and earth, god. angels, and me● are called to witness men's downright wilfulness, in shutting their eyes when they might see the same, and do homage thereunto: we have the talk of truth in the title truth in the trunk or body, truth in the tail of the book truth in the praescripts, truth in the grand-scriptstruth in the postscripts; but though you unfold mantle after mantle seaf after leaf, page after page, paragraph after paragraph; all which (i confess) are richly trimmed embroidered, and laced with many holy scriptures, and devout expressions; yet though you should gather up all your visive capacities, and abilities of ingenuity, knowledge and wisdom, you will find nothing of that which you seek for in this kind, but mere air and breath: yea sometimes breath of a very loathsome savour, proceeding from distempered and ulcerated lungs. nay the truth is, if an ingenious reader should dismantle his book 1. of all the impertinent passages. 2: m. lambs book filled, and stuffed with impertinences. of all the quotations of scriptures irrelative to the business for which they were quoted. ●l: of all the vain flourishes and displaying, of his colours after his conceited victory, expressed in such words as these, good reader judge &c: again; what man is he that doth not glory in men; whose faith and practice standeth not in the wisdom of men, &c: but must conceive &c: again, be astonished therefore o ye heavens, and horribly afraid o earth &c: again, good reader what sayest thou? hath not mr: goodwin the wrong end of the staff &c: again, i appeal to the conscience of the judicious reader etc. again heavens, earth judge; with many more of the same kind: 4ly: of all his unbrotherly and unhandsome reflections upon m: goodwin; let his book (i say) be dismantled of these, and their likes; he shall find it a mere skeleton, a starved carcase like one of pharao's lean kind not having so much spirit, life and strength of argument to the business he pretends unto; as to be able to crawl up & down in the considerations of any out blind votaries, that can discern & offer sacrifice unto mere air and breath folded up in many sheets of paper: for the eviction whereof let us consider that that follows in the next place viz▪ his epistle to the reader; which gins thus: good reader: m: lamb. god knoweth with what regrett of spirit i publish this answer to m: goodwin's book, etc. sect: four thou shalt not take the name of the lord thy god in vain, for the lord will not hold him gu●●●ese that taketh his name in vain. reply. how desirous are you to preach into us a strong belief of your great candour of spirit unto mr: mr. lamb pretends much candour of spirit to m: goodw: goodwin; that ever and anon throughout your book, after you have given him a rap (as you suppose) you fall a stroking him again. first (strapado-like) you lift him up, then down with him again, then up again: doth not this argue there was a sore contest between your conscience, and concupiscence in the writing thereof, and the victory is deplorable? if you have bitter envyings, and strife in your hearts (saith james) glory not. mr. lamb perplexed in his conscience about writing his book: james 3: 14. rev: 8: 11. were you not under the malign influence of the star called wormwood (mentioned by john) when you wrote that book against mr: goodwin, which makes more than the third part thereof so bitter against him? do you not believe it? then let me tell you. how a man may know conscience from concupiscence, and when he is acted by the corrupt principles of the flesh, viz: (popularity, spiritual pride, and vanity of mind even in seemingly devout, and religious performances, preaching, praising, printing; discoursing about good things,) and when by the holy spirit of god, is a question; the answer whereunto would be more profitable, & fit for you, and me to study, and to understand; then to contend and make war with the chariots, and horsemen of israel in, and about the controversy in hand. and were i to give my opinion in the question, i should think it would not be an impertinency to offer this for one answer, viz: that in cases disputable, and controversal among the godly, the spirit of god doth not compel in controversal points learned, and most judicious christians, the true spirit of god doth not use to compel (that is your own word to the reader) the more weak, & injudicious, the milksops, or babes in christ (as you must give me leave to judge you to be, in comparison of those you contend withal, viz. mr: goodwin, m: baxter) to rise up with that majestic confidence in, mr: lamb a child of under: standing in comparison with m goodwin, and mr: baxter against whom he writes. and of their own strength: as if they could make the mountains of arguments, levied against them, to skip like rams, and the little hills thereof like lambs, in the presence of their, even of their mighty pens, and parts, as if they were able to thrash the mountains, and make the hills like chaff before the breath of their mouth, and that all difficulties, contradictions, and the most able strong, and fiercest oppositions, should be as dust unto their sword, and driven stubble unto their bow. and my proof should be rom: 12: 3: and i say through the grace given unto me, to every man that is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought; but to think soberly, according as god hath dealt to every man the measure of faith; and the like philip. 2: 3: let nothing be one through strife, and vaing ory, but in lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves. the confident, and conceited man in doubtful cases, hath seldom the truth on his side with the low●● is wisdom; grace is given to the humble, bashful, shamefaced, that thrust not themselves into observation. the odoriferous violet grows low to the ground-ward, hangs its head downward, hides itself with its own leaves: and the spirit of god is not a spirit of compulsion in doubtful cases, but of illumination. but to proceed. as pure conscience (at first) separated me from that society whereof he (mr: goodwin) is pastor, m: lamb to the reader. so now it compelleth me to make answer to that book, not only to defend the truth, & cs sect: v. i think here you speak more true than you are ware; reply. error of judgement often called by the name of purity of conscience. for by what light, law, or rule from god's word is that conscience guided that compelleth men to separate themselves from the societies of the saints where they have often seen the face of god viz. the light of his countenance, received daily and constant refresh from his presence; where the visions of life, and immortality have been brought to light, where they have had most excellent experience of the presence of christ in the midst of them, and have been rapt up (as it were) into the third heavens, receiving, and partaking of joys unspeakable, and glorious? i say where is that conscience instructed from the oracles of god, to withdraw and separate from such a church, and society of saints, and that merely because they durst not sin against the light of their judgements, and consciences; m: lamb separated from the church, because they keep in a good conscience. because they cannot submit unto such practices (as parts of gods instituted worship, and service) whereof they see not the least hint, or glimmerings of light, in the holy scriptures for their justification; because they do that (viz: baptise their children) which they judge themselves bound in conscience to do, and forbear to do that (viz: submit to rebaptisation, or to be baptised again, they supposing themselves baptised already) which they believe in their consciences they should offend their lord and master jesus christ, if they should do? and is not this our very case? you call us holy and be l●veà, brethren of like precious faith with yourselves, a church: and yet you are compelled in conscience to withdraw, and separate from us; and why? not because you question our saintship, god's love to us, our love to god, not that you think the effectual grace, presence, and spirit of god is not with us in our assembling together from day to day; not that you think that the truth as it is in jesus, at least in respect of the great things of faith and love, is not amongst us; or that the blessed endowments and gifts of the spirit are not vouchsafed unto us; but merely because we will not deny our insant-baptisme, and submit ourselves to be baptised again in your way: both which we profess in the presence of almighty god, who knoweth our hearts, we dare not do, as fearing we should offend against his majesty, and provoke his jealousy against us, not having (as we conceive) upon serious perusal of his holy word, and several men's writings of piety, & ability, of different apprehensions in the subject in hand, the very lest ground of the truth, to justify ourselves, if we should do so. and we likewise call heaven and earth to record, that in the study of these things, we have renounced all hidden things of dishonesty, all carnal, and worldly considerations, byassing us in the least herein, as if it were to avoid the cross, or to share with any earthly interest, which steers us in our judgement, or practise; and that it would be a vision of much peace, satisfaction, and contentment unto us (if we eaten out of the way) to be better instructed: and the god and father of our lord jesus christ who is blessed for ever more, the church from which m. lamb separated, could allow him his liberty in the business of baptism, but he will not allow them theirs. knoweth that we lie not this is our case; we that are the greater part of the church by many degrees, can bear with you, and permit you to enjoy your own liberty; but you cannot bear with us, but have rend, and torn yourself from us, and entitle the same unto the word of god, as justifying you therein. these we shall examine, when we come to your allegations of those texts urged by you; having already perused them again and again, and the third time also, and see not the least breathe of the spirit of god therein for your justification in your separation. we find the great apostle paul in his writing to churches, calls them the beloved of god, called to be saints, to them that are sanctified in christ jesus, mr: lambs sepeperation against the current of the scriptures. to the saints in achaia, to the saints at ephesus, to the saints in christ jesus at philippi, to the saints, and faithful brethren in christ at colosse; i say we find the apostle (writing to these) provokes them to love, to good works, to edify one another, to frequent the assembling of themselves together, to bear with one another in love, to watch over one another, to be knit together in love, to keep the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace, to take heed of rents, divisions, and separations one from another, &c: you judge us (or else why have you written us) the beloved of god, a church of christ, saints in christ jesus, holy, and beloved, mr: lambs separation merely because the whole church will not bow to his dictates. faithful brethren; and where, in what book, chapter, or verse in the holy scriptures, do you find the least thing that justifies your withdrawing from such persons; and that because they will not call you father, and master? because they will not bow down their judgements, and consciences against their judgements, and consciences, unto your judgements, and consciences (being a lesser part of our curch, and society) we also believing in our judgements, and consciences that you are in an error? have we not several directions from the oracles of god very express of a contrary nature? 14 rom: 13. him that is weak in the faith, receive; let not him that eateth, judge him that eateth not, because god hath accepted him. him that is weak, viz: not throughly persuaded in all things pertaining to christian liberty, but judging himself bound still to the observations of ear-ring, or not eating, meats, according to moses law. receive, viz. into your bosoms affectu charitatis, with the affection of love: receive him into your assemblies bear with his weaknesses. bucer rejected none, though differing in some opinions, in whom he found aliquid christi, any thing of christ, whose weaklings are to be tendered with all sweetness: do not judge, censure, and despise one another, in case you have grounds to believe that god hath accepted him do not you think that god accepteth saints, holy brethren, faithful brethren, visible saints? why then do you reject them? if you say, they are not visible unto you, except they be baptised after your manner, why then do you call them so? if you say the apostle there viz: rem: 14: speaks of things indifferent, but baptism is a known gospel command. i answer, (if you consider the reason, and ground why the apostle would have them receive him that is weak in the faith; it is, not because the matters in controversy are small, and things indifferent, but because god hath accepted him: if you believe in your consciences that god hath accepted him, why should not you accept, and receive him? 2ly: though baptism be a gospel command, yet many things may be doubtful in, and about baptism, which may be reckoned of as mean a nature, and consideration, as the eating o● meats there spoken of, was, as viz: when, how, by who●, upon whom, or unto whom, baptism is to be administered; if in these things there be different apprehension, some saying this, some that, why let not him that saith this despise him that saith that, let not him that saith that, ●udg him that says this, for god hath accepted him do you not think that god hath accepted us? that he doth accept us, that he will accept us, so long as we are found faithful unto him, in following him fully, as we can see him going before us? would he accept us if we did do what you would have us do (though it should be granted it was his mind) while we see it not? nay, while we think ●n our consciences we should sin, and provoak him in so doing? would he bless us (think you) if we should condemn ourselves in doing the things, that we allow not? will not he accept us doing all, whatsoever we understand he hath commanded us? if you being a small part of the church will take liberty to break away from us, mr: lambs pretended grounds for seperationare a foundation of all divisions in all the churches of christ. being seven times mere than yourselves in number, in conjunction with our pastor, and several of the officers, (the major part of them also) because they do not come over to your opinion; doth not this lay a foundation of breaking up all churches, and societies of saints in the world. for if (suppose) ten, should be of one opinion in a church, and one hundred should be of a contrary judgement therein; if those ten should judge that opinion a great truth of christ, &c: and the hundred judge it a mere mistake, a small matter, an outward ceremony in comparison of the great things of god; shall the ten separate, and be justified therein? what church can then hold together long? if you say if the thing (wherein those ten differ from the one hundred) be essential i to a church, without which the consciences of those ten be fully persuaded the one hundred are no church, than they ought to separate. i answer, first, this is not the case here for you call us a church in your writing, nay a church of ho●ly, and beloved brethren. 2ly: who shall judge touching this matter, the one hundred, or the ten? if you say the ten must judge for themselves, and be able to satisfy themselves in their own peronal walking, i answer, that in such a case there should be many thoughts upon thoughts, and considerations upon considerations, much patience, wisdom, sobriety. these should be exercised long time before the separation be made: that should be the last remedy. see what the apostle saith in such a case, phil. 3.15, 16. if in any thing ye be otherwise minded, god sh●● reveal ●ven this unto you nevertheless whereto ye have already attained, let us walk by the same rule, let us mind the same thing; if in any thing ye be otherwise minded, if any among you differ from other in any particular thing, there is no reason that this should cause divisions, and separations for, though at present ye are not, yet hereafter ye may be instructed in all things needful for you, and become of one mind, and in the mean while whereunto we have already attained, that is: 1. wherein we have mutual apprehension of mutual duty, let us mutually walk together, comfort and edify one another let us walk by the same rule, line, or path, never stepping over, or out of it, lest we lose all, for this was one of the laws of those grecian races, that they must not only strive and run, but strive and run lawfully, this (i say) being one of the laws of their running, viz. that they were to keep themselves in a certain path; line, or chalked way, out of which they were not to step; if they did, they lost the game. some say that they were bounded with swords on the one side of the path, and a great & deep river on the other side, so that they did not only lose the prize, but exposed themselves, either to ruin by the sword, or by the river, if they did not keep their path. see here, let us walk by the same rule, not running over, or stepping aside, separating ourselves from the common path, lest we be dipped, yea drowned by the river on the one hand, or destroyed by the sword on the other hand, it is not to be expected that our light and apprehensions in all things should be the same; especially should be the same at all times, and together, god at sundry times, 1 hebr: 1 that is, by piece meals, somewhat now, and somewhat at another time, speaks unto his people. whether i go thou canst not follow me now, but thou shalt follow me hereafter said christ to peter, 13 john 36. but to return to my dear friend, the antagonist; how many exhortations have we in scripture, to love, to edify one another, to build up one another in our most holy faith? can these things be done by separations, and departing away one from another? how many dehortations are there against schisms, rents, and divisions against forsaking the fellowship of the saints, and the churches of jesus christ which you have owned us to be by your pen, and i know you cannot without violence offered unto your soul and conscience; yea, you dare not deny it. and had your conscience, judgement, & affections been enlightened, and heated by the fire of god's sanctuary, you would have better considered then so suddenly, and rashly, have rend yourself from us, and written so impertinently for the justification thereof. but to proceed you tell your reader the several reasons why you wrote that book: as pure conscience etc. so now compelleth me to make answer to that book, etc. not only to defend the truth to the therein opposed, etc. mr: lamb to the reader sect: vi. to defend the truth opposed by mr: goodwin. error always defended under the notion of truth. everymen way is right in his own eyes. the turks style themselves the only mausulmen, or true believers in the world. the papists the only catholics; the jew the holy nation, the peculiar people, the gnostics of old, the only knowing men, * the manachees derived their name from manna, as if what they taught was to received as the only food that came down from heaven. what sect, party, or faction professing any religion, but doth it under the pretence and notion of truth; and withstand their opposites, as do those that defend the truth? the very banters, shakers', quakers, do they not all plead truth? do you defend the truth with untruths by scandalising & abusing the defenders of the truth, as you have m. goodwin; whereof you must hear, & know before we have done with your book? but do you defend the truth with the mere name of truth without any spirit, or power of truth? let any man that hath as much ill umination, inspection, or ability as to discern truth from untruth in the abc things of the scriptures; he shall see, that your greatly conceited swords, spears & darts, which you have prepared in your book to defend the truth (as you call it) are but straw, stubble, & rotten wood to those against which you contend. and indeed you make use of them as these egyptians do of their darts, which they shoot against the sun, that scorcheth them: but alas, it is out of their reach; scorch them it will, will they, will they, and their darts fall down again, upon their own heads, but you say, you wrote your book, not only to de-defend the truth, but first to vindicate yourself with some others from the heavy charge therein given to the whole world against you, as faith, and trust-hreakers, sacrilegious church-breakers, etc. sect: vii. you wrote your book, not only to defend the truth, but also (you might have said, chief) to vindicate yourself, &c: i remember when christ said unto his disciples, that one of them should betray him, he that was guilty, was forward to demand, master is it; you writ your book to vindicate yourself from the heavy charge therein, viz: in mr. goodwin's book given against you. are you so much as once named in that book? do not you expose yourself by name to be that man of an abused and distempered fancy, of disingenuity, of a wonderful and strange alteration, for the worse, which by name you were never charged to be? did you not plight your faith to walk with them whom you call holy and beloved brethren, as a member of that church, whom you style a church? can this he done by your separation from them? have not you broken trust and promise with them? and could this arise from any thing, but a (most miserably) abused and distempered fancy? have not you endeavoured to divide pastor from people; and people from pastor? to demolish, and tear up by the roots, as thriving, as loving, as well governed a church, a church as full of charity, and good works, as beautiful an edefice, where jesus christ hath dwelled, and manifested his delight therein, by the comfortable influences of his truth, and presence upon the hearts of yourself; and brethren, as eyes beheld: is not this sacrilege? return, return o blacksliding islamite: remember from whence you are fallen, and repent. your second reason of writing your book, is in these words, 2ly: m● lamb to the reader. to make the world judges whether we are at mr: goodwin represented us, persons of a misused, and distempered sancie, of stupifled judgements, to whose understanding common sense is a mystery inaccessible, wit● abundance more to the s●me purpose. sect: viii. here is (i fear) in this reason also more of the secrets of your heart than you well consider. reply. m● lamb greatly conceited of his own abilities manifested in his book. for what is the meaning of it? is it not to make the wo●ld judges, that you are men of solid judgements, great parts, strong abilities? why let them look upon your book, and then let the world be judges, whether men of such abilities, parts, and reason as are evident, and conspicuous therein, are such men as mr: goodwin doth thus undervalue? let the world be judges (if they will but read your book whether that one of your arguments, doth not chase ten, and five, an hundred, and an hundred of yours, put ten thousand of mr: goodwin's to flight: that every one of your reasons, is as a king, against whom there is no rising up: that when your sun of light appeareth; all mr; goodwin's twincling stars must hid their heads. hence it is, that you so often invite the heavens, and the earth, and the world to behold, and look upon you, and ms goodwin, upon a public theatre in print, and see, how handsomely you handle your sword, and hit, and thrust m: goodwin therewith ever and anon; how you can fight with him with arguments, fight with him with scriptures, nay, fight with him with his own weapons, his own writings; how you can wrestle with him and give him fall upon fall, and fall after fall, and make good sport for the spectators. remember solomon's council, be not wise in thine own eyes: and pau●● direction, he that would be wise, must be a fool that he may be wise. a conceit of wisdom, bars out wisdom. if m: goodwin, or any others, by pen, or other way, should so much injure the happiness of the world, as to hid you from them, that they cannot behold your glory, this is a cup that you are not able to drink of, a baptism, that you cannot be baptised withal. your glory you will let no man take from you: this is as the well of bethlem, for which you will fight with the best friend you have in the world. it was the saying of one concerning some over-weeners of themselves, that they might have proved excellent scholars, if they had not been persuaded that they were such already, themistocles listened to nothing so willingly, as to his own commendations. the emperor adrian oppressed some, and slew others, that excelled in any art, or faculty, that he might be held the only skilful. and it is said of aristotle, that he burned the books of many ancient philosophers, that he might be the more admired. prov: 16.5. every one that is proud in heart, is an abomination to the lord. when a wall swells, it is near breaking: it is no small art, to conceal art, nor is it a small glory, to conceal glory. empty casks sound loudest, and purses with a very little money jingles more, than those that are top full. they that best deserve praises, do most desire concealment; moses shone, and knew it not. christ had all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge in him; but they were hid in him: he did not fret, when he was obscured. the best of men were most modestly conceited of themselves. jacob said he was less than the least of god's mercies: david, a worm, and no man: agur, more brutish than any man. great pau● the least of saints, the greatest of sinners. they that think themselves rich, and full, able, and strong, know not that they are poor, and miserable, and blind, and naked. they conceive their mole hill, a mountain, their kestril, an eagle, their goose a swan, poring upon, and blessing themselves in their own beauty, while they gaze upon themselves (as you seem to do over the banks of your baptissmal waters) until they fall into the river, and are drowned thereby. but to proceed to your third reason of publishing your book. 3ly: to let the world see that our baptism hath not metamorphosed us, mr: lamb to his reader. from lambs to wolves, tigers, or serpent, which is insinuated by m: goodwin in his last, etc. sect: ix. indeed if the world had not seen your book, reply. mr: lamb renders himself in his book a visible instance of what he seems to withstand; and implead therein, they might have suspected the due applicablenes of such an insinuation unto yourself; but he that shall see, and read the same; knowing what once you were, and what that book represents you now to be (if your spirit be in your writing, may be astonished at the metamorphoses. have you not rendered yourself as sad an instance of such an alteration, and grown as great a proficient in the black art for rendering evil for good, (your time, and all things else, considered) as any of that mystery of iniquity, that ever i knew? have you not (with all love, care, and tenderness) been treated withal by your ancient pastor, as a sheep and lamb of christ under him, mr: lambs ingratitude, and unkindness to mr: goodwin. as dear unto him, as jonathon to david, nay as benjamin to his old father jacob, the apple of his eye, the signet on his arm? were you not unto him (you above any other member) as john the evangelist unto christ jesus, always (as it were) in his bosom, i had almost said his fondling? and have not you heretofore answered, at least seeminglie) nay i think i may say really) his kindness with kindness, his love with love. and now have you not (absolom like) rallied up what strength you can against him? did you not as yesterday strive to keep the flock of christ, whereof you were (more than a common) member, mr: l. changed for the worse since his separation. in a strait hand of unity, & love improving your parts, abilities, and opportunities to keep them as close together, as the scales of the leviathan? and have you not, not only withdrawn yourself, but with an high hand striven to bring off others into the same condemnation with yourself, endeavouring to tear up our foundations, and encouraging, all you had any hope to engage a 'gainst us and our church, as the enemies of jerusalem encouraged one another against it, race it, race it even to the ground. did not the language of your deportment to our church, pastor, and people speak as peter to christ, though all men would be offended with thee, yet will not i? but have you not like orpah in the 1. of ruth 14. not with so much as a parting salute, turned your back upon them, and like the isralites in the wilderness, started aside like a broken bow? and with peter withdrawn away from us, as if you never knew us? yea eager, and tiger●y made at the face of your faithful pastor in the eyes of all men? did ever any of the church lift up such hosannah●, mr: lamb once the greatest admirer, now the chiefest slighter of m: g: spread his way with such palm branches, and garments of praise, and commendations, before his very face, and the face of the whole church, to the frequent offence both of himself, and the church, as you have done? and hath any one of them, yea of them that have departed from us, lifted him (up indeed but it is) unto the cross to be crucified in the sight of the world, as yourself in this book? you seem (indeed) with jael in your book to speak smooth words, soft and pleasing language, to spread over him mantles of love and kindness: but your hammer and nail are ready in your hands to strike him through the very temples; rejoicing thereby not the armies of israelites, mr: lamb first crowns, then kills mr: goodwin's reputation. but of the canaanites; dealing with him as xerxes did with his steersman, crown him in the morning, and cut off his head in the afternoon of the same day. or like the fickle isralites, that with great zeal fought but very lately for david, and a little after cry out, we have no part in david, neither have we inheritance in the son o● jessie, every man to his tents o israel: and now all the cry is for sheba the son of b●●ri; is not here a change? however you proceed with a very oily lip, thus, had not the truth been dearer to me then any man, mr: lamb to his reader: i had rather choose to lose my right hand, than set it to a book that frowneth on him (mr: goodwin) whose credit always was and still is right, dear, and precious in my sight. sect: ix. your pen stumbles at truth, reply: and speaks of nothing more than truth without truth, being (indeed) more accustomed to articulate, then to argue out truth and as for that truth that you so much pretend unto in your book; we may as soon find grapes on thorns, and figs on thistles, as find it there. he that thinks to be led by the light that shines therein unto dothan, shall find himself at last abused by an ignis fatuus, and conducted into samaria, in the midst of mistakes sands his relation mentioneth a profane sect not long since in arragon, who affecting in themselves a certain angelical purity, fell suddenly to the very counterpoint of justifiing beastilitie; and yet called themselves the illuminati as if they only had been in the light, and all the world besides in darkness. the jesuits boast that the church is the soul of the world; the clergy of the church, and they of the clergy. well, but the truth is dearer unto you, than any man; that is, your opinion, than any man. how apt are men to assert their own opinion for tryth? though the pharises, and the saducees were of one faith touching their opposition against paul, while they knew not of whose judgement he was, yet when he had discovered himself to be a pharesee, all the pharise: stuck unto him 23 act. 9 jer: 14, 14. how often are the brats of men's own brains, a 〈◊〉 vision and divination, a thing of nought, a deceit of their heart; insisted upon, as the great truth of god? yea urged and prosecuted with a violent opposition of the palpable and manifest truths of god? the truth is dearer unto you then any man; that is, your apprehensions that children must not be baptised, that men, believers at age only aught to be baptised, (though they were baptised in their infancy, that being a nul●tie,) where can we find this great truth in all the writings of god's word? it is indeed a serted by yourself and several others of the like authority. but (alas?) must we receive the writings of s. the scriptures know no such truth as mr: lamb so magnifieth as the great truth of the gospel dominick: with the same honour and credence, as those of s: paul? reading the bible (said a jesuit) will sooner make a man a luthern-heretick, than a roman-catholick. and at a public assembly of the states of germany, one albertus (a bishop) by chance lighted upon a bible, and reading therein, one of the counsellors asked him what book that was? i know not (said he) but this i know that whatsoever i read in it is utterly against our religion. so john bishop of misnia confessed that reading the holy bible, he found there in a religion much differing from that, that was then established) being popery.) certainly an ingenious, and impartial reader of the holy scriptures, old, and new testament, shall find so many expressions importing the grace and favour of god through jesus christ unto children, as that it will hardly enter into his belief, that it should be the will and pleasute of god, that henceforth, viz: after moses administrations are dead & buried) they must no more be numbered, or reckoned among the family of god, but all cast out as illegitimate. and when you handle the scriptures about this point, how miserable do you (like the camel with his feet before he drink of the clear waters, lest he should see his deformity) trouble, and muddifie the waters, disturbing the plain sense and meaning thereof, (as we shall manifest when we come to examine your allegations of scripture for your purpose.) but to proceed, you tell us that mr: mr: lamb to his reader. goodwin's credit always was, and still is right dear and precious in my sight. sect: x. this clause puts me in mind of what i have heard of two philosophers: mr, labms pen stumbles at his duty, but vents the contrary. the one knocking at the others door, and demanding of a maid (that came to the door) whether her master was within, her master bid her say, that he was not within; and the philosopher that was at the door heard him; with which answer the man went away seemingly satisfied. after a while, the other philosopher came unto his door, and knocking, the master of the house himself asked him what he would have; i would speak with you said he: i am not within said the philosopher. not within (said he) why you speak to me from within. with that said the philosopher (that was within) thou clown, wouldst thou have me believe thy maid, when she said thou wert not within? and wilt thou not believe me myself, when i say i am not within? he would have him believe a most appatent untruth; what ever mr: goodwin's credit was, is it still right dear and precious in your sight? what means then your injurious, and unchristian reflections upon him? what? the same fountain send forth both sweet, and bitter waters? it is said of the jesuits, as of false physicians officiosè occidunt: they kiss, and kill familiarly. squire being sent out of spanie to muther queen elizabath, was taught to anoint the pummel of her saddle with poison and to cry aloud in the hearing of the people (when he clap it there on with his hand, god save the queen. but as christ said to him that betrayed him with a kiss, friend for so thou wouldst be esteemed by a kiss, wherefore art thou come, as friend? or as a foe? if a friend, what mean these swords, if a foe, what means this kiss? so say i to you, is mr: goodwin's credit still right dear and precious in your sight? what means then your edwardizing h●m, your gangreninizing him, your six-book-sellerring him, your unhandsome and capricious handling him from place to place? his credit seems to be as right dear and precious in your sight when you wrote that book, as the honour of jesus christ was unto them that crowned him (indeed, but) with a crown of thoms; put a reed into his hand instead of a sceptre, & did bow the knee, unto him with hail, king of the jews: just as king richard the second, who, when he was to be deposed, was brought forth in royal array, whereof he was presently despoiled. but you justify your present adversariness against mr. goodwin, because it is for the truth's sake, and bring in paul reproving (and that sharply too) his beloved brother, peter, for his dissembling, 2 gal. 11. but is the case like this? can you with the authority of paul charge mr. goodwin with the dissembling of peter? or are you persuaded in your conscience that mr. goodwin argues against his conscience? paul charged peter to his face for his unmeet contemporizing with the jews and gentiles, to please both, against his conscience: therefore mr. lamb may charge mr. goodwin in print, before the face of the whole world, because he will not contemporize with him and those of his judgement, and comply with the church to please them also; peter was justly reprovable by paul, for sinning against the rational ducture of his light; therefore mr. goodwin is justly reprovable by mr. lamb, because he will not sin against the guidance of his light. is not here strange texting it? after this rate of reasoning are the rest of the scriptures quoted by you, insomuch, as he that reads you seriously, and knew the school of your spiritual instruction in the things of the scriptures, might well say, you have too long been a discontinuant: gods gifts groan under dis-use, or misuse. well, remember your own law, we shall have occasion to use it: thus you give it out; he who spotteth the beautiful face of truth, mr. lamb to the reader. though ignorantly (much more if presumptuously) must expect a stain in his own credit, and be content to suffer so much, as to make the truth whole. sect: xii. i hope you will not deny to undergo the doom and sentence of your own law, reply. but accept of the punishment of your sin and transgression thereof, if found guilty. whether you have not bespotted the beautiful face of truth, i am sure very arrogantly, though ignorantly, especially in some things ascerted by you, concerning mr. goodwin; yea, and in, and about the controversy beetweens us, will appear in due season. the same person may des●ve at the same time both thanks, mr. lamb to the reader. and reproof: to return the one, is a point of gratitude; to administer the other in love, and in the majesty of god's word, a point of faithfulness. sect. xiii. to that of gratitude, reply. it well becomes you to be thankful to mr. goodwin: to that of reproof, it doth as ill become you to reprove him as you do, to lash him with the scourge of your pen, as a puny-boy; to jerk him as the bishops and their shavelings did henry the second, mr. lamb conceited of his majestic pen. of england, until they made him, bleed. but whereas you presume that your pen is clothed with the majesty of god's word, as if it dwelled in light, and were like the bright morningstar, or rather the sun at noon in his majesty: consider, pride is a piece of maduess; and many poor creatures clothed in rags, being distempered in their heads, have conceited themselves kings and queens, and their rags to be robes: i have heard of a merchant at athens, who being distracted by great losses at sea, and undone, thought that all the goods that came to the city were his; and busy was he from day to day, at the waterside to look after his goods: and several merchants agreeing together to use the best means they could to have him made whole again, it was at last accomplished; and then the poor man seeing his poverty, and feeling the smart thereof, wished the merchants had not undertaken his cure. for then (said he) i had all things, every man's goods were mine; but now i see i have nothing at all, but am a poor miserable man. thou knowest not, thou art poor blind, and naked (said god to the church of laodicea.) if in this contest thou findest any passages savouring of too much sharpness, mr. lamb to the reader. though in answer to mr. goodwin's highest provocations, look upon me as disowning them, and mind the reason of the place. sect. iv what is the meaning of this? reply. mr. lamb at contest with his conscience. what strive and contendings were there between your pen and your conscience in writing this book? why did you suffer yourself to he overcome of your own evil, and did not rather strive to overcome your evil with good. was not conscience and concupiscence hard at combeate in your thoughts? did not the flesh lust against the spirit, and the spirit against the flesh? did not your heart smite you when you began to dip your inconsiderate pen in the blood of mr. goodwin's reputation? did not your hands tremble when (like mezentius the tyrant, that did use to tie the living with the dead) you bond mr. goodwin, and mr. edward's together with the same cord of dishonour and snacie, when you chained him with the disingenuous and froward six booksellers in the postscript? will you not own those sharp passages? who must own them? but it is worth our observation, the highest provocation that ever mr. goodwin gave mr. lamb. that mr. goodwin's water-dipping, etc. (the book of your quarrel) you confess to be the highest provocation that ever he gave you, wherein, notwithstanding you are not so much as once named, no not so much as with the two first letters of your name: the provocation only was because he cannot bow to your baptism, but writes against it. nebuchadnezers' heart was hotter than his oven against those worthies that would not bow down to his image. remember, he that is soon angry dealeth foolishly. alexander in his hot blood stewed his dearest friends, whom he would have revived again with his heart blood if he could. to be angry with a brother without a cause, is dangerous. is it a provocation of the highest nature to write against your way, and show unto the world the undue behaviour of the professors thereof, without the least whisper of your name therein? is this like that meek, that mortified temper and disposition, which appeared in you when you walked with us? is not here a fearful metamorphosis? christs counsel is not to resist evil, mr. lamb to the reader. but whosoever will smite me on the right cheek, to turn the other to him. but besides, it becometh me to hear much evil from that hand, by which i have received so much good. sect. xv. how easy is it to preach and hard to practise truth: mr. lamb acteth contrary to his knowledge of christ's command. have not you endeavoured to buffet mr. goodwin on both his cheeks, who hath not so much as lifted up his little finger, against either of yours? have you taken two blows for one? nay, have you not given ten for none? do you know your masters will and practise it no better? is not the knowledge of christ's will a great dispositum, a rich talon? and do you improve it thus? you confess you have received much good from him, and it becometh you to bear much evil from him: have not you requited the good you have received very unkindly? much good you have received from him; for which of those good works have you thus written against him? i know you will be ready to say (with those jews) for the good he hath done me, i have not written against him, but because he hath blasphemed the doctrine of baptism and the professors thereof. those jews were holy persecutors (in pretence at least) maximinian thought the blood of christians an acceptable sacrifice, to his gods. and so did the popish persecutors hold the same opinion of the blood of the protestants, in all times, since the name of protestantism was heard amongst them. do you think such a sacrifice as the spoils of mr. goodwin's reputation, god will be so well pleased with? that the first fruits of your pen (being so bitter against your great benefactor in the things of jesus christ) should be so acceptable unto him? do not you think in your conscience that god will call many to account for the injury that they have done that man in his name and reputation, for his service in the gospel? and will not you be ashamed of yourself to be found amongst them at that day? well, take heed of haltering up that conscience of yours, that tells you, you have received much good from him, and cannot but be sore of the wounds you have given it, by your thus writing against him. sect. xvi. in the close of your epistle to the reader, you commend your book to his serious consideration, with an ingenious praycr for his illumm●ation to discern the truth, or mistakes therein contained, and that he might choose that that is good, and refuse the evil thatshal appear unto him in the perusal thereof. to your prayer i can hearty say amen, and do believe that he, to whose understanding the very grass-hopper of an argument is not a burden, will be able to go on his way (contrary to yours, in respect of the point in controversy) rejoicing, and be no more troubled at the great noise of your loud pen, than men of understanding are at the popping off of children's gun-pots. sect. xvii. having finished your epistle to the reader, as your first ourt-gate, you lead us through another before we come to your building: and that is, another epistle to the church from whence you have rend yourself; and this, indeed, is (like sampsons' hair) that wherein your strength lies; which being clipped off, i hope you will appear, even to yourself (though now you seem to have the strength and confidence of seven men that can render a reason,) to be as weak as other men are. this epistle you thus superscribe, to my worthy friends and brethren of like precious faith, walking with mr. john goodwin, mr. lamb in his second epistle. in the right faith, though not in the right order, of the gospel. sect. xviii. we suppose ourselves in the right order, reply. as well as in the right faith of the gospel, and that you have disorderly and unduly departed from us; and that your concluding yourself in the right, and us in the wrong (the matter being sub judice, and not yet determined) is nothing but a flourish before the battle; and a boasting even before your putting on your armour, as if you were putting it off. but before you beat us out of the field, it will cost you hot water, as well as cold. but you court us thus. holy and beloved, i have been long your debtor: mr. lamb to the church. it is fit i should now pay you your own with interect, by answering the substance of mr. goodwin's water-dipping no firm footing for church-communion, &c, sect. xix. holy and beloved; and yet not holy enough, nor beloved enough for your company; reply. and therefore you have withdrawn your● self from us, as more holy than we. i confess you have been long our debtor, even ever since your undue departing from us, having broken your promise made at your first joining with us, and by neglecting your office, being chosen an elder amongst us, thereby betraying your trust, which with all readiness of mind you took upon you at your ordination and inauguration into your office, withdrawing from us, not only without, but against the leave, liking, and vote of the church. but i presume this is not the debt of your meaning, but the book you wrote was the debt you meant. how you became a debtor to us, in that respect i know not: most certain i am, if you had never paid it, it had never been demanded: and now we have it, we are not two mites the richer for it, except it be by the discovery of yourself, and not of god, unto us. you have paid us (i confess) with a witness, if not with a vengeance, by paying our honoured & beloved pastor, for the blessed commodities of life and peace, which you have received from him, in such coin, which bears the i mage & superscription of the prince of darkness upon it, (scandals and reproaches) rendering him evil for good (doubtless) to the great trouble and disquiet of his soul. you have paid the church also, the covenants and bonds which you made, signed, sealed, and delivered unto them in the presence of god, angels, and men, with cain, out of the same treasury, viz. by separations, rents, and divisions, being (it seems) the commodities of the countries where you have traded, since your departure from us. in the next place, you go to unfold the riddle of your departing from us which you call (at least by insinuation) a strangeact: but as christ jesus, 2 john 15. did a strange act contrary to his genius, to the amazing of his disciples, viz. whip the buyers and sellers, etc. out of the temple. yet when they called to mind that that was written, 69. psal. 9 the zeal of thy house hath eaten me up; this satisfied them in like manner you bid us (wondering at your sudden departure from us) to do as they did, viz. to plough with the heifer of the scriptures, and then we shall understand the riddle, etc. sect. xx. jconfess your sudden departure from us was a riddle, and is still as anigmaticall as ever, (all your writings, notwithstanding) as for your instance of christ's whipping the buyers and sellers out of the temple, and the satisfaction that the disciples had touching that strange act by calling to mind what was written of him, etc. what ointment can we draw from hence to anoint our eyes to perceive this riddle? help us to draw the parallel. christ whipped the buyers and sellers of doves, sheep, oxen, etc. out of the temple; even so mr. lamb left, departed, and rend himself from that church of christ whereof mr. john goodwin is pastor: what an apt and concinne analogy this is? the disciples of christ wondered at this strange act; even so the members of the said church wondered at mr. lambs strange act of separation from them. the disciples remembered that it was written, the zeal of thine house hath eaten me up; even so must we plough with the heifer of the scriptures, and then we shall easily understand this riddle, viz. of mr. lambs leaving of the church of christ, whereof mr. john goodwin is pastor. where is the man that shall read this, unto whose understanding common sense is not a mystery in-accessible, but may now easily understand this riddle? but yet there is more truth in the writing, mr. lambs separation is a full filling of scripture prophecies, john 12.51. than happily was meant in the writer. the high priest prophesied (when he spoke he knew not what) that christ should die for that nation of the jews: even so mr. lamb in this saying, viz. that if we plough with the heifer of the scripture, we shall understand the riddle of his departing from us, stumbles and falls at the very truth; and like a blind man with a flaming torch in his hand, gives us light to see him walking in darkness. let us therefore go and plough with the heifer of the scriptures. 2 pet. 2.15. we have a prophecy that there shall be some that shall forsake the right way, and go astray. heb. 10.25. we read of men's forsaking the assembling of themselves together. rom. 16.17. we read of men making divisions and offences contrary unto the true doctrine which they formerly received. 1 cor. 1.10. we have a caution (which implies a danger) against divisions; an exhortation to be perfectly joined together in the same mind, etc. implying, that men are apt to divide, first, in judgement; next, in practice; act. 15.1. we read of some that did put life and salvation in an outward ceremony, urging that except men were circumcised after the manner of moses, they should not be saved, (circumcision itself not being forbidden, until the necessity thereof unto justification, was maintained:) in many places more we read, that those persons that did with such importunity, and upon penalty of life and salvation, insist thus upon any thing but true faith in christ jesus, did separate, and proved very sore enemies unto their opposites, (the true believers.) it is an easy matter to take several yokes of the old oxen of the old-testament, as well as the heifers of the new, to plough in this field. there we read of cautions, exhortations, dehortations, instances and examples, about forsaking the covenant of god, the law of god, the house of god, etc. and ploughing thus with the heifers of the holy scriptures, we may find out the riddle of your departing from us. sect. xxi: in the next place you charge us for misjudging you, mr. lamb in his second epistle. and bring in this as your consolation, that paul and john, and other holy men of god suffered in this kind, and why not you? where have we judged you? what hath been declared by the church against you? it is true, your separation from us was voted by the church, to be in their judgements and consciences an undue act, which you could not but expect the church should do, otherways they should do little less than justify you. but what ever your person all deportment hath been unto them (whereof i delight not to make mention) yet you know theirs unto you have been friendly and christian, and that your company and jousts, yea, and very countenance, have been very welcome to them. you tell us that no worldly thing separated you from the church; mr. lamb. and complain that some body dreamt such a thing. sect: xxii: you say some dreamt of such a thing of you: but is not this a dream of your own brain? reply. if some body did dream so, how came you to the knowledge of it? did they ever tell you the dream? if they did dream it, it was but a dream; and will you be offended at men's dreams? how come you to be so touchy? however we see your mighty care to be well thought of. you will divide from us, break your faith and trust with us, seek to extirpate and root us up; scandalise our pastor in the eyes of all men, rendering him evil for good, and yet would not have any man so much as dream any thingamiss of you. we cannot dream waking, whatever we do while we sleep. well, it was no outward thing caused you to quit your former standing: but say you, the truth concerning it, mr. lamb in his second epistle. (viz. baptism and your standing, etc.) struck my conscience, and the light shone into my judgement with that clearness, that i could by no means a●oid it with peace. sect. xxiii: truth struck your conscience! reply. striking implies violence, and suddenness. god's ordinary way in giving light, is by gradations, causing it to shine more and more unto the perfect day, making men to grow in grace, the spirit of god not violent in enlightening men's judgements. and in the knowledge of jesus christ. jacobs' getting venison so suddenly, which was not ordinarily gotten but by much labour and pains (though pleasure) in hunting, gave his father just cause to suspect that it was but some counterfeit venison. for my part i ever suspect sudden flashes. god is not usually in the earthquake, nor in the rushing wind, but in the soft and still voice. clearness of judgement in cases controverted among the godly learned, is not quickly attained. this is venison usually gotten after (and by means of) much hunting. i believe you have made it one of your observations, that in these latter days some persons have been planetstruck, blinded and blasted, when they have thought themselves truth-struck. you say the light (viz. in the doctrine of baptism) shone into your judgement, with clearness. isa. 28.7. zach 13. men may err in vision, and afterwards be ashamed of their own vision, and lament themselves with, woe unto us in that we have put darkness for light, and light for darkness. to study the wiles, methods, and subtleties of satan, in causing men to err in judgement, is a seasonable study in these slippery times for our christian caution against his cunning; his most thriving trade in these days being to transform himself into an angel of light. sect. xxiv. we have not hitherto felt so much as the weight of your little finger in arguments. you have spoken much of truth, of clear light, of truth in evidence of the scripture, of truth clothed with the majesty of god (meaning still in the point of baptism, and of withdrawing from those churches that are not so and so baptised) as if the ignorance here of were so scandalous, that it renders men unworthy of the meanest place, so much as of being dore-keepers in the house of god. i pray let us see your strength, and show us your light. for this end you tell us in these words, now what those considerations are, mr. lamb, that commanded my judgement to that point, whereat it now standeth in the business of baptism, which is that only thing which separated between me & you, you ha●e scattered up and down in this my answer to mr. goodwin; but yet i think good to give you the sum thereof under a few heads. sect. xxv. you say your considerations presented to us in your epistle to the church, from whence you have withdrawn, reply. do contain the sum of what is scattered up and down in your book. herein you utter (in my judgement) the truth: for the spirit, heart and soul of your book, seems rather to be heated with zeal against mr. goodwin, then for the truth. well, sure the sum of all is in your considerations: we will take them into our considerations also: you deal yourself out in the business thus: 1. mr. lamb. i considered the excellency of jesus christ above moses; from thence argued the ungodliness and danger of slighting him in any of his commandments. as for this consideration, we (with you) speak the same thing, and are perfectly joined together in the same mind, reply. and in the same judgement. what will you make of this to your separation from us? that we shall see hereafter: well, proceed then. 2. mr. lamb. i found baptism with water to be one of his (viz. christ's) commandments, and joined with teaching by name in the commission of christ; and the same presence of christ promised jointly to baptism, as teaching, to the end of the world, and serving the grand interest of remission of sins, and salvation in some sense, and commanded by christ to be done upon discipled persons, and that with huge solemnity, in the name of the father, son, and spirit, and that too amongst the last words he spoke on earth. sect. xxvi. that baptism with water is one of christ's commands, reply. is our belief as well as yours. but what you mean in these words, and joined with teaching by name in the commission of christ, i do not well understand: if you understand the particle [and] distributively, thus, that christ commanded, or appointed his disciples to teach, as well as to baptism, your yea, in that sense, is our amen. but if you mean, and understand the particle [and] conjunctively (as i think you do) in this sense, as if baptism and teaching must be companions, and go together, than it is denied. for if there must be teaching wherever there is baptising, because they are joined together in the commission, than it will follow, that there must be baptising wherever there is this teaching, upon the same ground; because in the commission, baptising is as well joined with teaching as teaching with baptising: if you say teaching must precede baptising, obj. because it is put before it in the commission: sect. xxvii. i answer, answ. first, that the prelocation of the word, teaching, in the commission before baptising, is no more an argument that teaching must precede baptising in time, than the prelocation of the word jacob before esau in rom. the 9th. 13. doth argue that jacob was the elder brother; no more, then because we have jacob also mentioned before abraham in the 7th. of micah. 20. that therefore abraham was born after jacob. yea, mark 1.4. we have baptising mentioned before teaching, or preaching: john did baptise in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance, etc. sect. xxviii. 2. the commission (you see) is concerning nations: mat. 28.19. the word nations doth include children. go ye therefore, and teach all nations, haptizing them; it is not go, teach every person, baptising them. it is not denied but nations must be taught, before nations be baptised; and families must be taught, before families be baptised; that is, those that are capable in both, must be taught, and more than taught before they be baptised. but this doth no more argue that every individual person must be taught, yea and must understand and receive that teaching, before they be baptised, than it did follow, that because the nation of israel was to be taught and instructed in the ways of god under the law, before circumcision, that therefore none of their children must be circumcised until they were first actually taught and instructed, genesis 17. and the ten first verses; you will find that god first instructed abraham in the doctrine of his covenant, and afterward imposed upon him circumcision, which was a seal of the righteousness of faith, or of the covenant of justification by faith. the nation of the jews were gods taught people, before circumcised: and this is most apparent that the proselytes of the gentiles were first instructed before they became jews. this did not argue that their children must not, or might not be circumcised before they were likewise actually instructed. you know they were to be circumcised by the express command of god. you have replied to yourself in mentioning the word of god: they had the express command of god for their circumcision; object. show us the like for baptism, and we shall give all up unto you. sect. xxix. if god gave his express commands to circumcise the children of taught parents, answ. or of parents instructed in the mysteries of the doctrine of circumcision, before those children were capable of any such teachings, or of understanding the same; than it will follow that there was a time when children (even infants at eight days old) were capable subjects of such ordinances of god, and of christ, (for they were his ordinances) which were very mysterious and spiritual, children in god's acceptation capable of circumcision and the doctrine thereof under the law, why not alike capable of baptism and the doctrine thereof, under the gospel? and which they could not understand until they came to years of discretion; and that god did thereby instruct their parents in the extent of his grace, through the mediation of christ, or the messiah, unto them and their children (except they themselves did afterwards reject and refuse the same) which was matter of great comfort to them. if children were thus capable under the law, except you can find that they are expressly, or by infallible consequence from the scriptures, excluded under the gospel, by what authority dare you exclude them? are they not as capable of the doctrine of baptism, as the children of the jews were of circumcision? were not there as deep mysteries in the ordinance of circumcision, as there are in the ordinance of baptism? did god, did christ command circumcision to children under the law, and hath god, hath christ, forbidden or prohibited baptism unto children under the gospel? if so, show us where, and we have no more to say. and whereas you say, show us an express command for the baptising of children, the text is at hand, mat. 28.19. go ye therefore and teach all nations, baptising them in the name of the father, and of the son, god's express command for baptising of children. and of the holy ghost. are not nations made up of men, women and children? 'tis true, children are not named in the commission, neither are men or women named: if children must be excluded because not named, why do you not exclude men and women upon the same reason? and whom then will you baptise? if you say, those that are actually capable of teaching, and no more; i answer, than you obey not the extent of the commission, which is not to baptise the capable part (in your sense) of nations, but all nations. if the jews consisting of men, women, and children, were a taught nation in scripture language, and in god's acceptation, why may not a nation of the gentiles consisting of men, women, and children, be likewise a taught nation? and the men, women, and children thereof receive all the characters and signs of god's gracious acceptation of them all, as well as the jews did? if by the word, nation, in scripture when applied to the jews, the men, women, and children of the jews are intended (as you know they are, and as will appear by the texts in the margin: * deut. 4.34. deut. 32.28. 2 sam. 7.23. 1 chron. 17.21. psal. 83.4. psal. 147.20. isa. 1.4. luke 7.5. etc. act. 8.28. gal. 3.14. eph. 3.6. ) why then by the word nation, when applied to the gentiles, shall we not understand the men, women, and children also? and whereas the text saith, go teach all nations, i conceive it was to instruct them to inform the world, that now the salvation of god is sent unto the gentiles also, as to the jews; and that the blessing of abraham is now come upon the gontiles through jesus christ, being rejected by the jews, and that the gentiles should be fellow-heirs and of the fame body, and partakers of his promise in christ by the gospel. the words, jews nation, under the law, were comprehensive, importing the men, women, and children: the words gentiles and nations under the gospel, cannot with the least show of reason be restrictive, importing only men and women, with the exclusion of children. the salvation sent by god to the jews, the blessing of abraham that was upon the jews, the covenant whereof the jews were heirs, was such a salvation, such a blessing, such a covenant, as was assured, signed, and sealed unto the children of the jews. the children therefore of those gentiles that accept of this salvation, this blessing, this covenant, which the jews rejected, being in no place of scripture cut off, god forbidden that we should dare to cut them off, though (it seems) you dare. consider, as it is a cursed thing to add unto the word of god, so it is no less a cursed thing to take any thing from the same. christ saith plainly, go teach all nations, baptising them viz. all taught nation: you say, go teach all nations, baptising only such of every nation as are actually taught and instructed. in scripture acceptation, men, women, and children, made up the taught nation of the jews; in your sense and meaning, only the men and women must be the taught nation of the gentiles, and children excluded. the scripture makes the covenant of grace and the figns thereof, to belong to the men, women, and children of the jews, and in the application thereof unto the gentiles, makes use of the same comprehensive expressions to them, as were used to the jews, viz. gentiles, nation. but you will take upon you to cut off more than a third part thereof, without any commission or authority from god, or from jesus christ, for your instruction or voucher. it is a sin of an equal demerit, to pull down god's posts, and set ours up by his, as it is to set up by god's posts any posts of our own. again, whereas you add in this consideration, mr, lamb. that the same presence of christ is promised jointly to baptism as to teaching, to the end of the world. sect. xxx. i reply, that if by the same presence of christ, you mean the same, reply. in respect of reality and truth; that is, that there is a true and real presence of christ, promised unto baptism, as there is in teaching, we are partners with you in the same meaning. but if by the same presence of christ your meaning be, the same every way, and no otherways, that is, there is one and the self same, and no other operating presence of christ in the administration of baptism, as there in teaching or preaching the gospel, than it is denied. there is a real, but a different presence of christ in the baptism of infants from that in preaching the word. there is a manifold presence of christ, or operation of his holy spirit in the preaching of the gospel, which is not at all in the ministration of baptism. there is nothing symbolical, or otherways, in baptism, preaching jesus christ to be the son of the virgin mary, that he was betrayed by judas, one of his disciples; that he was the son of david; that he suffered death upon the cross, etc. which is to be known by teaching the gospel: and a suitable presence of christ doth accompany such doctrines, etc. but yond insinuate (as i conceive) such a thing as this, in saying, there is the same presence of christ promised unto the ordinance of baptism, as is promised to that of teaching, to the end of the world; viz. that there is such a kind of the presence of christ in teaching, which none are capable to understand but persons at years of discretion, having personally an actual capacity of understanding, receiving and believing the same; and that the self same presence of christ there is in baptism, whereof children are not capable, i mean, so to understand: and that therefore, as teaching belongs not unto infants, because they cannot understand nor enjoy the presence of christ in that ordinance; even so baptism be longs not to children, because they cannot understand the same, neither can they enjoy the presence of christ therein. if this is your meaning, i answer, sect: xxxi. first, in what sense children are capable of the doctrine of baptism. that no such presence of christ is promised unto, or doth accompany baptism, otherways then was promised unto, or did accompany the ordinance of circumcision under the law. the presence of christ necessary to make the ordinance of baptism profitable, is such a presence as shall first teach the subjects of baptism (to speak in your language) the doctrine of dying unto sin, rising up and living unto god; the doctrine of mortification, of sanctification: and secondly, such a presence of christ, as shall duly affect their minds with suitable affections and heavenly dispositions under, in, and by such a vision. such a presence of christ as this, was as necessary for the useful improvement of the ordinance of circumcision of old, namely, such a presence of christ, as should first teach and instruct the subjects thereof, according to their capacities in the doctrine of the circumcision of the heart, the cutting off of the superfluity of naughtiness, the circumcision made without hands. and thirdly, such a presence of christ as should duly affect their minds with holy and heavenly suitable affections. and the children were not capable of such a presence of christ; yet you know they were by god's will and pleasure, to partake of that ordinance notwithstanding. surely god did not command the ordinance of circumcision under the law, but he did vouchsafe his presence unto those upon whom he did enjoin it: even so, as great and effectual a presence of christ is promised and performed unto children baptised under the gospel, as was performed unto children circumcised under the law. 2. the presence of christ promised and made good unto persons that are found under those ordinances which god hath appointed, may not be so much for the present benefit and sensible accommodation of all the true subjects of such an ordinance, as for the immediate benefit of the standers by, and persons that are witnesses thereof. and the benefit of christ's presence when it was first administered unto them, may not influence itself, at least in a sensible manner, until they come to years of discretion. as the presence of god blessing the seedsman in the act of soweing, is not sensibly found until the harvest. you know the presence of christ in the administration of circumcision, did not appear in the children of the jews, in a spiritual benefit, until they came to years of knowledge, and understanding. even so baptising of children (as well as men and women of discretion) may be accompanied with the presence of christ unto the standers by, unto the administrators and witnesses of the thing done, and do service for the present upon them, and upon children also, when they are capable to understand the mysteries of god imported therein. as for that passage in this your second consideration, wherein you say that baptism with water, etc. is an ordinance and command of christ, serving the grand interest of remission of sins, mr. lamb. and salvation (in some sense.) sect. xxxiii. if by serving the grand-interest of remission of sins and salvation in some sense, be meant only this, reply. how baptism serveth the interest of remission of sins, and how not. that as the other ordinances of jesus christ preaching, prayer, etc. do serve, or subserve unto these grand ends mentioned; we are all brethren in this precious faith together with you: we do believe that all god's ordinances (and consequently this of baptism) do accommodate and serve the grand-interest of remission of sins, and salvation in some sense, though every one in its own order and manner. but 2. if by serving the grand-interest of remission of sins, and salvation (in some sense) you mean, as if there was as absolute necessity unto remission of sins, and salvation, that men and women should be baptised as well as believe, and that it is not faith alone that justifieth, or without baptism, because (as some of you have sensed it) jesus christ hath said, that he that believeth and is baptised shall be saved: if you say of haptism, and of the manner thereof, according to your apprehensions, as the jews that came from judea, acts the 15. chapped. ver. 1. said of circumcision, except ye be circumcised after the manner of moses, ye cannot be saved; if this be your sense concerning baptism, and the manner thereof, viz. dipping, etc. then i say, though you, or an angel from heaven, shall bring in baptism, or any thing else, in competition with faith unto justification, as some once brought in circumcision contrary to the doctrine of truth which we have received, you are, and shall be unto us, in this point, as accursed. and we rather affirm, that if in this sense, or with this hope and expectation, you preach the necessity of baptism and dipping, etc. that christ shall profit you nothing. again, whereas you further add in this your second consideration, that baptism was commanded by christ to be done upon discipled persons. i answer. mr. lamb. sect. xxxiii. 1. reply. in whatsense children are discipled persons, & cipled persons, & in what sense not. that if by discipled persons you mean only persons that are taught and have learned personally the truth as it is in jesus, i deny any such command of christ concerning baptism: neither doth any word in the commission imply in the least any such thing. the word in the commission is nations; go ye and teach all nations, baptising them, etc. and we have granted that no nations are to be baptised, but the discipled nations, as no nation was to be circumcised but the discipled nation of the jews. yet undiscipled persons (at least in your sense undiscipled) were circumcised; even so i conceive, though no nations of the gentiles were to be baptised, but discipled nations, yet children, not actually, and with understanding, brought to the knowledge of christ, may be baptised. 2. suppose it be granted that none but discipled persons are to be baptised, yet will it not follow that children must not be baptised? the reason is, because in scripture-sense, children of discipled parents are called discipled persons, act. 15.10. why do ye tempt god to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples; children are called disciples in scripture. etc. this yoke is circumcision; all are called disciples upon whom this yoke was put. now this yoke was not put upon the neck of the believing jews, in respect of their personal subjection to circumcision, for they were circumcised already: but upon their children, or upon them, in respect of their children, who are here called disciples. again john 9.28. said the jews to the man whom christ cured, being born blind, we are moses disciples; we, that is, the whole nation of us jews, are moses disciples, under the discipline of moses law. and you know that children were under moses his discipline in respect of circumcision. again, the scripture calls children by the name of god's servants, leu. 25.41, 42. then shall he departed from thee, both he and his children with him, (speaking of the jewish servants and their children, when the year of jubilee comes) for (saith god) they are my servants, he and his children, etc. for they, that is, he and his children are my servants: if children may be called moses disciples, and gods servants under the law, why may they not be reputed christ's disciples and his servants under the gospel? again the holy actions of parents are said to be done also by their children, 2 chron. 20.4. jehoshaphat proclaimed a fast, and judah gathered themselves together to ask, or pray for help of the lord: who are meant by judah? see verse the 13th. and all judah stood before the lord with their little ones, their wives, and their children; thus children are said to pray with their fathers. again deut. 29.10, 11. ye stand this day all of you before the lord your god, your captains of your tribes, your elders and your officers, with all the men of israel, your little ones, your wives, etc. that thou shouldest enter into covenant with the lord thy god, and into his oath, etc. thus children are said to fast, to pray, to repent, to enter into covenant, viz. in gods merciful acceptation, their parents being exercised in those duties. why may they not be said now also to be the same with their parents? again psal. 22.9. david saith thus: thou art he that tookest me out of the womb: thou didst make me to hope when i was upon my mother's breasts. what is more plain in scripture than this, viz. in gods gracious account children are said to hope and depend upon him, even before they come to understand the doctrine of hope. again, mat. 18.5, 6. children are said to believe in christ, and a fearful judgement denounced against those that shall do them injury. and whether you do not wrong them by excluding them from the ordinance of baptism, it concerns you well to consider. see the like, mark 9.36, 37. and 42. compared together. again, mark. 10.13, 14, 15. again math. 19.13, 14, 15. you shall see the heart and soul of jesus christ is free in the admission of children unto him, though you thrust them away from him. as for that last clause in your second consideration, wherein you take notice that the celebration of baptism upon discipled persons was commanded to be done with huge solemnity in the name of the father, son, and spirit, and that too amongst the last words he spoke on earth: i shall only offer this, that those words in the name of the father, and of the son, and of the holy ghost do not imply the huge solemnity of the administration, (to speak in your uncouth expression) but a consecrating them unto the service of god, discovered now unto them more clearly, than formerly, to be the father, son, and holy ghost, & it makes not one hair of the head of your opinion about baptising of persons at age, etc. white, or black. and whereas you add with an emphasis, viz. and that too amongst the last words he (1. christ) spoke on earth, it is so impertinently brought in by you to your purpose, that these first words shall be the last words that i shall speak unto them; and therefore shall proceed to your third consideration, which you give out thus: 3. i find, mr. lamb in the second epistle. that he (christ) intended not the reiteration of it (baptism) by the same person: and that therefore there ought to be all due care of practising it without corruption. sect. xxxiv. we have digged in the same field of the scriptures with you, reply. rebaptization condemned by mr. lamb himself. and have found the same treasures with yourself, touching what you say in this consideration. only give us a like liberty with yourself, to add an use of reproof, or of correction, to yours of instruction, viz. that seeing christ intended not the reiteration of baptism, that therefore those are here to be reproved for their extreme boldness and presumption, that shall press persons already consecrated unto the service of the father, son, and holy ghost at the waters of their baptism in the time of their infancy, and that upon terms little lower than upon their salvation, to a reiteration of their baptism, contrary to the intention of jesus christ. your fourth consideration runneth thus. 4. mr. lamb. i found the design of christ in the ordinance itself, be exceeding rich and spiritual, namely amongst many other ends, etc. sect. xxxv. the ordinance of baptism is indeed, reply. exceeding rich and spiritual; but i fear, while you seek out the spiritualness, and richness thereof administered unto such persons only, and after such a manner, as you plead for, instead of finding these, you lose the richness and spiritualness of the baptism you have received in your infancy; which, however it is, or hath been unto you, yet that ordinance administered unto others, in their infancy, and duly improved in their riper years, hath been as a cloud dropping fatness upon their souls; and as the tree of life yielding various fruits every month, yea, every moment, of rich and pleasant tastes unto their spiritual palate. you proceed in this fourth consideration to show us wherein consists those rich and spiritual designs of christ: as 1. mr. lamb. to oblige the disciples unto christ; that as circumcision bound men to keep the law of moses, so doth baptism to keep the law of christ. therefore the spirit borroweth the word baptism which respecteth christ, to express the obligation of the jews to the law of moses, 1 cor. 10.2. and were all baptised unto moses. sect. xxxvi herein i confess that (in my judgement) you speak after, reply. mr. lamb by consequents grants that children do capable subjects of baptism, notwithstanding theio infancy. or according unto, the oracles of god, and the analogy of faith. for if circumcision bound men (that is, those that were partakers of it, who were children in their infancy, as well as men of riper years;) if (i say) circumcision bound the subjects thereof, who were children, as well as men, to keep the law of moses; why should not baptism bind them to keep the law of christ? for if circumcision taken or received by children at eight days old, did bind these children when they came to years of discretion, to keep the law of moses, what tolerable shadow or show of reason can be given, why that baptism administered now unto children, should not also bind them all the after-days of their lives to keep the law of christ? i very much honour and approve of your orthodoxism in this point at this turn. you proceed: further the design of christ is to affect the heart by the will of god, seen in the ordinance of baptism, mr. lamb. as well as heard in the word preached, etc. sect. xxxvii. to grant you this also (in a due and qualified sense) were but to grant you out of the abundance of our own apprehensions in the truth thereof. these holy designs of christ in baptism, reply. are as effectually brought about (and his heavenly hand hath found out his enterprise herein) by baptism administered unto infants, as by the administration of it unto others at age. your four first considerations premised, you advance to the fifth. this being the plain design of christ in the ordinance, mr. lamb. i considered infants-sprinckling, which ordinarily goeth for baptism, and found the great design of christ in a manner frustrate by it, because there is no sign or figure of any such thing as death, burial, and resurrection, and consequently not that sermon of the gospel, which christ intended to make by it, as is most evident by scriptures, which palpably discovereth it to be a humane invention. sect. xxxviii. it seems you took infant-sprinckling, called baptism, reply. into your consideration, as the jews did christ when they looked upon him as the carpenter's son, or as a root out of a dry ground, having no form or comeliness, and beauty, that it should be desired. mat. 13.55. and hence it is that it is despised, and rejected, and not esteemed by you. well, however to us that believe our infant-baptism, to be by god's appointment, it is precious, but unto those that be disobedient unto gods will therein, it is a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence. i believe it hath been of a higher esteem with you. there were some, that grew miserably defective, both in their opinion of, and respects unto, the apostle paul, who once could be willing to pull out their eyes for him; which argued, themselves, but not the apostle, to decline in godliness. the true reason why infant-baptism doth no more good unto some men. the truth is, as christ could do no great miracle among those that did not believe, even so your misbelief of the mind of god in your infant-baptism, hath hindered the rich and spiritual effects thereof upon your heart and soul. but you say, you found the great design of christ frustrate by it, viz. by sprinkling of infants. sect. xxxix. it is not one of the least of mercies purchased by jesus christ, reply. that there is an atonement made for the ignorances' of his people. the froward in heart find no good: certain i am, if there be tares in that field of infant-baptism, that god sowed wheat there: and it is the enemy that hath done this. you find the great design of christ frustrate by infant-baptism. so many of the jews found nothing of messiah in messiah himself. you find no good in it, because you seek no such commodity there. if you speak of your personal experience, i am sorry for, and pity your barrenness. if you affirm it dogmatically, asserting, that you find or perceive, that the great design of christ is frustrated by it, i bewail your thick darkness. however you find no good in it, or that there can be no good in it; yet you do not expect that we should alter our opinions of it by your bare affirming, that you find the great design of christ frustrated by it. but you give us a reason of your affirmation: because there is no sign or figure of any such thing, mr. lamb. as death, burial, and resurrection; and consequently, not that sermon of the gospel, which christ intended to make by it, as is most evident by the scripture; which palpably discovereth it to be a humane invention. sect. xl. first, you have not yet made it appear, that the design of christ in baptism, reply. was to signify or figure out the death, burial, and resurrection of christ. this you should first have done, before you had lifted up your heel, and spurned at it, as a thing of naught, because it did not serve in that warfare. it may be of rich and spiritual use unto men in some other sacred respects, as well as in these mentioned. 2. suppose you do not find any such thing in it, doth it follow that it is not there? the lord of glory himself was despised, contemned, yea and condemned too, by many of the princes of this world, who were great in knowledge, yea and in zeal too, for external and outward worship; i mean the scribes and pharisees, because they knew him not in his worth and excellence. there might be treasures of wisdom and knowledge (even of those things you speak of) in infant-baptism, yea though administered in the way so much despised by you) though they be hid there from you: another reason why some men find no good in infant-baptism. you know when men begin once to despise the gospel, and continue therein, they are given up at last to an injudicious mind, having eyes and see not, ears and hear not; hearts and understand not. 3. as much consimilitude and configuration unto the death, burial, and resurrection, etc. may be found in the baptism of children, as in the baptism of men and women. the difference of the subject doth not hinder this, but the manner of administration, viz as performed by dipping, or sprinkling. but 4. in sacrament all ordinances, in sacrament all ordinances we must have respect to god's command, not to the fitness of the things signified thereby. the institutions and commands of god, are to be observed, more than the adaption of the sign unto the thing signified according to our thoughts and apprehensions. such ceremonies under the law were appointed by god, to be had in his worship, which (it is likely) man's wisdom (had the matter been left unto him) had never chosen unto such ends. if you had perfectly convinced us first, that dipping, and not sprinkling, had been god's appointment, in that administration, we had had nothing to say for ourselves, why sprinkling should be used, when dipping is appointed; but to argue meetly from a conceited aptness, mr. lamb. justifies papists will-worship. of the manner of baptism in this way, and not in that, to represent the supposed ends thereof, is to justify the papists in their use of their significant, and teaching ceremonies, which god never appointed. 5. the command being to baptise, and the manner thereof not being directed, there being in the scriptures a various interpretation and use of the same word, wherein the command is given, the command of christ to baptise, is of several interpretations. and no one of these interpretations more than others insisted upon in that place where it is given, doubtless in such cases, the churches and people of god, may use their liberty, in making choice of that, which they conceive most conducing to their spiritual, and temporal interest. and that being the true state of the case in hand, therefore, as circumstances may be, he that baptizeth by dipping, may do well, and he that doth it by sprinkling may do better. and so again on the contrary, as the case may be; he that baptizeth by sprinkling, may do well, god doth command some sacramental things to be done that are less significant (as least in man's thoughts) than what he might have commanded; but his commands are the ground of our duty. and he that doth it by dipping, may do better. the worship of god under the gospel, being more spiritual than under the law; wherein god standeth not so much upon the letter, as upon the spirit, and truth of the heart. 6. in sacramental ordinances, god may, and (doubtless) doth make use of such tips and ceremonies, which may not so fully, and in all points of spiritual instructions (in man's apprehension) answer the things signified, as some other tips and ceremonies would, which he doth not make use of, and that for very rich and spiritual ends, which would be too great a digression to insist upon. as for instance, in that ordinance of the supper, he might have made use, not only of a mere piece of bread and a cup of wine, but also of a competent meal of comfortable provision, to have showed forth his death and their life, by means thereof, with much more signification; as suppose it had been by the kill of some lamb, or other living creature made for the use of man; and afterwards to have eaten it together in love, and holy mirth. this, a man would have thought, would have answered the rich and spiritual ends of that ordinance better, than a small bit of bread, and a little wine would do. if god saith go into the river jordan, and wash, and be clean, we must not suffer our hearts to mind the excellent amana, and pharpar, rivers of damascus, but submit unto his ordinance, though it be never so mean in our eyes. many times, the goodly and most likely sons of jessie, are rejected, and the contemptible lad sought out and crowned. therefore it is no good argument to conclude that sprinkling in baptism cannot be of god, though it should be granted that the death, burial, and resurrection of christ, are not so fitly represented by sprinkling, as by dipping. sect. xli. 7. and lastly, there is more aptness even in sprinkling the subject of baptism by water, to the rich, holy, and spiritual ends of baptism, spinckling doth fully answer the ends of baptism, yea better than dipping. than perhaps hath entered into your minds, seriously to consider; as for instance. first, the sprinkling of water doth more lively represent the effusion of christ's blood for us, and consequently the death of christ, than a standing pool, or river doth. it was not simply the blood of christ, but the blood of christ shed, by which we have a redemption, and remission of sins. now though water in a pool, or river, might in a dull way represent the blood of christ, yet the sprinkling, or pouring of it out, doth more aptly set forth the shedding of this blood. we may well presume that his precious blood did trickle down from his most sacred temples, hands, feet, and sides, when he was upon the cross, all which (i say) is more significantly represented by sprinkling, than by dipping. 2. a little water sprinkled and poured out upon a person, doth more lively and significantly set forth the value, worth, and excellency of christ's blood, than a great standing pool, pond, or river, instructing the beholders thereof, that it is not the quantity, but the quality, the dignity of christ's blood. though it be but as the blood of a lamb, yet the lamb being spotless, and without blemish, that hath purchased redemption, and remission of sins, the scriptures take no notice how much the blood was, but what the dignity of that blood was, that was shed, act. 20.28. god hath purchased the church with his own blood. heb. 9.14. it is the blood of christ, who through the eternal spirit offered himself without spot, etc. that purgeth the conscience, 1 pet. 1.19. you are redeemed, not with silver and gold, etc. but with the precious blood of christ, as of a lamb without blemish, and without spot. it is true, a great pool, pond, or river, might better represent the blood of bulls and goats, oxen and heifers, rams and lambs, etc. altogether, making a great pool, or lake of blood which is corrupted, and cannot justify, but a little water sprinkled doth more aptly set forth the value, worth, and dignity of christ's blood, which is as it were freshly running out of his veins, and besprinkled upon the subject in baptism. 3. the sprinkling of the water in baptism, doth hold a conformity unto, and preserves the commemoration of, the legal sprinklings, in the old-testament, exod. 24. compared with hebrews the 9th. you will find that moses, after he had preached and spoken the law of god unto the people, he took the blood of calves, and of goats, etc. and besprinkled the book and all the people, the tabernacle, the vessels of the ministry, etc. all things were purged by the sprinkling of blood. and the author to the hebrews refers all to the purging and purifying of the conscience from dead works to serve the living god, heb. 10.22 & heb. 12. ver. 24. you are come, etc. to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than the blood of abel; the blood of sprinkling, that is, the blood wherewith you are sprinkled, alluding to that blood of the old-covenant, mentioned heb. 9.20. so we are sprinkled with the blood of christ, etc. this is more lively represented in the sprinkling of water in baptism, then in dipping or dowsing the subject of baptism (so much insisted upon.) 4. this ceremony of sprinkling, or pouring out water, in baptism, doth more lively represent the performance of several promises of sanctification unto the gentiles, mentioned by the words sprinkling and pouring out of water, then that of dipping doth, ezek. 36.25. i will sprinkle clean water upon you, and you shall be clean from all yvor filthiness; and from all your idols will i cleanse you, and a new heart also will i give you, etc. so again in isa. 52 23, 24, 25. it is prophesied of christ, behold my servant shall deal prudently: he shall be exalted, and extolled, and be very high, etc. he shall sprinkle many nations, etc. so again isa. 44.3. i will pour out water upon him that is thirsty, etc. i will pour out my spirit. so again joel 2.18. i will pour out my spirit upon all flesh, etc. upon all flesh, as well as upon the jews. thus the ceremony of sprinkling, or of pouring out of water in baptism, doth help a man's faith in the believing and expecting the performance of these promises, after a more effectual manner, than dipping doth. sect. xlii. 5. in the fifth and last place, sprinkling and pouring out water upon the subject of baptism, better answers the end of that ordinance, than dipping the subject of baptism, or burying him under water. let us compare your dipping with your notions and apprehensions thereof, together with sprinkling, and our apprehension thereof: and then see which is most likely to be the truth, and to answer the nature of a sacrament. we have usually considered three things in sacraments, the outward visible sign: the thing signified thereby; and the inward spiritual grace. as to instance, in the supper of the lord, the bread and wine are the outward visible signs: the body and blood of christ, the things signified: our spiritual union with christ, refreshment by christ, interest in christ, etc. these are the spiritual graces, etc. so now consider in our notions and apprehensions of baptism by sprinkling; the outward visible sign is, water: the thing signified by it, is the blood of christ: the inward and spiritual graces, they are remission of sins, sanctification, spiritual washing, cleansing ourselves from all pollutions, etc. (the spiritual graces of any sacrament being very many and vatious.) now let us consider your notion of dipping intended by christ (as you say) therein, viz. to show forth the death, burial, and resurrection of christ for sinners, and the sinner's death unto sin, suffering with christ, resurrection to all newness of life here, and glory hereafter. let us then examine it. first, here is water, the outward visible sign; what must this signify? or what is the thing signified by it? is it to answer the death and burial, and resurrection of christ? what answers water? is it the death or blood of christ? so far we grant also, that the water signifieth christ's blood. so far i believe you are right: and this doth more lively represent the blood of christ trickling, or sprinkling down by drops and gushes, viz. the sprinkling or pouring out of water, than dipping into water. but to make it represent the burial of christ, how will you make the parallel? let us try how things will agree. 1. here is water, whereinto the subject is dipped, or dowsed: this is the outward visible sign. 2. what is thereby signified? the blood of christ cannot be here the thing signified; for christ was not buried in his own blood, but in the earth. then the thing signified hereby is the earth; and it can be nothing else, what ever be the inward and spiritual graces. now i offer, where do we ever find water in scripture to represent the earth? it doth frequently sign fie the spirit, the blood of christ, the pure word of god, whereby men are made clean, when they are polluted; refreshed when thirsty, etc. but never doth it signify the earth, as it must here according to your notion of it, this being to show forth the burial of christ. is not this an earthly and dull interpretation, representation, and exposition of water in baptism, as you carry it? again, to represent unto us the resurrection of christ, you must manage it thus. first here is water, the outward visible sign. 2. what must be signified thereby? it cannot be the blood of christ. for as christ was not buried in his own blood, so he did not rise out of his own blood. that that must answer water here also, must be the earth again, out of which christ risen. is not this a most fansifull and unscriptural use of the word water? but you will object and say, the scriptures themselves are their own best interpreter, and the best interpreter likewise of god's ordinances. and do not the scriptures refer our dipping in water to christ's bu●●all; our rising out of water to christ's resurrection? rom. 6.4, 5. we are buried with him by baptism unto death, that like as christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the father, so we also should walk in newness of life. for if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection, etc. col. 2.12. buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of god, who hath raised him from the dead. sect. xlv. these (doubtless) are your thoughts, and these are the main scriptures wherein you so much boast that you have found out the truth in the matter of difference between us in this point, ans. as if they were as plain, clear, and express for your turn, as words and expressions can make them. and this is the evidence of the scriptures, which manifesteth the palpableness of the error of our practice, as baptising infants by sprinkling. but if a man shall seriously consider, it will appear that it is not the text, but your interpretation of it, that thus magnify. and it is your (i. e.) and not christ's scriptum est, that you call by the name of truth clothed with the majesty of god (with other great swelling words.) you deal with us in this point, anabaptists, & antiremonstrants, bring their meaning 〈◊〉 the scriptures and then force it upon their brethren for the oracles of god. as some others do about the doctrines of the extent of christ's death, of election, and reprobation, of the liberty of the will of man, etc. who (declining the express letter of the text) bring their interpretation-sense and meaning to the text, contrary to the interpretation, sense, and meaning of other persons, whose abilities, piety, parts, and worth, are no way inferior to their own. these likewise will take upon them, to digest their opinions, and interpretations of such texts into certain positions, and these must be articles of faith, fundamentals in religion, the golden reeds laid up, even in the very sanctuary of god, to try other men's doctrines withal. if they speak according to their sense, than they speak as the oracles of god, and according to the analogy of faith; then they pass for orthodox; they have a sacred and fatherly benediction, an authoritative god-speed in the work of the ministry, speaking according to that rule, there is a peace be upon them, and upon all such the israel of god. and so they pass with an ecclesiastical vale to preach and premulgate their presumed notions, for articles of faith. if you on the otherhand, and any person comes before them (sitting together, clothed, as it were, with glory and majesty from on earth, viz. the authority of man) he is presently brought to the rest, that as the papists, prelates in the marian-dayes, when they would know ●n heretic, would presently demand of any brought before them, what do you be believe concerning the sacrament of the altar? even so these demand, what do you believe concerning the extent of christ's death, election, reprobation, the power of the will, falling away, etc. if they answer never so pertinently to every one of these, speaking only the very scripture phrase, and nothing else, though therein they exercise and manifest much learning, much dexterity in the scriptures, much holiness of mind, sweetness of lip; yet, though they spend several hours and days, in such examinations, and such answers, yet they are judged subtle men, that speak warily, and covertly. and so long as they will speak nothing but the language of the scriptures, they are put off, or put by, their enemies their judges not being satisfied, who (in a word) will not pass them for orthodox, until they leave off, and desist to give their answers thus in parables (i mean, in scripture say) and speak plainly, whether they do, or will, receive their conceits, and plucits, the brood of their own brain, without sound proof of scripture, for the infallible truth of god. if they do not, or will not it is not their piety, their parts, their gifts of knowledge and utterance, their university education and perficiencie of learning, it is not certificates (though never so authenticque) of their holy life, and unspotted conversation, that shall serve their turn: they are laid aside as men unsound in the faith; men that believe, and will preach another gospel; their truth (or tormentors rather) thus making their own judgements and opinions in the said points, their positions and articles by themselves made, not only equal with, but above the holy scriptures themselves: or as the pope and his cardinals make their canons and decrees of equal authority with the scriptures, sending out their bulls and excommunications against those that refuse to receive them; or as the mahometan priests and turks will not suffer mebomet-dictates to be questioned upon pain of death: even so you produce scriptures against the baptising of children, which you say give a distinct sound, that it is against the will of god to baptise such, that such were never baptised; that the manner of baptism, according to gods express will and word, is by dipping, etc. which scriptures notwithstanding make no more for the same, than those texts that say, that two sparrows are sold for a farthing; that they took up so many fishes, that the net broke, etc. and yet he that shall not receive your interpretations; nay though paul, or an angel from heaven say otherways, he is as a man accursed from christ: you excommunicate such men, unchurch them, holding them unfit to partake of the ordinances of god's house, although the texts in the mean time urged and produced by you (as balaam by balack) to curse us, yet do not curse, but bless us altogether. for confirmation hereof, let us examine the two texts last quoted by you: rom. 6.4, 5. we are buried with him by baptism, etc. colloss. 2.12. we are buried with him in baptism, etc. what is here against baptising of children? what to justify separation from churches baptised only in their infancy? what is here to evince, that it is the express command, will, and pleasure of god, that baptism must be by the total immersion of the subject of baptism, by burying and dipping him in the water? and that every other manner of baptising is a nullity, and mere babism and vanity? these texts speak of the blessed fruits, benefits, and consequences of baptism, not of the manner of baptising. all that they say is this, that in, or by baptism (be the manner what it will) we are buried with christ, that is, we have a blessed fellowship with christ jesus in his death, burial, and resurrection; god making a blessed co●●enant with us, in baptism, and we with him, that through the death, burial, and resurrection of christ, he is become ours, and we are become his; that as he died, was buried, and risen again for us, so we would live, and die with him unto the world, flesh, and devil, and henceforth live as those that were risen again with christ. these texts do not prove, first that dipping or plunging in the waters of baptism, is the express will of god concerning persons when they are baptised, respecting the manner thereof: nor secondly, that the persons baptised in those days, were so baptised; but it proves (as we have said) that whatsoever the manner of their baptism was, that believers, by their baptism, are buried with christ, which is not at all denied; the very design of the apostle here, not being to set forth the manner of baptism, but the benefits and fruits thereof. when the apostle saith in the next verse, rom. 6.5. if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall, etc. this doth not show the manner of christ's death, as whether he was killed with a sword, strangled, or crucified, etc. but some other thing: if you will know the manner of christ death, you must look elsewhere for it. so again, when the apostle saith in the 3. to the philippians, and the 3. ver. we are the circume sion, etc. this doth not prove the manner of circumcision, but another thing: circumcision might be the cutting off of something from the forehead, or finger, or any other part, for all that can be gathered from that text, you must search elsewhere for that. even so when the apostle saith, we are buried with christ, in, or by, baptism, if you will look for the express will and command of god, concerning the manner of baptism, you must find it elsewhere, and not in this place. and further, tho it be granted that the practice of baptismin the primitive times was by dipping; yet will it not follow that dipping is binding upon all persons in all places. though it should be granted (as possibly it may be true) that persons baptised at that time, and in those parts of the world, where (it is likely) it might be done without danger to their health, etc. were baptised by dowsing, dipping, or plunging into the water, and that the apostle might take advantage from the manner thereof, namely, the more significantly and emphatically to put them in mind of their being dead and buried with christ, that is, of their being in the state of death, and of burial, as they were when under the water, etc. it doth not prove that therefore they ought to be baptised no other way. for though they were baptised after that manner, yet they might have been baptised after another manner without offence unto god, if so be they were not tied up and restrained by god unto that manner, and from all other; show us where is such restraint in the scripture. if from those texts you will prove the necessity of the manner of baptism to be by immersion, because the text saith, we are buried: with him in baptism; that is, as christ was buried in, or under, the earth, so we were buried in and under the waters, inferring as well the manner of christ's burial, as the manner of our baptism, why may you not infer thence also the manner of christ's death, as well as of his burial? and with what kind of art can you make the analogy to hold there? the next words speak of our being planted together in the likeness of his death, etc. is there any thing in dipping setting forth the manner of christ's death? well, though it be granted that some were (nay, that all spoken of in the scripture were dipped in baptism) yet will it not follow, that if they had been baptised any other way, they had offended their liege lord, except he had denied them their liberty in this case, and commanded them to be baptised in that manner only, and no other way. if we seriously consider the texts by you urged, to prove the necessity of dipping, viz. rom. 6.4. coll. 2.12. they intent to teach men the true, and most necessary doctrine, and use of baptism, not the manner thereof. the doctrine, benefits, and use of baptism, these are plainly taught us in the scriptures, which (indeed) we should more study and practise, than thus disingeniously to separate, rend, and run away from the blessed assemblies of the saints and churches of god, because they differ in these external things. and the truth is, there being (at least that we can find) no one determinate and external manner of baptism, or using the water in baptism, essential thereunto by god's command; that therefore we ought to stand fast in that liberty wherewith christ hath made us free, and not be entangled with any yoke of bondage imposed upon us by man, as you seem to impose this of dipping upon your brethren, having only such thin, waterish, and slender arguments and proofs for the same. but what you want in evidence, you make up in confidence. to proceed: 6. mr. lamb. i find that as baptism, etc. there is nothing under this head, reply. which you gave us not before, and whereunto we have not already made a reply. only one small moat indeed, which unto you may seem a beam, is not yet taken away, and which is by you mentioned in this 6th. particular speaking of children being baptised in their infancy; you say of them that sect. xliii. when they are grown up, mr. lamb. they can only tell by hear-say, that ever any such thing was done upon them, most unlike therefore to feel any such obligation by it. to insist upon this, is but to spend an arrow upon a butterfly. reply. i would know of mr. lamb how he comes to know his name is mr. lamb, or whether his father's name was lamb, the baptising of children nevertheless efficacious, because when they come to age, they cannot remember their baptism. or somewhat else; or whether that the children of christian parents have not as much reason to believe their parents informing them of the time and place of their baptism, and instructing them from day to day in the holy and due improvement thereof, as mr. lamb hath to believe his name is lamb, because his parents, or neighbours (if his parents died in his infancy) told him so? may not christians, when they they come to age (nay, are they not bound) as much to believe their parents telling them of their baptism, as the jewish children were bound to believe their parents telling them that the mark on the foreskin of their flesh, or the want of their praepatium, was the mark of their circumcision which they received, according to the laws of their religion, when they were but eight days old? or whether that baptism, upon such an information and belief of it, be not as proper, and apt, to do spiritual service upon their hearts, as circumcision was to do upon the hearts of the jews children, when they come to age? it is sad to see such shadows of arguments to divert men from the ways of truth. your seventh particular contains little also, but what you have already spoken, and hath been also spoken unto. i see we have seen your strength, and what you have to say. you run so much upon repititions, but though your spirits be spent, and strength is gone, yet your courage remains. you have a good mind at it still. hence it is that you snatch up your we opens again, though the strength of your arm is hardly able to hold them. here also you remind us of your findings, which you have ●an over, and over, and over again; as if you had no sooner found any thing, but you lost it again, and then you find it again. what have you found here? i find the scriptures in all expressness of letter, are in many places for believers baptism. mr. lamb. this hath been affirmed and granted, granted and affirmed; but what then? reply. whereas there is not one such text for children, mr. lamb. nor any instance of the baptism, so much as of one child in all the new-testament. sect. xli. what if there be not one such text for children's baptism (for it may be your emphasis lieth there) doth it follow that there is no text at all for the justification thereof? we have found text upon text, and text after text, namely, all those texts (recording the commands of christ upon his apostles, and disciples, concerning baptism) so, conditioned, qualified, and phrased, as that all the art and skill, that either you, or the greatest of your champions you have, cannot with a savage unto your right reason, honour, and conscience, exclude children from the intention of jesus christ, as the legitimate and due subjects of baptism. and where as you say there is not any instance of the baptism, so much as of one child in all the new-testament, we have found also, satisfaction upon satisfaction, and satisfaction after satisfaction, from all those texts likewise, recording the exequation of christ's commands, concerning baptism; as that neither you, nor all the armies of your party can evince the contrary, but that: here were many hundreds of children baptised, where, and when jerusalem and all judea, and all the regions beyond jordan, (being jews, and therefore would doubtless have quarrelled if their children had been rejected) were baptised; as also where we read of thousands, and of families, and houses, etc. that were baptised. but it is worthy observation that you tell us, that many learned men have acknowledged, mr. lamb. that infant-baptism is not in god's word. sect. xlv. 1. reply. if you mean, that many learned men have acknowledged that there is no expressness of letter in god's word, mr. lamb rejoiceth in the testimony of learned men, when he can find any of them of his judgement about baptism, though he cautioneth us about mr. goodwin's learning. showing the facto that children were baptised; it is not denied you, nor doth it make any thing for your purpose. for neither is there any expressness of the letter, showing where any women did partake of the lords supper. and yet you judge it their duty (being otherways qualified for the same) to partake thereof. but 2. if you mean that many learned-men have acknowledged, that infant's baptism cannot be proved in god's word to be lawful, nay, not a duty; i cannot but observe, how that one of a city, and two of a tribe of learned men of your way, do amount unto many in your eyes. surely if you glory thus in the glean, what would you do if the vintage were your own? why should mr. goodwin's learning hang in his light any more than other men's? well, however every one of the many you mention, be interpreters, even one of a thousand, yet shall they not be rabbis unto me, nor have any dominion over my faith in the point in hand. you add. and those that go about to found it (infant-baptism) on scripture, build all on consequences (ifs, may-bees, mr. lamb. why-nots (which argument mr. goodwin hath often used to confirm the doctrine of general redemption, and to draw the contrary opinion under the suspicion of error. sect. xliv. doth not scriptures speak consequences in premises, reply. as well as the premises themselves? the scripture no where saith, scripture speaks consequences, as welas principles or premises. that any one, whose name was, is, or ever should be, thomas lamb, shall, or may possibly, be saved. can it not be proved therefore that one thomas lamb shall, or possibly may be saved, as well as if the scripture had the express saying therein, that one thomas lamb shall, or may be saved. the scripture makes mention of paul desiring. philemon to receive onesimus, not as a servant, but above a servant, a brother beloved. may not a man affirm hence, that onesimus was not with philemon, when he wrote thus unto him? when the scripture saith (speaking of christ's mother) and the virgin's name was mary; may not we say and insist upon it, as a truth very provable from the holy scriptures that mary was a virgin? again, if we must not build upon ifs, may-be's, and why-nots, mr. lambs proofs by consequences are good, but he will not suffer other men to prove doctrines by consequences. how come you to affirm with that magisterial confidence, as you do, that the baptising of children is unlawful, that no children were baptised by john, or any others mentioned in the holy scriptures; that it is unlawful to join with such persons in church-fellowship, that were baptised only in their infancy (with many other of the like nature) having indeed, not so much as any rational ifs, may-be's, and why-nots from scripture, for the confirmation thereof? would any man suppose that so much as a babe in christ, would reason after this rate? where have you been since you left us? but whereas you add, mr. lamb. which argument (i suppose you mean, which manner of arguing by mr. goodwin's adverse, viz. from ifs, may-be's, why-nots:) mr. goodwin hath often used to confirm the doctrine of general redemption, and to draw the contrary opinion under the suspicion of error. sect. xlvii. it would require you more pains to show us one place in all his writings (which you say he hath after used) of such splashy, reply. shallow, watery, thin, and barren argumentation, either pro or con, than the writing of seven such boo●s as this is, which we now implead you speak much of your findings; but if you have found any such place in all his writings, namely where he hath denied that true, proper, and natural consequences from granted premises in the scripture, are not to be admitted as the truths of god i believe you may rejoice in it, and eat the morsels thereof yourself alone, having no partner with you therein in any part of the world, whereof the sun in the firmament is overseer. but this is only to give mr. goodwin a running-rap; but you could not reach him. you procee: 8. mr. lamb. i found the unregenerate world naturally falling in with children's baptism, which is a shrewd sign is a de●ice of her own, the world loveth her own, etc. sect. xlviii. you find the unregenerate world no more naturally falling in with children's baptism, reply. than you found it naturally falling in with the profession of christ. for they are baptised and do baptise their children in no other name, nor into the profession of any other saviour, than jesus christ. and is not this a shrewd argument that this doctrine of the messiah, the unregenerate world so naturally falleth in withal, is a device of her own; the world doth love her own? your 9th. particular is summed up in this, mr. lamb. infant-baptism is unlawful, because baptism being the initiating ordinance into the church, it letteth in a sort of members, which the new-testament knoweth not; namely, such as cannot worship god inspirit, god now seeking only such to worship him. the whole bedy must be fitly framed together, and every part must effectually work. and can these things be affirmed of children? sect. xlix. first, you affirm that baptism is the innitiating ordinance into the church i suppose you mean, not the church general, but dejure, it is the initrating ordinance into particular churches. if that be your meaning, baptism not proved to be the initiating ordinance into church-fellowship. this then is such a conclusion, as you can hardly make good, no not by any ifs, may-be's, and why-nots, gatherable from any place, or places in the holy scriptures; that is to say, that baptism did make any person ipsosacto, a member of any particular church. but it is provable that many, and many, were baptised, of whom it is impossible to prove that by baptism, or any other way, they were ever immembred into any particular church. and it is a difficulty too hard for you or i, or any other in the world to undertake, namely to prove, that all and every particular member of particular churches, were ever baptised at all. 2. it is true, gad seeketh such, and only such, now to worship him, as can worship him in spirit and in truth, john. 4.23. that is (as i conceive) according to the context, now the time of reformation approacheth; god will be worshipped and obeyed, neither in the judaical rites (consisting in external performances, as some among you so much contend for, nor according to the samaritans false worship, who worshipped their idol gods together with god, 2 king. 17.26, 27, 28, 29.) but in a pure spiritual manner, extending to the very heart, such as was typified by those shadows: and the son of god comes now to draw all men unto this way of worship from the judaical, from the samaritan way. this text indeed (with several others) renders men uncapable of church-worship in an acceptable manner, that content themselves only with outward forms, and yet leading a vicious life. but what is this to the exclusion of children? as for them, here is the grace of the gospel, that he accepteth of little children, and would not have men forbidden (as you do) to bring them to christ. he accepteth according to what any person hath, and not according to what he hath not. 3. again, god was always a spirit, as well as now, and he did always seek for such to worship him, as should worship him in spirit and in truth, as well as now. he always loved-truth in the inward parts, he always required of all his sons to give him their hearts in his worship; he always commanded the jews to love the lord their god with all their hearts, and minds, and soul, and strength. did this under the law any way hinder that children might not be admitted members of the jewish church, because they could not perform, inward, heart-worship, and spiritual service? did god upon their circumcision accept of them, as if they did perform all those spiritual services, and heart-duties, until they came to an actual and personal capacity, actually and personally to perform the same? and will he not (now) accept of children baptised, as if they did actually, and personally, perform those services unto him, which under the gospel, he requireth, until they likewise come to an actual, and personal capacity so to do? and then will he accept, or reject, them, as they are found faithful, or unfaithful in these things. 4. whereas you say, that the new-testament knoweth us such member; of churches, as infants, etc. i answer, that though i will not say, or deny, that the new-testament knoweth not any infant-members of churches, yet the new testament knoweth, and hath taught others also to know, that children are due subjects of baptism. and that it never knew, not taught any to know, where ever they were, or aught to be rejected, and denied the participation thereof. our controversy is not about infant-church-member-ship, but infant-baptism. your tenth argument for your belief in the business of baptism, viz. against infant-baptisme, and for your separation, mr. lamb. etc. is taken from your observation of the righteous hand of god, who causeth the sharpest and most able adversaries to you in this point, to let fall such expressions as justify what they go about to oppose and condemn; (as mr. richard baxter saith) the aged are (1.) the most fully capable subjects, (2.) the most excellent subjects, (3.) the most eminent subjects, (4.) of whom scripture fully speaketh; (5.) the greater part of the world when baptism was instituted, who were to be partakers of it: but on the contrary, for infant-baptism, he (mr. baxter) acknowledgeth it so dark in the scripture, that the controversy is thereby become not only hard, but so hard, etc. sect. l. you needed indeed to have written this in capital letters, that every one that runs may read the profundity thereof. reply. the aged are the most capable subjects of baptism; ergo, children are no subjects thereof. the aged are the most eminent subjects; ergo, children are no subjects; mr. lambs miserable inferences from mr. baxters' words. the scripture speaketh fully of them; ergo, not at all of children: the aged were the greater part of the world that did partake of baptism; ergo, children were no part of the world that did partake thereof: the proof of children's baptism in scripture is hard; ergo, impossible. can you be offended, that any that should reason thus, should be esteemed by rational men, persons of a maimed fancy, having their judgements and understandings stupefied, distraught, and confounded? are these arguments men, or the shadows of the mountains? are not most, and greater, terms of comparisons, and must these exclude all positives? he that should say, mr. lamb is the most ingenious in all his family, doth he deny the least degree of ingenuity in his children? he that saith, (i trust the parallel will please you) mr. lamb is the most christian, most charitable, most edifying, most wise, most holy, most humble among his brethren; doth he deny that there is any christian, charitable, edifying, wise, holy, and humble person amongst them all, except m. lamb? if mr. baxter hath said more for your way, in those few words, and that upon pure principles of reason, than he hath said against it, in all his whole book, his whole book would as much edify the world were it in ashes, as it doth now in ink and paper enriched with truth. but alas! the light of god shining therein, will like the sun in the firmament, run its course and prosper, against all that shall rise up against it. again, do not you blush when you read over this your emphatical query (importing an assertion with might and majesty of truth) doth not plain scripture proof, and dark scripture proof, directly oppose? doth scripture proof, oppose scripture proof? scripture proof is scripture proof, whether plain or dark: and must the one oppose the other, because the one is plain, and the other is dark? is the sun in its brightness, and the sun in a cloud opposite? can there be no proof fetched from the scriptures, but that that is in the plain expressions of the letter? again, because mr. baxter speaks on the surer side of the hedge, hath the hedge therefore but one side? because mr. baxter saith it is safe baptising those that are actual believers, not being baptised before, doth he ●imply, that it is safe refusing or neglecting to baptise infants: what shall we say? if a spider's web be as bars of brass to you, there is no hope. it agreeth not with the wisdom and goodness of christ, mr. lamb. that baptism should be so dark, as mr. baxter saith it is, etc. sect. li. mr. baxter doth not say it is so dark as that the way thereof is not plain enough to be found by men that will seek it out, reply. and inquire after it. and it is agreeable to god's wisdom and goodness, that it should be, as his wisdom and goodness have declared it to be in the scriptures, and it is no argument of your wisdom and goodness to question the same. sect. lii. your 12th. particular is built upon a false foundation, viz. that by baptism persons are immembred into churches, which you have not yet proved. your quotation of act. 2.42. will not prove your position. act. 2.42. mr. lamb. observe your argument: they that were baptised were added to the church, ergo all baptised persons in the apostles days, were church-members. may not i as well argue thus? they that heard the word, were baptised, ergo, all that heard the word in the apostles days were baptised. to insist more upon this would be but to follow you in speaking much to little purpose. sect. liii. your 13th. argument is barren of proof altogether, viz. that infant-baptism agreeth to the carnal (i presume you mean, sinful and wicked) interest of men, that preach for filthy lucre, etc. it is wholly denied, standing upon your own bare affirmation, which shall pass, having your own image and superscription upon it: and if any will take it for current coin, let him enrich himself with it, if he pleaseth. sect. liv. having thus given us your grounds of your separation from us, as if you had made us all proselytes by them, having now drawn us not with the cords of a man, but (as it were) of an angel, you justify yourself in your way, and bless yourself with an expectation, not only of peace, but even of reward, as a man that hath now contended for the faith, (viz. god's mind and pleasure that children should not be baptised) that was once delivered to the saints, (no where to be found in holy writ) as of a man that had followed the example of the holy men of old, in separating themselves from their holy and beloved brethren, as of one that hath followed the lord fully, by forsaking his church and people; as one that hath kept the national covenant, by breaking covenant which he made with the church of christ. what shall i say? he feeds upon ashes; a deceived heart hath turned him aside, that he cannot deliver his soul, nor say, is there not a lie in my right hand? sect. lv. before you have made an end of your epistle, you have yet one parting-blow again at mr. goodwin, after the manner of some of his quondam adversaries, who (as you here) have twitted and upbraided him with what he once writ to mr. thomas goodwin, touching separation from parish churches (as you intimate) as being a weak, fleeting, and uncertain man: though for your part, you profess it is not mr. goodwin's shame you seek for hereby, i believe your conscience will not say it was his glory that steered your pen herein. m. goodwin no separate from the godly presbyterians in his reformation, as m. lamb affirms. but to answer you, and all other scribes of the same order with you touching this point; first know that mr. goodwin never came to coleman-street (at first) as a parish-person, nor after the manner of such men's inductions into parishes: but there being a considerable, pious, and godly party in that parish, who having a longing desire to enjoy the ordinances of god in purity, purchased the impropriation thereof, whereby they enjoyed the liberty of choosing their own minister. and mr. davenport their pastor having left them, the said party made choice of mr. goodwin to be their pastor; and accordingly a considerable number of them did fetch him unto them. he, and they lived together several years upon the best terms of purity and reformation in the ordinances of god, which their light, and the frowardness of the times did admit. 2. that when mr. goodwin wrote to mr. m. john goodwin not contrary in his practice to what he writ to mr. thomas goodwin when he was in holland, as hath been injuriously cast in his teeth by his adversaries formerly, & now by mr. lamb also, after the rest. thomas goodwin (as aforesaid) the said mr. thomas goodwin was in holland (as yourself observe) at which indeed mr. goodwin was offended; namely that the holy, learned, and good men of those times, such as mr. thomas goodwin, and others were, should break away out of the nation, taking with them the hewen-stones of god's temples, as you know many went away into several parts of america, some to the summer-islands, others to holland and the low-countries; at which the bishops were well pleased, as not doubting but they might (with more ease) deal with the remnant that were left behind. mr. goodwin did often bewail the departure of those men, and resolved by god's grace to stand it out against all the adversaries of god's people in those times. and you know he did persist in his resolutions and integrity, even to the making of himself a byword and a mock amongst them; viz. then when others were fled and run away, mr. goodwin was left to pray, etc. at this, chief, and mainly, was mr. goodwin offended with mr. thomas goodwin. never was he troubled at the joining together of holy men in any parish, to keep out the vicious and evil party, according to their best opportunities so to do. neither did he ever refuse (that ever i have heard) the entertainment of godly persons (though not of the parish) into church communion with him, that did desire the same. nay several persons living in several parts of the city out of the parish, were his most intimate associates even in the ordinances of god's worship and service, and in all things relating to reformation, though in that parish (the civil interest of the parish only excepted.) 3. that m. goodwin to this day did never separate from them, but hath (indeed) endeavoured a stricter way of reformation, in, and about, church-work, than some (though i hope) good men of the said parish would submit unto. upon which, some disterences grew amongst them; in all which differences it was never insisted upon by m. goodwin, that they should deny themselves to be a true church of christ before; but that for time to come they would walk after a more visible reformed manner than they did, admitting such godly persons (though not dwelling in the parish) as should be approved of by the honest party of that parish, to enjoy after a more visible manner than formerly, an equal interest and power in voting in church affairs, (parish civil rights excepted) i say an equal interest with those godly of the parish. i remember well it was demanded by the brethren that diffented from mr. goodwin, several times, whether mr. goodwin, and the brethren that joined with him, would deny, that they were a true church, before these differences did arise amongst them: and it was never denied, but that they were a true church, though under much deformity, and want of reformation. at last it was assented unto, that an equal number of persons, chosen by m. goodwin, on the one party, and the dissenting brethren on the other party, should meet, and agree, who, how many, and what manner of persons (not living in the parish) should be admitted into churchfellowship with them. and after all things in a publick-meeting in the parish church, or meeting place, were composed by vote, and a blessed, peaceable, and comfortable reformation was expected, the brethren formerly dissenting from m. goodwin, receded from their former agreements, rend themselves away from m. goodwin, leaving him and a considerable part also of the godly party in the parish with him, to go alone in their church-reformation. for the confirmation of all which, and for the muzling the mouth of scandal, at, or against m. goodwin, in and about the premises, i have thought good here to insert the true copy of the order of the said parish-vestry, with other passages thereunto belonging, word by word. at a general vestry, holden the 12th. day of may, 1643. in the parish church of stevens-coleman-street, london. it is agreed by general consent, that mr. john goodwin shall nominate six persons of this parish, to consider of, and compose the present differences between m. goodwin, and his people, within the space of one month now next ensuing if it may be. the persons named by mr. goodwin at the same vestry, were these following. coli. owen row, mr. mark hildesley, doctor paget, m. john price, m. william mountag●●, m. richard ashurst. the persons named by the same vestry for the parish, were these following, mr. samuel avery, mr. andrew kenrick, mr. thomas bernardiston, mr. edward lucas, mr. joseph syblye, m. tho. fitzwilliam. and whatsoever shall be agreed by the major part of the twelve persons above named, there being present an equal number of those named by both parties, shall be presented to mr. goodwin, to obtain his consent. it was further agreed upon at the same time, that the strangers (viz. those that did not live in the said parish,) should be suffered to come to a public meeting in the parish vestry, that they might be known by face, and heard in their desires, that exceptions might have been made against them (if there were cause) and (no cause to the contrary appearing) they might be owned as members of the church of christ in that place, and to have their free votes in all things relating to the due ordering of the church, (parish-interest in civil things only excepted:) all which was agreed upon by full consent: and at the same vestry also a certain day was appointed for their solemn seeking of god by prayer and humiliation, to be kept in the said public meeting place, to entreat the lord for mercy for former ignorances' and miscarriages, in, and about his public worship; and to enter into a holy covenant with the lord, to be more careful to study the laws of his house and ordinances, for the time to come. there was also a form of an agreement concluded upon to be subscribed by all persons of the parish, and that lived out of the parish, who should be owned for members of the church from that time the true copy whereof is as followeth, we having lately solemnly covenanted to endeavour the reformation of religion in this kingdom of england, in doctrine, worship, discipline, and government, according to the word of god, and example of the best reformed churches; and conceiving it a thing conducible hereunto to agree and promise to walk together in all the ordinances of god, as becomes those that are fellow members of a visible church of christ, do acknowledge and choose m. john goodwin for our pastor. about a month after, when the day appointed (as aforesaid) came, wherein the resolves of the said vestry were to be put in exequation; some of the contrary party to mr. goodwin, receded from their former votes, and resolutions, fomenting the old differences still after the said happy and general composure thereof, to the great amazement, grief, and trouble of the rest. others met according to appointment, and the duties of fasting and prayer being finished, joined together in the covenant aforesaid, and subscribed the same; the number of them being about sixty persons, inhabitants of the said parish, (all of them having made a good profession of religion) besides several others that were not of the parish, who joined and subscribed also with them. the party dissenting (being about twelve or fourteen of the professing party in number) were still the same as formerly, all endeavours to gain them notwithstanding, and the disterences grew as great as ever. at last the twelve persons chosen as aforesaid, six by mr. goodwin, and six by the parish, having met several times, did conclude upon several proposal, to be tendered to mr. goodwin. and a time was appointed for m. goodwin to give in his answer, whether he would consent thereunto, or not: m. goodwin having perused the same, immediately consented thereunto, and signified his resolutions to give in his consent unto the vestry at the time appointed. there was also another vestry held, in which it was ordered as followeth. at a vestry held the 12th. of december, 1643. ordered, that all those that shall desire and be sound worthy by m goodwin and such as he shall nominate in the parish, and the parish approve of, to partake of the sacrament in this parish, shall submit to have their names written down in a book kept for that purpose, by which they shall be accounted members of this church and congregation, and that other parishioners, being members, have liberty to inform those persons so instructed, with their objections against any man. mr. goodwin having thus complied with the dissenting brethren, as aforesaid, and having resolved also to submit unto the proposals aforesaid, and signified the same unto them, that he would subscribe them in public vestry, upon the day appointed, some few of the said dissenting party (for it is not imputable to them all) before the said vestry were to meet, contrary to all former proceed relating to union and reformation, applied themselves to the then committee of plundered ministers, by way of petition, complaining against m. goodwin, that he caused rents and divisions in the parish, refused to administer the sacrament, introduced innovations, gathered a people unto himself, etc. and in fine, procured (as it was said, though it was never showed unto the parish, as i could ever understand) the sequestration of the vicarage of steven, coleman-street, from the use of m. john goodwin, unto the use of m. jeremy whitaker, then living. but m. whitaker upon the full understanding of the whole matter, would not accept of the same: by all which it appears to all impartial men, that ever understood the history of these transactions, that it was not m. goodwin, and those of the parish that joined with him in that reformation, who separated from the godly presbyterians, as you call them, but that they were the true separatists, though they would be known by another name. and god almighty pardon them, and lay not their separation unto their charge, & show you mercy also for your groundless separation from us, and for your untrue charging m. goodwin for separation from the godly presbyterians, in coleman-street, for those by you meant were not such at that time. 4. suppose m. goodwin had altogether been now of another opinion about church-work, than he was before, when he wrote that letter to m. thomas goodwin; must this in m. goodwin's judgement and conscience justify your separation from the church where you were, because you judge your present way the truth, and that you were before in an error? it may (indeed) and i think it aught, to keep him from censuring you, as sinning against your light and conscience, as supposing your heart right with god in respect of your intentions in your separations: and so it doth. for where hath he censured you, or the rest of the brethren walking with you, as so sinning? i believe he hath exercised more charity to you-ward in this kind, than you have towards him: and it is fit he should, for he hath more to exercise. but doth this wholly excuse you, or reflect dishonour upon m. goodwin for condemning your separation? suppose you had turned papists, jews, turks in your very judgement and consciences, or (as many) ranters and licentious persons, and still by the delusion of your judgements and consciences; would it have been dishonourable for m. goodwin to write against you, because m. goodwin turned separate from the church of england? certainly a man would think that such arguments as these would hardly make a net strong enough to catch and hold a very fly: but a child is known by his do. pro. 20.11. sect. lvi. we accept of your exhortation, to suffer none to have dominion over our faith, to call no man (much less a child) master on earth, in respect of it. and therefore you must show us better arguments than hitherunto we have seen, before you pull us away from our present standing in the courts of the house of our god where we arefed with the marrow and fatness thereof, and have sweet refresh from his presence from day to day. having done with your epistle, wherein you have contracted what you have dispersed in your book, i shall take a very brief survey of the book and body thereof also. and because i will not trouble the reader with vain repetitions, shall wave that which hath been already insisted upon, and speak to the rest. the whole book (indeed) containing many needless and heartless repetitions, unnecessary digressious, tedious prolixities, proceeding not so much from strength of judgement, as hear of affection, being like corn on the house top, yielding neither seed to the sour, nor bread to the eater; or as judes' clouds without water, and giving out little refreshment to any man, but blackness and darkness. sect. lvii. m. goodwin's first consideration is summarily thus. moral precepts when in competition with ceremonial, must be obeyed, and ceremonial suspended, mat. 12.3, 4.7.11. mat. 5.23, 24. hence he infers, the inexcusableness of such persons in the sight of god and men, who pretend themselves disobliged from the performance of such lawful, yea holy and righteous promises, which they solemnly made unto their brethren, by a necessity of subjecting to an external rite or ceremony, as water-dipping is; especially, when the generality of the most judicious, learned, and faithful servants of god in the christian world, adjudged the same no ways necessary, by virtue of any precept or command of god. to this you answer, that you allow the consideration as importing an undoubted truth. but secondly, that this is ill applied unto you, though separating from the church whereof you were a member, upon the account of their refusal to be rebaptised, and that too by dipping: you ground your exception upon two things; first, the solemn league and covenant, taken by you and the whole nation, to go one before another in reformation according to light. 2. mr. goodwin's own practice, in separating from the godly presbyterians, and joining in that way of worshipping god, wherein he now walketh. i reply: the solemn league & covenant, no pleafor separation. first, to that of the covenant, that it was in the very design of it, a covenant of union, and not of division, of the godly party in the three nations; that it was intended by the framers, and imposers thereof, that each person should be an example unto his brother, going one before another in known ways of joint reformation; that in things granted by the generality of the godly party, to be the mind and will of god, each should provoke his brother unto reformation, not intending hereby, a liberty, much less a duty vowed, and covenanted, viz. that in case of different apprehensions, especially in smaller matters, or ceremonies, etc. each should be obliged to run away from his dissenting brother. if so be that in doubtful, and questionable things, such as your notions of infant-baptism, and rebaptisation, etc. are, each should be bound by this vow and covenant, to follow his own personal conception; where should two believers be found walking together? and is the national vow and covenant, which intended to make all the people of god in the three nations to be one, a sufficient ground to render believers, as so many wand'ring cain's, to run away one from another? what, to join together as beacons upon hills do? surely you are an interpreter of the solemn league and covenant, even one of a thousand. to your argument of following your light, conceit of light notformerly discovered, no plea for separation. we have already answered, sect. 6. and elsewhere. if you will not admit of limitations and boundaries in granting men a liberty of following their own private conceptions, you lay a foundation of every man's departure from another, of justifying men's apostasy (if upon religious pretences) though it be even to turcism, judaism, and what not? as for what you offer concerning m. goodwin's separation from the godly presbyterians, i have already answered, sect. 55. m. goodwin's second consideration amounteth in brief unto this, viz. that though it were granted, that that very baptism, viz. the baptism of believers at age, and that by dipping, was the only baptism-ordinance of christ, yet their brethren (though not baptised according thereunto) having no opportunity through want of light, or otherways, for the same, and yet withal, an hearty desire unto it, and endeavour after a discovery of the will of god therein; i say in this case their brethren are according to divine estimate and acceptance, baptised therewith. proof, 2 cor. 8.12. mat. 5.28. where god judgeth men according to what is found in the heart, whether it be good or evil. sect. lviii. to this you answer: first, by absolute denial of the said consideration, and affirm it a mistake, that such churches, not actually baptised with your baptism, should (the premises notwithstanding) be esteemed by god to have been baptised, offering only, that that text, 2 cor. 8.12. doth not prove, that god judgeth a man actually and in a formal proper sense to have been baptised, who never was thus baptised; or that the deed is done, when there is no such deed done, but only a will to do it. i reply. that to insist upon this, is but to suspect the reader a very infant in understanding, for doth the consideration itself, in the very lest, imply, that god judgeth that actually and in a formal proper sense to be done, which was never done? nay doth it not more than imply that it is only accepted in respect of reward, as done, though not done? god accepteth the will for the deed. is this distinction of the will from the deed, and god's acceptance of the will for the deed, as done, though it be never done, a perfect chaos and confusion unto you? doth m. goodwin say that god judgeth that actually and in a formal proper sense to be done, which was never done? doth he not speak only of acceptance, as if done? and is this so enigmatical and hard a saying to your understanding? if this consideration given by m. goodwin, should not import a truth, what hopes could you and i have of salvation? doth not god accept of our faith, putting us upon a holy endeavour to keep all his commandments, (though we keep none, but in many things sin all) as if we did actually and formally keep them all, and break none? do you expect at the great day, to be measured by weight, or by will? is it the willingness of your mind, or the worthiness of your works, that is the anchor of your soul in the day of christ? but you have another answer, viz. summarily thus. 2. though god accepteth a desire of obedience (though obedience be not performed for want of knowledge of god's mind therein) yet this doth not excuse men's ignorance. god doth not justify men in any such false judgement. i reply. and is this an answer? may not we infer; therefore god doth not justify your ignorance of his mind, in keeping covenant with him and his church and people, though differing in some things from you, but breaking the same as a thread of tow. yet we deny not but he may graciously accept of your will also for the deed. but our work now is about healing this ignorance. and thirdly, you object, that if god accepts your will for the deed, your not being baptised, as if you were baptised, he will also by your own argument (say you) accept of us, separating from you, as still with you, it being according to our light, as he will accept of yourselves, as baptised, though not baptised, etc. i reply, our opinion of mr. lamb, with others that went from us, more charitable of them, than theirs of us. that we judge and censure, not the intentions of your mind, but the unsoundness of your judgement; we hope, your hearts being right with god, that he will pardon your mistakes and ignorances', though rending and tearing up by the roots (so far as in you was) a blessed society of saints and people of god: that he will accept of you, that is, pardon you, as he did paul, though breathing persecutions against the churches of christ, because he did it ignorantly. and upon these hopes, and opinion we have of the uprightness of your souls, we can join with you in prayer, and any other ordinances of jesus christ, though you cannot so do with us. and whereas you say, that we have much more reason to judge excellently of you, than you of us, because your way is the poor persecuted way, the praise of the poor a great snare. ours, the way in esteem, your say herein savours so much of vanity, folly, spiritual pride, and conceitedness, that for your sake i shall forbear to say more to it. only remember, there is a snare of secret vanity in gathering up an esteem from the poor and meaner sort of persons are more apt to trumpet up such a man's holiness, humility, bounty, charity, etc. then the rich: but i spare you. mr. goodwin's third consideration is collectively thus, the scriptures expressly teach, that by faith men become the children of abraham, and sons of god, john 1.12. john 2.26. rom. 4.11, 12.16. those than that are not their brethren, are bastards and not sons. if they that are the sons of god, and consequently their brethren, be ashamed of them, and refuse to own them in their church-fellowship, they are ashamed of them of whom christ is not ashamed, heb. 2.11. it follows then, that christ must look upon them as having a conceit, that they have either more holiness, or dignity, than christ himself, in that they are ashamed of those, of whom christ is not ashamed, etc. sect. lix. to this you answer, by granting the truth of the consideration, but offer, that no man's faith was accepted with god in the premitive times, who was found sticking at any of his commandments. now baptism being the express command of christ, you insinuate no man must be owned by you as brethren, that stict at it, as we do. if this be not your insinuation you say nothing, but grant all that m. goodwin affirms, and yourself to be convicted of disowning christ's brethren, as ashamed of them: if this be your sense, 1. i reply, that you have owned us for holy brethren, mr. lamb owns those for holy brethren, beloved of god, believers, a church, and yet separates from them. as walking in the right faith of the gospel, as beloved of god, therefore you are condemned by your own mouth. 2. you insinuate that we stick at the commands of christ, which is an uncharitable and scandalous insinuation. we dare not receive your weak and shallow interpretation of scripture, for the commands of christ; you must prove it the command of christ, that persons baptised in their infancy, must be baptised again; that children's baptism is forbidden in scripture, or a nullity: you may sooner be able to show us one of the feathers of the raven that fed elias, than show us any such thing, and yet you boast that you have the express will of god, the plain word of christ, the command of god, etc. for the same you take your dead and unsound interpretation of scripture, 1 king. 3.20. as the harlot her dead child, and cast it in the bosom of the holy scriptures, and this you would enforce upon us, as the offspring of god's word, and after a most proud and popish manner, you exalt your interpretation as equipolent with the text, and the rejection thereof by those that differ from you, is the rejection of the command of christ, the sticking at it, is to stick at the command of god, exalting your interpretation of the scriptures, above, beyond, or besides all that is called gods, speaking perverse, or distorted things, to discerp, or violently drag disciples after you, and indeed, bringing your sense to the scriptures, and setting it cheek-by-jowle with the scriptures, and not receiving it from the scriptures. 3. do you make no difference between sticking (as you call it) at a known duty, and at a doubtful practice? did not you once stick at it yourself as we do? and had the person done you no wrong that should then affirm that you never gave any visible testimony or fruit of your faith, until you were newly baptised? from the 9th page of your book, speaking to m. goodwin's third consideration, you take an excursion, even unto the 32. page, quite forsaking the business in hand, and repeating m. allens arguments about baptism, which have been answered once, and again, by mr. goodwin; and to run after you, is to pursue the wind, which will bring nothing but vanity in the latter end. mr. goodwin's fourth consideration runs thus, such persons whom god judgeth fit for communion with himself, upon grounds visible unto men, ought not to be judged unmeet for communion with the holiest of men, rom. 14.1, 2. act. 10.31. rom. 14.17, 18. 1 john 1.7. that you therefore acknowledge us to have worth, yea more worth, holiness, righteousness, the fear and love of god in us, than many among yourselves, baptised after your own minds have; and separating from us, and not receiving us into fellowship with you in church-communions, do sin contrary to the truth of this consideration. to this you say, (1) the persons to whom the apostle wrote, rom. 14. were baptised. (2) that by the word, receiving, is not meant into church-fellowship, but into common respect, and brotherly familiarity. (3.) that though it should be to receive them into church-communion, it doth not follow that they should be disorderly received. (4.) upon this ground, godly presbyterians, godly episcopal men, godly papists, nay honest heathens, should be admitted into church-communion. (5.) that it is contrary to mr. goodwin's own practice, and having here gotten, as you suppose, mr. goodwin under your fear, you flourish your naked sword, as if the trophies of victory must make halt to your temples, for you say, who then may not see, etc. but hold a little. sect. lx. 1. what if the persons spoken of rom. 14. were baptised, (which we shall grant, reply, rom. 14.1, 2. there may be visible testimony of faith, without baptism. whether you be able to prove it or no) what is this to impeach the truth of the consideration? can not the persons give visible testimony of their communion with god before their baptization, or though they had never been baptised? if so, why were they baptised, having given no testimony that they did believe, and so were fit for baptism? again, if so, why do you call us holy and beloved brethren, though not baptised (to speak in the language of ashdod) if there could be a visibility of their communion with god without baptism? the rule imported in the consideration takes place, whether they were baptised or no. 2. by the word, receive, say you, is not meant into church-fellowship, but into common respects: i reply, 1. their very being in church fellowship (the greater and more spiritual fellowship) required much more their reception into common respect; certainly, they that do the great things of the law, will not stick at the tything of mint and commin. 2. if the apostle would have them to receive them into common respect, they being already in church-fellowship, then would not he have any disrespect at all in any kind, cither common, or special, upon the account of their different apprehensions in some things, there being a visible testimony of their faith, and that god hath accepted them; what then have you gotten here also for your purpose? you object, 3. though it should be to receive them into church-communion, it doth not follow they should be disorderly received. i reply: if scruple had been about the order or manner of their reception, some being weak in the faith hereabout, if god hath accepted them, except you will put them upon new terms, which god never did, and be wise above what is written, receive them, for the reason you see is, for god hath accepted them. you go on. 4. upon this ground godly presbyterians, episcopal, popish, nay beathenish persons may be received. i reply: if a presbyterian, a prelatical man, a papist, nay a heathen can give a visible testimony of his communion and fellowship with god, and that god hath accepted him, though he should scruple the manner of baptism, and several circumstances therein, and should make his application unto us, giving sufficient testimony that god hath accepted him, and he promising to walk as a visible believer, in all the good ways of god, (what ever your principle is) i am not ashamed to tell you that my opinion is, that he should be received into church-fellowship with us, and make no scruple of entertaining those that have received the holy ghost, as well as we. and whereas you speak of mr. goodwin's, and though church practise in this kind, though all due care hath been exercised, not to offend weak brethren, and to keep and preserve the peace of the church: yet upon occasion, communion and fellowship with us in this kind, i mean in that of the supper, hath not been refused, when desired, and the peace of the church preserved, as i could instance matter of fact for proof, if it were meet, so that your sun of triumph, is turned into darkness; and where is now your glorying? mr. goodwin's fifth consideration is to this purpose, that learned men are not agreed about the proper signification of baptizo, whether it be to dip, or sprinkle, etc. much less illiterate men, for, for all that they know, it may signify to run or to ride, or what not, as well as to dip, and therefore unchristian it is, for brethren to separate from brethren, upon their difference, in, and about such things, whereof they can have no better assurance, than humane tradition. you answer (1.) if you were not unlearned, yet there would be little advantage in the right understanding of the signification of the said word, seeing learned men do differ about the meaning thereof. sect. lxi. i reply: in this you give mr. goodwin the argument, for if the learned agree not about the meaning of the word, much less the unlearned, viz. upon any personal knowledge, than there can be no certainty, but humane tradition; no nor yet the certainty of that, because there are several significations of the same word, given out by this tradition. you answer, 2. that the scripture interprets it, rom. 6.4. coll. 2.12. and many other places. i reply: rom. 6.4. 2 coll. 12. you argue thus, baptism must terminatively signify dipping, because it is said, rom. 6 4. 2 coll. 12. buried with him in baptism: which is as if a man should argue thus, the word christ must terminatively signify the burch, because it is said, 1 cor. 12.12. as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body being many, are one body, so also is christ. may not i as well argue thus also, touching this word, baptizo, that it signifies terminatively to wash, and turn you to luke 11.28. where it so signifies, and when the pharisee saw it, he marvelled that he had not first washed before dinner; and whereas you seem to infer thus, baptizo is to dip, in mat. 28.19. go teach all nations, baptising them, that is, dipping them, because it is expounded so, rom. 6.4. we are buried with him in baptism; buried, that is, plunged under water, as a dead man is buried under the earth. may not i also as well urge thus, baptizo must needs signify to wash, because it is said. mat. 3.11. he shall baptise you with the holy ghost: what is that dipped with the holy ghost? that's harsh; but washed, purified, made clean by the holy ghost; and this was made good by the pouring out of the spirit of god upon men, according to promise, in isa. 44.3. and made good, acts 2.4. again, mark 7.4. the same word is used for washing, when they come from the market, except they wash, they eat nor; compare this with acts 22.16. therethis very ordinance of baptism is made use of with respect to this signification of the word for washing, and now why tarriest thou, arise and be baptised, that liberty is allowed by the church to mr. lamb, which he denies to allow the church and wash away thy sins: since then there are various significations of the word baptizo, why will you take upon you the imposition of any one of them upon us, any more than we impose another upon you; take your own way for yourselves; wash, sprinkle, dip, whether you please, all if you please, we shall not be offended with you for it, neither shall we separate from you, for the exercise of your judgement herein, give us the same liberty, and come again unto us, our right hands, our hearts, our souls are all extended forth to receive you. you proceed: mr. goodwin's sixth consideration, you affirm to be the same with his first, and therefore for your reader to your answer to his first consideration, for an answer to that also. sect. lxii. how miserably are you mistaken in this? reply. his first consideration was, that when moral and ceremonial precepts come to competition, ceremonials must be suspended, and morals obeyed. his sixth consideration is to this purpose, manifest and indisputable commands of god, must take place and he obeyed, when they come in competition with such commands as are disputable among the godly, holy, and learned men, whether they are indeed commanded or no, as to instance, to edify, comfort, admonish, counsel, watch over one another, these are the undoubted commands of god, and due unto those to whom they are solemnly promised to be performed, except there be a releasing by consent, or the providence of god otherways or dering it, that it is impossible to make them good unto those individual persons, to whom they were made, but whether god commanda that children should be baptised as well as men, or that baptism should be administered this way, or another, these things are disputable, and disputed, amongst believers: what say you now? is there no difference between mr. goodwin's first and sixth consideration? well, that consideration is yet untouched by you; but sure i am, you are sufficiently touched, and more than touched by it, and i trust you are not past feeling, i wish you would seriously lay it to heart. sect. lxiii. mr. goodwin's seventh consideration is to this purpose, that that text, viz. hebrews 6.2. so much insisted upon by you, heb. 6.2. and the brethren with you, doth import a plurality of baptisms (though in respect of the end of baptism to us, there is but one baptism, eph. 4.5. eph. 4.5. yet in respect of variety of subjects and different forms, these may b●● many; and therefore (these forms not expressly declared and manifested in the scriptures) it is a hard and unchristian thing to call those churches accursed and unclean, that shall not use that particular way or form that you so much magnify and insist upon. to this you answer: first, why should that be hard to mr. goodwin, which the scripture hath made easy? say you, that is your interpretation, no text expressly, or by necessary consequence, proving what that form was: say i. 2. as for variety of subjects, the scripture (say you) mentions but one, viz. discipled persons; to this i have replied before, sect. 32. mr. goodwin's vl consideration, is summarily what you have said, viz. that withdrawing upon this account, is a schismatical practice, and a sin of a high nature. to this you answer: first, scripture schism is a sin, but that's not your schism, your schism is commanded, not prohibited in scripture. but by your favour, it is sub judice, and every man's cause is right in his own eyes, and your separation hath been sufficiently argued and proved to be such a sin as requires your repentance and reformation, whether you see it or no. but say you, show us a rule from christ, to gather churches without baptism, than our mouth will be stopped. i reply: what is this to infant baptism? what to dipping? the church from whom you have separated, was, and is, a baptised church. 2. show us where in all the scriptures, baptism is made an essential part of church-fellowship; sure i am, in respect of scripture evidence, you are here as mute as fishes. 2. you add: why should our separating from you be sinful in us, any more than your separating from parish-churches sinful in you? this we have already answered, sect. 52. you add: you say, 3. as the fatal apostasy from the pure ordinances of christ, and primitive worship was gradual, so is the recovery of the primitive purity gradual also, etc. this is nothing to the consideration, and therefore i have nothing to say unto it. mr. goodwin's nineth consideration, that baptism with water is but a ca●●all ceremony, so acknowledged by one of the gravest authors of the antipcedo baptistical saith, and therefore it ought not to make a partition-wall between the godly party of believers, etc. to this you say, 1. that though the said author calleth it a carnal ceremony, yet the holy scriptures have not so styled it. sect. lxiv. suppose the scriptures have not so called them, are they not so● is water any thing else but an outward thing? is it a spiritual thing? is dipping, washing, sprinkling, spiritual or carnal actings? was there any need that the scripture should teach believers such things as these? 2. you say, mr. ●. calleth it a carnal ceremony only in respect of the outward act, not in respect of the spiritual design. no more doth mr. goodwin, or any other man, and all the ceremonies of the law were of the same nature; had not they a spiritual design of god in them? 3. you give us for your third answer, what you do believe concerning its giving a man right unto church communion. well, i know your faith in this point, but what is this to the consideration propounded? mr. goodwin tenth consideration is thus, ignorance in some things (among the saints) appertaining to the knowledge of god and christ, rendereth them not unclean one unto another; nor is it a just ground of dividing one from another etc. to this you grant, that ignorance in many things of that nature, is no ground of separation of m●n from churches, but ignorance in this point, viz. of baptism, is such, as it just●f●eth such a separation, because (say you) i have proved, that for unbaptized persons to join in church-fellowship, is disorderly. first, you talk apace of your proving that which was yet never done, and thereby prove indeed your own confidence, but not hang else. 2. you have said nothing in this kind, but you have had better proof to the contrary than you brought with you. sect. lxv. 11. consideration tendered by m. goodwin. baptism is no constituting principle of a true church, therefore separation upon the account of this, or that manner of baptising, is not warrantable, there being nothing, but (suppose) a mistake about it, etc. to this you say again you have proved it, but where, who can tell? mr. goodwin's 12th. consideration, is to this purpose; that the scriptures making mention of persons that are unmeet for church-fellowship, or christian communion; they mention fornicators, covetous, idolaters, railers, drunkards, extortioners, disorderly walkers, but never persons of a holy and blameless conversation, whether baptised or unbaptised, etc. you answer, 1. paul writ to churches who were all baptised, 1 cor. 12.13. he saith, we are all baptised, etc. sect. lxvi. brother, take heed of handling the word of god deceitfully; where doth the scripture say we are all baptised with water? it is true, it saith we are all baptised by one spirit into one body: take heed of legerdemain in the things of god: is this good arguing, we are all baptised by one spirit; ergo, we are all baptised with water? i confess it is an inference of the same kind, and kin, as it were of the same flesh, blood, and bones, as several the rest of your inferences are: do we deny that any believer mentioned in the scriptures, as members of churches, were not baptised with the spirit? do not you judge your holy and beloved brethren, etc. baptised with the spirit, though not baptised as you count baptism. 2. what if it be granted that they were all baptised, would paul have them rejected, in case they were holy and worthy men, and durst not be baptised for fear of offending god, their consciences being weak in that point for want of light? would he have reckoned them among fornicators, covetous, idolaters, railers, drunkards, extortioners. you reply: i make little doubt but he would. i tremble at your saying; is this like that sweet and blessed nature of the father of mercies, that pardons the ignorances' of his people, and judgeth of man according to what a man hath, and not according to what a man hath not. what? to number a believer with the vilest of sinners, fornicators, covetous, idolaters, railers, drunkards, extortioners, etc. and to banish him, with them, out of his house, from his ordinances, and this merely, because that either he will not be dipped and baptised again, having in his judgement and conscience, been baptised already; or because he is ignorant that it is god's mind it should be so, and there durst not: is this consistent with that great love of god, professed in scripture, to them that are one, in union and fellowship, with his son, jesus christ: but what is your reason of this representation of god? 1. because christ was so full advising the disciples to punctuality in point of order, 2 coll. 16. 1 cor. 14.40. reply, let us examine your texts. 1 cor. 14.40. 1 cor. 14.40. 2 coll. 16. let all things be done decently and in order. 2 coll. 16. let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holy day, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days; ergo, children are not to be baptised; ergo, the manner of baptising must be by dipping: ergo, if persons be not thus baptised, and at age, they are no more fit to make members of churches, than fornicators, covetous, idolaters, railers, drunkards, extortioners, and evil workers: ergo, jesus christ was full advising to punctuality in order; viz. of baptism. i have read of one orietes, that imagined that he did see his own shape and picture still going before him; so it seems in those paths of the scripture where you walk, you suppose you see the shadow of your opinion about baptism, yea the truth (in that) shining with the majesty of god. you argue (with the scriptures) as the papists (your great pattern in the mount, in more things than in this) do, to prove their fanatic notions and practices. the text saith, give not holy things to dogs: mat. 7.6. that is (say they) the scriptures to the ignorant: again, mat. 6.11. give us this day our daily bread; ergo, we must communicate in one kind. what's your second reason, why godly persons, scrupling baptism, after your manner, are reckoned with god, in respect of right to churchmembership, among fornicators, covetous? etc. it is this, 2. because he praised the church of corinth, for keeping the ordinances as he declared them unto them. just thus, your foresaid pattern. there are seven sacraments, for christ broke and divided to the people, five loaves, and two fishes. mat. 14.19. well, your third reason: 3. because order he looked upon as a beautiful thing, coll. 2.5. ergo, what do you tell us of the steadfastness of your faith without you be dipped? away with you among your companions, fornicators, covetous, idolaters, drunkards, railers, and the rest of that cursed crew. well, proceed. 4. because he cautioneth the church to take heed of philosophers, that through vain deceit would bring them into disorder: 2 coll. 8. coll. 2.8. what need we any further witness; he that will be blind, let him be blind; can you not see baptism by dipping, and believers unbaptised, reckoned among the rabble of wretches in this reason also; yet a little more to cure our dull eyes, say you, 5: because when any disorder grew, he took such care to have them corrected, tit. 1.5. if this be not light sufficient to convince the world, that holy men, not baptised, according to our way and opinion, are to be reckoned in, respect of right to church-membership, among dogs without, there is no hopes of conviction. yet again you proceed: 6. because he saith his word was not yea and nay, as fallible men's are now, 2 cor. 1.18. i hope now it appears clearer than the sun, (if clearer may be) that in paul's judgement godly and holy persons (though one with christ jesus by faith) that scruple baptism, and are not baptised after our way and manner, have no more right to church-membership than those that are one in communion and fellowship, even with the devil himself, or else paul would pull down with his one hand, what he built up with another. having killed mr. goodwin's argument dead, six times over, so that it lies at his feet, like murdered abel at his brother cain's; hark how the drums beat, the trumpets sound the coolurs are displayed, no noise but victory, victory, to be heard in the camp; see how he glories in the triumph. good reader, dost not thou think in thy conscience, mr. goodwin hath the wrong end of the staff in this controversy? and whether the putting this question doth not discover it? and who it is that buildeth upon light conjectures, lose suppositions, presumptuous self-imaginations, m. goodwin, or his poor brethren of the dip, as he calleth them? sect. lvii. mr. goodwin's 13th. consideration, touching the offensiveness, burthensomness, and grievousness of water-dipping to the natural flesh, together with what others have written hereabouts, and what you have answered, i shall leave to men of sense that have felt it, and of reason to judge upon the whole, whether this be according to that gospel freedom, from such yokes mentioned in the law, which the new-testament speaks of. the law indeed chastised the jews with whips, but you make the gospel (like rehoboam) to chastise the gentiles with scorpions, 1 king. 12.11. which (as you manage your conceits of the power and virtue of baptism, as if men without it, and that at such time, and in such manner, and upon such terms as you plead for it) is as acceptable unto god, as the whips of the papists upon good-fryday, lashing their backs until they bleed again. mr. goodwin's 14th. consideration, viz. that for persons to mistake about baptism, is as venial and pardonable mistake (all things considered) as likely can be, and therefore if punishable, it should be with the lightest punishment that may be; therefore to inflict the heaviest curse, such as the unchurching men is, the rendering men abominable in the sight of god, this is indeed more than summumjus, yea summainjuria. sect. lxviii. to this you speak several words, (as if you knew not what the consideration said, nor whereof it affirmed) your answer seems to be to another thing, i think yourself cannot tell to what, as if (like babel's bvilders) you understood not the language of the consideration, but that it spoke in an unknown tongue: for say you, (1.) the apostles did foresee there would be an apostasy from the primitive practice, etc. (2.) this apostasy did fall out accordingly, etc. (3.) why did not the judgement of the learned stop your (mr. gooodwins) mouth, and tearing yourself from the national church? etc. (4.) you (mr. goodwin) plead stiffly for some things, which rendereth you more alone than we, etc. what is the meaning of all this? you might as well have told us, that lot's wife was turned to a pillar of salt, which had been as savoury an answer, as that you gave unto the consideration propounded. sect. lxix. you say the 15th. consideration saith nothing, but what hath been said before, and therefore you have no more to say to it: i have therefore no more to say to you concerning it, but i believe the judicious reader of that consideration, and your answer, will find it like moses rod, devouring all that you have said in your whole book, to invalid the same. sect. lxx. mr. goodwin's 16th. consideration, you have summed up thus: infant-baptism, though per sprinkling, is as efficacious, as the baptism you plead for. (1.) for declaring persons the professed disciples of christ. (2.) for obliging persons to be the loyal disciples of christ. (3.) for mutter of edification and comfort to the inner man. to this you answer, by denying all that hath been said touching those three ends of baptism, and my reply shall only be, that it is too evident to be denied, and too easy an answer to satisfy men in their wits, unto matter of such palpable argumentations, and to what mr. goodwin hath said hereabout, the reader may please to peruse page 94, 95, 96. besides many other places in this reply. mr. goodwin's 17th. consideration, is indeed as (you have said) to this purpose. sect. lxxi. it doth not ap pear from scriptures that any church of christ was commanded to be dipped, reproved for not being dipped, therefore high presumption for any to lay their own commands herein upon such penalties as you do, etc. you have answered it is very true, and it is the truest answer you have yet given. mr. goodwin's 18th. consideration, viz. that it is hard to prove it sinful to refuse not only not to be dip, but to be baptised in one form or other, (1.) because hard to find out a lawful administrator. (2.) the command to baptise is given to the apostles. (3.) they were not enjoined to baptise any person against his will. (4.) those words, teaching them to observe whatsoever i command them, do not prove that the apostles did teach believers to require baptism of them, except it be proved that christ did command the apostles so to do. (5.) neither is it found in the scriptures, that the apostles did teach a church or people to seek baptism at their hands, etc. sect. lxxii. you answer, first, with grief of heart that such noble parts and abilities, are so desperately engaged in so bad a cause. by this, you seem a little to grudge, that such precious ointment should be spent upon the service of truth; you know who said, it were better sold and given to the poor. but thus say you, if i prove from scripture that it is sinful for disciples to remain unbaptised, and that by the precept of christ, than all your far-fetched pleas will fall to the ground. and then you fall to the work, from page the 69. to page the 79. toiling and labouring to catch that (which at least mist of it) you might have had granted you for ask; but you answer to what was objected, as if (like the disciples when christ told them of his going up to jerusalem to suffer, etc. luke 18.34.) you understood none of those say, but that they are hid from you, neither know you the things that were spoken. those that have a blemish in their eye, (said one) the more wishly they look into any thing, the less they see of it: the truth is, in this you answer, as if the language of the consideration were barbarian unto you, and you to it; and instead of pursuing the partridge with the falconers, you fly after a gilded butterfly with children; when one thing is called for by mr. goodwin, another thing is fetched by mr. lamb: like that of dabartus, writing of the building of n●mrods tower: bring me (quoth one) a trowel, quickly, quick, one brings him up a hammer: hue this brick, another bids, and then they cleave a tree; make fast this rope, and then they let it flee. one calls for planks, another mortar lacks, they bring the first a stone, the last an ax. you go about to prove it sinful for disciples to remain unbaptised, if you mean disciples, whom christ commanded to be baptised, having all opportunities thereunto, (as they had in the primitive times) m. goodwin and you are of one mind in that, but if you mean disciples now in these days wherein we live, you must prove that god hath given them the same opportunities unto baptism, which he gave those disciples in the primitive times. jesus christ surely doth not command things to be done, and that upon penalty of his sore displeasure, and banishment from his dwelling place, which are ultra posse, or impossible; jesus christ is no such hard master; if you will prove it incombant upon us to be baptised (which is not by us denied) by virtue of the command of christ, you must then prove (and that not by a flourish of words, but evidence of scripture) 1. who is the person sufficiently authorised by jesus christ hereunto: hard it is for. m. lamb to prove his authority to baptise. whether you can clearly prove your commission for baptising other men and women; and why those men, yea and women too, whom you baptise, may not go out and baptise others; for where do we find in the scriptures, that those whom john baptised, did after their baptism baptise others; as also the like query may be made of those converts in the acts of the apostles, etc. 2. if you will answer the argument of the consideration in hand, you must prove the command of christ, mat. 28.19. go ye therefore and teach all nations, baptising them, etc. was a law imposed upon you (if you will take upon you to baptise others) as well as upon the apostles; as also, who are those mentioned in baptising them, what is the antecedent, or substantive, to this relative pronoun, them. again, you must prove that the apostles did teach believers to require baptism of them, and that christ did command his apostles to teach the nations to observe it; and that the apostles in their ministry did teach churches, or persons, to seek baptism at their hands, much less to threaten them for not seeking it. again, you must prove, if you will speak to the consideration, or that under consideration, that the apostles had power, by virtue of their commission, to make it a standing law, for all pastors and teachers who were to succeed them in the ministry, to impose the observation of the same law upon all believers, and the rather, because (1.) water baptism seems (by the practice of the apostles) to be intended by god chief, if not only for to attend the gospel in its first reception by a people. (2.) in that where the work or office of pastors and teachers, or their qualifications are described, there is no mention made of any charge upon them to baptise, etc. again, if you consider the consideration, you must prove that those words, mat. 28.19. and so i am with you to the end of the world, do necessarily imply, that baptism is to continue unto the end of the world; for as much as the phrase to the end of the world, may mean (1.) his being with them unto the end of their lives. (2.) that their labours should prosper and be fruitful (when they were dead, and gone) even to the end of the world. again, you must prove the promise of his presence, not only to his apostles and successors in the administration of baptism unto the end of the world; but that the like promise is made unto private christians also, in their administrations of baptism. these things are propounded (as mr. goodwin saith) not as intending to argue the extinction of the ordinance of baptism, but rather as a demonstration of the many labyrinths and difficulties, which you ought to overcome and clear, who are so confidently positive and assertive of your practice, and who pronounce all men unworthy of christian-communion, who are not as positive and assertive as yourselves. but alas! mountains and rocks are not so easy removed by babes and sucklings, and puffed away with a breath. sect. lxxiii. the 19 consideration (being, as you say, the same with the 8th.) you pass over with reference to your answer thereunto, and so do i with reference to my reply to that answer; and if that 19th. consideration, were nineteen times put upon your thoughts, it would be too little for you to withstand the due weight and import thereof. mr. goodwin's 20. consideration, is to this purpose: peter being questioned for holding communion with cornelius, and other gentiles, by the brethren of jerusalem, he justifieth it, by telling them, that they having received the holy ghost as well as themselves, they had no reason to reject them, never making the least mention of their being baptised, and with that account only the brethren were satisfied. to this you answer, 1. they were baptised. i reply, how could the brethren know that? 2. you say the communion peter had with them, was after baptism. i reply, how could the brethren know that still? the query still is, why did not peter inform them of their baptism? 1. you answer, the scriptures silence doth not argue that there was no mention made of it. sect. lxxiv. i reply: that your silence had been better than such an answer: will you conclude upon that whereof the scripture is silent? you add. 2. in those days a believing person, and a baptised person, was presumed the same. i reply, 1. how know you that? where do you find such a presumption? if this be a verity, it must be an unwritten one also, having not so much as any probable ifs, may-be's why-nots for it. 2. the contrary is palpable; for, (1.) there were believers before they were baptised, and therefore were so presumed to be their faith and the profession thereof, being praevious to their baptism. (2.) there were many believers spoken of by the scriptures, of whose baptism there is not the least mention made, viz. of the baptism of peter, & james, and john, philip, and bartholomew, etc. (3.) we read of many that were baptised, of whose faith we have no particular assurance at all, as of those of jernsalem, and all judea, and of the regions beyond jordan, that were baptised of john in the wilderness. sect. lxxv. mr. goodwin's 21. consideration, is to this purpose, viz. that pastors and teachers were given by christ, for the perfecting of the saints in general, whether baptised or not baptised, 2 eph. 4.8.11, 12. christ's body consisting of saints, ● ephes. ●. 10. it followeth then, that saints, whether baptised on not, have right to fellowship, in as much as pastors and teachers have their calling by, and residence in churches, neither are they in a probable way of perfecting them, but while incorporated with them; if so, they that will not allow the privilege of church-membership with them, unto saints, deeming them unbaptised, are sound fighters against jesus christ, etc. you answer, 1. those saints specified in the 4th. of the ephesians, were baptised, having one god, one spirit, one hope, one lord, one faith, so one baptism. i reply: one baptism in respect of fruit and consequence, not in respect of form: for, 2. they had several baptisms in other respects, as to speak in your own language, baptism with water, baptism with the spirit, baptism with affliction, etc. but all these in respect of fruit and consequences, but one baptism; so that answer vanisheth into air. 2. you say, i have proved already that unbaptized persons were reputed none of the visible body of christ. i reply: but where have you proved it? sure i am, all the inhabitants of heaven and earth, know nothing of your proof, herein; show us therefore where your proof lieth, we hear of nothing more than i have proved, i have proved, i have proved, and i have found, i have found, i have found, but you can as well show us the way of the bird in the air, of the fish in the sea, etc. as show us where you have thus proved and found the things you speak of. your chiefest proof for the point in hand, that i have met withal, is gal. 3.27. for as many as have been baptised unto christ, gal. 3.27. have put on christ; hence you most confidently build, that they, and only they that were baptised unto christ, were judged by the churches to have put on christ, this place is the mine, from whence you dig up your treasure; here is the place where you think you have found, you have found. but look into it again, may not you as well argue, (as once manes that mad heretic, as one calls him, did) from the 10th. of john, and the 8th. ver. all that ever came before me are thiefs and robbers; therefore abraham, isaac; and jacob, moses and the prophets, that came before christ were thiefs and robbers; is not here good divinity? may not you argue thus also, because the scripture saith, mark 6.56. as many as touched him were made whole; hence i argue, that they and only they that touched christ, were made whole by christ. again, acts 4.6. it is said, as many as were of the kindred of the high priest, were gathered together at jerusalem; hence you infer, that they and only they that were of the kindred of the high priest, were gathered together at jerusalem. do you not see that your silver is become dross, and all your treasure is nothing but dirt and mire? mr. goodwin's 22. consideration imports, first, the consideration of that intelligence, by books and writings, from too crebile authority, touching the troublesome and turbulent deportment of those that have thus gone a wand'ring after dipping and rebaptisation, where their numbers have considerably increased in ireland, scotland, etc. and the menacing effects thereof. 2. the testimony of luther, calvin, beza, bucer, peter martyr, musculus, bullinger, who in their writings take up most sad complaints against this generation of men, as enemies to the progress of the gospel, and by their unchristian carriages, caused the good word of god and the reformed religion to be evil spoken of, etc. 3. that records of former, and experience of present times, have given instances of several of the best and most considerate persons, sometimes engaged in that way of rebaptisation, after full trial of it, have forsaken it as not finding god and christ in it. 4. that by frequent and credible information, there is little of the presence of god in some of their religious assemblies, the scriptures being very lamely opened, etc. 5. the several new modes of dipping pleaded for, every latter pretending to correct the insufficiency, irregularity, and inconvenience of the former, etc. 6. the uncertainty of many men of that way who change and shift their judgements and practices, their dividing and subdividing, even among themselves, etc. 7. that high antichristianlike, and imposing spirit that is amongst them, prohibiting men pope-like, and conjuring men (disciples of that way) not to hear jesus christ himself speaking by any other mouth than theirs, as if after they were dipped, a voice from heaven had commanded all men to hear them, as it did (upon christ's baptism) to hear him, etc. 8. that persons once discipled to that way, have no ears to hear and consider any arguments and reasons that speak against that way, etc. 9ly. and lastly, that many (given up unto that judgement and practice, upon terms of total separation from their godly societies) decay in their graces, lose that sweetness, meekness, love and humility that were in them formerly; going into the water lambs, and coming out again wolves, and tigers, etc. sect. lxxvi. this 22. consideration, hath such an operation upon you, as christ's sermon had upon some of the jews, when they said, (joh. 10.20.) he hath a devil, and is mad; or, as the jews when they heard paul speak of his being sent to the gentiles, (acts 22.22.) away with such a fellow from the earth, it is not fit he should live: the truth is, did i not know you, i would say, your zeal against mr. goodwin seems to rise not only to anger, but even to rage's, yea, to envy itself, as if (like esau) you now resolved your brothers (nay, your spiritual fathers) death, or at least, the death of his name and honour a-among good men. i have heard of one friar augustine of antwerp, that preaching to the people against luther, wished that luther was there, that he might by't out his throat with his teeth; you seem to use m. goodwin and his reputation, in your answer to this 22. consideration, but even as david in his rage against the ammonites, putting them under saws and harrows of tron, and under axes of iron, making them to pass through the brick-kilne; or, as balacks' anger against balaam, numbers 24 10. made him clap his hands as him, his colour to change, his tongue to stammer, his teeth to gnash, his feet to stamp, etc. what have we here in answer, but as it were thunder, hail, tempest from your supercilious and peevish pen? but more particularly let us observe your answer. first, you lift mr. goodwin up for his old brave say, (strapado-like) that you might throw him down with the greater fall and reproach: how doth mr. goodwin's zeal in opposing us, transport himself, making him forget his old brave saying, wherein he certainly had the spirit of god with him, etc. 2. you charge mr. goodwin, that leaving his calm reasonings from scripture, he betakes himself to wrath, and the weapons of reflection, and presently yourself reflects upon him what ever you can pick out of his writings to disparage him; though in this you do (like a whiffler) carry a torch in your hand to show to others your own deformity. 3. mr. lamb that he might gangrene his name to purpose, and lay his honour in the very dust, is searching and digging the field even of golgatha itself, to find out the worst of rottenness and putrefaction he can, to besmear him therewith; mark his words, he (mr. goodwin) shakes hands with the old enemy of the truth, gangraena, in many of his methods, etc. before i look into this sepulchre, i shall premise concerning the author of gangraena, mr. t. e. deceased and interred therein; that, however his zeal, by the advantage of his natural temper, and the multitude of bellows blowing it up, even from all parts, did (indeed) transport him beyond the due lines of christian moderation, in writing against his brethren, differing from him about discipline; yet, for my part, my hopes are, that though those works of his will not be able to abide the fire, but shall be burnt; yet, that he himself shall be saved in the day of our lord jesus, and that god hath forgiven it unto him, for he did it ignorantly, and presuming he did his master good service therein, and i could wish, that his dust might not be interrupted, but that it might sleep in rest, and peace, and no more disturbed until it be refined and restored. nevertheless, the said sepulchre being opened by this unhappy hand, striving (if possible) to thrust mr. goodwin's fame and reputation into the mouth thereof, and to bury it in everlasting reproach and contempt; i cannot but endeavour to hold the arms of this unkind, ungrateful, and indeed unnatural once beloved son and disciple of his, to prevent the issue of his desperate attempt. mr. lamb compares mr. g. to mr. e. striving to make the parallel hold in five things. 1. did mr. e. take up disparaging reports against honest men, differing from himself in judgement? so doth mr. g. 2. did mr. e. publish those reports to their dishonour? so doth mr. g. 3. did mr. edw. charge the unworthiness of some few, upon the generality of the men of his displeasure? so doth mr. goodw. 4. did mr. edw. stir up the magistrate against them? so doth mr. goodw. 5. and lastly, did mr. e. urge the writings of other men to disgrace them whom he opposed? so doth mr. goodwin. i reply, first, to the two first of your particulars, yea and to the last also, viz. the gathering and publishing the true reports, evil customs, and practices of those men, that decline the ways of god, and the societies of the saints, under their pretended zeal for god's glory, and the salvation of men's souls, and that for the christian caution of others, either staggering and unsettled in the truth, and recovery (if it may be) of some out of the snare of death: these (i say) are practices of divine authority and approbation, and to be reckoned among other the good ways of god, for the edification of the sons of men, mat. 16.6. mark 12.38. phil. 3.2. 2 tim. 3.6. 2 pet. 2.12, 13, 14, 15. jude 8.10.16. rom. 16.17.18. to the third particular, viz. the charging of the unworthiness of some persons, to slain the honour of the generality of men of the same way, judgement, and practise, this is scandalously charged upon mr. goodwin, for he brings you the authority of luther, calvin, beza, bucer, and men of undoubted credit and worth, for their piety, learning, life, and conversation, making mention not of one, or a few, but of the generality of men of that judgement and practice, acting very turbulently and sinfully in the places where they lived, and several of the last quotations of scripture, will justify that also. to the fourth particular, viz. that mr. goodwin stirred up the magistrates in his water-dipping, etc. against you or any others for matters of religion (the public peace preserved) is so foul, false, and foolish a charge, as a man would think, that the forehead of a whore upon the face of a man, had more modesty than to affirm it; and certainly, had you not given and rendered yourself a very sad instance of the woeful change of your wont genius, from what it was when you were amongst us, and that you are the man that have made a sad shipwreck of that sweetness, meekness, love, and christian humility of spirit, etc. i say, had you not been a sad example and instance herein, you (that know mr. goodwin's judgement, and what he hath and doth daily write concerning his faith in that point) would not so boldly, capriciously, and peremptorily have written such falcities of him, and except you quickly recover yourself, we cannot but fear the issue will be tragical. how can you revise those words of yours, page. 92. there is this only difference between you and m. edward's, in your war against the truth, and people of the most high, he was your match in rage and fury, but he wanted your keen wit, and roaring language to set it off with; i say, how can you read them over and not look upon them as the abhorrency of your soul, and even melt in tears for them? but the leopers lips must be covered. 2. suppose mr. goodwin had exceeded the rules of christianity in this kind, and stumbled at that stone whereat others dash themselves in pieces, was it such a worthy piece of charity to the world to be edifified by you in the discovery thereof? by you (i say) his son in the faith: i have heard of a father, who complaining, that never had man so undutiful a child as he, his son (to throw contempt enough upon him) replied, with less grace than truth, my grandfather had. do not you likewife endeavour here to render mr. g. worse than him whom (with (indeed) very little charity also) you style an old enemy of the truth. 3. i appeal to your conscience; do not you believe that mr. goodwin's end in writing this 22. consideration, as well as any of the rest? was not your spiritual peace and interest according to his best thoughts and apprehensions, that you might remember from whence you are fallen and repent? and is this so great a crime, deserving from your justice so great a censure, that you should thus stigmatize him for a man of rage, of fury, and of a roaring language to set it off with? a man of cruel mockings, contemptuous revile, etc. 4. whether you do not judge it incombent as a duty upon elders, ministers, and pastors of churches, when they perceive a danger of their church's defection in matters of faith and practice, together with other arguments from scripture and reason, to present their people and flocks, over which god hath made them overseers, with the corrupt and wicked conversations of those persons, i mean of the generality of those persons of the same judgement, notions, and apprehensions, against which they argue, as being fully persuaded of the corruption thereof, & of a dangerous tendency to root up & destroy the flourishing congregations & churches of the living god. suppose some of your people baptised (as you call it) and gathered to yourself according to your own judgement, should apostize to popery, to judaisme, to turcism, to rantism, and that with the plea of conscience, as supposing the truth to be on their fides, would it be improper or impertment (if you be their pastor) amongst other arguments for their reducement, to inform them of the authenticque histories, relating the cruelty of the papists, the tyranny of the turks, the frauds of the jews, the profaneness of the ranters, etc. and hath mr. goodwin done any more. 5. how were you harrased, tortured, and perplexed in this your answer to this 22. consideration, as if in an agony between conscience and concupiscence, one while lifting mr. goodwin up above all his fellows for disposition and conversation according to godliness, a pattern of patience, humility, meekness, temperance, and this by 20 years' experience; a man that hath exceeded his brethren of the ministry in the promotion of holiness and close walking with god, there being not many in his time, if any at all, that hath managed the same with more authority, life, and power; another while you writ him comparable with the old enemy of the truth, gangraena, between whom and mr. goodwin (say you) there is but this only difference, viz. that he had not so keen a wit and roaring language to set off his rage and fury, as mr. edward's had. 6ly. and lastly, instead of answering those nine particulars mentioned in this 22 consideration, you fall foul upon m. goodwin, as if your pen was in an ecstasy of rage, and discontent, and this must pass for an answer to them all, and so set it pass with them that can be content to be so answered. mr. goodwin's 23 consideration amounts to this, there is no substantial argument produced to justify such a practice of separations upon such grounds, neither do he believe ever will be. to this you say, whether we have not given arguments to justify it, more than one, and that grounded upon the scriptures and your own principles, and indeed the principles of all the learned, i refer (say you) to the judgement of the reader. sect. lxxvii. if your reader be a child in malice, and a man in understanding, reply. if a noble berrean, and not a giddyheaded galathian, able to try the spirits, to prove all things so, as to hold fast that which is good, if his eyes are in his head; what can he see in what you have written, but a reed shaken with the wind, a bubble in the air, having indeed curious colours, but filled only with very breath? what can he see, but zeal without knowledge, many good words to no good purpose, the holy scriptures miserably mangled and cut in pieces, like the levites concubine, and scattered abroad throughout your book? what can he see, but confidence of mastery upon the very throne; evidence of truth upon the very dunghill: shadows of arguments exalted above the stars of god, and the truth of arguments brought low, and (as it were) covered with worms? what can he see, but a child of light walking in darkness, and a son of desire murdering the honour of his aged father? what can he see, but a straggling sheep wand'ring away from the flock of christ, a prodigal son turning his back upon his father's family? what can he see, but your high presumption, in cutting off, and keeping away innocent babes from christ's benediction, in tearing up, and rending in pieces the churches of christ united together by a holy covenant, in obtruding your mere fancies for the objects of faith, and your unscriptural conceits for the oracles of god, in cursing those armies of israel, and flocks of christ, whom he hath blessed, and in calling them common, and unclean, whom he hath cleansed. in a word, what shall he see, but that (notwithstanding all that you have written yet) water-dipping is no firm footing for church-communion. sect. lxxviii. to conclude, if your reader of what you have written to answer m. goodwin, be also m. goodwin's reader of what you have pretended to answer, and a reader of such a character mentioned in the last paragraph, i need not in the least suspect his discerning faculty, in observing your most importune weakness, in discovering (as you call it) m. goodwin's great mistakes in the exposition of eight chief scriptures about church-communion: the truth is, as in the former part of your book, you call darkness light, so in the rear of it, you call light darkness, and as the real darkness of that pretended light; so the manifest light of that which you here call darkness, cannot but be evidently discerned by him that will diligently search those scriptures, and examine what m. goodwin and yourself, his corrector, have offered, as the true sense and meaning thereof, in relation to the business in controversy between you, viz. separation from churches, made up of holy brethren, walking in the right faith of the gospel, because of their disterence in judgement concerning baptism, 1 bohn 2.10. for he that loveth his brother abideth in the light, and there is none occasion of stumbling in him. finis. mr. lamb's postscript, prescribed. there is one thing further observable in mr. goodwin's answer to my brother allen, which i take myself bound to give the reader notice of, lest he err through the ignorance of it; that is, that he doth with my brother allen, just as the six booksellers did with him, p. 64. by leaving out the very word such, (though i suppose through oversight) whereupon the stress of the argument lieth. there is one thing further observable in mr. goodwin's answer to my brother allen; reply. it seems the very fragments of any thing that will serve in your warfare against m. goodwin's reputation, are so precious, that nothing thereof must be lost. which i take myself bound to give the reader notice of: bound? by what bonds? what, of nature, to rise up against your friend, your brother, your great benefactor, your spiritual father? or are they bonds of grace, viz. to bear false witness against your neighbour? maximinian the emperor thought that the blood of christians was a very acceptable sacrifice unto his gods, and in the sixth consul of toledo it was enacted, that the king of spain should suffer none but roman catholics to live in his dominions, king philip accordingly having narrowly escaped shipwreck in his passage from the low-countries, said, he was delivered by the singular providence of god to root out lutheranism, and this he thought himself bound to do: and so paul thought he verily ought to do many things against the name of jesus of nazareth. well, consider of it; if the light that is in you be darkness, how great is that darkness! beware of an injudicious mind; what man bound to thrust your pen up to the feathers (as a sword to the hilt) in the blood of mr. g. good name, by fixing upon him a very falsehood: i still demand, by what law are you bound? and you answer virtually, yes, bound, and that by the law of charity to your honest reader: for thus say you: i take myself bound to give the reader notice thereof, lest he err through the ignorance of it. i confess it is a very charitable thing to be eyes to the blind, but a cursed thing to make the blind man go out of his way; for if your reader be blind in the thing you speak of, sure i am, he hath but a blind guide of you in this point, as we shall see presently: and if he be not blind, than you endeavour very charitable to pluck out his eyes, that he may see the better through the holes of his head. but i further demand: what great error was your reader like to incur by the ignorance of this great piece of truth, whereof you do inform him? suppose he had never known this way of truth, (untruly so called) had it been much out of the way of his peace and edification? i confess he had not seen so much your own nakedness, had you not anointed his eyes with this eyesalve, and therein might have been a loser: but what is the vision? you give it out thus: that is, that he (m. goodwin) doth with my brother allen, just at the six booksellers did with him, viz. (m. goodwin.) in your prescript you raked the grave, to find out (if it were possible) the worst amongst the dead, reply. and painted out m. goodwin according to his ghostly and ghastly image in your prescript, you (diogenes like) walk up and down the city of london, with your candle in your hand, to find out a pack of very honest men, having neither honour nor conscience among the living, that you might chain m. goodwin with them also, to crucify christ with thiefs, and to number him with transgressors, was the trick of the rulers of the jews, to make jesus odious to the people: for my part, make good your charge, and i will turn separate from m. goodwin also, professing that he that shall deal with any man, good or bad, as the six booksellers did deal with m. goodwin, is not worthy to set amongst the dogs of jobs flocks, much less amongst men of any credit or conscience; but solomon saith, he that uttereth a slander is a fool. but wherein did m. g. deal with m. a. as the six booksellers did deal with him? you proceed: page 64. of his book, by leaving out the very word, such (though, i suppose, through over sight) whereupon the stress of the argument lieth; the very word, such. this is, i confess, a very obseveable thing, that he should not only leave out the very word, such, but that he should leave it out just as the six booksellers did, is such a thing as must not be omitted, though he did it through a mistake. 1. if m. g. did leave out the very word, such, as the six booksellers did, if it were through a mistake, do you think he left it out just as the six booksellers did? did they do it through a mistake also? 2. but did he leave out the very word, such, just as the six booksellers did? yea, say you, consider else. here let us consider how the six book sellers deal with mr. g. in leaving out that word, such, in transcribing m. g. words, and how m. g. did with m. a. just as they did with m. goodwin. m. goodwin's words out of the 335. page of his redemption-redeemed, speaking against the assurance of the love of god, to a person outrageously and desperately wicked and profane, these are his very words, i verily believe, that in case any such assurance of the unchangeableness of god's love were to be found in, or could regularly be deduced from the scriptures, it were a just ground to any intelligent and considering man, to question their authority, and whether they were from god or no. the six book sellers to render m. goodwin an heretic, transcribed his words out of the same place, affirming that m. goodwin said thus: that in case any assurance of the unchangeableness of god's love, were to be found in, or regularly be deduced from the scriptures, it were a just ground to any intelligent man to question their authority, and whether they were from god or no. would not a man think that these six book sellers were all brethren of the lineage of one of those two false witnesses against christ, mar. 14.58. who affirmed that they heard him say, i will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and within three days i will build up another made without hands, which was neither his saying, nor meaning; his saying was, john 2.19. destroy ye; they affirm that he said, i will destroy: his saying was, this temple; they affirm he said, this temple made with hands, etc. if these booksellers should thus prevaricate with those with whom they trade, about men's estates, as they have with m. goodwin in matters relating to his good name, would any wise men deal with them for three pence: certain i am, however they may flatter themselves, and may have pillows under their elbows; and men (known by the name of the prophets of god too) may speak peace to them for their pretended zeal for the truth of god, and against errors, yet the holy scriptures yields no hopes, much less assurance, of salvation unto such persons, living and dying in such wilful abuse of men without repentance; and m. lamb chargeth this cursed delinquency upon m. goodwin, dealing with m. allen as these six booksellers did with him: but let us examine whether this be so or no. m. allens words (as yourself hath transcribed them) are these: if one person may be admitted without baptism, why not two? if two, why not ten? and so an hundred or a thousand, and consequently such gospel order laid totally aside, meaning baptism. m. goodwin dealing with those words by way of answer, in the 64. page of his water-dipping, etc. transcribes them thus: if one person should be admitted upon such terms (that is as you explain it, without baptism) then why not two? if two, why not ten, and so an hundred, or a thousand; and consequently such gospel order laid totally aside. what injury hath m. goodwin done here to m. allen in the transcribing his words: hath he dealt with him as the six booksellers dealt with m. goodwin: you cry out against m. g. unmerciful pen, because it vexeth with evidence and sharpness of argument, and aptness of expression; may not he cry out against your pen for a false and scandalous pen: is there any one word, syllable, or tittle, or the least jota of difference (either by adding unto, or taking from) between m. goodwin's transcript and m. allens words so transcribed. but wherein do you pretend the parallel: thus, say you. mr. goodwin answereth thus; if a hundred, or a thousand, or ten thousands should be admitted to church-priviledges upon a manifestation of their faith, which may be otherways done, & to far better satisfaction then by being baptised, with an exclusion to all others who are able to give no such account of a work of faith in them, would this be a total laying aside of gospel-order? my brother allen saith, not that it would be a total laying aside of gospel order, but a total laying aside of such gospel order, which he was speaking of, namely, the great ordinance of baptism, as mr. baxter calleth it, etc. 1 and is this all that you can say to justify that loud and filthy charge, cast upon m. goodwin, in chaining him with those six booksellers, namely, because he did not answer (as you suppose) the strength of m. allens argument? will it not then follow, that whosoever doth not answer every word of a book, which the author judgeth to have strength in it, is as vile and unworthy, as he, or they, that shall falsely and scandalously charge a man with untruths? and if so, must not you come up to the chain also? 2. m. goodwin pleads a possbility of evidencing faith, and visibility of saint-ship, and so a capacity of a holy fellowship, even in gospel order, though baptism had not been appointed, or that there had been no such ordinance: m. allen on the other hand argues, that upon the admission of any persons, one, or more, without baptism, you take a course to destroy all such gospel order, that is, as you interpret him, all gospel order by way of baptism? would you have m. goodwin say, that if there were no baptism, yet there were a baptism; that if there were no admission by baptism, there were admission by baptism: his work was, to prove that all gospel order would not be destroyed, though there were no baptism, m. allen saith, all such gospel order would be destroyed, which because m goodwin denies not, you number him among the six booksellers, as if a brother with them in their iniquity. 3. if m. allen and yourself do allow of a gospel order, though there be not such a gospel order as is by baptism, as you seem to grant: (otherways why do you thus except against m goodwin, for charging m. allen that he denies it?) than i demand, why do you forsake a church of jesus christ, merely and only because they want, as you judge, this, or such gospel order as is by baptism? ex ore tuo, etc. god will judge you for these things. he that should have read your book, especially knowing your former respects to mr. goodwin, and his better deserts at your hands, would have thought you had said enough, and more than enough before, by way of abuse and injury done unto him, that you needed not thus to thrust out your sting at him in the tail thereof, charging him with such an open broad-fac'd-falshood; but what shall i say? ephraim is joined unto jdols, let him alone? no, god forbidden, i rather expect to hear him bemoaning himself in dust and ashes for his former apostasy, and pouring out his soul unto god, saying, turn thou me and i shall be turned, for thou art the lord my god, surely after i was turned i repent, and after i was instructed i smote upon my thigh, i was ashamed, even confounded, because i did bear the reproach of my youth. finis. reader, if thou takest no pleasure in the errors of the times, mend by thy pen, what the printer hath marred by his press: page 1. line ult. for division, read venison: p. 3. l. 2. for rightly read richly: p. 5. l. 36. for kind r. kine: p. 13. l. ult. for for r. of: p. 19 for stewed r. slew: p. 22. l. 5 for cain r. quoin, ibid. l. 20. for anigmatical r. enigmatical: p. 41. l. 19 for that thus magnify r. that you thus magnify: p. 42. for 34. r. 42. ibid. l. 14. for plucits r. placits, ibid. l. 17. for perficiency r. proficiency, ibid. l. 21. for truth r. tryers: p. 43. for 35. r. 44. p. 45. l. 13. for praepatium r. praeputium: p. 46 for 38. r. 46. ibid. l. 18. for exequation r. execution, l. 47. for 39 r. 48 ibid. l. 32. for adverse r. adversaries: p. 48. l. 2. for after r. often: p. 52. l. 37. for parish person 1. parish parson, p. 60. l. 40. for persons are r. persons who are; p. 61. for equipolent r. equipollent: p. 68 l. 5. for and there durst not, r. and therefore durst not: p. 71, l2 2. for at least mist of it, r. at the least motion for it. thy charity will stir thee up to correct both these, and what else occurs thine eyes; and thereby oblige, thine in the service of truth and love, i. p. these books following are printed for (and sold by) henry eversden, at the greyhound in pauls-church-yard. i renicum evangelicum, an idea of church-discipline: by i. rogers. an exposition on the whole book of canticles, with practical observations: by i. robotham, in quarto. an exposition on the three first chapters of the proverbs, in quarto, by mr. francis taylor, minister at canterbury. the rich closet of physical secrets; or, the child-bearers cabinet: in quarto. mercy in her exaltation: a sermon, preached at the funeral of m. taylor, by m. john goodwin: in quarto. lucas redivivus; or, the gospel-physician, prescribing (by way of meditation) divine physic, to prevent diseases not yet entered on the soul, and to cure those maladies which have already seized upon the spirit: by i. anthony, late dr. of physic. a comment on ruth; together with two sermons, the one teaching how to live well, the other minding how to die well: by tho. fuller, author of the holy state. the natural man's case stated; or, an exact map of the little world, man, in seventeen sermons: by ch. love. the foundation-doctrine of laying on of hands, vindicated and asserted, against l. coll. hobson: by tho. tillam: in quarto. the male of the flock: a sermon preached before the lord mayor, on mal. 1. chap. nou. 14. by ben agas. the mystery of the two witnesses unveiled, with a description of their persons and office, their time and manner of prophecy, their acts and sufferings, death and resurrection: by m. i. robotham: in octavo. a vindication of the lords prayer, against all schismatics and heretics; in octavo: by i harwood. b. d. god's glory in man's happiness; together, with god's choice in man's diligence; being a treatise of election; by m. francis taylor; in octavo. the christians diurnal; or, daily duties to be practised by every christian: by dr. morgan: in twelves. zion and parnassus; or, select poems on the bible; by i. hoddessen, gent. in octavo. the anabaptists meribah; or, waters of strife; being an answer to mr. tho. lambs book: by m. i price. in quarto naked popery; or, the naked falsehood of a book called the catholic naked truth, or the puritan convert to apostolical christianity; written by w. h. opening their fundamental error of unwritten tradition, and their unjust description of the puritan; the prelatical protestant, and the papist, and their differences; and better acquainting the ignorant of the true difference, especially what a puritan and what a papist is. by richard baxter, a professor of mere apostolical christianity. trita frequansque via est per amici fallere nomen; trita frequensque licet sit via, crimen habet. the common beaten way of men's deceit is as a loving friend to work the cheat: but though this be the common beaten way, it will prove criminal— another day. w. h. this author, pag. ●5. saith [if you do not find that— they (your catholic neighbours) hold nothing, nor practise nothing, but what they are able to give a very satisfactory account of to any impartial enquirer, then say, i am a knave, a liar, and a cheat, one that deserveth no mercy from god or man, in this world or the next.] london, printed for n. simmons at the prince's arms in s. paul's churchyard. m dc lxxvii. to the author and his relations. chap. i. when the confutation of the treatise of transubstantiation was in the press, this book came to my notice, written, if the style may go for proof, by the same author: it is conjectured that your name is mr. w. hutchinson of lincolnshire, sometime of queen's college in cambridge; and that it is indeed your nearest relations whom you so earnestly labour to pervert: your style persuadeth me that you are serious, and verily think that your way is right: and i suppose you see that we also are as confident of the truth of our profession, as you are of yours: the question is, whether it be your zeal, or ours, that is according to knowledge? the title of your religion greatly pleaseth me, and is the same that i assume: for we are, i perceive, agreed in this, that it is [the apostolical christianity] that is the true and safe religion: and hath god left the matter so obscure as that we cannot come to an agreement in so weighty a matter of fact, as to know what [the apostolical christianity] was; when even common history giveth us notice what the athenian philosophers held, and what the ancient romans held, and so of almost every literate nation? you study, and we study; you pray, and we pray: you would know the truth, whatever it cost you, and so would we. as a man that looketh daily when i am called away to god, i solemnly protest, that if i could find that popery were the true apostolic christianity, i would joyfully quit all the friends, hope, and interests of this world, to embrace it. what is it that is your advantage, and what is our disadvantage? are you more impartial in your search? i am so conscious of my impartiality, that i cannot believe that this maketh the difference. is it that we have not read the papists writings? i have reason to believe that i have read as many of them, at least, as you have done, if you are not much above sixty years of age (as i hear you are not near it). but you have conversed with more of them than i have done? it's like you have: but is that the reason of my mistake? you earnestly invite your relations to converse with the papists, because men's writings may be mistaken: and on this ground i perceive you build all the certainty of your faith, that our fathers and our grandfather's have told us infallibly, what they received from their fathers and grandfather's, and so on. this is your certainty. i will tell you briefly what i take for the apostolical christianity, and by what notices i receive it; and then i will again consider yours. i take not christianity to be a thing so hardly to be known, as you would make it; either as to the being of it, or the publication. i take it to have its essentials, integrals, and accidentals; and that these are not to be confounded: if it cannot be readily known what christianity is, how shall we preach it to heathens? or how shall christians be known to others, or themselves? and who can have the comfort of an unknown religion? you tell us that nothing of it is written in the new testament, but the life of christ by four men, and a few occasional epistles, etc. but do you think that christ himself did not institute christianity, and tell men plainly what it was? did not those four men write christ's doctrine as well as his life? and is he not the author of our faith? did he not preach the gospel? and do you not call these four books the four evangelists? and doth not the gospel contain and describe christianity? did not christ oft tell us what it is to be his disciples? and were not the disciples called christians shortly after, as words of the same signification? but what place is there for any doubt, when christ himself did institute baptism, and describe it? and command that all nations being discipled should be baptised into the name of the father, the son, and the holy ghost; as being the faith which disciples must profess? and do not you to this day profess, that baptising is christening, and that baptism washeth away all sin, (supposing the baptised to receive it as baptism, by true covenant-consent at least?) and doth not baptism enter us into the true church of christ? sure all this is past dispute; where then is the difficulty? is not a truly baptised person a christian? and was it then as hard a matter as you make it, to know what faith was necessary to baptism, (in the person at age, or the parent of infants?) surely then the scripture, that mentioneth the history of so many thousands baptised, would have told us of that grand controversy, and how it was decided. but no such controversy was then debated, for aught we there find. if baptismal covenanting with god the father, son, and holy ghost, as our god and father reconciled in christ, our saviour, and our sanctifier, be not the symbol or badge of christians, and that which visibly maketh them such; your own church, and all the christian world is deceived. and we know that it was not the custom of the apostles and pastors of the ancient churches, to make a mere ceremony and dead formality of baptism, by baptising those that would but say the words [i believe in god the father, son, and holy ghost,] without understanding what they said: and therefore their ordinary preaching was the exposition of these three articles: and the creed called the apostles, is the exposition of these three articles; which though some clauses were since added, and though the churches tied not themselves just to the very same words, (as we find by the various forms of this creed in irenaeus, tertullian, marcellus' in epiphanius, ruffinus, etc.) yet for the substance and sense, and most of the very words, all churches used the same. and when the council of nice taught them the way of making new creeds, (which hilary pictav. so sadly complaineth of,) yet still the matter of the old creed was the substance of them all. and the eastern creed, which was used before the nicene council, (for that such a one there was, the most learned antiquaries give us sufficient proof,) was but the same in sense as the western, even the exposition of the baptismal faith; and this the baptised did profess before baptism: and the work of catechists was to teach this and the sense of it to the catechumen. and that [he that believeth and is baptised (that is, truly devoted to god the father, son, and holy ghost, by the baptismal covenant) shall be saved, and he that believeth not shall be damned,] is by christ himself made the sum of his gospel, or law of grace. as the image of the blessed trinity on man's soul is life, light, and love; so the summaries of that sacred doctrine which must imprint it on us, is the symbolum fidei, the creed, the summary of things to be believed; and the lords prayer, the symbolum and summary of things to be willed, desired, and sought; and the decalogue, the summary of things to be practised; being the directory of man's three faculties, the intellect, the will, and the executive power. and all this we believe was delivered to the churches by the apostles, and received by all christians, many years (eight at least) before any book of the new testament was written: and for the fuller understanding and improvement of it, and for all the integral parts of religion that were to be added, the apostles and evangelists more enlargedly preached them to the people in their sermons, as christ himself had done much of them. we receive all that, as god's word, which by these apostles was delivered as such to the churches; because they had the promise of the holy ghost to lead them into all truth, and to bring all things that christ taught and commanded to their remembrance. we are assured that all that is contained in the new testament was written by such inspired persons; and that the spirit of god will knew, that when they were to die, without written records, the memory of mankind would not faithfully retain, and deliver to posterity, such copious matter as the integrals and useful accidentals of religion, and therefore caused them to write it and leave it to posterity. so that our christian religion is contained and delivered to us in three formulas or prescripts: the first containeth the whole essence of christianity, and is the sacramental covenant, in which we are believingly given up to god the father, son, and holy ghost, and god to us, in the relation of a god and father, a saviour and a sanctifier. this is done initially, ad esse, in baptism, and after ad robur in the lord's supper. this is delivered to us by tradition naturally infallible, de facto: for all christians, as such, have received and entered this sacramental covenant; and full history assureth us, that the very same form of it is come down in all the churches to this day. the second formula, is the exposition of the three articles of this sacramental covenant, in the creed, lords prayer, and decalogue; which hath been delivered by memory also, and kept unchanged (save the foresaid additions of some explicatory words in the creed,) to all the churches to this day. the third form, is all the holy canonical scriptures, (the old testament being as preparatory to the new,) which contain all the essentials, integrals, and needful accidentals. our religion then is all from christ and his spirit, in inspired men, commissioned to deliver it, and is well called as you do, the apostolical christianity: we own no other. it is all brought down to us by tradition from the apostles. the essentials in the covenant, and the explicatory symbols or summaries, are delivered to us two ways: first by memory and practice most currant and certain from generation to generation, being no more than what memory might well retain, whereto yet the helps of the ancients writings reciting the forms were used for the fuller certainty of posterity. secondly in the holy scriptures, where they are contained (as the brain, heart, and stomach, in the body) among all the rest as the principal parts. the third form is so large that memory could not preserve it, and therefore god would have it delivered us in that writing which we all call the sacred bible, or canonical scripture. this containeth thousands of words more than are of absolute necessity to salvation; but no more than is useful or helpful to salvation. in all this i have showed you what our religion is, (objectively taken) and which way we receive it. where you are therefore to note, 1. that all our sermons, writings, church-articles, etc. are but the expressions of our subjective religion, telling other men how particular men, and particular churches, understand those divine forms which are our objective religion: these are various as churches and persons are, every one having his own faith and religion in different measures, and such expressions being but our sides mensurata may be altered and amended, and we pretend not to perfection in them: but the former being our sides vel religio mensurans, our divine objective faith or religion, is inculpable and unalterable. 2. note that you papists do grant all our objective faith and religion, even every word of it, to be true, infallible, and of god: you own, i say, every word of our religion: that is, all the sacramental covenant, all the creed, lords prayer, and decalogue, and all that which we call the holy canonical scriptures. but we own not all yours: so that you do not, you cannot find fault with the least particle of our religion as to the truth of it; but, 1. you think that it is not enough: and 2. that we come not to it the right way, that is, we take not our faith upon the word of papists, as papists. is not this the difference? and is not this all that you cry out against us for? and now let us see whether your way be better and surer than this of ours is? i. your religion is much bigger than ours. ii. you hold it on other reasons, and plead another way of receiving it. i. your religion (objective) containeth, besides all our bible, all the apocryphal books, and all the decrees of general councils, and all the other un-written traditions (if there be any more, who knows what?) you name yourself here, fasting on frydays, and on the vigils of saints, ember-days, lent, and images, and such like. here now we humbly propose to your consideration; 1. whether you will take all these into the essentials of christianity, or not? if not, a man may be a christian; and consequently of the church or body of christ, and in a state of salvation without them. why then do you deny them this, and make them to be as out of the true church and state of life? if yea, q. 2. did all that the apostles baptised, believe all the apocrypha and all the decrees of your councils, and your oral traditions? q. 3. did the ancient fathers and catechists teach all those to the catechumen before they baptised them? q. 4. and were not those all christians, and in the true church, and in a state of life, whom the apostles baptised, without the profession of any such belief? q. 5. what was the creed, the symbolum fidei used for, if not to distinguish the faith of the christian church from infidelity, heresy, and all without? and if all the decrees of councils be as necessary to be the symbol of faith, why were they not all made up into a creed? and why is the creed differenced from them all to this day? and why do you not cause the baptised to recite and profess all these councils decrees, but only the old christian creed? q. 6. doth not christ at the institution of his sacrament, mat. 28. expressly promise that he that believeth (according to baptism, in the father, son, and holy ghost) shall be saved? q. 7. is it not a reproach to god and the christian religion, to tell the world that god hath written us by his spirit so great a book as the bible is, and yet there is not in it enough to salvation, but that abundance unnecessary to salvation is in it, and some necessary things left out? q. 8. have your oral superadded traditions more evidence of truth than the bible, or more evidence of necessity to be believed? not more evidence of truth: for you confess the certain truth of all the bible, and that as fully manifest as your additions. if it have more evidence of necessity, what is it? it is not because it is a divine revelation: for so you confess all the bible to be? and do you pretend to a tradition that saith, [you may be saved without most of the bible, though it be of god, but not without fasting on frydays, or on the vigils of saints-days, or other such traditions?] but if you will make both the whole bible and tradition necessary to be believed, it must be either explicitly, or as you call it, implicitly: if explicitly, (that is, as each point is particularly understood and believed,) then it's doubtful whether there be one man in the world that is a christian, and can be saved? if implicitly, that is, virtually as it is in some general proposition, what is that general? is it that all that god revealeth is true? or that all that the spirit of christ in his apostles delivered to the church as his word, is true. these we all agree in, if this will serve the turn? is it that the church is the ministerial keeper of the sacred doctrine as delivered? this also we agree in. or is it that the church de eventu shall never corrupt, alter, or lose, this word, or any part of it? if you mean it of every particular church, we are agreed of the contrary. you confess that many churches have fallen to heresy, and many apostatised from the faith: if you speak of the universal church, we are agreed that the universal church shall never apostatise; for if christ had no church, he were no head of it. and we are agreed that they shall never turn such true heretics, as hold not truly all the essentials of christianity: for such also are no christians; because each essential part is necessary to the essence. but whether the universal church, much more the greater part, may not make or receive some culpable alteration by amission, omission, or commission, we have reason to question? we never heard any proof that the negative was necessary to salvation, nor is it held by all yourselves; and whether by any one man i cannot tell: for you take the bible to be god's word, and your knowledge of the various readins of the hebrew and greek copies, and the multitude of errors in the vulgar latin corrected by p. clem. 8. and sixtus 5. do satisfy all the world, that you hold that the universal church, or the major part, even your own, may culpably err, or alter the very written word of god. and who would then believe you, if you said, [but the unwritten word it cannot alter?] it's true indeed, the essentials considered, as written or unwritten, all the true church, nor any one christian, while such, cannot deny: but sure, if many thousand errors may be found in that book which you take yourselves for the word of god, and this through the fault or failing of such as have had the keeping of it; and all divine revelations are to be believed, and all the word of god is divine revelation, it notoriously followeth, that your own church hath not kept all that is matter of divine faith from alteration. so that though many of your wranglers will not distinguish the essentials of christianity (called fundamentals) from the integrals and accidentals, (as if christianity were nothing, and had no determinate essence,) yet this showeth, that you must do it whether you will or not; or else you must confess that your church may alter any thing, or every thing, as it hath done all these forementioned: which we will not confess of the church universal. but, i suppose that we have not yet met with the faith that you account necessary to salvation: it is that the pope of rome, and a general council, cannot err, in delivering to us the apostolical doctrine to be believed. and this is an implicit believing of all that is written in scripture, and that is delivered orally from the apostles. if so, words and names go very far with you as to men's salvation. is this to believe a thousand things which a man never knew or heard of? if he do but believe the infallibility of your church? what! believe that which i never once thought of? but this is but implicit faith? a cheating name for no-belief of those things: for by implicit here you can mean only virtual, and that is no actual belief of that thing at all, but of something else, which would infer more were it known: nay virtual is too high a name for it. but will this serve the turn to salvation, to believe that the pope and his council are infallible? what! though the same person believe not in god the father, son, and holy ghost, nor any of the articles of his creed, no not a life to come? if you say, yea; then will you call this christianity, to believe in the pope, and not in christ? or do you mean, that men may be saved without christianity, but not without popery? if so, why was not the pope's name, rather than christ's, put into baptism and the creed, or at least with christ's? but the insuperable difficulty is, how must i believe that the pope hath this infallibility? from christ, or otherwise? if not from christ, tell me which way, and why i must believe it? if from christ, can i believe that the pope hath power from christ, before i believe that there is a christ, that hath such power to give? and can i believe in christ, and not believe that there is a god that sent him? can i believe that jesus is the christ, and not believe that he is a sacrifice for sin, or a mediator between god and man, and came to save his people from their sins? and can i believe this, and not believe that we are all sinners, and that sin deserveth that punishment which christ came to save us from? is not our saviour, and our sin and misery relatives? as a physician, or medicine and a disease? and can we believe that we have sin and desert of punishment, without believing that god is our governor, and gave us that law which we broke, and which obligeth us to punishment? can we believe in christ, and not believe that he is god and man, that he died, rose, and ascended into heaven, and will judge us at last? and that he pardoneth sin, reneweth souls by his spirit, and will give us life hereafter? all these are included in believing in christ, as christ. and how must i believe that christ hath given the pope this infallibility or power? by any written word which granteth it? or by oral tradition? if by the written word, than i must believe that that word is true, before i can believe that the pope is made pope or infallible by it? if by oral tradition, whose must that be? then i must believe some bodies oral tradition as true and infallible, before i believe in the pope at all. if it be the first hearers of the apostles, then either the pope was one of those, or not. if yea, and he hath a negative voice in the credible report, than i must believe him as infallible, before he is proved infallible, in order to my believing that he is infallible, which is a contradiction. if not, then i must believe the infallibility of other hearers of the apostles, before i can believe the pope's? and the question will recur, how i shall know them to be infallible? and who they were that were those infallible witnesses? whether pastors only, or the people? whether of some one church, or of all the churches? and how i shall prove that they gave such a testimony? so that your pretence of a necessity of receiving god's word, or the christian faith, from the pope and his council cometh too late: for it seemeth that we must believe it first, before it be possible to believe in the pope and council as authorised by christ. and if my implicit faith be the belief of this article, [any church in all the world, yea, the greater part of all the churches, may err in matters of faith, or apostatise, and only the pope of rome and his council cannot:] what proof, or whose tradition doth this rest upon? q. 9 do not bellarmine, costerus, and many of your writers profess that the scriptures contain all things ordinarily necessary to salvation? yea many writers, that the creed hath all that is absolutely to be believed? yea some, that it hath more than all? yea abundance (cited by fr. a sancta clara) that the belief in christ is not necessary to all? and will you say then, that he that believeth explicitly the whole bible cannot be saved without believing also your pretended traditions? q. 10. and do you not hereby, instead of the light burden and easy yoke of christ, and his commands which are not grievous, bring christians under a harder yoke than that which the jews were not able to bear? when it seemed good to the holy ghost in the apostles to impose but a few and necessary things, act. 15. 28. and how large a law is all the bible, and all your councils decrees, and oral traditions, set together? do all your priests themselves, or one of an hundred, understand them all, or know what they are? q. 11. while you pretend a necessity of your numerous ceremonies, (as fasting on frydays, and such other named by you,) do you not lay a snare of perpetual division in the churches? and do you not make as many inconsistent churches, as there be societies of christians that differ (and still will differ) about any of those traditions or ceremonies? q. 12. and do you not lay open your own church, to the accusation of innovation, mutability, and corruption, when it is not to be denied, but in such things as those they have been mutable or innovated? have you not long left the custom of adoring on the lords-days without genuflexion, though the first great general council (nic. can. 20.) and the ancient fathers commonly, made it a tradition, and practice of the whole church? and it was decreed to be so used by all? abundance of such instances may be given. q. 13. you do very injuriously to your own sect and cause, here to pretend tradition as coming down from the apostles, for such things as your own doctors plead but your churches later institution for: it's fully proved by daleus de jejuniis, that the lent fast was long but for a short time, before it came to forty days: and it's an odd thing, if you will pretend tradition from the apostles, for the holidays, or the vigil fasts, of those saints that were born many hundred years after the apostles death? we confess our faith is not so big as yours? we have many score texts of scripture that promise salvation to them that believe much less than the bible itself containeth. yet we profess ourselves ready to believe as much more as you shall ever prove to us, to have been delivered by the apostles, to the church, to be believed. ii. and for the second, (that we receive not our faith the way that you do; that is, from the authority of the pope and papists, and from your tradition:) we crave your consideration of these questions. 1. when the apostles (and disciples, act. 8.) were scattered, and preached the gospel to many nations, were they not true christians, and saved, that received the gospel from any one of them, or from any person whatsoever? if aquila or priscilla converted a sinner, such a one saved a soul from death, though peter did it not; nor his authority was known to such a one? 2. do you believe that if the roman bishop or church's revelation or proposal were necessary to true faith and to salvation, that christ would never have told men so? nor any of his apostles have left it us on record? when there were heresies and schisms so woefully troubling the churches as we find in paul's epistles to the cor. gal. col. and in the rev. 2. and 3. ch. should we never have found one word for this speedy way of decision, to appeal to the church of rome? would paul have rebuked them for saying, i am of cephas, and made him but a minister by whom they believed, without ever mentioning his office and dignity? would he never have told the church of rome of their mistress-ship and infallibility above the rest? would so necessary a fundamental of faith have been so much silenced? 3. did the apostles, evangelists, or ancient fathers, use to convert infidels by any such method, and telling them that they must believe, first the infallibility of the bishop of rome and his clergy, and then believe the gospel because he saith it is true? had this been the old method, would there not have been more books necessary, and written, to prove this first fundamental (the infallibility of the roman bishop and his councils) than to have proved the gospel itself directly? is it not a wonder that we should have such volumes as eusebius his praeparatio & demonstratio evangel. and so many written by those before and after him, to prove the gospel, and none of them hit on this method, nor write at large to make it good? the church's authority and unity, is ordinarily pleaded against heresies and schisms, but who ever converted infidels by the authority of the papal church, either proved or asserted as the necessary medium of faith? 4. do you not confess that all other churches may err besides the roman? and their plea of tradition you account invalid: your book called [considerations on the council of trent, by r. h.] p. 40. saith, [alderman conciliary definitions are not only declarations and testifications of such apostolical traditions as were left by them evident and conspicuous in all christian churches planted by them; but are many times determinations of points deduced from, and necessary consequents to, such clear traditionals, whether written or unwritten. 2. if the acts of general councils were only such declarations of apostolical tradition, yet it is possible that some particular church, may in time, depart from such a tradition entrusted to them; else how can any church become heretical against any such tradition?] do you not at this day accuse the greek church, the muscovites, the armenians, the jacobites, syrians, copties, abassines, the protestants, etc. as having departed from, or corrupted the first tradition? and how small a part of the universality of christians are the papists? and if the greater part of christians may so forsake the apostolical tradition, why may not the pope of rome and his council? how shall we be sure of their exemption from such danger? you tell us over and over of our receiving this and that from our fathers and grandfather's? and is that a certain proof that it is apostolical? why is it not so then with all the rest, the abassines, the armenians, etc. and the majority of christians? but of this i have spoken in the former treatise. 5. and there i have desired you to tell us, whether your grandfather, or his priest, was infallible? if yea, how, came he by it more than all those churches? if not, do you not delude your relations, by drawing them to build their faith on a fallible man, or upon nothing? your relations were not at the council of trent, or florence, or lateran: how shall they be sure what the pope and council agreed on? what foundation, but the words of your priest or grandfather, have you for your assurance? may not one of your priests lie as well as all the greek, abassine, etc. churches? when pope celestine himself falsely urged the nicene council for appeals to rome, contrary to augustine and the carthage council? either tell your readers plainly, that it's you, and such as you, that are the infallible foundation of their faith; or bid them stay, and not go your way, till they are certain what the pope and his council say; and that he is a true pope, and it a true council, and that they are more infallible than the major part of christians. and our faith can be no stronger than the weakest necessary medium of it, from whence it must arise. 6. i have said so much of this in a small book, called, [the certainty of christianity without popery,] which i entreat you impartially to peruse, where i have also showed the utter uncertainty that popery would reduce our christianity to; that i will now only tell you, that after your talk of tradition, and church, and fathers, and grandfathers, if we had not much more testimony of tradition for our religion than you have for popery, we should think our faith were very lame. compare ours with yours: 1. yours is a pretended authoritative determination, which rests upon a supposed inspiration of some persons, by virtue of a special privilege peculiar to themselves. 2. it is the tradition of the minor part of christians against the major. 3. it rests on the pretended infallibility of a pope, which great general councils have said may be a heretic, and have deposed divers as heretics, and worse: and upon the infallibility of general councils, which by popes and other councils are pronounced fallible, unless confirmed by a pope (who may be a heretic.) 4. it rests upon a foundation (viz. the pope's divine right of primacy and infallibility) which is expressly denied by two of the first four great general councils, approved to this day; viz. that of chalcedon reciting the sense of that of constantinople against the said divine right, affirming, that the pope's primacy was given him by the fathers, because rome was the imperial seat. 5. it rests upon an authority (of popes and general councils,) which being at first but the clergy of one empire, hath thence claimed the same power over all the christian world, which they had got in the dominions of one prince. 6. it rests on a claim downright contradictory to itself, as aforesaid, viz. that we must believe that the pope hath this power and infallibility given him and his councils, by christ and his gospel, before we can believe that there is a christ and a gospel authorized and true. now our tradition is this: for all the essentials of our religion, the sacramental covenant, and the three expository symbols, we have the currant tradition both of the papists and all the rest of the christian world: yea, that every book that we call canonical is the true word of god, not only the papists but almost all the christian world confess: and, defacto, that these books came down from the apostles, at least that the gospel was preached by them, we have the testimony also of enemies and persecutors. and are not all these more than the testimony of one sect alone? 2. and in this we have as much to confirm us as you have, of the wisdom, piety, care of the church to preserve the gospel, and much more too; for we have the piety of all the churches to plead, and not your sect alone: and we undertake to prove such a moral infallibility as is also natural, viz. that man's nature and interests supposed, it is no more possible for so many persons and nations of cross interests to have agreed in their testimony for the gospel, than for all the contentious lawyers in the land to have agreed falsely to inform us, that our statutes were made by such kings and parliaments. but a domineering faction alone might easilier have deceived men. 3. yea, even as to christ's promise, we can better prove that the universal church, or body of christians, shall never lose the faith, than you can prove it of rome alone, or the papal sect. bellarmine himself dare not say, that rome shall not cease to be the feat of the papacy, or shall not be utterly destroyed. and then how can there be a bishop of rome, when there is no rome? but you'll say, that if he dwell at avignion, he may be called bishop of rome? but if he be called so when he is not so, at least when there is no rome, or no christian church there, sure a false name is not an essential part of our religion. if you say, that at avignion, or ravenna, or vienna, he may be s. peter's successor, and so the universal monarch still. i answer, than it seems that the council of chalcedon, as aforecited, was in the right, (that rome's privilege was given by the fathers, because it was the imperial seat:) and so that the pope is not s. peter's successor, eo nomine, because he is bishop of rome. but if the bishop of avignion, or vienna, might become s. peter's successor (who never was bishop there,) how shall we know that the bishop of rome is his successor now? we have hitherto had no better means to prove it, and deceive the world, than by saying that s. peter died bishop of rome, where the pope is bishop: but s. peter died not bishop of avignion. if the place prove not the succession, tell us, if you can, what doth? is it the election? by whom? who are those men that have the power of choosing s. peter a successor? you know, i suppose, that the pope hath been chosen, 1. sometime by the people, (witness the bloodshed at the choice of damasus in the church:) 2. sometime by the people, and the neighbour ordaining bishops: 3. sometime by a synod: 4. sometime by the emperors: 5. and lastly, by the roman cardinals. if any of these may choose, than we may have four or five lawful popes, chosen four or five several ways, at once. if only one of these have the power, s. peter had no successors under all the other elections. so that the claim will fall rather to antioch than to avignion, or any other town, because they say it was s. peter's first bishopric, from which he removed for a greater. if you are driven with poor mr. johnson, alias, terret, to say, that any way will serve which serveth for the truth of an election of princes, etc. then still we may have four popes at least. i doubt you must be forced to say as some, that it is the acceptance of the universal church, which must prove who is the universal monarch. 1. but some must be electors, before it comes to acceptance. and who hath the power of electing? and 2. what if now the major part of the church should prefer the bishop of constantinople? i hope you are not so ignorant of cosmography as not to know that the greek church when they first preferred the bishop of const. was far greater than the latin. 3. and i suppose you know that it is not near half the christian world that now accepteth of the pope as their governor. 4. and i pray you do but get the pope to suspend his claim till the church universal accept him, and we shall not be troubled with him: for how shall they signify their acceptance? if in a general council, you know how they of constance, basil, and pisa, are reviled by the pope and those that now go for your church, for pretending to a power to depose and choose popes; and how eugenius the fourth prevailed against such a deposition. and if these councils were not your universal church representative, where shall we think to find it? in sum, we have the tradition of a church as big as three of the roman for all our religion; and of all the roman church itself; besides the confession of the enemies of the church, pagans, infidels, mahometans, jews, and heretics; we have not one word that's part of our religion, which yourselves confess not to be true: we believe that the faith of the universal church shall never fail, nor the gates of hell prevail against it: and so you see that we may far better tell how infallibly we have received our religion from our forefathers, than you can do of yours: but we believe not that this universal church hath any head but christ; no humane vicarious monarch or governor of all the world: we believe that men must believe in christ before they can know that the pope is his vicar, if it had been true: we know, as sure as history can tell us, that the pope's first primacy, and the rest of the patriarchates were but the humane ordinances of the clergy of one empire, and not of the whole christian world. and we know not (nor you) but rome and its church and bishop, may yet all cease together. but you make me most admire at you, that (in this book also) you tell your relations, and other readers, of the uncertainty of notice by books in comparison of converse and talk with those of your present party; yea that your own religion is not to be known by books, as being liable to be misunderstood, so well as by talking with papists, and ask them what is their faith or religion. sir, i judge by your style that you are a man of zeal and conscience in your way, and therefore that you write not this fraudulently against your conscience. sure then you must needs be a man of more than ordinary ignorance, that can believe what you say. 1. is it your objective or your subjective faith that we are disputing of? if it be not the rule and object of your faith, every man indeed may tell us what he believeth himself, but no man can tell us what another believeth. and then you have as many religions as men; for every man hath one of his own, and no two men in the world know and believe just all the same things, neither more nor less: and what shall those of us think of your religion then, who find that one of you affirmeth what another denyeth? for instance, a worthy person of your religion affirmed to me, that notwithstanding the fifth commandment [honour thy father and mother,] a mother hath not any governing power over a child, nor the child oweth any obedience to the mother, during the father's life, because it were confusion were there more governors in a house than one, though subordinate one to the other. is this your common judgement? may i say therefore that this is other men's belief? you know that when we allege the sayings of your most learned writers, we are ordinarily told, that it is not the judgement of particular doctors, but of the church in councils, which we must call your church's judgement. you undertake not to justify any more. and if i talk with any of my neighbours and ask him what he believeth, have i any more than a single doctor's opinion? is his answer, the faith of your church? but would you have any one past seven years old believe you, that writing is of no more use to memory for conservation of antiquities? when god would not trust his ten commandments to the people's memories, but would write them in stone, and put them in the ark, (which you have so little skill in antiquity as to say here was the first writing: sure if you will read your jesuit euseb. nirembergius de antiqu. scripturae you will not say that your grandfather taught you truly that opinion as the tradition of the church.) why do you write to your own relations, if writing be so un-intelligible? could the bible have been kept as well in memory as by writings? why were the gospels written then? do you go to tradition, or to books, to decide any controversy now of the various readings? did pope clem. 8. and sixtus 5. reform the vulgar latin by memory or by books? pope pius' trent oath sweareth men to interpret scripture according to the consent of the fathers: do any of your doctors know how that is by memory and oral tradition, or by books? did possevine, and sixtus senensis, and such others, correct books by oral tradition, or by books? did celestine and the carthage council debate the case of the nicene canon (a narrow instance which memory might have served for) out of men's memories, or out of written records? why doth 〈◊〉 bring us out new forged canons, and why do the copies of many councils differ in the recital of canons, if memory and universal un-written tradition can reconcile the difference? was the athenian philosophy propagated and preserved better by memory, or by books? why is not the stoics, and epicureans, and others, as fully known now as aristotle's and plato's, if memory without books could have done? have you as full notice now of the acts of james, john, matthew, thomas, bartholomew, etc. without book, as you have of paul's by the book? is memory sufficient to have preserved to us the statures of the land, without books and records? yea, or the common-law without any records or book cases? why are all your councils written? and all the decretals? to say nothing of the civil roman laws, institutes, pandects, and digests. can you decide the controversies about the decretals, published by isidore mercator, by tradition? what are all your libraries for at the vatican, florence, paris, and in each learned man's house, if books be so useless and unintelligible? if one of your relations ask you, what is in the council of trent, florence, lateran, and so upward, can you tell him fully without book by tradition? and are not these councils your very religion? doth every papist neighbour carry them all in his brain, more certainly than in books? or could your grandfather and grandmother have told us more certainly what is in them, than crab, surius, binius, baronius, justellus, albaspinaeus, petavius, sirmondus, etc. could do? or is all left uncertain because it is written? through god's mercy our essentials, and somewhat more, are delivered certainly down to us by two hands, by oral and practical tradition, and by the scripture, because they lie in a narrow room. but yet if you had the front to tell the world, that your immutable church hath never changed the creed itself, we could not believe you, because books contradict you. tradition from your great grandfather cannot assure us that [filioque] was in the creed from the days of the apostles: nor that [the holy catholic church, the communion of saints,] and the other words mentioned in vessius, and usher de symbolis, were in so long: nor that the greeks added no words to their creed at nice, nor afterward at constantinople, in general councils; nor that all s. hilaries outcry against creeds was in vain. nor can tradition without book yet assure us, what were the very words of the creed used commonly by the greeks, immediately before the nicene council; nor who wrote that ascribed to athanasius: nor among the various formula's of that called the apostles, found, as aforesaid, in irenaeus, tertullian, epiphanius, ruffinus, etc. which of them was in constant use; or whether liberty of such alteration of words was not then used. and no unwritten report of your grandfather can assure us, that your mass-book or liturgy was the same in the apostles days as it is now; nor that it was for 600 years the same in all the churches of one empire; and that every bishop had not power to use what liturgy he pleased, in his own city or parochia: nor can your tradition assure us, that what the father and grandfather used, was used from the apostles, when the church of neocaesarea clamoured at s. basil for his singularity and innovations, and s. basil retorts on them, that they at neocaesarea had scarce left any thing unchanged: i hope this is not the less credible because basil hath written it. at least, i pray hereafter give over your ill practice of leading simple readers into a wood of church-history, to lose them and the question there among a multitude of citations of old books, when you know not what else to say (as william johnson did,) because there the ignorant know nothing themselves, but may as well believe the affirmer as the denier; and at least the diversion to voluminous controversies about particular men's words may hide your errors. do not resolve all the controversy, yea the faith of your followers, into a multitude of books of councils and fathers which they never saw. and do not take so much care to corrupt and alter books, for your interest, as instances and your indices expurg. tell us you have done. resolve without book the controversy about your great lateran council, whether dr. taylor, dr. pierson, dr. gunning, (and bishop cousins lately) that say innocent. 3. made and published the canons, and the council did not consent to them, be in the right, or rather they that answered dr. pierson and dr. gunning, and indeed your church, which holds the contrary (which mr. dodwell seemeth to me lately to have fully proved, in his book about tolerating papists.) nay why may we not expect that you lay by your book catechisms, your office books, your controversy books, and teach your people all without book? but by this counsel to your relations, you fully show that you would have them to have no certainty at all, either what christianity is, or what popery is. for they shall never speak with the universal church, or with a general council, while they live: and all their. neighbours, to whom you send them, are fallible persons. i suppose you one of the chief of them, and alas, how failible you are, you have in two writings grossly showed. having said thus much more, to show that your foundation is sand, who send us from books to our grandfathers, as infallible and that this is no better a ground than the abassines, greeks, and others, may build on as well as you; and that we ourselves have a far surer and universal tradition than the papacy hath, and have your own consent to every word of our objective religion, i now proceed to consider of your character of parties. chap. ii. you describe to us four supposed parties. i. the puritan. ii. the prelatical protestant, (whom your fitz-simmons calleth, the formalist.) iii. the papist, as you suppose us falsely to describe him. iv. the papist, as you suppose him truly described, whom you call the apostolical christian. in all which you show that you are far from infallibility, and a man unfit for your relations to trust in so great a case. i. i confess you give the puritan a very laudable description, in comparison of the prelatist protestant, and the feigned papist. and you tell us, that you were once a puritan yourself, and you own still that which you describe as puritanism, only adding popery to it, which you think it wants. i confess you speak incomparably more honourably and charitably of puritans, than some malicious interessed persons, of their own protestant profession will do. but, 1. you deal not informingly, in your describing a puritan, before you distinguish that ambiguous ill-made word. it hath three common acceptions among us at least. first, the ancientest, as it signifieth the old or later catharists, who held that they were perfect (if they are not belied:) and none come nearer these than the papists and quakers, certainly protestant's are far from it. secondly, the old non-conformists had the name of puritans put on them, by those that were against them: for what reason, i leave them to answer to god. thirdly, and because these non-conformists lived strictly, and were for much preaching, and praying, and holy conference, and spending the lordsday in holy exercises, and serious diligence in working out our salvation, and were sharp against drunkenness, swearing, and such other sins, therefore the vulgar rabble of vicious ones, that durst not rail at piety under the name of piety, took the advantage of the bishop's displeasure at the non-conformists, and of the name puritan, and put that name upon all christians among them, that were notably serious in practical godliness, persuading themselves that they were all but hypocrites: and so the name among the vulgar rabble grew common to godly conformists and non-conformists: and as if loquendum cum vulgo had been a law, by this means the devil did more hurt both to godliness (rendering it among the vulgar to he but odious hypocrisy and singularity) and to episcopacy (making multitudes that disliked the wickedness of the rabble, to think that all this came from the bishops,) and it did more to advance and honour the non-conformists, (because the name was formerly theirs as such) than by any one thing that i remember in all my younger days. this the godly conformists grievously complained of, (as bishop downame in his spit●le sermon, called abraham's trial, and mr. robert bolton, who saith, that he believeth that never poor persecuted word passed through the mouths of wicked men with more bitter scorn, since malice first entered into the heart of man:] really the permitting of the common rabble of all the debauched sinners of the land to make serious godliness a common scorn under the name of puritanisme, had as great a hand as any thing i know in all our confusions. fourthly, and it added fuel to the fire when some brought up a fourth sense of the word (some say, mar. ant. de dom. spalatensis was the inventor of it,) and that was doctrinal puritans, by which name they understood those by some called calvinists, by others anti-arminians, who held the doctrine of your dominicans, or of the jansenists. now who can well tell which of these sorts of puritans you were, and talk of, while you characterise the second sort, as well as the first, and yet distinguish them from prelatic protestants? 2. but which ever it is, observe here that you own the puritans religion still, and say, [i have not so much left puritanism, as prelatics call it, as added that to it wherein i found it come short of the holy apostles doctrine and institutions,] p. 1. and when you have described the puritan as one seriously conscionable and regardful of his salvation, (at large) you add, [if this be to be a puritan, would to god all the world were puritans! i am so far from being converted from thus much of a puritan, that i most heartily wish i could convert all the world to it.] 3. but yet your description of him is so very false, that i may conclude when you turned, as you think, from being a mere puritan to be a papist, you never knew what a puritan is, nor indeed ever were a puritan yourself, unless you take the word as fitted to yourself, and such as you. if you had meant by a puritan a mere nonconformist as such, you would not so laudably have described the work of god upon his soul and life as you have done: for if most non-conformists be such, yet so are many others as well as they. and it's easy to see what a deceitful course it is to take up a name of many significations, and such as signifieth no different religion at all, as to any one article of faith, nor any more difference in, or about religion, than such as is among most christian churches; and much less than is among yourselves. besides that the plainer name of a nonconformist is of no determinate nor certain signification, save only in general to notify one that conformeth not to all that is imposed on him; but what that is, the name doth not signify. a nonconformist in scotland is one thing, in england another thing, as the impositions are different. nonconformity twenty years ago, or forty years, was one thing. nonconformity since 1662. is quite another thing. and non-conformists differ among themselves: if twenty things be imposed as necessary to the ministry, he is a nonconformist who consenteth but to nineteen of them; and so is he that consenteth but to eighteen, or to seventeen, or to sixteen, and so on, as well as he that consenteth to none of them. and that there is so much difference among them is no wonder to them, nor any considerate man; for they hold christian love and communion with those that agree with them in the foresaid common principles and practice of christianity, (as far as they require not them to sin:) and they are not of a different religion from every one that fasteth not on fridays, or saints vigils, etc. as you seem to be, nor from every one that doth so; nor from every one that thinketh not in every thing as they think, or that prayeth in other words than they; for no two men in the world should on such terms be of one religion: they believe socrates and sozomen, who tell us of the great diversity of rites and orders in the ancient churches, which all consisted with the same religion, faith, and love. they abhor the principle of hating, persecuting, yea and separating from one another for such differences as will unavoidably adhere to the imperfect condition of christians here on earth. at this time in england a considerable part (if not the far greatest) of the silenced ministers are for the primitive episcopacy, and some liturgy, as you may see in their offer of a. bishop usher's reduction to the king, and their desires of a reformed liturgy. among the old non-conformists, there were divers degrees: such as dr. regnolds, mr. perkins, dr. humphrey, paul bayn, etc. did yield to more than some others could do. how can you tell then by the name of a puritan, what to charge any single person with? but it seemeth you take their nonconformity in general, and their temper of mind and life together. but than you greatly wrong them, and seem not at all to know what their religion is. there are two things which you say they mistake in: 1. their doctrine of imputed righteousness, and the covenant, and not solicitously endeavouring after the acquisition of virtue, because they trust to the imputed righteousness;] your words are too large to recite: you partly here unworthily injure them by ascribing to them the very opinions and words of the antinomians, whom they have better confuted than ever you did. and as to their doctrine of imputed righteousness, even bellarmine in one sense owneth it: and whether our sense be sound i provoke you to try particularly by your perusal of my own writings on that subject, especially a late treatise of [justifying righteousness and imputation,] and a treatise called [catholic theology:] in which if there be nothing which you dare or can confute, judge whether your mere derision of [imputative righteousness] be not delusory: if you dare say, that you trust not to christ's sacrifice, and meritorious perfect righteousness, as procuring you pardon and life, (jus ad impunitatem & regnum coelorum,) enjoy your self-confidence while you can. but if you say in this as we, then make public confession of the injury of your reproach of such imputed righteousness, as you trust your salvation upon yourself. i imagine you will say, that my judgement is no certain signification of the judgement of the puritans; for i am singular, and therefore what i say in these books is no proof of the sense of the nonconforming puritans. but, 1. my judgement of their sense is as good as yours. 2. do you know of any one nonconformist that hath published any dissent to what i have written? (dr. tully was a conformist.) 3. you profess (before) to borrow the name [puritan] from the prelatists. and i have this to say for my authority in declaring the sense of puritans, that one or more (whose genius is of kin to the roman, but far less mild than yours) who are prelatical or superprelatical, have about 17 years ago (being masters of that language) branded me with the name of [purus putus puritanus, & qui totum puritanismum totus spirat.] (the pseudo-tilenus hath just the same stile as the late unmasker of the presbyterians, who revileth modest, judicious, pious, and peaceable j. corbet, and in the most ingenious strain of wrath and malice doth valiantly militate against love.) therefore prelatists being judges, i may as credibly as another tell you what is the puritan judgement. 2. your second accusation of the puritan is, that [he begins to quarrel with all external worship and ceremonies.] but this is also spoken ignorantly and untruly: you before mistook the antinomian for the puritan, and here you seem to take the separatist for the puritan. read the reformed liturgy, and other papers offered at the savoy to the bishops, and you may see that though they are not for silencing, excommunicating, and damning men for a ceremony, nor for making as many religions, as there are differences about ceremonies, yet they are for doing all things to edification, decently and in order; and for external as well as internal worship of god: as knowing that the body is his, and made to worship him as well as the soul, and therefore should fall down and kneel before him, and reverently and holily behave itself in his service. you say, p. 5. [he is much confirmed in this his imagination, by considering the open profaneness, and little sense of god, he observeth generally in zealous conformists. and on the other side he taketh notice of his brethren the non-conformists, that they are generally free from open and scandalous sins, and at least sigh and breath after interior spirit and devotion, which certainly must be that must give us a title to heaven, rather than a few cringes, and exterior verbal devotions, which any one though never so profane may easily exercise.] 1. but do you not here and in your former description quite contradict yourself, when you charge them as neglecting inherent righteousness? 2. we are not so foolish as not to know, that the unreverent hypocritical abuse of god's external worship, by others whosoever, will not excuse us for neglecting it. of the conformists we must speak anon. 3. by the way i would you could impartially consider, if the puritans be so good men, as you fairly confess them to be, what the reason is that papists generally are far more fiery against them than against those whom you speak so meanly of as prelatical protestants? remember how your writer after the london fire, answered by dr. lloid, did flatter these as more suitable to the papists genius in comparison of the puritans: and the unmasker against j. corbet will tell you out of watson (an honourable witness hanged for treason in cobham's, &c. conspiracy) how bad the puritans are, (comparing them with the jesuits:) and if your laws took place in england, what abundance of these puritans would you make bonfires of? yea your own relations were not like to scape you. they have told me to my face, how quickly they would otherwise silence me than the prelates do, if i were in their power. and the decrees de haereticis comburendis & exterminandis more fully tell it us. yea, whence is it, that most certain experience proveth it, that by how much the nearer any protestant's genius is to the papists, by so much the more bloody, cruel, malicious, or slanderous and unmerciful he is to the puritans? you'll say for both, that it is because the puritans are most against them, and interest ruleth the world. but i answer, 1. god's interest is highest with every true christian: 2. i confess it's true, that puritans are most against popery: but truly as far as i have been acquainted with them, they are not most against your persons, nor would have any injustice or cruelty exercised against you: but the fear of your faggots, or powder-plots, and such massacres as were in france, (of thirty thousand, or forty thousand;) or in ireland, (of two hundred thousand,) hath made them think your power inconsistent with their safety: 3. and you must remember that the positive additions of the church of rome, are in the judgement of the puritans very great sins: but you have truly no charge against the puritans, for any one article of their religion; but only for not receiving, and for protesting against your additions. 4. but i perceive, p. 5. your instances of their defectiveness are, that they are not for [fasting days, particular garments for priests, set forms, christmas-day, good-friday, ascension, whitsuntide, etc. which they take for mere humane inventions and will-worship; because they think that the new testament was written to instruct us christians in the whold body of gospel-worship, etc. but you are best prove this only by telling us that you know some persons of that mind: and when you have done, i will demand your proof that those persons are no more than puritans: they have oft told you that their judgement is, that for all that substance of god's worship which is of universal necessity to the church, and is of divine institution, the holy scripture is a sufficient rule: but that very many circumstances and outward acts have in scripture but a general law (that they be all done to edification, decently, orderly, in concord, etc.) and it is left to humane prudence to order them by such rules: we condemn no one that useth holy fasts or feasts, but think them needful: we judge not those that celebrate the memorial of god's great mercies to his church, by giving him thanks for the holy life and doctrine of his eminent saints, etc. but will you plainly have our judgement? we think saint paul was in the right that taught the church of rome itself, both the rulers and the flocks, that they must neither judge nor despise each other for differences about meats and days, but receive each other (to communion notwithstanding such differences) as christ received us, rom. 14. and 15. and we will not believe your grandfather, nor great-grand-father, if they told us that the apostles by tradition did institute holidays, and vigils for st. tecla, or st. bridgit, or st. thomas becket, or any that were not born till they were dead: and any one day or order which you truly prove to us that the apostles by tradition ordained for the universal church, we profess ourselves ready and resolved to obey. but if you plead not tradition for any of these things, but the church's commands, (as you must do, or be singular, or ashamed;) here you come to the quick of our difference: 1. we know not of any universal vicarious lawgiver under christ that hath any power to make laws to the universal church throughout the world: and we dare not own any such usurper lest we be guilty of treason against the only head of the whole church. 2. we know not of any power that the chief bishop in the roman empire hath over other empires, kingdoms, or churches. 3. but to our own true pastors which are set over us according to christ's order and his apostles recorded in scripture, we puritans will submit in all such circumstantials, as aforesaid, which are left to their prudent determination, not putting us on any sin. but, 4. we detest making such things as you here name to be taken for the characters of distinct religions, or distinct churches, as if we might not with love, peace, and christian communion, differ about a garment, a holiday, fast, or vigil. thus far then you seem not to know what a mere puritan is. ii. but, sir, i have much more than all these little things against your description of a puritan: i plainly perceive in your greatest praises of him, that you know not what his very religion itself is; or else you would never describe him as only taken up with fears and cares, and good desires to be better, having yet greedy desires of the things of the world, without any mention of the love of god above all, and of his neighbour, and a holy and heavenly mind and life, with self-denial, mortification of the flesh, etc. either you judge of a puritan by what you were yourself, or by what your acquaintance were, or by what they commonly profess to be their religion. for the first you have no reason: it followeth not that they have no better a religion, because you had no better. for the second you had no reason: for it's ten to one you knew not the hearts of your acquaintance, so well as to be able to know that they had not the love of god, etc. and if you were so unhappy in your acquaintance, what's that to other men? thirdly, therefore as you look that your own religion should be described, not as we find it in this or that man, but as your church professeth it, so do we: and i have told you before what our religion is. i have the more boldness in speaking the sense of others, as i said, both because i am as aforesaid stigmatised for a total puritan, and because the generality of all of them of my acquaintance as far as i can discern are of this mind. a puritan then, as the word is commonly taken by the rabble, is a serious christian protestant, who truly believeth and practiseth what he doth profess, and doth not mortify that profession which should help to mortify his sin: his religion is, to be understandingly and sincerely devoted in the sacramental covenant to god the father, son, and holy ghost; renouncing the vanities of the world, the lusts of the flesh, and the delusions of the devil: he believeth that all that truly consent to this covenant, have a right, and part, in, and to, the love of god the father, the grace of the son, and the communion of the holy chost; and that he that hath the son hath life, pardon, adoption, justification, and right to life eternal; and that this right is continued, he performing his covenant, and continuing in that faith which worketh by love, and not living impenitently in sin, but sincerely obeying god his father, saviour, and sanctifier: he taketh the fear of gods justi●●, ●nd godly sorrow, to be but the lower steps of holiness; but that the kingdom of god is (not meats and days, but) righteousness, peace, and joy in the holy ghost; and that the spirit of christ, without which none are his, is not the spirit of bondage, but of power, love, and a sound mind; even a spirit of holy life, light, and love, which are the essentials of true holiness; and the spirit of adoption, and supplication, causeth us with love to cry to god, and trust him as a father: they take christ to be the only mediator between god and man, whose sufficient sacrifice for sin, and perfect righteousness, habitual, active, and passive (as called) advanced in dignity by the divine nature, is the meritorious cause of all their mercies to body and soul, remission, justification, holiness, and glory: they put up all their services, as into, and by, the hand of christ; and from his mediatory hand they expect all mercies: they take the holy ghost within them to be christ's advocate and witness to them of his truth and love; and their witness, earnest, seal, pledge, and first fruits of endless life: they take eternal glory for their full felicity, and this world, and flesh, (pleasure, riches, and honour,) to be so far useful as they signify god's love, and further our love and service to him; but to be vanity as separated from god in our hearts, and enmity, or mischief, as competitors, or as against him. in a word, faith working by supreme love and obedience to god, and brotherly love to man, by honour to our superiors, justice to all; and by all the good that we can do in the world, and by repentance for our sins, patience in sufferings, and by a heavenly mind, and life, is the sum of their religion; or plainlier as is said at first, the gospel-covenant as expounded in the creed, lords prayer, and decalogue, as the summary of things to be believed, desired, and practised; and the holy scriptures as the full and comprehensive records of the doctrine, promises, and laws of god, containing the essentials, integrals, and necessary accidentals of religion. this is the christian religion, and the puritan in question is but the serious christian distinct from the hypocrite, or dead formalist. but if you add nonconformity to the sense of the word, and to his character; so i need not tell you what the impositions are which some deny conformity to, as to oaths, new-covenants, subscriptions, declarations, practices, etc. which he protesteth that he would never deny conformity to, if after his best enquiry he did not believe that god forbiddeth it: (as you may see at large in their savoy petition for peace to the bishops.) these two it seems you join together; and what their objective religion is, i have better told you, than you have told your relations. but as to the clearness of their judgement in it, and the measure of their practice of it, there are, i think, as various degrees as there are persons, no two men in the world being in all things just of the same degree. and now sir give me leave patiently to ask you these two questions: 1. why would you by temerity go about to deceive your relations, and other readers, by talking to them against that which you did not understand? even then, when you blame others as dealing so by the papists? and why do you dishonour your own relations so, as to make so bad a description of them? are they such as have no love to god as god, no delight in holiness, no heavenly minds? nothing almost but fear and its effects? have they still the flames of concupiscence, and greedy desires of money and the things of this life, etc. if it be not so, you should not have told the world so of them: if it be so, i am sorry for them: i suppose it is contrary to their professed religion; and you may have the greater hopes to make them papists? ii. what wonder is it that you that were no better a puritan than you describe, are turned papist? you that profess you were a puritan, must needs be judged to tell us what a one you were yourself, when you tell us what they are? alas poor man! how came you to be so false to your own profession, against your baptismal vows, as to keep so much of the world at your heart, in greedy desires after money, and to have no more love to god and man? no more righteousness, peace, and joy in the holy ghost? could you think that a man could be saved without love and good works? were you deluded by such antinomian conceits as you describe, and took that for puritanisme? how else did you quiet your conscience in such a state of hypocrisy? if god and holiness had not your chief love (as well as fear) you were but an hypocrite. and here give me leave to repeat what i have oft written: what wonder is it at any man's turning papist? when according to your own principles, no protestant, puritan, or other christian turneth papist, that doth not thereby declare that he was a falsehearted hypocrite before, and had no true love to god in his heart: and was not this your case? for, 1. you affirm that all men that have true prevalent love to god are in a state of grace, and have right to salvation, (till they lose it:) 2. you affirm that none of us are in a state of grace and salvation, that are not of your church, that is, the subjects of the king, or pope of rome: 3. therefore it followeth that you take none but such subjects or members of your church, to have the true prevalent love of god. but you know that in our christian covenant and profession we all take god for our god, the infinite and most amiable good, our father in christ, and love itself, and that faith working by love is our religion: and if any man, saith saint paul, love not the lord jesus christ, let him be anathema maranatha: and he that loveth the world, the love of the father is not in him, 1 joh. 2. 15. so that by turning papist you confess that before you were no true christian, nor had any true love to god and godliness, nor to jesus christ: and if so, you were a falsehearted hypocrite: for as a christian you professed and covenanted it. and what wonder then if god forsook you and gave you up to strong delusions, when you would not receive the truth in the love of it, that you might be saved, 2 thes. 2. and note here, that if any man know that he truly loveth god and goodness, you tell him that he is none of those that you persuade to popery: for you persuade none to it, but those that are ungodly hypocrites, having no true love of god within them. but can you think, sir, in good earnest, that popery tendeth more to fill men with the love of god, than our simple christianity doth? is not popery a religion of bondage and servitude, consisting mainly in terror, and its superstitious effects? what are most of your tasks of pilgrimages, penances, and abundance such, but the effects of servile fear? the best of religion next heaven should be that which is nearest to heaven. and do you think you can love god better in the fire of purgatory torments, than if he took you unto christ in paradise? could you love god better in this life, if he tormented you in the fire, than if he give you comfort by his mercies? you say that the puritan [is made negligent (by his trust in christ) to adorn his soul with piety, charity, meekness, patience, humility, and other christian virtues; partly thinking them impossible to be attained, partly deeming there is no absolute necessity of them to his salvation, he having nothing to do but to believe that jesus christ hath done all for him.] answ. i had hoped there had been few such left in england: even crisp and saltmarsh, were scarce so erroneous: and were you such a one? o miserable man that was such a puritan! who did bewitch you so grossly to contradict the whole tenor of the gospel? it is just with god to leave you, to set now as light by the meritorious righteousness of christ as procuring you pardon, grace, and glory, as you did then set by christian virtues, piety, and love? but what if it was so with you, will that allow you to belie so many others? how many score volumes have the puritans written which assert not only the possibility, but the absolute necessity of piety, charity, humility, etc. without which none can see god, (infants case is not here meddled with.) i know not one person in all the land, or world, that will not abhor, as false, what you here charge in common on the puritans, unless he be a very gross antinomian, or some grosser heretic here unknown: protestants, puritans, separatists, anabaptists, yea, quakers, all abhor it: and yet you feared not to put this in print? perhaps you will pretend for it the doctrine of justification by faith alone? but they that say that faith alone going first with repentance, doth justify them, by procuring the pardon of their sins, and their union with christ, do say that at the same moment of time it also sanctifieth them, by procuring from christ the spirit of sanctification, giving them love, humility, piety, etc. and that this is of absolute necessity to their salvation, heb. 12. 14. mat. 18. 3. rom. 8. 1. 6. 7. 13. so much of your false self-condemning description of a puritan. chap. iii. ii. you next characterise the prelatical protestant: having said before p. 5. [their preachers in their sermons have little life or zeal; and seldom discourse of such truths as are apt to awaken men's consciences, and make them lay to heart the great concern of the salvation of their souls. or if they do at any time preach of judgement, or of hell, repentance, or a new life, they do it very coldly and imperfectly, and seem to talk like parrots, of what they have learned by rote or out of others books, and not what they have had any experience of in their hearts.] and p. 6. [generally speaking, (i wish it were a slander) prelatic protestants are very profane, and give no signs of any interior trouble of conscience: and if any of them begin to be heartily troubled for his sin, he is observed either to turn fanatic or papist.] answ. if by a prelatic protestant you should unhandsomely mean only such as are worldly clergymen, like too many of your roman prelates and their curates, who take gain for godliness, and who allow their flesh, their pride, their covetousness, and voluptuousness, and sloth, to choose their religion; whose god is their belly, who glory in their shame, and who mind earthly things, and are enemies to cross-bearing; and through enmity to those that are better than themselves, are cross-imposers, and persecutors, and silencers, of sober faithful ministers, because they cross their pride and worldly interest; such it's like may be no better men than you describe them. but why should you take the word in so narrow a sense? but if by prelatic protestants you mean all such protestants whose judgement is for episcopacy, 1. you deceive, and i suppose are deceived, in your distinguishing these from non-conformists: it's true that there are envious falsehearted prelatists in the world, that make false names for their brethren, to procure the belief of their false reports of them: and god will cut out the lying tongue. but i will tell you the truth, whose malice soever is against it; there are episcopal as well as presbyterian and independent non-conformists now: yea, divers that are against the late wars of the parliament, and against the covenant, and never took it, and some that have been soldiers for the king, and suffered for him: yea so considerable is the number of them that are episcopal, that in 1660. when the king called them to treat in order to agreement, they offered him no other form of church government, than a. bishop usher's reduction, in which not a pin of honour, nor one farthing of their revenue was desired to be taken from archbishops, bishops, deans, archdeacon's; but only the parish ministers enabled under them, to have done somewhat more that belongeth to their office, instead of lay-chancellors, etc. most non-conformists of my acquaintance would be glad of the terms contained in the king's declaration about ecclesiastical affairs, where bishops and archbishops are left as rich and high as they were before: so far are non-conformists [episcopal protestants.] 2. and though conformity be very much changed from what it was heretofore, episcopacy is not. and i must tell you, that i do not think that the christian world hath more godly learned worthy ministers, than many of the episcopal were heretofore. do you know what men bishop jewel, a. bishop grindall, and many more of old were? and a. bishop usher, bishop hall, bishop davenant, and many more of late? who hath written more earnestly and hotly for episcopacy, than bishop downame (who wrote the great latin book to prove the pope antichrist;) yet who that knew him did ever question his piety or diligence? and if you look to the old conformable presbyters, read their books, and inquire of the lives of many of them, and then confess that they were better men and better preachers than you describe. peruse the writings of mr. rob. bolton, william whateley, william fenner, dr. preston, dr. sibbes, dr. stoughton, dr. gouge, mr. thomas gataker, mr. crook, and abundance of such others, and inquire how they laboured and lived, and you may hear that they were neither such parrots nor profane ones as you mention. there may be some proportionable alteration supposed to be now made in the persons of the conformists, answerable to that which is made in conformity itself: but surely, if you know london, and many miles near it, and many parishes in the several counties, you must confess that now there are many learned, pious conformists, who preach zealously, and live religiously, and hate covetousness and persecution, and long to see the promoting of piety, peace, and concord. but if you expect a better vindication of them, i must desire you to consider of two things. 1. that in most countries and ages the worldliest men (that is, the worst) have been the greediest strivers and seekers for church-power and perferments; and he that seeketh most diligently is the likeliest to find: and that ordinarily the vulgar do dance after the pipe of him that is uppermost, and will be of the religion of them that can help or hurt them, be it what it will be. most will be of the religion which is owned by law, or countenanced by the greatest, be it right or wrong. in the best countries, the most are too bad: and bad men will have a prospering religion, and not one that will expose them to death, banishment, imprisonment, beggary, contempt, or silence. most will be on the upper side. 2. and remember that you yourself here confess the scandals of some of your romish party, and what carnal profane ones they are. had you not confessed it, i would have desired you to read two books, 1. josep. acosta, of the wicked slothful priests in the indies, as the great hindrance of their conversion. 2. stephanus his world of wonders, taken most out of the book of the queen of navarre, of the horrid villainies of your priests. and one thing i cannot disregard: i marvel not if the papists be most bad in spain, france, italy, etc. or the lutherans in denmark, saxony, or sweden; or the calvinists in holland; or the prelatists and conformists in england; because the most (who are commonly the worst) will be of the stronger side. but that greeks should be ungodly in turkey, or protestants in france, or papists in england, where they are singular, and under the discountenance of the times, and most hold their religion with some self-denial, this seemeth to me a more grievous thing. and if it prove true, that even in england, where you make the world believe that you have suffered grievously, your followers are too often found mere formalists, living in swearing, drinking, lying, uncleanness, or some of these, what shall we think of such a religion as this, as in a land of uprightness would teach men to do unjustly? i wonder not what should make a drunkard, fornicator, or other debauched sinner to be a papist in france, spain, or italy: but what should make such a one be a papist in england, unless his religion favour sensuality, or else he think that it will yet prove the upper side, i cannot easily conjecture. but you accuse the prelatic protestant for agreeing with the puritan in expecting salvation by the extrinsical righteousness of christ without him, not by any interior righteousness in his own soul.] answ. i told you your memory faileth you: why did you before then describe the puritan as so well qualified within, and desiring after more? but were you bred among puritans, and yet talk so ignoranly and falsely? this had been more tolerable in a cochleus, a genebrard, or other transmarine calumniator, that never knew us here. read but davenant de just. and see how you slander the conformists. and read my forenamed books, and mr. trumans, mr. woodbridges, the morning lectures at s. giles of justif. mr. wotton de reconciliat. mr. bradshaw de justif. praefat. etc. mr. gataker in many books, jo. goodwin of justif. etc. and see how you slander the puritans. in a few plain words, sir, the protestants do not expect salvation by their own personal righteousness as coordinate with christ's, but as subordinate to it, nor as a righteousness so denominated from the same reason as christ's is, but from a lower reason, and so as of a lower sort. that is, [we all hold, that god's law to perfect man was perfect, being the effect of his perfect holiness, and required personal perpetual perfect innocency and obedience in man: and that man breaking this law, was according to the justice of it liable to its penalty, which is temporal, spiritual, and eternal death, or to be forsaken of that god whom he forsook, and to be under the sense of his displeasure, or justice: we believe that christ redeemed us from this punishment, by the merit of his perfect holiness and obedience, and the satisfactory sacrificing of himself on the cross, where he was in his measure forsaken of god, as in our stead and for our sins; whose punishment, as far as was fit for him to undergo, he voluntarily undertook to suffer. we believe that he never intended by this redemption, to take man from under his subjection to god, or make him an ungoverned lawless wight; but that by purchase he himself, as mediator, became his lord and king, and gods chief administrator of the redeemed world: and his lord-redeemer, with the will and authority of god his creator, made him a new law and covenant, freely giving right to impunity (saving paternal healing corrections, and temporal death, and degrees of desertion if men neglect grace) and right to the heavenly glory, as thus merited for us by christ; and also the communion of the holy ghost on earth, to fit us by holiness for heaven, and to conquer our sins; and this to all that will by a true effectual faith, accompanied with repentance, unfeignedly accept the gift of god, that is, that will truly consent to the baptismal covenant, taking god for their reconciled god and father, jesus christ for their saviour, and the holy ghost for their sanctifier and comforter, renouncing the devil, the world, and the flesh, and engaging themselves as in a holy war against them, as the enemies of the blessed trinity, and them. and this covenant they must keep: for as it giveth right to life to such believers, so it denounceth certain damnation to unbelievers and unthankful neglecters of so great salvation. so that when by [righteousness] we mean that which answereth gods perfect law, having no sinful imperfection, we all profess that we have no such righteousness of our own to trust in, there being no man without sin; and all sin by the law of innocency denominating the sinner unrighteous and punishable by death: but instead of such a righteousness, god's justice is so far satisfied by the sacrifice and perfect righteousness of christ, as that he freely giveth us the foresaid covenant, and its free grace and benefits: but because we must be judged by the redeemer according to his law of grace, therefore we must in ourselves personally have the righteousness which that law or covenant hath made necessary to our justification first, and our salvation afterwards; which is first our foresaid faith or covenant-consent, and after (to our salvation) our keeping of that covenant in true obedience and holiness to the end, and our victory over the three enemies which we renounced. so that briefly, god justifieth as the donor and the judge: christ god and man, as mediator, justifieth us meritoriously, as aforesaid, and by donation and final sentence; our jus ad impunitatem & gloriam, our right to impunity and the heavenly glory, justifieth us as our formal righteousness (which is a relation) against the accusation that we ought to be shut out of heaven and damned to hell. the covenant of grace justifieth us, by giving us right to the love of the father, the grace of the son, and the communion of the holy ghost: even as god's donative and condonative instrument, or act of grace. our personal faith including repentance justifieth us, as the matter of our formal righteousness, against that particular accusation, that we are impenitent unbelievers, and so have no part in christ and his covenant gift. and our sincere, though imperfect, holiness added to our faith, is our material righteousness, against that particular accusation, that we are unholy, and so unqualified for heaven: so that the formal nature of righteousness being relative, and the word having various senses according to the variety of respects, and all these forementioned having their several parts or offices, to the being of our final perfect justification, all these may accordingly be the reasons of our expectation of salvation. i forgot to add, that we are so far justified by the holy ghost also, as he is the author of this holiness, which is our necessary qualification for eternal life. 1 cor. 6. 10. 11. tit. 3. 3, 4, 5. i have here truly, distinctly, and plainly told you the protestant and puritan, that is, the christian doctrine of justification. as to the sense of the word [imputing] see how we do, or do not own it, briefly in mr. bradshaw's preface, or largely in my treat. of justifying righteousness and imputation. and in my cathol. theolog. i have done you and christianity the service, to prove by plain citations, that many of your learnedest divines do say herein the same as we, or very little differ from us; and if you will as a makebate prove the contrary, you will do it to the dissenters shame. if you trust not christ alone, as we do, you will find the want of a saviour in your necessity, and purgatory will not serve your turn. but you tell us, that [some of the prelatic clergy begin to scoff at the doctrine of imputative justice: one of them lately, in a sermon before his majesty, called it, and not improperly, the mummery of imputative justice.] i will transcribe no more of your scoff: it's dangerous mocking at such matters: imputed righteousness is oft mentioned by the holy ghost in scripture. it is not some men's mis-exposition that will justify your derision. it's no strange thing for men of undigested thoughts on both sides, publicly and privately to revile at each other as erroneous, when if they had but the skill of speaking distinctly, and understanding one another, they would presently profess that they are agreed; or if it be for want of understanding the matter, it's pity but they should be quiet till they understand it. i am of their mind that think it is here safest to keep close to scripture phrase; for want of which many wrangle about their own ambiguous or ill made words, that in the matter disagree not. but, sir, when you say, pag. 6. [an imputative holy man is a mere christmas mummer;] and after your jesting with the boys and girls, and the cobblers and butchers regal attire, and the daw and her fine feathers, you conclude [such will be the sad lot of merely imputative saints, who to themselves and their brethren seem very fine in the extrinsical righteousness of christ, put on by their fantastical faith, whilst god and his angels under all this conceited assumed bravery see a lascivious, wanton, covetous miser.] i must crave leave to call upon your conscience, to judge whether a man that professeth that while he seemed a puritan he was but an unholy, lascivious, wanton, and covetous miser, and since his turning papist tells the world in print, that he is now a most false calumniator, be a fit person to invite his relations to such a pitiful change, to save their souls? while you talked but of [imputative justice] some men's ambiguous words gave you an excuse: for some protestants think that nothing should be called justifying righteousness, which is not sinless and perfect: but this is but a controversy about a word or name of righteousness. but when you here pretend, that they are for merely imputed holiness, i must say that i remember not that ever i read a more impudent slander: and he that will dwell in god's holy hill must not receive a false report, especially in despite of the fullest evidence that man can desire: are not our booksellers shops full of books for the necessity of personal holiness? and that none can be saved but saints? is it not one of our dislikes of your way, that saints must be made rare canonised persons, when all christians hold, that without holiness none shall see god? when almost all the sermons that ever i heard 〈◊〉 by any man of sense in my life professed this, and almost all our books are on this very subject, who would have thought that a man on earth could have been found, that would deny it in the open face of the sun? yea, one that saith he was a puritan, and an university student? even when the poor puritans are ruined, and hunted about, and cast into goals, because they dare not give over preaching the necessity of personal holiness to salvation (for that is the most of all their sermons that ever i heard) dare you stand forth with such an accusation as this? as if they held no holiness necessary but imputative? why then are we devoted in baptism to the holy ghost? yea what are the very separatists more accused of, than that they would have none but real saints in their communion, too far presuming to judge the heart? you seem a zealous man, though very ignorant; i pray you study not to excuse this, but let us hear that you as openly repent as you have sinned. the most of your further dealing with the prelatic protestant, is to tell him that his ritual principles lead him to turn papist, or else he cannot answer the puritan: i take not myself any further fit to interpose herein, than to tell you, that in all things truly indifferent, there is a just middle between any mistaken scruplers that hold them sinful, and a papist that maketh them a part of his christianity or religion, and will not be of the same religion and church with those that be not of his mind, nor will willingly suffer them to preach or live. i told you that s. paul, and the churches described by socrates and sozomen (about easter) were of this middle way: they neither thought liturgies or ceremonies so bad (or unlawful at all,) as some on one side called puritans do, not so necessary as to make them a partition wall between churches and churches, or to forbid communion, or the preaching of christ's gospel, or christian peace, to those that differ about them. and i think this middle way is approved by god and angels, and by many at death, or after long experience, who were against it before in prosperity and passion. the instances which you give, are, i. that [the prelatic protestant is very angry with the puritan, that he will not abstain from flesh in lent, on frydays, ember-days, and vigils of saints— though practically speaking no body takes less notice of them than himself— and the poor puritan, because he will not solemnly invite the people to observe, what himself never intends to take the least notice of, must for this be silenced and suspended both from office and benefice.] answ. 1. here you show what things they be that you turn papist for: is not eating flesh on frydays, lent, or vigils, a worthy matter to make another religion of, or to prove men to be of differing churches? 2. i told you before, that the puritans judgement is as paul's, that such things should be left indifferent, or at least make no breach among us; by our judging or despising one another: and that neither the pope, nor any men on earth, have authority to make universal laws for them to all the christian world; and that there is no true tradition of apostolical institution of them: but yet that such fasts and feasts as are appointed by true authority of prince or pastors, not against the laws of god, and such as shall be proved to be instituted by the apostles, they will observe. 3. but the poor puritan is indeed in hard circumstances, were there no life after this! some of them have no flesh to eat, either on frydays, or any day in the week, but live thankfully upon bread and milk, and some such things; fish they would gladly eat, if they could get it. there are now among them such as with many children have for a long time lived almost only on brown rye-bread and water: many of them take it for a sufficient quantity to eat one temperate meal a day, though they are in no want; and the papist that forbeareth flesh, and eateth better than the puritan feasteth with, or that fasteth with one meal a day, which is many puritans fullest diet, doth condemn the poor puritan as an heretic, and perhaps burn him at a stake, or cast him into the inquisition, for not fasting. poor john calvin did eat but one small meal a day, and the papist who fast much at the rate as calvin feasted, record him for a gluttonous person. and so did the pharisees by christ and his disciples; why do not thy disciples fast, etc. ii. your second instance is, [the prelatic protestant wonders the puritan should scruple adorning the communion table, with two wax tapers, etc.] ans. the former answer serveth to this: hear, o ye puritan, wherein the roman religion doth surpass yours! their altars have lighted tapers on: do you not deserve to be burnt yourselves, if you will not burn candles on your altars? yea the pope, who hath power to set up and take down emperors and kings, being not only the king of rome, but the monarch of the whole world, doth appoint these lights as a professing sign [before god and man that he is of that church which in the primitive times for fear of persecution served. god by candle-light in dens and caves,] and is not this to prove the immutability of their church, that vary not in a circumstance from the apostolioal institution? doth his domineering over kings and nations, and the hosts of great princes, cardinals, prelates, abbots, clergy, regulars, seculars, that obey him, show also that he is of that old candle-lighted church? but while you seem still to plead apostolical tradition for all these great parts of your religion, tell the poor puritan, whether it was by prophecy, or how else, that the apostles delivered to the church the use of these lighted tapers, in commemoration of that which was done in dens long after the death of these apostles? i doubt rather, the pope doth by this practice condemn himself, and sets up these lights to show the world how much he and his church are changed since those forementioned days. iii. you next say, [the prelatic protestant wonders what hurt the puritan can see in making the sign of that on the forehead of a new baptised infant, yet smiles at a papist when he makes it on himself, or his victuals, etc.] ans. none of us are ashamed of the cross of christ, nor loath to profess this as openly as you: but if we do it by word, by writing, by obeying, or by suffering, we are of another religion from you, (it seems by you,) unless we will do it also by crossing: the jews were the cross-makers: and there are now so many cross-makers in the world, whose trade we like not, that we are not forward to set up their sign at our doors. but yet there are puritans and prelatists, that were they among the deriders of a crucified christ, where the use were not a formality, or worse, but convenient to tell the infidels their mind, that they are not ashamed of the cross of christ, would not refuse seasonably to cross themselves. but the puritans think, that when it is made [a solemn stated sign of the duty and grace of the new covenant, dedicating there by the person to god, as one hereby obliging himself to profess the faith of christ crucified, and manfully to fight under his banner against the devil, the world, and the flesh to the death, in hope of the benefits of his cross and covenant, and so is made a badge or symbol of our christianity,] than it is made a sacrament of the covenant of grace, added to christ's sacrament of the same use; or at least too like it, though the name be denied it: and they think that christ hath given none power to make such new sacraments or symbols of christianity; he having done that sufficiently himself. they have a conceit that the king would not be pleased with them that either frame a new oath of allegiance added to his, as the badge of his subjects loyalty, nor yet that would make a new badge of the order of the knights of the garter, without his consent. at least, the puritans think that baptism, and christianity, and christian burial should not be denied to those children, whose parents do not offer them to be baptised with this additional symbol: and if the poor men be deceived in such thoughts, it is but in fear of sinning against christ, and not that they are more ashamed of his cross than you, or more disobedient to authority. iv. your next instance is, [the prelatic protestant wonders that the puritan can doubt the holy euchrist is really and truly the body of christ, etc.] and you cite dr. cousin's hist. transub. p. 44. answ. 1. the prelatic protestant and the puritan differ not at all about the real presence of christ's body in the sacrament, as i have showed you elsewhere. what need you more proof than king edward's old rubric against the real presence in a gross sense, lately restored to the liturgy. and as for dr. cousin's words and book, i again tell you, all the doctors of the roman church are never able to answer his full proof that transubstantiation is a late innovation; and none of the doctrine of the ancient churches. we challenge you all to give any reasonable answer to that book: and you still cunningly balk the main controversy between us and you, which is not whether christ's body be there, but whether bread and wine be there. for i have told you, 1. that we who know not how far a glorified spiritual body is extensive and invisible to us, cannot tell you where it is present or absent, no more than of an angel. 2. but we all hold, as a piece of plate or silver barrs, is really and truly turned into the king's coin, so the bread and wine is really and truly turned into christ's sacramental body and blood; and yet one is silver and the other is bread and wine still: the change is true, but relative by its separation to that holy use: as a common person may be really changed into a king, or a lord, or a judge, or a captain, or a bishop, or a doctor, and yet be a man still. this real change we all confess. but the question is, whether there be no bread. v. you say [the prelatic protestant wonders that the puritan when he is going out of this world should find difficulty to make a particular confession of his sins, if any grievous matter lie on his conscience, and humbly desire the prelatic priests absolution, saying etc.]. answ. i know of no difference between the prelatist and the puritan about confession or absolution. dr. john reynolds a true puritan, received absolution before he died: mere puritans believe that it is a duty to confess our sins to men. 1. in case of such injury to any as must have a confession towards the injured persons satisfaction: and forgiveness. 2. in case of such difficulty about either the nature of the sin, or consequent dangers or duties, as make a particular guide necessary, who cannot resolve our doubts till he know the case. 3. in case that the conscience be so burdened with the sin, as that the sinner cannot by other means find ease, till he have disburdened himself by such confession. 4. in case it be necessary to heal any scandal given to others; it is a very great duty for drunkards, fornicators, deceivers, and such others to go to their companions, and lament their sin, and persuade them no more to do as they have done: and if required by the pastors to take public shame before the congregation, and acknowledge that the doctrine of christ never countenanced them in any such sin, that religion and the church may not bear the reproach of their delinquency. and to beg the prayers of the congregation for their pardon, and that the pastor by virtue of his office will pronounce it. but we are not ashamed to confess that neither puritans nor prelatists think it lawful to make the people believe that they must needs tell the priest of all the sins that they commit, and duties that they omit; nor to uphold pragmatical priests in the trade of knowing all men's thoughts and secret actions, even princes, by which they may betray them. 1. the number of people and of their sins, is so great as render it impossible: in this parish it's thought there is above threescore thousand souls: how many thousand sinful thoughts, or words or deeds a great part of these may commit in a year, i leave to your conjecture: only i must tell you that if all men high and low, that are called papists about us, should but tell the priest of every time they are drunk, and every fornication they have committed, every profane oath they have sworn, every lie they have told, (especially against the protestants,) and of every filthy and profane word that they have spoken, and every oppression of the poor, and every filthy or covetons thought that hath been in their hearts, they had need of a very traditional memory to remember them, or great plenty of ink and paper to record them, and a whole diocese of clergymen in one parish to hear them. how many hundred priests must this parish have, if all should thus confess all sins of commission and omission? every cold prayer, and omitted prayer, exhortation, alms, example, etc. especially the great omissions of the soul, in the defects of the exercise of faith, hope, love, and patience, etc. 2. and what good will it do a man, that is himself of sound understanding and integrity, to open his conscience to an ignorant or unconscionable man, that will call evil good, and good evil, and will put him upon sin; as you here do by your relations; or that dare himself sin as boldly as you here do, when you accuse puritan and prolates as holding mere imputed holiness. 3. and how great a temptation and injury may this be to your priests, in such instances as montaltus the jansenist mentioneth, with which i will not defile my paper? when, alas! most of them are not men fit to bear such temptations: what if twenty thousand people in one parish should each make this confession to a papist priest, [i am afraid i have sinned in believing the common report, that you are a very ignorant drunken sot; and a common whoremaster, and a proud, covetous lying man;] would it not be like to enrage the priest into an enmity against his flock? if all the fornicators in such a parish should tell such priests of all their filthy thoughts, and words, and their immodest actions, and actual fornications; how like were it to make such impressions on the poor priest's fantasy, as would pollute him with many filthy imaginations. vi you add, [the prelatic protestant wonders at the puritan's niceness, that he can by no means be persuaded to bow at the name of jesus: when nature teacheth us a relative reverence, etc. the sound of the name jesus is vanished and gone, before the superstitious worshipper can make his mimical congee: whereas the picture, a far more lively representation of the same great lord, remains.] ans. 1. the puritans think it not unlawful to bow when god or jesus are named. but, 1. they are loath to serve those men, that would turn all serious religion into a dead image of it. 2. and they like not bowing at the name jesus, and not at the name [god], or [christ, or immanuel, or jehovah, or the holy ghost.] 2. as to images, i will but refer you to dr. stillingfleet's last book against godwin, which hath fully proved, that you use them as truly idolatrously as did the heathens. vii. your next instance is, [the conformists rejecting the popish girdle, stole, and casuble, and yet wondering at the puritans rejecting the surplice.] ans. the former answers serve to this: some puritans would use the surplice, if that would serve and satisfy. but they see, that if they say [a] first, they must say [b] next, and so on to the end of your alphabet. but still you tell us what great things your new religion doth consist of, and what great cause you had to turn from the puritans to the papists? if you had known no more than books can tell you, and your grandfather had not known better than baronius himself, what the apostles did and instituted, we should never have known that the religion which is integrated by a surplice, girdle, stole, and casuble, had been herein apostolical, and not rather a novel thing. viii. your eighth instance is about praying for the dead: but whatever you say of the rector of s. martin's in oxford, there is no difference between the puritans and the prelatic protestants in that point: you mistake the matter: it is another passage, or two or three at burial, which the puritan sticks at, viz. which pronounceth of every individual person in the kingdom, atheists, infidels, papists, and impenitent sinners that we bury, except only the excommunicate, unbaptised, and self-murderers, that [god of his mercy hath taken to himself the soul of this our dear brother, out of the miseries of this sinful life, etc.] ix. your last instance indeed toucheth the quick of our controversy with rome: you say [the prelatic protestant wonders at the puritan's pride, that he will not submit his judgement in matters of faith, to the determination of a council of all the reverend bishops of the land, his majesty as supreme head and governor presiding,] yet submit not [to the determination of a general council of all the learned bishops of the christian world, his holiness the pope as supreme pastor presiding, and believe as the universal church of christ believeth: it's fitting, says the conformist, that for order sake in christ's church, there should be in every nation some supreme governors, to whose directions in matters of divine worship, all should submit; else we shall have as many christian religions and ways of worship, as there are parishes, families, or persons. the puritan replieth, it seems as rational that christ should for the same reasons of conserving union, decency, and order in his church, appoint one supreme pastor over all christians, dispersed in all the nations of the world, whom all should obey in the vacancy of general councils.] ans. this desenveth our wakeful remarks: i. so your sacred cardinal bertrand (in biblioth. patrum) said, that god had not been wise else, if he had not placed one supreme, as his vicar over the world. and so you can tell what god hath done, by your superlative wit which can tell us what he ought to do. god doth all wisely: but if he had not made an universal head of the world under him, he had not done wisely; ergo, he hath made such an head, etc. this is historical logic. ii. but is this monarch the head in civil government, or only in ecclesiastic? why is your one church no more one in answering this question? nay why were poor barclay, withrington, and such others, whose writings goldastus' hath preserved, so hardly judged of, for pleading for king's supremacy in civil government? and if you are of their mind, tell us if you can, why god must not be judged as unreasonable and unwise, if he have not made one universal civil monarch of all the world? i undertake, when you will come to a due trial, to prove, that civil government is such as may as well, and far better, be done by officers and deputies than the ecclesiastical government can: and i pray who is the universal monarch? or who must be he? or how must he be chosen? i would have our king have no mortal king set over him, at least without a choosing vote. and shall they meet in a general council of kings to choose one? by that time the place and time be agreed on, and the kings have all left their kingdoms, and be come from the antipodes, and the terra australis incognita, and all other kingdoms to that council to choose a monarch of the world, they will be too old to return home again. or shall they fight it out, till one have conquered all the rest? alas, who shall bear the charge of the conquest at the antipodes, and who shall answer for all the blood? when one cannot get all europe at a cheaper rate, than will be expressed by many kingdom's groans, and the soil dunged with men's flesh and blood. i have long ago on this subject given (in my key for catholics) an answer to richlieu, and to carol. boverius, who wrote for the honour of ecclesiastic monarchy, from the similitude of civil, to have perverted our late king; as if he would have made him believe, that the world must have one mortal monarch. contrarily, if it be madness and hostility to all kings and states, for any one man on earth to claim and seek to be the monarch of all the world in civil government, it is madness and hostility to kings, pastors, and people, for any one man to claim and seek to be the monarch of all the world in ecclesiastic government. but the former is true: ergo, so is the latter. i am ready to make good the comparison. iii. but, sir, if the pope be s. peter's successor, is not his apostolic office as universal as his monarchy or ruling office? surely the first part of the apostles office was to preach and baptise, and make christians and gather churches, and the governing of them was but the second part: and is the pope the apostle of all the world? then it seemeth that he is a betrayer of most of the whole earth to the devil, that neither preacheth to them per se vel per alios. but s. peter's charge was not universal but indefinite. and even as to government, why did he never so much as send his deputies to govern the abassins' for so many hundred years? nay hence it seemeth to follow, that all the preaching and church-order that hath been for so many hundred years, either there or in any other nation, by which millions have been turned to christianity and edified, without the mission or commission of the roman monarch, should have been left undone, and all was unlawful? iu. but must your pope be obeyed as supreme but in the vacancy of general councils? dare you preach this at rome? 1. how then come the councils of constance and basil for such doctrine to be unapproved or reprobate councils? how came pope eugenius to keep up and continue the succession, when so great a general council had deposed him as heretical, simoniacal, and many ways flagitious? 2. and what? have we a catholic church with two heads? that are pervices the vicars of christ? a pope one year, and a council another? then sure they are two churches, seeing the pars imperans is the specifying part. 3. but the best is, it is at the pope's will, whether ever there shall be a general council more? and he knoweth which side his bread is buttered on? nay, they say, no decree is valid without his approbation: and if ever a john, or eugenius of them all will approve of his own deposition for heresy, simony, adultery, etc. he is not the man that i took him for. 4. but if the name [general council] be not a cheat, and taken for a council very far from being general, as to the whole christian world, let the pope set his heart at rest, i will undertake to secure him from the danger of such a council, and to prove that such there never ought to be, will be, or can be, unless christianity come much nearer to be rooted out of the earth, and the church brought into a narrower room. v. but you have a reflecting comparison between the kings presiding and the popes, and between a national council and the bishops of the whole christian world. to begin at the later part. alas poor ignorant man, if you believe this yourself? and alas unfaithful man, if you believe it not and yet dare say it? do you yet know no difference between the orbis romanus, and the orbis universalis? or will you with william johnson, alias terret, prove your councils to be universal, because such places as thracia had bishops there, as if thracia had been without the empire? or because such a name as johannes persidis is found at nice? read all the subscribed names, and return to a sounder mind! theodoret knew what he said, when he gave the reason why james bishop of nisibis in persia, or near it, was at the council of nice, because nisibis was then under the roman emperor. do you not know that most of the christian world (two to one) are not of the pope's subjects; and are all the bishops of the christian world then on your side? and do you not know that when constantine presided at nice, his dominion was full as large as the bishop of rome's was, and a little larger. vi but because you shall find us reasonable, we will tell you, that we consent to general councils where the pope consenteth not? we consent to what the great councils at chalcedon and constantinople, before mentioned, say of the humane institution of his primacy, and the reason and mutability of it; and so doth not the pope? we consent to the councils at constance, basil, pisa, that the pope may be deposed as a heretic, and worse; but the pope doth not: is it not he than that dissenteth from all the bishops of the world? vii. and for the kings presiding we wholly own it: he is the governor of clergymen, as well as of physicians; and he is to see that they abuse not their function to the common hurt. the difference is here, 1. our king governeth but his own dominions: but your pope would govern all the world. 2. our king hath an undoubted title: your pope is an usurper. 3. and as to your name [head] he hath given the world full satisfaction, that he did never claim to be a priest-head or governor, a constitutive head of a properly called church, nor to have the power of word, sacraments, and keys, so as to administer them; but to be a civil head and governor of priests, and the churches in his dominions; as he is of physicians, etc. viii. and you mistake the puritans, if you think they are not for this government: why else take they the oath of supremacy? yea, and if you think that they are not for as much unity and concord of all the churches in a kingdom, as can be had without a greater hurt, than the lesser particularities of their concord will do good: and they are not against national synods for such concord: and they hold the king to be the regular head or governor, or principium of that concord: but not principium essentiale ipsius ecclesiae: and therefore the puritans differ from judicious ric. hooker, who saith, [if the king be the head of the church, he must needs be a christian:] for we hold that an infidel king may be so the head, that is, the rightful governor of the christians and churches in his dominion; or else how should they be obliged to obey him? ix. and you are mistaken, if you think that the puritans and the prelatists differ about submitting our faith to the judgement of the church: we subscribe the same articles, which say that general councils may err, and have erred, even about matters of faith. x. but i must tell you, that the puritans, who are accused of disorder and confusion, do many of them loath disorder and confusion, even in words and doctrine. and they distinguish here between the churches keeping and teaching the christian faith, and the churches judging in matters of faith. the first they are wholly for: we must receive our faith from our teachers, and oportet discentem fide humana credere. but if by judging you mean strictly a decisive judgement, in which we must rest, which way soever the sentence pass, as if the church might not only teach us the truth of our religion, but judge in partem utramlibet, whether it be true or not, the puritans own no such power in the church, nor will so submit their faith to the judgement of it. they believe that pastors in councils have power to judge that there is a god, almighty, etc. a christ, a holy ghost, that christ died, rose, etc. that the scripture is true, that there is an absolute necessity of holiness, that there is a resurrection and life everlasting, that god's commandments must be kept, and sin not committed, etc. but that no council hath power to judge that there is no god, no christ, or the contrary to any one of these, or any other revealed truth of god. xi. and i must not let pass your schismatical inference, that [else there should be as many religions and ways of worship as parishes or persons] if some supreme governor determined not in matters of worship: for 1. it was not so, when no supreme governor determined, on earth: 2. but either you mean the substantials of god's worship or the circumstantials: in the first as faith is not to be got by force, so neither is godliness, but yet governors should here do their best: but as to the other we abhor the conceit, that there are as many religions, as there is difference about vestures, gestures, days and meats: but perhaps you take the word religion in the roman sense, as you confine it to those that you call [the religious] (as if you took the people of your church to be irreligious:) and so you have indeed too many religious, however they come to make one church: the religion of the carthusians is one, and of the benedictines another, and of the franciscans another; i cannot name them all: one eateth herbs and fish, and another eateth flesh seldom, another often; one weareth one habit, and another weareth another; one religion hath one rule of life, and another hath another. but with us there is but one religion (which is the christian) though one man wear cloth and another stuff, one white and another black, one eat flesh and another fish, and another can seldom get either; though one wear his hair long and another short, though one be old and another be young, yet we are all of one religion: yea, though one preach and pray in english, another in welsh, another in french, and another in dutch, yet we take not these to be so many religions: no nor though one think free praying fitter for ministers than an imposed form, and another think an imposed form only fit, and a third think as the mere puritan, that both having their conveniences and inconveniences, there should be seasons for both. and i pray you here tell me two things if you can. 1. whether the great difference of liturgies (which are the very words and orders of the church's worship) be not liker a difference of religions, than the colour of our clothes, or the meat we eat, or the lighting of a candle, etc. and yet do i need to tell you how many liturgies are recorded in the bibliotheca patrum? yea, that it was six hundred years and more before the churches in one empire used all one and the same liturgy? and for some hundred years, that every church used what the bishop pleased? yea, that the first restraint of free-praying that we find was, by a council ordaining that the presbyter should first show his prayer to the fathers that they might be sure it was sound? and had basil and chrysostom, and all others that varied, as divers religions as liturgies? 2. whether all the doctrinal controversies among yourselves, as between all your school doctors about predestination, grace, and free will, about perseverance, about the immaculate conception of the virgin mary, about the power of the pope over all kings in temporals, and about the kill of excommunicate kings, and the absolving their subjects, and whether after excommunication they are kings or no, (of which hen. fowlis hath cited great store on one side,) and all the moral controversies about loving god, about perjuries, vows, murder, fornication, lying, stealing, drunkenness, gluttony, (of which you may see great store in montaltus' letters, the mystery of jesuitism, and mr. clarkson's late book called the practical divinity of the church of rome:) i say, is not religion as much concerned about all these differences, and all the rest among you which make many horse-loads, yea i think cart-loads of volumes, as it is in the colour of the preachers clothes, or the meat he eateth? and are not protestants (that is, mere christians disowning popery) as justifiable in their unity and charity, for taking men to be of the same religion, who use not the same garments, gestures, and ceremonies, and that bear with differences herein, as your church that beareth with all these loads of different doctrines in your most learned famous doctors (and not in the weaker priests alone) even whether excommunicate kings may be killed or no; and whether the pope hath power to put down and set up emperors and kings? if you say that your one religion and one church hath no such difference, it must be by saying that you all agree to gregory the seventh in concil. rom. & innoc. 3. in concil. lateran. on the worse side, and all own the doctors cited by h. fowlis aforesaid: but indeed i must speak better of you, even that some are of a better mind, whom goldastus hath gathered and preserved, and divers of the learned men of france, and some in spain. but we think the difference even between the prelatists, presbyterians, independants, yea and the moderate anabaptists, to be far less than these which your unanimous agreeing church doth constantly bear with, without silencing, imprisoning, ejecting, or condemning, or so much as disowning the judgements of the worse side. he that readeth parsons on one side, and watson's quodlibets on the other; barclay and witherington on one side, and zuarez and the far greater prevalent party on the other, will either wonder at the strength of your unity which no doctrinal differences even about the blood of kings can at all dissolve; or else he may wonder at the lax and sandy temperament of such protestants as cannot bear with a man that readeth not in their book, and singeth not in their tune; and is still crying out against others as sectaries, because they have piped to them and they have not danced; and such as no man can live quietly within reach of, unless they swallow every morsel which they cut for them, having throats neither wider, or at least no narrower than theirs. as if king henry the eighth's days were the measure of true discipline, when one man was burnt for being too far from popery, and another hanged, or beheaded, for being popish, and it was hard to know the middle region, and harder to know how long it would be calm? till strangers cried, deus bone, quomodo hic vivunt gentes. but as none are more cruel in wars than cowards, (nor in robberies than women,) nor any more gentle and pitiful than valiant experienced soldiers; so few are so insolent and bloody obtruders of their dictates and wills upon the world, as those that being least able to prove them good, have nothing but inquisitions and prisons, silencing and banishing, fire and faggot, effectually to make them good. but if st. james be in the right, who saith, that pure religion and undefiled is this, to visit the fatherless and widows in their adversity, and to keep ourselves unspotted of the world, then certainly the jesuits morals, and the mystery of jesuitism, and clarkson's roman practical divinity, and fowlis' treasons of the papists, contain more of the concerns of religion, than preaching in a consecrated or unconsecrated place, and than eating flesh, fish, or neither, in lent or on fridays, doth. o the strange difference between your unity and concord, and the protestants! how fast is yours? how loose is ours? and it is to be considered we pretend not to so much perfection in this world, as ever to expect that all men should be just of the same size and complexion, or speak the same language, or have all the same opinions, thoughts, or words: if we can keep the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace, in the seven points named by the apostle, eph. 4. 3, 4, 5, 6. so far as we have attained do walk by the same rule (of love and peace) and mind the same things, till god reveal more to such as differ, (phil. 3.) we shall be glad of such a measure of union: for we believe it impossible to be perfect in concord, while most, yea all are so woefully imperfect in knowledge, faith, love and obedience. we wait for perfection of all in heaven; and we find that few things in the world ever did so much against unity, as pretending to more than is to be hoped for, and laying ill on so high terms, and so many as we know will never be received. therefore our mutual love and forbearance with different forms and circumstances, is agreeable to the principles of our religion. but for you that pretend to unity, concord, and infallible judgement, to tolerate cart-loads of doctrinal controversies, divers expositions of many hundred texts of scripture, divers readings of the text itself, contrary doctrines about god's grace, about all the ten commandments, about the estates and lives of kings, and never so much as to condemn either side nor silence the preachers, never imprison them, or banish them five miles from cities and corporations, never put them to any disgrace, but still honour them as renowned doctors, as if the lives of kings, and the rest of these things were less than a form of prayer, or a ceremony, yea when your inquisition torment poor protestants for smaller matters, (as reading the bible, or a protestant book;) methinks all this showeth that christian concord is founded on better principles than yours, and that yours is but the bond of your clergy interest. chap. iu. his own false description of papists. your next work being to give your relations, first the false and then the true description of a papist, it's most deceitful work that you make in both. i. in the false description you do quite pass over the great constitutive causes of popery, in which it is that it differs from apostolical christianity: and you name a few of the superstructures or remoter differences, and cite not one protestant that speaketh those words, but only the present archbishop of york, and as you say, the vulgar conceit: and you are ordinarily careful, in every paragraph, to put in some one word, by the disowning of which you may disown the sentence. but, 1. is it not a mere deceiving trick to word your own accusations so in the protestants name, as you know you can easilyest plead, not guilty? may not one alter some one word in every verse of any chapter in the bible, and then protest, that not one of all those verses is in the bible? so if the printer have some errata in each leaf of your book, may you not protest that not one leaf of it is yours? 2. and is it not deceitfully done to appeal to the vulgar as the accusers, that thus charge you, when you know how vain it is to expect, that, (how sound soever their judgements be) the vulgar should state any controversies so exactly, as not to miss it in a word or more; when they hit the sense? and you knew how hard it is to disprove you: for who shall judge what is the opinion of the vulgar? if i should say that few or none of my acquaintance do charge you to speak those very words, you may say that you know some that do, and i cannot confute you. 3. and have you not the differences between you and us voluminously stated and handled long ago, by many whose books have been received by the churches, and licenced by authority, when the vulgar stating of them was never licenced nor owned? why did you not gather out of jewel, usher's answer to the jesuits challenge, dr. chaloner, chillingworth, dr. field, dr. crakenthorp, dr. reignolds, dr. john white, bishop morton, dr. ames, sadeel, chamier, whitakers, or such others, what the things are that protestants charge you with? and answer what is there charged on you? i myself have enumerated many of the things which we take for popery, and not to be defended, in my key for catholics, and in my safe religion, and in one sheet against popery, almost twenty years ago; and since then in my [full and easy satisfaction which is the true religion,] and in my [certainty of christianity without popery.] and you have given no answer to any one of them that i ever heard of: but you can better dispute, it seems, with your relations, and with the women and country-labourers, or tradesmen, that never use to speak in that stictness of words as shall prevent the cavils of a studied sophister. 4. as for the a. b. of york, i am almost a stranger to him, and more to his book, which i never saw: but two things i can say, 1. that we are no more obliged to justify his words, than you to justify the words of any one of your doctors. 2. that no man is so fit to answer for him as he is for himself: because no man knoweth so well in what sense he took the word [papist.] i suppose you know that grotius, who persuadeth us all to an obedient union with your church, under the pope's government according to the canons, owning the decrees of all the councils, even that of trent, yet for all this doth speak against papists: but he tells you that by papists he meaneth those flatterers of the pope, who approve of all that he saith or doth. and that it was not the government or doctrine of that church that was to have been reform, but the opinions of some schoolmen, and the excesses, and ill lives of many of the clergy. now could not grotius easily have produced such papists as these, as having said as gross things as you recite? and how far bishop bromhall, and the doctor that lately published him, own grotius, i will not tell you, but refer you to their own words: to which many more might easily be added. now suppose that dr. heylin, or a. bishop bromhall, or his prefacer should say, that by [papists] they mean such as grotius did, do you think that they could not prove as gross words, as any cited by you, in some such flatterers of the pope? and you know, i suppose, that some of late would not have the church of rome called papists, or at least so charged, but only the court of rome. but let us take notice of some of the particulars. i. your first article is, that papists are said to worship stocks and stones, medals, and pictures of jesus christ as gods, and pray to them, and put their whole confidence in them, as the ancient heathens did in their dumb idols of jupiter, mars, etc. ans. 1. your doctors are oft charged with maintaining that the image of christ and the cross must be worshipped with latria, which is the worship called divine: and instead of this you put in the word [as gods.] it is not [as reputing these images to be really gods,] but [worshipping them as god only should be worshipped,] contrary to the second commandment, which forbiddeth such bodily actions as were symbolical of idol-worship, though the mind were kept never so free from accounting god to be like idols, or idols to be gods. 2. who chargeth you of putting your whole trust in images? is not part of it too much? 3. how prove you that the heathens ordinarily did so? or that they took jupiter, etc. to be nothing but the image, and not a celestial power? 4. but instead of saying any more on this point, i again tell you, that dr. stillingfleet hath in his new defence against t. g. so fully proved that the generality of the heathen nations did worship one universal supreme god, and worshipped their inferior gods much like as you do angels, and worshipped their images, not as being gods themselves, but with such a relation to the deity, as you do your images; and that your image worship is such as the ancient fathers condemned in the heathens; that none of you will ever be able solidly to confute him, or defend your idols any more: so dear do you pay for t. g. his temporary triumph. ii. your second feigned charge is, [that the pope can give men leave to commit any sin for money— or so pardon any sin after, as you shall not be in the least danger of any punishment for it temporal, or eternal, in purgatory, or in hell.] ans. i will take your part in this, and prove that the squib-maker, who drew up this charge, doth do you wrong. what a sot was he to think that any pope would ever be sick, or sore, or die, if he could forgive all temporal punishment? unless the unhappy man can forgive all others, and not himself? at least he would preserve some of his friends in health and immortality on earth? and the whores, that baronius himself saith made popes at their pleasure, would have found some popes so grateful as to have saved them from dying, if not from bringing forth in pain. and truly i should hope that at least the pope that by a council was condemned for an infidel, and believing not any life to come in heaven or hell, would have been so tenderhearted as to forgive all the world the punishment in hell. and it was a great mistake in these slanderers of you, to except no sin: as if the popes could forgive them that would diminish their kingdoms, or restrain their domination; much less that would depose them. could pope eugenius ever forgive the universal church, as it's called, that is, the great general council which in vain condemned and deposed him? when he can scarce forgive a poor protestant the rack and fire, for reading the bible or serving god out of the roman way. and doubtless he is wronged by this charge, that he can nullify all pain, death, purgatory, and hell; for i think you will say, that quoad potentiam ordinatam christ cannot do it, or at least he will not. and were this believed by all the world, no wonder if they willingly obeyed him, and called him, our lord god the pope. for he could conquer any kingdom, by saving all his soldiers from hurt and death. it is enough that he can forgive some part or time of purgatory torments, and that (as great doctors say) he can (and lesser priests than he) forgive the pains of hell to a sinner that hath no true contrition for sin (that is, repenteth not out of any love to god or goodness) but only attrition and the sacrament of penance and absolution, (that is, repenteth only for fear of hell, and would sin still if he durst.) and though you may hope that there are no copies of the old pardons yet to be seen, or any of tecelius merchandise now extant, yet the sure history of them is common, and if you deny it, it will be proved to your shame. what a multitude of writers have better cited your practice and confuted it? but yet i remember (to do you right) that even hildebrand himself (greg. 7.) in a roman council saith, that [neither the sacrament of baptism, nor penance is of any force to pardon any impenitent hypocrite,] which is well said; and as for true penitent believers, we verily believe that they are pardoned ipso jure by the gospel, as to destructive or hellish punishment; and that every true minister of christ may validly deliver this pardon ministerially, by true absolution, in the sacrament, and without it. but in what measure god himself will remit temporal chastisements, few men can know till the event tell it them: and neither pope nor priest can forgive without him; nor know what god will remit, any more than another man may know, that is, by god's word, and by the event. and again, i say if it were in the pope's power (however you may absolve him from bribery or the love of money) that there would be more difference in point of bodily suffering, between his subjects or favourites and other men, than was ever yet perceived. it's policy therefore to confine the business to purgatory, that no witness may be able to disprove it. you add to the charge, [that of all christ's merits the pope is the supreme lord, to dispose of them to the living and the dead, as he by his unerring spirit thinks fitting.] answ. here the charger wrongs you too: for seeing all men's lives and mercies are the fruits of christ's merits, if this were true, the pope could kill all his enemies at his pleasure, and when he hath killed them could cast them into hell, or keep them out of heaven: and then no one in his wits would be against him, or displease him. it's enough to be able to do as aforesaid. iii. your next is [the papist honours the virgin mary much more than he does her divine son, or god the father: for one prayer he says to god, he says ten to the virgin.] answ. this is injurious too, whoever made it: the pagans honour not their inferior gods, so much as the supreme! and for the number of prayers, it's not like that all papists use the same, or by the same beads: but whether you give inordinate honour to the virgin mary, and put not up a very large proportion of your prayers to her; if dr. stillingfleet, and abundance before him, may not be trusted in their citations, i hope your own prayer-books may be believed. it's bad enough to make her like juno, though you should not equal her with jove. angels have refused smaller honour. iv. you add [his prayers are a company of latin words, he neither understands, or cares to understand them, which if he do but patter over in such a number, though his heart and mind be wholly taken up with worldly thoughts and desires, he thinks, etc.] answ. at the first line one would have thought you had grown past blushing, and had denied your latin prayers, not understood; but you never want one word to help you out in renouncing the whole sentence: you make me think of that sorry religion which teacheth men, that if one article in a vow, among many, be unlawful, they may renounce all obligation to any thing else that there is vowed; and so a knave may be disobliged to all vows and covenants, if he will but drop in any thing that is unlawful. do not your unlearned multitude join in your latin prayers? do mass-books, and your daily masses, all deceive our eyes and ears? no, that's not it; what then! must all be desirous to understand it, if they cannot? i rather think the calumny is, that [his mind and heart may be wholly taken up with worldly desires?] but who was it that put in that into the charge? was it not yourself? we know that you say, there should be some general kind of devotion and good desire, though he know not what is said; and a general belief, called implicit, which is no belief of any of the particulars, and a general implicit desire, which is no desire of any express particular, being a faith that is no faith, and a prayer which is no prayer, would make a religion which is no religion, if you had no better. v. the next is [if he do but believe as his churchmen believe, though he be wholly ignorant of their belief, his soul is safe enough.] answ. what is a man but his wit? the word (wholly) craftily put in by yourself, enableth you also to renounce this charge: for we all confess that your doctors commonly hold, that this one article must be believed, [that the church is to be believed and obeyed,] and that's one particular. but i pray tell us if you can: 1. dare your church say that every word revealed must be believed explicitly of necessity to salvation? no: 2. and have they in any general council determined what those particular articles are that are so necessary, (since you departed from the sufficiency of the creed?) or do not your doctors, without any decree of the church, use to debate it as a free opinion? 3. and do they not differ among themselves, as all in pieces about the point? and do not your chief learned schoolmen cited at large by fr. a sancta clara on our articles hold that the particular belief of christ himself, or the supernatural articles of the creed are not of necessity? and i know not of any one thing that you are agreed to be necessary, besides the belief that the church, (that is, the pope and his council) are infallible, or to be believed and obeyed; and it is a learned school doctor and jesuit fran. albertinus corol. p. 250. that justifieth a countryman that should believe a falsehood if twenty bishops tell it him, and that the command of faith doth oblige to believe falsehood, it being not per se, but per accidens, etc. and i think the old man is now among you at london, (fr. a sancta clara,) who having cited abundance of doctors against the necessity of believing in christ or any supernatural point, or in some cases knowing the law of nature and the decalogue, saith p. 20. [to speak my sense freely, i think that the common people committing themselves to the instruction of the pastors, trusting their knowledge and goodness, if they be deceived, it shall be accounted invincible ignorance, or probable at least: so herera; which excuseth from fault: yea, some doctors give so much to the instruction of doctors on whom the care of the flock lieth, that if they teach hic & nunc that god would be hated, that a rude parishioner is bound to believe them. see abundance more in him cited, deus, nat. grat. probl. 15, and 16. and that you may know that this opinion is not rare, he addeth, p. 123. [it seemeth to be the common opinion of the schools and doctors at this day, that the laity erring with their teachers, or pastors, are altogether excused from all fault: yea, by erring thus many ways materially they merit for the act of christian obedience which they owe, their teachers, as valentia saith to. 3. disp. 1. q. 2. p. 5. and others with angles, vas. quez. etc.] and if this be true, what prince, lord, or any other layman, that would be out of all danger of sin and hell, would not be a papist, and be sure to choose a priest that is ignorant enough to take perjury, drunkenness, gluttony, adultery, fornication, persecution, opression for no sin, and then he may be sure that it's none to him, but he meriteth by obeying him that will persuade him to it? and what if these bid subjects kill their kings, would it not be sinless and meritorious by this rule? but you'll say, these be but the words of writers, and books may be misunderstood, when they say that this is the common opinion of the doctors. and perhaps if i talk with you, or another, you will protest that this is none of your belief. but how shall i know that w. h. or his neighbour, or grandfather, know better what is the faith or religion of the papists than the old queen's confessor, and all those famous doctors, whom he citeth, and all that i myself have read? and remember your undertaking, cited in my title page. is it not the most common opinion of your doctors, that all men are bound to know and believe according to their opportunities, and probable instructions? but what is commonly necessary your learned churchmen cannot tell us, no not the pope or councils? and who can tell what other men's capacities and opportunities have been? and so whether he be a believer indeed, or not? or bound to be so? vi your next part is, [he makes gods of— sinful men:— he maketh less scruple of violating gods laws, than he doth any ordinance of the pope, or any law of his church] ans. that one word [any] is either the falsehood of your accuser, or the craft of the clerk that drew up the indictment: and i think it should not be drawn up of these laws compared formaliter, but materialiter: for i cannot think you so unreasonable, as to think that the pope is above god; but that when you cast away god's laws to keep the pope's, it is because you think that the pope hath power to change and abrogate god's laws, or dispense with them; or that you are bound to believe that it is none of god's law, if the pope say it's none: for instance, 1. i know that you cast away christ's law for receiving his body and blood, the cup as well as the bread in the sacrament: but why you do so, i am no judge. 2. i know that you break the second commandment, and usually leave it out of the decalogue too: but why you do it, i am no judge. 3. i know that the pope and his approved general council at lateran make a law against god's law for obedience to the higher powers, and this papists profess to receive as part of their religion: but on what reasons you do it, i leave to you. you instance [if he commit fornication it is but a venial sin] do you hold that any of your approved councils have defined it to be a mortal sin? if so, i hope you will take those for heretical that think it is not always so: i refer you to mr. clarkson's practical divinity aforesaid, and the jesuits morals. but doubtless all of you have not the same judgement either of fornication or murder, (as is there proved;) for you are not bound to be so far agreed, in such little things: but your craft put in the saving word next, [and sprinkling himself with a little holy water he is as free from all spot as a new baptised infant.] answ. they say, no man wrongeth himself: you may lay a false charge against yourself that you may the easier deny it; there must be somewhat more than holy water, else what need of attrition and confession, and penance, if it please the priest, or commutation of penance? what need the crusadoes to have killed so many thousands of the waldenses and albigenses to procure the pardon of their sins (o dreadful way to pardon!) what room for pilgrimages, satisfactions, or for purgatory, or for masses to be said for the souls in purgatory, or for praying to the virgin mary, and abundance such, if holy water alone would do all the business? was not he much overseen, or did grossly prevaricate, that drew up this charge? might i but choose my adversaries advocate, and agree with him to say nothing but what i can disprove, i would certainly have the better, and be justified. vii. the next part is, [and as for his obedience to magistrates, if they be not of his religion, he owes them no allegiance: and if he have by oath obliged himself, he has a holy father can dispense with him for that, or any other oath, for a piece of money: if his prince persecute him for his religion, let him but have so much desperate courage as to sacrifice his own life to stab or poison his said persecutor, he shall at rome be canonised for a saint: nor can private persons expect any fidelity from him, when he is thus traitorously rebellious against his liege lord and sovereign, etc.] ans. now i perceive you are over bold, and do too hardly blush, when you have the face to bring in such an instance, and by the inserting of a word or two of your own, to dare to wash off from your religion the blot of perfidiousness and rebellion, when it is part of the decrees of your approved general council. the prevaricator wrongeth you, 1. by making [not of his religion] to be all that's necessary to free you from allegiance. 2. by putting in [or any other oath for a piece of money:] i have not yet found that the pope undertaketh to dispense with a man that will swear to believe the roman church, or the rest in pope pius his trent oath, nor yet with the vow of baptism, if seconded by an oath. 3. by saying only [if his prince persecute him;] for the doctors say that he must be first excommunicate, or a heretic at least, and some say he must have the pope's order before he may kill a king; and the council only speaketh of deposing, and not of killing. 4. and the prevaricator too rashly promised [canonising:] he that murdered one of the french kings, was but praised in an oration by the pope, (proved by many) but not canonised: garnet was not every one. but because i see you grow so bold, (and also in what follows return to what you had said before) i will, instead of following you farther, tell you what such as i mean by a papist, and what some other men mean by him. chap. v. the true history of the papacy, its original and growth. though i reserve the opening of the ambiguities of the word papist till near the end, i shall so far anticipate that, as to tell you here also, that the word [papist] is equivocal: i. in the sense of grotius, and all our reverend countrymen that are of his judgement, [papists are those that without any difference do approve of all the sayings and doings of popes, for honour or lucre sake as is usual,] discus. p. 15. if of all, then of all the adulteries, murders, simony, heresy, infidelity charged on some of them by their own writers and by councils. i am sorry if this be [usual] i hope yet that there are few of these papists in the world, and that few popes themselves will deny that they are sinners. but he elsewhere desireth the reformation, 1. of some bold disputes of the schoolmen; 2. and the ill lives of the clergy; 3. and some customs which have neither councils, nor tradition. ii. some who are for the supremacy of general countils above the pope, do call those papists that are for the pope's supremacy above such councils; or that give him the legislative as well as the judicial power over the universal church: though themselves give him the supreme judicial power when there is no general council. iii. protestants call those papists who hold that the roman pope is rightfully the governor of the universal church on earth, either as to legislative or judicial-executive power, either with councils or without. two things are here included in our judgement. 1. that there is no rightful universal governor under christ over all the church on earth, either as to legislation, or judgement: 2. that the roman pope therefore is no such governor. in this third sense now i am to tell you what we protestants mean by a papist more particularly. and first i must tell you what a pope is, before i can well tell you what a papist is: which i shall do, i. de facto historically: ii. de jure as to the power which he claimeth. i. a long time the bishops of rome were seldom called popes, and other bishops were so called as well as they: at first the bishops of rome were pious persecuted men, and many of them martyrs, and usurped no power over any churches but their own; which with alexandria were the two first that broke ignatius his test of unity, who saith, [to every church there is one altar, and one bishop with his fellow presbyter and deacons.] but rome having long called herself the mistress of the world, and being the seat of the empire and senate, and of the governing power of the orbis romanus, the christians there grew greater than others, and the bishop as it increased kept it under his power: and when christians had peace (which was under the far greatest part of the heathen emperors, and for the far longest time) the greatness of rome giving greatness to that church, and so to the bishop, and great opportunity to help other churches, because the governing power of the empire was there, this bishop grew to be of greatest wealth and interest: and in times of peace the strife which christ once ended was taken up among the bishops [which of them should be the greatest:] and st. paul having taught christians that they should not go voluntarily to law against each other before heathens, if there were but a wise man among them to be an arbitrator; the christians supposing that they had none wiser or fitter than their bishop, made him their common arbitrator in things civil, as well as ecclesiastical: by which means custom making it like a law, bishops became de facto church-magistrates: but they had no power to execute any penal laws, either jewish or roman, or to make any of their own, except as arbitrators or doctors to those that would voluntarily receive them: and they had no power of life and death, nor to dis-member any, nor to beat or scourge them, nor to fine them or confiscate their estates: but being entrusted by christ as his ministers with the power of the church-keys, and by the people with the power of civil arbitrations, they were by this the stated governors of all christians; who yet obeyed the roman heathen magistrates, but brought none of their own differences voluntarily before them. and because that multitudes of heresies took advantage of the church's liberty, and swarmed among them to their great weakening and disgrace, and christ had commanded his servants to serve him in as much unity and concord as they could, duty and necessity drove the pastors of the churches to correspondencies, and to meet together on all just occasions, and at last to associations for the ordering of these meetings! in which they agreed in what compass and in what place, or by whose call such meetings should be held, and what bishops in those meetings should preside or sit highest, and first speak and subscribe: and usually they thought that to follow the order of the civil government, and give precedency to those that were bishops of such cities as had precedency in the civil government, was the most convenient order: and in these meetings they agreed on such canons or orders for all in that compass to observe, as they thought best tended to their ends: and having no forcing power (as is aforesaid) they form their impositions on voluntarily penitents so as might serve instead of the power of the sword: even murderers, incestuous, adulterers, they could not punish with death, stripes, or mulcts, and they were loath to disgrace christianity so much as to accuse such to the heathen magistrates; and therefore they laid the greater shame upon them, forbidding them communion with christians for so many years as they thought meet, and before they restored them they were humbly to beg the prayers and communion of the church. but yet these synods were small and few and rare, and never any dreamt of them as a council of all the church on earth. but when god blessed the rome world with a christian emperor after the sharp persecution of dioclesian, and this emperor had by religion and interest made the christian soldiers his chief confidents or strength, he studied the utmost increase of the christians, and to that end invited all to christianity, by the favour of the court, and by such honours, commands, wealth, and dignities, as they were capable of; and above all he exalted the christian bishops, whom he found the rulers of the christian societies: he gave them honours, and wealth, and power: he made a law that no christians should be forced to go to the civil heathen judicatures, from their bishops, and gave power to the bishops to be the christians judges, some few heinous crimes being in time excepted: and so the bishops were by his law made civil magistrates or arbitrators; yet not with any power of life, or limbs, or estate: so that all that would become christians, and would be subject to the bishop's canons, and church discipline, were freed from death, stripes, and mulcts, for many crimes which all others were liable to, and excommunication and some penance was instead of all: by such means multitudes of worldly men, and by the preaching of the gospel multitudes that were sound christians, came together into the churches: and bishoprics being now very desirable for their power, honour, and wealth, men that most loved power, honour, and wealth, (that is, proud, worldly, carnal men) did earnestly seek them, and strive for precedency in them: but yet while the people had the choice, or a negative therein, and the old spirit of christianity remained in many of the bishops, in many places bad ones were kept out, and many excellent men were preferred. the heresy of arrius and the alexandrian contentions thereabout, required a remedy for the church's peace: the bishops could not end it themselves: it spread so far that it was constantine's great grief to see christians so quickly disgrace themselves, and weaken their religion in the eyes of the heathens: therefore he called a council of bishops consisting mostly of those of the eastern parts where the troubles arose: two priests of rome were there, but not the bishop, nor but few of the west: where the emperor's open rebukes and lamentation for their contention, and his earnest exhortation to peace, and his burning all the libels or accusations which the bishops brought in against each other, and his continual presence and moderating oversight of them, brought that meeting at last to that good and peaceable end, which else it was never like to have attained. it never came into constantine's mind to call this council as an universal representative of the whole christian world, or as the governors of the churches that were out of his dominions; but as a fit expedient to end the strife that was raised in those parts: for as few of the west were there, so none of all other kingdoms were once called. for who should call them! constantine that called the council neither did it, nor ever pretended to a power to do it. the pope called not the council, much less did he call the rest of the christian world: socrates tells us, l. 1. c. 15. that st. thomas had preached to the parthians, and bartholomew to the indians, and matthew to the ethiopians, though the middle india was not converted till constantine's days, by frumentius, and edesius, and iberia by a maid:] and so euseb. l. 3. c. 3. who saith, that st. andrew preached to the scythians; and in vit. constant. l. 4. c. 8. that there were many churches in persia: and no doubt these apostles preached not in vain: scotland and other countries that were out of the roman empire had churches. yet any neighbour bishop that desired it, might voluntarily be present. when theodoret (in his life) tells us that [james bishop of nisibis (in the borders of persia) was at the council of nice: for nisibis was then under the government of the roman empire,] he plainly intimateth that none but the subjects of the empire were called: and the names yet visible, of the subscribers prove it. notwithstanding this councils decisions, the contentions continue, and the major part of the bishops went that way usually as the emperors went: and so in the reign of constantius, and valens, they most turned to the arrians, at least in words: and many general councils (so called, of the empire) the arrians had, in which they prevailed, and made creeds for their turn as they at nice had done against them, and brought persecution on the orthodox, silencing, and ejecting them, and scattering their meetings as prohibited conventicles, the emperor himself sometime executing their dispersions and restraint: and among other liberius the bishop of rome, against his conscience subscribed to them. the fathers at the council of nice did determine of the bounds of the patriarches of the empire, which being at first but three, (rome, alexandria, and antioch,) jerusalem was after added, and after that constantinople: for constantine having now strengthened himself by the christian interest, and being further out of the danger of mutable soldiers, than his predecessors, did that which none of them was ever able to do, by removing the imperial seat from rome to constantinople, and so leaving that famous city as naked and almost neglected: whereby two great changes befell the clergy, 1. the bishop of rome was left more absolute and uncontrolled in the west; 2. and the bishop of constantinople set up against him for the primacy in the empire: at first he claimed but an equality, but afterward a priority as universal bishop, because his seat was the imperial seat. the patriarch of jerusalem was so far from the court, and of so small power, that he made the least stir of any of the five, though he had the fairest pretence incomparably for a claim of supremacy on religious reasons, if a supreme there must have been (christ himself having been there a minister to the circumcision, and shepherd of the sheep of the house of israel, and his kinsman james then bishop after, and that being the mother-church out of which sprung all the rest.) but the other four patriarches (especially three of them) became as so many generals of armies militating frequently against each other: and he that got the stronger party of bishops and court-favourers carried all, against the rest. but no place more turbulent, nor no bishop more unquiet than those of alexandria: pride and worldliness now grew apace, and so corrupted the clergy, that in their synods the fleshly part too oft prevailed against the spiritual! when court and councils were for the arrians, the whole eastern part of the empire was embroiled in the contention, and the orthodox in the greater bishoprics cast out: when they were down and cast out themselves, the temporising and turbulent bishops usually got the major vote: excellent gregory nazianzen for the great service that he had done against the arrians was chosen by the people, and made patriarch of constantinople: but the synod of bishops envied him and rejected him, to whom he gave place and would not strive. dioscorus of alexandria and his party fought it out at the general council, and killed flavianus: and being after overcome and outed of his seat, did still claim and keep the title with his followers, and the most of his patriarchate of the people stuck to him; so that he propagated his opinion and interest in all those remote parts of the empire: yea among volunteers in ethiopia and other extra-imperial parts, which no law or canon had subjected to him; while the patriarch that succeeded him by the councils decree, had his party only as the rest, within the empire: so that to this day the syrians, ethiopians, and abundance others profess themselves the followers of dioscorus as the true bishop injuriously, say they, cast out. chrysostom afterwards was cast out of his patriarchate of constantinople, by a synod of bishops and the court. at rome the bishopric was such a prey, that contending for it troubled the public peace: at the choice of damasus they fought it out in the church, and his party won that sacred field, leaving many carcases there to the church-communion of the dead. but it became the great advantage of rome, that when the empire was divided, the western emperor proved orthodox while the eastern were oft arrians: which kept up the honour of the western bishops who had not the temptations of the east; where sharp persecutions and the desolation of their flocks, and the boast of the arrians as the major part, that was also settled by authority, caused the ejected bishops sometime to solicit them of the west for help, by sending them some to acquaint the arrians that their cause was owned by the western bishops, or to put some countenance on their depressed cause (and indeed the western emperor did rescue them.) this occasioneth the papists to this day to pretend that this was an act of their subjection to the pope: st. basil was the chief in this solicitation, and you shall read his words (translated.) verily the manners of proud men (speaking of the western bishops) use to grow more insolent, if they be honoured: and if god be merciful to us, what other addition have we need of? but if god's anger remain on us, what help can the pride of the west bring us? when they neither know the truth, nor can endure to speak it; but being prepossessed with false suspicions they do the same things now which they did in the case of marcellus, contentiously disputing against those that taught the truth, but for heresy confirming it by their authority? indeed i was willing, (not as representing the public person of the east) to write to their leader (damasus) but not about church-matters; but that i might intimate that they neither knew the truth of the things that are done with us, nor did admit the way by which they might learn them. and in general, that they should not insult over the calamitous and afflicted, nor think that pride did make for their dignity, when that one sin alone is enough to make us hateful to god. but this epistle of basil andr. schottus the jesuit left out of basil's works when he published them, antw. lat. a. d. 1616. tertullian had made as bold with the bishop of rome long before, lib. de pudic. pag. 742. against zepherinus: so had cyprian and firmilian against stephen: hilary pictav. with liberius and the councils, even that of nice: but most notable was the sharp contest of the carthage council, of which augustine was one, against zosimus, and boniface and celestine; when the pope falsely alleged a canon of the nicene council for appeal to rome, they denied his claim, and evinced the forgery, and stood it out against him to the last. i. and here you may see that they took not the pope's power to be of god (jure divino:) for they searched only all the archives to find out the true copies of the nicene council, (pisanus canons being not then made;) and did not go to the scripture to decide the case, nor to tradition apostolical, only pleading church-laws and order as on their side. and that they never dreamt of a divine institution of this roman papacy or primacy, but only as the archbishop of canterbury in england hath precedency by the king's laws, and not by god's; so rome was the first seat by the mere appointment of man, even emperors and councils, is yet fully evident; 1. in that the same power that made the other four patriarches, made the bishop of rome a patriarch; and he was not made pope or prime patriarch before he was made patriarch: but no man dreameth of a divine institution of the other four patriarches: ergo. 2. because the whole eastern church, which was far greater than the western, first equalled the patriarch of constantinople to him of rome, and after preferred him; when yet they never dreamt of a divine institution of the patriarchate of constantinople: for it was but lately made: and no man of reason can judge, that all the catholic emperors, bishops, and people of the far greatest part of the imperial church, would professedly equal or prefer a humane office before one which they believed to be of divine institution. 3. to this day all the greek church show themselves to be of that judgement, by adhering to the patriarch of constantinople, whom they confess to have been made such by emperors and councils. and in the contest with them the case is commonly pleaded accordingly. 4. gregory nazianzen would never have wished so earnestly that there were no inequality, superiority, or priority of seats, if he had taken them to be of divine institution: durst he have so opposed the law and order of god? 5. but to put all out of doubt, it is expressly determined by the most famous general councils, even two of the four which are likened to the four gospels, constantinople and chalcedon, that the primacy was given to rome by the fathers (so they called councils) because it was the imperial seat; and therefore they give equal privileges to constantinople, because it is the imperial seat. the words of the council of chalcedon (oft cited) are these (translated.) act. 16. binii pag. 134. [we following always the definitions of the holy fathers and the canons, and knowing those that have now been read of the 150 bishops most beloved of god, that were congregated under the emperor, of pious memory, theodosius the greater, in the royal city of constantinople, new rome, have ourselves also defined the same things, concerning the privileges of the same most holy church of constantinople, new rome: for to the seat of old rome, because of the empire of that city, the fathers consequently gave the privileges. and the 150 bishops most beloved of god, being moved with the same intentions, have given equal privileges to the most holy seat of new rome; reasonably judging that the city adorned with the empire and senate, shall enjoy equal privileges with old regal rome. this council was called by the emperor martian; and his lay-officers were called the judges: and the bishops, to show what they thought of rome, cried out [they that contradict it are nestorians: let them that contradict it walk to rome. bin. p. 98.] if such a general council be not to be believed, farewell all the papists infallibility, authority, tradition, and religion: if it be to be believed, the pope is a humane creature, and not a divine. but binius saith, that rome receiveth not the canons of this council of constantinople, which this confirmeth, but only their condemnation of macedonius: and he saith [that every council hath just so much strength and authority as the apostolic see bestoweth on it: for (saith he) unless this be admitted, no reason can be given why some councils of greater numbers of bishops were reprobated, and others of a smaller number confirmed,] vol. 2. p. 515. and yet must we hear the noise of [all the christian world, and all the bishops, and general councils, and the tradition of our forefathers, etc.] as against us, when all is but the pope of rome, and such as please him? and it is he and his pleasers that refuse the most general councils and tradition? away with this false deceitful talk. 6. once more hear their own confession; their late english bishop (of chalcedon, a fatal name) r. smyth in his survey against bishop bromhall saith, cap. 5. [to us it sufficeth, that the bishop of rome is s. peter 's successor, and this all the fathers testify, and all the catholic church believeth: but whether it be jure divino or humano is no point of faith.] ans. 1. is not that a point of your faith which the general councils affirm? at least of your religion? who can tell then what is your faith? 2. if an historical point be not to be believed from general councils, why should the history of peter's being at rome, and bishop there, be believed as from fathers? (which nilas hath said so much against.) 3. do not the fathers as much agree that peter was first bishop of antioch? if then you have no more to show than they, where is your title? 4. if your divine right of succeeding peter be no point of faith, than he that believeth it not, doth not sin against any point that god would have him believe as from him, and therefore is not to be thought erroneous in the faith. 5. and yet upon this, which is no point of faith, you build your faith and church, and would have all christians do the like, on pain of damnation. ii. and as the roman primacy was but of man's devising, so i next prove, that it was but over one empire, unless any neighbours for their own advantage did afterward voluntarily subject themselves. 1. because the powers that gave him his primacy, extended but to the empire. the emperor and his subjects ruled not other lands. 2. because the four other patriarches, made by the same power, had no power without the empire: as appeareth by the distribution of their provinces in the council of nice, and afterward: pisanus' canons we regard not, that take in ethiopia. obj. the abassins' now receive their chief bishop from the patriarch of alexandria. that proveth not that ever they were under rome: for there is not the least proof that ever they did so, till dioscorus and his successors separated from rome, being rejected by them as heretics, and by long and slow degrees enlarged their power over many neighbour volunteers. 3. because the general councils in which the pope presided, were but of the empire. and the popes never claimed a more general extensive power then, than the councils: who indeed with the emperors made the papacy in its first state. 4. because when the patriarch of constantinople claimed the primacy, yea called himself universal bishop, which gregory sharply reprehendeth as antichristian, yet he never claimed the government of the whole christian world, but only of the empire. and in all their contests there is no intimation of any such different claim of the competitors, as if rome claimed all the world, and constantinople but the empire, or roman-world: their contest was about the same churches or circuit, who should be chief. 5. the instances of the several countries that were never under the pope, do prove it: even the great empire of abassia, and all the rest forenamed without the empire. of which and the exception more under the next. iii. the general councils were all so called only in respect to the generality of the empire, and not as of all the christian world; which was never dreamt of. proved, 1. because the emperors that called them (constantine, martian, etc.) had no power out of the empire. 2. there is no credible history that mentioneth any further call; much less of all the christian world. 3. it was the affairs only of the empire that the councils judged of, as is to be seen in all their canons. 4. the names of the bishops yet to be seen, as subscribers, fully prove it. 5. it was not a thing probable, if possible, that the indians, persians, and other nations, should send their bishops into the roman empire, which was usually at war with them, or dreaded and detested by them. 6. theodoret's foresaid words of james bishop of nisibis showeth it [that he was at the council of nice, for nisibis was then under the roman empire.] 7. i have oft cited the words of reynerius, saying, that the outer churches planted by the apostles were not under the church of rome. 8. the executive part neither could, nor ever was performed upon the churches without the empire. when did any patriarch, or any provincial, or general council send for any bishop or other person out of india, scythia, ethiopia, or any other exterior nation, to answer any accusation? or pass any sentence of deposition, or suspension against them? or put any other into their places? 9 general councils are confessed by papists to be but a humane and not a divine institution: and what humane power could settle them in and over the church universal? if you say it is by universal consent; prove to us that ever there was such a consent, or that ever there was any meeting or treaty for such consent, of all the christian world, and we will yield it to you. surely if there be any christians at the antipodes they were not sent to in those days when lactantius, augustine, and others, denied that there were any antipodes, and derided it; nor when the pope by our countryman boniface his instigation excommunicated virgilius for holding that there were antipodes. hear their great disputer pighius, hierarch. eccles. lib. 6. c. 1. fol. 230. [general councils (saith he) have not a divine or supernatural original, but merely an humane original, and are the invention of constantine a prince; profitable indeed sometimes to find out in controversy which is the orthodox and catholic truth, though to this they are not necessary, seeing it is a readier way to advise with the apostolic seat.] so that general councils are novel, humane, and only of the empire then. 10. but to end all the controversy, the names of the subscribers are yet to be seen, who were not the representatives of the christian world, but of the empire, as is notorious. aeneas silvius epist. 288. saith that [before the council of nice there was little respect had to the church of rome.] and though when he was made pope, interest caused him to revoke his judgement of the councils being above the pope, he never revoked such historical narratives. their great learned mathematical (yet militant) cardinal cusanus li. de concord. cathol. c. 13. etc. saith [that the papacy is but of positive right, and that priests are jure divino equal, and that it is subjectional consent which giveth the pope and bishops their majority, and that the distinction of dioceses, and that a bishop be over presbyters are of positive right, and that christ gave no more to peter than the rest; and that if the congregate church should choose the bishop of trent for their precedent and head, he should be more properly peter 's successor than the bishop of rome.] object. oh but this book is disallowed by the pope. answ. no wonder: so is all that is against him. the exceptions which we grant are these. 1. there were some cities of the empire that were near to other nations, where the princes being heathens, christians were underlings and few: and the bishops of these cities extended their care to as many of the neighbour countries as would voluntarily submit to them: so the bishop of tomys was bishop of many scythians, and so some that were on the borders of persia, had many persians, and were at nice. 2. there were some countries that were sometimes under the roman power, and sometime under the persian, or others, as victory carried it; and these when they had been once of the imperial church, took it (when they fell under heathens) to be their honour, strength, and privilege to be so accounted still, and so would come to their councils after if they could: so it was with the armenians; and the africans, when the 〈◊〉 had conquered them, etc. 3. there were some bishops that lived on the borders of the empire, under heathens, that needed the help of neighbour churches, and accordingly were oft with them, craving their help: so it was with the old britan's, as to the bishops of france. 4. there were some small countries adjoining to the empire, who took the friendship of the roman power for their great honour and safety, and therefore were glad to conform in religion to the empire, and to let their bishops join with them. 5. and there were some neighbour countries who were turned to christianity by the emissaries of the bishop of rome; who therefore (rejoicing also in so powerful a patronage) were willingly his subjects: but this was long after the first great councils. these two last were the saxons case in england. accordingly you may sometimes find two or three out of such countries at some of the general councils of the empire. which yet were called general but as to the empire, and not as to the world. to proceed in the history: when christians were (mostly) exempted from the magistrates judicatures (that were most heathens, though under a christian prince,) and so the bishop's canons were to them, as the laws of the land are to us, it is no wonder that councils must then be very frequent, and canons of great esteem; and hereupon bishops by prosperity growing more and more worldly and carnal, made use of their synodical power, as is aforesaid, to accomplish their own wills: so that the synods of bishops became the great incendiaries and troublers of the empire. you need no more to satisfy you of this, but to read the acts of the councils, and the words of nazianzen (called theologus) against synods and contentious bishops, and the sad exclamations of hillary pictav. they that had too little zeal against ungodliness, unrighteousness, pride, and malice, were so zealous against any that withdrew from their power and contradicted them, that they easily stigmatised them for heretics, and made even godly sober christians suspected of heresy for their sakes; while notorious vice was used gently in those that adhered unto them. even holy augustine saith [drunkenness is a mortal sin, si sit assidua, if it be daily or constant; (what, not else?) and that they must not be roughly and sharply dealt with, but gently and by fair words:] vid. aquin. 22. q. 150. a. 1. 4. ad 4. & a. 2. 1. and their great gregory, [that with leave they must be lest to their own wit, (or disposition,) lest they grow worse if they be pulled away from such a custom,] (as drunkenness.) but when it came to such as withdrew from under them, they were not so gentle. lucifer calaritanus is made the head of a heresy, because he was but too much against the receiving of such as had been arrians. the large catalogues of heresies contain many that never erred in fundamentals. they prosecuted the priscillianists so hotly, that if godly men were but given to fasting and strictness of life, they were brought into suspicion of priscillianism: and the vulgar took advantage of the bishop's turbulence and ill disposition to abuse the godly. s. martin therefore separated from the whole synod of the bishops about him, and neither would join with them, nor have any communion with them, as supposing them proud men that suppressed piety, and strengthened the wicked, by their intemperate prosecution: whereupon they suspected and accused him also as an unlearned fellow, and a favourer of the priscillianists. they did not only bring in the use of the magistrates sword in religion against heresy, which martin could not bear, but they owned and flattered an usurping emperor, that they might have the help of his sword to do their work: so that in all those parts of france, germany, and the borders of italy, i find not a bishop that refused to own the usurper, save s. ambrose, and martin, and one french bishop: and sulpitius severus tells us that they were men too bad themselves, and that upon his knowledge ithacius the leader of them scarce cared what he said or did. s. cyril at alexandria is noted by socrates as the first bishop there that used the sword; and his kinsman s. theophilus went beyond him, and took upon him even to favour the error of the anthropomorphites, that he might have their help against such as he hated, and prosecuted chrysostom till he had procured his ejection, which made a rupture in that church, and caused the separation of his adherents, whom the bishop would have taken for a new sect, and called them joannites; such skill had the domineering sort of prelates in making and multiplying heresies and sects; and calling themselves still the catholic bishops because they kept the upper hand, and major vote, except where the arrians overtopped them, who then claimed the catholic title to themselves. and by what arts some of them kept the favour of the emperors, to do their work and keep up their greatness, socrates tells you in the instance of the said s. theophilus, who sent one before the great battle between theodosius and eugenius another usurper, with two letters, and a rich present, and bid him stay till the battle was over, and then give the flattering letter and the present to him whoever that got the better. but though still since the world came into the church, and the greatness, power, and honour of prelacy made that office a very alluring bait to the desires of the most worldly fleshly men, yet god kept up some that maintained their integrity, and bore their testimony against the pride and carnality of the rest; and though the scandals of the catholics turned many to the novatians, and other sects that professed more strictness, (yea salvian makes the arrians, goths, and vandals themselves to be men of more honesty and temperance than the catholic clergy) yet sound doctrine had still some holy men that did maintain it. but what were the pope's doing all this while? sound doctrine by the advantage of the soundness of the western emperor as is said, yet kept out arrianism, pelagianisme and such other heresies there: but they were still striving to be the greatest: leo one of the best of them was one of the first that laid claim to an universal headship within the empire: i told you how zosimus and his followers strove with the africans, to have appeals made to rome from the african bishops and councils: which the africans stiffly opposed as contrary to the canons, to custom, and to the reason of discipline, which required that cases should be judged and ended where persons and things were known, and not by strangers afar off, where witnesses could not without intolerable charge and trouble be brought beyond sea to prosecute the suit. the words of the african council translated are ●●se: [let your holiness, as beseemeth you, repel the wicked refuges of presbyters and the clergy that follow them, because this is not taken from the african church by any definitions of the fathers, and the nicene decrees did most plainly commit both the inferior clergy and the bishops themselves, to the metropolitans: for they did most prudently and most justly provide that all business should be ended in the very places where they began, and the grace of the holy ghost will not (or should not) be wanting to each province: which equity should by the priests of christ be prudently observed, and most constantly maintained: especially because it is granted to every one to appeal to the councils of their own province, or to an universal council, if he be offended with the sentence of the cognitors: unless there should be any one that can think that our god can (or will) inspire a justice of trial into any one man, and deny it to innumerable priests that are congregated in council. or how can that sentence that is passed beyond seas be valid, to which the necessary persons of the witnesses could not be brought, because of the infirmities of sex or age, many other impediments intervening? for that any (that is legates) should be sent from the side of your holiness we find not constituted by any synod of the fathers (it seems they never thought of a divine right) because that which you sent us by our fellow bishop faustinus as done by the nicene council — (they prove was false)— send not your clergy executors (or agitators) to potent men: do not yield to it, lest we seem to bring the secular arrogancy into the church of christ, which preferreth the light of simplicity and day of humility for them that desire to see god: for of our brother faustinus (the pope's legate) we are secure that the sa●● brotherly love in your holinesses honesty and moderation, can suffer him to stay no longer in africa.] the popes took this heinously from the africans; that they should stop them in their ascent to the universal monarchy: so that pope boniface, epist. ad eulal. saith, aurelius sometimes bishop of carthage, with his colleagues, did begin by the devil's instigation to wax proud against the church of rome, in the days of our predecessors boniface and celestine.] o how little do proud men instigated by the devil know themselves, when they think that the diabolical pride is in them that will not serve their pride! and harding against jewel, art. 4. sect. 19 saith [after the whole african church had persevered in schism, the space of twenty years, and had removed themselves from the obedience of the apostolic seat, being seduced by aurelius bishop of carthage, etc.] here note, 1. that so numerous were the bishops in africa, that one of their provincial councils had far more bishops than the council of trent, or divers others called general. 2. that they were men of the most eminent learning and piety, and that had kept up discipline above almost any church in the empire. s. augustine was one that subscribed the foresaid letter: and were such men like to be seduced by aurelius? 3. note with what impudency even such men as harding yet pretend that st augustine was for their papal claim, when yet he professeth him to be one of the schismatics that cast off obedience to the seat of rome. 4. note what good company we have in our reproach of the same pretended schism. 5. note how shamelessly the papists still tell us of all the bishops of the christian world being for them, and ask us, where was our church before luther, that is, a society of christians that obeyed not the pope; when they confess that augustine and all the african church for twenty years obeyed him not: (and alas, soon after the vandals came and conquered them, and persecuted and destroyed those famous bishops that did survive.) and that you may further know that they had yet more disobedient resisters than african bishops, you may remember that even the egyptian monks, so long famous for their great austerity and sanctity, had renounced not only obedience but communion with the pope and his adherents: fulgentius was about going to live with them for their holiness, but he was told of this, and turned his course: vid. vit. fulgent. and how great were all those churches of aethiopia, armenia (exterior) india, and the rest which the apostles converted, which reynerius aforesaid truly saith, are not under the church of rome? cont. waldens. catal. in riblioth. patr. to. 1. p. 773. i have formerly recited the words of melch. canus, one of their great bishops, saying [loc. theolog. li. 6. c. 7. fol. 201. not only the greeks, but almost all the rest of the bishops of the whole world have vehemently fought to destroy the privilege of the church of rome. and indeed they had on their side both the arms of emperors, and the greater number of churches; and yet they could never prevail to abrogate the power of the one pope of rome. see here their own confession, 1. where christians opposing the pope were before luther. 2. and of what credit their boast of universality and catholic tradition is. one while (w. h.) saith, the bishops of the whole world were for them: but when their cause leads them to tell truth, they say, almost all the bishops of the whole world have vehemently fought against the pope, and the arms of emperors and the greater number of churches were against them. and indeed, if it had been none but the greeks, he might well have said [the greater number of churches:] for the contest which begun upon the emperor's removal to constantinople, and at the first general council, increasing more and more, till gregory opposed john's claim of universal bishop, as antichristian, at last phoc as the cruel murderer of mauritius gave the title to the bishop of rome: but that no whit ended the contest, following emperors being contrary minded, and the greeks continuing their claim, the bishops of rome and constantinople excommunicating one another; so that by this abominable striving which should be the chief or greatest, the churches that were of old in the empire have been divided, and so they continue to this very day, as unreconcilable as ever. and when gregory sent his emissary hither to preach to the saxons, they found the christian britan's and scots not only averse to the government, orders, and ceremonies of rome (so that in many kings reigns neither words nor force could make them yield) but also such as refused their communion, and would not so much as eat and drink with them in the same house. no wonder then that marinarius at the council of trent complain, that the church is shut up in the corners of europe: and that sonnius bishop of antwerp say (demonstr. relig. christ. li. 2. tract. 5. c. 3.) [i pray you what room hath the catholic church now in the habitable world?] scarce three elns long in comparison of the vastness which the satanical church doth possess. the truth is, saith brierwood, divide the known world (and alas how much is unknown?) into thirty parts, and about nineteen are heathens, and six mahometans, and five christians of all sorts: and of these christians the papists at this day are as some think about a fifth part, some think a fourth part, and some think a third part. and after the assuming of the universal title, their popes more and more degenerated to such odious wickedness at last as we hope few pagans are guilty of: which we speak, not as from enemies, but from their own historians and flatterers, such as platina, baronius, genebrard, etc. nay, not so much from them as from councils general and provincial which have accused, condemned, and deposed them. read in my key for catholics pag. 220, 221, 222. the words of baronius, genebrard, platina: cl. espensaeus, 〈◊〉 muss, guicciardine, etc. nic. clemangis, bernard, alu. pelagius say more. let any impartial man but read the articles on which the council at constance condemned and deposed john 23. about 70 in number, in which they make him almost as bad as a man out of hell can be, and indeed say, he was commonly called, [the devil incarnate.] read the articles on which the council at basil condemned and deposed eugenius the fourth as a perjured wreteh, an obstinate heretic, and all the rest. read the articles on which another council deposed john 13. alias 12. and read the lives of many more in their own historians. and what came the church to when it had such heads? when baronius saith, ad an. 912. that [the face of the holy roman church was exceeding filthy: when the most potent whores did rule at rome, by whose pleasure seats were changed, bishops were given, and which is a thing horrid to be heard, and not to be spoken, their lovers were thrust into peter's chair, being false popes, who are not to be written in the catalogue of the roman popes, but only for the marking of such times: and what kind of cardinals, priests, and deacons, think you, we must imagine, that these monsters did choose, when nothing is so rooted in nature as for every one to beget his like.] for near 150 years, saith genebrard, about fifty popes were rather apostatical than apostolical.] and where was their uninterrupted succession all this time? pope nicolas in his decretals caranz. p. 393. 395) saith [he that by money or the favour of men, or popular or military tumults is intruded into the apostolical seat, without the concordant and canonical election of the cardinals and the following religious clergy, let him not be taken for a pope nor apostolical, but apostatical.] and of the clorgy he saith [priests that commit fornication cannot have the honour of priesthood;] yea, [let no man hear mass of a priest whom he certainly knoweth to have a concubine or woman introduced.] (and shall not protestants forgive those that will not hear such, or as bad?) where then was the papacy under such? for above forty years together there were more popes than one at once, and sometimes more than two, one dwelling at rome, and another at avignion, or elsewhere: one set up and obeyed by one party, and another by another party, each condemning the other as an usurper. and had the universal church than any one head? and with what wickedness are they charged, one destroying what the other was for; see in wernerus fascial. and my key p. 28, 29, 30. wernerus and others say, that silvester the second was made pope by the help of the devil to whom he did homage, that all might go as he would have it— but he quickly met with the end that such have that place their hope in deceitful devils.] when one pope cuts another in pieces, and casteth his careass into the water, as unworthy of christian burial (as you may find in the lives of formosus and sergius) must we yet suppose such the lawful rulers of the world? the fourteenth schism (saith wernerus) was scandalous and full of confusion, between benedict the ninth and five others: which benedict was wholly vicious, and therefore being damned, appeared in a monstrous and horrid shape, his head and tail were like an asses, the rest of his body like a bear, saying, i thus appear because i lived like a beast. in this schism (saith the author) there was no less than six popes at once. 1. benedict was expulsed. 2. silvester the third gets in, but is cast out again, and benedict restored. 3. but being again cast out, gregory the six is put into his place: who because he was ignorant of letters, caused another pope to be consecrated with him, to perform church-offices, which was the fourth: which displeased many, and therefore a third is chosen instead of the two that were fight with one another: but henry (the emperor) coming in, deposed them all, and chose clement the second, (who was the sixth of them that were alive at once.) in my opinion this gregory the sixth showed himself the honestest man of them all: who though he could not read himself had the humility by choosing a partner to confess his ignorance. and i am persuaded if the question had come before him, which was the truest translation of the hebrew or greek text, or such like, the man would scarce have pretended to infallibility in judging. the nineteenth schism, was between innocent the second and peter leonis, and innocent (saith the author) got the better because he had more on his side.] a good title no doubt! and thence a good succession. the twentieth schism (saith wernerus) was great between alexander the third and four others, and it lasted seventeen years. after nicolas the fourth (saith he) there was no pope for two years and a half (where was the church then?) and celestine the fifth that succeeded him resigning it, boniface the eighth entered, that styled himself lord of the whole world in spirituals and temporals; of whom it was said, he entered as a fox, lived as a lion, and died like a dog. i have as good hope of the salvation of celestine the fifth and felix the fifth as any two of them, because as they were drawn in as simple men in ignorance, so their resignation showed some hope that they repented. the 22. schism (saith wernerus add an. 1373.) was the worst and most subtle schism of all that were before it: for it was so perplexed that the most learned and conscientious men were not able to find out to whom they should adhere: and it was continued for forty years to the great scandal of the whole clergy, and the great loss of souls, because of heresies and other evils that then sprung up, because there was no discipline in the church against them. and therefore from this urban the sixth to the time of martin the fifth, i know not who was pope.] (nor i neither: nor any one else i think). the twenty third schism, was between felix the fifth and eugenius the fourth, of which saith wernerus [hence arose great contention among the writers of this matter, pro & contra, and they cannot agree to this day: for one part saith that a council is above the pope; the other part on the contrary saith, no, but the pope is above the council: god grant his church peace, etc.] the christian world being all in divisions because of sidings for these several popes, the emperors were constrained to call general councils to end the schisms: that at constance thought they had done the work; but they left work enough for that at basil, and more than they could do: when they found not a fit man among the clergy, they chose a layman to be pope, the duke of savoy, a man noted for honest simplicity and piety, and called him felix the fifth: but eugenius, who was cast out by the council for his wickedness, kept the place, and made the duke glad to resign and leave the popedom. should i stay to tell you after the barbarous age 900. what work the popes made in the world, how many thousand they forced to death upon the wars at jerusalem; how many score thousand waldenses and albigenses they murdered; how they forced kings to kiss their feet, and trod on the neck of frederick the emperor: how they divided the empire by a rebellious war against the emperor's henry the third and fourth; and how they armed their subjects and neighbours against them, yea the emperor's son against his own father; and how the writers of those times are divided, and open the lamentable divisions of the ages in which they lived; what work they made here against the kings of england; and what passed between boniface the eighth and the king of france, and the coin on which he stamped his resolution to destroy babylon, etc. you would little think that either holiness or unity were any property of the roman church. qu. but if most did not favour them, how did they ascend to so great power? ans. 1. the old name of the imperial rome, and the pope's primacy in the empire, kept up a veneration for him in the ignorant. 2. the eastern emperors seated at constantinople were so taken up with wars, rebellions, and other difficulties at home, that they could not take sufficient care of the west; but left the popes too much advantage to grow great: and wickedness also increasing among them (though the prince's presence kept their patriarches in more order and submission, than the popes that were become masterless) provoked god to give them up to be conquered by the mahometan turks: and by the ambition of the popes, the emperors wanted the due assistance of their western subjects, to resist their enemies. and the pope took the advantage of the eastern emperor's weakness, to lead the west into a settled rebellion, offering the king of france the western empire, which he embraced, the pope making his bargain with him for his own advantage. 3. and in the wars of christian princes, the pope used to obtrude his arbitration, in such a manner as tended to his gain: so that he shortly got to be a temporal prince of a great part of italy, and to have crowns and kingdoms made feudatary to him. 4. and he got germany to be broken into so many small republics and liberties, as that they were not able to unite to resist him. 5. and he took great advantage of the religious humours of any that were devout, and allowed them so many and various societies, and with so great privileges, as obliged them generally to uphold and serve him. though he cruelly persecuted all that were against his power and interest, yet he allowed almost all the diversities of such as would but unite in him and serve him. 6. and as he so twisted his own and all his clergies interest, that they were all ready to obey and defend him against their several princes, and thereby had a great power in every christian state in europe, so, keeping all his clergy unmarried, their wealth still accumulated and flowed into the church: and the eastern empire being first weakened and then overthrown, and the western nations kept weak, and in continual wars against each other, there was none well able to resist his pride, but one party still was ready to flatter him, partly to keep their own clergy in peace, and partly to have his help against their enemies. and the grand cheat by which they were commonly deceived was, that they looked more at his present possession of primacy, than at the reason and right by which he claimed it; and so he that had been prime patriarch in one empire, set up by the prince, still claimed the right of the same places when the empire was dissolved: as if the subjects of the kings of france, spain, etc. must obey him, because they did so when they were the subjects of constantine, theodosius, valentinian etc. for by little and little he changed his title mentioned in the council of chalcedon, into a pretended divine right, and so they that would not have obeyed him as set up by caesar and his councils, obeyed him as if he had been set up by god: for the name of st. peter and his chair and successor was used as the common blind. and next to that he did by degrees change his claim of a primacy in the empire into a claim of primacy in all the world: and his claim of a mere primacy, into a claim of sovereignty, or governing monarchy. if you ask me, how could he blind men so far as to make such a change? you seem not to know mankind, nor to observe common experience. do you not consider what power the clergy had every where got with the people? what an advantage possession and st. peter's name were? and how lamentably ignorant they kept the people? do we not see that even in our more knowing times, yea among protestants, yea with some divines, the evident distinction between their humane right and their pretended divine right, and between an universal council or church of the empire, and of the whole world, have not been sufficiently observed in our disputes against them? and the additional countries of voluntary subjects in britain, hungary, sweden, denmark, etc. which of later times, since his imperial primacy, have fallen in to him, have much helped to blind the people herein, and to serve his claim as by divine right. for which ends his emissaries have taken great pains, at the east and west indies, in china, and japan and congo, (and once they made an attempt in abassia,) and among the greeks and in many other nations of the world; laudably seeking to win some heathens to christ, that they might win them to the pope; and turbulently seeking to disturb the greeks and other christian churches, to draw them to the obedience of the pope. the doctrines by which they promote their design are more than i may now stay to open. i. one of the chief is, by depressing the honour of the sacred scriptures, as insufficient to acquaint us with all god's will that is necessary to our salvation, without supplemental tradition; that so all men might be brought to depend on them as the keepers of tradition. but 1. is their tradition yet written in any of their own books, or not? if not, where are they kept? and who knoweth what they are? is it not strange that so many doctors in so many ages, all remembering them, would none of them ever write them down? are they in the memory of the pope only? (what of those that could not read, or that were condemned as heretics of infidels?) then all the world must receive them from the pope's memory. if so, must it be word or writing? and had he no memory of them before he was pope? but if it be in other men's memories that your unwritten traditions are kept, in whose is it? if in all the doctors of your church, why did not luther, melancthon, pet. martyr and the rest that turned from you, know them? or did they suddenly forget them all when they turned protestants? and how vast must your necessary religion be, if yet it must have more in it unwritten, than is to be found in all your great volumes of councils, and your huge library? but i suppose you will say that all your unwritten traditions are now written: if so, they are not unwritten: and how long have they been written, and by whom? if fathers and sons could keep them unwritten in memory a thousand years, why not 1100, and why not 1600? etc. if they were written in the beginning, where be the books? are they not such as other christians can read and understand as well as you, (or an illiterate pope?) if there be a necessity of having them in writing now, was there not the same necessity to former ages? 2. i suppose you will send us to your councils for those traditions: but if the bishops know them not before they come to the council, how do they begin to know them then? do they go thither for a new miraculous revelation of an old tradition left with the whole church? 1. but do not councils oft determine things confessedly uncertain to the church before; and yet out of utter uncertainty, it suddenly becometh an article of faith? for instance, the great council at basil saith (bin. sess. 30. p. 80.) [a hard question hath been in divers parts and before this synod, about the conception of the glorious virgin mary, and the beginning of her sanctification: some saying that the virgin and her soul was for some time, or instant of time, actually under original sin: others on the contrary saying, that from the beginning of her creation god loving her gave her grace, by which preserving and freeing that blessed person from the original spot— we having diligently looked into the authorities and reasons which for many years past have in public relation on both sides been alleged, before this holy synod, and having seen many other things about it, and weighed them by mature consideration, do define and declare, that the doctrine affirming that the glorious virgin mary the mother of god, by the singular preventing and operating grace of god, was never actually under original sin, but was ever free from all original and actual sin, and was holy and immaculate, is to be approved, held and embraced of all catholics as godly and consonant to church-worship, catholic faith, right reason, and sacred scripture: and that henceforth it shall be lawful for no man to preach or teach the contrary. where was this tradition kept before, that was so hard a controversy till now? 2. and do not general councils bring in novelties? i cited formerly the words of cajetan in his oration in the council at the lateran under leo 10. charging the council of constance, basil and pisa with novelty, and such novelty as would have quite defaced the church and was inconsistent with it. and pighius chargeth them with the like. yea i told you before where he saith that general councils themselves are a novelty devised by constantine. 3. be not general councils themselves approved or reprobated at the pleasure of the pope? what a number of reprobated councils were there? that yet were as numerous as the approved, and as lawfuly called and assembled. bellarmine instanceth in the 2. of ephesus, constance, basil, and many more: of which more before. ii. another of their deceits is by pretending to vinc. lerinensis rule, quod ab omnibus, ubique, semper, etc. as if antiquity and universality were on their side. i must remember that i have long ago confuted these and the rest of their deceits in my key for catholics: yet i will briefly speak here to these two. 1. for antiquity we willingly stand to it, and to the rejecting of all novelty in religion: but we must have better proof than the word of our grandfathers, or a priest. 1. is any of their books or traditions elder than the holy scripture? 2. either the greeks, armenians, abassines, etc. have been sure keepers of antiquity, or not: if yea, than we may take their testimony as well as the church of rome's. if not, why may not you prove as ill keepers of it as they? 3. but are they not certain novelties that you would impose on us under the colour of antiquity? read but pet. moulin de novit. papismi, or mr. th. doelittles discourse in the morning lectures against popery, and you shall see the novelty of your religion fully proved. take now but these few instances. 1. your very patriarchate, primacy, claim of universality, general councils, are all proved novelties before. 2. your own writers confess that the denying the people christ's blood (or the cup) in the lord's supper is a novelty, that prevailed by custom by little and little, and was not common long before the council at constance: dare you say that it was so from the beginning, or of old? 3. can you possibly believe that your forbidding men to read the scriptures in a known tongue without a licence is not a novelty, if ever you read chrysostom, augustine, jerome, or any thing of the ancients? 4. is it not a novelty for the public prayers of the church to be ordinarily made in a tongue not understood by the generality of the people? but i must stop. 2. and as to universality i have before proved, 1. that by their own confession most of the churches and bishops of the world have been against them. 2. that at this day they are not above the third part of christians. too small an universal church for any man of charity and consideration to be a member of: a sect that call themselves all the church. jacob. a vitr. histor. orient. cap. 77. tells us that, the churches in the easterly part of asia alone exceeded in multitude both the greek and latin churches. as for their telling us that all these followed dioscorus a heretic, or were nestorians, and that all the abassines, armenians, georgians, syrians, coptics, greeks, protestants, etc. are heretics, or schismatics, i have answered it so oft at large that i must not repeat what i have said. only, 1. i say that if the censures and revile of adversaries can un-christen all others, and appropriate the church to them that have least charity, perhaps the qualiers may shortly have as fair a title as the papists. if general councils be not to be believed when they hereticate popes, i will not believe a railer when he hereticates most of the christian world, whom he never saw or spoke with▪ sure that man judgeth persons unheard. 2. i repeat the words of barchardus one of your own, that long lived among them, and spoke what he saw, p. 325, 326. [and is for those that we judge to be damned heretics, as the nestorians, jacobites, maronites, georgians, and the like, i found them to be for the most part good and simple men, and living sincerely towards god and men, they are of great abstinence, etc.— and p. 324. he saith, that [the syrians, greeks, armenians, georgians, nestorians, nubians, jubeans, chaldeans, maronites, ethiopians, egyptians, and many other nations of christians there inhabit; and that some are schismatics not subject to the pope, and others called heretics, as the nestorians, jacobites, etc. but there are many in these sects that are very simple, knowing nothing of heresies; devoted to christ, materating the flesh with fast, and clothed with the most simple garments, so that they far excel the very religious of the church of rome.] and, p. 323. of the papists, whom he calleth by the name of christians, as if it were proper to them, he saith, [there are in the land of promise men of every nation under heaven, and every nation liveth after their own rites; and to speak the very truth to our own great confusion, there are none found in it that are worse and more corrupt in manners than christians;] (that is, papists.) 3. if greater errors and vices than are among the armenians, the abassines, syrians, etc. will allow us to reject men from our communion, how much more cause have we to renounce communion with popes and papists than with these churches? 4. how can any man say that nations and countries are to be rejected as heretics, unless the single persons guilty were tried and heard? when there is no heresy but what is in individuals, and no law of god or reason condemneth the innocent for the guiltless faults; much less all posterity for their ancestors. iii. but they never gain more than by aggravating the divisions that are among other christians, and boasting of the unity of their church: and the contentions that have been among us have given them such advantage, as that some in the sense of their former guilt, having been sect-masters themselves, have turned papists, as thinking it the state of union; and having found no settlement in those ways, which they have tried, because they never rightly understood the true temperament of the christian religion which they professed, they think to find it in that way that they never tried; as sick men turn from side to side for ease, while the cause of their weariness and pain is within them, and turneth with them. here let the reader note, 1. that fools judge of differences in religion by the noise that it makes in the world; but men of reason judge of it by the greatness and number of the points of difference. verily our differences here in england, and the neighbour protestant churches, have showed in us much personal peevishness, unskilfulness, and other faults; but in my judgement they are such as greatly commend our real concord in the same religion, and partly our conscience in valuing it, and being loath to lose it. if you see latin grammarians reviling one another, about the spelling or pronunciation of a word or two, and critically contending with varro, gellius, etc. which is the right, when a man that never knew a word of latin but welsh or irish, never strove about such questions in his life; which of these will you think have more agreement in their language? i would say that those men that disagree but about the pronunciation of a few words are very much agreed, in comparison of a barbarian, that agreeth not with them in a sentence or a word. even the old schoolmen were in language more agreed with erasmus, faber, hutten, and other critical grammarians that derided them, than any illiterate man was with any of them. all gruterus his volumes of grammatical controversies, show not so much distance in language, as the peaceable silence of an unlearned man doth. and no one strives much about that which he doth not much care for: countrymen can contemptuously laugh at logical disputes or criticisms. horses or oxen will not strive with us for our gold or jewels, clothes or food, as we do with one another; and yet they are not so like us in the estimation of such things, as we are to one another. when i hear religious persons contentiously censuring each other, about some little points of ceremony, order, discipline, or form, which are but the fimbria, or the welts and laces of religion, i am angry at their weakness and defect of love; but i must needs think that there is very great concord in the faith and religion (objective) of these men, who differ about no greater matters than such as these. if men that were building a palace would fall together by the ears, only about the driving of a pin, i should marvel at their concord that differed in no more; though i could wish them, like wrangling children, whipped for their folly and frowardness till they were quiet. the great things that protestants have paltrily wrangled about, are, 1. the doctrinal controversies called arminian: 2. and the matters of discipline. and ceremonies. the former i have showed lately in a large volume, hath much more of verbal than of real difference, and is cherished by the ambiguity of words, and the unskilfulness of too many to discuss those ambiguities, and find out exactly the true state of the controversy: it is oft but stubble that maketh the greatest blaze. and as for the other, i would not undervalue the least things of religion, but i will say, that engagement, faction and worldly interest are magnifying glasses to many men, and make a mote to seem a beam, and a gnat to seem a camel. and it is one of the devils old wiles, to keep men from learning of christ, how to worship the father of spirits, in spirit and truth, by starting such questions, as, whether in this mountain or at jerusalem men ought to worship? and to hinder godly edifying by doting about questions that gender strife. and fight for shoobuckles may show the quarrelsomness of men, but it proveth not the greatness of the matter. 2. note further that though subjective religion (the measures of our belief, love and obedience) be as various as persons are; yet the objective religion of all true protestants is the same: not only the same in the essentials (one god, one saviour and lord, one baptismal covenant, one creed, one spirit, one body of christ, and one hope of glory, eph. 4. 4, 5, 6.) but also the same in all the integral parts: for it is integrally the holy scripture which containeth all that they take (with the law of nature) to be the whole law of god, and so the rule of divine faith, desire and duty. they may subjectively have some difference in understanding some texts, (as the most learned and holy in the world have:) but objectively they have no other divine faith or religion. 3. and note, that the church that protestants, yea greeks, armenians, syrians, abassines are of, are all certainly one and the same church: for a church is constituted of the ruling and the ruled parts. and they perfectly agree that christ is the only essentiating and universal head; in him they all unite, and confess that there is no other. even the patriarch of constantinople, as i have showed, claimeth but a primacy in the empire, and not the government of all the world, no not of us in england. and as for the ruled constitutive part, we are agreed that it is all baptised christians that have not apostatised, nor forsaken any essential part of christianity, nor are excommunicate by power from christ. so that we are clearly all of one and the same church. but how far the papists differ in the greatness and number of their controversies, i think to tell you a little more anon. iv. i may not stay to show at large, how they vary their shape and course as may fit their interest: how sometime they put on the person of infidels or atheists to plead men into an uncertainty of all religion, that they may be loose enough to follow them into theirs: for even so car. boverius would have persuaded our late king, apparat. ad consult. [the first thing is (saith he) seeing true religion is to be inquired after by you, that before you address yourself to search for it, you first have all religions in suspicion with you; and that you will so long suspend (or take off) your mind and will from the faith and religion of the protestants, as you are in searching after the truth.] reader, doth not this tell you whence much of our late atheism and infidelity cometh, and what it tendeth to? i tell thee not the words of a novice, but a person chosen to have seduced our king, when he was prince, in spain. and is not this way very suitable to the end? how must men become papists? boverius will teach you: first suspect all religion, and with your very mind and will cease to believe that there is a god, or that he is powerful, wise or good, or that we are his creatures and subjects, or that there is any heaven or hell or life to come, or that christ is not a deceiver but a saviour, or that any of the bible is true: cease from loving, fearing, obeying or trusting god, and from loving man for his sake: cease praying to him, and forbearing any wickedness, injustice, cruetly, perjury or filthiness as being forbidden by him, and this as long as you are searching after the truth.] verily this devilish counsel is so notoriously followed now by some, that we may fear what truth it is that they are searching after. certainly this way is of the devil, and how it can lead to god i know not. i love cartesian philosophy the worse because its principle is so congruous to this. and their doctrine of lawful hiding their religion by equivocation is commonly known. and what they say about coming to our churches i have formerly cited at large out of thom. a jesus, and the lawfulness of denying the person of a clergyman or a religious man: and the ground of all, [because humane laws for the most part bind not the subject's conscience when there is great hazard of life, as azorius hath well taught, inst. moral. to. 1. l. 8. c. 27. see the author's words the convers. gent. li. 5. dub. 4. pag. 218. and dub. 5. p. 218, 219. and dub. 6. p. 220. we may find them in our churches and garb when their interest requires it. but again i must for all these points refer the reader to my forementioned book (a key for catholics.) the history of the papacy being thus briefly given you, i should next briefly tell you, i. what a pope is; ii. what a papist is; iii. what the present papal church is: but it requireth more than this short writing, to open any one of these to the full: but take this breviate. chap. vi what the pope is. 1. we are not to describe the bishop of rome as he was at the beginning, but as in that stature to which he is since grown up. and so unmeasurable a potentate must be described to you but by parts, and inadequate conceptions; and i will no more undertake to enumerate all, than to name all the kingdoms known and unknown to us europeans which he claimeth the government of. but i remember who it was that showed christ all the kingdoms of the world, and said, all these things will i give thee if thou wilt fall down and worship me, math. 4. 9 or as luk. 4. 6. all this power will i give thee and the glory of them, for that is delivered to me, and to whomsoever i will i give it. i. the pope of rome is an usurper, who from the lawful episcopacy of one particular church aspired to be a bishop over many churches and bishops, and a metropolitan, and thence to be a patriarch, and the first patriarch in the roman empire in order of dignity, and entered a contest for the primacy with his competitor of constantinople, which is not ended to this day: and next claimed an universal government in the empire as well as a primacy; and also the government of such neighbour churches as had once been in the empire, or had been lately converted by any of his clergy; and lastly being made a king of rome or secular prince in italy, he also claimed a monarchy or government over all the world under the name of ecclesiastical.] all this is proved in the foregoing history of the papacy, and may better be found out by any that will peruse the history of the church and empire, than by particular citations. ii. by the name of ecclesiastical power he understandeth not only that which is truly spiritual or sacerdotal, by which gods word is preached and applied to particular persons, by reception into christian communion, and exclusion from it, sententially; but also a power of erecting courts of judicature in all kingdoms to judge of cases about ministers, temples, tithes, testaments, administration of goods, lawfulness of marriages, divorces and many such like, in a manner of constraint which is proper to the magistrate: abusively calling this the ecclesiastical power in foro exteriore, distinct from the sacerdotal in foro interiore, cheating the world with words. experience fully proveth this. iii. for the performance of this deceit they appropriate to princes and other magistrates the titles of [civil] or [secular] making the world believe that as soul and body differ, so the pope and his clergy being governors of the soul, or in order to salvation, excel kings and magistrates who are but governors for bodily welfare and civil peace. whereas indeed the difference of the offices of christian magistrates and pastors, is not, that one is but for the body and the other for the soul; for both are to further men's salvation, and true religion, and the obedience of god's laws in order thereto: but it is in this, that princes and magistrates have the power of governing men in things secular and religious within their true cognisance by the sword, that is, by external compulsion and coercion, by mulcts and penalties forcibly executed; whereas the pastors have only the charge of teaching men christ's doctrine, and guiding the church in the administration of god's worship, and by the keys or authority from christ, judging who is capable or uncapable of church communion, and declaring pardon and salvation to the penitent for their comfort, and the contrary to the impenitent for their humiliation; and all this only by word of mouth, without any constraining force. proof of the character. pope innoc. 3. (vid. & cousin's hist. transub. p. 147, 148) [god made two great lights in the firmament of heaven,— and of the universal church; that is, he instituted two dignities, which are the pontifical authority and the regal power: but that which ruleth the day, that is, things spiritual, is the greatest, and that which ruleth carnal things is the less: that it may be known that the difference between popes and kings is such as is the difference between the sun and the moon. if this were true, the lowest priest were incomparably more honourable or amiable than kings, as the soul is more excellent than the body: but david, solomon, hezekiah, josiah, and all good kings, did show that religion was the matter of their government and the principal part of their care. read for this fully bishop bilson of christian obedience, bishop buckeridge for the magistrates power, and bishop andrews tortura torti; excellent discourses against the papal usurpation. iv. the office which he thus claimeth as over all the earth, is to be the vicar of christ or of god, or the vice-christ or vice-god, as kings have their vice-kings in remote provinces. proved. i have elsewhere cited the words of pope's saying, that they are vice-christi and vice-dei, at large: and pope julius' words [we holding the place of the great god, the maker of all things and all laws:] and carol. boverius' words, consult. de. rat. fidei, etc. to our late king, saying [besides christ the invisible head of the church, there is a necessity, that we acknowledge another certain visible head, subrogate to christ and instituted of him, etc.] and card. betrand's. words in biblioth. patrum, that saith, almighty god had not been wise else, if he had not sent one only to govern the world under him:] and boverius reason [christ was himself on earth once a visible monarch; and if the church had need of a visible monarch, it hath need of one still.] christ said that it was necessary that he went away that the paraclete might come, whom tertullian calleth his agent; but the papists will not part with him so, but they will have his body here still, and yet a vice-christ or visible monarch also in his stead: see their own words, which i have cited at large in my answer to mr. johnson. v. the pretended ground of this his claim is, that st. peter received this power from christ, and that st. peter was bishop last at rome, and that the pope succeedeth him in his bishopric, and power. this is professed commonly by them. but 1. it is false that st. peter received any such power from christ, as to be the governor of all the rest of the apostles and christians in the world: he never exercised or claimed such a government, but in cases of controversy act. 15. and gal. 2, etc. he dealeth but on equal terms with the rest. and they that said i am of cephas, are as well rebuked as they that said, i am of paul.] and 1 cor. 12. 28, 29, etc. apostles are said to be but chief members of the church, and christ the only head: and when the disciples strove who should be the greatest, christ giveth it not to peter, but forbiddeth it to them all: and peter himself as a fellow elder exhorteth all elders to oversee and feed the flock, not as lords over the heritage, etc. and never claimeth a sovereignty to himself. no word mentioneth any power that st. peter had greater than his apostleship: and bellarmine professeth that the pope hath not his power as succeeding him in his apostleship, but as an ordinary pastor over the whole church. 2. there is no certainty that ever peter was at rome (as nilus hath showed;) but a humane testimony of many later fathers, upon the words of uncertain reporters before them, which are to be believed indeed as probable but no more; there being as great a number of papist writers i think (about 60) that tell us there was a pope joan, and yet it is uncertain if not least probable. but if he was at rome, apostles were no where proper bishops. bishops were the fixed elders or pastors of particular churches: apostles were movable and itinerant, having an indefinite commission to go preach the gospel to all the world as far as they were able. though the ancient fathers used to call them bishops because pro tempore they ruled (perswasively) where they came: though indeed their work was to settle churches and bishops, and not to be settled bishops themselves. 3. paul was certainly and long at rome, and liker to be as a bishop there of the two: if paul was not one, peter was not; for there is no more, but less proof of his government there. if paul was one, than one city had two, contrary to the old canons. 4. there is no proof that peter's being last at rome gave his power to all or any following bishops of rome, any more than to the bishops of antioch who are said to succeed him in his first bishopric; or any more than christ's dying at jerusalem, the mother church, did fix the supremacy there: or any more than the other eleven apostles did leave their power which they had above all ordinary bishops, to the places where they abode (either last or first.) if peter's dying bishop at rome prove such a succession of universal monarchy, the aforesaid successions will be proved by the same reason, which yet none affirm: even alexandria claimed but from st. mark who was less than thirteen apostles: but no testament of peter declaring any conveyance of such a monarchy is pretended by the popes (which is a wonder:) nor any word that ever he used of such importance. 5. i have showed that general councils (calced. and constant.) have declared that rome's primacy had a later humane rise. yet would they have exercised no other government than st. peter did, the world would not have been troubled by them as they have been. vi the papists seem not resolved themselves whether the pope have an universal apostleship or teaching office, as well as the universal monarchy or government. though bellarmine say that he succeedeth not peter as an apostle, but as a pastor; yet most others that i have seen meddling with it, say otherwise. if he succeed not in the apostleship, he is no true successor of st. peter at all, in any superemience of power: for what he had was as an apostle: if he do, than he is bound to go preach himself to the nations of the world as peter was: to send others to preach, and not do it himself was no apostleship: they were sent themselves. david and solomon set up priests, and yet were themselves no priests: hezekiah and josiah sent and set up preachers, and yet undertook not that office themselves. vii. this pope claimeth the sole power of calling general councils of all the christian world (yet never did it) and consequently of being the judge when any shall be called, and so whether ever there shall be any or not. and though former general councils voted that they should be every ten years, yet he prevaileth to the contrary. viii. also he claimeth the sole power of presiding in such councils, and also of making their decrees either valid by his approbation or null or invalid by his reprobation, as he please: so that nothing that they decree is of force but as it pleaseth him; whence we have distinct catalogues of approved and reprobate councils. yet no mortal man knoweth oftentimes how much of a councils acts and decrees the pope approveth. when martin the fifth had consented to all done by the council of constance, the word [conciliariter acta] seemed to the council to mean [all that they did de facto as a council.] but the popes ever since yet reject that council on pretence that by [conciliariter] was meant all that de jure as a council they might do. gregory the first approved of the four first general councils, receiving them as the four gospels (and if his predecessors did not, it was because their consent was not taken to be necessary, nor much sought.) and yet now bellarmine raileth at the council of chalcedon, and they tell us how much of it they receive and how much not. and so of many others. and nothing is more evident in such history, than that the emperors and not the pope, were they that called divers of the first councils. ix. the pope accordingly claimeth a supremacy above general councils; that he may dissolve them; but they cannot question or depose him; though general councils have decreed the contrary. i recited binnius' words before, vol. 2. p. 515. pighius, gretser's, bellarmine's, and multitudes more might soon be produced to the same sense; the eighth general council at constantinople saith, can. 21. that [none must compose any accusations against the pope] vid. bellarm. de council. li. 2. c. 11. saith pighius, hier. eccl. li. 6. [the councils of constance and basil went about by a new trick and pernicious example to destroy the ecclesiastical hierarchy, and instead of it to bring in the domination of a promiscuous confused popular multitude; that is, to raise again babylon itself; subjecting to themselves, or the community of the church (which they falsely pretended that they represented) the very head and prince of the whole church: and him that is the vicar of christ himself in this his kingdom; and this against order and nature, against the clearest light of gospel verity, against all authority of antiquity, and against the undoubted faith and judgement of the orthodox church itself.] (and yet our papists would persuade us that their grandfathers, much less great general councils cannot bring in novelties on pretence of antiquity, and misled them.) truly said lud. vives, in august. de civ. dei l. 20. c. 26 [those are taken by them for edicts and councils which make for them; the rest they no more regard than a meeting of women in a workhouse or a washing-place.] x. he claimeth a power of legislation to all the christian world, kings, and states, and single subjects; and that no kings can nullify his laws to their own subjects: as also the power of receiving accusations and appeals, and of judging and executing accordingly. this needeth no proof, being not denied. xi. he claimeth power to interdict whole kingdoms; that is, when they think the rulers give them cause; to forbid the preaching of the gospel and public worship of god, to all the people of the land; yea forbidding the clergy who are subjects to obey their own princes who shall command them (as the kings of israel did the priests and levites) to do their offices. that is, if the state or king offend them, they will be avenged on god by denying him all public worship, and on the souls of millions of innocent people by doing their worst to send them to hell, (where the unbelieving ignorant, and those that worship not god, must go.) the instances in germany, and the venetian interdict and others are too full proof of their claim and practice. xii. the pope claimeth power, even by the decrees of an approved general council to oblige all men to believe that all theirs and all other men's senses and perception upon sense, are certainly deceived, when they think that there is real bread and wine after consecration: and this denial of all men's common sense, he hath made an article of faith, and necessary to salvation. xiii. he hath by the same council decreed that all those that do not thus far renounce all their senses, shall be exterminated and made uncapable to make any will, etc. and by other of his laws, that they be all burnt as heretics; and delivered to that end to the secular power. xiv. by the same council he hath decreed that temporals lords shall take an oath to execute this decree, and shall be excommunicated if they exterminate not all such believers of sense from their dominions: and to dishonour kings by excommunications (whom the fifth commandment bids us honour) is an act of papal power. xv. by the same council he hath decreed to depose all temporal lords that will not thus destroy or exterminate their subjects, and to give their dominions to papists that will do it: so that the pope's power to depose princes is become an article of their religion. and in his roman councils greg. 7 declareth that he hath power to take down and set up kings and emperors: and in his letters to the germane clergy: and what he said, he did practise by bloody and unnatural wars, to the great distraction of all the empire. saith innocent 3. serm. 2. [to me it is said, i have set thee over nations and kingdoms, to set up and destroy, and scatter— i am set up as a middle person between god and man; on this side god, but beyond man; yea greater than man; who judge all, and can be judged of none: i am the bridegroom, etc.] xvi. by the same council he hath power to dispense with the oaths of all the subjects of such princes, and to disoblige them, how many soever, from their allegiance; so that the pope's power thus to dissolve the obligation of oaths is also become an article of their religion. i prove all these together, by giving you the words of the council in english. once again (though i have oft cited them) c. 1. they say that [no man can be saved out of their universal church.] and c. 2. that [the bread and wine in the sacrament of the altar are transubstantiate into the body and blood of christ, the appearances remaining.] and c. 3. [we excommunicate and anathematise every heresy extolling itself against this holy orthodox catholic faith, which we have before expounded, condemning all heretics by what names soever they be called— and being condemned, let them be left to the present secular power, or their bailiffs, to be punished, the clergy being first degraded of their orders. and let the goods of such condemned ones be confiscate, if they be laymen; but if they be clergymen, let them be given to the churches whence they had their stipends. and those that are found to be noted only by suspicion, if they do not by congruous purgation demonstrate their innocency, according to the considerations of the suspicion, and the quality of the person, let them be smitten with the sword of anathema, and avoided by all men, till they have given sufficient satisfaction; and if they remain a year excommunicate let them be condemned as heretics: and let the secular powers, in what office soever, be admonished and persuaded, and if it be necessary, compelled by ecclesiastical censure, that as they would be reputed and accounted believers, so for the defence of the faith, they take an oath publicly, that they will study in good earnest, according to their power, to exterminate all that are by the church denoted heretics, from the country's subject to their jurisdiction. so that when any one shall be taken into spiritual or temporal power, he shall by his oath make good this chapter. but if the temporal lord, being admonished by the church, shall neglect to purge his country of heretical defilement, let him by the metropolitan, and other com-provincial bishops be tied by the bond of excommunication. and if he refuse to satisfy within a year, let it be signified to the pope, that he may from thenceforth denounce his vassals absolved from his fidelity, and may expose his country to be seized on by catholics, who rooting out the heretics may possess it without contradiction, and may keep it in the purity of faith, saving the right of the principal lord, so be it that he himself do make no hindrance hereabout, nor oppose any impediment: and the same law is to be observed with them that are not principal lords. and the catholics that, taking the sign of the cross, shall set themselves to the rooting out of the heretics, shall enjoy the same indulgences and holy privileges which were granted to those that go to the relief of the holy land. moreover we decree, that the believers, receivers, defenders, and favourers of heretics shall be excommunicate; firmly decreeing, that after any such is noted by excommunication, if he refuse to satisfy within a year, he shall from thenceforth be ipso jure, infamous, and may not be admitted to public offices or councils or to the choice of such, or to bear witness: and he shall be intestate, and not have power to make a will, nor may come to a succession of inheritance: and no man shall be forced to answer him in any cause but he shall be forced to answer others: and if he be a judge, his sentence shall be invalid, and no causes shall be brought to his hearing: if a notary (or register) the instruments made by him shall be utterly void, and damned with the damned author: and so in other like cases we command that it be observed. they further command bishops by themselves or their archdeacon's or other fit persons, once or twice a year to search every parish where any heretic is found to dwell, and to put all the neighbourhood to their oaths, whether they know of any heretics there, or of any private meetings, or any that in life and manners do differ from the common conversation of the faithful, etc. and the bishops that neglect this are to be cast out, and others put into their places that will do them. here you see that no man must live on earth (for all kingdoms must be subject to the pope) that will not renounce his humanity and animality or common senses, and declare himself below a beast, that all kings are the pope's subjects, commanded by him, and must take a new oath when they are crowned to destroy all their subjects that believe their senses; that even the suspected are undone if they prove not the negative: that princes must be a thousand fold worse than hangmen, who hang not whole countries but a few condemned maleafctors: that popes can and must depose kings, and lords that will not do such things as these, and give their dominion to others: that the sign of the cross is the cross maker's sign: that all the promises of the pardon and happiness that were made to the invaders of the holy land are given to those wretches, that when they have lived in filthiness and wickedness will expiate it by murdering the innocent (as they did, say historians, by above an hundred thousand.) this is the roman way to heaven. that the very favourers of these men that will not renounce humanity are to be also utterly ruined. that (as in the japan persecution of the christians) all the neighbourhood must be sworn to detect them? and the office of a bishop is to see all this done: and now if you will see you see how the church of rome is upheld, and propagated: and what the religion called popery is? and consider whether as angels and saints are near of kin, or like in disposition, it be not so also with devils and wicked men: and whether all protestants be not dead men in law, or condemned, where the papal religion and laws are received: and what will follow hereupon. and besides gregory the first's declaration in his roman councils before mentioned, he saith in epist. 7. l. 4. [and for the conspiracy of heretics and the king, we believe it is not unknown to you that are near them how it may be impugned by the catholic bishops and dukes; and many others in the germane parts: for the faithful of the church of rome are come to such a number, that unless the king shall come to satisfaction, they may openly profess to choose another king; and observing justice, we have promised to favour them, and will keep our promise firm, etc. xvii. the pope, though pretending to be the infallible judge of controversies, doth tolerate his most famous learned doctors, in great numbers, without any condemnation or disowning, to write that excommunicate kings are no kings, and may lawfully be killed, as some say by the pope's consent or direction, or as others say, without it. henry fowlis in his book of popish treasons, hath so largely proved, by citing the express words of their chief doctors, jesuits, dominicans and others, that this is their ordinary assertion, that i must remit the reader thither for full satisfaction beyond all denial. i briefly refer you but to the words of learned suarez advers. sect. angl. l. 6. cap. 4. sect. 14. and cap. 6. sect. 22. 24. azorius instit. mor. part. 1. l. 8. c. 13. and dom. bannes in thom. 22. q. 12. a. 2. saith [when there is evident knowledge of the crime, subjects may lawfully exempt themselves from the power of their princes, before any declaratory, sentence of a judge, so they have but strength to do it.] [hence it followeth that the faithful (papists) of england and saxony are to be excused, that do not free themselves from the power of their superiors, nor make war against them: because commonly they are not strong enough, to manage those wars: and great dangers hang over them. so then, the disability of the papists is all the security we can hope for from them. augustine triumphus saith (de potest. eccl. q. 46. a. 2.) there is no doubt but the pope may depose all kings, when there is reasonable cause for it. part of suarez words are (defence. fid. cath. l. 6. c. 4. §. 14.) [after sentence he is altogether deprived of his kingdom, so that he cannot by just title possess it: therefore from thenceforward he may be handled as a mere tyrant, and consequently any private man may kill him. i have elsewhere cited card. perron's words out of bishop ʋsher professing that, if the pope may not depose kings, it will follow that he is antichrist who hath so long professed it: i grant the consequence. xviii. the pope professeth the fallibility of general councils, but that he is infallible himself. the first is proved by his reprobating many. for the second, saith leo 10. in bull. cont. luth. in bin. p. 655. [the holy popes our predecessors never erred in their canons and constitutions.] xix. they hold this gift of infallibility to be by supernatural inspiration, beyond all natural faculties and means; even to men that cannot read or have no learning, at lest none in the text of scripture, to judge of such texts, the translation and exposition of them. that they pretend to be judges in controversies de fide, i need not prove: nor that some have been lads, and some men unlearned, as i proved before of greg. 6. their own histories agree in this. xx. though the decrees of general councils be their very religion, and pretended immutable, the pope pretendeth to a power to change them. (and yet they pretend that all is old and from their forefathers.) both these foregoing parts are proved, by pope julius 2. in his general council at the lateran with their approbation, monitor. cont. prag. sanct. bin. vol. 4. p. 560. [though the institutions of sacred canons, holy fathers, and popes of rome— and their decrees be judged immutable as made by divine inspiration, yet the pope of rome, who though of unequal merits, holdeth the place of the eternal king, and the maker of all things and all laws on earth, may abrogate these decrees when they are abused. xxi. by the same pretended power he changeth christ's own instituted sacrament, even in the substance of it, denying all the laity the cup, while they condemn all that will not believe that the wine is turned into his very blood; and he that eateth not the flesh of christ, and drinketh not his blood, hath not life, (which they expound of the sacrament.) christ said when he had given them the cup, drink yes all of it, mat. 26. 27. and paul delivereth it to the laity from the lord, 1 cor. 11. 23. 25. 28. [this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.] and [as oft as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye show the lords death till he come: let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of this bread, and drink of this cup] 1 cor. 10. 21. ye cannot drink the cup of the lord, and the cup of devils, is given to the laity as a reason against their idol communion. in relation to the sacrament it's said that [all were made to drink into one spirit.] the reception of the spirit being likened to that drinking. and if the pope may abrogate one half the sacrament, why not the other. xxii. the pope declareth all the world to be damned except his own subjects. see the foresaid first canon of innocents' lateran council. leo 10. abrog. pragm. sanct. bul. in the 17. general council at lateran saith [and seeing it is of necessity to salvation that all the faithful of christ be subject to the pope of rome, as we are taught by the testimony of divine scripture and of the holy fathers, and it is declared in the constitution of pope boniface the 7. etc. pope pius 2. was converted from the supremacy of councils by this doctrine of a cardinal which he approveth (or by the popedom,) bul. retract. in bin. vol. 4. p. 514. [i came to the fountain of truth which the holy doctors both greek and latin show, who with one voice say, that he cannot be saved, that holdeth not the unity of the holy church of rome; and that all those virtues are maimed to him that refuseth to obey the pope of rome; though he lie in sackcloth and ashes, and fast and pray both day and night, and seem in the rest or other things to fulfil the law of god. (bellarmine saith the eccles. l. 3. c. 5.) that [no man, though he would, can be subject to christ, that is not subject to the pope.] and therefore he saith that our baptism implicitly subjecteth us to the pope; or we are so baptised to him. and saith gonzal. rodericus in godignus de rebus abassin. l. 2. c. 18. p. 323. to the emperor's mother, [i denied that any one is subject to christ that is not subject to his vicar.] but said the old woman to him, [neither i nor mine do deny obedience to s. peter: we are in the same faith now that we were in from the beginning: if that was not the right, why was there no one found in so many ages and generations that would warn us of our error?] (see here what tradition is, and whether the papal church and charge was universal.) the jesuit answered, [the pope of rome who is pastor of the whole church of christ, could not in the years that are bypast send teachers into abassia, because the mahometans encompassed all, and had left no passage to them; but now the maritime way to aethiopia is open, they can do that which they could not do before.] so that it seemeth, 1. christ hath made the pope governor of countries that he cannot send to, and set the poor man an impossible task. 2. he hath made it necessary to salvation to whole kingdoms to believe in a pope that they could never hear from; nor whether there were such a man or city in the world. 3. or else their faith groweth new as the sea passage is open. and woe to them if their new acquaintance with the pope make all, all, all his laws necessary to them, which they might have been saved without before. how much happier were they when they never heard of his name? see here, all you jesuits, one old woman is able unanswerably to confute you all, if she stand but on equal ground with you, and be not under your power, inquisition, or fear. xxiii. in so doing the pope damneth and unchurcheth about two or three parts of the christians upon earth, and so would destroy the body politic of christ. for the body is rather to be denominated from the greater part than from the less: else why do votes in general councils go for the sense of the church? and i have showed before that the abassines, copties in egypt, syrians, armenians, georgians, greeks, moscovites, protestants, and the rest, are far more (two or three to one) than all the papists in the world. much more when mahometanism had not drowned so many countries that were of the greek profession, was it so. and how the saviour of the world will take it for this usurper to rob him of the most of his flock, and damn most of his church, (and corrupt the rest) consider and judge. xxiv. by so doing the pope sets a sect, or small divided parcel of the church, and calleth it the whole church of christ. even as some anabaptists (i hope not many) and other sects appropriate christianity, or true church-communion, to themselves, and say, we are all the church! so doth the pope: his universal church is too small for any understanding christian to own, as such, and to be a member of, as such. xxv. the pope damneth not only two or three parts of the christian world, but also his own representative body, or church, called papists; such an abaddon is he. proved. the general councils at constance and basil (to say nothing of many others) were the representative church of the papists, and took it to be de fide that a council was above the pope: but the pope hath damned them for this as an error, and for their deposing popes: see concil. later. sub jul. 2. and sub leone 10. & concil. florent. review the forecited speeches of cajetan and pighius against them. many more councils have they condemned. xxvi. yea popes have damned popes also, (and it is most to be feared lest they damn themselves, more than others.) i need not tell of marcellinus, nor of honorius condemned for an heretic by divers popes; nor repeat the schisms and damnation's of each other therein, nor the story of sergius and formosus and stephen, etc. nor their forementioned wickedness. watson in his quodlibets tells you of bellarmine's sentence against pope sixtus quintus, [conceptis verbis, quantum capio, quantum sapio, quantum intelligo, dominus noster papa descendit ad infernum:] and as others report him [qui sine poenitentia vivit, & sine poenitentia moritur, ad infernum descendit.] see baronius forecited. xxvii. though the pope condemn and unchurch so many, yet doth he tolerate in his own church abundance of differences, de fide, and abundance of controversies in theology, and abundance of differences and errors in great and dangerous matters of morality, and abundance of sects that variously serve god, so they will serve him, and uphold his kingdom. 1. the holy scripture is all de fide, that is, a divine revelation to be believed: the pope's tolerated translations that differ in many hundred places, or that erred so oft; and commentators that differ in many hundred texts as to the exposition; yea, they tolerate those that deny the immaculate conception of the virgin, after a general council hath defined it. 2. he tolerateth vast volumes of theological differences, in the school doctors. 3. he tolerateth all the moral doctrines for murdering kings before mentioned, and all those cited by mr. clarkson in his practical divinity of the church of rome, and all those mentioned in the provincial letters, and the jesuits morals, about murder, adultery, perjury, lying, seldom loving god, not loving him intensively above all, etc. see my key, etc. p. 59 4. he tolerateth abundance of religious sects, jesuits, augustinians, franciscans, carthusians, etc. who differ from each other in their serving god, as much as many of the sects of protestants, who are despised for their discord. xxviii. he pretendeth a necessity to the ending of controversies that he be the judge, and yet will not end them by his judgement, but continueth many hundred undecided. if we dispute with a papist, and cite the scriptures, they ask us presently, who shall be judge of the meaning of them? as if the pope would decide all: and yet to this day he will neither write any deciding commentary on the bible, nor on one book of it; nor end the controversies among his own commentators. nor will he end any of the forementioned controversies in morality, of great importance. xxix. he sweareth all his clergy never to take or interpret scripture, but according to the unanimous sense of the fathers, (see the trent oath:) when yet the fathers do not unanimously expound the scripture, nor any one book of it. and few priests know what the fathers are unanimous in, nor can do, unless they read them all; which by this oath they seem obliged to do. was not greg. nazianz. one of the fathers? who saith, orat. 18. [i would there were no presidency, nor prerogative of place, and tyrannical privileges; that so we might be known only by virtue, (or deserts:) but now this right side and left side, and middle and lower degree, and presidency and concomitancy, have begot us many contentions to no purpose, and have driven many into the ditch, and have led them away to the region of goats.] is not this heresy, or worse, with you? was not isidore pelusiota a father? (but a sharp reprover of proud and wicked priests and prelates) who saith, lib. 3. epist. 223. ad hieracem [and when i have showed what difference there is between the ancient ministry and the present tyranny, why do you not crown and praise the lovers of equality?] doth not this deserve a faggot with you? how ordinarily doth cajetan, and others of yours, reject (deservedly) the expositions of fathers? bellarmine chargeth justin, irenaeus, etc. with error, de beat. ss. li. 1. cap. 6. he saith, [there is no trust to be given to tertullian, de rom. pont. li. 4. c. 8. he saith, eusebius was addicted to heretics, and that cyprian seemed to sin mortally, de rom. pont. li. 4. c. 7. di. ●●s. pe●avius de trinit. citeth the words of most of the ancientest as favouring arrianism (almost like sondius himself or philostorgius;) and is fain to go to the [major vote of the nice ne council as the proof,] that most of the ancients were not really of the arrians mind. dallaeus hath told you more of the father's differences, and unsatisfactory expositions. xxx. he confesseth all the scripture to be gods infallible word, yea his doctors have asserted its sufficiency as a divine law; and yet his pretence of its insufficiency without traditional supplement, is one of the pillars of his kingdom. the second part needs no proof: for the first, the elder popes oft assert it; and the schoolmen in their prologue to the sentences (scotus, durandus and many others:) but when reformers confuted them by scripture, they found that would not serve their turn, (as micaiah of ahab, it prophesied not good of them but evil.) and since then, they cry up the church and tradition, and depress the sufficiency of scripture. even card. richlieu pag. 38. confesseth [as for us, we assert no other rule but scripture, neither of another sort, nor total: yea we say that it is the whole rule of our salvation, and that on a double account: both because it containeth immediately and formally the sum of our salvation; that is, all the articles that are necessary to man's salvation, by necessity of means; and because it mediately containeth what ever we are bound to believe, as it sends us to the church to be instructed by her, of whose infallibility it certainly confirmeth us.] here the sum of our religion is granted. at the council of basil ragusius' oration (bin. p. 299) saith [that faith and all things necessary to salvation, both matters of belief and practice, are founded in the literal sense of scripture, and only from that may argumentation be taken for the proving of those things that are matters of faith and necessary to salvation, and not from those passages that are spoken by allegory, etc. and sup. 7. [the holy scripture in the literal sense sound and well understood, is the infallible and most sufficient rule of faith.] see more of his oration opened in my key pag. 93, 94, 95. the testimony of bellarmine, costerus and others i have formerly recited. xxxi. the pope teacheth us that we cannot truly believe the articles of our faith or the truth of scripture, but because of the authority and infallibility of the pope and his church declaring them; so that we must believe that the pope is christ's vicar and authorized by him, and made infallible, before we can believe that there is a christ, or that he hath given any authority or gifts to any. this is not to be denied: and knot against chillingworth hath no other shift, but to resolve their belief of the church's infallibility and authority, not into any word or donation of christ, but into miracles wrought by the church. so that no man can be a believer that is not first certain of the papists miracles (and how can millions know them, when they see them not? and in all my life i could never meet with one that saw them.) and he must next be certain that those miracles prove the infallibility of the pope; when yet they confess that they prove not the infallibility of him that doth them. valentine greatreak● hath done and still doth more wondrous cures by touch or stroking, than ever i heard by any credible report that any papist did: and yet he pretendeth to no infallibility. and those canonised saints that have been most credibly famed for the greatest miracles, have born their testimony against popery, and therefore popery was not confirmed by them. for instance, st. martin is by his disciple and friend sulpitius severus affirmed to have done more miracles than i have ever credibly read done by any since the apostles: i scarce except gregory neocaesar: and yet, whereas the papal councils give high privileges, of pardon, etc. to those that will take the cross to kill the waldenses, and compel princes to it, and uphold their kingdom by such means, st. martin separated to the death from the synods and bishops about him, for seeking the magistrates sword to be drawn against even priscillian gnostics, and he professeth that an angel appeared to him and chastised him sharply for once communicating with the bishops at the motion of maximus, when he did it only to save men's lives, that were condemned as priscillianists. here are miracles against the very pillars of popery. so also the egyptian monks were the most famous for miracles of any people. and yet (as their miracles were no confirmation of the error of the anthropomorphites which their simplicity and rashness involved them in, so) they renounced communion with the church of rome, and therefore confirmed it not by their miracles. how few christians be there on earth, if none are such but those that by known popish miracles believed the pope to be infallible before they believed that there was a christ? and thus they must believe him to be infallible not as pope, but somewhat else: for to be pope, is to be [christ's pretended vicar:] and to believe that he is authorized or infallible as christ's vicar, before they believe there is a christ, is a madman's contradiction and impossible. what infallible wight than is it that we must first believe the pope to be, before we believe him to be pope? to what impudence will interest and faction carry men? i will again recite the words of an honest jesuit, joseph. acosta de tempor. novis. li. 3. c. 3. [to all the miracles of antichrist, though he do great ones, the church shall boldly oppose the belief of the scriptures: and by the inexpugnable testimony of this truth, shall by most clear light expel all his juggle as clouds— signs are given to infidels; scriptures to believers; and therefore the primitive church abounded with miracles, when infidels were to be called: but the last, when the faithful are already called, shall rest more on the scripture than on miracles: yea i will boldly say, that all miracles are vain and empty, unless they be approved by the scripture; that is, have a doctrine conform to the scripture. but the scripture itself is of itself a most firm argument of truth. obj. but he grants that infidels had miracles. ans. he lived long in the west-indies among them, and in his treat. of the convers. ind. and his hist. ind. he professeth that the ignorance, drunkenness and wickedness of the roman priests there, was the great hindrance of their conversion; but that miracles there were none. god had not given them there any such gift. once more, did the miracle which thyraeus de daemoniacis, p. 76. reciteth out of prosper, that [a person possessed by the devil was cured by drinking the wine in the eucharist] confirm the pope's religion, who hath cast out the cup; or the protestants that use it? xxxii. though s. paul say, let every soul be subject to the higher powers, and give honour to whom honour is due, the pope as far as he is able exempteth all his clergy from the government of the magistrate; yea they are forbidden to fall down to princes, or eat at their tables, but emperors must take them as equals. the first part is commonly known: caranz. pag. 395. reciteth this decree of pope nicholas, that [no lay man must judge a priest, nor examine any thing of his life: and no secular prince ought to judge the facts of any bishops or priests whatsoever. the eighth general council at constantinople saith, can. 14. [ministers must not fall down to princes, nor eat at their tables, nor debase themselves to them; but emperors must take them as equals. xxxiii. the pope confesseth every word of our objective religion to be true; for all his kill and damning us as heretics. proved before: we have not a word of our objective religion, but the sacramental covenant, and its exposition in the creed, lords prayer, and decalogue, and the canonical scripture, which we receive. and they confess all this to be infallibly true, and so justify all our positive religion. xxxiv. the popes to this day will not tell the church so much as what a christian is, and what must make a man a member of their church, in the essentials of a member. of which more anon. xxxv. while the decrees of general councils are made quoad nos the churches faith, the pope will never let us know how big our faith must be, nor when we shall have all. if every general council add new articles (or many) quoad nos, who knoweth when they will have done? and whether we have yet half the christian faith, or not? xxxvi. the pope's religion maketh contradictions necessary to be believed; that is, impossibilities. the contradictions of transubstantiation i have opened in my [full satisfaction] confirmed general councils they commonly agree do make decrees which must necessarily be believed: and it is notorious, that such decrees are contradictory. the general council at constance confirmed by martin 5. and that at basil confirmed by foelix 5. do make it de fide for a council to be above the pope. bin. p. 43. 79. 96. conc. basil. sess. ult. they say, [not one of the skilful did ever doubt, but that the pope was subject to the judgement of a general council in matters of faith; and that he cannot without their consent dissolve or remove a general council; yea and that this is an article of faith, which without destruction of salvation cannot be denied, and that de fide the council is above the pope, and that he is a heretic that is against this.] eugenius also owned this council, bin. ib. p. 42. but the councils of florence, and at the lateran sub jul. 2. and sub leone 10. say the clean contrary. the 6. council at constant. approved by pope adrian is now said by them to have many errors. xxxvii. the pope arrogateth power to alter the constitutions of the spirit of god in the holy scriptures. proved. the council of constance taking away the cup saith [though in the primitive church this sacrament was received by believers under both kinds, etc.] yea though christ so instituted it, yet they altered it. i elsewhere cited pope innocents' words [by the fullness of our power we can dispense with the law, being above the law.] and the gloss oft saith, [the pope dispenseth against the apostle, against the old testament, etc. the council of trent say, sess. 21. cap. 1, 2. that [this power was always in the church, that in dispensing the sacraments, saving the substance of them, it may ordain or change things as it should judge most expedient to the profit of the receiver. (but is not the cup of the substance, as truly as the bread?) andrad. def. conc. trid. li. 2. p. 236. [hence it is plain that they do not err that say, the popes of rome may sometimes dispense with laws made by paul, and the four first councils. and vasquez saith to. 2. disp. 216. n. 60. [though we grant that this was a precept of the apostles, yet the church and popes might on just causes abrogate it: for the power of the apostles was no greater than the power of the church and pope in bringing in precepts.] one of luther's opinions opposed as heretical by leo 10. was this, [it is certain that it is not in the hand of the church or pope to make articles of faith.] see more in my key, p. 243, 244. xxxviii. the pope setteth up a public worship of god, in a tongue not understood by most of the worshippers; and forbiddeth men, without licence to read the scriptures in a known tongue. practice and the trent council prove both these. xxxix. the pope determineth that the image of christ be reverenced with equal honour as the holy scriptures.] so it is decreed concil. constant. the eighth general can. 3. and yet images are man's work, and at the best unnecessary, and the holy scriptures are gods work by his spirit, and the law by which we must live, and be judged at the last. xl. and when all this power over the whole earth is thus claimed, there is no possible means left for any mortal man, much less for the antipodes, to know who is the man that hath this power, and whom on pain of damnation we must obey, and believe in before we can believe in christ. proved: if there be any possibility of knowing it, it must be either, 1. by personal qualifications of mind; 2. or by right of election; 3. or of ordination; 4. or of possession; 5. or of acceptance by the church after possession. i cannot imagine any other way. but there is no possibility of knowing who is pope by any of these ways. i. the first is not pretended by them: but anon we shall thence prove their nullity for want of necessary qualifications. ii. if election will tell us, than it is either any election whatsoever, or else election by authorized persons. not the first; else the turks, or the greeks, or the adversaries of rome might elect a pope: and an hundred might be elected at once several ways. not the later; for if any one way of election be necessary, popes were no popes when that way failed: sometime they were elected by the people of rome (and were they the choosers for all the world?) sometimes by the people and the presbyters: sometimes by the neighbour bishops and ordainers: sometimes by the emperors: and lastly by the cardinals. if one way only be valid, the rest were invalid: and how shall we prove which? if any of these ways are valid; then six men or five may be chosen at once by the several ways: and where is the proof? iii. if ordination be the notifying title, then, 1. those lay men that were put in full possession unordained were no popes; and where then is the succession? 2. and who is it that hath that ordaining authority? if some bishops ordain one, and some another, and so twenty (as they long did divers in many years' schism) which of these is the true pope? or is it all? iv. if possession were the title, than the turk may be pope; or he that can get it by the sword: then there can be no usurper, but the strongest hath best right. then he that kept at rome had better title than he that was in germany, or at avignion. v. if it be the churches after acceptance; then, 1. he was an usurper before. 2. and what or who is that accepting church? sure they that must make a pope of no pope, by after acceptance, should have the antecedent election: else popes must all be first usurpers, before they are true popes. but, 1. if it must be the major part of the christian world, than there is no pope, because two parts are against him. if it must be one sect of christians only like the papists, that will but think themselves the church, or better than the rest; who is it that can prove their title to this choice? and must it be all of them, or but part? if all, 1. how shall we ever know it? never such a thing was tried. 2. and then there was no pope in the 40 or 50 years' schism. if it must be part, how shall we ever know which part it must be? if the major or the melior, how shall it be ever tried and known in a division? none to this day knoweth who had the major or melior part in many a schism. if they say that silent non-opposition is consent. i answer, that's a known falsehood, when most men, even a thousand to one, have neither call nor opportunity to signify their dissent effectually; and when no wise men that love their time and peace, will run to rome by thousands out of all kingdoms, to tell them their dissent. 2. but it was no silent submission, when several popes were upheld by several kingdoms. so that there is no way of certain notice who is the true pope, but he must go for the man, as eugenius 4. did after his deposition, who can keep possession, which is no title at all. 2. yea, i prove certainly, according to their own principles, that there is no pope at rome, nor hath been for many an hundred years. for they hold themselves, that the right must be derived by an uninterrupted succession from s. peter, (and call us no ministers for want of succession:) but that they have no such uninterrupted succession is notorious. for, 1. an infidel and heretic pope, so openly judged, can be no pope: else a turk might be pope. for he that is no christian, is no christian bishop. but popes (before mentioned) have been judged infidels, heretics, incarnate devils. 2. a pope actually deposed as an uncapable wicked heretic, by a general council, was no pope: yet such was eugenius 4. who yet kept the place, and the rest are his successors. 3. there have been sometimes several years without any pope at all: and if two or three years make no interruption, how shall we know how long time doth it? 4. baronius, genebrard, and others aforementioned, confess that for 50 of them together they were apostatical, and deserve not to be named among the popes, being wicked men, made and ruled by whores, etc. where then is the succession? and if it were possible for those at rome to know that there is a pope, and to know who and which is he, yet how should all the rest of the world have any assurance of it? you'll say, it is not necessary: possession and common report must satisfy them in china, congo, abassia, and the phillipines', &c. answ. no building can be stronger than its foundadation, nor conclusion than its premises: how then shall such men have assurance of their religion when they must take it on the credit of a pope as infallible of whom they have no assurance? and how shall they be certain that they are of the right church, when they are uncertain who is the head whom they must be subjects to? chap. vii. what a papist is. ii. having showed what a pope is, i am next hence to tell you what we protestants take a papist to be. and first as to the name, it is equivocal: there are so many sorts that are called commonly by the one name of papists, that it is hard to enumerate and describe them all. 1. there are some that believe that the pope is but a humane creature, that hath run up his power into tyranny by abuse, and it were well if he were either down, or reduced to his first state: but they take themselves to be as those that live under other abusive, oppressing or tyrannical governors, who must live in patience and submission, and are not bound to ruin themselves, by opposing him in vain; and though he impose on them many things which they like not, but had rather they were reform, yet it being not in their power, and princes and magistrates commanding them the same, they take conformity to be orderly, and nonconformity to be unpeaceable and of ill fame; and if any of the things commanded them prove sinful, they hope god will forgive them (for bowing in the house of rimmon) and will lay it on popes, princes and prelates, and not on them that are not bound to study controversies; and who do what they do but in obedience and for peace (pretences that quiet their consciences in self-saving conformity:) i verily think that the greater part of those called papists in all the world, are of this self-saving sort. as we see in all countries that the greater number are or seem to be of the religion of those in power, be it what it will be. and we ordinarily hear that the common people will thus talk against the pope's doctrines and practices, and yet quiet themselves on such terms of conformity as i here describe. ii. another sort called papists do believe that the pope is a mere humane creature also, not over all the world but in the empire and where princes let him: and consequently as men set him up, men might take him down. but yet that it is an orderly institution, as kings and emperors, and that his place is lawful, and that it is the duty of the church to obey him, especially when princes also do command it: and that men have power from god to make, as national, provincial, and patriarchal churches and rulers, so also an universal church and ruler for order and unity sake over many countries, and that it is good and desirable to these ends. of these there are two sorts. 1. one sort take the papacy and patriarches to be a lawful and laudable institution of constantine, confirmed by other princes. 2. the other sort take them to be laudable institutions of general councils, or else of particular consenting bishops before the first general council (whom thy call the church.) iii. another sort called papists, do believe the pope (as the former) to be a humane creature, viz. of the first or ancient bishops by mutual consent; but that it was a necessary thing, which by god's general laws, and his special inspiration, they did well, and were bound to do for the church's concord and strength; and that it is not lawful for the church now to alter it, or any prince in his dominions. these also are of three sorts: 1. some think that the roman seat may be altered, and the church upon just cause may remove the primacy to another bishop. this seemeth to be the opinion of cardinal cusanus afore cited the concord. who saith, the church might make the bishop of trent chief. 2. others seem rather to think, that god hath by decree annexed the supremacy to rome, and yet (as r. smyth, the bishop of chalcedon, and ruler of the english popish clergy afore cited) think, that it is not the fide, that the pope is peter's successor. 3. others say that they are not sure but god may destroy rome, and remove the primacy; but men may not do it. iv. the whole greek church seem yet of the second or third opinion, (that the pope had a just primacy in one empire, which was justly removed to constantinople:) but there are some that think the pope had also a just primacy in all the christian world, and yet that he hath it but by humane institution. v. there are other that think the pope is the universal head by divine institution; even as s. peter's successor, by derivation of the power which christ gave peter. and as about the foundation, so about the subject and the measure of power, yea who is the true chief ruler over the uuniversal church, there are these several sorts of popery. i. some believe that it is general councils that are the subject or possessors of supreme church power and infallibility, and that the pope is but the first in order of the five patriarches in such councils; who hath no necessary right to call them, nor no negative voice in them, nor any government over the other patriarches, or their churches; but only the first seat, if he be there; just as the patriarch of alexandria first, and of constantinople after had when the patriarch of rome was absent. and thus indeed it was in the empire, for a long time. but those five patriarches ruled not all the world; no more than our two provincial archbishops do. ii. others called papists do go farther, and believe that general councils indeed have the supreme legislative power, and the chief executive while they sit, and are the seat of infallibility: but because they are not to be always or ordinary, god hath not left the four patriarches, and all the world, ungoverned in the intervals; but the roman pope is the supreme governor of the world, when there is no general council: yet so that he must govern by their laws or canons. iii. another sort (and i think the most numerous among the learned) called papists, hold that neither the pope alone, nor the council alone, are the seat or possessors of the supreme legislative power, or the infallibility, nor of the supreme judging and executive power sedente concilio; but it is both of them agreeing or conjunct: and two fallibles joining, become one infallible. iv. another sort of papists, and very numerous especially in italy, hold, that the pope alone is supreme and infallible in legislation and judgement, and that councils are but his counsellors, to prepare laws, to which his fiat giveth authority and infallibility. all these indeed are commonly called papists, because that more or less they are subjects of the pope. but who can give one definition, or the same marks of men that are really of so many minds? if i describe one sort, the other will say, this is not our opinion; you do us wrong. and so of all the rest. and here you may see, that when the question is, whether a papist may be saved? and whether a papist be a heretic? or the like; that it cannot be well answered, till we know of which sort of papists you speak. but because i find that already my writing is swelled beyond my first intent, i will give you the properties or inadequate conceptions of only one sort of papists, which is the third sort in the last distribution, who hold the sovereignty and infallibility to be in the pope and council conjunct, and that by divine right. because if i speak of any of the other sorts, i find they fly for refuge hither, and most writers go upon this ground, and will own nothing as their religion but what is in approved general councils. and here i desire the reader to peruse what i have said in my [full and easy satisfaction, etc.] out of veron, and others, as they describe their faith themselves. i. a papist of this sort is one that believeth that the pope and his council, or church, is infallible in proposing the will of christ; and believeth in christ, and receiveth the gospel as true, for the authority and infallibility of this pope and council, and hereon layeth all the hopes of his salvation, as on the church's faith: and all this authority and infallibility he believeth before he believeth that there is a pope or a church of christ, or a christ indeed, or a promise or gift from christ of any authority or infallibility to them: much more before he knoweth who is the true pope, and which are true general councils, or whether ever there were any such, or what it is that they have decreed to be believed. 1. that they take all their faith in christ and the gospel on the credit of the church (that is, the pope and council) proposing it, the moderatest of all this sort profess; as out of veron, and others, i proved as aforecited. hence it is that one tells us that the scripture is so full of seeming contradictions and improbabilities, that he would no more believe it than esop's fables, were it not for the authority of the church. another said [would i ever believe the trinity, the incarnation, that if you lay a man to die in a close chest of lead or marble his soul could get out to heaven, that the body shall rise again, etc. were it not for the authority of the church?] 2. they believe this infallibility and authority of the pope before they can believe that there is any pope at all. for to be a pope is essentially to be christ's vicar as they describe him: and, as i said, it is impossible to believe that christ hath a vicar, before they believe that he is christ. as it is to believe a son without a parent. 3. they believe the infallibility and authority of the church, (as they profess) before they believe that there is any church: for to be a church is essentially to be a society of christians: and he that yet believeth not that christ is truly christ, cannot believe that christians are truly christians, save de nomine; nor that christ hath a church: for they are relatives, as wife and husband. 4. they believe the infallibility and authority of the church, that is, the pope and council, before they believe that jesus is the christ; for they profess to believe in him, because of the said church's authority and infallibility: and the premises go before the conclusion. 5. they believe the said infallibility and authority of the church, before they believe that ever christ gave them such authority and infallibility: for they cannot believe that christ gave it them, before they believe that there is a christ, and a word of gift. and now is not here a riddle hard enough to pose the wisest? which way do all these believers, through all the world, come to know that the pope and council, or church, are authorized and infallible, before they believe that christ ever gave it them? which way do they think that they came by it? let him unriddle it that can. 6. they believe thus in the pope, before they know what a pope is, or who is he that they must thus believe in. for alas, how can all or any in the world know what is necessary to make a pope? what election? what ordination? what qualification? and whether the man had all these? and of divers pretenders which is he that hath the proofs of a true title? 7. they believe thus in councils, when they know not what councils are true, and what not; nay whether ever there were any: for i have elsewhere fully proved that there never was any, nor ever will be, that are truly universal as to all the christian world. 8. much less do these beginners know certainly, what general councils have decreed to be believed by those that will be saved. that which will be said to all this is, that it is not necessary that all men receive their faith from councils; it is sufficient if it be from the church-real, though not from the representative. ans. very good: 1. else no man was a christian, nor could be, before the first general council, which was above 300 years. 2. but still this answereth none of the contradictions about believing in and from the pope: may we all take our faith from the church-real, without taking it from the pope, or not? if yea, we may possibly be good friends at last. if not, all the contradictions about him are still upheld by you. 3. and if you must take it from the authority and infallibility of the church real, still all the contradictions will follow as if you took it from councils: for can you believe that this church is christ's church, and hath this power and gift from him, before you believe that he is christ, and that ever he made such a gift or promise to them? 4. and who or what is this real church, that must be first known to be thus impowered and infallible: is it some few, or many, or must it be the most? if a few or many, you profess that they may be heretics, and have not that authority or gift. if it must be all, or the greater part; 1. then the church of rome goeth down, that is at most but a third part. 2. how shall every poor man (or any man) know which is the judgement of the major part? can he take the votes of all the christian world? 3. and have all that were converted in the apostles days and since, first known the major vote of the christians, or were they converted by the foreknown infallibility or authority of the majority? (or of the pope?) some will say, we see the madness of this popery, but how then do you say that the faith must be received, if not from the church? i answer i have told you at large in a treatise called the reasons of the christian religion, and briefly in a smaller treatise called the certainty of christianity without popery briefly, judging is one thing, and teaching is another thing. before i submit to the decision of a judge i must know his commission or authority; and i must then stand to his sentence which way ever he decide the case. men be not converted to christianity by such judges, but by teachers; nor will i believe the judge if he say there is no christ, no life to come, etc. but a teacher is to make intelligible to his hearer or scholar, the evidence of truth which is in the matter taught, and to draw men to believe by telling them those true reasons upon which he did believe himself: and no man takes him for his teacher that he is persuaded knoweth no more than himself. and the greater reputation of knowledge and honesty the teacher hath, the easier we apply our minds to learn of him, and a humane trust or faith prepareth us to receive that evidence of truth which may beget a divine faith by the help of grace. but still the learner truly believeth no more than he thus learneth. and i may hear a stranger tell what he hath to say, and be convinced by the evidence that he giveth me of the truth, though i know not of any authority that he hath to teach me, much less judicially to decide the case. i little doubt but most that were converted by the apostles themselves, were persuaded to believe in christ by the evidence of truth proposed (the spirit co-operating) before they knew of any authority of the apostles; much less before they heard what they said in a general council, or what was the vote of the universal church; or what any pope said as ruler of the rest. these things are very plain and sure, and they that will be wilfully blinded by faction, and prejudice, and worldly interest against plain truth, have no excuse if they perish in darkness. ii. a papist (of this sort) is one that believeth that the pope of rome is the rightful governor of all the world; that is, that all christians immediately, and all infidels and heathens mediately, are bound by god to obey him, as christ's vicegerent on earth: and that he, with his council, is thus an universal lawgiver and judge to all kings, states, and persons, that dwell round about the earth. but a protestant denyeth this, and holdeth that there is no universal monarch, or legislator, to all the world, but god and our saviour; and that he hath made no such vice-christ, or vicegerent; and that such a claim is high-treason, as usurping his prerogative. and that if pride had not in tantum made them mad, no men could think themselves thus capable of governing all the world. protestants believe that there is no such thing on earth, as an universal church headed by any mortal head, pope or council, but that christ is the only universal governor or head. iii. this papist is one that holdeth, that the church of christ on earth is no bigger than the pope's dominion, and that it is necessary to salvation to be subject to the pope; and consequently he unchurcheth two or three parts of the christian world, and damneth most of the body of christ, and robbeth him of the greatest part of his kingdom, as far as denying his right amounts to: and consequently is a notorious schismatic or sectary, appropriating the church title only to his sect. this is proved before from the masters of their religion. iv. this papist is one that holdeth, that those councils which were general as to one empire, were general as to all the christian world: and that such general councils there must be, (if it please the pope to call them,) though they must come from all the quarters of the earth, and whence they have no sea passage, and out of the empires of many princes, and many that are enemies to the christian name, and perhaps at wars with christians; and when the voyage or journey is such, that if the churches be deprived of a thousand bishops, twenty of them are never like to live to return home to the remotest nations. nor could they converse as a council, by reason of the number and diversity of languages, if they were equally gathered. or they hold, that if a small part of the christian world assemble (as at trent) when the rest cannot come, this is an universal council of and to all the christian world. v. this papist is one that holdeth, if a fallible pope and a fallible general council do but agree, their decrees are infallible: as if an unlearned pope (e. g. that understands not the text of scripture in the original) and an unlearned council (as to the most) should agree, their decrees would be learned; e. g. in judging which is the true translation of a tongue which they never understood. as if ten purblind men if they meet together might produce the effects of the clearest sight, or fools by conjunction become wise. vi he holdeth that tradition from fathers to children is the sure way of conveying all the matter of faith and religion; and yet that the greatest general councils, which are the church representative, may err in matter of faith, and have erred; unless a pope (who is fallible) approve of their decrees. vii. and when he hath trusted to this way of tradition, he denyeth the judgement and tradition professed by the greater half or the christian world. viii. he believeth that all men are bound on pain of damnation to believe that the senses and perception of all men in the world are deceived, in apprehending that after consecration there is true bread and wine in the sacrament. and he that will so believe his own and others senses, should suffer as an heretic, and be rooted out of all the dominions of all christian lords on earth. so merciful is he to his neighbours. for an approved general council hath decreed this, and such councils are his religion. were it his own father or mother, wife or child, that cannot thus renounce all his own and other men's senses, and believe that there is no bread or wine in spite of his sight, taste, touch, etc. he believeth that they should be burnt as heretics, or exterminated. he may be a good naetured man that is loath it should be so; or he may be one that is ignorant of his own religion, and doth not know that this is one article of popery; or he may be an unconscionable man, that will not obey that which he knoweth to be his religion; or he may be unable to execute such laws: but it is his religion to believe that he ought to do it. ix. if he be a temporal lord of a protestant country, it is part of his religion to take himself obliged to root out, destroy, or burn all his protestant subjects, and all others that deny transubstantiation. obj. the king of france, and some others, do it not. ans. no man is bound to do that which he cannot do. but if he can do it, and he be a papist, by the express words of an approved general council he is bound to do it, and to believe that it is his duty. i speak not of what men do, but what their religion binds them to do: though interest or good nature hinder them. x. he believeth that all temporal lords that will not first take an oath thus to root out their subjects, and then do it, may be first excommunicated by the pope, and then deposed if they repent not, and their dominions be given to be seized by another papist that will do it. the words of the council are before cited. xi. he believeth that in this case the pope may absolve all the subjects of such temporal lords from their oaths, and duties of allegiance or fidelity to such rulers. this also is express in the councils words. xii. he is one that believeth that the privileges of the roman church were given it by the fathers, because it was the imperial seat, and therefore constantinople had after equal privileges: (for so saith the forecited general council:) and yet he believeth the clean contrary, even that rome's privileges were given it by s. peter, and constantinople's are not equal. (for popes and councils also are for this.) xiii. he believeth that it is de fide that general councils are above popes, and may judge them, and depose them if there be cause, even as heretics or infidels, adulterers, murderers, simonists, etc. and yet he believeth that all this is false, and the contrary true. for the approved general councils of basit and constance say the first, (and others;) and those forecited at the lateran and florence say the latter. xiv. he maketh uncharitableness, and bold damning all others, a comfortable mark of the safety of his state, and the truth of his religion, and our charity a mark that ours is worse; whereas christ hath said, by this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye love one another. it's usual with them to say, [you say that a papist may be saved, and we say that a protestant cannot; therefore we are in the safer state.] as if our case were ever the more dangerous for their condemning us. as if a man that doteth in a fever, should say to those about him, [you say that i may live, and i say that all you are mortally sick; therefore my case is better than yours.] god saith, judge not, that ye be not judged; and who art thou that judgest another man's servant? and these men hope their case is safe, because they sin against this law, and damn the most of the universal church. xv. a papist thinketh that all the bible is not big enough, or hath not enough in it, to save those that believe and practise it, or to make us a saving religion; but other tradition must be received with equal reverence; and the decrees of all the approved general councils must make it up. xvi. he confesseth every article and word of the religion of the protestants to be infallibly true; and yet holdeth that they are to be burnt and damned as heretics. for he confesseth every part of the canonical scripture to be true, and we have no more in our (objective, positive) religion, not a word. our negations of popery are not properly our religion, any more than our speaking against diseases is our health: but as our health containeth our own freedom from an hundred diseases which we never thought of, as well as those that we once had or feared; so our faith and religion is free from popery, and containeth that which is against it. xvii. a papist is for swearing men to take scripture in that sense as the holy mother church doth hold, and hath held it: whereas, 1. their church hath given them no commentary on the scripture, one way or other. 2. and their translations have been altered in many hundred places by clement 8. and sixtus 5. so that their clergy is sworn to take one translation to to be right one year, and a different one to be right the next. xviii. they are for swearing men to take or interpret scripture but according to the unanimous sense of the fathers, and consequently never to interpret the most of it at all. xix. a papist hath a thriving faith and religion, which groweth bigger and bigger, as fast as general councils add new decrees; so that they know not when they shall have all: and yet they cry out against novelty and change, and boast of antiquity. xx. he holdeth that priests or prelates may not fall down to princes, or eat at their tables, nor debase themselves to them; but emperors must take them as equals. concil. gen. 8. const. can. 14. xxi. he is satisfied that their church hath a judge of controversies, though he decide them not: and he glorieth in the unity and great concord of their church, whose doctors differ de fide even in the exposition of many hundred texts of god's word; and where they differ in the morals before cited, about murder, killing excommunicate kings, etc. and in volumes of controversies. and yet he looketh upon far smaller differences among us with great offence, as if they were intolerable, and were so many different religions: and all because in all their differences they agree in one pope. as if it were not as good an union to agree in one god, one christ, one spirit, one body or church of christ, one faith (creed and scripture) one baptismal covenant, and one hope of life eternal, eph. 4. 3, 4, 5, 6. which is the union that god describeth. xxii. he believeth that the pope doth justly take away from the people one half of the substance of christ's own sacrament, and deny them that which they hold to be his very blood. xxiii. they believe that they ought not to read the scripture translated without a licence. so saith con. trid. xxiv. they believe that the image of christ is to be reverenced equally with the holy scriptures. it is a councils words before cited: yea they must believe the second council at nice, that latria is to be given only to god: and yet a canonised s. thomas 3. q. 25. a. 3. & 4. maintaineth that latria or divine worship is to be given, 1. to the image of christ, 2. to the cross that he died on, 3. and to the sign of the cross. and how largely jac. nauclautus, cabrera, and multitudes of the schoolmen are for it, see my key, p. 165, etc. xxv. they will publicly pray to god, and praise him, in an unknown tongue, because the pope will have it so. xxvi. they think that the far greatest part of the body of christ are tormented in the flames of purgatory, to make satisfaction to god's justice for some sins, notwithstanding christ's sufficient satisfaction. xxvii. expecting to go to the flames of purgatory when they die, they cannot possibly be willing to leave this world, and consequently must be worldlings, and never truly willing to die. for the basest condition on earth will seem to them more desirable than purgatory. xxviii. they think that the flames of purgatory do perfect men's preparation for heaven: whereas he is readiest for heaven that is likest to those in heaven and most holy, and that is they that most love god and they that are angry here with every one that hurteth him, and do not think that tormenting men will win their love, yet look that the torments of purgatory should help us to love god, better than all the mercies on earth will do. xxix. the generality of papists believe a fallible priest, or printer, or such other person, telling them what is the faith of the universal church, and yet think that this is an infallible faith. xxx. a papist is one that layeth his hopes of salvation upon his belief of and obedience to a pope which by their own principles is no pope, and a general council which is no general council, never was, nor never will be; and on his communion with a catholic church which is no catholic church, but a sect. all which hath been proved already, and moreshall be. i have told you in part what we take a papist to be. some things, before mentioned in the description of a pope, have been here necessarily repeated. chap. viii. what the papists church is: (called the roman catholic church.) what their church is may so easily be gathered from what is said, that i shall say but little more of it. in general, it is a society called ecclesiastical, constituted of such a head, and such members, as i have described. particularly, i. it is a humane church as to the efficient cause of its form; made by man, as distinct from that church-form which was instituted by christ; even by the fathers, because that rome was the imperial seat. as is proved before. ii. it is a humane church as to the constitutive head, as distinct from the true universal church, which hath no head (single or collective, pope or council) that is not god. iii. it is a sect consisting of about the third part of the christian world, calling themselves the whole church, and condemning all the rest for not subjecting themselves to this usurping head. iv. it is a new church in comparison of christ's universal church, as having a new humane original. (as is proved.) v. it is a treasonable church, as set up without christ's authority, and challenging his prerogative, and weakening his kingdom, by unchurching the greatest part. vi it is an unholy church, as distinct from the holy catholic church, and that both in the essential matter and form. 1. in the matter, its head which is a constitutive part, having been oft a condemned heretic, infidel, murderer, and other flagitious wicked man. 2. as to the form, being not of god it is not holy. 3. besides that, as to the head, he was long made by the most wicked whores. all this is before proved at large. vii. it is a church that hath had its pretended succession interrupted (as is proved;) sometimes by long vacances, sometimes by long schisms, when no one was the universal head; sometimes by the incapacity of the persons, being laymen, or infidels, simoniaoal, condemned deposed heretics, and therefore no bishops. viii. it is a schismatical church, that cuts off itself from all the rest of the christian church: and by making a false head and principle, and conditions of unity, which the universal church never did, never will, or can unite in, is the grand cause of the greatest continued schism. ix. it is a traitorous church against princes, making it their very religion to force bloody oaths on them, and to excommunicate and depose them, and give away their dominions, and that tolerateth its most famous doctors to maintain, that being excommunicate, they are no kings, and may be killed; and to maintain, that the pope is above them in temporals, and may set up and pull down kings when he seeth cause. all this is expressly proved before. x. it is a church that believeth contradictions (as is proved in their councils) e. g. the council of basil, sess. ult. saying [no one of the skilful did ever doubt, but that the pope was subject to the judgement of a general council, in things that concern faith, etc.] and others saying the clean contrary: as also in divers other things. xi. it was for above forty years, sometimes two, sometimes three churches, instead of one: for the head being an essential part, two or three heads make as many churches. xii. it is at this day divers churches really, as to the form, that are by the ignorant supposed to be one: two or three forms and parts imperantes, being essential, make as many churches, though the subjects live mixed. the summa potestas is a constitutive essential part. some called papists take the pope for the summa potestas, and some a council, and some both conjunct, and some the church real or diffused through the world. xiii. it is a church made up of a tolerated hodgepodge of many sects, some utterly uncapable members, so they do but serve the pope. i have showed out of many doctors cited by sancta clara that many that believe not in christ are of their church. he saith himself pag. 113. (deus, nat. grat.) [what is clearer than that at this day, the gospel bindeth not, where it is not authentically preached; that is, that at this day men may be saved without an explicit belief of christ? for in that sense speaks the doctor concerning the jews: and verily what ever my illustrious master hold, with his learned master herera, i think that this was the opinion of scotus, and the common one, citing many that follow it. and that men that hold all the different opinions in the jesuits morals, and the schoolmen, besides many various religious sects, make up their church, is not denied. xiv. it is a church that pretendeth to have a judge and end of controversies; but indeed hath a judge that for the most part dare not decide them, and that can make no end of them when decided. for instance, the controversy of the virgins immaculate conception decided at basil, is never the nearer an end. images were decreed up by some councils, and down by others. even s. thomas stood not to the second council of nice about image worship. the various councils that decreed variously for and against a councils supremacy, never the more ended the strife. and indeed it is so hard to know approved from reprobate councils, and what parts of them the pope meant to approve, and what not, (as by pope martin 5. his conciliariter appeareth) that there is no certainty, and no end. xv. it is a church that hath almost laid by the ancient discipline of christ's appointment, and instead of it hath set up partly auricular confession, when it should be public, and partly a tyrannical sort of hostile proclaiming their adversaries excommunicate without hearing them, and forbidding god's word and worship to whole kingdoms. saith learned albaspineus a bishop, observ. 1. pag. 1. [if ever any one in this age was deprived of communion (which i know not whether it ever fell out) it was only from the receiving of the eucharist: in the other parts of his life he retained the same familiarity and converse with other believers, which he had before he was excommunicated. xvi. it is a church that is upheld by flames and blood, distrusting the ancient discipline, and the mere protection of the magistrate, and the proper work of his office. the foresaid 12. general council at lateran proveth it, besides inquisitions and bloody executions. xvii. it is a church that cherisheth ignorance in the matters of salvation. proved, 1. by forbidding the reading of the scriptures translated, without licence. 2. their prayers in an unknown tongue. 3. the quality of their commonest members. xviii. it is a church that militateth against christian love. 1. by their foresaid condemning the most of christians. 2. by the foresaid bloody religion and execution. xix. it is a church which hath often damned itself, one pope and council damning others. as is proved. xx. it is a church which indeed is no church, according to their own rules; the pope indeed being no pope, and the general councils no general councils, (as is proved.) and if it were one, it could not possibly be certainly known to be so; because the pope, who is an essentiating part, cannot be certainly known. as is proved both as to election, ordination, and all that is necessary to a right and title. as to the doctrines which they hold contrary to the scriptures, i have named many of them elsewhere, (in my key, pag. 39 142, 143, etc.) and others more largely. and thus i have told you what i take a pope, a papist and the papal church to be. but you must remember that as the same man may be a visible christian or member of the true universal church as headed by christ, and a visible papist or member of the sectarian church as headed by the pope, so i judge none of you as in the first respect, but allow you the same charity proportionably as i do other erring sects: and especially to those many thousands who adhere to a church which they understand not, and profess that in gross which in particulars they themselves abhor: of which number i am not hopeless yourself (w. h.) to be one. chap. ix. how our religion differeth from the papists. and now out of all this it is easy for you to gather how our religion differeth from the papists: i shall recite but a few of the differences, leaving you to collect the rest from what is said of theirs. i. our religion is wholly divine, or made by god: for so is the holy scripture, which is all ours. but the papists supper additions are made by men: even popes and councils, under pretence of declaring, expounding, governing, judging, etc. ii. the religion of protestants is no bigger, nor no other in the essentials, than the sacramental covenant with god the father, son, and holy ghost, expounded in the creed, lords prayer, and decalogue: and in the integrals no bigger, nor other, than the holy canonical scriptures. but the papists is as big as all the decrees of all general councils, added to all the bible; if not the pope's decretals also, and uncertain traditions. tell us not of our 39 articles, and other church confessions, as contrary to this: for those confessions all profess what i here say: and you may as well tell us of our other books and sermons. our question is not of men's subjective religion; for so each person hath one of his own; and it cannot be known but by knowing what is in each man's mind! and our books and confessions are (as is aforesaid) but the expression of our sense of that which is our regular objective religion: and we are ready to confess and amend any misconception: but our objective religion which is the rule and law of our faith is only divine. iii. our religion is known, even the sacred bible. but yours is unknown: what are approved councils, and what decrees are intended to be de fide, and what temporal, and what perpetual, and how far the pope's decretals bind, and whether all isidore mercator's decretals be the popes, with abundance of the like. iv. our religion is owned by you, and every word confessed to be divine and infallible: but your added popery is disowned by us as sinful, presumptuous and false. v. our religion is fixed and unchangeable; (for so you confess the holy scriptures to be:) but yours is still swelling bigger and bigger while councils will increase it, and hath no certain bounds. vi our religion is only that ancient one delivered by the holy ghost in the apostles, and so is certainly apostolical, your additions are novelties since brought in. vii. our religion is infallible, holy, pure, your additions are fallible, contradictory, sinful, oft contrary to plain scripture, condemning one another. viii. our religion is universal, owned by all the christian world in the essentials, and in the main in the integrals, that is, the scripture: greeks, papists, armenians, abassines, and all other parties that are christians own it. but your additions are some disowned by one part of cristians, and some by another, and some by all save yourselves. ix. our religion therefore is the true terms of catholic concord, according to vincent. lerinens. doctrine, quod ab omnibus, semper, ubique receptum est. but your additions are the very engine of the dividing enemy, by which he hath long kept the christian world, distracted by discord, with all the calamitous effects and consequents. x. our religion hath a certain rule for the ending of all controversies, so far as there is hope of ending them in this world: all men will rest in the judgement of god; and his word in all such necessary things is plainer than all your general councils: but your humane authority is such as fighteth with itself and all the world, and which the universal church never yet received nor will ever rest in. xi. our religion owneth a certain lawful government appointed by god, which well used may keep just order in the world: that is, parents in families, pastors in such particular churches as christ hath instituted, (as join for personal communion in holy doctrine, worship and conversation;) which they are indeed capable of overseeing and governing by sacred doctrine in christ's way: and associations or correspondencies of these pastors for concord; and princes and magistrates to keep peace and order among them all; governing glergie-men as they do philosophers, physicians, etc. but yours hath an utopian pretended government of men on the other side the world, whose countries you scarce ever heard or dreamt of; and an usurpation of an impossible confounding kind and degree of rule. xii. our religion is fitted to give glory to christ, and his grace and kingdom. but yours to set up proud usurpers over princes and people, in such an impossible government making subjection to him, necessary to salvation. as if a man unacquainted with cosmography that never heard that there was such a town as rome in the world, must be no christian and be damned: when yet the pope's name was never mentioned in our baptism. xiii. our religion is faith working by love. christ's ministers that are truly of our religion, take only convincing evidence of truth, and unfeigned love, and works of love, to be their means of winning souls: and they take not christ's discipline, which worketh only on the conscience, to be a leaden sword, or vain. but yours is a hanging kill religion; jails, strappadoes, exterminating, and burning men are your means and works of love. you take a bonfire, or the ashes of the bodies of such as will not believe in the pope, to be a great medicine to save the people's souls. such murders as were done on the albigenses, waldenses, in the inquisitions, the french and irish massacres, smithfield flames, piedmont, etc. are your proof that you love god and man, and some of your good works. xiv. our religion tendeth to holy consolation, and a heavenly mind and life: for it teacheth us how to be certain of god's love by its effects on our souls, and to know that we are justified by christ, and to trust the sufficiency of his sacrifice, merits, and intercession; and to believe, that when we are absent from the body we shall be present with the lord, 2 cor. 5. 1. 7, 8. and to desire to depart and be with christ, phil. 1. 23. but yours leaveth a man uncertain of his justification: for you mostly deride such distinguished fundamentals, as (received) essentiate a justified christian: and your doctors lay all men's necessary religion, and so their peace, upon their receipt of so much truth as hath been authentically proposed to them; whereas no man living is certain that he hath received so much as hath been so proposed: all men are guilty of neglecting some such proposal at one time or other: and gradual neglects the best are guilty of. and you cannot ascertain men what is an authentic proposal. you also tell men of the necessity of their own satisfactions for the sin that christ forgiveth, and that in the fire of purgatory; so that (as is said before) none such can die comfortably, that look to go hence into such a fire, where torment may make it hard to you to love god that tormenteth you. it is a spirit of bondage that seemeth to actuate your very austerities, and to turn your religion into superstitious tasks of self-made services; ceremonies, and expectations of the expiating flames in purgatory: but you show too little of the spirit of adoption, of power, love and a sound mind, 2 tim. 1. 7. of righteousness, peace and joy in the holy ghost, rom. 14. terror and torments are temptations to you to desire the miserablest life on earth (much more a life of pleasure) rather than to die, when such flames must next follow. xv. we offer god such worship as we can prove by his word that he commandeth and accepteth; and such reasonable service in spirit and truth, which is not unsuitable to the father of spirits, and god of wisdom; yet using all reverend and decent behaviour of the body as well as of the mind. but it would be hard to number over all the humane inventions of formalities, and rites, and ceremonies, and images, and other arbitrary external things, by which you have corrupted the worship of god, and hid the body in your new fashioned clothing, which you pretended to adorn; and as worldly minds do cumber themselves, as martha, with many unnecessary things, and then say, [is it not lawful to do this and that?] while they hereby alienate the thoughts, affections, and time, which should be laid out on the one thing needful; so do you in god's worship make such abundance of work with your ceremonies, for thoughts, affections, and time, as maketh it very difficult to give the great and spiritual part of worship its proportion, (far beyond what augustine epist. ad januar. so much complained of in his time:) and then think you justify all, if you can say, how prove you this or that unlawful? as if your servant should instead of his work play at cards most of the day, and ask you [how you prove it unlawful?] you never well studied 2 cor. 11. 3. [i 〈◊〉 lest by any means as the serpent beguiled eve through his subtlety, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in christ,] nor col. 2. 18, 19, 20. 22, 23. nor act. 15. 28. nor rom. 14 and 15. nor joh. 4. 20, 21. an ignorant woman set upon christ, just as you pervert all holy discourse, with turning all to [which is the true church?] our fathers worshipped in this mountain, and ye say that in jerusalem is the place where men should worship: but christ answereth you in her, the true worshippers shall worship the father in spirit and in truth: for the father seeketh such to worship him: god is a spirit, etc.] those that by custom be not engaged in your way of numerous formalities and bodily actions, can hardly think that you are spiritually and seriously worshipping god, or can believe that infinite wisdom would be pleased with such things as— i am loath to denominate or describe. xvi. our religion teacheth us that without holiness none shall see god, and none but the pure in heart and life are blessed, and if any man have not the sanctifying spirit of christ he is none of his: and that god must be loved above all, and our treasure, heart and conversation must be in heaven, and none but saints are saved. i think you deny none of this; and yet you canonize a saint as if he were a wonder or rarity, and you call a few sequestered votaries religious, as if all that will be saved must not be religious. and your doctors are permitted to teach all that's cited in the jesuits morals, and mr. clarkson forecited: even that it is not commanded, that god be intensively loved above all. tolet. li. 4. the instruct. sacerdot. c. 9 see our morton apolog. part 1. l. 2. c. 13. stapleton l. 6. the justif. c. 10. & valent. l. de votis c. 3. [this precept of loving god with all the mind, is doctrinal, not obligatory,] see my key, chap. 33, 34. 38. and yet you have the fronts to persuade men that we are for only imputative holiness, and against good works. xvii. our religion is for increasing true practical knowledge in all men, by all our industry, as knowing the father of lights saveth us by illumination; and therefore we are for all men's reading or hearing the holy scriptures, and worshipping god in a known tongue: but yet with the help of the skilfullest teachers. the prince of darkness leadeth men in the dark to do the works of darkness, that they may be cast into outer darkness. how the case is with yours i have before showed. xviii. our religion is for so much fasting and austerities as is truly necessary to the subduing of pride, worldliness, or fleshly lusts, or to express our self-abasement in due times of humiliation, (prescribed by authority on public occasions, or discerned by ourselves in private;) and so much as is truly helpful to us in god's service, or our preparations for death. but how much you have turned these into unreasonable ceremony, and how much into a pretended satisfaction to god's justice by punishing ourselves, as if our hurt delighted god when it tends not to our healing, i shall not now stay to open. see dallaeus de poenis, indulgentis, & de jejuniis, of it at large. xix. our religion teacheth us that all that truly believe in, and are heartily devoted to god the father, son, and holy ghost, as their god, and saviour, and sanctifier, forsaking the devil, the world, and the flesh, should be taken by baptismal profession hereof into the church, and shall be saved, if they prove not hypocrites or apostates: and that we must judge men by this their profession, till they plainly or provedly nullify it, supposing every man, under god, to be the best judge of his own heart. but your religion teacheth you to hold and say, that if men are never so fully persuaded in themselves that they truly love god and holiness, and are thus devoted to him, yea and if their lives express it, yet if they be not papists, they are all deceived, and none but papists so love god: and every papist thus knoweth the hearts of others, better than we can know our own. xx. our religion leaveth us room for repentance, and hope of pardon, if we mistake. for we take not ourselves to be impeccable or infallible in all that we hold; though we are sure that our rule and objective religion is infallible. but your church being founded in the false conceit of the popes and councils infallibility, you shut the door against repentance and amendment; and when once a false decree is past, you take yourselves obliged to defend it, lest by reformation you pluck up your foundation, and all should fall. were it not for this i am persuaded your church would recant at least the doctrine of transubstantiation, if not that of deposing princes, and some others. and now i humbly present what i have written to w. h. and not without hope (if he will but impartially read it) of his reduction: for the man seemeth to me to sin through ignorance, and to have an honester zeal than many others. for my own part, 1. i profess to him i write as i think; and that after forty years reading i think as many of the papists books as of the protestants. 2. and that i would joyfully recant, whatever it cost me, if i could find that i do err. but i have showed him that i differ not from them, without that which to me appeareth to be constraining reason. 3. and that if he will prove to me that i have in one word of this book unjustly accused, either their pope, papists, religion, or church, i shall thankfully receive his conviction, and repent. and i agree with him wholly in professing my religion to be, the apostolical christianity, and whatever he proveth to be truly such i will receive. the name of [the protestant religion] i like not, because mere christianity is all our religion, and our protestation against popery denominateth not our religion itself, but our rejection of their corruptions of it. but the name of [the protestant's religion] i approve and own, that is, apostolic christianity cleansed from popery. aug. 9 1676. finis. the contents. chap. i. whether christ hath not left us sure and easy notice what the christian religion is: what it is, and how delivered to us, in three degrees. 1. the essentials generally in the sacramental covenant. 2. the exposition of the essentials in three summaries, the creed, lords prayer and decalogue. 3. the essentials, integrals and needful accidentals in the whole canonical scripture. p. 1, etc. our confession, articles, books, and sermons are but the expressions of our subjective religion, or fides mensurata, and are not our objective and fides mensurans in terminis. p. 9 the papists confess every word of our objective religion to be divine and infallible. but we confess not the truth of all theirs. they blame us only, 1. as not having enough. 2. and as not receiving it the right way. p. 9 i. whether the papists religion be better than ours, as bigger? some queries of the antiquity of the belief of the roman additions, viz. the apocrypha and the decrees of all the councils, etc. p. 10, etc. what implicit faith we are agreed in, and what not. p. 12. the papists confess that their church hath not kept god's own written word without many hundred errors, and so not all that is de fide. p. 13. therefore they must needs distinguish the essentials of christianity from other points. of implicit belief in the pope and councils. p. 13. etc. ii. whether it was or is necessary to receive christianity as from the infallibility or authority of the pope and papists (or councils) p. 19 etc. we have much more and surer tradition for our religion than that which the papists would have us trust to. 20. the difference of our tradition from theirs. whether rome or a church there may not cease. p. 22. whether the seat, the election, or what doth prove the pope to be st. peter's successor. p. 23. whether books or oral tradition by memory of all generations, be the surer preservative of the faith. p. 24. chap. ii. the puritan is ambiguously named, and falsely described. p. 25. of imputed righteousness. p. 30. puritans not against external worship, nor all ceremonies. p. 36. of their usage. ibid. the puritans judgement about fasts holidays, ceremonies, etc. p. 38. the papist writer knoweth not what the puritans religion is. p. 40. the true religion of a puritan described. p. 41, 42. 1. the writer wrongeth his relations. 2. he declareth that he was before an ungodly perfidious hypocrite, and no true puritan, and therefore no wonder that he turned papist. p. 43. none but such can turn papists without self contradiction. his slander of the puritans, that they think piety, charity, humility and other christian virtues not possible and necessary to salvation. p. 45. chap. iii. his hard character of prelatical protestants. p. 46. many nonconformists are episcopal; therefore not dislinguishable by that name. p. 47. what men many bishops and conformists have been and are in england. p. 48. the religion which is uppermost, right or wrong, will be professed usually by the most, and therefore by bad men. p. 49. it is worse with the papists, who are many very bad, even where they differ from superiors and suffer. ibid. his accusations of puritans and prelatics protestant's about imputed righteousness and inherent confuted: a true description of the protestants judgement of justifying righteousness. p. 51, 52, etc. his derision of imputed righteousness as a mummery. p. 54, 55. his gross slander that we are for [mere imputed holiness.] p. 55. the true middle way about indifferent rituals. p. 56. i. of his charge on prelatists for silencing puritans for not observing fasts, etc. which they neglect themselves. p. 57 puritans and papists fasting. 2. of wax tapers on the altar. p. 58. 3. of the sign of the cross. p. 58, 59 4. of the real presence. p. 60. 5. of confession and absolution. p. 61. 6. of bowing at the name jesus, and images. p. 62. 7. of the surplice, girdle, stole, and casuble. p. 63. 8. of praying for the dead. p. 64. 9 of the government of the pope and councils. p. 65. 1. whether god's wisdom require it. 2. civil and ecclesiastic monarchy of the whole world, compared. p. 66, 67. 3. is the pope universal apostle or teacher? p. 55. 4. whether the pope be head but in the vacancy of councils? p. 66. 5. most of the christian world by far are no papists. 68 6. the pope dissenteth from general councils, and so far from the universal church: we own them when he doth not. 69. 7. the difference between the king's headship and the popes. 37. 8. puritans are for the king's supremacy. 70. 9 how far they submit their judgement to the churches. p. 70. 10. the church teacheth us the faith, but may not judge in partem utramlibet, viz. that there is no god, no christ, no heaven, etc. p. 71. ii. it's schismatical and worse to feign that various habit, gestures, meats, etc. make various religions. q. 1. do variety of liturgies make various religions? 2. is not religion more concerned in the papists doctrinal differences among themselves about predestination, grace, freewill, the immaculate conception and hundreds more in the school doctors, and about the deposing, excommunicating and killing kings, and about all the controversies mentioned by the jansenists in the jesuits morals, and by mr. clarkson in the practical divinity of the papists, than in variety of clothes, forms or ceremonies? and is it not as laudable for protestants to hold union and communion with them that use not the same words or rites, as in the church of rome to tolerate without so much as any disowning censure, the foresaid doctrinal differences about king killing (when excommunicate) murder, adultery, fornication, perjury, lying, stealing, etc. mentioned in the foresaid books. p. 72. chap. iu. h. w's ill forming accusations, which he can best answer. p. 77. what grotius meant by papists. p. 79. i. of papists image-worship. p. 79. ii. of pope's pardons. p. 80. iii. their praying to the virgin mary. 83. iv. latin prayers. 84. v. implicit belief in teachers. 85. vi preferring the church's laws to gods. 87. vii. obedience. 88 chap. v. the true history of the papacy, its original and growth. 94. 1. the ancient church took not the papacy to be of god's institution, but man's, fully proved. p. 99 etc. 2. the roman primacy was ever but one empire, and not all the christian people in the world, proved. p. 103, etc. 3. councils were general only as to the empire, and not the world. p. 104. five exceptions. p. 106. remarks upon the africans pretended schism (austin being one.) p. 112. the not able words of mel. canus against the roman universality. 113. the means of the pope's last growth to maturity. 119. the doctrines by which they do their work. p. 122. 1. depressing the scriptures sufficiency and crying up their traditions, which are again conjuted. 123. 2. pretending antiquity and universality. 125. both confuted. the objection of heresy and schism to other churches answered. p. 127. 3. aggravating our divisions and boasting of their unity. p. 128. even the scandalous contending sects among protestants have more unity with each other than the papists, proved. 4. their vile counsel to men to suspect all religion and suspend it, to make them papists: boverius to our late king. p. 131. chap. vi what the pope is in forty characters, or inadequate conceptions of him. p. 134. etc. chap. vii. what a papist is. the word [papist] is equivocal. many sorts are called papists that differ both in the foundation and the very form and the subject and the terminus of church power, and are not formally one church as is commonly thought. pag. 165. a papist of the most learned sort described, who placeth the authority universal and the infallibility in the pope and council agreeing: thirty properties or characters of them. the first about the resolution of their faith into the authority or infallibility of the church proposing. how protestants resolve their faith, and how they take it from their teachers. p. 169. etc. see the rest. chap. viii. what the papists church called the roman catholic church is, in twenty characters. p. 184. chap. ix. twenty properties of the protestant's religion as it differeth from popery. 187. errata. page 26. line 28. for turrian read pisanus. p. 76. l. 7. for in r. it. p. 97. l. 21. r. presbyters. p. 93. l. 20. r. roman. p. 94. l. 2. for or r. of. p. 107. l. 1. for goths r. vandals. p. 110. l. 4. deal and. p 115. l. 13. for com. r. corn. p. 123. l. 11. r. libraries. p. 156. l. 28. r. greatreaks. errata, in roman tradition, etc. page 18. l. 1. for most real r. moral. p. 20. l. 5. r. georgians. p. 29. l. 16. r. sirmium. p. 37. l. 5. for sinned r. said. annotations upon the two foregoing treatises, lux orientalis, or, an enquiry into the opinion of the eastern sages concerning the preexistence of souls; and the discourse of truth. written for the more fully clearing and further confirming the main doctrines in each treatise. by one not unexercized in these kinds of speculation. london: printed for j. collins, and s. lounds, over against exeter-change in the strand. 1682. annotations upon lux orientalis. these two books, lux orientalis and the discourse of truth, are luckily put together by the publisher, there being that suitableness between them, and mutual support of one another. and the arguments they treat of being of the greatest importance that the mind of man can entertain herself with, the consideration thereof has excited so sluggish a genius as mine to bestow some few annotations thereon, not very anxious or operose, but such as the places easily suggest; and may serve either to ●…ctifie what may seem any how oblique, or illustrate what may seem less clear, or make a supply or add strength where there may seem any further need. in which i would not be so understood as that i had such an anxiety and fondness for the opinions they maintain, as if all were gone if they should fail; but that the dogmata being more fully, clearly, and precisely propounded, men may more safely and considerately give their judgements thereon; but with that modesty as to admit nothing that is contrary to the judgement of the truly catholic and apostolic church. chap. 2. p. 4. that he made us pure and innocent, etc. this is plainly signified in the general mosaic history of the creation, that all that god made he saw it was good; and it is particularly declared of adam and eve, that they were created or made in a state of innocency. pag. 4. matter can do nothing but by motion, and what relation hath that to a moral contagion? we must either grant that the figures of the particles of matter and their motion, have a power to affect the soul united with the body, (and i remember josephus somewhere speaking of wine, says, it does 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, regenerate, as it were, the soul into another life and sense of things) or else we must acknowledge that the parts of matter are alterable into qualifications, that cannot be resolved into mere mechanical motion and figure; whether they be thus altered by the vital power of the spirit of nature, or however it comes to pass. but that matter has a considerable influence upon a soul united thereto, the author himself does copiously acknowledge in his fourth chapter of this book; where he tells us, that according to the disposition of the body, our wits are either more quick, free, and sparkling, or more obtuse, weak, and sluggish; and our mind more cheerful and contented, or else more morose, melancholic, or dogged, etc. wherefore that he may appear the more consistent with himself, it is likely he understands by this moral contagion the very venom and malignity of vicious inclinations, how that can be derived from matter, especially its power consisting in mere motion and figuration of parts. the psalmist's description is very apposite to this purpose, psal. 58. the ungodly are froward even from their mother's womb; as soon as they are born they go astray and speak lies. they are as venomous as the poison of a serpent, even like the deaf adder that stoppeth her ear. that there should be such a difference in the nativity of some from that of others, and haply begot also of the same parents, is no slight intimation that their difference is not from their bo●… but their souls; in which there is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 eruptions of vicious inclinations w●… 〈◊〉 had contracted in their former stat●… 〈◊〉 pressed nor extinct in this, by reason o●… 〈◊〉 lapse, and his losing the paradisiacal 〈◊〉 which he was created, and which should, 〈◊〉 had not been for his fall, been transmitted to his posterity; but that being lost, the several measures of the pristine vitiosity of humane souls discover themselves in this life, according to the just laws of the divine nemesis essentially interwoven into the nature of things. pag. 5. how is it that those that are under continual temptations to vice, are yet kept within the bounds of virtue, etc. that those that are continually under temptations to vice from their childhood, should keep within the bounds of virtue, and those that have perpetual outward advantages from their childhood to be virtuous, should prove vicious notwithstanding, is not rationally resolved into their free will; for in this they are both of them equal: and if they had been equal also in their external advantages or disadvantages, the different event might well be imputed to the freedom of their will. but now that one, notwithstanding all the disadvantages to virtue should prove virtuous, and the other, notwithstanding all the advantages to virtue should prove vicious; the reason of this certainly to the considerate will seem to lie deeper than the mere liberty of will in man. but it can be attributed to nothing, with a more due and tender regard to the divine attributes, than to the pre-existent state of humane souls, according to the scope of the author. pag. 9 for still it seems to be a diminutive and disparaging apprehension of the infinite and immense goodness of god, that he should detrude such excellent creatures, etc. to enervate this reason, there is framed by an ingenious hand this hypothesis, to vie with that of pre-existence: that mankind is an order of being's placed in a middle state between angels and brutes, made up of contrary principles, viz. matter and spirit, endued with contrary faculties, viz. animal and rational, and encompassed with contrary objects proportioned to their respective faculties, that so they may be in a capacity to exercise the virtue's proper and peculiar to their compounded and heterogeneal nature. and therefore though humane souls be capable of subsisting by themselves, yet god has placed them in bodies full of brutish and unreasonable propensions, that they may be capable of exercising many choice and excellent virtues, which otherwise could never have been at all; such as temperance, sobriety, chastity, patience, meekness, equanimity, and all other virtues that consist in the empire of reason over passion and appetite. and therefore he conceives that the creating of humane souls, though pure and immaculate, and uniting them with such brutish bodies, is but the constituting and continuing such a species of being, which is an order betwixt brutes and angels; into which latter order, if men use their faculties of the spiritual principle in them well, they may ascend: forasmuch as god has given them in their spiritual principle (containing free will, and reason to discern what is best) a power and faculty of overcoming all their inordinate appetites. this is his hypothesis, mostwhat in his own words, and all to his own sense, as near as i could with brevity express it: and it seems so reasonable to himself, that he professes himself apt to be positive and dogmatical therein. and it might very well seem so to him, if there were a sufficient faculty in the souls of men in this world, to command and keep in order the passions and appetites of their body, and to be and do what their reason and conscience tells them they should be and do, and blames them for not being and doing. so that they know more by far than they find an ability in themselves to perform. extremely few there are, if any, but this is their condition: whence all philosophers (that had any sense of virtue and holiness) as well as jews and christians, have looked upon man as in a lapsed state, not blaming god, but deploring the sad condition they found themselves in by some foregoing lapse or fault in mankind. and it is strange that our own consciences should she in our faces for what we could never have helped. it is witty indeed which is alleged in the behalf of this hypothesis, viz. that the rational part of man is able to command the lower appetites; because if the superior part be not strong enough to govern the inferior, it destroys the very being of moral good and evil: forasmuch as those acts that proceed out of necessity cannot be moral, nor can the superior faculties be obliged to govern the inferior, if they are not able, because nothing is obliged to imposs●…bilities. but i answer, if inabilities come upon us by our own fault, the defects of action then are upon the former account moral, or rather immoral. and our consciences rightly charge us with the vitiosities of our inclinations and actions, even before we can mend them here, because they are the consequences of our former gild. wherefore it is no wonder that there is found a flaw in a subtlety that would conclude against the universal experience of men, who all of them, more or less, that have any sense of morality left in them, complain that the inferior powers of the soul, at least for a time, were too hard for the superior. and the whole mass of mankind is so generally corrupt and abominable, that it would argue the wise and just god a very unequal matcher of innocent souls with brutish bodies, they being universally so hugely foiled or overcome in the conflict, if he indeed were the immediate matcher of them. for how can that be the effect of an equilibrious or sufficient free will and power, that is in a manner perpetual and constant? but there would be near as many examples one way as the other, if the souls of men in this state were not by some precedent lapse become unable to govern, as they ought, all in them or about them that is to be subjected to their reason. no fine fetches of wit can demolish the steady and weighty structure of sound and general experience. pag. 9 wherein he seeth it, ten thousand to one but that they will corrupt, etc. the expression [ten thousand to one] is figurative, and signifies how hugely more like it is that the souls would be corrupted by their incorporation in these animal or brutish bodies, than escape corruption. and the effect makes good the assertion: for david of old (to say nothing of the days of noah) and paul after him, declare of mankind in general, that they are altogether become abominable; there is none that doth good, no not one. wherefore we see what efficacy these bodies have, if innocent souls be put into them by the immediate hand of god, as also the force of custom and corrupt education to debauch them; and therefore how unlikely it is that god should create innocent souls to thrust them into such ill circumstances. pag. 10. to suppose him assistant to unlawful and unclean coitions, by creating a soul to animate the impure foetus, etc. this seemed ever to those that had any sense of the divine purity and sanctity, or were themselves endued with any due sensibleness and discernment of things, to be an argument of no small weight. but how one of the more rude and unhewen opposers of pre-existence swaggers it out of countenance, i think it not amiss to set down for a pleasant entertainment of the reader. admit, says he, that god's watchful providence waits upon dissolute voluptuaries in their unmeet conjunctions, and sends down fresh created spirits to actuate their obscene emissions, what is here done which is not very high and becoming god, and most congruous and proportionable to his immense grandeur and majesty, viz. to bear a part amongst pimps and bawds, and pocky whores and woremasters, to rise out of his seat for them, and by a free act of creation of a soul, to set his seal of connivance to their villainies; who yet is said to be of more pure eyes than to endure to behold wickedness. so that if he does (as his phrase is) pop in a soul in these unclean coitions, certainly he does it winking. but he goes on: for in the first place, says he, his condescension is hereby made signal and eximious; he is gloriously humble beyond a parallel, and by his own example lessons us to perform the meanest works, if fit and profitable, and to be content even to drudge for the common benefit of the world. good god what a rapture has this impure scene of venery put this young theologer into, that it should thus drive him out of his little wits and senses, and make him speak inconsistences with such an affected grace and lofty eloquence! if the act of gods freely creating souls, and so of assisting wretched sinners in their foul acts of adultery and whoredom, be a glorious action, how is it an abasement of him, how is it his humiliation? and if it be an humbling and debasing of him, how is it glorious? the joining of two such 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, are indeed without parallel. the creating of an humane soul immortal and immaculate, and such as bears the image of god in it, as all immaculate souls do, is one of the most glorious actions that god can perform; such a creature is it, as the schools have judged more of value than the frame of the whole visible world. but to join such a creature as this to such impure corporeal matter, is furthermore a most transcendent specimen of both his skill and sovereignty; so that this is an act of further super-exaltation of himself, not of humiliation. what remains then to be his humiliation, but the condescending to assist and countenance the unclean endeavours of adulterers and adulteresses? which therefore can be no lesson to us for humility, but a cordial for the faint-hearted in debauchery, and degeneracy of life; wherein they may plead, so instructed by this rural theolog, that they are content to drudge for the common profit of the world. but he proceeds. and secondly, says he, hereby he elicits good out of evil, causing famous and heroic persons to take their origine from base occasions; and so converts the lusts of sensual varlets to nobler ends than they designed them. as if an heroic offspring were the genuine effect of adultery or fornication, and the most likely way to people the world with worthy personages. how this raw philosopher will make this comply with his profession of divinity, i know not; whenas, it teaches us, that marriage is honourable, but whoremongers and adulterers god will judge; and that he punishes the iniquities of the parents on their children. but this bold sophist makes god adjudge the noblest offspring to the defiled bed, and not to punish, but reward the adultery or whoredom of debauched persons, by giving them the best and bravest children: which the more true it could be found in experience, it would be the stronger argument for pre-existence; it being incredible that god, if he created souls on purpose, should crown adultery and whoredom with the choicest offspring. and then thirdly and lastly, says he, hereby he often detects the lewdness of sinners, which otherwise would be smothered, etc. as if the alwise god could find no better nor juster means than this to discover this villainy. if he be thus immediately and in an extraordinary way assistant in these coitions, were it not as easy for him, and infinitely more decorous, to charge the womb with some mola or ephemerous monster, than to plunge an immaculate humane soul into it? this would as effectually discover the villainy committed, and besides prevent the charge parishes are put to in maintaining bastards. and now that we have thus seen what a mere nothing it is that this strutter has pronounced with such sonorous rhetoric, yet he is not ashamed to conclude with this appeal to i know not what blind judges: now, says he, are not all these actions and concerns very graceful and agreeable to god? which words in these circumstances no man could utter, were he not of a crass, insensible, and injudicious constitution, or else made no conscience of speaking against his judgement. but if he speak according to his conscience, it is manifest he puts sophisms upon himself, in arguing so weakly. as he does a little before in the same place, where that he may make the coming of a soul into a base begotten body in such a series of time and order of things as the pre-existentiaries suppose, and gods putting it immediately upon his creating it into such a body, to be equally passable, he uses this slight illustration: imagine, saith he, god should create one soul, and so soon as he had done, instantly pop it into a base begotten body; and then create another the matter of an hours space before its precipitation into such a receptacle: which of these actions would be the most diminutive of the creator's honour? would not the difference be insensible, and the scandal, if any, the same in both? yet thus lies the case just betwixt the pre-existentiaries and us. let the reader consider how senseless this author is in saying the case betwixt the pre-existentiaries and him is just thus, when they are just nothing akin: for his two souls are both unlapsed, but one of the pre-existentiaries lapsed, and so subjected to the laws of nature. in his case god acts freely, raising himself, as it were, out of his seat to create an immaculate soul, and put into a foul body; but in the other case god only is a looker on, there is only his permission, not his action. and the vast difference of time, he salves it with such a quibble as this, as if it were nothing, because thousands of ages ago, in respect of god and his eternity, is not an hour before. he might as well say the difference betwixt the most glorious angel and a flea is nothing, because in comparison of god both are so indeed. wherefore this anti-pre-existentiary is such a trifler, that i am half ashamed that i have brought him upon the stage. but yet i will commend his craft, though not his faithfulness, that he had the wit to omit the proposing of buggery as well as of adultery, and the endeavouring to show how graceful and agreeable to god, how congruous and proportionate it were to his immense grandeur and majesty, to create a soul on purpose (immaculate and undefiled) to actuate the obscene emissions of a brute having to do with a woman, or of a man having to do with a brute: for both women and brutes have been thus impregnated, and brought forth humane births, as you may see abundantly testified in fortunius licetus; it would be too long to produce instances. this opinion of gods creating souls, and putting them into bodies upon incestuous and adulterous coitions, how exceeding absurd and unbecoming the sanctity of the divine majesty it seemed to the churches of aethiopia, you may see in the history of jobus ludolphus. how intolerable therefore and execrable would this doctrine have appeared unto them, if they had thought of the prodigious fruits of successful buggery? the words of ludolfus are these: perabsurdum esse si quis deum astrictum dicat pro adulterinis & incestuosis partubus animas quotidie novas creare. ●…st. aethiop. lib. 3. cap. 5. what would they then say of creating a new soul, for the womb of a beast buggered by a man, or of a woman buggered by a beast! pag. 12. methinks that may be done at a cheaper rate, etc. how it may be done with more agreeableness to the goodness, wisdom, and justice of god, has been even now hinted by me, nor need i repeat it. pag. 13. it seems very incongruous and unhandsome, to suppose that god should create two souls for the supply of one monstrous body. and there is the same reason for several other monstrosities, which you may take notice of in fortunius licetus, lib. 2. cap. 58. one with seven humane heads and arms, and ox-feets; others with men's bodies, but with a head the one of a goose, the other of an elephant, etc. in which it is a strong presumption humane souls lodged, but in several others certain. how does this consist with god's fresh creating humane souls pure and innocent, and putting them into bodies? this is by the aforesaid anti-pre-existentiary at first answered only by a wide gape or yawn of admiration. and indeed it would make any one stare and wonder how this can consist with gods immediately and freely intermeddling with the generation of men, as he did at first in the creation. for out of his holy hands all things come clean and neat. many little efforts he makes afterwards to salve this difficulty of monsters, but yet in his own judgement the surest is the last; that god did purposely tie fresh created souls to these monstrous shapes, that they whose souls sped better, might humbly thank him. which is as wisely argued, as if one should first with himself take it for granted that god determines some men to monstrous debaucheries and impieties, and then fancy this the use of it, that the spectators of them may with better pretence than the pharisee, cry out, lord, we thank thee that we are not as these men are. there is nothing permitted by god, but it has its use some way or other; and therefore it cannot be concluded, because that an event has this or that use, therefore god by his immediate and free omnipotence effected it. a pre-existentiary easily discerns that these monstrosities plainly imply that god does not create souls still for every humane coition, but that having pre-existed, they are left to the great laws of the universe and spirit of nature; but yet dares not conclude that god by his free omnipotence determines those monstrous births, as serviceable as they seem for the evincing so noble a theory. pag. 15. that god on the seventh day rested from all his works. this one would think were an argument clear enough that he creates nothing since the celebration of the first seventh days rest. for if all his works are rested from, than the creation of souls (which is a work, nay a masterpiece amongst his works scarce inferior to any) is rested from also. but the abovementioned opposer of pre-existence is not at a loss for an answer; (for his answers being slight, are cheap and easy to come by:) he says therefore, that this supposeth only that after that time he ceased from creating new species. a witty invention! as if god had got such an easy habit by once creating the things he created in the six days, that if he but contained himself within those kinds of things, though he did hold on still creating them, that it was not work, but mere play or rest to him, in comparison of his former labour. what will not these men fancy, rather than abate of their prejudice against an opinion they have once taken a toy against! when the author to the hebrews says, he that has entered into his rest, has ceased from his own works, as god ceased from his; verily this is small comfort or instruction, if it were as this anti-pre-existentiary would have it: for if god ceased only from creating new species, we may, notwithstanding our promised rest, be tied to run through new instances of labours or sins, provided they be but of those kinds we experienced before. to any unprejudiced understanding, this sense must needs seem forced and unnatural, thus to restrain god's rest to the species of things, and to engage him to the daily task of creating individuals. the whole aethiopian church is of another mind: qui animam humanam quotidiè non creari hoc argumento asserunt, quòd deus sexto die perfecerit totum opus creationis. see ludolfus in the place abovecited. chap. 3. pag. 17. since the images of objects are very small and inconsiderable in our brains, etc. i suppose he mainly relates to the objects of sight, whose chief, if not only images, are in the fund of the eye; and thence in virtue of the spirituality of our soul extended thither also, and of the due qualification of the animal spirits are transmitted to the perceptive of the soul within the brain. but how the bignesses and distances of objects are conveyed to our cognoscence, it would be too tedious to signify here. see dr. h. moor's enchiridion metaphysicum, cap. 19 pag. 17. were it not that our souls use a kind of geometry, etc. this alludes to that pretty conceit of des cartes in his dioptrics, the solidity of which i must confess i never understood. for i understand not but that if my soul should use any such geometry, i should be conscious thereof, which i do not find myself. and therefore i think those things are better understood out of that chapter of the book even now mentioned. pag. 17. and were the soul quite void of all such implicit notions, it would remain as senseless, etc. there is no sensitive perception indeed, without reflection; but the reflection is an immediate attention of the soul to that which affects her, without any circumstance of notions intervening for enabling her for sensitive operations. but these are witty and ingenious conjectures, which the author by reading des cartes, or otherhow, might be encouraged to entertain. to all sensitive objects the soul is an abrasa tabula, but for moral and intellectual principles, their ideas or notions are essential to the soul. pag. 18: for sense teacheth no general propositions, etc. nor need it do any thing else but exhibit some particular object, which our understanding being an ectypon of the divine intellect necessarily, when it has throughly sisted it, concludes it to answer such a determinate idea eternally and unalterably one and the same, as it stands in the divine intellect, which cannot change; and therefore that idea must have the same properties and respects for ever. but of this, enough here. it will be better understood by reading the discourse of truth, and the annotations thereon. pag. 18. but from something more sublime and excellent. from the divine or archetypal intellect, of which our understanding is the ectypon, as was said before. pag. 21. and so can only transmit their natural qualities. they are so far from transmitting their moral pravities, that they transmit from themselves no qualities at all. for to create a soul, is to concreate the qualities or properties of it, not out of the creator, but out of nothing. so that the substance and all the properties of it are out of nothing. pag. 22. against the nature of an immaterial being, a chief property of which is to be indiscerpible. the evasion to the force of this argument by some anti-pre-existentiaries is, that it is to philosophise at too high a rate of confidence, to presume to know what the nature of a soul or spirit is. but for brevity's sake, i will refer such answerers as these to dr. h. moor's brief discourse of the true notion of a spirit, printed lately with saducismus triumphatus; and i think he may be thence as sure that indiscerpibility is an essential property of a spirit, as that there are any spirits in the universe: and this methinks should suffice any ingenuous and modest opposer. but to think there is no knowledge but what comes in at our senses, is a poor, beggarly, and precarious principle, and more becoming the dotage of hobbianism, than men of clearer parts and more serene judgements. pag. 22. by separable emissions that pass from the flame, etc. and so set the wick and tallow on motion. but these separable emissions that pass from the flame of the lighted candle, pass quite away, and so are no part of the flame enkindled. so weak an illustration is this of what these traducters would have. chap. 4. pag. 32. which the divine piety and compassion hath set up again, that so, so many of his excellent creatures might not be lost and undone irrecoverably, but might act anew, etc. to this a more elegant pen and refined wit objects thus: now is it not highly derogatory to the infinite and unbounded wisdom of god, that he should detrude those souls which he so seriously designs to make happy, into a state so hazardous, wherein he seeth it to be ten thousand to one but that they will corrupt and defile themselves, and so make them more miserable here and to eternity hereafter? a strange method of recovering this, to put them into such a fatal necessity of perishing: 'tis but an odd contrivance for their restauration to happiness, to use such means to compass it which 'tis ten thousand to one but will make them infinitely more miserable. this he objects in reference to what the author of lux orientalis writes, chap. 2. where he says, it is a thousand to one but souls detruded into these bodies will corrupt and defile themselves, and so make themselves miserable here and to eternity hereafter. and much he quotes to the same purpose out of the account of origen. where the souls great disadvantages to virtue and holiness, what from the strong inclinations of the body, and what from national customs & education in this terrestrial state, are lively set out with a most moving and tragical eloquence, to show how unlikely it is that god should put innocent and immaculate souls of his own creation immediately, into such bodies, and so hard and even almost fatal condition of miscarrying. upon which this subtle anti-pre-existentiary: thus you see, saith he, what strong objections and arguments the pre-existentiaries urge with most noise and clamour, are against themselves. if therefore these phaenomena be inexplicable, without the origenian hypothesis, they are so too with it; and if so, than the result of all is, that they are not so much arguments of pre-existence as aspersions of providence. this is smartly and surprisingly spoken. but let us consider more punctually the state of the matter. here than we are first to observe, how cunningly this shrewd antagonist conceals a main stroke of the supposition, viz. that the divine pity and compassion to lapsed souls, that had otherwise fallen into an eternal state of silence and death, had set up adam for their relief, and endued him with such a paradisiacal body of so excellent a constitution to be transmitted to all his posterity, and invesled him, in virtue of this, with so full power non peccandi, that if he and his posterity were not in an happy flourishing condition as to their eternal interest of holiness and virtue, it would be long of himself. and what could god do more correspondently to his wisdom and goodness, dealing with free agents, such as humane souls are, than this? and the thing being thus stated, no objections can be brought against the hypothesis, but such as will invade the inviolable truths of faith and orthodox divinity. secondly, we are to observe, how this cunning objector has got these two pre-existentiaries upon the hip for their youthful flowers of rhetoric, when one says, it is hundreds to one; the other, ten thousand to one, that souls will miscarry put into these disadvantages of the terrestrial state, by which no candid reader will understand any more, than that it is exceeding difficult for them to escape the pollutions of this lower world once incorporated into terrestrial bodies. but it being granted possible for them to emerge, this is a great grace and favour of the divine goodness to such peccant wretches, that they are brought out of the state of eternal silence and death, to try their fortunes once more, though encumbered with so great difficulties which the divine nemesis suffers to return upon them. that therefore they are at all in a condition of recovery, is from the goodness and mercy of god; that their condition is so hard, from his justice, they having been so foully peccant. and his wisdom being only to contrive what is most agreeable to his mercy and justice, it is not at all derogatory to the infinite and unbounded wisdom of god thus to deal with lapsed souls. for though he does seriously intend to make them happy, yet it must be in a way correspondent to his justice as well as mercy. thirdly and lastly, besides that the spirit of the lord pervades the whole earth ready to assist the sincere; there is moreover a mighty weight of mercy added in the revelation of our lord jesus christ to the world, so that the retriving of the souls of men out of their death and silence into this terrestrial state, in which there is these helps to the sincere, it is manifestly worthy the divine wisdom and goodness. for those it takes no effect with, (they beginning the world again on this stage) they shall be judged only according to what they have done here, there being an eternal obliteration as well as oblivion of the acts of their pre-existent state; but those that this merciful dispensation of god has taken any effect upon here, their sincere desires may grow in●…o higher accomplishments in the future state. which may something mitigate the honour of that seeming universal squalid estate of the sons of men upon earth. which in that it is so ill, is rightly imputed by both jews and christians and the divinest philosophers to a lapse, and to the mercy and grace of god that it is no worse. from whence it may appear, that that argument for pre-existence, that god does not put newly created innocent souls into such disadvantageous circumstances of a terrestrial incorporation, though partly out of mercy, partly out of justice, he has thought fit lapsed souls should be so disposed of, that this i say is no aspersion of divine providence. pag. 36. and now i cannot think of any place in the sacred volume more, that could make a tolerable plea against this hypothesis, etc. it is much that the ingenious author thought not of rom. 9 11. [for the children being not yet born, neither having done either good or evil, that the purpose of god according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth.] this is urged by anti-pre-existentiaries, as a notable place against pre-existence. for, say they, how could esau and jacob be said neither to have done good nor evil, if they pre-existed before they came into this world? for if they pre-existed, they acted; and if they acted, they being rational souls, they must have done either good or evil. this makes an handsome show at first sight; but if we consult gen. 25. we shall plainly see that this is spoke of jacob and esau yet struggling in the womb; as it is said in this text, for the children being not yet born; but struggling in the womb, as you may see in the other. which plainly therefore respects their actions in this life, upon which certainly the mind of st. paul was fixed. as if he should have expressly said: for the children being not yet born, but struggling in the womb, neither having done either good or evil in this life as being still in the womb, it was said of them to rebeckah, the elder shall serve the younger. which sufficiently illustrates the matter in hand with st. paul; that as jacob was preferred before esau in the womb, before either of them was born to act here on the earth, and that therefore done without any respect to their actions; so the purpose of god touching his people should be of free election, not of works. that of zachary also, chap. 12. 1. i have heard alleged by some as a place on which no small stress may be laid. the lord is there said to be the former of the spirit of man within him. wherefore they argue, if the spirit of man be form within him, it did never pre-exist without him. but we answer, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is but the same that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. and then the sense is easy and natural, that the spirit that is in man, god is the former or creator of it. but this text defines nothing of the time of forming it. there are several other texts alleged, but it is so easy to answer them, and would take up so much time and room, that i think fit to omit them, remembering my scope to be short annotations, not a tedious commentary. pag. 41. mr. ben israel in his problems de creatione assures us, that pre-existence was the common belief, etc. that this was the common opinion of the wiser men amongst the jews, r. menasse ben israel himself told me at london with great freedom and assurance, and that there was a constant tradition thereof; which he said in some sense was also true concerning the trinity, but that more obscure. but this of pre-existence is manifest up and down in the writings of that very ancient and learned jew philo judaeus; as also something toward a trinity, if i remember aright. chap. 5. pag. 46. we should doubtless have retained some remembrance of that condition. and the rather, as one ingeniously argues, because our state in this life is a state of punishment. upon which he concludes, that if the calamities of this life were inflicted upon us only as a punishment of sins committed in another, providence would have provided some effectual means to preserve them in our memories. and therefore, because we find no remainders of any such records in our minds, 'tis, says he, sufficient evidence to all sober and impartial inquirers, that our living and sinning in a former state is as false as inevident. but to this it may be answered, that the state we are put in, is not a state only of punishment, but of a merciful trial; and it is sufficient that we find ourselves in a lapsed and sinful condition, our own consciences telling us when we do amiss, and calling upon us to amend. so that it is needless particularly to remember our faults in the other world, but the time is better spent in faithfully endeavouring to amend ourselves in this, and to keep ourselves from all faults of what nature soever. which is a needless thing our memory should discover to us to have been of old committed by us, when our consciences urge to us that they are never to be committed; and the laws of holy lawgivers and divine instructers, or wise sages over all the world, assist also our conscience in her office. so that the end of god's justice by these inward and outward monitors, and by the cross and afflicting rencounters in this present state, is to be attained to, viz. the amendment of delinquents if they be not refractory. and we were placed on this stage as it were to begin the world again, so as if we had not existed before. whence it seems meet, that there should be an utter obliteration of all that is past, so as not to be able by memory to connect the former life and this together. the memory whereof, if we were capable of it, would be inconsistent with the orderly proceedings of this, and overdoze us and make us half moped to the present scene of things. whenas the divine purpose seems to be, that we should also experience the natural pleasures and satisfactions of this life, but in an orderly and obedient way, keeping to the prescribed rules of virtue and holiness. and thus our faithfulness being exercised 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in those things which are more estranged from our nobler and diviner nature, god may at last restore us to what is more properly our own. but in the mean time, that saying which the poet puts in the mouth of jupiter, touching the inferior deities, may not misbeseem the mercy and wisdom of the true god concerning lapsed souls incorporate into terrestrial bodies. has quoniam coeli nondum dignamur honore, quas dedimus certè terras habitare sinamus. let them not be distracted betwixt a sensible remembrance of the joys and glories of our exterior heaven above, and the present fruition of things below, but let them live an holy and heavenly life upon earth, exercising their graces and virtues in the use and enjoyment of these lower earthly objects, till i call them up again to heaven, where, after this long swoon they are fallen into, they will more seasonably remember their former paradisiacal state upon its recovery, and reagnize their ancient home. wherefore if the remembering or forgetting of the former state depend absolutely upon the free contrivance of the divine wisdom, goodness, and justice, as this ingenious opposer seems to suppose, i should even upon that very point of fitness conceive that an utter oblivion of the former state is interwoven into the fate and nature of lapsed souls by a divine nemesis, though we do not conceive explicitly the manner how. and yet the natural reasons the author of lux orientalis produces in the sequel of his discourse, seem highly probable. for first, as we had forgot some lively dream we dreamt but last night, unless we had met with something in the day of a peculiar virtue to remind us of it, so we meeting with nothing in this lower stage of things that lively resembles those things in our former state, and has a peculiar fitness to rub up our memory, we continue in an utter oblivion of them. as suppose a man was lively entertained in his sleep with the pleasure of dreaming of a fair crystal river, whose banks were adorned with trees and flags in the flower, and those large flies with blue and golden-coloured bodies, and broad thin wings curiously wrought and transparent, hover over them, with birds also singing on the trees, sun and clouds above, and sweet breezes of air, and swans in the river with their wings sometimes lifted up like sails against the wind. thus he passed the night, thinks of no such thing in the morning, but rising goes about his occasions. but towards evening a servant of a friend of his presents him with a couple of swans from his master. the sight of which swans striking his perceptive as sensibly as those in his dream, and being one of the most extraordinary and eximious objects of his night-vision, presently reminds him of the whole scene of things represented in his sleep. but neither sun, nor clouds, nor trees, nor any such ordinary thing could in any likelihood have reminded him of his dream. and besides, it was the lively resemblance betwixt the swans he saw in his sleep, and those he saw waking, that did so effectually rub up his memory. the want therefore of such occurrences in this life to remind us of the passages of the former, is a very reasonable account why we remember nothing of the former state. but here the opposers of pre-existence pretend that the joyous and glorious objects in the other state do so pierce and transport the soul, and that she was enured to them so long, that though there were nothing that resembled them here, the impression they make must be indelible, and that it is impossible she should forget them. and moreover, that there is a similitude betwixt the things of the upper world and the lower, which therefore must be an help to memory. but here, as touching the first, they do not consider what a weapon they have given into my hand against themselves. for the long inuredness to those celestial objects abates the piercingness of their transport; and before they leave those regions, according to the platonic or origenian hypothesis, they grow cooler to such enjoyments: so that all the advantages of that piercing transport for memory, are lost. and besides, in virtue of that piercing transport, no soul can call into memory what she enjoyed formerly, but by recalling herself into such a transport, which her terrestrial vehicle makes her uncapable of. for the memory of external transactions is sealed upon us by some passionate corporeal impress in conjunction with them (which makes them whip boys sometimes at the boundaries of their parish, that they may better remember it when they are old men;) which impress if it be lost, the memory of the thing itself is lost. and we may be sure it is lost in souls incorporate in terrestrial vehicles, they having lost their aereal and celestial, and being fatally incapacitated so much as to conceit how they were affected by the external objects of the other world, and so to remember how they felt them. and therefore all the descriptions that men of a more aethereal and entheous temper adventure on in this life, are but the roaming of their minds in virtue of their constitution towards the nature of the heavenly things in general, not a recovery of the memory of past experience; this state not affording so lively a representment of the pathos that accompanied the actual sense of those things, as to make us think that we once really enjoyed them before. that is only to be collected by reason; the noble exercise of which faculty, in the discovering of this arcanum of our pre-existence, had been lost, if it could have been detected by a compendious memory. but if ever we recover the memory of our former state, it will be when we are reentered into it; we then being in a capacity of being really struck with the same pathos we were before, in virtue whereof the soul may remember this was her pristine condition. and therefore to answer to the second, though there may be some faintness of resemblance betwixt the things of the other state and this, yet other peculiarities also being required, and the former sensible pathos to be recovered, which is impossible in this state, it is likewise impossible for us to remember the other in this. the second argument of the author for the proving the unlikeliness of our remembering the other state is, the long intermission and discontinuance from thinking of those things. for 'tis plain that such discontinuance or desuetude bereaves us of the memory of such things as we were acquainted with in this world. insomuch as if an ancient man should read the verses or themes he made when he was a schoolboy, without his name subscribed to them, though he pumped and sweated for them when he made them, could not tell they were his own. how then should the soul remember what she did or observed many hundreds, nay thousands of years ago? but yet our author's antagonist has the face to make nothing of this argument neither: because, forsooth, it is not so much the desuetude of thinking of one thing, but the thinking of others, that makes us forget that one thing. what a shuffle is this! for if the soul thought on that one thing as well as on other things, it would remember it as well as them. therefore it is not the thinking of other things, but the not thinking of that, that makes it forgotten. usus prompt●…s facit, as in general, so in particular. and therefore disuse in any particular slackens at first, and after abolishes the readiness of the mind to think thereof. whence sleepiness and sluggishness is the mother of forgetfulness, because it disuses the soul from thinking of things. and as for those seven chronical sleepers that slept in a cave from decius his time to the reign of theodosius junior, i dare say it would have besotted them without a miracle, and they would have rose out of their sleep no more wise than a wisp; i am sure not altogether so wise as this awkward arguer for memory of souls in their pre-existent state after so hugely long a discontinuance from it. but for their immediately coming out of an aethereal vehicle into a terrestrial, and yet forgetting their former state, what example can be imagined of such a thing, unless that of the messias, who yet seems to remember his former glorious condition, and to pray that he may return to it again? though for my part i think it was rather divine inspiration than memory, that enabled him to know that matter, supposing his soul did pre-exist. our author's third and last argument to prove that lapsed souls in their terrestrial condition forget their former state, is from observation how deteriorating changes in this earthly body spoils or quite destroys the memory, the soul still abiding therein; such as. casualties, diseases, and old age, which changes the tenor of the spirits, and makes them less useful for memory, as also 'tis likely the brain itself. wherefore there being a more deteriorating change to the soul in coming into an earthly body, instead of an aereal or aethereal, the more certainly will her memory of things which she experienced in that state, be washed out or obliterated in this. here our author's antagonist answers, that though changes in body may often weaken, and sometimes utterly spoil the memory of things past, yet it is not necessary that the souls changing of her body should therefore do so, because it is not so injurious to her faculties. which if it were, not only our memory, but reason also should have been cashiered and loft by our migration out of those vehicles we formerly actuated, into these we now enliven; but that still remaining sound and entire, it is a sign that our memory would do so too, if we had pre-existed in other bodies before, and had any thing to remember. and besides, if the bare translocation of our souls out of one body into another, would destroy the memory of things the soul has experienced, it would follow, that when people by death are summoned hence into the other state, that they shall be quite bereft of their memory, and so carry neither applause nor remorse of conscience into the other world; which is monstrously absurd and impious. this is the main of his answer, and most what in his own words. but of what small force it is, we shall now discover, and how little pertinent to the business. for first, we are to take notice that the deteriorating change in the body, or deteriorating state by change of bodies, is understood of a debilitative, diminutive, or privative, not depravative deterioration; the latter of which may be more injurious to the faculties of the soul, though in the same body, such a deteriorating change causing frenzies and outrageous madness. but as sor diminutive or privative deterioration by change, the soul by changing her aereal vehicle for a terrestrial, is (comparing her latter state with her former) much injured in her faculties or operations of them; all of them are more slow and stupid, and their aptitude to exert the same phantasms of things that occurred to them in the other state, quite taken away, by reason of the heavy and dull, though orderly constitution of the terrestrial tenement; which weight and stupor utterly indisposes the soul to recall into her mind the scene of her former state, this load perpetually swaying down her thoughts to the objects of this. nor does it at all follow, because reason is not lost, therefore memory, if there were any such thing as pre-existence, would still abide. for the universal principles of reason and morality are essential to the soul, and cannot be obliterated, no not by any death: but the knowledge of any particular external objects is not at all essential to the soul, nor consequently the memory of them; and th●…refore the soul in the state of silence being stripped of them, cannot recover them in her incorporation into a terrestrial body. but her reason, with the general principles thereof, being essential to her, she can, as well as this state will permit, ex●…rcise them upon the objects of this scene of the earth and visible world, so far as it is discovered by her outward senses, she looking out at those windows of this her earthly prison, to contemplate them. and she has the faculty and exercise of memory still, in such a sense as she has of sensitive perception, whose objects she does remember, being yet to all former impresses in the other state a mere abrasa tabula. and lastly, it is a mere mistake of the opposer, or worse, that he makes the pre-existentiaries to impute the loss of memory in souls of their former state, merely to their coming into other bodies; when it is not bare change of bodies, but their descent into worse bodies more dull and obstupifying, to which they impute this loss of memory in lapsed souls. this is a real death to them, according to that ancient aenigm of that abstruse sage, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we live their ●…eath, namely of separate souls, but are dead to their life. but the changing of our earthly body for an aereal or aethereal, this is not death, but reviviscency, in which all the energies of the soul are (not depressed, but) exalted, and our memory with the rest quickened; as it was in esdras after he had drunk down that cup ofsered to him by the angel, full of liquor like fire, which filled his heart with understanding, and strengthened his memory, as the text says. thus we see how all objections against the three reasons of lapsed souls losing the memory of the things of the other state, vanish into smoke. wheresore they every one of them single being so sound, all three put together methinks should not fail of convincing the most refractory of this truth, that though the soul did pre-exist and act in another state, yet she may utterly forget all the scenes thereof in this. pag. 46. now if the reasons why we lose the remembrance of our former life be greater, etc. and that they are so, does appear in our answer to the objections made against the said reasons, if the reader will consider them. pag. 50. and thereby have removed all prejudices, etc. but there is yet one reason against pre-existence which the ingenious author never thought of, urged by the anti-pre-existentiaries, namely, that it implies the rest of the planets peopled with mankind, it being unreasonable to think that all souls descended in their lapse to this only earth of ours. and if there be lapsed souls there, how shall they be recovered? shall christ undergo another and another death for them? but i believe the ingenious author would have looked upon this but as a mean and trifling argument, there being no force in any part thereof. for why may not this earth be the only hospital, nosocomium or coemeterium, speaking platonically, of sinfully lapsed souls? and then suppose others lapsed in other planets, what need christ die again for them, when one drop of his blood is sufficient to save myriads of worlds? whence it may seem a pity there is not more worlds than this earth to be redeemed by it. nor is it necessary they should historically know it. and if it be, the eclipse of the sun at his passion by some inspired prophets might give them notice of it, and describe to them as orderly an account of the redemption, as moses does of the creation, though he stood not by while the world was framed, but it was revealed to him by god. and lastly, it is but a rash and precarious position, to say that the infinite wisdom of god has no more ways than one to save lapsed souls. it is sufficient that we are assured that this is the only way for the saving of the sons of adam; and these are the fixed bounds of revealed truth in the holy scripture which appertains to us inhabitants on earth. but as for the oeconomy of his infinite wisdom in the other planets, if we did but reflect upon our absolute ignorance thereof, we would have the discretion not to touch upon that topick, unless we intended to make ourselves ridiculous, while we endeavour to make others so. chap. 6. pag. 51. now as the infinite goodness of the deity obligeth him always to do good, so by the same to do that which is best, etc. to elude the force of this chief argument of the pre-existentiaries, an ingenious opposer has devised a way which seems worth our considering, which is this; viz. by making the idea of god to consist mainly in dominion and sovereignty, the scriptures representing him under no other notion than as the supreme lord and sovereign of the universe. wherefore nothing is to be attributed to him that enterferes with the uncontroulableness of his dominion. and therefore, says he, they that assert goodness to be a necessary agent that cannot but do that which is best, directly supplant and destroy all the rights of his power and dominion. nay, he adds afterwards, that this notion of god's goodness is most apparently inconsistent, not only with his power and dominion, but with all his other moral perfections. and for a further explication of his mind in this matter, he adds afterwards, that the divine will is endued with the highest kind of liberty, as it imports a freedom not only from foreign violence, but also from inward necessity: for spontaneity, or immunity from coaction, without indifferency, carries in it as great necessity as those motions that proceed from violence or mechanism. from whence he concludes, that the divine will cannot otherwise be determined than by its own intrinsic energy. and lastly, forasmuch as no courtesy can oblige, but what is received from one that had a power not to bestow them, if god necessarily acted according to his goodness, and not out of mere choice and liberty of will, there were no thanks nor praise due to him; which therefore would take away the duties of religion. this is the main of his hypothesis, whereby he would defeat the force of this argument for the pre-existence of souls, taken from the goodness of god. which this hypothesis certainly would do, if it were true; and therefore we will briefly examine it. first therefore i answer, that though the scriptures do frequently represent god as the lord and sovereign of the universe, yet it does not conceal his other attributes of goodness and mercy, and the like. but that the former should be so much inculcated, is in reference to the begetting in the people awe and obedience to him. but it is an invalid consequence, to draw from hence that the idea of god does mainly consist in dominion and sovereignty; which abstracted from his other attributes of wisdom and goodness, would be a very black and dark representation of him, and such as this ingenious writer could not himself contemplate without aversation and horror. how then can the idea of god chiefly consist in this? it is the most terrifying indeed, but not the most noble and accomplishing part in the idea of the deity. this sovereignty than is such as is either bounded or not bounded by any other attributes of god. if bounded by none, than he may do as well unwisely as wisely, unjustly as justly. if bounded by wisdom and justice, why is it bounded by them, but that it is better so to be than otherwise? and goodness being as essential to god as wisdom and justice, why may not his sovereignty be bounded by that as well as by the other, and so he be bound from himself of himself to do as well what is best as what is better. this consists with his absolute sovereignty, as well as the other. and indeed what can be absolute sovereignty in an intelligent being, if this be not? viz. fully and entirely to follow the will and inclinations of its own nature, without any check or control of any one touching those over whom he rules. whence, in the second place, it appears that the asserting that god's goodness is a necessary agent (in such a sense as god's wisdom and justice are, which can do nothing but what is wise and just) the asserting, i say, that it cannot but do that which is the best, does neither directly nor indirectly supplant or destroy any rights of his power or dominion, forasmuch as he does fully and plenarily act according to his own inclinations and will touching those that are under his dominion. but that his will is always inclined or determined to what is best, it is the prerogative of the divine nature to have no other wills nor inclinations but such. and as for that in the third place, that this notion of god's goodness is inconsistent with all his other moral perfections, i say, that it is so far from being inconsistent with them, that they cannot subsist without it, as they respect the dealings of god with his creatures. for what a kind of wisdom or justice would that be that tended to no good? but i suspect his meaning is by moral perfections, perfections that imply such a power of doing or not doing, as is in humane actions; which if it be not allowed in god, his perfections are not moral. and what great matter is it if they be not, provided they be as they are and aught to be, divine? but to fancy moral actions in god, is to admit a second kind of anthropomorphitism, and to have unworthy conceits of the divine nature. when it was just and wise for god to do so or so, and the contrary to do otherwise, had he a freedom to decline the doing so? then he had a freedom to do unjustly and unwisely. and yet in the fourth place he contends for the highest kind of liberty in the divine will, such as imports a freedom not only from foreign violence, but also from inward necessity, as if the divine will could be no otherwise determined, than by its own intrinsic energy, as if it willed so because it willed so; which is a sad principle. and yet i believe this learned writer will not stick to say, that god cannot ●…ye, cannot condemn myriads of innocent souls to eternal torments. and what difference betwixt impossibility and necessity? for impossibility itself is only a necessity of not doing; which is here internal, arising from the excellency and absolute perfection of the divine nature. which is nothing like mechanism for all that; forasmuch as it is from a clear understanding of what is best, and an unbiased will, which will most certainly follow it, nor is determined by its own intrinsic energy. that it is otherwise with us, is our imperfection. and lastly, that beneficence does not oblige the receiver of it to either praise or thanksgiving when it is received from one that is so essentially good, and constantly acts according to that principle, when due occasion is offered, as if it were as absurd as to give thanks to the sun for shining when he can do no otherwise; i say, the case is not alike, because the sun is an inanimate being, and has neither understanding nor will to approve his own action in the exerting of it. and he being but a creature, if his shining depended upon his will, it is a greater perfection than we can be assured would belong to him, that he would unfailingly administer light to the world with such a steadiness of will, as god sustains the creation. undoubtedly all thanks and praise is due to god from us, although he be so necessarily good, that he could not but create us and provide for us; forasmuch as he has done this for our sakes merely (he wanting nothing) not for his own. suppose a rich christian so enured to the works of charity, that the poor were as certain of getting an alms from him, as a traveller is to quench his thirst at a public spring near the highway; would those that received alms from him think themselves not obliged to thanks? it may be you will say, they will thank him, that they may not forfeit his favour another time. which answer discovers the spring of this misconceit, which seems founded in self-love, as if all duty were to be resolved into that, and as if there were nothing owing to another, but what implied our own profit. but though the divine goodness acts necessarily▪ yet it does not blindly, but according to the laws of decorum and justice; which those that are unthankful to the deity, may find the smart of. but i cannot believe the ingenious writer much in earnest in these points, he so expressly declaring what methinks is not well consistent with them. for his very words are these: god can never act contrary to his necessary and essential properties, as because he is essentially wise, just and holy, he can do nothing that is foolish, unjust, and wicked. here therefore i demand, are we not to thank him and praise him for his actions of wisdom, justice, and holiness, though they be necessary? and if justice, wisdom, and holiness, be the essential properties of god, according to which he does necessarily act and abstain from acting, why is not his goodness? when it is expressly said by the wisdom of god incarnate, none is good save one, that is god. which must needs be understood of his essential goodness. which therefore being an essential property as well as the rest, he must necessarily act according to it. and when he acts in the scheme of anger and severity, it is in the behalf of goodness; and when he imparts his goodness in lesser measures as well as in greater, it is for the good of the whole, or of the universe. if all were eye, where were the hearing, etc. as the apostle argues? so that his wisdom moderates the prompt outflowing of his goodness, that it may not outflow so, but that in the general it is for the best. and therefore it will follow, that if the pre-existence of souls comply with the wisdom, justice, and holiness of god, that▪ none of these restrain his prompt and parturient goodness, that it must have caused humane souls to pre-exist or exist so soon as the spirits of angels did. and he must have a strange quicksightedness that can discern any clashing of that act of goodness with any of the abovesaid attributes. chap. 7. pag. 56. god never acts by mere will or groundless humour, etc. we men have unaccountable inclinations in our irregular and depraved composition, have blind lusts or desires to do this or that, and it is our present ease and pleasure to fulfil them; and therefore we fancy it a privilege to be able to execute these blind inclinations of which we can give no rational account, but that we are pleased by fulfilling them. but it is against the purity, sanctity, and perfection of the divine nature, to conceive any such thing in him; and therefore a weakness in our judgements to fancy so of him, like that of the anthropomorphites, that imagined god to be of humane shape. pag. 59 that god made all things for himself. it is ignorance and ill nature that has made some men abuse this text to the proving that god acts out of either an humourous or selfish principle, as if he did things merely to please himself as self, not as he is that sovereign unself-inreressed goodness, and perfect rectitude, which ought to be the measure of all things. but the text implies no such matter▪ for if you make 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a compound of a preposition and pronoun, that so it may signify [for himself] which is no more than propter se, it then will import that he made all things to satisfy his own will and pleasure, whose will and pleasure results from the richness of his eternal goodness and benignity of nature, which is infinite and ineffable, provided always that it be moderated by wisdom, justice, and decorum. for from hence his goodness is so stinted or modified, that though he has made all things for his own will and pleasure who is infinite goodness and benignity, yet there is a day of evil for the wicked, as it follows in the text, because they have not walked answerably to the goodness that god has offered them; and therefore their punishment is in behalf of abused goodness. and bayns expressly interprets this text thus: universa propter seipsum fecit dominus; that is, says he, propter bonitatem suam; juxta illud augustini, de doctrina christiana, quia bonus est deus, sumus & in quantum sumus boni sumus. but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may be a compound of a participle and a pronoun, and then it may signify [for them that answer him] that is, walk anserably to his goodness which he affords them, or [for them that obey him] either way it is very good sense. and then in opposition to these, it is declared, that the wicked, that is, the disobedient or despisers of his goodness, he has (not made them wicked, but they having made themselves so) appointed them for the day of evil. for some such verb is to be supplied as is agreeable to the matter, as in that passage in the psalms; the sun shall not burn thee by day, neither the moon by night. where [burn] cannot be repeated, but some other more suitable verb is to be supplied. chap. 8. pag. 63. since all other things are inferior to the good of being. this i suppose is to be understood in such a sense as that saying in job, skin for skin, and all that a man has, will he give for his life. otherwise the condition of being may be such, as it were better not to be at all, whatever any dry-fancied metaphysicians may dispute to the contrary. pag. 67. indeed they may be morally immutable and illapsable; but this is grace, not nature, etc. not unless the divine wisdom has essentially interwoven it into the natural constitution of our souls, that as after such a time of the exercise of their plaistick on these terrestrial bodies, they, according to the course of nature, emerge into a plain use of their reason, when for a time they little differed from brutes; so after certain periods of time well improved to the perfecting their nature in the sense and adherence to divine things, there may be awakened in them such a divine plastic faculty, as i may so speak, as may eternally fix them to their celestial or angelical vehicles, that they shall never relapse again. which faculty may be also awakened by the free grace of the omnipotent more maturely: which if it be, grace and nature conspire together to make a soul everlastingly happy. which actual immutability does no more change the species of a soul, than the actual exercise of reason does after the time of her stupour in infancy and in the womb. pag. 67. i doubt not but that it is much better for rational creatures, etc. namely, such as we experience our humane souls to be. but for such kind of intellectual creatures as have nothing to do with matter, they best understand the privileges of their own state, and we can say nothing of them. but for us under the conduct of our faithful and victorious captain, the soul of the promised messias, through many conflicts and trials to emerge out of this lapsed state, and regain again the possession of true holiness and virtue, and therewith the kingdom of heaven with all its beauty and glories, will be such a gratification to us, that we had never been capable of such an excess thereof, had we not experienced the evils of this life, and the vain pleasures of it, and had the remembrance of the endearing sufferings of our blessed saviour, of his aids and supports, and of our sincere and conscientious adhering to him, of our conflicts and victories to be enroled in the eternal records of the other world. pag. 69. wherefore as the goodness of god obligeth him not to make every planet a fixed star, or every star a sun, etc. in all likelihood, as galilaeus had first observed, every fixed star is a sun. but the comparison is framed according to the conceit of the vulgar. a thing neither unusual with, nor misbecoming philosophers. pag. 69. for this were to tie him to contradictions, viz. to turn one specifical form or essence into another. matter indeed may receive several modifications, but is still real matter, nor can be turned into a spirit; and so spirits specifically different, are untransmutable one into another, according to the distinct ideas in the eternal intellect of god. for else it would imply that their essential properties were not essential properties, but loose adventitious accidents, and such as the essence and substance of such a spirit, could subsist as well without as with them, or as well with any others as with these. pag. 69. that we should have been made peccable and liable to defection. and this may the more easily be allowed, because this defection is rather the affecting of a less good, than any pursuing of what is really and absolutely evil. to cavil against providence for creating a creature of such a double capacity, seems as unreasonable as to blame her for making zooph●…ton's, or rather amphibion's. and they are both to be permitted to live according to the nature which is given them. for to make a creature fit for either capacity, and to tie him up to one, is for god to do repugnantly to the workmanship of his own hands. and how little hurt there is done by experiencing the things of either element to souls that are reclaimable, has been hinted above. but those that are wilfully obstinate, and do despite to the divine goodness, it is not at all inconsistent with this goodness, that they bear the smart of their obstinacy, as the ingenious author argues very well. chap. 9 pag. 73. have asserted it to be impossible in the nature of the thing, etc. and this is the most solid and unexceptionable answer to this objection, that it is a repugnancy in nature, that this visible world that consists in the motion and succession of things, should be either ab aeterno, or insnite in extension. this is made ou●… clearly and amply in dr. h. moor's enchiridion metaphysicum, cap. 10. which is also more briefly touched upon in his advertisements upon mr. jos glanvil's letter written to him upon the occasion of the stirs at tedworth, and is printed with the second edition of his saducismus triumphatus. we have now seen the most considerable objections against this argument from the goodness of god for proving the pre-existence of souls, produced and answered by our learned author. but because i find some others in an impugner of the opinion of pre-existence urged with great confidence and clamour, i think it not amiss to bring them into view also, after i have taken notice of his acknowledgement of the peculiar strength of this topick, which he does not only profess to be in truth the strongest that is made use of, but seems not at all to envy it its strength, while he writes thus. that god is infinitely good, is a position as true as himself; nor can he that is furnished with the reason of a man, offer to dispute it. goodness constitutes his very deity, making him to be himself: for could he be arrayed with all his other attributes separate and abstract from this, they would be so f●…r from denominating him a god, that he would be but a prodigious fiend, and plenipotentiary devil this is something a rude and uncourtly ass●…veration, and unluck●…y div●…on of the godhead into two parts, and calling one part a devil. but it is not to be imputed to any impiety in the author of no-pre-existence, but to the roughness and boarishness of his style, the texture whereof is not only fustian, but over-often hard and stiff buckram. he is not content to deny his assent to an opinion, but he must give it disgraceful names. as in his epistle to the reader, this darling opinion of the greatest and divinest sages of the world visiting of late the studies of some of more than ordinary wit and learning, he compares it to a bug and sturdy mendicant, that pretends to be some person of quality; but he like a skilful beadle of beggars, lifting up the skirts of her veil, as his phrase is, shows her to be a counterfeit. how this busy beadle would have behaved himself, if he had had the opportunity of lifting up the skirts of moses' veil when he had descended the mount, i know not. i dare not undertake for him, but that according to the coarsness of his fancy he would have mistaken that lucid spirit shining through the skin of moses' face, for some fiery fiend, as he has somewhere the spirit of nature for an hobgoblin. but there is no pleasure in insisting upon the rudenesses of his style; he is best where he is most unlike himself, as he is here in the residue of his description of the divine goodness. 'tis goodness, says he, that is the head and glory of god's perfect essence; and therefore when moses importuned him for a vision of his glory, he engaged to display his goodness to him. could a man think that one that had engaged thus far for the infiniteness of god's goodness, for its headship over the other attributes, for its glory above the rest, nay for its constitutiveness of the very deity, as if this were the only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or god himself, the rest of him divided from this, a prodigious fiend, or plenipotentiary devil, should prove the author of no-pre-existence a very contradiction to this declaration? for to be able to hold no-pre-existence, he must desert the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of god, and betake himself to the devil-part of him, as he has rudely called it, to avoid this pregnant proof for pre-existence taken from the infinite goodness of god. and indeed he has picked out the very worst of that black part of god to serve his turn, and that is self will in the worst sense. otherwise goodness making god to be himself, if it were his true and genuine self-will, it were the will of his infinite goodness, and so would necessarily imply pre-existence. but to avoid the dint of this argument, he declares in the very same section for the supremacy of the will over the goodness of the divine nature. which is manifestly to contradict what he said before, that goodness is the head and glory of god's perfect essence. for thus will must have a supremacy over the head of the deity. so that there will be an head over an head, to make the godhead a monster. and what is most insufferable of all, that he has chosen an head out of the devil-part of the deity, to use his own rude expression, to control and lord it over what is the only god himself, the rest a fiend separate from this, according to his own acknowledgement. these things are so infinitely absurd, that one would think that he could have no heart to go about to prove them; and yet he adventures on it, and we shall briefly propose and answer what he produceth. and this supremacy of the will, saith he, over the goodness of the divine nature, may be made out both by scripture and other forcible evidences. the scriptures are three; the first, psal. 135. 6. whatsoever the lord pleased, that did he in heaven, and in the earth, and in the seas, and in all deep places. now if we remember but who this lord is, viz. he whom goodness makes to be himself, we may easily be assured what pleased him, namely, that which his wisdom discerned to be the best to be done; and therefore it is very right, that whatsoever he pleased he should do throughout the whole universe. the second place is mat. 20. 15. is it not lawful for me to do what i will with mine own? yes i trow, every one must acknowledge that god has an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (for the word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the original) to dispose of what is his own; and indeed all is his. no one has either a right or power to control him. but this does not prove that he ever disposes of any thing otherwise than according to his wisdom and goodness. if his goodness be ever limited, it is limited by his wisdom, but so then as discerning such a limitation to be for the best. so that the measure of wisdoms determination is still goodness, the only head in the divine nature, to which all the rest is subordinate. for that there are different degrees of the communication of the divine goodness in the universe, is for the good of the whole. it is sufficient to hint these things; it would require a volume to enlarge upon them. and then for the last place, exod. 33. 19 i will be gracious to whom i will be gracious. this only implies that he does pro suo jure, and without any motive from any one but himself, communicate more of his goodness to some men or nations than others. but that his wisdom has not discovered this to be best for the whole constitution of things, i challenge any one to prove. but of this we shall have occasion to speak more afterward. these are the scriptures. the other forcible evidences are these: the first, the late production of the world. the second, the patefaction of the law but to one single people, namely, the jews. the third, the timing the messias' nativity, and bringing it to pass, not in the world's infancy or adolescence, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, heb. 1. 2. in its declining age. the fourth, the perpetuity of hell, and interminableness of those tortures which after this life shall incessantly vex the impious. the fifth and last, god's not perpetuating the station of pre-existent souls, and hindering them from lapsing into these regions of sin and death. these he pretends to be forcible evidences of the sovereignty of gods will over his goodness, forasmuch as if the contrary to all these had been, it had been much more agreeable to the goodness of god. as for the first of these forcible arguments, we have disarmed the strength thereof already, by intimating that the world could not be ab aeterno. and if it could not be ab aeterno, but must commence on this side of eternity, and be of finite years, i leave to the opposer to prove that it has not been created as soon as it could be; and that is sufficient to prove that its late production is not inconsistent with that principle, that god's goodness always is the measure of his actions. for suppose the world of as little continuance as you will, if it was not ab aeterno, it was once of as little; and how can we discern but that this is that very time which seems so little to us? as for the second, which seems to have such force in it, that he appeals to any competent judge, if it had not been infinitely better that god should have apertly dispensed his ordinances to all mankind, than have committed them only to israel in so private and clancular a manner; i say, it is impossible for any one to be assured that it is at all better. for first, if this privilege which was peculiar, had been a favour common to all, it had lost its enforcement that it had upon that lesser number. secondly, it had had also the less surprising power with it upon others that were not jews, who might after converse with that nation, and set a more high price upon the truths they had traveled for, and were communicated to them from that people. thirdly, the nature of the thing was not fitted for the universality of mankind, who could not be congregated together to see the wonders wrought by moses, and receive the law with those awful circumstances from mount sinai or any mount else. fourthly, all things happened to them in types, and themselves were a type of the true israel of god to be redeemed out of their captivity under sin and satan, which was worse than any egyptian servitude: wherefore it must be some peculiar people which must be made such a type, not the whole world. fifthly, considering the great load of the ceremonial law which came along with other more proper privileges of the jews, setting one against another, and considering the freedom of other nations from it, unless they brought any thing like it upon themselves, the difference of their conditions will rather seem several modifications of the communicated goodness of god to his creatures, than the neglecting of any: forasmuch as, sixthly and lastly, though all nations be in a lapsed condition, yet there are the relics of the eternal law of life in them. and that things are no better with any of them than they are, that is a thousand times more rationally resolved into their demerits in their pre-existent state than into the bare will of god, that he will have things for many ages thus squalid and forlorn, merely because he will. which is a woman's reason, and which to conceive to belong to god, the author of no-pre-existence has no reason, unless he will allege that he was styled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the ancients for this very cause. wherefore the divine nemesis lying upon the lapsed souls of men in this terrestrial state, whose several delinquencies in the other world and the degrees thereof god alone knows, and according to his wisdom and justice disposes of them in this: it is impossible for any one that is not half crazed in his intellectuals, to pretend that any acts of providence that have been since this stage of the earth was erected, might have been infinitely better otherwise than they have been, or indeed better at all. power, wisdom, goodness, sure did frame this universe, and still guide the same; but thoughts from passion sprung, deceive vain mortals: no man can contrive a better course than what's been run since the first circuit of the sun. this poetical rapture has more solid truth in it than the dry dreams and distorted fancies, or chimerical metamorphoses of earthly either philosophers or theologs, that prescinding the rest of the godhead from his goodness, make that remaining part a foul fiend or devil; and yet almost with the same breath pronounce the will of this devil of their own making, which is the most poisonous part of him, to have a supremacy o●…er the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, over the divine goodness; which makes god to be himself, that is, to be god, and not a plenipotentiary devil. wherefore we see from these few small hints, (for it were an infinite argument fully to prosecute) how feeble or nothing forcible this second evidence is. now for the third evidence, the timing of the messiah's nativity, that it was not in the infancy of the world, but rather in its declining age, or in the latter times. in which times the ancient of days, according to his counsel and purpose, (which the eternal wisdom that was to be incarnate assented and subscribed to) sent his son into the world, the promised messiah. this did the ancient of days and the eternal wisdom agree upon. but oh the immense privilege of tou●…h and confidence! the author of no-pre existence says, it had been better by far, if they had agreed upon the infancy of the world. as if this young divine were wiser than the ancient of days, or the eternal wisdom itself. ay, but he will modestly reply. that he acknowledges that the ancient of days and the eternal wisdom are wiser than he, but that they would not make use of their wisdom. they saw as clearly as could be, that it was far better that the messiah should come in the infancy of the world; but the father would not send him then, merely because he would not send him: that his will might act freely as mere will prescinded from wisdom and goodness. this is the plain state of the business, and yet admitted by him, who with that open freeness and fullness professes, that 〈◊〉 the divine goodness from the godhead, what remains is a prodigious fiend or devil. what is then mere will and power left alone, but a blind hurricane of hell? which yet must have the supremacy, and overpower the divine wisdom and goodness itself. his zeal against. pre-existence has thus infatuated and blinded this young writers intellectuals, otherwise he had not been driven to these absurdities, if he had been pleased to admit that hypothesis. as also that wisdom and justice, and fitness and decorum attend the dispensation of divine goodness; so that it is not to be communicated to every subject after the most ample manner, nor at every time, but at such times, and to such subjects, and in such measures as, respecting the whole compages of things, is for the best. so that goodness ●…ears the sovereignty, and according to that rule, perpetually all things are administered, though there be a different scene of things and particulars in themselves vastly varying in goodness and perfection one from another as the parts of the body do. and so for times and ages, every season of the year yield different commodities: nor are we to expect roses in winter, nor apples and apricocks in spring. now the infinite and incomprehensible wisdom of god comprehending the whole entire scene of his providence, and what references there are of one thing to another, that this must be thus and thus, because such and such things preceded: and because such things are, such and such must be consequent; which things past and to come lie not under our eye: i say, if this hasty writer had considered this, he need not have been driven to such a rude solution of this present problem, why the messiah came no sooner into the world, viz. merely because god willed it should be so, though it had been far better if it had been otherwise; but he would have roundly confessed, that undoubtedly this was the best time and the fittest, though it was past his reach to discover the reasons of the fitness thereof. this as it had been the more modest, so it had been the more solid solution of this hard problem. i but then it had not put a bar to this irrefragable argument from the goodness of god, for proving pre-existence: which he is persuaded in his own conscience is no less than a demonstration, unless it be acknowledged that the will of god has a supremacy over his goodness; and therefore in spite to that abhorred dogma of pre-existence, he had rather broach such wild stuff against the glory of god, than not to purchase to himself the sweet conceit of a glorious victory over such an opinion that he has taken a groundless toy against, and had rather adventure upon gross blasphemies than entertain it. the devout psalmist, psal. 36. speaking of the decrees of god and his providence over the creation, thy righteousness, says he, is as the great mountains, thy judgements are a great deep. and st. paul, rom. 11. after he has treated of intricate and amazing points, cries out, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, oh the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of god how unsearchable are his judgements, and his ways past finding out! now according to the rudeness of our young writer, there is no such depth of wisdom, or unsearchablen●…ss in the judgements and decrees of god and his providences in the world that most amaze us, but the reasons of them lie very obvious and shallow. where we fancy that things might have been better otherwise, (though of never so grand import, as the coming of the messiah is) it is easily resolved into the supremacy of the will of god, which it has over his wisdom and goodness. he willed it should be so, because he would it should be so, though it had been sar better if the messiah had come sooner. but see the difference betwixt an inspired apostle, and a young hotheaded theologist: this latter resolves these unsearchable and unintelligible decrees of god and passag●…s of providence, into the mere will of god, lording it over the divine wisdom and goodness: but the apostle, by how much more unsearchable his judgements and decrees are, and the ways of his providence past finding our, the greater he declares the depth of the richness of his wisdom, which is so ample, that it reaches into ways and methods of doing for the best beyond the understandings of men. for most assuredly, while the depth of the wisdom of god is acknowledged to carry on the ways of providence, it must be also acknowledged that it acts like itself, and chooseth such ways as are best, and most comporting with the divine goodness; or else it is not an act of wisdom, but of humour or oversight. but it may be the reader may have the curiosity to hear briesly what those g●…at arguments are, that should induce this young writer so confidently to pronounce, that it had been far better that the messiah should have come in the infancy of the world, than in the times he came. the very quintessence of the force of his arguing extracted out of the verbosity of his affected style, is neither more nor less than this: that the world before the coming of christ, who was to be the light of the world, was in very great darkness; and therefore the sooner he came, the better. but to break the assurance of this arguer for the more early coming of christ, first, we may take notice out of himself, chap. 3. that the light of nature is near akin not only to the mosaic law, but ●…o the gospel itself; and that even then there were the assistances of the holy ghost to carry men on to such virtuous accomplishments as might avail them to eternal salvation. this he acknowledges probable, and i have set it down in his own words. whence considering what a various scene of things there was to be from the fall of adam to the end of the world, it became the great and wise dramatist not to bring upon the stage the best things in the first act, but to carry on things pompously and by degrees; something like that saying of elias, two thousand years under the light of nature, two thousand under the law, and then comes the nativity of the messiah, and after a due space the happy millennium, and then the final judgement, the completed happiness of the righteous in heaven, and the punishment of the wicked in hell-fire. but to hasten too suddenly to the best, is to expect autumn in spring, and virility or old age in infancy or childhood, or the catastrophe of a comedy in the first act. secondly, we may observe what a weak disprover he is of pre-existence, which like a giant would break in upon him, were it not that he kept him out by this false sconce of the supremacy of the divine will over his wisdom and goodness; which conceit, how odious and impious it is, has been often enough hinted already. but letting pre-existence take place, and admitting that there is, according to divine providence, an orderly insemination of lapsed souls into humane bodies, through the several ages of the world, whose lapses had several circumstantial differences, and that men therefore become differently sitted objects of grace and favour; how easy is it to conceive god according to the fitnesses of the generality of souls in such or such periods of times, as it was more just, agreeable, or needful for them, so and in such measures to have dispensed the gifts of his ever-watchful and all-comprehending providence to them, for both time and place. this one would think were more tolerable than to say, that god wills merely because he wills; which is the character of a frail woman, rather than of a god, or else, as this writer himself acknowledges, of a fiend or devil. for such, says he, is god in the rest of his attributes, if you seclude his goodness. what then is that action which proceeds only from that part from which goodness is secluded? so that himself has dug down the sconce he would entrench himself in, and lets pre-existence come in upon him, whether he will or no, like an armed giant; whom let him abhor as much as he will, he is utterly unable to resist. and thirdly and lastly, suppose there were no particular probable account to be given by us, by reason of the shortness of our understandings▪ and the vast fetches of the all-comprehensive providence of god, why the coming of the messiah was no earlier than it was; yet according to that excellent aphorism in morality and politics, optimè praesum●…ndum est de magistratu, we should hope, nay ●…e assured it was the best that he came when he did, it being by the appointment of the infinite good and alwise god▪ and cry out wi●…h st. paul, oh the depth of the riches of both the wisdom and knowledge of god how unsearchable are his judgements, and his ways past finding out! and in the psalmist, thy judgements are like a great deep, o lord, thou preservest man and beast. and so acknowledge his wisdom and goodness in the ordering his creatures, even there where his ways are to our weak and scant understandings most inexplicable and unsearchable. which wisdom and goodness as we have all reason to acknowledge in all matters, so most of all in matters of the greatest concernment, that there most assuredly god wills not thus or thus merely because he wills, but because his wisdom discerns that it is for the best. and this is sufficient to show the weakness of this third evidence for proving the supremacy of the divine will over his wisdom an●… goodness. his fourth evidence is, the perpetuity of hell, and interminableness of those tortures which after this life vex the wicked. for, says he, had the penalties of men's sins here been rated by pure goodness, free and 〈◊〉 by any other principle, it is not pro●…able that th●…y should have been punished by an eternal calamity, the pleasures of them being 〈◊〉 and sugitive. thu●… he argues, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the very same ●…ords; and there 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that the ●…thority of god's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and ●…ro suo 〈◊〉, having the supremacy over his goodness, over-swayed the more benign decree; and will, because it would have it so, doomed sinners to these eternal torments. but i would ask this sophister, did the will of god in good earnest sentence sinners thus in decree, merely because he willed it, not because it was either good or just? what a black and dismal reproach is here cast upon the divine majesty! that he sentences sinners thus because he will, not because it is just. the sense whereof is, so he will do, right or wrong. but the patriarch abraham was of another mind, shall not the judge of the whole earth do right? this he said even to god's face, as i may so speak. wherefore god doing nothing but what is just, does nothing but what is also good. for justice is nothing but goodness modified. not is it asserted by those that make goodness the measure of god's providence, that the modification and moderation thereof is not by his wisdom and justice. so that this sophister pu●…s [pure] to goodness, merely to obscure the s●…nce, and put a fallacy upon his reader. the sins of men here are not rated by pure goodness, but by that modification of goodness which is termed justice; which is not a distinct principle from goodness, but a branch thereof, or goodness itself under such a modification, not mere will acting because it will, right or wrong, good or evil. wherefore the state of the question is not, whether the eternal torments of hell are consistent with the pure goodness of god, but with his justice. but if they are eternal merely from his will, without any respect to justice, his will does will what is infinitely beyond the bounds of what is just, because endless is infinitely beyond that which has an end. such gross absurdities does this opposer of pre-existence run into, to fetch an argument from the supposititious supremacy of the will of god over his wisdom and goodness. but as touching the question rightly proposed, whether the perpetuity of hell to sinners consists with the justice of god, a man ought to be chary and wary how he pronounces in this point, that he slip not into what may prove disadvantageous to the hearer. for there are that will be scandalised, and make it serve to an ill end, whether one declare for eternal torments of hell, or against them. some being ready to conclude from their eternity, that religion itself is a mere scarecrow that frights us with such an incredible mormo; others to indulge to their pleasures, because the comm●…tion is not frightful enough to deter them from extravagant enjoyments, if hell torments be not eternal. but yet i cannot but deem it a piece of great levity in him that decided the controversy, as the complesant parson did that about the maypole; they of his parish that were for a maypole, let them have a maypole; but they that were not for a maypole, let them have no maypole. but this in sobriety one may say, that the use of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in scripture is indifferent to signify either that which is properly everlasting, or that which lasts a long time. so that by any immediate infallible oracle, we are not able to pronounce for the eternity or perpetuity of hell-torments. and the creeds use the phrase of scripture, and so some may think that they have the same latitude of interpretation. but it is the safest to adhere to the sense of the catholic church, for those that be bewildered in such speculations. but what the writer of no-pre-existence argues from his own private spirit, though it be not inept, yet it is not over-firm and solid. but that the penancies of reprobates are endless, i shall ever thus persuade myself, saith he, either the torments of hell are eternal, or the felicities of heaven are but temporary (which i am sure they shall never be:) for the very same word that is used to express the permanence of the one, measures out the continuance of the other; and if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 denotes everlasting life, a blessedness that shall never end, (mat. 25. ult.) what can 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the same verse signify, but perpetual punishment, a misery that shall never cease? this is pretty handsomely put together, but as i said, does not conclude firmly what is driven at. for it being undeniably true that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies as well that which only is of a long continuance, as what is properly everlasting; and it being altogether rational, that when words have more significations than one, that signification is to be applied that is most agreeable to the subject it is predicated of, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in that higher sense of property and absolutely everlasting, not being applicable to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but upon this writers monstrous supposition that the will of god has a supremacy over his wisdom, goodness, and justice (as if the righteous god could act against his own conscience, which no honest man can do) it is plain, that though 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signify properly everlasting, that there is no necessity that it should signify so in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but have that other signification of long continuance, though not of everlastingness, and that continuance so long, as if considered, would effectually rouse any man out of his sins; and eternity not considered, will not move him. this one would think were enough to repress the confidence of this young writer. but i will add something more out of his fellow anti-pre-existentiary. that comminations are not, though promises be obligatory. forasmuch as in comminations the comminator is the creditor, and he that is menaced the debtor that owes the punishment (with which that latin phrase well agrees, dare poena●…) but in promises, he that promiseth becomes debtor, and he to whom the promise is made, creditor. whence the promiser is plainly obliged to make good his promise, as being the debtor: but the comminator, as being the creditor, is not obliged to exact the punishment, it being in the power of any creditor to remit the debt owing him if he will. wherefore in this commination of eternal fire, or everlasting punishment, though 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signify here properly everlasting, as well as in everlasting life, yet because this latter is a promise, the other only a commination, it does not follow, that as surely as the righteous shall be rewarded with everlasting life, so surely shall the wicked be punished with everlasting fire, in the most proper and highest extent of the signification of the word. because god in his comminations to the wicked is only a creditor, and has still a right and power to remit either part or the whole debt; but to the righteous, by virtue of his promise, he becomes a debtor, and cannot recede, but must punctually keep his word. to all which i add this challenge: let this writer, or any else if they can, demonstrate that a soul may not behave herself so perversely, obstinately, and despitefully against the spirit of grace, that she may deserve to be made an everlasting hackstock of the divine nemesis, even for ever and ever. and if she deserve it, it is but just that she have it; and if it be just, it is likewise good. for justice is nothing else but goodness modified in such fort, as wisdom and sense of decorum sees fittest. but the election of wisdom being always for the best, all things considered, it is plain that justice and the execution thereof, is for the best; and that so goodness, not mere will upon pretence of having a supremacy over goodness, would be the measure of this sentencing such obdurate sinners to eternal punishment. and this eternal punishment as it is a piece of vindicative justice upon these obdurate sinners, so it naturally contributes to the establishment of the righteous in their celestial happiness. which, this opposer of pre-existence objects somewhere, if souls ever fell from, they may fall from it again. but these eternal torments of hell, if they needed it, would put a sure bar thereto. so that the wisdom and goodness also of god is upon this account concerned in the eternal punishments of hell, as well as his justice. that it be to the unreclaimable, as that orphick hemistichium calls it, — 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. the fifth and last forcible argument, as he calls them, for the proving the sovereignty of gods will over his goodness, is this. if god's goodness, saith he, be not under the command of his will, but does always what is best, why did it not perpetuate the station of pre-existent souls, and hinder us (if ever we were happy in a sublimer state) from lapsing into these regions of sin and death? but who does not at first sight discern the weakness of this allegation? for it is plainly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, an absurd thing, and contrary to reason, to create such a species of being, whose nature is free and mutable, and at the first dash to damn up or stop the exercise of that freedom and capacity of change, by confining it to a fixed station. as ridiculous as to suppose a living creature made with wings and feet, and yet that the maker thereof should take special care it should never fly nor go. and so likewise, that the mere making of such an order of being's as have a freedom of will, and choice of their actions, that this is misbecoming the goodness of god, is as dull and idiotical a conceit, and such as implies that god should have made but one kind of creature, and that the most absolutely and immutably happy that can be, or else did not act according to his goodness, or for the best: which is so obvious a falsehood, that i will not confute it. but it is not hard to conceive that he making such a free-willed creature as the souls of men, simul cum mundo condito, and that in an happy condition, and yet not fixing them in that station, may excellently well accord with the sovereignty of his goodness, nor any one be constrained to have recourse to the supremacy of his will over his goodness, as if he did it because he would do it, and not because it was best. for what can this freedom of will consist in so much as in a temptableness by other objects that are of an inseriour nature, not so divine and holy as the other, to which it were the security of the soul to adhere with all due constancy, and therefore her duty. but in that she is temptable by other objects, it is a sign that her present enjoyment of the more divine and heavenly objects, are not received of her according to their excellency, but according to the measure and capacity of her present state, which though very happy, may be improved at the long run, and in an orderly series of times and things, whether the soul lapse into sin or no. for accession of new improvements increaseth happiness and joy. now therefore, i say, suppose several, and that great numbers, even innumerable myriads of pre-existent souls, to lapse into the regions of sin and death, provided that they do not sin perversely and obstinately, nor do despite to the spirit of grace, nor refuse the advantageous offers that divine providence makes them even in these sad regions, why may not their once having descended hither tend to their greater enjoyment, when they shall have returned to their pristine s●…tion? and why may not the specifical nature of the soul be such, that it be essentially interwoven into our being, that after a certain period of times or ages, whether she sin or no, she may arrive to a fixedness at last in her heavenly station with greater advantage to such a creature, than if she had been fixed in that state at first. the thing may seem least probable in those that descend into these regions of sin and mortality. but in those that are not obstinate and refractory, but close with the gracious means that is offered them for their recovery, their having been here in this lower state, and retaining the memory (as doubtless they do) of the transactions of this terrestrial stage, it naturally enhances all the enjoyments of the pristine felicity they had lost, and makes them for ever have a more deep and vivid resentment of them. so that through the richness of the wisdom and goodness of god, and through the merits and conduct of the captain of their salvation, our saviour jesus christ, they are, after the strong conslicts here with sin and the corruptions of this lower region, made more than conquerors, and greater gainers upon the losses they sustained before from their own folly. and in this most advantageous state of things, they become pillars in the temple of god, there to remain for ever and ever. so that unless straying souls be exceedingly perverse and obstinate, the exitus of things will be but as in a tragic comedy, and their perverseness and obstinacy lies at their own doors for those that finally miscarry, whose number this confident writer is to prove to be so considerable that the enhanced happiness of the standing part of pre-existent souls and the recovered does not far preponderate the infelicity of the others condition. which if he cannot do, as i am confident he cannot, he must acknowledge, that god in not forcibly fixing pre-existent souls in the state they were first created, but leaving them to themselves, acted not from the supremacy of his will over his goodness, but did what was best, and according to that sovereign principle of goodness in the deity. and now for that snitling dilemma of this eager opposer of pre-existence, touching the freedom of acting and mutability in humane souls, whether this mutability be a specific property and essential to them, or a separable accident. for if it were essential, says he, then how was christ a persect man, his humane nature being ever void of that lapsabilitie which is essential to humanity? and how come men to retain their specific nature still, that are translated to celestial happiness, and made unalterable in the condition they then are? to this i answer, that the pre-existentiaries will admit, that the soul of the messiah was created as the rest, though in an happy condition, yet in a lapsable; and that it was his peculiar merit, in that he so faithfully, constantly, and entirely adhered to the divine principle, incomparably above what was done by others of his classis, not withstanding that he might have done otherwise; and therefore they will be forward to extend that of the author to the hebrews. chap. 1. v. 8. (thy throne, o god, is for ever and ever, the sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom. thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore god, even thy god, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows) to his behaviour in his pre-existent state, as well as in this. and whenever the soul of christ did exist, if he was like us in all things, sin only excepted, he must have a capacity of sinning, though he would not sin; that capacity not put into act being no sin, but an argument of his virtue, and such as if he was always devoid of, he could not be like us in all things, sin only excepted. for posse peccare non est peccatum. and as ●…or humane souls changing their species in their unalterable heavenly happiness, the species is not then changed, but perfected and completed; namely, that faculty or measure of it in their plastic, essentially latitant there, is by the divine grace so awakened, after such a series of time and things, which they have experienced, that now they are sirmly united to an heavenly body or ethereal vehicle for ever. and now we need say little to the other member of the dilemma, but to declare, that free will, or mutability in humane souls, is no separable accident, but of the essential contexture of them; so as it might have its turn in the series of things. and how consistent it was with the goodness of god and his wisdom, not to suppress it in the beginning, has been sufficiently intimated above. wherefore now forasmuch as there is no pretext that either the wisdom or justice of god should straighten the time of the creation of humane souls, so that their existence may not commence with that of angels, or of the universe, and that this figment of the supremacy of god's mere will over his other attributes is blown away, it is manifest that the argument for the pre-existence of souls drawn from the divine goodness, holds firm and irrefragable against whatever opposers. we have been the more copious on this argument, because the opposer and others look upon it as the strongest proof the pre-existentiaries produce for their opinion. and the other party have nothing to set against it but a fictitious supremacy of the will of god over his goodness and other attributes. which being their only bulwark, and they taking sanctuary nowhere but here, in my apprehension they plainly herein give up the cause, and establish the opinion which they seem to have such an antipathy against. but it is high time now to pass to the next chapter. chap. 10. p. 75. to have contracted strong and inveterate habits to vice and lewdness, and that in various manners and degrees, etc. to the unbiased this must needs seem a considerable argument, especially when the parties thus irreclaimably profligate from their youth, some as to one vice, others to another, are found such in equal circumstances with others, and advantages, to be good; born of the same parents, educated in the same family, and the like. wherefore having the same bodily extraction, and the same advantages of education, what must make this great difference as they grow up in the body, but that their souls were different before they came into it? and how should they have such a vast difference in the proclivity to vice, but that they lived before in the state of pre-existence, and that some were much deeper in rebellion against god and the divine reason, than others were, and so brought their different conditions with them into these terrestrial bodies? pag. 75. then how a swallow should return to her old trade of living after her winter sleep, etc. indeed the swallow has the advantages of memory, which the incorporate soul has not in her incorporation into a terrestrial body after her state of silence. but the vital inclinations, which are mainly if not only ●…ted in the plastic, being not only revived, but (signally vicious of themselves) revived with advantage, by reason of the corruption of this corpse earthly body into which the soul is incorporate, they cannot fail of discovering themselves in a most signal manner, without any help of memory, but from the mere pregnancy of a corrupt body, and formerly more than ordinarily debauched plastic in the state of pre-existence. pag. 76. whenas others are as fatally set against the opinions, etc. and this is done, as the ingenious author takes notice, even where neither education nor custom have interposed to sophisticate their judgements or sentiments. nay, it is most certain, that they sometime have sentiments and entertain opinions quite contrary to their education. so that that is but a slight account, to restore this phaenomenon into education and custom, whenas opinions are entertained and stiffly maintained in despite of them. this i must confess implies that the aerial inhabitants philosophise, but conjecturally only, as well as the inhabitants of the earth. and it is no wonder that such spirits as are lapsed in their morals, should be at a loss also in their intellectuals; and though they have a desire to know the truth in speculations, it suiting so well with their pride, that yet they should be subject to various errors and hallucinations as well as we, and that there should be different, yea opposite schools of philosophy among them. and if there be any credit to be given to cardan's story of his father facius cardanus, things are thus the facto in the aereal regions. and two of the spirits which facius cardanus saw in that vision (left upon record by him, and of which he often told his son hieronymus while he was living) were two professors of philosophy in different academies; and were of different opinions; one of them apertly professing himself to be an aven-roist. the story is too long to insert here. see dr. h. moor his immortality of the soul, book 3. chap. 17. so that lapsed souls philosophising in their aerial state, and being divided into sects, and consequently maintaining their disserent or opposite opinions with heat and affection which reaches the plastic, this may leave a great propension in them to the same opinions here, and make them almost as prone to such and such errors, as to such and such vices. this, i suppose, the ingenious author propounds as an argument credible and plausible, though he does not esteem it of like force with those he produced before. nor does his opposer urge any thing to any purpose against it. the main thing is, that these propensities to some one opinion are not universal, and blended with the constitution of every person, but are thin sown, and grow up sparingly. where there are five, says he, naturally bend to any one opinion, there are many millions that are free to all. if some, says he, descend into this life big with aptnesses and proclivities to peculiar theories, why then should not all, supposing they pre-existed together, do the like? as if all in the other aereal state were professors of philosophy, or zealous followers of them that were. the solution of this difficulty is so easy, that i need not insist on it. pag. 78. were this difference about sensibles, the influence of the body might then be suspected for a cause, etc. this is very rationally alleged by our author, and yet his antagonist has the face from the observation of the diversity of men's palates and appetites, of their being differently affected by such and such strains of music, some being pleased with one kind of melody, and others with another, some pleased with aromatic odours, others offended with them, to reason thus: if the body can thus cause us to love and dislike sensibles, why not as well to approve and dislike opinions and theories? but the reason is obvious why not; because the liking or disliking of these sensibles depends upon the grateful or ungrateful motion of the nerves of the body, which may be otherwise constituted or qualified in some complexions than in other some. but for philosophical opinions and theories what have they to do with the motion of the nerves? it is the soul herself that judges of those abstractedly from the senses, or any use of the nerves or corporeal organ. if the difference of our judgement in philosophical theories be resolvible into the mere constitution of our body, our understanding itself will hazard to be resolved into the same principle also: and body will prove the only difference betwixt men and brutes. we have more intellectual souls because we have better bodies, which i hope our author's antagonist will not allow. pag. 78. for the soul in her first and pure nature has no idiosyncrasies', &c. whether there may not be certain different characters proper to such and such classes of souls, but all of them natural and without blemish, and this for the better order of things in the universe, i will not rashly decide in the negative. but as the author himself seems to insinuate, if there be any such, they are not such as fatally determine souls to false and erroneous apprehensions. for that would be a corruption and a blemish in the very natural character. wherefore if the soul in philosophical speculations is fatally determined to falsehood in this life, it is credible it is the effect of its being enured thereto in the other. pag. 79. now to say that all this variety proceeds primarily from the mere temper of our bodies, etc. this argument is the less valid for pre-existence, i mean that which is drawn from the wonderful variety of our genius's, or natural inclinations to the employments of life, because we cannot be assured but that the divine providence may have essentially, as it were, impressed such classical characters on humane souls, as i noted before. and besides, if that be true which menander says, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. that every man, as soon as he is born, has a genius appointed him to be his instructor and guide of his life: that some are carried with such an impetus to some things rather than others, may be from the instigations of his assisting genius. and for that objection of the author's antagonist against his opinion touching those inclinations to trades, (which may equally concern this hypothesis of menander) that it would then be more universal, every one having such a genius; this truth may be smothered by the putting young people promiscuously to any trade, without observing their genius. but the chineses suppose this truth, they commonly showing a child all the employs of the city, that he may make his own choice before they put him to any. but if the opinion of menander be true, that every man has his guardian genius, under whose conduct he lives; the merchant, the musician, the ploughman, and the rest; it is manifest that these genii cannot but receive considerable impressions of such things as they guide their clients in. and pre-existent souls in their aereal estate being of the same nature with these daemons or genii, they are capable of the same employment, and so tincture themselves deep enough with the affairs of those parties they preside over. and therefore when they themselves, after the state of silence, ar●… incorporated into earthly bodies, they may have a proneness from their former tincture to such methods of life as they lived over whom they did preside. which quite spoils the best argument our author's antagonist has against this topick; which is, that there are several things here below which the geniusses of men pursue and follow with the hottest chase, which have no similitude with the things in the other state, as planting, building, husbandry, the working of manufactures, etc. this best argument of his, by menander's hypothesis, which is hard to confute, is quite defeated. and to deny nothing to this opposer of pre-existence which is his due, himself seems unsatisfied, in resolving these odd phaenomena into the temper of body. and therefore at last hath recourse to a secret causality, that is, to he knows not what. but at last he pitches upon some such principle as that whereby the birds build their nest, the spider weaves her webs, the bees make their combs, etc. some such thing he says (though he cannot think it that prodigious hobgoblin the spirit of nature) may produce these strange effects, may bias also the fancies of men in making choice of their employments and occupations. if it be not the spirit of nature, than it must be that classical character i spoke of above. but if not this, nor the preponderancies of the pre-existent state, nor menander's hypothesis, the spirit of nature will bid the fairest for it of any besides, for determining the inclinations of all living creatures in these regions of generation, as having in itself vitally, though not intellectually, all the laws of the divine providence implanted into its essence by god the creator of it. and speaking in the ethnic dialect, the same description may belong to it that varro gives to their god genius. genius est deus qui praepositus est, ac vim habet omnium rerum gignendarum, and that is the genius of every creature that is congenit to it in virtue of its generation. and that there is such a spirit of nature (not a god, as varro vainly makes it, but an unintelligent creature) to which belongs the nascency or generation of things, and has the management of the whole matter of the universe, is copiously proved to be the opinion of the noblest and ancientest philosophers, by the learned dr. r. cudworth in his system of the intellectual world, and is demonstrated to be a true theorem in philosophy by dr. h. moor in his euchiridion metaphysicum, by many, and those irrefutable arguments; and yet i dare say both can easily pardon the mistake and bluntness of this rude writer, nor are at all surprised at it as a novelty, that any ignorant rural hobthurst should call the spirit of nature (a thing so much beyond his capacity to judge of) a prodigious hobgoblin. but to conclude, be it so that there may be other causes besides the pristine inurements of the pre-existent soul, that may something forcibly determine her to one course of life here, yet when she is most forcibly determined, if there be such a thing as pre-existence, this may be rationally supposed to concur in the efficiency. but that it is not so strong an argument as others to prove pre-existence, i have hinted already. pag. 79. for those that are most like in the temper, air, complexion of their bodies, etc. if this prove true, and i know nothing to the contrary, this vast difference of genius's, were it not for the hypothesis of their classical character imprinted on souls at their very creation, would be a considerably tied argument. but certainly it is more honest than for the avoiding pre-existence to resolve the phaenomenon into a secret causality, that is to say, into one knows not what. pag. 82. there being now no other way left but pre-existence, etc. this is a just excuse for his bringing in any argument by way of overplus that is not so apodictically concluding. if it be but such as will look like a plausible solution of a phaenomenon (as this of such a vast difference of genius's) pre-existence once admitted, or otherwise undeniably demonstrated, the proposing thereof should be accepted with favour. chap. 11. pag. 85. and we know our saviour and his apostles have given credit to that translation, etc. and it was the authentic text with the fathers of the primitive church. and besides this, if we read according to the hebrew text, there being no object of job's knowledge expressed, this is the most easy and natural sense: knowest thou that thou wast then, and that the number of thy days are many? this therefore was reckoned amongst the rest of his ignorances', that though he was created so early, he now knew nothing of it. and this easy sense of the hebrew text, as well as that version of the septuagint, made the jews draw it in to the countenancing of the tradition of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, the pre-existence of souls, as grotius has noted of them. pag. 85. as reads a very credible version. r. menasse ben israel reads it so: [i gave thee wisdom,] which version, if it were sure and authentic, this place would be fit for the defence of the opinion it is produced for. but no interpreters besides, that i can find, following him, nor any going before him, whom he might follow, i ingenuously confess the place seems not of force enough to me to infer the conclusion. he read, i suppose, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in piel, whence he translated it, indidi ●…ibi sapientiam; but the rest read it in cal. pag. 86. and methinks that passage of our saviour's prayer, father, glorify me with the glory i had before the world began, etc. this text, without exceeding great violence, cannot be evaded. as for that of grotius interpreting [that i had] that which was intended for me to have, though it make good sense, yet it is such grammar as that there is no schoolboy but would be ashamed of it; nor is there, for all his pretences, any place in scripture to countenance such an extravagant exposition by way of parallelism, as it may appear to any one that will compare the places which he alleadges, with this; which i leave the reader to do at his leisure. let us consider the context, joh. 17. 4. i have glorified thee upon earth, during this my pilgrimage and absence from thee, being ●…ent hither by thee. i have finished the work which thou gavest me to do, and for the doing of which i was sent, and am thus long absent. and now, o father, glorify me, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, apud teipsum, in thine own presence, with the glory which i had before the world was, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, apud te, or in thy presence. what can be more expressive of a glory which christ had apud patrem, or at his father's home, or in his presence before the world was, and from which for such a time he had been absent? now for others that would salve the business by communication of idioms, i will set down the words of an ingenious writer that goes that way: those predicates, says he, that in a strict and ●…igorous acception agreed only to his divine nature, might by a communication of idioms (as they phrase it) be attributed to his humane, or at least to the whole person compounded of them both, than which nothing is more ordinary in things of a mixed and heterogeneous nature, as the whole man is styled immortal from the deathlessness of his soul: thus he. and there is the same reason if he had said that man was styled mortal (which certainly is far the more ordinary) from the real death of his body, though his soul be immortal. this is wittily excogitated. but now let us apply it to the text, expounding it according to his communication of idioms, affording to the humane nature what is only proper to the divine, thus. father, glorify me [my humane nature] with the glory that i [my divine nature] had before the world was. which indeed was to be the eternal, infinite, and omnipotent brightness of the glory of the father 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. this is the glory which his divine nature had before the world was. but how can his humane nature be glorified with that glory his divine nature had before the world was, unless it should become the divine nature, that it might be said to have pre-existed? (but that it cannot be. for there is no confusion of the humane and divine nature in the hypostasis of christ:) or else because it is hypostatically united with the divine nature; but if that be the glory, that he then had already, and had it not (according to the opposers of pre-existence) before the world was. so we see there is no sense to be made of this text by communication of idioms, and therefore no sense to be made of it without the pre-existence of the humane nature of christ. and if you paraphrase [me] thus, my hypostasis consisting of my humane and divine nature, it will be as untoward sense. for if the divine nature be included in [me] then christ prays for what he has already, as i noted above. for the glory of the eternal logos from everlasting to everlasting, is the same, as sure as he is the same with himself. pag. 86. by his expressions of coming from the father, descending from heaven, and returning thither again, etc. i suppose these scriptures are alluded to, john 3. 13. 6. 38. 16. 28. i came down from heaven not to do my own will, but the will of him that sent me. i came forth from the father, and am come into the world; again i leave the world, and go to the father. whereupon his disciples said unto him lo now speakest thou plainly, and speakest no parable. but it were a very great parable, or aenigm, that one should say truly of himself, that he came from heaven, when he never was there. and as impossible a thing is it to conceive how god can properly be said to come down from heaven, who is always present every where. wherefore that in christ which was not god, namely his soul, or humane nature, was in heaven before he appeared on earth, and consequently his soul did pre-exist. nor is there any refuge here in the communication of idioms. for that cannot be attributed to the whole hypostasis, which is competent to neither part that constitutes it. for it was neither true of the humane nature of christ, if you take away pre-existence, nor of the divine, that they descended from heaven, etc. and yet john 3. 13, 14. where christ prophesying of his crucifixion and ascension, saith, no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the son of man, [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] who was in heaven. so erasmus saith, it may be rendered a participle of the present tense, having a capacity to signify the time past, if the sense require it, as it seems to do here. qui erat in coelo, viz. antequam descenderat. so erasmus upon the place. wherefore these places of scripture touching christ being such inexpugnable arguments of the pre-existence of the soul of the messiah; the writer of no pre-existence, methinks, is no where so civil or discreet as in this point. where, he says, he will not squabble about this, but readily yield that the soul of christ was long extant before it was incarnate. but then he presently flings dirt upon the pre-existentiaries, as guilty of a shameful presumption and inconsequence, to conclude the pre-existence of all other humane souls from the pre-existence of his. because he was a peculiar favourite of god was to undergo bitter sufferings for mankind; and therefore should enjoy an happy pre-existence for an anti-praemium. and since he was to purchase a church with his own most precious blood, it was fit he should pre-exist from the beginning of the world, that he might preside over his church as guide and governor thereof; which is a thing that cannot be said of any other soul beside. this is a device which, i believe, the pre-existentiaries, good men, never dreamt of, but they took it for granted, that the creation of all humane souls was alike, and that the soul of christ was like ours in all things, sin only excepted; as the emperor justinian, in his discourse to menas patriarch of constantinople, argues from this very topick to prove the non-pre-existence of our souls, from the non-pre-existence of christ's, he being like us in all things, sin only excepted. and therefore as to existence and essence there was no difference. thus one would have verily thought to have been most safe and most natural to conclude, as being so punctual according to the declaration of scripture, and order of things. for it seems almost as harsh and repugnant to give angelical existence to a species not angelical, as angelical essence. for according to them, it belongs to angels only to exist a mundo condito, not to humane souls. let us therefore see what great and urgent occasions there are, that the almighty should break this order. the first is, that he may remonstrate the soul of the messiah to be his most special favourite. why? that is sufficiently done, and more opportunely, if other souls pre-existed to be his corrivals. but his faithful adhesion above the rest to the law of his maker, as it might make him so great a favourite: so that transcendent privilege of being hypostatically united with the godhead, or eternal logos, would, i trow, be a sufficient testimony of god's special favour to him above all his fellow pre-existent souls. and then, which is the second thing for his anti-praemial happiness (though it is but an hysteron proteron, and preposterous conceit, to fancy wages before the work) had he less of this by the coexistence of other souls with him, or was it not rather the more highly increased by their coexistencie? and how oddly does it look, that one solitary individual of a species should exist for god knows how many ages alone? but suppose the soul of the messiah, and all other souls created together, and several of them fallen, and the soul of the messiah to undertake their recovery by his sufferings, and this declared amongst them; surely this must hugely enhance his happiness and glory through all the whole order of humane souls, being thus constituted or designed head and prince over them all. an●… thus, though he was rejected by the jews and despised, he could not but be caressed and adored by his fellowsouls above, before his descent to this state of humiliation. and who knows but this might be part at least of that glory which, he says, he had before the world was? and which this ungrateful world denied him, while he was in it, who crucified the lord of life. and as for the third and last, that the soul of the messiah was to pre-exist, that he might preside over the church all along from the beginning of it: what necessity is there of that? could not the eternal logos and the ministry of angels sufficiently discharge that province? but you conceive a congruity therein; and so may another conceive a congruity that he should not enter upon his office till there were a considerable lapse of humane souls which should be his care to recover; which implies their pre-existence before this stage of the earth: and if the soul of the messiah, united with the logos, presided so early over the church; that it was meet that other unlapsed souls, they being of his own tribe, should be his satellitium, and be part of those ministering spirits that watch for the churches good, and zealously endeavour the recovery of their sister-souls, under the conduct of the great soul of the messiah, out of their captivity of sin and death. so that every w●…y pre-existence of other souls will handsomely fall in with the pre-existence of the soul of the messiah, that there may be no breach of order, whenas there is no occasion for it, nor violence done to the holy writ, which expressly declares christ to have been like to us in all things (as well in existence as essence) sin only excepted; as the emperor earnestly urges to the patriarch menas. wherefore we finding no necessity of his particular pre-existing, nor convenience, but what will be doubled if other souls pre-exist with him; it is plain, if he pre-exist, it is as he is an humane soul, not as such a particular soul; and therefore what proves his soul to pre-exist, proves others to pre-exist also. pag. 87. since these places have been more diffusely urged in a late discourse to this purpose. i suppose he means in the letter of resolution concerning origen, where the author opens the sense of philip. 2. 6. learnedly and judiciously, especially when he acknowledges christ's being in the form of god, to be understood of his physical union with the divine logos. which is the ancient orthodox exposition of the primitive fathers, they taking this for one notable testimony of scripture, for the divinity of christ. whenas they that understand it politically of christ's power and authority only, take an excellent weapon out of the hands of the church wherewith she used to oppose the impugners of christ's divinity. but how can christ being god (verus deus, as vatablus expounds 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉,) empty himself, or any way deteriorate himself as to his divinity, by being incarnate, and taking upon him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the form of the terrestrial adam? for every earthly man is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as the apostle seems to intimate, rom. 8. 21. as this ingenious writer has noted; and the apostle likewise seems so to expound it in the text, by adding presently by way of exegesis, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and was made in the likeness of men; like that gen. 5. 3. adam begot a son in his own likeness, a terrestrial man as himself was. wherefore the incarnation of christ being no exinanition to his divinity, there was an humanity of christ, viz. his soul, in a glorious state of pre-existence, to which this voluntary exinanition belonged. pag. 87. was it for this man's sin, or his fathers, that he was born blind? for the avoiding the force of this argument for proving that pre-existence was the opinion of the jews; and that christ when it was so plainly implied in the question, by his silence, or not reproving it, seemed to admit it, or at least to esteem it no hurtful opinion: they allege these two things: first, that these enquirers having some notions of the divine prescience, might suppose that god foreknowing what kind of person this blind man would prove, had antedated his punishment. the other is, that the enquirers may be conceived to understand the blind man's original sin. so that when they enquired whether the man was born blind for his own or his parent's sin, they might only ask whether that particular judgement was the effect of his parents, or of his own original pravity. this is cameron's. but see what forced conceits learned men will entertain, rather than not to say something on a text. what a distorted and preposterous account is that found, that god should punish men before they sin, because he foresees they will sin? and he only produces this example, and a slight one too, that jeroboams hand was dried up as he stretched it forth to give a sign to apprehend the prophet. and the other is as fond an account, that god should send such severe judgements on men for their original pravity, which they cannot help. and original pravity being so common to all, it could be no reason why this particular man should be born blind, more than others. wherefore grotius far more ingenuously writes thus upon the place: quaerunt ergo an ipse peccaverit, quia multi judaeorum credebant 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 animarum. and as our saviour christ passed it for an innocent opinion, so did the primitive church, the book of wisdom being an allowable book with them, and read in public, though it plainly declare for pre-existence, chap. 8. 20. chap. 12. p. 93. therefore let the reader, if he please, call it a romantic scheme, or imaginary hypothesis, etc. this is very discreetly and judiciously done of the author, to propose such things as are not necessary members or branches of pre-existence, and are but at the best conjectura●…, as no part of that otherwise-useful theory. for by tacking too fast these unnecessary tufts or tassels to the main truth, it will but give occasion to wanton or wrathful whelps to worry her, and tug her into the dirt by them. and we may easily observe how greedily they catch at such occasions, though it be not much that they can make out of them, as we may observe in the next chapter. chap. 13. pag. 96. pill. 1. to conceive him as an immense and all-glorious sun, that is continually communicating, etc. and this as certainly as the sun does his light, and as restrainedly. for the sun's light is not equally imparted to all subjects, but according to the measure of their capacity. and as nature limits here in natural things, so does the wisdom and justice of god in free creatures. he imparts to them as they capacitate themselves by improving or abusing their freedom. pag. 100 pill. 3. be resolved into a principle that is not merely corporeal. he suspects that the descent of heavy bodies, when all is said and done, must be resolved into such a principle. but i think he that without prejudice peruses the eleventh and thirteenth chapters (with their scholia) of dr. mores enchiridion metaphysicum, will find it beyond suspicion, that the descent of heavy bodies is to be resolved into some corporeal principle; and that the spirit of nature, though you should call it with the cabalists by that astartling name of sandalphon, is no such prodigious hobgoblin, as rudeness and presumptuous ignorance has made that buckram writer in contempt and derision to call it. pag. 101. as naturally as the fire mounts, and a stone descends. and as these do not so (though naturally) merely from their own intrinsic nature, but in virtue of the spirit of the universe; so the same reason there is in the disposal of spirits. the spirit of nature will range their plastics as certainly and orderly in the regions of the world, as it does the matter itself in all places. whence that of plotinus may fitly be understood, that a soul enveigled in viciousness, both here and after death, according to her nature 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is thrust into the state and place she is, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as if she were drawn thither by certain invisible or magical strings of natures own pulling. thus is he pleased to express this power or virtue of the spirit of nature in the universe. but i think that transposition she makes of them is rather 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, than either 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a transvection of them, rather than pulsion or traction. but these are overnice curiosities. pag. 101. as likely some things relating to the state of spirits, etc. that is to say, spirits by the ministry of other spirits may be carried into such regions as the spirit of nature would not have transmitted them to, from the place where they were before, whether for good or evil. of the latter kind whereof, i shall have occasion to speak more particularly in my notes on the next chapter. pag. 102. pill. 4. the souls of men are capable of living in other bodies besides terrestrial; etc. for the pre-existentiaries allow her successively to have lived, first, in an ethereal body, then in an aereal; and lastly, after the state of silence, to live in a terrestrial. and here i think, though it be something early, it will not be amiss to take notice what the anti-pre-existentiaries allege against this hypothesis; for we shall have the less trouble afterwards. first, therefore, they say, that it does not become the goodness of god to make man's soul with a triple vital congruity, that will fit as well an aereal and terrestrial condition, as an aethereal. for from hence it appears, that their will was not so much in fault that they sinned, as the constitution of their essence: and they have the face to quote the account of origen, pag. 49. for to strengthen this their first argument. the words are these: they being originally made with a capacity to join with this terrestrial matter, it seems necessary according to the course of nature that they should sink into it, & so appear terrestrialmen. and therefore, say they, there being no descending into these earthly bodies without a lapse or previous sin, their very constitution necessitated them to sin. the second argument is, that this hypothesis is inconsistent with the body's resurrection. for the aereal body immediately succeeding the terrestrial, and the aethereal the aereal, the business is done, there needs no resuscitation of the terrestrial body to be glorified. nor is it the same numerical body or flesh still, as it ought to be, if the resurrection-body be aethereal. the third is touching the aereal body; that if the soul after death be tied to an aereal body (and few or none attain to the aethereal immediately after death) the souls of very good men will be forced to have their abode amongst the very devils. for their prince is the prince of the air, as the apostle calls him; and where can his subjects be, but where he is? so that they will be enforced to endure the company of these foul fiends; besides all the incommodious changes in the air, of clouds, of vapours, of rain, hail, thunder, tearing tempests and storms; and what is an image of hell itself, the darkness of night will overwhelm them every four and twenty hours. the fourth argument is touching the aethereal state of pre-existence. for if souls when they were in so heavenly and happy an estate could lapse from it, what assurance can we have, when we are returned thither, that we shall abide in it? it being but the same happiness we were in before: and we having the same plastic with its triple vital congruity, as we had before. why therefore may we not lapse as before? the fifth and last argument is taken from the state of silence. wherein the soul is supposed devoid of perception. and therefore their number being many, and their attraction to the place of conception in the womb being merely magical, and reaching many at a time, there would be many attracted at once; so that scarce a foetus could be form which would not be a multiform monster, or a cluster of humane foetus', not one single foetus. and these are thought such weighty arguments, that pre-existence must sink and perish under their pressure. but, i believe, when we have weighed them in the balance of unprejudiced reason, we shall find them light enough. and truly, for the first; it is not only weak and slight, but wretchedly disingenuous. the strength of it is nothing but a maimed and fraudulent quotation, which makes ashew as if the author of the account of origen, bluntly affirmed, without any thing more to do, that souls being originally made with a capacity to join with this terrestrial matter, it seems necessary, according to the course of nature, that they should sink into it, and so appear terrestrial men: whenas if we take the whole paragraph as it lies, before th●…y cast themselves into this fatal necessity, they are declared to have a freedom of will, whereby they might have so managed their happy estate they were created in, that they need never have fallen. his words are these: what then remains, but that through the faulty and negligent use of themselves, whilst they were in some better condition of life, they rendered themselves less pure in the whole extent of their powers, both intellectual and animal; and so by degrees became disposed for the susception of such a degree of corporeal life, as was less pure, indeed, than the former; but exactly answerable to their present disposition of spirit. so that after certain periods of time they might become far less fit to actuate any sort of body, than the terrestrial; and being originally made with a capacity to join with this too, and in it to exercise the powers and functions of life, it seems necessary, etc. these are the very words of the author of the account of origen, wherein he plainly affirms, that it was the fault of the souls themselves, that they did not order themselves then right when they might have done so, that cast them into this terrestrial condition. but what an opposer of pre-existence is this, that will thus shamelessly falsify and corrupt a quotation of an ingenious author, rather than he will seem to want an argument against his opinion! wherefore briefly to answer to this argument, it does as much become the goodness of god to create souls with a triple vital congruity, as to have created adam in paradise with free will, and a capacity of sinning. to the second, the pre-existentiaries will answer, that it is no more absurd to conceive (nor so much) that the soul after death hath an airy body, or it may be some an ethereal one, than to imagine them so highly happy after death without any body at all. for if they can act so fully and beatifically without any body, what need there be any resurrection of the body at all? and if it be most natural to the soul to act in some body, in what a long unnatural estate has adam's soul been, that so many thousand years has been without a body? but for the soul to have a body, of which she may be the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, certainly is most natural, or else she will be in an unnatural state after the resurrection to all eternity. whence it is manifest, that it is most natural for the soul, if she act at all, to have a body to act in. and therefore, unless we will be so dull as to fall into the drowsy dream of the pyschopannychites, we are to allow the soul to have some kind of body or other till the very resurrection. but those now that are not psychopannychites, but allow good souls the joys and glories of paradise before the resurrection of the body, let them be demanded to what end the soul should have a resurrection-body; and what they would answer for themselves, the pre-existentiaries will answer for their position that holds the soul has an aethereal body already, or an aereal one which may be changed into an aethereal body. if they will allege any concinnity in the business, or the firm promise of more highly completing our happiness at the union of our terrestrial bodies with our souls at the resurrection; this, i say, may be done as well supposing them to have bodies in the mean time as if they had none. for those bodies they have made use of in the interval betwixt their death and resurrection, may be so thin and dilute, that they may be no more considerable than an interula is to a royal robe lined with rich furs, and embroidered with gold. for suppose every man's body at the resurrection framed again out of its own dust, bones, sinews and flesh, by the miraculous power of god, were it not as easy for these subtle spirits, as it is in the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to enter these bodies, and by the divine power assisting, so to inactuate them, that that little of their vehicle they brought in with them, shall no more destroy the individuation of the body, than a draught of wine drunk in, does the individuation of our body now, though it were, immediately upon the drinking, actuated by the soul. and the soul at the same instant actuating the whole aggregate, it is tightly the same numerical body, even to the utmost curiosity of the schoolmen. but the divine assistance working in this, it is not to be thought that the soul will lose by resuming this resurrection-body, but that all will be turned into a more full and saturate brightness and glory, and that the whole will become an heavenly, spiritual, and truly glorified body, immortal and incorruptible. nor does the being thus turned into an heavenly or spiritual body, hinder it from being still the same numerical body, forasmuch as one and the same numerical matter, let it be under what modifications it will, is still the same numerical matter or body; and it is gross ignorance in philosophy that makes any conceive otherwise. but a rude and illnatured opposer of pre-existence is not content that it be the same numerical body, but that this same numerical body be still flesh, peevishly and invidiously thereby to expose the author of the account of origen, who, pag. 120. writes thus: that the body we now have, is therefore corruptible and mortal, because it is flesh; and therefore if it put on incorruption and immortality, it must put off itself first, and cease to be flesh. but questionless that ingenious writer understood this of natural flesh and blood, of which the apostle declares, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of god. but as he says, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, there is a natural body and there is a spiritual body: so if he had made application of the several kinds of flesh he mentions, of men, of beasts, of fishes, and birds, he would have presently subjoined, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, there is a natural flesh and there is a spiritual flesh. and 'tis this spiritual flesh to which belongs incorruption and immortality, and which is capable of the kingdom of heaven. but for the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the natural flesh, it must put off itself, and cease to be natural flesh, before it can put on immortality and incorruption. so little inconsistency is there of this hypothesis (as touching the souls acting in either an aereal of aethereal vehicle, during the interval betwixt the resurrection and her departure hence) with the resurrection of the body. but in the mean time, there is a strong bar thereby put to the dull dream of the psychopanychites, and other harshnesses also eased or smoothed by it. now as for the third argument, which must needs seem a great scarecrow to the illiterate, there is very little weight or none at all in it. for if we take but notice of the whole atmosphere, what is the dimension thereof, and of the three regions into which it is distributed, all these bugbears will vanish. as for the dimension of the whole atmosphere, it is by the skilful reputed about fifty to italic miles high, the convex of the middle region thereof about four such miles, the concave about half a mile. now this distribution of the air into these three regions being thus made, and the hebrew tongue having no other name to call the expansum about us, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 heaven, here is according to them a distribution of heaven into three, and the highest region will be part of the third heaven. this therefore premised, i answer, that though the souls of good men after death be detained within the atmosphere of the air, (and the air itself haply may reach much higher than this atmosphere that is bounded by the mere ascent of exhalations and vapours) yet there is no necessity at all that they should be put to those inconveniencies, which this argument pretends, from the company of devils, or incommodious changes and disturbances of the air. for suppose such inconveniencies in the middle and lowest region, yet the upper region, which is also part of the third heaven, those parts are ever calm and serene. and the devil's principality reaching no further than through the middle and lowest region next the earth, (not to advertise that his quarters may be restrained there also) the souls of the departed that are good, are not liable to be pestered and haunted with the ungrateful presence or occursions of the deformed and grim retinue, or of the vagrant vassals of that foul fiend, that is prince of the air, he being only so of these lower parts thereof, and the good souls having room enough to consociate together in the upper region of it. nor does that promise of our saviour to the thief on the cross, that that very day he should be with him in paradise, at all clash with this hypothesis of aereal bodies, both because christ by his miraculous power might confer that upon the penitent thief his fellow-sufferer, which would not fall to the share of other penitents in a natural course of things; and also because this third region of the air may be part of paradise itself: (in my father's house there are many mansions) and some learned men have declared paradise to be in the air, but such a part of the air as is free from gross vapours and clouds; and such is the third region thereof. in the mean time we see the souls of good men departed, freed from those panic fears of being infested either by the unwelcome company of fiends and devils, or incommodated by any dull cloudy obscurations, or violent and tempestuous motions of the air. only the shadowy vale of the night will be cast over them once in a nycthemeron. but what incommodation is that, after the brisk active heat of the sun in the daytime, to have the variety of the more mild beams of the moon, or gentle, though more quick and cheerful, scintillations of the twinkling stars? this variety may well seem an addition to the felicity of their state. and the shadowyness of the night may help them in the more composing introversions of their contemplative mind, and cast the soul into ineffably pleasing slumbers and divine ecstasies; so that the transactions of the night may prove more solacing and beatific sometimes, than those of the day. such things we may guests at afar off, but in the mean time be sure, that these good and serious souls know how to turn all that god sends to them to the improvement of their happiness. to the fourth argument we answer, that there are not a few reasons from the nature of the thing that may beget in us a strong presumption that souls recovered into their celestial happiness will never again relapse, though they did once. for first, it may be a mistake that the happiness is altogether the same that it was before. for our first paradisiacal bodies from which we lapsed, might be of a more crude and dilute aether, not so full and saturate with heavenly glory and perfection as our resurrection-body is. secondly, the soul was then unexperienced, and lightly coming by that happiness she was in, did the more heedlessly forgo it, before she was well aware; and her mind roved after new adventures, though she knew not what. thirdly, it is to be considered, whether regeneration be not a stronger tenor for enduring happiness, than the being created happy. for this being wrought so by degrees upon the plastic, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, with ineffable groans and piercing desires after that divine life, that the spirit of god co-operating exciteth in us; when regeneration is perfected and wrought to the full by these strong agonies, this may rationally be deemed a deeper tincture in the soul than that she had by mere creation, whereby the soul did indeed become holy, innocent and happy, but not coming to it with any such strong previous conflicts and eager workings and thirstings after that state, it might not be so firmly rooted by far as in regeneration begun and accomplished by the operation of god's spirit, gradually but more deeply renewing the divine image in us. fourthly, it being a renovation of our nature into a pristine state of ours, the strength and depth of impression seems increased upon that account also. fifthly, the remembrance of all the hardships we underwent in our lapsed condition, whether of mortification or cross rencounters, this must likewise help us to persevere when once returned to our former happiness. sixthly, the comparing of the evanid pleasures of our lapsed or terrestrial life, with the fullness of those joys that we find still in our heavenly, will keep us from ever having any hankering after them any more. seventhly, the certain knowledge of everlasting punishment, which if not true, they could not know, must be also another sure bar to any such negligencies as would hazard their settled felicity. which may be one reason why the irreclaimable are eternally punished, namely, that it may the better secure eternal happiness to others. eighthly, though we have our triple vital congruity still, yet the plastic life is so throughly satisfied with the resurrection-body, which is so considerably more full and saturate with all the heavenly richness and glory than the former, that the plastic of the soul is as entirely taken up with this one body, as if she enjoyed the pleasures of all three bodies at once, aethereal, aereal, and terrestrial. and lastly, which will strike all sure, he that is able to save to the utmost, and has promised us eternal life, is as true as able, and therefore cannot fail to perform it. and who can deny but that we in this state i have described, are as capable of being fixed there, and confirmed therein, as the angels were after lucifer and others had fallen? and now to the fifth and last argument against the state of silence, i say it is raised out of mere ignorance of the most rational as well as most platonical way of the souls immediate descent 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. for the first mover or stirrer in this matter, i mean in the formation of the foetus, is the spirit of nature, the great 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the universe, to whom plotinus somewhere attributes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the first predelineations and prodrome irradiations into the matter, before the particular soul, it is preparing for, come into it. now the spirit of nature being such a spirit as contains spermatically or vitally all the laws contrived by the divine intellect, for the management of the matter of the world, and of all essences else unperceptive, or quatenus unperceptive, for the good of the universe; we have all the reason in the world to suppose this vital or spermatical law is amongst the rest, viz. that it transmit but one soul to one prepared conception. which will therefore be as certainly done, unless some rare and odd casualty intervene, as if the divine intellect itself did do it. wherefore one and the same spirit of nature which prepares the matter by some general predelineation, does at the due time transmit some one soul in the state of silence by some particularising laws (that fetch in such a soul rather than such, but most sure but one, unless as i said some special casualty happen) into the prepared matter, acting at two places at once according to its synenergetical virtue or power. hence therefore it is plain, that there will be no such clusters of foetus' and monstrous deformities from this hypothesis of the souls being in a state of silence. but for one to shuffle off so fair a satisfaction to this difficulty, by a precarious supposing there is no such being as the spirit of nature, when it is demonstrable by so many irrefragable arguments that there is, is a symptom of one that philosophizes at random, not as reason guides. for that is no reason against the existence of the spirit of nature, because some define it a substance incorporeal, but without sense and animadversion, etc. as if a spirit without sense and animadversion were a contradiction. for that there is a spirit of nature is demonstrable, though whether it have no sense at all is more dubitable. but through it have no sense or perception, it is no contradiction to its being a spirit, as may appear from dr. h. moor's brief discourse of the true notion of a spirit. to which i direct the reader for satisfaction, i having already been more prolix in answering these arguments than i intended. but i hope i have made my presage true, that they would be found to have no force in them to overthrow the hypothesis of a threefold vital congruity in the plastic of the soul. so that this fourth pillar, for any execution they can do, will stand unshaken. pag. 103. for in all sensation there is corporeal motion, etc. and besides, there seems an essential relation of the soul to body, according to aristotle's definition thereof, he defining it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that which actuates the body. which therefore must be idle when it has nothing to actuate, as a piper must be silent, as to piping, if he have no pipe to play on. chap. 14. pag. 113. the ignobler and lower properties or the life of the body were languid and remiss, v●… as to their proper exercises or acting for themselves, or as to their being regarded much by the soul that is taken up with greater matters, or as to their being much relished, but in subserviency to the enjoyment of those more divine and sublime objects; as the author intimates towards the end of his last pillar. pag. 114. and the plastic had nothing to do but to move this passive and easy body, etc. it may be added, and keep it in its due form and shape. and it is well added [accordingly as the concerns of the higher faculties required] for the plastic by reason of its vital union with the vehicle, is indeed the main instrument of the motion thereof. but it is the imperium of the perceptive that both excites and guides its motion. which is no wonder it can do, they being both but one soul. pag. 114. to pronounce the place to be the sun, etc. which is as rationally guessed by them, as if one should fancy all the fellows and students chambers in a college to be contained within the area of the hearth in the hall, and the rest of the college uninhabited. for the sun is but a common focus of a vortex, and is less by far to the vortex, than the hearth to the ichnography of the whole college, that i may not say little more than a tennis-ball to the bigness of the earth. pag. 115. yet were we not immuta●…ly so, etc. but this mutability we were placed in, was not without a prospect of a more full confirmation and greater accumulation of happiness at the long run, as i intimated above. pag. 116. we were made on set purpose defatigable, that so all degrees of life, etc. we being such creatures as we are and finite, and taking in the enjoyment of those infinitely perfect and glorious objects only pro modulo nostro, according to the scantness of our capacity, diversion to other objects may be an ease and relief. from whence the promise of a glorified body in the christian religion, as it is most grateful, so appears most rational. but in the mean time it would appear most irrational to believe we shall have eyes and ears and other organs of external sense, and have no suitable objects to entertain them. pag. 117. yea, methinks 'tis but a reasonable reward to the body, etc. this is spoken something popularly and to the sense of the vulgar, that imagine the body to feel pleasure and pain, whenas it is the soul only that is perceptive and capable of feeling either. but 'tis fit the body should be kept in due plight for the lawful and allowable corporeal enjoyments the soul may reap therefrom for seasonable diversion. pag. 117, that that is executed which he hath so determined, etc. some fancy this may be extended to the enjoying of the fruits of the invigouration of all the three vital congruities of the plastic, and that for a soul orderly and in due time and course to pass through all these dispensations, provided she keep herself sincere towards her maker, is not properly any lapse or sin, but an harmless experiencing all the capacities of enjoying themselves that god has bestowed upon them. which will open a door to a further answer touching the rest of the planets being inhabited, namely, that they may be inhabited by such kind of souls as these, who therefore want not the knowledge and assistance of a redeemer. and so the earth may be the only nosocomium of sinfully lapsed souls. this may be an answer to such farfetched objections till they can prove the contrary. pag. 118. adam cannot withstand the inordinate appetite, etc. namely, after his own remissness and heedlessness in ordering himself, he had brought himself to such a wretched weakness. pag. 121. the plastic faculties begin now fully to awaken, etc. there are three vital congruities belonging to the plastic of the soul, and they are to awake orderly, that is, to operate one after another downward and upward, that is to say, in the lapse, the aereal follows the aethereal, the terrestrial the aereal. but in their recovery or emergency out of the lapse, the aereal follows the terrestrial, and the aethereal the aereal. but however, a more gross turgency to plastic operation may haply arise at the latter end of the aereal period, which may be as it were the disease of the soul in that state, and which may help to turn her out of it into the state of silence, and is itself for the present silenced therewith. for where there is no union with body, there is no operation of the soul. pag. 121. for it hath an aptness and propensity to act in a terrestrial body, etc. this aptness and fitness it has in the state of silence, according to that essential order of things interwoven into its own nature and into the nature of the spirit of the world, or great archaeus of the universe, according to the eternal counsel of the divine wisdom. by which law and appointment the soul will as certainly have a fitness and propensity at its leaving the terrestrial body to actuate an aereal o●…e. pag. 122. either by mere natural congruity, the disposition of the soul of the world, or some more spontaneous agent, etc. natural congruity and the disposal of the plastic soul of the world (which others call the spirit of nature) may be joined well together in this feat, the spirit of nature attracting such a soul as is most congruous to the predelineated matter which it has prepared for her. but as for the spontaneous agent, i suppose, he may understand his ministry in some supernatural birth. unless he thinks that some angels or genii may be employed in putting souls into bodies, as gardiner's are in setting pease and beans in the beds of gardens. but certainly they must be no good genii then that have any hand in assisting or setting souls in such wombs as have had to do with adultery, incest, and buggery. pag. 123. but some apish shows and imitations of reason, virtue and religion, etc. the reason of the unregenerate in divine things is little better than thus, and virtue and religion which is not from that principle which revives in us in real regeneration, are, though much better than scandalous vice and profaneness, mere pictures and shadows of what they pretend to. pag. 123. to its old celestial abode, etc. for we are pilgrims and strangers here on the earth, as the holy patriarches of old declared. and they that speak such things, saith the apostle, plainly show 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that they seek their native country, for so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 properly signifies. and truly if they had been mindful of that earthly country out of which they came, they might, saith he, have had opportunity of returning. but now they desire a better, to wit, an heavenly, hebr. 11. pag. 124. but that they step forth again into airy vehicles. this is their natural course, as i noted above. but the examples of enoch and elias, and much more of our ever blessed saviour, are extraordinary and supernatural. pag. 125. those therefore that pass out of these bodies before their terrestrial congruity be spoilt, weakened, or orderly unwound, according to the tenor of this hypothesis, etc. by the favour of this ingenious writer, this hypothesis does not need any such obnoxious appendage as this, viz. that souls that are outed these terrestrial bodies before their terrestrial congruity be spoiled, weakened, or orderly unwound, return into the state of inactivity. but this is far more consonant both to reason and experience or story, that though the terrestrial congruity be still vigorous, as not having run out it may be the half part, no not the tenth part of its period, the soul immediately upon the quitting of this body is invested with a body of air, and is in the state of activity not of silence in no sense. for some being murdered have in all likelihood in their own persons complained of their murderers, as it is in that story of anne walker; and there are many others of the same nature. and besides, it is far more reasonable, there being such numerous multitudes of silent souls, that their least continuance in these terrestrial bodies should at their departure be as it were a magical cue or tessera forthwith to the aereal congruity of life to begin to act its part upon the ceasing of the other, that more souls may be rid out of the state of silence. which makes it more probable that every soul that is once besmeared with the unctuous moisture of the womb, should as it were by a magic ointment be carried into the air (though it be of a stillborn infant) than that any should return into the state of silence or inactivity upon the pretence of the remaining vigour of the terrestrial congruity of life. for these laws are not by any consequential necessity, but by the free counsel of the eternal wisdom of god consulting for the best. and therefore this being so apparently for the best, this law is interwoven into the spirit of the world and every particular soul, that upon the ceasing of her terrestrial union, her aereal congruity of life should immediately operate, and the spirit of nature assisting, she should be dressed in aereal robes, and be found among the inhabitants of those regions. if souls should be remanded back into the state of silence that depart before the terrestrial period of vital congruity be orderly unwound, so very few reach the end of that period, that they must in a manner all be turned into the state of inactivity. which would be to wove penelope's web, to do and undo because the day is long enough, as the proverb is, whenas it rather seems too short, by reason of the numerosity of silent souls that expect their turn of recovery into life. pag. 125. but only follow the clew of this hypothesis. the hypothesis requires no such thing, but it rather clashes with the first and chietest pillar thereof, viz. that all the divine designs and actions are laid and carried on by infinite goodness. and i have already intimated how much better it is to be this way that i am pleading for, than that of this otherwise-ingenious writer. pag. 125. since by long and hard exercise in this body, the plastic life is well ta●…ned and debilitated, etc. but this is not at all necessary, no not in those souls whose plastic may be deemed the most rampant. dis-union from this terrestrial body immediately tames it, i mean, the terrestrial congruity of life; and its operation is stopped, as surely as a string of a lute never so smartly vibrated is streightways silenced by a gentle touch of the finger, and another single string may be immediately made to sound alone, while the other is mute and silent. for, i say, these are the free laws of the eternal wisdom, but fatally and vitally, not intellectually implanted in the spirit of nature, and in all humane souls or spirits. the whole universe is as it were the automatal harp of that great and true apollo; and as for the general striking of the strings and stopping their vibrations, they are done with as exquisite art as if a free intellectual agent played upon them. but the plastic powers in the world are not such, but only vital and fatal, as i said before. pag. 126. that an aereal body was not enough for it to display its force upon, etc. it is far more safe and rational to say, that the soul deserts her aereal estate by reason that the period of the vital congruity is expired, which according to those fatal laws i spoke of before is determined by the divine wisdom. but whether a soul may do any thing to abbreviate this period, and excite such symptoms in the plastic as may shorten her continuance in that state, let it be left to the more inquisitive to define. pag. 128. where is then the difference betwixt the just and the wicked, in state, place, and body? their difference in place i have sufficiently shown, in my answer to the third argument against the triple congruity of life in the plastic of humane souls, how fitly they may be disposed of in the air. but to the rude buffonery of that crude opposer of the opinion of pre-existence, i made no answer. it being methinks sufficiently answered in the scholia upon sect. 12. cap. 3. lib. 3. of dr. h. mores immortalitas animae, if the reader think it worth his while to consult the place. now for state and body the difference is obvious. the vehicle is of more pure air, and the conscience more pure of the one than of the other. pag. 130. for according to this hypothesis, the gravity of those bodies is less, because the quantity of the earth that draws them is so, etc. this is an ingenious invention both to salve that phaenomenon, why bodies in mines and other deep subterraneous places should seem not so heavy nor hard to lift there, as they are in the superior air above the earth; and also to prove that the crust of the earth is not of so considerable a thickness as men usually conceive it is. i say, it is ingenious, but not so firm and sure. the quicksilver in a torricellian tube will sink deeper in an higher or clearer air, though there be the same magnetism of the earth under it that was before. but this is not altogether so fit an illustration, there being another cause than i drive at conjoined thereto. but that which i drive at is sufficient of it self to salve this phaenomenon. a bucket of water, while it is in the water comes up with ease to him that draws it at the well; but so soon as it comes into the air, though there be the same earth under it that there was before, it feels now exceeding more weighty. of which i conceive the genuine reason is, because the spirit of nature, which ranges all things in their due order, acts proportionately strongly to reduce them thereto, as they are more heterogeniously and disproportionately placed as to their consistencies. and therefore by how much more crass and solid a body is above that in which it is placed, by so much the stronger effort the spirit of nature uses to reduce it to its right place; but the less it exceeds the crassness of the element it is in, the effort is the less or weaker. hence therefore it is, that a stone or such like body in those subterraneous depths seems less heavy, because the air there is so gross and thick, and is not so much disproportionate to the grossness of the stone as our air above the earth here is; nor do i make any doubt, but if the earth were all cut away to the very bottom of any of these mines, so that the air might be of the same consistency with ours, the stone would then be as heavy as it is usually to us in this superioor surface of the earth. so that this is no certain argument for the proving that the crust of the earth is of such thinness as this author would have it, though i do not question but that it is thin enough. pag. 131. and the mention of the fountains of the great deep in the sacred history, etc. this is a more considerable argument for the thinness of the crust of the earth; and i must confess i think it not improbable but that there is an aqueous hollow sphaericum, which is the basis of this habitable earth, according to that of psalm 24. 2. for he hath founded it upon the seas, and established it upon the floods. pag. 131. now i intent not that after a certain distance all is fluid matter to the centre; that is to say, after a certain distance of earthly matter, that the rest should be fluid matter, namely, water and air, to the centre, etc. but here his intention is directed by that veneration he has for des cartes. otherwise i believe if he had freely examined the thing to the bottom, he would have found it more reasonable to conclude all fluid betwixt the concave of the terrestrial crust and the centre of the earth, as we usually phrase it, though nothing be properly earth but that crust. pag. 131. which for the most part very likely is a gross and foetid kind of air, etc. on this side of the concave of the terrestrial crust there may be several hollows of foetid air and stagnant water, which may be so many particular lodgings for lapsed and unruly spirits. but there is moreover a considerable aqueous sphaericum upon which the earth is founded, and is most properly the abyss; but in a more comprehensive notion, all from the convex thereof to the centre may be termed the abyss, or the deepest place that touches our imagination. pag. 131. the lowest and central regions may be filled with flame and aether, etc. that there was the relics of a sun after the incrustation of the earth and aqueous orb, is according to this hypothesis reasonable enough. and a kind of air and aether betwixt this diminished sun and the concave of this aqueous orb, but no crass and opake concamerations of hard matter interposed betwixt. which is an hypothesis the most kind to the ingenious author of telluris theoria sacra, that he could wish. for he holding that there was for almost two thousand years an opake earthy crust over this aqueous orb unbroke till the deluge, which he ascribes to the breaking thereof, it was necessary there should be no opake orb betwixt the central fire and this aqueous orb; for else the fishes for so long a time had lived in utter darkness, having eyes to no purpose, nor ability to guide their way or hunt their prey. only it is supposed, which is easy to do, that they then swum with their backs toward the centre, whenas as now they swim with their bellies thitherward; they then plying near the concave, as now near the convex of this watery abyss. which being admitted, the difference of their posture will necessarilly follow according to the laws of nature, as were easy to make out, but that i intent brevity in these annotations. only i cannot forbear by the way to advertise how probable it is that this central fire which shone clear enough to give light to the fishes swimming near the concave of this watery orb, might in process of time grow dimmer and dimmer, and exceeding much abate of its light, by that time the crust of the earth broke and let in the light of the sun of this great vortex into this watery region, within which, viz. in the air or aether there, there has been still a decay of light, the air or aether growing more thick as well as that little central fire or sun, being more and more enveloped with fuliginous stuff about it. so that the whole concavity may seem most like a vast duskish vault, and this dwindling overclouded sun a sepulchral lamp, such as, if i remember right, was found in the monuments of olybius and tulliola. an hideous dismal forlorn place, and sit receptacle for the methim and rephaim. and the latin translation, job 26. 5. excellently well accords with this sad phaenomenon. ecce gigantes gemunt sub aquis, & qui habitant cum eyes. here is that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as symmachus translates the word. and it follows in the verse, nudus est infernus coram eo, hell is naked before god. and symmachus in other places of the proverbs puts 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 together, which therefore is the most proper and the nethermost hell. and it will be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the highest sense, whenever this lurid light (as it seems probable to me it sometime will be) is quite extinct, and this central fire turned into a terrella, as it may seem to have already happened in saturn. but we must remember, as the author sometimes reminds us, that we are embellishing but a romantic hypothesis, and be sure we admit no more than reason, scripture, and the apostolic faith will allow. pag. 132. are after death committed to those squalid subterraneous habitations, etc. he seems to suppose that all the wicked and degerate souls are committed hither, that they may be less troublesome to better souls in this air above the earth. but considering the devil is called the prince of the air, & that he has his clients and subjects in the same place with him; we may well allow the lower regions of the air to him, and to some wicked or unregenerate souls promiscuously with him, though there be subterraneous receptacles for the worst and most rebellious of them, and not send them all packing thither. pag. 132. that they are driven into those dungeons by the invisible ministers of justice, etc. he speaks of such dungeons as are in the broken caverns of the forth, which may be so many vexatious receptacles for rebellious spirits which these invisible ministers of justice may drive them into, and see them committed; and being confined there upon far severer penalties if they submit not to that present punishment which they are sentenced to, they will out of fear of greater calamity be in as safe custody as if they were under lock and key. but the most dismal penalty is to be carried into the abyss, the place of the rephaim i above described. this is a most astonishing commination to them, and they extremely dread that sentence. which makes the devils, luke 8. 31. so earnestly beseech christ that he would not command them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to pack away into the abyss. this punishment therefore of the abyss where the rephaim or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 groan, is door and lock that makes them, whether they will or no, submit to all other punishments and confinements on this side of it. michael psellus takes special notice how the daemons are frighted with the menaces 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, with the menaces of the sending them away packing into the abyss and subterraneous places. but these may signify no more than cavities that are in the ruptues of the earth, and they may steal out again if they will adventure, unless they were perpetually watched, which is not so probable. wherefore they are imprisoned through fear of that great horrid abyss above described, and which as i said is an iron lock and door of brass upon them. but than you will say, what is the door and lock to this terrible place? i answer, the inviolable adamantine laws of the great sandalphon or spirit of the universe. when once a rebellious spirit is carried down by a minister of justice into this abyss, he can no more return of himself, than a man put into a well forty fathoms deep is able of himself to ascend out of it. the unlapsed spirits, it is their privilege that their vehicles are wholly obedient to the will of the spirit that inactuates them, and therefore they have free ingress and egress every where; and being so little passive as they are, and so quick and swift in their motions, can perform any ministries with little or no incommodation to themselves. but the vehicles of lapsed spirits are more passive, and they are the very chains whereby they are tied to certain regions by the iron laws of the spirit of the universe, or hylarchick principle, that unfailingly ranges the matter every where according to certain orders. wherefore this sergeant of justice having once deposited his prisoner within the concave of the aqueous orb, he will be as certainly kept there, and never of himself get out again, as the man in the bottom of the well abovementioned. for the laws of the same spirit of nature that keeps the man at the bottom of the well (that every thing may be placed according to the measure of its consistency) will inhibit this captive from ever returning to this superior air again, because his vehicle is, though foul enough, yet much thinner than the water; and there will be the the same ranging of things on the concave side of the aqueous orb, as there is on the convex. so that if we could suppose the ring about saturn inhabited with any living creatures, they would be born toward the concave of the ring as well as toward the convex, and walk as steadily as we and our antipodes do with our feet on this and that side of the earth one against another. this may serve for a brief intimation of the reason of the thing, and the intelligent will easily make out the rest themselves, and understand what an ineluctable fate and calamity it is to be carried into that duskish place of dread and horror, when once the angel that has the keys of the abyss or bottomless pit has shut a rebellious spirit up there, & chained him in that hideous dungeon. pag. 133. others to the dungeon, and some to the most intolerable hell the abyss of fire. the dungeon here, if it were understood with an emphasis, would most properly denote the dungeon of the rephaim, of which those parts nearest the centre may be called the abyss of fire more properly than any vulcano's in the crust of the earth. those souls therefore that have been of a more fierce and fiery nature, and the causers of violence and bloodshed, and of furious wars and cruel persecutions of innocent and harmless men, when they are committed to this dungeon of the rephaim, by those inevitable laws of the subteraqueous sandalphon, or demogorgon if you will, they will be ranged nearest the central fire of this hellish vault. for the vehicles of souls symbolising with the temper of the mind, those who are most haughty, ambitious, fierce, and fiery, and therefore, out of pride and contempt of others in respect of themselves and their own interest, make nothing of shedding innocent blood, or cruelly handling those that are not for their turn, but are faithful adherers to their maker, the vehicles of these being more thin and fiery than theirs who have transgressed in the concupiscible, they must needs surmount such in order of place, and be most remote from the concave of the aqueous orb under which the rephaim groan, and so be placed at least the nearest to that abyss of fire, which our author terms the most intolerable hell. pag. 133. have a strict and careful eye upon them, to keep them within the confines of their goal, etc. that this, as it is a more tedious province, so a needless one, i have intimated above, by reason that the fear of being carried into the abyss will effectually detain them in their confinements. from whence if they be not released in time, the very place they are in may so change their vehicles, that it may in a manner grow natural to them, and make them as uncapable of the superior air as bats and owls are, as the ingenious author notes, to bear the sun's noon-day-beams, or the fish to live in these thinner regions. pag. 134. under severe penalties prohibit all unlicensed excursions into the upper world, though i confess this seems not so probable, etc. the author seems to reserve all the air above the earth to good souls only, and that if any bad ones appear, it must be by either stealth or licence. but why bad souls may not be in this lower region of the air as well as devils, i understand not. nor do i conceive but that the kingdom of darkness may make such laws amongst themselves, as may tend to the ease and safety of those of the kingdom of light. not out of any goodwill to them, but that themselves may not further smart for it if they give licence to such and such exorbitancies. for they are capable of pain and punishment, and though they are permitted in the world, yet they are absolutely under the power of the almighty, and of the grand minister of his kingdom, the glorious soul of the messiah. pag. 137. the internal central fire should have got such strength and irresistible vigour, etc. but how or from whence, is very hard to conceive: i should rather suspect, as i noted above, that the fire will more and more decay till it turn at last to a kind of terrella, like that observed within the ring of saturn, and the dungeon become utter darkness, where there will be weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth, as well as in the furnace of fire. pag. 141. and so following the laws of its proper motion shall fly away out of this vortex, etc. this looks like an heedless mistake of this ingenious writer, who though he speak the language of cartesius, seems here not to have recalled to mind his principles. for the earth according to his principles is never like to become a sun again. nor if it had so become, would it then become a comet. forasmuch as comets according to his philosophy are incrustated suns, and planets or earth's in a manner, and so to be deemed so soon as they settle in any vortex, and take their course about the centre thereof. nor if the earth become a sun again, is it like to leave our vortex according to the cartesian principles, but rather be swallowed down into the sun of our vortex, and increase his magnitude; the ranging of the planets according to des cartes mechanical laws being from the difference of their solidities, and the least solid next to the sun. whither then can this sol redivivus or the earth turned wholly into the materia subtilissima again be carried, but into the sun itself? this seems most likely, especially if we consider this sol redivivus or the earth turned all into the materia subtilissima, in itself. but if we take into our consideration its particular vortex which carries about the moon, the business may bear a further debate which will require more time than to be entered upon here. but it seems plain at first sight, that though this sol redivivus should by virtue of its particular vortex be kept from being swallowed down into the sun and centre of the great vortex, yet it will never be able to get out of this great vortex, according to the frame of des cartes philosophy. so that there will be two suns in one vortex, a planetary one and a fixed one. which unexpected monstrosity in nature will make any cautious cartesian more wary how he admits of the earth's ever being turned into a sun again; but rather to be content to let its central fire to incrustrate itself into a terrella, there seeming to be an example of this in that little globe in the midst of the ring of saturn; but of an earth turned into a sun no example at all that i know of. pag. 142. so that the central fire remains unconcerned, etc. and so it well may, it being so considerable a distance from the concave of the aqueous orb, and the aqueous orb itself betwixt the crust of the earth and it. but the prisoners of this gaol of the rephaim will not be a little concerned. this hell of a sudden growing so smothering hot to them all, though the central fire no more than it was. and whatever becomes of those spirits that suffer in the very conflagration itself, yet ab hoc inferno nulla est redemptio. pag. 147. those immediate births of unassisted nature will not be so tender, etc. besides, the air being replenished with benign daemons or genii, to whom it cannot but be a pleasant spectacle to behold the inchoations and progresses of reviving nature, they having the curiosity to contemplate these births, may also in all likelihood exercise their kindness in helping them in their wants; and when they are grown up, assist them also in the methods of life, and impart as they shall find fit the arcana of arts and sciences and religion unto them, nor suffer them to symbolise overmuch in their way of living with the rest of their fellow terrestrial creatures. if it be true that some hold, that even now when there is no such need, every one has his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, his genius or guardian angel, it is much more likely that at such a season as this, every tender foetus of their common mother the earth, would be taken into the care of some good daemon or other, even at their very first budding out into life. pag. 148. but all this is but the frolic exercise of my pen choosing a paradox. and let the same be said of the pen of the annotator, who has bestowed these pains not to gain proselytes to the opinions treated of in this discourse, but to entertain the readers intellectuals with what may something enlarge his thoughts; and if he be curious and anxious, help him at a pinch to some ease of mind touching the ways of god and his wonderful providence in the world. pag. 149. those other expressions of death, destruction, perdition of the ungodly, etc. how the entering into the state of silence may well be deemed a real death, destruction and perdition, that passage in lucretius does marvellously well set out. nam si tantopere est animi mutata potestas, omnis ut actarum exciderit retinentia rerum, non, ut opinor, ea ab letho jam longiter errat quapropter fateare necesse est, quae fuit ante interiisse, etc. de rerum natura, lib. 3. and again in the same book he says, though we were again just as we were before, yet we having no memory thereof, it is all one as if we were perfectly lost. and yet this is the condition of the soul which the divine nemesis sends into the state of silence, because afterwards she remembers nothing of her former life. his words are these: nec, si materiam nostram collegerit aetas post obitum, rursúmque redegerit ut sita nunc est, atque iterum nobis fuerint data lumina vitae, pertineat quicquam tamen ad nos id quoque factum interrupta semel quom sit retinentia nostri. pag. 150. in those passages which predict new heavens and a new earth, etc. i suppose he alludes especially to that place in the apocalypse, chap. 21. where presently upon the description of the lake of fire in the precedent chapter which answers to the conflagration, it is said, and i saw a new heaven and a new earth. but questionless that passage, as in other places, is politically to be understood, not physically, unless this may be the ingenious author's meaning, that the writer of the apocalypse adorning his style with allusions to the most rousing and most notable real or physical objects (which is observable all along the apocalypse) it may be a sign that a new heaven and a new earth succeeding the conflagration, is one of those noble phaenomena true and real amongst the rest, which he thought fit to adorn his style with by alluding thereto. so that though the chief intended sense of the apocalypse be political, yet by its allusions it may countenance many noble and weighty truths whether physical or metaphysical. as, the existence of angels, which is so perpertually inculcated all along the book from the beginning to the ending: the divine shechina in the celestial regions: the dreadsul abyss in which rebellious spirits are chained, and at the commination whereof they so much tremble: the conflagration of the earth; and lastly, the renewing and restoring this earth and heaven after the conflagration. pag. 150. the main opinion of pre-existence is not at all concerned, etc. this is very judiciously and soberly noted by him. and therefore it is by no means fairly done by the opposers of pre-existence, while they make such a pother to confute any passages in this hypothesis, which is acknowledged by the pre-existentiaries themselves to be no necessary or essential part of that dogma. but this they do, that they may seem by their cavils (for most of them are no better) against some parts of this unnecessary appendage of pre-existence, to have done some execution upon the opinion itself; which how far it extends, may be in some measure discovered by these notes we have made upon it. which stated as they direct, the hypothesis is at least possible; but that it is absolutely the true one, or should be thought so, is not intended. but as the ingenious author suggests, it is either this way or some better, as the infinite wisdom of god may have ordered. but this possible way shows pre-existence to be neither impossible nor improbable. pag. 151. but submit all that i have written to the authority of the church of england, etc. and this i am persuaded he heartily did, as it is the duty of every one, in things that they cannot confirm by either a plain demonstration, clear authority of scripture, manifestation of their outward senses, or some rousing miracle, to compromise with the decisions of the national church where providence has cast them, for common peace and settlement, and for the ease and security of governors. but because a fancy has taken a man in the head, that he knows greater arcana than others, or has a more orthodox belief in things not necessary to salvation than others have, for him to affect to make others proselytes to his opinion, and to wear his badge of wisdom, as of an extraordinary master in matters of theory, is a mere vanity of spirit, a ridiculous piece of pride and levity, and unbeseeming either a sober and staunched man or a good christian. but upon such pretences to gather a sect, or set up a church or independent congregation, is intolerable faction and schism, nor can ever bear a free and strict examination according to the measures of the truest morals and politics. but because it is the fate of some men to believe opinions, to others but probable, nor it may be so much (as the motion of the earth suppose, and des cartes his vortices, and the like) to be certain science, it is the interest of every national church to define the truth of no more theories than are plainly necessary for faith and good manners; because if they either be really, or seem to be mistaken in their unnecessary decisions or definitions, this with those that are more knowing than ingenuous will certainly lessen the authority and reverence due to the church, and hazard a secret enmity of such against her. but to adventure upon no decisions but what have the authority of scripture (which they have that were the decisions of general councils before the apostasy) and plain usefulness as well as reason of their side, this is the greatest conservative of the honour and authority of a church (especially joined with an exemplary life) that the greatest prudence or politics can ever excogitate. which true politics the church of rome having a long time ago deserted, has been fain, an horrid thing to think of it! to support her authority and extort reverence by mere violence and blood. whenas, if she had followed these more true and christian politics, she would never have made herself so obnoxious, but for aught one knows, she might have stood and retained her authority for ever. in the mean time, this is suitable enough, and very well worth our noting, that forasmuch as there is no assurance of the holy ghost's assisting unnecessary decisions, though it were of the universal church, much less of any national one, so that if such a point be determined, it is uncertainly determined, and that there may be several ways of holding a necessary point, some more accommodate to one kind of men, others to another, and that the decisions of the church are for the edification of the people, that either their faith may be more firm, or their lives more irreprehensible: these things, i say, being premised, it seems most prudent and christian in a church to decline the decision of the circumstances of any necessary point, forasmuch as by deciding and determining the thing one way, those other handles by which others might take more fast hold on it are thereby cut off, and so their assent made less firm thereto. we need not go far for an example, if we but remember what we have been about all this 〈◊〉 it is necessary to believe that we have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 immortal spirit capable of salvation 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ●…ording as we shall behave 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 revealed to us, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. but though this opinion or rather article of faith be but one, yet there are several ways of holding it. and it lies more easy in some men's minds, if they suppose it created by god at every conception in the womb; in othersome, if they conceive it to be ex traduce; and lastly in others, if it pre-exist. but the ways of holding this article signify nothing but as they are subservient to the making us the more firmly hold the same. for the more firmly we believe it, the greater influence will it have upon our lives, to cause us to live in the fear of god, and in the ways of righteousness like good christians. wherefore now it being supposed that it will stick more firm and fixed in some men's minds by some one of these three ways, rather than by either of the other two, and thus of any one of the three; it is manifest, it is much more prudently done of the church not to cut off two of these three handles by a needless, nay, a harmful decision, but let every one choose that handle that he can hold the article fastest by, for his own support and edification. for thus every one laying firm hold on that handle that is best sitted for his own grasp, the article will carry all these three sorts of believers safe up to heaven, they living accordingly; whenas two sorts of them would have more slippery or uncertain hold, if they had no handle ossered to them but those which are less suitable to their grasp and genius. which shows the prudence, care, and accuracy of judgement in the church of england, that as in other things, so in this, she has made no such needless and indeed hurtful decisions, but left the modes of conceiving things of the greatest moment, to every one's self, to take it that way that he can lay the fastest hold of it, and it will lie the most easily in his mind without doubt and wavering. and therefore there being no one of these handles but what may be useful to some or other for the more easy and undoubted holding that there is in us an immaterial and immortal soul or spirit, my having taken this small pains to wipe off the soil, and further the usefulness of one of them by these annotations, if it may not merit thanks, it must, i hope, at least deserve excuse with all those that are not of too sour and tetrick a genius, and prefer their own humours and sentiments before the real benefit of others. but now if any one shall invidiously object, that i prefer the christian discretion of my own church the church of england, before the judgement and wisdom of a general council, namely, the fisth ecumenical council held at constantinople in justinians time under the patriarch eutychius, who succeeded menas lately deceased, to whom justinian sent that discourse of his against origen and his errors, amongst which pre-existence is reckoned one: in answer to this, several things are to be considered, that right may be done our mother. first, what number of bishops make a general council, so that from their numerosity we may rely upon their authority and infallibility that they will not conclude what is false. secondly, whether in whatsoever matters of debate, though nothing to the salvation of men's souls, but of curious speculation, fitter for the schools of philosophers than articles of faith for the edification of the people (whose memory and conscience ought to be charged with no notions that are not subservient to the rightly and duly honouring god and his only begotten son our lord jesus christ, and to the faithful discharging their duty to man) the assistance of the spirit of god can rationally be expected; or only in such things as are necessary to be professed by the people, and very useful for the promoting of life and godliness. and as moses has circumscribed his narrative of the creation within the limits of mundus plebeiorum, and also the chronology of time according to scripture is bounded from the first adam to the coming again of the second to judgement, and sentencing the wicked to everlasting punishment, and the righteous to life everlasting: so whether the decisions of the church are not the most safely contained within these bounds, and they faithfully discharge themselves in the conduct of souls, if they do but instruct them in such truths only as are within this compass revealed in sacred scripture. and whether it does not make for the interest and dignity of the church to decline the meddling with other things, as unprofitable and unnecessary to be decided. thirdly, whether if a general council meet not together in via spiritus sancti, but some stickling imbittered grandees of the church out of a pique that they have taken against some persons get through their interest a general council called, whether is the assistance of the holy ghost to be expected in such a meeting, so that they shall conclude nothing against truth. fourthly, whether the authority of such general councils as providence by some notable prodigy may seem to have intimated a dislike of, be not thereby justly suspected, and not easily to be admitted as infallible deciders. fifthly, whether a general council that is found mistaken in one point, anathematising that for an heresy which is a truth, forfeits not its authority in other points, which than whether falsehoods or truths, are not to be deemed so from the authority of that council, but from other topics. sixthly, since there can be no commerce betwixt god and man, nor he communicate his mind and will to us but by supposition, that our senses rightly circumstantiated are true, that there is skill in us to understand words and grammar, and schemes of speech, as also common notions and clear inferences of reason, whether if a general council conclude any thing plainly repugnant to these, is the conclusion of such a council true and valid; and whether the indelible notices of truth in our mind that all mankind is possessed of, whether logical, moral, or metaphysical, be not more the dictates of god, than those of any council that are against them. seventhly, if a council, as general as any has been called, had in the very midnight of the church's apostasy and ignorance met, and concluded all those corruptions that now are obtruded by the church of rome, as transubstantiation, invocation of saints, worshipping of images, and the like, whether the decisions of such a council could be held infallible or valid. what our own excellently well reformed church holds in this case, is evident out of her articles. for, eighthly, the church of england plainly declares, that general councils when they be gathered together, forasmuch as they be an assembly of men whereof all are not governed with the spirit and word of god, they may err, and sometimes have erred even in things pertaining to god. wherefore, saith she, things ordained by them as necessary to salvation have neither strength nor authority, unless it may be declared that they be taken out of holy scripture. artic. 21. ninthly, and again, artic. 20. where she allows the church to have power to decree rites and ceremonies, and authority in controversies of faith, but with this restriction, that it is not lawful for the church to ordain any thing that is contrary to god's word written, neither may it so expound one place of scripture that it be repugnant to another; she concludes: wherefore although the church be a witness and keeper of holy writ, yet as it ought not to decree any thing against the same, so besides the same ought it not to enforce any thing to be believed for necessity of salvation. what then, does she null the authority of all the general councils, and have no deference for any thing but the mere word of god to convince men of heresy? no such matter. what her sense of these things is, you will find in 1 eliz. cap. 1. wherefore, tenthly and lastly, what general councils the church of england allows of for the conviction of heretics you may understand out of these words of the statute: they shall not adjudge any matter or cause to be heresies, but only such as heretofore have been adjudged to be heresy by the authority of the canonical scriptures, or by the first four general councils or any of them, or by any other general council wherein the same was declared heresy by the express and plain words of the said canonical scriptures, by brief reflections upon some of these ten heads, i shall endeavour to lessen the invidiousness of my seeming to prefer the discretion of the church of england before the judgement of a general council, i mean of such a general council as is so unexceptionable that we may rely on the authority of their decisions, that they will not fail to be true. of which sort whether the fifth reputed general council be, we will briefly first consider. for reflecting on the first head, it seems scarcely numerous enough for a general council. the first general council of nice had above three hundred bishops; that of chalcedon above six hundred: this fifth council held at constantinople had but an hundred sixty odd. and which still makes it more unlike a general council, in the very same year, viz. 553, the western bishops held a council at aquileia, and condemned this fifth council held at constantinople. secondly, the pre-existence of souls being a mere philosophical speculation, and indeed held by all philosophers in the affirmative that held the soul incorporeal; we are to consider whether we may not justly deem this case referrible to the second head, and to look something like pope zacharies appointing a council to condemn virgilius as an heretic, for holding antipodes. thirdly, we may very well doubt whether this council proceeded in via spiritus sancti, this not being the first time that the lovers and admirers of origen for his great piety and knowledge, and singular good service he had done to the church of christ in his time, had foul play played them. witness the story of theophilus bishop of antioch, who to revenge himself on dioscorus and two others that were lovers of origen and anti-anthropomorphites, stickled so, that he caused epiphanius in his see, as he did in his own, to condemn the books of origen in a synod. to which condemnation epiphanius an anthropomorphite, and one of more zeal than knowledge, would have got the subscription of chrysostom the patriarch of constantinople; but he had more wisdom and honesty than to listen to such an injurious demand. and as it was with those synods called by theophilus and epiphanius, so it seems to be with the fifth council. piques and heart-burnings amongst the grandees of the church seemed to be at the bottom of the business. binius in his history of this fifth council takes notice of the enmity betwixt pelagius, pope vigilius' apocrisiarie, and theodorus bishop of caesarea cappadociae an origenist. and spondanus likewise mentions the same, who says, touching the business of origen, that pelagius the pope's apocrisiarie, eam quaestionem in ipsius theodori odium movisse existimabatur. and truly it seems to me altogether incredible, unless there were some hellish spite at the bottom, that they should not have contented themselves to condemn the errors supposed to be origen's (but after so long a time after his death, there being in his writings such chopings and change and interpolations, hard to prove to be his) but have spared his name, for that unspeakable good service he did the church in his life-time. see dr. h. moor's preface to his collectio philosophica, sect. 18. where origen's true character is described out of eusebius. wherefore whether this be to begin or carry on things in via spiritus sancti, so that we may rely on the authority of such a council, i leave to the impartial and judicious to consider. fourthly, in reference to the fourth head, that true wisdom and moderation, and the holy assistance of god's spirit did not guide the affairs of this council, seems to be indicated by the divine providence, who to show the effect of their unwise proceedings in the selfsame year the council sat, sent a most terrible earthquake for forty days together upon the city of constantinople where the council was held, and upon other regions of the east, even upon alexandria itself and other places, so that many cities were leveled to the ground. upon which spondanus writes thus: haea verò praesagia fuisse malorum quae sunt praedictam synodum consecuta, nemo negare poterit quicunque ab eventis facta noverit judicare. this also reminds me of a prodigy as it was thought that happened at the sixth reputed general council, where nigh three hundred fathers were gathered together to decide this nice and subtle point, namely, whether an operation or volition of christ were to be deemed, una operatio sive volitio 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, according to that axiom of some metaphysicians, that actio est suppositi, and so the humane and divine nature of christ being coalescent into one person, his volition and operation be accounted one as his person is but one; or because of the two natures, though but one person, there are to be conceived two operations or two volitions. this latter dogma obtained, and the other was condemned by this third constantinopolitan council: whereupon, as paulus diaconus writes, abundance of cobwebs or spiders webs fell or reigned, as it were, down upon the heads of the people, to their very great astonishment. some interpret the cobwebs of heresies: others haply more rightfully of troubling the church of christ with overgreat niceties and curiosities of subtle speculation, which tend nothing to the corroborating her faith, and promoting a good life; and are so obscure, subtle, and lubricous, that look on them one way they seem thus, and another way thus. to this sixth general council there seemed two operations and two wills in chri●…, because of his two natures. to a council called after by philippicus the emperor, and john patriarch o●… constantinople, considering christ as one person ●…ere appeared numerosissimo orientalium episcoporum collecto conven●…ui▪ as spondanus ●…as 〈◊〉 but as binius, innumerle orientalium episcoporum multitudini congregat●…e, but one will and one operation. and ce●…tainly this numerous or innumerable company of bishops must put as fair sore a general council as that of less than three hundred▪ but that the authority of both these councils are lessened upon the account of the second head, in that the matter they consulted about tended nothing to the corroboration of our faith, or the promotion of a good life, i have already intimat●…d. these things i was tempted to note, in reference to the tenth head. for it seems to me an undeniable argument, that our first reformers, which are the risen witnesses, were either tightly well seen in ecclesiastic history, or the good hand of god was upon them that they absolutely admitted only the four first general councils; but after them, they knew not where to be, or what to call a general council, and therefore would not adventure of any so called for the adjudging any matters heresy. but if any pretended to be such, their authority should no further prevail, than as they made out things by express and plain words of canonical scripture. and for other synods, whether the seventh, which is the second of nice, or any other that the church of rome would have to be general in defence of their own exorbitant points of faith or practice, they will be found of no validity, if we have recourse to the sixth, seventh, eighth and ninth heads. fifthly, in reference to the fifth head. this fifth council loseth its authority in anathematising what in origen seems to be true according to that express text of scripture, john 16. 28. (especially compared with others. see notes on chap. ii.) i came forth from the father, and am come into the world; again i leave the world, and go to the father. he came forth from his father which is in heaven, accordingly as he taught us to pray to him (the divine shechina being in a peculiar manner there) he leaves the world and goes to the father, which all understand of his ascension into heaven, whence his coming from the father must have the same sense, or else the antithesis will plainly fail. wherefore it is plain he came down from heaven (as he signifies also in other places) as well as returns thither. but he can neither be truly said to come from heaven, nor return thither, according to his divine nature. for it never lest heaven, nor removes from one place to another; and therefore this scripture does plainly imply the pre existence of the soul of the messiah, according to the doctrine of the jews, before it was incarnate. and this stricture of the old cabala may give light to more places of st. john's writings than is fit to recite in this haste; i will only name one by the by, 1 john 4. 2. every spirit that confesseth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that jesus is the christ come in the flesh, that is to say, is the christ incarnate, is of god. for the messiah did exist, viz. his soul, before he came into the flesh, according to the doctrine of the jews. which was so well known, that upon the abovecited saying (john 16. 28.) of our saviour, they presently answered, lo, now speakest thou plainly, and speakest no parable; because he clearly discovers himself by this character to be the expected messias incarnate. nor is there any possible evasion out of the clearness of this text from the communication of idioms, because christ cannot be said to come down from heaven according to his humane nature before it was there, therefore his humane nature was there before it was incarnate. and lastly, the authority of the decision of this council (if it did so decide) is lessened, in that contrary to the second head (as was hinted above) it decides a point that faith and godliness is not at all concerned in. for the divinity of christ, which is the great point of faith, is as firmly held supposing the soul of the messias united with the logos before his incarnation, as in it. so that the spite only of pelagius against theodorus to multiply anathematisms against origen, no use or necessity of the church required any such thing. whence again their authority is lessened upon the account of the third head. these things may very well suspend a careful mind, and loath to be imposed upon, from relying much upon the authority of this fifth council. but suppose its authority entire, yet the acts against origen are not to be found in the council. and the sixth council in its anathematisms, though it mention theodoret's writings, the epistle of ibas and theodorus mopsuestenus who were concerned in the fifth council; yet i find not there a syllable touching origen. and therefore those that talk of his being condemned by that fifth co●…ncil, have an eye, i suppose, to the anathematisms at the end of that discourse which justinian the emperor sent to menas patriarch of constantinople, according to which form they suppose the errors of origen condemned. which if it were true, yet simple pre-existence will escape well enough. nor do i think that learned and intelligent patriarch photius would have called the simple opinion of pre-existence of souls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but ●…or those appendages that the injudiciousness and rashness of some had affixed 〈◊〉 it. partly therefore re●…lecting upon that first anathematism in the emperor's discou●…se that makes the pre-existent souls of men first to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as if their highest felicity consisted in having no body to inactuate (which plainly clashes with both sound philosophy and christianity, as if the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and rephaim were all one, and they were not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 till they were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, grown cold to the divine love, and only gathered body as they gathered corruption, and were alienated from the life of god; which is point-blank against the christian faith, which has promised us, as the highest prize, a glorified body:) and partly what himself adds, that one soul goes into several bodies; which are impertinent appendages of the pre-existence of the soul, false, useless and unnecessary; and therefore those that add these appendages thereto, violate the sincerity of the divine tradition to no good purpose. but this simple doctrine of pre existence is so unexceptionable and harmless, that the third collection of councils in justellus, which is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, though it reckon the other errors of origen condemned in the fifth council, omits this of pre-existence. certainly that ecclesiastic that framed that discourse for the emperor, if he did it not himself, had not fully, deliberately and impartially considered the dogma of pre-existence taken in its self, nor does once offer to answer any reasons out of scripture or philosophy that are produced for it. which if it had been done, and this had been the only error to be alleged against origen. i cannot think it credible, nay scarce possible, though their spite had been never so much against some lo●…ers of origen, that they could have got any general council to have condemned so holy, so able, so victorious a champion for the christian church in his life-time for an h●…retick, upon so tolerable a punctilio, about three hundred years after his death. what father that wrote before the first four general councils, but might by the malevolent, for some odd passage or other, be doomed an heretic, if such severity were admittable amongst christians? but i have gone out further than i was aware; and it is time for me to be think me what i intended. which was the justif●…ing of myself in my seeming to prefer the discretion of our own church in leaving us free to hold the incorporeity and immortality of the soul by any of the three handles that best fitted every man's genius, before the judgement of the fifth general council, that would abridge us of this liberty. from which charge i have endeavoured to free myself, briefly by these two ways: first, by showing how hard it is to prove the fifth ecumenical council so called, to be a legitimate general or ecumenical council, and such as whose authority we may rely on. and secondly, if it was such, by showing that it did not condemn simply the pre-existence of souls, but pre-existence with such and such appendages. so that there is no real clashing betwixt our church and that council in this. but however this is, from the eighth and ninth heads its plain enough that the church of england is no favourer of the conclusions of any general council that are enjoined as necessary to salvation, that be either repugnant to holy scripture, or are not clearly to be made out from the same; which non-pre-existence of souls certainly is not, but rather the contrary. but being the point is not sufficiently clear from scripture either way to all, and the immortality of the soul and subsistence after death is the main useful point; that way which men can hold it with most firmness and ease, her candour and prudence has left it free to them to make use of. and as for general councils, though she does not in a fit of zeal, which theodosius a prior in palestine is said to have done, anathematise from the pulpit all people that do not give as much belief to the four first general councils as to the four gospels themselves; yet, as you may see in the tenth head, she makes the authority of the first four general councils so great, that nothing is to be adjudged heresy but what may be proved to be so either from the scripture or from these four councils. which encomium might be made with less skill and more confidence by that prior, there having been no more than four general councils in his time. but it was singular learning and judgement, or else a kind of divine sagacity in our first reformers, that they laid so great stress on the first four general councils, and so little on any others pretended so to be. but in all likelihood they being persuaded of the truth of the prediction of the apostasi●… of the church under antichrist how universal in a manner it would be, they had the most confidence in those general councils which were the earliest, and that were held within those times of the church which some call symmetral. and without all question, the two first general councils, that of nice, and that other of constantinople, were within those times, viz. within four hundred years after christ; and the third and fourth within the time that the ten-horned beast had his horns growing up, according to mr. mede's computation. but the definitions of the third and fourth councils, that of ephesus, and that other of chalcedon (which are to establish the divinity of christ, which is not to be conceived without the union of both natures into one person; as also his theanthropy, which cannot consist with the confusion of both natures into one) were virtually contained in the definitions of the first and second councils. so that in this regard they are all of equal authority, and that unexceptionable. first, because their decisions were concerning points necessary to be decided one way or other, for the settlement of the church in the objects of their divine worship. and therefore they might be the better assured that t●…e assistance of the holy ghost would not be wa●…ing upon so weighty an occasion. and secondly, in that those two first councils were called while the church was symmetral, and before the apostasy came in, according to the testimony of the spirit in the visions of the apocalypse. which visions plainly demonstrate, that the definitions of those councils touching the triunity of the godhead and divinity of christ are not idolatrous, else the apostasy had begun before the time these oracles declare it did; and if not idolatrous, than they are most certainly true. and all these four councils driving at nothing else but these necessary points to be decided, and their decision being thus plainly approved by the suffrage of the holy ghost in the apocalypse, i appeal to any man of sense and judgement if they have not a peculiar prerogative to be believed above what other pretended general council soever; and consequently with what special or rather divine sagacity our first reformers have laid so peculiar a stress on these four, and how consistent our mother the church of england is to herself, that the decisions of general councils have neither strength nor authority further than the matter may be cleared out of the holy scriptures. for here we see, that out of the holy scriptures there is a most ample testimony given to the decisions of these four general councils. so that if one should with theodosius the prior of palestine in a fit of zeal anathematise all those that did not believe them as true as the four evangelists, he would not want a fair plea for his religious fury. but for men after the symmetral times of the church, upon piques and private quarrels of parties, to get general councils called as they fancy them, to conclude matters that tend neither to the confirmation of the real articles of the christian faith, or of such a sense of them as are truly useful to life and godliness, and herein to expect the infallible assistances of the holy spirit, either upon such terms as these, or for rank worldly interest, is such a presumption as to a free judgement will look little better than simony, as if they could hire the assistance of the holy ghost for money. thus have i run further into the consideration of general councils, and the measure of their authority, than was requisite upon so small an occasion; and yet i think there is nothing said, but if seriously weighed may be useful to the intelligent reader, whether he favour pre-existence or not. which is no further to be favoured than is consistent with the known and approved doctrines of the christian faith, nor clashes any thing with the soundest systemes of divinity, as dr. h. more shows his way of exhibiting the theory does not, in his general preface to his collectio philosophica, sect. 19 whose cautious and castigate method i have imitated as near as i could in these my annotations. and he has indeed been so careful of admitting any thing in the hypothesis that may justly be suspected or excepted against, that his friend mr. glanvil might have enlarged his dedication by one word more, and called him repurgatorem sapientioe orientalis, as well as restauratorem, unless restaurator imply both: it being a piece of restauration, to free an hypothesis from the errors some may have corrupted it with, and to recover it to its primeval purity and sincerity. and yet when the business is reduced to this harmless and unexceptionable state, such is the modesty of that writer, that he declares that if he were as certain of the opinion as of any demonstration in mathematics, yet he holds not himself bound in conscience to profess it any further than is with the goodliking or permission of his superiors. of which temper if all men were, it would infinitely contribute to the peace of the church. and as for myself, i do freely profess that i am altogether of the selfsame opinion and judgement with him. annotations upon the discourse of truth. into which is inserted by way of digression, a brief return to mr. baxter's reply, which he calls a placid collation with the learned dr. henry more, occasioned by the doctors answer to a letter of the learned psychopyrist. whereunto is annexed a devotional hymn, translated for the use of the sincere lovers of true piety. london: printed for j. collins, and s. lownds, over against exeter-change in the strand. 1683. the annotatour to the reader. about a fortnight or three weeks ago, while my annotations upon the two foregoing treatises were a printing, there came to my hands mr. baxter's reply to dr. moor's answer to a letter of the learned psychopyrist, printed in the second edition of saducismus triumphatus: which reply he styles a placid collation with the learned dr. henry more. i being fully at leisure, presently fell upon reading this placid collation; which i must confess is so writ, that i was much surprised in the reading of it, i expecting by the title thereof nothing but fairness and freeness of judgement, and calmness of spirit, and love and desire of truth, and the prosperous success thereof in the world, whether ourselves have the luck to light on it, or where ever it is found. but instead of this, i found a magisterial loftiness of spirit, and a study of obscuring and suppressing of the truth by petty crooked artifices, strange distortions of the sense of the doctor's arguments, and falsifications of passages in his answer to the letter of the psychopyrist. which surprise moved me, i confess, to a competent measure of indignation in the behalf of the injured doctor, and of the truth he contends for: and that indignation, according to the idiosyncrasy of my genius, stirred up the merry humour in me, i being more prone to laugh than to be severely angry or surly at those that do things unhandsomely; and this merry humour stirred up, prevailing so much upon my judgement as to make me think that this placid collation was not to be answered, but by one in a pleasant and jocular humour; and i finding myself something so disposed, and judging the matter not of that moment as to be buzzed upon long, and that this more light some, brisk and jocular way of answering the placid collation might better besit an unknown annotatour, than the known pen and person of the doctor, i presently betook myself to this little province, thinking at first only to take notice of mr. baxters' disingenuities towards the doctor; but one thing drawing on another, and that which followed being carefully managed and apparently useful, i mean the answering all mr. baxter's pretended objections against the penetrability or indiscerpibility of a spirit, and all his smaller criticisms upon the doctor's definition thereof, in finishing these three parts, i quickly completed the whole little work of what i call the digression, (inserted into my annotations upon bishop rusts ingenious discourse of truth) which, with my annotations, and the serious hymn annexed at the end (to recompose thy spirits, if any thing over-ludicrous may chance to have discomposed them) i offer, courteous reader, to thy candid perusal; and so in some haste take leave, and rest your humble servant, the annotatour. annotations upon the discourse of truth. sect. 1. pag. 165. and that there are necessary mutual respects, etc. here was a gross mistake in the former impression. for this clause there ran thus: by the first i mean nothing else, but that things necessarily are what they are. by the second, that there are necessary mutual respects and relations of things one unto another. as if these mutual respects and relations of things one to another were truth in the subject, and not truth in the object; the latter of which he handles from the fourth section to the eighteenth, in which last section alone he treats of truth in the subject or understanding. the former part of the discourse is spent in treating of truth in the object; that is to say, of truth in the nature of things, and their necessary respects and mutual relations one to another. both which are antecedent in the order of nature to all understandings, and therefore both put together make up the first branch of the division of truth. so grossly had the authors ms. been depraved by passing through the hands of unskilful transcribers, as mr. j. glanvil complains at the end of his letter prefixed to this discourse. and so far as i see, that ms. by which he corrected that according to which the former impression was made, was corrupt itself in this place. and it running glibly, and they expecting so suddenly the proposal of the other member of the division, the error, though so great, was overseen. but it being now so seasonably corrected, it gives great light to the discourse, and makes things more easy and intelligible. sect. 2. pag. 166. that any thing may be a suitable means to any end, etc. it may seem a monstrous thing to the sober, that any man's understanding should be so depraved as to think so. and yet i have met with one that took himself to be no small philosopher, but to be wiser than both the universities, and the royal society to boot, that did earnestly affirm to me, that there is no natural adaptation of means to ends, but that one means would be as good as another for any end if god would have it so, in whose power alone every thing has that effect it has upon another. whereupon i asked him, whether if god wo●…ld a football might not be as good an instrument to make or mend a pen withal, as a penknife. he was surprised; but whether he was convinced of his madness and folly, i do not well remember. pag. 167. is it possible there should be such a kind of geometry, wherein any problem should be demonstrated by any principles? some of the cartesians bid fair towards this freakishness, whenas they do not stick to assert, that, if god would, he could have made that the whole should be lesser than the part, and the part bigger than the whole. which i suppose they were animated to, by a piece of raillery of des cartes, in answering a certain objection; where, that he may not seem to violate the absolute power of god for making what laws he pleased for the ordering of the matter of the universe (though himself seems to have framed the world out of certain inevitable and necessary mechanical laws) does affirm, that those laws that seem so necessary, are by the arbitrarious appointment of god, who, if he would, could have appointed other laws, and indeed framed another geometry than we have, and made the power of the hypotenusa of a right-angled triangle unequal to the powers of the basis and cathetus. this piece of drollery of des cartes some of his followers have very gravely improved to what i said above of the whole and part. as if some superstitious fop, upon the hearing one being demanded, whether he did believe the real and corporeal presence of christ in the sacrament, to answer roundly that he believed him there booted and spurred as he road in triumph to jerusalem, should become of the same faith that the other seemed to profess, and glory in the improvement thereof by adding that the ass was also in the sacrament, which he spurred and rid upon. but in the mean time, while there is this frenzy amongst them that are no small pretenders to philosophy, this does not a little set off the value and usefulness of this present discourse of truth, to undeceiv●… them if they be not wilfully blind. pag. 167. therefore the three angles of a triangle are equal to two right ones; namely, because a quadrangle is that which is comprehended of four right lines. it is at least a more operose and ambagious inference, if any at all. the more immediate and expedite is this, that the two internal alternate angles made by a right line cutting two parallels, are equal to one another: therefore the three angles of a triangle are equal to two right ones, p. ram. geom. lib. 6. prop. 9 is the reasoning had been thus: a quadrangle is that which is comprehended of ●…our right lines, therefore the three angles of a triangle are not equal to two right ones; as the conclusion is grossly false, so the proof had been egregiously ali●…n and impertinent. and the intention of the author seems to be carried to instances that are most extravagant and surprising; which makes me doubt whether [equal] was read in the true ms. or [not equal] but the sense is well enough either way. sect. 4. pag. 168. the divine understanding cannot be the fountain of the truth of things, etc. this seems at first sight to be a very harsh paradox, and against the current doctrine of metaphysicians, who define transcendental or metaphysical truth to be nothing else but the relation of the conformity of things to the theoretical (not practical) intellect of god; his practical intellect being that by which he knows things as produced or to be produced by him, but his theoretical that, by which he knows things as they are; but yet in an objective manner, as existent objectively, not really. and hence they make transcendental truth to depend upon the intellectual truth of god, which alone is most properly truth, and indeed the fountain and origine of all truth. this in brief is the sense of the metaphysical schools. with which this passage of our author seems to clash, in denying the divine intellect to be the fountain of the truth of things, and in driving rather at this, that the things themselves in their objective existence, such as they appear there unalterably and unchangeably to the divine intellect, and not at pleasure contrived by it (for as he says, it is against the nature of all understanding to make its object) are the measure and fountain of truth. that in these, i say, consists the truth in the object, and that the truth in the subject is a conception conformable to these, or to the truth of them whether in the uncreated or created understanding. so that the niceness of the point is this: whether the transcendental truth of things exhibited in their objective existence to the theoretical intellect of god consists in their conformity to that intellect, or the truth of that intellect in its conformity with the immutable natures and relations or respects of things exhibited in their objective existence, which the divine intellect finds to be unalterably such, not contrives them at its own pleasure. this though it be no 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or strife about mere words, yet it seems to be such a contest, that there is no harm done whethersoever side carries the cause, the two seeming sides being but one and the same intellect of god necessarily and immutably representing to itself the natures, respects, and aptitudes of all things such as they appear in their objective existence, and such as they will prove whenever produced into act. as for example, the divine understanding quatenns exhibitive of ideas (which a platonist would call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) does of its infinite pregnancy and fecundity necessarily exhibit certain and unalterable ideas of such and such determinate things, as suppose of a cylinder, a globe and a pyramid, which have a settled and unalterable nature, as also immutable properties, references and aptitudes immediately consequential thereto, and not arbitrariously added unto them, which are thus necessarily extant in the divine intellect, as exhibitive of such ideas. so likewise a fish, a fowl, and a fourfooted beast, an ox, bear, horse, or the like, they have a settled nature exhibited in their ideas, and the properties and aptitudes immediately flowing therefrom. as also have all the elements, earth, water and air, determinate natures, with properties and aptitudes immediately issuing from them. nor is a whale fitted to fly in the air, nor an eagle to live under the water, nor an ox or bear to do either, nor any of them to live in the fire. but the ideas of those things which we call by those names being unchangeable (for there are differences indeed of ideas, but no changing of one idea into another state, but their natures are distinctly settled; and to add or take away any thing from an idea, is not to make an alteration in the same idea, but to constitute a new one; as aristotle somewhere in his metaphysics speaks of numbers, where he says, that the adding or taking away of an unite quite varies the species. and therefore as every number, suppose, binary, quinary, ternary, denary, is such a settled number and no other, and has such properties in itself, and references immediately accrueing to it, and aptitudes which no other number besides itself has; so it is with ideas) the ideas i say therefore of those things which we call by those name's above-recited being unchangeable, the aptitudes and references immediately issuing from their nature represented in the idea, must be also unalterable and necessary. thus it is with mathematical and physical ideas; and there is the same reason concerning such ideas as may be called moral. forasmuch as they respect the rectitude of will in whatever mind, created or uncreated: and thus, lastly, it is with metaphysical ideas, as for example; as the physical idea of body, matter or substance material contains in it immediately of its own nature or intimate specific essence real divisibility or discerpibility, impenetrability and mere passivity or actuability, as the proper fruit of the essential difference and intimate form thereof, unalterably and immutably as in its idea in the divine intellect, so in any body or material substance that does exist: so the idea of a spirit, or of a substance immaterial, the opposite idea to the other, contains in it immediately of its own nature indiscerpibility, penetrability, and self-activity, as the inseparable fruit of the essential difference or intimate form thereof unalterably and immutably, as in its idea in the divine intellect, so in any immaterial substance properly so called that doth exist. so that as it is a contradiction in the idea that it should be the idea of substance immaterial, and yet not include in it indiscerpibility, etc. so it is in the being really existent, that it should be substance immaterial, and yet not be indiscerpible, etc. for were it so, it would not answer to the truth of its idea, nor be what it pretendeth to be, and is indeed, an existent being indiscerpible; which existent being would not be indiscerpible, if any could discerp it. and so likewise it is with the idea of ens summè & absolutè perfectum, which is a settled determinate and immutable idea in the divine intellect, whereby, were not god himself that ens summè & absolutè perfectum, he would discern there were something better than himself, and consequently that he were not god. but he discerns himself to be this ens summè & absolutè perfectum, and we cannot but discern that to such a being belongs spirituality, which implies indiscerpibility, (and who but a mad man can imagine the divine essence discerpible into parts?) infinity of essence, or essential omnipresence, self-causality, or necessary existence immediately of itself or from itself, resulting from the absolute and peculiar perfection of its own nature, whereby we understand that nothing can exist ab aeterno of itself but herald and lastly, omniscience and omnipotence, whereby it can do any thing that implies no contradiction to be done. whence it necessarily follows, that all things were created by him, and that he were not god, or ens summè perfectum, if it were not so: and that amongst other things he created spirits (as sure as there are any spirits in the world) indiscerpible as himself is, though of finite essences and metaphysical amplitudes; and that it is no derogation to his omnipotence that he cannot discerp a spirit once created, it being a contradiction that he should: nor therefore any argument that he cannot create a spirit, because he would then puzzle his own omnipotence to discerp it. for it would then follow, that he cannot create any thing, no not metaphysical monads, nor matter, unless it be physically divisible in infinitum; and god himself could never divide it into parts physically indivisible; whereby yet his omnipotence would be puzzled: and if he can divide matter into physical monads no further divisible, there his omnipotence is puzzled again; and by such sophistical reasoning, god shall be able to create nothing, neither matter nor spirit, nor consequently be god, or ens summè & absolutè perfectum, the creator and essentiator of all things. this is so mathematically clear and true, that i wonder that mr. rich. baxter should not rather exult, (in his placid collation) at the discovery of so plain and useful a truth, than put himself, p. 79. into an histrionical (as the latin) or (as the greek would express it) hypocritical fit of trembling, to amuse the populacy, as if the doctor in his serious and solid reasoning had verged towards something hugely exorbitant or profane. the ignorant fear where no fear is, but god is in the generation of the knowing and upright. it's plain, this reasoning brings not the existence of god into any doubt, (for it is no repugnance to either his nature or existence, not to be able to do what is a contradiction to be done) but it puts the indiscerpibility of spirits (which is a notion mainly useful) out of all doubt. and yet mr. baxter his fancy stalking upon wooden stilts, and getting more than a spit and a stride before his reason, very magisterially pronounces, it's a thing so high, as required some show of proof to intimate that god cannot be god if he be almighty, and cannot conquer his own omnipotency. ans. this is an expression so high and in the clouds, that no sense thereof is to be seen, unless this be it: that god cannot be god, unless he be not almighty; as he would discover himself not to be, if he could not discerp a spirit of a metaphysical amplitude when he has created it. but it plainly appears from what has been said above, that this discerping of a spirit, which is immediately and essentially of its own nature indiscerpible, as well as a physical monad is, implying a contradiction, it is no derogation to the almightiness of god that he cannot do it; all philosophers and theologers being agreed on that maxim, that what implies a contradiction to be done, is no object of god's almightiness. nor is he less almighty for not being able to do it. so that the prick-eared acuteness of that trim and smug saying, that seemed before to shoot up into the sky, flags now like the slaccid lugs of the over-laden animal old silenus rid on when he had a plot upon the nymph●… by moonshine. pardon the tediousness of the periphrasis: for though the poet was pleased to put old silenus on the ass, yet i thought it not so civil to put the ass upon old mr. baxter. but he proceeds, pag. 80. your words, says he, like an intended reason, are [for that cannot be god from whom all other things are not produced and created] to which he answers, (1.) relatively, says he, (as a god to us) it's true, though quoad existentiam essentiae, he was god before the creation. but, i say, if he had not had the power of creating, he had been so defective a being, that he had not been god. but he says (2.) but did you take this for any show of a proof? the sense employed is this [all things are not produced and created by god, if a spiritual ample substance be divisible by his omnipotency that made it: yea; then he is not god. negatur consequentia. ans. very scholastically disputed! would one think that reverend mr. baxter, whom dr. more for his function and grandevity sake handles so respectfully, and forbears all such juvenilities as he had used toward eugenius philalethes, should play the doctor such horseplay, having been used so civilly by him before? what buffoon or antic mime could have distorted their bodies more ill-favouredly and ridiculously, than he has the doctor's solid and well-composed argument? and then as if he had done it in pure innocency and simplicity, he adds a quaker-like [yea] thereunto. and after all, like a bold scholastic champion, or polemic divine, courageously cries out, negatur consequentia. what a fardel of freaks is there here, and illiberal artifices to hide the doctors sound reasoning in the 28th section of his answer to the psychopyrists letter? where having plainly proved that god can create an indiscerpible being though of a large metaphysical amplitude, and that there is nothing objected against it, nor indeed can be, but that then he would seem to puzzle his own omnipotency, which could not discerp such a being; the doctor shows the vanity of that objection in these very words: the same, says he, may be said of the metaphysical monads (namely, that god cannot discerp them) and at that rate he shall be allowed to create nothing, no not so much as matter (which consists of physical monads) nor himself indeed to be. for that cannot be god, from whom all other things are not produced and created. what reason can be more clear or more convincing, that god can create a spirit in the proper sense thereof, which includes indiscerpibility? there being no reason against it but what is false, it plainly implying that he can create nothing, and consequently that he cannot be god. wherefore that objection being thus clearly removed, god, as sure as himself is, can create a spirit, penetrable and indiscerpible, as himself is, and is expressly acknowledged to be so by mr. baxter himself, pag. 51. and he having created spirits or immaterial substances of an opposite species to material, which are impenetrable and discerpible of their immediate nature, how can these immaterial substances be any other than penetrable and indiscerpible? which is a very useful dogma for assuring the souls personal subsistence after death. and therefore it is a piece of grand disingenuity in mr. baxter, to endeavour thus to slur and obscure so plain and edifying a truth, by mére antic distortions of words and sense, by alterations and mutilations, and by a kind of sophistick buffonery. this is one specimen of his disingenuity towards the doctor, who in his answer has been so civil to him. and now i have got into this digression, i shall not stick to exemplify it in several others. as secondly, pag. 4. in those words: and when i presume most, i do but most lose myself, and misuse my understanding. nothing is good for that which it was not made for. our understandings, as our eyes, are made only for things revealed. in many of your books i take this for an excess. so mr. baxter. let me now interpose a word or two in the behalf of the doctor. is not this a plain piece of disingenuity against the doctor, who has spent so great a part of his time in philosophy (which the mere letter of the scripture very rarely reveals any thing of) to reproach him for his having used his understanding so much about things not revealed in scripture? where should he use his understanding and reason, if not in things unrevealed in scripture; that is, in philosophical things? things revealed in scripture are objects rather of faith than of science and understanding. and what a paradox is this, that our understandings, as our eyes, are made only for things revealed? when our eyes are shut, all the whole visible world, by the closing of the palpebroe is vailed from us, but it is revealed to us again by the opening of our eyes; and so it is with the eye of the understanding. if it be shut through pride, prejudice, or sensuality, the mysteries of philosophy are thereby vailed from it; but if by true virtue and unfeigned sanctity of mind that eye be opened, the mysteries of philosophy are the more clearly discovered to it, especially if points be studied with singular industry, which mr. baxter himself acknowledges of the doctor, pag. 21. only he would there pin upon his back an humble ignoramus in some things, which the doctor, i dare say, will easily admit in many things, yea in most; and yet, i believe, this he will stand upon, that in those things which he professes to know, he will challenge all the world to disprove if they can. and for probable opinions, especially if they be useless, which many books are too much stuffed withal, he casts them out as the lumber of the mind, and would willingly give them no room in his thoughts. firmness and soundness of life is much better than the multiplicity of uncertain conceits. and lastly, whereas mr. baxter speaking of himself, says, and when i presume most, i do but most loaf myself; he has so bewildered and lo●… him●…elf in the multifarious, and most-what needless points in philosophy or scholastic divinity, that if we can collect the measures of the cause from the amplitude of the effect, he must certainly have been very presumptuous. he had better have set up his staff in his saints everlasting rest, and such other edifying and useful books as those, than to have set up for either a philosopher or polemic divine. but it is the infelicity of too many, that they are ignorant— quid valeant humeri, quid ferre recusent, as the poet speaks, or as the pythagoreans— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. and so taking upon them a part in a play which they are unfit for, they both neglect that which they are fit for, and miscarry, by reason of their unfitness, in their acting that part they have rashly undertaken; as epictetus somewhere judiciously observes. but if that passage, and when i presume most, i do but most lose myself, was intended by him as an oblique socratical reproof to the doctor; let him instance if he can, where the doctor has presumed above his strength. he has meddled but with a few things, and therefore he need not envy his success therein, especially they being of manifest use to the serious world, so many as god has fitted for the reception of them. certainly there was some grand occasion for so grave a preliminary monition as he has given the doctor. you have it in the following page, p. 5. this premised, says he, i say, undoubtedly it is utterly unrevealed either as to any certainty or probability, that all spirits are souls, and actuate matter. see what heat and hast, or some worse principle has engaged mr. baxter to do; to father a downright falsehood upon the doctor, that he may thence take occasion to bestow a grave admonition on him, and so place himself on the higher ground. i am certain it is neither the doctor's opinion, that all spirits are souls, and actuate matter, nor has he writ so any where. he only says in his preface to the reader, that all created spirits are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 [souls] in all probability, and actuate some matter. and his expression herein is both modest and true. for though it is not certain or necessary, yet it is very probable. for if there were of the highest orders of the angels that fell, it is very probable that they had corporeal vehicles, without which it is hard to conceive they could run into disorder. and our saviour christ's soul, which actuates a glorified spiritual body, being set above all the orders of angels, it is likely that there is none of them is so refined above his humane nature, as to have no bodies at all. not to add, that at the resurrection we become 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, though we have bodies then; which is a shrewd intimation that the angels have so too, and that there are no created spirits but have so. thirdly, mr. baxter, pag. 6. wrongfully blames the doctor for being so defective in his studies as not to have read over dr. glisson de vita naturae; and says he has talked with divers high pretenders to philosophy, and asked their judgement of that book, and found that none of them understood it, but neglected it, as too hard for them; and yet contemned it. his words to dr. more are these: i marvel that when you have dealt with so many sorts of dissenters, you meddle not with so subtle a piece as that of old dr. glissons, de vita naturae. he thinks the subtlety of the book has deterred the doctor from reading it, as something above his capacity, as also of other high pretenders to philosophy. this is a book it seems calculated only for the elevation of mr. baxter's subtle and sublime wit. and indeed by the benefit of reading this book he is most dreadfully armed with the affrightful terms of quoddities and quiddities, of conceptus formalis and fundamentalis, of conceptus adaequatus and inadaequatus, and the like. in virtue of which thwacking expressions he has fancied himself able to play at scholastic or philosophic quarterstaff with the most doughty and best appointed wits that dare enter the lists with him; and as over-neglectful of his flock, like some conceited shepherds, that think themselves no small fools at the use of the staff or cudgil-play, take vagaries to fairs or wakes to give a specimen of their skill; so he ever and anon makes his polemic sallies in philosophy or divinity to entertain the spectators, though very oft he is so rapt upon the knuckles, that he is forced to let fall his wooden instrument, and blow his fingers. which is but a just nemesis upon him, and he would do well to interpret it as a seasonable reproof from the great pastor of souls, to whom we are all accountable. but to return to his speech to the doctor; i will adventure to answer in his behalf, that i marvel that whenas mr. baxter has had the cur●…osity to read so many writers, and some of them sure but of small concern, that he has not read that sound and solid piece of dr. more, viz. his epistola altera ad v. c. with the scholia thereon, where spinozius is confuted. which if he had read he might have seen volume. philosoph. tom. 1. pag. 604, 605, etc. that the doctor has not only read that subtle piece of doctor glissons, but understands so throughly his hypothesis, that he has solidly and substantially confuted it. which he did in a faithful regard to religion. for that hypothesis, if it were true, were as safe, if not a sa●…er refuge for atheists, than the mere mechanic philosophy is: and therefore you may see there, how cuperus, brought up amongst the atheists from his very childhood, does confess, how the atheists nowadays explode the mechanic philosophy as not being for their turn, and betake themselves wholly to such an hypothesis as dr. glissons vita naturae. but, god be thanked, dr. h. more in the forecited place has perfectly routed that fond and foul hypothesis of dr. glisson, and i dare say is sorry that so good and old a knight errand in theologie and philosophy as mr richard baxter seems to be, should become benighted, as in a wood, at the close of his days, in this most horrid dark harbour and dismal receptacle or rendezvous of wretched atheists. but i dare say for him, it is his ignorance▪ not choice, that has lodged him there. the fourth disingenuity of mr. baxter towards the doctor is, in complaining of him as if he had wronged him by the title of his answer to his letter, in calling it an answer to a psychopyrist, pag. 2. 82. as if he had asserted that materiality of spirits which belongs to bodies, pag. 94. in complaining also of his inconsistency with himself, pag. 10. as if he one while said that mr. baxter made spirits to be fire or material, and another while said he made them not fire or material. but to the first part of this accusation it may be answered, that if it is mr. baxter that is called the learned psychopyrist, how is the thing known to the world but by himself? it looks as if he were ambitious of the title, and proud of the civil treating he has had at the hands of the doctor, though he has but ill repaid his civility in his reply. and besides this, there is no more harshness in calling him psychopyrist, than if he had called him psycho-hylist, there being nothing absurd in psychopyrism but so far forth as it includes psycho-hylism, and makes the soul material. which psycho-hylism that mr. baxter does admit, it is made evident in the doctor's answer, sect. 16. and mr. baxter in his placid collation (as he mis-calls it, for assuredly his mind was turbid when he wrote it) pag. 2. allows that spirits may be called fire analogicè and eminenter, and the doctor in his preface intimates that the sense is to be no further stretched, than the psychopyrist himself will allow. but now that mr. baxter does assert that materiality in created spirits that belongs to bodies in the common sense of all philosophers, appears sect. 16. where his words are these: but custom having made materia, but especially corpus to signify only such grosser substance as the three passive elements are (he means earth, water, air) i yield, says he, so to say, that spirits are not corporeal or material. which plainly implies that spirits are in no other sense immaterial, than fire and aether are, viz. than in this, that they are thinner matter. and therefore to the last point it may be answered in the doctor's behalf, that he assuredly does nowhere say, that mr. baxter does not say that spirits are material, as material is taken in the common sense of all philosophers for what is impenetrable and discerpible. which is materia physica, and in opposition to which, a spirit is said to be immaterial. and which briefly and distinctly states the question. which if mr. baxter would have taken notice of, he might have saved himself the labour of a great deal of needless verbosity in his placid collation, where he does over-frequently, under the pretence of more distinctness, in the multitude of words obscure knowledge. fifthly, upon sect. 10. pag. 21. where mr. baxter's question is, how a man may tell how that god that can make many out of one, cannot make many into one, etc. to which the doctor there answers: if the meaning be of substantial spirits, it has been already noted, that god acting in nature does not make many substances out of one, the substance remaining still entire; for then generation would be creation. and no sober man believes that god assists any creature so in a natural course, as to enable it to create: and then i suppose that he that believes not this, is not bound to puzzle himself why god may not as well make many substances into one, as many out of one, whenas he holds he does not the latter, etc. these are the doctors own words in that section. in reply to which, mr. baxter: but to my question, says he, why god cannot make two of one, or one of two, you put me off with this lean answer, that we be not bound to puzzle ourselves about it. i think, says he, that answer might serve to much of your philosophical disputes. here mr. baxter plainly deals very disingenuously with the doctor in perverting his words, which affirm only, that he that denies that god can make two substances of one in the sense above-declared need not puzzle himself how he may make one of those two again. which is no lean, but full and apposite answer to the question there propounded. and yet in this his placid collation, as if he were wroth, he gives ill language, and insinuates, that much of the doctor's philosophical disputes are such as are not worth a man's puzzling himself about them; whenas it is well known to all that know him or his writings, that he concerns himself in no theories but such as are weighty and useful, as this of the indiscerpibility of spirits is, touching which he further slanders the doctor, as if it were his mere assertion without any proof. as if mr. baxter had never read, or forgot the doctor's discourse of the true notion of a spirit, or what he has writ in the further defence thereof. see sect. 26, 28, 30, 31. thus to say any thing in an angry mood, verily does not become the title of a placid collation. sixthly, the doctor in sect. 11. of his defence of his notion of a spirit, writes thus: i desire you to consider the nature of light throughly, and you shall find it nothing but a certain motion of a medium, whose parts or particles are so or so qualified, some such way as cartesianism drives at. to this mr. baxter replies against the doctor, pag. 59 really, sa●…es he, when i read how far you have escaped the delusions of cartesianism, i am sorry you yet stick in so gross a part of it as this is; when he that knoweth no more than motion in the nature of fire, which is the active principle by which mental and sensitive nature operateth on man and brutes and vegetables, and all the passive elements; and all the visible actions in this lower world are performed, what can that man's philosophy be worth? i therefore return your counsel, study more throughly the nature of ethereal fire satis pro imperio! very magisterially spoken! and in such an igneous rapture, that it is not continuedly sense. does mental and sensitive nature act on brutes and vegetables and all the passive elements? but to let go that: is all the doctor's philosophy worth nothing if he hold with des cartes touching the phaenomenon of light as to the material part thereof? it is the ignorance of mr. baxter, that he rejects all in des cartes, and judiciousness in the doctor, that he retains some things, and supplies where his philosophy is deficient. he names here only the mechanical cause of light, viz. motion, and duly modified particles. but in his enchiridium he intimates an higher principle than either fire or aether, or any thing that is material, be it as fine and pure as you please to fancy it. see his enchirid. metaphys. cap. 19 where he shows plainly, that light would not be light, were there not a spiritus mundanus, or spirit of nature, which pervades the whole universe; mr. baxters ignorance whereof has cast him into so deep a dotage upon fire and light, and fine discerpible corporeities, which he would by his magisterial prerogative dubb spirits, when to nothing that title is due, but what is penetrable and indiscerpible by reason of the immediate oneness of its essence, even as god the father and creator of all spirits is one indiscerpible substance or being. and therefore i would advise mr. baxter to study more throughly the true nature of a spirit, and to let go these ignes fatui that would seduce him into thick mists and bogs. for that universal spirit of nature is most certainly the mover of the matter of the world, and the modifier thereof, and thence exhibits to us not only the phaenomena of light and fire, but of earth and water, and frames all vegetables into shape and growth; and fire of itself is but a dead instrument in its hand, as all is in the hand of god, who is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as synesius, if i well remember, somewhere calls him in his hymns. seventhly, that is also less ingenuously done of mr. baxter, when the doctor so friendly and faithfully puts him in a way of undeceiving himself, sect. 17. touching the doctrine of atoms, that he puts it off so slightly. and so sect. 18. where he earnestly exhorts him to study the nature of water, as mr. baxter does others to study the nature of fire; he, as if he had been bitten, and thence taken with that disease the physicians call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and which signifies the fear of water, has slunk away and quite neglected the doctor's friendly monition; and is so small a proficient in hydrostatics, that pag. 68 he understands not what greater wonder there is in the rising of the dr.'s rundle, than in the rising of a piece of timber from the bottom of the sea. which is a sign he never read the 13th chapter of the dr.'s enchiridion metaphysicum, much less the scholia thereon. for if he had, he would discern the difference, and the vast usefulness of the one above that of the other to prove a principium hylarchicum distinct from the matter of the universe, against all evasions and tergiversations whatsoever. but these things cannot be insisted on here. eighthly, mr. baxter, pag. 76. charges the doctor with such a strange paradox as to half of it, that i cannot imagine from whence he should fetch it. tou seem, says he, to make all substance atoms, spiritual atoms and material atoms. the latter part of the charge the doctor i doubt not but will acknowledge to be true: but may easily prove out of mr. baxter, pag. 65. that he must hold so too. for his words there are these: that god is able to divide all matter into atoms or indivisible parts i doubt not. and can they be phy●…ically divided into parts of which they don't consist? but mr. baxter by the same reason making spirits divisible by god, though not by any creature, makes them consist of spiritual atoms, for they cannot but consist of such parts as they are divisible into. and if they be divisible by god into larger shreds only but not into atoms, than every created spirit, especially particular ones, are so many subtle living puppets made up of spiritual rags and clouts. but if god can divide them neither into spiritual atoms nor larger spiritual parcels, he can't divide them at all. and so according to what the doctor contends for, they will be, as they ought to be, absolutely indiscerpible. i omit here to take notice of another absurdity of mr. baxters, that though the substance of a spirit he will have to be divisible, yet he will have the form indivisible, pag. 50, 99 and yet both parts to be spirit still; which implies a contradiction. for than one of the parts will be without the form of a spirit, and consequently be no spirit, and yet be a spirit according to mr. baxter, who makes spirits divisible into parts of the same denomination, as when water is divided into two parts, each part is still water, pag. 53. ninthly. that which occurrs pag. 48. is a gross disingenuity against the doctor, where mr. baxter says, and when you make all spirits to be souls and to animate some matter, you seem to make god to be but anima mundi. how unfair and harsh is this for you mr. baxter, who has been so tenderly and civilly handled by the doctor in his answer to your letter, he constantly hiding or mollifying any thing that occurred therein that might overmuch expose you, to represent him as a savourer of so gross a paradox as this, that there is no god but an anima mundi, which is the position of the vaninian atheists, which himself has expressly confuted in his mystery of godliness, and declared against lately in his advertisements on jos. glanvil's letter to himself, in the second edition of saducismus triumphatus? this looks like the breaking out of unchristian rancour, in a reply which bears the specious title of a placid collation. which is yet exceedingly more aggravable, for that this odious collection is not made from any words of the doctor, but from a siction of mr. baxter. for the doctor has nowhere written, nor ever thought that all spirits, but only all created spirits, might probably be souls, that is to say, actuate some matter or other. and those words are in his preface to his answer to the letter of the psychopyrist, as i noted before. i might reckon up several other disingenuities of mr. baxter's towards the doctor in this his placid collation; but i have enumerated enough already to weary the reader, and i must remember i am but in a digression. i shall only name one disingenuity more, which was antecedent to them all, and gave occasion both to mr. baxters' letter, and to the doctors answer thereto, and to this reply of mr. baxter. and that was, that mr. baxter in his methodus theologiae (as he has done also in a little pamphlet touching judge hales) without giving any reasons, which is the worst way of traducing any man or his sentiments, slighted and slurred those two essential attributes of a spirit, penetrability and indiscerpibility, which for their certain truth and usefulness the doctor thought fit to communicate to the world. but forasmuch as mr. baxter has in this his reply produced his reasons against them, i doubt not but the doctor will accept it for an amends. and i, as i must disallow of the disingenuity of the omission before, yet to be just to mr. baxter, i must commend his discretion and judgement in being willing to omit them; they appearing to me now they are produced, so weak and invalid. but such as they are, i shall gather them out of his reply, and bring them into view. first then, pag. 13. it is alleged, that nothing hath two forms univocally so called. but if penetrability and indiscerpibility be added to the virtus vitalis, to the vital power of a spirit, it will have two forms. therefore penetrability and indiscerpibility are to be omitted in the notion of a spirit. see also p. 22. secondly, pag. 14. penetrable and indiscerpible can be no otherwise a form to spirits, than impenetrable and discerpible are a form to matter. but impenetrable is only a modal conceptus of matter, and discerpible a relative notion thereof, and neither one nor both contrary to virtus vitalis in a spirit. thirdly, pag. 14. he sees no reason why quantity, and the trina dimensio, may not as well be part of the form of matter as discerpibilitie and impenetrabilitie. fourthly, pag. 15, 16. nothing is to be known without the mediation of sense, except the immediate sensation itself, and the acts of intellection and volition or nolition, and what the intellect inferreth of the like, by the perception of these. wherefore as to the modification of the substance of spirits, which is contrary to impenetrabilitie and divisibility, i may grope, says he, but i cannot know it positively for want of sensation. fifthly, pag. 16, 17. if indiscerpibility be the essential character of a spirit, than an atom of matter is a spirit, it being acknowledged to be indiscerpible. wherefore indiscerpibility is a false character of a spirit. sixthly, pag. 17, 18. [penetrable] whether actively or passively understood, can be no proper character of a spirit, forasmuch as matter can penetrate a spirit, as well as a spirit matter, it possessing the same place. see pag. 23. seventhly, pag. 40, 41. immateriality, says he, penetrability and indiscerpibility, in your own judgement i think are none of them proper to spirit. for they are common to divers accidents in your account, viz. to light, heat, cold. and again in his own words, eighthly, pag. 77. if your penetrability, says he, imply not that all the singular spirits can contract themselves into a punctum, yea that all the spirits of the world may be so contracted, i find it not yet sufficiently explained. see also pag. 52, 78, 89, 90. ninthly, pag. 50. seeing, says he, you ascribe amplitude, q●…antitie, and dimensions and logical materiality to the substantialitie of spirits, i see not but that you make them intellectually divisible, that is, that one may think of one part as here, and another there. and if so, though man cannot separate and divide them, if it be no contradiction, god can. tenthly, and lastly, pag. 90. the putting of penetrability and indiscerpibility into the notion of a spirit, is needless, and hazardous, it being sufficient to hold that god hath made spirits of no kind of parts but what do naturally abhor separation, and so are inseparable unless god will separate them, and so there is no fear of losing our personality in the other state. but penetrability and indiscerpibility being hard and doubtful words, they are better left out, lest they tempt all to believe that the very being of spirits is as doubtful as those words are. thus have i faithfully though briefly brought into view all mr. baxter's arguments against the penetrability and indiscerpibility of spirits, which i shall answer in order as they have been recited. to the first therefore i say, that the doctor's definition of a spirit, which is [a substance immaterial intrinsically endued with life and a faculty of motion] where substance is the genus, and the rest of the terms comprise the differentia (which mr. baxter calls conceptus formalis and forma) i say, that this difference or form though it consist of many terms, yet these terms are not heterogeneal, as he would insinuate, pag. 22. but congenerous, and one in order to another, and essentially and inseparably united in that one substance which is rightly and properly called spirit, and in virtue of that one substance, though their notions and operations differ, they are really one inseparable specific disserence or form, as much as mr. baxter's virtus vitalis una-trina is; that is to say, they are specific knowable terms, succedaneous to the true intimate specific form that is utterly unknowable; and therefore i say, in this sense these knowable terms are one inseparable specific difference or form whereby spirit is distinguished from body or matter in a physical acception. which the universality of philosophers hold to consist in impenetrability, and discerpibilitie, and self-inactivitie. which if mr. baxter would have been pleased to take notice of, viz. that a spirit is said to be a substance immaterial in opposition to matter physical, he might have saved himself the labour of a deal of tedious trifling in explication of words to no purpose. but to show that this pretence of more forms than one in one substance is but a cavil, i will offer really the same definition in a more succinct way, and more to mr. baxters' tooth, and say, as corpus is substantia materialis (where materialis is the specific difference of corpus comprised in one term:) so spiritus is substantia immaterialis (where immaterialis the specific difference of spiritus is likewise comprised in one term, to please the humour of mr. baxter.) but now as under that one term [materialis] are comprised impenetrabilitie, discerpibilitie, and self-inactivity; so also under that one term [immaterialis] are comprised, as under one head, penetrability, indiscerpibility, and intrinsccal life and motion, that is, an essential faculty of life and motion, which in one word may be called self-activity. whence penetrability, indiscerpibility, and self-activity are as much one form of a spirit, as mr. baxter's vita,. perceptio, and appetitus, is one form thereof. for though in both places they are three distinct notions, at least as mr. baxter would have it, yet they are the essential and inseparable attributes of one substance, and the immediate fruit and result of the specific nature thereof. they are inseparably one in their source and subject. and this i think is more than enough to take off this first little cavil of mr. baxter's against the doctors including penetrability and inseparability in the form or specific difference of a spirit. for all that same is to be called form, by which a thing is that which it is, as far as our cognitive faculties will reach, and by which it is essentially distinguished from other things. and if it were not for penetrability and indiscerpibility, spirit would be confounded with body and matter. and body or physical matter might be self-active, sentient, and intelligent. to the second i answer, that whosoever searches things to the bottom, he will sinned this a sound principle in philosophy, that there is nothing in the whole universe but what is either substantia or modus. and when a mode or several modes put together are immediately and essentially inseparable from a substance, they are looked upon as the form, or the only knowable specific difference of that substance. so that impenetrability and discerpibility, which are immediately essential to, and inseparable from body or matter, and self-inactivitie, (as irrational is made the specific difference of a brute) may be added also: these, i say, are as truly the form or specific difference of body or matter, as any thing knowable is of any thing in the world. and self-inactivity at least, is contrary to the virtus vitalis of a spirit, though impenetrability and discerpibility were not. so that according to this oeconomy, you see how plainly and tightly body and spirit are made opposite species one to another. and 'tis these modal differences of substances which we only know, but the specific substance of any thing is utterly unknown to us, however mr. baxter is pleased to swagger to the contrary, p. 44, 62. where he seems to mis-understand the doctor, as if by essence he did not understand substance, as both 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and essentia usually signify (especially with the ancients) but any being at large. but of substance it is most true, we know it only by its essential modes, but the modes are not the substance itself of which they are modes; otherwise the substance would want modes, or every substance would be more substances than one. and mr. baxter himself saith, pag. 62. to know an essential attribute, and to know ipsam essentiam scientiâ inadaequatâ, is all one. which inadequate or partial knowledge, say i, is this, the knowing of the essential mode of the substance, and not knowing the substance itself; otherwise if both the essential modes were known, and also the specific substance to which the modes belong (more than that those modes belong to that substance) the knowledge would be full and adequate, and stretched through the whole object. so that mr. baxters scientia inadoequata, and the doctors denying the bare substance itself to be known, may very well consist together, and be judged a mere 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. which is an exercise more grateful it's likely to mr. baxter, than to the doctor. to the third i say, any one that considers may find a necessary reason why quantity or trina dimensio should be left out in the form of body or matter, especially why the doctor should leave it out, because he does professedly hold, that whatever is, has metaphysical quantity or metaphysical trina dimensio; which no man can deny that holds god is essentially present everywhere. and no man, i think, that does not dote can deny that. wherefore allowing matter to be substance; in that generical nature, trina dimensio is comprised, and need not be again repeated in the form. but when in the forma or differentia, discerpible and impenetrable is added, this is that which makes the trina dimensio (included in the genus, substantia) of a corporeal kind, and does constitute that species of things, which we call corpora. this is so plain a business, that we need insist no longer upon it. now to the fourth, i answer briefly, that from what knowledge we have by the mediation of the senses and inference of the intellect, we arrive not only to the knowledge of like things, but of unlike, or rather contrary: as in this very example, we being competently well instructed, indeed assured by our senses, that there is such a kind of thing as body, whose nature is to be impenetrable and discerpible, and our reason certainly informing us, as was noted even now, that whatever is, has a kind of amplitude more or less, or else it would be nothing; hence we are confirmed, that not extension or trina dimensio, but impenetrabilitie and discerpibilitie is the determinate and adequate nature of what we call body; and if there be any opposite species to body, our reason tells us it must have opposite modes or attributes, which are penetrability and indiscerpibility. this is a plain truth not to be groped after with our fingers in the dark, but clearly to be discerned by the eye of our understanding in the light of reason. and thus we see (and many examples more we might accumulate) that by the help of our senses and inference of our understanding, we are able to conclude not only concerning like things, but their contraries or opposites. i must confess i look upon this allegation of mr. baxter as very weak and faint. and as for his fifth, i do a little marvel that so grave and grandaevous a person as he should please himself in such little flirts of wit and sophistry as this of the indiscerpibility of an atom or physical monad. as if indiscerpibility could be none of the essential or specifical modes or attributes of a spirit, because a physical monad or atom is indiscerpible also, which is no spirit. but those very indiscerpibilities are specifically different. for that of a spirit is an indiscerpibility that arises from the positive perfection and oneness of the essence, be it never so ample; that of an atom or physical monad, from imperfection and privativeness, from the mere littleness or smallness thereof, so small that it is impossible to be smaller, and thence only is indiscerpible. the sixth also is a pretty juvenile ferk of wit for a grave ancient divine to use, that penetrability can be no proper character of a spirit, because matter can penetrate spirit as well as spirit matter, they both possessing the same space. suppose the body a. of the same amplitude with the body b. and thrust the body a. against the body b. the body a. will not nor can penetrate into the same space that the body b. actually occupies. but suppose the body a. a spirit of that amplitude, and according to its nature piercing into the same space which the body b. occupies, how plain is it that that active piercing into the same space that the body b. occupies, is to be attributed to the spirit a. & not to the body b? for the body a. could not get in. these are pretty forced distortions of wit, but no solid methods of due reason. and besides, it is to be noted, that the main character of a spirit is, as to penetrability, that spirit can penetrate spirit, but not matter matter. and now the seventh is as slight as the fifth. divers accidents, saith he, penetrate their subjects, as heat, cold, etc. therefore penetrability is no proper character of a spirit. but what a vast difference is there here! the one pierce the matter, (or rather are in the matter merely as continued modes thereof) the other enters into the matter as a distinct substance therefrom. penetration therefore is here understood in this character of a spirit, of penetratio substantialis, when a substance penetrates substance, as a spirit does spirit and matter, which matter cannot do. this is a certain character of a spirit. and his instancing in light as indiscerpible, is as little to the purpose. for the substance of light, viz. the materia sub●…ilissima and globuli, are discerpible. and the motion of them is but a modus, but the point in hand is indiscerpibility of substance. to the eighth i answer, that mr. baxter here is hugely unreasonable in his demands, as if penetrability of spirits were not sufficiently explained, unless it can be made out, that all the spirits in the world, universal and particular, may be contracted into one punctum: but this is a theme that he loves to enlarge upon, and to declaim on very tragically, as pag. 52. if spirits have parts which may be extended and contracted, you will hardly so easily prove as say, that god cannot divide them. and when in your writings shall i find satisfaction into how much space one spirit may be extended, and into how little it may be contracted, and whether the whole spirit of the world may be contracted into a nutshell or a box, and the spirit of a flea may be extended to the convex of all the world? and again, pag. 78. you never tell into how little parts only it may be contracted; and if you put any limits, i will suppose that one spirit hath contracted itself into the least compass possible; and then i ask, cannot another and another spirit be in the same compass by their penetration? if not; spirits may have a contracted spissitude which is not penetrable, and spirits cannot penetrate contracted spirits, but only dilated ones. if yea; then quoero, whether all created spirits may not be so contracted. and i should hope that the definition of a spirit excludeth not god, and yet that you do not think that his essence may be contracted and dilated. o that we knew how little we know! this grave moral epiphonema with a sorrowful shaking of the head is not in good truth much misbecoming the sly insinuating cunning of mr. richard baxter, who here makes a show, speaking in the first person [we] of lamenting and bewailing the ignorance of his own ignorance, but friendly hooks in, by expressing himself in the plural number, the doctor also into the same condemnation. solamen miseris— as if he neither did understand his own ignorance in the things he writes of, but will be strangely surprised at the hard riddles mr. baxter has propounded, as if no oedipus were able to solve them. and i believe the doctor if he be called to an account will freely confess of himself, that in the things he positively pronounces of, so far as he pronounces, that he is indeed altogether ignorant of any ignorance of his own therein; but that this is by reason that he according to the cautiousness of his genius does not adventure further than he clearly sees ground, and the notion appears useful for the public. as it is indeed useful to understand that spirits can both penetrate matter and penetrate one another, else god could not be essentially present in all the parts of the corporeal universe, nor the spirits of men and angels be in god. both which notwithstanding are most certainly true, to say nothing of the spirit of nature, which particular spirits also penetrate, and are penetrated by it. but now for the contraction and dilatation of spirits, that is not a property of spirits in general as the other are, but of particular created spirits, as the doctor has declared in his treatise of the immortality of the soul. so that that hard question is easily answered concerning god's contracting and dilating himself; that he does neither, he being no created spirit, and being more absolutely perfect than that any such properties should be compatible to him. and it is reasonable to conceive that there is little actually of that property in the spirit of nature, it being no particular spirit, though created, but an universal one, and having no need thereof. for the corporeal world did not grow from a small embryo into that vast amplitude it is now of, but was produced of the same largeness it now has, though there was a successive delineation and orderly polishing and perfecting the vast distended parts thereof. and to speak compendiously and at once, that god that has created all things in number, weight & measure, has given such measures of spiritual essence and of the faculty of contracting and dilating the same, as also of spiritual subtlety of substance, as serves the ends of his wisdom and goodness in creating such a species of spirit. so that it is fond, unskilful, and ridiculous, to ask if the whole spirit of the world can be contracted into a nutshell, and the spirit of a flea extended to the convex of the universe. they that talk at this rate err, as aliens from the wisdom of god, and ignorant of the laws of nature, and indeed of the voice of scripture itself. why should god make the spirit of a flea, which was intended for the constituting of such a small animal, large enough to fill the whole world? or what need of such a contraction in the spirit of nature or plastic soul of the corporeal universe, that it may be contrived into a nutshell? that it has such spiritual subtlety as that particular spirits may contract themselves in it so close together, as to be commensurate to the first inchoations of a foetus, which is but very small, stands to good reason, and effects prove it to be so. as also this smallness of a foetus or embryo that particular spirits are so far contracted at first, and expand themselves leisurely afterwards with the growth of the body which they regulate. but into how much lesser space they can or do contract themselves at any time, is needless to know or inquire. and there is no repugnancy at all, but the spirit of nature might be contracted to the like essential spissitude that some particular spirits are; but there is no reason to conceit that it ever was or ever will be so contracted, while the world stands. nor last is there any inconvenience in putting indefinite limits of contraction in a spirit, and to allow that after such a measure of contraction, though we cannot say just what that is, it naturally contracts no further, nor does another so contracted naturally penetrate this thus contracted spirit. for as the usefulness of that measure of self-penetrability and contraction is plain, so it is as plain, that the admitting of it is no incongruity nor incommodity to the universe, nor any confusion to the specific modes of spirit and body. for these two spirits, suppose, contracted to the utmost of their natural limits, may naturally avoid the entering one another, not by a dead 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as in bodies or matter, but by a vital saturity, or natural uneasiness in so doing. besides that, though at such a contracted pitch they are naturally impenetrable to one another, yet they demonstrate still their spirituality, by self-penetration, haply a thousand and a thousand times repeated. and though by a law of life (not by a dead 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉), they are kept from penetrating one another, yet they both in the mean time necessarily penetrate matter, as undergoing the divers measures of essential spissitude in the same. so that by the increase of that essential spissitude, they may approach near to a kind of hylopathick disposition of impenetrability, and thence, by the matter of the universe (out of which they never are) be curbed from contracting themselves any further, than to such a degree; and i noted at first, that spiritual subtlety, as well as amplitude, is given in measure to created spirits. so that penetrability is still a steady character of a spiritual essence or substance, to the utmost sense thereof. and to argue against impenetrability its being the property of matter from this kind of impenetrability of contracted spirits, is like that quibbling sophistry against indiscerpibility being the property of a spirit, because a physical monad is also indiscerpible. the ninth objection is against. the indiscerpibility of spirits, and would infer, that because the doctor makes them intellectually divisible, therefore by divine power, if it imply no contradiction, a spirit is discerpible into physical parts. but this is so fully satisfied already by the doctor in his discourse of the true notion of a spirit, and its defence, to say nothing of what i have said already above to prove it does imply a contradiction, that i will let it go, and proceed. to the tenth and last allegation, which pretends, that these two terms penetrable and indiscerpible are needless and hazardous in the notion of a spirit. but how useful or needful pene●…rability is, is manifest from what we have said to the eighth objection. and the needfulness of indiscerpibility is also susficiently shown by the doctor in his defence of the true notion of a spirit, sect. 30. but now for the hazardousness of these terms, as if they were so hard, that it would discourage men from the admitting of the existence of spirits; it appears from what has been said to the eighth objection, that penetrability is not only intelligible and admittable, but necessarily to be admitted, in the notion of a spirit, as sure as god is a spirit, and that there are spirits of men and angels, and that the souls of men are not made of shreds, but actuate their whole grown body, though at first they were contracted into the compass of a very small foetus. and that there is no repugnancy that an essence may be ample, and yet indiscerpible, mr. baxter himself must allow, who, pag. 51. plainly declares, that it is the vilest contradiction to say that god is capable of division. so that i wonder that he will call [penetrable] and [indiscerpible] hard and doubtful words, and such as might stumble men's belief of the existence of spirits, when they are terms so plain and necessary. nor can that unity that belongs to a spirit be conceived or understood without them, especially without indiscerpibility. and indeed if we do not allow penetrability, the soul of a man will be far from being one, but a thing discontinued, and scattered in the pores of his corpcreal consistency. we will conclude with mr. baxters' conceit of the indivisibleness of a spirit, and see how that will corroborate men's faith of their existence, and put all out of hazard. various elements, saith he, pag. 50. vary in divisibility; earth is most divisible; water more hardly, the parts more inclining to the closest contact; air yet more hardly; and in fire, no doubt the discerpibility is yet harder: and if god have made a creature so stongly inclined to the unity of all the parts, that no creature can separate them but god only, as if a soul were such, it is plain that such a being need not fear a dissolution by separation of parts. ans. this is well said for an heedless and credulous multitude; but this is not to philosophise, but to tell us that god works a perpetual miracle in holding the small tenuious parts of the soul together, more pure and fine than those of fire or aether; but here is no natural cause from the thing itself offered, unless it be, that in every substance, or rather matter, the parts according to the tenuity and purity of the substance, incline to a closer contact and inseparable union one with another; which is a conceit repugnant to experience, and easily confuted by that ordinary accident of a spinner hanging by its weak thread from the brim of ones hat; which seeble line yet is of force enough to divide the air, and for that very reason, because it consists of thinner parts than water or earth. as also, we can more easily run in the air than wade in the water, for the very same reason. these things are so plain, that they are not to be dwelled upon. but mr. baxter is thus pleased to show his wit in maintaining a weak cause, which i am persuaded he has not so little judgement as that he can have any great confidence in. and therefore in sundry places he intimates that he does allow or at least not deny but that penetrability and indiscerpibility is contained in the notion of a spirit; but not as part of the conceptus formalis, but as dispositio or modus substantiae, but yet withal such a dispositio as is essential to the substance that with the conceptus formalis added, makes up the true notion of a spirit. see pag. 30, 32, 61, 85. and truly if mr. baxter be in good earnest and sincere in this agreement without all equivocation, that penetrability and indiscerpibility is essential to the true notion of a spirit, only they are to be admitted as dispositio substantiae, not as pars formae, i confess, as he declares pag. 94. that the difference betwixt him and the doctor lieth in a much smaller matter than was thought; and the doctor i believe will easily allow him to please his own fancy in that. but then he must understand the terms of penetrability and indiscerpibility in the doctor's sense, viz, of a spirits penetrating not inter parts, but per partes materiae, and possessing the same space with them. and of an indiscerpibleness not arising from thinner and thinner parts of matter, as he imagines air to be more hardly discerpible than earth or water, forasmuch as by reason of its thinness its parts lie closer together, as was above noted; but from the immediate essential oneness of substance in a spirit, according to the true idea of an indiscerpible being in the divine intellect, which, whether in idea or in actual existence, it would cease to be, or rather never was such, if it were discerpible, and therefore implies a contradiction it should be so. but if a spirit be not penetrable in the doctor's sense, it is really impenetrable; and if not indiscerpible in his sense, it is really discerpible, and consequently divisible into physical monads or atoms, and therefore constituted of them, and the last inference will be that of the epigrammatist: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. to this sense: all a vain jest, all dust, all nothing deem, for of mere atoms all composed been. and thus the fairest and firmest structures of philosophical theorems in the behalf of the providence of god, the existence of spirits, and the immortality of the soul, will become a castle of come-down, and fall quite to the ground. whence it was rightfully done of the doctor to lay such stress upon these two terms penetrability and indiscerpibility, they being the essential characteristics of what is truly a spirit, and which if they were taken out of the world, all would necessarily be matter, i mean physical matter (to prevent all quibblings and fiddle about words and phrases) and this physical matter would be the subject and source of all life whatever, intellective, sensitive and vegetative. and mr. baxter did ill in not only omitting these terms himself in his notion of a spirit, but in publicly slighting and disgracing of the doctors using of them, and afterwards in so stomaching his vindication of the same in public, whenas we see that without them there can be nothing but physical matter in the world, and god and angels and the souls of men must be such matter, if they be any thing at all: and therefore in such an error as this, mr. baxter with christian patience might well have born with the doctors calling it, not only a mistake, but a mischief. and i hope by this time he is such a proficient in that virtue, that he will cheerfully bear the publication of this my answer in the behalf of the doctor to all his objections against these two essential and necessary characters of a spirit; and not be offended if i briefly run over his smaller criticisms upon the doctor's definition of the same, which do occur, pag. 80, 81. and elsewhere, as i shall advertise. the doctor's definition of a spirit in his discourse of that subject, sect. 29. is this [a spirit is a substance immaterial intrinsically endued with life and the faculty of motion] where he notes that immaterial contains virtually in it penetrability and indiscerpibility. now let us hear how mr. baxter criticizes on this definition. first, says he, pag. 80. your definition is common, good and true, allowing for its little imperfections, and the common imperfection of man's knowledge of spirits. if by [immaterial] you mean not [without substance] it signifieth truth, but a negation speaketh not a formal essence. ans. how very little these imperfections are, i shall note by passing through them all; and for the common imperfection of man's knowledge of spirits, what an unskilful or hypocritical pretence that is, the doctor hath so clearly shown in his discourse of the true notion of a spirit, sect. 16, 17, 18, 19 that it is enough to send the reader thither for satisfaction. but as for [immaterial] how can any one think that thereby is meant [without substance] but those that think there is nothing but matter in the physical sense of the word, in the world? as if [substance immaterial] was intended to signify [substance without substance]! and lastly, the doctor will deny that [in] in immaterial signifies negatively hear more than in immortal, incorruptible, or infinite, but that it is the indication of opposite properties to those of physical matter, viz. impenetrability and discerpibility, and that therefore immaterial here includes indiscerpibility and penetrability. secondly, pag. 81. spirit itself, says he, is but a metaphor. ans. though the word first signified other things before it was used in the sense it is here defined, yet use has made it as good as if it were originally proper. with your logicians, in those definitions, materia est causa ex qua res est, forma est causa per quam res est id quod est; materia and forma are metaphorical words, but use has made them in those definitions as good as proper; nor does any sober and knowing man move the least scruple touching those definitions on this account. to which you may add, that aristotle's caution against metaphors in defining things, is to be understood of the definition itself, not the definitum; but spirit is the definitum here, not the definition. thirdly, [intrinsically endued with life] tells us not that it is the form. qualities, and proper accidents are intrinsecal. ans. mr. baxter, i suppose, for clearness sake, would have had form written over the head of this part of the definition, as the old bungling painters were wont to write, this is a cock, and this a bull; or as one wittily perstringed a young preacher that would name the logical topics he took his arguments from, saying he was like a shoemaker that offered his shoes to sale with the lasts in them. i thought mr. baxter had been a more nimble logician than to need such helps to discern what is the genus in the definition, what the differentia or forma. and for [intrinsically endued] i perceive he is ignorant of the proper force and sense of the word intrinsecùs, which signifies as much as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 only, which implies that this life is from the intimate essence of a spirit quatenus a spirit, and therefore can be no common quality nor a faculty clarted on, as mr. baxter fancies god may clart on life the specific form of spirit, as he himself acknowledges, on matter, though materia quatenus materia implies no such thing; but, i say, spiritus quatenus spiritus does, which is both the source and proper subject of life. but it is the effect of an ill perturbed sight, to fancy flaws where there are really none. and to fancy that a vis vitalis, or power of living can belong to materia physica immediately, which power must necessarily be the result of an essence specifically distinct from physical matter, i think may justly be called clarting of this power on a subject it belongs not to, nor is intrinsecal to it, there being no new specific essence from whence it should spring. fourthly, the [faculty of motion] says he, is either a tautology included in life, or else if explicatory of life, it is defective. ans. it is neither tautological nor exegetical, no more than if a man should define homo, animal rationale risibile. [risibile] there, is neither tautological, though included in animal rationale; nor exegetical, it signifying not the same with rationale. and the definition is as true with risibile added to it, as if omitted. but the addition of risibile being needless, is indeed ridiculous. but it is not ridiculous to add the faculty of motion in this definition of a spirit, because it is not needless, but is added on purpose to instruct such as mr. baxter, that an intrinsical faculty of motion belongs to spirit quatenus spirit, and endued with life; whenas yet he, pag. 35. will not admit that self-motion is an indication of life in the subject that moves itself, although it is the very prime argument that his beloved and admired dr. glisson useth to prove, that there is universally life in matter. but it is the symptom of an overpolemical fencer, to deny a thing merely because he finds it not for his turn. in the mean time it is plain the doctor has not added [the faculty of motion] rashly out of oversight, but for the instructing the ignorant in so important a truth, that there is no 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but there is life and spirit. this is so great a truth, that the platonists make it to be the main character of soul or spirit, to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as you may see in proclus. fifthly, no man, saith he, can understand that the negative [immaterial], by the terms, includeth penetrability and indiscerpibility. ans. no man that rightly understands himself but must conceive that [immaterial] signifies an opposite or contrary condition to [material]: and he knowing (as who is ignorant of it?) that the proper and essential characters of [material] in substantia materialis, is to be impenetrable and discerpible, he will necessarily, even whether he will or no, discover that [immaterial] which signifies the opposite to these in substantia immaterialis, must denote penetrability and indiscerpibility. sixthly, you do not say here, saith he, that they are the form, but elsewhere you do; and the form should be expressed, and not only virtually contained, as you speak. ans. what would you have him in the very definition itself, which is so clear an one, say, this is the genus, this the form, as those bunglers i mentioned above writ the names of the animals they had so badly drawn? and that the form should be expressed is true, but it is sufficient it be expressed in such a comprehensive term as contains under it all that belongs to such a species. as when we have divided vivens into planta and animal, if we then define animal to be vivens sensu praeditum, that one word sensus, is sufficient, because it reaches any species of animal, and none but animals. and yet here the doctor is not so niggardly as to pinch the expression of all the form or difference, into that one word immaterial, whereby he here only intimates penetrability and indiscerpibility; but for fuller explication addeth, intrinsically induced with life and the faculty of motion. but lastly, for his elsewhere calling penetrability and indiscerpibility the form of a spirit, he nowhere makes them the whole form of a spirit, but makes the logical form or differentia of a spirit, to be all that which he has expressed in this definition, viz. [immaterial] which denotes penetrability and indiscerpibility, and [intrinsical life and motion]. and it is evident that when he calls this differentia in his definition, form, that he does not mean the very specific substance or essence, whereby a spirit is a spirit, but only essential or inseparable attributes, which only are known to us, and which are only in an improper sense said to be the form itself, or specific nature. they are only the result of the form and notes of an essence or substance specifically distinct from some other substance. it is not so in substantial forms as in geometrical forms or figures, as to visibility or perceptibilitie. dic tu formam hujus lapidis, says scaliger to cardan, & phyllida solus habeto. but there are inseparable and essential properties of a substantial form, necessarily resulting from the form itself, as there are in external forms or figures. as for example, from the form of a globe, which is a round form, defined from the equality of all lines from one point drawn thence to the superficies. from this form does necessarily and inseparably result the character of an easy rolling mobility. that a body of this form is the most easily moved upon a plain, of any body in the world. and so from the form of a piece of iron made into what we call a sword; fitness for striking, for cutting, for stabbing, and for defending of the hand, is the necessary result from this form thereof. and so i say that from the intimate and essential form of a spirit, suppose, essentially and inseparably result such and such properties by which we know that a spirit is a distinct species from other things, though we do not know the very specific essence thereof. and therefore here i note by the by, that when the doctor says any such or such attributes are the form of a spirit, he does datâ operâ balbutire cum balbutientibus, and expresses himself in the language of the vulgar, and speaks to mr. baxter in his own dialect. for it is the declared opinion of the doctor, that the intimate form of no essence or substance is knowable, but only the inseparable fruits or results thereof. which is a principle wants no proof, but an appeal to every man's faculties that has ordinary wit and sincerity. seventhly, they are not the form, saith he, but the dispositio vel conditio ad formam. ans. you may understand out of what was said even now, that penetrability and indiscerpibility are so far from being dispositio ad formam, that they are the fruits. and results of the intimate and specific form of a spirit, and that they suppose this specific form in order of nature to precede them, as the form of a globe precedes the rolling mobility thereof. in virtue of a spirits being such a specific substance, it has such inseparable attributes resulting from it, as a globe has mobility. and as the globe is conceived first, and mobility inseparably resulting from it; so the specific nature of a spirit, which is its true and intimate form, and made such according to the eternal idea thereof in the intellect of god, being one simple specific substance or essence, has resulting from it those essential or inseparable properties which we attribute to a spirit, itself in the mean time remaining but one simple self-subsistent actus entitativus, whose penetrability and indivisibility mr. baxter himself, pag. 99 says is easily defendible. and the doctor, who understands himself, i dare say for him, defends the penetrability and indivisibility of no essences but such. eighthly, if such modalities, says he, or consistence were the form, more such should be added which are left out. ans. he should have nominated those which are left out. he means, i suppose, quantity and trina dimensio, which it was his discretion to omit, they being so impertinent as i have shown above, in my answer to his third objection against the penetrability and indiscerpibility of a spirit. ninthly, penetrability and indiscerpibility are two notions, and you should not give us, says he, a compound form. ans. this implies that penetrability and indiscerpibility are the form of a spirit; but i have said again and again, they are but the fruits and result of the form. a spirit is one simple specific essence or substance, and that true specifickness in its essence, is the real and intimate form, or conceptus formalis thereof, but that which we know not (as i noted above out of julius scaliger) though we know the essential and inseparable attributes thereof, which may be many, though in one simple specific substance, as there are many attributes in god immediately and inseparably resulting from his most simple specific nature. tenthly, yea you compound, saith he, penetrability and indiscerpibility with a quite disserent notion [life and the faculty of motion], which is truly the form, and is one thing, and not compounded of notions so difse●…ent as consistence and virtue or power. ans. i say ag●…in as i said before, that nei●…her penetrability nor indiscerpibility, nor life nor motion, are the specific form it sel●… of a spirit, which is a simple substance, but the fruits and results of this specific form; and all these have a proper cognation with one another, as agreeing in immateriality or spirituality: and how the common sagacity of mankind has presaged, that the most noble functions of life are performed by that which is most subtle and most one, as penetrability and indiscerpibility makes the consistence of a spirit to be, the doctor has noted in his discourse of the true notion of a spirit. mr. baxter in reading theological systems may observe, that attributes as much dissering among themselves as these, are given to the most simple essence of god. eleventhly, you say, says he, pag. 82. life intrin●…ecally issues from this immaterial substance: but the form is concreated with it, and issues not from it. ans. i grant that the form is concreated with the spirit. for a spirit is nothing else but such a specific simple substance or essence, the specifickness of whose nature only is its real intimate form. and if we could reach by our conception that very form itself, it would be but the conceptus inadaequatus of one simple substance, and be the true conceptus formalis thereof; and the conceptus fundamentalis, to speak in mr. baxters or dr. glissons language, would be substance in general, which is contracted into this species by this real intimate form; which both considered together, being but one simple essence, they must needs be created together, according to that idea of a spirit which god has conceived in his eternal mind. and life will as naturally and necessarily issue from such a species or specific essence, or from substance contracted into such a species by the abovesaid form, as mobility does issue from the form of a globe. from whence it is plainly understood how life does intrinsically issue from immaterial substance, nor is the form itself but the fruit thereof. and as it were but trifling to say that the power of easy rolling every way on a plain were the very form of a globe, the word power or virtue being but a dark, loose, general, dilute term, and which belongs to every thing, and is restrained only by its operation and object; but it is the form or figure of the globe that is the immediate cause that that virtue or power in general is so restrained to this easy rolling: so it is in mr. b●…xters pretended form of a spirit, which he makes virtus vitalis, a power of living: power there, is such a dark dilute term, loose and general. but that it is determined to life, it is by that intimate specific form, which we know not; but only this we know, that it is to the power of living as the figure of a globe is to the power of easy rolling, and that in neither, one can be without the other. there must be a specific essence, which is the root of those powers, properties, or operations from whence we conclude distinct species of things: for 'tis too corpse and slovenly to conceit, that these are clarted on them, but the specific powers arise immediately, and inseparably from the specific nature of the thing; else why might they not be other powers as well as these? twelfthly and lastly, pag. 32. but do you verily believe, saith he, that penetrability or subtlety is a sufficient efficient or formal cause of vitality, perception and appetite, and so of intellection and volition? i hope you do not. ans. i hope so of the doctor too; and before this, i hoped that mr. baxter had more insight into the nature of a formal cause and into the laws of logic, than once to imagine that any one in his wits could take penetrability to be the formal cause of intellection and volition. for then every spirit being penetrable, every spirit even of a plant, at least of the vilest animalculum, would have intellection and volition. nor, for the same reason, can any body think that penetrability is a sussicient esficient cause of intellection and volition. nor is it so much as the essicient cause of vitality, perception, appetite, much less the formal. so infinitely is mr. baxter out in these things. but the case stands thus: the substance of that species of things which we call a spirit, and is so by that intimate specific form which i named before, this substance is the cause of vitality in such a sense as the round form of a globe, or any matter of that form is, quatenus of that form, the cause of its own rolling mobility. i say therefore, that vitality is as immediate and necessary a fruit or effect of the real and intimate form of a spirit, as that easy mobility is of the form of a sphere or globe; and such a kind of vitality, vegetative, sensitive, intellective of such a species of spirit: these kinds of vitalities are the fruits or effects necessary and immediate of the abovesaid so specificated substances; that is to say, they are immediately self-living, and all of them penetrable and indiscerpible of themselves, quatenus spirits, all these essential attributes arising from the simple essence or specificated substance of every spirit, of what classis soever, created according to its own idea eternally shining in the divine intellect. as for example; in the idea of a plastic spirit only; penetrability, indiscerpibility, and plastic vitality, whereby it is able to organize matter thus and thus, are not three essences clarted upon some sourth essence, or glued together one to another, to make up such an idea: but the divine intellect conceives in itself one simple specific ess●…nce immediately and intrinsically of itself, endued with these essential properties or attributes. so that when any thing does exist according to this idea, those three properties are as immediately consequential to it, and as e●…ectually, as mobility to the form o●… a globe. it is the specific substance that is the necessary source of them, and that acts by them as its own connate or natural instruments, sitted for the ends that the et●…rnal wisdom and goodness of god has conceiv●…d or contrived them for. for it is manifest, that those essential attributes of a spirit contrary to matter are not in vain. for whenas a plastic spirit is to actuate and organize matter, and inwardly dispose it into certain forms, penetrability is needful, that it may possess the matter, and order it throughout; as also that oneness o●… essence and indiscerpibility, that it may hold it together. for what should make any mass of matter one, but that which has a special oneness of essence in itself, quite di●…erent fro●… that of matter? and f●…rasmuch as all s●…uls are endued with the plastic whether of brutes or men, not to add the spirits of angels; still there holds the same reason in all ranks, that spirits should be as well penetrable and indiscerpible as vital. and if there be any platonic ni●…, that have no plastic, yet penetrability must belong to them, and is of use to them, if they be found to be within the verges of the corporeal universe (and why not they as well as god himself?) and indiscerpibility maintains their supposital unity, as it does in all spirits that have to do with matter, and are capable of a vital coalescency therewith. but i have accumulated here more theory than is needful. and i must remember that i am in a digression. to return therefore to the particular point we have been about all this while. i hope by this time i have made it good, that the dr.'s desinition of a spirit is so clear, so true, so express, and usefully instructive (and that is the scope of the doctors writings) that neither he himself, nor any body else, let them consider as much as they can, will ever be able to mend it. and that these affected cavils of mr. baxter argue no defects or flaws in the doctor's definition, but the ignorance and impotency of mr. baxters' spirit, and the undue elation of his mind, when notwithstanding this unexceptionableness of the definition, he, pag. 82. out of his magisterial chair of judicature pronounces with a gracious nod, you mean well— but all our conceptions here must have their allowances, and we must confess their weakness. this is the sentence which grave mr. baxter, alto supercilio, gives of the doctor's accurate definition of a spirit, to humble him, and exalt himself, in the sight of the populacy. but is it not a great weakness, or worse, to talk of favourable allowances, and not to allow that to be unexceptionable against which no just exception is found? but to give mr. baxter his due, though the extreme or extimate parts of this paragraph, pag. 82. which you may fancy as the skin thereof, may seem to have something of bitterness and toughness in it, yet the belly of the paragraph is full of plums and sweet things. for he says, and we are all greatly beholden to the doctor for his so industrious calling foolish sensualists to the study and notion of invisible being's, without which, what a carcase or nothing were the world? but is it not pity then, while the doctor does discharge this province with that faithfulness and industry, that mr. baxter should disturb him in his work, and hazard the fruits and efficacy thereof, by eclipsing the clearness of his notions of spiritual being's, (for bodies may be also invisible) by the interposition or opposition of his own great name against them, who, as himself tells the world in his church-history, has wrote fourscore books, even as old dr. glisson his patron or rather pattern in philosophy arrived to at least fourscore years of age? and mr. baxter it seems is for the common proverb, the older the wiser; though elihu in job be of another mind, who says there, i said days should speak, and multitude of years should teach wisdom; but there is a spirit in man, and the inspiration of the almighty giveth him understanding. but whither am i going? i would conclude here according to promise, having rescued the doctor's definition of a spirit from mr. baxter's numerous little criticisms, like so many shrill busy gnats trumpeting about it, and attempting to infix their feeble probosces into it; and i hope i have silenced them all. but there is something in the very next paragraph which is so wrongfully charged upon the doctor, that i cannot sorbear standing up in his justification. the charge is this: that he has fathered upon mr. baxter an opinion he never owned, and nicknamed him psychopyrist from his own ●…ction. as if, says he, we said that souls are ●…re, and also took fire, as the doctor does, for candles and hot irons, etc. only. but i answer in behalf of the doctor, as i have a little touched on this matter before, that he does indeed entitle a certain letter (which he answers) to a learned psychopyrist as the author thereof: but mr. baxters' name is with all imaginable care concealed. so that he by his needless owning the letter, has notched that nickname (as he calls it) of psychopyrist upon himself, whether out of greediness after that alluring epithet it is baited with, i know not; but that he hangs thus by the gills like a fish upon the hook, he may thank his own self for it, nor aught to blame the doctor. much less accuse him for saying, that mr. baxter took fire in no other sense than that in candles and hot iron, and the like. for in his preface, he expressly declares on the psychopyrists behalf, that he does not make this crass and visible fire the essence of a spirit, but that his meaning is more subtle and refined. with what conscience then can mr. baxter say, that the doctor affirms that he took fire in no other sense than that in candles and hot iron, and the like, and that he held all souls to be such fire? whenas the doctor is so modest and cautious, that he does not affirm that mr. baxter thinks any to be such; though even in this placid collation, he professes his inclination towards the opinion, that ignis and vegetative spirit is all one, pag. 20, 21. i have oft professed, saith he, that i am ignorant whether ignis and vegetative spirit be all one, (to which i most incline) or whether ignis be an active nature made to be the instrument, by which the three spiritual natures, vegetative, sensitive, and mental work on the three passive natures, earth, water, air. and again, pag. 66. if it be the spirit of the world that is the nearest cause of illumination, by way of natural activity, then that which you call the spirit of the world, i call fire; and so we differ but de nomine. but i have (saith he as before) professed my ignorance, whether fire and the vegetative nature be all one, (which i incline to think) or whether fire be a middle active nature between the spiritual and the mere passive, by which spirits work on body. and, pag. 71. i doubt not but fire is a substance permeant and existent in all mixed bodies on earth. in your blood it is the prime part of that called the spirits, which are nothing but the igneous principle in a pure aereal vehicle, and is the organ of the sensitive faculties of the soul. and if the soul carry any vehicle with it, it's like to be some of this. i doubt you take the same thing to be the spirit of the world, though you seem to vilify it. and, pag. 74. i suppose you will say, the spirit of the world does this. but call it by what name you will, it is a pure active substance, whose form is the virtus motiva, illuminativa & calefactiva, i think the same which when it operateth on due seminal matter is vegetative. and lastly, pag. 86. i still profess myself in this also uncertain, whether natura vegetativa and ignea be all one, or whether ignis be natura organica by which the three superior (he means the vegetative, sensitive, and intellective natures) operate on the passive. but i incline most to think they are all one, when i see what a glorious fire the sun is, and what operation it hath on earth, and how unlikely it is that so glorious a substance should not have as noble a formal nature as a plant. this is more than enough to prove that mr. baxter in the most proper sense is inclined to ‛ psychopyrism as to the spirit of the world, or vegetative soul of the universe; that that soul or spirit is fire: and that all created spirits are fire, analogicè and eminenter, i have noted above that he does freely confess. but certainly if it had not been for his ignorance in the atomick philosophy which he so greatly despiseth, he would never have taken the fire itself, a congeries of agitated particles of such figures and dimensions, for the spirit of the world. but without further doubt have concluded it only the instrument of that spirit in its operations, as also of all other created spirits, accordingly as the doctor has declared a long time since in his immortalitas animae, lib. 2. cap. 8. sect. 6. and finding that there is one such universal vegetative spirit (properly so called) or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the world, he could not miss of concluding the whole universe one great plant, or if some obscure degree of sense be given to it, one large zoophyton or plantanimal, whence the sun will be endued or actuated as much by a vegetative nature as any particular plant whatsoever; whereby mr. baxter might have took away his own disficultie he was entangled in. but the truth is, mr. baxters' defectiveness in the right understanding of the atomick philosophy, and his averseness therefrom, as also from the true system of the world, which necessarily includes the motion of the earth, we will cast in also his abhorrence from the pre-existence of souls (which three theories are hugely nec●…ssary to him that would philosophise with any success in the deepest points of natural religion and divine providence) makes him utter many things that will by no means bear the test of severer reason. but in the mean time this desectiveness in sound philosophy neither hinders him nor any one else from being able instruments in the gospel-ministrie, if they have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in a due measure; if they have a firm faith in the revealed truths of the gospel, and skill in history, tongues and criticism, to explain the text to the people, and there be added a sincere zeal to instruct their charge, and (that they may appear in good earnest to believe what they teach) they lead a life devoid o●… scandal and offence, as regulated by those go●…pel-rules they propose to others; this, though they have little of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 properly so called, that reaches to the deepest account of things, (but instead thereof, prudence and ingenuity) will sufficiently enable them to be guides to the people, especially by adhering in matters of moment to the ancient apostolic and unapostatized church, and presuming nothing upon their private spirit against the same. such, questionless, will prove able and safe pastors, and will not fail of being approved of by our lord jesus the great shepherd and bishop of our souls. but if any such, as i noted above, for that they conceit themselves also dapper fellows at cudgils or quarter-stafs, shall, leaving their flocks solitary in the fields, out of an itch after applause from the country-fry, gad to wakes and fairs to give a proof of their dexterity at those rural exercises; if they shall, i say, for their pains return with a bruised knuckle or broken pate, who can help it? it will learn them more wit another time. thus much by way of digression i thought fit to speak, not out of the least ill-will to mr. baxter, but only in behalf of the doctor, hoping, though it is far from all that may be said, that yet it is so much, and so much also to the purpose, that it will save the doctor the labour of adding any thing more thereto. so that he may either enjoy his repose, or betake himself to some design of more use and moment. in the mean time, i having dispatched my digression, i shall return to the main business in hand. i think it may plainly appear from what has been said, that it is no such harsh thing to adventure to conclude, that the truth of the divine intellect quatenus conceptive, speculative, or observative, which a platonist would be apt to call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as the divine intellect exhibitive 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, (for though it be but one and the same intellect, yet for distinctness sake we are fain to speak as of two) does consist in its conformity with the divine intellect exhibitive, with the immutable ideas, respects and references of things there. in conceiving and observing them (as i may so speak) to be such as they are represented in the said intellect quatenus necessarily and unalterably representing such ideas with the immediate respects and references of them. in this consists the truth of the divine intellect speculative. but the transcendental truth of things consists in their conformity to the divine intellect exhibitive. for every thing is true as it answers to the immutable idea of its own nature discovered in the divine intellect exhibitive. to which also the same divine intellect quatenus conceptive, speculative, or observative, gives its suffrage steadily and unalterably, conceiving these immutable ideas of things in their objective existence what their natures will be, with their necessary references, aptitudes or ineptitudes to other things when they are produced into act. from whence we may discern, how that saying of this ingenious author of the discourse of truth is to be understood. where he writes, it is against the nature of all understanding to make its object. which if we will candidly interpret, must be understood of all understanding quatenus merely conceptive, speculative or observative, and of framing of its object at its pleasure. which as it is not done in the settled idea of a sphere, cylinder and pyramid, no more is it in any other ideas with their properties and aptitudes immediately issuing from them, but all the ideas with their inevitable properties, aptitudes, or ineptitudes are necessarily represented in the divine intellect exhibitive, immutably such as they are, a triangle with its three angles equal to two right ones, a right-angled triangle with the power of its hypotenusa equal to the powers of the basis and cathetus both put together: which things seem necessary to every sober man and rightly in his wits, our understanding being an abstract or copy of the divine understanding. but those that say that if god would, he might have made the three angles of a triangle unequal to two right ones, and also the powers of the basis and cathetus of a right-angled triangle unequal to the power of the hypotenusa, are either bussoons and quibblers, or their understandings being but creatural huffiness of mind and an ambition of approving themselves the broachers and maintainers of strange paradoxes, has crazed their intellectuals, and they have already entered the suburbs of downright frenzy and madness. and to conclude; out of what has been insinuated, we may reconcile this harsh sounding paradox of our author, that seems so point-blank against the current doctrine of the metaphysical schools, who make transcendental truth to depend upon the intellectual truth of god, which they rightly deem the fountain and origine of all truth, whenas he plainly declares, that the divine understanding cannot be the fountain of the truth of things: but the seeming absurdity will be easily wiped away, if we take notice of our distinction touching the divine understanding quatenus merely conceptive, speculative or observative, and quatenus necessarily (through its own infinite and immutable pregnancy and foecundity) exhibitive of the distinct and determinate ideas or natures of things, with their immediate properties, respects or habitudes in their objective existence, representing them such as they certainly will be if reduced into act. his assertion is not to be understood of the divine understanding in this latter sense, but in the former. but being it is one and the same understanding, though considered under this twofold notion, our author, as well as the ordinary metaphysicians, will agree to this truth in the sense explained; that the divine understanding is the fountain of the truth of things, and that they are truly what they are, as they answer to their ideas represented in the exhibitive intellect of god. how the author himself comes off in this point, you will better understand when you have read the fifteenth, sixteenth and seventeenth sections of his discourse. let this suffice in the mean time for the removing all stumbling-blocks from before the reader. pag. 168. nor the foundation of the references one to another; that is to say, the divine understanding quatenus conceptive or speculative, is most certainly not the foundation of the references of things one to another; but the divine understanding quatenus exhibitive, that represents the ideas or natures of things in their objective existence such as they would be if reduced really into act, represents therewith all the references and habitudes they have one to another. which habitudes are represented not as flowing from or arbitrariously founded in any intellect whatsoever, but as resulting from the natures of the things themselves that respect one another, and are represented in the exhibitive understanding of god. which is the main thing that this ingenious author would be at, and such as will serve all his intents and purposes. pag. 168. it is the nature of understanding ut moveatur, illuminetur, etc. namely, of understanding quatenus conceptive or speculative, not quatenus exhibitive. pag. 169. no ideas or representations either are or make the things they represent, etc. this assertion is most certainly true. but yet they may be such ideas and representations as may be the measure of the truth of those things they represent: and such are all the ideas in the divine intellect exhibitive, their settled distinct natures necessarily exhibited there in virtue of the absolute perfection of the deity, though only in their objective existence, are the measures of the truth of those things when they are reduced into act, as i have noted above; but they are not the things themselves reduced into act, no more than an autographon is the very copy. ibid. all understanding is such; that is, ideas and representations of the natures of things in their objective existence, the patterns of what and how they are when they exist, and what references and aptitudes they have. i suppose he means here by understanding, not any power of the mind to conceive any thing, but understanding properly so called, viz. that, whose objects are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as the platonists speak, the ideas or representations of such things as are necessarily and unalterably such, not fictions at pleasure. let the intellect speculative be such ideas or representations as these, and then what it perceives, conceives, or observes, it does not make, but it is made to its hand, as not being able to be otherwise, nor itself to think otherwise. and therefore it is rightly inferred as follows: that no speculative understanding in that restrict sense abovenamed makes at pleasure the natures, respects and relations of its objects represented in the intellect exhibitive in their objective existence, but finds them there. nor does any intellect whatsoever make them at pleasure, but they are necessarily and unalterably represented in the exhibitive intellect of the deity, both their natures, respects, and habitudes, as inoted above. sect. 5. pag. 169. it remains then that absolute, arbitrarious and independent will must be the fountain of all truth, etc. it being supposed that the divine understanding and the independent will of god are the only competitors who should be the fountain of all truth, and the former section proving in a sense rightly understood, that the divine understanding cannot be the fountain of truth, it remains that the mere will of god should be the fountain of truth, and that things are true only because he wills they be so. as if four bore a double proportion to two because god would have it so; but if he would that two should bear a double proportion to four, it would immediately be so. ibid. which assertion would in the first place destroy the nature of god, etc. nay, if he will, it destroys his very existence. for if all truths depend upon god's will, than this truth, that god exists, does. and if he will the contrary to be true, namely, that he does not exist, what becomes of him then? ibid. and rob him of all his attributes. that it robs him of science and assured knowledge, whose objects are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, things immutable and necessary, this section makes good. and that it despoils him of his rectitude of nature, the eighth section will show. pag. 170. any angel or man may as truly be said to know all things as god himself, etc. because this supposition takes away all the steady and scientifick knowableness in things, it taking away their settled, fixed and necessary habitudes one to another, as if double proportion of four to two did no more belong to it in truth and reality than sub-double, and that four in truth were no more the quaternary number than the binary, but indifferently either, as the will of god will have it. this plainly pulls up by the roots all pretence of science or knowledge in god, angels, and men. and much more, flatly to assert, that if god will, contradictions may be true. for this plainly implies that there is really no repugnancy nor connection of one thing with another, and that therefore no one thing can be proved or disproved from another. pag. 171. if we distinguish those two attributes in god, etc. namely, of wisdom and knowledge, as if the one were noematical, the other dianoetical; although that discursiveness is more quick than lightning, or rather an eternal intuitive discernment of the consequence or cohesion of things at once. sect. 6. pag. 172. because they suppose that god is immutable and unchangeable, etc. this can be no allegation against the other arguings, because we cannot be assured of the immutability or unchangeableness of god, but by admitting of what those arguings drive at, namely, that there is an immutable, necessary and unchangeable reference and respect or connection of things one with another. as for example, of immutableness or unchangeableness with perfection, and of perfection with god. for to fancy god an imperfect being is nonsense to all men that are not delirant; and to fancy him perfect, and yet changeable in such a sense as is here understood, is as arrant a contradiction or repugnancy. wherefore they that would oppose the foregoing arguings by supposing god unchangeable, must acknowledge what is aimed at, that there is a necessary and unchangeable respect and connection betwixt things, or else their opposition is plainly weak and vain. but if they grant this, they grant the cause, and so truth has its just victory and triumph. this section is abundantly clear of itself. sect. 8. pag. 174. will spo●…l god of that universal rectitude which is the greatest perfection of his nature, etc. in the fifth section it was said, that the making the will of god the fountain of all truth robs him of all his attributes. and there it is proved how it robs him of his wisdom and knowledge. here it is shown how it robs him of his justice, mercy, faithfulness, goodness, etc. pag. 175. for to say they are indispensably so because god understands them so, etc. this, as the author says, must be extreme incogitancy. for the truth of the divine understanding speculative consists in its conformity with the ideas of things and their respects and habitudes in the divine understanding exhibitive, which necessarily, unchangeably and unalterably represents the natures of things with their respects and habitudes in their objective existence, such as they necessarily are when they do really exist. as of a sphere, pyramid, cube and cylinder. and there is the same reason of all natures else with their respects and habitudes, that they are as necessarily exhibited as the cube and cylinder, and their habitudes and respects one to another, as the proportion that a cylinder bears to a sphere or globe of the same altitude and equal diameter. which archimedes with incomparable clearness and subtlety of wit has demonstrated in his treatise de sphaera & cylindro, to be ratio sesq●…altera, as also the superficies of the cylinder with its bases to bear the same proportion to the superficies of the sphere. and as these ideas are necessarily and unalterably with their respects and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 represented, so are all ideas else, physical and moral, as i have noted above. and the nature of justice, mercy, faithfulness and goodness are with their habitudes and respects as fixedly, determinately and unalterably represented in their ideas, as the sphere and cylinder, or any other form or being whatsoever. sect. 9 pag. 178. for we are to know that there is a god, and the will of god, etc. that is to say, if there be no settled natures and respects and habitudes of things in the order of nature antecedent to any will whatever, meditation or contrivance, nor there be any certain nature, respects, habitudes, and connections of things in themselves; it will be necessary that we first know there is a god, and what his will is touching the natures, respects and habitudes of things. whether these which we seem to discern and do argue from are the same he means and wills, or some other. and so there will be a necessity of knowing god and his will, before we have any means to know him; or, which is all one, we shall never have any means to know him upon this false and absurd hypothesis. sect. 11. pag. 181. then it infallibly follows that it is all one what i do or how i live, etc. this, as the following words intimate, is to be understood in reference to the pleasing god, and to our own future happiness. but it is manifest it is not all one what i do or how i live (though i did suppose there were no real distinction betwixt truth and falsehood, good and evil in the sense here intended) in reference to this present condition in this world, where the sense of pain and ease, of imprisonment and liberty, and of the security or safety of a man's own person will oblige him to order his life in such a manner as hath at least the imitation of temperance, faithfulness, and justice. sect. 12. pag. 183. if the opposition of contradictory terms depend upon the arbitrarious resolves of any being whatsoever. the plainness and irrefragableness of this truth, that the opposition of contradictory terms is an affection, habitu●…e or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 betwixt those terms that no power in heaven or earth can abolish, methinks should assure any that are not pure sots or crazy fantastics, that there may be many other such unalterable and immutable habitudes of terms, natures or things that are every jot as unabolishable as this. which is no derogation to the divine perfection, but an argument of it; unless we should conceit that it is the height of the perfection of divine omnipotence to be able to destroy himself. and truly to fancy an ability in him of destroying or abolishing those eternal, necessary and immutable habitudes or respects of the natures of things represented in their ideas by the divine intellect exhibitive, is little less than the admitting in god an ability of destroying or abolishing the divine nature itself, because ipso facto the divine wisdom and knowledge would be destroyed, as was shown in the fifth section, and what a god would that be that is destitute thereof! wherefore it is no wonder that those men that are sober and in their wits, find it so impossible in themselves but to conceive that such and such natures are steadily such and no other, and betwixt such and such natures there are steadily and immutably such habitudes and respects and no others. forasmuch as the intellect of man is as it were a small compendious transcript of the divine intellect, and we feel in a manner in our own intellects the firmness and immutability of the divine, and of the eternal and immutable truths exhibited there. so that those that have their minds so cracked and shattered as to be able to fancy that if god would, he could change the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or common notions into their contradictories, as the whole is less than its part, etc. must have very crazy intellectuals, and have taken their lodging at least in the suburbs of downright dotage or frenzy, as i noted above. pag. 184. if any one should affirm that the terms of common notions have an eternal and indispensable relation to one another, etc. that this privilege is not confined to the common notions they are abundantly convinced of, that have bestowed any competent study upon mathematics, where the connection of every link of the demonstration is discerned to be as firmly and indissolubly knit, as the terms of a common notion are the one with the other. and it is our impatience, carelessness or prejudices that we have not more conclusions of such certitude than we have in other studies also. sect. 13. pag. 184. for if there be truth antecedently to the divine understanding, etc. this objection of the adversaries is framed something perversely and invidiously, as if the other party held, that there were truth antecedently to the divine understanding, and as if from thence the divine understanding would be a mere passive principle actuated by something without, as the eye by the sun. but it is a plain case, out of what has been declared, that the divine understanding (though there be such eternal natures and unchangeable respects and habitudes of them represented in the ideas that are in the exhibitive intellect of the deity) that it is, i say, before any external object whatever, and yet always had exhibited to itself the eternal and unalterable natures and respects of things in their ideas. and it was noted moreover, that the truth of the external objects, when brought into act, is measured by their conformity to these ideas. besides, the divine understanding being before all things, how could there be any truth before it, there being neither understanding nor things in which this truth might reside? or the divine understanding be a mere passive principle actuated by something without, as the eye by the sun, whenas questionless the divine intellect quatenus exhibitive is the most active principle conceivable; nay, indeed actus purissimus, the most pure act, as aristotle has defined god? it is an eternal, necessary, and immutable energy, whose very essence is a true and fixed ideal representation of the natures of all things, with their respects and habitudes resulting eternally from the divine foecundity at once. how then can this, which is so pure and pregnant an energy, be a mere passive principle, or be actuated by any external object, when it was before any thing was? but a further answer is to be found of the author himself in the fifteenth section. pag. 185. which is to take away his independency and self sufficiency. namely, if there be mutual and unalterable congruities and incongruities of things, as if they would determine god in his actions by something without himself. which is a mere mistake. for the pregnant fullness of the divine essence and perfection eternally and necessarily exerting itself into an ideal display of all the natures, properties, respects and habitudes of things, whether congruities or incongruities, and these fixed, immutable, necessary and unchangeable in their ideal or objective existence; and in time producing things according to these paradigms or patterns into actual existence by his omnipotence, and ever sustaining, supporting and governing them by his unfailing power and steady and unchangeable wisdom and counsel; i say, when all things are thus from god, sustained by god, and regulated according to the natures he has given them, which answer the patterns and paradigms in him, how can any such determination of his will any way clash with his selfsufficiency or independency, whenas we see thus, that all things are from god and depend of him, and his actions guided by the immutable ideas in his own nature, according to which all external things are what they are, and their truth measured by their conformity with them. but there is a fuller answer of the author's, to this objection, in the sixteenth and seventeenth sections. sect. 14. pag. 187. and to fetter and imprison freedom and liberty itself in the fatal and immutable chains and respects of things, etc. this is a misconceit that savours something of a more refined anthropomorphitism, that is to say, though they do not make the essence of god finite and of an humane figure or shape, yet they imagine him to have two different principles in him, an extravagant and undetermined lust or appetite, as it is in man, and an intellectual or rational principle, whose laws are to correct the luxuriancies and impetuosities of the other, and to bridle and regulate them. but this is a gross mistake; for there is no such blind and impetuous will in god upon which any intellectual laws were to lay a restraint, but his whole nature being pure and intellectual, and he acting according to his own nature, which contains those ideas and immutable respects, congruities and incongruities of things there eternally and unalterably represented, he acts with all freedom imaginable, nor has any chains of restraint laid upon him, but is at perfect liberty to do as his own nature requires and suggests. which is the most absolute liberty that has any sound or show of perfection with it, that can be conceived in any being. sect. 15. pag. 189. and does as it were draw them up into its own beams. this is something a sublime and elevate expression. but i suppose the meaning thereof is, that the natures and respects of the things of this lower creation, the divine understanding applies to the bright shining ideas found in his own exalted nature, and observes their conformity therewith, and acknowledges them true and right as they answer to their eternal patterns. sect. 16. pag. 189. to tie up god in his actions to the reason of things, destroys his liberty, absoluteness, and independency. this is said, but it is a very vain and weak allegation, as may appear out of what has been suggested above. for reasons of things and their habitudes and references represented in the eternal ideas in their objective existence, which is the pattern of their natures when they exist actually, is the very life and nature of the divine understanding; and as i noted above, the most true and perfective liberty that can be conceived in any being is, that without any check or tug, or lubricity and unsteadiness, it act according to its own life and nature. and what greater absoluteness than this? for that which acts according to its own nature, acts also according to its own will or appetite. and what greater independency than to have a power upon which there is no restraint, nor any modification of the exercise thereof, but what is taken from that which has this power? for the eternal and immutable reasons of things are originally and paradigmatically in the divine understanding, of which those in the creatures are but the types and transitory shadows. the author in this section has spoke so well to this present point, that it is needless to superadd any thing more. sect. 17. pag. 191. in this seventeenth section the author more fully answers that objection, as if gods acting according to the reasons of things inferred a dependency of him upon something without himself; which he does with that clearness and satisfaction, that it is enough to commend it to the perusal of the reader. sect. 18. pag. 193. truth in the power or faculty is nothing else but a conformity of its conceptions or ideas unto the natures and relations of things which in god we may call, etc. the description which follows is (though the author nowhere takes notice of that distinction) a description of the divine understanding quatenus exhibitive, not conceptive or speculative. the truth of which latter does indeed consist in the conformity of its conception unto the natures and relations of things, but not of things ad extra, but unto the natures, habitudes and respects of things as they are necessarily, eternally and immutably represented in the divine understanding exhibitive, which is the intellectual world, which the author here describes, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the vast champion or boundless field of truth. so that in those words [unto the natures and relations of things which in god we call an actual, steady, immovable, eternal omniformity, etc.] which is to be referred to [the natures and relations of things] as is evident to any that well considers the place. and with this sense that which follows the description is very coherent. pag. 194. now all that truth that is in any created being, is by participation and derivation from this first understanding (that is, from the divine understanding quatenus exhibitive) and fountain of intellectual light. that is, according to the platonic dialect, of those steady, unalterable and eternal ideas (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) of the natures and respects of things represented there in the divine understanding exhibitive in their objective existence; in conformity to which the truth in all created things and understandings doth necessarily consist. pag. 195. antecedently to any understanding or will, etc. that is, antecedently to any understanding conceptive, observative or speculative whatsoever, or to any will; but not antecedently to the divine understanding exhibitive. for that is antecedent to all created things, and contains the steady, fixed, eternal, and unalterable natures and respects or habitudes, before they had or could have any being. i say it contains the truth and measure of them; nor can they be said to be truly what they are, any further than they are found conformable to these eternal, immutable ideas, patterns and paradigms, which necessarily and eternally are exerted, and immutably in the divine understanding exhibitive. and of these paradigmatical things there, what follows is most truly affirmed. pag. 195. for things are what they are, and cannot be otherwise without a contradiction, etc. this was true before any external or created things did exist. true of every form in that eternal omniformity, which the platonists call the intellectual world, as the author has observed above in this section. a circle is a circle, and a triangle a triangle there, nor can be otherwise without a contradiction. and so of a globe, cylinder, horse, eagle, whale, fire, water, earth, their ideal fixed and determinate natures, habitudes, aptitudes, and respects necessarily and immutably there exhibited, are such as they are, nor can be otherwise without a contradiction. and because it is thus in the divine nature or essence, which is the root and fountain of the exterior creation, the same is true in the created being's themselves. things are there also what they are, nor can they be a globe suppose, or a cylinder, and yet not be a globe or a cylinder at once, or be both a globe and cylinder at once; and so of the rest. as this is a contradiction in the intellectual world, so is it in the exterior or material world, and so, because it is so in the intellectual. for the steadiness and immutableness of the nature of all things, and of their respects and habitudes, arise from th●… necessity, immutability, and unchangeableness of the divine essence and life, which is that serene, unclouded, undisturbed, and unalterable eternity, where all things with their respects and aptitudes, their order and series, are necessarily, steadily and immutably exhibited at once. p. 195. as they conform & agree with the things themselves, etc. 〈◊〉 the more platonical sense, and more conformable to that we have given of other passages of this learned and ingenious author is, if we understand the things themselves, at least primarily, to be the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of plato, which is the term which he bestows upon his ideas, which are the patterns or paradigms according to which every thing is made, and is truly such so far forth as it is found to agree with the patterns or originals in which all archetypal truth is immutably lodged. all created things are but the copies of these, these the original, the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or writing itself, from whence plato calls them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as if those archetypal forms were the forms or things themselves, but the numerous created being's here below, only the copies or imitations of them. wherefore no conception or ideas that we frame, or any intellect else as conceptive merely and speculative, can be true, but so far as they agree with these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in that sense we have declared, or with cre●…ted things so far as they are answerable to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or archetypal things themselves. and from hence is sufficiently understood the nature of truth in the subject. these few cursory notes i thought worth the while to make upon these two lear●…ed and ingenious writers, the subjects they have written on being of no mean importance and use, and the things written in such a time of their age, as if men be born under an auspicious planet, best fits their minds for the relishing and ruminating upon such noble theories. for i dare say, when they wrote these discourses or treatises, they had neither of them reached so much as half the age of man as it is ordinarily computed. which has made them write upon these subjects with that vigour and briskness of spirit that they have. for the constitution of youth, in those that have not an unhappy nativity, is far more heavenly and angelical than that of more grown age, in which the spirit of the world is more usually awakened, and then begins that scene which the poet describes in his de arte poetica, quoerit opes & amicitias, inservit honori. their mind then begins to be wholly intent to get wealth and riches, to enla●…ge their interest by the friendship of great persons, and to hunt after dignities and preferments, honours and employments in church or state, and ●…o those more heavenly and divine sentiments through disuse and the presence of more strong and filling impressions are laid asleep, and their spirits thickened and clouded with the gross fumes and steams that arise from the desire of earthly things; and it may so fall out, if there be not special care taken, that this mud they have drawn in by their corpse desires, may come to that opaque hardness and incrustation, that their terrestrial body may prove a real dungeon, & cast them into an utter oblivion of their chiefest concerns in the other state. — nec auras respicient clausi tenebris & carcere coeco. which i thought sit to take notice of, as well for the instruction of others, as for a due appretiation of these two brief treatises of these florid writers, they being as it were the virgin-honey of these two attic bees, the primitioe of their intemerated youth, where an happy natural complexion, and the first rudiments of christian regeneration may seem to have conspired to the writing of two such useful treatises. useful, i say, and not a little grateful to men of refined fancies and gay intellectuals, of benign and philosophical tempers, and lovers of great truths and goodness. which natural constitution were a transcendent privilege indeed, were there not one great danger in it to those that know not how to use it skilfully. for it does so nearly ape, as i may so speak, the divine benignity itself, and that unself-interessed love that does truly arise from no other seed than that of real regeneration (which self-mortification and a serious endeavour of abolishing or utterly demolishing our own will, and quitting any thing that would captivate us, and hinder our union with god and his christ, does necessarily precede) that too hastily setting up our rest in these mere complexional attainments, which is not spirit but flesh, though it appear marvellous sweet and goodly to the owner, if there be not ●…ue care taken to advance higher in that divine and eternal principle of real regeneration, by a constant mortification of our own will there may be a perpetual hazard of this flesh growing corrupt and flyblown, and sending up at l●…st no sweet savour into the nostrils of the almighty. that which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the spirit is spirit; and all flesh is grass, and the beauty thereof as the slower of the field; but that which is born of the eternal seed of the living word, abideth for ever and ever. and therefore there is no safe anchorage for the soul, but in a perpetual endeavour of annihilating of her own will, that we may be one with christ, as christ is with god. otherwise if we follow the sweet enticing counsels of mere nature, though it look never so smugly on it, it will seduce us into a false liberty, and at last so corrupt our judgement, and blind us, that we shall scarce be able to discern him that is that great light that was sent into the world, but become every man an ignis fatuus to himself, or be so silly as to be led about by other ignes fatui, whenas it is most certain that christ is the only way, the truth and the life, and he that does not clearly see that, when he has opportunity to know it, let his pretence to other knowledge be what it will, it is a demonstration that as to divine things he is slark blind. but no man can really adhere to christ, and unwaveringly, but by union to him through his spirit; nor obtain that spirit of life, but by resolved mortification of his own will, and a deadness to all worldly vanities, that we may be restored at last to our solid happiness which is through christ in god, without whose communion no soul can possibly be happy. and therefore i think it not amiss to close these my theoretical annotations on these two treatises, with that more practical and devotional hymn of a. b. that runs much upon the mortification of our own wills, and of our union and communion with god, translated into english by a lover of the life of our lord jesus. the devotional hymn. 1. o heavenly light! my spirit to thee draw, with powerful touch my senses smite, thine arrows of love into me throw. with flaming dart deep wound my heart, and wounded seize for ever, as thy right. 2. o sweetest sweet! descend into my soul, and sink into its low'st abyss, that all false sweets thou mayst control, or rather kill, so that thy will alone may be my pleasure and my bliss. 3. do thou my faculties all captivated unto thyself with strongest tye; my will entirely regulate: make me thy slave, nought else i crave, for this i know is perfect liberty, 4. thou art a life the sweetest of all lives, nought sweeter can thy creature taste; 'tis this alone the soul revives. be thou not here, all other cheer will turn to dull satiety at last. 5. o limpid fountain of all virtuous leer! o wellspring of true joy and mirth! the root of all contentments dear! o endless good! break like a flood into my soul, and water my dry earth, 6. that by this mighty power i being reft of every thing that is not one, to thee alone i may be left by a firm will fixed to thee still, and inwardly united into one. 7. and so let all my essence, i thee pray, be wholly filled with thy dear son, that thou thy splendour mayst display with blissful rays in these hid ways wherein god's nature by frail man is won. 8. for joined thus to thee by thy sole aid and working (whilst all silent stands in mine own soul, nor oughtst assayed from self-desire) i'm made entire an instrument fit for thy glorious hands. 9 and thus henceforwards shall all workings cease, unless't be those thou dost excite to perfect that sabbatick peace which doth arise when self-will dies, and the new creature is restored quite. 10. and so shall i with all thy children dear, while nought debars thy workings free, be closely joined in union near, nay with thy son shall i be one, and with thine own adored deity. 11. so that at last i being quite released from this straitlaced egoity, my soul will vastly be increased into that all which one we call, and one in't self alone doth all imply. 12. here's rest here's peace, here's joy and holy love, the h●…aven's here of true content, for those that hither sincerely move, here's the true light of wisdom bright, and prudence pure with no selfseeking mient. 13. here spirit, soul and cleansed body may bath in this fountain of true bliss of pleasures that will ne'er decay, all joyful sights and hid delights; the sense of these renewed here daily is. 14. come therefore come, and take an higher flight, things perishing leave here below, mount up with winged soul and spirit, quick let's be gone to him that's one, but in this one to us can all things show. 15. thus shall you be united with that one, that one where's no duality; for from this perfect good alone ever doth spring each pleasant thing, the hungry soul to feed and satisfy. 16. wherefore, o man! consider well what's said, to what is best thy soul incline, and leave off every evil trade. do not despise what i advise; finish thy work before the sun decline. finis. books printed for, or sold by samuel lownds, over against exeter exchange in the strand. parthenissa, that famed romance. written by the right honourable the earl of orrery. clelia, an excellent new romance, the whole work in five books. written in french, by the exquisite pen of monsieur de scudery. the holy court. written by n. cansinus. bishop saunderson's sermons. herbert's travels, with large additions. the complete horseman, and expert farrier, in two books: 1. showing the best manner of breeding good horses, with their choice, nature, riding and dieting, as well for running as hunting; as also, teaching the groom and keeper his true office. 2. directing the most exact and approved manner how to know and cure all diseases in horses: a work containing the secrets and best skill belonging either to farrier or horse-leach: the cures placed alphabetically, with hundreds of medicines never before imprinted in any author. by thomas de grey. claudius mauger's french and english letters upon all subjects enlarged, with fifty new letters, many of which are on the late great occurrences and revolutions of europe; all much amended and refined, according to the most acquaint and courtly mode; wherein yet the idiom and elegancy of both tongues are far more exactly suited than formerly. very useful to those who aspire to good language, and would know what addresses become them to all sorts of persons. besides many notes in the end of the book, which are very necessary for commerce. paul festeau's french grammar, being the newest and exactest method now extant, for the attaining to the elegancy and purity of the french tongue. the great law of consideration; a discourse showing the nature, usefulness, and absolute necessity of consideration, in order to a truly serious and religious life. the third edition, corrected and much enlarged, by anthony horneck, d. d. the mirror of fortune, or the true characters of fate and destiny, treating of the growth and fall of empires, the misfortunes of kings and great men, and the ill fate of virtuous and handsome ladies. saducismus triumphatus: or full & plain evidence concerning witches and apparitions, in two parts, the first treating of their possibility, the second of their real existence; by joseph glanvil, late chaplain to his majesty, and fellow of the royal society. the second edition. the advantages whereof above the former, the reader may understand out of dr. henry more's account prefixed thereunto. with two authentic but wonderful stories of swedish witches, done into english by anthony horneck, d. d. french rogue, being a pleasant history of his life and fortune, adorned with variety of other adventures of no less rarity. of credulity and incredulity in things divine and spiritual, wherein (among other things) a true and faithful account is given of platonic philosophy, as it hath reference to christianity. as also the business of witches and witchcraft, against a late writer, fully argued and disputed. by merick causabon, d. d. one of the prebend's of canterhury. cicero against catiline, in four invective orations, containing the whole manner of discovering that notorious conspiracy. by christopher wase. 〈◊〉 jests, being witty alarms for melan●… spirits. by a lover of ha, ha, herald finis. christianity no enthusiasm: or, the several kind's of inspirations and revelations pretended to by the quakers, tried, and found destructive to holy scripture and true religion: in answer to thomas ellwood's defence thereof; in his tract, miscalled truth prevailing, etc. rev. 2.2. thou hast tried them which say they are apostles, and are not; and hast found them liars. london, printed by t. d. for henry brome, at the gun at the west end of st. paul's. 1678. imprimatur, guil. sill. aug. 30. 1677. the epistle to the reader. there coming lately to my hand a book called truth prevailing and detecting error, etc. written by th. ellwood; pretending to be an answer to a certain tract, named a friendly conference between a minister and a parishioner of his, inclining to quakerism, etc. composed by a respected friend of mine: and understanding how that by the quakers it was esteemed as one of their strongest pieces, and by them thrust into the hands both of some magistrates, and other persons of several qualities, into whose acquaintance they could insinuate. i set myself to the perusal of it: the cavils, sleights, false quotations and untruths in several parts thereof, were easily discoverable; but the pretence to immediate revelation and inspiration did most nearly affect me, that being a tender matter, which ought not to be claimed without the greatest certainty, nor so much as mentioned without the highest regard; because [the glory of god, the authority of the scriptures, the state and welfare of humane societies; the souls of all (especially of those who are so facile as to believe such pretences) and the interest of the christian religion,] are all deeply engaged and concerned in those demands. and having observed these and the like things: 1. that bad men, evil designs, inward heats, melancholy fancies, satan's suggestions, the want of better arguments, or the like, have frequently in all the ages of the church, taken sanctuary un●er so sacred a cover, (as by ●he catalogue given chapter ●he sixth, doth sufficiently appear: which (if necessary) might be enlarged in those several periods downwards, to our own late licentious times, when inspirations and heavenly impressions were made the common stolen for many purposes.) 2. that the same grounds which can induce any man to incline to quakerism, do as strongly engage him both to believe and own the several other persons and sects which mak● use of the very same claim, bot● with an equal right, and wit● an equal confidence, for whe● the demands, proofs an● reasons are alike, the reception and entertainment ther● of should be answerable. 3. having considered th. ellwoods' manner of stating the case, viz. [that all believers in all ages, p. 228. & 229. in some degree or other, have inward teachings and immediate revelations from the spirit of god which dwells in them.] by which way of procedure he hath done as much disservice to that cause he designed thereby to support, as if he had been hired professedly to subvert it; for until he hath proved all other persons in the world to be no believers, (either not to have right articles of faith, or, which is more difficult to discover, that their hearts are not sincere and true in the belief of them) he hath argued them into inspirations as good as his own, and there are many such men who do profess, and will make out themselves to be as true believers, as he is, or can be, and so at least by his own rule they must have an equal share of inspirations with him, whereby the revelations of one side will be endlessly clashing against the revelations of the other, and in such contests men will not know which party to adhere to. such things as these being weighed, i determined to examine his pretensions in this matter, and in order thereto cast some thoughts together, chief in reference to the person and prophetic office of our lord jesus, which by their conceit of the light sufficient within every man, and a perpetual flux of inspiration from without are destroyed or rendered unnecessary. this being done, i was not satisfied merely from thomas ellwood to take my measures, nor by one writer to judge of an whole sect; (though we may justly fasten upon such a party (as challengeth immediate revelation, both to the whole body, and every believer and member of it) whatever is written in matters of religion, especially in this highest part thereof, by any of their number. they also using such caution about licensing and printing their books, as will appear from their 5th. constitution.) i therefore resolved to discover the doctrine of thomas ellwood 's brethren, and accordingly searched into such of their works, or those they were concerned in, as in this country i could obtain: it was some trouble to learn their names, and then procure them, and when had, it was but small pleasure to peruse them: for whereas other discourses do improve, delight and reward, these did little better than amuse. their terms were so wrested, and their style so forced and improper, that we may apply to them, what martial said of sextus his books. non lectore tuis opus est, sed apolline libris. st. in praef. ad libr. 1. irenaeus took the pains to discourse with, to examine the words and opinions of the valentinians, and such like heretics, and even to read commentarios ipsorum, the very books in which their doctrines were contained, though they were of so strange and disgustful a composure, that as erasmus observes in his dedicatory epistle before it [none could read them without weariness, unless he was armed with a mighty patience. quos nemo nisi patientis stomachi poterit absque toedio revolvere.] whereupon tertullian saith, adu. valent. p. 287. that he was [omnium doctrinarum curiosissimus explorator.] and as those fathers observe, some opinions are so monstrous, so trifling, and contrary to sound doctrine, that they do offend and jade the reader: but withal the very opening of such ware, is a sufficient discovery of its vileness: and i think it is as easy a work to understand the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. of the valentinians, (these were their terms of art, and taken from the scriptures also, but most horribly wrested and perverted by them) as to apprehend some of the first books of the quakers, which are full of such scripture words, but new moulded into their senses. the result of that search with respect to the subject matter is here presented; and their doctrines did prove much worse than i expected to have found them, greater depths of satan, higher mysteries of iniquity, more equivocations and un-christian tenets, did appear than my charity thought them guilty of: amongst other pieces, i think i have hit upon that which may be called their new gospel, and have discovered their very head and founder: but if they like him not for their father, i think we need not to be much at a loss to find out others: for besides some few singular fancies, there is not very much that is new in their opinions, and yet there is but little of the true old christianity neither. satan (we may reasonably think) hath long ago canvassed every word in the sacred book, from thence to form heresies, and having run his round, he doth oft new dress old obsolete ones, turning them into other shapes, by some slender additions to make them be the less discernible: but whosoever will compare the doctrines of the quakers with many of the rotten condemned heretics, with some fancies of the monks in later times, of the anabaptists, familists, etc. about the reformation, of the seekers, antinomians, ranters, dellists, and those other swarms of locusts in this kingdom, will be forced to acknowledge that not only their foundation is the same, but that also many of their opinions, even their phrases, words and terms proceed from the same fountain. learned men do look upon them as so unreasonable and others do esteem them so obstinate, that either they are not worth meddling with, or that the attempts will prove fruitless: but the interest of true religion, and the good of those souls for whom christ died, are so sacred, that no endeavours to justify the one and to save the other, aught to be discouraged. and whereas heretics have one while questioned about god, at another time about christ or the holy spirit, sometimes the holy scriptures, sometimes the church, the sacraments or single articles have been debated. quakers doly under those sad circumstances, of having licked up the vomit, and imbibed the errors about most of those. [denying the trinity, and yet dividing the godhead, denying christ's body and bodily presence now in heaven, and our redemption by him, confounding christ and the holy ghost, engrossing christianity to themselves; so as to paganize all other christians, and instead of them taking in the heathen world, to fill up those vacancies they have thrust us from (they being much more favourable to them, as having christ within them.) looking upon the scriptures as dead letters, not the rule either of faith or manners, that they signify nothing to us without a new revelation to impose them, and a further one to expound them.] with many the like prevarications in the most fundamental articles of religion: and such poisonous doctrines require warning and antidotes from all hands. this i have related to show the occasion of this tract, and shall more particularly address myself to such of the quakers as are wellmeaning persons, like absaloms' men, 2 sam. 15.11. in the. simplicity of their hearts following their leaders, but yet in preparation of mind, being ready to embrace the truth when fairly proposed, and, as i hope, abhorring those abominations which lie concealed under their doctrines, or are the direct consequents of them: the great prejudice those poor souls lie under, is, that they are kept under with an implicit faith, and scarce permitted to read tracts against them, which are supposed to be but temptations to remove them from the truth: but if any such well designing quakers shall meet with this, i desire them seriously to lay to heart these few following things, which are not here set down to anticipate, but either briefly to represent what is proved in the following papers, or what might be more fully showed, especially in reference to that dangerous delusion, that the light within every man is the lord jesus. 1. that other sects (whom you disown and condemn) have given out themselves to be inspired as much as you do, have spoken as well, have continued as long, have been as numerous, have given as convincing proofs as you can do, and yet have been first wand'ring, then fallen stars, and have come to nothing. if you say, that theirs were counterfeit, but yours true lights, that is a pitiful begging the question; or, if you say that their light at first was right, but that they mistook in its use, this still concludes nothing; by what arguments you would confute your corrivals, by the like we may confute you, they falling as forcibly upon yourselves, as upon any others else. 2. consider that great disservice which your trifling expositions attempt to do unto religion, a taste of which we may take from your inspired allegorical interpretations recorded in chapter the 8th. [the everlasting gospel, the tabernacle of david, god, christ, the angels, the devil, the bottomless pit, the beast with seven heads, babylon, the mystery of iniquity, the man of sin, the mystery of godliness, michael and the dragon fight, antichrist, the third heavens, the father of lies, etc.] all these are made internal things, so that a quaker is well provided, having within and carrying about with him all those; certainly he must be an empty house, that can entertain so many both things and persons, and such a mixed assembly. 3. that other nations have had their enthusiasts (there being a kind of circulation of errors) germany had its anabaptists, etc. in the last century, and its plenty of revealers in late times; france had its libertines; holland its familists, and what not, and other countries had their share: but the scene at present of fanaticism lies most in england, for the inquisition and edicts suppressing (as 'tis likely) the alumbrados or quakers in popish countries, they were (i mean their doctrines) transplanted hither, where, in a soil at that time well prepared for their reception and increase, they took good root, and thence shot forth their branches into other nations: nor must we think that quakerism is the last sect, for though the very dregs of many of the former are squeezed into it, yet their own divisions, perpetual change, the doting of some persons upon novelties, and the craft of the great enemy, give us reason to suppose that when men are grown weary of this, he will prepare a new one for them. 4. that you would consider your own alterations generally observed both in point of doctrine and behaviour, for they are a clear acknowledgement that you were mistaken at the first, to challenge divine motions for many things, and yet in a few years to recede from those commands, reflects upon the spirit as changeable, or yourselves to have been imposed upon: but if you were truly wise it would engage you unto a strict examination both of your foundation and the several things erected on it: the old marcionites changed thus, [cottidie reformant illud, tertul. l. 4. adv. marc. prout à nobis cottidie revincuntur, daily altered their opinions, as the arguments of the others discovered their weakness and indefensibleness.] so do you daily lick and new mould many of your doctrines, as you are beaten from hold to hold, though you continue still enthralled in the main. 5. that you would throughly examine the truth or even possibility of those two (by you called) fundamental principles. 1. how your light within can be the christ, the saviour of the world, for it destroys the reality and truth of his humane nature, and hereby you proclaim yourselves to be antichristian in denying or destroying his coming in the flesh. how can his body or his soul be within every one of you? make out this, and it will be an equal evidence for transubstantiation; but undoubtedly it dethrones christ from god's right hand, and destroys our faith, our hope and our very religion, even the whole covenant of grace, all which are founded in the reality of his person, as our teacher and redeemer; and we may apply to you what the former father urged, ibid. [quali habitu— quonam impetu vel temperamento, quo in tempore diei noctis ve descenderit? in what habit, manner, condition, in what hour of the day or night did he descend, who saw him descend? who related it? who asserted such a thing as should not easily be credited when asserted? proculus affirmed he saw romulus ascend to heaven, but the christ of god hath none to witness his descent] into your souls, but this strange principle of taking [the light of nature, the dictates of conscience, and the treasures of knowledge reposited in the soul] for the son of the most high god, who also was the son of man, tends to repaganize mankind, and your disowning baptism (wherein the devil, the world and even gentilism itself were renounced) is a fit preparation to make men heathens a second time. 2. your other principle of perpetual immediate inspiration [as to the whole body of the church in general, im. rev. in the title page. and to every member thereof, and to every true believer in particular] lays aside the necessity or usefulness of the sacred scriptures; for what signifieth the bible, if it oblige none except it be renewed to them, nor can then be understood until the spirit come to expound it: the having no written book, but immediate teaching in all, would by your model have been far more beneficial, and your revelations about worldly things, idem, p. 6. [as ploughing, digging, going to a place, abiding in it, etc.] lays aside the use of your reasons, taketh away the comfortable trusting and relying upon providence, looks like a new way of knowing your fortunes, and exposes the soul to the delusions of fancy and evil spirits whereby satan may get that employment, which is assigned to reason, become the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the coachman or driver, get into the box, and hurry you at his pleasure. 6. that the great testimonies of our lords prophetic office are by himself given, john 5.31.— 40. the first is in v. 33. [the scent unto john and he bear witness unto the truth.] pointed out the person of christ, who was a man as truly as himself. but christ did not stand barely upon john's testimony, v. 34. no, nor did he bear witness of himself, v. 31. but besides those which might have been rejected as the testimonies of men, he appealed to three undeniable evidences that god spoke by him. the first is in v. 36. [the works which the father hath given me to finish, the same works that i do, bear witness of me, that the father hath sent me.] that is, the power of miracles was one evidence of his being sent from god. the second is in v. 37. mat. 3.17. & 17.5. john 12.28. [the father himself which hath sent me, hath born witness of me.] by those audible voices from heaven he gave credence that jesus was his beloved son, and commanded [hear him.] the third is in v. 39 [search the scriptures, for in them ye think ye have eternal life, and they are they which testify of me.] unto which that text rev. 19.10. is like [the testimony of jesus is the spirit of prophecy.] or the punctual fulfilling in christ's person, doctrine, life, death, etc. what had by a series of prophets several hundred years before been predicted concerning him, proved him to be the true messiah. but quakers pretending the christian religion to have been lost for above 1500 years, then giving out themselves to be the only true christians, that [after the long night of thick darkness, p. 243. which hath covered the earth, and that general apostasy] the gospel is now again revealed by them, give us no proofs of what they say, except a train of misapplyed words formerly used by other enthusiasts, and which for the future will not be forgot by their successors in the like claims, but they produce no divine attestations, not one hair turned black or white by them, or if they did, that alone would be no evidence, so certain is that observation of tertullian [edicens multos venturos, adu. marc. l. 3. & signa facturos, & virtutes magnas edituros, aversionem etiam electorum, nec ideo tamen admittendos, temerariam signorum & virtutum fidem ostendit, ut etiam apud pseudo-christos facillimarum, christ's foretelling that false christ's would come and work wonders, shows the uncertainty and rashness of believing them upon that account] the strongest proof is that of prophecy [that more sure word of prophecy 2 pet. 1.19.] even more sure than [the voice from the excellent glory, v. 17.] and therefore tho. ellwood should produce as determinate prophecies as those which limited the time of christ's coming, to prove it to have been foretold, that after 1548 years' [the so long lost gospel was to be published in the same demonstration of the spirit as at the first] and when that year (in which our late gracious sovereign was martyred) is undeniably made out to be the precise time, he must proceed by some certainly divine testimonies to prove that [he and his party are the sole persons whom god hath raised up for the redelivery of the gospel, and that all other their competitors are but raised up by satan to darken those truths which the quakers now bring unto mankind.] as for us, we do not deny god's gracious communications, nor restrain his influences upon men's souls, he may by angels, or what ways of notice he please, signify particular messages to some persons, but it is the claim [of immediate inspiration now in the conveying, renewing or expounding matters of religion] which cannot be too much disowned, as the subverter of our whole christian dispensation and the introducer of that dangerous dotage concerning the seculum spiritûs sancti, for the prophecies and promises of the old testament foretelling the coming of the christ, he accordingly coming at the time foretold; and when come, he being truly god, and yet instructing us in the true nature of man (which humane nature he then had, still retaineth, and for ever will retain) his person being seen, heard, and conversed with; his miracles done before multitudes of people, his doctrine delivered by him whilst he was on earth, and heard not only by disciples and enemies, but by 12 select apostles appointed purposely for that very end as witnesses. if the things of jesus were transacted outwardly and publicly as the things of men are (even his most concealed transfiguration was done before 3 eye-witnesses.) if the history of christ was recorded by such as were knowing witnesses thereof. if the spirits inward work chief consisted about such things as christ had be fore outwardly delivered, and if his inward immediate teachings might have been made out to inquirers by outward proofs: if our christian religion was settled by such eye and ear testimony, and its whole dispensation established by outward and sensible evidences: if the old rule be true, ecclesia ab apostolis, apostoli à christo, christus à deo, that the church received her faith from the apostles, they from christ, and he from god, as certainly this whole heap of evidences is true (and many more such might be added,) and their force can never be shaken, then quakerism, which tempts us with another kind of christ, and another scheme of religion, is as damnable and pernicious an heresy, as hath assaulted christianity at any time. the introduction in which an account is given of the quakers original and standing. page 5 of their temper in debates. page 8 of t. ellwood's learning and honesty. page 13 of his daring confidence. page 18 the contents. chap. i. the state of the case and the manner of proceeding. page 22 chap. ii. how the apostles came to the knowledge of the gospel. page 31 chap. iii. whether the quakers be the apostles successors and receive the knowledge of the gospel in the same manner as the apostles did? page 40 chap. iv. of the quakers renewed or repeated revelations. page 51 chap. v of their immediate revelations. page 63 chap. vi of their partners and competitors in revelation. page 70 chap. vii. of their contradictory, different and designed revelations. page 102 chap. viii. of their expository revelations. page 127 chap. ix. of their demonstration of the spirit and new dispensation. page 147 chap. x. of their experiences. page 157 chap. xi. how the primitive christians came to the knowledge of the gospel. page 162. chap. xii. of the quakers hearing the voice of god, and some other claims. page 166 chap. xiii. of the texts of scripture produced by t.e. p. 169. chap. xiv. of his destructive rules of expounding scripture. page 176 the conclusion. page 179 the author living at a great distance, these erratas have escaped, which the reader is desired to mend with his pen pag. 17. lin. 1. r. the catholics & nou. p. 21. l. 18. dreamers. p. 23. l. 7. there upon. p. 24. l. 21. withal a. ib. l. 34. sects, or. ib. l. 35. have. p. 41. l. 10 end. p. 46 l 32 an inference. p 47 l 2 porphory. p 50 l 17 sole teacher p 55 l 17. lines. p 61 l 11 deal some. [p. 78. in marg. against l. 1. principles of the elect. p. 48. ib. against l. 3. pen. naked tr. p. 25. ib. against l. 5. in mr. jenner, p. 173.] p 80 l. 31 inspired. p. 81 in marg. l. 11 bozius. p. 92 l. 21. deal and so. p 100 l. 9 indisputably. p 101 l 5 from. ib. l. 13. deal of. p. 104 l. 4. this. p. 105 l. 6. contradictious. p 114 l. 15. of hon. p 117 l. 7. superfaetation. ib. l. 27. this. p. 123. baptista catum syritus. p 126. in marg. valentin. p. 127 l. 4. third favour. p. 128 l. 18. wake. p. 129 l. 3diation. p. 131. l. 26 deal whole p. 132. ult. no more p 133. l. 31. which is. p. 135. l 25ssed. ib. l. 31 deal the. p. 139. l. 8. continues. p. 141. l. 28 that their. l. 36 eben. p. 145 l 6.tually than by. p. 148. marg. occum. p. 159 l. 3. collatis. ib. l. 17 invisible. ib. l. 24 dumb. p. 160. l. 6. powers. p. 166. l. 11. deal in. ib. l. 31. too general. p. 175. l. 19 remanent. p. 178. l. 4. thus he. ib. l. 15. in a. p. 180 l. 1. egyptian. ib. l 2. no nor. p. 184. l. 24. meetings. p. 186 l 7. deal which. ib. l 16. condemned. christianity no enthusiasm. the introduction. the divisions among christians being fomented by the enemy of souls, are as industriously retorted upon the very profession, as they were vigorously promoted; hereby some are encouraged to separation, and others hence take the confidence to dispute the truth of the religion itself, because of the various sentiments of such as own it. celsus the heathen objected this early, to which * origen. cont. cells. p. 117, 118. origen gives a satisfactory reply. and vasens the arian pretending to be offended at the same, was satisfied by the oration of themistius, [ † socrat. hist. eccl. l. 4. c. 27. 1 cor. 11.19. that there were fewer differences among christians than among philosophers.] sozomen. histor. eccles. l. 6. c. 36. the apostle having foretell that there must be sects or heresies; instead of being an argument against christianity, they prove one for it; all callings or professions have their various rules and methods, few laws are made which meet not with various expositions: exact agreement seems more like a design or compact. it is more possible to be at one in the ways of error: and in darkness men will stick closer together. whereas the more there is of light and truth, satan is the more concerned against them; and among such various educations, interests, and tempers, it cannot be morally expected, but that some singular sect-masters masters will appear, and toll in proselytes. and though our differences are too many at present, yet we can scarce pitch on any time during the purity of the church, especially when christianity was generally entertained, wherein there were not as many different form parties as are now among us. but whilst the sense of some texts or articles have been debated, the sacred scriptures themselves have met with severe measure: by some, their authority and truth have been disputed; by others their phraseology and style: one while their language is too plain, not courtly enough, nor strewed with rhetorical flowers. the heathens objected this betimes. that the penmen were unlearned, arnob. l. 1. ab hominibus indoctis & rudibus scripta sunt, trivialis & sordidus sermo est.— barbarismis, solaecismis obsitae res vestrae & vitiorum deformitate pollutae. the style ordinary or mean, that there were barbarisms and incongruities in those books; that their address is fitted to the generality or common people. this weapon was made use of sometimes, lactant. lib. 5. c. 1. haec imprimis causa est,— scriptura sancta fide careat, quod prophetae communi ac simplici sermone ut ad populum sunt locuti— nihil audire vel legere nisi expolitum volunt. minutius faelix hath the like cavil of caecilius, and in clemen's recognitions, l. 1. the like is insisted on simpliciter & absque ullo dicendi fuco. and satan, who is expert at the repeating his old stratagems, hath new managed it in the mouths of profane persons. but his arts also are many, and his methods contradictory: he turns the reverse, as one while the book of god is quarrelled at for plainness; anon it is rejected in regard of its obscurity and darkness. the romanists make it difficult to be understood, fiat lux. cap. 3. sect. 15. p. 192. sure footing in christianity. sect. dis. p. 12, 13. g. keith, immed. revel. not ceased, p. 34. p. 96. and dangerous to be read, to make way for the proposals and expositions of their infallible head. and the quakers do use the very like expressions and exceptions, giving great reason to suppose that they both are hammered on the same anvil. [we find it to hurt and weaken, and deaden us, to think any thoughts, even from the scriptures, but as the life and spirit of god influenceth and concurreth— if any time we do it, we find ourselves rebuked and chastised by the lord for it.] and elsewhere, [scripture words are but as a sounding brass and tinkling cymbal, a kill letter; it is only the words that christ himself speaks, that are spirit and life, and they who seek life in the letter, seek the living among the dead, for it declares of the life, but it is not therein, but in him.] among others, thomas ellwood, in a late book, which he calls truth prevailing and detecting error, etc. makes it his professed business, chap. 8. to draw a veil and obscurity over the scriptures; questioning, and at last denying the bible to be the word of god, p. 249. calling the bible a dead thing, the scriptures dead letters. p. 250. whereas they dare call their own printed works [living divine testimonies] and t. e. the works of william smith upon his principles, cannot give the same title to the book of god which he gives to his own, viz. truth prevailing, etc. he further tells us that the scriptures are not sufficient to salvation. p. 241. nor the— rule ibid. and the like contempts are most subtly insinuated. withal he disbands' humane learning from all religious concerns; affirming that the bible is a sealed book; needs the same revelation to understand it, that the apostles had to write it; and all this is designed to usher in his parties pretended immediate inspirations, as the only certain means of understanding any thing in holy writ. this seeming dishonourable to god, disgraceful to his word, dangerous to souls and the quiet of kingdoms, and the whole being wrongfully stated by him; i have herein endeavoured an examination of his notions concerning this matter. g. the quakers plainness detecting fallacy. p. 71. whitehead acquaints us concerning the quakers writings [that some of their titles have not been strictly, but figuratively placed upon their books,] a confession (which if pursued) gives us great latitude, he neither naming what those books nor figures are, a rare art of equivocation in the frontispiece, what figures may he pretend their books to have within: and by this sleight they may evade the most pressing arguments. and should i by this figure call ellwoods' book. [falsehood prevailing and protecting error.] i should do no injustice, for it is but a pursuance of their own concessions. but to new a while his self pleasing title, why it is not less humble than truth prevailing? is this given strictly or figuratively? or imposed by his so much boasted of inspiration? the world is too wise to be gulled with a book that bears a feather in its top; it is truth we look for within, not anticipating titles without; modesty and reason go further than a hundred such sounding brasses, or tinkling cymbals. truth prevailing, etc. so sound some other of their works, [truth exalted and deceit abased] [truth lifting up its head above scandals] etc. but he may know that enemies to god and truth have given such titles to the creatures of their brains; which he doth to his work. antiphon the philosopher writ a book against the very providence of god, orig. con. cells. lib. 4. p. 176. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which he denied, and attempted to take out of the world; and yet he had the confidence to call it a discourse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, concerning truth. celsus, that bitter enemy of the christian religion, wrote a tract against it, which he named the true word or saying, idem. lib. 1. p. 14. & 31. in his fragments out of eusebius p. 26 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. hierocles also no mean person composed one against the christians, which he entitled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the lover of truth. so that bad lying books may through confidence wear good names; and yet all these three, [concerning truth: the true word, the lover of truth] are more modest than truth prevailing alias rampant; but it is well books can get titles, for t.e. is shy in giving them to men, his new heraldry and learning orders, they must now have epithets and adjuncts, p. 45. [by thomas elwood] why thomas? he doth dis. own his baptism, why hath he not changed that name which is the memorial of it: why nothing but thomas ellwood? one while they were at another pass [ * in the plain answer to his 18 queries. called of the world john whitehead] [ ‡ in his answer to the 15 new castle ministers. by one whom the world calls james naylor] [ † a shield of the truth. lib. 2. refert nosse ingenium & mores ejus eum quo velis congredi. written from the spirit of the lord by one— who is known to the world, by the name of james parnell] of late such alias' are omitted, for they continue changing, and are but yet going on unto perfection. it is a rule in the recognitions ascribed to clemens, to know quibus sit moribus & quibus artibus, etc. to understand the temper of that person with whom you have to deal; which must be observed, and i desire the freedom of enquiring a while into the quakers; particularly into our present author, by way of introduction, and then shall address to the main concern; his repeated immediate and expository revelations, and his other notions of the like mould. for the quakers in general two things are not unfit to be considered, their original or standing, and their temper. first, for their original. it may seem more difficult to discover; where sects are not called from their founder, but some property, etc. it may be harder to trace them to their head. the quakers original. in 1652 their beginning is supposed, and then abouts they were so called and known, but they themselves raise it four years higher. in mr. faldoes' q. no christi. discourse bethe king and hub. p. 3. p. 16. john whitehead fixes it in the year 1648. and hubberthorne in 1660. told the king that they were then twelve years standing. in that black year to these kingdoms their pretended light appeared; considering these things, i am inclined to affirm them an off-set of the levellers, and anon shall tender strong probabilities for it; proposing them to such, whose age, experience, or circumstances have qualified them for a further discovery; only premising somewhat which seemed preparatory towards their appearing. in the north parts of england (where the quakers were first known) there were grindletonian familists, who taught [that scripture is but for novices, the white wolf. p. 39 that their spirit is not to be tried by the scripture, that we must now go by motions, not by motives, that when god comes to dwell in a man, he so fills the soul that there is no more lusting] with such like. when hell was broke lose, these and some others were maintained in 1645. which are sucked in by the quakers; as, edward's 2d. part of gangraena. p. 2d. [that christ's presence in heaven cannot be proved by scripture, they pretended revelations and visions, god conveys his will immediately; not lawful to give thanks after meat, that they are acted by christ in all, that some are as perfect here, as ever they shall be in heaven.] tho. hall the pulpit guarded, in the epistle. such a catalogue we find in another with additionals, which i shall not stand to transcribe. but the very draughts and even body of quakerism lie in the several works of gerrard winstanley, a zealous leveller, wherein he tells of the arising of new times and dispensations, the new law of righteousness, dated jan. 26. 1648 and challengeth revelation very much for what he writ. [the humane body was not the christ, but the spirit in that body, in the preface; p. 11. christ the anointing shall dwell in every one, as he dwelled in the man christ jesus, p. 13. the rising up of christ in sons and daughters is his second coming; the ministration of christ in one single person is to be silent, p. 21. father and son are all one, only the father is the universal power in the whole globe, the son is the same power drawn into, and appearing in a single person. p. 53. priests teach for hire, tithes brought in by the pope, p. 61. the resurrection is begun, p. 85. without voice, vision, or revelation men know not what they speak, p. 103. the righteous at death enter into the father himself, p. 111. all expositions are to cease, and we are to wait with a quiet silence. p. 112. speak from the original light within.] [pag. the saint's paradise. 1. teaching out of scripture is but man's teaching. p. 14. the anointing teacheth without the scriptures, p. 23. you idolise scripture, p. 73. the father lies buried under the unrighteous fleshly power. p. 81. jesus christ is now upon his rising from the dead, the time is come. p. 83. jesus is the light within every one. p. 94. the holy law is not the letter of the scripture, but the spirit.] [p. the mystery of god revealed to his servants. 7. god will dwell in every man and woman, as he did in christ the pledge, or first fruits. he maketh seven several dispensations; the fifth is p. 31. god's manifesting in the flesh of christ, the 6th is p. 32. god's appearing in the flesh of his saints tell the resurrection day, which he makes a clearer dispensation than the former.] [p. truth lifting up his head above scandals. octob. 16. 1648. 11. a christ within is thy saviour. p. 16. the apostles seeing christ ascend was a declaration in vision, of the spirits rising up. p. 18. christ's body went into the four elements to purify them. p. 19 his spirit went into his father. p. 29. father, son and spirit are three names of one power. p. 46. magistrates have nothing to do in matters of religion. p. 70. you must have a command within. p. 73. humane learning quarrelled at.] [p. fire in the bush. 20. the law, spirit, god, christ, heaven, within you. p. 33. christ the anointing within leads into all truth. p. 46. the seed or christ is to be seen within, he is no saviour that is at a distance; jesus at a distance from thee will never save thee.] with many such expressions over and over repeated. that these are the quakers principles is well enough known, allowing some little alterations, as few sect-masters but have their doctrine varied by their proselytes; and the religious orders of the church of rome have suffered super reformations. now considering these opinions, the year, the country (as the mystery of god, is dedicated to his beloved countrymen of the county of lancaster) the printer, giles calvert, new law, etc. p. 44. ad. 75. fire in the bush. p. 64. ad finem. an humble request to ministers and lawyers all over. and that several levellers settled into quakers, incline to take him for winstanleys' disciples, and a branch of the levellers. and what this man writes of [levelling men's estates, of taking in of commons, that none should have more ground than he was able to till and husband by his own labour.] proving unpracticable by reason of so many tough old laws which had fixed propriety; yet it is pursued by the quakers as near as they well can, in thou●ing every one, in denying titles, civil respects, and terms of distinction among men, and at the first they were for community, a faithful discovery of mystical antichrist. etc. p. 39 [thinking it unreasonable that one man should have so much and another so little; and some of them were not free to be tenants to other men.] and george fox said, [one man ought not to be above another] informat. at lancaster octob. 5. 1652. besides these, the quakers have some other opinions most what negative like, touch not, taste not, handle not; which are the distinctive shibboleths of the sect, yet possibly they may be in other of the works of winstanley; however he gives in these, some hints towards them. new law, etc. p. 125. truth lifting up, etc. p. 43. p. 28. p. 68 his new spiritual man [will neither preach nor pray, nor say grace when he sitteth down to meat, as the custom of professors is] [christ and his apostles did not preach and expound any text customarily, as the parish gods do] [the second man will change times and customs] [all these outward forms and customs are to cease and pass away] viz. ordinances, sacraments, sabbaths, etc. and herein the quakers do follow him: and others of their opinions might be added or improved by their after teachers, and if we assert that rome had an agency therein, at least as a pattern likely we should not be mistaken. trembling and quaking was known before their appearance [thomas newton had a vision by night of the virgin mary appearing to him, and saying; newton, john gee foot out of the snare. p. 63. 64. see that thou do not take the oath of allegiance. he had other visions besides that, which if he should repeat, would make a man tremble and quake.] the alumbrades or spanish quakers, that are seniors to ours above twenty years, [had burn, tremble or quake, dr. causabons' knthusiasm. p. 174. idem. p. 161. and swoon.] the holy maid or sister katherine of jesus [began her fit in the church with trembling; so that she set her wax candle fall to the ground, from that time her visions began to be very frequent.] the quakers cannot well out go st. mr. fowlis h●st. popish treasons p. 2. 6. francis in perfection, for he was like adam in innocency; and kept the gospel exactly to a letter, not breaking so much as a jott or tittle of it; if quakers receive the gospel from the lord, so did he; have they revelations? both he, dominick, and ignatius loyola are equal with them. loyola wrought invisible miracles as well as the quakers; and dominick clear outwent them, for he received the holy ghost with the same glory of a slaming tongue as the apostles did, and had also the gift of tongues given him by inspiration. if quakers refuse to salute or put off the hat, dr. stillingfleet's idola. p. 273. they have a good precedent, for the founder of the jesuits refused to put off his hat, or give any civil titles to men: the like example they have for refusing an oath in judgement, for not only the menists of late, but the beguardi or spiritual brethren of the franciscan order made the like denial. idem. p. 255. the maintenance which the quakers allow unto their ministers, is much like unto that of the franciscans, who go about without their purse and scrip, and are barefoot also, carrying altaria portatilia, little massing altars, confessing people, and taking what they can get among them. the dominicans got also by this voluntary service; had no rents, yet most money; no lands, and yet most corn. such gratis preachers as the quakers pretend to desire, we find far earlier than those orders; even the old false prophets, ezek. 13.19. who took handfuls of barley, and pieces of bread. and the pseudo-apostles, who (because st. paul preached gratis, to some churches) endeavoured to imitate him therein, 2 cor. 11.12. that wherein they glory; they may be found even as we, [because the devil knew, that the men of this world are most taken when teachers take nothing: st. chrysos. apud theophyl. in locum. oecumenius in loc. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, he taught the false apostles to imitate or counterfeit that also.] [the false apostles abounding in riches, took notheng, and gloried upon that account.] do the quakers look upon others as dunces, who follow not their method? keith, im. rev. p. 68 [your wisdom is foolishness, your knowledge is darkness:] so did the franciscan friars to purpose. [your parish priest is idiota nunquàm theologiam audivit, bishop usher de christianarum ecclesiarum successione & statu, p. 273. etc. a fool that knows nothing of divinity; blind leaders of the blind— come to us, to whom the high, the difficult, dei secreta patuerunt, to whom the secrets of god are unfolded.] and as the quakers do now insinuate and creep into other men's cures, so than did the monks intrude themselves into the places of the secular clergy: so that many, even noble persons, spretis propriis sacerdotibus, made these vagabond friars their teachers. the same franciscans also above four hundred years ago, were busy in making the new and highest dispensation; to wit, the evangelium spiritus, or evangelium aeternum, the eternal gospel of the spirit, which should succeed the gospel of christ; and that the quakers come near them in licking up their vomit, 2. the quakers temper. will in its proper place appear. as for their temper, in the most it discovers itself very unlike the rational, humble, and sweet spirit of christianity; and there is more disadvantage in treating with them than any other party; for, we have no solemn, public instrument of theirs, containing their faith. their judgements in theological points, their way of worshipping god, etc. agreed upon by them, to which they will engage to stand, and by which for the future they will be concluded; but each writer states things according to his own conceit, learning or advantage; and withal they have rare arts of equivocation under colour of figurative expressions, and curious salvoes to bring one another off from the brink of blasphemy. it will be hard to find another party that in so few years hath stated things with so much diversity, as they have done: and it is as difficult to discover one good notion wherewith they have bettered the world since their first appearing. some of them give us reason to think, that their light was made to be kept dark, geo. bishop's looking-glass for the times, p. 1. and that we must never know their opinions; [there is no religion under the sun, or no prescription that ought to be, as to any thing that relates to the worship of god, but what is within, in spirit, and in truth.] away with all jewish and outward worship, forms, constitutions, canons, orders, decrees, directories, catechisms, confessions of faith, idem. p. 4. synods, councils, prescriptions, ordinances of men; all imitations of christ and his apostles, and doing things by example of them, where the same spirit of jesus is not the leader. away with all national religions and worship: christ the substance, the true jew inwardly, the circumcision in the spirit, christ the public worship in spirit and in truth is come.] so that if we know not a quakers heart, we cannot know his religion within it. and this he tells, he wrote, [as moved of the lord, and doing his will, p. 236.] there is no certain, stated, owned rule, penningtons' naked truth, p. 22. whereby they will be tried: the scriptures are excluded from trial of the spirits; the spirit (they say) must do that. wherein they beg the question, and should give some evidence they have the spirit, before they try scriptures by it: so that they devolve all upon their inward motions, which being invisible, and indemonstrable to us, and hugely dissonant among themselves, discover their right father, and hereby, we who deny new or renewed revelations, are debarred from having any rule at all. their style is so bitter, so stuffed frequently with cursing and railing, that they may well think themselves conquerors, when they have the last word, and keep the field with scolding: the want of arguments is supplied by the want of modesty; and louder clamours stand for calmer reasons. james 3.13. 1 pet. 3.15. instead of the meekness of wisdom, and rendering a reason of their hope with meekness and fear, dirt and rubbish is too oft thrown upon men, their credits blasted, their souls damned, and their livelihoods substracted. to single out some few evidences of their temper. if a man be infirm or sickly, a gag for the quakers, p. 12. they say, [he is tormented for writing against them:] if a man be aged, than he is called and treated as a dotard; that was the civility bestowed on mr. jenner: or if he die during the debate with them, as that person did, than they triumph, [they sent such an answer as broke his heart;] it seems their works are a killing letter also. to one a great name threatens, reason against railing, p. 180, 181. [that his head shall not go down to the grave in peace; and by that he shall know that not a lying or delusive, but a true and infallible spirit hath spoken by him,] which being contingent in its self, may come to pass, to secure the veracity of a prophet. g. hicks third dialogue, p. 85. whitehead told mr. hicks, that the plagues of god would light upon him. and the same having slandered another as a gammer, etc. slighted it, as only done by way of quaery; an ungodly way of blasting both causes and persons, and the very art and practice of the devil. doth job serve god for nought? but for an artist at railing, let edward burroughs take it, who in a few pages casts up this and the like mire and dirt, foaming out his own shame; burrough's works, p. 29-32. [reprobate, a child of darkness, a stranger to the life, in the sorcery and witchcraft, dragon-diviner, liar, antichrist, blind pharisee, blasphemer, accursed, polluted, filthy, dead, beast, the plagues of god are added to thee, condemned into the lake for ever, to be turned into the bottomless-pit, etc.] with too much of such hellish language. when men speak against their actings, tyrant. and hypocrisy detected, p. 7. quakerism is paganism, p. 68, 69, 70. whitehead's q. plainness, p. 54. & p. 80. they can stop their mouths as distracted persons: thus they said, [john pennyman was broken in his brain.] william russel was not only crushed, [called thief, liar, murderer, devil, cain, an allegorical drunkard; but francis campfield desired that no notice should be taken of what he said, for he was somewhat distempered in his head.] when some of their mysteries are divulged, than they cry out, that no credit ought to be given to such, for they are adversaries and apostates. they take it unkindly when the author's name is not set to such tracts wherein they are concerned, truth prevailing in the preface. [as an unmanly dealing, and must have caution or security given to make good the charge;] considerable upstarts indeed. let him first give satisfaction to that holy religion legally established, which he hath so bespattered. but what, is truth concerned in an author's name? or why are quakers so solicitous about men's names, who account the name jesus so contemptible? princip. of truth, p. 12. keith univers. grace, p. 30. [the name of jesus and christ without the power, are but empty words; nor is the outward name (christ) that which saves.] why do their books peep abroad without the names of their makers? as [certain queries, and anti-quaeries, truth exalted, and deceit abased. true judgement, or the spiritual man judging all things,] cum multis aliis. but they would have their adversaries names appear, thence to be able from his person, principles, or profession, to fly-blow him: as, if a conformist, than their topics are ready, of a priest, a , etc. if a dissenter, pen's rebuke to 21 divines, and winding-sheet for controver. pen's apology. than the scotch covenant is raised from its ashes, dipper, socinian, etc. fly about, and 21 old divines are daringly encountered by one hand. if their adversary have been a tradesman, that is objected, a tailor, a brazier, etc. help to fill up the charge, which proceeding looks untowardly from them who allow any to be prophets; and pretending much zeal against partiality, and respecting of persons, they cannot be offended if another call, their dear father of many nations, george fox, josh. coals letter. winstanley's new law, p. 96. the shoemaker of mansfield in nottinghamshire. at this rate they proceed, as if they were engaged in some new order of spiritual knighthood, using the style of hector's; [the poorest man dares throw the glove to all the humane learning in the world.] others, as fox and burroughs, challenge [the pope and all his hierarchy, all the priests of dublin, and all other people, and all the doctors of europe to come forth,] etc. sol. eccles. challenge, p. 2. some principles of the elect people of god, p. 51. ellwood's preface. another hectors strangely, [he that cannot fast seven days and seven nights, and wake seven days and seven nights, shall be accounted a member of a false church, and a heretic;] a new way of trial by lungs and guts, worse than fire ordeal. but the quakers make odd catalogues of heretics; as, [nimrod that heretic,] epiphanius, in the heresies before christ, scarce thought that nimrod deserved that name; for it was scythismus à diluvio usque ad turrim, lib. 1. tom. 1. my author is for [giving the world a man's name with such an adjunct] in their stilo novo: and what their adjunct is, appears enough from the instances preceding. when they use such words and expressions as we do (who take them according to the common acception) yet in many of them they have a different and reserved design and meaning, turning them into terms of art; giving them such a stamp and signification as they please. thus t.e. deceives us with the [no new essentials of religion,] as in its place will appear. by jesus christ we understand the son of the b. virgin, now at the right hand of his father: but thereby they mean a christ within. [the light and life of christ within the heart discovers all darkness, new law, p. 96. 2 pet. 2.3. and delivers mankind from bondage; and besides him there is no saviour.] so that their words are feigned, new stamped with their senses; and the style of their first writers is oft very barbarous, ending, when examined, in swelling words of vanity, or an unintelligible nothing: and, as anciently was observed, do provocare stomachum aut cerebrum, offend the stomach, or disorder the head. this trick of taking words, and varying their sense and use, hath been the old way and art to impose upon and to ensnare the unwary. irenaeus frequently observes it, irenaeus advers. haeres, l. 3. c. 19 [that when (heretics,) speak like us, they have a different meaning from us; similia enim loquentes fidelibus, non solùm dissimilia sapiunt, sed & contraria, speaking contrary, and oft blasphemous things, under such innocent words as good christians used; and so destroy such, as by the likeness of words attract poison.] the same father frequently acquaints us with their arts; that as satan took scripture when he tempted christ, lib. 1. c. 15. so do others take and wrest them also. [de propheticis quaecunque transformantes, coaptant, transforming words from the prophetic writings, they adapt or fit them to their project.] and elsewhere, [vides ad inventionem, etc. l. 1. c: 1. thou seest their invention whereby they deceive themselves, slighting the scriptures, and yet endeavouring from them to establish their fiction.]. and this is imitated by the quakers, who dwell in the bark and outside of words, and slight the scriptures; and yet take some words or sentences thence, in which they fancy such a meaning, and then the rest is thought to chime and sound in that manner. and what may not be made of any book, even of the very bible, when it is transposed, inverted, and single phrases or sentences disjoined from the rest, being chosen, receive such or such an impress, and are brought in to speak to such a purpose this old art irenaeus well illustrates by the semblance of such as transformed the picture of a king into the likeness of a dog or fox, by changing the scite and posture of the gems and parts, quomodo si quis regis imaginem, etc. lib. 1. c. 1. as if any should take the picture of a king, well made by a wise artist out of precious stones, and destroying the figure of the man, should transfer these jewels, and by altering them, make it into the form of a dog or fox, and when they were so badly disposed, yet still to say, this is that good picture of the king, which such a wise artist made, showing those jewels, which at the first were well made up into the picture of the king, but were badly afterwards chopped, and translated into the image of a dog, etc. in like manner do these transgress the order and context of the scriptures, and as much as in them lieth, do dissolve the members of the truth, and by such chopping and mangling, do make one thing out of another, and so seduce many. several also of the words used by the valentinians and their predecessors, are used by the quakers, as terms of art with their signature upon them; as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. prenae. lib. 1. cap. 1. epiphan. haeres. 31. word, life, (power, spirit) perfect or perfection, (so they called themselves, the seed of election) man, (earth and mankind are frequent and synonimous in winstanley) stillness, depth, silence, which are mystical words among the quakers; entering into the stillness, meeting god in silence, and the like. see mr. faldoes' key. they had also unscriptural terms of art, achamoth, jaldabaoth, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. and the quakers have choice of theirs; as ravend, ravening brain, inwardly ravening from the spirit, vulturous eye, the seed in prison, invisible miracles, or miracles in spirit, the royal, noble, gentile seed, taking away the tables, and many such like. 2. from them we shall now pass to make a few remarks in the entrance upon thomas ellwood, both as to his honesty and learning, and also his courage and confidence in striking blindfold about him. as to his honesty and learning: t. ellwood's honesty & learning. there is a vein of sophistry and tripping that runs through his tract, and when the paint is off, it is full of furrows and deformity; there are many gross escapes which look ominously in a treatise for immediate inspiration, so that his search seems not to be after truth, but victory. i had thought that after his book had been several months public, some friend or himself might have observed the great unfaithfulness in many parts of it. but meeting the 30th. day of march with a letter of his, in which he seems well satisfied with his achievements, that is, glories in his shame; i found it convenient to hasten the examination of part of his work. part of the letter is here inserted, as a specimen of his temper, [some (thou sayest) will needs have me to be a jesuit; and why? because of a little learning: must none then have learning but they and jesuits? this is the common, but poor shift of priests hard beset: when they cannot maintain their ground, they cry out, their opponent is a jesuit, as if none could be too hard for them but jesuits, by whom to be worsted they are not ashamed; to think it no shame, the more shame for them. well, truth is too hard for them and jesuits too. but whilst with some i pass for a jesuit, with others it seems i am but a counterfeit: the name, they think, is feigned, there's no such man, etc. if this were true, what then? there's such a book to be sure; if there were no such man as bears that name, yet there must needs be such a man as wrote that book, for the book could not write itself. but a third sort, i perceive, would not allow me to be a quaker; and why? because they think a quaker could not have given such an answer: that proceeds from their ignorance of truth and the power of it: and indeed the contrary is most true: had i not been a quaker, i could not have given such an answer.] and at that rate he goes on, ascribing his imaginary triumphs to that powerful arm, which gave both the weapon, and therewith skill and strength to use it. now, that this is a downright fathering lies upon god, will be evident from three or four instances out of many. 1. he deals unfaithfully with st. basil, [surnamed, the great,] p. 165. bringing him into the council of chalcedon, refusing to swear, and commending clinias for the like denial. whereas if the thing had been true, it had not much pressed us; for what signifieth the example of one pythagorean philosopher to the laws of a christian empire? or what availed one basil (though great) to a whole council of six hundred and thirty bishops? geo. bishop in his looking-glass, p. 168. though a quaker cry out against that council, [what cluttering, what clamouring, what being more like a company of geese giggling their noises, than a council of grave men and sober christians.] but the thing itself is untrue, for st. basil was dead about seventy three years before that council. he flourished in the time of valens, died about the year 378. the council of chalcedon was held, say some, anno christi 455. or at the soon, by justells and beverig's computation, 451. under the emperor marcian, if he had looked into his brother geo. bishop as much as i have done, by comparing p. 122. and 166. together, it might have revealed something better to him. but poor george was one of the nonconforming quakers, dr. lightfoots harm. of the o. t. and so his works are out of vogue. now this is a lying wonder to purpose. christ raised lazarus four days dead, the witch of endor brought up a supposed samuel, nigh two years after the death of the true one. but t. e. haileth st. basil out of his grave (where he had rested between 70 and 80 years) and brings him into the council, with a quaker-like sullenness, speaking against the laws and constitutions of the empire. he deals as dishonestly with the former's dear friend st. gregory nazianzene, whom he quotes p, 186. thus [in his dialogue against swearing] whereas the very title of that jambick 20th is [π p o σ π o λ γ o p k o γ σ, adversus eos qui frequenter jurant,] against those who swear frequently, customarily, often, not against judicial swearing before authority: as he belly the title, so also he abuseth the dialogue itself; and that eloquent father who there expressly allows swearing [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. b. when dost thou allow the liberty of an oath? a. then when its necessary, b. but when is it necessary, declare, is it that thou mayst deliver any from great dangers? a. it is then lawful. b. or to free thyself from some grievous crime? a. then it is also lawful, etc.] and in his jambick 15. he defines an oath [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a making faith to a thing, by placing of god a witness present in the middle: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the swearing truly, or performing what you swear, that is good or right swearing.] p. 114. having quoted a saying of [solon (one of the sages of greece) he adds to him sosiades (another of those seven wise men] and quotes stobaeus serm. 28. whereas there is a heap of untruths in those few words. for first, 1 edit. tiguri. 1543. if i have eyes in my head there is not such a man named in that sermon, nor is it likely, the discourse being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, de ocio, concerning sloth, no nor in the 25. sermon, concerning swearing, nor in the 26. concerning perjury, is such a person once named. much less was he one of the seven wise men of greece; take what catalogue he will, he will scarce find such a person; the late one in schrevelius gives seven other names, but i suppose t. e. had seen [sociad] set down in the 13 quakers book against oaths, and for the better grace he dubbs him [another of those seven wise men.] let him raise hue and cry, to discover if ever there was such a wise man, and search with a candle for him: suidas names none such. diogenes laertius (where he is purposely reckoning them all up in his proaemium) owns no such person, nor do my circumstances give me information, let him try if his rider quoted p. 169. will befriend him. pag. 20. he calleth the martyrs [our godly martyrs] as if they were the quakers martyrs, when as they suffered upon an 100 years before his party appeared; this is a most invidious, saucy and unjust pretention, to rob the church of england of the glory of her martyred reformers; and withal to cast dirt upon the present church, as receded from her former constitution. g. keith im. rev. p. 132. but this he hath from his inspiring tutor [the new protestant, the degenerate protestant (for the pure primitive protestants owned the true foundation with us, though their discovery of it was but little.)] but why? [our godly martyrs] are quakers protestant's? that they disown abundantly [ * eccles. his challenge p. 2. from the protestants to the familists, the quakers deny you all] [ † keith universal free grace p. 5. all these how much soever pretending to a reformation are the daughters of babylon] [ ‡ smith's spiritual glass opened. p. 83. etc. from the pope to the baptist they are all born in one womb.] [ ‖ barclay in q. no popery. p. 103. papists and protestants are in the root and spring.] [ * howgils' glory of the true church. p. 12. and 23. protestant's are in the suburbs of the city of rome.] [ † parnels shield of the truth. p. 39 papists and protestants spring from one root.] and we protestant's wholly deny quakers the having communion with us, and he cannot but know that strong proofs are offered by several to evince that the quakers are not so much as christians, mr. faldo, hicks, russel, etc. whose service therein to the common faith is commendable. and it concerns all who hold the lord jesus the head, col. 2.19. to strive for that faith once delivered, judas v. 4. against the quakers, who as far as in them lies, do take away our lord jesus and do not tell us where they have laid him, giving us a suppositious saviour, a dead instead of our living child jesus; an image and bolster of goat's hair, in room of our true david, and and novatians both united against the arians, socrat. ec. h. l. 2. sozo. ecc. h. l. 4. c. 19 and afterwards against the macedonians. but had t. e. designed to shame himself, he could not have made an apt choice, than to call such men, [our (that is, the quakers) godly martyrs.] to rescue them from such a rape: i might give an account of their dignities and callings in the church, that they compiled the liturgy, the book of ordination, etc. dr. heylin's ecclesia restaurata. p. 125. but the shortest way to discover their judgement, will be to look upon the articles of religion drawn up, and prepared much by archbishop cranmer, and agreed upon by the bishops and other learned and godly men in the convocation, 1552. several of which were martyred and suffered for those and the very like articles. and they are drawn up as it were in a foresight of, and defiance of quakerism; there is as great a gulf between them, as that between heaven and hell. article 1. of faith in the holy trinity. 2. that the word, or son of god was made very man. 4. christ sitteth in heaven until the last day. 5. the doctrine of the holy scriptures is sufficient to salvation. 6. the old testament is not to be refused. 7. the three creeds received, (any of which will stick in a quakers throat.) 11. our justification is by only faith in jesus. 14. no man is without sin, but christ alone. 18. eternal salvation only by the name of christ; 20. of the church. 21. of the authority of the church. 24. of being called by men to minister in the congregation. 26. of the sacraments. 27. the wickedness of ministers takes not away the effectual operation of god's ordinances. 28. of baptism. 29. of the supper of the lord. 30. of the perfect oblation of christ made upon the cross. 36. of civil magistrates and their authority. 37. christian men's goods not common (against father winstanley.) 38. christian men may take an oath. 39 the resurrection not yet brought to pass. vltim. all men not to be saved; against winstanley also. never could man that observed the truth of what he wrote have called the compilers of such articles the quakers godly martyrs. but the man who went naked, faldo vind. of quaker. no christ. p. 36. said his body was all forehead. t. e. needs as much brass to face out these worthies for quakers martyrs. these few i have singled out as a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or taste, what measure may be expected from such complexions. the case of the 〈…〉. p. 37. his other authorities do much labour of the like disease, as is evidenced in a late sinewy tract. but why should they bring in some partial dismembered sayings of the ancients, seeing they will not be concluded by them in other matters. so true is that in them, which mr. chillingworth applied to the romanists, [you account them fathers when they are for you, and children when they are against you.] let him stick to his indemonstrable revelation, and play in and out there, rather than meddle with humane learning thus unsuccessfully and worse: but his talk of inspiration confutes itself, and his own example is the best proof, that as yet it hath not advanced beyond a dream. but if that be pleaded which he suggests, [that in the country for want of books, in the preface. he was forced to take some few quotations upon trust, but yet using much caution in his choice.] it is replied, that these are so gross and palpable, that an easy learning might detect them; and in a matter of such moment, which the poor quakers do implicitly believe and hug, he was obliged to the severest caution, nor to impose upon their tame and easy credulity. and as to us who know ourselves fallible, and in god's extreme account very imperfect, it must be allowed for an excuse. but as for him who defends perfection, pleads for immediate revelation, which his master extends [to many things which are not in scripture so much as by consequence:] keith, im. rev. p. 6. 2d. quib. p. 11. others of them challenging [infallibility in all things and cases;] and he, as a believer, pretending the unction whereby they know all things, p. 229. and yet in many discovering, and in some confessing his ignorance, [i know not,] p. 227. to him this plea can be no advantage, it pulling down that very thing which he is building up. for if there be such a standing, perpetual ordinance, as immediate revelation, god's veracity and goodness is concerned at that time to let them be infallible, when they are pleading, and become the advocates for it: but it is a good confutation, when a champion proves an instance against himself. 2. t. e'lwood's courage. as to his courage and confidence, they are high enough, showing great to the sacred scriptures, as will appear in a proper place, by a catalogue of his rules of exposition, such certainly as the sun never saw, especially by such a pretended intimate of heaven. we shall only now consider his carriage to most orders of men in the kingdom, for he presumes to tax our world like augustus caesar. the king must be plainly t●ou'd, and the head covered before him. the turkish fashion they esteem most proper, and the tuissare or thou'ing, which in erasmus' time was opprobious among the english, is dubbed into both religion and manners. my lord the king is no pleasing dialect to these new saints, it is old testament divinity. dread sovereign and sacred majesty must not now be used, p. 46. who must have the majesty then? not the king, i'll warrant you; it is taken from him to be appropriated to their own dear selves; take a few of their expressions, having spoken against magistracy, and for the destruction thereof, he proceeds, [ * fire in the bush, p. 39 if you would find true majesty indeed, go among the poor distressed one's of the earth:] [ † parnel's shield of the tr. p. 25. 27. here is the ground of all true nobility, gentility, majesty, honour— no more after the flesh, but after the spirit— quakers are sprung of the noble, gentile seed;] [ ‡ in his noble salutation to thee, charles stewart. from the council and nobility of the royal seed, the lion of the tribe of judah, the everlasting king of righteousness, who reigneth in george fox the younger:] [ in the testimony from the brethren. the quakers ministers are the dignities, and government, and dominion.] the king must not write in the plural number, we, p. 27. though he be a public person, and act by advice of his council, [all that is sprung from pride and flattery.] besides this, he saucily and pragmatically meddleth with the king's revenues; the office for first fruits & tenths offends him, p. 355. [no flower can be fair in an english crown which was taken out of a pope's mitre; if nothing else could be said against it, but that it once stuck in the triple crown, that alone were enough to make it unworthy to be worn in an english diadem.] it seems he hath more than this to object against it; such like things are frequent in their books, which stealing out into the world, are apt to leaven men's spirits with bad principles. one of them acquaints us [ * parnel's shield of the truth, p. 19, 25. what magistrates they do not own, but deny and testify against; and to make their negative power better armed, he saith, the kings and nobles of the earth shall be bound in chains and fetters of iron.] this was printed 1655. but lest it should be only serviceable in those times, † some principles of the elect people of god, called quakers, p. 89. isaac pennington (a name deep enough certainly in royal blood) to make it currant quaker doctrine now; reprints that book in 1671. leaving out the beginning and end of it, but he hath the conscience and confidence to re-print those very words, out of what design, let our superiors judge. but lest since then, so beloved a doctrine of binding kings should be forgot, they keep up the memory of it. ‡ the true christians faith and experience, by william shown, p. 136. another book, printed 1675, speaks home; [christ reigning in the heart gives power to bind kings in chains, and nobles in fetters of iron: this honour have all the saints.] to the like contempt of authority writ several of them; howgils' glory, p. 107. kings and magistrates, [as christians, have no priority, but as they stand in the growth of truth,] that is, in quakerism. [i charge you all by the lord, parnel's shield, p. 41. will. smith, passim. fire in the bush, p. 21, 22, 23. to take heed of meddling about religion— meddle with such affairs as you are set about:] [meddle not with religion, keep within your bounds.] and winstanley, the instituter of their order, speaks roundly to all, [four idolized powers must down, the imaginary teaching, hear-say, book-studying power, or the ministry: the imaginary kingly power must be shaken to pieces in all nations: the imaginary law of justice, which is but the declarative will of conquerors, and buying and selling the earth, and being enslaved one to another, must all be destroyed at the resurrection of christ,] and that, he saith, was then beginning; and therefore the pretence to revelation looks asquint upon the safety of kingdoms: had not the magistrates the sword, they might meet with as reproachful words as the ministers: and had some persons strength, their principles might carry them to repeat the munster tragedy. if this measure be dealt unto the prince, what will not be unto the subjects? the peers and lords must expect the like treatment from these levellers; [ploughman, james parnel's shield, p. 24, 25. fishermen, herdsmen, shepherds are noblemen sprung of the noble seed; here the true honour is no more after the flesh, but after the spirit:] he that boggles at using sirs, p. 46. will stumble at higher titles; and if this new critic may be credited, titles are to cease, and epithets and adjuncts are to succeed in lieu. which men are at liberty to give or not to give, according to their prejudicated or capricious fancies. he quarrelleth at several things established by act of parliament; as the book of ordination is spurned at by degrading the clergy: the confessing of ourselves miserable sinners, is chastised by his ferula, p. 53. tithes, an ancient payment, of at least 800 years' usage in this nation, sir edw. sandrs his view of western religion, sect. 39 are declared by him popish whereas the nonpayment of tithes is grounded upon papal exemptions: and in italy, the pope's country, under his nose, praedial tithes are not paid, but their clergies maintenance consists in glebes and farms, which t. e. quarrels not at, p. 323, 324. so little is a quaker offended with an italian usage. this freeborn man also quarrels high, that none can bind their posterity with tithes, which strikes as fully upon hearth-money, or any descending impositions. the judges and courts, and all judicial proceed lie in his way; they sin, and repeat sin, and establish sin by law. an oath of god must not be administered to end strife, but the quakers yea and nay must be the deciders; and yet so uneven is their temper, that for interest they will take an oath; witness the cases of mead, osgood, and several: so that their equivocating justly deserves that brand, [quakers can take an oath, and yet do not swear at all.] the clergy, as far as in him lieth, are run down; their orders are taken away, chap. 1. their employment, chap. 2-8. their maintenance, chap. 9 with stripes and buffet all the way thorough. not so much as a gentleman or stranger that ought to be called master or sir, except in law or nature, p. 43. but by his model, a breach of god's law is committed: thus is our blessed religion misrepresented, such disservice is by dreams done unto it; excellent temptations do these propound, to incline any to turn christians when they would thus degrade and depress men, and set the tenant on breast with his landlord. to draw controversies to a speedy issue is good, as hath been done in singling out the romish supremacy and infallibility, because upon the fate of them lesser differences depend; so 'tis not worth the while to stand upon thou'ing, and such affected singularities, the shortest cut is to examine their revelations, infallibility, immediate commission, etc. for the rest will stand or fall with these; and it may prove most successful to show, that at the best they stand but on an equal level with other men, and what lower they may have depressed themselves, by belying the holy-ghost, and saying they are prophets, and are not, deserves to be the matter of their sad and serious enquiry. taking then for granted, that god hath revealed himself to mankind, that much thereof is committed to writing, and is upon record in the bible, as t e. owns, p. 238. that the latest of these books have been written upon 1600 years since. i shall proceed upon this, and the principles of reason, and the judgements and practices of the quakers themselves, extracted out of their own works, and the works of others whom we have all the reason to believe; the things being matters of fact, tyranny and hypocrisy detect. p. 48, 49. and the parties offering to make good their charge before the lord mayor of london, or any alderman on the bench, or any one of the twenty common council-men. and the dispute being, whether the quakers have any real divine revelations or not; i durst refer it to the judgement of indifferent persons, though heathens, if they understood the concern, as debates between christians and pretenders thereto, have been so ended. chap. i. the state of the case, and the manner of proceeding. thomas ellwood, in the name of his party, claims such communications and heavenly visits, as good christians are not conscious they receive, nor dare tempt god in desiring. the proofs thereof he fetcheth from scripture, wherein i neither read his name, nor that of quakers; but if they conclude for him, they conclude as strongly for me. i profess myself a believer in that jesus, who made those promises, and whom t. e. strangely overlooks: so that of the two i am the more likely to have the greater share. and until he hath proved me no believer (which to do will exercise his faculty of discerning of spirits) i might set my revelation to answer his; and hereby his cause reaps no advantage. his ghostly father (from whom his spirit hath received much light, and yet he is not so ingenuous as once to acknowledge it) declares, keith's universal free grace, p. 48. [no man can be bound to believe, in that which comes not in a sufficient way;] so that it is but reasonable we should be allowed to pursue that rule, and to demand an evidence proportionable to their soaring claims. where our assent is required to any thing, god is pleased to afford us means for our conviction, and is satisfied with such a degree thereof, as the evidences will carry. when matters of fact are concerned, the testimonies of our own or other persons senses conclude us. when matters of reason, thereupon using our best faculties, such a measure of assent is sufficient, as those reasons will enforce. but when one tells me, he hath received divine inspirations, thereby i am arrested; for i must not dispute any thing that is spoken by god: my only enquiry is, whether god hath really so spoken, as is pretended. which being a matter of great moment, god hath abundantly provided, that we should not be imposed on, by giving us both caution and security: and the more diligent we are in examining and trying such claims, the more is he delighted with us, and will bless that industry, wisdom, and obedience. the old and new testament give us many warnings, about dreamers, false prophets, etc. command to beware of them; not to believe, but try them: and for matter of security, god hath abounded in that, by furnishing his messengers with such extraordinary powers, that thereby men's belief was both commanded and secured, mark 16.20 [as they preached every where, the lord wrought with them, confirming the word with signs following] or accompanying. nor did it seem consistent with gods wise dispensation, to give immediate revelations, and not to furnish the receiver with such divine testimonials, as might truly satisfy him that god spoke, and also command faith and obedience from others. god's immediate voice hath not used to come so precariously into the world, to be misspent and wasted for want of evidence; and it might be an intangling thought to an inspirado, would he consider it, why the former old revelations should not at this day be as good to convey the doctrine and meaning of christianity as the former old miracles were, and are still sufficient to settle, and seal its truth; or that miracles should be set as seals to confirm such revealed doctrines, and yet those doctrines in after-ages need as fresh revelations to convey and expound them; and in the mean time have no miracles to attest the truth of those expositions; especially when different pretenders to revelations bring as different expositions; these do more and more ensnare, but we may extricate ourselves by allowing, as the old miracles to be the seals, so the old revelations thereby attested, to be the objects of our faith. but when i find high claims of renewed revelations, and therewith as studious an undervaluing and depressing the honour of miracles; and withal the rejecting the scripture, from being the rule to try the spirits by, as quakers do; and withal when i find such caution used by moses to satisfy himself and others, that god spoke by him. none, especially if their claims be really divine, can quarrel to have them examined by such means of discovery, as a wise religion, and sober reason afford unto us. keith's im. rev. title page. but though t. e. was in the right, that there is such a standing ordinance in the church of christ of indispensable necessity, as perpetual inspiration, yet he hath but done half his work; he must go write another book to prove that among all the societies of christians disowning it, and the various sects of single persons claiming it, his party having the only enclosure thereof; their fleece to be wet when all others are dry about them: till this be done, his arguments are as equally calculated for me (if i will) as for himself; and do conclude as forcibly for jacob israel, or muggleton, as for george fox. it would have been an ease, if his discourse had been true; mere waiting is a more facile thing than reading, meditating, or studying; and to a weak constitution, a supine expecting would have been far more favourable than that which wise and inspired solomon called a weariness of the flesh. eccles. 12.12 of the infallibility of the church of rome, sect. 36, 37. what the excellent lord falkland spoke concerning the romish, may, with no alteration, be applied to the quakers infallibility and inspiration also: [i take no pleasure in tumbling hard and unpleasant books, and making myself giddy with disputing obscure questions; if i could believe, there should always be (whom i might always know) a society of men, whose opinions must be certainly true— so as i might be excusably at ease, and have no part left for me but that of obedience, which must needs be less difficult than the harsh greek of evagrius, and the as hard latin of irenaeus— and he would deserve not the lowest place in bedlam, that would prefer those studies before so many, so much more pleasant, that would rather employ his understanding, than submit it:] the ease than would lie in having inspirations, or sitting at the feet of such as have them, rather than in employing time and strength in laborious searches; only the way of labour is the way of god's blessing. but the whole scene, as laid by the quakers, is so distant from god's way of dispensation, who was pleased to become god with us, to live on earth to teach us, which having performed, there cannot be much to be new taught now; and also immediate revelation, when in use, yet being but rare, conferred on some, whom god used as his mouth to communicato it to others: and religion being published in an external sensible way, and in like manner settled; to prevent such delusions as might insinuate themselves under the cover of inward suggestions, we have no encouragement to sit down satisfied with these internal and indemonstrable transactions, being full of nothing but difficulties and dangers: but we must take the more laborious way of searching the scriptures, praying, conferring and comparing spiritual things with spiritual. sect. 9, 10. the aforesaid lord further urged, [that the romish pretence to infallibility was but an accidental argument, because if any other company had likewife claimed to be infallible, it had overthrown all so proved; nay, it is but an arbitrary argument, and depends upon the pleasure of the adversary: for, if any society of christians would pretend to it, the church of rome could make use of it no longer.] now, though the disciples of hetherington the boxmaker, even before that lord wrote, to wit, about 1625, had maintained, dr. dennison's white wolf, p. 72. that [they could not err in giving deliberate sentence in points of divinity,] as h. nicholas had done before them; yet if that noble viscount had lived till now, what would he have thought of the force of his former argument? when not only within this island john reeve and lodowick muggleton (who would be taken for the two witnesses in the apocalypse) pretended, and were owned by their few disciples to be infallible; but the more numerous company of the quakers do challenge the same to their party, and outdo the romanists in the variety of their claims, of inspiration, immediate revelation, apostolical commission, of christ the light within, of infallibility, and discerning of spirits. so that now on this side dover, we have popes of both sexes; joan belongs to england, not to mentz; and we have many johns, above 24; but whilst three different, if not contradictory parties pretend to infallibility, we have reason to suspect they are all alike infallible. the quakers have a pretty craft, but it may easily be seen thorough; the apostles were endued with extraordinary powers, both inward and outward, now they challenge to themselves the inward, as authority, inspiration, infallibility, commission, discerning of spirits, the inward baptism with the holy-ghost, etc. which being internal and indiscernible may be challenged, and are not so readily confuted; but then the outward, as the miraculous descent of the holy-ghost, the gift of tongues, the visible baptism with fire, the ability of working miracles of all sorts, the spirit of prophecy or foretelling future things, etc. these being discernible to the sense, capable of an easy detection; they do both deny them, and speak slightly of their necessity or use. though god conferred these outward ones as undeniable proofs and convictions of the inward; and without which sensible testimonials, the internal would not have had that operation, but have been like candles under bushels; and this very art lays no little prejudice upon their plea. t. ellwood's notion of divine revelation is put into variety of expressions, which lie dispersed in several pages; his stating of things is different, and the claims he makes are of several natures: i shall put them into the best method i can, more orderly to examine them. we may conceive some of them to be as the groundwork whereon he builds, the other as the fabric thereon raised. his grounds are two. 1. that [the apostles had an inward manifestation, and immediate revelation of the will and mind of god to them, by the spirit of truth which dwelled in them, p. 227, 228, 233.] 2. that [the apostles successors, or all believers in an extensive relation, receive the knowledge of the gospel in the same manner, as the apostles received it, p. 228, 230, 233.] other things he erecteth upon, or claimeth in pursuance of these. 1. they have [renewed and repeated revelations, p. 238, 240, 243. the good old gospel is again revealed by the same spirit, p. 254. 256.] 2. they [have immediate revelations from the spirit, as the apostles had, p. 228.] 3. they [have expository revelations, the spirit giveth the true sense and meaning of scripture immediately, p. 238, 239, 251, 253, 255.] 4. [the gospel is now preached in the demonstration of the spirit and power, p. 244.] and they are the persons without question who preach it. 5. they [know the word of god by experience, p. 249.] 6. [the primitive christians had the knowledge of the gospel by the immediate revelation of the spirit, as the apostles had, p. 233, 245. and the quakers now receive it in the same manner.] 7. they [receive it by the gift of god, p. 245.] 8. they [have herd the voice of god speaking in them, p. 249.] 9 [divine revelation consists in opening and discovering, p. 249. 253, 255.] that is, in expounding: and all this is done without any help of humane learning, which is not so much as to appear between the first of genesis and the last of the revelations, but hath its circle assigned, beyond which it must not step, [reduced to its proper station and service which is to be conversant in natural, civil, or humane affairs, p. 218.] humane learning is to do the drudgery of translating, to put an english bible into a quakers hand, and must presently with draw, the pretended spirit then supervening, and opening each text of scripture truly to them. these are different notions, and are too great favours for any party on this side heaven; but it's subtly done to choose so many, to leave room for escaping, that if some prove deceitful, the rest may support their partners. we must attend his motions, and examine them one by one, giving his own words under each head; only some few things must be premised in passage. 1. i think he seldom or never names our lord jesus christ (who died at jerusalem) as concerned in the revealing of gods will. his prophetic office is destroyed, or weakened by this sect, and the spirit is substituted in his place: thus, p. 245. when he saith, [the author of our faith is the same, the finisher of it is the same,] alluding to heb. 12.2. where jesus, (to wit, the son of the b. virgin) is named, yet he takes no notice of him, but turns it another way. they received their faith [namely, by the gift of god,] they received their faith, he saith there, in the same manner that the primitive christians received it of old. now, how that was, he tells us, p. 233, [from the immediate teachings of the holy spirit which dwelled in them:] so that he either lays aside our dearest saviour, or confounds jesus christ, and the holy-ghost, as one and the same, which he doth to purpose, p. 233. [paul received the knowledge of the gospel from christ revealed in him,] thence he presently infers thus, [the apostles did receive the knowledge of the gospel from the immediate teachings of the holy spirit,] making christ, revealed in paul, and the holy spirit to be the same. 2. he seems to make some concessions, to inform within what bounds they keep, denying new revelations, and yet he either hath new ones or none, (as from his principles will be proved.) [p. 237. they expect not a revelation of any other gospel, of any other way of salvation, of any other essentials in the christian religion, they have but renewed revelations, p. 238. truths formerly revealed, p. 254. the same good old truths, p. 243 the good old gospel again revealed,] a concession that destroys his design, for having no new ones; the old do neither need, nor are capable of repetition. 3. the true christians faith and experience. he appropriates these receipts to himself and party, [we, p. 237, 245, 249. us, 254, 256. to all believers, 228.] that is, to himself and friends, for they are the only true, [the others but titular and nominal christians;] saith will. shown frequently, the testimony from the brethren. [they are the church of god returned out of the wilderness.] and this is large enough, moses wish fulfilled, numb. 11.29. all the people of the lord are prophets. are all apostles? are all prophets? 1 cor. 12.29. yes, among the quakers. had he challenged some few inspirations in pursuance of the former, or some rare single notices from good angels, they had been more modest; or an immediate revelation to ascertain him which books were divinely inspired, and which not; it should have been confessed that some have gone that way before him; vindication of the protestants grounds of faith, second discourse, p. 308 sect. 4. [not only the enthusiasts and some calvinists, but the popish guide in controversies; in dr. stillingfleet, saith, that the ultimate resolution of a christians divine faith, is into that particular revelation first made known to him.] but supposing there was such a supernatural and infused assurance given, yet it is not [rational and discursive, saith mr. chillingworth; it may be an assurance to a man's self, but it is no argument to another.] but one single immediate revelation is too scant for t. e. during his whole life time. he must put god upon miracles and unnecessaries, have what hath been before revealed, though translated into the vulgar tongue, renewed, repeated, re-revealed in the same manner, and he must have expository revelations given him of the sacred books besides. so that his own words contain the best his own character. [p. 101. he treadeth an unbeaten path. p. 246. he seems not rightly to understand revelation, but rather to have taken in some strange notion concerning it.] chap. ii. how the apostles came to the knowledge of the gospel. his first rise is [that the apostles had an inward manifestation, and immediate revelation of the mind and will of god to them, by the spirit of truth which dwelled in them, p. 227.] this he would have, and so craftily brings in, as if the friendly conference had so meant. [if by all those ways, he intends no more than an inward manifestation.] but supposing this was true, as he states it, yet it is not large, nor comprehensive enough; for the apostles had another teacher, even an outward one, both before and besides the holy spirit, and what christian did ever yet lay aside, or overlook the personal, oral teaching of their lord jesus. irenae. ad heres. l. 1. c. 1. if quakers delight to be called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the spiritual and perfect from their supposed teacher the spirit, as the scholars of valentinus did, we must adhere to our elder name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. from that author and finisher of our faith. if quakers first make no distinction between the father, the word and the holy ghost, and then would lay aside the god-man jesus, by making the spirit inwardly supply all; we christians are instructed to hearken unto that prophet, whom god raised up like unto moses, deut. 18.15. and t. e. can scarce make moses and the holy-ghost alike; we do believe in and obey that beloved son upon whom the blessed spirit descended, mat. 3.17. for we are commanded to hear him. mat. 17.5. he discharged his prophetic, as well as priestly office in our humane nature; to this the prophecies and promises refer; and we must render to each their due in the work of our instruction, to the son, as well as to the spirit. t. e. hath made the most untrue and desperate choice that could be [the apostles to receive the knowledge of the gospel by the immediate revelation of the spirit] what is become of all the promises of the messiah? john 4.25. [i know that christ when he is come, he will tell us all things] saith the woman of samaria. but by ellwoods' model, he is comed and gone, and hath taught the disciples nothing; why did christ choose the apostles, live, converse with, and betwixt three or four years instruct them in the things of god's kingdom, if they were no better for all those divine lessons which came from him, whom never man spoke like unto? what quarrels have the quakers against jesus of nazareth, luke. 24.19. that prophet, or divine teacher, mighty in deed and word before god and all the people, that they must lay aside his person or his office, either substituting the holy spirit in his place; or making their great idol the light or christ within, to do all the necessary work of instruction? cannot t. e. permit jesus to be the great lawgiver and teacher, and then upon his bodily removal from the earth, the holy spirit to descend, and build upon christ the foundation, but as far as in him lies (in imitation of the heathens quarrels among their deities) he must have the spirit to drown the word, the outward incarnate christ to signify nothing, but the inward manifestation to communicate all. was it the holy ghost who assumed our flesh, lived, and preached and sealed the truth of his doctrine with his blood? or it was the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, who performed all those things, and of whose fullness we receive? were they the apostles of the spirit, or the apostles of christ jesus, who breathed on them, gave them authority and sent the holy ghost to enable them to execute their commission? why do the quakers thus confound the works of the word and the spirit? like the libertines [qui nihil ponunt inter filium dei, calvin adversus libertin. cap. 10. & spiritum ejus discriminis.] but suppose they were right about the holy unity, that there is no distinction of persons in the godhead, but that they are only different names of the same one subsistence, yet t. e. hath laid a wrong foundation, for it was not this spirit which inwardly did all; but it was jesus the son of mary (be he but a piece of the christ, or have he an heavenly body sheathed up within that which he took of the virgin, or however else; for they know not what to make of him, nor do with him: the man jesus (who was as truly visible in jewry, as ellwood was in the house of pennington) stands much in their way, and hinders their light or christ within) who called the apostles, taught and instructed them, as appears from the series of the four gospels, which we shall adhere to, rather than to these, who do but dream dreams, while they conceit that they see visions. this being the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that which is the procreative cause of so many delusions, viz. a disregarding christ's personal, prophetical office, and placing their supposed spirit in his room. i shall make a short narrative how the apostles came to the knowledge of the gospel, how religion was delivered by christ, that it was settled in an outward, bodily and sensible way; and thereby ellwoods' account of the spirits doing the work, by his inward immediate teaching will appear not only distant from truth; but, the very subverter of the christian religion. god having at sundry times and in divers manners made known his will unto the fathers, at the last in the highest dispensation (which is never to be out dated) he spoke unto us by his son (whom he hath appointed heir of all things) that is by the god-man christ jesus, who took our flesh and blood, and was of the same nature with us: this son of god, was god himself, who came to visit the earth, and be his own interpreter, yet still he discharged this office, whilst he was tabernacling in our flesh. he was god with us, instructing us in the likeness and true nature of man, of a reasonable soul and humane flesh subsisting. and thus i suppose those prophecies were fulfilled [taught of the lord, or taught of god] he had the spirit without measure, he was the very temple of god, the holy of holyes, in and by whom the divine oracles were made known to mortals. the divine majesty resided in this man jesus, all the former owned ways of revelation came to attend him into the world, to usher him into his office, and give credence to what he spoke, and yet (excepting some short sentences serving as testimonials to him) they were all silent while he was teaching; but still jesus in humane nature took the chair, and was god's mouth and voice unto mankind; as might be more fully and advantageously showed. the apostles conversed with christ, saw, heard, eat, drunk, and lived with him; how oft is this referred to, of their being eye and ear witnesses of what he did and said? he taught them by sermons, parables, conferences, explaining things privately to them, during the whole term of his ministry, and after his resurrection. and must his whole prophetic office be thought nothing? and can such select scholars be still non-proficients under so powerful and so diligent an instructor? other quakers think contrarily to t. e, and let one infallible buffet another. [while christ abode with them in his bodily appearance— they had some knowledge— till the manifestation of the spirit, keith. in: rev. p. 162, 163. they were ignorant of many things.] many is not all; that is for their knowledge; and for their life, he saith elsewhere [the very disciples themselves while they followed christ outwardly— were truly religious] and another of them, [surely none will or can deny, idem p. 230. who profess christianity, but the apostles, tailor's faithful and true witness the light, etc. p. 12. in some measure before christ's outward departure from them, had the comfort of the holy spirit in them, and were both believers and obedient children in their measure, etc.] what though the apostles being involved in the fatal prejudices of their nation, were ignorant of some things, as about the kingdom of god, the resurrection, etc. must they therefore know nothing of faith, repentance, a christian life or duty? christ who knew them the best speaks otherwise, john 17.6, 7, 8. they have kept thy word— they have known— they have believed— [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, chrysost. apud theop. in locum. having known by my words, and by my doctrine.] the apostles were as certain knowing witnesses of christ, as we can be of any matters of fact, and the christian religion was entertained upon their testimony; that they had been with, seen, heard and known jesus. god would not send that religion into the world, which was to be the perpetual rule of all mankind, and command others to trust the bringers upon their inward manifestations, which would have exposed, rather than have propagated truth; but what they spoke they attested as matter of fact and knowledge, all the twelve having had personal converse with jesus, upon whom the holy ghost visibly descended, audible voices were heard, his doctrine was delivered before multitudes of witnesses, men were persuaded by outward, sensible, even bodily evidences, and not barely left to internal suggestions, in which there may be great danger of delusion. and not only the apostles preached, but all the penmen of the new-testament wrote upon their certain knowledge. s. matthew, s. john, s. james s. peter and s. judas; had personal conversation with and attendance on christ, were able to testify both what they saw and heard, s. luke wrote part from his own knowledge, and part from certain information: the like antiquity testifieth concerning s. mark, s. paul had that want of personal attendance and acquaintance supplied by christ's appearing and speaking to him, acts 22.14, cateches. 10. 15. & 26.16. and in many other places. hence cyril of jerusalem rationally infers, that the testimony of paul, being an enemy and persecutor before must needs be undeniable; though some suspicious person should allege that peter and john 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were familiars and domestics; yet the testimony of paul, first an enemy to jesus, and then a martyr for him, cannot be denied. and this he assigns as the reason, why paul wrote more epistles than the rest, because being a persecutor before, his doctrine could not be doubtful, but commanding of our belief; and therefore when quakers think there may be new inspired books now; that the closing up the ganon of scripture, [is a limiting god from moving or inspiring any men, quakerism no popery. p. 62. in any age of the world to come, to write any book or books which may be of equal authority with the scriptures.] they proceed upon gross mistakes; for unless christ converse on earth again, and ellwoods' monstrous fancy of repetition prove a real certainty, there can be no such inspired books, as the new testament gives us, to be written in these ages; or unless there be another dispensation, viz. that of the spirit yet to commence, which dream is the most of all destructive to christianity. thus was christianity made known and settled in the world, not by philosophy, or rhetoric, or any humane art; but by two such methods, as heaven and earth cannot afford greater, which s. john calls the witness of men, and the witness of god: the witness or testimony of men, is this already given; and religion being entertained upon that account; to tell us of new revelations now, is a renouncing of the faith of christ, which doth command belief not only by inward teachings, but outward proofs. but lest this witness of so many men might have been rejected, as proceeding from delusion or design, the witness of god interposed in so public, visible and audible ownings both of christ and his religion, that the world was not capable of receiving more unexceptionable and convincing proofs. and further, as for the teachings of the spirit, which t. e. only mentions, they were of a different nature from what he drives at; the supervening of the spirit was not to evacuate or obliterate what christ on earth had spoken. the testimony of the apostles and the spirit are conjoined, john 15.26, 27. he conferring extraordinary gifts, to engage men to believe what they delivered from their own personal, or certain knowledge; and where there were inward teachings, there were outward powers to testify thereof to others, and still the spirit did but pursue christ's teachings, acted in his name, took of his, and shown it to them, opened such things as they understood not, re-called to remembrance such as they had forgotten, and instructed in such things, as before they could not bear; as about the sabbath, circumcision, christian liberty, and the like. though i think, that christ in our nature in discharge of his prophetic office, publicly and audibly made known all the essential, eternal duties, or all the parts of everlasting righteousness. and possibly in strict speaking, that inspiration which the apostles had, ought not to be called immediate, especially not in every thing. because it was conferred but in pursuance of what our lord had before orally delivered in matters of duty: for certain knowledge destroys not inspiration, nor inspiration certain knowledge: nor is the use of former helps rejected, but taken hold of by the spirit. thus were the apostles instructed, thus was our religion settled, thus must our saviour's prophetic office be secured, and his, and the spirits workings must not be confounded. and t. ellwood's method of the apostles coming to the knowledge of the gospel, is not the method of god's making. and let it be further considered, if herein satan's policy do not appear, what he cannot effect by atheism and profaneness: he attempts by enthusiasm, under the pretence of an higher religion, to root out the old one so divinely and firmly settled; for the taking away the rational motives to faith, and the sensible grounds of religion. and devolving the belief and understanding of sacred things upon their pretended revelations, witnessings, and experiences, renders religion both uncertain and indemonstrable. and while men observe the differences, contradictions, and ungroundedness of such claims; they will be apt to entertain the like prejudices against the christian religion itself. supposing that it relies upon such grounds as their witnessings and invisible inspirations; for so they bear the world in hand, fox love to mankind, p. 11. [what the apostles said— we do by the same power and spirit.] and in a little time by such arts, religion will be in danger to be fatally undermined, all being rejected together, as relying upon a like bottom. but if t. ellwood's castle in the air be erected, it is not material, though christianity be blown up; and if his dreams be admitted, he seems not concerned, what disservice is done to the other, though, blessed be god's goodness, he hath rooted his gospel in a different manner, as if purposely to prevent satan's transforming himself into an angel of light, and those pretences to inspirations, which he hath all along fomented. but though there were real revelations now, yet t.e. is the unlikeliest person to be favoured with them. for he first enervates the written word, as will in its place appear; and withal overlooks the essential word, taking no notice of him whom god the father sent into the world, and sealed; endeavouring to annihilate that jesus (as to his prophetic office however) in whom the whole covenant of grace is founded, and in, and by, and through whom all blessings whatever are conveyed to us. and this is a sad stumbling upon the very threshold, a fit pillar for nothing but a monstrous fabric. but to use his own words, [had he not been a quaker he could not have given such an answer.] chap. iii. whether quakers be the apostles successors, and receive the gospel in the same manner as the apostles did. ii. the other pillar is as rotten, that the apostles successors or all believers, do receive the knowledge of the gospel in the same manner as they did: in which three things are couched. 1. that all believers, or the quakers are the apostles successors. 2. that these successors receive in the same manner as the apostles. 3. the proofs produced to make out this claim. 1. that all believers, or quakers, are the apostles successors; if the first, than he argues for all parties, as well as for himself; and their revelations will outweigh his: a turk is a musulman, or believer in the light within him; withal he makes christ to have a monstrous body, if all believers be the apostles successors. but his charity without question designed the latter, by using the first person, we and us: [the apostles successors, p. 228. truly the apostles successors in faith and doctrine, p. 230, 233] but he should first have proved it, and not have begged the question. the lamb's officer, p. 11. the apostles successors: a great humility! lately they were higher, even [true prophets and apostles,] now they are dwindled into successors; not apostoli, but apostolici: they succeed them in inspiration, infallibility, divine commission, discerning of spirits, he does well to add in faith and doctrine. pray proceed, you succeed in their chairs, in their bishoprics, in their power of binding and losing, and prove it all, by succeeding in their miraculous powers. but how do you succeed the apostles? you differ vastly among yourselves, what time the apostasy entered into the church; but stating it (as some do) to commence at the entry of the first century, smith's spiritual glass opened, p. 36 keith's universal free grace, 92. then for 1548 years' [the gospel dispensation was lost, and is now revealed;] [christ's spiritual dispensation is now again revealed in this day after the apostasy.] and so many years make an hiatus large enough to disturb succession. 'tis not the apostles, but winstanley whom you succeed: [in the year 1648 god did cause a branch to spring forth out of the root of david, which was filled with virtue, j. whitehead in mr. faldo's q. no christ. p. 16. for the covenant of life and peace was with him; he spread forth many branches, which did partake of the fatness of the root, the weary came to rest under his branches, with him was the word of reconciliation.] and to that purpose the blasphemous harangue proceedeth; so that you do but succeed that leveller, as whitehead did in 1655. ibid. [being a branch of this tree, viz. the branch afore said, the life of its root caused me to blossom, and bring forth fruit, etc.] it is the spirit of winstanley whereby you are acted, and whether that be the spirit of god deserves your diligent enquiry. but supposing, with the socinians, that doctrinal succession is sufficient without personal, we can discern no likeness between their and your doctrine. you allegorise that baptism and the lords supper, which they practised; you set up that christ within, whom they saw ascending into heaven, there to abide till the day of judgement: you make but small esteem of those scriptures which they wrote, or commended as able to make the man of god wise unto salvation. they did eat and drink with christ; you have scarce allowed him to be a distinct person from you. they make christ the redeemer of men; you must have him to redeem himself, even a lost god, and a lost christ. they expected justification by the suffering jesus; that you make a doctrine of devils, and will be saved by your own works, or by a christ within you. they believed christ to be made a sin-offering for them, you entertain him but as your pattern. they believed their dead bodies should rise again, you do style it a carnal resurrection; with several such irreconcilable differences between their doctrines and yours. there are other fathers whom you succeed, even many of the old heretics, as might easily be showed, but especially henry nicholas is your grandfather; the life and spirit of familism runs through your writings, you have taken many things from the libertines, swenckfeldians, and anabaptists, the antinomians also (as saltmarsh, in his sparkles of glory, and others of them) contributed towards your original, for those and other sects agree much in one bottom; that of immediate teaching, these prepared the materials, out of which your father winstanley form the most part of your opinions, which being thrown together in a confused manner, you fancy the result to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, an image fallen down from jupiter, and prettily style yourselves the successors of the apostles in faith and doctrine by immediate revelation. but supposing, out of an excess of charity, that you are the apostles successors: the next is more prodigious. 2. that these successors receive in the same manner as the apostles, [in the same manner] he prints in a different character, p. 228, 230, 233. to show the stress lieth there, and he affirms it [to be no presumption, ungodliness, or absurdity in those who are the apostles successors in faith and doctrine, to expect to receive the knowledge of the gespel, in the same manner as they received it, p. 228, 230, 233.] expect and think what he please, sober men can judge the thought to be no less than madness, and the thing a mere impossibility; for unless christ be now on earth, or t. e. was alive when christ was on earth, and did personally attend him, he cannot have received as the apostles did; no, not though it was possible daily to repair to jacob behmen's theosophick school of pentecost. but t. e. hath outgone that father (who being 1300 years nearer christ's time, might have been sooner qualified for it,) he hath seen christ on earth, heard paul in the pulpit, and by this token then, he saw rome in its glory. did s. mark know the gospel in the same manner as s. matthew? or came s. luke to it by the same means as s. john? the one saith, 1 john 1.1. [that which we have seen, looked upon, and handled:] the other, luke 1.2. [they that were eye-witnesses have delivered them unto us.] and if the difference in coming to the knowledge of the gospel was so early then, quakers can receive like none but false apostles now; john 20.9. our lord pronounceth a blessedness on such as have not seen, and yet have believed: some saw christ, and some saw the apostles who had seen christ, etc. the doctrine of the gospel was transmitted from certain eye and ear-witnesses, who had divine inspiration also; and so much as god thought necessary for his church, was written by those divine penmen, and is contained and conveyed down to us in that best of books, called the bible. but must the first settling a dispensation be always continued? must those manners whereby religion was propagated, be perpetually maintained? then miracles are as necessary in the present church as in the primitive: the ten commandments were delivered in thundrings and lightnings, were those repeated every time the law was read in their synagogues and houses? the holy-ghost descended wonderfully on the day of pentecost, so acts 4.31 & 8.17. & 10.44. & 11.15. & 15.8. & 19.6. and generally there was an outward evidence of him upon believers; but where have we now such miraculous convictions of his presence? religion being once settled by god's extraordinary power, needs not the daily renewing those wonders; and when other miraculous gifts are ceased, and prophecy is foretell to cease as well as tongues, and tongues are undoubtedly ceased: it is strange, and looks like giving god the lie, to say, that prophecy is longer lived than the other. the first bringing in a religion requires other methods of conviction than are necessary afterwards; for being entertained upon those evidences, the danger of enthusiasm discovered in an epistle to the quakers and committed to writing, god continues it in a regular course, men instructing men from these owned oracles, as is well proved in a late treatise. george fox upon t. ellwood's principles, may quarrel with margaret fell, that she is not his wife, because not made out of his rib, as eve was out of adam's: and margaret fell may retort, that george fox is not her husband, because he was not form out of the earth, as adam was. the israelites might refuse to plough and sow in canaan, expecting the same easy maintenance afforded in the wilderness: and we may object, that now we are not to work, only to expect and wait; the earth ought to yield us fruit of its own accord, as it did in paradise. t. e. needs the breast and spoon at forty years old as well as at four months; and all men and women must come into the world in the same manner with adam and eve, and this is the direct consequent of holding nature and religion always in the cradle. but though quakers did not hear nor see christ, nor have had the spirit visibly descend, yet these successors have the same inward revelations with the apostles: if you prove it in the same manner they could, you shall have another manner of return; till then, i shall be assured that god doth not multiply unnecessaries, nor grant things to satisfy wanton humours. whatever immediate revelations the apostles had, we have at this day the benefit of them in their inspired writings; and god having conveyed them to us in an intelligible book, it is not his method to increase revelations, to represent that immediately to my soul, which he hath commanded me to read in a book of his own inditing. christ who raised lazarus from the dead, could by the very same word have rolled away the stone that lay over him, but he was not prodigal of miracles; where other means can be used, god's immediate power will not be arrested. he therefore bids first, [take ye away the stone, john 11.39. which they obeyed, v. 41.] and then he speaks with power, lazarus, come forth. if the apostles had immediate revelations, which i can read in my bible, for me to say, i receive them in the same manner, is a delusion, and to desire the receipt, is a temptation. but suppose that ellwood's book was writ by revelation, as his hectoring letter imports, [may the honour be returned to that powerful arm, which gave both the weapon, and therewithal skill and strength to use it:] and suppose the expositions he gives proceed from the same fountain, still fresh vexations do arise; for i am as much to seek how to understand his book, as an epistle of st. paul's: if paul's revelation cannot be understood without a new one, no more can ellwood's; the successor must be like the predecessor: and therefore till he can either write, so as to be understood, or give us security that he writes by revelation, and withal assurance where to meet with another inspiration to capacitate us to understand his, charity obligeth him to keep his sealed-up notions to himself, and not to trouble the world with waste paper. but upon what grounds is all this claimed? doth he know by inspiration, that all believers receive the gospel as the apostles did? no sure, for he turns another way, attempts a proof thereof from scripture-promises; but hereby he makes quakerism a little embodied: 'tis not so airy and slippery as formerly, i may now look at it, turn it about, and handle it; which leads to the third. 3. the proofs produced to make out this claim, and they seem more like the coherence of a quakers dream, than the logic of a waking man, p. 228. thus he takes his rise, [as our saviour prayed not for them only, but all such also as should believe on him through their word. so what he promised concerning sending the comforter— he did not promise with restriction and limitation only, but with an extensive relation to all that should believe on him;] and inference that is strangely wide, and destructive of his very design. is there no limitation because he observes none? nor no restriction employed, where not expressly given? from a prayer for all, to infer a promise to all, especially when about different things, is a lose way of arguing. such a writer may commence any thing per saltum; and from fisher's folly instantly jump into the porphyry's chair. christ's prayers were always granted, and his promises fulfilled, but his prayer and promise must not be confounded: he made intercession for transgressor's; he prayed, father, isa. 53.12. luke 23.34. forgive them, for they know not what they do. it would have been a closer deduction, but untrue, thence to infer, that all transgressor's, and all that know not what they do (be the ignorance never so culpable) are forgiven. but view the prayer, and it confutes this perverting gloss: it was a prayer for all believers [that they may be one;] that is, john 17.21. live in all the duties of christian unity. had christ prayed for immediate revelation to all believers in all ages, that had been to his purpose, but it is not named nor concerned here. and the very words of that prayer in v. 20. plough up his fancy: [for them also who shall believe on me through their word,] where the apostles word, doctrine, preaching, and testimony concerning christ, is made the motive to men's believing in him, and immediate revelation is not once named. he would have also the promise of sending the comforter given without restriction; but in scripture limitations must be given to general words, according to matters, etc. concerned. joel 2.28. [i will pour my spirit upon all flesh.] is not upon horses, asses; no, nor the unconverted indians. john 14.26. [he shall teach you all things] is not giving the skill of astronomy or algebra: so the promise of the spirit is not only to be understood with restriction, but the very limitations are given, john 15.27. [the have been with me from the beginning,] that limits it to the persons of the apostles, who accompanied with christ, beginning from the baptism of john, acts 1.22. hereupon christ saith, [ye also shall bear witness,] which none could do upon their certain knowledge but his personal attendants. and john 16.13. [he will show you things to come,] restrains it also to the apostles, which clause t. e. as too tough for him, ungodlily leaves out. but to argue upon their principles, what is ellwood concerned in christ's promise made before his death? when as he slights luke 14.8. because spoken [before the one offering was actually offered up, edw. burroughs. p. 47. p. 37.] another saith, [a command to one binds not another;] no more should a promise to one benefit another. [the gift of tongues and working miracles were peculiar to the apostles times,] geo. whitehead's reprehension. and so was inspiration also. those promises christ made just before his death, having discharged his prophetic office, he betook himself to his priestly; the multitude being gone, he addressed himself in his sermon to his apostles, whom he left his commissioners on earth; and having finished his prayer, was presently apprehended. now, to enlarge to all believers, what was spoke to that select company, will make wild divinity: t. ellwood so may pass for thomas didymus, and challenge one of the twelve thrones whereon to sit and judge the twelve tribes of israel. but suppose he inferred truly in an extensive relation to all believers, till he prove me to be no believer, he hath argued me to have inspiration as well as himself; and withal faith being an internal invisible grace, without another immediate revelation, i cannot be assured who is this true believer, nor who hath the spirit. it may suffice humble souls that those promises may extend in some sort to the whole church diffusive; not to every single man, no, nor sect of men; nor to any church of one denomination whatsoever; and that god will bestow the spirit of illumination and sanctification upon sincere christians. but that those are different from the apostolical inspiration, without which a man may be saved, and with which he may be damned. to these he adds auxiliary proofs, as john 17.37, 38, 39 p. 128. in which neither repeated nor immediate revelation, as perpetual, is named: and he reads it differently from his master fox, great mystery, p. 130. in the spirit of the quakers tried. universal grace, p. 102 who thus turns it, [out of whose belly, (viz. the light christ) flowed rivers of living water:] as also the text above is differently by him interpreted; from his tutor keith, [he prayeth for them that they may be converted and believe, as john 17.21.] that text as to us is now abundantly fulfilled in that vital principle of holiness implanted in all regenerate hearts; whereas it doth explain itself, v. 39 to belong to the day of pentecost. but t. e. deals with it, as satan did with that, mat. 4.6. leaveth out [the holy-ghost was not yet given, because jesus was not yet glorified;] chrysost. apud theop. in locum. because it looked unkindly on his project, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. he brings in also, p. 229. 1 john 2.20, 27. wherein immediate perpetual revelation is not named, but it referreth to the subject matter, the discovering of false teachers and doctrines by the anointing, that gift of discerning the spirits then in the church. but if t. e. conceit, that he know all things, i shall grant him to succeed some in such thoughts, irenae. advers. haeres. lib. 1. c. 1. origen. l. 1. p, 31. the gnostics and valentinians, [abundantiùs gloriantur plus quam caeteri cognovisse, gloryed themselves to know much more than others. and celsus had as high conceits, [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] boasted he knew all the doctrines and things belonging to christians. his other proofs from john 14, 15, & 16 chapters belong in their proper and prime sense to the apostles, who were christ's attendants whilst he lived on earth, and his commissioners and witnesses when ascended. the fancy [that without revelation we are left comfortless] is foolish, for god hath afforded the certain original revelations to us in his bible, we have his spirit and his comforts to many purposes besides inspiration, and he is still with us in the use of means, as he causeth corn to grow, and yet our labour and sowing are required. thus, vbi supra. like those in irenaeus, he doth ex arenâ resticulas nectere, his whole scheme thus far is but a rope of sand, drawn out of untrue and unconcluding premises. jesus that prophet is laid aside, and the spirit made the whole teacher; and that employment is devolved on him, to make way for their inward unaccountable suggestions. then he kindly supposeth his friends to be the apostles successors, thence infers, that all must be taught for ever, as the apostles were. and lastly, attempts at some proofs, which without a quakers spectacles, cannot be therein spelled. feed my sheep, the keys of the kingdom of heaven, etc. serve the pope as clearly, and with more likelihood: the disciples of h. nicholas may be esteemed the nicholaitans, rev. 2. or the two george foxes be interpreted those little foxes, cant. 2.15. that spoil the vines. chap. iu. concerning their renewed or repeated revelations. upon these tottering pillars he raiseth several and different notions, i. to begin with their youngest, that which is their fondling, viz. the claim of renewed and repeated revelations, which (without offering one text in favour thereof) he thus wordeth; [p. 238. not new revelations, that is, new things revealed, but rather renewed revelations, that is, old things revealed anew: the same gospel, the same way of salvation, the same essentials of religion, the same principles and doctrines: in a word, the same good old truths which were revealed to the saints of old, and are recorded in the holy scriptures, revealed now anew.] this he is large upon, p. 243. that they are again revealed by the same spirit, which he calls a repetition of the former revelations, p. 254, & 256. but why names he not the author of this knack? that would have looked untowardly upon the immediateness of it. im. revelation not ceased, p. 3. but george keith inspired him therewith: [observe the difference betwixt these two, the new revelation of new things, and the new revelation of the good old things, which are the essentials of religion— the first of those two we do not plead for, but the latter.] and elsewhere, p. 33. [the same eternal life which first breathed them forth, doth either again breath, or speak them forth in us, or sendeth forth of his living powerful influences into them, as they have a place in our minds and memories] this latter, as more modest, is below ellwoods' purpose. but though he taketh the words and notions of keith, the revelation is still immediate; for their institutor hath prettily determined. truth lifting up its head, p. 38. [if you would hear, then acquaint our selves with such, as can speak from a testimony within; for as they received what they have from the pure teachings of the father: so this second hand teaching will be a pure teaching unto you, but be sure you do not prefer this second teaching before the first, for now the everlasting word and gospel must reveal himself to you, or else you cannot be satisfied:] their own or others is first and second hand teaching; but instructing from the scriptures is not so much as third hand teaching, and the scriptures are now out of date. [the writings of the apostles— are to cease, truth lifting, etc. p. 30. when the lord himself who is the everlasting gospel doth manifest himself to rule in the flesh of sons and daughters.] they have no new essentials of religion, this i thought spoke in our acception, about fundamentals; till further converse in their works discovered the deceit, keith. im. rev. p. 5. for though one tell us [that less than one half of the scriptures is a full and perfect testimony of all the essentials] yet he spoils all in saying [that the knowledge and belief of the history of christ his outward coming, pag. 229. birth, life, death, burial, resurrection, etc. are such parts of our religion and faith, as serve to make up the intiredness, or fullness of it, yet so as true religion may be without the express knowledge and belief of them:] so that a man may be a quaker christian without the express knowledge of christ in the outward, either of his name, nature, laws or offices. the great mogul hath true religion as much as george fox. this lays aside all that jesus was, did, taught and suffered, and contains all heresies in its bowels, even to the denying the lord who bought them. and another hath writ a folio to show [that men should not be concerned about faith or creeds, bishop's looking glass for the times. but leave all to the conduct of the light.] but what then are their essentials of religion? nothing of jesus our lord and saviour, nothing that is a part of the four gospels. [true christianity and religion may subsist without the history of christ in the letter, to wit, im. rev. p. 243. in the mystery of the life of christ in the spirit.] so that a turk is a true christian, though he never owned but hated christ: rarely allegorized, till our whole christianity is shrunk up into those four insignificant words, as so used, which are fit for nothing but a quakers posy. and george bishop crowds all into that everlasting truth, viz. a looking glass for the times p. 235. [the principle of god in man, which is in every man a measure thereof, to lead him and guide him, which is able to lead him into all truth, and to deliver him from evil, and which will bring him to god.] these are the new made essentials of religion, which the ancient heroes knew not of, who required from all baptised persons the profession of their faith about christ in the outward, who scrupled the change of one letter in the creed; but quakers disowning visible baptism, have sent away the creed therewith, lest the retaining of it should upbraid them. in the mean time the devil hath ordered their scene rarely: the light, christ within, renders the christ without much useless; he who shed his blood for them, is no essential of their religion, and their inspirations supply the place of scripture, being preferred before it: so that their two principles, im. rev. p. p. 43. the light and motions, fairly lessen, if not discharge the essential and written word of god. christ in heaven and the scriptures on earth signify little to these self-made pagans, who have enough within to carry them to all that heaven which their faith expects. but to resume the claim of renewed and repeated revelations; a notion so strange that nothing but a search into their writings can discover the sense or design of it. i must take the freedom to present their thoughts of the holy scriptures, that by such preparatory tastes we may be drawn on to swallow this camel of repetition. to begin with their founder [men must not walk by the scriptures, winstanley in truth lifting up, p. 39 for this is to walk by the eyes of other men, and the spirit is not so scanty, that a dozen are twenty pair of eyes shall serve the world, but every son and daughter have light within themselves.] [you shall feed no longer upon the oil that was in other men's lamps (the scriptures; in the title page. ) now it is required that every one have oil in his own lamp within himself;] [some walk by example, mystery of god, p. 35. the saint's paradise. p. 1.2. and have seen very little of the anointing in them, some walk more in spirit and truth, as the anointing of the father teacheth them;] [teaching from scripture is not, but speaking from their own experience, that is from god.] the like notion breathes in t. e. master keith [the old revelations— given unto the saints cannot serve our turn, the faith of another man is not sufficient unto me, but i must be saved by the faith, knowledge and experience given me of god, of the self same things: the revelation of them given of god unto others cannot suffice me, nor were these things recorded in writ, that i should sit down upon the history, but to point us inward to that same principle of life— revealing and working the same things in us, pag. 34. etc.] [we find it to hurt and deaden us to think any thoughts, even from the scriptures, but as the spirit influenceth— if at any time we do it, we find ourselves rebuked and chastised of the lord for it] and in another place [we must not obey scripture without motions, but we may obey motions without scripture.] at this rate writ others of them; to cull out some few from among many, g. w. and fox in the gag for the q. p. 14. [what paul wrote unto the ephesians and colossions doth not concern this generation;] [that is no command from god to me, which god hath given by way of command to another, burroughs works. p. 47. neither did any of the saints act by the command which was to another, every one obeyed their own commands;] an excellent engine towards god and man, no act of parliament can bind a quaker, except he be expressly named: george whitehead, thomas ellwood, etc. you by name must do so and so, this becometh the majesty of the quakers. smith's morn. watch. p. 75. smith's demonstrat. passim in their papers. the scriptures [are other men's traditions; other men's lives and labours] [the spirit of god must try all spirits.] [the scriptures are but a report or declaration of the condition of those who received them] [a true testimony of what the saints were made witnesses of] [no command in scripture is any further obliging upon any man, smith pen. in faldoes' vind. of 21 diu. p 97. faldo q. no chris. ch. 12. than as he finds a conviction upon his conscience;] direct old libertinism, and ranterism. they [make it idolatry to follow the precepts or examples in scripture.] having thus depressed the written word of god, yet to keep up some seeming honour to it, in his letter though to use t.e's. words [it be an hosannah in the morning, that ends in a crucifige ere night] they find out this expedient; the scripture as the codex wherein gods will is recorded, binds them not, but they have it renewed and repeated to them; or as naylor words it [god speaks to us by scriptures when they are given by inspiration to us.] light of christ. p. 29 so that repetition is but laying the top-stone, and improving or pursuing their other claims. t. e. is so confident, that he asserts, p. 239. revelation is necessary (yea of necessity) even to understand the scripture, absolutely necessary, p. 238. so received and understood— and not otherwise, p. 251.] he must then have every line in the old and new testament repeated, (not so much as [abraham begat isaac] is to be omitted) else it is not understood by him, a thing that is so impossible, and so impracticable, that it affords fresh evils each time it is considered. i might make short work, what need the renewing of that to him, which he looks upon as not obliging? as in its place will appear; or, as his landlord conceits [the one thing necessary to salvation, penningtons' naked truth. p. 23. not being contained in the scriptures:] the repetition thereof if true, yet would be ineffectual, but in regard this fancy hath been considered by none, i know of, i shall a while view it, as that which makes the confusedst work in prophecies, histories, and all the parts of christianity: in brief, it revives the ministry of angels, as the conveyers of gods will in the christian state, it sets up moses to be a teacher, reinforceth circumcision, the tabernacle, the jewish commonwealth, and the law of sacrifices; it raiseth up multitudes of persons out of their graves where they have rested some thousand years; it sets up the kingdoms of egypt, assyria, syria, and the rest that bordered on the holy-land: it musters a great part of the world together, kings and kingdoms to come and stand before him; it lays aside christianity, destroys the motives of believing it, making such a miscellaneous hotchpotch of religion, as mahomet did not hit on: it makes the whole scripture scenical, a theatrical thing, that like a puppet-play goes round, is renewed, repeated, in plain english, acted over before him. the portentousness of this chimaera will appear by looking on its aspect upon the old and new testament, wherein we may consider histories, prophecies and other mixed matters, and discover whether they be capable of repetition. for history, hath god renewed to t. e. that command of putting off his shoes from off his feet? which was enjoined to, and done by moses; have the tempests, thunderings, voices, which were at the giving the law been heard by him? can god speak to him from between the cherubims and from the door of the tabernacle which are not now in being? hath he received with david, answers from the vrim? or need he some outward light from the breastplate, who hath such a light within? have the angels revealed those messages to him, which they did to abraham, lot and others? then sodom was but fired the other day, or things are burnt in effigy before him. have the voices to samuel been rehearsed to him? or that to elijah. 1 king. 19.15? then jehu and hazael are now alive, and t.e. is an anointer to kingdoms. the like might be showed of all scripture-histories, that this dream destroys or confounds and entangles the truth of all. for history relateth things done, repetition looks on them as undone, and in doing; confounds times past, present and future: disorders and mixeth both persons and matters, and by making nothing distinct, leaves nothing true. nicodemus came to jesus by night, thomas put his hand into christ's side, etc. if these (which we know from scripture) be repeated, than those persons must be now alive, if they be not repeated, they are not understood. is it not enough to have all these recorded in a divine history for our admonition and example? but these old revelations must be new revealed, and acted over to gratify a morose illuminado. this fancy doth as much disservice to the truth, and certainty of prophecies, hath t. e. laid 390 days upon one side in a visionary siege against jerusalem, gone to the river chebar, beheld the draughts of a most glorious temple, etc. with ezekiel? or hath he had the revelation of st. john repeated before him vision after vision? this supervisor general need but move a pin, and all the prophecies present themselves before him. i have seen some printed papers joined at the end of a quakers bible, containing the epistle of paul to the laodiceans, the life of paul, a catalogue of several scriptures which are mentioned, but not inserted in the bible, as the prophecy of enoch, cummultis aliis; several scriptures corrupted by the translators; most of which are where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is rendered otherwise than in: and lastly the differences betwixt the old english translation and the new. all which reflects both upon the version now used, but especially are designed to render the saored scripture defective: that there are other revelations besides those therein consigned, and hereby to pave the way for the belief and admittance of what they pretend to bring from heaven to us. the same confidence and principles may carry such persons on, to such words [as the vision of isaiah— which he saw— in the days of izziah— or, the testimony from the brethren. the revelation of jesus christ— signified to his servant john] to annex such like claims as this [which visions or revelations begun to be renewed and repeated to the quakers in england (who are the church returned out of the wilderness) in the year 1648.] can t. e. have had the prophecies of daniel reacted, as that st. of old had? then dead belshazzar is now afoot, and nabuchadnezzar wields his sceptre, the 70 weeks are never begun, nor never ended, the messiah must be uncut off, each time this vision is renewed: but as a mass-priest daily kills and butchers christ, who yet lives for all that cruelty, so this renewing makes all things scenical in prophecy, but proves and settles nothing. the prophet's name their parents, places, with such circumstances, owning it as a vision made to themselves. moses, the prophets, the psalms are distinctly named; this day, saith christ, this scripture is fulfilled, but not any indication that those prophecies could be renewed; it cannot be proved that one prophet had the visions of another prophet repeated to him, no nor that the same received the same exact vision twice; so little is it probable that a thousand can have the same for ever renewed downwards. this pretence in the issue destroyeth christianity; for suppose that mat. 1.23. (a virgin shall be with child,) be renewed, than jesus is not yet born, when a vision is fulfilled 'tis impossible to have another: that it shall be fulfilled; or to desire one to inform that it is fulfilled, is a like folly. it is equally as reasonable to expect a revelation that there was a k. henry viii. as that jesus died at jerusalem, for it makes prophecy to have no fixed, determinate, sconce, or completion. suppose the revelations be repeated, than no part of them is yet fulfilled; for what hath been done, cannot be scened, or staged as undone: and further it renders the scriptures useless, for what need i buy a sealed book not to be understood, when i have it line by line inwardly rehearsed by a supervening power to my own spirit. repetition also would swallow up that blessed grace of faith, the believing things credible as credible, and turn it into sense and vision, so that the desiring it (if possible) is either the mother or daughter of infidelity. there being also in tract of time some few variae lectiones crept into the sacred volume. t. is spirit (if right) will make a stand at the wrong ones so that he can inform infallibly which is the best copy, and where words are to be inserted, altered, or omitted. upon his principles,— revelations made to women must be renewed to men, which, in case of conception or childbirth would look strangely, though of all persons they seem the fittest for it. [your mother the pope] saith father fox: lamb's officer. p. 18. winding sheet for controv. p. 1. im. rev. p. 118. some principles of the elect, p. 95, 96. [her is he sometimes] than he may be an her at other times. [blessed are the pure in heart for they shall see her;] in imitation of bonaventures change in the psalms. [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, hic & haec homo, as dewsbury observes, who attempts to baffle st. paul about women's not speaking in the church, making the woman to signify either sex, in which christ is not the head;] such chaps as those would make a man think them nearest a kin to tiresias the prophet. there are many particular revelations concerning places, as nineveh, tyre, etc. persons, as king ahaz, zedechiah, etc. can these be reacted when both kings and kingdoms are extinguished? but it is not worth the while to hunt this fly; or pursue so serious a folly. only these few things shall conclude it. that if he speak truth he must have received all the revelations conferred to the saints of old, before and after the flood; those written in scripture and the unrecorded one's; or, if only those in the new testament, than those of christ, the apostles, particularly s. john, s. paul, the 70 disciples, and those mentioned in the 1 cor. chap. 14. that which was the work of many ages, periods and persons, is in a trice acted before him, which if it was really done, i verily think he could not live; the divine light was so strong in a prophet's soul, that he could not long continue under it, but fell into consternations, or his vision declined into a dream, all the scripture revelations (if the thing was possible) yet for length of time cannot be renewed to him since his turning quaker in 1659. he must have time to recruit his spirit between vision and vision, allow liberty for other intervening affairs, converse sometimes as a man, and not always as a prophet. and prophecies in their preparatoryes and effects, in their solemnity and dress, are not so soon gone thorough. hosea was some 70 years a prophet, and yet hath but left some 14 little chapters. isaiah was 45 years between the 6th and 36th chapters, which allows a year and a half to each chapter. let ellwood study such things as these, and the nature of the prophetic light, it will make his spirit be humble and modest, and will convince him that his hairs will be grey, before he see to the far end of the revelations. but possibly he foresaw not the monsters he was hatching; let us turn the notion into what other more favourable shapes we can; as, first, what was revealed by several ways before, is now renewed to him by the spirit; this is nothing better, must the holy spirit repeat what was spoke by angels, urim, signs, voices, visions, dreams, prophets? nay the very words of christ: i lay down my life; my flesh is meat indeed, i ascend to my father, etc. can the spirit repeat these? for shame to embark in such a leaky vessel. but secondly, what was revealed by the spirit at the first, is by the spirit renewed to him now; try this also, and he will reap no advantage. the spirit said to philip, go near, and join thyself to this chariot, act. 8.29. is this renewed? or is he philip? is candace now alive, or her eunuch gone to jerusalem to worship? the spirit said unto peter behold three men seek thee, act. 10.19. is this renewed? then cornelius is alive, and ellwood is turned the apostles curate. agabus by the spirit signified that there should be great dearth throughout all the world, which came to pass in the days of claudius caesar. acts 11.28. if this be repeated, than paul is yet alive, and claudius hath not yet began his reign. but now the spirit reveals to him, that he did reveal the scriptures, but this reacheth not his purpose, renewing or repeating old revelations, is a distant thing from one single inspiring assurance. but the spirit now renews to him those expositions which he made to others, this he cannot mean, for those expositions are not in scripture, and his are but the repetition of what is therein recorded: withal he supposeth the spirit to turn expositor of the sacred text, but doth not prove it, speaking of scripture revelations, he should use the word in the proper sense, for the subject matter by god revealed, and not foist in an uncouth notion of his own, that revelation is exposition, turning the spirit into a glossary. so the revelation of john the divine, is the exposition of john the divine, but this fancy will be elsewhere met with. what peter in the recognitionsis related to have spoken [that those things which are revealed to others, clement's recogn. l. 8. some do apply as spoken to themselves] doth well befit this novel fancy of repetition. christianity being a certain true and determinate religion, so done and spoken as is related, is not capable of repetition, the things of jesus were true, real and substantial, not performed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; its faith which makes them certain and even present to us, and not hystrionical representations. our holy religion is a rational thing, not a drammatical imaginary show, to be done over and over as in a scene. christ lived on earth, taught, instructed, and lastly died but once; which, faith so receives and entertains, but fancy cannot renew as daily in doing, that will destroy the reality of the history, and make the very religion to expire with it. if ellwood then feel such a thing, as renewing former revelations, it is either satan's delusion; or his own fiction of imagination. chap. v concerning their immediate revelations. ii. besides their repetition, they have immediate revelations [the apostles had an immediate revelation of the mind and will of god to them— and these successors receive in the same manner, p. 228. the ministration of the spirit by divine revelations was not to cease but continue inthe church. p. 227. inward and immediate teaching, p. 229.] the revelations made to the prophets and apostles, confirmed by miracles, and believed by christians, we own. but for any further ones, we can discern no necessity thereof, or if there was, we cannot discern that god by you sends them to us. it is not reasonable we should believe you in such a concern, merely upon your own witnessings; nor will god i hope damn him who died before the quakers, or never heard of them, or doth seriously search into, and yet disbelieve them; and to call them immediate, must needs reflect upon the scriptures which are means appointed by god, or else are nothing. [immediate revelation— remains a standing and perpetual ordinance in the church of christ, keiths' title page. and of indispensible necessity to every true believer:] living stone in 3d. q. quibbles p. 11. just such another ordinance [as giving the hand, and pulling off the hat, which are to continue in the true church.] to what end they enjoy this ordinance is differently related between the tutor and his pupil, the latter claims it to the renewing old scripture revelations, denying they have any [new ones as too substance, p. 237.] but keith is openhearted, tells what plenty they have, and to what purpose: [things relating to our conversation in the world— commanding or forbidding, im. rev. p. 5.6. or licensing us, how to carry and be conversant about them,— as, in eating, drinking, marrying, or giving in marriage, ploughing, digging, or any other employment, going, coming to a place, abiding therein— things revealed to them from the lord, which are not to be found in the scriptures particularly, not so much as by consequence.] happy men, they cannot do ill certainly, who eat, drink, get children, and know who get them, etc. by revelation. 'tis strange to see men who are wise in the world, to be so fancyfull in religion, to entitle god to the rise and bubling of their own spirits, they shut up those reasonable souls which god gave them, as spirits in prison. anima suilla pro sale, a swine's soul serves for salt, and a quakers doth no more, just keeps his body from corruption. how low and cheap is inspiration made, when the holy spirit must be employed in inviting men to dinner, and they must be carried on by wires and pullyes, and not proceed by humane measures. t. e. hath such immediate teachings as the apostles had, ask a proof thereof, the return is; they witness it: but they will not swear it: and i think it unreasonable to believe them on easier terms than our lord himself was believed upon. but whilst good men are baffling atheism with the rational grounds of christianity, satan tacks about, and would baffle christianity by impostures. is inspiration grown so common, that every one must have it? or is god so prodigal of miracles to exceed his regular dispensations? st. paul, who healed the sick, exerted not that power on believing timothy, trophimus, and epaphroditus. christ increased the loaves, and yet commanded the fragments to be gathered up. hebron was promised unto caleb for an inheritance, god could have ordered the lot to fall upon it, and yet it was settled by virtue of the promise: where things can be had in an ordinary way, it is not god's method to exceed, nor heap miracle upon miracle; his works are perfect, and immediate answers were never common: the lot must not pass upon that which was promised before, that would have been irreligion, or a tempting god. there are no need of teachers or scriptures, if all receive immediate instructions. the ancients were too curious in their esteem of the bible, and the traditores had too harsh measure. though all bibles were burnt, a quakers light could, verbatim, writ a new one, as jeremy gave baruch the same words a second time. the jews say, one prophet who hath the testimony of another prophet is true. i can discern no such attestation among them, as s. john gave to jesus; but they first make themselves prophets, and then give honour one to another. till they produce some undoubted evidence, i am guilty of no sin in denying: i must either see some miracles, or have an immediate revelation myself, to assure me that each of them hath such and such inspirations; and it being difficult to distinguish between the dictates of spirits, and the fancies and motions of a mans own upper and lower soul. quakers will need a second revelation to ascertain them of the first, and a third to ascertain them of a second, and so forward; which is like the dancing of fairies, a skipping and running round, but an advancing nothing: and they are got into such a circle, wherein they may run themselves blind. they believe the scriptures from their inspirations, and those again from the scriptures, making one to prove another. the spirit ascertains them it is god's word, and from thence t. e. attempts to prove they have the spirit. in that debate at jerusalem, acts 15. it was not the immediate inspiration which was the rule, which certainly would, if every one had been so fitted, but it was the epistle from the council that concluded all. set up this notion, and there would be none to be ruled, nor any such thing known as obedience either in church or state; for immediate instruction must not be controlled by any thing below itself, nor is it reasonable the divine voice should be prescribed to. so that this pretence hath an evil aspect upon kingdoms, which have been frequently disturbed thereby. admit t. e. to be heavens privado to receive immediate communications from thence, we have no security, but the same impetus may carry him on to imitate the prophet's words, [i have an errand unto thee, 2 king. 9.5. o captain,] and to interrupt the lineal succession; for george fox deserves as much to be king of new jerusalem, as john of leyden; and a shoemaker is as fit to wield a sceptre, as a tailor. religion also can never be fixed or known where enthusiasm is avowed; for this days persuasion may be out-dated by to morrows fresh suggestion: the quakers are much gone from themselves, and they give no warrant but they will change and super-reform, till this week's idol proves the next weeks abomination. they seem also too covetous in their claims, the light and inspiration are too much for one person; he that carries that vrim in his bosom, needs no other suggestions; and he who hath heaven open over him, darting in minutely rays, need not repair to his enshrined light, or call for help (bring hither the ephod) to resolve him; but between them both, their reason is extinguished. thus among pagans and others, when visions and revelations have run highest, reason hath suffered by them; but 'tis the more plausible way, to be intimate with god, looks better than to search and prove: to wait and tamely believe what starts up first, is more easy than to weigh, discourse, and judge aright; but when men grow credulous and slothful, departing from sober reason, and known rules, presently they strike in with motions and suggestions: and it is a most gustful idolatry to adore the creatures of their own fancy. but while they, with the egyptians, dare enshrine apes, and worship such counterfeit as satan or their souls afford, sober christians will adhere to a sound mind, and a discerning spirit, conducted by owned and certain revelations, dr. causabon enthus. 170. thinking that [rational, intellectual christian knowledge is above all prophecy.] what may not a quaker vent under pretence of revelations, if trusted without evidence? that which comes immediately is conferred instantly, and is at its full strength when first given, as tongues, miracles, etc. true judgement, in the title page. but quakers grow up into their knowledge. [to them who are growing up into discerning and judgement,] which he was moved to write for the simple ones sake, king and r. h. p. 6. p. 1. [we do grow daily into the knowledge of the truth, in our exercise and obedience to it;] [not being grown into a good understanding to judge of things,] canon 6. [there is childhood, youth, and old age in the anointing.] fox makes the soul to be [a part of god, and of gods being, new law, p. 19 without beginning, and infinite:] then certainly such an infinite eternal being is equally omniscient, and need not a perpetual flux of revelation to increase its knowledge: christopher taylor hath the strangest argument for revelation that can be produced; a true and faithful witness to the light, p. 5. [no man knows the particular thoughts and intents of another man's heart, but by the revelation of god's spirit; therefore it must needs be the revelation of god's spirit that makes manifest to a man his own inward thoughts:] the soul it seems is a sleepy thing, privy to none of its own transactions; a man's reason and conscience help him no more at home, than they do to discover the bosom designs of others; such dark souls as these need all the light they can set up for their direction: they call the apostles [true enthusiasts,] q. no popery, p. 20. q. is pagan. p. 93. im. rev. p. 293. [assert and contend for it in the best acceptation,] and withal acknowledge the great power of satan about enthusiasms, [who transforms himself not only into the likeness of an angel of light, but of god himself; and herein he works most mysteriously, takes upon him to open the scriptures, unfold the mysteries of the kingdom of god, reveal the hidden things of nature, teach things to come, and hath hereby deceived and ensnared many souls. this is the root of false enthusiasms, that they have their raptures and ecstasies, and strange workings, accompanied with a wonderful readiness of utterance, promptness of speech, and elocution, either in poetry or otherwise.] so that by this concession, enthusiasm hath enabled men to do more than the quakers spirit hath enabled them as yet; and therefore we want a rational satisfaction, why yours which is less should be divine, and the other which is greater should be diabolical, when as this hath better proofs, and both are equally invisible. ibidem. [the loving god above all] is no touchstone of immediate inspiration, the familists and others will snatch that from you; and till i can discern your love, i must not trust your inspirations. quakers then must either do some miracles, as seals that god speaks by them, or we must have undoubted revelations to assure us that they have true ones, else all their heats and sensations must be ranked among enthusiasms; or if scripture-promises be concluding, those must be such as none are concerned in but themselves by name, and which i can understand without a revelation, or am assured to be attended with an inspired exposition of, in the very reading, which by its strength and clearness shall force my understanding to a submission: till this appear, i am innocent in esteeming the quakers but equal at most, and in some things inferior to their many corrivals. to discover the weakness and danger of this pretence: 1. i shall instance in several competitors, who have made the same claim, and produce equal if not stronger motives of believing them. 2. examine the quakers carriages one to another in this matter, by which it will appear they cannot believe themselves, but make an art and interest of it; their contradictions and strange carriage about their inspirations are a convincing proof against them. chap. vi concerning their partners and competitors in revelation. 1. as for their competitors, they are both many and of different judgements; and if i believe one party witnessing they have it, i am equally obliged to believe another's witnessing also. as satan is god's ape in many things, so especially in revelation; he gulled the heathen world by oracles, enthusiastic prophets, and the like: mahomet pretended as high thereto as t. e. and was able to produce as good evidence. success is the quakers argument, [many there are among us, whitehead's q. plainness, p. 33. gathered out of other churches, who are living witnesses, both of the blessed operation and effects of the power and ministry of christ jesus among us— and we have a record in many consciences;] in the cambridge dispute, p. 34. which very argument he had elsewhere urged, and mahomet may urge it to infinite more advantage. but from them let us look into the christian world, where we shall find satan turned his maker's rival, countermining god with revelations, gulling all ages of the church with enthusiasts, and imitating miracles with his lying wonders; for enthusiasm is satan's engine, renewed often by him, called in to untie a knot, to make good an otherwise indefensible pass, and to supply the want of better arguments, revelations being as common with them as reasons are with other men. the pretenders to inspiration are many, i shall single out some in these several periods. in the primitive church, in the romish church, at the time of the reformation, and in the late unhappy times in this kingdom; and each of these doth produce as good evidence as t. ellwood can. 1. in the primitive church, which was not little pestered by the varions forms which counterfeit inspiration then assumed. it appeared in the apostles days, satan set up his trade so early. what warnings are there concerning false christ's, false prophets, false apostles? how were the apostles galled with them up and down in their several plantations? 2 cor. 11.13, 14, 15. [false apostles transforming themselves into the apostles of christ.— satan himself is transformed into an angel of light— his ministers transformed as the ministers of righteousness.] thou hast tried them which say, rev. 2.2. they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars.] v. 20. thus [jozebel called herself a prophetess.] likely these may be the depths of satan, v. 24. for there is a mystery of iniquity as well as of godliness, the mystery of the woman, as well as the mystery of god. and the ability of knowing who were divinely inspired is reckoned up among the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or extraordinary gifts, 1 cor. 12.10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, not barely the seeing into men's hearts, as peter did to simon, paul to elymas; grot. in loc: but it was [dijudicatio qui prophetae veri essent qui falsi,] an heavenly discerning who were true, who false prophets; and he lays down one rule used in trial, if they withdrew men from christ, that is, slighted his coming in the flesh, which is done by them, who make christ in the outward no essential of their religion. theophy. in loc. ite oecumenius. discerning of spirits was [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] to know who was a true prophet, or who was a deceiver; [nam & divinatores per illud temporis erant, qui hominibus imponebant,] for then false prophets were risen, who imposed upon, and deluded men, as oecumenius addeth. and this immediate revelation and power of discerning continued till an intelligible rule was settled, known and owned in the church, wherein are sufficient means for detection of impostors; and to this irenaeus resorts in all his debates with those heretics. 2. either those false teachers mentioned in those texts, or their offspring were the gnostics and disciples of simon magus, these, among other heights, now challenged by t. ellwood's friends, as (to be free from sin, perfect, spiritual, to know all things) pretended to revelations, orig. con. cells. lib. 5. [arroganti gnosticorum nomine polliceantur novam quandam scientiam,] they promised some high, new knowledge, epiphan. in haeref. gnostic. and [they were not ashamed to say, that our lord jesus christ, [hanc turpem operationem ipsis revelasse, had revealed those filthy opinions and practices unto them.] and the disciples of simon, carpocrates, menander, etc. had affinity much one with another, as the libertines, swenckfeldians, familists, and others of late, have with the quakers. 3. cerinthus challenged revelations, [as written by a great apostle, and feigned or related prodigious narrations, euseb. hist. eccles. lib. 3. cap. 25. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] as showed unto him by angels, and then brings in christ's temporal reign, and his dream of sensual pleasures. and aretas understands cerinthus in that, in apocalyp. euseb. lib. 4. cap. 7. rev. 2.2. [novorum dogmatum annunciator.] basilides also, another of the like stamp, assumed the names of several strange prophets to him, epipha. haer. 24. as barcab, barcoph, etc. who also suggested to his disciples, [vos omnia cognoscitis, nemo autem vos cognoscat,] ye know all things: george fox was much like them, perfect pharisee, p. 49. who saw into the heart of mr. nicols in carlisle, declaring him to be an hypocrite, but could not tell his name, when asked: and keith delivers it as inspired doctrine, imm. rev. p. 186, 189. [the children of god have been in all ages unknown unto the world, but they have an infallible knowledge one of another by the free gift of god, and when he pleaseth he may conceal some persons, that they may not be known for a time, so paul was unknown to the brethren.] 4. elxai appeared another false prophet in the times of the emperor trajan; he wrote a book [by prophecy, epipha. haer. 19 or according to a divinely inspired wisdom,] and he endeavoured to introduce [imaginaria quaedam velut ex revelatione, certain imaginary fantastical things as by revelation. augustin. haer. 32. ] his followers [the helcesaits,] were a most impious and abominable people, rejecting some part of the scriptures, and choosing in the rest what would best suit to their conceit, and those opinions which they had imbibed. origen upon the eighty second psalms, relates, apud euseb. h. eccles. l. 6. c. 37. that they carried [a certain book about with them, which they affirmed did immediately drop down from heaven, and that whosoever heard and believed it, should receive forgiveness of his sins, though that was different from the pardon which christ conferred.] eusebius indeed saith, that [this sect was extinguished soon after its appearance,] and 'tis happy when the church is so soon rid of such pests: but epiphanius affirms its continuance to the times [of constantius, when marthus a woman, ità epiphan. and even in his own days, et august. marthana her sister were adored as deities, because they were of the offspring of elxai; and the heretics took their very spittle, & reliquas corporis fords, and other excrements, which they made use of towards the curing of diseases.] what notion of remission of sins some quakers have entertained, fox juniors works, 163. is too public, as also how their works are said to be [written, as moved and given by that eternal power,] which is like the helcesaits book, [they come down from heaven;] and what honour is done to some of their grandees, was evident in the instance of naylor, and is sadly lamented by the dissenting party in those differences given to that [worthy man, winding-sheet, p. 3. p. 7. g. f.] as mr. pen calls him, [many in the ministry being wont to pull off his shoes.] 5. marcus, irenae. ad. haer. l. 1. c. 8. an arch-heretick, perverted many to him, [velut ad scientissimum & perfectissimum,] as to a most knowing, and most perfect man. by the assistance of a daemon he also did seem to prophecy [& quotquot dignas putat fieri participes gratiae suae, idem, l. 1. c. 9 prophetare facit,] and he made such women prophecy as he thought fit to be partakers of his grace. he wrought most upon women, especially the honourable and rich, [aperi os tuum & propheta,] he bade, open thy mouth, ità epiphan. haeres. 34. and thou shalt prophecy. the same father relateth the manner how he effected it, that raising their thoughts, their hearts being heated and panting, they grew bold, and spoke strange doting things; and thereupon they fancied themselves to prophecy. he corrupted also many women, and the very words which marcus gave unto himself, are somewhat like those blasphemous ones given to fox by josiah coale: augustin. in haeres. 14. his women also administered a wild kind of eucharist, and quakers have their she-teachers. he also denied the resurrection of the flesh, which is quakers doctrine; and said, that christ did not suffer truly: he perverted by charms and strange arts, women to follow him; and 'tis reported, how many have been subverted by the quakers by a steadfast look, or a wring by the hand, etc. without rational means of persuasion; the sugared language he gave his proselytes, [blandiens eyes,] is imitated by ours also, the spirit of the hat. p. 43. who give their females these appellations, [innocent lasses, and daughters of zion.] 6. the valentinians made use of the same plea, tertul. in valentin. lib. 4. [quidni? quum spirituale illud semen suum in unoquoque sic recenseant, si aliquid novi, adstruxerint, revelationem statim appellant praesumptionem, & charisma ingenium,] they do account the spiritual seed to be in every one; if they do light or hit upon any thing that is new, they presently call that presumption or conceit a revelation, and their own wit they do style an immediate or extraordinary gift. and the same father elsewhere relates, [omnes tument, de prescript. adver. haeret. omnes scientiam pollicentur, etc. they are all puffed up, promise much knowledge, their novices are perfect before they be instructed, their saucy women dare teach, heal, it may be, baptise; their ordinations were confused, a presbyter to day, a layman to morrow; laics do priestly offices, etc.] 7. montanus and his party claimed inspirations as much as any, and his sect continued some centuries, and their carriage was strangely ecstatical, which shown they were not moved from the lord. we have the judgements of some ancients in eusebius concerning them, hist. eccles. lib. 5. cap. 14, 15, 16, 17. [that montanus being alienated and ecstatical in spirit, was distracted; and under the pretence of prophecy or revelation, he spoke unwonted things against the faith and doctrine of the church:] they boasted of their martyrs and sufferings; miltiades wrote against them, so did others; the whole church or fraternity throughout the world disowned this prophecy as accursed: he taught to dissolve marriage, had his exactors or collectors, who gathered many gifts and oblations: his prophetesses had run away from their husbands, his party grew strong; they called pepuza & tymium, two little cities of phrygia, new jerusalem: (so munster and strasburg were called) and the quakers once traveled towards new malton, in search of the new jerusalem comed down from heaven, till the mire and rain wearied out their zeal) the pepuzianis a branch of them [had women bishops and women presbyters] upon the same account that our quakers plead for their prophetesses, epiphan. haeres. 49. ibidem. augustin. heres. 27. [because in christ jesus there is neither male nor female:] and christ is said to appear either to quintilla or priscilla, or both, when sleeping, and being clothed in a white garment, to inspire wisdom, and to reveal that to be an holy place, even the heavenly jerusalem. in prologis ad naum & abacuc. and st. hierom is sometimes confuting them [that a prophet understands what he seethe, nec ut amens loquitur, nor speaketh as distracted, as montanus and his prophetesses doted] but quaking which was thought the sign of their conversing with god is now looked on otherwise, [that the voice of the lord was not distinctly discerned there— in stillness the mind is brought into a capacity to discern the voice of the lord living stone in 3d q. quib. p. 4. ] 8. the messalians, psalliani or euchites laid claim to revelations as much as any other sect [they were so assiduous in prayer, that it may seem incredible to most that hear it, augus. her. 57 ] by a misapplication of those words, pray always, and pray without ceasing: some of them would have named themselves to be whatsoever persons you would have them [art thou a prophet? he would reply i am a prophet, epiphan. her. 80. theodoret. hist. eccl. l. 4. c. 11. art thou christ? he would reply, i am christ.] but besides this they were strangely eathusiastical [pretending they had the presence of the spirit, and calling their own dreams and fancies prophecies,] their opinions infected many monasteries and several countries; they looked upon the lord's supper to do neither good nor hurt. adelphius an old professor among them, gave this account of their faith. [that holy baptism profitted nothing, but only that perpetual prayer cast out that inward devil, which every one received from their first parents, that then the holy ghost came upon them with his sensible and invisible presence, whereby they were freed from sin, ibidem and needed neither fasting nor instruction; but that then they were able to foresee future things, and to behold the holy trinity with their eyes.] these are to the purpose t. e. predecessors, several bishops opposed themselves to their pernicious doctrines; and indeed we cannot do more acceptable service to the spirit of truth, than by detecting the spirit of error, though it appear in the guise of an angel of light, or have got a piece of scripture in its mouth; nay, though it pretend antiquity: and get itself wrapped in old samuel's mantle, or come demurely in sheep's clothing. 9 aetius, an arian heretic (though one that did separate from his communion) was at the like pass with the former, [temerariâ audaciâ elatus, binius, tom. 1. p. 486. dixit, being puffed up by a rash boldness, he said, deum sibi revelasse ea, quae usque ab apostolorum temporibus hactenus occultaverat, that god had revealed those things to him, which till then he had concealed from the times of the apostles] say the fathers of the council of constantinople, theodor. hist. eccl. l. 2. c. 28. histor. triparet. l. 5. c. 22. apud binium, and the like words of his are elsewhere recorded. serras, though a favourer of him, accused him [by astrange height of pride or madness, to have presumed and spoke higher things; that those things were now revealed to him, which god had concealed hitherto from the apostles, & universis, from all men.] and that is pretty consonant to the quakers doctrine: [have not we had the gospel all this time till now? answer, we say no] the gospel dispensation was lost, saith smith. [butler blessed be the lord for his renewing the spiritual ministry in our days.] and ann wright's letter is full about the same. [since the lord first called his servants to publish his everlasting gospel] the gospel was hid from the apostles days until it was revived in them. 9 donatus to maintain his schism became enthusiastical, august. epist. 165. talking of inspiration, or communications of gods will to him by angels. [ille eum ordinem christianitatis civitatis vestrae ut insinuaret, jussisse sibi angelum scribit, etc. that he might blast or condemn the order or profession of christianity used by your city, he writes that an angel commanded him; whereas thou dost not profess the christianity of thine own city but that of the whole world, wherefore if that angel had stood besides thee, whom he by a crafty novelty as we think doth feign to have stood by him, for thy sake, and if the angel had spoke those words to thee, which he saith, he doth at the command of him, insinuate or convey to thee, thou oughtest to have been mindful of that apostolical sentence, though an angel from heaven, gal. 1.8. etc.] it was their usual saying. oravit donatus & ei respondit deus è caelo. god from heaven, gave an answer to the prayers of donatus: his intimacy therewith made him to be the oracle of those times; and the circumcellions, a branch of them were mad with a sanatick zeal. these instances are sufficient for the first period, whereby we may discern, that bad designs sheltered themselves under this cover; and t. ellwood is either not learned, or not faithful in affirming [that in all ages the saints have had revelations in some degree or other] for true christians disowned them, pag. 237. and only heretics or schismatics had recourse to them [but whilst new heresies were superinduced over the former, euseb. hist. eccl. l. 4. c. 7. which got the custom, but were still subdivided into new branches and several kinds; the true church increased in unity and glory] and if i be obliged to believe t. is. inspiration, because he witnesseth he hath it; i am equally concerned to credit the proposals of a donatist, or a messalian, etc. 2. the church of rome hath ploughed much with this heifer, several religious orders, and doctrinal points have been hereby entertained. dr. stillingfleet's collections concerning this are copious; but i shall observe some few received by such as belonged to our country. thomas becket [divinâ revelatione confortatus est, etc. in the breviary of sarum upon his day. was comforted or strengthened by a divine revelation, a sign from heaven being showed unto him that he should return unto his church with glory, and then by the crown of martyrdom go unto the lord] [two catholic maids were cast into ecstatical raptures, jo. gee foot out of the snare. p. 59; and possessed with the virgin; mary, michael, the archangel, john the baptist, etc. and those glorious guests did enter into them, and inhabit them] this is somewhat like the light within; idem. p. 60.61 61. but the next speaks home [edward hanz said he was corporally possessed with the blessed trinity, he received oblations, suffered others to kneel before him and said; i god the father— i god the son— do give you my blessing, and do command you to adore me— he relateth that he was in a trance, and his soul did see very supernatural and admirable joys. unless god almighty do take the creature, and speak in him,— and then it is gods own word, and not the word of the party,] here was revelation, light, and the worship of it, like the hosanna to james naylor. p. 63.64. [the virgin mary appeared to thomas newton about the oath of allegiance, he was a very holy man, and had other visions besides that] and [mary wiltshire saw a strange vision] many of their revelations are put together; p. 109. called [admirable and notable prophecies, uttered by 24 roman catholics, printed 1615.] and mr. burton, in his book of melancholy, gives the reason whence they are so subject to such conceits. besides these, we may take a trial of some few others, st. hildegard is [learned, whatever she wrote, ex revelatione divinâ, she did not speak or write aught that should be called into question, trithemius she spoke latin by the spirit.] her writings were publicly read and approved by eugenius the third in the council of tryers (which eugenius seems also to be chosen pope by revelation. the cardinals being [divino nutu perciti] made choice of the most holy eugenius: platina in ejus vita. ) to take a taste of her revelations, in her letter to eugenius [o mitis pater, etc. o mild father, i, a pitiful poor form, have written these things to thee in a true vision, in or by a mystical breathing, as god would teach me: o bright father, in the bibliotheca patrum tom. 15. in thy name thou camest into our land, as god predestinated, and thou sawest of the writings of true visions, as the living light taught me; and thou heardest that light with the embraces of thy heart, now is part of this writing finished, but still the same light hath not left me, but burns in my soul, as i have had it from mine infancy, etc.] good quaker like language. this inspirado lady in an epistle to pope alexander, determines for the pope's supremacy [tibi specialiter idem verbum, claves regni coelestis concessit] and to a certain priest she determines for transubstantiation [in vera visione vigilantibus oculis de sacramento dominici corporis, haec verba audivi & vidi, etc.] another holy maid called sister katherine of jesus [had many revelations and strong exstacies, dr. causabons' enthusiasm. p. 162. 163. which held her 3 or 4 hours; she thought herself sometimes to be in heaven, and often saw, and sometimes suffered through fright the pains of hell; she saw the soul of christ in its purity, which drew her into an operation of the holy trinity; she said, god doth put his power in me, god doth put his wisdom in me, and his knowledge.] john waldesso in his divine considerations, rutherford's survey of the spiritual antichrist. p. 191. saith [a christian having served himself with holy scriptures, as with an alphabet, he afterwards leaves them to serve for the same effect to beginners, he attending to the inward inspirations; having for his proper master the spirit of god; and serving himself with holy scriptures, as with an holy conversation, and which causeth refreshment to him, altogether putting from himself all these writings which are written with an humane spirit.] the alumbradoes before named [held vocal prayer and all other (outward) duties of religion superstitious or unprofitable, dr. causabons enthus. p. 174. they thought those quakings which they did find in themselves, were a sufficient token of grace, (and ours have called it [that holy duty of quaking and trembling] and that they needed nothing else, fisher in 3d. quib. p. 3. that had attained unto them; they pretended that they might see god visibly in their exstacyes, etc. that all things ought to be done by immediate motions and inspirations, etc.] the church of rome proves herself the temple of the living god from these revelations, borius de signis eccles. l. 6. c. 2. in dr. spencer's prophecies. p. 15. keiths' im. rev. p. 99 or [the voice of his oracles heard therein, she hath (she tells us) the spirit of prophecy (called the testimony of jesus) to bear witness to her doctrine, worship and discipline; and to this purpose gives in a list of her prophets, and of their wonderful predictions.] and this very argument is used by the quakers [j●sus christ revealed in man (or immediate revelation) is the foundation of the true church: and of every member thereof in particular; and therefore if the true church remain, this must remain also.] and the council of laterane having prescribed rules for the preachers, session the 11. under leo the 10. addeth an exception [caeterum si quibusdam, etc. but if to some the lord shall reveal by inspiration certain future things in his church, as he hath promised by amos the prophet, and paul saith despise not prophesying; we will not have such to be numbered amongst fabulous or lying people, or otherways to be disturbed.] here is a council defending immediate revelation, and if i credit a quakers pretensions that way, i am in point of justice equally bound to believe the romish, and the doctrines thereby confirmed, nay i am more bound, in that the romish church hath used this claim much longer, and pretends to more caution in examining the things thereby brought. 3. at the reformation this pretence was industriously set up and carried on by satan, to weaken or defeat the endeavours of those worthy heroes. calvin in the preface saith [that for twenty years, satan endeavoured to extinguish, adver. libertin. stifle, or defame that evangelicall doctrine which he saw appearing.] they called them literal reformers, who had but faint and small discoveries of the spirit, etc. muncer said [the first reformers were not sent of god, bullinger adver: anabap. l. 1. c. 1. nor preached the true word of god, etc. of these conceited devoto's there were several sorts; which did split and subdivide more and more afterwards. 1. the anabaptists flew high with this claim, and it was the stolen to carry on each design. their founder nicholas stork, john davyes apocalypse. had his visions; and god communicated himself to thomas muncer: john matthiz the baker had secrets revealed to him, which god had not revealed to others: he being enoch the second, highpriest of god. herman the cobbler professed himself a true prophet and the true messiah, etc. their stories are so known that it is superfluous to relate them. john buckhold had revelations as plentiful as mahomet. this king of justice minted his money with this impression: verbum caro factum quod habitat in nobis; that is, the word was made flesh which dwelleth in us; which is the doctrine of winstaenley, and of his disciples, that god is manifested in the flesh of [sons and daughters, new law of right. p. 33. or in many bodies, as christ, or the anointing was poured on that humane body— jesus the son of man, and dwelled bodily there for a time.] so that quakers are christ's now, as much as jesus was on earth, only he was one single christ, but this spreading power of righteousness makes them many christ's in many bodies. but if there was perpetual inspiration, reason would adjudge the anabaptists and the others, being contemporary with the reformation, more likely to have a share thereof, than others at a great distance from it. and so little did the first reformers favour them, that luther writ to the senate of mulhusium, to beware of such wolves: and melancton expressly declares against them, de numero sacramentorum. [anabaptistae fingunt expectandas esse novas revelationes, etc. the anabaptists feign that there are new revelations and illuminations to be expected from god, and that these are to be obtained with great bodily severities, as the monks and enthusiasts of old feigned; these fanatical dotages are accursed; we contrarily do think, that god out of his infinite goodness having revealed his will to us in the gospel, other revelations or illuminations are not to be expected.] 2. the libertines took themselves to be inspired, calvin advers. libertinos. c. ●. and galled the church much, [totus corum sermo de spiritu est, calvin advers. libertinos. c. 2. etc. all their discourse was of the spirit, sometimes they used strange words, to bring their hearers into admiration, and cast a mist about them, at other times they used common words, sed significationem corum deformant, c. 7. altering their signification; when any place of scripture was urged, c. 9 their answer was, nos literae minimè obnoxios esse, that they were not concerned in the letter thereof; but were bound to follow the spirit that quickeneth. it was their principle, that the scripture in its natural sense was a dead letter, and therefore was not to be regarded; but to observe the quickening spirit: saying, sublimiùs speculemur, let us look for higher things than what the letter affords; and let us seek new revelations. they scarce spoke two clauses but the word spirit was in their mouths; c. 10. and made no account of the name christian, in compare to the name spiritual; persuading their hearers that they were spiritual, purely divine. et jam cum angelis semiraptos esse.] antonius pocquius, a great man among them, said [aspicite, adest tempus, etc. behold, now the time is at hand, wherein the disciple of elijah begged the double portion of the spirit, and that was the time which christ meant; when he said, i have many things to say unto you, etc. qualis ego sum; such a teacher did pocquius boast himself to be, but he would not speak out, donec tempus advenerit.] 3. casper swenckfield for thirty years together troubled the church with his dreams; rutherford, p. 15. ex schlus. selburgio. he [called for spiritualness, and the spirit, and the internal word, that we must not depend on the external word; he took several things from papists, anabaptists, and calvin, making a mixture of opinions; he accused the reformed pastors, that no man was better for their preaching: extolling the spirit as doing all.] the reformed divines admonished and refuted him; his monstrous opinions were condemned by a synod at norinburg, and by the divines of mansfield; and he still persisted in them. he made the [gospel to be the essence of god] which is the doctrine of winstanley [the lord himself, truth lifting up its head. p. 30. who is the everlasting gospel.] he made [faith and conversion to be wrought immediately] taught [that we must try the word by the spirit, and not the spirit by the word; that no doctrine, sacraments, or any things written in scriptures do conduce to salvation, but god is to be sought in his naked majesty, in dreams, inspirations and revelations of the spirit. 4. henry nicholas, in the answer to the family's supplication. the first illuminated elder of the family of love, put in as high for visions and revelations as any of the rest, [the power of the highest came upon his godded man, h n. and did instruct and speak such and such things to him] as his words are at large set down: [h. n. by the grace and mercy of god, through the holy spirit of the love of jesus christ, raised up by the highest god from the death anointed with the holy ghost— elected to be a minister of the gracious word, in the evangel regm. c. 1. which is now in the last times raised up by god according to his promises, in the most holy scrvice of god under the obedience of his love:] and in a manuscript epistle, written in an apish imitation of clemens, ignatius, or those times, he declares his divine commission [h. n. jesus christi minister, à dco ad veritatem è gratiae solio, epistola. h. n. ex charitare jesu christi in angl. missa, etc. majestatis dei testificandam, electus, & ad bonum nuntium de regno dei, & ura charitate retectae faciei jesu christi super terram annunciandum, ac salutem in eadem manifest andam missus, quemadmodum de adventu ejusdem charitatis, per prophetas dei, & apostolos jesus christi prius significatum, & evangelizatum fuit—. nos dei misericordiam, & sacerdotale munus nostrae administrationis sub obedientia charitatis jesu christi accepimus, etc. and he goeth on, relating the great things that god was about to do, the danger in not accepting his ministry, that god was about restoring all things, the earth to be full of his glory; applying twice that in abac. 1. and act. 13. behold ye despisers, etc.] and the late new-england families were high in the same pretence; that the quakers have much affinity with the familists, might easily be showed, and they seem to have the most kindness for them, george whitehead [makes the familists to have better discoveries than other men:] in cambridg debate. p. 63. and keith determines that we must [examine revelations, inspirations, visions and openings by this of divine love.] im. rev. p. 241. q●. love to mankind, p. 3 a brief rehearsal of the belief of the good willing in england, which are named the family of love, print. 1575. if it be alleged, that quakers of late, do not so allegorise jesus christ as formerly: i can produce the like outward ownings of christ by the familists [the apostles creed at length owned by them: jesus acknowledged to be the son of god, etc. in words much like the nicene creed; born of a virgin, out of the seed of david, in whose name only and no other they obtain salvation and remission of their sins.] 5. some time after the reformation, jacob behmen, appeared, who received (if we will believe him) his mystical dark terms from the father of lights [there is but a glimpse of the mystery, signatura rerum. p. 209 in these writings, for a man cannot write them, if any man shall be accounted worthy of god to have the light enkindled in his own soul; he shall see— unspeakable things— there is the theosophick school of pentecost, wherein the soul is taught of god. joh. 6.45. joel. 2.28.— he that can read his own book aright, needs no other, for therein lieth the unction from the holy one, in the preface. which teacheth him aright of all things] [none can understand these obscurely clear writings, but they that have tasted of the feast of pentecost] saith ellistone the translator, and the author himself saith [i have set before the readers eyes, p. 201. what the lord of all being's hath given me;] and in the preface to his 177 questions [without divine light, p. 223. none can be able to expound them, it is only the spirit of christ that gives their understanding,] and he wrote from his own experimental science. his notion of the [signature opened by the spirit, p. 1. & 2. imprinting his similitude in my similitude, entering into another man's form, and awakening in the other, such a form in the signature. so that both forms do mutually assimilate together in one form, and then there is one comprehension;] is much like the quakers seed or birth which is the susceptive principle, conveying inspiration from god into the soul; there being a revelation required as well in the hearer as in the speaker, im. rev. p. 209. [theophilus had the spirit witnessing to the truth of the things, which gave the certainty or assurance] [what the apostles declared in words, from the life of jesus christ revealed in them, the same spirit answered and testified to the truth of those things in their hearers.] it seems it was not the apostles certain knowledge of christ, idem. p. 58. and the miracles they wrought, which inclined men to believe their doctrine; but it was a light in them, which met with a signature or seed, or a congenial principle in others, that persuaded them to become, i dare not say christians, but illuminadoes. having tasted of jacob behmens style, and the subject being unpleasant, a cage of unclean birds, or an herd of lying prophets; of which, but one sect, (be it which it will) can but possibly be true. before we descend to view the last scene of our own country's abominations; it may be a diversion to present foam of geo. fox's divinity and oratory, which if you have the patience to read, you shall not be obliged to the pains of studying or understanding. [the worlds original, some princi bless of the elect people of god, called quakers, p. 51. is the many languages, (whose original is babel) which make divines (as they call them) sit a top of christ. and the whore sits upon the waters (as it is spoken in the revelation;) and john saith, the waters are nations, multitudes, people, and tongues, which tongues they call their original. to which waters the gospel must be preached, before they can be established. and ye are to be redeemed from tongues, and tongues shall cease (saith the apostle) and so from this world's original, the beginning of which is babel, and which keeps in babylon, the saints are redeemed; and this hath been set up as an original among them who are alieniated from the spirit of god in babel, where the original of tongues was in the days of nimrod that heretic, who began to build babel.] the same curious writer hath a rare gift in proposing queries. ibidem. p. 70. [12. q. whether ever any man came to see so far as balaam's ass, who saw the angel of the lord? 13. q. what are the graves and the tombs, and the sepulchers, and the fowls of the air, and the nests they sit in, which christ spoke of? answer in writing the thing queried, g. f.] they are the properest for his spirit to undertake. clem. recognit. p. 5. the trifling question put to barnabas was more witty. [why a gnat, being so small a creature, hath six feet and wings besides; whereas an elephant, so bulky an animal, hath only four feet?] 4. in the late unhappy times, when hell was broke lose, our own country affords instances too many, being as anciently credulous in believing pretended inspirations, so also then, in their production too fertile, and the quaker is junior to the most of them, and they are all able to produce as good evidences and deeds; so that it seems strange, the quaker should engross both the birthright and the blessing too from all the rest. 1. the seekers, or religious sceptics laid claim to inspirations; i call them so, because those various differing sectaries may be best comprised under such a general name; edward gangre, second part, p. 2. [they affirm and hold, they have not only had revelations, but they have seen visions also. the means of gods revealing himself, and his mind and will to his servants, in reference to their salvation, is immediately by himself, without scripture, without ordinances, without ministers, or any other means,] but especially many in the army about 1645. took themselves to be intimate with god; idem. p. 5. [some officers and soldiers affirmed, that they had had revelations, and seen visions, and took upon them to prophesy.] [a lieutenant, a great devoto, denied the trinity of persons, affirming them to be three offices, he denied that christ's presence in heaven could be proved by scripture, p. 7. and made a great question whether there was a resurrection or no.] mrs. attaway the woman-preacher, then begun to exercise— [boggis wished he had not known so much of the bible, which he said, p. 163. was but only paper.] and clarkson the seeker [vilifies the scripture, ordinances, p. 165. etc. would not have people to live upon black and white, and said, that they of themselves were not able to reveal god.] t. e. is the successor of such blades as these. 2. the antinomians maintained their undutiful notions by recourse to this armour, and the quakers have borrowed much from them, as (perfection, discerning who were elected, the notions about christ's person, and christ within, humane learning, and the like;) but i shall only consider their inspirations, a large account of which we find in one who diligently traversed their writings. rutherford's survey of spiritual antichrist, p. 173, 174, 175. [the witness of the spirit is merely immediate, without respect to sanctification, or acts thereof; all doctrines, revelations, and spirits must be tried by christ rather than by the word. a christian is not to pray, nor to do any spiritual acts, but when the spirit moveth him thereunto. that all other askings or seekings of god, which are not thus in spirit, are but the askings of creatures as creatures. p. 222. the scriptures are not to be understood according to grammatical construction, p. 229. but as the spirit of god reveals them. the mere commandments of scripture are not a law to christians, p. 305. but the law written in our hearts. the holy-ghost comes in place of the natural faculties of the soul, and acteth us immediately to all internal and external acts, part 2d. p. 195. etc.] and that amcrican jezebel, mrs. hutchinson said, [that her particular revelations about events to fall out, p. 211. are as infallible as any parts of scripture, and that she is bound as much to believe them as the scripture, for the same holy ghost is the author of both.] 3. the levellers do make out their freeborn community with arrows fetched from this quiver. winstanley, the great master of the craft, is exact herein. new law of right. p. 46. [this phrase, mine and thine, shall be swallowed up— there shall be no need of lawyers, prisons, or engines of punishment, no beggar nor cause of complaining— there shall be no buying nor selling, no fairs nor markets, but the whole earth shall be a common treasury for every man— the poor upon their commons, p. 47. saying, this is ours, the earth and fruits are common.] now, this platonic fanciful model he raiseth upon revelation. [as i was in a trance, divers matters were presented to my sight, p. 57 which here must not be related; likewise i heard these words, work together, eat bread together, declare it all abroad: likewise i heard these words, whosoever it is that labours in the earth for any person or persons, that lift up themselves as lords or rulers over others, and that do not look upon themselves equal to others in the creation. the hand of the lord shall be upon that labourer, i the lord have spoken it, and i will do it. declare this all abroad.] and this very trumpet, he saith, is [still sounding in his ears, p. 67. work together, etc. surely the lord hath not revealed this in vain.] this heavenly voice was so delightful, p. 58. that he was [filled with abundance of quiet peace and secret joy;] and he obeyed the command of the spirit, which bid him declare it all abroad by word of mouth and pen; and he waited till [god showed him the place and manner how to work upon the common lands. p. 64. i will then go forth and declare it in my action, to eat my bread with the sweat of my brows— looking upon the land as freely mine as another's; i have now peace in my spirit, etc.] fire in the bush, the preface. and elsewhere up-the same subject, he opens freely, [this declaration of the word of life was a free gift to me from the father himself— when i had writ it, i delayed the sending it almost a fortnight— then the voice was ready— go send it to the churches,] which he did; [well, i have obeyed the voice, and have sent this to you;] but what was the substance of the voice? that he relates, [the voice is gone out, freedom, freedom, freedom; he that hath ears to hear let him hear:] and what was this freedom? even a setting the earth free, a breaking down all pinfolds, and laying all open to the common. now, have not i an equal, if not greater reason to believe, his so particular and exact revelations concerning equality, rather than your general, and withal mixed one's concerning other matters? nay, have not you as much ground to believe his pretence in this, as to take the very lineaments of your profession from him, and yet herein desert him, when as he challengeth inspiration for this, as fully as for any other doctrine? but that you dare pick and choose, mangle and alter your own revelations as well as his, may in its due place appear. 4. a sober answer, p. 56. the ranters deluded themselves and others with this blind, and fox acknowledged the affinity of his and their principles, that black divinity challenged immediate communications as fully as t. e. some sweet sips of spiritual wine sweetly and freely dropping, etc. [a prophecy, a vision, a revelation, and the interpretation thereof,] in the title page; and as many pages as there are, we have almost as much talk of the spirit, [that tract is like the other scriptures, p. 1. the father secretly whispering, would not have him set down book, chapter, or verse, though he used scripture language, p. 2. arise out of flesh into spirit, out of form, type, and so into power, truth, etc. p. 4.48. & passim; hear what the spirit saith, p. 10.] the doctrine turned into a prayer is a brisk one, [fall upon them while they are eating and drinking without; p. 13. let them eat and drink within— bread in the kingdom and drink wine, new, in the kingdom, even new in the kingdom, new in the kingdom; not in the oldness of the letter, but in the newness of the spirit.] the elements, p. 6. formal prayer, baptism, supper, etc. shall melt away into god: and at this rate he proceeds, he loved also a woman prophetess, even [his dear friend, p. 46. mrs. t. p. i had as live hear a daughter as a son prophecy, and i know that women that stay at home divide the spoil, male and female are all one in christ.] 5. the fifth monarchy men were not only citizens of the new jerusalem, but candidates of heaven, receiving much intelligence from thence. their prophet (for i know not what sect else he should belong to) had several visions of what the all of all things was bringing to pass. the pouring forth of the seventh vial upon all flesh. [the father spoke to him as he lay in a trance almost dead for 22 hours,] in the preface. [being chosen to declare those things, and publish them, as being what the prophets pointed at, his name was changed from george, in a vision, to jacob israel foster: and so, saith he, i subscribe, or george— foster. or jacob israel foster. his visions are too many to be set down, as if he strove both to imitate and outdo st. john, some few we shall take a taste of for their curiosity. [he had a vision of the calling of the jews, p. 19 under the emblem of a man that went up and down gathering men together: so that the jews now dispersed among the gentiles were to return to their own city, p. 33. p. 41. p. 55. and there the lord would reign among his saints in mount zion; for judea was the place where both god and his spouse were to rest. heaven, or the third and highest dispensation, must be about jerusalem: for the credit of our nation, the chief or principal leader of this expedition into the holy land, p. 39 must be an english man whom god hath chosen for that work. when they came to jerusalem they were to die, and presently to rise up again, and never to die more, and the time of restitution is to be in the year 7000. p. 40. after which there is neither hell nor devils left:] with very many visions of the like nature, delivered in such exact circumstances, with so set and composed a countenance, and under such variety of emblems and figures, that he deserves as much regard, as any other in the whole herd of enthusiasts. 6. william franklin, mary gadbury, and their proselytes put in as strongly, and produce as good proofs for inspiration as t. e. can do; some take them for quakers, but the name was not then known, nor do i think they will own them: but be their sect without name, or what else, i am not concerned; it is only their revelations i must consider, for they had drunk their share of the spirit of delusion then poured forth. franklin affirmed, humphrey ellis his pseudo christus, p. 7. [his receipt of revelations and visions, which he endeavoured to countenance with fair and seeming gospel expressions; he pretended to prophesy, to foretell things to come, to speak with new tongues, p. 36. and babbled out uncouth words. he also forgave sins, and his proselytes, as spradbury and the rest, were drawn unto him by sights and voices, with several strange relations.] his whore, mary gadbury, called him [the son of god, p. 31. the christ, the lamb slain, etc. she pretended to visions, voices, and revelations, was full of comfort, p. 8. joy, and singing; had strange trembling fits: she saw a light as big as the moon, and many stars; p. 10. p. 18. she had a voice sometimes to seal up the vision, and then would not speak; she slighted sacred scripture, and yet delivered her revelations in its language. p. 15. they were commanded in a vision to go into the land of ham, which, by a suitable exposition they interpreted hampshire. their proselytes, like the disciples of marcus, had voices, p. 22, & 28. visions, and glories, insomuch that both a minister, mr. woodward and his wife were deluded by them, he hearing voices, and seeing glories, and she seeing visions.] to this height they had quickly arrived, till the vigilance of the magistrates suppressed them. that whore, with whom franklin lay as a fellow-feeler of her misery, called herself [the spouse of christ, p. 50. the lady mary, the queen, the bride, and the lamb's wife:] had she not been ten years too forward, she would have been a fit match for apretty pragmatical thing of g. f. which begun to bleat in 1659. called the lamb's officer, gone out with the lamb's message. 7. lodowick muggleton and john reeve (giving out themselves as the two last witnesses, rev. 11.3. as the prophets of christ, and the sealer's of the foreheads of the elect and the reprobate) appeared much contemporary with the quakers, being equal to them both in their claims and proofs of inspiration. but the devil's malice herein outrun his wit, for setting up so many contradictory competitors in revelation about the same time, one of them is a sufficient confutation of another; whereas had but one single sect put in and engrossed the favour of that immediate heavenly converse, weak and simple souls might thereby have been sooner deluded; but to considering minds their so fertile multiplication is their mutual destruction. in what terms muggleton challenged inspiration, is not now proper to relate; for seeing that the fire hath of late deservedly, by public order, done execution upon his works, 'tis not manners to rake such putrid stuff out of its ashes: let all the like tracts and pretensions meet with the like purgation. only by way of trial take this [whatever the learned men of this world dream of finding out the invisible things of eternity, reeves and muggleton's divine looking-glass, cap. 36, p. 145. by searching into the scripture records, and comparing them togeher, the divine majesty hath locked up all the principal secrets of the scriptures in his own spiritual breast, that he, by any immediate revelation, may dispose of them into the spirits of elect men and angels, most advantageous for his own glory and their consolation.] 8. anna trapnel exceeds both the quakers and most of the other pretenders, in excessive fastings, poetical enthusiasms, lucky hits upon several things that came to pass afterwards, rapturous devotions, the cry of a stone, title. preface. etc. [she was in the visions of god by an inspiration extraordinary and full of wonder.] [england was the valley of vision— the wise have stumbled at this freedom of the spirit in our days as well as in the days of christ;] and yet her inspired doctrines were contrary to the quakers. [god spoke to her, p. 3, 4, 9, 16. 36, 49. shown her visions and the new jerusalem, a light shone, she was taken into the mount of god: she was another's voice, a voice within a voice; god's heavens came down into her earth, 5. 7. 76. she fasted 9, 11, 14 days, etc. was told by the spirit of the soldiers coming to london, p. 4.6, 7. had a vision of the scots overthrow before dunbar, and of the fight with holland, of the dissolving the long parliament, 10. calling the jews, of the breaking up the representative; had a vision against rowse the chairman, 13. 30. and several visions to inform her that oliver would be protector, which she was troubled at, and foretell gideon's, that is, his being laid aside,] with many the like. no quakers have come nigh her, tyrant. detect. p. 38. a visitation of love to the king, &c 4, 5, & p. 58.73. p. 20. p. 35. p. 15. for ebbit's foretelling the firing of london, was not believed by his friends. and burroughs attempts to show, that the quakers foresaw the king's restoration, came not near it. she was for the reign of jesus, destroying the fourth great monarchy, foretell that all the monarchies are going down, jesus was at hand. among the rest, she foretell, [we must have no more kings,] and yet she was swallowed up of the glory of the lord. 9 the gifted brethren (who with the next are the most orderly of all the pretenders else) made use of this engine, by their zealous advocate, etc. their request was the most modest, [not to lay aside the ministers, nor destroy church-order, blake's embassage from the kings of the east, to his highness oliver lord protector. p. 45. p. 47. they only pleaded for an hour before or after sermon● wherein they might exercise their gifts; they allowed the usefulness of study, that three hours in a day close employed therein would make a brave preacher, they offer to give security to preach sound and peaceable doctrine, and begged but the liberty of a trial, how beneficial their model would prove; offer upon misdemeanour to call in, p. 42. and take back the offenders commission, with a dehortation to exercise any more for the present; would have themselves not taken for absolute ministers, but assistants; they engage not to meddle with administering the sacraments, or other proper ministerial offices,] with many such fanciful things in their platform; and yet the conceit of inspiration, together with acquired abilities was the cause of it. [we leave christ's work with you, in the epistle. churches— the spirit bid us do it; the word and spirit, and god himself is for us: my sons and my daughters shall prophesy; p. 11. & 23. p. 58. hear this day what the spirit saith unto the churches: none must preach by notes, we love to drink from the fountain (and yet they are for short work) strive not to speak beyond the breathe of the spirit. p. 61. hear what the spirit saith to the churches in england, in this day of their visitation.] p. 70. and the socinians come somewhat towards this model; cateches. eccles. polonicar. in praefatione. though [they deny enthusiasms, divine miraculous inspirations, or prophetical authority to be claimed by them; yet they allow a great liberty of prophesying, that any one may interpret, who hath the gift of revelation.] 10. the congregation, or people commonly called considerers, had recourse to this, trayte de la voye, etc. a discourse of the way to the kingdom. though as sparingly as any of the others; [they were very much taken up in studying the book of nature, saying, that alone is enough for all men, and that the study of the prophets lay therein. that consideration was the royal way to the kingdom. p. 76. they acknowledge the trinity and christ's incarnation, p. 80. p. 52.90, 100 used the sacrament and the lords prayer; meddled not with worldly or state affairs, p. 74. were thrifty of their time; married such as they loved upon first sight, 92. p. 52. were against the enclosing the holy spirit to any particular sect of men; looking on the creed as a sufficient instrument of union among all christians:] p. 4.88. but immediate inspiration was owned by them, p. 4. [the voice of god that i heard, said unto me— immediately god himself opened me by his spirit, p. 6. the way to the kingdom resounding in my heart.— monck rogers being so taken up with god, p. 50. as not to remember the words a man just spoke to him is highly commended,— the spirit of wisdom and understanding hath appointed me to tell you— and such lights as god infused into any of their hearts, p. 72. they thought themselves bound to communicate to others.] p. 94. here are competitors sufficient, that agree in one bottom, though they build different and contradictory doctrines upon it; and all these (likely an hundred to one; and in this very kingdom of late ten to one) being the far greater number are all against the quakers: and therefore suppose the scripture did not please me, which of these pretenders must i give credit to? the others whether old or late produce as good proofs as t. e. can do; and if i favour one side where the evidences are equal, i become partial, and hold the faith with respect of persons. do the quakers say and witness their inspirations? the others do the like with an equal confidence. do they experience it? the rest come not behind them. if their refresh persuade? the leveller, and the late named whore can use the same topick, and the ranter is as brisk as any. if some scriptures befriend their fancy? the rest, and all heretics, and the devil himself, do bait their hooks with wrested parcels of it. in case then of different revelations, to which must i adhere? or shall i not suspend, until a third revelation do determine which side is in the right? must we believe men merely because they say so? or are yea, yea, and a few solemn looks, or wrings by the hand evidences that the spirit is secretly whispering? they lay no obligation on us to trust them, rather than their rivals. in their words, lives and writings they seem at least fallible, like other men. thomas ellwood must then produce better evidences than the rest; otherwise we are innocent. and he hath cut himself out work sufficient. 1. to prove that perpetual inspiration is certainly promised by god to all believers. 2. he must prove that all other pretenders do lie, in their claims. 3. that such as deny immediate revelation have no share thereof. 4. he must by some undoubted evidences prove that his party are solely entrusted with this ministration, and when this is done, he must leave to us the power of trial, and the liberty of judgement. for if each must follow the light, we are innocent who do but follow our own convictions; and our case is infinitely more safe: for all parties agree that the light of scriptures (by which we are guided) is divine, but your new light may prove false, or darkness, for any assurance you can yet give us to the contrary. there are all these co-claimers, who both say and show as much as quakers, and so each single party are an equal balance to them, much more all of them together do strangely outweigh the quakers next to youngest claims (unless the rule be now inverted verum quodounque prius, and what is latest must necessarily be truest) which could only hold until a fresher sect (suppose the sweet singers of israel, or any such pretty name) do start up and out-date the quakers, but though all the other competitors were in the wrong, that doth not infer t.e's. friends to be in the right, for they may be equally mistaken with the others in the like bottom; unless they can produce some indisputable divine amulet, or preservative, which the others cannot. nor can i find any solid reason, why i should believe the english, and disbelieve the spanish alumbrados, when their doctrines are much alike, and their evidences are exactly equal. and further one of these (who can set as good a face on his cause, and use as brisk a confidence, and who excels thomas ellwood, as much as one of the two witnesses in the revelations exceeds the witnesses in general) viz. lodowick muggleton from his supposed spirit pronounceth a sentence and a curse upon the quakers, 3d q. quibbles, p. 32. [because i (saith he) have passed sentence upon the quakers, they shall never grow to have more experience in vision and revelation, but shall whither.] which curse, from their proteus like changing, the disciples of muggleton may conclude to have seized on them. others that are juniors or co-temporary with the quakers, from their spirit condemn the quakers. the cry of a stone, p. 20. so anna trapnel, [let them tell him (viz. oliver) of his sins, and tell him with humility and tears, not as those deluded spirits, that go running about the streets; and say, we have such visions and revelations, who come out with their great speeches of vengeance, judgement and plagues; oh, but thine that come from thee, thou givest them humility, meekness, bowels, tears] [thou art called only a form, they call themselves a christ.] [oh, p. 50. some poor creatures call themselves christ, because of this oneness with christ— when thy sweet wine comes forth, p. 68 than they bring in their false wine. discourse of the way, etc. p. 62. p. 68 ] the secretary of the confiderers [prayed god to preserve him, for ever having the spirit of the quakers] he had high thoughts of their way at the first, till he [did discern the tracts of the evil spirit that guided them:] several instances of which he enumerates, and saith, the spirit of wisdom appointed him to tell those things [to make them better advised in the choice of true ways and in the distinctions of lights.] p. 72. and i have heard of a single devoto, herded with none of the former, with the greatest confidence affirm, that god had revealed to her, that the quakers would leave their errors and return to the church and truth again. but beyond these, because we in these kingdoms may be interested and partial, not passing right judgement, the illuminadoes in another country (who not being engaged against ours deserve more regard) do expressly declare the quakers to be impostors; and i suppose their opinions, in other points of religion to be more sound, in that they deluded the learned and useful john amos comenius. the late germane enthusiasts are the persons, his. revel. edit. per j.a.c. 1659. p. 189. in dr. spencer's vulgar prophecies. p. 6, 7. and their condemnation of the quakers i shall transcribe from a worthy hand, my circumstances not affording me as yet, a sight of the book. [they tell the world that by how much the nearer that great day of the lord is, the more evidently and familiarly doth he excite his prophets, and that they understand, the frequent possessions, witchcrafts, and fanatical enthusiasms of the quakers; satanicas esse praestigias, quibus opera dei obfuscare nituntur, ut olim james & jambres mosi resistêre; to be the delusions of the devil, whereby they endeavour to obscure the works of god, as james and jambres withstood moses of old.] all these condemnations of the quakers from the spirit, should have force with them who acknowled revelations at this day. what if the quakers be more numerous than some others of the like kidney. that is no argument of truth, else others would soon wrest it from them, as some places, so some times are more prepared for productions of monsters than others; and the late unhappy times had piled up such materials, that it was easy for the quakers to arrive at that height by starting up as the scum and froth of them all. montanus spread his poison through phrygia, donatus through africa, the messalians through syria, pamphylia, etc. and arius through the world. the familists t. is. grandfathers, are next to gone, and i hope his inspirations will run the same fate and expire like theirs; and the company called considerers foretell your extinction, traite de la voye au royaume. p. 18. [time shall make you of the number of things past.] chap. vii. concerning their own contradictory, different and designed revelations. would a man be tamely satisfied, with keiths' confutation, that [the enthusiasts, against whom luther wrote, were not true enthusiasts, as the apostles were, quakerism no popery, p. 20. but such as under a pretence of enthusiasm both taught and practised evil things, and bastle each in the former list thereby, he must allow me with equal reason, to turn it upon themselves, that [quakers are not right enthusiasts as the apostles were.] for it confutes themselves as much as others: and is a conviction on either hand equal with [mentiris bellarmine.] but supposing my temper or other motives incline me to overlook the rest, and become favourable to t. is. friends, so as to fancy or wish that they really have what they pretend; my next inquiry is to whom must i turn? to the conforming or nonconforming quakers? to some single teachers, or to the body of ancient friends, and how can i infallibly know where that supposed body lodgeth? or, who are the members of it? or when these little talkative oracles speak by inspiriation, and when by their own afflatus? i would have a reasonable religion understand what to believe, do and pray, and then proceed accordingly; but if the spirit that guides be enshrined in such a body, against which so many prejudices lie, the case of those souls is very sad, whose directions flow from so foul a fountain. that they do not always act by inspiration, in rev. p. 36. we have a full confession [not as if in every thing-we did act, think, speak or write infallibly:— nor as if in nothing we could act in a disjunction from the spirit; for we do freely acknowledge we are capable to run out, and both think, speak, writ and do things that are not only not infallible, but may be wrong and false. only what is done— in conjunction with the spirit of god, and in his immediate manifestation and co-operation in us, is infallible.] and elsewhere he makes the like acknowledgement [we are conscious to ourselves that both in speaking and writing, q●no popery, p. 33. it is possible for us in some measure, more or less, to decline from those infallible leadings, and consequently both to speak and write in a mixture.] how can i then infallibly know when the conjunction is? or be able in that mixture, to separate the divine from the humane? or to know the prophet from the man? it may prove an opposition or side aspect, when i expected a conjunction, i may take him to be inspired when he writes of himself, and his wine may have a mixture of water, if not poison: if one chapter or section be writ in conjunction, and another not, he must both make an unequal yoking, and also affront the spirit in not distinguishing [this i received from above, this i invented of myself:] he also deludeth others, who in such mixtures do wrong on one hand, they in swallowing the whole as divine, we in rejecting the whole as worse than humane. let him acquaint by some marks which parts are so, and so; that we may pay our respects accordingly. their manner also of wording the receipt, as [i find it with me, i find it in my heart, i find it rising up in me, etc.] look more like an answer from pythia, which ascended up from the feet unto the breast, then divine inspiration, which is an illapse, or influx from heaven. we are told [that the children of god do infallibly know one another, im. revel. p. 118, 189. and hence have unity, peace and concord one with another.] if this be true, quakers will scarce pass for god's children; for among themselves they are as much distant, as the poles, and as other sects crumbled the anabaptists into 70, and the familists into very many; among the rest into those of caps his order; so there are quakers of the hat; the prevailing party of the foxonian order, and the murmerers under the banner of george bishop and his associates. their mutual carriages are unlike those of inspired men, and he who believes their witnessings must swallow contradictions, they set spirit against spirit, the same against itself, and that bad language which they first poured on others, is now bestowed on their own dissenters. their contradictions, carriages and expressions, are smartly exposed in three little tracts, the quakers quibbles in 3 parts. which make unnecessary any large account thereof here: only i shall observe some in prosecution of their inspirations, and digest them into what order so much variety and confusion will permit. 1. we shall consider their contradictions, or differences in doctrine. 2. their carriages therein, and means of convincing one another. 3. consider the debate about the hat, and their canons so far as inspiration is concerned. 4. present other matters, that are subservient thereto. 1. their contradictions and differences in doctrine. to begin with t. ellwood's tutor, universal grace. p. 6. who [in a book which he wrote from the lord] produceth twice or thrice, joel 2.28. for his purpose, wherein are mentioned, visions, dreams and prophecies, and yet he denyeth or minceth their having any of them. for visions and dreams he avoids them [nor dreams and visions upon the imagination in the night season, nor yet by trances, im. rev. p. 7. so called, which is by a cessation of the exercise of all the outward senses:] and for the other he denyeth the necessity thereof, as [signifying, p. 2. foreseeing or foretelling things to come:] but the rest do not digest such doctrine. will. shewin outgoes st. paul ten years' [i knew a man twenty four years ago who had heavenly sights, the true christians faith and experience, p. 130. and revelations and raptures into the third heaven, and heard and saw things unutterable; and all before his conversion and regeneration] strange doctrine indeed, an unclean thing to enter into the third or highest heaven, p. 129, 131. in her letter. he names their visions also. smith's wife had a vision, signifying to her, her husband's death, which brought her into the stillness. they also challenge prophecies, some principles, p. 26. noble salutation, p. 7. [sons and daughters do prophecy in our age, as formerly among the apostles.] [the lord raised up many servants and prophets.] but least prophecy should not be taken in the proper sense, for foretelling, they speak out to that purpose, some principles, p. 18. preface to living faith. the glory of the true church. p. 27. [it (to wit the light) will show you things to come] saith fox [naylor often prophesied, as of things which we have seen come to pass.] [the spiritual, through the spirit of prophecy, see when bells, hourglasses, puspits, etc. shall be no more adored.] thomas ellwood seems to limit his inspirations to such as are recorded in scripture, p. 237. keith enlargeth them to all humane concernments, as [eating, im. rev. p. 6. going, etc. which are not in scripture particularly; no, not so much as by consequence] th. ellwood is for the immediate teachings of the spirit, without any help from humane learning towards the understanding of the bible, p. 219. im. rev. p. 39 winding sh. for controv. ended. p. 4. others are more wise, do not [exclude and shut out the service and usefulness of all means, and instruments whatsoever, whether books or men:] and another as freely acknowledgeth [we cannot call it our faith or knowledge, till quickened to it, by that eternal spirit, be it mediately, or be it immediately,] but here lieth the fallacy, it is immediate, though with means, with, and without, are all one. [such a way of communication, im. rev. p. 42. though it be through a means, yet this hinders it not in a true sense to be immediate.] too palliate this paradox the better, we are informed that dreams and night visions (those secret ways whereby god did communicate his mind) [were but very shadowy and remote, idem. p. 17. and rather mediate than immediate] and if this liberty of confounding be thus used, they may pass for prophets when they please, p. 162. keith allows the disciples to learn something from christ. thomas ellwood makes the spirit to confer all the knowledge, so that christ's words were unintelligible, a mere gibberish or jargon. thomas ellwoood makes the whole scripture revealed or conveyed by immediate revelation, and what is not so renewed is not understood. keith is far more prudent, [i grant that the history, p. 232. or historical part of the scriptures is not conveyed unto us (nor unto any ordinarily) by immediate revelation.] winding sh. 5. now the gospels are undoubtedly histories of christ, what he was, said, did and suffered. mr. pen calls one of them [john's history] and the rest deserve that name as much, so that they receive not the gospels by immediate revelation. and the whole bible is transmitted to us as matter of history, wherein such commands, promises, etc. are comprised. and this concession of keiths pulls down ellwoods' whole fabric. t. ellwood doth strangely interfere with himself, p. 223. he makes tongues necessary to preach to all nations, p. 221. and yet confesseth it might be done by an interpreter; p. 235. oft takes notice of our owning the assistance of the spirit, p. 211. and yet cries out not a word of the spirit of god, p. 231. but humane learning all in all, he makes knowledge to be both the cause and the effect, being strangely blundered to make out their apostolical inspirations, without the testimonials thereof, miracles and tongues. p. 237. lastly he makes the gospel in all ages revealed in some degree or other, which he anon retracts, revealed in the first ages of christianity, p. 243. and then brings on a long night of thick darkness, and a general apostasy. others of them are not more harmonious [it was never his (to wit christ's) faith to sue, naylors' living faith, p. 7. contend, etc.] shield of the truth, p. 3. [we sue no man at the law, but are sued by them:] but thomas ellwood is differently minded [in civil cases it is no injustice for a man to recover his due by law] going to war is by some condemned, p. 361. bishop's looking glass, p. 203. barclay in q. no popery, p. 100 tyrant. & hipo. detected, p. 22. [wars belonged to the jewish administration, which had its end.] [quakers deny that it is lawful for christians to fight and kill one another in fight.] others of them have both allowed and followed wars, and [john thompson owned by others as a quaker, was master of a ship, fought stoutly and killed many of the dutch:] one while they were against all forms, great mystery, p. 16. [christ is the end of outward forms; paul brought the saints off from things that are seen, and water is seen, and its baptism] but now they are hugely formal. true christian faith, p. 187.189. [godliness is not manifested without a form— in thy holy form of godliness, led into by the power.] [justification by that righteousness which christ fulfilled for us wholly without us, q is paganism, 8.9.10, 11. prin. was one while esteemed a doctrine of devils, his satisfaction counted irreligious and irrational, that he fulfilled the law only as our pattern, and that justification is by works] but the horridness thereof is now mollifyed [the spirit, pennington's naked truth, p. 35. the life, the blood of the lord jesus justifieth.] [justification, and the things accompanying it, are the benefits of christ's death.] the same person renounceth [all merit, and debt sprictly taken, defines justification as it hath respect to what jesus did and suffered for us without us, uni. grace, p. 103. q. no pope●y, p. 47.51. etc. the procuring cause being christ alone, who became the expiatory sacrifice and propitiation unto god for our sins.] shown dawbs it over by affixing an ill doctrine on us [that christ's sanctification without us, true christian faith, p. 69. is imputed to a man whilst unsanctified:] which is not so bad as his own being taken into the third heaven, when unregenerate. fox at sometimes calls the scripture a rule [the scriptures shall buffet you about, epis. to g. w divin. of christ. q. no pope, p. 24. in 3d. quib. p. 36. and you shall be whipped about with the rule.] keith calls it [a complete external secondary rule] mr. pen saith [the scripture is much like to the shadow of the true rule, etc.] a very great honour do they advance it to, to be much like the shadow, but not the substance, nor the shadow. t. ellwood daubs, p. 241. will allow it to be [profitable] and so are tullyes' offices, but not to be [a perfect and sufficient rule in order to salvation] and yet he hath nothing revealed, but what is in scripture; so that if this be not sufficient, the repartition thereof must be as defective, and having no new essentials of religion, lesser than inspiration, might convey the others; but at the last their kindness allows the scripture to be a rule in cursing and railing; hicks 3d dialogue, p. 40. [let it suffice that we give no harder names than the scripture by rule allows.] with full mouth they declaim against judicial swearing, and yet for interest they can take an oath; some of them would have no creeds nor catechisms, others compose such things. they are much entangled when to date that apostasy of christianity which they fancy: some make it to come before miraculous gifts ceased, just upon the apostles death. in mr. jenner, p. 116. fiery darts, p. 26. so joseph frice [since the apostles days there hath been a great apostasy, and a true church of christ could not be found] during all which time [the true church hath been in a wildernessed estate] [christ had not a visible church in the world] saith farnsworth: g.w. and g. f. reply at cambridge. gag for the q. p. 5. howgils' glory of the church. p. 6. and yet they quote broken sayings of the ancients, who were within the apostasy: others of them do qualify the severity of the former [the church of christ was glorious the first hundred years after his manifestation in the flesh:] and keith more enlargeth the purity of the church [the testimony of antiquity in the purest times— especially the three or four first centuryes.] q. no popery. p. 69. spirit of the hat, p. 9 which at length they retort home [concerning the great apostasy in this day] among themselves. g. in 3d. quib p. 36. whitehead durst one while write [that which was spoken from the spirit of truth in any, is of as great authority as the scriptures— and greater, etc.] which being odious to all good minds, he declares confidently the contrary; as if our observations were as stupid, as his conscience [nor did we ever prefer our books before the bible— but do prefer the bible before all other books extant in the world] one while man must be thou'd because god is so, q. plainness p. 70, 71. the true christians faith, p. 187. anon the hat must not be put off to man, that must be reserved to god alone, as a necessary piece of his worship. these and many such are the crooked ways, and interfering paths wherein their private spirit is bewildered. spirit of the hat, p. 25. 2. having taken an essay of their different doctrines, it will be pleasant to consider their carriages in such oppositions; and the means they have of convincing one another, for allowing no outward rule, whereby they should be concluded, spirit is opposed to spirit; and the boldest face, or the best lungs, or the strongest interest doth carry it: and should i say i wrote this tract by inspiration, upon their principles, they could not confute me, and every one having the light within, the comparatively small number of the quakers argues them to be in the wrong. when differences arise among them, they esteem the dissenters to be cheats, mr. jenner, p 86 the woman at dublin [condemned their old light, producing a span new one of her own; the rest were displeased, saying, she was a false prophetess; but she still maintained that her light came immediately from god.] living stone to the dissenters, made this rejoinder [you are led by a private spirit, 3d. quibble. p. 19 though you pretend it to be universal; here is a deceitful whining spirit,] rarely confuted; for the other upon their principles may better call living-stones, a private deceitful whining spirit. pens answer to faldo, p. 53. [i declare in the name of all the right quakers in the world] it seems he knows all their hearts and principles, but how must we do that? what is the earmark of a right quaker? can any of them be in the wrong? or is their perfection gone? or is [thee and thou the pure language.] hicks 2d. dialogue. p. 12. the badge of a right one, as thomas ruddyer would have it. tyrant. & hipo. detected, p. 16. the former author calls another's dissent very prettily. [imaginations and whimsyes] and i can as cheaply and inspiredly call his and theirs, all by the same phrases. keith in a public dispute attempted to prove that pen speaks by immediate inspiration, hicks 3d. dialogue, in the preface. and yet others say [he is a heady, rash young man, we take no notice what he saith—] and luddington looks upon him as not catechised enough. [i would rather have compared him to apollo's, q. is paganism, p. 5, 6. and wishing him a little more fully instructed in the ends of christ's life and death—] gotherson alarms them all to purpose, saying [that wicked men are crept in among them, mr. jenner, p. 177, 178, 179. as judas among the apostles; calls their spirit a blind ignis fatuus; that they are led by imaginations, lusts and fancies. it is not as roger crab, william smith, and john dunck surmise— the head of the serpent is too powerful in roger crab and his followers.] with such like severity. and no question but crab could make the like reply, and smith's works are since printed, as living divine testimonies, but whom must i trust, when such as these can pass for inspirations and confutations of them? 'tis usual to call one another antichrist, ranters, scotchmen, tailors, or what will look ill-favouredly, john swinton wrote a paper, tyrant. and hipo. detec. p. 39— 42. spirit of the hat, p. 35. in [the express motion of god, who justified him in every tittle of it after:] this he retracted and denied the spirit in which it was writ, saying [it was fit for the fire, and was done in an hour of temptation and weakness] the account is large, and deserves reading; but what evidence had he, he was in the right after retracting, more than when asserting? and if he for four or five years together took the spirit of delusion for the spirit of god, they can give no security but it is the same error that still enthralls them, contradictory parties dare both use the name of the lord [john osgoods marriage with r. t. was well approved of, spirit of the hat, p. 30.31. the elder rebeckah travers and j. o. declared it to be of the lord. john bolton with two or three more opposed its passing in the name of the lord, tyrant. and hipo. detected, p. 22. unless he would give testimony against the hat spirit.] the like difference there was about the marriage of m. b. one part [declared positively from the lord that it was to pass, briggs told the opposers that they opposed the mind of the lord, when as the good man knew not so much as the persons he spoke of, spirit of the hat, p. 33. the other part greatly opposed it under the same pretence] setting the lord against the lord. john whitehead wrote a letter in the name of the lord, tyrant, p. 20. geo. fox blotted out a line or more, altering it to a quite contrary sense, without any liberty from whitehead so to do; by which both the spirit of god and the writer were belied, and yet others of them justified that alteration. never did any in such a manner debase and prostitute sacred inspiration, as these controulers, and correctors of the spirit do. but as the romish infallibility is by some shrunk into an indefectibility, so that of the quakers keeps a somewhat like pace. whiteheads spirit offers itself [willing to receive information] and in a letter i have from a leading quaker, 3 quib. p. 49. he thus write on behalf of keith [that if he have held any thing contrary to the testimony of holy scriptures, and sound christian experience, he will be willing to hear and be convinced by a sober christian demonstration:] they either have no inspiration, or its impression is very weak, for if it was real, it would assure itself both to them and others, and leave no such place for second thoughts and demurrings. a just rebuke to 21 divines, p. 22. pen saith [we ascribe not infallibility to men, but to the grace of god, and to men so far as they are led by it; for that it certainly teacheth what it doth teach:] an acute invention, so he certainly writeth what he doth write; and i am as good an infallible as he is: but this only covers and doth not cure, for still the quaery recurs, how can i be infallibly assured, p. 7. that such a person is led by god's grace or not, he also calls it [a being assured of what a christian ought not to make a doubt of:] but certainty is capable of degrees, and there is a vast difference between actual certainty, and absolute infallibility. but it is well we have got company, whitehead at cambr. p. 10. and gag for q. p. 4. ann pearson's warning to judges, p. 7. other professions are to be guided by inspiration, [all acts of parliament are to be made and received from god.] [magistrates must make laws by god's spirit,] but not only lawyers, but physicians also instead of curing these enthusiasms, are themselves to turn inspiradoes. im. rev. p. 69. [he reads hypocrates, galen, and other writers concerning medicine, and so he thinks hereby to become a physician, etc. whiles their hands are out from the light of christ which gives ability] dr. grace thus pretended revelation for the secrets of physic, the q. spiritual court p. 39, 40. whereas it was one mrs. slack of islington who inspired him, and made him pay sauce for it. paracelsus would have been a good physician for them, or helmont who at length obtained a vision of his soul, dr. charlton's ternary of paradoxes. being a [pellucid transparent substance.] if hermolaus barbarus had had this light, he needed not to have gone to the fiend to know the meaning of aristotle's entelechy. 3. consider the debate about the hat, and their canons, so far as inspiration is concerned, whether the hat should be put off or no in prayer, hath caused great heats among them; they who act consentaneously to their first principles, would have it left to the spirits motions: the rest, who set up a tyranny will have it off, as matter of decency, as significative that the veil is taken from their heart, as expressive honour to god, etc. the thing i debate not, but the consistency of it with their doctrines, their mournful gildas makes a sad narrative of [what was made known, spirit of the hat, p. 9 and manifested in him, concerning the great apostasy] to wit, among themselves, to such a height was it carried, that to keep on the hat, was a forfeiting of their privileges. perrot declared, tyrant. and hipo. detec. p. 33. [i have received by express commandment from the lord god of heaven, in the day of my captivity in rome. viz, to bear a sure testimony against the customs, and traditions of the taking off of the hat by men, when they go to pray to god, the which they never had by commandment from god.] and yet this revelation is thrown by as a delusion. fox, and the ruling party, having determined the contrary, but it is hence evident, that men may take that for inspiration which is not so, even among quakers as well as other men. and ben. furley wrote a large letter, to show that such imposing, idem. p. 67. is contrary to the freedom, or motion of the spirit of life; and the thing begot much confusion, some taking their hats off at wrong times, etc. how can i know which are the right quakers, the hat-men, or the others? spirit of the hat, p. 32. or should not i believe the revelations of the weak side, rather than the arts and tyranny of the stronger? but the most unparallelled usurpation, printed at the end of this tract. and lordliness, consists in their canons, or the testimony from the brethren, which are a direct receding from their first principles. but experiencing the light in every one, to be the way to destroy all government and order; they mint a pretty thing, called the light of the body, in which the dispersed light is concentred, and to which it must be accountable; we shall first consider the making and entertainment of this testimony, and then some of the matter of it. the makers thereof declare that [through the lords good hand being met together— were through the operation of the spirit of truth, in the preamble. as god hath put it into our hearts.— art. 1. the lord giving us to see— being thereto encouraged by the lord, whose presence is with us, etc.] which imply that testimony to be drawn up by inspiration. mr. pen calls them [inoffensive, faldo's appendix, p. 2. nay christian and necessary resolves,] which sinks them far below revelation. but g. bishop (who deserves as much credit as any of the party) wrote a large letter in opposition to that testimony [having considered their paper in the spirit of truth, in tyrant. and hypo. detect. p. 34. he was moved of the lord to let them know, etc.] and upon their first principles he proceedeth, shaking down what the others later model had erected; but god's spirit is opposed to himself, and in such wicked debates, what side must an inquirer join unto? or what undoubted security can one party give of their having the spirit more than the other? it being in both alike invisible, and neither submitting to an outward rule, nor giving outward proofs. they enjoin them [to be read in their several meetings and kept as a testimony.] so w. d. sent his papers [to be read in the fear of the lord, in the holy assemblies of the church of the first born] an insolent act to impose their motions on others who are equally taught by god, their notion of [the body of friends, of good and ancient friends, the witness of god in friends, the judgement of the spirit of christ in his people, good and serious, faithful and sound friends, the universal spirit of truth, etc.] are such canting ways of enslaving souls, that they exceed both implicit faith, and all the intrigues of the conclave: this being their new maxim and infallible rule [that the body will have a true sense, spirit of the hat, p. 21. feeling and understanding of motions, visions, revelations, doctrines, etc. and therefore safest to make her my touchstone in all things relating to god.] but what signifieth the light in every man, or immediate revelation? they are wholly useless upon these principles; for if my revelations must be tried by the body, what must i be guided by in the interim, till their approbation be sent in a cloak-bag from london? but who are this body? how many members go to constitute it? where is it deposited? in what place lodged? whence have they this authority? or, how can i infallibly know when they proceed upon inspiration? are they turned into body, who were all spirit? thomas ellwood is a nonconforming brother, as he states things, but to have such a power over others, requireth a being deputed thereto, as bishop well urged, but especially the trying divine motions in that manner, requires the highest degree of inspiration and authority from god. never did any turn revelation into a craft so much before, the body to be sensible of visions, etc. where is this body? one in every county? or the universal one at london? such a representative, mankind never heard of. the apostles at the council, acts 15. received their outward information from paul and barnabas, and so proceeded; but for a body of friends to understand the motions of all the members, makes such a trifling, prodigious superfaelation of revelations, as cannot be imagined, suppose the number of quakers to be 20000. each believer of these hath scripture renewed, hath expository inspirations on it, besides all that concern civil life, as eating, drinking, marrying, etc. now what body besides its own particular ones, can possibly without omnisciency, have a feeling of those visions daily conferred upon each of that 20000? and if a man cannot obey his own motions till friends have approved, his condition is endlessly perplexed, the saints in heaven by a repercussion, or speculum hearing their votaries on earth, is nothing so entangling as the universal spirits communicating all the revelations to the body. but this expedient have they hi● upon to keep private revelations in subjection, a pack of gypsies, or pluto's court, may wish for such intelligence; but the christian world, the pope himself, and the saints above, are yet strangers to this new way of communication. but supposing his body be not capable of being the rendezvous of all revelations, but be entrusted with [a discerning spirit, to discover what comes from the true light in any.] they ought to produce some deputation from those they represent, and certain proofs that they cannot be mistaken, in this snuffing of lights, and smelling of opinions, as they should first prove to us, that they have revelations before they require our belief; the same they should make out to their friends, that the light in the one is darkness if the other call it so; but how can i justify my subjection to the body, when contrary to my inward light? is not my light as certain to me, as theirs to them? and more certain than theirs can be to me? or am not i more assured of my own feelings, than i can be of another's relations? doth the spirit jest with me in discoveries, and is he in earnest with them? if the body judge me, what must judge the body? or is it so high a tribunal, that there is no appeal from it? had god entrusted the body with 〈◊〉 vast a power, as legitimating motions; he would have provided we should have known what and where that body always is, when it deter mineth duly, and all other requisits to the subm●●●ing my sensations to their decisions? if i writ a thing by the spirit and then submit that to the judgement of the body, i show contempt to god, and blindness of obedience, nor can i expect god should reveal himself to me, when i submit his conveying to another's corrections, one infallible hath not power over another infallible, nor doth the truth of my inspiration depend upon having others of my judgement. it is the impression from god, and not another's acceptation which is my security, for certainly i must know my own receipts, better than i can do either those or the fidelity of another, but if twenty single ones be not infallible, those twenty when collected into one body, cannot make up one infallible; nor can i be satisfied that the light in the body is more upright, than when dispersed in the members, these proceed according to their supposed receipts; the others in lycensing thereof proceed by art and interest, and if one part of the body be liable to mistakes, why not the other? but they have made a good advance, by removing the light from the members into the body, the next step conveys it into one infallible head, and they may pass for good catholics of a new order. man and forms used to be cried down, canon 1 but now the ruling part are zealous for them to support their own grandeur. opposers [are to be kept under with the power of god, being without, they ought not to be judges in the church, being joined in one with heathens and infidels. the church hath power without the assent of such as descent, to determine, etc.] mr. pen may retract his book of liberty of conscience, none are to enjoy it but the foxonian party, for to that purpose fox spoke in a selected great assembly [though many friends have writ for liberty of conscience, the spirit of the hat, p. 41. i never liked the word, it is not a good word, no liberty to the presbyterians, no liberty to the papists, no liberty to the independants, no liberty to the baptists, etc. liberty is to be only in the truth, and saith he, no liberty out of the power.] their viewing books before printing, argues their distrust, and confusion among pretenders, canon 5 and is destructive of their main principles. for my inspiration ought not to be licenced, or suppressed at another's suggestion. we have no certificate that t. ellwoods' book was allowed by the body, and some parts of it breathe not their air: would they declare what books they own, and what authors are spurious, it might be an act of justice and charity to their proselytes; but then the procedure in condemning what came from the lord, would be ominous to their whole platform. their setting up a ministry is an eclipsing, if not extinguishing the light and inspiration in each believer, for their genuine consequent is, that both scriptures and ministers are useless; and herein they are sadly divided, george bishop as moved of the lord declares against a ministry [the spirit of the lord in this day, tyrant. & hyp. p. 35. and in the days of the apostles, bears not the same proportion: then were apostles, pastors, teachers, elders, etc. but in this day the spirit itself is pastor, teacher, elder, etc. so that if the spirit move any to declare or speak, that is the apostle, teacher, elder, etc. i know no pastor, teacher, elder, etc. but as i find moving in any to any of these things.] the eleven brethren from the lord, defend a stated ministry, condemning canon 6 [those that would limit the lord to speak without instruments, or by what instruments they list; rejecting the counsel of the wisemer, and the testimony of the prophets, that doing down the ministry is a laying wast the heritage of the lord, canon. 1 etc.] keith attempts a reconciliation of these differences [that their ministry will always be dear and comfortable to us, im. rev. p. 215. but not absolutely necessary, being come to a teacher, even the spirit of jesus, etc.] but leaning to the non conforming side, but how can the single teachers be inspired or be infallible, when the body doth supervise and correct that which they believe to be god's spirit? or if the body be sensible of the motions of friends, why hath it not a prophetic glimpse of the books and designs of enemies? but this setting up a ministry and canons is a receding from their first claims, and is inconsistent with t. is inspiration in each believer. 4. there are various other matters related to these, by which we may gather their regard to revelation; they obey when no inspiration is named, supposing a man to be habitually inspired. to set down for the rareness there of one extravagant of george fox, in the romish horseleech. which can scarce be parallelled at rome, the friar's case was not so peremptory. all friends every where, on your signs set not up the image, or likeness of any creature in heaven or in earth, but by the power of the lord, keep down all the makers of such things, for the ground of them is from the heathen. but set up a bedstaff, fireshovel, saw, fork, compasses, andirons, harrow, plough, or any such thing. and friends every where admonish one another, young and old; that ye do not run after the world's fashions, which are invented and set up by the vain and light mind; which if ye do, how can ye judge the world for such things? away with your skimming-dish hats, and your unnecessary buttons on your cloaks and coats, and on the tops of your shoulders behind, and on your sleeves: away with your long slit-peaks behind on the skirts of your waistcoats, and short sleeves, punishing your shoulders so as you cannot have the use of your arms. away with your short black aprons, and some having none: away with your vizards, whereby you are not distinguished from bad women, and your bare-necks, and your great needless flying scarves like colours on your backs. and so set not up, nor put on that which you did once with the light condemn; but in all things be plain, that you may adorn the truth of the gospel of christ, and judge the world, and keep in that which is comely and decent. george fox. wherein he supposeth that bed-staffs, fire-shovels, etc. are none of god's creatures, when art hath passed over things they are no part of his workmanship. his injunctions for habits are very magisterial. tyrant. and hyp. detect. p. 11. [a maid having a slit in her waistcoat skirt behind, was commanded, in obedience to the injunction above, to sew it up; her reply was, she saw no evil in it: and james claypool like a primitive quaker, said, she should first see the evil of it in herself, before she judged it, and not (saith he) because we say it, but for these words he was forced to acknowledge his error, spirit of the hat, p. 42. though in private he confessed it no error:] but others obeyed this uninspired injunction. fox gave out a paper, spirit of the hat, p. 42. that [his marriage was a figure of of the marriage between christ and his church, and was above the state of adam in his innocency; in the state of the second adam who never fell.] but it was so ill resented, that the inspired man's paper was called in again, tyrant. and hypo. p. 18. and so was eccles his explication of his blasphemous words about fox, suppressed. the horrid words were these [— it was said of christ that he was in the world, spirit of the hat, p. 27. and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not: so it may be said of this true prophet (fox) whom john said he was not-] and at another time [blessed be the man that came out of the north, tyrant. p. 19 blessed be the womb— and paps—] jo. coal deifies him, [dear geo. fox who art the father of many nations, whose life hath reached through us thy children even to the isles afar off (viz. barbadoes) to the begetting of many again to a lively hope, for which generations to come shall call thee blessed, whose being and habitation is in the power of the highest, in which thou rules and governs in righteousness, and thy kingdom is established in peace, and the increase thereof is without end.] a letter of such blasphemy as is not to be paralleled, unless it be in that of joan. baptistacatum spiritus, in fowlis histo of popish trea. p. 37. presented to pope innocent the tenth, in allusion to his name pamphilio, but this letter of coal, though later in date, is placed first in the quakers registry, that may well be applied to them, rev. 13.1. [upon his heads the name of blasphemy] and lest fox should only be adored, tyrant. p, 53. naylor is highly advanced by r.t. preface to the possession of the living faith. i suppose rebeckah travers [as one redeemed out of the earth, in the heavenly was his dwelling, being holy, harmless, undefiled, that he appeared in this great city, in the power of an endless life, to gather us unto god—] and yet by good intentions, or figurative expressions, 'tis frequent to defend such abominations, the said r. travers declared, tyrant. p. 45. [that if she had a motion from the lord as she believed, yet if fox did not own it to be so, she should deny it;] a most insolent denying god, and making another master of her revelations. newton did thus, took the oath of allegiance notwithstanding his vision, but what sin is it to deny or suppress one's own, and submit to another's inspiration? the prophet that went to bethel died for this, for revelations must be rescinded in the same way as conveyed, what is inwardly enjoined must be as inwardly prohibited: the spirits of the prophets, being subject to the prophets concerns, but the time of speaking, that the impulse was not so violent, but it might be restrained till others had done speaking, or if it should concern trial, than the prophets, owned for such by divine attestations, might approve and recommend others; but a denying my motions at another's pleasure is a contemning my inspirer, or believing my own light, how can i submit to another. and when a quaker changeth, doth he believe himself to be more infallible at one time, than at another? or to be more infallible than another man? and when one of their revelation is rescinded, as that of swintons, it is not done by command from god, but by a confession of their own mistakes. one scripture revelation no where offers to lessen or invalidate another scripture revelation: but the quakers make slight account of them, so that it cannot be the same spirit. thus mr. pen claims revelation against the sacraments [testify's by the same spirit, hicks 3. dial. p. 65. by which paul renounced circumcision, that they are to be rejected.] and others deny and sadly juggle about them: they are much fallen away from their former principles and demeanours: what security have we how far they will go, or where they will stand and fix? and in case of difference between themselves or the scriptures, what must decide it? or by what do they try the motions of their spirit? or why may not their immediate revelations altar as well as their doctrines? what marks have we to know when they speak or writ by inspiration? when at their own motion? or what reason have we to believe them when they will trust the revelation of none of their competitors? imme. rev. p. 223. when their pretences differ [we have no new revelations saith t.e.] we have, saith keith [what evil is this? or rather is it not a blessed dispensation?] whether must carry it? or must the latter be corrected by the former? and if the scripture be not the judge, by what must the debate about revelation be ended? by the spirit? that is the thing in question, and you must first prove you have it, before you can prove any thing by it. though we should think immediate teachings needful; we cannot thence infer them. but if god had so conveyed himself, he would have so ordered, that all his communications should have exactly agreed, and have told us with whom we should find them. whether may not quakerism be improved? another come and super-reform the elders as they have done the hat-men? mr. jenner p. 86. [the quaker woman at dublin cried up her span new light, which the rest had never seen nor heard of, and cried down their old light as darkness, pretending to have hers immediately.] and 'tis hard to discover, how upon their principles they can confute her rationally. sometimes they stop the mouths of such, tyrant. 15. silent meet. a wonder, p. 10. as offer to speak in the name of the lord. so ann mud, etc. was pulled away by violence? they are very curious in the time when the spirit seizeth on them [the 22. day of the 7. month the word of the lord came unto w. b.] another is more exact [on the 31st day of the 10th. month 1655. about 4 a clock in the morning, the word of the lord came to burroughs, &c:] the same could have gone on to minutes, seconds, etc. revelation also is challenged for bad desing, hicks. 1 dial. p. 26. a quaker debtor, replied to his creditor ['tis revealed to me, i owe thee nothing.] p. 27. ellis pseudo-christus, p. 27 studelys looking glass of schism. messages have been pretended sent from god, and the person hath been proved many miles distant, when the dreamer came to declare it, so holbrow and marshal were deluded. marry gadbury pretended a revelation to get some cloth from mrs. woodward, and such a command must be embraced. schucker beheaded his brother leonard by inspiration? and enoch ap evan, upon partly such a pretence killed his mother and his brother. kays answ. to 18. quae. p. 5. q. spi. court p. 7.21. and two quakers near stokely in york shire, their conscience bidding them destroy original sin, they apprehending that their mother was the fountain thereof, murdered her. fox challenged inspiration for the earth's being flat, spirit of hat. 27. and that it was twelve a clock all the world over: and he kept part of his commission concealed a long time. [although i have not yet told it you, i do now declare it, i have power to bind and to lose whom i please.] at this rate he may keep an instrument for reconciling us to rome, dormant by him? and revelations have put them both upon hardships and going naked. idem. p. 20. but all these contentions are nothing to such inspiradoes, they are yet whole and sound [in the true church unity stands in diversityes] as if they had taken the word of the valentinians, tertul. adve. valcutin. who take diversity as a charisma or gift: concerning in faldo. q. no christ. p. 56. nec unitatem sed diversitatem, and pennington licks all right [the doing the same thing, the thinking the same thing, the speaking the same thing, this doth not unite here in this state, in this nature, but the doing, the thinking, the speaking of it in the same life, yea though the do or thoughts or words be divers: yet, if they proceed from the same principle or nature, there is a true unity felt therein, where the life alone is judge.] and by this salvo, all these contradictions hurt their unity no more than taking an oath doth prejudice their not swearing. chap. viii. concerning their expository revelations. iii. the third which these privadoes of heaven enjoy, is, they have expository revelations so t. e. [p. 238. the scriptures are understood only and alone by the openings and discoveries of that holy spirit by which they were at first revealed; those divine mysteries, are mysteires indeed, and remain so as a sealed book, until christ (the lamb) doth open them, p. 239. nor can the doctrine of the gospel, or the mysteries of god's kingdom be known to man, but by the revevelation of the holy spirit— revelation is necessary (yea of necessity) even to understand the scriptures, the true sense man can never attain unto, until the holy spirit reveal it to him: to the like purpose he writes, p. 251, 253. and 255. that the spirits helping to understand the scriptures, is by its teaching the true sense and meaning of them, by opening, discovering, and making known the mind and will of god therein expressed, this is revelation.] but there is a great craft in this procedure, for he beginneth with immediate revelation, but after he ommitteth the word immediate and slideth into revelation in general. but what makes he requisite on our part to receive this boon from the spirit? 'tis summed up into a narrower room, than the essentials by keith, viz. [waiting p. 220. desiring and waiting p. 240] but especially humane learning is disbanded from the least concern, except translating: t. es. spirit cannot translate a greek chapter, but it can infallibly expound an english one, that is, it can do nothing discernible, but it can do all things indiscernible. this gaping way of expounding was taught by winstanley, new law of right. p. 111 [all expositions upon others words shall cease, they shall wait with a quiet silence upon the lord; till he break forth within their hearts, and give them words and power to speak. you must get [into the holy silence,] silent meeting p. 8. 9 10 and then the spirit will instruct you. but the rule is elder than the quakers: hildegardis in that her nonsensical vision, related to arnold archbishop of colen, determines [qui autem vult bene vigilare, hunc intellectum percipiat, biblio patrum tom. 15. p. 622. etc. he that will make or wait well; shall have the understanding of her vision.] and the libertines, and swenck field, the familists, and all the herd, not so much as anna trapnel, but they all are against learning, and for t. es. easy way of inspiration, or ministers to have no help, but to speak all from the light within. so that there is nothing of studying, praying, reading, meditating or confering required on our part, but a supine desiring and expecting, reasoning is outdated by yawning, and brains are superseded by mere attendance. quakerism nuzzles up in sloth and idleness, they may rest day and night, and have the law writ in their hearts, without exercising themselves in it; their terms are so easy they will have proselytes: danger of enthusiasm. p 71. but saith one [jacob's venison could not be right, it came so soon to hand.] to which we may add, he lied in saying, the lord his god brought it to him, when it was his mother's art. this waiting prostitutes and layeth the soul open to every impression, what starts up first is thought a divine irradition. the devil loves a house so garnished and empty; and whilst saul was thus waiting, he started up in the room and likeness of samuel, their inspirations are both writing and seal to themselves, and being in such a passive stillness, they interpret each forward fancy, to be the whispering of the spirit, that silent attendance throws down the mounds and fences of our spirits? and whilst we lie waiting we shall not want the entertainment and variety of suggestions, but be bewildered and run on from one imagination to another. but what need t. e. wait? dr causabons enthu. p. 162 the spirit of truth dwells in them, p. 228. and being resyant, a short attendance might be sufficient. christ thus dwelled in the holy maid catherine of jesus, as well as in quakers, and their inspirations coming to none but expecters, that is a sing of their wrong original, for we cannot imagine that god will reveal his mind to such as do nothing, sooner than to such as read and pray. the ground for this waiting, is taken from acts 1.4. where the greek is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to tarry, or bodily to stay there, till the spirit descended, as the last verses of chronicles are resumed at the beginning of ezra. so the history luc. 24.49. (where the greek is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 reside or sit you down there) is resumed acts. 1. but it is not waiting in their sense, but bodily staying, and the very time is limited, ver. 5. not many days hence; cateches. 16. how many days must we wait? ten or more? why goes not t. e. to jerusalem and there attend at the right place and time? cyril of jerusalem saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 those very words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. which he renews cat. 17. and applies those texts of john wrested by t. e. to them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. and makes the visible descent of the holy ghost on them, to be their being baptised therewith, and with fire. saint paul advized timothy to other means than waiting, and whether is likelier to know god's mind, he who in pursuance of his waiting, entertaineth (in the mildest terms) the first motions of his own spirit, as divine discoveries, and so [quicquid dixerint hoc legem dei putant— ad sensum suum incongrua aptant testimonia— & ad-voluntatem suam sacram scripturam repugnantem trahunt-] take what they say, st. hierome in his epistle to paultnus. to be god's law etc. or he who looking on the scriptures as the word of god, reads, compares, searches out their sense, taking the draughts of their religion thence, and leading a conversation suitable. theophylact was of a different mind from quakers [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in argumento epis. ad rom. etc. the daily constant reading of the scriptures, brings unto the knowledge of them, for he cannot lie who said, seek and you shall find, knock and it shall be opened unto you.] t. e. doth also contradict himself, making the spirit alone to reveal, and yet p. 238. he saith, christ the lamb doth open them, for he cannot make that lamb whom john baptised and pointed at, to be that holy ghost, that descended on that lamb, though he make no distinction between father son and spirit; yet he must not confound the visible lamb, with the invisible spirit; but whilst he repairs his sandy foundation, we shall view his structure raised. the socinians for the explaining [of prophecies, cateh. eccl. po●lon. c. 3. especially the obscurer, where divine men have not already done it, or given some hints that way, or where the event doth not unfold them, require the peculiar help of the divine spirit, applying 2 pet. mr. boils style of scrip. p. 38. 1.21. to that purpose) and all may accord with, that noble person that [obscureness is wont to attend prophetic raptures:] and the assigning the exact completion of many of them, hic labour, hoc opus est; but whether the history, or their motions be more truly serviceable thereto may appear in this chapter. but thomas elwood excepts no part, the whole is a sealed book to him (even that david begat solomon) till his supposed interpreter unfold it. the difference than is whether the scriptures be penned in such a style, that they need a second immediate revelation to confer their true sense, and that art, study, industry, or humane learning (which is to be conversant in natural, humane, or civil affairs p. 218, 219.) are no ways serviceable, which t. e. maintains (which though it was true, yet we have no evidences to satisfy that the quakers inclose and are entrusted with handing these inspired expositions to mankind, for taking ourselves for believers, we might put in for our share, rather than they, we owning the scriptures, and those he calleth martyrs more than they do, and so granting his whole article, we are no nearer satisfaction with whom that whole sole power is lodged.) protestants on the other hand assert, that the scriptures are so penned, that weaker parts upon reading, hearing the word, praying and endeavouring, may attain so much knowledge as will save their souls, and that the more recondite and abstrucer parts may be understood by such helps, as god hath afforded and doth bless to his church; as tongues, histories, idioms, comparing obscurer with clearer texts etc. so far as is necessary to salvation, it not being required thereto, to, to be able to give an infallible exposition on each line in those sacred pages. now, 1. this doth not exclude holiness of life, as a help to discern, the excellency of divine truths. his secret is with the righteous, prov. 3.32. with them that fear him, psal. 25.14. if any man do his will, he shall know of the doctrine whether it be of god, joh. 7.17. sapientia christiani est timor, est amor christi, salvian. 2. nor indifferency of judgement in our search, mr. mede. mr. chillingworth. freedom from the studium partium, or the traveller's indifferency, as two great names worded it. 3. nor the assistance of the spirit, which assists to know as well as to will, or do, inclines, inlightens, gives a right judgement in all things he seethe necessary, going along from the first preventing, to the utmost persevering, but the difference lieth in the kind, and the manner of its operation. this secret working and breathing, or as mr. pen words it more safely than t. e. [secret strive, winding sh. p. 4. discoveries and operations, fresh and lively touches,] is as much different from immediate apostolical inspiration, as gods minutely concourse is from the power of miracles; when he altars or exceeds the regular established course of nature, so that we allow the spirit to all purposes, but assert, god doth not multiply things unnecessary. t. e. folds his hands, and waits, and inspired expositions drop into him, we are grateful for scripture, and use our best means to understand it, and think the spirit helps the most when we are the most diligent, he is for such revelations as the apostles had conferred instantly; we are for god's ordinary assistance to our endeavours, which yet render us more infallible, than his calls do offer violence to our wills; we take the means and the spirit together, his spirit resolves all without means, we join the spirit and means together, as ploughing, etc. on man's part; and rain, etc. on gods do concur to the producing corn. t. e. will have the best crop, an hundred fold, but the rain must do all, he cannot dig or sow, yet his increase is no less than apostolical. the divine books are so composed that they need not a second immediate teaching to give their meaning, but our diligence in the use of means blessed by god's ordinary assistance, do give us such an understanding of them, as upon our obedience thereto god will accept to our salvation: nor can we think it likely that the extraordinary visibles, as tongues, etc. should be all ceased; and the extraordinary invisibles, &c: immediate teaching, etc. should still all continue. the unintelligibleness of the scriptures, the letter as different from the spirit etc. have been so much insisted on, that i am forced to lay foundations, and premise a few things which seem to command assent upon hearing. 1. that god, that infinite wisdom and goodness is able to express his mind, so as his words may be understood. 2. his willingness to do it appears by what he hath actually done, having revealed much to men, is comprised in the bible. 3. his truth and goodness will not allow him to put a trick upon his creatures, to speak words of a different, reserved, or contrary sense, from common acception, usage of speech, or their importance. so that we cannot suppose that the scripture, the instrument in order to our salvation, should be involved or designedly unintelligible, but the plainer part should unfold the obscurer, haworths' qconverted. p. 22. in. univ. gra. and jo. crook confesseth [the scriptures are true as god means them, not as man by his conceivings interprets them.] and keith oft refereth to the truth, sincerity and righteousness of god in his offers. 4. god having conveyed his mind by words, the understanding of his words must be the best help to the understanding of his mind, and if by words inspired, then by those inspired ones written, for writing neither destroys their sense nor obligation. 5. that the holy spirit doth not improve in knowledge, but was as able to confer true meaning one thousand six hundred years ago, as he is at this day. 6. that the sacred penmen were sober understanding persons, and even without supernatural assistance, could speak and writ intelligibly. 7. that the supervening of the spirit doth not make men fools, but betters and improves them, ascertaining the truth, giving clearer perceptions of it, and ability, fitly and aptly to express it, they not receiving words without sense. 8. that words spoke or heard may be written, being written they may be preserved thousands of years, and still be understood, allowing for change of times, customs, idioms, etc. and that the original language be not extinguished. 9 that those to whom the scriptures were spoke, understood their sense, though they did not see the persons or times in which accomplished, the law was so understood, that the tabernacle was built and the commonwealth ordered according to its prescription, so that the writing was intelligible, spiritual matters being therein veiled, but the literal sense still abiding. 10. that it is reasonable to suppose the book of god to be understood by such helps as other books are, as the phrase, the scope, the coherence, etc. and being a public lasting revelation, reason inclines to judge it should be more intelligible than any private one. 11. that the bible is as intelligible as any book of that age, considering its greatness, several penmen, variety of matter, the distance from us of the things therein transacted; the short way of expressions used by those easterns, the customs, proverbs, etc. therein referred to, especially the sublimity of the matter, that therein god addresseth himself to men, speaks in the language of the sons of men. that the heavenly light assumes a covering, etc. 12. that we may allow god to use ornaments and graces of speech, and figurative expressions, as well as other authors, for the scriptures give understanding, psal. 19.7. making wise unto salvation. 13. having abundantly expresseth all the parts of duty we may allow him sometimes to dwell in the thick darkness, and be content if some things exceed our reach: as is done with the phoenomina of nature. so the likeliest instances may satisfy in the application of prophecies, where we mix humility with diligence, god will pardon, though we miss of the prime intendment, and if not future ages, yet the next word will read us such things as ezekiels measures, etc. these and the like satisfy me of the no necessity of the second expository revelations, for if god have made them dark, it is to conciliate our reverence, that we may know our distance, to whet our industry, etc. but if one scripture revelation need another to explain it, that other will need a third to expound it, and that third a fourth, and so forward. for we cannot reasonably think that the spirit improves in speaking plainly, or that my single inspiration should be more clear than the public apostolical. but this is the smallest part of the trouble, for if i need a fresh inspiration to explain, i need another to ascertain that to be a right exposition, a third to attest the second to be right, and so in infinitum. nay there will be an endless complication of them. i shall need a revelation to ascertain this to be the scripture, than i need an expository revelation to understand that revelation and the scripture, than i need an assuring revelation to confirm those expositions, than further expositions to understand those assurances, and so on for ever. every expository will need a further expository and assuring revelation; and every assuring revelation will need the like assurance and explaining. so that if i do not stand to the certainly attested revelations, but call for more both to prove and expound them, i shall cut myself out work for ever, and such piling one inspiration upon another will multiply difficultyes but remove none. but though these expositions were not only necessary but actually conferred, the former difficulty returns. viz. certain evidence that god, by the quakers only, sends his inspired expositions into the world. the prophets suppose the law to be intelligible, rescuing it from corrupt and false glosses, and pressing to its practice. one prophet though taking somewhat from another, yet employed not his prophetic light in writing comments upon the preceding? luc. 24.27 but the doctors, etc. pressed and opened to the people that which the prophets received immediately from god. christ expounded moses and the prophets, shown them fulfilled in himself, and yet those divine expositions are not extant. peter saith, there are hard things in paul's epistles, yet he makes no exposition of them, nor so much as nameth which are they, though wrested to some men's damnation. hezekiah and josiah, etc. read the words of the law and the prophets, and the people thought they understood the meaning of the words: and god accepted their reformation. and the new testament, which is fuller of light, is not more dark certainly, it is at least as serviceable to us, as the old was to the jews, christ having taken the veil from the face of moses, hath not another drawn over his own. how much is the spirit different from the letter? or the veiled sense how far it is distant from the apparent? you put the world in bad circumstances, in debarring us to expound the letter, and challenging to yourselves the spirit. pray what teachings have you by the spirit which we find not in the letter? but you have need to make so great a distance, your expositions are so wide, for they do not appear to us in the letter, and yet they do not look like the spirit. but is there not a letter in your revelations as well as a spirit? are yours all kernel, but the scripture wrapped up in a thick husk and shell? you dare not say so. god i dare say could speak as plain to st. paul as to ellwood. we know your opinions by words and letters, may we not know gods in the like manner? assert what difficulties you will in the letter, i dare make out that your inspirations (supposing them real) labour under the like and greater prejudices: but by gingling thus with misunderstood terms, men run themselves out of their religion and reason. doth god send his love letters into the world and men can make nothing of it when they have it? his style is not so dark as yours, perfect pha● p. 3. that needs a lexicon to explain yours phrases, you think god to be such an one as yourselves, psal. 50.21. pretending equality with him. i have observed as much sense and life in a chapter of st. matthew, as in any part of truth prevailing: nor can i work myself off, but that i can understand a revelation made to paul, as soon as one made to t. e. supposing i had them both before me: and the apostles were as like to have clear inspiratitions as any other persons. did not christ speak intelligibly to such as heard him? have not the apostles plainly and faithfully set down his words? or, though he had spoke darkly, yet the spirits descent made things clearer, so that the darkness cannot yet continue. we shall find some, and those no believers, who understood christ's words so as to leave them without excuse. pilate, the pharisees, scribes, sadduces, officers, with the other jews, though no disciples, understood his language: their sin is heightened, not from want of knowing what he spoke; but non-entertainment of what was so convincing. judas his sin was heinous, and yet the holy ghost was not then given. this notion draws a strange cloud over god's proceed, making all sins alike, except in the degree of the revelation: for where that is not, there being no knowledge there can be no sin; and where immediate revelation is, it makes each sin to be the sin against the holy ghost. whatever ignorance we have in scriptures, upon thomas ellwood's principle, is solely imputable to the spirit not moving. waiting makes us innocent, god cannot damn any but such as have premediate inspirations, and to hear and not understand, though taken for a sin, yet is not so much as a punishment by this man's divinity; so that a quaker need not go to the temple or altar, but cripple like to wait for the moving of the waters. if revelation come, he sets up for an inspired expositor, if not, still he contives an innocent ignoramus. laws are penned in an intelligible style, else they are snares, and men know not when to yield obedience, and the scriptures were taken for a law. the apostle is for an understood language in church-assemblies; much more than in the divine oracles, which are designed for the generality, ignorant as well as learned, and so can have no crafty, concealed or reserved sense in them. the matters of necessary duty and faith may be soon known, and the spirit inclines to love, practice and believe them; and in the more difficult things he so blesseth the means, that we shall either know them or be pardoned; it is not necessary to salvation to be able to explain each verse in scripture; a man may have the true spirit of god, and yet not understand the apocalypse exactly. god requires holy living more than accurate interpreting, and an honest heart at the last day, will go further than either a critical or an inspired head. quakers also should not urge that scripture to us which they deny to be the rule; but thomas ellwood's manner of proving is strangely wild: he affirmeth scripture cannot be understood without inspiration, and to prove it, produceth scripture, which cannot be understood without that inspiration, which we deny we have. are those texts so plain that they prove it in our way? or doth inspiration light on those who dispute against it? except it can be understood without inspiration, he should not produce it to those who deny it, for the proof of it; and as long as the manner of interpreting scripture is under debate, they should not produce one text of it, till that debate be ended: but his proving from it, supposeth it plain and full for that purpose, and is the direct confutation of his own notion. nor have quakers shown so much gratitude for the scripture discoveries, that god should discover more unto them. nay what need of scripture if they must be renewed, and cannot otherwise be understood? god had better have left men to their inward conductor, than to make a book as a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a bal of strife, about the sense of which they are quarrelling, but can do nothing really with it when they have it. nor did the apostles signify any thing upon their principles, revelation being required in the hearers as well as in the speakers. saint's paradise. p. 84. [by the anointing ye can speak the mind of the scriptures though you never see nor hear, nor read the scriptures from men.] how can we hear christ if his words be unintelligible? but thomas ellwood, 2 quib. p. 34. imme. rev. p. 131. truth exalted p. 9 is singular, others bid us. [bring plain scripture] saith fox, [mark this.] saith keith [read with understanding] saith another. what need of any translations, the spirit can expound originals, as well as english? they used to renounce all interpretations and inferences, but now give them without any security they come from god; there is much labour and trouble in the trying of inspirations, and much danger also, so that we have reason to bless god in settling religion in such a manner, leaving us his word as the record of his will, and giving us sound minds and sober reasons therewith: if i see not sufficient proofs that you are inspired, i shall sin in so tame an assenting to your naked proposals; and god who commands us not to believe every spirit, but try them will never damn me for searching and examining what is pretended to come from him. he that enjoins us to search his own revelations, will not be displeased if we use the severest caution about others; he who questions, must needs be in a safer state than he who easily believes, and he that compares and weighs will be freer from error than he who waits and entertains the first comer. their two principles of christ, the light and immediate teaching, are either inconsistent, or the one is superfluous; for in making but one essential, they invalidate one of their two principles. how do they understand their great text. john. 1.9. that christ is a saving light in every man? if by immediate revelation, than the light doth not discover all things, but needs another to discover itself? if the light interpret it in reference to itself, as most properly it should, [all power in heaven and earth being given unto it.] than something is known without inspiration immediate? if he makes them both one, than he confounds keiths two principles. hath any quakers known the idioms, customs, proverbs, rites, histories, etc. of scripture by an instant discovery? i think that they are least learned, and most inspired men either could not expound, or would sadly differ, if an experiment was made of their ability: an externall proposal hath hitherto been the means of conveying christianity. if any heathen did suddenly become an inspired christian, this might befriend them, but their englished hai ebr yokdan was not so. and the quakers are men, who read and hear, and withal fancy, and so form their notions. whither may not a man hit upon those senses by study, for which they challenge inspiration? to single out doctor hammond as the fittest: because he hath premised a discourse to his annotations on the new testament, in opposition to their very pretensions. is there not one true paraphrase or interpretation in that book? say so, and you confute yourselves, for doctor hammond expounds the seventh chapter to the romans, to be understood of a man in an unconverted estate, and keith owns that as the right sense, using the same term [metaschematismos, o no popery p. 39 40. an usual figure; the apostle, rom. 7th. from verse 14 to 25 describing not his present condition but the condition of others and himself, as they were in the struggling, etc.] whence it follows, that either a man may attain to the true sense of the scripture without inspiration, or may have it though he do not know, but disown and writ against it, which is not likely the impression of the spirit, in such matters being strong and curious, but in either way we are sufficiently secure, and god will not damn any for want of that which floweth merely from his grace. i cannot discover how i can understand the quakers books, for though they seem to use inferences, so that i may consult my reason, yet they being usually writ [from the spirit of the lord,] i need an inspiration to understand them, as much as any verse in the bible, and another to ascertain them to be divine, and so all the former difficulties recur: a papist is much more modest, for though he make his church, or its head, infallible, yet he will confess his single self fallible; and infallible claims needing infallible evidences, we can never be certain of your inspirations, without public outward demonstrations of them. truth loves calmness, and the still voice, lo here, or there is christ, are not its watchword, modest demands go furthest, when backed with strong proofs. i have the liberty to try and judge rational expositions, whereas your inspired ones impose upon me, but the design is erafty, it is a kind of sacrilege to dispute that which saith, it comes from god: so that this pretence insconces them, rendering those moving oracles sacred and venerable; and, 'tis better to buy their divine living testimonies, than a dark lettered bible. but i am at a loss to know whether their receipts are for their own use, or to benefit and oblige mankind. other quakers made the spirit the judge, the instructor, the rule, the guide, etc. thomas ellwood hath got him a further office to be the expositor, but can his inspirations which die, if he do not speak or write them, be plainer than those in scripture, which are given to all, and have the advantage in design, in continuance, in so many expositions already upon them, some of which must be divine by t. ellwoods' doctrine; peter was sent to cornelius, ananias to paul, etc. there was a mistake certainly in such outward conveyances, and attestations, the shortest and the safest cut, had been to direct them to within, it would have saved charges their vicious circle also entangles me, for i cannot discover whether they know the spirit or the scriptures first? they say, they know these to be the scriptures by the spirit, but then how do they know there is a spirit? that, they must not prove from those scriptures, whether do they believe the scriptures before the conferring these expositions, or no? if before, than they believe they understand not what, nor wherefore; if after, than the gloss is conferred before the text; secret things are made known to infidels, and pearls are thrown before swine. but t. ellwood doth not walk in that way he prescribeth others, to instance in two or three which fall short of inspired expositions. p. 35. [may not improbably refer to that great persecution raised upon stephen's death. p. 40. ] [goodwin's antiquities produced about the pharisees] [who the elect lady was, p. 47. in what relation john stood to her, or how far her temporal power might extend, does not appear.] in a discourse of inspiration, as sole expositor, he is fallen to it, [may not improbably, does not appear, and borrows some egyptian jewels.] let him blot these out, for they cut the throat of his book. universal free grace, p. 75. keith is more sober, [these plain testimonies of scripture needs no explication, nor application of mine, what more plain and evident? can more emphatical and significant expressions be used by men?] and he gives some good ways of interpreting scripture used by us [that general maxim of understanding scripture, idem, p. 15. is, that its words are to be understood in their whole latitude and extent, where no cogent reason moves to the contrary] [they pass from the sense which the words plainly import, p. 31. and seek out another sense to the words, not from any necessity, but because it pleaseth not their corrupt judgement] [plain and full scripture proofs, p. 39 — there is abundant matter in the words, or before, or after, to evince the truth—] [we are to take the most usual and proper signification of the word, p. 43. p. 15. 46. 53. 61. 68 101. 102. 106. where no cogent reason moves to the contrary.] with several of the like nature; so that he hath destroyed thomas ellwoods' notion of the obscurity of the scripture, and expository revelations of its sense. having considered their doctrine, let us briefly view their practice, in a taste of some few out of many of their inspired expositions, and this sad account we may give of them, that if they had been hired to subvert true religion, they could not have done it more effectually, by transforming histories and prophecies, as those in daniel, the revelations, etc. into internal things, and making them vanish in frothy allegories. phil. 3.21. new law, p. 42. p. 40. changing vile bodies is [when oppression and injustice shall cease.] 1 cor. 2.15. the spiritual man's judging is [according to the law of equity and reason.] but it is different from t. ellwoods' inspiration, job. 1.6. beelzebub sat among the sons of god [that is among the five senses.] saint. parad. p. 29. fire in the bush, p. 35. 1 cor. 15.24. putting down all rule, is [destroying all government and ministry] 2 cor. 12.3. the seed or birth is that [3d. im. rev. p. 11. heavens in which paul on earth, saw and felt things unutterable.] john. 14.2. [the spreading power of christ in all, new law, p. 22. is the father's house in which are many mansions,] p. 132.134. the new covenant is [christ's spreading himself in mankind] psal. 24.1. humble request to lawyers, etc. p. 2. p. 6. p. 4. univer. gr. p. 55. p. 44. noble salutation, p. 9 saint. parad. p. 45. [the earth is the lords that is man's.] [christ's speech to the young man to sell all, concerns all people.] isa. 2.4. & ezech. 36.34, 35. belong to the [taking-in of commons, heath, and waste land for all poor people.] the light within is [the everlasting gospel which the angel preached;] the tabernacle of david is explained by the [slain image of god in man] or as another words it [it is gods own eternal witness in men] god himself is the [tree of life.] and the [gospel.] christ is [the image of god in man, he breathed in him the breath of life, than the lamb was not slain.] im. rev. p. 71. christ is [the true jew inwardly, the circumcision in the spirit, the public worship in the spirit and truth.] angels are [heavenly principles and graces, looking glass, p. 4. saint parad. p. 66, 67. p. 129. p. 37. howgils' glory, p. 7. saint's paradise. p. 19 some principles, p: 68: and men taken up into god, as moses and christ were.] the lamb's book of lise is [his divine nature and spirit.] the proud flesh is [the devil or father of lies.] rev. 12.1. [the woman clothed with the sun brought forth the holy child jesus,] that is, jesus was born after john's banishment into the isle of patmos. the bottomless pit is [corrupt flesh] the form of sound words is [yea and nay] or [thou] as t. ellwood seems to intimate, p. 27. there is no [devil, but flesh and outward objects] dan. 73. [the four beasts are the four powers which are to be destroyed,] fire in the bush, p. 74. p. 23. that is, [magistracy, ministry, law, and propriety,] the beast slain, dan. 7.11. is [all imaginary selfish power, hear what the spirit speaks] dan. 9.24. the finishing transgression, true christian faith, p. 58. new law, p. 32. etc. is [having the mind truly turned, to the appearance of god in christ within.] rev. 13.1. [the flesh is the beast with seven heads] but differently expounded by t. ellwood, p. 243. rev. 3.7, 8. the beasts having power over tongues is fulfilled by [masters of arts, truth exalted, p. 8. bachelors of arts, vice-chancellors over colleges and others.] saint. parad. 126. the light interpreted these two texts [rev. 9.4. green grass— is the tender sons of christ, matth. 12.31. that old pusling text, sin here is the serpent, the holy ghost is the anointing, or spirit ruling in flesh.] the two witnesses, n. law, p. 80 are [christ in one body, and christ in many bodies] or, as another will have them to be [christ the light within, and immediate revelation, which have been slain in man.] babylon is [the great city of fleshly confusion] the mystery of iniquity, uniu. gr. p. 5 and the man of sin are [the first adam, new law, p. 43. p. 94. fire in the bush, p. 11. im. rev p. 8●. the mystery of godliness is the second adam] [michael and the dragon do fight in mankind] the battle between them is [in the heart:] the temple of god, 2 thes. where the man of sin sits [is man's heart.] there he is worshipped in [the degenerate state.] p. 194. antichrist [not a person or persons particular, but a spirit, true christ. p. 185. the very spirit of satan.] the sin against the holy ghost is [sinning against that beloved son, im. rev. p. 194. truth lifting, p. 50. fire in the bush, p. 58. or body in whom the father dwells bodily,] [time is monarchy, times are popery, and reformed episcopacy, the dividing of times is presbytery, independency and state government.] these are enough to cloy: thus the men of revelations do expound. chap. ix. of their demonstration of the spirit, and new dispensation. iv to appear like the apostles successors the better, univer. gr. in the title. they challenge [the evidence and demonstration of the spirit of truth] worded by t. ellwood, p. 244. thus [that the gospel should be preached in the demonstration of the spirit and power, after the apostasy as well as before.] and this belongs to them, who are emerged out of the apostasy, and are the church returned out of the wilderness, some princ. p. 48. smith's gospel tidings, p. 36. they fancy themselves to be like the apostles [they witness the spirit of god fallen upon them, as formerly among the apostles] [the gospel is now preached in the same power as formerly] but their claim is ill bottomed and their demonstration indemonstrable. first therefore we shall search into the sense of that phrase. secondly, give the quakers opinion of miracles. thirdly, supposing that their principles were right, thence infer that miracles are as necessary now as ever. 1. as for the meaning of [demonstration of the spirit and power, 1 cor. 2.4.] 'tis misunderstood by t. ellwood if he think they have it like the apostles: words and this demonstration are by the apostle opposed [not with enticing words, ver. 1.4, 5. with excellency of speech or wisdom] that is, with oratory or philosophy, and quakers bring no more than words, and those misapplyed, and inward heats, like the disciples of marcus, etc. but their internal sentiments, or consolations are not the scriptures power. demonstration is not a thing of outward words, or inward feelings [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nomine utitur, beza in his shorternotes in locum. quo significatur probatio, quae fit certis & necessariis rationibus.] demonstration is a certain proof by necessary and concluding reasons [habent mathematici, grot. in locum. etc. the mathematicians have their demonstrations, etc. how much greater is that demonstration by such and so great miracles. dr. ham. ] [not in rhetorical proofs, or probable arguments but in plain demonstration.] so that it did not consist in inward, grot. theocum. in loc. but in outward evidences and proofs, what those were, we have recorded, ver. 1. declaring to you the testimony of god, that is, the gospel of christ, or his death, but that which was delivered by the apostles, as certain eye and ear witnesses of it, and to confirm that certain testimony of theirs, god superadded, the demonstration or evidence of the spirit and power, which by an hebraism may be conjoined [evidencing the spirit by power,] theo. in loc. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the power of miracles, were an evidence that the spirit owned and confirmed their certain testimony, or we may take spirit and power, as two distinct proofs of their outward attestations. 1. spirit, the evidence of that consisted in showing the old testament prophecies were fulfilled in christ: this origen makes the demonstration of the spirit [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, l. 1. con. cells. & apud. dr. h. in loc. etc. prophecies that are able to give assurance of the things that belong to christ] and thus rev. 19.10. the testimony of jesus, is the spirit of prophecy, the series of all the prophecies so wonderfully fulfilled are an evidence for him: or, it may take in the new testament prophecies, which are an evidence for christ. the revelations were by him committed to an angel, and so to john: or spirit, may refer to those visible demonstrations, when the blessed spirit visibly descended upon christ and the apostles, dr. ham. and so are that immediate evidence, the spirit gave to christ, or that record the spirit bore so clearly explained in dr. patrick's witnesses to christianity. [power] that hereby are meant miracles is indisputable; origen ubi supra. [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, those miraculous, stupendious actions, whose footsteps yet remain;] [per signa & virtutes, etc. by the holy spirit, and by the signs and powers done by him, we bring you arguments or evidences that we speak the truth, etc.] oecum. in loc. ita. grot. that by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is meant either sanationes, healings in particular, or miracles in general, will be evident by a little observing its use. mar. 9.39. [no man which shall do 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a miraclo in my name,] spoke with reference to such as did cast out devils in the name of christ, and did not follow him, mat. 7.22, [in thy name have done 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, many wondrous works;] answerable to those preceding, prophesying, and casting out devils, luke 10.13. [if the mighty works, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, had been done in tyre and sydon.] 1 cor. 12.28. [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, after that miracles.] as, mat. 11.21.23, & 13.54, 58, & 14.2. mar. 6.2, 5, 14. & 9.39. luc. 5.17. & 6.19. & 19.37. act. 2.22. & 8.13. & passum. ] in all which and many other places, too long to be set down, it signifieth miraculous works, or that divine power which was the evidence or seal of the holy ghost. the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not only set single, but with others that do expound it, rom. 15.19. [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, through mighty signs and wonders, by the power of the spirit of god.] that is, those signs wrought by the power of the spirit, and evidences of it. better signs of his divine commission, than the bells and pomegranates were to the highpriest, etc. 2 cor. 12.12. truly the signs of an apostle were wrought among you, in all patience, in signs and wonders 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and in mighty deeds. these are the signs of an apostle, and yet our new apostles and their successors do no such things: and fully 1 thes. 1.5. our gospel came not to you in word only, but also in power and in the holy ghost, and in much assurance, that is, in the power of the holy ghost, which is a plerophory, or which gives much assurance; by transposing the words, of which many instances are in grot. on john 35. but quakers have words merely without signs or wonders, or certain sensible testimonies, or humane learning. one of them acknowledgeth, they can give no outward evidence [seeing our opposers require of us, q. no popery, p. 62. 63. to show, or evidence unto them, some infallible 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that we have the spirit of god, i would have j. m. to know, that the same difficulty recurreth, as to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the scriptures, it being a thing which cannot be shown, or made to appear by any evidence unto the carnal mind, which yet is evident unto the spiritual.] that is like the old heretics, they are the spiritual, others not of their mind are the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the animal or carnal; but his evidence for inspiration is far inferior to the scriptures authority. and in that very text, rev. 14.6. produced by t. ellwood of the preaching the everlasting gospel after the apostasy, there is no mention of demonstration or inspiration, etc. nor was there any need thereof, the corrupt church among much dross preserving those very books, whereby her errors were detected, and that was when all learning began to revive, true religion and learning moving in equal lines. 2. but quakers have the demonstration, qu. looking glass. a true narrative. though they slight the miracles thereby employed, some attempts have been made thereto by charles baylyes stroking, richard anderson's cursing, in mr. jenner, p. 93. the woman's pretending to raise the interred corpse which were reinterred when her folly had appeared. sober answer to speed. p. 76. nicholas kate of harwell said [that when the fullness of time was come, he should work miracles,] which yet is not come to pass, but the fullness of time with such, new law, p. 37. bears a strange date [the fullness of time is, when the first man hath filled the creation full of his filthiness, and all places stink with unrighteousness.] but visible miracles failing, they turn it another way, they work invisible miracles, or miracles in spirit, so did ignatius loyola, and [doubtless to reach to the soul, pennington's naked truth, p. 28. to quicken it, to cure its diseases, is greater than the outward, and was signified by the outward.] they work miracles in [a spiritual way] t. ellwood makes tongues to be be but mediums to convey their message to others, p. 231. 3d. quib. p. 75. as if he durst outface the apostle, who declares them to be a sign to such as believed not, 1 cor. 14.22. keith prettily daubs it over [that they witness the power working miraculously in their hearts, im. rev. p. 200. raising to life the dead souls, etc. and these are the greatest miracles, of which the outward were but a figure.] william shown almost bids defiance to them [we read not of very many converted by outward miracles— which are not of absolute necessity in the church, true christians faith, p. 150. 157. but the inward are the greater miracles, which christ promised that those who believed in him should do.] so that they do no wonders, title of a book. truth exal. p. 11. yet have [silent meetings which are a wonder to the world,] and do [preach the gospel again with the holy ghost sent down from heaven.] and at this rate they may say or be any thing, demonstrate though they cannot show, having the power but not the thing. 3. supposing the quakers principles true, miracles are more necessary now than ever: for, 1. god wrought miracles to convince unbelievers, and in the quakers charity we are no better [come you un-christians] saith the curious pen of fox [william shown calls us, 2d. quib. p. 66. titular and nominal christians] through his whole book [christians according to the letter, pennington concerning persec. pref. barclay in q. no popery, p. 106. who are as great enemies to the spirit and power, as ever the jews were.] [worldly literal christians both papists and protestants] now being such, miracles are infinitely necessary, to disabuse and to remove us from the letter into the spirit, a mistaken christianity being more obstructing and prejudicial than mere heathenism. 2. if miracles were necessary when the scriptures were writ, which are a dead letter, a sealed book and worse; then are they much more necessary, when inspired expositions thereof are given: to allude to t. ellwoods' terms of shell and kernel, etc. god would not give a demonstration, the shell was his, and leave us at a loss, whether the kernel was his also, if he send evidences along with the bark, rind, etc. he would do the same much more with the substance. the apostasy continuing 1548 years, we need signs, that this is the same doctrine with the old, especially if the scripture, the repository of that doctrine cannot be understood without inspiration; there being many pretenders, we need a sign, more at the unsealing than at the sealing of that book: if to receive the letter, much more to understand the spirit, the sense when given as from god, needs most of all his attestation to it, for the pretending to give an inspired exposition of the scriptures, is more than the bringing new scriptures, and needs greater attestations, as much as the sense is better than the letter. and thomas ellwood knows not what he hath, but if he have revelations they must be new ones, for revelation being necessary to understand the scriptures; those expositions thomas ellwood receives must be new, the repetition is the reacting the old, but then the exponding is the conferring new, which are not to be found within the bible. 3. the debate being whether or no they be inspired, upon their grounds, nothing can end it, but the interposing of god's power: for to say, they witness it is a begging the question, and to credit those witnessings will expose to delusions, to produce scripture disowned by them as the rule, is improper, and concludes nothing; being it cannot be understood without inspiration when produced; or if it could, still it concludes as equally for any other pretender as for them. 4. he who abrogates a divine law, must produce greater authority for so doing, than that by which at first it was instituted. thus christ taking down or altering that way of worship which had been set up by a power of miracles in moses, produced greater evidences than moses that he was sent from god. and that quakers do abrogate christ's commands, is evident from slighting his sacraments, etc. thus shown concerning baptism, and the disciples and apostles having baptised some, proceeds [not discerning the times and seasons, true christians faith, p. 79. and the divers dispensations of god towards mankind since the fall, nor perceiving the end of them lays hold of the shadow and figure instead of the substance, etc.] allegorising and abrogating christ's institutions. 5. he who brings a newer and an higher dispensation, must produce visible evidence for so doing, in this indeed the quakers are much divided. some making theirs a new dispensation [new heavens and a new earth; pennin. conc. persecu. pref. idem in faldo quak. no chris. p. 17. new law, p. 14. ] [the former dispensation was swallowed up— by the breaking forth of a more lively dispensation.] this fancy runs through the works of winstanley, [the ministration of the spirit, is now rising up, claims its due right by course.] and having received it from god, he thus writeth, there are seven dispensations [1. to adam. 2. the seed of the woman from adam to abraham. mystery of god. p. 21. 3. from abraham to moses. 4. from him to christ. 5. god in christ. 6. god in the flesh of his saints, as before in christ, which holds till the day of judgement, which is the 7th:] these he contracts into three, [moses, new law, p. 9 10. 11. 12. 13. 120. christ, the spirit: and as moses gives way to christ, so that single body jesus gives way to the holy ghost, or spreading power in sons and daughters, and this begun in 1648.] and every such dispensation is a full period or term of time: mystery of god. p. 38. 40. im. rev. p. 18. p. 49. others maketh theirs to be an higher improvement of the former dispensation, [the more gospel times that were to come in the latter days.] [a spiritual ministry, a gospel ministry, a powerful ministry is come and coming] or, they would have it a reviving the dead, universal free grace, 92. or a restoring of the former lost dispensation. [christ's spiritual, inward and powerful appearance, is now again revealed in this day after the apostasy] but every several way of stating makes it high, howgils' glory of the true church. 32. [for the everlasting gospel was a thing beyond, above and before the writings of the new testament.] and it requires the spirits owning it, before any should entertain it; for it is a mighty alteration, from a bodily christ without, to an invisible one within; and if the man christ wrought miracles, much more should christ the spirit, act. 2, 22. the visible christ was a man approved of god, by miracles, wonders and signs, which god did by him, in the midst of them as they also knew; the new invisible christ hath nothing to approve him, but words and fancies, but either at bringing as moses, at reviving as elias, or at changing, as christ of a dispensation miracles were necessary: and though john the baptist wrought no miracles, yet his coming was prophesied of by esaias and malachy; nor did he bring in a new dispensation, only he prepared for it, but the quakers pretending to the highest dispensation, that of christ in the spirit, which is never to be out-dated, are to do greater works than christ in the body, and miracles being the work of the spirit, they being more necessary to it, than to the dispensation of christ, quakers are to have its demonstration, both to usher in its dispensation, and also to assure us that they are the sole persons entrusted with the bringing of it. but whence had they this notion? there are precedents enough for what is evil, montanus and mahomet made use of this weapon; david george took himself for the true spiritual david, sent to restore the house of israel by grace, and that all dispensations before were literal and carnal; henry nicholas made seven several dispensations, but disserently computed from winstanley, which likewise he shrinketh into three, but the last, the highest, and most glorious was that which he brought by grace and love. jacob israel made three dispensations, under the emblem of three suns; the highest is, gods being in sons and daughters at the new jerusalem. keith makes four dispensations, moses and the prophets, christ in the flesh, the evangelists and apostles, and the revelaing now christ's inward appearance, univer. gra. p. 92. like that which the apostles had in their day, but the fullest precedent is that of abbot joachim, and the franciscan friars, who about the year 1253. published a book evangelii aeterni nomine, set forth by johannes de parma, the design of which was to change the gospel of christ into the gospel of the spirit [that as the sun excels the moon, bp. usher de chpist. eccles. p. 277. 279. or the kernel the shell (thomas ellwood's comparison) so that of the spirit excels the gospel of christ, they said, the sacrament of the church was nothing, that the gospel of the spirit was the only gospel, p. 280. that the new testament is to be evacuated like the old, that then men shall be in the state of the perfect, p. 281. that the spiritual sense of the new testament is not committed to the pope, but the literal, p. 282. p. 283. that when the spirit comes, former things shall be counted old, that the preachers in the end of the world shall be of greater dignity and authority than the apostles] with much such stuff. these are thomas ellwoods' antecessors, and the pope condemned the books writ against this devilish doctrine. p. 287. chap. x. concerning their experiences. v the quakers know the word of god and their revelations by experience, so thomas ellwood [we know that the word of god is quick and lively by experience. p. 249. ] but his inspiration misinforms him about the direct sense of that place, heb. 4.12. for it concerns god's oath, v. 3. of unbelievers not entering into his rest, which took hold of the israelites, and we are warned to take heed of the like unbelief, because the word of god is powerful, etc. that is, his threaten are not high ineffective words, but will seize on the impenitent, it concerns thomas ellwood not to despise the teaching of jesus, lest his experience of this commination prove sad and irreversible: thus dr. hammond from the scope expounds it, and so st. chrysostom [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. apud theoph. in loc. the same word which punished them will punish us, for it liveth always and is never extinguished.] but thomas ellwood as formerly mistakes his ground work, yet let it pass, there is not one word of experience there, but when other arguments fail, they cry out [we bear our testimony, we witness it, we experience it, etc.] who matters that? the term experience is un-scriptural and indemonstrable concerning revelation, and but rarely used concerning graces, the pharisees had that common sense, john. 8.13. thou bearest record of thyself, thy record is not true, a rule that is owned by christ jo. 5. if i bear witness of myself my witness is not true, and john 8.14. but quakers can only witness for themselves, or at the farthest one for another. william shown in 19 chapters conjoins their faith and experience, whereas the one is matter of perception, the other the substance of things hoped for; heb. 11.1. the evidence of things not seen, what is seen is not hope, and what is experienced is not faith; but such sensual spiritualists may say and have any thing by such confusion. new law p. 11. [jesus declared in general terms— leaving it to every son, and daughter to declare their particular experiences; the scriptures are but christ in the letter, lying under the experimental words of those penmen.] keith saith, we know that immediate revelation is not ceased [from the blessed experience given us of god therein: im. rev. preface, & passim. ] but, what experiences are these? not outward and sensible, but inward and indiscernible, wherein fancy, natural enthusiasm and satan, can all play legerdemain to purpose. christian experience in matters of duty is useful to support in their practice; but it is to be an after argument, come in ad corroborandum, for man's nature is of a strange composition. comforts have much dependence on the temper of the body, they are the more usual portion of weak and young beginners, nor should we hanker so much after those real sweets or fanciful gusts; but be diligent in our christian calling. inward experience is no bottom for inspiration christianity was settled in an outward sensible way, to forestall this inward wile of satan. moses though he saw the bush burning, and had outward evidences too, yet was not hasty in believing. the apostles, i think, beza in loc. & in act. 9.29. demurred some while upon the suggestions they received, act. 16.10. [assuredly gathering.] from the vision collates argumentis colligentes, conferring and sitting as artificers do piece to piece. sancti non temerè visionibus quibusvis crediderunt, they examined their very visions, and were not hasty in entertaining them. their experiences also consist in comfort, the meanest argument whence to infer god's voice; [we know the spirit of the lord in his shinings, im. rev. p. 28. warming, quickning, water, and refresh from and by himself, sometimes, a day they could feelingly and experimentally speak of what god had wrought in their souls— could tell of sweet hours of fellowship— his revealing the hid invisionble—] but others of different judgements are as high in experiences and comforts, p. 45. new law p. 64. mist. of god pref. marry gadbury was full of singing and joy. the leveller, for that doctrine of working in the common, had peace of spirit, and from that very thing (his joy and rest in god:) he was convinced of his inspiration. the ranters have store of quiet. w. b. silent meeting. 5. exomologesis, p. 631. had more refresh in a dumb meeting than in an hundred sermons. the hearers were refreshed at the dutch woman's ununderstood preachment. newton had much joy in his visions; and the ravishment and spiritual embraces enjoyed by the carthusians, were a great motive to mr. cressyes' revolting. flashes and affecting warmths are no evidence of truth; the mass, or a turkish mosque will afford such stir of the lower powers. he who from them approves or choses his religion is fit to be a palpitating disciple of marcus, than a well-grounded servant of the lord jesus. but though they had true experiences, that is no satisfaction to another, for as god requires a reasonable religion, so a man should be able to render a reason of his hope. christianity consists not in sensible consolations, which do ebb and flow, and are oft delusive, nor in the gratifying the inferior power, but in a sound mind, a living faith, and a conscientious practice. and enthusiasm hath carried others higher than the quakers spirit (be it what it will) hath yet carried them. satan can [transform himself into the likeness of god himself, im. rev. p. 239. and actually doth it] so that men should be cautions about their comforts. the presenting some of their experiences, will discover their excellency [all that which you call the history, new law p. 97. is all to be seen and felt within you. adam and christ, cain and abel, abraham, moses, israel, canaanites, amalekites, philistines, all those armies, the land of canaan, judas, etc. are all to be seen within you] rarely experienced, devon-shire house, or the trojan horse cannot contain such a company. but keith denying the history to be conveyed by revelation, this man makes out the receipt by experience. saint's paradise. p. 29. he experiences what the devil is [i shall show in my experiences, what i see and know the devil is, viz. in the full body of him he is unrighteous flesh, and the imaginations thereof, and every lust is a particular devil] he truly found in his experience that [the flaming sword is the enmity of natures] which enmity he had before experienced [to be the devil and murderer] and lastly [from what he had received and seen within him, p. 47. p. 30. new law. p. 103. true christian. faith and experience. p. 33● 34. he denies a local hell. shown believes [god's oneness, omnipresence, and his other attributes from the manifestation of him in his own heart, so he saith, god is pure, from his appearance so pure in his heart.] strange ideas have they of the divine perfections, to measure them by their own sensations [he truly and experimentally knoweth, p. 106. that god cannot be tempted with evil, because that heavenly light he is endued withal cannot be tempted with evil.] [he can give an experimental account of the two great ordinances of christ, baptism and the lords supper: p. 76. ] that is he hath an experimental feeling of allegories. univer. gra. p. 86. p. 117. keiths' experience made him [know and feel the seed in others] and he experienced [the belief of christ in the outward, not to be necessary to salvation:] q. no popery, p 30. some prim. 120. and from this head he infers the apocrypha [to have proceeded from a measure of the true spirit:] and pennington bids [wait to feel] the glorious state of the church before the apostasy. such men's faith consists in experience, and that in fancy, but hereby they take away the very proofs of christianity, p. 96. [women now are witnesses of christ's resurrection] but thus, pen. in fal. vin. of 21. diu. p. 7. true christ. experience. p. 39 they must [know only as they experience.] and the knowledge of the scriptures avails nothing [except accompanied with a living experience of the same power working after the same manner as it did in others, in times past who have left their testimonies thereof upon record.] chap. xi. how the primitive christians came to the knowledge of the gospel. vi thomas ellwood is the successor of the primitive christians, as well as of the apostles, and he informs that [the primitive christians did receive the knowledge of the gospel, from the immediate teachings of the holy spirit, p. 233. to the like purpose p. 245.] which he enlargeth from the primitive christians [to have been in all ages revealed to the saints in some degree or other, p. 237.] this is matter of fact, and the truth of it depends upon proof from history: not one word thereof is produced, and the former instances about st. basil, nazianzene, etc. do not encourage us to trust either his learning or infallibility. we are now upon the negative, and it belongs to him to prove out of undoubted histories that the gospel came to be known in all ages by immediate revelation: we find the fathers very learned, and coming thereto by study, and using such means of expounding as protestants do. we find their expositions differing both among themselves, and from the quakers; let thomas ellwood show which fathers were inspired, which of their works were writ by it, how we must understand those inspired expositions of theirs; for they seem likelier to have immediate revelation than any in this age; in epist. ad paulin. st. hierom makes that prophecy of joel. 2.28. fulfilled [super 120 credentium nomina, & effusum iri in caenaculo zion.] upon those 120 names in act. 1. and at the descent upon the apostles act. 2. cateches. 17. and cyril of jerusalem refers it to the coming upon peter and the apostles. and theodoret makes it to receive its evident, comment. in loc. and literal accomplishment at the day of pentecost. thomas ellwood enlargeth it to all believers and all ages. whom shall we trust? but he making them inspired, i have more reason to believe such great names, rather than his conceit. the pretence to revelation was all along disowned in the true church after the settlement of christianity. cont. haeres. 48. epiphanius condemns the montanists for bringing in new prophets, post terminum propheticorum donorum, after the expiration of prophetical gists, and saith, they bring alios prophetas post prophetas, would introduce a new brood or series of them. the prophets of the new testament are oft by name recorded, l. 5. c. 15. which is not done to any other of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, this was urged by miltiades in eusebius, adding to them ammias of phyladelphia and quadratus: and that if the montanists challenge prophecy after the prophets, others by the like rule may challenge it after the montanists, and so in infinitum. we are certain that the extraordinary visible gifts are ceased, and thence we infer that the invisibles bore at most but an equal date with them, and that miracles continued longer in the church than immediate inspiration is apparent in that we find footsteps of the one, after the other was disowned, and the divine will might soon be made known, whereas the continuance of its testimonials in the world some while after was more necessary. tertullian called his by the name of nova prophetia, new prophecy: an evidence that the old was ceased, and how he was disowned by the church is notorious. though there were many succeeding prophets under the law, that doth not infer it must be so under the gospel, for those prophets brought in light by degrees, and prepared the way for christ: but then prophecy lay silent for about 400 years before his appearing, a sign that he came to fulfil and seal up all, and when god himself took the chair, and in our nature discharged his office, it fastens imperfection on him, to maintain a series of prophets, to explain what he spoke, or relate what he omitted. the new testament foretells of false prophets, but no where promiseth a succession of new ones. nor is it possible, christianity being entertained upon their personal knowledge of christ, and the visible evidences of the spirit; which also inwardly inclined men to search into, to approve and choose what the apostles, etc. outwardly proposed, and now learning and meditation supply to us what the spirit immediately vouchsafed to them, in epistle ad paulinuim. as st. hierom saith [quicquid enim aliis exercitatio & quotidiana in lege meditatio tribuere solet, ist is hoc spiritus sanctus suggerebat.] thomas ellwood makes some attempts of proof about the reformation, as from tindal. p. 273 but neither renewed, immediate nor expository revelations are therein owned nor doth it concern notional (about which our debate is) but practical knowledge, he deals very unfaithfully with bishop jewel, who proves from the ancients, that many things are easy in the scripture, p. 393. and he strikes in with harding about the darkness of scriptures, and the understanding of them, not by reading, but by special revelation and miracle. p. 394. and that which the bishop calls help and prompting. thomas ellwood transforms into inspiration and revelation of the divine spirit. p. 275. without humane learning study or natural abilities and the answer of alphonsus the spanish friar to mr. bradford becomes thomas ellwood's mouth [you must be as it were a neuter— as one standing in doubt; pray, fox his mart. vol. 3. p. 299. and be ready to receive what god shall inspire, for in vain laboureth our tongue to speak else.] but none of his proofs concern perpetual immediate inspiration, for the spirit giving assurance of the scriptures, is a thing of a different nature. the sense of the reformers is discerned from the homily, in the exhortation to the reading of the scriptures, which requires our humility and diligent search and often reading. and john old, a famous divine in edward the sixths' days, declares how they proceeded in interpreting scripture [touching the interpretation of the scriptures, it must be expounded according to the proprieties of the tongues in which it was first written, in dr. holdsworth praelec. theolog. p. 435. and by dilsgent weighing of sayings that go before, and that follow after, withal the circumstances, and also according to other places that are more plain, or like or contrary, and where the fathers, the doctors of the holy church have interpreted the scriptures after this manner, and have in no wise blanched or swerved from this rule, there we do with heart and good will acknowledge and take them for faithful and diligent interpreters of the scriptures, and honourable instruments of the holy ghost, whose painful labours and industryes, our lord god hath used in the church, to the glory of his own name, and the profit of his flock, etc.] this was printed 1554. chap. xii. of their hearing the voice of god, and some other claims. thomas ellwood to all these superadds other privileges; as first, their hearing god's voice [blessed be the lord we have heard the voice of god, and when the lord hath spoken in us] p. 249. implying in a distinct articulate voice spoken within, and heard by them, a most dangerous delusion, and contrary to god's manner of proceeding, who rarely or never spoke to men without some internuntius, or medium, his voice being dreadful, no man can hear it and live; exod. 20.19. deut. 18.16. so that either angels or god incarnate signified his pleasure: the motions, and whispers of the spirit, are not an audible voice, the manner of gods speaking is related thus, uniu. grace, p. 87, 88 [the word of god speaketh forth itself at first simply in power, virtue, light and life, rather than in words— and afterwards words are given, and that very distinctly beard and apprehended.] so that the quakers inspirations come rather at first by signs and symbols than words, and that is a darker way of expression. im. re. p. 171. &. 58. [for the plainest words cannot give the knowledge of the things.] and [words even the best cannot give the knowledge of god, etc.] that must be strange which words cannot express, though they pretend to receive it from the mouth of the lord, or viuâ voce from him: q. no christ. p. 121. & 272. new law. 96 parnels shield 38. im. rev. 14. q. spi. court. p. 7. but they may questionless hear his voice, for they can see the invisible [he sees his maker and lives in the light] [some of them have had appearances of god] [the saints have an intuitive knowledge of god in this life] so that though fox in the divine light could never see angels nor spirits, yet they can see and hear god, and they succeed several herein. theod. eccl. hist. l. 4. c. 11, dr. cansabons enth. p. 103.161, 163, 164. the messalians did behold the trinity with their eyes, god did talk with ignatius loyola, and the holy maid saw god, heaven and hell and the soul of christ in its purity. and that strange enthusiast in acosta talked of conversing with god: and the alumbrados or spanish quakers said, they might see god visibly in their ecstacyes. 2. they receive the gospel [by the gift of god, p. 245. from the divine power itself p. 232.] not once naming in this regard that great prophet, who in the days of his flesh, taught us, but these are two general words technically to imply the manner of inspiration; for every good and perfect gift comes from god, and yet it is not handed down by revelation. 3. divine revelation consists in opening, discovering or expounding [teaching the true sense and meaning of scriptures, by opening, discovering, and making known the will of god therein expressed: this is revelation, for whatsoever is discovered or made known is revealed—] p. 255. a new notion: by which the apocalypse must be the easiest book, and the revelation of john must be the exposition of john, but he useth the word doubly; sometimes properly, as p. 238. for gods conveying such a message unto a man, at other times he takes it loosely, for the understanding the message so brought: whereas divine revelations do not depend upon our right understanding them, but upon gods conveying them, unless he be of the jesuits mind, that the scripture not being understood is no scripture; and if discovering be revealing, than every artist or inventor is a revealer: so dr. harvey was a revealer of the circulation of blood. pecquet the revealer of the passage of the chyle. vesputius or columbus were the revealers of america, and the discoverer of the isle of pines was such a revealer as thomas ellwood, and by this there will be plenty of books of revelations. univer gra. p. 24. [the book of creation being a sealed book till the divine and spiritual illumination of the holy spirit of god do unseal it, reveal and open, and make known the things that are therein contained.] chap. xiii. of the texts of scripture produced by him. th. ellwood representing the holy scriptures dark and unintelligible, attempts to prove his immediate teachings from those dark texts, which he saith cannot be understood without immediate inspiration, and which we deny the having of, 'tis a manner of proceeding that makes the scriptures confute themselves, and supposeth men fools, who must admit that which cannot be understood. yet so far to be understood, as to be a proof against itself, and no further, other proofs of inspiration are only in this case proper; but seeing he hath no evidences else; let us try those expositions his spirit gives of some places. this prophecy he confesseth begun to be fulfilled at pentecost, but denyeth that it is yet ended, joel. 2.28. p. 270. but joel foretells not the reacting of old prophecies only that after its cessation for many years, there should be another more plentiful essusion of the spirit, than had been before. st. peter an inspired interpreter refers it to that very thing, the descent of the spirit. act. 2.16. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, this is that, etc. in the present tense, and dare thomas ellwood sense it otherwise? well may they control expositions of men, when they contradict that of the spirit, if it belong to all, than the papacy had it, and thomas ellwood will lose his share, we being flesh and he spirit; but the apostle makes that very days wonder to be the fulfilling of it, which he uttered upon receipt of the gift of tongues, before other miracles were wrought, why is not the spirit as visible now, as in that chamber in zion? why do quakers deny prophecies, visions, dreams strictly taken, and insist for revelation not there named. joel hath afterwards, which peter adapting to the jewish state calleth the last days, the scripture sense thereof will clear it, that last days refer to some determinate period of time, reason will tell us, for that last days should signify all time is not possible, for the now last, are before the succeeding last, and each taking his own for the last days, nothing could be certain: thus h. nicholas applied the last days to his prophecy upon an hundred and twenty years agone. new law, p. 11. glory of church. 8. the leveller took (latter times) to support his own fancy. howgil in 1661. called those the last days. so did truth exalted in 1658. p. 1. but latter days is an old testament phrase, gen. 49.1. num. 24.14. isa. 2.2. referring oft to the last days of the jewish government, within which christ was to appear, but to enlarge last days, to all the periods of christianity, is very improper, and will leave nothing determinate. thus heb. 1.2. god hath in these last days, etc. i. e. not in our last (which may not be the last by many hundreds) but in those last, a while before the throwing down of the jewish enclosure. st. peter's last days, 2 pet. 3.3. are followed v. 13. with looking for a new heaven and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness, that refers not to the day of judgement, when we look for no new earth, but to the state of christianity: the jewish last days being out, a new holy state of christianity should commence, this is that world to come, heb. 2.5. which is not put in subjection to angels, as the jewish world was: christ the everlasting father, isa. 9.6. is the father 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of this future 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 period, age, world or state, which is to be everlasting, never antiquated by any supervening dispensation. these two states of moses and christ are conjoined, 1 cor. 10.11. the ends of the world are come 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, upon the apostles the extremes of those two periods met, the ends of those two states concentred and concurred, so heb. 9.26. he hath once in the end of the world, not of this world, christ is not to die again, but at the end of the jewish world he died, at the close or shutting up of that state, and st. john surviving them all, calls it the last hour: [all flesh] refers to gentiles as well as jews, some of all ages, some of all sexes, etc. at the return of the spirit of prophecy should be so inspired. if t. ellwood enlarge this to all, he must confute st. peter's present tense, he must produce visible proofs of the spirit, as the apostles did: and lastly, both as to this and other texts, show his party to be wholly entrusted with the revelations therein supposed. ephes. 1.17. [the spirit of wisdom and revelation] or the wisdom and revelation of the spirit, but immediate, p. 227. instant conferring is not named, or if it was, it had been suitable to that first plantation, or, if you have it at present, than we desire evidences of such before we give credit, dr. ham. grot. but the word either implies ability of exposition of the figures of the old testament, or the foretelling future things, which man cannot find out, but the spirit still reveals to us gradually in blessing the used means, enlightening our minds, etc. rom. 8.9. p. 232. all true believers received and must receive the spirit, but it doth not require of immediate, instant inspiration, but the spirit of sanctification and adoption, v. 10, 13. etc. 2 cor. 4.6. [god hath shined in our hearts] but it doth not say immediately, p. 232. the gospel which is outwardly proposed is a glorious light, when it is inwardly entertained, but it was by the ministry of paul they received that light, grot. v. 7. that treasure being brought them in earthen vessels [in the face of jesus] that is by jesus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth a person, it is id omne quod sensibus exterioribus percepitur, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, theophil. gal. 1.16. p. 233. thomas ellwood crowds together several things which are not in that text, but the apostle shows how he received the gospel (not of man) by certain ear testimony as st. luke and st. mark did, but from jesus christ himself, who called him and taught him, act. 9 & 22. and 26. (in me) is either unto me, or, by me, or, if in me, yet not so as to destroy christ's outward calling and commissionating him. ephes. 3.3, 7. p. 233. he sets this in the margin without the words, which concern only the revelation of that mystery, viz. the taking in the gentiles to be fellow heirs v. 6. which revelation is oft referred to and employed in scripture. 2 pet. 1.21. p. 237. here he makes a wide inference, because prophecy came not by the will of man, etc. therefore the scriptures must be understood only by the revealing of the spirit, the immediate influx of prophetic light into another's soul is of a different nature from my sensing or understanding that light which he received, for if the prophets could not conceive or write intelligibly what the spirit spoke, no more can thomas ellwood, for the spirit was as able to speak then as now, and if he must interpret what he before spoke, than he must be fetched in to interpret that interpretation, and so on for ever. rev. 3.7. p. 238. he brings in christ the lamb with the key of david opening, etc. begging the question, that opening signifieth expounding; whereas it denoteth christ's power in governing the church, taking in and shutting out, isa. 22: 20. mat. 16.19. [clavem potestatem vocat] for he who hath the keys hath the house committed to him, aretas in loc. t. e. by this spoils his very pretensions of the spirits opening, for this lamb is not the holy ghost, but the lamb that taketh away our sins. p. 239. mat. 11.27. he must prove the spirit to be the son, that all revelation is immediate, or that text makes against him. father, son and holy ghost, are all said to reveal, and yet those works are not to be confounded. 1 cor. 2.11. though no man know, p. 239. & 266. etc. yet the spirit hath communicated some part of that knowledge, v. 12. and if those cannot be understood, we have no assurance that the next will be clearer, but v. 13. the apostle declares that they spoke those things which the spirit gave them, and in the spirits words, that is purposely to be understood: what those things were which the spirit taught appears by the coherence, v. 9 viz. a conviction of the infinite joys of heaven, theoph. in loc. [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. the spirit teacheth such things as belong to christ's dispensation, his dying for us, making us the sons of god, setting us at the right hand of his father in himself.] rev. 13.3, 4. p. 243. he states the apostasy differently both from himself and his partners and should i refer that text to heathen idolatry, and not to lapsed christianicy, i see not how thomas ellwoods' spirit could confute me. judas v. 9 1 thes. 4.8. these texts he applieth severely to such as look upon the quakers light to be fantastical; but he should first prove that god speaks by them, before he make us sin in rejecting them: in epictet. l. 1. c. 22. arrian gives a good rule, that differences arise, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in the application of rules to particular cases, winstanley lays a curse on such as will not come into the levellers community; [the hand of the lord shall be upon that person whosoever he be] and yet no rich quaker will think himself obliged by it. new law, p. 75. 2 tim. 3.16. the scripture is profitable [for doctrine.] i.e. to teach true doctrine, [for reproof] to discover and reprove false doctrine, p. 251. theop. & oecum. in locum. [for correction,] to correct and amend our evil manners, [for instruction in righteousness] to direct and lead into good life and manners: that the man of god may be perfect, etc. to furnish timothy a bishop and pastor for his office, much more to instruct the people in their duty: and therefore the apostle comforts timothy, that though he die, yet he hath the scriptures, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, theoph. which can benefit thee in my absence, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, these are thy counsellors instead of me. mark 13.11. that promise belongs to the times of persecution, p. 256. and should not be enlarged to all cases: theoph. on mat. 10.19. gives a good exposition of it [when we speak among the faithful, we ought to premeditate, and be ready for a defence, as st. peter saith, but when we speak before multitudes and kings who rage, than god doth promise his strength that we should not fear.] act. 2.4. p. 263. the spirits giving utterance was by his wonderful descent, when the apostles opened in such tongues and wisdom: and quakers have no tongues, but what they learn, rhetorical and poetical enthusiasms have raised men above the quakers, by keiths' concession: serious matters require premeditated discourses, and vehement speeches more become jugglers than wisemen, as seneca at large observeth. in epist. 40. p. 263. 1 tim. 4.13, 15. the directions given to timothy about reading are inconsistent with instant juspiration, but if tymothy who had an extraordinary gift must meditate, etc. much more must others: revelation is not capable of rules and instructions, though ordered as for time, yet it cannot be for matter. and of inspirations and infusions that come instantly and unexpectedly there can be no knowledge. thomas ellwood talks much about letter, sense, and spirit, p. 249. which both reflects upon god's manner of expressing his mind, as if it was not open, true, and cordial; and also casts dirt upon the scriptures: the opposition between the gospel and the law, or the remnant, print, and mark of circumcision, is wrested to the apparent sense of sacred writ, and a supposedly concealed sense: and this method both familists, libertines and others have formerly pursued: a quaker can but write words or letters, but in his sense he cannot write, i. e. express or give the holy ghost, univer. gra. p. 29. and moses [besides the outward had a ministration in the spirit:] all these texts come not near his design, much less, that quakers are instructed with that dispensation, if it was real. chap. xiv. that thomas ellwoods' ways of expounding do destroy the scripture. our author having represented the bible dark, to prepare the way for his suppletory spirit, as if this affront was not sufficient, he doth dispersedly insinuate several things, which in effect do discharge all, or most of the written word. 1. he declines what is urged from the law, saying, p. 134. [that it was to them of old time under the law (which was a state of weakness and childhood, and so of contention and strife,) etc.] whereas christ proposeth childhood as freest from contention, mar. 9.35. and thus the anabastists, called concionatores, looked upon the old testament as abrogated. 2. he makes nothing of christ's example in preaching upon a text, luc. 4.17. by this art, p. 200. [that it was in the time of the law, and suitable to that ministration, when reading and expounding the law and the prophets was a part of the jewish service, but it is not a sufficient warrant for the like practice in the time of the gospel.] a rule that enervates christ's example and doctrine, because done and spoke before the law was antiquated. he makes nothing of what christ spoke to the pharisees [that about choosing the lowest room, luke 14.8. was spoke to the pharisees, who had an itch to take place, etc. but p. 41. what was it to christ's own disciples? did he ever instruct them after this manner? no such matter.] by which he disobligeth christians from any obedience to what christ spoke to such as were not his attendants, and so demolishes a good part of the gospels. 4. being pressed from luc. 14.8. that there ought to be distinctions of persons, he saith, p. 41. [those words were not spoken with relation to the times of the gospel, nor directed to the disciples] by which he dispatcheth also much that christ spoke. 5. to do that more effectually he breaks all in pieces with this reply, p. 37. [it was under the law before the one offering was actually offered up] making what christ spoke whilst alive, and executing his prophetic office to signify nothing to us. 6. he makes the apostles to speak by way of condescension, to take in others and omit themselves, p. 77. which though sometimes used, yet must not be pressed, when such terms as we all, jam. 3.2. do include themselves as well as others. 7. he declines the lord's prayer, as taught, p. 81. [when the disciples were young and weak, etc.] which equally destroys the whole sermon on the mount, at the same time delivered. thus david george and the familists said, the scripture was given to novices. 8. he changeth tenses, p. 137. [is should be read was] an alteration, which if allowed, may be serviceable to strange purposes. 9 he enlargeth to his party, the particular promises made to the apostles, p. 228. and the commands as matth. 10. about meat and drink. 10. he conceals the unkind parts of a text, which favour not his pretensions, p. 230. this he conceals with an etc. [he shall bring to your remembrance all things, etc.] and quoting, john, 16.13. he wholly omitteth the last word [he shall show you things to come.] and yet challengeth all the other promises. 11. he gives christ's words a downright denial, p. 20. to that command, mat. 23.3. to do whatsoever they bid them, he replies [nay, hold there, we have had too much of that already.] he fastens also a ridiculous command upon god, whilst he saith [to challenge a property in man's labour, etc. is ridiculous,] p. 335. when as the priests by god's command had a property therein, receiving the tenth of that increase obtained by sweat, care, industry, etc. and he saith, that [christ's excellency lay not in humane learning, p. 207.] had he said, his commission lay not there, he had spoken like a scholar of so all knowing a master: he that made the eye shall he not see, etc. suppose a man be pressed to any duty, thomas ellwood hath furnished him with evasions, the law doth not oblige, nor what christ spoke before his death, this discards the old testament and the gospel, and the remainder may be avoided by his rules, as spoke to such as were weak, or under the law, or by way of condescension, or if none cut the knot, yet the last breaks the bonds insunder. [nay hold there, we have had enough of that already,] thus whilst he is pleading, men may live without sin, he enervates that doctrine which was designed to keep them from it, and his new light attempts to turn true old religion out of the world. the conclusion. having considered his pretence to inspirations, i think it not necessary now to view his notion of humane learning, that being in effect yielded up, by acknowledging that learning must translate; put an english bible into his hand, for his spirit, if true, is as able immediately to do the one as the other. when thomas ellwood considers sacred geography, histories, prophecies, chronology, the fabric of the temple, the dispersion of people over the world, numbers, weights, coins, measures, customs, rites, proverbs, with many such, he must acknowledge the usefulness of learning in other concerns, besides bare translating: the most convincing and beneficial employment for him, will be to let the world see the noble fruits of his interpreting spirit, for the ministration of the spirit being given to every one to profit withal, 1 cor. 12. he is bound to acquaint the world with his inspired expositions, and if he please as a specimen to begin with the chronicles, from what he doth perform, in prologo. we may be induced to change our thoughts about their pretensions: st. hierom saith, the book of chronicles is such that without it, if a man arrogate to himself the knowledge of scriptures, he doth but abuse and delude himself; and dr. lightfoot thinks that a close comment on it, would contribute much light to the other scriptures; when we see solid interpretations, and not allegorical fancves proceed from him, we may entertain better opinions, but he must borrow none of our egyptians jewels, nor go to the philistines forge to sharpen his weapons, nor with david make use of the sword of goliath, though wrapped in a cloth behind the ephod, and that there be none like it. for our security of his faithful performing, when he discerns his spirit to seize on him, let him repair to some justice of peace, or his parish-priest, that by them he may be certified of the truth; or, if his spirit be indisposed, like baal, be talking, pursuing in a journey, or in a sleep, and must be awaked, we shall have patience a while, till he be better fitted, such a specimen (as above) will for a while employ us; but i suppose he need no protracting of time, the spirit of truth dwelling in them, and suffering no recess, he must be always ready, but if he will bury that his talon in a napkin, and think a rejoinder sufficient, i desire he will demonstrate the fruits of the spirit in his proceedure. the jews put off difficult things till there stood up a priest with vrim and thummim, and afterwards till the coming of elias, if quakers speak true, better than those are now come among us, 'tis but a reasonable request we make, viz. apostolical proofs, of his apostolical inspirations, or convincing evidences to remove those many reasons drawn up against his claims, but he must not make out his pretensions from those sacred scriptures, which he denies to be the rule, and looks upon as unintelligible without inspiration, and when they are produced, do conclude as fully for any other party as for his; when he demonstrates his spirit some other way, it will deserve another manner of discussion; but besides miracles, he must produce the spirit of prophecy, or certain proofs like daniel's weeks, etc. that this is the foretold season, when the dispensation of christ in the inward, or in the spirit, was to commence, and withal evidence that our english quakers (and positively whether the conforming or nonconforming party) are the persons entrusted with the delivery of it; or, if he except against their being the offspring of winstanley, it no way can prejudice us, we having as much reason to believe a levellers inspirations as a quakers. there having been in the preceding discourse reference sometimes made to the quakers testimony or constitutions, and those being destructive both of the light in each man, and of thomas ellwood's, immediate revelation in each believer, they are here verbatim, presented. a testimony from the brethren, who were met together at london, in the third month, 1666. to be communicated to the faithful friends and elders in the countries; by them to be read in their several meetings, and kept as a testimony among them. we your friends and brethren, whom god hath called to labour and watch for the eternal good of your souls: at the time aforesaid being through the lords good hand, who hath preserved us at liberty met together in his name and fear, were by the operation of the spirit of truth, brought into a serious consideration of this present state of the church of god; which in the day of her return out of the wilderness, hath not only many open, but some covert enemies to conflict against; who are not afraid to speak evil of dignities and despise government; without which we are sensible our societies and fellowship cannot be kept holy and inviolable. therefore as god hath put it into our hearts, we do communicate these things following unto you; who are turned from darkness to light, and profess with us in the glorious gospel throughout nations and countries. wherein we have traveled, as well for a testimony against the unruly, as to establish and confirm them, unto whom it is given to believe the truth; which is unto us very precious, as we believe it is also unto you, who in love have received it, and understood the principles, and felt the virtue and operation of it. in which our spirits breath, that we all may be preserved, until we have well finished our course and testimony, to the honour and glory of our lord god, who is over all blessed for ever. 1. we having a true sense of the working of the spirit, which, under a profession of truth, leads into a division from, and exaltation above the body of friends, who never revolted, nor degenerated from their principles, into marks of separation from the constant practice of good and ancient friends, who are found in the faith once delivered to us. and also into a slight esteem of their declarations or preaching, (who have and do approve themselves as the ministers of christ) and of the meetings of the lords people, whereby and wherein friends are, and often have been preciously revived and refreshed. and under pretence of keeping down man and forms, doing down the ministry, and meeting or encourage those that do the same. we say, the lord giving us to see, not only the working of that spirit, and those that are joined to it, that bring forth these ungrateful fruits; but also the evil consequents and effects of it, which are of no less importance, than absolutely tending to destroy the work of god, and lay waste his heritage. we do unanimously (being thereto encouraged by the lord, whose presence is with us) declares and testify, that neither that spirit, nor such as are joined to it, aught to have any dominion, office, or rule in the church of christ jesus, whereof the holy spirit that was poured forth upon us, hath made us members, and overseers. neither ought they to act, or order the affairs of the same: but are rather to be kept under with the power of god, till they have an ear open to instruction, and come into subjection to the witness of god; of the increase of whose kingdom and government there shall be no end. 2. we do declare and testify, that that spirit, and those that are joined to it, who stand not in unity with the ministry and body of friends; that are constant and steadfast to the lord, and to his unchangeable truth, which we have received, and are witnesses of, and ambassadors, have not any true spiritual right; or gospelauthority to be judges in the church, and as the ministry of the gospel of christ, so as to condemn you and their ministry: neither ought their judgement to be any more regarded by friends than the judgement of other opposers, who are without. for of right the elders and members of the church (which keep their habitation in the truth) ought to judge matters and things that differ, and their judgement which is so given therein aught to stand good and valued among friends; which though it be kicked against and disapproved by them who have degenerated, as aforesaid. and we do further declare and testify, that it is abominable pride, which goeth before destruction, that so puffs up the mind of any particular, that he will not admit of any judgement to take place against him: for he that is not justified by the witness of god in friends, is condemn by it in himself; though being hardened, he may boast over it in a false confidence. 3. if any difference arise in the church, or amongst them that profess themselves members thereof; we do declare and testify, that the church, with the spirit of the lord jesus christ, have power (without the assent of such as descent from their doctrine and practices) to hear and determine the same. if any pretend to be of us, and in case of controversy will not admit to be tried by the church of christ jesus, nor submit to the judgement given by the spirit of truth in the elders and members of the same, but kick against their judgement, as only the judgement of man, it being manifested according to truth and consistent with the doctrine of such good ancient friends as have been, and are found in the faith, agreeable to the witness of god in his people; then we do testify in the name of the lord (if that judgement so given be risen against and denied by the party condemned:) than he or she (and such as so far partake of their sins, as to countenance and encourage them therein) ought to be rejected, and having erred from the truth, persisting therein presumptuously, are joined in one with heathens and infidels. 4. we do declare, that if any go abroad hereafter pretending to that weighty work and service, who either in life or doctrine grieve good friends, that are steadfast in the truth, sound in the faith; so that they are not manifest in their consciences, but disagree to the witness of god in them; then ought they (whatever have been their gifts) to leave them before the altar, and forbear going abroad and ministering, until they are reconciled to the church, and have the approbation of the elders and members of the same. and if any that have been so approved of by the church, do afterwards degenerate from the truth, and do that which tendeth to division, and countenance wickedness and faction (as some have done) than the church hath a true spiritual right and authority to call such to examination; and if they find sufficient cause for it, by good testimony, may judge them unfit for the work of god's ministry, whereof they have rendered themselves unworthy; and so put a stop to their proceed therein. and if they submit not to the judgement of the spirit of christ in his people, then ought they publicly to be declared against; and warning given to the flock of christ in their several meetings, to beware of them, and to have no fellowship with them, that they may be ashamed, and lambs and babes in christ preserved. 5. and if any man or woman, which are out of the unity with the body of friends, print or cause to be printed, or published in writing, any thing which is not of service for the truth; but tends to the scandalising and reproaching of faithful friends, or to beget or uphold division and faction; then we do warn and charge all friends that do love truth, as they desire it may prosper, and be kept clear, to beware and take heed of having any hand in printing, republishing or spreading such books or writings. and if at any time such books be sent to any of you that sell books in the country, after that you with the advice of good and serious friends, have tried them and find them faulty, to send them back again whence they come. and we further desire, from time to time, faithful and sound friends may have the view of such things as are printed upon truth's account (as formerly it hath used to be) before they go to the press; that nothing but what is sound and savory, and that will answer the witness of god even in our adversaries, may be exposed to public vieu. 6. we do advise and counsel, that such as are made overseers of the flock of god by the holy spirit, and do watch for the good of the church, meeting together, in their respective places, do set and keep the affairs of it in good order; beware of admitting or encouraging such as are weak and of little faith, to take such trust upon them: for by hearing things disputed that are doubtful, such may be hurt themselves, and may hurt the truth, not being grown into a good understanding to judge of things. therefore we exhort, that you who have received a true sense of things, be diligent in the lord's business, and keep the meetings as to him, that all may be kept pure and clean, according to that of god which is just and equal. we also advise, that not any be admitted to order public business of the church, but such as have felt in a measure of the universal spirit of truth; which seeks the destruction of none, but the general good of all, and especially those that love it, who are of the household of faith. so, dear friends and brethren, believing your souls will be refreshed (in the sense of our spirits, and integrity towards god) at the reading of these things, as ours were while we sat together at the opening of them; and that you will be one with us on the behalf of the lord, and his precious truth, against those who would limit the lord to speak without instruments, or by what instruments they list, and reject the counsel of the wisemen, and the testimony of the prophets, which god sanctified and sent among you in the day of his love, when you were gathered; and would not allow him liberty, in and by his servants, to appoint time and place, wherein to meet together to wait upon and worship him, according as he requireth in spirit, and calling it formal, and the meeting of man. we say, believing that you will have fellowship with us herein, as we have with you in the truth, we commit you to god, and the word of life, which hath been preached to you from the beginning (which is neither limited to place, nor time, nor persons; but hath power to limit us to each as pleaseth him) that you with us, and we with you, may be built up in our most holy faith; and be preserved to partake of the inheritance which is heavenly, amongst all them that are sanctified. richard farnsworth. alexander parker. george whitehead. josiah coale. john whitehead. thomas loe. stephen crispe. thomas green. john moon. thomas briggs. james parkes. the sum of the particulars handled in the preceding treatise. divisions are no argument against the truth of christianity. p. 1. the holy scriptures are by some thought too plain, and by others too obscure. p. 2. quakers give better names to their own books than to the scriptures. p. 3. their beginning was in 1648. p. 4. winstanley the leveller was their father. p. 5. 6. they have a great resemblance to rome. p. 7. 8. the many disadvantages in treating with them. p. 9 their unchristian temper in controversies. pag. 10. 11. they misapply scripture words, as the old heretics did. p. 12. 13. t. ellwood's ignorance and impudence about st. basil. p. 14. about st. greg: nazianzene, and sosiades, p. 15. and in calling the martyrs [our godly martyrs.] p. 16. 17. quakers deny themselves to be protestants. p. 16. thomas ellwood's sauciness towards the king, p. 18, 19 quakers have dangerous doctrines about kings, and magistrates. p. 19, 20. their degrading of the nobility. p 20. and contempt of other orders of men. p. 21. thomas ellwood's manner of claiming inspirations concludes as much for others, as for themselves p. 22. god affords sufficient means of conviction. p. 23. immediate revelation should be attested with evidences. p. 24. revelation is a more easy thing than studying. p. 25. the various claimers of infallibility confute each other. p. 26. quakers challenge the internal work of the spirit, but deny the external. p. 27. thomas ellwood and his party's high demands. p. 28. his seeming concessions. p. 29. christ was the apostles instructor before the spirit. p. 31. quakers make christ's prophetic office to signify nothing, p. 32. or confound jesus and the spirit. p. 33. the manner of the apostles instructions recited. p. 34. quakers differ about the apostles knowledge. p. 35. the apostles were certain witnesses of christ, and the writers of the n. t. wrote upon their certain knowledge. p. 36. no new books of scriptures can now be written. 37. the holy spirit did inwardly pursue what christ had outwardly delivered. p. 38. enthusiasm destroys the settled grounds of religion p. 39 quakers called themselves apostles and prophets. p. 40. they make the apostasy to begin with the second century. p. 41. they are very unlike the apostles. p. 42. successors cannot receive like predecessors. p. 43. the first settling a dispersation must not always continue. p. 44. god is not prodigal of miracles. p. 45. quakers inspirations must be as unintelligible as those of st. paul or others. p. 46. the texts produced by t. ellwood, prove against him. p. 47. what was promised to the apostles should not be enlarged to all. p. 48. quakers like celsus and the gnostics pretend much knowledge. p. 49 thomas ellwood borrows renewing of revelations from george keith. p. 51. their damnable essential of religion. p. 52. 53. their great slighting of the canon of scripture. p. 54 55. repetition of revelation reinforces the law of moses, p. 56. destroys the reality of history, p. 57 and the determinateness of prophecy, p. 58. confound the revelations of men and women. p. 60. the spirit doth not repeat, what was spoken by himself, or by other ways before. p. 61. 62. quakers pretend revelations for worldly matters. p. 64. god's dispensations are regular and orderly. p. 65. quakers lose themselves in a circle. p. 66. the light within, and inspirations from without, are too much for one man. p. 67. growth is not consistent with immediate revelation. p. 68 enthusiasts have out gone quakers. p. 69. satan would counter-work god with inspirations. p. 70. such appeared in the apostles days. p. 71. several pretended to it, as the gnostics. p. 72. corinthus. p. 72. elxai. p. 73. marcus. p. 74. the valentinians. p. 75. the montanists. p. 75. the messalians. p. 76. aetius an arian. p. 77. donatus. p. 78. the church of rome a favourer of revelations. p. 79. st. hildegardis and others spoke much like quakers, p. 80. 81. the council of lateran defends them. p. 82. the anabaptists pretended inspirations. p. 82. the libertines. p. 83. casper swenckfeild. p. 84. the familists. p. 85. jacob behmen, p. 86. g. fox his mystical language. p. 88 the english enthusiast, as seekers. p. 89. antinomian. p. 89. levellers. p. 90. ranters. p. 92. fifth monarchy men. p. 92. franklyn, and the hamp-shire revealers. p. 94. muggleton. p. 95. anna trapnel. p. 96. the gifted brethren. p. 96. the considerers. p. 97. any of these competitors deserve as much regard and credit as the quakers. p. 98. some english enthusiasts from their spirit condemn the quakers. p. 100 the late germane prophets do the like. p. 101. the numerousness of quakers is no proof for them. p. 102. they confess themselves to be not always inspired. p. 103. the danger in trusting them upon that account. p. 104. their many contradictions in doctrine. p. 105, 110. their strange ways of confuting one another in case of such differences. p. 110. 111. their boldness in rescinding and altering revelations. p. 112. inspiration is by them made requisite to other professions. p. 113. the debate about the hat considered. p. 114. their constitutions inquired into. p. 115. the unreasonableness of their newest doctrine [that the body of ancient friends is to be the tryer of inspirations.] discovered. p. 116. 118. their viewing and licensing of books before that they be printed. p. 119. their differences about their ministry. p. 120. a pope like decretal epistle of george fox. p. 121. that uninspired injunction observed. p. 122. their blasphemous letters. p. 123. divine revelations ought not to be altered. p. 124. inspiration pretended for bad designs. p. 125. their unity consists in diversities. p. 126. thomas ellwood makes the spirit to be the sole expounder of holy scripture. p. 127. and that desiring and waiting are the only requisites on our part to receive those expositions. p. 128. the dangerousness of that fancy discovered. p. 129. other means requisite besides waiting. p. 130. the style of the scriptures is intelligible. p. 133. new revelations must proceed in infinitum. p. 136. the letter and the spirit are not contrary. p. 137. christ spoke so as to be understood. p. 138. the scripture being a law ought to be intelligible. p. 139. the light and revelation are too much. p. 141. vninspired men may expound rightly. p. 142. the quakers circle. p. 143. t. e. receedes from his own and his friend's doctrine. p. 144. some of the quakers expositions presented. p. 145. the demonstration of the spirit and power explained. p. 148. quakers do undervalue miracles. p. 151. miracles are necessary now to attest their doctrine. p. 152. the quakers new dispensation. p. 154. their forefathers therein. p. 155. their inward experiences reflected on. p. 157. religion not to be entertained upon that account. p. 158. others plead experiences as much. p. 159. some of their experiences instanced in p. 160 the fathers expound scriptures unlike the quakers. p. 162. the reformers did not challenge t. is, revelations. p. 164. quakers hear god's voice. p. 166. receive the gospel by god's gift p. 167. confound revelation and exposition. p. 168. thomas ellwood mistakes the sense of joel. 2.28. p. 169. and of several other texts. p. 171. his rules of expounding destroys the scriptures. p. 176. inspired expositions upon the bible will be t. ellwood's most convincing employment. p. 179. but he must give evidence of their divine original. p. 180. the quakers testimony or constitutions. p. 182. finis. a second champion, or companion to truth: wherein is showed these particulars, or tenets. 1 of miracles. 2 the reasons wherefore so few embrace the gospel. 3 of the first covenant, and the second covenant. 4 of the father and the son. 5 of heaven. 6 of hell. 7 of glory. 8 of faith. 9 of the resurrection, and the eternal judgement. 10 of visible worship. 11 a postscript. by richard stookes preacher of the gospel. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 london, printed for george whittington at the blue anchor in cornhill, 1650. the epistle to the reader. courteous reader, time is the most precious berbe in the garden of the world; there is nothing more precious, and there is nothing more slighted of vain man; the use of time will save, and the abuse of time will judge thee; for upon this moment of time depends thy eternal welfare, for we must be called to an account how we have spent this time which is allotted to us, and then one hours' time that is spent for heaven, will more comfort us at the day of our death, than all the rest of our time which hath been spent for vanity; 〈◊〉 wil●●nde at the day of thy death how precious time ●● for 〈◊〉 no sooner comest into this world, but 〈◊〉 going but again; and so soon as thou livest, 〈◊〉 dying; and so soon as thou breathest, thy breath is a departing thou passest away as a shadow, and thy days are bi● as a span long, they are but as the rising of a bubble; thou no sooner hast a beginning, but thou art going to thy end; and thy strength is but as the grass, and thy beauty is but as the flower of the field, the grass fadeth, and the flower withereth, & then thy glory is gone; for thy living is uncertain, but thy death is certain, for thou art more sure to die, then to live; for what is so certain as death, and what is so uncertain as life? for death will bring thee to the grave, and thy deeds will bring thee to judgement; and as death doth leave thee, so shall judgement find thee: and all creatures observe their time but man, and yet man is the most noble of creatures, for thou hast time, and all things attend thee to bring thee to glory, if thou dost not bring thyself to misery; but if thou dost, thou art a mispender of time; for there are three enemies that are destructive to thy souls good, thy flesh, the world, and the devil; thou carriest thy greatest enemy with thee, for thou art a friend to thy flesh, and it is an enemy to god; for if thou live after the flesh thou shalt die, for the flesh is an enemy to the spirit; thy flesh only leadeth thee to the earth, for the earth is its centre, for it is for earthly things, as for earthly honour and respect of the world, and loves to have the prai 〈…〉 men, and to have the riches of the flesh, or 〈◊〉 world, with all the delights of the flesh, for we are apt to be more careful for our fleshly man, then for our spiritual man; for thy flesh war●●th against the spirit: alas poor creature! why ●●st thou make so much of so great an enemy? how much time dost thou take in clothing thy flesh? what cost dost thou bestow, and what care dost thou take to beautify thy enemy? for what care dost thou take to clothe him, and to make him fine, & delightest in his beauty? and how oft dost thou change his habit? and how bravely dost thou adorn him? how careful art thou for his diet, and how softly dost thou lay him? what delight dost thou take in his company? how desirable is he? how dost thou dote upon his beauty? thou art enamoured with his presence, and yet he is thine enemy: thou seekest to save him, and he seeks to destroy thee: thou art willing to please him, and spendest much time upon him, but be deceives thee of thy spirituals: he is but a rotten friend, for he must come to corruption; thou canst not save him, nor he cannot save thee; for he will leave thee in a sad condition; and this is the enemy thou carriest with thee, which will at last destroy thee: if thou lookest not about thee, he will bring thee to ruin, before thou art ware, to spend thy time for earth, and to lose thy time for heaven. and yet thou hast two enemies more, which are destructive to thy spiritual condition; for how doth the devil plot to work 〈◊〉 in laying a snare in every corner, that thou canst hardly escape him, and how doth he spread his suares in the world, in blinding their eyes with the honours, riches, and pleasures of this life, to check them of their spiritual comforts, and to take them off their precious time from looking after heaven; and therefore consider, courteous reader, thy best condition is to study heavenly things; let thy time be spent for heaven, for that will profit thee at the last, and thou shalt find a heavenly treasure which will stand thee in stead at the last day; so the glory of this life is but for a time, but the glory of heaven endureth for ever: for the sufferings of this life are not worthy of the glory that shall be revealed; for if we suffer with him we shall also reign with him, but if we deny him, he will also deny us. and this hath encouraged me to write at this time, desiring to improve that time that he hath given me, to my master's advantage, from whom i look for any reward. i have set forth a book, that is called, or entitled, truth's champion, or, truth's companion, which is liked of some, and despised of others; and i was desired also to set forth my judgement in some other things which were necessary to salvation; for the knowledge of some, and the strengthening of others, and also that the truth may be known to all men; but i know it will pass under many censures, for i do not think it will please all men, for the world is not so apt t● receive truth, i look to be judged for it; i am not ●●tter than my master, for his doctrine was despised of the learned, and well may mine; but i ●●●e thou wilt try me before thou judge me, and then if thou judge me, thou wilt also judge the word; for what i have done is not to please man, for i am ready to pass under all censures for the name of christ, and i count all things but dung in respect of him, and of his truth, for whom i desire to suffer the loss of all things, and count all but as dross and dung that i may win christ, and be found in him: for one smile from god is better than all the smiles of the world, and therefore i care not for the judgement of man, for i seek not to please man, but god; for all the smiles of the world will but bring me to the grave, but the smiles of god will bring me to heaven; and therefore it is better to die in the favour of the lord, then in the favour of men; for were i a lover of the world i were an enemy to god; i desire to leave the honours, riches, and pleasures of this world for a better, i am willing to leave the glory of this life, for i look for a better; for i desire to undergo all the fury of hell, to have a heaven. my time is but short, i desire to bid adieu to the world; for what is the world but vanit●, all the honours are but dishonours, and all the riches i● but poverty; all the joy is but sorrow, and all the pleasure is but displeasure; and had i no better comfort than what is in this life, i were in a sad condition, for i live in hope of a better resurrection, and so i hope dost thou; which if thou dost, thou wilt like my works the better, and so farewell. richard stookes. a second champion to the truth. chapter 1. of working of miracles. and first i shall begin to speak of miracles, which so many dote upon in these days, waiting for visible signs, and some great revelation: and to them i shall say as christ said unto the scribes and pharisees that the kingdom of god cometh not with observation; for they looked that christ should come with abundance of earthly pomp and glory: but christ tells them they were deceived, for the kingdom of god consisted not of outward glory and excellency; for saith he, the kingdom of god is within you: it is more of substance then of show, more glorious within then without, and the miracles more inward than outward. miracles of a more spiritual nature to appear in the inward man, to the beating down of every strong hold: and therefore those outward miracles are swallowed up of inward miracles, of a more glorious nature: the one being a type of the other, as the outward man was a type of the inward man; and therefore my work shall be in this chapter, to show you my reasons why i conceive that miracles in a visible way, a●e to cease in that age: so that this is my meaning, that the miracles of christ and his apostles in a visible way: were to cease in that age. 1. because miracles were to testify of christ's coming in the flesh, and therefore when christ came, he came with signs and wonders, as his casting out of devils. mat. 12. 22. and luke 11. 17. of his healing the sick, and curing them of their diseases; as you may see, mat. 15. 30. in giving sight to the blind, and hearing to the death, and speech to the d●●●, making the lame to go, as raising up the d●●●: and all this he was to do, to manifest himself to the world, that he was the christ is●i●● 35. 5. 6. chap. 61. 1. mat. 11. 5. and thus 〈◊〉 came to be known of john baptist, as you 〈◊〉 see mat. 11. 4. 5. together, with the 〈◊〉 of the holy ghost descending upon him in the likeness of a dove, luke 3. 22. john 1. 33. and thus he was manifest to john, as to all the world, doing such works as never man did, whereby he might appear to be the christ, to leave all men without excuse, as john 15. 24. in doing such works as were never done from the beginning, in opening the eyes of the blind, john 9 32. and in showing such signs & wonders which were not before recorded, lest the world should take up to much time in the searching thereof, and in doting more upon his acts, then upon the end of his coming, john 20, 30. & 21. 25. as also further, the apostles were gifted for the same end to manifest christ to be come in the flesh, working miracles, both before and after his ascension that thereby they might manifest to the world, that he was the christ; and for that and they were promised by christ, to receive the gifts of the holy ghost, luke 24. 49. which was performed in acts 2. 1. 2. the gifts of the spirit being poured upon them, insomuch, that they were able to speak infallibly, to work miracles, and to speak with new tongues, and to understand all languages under heaven, 〈◊〉 2. 6. even for this very end, that they 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that he was the christ, both at 〈◊〉, and to the 〈◊〉 pa●ts of the earth, act. 1. 8. and thus the lord granted signs and wonders to be done by the hands of the apostles, to give testimony to the word of his grace, act 14. ●. who did manifest to the world, that all the wonders that they wrought, were in the name and power of jesus, acts 4. 10. showing in their preaching that this was the end for which miracles were on foot, even to testify of christ, acts 2. 22. and this was one end, for which miracles were given to hold forth the coming of christ. 2. miracles were to confirm the covenant of grace, which was to be established as firm as the first; for when the first covenant was given out, it was ratified with signs and wonders; for all the mountain was on fire, and there were thunderings and lightnings, and voices, and so terrible was the sight, that it made moses the man of god tremble: so terrible were the signs. heb. 12. 18. 19 22. and thus you see the first covenant was ratified with miracles, and so also was the second, which is a better covenant estableished upon better promises, heb. 8. 6. and also more glorious miracles of a more spiritual nature▪ for the miracles of the first covenant were more outward and terrible: but the miracles of the 2. covenant are more inwardly 〈◊〉 comfortable, which did accompany the apostles in their ministry, confirming the truth by signs and wonders, mark▪ 16. the last, act. 19 10. 11. and thus did the lord jesus christ himself also confirm the doctrine of the gospel with more miracles, than ever any word was before from the beginning of the world; so that you may see that the doctrine of christ and his apostles wanted not miracles to confirm it: god the father also bearing witness with signs and wonders, and divers gifts of the holy ghost, heb. 2. 4. that it might appear the covenant was the more glorious, and more excellent, firm and sure: being so wonderfully ratified and confirmed with miracles. and thus you see a second reason wherefore miracles were on foot, even to confirm the truth of the gospel. now a third reason wherefore miracles were on foot, was this: even to confirm the calling and ministry of the apostles, who were to lay the foundation both for doctrine and practice, which the world was to follow in after ages, to the end of the world, for we are built upon the foundation of the prophets & apostles, jesus christ himself being the chief corner stone. eph. 2 20. in being the author both of their doctrine and practice; and therefore you see it was requisite, that miracles should attend the apostles in their ministry; who were to set forth such a way to the world, that was never before heard of: neither can there be a more glorious way set forth, or more glorious ministers than christ and his apostles were; to set forth a way to the world, to walk in in future ages; and therefore the father, even the god of heaven and earth, did so honour the way of the gospel with his son, and such glorious miracles, that were never acted before since the world stood; whereby he did manifest his probation of their way. and thus i have showed you some reasons wherefore miracles were on foot, even to confirm the truth, that christ and his apostles did set forth. now, i shall also show you reasons and grounds, wherefore i conceive that miracles are ceased, which are these. first, we have received a sure word of prophecy, to the which we do well if we take heed 2 pet. 1. 19 for a standing word as the gospel is, is a more surer ground of faith, than all the miracles in the world; that our faith should not be built upon men, but upon the word of god, which endureth for ever. 1 pet. 1. 25. for to ground our faith upon miracles, is but a rotteu foundation; because when miracles cease, our faith must cease: and so we stand at a great loss, being built on so uncertain a ground; but it is not so with the people of god, who are built upon the rock and foundation of christ, and his apostles, their way being undeniable, and by the which way we must be judged at the last day. secondly, another reason is this, miracles were to accompany apostolical men in those apostolical times, to set forth an apostolical way to the world; which they were to stand to, being so gloriously confirmed with miracles by christ and his apostles, as any way could be confirmed: so that now to look for miracles is vain, except you look for a better way, and better workmen than the former were; which to do, is to raze the foundation of christ and his apostles. thirdly, because it cannot appear that after those apostolical times that miracles were on foot, or that any after those times did work miracles: neither timothy nor titus in their ordinary ministry, nor any of the ministers in the seven churches of asia; but were to look unto the form of sound doctrine, which they had received from the apostles, as you may see, 2 tim. 1. 13. which was the foundation of christian doctrine and practice, whereon the people of god are to build in every age; for other foundation can no man lay then christ hath laid, 1 cor. 3. 11. and so it doth appear, that after the apostles times, there was no looking for miracles; for they knew, the gospel was as gloriously confirmed with miracles as was possible to be. fourthly, if we look for miracles now: what do we else but question the doctrine of the gospel, and fly in the face of christ and his apostles, to condemn them of insufficiency, as not being able to set forth such a way for all men to walk in; which is sufficient to save them if they believe in it; and also of force to condemn, if they do reject it? but this is clear, where the apostle saith, that christ shall come in flaming fire, to render vengeance against them that obey not the gospel, 2 thes. 1 8. fiftly, if we must have miracles now to believe; then why not miracles also, to confirm our belief, and miracles also to keep us in the faith; which if so, than we may cast off the scriptures, and build our faith upon miracles, & then if miracles cease, we cease to believe: and so if there be no miracle there is no faith; if no belief, than no salvation. sixthly, if we must build our faith upon miracles, and nothing be true to us in the scripture, till it be confirmed by a miracle; then, how will you discern between a false ●●racle, and a true, seeing that a pretender may do the like: and so ●ou may take a false miracle for a true, o● a true miracle for a false: and so by the subtlety of the devil you may be ●●● in strong delusions to deny all s●●pture to your utter damnation? seventhly, whether doth not this tenent question the state of all our forefathers, from the apostles to this present time, that their faith was in vain, and their salvation uncertain, seeing they wanted miracles to confirm it to them, and so were in a sad condition? and the like i may say of you that stand so much for miracles: what if you die before you enjoy a miracle to confirm the truth unto you and so build upon the sand? is not your condition sad that your salvation should depend upon a miracle, and so be damned? 8. whether doth not this tenent set up the pope and his adherents, who may say by this reasoning, that he is in the right way, and others in the wrong: because they have miracles to confirm their way, and thereby prove their church to be true: the pope working a miracle every year, whereby he doth persuade them that his way is right, and all the ways of others false, because they have not miracles to confirm their way? and therefore the pope by this may plead that he is right, and others wrong, and so we shall justify the generation of the wicked to confirm them in their wickedness, and condemn the people of god, because they have no miracle. 9 i may say to such as christ saith to the scribes and pharisees under the law, they have moses and the prophets, if they would not believe them, neither would they believe if one should rise from the dead to work miracles: and so i say, we have christ and his apostles, and he that will not believe the truth set forth by them confirmed before by miracles, neither will he believe if one should rise from the dead, and do all the miracles in the world. 10. it doth appear that miracles are ceased, because the scriptures do declare that such as should work miracles in the last days, should be false prophets, showing signs and wonders, and that satan should come with all lying signs and wonders to draw men from the truth, that they might believe a lie, that all those might be damned who obey not the truth, but obey unrighteousness, 2 thes. 2. 9 10. and this i believe is the devil's grand design in these days, to make men believe, that the scripture is not true without miracles to confirm it, that thereby he may deceive the world, and set up his own false miracles in stead of the true: and this may be the reason why he puts it into the hearts of men in these days that miracles and dreams are above the word, that thereby he might have them where he would, and so deceive them with a false miracle, as he doth the greatest part of the world at this day, as the turks who are deceived with the false miracles of mah●●●●, wherein he hath deluded them to this present day, through the devil and his instruments; together with their false miracles, wherein they are kept in blindness; as also the pope with the latin church, deceiving the world, and themselves, with their false miracles, which they much boast of, whereby they judge their way to be right, because the devil and the pope work miracles to confirm their way, which indeed the scriptures did foretell, that the latin beast would deceive the world with his false miracles. revel. 13. 13, 14. but these spirits are the spirits of devils, deceiving the kings of the earth, and the whole world, revel. 16. 14. but the lord will take that beastly worship of the beast, together with the beast, and the false prophet, with his lying spirit, that wrought miracles to deceive the people, and will cast them into the lake of his wrath forever and ever, revel. 19 ●. now there is some objections to be answered, as joel 2. where the lord doth foretell, that young men shall see visions, and old men shall dream dreams: and that that prophecy is in part to be fulfilled. to the which i do reply, with the words of peter, who had a more spiritual discerning then any in these days to discern the truth of prophecies, that that prophecy was fulfilled upon them when the visions of the lord did appear unto them in acts 2 1, 2, 3. who were the lords young men, who were to declare the mind of god to the whole earth: and that being such a public prophecy, it was publicly fulfilled to perfect a public work to the admiration of the beholders who were very desirous to know what was the meaning of those strange works, and the apostle flies to the prophecy of joel for their refuge, and tells them it was no more than what was prophesied of them: and that they might now see that prophesy fulfilled, acts 2. 16. 17, 18. and that those were the days that were spoken of before, being glorious gospel-times, in which the lord was to accomplish his promise, that there might be nothing wanting to ratify & confirm the truth of the gospel: so that this prophecy being extraordinary, 〈◊〉 doth appear by the apostles words: if any do pretend in these days the like revelations, they must also show the like effects which i think they cannot. 10. i shall speak a word or two of gospell-visions, whereby it will appear that that there are no such visions in these days: and first those visions did appear in a●visible manner to the sight of the beholders, luke 3. and acts 2. and then secondly, they were able to confirm what was revealed in the vision to them by a visible sign or wonder: and thirdly, they were able to speak in an extraordinary manner to convince the gainsayers; and fourthly, those visions were for the truth, and not against it: so that from hence i conclude, that the cause is taken away because the effect ceaseth; for if they prove the like visions, they must also prove the like visible manifestations; or else they are false visions. and as for the dreamers there spoken of, you may see that was fully fulfilled in those days in the scribes and pharisees, those old and ancient doctors of those times, who stood dreaming as men amazed, when they beheld the lord christ, and his apostles, the mirror of the world, to preach such glorious doctrine, accompanied with such glorious miracles; and their doctrine being so strange and rare, and so unanswerable preaching, with such authority, and so mightily, convincing the gainsayers: the doctors also themselves being so wonderfully confuted, that we may truly say, that they were in a dream, or trance: whereby the prophecy was truly fulfilled. 2. object. is in mark 16. these signs shall follow those that do believe. so that hence they do infer, that there is no true gospel-preachers but such as work miracles: which if this be true, then there is no faith in england, because no true ministry; for faith comes by hearing, rom. 10. 17. even by hearing the word preached, and how shall he preach except he be sent: so that if there be no preachers, there is no faith, & then there is no salvation: for if the ministry of faith cease, than faith must cease: which if so, then to what purpose do your ministers teach, seeing they work no miracles, so that by this tenent both you and your ministers are in a false way. and further if our salvation depend upon miracles, would god have been wanting think you ever since the apostles time to have sent them into the world to have perfected their salvation to the full? for certainly, if we could not have been saved without them, god would never have been wanting to have sent them: but god had so fully before confirmed the gospel with such ministers and miracles, which is sufficient to confirm the truth in all ages. 3. objection. but we have been in a great confusion for many hundred of years together, and in a great confusion amongst us, to know the truth, and how shall we know without a miracle to confirm it to us? to the which i reply, and how shall we know the truth by a miracle; seeing a pretender may do the like, and so you may take a false miracle for a true? or how will you prove that your miracle to be true? if not by the word, or else it may be false for ought you know: must not the word try your miracle, whether it be true or false? and therefore to the law and to the testimony, if they speak not according to that, they are in a false way, isaiah 8. for the word of the lord is powerful, and sharper than a twoedged sword, heb. 4. 12. to pierce through all the false ways of men, and to cut in pieces all false worships whatsoever; and it is a searcher of the heart, and a tryer of the reins, to search into all the hearts of men and their actions, to judge them according to their works. 2. who must end all contentions, must not the word which is able to satisfy all doubts, and to direct us in all our ways? and what need we fear, having so glorious a guide as the gospel is? can you find a better rule to walk by, or a better guide to lead you, which is the resolver of all doubts; for if the word cannot satisfy you, who can? and now i shall speak a word or two for the word of my god; for where will you find a christ but in the word? and where will you find the promises of christ but in the word? doth not the word hold forth christ to you, and holds forth the promise to you? doth not the word show you the way of life? if you would know what doctrine is right, doth not the word show you what doctrine and what worship you ought to observe? doth not the word hold forth unto you holiness and unholiness, life and death? and shall not the word judge you at the last day for every idle word? and is not this the word of christ, john 12. 48. consider therefore all you that forget god, will not his word find you one day, and accuse you at the bar of justice for all your contempt, and then what answer will you make: will you say his word was false or true, will you condemn your judge that shall judge you? the lord give to consider, that you may prevent the judgements of this judge. chap. 2. the reasons wherefore so few believe, and embrace the gospel. in the next place i shall endeavour to show you the reason wherefore so few believe the gospel, for christ saith, many are called, and few are chosen, mat. 22. 14. and so there is no fault in christ, if he call them, and they come not: the fault is theirs, and not his; christ tells us also. that 〈◊〉 is the gate, and narrow is the way that leads to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 few there are that find it, mat. 7. ●4. and 〈◊〉 sure christ doth not hinder them from finding the way; for if he did, he would not condemn them for not finding it; but sure he 〈◊〉 intent to give them life, because he pro●●●● it to them, or else he did dissemble with 〈◊〉, which i believe he did not. also the 〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉 as like 〈◊〉 a king, that made vicariage for his 〈◊〉, mat. 22. 2, 3, 4. now this king is god who did intent to marry his son to all that embrace his grace: and first he invited the jews, as christ himself saith, i was not sent but to the lost sheep of the house of israel, mat. 10. 6. but the proud scribes and pharisees rejected the grace and mercy offered them, and respected the pleasures of this world above the riches of christ, and he came unto his own, but his own received him not, john 1. 11. and therefore the children of the kingdom were cast out, mat. 8. 12. and therefore paul saith, it was necessary that the gospel should be first preached to the jews; but seeing you reject the gospel, lo we turn to the gentiles, acts 13. 46. and thus you see they were called, but they refused to come, and therefore the fault was theirs and not his; for christ saith, a sour went forth to sow, and some seed fell upon good ground, and some fell upon bad ground, and some ground brought forth fruit, and some brought forth none: now the sower is christ, and the seed is the word of grace, and the ground is the world: now it doth appear, that the fault was not in the sour, for he sowed good seed, as you may see, mat. 13. 34. and the same seed was sown upon the bad ground, as upon the good; but you may say, how came the ground to be bad? i reply, by the devil and themselves; for god made the ground good, as you may see, gen. 2. and so saith the wise solomon, eccles. 7. 29. god made man good, but they found out many inventions: so that you may see the fault was in the ground, and not in the sour nor the seed; so that the fault is not in christ, because so few receive the gospel, but in the creature who is condemned for rejecting the gospel. and now i shall come to reasons, to show you wherefore so few embrace the gospel, 1. because the promises of the gospel are spiritual, and promises of another life, and therefore so few receive it; for if the gospel promised to make men rich men, and great men in the world: then all would be gospel-professors, because they would be rich and great men in the world, and to be honoured of men, and to enjoy all the glory of the flesh for to have the praise of men, and to have the world on their side; but because the gospel holds forth no such thing, but contrariwise those that embrace the gospel, lose the savour and esteem of the world, and are hated of all men, as contemptible men of another world, as not worthy 〈◊〉 upon the face of the earth: and therefore there are so few that embrace the gospel, the ways of the gospel being despised and contemptible in the eyes of the world, mat. 10. 22. and this is the reason wherefore so few embrace the gospel of christ, as you may see john 15. 19 2. reason. is because the gospel holds forth a selfdenying creature, that a man must deny himself in the honours, riches, and pleasures of this life, and love christ above all; for he that loves father or mother, wife and children, or brother and sister, or any thing in the world more than christ. is not worthy of him; and he that doth not deny himself and take up his cross, and follow christ cannot be his disciple, mat. 10. 34. luke 14. 26. for he that seeks to save his life in the riches, & honours of this life, he shall lose the riches & honours in christ; and he that is ashamed to profess the truth of christ before men, christ will deny him the comforts of the gospel before his father which is in heaven: and therefore it is that so few do believe and obey the gospel, even because they love the honours, riches, and pleasures of this life, more than they do christ: nay, rather than they will lose the honour of this world, they will 〈◊〉 christ like judas, for a piece of money, 〈◊〉 deny their master with peter, and forsake christ with demas, to embrace this present world: so hard a thing is self-denial to be brought off our own bottoms to embrace the gospel, that i may say with the prophet esay 53. lord who hath believed our report: so many seek themselves, and so few the things of christ, that rather than they will deny themselves, they deny the lord that bought them, 2 pet. 2. 1, 3 reason. wherefore so few embrace the gospel, is because men love the praise of men more than the praise of god: for thus it was in the days of christ, there were many of the rulers believed on him, but they did not confess his name and gospel openly, because of the priests of those times, who were enemies to christ and his truth: and for fear of the priests of those times they ●urst not embrace the gospel, lest they should lose their favour, and be shut out of the synagogue, john 12. 42 they will deny christ, for the text saith, that those chief rulers loved the praise of men more than the praise of god, ver. 43. and thus it is now in our days, there are many of the chief rulers believe, and are persuaded of the truth of christ, but they will not confess him, and 〈◊〉 truth openly, because they will not displease the priests: and lest they should out themselves out of the fleshly church of england, and that covetous fleshly ministry: and because they love the praise of men more than the praise of god, the god of this world having blinded the eyes of the great ones, and the eyes of the priests, and people, lest they should obey the glorious gospel of christ 2 cor. 4. 4. and for this cause there is so few that embrace the gospel, because men love the praise of men more than the praise of god. 4 reason. is because there is so few of the great ones believe the gospel, and this was the plea of the scribes and pharisees against christ, have any of the rulers believed on him? john 7. 48. the pharisees knowing this, that the multitude would follow the great ones, whether right or wrong, whether their way were true or false: and this is as true in our days▪ for if the great ones would believe, and follow the gospel, then would the inferior ones: and if the priests would embrace the gospel, then would the people: and so as christ saith, the blind lead the blind, and so they both fall into the ditch: for as the apostle saith, ye see your calling brethren, how that not many mighty, not many noble, not many learned, but the poor receive the gospel, 1 cor. 1. the contemptible ones of the wor●●, the great ones ●allowing in their fleshly felicity and worldly glory, and therefore it ●● that so few embrace the gospel of christ. 5 reason. is the high esteem of the persons of some, and the of the persons of others, and thus did the scribes and pharisees vilify the person of christ in their saying; is not this the carpenter's son? mark 6. 3. 4. being offended at him, and declaring against him, saying, art thou greater than our father abraham, and the prophets? john 8. 53. and thus they undervalved the person of christ to make his doctrine contemptible in abasing his person, that thereby they might set up themselves, saying, we are abraham's children, john 8. 39 but for this fellow, we know not whence he is, john 9 29. and thus did the proud scribes and pharisees of those times contemn christ, and his apostles, as if they were the basest men in the world, and thus they do in these days highly esteem of the persons of so me, if he be an university man, and have learned the spirit, as they conceive, at the university, with the knowledge of the humane tongues, and have received his humane degrees, than they admire his person, and esteem him some great man, or divine person, having bought the spirit at the university, as the people conceive: and that which he hath bought at the schools, he sells it for spirit, though indeed it be nothing but a tract of fathers and authors which he hath got by art, compacting a sermon out of fathers and authors, and the like, and preaches but the judgements of other men, and those men's persons are esteemed as the only men in the world, and all other men rejected, though never so able and godly, because they come not in by the door of humane inventions, their persons are despised as contemptible, and so their doctrine is despised, being never so holy and true, because their persons are contemptible, which is a main cause and reason wherefore so few embrace the gospel of christ. 6 reason, wherefore so few embrace the gospel, is this, because the lord hath been pleased in all ages to reveal his truth to a company of contemptible ones in the world's eye, as you may see both under the law and gospel: as under the law the lord called moses a shepherd to feed his flock, who was feeding the sheep of his father, exod. 3. and the lord called him to feed his people israel, and also david a shepherd, who was tending of his father's flock: and the lord called him 〈◊〉 the ewes, and made him a shepherd in is 〈…〉 and then there was elisha a ploughman, and amos a herdsman, amos 1. and thus you see under the law how the lord did reveal his truth: and under the gospel you have christ and his disciples, who were poor contemptible men in the world, and as matthew a publican, and peter, james and john fishermen, with paul a tentmaker. and thus you see, that the lord did reveal his truth by a company of tradesmen, which the apostle paul doth so gloriously confirm, 1 cor. 1. against the proud rabbis of those times, and justifies his poor brethren in the ministry, saying, you see your calling brethren, how that not many wise, mighty or noble are called to the ministry, but god hath called the foolish to confound the wise, and the weak to confound the mighty, and things that are not in the world's ●ye as any thing, hath god chosen to bring to ●aught things that are esteemed in the world. and this the lord doth, that no flesh should boast or glory in his presence: and therefore the apostle saith, where is the wise, where is the scribe and disputer of this world? for the lord hath made foolish the wisdom of this world, 1 cor. 1. 20. and therefore behold saith the lord, i will do a work in your days, saith the lord, that you will not believe, though 〈◊〉 declared unto you; for the wisdom of your wise men shall perish, and i will make the deviners mad, esa. 29. 14. act. 23. oh behold and wonder ye ministers of england, and ye rabbis and doctors, ye have been exalted up to heaven, but you shall be brought down; for you have sought yourselves more than jesus christ, and your own honour more than his; you have sought to set up yourselves and to abase christ, and have been ashamed to tonfess his gospel before men, for fear of losing your earthly honours and preferments, and have denied the holy one of israel, in perverting his ways, and changing his ordinances, and have been time-servers, and served yourselves and not christ, and therefore the lord hath a quarrel against you, and will confound your wisdom, and make you to be despised before the people, and will shake off your fleshly glorying, that you may glory in the lord; and this the lord will do by raising up men to preach the gospel, and you shall be cast out as a contemptible thing, because you have been a hindrance, and not a furtherance to the gospel of christ; for the idolising of your persons, is a reason wherefore so few believe and obey the gospel of christ. 7. reason. wherefore so few embrace and obey the gospel, is because the ways of the gospel are persecuted ways; for no sooner christ the great minister of god came to preach the gospel to the people, but the high priest and doctors sought to destroy him, mat 2. and how was he persecuted of the learned rabbis, and was forced to flee from one place to another, and was persecuted wheresoever he came, and had not where to hid his head while the great doctors were flourishing in their earthly glory and pomp. rejoicing at the troubles of the son of god, and like foxes lay lurking in their holes to watch for his ruin, and nothing would serve them but his death; crying, his blood be upon us and our children, and thus the learned doctors slew the lord of life, rejoicing at his death with mocks and scorns, like hellish doctors; and thus you see the lord himself was dealt with for preaching the gospel: and therefore christ doth tell his apostles, that they should be hated of all men for his name's sake, mat. 10. 22. and now you shall see how his apostles were persecuted for preaching the gospel: not to speak of their troubles before christ was put to death, but also after; as before his death, how many times were they in trouble with their master, both by sea and by land? what straits were they put unto at his death, when they were all forced to fly and leave their master in the mouth of hell? who can express their grief in that condition? as also after his ascension, how were they persecuted? when peter and john were put in prison, acts 4. 3. for preaching the gospel, being scourged and beaten, acts 5. 40. and commanded to preach no more in the name of jesus, and also the kill of steven, stoneing him with stones, acts 7. together, with the kill of james with the sword, as acts 12. and putting peter in prison, and what shall i say of paul, who was persecuted on every side, being stoned, whipped, and imprisoned, with the report of the apostle himself, saying, they were led as sheep to the slaughter, rom. 8. 36. and were troubled, perplexed, persecuted, and cast down, and bearing in their bodies the sufferings of christ, 2 cor. 4. 8. 9 10. the apostle himself being in the depth of troubles, as you may see, 2 cor. 11. where he doth relate that he was in labour more abundant, in stripes above measure, in prisons more frequent, in deaths oft, five times of the jews receiving 40. stripes save one, thrice beaten with rods, once stoned, thrice suffering shipwreck, and a night and a day in the deep, and many suffering more, which are related, as you may see, 2 cor. ●●. 16. 17. and all this he suffered for christ and his gospel, to show to all the world, that the ministers of the gospel have been a persecuted company in all ages; and who were the greatest persecutors in the days of christ and his apostles; was it not you hellish doctors and rabbis with the rabble of priests and high priest? were not you the chief to condemn christ & his apostles of false doctrine, and chiefest in council to act against them, that you might fill up the measure of your sins; and so fall into the anger of the almighty, by doing what you could to hinder the passage of the gospel, and shall not the gospel condemn you for this at the last day? and doth not this resemble our times, for who are the greatest persecutors of christ and his gospel in these days? are not you priests & learned rabbis? and do not you follow the steps of your forefathers, to fill up the nature of your sins, i● persecuting the gospel and the true ways thereof by your council, and acting what you can against the truth? so that you have been a cause wherefore so few have believed and obeyed the gospel by seeking all means you can to persecute all such a● would embrace the truth of jesus christ, so that most men are afraid to profess the gospel, because it is a persecuted way. 8. reason, wherefore so few embraced and obeyed the gospel is this, even because the ways of the gospel are counted heresy, and such as profess the gospel are counted heretics: and thus it was in former times, even against christ and his apostles: oh how did the high priest, scribes, and pharisees bestir them? will the learned doctors bestir them? john came neither eating nor drinking, and ye said, he had a devil; the lord christ came eating and drinking, and ye said, behold a gluttonous man, a friend of publicans and sinners, and thus you railed against the person and doctrine of christ, accusing him of heresy, and saying, he was a blasphemer, and had a devil, and cast out devils by the name of beelzebub: and were not these your words against the lord; oh you learned rabbis? accusing the apostles also, that they were ignorant fellows, acts 4. and forbidding them to preach any more in the name of christ, and seeking all means to destroy them by your hellish council, in saying their doctrine and teaching was false, and that they did but delude the people? how did you scribes and pharisees rail against the famous apostle paul, that glorious preacher of the gospel? did you not say he was a deluder, and turned the world upsidedown? that his doctrine was false? that he was a heretic, and preached heresy, though his doctrine were a glorious truth, even the gospel of christ, as you may see in his answer to that hellish crew, saying, that way that you call heresy, so worship i the god of my fathers, acts 24. 14. oh you high priest and you elders, were you not ashamed to accuse christ and his apostles, of false doctrine, how will you answer it in the day of god's anger? and thou orator named tertullus, how bravely didst thou act the devil's part in accusing of paul and his doctrine, calling him pestilent fellow, and a mover of sedition throughout the world, and a ringleader of sects and heresy? shall not that gospel that paul taught, judge you at the last day? how willy on plead then at the bar of justice, when the gospel shall be your judge? and thus; you see the reason wherefore so few embraced the gospel in those times, because the way of the gospel was counted heresy; and doth not this resemble our times? are not gospel-wayes called heresy? and such as profess the gospel here●●●●? and all the nick names the devil can invent to make the way of the gospel 〈◊〉 in the eyes of the people? and who are the chief actors in this thing, but the learned of our times, who persuade the people as the scribes and pharices' did, that the way of the gospel is heresy? railing in their pulpits like furies, to put the people in fear, lest they should obey the truth, and stirring up the great ones also to fright the people with their bulls; and therefore it is that so few believe and obey the gospel. 9 reason is, because the gospel holds forth separation, that god's people ought to be a separated people, in respect of worship from all the people in the earth, which is a way that most men abhor; and therefore it is that so few obey the truth; because separation is a heinous thing in the world's eye: though it be a gospel-truth, as doth appear, 2 cor. 6. 14. where we are commanded by the lord to separate, and the reasons given. first, that we be not unequally yoked together with unbelievers; for what fellowship hath the righteous way of the gospel with an unrighteous way? and what concord hath the gospel of light with the way of darkness: or the way of c●rist with the way of belial: or he that believeth with an infidel; and therefore come out from amongst them, and be you sep●●●● saith the lord, from all the ways and worships of men, and i will be your god, and you shall be my people, saith the lord of hosts. and come out of her my people, and be not partakers of her sins, lest you receive of her punishment. rev. 18. 4. and therefore christ saith, if you were of the world, the world would love her own; but i have called (or chosen) you out of the world, in respect of worship; john 15. 18. 19 and therefore doth the world hate you. and thus you see, there is a gospel command for separation; as also there is example; for what did christ and his apostles preach, but away of separation from the world, both in their doctrine and practise? and such as did embrace their doctrine, were separated from the world in respect of worship, as you may see, acts 2. 40. for as the people of israel were separated from all the people of the earth in respect of worship: for circumcision was a distinguishing badge whereby they were known from the world; for by being circumcised, they had right unto the land of can●an, and unto the inheritances of the land, and had right unto all the ordinances of that covenant, and the promises and blessings thereof; but he that did slight and cast of circumcision, was to be cut off from the israel of god, gen. 17. 14. & so baptism under the gospel is a distinguishing badge, to distinguish between believers and unbelievers; and therefore such as manifested repentance and faith, and were baptised, had a right unto the gospel-covenant, and to all the ordinances thereof, being accounted the church and house of christ, and members of that body whereof christ is the head, baptism being a door to let in gospel-priviledges; for such as were baptised they were separated from the world, in respect of worship, enjoying gospel-worship amongst themselves, as you may see in all the churches: none being baptised but such as were made disciples by manifestation of repentance and faith, and none receiving the supper but such as were baptised: and all these churches being gathered out of the world, had the worship of christ amongst themselves, having nothing to do with those that were without, as you may see 2 cor. 5. 13 whereby you may see that the people of christ under the gospel are to be a separated people from the world, in respect of worship: because the worship of christ and the worship of the world being as contrary as light and darkness, as you may see 2 cor. 6. 14. and this is a great reason wherefore so few embrace the gospel, because it is a way of separation. 10. reason, wherefore so few believe and obey the gospel, is for want of trial, because men do not search and try the ways of men, and therefore we are commanded to try all things, 1 thes. 5. 21. and to try the spirits whether they be of god, 1 john 4. 1. oh you people of england, how ignorant are you of the ways of the gospel, for want of searching the scriptures, whereby you might discern the truth, and so the blindness of your former ways? you have built your faith upon men and not upon god, trusting upon synods and counsels of men, and not upon the word of god: how ready have you been to embrace every invention of men, which they have set up? how often have you changed your worship, embracing every tradition that men have set up? when you should with the noble bereans have searched the scriptures, act 17. 11. to have seen whether their doctrines had been true or not? how have you swallowed down every antichristian bait, whereby you have been choked of your spiritual comfort, in taking a false profession for a true, and this is the cause of your blindness in spiritual things? shall not your worldly minds convince? would you have trusted your 〈◊〉 and goods so with men, to have been at their disposing, and not have searched how they have dealt with you? i think you would not, and yet you have trusted men with your spiritual goods, and have not minded what you have received: and is not this the reason wherefore you are so poor and beggarly in spiritual things? you have sought more after earth than heaven; and more after the shadow then the substance; you have a name that you live, but you are dead, revel. 3. 1. know you not that you are returned blind and naked? i council you to buy eyesalve, that you may see your blindness in the things of god, and search and try your ways for your spiritual good; and you ministers of england, how long will you keep the people in egypt, that are seeking after the land of canaan, and you retain them? do you not make them groan under their spiritual burdens? are not they crying unto the lord by reason of their bondage whiles you are seeking to keep them in egypt? will you not let them come to canaan? will you hinder them still to bring the anger of god upon you? how long will you keep them in egypt to build your earthly glory? and shall not their labour be your ruin? will you pursue them to the sea of blood, that the wrath of the almighty might swallow you up? and than shall the people have liberty to enter into the spiritual land. chap. 8. of the first covenant, and the second covenant. and now i shall speak a word or two of the two covenants; wherein i shall use this method. first, i shall speak of the first covenant, and then of the second: now the first covenant was but typical, and therefore it was the good pleasure of the father to send the son to take away the first, that he might establish the second as you may see, heb. 10. 9 that is, he takes away the force of the first, that the second might come in place: which is a better covenant, established upon better promises, heb. 8. 6. now that the first was a typical covenant, will appear for these reasons. 1. the first covenant was an administration of the letter, and therefore it was a typical covenant, 2 cor. 3. 6. 2. it was written and engraven in tables of stone, which was a type of the covenant of grace, which was to be written and engraven in the fleshly tables of the heart; and therefore it was a typical covenant, verse 7. 3. it was an administration of condemnation, and therefore it was a typical covenant, verse 9 4. it was a law of sin and death, and therefore it was a typical covenant, verse 7. rom. 8. 11. 5. it was to be done away, and to be abolished, and therefore it was a typical covenant, verse 1. 11. 13. 6. it was a wounding covenant, it was able to wound, and to show the weakness of the creatures, for by the law came the knowledge of sin, but it was not able to heal; and therefore it was a typical covenant. 7. it was a covenant of bondage, and therefore it was typical; for they were bound to observe a multitude of laws and ordinances under that covenant, besides the offering sacrifices, which was a great bondage, and therefore it was a typical covenant, as you may see, gal. 4. 24. 30. 8. it made nothing perfect, and therefore it was typical; for the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; in the which hope we draw nigh unto god, and so it is disannulled, as you may see, heb. 7. 18. 19 and therefore it was a typical covenant. 9 the first covenant consisted of types and shadows, for the law had a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of things, heb. 10. 2. and therefore it was a typical covenant. 10. the first waketh old, and is ready to vanish away. heb. 8. 1. 3 and therefore it was a typical covenant. 11. there's a better covenant comes in place, established upon better promises; hebrews 8. 6. 7. 8. and therefore it was a typical covenant. 12. the worship was typical, and therefore it was a typical covenant; for there being a change of the priesthood, there must also be a change of the law, as you may see, hebr. 7. 12. for the first worship was but on foot till a better worship came, and then it was to be done away: as the ten words were but a typical worship; for, thou shalt have none other gods but me. and, thou shalt worship the lord thy god, and him only shalt thou serve; and that is this, thou shalt worship me according to my covenant and according to the laws of that covenant; for if thou dost not worship me according to my covenant and according to the laws thereof; thou worshipest another god, and dost not worship the lord thy god; for if thou choosest another way of worship than i have prescribed, and change thy worship, thou also changest thy god; and this is the full intent and meaning of the first covenant, an outward acknowledgement of god to all the world, in obeying those laws and ordinances prescribed and set forth by him, whereby they did acknowledge him to be their god: which worship god did accept of till a better came, until the time of reformation, as you may see, heb. 9 10. and then the father would send the son, the great minister of god, who did administer a better covenant and better ordinances to the world; and when that way was come they were to live no longer to moses and his teaching; but were to live under the teaching of christ; which the father did confirm when he said, this is my beloved son, hear him; mat. 17. 5. but they rejected the teaching of the son, and did not look to the end of that worship which was abolished by christ, as you may see 2 cor. 3. 13. and so their minds are blinded unto this day, living in the shadow when they might have embraced the substance; and therefore they miss salvation, because they sought it by the first covenant and not by the second: though they were very zealous to worship god according to the first covenant, as you may see rom. 9 31. 32. and so they stumbled and fell, as you may see, ver. 33. and thus you see, that the worship of the first covenant, was but to coutinue till a better came in place; for when christ came there was a change, as you may see in all his teachings, and in his declaring, that neither at jerusalem. nor in the mountain should they worship god; that being but an administration of the letter, as you may see, 2 cor. 3. 6. but they should worship in the way of the gospel, which is an administration of the spirit, as you may see, 2 corinthians 3. 8. which is a better worship than the former was, being a better covenant, established upon better promises. and thus i have given you some reasons wherefore the first covenant was a typical covenant; and now i shall show you how christ is said to take away a typical covenant; and that is in these three respects. 1. he pacifies the father's wrath for the transgressions of the first covenant. and secondly, he doth the work of the first coenant. and thirdly, he takes away the first by establishing the second; and so i shall begin with the first. and first, he pacifies the father's wrath; for the first covenant was a covenant of terror, as you may see, exod. 19 for the law was added because of transgression, till the seed should come; gal. 3. 19 and so terrible was the sight thereof, that it made moses quake and tremble, to show that wrath was gone out against sin; heb. 12. 20. 21. being a law of sin and death. rom. 8. 2. now christ comes and takes away the enmity, and was made a curse for us, being the lamb of god that takes away the sins of the world, john 1. 29. and so we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held, rom. 7. 6. and hath redeemed us from the curse; gal. 3. 13. and hath broken down the middle-wall of partition, and hath abolished and taken away the law of enmity, eph. 2. 15. 16. by blotting out the hand-writing of ordinances, and all the jewish worship which was against us; and hath spoiled or killed that enmity that was between god and as by reason of sin; and hath made a free passage between god and our souls, having conquered all oppositions, col. 2. 15. 16. that thereby we might come with all boldness to the throne of grace, heb. 4. 16. and therefore it is that christ hath taken away the first covenant, because it was a covenant of bondage, and the ordinances thereof; and so he gives us right and freedom to embrace a covenant of love and mercy, that is more easy and comfortable to us. secondly, he hath taken away the first covenant, in doing the work of the first covenant; for the first covenant did require a perfect work of a perfect man, but there was ●one that was able to do a perfect work; for the apostle saith, they were all gone astray, and were all gone out of the way, so that there was none that did good no not one, as rom. 3. 12. so that none were able to do the work of the first covenant; and therefore christ was to come to do the work of the first covenant, being a perfect man, without spot or blemish, and so he was able to do a perfect work, to fulfil the righteousness of the first covenant; for the first covenant exacted a work of righteousness and holiness, which none were able to perform till christ came; who when he came, did all that the first covenant did exact, in doing such works as never man did: and so fulfilled the whole law, and all the righteousness and holiness thereof: and so he is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth. rom. 10. 4. and therefore he is declared to be righteous and just, and the justifier of all that believe in him: rom. 8. 25 26. so that, as by the offence of one many were made sinners: even so by the righteousness of christ shall many be made righteous. rom. 5. 19 and for this work of his, god hath highly exalted him, and hath made him heir of all things. heb. 1. 2. and thus you see, that christ hath done the work of the first covenant, and so is the end thereof. thirdly, christ takes away the first, by establishing the second; for finding fault with the first, he saith, behold the days come saith the lord, that i will make or establish a new covenant, and so he takes away the first, that he may establish the second: heb. 10. 9 and so christ is become a minister of a better covenant, established upon better promises, heb. 8. 6. for if the first had been found faultless, there had been no place found for the second; but finding fault with the first, he saith, behold, the days come saith the lord, that i will make a new covenant, and in that he saith, a new covenant, he hath made the first old, and that which is old is ready to vanish away. heb. 8. 7. 8. 13. and thus you see the first was but a typical covenant, and was but to continue until a better came, which is a better covenant & a better way than the former was; and thus i have spoken a word or two of the first covenant, and now i shall speak a word or two of the second. and first, i shall show you how the covenant of grace is established, and that is these three ways. first, by promise, for no sooner there was a wound by the first covenant; but there was a promise of healing in the second, saying, the seed of the woman shall break the serpent's head, as you may see, gen. 3. 15. and this was also promised to noah, gen 6. 18. and more fully manifested to abraham, in many promises made unto him at divers & sundry times gen. 12. 3. and the 17. 7. and a more plainer promise was made to moses, as you may see, deut. 18. 18. where the lord showeth, that he would send the great prophet, or angel of his covenant, and would put his words into his mouth that he might speak all that the father should command him, ver. 18. 19 and thus yond see all along how the covenant was established by the promise of the father. secondly, the covenant was established by prophecy as you may see, isa. 42. 6. ch. 49, 6. as also in jer. 31. 31. and it shall come to pass in the last days, that i will make a new covenant with the house of israel, and with the house of judah, not according to the covenant i made with their fathers, in the day that i took them by the hand, to bring them out of egypt; which covenant they broke though i was a husband unto them saith the lord; but this shall be the covenant that i will make with them saith the lord and thus you see, that it was established by prophecy. thirdly, it was established by the blood of the testator, for a covenant is ratified by blood, as also the first covenant was; for when moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, and sprinkled both the book and the people, saying, this is the blood of the covenant, which god hath enjoined unto you, for without blood there is no remission, heb, 9 19 20. 22. and therefore the second covenant was established and ratified with blood. even by the blood of the son of god, heb. 9 14. for where a covenant is, there must also be of necessity the death of the testator, ver. 16. and therefore the blood of christ is called the blood of the covenant. heb. 10. 29. chap. 12. 24. chap. 13. 20. and thus the covenant is ratified and confirmed by the blood of christ, which is the blood of the everlasting covenant. and thus i have showed you in a word or two, how the covenant was established, and now i shall speak a word or two of the covenant itself: now the essence or being of the covenant, is god, who out of his 〈◊〉 love, and unexpressible mercy, and tender compassion, was pleased to give a being to the covenant, to manifest to all men that he was not in anger but in love, that though his anger lay in the covenant of the flesh, yet his love lay in the covenant of the spirit: for he seemed to show anger in the type and shadow, but his great love doth appear in the substance and truth, in the covenant of grace to manifest his great love to all men: and thus much for the being of the covenant, and now for the matter of it. now the matter of the covenant is the mind of god, consisting of promises of love and mercy unto all men, as you may see luke 2. 10. 14. upon condition of obedience unto the laws and ordinances of that covenant proceeding from the mind of god, from whence all the teaching of the gospel and ordinances thereof do proceed as you see deut. 18. 17, 18. for the son doth nothing of himself, but what he hath received of the father, in being taught of the father what to teach. john 8. 20. 29. and so being to toach the mind of the father, both for promises and commands to the world, from the mind of god: and thus much for the matter of the covenant, consisting of promises and ordinances, proceeding from the mind of the father, and now of the matter itself. now the covenant of grace is called a testament or will, being indeed the will of the father revealed to the son, and by the son revealed to the world, to manifest the father's love unto the sons and daughters of men: and testified to the world, that what he declared was the mind of god, and sealed it with his blood, and so his blood is called the blood of god, or the blood of the testament, or will, heb. 10. 19 chap. 13. 20. secondly, it is called a new covenant, because it makes the first old, and takes away the old bondage of the first, that there might be gospel-freedom in the second; that so we may see how far the one doth exceed the other. thirdly, it is called a new covenant, because it doth not wax old as the other did, but is to continue for ever, and is an everlasting covenant, which is to continue until the consummation of all things, mat. 28. fourthly, it is called a new covenant, because it is new in every age, and to every generation it is a new covenant, bringing new covenants in every age, which are green and nourishing afresh in all generations, to manifest the glory of the gospel beyond the glory of the first: the glory of the one decreasing, and the glory of the other growng and increasing: and thus much of the covenant. now the parties covenanting, are the father and son; for the father strikes a covenant with the son, that he should teach all men: and to do his will in declaring glad tidings to all the sons and daughters of men, and to manifest his love to the world, as you may see, john 3. 16. so that if they do embrace the grace and mercy offered them they may live, and this doth appear by the words of the father himself; that this is truth, for he saith, as i live, i will not the death of a sinner, but that he live, ezek. 18. 32. and doth manifest the same in isai. 49. 6. where he saith, that it was a small or light thing that christ should be his servant to raise up the tribes of jacob, and to restore the desolations of israel, but i will also give thee a light to the gentiles, and thou shalt be my salvation to the end of the earth, to establish the earth, and to cause to inherit the desolate heritage's, that thou mayst say to the prisoners, come forth, and to them that are in darkness, show yourselves, isai. 19 6. 8. 9 and thus you see the engagement of the father, for it is good and acceptable in his sight, that he will have all 〈◊〉 to be saved, and come to the knowledge of the truth, 1 tim. 2. 3. 4. and consulteth not that any man should perish, but that all men should come to repentance, 2 pet. 3. 9 and for this end, the father hath enabled the son with all sufficiency, being full of grace and truth, and giving all power into his hands, whereby he might be the better enabled to do the same: and thus the father frees himself in giving all sufficient power unto the son, whereby he might teach all men, and to perform the covenant on his part: and thus you see the incomprehensible love of the father, that he should engage himself thus unto the world, that he would send his son to be a teacher to all the world, so that this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men love darkness rather than light. and so it doth appear, that the father is not wanting on his part to give light unto the son, that the son might not be wanting on his part to give light to the world. and then in the next place, the son strikes a covenant with the father, for these are the parties covenanting, as you may see, 1 tim. 2. ●, for there is one mediator between god and man, the man christ jesus, who is called the ●●gel of the covenant. and the mediator between god and man, who strikes a covenant with the father, saying, lo i come to do thy will o god, for thus it is written of me in the volume of thy book to do thy will o god, heb. 10. 1. and so the son covenants with the father to do his will, for i came to do the will of him that sent me, and to declare his mind to the world; and so he teaches all men as he himself doth declare, when he saith, when i am ascended, i will draw all men unto me, john 12. 32. and these are the words of christ, who was never wanting to fulfil his word, for he draws all men as you shall see. first, by the works of creation, as the heavens declare the glory of god, and the earth showeth forth his handiwork, day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night teacheth knowledge, and there is no place where their voice is not heard; for their line is gone through the whole earth, and their words unto the end of the world, psam. 19 1. 2. 3. and thus you see christ draws all men by the works of creation, every creature indeed being a gospel-teacher, col. 1. 23. for that which may be known of god is manifest in them, even the eternal power of god, and the godhead, so that they are left without excuse, rom. 1. 19 20. so that christ draws all men by the works of creation which are as a natural eye to see the sun. secondly, christ draws all men by gospel-manifestation, and therefore the gospel is to ●e preached to all nations, mat. 28. and th●●ery creature, mark 16. and they have not obeyed the gospel, is not for want of hearing, for the sound of the gospel is gone through the earth, and their words unto the end of the world, rom. 10. 18. the gospel being preached to every or in every creature, as you may see col. 1. 29. and therefore christ himself doth declare that the gospel must be preached to all the world, as you may see mat. 24. 14. for a witness to all the world before the end shall come. and thus christ is not wanting to preach the gospel. for as by the sin of one man death came upon all men to judgement, even so by the righteousness of one the free-gift came upon all men to justification of life, rom. 5. 19 for this is the command of god, that all men should believe in the son, & he that doth not, maketh god a liar, because he believes not the record that god gave of his son, 1 john 5. 10. and thus you may see, that christ is not wanting on his part to teach all men: for this was the end of his coming that all men through him might believe. thirdly, he draws all men by the spirits revelation, which was prophesied of before that he would pour out of his spirit upon all flesh, joel 2. 28. and that all flesh should see the salvation of god, mat. 3. 8. 〈◊〉 that grace of god that bringeth salvation, hath appeared unto all men, teaching them, tit. 2 11. so that all men through him might believe, john 1. 7. for he is the light of the world, and the true light that lightens every man that cometh into the world, john 1. 9 and thus he hath promised to do unto the worst of men, as to the simple ones, and such as delight in their scorning, yea unto fools that hate knowledge, and would have poured his spirit upon them, had not they rejected it, as you may see prov. 1. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. saying unto you oh men do i call, and my voice is to the sons of men, but seeing i have called and you have refused, i will also refuse you, saith the lord. and thus you see the truth of this thing: now will you say, that christ is wanting to teach any man the way to salvation, whereby he might be saved? and if he be, you will lay the fault in him, which he doth deny, saying, this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and they love darkness rather than light, because their deeds are evil, and will not come to the light, john 3. 19 20. and thus i have showed you how christ doth perform his part of the covenant in a word or two, which is to teach all men, whereby they might believe, and embrace the gospel, and lay hold of eternal life: and if that they did not embrace life, they have no cause to complain: for as much as christ taught them, they shall not say at the last day. that christ did not teach them the way to heaven: when he shall say unto them, i have called, and you have refused, prov. 1. 24. and thus i have spoken a word or two of the parties covenanting, to wit, the father and the son: and now i shall speak a word or two of the extent of the covenant. now it doth appear, the covenant doth extend unto all men, as in the prophecy of esay 2. 6. chap. 49. 6. where the covenant was promised to all both to jews and gentiles, and in the words of the covenant itself, it seems to be clear, as in jer. 31. 34. where the words are these, and they shall all know me from the least of them to the greatest of them, and they shall be all taught of god, john 6. 45. and i will pour out of my spirit upon all flesh, as joel 2. which are new covenant words, and all flesh shall see the salvation of god, luke 3. 6. wherewith it doth appear that it doth extend to all men; for as the wound came upon all men under the first covenant, so the healing must extend to all under the second covenant, or else the plaster is not so great as the sore, rom. 5. 18. and now i shall show you some reasons, wherefore the covenant doth extend to all. 1. because christ doth mediate for whole man, as it doth appear in the 1 tim. 2. 5. for there is one mediator between god and man the man christ jesus; and therefore the covenant must extend to all men, because he mediates for whole man, even for all that were lost in the first adam. 2. the covenant doth extend to all men, because christ is a propitiation or sacrifice for our sins, and not for our sins only, but for and of the whole world, 1 john 2. 2. whereby it doth appear that the covenant doth extend to all men. 3. because the promises of the covenant do extend to all men, and therefore all men are commanded to repent and believe, because mercy is promised to all men, as christ saith, i came not to call the righteous, but sinners ●● repentance, mat. 9 13. and willeth not that any man should perish, but that all men should come to the knowledge of the truth; so that no man is denied the promises of mercy, but such as will fully reject the gospel, as you may see, prov. 1. 20. to the end, rom. 8. 11. 2 act. 13. 46. 47. 4. because the covenant extends as far as the blood, for the blood is the blood of the covenant, heb. 9 14. ch. 10. 29. now the blood of christ doth extend to all men, as doth appear in that he died for the chief of sinners. 1 tim. 1. 15. and came to justify the ungodly, rom. 4. 5. in dying for them, as you may see, rom. 5. 6. and so god commendeth his grace towards us, that while we were sinners christ died for us, verse 8. who died for his enemies, verse 10. and tasted death for all men, heb. 2. 9 and therefore it doth appear, that the covenant doth extend to all men, because the covenant extends as far as the blood. 5. it doth appear that the covenant doth extend to all men, because such as shall be condemned, shall be condemned for rejecting the gospel as the apostle doth declare, when he saith that god shall judge the secrets of men according to the gospel, rom. 2. 16. and god shall come in flaming fire rendering vengeance to those that know not god, and obey not the gospel, 2 thes. 1. 8. 9 and this is the condemnation of the world, that light is come, and they love darkness rather than light, john 3. 19 now if the covenant extend so far as to judge all men: than it doth appear that it doth extend to all men. 6. the covenant of grace is a covenant of love, and the love of god doth extend as far as his anger; for he is the god of love, and therefore his mercies are over all his works, and the enmity is swallowed up of love, his love being a free love, and his covenant a free covenant; and therefore it doth appear that his gospel doth extend to all, because his love doth much more appear when it is extended to all, then when it is extended to some, & those that deny the truth of this, deny the free love of god: & thus i have showed you the extent of the covenant, and now i shall show you wherein the two covenants do agree. now the covenants agree in these respects. 1. the doctrine and practice of the first covenant was one, for they taught one doctrine, and practised one way, both they and their generations, and so were to do, and not to turn to the right hand or to the left, but just according to the command, deut. 4. 1. 2. and so under the gospel there is one doctrine and one practice, as you may see in all the gospel; for the apostles of christ all taught one doctrine, and practised one thing, as you may see in all their doctrine and practice; and this the apostle paul exhorteth tymothy, saying, hold fast that form of sound words which you have been taught, 2 tim. 1. 13. so that therein the first and second covenant agree. 2. those that kept the first covenant had right unto the promises and blessings, and had right unto all the ordinances thereof, but those that broke that law were cursed, and had no right unto any promise therein, and so those that keep and obey the gospel are blessed, but those that reject and contemn the gospel are cursed, 1 pet. 2. 7. 8. 3. all the laws and ordinances of the first covenant were in force while the covenant was on foot; for he that did but neglect circumcision, was to be cut off from the israel of god, gen. 17. 14. and so also all the laws and ordinances of the second covenant are on foot while the covenant stands; for take away the ordinances, and take away the covenant also: and therefore he that denies any ordinances under the gospel, rejects the council of god to his own destruction luke 7. 3. and therein the first and second covenant agree. 4. the first covenant was a conditional covenant, as you may see by the words of moses, levit. 26. 46. and so also is the second a conditional covenant; for repentance and faith are the conditions of the covenant, without the which none shall be saved; for except you repent, you shall all likewise perish, luke 13. 5. and he that doth not believe shall be condemned, john 3. now i am not ignorant that most men conceive the covenant to be without any condition at all, but absolute, and the, strength of their argument lies in the words (shall) and (will) as i will be their god, and they shall be my people; and so they take these words to be without any condition, to the which i reply, that the words shall and will, are both in the future tense, and are both conditional words: as the lord said to israel, thou shalt have no other gods but me, and thou shalt worship the lord thy god, and him only shalt thou serve: now if this word had been without any condition, than they should never have chosen other gods, nor have fallen from the worship of god; but you see they worshipped other gods: & therefore it doth appear, that the word shall is a conditional word. again the lord said to israel, ye shall keep my sabbaths: now if this word shall were without any condition, than they should never have broken the sabbath; but they broke the sabbath, & therefore it doth appear, that the word shall, is not without any condition; and then the lord said unto israel, you shall walk in all the ways that i have commanded, as you may see, deut. 15. 33. now if this word (shall) had been without any condition, than they should never have disobeyed the commands; but we see they did, and therefore the word (shall) is a conditional word, and so they shall be my people is but a conditional word, that is this: if they embrace my grace & mercy, they shall be my people, and if not, they shall not be my people: and for the other word, (i will be their god) and also the word (will) is a conditional word as doth appear, for as i live saith the lord, i will not the death of a sinner: now if there were no condition in this word (will) than all men should be saved, and christ saith, when i am ascended i will draw all men: now if there be no condition in the word (will) than all men shall be drawn, and he will that all men should be saved: and he will not that any man should perish, 1 tim. 2. 2 pet. 3. now if the word (will) be without any condition, than all men shall be saved, and no man should perish; but all that disobey the gospel shall perish, 2 thes. 1. & therefore you see that the words shall & will are conditional, & therefore the covenant of grace, is a conditional covenant; for as i have showed, repentance and faith are the conditions of the covenant, without the which none shall be saved, and therein the first and second covenant agree: and now i shall show in a word or two wherein they differ. the first covenant is old, and the second covenant is new, and therein they differ: the first, the law of the letter, the second, the law of the spirit; the first was written and engraven in tables of stone, the second is written and ingraved in the fleshly tables of the heart; the first a law of death, the second a law of life; the first a law of bondage, the second a law of liberty; the first a wounding law, the second a healing law; the first a natural law, the second a spiritual law; the first a law of types, the second a law of substance; the first was to be done away, the second is to continue; the first a law of earthly blessings, the second a law of spiritual blessings; the first is to a natural death, and the second to a spiritual death; the first was to stand for a time, and the second is to stand for ever. and thus i have spoken a word or two of both the covenants so far as time would give me leave; and the lord give the reader understanding and moderation. chap. four of the father and the son. and in the next place, i shall speak of the father and the son; and i shall begin with the words of the son, wherein he doth exalt the father, and desires him to glorify his son, that the son also glorfie thee; john 17. 1. and so the son exalts the father, and tells, that this is life eternal, to know the father to be the only true god, and the son whom he hath sent verse 2. and from these words, i shall endeavour to speak a word or two of the father & the son, & first i shall speak of the father, & that from these words. to know thee the only true god: from these words, you have the oneness of god, set forth to be the only god of all being, from whom proceedeth all things, as the son doth acknowledge in this verse; for the father is the god of all gods; and therefore he is the true god, and is the first god, and shall be the last god; and therefore i shall endeavour to speak of the father, who is the escence or being of all things, and so to know him is eternal life; and therefore i shall speak a word or two, how to know the father, and that in these three ways. first, to know him in his titles, as there are many titles whereby he is known, he is called [elohim] the almighty's or almighty power, and he is called [elohim] sometimes [eloah] the almighty, and in short [el] mighty, and [eloah] hath affinity with [alah] he adjured; but we are to know, that [jehovah elohim] was the creator only, gen. 2. 4. isa. 44. 24, and he is also called [jehovah] this is his proper name, he that is, that was, and that will be; it cometh of [havah] he was, he is also called [ad●●●] which is god's name of sustentation and domin●●●● and [el, elion] the mighty, the high: & he is also called [shaddai] almighty or alsufficient: he is called [ehejich a●her ehejeh] i am that i am, or i will be that i will be. and thus to know him in his titles, is life eternal; and many titles more he hath, which i have 〈◊〉 time to name. secondly, to know the father as he is one god, is life eternal; and that he is the alone god, the scriptures do abundantly declare, that he is the god of the spirits of all flesh, as numb. 27. 16. for he is the father of spirits, heb. 12. 9 for he is the first god and there is none besides him, deut. 4. 35. for the father is the god of gods, and the lord of lords, and a great god, that is no respecter of persons, deut. 16. 17. and there is no god with him. deut. 32. 39 for among the gods there is no god like the father; for he is god alone, psa. 86. 8. 10, and therefore he is above all gods. psa. 95. 3. for he is called. the god of god's psa. 136. 2. and he is the first god and the last god. isa. 44. 6. for thus saith the lord, is there any god besides me? no i know not any, verse. 8. and therefore the father saith, i am the lord, and there is none else, and there is no god besides not; isaiah 45. 5. and therefore he saith, 〈◊〉 member the days of old, for i am god, and there is none else: i am god, and there is none like me. isa. 46. 9 and thus you see the father is before all gods, and god alone in respect of his being; and for the further probation of this truth, i shall come to the confession of the son. who doth acknowledge the father to be above all, when he saith, i thank thee o father lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent. and all things are given unto me of my father, mat. 11. 25. 27. in doing nothing but by his father's appointment, luke 22. 29. and when he said, father into thy hands i commit my spirit: luke 23. 46. as also confessing, that the father sent him. john 5. 36, 37. doing nothing of himself; but as he was taught of the father; john 8. 28. and thus you see the confession of christ, that he did nothing of himself; but the father that sent him, gave him a commandment what he should say and teach, as you may see john 12. 49. 50. and when he said, lo i come to do thy will o god. and thus you see, the son doth acknowledge the father to be the only true god. and now i shall come to the testimony of the apostles to confirm this truth, in the●● saying, that jesus when you have crucified, 〈◊〉 god raised up. acts 2. 23, 24. and god the father hath raised up jesus whereof we are ●●●nesses, acts 2. 32. and in doing their 〈◊〉 works in the name of jesus whom god hath raised up, acts 4. 10. and the god of our fathers hath raised up jesus, whom ye flew and hanged upon a tree. acts 5. 30. and the apo●●e doth declare, that to confess the truth of this doctrine is the way to salvation. rom. 10. 9 and thus the apostles do acknowledge the father to be the only true god; saying, there are gods many and lords many; but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there is but one god, even the father of whom 〈◊〉 all things. 2 cor. 8. 5, 6. and then you have the confession of the prophets and christ and his apostles, that the father is the only true god, which to know is life eternal. and now i shall come to the third thing. thirdly. it is life eternal, to know the father as he is the god of all being, from whom all things do proceed; and therefore there is 〈◊〉 like the father amongst the gods, so wonderful in power and in glory: exodus 15. 1●. for the father is greater than all gods, 〈◊〉 in the thing wherein they 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, he is above 〈◊〉 exodus 18. 11. and therefore there is no god in heaven nor in earth that can do according to his works nor according to his might, as you may see, deut. 4. 24. being lord of heaven above and earth beneath, and there is none else: deut. 4. 39 all nations whom thou hast made shall worship thee, for thou art god alone. psa. 86. 9 10. in his hands are the deep places of the earth, and his hands form the dry land; the sea is his and he made it, and the height and the strength of the hills is his also. psa. 95. 3, 4, 5. to him alone that doth great wonders, who by his wisdom made the heavens, and stretched out the earth above the waters, and that made the great lights of heaven; which is the god of gods, and his mercy endureth for ever: as you may see, 136. psa. who is the lord of hosts, the god of israel, that dwelleth between the cherubi●●, thou art god, even thou alone of all the kingdoms of the earth, thou hast made heaven and earth, isa. 37. 16. and before him there was no god form: neither shall there be after him, isa. 43. 10. for thus saith the lord, i am the lord and there is none else, for there is no god besides ●●, i girded thee, thou hast not known me; thou they may know from the rising and from the west, that there is none besides ●●▪ i was the lord, and there is none else, 45. is● 5, 6, 7. and thus he is the true god, he is the living god, and an everlasting king, jer. 10. 10. that maketh the earth to tremble and the nations shall not be able to abide his indignation; & the gods that have not made the heavens & the earth shall even perish from the earth and from under these heavens; and so we have all one father, for one god hath created us, mal. 1. 10. and thus you see, that the prophets do acknowledge the father to be the god of all being. and now i shall show you the testimony of christ, and his apostles, when christ saith, i thank thee o father lord of heaven and earth, mat. 11. 25. and all things are delivered unto me of my father, ver. 27. and my father is greater than i, john 14. 28. and my father is greater than all, and i have kept my father's commands and abide in his love, john 15. 10. and so you see the acknowledgement of the son. and now i shall come to his apostles, who do declare, that god the father 〈◊〉 jesus of nazareth with the holy ghost, and much power; for the father was with him whereof they were witnesses, acts 10. 48, 49. that god the father made heaven and earth, the sea and all things therein, acts 14. 15. ch. 17. 14. being lord of heaven and earth and all things therein, and the father of our lord jesus christ, 2 cor. 11. 31. for though there be that are called gods, as there be gods many, and lords many; yet to us there is but one god, the father of whom are all things; 1 cor. 8. 5. 6. and thus you see, that the prophets, and christ and his apostles do acknowledge, that god the father is the only true god: even the god of all being; and thus to know the father is eternal life. and now i shall come to speak of the son, for it is life eternal to know the son, as to know the father; the son being the great prophet of god, and the greatest of all the prophets, and the greatest of the sons of men, and above all men and angels, next unto god himself; and thus to know the son is eternal life. 1. to know him in the promise, being promised of long before he came, by the father himself, that as he made a covenant of works with the first adam, he would make a covenant of grace with the second adam, which should be perfected at the coming of the some, that the love of the father might be known to all the world: the which love and grace was to be declared by the son, the chief prophet of god, who was to reveal the mind of god to all men, in opening the fountain of god's love and mercy, and for that cause he was much desired of before he came, being the son of the father's love, in declaring the salvation of god, of which salvation the prophets have enquired & searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace to come; searching what, or what manner of time the spirit of christ which was in them did signify, when it testified before of the sufferings of christ, and the glory that should follow, 2 pet. 10. 11. and thus christ was promised of long before he came, unto adam and noah: as also to abraham, isaac and jacob, and to moses, unto whom the father revealed the son, saying, i will raise them a prophet from among their brethren like unto thee▪ and i will put my word into his mouth, and he shall speak unto them all that i command him: deut. 18. 18. acts 3. and as he was promised to moses: so also to the prophets; and thus to know him in the promise is life eternal. 2. to know him as he was begotten by the promise, is life eternal; for thus saith the lord, thou art my son, this day have i begotten thee; for the son was not born after the flesh, but after the promise and mind of god; and so the seed of grace was springing from the time of adam till it came forth, being begotten by the word of promise. 3. to know him in his conception is life eternal, being begotten by the immortal word; all the promises compassing the virgin about, and the power of the most high overshadowing her, luke 1. 32. and so begat a holy seed, mal. 2. 15. so that, that which was begot was a holy man, luke 1. 15. conceived in the matrix or womb of god; being begot by the word of promise, and born of the pure virgin: being conceived of the pure nature of god, not borne after the flesh, but after the spirit or promise of god; for the first man was of the earth earthly & his kingdom and power earthly, and therefore his thoughts and mind earthly; but the second is a heavenly man, whose thoughts are heavenly, being without spot or blemish▪ or any worldly care, but all for heaven, both in his thoughts, words and deeds; and therefore he was called the lord from heaven, being able to conquer all the fleshly lusts and temptations of the world, and therefore might rightly be called a heavenly man, and therein did exceed the first adam. and then again, the first adam was called the image of god; but the second adam is called the express image of the father's person▪ whereby it doth appear, that the second adam is of a more glorious nature; the first adam being of a earthly nature, & the second adam being of a spiritual nature; the first adam being set about earthly things, and the second adam being set about spiritual things. and thus you see, that christ was begotten a pure man, fit for all heavenly employment; being of so glorious and pure a nature, that he was able to aspire or ascend into heaven; for what should hinder him being every way heavenly, and no way earthly in his nature; and therefore he was able to walk upon the sea and not be drowned, as you may see, mat. 14. 15. and was able to pass thorough doors and stone walls, being so pure a man that there was nothing could hinder him from going into any place. and thus it is life eternal, to know the man christ in his pure conception as he was a pure nature. 4. to know him as he ascended into heaven is life eternal; for being a pure heavenly man he was able to ascend into heaven, for what should hinder him being a pure nature: being a heavenly nature, it was more natural to be in heaven then to be in earth; for it is nothing but this sinful nature that hinders us from heaven; but christ having no sin in his nature, there was nothing could hinder him from ascending into heaven. now that christ did ascend into heaven. now that christ did ascend into heaven doth appear, for saith he, no man hath ascended up to heaven at any time, but he that came down from heaven, which is the son of man that was in heaven; and so christ shows you, that never any man did ascend to heaven but himself, but the man christ went up into heaven; for he saith it, and i dare not but believe it, for his words are spirit and truth: no man at any time but the man christ, john 3. 13. and i i came down from heaven not to do mine own will; but the will of him that sent me. john 6. 38. for the father takes him up into heaven, and revealed his mind and his will to him, what he would have him to declare to the world; and to manifest the father's love to all men, if they did embrace his doctrine; and so the father sent him into the world, that he that believed in him should not perish; and th●● much doth the son confess when he saith, l●● i came to do thy will o god. and, i came down from heaven, not to do my own will; but the will of him that sent me. and thus to know christ, is life eternal. 5. to know him in his life, is life eternal, what he came to do, and what he did. first, what he came to do, and that was to do the will of the father; for thus it is written in the volume of thy book of me, to do thy will o god, heb. 10. for the words that i speak are not mine, but the words of him that sent me. and thus you see, the end of christ's coming to declare the mind of the father to the world, which was a pure heavenly doctrine; all tending to grace and glory, his doctrine being all spiritual; and to know him in his life as he was a pure spiritual man, for all his thoughts were heavenly, and his words and doctrine heavenly and all his actions heavenly: so that it might truly be said, he came from heaven, being a man for heaven and not for earth, all his actions tending heaven-ward; being indeed a man for another world, heaven being ready to receive him, and the world being weary of him; and thus to know christ i● eternal life. 6. to know him in his death is eternal life, all his life being a life of heavenly trouble 〈◊〉 of heavenly afflictions; being in his life a pattern of all heavenly living. so that the world had nothing against his person, but against his doctrine; for their envy against him, was not in respect of his person, but of his doctrine; for his person might have been free but for his doctrine; for his accusers said, he is a blasphemer and is worthy to die, for he hath said, he came from god, and that he came from heaven, and that he was the son of god; and hath spoke against our laws and against moses; and hath said, he is greater than abraham and the prophets, and hath preached blasphemy; and therefore he ought and is worthy to die, and is not worthy to live; and by our law he ought to be put to death. and for these reasons they sought to destroy him, and were never satisfied till they had got him into their hands; and so to be revenged on him, by smiting of him with their hands, and scourging him with whips and rods, with their mockings of him, and spitting in his face, and crowning him with thorns, and doing him all the disgrace that they could; who was led as a sheep to the slaughter and did stand up to maintain the doctrine that he delivered 〈◊〉 the mouth of the father to his death, that it might appear to all the word, that that he had delivered was truth; and for to indicate his doctrine, he was ready to lay down his life, and was ready to seal the truth with his blood: and as the first covenant was sealed and confirmed with the blood 〈◊〉 ●uls and of goats, even so he 〈◊〉 willing ●●d ready to seal and confirm the covenant of grace, and glory with his own blood: and so the blood of christ is called the blood of the testament, covenant, or will of god: ●●d thus to know the lord jesus christ, i●●●●rnall life. seventhly, it is life eternal to know christ in his resurrection from death to life: & so he became the more glorious in that he conquered all his enemies, and destroyed those that thought to have destroyed him; for he said unto death i will be thy death, and he conquered the grave, and he said unto the grave give up; he overcame sin, the world, and the devil, for he loosed the powers of darkness▪ and he conquered principalities & powers, and made a show of it openly, colos. 2. yea he conquered proud flesh,, & to the terror of all ●is enemies; and thus jesus christ risen from death to life, and was more famous in his suffering, then before in losing the pains of death, acts 2. 24. for it was impossible that it should be holden of it: the father having before promised, that he would not leave his soul in grave, nor suffer his holy one to see curruption, psal. 16. 10. being the first fruits of them that sleep, and a sure evidence of the resurrection of the dead, being raised up by the mighty power of god, that as christ was raised up, so also shall we by the same spirit who raised up jesus who is gloriously ascended up into heaven, as a forerunner for us: for he that was made a ●little lower than the angels, is crowned with glory and honour, so that at the name of jesus every knee shall bow, and every tongue shall confess him, yea those that pierced him, & being made the judge both of the quick and the dead, to the joy and salvation of his friends, and to the destruction of his enemies: and thus to know him is eternal life. eightly, to know him as he is god is eternal life: for when he had done the will of the father, & had so gloriously confirmed the gospel by his suffering, and confirmed the truth with his blood, when that heavenly nature was made subject to anger, when 〈◊〉 sweat water and blood, making strong cries, and supplications with tears unto him, that was able to deliver him, and was heard in the thing that he desired, and when he said my god, my god, why hast thou forsaken me? and when he said father into thy hands i commit my spirit; and so he suffered as a lamb without spot and blemish, in fulfilling all the prophecies that the prophets prophesied of him, to fulfil the scriptures, and the mind of the father, when he said, o father not my will, but thine be done, that he might accomplish all that was written of him to do, that thereby he might finish the glorious work of the gospel and establish an everlasting covenant sealing and confirming it with his own blood, being the blood of the everlasting covenant, heb. 10. 29. chap. 13. 20. and for all those heavenly acts of the son, the father raises him from the dead: for he was raised up by the mighty power of god, as the god of our fathers raised up jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree, acts 2. 24. 32. chap. 3, 13. 15. chap. 5. 33. 31. and thus you see the father raises him from the dead in a glorious manner, and makes him a god▪ and gives all power into his hands as you may see mat. 28. 18. and so the son is god by office, being the great and chief officer of god, in being made heir of all things, heb. 1. 1. 2. and this was prophesied as in the psal. 110. 1. where the prophet saith, the lord said unto my lord, sit thou at my right hand until i make thine enemies thy footstool, now david's lord was christ, and christ's lord was god, as doth appear, in heb. 1. where the father saith, thou art my son, this day have i begotten thee, and again, i will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son, and again, when he bringeth his first begotten into the world, he saith, and let all the angels worship him: and of the angels, he saith, who maketh his angel's spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire: but of the son, he saith, thy-throne o god is for ever and ever, a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom: for thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity, therefore god even thy god hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows: and thus the father hath exalted him above the gods, saying. sat thou on my right hand until i make thine enemies thy footstool, psal. 110. 1. for god the father hath made him the god of all things, and so the father calls him the everlasting father, the prince of peace, and hath put the government upon him, and of his government there shall be no end, for god the father will perform this, esay 9 6. 7. the spirit of god the father being upon him, that he might judge the righteous in mercy, and the wicked in judgement, esay 11. 4. and thus the father hath crowned him with glory and honour; for it hath pleased the father, that in him should all fullness dwell: for he is the fullness of the godhead, the father having made him god of all things, both in heaven and earth; and now the son is to rule till he have put all things under his feet: now the last enemy is death▪ for he hath put all things under his feet, but the son shall subdue and conquer death, and shall reign till he hath put down all rule, and all authority and power, and then cometh the end, when he shall deliver up the kingdom to god, even the father, and be subject to him, that so god the father may be all in all things, 1 cor. 15. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. and thus you see that god the father hath given all things to the son, and hath made him a god till the end of all things, till all enemies are conquered by the son; and then shall he give up the kingdom to the father again, and be subject to him, that god the father may be all in all; and thus to know christ is eternal life. now the use that i make of all this, is this, it showeth the great & exceeding love of the father to us in revealing his mind and will to a man as we are; and that this man christ should be so gloriously exalted by god the father, to be the chief in his council to declare his mind to the world, and that thereby the world might be reconciled to god by the man christ, in preaching mercy to us, by a man as we are, and in making a man to be a mediator between him and us, to raise him gloriously from the dead, and to give all power into his hands, and to make him lord of heaven and earth, to set him at his right hand in glory, and to centre all mercy and judgement in the son: what greater favour could the father of mercies show us, which is a sure testimony of our rising from the dead, and of our glorification with him at the last day? and in the next place, i shall endeavour to reconcile some scriptures that seem to contradict the truth of this doctrine, and the first is in ge●. 1. 26. let us make man: to the which i reply, that there the father speaks of his word or spirit, by which he made all things: for the spirit of god moved upon the waters, & the witness of two is true, as deut. 17. 6. john 8. 17. and so the spirit of god in the scripture is distinct from god, as in many places, he might speak of the angels, as being familiar with him, whereby they might show their acceptance of that work, being the great counsel of heaven, for he could not speak of the son, as in being at that time, neither could he really be before he had a being, or else the father might speak in a twofold relation, when he spoke of man, to wit, of the work of creation, and redemption; and so he might speak of the son, but any otherwise he could not. another scripture is in john 1. 1. 2. in the beginning was the word, and the word was with god, and god was that word: to the which i reply, that in the beginning implies a term of time, but god was before all time, and that word was with god, and so it was before it came from him: for the word is the mind of god, and came from the heart of god, and was the power of god; for by his word he made all things, 〈◊〉 that sense it might be called god, for 〈◊〉 a common name in scripture, as idols are called gods, and men are called gods, as being of note and fame; and the word being of that power might be called god, though it come from the father, who is the god of all gods. and another scripture is, before abraham was i am: and to that i reply, that christ was before abraham. first, he was before him in the promise. and secondly, he was before him in god's account; for god did account of his son before abraham, and therefore christ might well say before abraham was i am, being the son of god himself. and another scripture is, i and my father are one, which is true indeed, that the father and the son are one, both in mind and doctrine, the son delivering the mind of the father, as i have showed before; but else the son saith, the father is greater than i, and i came to do the work of him that sent me. now another scripture is this, that he being in the form of god, thought it no robbery to be equal with god, and the express image of the father's person: and this is true indeed, that the son is said to be the form or likeness, picture or image of the father's person, but you will not say that the image or picture of a man, is the man; for the express image or picture of a man, is but his form, and so christ is the image of his father's person, that is god by office, but not the father himself, and so the son is the image, and the father is the substance, from whom all things do proceed, being the essence of all things, and the original of all being. and thus in a word, as time would permit me, i have endeavoured to give unto the father that which is his, and also to the son, that which is his: the son being the chief in the court of the father's majesty: i shall desire to honour the son, who is so highly honoured of the father; for it became the father, of whom are all things, & by whom are all things to make the captain of our salvation perfect through sufferings, heb. 2. 8. 10. thou hast put all things under his feet, in subjection; for in that he put all things under him, he hath left nothing that is not put under him, but now we see not as yet all things put under him, heb. 2. 8. 10. chap. v of heaven. now i shall endeavour to speak of heaven, for that will be the glorious heaven to arrive at at the last day. now the kingdom of heaven is called another world, when christ saith, neither in this world, nor in the world to come, and so it is another world, for that is a heavenly world, and this a earthly; that world enjoys the presence of god, and this the back parts; that world enjoys the substance, and this enjoys the shadow; that is a world of spirit, and this a world of flesh; that a world of goodness, this a world of wickedness; that is a continuing world, and this a fading world; that is a world and kingdom not made with hands, but eternal in the heavens. and now i shall speak as plainly as i can, a word or two of heaven, and first what heaven is. 1. heaven is a place of glory, where the face and presence of god is, and where those glorious angels are, and all the heavenly host, above all created heavens, where god the father was from all eternity: and for the probation of this, you shall have dan. 7. 9 10. where the father is called the ancient of days, being indeed before all time: and his throne prescribed with that glorious heavenly host that doth attend him: for he is the high and lofty one that inhabits eternity, and dwelleth in the highest heavens: for thus saith the wise solomon, if israel pray, hear thou in heaven thy dwelling-place, 1 kings 8. 39 43. and heaven is my throne, and the earth is my foot-stooll: and christ saith, that in heaven the angels do always behold the face and presence of his father which is in heaven, mat. 18. 10. and also the son is entered into the very heaven of glory itself, heb. 9 24. there to remain till he come at the last day. and now i shall show you reasons that there is a heaven. 1. reason. is from god's eternal being before all time, he must be somewhere▪ and his glory must be somewhere, even in heaven, a place not made with hands, 2 cor. 5, 2. a place of glory: before all time, and before these visible heavens and earth were created, he was in glory, whereby it doth appear there is a heaven. 2. reason. when he came to create the visible heavens and earth that appear to us; from whence came he but from heaven? and where was he but in a place of glory, before these visible heavens and earth were made? which shows he was somewhere before in a place of glory that cannot be beheld with mortal eyes, and which cannot be comprehended by a final creature, and therefore it doth appear that there is a heaven. 3. reason. is because we enjoy but the back parts of god; for we can hardly behold his backparts, and how then should we behold his foreparts? how then should we behold him in his glory? again, when israel beheld the backparts of god in the mount, his glory made them and moses tremble; and if his backparts made them tremble, how then should they behold his foreparts? and where do you think the face and presence of god is with that innumerable company of angels, and heavenly host? would not the presence of one angel make you tremble; what then would his host, and what would god himself do? for no man shall see his face and live. where is his presence, his face and foreparts, and that company of angels that are always in his presence, but in heaven a place of glory? which shows there is a heaven. 4 reason. when god hath appeared at any time to his people, his appearance hath been more glorious than all the glory in the earth: & they have been ashamed, & confounded in themselves, as not being able to behold the glory of their maker, either in himself or in his angels, whose appearance would darken all the glory of the earth; whereby it doth appear that the presence of god and his angels must be somewhere, the earth not being able to bear their glory; and where should they be but in heaven, a place of glory? 5. reason. when the lord hath spoken at any time to the people, his word hath come down from heaven: as when he spoke with noah, and with abraham, isaac and jacob, he spoke from heaven; and when he spoke with moses in the 3. of exod. he spoke from heaven; and when the law was given in the mount, he came from heaven: as also when he spoke unto the prophets, he spoke from heaven; and also at the birth of christ, from whence came that glorious company of angels, but from heaven; and when there came a voice from heaven, saying, this is my beloved son: and when the heavens were opened, and the holy ghost came upon the apostles: as also in the vision of paul, a light and a voice came from heaven, and much more might be spoken on at large, if time would permit to show that there is a heaven, where god is more glorious than he is in earth. 6. reason. that there is a heaven, doth appear from the desire of the people of god, who looked upon all things below as nothing with their desires to seek after heaven; and desiring to leave this world; and confessed that here they were strangers and had no abiding place, but sought for a place in another world; with desires to be desolved, and to be absent from the body, desiring to be clothed upon with their house, which is from heaven; with their weariness of this world, and desiring to leave it for a better, doth make it appear that there is a heaven. 7. reas. the prayers of the saints doth make it appear that there is a heaven, as in their prayers lifting up their thoughts, their eyes and hands, and all to heaven, from whence they look for comfort; and might i not be very large in this, in the practice of all the saints? but a word to the wise is enough. 8. reason. the holy walkings of the saints doth declare there is a heaven, by framing all their thoughts, words and deeds in such a heavenly way, that so they might be fitting themselves for such a kingdom. 9 reason. the prophets do declare there is a heaven in all their writings, of which i shall speak a word or two of some, as deut. 3. 24. where moses saith, that there is no god in heaven or earth can do such glorious works as the god of heaven; and solomon saith, lord hear in heaven thy dwelling-place, 2 kings 8. 31. 34. and thy people pray, and supplicate unto thee, lord hear in heaven thy dwelling-place, 2 chron. 6. 30. and david saith, the lord, looked down from heaven upon the children of men, psal. 13. 2. and the lord looketh down from heaven, and beholdeth all the sons of men, psal. 33. 13. and thy mercy o lord is in the heavens, psalm. 36. 5. and god looked down from heaven, psal. 53. 2. but our god is in the heavens, psal. 115. 3. and his glory is above the heavens, psal. 113. 4. thus saith the lord, the heaven is my throne, isaiah 65. 2. and thus saith the lord, can heaven above be measured? jer. 31. 34. and there is a god in heaven that revealeth secrets, dan. 2. 28. and he it is that buildeth his ascensions in the heavens, amos 9 6. for behold, the lord cometh down out of his place, mich. 1. 3. and thus you see the testimony of the prophets, that there is a heaven. 10. reason. christ and his apostles do declare that there is a heaven; when christ taught them to say, our father which art in heaven, mat. 6. 9 and that you may be the children of your father which is in heaven, mat. 5. 45. and how much more shall your father which is in heaven, give them that ask him, mat. 7. 11. and flesh and blood hath not revealed this to you, but my father which is in heaven, mat. 16. 17. for the angels do always behold the face of my father which is in heaven, mat. 18. 10. and thus you see the son doth affirm that there is a heaven in these and many places more that might be brought. and now i shall go to the apostles, in saying, your master also is in heaven, ephes. 6. 1. and the throne of majesty in the heavens, heb. 1. i and the holy ghost sent down from heaven. ● pet. 11. 12. and the voices that came from heaven, we heard when we were with him in the holy mount, 2 pet. 1. 18. and thus you see the truth of this, that there is a heaven. ●●. reason. christ's ascension doth make it appear, that there is a heaven; for where is christ gone but into heaven, to rest in glory with the father, when he saith, i go to my father, and i go to prepare a place for you, john 14. 2. 12? and he ascended up into heaven, acts 1. 10. in the appearance of the beholders, whom the heavens must contain, acts 3. 21. being ascended fare above all heavens, ephes. 4. 10. and so we look for the son of god from heaven, 1 thes. 1. 10. which at last shall show himself from heaven, 2 thes. 1. 7. even that jesus that is passed into heaven, heb. 4. 14. and is such a high priest who is set on the right hand of the throne of the majesty in the heavens, heb. 8. 1. and is entered into the very heaven▪ heb. 9 24. and thus you see it is very clear that there is a heaven. 12. reason. the coming of christ at the day of judgement doth make it appear there is a heaven; for where is he but in heaven, and from whence comes he with that glorious company of angels, but from heaven? mat. 25. 31. when the trump shall sound, and the dead shall rise, the heavens shall melt, and the earth shall tremble, and the mountains shall fl●e from his presence; when he shall come terribly to shake the earth: so glorious will his coming be from heaven. lastly, doth not the day of judgement declare there is a heaven, when christ shall come to separate the sheep from the goa●es, and shall say unto those on his right hand, come ye blessed of my father receive a kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. mat. 25. 34. and what kingdom is this think you but heaven, and what place is this but a place of glory? and christ saith, i go to prepare a place for you, that where i am there may you be also, john 14. 3. and when christ who is our life shall appear, then shall we appear with him in glory; and when this house shall be dissolved, we shall have a kingdom eternal in the heavens, 2 cor. 5. 1. and our treasure is laid up in heaven, col. 1. 5. when w● shall receive that incorruptible inheritance which is undefiled, and that fadeth not away, which is reserved in heaven for us. 1 pet. 1. 4. and thus you see it plain that there is a heaven. and now i shall show you further in a word or two, what heaven is; and first it is a place as i shall prove by scripture: it is the throne of god; 1 kings 8. 27. 2 chro. 6. 18. isa. 66. 1. and therefore he reigns and sits upon the throne of his holiness, psa. 147. 8. and behold the lord cometh forth of his place, and will come down and tread upon the high places of the earth. mic. 1. 3. and christ saith, it is a place prepared; go receive the kingdom prepared, for in my father's house are many mansions; john 14. 1. and the apostle saith, it cannot be moved or shaken. heb. 12. 27, 28. and thus you see that heaven is a place. secondly, it is a place of glory, where we shall enjoy the foreparts of god; that is, we shall see him as he is, and shall enjoy his face and presence, as he is in his glory unspeakable, which cannot be expressed with the tongue of men and angels; to show you that glorious majesty, with the glorious presence of the son, being ascended with that heavenly host in glory unexpressable. thirdly, it is a place of honour, where we shall be crowned, and made kings to reign with him for ever, and be crowned with everlasting crowns upon our heads, and enjoy the glory of the highest majesty, being honoured of angels, and all that heavenly guard, and shall be priests of the most high god, to offer up praises to him that sits upon the throne, and to the lamb for ever and ever; for all the honour in the footstool, is but a type of the hnour that we shall enjoy in the throne. fourthly, it is a place of heavenly riches; for eye hath not seen, nor the ear heard: neither can the heart of man conceive the glory of that place; all the riches upon the earth being but a type and shadow of the heavenly riches, where the creature shall enjoy all the fullness of god, and shall have more than heart can wish or desire; for if god be so rich in his footstool, what is he in the throne? fifthly, it is a place of joy, where is fullness of joy; for where should we rejoice but in the presence of god, where we shall come to enjoy all the fullness of god with joy unspeakable, and full of glory? to joy in the father and in the son, in saints and angels; who can express that joy but those that enjoy it? to enjoy such a company, to be in such a glorious condition, all the joy in the world being but a type thereof. sixthly, it is a place of peace, for there will be no opposition in the throne; what enemy dare appear there? do not all his enemies tremble before him, and are afraid to approach into his presence? and shall not all his enemies be destroyed before that time when the saints shall enjoy their rest? what glorious peace shall be their peace with god and christ, with saints and angels? even the peace of god that passeth all understanding. seventhly, it is a place of pleasure and delight, the desired haven of the saints; which they have so much longed and sought after, to be in the substance of pleasure and delight, where is fullness of pleasure, and joy for evermore; being a place of all heavenly glory & enjoyment beyond the apprehension of a weak creature to conceive or apprehend. eighthly, in respect of that glorious com●●●y, to enjoy the presence of god the father, and of christ the son, with that glorious train of angels, with abraham, isaac and jacob, with moses, david and solomon, and in a word, with all the glorious prophets and apostles; and with all the people of god that ever have been or shall be in all ages; what a glorious communion will there be at that time, to have fellowship with so glorious a company, with sweet knowledge and acquaintance with them, and enjoying their company for ever in all spiritual pleasures and delight? ninthly, it is a heaven of glory, for ever and ever; for the glory shall never end, nor their joy shall never be diminished; but they shall reign with god for ever & ever in the fullness of his glory, there to behold his presence, to joy and to rejoice in his greatness, and in the glory of his majesty for ever and ever. chap. vi of hell. there is some that say there is no hell; but they might as well say there is no god, nor no resurrection nor judgement; but how will such persons answer this one day before the judgement-seat of this great god; and i may say of such, except they trun from this their wicked tenant: as christ said, oh ye serpents and generation of vipers, how can ye escape the condemnation of hell? for if there be no hell, than we may live as we list; but such do in their hearts believe there is no god, or else they must acknowledge a hell; and therefore i shall endeavour by the assistance of my god, to prove that there is a hell, and i shall use this method; first show what i mean by hell, and then i shall prove that there is a hell. now hell is a place of condemnation, or a deprivation from the presence of god, of christ, and of grace and glory; for christ saith, he that believeth not is condemned already, and tophet is prepared of old, and all the wicked and ungodly shall go down to hell; and christ shall say, go you cursed into a place prepared. that there is a condemnation doth appear for these reasons. 1. from the essence or being of god himself, who is so pure and glorious in his nature, that he abhors the very thoughts of sin; being as opposite as light and darkness; that as he loves nothing more than goodness: so nothing is so odious in his sight as sin and wickedness; so that, being so opposite to the essence and being of god, as not to enjoy his presence; therefore there must be a deprivation, or separation between god and sin, and so there is a condemnation. 2. because god hath opposed sin at all times, as the greatest enemy to all goodness, and hath been an enemy to sin ever since he was in being; and hath proclaimed it to be his greatest enemy under all his dominions; and hath showed his displeasure against it from the beginning, in setting all his heavenly host against it, and proclaiming open war against it for ever, as never to enjoy his presence, but to abide his displeasure for ever; and therefore there is a condemnation. 3. all that is opposite to god shall at last be condemned; & what is more opposite to god then sin, and sinners, in opposing his power and goodness, rejecting and despising his holiness, and seeks to make god and his ways contemptible; and therefore god will condemn sin, and the punishment of sin shall extend as far as the wickedness of it, and that a condemnation for ever and ever. 4. sin is an open en●●●● against god, in destroying his works, and reviling and blaspheming his great name, and seeks to rob him of his honour, to overthrow his truth and people, and doth abhor all the ways of god, being a continual enemy against him and his goodness, teaching people to deny him to be god, and to deny his name & greatness, and hath sought to destroy and rob god of his being; and therefore god doth declare, that he will punish sin for ever, and condemn it from his presence for evermore. 5. god hath declared that he will condemn sinners as well as sin; and therefore there is a condemnation: even the angels that fell, are reserved in chains of darkness till the great day, and shall never be delivered from the wrath to come; which makes them fear and tremble, and how darest thou then proud man say, there is no hell? doth not the devil delude thee, that thou mayest at last lie under the same condemnation? 6. if there be no condemnation, than the condition of the wicked, is better than the condition of the people of god, then in vain do they serve god, if the wicked who walk in all the ways of wickedness, and commit sin with greediness, and accomplish all their wicked desires; if they shall not be condemned, than all our holy walkings are in vain; but what can be more contrary to god then this? doth not god abhor such thoughts as these, and declared, that he will put a difference between those that serve him, and those that serve him not? malachi 3. 18. and therefore there is a condemnation. 7. if there be no condemnation, to what purpose are the scriptures set forth? if they shall be saved that disobey them, as well as those that obey them, than the scripture is of little use; but the scripture will tell you at the last day, that it is in force to condemn you. 8. if there be no condemnation, than the devils shall be saved, and then wickedness shall be as much honour as goodness; and than it would be best to walk after our own ways, and take all the pleasure we could in this life, if there be no condemnation; but neither sin nor sinners shall escape the judgement of god, and therefore there is a condemnation. 10. the prophets do declare, that there is a condemnation, that all the wicked, and all nations that forget god, shall go down to hell. psal. 9 17. and the wicked shall perish, psal. 37. 20. and the hope of the wicked shall perish, prov. and tophet is prepared of old, for the king, as for the beggar, esay 30. 33. for there is no peace to the wicked saith our god, esay 48. 22. & there is no peace saith my god, to the wicked, esay 54. 21. and those that will not obey, i will utterly destroy, jer. 12. 17. for i will punish you according to the fruit of your do, saith the lord, jerem. 21. 14. and i will bring an everlasting reproach upon you, and a perpetual shame, which shall never be forgotten, jerem. 23. 40. and behold the whirlwind of the lord goeth forth with fury, a continuing whirlwind, it shall fall with pain upon the head of the wicked; the fierce anger of the lord shall not return until he have done it, and until he have performed the intents of his heart, in the latter days ye shall consider it, jerem. 30. 23. 24. and the day cometh that shall burn as an oven, and all the proud, and all that do wickedly, shall be burnt up, saith the lord of hosts, mal. 4. 4. and what need i bring more scriptures seeing all the prophets are full in this, to show that there is a condemnation? 11. christ and his apostles will tell you, that there is a condemnation: doth not christ say, this is the condemnation that light is come into the world, and they love darkness rather than light, john 3. 17? and he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed on the son of god, ver. 18. and the word that i have spoken shall judge you at the last day, john 12. and when he shall say to those on his left hand, go ye cursed into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels, mat. 25. 41. and that they shall go into everlasting punishment, vers. 46. and that many are called, and few are chosen. and the apostle saith, tribulation and anguish upon every soul that doth wickedly, rom. 2. 3. and that god shall judge all men by the gospel; and that christ shall come in flaming fire to render vengeance to all that obey not the gospel, who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the lord, 2 thes. 1. 8. 9 and many places more might be brought to prove that there is a condemnation. 12 doth not your conscience tell you there is a hell? doth it not accuse you for all your actions? will it not be as a thousand witnesses against you? how will you satisfy conscience? for if our conscience condemn us, god is greater than our conscience. doth not conscience register up all your actions? will it not tell you one day you must be brought to an account, and judged according to your deeds? for solomon saith▪ a wounded conscience who can bear? when it comes to accuse you at your death, and sets your sins in order before you, it will tell you there is a condemnation, and you shall then find there is a condemnation; and i shall show you the judgements of this condemnation. first, one judgement of this condemnation is hell, which is a hidden place of god's anger and wrath; for as the joys of heaven are hidden joys, so also the torments of hell are hid: for no man is able to apprehend how terrible the torments of hell are, which makes the devils to tremble: for saith the lord, an anger is kindled in my wrath, which shall burn to the lowest hell, deut. 32. 22. and all the wicked and all nations that forget god shall go own to bell, psal. 9 17. and tophet is prepared of old for the king as well as the beggar, you may see esay 30. 33. and when christ shall say to the wicked, go ye cursed into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels, mat. 25. 41. and the wicked shall go into everlasting punishment, ver. 46. when christ shall come in flaming fire with his migty angels, to render vengeance to those that know not god, and obey not the gospel of christ, who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the lord, and from the glory of his power, 2 thes. 1. 7. 8. 9 and this is one judgement of this condemnation. the second judgement 〈◊〉 the fire of hell▪ which is the fire of god's 〈◊〉: and is the wrath and anger of god which shall burn and consume for ever; for if our material fire which was made to warm, to comfort and refresh the creature, be so terrible, what do you think the fire of hell is, that is made for torment? when god himself doth invent torment, how terrible will it be? for the wrath of the lord like a river of brimstone doth kindle the fire of hell, esay 30. 33. for the wrath of god is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness of men, that withhold the truth in unrighteousness, rom. 1. 18▪ and the fire of the wrath is everlasting, and never goes out. mat. 25. 41. thirdly the worm never dies, and this worm i conceive to be an accusing conscience, judging and accusing a sinful and wicked creature for all his abominations that he hath committed in rejecting the love of god and the grace and mercy offered in jesus christ, whereby he might have been freed from that wrath to come, had he embraced the grace and mercy offered, but now he is lost for ever through his own default, and hath lost the glory that he might have had, and must abide the wrath of god for ever: and thus the worm never dies. mark 9 25. fourthly, there shall be weeping & gnashing of teeth, for now there will be a wonderful change, for those that formerly have lived in all pleasure and delight, and have been haters of god, and contemners of all good, and rejoicing in their pleasures and delights, and have glutted themselves with the pleasures of this world, with their scorns and jeers, and rejoicings against the troubles of the people of god, and mocking at their troubles, and rejoicing at their calamity, with their enjoying all the pleasures of this life, taking their fill in the eyes of this world; but now comes their woe, their rejoicing will be turned to mourning; for woe be to you that laugh now in your wickedness, for you shall weep: oh what a change will there be when all their joy will be turned into weeping, for there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth: they that have glutted themselves with their made joy, shall now have enough of weeping, they shall now weep & howl, & bewail their condition with weeping for ever; and this is another judgement of this condemnation, mat. 13. 42. 50. chap. 24. 51. chap. 25. 30. 5. they shall be cast into utter darkness, for they have done the works of darkness, and their reward shall be, that they shall be cast into utter darkness: it would be a hell for a man to live all his life-time in some dark place where he should never see the light all his life-time. how terrible was the darkness in egypt that might be felt. exod. 10. 23. that no man risen from his place for three days, it was so dark, and they were so amazed with darkness; but what will the darkness of hell be think you? it is utter darkness, where they shall be deprived of the light for ever, from the light of god, of christ, and from the light of grace and glory, and never more to see the light, mat. 8. 12. chap. 12. 13. ch. 25. 30. 6. the consideration of the loss of their time, what they are, and what they might have been, had they improved that precious time, that was afforded them, whereby they might have been precious saints in heaven, and to have enjoyed the presence of god, and of christ, of saints and angels, to have been in glory with abraham, isaac, and jacob, and with all the saints in glory, had they improved that precious time which the lord did afford them, who was waiting upon them to do them good, by tendering grace to them day by day, and they rejecting all the motions of his spirit, and despised his grace and mercy offered them, and so may blame themselves, & not him: o how will this strike to their hearts think you, when they consider their loss, and themselves the cause there of, and now are lost creatures for ever: how will this aggravate their woe? o consider this all you that forget god, before it is too late, while you have time, and while it is called to day, harden not your hearts, lest you fall into the anger of god, ●●id so 〈◊〉 you up in his wrath, into that terrible condemnation; for our god is a consuming fire. seventhly, they shall receive every one according to their deeds and their wickedness; then those that have been most vile, shall receive according to their vileness, the proud shall receive according to their pride; for terrible is that god that judgeth them: so much covetousness, so much wrath; so much drunkenness, so much of the anger of god shall be poured upon them; so much swearing, so much payment for oaths; so much whoring, so much torment; so much pleasure in the world, so much displeasure and sorrow; so much honour in the world, so much dishonour with god; and look how much they have been persecutors of the saints, and people of god, so much they shall be persecuted; for thus saith the lord, i will measure unto them according to their works. now will the lord call all their wickedness into remembrance, which have been forgotten so many hundred of years, but now are called to remembrance; for though he suffered them long▪ yet now he will pay them home at last: and this will be an aggravation of their condemnation. eighthly, their worm ●hall neve● die▪ nor the fire of god's wrath shall never be put out; for he suffered them for a moment, to delight themselves in sin, but he will punish them for ever, and this is the aggravation of all, that there will be no end of their sorrow, no time of releasement, no more hope of mercy, no more offers of grace, never to look for any releasement, no ease of their punishment, no comfort in their sorrow, no hope of ever having liberty, or to come out of those torments, but shall abide the wrath of god for ever, so long as god is god, so long shall his wrath be out against sin, and sinners, even for ever and ever. then will the lord show how great an enemy he is to sin, and all those that join with sin, when he shall set the decree for ever against sin and sinners, to be tormented in the flames of his wrath, and in the fire of his anger from everlasting to everlasting: and thus you see that there is a condemnation, and those that will not believe the truth of this i shall leave them to their own conscience, and the great judge. chap. vii. of glory. there is some conceive, there is fullness of glory in this life; but to such i shall say with paul, that if we had our portion only in this life, we were of all men most miserable: and therefore i shall endeavour to speak a word or two of glory, and show you some reason wherefore we are not in fullness of glory, and show you what it is to be in fullness of glory. to be in the fullness of glory is to enjoy the foreparts, or face, and presence of god and christ, with all the saints, and those glorious angels to be in their presence, and to reign with them for ever in glory; and so saith the apostle, when christ who is our life shall appear, then shall we appear with him in glory, col. 3. 4. and therefore we hope for the glory of god, rom. 5. 2. that we may be glorified together with him, rom. 8. 17. for when the chief shepherd shall appear, then shall we receive a crown of glory that fadeth not away, 1 pet. 5. 4. and now i shall come to reasons. 1 we are not in the fullness of glory in this life, because we enjoy but his backparts, not his foreparts; we do not enjoy his presence where he is in glory with his angels, for we are not able to apprehend his glory here, much less to be in it, or enjoy it in this life, for we are not in the presence of god, and those glorious angels in heaven; we enjoy but his backparts here in his footstool, his foreparts and glory is in the throne, and cannot be seen with mortal eyes. secondly, there is a veil over our eyes, we see but darkly, as through a glass; we are not able to behold his face and presence, nor to behold his glory; we see him yet but through the promises, we do not enjoy him as he his; his glory would rather affright, then comfort us in this mortal estate, should these mortal eyes of ours behold the glory of the angels, much less the god of glory; for now we see but darkly, as through a glass, but then shall we see him face to face, 1 cor. 13. thirdly, we knew but in part, and understand his glory but in part; but when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away, and we shall know him as he is, and know all men as we are known of god, which cannot be in this life, to know god and his saints in glory, and therefore there is not fullness of glory in this life, knowing so little of god, and so few of his saints. fourthly, we seek for glory by patiented continuance in well-doing, that we might inherit the promises; now if we were in fullness of glory, we need not seek for it if we had it: but we are seeking for glory, and honour, and immortality, with eternal life; and therefore it doth appear we have it not, rom. 2. 3. fifthly, we hope for this fullness of glory, and therefore we do not enjoy it, for if we did, what need we hope for it, rom. 5. 2. and christ in us the hope of glory; now if we had it, what need we hope, our hope were at an end, if we had the thing we hope for; to wit, fullness of glory, but you see we have it not, and therefore we hope for it, as not having yet received it. 6 the eye hath not seen, nor the ear hath not heard, nor since the beginning of the world hath it not been heard; nor none besides god doth know what he hath prepared for them that wait for him, esa. 644. and if we have not yet seen, nor heard it, how then do we ●njoy it; and if we are not able to conceive of the glory, how then can we be in it; and if none but god know it, then how can we know it? seventhly, the apostle paul had as much of the spirit of god as any man, except the son himself, and as glorious enjoyments of god, being taken up into the third heavens and saw glory unspeakable, which he was not able to utter nor express; and yet he saith, if we had our glory only in this life, we were of all men most miserable, for he looked for a more glorious enjoyment than he could enjoy in this life, as you may see 1 cor. 15. 19 eightly, the apostle saith, he was ready to be offered up, and the time of his departure was at hand, he had fought a good fight, and had finished his course, had kept the faith, and henceforth was laid up for him a crown of righteousness, or glory, and for all them that love his appearing, 2 tim. 4. 6, 7, 8. and the prophet david saith, oh how great is thy goodness which thou hast laid up for them that fear thee, ps. 31. 19 whereby you may see it is not in this life, it is laid up for a better life, in a better kingdom, where we shall be capable to receive it. ninthly, the good apostle tells you, he did so run that he might obtain; for he tell you that he had not yet attained, neither was he perfect; but this he did, he forg●● those things that were passed, for he did not dote upon his former goodness, but was pressing forward towards the mark, or prize of glory, that was set before him, 2 cor. 9 phil. 3. for he that is constant to death, shall receive a crown of life or glory, rev 2. 10. and thus you see the apostle was so fare from being puffed up with fullness of glory in this life, that he tells us, he is not the man that doth enjoy fullness of glory, for he was striving for it to make it sure to him in this life, and so to wait for it in a better life, and in a better kingdom, that he was in hope to enjoy. tenthly, the apostle saith, i desire to departed hence, and to go to christ, which is best of all, phil. 1. 23. whereby it doth appear, that there is not fullness of glory in this life; for the apostle saith, in this we groan earnestly, and had rather be absent from the body to be present with the lord: for while we are present in the body, we are absent from the lord: and thus you see that the apostle makes it clear, that while we are present in this body, there is not fullness of glory; and therefore he desired to leave this earthly, to enjoy a heavenly kingdom, which was more to be desired, and abundantly more glorious. 11. that which we see and enjoy here, is but temporal, but that which we do not see, and shall afterwards enjoy, is spiritual and eternal glory, and therefore there is not fullness of glory in this life, 2 cor. 4. 18. 12. when this earthly house of ours shall be dissolved, we shall have a building of god, a house not made with hands, but eternal in the heavens, 2 cor. 5. 2. whereby it doth appear that we are not in fullness of glory. 13. we are not clothed with our house which is from heaven, whereby we might be made fit to enjoy such a heavenly glory, for while we are present in the body, we are absent from the lord, and so shall be until we are clothed with our heavenly house, which will not be in this life, 2 cor. 5. 2. 6. 8. 14. when christ who is our life, shall appear, then shall we appear with him in glory, and then shall we enjoy the fullness of glory, and not before; and he gives you the reason, saying, we are dead, and our life, or glory, is hid with christ in god; but when christ who is our life shall appear, then shall we appear with him in glory. 15. christ is in heaven, and we are in earth, and therefore we are not in the fullness of glory; for christ saith, and if i go to prepare a place for you, i will come again and receive you to myself, that where i am there you may be also, and while we are absent from christ, who is in heaven in glory itself, how then have we fullness of glory? 16. these vile bodies of ours are not yet changed like unto his glorious body, we are not yet made partakers of that divine nature, till this mortal, shall put on immortality; and till this corruptible, shall put on an incorruptible; and this natural become a spiritual; and then shall we be like him as he is, but this will not be in this life, and therefore we look for it in anotherlife, phil. 3. 21. 1 cor. 15. 44. 53, 54. 17. we are not in the throne, we are but in the footstool, we are not in heaven, the fullness of glory; for christ is entered into his glory, luke 24. 28. that is into heaven where his glory is, act. 1. 22. heb. 4. 14. and we also shall be in heaven, for there our glory is, colos. 1. 5. having in heaven a better and enduring substance, heb. 10. 34. and therefore we desire a heavenly kingdom, rather than an earthly, heb. 11, 28. which is reserved for us in heaven, 1 pet. 1. 4. so that you see there is not a fullness of glory in this life. 18. we are not yet risen from the dead until the resurrection of the dead, and therefore we are not in fullness of glory; for as we have borne the image of the earthly, so also shall we bear the image of the heavenly, when these vile bodies of ours shall be raised up, and made like unto his glorious body, which will not be in this life. 19 we do not yet reign with christ, and therefore we are not in the fullness of glory; we are not yet entered into our inheritance, to be kings, and priests, and to have that immortal crown, where is that glory that we enjoy? are we not persecuted on all sides? are we not accounted as the vilest of creatures? but the saints shall reign in glory, and then shall all oppositions be trampled under their feet; they shall be kings, and priests, and be crowned, and shall live and reign for ever with god the father, and with jesus christ his son, with those glorious angels, and with all the saints in glory; but this glory is yet to come, we are yet waiting for it. 20. if we were in fullness of glory, there could nothing be added to our condition, for we should be perfect, we should not need any thing to make our condition glorious; but the best of us find abundance of spiritual wants, we want spiritual joy, and spiritual peace; we want that spiritual union and communion with our god, we have not that assurance in the promises, but we might have more, for we cannot have the fullness of glory in this life, it is laid up for us in a better life. lastly, mortality will tell thee, oh vain man, that thou art not in the fullness of glory; shalt thou not die, and where will thy fullness of glory be then? that will tell thee, thou art not perfect; if thou art in fullness of glory, why dost thou die? why dost thou hunger and thirst? why dost thou eat, and thee? why art thou subject to cold, and nakedness? and why dost thou complain of wanting, if thou wast perfect thou couldst not want any thing? for didst thou possess all things, how couldst thou want any thing? o thou vain man, thy condition tells thee thou wantest, but thy proud heart tells thee thou art full; thy condition tells thee that thou wantest all things, but thy proud heart tells thee, that thou wantest nothing; thou sayest that thou art in the fullness of glory in this life, but death will tell thee that thou wantest glory; and dost not thou slight the glory to come, when thou sayest, here is fullness; for none but god alone knows the fullness of glory, and yet thou dost: oh vain man, i counsel thee to buy eyesalve, that thou mayest see thy want of a fullness of glory, for if thou dost not now, thou wilt when it is too late. and now in the next place i shall speak a word or two of glory, because i know that many have deceived themselves with the word (glory;) now there is divers kinds of glory, for there is a glory of the two covenants, for if the administration of condemnation was glory here, how much more shall the administration of righteousness exceed in glory? and god revealed himself from the glory of the first, to the glory of the second, from glory to glory, 2 cor. 3. 7, 8, 9, 10. there was a glory of moses, for the children of israel could not behold his face for his glory, 2 cor. 3. 17. there was a glory of solomon, and yet the grass of the field passed the glory of solomon, mat. 6. 29. and a glory of man, but all the glory of man is as the flower of the field, 1 pet. 2. 24. there is a glory of the sun, and of the moon, and stars, for they differ in glory, 2 cor. 15. 41. and glory to him that worketh good, and to every man that worketh good, glory, rom. 2. 10. there is a glory in the law, rom. 12. 23. and the gospel is called glory, 2 cor. 4. 4. and there is a vain glory, gal. 5. 26. there is a glory of the saints, ephes. 3. 13. and a glory in affliction, and then there is a glory of the church, ephes. 5. 21. and there is a glory in their shame, phil. 3. 19 the saints were the glory of the apostles, 2 thes. 1. 20. there is a glory of the whore, revel. 18. 7. and there is a glory of the gentiles, revel. 22. 24. for the gentiles shall bring their glory to the saints, revel. 1. 26. also there is an earthly glory, and there is a heavenly glory; a glory in grace, and a glory in glory; and that is the glory of all glories. chap. viii. of faith. now the text saith, the just shall live by his faith, and therefore i shall endeavour to speak a word or two of faith; it is that whereby we live in grace, and it is that whereby we are carried on to glory; now there is a faith of the history, and there is a faith of the mystery; there is a faith of miracles, and there is a legal faith; there is a temporary faith, and an evangelicall faith, and the last is most excellent, being the faith of the gospel, that carries us on to salvation; and in the next place i shall show you what faith is. now faith, or belief, is an obedience to, or a living in all the commands of the gospel to salvation; now it doth appear that faith, or belief, is obedience, because unbelief is counted rebellion, or disobedience, for such as believe and obey are justified, john 3. 36. for he giveth the holy ghost to those that obey him, act. 5. 32. and know you not that to whom you yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom you obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience to life, rom. 6. 16. and ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth, 2 pet. 1. 22. and thus you see faith, or obedience, justifieth the creature, for thereby he is justified, and such as are unbelievers, and disobedient, are condemned, when christ shall come in flaming fire, to render vengeance to those that obey not the gospel, 2 thess. 1. 8. for to those that are disobedient christ is a stone to stumble at, and a rock to be offended at, to such as stumble at the word, being disobedient, and obey not that whereon they were set, 1 pet. 2. 7, 8. that all those might be damned which obey not the truth, but obey unrighteousness, 1 thess. 2. 10. 12. and thus you see that faith, or belief, is obedience, and rebellion or unbelief is disobedience; now the great controversy will be, whether it is christ's work, or the creatures work to act faith; now the greatest part hold, that it is christ's work to act faith, and some few hold that it is the creatures work to act faith; now the greatest part can never be in the best way, and therefore i shall side with the lesser part, for they say, the fault is in the creature that he doth not believe, and the greatest party say, it is not the creatures work to believe, it is christ's work to act faith, and so they lay all the unbelief upon christ, and therefore i shall prove that it is the creatures work, and not christ's, to act faith. and first, it is the creatures work to believe, because christ hath done his work, for christ's work was to obey the commands of his father, and to set forth such a way to the world as they were to stand to, and to establish that way for life, and death; and this was his work enjoined him from the father, which he did in setting down the mind of the father, in all things that were necessary to salvation, which he did, and sealed the doctrine of the father with his blood, and did his work, and therefore he saith, if you keep my commandments ye shall abide in my love, as i have kept my father's commandments, and abide in his love, john 15. 10. christ's work was to obey the commands of the father; and our work is to obey the commands of the son, and therefore it is our work to believe, and not christ's. 2. that christ hath done his work will appear, because christ is entered into his rest, and sure he did not enter before he had done his work, for he said; he had finished his course, and done all things that the father commanded him, by perfecting the way of salvation to all the world, and giving commandment unto his apostles, to establish that gospel to the whole earth, and all things as he had commanded them, as you may see, mat. 28. act. 1. 2. and when he had finished his whole work he ascended to the father, and is entered into his rest, heb. 4. saying, to him that over cometh will i grant to sit with me in my throne, as i also overcame, and am set down with my father in his throne, revel. 3. 21. and therefore it doth appear, that it is not christ's work to act faith in the creature, except you will call him in question from his rest, which i think you dare not. 3. if it be christ's work to act faith in the creature, than the fault will lie in christ, that the creature doth not believe; and then the father may question the son for all the unbelief in the world, seeing you say, it was christ's work to act faith in the creature, than all the fault will lie upon him, for if he had acted faith, the creature should have believed, and so the father might call the son to an account for all the unbelief of the creature; and what is this think you, but to pluck christ out of his throne, and to take him from his rest. 4. if it be christ's work to act faith in the creature, than the creature hath a good excuse, and may say, there is no cause wherefore he should be condemned for not believing, seeing it was not his work to believe: but the fault was in christ, who did not act faith in him, and therefore he was not to blame, because it was not his work to believe, but christ's work; and therefore no reason he should be condemned for another's fault, and so you would excuse the creature, and condemn christ. 5. christ doth not act faith in the creature, because he shall judge the creature for not believing, for it were improper that he should be the judge that were in the fault, and condemn the creature for not believing, when it was never his work to believe; and so the creature might reply unto the judge, that he did condemn him falsely, to condemn the creature for not believing, when it was christ's work to act faith, and not the creatures; and thus you see what sad effects would follow this tenent, that it is christ's work to act faith in the creature. 6. if it be christ's work to act faith in the creature, than he should be by that a respecter of persons, because he acts faith in some, and not in others, and yet condemns them for not doing that he should do himself, being his work to act faith, and not the creatures; what a respecter of persons would he appear to be, then to leave the greatest part of the world under condemnation for his own default, because he did not act faith in them, whereby they might be saved: oh what a partial judge would you make him by this tenant! doth not the scripture tell you, that he is no respecter of persons, and that he shall judge every man according to his works, act. 10. 34. rom. 2. 11. 7. if it be the work of christ to act faith in the creature, then what shall the creature be condemned for at the last day? shall the creature be condemned for not doing good, when it was never the creatures work to do good; if it were christ's work to act all the good in the creature, and so few do well, than he did intent the rest should do ill, because you say it was his work to act the good, and not theirs; and then how can he judge them for doing that he did intent they should do? for either he did intent they should do well or ill: but if he had intended they should have done well, he would have acted good in them; but he did not act faith in them, and therefore he did intent they should do ill, and so by this you would make christ the author of all the wickedness that is committed, seeing, as you say, it was not in the creatures power to act good; and if so, then what shall the creature be condemned for, for doing the will of god? and thus you see, how ill those repay god, that hold that god or christ acts faith in the creature. 8. if it be christ's work to act faith in the creature, then why doth he exhort them to believe, seeing it is his work, and not theirs? they might have replied to him, saying, why dost thou press us so to believe, and act faith, seeing it is thy work, and not ours? 9 why doth he upbraid them for not believing, saying, woe be to coraisim and bethsada, if it were his work to believe, and obey, and not theirs? why doth he threaten them, if the work were his, and not theirs, and lay such woes upon them? 10. it is said, he marvelled at their unbelief, mark. 6. 6. and why doth he marvel at their unbeleef, if it were his work to act faith, and not theirs? 11. it is said, he could not do many great works in his own country, because of their unbelief: and what should hinder him, if it were his work to believe and act faith in them, and not theirs, could their unbeleef hinder him? mat. 13. 58. 12. it is said, that the israelites were broken off through unbelief, rom. 11. 20. now how could they be broken off through unbeleef, if it were not their work to believe; if it be christ's work to believe, and act faith in them, then how could they be broken off, seeing it was christ's work, and not theirs? 13. it is said, if they abide not still in unbelief, they shall be grafted in; and how can their unbelief hinder them, if it were christ's work to act faith, and not theirs, then how could their unbeleef hinder them? 14. they entered not in, because of unbeleef; and how could that be? if it were not their work to believe, then how could their unbeleef hinder them, heb. 3. 19 15. the apostle saith, brethren take heed lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief to departed from the living god, vers. 12. and how could their unbeleef hinder them, if it were christ's work to act faith, and not theirs? 16. it is said, the fearful, and unbelieving, shall have their portion in the lake, revel. 21 8. and why should they be punished, if it were not their work to believe? if it were christ's work to act faith and not theirs, should they be punished for christ's not acting faith? and thus you see how weak this tenet of theirs is, that hold it is christ's work to act faith, and not the creatures; and so lay all the unbeleef in the world upon the back of christ, and so would make him stand at the bar of justice as the cause of all the unbeleef in the world. and now in the next place, i shall prove that it is the creatures work to believe, for these reasons: first, because he gives the creature ability to believe, for he makes him a reasonable creature, and gives him knowledge and understanding to do such a work as he requires of him; for if he should require the creature to do such a work, as he knew the creature were not able to do, it were unreasonable to require it, because he knew the creature was not able to perform it; but he every where condemns the creature for not doing good; and therefore it doth appear, he gives the creature ability to do good; and that i shall prove for these reasons: first, because he gives the creature free choice, as in all the scripture, as, i have set before you life and death, choose you which you will, as you may see, deut. 30. 19 and choose you whom you will serve, for i and my house will serve the lord, josh. 24. 15. and when they chose strange gods, than was war in the gate, judg. 5. 8. and the lord said unto solomon, because thou hast chosen wisdom befare riches and honour, i will give thee wisdom above all that were before thee, or that shall follow after thee, 1 king. 3. 11. and david had chosen the way of god's commandments, psal. 109. and saith the lord, they shall call, but i will not answer, because they hated knowledge, and did not choose the fear of the lord, as prov. 1. 28. 29. and thus you see the lord putteth the creature to his choice; now the lords putting the creature to choose, and the creatures choosing either good or evil, doth make it appear that the creature hath ability; or else, if the creature had not ability, why doth the lord condemn the creature for not choosing good; and christ saith, mary hath chosen the better part: and his servants you are to whom you obey; whereby it doth appear, they had ability to obey either good or evil; for if they had not ability, when they do evil, to do good; then how could they be condemned for not doing good, seeing they had not ability to do otherwise? 2. he gives the creature ability to believe, because he charges the creature with rebellion for not believing, saying to the people of israel, how often would i, and you would not: and ye will not come to me, that ye might have life: and he that believeth not, is condemned ●already: and the unbelieving shall have their portion in the lake of fire; and many scriptures more, whereby it doth appear, that the creature hath ability to believe; or else how could the creature be charged with rebellion for not believing, if it had not ability to believe? 3. those that do not believe, are said to reject the mind of god, as act. 7. 51. ye have always resisted the holy ghost, and seeing you reject so great salvation, lo we turn to the gentiles, and to those that also say, christ is a stone to stumble at, and a rock to be offended at, 1 pet. 2. 7. and by this it doth appear, that the creature hath ability to believe, and obey; or else how could it be said, that they rejected the mind of god, if they had not the ability to obey his mind, how could they be said to reject it? 4. christ doth not detain and hinder men from believing, and therefore he gives them ability to believe; for if he doth not, than he hinders them from believing; but he doth not hinder men from believing, and therefore he gives them ability to believe. now, you will not say, that christ hinders any man from believing, will you? and if you say, he doth not give them ability, than you will lay the fault upon christ, and not upon the creature; for, if he doth not give them ability to do well, than he doth intent the creature should do ill, which were wicked to say; and therefore it doth appear, that he gives the creature ability to believe. 5. christ commands men to believe, and therefore it doth appear that he gives them ability to believe; for this is the commandment of god, that we should believe in his son, and he that doth not, makes god a liar, even because he believes not in the son of god, 1 joh. 3. 23. ver. 5. 10. and this was the teaching of christ and his apostles, to teach men to believe in all their preaching; now doth god command men to believe in his son, and not give them ability to believe? then how can he condemn them for not believing, if they were never able to believe? but god never gives a command, but he gives ability to believe, and obey his command, or else how could the creature be judged for breaking his commands, if he never was able to keep them. 6. it doth appear that christ gives the creature ability to believe; because he lays the fault upon the creature for not believing; for the text saith, he marvelled at their unbelief, and he could not do many great things in his own country, because of their unbelief; and he came to his own, and his own received him not; and he upbraided them for their unbelief, and many places more might be named, whereby it doth appear they had ability to believe, or else how could they be in fault, if they were not able to believe; but christ lays the fault upon the creature for not obeying, and therefore it is clear that the creature hath ability to obey. 7. christ gives the creature ability to believe, because he doth condemn the creature for not believing, saying, he that believeth not, is condemned already, because he believeth not in the son of god, joh. 3. 18. and he that believeth not in the son, the wrath of god abideth on him; and by this it doth plainly appear, that it is not christ's work to act faith in the creature, but the creatures work to believe, and act faith; because the creature is condemned for not believing; and if the creature be condemned for not believing, than it must needs follow, that the creature hath ability to believe: for either the creature is condemned for something, or nothing; now if the creature had not ability to believe, than it is condemned for nothing, for not doing that it was impossible to do, and that it never had ability to do; but you see the creature is condemned for not believing, and therefore it doth appear that the creature hath ability to believe, because it is condemned for not doing something that it might have done, and that is, for not believing. 8. it doth appear that the creature hath ability to believe and obey, because the creature is condemned as an unbeliever; for the creature could not be condemned as an unbeliever if it never had ability to obey. 9 those creatures that believe and obey, are justified, by believing, from all that ever they have done, act. 13, 39 and those that do not believe, are condemned; and by this it doth appear, that it is the creatures work to believe, and that the creature hath ability to believe, or else how could he be condemned as an unbeliever. 10. our believing, or not believing, is never imputed unto christ, but unto ourselves; for abraham's faith was imputed to him for righteousness, and the just shall live by his own faith; so that our believing is never imputed to christ: but to us, for if our believing were imputed to him, than it would follow, that our unbelief would be imputed to christ also, and so by that, we should make christ a believer, and an unbeliever also, which is most absurd; for the faith and obedience of the creature is imputed to the creature, and not to christ; and also the unbelief and disobedience of the creature is imputed to the creature, and not to christ; so that it is plain, it is the creatures work to believe, because both obedience and disobedience is imputed to the creature. 11. such as shall be judged at the last day, shall be judged for their disobedience; now if it were christ's work to act obedience in the creature, then what shall the creature be judged for, for christ's not acting obedience? for then the creature would be freed, if it were not his work to obey, but christ's work; but the creature shall be judged, and not christ, and therefore it is plain, that it is the creatures work to obey. 12. the apostle saith, the just shall live by his faith, or obedience; and that creature that is lifted up above faith and obedience, my soul shall have no pleasure in him, saith the lord: and therefore it doth appear, that it is the creatures work to act faith and obedience, for that is his spiritual living in grace, whereby he shall come to glory, and receive the end of his faith, the salvation of his soul. and thus i have endeavoured to clear my master christ, that the disobedience of the creature shall not be laid upon him, it being the creatures work to obey, and not his; and that thereby, all men may know that duty, that it is their work to obey the gospel, and not his; and that their not obeying the gospel shall not be laid to the charge of christ, but that all men shall know it was their work to obey, and not his, and shall be condemned at the last day for their not obeying. chap. ix. of the resurrection. in the days of christ and his apostles, there were some sadduces that denied the resurrection of the dead, act. 23. 8 and so there are in these days, such, as hold there is no resurrection, but in this life; and such are in but a sad condition, whose hope are perished from the land of the living, and go out of this world, worse than they came in; for when they came into this world, there was some hope in them to receive a better world, but now the death of these men; is worse than their birth, and beginning▪ but the resurrection is that which is desired of all the saints, hoping, and longing for the day, for their redemption, to wit, the resurrection of the dead; for then the saints shall enter into their inheritance which was prepared for them from everlasting time; and therefore for my own comfort, and for the comfort of the saints, i shall endeavour to speak a word or two of the resurrection; and first i shall prove, that there is a resurrection, and then i shall show how we shall be raised. now the reasons to prove, that there shall be resurrection are these: first, god doth declare to all the world, that he did not intent the creature should die for ever; because he sent his son to declare to the contrary, that all men shall rise, and that he is the resurrection of the dead, john 11. 25. and the first fruits of them that sleep; and that as he was raised from the dead, so shall all men be raised by the same power, and shall conquer and trample death under their feet. 2. there will be a resurrection, that god may manifest his great power to all men in raising them from the dead, that thereby it may be seen how glorious he is in all his undertake, in so wonderful an act, as to raise them from the dead, by his glorious power, which will be manifest at that day. 3. that he might fulfil his promises, who hath promised that we shall see him as he is, and shall enjoy his face and presence in the throne of his glory, with that glorious company of angels, that attend his presence to behold his beauty, and to joy in his presence, where is fullness of joy, and pleasure for evermore. 4. there shall be a resurrection that he may give unto every one according to his works, and reward the saints with blessing, and the wicked with cursing, and to give to every man according to his desert. 5. there is a resurrection, because that god hath promised to restore the creation to its first purity, in making a new heaven, and a new earth, where in shall dwell righteousness, and to make his power and glory appear, as at the first. 6. it hath been the belief of the saints, that there shall be a resurrection; job saith, i know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth, and though this flesh be destroyed with worms, yet in my flesh shall i see god, whom i shall see for myself, and mine eyes shall behold him, though my reins be consumed within me, job 19 25, 26, 27. and then shall the gates of death be opened, job 38. 17. and david saith, thou settest me before thy face for ever, psal. 41. 12. and esay saith, thy dead men shall live together, with my dead bodies shall they arise; awake and sing ye that dwell in the dust, for the dens is as the dens of herbs, and the earth shall cast out her dead, esay 26. 19 and the apostle to the heb. 11. doth recite a catalogue of the saints, who all died in the faith, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth, that they might obtain a better resurrection, as vers. 23. 35. 7. if there be no resurrection, than the faith of the saints is void, and all their hopes are perished, and their glory is at an end, and they all as lost creatures, and their condition very sad. 8 if there be no resurrection, than the saints have lost their reward, and all their labour is in vain, in seeking for a better kingdom, and a better inheritance; for if there be no resurrection, than there is no heaven, nor no glory after this life; then we shall never enjoy the presence of god, and christ, nor those glorious angels, nor the heaven of glory. 9 if there be no resurrection, than the wicked will be in a better estate than the godly, for they have had their portion in this life, and have glutted themselves with the pleasures of this world, and have had all the delights of the sons of men, and have satisfied their hearts to the full; and the people of god have weaned themselves from all the pleasures and delights of this world, and have lost all the glory thereof, and have been despised of all men in hopes of a better life; and all in vain, if there be no resurrection. 10 if there be no resurrection, the wicked shall never be punished, for all the wickedness that they have acted against the lord; then they will never be called to account for all their blaspheming his glorious name, their swearing, and cursing, their drunkenness, and whoredom, with their shedding of innocent blood, their wicked pride, and baseness, with all their abominations; if there be no resurrection, this is the day they look for; then they might commit all wickedness with greediness▪; for what should they fear, if there be no resurrection? 11. if there be no resurrection, than the devils shall not be punished, for they are reserved in chains of darkness till the great day; but if there be no resurrection, than there will be no judgement, and so they will never be punished; and they would not cease to reign, nor enjoy ●●eir wicked power for ever: then what need the devils fear and tremble▪ if there be● no resurrection, they need not fear any judgement to come. 12. if there be no resurrection, than we may live as we list, and enjoy all the pleasures we can in this life, to enjoy the sight of our eyes, and the desires of our hearts, and eat and drink; and be merry, for to morrow we die, and so all our glory is at an end; for than we have only our portion in this life; if there be no resurrection, than all our glory is at an end. 13. those that hold this tenet; to wit, that there is no resurrection; whether do not they question whether there be a god? for if there be no resurrection, than they may question whether there be a god, or if there be a god yet he is not able to perform his promises; for he hath made many large promises that there shall be a resurrection, but he is not able to perform it, for there shall be none: and what do these men else, but question god, and the power of god? and whether is not this blasphemy think you, in the highest nature? and whether shall not this great god one day, judge such sadduces as these are? 14 whether do not those that deny the resurrection, question all the prophets and apostles, and that which they spoke by the mouth of god in all their doctrine, speaking of the resurrection, and the day of judgement, and preaching the judgements of god against wicked men, which was a great part of their doctrine in all their preaching? and whether do not those that deny the resurrection, question all the rest of their doctrine to be false, by this their tenet of denying the resurrection; for if their doctrine of the resurrection be false; then why may not you also question all the rest of their doctrine to be false; for deny the doctrine of the resurrection, and you may as well deny all the rest: but how vile and wicked this tenet is, let all wise men try and judge. 15. whether is not this a most atheistical tenet, to deny the resurrection? and whether is not this the same that the atheists hold, in 2 pet. 3. 4. saying, where is the promise of his coming, for since the fathers fell asleep all things continue as they were, from the beginning of the creation; and being ignorantly willing of this their wicked tenet, not knowing, that one day with the lord is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day; for the lord is not slack of his coming, as some count slackness; but is long suffering to us ward, not willing, or consulting that any should perish, but that all men should come to a change, ver. 8. 9 and thus you see there were such atheists in the apostles times, who were wilfully ignorant of the resurrection, and the coming of christ; but this shall be the perdition of ungodly men, to their utter destruction, and now i shall further prove that there is a resurrection. 1. christ will tell thee that there is a resurrection▪ when he saith, i am the resurrection and the life, joh. 11. 25. that is, he is an infallible testimony of the resurrection, in being risen from the dead, and hath trampled death under his feet, and hath showed us, that as he risen from the dead, so also shall we be raised up, by the same power; and when he was asked a question concerning marriage, he told them, they erred, not knowing the scripture, and the power of god; for in the resurrection they neither married, nor were given in marriage, but were like unto the angels of god in heaven, mat. 22. 29, 30. and as touching the resurrection, have you not heard in the prophets what god spoke, saying? i am the god of abraham, and the god of isaac, and the god of jacob; now, god is not the god of the dead, but of the living; and that the saints shall be recompensed at the resurrection of the just, luke 14. 14. and that they that shall be accounted w●●thy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage, neither can they do any more; for they are equal with the angels, and are the children of god, being the children of the resurrection, luk. 20. 34, 35, 36. and moses shown you at the bush of the resurrection, ver. 37. and christ saith further, marvel not at this, for the hour is coming, when all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth, they that have done good to the resurrection of life, and they that have done evil to the resurrection of condemnation, joh. 5. 28, 29. and thus you see the words of christ, which are sufficient to satisfy any reasonable man that there is a resurrection. 2. christ's apostles will tell thee, that there is a resurrection, of which they are witnesses, act. 1. 22. preaching, through jesus, the resurrection of the dead, acts 4. 2. and for which doctrine paul was called in question for preaching the resurrection, act. 24. 22. for since by man came death, by man also came the resurrection of the dead, 1 cor. 15. 22. and therefore the apostle pressed forward, that he might be made partaker of the glory of this resurrection, phil. 3. 10. 11. and this was a principle of the gospel that they taught, as you may see, heb. 6. 2. and in the 11 heb. the apostle showeth you an epitome of the glorious acts of the saints of former times, what they underwent, that they might obtain the glory of a better resurrection, heb. 11. 35. and so we are begotten to a lively hope, by the resurrection of jesus christ, 1 pet. 1. 3. for god hath hath raised up the lord christ, and will also raise up us by his own power, 1 cor. 6. 14. and knowing that god the father, which raised up the lord jesus, shall raise up us also by jesus, and shall present us with you, 2 cor. 4. 14. and thus the apostles clear the truth of this doctrine, that there is a resurrection. 3. the day of judgement will tell thee, that there is a resurrection; and thus saith the wise solomon, for god shall bring every work into judgement, with every secret thing whether it be good or evil, eccles. 12. 14. and therefore christ saith, it shall be more tolerable for sodom and gomorrah in the day of judgement, then for those that reject the gospel, mat. 10. 15. and i say unto you that for every idle word that men shall speak they shall give account thereof in the day of judgement; for by thy words, thou shalt be justified, and by thy words, thou shalt be condemned, mat. 12. 36, 37. and saith christ, the words that i have spoken shall judge you at the last day, joh. 12. 48. and therefore christ is ordained of god to be a judge of the quick and the dead, act. 20. 42. for god hath appointed a day in which he will judge the world in righteousness, by the man christ whom he hath appointed, act. 17. 31 and the disobedient, or wicked, treasure up wrath against the day of wrath, and revelation of the righteous judgement of god, rom. 2. 5. and when god shall judge the secrets of men by jesus christ according to my gospel, rom. 2. 16. and we shall all stand before the judgement seat of christ, rom. 14. 10. for to this end christ hath died and risen again, that he might be the lord both of the dead and living, vers. 9 for we must all appear before the judgement seat of christ, that every man may receive according to that he hath done in the body, whether it be good or bad, 2 cor. 5. 10. and it is appointed for all men once to die, and after that cometh judgement, heb. 9 27. and enoch the seventh from adam, prophesied of this, saying, behold! the lord cometh with ten thousand of his saints to execute judgement upon all, judas 14, 15. for the lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptation, and to reserve the unjust to the day of judgement to be punished, 2 pet. 29. and the angels are reserved in chains of darkness until the judgement of the great day, judas 6. and thus i have showed that there is a judgement, for it is appointed for all men once to die, and after that, cometh judgement; and therefore it is clear that there is a resurrection. 4. thy conscience will tell thee, o vain man, that there is a resurrection; for doth not thy conscience tell thee, that thou must one day give account for all thy vain thoughts, words, and actions, and that thou must appear before the great judge: examine thy conscience and it will tell thee, and be as a thousand witnesses against thee; thou hast the testimony within thee, that will testify against thee that there is a resurrection, and judge thee one day, if thou continuest in that wicked opinion, thy conscience will tell thee at thy death, there is a resurrection; thou canst not one day stop the mouth of conscience, when it shall come and witness against thee for all thy wicked acts: and thus you see it is clear that there is a resurrection; and now i shall speak a word or two when it shall be. 1. but now for the set day or hour of this resurrection, or judgement, it is too high for a finite creature to know; for it is not for us to know the times or seasons that the father hath put in his own power, act. 1. 7. for of that day nor hour knoweth no man, no not the angels, nor the son himself till it be revealed to him, mat. 24. 36. and therefore i shall not dare, as some have foolishly done, to prescribe or set forth the day of this resurrection or judgement. 2. the fathers and learned doctors of the times in former ages, have conceived this day of the resurrection or judgement to be at the end of six thousand years; but this is but their judgement; and i shall also, under the favour of the learned, give my judgement, as desiring to see further, because god hath promised to manifest more light in the latter days, and also because i stand upon the shoulders of my forefathers, and therefore may see further. now i conceive, that as god was six days finishing the works of creation, and the seventh day was a sabbath of rest, that there is a glorious, spiritual meaning in all this, or else god could as well have finished his works in one day as in six, and therefore there must be some other meaning in all this, which i conceive to be this; that as god the father was six days labouring in the works of creation, and finished his works in six days, and rested the seventh day; it holds forth thus much, that the sons and daughters of men, with the creatures also, should be in commotion and hard labour for six thousand years, and that in these six thousand years, he will end all war and strife, and that within these years he will shake all nations, hag. 2. 7, 8. and will overthrow the pride and vainglory, and false confidence of all nations, and will shake them off their fleshly glorying, and beat down all their strong holds, and every fenced wall, esa. 2. and all nations shall lie open and naked, and shall have their fill of fight, and shall see their vanity, and shall desire to be at rest, and shall beat all their weapons of war in pieces, and there shall be a spirit of love and union established in all nations, neither shall they learn war any more, but every man shall sit under his own vine, and under his own figtree, and none shall make them afraid; for the mouth of the lord hath spoken it, esa. 2. mic. 4. and then shall the fullness of the gentiles come in, and the jews shall be called, and the glory of the people of israel shall be set up, and they shall enjoy their former inheritances; to wit, the land of canaan, and all the glory thereof, and the lord will end the hard labour and travel of all nations, and all nations shall sit down at rest: and this i believe the lord will do in the six thousand years; for he hath seen the sore labour and travel of all nations, and of every creature, and he doth intent to give them a jubilee, or sabbath of rest; and the seventh day, or seventh thousand years, will be a rest to all nations, and to every creature, from that sore labour and travel; and all pride and covetousness shall be done away in those days, and the desire of all nations shall come to seek the lord, and to seek the ways of zion; and the lord will extend peace to all nations like a mighty river, esa. last, revel. 21. v. 22. and the lord shall speak to the heaven above, and to the earth below; and all fruits of the earth shall come in abundance, and there shall be a fullness of all the fruits of the earth, for the winter shall be like the summer, and fullness shall be upon all the earth, for it is the lords jubilee or sabbath of rest to all nations. 3. this resurrection shall be at the last day, in the last age, or generation, when the number of god's account is up, and the last generation shall be brought up, for that is the number of god's account when the last generation is on foot, for the gospel must be preached to all the world for a witness to all nations, and then shall the end come, mat. 24. 14. for it doth not appear, that christ shall not come until the restauration of all things that are written in the law and the prophets, and that there shall be a new heaven, and a new earth, and a refining of all things before his glorious appearing, with that glorious company, and heavenly host, whom the heavens must contain until that time, till all things be refined, as you may see, act. 3. 20, 21. for it doth appear, that the resurrection shall not be until the new heavens, and new earth, and that they shall be refined, and come forth of the new earth; and that we shall not rise before, doth appear by scripture, which saith, that man lieth down, and riseth not till the heavens be no more, or dissolved, they shall not awake, nor be raised out of their sleep, job 14. 22. and of old hast thou laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the work of thy hands, and they shall perish, but thou shalt stand, and they shall all of them wax old as a garment, and as a vesture shalt thou change them, and they shall be changed; as you may see, psal. 102. 25, 26. for the stars of heaven, and constellations thereof, shall not give their light, the sun shall be darkened in his going forth, and the moon shall not cause her light to shine, esa. 13. 10. for the windows from on high are open, and the foundations of the earth do shake, the earth is utterly broken down, the earth is clean dissolved, the earth is moved exceedingly, the earth shall reel too and fro like a drunken man, and shall be removed like a cottage, and the transgression thereof shall be heavy upon it, and it shall fall and not rise again, esa. 24. 18, 19, 20. and all the host of heaven shall be dissolved, and the heavens shall be rolled together as a scroll, and all their host shall fall down, as a leaf falleth off from the vine; and as a falling fig from the fig. tree, esa. 34. 4. lift up your eyes to the heavens, and look upon the earth beneath, for the heavens shall vanish away like smoke, and the earth shall wax old like a garment, and they that dwell therein shall die in like manner, esa. 51. 6. for behold i create new heavens, and a new earth, and the former shall not be remembered, nor come in mind, esa. 65. 17. and by all this it doth appear, that there shall be new heavens, and a new earth, for this prophecy must be fulfilled before the coming of christ, whom the heavens must contain until the restoring of all things that are written in the law and the prophets, act. 3. which the words of christ seem to clear in mat. 24. where he saith, the sun shall be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of heaven shall be shaken: and all this before the coming of christ, whereby it doth appear, that the resurrection will not be until there is a new heaven, and a new earth. for the apostle saith, the heavens, and the earth, which now are, by the word of the lord are kept in store, and are reserved unto fire against the day of judgement, in which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, and the earth also, and the works thereof shall be burnt up: and seeing all these things must be dissolved, what manner of persons ought we to be, looking for, and hasting unto the coming of the day of god, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat; as you may see, 2 pet. 3. 7. 10. 12. and by all this it doth appear, that there shall be a wonderful change, before the coming of christ, an alteration in the heaven, and in the earth, and a purging of all things by fire, and the old heaven and earth dissolved, as not being fit to entertain such a glorious judge, and such a heavenly host, because the heaven and earth are both polluted with sin, and therefore they must be burnt up, and all the noisome scents and stinks, and evil vapours of corruption, and all noisome scents, and all things that are corrupted with sin, shall be dissolved and burnt up, as not fit to entertain such a glorious judge, and therefore there must be a new heaven, and a new earth, wherein dwells righteousness, the first heaven and earth being not able to stand before his presence; and therefore there will be a new heaven, and a new earth; as you may see, revel. 21. 1. and i saw a new heaven, and a new earth, for the first heaven, and the first earth were passed away, and there was no more sea: and all this is a preparation for the great judge. 4. when all these things are come to pass then this shall be the sign of the coming of the son of man, which will be apparent to all the world, for than will the lord jesus christ appear from heaven with his mighty angels in flaming fire, 2 thess. 1. 7, 8. for as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even to the west, even so shall the coming of the son of man be, mat. 24. 27. and all the wicked families that are upon the earth, at that time, shall mourn, when they shall see the son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory: and then shall the lord christ send his angels with the sound of a great trumpet to awaken all the saints, who shall be raised from their sleep by the sound of the great trumpet, and the angels shall gather together all the saints from the four winds, from one end of the earth to the other, mat. 24. 31. for those that have died in the faith of christ, shall rise first, being awakened out of sleep with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of god, and shall all be gathered together in a moment, to meet the great judge, and to rejoice in his glory, and in their glorious deliverance, being now to enjoy his presence forever, with all his glorious angels, and shall now come to be judges of their enemies, and sit down with the great judge to judge all their enemies; and therefore it is that the saints shall rise first, that they may lay open their grievances before the great judge, of all their great wrongs, and bring in their evidences against the wicked for all their hard usage, and cruel persecution of their enemies, and the saints shall be gloriously honoured at that day, having the judge on their side to their great joy and comfort; and to the terror of their enemies. 5. the resurrection of the saints shall be glorious, in being raised out of the new earth, and all the corruption burned up, and so are raised out of pure matter; for it was sown a corruptible body, but it shall be raised an incorruptible body; for as we have borne the image of the earthly, so we shall also bear the image of the heavenly; for it is sown a natural body, and it is raised a spiritual body, and this in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump, for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed, 1 cor. 15. 44. 48. 52. for this corruptible shall put on incorruption, and this mortal shall put on immortality; and when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall put on immortality; then shall be brought to pass that saying that is written, death is swallowed up in victory, and thanks be to god that giveth us the victory through jesus christ our lord; as you may see, 1 cor. 15. 53, 54. and then shall we be clothed with our house which is from heaven, 2 cor. 5. 1. and then shall our vile bodies be changed, and fashioned, like unto his glorious body, and we shall be like him as be is: and thus we shall be raised in a glorious estate, whereby we may be fitted for so glorious a kingdom, and such a glorious company as we shall enjoy. 6. we shall be raised in our likeness; for though our nature shall be more pure and glorious, yet the pureness of our nature will not take away the being of it, as the pureness of the man christ, doth not take away his being to be a man, nor the glory of his substance make his substance cease to be; for the glory of the substance, doth not take from but adds to the substance, and so the glory of the man adds to the man, but doth not take away his being to be a man: and so though we shall be raised more glorious men, yet we shall be men: and to this i shall add scripture, job saith, i know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth, and though the worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh i shall see god, whom i shall behold for myself, and mine eyes shall ●ebol 〈…〉 and not ●●ther eyes, though my reins be cons 〈…〉 in me, job 19 25, 26, 27. and david doth declare, that his flesh did rest in hope for that great and glorious day, to wit, the redemption of his body, psal. 16. and the apostle saith, we shall be judged according to those things that we have done in this body, whether good or bad: for another body shall not be judged, but the same body; nor another body shall not be punished, but the same body, for the same body shall be punished that hath acted wickedness; and this the apostle doth clear, in the 1 cor. 15. showing us, that there is divers kinds of flesh, but he will give to every body his own flesh, and to every seed his own body, to show us, that the same flesh shall be raised up again, and not another; and so i shall conclude with the words of the prophet, saying, thy dead men shall live, together with my dead body shall they arise; awake, and sing ye that dwell in the dust, for thy dew is as the dew of herbs, and the earth shall cast out the dead, esa. 26. 19 7. they shall appear in the same form, and likeness, and fashion as they were in upon earth, and shall have the same body, and the same stature and proportion, with the same likeness and complexion; for their rising shall not change their proportion no way, but rather add to it to make them more like themselves then ever they were before, and every man shall be known in the same body and proportion as he was upon the earth, adam in his own likeness, and abraham, moses, solomon, and david in their own likeness, and every man and woman in their own likeness as they were upon earth, and so they shall be known, every man and woman as they were upon the earth, only they shall appear more glorious; but their glorious appearance will not take away the being of their likeness and proportion, but rather add to it; as the glory and excellency of a man doth not take away his leaving to be a man, but rather adds to it, and even so the glory of our appearing doth not take away the likeness of our being, but rather adds to it, and so makes our likeness the more glorious. 8 the wicked shall also be raised up, for christ shall judge both the quick and the dead, and we shall all appear before the judgement seat of christ, to give an account for those things that we have done in the flesh, whether good or evil; for christ shall sit upon the throne of his glory, and all nations shall be gathered together before him, mat. 25. 31, 32. for the time is coming, that all that are in the graves, shall hear the voice of the son of man, and shall com●forth, they that have done good to the resurrection of life, and they that have done evil to the resurrection of condemnation, joh. 5. 28, 29. for it is appointed for all men once to die, and after that cometh judgement. now the wicked i conceive shall not rise like the saints, but every one according to his nature, for the saints shall rise with the nature of christ upon them, for their vile bodies shall be fashioned like unto his glorious body, and be clothed with their house which is from heaven; but the wicked shall rise in their corrupt nature, and shall be clothed with their sin; and as the saints shall be clothed with their obedience, even so shall the wicked be clothed with their disobedience; and this i conceive shall be the distinguishing badge whereby the righteous shall be known from the wicked, for the saints shall rise with the clothing or livery of christ upon them; and the other shall rise with the clothing or livery of the devil upon them, whereby they shall be known whose servants they are, and yet i conceive the lord will do his part, for he will raise them up a pure nature, for they shall be most pure and glorious in their nature, until they shall be clothed with their sin, which shall darken their nature, for they will come forth of the new earth, and so their natures shall ●e spiritual, incorruptible, and immortal, whereby they will be more capable of sin and judgement, and the more capable of all their sorrow and misery; and now i shall speak a word or two where this judgement shall be. 9 where this judgement shall be, is a great question, for some think it shall be in the air, but me thinks that is but an airy argument, for there is no good reason can be given wherefore it should be in the air; and others think it shall be in heaven, but that is not likely, wherefore it should be in heaven, because christ comes down to judge, and therefore it doth appear it shall be on the earth, for what should the wicked do in heaven? and therefore christ comes down upon earth to judge them; for it is most fit that where they have done their wickedness, that there they should be judged, and that is, upon the earth; now the place of judgement i conceive will be at jerusalem, about the valley of jehoshaphat, which is the middle part of the earth, for there christ was put to death, and had all the dishonour; and there he will vindicate himself in that place, and have all the honour; for in the place where he ascended up into heaven, it is likely in the same place he will descend with his mighty angels, and that is, upon the mount olive●, or the mount of olives; for thus it is prophesied of him, when the lord shall come forth of his holy place; for behold, the lord cometh forth out of his place, and will come down, and will tread upon the high places of the earth, and the mountains shall be melted under him, and the valleys shall be cleft: as wax before the fire, and as the waters that are poured down a steep place, mich. 1. 3, 4. and at that day his feet shall stand upon the mount of olives, that is, before jerusalem, on the east, and the mount of olives shall cleave in the midst towards the east, and towards the west, and there shall be a very great valley, and half of the mountain shall remove towards the north, and half of it towards the south, and ye shall fly to the valley of my mountains, for the valley of the mountains shall reach unto azal, and those that are there at that day fhal fly as they fled before the earthquake, in the days of vzzah king of judah, and the lord my god shall come, and all the saints with him, zach. 14. 3, 4, 5. and thus you may see how gloriously the lord will come to prepare a place for judgement, and how mighty and spacious it will be, even a mighty valley, which is not able to be expressed; so spacious, and so large, that it might be fit to entertain such a number, that no man knows but himself, and thither shall all nations be gathered to be judged, as the scripture seems to hold forth, saying, proclaim ye among the gentiles, prepare water, wake up the mighty men, and let all the men of war come near, let them come up; and here the prophet shows you what the lord christ will say at that day, saying, beat your flow-shares into swords, and your pruning-bookes into spears; let the weak say, i am strong; wherein christ shows all nations their weaknesses when they shall come before him to judgement; assemble yourselves and come, all ye heathen, and gather yourselves together round about▪ thither wilt thou cause thy mighty ones to come down, o lord; and thus the prophet in this verse holds forth the glorious appearing of christ, with all his host: and then shall all the heathen be wakened, and come to the valley of jehoshaphat, or the valley of threshing, for there will the lord sit to judge all the heathen round about, for all their wickedness is at the full, joel 3. 9, 10, 11, 12, 13. for there will the lord ●●ster ●p hi● great army, for his camp is very great, and multitudes, multitudes shall be in the valley of threshing, for then the day of the lord is near in the valley of division, or threshing, and then shall the sun and the moon be darkened, and the stars shall withdraw their shining, for the glory of christ and his angels shall darken the host of heaven, and then shall the lord the great judge of heaven and earth roar out of zion, and shall utter his voice from jerusalem, and the heavens and the earth shall shake, for the lord will number all his forces, and then there will be the noise of a multitude in the mountains, a tumultuous noise of the nations gathered together, and the lord of hosts himself mustereth the host, to see if there be any wanting, for he will not miss a man, being able to call them all by their names; and then shall the lord at that day sit down in judgement, and all the prisoners be shut up together as in a prison, and a wall of fire being round about them, with that mighty guard of angels to attend the prisoners, and after many days they shall be visited, or found wanting, being judged in order, after their ages and generations; and then shall the moon be confounded, and the sun ashamed at the glory of the lord, his glory darkening all the host of heaven, when the lord of hosts shall reign in mount zion, and before his ancients gloriously. 12. and lastly, the question will be, how long this judgement shall last, and how long this great judge will be in judging all the world? now some conceive, that it shall be in the twinkling of an eye, but that is very unlikely to be, for then how can christ be said to sit upon the throne, and to sit in judgement? there can be but a little sitting in the twinkling of an eye. secondly, some think it to be a natural day that christ shall sit in judgement, but that is but a small sitting, to sit a natural day, for such a great work as to judge all the world; will his glory no longer appear in judgement then for a day? shall not the great judge of heaven and earth surmount all the judges in the world, in the time of his judgement? who can counter-pane him in judgement? for the time of his sitting, he is no hired judge, he sits at his own cost and charges, and all his mighty company, he cannot want any thing in the time of his sitting, for all is his, and therefore i conceive he will sit a longer time; for, one day with the lord is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day; and therefore i conceive the judgement shall be longer than some suppose, even for a thousand years; and for the proof of the same, i shall give you my reasons: 1. because one day with the lord is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day, 2 pet. 3. and therefore the judgement may be for a thousand years. 2 because it is called, a great, and notable day, more gloriously noted then other days, as well in respect of time, as in the great works of it; and therefore by this day must be meant a longer time than a natural day, being called, the judgement of the great day; and, the great day of his wrath; for, if the day was lengthened in the time of joshua, much more shall it be lengthened in the day of christ, act. 2. 20. jud. 6. revel. 6. 7. 3. because the glorious coming of christ shall darken the sun and moon, and all the host of heaven, for what is the light of the sun to the light of christ, from whence all light doth proceed? and by this it doth appear, that christ shall sit a longer time than some suppose, and shall enlighten the earth with his glory, and that all his enemies may see the glory, and excellency of his person to the admiration of all the earth. 4. because he is said to sit in the judgement, and on the throne of his majesty, for the ancient of days shall sit and execute judgement, as doth appear, for saith daniel, i beheld till the thrones were cast down, even all the glory of the wicked, when the ancient of days did sit, whose garment was white as snow, and the baire of his head like pure wool; his throne was like the fiery flame, and his wheels were like the burning flame; a fiery stream issued and came forth before him, thousand thousands ministered unto him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him; and the books were opened, and i saw in the night visions, and behold, one like the son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the ancient of days, and they brought him near before him, and there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all nations and languages should serve him; an everlasting dominion which shall not pass away, dan. 7. 13, 14. for thus saith the lord, let the heathen be awakened, and come to the valley of jehoshaphat, for there will i sit to judge all the heathen round about, joel 3. 12. and many scriptures more i might bring to show you, that the great judge must sit in judgement, to show unto us, that it is a larger time than some conceive, by his sitting. 5. the coming of christ being so glorious that it shall darken all the host of heaven, for the sun and the moon shall not give forth light, being so glorious a light in place, but shall be at a stand, as amazed and confounded in themselves, and all their light being but as darkness in respect of the great judge, for the judge himself shall be their everlasting light, being indeed the great court of heaven more clear than the sun, for the light thereof doth darken the light of the sun and moon, which makes it appear that this glorious judge, and this glorious court of heaven will not be so soon removed. 6. the books are to be opened, and every man is to be judged according to those things that are written in those books; and there must be a time to open the books, and a time to judge and examine every matter, and every person particularly, according to his deeds; whereby it doth appear, that the great court of heaven will not be so soon removed. 7. the pleading of the prisoners at the bar doth make it appear, that the court shall not be removed, for the prisoners at the bar of justice will plead, and say, lord, in thy name we have prophesied, and cast out devils, and done many wonderful works; and when saw we thee in prison, or in sickness, or hungry, or naked, or the like; whereby it doth appear, that the pleading of prisoners, and the answerings of the judge doth hold forth a longer time to us, than we suppose, to sit in judgement. 8. if every person should not be called to account in particular, there might be some excuse in the creature, for than they might say, i, nor i was not judged; but the judge will not pass over things so lightly, for they are matters upon life and death, 〈◊〉 upon eternal life and death; and therefore ●●oth appear, that the great judge will examine every man to the full, with every particular thing, and with so many millions of thousands to be judged, in particular, doth make it appear, that the great judge cannot be so soon removed. 9 christ saith, that the apostles shall sit upon twelve thrones, and shall judge the twelve tribes of israel, even such as are revolted from jesus christ, and have rejected grace, and mercy, offered them in the son, and have shed the blood of the prophets, and apostles through their wickedness; and therefore it doth appear, that christ will make his twelve apostles to sit down upon twelve thrones, and they shall be the great jurymen of christ, to give in their verdict for life or death, and what they do shall be approved of by christ, for the jews being a most wise and subtle people, shall have the more able judges to deal with them; and who are more fit for that work then the apostles? who shall be the grand judges, or the grand jury to give in their evidences to the chief judge against them, and the judge also consenting to their judgement; for whose sins they remit, they shall be remitted; and whose sins they retain, they shall be retained: and this being so, it doth appear, that the court shall not be so soon removed, mat. 19 28. luk. 22. 30. 10. the apostles shall judge the angels, and give judgement against them, and when will that be, but at the great day? for they are reserved in chains of darkness until the great day, and then shall they appear before the grand jury, who shall give their judgement against them, and deliver them to the chief judge, who shall pass sentence upon them, for ever to be cast into the anger and wrath of the almighty: for this is the great day of judgement which hath been spoken of so long before, which will not be ended in a small time. 11. it is said, that the saints shall judge the world, and that cannot be in a small time, seeing there is so many millions of thousands to be judged, with the examination of every particular action, and yet they will not be idle all the time, nor rejourne the court like idle judges: for it shall be no night, all the time of the judgement, neither will they stir until they have accomplished that great work●; for i conceive there will be as much hastening of the work as may be, even round about the throne, and the twelve patriarches judging those before the flood, with the twelve apostles, judging those under the law, and the ministers of the gospel, judging those under the gospel; for it is said, the saints shall judge the world, 1 cor. 6. 2. and all these great things cannot be done in a small time; for all the prisoners pleading at the bar on the one side, & the judges giving sentence on the other side, with their examining of all causes, doth make it appear, that this great court will not be so soon removed, as some think. 12. the scripture doth declare, that after the new heavens and earth are made, that the saints shall reign with christ in abundance of glory, which i conceive must be all the time of the judgement, for it will not be before the new heavens and earth, as the scripture seems to hold forth, but after the new heavens and earth, and then will the lord jesus come, and all the saints with him, and then shall the saints reign in glory, even all the time of the sitting of the great judge, which i believe will be the account of a thousand years, and about jerusalem shall be the throne of their glory: and they shall be filled with the fullness of delight in all that time, and then will the dwelling of god be with men, and they shall be the new jerusalem, being clothed with their house from heaven, and god shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; for there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, nor any pain, for all their former troubles being passed away; for jerusalem will be more glorious than ever it was in the world before, with her gates and walls most glorious, and such a glorious city it will be as never yet was seen, the glory of which place, will enlighten both heaven and earth, and shall darken all the host of heaven, being a place for the saints of the most high, where they shall rest all the time of the sitting of the great judge, for this will be a new jerusalem, indeed, a place of glory until the great. judge hath finished his work upon the earth; and in this new jerusalem of the saints, there shall be no temple, nor any worship enjoined, for this will be all their work, to offer up praises unto him that shall sit upon the throne; for the father and the son are the temple of this glorious city; and this city will have no need of sun or moon, for the father and the son will be the light thereof, and all the nations which shall be saved, shall walk in the light of this city, and there shall their glory be, for the gates of this city shall not be shut at all by day, for there shall be no night; and this will be a glorious rest for the saints, all the fitting of the great judge. re. 22. and then shall the lord roar out of zion, and utter his voice from jerusalem, and the heavens and the earth shall shake, but the lord will be the harbour of his people, and there shall we know that he is the lord, dwelling in zion his holy mountain, then shall jerusalem be holy: nor there shall no strangers pass through her any more: and it shall come to pass at that day, that the mountains shall drop downs new wine, and the bills shall flow with milk, and all the rivers of judah shall flow with waters, and a fountain shall come forth from the house of the lord, and shall water the valley of shittim, joel 3. 17, 18. for in the midst of this city, new jerusalem, shall proceed from the throne of god, and of the lamb, a 〈◊〉 river of water of life in the midst of the street of it, and on the other side of the river, there shall be a tree of life, which shall have twelve manner of fruits, and yielding her fruit every month, and the leaves of the tree shall be for healing the nations of all their spiritual grief, for there shall be no more cries amongst the saints, but the throne of god, and of the lamb● shall be in this glorious city, and they shall serve him, and there they shall see his face and presence, and his name shall be in their foreheads, the honour of their glorious profession, and in that city there shall be no night, and there the saints shall reign in a glorious manner, for it is the great day of the great judge, in which there shall be no darkness: and thus will the lord christ prepare a glorious place for the saints, such a glorious city as cannot be expressed, where they shall gloriously reign in all spiritual pleasure and delight, which is not able to be expressed, for there will the great court of heaven be, while the great judge is upon the earth, to show forth his wonderful glory while he sits in judgement, until the great court shall be broken up; for jesus christ shall sit upon his glorious throne, and all nations shall be gathered together before him, and he shall separate the good from the bad, and will set the sheep on his right hand, and goats on his left hand; and when the great trial and judgement is passed upon all the wicked, then shall he send them to their place; saying, go ye wicked and cursed ones, depart from me into everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels; and then shall they go into everlasting punishment for ever and ever, where the worm never dies, nor the fire never goes out, mat. 25. 41▪ 46. and when christ hath done his work upon the earth, then shall that glorious court be broken up with glorious triumph and glory, which is not able to be expressed, and then shall they all return unto the place prepared for them far above all heavens; for than shall the great judge of heaven and earth return from whence he came, with all his glorious heavenly host, far above all heavens, into the heaven of heavens, there to remain for ever and ever, and so the whole creation shall enjoy the footstool, rom. 8. 19, 20, 21, 22▪ and the saints shall enjoy the throne for ever, and ever. and thus i have spoken a word or two, as my time would permit me, of the resurrection. chap. x. of visible worship. the wise solomon saith, that the full stomach loatheth the honey comb; & his saying is made good in this age; for never was the word of god more plentiful, nor never more contemptible than it is in these days; but what brings a loathing, but a fullness? and what brings contempt, but plenty? are not many fatted up in these days to the day of slaughter, they are full, but not of goodness; for that would make them see their wants, who is more proud of grace than he that hath least; and who is more humble than he that hath most: how many in these days are rapt up in spiritual pride, and boast of more than they have, and yet improve not that they have▪ many say they are full, that are empty; and yet they boast as if they were full: who is worse, than he that thinks he is best; he saith he knoweth, when he is ignorant, he saith he seethe, when he is blind; he saith he is full, when he is an hungry; and he saith he wanteth nothing, when he wanteth all things; he saith he is rich, when he is poor: and this is the condition of a spiritual proud man. it was spiritual pride that brought the devils from heaven, to hell; and there is many in these days that are sick of this disease; when all the devil's snares fail, yet here he takes the bird; the devil is more subtle than man, and yet he makes man more wicked than himself; for the devils durst not deny the scripture; but he begets a worse child than himself, and when he hath done so, he laughs at his folly: he talks of high attainments if they break the command, they shall be as gods; but he knows when they do transgress, they shall be as devils: he tells men when they disobey, they shall be highest; but he knoweth when they disobey, they shall be lowest: he tells them if they will obey him, they shall see, but he knows if they do obey him, they shall be blind: he tells them that obedience is nothing, but he knows disobedience is something: he saith obedience will not save thee, but he knows that disobedience will damn thee: he saith the scripture is not true, but he knows he is a liar: he says thou needest not serve god, but he knows thou shalt be damned if thou dost not: he saith thou needest not show any visible obedience, but he knows if thou dost not, thou wilt show a visible disobedience: he tells thee that christ hath done all for thee, thou needest not do any thing, but he knows thou shalt not be saved, except thou do something: he tells thee thou needs not keep all the commands, but he knows if thou break one, thou art guilty of all: he tells thee that some ordinances are carnal, but he knows that thou art carnal: he tells thee it is nothing to break some commands, but he knows it is something to break any command: he tells thee thou art higher than obedience, but he knows thou art in the highest disobedience: he tells thee that all shall be saved, but he knows that the greatest part shall be damned: he tells thee there is no glory but in this life, but he knows thou shalt find punishment in another: he tells thee there is no heaven, but he knows thou shalt find a hell: he tells thee there is no resurrection, but he knows thou shalt find a judgement: he tells thee there is no judgement, but he knows thou shalt find a punishment: he tells thee that god acts all thy actions, but he knows thou art a liar: he tells thee that god acts all thy good acts, and yet he knows thou shalt be condemned for not acting good: he tells thee there is no sin, & yet he knows he is the father of lies: he tells thee that the scripture is but a low and carnal way, but he knows thou art a liar: he tells thee that the scriptures cannot save thee, but he knows the scriptures can damn thee▪ he tells thee that the scriptures cannot bring life, but he knows the scriptures can bring death: he tells thee that the scriptures are carnal, but he knows that thou art carnal: he tells thee that the scriptures are not the mind of god, but he knows thou art a liar. and thus the devil deludeth, and man acteth his delusions: how apt is the devil to deceive, and how apt is man to be deceived: how cunning is the devil to delude, and how foolish is the creature to be deluded: how wise is the devil to keep thee from heaven; and how foolish art thou to lose it: his intent is to damn thee, and thy intent is to damn thyself. and this is the grand design of the devil too, he makes thee believe thou art high, when he knows thou art but low; he makes thee believe thou art in light, when he knows thou art in darkness: how oft hath the devil deceived thee, and how oft hast thou been deceived? the devil bids thee to deny the word, and thou art ready to forswear it: the devil bids thee to mock the scripture, and thou art ready to trample it under thy feet: and what is this, but a bird worse than himself, he hatches the egg, and the man begets the serpent; he sows the seed, and man reaps it: but some may think i speak a mystery; if so, then know i speak to a people in the mystery of darkness, whose thoughts are high, but their words are low; whose words are high, but their actions are but low; who talk of love, but their deeds are hatred; they will not believe a visible worship in scripture, and therefore we must prove it to our comfort, and their shame. but we must not prove it by scripture; for if we do, they will not believe it. now you may see the serpent stir in the egg, and therefore we must prove it by reason; the lord said to saul, thy sin is as the sin of witchcraft to reject the word: which if so, then there are many such like witches, and because thou hast rejected my word, i have also rejected thee: which if so, how many such like witches will god reject. there was such under the law, that said, it was in vain to serve god; and thou art following thy forefather's steps; thou wilt not be behind them, thou wilt rather run before them, so ready art thou to obey thy disobedient master the devil; he fell from his first place, and so wilt thou, for thou art a servant to that god that thou obeyest: but thou showest that thou art not for god, but for belial; thou wilt not manifest a visible obedience, but thou wilt manifest a visible disobedience; thou wilt not worship god, but thou wilt worship belial; thou wilt not worship god visibly, but thou wilt worship belial visibly; and now i shall give thee some reasons for a visible worship, but it may be thou wilt say, it is not reason, than i shall say, thou art no man. 1. the principles of nature will tell thee, that there is a visible worship, for before there was any prescript worship set forth, yet there was an inward principle that told them, there was a visible worship, and thereby they did worship god visibly, and did manifest to all the world that they stood for a visible worship, and did offer sacrifices, and the like, to manifest a visible worship to their god, and did worship god in the principles of nature, as faithfully, as if they had had a visible prescript, whereby they were justified before god, and wilt thou derogate from nature, than it seems thou hast a principle worse than nature, for nature is for a visible worship, when they had no visible worship set forth, yet nature taught them there was one; but thou hast a worse principle than nature, that teacheth thee, there is none. 2. thy conscience will tell thee there is a visible worship, and will testify against thee one day for thy visible disobedience; and will accuse thee at the bar of justice; what wilt thou say then? wilt thou say, there was no visible worship? will not conscience tell thee of thy wickedness, and lay before thee what an agent of hell thou hast been, oft thou hast belied thy conscience, and stifled the motions thereof? and how oft thou hast pleaded against thy conscience, and that thou hast made the word of the lord contemptible, and hast villyfied it before all the people, how thou hast slighted the commands of the lord, and hast set thyself to work wickedness, and hast sold thyself to plead for disobedience; that thou hast stood for baal, and not for god, in that thou hast acted the devil's part, to make the ways of god contemptible. now how will thy traitorous heart excuse thee for all these things? wilt thou plead against conscience then at the bar of justice? no traitor, thy conscience will then be thy judge, and set thy sins in order before thee, and then thou shalt be paid according to thy deserts, and thy punishment shall be as great as thy sin; when thou shalt fall into the wrath of the almighty. 3. if thou art not for a visible obedience, than thou art for a visible disobedience, and then his servant thou art to whom thou obeyest; but thou art not for visible obedience, but for disobedience, and by that i shall know who is thy father, even the devil, who is the father of lies, and of disobedience, for he kept not his first place, nor abode in the truth; and thou followest the steps of thy father the devil, for thou art his own child, we may know thee by following thy father's steps, that thou comest out of his bosom, for he hath begat thee to be a son of his lies; for how dost thou set up a visible disobedience to all the world, thou art busy about thy father's work; god tells men they should obey, and teacheth the creature visible obedience; and thou sayest, he should not obey, and teachest the creature visible disobedience; and is not this a setting up thyself against god? the lord strives to make men good, and thou strivest to make men wicked; wouldst thou make all the world disobedient, that thou mightest rejoice at their disobedience, as the devil rejoiceth at thee? thou art for disobedience, thou showest whose son thou art, and there i leave thee. 4. thy striving so against a visible worship, doth make it appear that there is one, by thy striving against it, for if there were not a visible worship, what dost thou strive against? if there were none, thou hadst no need to strive for nothing, for thy strife were at an end; but sure thou art ware there is a visible worship, because thou strivest so against it, and therein thou discoverest thy hypocrisy, that thou art a dissembling hypocrite, in striving against a visible way; because thou knowest there is one, and yet thou sayest, there is not; what dost thou strive for then? if there be no visible worship, thou needest not strive for that which is not; whereby thou bewrayest thy hypocrisy. 5. if there be no visible worship, then to what purpose are the scriptures set forth? then they will be of no use; if there be no visible worship, than we may cast them away as of no use; then we might walk as we list, and say, there was no prescript for us to walk by, but every one might walk according to the desires of their own hearts, and might say, they were led by the spirit, though they acted all manner of wickedness, and none could reprove those visible walkings, if there were not a visible way set forth, and this is the day thou wouldst have, thou son of belial, that thou mightest set up the ways of wickedness, thou wouldst have the scriptures of no use, and yet thou canst make some use of them thyself; like the devil, for his own ends, thou canst use it as a cloak to hid the serpent; thou wouldst make the scripture to hold out disobedience, and not obedience, whereby thy visible disobedience doth appear, that thou art in the gall of bitterness. 6. whether is not this to fly in the face of christ, and his apostles? to make them contemptible to all the world, and to condemn them of insufficiency, as not being able to set forth a way to all the world, which they were to follow in after ages, and to challenge them of weakness, that what they have set forth is not sufficient, neither to save those that walk in that way, no● to condemn those that disobey that way, and that those persons were not able to set forth so holy a way, but there might be a holier, and a better way; and that it is but low and carnal, and not fit to be walked in; but for those that are low and carnal, and fit for babes, and not for men, but such as are in a low dispensation; and what dost thou now thou serpent, but cast dirt in the face of christ and his apostles? thou thinkest not their way good enough for thee, thou countest christ and his apostles to have walked in a carnal way, they were not spiritual enough for thee; their way thou thinkest was but low, and therefore thou thinkest thou cast find a better; but where wilt thou find it? thou showest thyself now to be a fine proud angel, thou passest a proud pharisee, for thou art nearer thy father the devil, for thou art a holy angel of disobedience, thy holiness lies in denying a visible worship, thy holiness lies in disobedience, and this is the holiness of a serpent. 7. thou sayest there was a worship, but there is none now; there was a visible worship once in the days of the apostles, but that was to continue but till that age; and what is thy reason for that? is there not as much need in this age of a visible worship as then? are we more holy than they? if there was a visible worship then, why not now? did god intent that former ages should serve him, and these latter ages should disobey him? have we not as much need in this age to worship him, as in any other age? if there was a visible worship then, why not now? is this age any better than former ages? or have we any privileges more than other ages? except god intent to exempt us from worshipping of him, there is the same way for us to walk by, as the apostles of christ walked in, which they have set forth to us, and to all the world to walk by, that thereby they might be happy that walk therein, as they were happy that walked therein, but thou needest it not; for thou thinkest thou art holy enough, thou art fed up with high conceits of thyself, thou wilt not worship god now, but thou wilt worship the devil; now thou wouldst eat the forbidden fruit to be a god, but when thou eatest thou art a devil; thou wilt rather obey the serpent than god, but thou wilt have a serpent's reward. 8. if there be not a visible way now, how shall i know thee from the serpent? thou mayest say thou art a saint, but thou mayest be a devil; for the devil can transform himself into an angel of light, he can say, he is holy, when he is wicked; he can say, he is in light, when he is in darkness; he can say, he is in the height of godliness, when he is in the height of ungodliness; he can say, he is an angel, when he is a devil ● and so mayest thou: if there be no way to try thee, if we may not try thy way thou walkest in by the word, thou mayst then frame any worship to thyself, and say, it is right; thou wouldst break the yoke of worship, that thou mightest run at random; thou art weary of order, thou wouldst be in confusion; thou art striving to leave the strait way, that thou mightest run thy own crooked ways; and therefore thou wouldst have no visible worship, that thou mightest make a way of thine own inventing; and thus thou art changing thy shape; thou canst change thyself every year like the serpent, and then thou art a new creature of thine own making, for thou hast more knowledge than grace, thou art a serpent, to deceive with all deceivableness of unrighteousness, and lying signs and wonders, with thy false visions, and dreams, to take men in thy snares, and to make them more like the serpent than thyself, thou goest about like a roaring lion to take thy prey, and to tear in pieces; thou art a wolf to scatter the flock, and a fox to devour the lambs; but thou art a hog in the garden, for thou delightest to root up the sweet flowers to satisfy thy swinish nature; thou art not a dumb, but a barking cur, but thou art one of the worse sort, for thou wilt fawn, and by't, and yet thou sayest, thou art a saint; but thy black conditions doth bewray thee, and makes thee appear like a devil; thou puttest on a lion's skin upon an ass, but the braying of the ass will bewray thee; but some perhaps may think i jeer; to the which i reply; it is no jeer, but a mystery to the lovers of mysteries, that are able to bear strong meat; for there is no potion, but they can let down; they are of a strong digestion; thou art for no worship, and yet canst swallow down any worship; there is no way to try, sayest thou, how then shall we know thee what thou art? we shall not trust thee fare if we may not try thee, thou art the more to be suspected if thou wilt not be tried; thou sayest there is no rule to try thee by, but the devil is a liar; thou wouldst have no scripture, nor word to try thee by, and then thou wouldst say, thou wast pure gold; but the scripture will find to be stinking brass, only flourished over with the refuse of gold for to cover thy hypocrisy. 9 those that have been accounted most precious in god's account, have worshipped god in a visible way: what sayest thou to moses, he was faithful to god in all his house, and yet he was a visible worshipper of god, and obeyed him in every command; and whatsoever god commanded him to do, he did, and is every where almost commended for his obedience, and is exalted in all the word: and what sayest thou to david, a man after gods own heart, and who was more obedient to all the commands of god than he; how zealous was he in visible worship; and how doth god commend him for it: how highly is he commended in all the history of god, and his obedient service is every where almost spoken off: and what sayest thou to christ the chiefest of the father's love, who came out of the bowels of the father; he was a worshipper of god, and held forth a visible worship; he was circumcised to fulfil the worship of the law, and was baptised, to hold forth a gospel worship; and though he were a son, yet learned he obedience by the things he suffered; and was obedient in all things, and was most dear and precious in the sight of the father, and yet was a visible worshipper, was a baptised person, and did administer the supper, and did partake of it with a great deal of desire, and commanded the same worship to be performed in future ages: and what wilt thou say to christ now? thou wilt say he walked very low, wilt thou? the son himself was not exempted from visible worship, and yet thou art: hast thou more privilege than christ? how camest thou by it? art thou higher than the son? the son was not exempted from visible worship, and yet thou art: now it doth appear that thou art a proud peacock, thou canst turn up thy tail, and pride thyself in thy fine feathers, and never lookest to thy feet, thou art doting upon thy tail, and forgettest thy footsteps; but thou wilt lose thy tail shortly, and then where will thy pride be? wilt thou say thou art higher than christ, that thou art exempted from worship; for if thou art exempted from visible worship, and christ himself was not, than it seems thou art greater, and hast more privileges than he; but thy blindness will deceive thee: and what sayest thou to paul, he was but a low fellow in thine eyes; but i am sure he was higher than thou, for he was able to speak an infallible truth, and was able to confirm it with a visible sign, he was able to work miracles, and to speak with new tongues, and so art not thou, and yet thy words are higher than paul's, but thy deeds are lower; and yet paul was a visible worshipper of god, for he was a baptised person, and did administer the supper, and did partake of it himself, and taught the gathering of churches, and those were his ways that were in christ jesus; if thou wilt stoop so low as to look in, 2 cor. 4. which thou canst hardly do, thou art bridled up so high with that golden chain about thy neck, called mystery; but thou sayest, that the apostle said himself, that he was not sent to baptise, but to preach: and thou thinkest that this is a great argument from the word not. to the which i reply, that the apostle saith also, that we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities and powers; and yet thou wilt say, that he wrestled against flesh and blood; so that thou seest the word (not) doth imply something: for the apostle saith, i have writ unto you (not) to keep company with such, and such, and yet (not) altogether refrain, for than thou must go out of the world; and so thou seest the word (not) doth imply something: for the word (not) and the word (nothing) are all one, and signify one thing; and so paul was not sent to preach; that is, not only sent to baptise, but to preach: christ tells his apostles, that nothing should hurt them, and yet something might hurt them, luke 10. 19 the apostle saith, the athenians gave themselves to nothing, but to hear news, act. 14. 21. and yet they gave themselves to something else: the apostle saith, own nothing to any man, rom. 13. 8. and yet we own something to all men; and he saith, circumcision is nothing, 1 cor. 7. 19 and yet we know that circumcision is something. again he saith, that we know that an idol is nothing in the world, 1 cor. 8. 4. and we know that an idol is something, though it be nothing in respect of god; yet it is something in respect of an idol: and so the apostle saith, he was nothing, 2 cor. 12. 11 and yet we know he was something. again, the apostle saith, be careful for nothing, phil. 4. 6. and yet we know we must be careful for something: and we brought nothing into this world, and yet we know we brought something. the laodiseans said, they had need of nothing, and yet we know they had need of something. and thus i have showed th●● that (not) or (nothing) implies the lesser, and not the greater; and though baptism is nothing in respect of teaching, yet that doth not follow but that baptism is something: and thus the serpent is taken in his craft. 10. those that have contemned a visible worship, have been most contemptible to god; what sayest thou to the scribes and pharisees? john came in the way of righteousness, matth. 21. 32. and they did not repent, nor were changed from their wickedness, that they might believe; for they rejected the counsel of god against themselves, and were not baptised; and how were they liked thinkest thou for their pains? doth not christ say, woe be to you scribes and pharisees: doth he not count them hypocrites for rejecting the doctrine of john, which was the counsel of god: and who were they in the times of christ, and his apostles, that did reject the gospel, and the way and ordinances of the gospel; were they not the proud scribes and pharisees, who rejected the visible way of the gospel, and were they not rejected of the lord for their wickedness, for contemning the ordinances of the gospel: they despised the way of the gospel, but the lord despised them for it, and cast them out as contemptible: and dost not thou follow the steps of thy forefathers, to contemn the way and ordinances of the gospel, as they did, that thou mightest fall into the same condemnation. 12. those that had received the highest attainments, walked in a visible way and profession, even such as had received the holy ghost, and were able to speak infallibly, to work miracles, and to speak with new tongues; yet these walked in a visible worship, and were baptised, did partake of the supper, and walked in a church way; for the fullness of the spirit, doth not take away thy obedience, but rather makes thee more obedient, art thou as full of the spirit as christ? and yet he walked in a visible way and commanded his apostles to set forth a visible way of worship to the world to be practised in every age. again, hast thou as much of the spirit of god as the apostles of christ, and yet they worshipped god in a visible way; art thou too good to walk in that way that the apostles of christ walked in? or canst thou produce a better way than they walked in? canst thou find out a more holy way than they did? or canst thou find out a more soule-saving way? canst thou set forth a better christ, and a better gospel, and a more spiritual way? produce it if thou canst, and we will believe thee; but if thou canst not find out a better way than christ and his apostles have set forth; then what dost thou contend for, for a worse way? if thou canst not find a better way, then why dost thou forsake this? it is a sign thou art weary of serving god: who wilt thou serve next, but the serpent and thyself; thou contemnest the scripture and the way of the scripture, that thou mightest serve the devil, and thyself: how dost thou vilify christ and his apostles? surely thou art not of god, but of thy father the devil, for his works thou dost: canst thou find a better way than christ and his apostles walked in? canst thou find more spiritual men than they were, or more precious examples to follow, who were patterns of all goodness? was their way so carnal as thou makes it? what carnal honours and riches had they by walking in that way? what ptaise had they of the world? if their way were so carnal, as thou wouldst make it, then why did not all the world receive it? they are apt enough to embrace a carnal way for their fleshly advantage, thou needest not much persuade them what way is more contrary to all the world than the way of christ, and his apostles; whereby it doth appear to be a truth, because it is hated of all the world. lastly, the letter of the scripture will tell thee there is a visible worship; for how couldst thou know what visible or invisible meant, but by the letter of the word? or how couldst thou tell what worship meant, but by the word? doth not the letter of the word tell thee all things? did god ever speak to thee without a letter? then what word did he speak? god never spoke nonsense? but if he spoke without a letter, than he spoke nonsense: and thou wouldst be a blasphemer to say so, for no word can be made without letters, and thou canst compact no word without a letter: when god gave adam a law, he taught him to read it; and thou must read thy a, b, c, before thou canst read plain, and must learn thy letters plain, before thou canst speak plain; and i think thou hast hardly learned thy a, b, c, for thou canst hardly read plain, and yet thou dost despise the letter of thy learning, for how wouldst thou know that god created all things in six days, but by the letter? and how wouldst thou know what god did every day, but by the letter? and how couldst thou know that the heaven was called heaven, and the earth was called earth, but by the letter? and how couldst thou know the name of the sun, or the name of the moon, and stars, but by the letter that calls them so? and how didst thou know the names of day, and night without the letter? and how comest thou to know the names of the creatures both in the air, as the fowls of the air, and the names of the beasts of the field, with the fishes in the sea? how comest thou to know the names of all these? doth not the letter of the the word tell thee? or else, how couldst thou know their names? again, how dost thou know there was an adam and eve, but by the letter? and how dost thou know the world was destroyed by water at noah's flood, but by the letter of the word? and how dost thou know that noah, and his family were saved in the ark, but by the letter? and how dost thou know there was an abraham, isaac, and jacob, but by the letter? that there was a moses, and the law of moses? a people of israel, that were in egypt, and came into land of canaan, doth not the letter tell thee this, or else how couldst thou know it? and here i might be large, to teach thee to learn thy letters, and to know the letter of the scripture; but thy pride will stop thy learning, and yet i shall leave thee without excuse. how comest thou to know there is a christ, but by the letter of the word? and how camest thou to know that christ died, and risen again, and ascended into heaven, but by the letter of the word? and how knowest thou what christ died for, that he came to save sinners, and to open a door of salvation to the world, and that there is salvation in him for sinners? how camest thou to know all this, but by the letter of the word? and how comest thou to know there is a gospel, and grace, mercy, and salvation held forth in this gospel, but by the letter? and then again, how comest thou to know that there is a heaven, and a hell, and that there shall be a resurrection, and a judgement, and that thou shalt rise at the last day? how comest thou to know all these things, but by the letter of the word? sure hadst thou learned the letter better, thou wouldst not have despised thy master; it is the letter of the word of god, that hath taught thee what thou hast, and thou art a good scholar to despise thy master; how dost thou know that there is sin, but by the letter? and that there is a devil, and that the devil and wicked men shall be punished for ever, and that the godly shall be blessed for ever? how comest thou to know all these things, but by the letter of the word? thou mayest thank the letter of the word for all thy knowledge, or else thou mightest have been like unto the east indians, that know not their right hand from their left, for it is the letter of the word that hath taught thee thy wisdom, and the devil hath taught thee thy pride, and yet i wish thee better than thou dost thyself, for the letter of the scripture would feign keep thee, and yet i think the devil will take thee. and yet i shall speak a word or two more for visible worship, for aught we not to serve god as well with our bodies as with our hearts? can we ●erve god within; and the devil without? sure no man can serve two masters, for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh; for thou showest by thy words what is within; for as thy heart is, so are thy words, but it is a sign there is no worship in thy heart, because there is none in thy words; or else thou dost dissemble with thyself. why ought we not as well to serve god in our bodies as in our souls? will the worship of god hinder us? and why cannot we know as much in a visible way as thou dost out? dost thou think that the worship of the gospel, and the laws and ordinances thereof, doth hinder us from knowing the mind of god? sure this is but the doctrine of the serpent; for our obedience to the commands of jesus christ doth not hinder us, but further us to know his mind: for, the humble he will teach, and he rejecteth the proud, and giveth grace to the humble. our living in the commands of christ will not hinder us, but help us to know the mind of god; for the promise is to such as walk in his way, and that he that doth his will shall know his mind; and therefore it doth appear, that the commands of christ doth not hinder us from knowing the mysteries of god: thou wouldst take us off of our obedience from serving of god, to serve the devil; for the devil hath deceived thee, and thou wouldst deceive; as thou wouldst bring us out of order into confusion, to walk in confusion like thyself; thou art of no religion, and yet thou canst be of any; and thy religion changes as oft as thy thoughts; thou art restless in thy thoughts, and restless in thy life, and also as restless in thy comforts; for thou art in babylon, and the height of confusion, for thou livest a confused life, thou liest in confusion, and there thou livest; how long wilt thou walk in confusion? wilt thou not return into order lest thou die in confusion, and fall into the wrath and anger of jehovah. finis. a postscript to a party called seekers, or those that call themselves madmen, which deny the bible to be scripture, or the word of god. the devil hath always in all ages sought to blind the eyes of the people, for he can fit himself for all ages; and he is more subtle in this age, then in other ages; and the reason i conceive is this, because people are come to see further than they have done in former times into the word of god, and his worship▪ and therefore it is the subtlety of satan in these days to seek to take us off all worship and to deny the bible to be the word of god, and so teaches men to deny that there is any rule to walk by, but that every man may walk according to the dictates of his own heart, and as it seemeth good in his own eyes; and this is a pleasing bait to take the world with: and here the old serpent doth prevail, and snares the sons of men; for this is the day he looks for, if he can take men off the word, that thereby they may deny all scriptures, and all visible worship, than they will be his own children of the tribe of disobedience, begotten by the seed of the serpent, and travelling towards the land of confusion, that they may arrive at the anger of god; and because the word is made so contemptible in these days, i shall endeavour for the strengthening of some, and the confirming of others, to give you some reasons, wherefore the things contained in the bible, are the word of god. and first, by the works of creation, it doth appear that this is a truth; for if the lord hath taken so much care of the works of creation to preserve them, do you think that his care will be less to preserve his word? doth not he magnify his name, and his word above all things? psal. 138. 2. and hath he not more care of his word with the letters and syllables thereof, then of the stars of heaven? for if his care be so great to preserve the works of creation; how much more shall his care be to preserve his word? whereby his name and power might be known to all nations. 2 if the letter and word of the old testament were not true, then what privilege had the jews which the apostle speaks of in rom. 3. 1. 2. that unto them were committed the oracles of god: now what praise is to the jews, if their oracles were not true? then they had little privilege above the gentiles, which is so much spoken of; for if the letter and word be corrupted, than what was their privilege above other nations? 3 these sixteen hundred years, and more, since the jews have been cast off from being the church of god, and have been scattered for their sins upon the face of the whole earth, and have been the greatest enemies to the gospel of any people; and yet for all this, it cannot be proved that they have corrupted the scripture, but that the hebrew text remaineth as it was in the apostles days; and shall we think that they were less careful in former times when they were the church of god? for they have been these many years so careful, that if any fault escaped the scribe, that book was not allowed to be read in their synagogue, until it were corrected: for they have these rules, that if the book of the law want but a letter; or if the form of any letter be not perfect, it was for children, and not for church. maim in sepher torah c. 10. 4 what is 70 years to corrupt all copies; when as a copy written on parchment as their manner was, will endure many 70 years entire? jeremiah, with some jews, remained a while in the land; and ezekiel, daniel, with many godly men that were in babylon, with ezra that learned priest, and scribe, came with the people out of babylon, and they had also other prophets amongst them, as haggai, zachariah, and malachi; and how do you think that the word should be corrupted, having such a glorious company, both of prophets, scribes, and wise men? whereby it doth appear, that the scripture is not corrupted, but doth remain the word of god. 5 doth not christ reprove the priests, and scribes, with the pharisees, for corrupting the law by wrong interpretation, as you may see, matth. 5. 15. and 23? now it doth appear, if they had violated and falsified the scriptures, that christ would have reproved them for it; would not christ have told them saying, you have falsified the scripture? but he doth not, and therefore it doth appear that the scriptures are true. 6 if the scriptures of the old testament had been false, would christ have exhorted them to have read the scriptures, luke 16 john 5. 2 pet. 1? if they had been wrong, would not christ and his apostles have left a perfect canon of the word to the church, and to all the world? but we see that christ doth confirm the law in every point, mat. 5. 18. and therefore it doth appear that the bible is true. 7 it cannot appear that the bible should be corrupted since, for besides the apostles, there were many thousand of learned jews, and the churches of the jews that came to profess the gospel, act. 21. 20. james 1. 1. and the truth being so gloriously planted, that it doth appear that the word could not be corrupted since. 8 it doth appear that the bible is the word of god, because it holds out holiness more than any book in the world; for there is no book in the world parallel with it, in respect of holiness, whereby it doth appear that it is the word of god. 9 it doth appear that the scriptures in the original text are the word of god, because they hold forth a selfdenying creature, more than any book besides in the world; and therefore it doth appear that it is the word of god. 10 there is nothing in the world that doth discover the wicked ways of men more than the scripture doth, and therefore it doth appear that it is the word of god, because there is no book more excellent to discover the wickedness of the creature. 11 in respect of the matter of the scripture, whereby it doth appear to be the word of god, for there cannot be more glorious matter for the creature to be centred upon, whereby it doth appear to be the word of god. 12 the right justice and judgement in the word doth make it appear to be the word of god, in holding forth such pure justice and judgement as all the books in the world cannot, nor do not hold forth the same, whereby it doth appear to be the word of god. 13 gods preservation of the scriptures in all ages doth make it appear that it is the word of god, so as all the enemies thereof were not able to destroy it, nor yet are, although the scriptures have had many thousands of enemies; and being so wonderfully preserved in all ages, against all opposers, doth make it appear that it is the word of god. 14 the scriptures, or bible doth appear to be the word of god, because those things that have been prophesied of therein, have come to pass in all ages, and things have fallen out in every age according to their several prophecies; and all this being so, doth make it plainly appear, that the scriptures are the word of god. 15 by the powerful effects that the word hath wrought, and doth yet work upon the hearts and consciences of men, as to avoid the evil, and to choose the good, doth make it appear to be the scripture of god, in respect of the wonderful effects that have been wrought thereby in all ages. 16 it doth appear it is not the word of the devil, because it doth discover his wicked names and titles, as also his wicked nature, with the terrible judgements that are prescribed against him, all which doth make it appear that it is the word of god; for most certain it is, that the devil would never speak against himself, to judge himself, were there not a greater to discover and to judge him, which is the word of god. 17 it doth appear that it is not the word of man, because it holds forth the wickedness of the creature; as also his eternal judgement; and most apparent it is, that the creature would never condemn himself eternally, were there not a greater to condemn him, which is the word of god▪ and now because those that deny the scriptures to be the word of god, are grounded upon nothing but their own dictates, which is the ground of their principles, whereby they say, they know all things; because they say, god is in them, and that they know that which god knows; therefore to the chiefest of these i shall prescribe some work, because they say, they know all things, to answer to these questions or queries: and, 1 whether is that precept, enjoined by christ, to go preach, and baptise? and if you say it is, then where, and when ceased? 2 whether doth not the visible creation hold forth a visible worship? and whether shall a visible worship cease until the visible creation cease? etc. richard stookes. finis. to the right honourable thomas adam's lord major of the metropolis of england, the renowned city of london. right honourable, the concurrent desires of people of all sorts, (except of such as raise their own particular interests out of the common ruins) for recovery of our peace, and the pant of many lying under the power of the oppressor for deliverance from war, have of late by the good hand of god upon our public counsels and forces, thriven up to hopes, and those hopes to presages, that it will be an honourable note upon your name in time to come, to have had the good hap within your view (before you give up to another the ensigns of your honour) which is the general vote of all the true hearted patriots of three kingdoms, that is a well compounded, and compacted happiness, made up of three of the most desirable blessings of humane society, which are consistent with the condition of mortality; and they are these, 1. a sincere and through reformation of religion, in doctrine and worship of god. 2. a discipline and government established according to god's word, and the example of the best reformed churches: whereby, with the assistance of divine grace, we may be better (than heretofore) secured from relapses into irreligion, heresy, schism, and profaneness, which have been the great crimes and curses of the last precedent, and present times, though (through the cunning workings of satan) the evils now in course (with some degrees of improvement from bad to worse) are taken by some to be the remedies against foregoing corruptions. 3. a third thing (which in order of dignity is the last, though in most men's affections it be the first) is, that according to the prescript prayer of the apostle, we may lead a quiet and peaceable life, 1 tim. ●. 1. he addeth in all godliness and honesty; but both these have been virtually premised in the two precedent particulars. this will be of so much the sweeter taste to all, as either by actual suffering, or by affectionate sympathy they have taken the deeper draught of the bitter cup of furious hostility. that none of this hopeful expectation may fail of effect, it will be requisite that every one (for his part and to his power) endeavour to make it good by all the good means, and helps, which conduce to the comfort and safety not of a few, but of the whole common weal, in each of the nations now so much shaken, and in danger also to be broken in pieces. 1. by making an holy covenant with god, and by being steadfast in the covenant when we have made it; so we may engage his favour, and power to our party, to be not only a friend, and patron to us, but an enemy to our enemies, and an adversary to our adversaries, exod. 23.22. 2. by being at union among ourselves, and studying as much to uphold it, as the seditious shebaes' on the other side plot the setting of discord betwixt the dearest brethren; and if it be not to be looked for, that all, who are equally concerned in the same cause, should unanimously consent in that course which may carry it on to desired success; yet there may be a fivefold union among us, which may give strength unto, and maintain the reputation of the great design it hand, viz. a through reformation both in church and state. the first union is of the two sister nations, according to our solemn league and covenant, which must be preferred before all either factions, or questuo●s interests of any particular party whatsoever. for as no two nations under heaven have more and stronger bonds of union, than we of england, and our brethren of scotland, being bounded, and surrounded by the sea, as one entire island, united under one king, under one title in the king's royal style [the king of great britain] united yet more in language, and religion and most of all in our late covenant for a general reformation of church and state, and mutual association and assistance against all malignant combinations; so nothing is more enviously observed by our common enemies than these many obligations of union betwixt us, nothing more cunningly contrived, or more seriously pursued by them, (and i wish some among ourselves had neither hearts, nor heads, nor hands in the plot) then to disjoin us, and to make us, not only perfidiously to fall off from performance of our common covenant, but with the same hands which we have lifted up to the most high god, to fall one upon another, as the confounded and accursed midianites, judg. 7. 2●. and when by such wickedness we are brought to a weakness, which may be easily subdued (but god forbidden, we should be both so bad, and mad as to act a tragedy upon ourselves, to set forth a comedy for such malicious spectators, as would make their greatest mirth of our most grievous misery) we must expect the execution of the bloody and destructive design, resolved on in ireland: which a knowing intelligencer hath reported of the rebels there in these words: * the irish remonstrance. p. 31. this kingdom, viz. ireland, settled and peopled only with sound catholics, thirty thousand men must be sent into england to join with th●●rench and spanish forces; and the service in england perfor●●, than they will jointly fall upon scotland for the reducing of that kingdom to the obedience of the pope, which being finished they have engaged themselves for the king of spain, for assisting him against the hollanders. wherein, though they reckon without the lord of hosts, who only commands both peace and war at his pleasure, and swayeth the success to which side he will, yet this discovers their design of unpartial perdition of the protestant party; and the discovery thereof should be a motive of more confirmed union among ourselves. the second union is that of the parliament and city; whereof we have had such happy experience, ever since the unhappy hostility betwixt the flatterers of the king, and friends of the kingdom, that we are bound to bless god for it, and to pray for the continuance of it, both for our own time, and for the ages to come. the third is the union of the parliament and assembly of divines; whose recipr●call, and proportionable respects, (which i mean not in an arithmetical, but in a geometrical proportion) give much countenance and authority to what is propounded to the people in their names; for so the command of the one will be more awful, the advice, direction, and resolution of the other more useful, throughout the whole kingdom. a fourth union is betwixt the assembly of divines and the city ministers; who may the more easily accord and agree together, because many of them be but the same men under several relations; and most of them are swayed by the same principles of truth and piety, and involved in a society and participation of the same duties, hopes, and hazards. the fifth union is betwixt the city magistracy and the city ministry, to which both ingenuous, and religious correspondence doth dispose them; for no where in the protestant churches (so fare as i have read or received by report) are good ministers better accepted of, or more respectively used, then in this city, nor by any citizens more than by those who are most worthy of honour; and is cannot but be the desire, as well as the duty, of godly ministers, to advance them as much as may be in the estimation of the people; and to press upon them obedience according to their duty, and dependence, for conscience sake. and though it be obvious to common observation, how much the magistrates favour maketh for the minister's honour, and succour, it is not unknown, nor unobserved by the wise, that the ministers have been very serviceable to the civil state, and to the military too, not only by their supplications to god, for good success to all their public undertake, and their happy proceed in all their warlike marches, and motions, as at the removal of the ark. numb. 10.35. rise up lord, and let thine enemies be scattered, let them that hate thee flee before thee; but by their informations, and solicitations of the people, to engage both their estates, and persons, in the cause of god, and their country: and i could name such at have b●●● looked on by the blood sh●tten ●yes of professed enemies, and feigned by them (by way of most hateful repr●ach) at the authors of the rebellion of whole counties, that is, (in the true sense of their charge) the persuaders of them, not to betake themselves to a divided party, but to unite in the union of the king and parliament. and i am sure that some of them who have been envied, and reviled in print (by libellous schismatics) as growing rich upon the revenues of fat sequestrations, (when by a just account they have come short of a competent subsistence) have been offered both riches and honour in the king's name, by persons of eminent degree, to employ their parts in his majesty's service (the terms were no worse, the intention likely not so good) and have modestly, and yet resolutely refused them, than when it seemed both most profitable, and honourable to accept them, and not a little dangerous to withstand rewards, when there was power to call for observance by minatory commands. and it was then an advantage visible enough, which the king had above the parliament (as the pope hath above a council) that the disposal of church dignities was held in right, and exercised in fact, as a branch of the royal prerogative; whence arose the proverb which made so many ecclesiastical courtiers, no fishing to the sea, no service to the king; and by the power and court countenance that such had over the inferior ministers, both they by the prelatical clergy, and the people by them were made more obsequious and serviceable to whatsoever constitutions, and impositions, which came upon them, whether from the civil or ecclesiastical authority. and though we have cause to multiply our benedictions, as david did, 1 sam. 25. ●2, 33. blessed be god, and blessed be the parliament, and blessed be their advice, not only to themselves, but to all the kingdom, that the heavy yoke of the domineering hierarchy is taken off our necks, yet betwixt the magistrates and the people, the godly ministers of the kingdom (and ordinarily the ministers of this city especially (for the synod of divines is an extraordinary assembly) will be always as least instrumentally profitable for the promoting, and upholding of a conformity and commodious correspondence on both sides, according to the relations, wherein for the glory of god, and the public welfare they are mutually obliged to each other. in proposal of these particulars to your lordship, i shall not be thought to present you with an impertinent discourse, by any thus will consider bow much the union of three kingdoms depends upon the union of this metropolis, or mother city with the parliament above it, the ministry within it, and all the sister cities, and daughter towns and villages round about it; and how much the union of this city now depends upon your honour, and i doubt not but that by god's special providence your honour was reserved for such a time as this, when by a prudent, and zealous, and authoritative endeavour for the cure of the manifold distractions among us, you may be a blessed means to keep off the destruction from us, which is threatened by our saviour to a kingdom, (and there is the like danger to any either city or family) given over to division, matth. 12.25. wherein your lordship and your venerable colleagues may have the deepest share in suffering, according to the measure of your eminent prelations in honour, and estate, above ordinary citizens, if (which god forbidden) violent and unruly spirits should not be circumscribed with the virge of your awful authority. to this end though the presbyterian government may be very subservient, and the ministers of the city will be always ready, (as their faculties furnish them with ability, and their duties oblige them with diligence) to serve your honour, yet since that is set up but in part, and for a good part subject to dispute, (as your power is not, for it is wholly complete, and no way questionable) the through reformation of this spacious and populous city, next under god, and the parliament, will more depend upon your head for counsel, your heart for affection, and your hand for execution, then on any humane help or means, whatsoever it be. and if in regard of newly emergent mischiefs, (for satan infus●th into his agents new fancies, and devices, and stirreth them up to dangerous innovations every day) you find not ready remedies for all present, or imminent evils, within the bounds of your municipal charters, you are so near the wellhead, and spring of civil government (the legislative senate at westminster) that you may easily, and speedily procure a supplement of power, for any service that may conduce to the safety of the parliament, and city, and (with both) by consequential operation, and virtual influence, of many millions of subjects within the three kingdoms, united in the most sacred bond of our solemn covenant; which may with more ingenuity be desired, and with more facility be obtained, because thereby the parliament itself may be the better secured, both from contempt, and tumult, which may justly be feared from such an insolent, and violent generation of fanaticke, and some frantic enthusiasts, and other fiery spirited separatists, who account it the height of their evangelicall zeal, to bring down the highest and most eminent worthies of the state for true piety, prudence, dignity, and power, under the feet of confused anarchy, and popularity. wherein that they mean to make no reserves of reverence for the supreme senate of the kingdom, nor to allow any protection by privileges of parliament, is clearly discovered in that most seditious pamphlet (besides many others) called england's birthright. for notwithstanding the present, pressing, and imperious necessities of the commonweal, requiring the raising of supplies in extraordinary ways for its own support, and preservation from perpetual ruin, and notwithstanding the exemplary justice of the parliament, upon their own members of both houses, (to which may be added to their glory, and the kingdom's comfort, their most just and impartial provision against oppression of the people, either by themselves, or their substituted committees) the libellous (and in respect of some passages of his book, i may say blasphemous) author, taking no notice of any thing that may be justly pleaded for the proceed of parliament, labours to represent them to the people as a combination of most grievous, and ●ngratefull oppressors. i will set down his own words, but so as the scripture doth the blasphemies of satan, or rabshakeh, and other such like * the word cometh of saraph, which signifieth to burn, and of that is derived the noun saraph, (with the only difference of a long vowel for a short) which is used for a fiery serpent, isa. 14.29. seraphical slanderers, that they may be as odious, as their disposition is dangerous to all good men, if they had as much power in their hands, as there is gall in their hearts, their tongues, and pens; the title of this out-lashing libel is set down in these words. * for an antidote against such calumnies see m. prinnes book entitled the liar confounded. england's birthright justified against all arbitrary usurpation, whether regal or parliamentary, or under what vizor so ever. with divers queries, observances, and grievances of the people, declaring this parliaments proceed to be directly contrary to those fundamental principles, whereby their actions at fast were justifiable against the king, in their present illegal deal with those that have been their best friends, advancers, and preservers: and in other things of high concernment, to the freedom of all the freeborn people of england. what ever the man is, the b●●ke is no hypocrite, for it i● th●s●●● within, which it seemeth without. for page the 33. he putteth this qu●re (and his queres are implicit resolutions on the wrong side.) whether is it not agreeable to law, justice, equity, and conscience, that there should be a parliament once every year, and more often if need require? whereby he meaneth that this parliament hath sat too long already, for a little after he chargeth them, that many of the members have betrayed their trust, and those that remain engross law-making, and also law-executing into their own hands, contrary both to reason and to the true intent and meaning of the law; and within a few lines, he goeth on thus: by which manifest abusing, negligent, and not true using the laws, oppressions, mischiefs, and grievances are no less (if not fare more) increased than they were before the parliament began; and many times by the powerful interest of a faction in the parliament, to save some one, two, or three of their members undeserving credits, they so violate the known, unrepealed, and declared law of the land, yea and their own votes, ordinances, declarations, and protestations, as if they had never made them; i say all these things considered, ought not the freemen of england, who have laboured in these destroying times, both to preserve the parliament, and their own native freedoms, and birthrights, not only to choose new members, where they are wanting, once every year, but also to renew and inquire once a year, after the behaviour, and carriage of those they have chosen. and having page 44. aggravated the condition of the times by taxes and impositions, instancing in the trade of ha●makers, he concludes with this enclamation (which may serve for an incentive to seditions tumult) o ●ruell, pitiful, and intolerable bondage, no longer to be endured, suffered, or undergone, the burden being heavier than the poor labourers can bear! and that we may know of how lawless a sect himself in, and those whom ●e pleads for, he pr●fesseth himself a litter enemy to lawyers, first 〈◊〉 the writer of a lose sheet of paper, under the title of advertisements for the new election of burgesses for the house of commons (by the name of a worthy author) as a caveat against filling up elections with such kind of men, making the knowledge of the law of noose for making of a statesman, since it is, saith he, a confined and topical kind of learning, calculated only for the meridian of westminster hall, and reaching no furthen then to dover; for transplant a common lawyer to calais, and his head is no more useful there, than a sundial in a grave. whereas it is notorious to the world that sundry * as the l. ver. m. i. seld. will. pr. (and some others) whose excellently learned labo● praise them i● the gates. professed legists have been qualified with other learning, and that both with great variety, and in an eminent degree, above other men. having impeached their heads, he cometh down to their hearts, and hands, and taxeth these for ill conscience, as the other for ignorance. lawyers (saith he) being a bold, and talkative kind of men, will intrude themselves into the chairs of all committees, where (being accustomed to take fees) they will underhand protect delinquents, and their concealed estates with tricks and devises. he knoweth sure very little of the manner of committees; for no man can thrust himself into such an employment, but is thrust into it by the major part of the committee; but there needs none apology, where the antilogy is none other than a most rash and unreasonable calumny; and my present purpose is but to note how headstrong and unruly, how refractory to government, and law, the sectaries are already; to what an height of insolence would they grow, if (which they press for) they should be permitted a toleration by public authority? it may be some among them in time would take upon them as the proud and rude rebel wat tyler, in richard the seconds time, who presumed, among other most lewd and impudent demands, to * s. daniel continuation of the history ad rich. k 2. p. 5. propound this for one, that all law might be abolished, affirming with an execrable oath, before night all the law of england should pass through this straight, (clapping his hand upon his mouth.) but i must take my hand from this table, lest i trespass against the public interest, in detaining your honour too long in beholding this sciographie or shadow-draught of pernicious sectaries, sixce it is a time rather of action, then of speculation; and yet if your honour have any spare hours for further information in the various, and dangerous turn, and wind of the spirits of error, (whom satan in these last and worst times hath sent out, not by couples, as our saviour sent out his disciples, mar. 6.7. but almost by legions, to seduce simple souls, to trouble our public peace, and to reproach and retard the reformation desired) i should make bold to offer to your view an * m. robert bailiff his dissuasive from the errors of the time; wherein the tenets of the principal sect of the independ: are drawn together in one map: printed for sam. gellibrand at the brazen serpent in paul's churchyard. exact delineation, or description of the whole body of schismatical, and heretical novelty, drawn by a very skilful and faithful hand, and newly published to undeceive the english, especially the people of the city, of whom many are miserably misled, and more will be, if both magistrates and ministers do not watchfully overlook them, and seriously sot themselves to prevent their increase: wherein your lordship's prudence, and power, (beginning betime, and continuing your care in a proportionable tenor, until your office expire, (which is the expectation of all that know the solidity of your judgement, and stability of your spirit) may prevail very much, though it be but for an year; for how great matters in how short a time have been attempted and accomplished by that worthy general sr. thomas fairfax, undertaking, and prosecuting the war (with a courageous and constant resolution) not as a trade to enrich himself, but as a remedy to deliver his country, from partly present, and partly imminent miseries? and for that purpose your lordship's sword in the city may be of very great use, as his in the field; and that with both the sword of the lord may be associated, as with the sword of gideon, judg. 7.18. and his power may still support your state, protect your person, and promote your proceed to most happy success, is the hearty desire, and shall be the daily prayer of your honour's most humble servant, john ley. an advertisement to the reader to prevent mistaking in the variety of petitions. in the postscript of the late answer to mr. burton from aldermanburic, entitled the door of truth opened, there is an apologetical reply to his tart reproof of a london petition in these words: there is one thing that mr. burton mentioneth in the * pag. 2. ante med. narrative, which though it concerns not aldermanburic, yet we must not wholly bury it in silence, and that is concerning the late large petition for the speedy establishment of religion: of which he speaks very dishonourably, as also of the petitioners, as of men led with blind obedience, and pinning their souls upon the priest's sleeve. we leave it to the petitioners to answer for themselves. for our parts we conceive that no reader, unless blinded with prejudice, can charge them with blind obedience. for the petitioners do not desire to have the model of that reverend assembly established, but the government of christ established, a model whereof, etc. these words, a model whereof, etc. come in with a parenthesis, and the sentence is complete without them, all that they affirm about the model is that the reverend assembly hath framed a model of the government of christ according to their ability, and presented it to the parliament. and who but he that hath pinned his faith upon an independents sleeve, can except against this? but if mr. burton be displeased with the model of the reverend assembly, we would entreat him that he at last, after so long expectation, would set forth his model. which some have mistaken, conceiving both parties speak of the late petition sent from the common council of london, whereas there be these differences betwixt them. 1. that petition is of a different style, tenor, and date from this of the common council, for it was brought forth to light before this later was conceived. 2. that hath the parenthesis (a model whereof the assembly of divines, etc.) specified in the exception and answer; the petition of the common council hath no such clause in it, as i am informed, for yet i have not seen it. 3. that was never presented by the petitioners to the parliament, this of the common council was. 4. the petition of the common council was not printed, that was priuted, both in a single sheet, and in the book called truth it's manifest, p. 130. which i note in this place, because having denied that the petition of the common council was yet printed, a gentleman of quality said, he would show it me presently, and produced for proof the book forementioned. 5. lastly, the former petition had not so good acceptance with the parliament, as the later partly hath had, and partly may be further hoped for, when the honourable houses have opportunity to make their return unto it. the contents. section i. of the author and title page of the quere, and deter mination upon it. page 1. sect. ii. of the title page. p. 3. sect. iii. the matter and scope of the quere, and resolution upon it. p. 7. sect. four reasons against the present settling of government taken from conscience, answered. p. 12. sect. v. the argument against the speedy settling of church government taken from example of the new testament in general, answered. p. 14. sect. vi. the argument against the speedy establishment of church government taken from christ's description, answered. p. 17. sect. vii. master colemans' experimental exceptions against the severity and rigour of the presbyterial government, answered. p. 20. sect. viii. the argument against the speedy setting up of the presbyterial government taken from christ's practice, answered. p. 23. sect. ix. reasons taken from rules and considerations of prudence, answered. p. 26. sect. x. the negative argument taken from want of experience of the new clergy, answered. p. 32. sect. xi. objections against the reasons for the not establishing church government, propesed, and answered, as objections against m. saltm. his tenet in the quere, with replies to his answers. the first observation, his answer and the reply unto it. p. 36. sect. xii. objection second, answered; with a reply to that answer. p. 38. sect. xiii. an additional answer to some exceptions of m. saltm. (taken out of m. prins vindication) against the present establishment of church government, in his late book entitled, the opening of m. prins new book called a vindication. p. 45. sect. xiiii. the objections taken from a supposed needlessness of the presbytery, answered. p. 47 sect. xv. of m. colemans' interi●ist is all magistracle. p. 51. sect. xvi. the objection of eager contestation for church discipline, and 〈…〉 p. 53. sect. xvii. the objection of inefficacy for holiness of life in such as live under the presbytery, answered. p. 57 sect. xviii. showing what might be retorted upon the antipresbyteriall party, but concluding for unity and peace with allegation of m. burroughs his propositions of reconciliation and accord: and some other particulars tending thereto. p. 61. sect. xix. further grounds and hopes of union in the churches of the sister kingdoms of england and scotland, with answers to the objections that are made against it. p. 64. sect. xx. an appendix to the precedent examination, being an apologetical narrative of the petitions of the common council of the city, and ministers of london, presented to both the honourable houses of parliament the 19 and 20. days of november, 1645. with a vindication of them, and the proceed in them from the scandalous aspersions of the weekly pamphleteers, especially of him who miscalls himself the moderate intelligencer. p. 71. sect. xxi. the occasion of the petitions of the common council and ministers of london, and the presenting of them to the honourable houses of parliament. p. 77. sect. xxii. the offensive acceptance of them by the parliament as the weekly newes-makers falsely report it: cautions premised before their confutation. p. 79. sect. xxiii. a copy of the ministers petition, and the intelligencers scandalous censure upon it. p. 84. sect. xxiiii. britanicus taxed for traducing the petitioners. p. 89. sect. xxv. an answer to the intelligencers commination of the petitioners. p. 92. sect. xxvi. the misreport of the diurnal and weekly account confuted, and the lose sheet called perfect passages convinced of absurdity and sedition. p. 93. the conclusion. p. 97. the postscript, or after reckoning with the moderate intelligencer, and mercurius britanicus. p. 99 errata. page 70. lin. 10. after the word taken in the parenthesis read the words and indeed it is, and blot them out in the following line: pag. 84. lin. 2. after the word trial, for of read to: & lin. 3 after the word plainly for to read as: & p. 97. lin. 20. after the word lives read long: & lin. 21. for it was a read upon this: & p. vit. marg. after the word called put out lilbi●ues. an examination and resolution of the new quere. sect. i. of the author, and title page of the quere; and determination, upon it. of the author i have not much to say, save that when he was sent for examination to the committee of divines, i found him well qualified for parts, and gifts, to be employed in the ministry; and as he was entertained by us with beseeming civility and courtesy, so did he carry himself towards us with an ingenuous modesty; and we met, and parted with mutual acceptation: after that, he was pleased to own me as his friend, and to honour me as his censor, with a request to peruse some papers of his which he intended to publish; yet to this day i never saw them, unless they were graduates from his pen to the press; and so i might read them, and not know them to be the same: whether he changed his mind concerning his own pains, or my perusal, or wanted a convenient opportunity to bring, or send them unto me, i cannot resolve, nor will i conjecture; but i will take his invitation of me to play the critic with him, for some more authority to examine his divulged dictates, than others have, who have none other interest in them then that of an ordinary reader. upon this intercourse betwixt us, having heard adverse opinions, and reports of his impression, in the present difference of discipline, i thought i had acquaintance enough with him, to put a question to him, whether he were an independent or no? (a title by some of our dissenting brethren a that proud and insolent title of independency was affixed unto us, as our claim, the very sound of which conveighes to all men's apprehensions the challenge of an exemption from all subjection and dependence; or rather a trumpet of defiance against whatsoever power, spiritual or civil; which we do abhor and detest. apolog. narrat. p. 21. abhorred, by others b mr. whites book which he calls truth gloriously appearing, etc. in the title page and fol. 2. pag. 1. of the epistle dedicatory, and fol. 2. p. 1. of the epistle to the reader. owned, and honoured) he told me, he was not, but that he had a latitude of charity for them of that way; and so have i also. since this answer, i had some glimpse of more inclination in him to that side, than he acknowledged before, by his dawnings of light, which have lately shone forth to a full discovery of his mind, in his book which he calleth the opening of master prins vindication; wherein he hath laid himself so open to the view of them that read it, that none of them can doubt but he is an independent at least, and at best not well affected to the discipline so much desired, (as in the first page of his new quere he hath phrased it) for in his epistle dedicatory, to the worthily much honoured major general skippon, he makes the controversy of these times to be but this, that some would walk more close with christ, some can be content like peter to walk at more distance, and to follow him afar off, and to stand warming themselves with the multitude in the common-hall; and let the world judge betwixt us, which is of best report. who he means by such as walk close with christ, and who by those that walk at more distance, we may gather by his answer to the vindication, c pag. 24. of the opening. where he saith, that our parishes are not constituted, nor yet the government, according to the gospel's order; which he refers, for their original, (by way of reproach) to dionysius bishop of rome, anno 276. and in england to honorius bishop of canterbury, while he endeavours to prove the particular d a. p. 33. ad pag. 37. gatherings, and separations of congregational meetings to be a fruit of the spiritual antipathy betwixt grace & nature, flesh & spirit, and that their pure and unmixed communion is the ordinance of christ; of which (after he hath laid a charge upon the presbyterial churches) he saith, as i know not any such things among them, so i will make none apology for them, because that would bring them within the compass of some thing like a crime, and i know nothing but well by them: by which comparative censure he bewrayeth himself to be partial to one side, and prejudicial to the other; and to that i profess myself a servant, whereto he showeth himself to be no friend; yet in defence thereof, i will not entertain him as an enemy; for my genius hath always been very averse from jars, and it is the less disposed to quarrel with him, because i see he dealeth not so harshly with mr. prin, as most of those polemical penmen have done, who have written against him; and to give him his due, in all that i have seen set forth in his name, i find him rather opiniative, than passionate, and more luxuriant in new notions of his brain, then exorbitant in the passions, or perturbations of his spirit. i premise thus much, that you may not mistake my mind in my contestation with him in this cause, as if i took him for an enemy, because he telleth what he taketh to be a truth; for whatsoever different apprehensions we have in our heads, i wish we may have nothing in our hearts, which may tend to effect, or foment any alienation of affection betwixt us. for it is my desire, and shall be always a part of my care, that while i seek after a controverted truth, i may not turn aside from a certain duty; which is, in meekness to deal with a brother that is contrary minded; so fare as may not prove to the prejudice of what in conscience i am bound to undertake, and to manage also to the best advantage. this for the author and for the title page besides (for the author's name is a part of it) it is as followeth. sect. ii. of the title page. a new quere at this time seasonably to be considered, as we tender the advancement of truth and peace. he knew very well how the athenian humour of listening after news prevaileth with our people of all sorts; and therefore being to fish in troubled waters, he puts upon his hook that bait, at which it was like many would be nibbling. next he saith, it is at this time seasonably to be considered, as we tender the advancement of truth and peace. he commends his new query to acceptance in two respects: 1. as seasonable. 2. as much importing the advancement of truth and peace. for the first; he saith it is at this time seasonably to be considered. so it is, now it is published; but it was very unseasonably offered: and i marvel that he, who hath written a whole book of policy, should be so unpoliticke as to think it seasonable, to set forth such a quere, and so to resolve it; such it tends to retard the establishment of government, whereto the parliament is so much engaged, not only for the thing itself, but for a timely proposition, and imposition of it by their civil sanction. for the first, that they intent to set up a church government, we have it, 1. from their express profession, december 15. 1641. we do here declare, that it is fare from our purpose or desire to let lose the golden reins of discipline, and government in the church, to leave private persons, or particular congregations to take up what form of service they please; for we hold it requisite, that there should be throughout the whole realm a conformity in that order, which the laws enjoin according to the word of god. so in the first remonstrance of the honourable house of commons. pag. 25. 2. from the first article of the solemn league and covenant, published by authority of parliament, september 21. 1643. wherein they, and all others that take it, do covenant to endeavour the reformation of religion in the kingdoms of england and ireland, in doctrine, worship, discipline, and government, according to the word of god, and the example of the best reformed churches. 3. this covenant was ordered again by the honourable house of commons, januarie 29. 1644. to be publicly read every fast day, and to be set up in every congregation in a fair table, where every one may read it; and to this are set the names of master speaker, and 243. more of the honourable house of commons. and for the second, that they mean to expedite the settling of government with all convenient speed, we have good cause to conceive. 1. because they have bestowed already very many days in consultation about it. 2. they insist in the same consultations still. 3. they (according to the eminence of their wisdom) apprehend many and great evils, that grow both in number, and power, by doctrines of libertinism, which necessarily require the restraint of a reformed church government. 4. they have already set it up. 1. in their ordinance of ordination, set forth the last year. 2. in an ordinance for making london a province this last year, dividing it into several classes, and for choosing a committee for trial of elders to be chosen, and rules to be observed for orderly proceeding in the same; and this before this quere came forth. 3. since that, they have advanced further, by a vote and order for choosing elders forthwith in particular congregations. 4. and last of all, they have published an ordinance, with rules and directions for suspension from the sacrament, in cases of ignorance and scandal. yet they cannot make that speed with the government, which by most is desired, and very much desired by themselves (as we of the assembly can witness, who have often been sent to by that honourable senate to quicken our work, and to ripen our debates to a full resolution) because as with us the liberty of speaking (wherein every one is free to propose, and prosecute any doubt) prolonged the government in our hands; so the like liberty in the honourable houses (or rather our liberty is like theirs, it being the prototypon) lengthens the debates, and delays the votes of that most honourable senate; and so much the more, because they are more in number than we in our synod; and because their determinations are final, as ours are not. and though that which is published do not yet reach home to our full satisfaction, we hope it is in the way towards further perfection; which cannot reasonably be expected in the first essays of frames, and forms of government; for we may say of jerusalem as well as of rome, that it was not built in a day, though in time it became the perfection of beauty, the joy of the whole earth, lam. 2.15. such we pray god that fabric may prove, which is under the hands of our honourable and holy nehemiahs; and lord polish, finish, and establish the work in their hands, yea the work of their hands establish thou it, psal. 90.17. the other particular he propounds to make his quere more plausible, is the reference it hath to two precious things, viz. truth and peace; both which are upheld by government, church-government; and without it, for truth we have abundance of errors, and heresies broached among us, which divide men into manifold sects and factions; and where they are multiplied, there can be no peace, without a treacherous toleration, which will resolve at last into an anarchy and confusion. having premised this, he putteth his quere thus. whether it be fit according to the principles of true religion, and state, to settle any church-government over the kingdom hastily, or not; and with the power commonly desired, in the hands of the ministers. first, he putteth the case according to the principles of religion, and state: which if he had well considered, he might have thought the parliament for the one, and the assembly of divines for the other, (competently qualified, each in their profession, for resolution of such a doubt, especially since it is a chief part of the public work of them both, to drive it to its issue) might have prevented such a quere as this, from a private divine. secondly, he suggests a suspicion, as if the parliament were driving on the discipline and government of the church in jehu's chariot, with furious haste, whereas both parliament, and assembly have much ado, to ward off imputations of procrastination, and delay; for debating so long, and determining so little, whereof we have rendered the reasons before. thirdly, he presents it as a gravamen, or of some dangerous consequence, that the power should be put in the hands of the ministers, whereas ministers put in for no more power as their due, either from the magistrate, or over the people, then is consonant to the scripture, and the principles of prudence; and if less than that be allowed them, since it is from god, and for god, not for themselves, god rather than they will be unworthily dealt withal; and if it be commonly desired, (as he saith) it is the less liable to his, or any man's exception. hereto having put his name, (which to me is of a savoury relish, by what i have tasted of his other writings) he closeth up his title page with the testimony of the apostle, 2 cor. 10.8. in these words, our authority (which the lord hath given us for instruction, not for destruction); the ordinary reading or rendering of the original word according to the literal sense, is edification; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. but he refused that, and took the word instruction, which is metaphorical; either because he thought the paranomasia more pleasant to the reader, or less profitable for the ministers claim to church-government; for edification importeth more power than instruction doth; and he thought there would have been too strong an intimation of authority in the first substantive of his quotation if it had not been allayed with a weaker word than the grammatical construction bringeth with it: and for the other word destruction, if it be taken in a symbolical sense to his resolution of the quere, it implieth two things, which are of strong prejudice against the government of the church: 1. that it is a destructive thing, 2. that being such, it should neither be set up by the magistrate, nor exercised by the minister, nor received by the people: whereas indeed the severest act of discipline is salutary, and preservative to the better part of man; and though it be destructive to the worse, it is not to be rejected, but co nomine to be admitted; both these we make good by the authority of the same apostle he citeth, though not in the same epistle, deliver such a one unto satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the lord jesus, 1 cor. 5.5. this for the title page of this new quere. sect. iii. the matter and scope of the quere, and resolution upon it. now for the discourse itself, the drift whereof is to prove the negative; viz. that it is not fit, according to the principles of religion and state, te settle any church government over the kingdom, etc. for this he pleads in eleven paragraphs, which stand for so many reasons for support of his opinion; but they are set out rather with a rhetorical breadth, than a logical strength; and he seeks to cover the truth with a broad hand, which he cannot crush with his clutched fist. i will endeavour to present them rather according to the natural vigour (be it more or less) that is in them, then according to the artificial colour he hath put upon them; about which the matter of greatest difficulty is to marshal them in a right method, which must be mine, though the reasons be his, and yet it shall be so fare his, as may consist with good sense, and the order of proceeding: and therefore i will divide them into the two heads, to which his title page directeth me: into reasons 1. of religion, and they are taken 1. from faith. 2. from conscience. 1. positively, misguided to a popish compliance. 2. negatively, not working any good upon the conscience. 3. from christian examples 1. in general, of the new testament. 2. in particular, from the example 1 of christ his 1. description. 2. practice. 2. of his apostles. 2. of policy, taken from 1. rules or considerations of prudence, which are three. 1. the more time for trying of spirits, and proving of all things, there is the less danger to that state of erring in things received and authorised, etc. 2. there is no religion established by state but there is some proportion in the two powers, etc. 3. our parties or dissenting brethren being now together and clasped by interest against the common enemic, this foundation of common unity is such, as may draw in both affections and judgements, if not too suddenly determined, etc. 2. examples of practice 1. negatively. 2. positively. the first reason, (taken from the rules of faith) because it is the clearest and cometh nearest to his negative conclusion, though it stand too fare off either to build, or uphold it. i will propound his own words, the rules laid down in the word for practical obedience are * § 1. p. 3. these in part, let every one be fully persuaded in his own mind, rom. 14.5. and, whatsoever is not of faith is sin, vers. 23. now the settling of any government upon a people who are yet generally untaught in the nature and grounds of it, is to put upon them the practice of that wherein it is impossible they can be persuaded in their mind, and so either on a necessity of sin, or misery. answ. if mr. s. had minded, as he ought, what he was to prove, he should have planted his reason directly against the enjoining, or imposing of a government, rather than against obedience to it; and so the scriptures alleged should have been made remoraes to the erecting of a government, thus: those that set up a government whereof they are not fully persuaded in their mind, and which they cannot do in faith, do sin. but they that now set up a church government, with power commonly desired in the hands of ministers, do set up a government whereof they are not fully persuaded in their minds; therefore in so doing they sin. the mayor proposition hath warrant from the forecited places; but the minor is that wherein the weight or weakness of the argument doth consist; and that cannot be proved, nor can, without breach of charity, be supposed of such as have taken so long time, made use of so many learned and faithful counselors (discussing and resolving all points of difficulty by the scripture) to be sound grounded both in conscience, and prudence, for what they set forth, touching the government of the church. secondly, if we take this reason to stand immediately against obedience, and consequently against commands or impositions, it will be somewhat more formal, but every whit as feeble, thus: that whereof every one (under government) cannot be persuaded in his own mind, and whereto he cannot yield 〈◊〉 obedience of faith, may not be set up or settled in the church. but of the government of the church, with the power commonly desired, every one under government cannot be fully persuaded in his mind, nor submit to it of faith; and therefore it may not be set up, or cannot at all be set up without sin. here the minor proposition granted, the mayor must be denied: for it is flatly repugnant to religion and reason, and makes as much against the former protestations of the parliament, and the late covenant of three kingdoms; yea against all assurances of either kind, as against the government in question; for there will be always some that will be scrupled with any thing that is publicly established. object. but saith he, * § 1. p. 3. the people are generally unt aught in the nature, and grounds of this church government; and therefore to put upon them the practice of that whereof it is impossible they can be fully persuaded in their minds, is to put them upon a necessity either of sin or of misery; to which, the answer is so easy and ready, that it may be some matter of marvel an ingenious man (as mr. saltmarsh is) should make such an objection; for 1. the church government desired, is no other than (for the chief parts of it) hath good warrant from the word of god. 2. for what is of less moment, if it be not directly deduced out of scripture, it is not repugnant to the scripture, but agreeable to grounds of prudence, and the example of the best reformed churches. 3. for the practice of government, it belongeth not to the people's part (as he puts the case), to be active in it; but to the ministers, and elders, and they are not to enter upon the exercise of their authority before they be sufficiently informed in it: and thence it is that (though there be an order given for it): they that should officiate in it make a pause, and deliberate upon it, before they set upon the practice of it. 4. for the people, so fare as concerneth their compliance or correspondence with the government, they are to be instructed in it before they yield submission to it; for that purpose the government is proposed by parts, and by degrees, so as it may be best apprehended by all; and the preachers appointed to teach both the offices of the gevernours, and the duties of the people, so as each may perform his part without scruple, or doubting. 5. if any after this information out of weakness remain unsatisfied, be is not (as this writer resolveth) put upon such a dangerous dilemma, as either to make choice of sin by obeying, or of misery by refusal to obey; for such as (not out of wilfulness, or faction, but out of tenderness of conscience) cannot comply with the rule, are not presently to be ruled with the rod, 1 cor. 4.21. but with meekness to be instructed though they be contrary minded, 2 ti●i. 2.25. and with so much long-suffering and patience to be forborn, as may not be injurious to the truth of god, and prejudicial to the peace of the church. 6. whereas he would have the general ignorance of the people touching government a roason to suspend the setting of it up, it may rather be pleaded for expedition in the work; for if it be not set up, the people cannot know it practically; and while it is unknown unto them, it is impudently slandered by some, and impotently yielded by many others, to be injurious and tyrannical; whereas if it had been experimentally known as it is, it would have been before now both honourable, and amiable in the eyes of them, who are not prepossessed with prejudice against it. 7. for those two texts which he allegeth for deferring the government (and if there be any weight in them as to that purpose, they make against it not for a time only but for ever) i commend to his consideration, and wish he would preach and press to his people when the government is set up, (as i hope it shortly will be) or rather beforehand to prepare them for it, such scriptures as these; we beseech you brethren to know them which labour among you, and are over you in the lord, and admonish you: and to esteem them very highly in lo●e, for their works sake, 1 thes. 5.12, 13. let the elders that rule well be accounted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine, 1 tim. 5.17. remember. them which have the rule over you, who have spoken to you the word of god, heb. 13.7. & vers. 17. obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves, for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with i●y, and not with grief. thus much for his first paragraph, which may deserve the first place, and a fuller answer than any of the rest, because it brings more appearance of proof, both by scripture and reason, than any of the other. sect. four reasons against the present settling of government taken from conscience answered. the next reason for adjourning or putting off the government to a further time, is taken from conscience; and that in two respects. 1. in that the conscience hereby, that is, by a speedy setting up of government, is misguided to a compliance with a * § 2. p. 3. principle of popery against the nationall covenant. answ. it is very strange that any one, who remembreth the nationall covenant (as he taketh upon him to do that citeth it) wherein we are bound sincerely, really, and constantly to endeavour the reformation of religion in the kingdoms of england and ireland in discipline and government, in the first article of it, should from the same covenant plead for delay in the establishment thereof; and yet more strange, that he should do it under the title of popery, which in the next article of the covenant is disavowed; which (if his reasoning were right) were such a contradiction, as would argue the composers and penners of the covenant to be men of most pitiful simplicity. but wherein appeareth this popery? why, in * § 2. p. 3. bringing the people under a popish implicit obedience; and he confirms it by experience: * § 2. ibid. we know it by e●eperience (saith he) that the people have been ever devoted to any thing that the state sets up, all the disputes or conscience of the common people ending in this, whether it be established by law, or no; and going usually no higher, or further than a statute, or act of state for their religion. to which i answer. 1. for that he saith of implicit popish obedience, it is very impertinently applied to the discipline, or government in question; since (as i have showed in what i said to his first reason) it is so ordered already that therein instruction must preced, or go before observation; nor shall any one be bound to act in that particular any further than according to his light. 2. for his observation upon experience, it maketh as much against matter of doctrine as mats of discipline; and more against the authority of the parliament then the authority of ministers; since they, not ministers, make statutes, and establish laws; and if the people be so apt to idolise a statute, or an act of state, (but i believe they more often offend in defect then in exeesse of respect unto them) it will be the duty of such as have the legislative power (wherein he that finds the fault is fittest to do the office of an admonitor unto them) to suspend their authority for matter of religion, and to ordain and decree nothing of that subject to be received or observed. 2. a second reason, which hath reference to conscience, he brings in upon experience thus: * §. 5. p. 4. we have found by experience that the speedy settling of government upon a nation, hath made reformation take little root, save in the outward man, or formal obedience; because they received not reformation in the power of the word; but of the state, which went not so deep into the conscience but they could part with it at any time upon a law: and he concludes his observation with a pathetical interrogation: o then why do not days speak, and multitude of years teach knowledge? to this may be replied: 1. that if he mean it in respect of our own kingdom (and that experience is most like to come within his cognizance) the fault was not in the over-speedy settling of a government, but in the choice of a wrong government: viz. that of prelacy, which by an act and ordinance of parliament, and by the nationall covenant is cried down. 2. if when discipline is established, doctrine were abolished, or for a time suspended and silenced, there were some force in this exception of mr. saltmarsh; but doctrine goeth on where discipline cometh in; as a school master is at the same time in office both a teacher, and a corrector of his scholars; and so the power of the word may go deep into the conscience, and the discipline or government is rather an help, than an hindrance to that operation: for, 3. the discipline or government is as an hedge or wall about the doctrine of religion; a goad or spur to the means of grace, to bring men under the power of the words operation; a curb to licentious courses; all which conduce much to the keeping of the conscience void of offence toward god and man: and though with many the reformation reach no further than the outward man, yet that is not to be imputed to the discipline which brings them to the word, but to their own corruptions, and satan's sleights, and deceits which hinder the words kindly and saving work upon them. 4. where the discipline hath been rightly chosen, and timely established, god hath blessed it with better fruits; as in the kingdom of scotland; whence it is that that church hath had the favour and honour from god, to be free both from heresy and schism, where with we of this kingdom and state have abounded so much the more, as the discipline bathe been the more delayed; which agreoth to mr. saltmarsh his politic observation in these words: * m. saltmarsh his practice of policy, pol. 81. p. 69. when places of authority be likely to be vacant (much more when authority itself is at a nonplus) be ready in project with a successor; long interregnums or interstices, (i) intermissions in government, are the winter and ill season of a state, where the nights are long, and the days short. 5. and lastly, for his epiphonema with the words of elihu forementioned which are taken out of job 32. vers. 6, 7. why do not days speak, and multitude of years teach knowledge? they make nothing for his purpose; for the meaning of them is not that government, or discipline, or any other useful thing should not be with all convenient speed established, but that the ancient, with whom is wisdom, job 12.12. the grey headed and very aged men, chap. 15.10. who have had the experience of many days, and years, should be heard and heeded in matter of advice, and consultation, before such green-headed counselors as rehoboam followed to his ruin, 1 king. 12. vers. 13, 14. sect. v the argument against the speedy settling of church government taken from example of the new testament in general answered. a * § 3. p. 3, 4. third head of exceptions against the speedy (so he calls it paragraph 5. though the word hastily please him better in the body of the quere) setting up of government is taken from christian examples. contrary to 1. the new testament in general 2. in particular to 1. the example of christ, and that two ways, in respect 1. of his description, §. 6. p. 4. 2. of his practice, §. 3. p. 3, 4. 2. the example of the most ancient christians, and excellent ministers of christ. 1. as of john baptist; christ's forerunner. 2. the apostles his followers. 1. for the general; § 4. p. 4. we never read in the new testament of a government settled upon any, that were not brought first under gospel obedience by the power of the word and spirit, which thousands of congregations in this kingdom are not; for as in material buildings, stone and timber are not to be clapped together without hewing and squaring, so not in the spiritual; and whereas in the temple there should be neither axe nor hammer heard, because things were fitted before hand, and so laid together, i question how this could be in our congregations now; i believe there would be now more of the axe and hammer heard, then of the building seen●. answer. 1. here he argueth from the example of the new testament negatively; which, (considering the difference and disproportion of the times) is very impertinent. for the conversion we read of in the new testament was from paganism and judaisme to christianity; and while men were jews or pagans, they were uncapable of a christian government; our congregations in england consist of professed christians; who, as such, are capable of, and liable to a gospel government, without which the sanctification of the sabbath, the preaching of the word cannot be well ordered, nor either of the sacraments rightly administered. and though in thousands of congregations there be many whom the power of the word and spirit hath not brought to gospel obedience, it is no cause why a gospel government should not be established over them; nay rather it is reason why it should be hastened upon them; and we may impute the profaneness of the people to the want of it, or of some parts of it, whereby church governors may be enabled to put a difference betwixt the holy and the profane, the unclean and the clean, ezek. 22.26. for the rod of discipline, 1 cor. 4.21. may have a salutary operation in the church, as the rod of correction in the family, prov. 23.13, 14. 2. he makes a comparison betwixt a material and a spiritual building; see § 11. as in the material building stone and timber are not to be clapped together without hewing, and squaring, so not in the spiritual; of which words (if i rightly understand them) the meaning is, that churches must be gathered and made up only of holy, reformed christians, which are as hewn or squared stones; to which i answer: 1. that similitudes may illustrate a truth proved, or to be proved, but they prove nothing. 2. that conformity betwixt material and spiritual things is not to be carried too far; similitudes, (as the common saying is) run not on four feet. 3. there is this difference betwixt the building of the spiritual and material temple, that in the spiritual there is nothing but what is homogencall, and of one kind, all squared and living stones, but in the material the foundation and walls are made up not only of hewn and squared stones, but of others, yea many pieces of stone which are but as rubbish, have their use in the material building. 4. and yet we may say of those whom he accounts rough and unhewen stones, that they are in part squared towards a conformity to the rest of the building (in that they submit to the gospel's rule in many particulars) though they be not so exactly squared, or so perfectly polished as others. 5. upon this difference the best stones are not to be taken from the rest to make up a building by themselves, as in separated congregations many pretend, but perform not; for of those who separate from others as from profane persons, divers are not only rather gilded hypocrites then golden christians; but they are sundry of them such as for want of charity and humility christ would not own for his disciples, joh. 13.35. matth. 11.29. and who for railing and covetousness, and other reigning sins of an heinouses guilt ought to be discarded from christian society, as well as a fornicator, a drunkard, or an idolator, 1 cor. 5.11. lastly, to conclude with a negative argument from the now testament, as he began his fourth paragraph, (and against him it is good logic, as an apocryphal text is good proof against a papist.) let him show any example of such a separation as he aims at, in the new testament; where when there was a mixture of holy and profane, (as there was in the church of corinth, 1 cor. 11.21.) the apostles, or evangelicall persons, gathered out the holy part to make a separated church from the r●st, as many do now adays. that which followeth, concerning axes and hammers not heard in the building of the temple of solomon, hath a mysterious truth in it, but not to the purpose for which he produceth it; for it importeth that the spiritual temple is built up chief by the soft whisper and secret motions of the spirit; whereof men hear no noise, nor can take notice; and what is this to what he would have? sect. vi the argument against the speedy establishment of church government, taken from christ's description, answered. then for particular example he propounds christ's example, and therein observeth first his description, secondly, his practice. for the former, he saith, the setting up of government, * §. 6. p. 4. is against the nature of christ's description of himself, and against that suitableness he presseth for among all such as should submit to his commandments; he shall not strive nor cry, neither shall any one hear his voice in the streets, matth. 12.12. my yoke is easy, and my burden is light, matt. 11.29. his commandments are not grievous; neither do men put new wins into old bottles. answer. in these words we have reason pretended, and texts of scripture annexed as suitable to it, but how impertinently, will be easily apprehended by such as please to observe. 1. that his reason, if it have any force, is not against a speedy government alone, but against government at any time; for if it be contrary to the nature of christ, it is liable to that exception whensoever it is set up, and worthy presently to be cried down again; but we add further. 2. that if there be a difference betwixt the description of christ and church government it is no marvel, for christ as a saviour came to suffer, to be under government both just and unjust; he made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and humbled himself, and became obedient to death, even the death of the cross, philip. 2.7, 8. which is cross, and quite contrary to the condition of government. 3. that neither is christ so remiss as not to take upon him a government in his church, for he is the head of it, ephos. 1.22. and the head doth, may, nay and must govern the body; nor is his government so meek, but that he hath an iron red to dash in pieces like a patters vessel, psal. 2.9. those that are wilfully wicked; as well as a golden sceptre to call those into his presence, who are gracious in his eyes, esther. 5.2. and though coming to suffer, he descended to the low condition of a servant, philip. 2.7. (as hath been said) and to the lowest kind of service, washing of the feet of his own servants, joh. 13.5. yet sometimes he took upon him to be a lord; and as lord of his house, with a scourge of small cords drove the chafferers out of the temple, and the oxen, and sheep sold by them there, and overthrew the tables of the money-changers, joh. 2.14, 15. and that we may not think he is made all of lenity and meekness, even the●●: where he is called a lamb, a formidable wrath is ascribed to him, which maketh mighty men, and military men, free men and bond〈◊〉 to seek to hid themselves from him th●● sitteth in the throne, and from the wrath of the lamb, rev. 8.15. ●. nor is the government or discipline so unsuitable (in regard of severity) to the description of christ, as in the protended disparity is sluggested, for it is to be administered with the spirit of meekness in admonition, to such as are humble and conscientious in their way, as well as with the rod of discipline, to those who are 〈…〉. ●. for the places of scripture produced in the close of this paragraph, they are all quite besides the question, or very little to the purpose. for which they are brought; for the first, matth. 12.19. he shall not strive nor cry, nor shall any man hear his voice in the streets; it showeth the singular patience, and meekness of our saviour, when he was under the pursuit and persecution of his enemies; as in the 53. of esay he was oppressed, he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth; he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before the shearers is dumb, so opened he not his mouth, v. 7. yet at other times he took liberty to speak, and authority to reprove very sharply, as matth. 23. from vers. 13. to 35. as if out of his mouth had come the sharp two edged sword, in the apparition to john the divine, revel. 1.16. for the second place, my yoke is easy and my burden light, matth. 11.29. and the third, (his commandments are not grievous, 1 joh. 5.3. which is so like unto the former, that one answer may serve for both) they make nothing against a speedy, but against a grievous government; and yet surely, though the evangelicall yoke of our saviour in regard of the rigorous yoke of the law of moses, (which neither we (said peter) nor our forefathers were able to bear, act. 15.10.) be easy, and yet more easy by the assistance christ giveth his servants to bear it, (whence it was that the apostle professed, that he took pleasure in infirmities, in necessities, persecutions, in distresses for christ's sake; for when i am weak, said he, then am i strong, 2 cor. 12.10. when he was weak in himself, than was he strong by the support of christ.) yet is his yoke in itself, to those that are not by him enabled to bear it, very burdensome; as where christ requireth the plucking out the right eye, or cutting off of the right hand, that is, of any concupiscence or contentment (which becometh a scandal or an offence to the soul) if it were as dear unto us, as a right eye, or right hand; matth. 5.29, 30. and the denial of a man's own self, and taking up his cross to follow him, matth. 16.24. the hating his nearest kindred, not only in a collateral, but in a directline, whether above or below him, yea, and his own life also, luke. 14. the last place is, neither do men put new wine into old bottles, matth. 9.17. whereof it is hard to make any sober sense, which may serve to stay the government at discipline for a moment; and how it belongs to the resolution of this new quere is hard to find out, though by a sober and serious consideration of the case. if his meaning be (which he should not have put his reader to study for) that a new government should not be put upon those, who have long been accustomed to the old, lest it make a breach upon their conscience, or patience, as new wine will by its working be like to break crazy bottles, if they be stopped while it is in working, than it makes rather for the continuance of the prelacy, then against the setting up of the presbytery, and not against the government, or discipline at this time only, but at any time; for whensoever it comes, it will be new wine at the first, and the longer it is delayed the older will the bottles be into which it must be put: but the truth is, the government is neither so new as he would make it, nor will there be any violent working by it to the breaking of any bottle, or vessel, unless it be a vessel of wrath fitted to destruction, rom. 9.22. his last words in this paragraph, and the next to those but now rehearsed are, all which cannot be fulfilled in the parochial congregations. all which? all what? why, what is , what is that? the discipline of christ, the suitableness he presseth for, his meekness, and silence, his easy yoke, and light burden, his commandments not grievous, and the putting of new wine into new bottles, all which (saith he) cannot be fulfilled in parochial congregations: what language is here? what sense? what logical connexion, that may join the premises and conclusion together to beget a thought of compliance with the resolution of the quere? conceiving the penner to be a sober man, i must think in this passage the printers brain might be troubled with the fume of new wine, to conclude with nonsense for a rational consequence: and i believe no new wine and old bottles, how new or old soever, can worse agree together then the foregoing evidence and final sentence of this paragraph. sect. vii. master colemans' experimental exceptions against the severity and rigour of the presbyterial government answered. but doth not mr. coleman complain of the presbyterial government as too severe and domineering, and that upon his own experience, and thereupon forecast some strange fears, and strong prejudices against it? yes, and he doth it in these words, i will tell you, saith he, both what, and whence my fears are; i fear lest the presbyterial government should encroach upon the civil; and i also fear lest it should prelatically tyrannize; and these my fears arise from scotland, and from london. 1. from scotland, i myself did hear the presbytery of edinburgh censure a woman to be banished out of the gates of the city; was not this an encroachment? answer. it may be not, for there might be civil magistrates in the presbytery; and they, (as civil magistrates, not as presbyterians,) might inflict such a censure upon her; or upon proof of notorious lewdness, they might say, she was not worthy to be suffered to live in the town; and therefore that she deserved to be banished out of it: but that the presbytery did, as a presbytery, authoritatively take upon them to banish her, he doth not affirm, much less confirm by any good evidence; and i am credibly informed, * on monday, november 3. that some of the reverend commissioners of scotland have confidently gainsaid that report to his face. and what if that were one exorbitant act, and usurpation upon the civil power? will that one act make void the right of a power which is presbyterial? and what if a civil magistrate should take upon him to preach, and administer the sacraments, as vzziah would have burned incense, 2 chron. 26.16. would that make a forfeiture of all civil authority? mr. coleman will not say it, nor can he prove what he pretends, by such an encroachment, against the presbytery. but for this i leave him to his antagonist, the religious, learned, prudent, and modest commissioner of scotland; who, i doubt not, will do the cause and himself right against mr. coleman his exceptions in time convenient. 2. from london; presbytery (saith he) with us here is scarce yet in its infancy, we have had but one or two preparative meetings, and yet in them we had as prelatical a trick endeavoured to be put upon us, as the nature of the business could possibly bear; and when i stood up to plead for an equal interest, and to prevent such usurpations, the grave prelatical checks of knave and fool were at least whispered for mine entertainment: hence these fears. answer. he doth not show what prelatical trick that was; but as (since he hath explained his speech to a reverend brother of the assembly) it appeareth upon examination, that he was much mistaken both in the person he suspected, and in the motive and intention of the speaker; so that it was so fare from being a prelatical trick, that it was neither a trick, nor prelatical, no nor presbyterial neither; for what if the spirit of diotrephes be in a single presbyter without a presbytery? i am sure that meeting (which he meaneth) was not form presbytery, none such as was endowed with, or assumed any power of ecclesiastical censure; if it had, neither he nor his opposite would have been suffered in such incivility of language, as he hath expressed. nor is it reasonable to entitle the extraordinary excesses of particular persons to any sort or society of men; for there be some and but some, in all professions, who are very masterfull in their opinions, and forward to engage in terms of contradiction, and when they are once heated with a fond affection to their own fancies, (which is the more blown up by the breath of an opposite) they are not masters of their own words, nor can they exercise any reasonable rule either upon their spirits, or speeches; and sometimes they second their precipitancy in both, with such a pertinacy of will, and stoutness of stomach, that they choose rather to cast firebrands about, to put nations and churches into a dangerous combustion, then quietly to compose any personal quarrel of their own, though never so inconsiderately stirred up by them; this is the extremity of that malignant and mischievous practice, which god professeth especially to hate, prov. 6.19. and for the opprobrious terms he complaineth of, if he had the patience to bear them when he heard them, and did not reciprocate one contumely for another, (as some say he did) he should have had the prudence (and to that) should have advised him, had i been of his counsel) to have buried them in silence; and not for that which was but whispered in the ear, to propose it to public view, that every one may read the reproach of k. and f. put upon him, in print. sect. viii. the argument against the speedy setting up of the presbyterial government taken from christ's practice answered. a second exception reduced to the example of christ in his practice is that * § 3. p. 4. christ jesus himself could as easily have settled his government by miracle, as any can now by civil power, if there had been such a primary, or moral necessity of establishing it so soon upon a people scarce enlightened for any part of it. but we see the contrary, first in himself, he taught long, and john before him, and so the disciples, and the gifts for government were not given till he ascended, and the model for government was not brought forth but by degrees, and as people fell in, and were capable of the yoke, and would mould more easily to the commandments of christ; and whether then or no, is yet a question (which some have sit the debates to) though not with me, who am fully persuaded of the power of order which the apostle joyed to behold; though a power with as little dominion in government, as tradition in worship. answer. 1. the acts and times for the divine providence towards his church are various; and the reasons of them many times reserved to god: he could, no doubt, have governed his church in the first age of the world, by the sceptre of his written word, but there was no scripture till god wrote his decalogue or ten commandments in tables of stone, exod. 31.18. and if the book of genesis were written before, it was yet after the birth of moses, (for he was the penman of it) who was not borne till the year of the world, 2373. all this while god had his church, and no written law for the government of it. yet when he brought the israelites out of egypt, (which was in the year, 2454) the next year after, he gave direction for the building of a tabernacle; and to the moral law forementioned added laws ceremonial, and judicial; divers of which were not to be put in execution until their coming into canaan, which was well near forty years afterward; so fare was he beforehand with the government of his church of the new edition. 2. whereas he saith, that jesus christ could have as easily settled the government of his church by miracle, as any can now by civil power; we grant it, yea and more, that he could have done it without a miracle; and yet more, that he did so, when he chose apostles and gave them the keys of the kingdom of heaven, matth. 16.19. for remission and retaining of sins, joh. 10.23. and set down a rule of gradual proceeding with offenders, matt. 18.15, 16, 17. 3. if it be said, that this was late in the ministry of our saviour, and therefore we must take his example, not only for the thing itself, but for the time; this will make more for the anabaptistical delay of baptism, then for delay in discipline or government: for he was not baptised until he was about thirty years of age, luk. 3.23. but he began to set up a government of his church within the compass of his public ministry, which at the most lasted but four year's space, and many learned men confine it to three years and an half, or thereabouts. as for john baptist, his time was shorter, for he was beheaded in the second of the four years forementioned; nor did it belong to his office to set up a government in the evangelicall church, but to prepare the way of the lord by preaching repentance unto the people, matth. 3.3. isa. 40.3. 4. whereas he saith, the gifts of government were not given till christ ascended; to that it may be answered: 1. that he ascended forty three days after the period of his public ministration, which added to the years forementioned, make but small difference as to the government in question. 2. that though he gave them an increase of gifts for government, as he did for preaching, he put his apostles upon neither of those offices without competent gifts, and qualifications for them. 5. for the model of government, which he saith was brought forth by degrees, as people fell in and were capable of the yoke; i would know what model he meaneth; if he mean any model of christ or his apostles (as it appeareth he doth, for saith he, against mr. colemans' opinion, i am fully assured of a power of order, which the apostle rejoiced to behold, col. 2.5.) i ask whether this be given by tradition, or contained in the scripture; i suppose he will say of government (as well as of worship) not by tradition, but by the written word; and if so, though it were but young in the time of christ, or his apostles, it is very ancient to us; (for we have no part of the written word but it is fifteen hundred years of age at least) why then should that which is so old in constitution, be thought too soon to be put in execution at the present? especially since (besides the direction for it in the scripture) we have had these many years several patterns of it, in many reformed churches in the christian world. nor do our brethren of scotland (though they assert it from scripture to be the will of god) expect that the parliament should establish it jure divino. * m. gelaspi● his brotherly examination of m. colemans' sermon. p. 32, 33. if they shall in a parliamentary, and legislative way establish that thing, which is really and in itself agreeable to the word of god, though they do not declare it to be the will of jesus christ, they are satisfied. if it be best, (as his words imply) that the government be brought in by degrees, so it is in the present reformation; for it hath by soft and slow degrees passed the debates, first of the assembly, and afterward of the parliament; and as for approbation, so for execution, it passeth by degrees the civil sanction, which authorised first an ordinance for ordination, after that a directory for worship, a good while after that was the city of london, and the parishes annexed made a province, and divided into classical presbyteries, and then with some intermission of time was a power granted to choose a committee for trial of elders; and now lately a vote and an order for the choice of elders in every parish; and since that an order or ordinance touching admission to, and rejection from the sacrament of the lords supper: and yet there remain other parts of government to be added to them, which we hope will be authorized in time convenient, and the sooner the better. sect. ix. reasons taken from rules and considerations of prudence answered. thus much for his reasons which respect religion: now for the politic part of his quere, in 1. rules or considerations of prudence. 2. examples of practice. his rules of prudence in the general are three; the first he layeth down thus: * §. 7. p. 5. the more time (saith he) for trying of spirits, and proving of all things, there is the less danger to that state of erring in things received, and authorized, and of involving itself into the designs of ecclesiastical power, than which nothing hath sooner broken the civil power; as may be seen in popish kingdoms, and our late prelatical. there can be no great danger in the not sudden incorporating the two powers. since moses is not alive to bring down the just pattern of the tabernacle, there may a new star arise, which was not seen at first, which if we shut up ourselves too soon, while the smoke is in the temple, cannot appear. answer. 1. it is the duty of a state, that is, of them that govern a state, not only to try spirits, but to rule them; and rather to rule them then to try them; and for that purpose the sooner they be brought under government, the better; for the rod and reproof, saith solomon, give wisdoms, prov. 29.15. and on the contrary, the longer they live without the yoke of discipline, the more enormous will they be: and so the observation of solomon will be verified, a child left to himself bringeth his mother to shame, ibid. and his father too, whereof we have an example in his brother adovijah, 1 king. 1. vers. 5, 6. and for proving of all things to be imposed, there is a due proportion of time to be observed, which may as well be too much, as too little; and it hath been, if not the fault, the ill hap of our church and state, to have the government fluttering upon the lime-twig of deliberation at westminster, when it should be upon the wing of actual execution, all over the kingdom. 2. whereas he makes it a dangerous matter for the state to involve itself into the designs of ecclesiastical power, because it is a means to break the civil power, as may be seen in popish kingdoms, and our late prelatical. his position and proof are most unseasonably, and impertinently applied to the presbyterial government, which abjureth both popish, and prelatical dominion by solemn covenant, and taketh a course not only to suppress and bury, but to keep them down, that there be no fear of a resurrection of them. 3. and when on the contrary he saith, * § 7. p. 5. there can be no danger in the not sudden incorporating the two powers: since moses is not alive to bring down the just pattern of the tabernacle; there may a new star arise which was not seen at first; which if we shut up ourselves too soon, while the smoke is in the temple, cannot appear. this is a very perplexed and confused expression, darkening the truth which he should illustrate; wherein if his meaning be that there is no great danger in the not establishing ecclesiastical government by the civil state, or that if now it were done, it were too sudden and hasty, it is a groundless conceit, refuted already; and for that he bringeth in of moses not being alive to bring the pattern from the mount, and of a new star to arise, it bewrayeth his design not only to delay the government desired for a time, but to debar it for ever; or to prepare the way for some seducing * see bucol. ind. chron p. 156. add an. 134. & schindl. pentag. col. 826. benchocheba, or barchochebas, (as his name soundeth) the son of a star, who (pretending himself to be the star of jacob foreprohesied, numb. 24 17.) took upon him to be a new guide unto the jews; but misleading them to their ruin, he was called bencozba, the son of a lie. 2. for the other prudential rule his words are these: there is no religion established by state, but there is some proportion in the two powers, and some * § 10. p. 6. compliance betwixt the civil and ecclesiastical state; so as the establishing the one, will draw with it some motions in the other; and we all see (saith he) how hazardous it is to dis-ininteresse any in the civil part, even in kingdoms that are more firm, as france, where the protestants are partly allowed their religion, in pay for their civil engagements; and so in other states; and sure i am, the state is most free where the conscience is least straitened; where the tures and wheat grow together until the harvest. answer. here he makes the civil and ecclesiastical state so linked, and nearly allied together, that if there be motions in the one, there will not be quietness in the other; and that the ecclesiastical state hath such an interest in the civil, that it is hazardous to the civil part, if it be not allowed: and for that reason the protestant religion is tolerated in the popish kingdom of france, which is as a pay or a recompense for their civil engagement. in which passage (as in divers others) he aims at the perpetual prohibition of government; not at a temporal forbearance only; and he carrieth it on so as if we must allow him the authority of a prolitique dictator without any proof of scripture, reason, yea or of any humane testimony; for what he saith, (though in the way of a rational ratification) hath so little strength of reason in it, that it reacheth not half way to the resolution of the question in the tenor of his tenet. for what if the church and state be so symbolical as to reciprocate interests, and conditions, betwixt themselves? shall the civil state leave every man, or every congregation to their own liberty to be governed, or ungoverned as they list? every man in matters of religion to do that which is right in his own eyes, as when there was no king in israel? sudg. 17.6. nay rather, because disturbances are communicated from the one to the other, the civil state ought to settle the government of the ecclesiastical, according to the word of god, and the example of the best reformed churches; that it may the more securely enjoy its own peace. and for that he saith of the toleration of the protestants of france, the original of it was not out of any principle of compliance of all religions with the civil state, but because the king himself henry the fourth having been a protestant, and recovering his right by the arms of protestants, (though he wickedly revolted from his religion, and wretchedly suffered for his apostasy) he could do no less in humanity then allow them the liberty of religion; which hath been continued unto them not upon mr. s. his ground before mentioned, but because the protestants are the trustiest friends of the crown of france, and most engaged to defend it against the interests, and designs of the spaniard, whose longing after an universal monarchy, is carried with the strongest degree of concupiscence towards the crown of france, as the fairest mark of his boundless ambition. now though his argument fall fare short of probable, he concludes with assurance: sure i am (saith he) that state is most free where the conscience is least straitened; if he mean most free in indulgence, by letting lose the reigns to all religions, it is true, and if he allow of such a freeness, (as by his ensuing words it seems he doth) he complieth with the author of the book of the bloody tenet, who holdeth (as absurdly as impiously) that it is the will and command of god that (since the coming of his son the lord jesus) a permission of the most paganish, jewish, turkish, the sixth proposition of the twelve prefixed before the book published anno 1644. and antichristian consciences, and worships be granted to all men, in all nations and countries, and they are only to be fought against with the sword, which is only (in soul matters) able to conquer, to wit, the sword of the spirit, the word of god. if he mean, where there is such licentious allowance of all religions, there the state is freest from commotion, and distraction, manifold experience in several ages, and countries' proveth the contrary. he concludeth this exception against the settling of the government with the parable of the tares and the wheat, wherein he closeth with the forementioned author, cap. 18, etc. of his wicked book. but withal, if there must be such a mixture of the tares with the wheat, what warrant is there (for his party) to pluck the wheat from the tares, nay the wheat from the wheat (for they leave as good christians as they take) in their new gathering of churches? a third remora against the setting up of government of prudent or politic consideration, is this: * § 11. p. 6. our parties, or dissenting brethren being now together, and clasped by interest against the common enemy, this foundation of common unity is such, as may draw in both affections and judgements, if not too suddenly determined into heretics and schismatics. it is possible while a controversy is long suspended, and time given for conclusion of things, opinions may be soon at peace: a fire let alone may die out under that wood, which stirred in would kindle it; the contentions of brethren are like the strong bars of a castle, and a brother offended is harder to be won then a strong city, prov. 18, 19 answer. the danger of a common enemy is many times, and should be always, a cause of suspension of particular antipathies; the wild beasts in the ark were reconciled with the tame, while without it the overwhelming flood was round about; but this clasping of dissenting brethren in the camp upon present undertake, must not leave us lose to division in the city; for that (as mr. saltmarsh himself acknowledgeth) * m. saltmarsh practise of policy, l. 4. pol. 12. is the mother of confusion; and he * idem l. 2. of his book of the practice of policy. pol. 123. p. 288. calls private conventicles the very parliaments of factious deliberations and resolutions; and saith, they are to be observed and dispersed. and by the text he citeth, viz. act. 4.26. he meaneth such factions, as are adverse or opposite to true religion; and for expedition in repressing the peril of such combinations he giveth this advice, (which if he had now thought of i suppose he would not have made such a dilatory discourse as he hath done) * m. saltmarsh his practice of policy l. 2. pol. 124. p. 289. kill factions betimes, as herod did the infants in their cradles; if you let them grow, they may prove too strong for you; when sedition is at an age, it is more able; a little physic will disperse a gathering disease, which (if it knot) hath more danger and difficulty: it was enough to make the servant bade when he thought with himself, my lord delayeth his coming, matth. 24.48. and truly the delay in setting up a government hath been an occasion of the multiplication both of heresies, and schisms, and of an increase both of number and courage of such as are engaged in them; and the longer the delay is drawn on, the more difficult will the reducement be; for men who are disposed to division, make account that such as forbear the remedy are either inclinable to them, or unable, or afraid to displease them; and by such conceits they foment their own sancies, and heighten their spirits to contumacy, and contempt; whereof there is but too much evidence given in many that oppose the settlement of religion by establishing church government. and whereas he saith, it is possible while a controversy is long suspended, and time given for conclusion of things, opinions may be sooner at peace: we answer. first, that possibility is but a poor plea against probability, nay, against particular experience; for it is obvious to any man's view that will observe the method of proceeding, and manner of prevailing of the dissenting party, that while their brethren have endeavoured by all amicable carriage towards them, and by courteous compliance with them, to work and win them to a brotherly accord, they have driven on their own design with a politic activity, and have gained more by the slowness of their adversaries pace, then by the goodness of their own cause, though therein they would be thought to have the advantage. he addeth, a fire let alone may die out under that wood, which stirred in would kindie it. but when a fire is kindled, not in green, but in dry wood, (which will easily burn) will men let it alone till it quench of itself? or shall we think, that the settling of a government is as the bellows to a fire, to blow it up into a flame? no wise man can imagine either the one, or the other; and the contrary is plain by manifold examples of the anabaptists, and other seditious sectaries in germany; for whom at first a guy de bres against the error of the anabapt. p. 6. luther did mediate with frederick duke of saxony, that within his dominions they be favourably dealt with all, because (excepting their error) they seemed otherwise good men; but afterwards, by the connivance and indulgence that was used towards them, increasing both in bodies and boldness, he was feign to b sleyd. comment. l. 5. fol. 76. p. 22. stir up the princes and people of germany against them, as for the extinguishing of a common combustion, or a fire that threatened the burning of city and country. which i mention not to excite authority to any needless or unseasonable severity, but to note the danger of too much delay, in applying remedies to imminent mischiefs. he concludes this politic consideration, with a sentence of scripture, which is, the contentions of brethren are like the bars of a castle, and a brother offended is harder to be won then a strong city, prov. 18.19. and this he brings in as a seal to this politic aphorism, for the ceasing of differences of themselves by silent forbearance: but will the bars of a castle be broken by letting them alone? and shall one expect to take a city, a strong city, and do nothing against it? we have not found it so for the most part of our late wars, either in england or ireland. thus fare his politic rules. now for particular instance: we find it of two sorts; 1. negative. 2. positive. sect. 10. the negative argument taken from want of experience of the new clergy, answered. first, for the negative, * § 8. p. 5. we have not yet any experience of our new clergy, (saith he) who are many of them branches of the old stock, and so may wield the government too much of the episcopal faction; as the samaritans did with the jewish government, because they were not natural jews: it is not safe trusting a power too much into those hands; our brethren of scotland have been better used to the way of presbytery, and may better trust one another upon mutual experience, than we can yet. answer. have we not yet experience of our new clergy? then they cannot be charged with the misgovernment of the people; but we have experience of much evil for want of government; but how can there be experience of them, if there be no government to try them withal? he saith, many are branches of the old stock; and so may wield the government too much of the episcopal faction; and yet presently he compareth them to the samaritans, and jews, who were most adverse in affection, and disposition, and dealing one to another; compare joh. 8.48. with luke 9.53. and joh. 4.9. and then saith, it is not safe trusting a power too fare into those hands; i think he needs not much to fear that; the government will be so qualified for the thing itself, and so disposed of for the persons that are to manage it, that it will not be in the power of any to abuse it, but upon their peril. here lest the example of our brethren in scotland should be brought in by way of prejudice to his advice, and resolution against the timely establishment of the presbyterial government in england, he saith, they are more used to the way of presbytery, and may better trust one another upon mutual experience, than we can yet. it is well that scotland (the kingdom or country wherein there is best experience of the presbyterial government) yields least occasion of exception against it; a great commendation of it doubtless; which alone were enough to convince all those who stand for a liberty of conscience, against a certain and general rule; of which liberty if there were as much trial made, as hath been of the discipline of that kingdom, it would appear faulty, scandalous, dangerous so many ways, as would make all good and wise men weary of it; and there are men of note who affirm (upon late experience in some counties of the kingdom) that the best way to suppress the multiplicity of sects, is to let them have scope, and they will run themselves out of breath; whereto i cannot give my vote, since we may not give way that god should be dishonoured, nor the people be endangered, nor false teachers tolerated, if we may hinder it, no not for an hour, galat. 2.5. 2. for the positive instance, his next words are, * § 9 p. 5. we experience in part some remainders of prelacy working in many, which shows a constitution not so clear nor pure, as the disciples of christ should have; then whether it be safe committing the power too suddenly; for though i question not but some may be like the ten, yet there are others that are like the two brethren, who strove which should be the greatest, till the lordended the difference, it shall not be so among you. answer. this parcel of his politics beginneth scarce with good english, for where reads this writer this phrase, we experience? and why did he not keep to the terms he used in the precedent paragraph, we have experiment, or experience? and he goeth on with as little good sense, for a little after he saith, then whether it be safe to commit the power too suddenly, for though i question not, etc. where he suspends the sense of his speech, and leaves it to be made up by a supplement of the reader; yet we know his meaning thus fare, that it is not safe to commit the power too suddenly; if he mean by this, and by the word hastily, (in the body of his quere) rashly, or inconsiderately, we say so too; but we deny (which he meaneth) that if it had been done sooner, or be not deferred longer, it will be too suddenly done; but it appeareth (by what before hath been observed) with him to commit any power, or establish any government, (especially the presbyterial government) it is too soon or suddenly done, if it be done at all. in the next part of this paragraph he beginneth to be rational, but so that it may make more for that part he opposeth, then for that which he pleadeth for, in these words: for though i question not (saith he) but some may be like the ten, yet there are others like the two brethren, which strove who should be the greatest, till the lord ended the difference; it shall not be so among you. where if we keep the proportion he brings in, and make application accordingly, we may say, for two ambitious presbyterians, it is like there may be ten that are more modestly, and humbly minded, then to affect such a preeminence above their brethren. besides, the presbyterian government is framed directly according to the resolution of our saviour, (it shall not be so among you) as opposed to the prelatical authority. * § 9 p. 5. we find (saith he further) the hottest controversy is now moved about church government, and there hath been most spoken and written this way, and in most violence. now when the contention for power is so much, and the controversy streams most in government, we may soon discern dispositions. answer. but is it not an hotter controversy that is now moved, and in motion, and in commotion, touching civil government? and for the discovery of dispositions thereupon, it may be so without any fault in those that are for government in question, but not without a crime in such as oppose it, or despise it in any thing wherein it is consonant to god's word, and found reason subordinate to it; especially when in a great part it is settled already, and they who are in authority are intentively employed to bring it to perfection. but saith he, * § 9 p. 5. is it good parting with the stakes yet, while there is such quarrelling for them, and when one party cannot but take it for an injury, if wholly given to the other? this question prosupposeth and importeth an evenness, and equality as betwixt parties that lay wagers, or play matches, and lay down stakes upon equal terms; whereas the difference indeed is betwixt government and no government; and betwixt the high court of parliament, and all the most orthodox churches, and divines of the christian world on the one side, and a small and inconsiderable party, in respect of them, on the other; who for the most part (though there be some of them of good note both for learning, and life) might with good decorum be brought to the bar, to receive censure from those, with whom they cannot take upon them contestation without arrogant presumption so it cannot be an injury to resolve for government against them, no more, (no nor so much) then against the bishop's ill government, who had possession of prelacy by a prescription legally authorised, whereas those who are against the government desired, have no possession or prescription, nor pretence of law, for their anarchy against it. and therefore if the bishops had struggled more for their chairs in the church, and their seats in the parliament, than they did, and had been all of them as obstinate as two of them were, * b. w. of l. & c. & b. w. of l. who said, they would be hanged at the court gate, before they would yield up their votes and places in the house of peers; they had been more excusable in that contumacy, than most of those who wilfully withstand the presbytery resolved on. the last part of this proof is, that * §. 9 p. 5, 6. it is to be feared (saith he) there is too much of man, because the by as runs most in these times towards the truth of government, and many others are wholly set by, which might well be looked upon with it: which, if there were not a principle in man more fitted for a truth of this kind, than any other, would not be. but every truth hath its age, and season: this only for caution. answer. most of this may be granted, and nothing gained to mr. s. his cause; if there be two much of man in the controversy, it is like to be in those, who despise government, who are presumptuous, and self willed, and are not afraid to speak evil of dignities, a pet. 2, 10. if the by as run most in these times toward the truth of government, it is but as it should be, and as it was when the prelatical power was opposed and suppressed by the parliament; and if the by as were wried aside from the truth, it were rather to be noted as matter of exception, then that it bendeth towards the truth; especially since he saith a little after, there is a principle in man more fitted for a truth of this kind than any other; and if, (as he saith) every truth hath its age and season, surely then this truth of presbyterian government is seasonable now; for the bishop's government being put down, it is necessary some other should be set up, and before all other the presbyterial, as most agreeable to the word of god, and the example of the best reformed churches and it is yet more seasonable to establish it with speed, because for want of it in part, are so many divisions and distractions in church and state. and if that be true which he saith, that many other truths are wholly set by, which might be looked upon with it; it may be the fault of those who set themselves too much against that government; who, mistaking the truth and integrity of it, make it their main work to revile, and reproach it, to make it odious among the people before they have any true understanding thereof. but for such as are most for the presbytery, i am sure they are intentively studious to discover, deliver, and defend all other truths of faith and manners, which make for salvation, as well as for the setting up or settling of the government in question. the end of this paragraph is, this only for caution. then neither for proof, nor reproof; and i wish he had had more caution in his mind, (for if so, he would not so hastily have set upon the government, as too hastily either intended or attempted) and more in his paper, and then i should have spared some labour, for he would have had fewer faults, and a shorter refutation would have served the turn. sect. xi. objections against the reasons for the not establishing church government, proposed, and answered, as objections against mr. saltm. his tenet in the quere, with replies to his answers. having played the assailant against the church government hitherto, (but without any impediment or impeachment of moment) he now turneth defendant, and takes up the bucklet to ward off objections against his opinion; but whereas there be many such, he meddles but with two only, and those two such as he thought himself best able to answer. objection 1. * p. 7. but the temple was builded with all speed, in nehemiabs' time, and therefore, etc. and haggai calls to the building of it, is it time? hag. 1.4. to which be makes this answer: ● ibid. yea, but the material pattern wa● more clearly left, and known, than the gospel pattern; the other were more in the letter, these more in the spirit; now there must be a proving of all things, else there may be more haste then good speed, and the temple may be built by a false pattern, as well as a true, and then better no building, than no right cedar to build with; and there were prophets then who knew the periods of times, and could prophesy, as haggai, and zechariah, but none so exactly now; and these knew both the fashion, and the time for building; yet who ought not to hasten the temple, if the timber be ready, and if the prophets and apostles be there for a foundation, and jesus christ for a chief coruer stone? ephes. 2. reply. that he may not be thought to side with sanballat and tobiah against the speedy building of the temple, who scorned and derided the expedition of nehemiah and his brethren, in being so forward to the work, as if they meant to make an end in one day, neh. 2. v. 19 & chap. 4. v. 2. he endeavours to show considerable difference, 1. betwixt the material pattern and the gospel pattern, (though * see sect. 5. p. 16. before he married them together to engender an exception against the presbyterial government). 2. betwixt the bvilders of the one, and the bvilders of the other; whence he would infer, that in the former bvilders there was good speed, in the latter there would be too much haste, if it should be set up sooner than he would have it. and if it be too soon now for the gospel government, will he set a time for it when it will be seasonable to establish it? will he have it stay till it be a material building, as the temple was? or till we have inspired prophets, as haggai and zechariah were, to order the work? if so, the answer is a contradiction to government not for the present, but perpetually; and tendeth not to a delay in setting of it up, but to the keeping of it down for ever. if not, then surely it cannot be an undertaking of too quick dispatch, if we endeavour to set up the gospel pattern according to the rule and direction which we find in the dictates of the holy ghost, in the new testament; which to us of this age cannot be called new, nor the determination sudden, or hasty, since it is made after frequent, and serious consideration of the scriptures, and advised consultation with the best divines of the reformed churches, and studious collation of the exactest patterns of discipline; after many and long debates in the assembly of divines, where the dissenting brethren (who by their party were thought most able to manage an opposition to the government) have had liberty to object what they pleased: and lastly, after a review, and re-examination of matters debated and voted in the assembly by most of our grave and prudent senators, the two houses of parliament: and in all these passages, by all the bvilder's especial regard hath been had to the firm foundation of the prophets and apostles, jesus christ being the chief cornerstone, eph. 2.20. and care taken that the superstruction thereupon be not of wood, hay, or stubble, or of any material unsuitable to it, 1 cor. 3.12. and so by mr. saltm. his consent the work may go on, for in such a case, saith he, who ought not to hasten the building of the temple? sect. xii. objection 2. * p. 7. but vice, heresies, and schisms will grow too fast. answer. to which the answer he makes may be divided into four particulars. 1. that this objection makes no more for expedition in erecting of an ecclesiastical government, then in the time of the gospel from john's first sermon to paul's epistles, and the sending of the spirit; presently upon the setting down of the objection, the words he returns are these: * p. 8. so they might have done from john's first sermon to paul's epistles and the sending of the spirit; but ye see there was no government settled till afterwards upon the people of god. 1. reply. so they might have done? and did they not do so? did they not grow too fast? sure it was too fast, if there were any growth at all. yet to say the truth, here●ie hath not in all ages advanced in the lame pace. but why doth be begin at john baptists first sermon? were not the pharisees, sadduces, and esseans, heretics, or schismatics? and were not they long before john baptist was 〈◊〉? consult with 〈◊〉 in his 13. book● of antiq. ●. 9. and with a chronologie annexed to it, and you shall find them noted upon the year 144. before christ's birth. and were not the samaritans heretics? and very ancient also? see epiphan. his first tome and first book, where he brings in them, and nineteen more several sorts of heresies and heretics, all before the incarnation of our saviour christ. since christ, it is a question who was the first heretic; * epiph. haeres. 21. epiphanius gives the seniority to simon magus before all others; but * aug. exer●it. in psal. 54. hom. ●. augustine will have those to be the first heretics in christianity, who took offence at our saviour for saying they must eat his flesh, john 6.52. and went away with a carnal construction of a spiritual speech. howsoever there were variety of heresies and schisms but too soon, (and very much vice withal) as that of ebion & cerinthus, who denied the divinity of christ, which occasioned john the evangelist to begin his gospel with the godhead of our saviour, and the heresy of hymeneus and philetus, who said the resurrection was passed already, 2 tim. 2.18. though the greatest harvest of such tares was in after times, when satan * videns diabolus templa daemonum deseri, & in nomen mediatoris currere genus humanum, heretics movit, qui sub vocabulo christiano doctrinae resisterent christianae. aug. de civit. dei. l. 8. c. 51. seeing his idolatrous temples deserted, and mankind begin to run after a redeeming, and delivering mediator, stirred up heretics, who, under the name of christians, made opposition to the christian doctrine. but as he makes john's first sermon terminus a quo for heresies, and schisms, so he makes paul's epistles the terminus ad quem; but which of his epistles doth he mean? from john baptists first sermon (which was in the twenty ninth year of our saviour's life) to paul's first epistle, which was the first to the thessalonians, in his fiftieth year, were twenty one years; and eight years after was the last of his epistles written, viz. that of paul to philem●n, which from john's first sermon make up twenty nine years: after the epistles he bringeth in the sending of the holy ghost at the foast of pentecost, which was much-what about the midway betwixt the two terms before mentioned; and then he saith, but yet you see there was no government, till after, settled upon the people of god; till after what? if after the feast of pentecost or sending of the spirit at that time, that was in the thirty fourth year of christ, and but five years after the first sermon of john baptist; and if after paul's first epistle, it was but twenty one years; if after his last epistle but twenty nine years, and before the end of his epistles that government was written which we find in scripture; for the most of that which is produced for church government is taken out of them; and if so, the setting up of church government was not long suspended: but had it been adjourned to a further time, it would not prejudice any expedition we can make in this matter, because the people of that age, being many of them dispersed converts, could not generally so readily be form into christian congregations, and government settled among them, as with us they may be. besides, what hath been so long ago established in primitive times, cannot be said to be suddenly or hastily taken up in our days, especially after so many discussions, and so deliberate resolutions, as hath been pleaded in a former answer. i need not give particular instance of schisms as i have done of heresies, in this place, for heresy is the mother of schism, and sometimes schism is the mother of heresy, for as ice and water they many times mutually produce each other, whereof see the proof in the advertisement next to the preface of the new english annotations on the bible in folio. answer 2. the second particular is the needlessness of church government: 1. in respect of man. 2. in respect of god. for the first (saith he) * p. 8. if heresies stir up their patrons against the state, the magistrate bears not the sword in vain; and if moral transgressions, let the magistrates be set on in every place, to quicken the statutes; and preachers every where sent forth to publish the gospel. reply 2. what if they do not stir up their patrons against the state? but heretics busily bestir themselves to poison the souls of the people with damnable doctrine; and what if that doctrine be in an high degree derogatory to the glory of god? as the opinions and positions of paul best against the trinity of persons in the deity, and the divinity of the son of god, and the blasphemous verses be made against them, shall they be suffered so to reproach the most high, and to seduce the simple to the perdition of their souls, if they do not perturb the public peace? that were a sin of near alliance to old elyes indulgence to his wicked sons, whose mildness toward them is interpreted by god, an honouring of his sons above him, 1 sam. 2.29. if truth be not more precious than peace, why did our saviour with reference to the offence (taken at gospel truths) and the defence of them against all gainsayers, say, he came not to send peace, but the sword? matth. 10.34. why are ancient fathers in their disputes against the * the arians would have had it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. arians commended for their constancy, in that (for reconciliation with them) they would not change a letter of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉? and why do we expose ourselves to the quarrels of so many adversaries, especially those of the romish religion, rather than be at peace with them, with giving up any part of those truths, wherein god is dishonoured by their antitenets, though the peace of the state be not disturbed by them? and for moral transgressions, he would have the magistrate set on in every place. set on, by whom? and how? doth he mean that the magistrate is as a shepherd's dog, to be set on the wolf that comes to make spoil of the flock? we cannot have so mean a thought of the magistrate, as to make mention of him in such terms of disparagement; nor dare we take upon us so much, either interest in all magistrates, or so much power in any, as to give them the watchword when to draw the sword, and to expect that they should wield it as we would have them. and if ministers preach, and do what they can with their assistant elders, by church discipline, to regulate men in a way of religious walking, there will notwithstanding be work enough for the magistrate to bring them under a civil trial, and suffering, who make no conscience to deserve, and have so much contumacy as to contemn the ecclesiastical censures: but i shall meet with this exception again in the 14. section, and there shall make a further answer unto it. answer 3. a second needlessness is in respect of god: god will make out by extraordinary what is wanting in ordinary means, as with armour from heaven against principalities on earth; and he gives instance in the prince of persia, dan. 10.20. and makes as sure of the conquest, as christ was in his single combat with satan in the wilderness, matth. 4. his words next following those forecited are these. * p. 8. and what if the prince of persia withstand for a while? truth is otherwise armed from heaven: though satan be in the wilderness with christ, yet christ shall conquer. 3. reply. while we know how to distinguish betwixt saith and presumption, we cannot think it meet to divide subservient means from the supreme power; nor the exercise of discipline and government, from his assistance who can make it effectual; though the sword of the lord be able to cut down the enemy as the mower doth grass, yet the sword of gideon must go along with it to the wars; and in those wars wherein the enemies were miraculously discomfited, and confounded; the sword of the lord and the sword of gideon are voiced together, judg. 6.20. we must take in all helps, helps in government, 1 cor. 12.28. to suppress heresy, schism and profaneness; and when we have done all we can, we must ●ely upon divine aid for success; and therefore must we pray, as the apostle prescribeth, that we may live a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty, 1 tim. 2.2. answer 4. the fourth and last thing which he brings to answer the objection is the imputation of jealousy, in such as are desirous to set forward the government; and he makes as if it were a property of papists, and prelates, to keep up their supposed truths, by suspecting every thing that appears for an enemy; which he thus sets down and aggravates by an antithesis of the boldness of the gospel. * p. 8. it is the papists and prelates jealousy to keep up their supposed truths by suspecting every thing that appears for an enemy; the gospel dares walk abroad with boldness, and simplicity, when traditions of men, like melancholy people, fear every thing they meet will kill them: for the angel that comes down from heaven hath great power; and the earth is lightened with his glory, revel. 18.1. 4. reply. there is a jealousy which the apostle calls godly jealousy, 2 cor. 11.2. and such a one is that which would set up as many securities as may be, against heresy and impiety. among them church government is one; of which, they that stand for it, are not afraid to let it go abroad, for they have made it public, and exposed it to the view of all eyes. the jealousy which is a fault is rather to be found in th●se who have laboured to stifle the government in the birth, and to supprosse it that it might never be brought forth; and who talk of a more perfect model, but cannot be persuaded to bring it to light, that it may be viewed and tried whether it be a well grounded truth, or a groundless fancy. but there is a fear which we profess, and i hope without offence, it is a fear of god's anger and of imminent danger, for communion with, and connivance toward heretical, and wicked men, which makes the godly abhor their company, as we see in john the evangelist * iren. advers. haeres. l. 3. c. 3. & post eum eusebius. ; when he suddenly got out of the bath, so soon as the heretic cerinthus came into it, fearing it would fall upon his head, and theirs who accompanied him; and so it did, so soon as john was departed out of it. and there is in some an aversion from heresy, schism, and profaneness, out of hatred of whatsoever is opposite to the glory of god, and to the safety of man; and this hate is a great evidence not of a causeless jealousy, but of a true zeal, and love of god and man. hence was it that a iren. advers. haeres. l. 3. c. 3. polycarp the disciple of john (a scholar of a religious temper like his master) was so adverse to martion the heretic, that when (scraping acquaintance of him) he asked him whether he knew him or no? he answered, he knew him to be the eldest son of satan; and that b hilary against auxent. p. 217. hilary speaking against auxentius an arian heretic, said, he would never speak otherwise of him then as of a devil incarnate; and that hierome c hieron. in psal. 5. tom. 8. p. 4. called heretics men of blood, who daily shed the blood of souls; and d hieron. pr●log. in dial. advers. lucif. tom. 2. p. 263. averred that as he had never spared heretics, so he never would, and that he studiously desired to make those his enemies, who were enemies to the church. there be many other causes then, (besides a popish or prelatical jealousy (arising out of guilt or mistrust of the weakness or craziness of the cause) which make the godly desirous of a prevention o● suppression of heresy and schism; and sincerely to endeavour the complete establishment of purity and unity in the church of god. but i will take up with that one of the lords and commons in parliament assembled their ordinance of the 20. of october, 1645. concerning rules for receiving of the sacrament of the lords supper, which is the obligation of religious gratitude to god piously acknowledged in this pathetical expression. the lords and commons considering the wonderful providence of god in calling them to this great and difficult work of reforming, and purging his church and people; his guidance and manifest protection of them in it, do acknowledge that never any of his servants since the foundation of the world had more high and strong engagements, hearty, and sincerely to endeavour the complete establishment of purity and unity in the church of god, than they have; they do therefore require all ministers and elders, etc. and if mr. saltm. had well considered who were engaged for the establishment of church government, and how fare, before he published his new quere, he would not surely have so fare undervalved their piety and prudence, as to compare them to papists, and papal prelates, and melancholy men who think every thing they meet will kill them. i will conclude my reply to his answer, with a piece of his a m. sal●m. pol. 201. p. 174. own politic advice, in three particulars. 1. to suspect plausible and fair language in him whose person may render him suspicious; and such for the most part are seducing schismatics, and heretics, who by good words and fair speeches deceive the heart of the simple, rom. 16.18. 2. b ibid. pol. 228. to study to remove the occasions of faction and heresies. 3. c ibid. pol. 246. in factious stirs, if it be requisite, to muster forces with all expedition for appalling them; and thus, (saith he) you weigh down the weight of one scale, with the weight of another. and it is no less a part of prudence to prevent them, then to supplant them. upon such principles as these, in part, is church government ordained, and there being so many, and stirring factions, it is with as much speed (as with conveniency may be) to be settled as a remedy against them. there is nothing more in his answer but a text out of the revelation, it is chap. 18. v. 1. which with the word for is brought in as a proof of what was last spoken, and as a seal to close up the total sum of his resolution of this new quere thus: for the angel that cometh down from heaven hath great power, and the earth is lightner with his glory: but this serves to none other purpose, but to show, that as he began, so he endeth his paper with misapplication of scripture. sect. xiii. an additional answer to some exceptions of mr. saltm. (taken out of mr. prinnes vindication) against the present establishment of church government, in his late book entitled the opening of mr. prinnes new book, called a vindication. in this book which he nameth the opening of master prinnes new book called a vindication; the author hath opened himself plainly to be an independent at least, and opposite to the presbyterial government; which he hath formerly disavowed, when in conference with him i desired him to declare to which part he inclined; as section the first hath been observed. i shall present the reader with so much of the matter in this new book, as i find symbolical to the sense and resolution of his new quere; the sum whereof is in his last answer of p. to c. of which two letters (representing two persons in conference dialogue wise) it is very probable p. may stand for presbyterian, but for c. to me it is very doubtful whether it be put for the name of my reverend brother mr. coleman, whom he citeth in the fourth page of his new quere; or whether c. stand for congregational; or if i did not conceive him to be of a better spirit than i have observed in many antipresbyterian scribblers, i would think c. stood for christian, with intimation that the presbyterian government is antichristian; but i cannot censure so of him, especially since he professeth to honour presbyterians as believers, and brethren in the lord; brethren as christians, not his brethren as presbyters; (if it be true which i hear that he preacheth not as a presbyter, but as a gifted brother) but this but by the way; that which in this book we are now to observe is that p. as convinced, and converted by c. is made to say: p. well, i am at this time well persuaded, p. 23. of the opening. and having heard all this, for my part i cannot but see, that in settling things suddenly upon this kingdom, and things thus questionable, and unwarrantable in the way of administration, and a kingdom so full of impenitent and scandalous sinners as parochial congregations generally are, there is danger of great sin, and great trouble. answer. this may be true if government, whereby the scandalous will be severed from the religious, be either not established at all, or too long deferred: but that it may not be set up at all, or not so soon as is necessary, he brings some proofs from mr. prinnes vindication, (which he endeavours to disprove, and confute in other particulars) and i am willing to take notice of them rather from him, then from mr. pr. (though i have read them in his book) for divers reasons. 1. because mr. p. is a friend to the presbyterial government, having both a m. prinne his vindication. p. 56. pleaded for it, and been persecuted (as he saith) by sectaries, and independents, for his good will unto it. 2. because he b so in the epistle to the reader before his vindicat. fol. 2. p. 2. professeth to love and honour with his soul the assembly of divines; and hath in a book of purpose vindicated them from libellous aspersions of the antipresbyterians. i confess mr. saltm. was once so reverently and religiously conceited of them, that he honoured them in print with the title of a most sacred assembly, in a c m. salem. his dedication, of the examinations, or the discovery of some dangerous positions delivered in a sermon of reformation in the church of the savoy on the fast day, july 26. 1643. by tho. fuller. b. d. dedication of a little book unto them; some of whom (my self for one) desired him to forbear that title in the rest of the copies which were not then wrought off from the pres●e; but being so fare engaged against the presbyterial way as now he is, i cannot think he hath so good either opinion of, or affection to the assembly, as formerly he hath professed unto them, and towards them. 3. because i am confident that whatsoever mr. p. writeth (though i approve not all that is set out in his name) he writeth with a very upright and sincere heart; without any sinister end or aim at gain to himself, or glory with men. 4. because i have found him so kind to me in several kinds, that i am loath to take him for an adversary in any public contestation; and yet i shall take the boldness (as just occasion shall induce me) to use the freedom of a friend unto him, and to be true to the truth, without partial respect to friend or foe. 5. because mr. pr. doth not write what mr. saltm. allegeth out of him, against expedition in the setting up of presbyterial government, much less finally to suppress it, which seems to be the desire and endeavour of mr. salt●●. sect. xiiii. the objections taken from a supposed needlessness of the presbytery answered. that which he produceth against the presbytery in mr. prinnes name, consisteth chief of two particulars. 1. that there is no necessity of it, that it should be established. 2. the want of efficacy in it, where it is established. for the first, he produceth a remarkable passage (as he calls it) out of mr. prinnes vindication in these words. and if our assembly and ministers will but diligently preach against that catalogue of scandalous sins, and sinners, they have presented to the parliament, and the parliament prescribe severe tem porall laws and punishments against them, and appoint good civil magistrates to see them duly executed, and inflicted; i am confident, that this would work a greater reformation in our church and state in one half year, than all the church discipline and consures now so eagerly contested for, will do in an age, and will be the only true way, and speediest course to reform both church and state at once; which i hope the parliament will consider of, and take care, that our ministers (like the bishops formerly) may not now be taken up with ruling and governing, but preaching and instructing, which is work enough, wholly to engross their time and thoughts. answer. this saying of mr. p. i see beginneth to be had in honour by out independent brethren; for it is the alpha of mr. s.e. and mr. t.t. their defence of positions, it is as the omega of mr. s. his answer to mr. prins vindication, (and i wish the author of it may have so much of it from the better sort of them as may make him some amends for the contumelies, and calumnies he hath suffered from the worse) and if mr. p. his testimony be so authentic with them, (but with most of them i know it is not) it may not be amiss to mind them, not of a piece of a lease, but of whole a independency examined, unmasked, refuted by 12. new particular interrogatories: detecting both the manifold absurdities, inconveniences that must necessarily attend it, to the great disturbance of church, state, the diminution, subversion of the lawful undoubted power of all christian magistrates, parliaments, synods: and thaking the chief pillars, wherewith its patrons would support it. and, a fresh discovery of some prodigious new wandering-blazing stars and firebrands, etc. books of his making, against their way. the words forecited contain three things. 1. a remedy against scandalous sins, and the sufficiency of that remedy, without church-discipline, and censures, so eagerly contended for. 2. an hope that the parliament will consider of, and take care that ministers may not (like bishops formerly) be taken up with ruling, and governing. 3. a reason of that hope, because preaching, and instructing is work enough to engross their time and thoughts. 1. for the first, the remedy prescribed against scandalous sins. if our assembly and ministers will but diligently preach against that catalogue of scandalous sins, they have presented to the parliament, and the parliament prescribe severe temporal laws, and punishments against them, and appoint good civil magistrates to see them duly executed and inflicted. answer. here is less required of the ministers then is performed by many of them; more promised concerning laws, punishments, and magistrates then without presumption can be expected by any: for, 1. for the ministers, they preach against those scandalous sins contained in the catalogue, and more too; and undertake to add many more to the catalogue then are expressed; and the honourable house of commons hath sent an order to the assembly of divines to that purpose; and when a supplement is made in obedience thereto, there will be yet more found out not mentioned before; so that there will be still new matter for addition, unless there be a reserve 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, of remaining particulars, to be added when they are discovered, and some cautionary order made that the minister may not be put upon this hard dilemma, either to administer to any against his judgement and conscience, or to suspend his own act of administration with hazard to himself, either for his person, or estate; which will be a greater inconvenience than any worthy communicant can suffer, if he be upon the ministers mistake unworthily denied his right to god's ordinance for one turn only; (for before the next celebration of the sacrament that which was doubtful before may be fully cleared) and of this difference there be two reasons. 1. if the party came worthily prepared, and were refused, he may have his part in the benefit of the sacrament, as if he had actually received; for in such a case god accepteth the will for the deed. 2. if he have well prepared his heart for that holy communion, he hath so much charity, as not to take offence at the scrupled conscience of his minister, at least not to desire that he should act any thing against it, because of the counsel and determination of the apostle, whatsoever is not of faith is sin, rom. 14.23. so much humility, as to take the repulse in a doubtful case with meekness, and patience; so much faith, as to believe that though his innocence for the present be under a cloud, the lord will bring forth his righteousness as light, and his judgement as the noon day, psal. 37.6. object. if it be said, the minister may pretend conscience when it is perhaps some secret grudge, which tempts him to put upon his parishioner an open disgrace. answ. 1. i hope we shall have such ministers, so well known by their faithfulness in preaching, and conscionableness in walking, that there will be no ground for such a suspicion at such a time. 2. though the consciousness of mine own innocent intentions might dispose me, for mine own particular, to accept of any penalty that a civil sanction can impose, or that the arbitrary revenge of the repulsed party would inflict, if i were convinced to have kept any from the sacrament out of spite, or a perverse spirit, or inconsiderate rashness, without a cause which may be allowed to be just before a competent judge; yet i hope, that all who have authority to determine any thing upon such miscarriage of the minister, will think it sufficient, and answerable to exact justice, that he who shall abuse his power or transgress his duty in such a case, be dealt withal lege talionis; that is, that the classis for his undue suspension suspend him from the sacrament, which will bring so much more reproach and shame upon him, than he brought upon the party refused, as the more prudence, piety, and charity was required in him, and the more notice is taken of him when he prevaricates in his office and function, and is punished for it in such an open, and eminent manner. object. but to leave it in the power of the minister, without an express and particular rule, to receive, or reject whom he pleaseth, is to put into his hands an unlimited arbitrary power, which on all hands, in all sorts of men is disliked, and disclaimed. answ. 1. it is not to be left to the minister alone, but to the presbytery. 2. though he act alone in the administration itself, he is not to be thought to act by an arbitrary power, when according to his duty (following the rule and his present light) he endevoureth to put difference betwixt the holy and profane, betwixt the unclean and the clean, ●zek. 22.26. and to preserve the holy sacrament from contempt, that by a confusion of holy and unholy communicants, the brownists & others who act according to their principles, may not be hardened in their separation from our sacred assemblies. and in such a case for any private man to obtrude himself upon the minister, is to act an arbitrary power upon him, yea an arbitrary tyranny if he should be authorised so to do: and should it be so (out we have so much experience of the piety, prudence, and indulgence of the most honourable houses, that we can never suspect any such pressure to proceed from them) we can readily resolve to act, or to forbear what according to the dictate of our consciences we conceive to be enjoined, or prohibited by our great master, and to bear and suffer what shall be imposed on us by our superiors under him, to whom we profess our obedience is due, (being but private persons) either actively or passively, in whatsoever they shall determine concerning our persons, liberties, and estates. 2. for that he saith of severe laws and punishments to be constituted, and good magistrates chosen to see them actually executed, we confess, if that could be generally, and perpetually expected, or but for the most part, there were great hope of much help by such means against both the scandalous sins contained in the catalogue, and others of like kind; but so long as magistrates are men of no purer mould, or metal, than ministers are, and they pass not through so severe an examination before they be admitted to their offices, as ministers do, nor have so many obligations laid upon them for sincerity, and integrity, as are laid upon ministers; nor so many eyes upon them to observe their aberrations from a right rule, as ministers have; nor are like to have so many mouths open to reprove, or reproach them for, or so many hands to restrain them from misdoing, or to punish them for it, (as most ministers in regard of their poverty, and impotency, for the most part may expect, which the magistrates their superiors in estate and authority need not so much to fear) there is no reason i conceive, to take all power of censure from the presbytery, for the minister's sake (for the elders are not denied to be capable of jurisdiction as they are members of the civil state) and to put all upon the power, and vigilant and conscionable execution of the magistrate. and i doubt not but we may confidently aver, and the experience of precedent and subsequent times will make it good, that it is so fare from being superfluous that there be a concurrence of the civil and presbyterial power for suppression of sin, that when both are employed and improved with all prudence, diligence, and conscience, to suppress the corruption of nature, and to prevent the spreading and prevailing of scandalous sins, and when the severe and strict discipline of private families, and of common schools is added unto them, there will be no cause, for all that, to suspect any pleonasme either of piety, or civility, among the people of the kingdom. sect. xv. of mr. colemans' interimisticall magistracy. nor would that way which mr. coleman in his late (and yet perhaps too soon put forth) re-examination of the examination of his sermon remembreth, be so sufficient of itself, a brotherly examination, reexamined. p. 1●. as that if it had prevailed, there would have been no need of a presbytery to supply the defect thereof, as he delivereth it: it is this, at the extirpation of the prelacy, the honourable parliament would have established commissioners in all counties as an interimisticall magistracy, etc. and this he seemeth to conceive a better way of church government then that of the presbytery; so much better, that if that had been set up, this would have been superfluous. but in this historical passage of his, there be many particulars which may come under correction; for first, he saith the parliament would have established commissioners in all counties, as an interimisticall magistracy; and would the parliament have done it? why did they not do it? was any power greater than the parliaments? any prudence more prevalent than theirs? secondly, some, saith he, (and who they were is enough known) fearing that if once it were there placed, they should never get it into their hands again, cried it down, and were a stop in the way of the intended work. answer. who these some were, is not known enough, i think not at all; for it is like that a party, a smaller party, (for so must that be which is a contra-distinct to the honourable parliament) should oppose and overbeare the greater part, resolutions being made by plurality of votes? it is much more probable (to say no more) that some, and but some, would have set up an interimisticall magistracy, and that the honourable parliament cried it down and were a stop in the way of the intended work; my reason is, 1. because they never made ordinance, or order for that interimisticall magistracy. 2. because they have done both for the presbyterial government. 3. because an * interim germania decestabibis farrago. bez. respons. ad baldwin. p. 49. see bucolz. ind. chron. p. 562. add an. 1548. epist. brentii calvine. p. 77. interimisticall temperament hath been always by the godly, and orthodox party attended with jealousy and fear, and hath been by them as much hated, as feared. 4. because that interimisticall magistracy that was projected, was too like prelacy to be liked (by such as desired a thorough reformation;) and that in three things especially. 1. in that it had no warrant in the word of god. 2. that it would shrink up the power into a few hands, which should be communicated to many, as the prelacy did. 3. in that it was contrary to the example of all the truly reformed churches in the christian world. sect. xvi. the objection of eager contestation for church discipline, and censures answered. having done with mr. colemans' interim, (which came in as a parenthesis to the discourse we were in, though it be pertinent to it) i return to mr. saltm. his exception, taken out of mr. prinnes vindication, where he aggravates the matter against the presbytery, in that, though by the sufficiency of other remedies it be needless, (so it hath been said, and thereto we have replied) it is yet very eagerly contended for. the answer is, if he meant it concerning admission to, or rejection from the sacrament of the lords supper, (which is that which hath been most agitated betwixt him and some of our tribe) the contestation on the minister's part is but for the liberty of their conscience, the purity of god's ordinance, the preventing of scandal, which causeth and confirmeth schism; and in such cases it becomes them not to be remiss, or to manage such a cause with a laodicean luke warmness, but with servency of spirit; and yet i doubt not, but their zeal therein, for the chiefest of them, is, and will be guided with knowledge, and both tempered with humility, modesty, and meekness of spirit. and that it hath none affinity with an affectation of power, or liberty to reject men from the sacrament at their pleasure, i believe (because i am confident it is the mind of most of those ministers who are competently qualified with knowledge, and grace for their holy function) that it is matter of great grief of heart unto them to have any occasion of sending any of their congregations sad from the sacrament, or (as it may be likely to prove in most cases) with wrath, and heartburning against themselves. for my part i ever took it for one of the great aggrievances which many godly ministers (who were conformists in the gesture of receiving the lords supper) suffered under the domination of the bishops, that they put it upon them to put such from the sacrament as out of scruple of conscience durst not kneel at the receipt of it; and that such were threatened with suspension (and some actually suspended from the ministry) as admitted communicants either standing, or sitting, though never so well instructed and well affected in matter of religion, and never so religious in life and conversation; and if i might make mine own choice, i had rather submit myself to the meanest man within my pastoral charge, in the most servile offices belonging to his person, for a week together, then for one time only return him from the lords table, as unworthy to be admitted to partake of the provision thereof; or as coenam proximo die dominico sinnus celebraturi. hinc cogita quibus angustiis nunc constringar; utinon me absent posset celebrari, bac conditione, ut ad vos usque vel manibus reptarem. calvin. epist. farello, data calend. septemb. 1546. ep. p. 64. in fol. excus. genev. anno 1575. calvin once said on the like occasion, i had rather absent myself from the sacrament for that turn, when there is cause to turn any from the sacrament, though i went away somewhither upon mine hands, then to make any distinguishing disturbance in the celebration of the supper. and if i know mine own heart in this point, i think it would be as great a trouble to me to be an agent, as to any man to be a patiented in such a repulse; and as great a joy if any were able to clear it unto my conscience, that no part of that government ought to be committed to my charge, which i ever apprehended as a burden, (and that an heavy one) rather then a privilege. secondly, for the hope that he hath that the parliament will consider of, and take care that our ministers, (like the bishops formerly) may not be taken up too much with ruling and governing. answer. i hope so too, and i have more than hope also; for i am well assured the parliament is so wise, that their reformation will have so much of the spirit of sound judgement, so little of pangs of excessive antipathy, that they will not run so fare from one extreme, as to arrive at the other. there is a golden medium betwixt so much as the bishops had, and none at all, as some would now have it. thirdly, for the reason of that hope, it is because preaching and instructing is work enough wholly to engross their time, and thoughts. answer. yet not so wholly, but that there may be a competent time allowed for assistance in discipline; there have been many disciplinarians who have been frequent preachers, and great writers also; as calviu, beza, moulin, and divers others; and there are many divines at this present, who bestow many hours daily at the debates, and other business of the assembly at westminster, and yet are not wanting to their pulpits on the sabbath, and who preach many times on the week days besides; and (in modesty to omit the account of mine own time, studies and tasks for above forty years together, and i believe divers of my brethren have much to say for themselves to the same purpose) i shall instance only in the great abilities, and diligence of my very learned and religious friend, and brother, dr. hoyle, who had occasion by way of apology, to plead for himself, before his rejoinder to the lesuite malone, in this manner. the book indeed is presented to the world fare later than my expectation; which hath been ready, as it now comes forth, these many years: but the press was still employed, and occupied with other things, by them that had command. he that herein imputes sloth or negligence to me, knows me not. for if i should give but an indiculus of my studies, et vacet annales nostrorum audire laborum; i might make the jesuit, and a thousand more ashamed of their idleness. fare be it from me to brag and beast, who have ever abhorred all shadow of vainglory: remembering solomon's words, let another man praise thee and not thine own mouth, prov. 27. and therefore leaving it to the disposer, and prosperer of all mine endeavours, i content, and feast myself with the suffrage of my conscience, as desirous for mine own part to have something more than the world knows. though i might appeal (if need were) to the grand reader of europe, as best acquainted from the very first with me, and my studies. but what the world knows give me leave to speak: that it may appear that this work could never fall into fuller hands, or to a man more employed; who could allot no more time to it then what must be gained succisivis horis. pro archia. never could tully speak more truly of his abstracted life, and importunate lucubrations. i expounded the whole bible through in the college, in daily lectures, and in the chiefest books ordinarily a verse a day; we need not origen's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: this work we held almost fifteen years. a few years before this was ended i began likewise the second exposition of the whole bible in the church: and within ten years have ended all the new testament, excepting one book and a piece, all the prophets, all solomon and job; so that my answer to the jesuite did in part concur with both these labours. what preaching, what expounding, this is my constant practice, (neither sickness nor any thing else withdrawing me) thrice every sabbath for the fare greater part of the year; once every holiday, often twice, besides many other extraordinary sudden occasions. add to these my weekly lectures (as professor) in the controversies, and my answers to all bellarmine in word and writing. where in above eight years i finished his tome of the seven sacraments, for there we began; his last tome in six years, and now sundry years in the tome or tomes remaining. what breathing time had i in all these employments? or how could this work be committed to fuller hands? and though there be but a few who are so eminent in parts, and in performances so laborious, yet the most of those ministers who are to bear a part in the discipline of the church, either are, or (if the refomation proceed) will be so well qualified, that they may give due attendance upon preaching, and yet have competent time for other duties, whereto as men, as christians, or as ministers, whether in the church, or consistory, they are engaged. and mr. pr. knows by experience in his own profession, that many are able (being habituated in book-learning, and lawcases, and pleading of causes) upon a little warning to speak more, and better to the purpose, than many others by long preparation; and he himself, we see, hath time enough, not only to plead his clients causes, but to write so many books, as were they bound up together, would make divers very competent volumes: and while a good minister, (and i hope we shall have more store of such then in former times) is exercised in church government, he is not quite out of office for preaching, and instructing, for he may have just occasion and fair opportunity, ministerially to admonish those that are convened, either as parties to be censured, or as witnesses to be examined, in the ecclesiastical consistory. sect. xvii. the objection of in efficacy for holiness of life in such as live under the presbytery answered. the second particular he produceth, in mr. prinnes name, against the presbytery is, * m. salim. in his opening of 〈◊〉 the vindication. p. 23. 24. and in the vindication itself. p. 57 the want of efficacy in it, where it is established; which he exemplifieth by instances in several reformed churches elsewhere, and comparing england with them, he saith, that the practical power of godliness is generally more eminently visible in the lives of the generality of the people, more strict, pious, less scandalous, and licentious in our english congregations, where there hath been powerful preaching without the practice of excommunication, or suspension from the sacrament, then in the reformed churches of france, germany, denmark, or scotland; for which i appeal (saith he) to all travellours, and independent ministers, who have lived in the netherlands, who will, and must acknowledge, that in the sanctification of the lords day, strictness of life, and exemplariness of conversation, our english ministers and protestants excel all others. these be mr. pr. his words, upon which mr. saltm. maketh this inference, viz. that the vindication, though it pretend in the general face of it to be for the presbytery, yet it is clear, that in aspersing the government in all those reformed kingdoms, where the practice and power of it hath been, it secretly wounds the glory of it in the opinion of the world; and though it pull not down the government quite, yet it weakens the posts, or judgements of men, on which it stands. answer. 1. by what i have read of mr. prinnes writings, what i have observed of him myself, and received by report of such as are best acquainted with his mind, and ways, i conceive him to be so true an israelite, without all guile, that he will not pretend one thing, when he intends another. 2. for the assertion itself, there be two things to be considered. 1. whether it be true or no. 2. if so, what may be the reason of it, that alleged, or some other. for the first: whether the assertion be true or no? the resolution of this question must be made with difference of times; for countries', as well as particular persons, have their variations in religion, not only for profession of the faith, but for practise of holiness: as in king james his days, upon the declaration and liberty granted upon the sunday, (that is the name in the declaration, and it is the fittest name for a licence of profaneness) for sports and pastimes, renewed by the king that now is, the people of england were more lose and licentious on that day, than now they are, upon the burning of that book, and an ordinance of parliament set out for the more holy observation of the sabbath. the application of this distinction may resolve the observation several ways; and we may say, that sometimes one people or nation, sometimes another, (and the same people at one time more than at another) may be more conformable in practice to the principles of piety. and as there is a distinction of times, so of places; some are more, some less civilised; as in scotland * abbot geogr. p. 207, 208. the low-land is the most civil part of the realm, where religion is most orderly established; but the other part called the highland, which lieth further to the north, or bendeth towards ireland, is more rude and savage, and so further from conformity in religion. and there may be great difference also in respect of preachers, and sermons, wherewith some countries are much better furnished than others; and thence are not only more civil, but more religious also; for civility and religion mutually conduce to the help of each other; civility makes men more capable of religion, religion makes them more conformable to civility; this is observable in many parts of wales, and cornwall, which are but poorly stored with well gifted preachers, in comparison of london, and many other places of this kingdom. and whereas it is said, that in the reformed churches, as in the churches of france, germany, denmark, and scotland, the people be less strict and pious, more licentious and scandalous then in england, where there hath been powerful preaching, without the practice of excommunication, and suspension from the sacrament. it is to be considered that in england both suspension from the sacrament, and excommuication have been in use, before the deposition of the prelates and service book; and by this argument we might plead for the retaining of the english prelacy and liturgy, and against the establishment of the presbytery and directory, both which mr. priune hath in a better opinion and reputation, than the government and book which were their predecessors in the english church; and if we suppose there is powerful preaching with the one government, and not with the other, we should ascribe the prelation to that which is principal and present, viz. the preaching of the word, and not cast a reproach upon that which is accessary (though in a secondary degree necessary also) because it is absent, since the want thereof can contribute nothing to spiritual proficiency, but the presence and exercise of it, very much. 2. question: if the precedent assertion be true, what may be the reason? answer. if there be less strictness in those forementioned churches, then in the church of england, it cannot be charged upon the presbyterian discipline, or government; for there is nothing in that which tends to licentiousness, and scandal, but to the quite contrary; and i can speak it by experience, that the formal admonition of inordinate walkers by the minister, and churchwardens, without any further proceeding in discipline, hath kept many in more awe, and better order, then without it they would have been; so that where the word is powerfully preached, and that discipline duly, and piously, and impartially administered, it is not only very effectual for preservation of the profession of christianity from heresy, and schism, (as * see the preface to the new annotations of the bible. p. 1. of the church of scotland is observed), but for promotion of the practice of piety, and prevention of looseness of life, as of the church of geneva is noted, and acknowledged by bodine, a papist, in the sixth chapter of his book, the meth, historiae. and if any where the people living under this government be more generally profane, then where it is not, it may, or rather must, be referred, 1. to some other reason, as in germany the sin of drunkenness prevaileth so much, that this reproachful proverb passeth upon them, * heylin● g●●ogr. p. 256. germanorum vivere est bibere: the germans life is drowned in his liquor: whence it is that they abound in brewers, * ibid. p. 260. having 777. of that trade, 40. bakers, one lawyer, one physician, in the town of hamburge; and where they are habitually addicted to that vice, they are little disposed to the power of godliness. 2. in some countries where the presbytery is established, the ministers are in mean estimation, because they are reduced to a despicable poverty, their revenues being kept from them, by the nobility and gentry, and they tucked up to * the large declaration of the late tumults in scotland. p. 7, 8. some poor pittance, either by way of stipendiary benevolence, or some other mean allowance, unworthy of the ministers of the gospel; and which exposeth them to all manner of contempt, and a base dependence upon their patrons: now where the ministers of the gospel are despised, the gospel is less honoured, and the people less affected with any doctrine, or duty of piety, and conscience. 3. some reformed churches, though they admit of the presbyterian government, are the less reform, because they are in their habitation, and conversation, mingled with profane papists, as in france. 4. and lastly, the most reformed churches in foreign parts are, and long have been much unreformed in the doctrine of the sabbath; which few foreign divines teach so sound, few foreign christians observe so conscientiously, as do the divines and christians of the church of england; and it is experimentally proved, that according to men's care, or neglect of the sanctification of the sabbath, they are more or less pious, or profane, strict, or licentious in their conversations. it is not then the absence of discipline, where the word is powerfully preached, and the sabbath religiously observed, that furthereth any thing to holiness of life, but the want of these (which should be joined with discipline) which makes it less effectual for popular reformation; but where all are joined together, there not only the ordinary behaviour of men is more orderly, but divers are in their lives so strict, so exact, that, as a * the essays of the lord ●erulam. essay ●2. 〈…〉. witty author makes the resemblance, they are like a verse wherein every syllable is measured. sect. xviii. showing what might be retorted upon the antipresbyteriall party, but concluding for unity and peace, with allegation of mr. burroughs his propositions of reconciliation and accord: and some other particulars tending thereto. hitherto i have for the most part held out the buckler of apology against the exceptions taken at the present setting up of the presbyterial government. i could now take up the sword of assault, and put mr. saltm. to be defendant, while i bring in objections against the haste which some of his party make in setting up their congregational way, not only without authority, but against it. for the presbyterian discipline hath been by authority of parliament in ●●bate, first in the assembly, afterward in both houses of parliament; and so fare as it is agreeable to the word of god, and the example of the best reformed churches, covenanted to be established in this kingdom, and in the kingdom of ireland, contrary to the congregational and independent platform; and many parts of it have been set forth already by ordinance, or order of the honourable houses; yet the presbyterians take not upon them to be active in the choice of elders, or in any other part of ecclesiastical power, but humbly wait for further warrant from the parliament, to proceed in the work; while many of our dissenting brethren, of their own accord, and without the command, or consent, and against the vote of the civil state, gather churches, or continue the government of those they have gathered, according to the model of their own choosing, notwithstanding the joint admonition of many eminent ministers, as well independent as presbyterial, to forbear, until what was, and yet is, in part, under deliberation, came to accomplishment: and * m. s. eton teacher, and tim. taylor, pastor of the church of duckenfield in cheshire, in their late defence of sundry positions and scriptures to justify the congregational way. some take the boldness publicly, and in print, to avow themselves as ministers under the name, and office of teachers and pastors of new constituted churches, and publicly to assert their repugnant principles, and practices, in opposition to that which the honourable houses of parliament have partly authorised already, by their civil sanction, and engaged themselves further to authorize, throughout the churches of both kingdoms, as god shall be pleased to make way for a thorough reformation, by reducing the several countries under the command of the king and parliament. but i had rather (than recriminate) friendly and kindly close with my yet dissenting brother; and therefore hearty commend it to his christian consideration, to study the reconciliation, and union of all the godly party, (as mr. burroughs hath lately done) and not to proceed to discourses which tend to make, or maintain division, or estrangement, and alienation of affection betwixt them. to that purpose i shall propose as a pattern of imitation to mr. saltm. and to all others who partake with him in his present opinion, what he hath set down in the seventh chapter of his irenicum in his own words. first, mr. burroughs his irenieum. c. 7. p. 43, 44, 45. those in the congregational way acknowledge, that they 〈◊〉 bound in conscience to give account of their ways to the churches about them, or to any other who shall require it; this not in an arbitrary way, but as a duty that they own to god, and man. secondly, they acknowledge that synods of other ministers, and elders about them, are an ordinance of jesus christ, for the helping the church against errors, schisms, and scandals. thirdly, that these synods may, by the power they have from christ, admonish men or churches in his name, when they see evils continuing in, or growing upon the church; and their admonitions carry with them the authority of jesus christ. fourthly, as there shall be cause, they may declare men or churches to be subverters of the faith; or otherwise, according to the nature of the offence, to shame them before all the churches about them. fiftly, they may by a solemn act, in the name of jesus christ, refuse any further communion with them, till they repent. sixthly, they may declare, and that also in the name of christ, that these erring people, or churches, are not to be received into fellowship with any of the churches of christ, nor to have communion one with another, in the ordinances of christ: now all this being done in christ's name, is this nothing to prevail with conscience? if you say, private brethren may admonish, and declare in the name of christ. this is more than if any private brethren should do the same thing; for at synod is a solemn ordinance of christ, and the elders are to be looked on as the officers of jesus christ. but our brethren say, there is one means more in their way, than the congregation all way hath, that is, if the six former will not work, than synods may deliver to satan. in this very thing lies the very knot of the controversy, between these who are for the presbyterial, and those who are for the congregational way, in reference to the matter in hand, namely the means to reducing from, or keeping out errors and heresies from the church, in this lies the dividing business: but i beseech you consider at what a punctum we divide here, and judge whether the cause of division in this thing be so great, as there can be no help; and whether, if an evil spirit prevail not amongst us, we may not join; for, first, consider, what is there in this delivering to satan? which is a seventh thing which our brethren think may hopefully prevail with men's consciences, when the six former cannot. yes, say they, for by this they are put out of the kingdom of christ, into the kingdom of satan, and this will terrify. this putting out of christ's kingdom, must be understood clavae non errante; if the synod judges right, not otherwise; yes, this is granted by all. then consider whether this be not done before, and that with an authority of christ, by those former six things; for bereticall congregations, or persons, are judged and declared in a solemn ordinance, by the officers of christ, gathered together in his name, to be such as have no right to any church ordinance, to have no communion with any of the churches of christ. now if this judgement be right, are not such persons, or congregations put out of the kingdom of christ, and put under the power of satan consequently? but thirdly. if some brethren rise to a seventh degree, and others stay at six, which have yet such a power over conscience, that if they prevail not, the seventh is no way likely to prevail: why should not the apostles rule quiet us all, phil. 3.15, 16. whereto we have already attained, let us walk by the same rule; if in any thing you be otherwise minded, god will reveal even this unto you; if we have attained but to six, and our brethren have attained to seven, let us walk together lovingly to the six; if god shall after reveal the seventh (we will promise to pray and study in the mean time) we shall walk with them in that also: why must it needs be now urged with violence, so as to divide else? and although we hold not the seventh, yet there is an ingredient in the sixth, that hath in it the strength of the seventh; for wherein lies the strength of the seventh above the rest? is it not in this, that it is the last means christ hath appointed in his church to work upon the heart? this consideration hath much terror it it; now those in the congregational way say, that this is fully in the sixth, wherefore that is as terrible to their consciences, as the seventh can be to the consciences of our brethren, and that upon the same ground. if so, what is the difference (for this matter) more than that which hath been betwixt many godly and orthodox divines about the division of the lords prayer, whether it contain 6. or 7. petitions, when those that are for six, have as much matter in those six, as those that have seven; and those that have seven, no more than is contained in the six? for my part, if this be candidly, and cordially in point of church government delivered, and so received, and professed by those of his side, i hope such as are adversaries unto both parties, shall not long rejoice, and prosper by the advantage they make of our mutual divisions. sect. xix. further grounds and hopes of union in the churches of the sister kingdoms of england and scotland, with answers to the objections that are made against it. i have the more hope of the union , because if they (who in respect of the paucity and novelty of their party, compared with the churches of the presbyterian government, throughout the christian world, for number and seniority are not so considerable as some conceive) will yield as fare as they ought, for a pacifical accord, their presbyterian brethren will as fare as they may (with security to the truth, and reservation of the interest, and honour of the reformed churches) come down to them in such a christian accommodation, as is requisite for a conclusion of peace. my ground for this is that which i have observed in the disposition of the reverend, religious, and prudent commissioners of the church of scotland; for though that church be supposed, and censured by some, as the most rigid in exacting assent to, and observation of her rules, and customs, as if all must yield to her, as the standard of discipline, and she would yield to none, they have always, in all their debates, and behaviour, even towards the dissenting brethren, carried themselves with a most christian and evangelicall sincerity, and sweetness of spirit, and some of them have well witnessed to the world their hopes, desires, and endeavours for peace, especially with all the religious and faithful preachers, and professors of the church of england. for instance, one of them in his * mr. gillespie his brotherly examination of some passages of m. c. his printed sermon. p. 33. this is repeated in his latter book called nihi● respondes. p. 19 brotherly examination of some passages in mr. colem. his sermon, to this question, where shall the independents and we meet? returneth this answer, in holding a church governmeut jure divino, that is, that the pastors and elders ought to suspend, or excommunicate, according to the degree of the offence of scandalous sinners; and who can tell but the purging of the church from scandals, and the keeping of the ordinances pure, when it shall be actually seen to be the great work endeavoured on both sides, may wake union betwixt us and the independents more easy than many imagine? and in his * ibid. latter book (saith he) we will never despair of an union with such as are sound in the faith, holy in life, and willing to a church refining and sinne-censuring government, in the hands of church officers. and in answer to mr. c. his relation of news of agreement betwixt presbyterians and independents, lutherans and calvinists, papists and protestants, turks and christians; in holding that there is a religion wherein men ought to walk, he saith: no sir, they must be united upon the like terms, that is, you must first have turks to be christians, papists to be protestants, and then you must have them as willing to purge the church of scandals, and to keep the ordinances pure, etc. and after a few lines before repeated, quitting mr. c. his jeering report of news, he replieth (but soberly and seriously) now will i tell you my news, the presbyterians and independents are both equally interested against the erastian principles; and which is more, for degree of assurance, and for more general concurrence in truth and peace; not this commissioner, nor these commissioners only, but the whole church of scotland, is well prepared, and disposed to a christian, and brotherly compliance with the church of england, in the way of reformation; for mr. coleman having objected that the commissioners of scotland came not to the assembly at westminster as divines, by dispute and disquisition to find out the truth, but at judges to censure all different opinions as errors; for so (saith he) come for nine divines to dort, alexander to the council of nice, cyrill to ephesus; the learned commissioner answereth him thus: is it not enough to slander us, though he do not for our sakes slander those worthy divines that came to the synod of dort, alexander also and cyril, prime witnesses for the truth in their days? would no less content him then to approve the objections of the arminians against the synod at dort, which i had mentioned, p. 33? but he gets not away so: the strongest instance which i had given he hath are once touched: it was concerning paul and barnabas who wore engaged (not in the behalf of one nation but of all the churches of the gentiles) against the imposition of the mosaical rites, and had so declared themselves at antioch, before they came to jerusalem. finally, whereas he doubts, though not of our willingness to learn more, yet of our permission to receive more: that very paper first given in by we (which i had cited, and unto which he makes this reply) did speak not only of our learning, but of the church of scotland's receiving: and which is more, there is an actual experiment of it, the last general assembly having ordered the laying aside of some particular customs in that church, and that for the nearer uniformity with this church of england, as was expressed in their own letter to the reverend assembly of divines. and though they thought it necessary to show their different opinion in one point of the directory, yet they entered their dissent without any disaffection to us of the assembly; i will give you their sense in their own words, which are these: only we have thought it necessary to declare, and make known, that the clause in the directory for the administration of the lords supper, which appointeth the table to be so placed, that the communicants may orderly sit about it, or at it, is not to be interpreted as if in the judgement of our kirks, it were indifferent for any of the communicants not to come to, and receive at the table, or as if we did approve the distributing of the elements by the minister to each communicant, and not by the communicants among themselves, in which particulars we still conceive and believe the order and practise of our own kirke to be most agreeable to the word of god, the example of our lord jesus christ, and the nature of that heavenly feast and table; nevertheless in other particulars we have resolved, and do agree to do as you have desired us in your letter: this was part of the letter from the general assembly at edinburgh, signed thus: subscribed in the name of the general assembly by mr. robert douglas moderator. feb. 13. 1644. whereby we see they do not for that difference of opinion take any offence, or show any dislike of their brethren at westminster, nor any distaste at the rest of the directory for any particular contained in it. but yet for all this some are so unwilling to believe there will be peace, (especially in the point of government of the church) that they feign the parliament and the assembly of divines at irreconciliable difference about it, the divines requiring the stamp of divine right to be set upon it, and the parliament resolute to yield no more authority for it, than a mere civil sanction can give unto it. answer. to this we answer: 1. that the divines do not affirm the whole frame and fabric of church government to be of divine right, for it is made up of particulars of different kinds, viz. substantials of government, which have their warrant either by ordinance in his word, or direct inference from it, as that there must be church officers, pastors, and their ordination, elders, and deacons, and church offices both of preaching, administration of the sacraments, and government; church censures, admonition, suspension, excommunication; and accidental, or circumstantial additions, which are of prudential direction, and consideration, as for pastors, when and in what manner they shall be ordained; whether a preacher should treat on a text, or on some theological theme or common place, when and how oft, and to how many at once the sacraments should be administered, how many assisting elders should be in a parish, and whether they should be chosen and admitted to their office with imposition of hands, and continue in it for a year or two, or for term of life; in what form of words admonition, suspension, or excommunication should be comprised and pronounced, with divers others of like sort. this distinction the divines of the assembly make of the contents of the directory for the public worship of god throughout the three kingdoms, (and the same hath the like use in the church government desired) their words in the last lease of the preface of the directory are these: we have, after earnest and frequent calling upon the name of god, and after much consultation, not with flesh and blood, but with the holy word, resolved to lay aside the former leiturgy, with the many rites and ceremonies formerly used in the worship of god: and have agreed upon this following directory for all the parts of public worship, at ordinary and extraordinary times. wherein our care hath been to hold forth such things as are of divine institution in every ordinance; and other things we have endeavoured to set forth according to the rules of christian prudence, agreeable to the general rules of the word of god. 2. though the honourable houses have not yet asserted the constitution of the church government as ordained in or derived from, or as agreeable to the word of god, because, (as some render the reason) it is not the manner of lawmakers to mingle matter of religion with their civil sanction; yet when they present it complete in all the parts thereof, it may be they will at least give intimation of the conformity of it to the canonical scriptures according to the distinction of the parts before proposed; and it is not so strange and unusual (as some pretend) for legislative authority to borrow a religious reputation for what they enact or ordain from the word of god, for we find instance thereof in the statutes (a) concerning the sacrament of the lords supper the words of institution are set down, and 15. places of scripture quoted in the marginewith letters of reference in the text. poult. abridgm. p. 826. of the first year of edward the sixth, c. 1. (b) the statute of the first of q. merry, c. 2. repealed as causing a decay of the honour of god, and the discomsort of the professors of the truth of christ's religion. ibid. p. 1005. in the first of eliza. c. 2. (c) for as much as profane swearing and cursing is forbidden by the word of god. ibid. p. 1403. in the 21. of k. james, c. 20. (d) nothing more acceptable to god than the true and sincere service and worship of him according to his holy will, and that the holy keeping of the lords day is 2 principal part of the true service of god. ibid. p. 1427. in the first of k. charles. c. 1. & (e) for as much as the lords day commonly called sunday is much broken and profaned by carrier's, &c. to the great dishonour of god, reproach of religion, etc. ibid. p. 1434. in the third of k. james. c. 1. lastly, the present parliament hath done the like already for some parts of the reformation authorised, as for the ordination of ministers, which is a chief part of the presbyterial authority, of which they say, * so in the ordinance for ordination ordered to be printed. october 2. 1644. p. 2. whereas it is manifest by the word of god, that no man ought to take upon him the office of a minister until he be lawfully called and ordained thereunto; and that the work of ordination, that is to say, an outward solemn setting apart of persons for the office of the ministry in the church by preaching presbyters, is an ordinance of christ, and is to be performed with all due care, wisdom, gravity, and solemnity: it is ordained by the lords and commons, etc. and in their ordinance for the directory, jan. 3. 1644. they begin with these words, the lords and commons assembled in parliament, taking into serious consideration the manifold incenveniences that have risen by the book of common prayer in this kingdom, and resolving according to their covenant to reform religion according to the word of god, and the example of the best reformed churches, have consulted with the reverend, pious, and learned divines, called together to that purpose; and do judge it necessary that the said book of common prayer be abolished, and the directory for the public worship of god, herein after mentioned, be established, and observed in all the churches within this kingdom, etc. if it be said, that ordination and worship are usually distinguished from power and government, and that both of them have more express warrant from the word of god, then can be found in scripture for the presbyterial government. i auswer. 1. that the question is not now whether there be difference betwixt them, but whether there be such difference betwixt a civil sanction, and divine ratification, that the one may not well be brought in with the other. 2. that though there were much use made of the distinction of the key of order, and the key of power, or of jurisdiction in the time of the prelates, so that they confined that wholly to the clergy, principally to themselves, while they sold, or trusted out the key of power, or of jurisdiction to vicar's general, chancellors, archdeacon's, commissaries, and rural deans: yet is ordination one of the principal parts of the presbyterial power; and if it be (as it is commonly taken) matter of power, to let into the church by the sacrament of baptism, as indeed it is; and whom to admit to, and whom to keep back from participation of the sacrament of the lords supper, it is a degree of power fare above both, whom to ordain to, or whom to debar from the order of presbyters: for, 1. whatsoever power or authority a presbyter may claim by the word of god, is virtually included in his ordination. 2. they that have power to ordain a presbyter, have power, upon just cause, to silence and suspend the execution of that power, and to stop his mouth, tit. 1.11. if it be opened to broach heresy, or blasphemy, or if his conversation be vicious, and scandalous. 3. the covenant, for the general heads of it, comprehendeth a perfect enumeration of the main parts of the desired reformation, under the titles of doctrine, worship, discipline, and government; but ordination is not to be referred to doctrine or worship, but to discipline or government; for the ordaining of governors, and the exercise of government, properly appertain to the same topick or classis. 4. though government and worship be distinguished betwixt themselves, yet both agree in this, that their general grounds and rules are found in the word of god, and in that respect, the one may be set forth in the civil sanction with a relish of, and reference to a religious constitution, as well as the other. but in case they will not be pleased to express any divine right, in any part of the government, in their civil sanction, and will in a parliamentary, and legislative way, establish that thing which really, and in itself, is agreeable to the word of god; though they do not declare it to be the will of jesus christ, (as is noted before out of the learned commissioner of scotland his * sect. 8. p. 25. brotherly examination, and he hath the like in his * p. 32. nihil respondes) we must be satisfied. * p. 22. sect. xx. an appendix to the precedent examination, being an apologetical narrative of the petitions of the common council of the city, and ministers of london, presented to both the honourable houses of parliament the 19th and 20th days of novem. 1645. with a vindication of them, and the proceed in them, from the scandalous aspersions of the weekly pamphleteers, especially of him, who miscalls himself by the name of the moderate intelligencer. but howsoever the hope of union hath gone on hitherto, since the petitions of the common council, and of the ministers of the city, were presented to the parliament, there is great likelihood of a dangerous breach betwixt the parliament and them, which will not easily be cemented up to perfect accord. so haply may some conceive, who know no more of the matter than they are told by the moderate intelligencer, or by his plagiatie the writer of the continuation of especial and remarkable passages, (who repeats his lying and scandalous relation, word for word) in these terms: this day the common council did present a petition to the commons house of parliament, by divers aldermen, and others of that council, which seemed to complain, or take ill the proceed of the parliament with the assembly, in the late business past concerning the election of elders, etc. the commons sat long about the business, and laid it much to heart, that any such thing should come from the city, and that they should lend an ear to any, that should in so evil a way represent things unto them; and of what dangerous consequence it was, and gave them an answer to this effect. that they did perceive that they had been informed; and that they could not but lay it much to heart, that they, who had ever been so ready to do all good offices for the kingdom, and go with the parliament, should from any, but the parliament, take a representation of their proceed; and entreated them, that herealter they would take satisfaction from themselves: it's true they did believe they meant well, and had a good meaning, and intention in it, but they were abused. they had no sooner given answer to this, but there came another from the clergy, to the same effect, which was more sad than the former, for they conceived this latter was an appeal from the houses to the people, and of as dangerous a consequence as could be imagined; and that it deserved a high censure: and withal they resolved, if that was the way intended, they would go on with their declaration, and quickly undeceive the people; and in the interim they referred it to the committee of examinations, that the first contrivers, and after fomenters of this business, may be dealt with according to merit. this is a parcel of their weekly report, but principally his, who miscalls himself the moderate intelligencer, for he is neither intelligent, writing what he understands not, nor moderate, being passionately addicted to a party, to flatter, either out of an erroneous sancie, fond set upon irregular novelties in opinion, and practice, or out of a covetous affection to the wages of iniquity, the reward of flattery or slander, as the bad cause, whereto he hath engaged his pen, hath need to be served with the one or the other, and in the latter he hath showed himself this last week, a very 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, (that's the word in the original for a false accuser) 2 tim. 3.3. a false accuser of the brethren, revel. 12.10. not of brethren in evil, as simeon and levi, gen. 49.5. but in good, in most sincere, and zealous desires, and endeavours to be serviceable to the parliament, in prosecution of the great cause that is in hand, the through reformation of church and state. among whom there are many, who taken single by themselves, might in good manners have been entertained with terms which savour more of reverence, then of contempt; but this three-farthing news-monger takes upon him, as if he had been authorised by the parliament, to involve all the venerable magistrates, and prime men of power, and trust, in this honourable city, and a very great number of the most learned, laborious, and conscientious ministers of the province of london, in an unfaithful and undutiful association against the parliament, for their joint petitioning to the parliament. and where lieth the crime, that may make them liable to so loud a clamour? was it for petitioning in general, or for their petitioning in particular? if we consult with his scandalous paper, we shall find that he layeth an heavy charge upon both: first for the general, in the precedent page he ushereth it in with an egregious calumny, in these words: * p. 203: now let us come home, and look about us, and see if while our army is labouring to subdue the enemy, and end strife, there is not new beginning by those that fame saith have been the causes of all the strife; we did entreat them the last week they would let the parliament alone, and wait, and not doubt they would see a good issue, and good content; they need not fear, they may be kept a while from their desires, but in the end they will have content, if their own earnest pressing for it, do not hinder. now let us come home? it would be well sir, if you would come home, and keep at home, and take measure of your own parts, and sit close to your trade, and not ramble abroad, to busy yourself in writing intelligence of matters which are fare above the elevation of your pole, or the comprehension of your head-piece. but your zeal perhaps (such a zeal as the apostle taxeth, which is without knowledge, rom. 10.2. just like a pressing-iron which hath heat without light) stirred you up to complain of some troublesome spirits, who, while the army is labouring to end strife, begin it anew; and they are such (say you) as fame saith have been the causes of all the strife; and who be they? fame saith, the late deputy of ireland, and the little drelate of canterbury were prime causes of the kingdoms, and the church's disturbance. and are they since their heads were cut off (as herod thought of john baptist, mark 6.16.) raised from the dead, to revive our divisions? common fame saith, the queen and her faction, that have parted the king and the parliament, digby, hopton, goring, greenvile, and other military malcontents, have caused, and do still continue the most dangerous contentions, and convulsions in england, as moutrosse and his party in scotland; ormond, and his barbarous and bloody papists in ireland. but we must look for these make bats at home, and find out such as at present do trouble our peace; and if we do so, fame saith, that they are such among us, as oppose the settling of an uniform government, and break out communities into several sects; such as so divide the husband from the wife, the parents from the children, the master from the servants, that a zealous joshua cannot say, i and my house will serve the lord, iosh. 24.15. since his family is distracted, and sorted into several congregations, and it may be also into heretical conventicles. fame saith, that such factious journeymen as mr. d. are public incendiaries, and trumpeters of sedition, by taking all occasions, making use of all advantages, casting about for all manner of devices, to increase their divided party, that they may be able to uphold a faction; and because they cannot hope that their novelty and paucity should be able to maintain a public contest against so many both persons and churches, as are engaged against their way, they make it their masterpiece, to leaven the most considerable societies, cities, sea-townes, armies, but especially the parliament, with their independent principles, and practices; and either to get independents into places of chief power and trust, or to seduce such as are eminent in dignity, endowments, or authority, to their side; and if they cannot obtain them, they plot how to displace them; and if they cannot do that, to render them less serviceable to the public, their way is to weaken their reputation with reproaches, or cunningly to intimate some matter of suspicion touching their acts, or intentions; if they be of such integrity as is of impregnable proof against their obloquy, than they will, by way of compliance, work out of them what they can, which may conduce to their design; and if they can prevail no further, they will at least by an artificial sweetness of behaviour, by appearances of more than ordinary piety, by a pretended extenuation of difference of opinion, and practice, and by such insinuations, so becalm or becharme the spirits of some presbyterians of eminent parts, as to make them, if not favourable to their cause, yet so that they may not appear against them when they should, or but in a very remiss and moderate degree of opposition. lastly, (to return to our intelligencer) they set up weekly pamphleteers, who are wholly of their stamp, or fee them, or by some other artifices work upon them, to take all occasions to magnify their party, and to vilify and calumniate those that oppose them; and so they sometimes hyperbolise a shrub on that side into a cedar, and disparage those, who under god are the chief pillars, and supporters of the public welfare, as if they were of no more worth, or use, than reeds shaken with the wind; and this is not the least part of the independent policy, to drive on their design all over the kingdom; for most of the common people know little of the progress of public affairs, but by such informers, and they furnish them with weekly lies, to honour those of their own sect, or sects rather, (for they are many) and to cast reproaches on such as are serious, and resolute in all just, and lawful means of establishing of truth, and restoring of peace. but it may be he meaneth by fame, that report which he and his fellows in lose sheets have dispersed abroad in city, and country; and if so, i say, famaest malum, his fame is infamous; notoriously false, as he applieth it, viz. to those who make addresses to the parliament by way of petition. we did entreat (saith he) the last week they would let the parliament alone, and wait, and no doubt they would see a good issue, and good content. we did entreat them to let the parliament alone? we sir, who besides yourself? and why you? and what mean you by letting the parliament alone? do you forbidden the subject of england to petition the parliament? if that be your meaning (as a man of moderate intelligence may easily perceive it is) do you not mean they should be deprived of the most undoubted privilege, and liberty, which by the law of nature, and of nations, is allowed all over the world? if the parliament had been of that mind, since their first session, they would not have tendered so many petitions to the king, nor have received so many petitions from all parts of the kingdom; nor could they (but by the informations received in them) have known so much of the distemper of several counties, nor had so just grounds and causes as they had, for many of their orders, and ordinances, which were issued out from that honourable senate: and yourself say in the next page, that a part of the parliaments answer to the city petition was, that the citizens were entreated hereafter that they would take satisfaction from themselves, that is, satisfaction of their doubts, and desires by immediate recourse to that honourable court; and how can that be better, or more acceptably done, then by way of petition? but he saith, they need not fear, they may be kept a while from their desires, but in the end they will have content, if their own earnest pressing for it, do not hinder. how knows he that better than they, who have put up their desires for expediting the difficulties of the government, by way of petition to the parliament? the truth is, if he believe what he writes, it is but as the devil believes there is a god, with a very ill will, and if he do not tremble at it, he is afraid of it; and he would have the orthodox party but so to believe it too, as to make them neglect the best means to procure it; for it hath been another piece of subtlety of these sons of zerviah, 2 sam. 3, 39 to delay resolution against their way, by pretence that there is no need of speed in it, or no fit season or opportunity for it, that their opposites may securely sleep, or slacken their endeavours, while they with intentive vigilance, and double diligence, work on their own web towards the period they have projected; and give them but time to prosecute their cause, and they that say now we need not fear, will say at length perhaps, we may not hope to enjoy our desires; and it may be they will endeavour to * see the epistle dedicatory to the high end honourable court of parliament, of mr. prinues ●resh discovery of some prodigious new wandring-blazingstarres and firebrands, etc. fol. 3. p. ●. and dr. bastwicks' preface to the second part of his book against independency, called the postscript. fol. 14. p. b. & fol. 15. p. 2. affright us that they will have theirs by force of arms. lastly, he makes as if over earnest pressing for the government, were the way to hinder it; and abating the word over, (which is his word of aggravation, for he thinks all's too much that is done to such a purpose) we doubt not but an earnest, and humble pressing by way of petition, will prevail; for it is not fit to trouble the parliament with any matter which is not worthy of pressing importunity; though i confess there is a prudence to be observed, when, and how, and how fare to prosecute a suit in that most high and honourable court: and so from his exception against petitioning in general, we will come to what he hath said of the petitions in particular, which this week were presented to the two houses of parliament, this day (that is, wednesday the nineteenth of november, etc.) saith he, the common council did present a petition to the commons house of parliament,— and there came another from the clergy to the same effect, etc. of these petitions it will be convenient to consider; 1. how they were framed. 2. how they were presented. 3. how they were accepted. 1. for the first, we shall distinctly observe; 1. the occasion of the petitions. 2. the contents of them. 3. the consent and concurrence for resolution about them. sect. xxi. the occasion of the petitions of the common council and ministers of london, and the presenting of them to the honourable houses of parliament. the occasion is contained in this declaration following, made by the ministers of london, and by them presented to the honourable court of common council of the city in this tenor. we the ministers of london, having heretofore received from the right honourable the late lord major, a resolve of the honourable house of commons, of september 23. 1645. for choosing elders forthwith in the province of london, with their order annexed of october 8. 1645. for communicating the same to our respective congregations, did thereupon choose a committee in our names, both to acquaint the lord major how we had obeyed the said order, and further to signify unto him some doubts, and difficulties, for present obstructing our further progress therein. whereupon his lordship was pleased to impart the same to the honourable court of common council, which the honourable court so fare resented, as to appoint a committee of their own members to confer further with the ministers about the premises, october 20. in which conference we declared to the said committee that some of the former doubts were removed by the directions of the lords and commons of august 19 and the ordinance of october 20. 1645. but that some were continued, and other new difficulties did rise, by occasion of the directions and ordinance. the result of which conference was represented to this honourable court, attested by their own committee. upon which an order of court was sent unto us, dat. octob. 27. 1645. entreating the ministers to present their desires and reasons thereof to this court in writing under their hands. in reference unto which order, we the ministers of london (thankfully acknowledging ourselves much obliged both to the right honourable the said lord maior, and this honourable court, for all their loving respects unto us in this matter, so much laid to heart by them) did humbly present both our desires, and the reasons thereof: their desires are the same which are comprised in their petition, which in its proper place will offer itself to the reader. the reasons i think it fit to forbear, for divers reasons, whereof that which i shall mention in the third particular may be sufficient. the second thing is the contents, which consisted chief of requests, and reasons for the establishment of the presbyterial government; wherein, though the penning of each petition was divers in style, and form of words, yet as i know for the one, which i saw, so i believe of the other, which i saw not, that there was nothing in it, which they thought would be offensive to either house of parliament. this traducing intelligencer saith, the city petition seemed to complain, and take ill the proceed of the parliament with the assembly, in the late business past concerning the election of elders. but they did but seem so, and to such perhaps only, as were not acquainted how careful they were (who were composers or perusers of the petition) to shun any expression, that might be justly liable to the exception of the chief sages of the kingdom. for the third particular, they consented to exhibit the same schedule of reasons, (being in number twelve) that were tendered by the ministers to the honourable court of common council; which, because they were pleased to own, i will not presume to make public, without their consent; yet their consent i may note (to their great commendation, and for their just vindication from the imputation of schism, which hath been reproachfully charged upon the citizens of london) which was such, that, as i have heard from such as i dare believe, the petition being read in the common council, passed with a nemine contradicente, not one man giving a negative vote against it; which is an assured argument of the soundness of the aldermen, and common council, (the most honourable, and considerable part of the citizens) and of their clearness from the taint of heretical, and schismatical tenets; and this union was well observed as a confutation of their reports, who had gloried in a pretended general opposition to the presbyterial government in this city. the second thing is the presenting of these petitions, which was done at the house of commons, (upon wednesday the nineteenth of november) to whom the city petition was first presented by a competent number of aldermen, and of the common council, and afterwards the petition of the ministers by many of them; and on the twentieth day was each petition presented to the house of peers, in like manner as the day before to the house of commons. sect. xxii. the offensive acceptance of them by the parliament, as the weekly news-makers make report of it: cautions premised before their confutation. for the third particular, the acceptance the petitions had; this malignant intelligencer tells his reader, that the commons sat long, and laid it much to heart that any such thing should come from the city, and that they should lend an ear to any, that should in so evil a way represent things to them, and of what dangerous consequence it was. to which before i make any punctual reply, i desire to premise these particulars. 1. that in nothing that i have said, or shall say, i intent any contradiction to the honourable house of commons. 2. i believe not this relater hath truly delivered the fence of that house. 3. that if any worthy member among them, according to any information received, and believed by him, have used his liberty in speaking of his mind, (though his wisdom, as well as others innocence, may be abused by misreport) i shall not desire to raise any part of my reply so high as to him, but to confine myself to the report of this pamphleter, who i am sure hath no parliamentary privilege to speak what he pleaseth; (which yet a parliament man, that hath it, will not take upon him to use when he is out of parliament, as when he is in it.) and if any of that grave and judicious senate, supposing us faulty, have thought it fit and just that we should be charged, we doubt not but there are many among them, who, if we be innocent, will be well content to see us cleared; since for many of us, their honour is in part engaged for our reputation, in the * we have consulted with the reverend, pi●us, and learned, divines called together to that purpose. the ordinance of parliament of the third of january, 1644. prefixed before the directory. p. 1. public testimony they have given of us to three kingdoms; and the most of us are the same men, and have the same consciences engaged in the desire of a present establishment of government, so as it may be safely, and profitably practical, who in confidence of the goodness and godliness of the reformation owned, managed, and maintained by the parliament; and in hearty and faithful devotion thereto, and ready and cheerful obedience to them, have suffered the shipwreck of our estates, and hazarded our lives, and we repent not of any part of our pains, or pressures, or perils, so long as we may be serviceable to so good a cause, and to such good and gracious masters, as under christ they have hitherto approved themselves toward us: and i hope we may without vain-boasting say, by way of apology, that we have not been altogether their unprofitable servants, in respect of our interest in, and endeavours with the people, (without whom the greatest kings are rather cyphers than figures, and destitute both of honour and safety, prov. 14.28.) to inform their judgements, and to inflame their zeal, and to oblige their consciences, to fasten their affections in loyalty, and fidelity to those worthy p●triots, whom they have in their choice and votes of election entrusted with the religion, the lives, and the estates of themselves▪ and their posterity. to which purpose we cannot be of so good use, nor our mediation so effectual for hereafter, as aforetime, if we be such prevaricators as he hath represented us to the public view; or, not being such, if we suffer our innocence to be betrayed in mistrust to suspicion, by either inconsiderate or cowardly silence. thus much premised in duty to the honourable house of commons, and in due circumspection and caution to my reverend brethren, and myself, i shall now make answer to the charge given out, and the answer (so fare as it concerneth us) may be partly made out of the conclusion of the schedule, (as it was tendered with the reasons of the ministers to the court of common council in conformity to their desires made known unto us) which was as that honourable assembly can witness with us, in these words: these our desires and reasons we humbly present to this honourable court, not that we have the least intention of investing ourselves and the ministry with any arbitrary, unlimited, and exorbitant power: for the power is not to be settled upon the ministers alone, but upon the presbyteries; in all which it is provided already, that there shall be always two at least of the people for one minister; and we sincerely profess our desires and intentions to manage this weighty government, not according to our wills, or wisdoms, but as near as is possible, according to the will and word of god, the most certain rule in the world; nor that we would carry on this work by might and power, for we have good hope that god in due time will patronise his own cause, though men should be wanting; but that we may discharge a good conscience, in our utmost endeavours to advance the kingdom of christ, in the purity of reformation, to be faithful to the church of christ, wherein we are stewards, and watchmen; and to succeeding posterity, to maintain the truth to which we are bound to bear witness; to fulfil our solemn league and covenant with god, from which we cannot go bacl; and as your remembran●ers, to put you in mind to neglect no pious endeavours, in your places, and callings, for expediting both yourselves, and us, out of the former difficulties, and for promoting of such a reformation of religion in discipline and government, as may have due purity in itself, may bring sweet unity amongst us, and most conduce to an happy uniformity in all the three kingdoms, according to the vows of god that are upon you in your solemn league and covenant. he goeth on saying, that the house did perceive that they had been misinformed, and that they could not but lay it much to heart that they who had ever been so ready to do all good offices for the kingdom, and go with the parliament, should from any but the parliament take a representation of their proceed. misinformed, wherein? is there any thing untrue in that they presented in their petition, or schedule annexed? and by whom misinformed? by the ministers of london? that is the meaning, but certainly they that originally made this suggestion are little acquainted with the minds, consciences, intentions, or proceed of the ministers who gave in their writing to the common council of the city, subscribed with no fewer than fourscore and nine hands; and they had presented more to the parliament if they had not been straitened in time, for the petition was drawn up but at night, and was to be delivered the next morning. and for the honourable court of common council of the city, (though their prudence, integrity, dignity, good affection, and fidelity to the parliament, have no need, nor do desire any defence of so mean or feeble an hand as mine is) i hope it will not be either offensive, or ungrateful to them, if (having had often conference (as well as other of my brethren) with their committee, and being sent with some of them, in the name of the ministers of london, to the honourable court of common council, on tuesday, november 18. where the city petition was publicly read, and ratified by common consent) i make report of some passages, wherein they and we are jointly concerned; as followeth. there being a committee of common council chosen by that council, to consult with a committee of divines, and to consider of our common engagements in the presbyterial government, (for some of them, with some of us were already chosen to be provincial tryers of elders, and the same, and many others of the citizens were like to be chosen for parochial elders) we saw not how we could be divided in difficulties, if the directions were not cleared; nor in hazards, if we were not sufficiently authorised to carry on the service, who were in part already, and yet were further to be united in that great (and to this kingdom altogether) new undertaking; at our committees we observed nothing in those worthy citizens of the committee, nor in those who were partly permitted, and partly requested to be present at our meetings, but what was suitable to piety, prudence, and to affectionate and dutiful observance of the parliament; and it was our joy, as it may be their glory, that we found so many men of excellent parts, and spirits, so well composed, and balanced, without any propension to be swayed any way further than the light of truth, and dictate of conscience did dispose them: and yet so fare from overweening wit, or self-conceited wilfulness, that while we debated difficulties with them, we saw that of solomon verified in them, give instruction to a wise man, and he will be yet wiser, teach a just man, and he will increase in learning, prov. 9.9. and though they were pleased to entertain us with much honour, and favour, we neither took upon us to be their guides, in the carriage of this cause, nor to persuade them to any thing, but what would be the result of their own judgements, and consciences, upon a due consideration of the matters before them; nor did we know until tuesday night, the next night before the morning of their going to westminster, that they would petition; nor when that was resolved on, did any of us know, or see that petitionary draught, or so much as a line of it, which they presented to the parliament; only when myself, with some of my brethren, were sent from the divines of london, then assembled at zion college, to know their minds, how farro they would appear in the proposal of requests and reasons, or what part they would assign or leave to us (who were resolved to make an humble address by ourselves to the parliament, if they would not) being called into the court of common council, we received from the mouth of the right honourable the lord maior that now is, some general words of gracious acceptance of what we had done, and of their concurrence with us, for the establishment of church government; but withal, not knowing their purpose in particular, we were left to our own resolutions, to present our desires to the parliament, as we conceived to be most convenient for us. in all this what was there which might imply any digression from duty, or any diversion from their or our due respect unto the honourable houses? object. but they took the representation of the parliaments proceed not from the parliament, as they desired, but from others, viz. the ministers. the quite contrary is true; the ministers received the representation of the parliaments proceed from the lord maior, and both citizens, and ministers, being in a concurrent condition for scruples and dangers, tendered their petitions, and reasons unto them, for satisfaction from them; wherein there was as fair and ingenuous dealing, as could be desired; for the ministers tendered nothing to the committee, or common council, but what they were willing should be read, heard, and examined, and discussed by any of what mind or affection so ever; nor could that possibly be carried in a private way, which came under the consideration of the committee so many times, and afterward was committed for probation and trial of the whole common council; and as openly and plainly to the ministers dealt with the city, so did both the city and, ministry with the parliament, presenting the same schedule of reasons, (annexed to each of their petitions) to their view and censure; which pattern of plain dealing i commend to the imitation of some of our independent brethren, that their ways may not be such riddles (even to those who are no less wise, but more innocent than they) that they cannot tell where they have been working, no more then of the moles of the earth, until they see the heaps they have cast up, and they glide away so slily in their pace, as if they meant to give occasion for a fifth particular to be added to solomon's proverb, there be three things too wonderful for me, yea four which i know not; the way of an eagle in the air, the way of a serpent upon a rock, the way of a ship in the midst of the sea, and the way of a man with a maid, prov. 30. 18, 19 to these as a marginal note, though not as a part of the text, we may add, and the way of some independents in their plots. sect. xxiii. a copy of the ministers petition, and the intelligencers slanderous censure of it. having done with the city's petition, which he makes the simeon, he brings in the petition of the ministers as the levi, or its brother in ●vill, in this sort: but there came another petition from the clergy to the same effect, which was more sad than the former; for they conceived this latter was an appeal to the people, and of as dangerous a consequence as could be imagined; and that it deserved an high censure; and withal they resolved if that was the way intended, they would go on with their declaration, and quickly undeceive the people; and in the interim they referred it to the committee of examinations, that the first contrivers, and after f●●●●tors of the business, may be dealt withal according to merit. for answer unto this, it might be sufficient (if i had to do with one that were indeed, and not in name only a moderate intelligencer) to set down the petition in terminis as it was presented to both houses of parliament; but laying that as a groundwork, it will be meet to build on to a full confutation. to the right honourable the lords and commons assembled in the high court of parliament in england, the humble petition of the ministers of the gospel, within the province of london, humbly showeth, that your petitioners and daily orators at the throne of grace, do unfeignedly bless our god, and the lord jesus christ our saviour, the head over all things to the church, that in the midst of those many insufferable miseries over flowing, and almost over whelming both this church and kingdom, he hath graciously opened for us a door of hope, in raising up, continuing together, and assisting of this renowned parliament above our expectations, and against all oppositions, for the rescuing both of church and state from their deep calamities; having to these ends engaged your hearts (and with you the three kingdoms) unto himself, in so religious a covenant. and we humbly present our hearty thanks unto the right honourable houses, for all their indefatigable endeavours these five years together, for the kingdom's happiness, and the church's reformation; and in particular, for the hopes of a speedy establishment of church government, intimated unto us in your directions of aug. 19 1645. order of september 23. and ordinance of october 20. 1645. in which directions and ordinance notwithstanding divers difficulties appear both to us, and to our people, hither to obstructing our putting the presbyterial government (therein mentioned) into actual execution, according to our earnest desires; by reason of divers things (as we humbly conceive) partly doubtful, partly defective therein. wherefore your petitioners in pursuance of our solemn covenant, in zeal to the glory of god, the kingdom of jesus christ, and the complete establishment of purity and unity in the church of god, for the satisfaction of our own and our people's consciences in this weighty matter of church government, and for the general benefit, not only of the province of london, but of all the provinces in england, both for present and future ages. do most humbly and earnestly beseech the right honourable houses, that the presbyterial government in congregational, classical, provincial, and nationall assemblies, (agreed upon already by the right honourable houses) may be speedily established, with such fullness and sufficiency of power, upon all the said elder ships, that they may fully, faithfully, and cheerfully, with well satisfied consciences submit unto, and put in execution the said government. and that there may be to that end, by your authority, superadded a clear explanation of things doubtful, and full supply of things defective, in the said directions and ordinance of the right honourable houses, according to the schedule annexed, and herewith humbly presented to your wisdoms and piety. and your petitioners, etc. this being the petition to a word, pardon mine incredulity if i believe not that you can persuade any intelligent reader, that so prudent a senate as the honourable house of commons is, could so mistake the meaning of it, as to put such an odious construction upon it, as an appeal from them to the people, the people of london; that were to sow sedition, and endeavour dissension betwixt the parliament and the city, (whose unanimous consent, and correspondence in counsels, and executions, have been, under god, the strongest suppport of the whole commonweal) a crime worthy of the reward of metius suffetius in * paulo ante (inquit tullus) animum inter fidenatem romanemque rem ancipitem gessisti, it a jam corpus passim distrabendum dabis. exinde duabus admotis quadrigis, in currus earum distentum illigat metium, deinde in diversum iter equi concitati lacerum in utroque curru corpus, qua inhaeserant vinculis membra, p●rtantes, etc. liv. dec. 1. lib. 1. p. 14. livy, who for his double dealing betwixt the fidenates and the romans, was so fastened to two charets, that the horses that drew them being forced divers ways into a furious pace, fore him in pieces. but sir, if those on your party do no worse offices to the city, by your insinuations into the minds of the worthy members of the honourable houses, then presbyterial ministers do to the parliament, by their intercourse with the citizens, there will be no occasion given for the least show of suspicion, or jealousy betwixt them; and whosoever shall read your paper and mine answer, will see good cause to conceive, that some of your spirit have too busily bestirred themselves, out of the union betwixt citizens and ministers to raise a division betwixt the parliament and city, (which he that desires to see, i wish rather that the ravens of the valley pick out his eyes, prov. 30.17.) but that union doth clearly confute the calumny you cast upon the ministers petition; for so fare is it from an appearance of an appeal from the parliament to the people, that it plainly representeth both ministers and people consulting, and concluding, jointly to make an appeal to the parliament, and humbly waiting to be disposed of by their final resolutions. this is it sure for which you say, the latter petition was more sad than the former; for when that came in so conformable to the city petition in matter, (though differing in phrase & style) and in scope, and intention, and word for word the same in a schedule of reasons annexed to it, it was an evidence of so good agreement betwixt the most eminent citizens, and the forementioned ministers, as must needs be a great grief of heart to those, that make great advantage of the divisions of reuben, yea and of all the tribes throughout out israel. he goeth on with a proficiency from bad to worse; and though he hath no honey at all, he hath a double sting in the tail of his intelligence; serving up a charge against the petitioners to the highest aggravation that may be, and concluding with the commination of a censure, commensurate to their merit. for the charge these be his words: they (that is, the house of commons) conceived this latter, (that is, the petition of the ministers) was an appeal from the houses to the people, and of as dangerous a consequence as could be imagined having answered the former words, i will now speak only to the latter: but first i must pause and wonder a while at this superlative slander. how sir, was that petition of as dangerous a consequence as could be imagined? no such matter sir. for what danger at all can be imagined in it, when all is in effect no more but this, that the citizens and ministers upon petition may clearly understand the mind of the parliament, and may be throughly enabled to put in execution their commands, to obey them to the full according to their engagement in the solemn covenant. such fearful apprehensions, even of dangerous consequence, (if they be real, not feigned) may proceed from the self-love of your party, who confine the common felicity to your own particular interests; and think the world will be in a very ill condition, if the presbytery should be set up, and should set bounds to your ambitious, or covetous encroachments upon the rights of ministers and people: and it may be (because you are no jonasses, to be willing to be cast into the sea to save the ship and passengers in it) you may have in your thoughts some military commotion of your own making; for you know, or may know, that bloody words, liable to such a sense, and tending to the like effect, have been more than once laid to the charge of some of your side, as hath been noted, pag. 76. and if your dangerous consequence be but a fiction and pretence, (which i rather imagine) it must be supposed to be but a cast of your subtlety, to make the simple afraid of, and to beget a mistrust of some dangerous design in the ministers, that they may desert them, and adhere unto you, as men of prudent insight into imminent mischiefs, and of provident forecast to secure them from danger who betake themselves to your cause and complices for succour and safety. which of these conjectures is true, (or whether any other, any worse, for a plain presbyterian is too shallow to sound the depth of a projecting independent) i will not determine; but i will confidently resolve, that such an imagination of transcendent danger in the petition of the ministers, was no part of the mind of the major part of the house of commons; (which must give denomination to the whole) for they can never be so much mistaken, as to put such an exuberant expression of offence upon so inoffensive a petition; who very well know, and cannot but as well remember, your brother lilburnes business, and what seditious papers he, and his faction sent abroad; which if you had forgotten (for i doubt not but such a schismatical polypragm●●n, as those that know you report you to be, if not wise enough to be of his counsel, may be busy enough to be active in his desperate design) i would help your memory with a repetition of some such passages out of them, as might be worthy of your now misapplied aggravation, [of as dangerous consequence as may be imagined] but that i think them fit to be burned by the common hangman, or buried in everlasting oblivion, than now to be mentioned, especially in a discourse of defence of the innocent. and truly sir next unto lilburnes libels, we may say of your malevolent intelligence of this week, that it is a matter of as dangerous consequence as may be imagined: for do not you, as fare as your credit will carry a mischievous suggestion, disperse all about a suspicion of the cities and ministers combination against the two houses of parliament? who have hitherto with honour and safety very much confided in their affection, and fidelity, (as i doubt not they will ever have cause so to do) though such malignant meddlers as you say and do what they can to the contrary. sect. xxiv. britanicus taxed for traducing the petitioners. your athenian colleague, britanicus, (though they that read you both, will haply take you to be rather a * boeotion in crasso jurares aere natum. horat. beotian) hath a conceit of some disparagement to the parliament, by a supposed division, though he lay his action wrong, mistaking an occasion for a cause, and one person for another: whom, though i first mention him in way of opposition to you, i must take for an adversary to us, i mean to the city and ministry in this business of petition; and when i have given him an animadversion by the way, i shall return unto, and proceed with you. it may prove (saith he) a train to blow up the reputation of the renowned parliament, and harden the enemy in their courses, if they should see a door of hope opened through any supposed divisions; the common adversary will take heart again, and those which favour them (whether at home or abroad) will dare again to show themselves, as not doubting to perfect their design, if we disjoint ourselves, and contribute to our own ruin. divisions among us divulged by you, may animate the common enemy to a greater height of hopes, and attempts, so much his observation implieth, and that's your fault, mr. intelligencer, but he applieth it to the petitioners, and that's his calumny, as well as yours. it may prove, saith he, a train etc. what is that that may prove so? the petition? the petition a train to blow up the reputation of the parliament? read it, sir, and you will see it is not a train●, but a trumpet to blow up their reputation with a loud sound, and melodious accent, with humble thanks acknowledging, and highly extolling them by the name of a renowned parliament, for their indefatigable endeavours for five years together, for the kingdom's happiness, and the church's reformation. and can the petition be charged to open a door of hope to the enemies, through supposed divisions from the parliament, when it expressly maketh the parliament a door of hope of much happiness to the kingdom? it is an easy matter to turn the most innocent action, or business, into an occasion of exception; but they are the causes (for the particular in question) both of disturbance to the parliament, and of danger from the common enemy, who proclaim unkindness betwixt the parliament, and their most faithful, and serviceable votaries, the common council, and ministers of the city of london. this retortion, as by a kind of partnership, belongeth to both these false brethren, but taking britannicus by himself, he beginneth at the beginning of the week, by the figure anticipation, for the petitions were not presented to the honourable houses until two o● three days after; and so he cometh over the matter again upon wednesday and thursday: in the first place he findeth fault with petitioning, as out of season, and so indiscreet, and as imputing neglect to the parliament, and implying distrust of the indgment & care of those whom we acknowledge the wisest and supreme council, and so undutiful; but neither so nor so, for the purpose of petitioning was so fanned and sifted, by the free and impartial debates of divers wise and worthy citizens, and by learned and well advised ministers, that if there had been any folly or indiscretion, it would have vanished into nothing; but, sir, i can assure you of my knowledge, the more it was weighed and examined, the more it was approved by the prudent, as well as the pious of both societies, not only as necessary, but as seasonable also. and if the honourable houses were intentively employed to perfect the government, and did set themselves in a constant course, and chose set days for that purpose, and the day of presenting the petition was one of them, (all which i believe, and cannot think of it without thanks to them, nor without praises of them, and prayers for them) yet was it not unseasonable to petition them, because the concurrent desires of so many, so considerable petitioners might be a means to remove some obstructions, qui monet u● facias qu●d jam facis ●de movendo and to facilitate and expedite the business they had in hand. nor was it any distrust, or impeachment of the high praise of their prudence, for you know the old and ever true aphorism, when the acts of goodness do anticipate admonitions, laudat, & hortatu comprebat acta suo. ovid. (and we may say the like of petitions) they are so far from reproofs, that they are the praises of the actors. nor is there any more cause to impute undutifulness, or ill manners unto the petitioners, than there is to accuse them of want of policy, or prudence, for this particular; nor any ground to strain up the charge so high, as if that which they did were prejudicial, and derogatory to the majesty of parliament, in forestall their counsels with any particular desires. so say you mr. br. in your wednesdays account: but i pray you, sir, by what dialect do you call those petitions particular desires, which were concluded in a full common council, (the representative body of this famous, and never more than since our late and unhappy wars, renowned city) not one man (as i have been credibly informed) appearing against it at the passing of the vote; and that not for any particular person, or purpose, but for the general good of three kingdoms, both for the generation present, and for posterity in the ages to come? and what prohibition i pray you lies against particular citizens and ministers, that they may not petition the parliament with particular desires, as well as you? did not you when you were confined, for showing yourself rather an overnimble mercury, than a sober paced britannicus, petition them yourself for your enlargement? and when you did so, did you do any thing prejudicial and derogatory to the majesty and dignity of parliament, and as it were forestall their counsels with your particular desires? if not, show us your privilege, which may make it no fault in you, and an indiscretion, or undutifulness, or ill manners in others. i shall need to proceed no further in answer to your criticisms, i see you are ingenious in your apprehensions, and ingenuous in confession of your own misprisions; and since i perceive you so punctual in rectifying your reader to a title, (for you acknowledge a mistake in honouring sir the aston (with whom i have had much, and some perilous opposition in the cause of the parliament) with the title of a lord) doubt not but you will be as ready to retract an undeserved traducement of the parliaments friends, (especially so many, and of so great reputation) as to recall an undeserved advancement of the parliaments enemy. i will take leave of you with a word of advice, which is but this, take heed of engaging yourself any further in this cause, see first how the immoderate intelligencer speeds with his precipitated reproaches against the city, and ministers of london; to whom now i will return, and take leave of him, though not in such a manner as i do of you; and having answered his crimination, i shall now enter a defence against his commination of censure. sect. xxv. an answer to the intelligencers commination of the petitioners. having set the suspicion of guilt up to the height, not only of reality but of imagination, he scrueth up the censure to a proportionable elevation, saying, in the name of the honourable house of commons, (but without any warrant from them) that it deserved an high censure, and withal that they resolved, if that were the way intended, they would go on with their declaration, and quickly undeceive the people, and in the interim they referred it to the committee of examinations, that the first contrivers, and after fomenters of that business, may be dealt with according to merit. these words may sound some terror to him, — hic mur● abeneus esto, nil conseire sibi, etc. horat. that hath but a brazen face, but he that hath a wall of brass, a clear conscience from the guilt objected, may be bold as a lion, when such as you may flee when no man pursueth, prov. 28.1. for more particular reply, sr. we cannot be put into fear of an high censure, while we are assured of our own innocence, and the houses of parliaments both prudence and justice; and therefore we shall willingly submit ourselves to examination, when, and where they please to call us to our answer; and if our accusers would meet us at the bar, upon such just and equal terms as lege talionis by the divine law is ordained, deut. 19.16, etc. we would petition them again for a trial, and punishment, (upon conviction) as before for the establishment of the presbyterial discipline. for the declaration you speak of, there be two things which will secure us from all danger of it; the one is, that whatsoever it is, it is but conditional, viz [if this be the way] that is, the way of seditious appeal from the parliament to the people, and we are sure that's no way of ours: how near the independent by-path coasts upon, or bends towards that way, may appear by their making combinations with the people, and setting up a popular government in the church, without any authority from the state. the other security we have is both from the parliament, and ourselves, as we have professed before, and in confidence of both, neither parliamentary examinations, declarations, no nor visitations shall trouble us; for if we be guilty, let them visit our transgression with the rod, and our iniquity with stripes, psal. 89.32. and (if we deserve it) let them chastise us not only with solomon's whips, but with reboboams scorpions, 1 king. 12.14. there is one thing more in his minatory report, which, though he tell it as a threat, i would take it for a promise, if he could make it good in the right sense of it, that is, quickly to undeceive the people, for they are shamefully deceived many ways, especially by such impudent impostors as this weekly newsmaker; with whom i have now done. and in confutation of britannicus and him, i have confuted others, who concurr● with them in the same calumnies against the common council, and ministers of london. sect. xxvi. the misreport of the diurnal and weekly account confuted, and the perfect passages convinced of absurdity and sedition. yet i must bestow a few words on the perfect diurnal, and weekly account, and a few lines on the perfect passages: for the first, omitting what is virtually or formally answered before, under the titles forementioned, i shall note but one particular, which is, that it was ordered as a part of the answer to the ministers, that they should return home, and look after and attend the charges of their several congregations; so saith the perfect diurnal; and the weekly account, saith, the ministers were desired to look diligently to their own flocks, with this addition of the writer, a neighty charge, and work enough; by which is implied that they were negligent in their calling, and too busy out of it; but as there was no ground for such an implicit reproof, so there was no such message given in the name of the house to the ministers, as he that presented the petition confidently averreth, to whom other ministers that accompanied him do give attestation. now for the perfect passages (as the author calls his pamphlet) it is in one particular most seditious and scandalous: viz. this, what may be thought of those that go about to disparage lieutenant general cromwell, and the independent army that have done so much good in reducing the kingdom, and brought the wars so near to an end? what may be thought of this questionist? he calls his sheet of news perfect passages, by the same figure, belike, that the furies are called eumenideses, for never did i read such imperfect passages in any printed paper. the title is, perfect passages of each day's proceed in parliament; and the day he gins withal is the 19 of november; and he gins that day with a poor piece of sycophanticall rhetoric, in praise of the parliament, and presently passeth from palpable flattery (the shallowest and silliest that ever was bestowed on so profound and prudent a senate) to pernicious calumny, in answer to the question he hath proposed; and that's all he hath for that day; and what is that to the proceed in parliament that day? if he had given in that account for some day about the middle of midsummer months, his absurdities had been more seasonable, more suitable to the temper of that lunatic quarter, and so it might have been some excuse, or extenuation of his fault in moving such a f●ditious and dangerous question, wherein he seemeth zealous for the honour of lieutenant general cromwell, and with him magnifieth the army under the title of independent. now for lieutenant general cromwell, i 〈◊〉, no man that goeth about to disparage him, and i doubt many take occasion to commend him otherwise then his wisdom will approve of; for my part, whether he be an independent or no, i know not; but if he be, i can be content to give him, and any other of that way, all the praise that is due unto them; and though i much mislike projecting independents, who idolise their own fancies, and pretending the public welfare, care for nothing else, or nothing more than to carry on their own concernments by the fox's pate, or lion's paw, by fraud, or force, as either of them may be serviceable to their selfe seeking design, yet i doubt not but there be many go under that name, who are rather passive then active in deceit, who truly fear god, and sincerely desire, according to the song of the angel, that glory may be to god on high, good will towards men, and peace upon earth, luk. 2.14. and to speak more particularly of him, i believe, (as i have heard of him by those to whom he is well known, as they are to me) that he is a wise man, a well advised and valiant commander, and so good and sincere a christian, so true a lover of his country, that he would not have the peace of it disturbed, for any difference betwixt presbyterians and independents. and upon such premises i dare presume to infer, that the gallant lieutenant general will not be well pleased with such a question, or answer, as this novel catechiser hath set forth; for whatsoever affinity (or it may be identity) is betwixt him and an independent, there is no congruity betwixt the terms independent and army in our state; for doth not the army depend upon the parliament, who give directions, and commands to it for their service? and do not the chief commanders in it profess themselves to be disposed of only by the determinations of parliament? in this respect a man might say, an independent wife, or an independent servant, as well as an independent army. and if we consider the army within itself, is it (as they would have the church) composed, or made up of independent congregations? so that every captain and his company are free to attempt, or act, as they can agree among themselves, without subordination to superior commanders; if so, the army would not be an army, that is, an entire and well compacted system, or body of soldiers united, and regulated by prudence, and authority in a gradual series of martial command and government, but would break in pieces into petty parties, as it is upon a rout made by the enemy, and so would be of little use, or force, either for conflict, or conquest, much less would it be terrible as an army with banners should be, and the church is compared to such an army, cant. 6.4. this only by the way: but he means it perhaps an independent army materially (not formally) as consisting of commanders and common soldiers, addicted to independency: if he take independents as distinguished from the orthodox party on the one side, and from the heterodoxe party of anabaptists, brownists, antinomians, and other such erroneous dogmatists on the other side, (with whom if they be true to the principles of religion they cannot finally close in accord against the presbyterians) they are much too few to denominate the army; and i doubt not but the ingenuous, and conscientious independents will confess, that there have been since our woeful war begun, and yet are many both skilful, faithful, and courageous commanders, and common soldiers, who have done very great and successful service towards the finishing of the war, and yet never came under the name or notion of independents, unless by mistake, or imposture, as this fellow would cousin the kingdom, and affright the presbyterians with a conceit of the puissance and prevalence of independency in the army, and by the army, as if that were the life-blood that maintained the spirits of our military forces, and made all the soldiers valorous and victorious, and so the independent army as independent, reduplicative (for so he would have his reader deluded) had reduced the kingdom, and brought the war so near an end; here an end of his question. his answer is, they, that is, they that go about to disparage lieutenant general cromwell, and the independent army, are unchristian, and uncharitable, and either very envious, or ill affected; either they know not what that party have done for us, or else envy that they have done so much: for lieutenant general cromwell his detractors i know none such, therefore i know none who therein is unchristian, and uncharitable towards him. for your independent army, it is (as scholars use to term such an unsuitable conjunction) a bull, a mere contradiction in adjecto, there is no such thing. it may be if you should pass uncontrolled with such absurd inconsistences, we should shortly hear of an independent parliament (not because it is the supreme and independent judicatory in the kingdom) but because of the members who favour that way, though they be very few in comparison of those who have voted the presbytery, an independent synod or assembly, because there are some independents mingled with many presbyterian divines; and if the common council of the city had not generally concurred to petition for presbytery, i doubt not but this nicknaming newsmaker would, in some of his papers, make london (though already divided into classical presbyteries, and united into a province) an independent city. last of all he saith, they daily adventure their lives, and many of them have spilt their blood to save our lives, and estates, and i●t not 〈◊〉 hate them for the good they have done, and still do for us. as many as have exposed themselves to such peril, and for such a purpose, ashere is specified, god forbidden, their zeal, and love, and courage should be answered with envy, or hatred: but here is one fallacy in view, they that are so kind to their brethren as to shed their own blood, that they might sleep in a whole skin, did not this as independents, but as christians, for many lost their lives before ever independents were dreamt of, it was a rule of religion, that we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren, 1 joh. 3.16. and there may be another fallacy lurking under those indefinite expressions, they daily adventure, etc. to save our lives and estates; for it is not true of all, it may be not of most, that those be the motives or ends of their engagements. so much for this question and answer: now i could wish this questionist were questioned, and that we might know the mind of such as have authority to examine him whether they thought him worthy of bedlam, foe his witless rashness, or of newgate, for his seditious wickedness. conclusion. for conclusion of this apologetic reply to these popular impostors, i shall fairly admonish them to be better advised hereafter, (than hitherto they have been) that they do not traduce the innocence of worthy, and well deserving citizens, or ministers, to gratify a party, and to abuse the credulity of the vulgar with untruths, as opprobrious to the one side, as vainglorious to the other. for since they are discovered to be weekly journey men in the service of a schismatical design, and to carry it on with intolerable contumely to venerable societies, and with insinuations, and incentives to sedition against the government intended, and partly established by authority of parliament, it will not be their privilege for time to come, to pass without such chastisement as is due to their demerits: whereat if any be displeased, it will be only the faulty, and the offence they take will be like the quarrel of * cum ab eo quaereretur quid tandem accusaturus esset eum, quem pro dignitate ne laudare quidem quisquam satis commode posset; aiunt hominem (ut erat furiosus) respondiss●, qu●d non totum telum corpore recepisset. cicer. orat. 2. pro sex. roscio amerino. fimbria against scevola, for that the noble senator would not take his dagger so deep into his body as he would have thrust it. and in such a case, to forbear a necessary defence of a man's self, or his associates, in a matter so just and so general, so ingenuously and uprightly managed, as that of the petitioners, lest an enemy should be offended at it without a cause, were in any indifferent judgement a grand iniquity, a crime composed of a very high degree of cowardice, and treachery. a postscript, or after-reckoning with the moderate intelligencer, and mercurius britanicus. the pace of a book at the press, proceeding flowly, (as guicciardine saith of the italian ordinance drawn with oxen,) hath afforded this advantage to these posting news-men, that they have had a second turn to tell their own tale unto the people, before the confutation of their calumnies against the petitions of the common council, and ministers of london, be once presented to public acceptance; which inconvenience hath yet brought with it this recompense; i am by the delay somewhat better acquainted with their spirits, and thence find cause to conceive more hope of the one, and to observe less ingenuity in the other, than i did apprehend, when i put in my defensive plea for the petitioners, against their traducements; and in this postscript or after-reckoning i shall entertain them accordingly. 1. for the intelligencer, we have from him some previous dispositions to repentance for his printed reproaches, somewhat towards attrition, though fare short of such christian contrition as is a necessary preparative for the obtainment of a pardon. his words in his thursdays account are these; there past us last week something that was displeasing both to the common council, and likewise to the clergy; to neither of which we intended the least displènsure; what was inserted, we received, and conceived from a good author; and finding the house of commons to be very much affected with what came from both, as that which might be of evil consequence; we therefore were the readier to believe it might amount to so much as we were told, but understanding now from others, that the petitions had no such words, nor contained any such thing as was expressed; we are hearty sorry, and do freely acknowledge the same, professing that we hold it an high offence to wrong the po●rest particular man, ye●, if 〈◊〉 enemy; nor ever durst we publish that against the parliamental and kingdoms present enemy (much more against their friends) which we did not receive from any good hands, as truth. whereby we may perceive the perplexity of his mind, which makes him recant, and recant, in both senses of this ambiguous term; for he recants, that is, he confesseth his error thus, understanding now from others that the petitions had no such words, ner contained any such thing as was expressed, we are hearty sorry, and do freely acknowledge the same: where is one kind of recantation; and withal he recants in another kind, that is, he sings over again the same harsh note, wherein he was far out of time from the tenor of truth, telling the reader thus much in way of justification, what was inserted we received from a good author, and studing the house of commons to be 〈◊〉 affected with what came from both, as that which might be of evil consequence, w●● therefore were the readier to believe it might amount to so much as we were told; which is to make your s●●der of the petitioners the sense of the house of commons, and the hand that brought that sense a good hand; and if so, you have handled the matter very ill, both in respect of conscience and discretion; for either the house of comm●●● thought so ill of the petitioners, as you have now the second time asserted, or not; if they did not, (as no wise man will believe that so many wise men as should denominate the whole house, could so much mis-judge so humble, and fair dealing an address ●nto them) than you wrong them as well as the petitioners, in calling that a good h●●d, which brought you such a scandalous mism●erpretation of them both; and so in stead of clearing your own conscience, you corrupt i● again with a new guilt. if the house of commons did so conceive of the petitioners, as you have published before, you have indiscreetly deserted the true information you had from them by a good hand, as you call it twice, (but how good soever you take it to be, there be some false fingers in it, i● it wrote that to you, which you have written to others) and have m●●● yourself an offender above the degree of your 〈◊〉 for though the tale you were told were materially an untruth, it was not formally a slander in you, while you did but publish it, not as any thing made or 〈◊〉 by you, ●ot as received by report from an 〈◊〉 with yourself of much 〈◊〉 for his trusty intelligence. and yet i conceive it had been a part of good manners, to have forborn the divulging of such news, of so great moment, wherein not only the integ●●y of the common council, and ministers of london, but the prudence of the honourable house of commons, was highly concerned, unless they had given you warrant to proclaim to the world, that which in such cases is, or should be kept within the compass of their own walls. you conclude, as you began, with commendation of yourself, for the innocency of your intentions, and charitableness of your affection; saying in your first lines, there past us the last week something that was displeasing both to the common council, and likewise to the clergy, to neither of which we intended the least displeasure; and you end with the same self conceit wherein you began, for you tell us in the close of your speech that you hold it 〈◊〉 high offence to wrong the poorest particular man, yea, if an enemy; nor durst we (say you) ever publish that against the parliaments and kingdoms present enemy, much more (much less you should say) against their friends, which we did not receive from very good hands as truth. if you say this in sincerity, we shall see some clearer evidence of your conscientious acknowledgement (than that contradictory confession can be accounted, which is like an iliaca passie in the belly, and bowels of your retractation, though the head and loot of it be suitably qualified) of your wronging, not of a single, or a private enemy, but of a numerous society of the most public, honourable, and venerable friends and votaries of the parliament in the kingdom; which if you seriously consider, you cannot satisfy yourself, much less can you expect that they should rest satisfied with such a recanting recantation, as you have now made; if other wise, this paper will assure the intelligent reader, that as belshazzars government, so your repentance, is weighted in the balance, and found wanting, dan. 5.27. but until i know the worst, my charity disposeth me to hope the best, and my hope is that you are on the mending hand, and so far you well. now for the bold britain●, who brags of his daring spirit, and would have every man to turn coward in a good cause, for 〈◊〉 of his courage in a 〈◊〉; yet it seemeth some body 〈◊〉 the 〈◊〉 to tell him of his miscarriage towards the magistrates, and ministers of the city, in such sort, that (as sallust said to cicero) * si quam voluptatem male dicendo cepisti, eam male audiend● amittas. orat. sallust. in ciceron. cicer. orat. p. 671. if he took any delight in speaking what he ought not, he may lose it again by hearing what he would not; and i must now do it the second time, by giving him another check for his vanity in magnifying himself, and his injury in vilifying such as he cannot sufficiently honour. for himself, he makes as if he were a man of such high elevation, that it is a stooping below his genius. to have any thing to do (though by way of reproof) with such a despicable company, as the court of common council, and the ministers of the city; whom he would not meddle with, were it not to serve the parliament; and serve them i dare, saith he, in as high a nature as any man, and shall in all things comply with their proceed, and endeavour to make this compliance universal. were it not to serve the parliament? for your service to the parliament, mr. brit. i would not have you to be confident either in your own performances, or of their acceptance, or of the good effects it hath brought forth among the people of the kingdom; there are some, who (though they do not brag of wit as you do) have a great deal more wisdom than you have, and they say, you have begotten much malignity in many against the parliament, and confirmed it in others, and have much weakened the hands of their most conscionable friends, by the licentious extravangancie of your pen beyond all bounds of grace, or modesty; and they further add, (which honest men will lay hold on as a promise, but you perhaps will take as a threatening) that they will trace your irregular steps from the first page of your first pamphlet, to this present of the number 945. and represent you so in one entire delineation, and discovery, as (if you be not a man of impenetrable impudence) will make you ashamed of your own resemblance. and for your particular service you pretend to do unto the parliament, in abusing the petitioners. i believe they will have little cause to give you thanks, much less any real reward for your painer; since it will scarce lie in your power to do them a greater dishonour, then to make good men believe, and malignants insult, that their most potent, and beneficent, i may say munificent assistants, the citizens, and their most faithful (and not altogether impotent or unuseful servants) the ministers of the city of london, either give, or take such offence at each other, as may tend to a rapture; but the hope is there will be present help, and an effectual antidote against this scandal, in the apologetical narrative of the petitions, as now it is presented to public view; which will be the more expedite and prevalent in its operation, by the little credit you have with all such as read your papers as the dictates of a poet, not of an historian; and you are like sir to have less credit hereafter, and to do the parliament less service than you have done (if ever you did any worthy acceptance) because you profess you will in all things comply with their proceed: for, 1. no body will believe you will be so regular in you writing, as they are in their parliamentary passages. 2. when you say, you will in all things comply with their proceed, you must either suppose that they cannot err (which is fare from their thoughts, for they know it is a pitiful, and perilous ignorance, or perverseness, not to acknowledge their humanity, psal. 9.20. and that it is the presumption of the papal conclave, not a privilege of parliament, to assume an infallible guidance in their determinations) or that they may err, and then we must think, that though they do so, you resolve to be on their side, be it right or wrong; if so, do you not tell the world that your compliance with them, hath more of policy in it, then of conscience? and will it not readily follow, that such a mercurius at westminster, would easily turn to an aulicus at oxford, if (which god forbidden) the royal prerogative should so fare advance, as to plunder the parliament of their ancient and honourable privileges. the other animadversion upon britanicus this week concerneth the vilifying of the petitioners, whom lucian like he falls upon in this scornful and jeering manner: it is a fine humour in any to cry, we will have this, we will have that done, come let's petition, he should have said, we would have this or that done; for we will have this or that done are terms rather of the imperative, than the optative mood, fit for commanders, than petitioners. besides sir, you know there be a sort of men, who have taken upon them, without petitioning to the parliament, or authority from the parliament, to set up a government of themselves; which the petitioners dare not attempt without warrant from the parliament; this is a humour indeed, a fine humour of a new impression; but when did you bestow a jeer or a taunt upon them? in this surely you bewray your partiality, and somewhat worse which you may hear of hereafter; but say on. yes i warrant you we are wise statesmen, know the due times and seasons well enough, and though we lie under the deck, are able to discern as well as they that sit at the stern. did the petitioners take upon them to be statesmen? did they not professedly disclaim so vain a conceit, when in a modest and humble way they came to the parliament, as to statesmen, the fathers and physicians of the state, to receive from their prudent resolutions present remedies against the maladies wherewith the city is dangerously infected, and infested? and was it not time to complain, when they perceived the subtle insinuations of schism creep into their families, and found it had stolen their wives from their bosoms, their children and servants from economical communion in their families, and from hearing orthodox divines in the public churches of the city, to sort themselves under erroneous, and heretical teachers in private conventicles? and whereas you would degrade the petitioners sitting at the st●rne to lying under the dick, though you (for fear or shame) may have occasion to play least in sight, and to lurk under the hatches to secure yourself, the petitioners are (for the chief p●●t of them) eminently conspicuous; divers of the one sort sit upon the tribunal of authority, and all of the other weekly appear visible to common view in their pulpits; and have so much advantage ground for discovery of the evils of the times, and places they live in, that it can be no disparagement to the parliaments prudence, in many particulars to receive informations from them. but they go beyond their bounds, as britanicus chargeth them, for their duty leads them 〈◊〉 further (saith he) then to present matter of grievance in things already established, not to demand the establisment of any thing 〈◊〉; this must be left in the parliament, who (it is presumed, and we must hold to this maxim) will neglect nothing necessary or convenient. now he takes upon him to play the casuist, and to resolve both positively, and negatively, how fare men may proceed to petition, how fare not; they may (saith he) present matter of grievance in things already established, not demand the establishment of any new thing: this aphorism is framed of purpose for the pulling down of the prelacy, and against the setting up of the presbytery, that independency (and under that title all sects of what sort soever) may be set up, and spread abroad without restraint; but a man would think it more reasonable, that when things are established, they should command either assent or silence, but in the want of necessary things, the presenting of requests for supply to those that are able to grant them, hath no affinity with a fault, but rather hath the nature of a duty, and therefore they who petitioned the parliament for ordination of ministers in a new way, without bishops, (new to this state, though most ancient in the church of christ) were never blamed, but approved by the parliament, and accordingly an ordinance passed both the honourable houses, for enabling a certain number of divines to put it in practice; much more cause is there to approve the petitioners, who received a command for the choice of church governors, whereto without further direction, and warrant, they could not perform complete obedience as they desired. and for that he saith of leaving all to the parliament, in confidence of their universal care, neglecting nothing which may be necessary and convenient, it hath a pretence of respect to the parliament, but the drift of it is to make all those (who desire a deliverance out of dangerous confusion, by a setting up, and settling a regular government) remiss in their mediation for it, while independents intentively bestir themselves in several counties to make choice of such for knights and burgesses, as favour their faction, and quicken their patrons with uncessant importunity to expedite their design in parliament, in committees, in the army; and some of them are such ubiquitaries, within the kingdom, and without, (to work themselves up to a capitulating party) that none but that great peripatetic, 1 pet. 5.8. goeth beyond them for sedulity in prosecution of a plot. and yet whatsoever he aimeth at in this diversion or prohibition of petitions, the parliament may have need of them and may make good use of them, (yea and as some antipresbyterians brag, a the most and best things that ever this parliament did, were first motioned by private men, and then authorised and established by them. the postscript of the libellous pamphlet called lilburnes england's birthright. have done so) and may be very well pleased therewith. for instance, having a purpose to ordain the presbyterial government which (as the b the copy of the remonstrance lately delivered to the assembly by t.g.i.b. etc. independents confess) they have voted already, it may be matter of much encouragement to them to perfect their purpose in that behalf, since they see such a general accord of the common council, and ministry of the city petitioning together for the establishment thereof. this may suffice for the second edition of this scandalous contumely against the petitions, and petitioners of london; for whose sakes (they being so many in number, and so eminent in rank, and order,) and for the good cause wherein they, and many more are so much engaged, i have taken the opportunity that was cast in my way to make this apology, otherwise i should not think it meet to bestow my most idle minutes upon so mean an employment, as a conflict, or contestation with such antagonists as now i have answered. who if they appear again with any degree of folly, or offence in this cause, above that which discretion may disdain, or religion must pardon, though i be silent (which yet i do not promise) there will be a course taken to make some more sensible of their unsufferable excesses, and others more circumspect, and cautelous, then to run the hazard of their deserved reward. finis. the several kind's of inspirations and revelations pretended to by the quakers, tried, and found destructive to holy scripture and true religion: in answer to thomas ellwood's defence thereof, in his tract miscalled truth prevailing, etc. rev. 2.2. thou hast tried them which say they are apostles, and are not; and hast found them liars. london: printed for c. brome, at the gun at the west end of st. paul's, 1698. the epistle to the reader. there coming lately to my hand a book called truth prevailing and detecting error, etc. written by th. ellwood; pretending to be an answer to a certain tract, named a friendly conference between a minister and a parishioner of his, inclining to quakerism, etc. composed by a respected friend of mine: and understanding how that by the quakers it was esteemed as one of their strongest pieces, and by them thrust into the hands both of some magistrates, and other persons of several qualities, into whose acquaintance they could insinuate. i set myself to the perusal of it: the cavils, sleights, false quotations and untruths in several parts thereof, were easily discoverable; but the pretence to immediate revelation and inspiration did most nearly affect me, that being a tender matter, which ought not to be claimed without the greatest certainty, nor so much as mentioned without the highest regard; because [the glory of god, the authority of the scriptures, the state and welfare of humane societies; the souls of all (especially of those who are so facile as to believe such pretences) and the interest of the christian religion,] are all deeply engaged and concerned in those demands. and having observed these and the like things: 1. that bad men, evil designs, inward heats, melancholy fancies, satan's suggestions, the want of better arguments, or the like, have frequently in all the ages of the church, taken sanctuary under so sacred a cover, (as by the catalogue given chapter the sixth, doth sufficiently appear: which (if necessary) might be enlarged in those several periods downwards, to our own late licentious times, when inspirations and heavenly impressions were made the common stolen for many purposes.) 2. that the same grounds which can induce any man to incline to quakerism, do as strongly engage him both to believe and own the several other persons and sects which make use of the very same claim, both with an equal right, and with an equal confidence, for where the demands, proofs and reasons are alike, the reception and entertainment thereof should be answerable. 3. having considered th. ellwoods' manner of stating the case, viz. [that all believers in all ages, in some degree or other, p. 228. & 229. have inward teachings and immediate revelations from the spirit of god which dwells in them.] by which way of procedure he hath done as much disservice to that cause he designed thereby to support, as if he had been hired professedly to subvert it; for until he hath proved all other persons in the world to be no believers, (either not to have right articles of faith, or, which is more difficult to discover, that their hearts are not sincere and true in the belief of them) he hath argued them into inspirations as good as his own, and there are many such men who do profess, and will make out themselves to be as true believers, as he is, or can be, and so at least by his own rule they must have an equal share of inspirations with him, whereby the revelations of one side will be endlessly clashing against the revelations of the other, and in such contests men will not know which party to adhere to. such things as these being weighed, i determined to examine his pretensions in this matter, and in order thereto cast some thoughts together, chief in reference to the person and prophetic office of our lord jesus, which by their conceit of the light sufficient within every man, and a perpetual flux of inspiration from without are destroyed or rendered unnecessary. this being done, i was not satisfied merely from thomas ellwood to take my measures, nor by one writer to judge of an whole sect; (though we may justly fasten upon such a party (as challengeth immediate revelation, both to the whole body, and every believer and member of it) whatever is written in matters of religion, especially in this highest part thereof, by any of their number. they also using such caution about licensing and printing their books, as will appear from their 5th. constitution.) i therefore resolved to discover the doctrine of thomas ellwood's brethren, and accordingly searched into such of their works, or those they were concerned in, as in this country i could obtain: it was some trouble to learn their names, and then procure them, and when had, it was but small pleasure to peruse them: for whereas other discourses do improve, delight and reward, these did little better than amuse. their terms were so wrested, and their style so forced and improper, that we may apply to them, what martial said of sextus his books. non lectore tuis opus est, sed apolline libris. st. irenaeus took the pains to discourse with, in praef. ad libr● 1. to examine the words and opinions of the valentinians, and such like heretics, and even to read commentarios ipsorum, the very books in which their doctrines were contained, though they were of so strange and disgustful a composure, that as erasmus observes in his dedicatory epistle before it [none could read them without weariness, unless he was armed with a mighty patience. quos nemo nisi patientis stomachi poterit absque toedio revolvere.] whereupon tertullian saith; adu. valent. p. 287. that he was [omnium doctrinarum curiosissimus explorator.] and as those fathers observe, some opinions are so monstrous, so trifling, and contrary to sound doctrine, that they do offend and jade the reader: but withal the very opening of such ware, is a sufficient discovery of its vileness: and i think it is as easy a work to understand the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. of the valentinians, (these were their terms of art, and taken from the scriptures also, but most horribly wrested and perverted by them) as to apprehend some of the first books of the quakers, which are full of such scripture words, but new moulded into their senses. the result of that search with respect to the subject matter is here presented; and their doctrines did prove much worse than i expected to have found them, greater depths of satan, higher mysteries of iniquity, more equivocations and un-christian tenets, did appear than my charity thought them guilty of: amongst other pieces, i think i have hit upon that which may be called their new gospel, and have discovered their very head and founder: but if they like him not for their father, i think we need not to be much at a loss to find out others: for besides some few singular fancies, there is not very much that is new in their opinions, and yet there is but little of the true old christianity neither. satan (we may reasonably think) hath long ago canvassed every word in the sacred book, from thence to form heresies, and having run his round, he doth oft new dress old obsolete ones, turning them into other shapes, by some slender additions to make them be the less discernible: but whosoever will compare the doctrines the quakers with many of the rotten condemned heretics, with some fancies of the monks in later times, of the anabaptists, familists, etc. about the reformation, of the seekers, antinomians, ranters, dellists, and those other swarms of locusts in this kingdom, will be forced to acknowledge that not only their foundation is the same, but that also many of their opinions, even their phrases, words and terms proceed from the same fountain. learned men do look upon them as so unreasonable and others do esteem them so obstinate, that either they are not worth meddling with, or that the attempts will prove fruitless: but the interest of true religion, and the good of those souls for whom christ died, are so sacred, that no endeavours to justify the one and to save the other, aught to be discouraged. and whereas heretics have one while questioned about god, at another time about christ or the holy spirit, sometimes the holy scriptures, sometimes the church, the sacraments or single articles have been debated. quakers do lie under those sad circumstances, of having licked up the vomit, and imbibed the errors about most of those. [denying the trinity, and yet dividing the godhead, denying christ's body and bodily presence now in heaven, and our redemption by him, confounding christ and the holy ghost, engrossing christianity to themselves; so as to paganize all other christians, and instead of them taking in the heathen world, to fill up those vacancies they have thrust us from (they being much more favourable to them, as having christ within them.) looking upon the scriptures as dead letters, not the rule either of faith or manners, that they signify nothing to us without a new revelation to impose them, and a further one to expound them.] with many the like prevarications in the most fundamental articles of religion: and such poisonous doctrines require warning and antidotes from all hands. this i have related to show the occasion of this tract, and shall more particularly address myself to such of the quakers as are wellmeaning persons, like absaloms' men, 2 sam. 15.11. in the simplicity of their hearts following their leaders, but yet in preparation of mind, being ready to embrace the truth when fairly proposed, and, as i hope, abhorring those abominations which lie concealed under their doctrines, or are the direct consequents of them: the great prejudice those poor souls lie under, is, that they are kept under with an implicit faith, and scarce permitted to read tracts against them, which are supposed to be but temptations to remove them from the truth: but if any such well designing quakers shall meet with this, i desire them seriously to lay to heart these few following things, which are not here set down to anticipate, but either briefly to represent what is proved in the following papers, or what might be more fully showed, especially in reference to that dangerous delusion, that the light within every man is the lord jesus. 1. that other sects (whom you disown and condemn) have given out themselves to be inspired as much as you do, have spoken as well, have continued as long, have been as numerous, have given as convincing proofs as you can do, and yet have been first wand'ring, then fallen stars, and have come to nothing. if you say, that theirs were counterfeit, but yours true lights, that is a pitiful begging the question; or, if you say that their light at first was right, but that they mistook in its use, this still concludes nothing; by what arguments you would confute your corrivals, by the like we may confute you, they falling as forcibly upon yourselves, as upon any others else. 2. consider that great disservice which your trifling expositions attempt to do unto religion, a taste of which we may take from your inspired allegorical interpretations recorded in chapter the 8th. [the everlasting gospel, the tabernacle of david, god, christ, the angels, the devil, the bottomless pit, the beast with seven heads, babylon, the mystery of iniquity, the man of sin, the mystery of godliness, michael and the dragon fight, antichrist, the third heavens, the father of lies, etc.] all these are made internal things, so that a quaker is well provided, having within and carrying about with him all those; certainly he must be an empty house, that can entertain so many both things and persons, and such a mixed assembly. 3. that other nations have had their enthusiasts (there being a kind of circulation of errors) germany had its anabaptists, etc. in the last century, and its plenty of revealers in late times; france had its libertines; holland its familists, and what not, and other countries had their share: but the scene at present of fanaticism lies most in england, for the inquisition and edicts suppressing (as 'tis likely) the alumbrados or quakers in popish countries, they were (i mean their doctrines) transplanted hither, where, in a soil at that time well prepared for their reception and increase, they took good root, and thence shot forth their branches into other nations: nor must we think that quakerism is the last sect, for though the very dregs of many of the former are squeezed into it, yet their own divisions, perpetual change, the doting of some persons upon novelties, and the craft of the great enemy, give us reason to suppose that when men are grown weary of this, he will prepare a new one for them. 4. that you would consider your own alterations generally observed both in point of doctrine and behaviour, for they are a clear acknowledgement that you were mistaken at the first, to challenge divine motions for many things, and yet in a few years to recede from those commands, reflects upon the spirit as changeable, or yourselves to have been imposed upon: but if you were truly wise it would engage you unto a strict examination both of your foundation and the several things erected on it: the old marcionites changed thus, [cottidie reformant illud, tertu●●l. adv. marc. prout à nobis cottidie revincuntur, daily altered their opinions, as the arguments of the others discovered their weakness and indefensibleness.] so do you daily lick and new mould many of your doctrines, as you are beaten from hold to hold, though you continue still enthralled in the main. 5. that you would throughly examine the truth or even possibility of those two (by you called) fundamental principles. 1. how your light within can be the christ, the saviour of the world, for it destroys the reality and truth of his humane nature, and hereby you proclaim yourselves to be antichristian in denying or destroying his coming in the flesh. how can his body or his soul be within every one of you? make out this, and it will be an equal evidence for transubstantiation; but undoubtedly it dethrones christ from god's right hand, and destroys our faith, our hope and our very religion, even the whole covenant of grace, all which are founded in the reality of his person, as our teacher and redeemer; and we may apply to you what the former father urged, ibid. [quali habitu— quonam impetu vel temperamento, quo in tempore diei noctis ve descenderit? in what habit, manner, condition, in what hour of the day or night did he descend, who saw him descend? who related it? who asserted such a thing as should not easily be credited when asserted? proculus affirmed he saw romulus ascend to heaven, but the christ of god hath none to witness his descent] into your souls, but this strange principle of taking [the light of nature, the dictates of conscience, and the treasures of knowledge reposited in the soul] for the son of the most high god, who also was the son of man, tends to repaganize mankind, and your disowning baptism (wherein the devil, the world and even gentilism itself were renounced) is a fit preparation to make men heathens a second time. 2. your other principle of perpetual immediate inspiration [as to the whole body of the church in general, im. rev. in the title page. and to every member thereof, and to every true believer in particular] lays aside the necessity or usefulness of the sacred scriptures; for what signifieth the bible, if it oblige none except it be renewed to them, nor can then be understood until the spirit come to expound it: the having no written book, but immediate teaching in all, would by your model have been far more beneficial, and your revelations about worldly things, idem, p. 6. [as ploughing, digging, going to a place, abiding in it, etc.] lays aside the use of your reasons, taketh away the comfortable trusting and relying upon providence, looks like a new way of knowing your fortunes, and exposes the soul to the delusions of fancy and evil spirits whereby satan may get that employment, which is assigned to reason, become the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the coachman or driver, get into the box, and hurry you at his pleasure. 6. that the great testimonies of our lords prophetic office are by himself given, john 5.31.— 40. the first is in v. 33. [the scent unto john and he bear witness unto the truth.] pointed out the person of christ, who was a man as truly as himself. but christ did not stand barely upon john's testimony, v. 34. no, nor did he bear witness of himself, v. 31. but besides those which might have been rejected as the testimonies of men, he appealed to three undeniable evidences that god spoke by him. the first is in v. 36. [the works which the father hath given me to finish, the same works that i do, bear witness of me, that the father hath sent me.] that is, the power of miracles was one evidence of his being sent from god. the second is in v. 37. mat. 3.17. & 17.5. john 12.28. [the father himself which hath sent me, hath born witness of me.] by those audible voices from heaven he gave credence that jesus was his beloved son, and commanded [hear him.] the third is in v. 39 [search the scriptures, for in them ye think ye have eternal life, and they are they which testify of me.] unto which that text rev. 19.10. is like [the testimony of jesus is the spirit of prophecy.] or the punctual fulfilling in christ's person, doctrine, life, death, etc. what had by a series of prophets several hundred years before been predicted concerning him, proved him to be the true messiah. but quakers pretending the christian religion to have been lost for above 1500 years, then giving out themselves to be the only true christians, that [after the long night of thick darkness, p. 243. which hath covered the earth, and that general apostasy] the gospel is now again revealed by them, give us no proofs of what they say, except a train of misapplyed words formerly used by other enthusiasts, and which for the future will not be forgot by their successors in the like claims, but they produce no divine attestations, not one hair turned black or white by them, or if they did, that alone would be no evidence, so certain is that observation of tertullian [edicens multos venturos, adu. marc. l. 3. & signa facturos, & virtutes magnas edituros, aversionem etiam electorum, nec ideo tamen admittendos, temerariam signorum & virtutum fidem ostendit, ut etiam apud pseudo-christos facillimarum, christ's foretelling that false christ's would come and work wonders, shows the uncertainty and rashness of believing them upon that account] the strongest proof is that of prophecy [that more sure word of prophecy 2 pet. 1.19.] even more sure than [the voice from the excellent glory, v. 17.] and therefore tho. ellwood should produce as determinate prophecies as those which limited the time of christ's coming, to prove it to have been foretold, that after 1548 years' [the so long lost gospel was to be published in the same demonstration of the spirit as at the first] and when that year (in which our late gracious sovereign was martyred) is undeniably made out to be the precise time, he must proceed by some certainly divine testimonies to prove that [he and his party are the sole persons whom god hath raised up for the redelivery of the gospel, and that all other their competitors are but raised up by satan to darken those truths which the quakers now bring unto mankind.] as for us, we do not deny god's gracious communications, nor restrain his influences upon men's souls, he may by angels, or what ways of notice he please, signify particular messages to some persons, but it is the claim [of immediate inspiration now in the conveying, renewing or expounding matters of religion] which cannot be too much disowned, as the subverter of our whole christian dispensation and the introducer of that dangerous dotage concerning the seculum spiritûs sancti, for the prophecies and promises of the old testament foretelling the coming of the christ, he accordingly coming at the time foretold; and when come, he being truly god, and yet instructing us in the true nature of man (which humane nature he then had, still retaineth, and for ever will retain) his person being seen, heard, and conversed with; his miracles done before multitudes of people, his doctrine delivered by him whilst he was on earth, and heard not only by disciples and enemies, but by 12 select apostles appointed purposely for that very end as witnesses. if the things of jesus were transacted outwardly and publicly as the things of men are (even his most concealed transfiguration was done before 3 eye-witnesses.) if the history of christ was recorded by such as were knowing witnesses thereof. if the spirits inward work chief consisted about such things as christ had before outwardly delivered, and if his inward immediate teachings might have been made out to inquirers by outward proofs: if our christian religion was settled by such eye and ear testimony, and its whole dispensation established by outward and sensible evidences: if the old rule be true, ecclesia ab apostolis, apostoli à christo, christus à deo, that the church received her faith from the apostles, they from christ, and be from god, as certainly this whole heap of evidences is true (and many more such might be added,) and their force can never be shaken, then quakerism, which tempts us with another kind of christ, and another scheme of religion, is as damnable and pernicious an heresy, as hath assaulted christianity at any time. the introduction in which an account is given of the quakers, original and standing. page 5 of their temper in debates. page 8 of t. ellwood's learning and honesty. page 13 of his daring confidence. page 18 the contents. chap. i. the state of the case and the manner of proceeding. page 22 chap. ii. how the apostles came to the knowledge of the gospel. page 31 chap. iii. whether the quakers be the apostles successors and receive the knowledge of the gospel in the same manner as the apostles did? page 40 chap. iv of the quakers renewed or repeated revelations. page 51 chap. v of their immediate revelations. page 63 chap. vi of their partners and competitors in revelation. page 70 chap. vii. of their contradictory, different and designed revelations. page 102 chap. viii. of their expository revelations, page 127 chap. ix. of their demonstration of the spirit and new dispensation. page 147 chap. x. of their experiences. page 157 chap. xi. how the primitive christians came to the knowledge of the gospel. page 162. chap. xii. of the quakers hearing the voice of god, and some other claims. page 166 chap. xiii. of the texts of scripture produced by t. e. p. 169. chap. xiv. of his destructive rules of expounding scripture. page 176 the conclusion. page 179 the author living at a great distance, these erratas have escaped, which the reader is desired to mend with his pen pag. 17. lin. 1. r. the catholics & nou. p. 21. l. 18. dreamers. p. 23. l. 7. there upon. p. 24. l. 21. withal a. ib. l. 34. sects, or. ib. l. 35. have. p. 41. l. 10 end. p. 46 l 32 an inference. p 47 l 2 porphory. p 50 l 17 sole teacher p 55 l 17. lines. p 61 l 11 deal some. [p. 78. in marg. against l. 1. principles of the elect. p. 48. ib. against l. 3. pen. naked tr. p. 25. ib. against l. 5. in mr. jenner, p. 173.] p 80 l. 31 inspired. p. 81 in marg. l. 11 bozius. p. 92 l. 21. deal and so. p 100 l. 9 indisputably. p 101 l 5 from. ib. l. 13. deal of. p. 104 l. 4. this. p. 105 l. 6. contradictious. p 114 l. 15. of hon. p 117 l. 7. superfaetation. ib. l. 27. this. p. 123. baptista catum syritus. p 126. in marg. valentin. p. 127 l. 4. third favour. p. 128 l. 18. wake. p. 129 l. 3diation. p. 131. l. 26 deal whole p. 132. ult. no more p 133. l. 31. which is. p. 135. l 25ssed. ib. l. 31 deal the. p. 139. l. 8. continues. p. 141. l. 28 that their. l. 36 eben. p. 145 l 6.tually than by. p. 148. marg. oecum. p. 159 l. 3. collatis. ib. l. 17 invisible. ib. l. 24 dumb. p. 160. l. 6 powers. p. 166. l. 11. deal in. ib. l. 31. too general. p 175. l. 19 remanent. p. 178. l. 4. thus he. ib. l. 15. in a. p. 180 l. 1. egyptian. ib. l. 2. no nor, p. 184. l. 24. meetings. p. 186 l 7. deal which, ib. l 16. condemned. the introduction. the divisions among christians being fomented by the enemy of souls, are as industriously retorted upon the very profession, as they were vigorously promoted; hereby some are encouraged to separation, and others hence take the confidence to dispute the truth of the religion itself, because of the various sentiments of such as own it. celsus the heathen, objected this early; to which * origen con. cells. p. 117, 118. oringen gives a satisfactory reply. and valons the arian, pretending to be offended at the same, was satisfied by the oration of themistius, [ † socrat. hist. eccl. l. 4. c. 27. 1 cor. 11.19. that there were fewer differences among christians than among philosophers,] sozomen. histor. eccles. l. 6. c. 36. the apostle having foretell that there must be sects or heresies; instead of being an argument against christianity, they prove one for it; all callings or professions have their various rules and methods; few laws are made which meet not with various expositions: exact agreement seems more like a design or compact. it is more possible to be at one in the ways of error: and in darkness men will stick closer together, whereas the more there is of light and truth, satan is the more concerned against them; and among such variour educations, interests, and tempers, it cannot be morally expected, but that some singular sect-masters will appear, and toll in proselytes and though our differences are too many at present, yet we can scarce pitch on any time during the purity of the church, especially when christianity was generally entertained, wherein there were not as many different form parties as are now amongst us. but whilst the sense of some texts or articles have been debated, the sacred scriptures themselves have meet with severe measure: by some, their authority and truth have been disputed; by others their phraseology and style: one while their language is too plain. not courtly enough, nor strewed with rhetorical flowers. the heathens objected this betimes, that the penmen were unlearned, arnob. l. 1. ab hominibus indoctis & rudibus scripta sunt, trivialis & sordidus sermo est— barbarismis, solaecismis obsitae res vestrae & vitiorum deformitate pollutae. the style ordinary or mean, that there were barbarisms and incongruities in those books; that their address is fitted to the generality or common people. lactant. lib. 5. c. 1. haeo imprimis causa est,— scriptura sancta fide caroat, quod prophetae communi ac simplici sermone ut ad populum sunt locuti— nihil audire vel legere nisi expolitum volunt. minutius faelix hath the like cavil of caecilius, and in clemen 's recognitions l. 1. the like is insisted on simpliciter & absque ullo dicendi fuco. this weapon was made use of sometimes, and satan, who is expert at the repeating his old stratagems, hath new managed it in the mouths of profane persons. but his arts also are many, and his methods contradictory: he turns the reverse, as one while the book of god is quarrelled at for plainness; anon it is rejected in regard of its obscurity and darkness. fire lax. cap. 3. sect. 15. p. 19●. sure footing i● christianly. sect 〈◊〉 p. 12. 〈◊〉 g. ke●●● ●●med, re●●●● 〈◊〉. p 3● p. 9 the romanists make it difficult to be understood; and dangerous to be read, to make way for the proposals and expositions of their infallible head. and the quakers do use the very like expressions and exceptions giving great reason to suppose that they both are hammered on the same anvil. [we find it to hurt and weaken, and deaden us, to think any thoughts, even from the scriptures, but as the life and spirit of god influencete and concurreth— if any time we do it, we find ourselves rebuked and chastised by the lord for it.] and elsewhere, [scripture words are but as abounding ●ounding brass and tinkling cymbal, a kill letter; it is only the words that christ himself speaks, that are spirit and life, and they who s●e● life in the letter, seek the living among the dead, for it declares of the life, but it is not therein, but in him] among others, thomas ellwood, in a late book, which he calls truth prevailing and detecting error, etc. makes it his professed business, chap. 8. to draw a veil and obscurity over the scriptures; questioning, and at last denying the bible to be the word of god, p. 249. calling the bible a dead thing, the scriptures dead letters. p. 250. whereas they dare call their own printed works [living divine testimonies] and t. e. upon his principles, the works of william smith cannot give the same title to the book of god which he gives to his own, viz. truth prevailing, etc. he further tells us that the scriptures are not sufficient to salvation, p. 241. nor the— rule ibid. and the like contempts are most subtly insinuated. withal he disbands' humane learning from all religious concerns; affirming that the bible is a sealed book; needs the same revelation to understand it, that the apostles had to write it; and all this is designed to usher in his parties pretended immediate inspirations, as the only certain means of understanding any thing in holy writ. this seeming dishonourable to god, disgraceful to his word, dangerous to souls and the quiet of kingdoms, and the whole being wrongfully stated by him; i have herein endeavoured an examination of his notions concerning this matter. g. whitehead acquaints us concerning the quakers writings [that some of their titles have not been strictly, but figuratively placed upon their books, the quakers plainness detecting fallacy. p. 91. ] a confession (which if pursued) gives us great latitude, he neither naming what those books nor figures are, a rare art of equivocation in the frontispiece, what figures may he pretend their books to have within: and by this sleight they may evade the most pressing arguments. and should i by this figure call ellwoods' book. [falsehood prevailing and protecting error.] i should do no injustice, for it is but a pursuance of their own concessions. but to view a while his self pleasing title, why it is not less humble than truth prevailing? is this given strictly or figuratively? or ●●●o●ed by his so 〈◊〉 boasted of inspiration? the world is too wise to begulled with a book that bears ●●●ther in its top; it is truth we lo●● for within, not anticipating t●●●s without; modesty and 〈…〉 ●●●dred such sounding 〈…〉 prevailing, etc. so sound some other of their works, [truth exalted and deceit abased] [truth lifting up its head above scandals] etc. but he may know that enemies to god and truth have given such titles to the creatures of their brains; which he doth to his work. antiphon the philosopher writ a book against the very providence of god, orig. con. cells. lib. 4. p. 176. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which he denied, and attempted to take out of the world; and yet he had the confidence to call it a discourse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, concerning truth. celsus, that bitter enemy of the christian religion, wrote a tract against it, which he named the true word or saying, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. idem. lib. 1. p. 17. & 31. in his fragments out of eusebius p. 26 5. hierocles also no mean person composed one against the christians, which he entitled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the lover of truth. so that bad lying books may through confidence wear good names; and yet all these three, [concerning truth: the true word, the lover of truth] are more modest than truth prevailing alias rampant; but it is well books can get titles, for t. e. is shy in giving them to men, his new heraldry and learning orders, they must now have epithets and adjuncts, p. 45. [by thomas elwood] why thomas? he doth disown his baptism, why hath he not changed that name which is the memorial of it: why nothing but thomas ellwood? one while they were at another pass [ * in the plain answer to his 18 queries. called of the world john whitehead] [ ‡ in his answer to the 15 new castle ministers. by one whom the world calls james naylor] [ † a shield of the truth. lib. 2. refert nosse ingenium & mores ejus eum quo velis congredi. written from the spirit of the lord by one— who is known to the world, by the name of james parnell] of late such alias' are omitted, for they continue changing, and are but yet going on unto perfection. it is a rule in the recognitions ascribed to clemens, to know quibus sit moribus & quibus artibus, etc. to understand the remper of that person with whom you have to deal; which must be observed, and i desire the freedom of enquiring a while into the quakers; particularly into our present author, by way of introduction, and then shall address to the main concern; his repeated immediate and expository revelations, and his other notions of the like mould. for the quakers in general two things are not unfit to be considered, their original or standing, and their temper. first, for their original. it may seem more difficult to discover; where sects are not called from their founder, but some property, etc. it may be harder to trace them to their head. the quakers original. in 1652 their beginning is supposed, and then abouts they were so called and known, but they themselves raise it four years higher. john whitehead fixes it in the year 1648. and h●bberthorne in 1660. told the king that they were then twelve years standing. in mr. faldoes' q. no christi. discourse bethe king and hab. p. 3. p. 16. in that black year to these kingdoms their pretended light appeared; considering these things, i am inclined to affirm them an off-set of the levellers, and anon shall tender strong probabilities for it; proposing them to such, whose age, experience, or circumstances have qualified them for a further discovery; only premising somewhat which seemed preparatory towards their appearing. in the north parts of england (where the quakers were first known) there were grindletonian familists, who taught [that scripture is but for novices, the white wolf. p. 39 that their spirit is not to be tried by the scripture, that we must now go by motions, not by motives, that when god comes to dwell in a man, he so fills the soul that there is no more lusting] with such like. when hell was broke lose, these and some others were maintained in 1645. which are sucked in by the quakers; as, edward's 2d. part of gangraena. p. 2d. [that christ's presence in heaven cannot be proved by scripture, they pretended revelations and visions, god conveys his will immediately; not lawful to give thanks after meat, that they are acted by christ in all, that some are as perfect here, as ever they shall be in heaven. tho. hall the pulpit guarded, in the epistle. ] such a catalogue we find in another with additionals, which i shall not stand to transcribe. but the very draughts and even body of quakerismly in the several works of gerrard winstanley, a zealous leveller, wherein he tells of the arising of new times and dispensations, the new law of righteousness, dated jan. 26. 1648 and challengeth revelation very much for what he writ. [the humane body was not the christ, but the spirit in that body, in the preface; p. 11. christ the anointing shall dwell in every one, as he dwelled in the man christ jesus, p. 13. the rising up of christ in sons and daughters is his second coming; the ministration of christ in one single person is to be silent, p. 21. father and son are all one, only the father is the universal power in the whole globe, the son is the same power drawn into, and appearing in a single person. p. 53. priests teach for hire, tithes brought in by the pope, p. 61. the resurrection is begun, p. 85. without voice, vision, or revelation men know not what they speak, p. 103. the righteous at death enter into the father himself, p. 111. all expositions are to cease, and we are to wait with a quiet silence. p. 112. speak from the original l●ght within.] the saint's paradise. [pag. 1. teaching out of scripture is but man's teaching. p. 14. the anointing teacheth without the scriptures, p. 23. you idolise scripture, p. 73. the father lies buried under the unrighteous fleshly power. p. 81. jesus christ is now upon his rising from the dead, the time is come. p. 83. jesus is the light within every one. p. 94. the holy law is not the letter of the scripture, but the spirit.] the mystery of god revealed to his servants. [p. 7. god will dwell in every man and woman, as he did in christ the pledge, or first fruits. he maketh seven several dispensations; the fifth is p. 31. god's manifesting in the flesh of christ, the 6th is p. 32. god's appearing in the flesh of his saints tell the resurrection day, which he makes a clearer dispensation than the former.] truth lifting up his head above scandals. octob. 16. 1648. [p. 11. a christ within is thy saviour. p. 16. the apostles seeing christ ascend was a declaration in vision, of the spirits rising up. p. 18. christ's body went into the four elements to purify them. p. 19 his spirit went into his father. p. 29. father, son and spirit are three names of one power. p. 46. magistrates have nothing to do in matters of religion. p 70. you must have a command within. p. 73. humane learning quarrelled at.] fire in the bush. [p. 20. the law, spirit, god, christ, heaven, within you. p. 33. christ the anointing within leads into all truth. p. 46. the seed or christ is to be seen within, he is no saviour that is at a distance; j●sus at a distance from thee will never save thee.] with many such expressions over and over repeated. that these are the quakers principles is well enough known, allowing some little alterations, as few sect-masters but have their doctrine varied by their proselytes; and the religious orders of the church of rome have suffered super reformations. now considering these opinions, the year, the country (as the mystery of god, is dedicated to his beloved countrymen of the county of lancaster) the printer, giles calvert, new law, etc. p. 44 ad. 75. fire in the bush. p. 64. ad sinem. an humble request to ministers and lawyers all over. and that several levellers settled into quakers, incline to take them for winstanleys' disciples, and a branch of the levellers. and what this man writes of [levelling men's estates, of taking in of commons, that none should have more ground than he was able to till and husband by his own labour.] proving unpracticable by reason of so many tough old laws which had fixed propriety; yet it is pursued by the quakers as near as they well can, in thou'ing every one, in denying titles, civil respects, and terms of distinction among men, and at the first they were for community, a faithful discovery of mystical antichrist. etc. p. 39 [thinking it unreasonable that one man should have so much and another so little; and some of them were not free to be tenants to other men.] and george fox said, [one man ought not to be above another] informat. at lancaster octob. 5. 1652. besides these, the quakers have some other opinions most what negative like, touch not, taste not, handle not; which are the distinctive shibboleths of the sect, yet possibly they may be in other of the works of winstanley; however he gives in these, some hints towards them. new law, etc. p. 125. truth lifting up, etc. p. 43. p. 28. p. 68 his new spiritual man [will neither preach nor pray, nor say grace when he sitteth down to meat, as the custom of professors is] [christ and his apostles did not preach and expound any text customarily, as the parish gods do] [the second man will change times and customs] [all these outward forms and customs are to cease and pass away] viz. ordinances, sacraments, sabbaths, etc. and herein the quakers do follow him: and others of their opinions might be added or improved by their after teachers, and if we assert that rome had an agency therein, at least as a pattern likely we should not be mistaken. trembling and quaking was known before their appearance [thomas newton had a vision by night of the virgin mary appearing to him, and saying; newton, john gee foot out of the snare. p. 63. 64. see that thou do not take the oath of allegiance. he had other visions besides that, which if he should repeat, would make a man tremble and quake.] the alumbrades or spanish quakers, that are seniors to ours above twenty years, [had burn, tremble or quake, dr. causabons' enthusiasm. p. 174. idem. p. 161. and swoon.] the holy maid or sister katherine of jesus [began her fit in the church with trembling; so that she let her wax candle fall to the ground, from that time her visions began to be very frequent.] the quakers cannot well out go st. francis in perfection, for he was like adam in innocency; mr. fowlis h●st. popish treasons p. ●. 6. and kept the gospel exactly to a letter, not breaking so much as a jott or tittle of it; if quakers receive the gospel from the lord, so did he; have they revelations? both he, dominick, and ignatius loyola are equal with them. loyola wrought invisible miracles as well as the quakers; and dominick clear out went them, for he received the holy ghost with the same glory of a staming tongue as the apostles did, and had also the gift of tongues given him by inspiration. dr. stillingfleet's idola. p. 273. if quakers' refuse to salute or put off the hat, they have a good precedent, for the founder of the jesuits refused to put off his hat, or give any civil titles to men: the like example they have for refusing an oath in judgement, for not only the m nists of late, but the beguardi or spiritual brethren of the franciscan order made the like d nyal. idem. p. 255. the maintenance which the quakers allow unto their ministers, is much like unto that of the franciscans, who ●o about without their purse and scrip, and are barefoot also, carrying altaria portatilia, little massing altars, confessing people, and taking what they can get among them. the dominicans got also by this voluntary service; had no rents, yet most money; no lands, and yet most corn. such gratis preachers as the quakers pretend to desi●e, we find far earlier than those orders; even the old false prophets, ez●k. 13.19. who took handfuls of barley, and pieces of bread. and the pseudo-apostles, who (because st. paul preached gratis, to some churches) endeavoured to imitate him therein. 2 cor. 11 12. that wherein they glory; they may be found even as we, [because the devil knew, that the men of this world are most taken when teachers take nothing: st. chrysos. apud theophyl. in locum. oecumenius in loc. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, he taught the false apostles to imitate or counterfeit that also.] [the false apostles abounding in riches, took notheng, and gloried upon that account.] do the quakers look upon others as dunces, who follow not their method? keith, im. rev. p. 68 [your wisdom is foolishness, your knowledge is darkness:] so did the franciscan friars to purpose. [your parish priest is idiota nunquàm theologiam audivit, bishop usher de christianarum ecclesiarum ●uccessione & statu, p. 273. etc. a fool that knows nothing of divinity; blind leaders of the blind— come to us, to whom the high, the difficult, dei secreta patuerunt, to whom the secrets of god are unfolded.] and as the quakers do now insinuate and creep into other men's cures, so than did the monks intrude themselves into the places of the secular clergy: so that many, even noble persons, spretis propri●s sacerdotibus, made these vagabond friars their teachers. the same franciscans also above four hundred years ago, were busy in making the new and highest dispensation; to wit, the evangelium spiritus, or evangelium aete●num, the eternal gospel of the spirit, which should succeed the gospel of christ; and that the quakers come near them in licking up their vomit, 2. the quakers temper. will in its proper place appear. as for their temper, in the most it discovers itself very unlike the rational, humble, and sweet spirit of christianity, and t●●● is more disadvantage in treating with them than any other party; for, we have no solemn, public instrument of theirs, containing thei● faith th●ir judgements in theological points, their way of worshipping god, etc. agreed upon by them, to which they will engage to stand, and by which for the future they will be concluded; but each writer states things according to hi● own conceit, learning or advantage; and withal they have rare arts of equivocation under colour of figurative expressions, and curious salvoes to bring one another off from the brink of blasphemy. it will be hard to find another party that in so few years hath stated things with so much diversity, as they have done: and it is as difficult to discover one good notion wherewith they have bettered the world since their first appearing. some of them give us reason to think, that their light was made to be kept dark, geo. bishop's looking-glass for the times, p. 1. and that we must never know their opinions; [there is no religion under the sun, or no prescription that ought to be, as to any thing that relates to the worship of god, but what is within, in spirit, and in truth.] away with all jewish and outward worship, forms, constitutions, canons, orders, decrees, directories, catechisms, confessions of faith, idem. p. 4. synods, councils, prescriptions, ordinances of men; all imitations of christ and his apostles, and doing things by example of them, where the same spirit of jesus is not the leader. away with all national religions and worship: christ the substance, the true jew inwardly, the circumcision in the spirit, christ the public worship in spirit and in truth is come.] so that if we know not a quakers heart, we cannot know his religion within it. and this he tells, he wrote, [as moved of the lord, and doing his will, p. 236.] there is no certain, stated, owned rule, penningtons' naked truth, p. 22. whereby they will be toyed: the scriptures are excluded from trial of the spirits; the spirit (they say) must do that. wherein they beg the question, and should give some evidence they have the spirit, before they try scriptures by it: so that they devolve all upon their inward motions, which being invisible, and indemonstrable to us, and hugely dissonant among themselves, discover their right father and hereby, we who deny new or renewed revelations, are debarred from having any rule at all. their style is so bitter, so stuffed frequently with cursing and railing, that they may well think themselves conquerors, when they have the last word, and keep the field with scolding: the want of arguments is supplied by the want of modesty; and louder clamours stand for calmer reasons. james 3.13. 1 pet. 3.15. instead of the meekness of wisdom, and rendering a reason of their hope with meekness and fear, dirt and rubbish is too oft thrown upon men, their credits blasted, their souls damned, and their livelihoods substracted. to single out some few evidences of their temper. if a man be infirm or sickly, a gag for the quakers, p. 12. they say, [he is tormented for writing against them:] if a man be aged, than he is called and treated as a dotard; that was the civility bestowed on mr. jenner: or if he die during the debate with them, as that person did, than they triumph, [they sent such an answer as broke his heart;] it seems their works are a killing letter also. to one a great name threatens, reason against railing, p. 180, 181. [that his head shall not go down to the grave in peace; and by that he shall know that not a lying or delusive, but a true and infallible spirit hath spoken by him,] which being contingent in its self, may come to pass, to secure the veracity of a prophet. hicks third dialogue, p. 85. g. whitehead told mr. hicks, that the plagues of god would light upon him. and the same having slandered another as a gammer, etc. slighted it, as only done by way of quaery; an ungodly way of blasting both causes and persons, and the very art and practice of the devil. doth job serve god for nought? but for an artist at railing, let edward burroughs take it, who in a few pages casts up this and the like mire and dirt, foaming out his own shame; burrough's works, p. 29-32. [reprobate, a child of darkness, a stranger to the life, in the sorcery and witchcraft, dragon-diviner, liar, antichrist, blind pharisee, blasphemer, accursed, polluted, filthy, dead, beast, the plagues of god are added to thee, condemned into the lake for ever, to be turned into the bottomless-pit, etc.] with too much of such hellish language. tyrant. and hypocrisy detected, p. 7. quakerism is paganism, p. 68, 69, 70. whitehead's q. plainness, p. 54. & p. 80. when men speak against their actings, they can stop their mouths as distracted persons: thus they said, [john pennyman was broken in his brain.] william russel was not only crushed, [called thief, liar, murderer, devil, cain, an allegorical drunkard; but francis campfield desired that no notice should be taken of what he said, for he was somewhat distempered in his head.] when some of their mysteries are divulged, than they cry out, that no credit ought to be given to such, for they are adversaries and apostates. they take it unkindly when the author's name is not set to such tracts wherein they are concerned, truth prevailing in the preface. [as an unmanly dealing, and must have caution or security given to make good the charge;] considerable upstarts indeed. let him first give satisfaction to that holy religion legally established, which he hath so bespattered. but what, is truth concerned in an author's name? or why are quakers so solicitous about men's names, who account the name jesus so contemptible? princip. of truth, p. 12. keith univers. grace, p. 30. [the name of jesus and christ without the power, are but empty words; nor is the outward name (christ) that which saves.] why do their books peep abroad without the names of their makers? as [certain queries, and anti-quaeries, truth exalted, and deceit abased. true judgement, or the spiritual man judging all things,] cum multis aliis. but they would have their adversaries names appear, thence to be able from his person, principles, or profession, to fly-blow him: as, if a conformist, than their topics are ready, of a priest, a , etc. if a dissenter, pen's rebuke to 21 divines, and winding-sheet for controver. pen's apology. than the scotch covenant is raised from its ashes, dipper, socinian, etc. fly about, and 21 old divines are daringly encountered by one hand. if their adversary have been a tradesman, that is objected, a tailor, a brazier, etc. help to fill up the charge, which proceeding looks untowardly from them who allow any to be prophets; and pretending much zeal against partiality, and respecting of persons, they cannot be offended if another call, their dear father of many nations, george fox, josh. coals letter. winstanley 's new law, p. 96. the shoemaker of mansfield in nottingham shire. at this rate they proceed, as if they were engaged in some new order of spiritual knighthood, using the style of hector's; [the poorest man dares throw the glove to all the humane learning in the world.] others, as fox and burroughs, challenge [the pope and all his hierarchy, all the priests of dublin, and all other people, and all the doctors of europe to come forth,] etc. another hectors strangely, sol. eccles. challenge, p. 2. some principles of the elect people of god, p. 51. ellwood's preface. [he that cannot fast seven days and seven nights, and wake seven days and seven nights, shall be accounted a member of a false church, and a heretic;] a new way of trial by lungs and guts, worse than fire ordeal. but the quakers make odd catalogues of heretics; as, [nimrod that heretic,] epiphanius, in the heresies before christ, scarce thought that nimrod deserved that name; for it was scythismus à diluvio usque ad turrim, lib. 1. tom. 1. my author is for [giving the world a man's name with such an adjunct] in their stilo novo: and what their adjunct is, appears enough from the instances preceding. when they use such words and expressions as we do (who take them according to the common acception) yet in many of them they have a different and reserved design and meaning, turning them into terms of art; giving them such a stamp and signification as they please. thus t. e. deceives us with the [no new essentials of religion,] as in its place will appear. by jesus christ we understand the son of the b. virgin, now at the right hand of his father: but thereby they mean a christ within. [the light and life of christ within the heart discovers all darkness, new law, p. 96. 2 pet. 2.3. and delivers mankind from bondage; and besides him there is no saviour.] so that their words are feigned, new stamped with their senses; and the style of their first writers is oft very barbarous, ending, when examined, in swelling words of vanity, or an unintelligible nothing: and, as anciently was observed, do provocare stomachum aut cerebrum, offend the stomach, or disorder the head. this trick of taking words, and varying their sense and use, hath been the old way and art to impose upon and to ensnare the unwary. irenaeus frequently observes it, irenaeus advers. haeres, l. 3. c. 19 [that when (heretics,) speak like us, they have a different meaning from us; similia enim loquentes fidelibus, non solùm dissimilia sapiunt, sed & contraria, speaking contrary, and oft blasphemous things, under such innocent words as good christians used; and so destroy such, as by the likeness of words attract poison.] the same father frequently acquaints us with their arts; that as satan took scripture when he tempted christ, lib. 1. c. 15. so do others take and wrest them also. [de propheticis quaecunque transformantes, coaptant, transforming words from the prophetic writings, they adapt or fit them to their project.] and elsewhere, [vides ad inventionem, etc. l. 1. c: 1. thou seest their invention whereby they deceive themselves, slighting the scriptures, and yet endeavouring from them to establish their fiction.] and this is imitated by the quakers, who dwell in the bark and outside of words, and slight the scriptures; and yet take some words or sentences thence, in which they fancy such a meaning, and then the rest is thought to chime and sound in that manner. and what may not be made of any book, even of the very bible, when it is transposed, inverted, and single phrases or sentences disjoined from the rest, being chosen, receive such or such an impress, and are brought in to speak to such a purpose this old art irenaeus well illustrates by the semblance of such as transformed the picture of a king into the likeness of a dog or fox, by changing the scite and posture of the gems and parts, quomodo si quis regis imaginem, etc. lib. 1. c. 1. as if any should take the picture of a king, well made by a wise artist out of precious stones, and destroying the figure of the man, should transfer these jewels, and by altering them, make it into the form of a dog or fox, and when they were so badly disposed, yet still to say, this is that good picture of the king, which such a wise artist made, showing those jewels, which at the first were well made up into the picture of the king, but were badly afterwards chopped, and translated into the image of a dog, etc. in like manner do these transgress the order and context of the scriptures, and as much as in them lieth, do dissolve the members of the truth, and by such chopping and mangling, do make one thing out of another, and so seduce many. several also of the words used by the valentinians and their predecessors, are used by the quakers, as terms of art with their signature upon them; as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. irenae. lib. 1. cap. 1. epiphan. haeres. 31. word, life, (power, spirit) perfect or perfection, (so they called themselves, the seed of election) man, (earth and mankind are frequent and synonimous in winstanley) stillness, depth, silence, which are mystical words among the quakers; entering into the stillness, meeting god in silence, and the like. see mr. faldoes' key. they had also unscriptural terms of art, achamoth, jaldabaoth, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. and the quakers have choice of theirs; as ravend, ravening brain, inwardly ravening from the spirit, vulturous eye, the seed in prison, invisible miracles, or miracles in spirit, the royal, noble, gentile seed, taking away the tables, and many such like. 2. from them we shall now pass to make a few remarks in the entrance upon thomas ellwood, both as to his honesty and learning, and also his courage and confidence in striking blindfold about him. as to his honesty and learning: t. ellwood's honesty & learning. there is a vein of sophistry and tripping that runs through his tract, and when the paint is off, it is full of furrows and deformity; there are many gross escapes which look ominously in a treatise for immediate inspiration, so that his search seems not to be after truth, but victory. i had thought that after his book had been several months public, some friend or himself might have observed the great unfaithfulness in many parts of it. but meeting the 30th. day of march with a letter ● in which he seems well satisfied with his achieve that is, glories in his shame; i found it conve● hasten the examination of part of his work. ● the letter is here inserted, as a specimen of h●per. [some (thou sayest) will needs have me to be a ● and why? because of a little learning: must n● have learning but they and jesuits? this is the o● but poor shift of priests hard beset: when they canno●●tain their ground, they cry out, their opponent is a ● as if none could be too hard for them but jesuits, i● to be worsted they are not ashamed; to think it no● the more shame for them. well, truth is too hard) and jesuits too. but whilst with some i pass for a with others it seems i am but a counterfeit: the they think, is feigned, there's no such man, etc. were true, what then? there's such a book to be ● there were no such man as bears that name, yet the needs be such a man as wrote that book, for the bo● not write itself. but a third sort, i perceive, w● allow me to be a quaker; and why? because they ● quaker could not have given such an answer: t●●ceeds from their ignorance of truth and the powe● and indeed the contrary is most true: had i not quaker, i could not have given such an answer at that rate he goes on, ascribing his imagina●●umphs to that powerful arm, which gave both th● i and therewith skill and strength to use it. now, t● is a downright fathering lies upon god, will ●dent from three or four instances out of many. 1. he deals unfaithfully with st. basil, [sirna● great,] p. 165. bringing him into the council ●cedon, refusing to swear, and commending cli● the like denial. whereas if the thing had bee● it had not much pressed us; for what signifieth ●ample of one pythagorean philosopher to the la● christian empire? or what availed one basil (● great) to a whole council of six hundred an● bishops? geo. bishop in his looking. glass, p. 168. though a quaker cry out against that ●cil, [what cluttering, what clamouring, what bei● like a company of geese giggling their noises, than ●cil of grave men and sober christians.] but the self is untrue, for st. basil was dead about sevent● years before that council. he flourished in th● of valens, died about the year 378. the co● chalcedon was held, say some, anno christi 45 the soon, by justells and beverig's computati● under the emperor marcian, if he had looked into his brother geo. bishop as much as i have done, by comparing p. 122. and 166. together, it might have revealed something better to him. but poor george was one of the nonconforming quakers, dr. lightfoots harm. of the o. t. and so his works are out of vogue. now this is a lying wonder to purpose. christ raised lazarus four days dead, the witch of endor brought up a supposed samuel, nigh two years after the death of the true one. but t. e. haileth st. basil out of his grave (where he had rested between 70 and 80 years) and brings him into the council, with a quaker-like sullenness, speaking against the laws and constitutions of the empire. he deals as dishonestly with the former's dear friend st. gregory nazianzene, whom he quotes p, 186. thus [in his dialogue against swearing] whereas the very title of that jambick 20th is [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, adversus eos qui frequenter jurant,] against those who swear frequently, customarily, often, not against judicial swearing before authority: as he belly the title, so also he abuseth the dialogue itself; and that eloquent father who there expressly allows swearing [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. b. when dost thou allow the liberty of an oath? a. then when its necessary, b. but when is it necessary, declare, is it that thou mayst deliver any from great dangers? a. it is then lawful. b. or to free thyself from some grievous crime? a. then it is also lawful, etc.] and in his jambick 15. he defines an oath [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a making faith to a thing, by placing of god a witness present in the middle: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the swearing truly, or performing what you swear, that is good or right s●●earing.] p. 114. having quoted a saying of [solon (one of the sages of greece) he adds to him sosiades (another of those seven wise men] and quotes stobaeus serm. 28. whereas there is a heap of untruths in those few words. for first, 1 edit. tiguri. 1543. if i have eyes in my head there is not such a man named in that sermon, nor is it likely, the discourse being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, de ocio, concerning sloth, no nor in the 25. sermon, concerning swearing, nor in the 26. concerning perjury, is such a person once named. much less was he one of the seven wise men of greece; take what catalogue he will, he will scarce find such a person; the late one in sch●evelius gives seven other names, but i suppose t f. had seen [sociad] set down in the 13 quakers book against oaths, and for the better grace he dubbs him [another of those seven wise men.] let him raise hue and cry, to discover if ever there was such a wise man, and search with a candle for him: suidas names none such. diogenes lae●t●us (where he is purposely reckoning them all up in his proaemium) owns no such person, nor do my circumstances give me information, let him try if his rider quoted p. 169. will befriend him. pag. 20. he calleth the martyrs [our godly martyrs] as if they were the quakers martyrs, when as they suffered upon an 100 years before his party appeared; this is a most invidious, saucy and unjust pretention, to rob the church of england of the glory of her martyred reformers; and withal to cast dirt upon the present church, as receded from her former constitution. but this he hath from his inspiring tutor [the new protestant, g. keith im. rev. p. 132. the degenerate protestant (for the pure primitive protestants owned the true foundation with us, though their discovery of it was but little.)] but why? [our godly martyrs] are quakers protestant's? that they disown abundantly [ * eccles. his challenge p. 2. from the protestants to the familists, the quakers deny you all] [ † keith universal free grace p. 5. all these how much soever pretending to a reformation are the daughters of babylon] [ ‡ smith's spiritual glass opened. p. 83. etc. from the pope to the baptist they are all born in one womb.] [ ‖ barclay in q. no popery. p. 103. papists and protestants are in the root and spring.] [ * howgils' glory of the true church p. 12 and 23. protestant's are in the suburbs of the city of rome.] [ † parnels shield of the truth. p. 39 papists and protestants spring from one root.] and we protestant's wholly deny quakers the having communion with us, and he cannot but know that strong proofs are offered by several to evince that the quakers are not so much as christians, mr. faldo, hicks, russel, etc. whose service therein to the common faith is commendable. and it concerns all who hold the lord jesus the head, col. 2.19. to strive for that faith once delivered, judas v. 4 against the quakers, who as far as in them lies, do take away our lord jesus and do not tell us where they have laid him, giving us a suppositious saviour, a dead instead of our living child jesus; an image and bolster of goat's hair, in room of our true david, and thus and novatians both united against the arians, socrat. ec. h. l. 2. sozo. ecc. h. l. 4. c. 19 and afterwards against the macedonians. but had t. e. designed to shame himself, he could not have made an apt choice, than to call such men, [our (that is, the quakers) godly martyrs.] to rescue them from such a rape: i might give an account of their dignities and callings in the church, that they compiled the liturgy, the book of ordination, etc. dr. heylin's ecclesia restaurata. p. 125. but the shortest way to discover their judgement, will be to look upon the articles of religion drawn up, and prepared much by archbishop cranmer, and agreed upon by the bishops and other learned and godly men in the convocation, 1552. several of which were martyred and suffered for those and the very like articles. and they are drawn up as it were in a foresight of, and defiance of quakerism; there is as great a gulf between them, as that between heaven and hell. article 1. of faith in the holy trinity. 2. that the word, or son of god was made very man. 4. christ sitteth in heaven until the last day. 5. the doctrine of the holy scriptures is sufficient to salvation. 6. the old testament is not to be refused. 7. the three creeds received, (any of which will stick in a quakers throat.) 11. our justification is by only faith in jesus. 14. no man is without sin, but christ alone. 18. eternal salvation only by the name of christ. 20. of the church. 21. of the authority of the church. 24. of being called by men to minister in the congregation. 26. of the sacraments. 27. the wickedness of ministers takes not away the effectual operation of god's ordinances. 28. of baptism. 29. of the supper of the lord. 30. of the perfect oblation of christ made upon the cross. 36. of civil magistrates and their authority. 37. christian men's goods not common (against father winstanley.) 38. christian men may take an oath. 39 the resurrection not yet brought to pass. vltim. all men not to be saved; against winstanley also. never could man that observed the truth of what he wrote have called the compilers of such articles the quakers godly martyrs. but the man who went naked, faldo vind. of quaker. no christ. p. 36. said his body was all forehead. t. e. needs as much brass to face out these worthies for quakers martyrs. these few i have singled out as a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or taste, what measure may be expected from such complexions. the case of the q. relating to oaths stated. p. 37. his other authorities do much labour of the like disease, as is evidenced in a late sinewy tract. but why should they bring in some partial dismembered sayings of the ancients, seeing they will not be concluded by them in other matters. so true is that in them, which mr. chillingworth applied to the romanists, [you account them fathers when they are for you, and children when they are against you.] let him stick to his indemonstrable revelation, and play in and out there, rather than meddle with humane learning thus unsuccessfully and worse: but his talk of inspiration confutes itself, and his own example is the best proof, that as yet it hath not advanced beyond a dream. but if that be pleaded which he suggests, [that in the country for want of books, in the preface. he was forced to take some few quotations upon trust, but yet using much caution in his choice.] it is replied, that these are so gross and palpable, that an easy learning might detect them; and in a matter of such moment, which the poor quakers do implicitly believe and hug, he was obliged to the severest caution, not to impose upon their tame and easy credulity. and as to us who know ourselves fallible, and in god's extreme account very imperfect, it must be allowed for an excuse. but as for him who defends perfection, pleads for immediate revelation, which his master extends [to many things which are not in scripture so much as by consequence:] keith, im. rev. p. 6. 2d. quib. p. 11. others of them challenging [infallibility in all things and cases;] and he, as a believer, pretending the unction whereby they know all things, p. 229. and yet in many discovering, and in some confessing his ignorance, [i know not,] p. 227. to him this plea can be no advantage, it pulling down that very thing which he is building up. for if there be such a standing, perpetual ordinance, as immediate revelation, god's veracity and goodness is concerned at that time to let them be infallible, when they are pleading, and become the advocates for it: but it is a good confutation, when a champion proves an instance against himself. t. ellwood's courage. 2. as to his courage and confidence, they are high enough, showing great to the sacred scriptures, as will appear in a proper place, by a catalogue of his rules of exposition, such certainly as the sun never saw, especially by such a pretended intimate of heaven. we shall only now consider his carriage to most orders of men in the kingdom, for he presumes to tax our world like augustus caesar. the king must be plainly thou'd, and the head covered before him. the turkish fashion they esteem most proper, and the tuissare or thou'ing, which in erasmus' time was opprobious among the english, is dubbed into both religion and manners. my lord the king is no pleasing dialect to these new saints, it is old testament divinity. dread sovereign and sacred majesty must not now be used, p. 46. who must have the majesty then? not the king, i'll warrant you; it is taken from him to be appropriated to their own dear selves; take a few of their expressions, having spoken against magistracy, and for the destruction thereof, he proceeds, [ * fire in the bush, p. 39 if you would find true majesty indeed, go among the poor distressed one's of the earth:] [ † parnel's shield of the tr. p. 25, 27. here is the ground of all true nobility, gentility, majesty, honour— no more after the flesh, but after the spirit— quakers are sprung of the noble, gentile seed;] [ ‡ in his noble salutation to thee, charles stewart. from the council and nobility of the royal seed, the lion of the tribe of judah, the everlasting king of righteousness, who reigneth in george fox the younger:] [ ⁁ in the testimony from the brethren. the quakers ministers are the dignities, and government, and dominion.] the king must not write in the plural number, we, p. 27. though he be a public person, and act by advice of his council, [all that is sprung from pride and flattery.] besides this, he saucily and pragmatically meddleth with the king's revenues; the office for first fruits & tenths offends him, p. 355. [no flower can be fair in an english crown which was taken out of a pope's mitre; if nothing else could be said against it, but that it once stuck in the triple crown, that alone were enough to make it unworthy to be worn in an english diadem.] it seems he hath more than this to object against it; such like things are frequent in their books, which stealing out into the world, are apt to leaven men's spirits with bad principles. one of them acquaints us [ * parnel's shield of the truth, p. 19, 25. what magistrates they do not own, but deny and testify against; and to make their negative power better armed, he saith, the kings and nobles of the earth shall be bound in chains and fetters of iron.] this was printed 1655. but lest it should be only serviceable in those times, † some principles of the elect people of god, called quakers, p. 89. isaac pennington (a name deep enough certainly in royal blood) to make it currant quaker doctrine now; reprints that book in 1671. leaving out the beginning and end of it, but he hath the conscience and confidence to re-print those very words, out of what design, let our superiors judge. but lest since then, so beloved a doctrine of binding kings should be forgot, they keep up the memory of it. ‡ the true christians faith and experience, by willi●m shown, p. ●36. another book, printed 1675, speaks home; [christ reigning in the heart gives power to bind kings in chains, and nobles in fetters of iron: this honour hav● all th● saints.] to the like contempt of authority writ several of them; howgils' glory, p. 107. kings and magistrates, [as christians, have no priority, but as they stand in the growth of truth,] that is, in quakerism. parnel's shield, p. 41. will. smith, passim. fire in the bush, p. 21, 22, 23. [i charge you all by the lord, to take heed of meddling about religion— meddle with such affairs as you are set about:] [meddle not with religion, keep within your bounds.] and winstanley, the instituter of their order, speaks roundly to all, [four idolized powers must down, the imaginary teaching, hear-say, book-studying power, or the ministry: the imaginary kingly power must be shaken to pieces in all nations: the imaginary law of justice, which is but the declarative will of conquerors, and buying and selling the earth, and being enslaved one to another, must all be destroyed at the resurrection of christ,] and that, he saith, was then beginning; and therefore the pretence to revelation looks asquint upon the safety of kingdoms: had not the magistrates the sword, they might meet with as reproachful words as the ministers: and had some persons strength, their principles might carry them to repeat the munster tragedy. if this measure be dealt unto the prince, what will not be unto the subjects? the peers and lords must expect the like treatment from these levellers; [ploughmen, james parnel's shield, p. 24, 25. fishermen, herdsmen, shepherds are noblemen sprung of the noble seed; here the true honour is no more after the flesh, but after the spirit:] he that boggles at using sirs, p. 46. will stumble at higher titles; and if this new critic may be credited, titles are to cease, and epithets and adjuncts are to succeed in lieu. which men are at liberty to give or not to give, according to their prejudicated or capricious fancies. he quarrelleth at several things established by act of parliament; as the book of ordination is spurned at by degrading the clergy: the confessing of ourselves miserable s●●ners, is chastised by his ferula, p. 53. tithes, an ancient payment, of at least 800 years' usage in this nation, sir edw. sandys his view of western religion, sect. 39 are declared by him popish whereas the nonpayment of tithes is grounded upon papal exemptions: and in italy, the pope's country, under his nose, praedial tithes are not paid, but their clergies maintenance consists in glebes and farms, which t. e. quarrels not at, p. 323, 324. so little is a quaker offended with an italian usage. this freeborn man also quarrels high▪ that none can bind their posterity with tithes, which strikes as fully upon hearth-money, or any descending impositions. the judges and courts, and all judicial proceed lie in his way; they sin, and repeat sin, and establish sin by law. an oath of god must not be administered to end strife, but the quakers yea and nay must be the deciders; and yet so uneven is their temper, that for interest they will take an oath; witness the cases of mead, osgood, and several: so that their equivocating justly deserves that brand, [quakers can take an oath, and yet do not swear at all.] the clergy, as far as in him lieth, are run down; their orders are taken away, chap. 1. their employment, chap. 2— 8. their maintenance, chap. 9 with stripes and buffet all the way thorough. not so much as a gentleman or stranger that ought to be called master or sir, except in law or nature, p. 43. but by his model, a breach of god's law is committed: thus is our blessed religion misrepresented, such disservice is by dreams done unto it; excellent temptations do these propound, to incline any to turn christians when they would thus degrade and depress men, and set the tenant on breast with his landlord. to draw controversies to a speedy issue is good, as hath been done in singling out the romish supremacy and infallibility, because upon the fate of them lesser differences depend; so 'tis not worth the while to stand upon thou'ing, and such affected singularities, the shortest cut is to examine their revelations, infallibility, immediate commission, etc. for the rest will stand or fall with these; and it may prove most successful to show, that at the best they stand but on an equal level with other men, and what lower they may have depressed themselves, by belying the holy-ghost, and saying they are prophets, and are not, deserves to be the matter of their sad and serious enquiry. taking then for granted, that god hath revealed himself to mankind, that much thereof is committed to writing, and is upon record in the bible, as t. e. owns, p. 238. that the latest of these books have been written upon 1600 years since. i shall proceed upon this, and the principles of reason, and the judgements and practices of the quakers themselves, extracted out of their own works, and the works of others whom we have all the reason to believe; the things being matters of fact, and the parties offering to make good their charge before the lord mayor of london, tyranny and hypocrisy detect. p. 48, 49. or any alderman on the bench, or any one of the twenty common council-men. and the dispute being, whether the quakers have any real divine revelations or not; i durst refer it to the judgement of indifferent persons, though heathens, if they understood the concern, as debates between christians and pretenders thereto, have been so ended. chap. i. the state of the case, and the manner of proceeding. thomas ellwood, in the name of his party, claims such communications and heavenly visits, as good christians are not conscious they receive, nor dare tempt god in desiring. the proofs thereof he fetcheth from scripture, wherein i neither read his name, nor that of quakers; but if they conclude for him, they conclude as strongly for me. i profess myself a believer in that jesus, who made those promises, and whom t. e. strangely overlooks: so that of the two i am the more likely to have the greater share. and until he hath proved me no believer (which to do will exercise his faculty of discerning of spirits) i might set my revelation to answer his; and hereby his cause reaps no advantage. his ghostly father (from whom his spirit hath received much light, and yet he is not so ingenuous as once to acknowledge it) declares, keith's universal free grace, p. 48. [no man can be bound to believe, in that which comes not in a sufficient way;] so that it is but reasonable we should be allowed to pursue that rule, and to demand an evidence proportionable to their soaring claims. where our assent is required to any thing, god is pleased to afford us means for our conviction, and is satisfied with such a degree thereof, as the evidences will carry. when matters of fact are concerned, the testimonies of our own or other persons senses conclude us. when matters of reason, thereupon using our best faculties, such a measure of assent is sufficient, as those reasons will enforce. but when one tells me, he hath received divine inspirations, thereby i am arrested; for i must not dispute any thing that is spoken by god: my only enquiry is, whether god hath really so spoken, as is pretended. which being a matter of great moment, god hath abundantly provided, that we should not be imposed on, by giving us both caution and security: and the more diligent we are in examining and trying such claims, the more is he delighted with us, and will bless that industry, wisdom, and obedience. the old and new testament give us many warnings, about dreamers, false prophets, etc. command to beware of them; not to believe, but try them: and for matter of security, god hath abounded in that, by furnishing his messengers with such extraordinary powers, that thereby men's belief was both commanded and secured, mark 16.20 [as they preached every where, the lord wrought with them, confirming the word with signs following] or accompanying. nor did it seem consistent with gods wise dispensation, to give immediate revelations, and not to furnish the receiver with such divine testimonials, as might truly satisfy him that god spoke, and also command faith and obedience from others. god's immediate voice hath not used to come so precariously into the world, to be misspent and wasted for want of evidence; and it might be an intangling thought to an inspirado, would he consider it, why the former old revelations should not at this day be as good to convey the doctrine and meaning of christianity as the former old miracles were, and are still sufficient to settle, and seal its truth; or that miracles should be set as seals to confirm such revealed doctrines, and yet those doctrines in after-ages need as fresh revelations to convey and expound them; and in the mean time have no miracles to attest the truth of those expositions; especially when different pretenders to revelations bring as different expositions; these do more and more ensnare, but we may extricate ourselves by allowing, as the old miracles to be the seals, so the old revelations thereby attested, to be the objects of our faith. but when i find high claims of renewed revelations, and therewith as studious an undervaluing and depressing the honour of miracles; and withal the rejecting the scripture, from being the rule to try the spirits by, as quakers do; and withal when i find such caution used by moses to satisfy himself and others, that god spoke by him. none, especially if their claims be really divine, can quarrel to have them examined by such means of discovery, as a wise religion, and sober reason afford unto us. keith's im. rev. title page. but though t. e. was in the right, that there is such a standing ordinance in the church of christ of indispensable necessity, as perpetual inspiration, yet he hath but done half his work; he must go write another book to prove that among all the societies of christians disowning it, and the various sects of single persons claiming it, his party having the only enclosure thereof; their fleece to be wet when all others are dry about them: till this be done, his arguments are as equally calculated for me (if i will) as for himself; and do conclude as forcibly for jacob israel, or muggleton, as for george fox. it would have been an ease, if his discourse had been true; mere waiting is a more facile thing than reading, meditating, or studying; and to a weak constitution, a supine expecting would have been far more favourable than that which wise and inspired solomon called a weariness of the flesh. eccles. 12.12 what the excellent lord falkland spoke concerning the romish, may, with no alteration, of the infallibility of the church of rome, sect. 36, 37. be applied to the quakers infallibility and inspiration also: [i take no pleasure in tumbling hard and unpleasant books, and making myself giddy with disputing obscure questions; if i could believe, there should always be (whom i might always know) a society of men, whose opinions must be certainly true— so as i might be excusably at ease, and have no part left for me but that of obedience, which must needs be less difficult than the harsh greek of evagrius, and the as hard latin of irenaeus— and he would deserve not the lowest place in bedlam, that would prefer those studies before so many, so much more pleasant, that would rather employ his understanding, than submit it:] the ease than would lie in having inspirations, or sitting at the feet of such as have them, rather than in employing time and strength in laborious searches; only the way of labour is the way of god's blessing. but the whole scene, as laid by the quakers, is so distant from god's way of dispensation, who was pleased to become god with us, to live on earth to teach us, which having performed, there cannot be much to be new taught now; and also immediate revelation, when in use, yet being but rare, conferred on some, whom god used as his mouth to communicate it to others: and religion being published in an external sensible way, and in like manner settled; to prevent such delusions as might insinuate themselves under the cover of inward suggestions, we have no encouragement to sit down satisfied with these internal and indemonstrable transactions, being full of nothing but difficulties and dangers: but we must take the more laborious way of searching the scriptures, praying, conferring and comparing spiritual things with spiritual. the aforesaid lord further urged, sect. 9, 10. [that the romish pretence to infallibility was but an accidental argument, because if any other company had likewise claimed to be infallible, it had overthrown all so proved; nay, it is but an arbitrary argument, and depends upon the pleasure of the adversary: for, if any society of christians would pretend to it, the church of rome could make use of it no longer.] now, though the disciples of hetherington the boxmaker, even before that lord wrote, to wit, about 1625, had maintained, dr. dennison's white wolf, p. 72. that [they could not err in giving deliberate sentence in points of divinity,] as h. nicholas had done before them; yet if that noble viscount had lived till now, what would he have thought of the force of his former argument? when not only within this island john reeve and lodowick muggleton (who would be taken for the two witnesses in the apocalypse) pretended, and were owned by their few disciples to be infallible; but the more numerous company of the quakers do challenge the same to their party, and outdo the romanists in the variety of their claims, of inspiration, immediate revelation, apostolical commission, of christ the light within, of infallibility, and discerning of spirits. so that now on this side dover, we have popes of both sexes; joan belongs to england, not to mentz; and we have many johns, above 24; but whilst three different, if not contradictory parties pretend to infallibility, we have reason to suspect they are all alike infallible. the quakers have a pretty craft, but it may easily be seen thorough; the apostles were endued with extraordinary powers, both inward and outward, now they challenge to themselves the inward, as authority, inspiration, infallibility, commission, discerning of spirits, the inward baptism with the holy-ghost, etc. which being internal and indiscernible may be challenged, and are not so readily confuted; but then the outward, as the miraculous descent of the holy-ghost, the gift of tongues, the visible baptism with fire, the ability of working miracles of all sorts, the spirit of prophecy or foretelling future things, etc. these being discernible to the sense, capable of an easy detection; they do both deny them, and speak slightly of their necessity or use. though god conferred these outward ones as undeniable proofs and convictions of the inward; and without which sensible testimonials, the internal would not have had that operation, but have been like candles under bushels; and this very art lays no little prejudice upon their plea. t. ellwood's notion of divine revelation is put into variety of expressions, which lie dispersed in several pages; his stating of things is different, and the claims he makes are of several natures: i shall put them into the best method i can, more orderly to examine them. we may conceive some of them to be as the groundwork whereon he builds, the other as the fabric thereon raised. his grounds are two. 1. that [the apostles had an inward manifestation, and immediate revelation of the will and mind of god to them, by the spirit of truth which dwelled in them, p. 227, 228, 233.] 2. that [the apostles successors, or all believers in an extensive relation, receive the knowledge of the gospel in the same manner, as the apostles received it, p. 228, 230, 233.] other things he erecteth upon, or claimeth in pursuance of these. 1. they have [renewed and repeated revelations, p. 238, 240, 243. the good old gospel is again revealed by the same spirit, p. 254. 256.] 2. they [have immediate revelations from the spirit, as the apostles had, p. 228.] 3. they [have expository revelations, the spirit giveth the true sense and meaning of scripture immediately, p. 238, 239, 251, 253, 255.] 4. [the gospel is now preached in the demonstration of the spirit and power, p. 244.] and they are the persons without question who preach it: 5. they [know the word of god by experience, p. 249.] 6. [the primitive christians had the knowledge of the gospel by the immediate revelation of the spirit, as the apostles had, p. 233, 245. and the quakers now receive it in the same manner.] 7. they [receive it by the gift of god, p. 245.] 8. they [have herd the voice of god speaking in them, p. 249.] 9 [divine revelation consists in opening and discovering, p. 249. 253, 255.] that is, in expounding: and all this is done without any help of humane learning, which is not so much as to appear between the first of genesis and the last of the revelations, but hath its circle assigned, beyond which it must not step, [reduced to its proper station and service which is to be conversant in natural, civil, or humane affairs, p. 218:] humane learning is to do the drudgery of translating, to put an english bible into a quakers hand, and must presently withdraw, the pretended spirit then supervening, and opening each text of scripture truly to them. these are different notions, and are too great favours for any party on this side heaven; but it's subtly done to choose so many, to leave room for escaping, that if some prove deceitful, the rest may support their partners. we must attend his motions, and examine them one by one, giving his own words under each head; only some few things must be premised in passage. 1. i think he seldom or never names our lord jesus christ (who died at jerusalem) as concerned in the revealing of gods will. his prophetic office is destroyed, or weakened by this sect, and the spirit is substituted in his place: thus, p. 245. when he saith, [the author of our faith is the same, the finisher of it is the same,] alluding to heb. 12.2. where jesus, (to wit, the son of the b. virgin) is named, yet he takes no notice of him, but turns it another way. they received their faith [namely, by the gift of god,] they received their faith, he saith there, in the same manner that the primitive christians received it of old. now, how that was, he tells us, p. 233, [from the immediate teachings of the holy spirit which dwelled in them:] so that he either lays aside our dearest saviour, or confounds jesus christ, and the holy-ghost, as one and the same, which he doth to purpose, p. 233. [paul received the knowledge of the gospel from christ revealed in him,] thence he presently infers thus, [the apostles did receive the knowledge of the gospel from the immediate teachings of the holy spirit,] making christ, revealed in paul, and the holy spirit to be the same. 2. he seems to make some concessions, to inform within what bounds they keep, denying new revelations, and yet he either hath new ones or none, (as from his principles will be proved.) [p. 237. they expect not a revelation of any other gospel, of any other way of salvation, of any other essentials in the christian religion, they have but renewed revelations, p. 238. truths formerly revealed, p. 254. the same good old truths, p. 243 the good old gospel again revealed,] a concession that destroys his design, for having no new ones; the old do neither need, nor are capable of repetition. the true christians faith and experience. 3. he appropriates these receipts to himself and party, [we, p. 237, 245, 249. us, 254, 256▪ to all believers, 228.] that is, to himself and friends, for they are the only true, [the others but titular and nominal christians;] saith will. shown frequently, the testimony from the brethren. [they are the church of god returned out of the wilderness.] and this is large enough, moses wish fulfilled, numb. 11.29. all the people of the lord are prophets. are all apostles? are all prophets? 1 cor. 12.29. yes, among the quakers. had he challenged some few inspirations in pursuance of the former, or some rare single notices from good angels, they had been more modest; or an immediate revelation to ascertain him which books were divinely inspired, and which not; it should have been confessed that some have gone that way before him; vindication of the protestants grounds of faith, second discourse, p. 308 sect. 4. [not only the enthusiasts and some calvinists, but the popish guide in controversies; in dr. stillingfleet, saith, that the ultimate resolution of a christians divine faith, is into that particular revelation first made known to him.] but supposing there was such a supernatural and infused assurance given, yet it is not [rational and discursive, saith mr. chillingworth; it may be an assurance to a man's self, but it is no argument to another.] but one single immediate revelation is too scant for t. e. during his whole life time. he must put god upon miracles and unnecessaries, have what hath been before revealed, though translated into the vulgar tongue, renewed, repeated, re-revealed in the same manner, and he must have expository revelations given him of the sacred books besides. so that his own words contain the best his own character. [p. 101. he treadeth an unbeaten path. p. 246. he seems not rightly to understand revelation, but rather to have taken in some strange notion concerning it.] chap. ii. how the apostles came to the knowledge of the gospel. his first rise is [that the apostles had an inward manifestation, and immediate revelation of the mind and will of god to them, by the spirit of truth which dwelled in them, p. 227.] this he would have, and so craftily brings in, as if the friendly conference had so meant. [if by all those ways, he intends no more than an inward manifestation.] but supposing this was true, as he states it, yet it is not large, nor comprehensive enough; for the apostles had another teacher, even an outward one, both before and besides the holy spirit, and what christian did ever yet lay aside, or overlook the personal, oral teaching of their lord jesus. if quakers delight to be called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, irenae. ad heres. l. 1. c. 1. the spiritual and perfect from their supposed teacher the spirit, as the scholars of valentinus did, we must adhere to our elder name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. from that author and finisher of our faith. if quakers first make no distinction between the father, the word and the holy ghost, and then would lay aside the god-man jesus, by making the spirit inwardly supply all; we christians are instructed to hearken unto that prophet, whom god raised up like unto moses, deut. 18.15. and t. e. can scarce make moses and the holy-ghost alike; we do believe in and obey that beloved son upon whom the blessed spirit descended, mat. 3.17. for we are commanded to hear him. mat. 17.5. he discharged his prophetic, as well as priestly office in our humane nature; to this the prophecies and promises refer; and we must render to each their due in the work of our instruction, to the son, as well as to the spirit. t. e. hath made the most untrue and desperate choice that could be [the apostles to receive the knowledge of the gospel by the immediate revelation of the spirit] what is become of all the promises of the messiah? john 4.25. [i know that christ when he is come, he will tell us all things] saith the woman of samaria. but by ellwoods' model, he is comed and gone, and hath taught the disciples nothing; why did christ choose the apostles, live, converse with, and betwixt three or four years instruct them in the things of god's kingdom, if they were no better for all those divine lessons which came from him, whom never man spoke like unto? what quarrels have the quakers against jesus of nazareth, luke. 24.19. that prophet, or ' divine teacher, mighty in deed and word before god and all the people, that they must lay aside his person or his office, either substituting the holy spirit in his place; or making their great idol the light or christ within, to do all the necessary work of instruction? cannot t. e. permit jesus to be the great lawgiver and teacher, and then upon his bodily removal from the earth, the holy spirit to descend, and build upon christ the foundation, but as far as in him lies (in imitation of the heathens quarrels among their deities) he must have the spirit to drown the word, the outward incarnate christ to signify nothing, but the inward manifestation to communicate all. was it the holy ghost who assumed our flesh, lived, and preached and sealed the truth of his doctrine with his blood? or it was the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, who performed all those things, and of whose fullness we receive? were they the apostles of the spirit, or the apostles of christ jesus, who breathed on them, gave them authority and sent the holy ghost to enable them to execute their commission? why do the quakers thus confound the works of the word and the spirit? like the libertines [qui nihil ponunt inter filium dei, calvin adversus libertin. cap. 10. & spiritum ejus discriminis.] but suppose they were right about the holy unity, that there is no distinction of persons in the godhead, but that they are only different names of the same one subsistence, yet t. e. hath laid a wrong foundation, for it was not this spirit which inwardly did all; but it was jesus the son of mary (be he but a piece of the christ, or have he an heavenly body sheathed up within that which he took of the virgin, or however else; for they know not what to make of him, nor do with him: the man jesus (who was as truly visible in jewry, as ellwood was in the house of pennington) stands much in their way, and hinders their light or christ within) who called the apostles, taught and instructed them, as appears from the series of the four gospels, which we shall adhere to, rather than to these, who do but dream dreams, while they conceit that they see visions. this being the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that which is the procreative cause of so many delusions, viz. a disregarding christ's personal, prophetical office, and placing their supposed spirit in his room. i shall make a short narrative how the apostles came to the knowledge of the gospel, how religion was delivered by christ, that it was settled in an outward, bodily and sensible way; and thereby ellwoods' account of the spirits doing the work, by his inward immediate teaching will appear not only distant from truth; but, the very subverter of the christian religion. god having at sundry times and in divers manners made known his will unto the fathers, at the last in the highest dispensation (which is never to be out dated) he spoke unto us by his son (whom he hath appointed heir of all things) that is by the god-man christ jesus, who took our flesh and blood, and was of the same nature with us: this son of god, was god himself, who came to visit the earth, and be his own interpreter, yet still he discharged this office, whilst he was tabernacling in our flesh. he was god with us, instructing us in the likeness and true nature of man, of a reasonable soul and humane flesh subsisting. and thus i suppose those prophecies were fulfilled [taught of the lord, or taught of god] he had the spirit without measure, he was the very temple of god, the holy of holyes, in and by whom the divine oracles were made known to mortals. the divine majesty resided in this man jesus, all the former owned ways of revelation came to attend him into the world, to usher him into his office, and give credence to what he spoke, and yet (excepting some short sentences serving as testimonials to him) they were all silent while he was teaching; but still jesus in humane nature took the chair, and was god's mouth and voice unto mankind; as might be more fully and advantageously showed. the apostles conversed with christ, saw, heard, eat, drunk, and lived with him; how oft is this referred to, of their being eye and ear witnesses of what he did and said? he taught them by sermons, parables, conferences, explaining things privately to them, during the whole term of his ministry, and after his resurrection. and must his whole prophetic office be thought nothing? and can such select scholars be still non-proficients under so powerful and so diligent an instructor? other quakers think contrarily to t. e. and let one infallible buffet another. [while christ abode with them in his bodily appearance— they had some knowledge— till the manifestation of the spirit, they were ignorant of many things.] many is not all; that is for their knowledge; and for their life, he saith elsewhere [the very disciples themselves while they followed christ outwardly— were truly religious] and another of them, [surely none will or can deny, idem p. 230. who profess christianity, but the apostles, tailor's faithful and true witness the light, etc. p. 12. in some measure before christ's outward departure from them, had the comfort of the holy spirit in them, and were both believers and obedient children in their measure, etc.] what though the apostles being involved in the fatal prejudices of their nation, were ignorant of some things, as about the kingdom of god, the resurrection, etc. must they therefore know nothing of faith, repentance, a christian life or duty? christ who knew them the best speaks otherwise, john 17.6, 7, 8. they have kept thy word— they have known— they have believed— [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, chrysost. apud the●p. in locum. having known by my words, and by my doctrine.] the apostles were as certain knowing witnesses of christ, as we can be of any matters of fact, and the christian religion was entertained upon their testimony; that they had been with, seen, heard and known jesus. god would not send that religion into the world, which was to be the perpetual rule of all mankind, and command others to trust the bringers upon their inward manifestations, which would have exposed, rather than have propagated truth; but what they spoke they attested as matter of fact and knowledge, all the twelve having had personal converse with jesus, upon whom the holy ghost visibly descended, audible voices were heard, his doctrine was delivered before multitudes of witnesses, men were persuaded by outward, sensible, even bodily evidences, and not barely left to internal suggestions, in which there may be great danger of delusion. and not only the apostles preached, but all the penmen of the new-testament wrote upon their certain knowledge. s. matthew, s. john, s. james s. peter and s. judas; had personal conversation with and attendance on christ, were able to testify both what they saw and heard, s. luke wrote part from his own knowledge, and part from certain information: the like antiquity testifieth concerning s. mark, s. paul had that want of personal attendance and acquaintance supplied by christ's appearing and speaking to him, acts 22.14, 15. & 26.16. and in many other places. cateches. 10. hence cyril of jerusalem rationally infers, that the testimony of paul, being an enemy and persecutor before must needs be undeniable; though some suspicious person should allege that peter and john 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were familiars and domestics; yet the testimony of paul, first an enemy to jesus, and then a martyr for him, cannot be denied. and this he assigns as the reason, why paul wrote more epistles than the rest, because being a persecutor before, his doctrine could not be doubtful, but commanding of our belief; and therefore when quakers think there may be new inspired books now; that the closing up the canon of scripture, [is a limiting god from moving or inspiring any men, in any age of the world to come, quakerism no popery. p. 62. to write any book or books which may be of equal authority with the scriptures.] they proceed upon gross mistakes; for unless christ converse on earth again, and ellwoods' monstrous fancy of repetition prove a real certainty, there can be no such inspired books, as the new testament gives us, to be written in these ages; or unless there be another dispensation, viz. that of the spirit yet to commence, which dream is the most of all destructive to christianity. thus was christianity made known and settled in the world, not by philosophy, or rhetoric, or any humane art; but by two such methods, as heaven and earth cannot afford greater, which s. john calls the witness of men, and the witness of god: the witness or testimony of men, is this already given; and religion being entertained upon that account; to tell us of new revelations now, is a renouncing of the faith of christ, which doth command belief not only by inward teachings, but outward proofs. but lest this witness of so many men might have been rejected, as proceeding from delusion or design, the witness of god interposed in so public, visible and audible ownings both of christ and his religion, that the world was not capable of receiving more unexceptionable and convincing proofs. and further, as for the teachings of the spirit, which t. e. only mentions, they were of a different nature from what he drives at; the supervening of the spirit was not to evacuate or obliterate what christ on earth had spoken. the testimony of the apostles and the spirit are conjoined, john 15.26, 27. he conferring extraordinary gifts, to engage men to believe what they delivered from their own personal, or certain knowledge; and where there were inward teachings, there were outward powers to testify thereof to others, and still the spirit did but pursue christ's teachings, acted in his name, took of his, and shown it to them, opened such things as they understood not, re-called to remembrance such as they had forgotten, and instructed in such things, as before they could not bear; as about the sabbath, circumcision, christian liberty, and the like. though i think, that christ in our nature in discharge of his prophetic office, publicly and audibly made known all the essential, eternal duties, or all the parts of everlasting righteousness. and possibly in strict speaking, that inspiration which the apostles had, ought not to be called immediate, especially not in every thing. because it was conferred but in pursuance of what our lord had before orally delivered in matters of duty: for certain knowledge destroys not inspiration, nor inspiration certain knowledge: nor is the use of former helps rejected, but taken hold of by the spirit. thus were the apostles instructed, thus was our religion settled, thus must our saviour's prophetic office be secured, and his, and the spirits workings must not be confounded. and t. ellwood's method of the apostles coming to the knowledge of the gospel, is not the method of god's making. and let it be further considered, if herein satan's policy do not appear, what he cannot effect by atheism and profaneness: he attempts by enthusiasm, under the pretence of an higher religion, to root out the old one so divinely and firmly settled; for the taking away the rational motives to faith, and the sensible grounds of religion. and devolving the belief and understanding of sacred things upon their pretended revelations, witnessings, and experiences, renders religion both uncertain and indemonstrable. and while men observe the differences, contradictions, and ungroundedness of such claims; they will be apt to entertain the like prejudices against the christian religion itself. supposing that it relies upon such grounds as their witnessings and invisible inspirations; for so they bear the world in hand, fox love to mankind, p. 11. [what the apostles said— we do by the same power and spirit.] and in a little time by such arts, religion will be in danger to be fatally undermined, all being rejected together, as relying upon a like bottom. but if t. ellwood's castle in the air be erected, it is not material, though christianity be blown up; and if his dreams be admitted, he seems not concerned, what disservice is done to the other, though, blessed be god's goodness, he hath rooted his gospel in a different manner, as if purposely to prevent satan's transforming himself into an angel of light, and those pretences to inspirations, which he hath all along fomented. but though there were real revelations now, yet t. e. is the unlikeliest person to be favoured with them. for he first enervates the written word, as will in its place appear; and withal overlooks the essential word, taking no notice of him whom god the father sent into the world, and sealed; endeavouring to annihilate that jesus (as to his prophetic office however) in whom the whole covenant of grace is founded, and in, and by, and through whom all blessings whatever are conveyed to us. and this is a sad stumbling upon the very threshold, a fit pillar for nothing but a monstrous fabric. but to use his own words, [had he not been a quaker he could not have given such an answer.] chap. iii. whether quakers be the apostles successors, and receive the gospel in the same manner as the apostles did. ii. the other pillar is as rotten, that the apostles successors or all believers, do receive the knowledge of the gospel in the same manner as they did: in which three things are couched. 1. that all believers, or the quakers are the apostles successors. 2. that these successors receive in the same manner as the apostles. 3. the proofs produced to make out this claim. 1. that all believers, or quakers, are the apostles successors; if the first, than he argues for all parties, as well as for himself; and their revelations will outweigh his: a turk is a musulman, or believer in the light within him; withal he makes christ to have a monstrous body, if all believers be the apostles successors. but his charity without question designed the latter, by using the first person, we and us: [the apostles successors, p. 228 truly the apostles successors in faith and doctrine, p. 230, 233] but he should first have proved it, and not have begged the question. the lamb's officer, p. 11. the apostles successors: a great humility! lately they were higher, even [true prophets and apostles,] now they are dwindled into successors; not apostoli, but apostolici: they succeed them in inspiration, infallibility, divine commission, discerning of spirits, he does well to add in faith and doctrine. pray proceed, you succeed in their chairs, in their bishoprics, in their power of binding and losing, and prove it all, by succeeding in their miraculous powers. but how do you succeed the apostles? you differ vastly among yourselves, what time the apostasy entered into the church; but stating it (as some do) to commence at the entry of the first century, smith's spiritual glass opened, p. 36 keith's universal free grace, 92. then for 1548 years' [the gospel dispensation was lost, and is now revealed;] [christ's spiritual dispensation is now again revealed in this day after the apostasy.] and so many years make an hiatus large enough to disturb succession. 'tis not the apostles, but winstanley whom you succeed: [in the year 1648 god did cause a branch to spring forth out of the root of david, which was filled with virtue, j. whitehead in mr. faldo's q. no. christ. p. 16. for the covenant of life and peace was with him; he spread forth many branches, which did partake of the fatness of the root, the weary came to rest under his branches, with him was the word of reconciliation.] and to that purpose the blasphemous harangue proceedeth; so that you do but succeed that leveller, as whitehead did in 1655. ibid. [being a branch of this tree, viz. the branch aforesaid, the life of its root caused me to blossom, and bring forth fruit, etc.] it is the spirit of winstanley whereby you are acted, and whether that be the spirit of god deserves your diligent enquiry. but supposing, with the socinians, that doctrinal succession is sufficient without personal, we can discern no likeness between their and your doctrine. you allegorise that baptism and the lords supper, which they practised; you set up that christ within, whom they saw ascending into heaven, there to abide till the day of judgement: you make but small esteem of those scriptures which they wrote, or commended as able to make the man of god wise unto salvation. they did eat and drink with christ; you have scarce allowed him to be a distinct person from you. they make christ the redeemer of men; you must have him to redeem himself, even a lost god, and a lost christ. they expected justification by the suffering jesus; that you make a doctrine of devils, and will be saved by your own works, or by a christ within you. they believed christ to be made a sin-offering for them, you entertain him but as your pattern. they believed their dead bodies should rise again, you do style it a carnal resurrection; with several such irreconcilable differences between their doctrines and yours. there are other fathers whom you succeed, even many of the old heretics, as might easily be showed, but especially henry nicholas is your grandfather; the life and spirit of familism runs through your writings, you have taken many things from the libertines, swenckfeldians, and anabaptists, the antinomians also (as saltmarsh, in his sparkles of glory, and others of them) contributed towards your original, for those and other sects agree much in one bottom; that of immediate teaching, these prepared the materials, out of which your father winstanley form the most part of your opinions, which being thrown together in a confused manner, you fancy the result to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, an image fallen down from jupiter, and prettily style yourselves the successors of the apostles in faith and doctrine by immediate revelation. but supposing, out of an excess of charity, that you are the apostles successors: the next is more prodigious. 2. that these successors receive in the same manner as the apostles, [in the same manner] he prints in a different character, p. 228, 230, 233. to show the stress lieth there, and he affirms it [to be no presumption, ungodliness, or absurdity in those who are the apostles successors in faith and doctrine, to expect to receive the knowledge of the gespel, in the same manner as they received it, p. 228, 230, 233.] expect and think what he please, sober men can judge the thought to be no less than madness, and the thing a mere impossibility; for unless christ be now on earth, or t. e. was alive when christ was on earth, and did personally attend him, he cannot have received as the apostles did; no, not though it was possible daily to repair to jacob behmen's theosophick school of pentecost. but t. e. hath outgone that father (who being 1300 years nearer christ's time, might have been sooner qualified for it,) he hath seen christ on earth, heard paul in the pulpit, and by this token then, he saw rome in its glory. did s. mark know the gospel in the same manner as s. matthew? or came s. luke to it by the same means as s. john? 1 john 1.1. the one saith, [that which we have seen, looked upon, and handled:] the other, luke 1.2. [they that were eye-witnesses have delivered them unto us.] and if the difference in coming to the knowledge of the gospel was so early then, quakers can receive like none but false apostles now; john 20.9. our lord pronounceth a blessedness on such as have not seen, and yet have believed: some saw christ, and some saw the apostles who had seen christ, etc. the doctrine of the gospel was transmitted from certain eye and ear-witnesses, who had divine inspiration also; and so much as god thought necessary for his church, was written by those divine penmen, and is contained and conveyed down to us in that best of books, called the bible. but must the first settling a dispensation be always continued? must those manners whereby religion was propagated, be perpetually maintained? then miracles are as necessary in the present church as in the primitive: the ten commandments were delivered in thundrings and lightnings, were those repeated every time the law was read in their synagogues and houses? the holy-ghost descended wonderfully on the day of pentecost, so acts 4.31 & 8.17. & 10.44. & 11.15. & 15.8. & 19.6. and generally there was an outward evidence of him upon believers; but where have we now such miraculous convictions of his presence? religion being once settled by god's extraordinary power, needs not the daily renewing those wonders; and when other miraculous gifts are ceased, and prophecy is foretell to cease as well as tongues, and tongues are undoubtedly ceased: it is strange, and looks like giving god the lie, to say, that prophecy is longer lived than the other. the first bringing in a religion requires other methods of conviction than are necessary afterwards; for being entertained upon those evidences, the danger of enthusiasm discovered in an epistle to the quakers and committed to writing, god continues it in a regular course, men instructing men from these owned oracles, as is well proved in a late treatise. george fox upon t. ellwood's principles, may quarrel with margaret fell, that she is not his wife, because not made out of his rib, as eve was out of adam's: and margaret fell may retort, that george fox is not her husband, because he was not form out of the earth, as adam was. the israelites might refuse to plough and sow in canaan, expecting the same easy maintenance afforded in the wilderness: and we may object, that now we are not to work, only to expect and wait; the earth ought to yield us fruit of its own accord, as it did in paradise. t. e. needs the breast and spoon at forty years old as well as at four months; and all men and women must come into the world in the same manner with adam and eve, and this is the direct consequent of holding nature and religion always in the cradle. but though quakers did not hear nor see christ, nor have had the spirit visibly descend, yet these successors have the same inward revelations with the apostles: if you prove it in the same manner they could, you shall have another manner of return; till then, i shall be assured that god doth not multiply unnecessaries, nor grant things to satisfy wanton humours. whatever immediate revelations the apostles had, we have at this day the benefit of them in their inspired writings; and god having conveyed them to us in an intelligible book, it is not his method to increase revelations, to represent that immediately to my soul, which he hath commanded me to read in a book of his own inditing. christ who raised lazarus from the dead, could by the very same word have rolled away the stone that lay over him, but he was not prodigal of miracles; where other means can be used, god's immediate power will not be arrested. he therefore bids first, [take ye away the stone, john 11.39. which they obeyed, v. 41.] and then he speaks with power, lazarus, come forth. if the apostles had immediate revelations, which i can read in my bible, for me to say, i receive them in the same manner, is a delusion, and to desire the receipt, is a temptation. but suppose that ellwood's book was writ by revelation, as his hectoring letter imports, [may the honour be returned to that powerful arm, which gave both the weapon, and therewithal skill and strength to use it:] and suppose the expositions he gives proceed from the same fountain, still fresh vexations do arise; for i am as much to seek how to understand his book, as an epistle of st. paul's: if paul's revelation cannot be understood without a new one, no more can ellwood's; the successor must be like the predecessor: and therefore till he can either write, so as to be understood, or give us security that he writes by revelation, and withal assurance where to meet with another inspiration to capacitate us to understand his, charity obligeth him to keep his sealed-up notions to himself, and not to trouble the world with waste paper. but upon what grounds is all this claimed? doth he know by inspiration, that all believers receive the gospel as the apostles did? no sure, for he turns another way, attempts a proof thereof from scripture-promises; but hereby he makes quakerism a little embodied: 'tis not so airy and slippery as formerly, i may now look at it, turn it about, and handle it; which leads to the third. 3. the proofs produced to make out this claim, and they seem more like the coherence of a quakers dream, than the logic of a waking man, p. 228. thus he takes his rise, [as our saviour prayed not for them only, but all such also as should believe on him through their word. so what he promised concerning sending the comforter— he did not promise with restriction and limitation only, but with an extensive relation to all that should believe on him;] and inference that is strangely wide, and destructive of his very design. is there no limitation because he observes none? nor no restriction employed, where not expressly given? from a prayer for all, to infer a promise to all, especially when about different things, is a lose way of arguing. such a writer may commence any thing per saltum; and from fisher's folly instantly jump into the porphyry's chair. christ's prayers were always granted, and his promises fulfilled, but his prayer and promise must not be confounded: he made intercession for transgressor's; he prayed, father, isa. 53.12. luke 23.34. forgive them, for they know not what they do. it would have been a closer deduction, but untrue, thence to infer, that all transgressor's, and all that know not what they do (be the ignorance never so culpable) are forgiven. but view the prayer, and it confutes this perverting gloss: it was a prayer for all believers [that they may be one;] that is, john 17.21. live in all the duties of christian unity. had christ prayed for immediate revelation to all believers in all ages, that had been to his purpose, but it is not named nor concerned here. and the very words of that prayer in v. 20. plough up his fancy: [for them also who shall believe on me through their word,] where the apostles word, doctrine, preaching, and testimony concerning christ, is made the motive to men's believing in him, and immediate revelation is not once named. he would have also the promise of sending the comforter given without restriction; but in scripture limitations must be given to general words, according to matters, etc. concerned. joel 2.28. [i will pour my spirit upon all flesh.] is not upon horses, asses; no, nor the unconverted indians. john 14.26. [he shall teach you all things] is not giving the skill of astronomy or algebra: so the promise of the spirit is not only to be understood with restriction, but the very limitations are given, john 15.27. [the have been with me from the beginning,] that limits it to the persons of the apostles, who accompanied with christ, beginning from the baptism of john, acts 1.22. hereupon christ saith, [ye also shall bear witness,] which none could do upon their certain knowledge but his personal attendants. and john 16.13. [he will show you things to come,] restrains it also to the apostles, which clause t. e. as too tough for him, ungodlily leaves out. but to argue upon their principles, what is ellwood concerned in christ's promise made before his death? when as he slights luke 14.8. because spoken [before the one offering was actually offered up, edw. burroughs. p. 47. p. 37.] another saith, [a command to one binds not another;] no more should a promise to one benefit another. [the gift of tongues and working miracles were peculiar to the apostles times, geo. whitehead's reprehension. ] and so was inspiration also. those promises christ made just before his death, having discharged his prophetic office, he betook himself to his priestly; the multitude being gone, he addressed himself in his sermon to his apostles, whom he left his commissioners on earth; and having finished his prayer, was presently apprehended. now, to enlarge to all believers, what was spoke to that select company, will make wild divinity: t. ellwood so may pass for thomas didymus, and challenge one of the twelve thrones whereon to sit and judge the twelve tribes of israel. but suppose he inferred truly in an extensive relation to all believers, till he prove me to be no believer, he hath argued me to have inspiration as well as himself; and withal faith being an internal invisible grace, without another immediate revelation, i cannot be assured who is this true believer, nor who hath the spirit. it may suffice humble souls that those promises may extend in some sort to the whole church diffusive; not to every single man, no, nor sect of men; nor to any church of one denomination whatsoever; and that god will bestow the spirit of illumination and sanctification upon sincere christians. but that those are different from the apostolical inspiration, without which a man may be saved, and with which he may be damned. to these he adds auxiliary proofs, as john 17.37, 38, 39 p. 128. in which neither repeated nor immediate revelation, as perpetual, is named: and he reads it differently from his master fox, who thus turns it, [out of whose belly, great mystery, p. 130. in the spirit of the quakers tried. universal grace, p. 102 (viz. the light christ) flowed rivers of living water:] as also the text above is differently by him interpreted; from his tutor keith, [he prayeth for them that they may be converted and believe, as john 17.21.]. that text as to us is now abundantly fulfilled in that vital principle of holiness implanted in all regenerate hearts; whereas it doth explain itself, v. 39 to belong to the day of pentecost. but t. e. deals with it, as satan did with that, mat. 4.6. leaveth out [the holy-ghost was not yet given, because jesus was not yet glorified; chrysost. apud theop. in locum. ] because it looked unkindly on his project, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. he brings in also, p. 229. 1 john 2.20, 27. wherein immediate perpetual revelation is not named, but it referreth to the subject matter, the discovering of false teachers and doctrines by the anointing, that gift of discerning the spirits then in the church. but if t. e. conceit, that he know all things, i shall grant him to succeed some in such thoughts, irenae. advers. haeres. lib. 1. c. 1. origen. l. 1. p, 31. the gnostics and valentinians, [abundantiùs gloriantur plus quam caeteri cognovisse, gloryed themselves to know much more than others. and celsus had as high conceits, [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] boasted he knew all the doctrines and things belonging to christians. his other proofs from john 14, 15, & 16 chapters belong in their proper and prime sense to the apostles, who were christ's attendants whilst he lived on earth, and his commissioners and witnesses when ascended. the fancy [that without revelation we are left comfortless] is foolish, for god hath afforded the certain original revelations to us in his bible, we have his spirit and his comforts to many purposes besides inspiration, and he is still with us in the use of means, as he causeth corn to grow, and yet our labour and sowing are required. vbi supra. thus, like those in irenaeus, he doth ex arenâ resticulas nectere, his whole scheme thus far is but a rope of sand, drawn out of untrue and unconcluding premises. jesus that prophet is laid aside, and the spirit made the whole teacher; and that employment is devolved on him, to make way for their inward unaccountable suggestions. then he kindly supposeth his friends to be the apostles successors, thence infers, that all must be taught for ever, as the apostles were. and lastly, attempts at some proofs, which without a quakers spectacles, cannot be therein spelled. feed my sheep, the keys of the kingdom of heaven, etc. serve the pope as clearly, and with more likelihood: the disciples of h. nicholas may be esteemed the nicholaitans, rev. 2. or the two george foxes be interpreted those little foxes, cant. 2.15. that spoil the vines. chap. iu. concerning their renewed or repeated revelations. upon these tottering pillars he raiseth several and different notions. i. to begin with their youngest, that which is their fondling, viz. the claim of renewed and repeated revelations, which (without offering one text in favour thereof) he thus wordeth; [p. 238. not new revelations, that is, new things revealed, but rather renewed revelations, that is, old things revealed anew: the same gospel, the same way of salvation, the same essentials of religion, the same principles and doctrines: in a word, the same good old truths which were revealed to the saints of old, and are recorded in the holy scriptures, revealed now anew.] this he is large upon, p. 243. that they are again revealed by the same spirit, which he calls a repetition of the former revelations, p. 254, & 256. but why names he not the author of this knack? that would have looked untowardly upon the immediateness of it. im. revelation not ceased, p. 3. but george keith inspired him therewith: [observe the difference betwixt these two, the new revelation of new things, and the new revelation of the good old things, which are the essentials of religion— the first of these two we do not plead for, but the latter.] and elsewhere, p. 33. [the same eternal life which first breathed them forth, doth either again breath, or speak them forth in us, or sendeth forth of his living powerful influences into them, as they have a place in our minds and memories] this latter, as more modest, is below ellwoods' purpose. but though he taketh the words and notions of keith, the revelation is still immediate; for their institutor hath prettily determined. [if you would hear, truth lifting up its head, p. 38. then acquaint yourselves with such, as can speak from a testimony within; for as they received what they have from the pure teachings of the father: so this second hand teaching will be a pure teaching unto you, but be sure you do not prefer this second teaching before the first, for now the everlasting word and gospel must reveal himself to you, or else you cannot be satisfied:] their own or others is first and second hand teaching; but instructing from the scriptures is not so much as third hand teaching, and the scriptures are now out of date. [the writings of the apostles— are to cease, truth lifting, etc. p. 301. when the lord himself who is the everlasting gospel doth manifest himself to rule in the flesh of sons and daughters.] they have no new essentials of religion, this i thought spoke in our acception, about fundamentals; till further converse in their works discovered the deceit, keith. im. rev. p. 5. for though one tell us [that less than one half of the scriptures is a full and perfect testimony of all the essentials] yet he spoils all in saying [that the knowledge and belief of the history of christ his outward coming, pag. 229. birth, life, death, burial, resurrection, etc. are such parts of our religion and faith, as serve to make up the intiredness, or fullness of it, yet so as true religion may be without the express knowledge and belief of them:] so that a man may be a quaker christian without the express knowledge of christ in the outward, either of his name, nature, laws or offices. the great mogul hath true religion as much as george fox. this lays aside all that jesus was, did, taught and suffered, and contains all heresies in its bowels, even to the denying the lord who bought them. and another hath writ a folio to show [that men should not be concerned about faith or creeds, bishop's looking glass for the times. but leave all to the conduct of the light.] but what then are their essentials of religion? nothing of jesus our lord and saviour, nothing that is a part of the four gospels. [true christianity and religion may subsist without the history of christ in the letter, to wit, im. rev. p. 243. in the mystery of the life of christ in the spirit.] so that a turk is a true christian, though he never owned but hated christ: rarely allegorized, till our whole christianity is shrunk up into those four insignificant words, as so used, which are fit for nothing but a quakers posy. and george bishop crowds all into that everlasting truth, a looking glass for the times, p. 235. viz. [the principle of god in man, which is in every man a measure thereof, to lead him and guide him, which is able to lead him into all truth, and to deliver him from evil, and which will bring him to god.] these are the new made essentials of religion, which the ancient heroes knew not of, who required from all baptised persons the profession of their faith about christ in the outward, who scrupled the change of one letter in the creed; but quakers disowning visible baptism, have sent away the creed therewith, lest the retaining of it should upbraid them. in the mean time the devil hath ordered their scene rarely: the light, christ within, renders the christ without much useless; he who shed his blood for them, is no essential of their religion, and their inspirations supply the place of scripture, being preferred before it: so that their two principles, im. r●v. p. p. 43. the light and motions, fairly lessen, if not discharge the essential and written word of god. christ in heaven and the scriptures on earth signify little to these self-made pagans, who have enough within to carry them to all that heaven which their faith expects. but to resume the claim of renewed and repeated revelations; a notion so strange that nothing but a search into their writings can discover the sense or design of it. i must take the freedom to present their thoughts of the holy scriptures, that by such preparatory tastes we may be drawn on to swallow this camel of repetition. winstanley in truth lifting up, p. 39 to begin with their founder [men must not walk by the scriptures, for this is to walk by the eyes of other men, and the spirit is not so scanty, that a dozen are twenty pair of eyes shall serve the world, but every son and daughter have light within themselves,] [you shall feed no longer upon the oil that was in other men's lamps (the scriptures; in the title page. ) now it is required that every one have oil in his own lamp within himself;] [some walk by example, and have seen very little of the anointing in them, mystery of god, p. 35. the saint's paradise. p. 1. 2. some walk more in spirit and truth, as the anointing of the father teacheth them;] [teaching from scripture is not, but speaking from their own experience, that is from god.] the like notion breathes in t. e. master keith [the old revelations— given unto the saints cannot serve our turn, the faith of another man is not sufficient unto me, but i must be saved by the faith, knowledge and experience given me of god, of the self same things: the revelation of them given of god unto others cannot suffice me, nor were these things recorded in writ, that i should sit down upon the history, but to point us inward to that same principle of life— revealing and working the same things in us, pag. 34. etc.] [we find it to hurt and deaden us to think any thoughts, even from the scriptures, but as the spirit influenceth— if at any time we do it, we find ourselves rebuked and chastised of the lord for it] and in another place [we must not obey scripture without motions, but we may obey motions without scripture.] at this rate writ others of them; to cull out some few from among many, g. w. and fox in the gag for the q. p. 14. burroughs works. p. 47. [what paul wrote unto the ephesians and colossions doth not concern this generation;] [that is no command from god to me, which god hath given by way of command to another, neither did any of the saints act by the command which was to another, every one obeyed their own commands;] an excellent engine towards god and man, no act of parliament can bind a quaker, except he be expressly named: george whitehead, thomas ellwood, etc. you by name must do so and so, this becometh the majesty of the quakers. smith's morn. watch. p. 75. smith's demonstrat. passim in their papers. the scriptures [are other men's traditions; other men's lives and labours] [the spirit of god must try all spirits.] [the scriptures are but a report or declaration of the condition of those who received them] [a true testimony of what the saints were made witnesses of] [no command in scripture is any further obliging upon any man, smith pen. in faldoes' v●nd. of 21 diu. p 97. faldo q. no chris. ch. 12. than as he finds a conviction upon his conscience;] direct old libertinism, and ranterism. they [make it idolatry to follow the precepts or examples in scripture.] having thus depressed the written word of god, yet to keep up some seeming honour to it, in his letter though to use t. is. words [it be an hosannah in the morning, that ends in a crucifige ere night] they find out this expedient; the scripture as the codex wherein gods will is recorded, binds them not, but they have it renewed and repeated to them; or as naylor words it [god speaks to us by scriptures when they are given by inspiration to us. light of christ, p. 29. ] so that repetition is but laying the top-stone, and improving or pursuing their other claims. t. e. is so confident, that he asserts, p. 239. revelation is necessary (yea of necessity) even to understand the scripture, absolutely necessary, p. 238. so received and understood— and not otherwise, p. 251.] he must then have every line in the old and new testament repeated, (not so much as [abraham begat isaac] is to be omitted) else it is not understood by him, a thing that is so impossible, and so impracticable, that it affords fresh evils each time it is considered. i might make short work, what need the renewing of that to him, which he looks upon as not obliging? as in its place will appear; or, as his landlord conceits [the one thing necessary to salvation, penningtons' naked truth. p. 23. not being contained in the scriptures:] the repetition thereof if true, yet would be ineffectual, but in regard this fancy hath been considered by none, i know of, i shall a while view it, as that which makes the confusedst work in prophecies, histories, and all the parts of christianity: in brief, it revives the ministry of angels, as the conveyers of gods will in the christian state, it sets up moses to be a teacher, reinforceth circumcision, the tabernacle, the jewish commonwealth, and the law of sacrifices; it raiseth up multitudes of persons out of their graves where they have rested some thousand years; it sets up the kingdoms of egypt, assyria, syria, and the rest that bordered on the holy-land: it musters a great part of the world together, kings and kingdoms to come and stand before him; it lays aside christianity, destroys the motives of believing it, making such a miscellaneous hotchpotch of religion, as mahomet did not hit on; it makes the whole scripture scenical, a theatrical thing, that like a puppet-play goes round, is renewed, repeated, in plain english, acted over before him. the portentousness of this chimaera will appear by looking on its aspect upon the old and new testament, wherein we may consider histories, prophecies and other mixed matters, and discover whether they be capable of repetition. for history, hath god renewed to t. e. that command of putting off his shoes from off his feet? which was enjoined to, and done by moses; have the tempests, thunderings, voices, which were at the giving the law been heard by him? can god speak to him from between the cherubims and from the door of the tabernacle which are not now in being? hath he received with david, answers from the vrim? or need he some outward light from the breastplate, who hath such a light within? have the angels revealed those messages to him, which they did to abraham, lot and others? then sodom was but fired the other day, or things are burnt in effigy before him. have the voices to samuel been rehearsed to him? or that to elijah. 1 king. 19.15? then jehu and hazael are now alive, and t. e. is an anointer to kingdoms. the like might be showed of all scripture-histories, that this dream destroys or confounds and entangles the truth of all. for history relateth things done, repetition looks on them as undone, and in doing; confounds times past, present and future: disorders and mixeth both persons and matters, and by making nothing distinct, leaves nothing true. nicodemus came to jesus by night, thomas put his hand into christ's side, etc. if these (which we know from scripture) be repeated, than those persons must be now alive, if they be not repeated, they are not understood. is it not enough to have all these recorded in a divine history for our admonition and example? but these old revelations must be new revealed, and acted over to gratify a morose illuminado. this fancy doth as much disservice to the truth, and certainty of prophecies, hath t. e. laid 390 days upon one side in a visionary siege against jerusalem, gone to the river chebar, beheld the draughts of a most glorious temple, etc. with ezekiel? or hath he had the revelation of st. john repeated before him vision after vision? this supervisor general need but move a pin, and all the prophecies present themselves before him. i have seen some printed papers joined at the end of a quakers bible, containing the epistle of paul to the laodiceans, the life of paul, a catalogue of several scriptures which are mentioned, but not inserted in the bible, as the prophecy of enoch, cum multis aliis; several scriptures corrupted by the translators; most of which are where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is rendered otherwise than in: and lastly the differences betwixt the old english translation and the new. all which reflects both upon the version now used, but especially are designed to render the sacred scripture defective: that there are other revelations besides those therein consigned, and hereby to pave the way for the belief and admittance of what they pretend to bring from heaven to us. the same confidence and principles may carry such persons on, to such words [as the vision of isaiah— which he saw— in the days of uzziah— or, the testimony from the brethren. the revelation of jesus christ— signified to his servant john] to annex such like claims as this [which visions or revelations begun to be renewed and repeated to the quakers in england (who are the church returned out of the wilderness) in the year 1648.] can t. e. have had the prophecies of daniel reacted, as that st. of old had? then dead belshazzar is now afoot, and nabuchadnezzar wields his sceptre, the 70 weeks are never begun, nor never ended, the messiah must be uncut off, each time this vision is renewed: but as a mass-priest daily kills and butchers christ, who yet lives for all that cruelty, so this renewing makes all things scenical in prophecy, but proves and settles nothing. the prophet's name their parents, places, with such circumstances, owning it as a vision made to themselves. moses, the prophets, the psalms are distinctly named; this day, saith christ, this scripture is fulfilled, but not any indication that those prophecies could be renewed; it cannot be proved that one prophet had the visions of another prophet repeated to him, no nor that the same received the same exact vision twice; so little is it probable that a thousand can have the same for ever renewed downwards. this pretence in the issue destroyeth christianity; for suppose that mat. 1.23. (a virgin shall be with child,) be renewed, than jesus is not yet born, when a vision is fulfilled 'tis impossible to have another: that it shall be fulfilled; or to desire one to inform that it is fulfilled, is a like folly. it is equally as reasonable to expect a revelation that there was a k. henry viii. as that jesus died at jerusalem, for it makes prophecy to have no fixed, determinate, sense, or completion. suppose the revelations be repeated, than no part of them is yet fulfilled; for what hath been done, cannot be scened, or staged as undone: and further it renders the scriptures useless, for what need i buy a sealed book not to be understood, when i have it line by line inwardly rehearsed by a supervening power to my own spirit. repetition also would swallow up that blessed grace of faith, the believing things credible as credible, and turn it into sense and vision, so that the desiring it (if possible) is either the mother or daughter of infidelity. there being also in tract of time some few variae lectiones crept into the sacred volume. t. is spirit (if right) will make a stand at the wrong ones so that he can inform infallibly which is the best copy, and where words are to be inserted, altered, or omitted. upon his principles,— revelations made to women must be renewed to men, which, in case of conception or childbirth would look strangely, though of all persons they seem the fittest for it. [your mother the pope] saith father fox: lamb's officer. p. 18. winding sheet for controv. p. 1. im. rev. p. 118. some principles of the elect, p. 95, 96. [her is he sometimes] then he may be an her at other times. [blessed are the pure in heart for they shall see her;] in imitation of bonaventures change in the psalms. [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, hic & haec homo, as dewsbury observes, who attempts to baffle st. paul about women's not speaking in the church, making the woman to signify either sex, in which christ is not the head:] such chaps as those would make a man think them nearest a kin to tiresias the prophet. there are many particular revelations concerning places, as nineveh, tyre, etc. persons, as king ahaz, zedechiah, etc. can these be reacted when both kings and kingdoms are extinguished? but it is not worth the while to hunt this fly; or pursue so serious a folly. only these few things shall conclude it. that if he speak truth he must have received all the revelations conferred to the saints of old, before and after the flood; those written in scripture and the unrecorded one's; or, if only those in the new testament, than those of christ, the apostles, particularly s. john, s. paul, the 70 disciples, and those mentioned in the 1 cor. chap. 14. that which was the work of many ages, periods and persons, is in a trice acted before him, which if it was really done, i verily think he could not live; the divine light was so strong in a prophet's soul, that he could not long continue under it, but fell into consternations, or his vision declined into a dream, all the scripture revelations (if the thing was possible) yet for length of time cannot be renewed to him since his turning quaker in 1659. he must have time to recruit his spirit between vision and vision, allow liberty for other intervening affairs, converse sometimes as a man, and not always as a prophet. and prophecies in their preparatoryes and effects, in their solemnity and dress, are not so soon gone thorough. hosea was some 70 years a prophet, and yet hath but left some 14 little chapters. isaiah was 45 years between the 6th and 36th chapters, which allows a year and a half to each chapter. let ellwood study such things as these, and the nature of the prophetic light, it will make his spirit be humble and modest, and will convince him that his hairs will be grey, before he see to the far end of the revelations. but possibly he foresaw not the monsters he was hatching; let us turn the notion into what other more favourable shapes we can; as, first, what was revealed by several ways before, is now renewed to him by the spirit; this is nothing better, must the holy spirit repeat what was spoke by angels, urim, signs, voices, visions, dreams, prophets? nay the very words of christ: i lay down my life; my flesh is meat indeed, i ascend to my father, etc. can the spirit repeat these? for shame to embark in such a leaky vessel. but secondly, what was revealed by the spirit at the first, is by the spirit renewed to him now; try this also, and he will reap no advantage. the spirit said to phi●ip, go near, and join thyself to this chariot, act. 8.29. is this renewed? or is he philip? ●s candace now alive, o● her eunuch 〈◊〉 to j●rusalem to worship? the spirit said unto peter behold three men seek thee, act. 10.19. is this renewed? then cornelius is alive, and ellwood is turned the apostles curate. agabus by the spirit signified that there should be great dearth throughout all the world, which came to pass in the days of claudius caesar. acts 11.28. if this be repeated, than paul is yet alive, and claudius hath not yet began his reign. but now the spirit reveals to him, that he did reveal the scriptures, but this reacheth not his purpose, renewing or repeating old revelations, is a distant thing from one single inspiring assurance. but the spirit now renews to him those expositions which he made to others, this he cannot mean, for those expositions are not in scripture, and his are but the repetition of what is therein recorded: withal he supposeth the spirit to turn expositor of the sacred text, but doth not prove it, speaking of scripture revelations, he should use the word in the proper sense, for the subject matter by god revealed, and not foist in an uncouth notion of his own, that revelation is exposition, turning the spirit into a glossary. so the revelation of john the divine, is the exposition of john the divine, but this fancy will be elsewhere met with. clement's recogn. l. 8. what peter in the recognitions is related to have spoken [that those things which are revealed to others, some do apply as spoken to themselves] doth well befit this novel fancy of repetition. christianity being a certain true and determinate religion, so done and spoken as is related, is not capable of repetition, the things of jesus were true, real and substantial, not performed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; its faith which makes them certain and even present to us, and not hystrionical representations. our holy religion is a rational thing, not a drammatical imaginary show, to be done over and over as in a scene, christ lived on earth, taught, instructed, and lastly died but once; which, faith so receives and entertains, but fancy cannot renew as daily in doing, that will destroy the reality of the history, and make the very religion to expire with it. if ellwood then feel such a thing, as renewing former revelations, it is either satan's delusion; or his own fiction of imagination. chap. v concerning their immediate revelations. ii. besides their repetition, they have immediate revelations [the apostles had an immediate revelation of the mind and will of god to them— and these successors receive in the same manner, p. 228. the ministration of the spirit by divine revelations was not to cease but continue in the church. p. 227. inward and immediate teaching, p. 229.] the revelations made to the prophets and apostles, confirmed by miracles, and believed by christians, we own. but for any further ones, we can discern no necessity thereof, or if there was, we cannot discern that god by you sends them to us. it is not reasonable we should believe you in such a concern, merely upon your own witnessings; nor will god i hope damn him who died before the quakers, or never heard of them, or doth seriously search into, and yet disbelieve them; and to call them immediate, must needs reflect upon the scriptures which are means appointed by god, or else are nothing. keiths' title page. [immediate revelation— remains a standing and perpetual ordinance in the church of christ, and of indispensible necessity to every true believer: living stone in 3d. q. quibbles p. 11. ] just such another ordinance [as giving the hand, and pulling off the hat, which are to continue in the true church.] to what end they enjoy this ordinance is differently related between the tutor and his pupil, the latter claims it to the renewing old scripture revelations, denying they have any [new ones as too substance, p. 237.] but keith is openhearted, tells what plenty they have, and to what purpose: [things relating to our conversation in the world— commanding or forbidding, im. rev. p. 5. 6. or licensing us, how to carry and be conversant about them,— as, in eating, drinking, marrying, or giving in marriage, ploughing, digging, or any other employment, going, coming to a place, abiding therein— things revealed to them from the lord, which are not to be found in the scriptures particularly, not so much as by consequence.] happy men, they cannot do ill certainly, who eat, drink, get children, and know who get them, etc. by revelation. 'tis strange to see men who are wise in the world, to be so fancyfull in religion, to entitle god to the rise and bubling of their own spirits, they shut up those reasonable souls which god gave them, as spirits in prison. anima suilla pro sale, a swine's soul serves for salt, and a quakers doth no more, just keeps his body from corruption. how low and cheap is inspiration made, when the holy spirit must be employed in inviting men to dinner, and they must be carried on by wires and pullyes, and not proceed by humane measures. t. e. hath such immediate teachings as the apostles had, ask a proof thereof, the return is; they witness it: but they will not swear it: and i think it unreasonable to believe them on easier terms than our lord himself was believed upon. but whilst good men are baffling atheism with the rational grounds of christianity, satan tacks about, and would baffle christianity by impostures. is inspiration grown so common, that every one must have it? or is god so prodigal of miracles to exceed his regular dispensations? st. paul, who healed the sick, exerted not that power on believing timothy, trophimus, and epaphroditus. christ increased the loaves, and yet commanded the fragments to be gathered up. hebron was promised unto caleb for an inheritance, god could have ordered the lot to fall upon it, and yet it was settled by virtue of the promise: where things can be had in an ordinary way, it is not god's method to exceed, nor heap miracle upon miracle; his works are perfect, and immediate answers were never common: the lot must not pass upon that which was promised before, that would have been irreligion, or a tempting god. there are no need of teachers or scriptures, if all receive immediate instructions. the ancients were too curious in their esteem of the bible, and the traditores had too harsh measure. though all bibles were burnt, a quakers light could, verbatim, writ a new one, as jeremy gave baruch the same words a second time. the jews say, one prophet who hath the testimony of another prophet is true. i can discern no such attestation among them, as s. john gave to jesus; but they first make themselves prophets, and then give honour one to another. till they produce some undoubted evidence, i am guilty of no sin in denying: i must either see some miracles, or have an immediate revelation myself, to assure me that each of them hath such and such inspirations; and it being difficult to distinguish between the dictates of spirits, and the fancies and motions of a mans own upper and lower soul. quakers will need a second revelation to ascertain them of the first, and a third to ascertain them of a second, and so forward; which is like the dancing of fairies, a skipping and running round, but an advancing nothing: and they are got into such a circle, wherein they may run themselves blind. they believe the scriptures from their inspirations, and those again from the scriptures, making one to prove another. the spirit ascertains them it is god's word, and from thence t. e. attempts to prove they have the spirit. in that debate at jerusalem, acts 15. it was not the immediate inspiration which was the rule, which certainly would, if every one had been so fitted, but it was the epistle from the council that concluded all. set up this notion, and there would be none to be ruled, nor any such thing known as obedience either in church or state; for immediate instruction must not be controlled by any thing below itself, nor is it reasonable the divine voice should be prescribed to. so that this pretence hath an evil aspect upon kingdoms, which have been frequently disturbed thereby. admit t. e. to be heavens privado to receive immediate communications from thence, we have no security, but the same impetus may carry him on to imitate the prophet's words, [i have an errand unto thee, 2 king. 9.5. o captain,] and to interrupt the lineal succession; for george fox deserves as much to be king of new jerusalem, as john of leyden; and a shoemaker is as fit to wield a sceptre, as a tailor. religion also can never be fixed or known where enthusiasm is avowed; for this days persuasion may be out-dated by to morrows fresh suggestion: the quakers are much gone from themselves, and they give no warrant but they will change and super-reform, till this week's idol proves the next weeks abomination. they seem also too covetous in their claims, the light and inspiration are too much for one person; he that carries that vrim in his bosom, needs no other suggestions; and he who hath heaven open over him, darting in minutely rays, need not repair to his enshrined light, or call for help (bring hither the ephod) to resolve him; but between them both, their reason is extinguished. thus among pagans and others, when visions and revelations have run highest, reason hath suffered by them; but 'tis the more plausible way, to be intimate with god, looks better than to search and prove: to wait and tamely believe what starts up first, is more easy than to weigh, discourse, and judge aright; but when men grow credulous and slothful, departing from sober reason, and known rules, presently they strike in with motions and suggestions: and it is a most gustful idolatry to adore the creatures of their own fancy. but while they, with the egyptians, dare enshrine apes, and worship such counterfeit as satan or their souls afford, sober christians will adhere to a sound mind, and a discerning spirit, conducted by owned and certain revelations, dr. causabon enthus. 170. thinking that [rational, intellectual christian knowledge is above all prophecy.] what may not a quaker vent under pretence of revelations, if trusted without evidence? that which comes immediately is conferred instantly, and is at its full strength when first given, as tongues, miracles, etc. true judgement, in the title page. but quakers grow up into their knowledge, [to them who are growing up into discerning and judgement,] which he was moved to write for the simple ones sake, p. 1. [we do grow daily into the knowledge of the truth, king and r. h. p. 6. in our exercise and obedience to it;] [not being grown into a good understanding to judge of things, canon 6. ] [there is childhood, youth, and old age in the anointing.] fox makes the soul to be [a part of god, and of gods being, new law, p. 19 without beginning, and infinite:] then certainly such an infinite eternal being is equally omniscient, and need not a perpetual flux of revelation to increase its knowledge: christopher taylor hath the strangest argument for revelation that can be produced; a true and faithful witness to the light, p. 5. [no man knows the particular thoughts and intents of another man's heart, but by the revelation of god's spirit; therefore it must needs be the revelation of god's spirit that makes manifest to a man his own inward thoughts:] the soul it seems is a sleepy thing, privy to none of its own transactions; a man's reason and conscience help him no more at home, than they do to discover the bosom designs of others; such dark souls as these need all the light they can set up for their direction: they call the apostles [true enthusiasts, q. no popery, p. 20. q. is pagan. p. 93. im. rev. p. 293. ] [assert and contend for it in the best acceptation,] and withal acknowledge the great power of satan about enthusiasms, [who transforms himself not only into the likeness of an angel of light, but of god himself; and herein he works most mysteriously, takes upon him to open the scriptures, unfold the mysteries of the kingdom of god, reveal the hidden things of nature, teach things to come, and hath hereby deceived and ensnared many souls. this is the root of false enthusiasms, that they have their raptures and ecstasies, and strange workings, accompanied with a wonderful readiness of utterance, promptness of speech, and elocution, either in poetry or otherwise.] so that by this concession, enthusiasm hath enabled men to do more than the quakers spirit hath enabled them as yet; and therefore we want a rational satisfaction, why yours which is less should be divine, and the other which is greater should be diabolical, when as this hath better proofs, and both are equally invisible. ibidem, [the loving god above all] is no touchstone of immediate inspiration, the familists and others will snatch that from you; and till i can discern your love, i must not trust your inspirations. quakers then must either do some miracles, as seals that god speaks by them, or we must have undoubted revelations to assure us that they have true ones, else all their heats and sensations must be ranked among enthusiasms; or if scripture-promises be concluding, those must be such as none are concerned in but themselves by name, and which i can understand without a revelation, or am assured to be attended with an inspired exposition of, in the very reading, which by its strength and clearness shall force my understanding to a submission: till this appear, i am innocent in esteeming the quakers but equal at most, and in some things inferior to their many corrivals. to discover the weakness and danger of this pretence: 1. i shall instance in several competitors, who have made the same claim, and produce equal if not stronger motives of believing them. 2. examine the quakers carriages one to another in this matter, by which it will appear they cannot believe themselves, but make an art and interest of it; their contradictions and strange carriage about their inspirations are a convincing proof against them. chap. vi concerning their partners and competitors in revelation. 1. as for their competitors, they are both many and of different judgements; and if i believe one party witnessing they have it, i am equally obliged to believe another's witnessing also. as satan is god's ape in many things, so especially in revelation; he gulled the heathen world by oracles, enthusiastic prophets, and the like: mahomet pretended as high thereto as t. e. and was able to produce as good evidence. success is the quakers argument, [many there are among us, whitehead's q. plainness, p. 33. gathered out of other churches, who are living witnesses, both of the blessed operation and effects of the power and ministry of christ jesus among us— and we have a record in many consciences; in the cambridge dispute, p. 34. ] which very argument he had elsewhere urged, and mahomet may urge it to infinite more advantage. but from them let us look into the christian world, where we shall find satan turned his maker's rival, countermining god with revelations, gulling all ages of the church with enthusiasts, and imitating miracles with his lying wonders; for enthusiasm is satan's engine, renewed often by him, called in to untie a knot, to make good an otherwise indefensible pass, and to supply the want of better arguments, revelations being as common with them as reasons are with other men. the pretenders to inspiration are many, i shall single out some in these several periods. in the primitive church, in the romish church, at the time of the reformation, and in the late unhappy t●mes in this kingdom; and each of these doth produce as good evidence as t. ellwood can. 1. in the primitive church, which was not little pestered by the varions forms which counterfeit inspiration then assumed. it appeared in the apostles days, satan set up his trade so early. what warnings are there concerning false christ's, false prophets, false apostles? how were the apostles galled with them up and down in their several plantations? 2 cor. 11.13, 14, 15. [false apostles transforming themselves into the apostles of christ.— satan himself is transformed into an angel of light— his ministers transformed as the ministers of righteousness.] thou hast tried them which say, rev. 2.2. they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars. v. 20. ] thus [jezebel called herself a prophetess.] likely these may be the depths of satan, v. 24. for there is a mystery of iniquity as well as of godliness, the mystery of the woman, as well as the mystery of god. and the ability of knowing who were divinely inspired is reckoned up among the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or extraordinary gifts, 1 cor. 12.10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, not barely the seeing into men's hearts, as peter did to simon, paul to elym●s; grot. in loc. but it was [dijudicatio qui prophetae veri essent qui falsi,] an heavenly discerning who were true, who false prophets; and he lays down one rule used in trial, if they withdrew men from christ, that is, slighted his coming in the flesh, which is done by them, who make christ in the outward no essential of their religion. theophy. in loc. ite oecumenius. discerning of spirits was [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] to know who was a true prophet, or who was a deceiver; [nam & divinatores per illud temporis erant, qui hominibus imponebant,] for then false prophets were risen, who imposed upon, and deluded men, as oecumenius addeth. and this immediate revelation and power of discerning continued till an intelligible rule was settled, known and owned in the church, wherein are sufficient means for detection of impostors; and to this irenaeus resorts in all his debates with those heretics. 2. either those false teachers mentioned in those texts, or their offspring were the gnostics and disciples of simon magus, these, among other heights, now challenged by t. ellwood's friends, as (to be free from sin, perfect, spiritual, to know all things) pretended to revelations, orig. con. cells. lib. 5. [arroganti gnosticorum nomine polliceantur novam quandam scientiam,] they promised some high, new knowledge, epiphan. in haeres. gnostic. and [they were not ashamed to say, that our lord jesus christ, [hanc turpem operationem ipsis revelasse, had revealed those filthy opinions and practices unto them.] and the disciples of simon, carpocrates, menander, etc. had affinity much one with another, as the libertines, swenckfeldians, familists, and others of late, have with the quakers. 3. cerinthus challenged revelations, [as written by a great apostle, and feigned or related prodigious narrations, euseb. hist. eccles. lib. 3. cap. 25. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] as showed unto him by angels, and then brings in christ's temporal reign, and his dream of sensual pleasures. and aretas understands cerinthus in that, in apocalyp. euseb. lib. 4. cap. 7. rev. 2.2. [novorum dogmatum annunciator.] basilides also, another of the like stamp, assumed the names of several strange prophets to him, epipha. haer. 24. as barcab, barcoph, etc. who also suggested to his disciples, [vos omnia cognoscitis, nemo autem vos cognoscat,] ye know all things: george fox was much like them, who saw into the heart of mr. nicols in carlisle, perfect pharisee, p. 49. declaring him to be an hypocrite, but could not tell his name, when asked: and keith delivers it as inspired doctrine, imm. rev. p. 186, 189. [the children of god have been in all ages unknown unto the world, but they have an infallible knowledge one of another by the free gift of god, and when he pleaseth he may conceal some persons, that they may not be known for a time, so paul was unknown to the brethren.] 4. elxai appeared another false prophet in the times of the emperor trajan; he wrote a book [by prophecy, epipha. haer. 19 or according to a divinely inspired wisdom,] and he endeavoured to introduce [imaginaria quaedam velut ex revelatione, certain imaginary fantastical things as by revelation. augustin. haer. 32. ] his followers [the helcesaits,] were a most impious and abominable people, rejecting some part of the scriptures, and choosing in the rest what would best suit to their conceit, and those opinions which they had imbibed. origen upon the eighty second psalms, relates, that they carried [a certain book about with them, apud euseb. h. eccles. l. 6. c. 37. which they affirmed did immediately drop down from heaven, and that whosoever heard and believed it, should receive forgiveness of his sins, though that was different from the pardon which christ conferred.] eusebius indeed saith, that [this sect was extinguished soon after its appearance,] and 'tis happy when the church is so soon rid of such pests: but epiphanius affirms its continuance to the times [of constantius, when marthus a woman, ità epiphan: and even in his own days, et august. marthana her sister were adored as deities, because they were of the offspring of elxai; and the heretics took their very spittle, & reliquas corporis sordes, and other excrements, which they made use of towards the curing of diseases.] what notion of remission of sins some quakers have entertained, fox juniors works, 163. is too public, as also how their works are said to be [written, as moved and given by that eternal power,] which is like the helcesaits book, [they come down from heaven;] and what honour is done to some of their grandees, was evident in the instance of naylor, and is sadly lamented by the dissenting party in those differences given to that [worthy man, g. f.] as mr. pen calls him, winding-sheet, p. 3. p. 7. [many in the ministry being wont to pull off his shoes.] irenae. ad. haer. l. 1. c. 8. 5. marcus, an arch-heretick, perverted many to him, [velut ad scientissimum & perfectissimum,] as to a most knowing, and most perfect man. by the assistance of a daemon he also did seem to prophecy [& quotquot dignas putat fieri participes gratiae suae, idem, l. 1. c. 9 prophetare facit,] and he made such women prophecy as he thought fit to be partakers of his grace. he wrought most upon women, especially the honourable and rich, [aperi os tuum & propheta.] he bade, open thy mouth, ità epiphan. haeres. 34. and thou shalt prophecy. the same father relateth the manner how he effected it, that raising their thoughts, their hearts being heated and panting, they grew bold, and spoke strange doting things; and thereupon they fancied themselves to prophecy. he corrupted also many women, and the very words which marcus gave unto himself, are somewhat like those blasphemous ones given to fox by josiah coale: augustin. in haeres. 14. his women also administered a wild kind of eucharist, and quakers have their she-teachers. he also denied the resurrection of the flesh, which is quakers doctrine; and said, that christ did not suffer truly: he perverted by charms and strange arts, women to follow him; and 'tis reported, how many have been subverted by the quakers by a steadfast look, or a wring by the hand, etc. without rational means of persuasion; the sugared language he gave his proselytes, [blandiens eyes,] is imitated by ours also, who give their females these appellations, [innocent lasses, the spirit of the hat. p. 43. and daughters of zion.] 6. the valentinians made use of the same plea, tertul. in valentin. lib. 4. [quidni? quum spirituale illud semen suum in unoquoque sic recenseant, si aliquid novi, adstruxerint, revelationem statim appellant praesumptionem, & charisma ingenium,] they do account the spiritual seed to be in every one; if they do light or hit upon any thing that is new, they presently call that presumption or conceit a revelation, and their own wit they do style an immediate or extraordinary gift. and the same father elsewhere relates, [omnes tument, omnes scientiam pollicentur, etc. they are all puffed up, de prescript. adver. haeret. promise much knowledge, their novices are perfect before they be instructed, their saucy women dare teach, heal, it may be, baptise; their ordinations were confused, a presbyter to day, a layman to morrow; laics do priestly offices, etc.] 7. montanus and his party claimed inspirations as much as any, and his sect continued some centuries, and their carriage was strangely ecstatical, which shown they were not moved from the lord. we have the judgements of some ancients in eusebius concerning them, hist. eccles. lib. 5. cap. 14, 15, 16, 17. [that montanus being alienated and ecstatical in spirit, was distracted; and under the pretence of prophecy or revelation, he spoke unwonted things against the faith and doctrine of the church:] they boasted of their martyrs and sufferings; miltiades wrote against them, so did others; the whole church or fraternity throughout the world disowned this prophecy as accursed: he taught to dissolve marriage, had his exactors or collectors, who gathered many gifts and oblations: his prophetesses had run away from their husbands, his party grew strong; they called pepuza & tymium, two little cities of phrygia, new jerusalem: (so munster and strasburg were called) and the quakers once traveled towards new malton, in search of the new jerusalem comed down from heaven, till the mire and rain wearied out their zeal) the pepuzianis a branch of them [had women bishops and women presbyters] upon the same account that our quakers plead for their prophetesses, epiphan. haeres. 49. ibidem. augustin. heres. 27. [because in christ jesus there is neither male nor female:] and christ is said to appear either to quintilla or priscilla, or both, when sleeping, and being clothed in a white garment, to inspire wisdom, and to reveal that to be an holy place, even the heavenly jerusalem. and st. hierom is sometimes confuting them [that a prophet understands what he seethe, in prologis ad naum & abacuc. nec ut amens loquitur, nor speaketh as distracted, as montanus and his prophetesses doted] but quaking which was thought the sign of their conversing with god is now looked on otherwise, [that the voice of the lord was not distinctly discerned there— in stillness the mind is brought into a capacity to discern the voice of the lord. living stone in 3d q. quib. p. 4. ] 8. the messalians, psalliani or euchites laid claim to revelations as much as any other sect [they were so assiduous in prayer, that it may seem incredible to most that hear it, augus. her. 57 ] by a misapplication of those words, pray always, and pray without ceasing: some of them would have named themselves to be whatsoever persons you would have them [art thou a prophet? he would reply i am a prophet, epiphan. her. 80. theodoret. h●st. eccl. l. 4. c. 11. art thou christ? he would reply, i am christ] but besides this they were strangely enthusiastical [pretending they had the presence of the spirit, and calling their own dreams and fancies prophecies,] their opinions infected many monasteries and several countries; they looked upon the lord's supper to do neither good nor hurt. adelphius an old professor among them, gave this account of their faith. [that holy baptism profitted nothing, but only that perpetual prayer cast out that inward devil, which every one received from their first parents, that then the holy ghost came upon them with his sensible and invisible presence, whereby they were freed from sin, ibidem and needed neither fasting nor instruction; but that then they were able to foresee future things, and to behold the holy trinity with their eyes.] these are to the purpose t. e. predecessors, several bishops opposed themselves to their pernicious doctrines; and indeed we cannot do more acceptable service to the spirit of truth, than by detecting the spirit of error, though it appear in the guise of an angel of light, or have got a piece of scripture in its mouth; nay, though it pretend antiquity: and get itself wrapped in old samuel's mantle, or come demurely in sheep's clothing. 9 aetius, an arian heretic (though one that did separate from his communion) was at the like pass with the former, [temerariâ audaciâ elatus, dixit, being puffed up by a rash boldness, he said. binius, tom. 1. p. 486. deum sibi revelasse ea, quae usque ab apostolorum temporibus hactenus occultaverat, that god had revealed those things to him, which till then he had concealed from the times of the apostles] say the fathers of the council of constantinople, theodor. h●st. eccl. l. 2. c. 28. histor. t●iparet. l. 5. c. 22. apud binium, and the like words of his are elsewhere recorded. serras, though a favourer of him, accused him [by a strange height of pride or madness, to have presumed and spoke higher things; that those things were now revealed to him, which god had concealed hitherto from the apostles, & universis, from all men.] and that is pretty consonant to the quakers doctrine: [have not we had the gospel all this time till now? answer, we say no] the gospel dispensation was lost, saith smith. [butler blessed be the lord for his renewing the spiritual ministry in our days.] and ann wright's letter is full about the same. [since the lord first called his servants to publish his everlasting gospel] the gospel was hid from the apostles days until it was revived in them. 10. donatus to maintain his schism became enthusiastical, august. epist. 165. talking of inspiration, or communications of gods will to him by angels. [ille eum ordinem christianitatis civitatis vestrae ut insinuaret, jussisse sibi angelum scribit, etc. that he might blast or condemn the order or profession of christianity used by your city, he writes that an angel commanded him; whereas thou dost not profess the christianity of thine own city but that of the whole world, wherefore if that angel had stood besides thee, whom he by a crafty novelty as we think doth feign to have stood by him, for thy sake, and if the angel had spoke those words to thee, which he saith, he doth at the command of him, insinuate or convey to thee, thou oughtest to have been mindful of that apostolical sentence, though an angel from heaven, etc.] it was their usual saying. gal. 1.8. oravit donatus & ei respondit deus è caelo. god from heaven, gave an answer to the prayers of donatus: his intimacy therewith made him to be the oracle of those times; and the circumcellions, a branch of them were mad with a fanatic zeal. these instances are sufficient for the first period, whereby we may discern, that bad designs sheltered themselves under this cover; and t. ellwood is either not learned, or not faithful in affirming [that in all ages the saints have had revelations in some degree or other] for true christians disowned them, pag. 237. and only heretics or schismatics had recourse to them [but whilst new heresies were superinduced over the former, euseb. hist. ecol. l. 4. c. 7. which got the custom, but were still subdivided into new branches and several kinds; the true church increased in unity and glory] and if i be obliged to believe t. is. inspiration, because he witnesseth he hath it; i am equally concerned to credit the proposals of a donatist, or a messalian, etc. 2. the church of rome hath ploughed much with this heifer, several religious orders, and doctrinal points have been hereby entertained. dr. stillingfleet's collections concerning this are copious; but i shall observe some few received by such as belonged to our country. thomas becket [divinâ revelatione confortatus est, in the breviary of sarum upon his day. etc. was comforted or strengthened by a divine revelation, a sign from heaven being showed unto him that he should return unto his church with glory, and then by the crown of martyrdom go unto the lord] [two catholic maids were cast into ecstatical raptures, jo. gee foot out of the snare. p. 59; and possessed with the virgin mary, michael, the archangel, john the baptist, etc. and those glorious guests did enter into them, and inhabit them] this is somewhat like the light within; but the next speaks home [edward hanz said he was corporally possessed with the blessed trinity, idem. p. 60. 61. he received oblations, suffered others to kneel before him and said; i god the father— i god the son— do give you my blessing, and do command you to adore me— he relateth that he was in a trance, and his soul did see very supernatural and admirable joys. unless god almighty do take the creature, and speak in him,— and then it is gods own word, and not the word of the party,] here was revelation, light, and the worship of it, like the hosanna to james naylor. [the virgin mary appeared to thomas newton p. 63, 64. about the oath of allegiance, he was a very holy man, and had other visions besides that] and [mary wiltshire saw a strange vision] many of their revelations are put together; called [admirable and notable prophecies, p. 109. uttered by 24 roman catholics, printed 1615.] and mr. burton, in his book of melancholy, gives the reason whence they are so subject to such conceits. besides these, we may take a trial of some few others, st. hildegard is [learned, whatever she wrote, ex revelatione divinâ, she did not speak or write aught that should be called into question, trithemius she spoke latin by the spirit.] her writings were publicly read and approved by eugenius the third in the council of tryers (which eugenius seems also to be chosen pope by revelation. the cardinals being [divino nutu perciti] made choice of the most holy eugenius: platina in ejus vita. ) to take a taste of her revelations, in her letter to eugenius [o mitis pater, etc. o mild father, i, a pitiful poor form, have written these things to thee in a true vision, in or by a mystical breathing, as god would teach me: o bright father, in the bibliotheca patrum tom. 15. in thy name thou camest into our land, as god predestinated, and thou sawest of the writings of true visions, as the living light taught me; and thou heardest that light with the embraces of thy heart, now is part of this writing finished, but still the same light hath not left me, but burns in my soul, as i have had it from mine infancy, &c] good quaker like language. this inspirado lady in an epistle to pope alexander, determines for the pope's supremacy [tibi specialiter idem verbum, claves regni coelestis concessit] and to a certain priest she determines for transubstantiation [in vera visione vigilantibus oculis de sacramento dominici corporis, haec verba audivi & vidi, etc.] another holy maid called sister katherine of jesus [had many revelations and strong exstacies, dr. causabons' enthusiasm. p. 162. 163. which held her 3 or 4 hours; she thought herself sometimes to be in heaven, and often saw, and sometimes suffered through fright the pains of hell; she saw the soul of christ in its purity, which drew her into an operation of the holy trinity; she said, god doth put his power in me, god doth put his wisdom in me, and his knowledge.] john waldesso in his divine considerations, rutherford's survey of the spiritual antichrist. p. 191. saith [a christian having served himself with holy scriptures, as with an alphabet, he afterwards leaves them to serve for the same effect to beginners, he attending to the inward inspirations; having for his proper master the spirit of god; and serving himself with holy scriptures, as with an holy conversation, and which causeth refreshment to him, altogether putting from himself all these writings which are written with an humane spirit.] the alumbradoes before named [held vocal prayer and all other (outward) duties of religion superstitious or unprofitable, dr. causabons enthus. p. 174. they thought those quakings which they did find in themselves, were a sufficient token of grace, (and ours have called it [that holy duty of quaking and trembling] and that they needed nothing else, fisher in 3d. quib. p. 3. that had attained unto them; they pretended that they might see god visibly in their exstacyes, etc. that all things ought to be done by immediate motions and inspirations, etc.] the church of rome proves herself the temple of the living god from these revelations, borius de signis eccles. l. 6. c. 2. in dr. spencer's prophecies. p 15. keiths' im. rev. p. 99 or [the voice of his oracles heard therein, she hath (she tells us) the spirit of prophecy (called the testimony of jesus) to bear witness to her doctrine, worship and discipline; and to this purpose gives in a list of her prophets, and of their wonderful predictions.] and this very argument is used by the quakers [jesus christ revealed in man (or immediate revelation) is the foundation of the true church: and of every member thereof in particular; and therefore if the true church remain, this must remain also.] session the 11. under leo the 10. and the council of laterane having prescribed rules for the preachers, addeth an exception [caeterum si quibusdam, etc. but if to some the lord shall reveal by inspiration certain future things in his church, as he hath promised by amos the prophet, and paul saith despise not prophesying; we will not have such to be numbered amongst fabulous or lying people, or otherways to be disturbed.] here is a council defending immediate revelation, and if i credit a quakers pretensions that way, i am in point of justice equally bound to believe the romish, and the doctrines thereby confirmed, nay i am more bound, in that the romish church hath used this claim much longer, and pretends to more caution in examining the things thereby brought. 3. at the reformation this pretence was industriously set up and carried on by satan, to weaken or defeat the endeavours of those worthy heroes. calvin in the preface saith [that for twenty years, satan endeavoured to extinguish, stifle, or defame that evangelicall doctrine which he saw appearing. adver. libertin. ] they called them literal reformers, who had but faint and small discoveries of the spirit, etc. muncer said [the first reformers were not sent of god, bullinger adver: anabap. l. 1. c. 1. nor preached the true word of god, etc. of these conceited devoto's there were several sorts; which did split and subdivide more and more afterwards. 1. the anabaptists flew high with this claim, and it was the stolen to carry on each design. their founder nicholas stork, john davyes apocalypse. had his visions; and god communicated himself to thomas muncer: john matthiz the baker had secrets revealed to him, which god had not revealed to others: he being enoch the second, highpriest of god. herman the cobbler professed himself a true prophet and the true messiah, etc. their stories are so known that it is superfluous to relate them. john buckhold had revelations as plentiful as mahomet. this king of justice minted his money with this impression: verbum caro factum quod habitat in nobis; that is, the word was made flesh which dwelleth in us; which is the doctrine of winstanley, and of his disciples, that god is manifested in the flesh of [sons and daughters, new law of right. p. 33. or in many bodies, as christ, or the anointing was poured on that humane body— jesus the son of man, and dwelled bodily there for a time.] so that quakers are christ's now, as much as jesus was on earth, only he was one single christ, but this spreading power of righteousness makes them many christ's in many bodies. but if there was perpetual inspiration, reason would adjudge the anabaptists and the others, being contemporary with the reformation, more likely to have a share thereof, than others at a great distance from it. and so little did the first reformers favour them, that luther writ to the senate of mulhusium, to beware of such wolves: and melancton expressly declares against them, [anabaptistae fingunt expectandas esse novas revelationes, etc. de numero sacramentorum. the anabaptists feign that there are new revelations and illuminations to be expected from god, and that these are to be obtained with great bodily severities, as the monks and enthusiasts of old feigned; these fanatical dotages are accursed; we contrarily do think, that god out of his infinite goodness having revealed his will to us in the gospel, other revelations or illuminations are not to be expected.] 2. the libertines took themselves to be inspired, calvin advers. libertinos. c. 2. and galled the church much, [totus eorum sermo de spiritu est, calvin advers. libertinos. c. 2. etc. all their discourse was of the spirit, sometimes they used strange words, to bring their hearers into admiration, and cast a mist about them, at other times they used common words, sed significationem eorum deformant, altering their signification; c. 7. when any place of scripture was urged, their answer was, nos literae minimè obnoxios esse, c. 9 that they were not concerned in the letter thereof; but were bound to follow the spirit that quickeneth. it was their principle, that the scripture in its natural sense was a dead letter, and therefore was not to be regarded; but to observe the quickening spirit: saying, sublimiùs speculemur, let us look for higher things than what the letter affords; and let us seek new revelations. they scarce spoke two clauses but the word spirit was in their mouths; c. 10. and made no account of the name christian, in compare to the name spiritual; persuading their hearers that they were spiritual, purely d●vine. et jam cum angelis semiraptos esse.] antonius pocquius, a great man among them, said [aspicite, adest tempus, etc. behold, now the time is at hand, wherein the disciple of elijah begged the double portion of the spirit, and that was the time which christ meant; when he said, i have many things to say unto you, etc. qualis ego sum; such a teacher did pocquius boast himself to be, but he would not speak out, donec tempus advenerit.] 3. casper swenckfield for thirty years together troubled the church with his dreams; he [called for spiritualness, rutherford, p. 15. ex schlus. selburgio. and the spirit, and the internal word, that we must not depend on the external word; he took several things from papists, anabaptists, and calvin, making a mixture of opinions; he accused the reformed pastors, that no man was better for their preaching: extolling the spirit as doing all.] the reformed divines admonished and refuted him; his monstrous opinions were condemned by a synod at norinburg, and by the divines of mansfield; and he still persisted in them. he made the [gospel to be the essence of god] which is the doctrine of winstanley [the lord himself, truth lifting up its head. p. 30. who is the everlasting gospel.] he made [faith and conversion to be wrought immediately] taught [that we must try the word by the spirit, and not the spirit by the word; that no doctrine, sacraments, or any things written in scriptures do conduce to salvation, but god is to be sought in his naked majesty, in dreams, inspirations and revelations of the spirit. 4. henry nicholas, in the answer to the family's supplication. the first illuminated elder of the family of love, put in as high for visions and revelations as any of the rest, [the power of the highest came upon his godded man, h n. and did instruct and speak such and such things to him] as his words are at large set down: [h. n. by the grace and mercy of god, through the holy spirit of the love of jesus christ, raised up by the highest god from the death anointed with the holy ghost— elected to be a minister of the gracious word, in the evangel regni. c. 1. which is now in the last times raised up by god according to his promises, in the most holy service of god under the obedience of his love:] and in a manuscript epistle, written in an apish imitation of clemens, ignatius, or those times, he declares his divine commission [h. n. jesus christi minister, à deo ad veritatem è gratiae solio, epistola. h. n. ex charitate jesu christi in angl. missa, etc. majestatis dei testificandam, electus, & ad bonum nuntium de regno dei, & pura charitate retectae facici jesu christi super terram annunciandum, ac salutem in eadem manifestandam missus, quemadmodum de adventu ejusdem charitatis, per prophetas dei, & apostolos jesus christi prius significatum, & evangelizatum fuit—. nos dei misericordiam, & sacerdotale munus nostrae administrationis sub obedientia charitatis jesu christi accepimus, etc. and he goeth on, relating the great things that god was about to do, the danger in not accepting his ministry, that god was about restoring all things, the earth to be full of his glory; applying twice that in abac. 1. and act. 13. behold ye despisers, etc.] and the late new-england families were high in the same pretence; that the quakers have much affinity with the familists, might easily be showed, and they seem to have the most kindness for them, george whitehead [makes the familists to have better discoveries than other men: in cambridg debate. p. 63. ] and keith determines that we must [examine revelations, inspirations, visions and openings by this of divine love. im. rev. p. 241. qu. love to mankind, p. 3 a brief rehearsal of the belief of the good willing in england, which are named the family of love, print. 1575. ] if it be alleged, that quakers of late, do not so allegorise jesus christ as formerly: i can produce the like outward ownings of christ by the familists [the apostles creed at length owned by them: jesus acknowledged to be the son of god, etc. in words much like the nicene creed; born of a virgin, out of the seed of david, in whose name only and no other they obtain salvation and remission of their sins.] 5. some time after the reformation, jacob behmen, appeared, who received (if we will believe him) his mystical dark terms from the father of lights [there is but a glimpse of the mystery, in these writings, signatura rerum. p. 209 for a man cannot write them, if any man shall be accounted worthy of god to have the light enkindled in his own soul; he shall see— unspeakable things— there is the theosophick school of pentecost, wherein the soul is taught of god. joh. 6.45. joel. 2.28.— he that can read his own book aright, needs no other, for therein lieth the unction from the holy one, in the preface. which teacheth him aright of all things] [none can understand these obscurely clear writings, but they that have tasted of the feast of pentecost] saith ellistone the translator, and the author himself saith [i have set before the readers eyes, p. 201. what the lord of all being's hath given me;] and in the preface to his 177 questions [without divine light, none can be able to expound them, p. 223. it is only the spirit of christ that gives their understanding,] and he wrote from his own experimental science. his notion of the [signature opened by the spirit, imprinting his similitude in my similitude, p. 1. & 2. entering into another man's form, and awakening in the other, such a form in the signature. so that both forms do mutually assimilate together in one form, and then there is one comprehension;] is much like the quakers seed or birth which is the susceptive principle, conveying inspiration from god into the soul; there being a revelation required as well in the hearer as in the speaker, [theophilus had the spirit witnessing to the truth of the things, im. rev. p. 209. which gave the certainty or assurance] [what the apostles declared in words, from the life of jesus christ revealed in them, the same spirit answered and testified to the truth of those things in their hearers.] it seems it was not the apostles certain knowledge of christ, idem. p. 58. and the miracles they wrought, which inclined men to believe their doctrine; but it was a light in them, which met with a signature or seed, or a congenial principle in others, that persuaded them to become, i dare not say christians, but illuminadoes. having tasted of jacob behmens style, and the subject being unpleasant, a cage of unclean birds, or an herd of lying prophets; of which, but one sect, (be it which it will) can but possibly be true. before we descend to view the last scene of our own country's abominations; it may be a diversion to present some of geo. fox's divinity and oratory, which if you have the patience to read, you shall not be obliged to the pains of studying or understanding. some principles of the e●●●ct people of god, called quakers, 〈◊〉 [the worlds original, is the many languages, (whose original is babel) which make divines (as they call them) sit a top of christ. and the whor● sits upon the waters (as it is spoken in the revelation;) and john saith, the waters are nations, m●l●itudes, people, and tongues, which 〈…〉 they call their original. to which wa●●● 〈…〉 must be preached, before they can 〈…〉. 〈…〉 are to be redeemed from tongues, and 〈…〉 shall cease (saith the apostle) and so 〈◊〉 world's original, the beginning of which 〈◊〉 and which keeps in babylon, the saints 〈…〉 redeemed; and this hath been set up as an original among them who are alieniated from the spirit of god in babel, where the original of tongues was in the days of nimrod that heretic, who began to build babel.] 〈◊〉. p. 70. the same curious writer hath a rare gift in proposing queries. [12. q. whether ever any man came to see so far as balaam's ass, who saw the angel of the lord? 13. q. what are the graves and the tombs, and the sepulchers, and the fowls of the air, and the nests they sit in, which christ spoke of? answer in writing the thing queried, g. f.] they are the properest for his spirit to undertake. the trifling question put to barnabas was more witty. clem. recognit. p. 5. [why a gnat, being so small a creature, hath six feet and wings besides; whereas an elephant, so bulky an animal, hath only four feet?] 4. in the late unhappy times, when hell was broke lose, our own country affords instances too many, being as anciently credulous in believing pretended inspirations, so also then, in their production too fertile, and the quaker is junior to the most of them, and they are all able to produce as good evidences and deeds; so that it seems strange, the quaker should engross both the birthright and the blessing too from all the rest. 1. the seekers, or religious sceptics laid claim to inspirations; i call them so, because those various differing sectaries may be best comprised under such a general name; edward gangre, second part, p. 2. [they affirm and hold, they have not only had revelations, but they have seen visions also. the means of gods revealing himself, and his mind and will to his servants, in reference to their salvation, is immediately by himself, without scripture, without ordinances, without ministers, or any other means,] but especially many in the army about 1645. took themselves to be intimate with god; idem. p. 5. [some officers and soldiers affirmed, that they had had revelations, and seen visions, and took upon them to prophesy.] [a lieutenant, a great devoto, denied the trinity of persons, affirming them to be three offices, he denied that christ's presence in heaven could be proved by scripture, p. 7. and made a great question whether there was a resurrection or no.] mrs. attaway the woman-preacher, then begun to exercise— [boggis wished he had not known so much of the bible, which he said, p. 163. was but only paper.] and clarkson the seeker [vilifies the scripture, ordinances, p. 165. etc. would not have people to live upon black and white, and said, that they of themselves were not able to reveal god.] t. e. is the successor of such blades as these. 2. the antinomians maintained their undutiful notions by recourse to this armour, and the quakers have borrowed much from them, as (perfection, discerning who were elected, the notions about christ's person, and christ within, humane learning, and the like;) but i shall only consider their inspirations, a large account of which we find in one who diligently traversed their writings. rutherford's survey of spiritual antichrist, p. 173, 174, 175. [the witness of the spirit is merely immediate, without respect to sanctification, or acts thereof; all doctrines, revelations, and spirits must be tried by christ rather than by the word. a christian is not to pray, nor to do any spiritual acts, but when the spirit moveth him thereunto. that all other askings or seekings of god, which are not thus in spirit, are but the askings of creatures as creatures. p. 222. the scriptures are not to be understood according to grammatical construction, but as the spirit of god reveals them. p. 229. the mere commandments of scripture are not a law to christians, p. 305. but the law written in our hearts. the holy-ghost comes in place of the natural faculties of the soul, and acteth us immediately to all internal and external acts, part 2d. p. 195. etc.] and that american jezebel, mrs. hutchinson said, [that her particular revelations about events to fall out, are as infallible as any parts of scripture, p. 211. and that she is bound as much to believe them as the scripture, for the same holy ghost is the author of both.] 3. the levellers do make out their freeborn community with arrows fetched from this quiver. winstanley, the great master of the craft, is exact herein. new law of right. p. 46. [this phrase, mine and thine, shall be swallowed up— there shall be no need of lawyers, prisons, or engines of punishment, no beggar nor cause of complaining— there shall be no buying nor selling, no fairs nor markets, but the whole earth shall be a common treasury for every man— the poor upon their commons, saying, p. 47. this is ours, the earth and fruits are common.] now, this platonic fanciful model he raiseth upon revelation. [as i was in a trance, divers matters were presented to my sight, which here must not be related; p. 57 likewise i heard these words, work together, eat bread together, declare it all abroad: likewise i heard these words, whosoever it is that labours in the earth for any person or persons, that lift up themselves as lords or rulers over others, and that do not look upon themselves equal to others in the creation. the hand of the lord shall be upon that labourer, i the lord have spoken it, and i will do it. declare this all abroad.] and this very trumpet, he saith, is [still sounding in his ears, p. 67. work together, etc. surely the lord hath not revealed this in vain.] this heavenly voice was so delightful, that he was [filled with abundance of quiet peace and secret joy; p. 58. ] and he obeyed the command of the spirit, which bid him declare it all abroad by word of mouth and pen; and he waited till [god showed him the place and manner how to work upon the common lands. p. 64. i will then go forth and declare it in my action, to eat my bread with the sweat of my brows— looking upon the land as freely mine as another's; i have now peace in my spirit, etc.] and elsewhere up-the same subject, he opens freely, fire in the bush, the preface. [this declaration of the word of life was a free gift to me from the father himself— when i had writ it, i delayed the sending it almost a fortnight— then the voice was ready— go send it to the churches,] which he did; [well, i have obeyed the voice, and have sent this to you;] but what was the substance of the voice? that he relates, [the voice is gone out, freedom, freedom, freedom; he that hath ears to hear let him hear:] and what was this freedom? even a setting the earth free, a breaking down all pinfolds, and laying all open to the common. now, have not i an equal, if not greater reason to believe, his so particular and exact revelations concerning equality, rather than your general, and withal mixed one's concerning other matters? nay, have not you as much ground to believe his pretence in this, as to take the very lineaments of your profession from him, and yet herein desert him, when as he challengeth inspiration for this, as fully as for any other doctrine? but that you dare pick and choose, mangle and alter your own revelations as well as his, may in its due place appear. a sober answer, p. 56. 4. the ranters deluded themselves and others with this blind, and fox acknowledged the affinity of his and their principles, that black divinity challenged immediate communications as fully as t. e. some sweet sips of spiritual wine sweetly and freely dropping, etc. [a prophecy, a vision, a revelation, and the interpretation thereof,] in the title page; and as many pages as there are, we have almost as much talk of the spirit, [that tract is like the other scriptures, p. 1. the father secretly whispering, would not have him set down book, chapter, or verse, though he used scripture language, p. 2. arise out of flesh into spirit, out of form, type, and so into power, truth, etc. p. 4. 48. & passim; hear what the spirit saith, p. 10.] the doctrine turned into a prayer is a brisk one, [fall upon them while they are eating and drinking without; p. 13. let them eat and drink within— bread in the kingdom and drink wine, new, in the kingdom, even new in the kingdom, new in the kingdom; not in the oldness of the letter, but in the newness of the spirit.] the elements, p. 6. formal prayer, baptism, supper, etc. shall melt away into god: and at this rate he proceeds, he loved also a woman prophetess, even [his dear friend, p. 46. mrs. t. p. i had as live hear a daughter as a son prophecy, and i know that women that stay at home divide the spoil, male and female are all one in christ.] 5. the fifth monarchy m●n were not only citizens of the new jerusalem, but candidates of heaven, receiving much intelligence from thence. their prophet (for i know not what sect else he should belong to) had several visions of what the all of all things was bringing to pass. the pouring forth of the seventh vial upon all flesh. [the father spoke to him as he lay in a trance almost dead for 22 hours,] in the preface. [being chosen to declare those things, and publish them, as being what the prophets pointed at, his name was changed from george, in a vision, to jacob israel foster: and so, saith he, i subscribe, or george— foster. or jacob israel foster. his visions are too many to be set down, as if he strove both to imitate and outdo st. john, some few we shall take a taste of for their curiosity. [he had a vision of the calling of the jews, p. 19 under the emblem of a man that went up and down gathering men together: so that the jews now dispersed among the gentiles were to return to their own city, p. 33. p. 41. p. 55. and there the lord would reign among his saints in mount zion; for judea was the place where both god and his spouse were to rest. heaven, or the third and highest dispensation, must be about jerusalem: for the credit of our nation, the chief or principal leader of this expedition into the holy land, p. 39 must be an english man whom god hath chosen for that work. when they came to jerusalem they were to die, and presently to rise up again, and never to die more, and the time of restitution is to be in the year 7000. after which there is neither hell nor devils left: p. 40, ] with very many visions of the like nature, delivered in such exact circumstances, with so set and composed a countenance, and under such variety of emblems and figures, that he deserves as much regard, as any other in the whole herd of enthusiasts. 6. william franklin, mary gadbury, and their proselytes put in as strongly, and produce as good proofs for inspiration as t. e. can do; some take them for quakers, but the name was not then known, nor do i think they will own them: but be their sect without name, or what else, i am not concerned; it is only their revelations i must consider, for they had drunk their share of the spirit of delusion then poured forth. franklin affirmed, humphrey ellis his pseudo christus, p. 7. [his receipt of revelations and visions, which he endeavoured to countenance with fair and seeming gospel expressions; he pretended to prophesy, to foretell things to come, to speak with new tongues, p. 36. and babbled out uncouth words. he also forgave sins, and his proselytes, as spradbury and the rest, were drawn unto him by sights and voices, with several strange relations.] his whore, mary gadbury, called him [the son of god, p. 31. the christ, the lamb slain, etc. she pretended to visions, voices, and revelations, was full of comfort, p. 8. joy, and singing; had strange trembling fits: she saw a light as big as the moon, and many stars; p. 10. p. 18. she had a voice sometimes to seal up the vision, and then would not speak; she slighted sacred scripture, and yet delivered her revelations in its language. p. 15. they were commanded in a vision to go into the land of ham, which, by a suitable exposition they interpreted hampshire. their proselytes, like the disciples of marcus, had voices, p. 22, & 28. visions, and glories, insomuch that both a minister, mr. woodward and his wife were deluded by them, he hearing voices, and seeing glories, and she seeing visions.] to this height they had quickly arrived, till the vigilance of the magistrates suppressed them. that whore, with whom franklin lay as a fellow-feeler of her misery, called herself [the spouse of christ, p. 50. the lady mary, the queen, the bride, and the lamb's wife:] had she not been ten years too forward, she would have been a fit match for apretty pragmatical thing of g. f. which begun to bleat in 1659. called the lamb's officer, gone out with the lamb's message. 7. lodowick muggleton and john reeve (giving out themselves as the two last witnesses, rev. 11.3. as the prophets of christ, and the sealer's of the foreheads of the elect and the reprobate) appeared much contemporary with the quakers, being equal to them both in their claims and proofs of inspiration. but the devil's malice herein outrun his wit, for setting up so many contradictory competitors in revelation about the same time, one of them is a sufficient confutation of another; whereas had but one single sect put in and engrossed the favour of that immediate heavenly converse, weak and simple souls might thereby have been sooner deluded; but to considering minds their so fertile multiplication is their mutual destruction. in what terms muggleton challenged inspiration, is not now proper to relate; for seeing that the fire hath of late deservedly, by public order, done execution upon his works, 'tis not manners to rake such putrid stuff out of its ashes: let all the like tracts and pretensions meet with the like purgation. only by way of trial take this [whatever the learned men of this world dream of finding out the invisible things of eternity, reeves and muggleton's divine looking-glass, cap. 36. p. 145. by searching into the scripture records, and comparing them togeher, the divine majesty hath locked up all the principal secrets of the scriptures in his own spiritual breast, that he, by any immediate revelation, may dispose of them into the spirits of elect men and angels, most advantageous for his own glory and their consolation.] 8. anna trapnel exceeds both the quakers and most of the other pretenders, in excessive fastings, poetical enthusiasms, lucky hits upon several things that came to pass afterwards, rapturous devotions, the cry of a stone, title. preface. etc. [she was in the visions of god by an inspiration extraordinary and full of wonder.] [england was the valley of vision— the wise have stumbled at this freedom of the spirit in our days as well as in the days of christ;] and yet her inspired doctrines were contrary to the quakers. [god spoke to her, p. 3, 4, 9, 16. 36, 49. shown her visions and the new jerusalem, a light shone, she was taken into the mount of god: she was another's voice, a voice within a voice; god's heavens came down into her earth, 5. 7. 76. she fasted 9, 11, 14 days, etc. was told by the spirit of the soldiers coming to london, p. 4. 6, 7. had a vision of the scots overthrow before dunbar, and of the fight with holland, of the dissolving the long parliament, 10. calling the jews, of the breaking up the representative; had a vision against rowse the chairman, 13. 30. and several visions to inform her that oliver would be protector, which she was troubled at, and foretell gideon's, that is, his being laid aside,] with many the like. no quakers have come nigh her, tyrant. detect. p. 38. a visitation of love to the king, &c 4, 5, & p. 58. 73. p. 20. p. 35. p. 15. for ebbit's foretelling the firing of london, was not believed by his friends. and burroughs attempts to show, that the quakers foresaw the king's restoration, came not near it. she was for the reign of jesus, destroying the fourth great monarchy, foretell that all the monarchies are going down, jesus was at hand. among the rest, she foretell, [we must have no more kings,] and yet she was swallowed up of the glory of the lord. 9 the gifted brethren (who with the next are the most orderly of all the pretenders else) made use of this engine, by their zealous advocate, etc. their request was the most modest, [not to lay aside the ministers, nor destroy church-order, blake's embassage from the kings of the east, to his highness oliver lord protector. p. 45. p. 47. they only pleaded for an hour before or after sermon, wherein they might exercise their gifts; they allowed the usefulness of study, that three hours in a day close employed therein would make a brave preacher, they offer to give security to preach sound and peaceable doctrine, and begged but the liberty of a trial, how beneficial their model would prove; offer upon misdemeanour to call in, p. 42. and take back the offenders commission, with a dehortation to exercise any more for the present; would have themselves not taken for absolute ministers, but assistants; they engage not to meddle with administering the sacraments, or other proper ministerial offices,] with many such fanciful things in their platform; and yet the conceit of inspiration, together with acquired abilities was the cause of it. [we leave christ's work with you, in the epistle. churches— the spirit bid us do it; the word and spirit, and god himself is for us: my sons and my daughters shall prophesy; p. 11. & 23. hear this day what the spirit saith unto the churches: none must preach by notes, p. 58. we love to drink from the fountain (and yet they are for short work) strive not to speak beyond the breathe of the spirit. p. 61. hear what the spirit saith to the churches in england, in this day of their visitation. p. 70. ] and the socinians come somewhat towards this model; though [they deny enthusiasms, divine miraculous inspirations, cateches, eccles. polonicar. in praefatione. or prophetical authority to be claimed by them; yet they allow a great liberty of prophesying, that any one may interpret, who hath the gift of revelation.] 10. the congregation, or people commonly called considerers, had recourse to this, trayte de la vaye, etc. a discourse of the way to the kingdom. though as sparingly as any of the others; [they were very much taken up in studying the book of nature, saying, that alone is enough for all men, and that the study of the prophets lay therein. p. 76. that consideration was the royal way to the kingdom. they acknowledge the trinity and christ's incarnation, p. 80. p. 52▪ 90, 100 used the sacrament and the lords prayer; meddled not with worldly or state affairs, p. 74. were thrifty of their time; married such as they loved upon first sight, 92. p. 52. were against the enclosing the holy spirit to any particular sect of men; looking on the creed as a sufficient instrument of union among all christians: p. 4. 88 ] but immediate inspiration was owned by them, p. 4. [the voice of god that i heard, said unto me— immediately god himself opened me by his spirit, p. 6. the way to the kingdom resounding in my heart.— monck rogers being so taken up with god, p. 50. as not to remember the words a man just spoke to him is highly commended,— the spirit of wisdom and understanding hath appointed me to tell you— and such lights as god infused into any of their hearts, p. 72. they thought themselves bound to communicate to others.] p. 94. here are competitors sufficient, that agree in one bottom, though they build different and contradictory doctrines upon it; and all these (likely an hundred to one; and in this very kingdom of late ten to one) being the far greater number are all against the quakers: and therefore suppose the scripture did not please me, which of these pretenders must i give credit to? the others whether old or late produce as good proofs as t. e. can do; and if i favour one side where the evidences are equal, i become partial, and hold the faith with respect of persons. do the quakers say and witness their inspirations? the others do the like with an equal confidence. do they experience it? the rest come not behind them. if their refresh persuade? the leveller, and the late named whore can use the same topick, and the ranter is as brisk as any. if some scriptures befriend their fancy? the rest, and all heretics, and the devil himself, do bait their hooks with wrested parcels of it. in case then of different revelations, to which must i adhere? or shall i not suspend, until a third revelation do determine which side is in the right? must we believe men merely because they say so? or are yea, yea, and a few solemn looks, or wrings by the hand evidences that the spirit is secretly whispering? they lay no obligation on us to trust them, rather than their rivals. in their words, lives and writings they seem at least fallible, like other men. thomas ellwood must then produce better evidences than the rest; otherwise we are innocent. and he hath cut himself out work sufficient. 1. to prove that perpetual inspiration is certainly promised by god to all believers. 2. he must prove that all other pretenders do lie, in their claims. 3. that such as deny immediate revelation have no share thereof. 4. he must by some undoubted evidences prove that his party are solely entrusted with this ministration, and when this is done, he must leave to us the power of trial, and the liberty ●● judgement. for if each must follow the light, we are innocent who do but follow our own convictions; and our case is infinitely more safe: for all parties agree that the light of scriptures (by which we are guided) is divine, but your new light may prove false, or darkness, for any assurance you can yet give us to the contrary. there are all these co-claimers, who both say and show as much as quakers, and so each single party are an equal balance to them, much more all of them together do strangely outweigh the quakers next to youngest claims (unless the rule be now inverted verum quodcunque prius, and what is latest must necessarily be truest) which could only hold until a fresher sect (suppose the sweet singers of israel, or any such pretty name) do start up and out-date the quakers, but though all the other competitors were in the wrong, that doth not infer t. is. friends to be in the right, for they may be equally mistaken with the others in the like bottom; unless they can produce some indisputable divine amulet, or preservative, which the others cannot. nor can i find any solid reason, why i should believe the english, and disbelieve the spanish alumbrados, when their doctrines are much alike, and their evidences are exactly equal. and further one of these (who can set as good a face on his cause, and use as brisk a confidence, and who excels thomas ellwood, as much as one of the two witnesses in the revelations exceeds the witnesses in general) viz. lodowick muggleton from his supposed spirit pronounceth a sentence and a curse upon the quakers, 3d q. quibbles, p. 32. [because i (saith he) have passed sentence upon the quakers, they shall never grow to have more experience in vision and revelation, but shall whither.] which curse, from their proteus like changing, the disciples of muggleton may conclude to have seized on them. others that are juniors or co-temporary with the quakers, from their spirit condemn the quakers. the cry of a stone, p. 20. so anna trapnel, [let them tell him (viz. oliver) of his sins, and tell him with humility and tears, not as those deluded spirits, that go running about the streets; and say, we have such visions and revelations, who come out with their great speeches of vengeance, judgement and plagues; oh, but thine that come from thee, thou givest them humility, meekness, bowels, tears] [thou art called only a form, they call th●●ves a christ.] [oh, p. 50. some poor creatures call themselves christ, because of this oneness with christ— when thy sweet wine comes forth, than they bring in their false wine. p. 68 ] the secretary of the confiderers [prayed god to preserve him, discourse of the way, etc. p. 62. p. 68 for ever having the spirit of the quakers] he had high thoughts of their way at the first, till he [did discern the tracts of the evil spirit that guided them:] several instances of which he enumerates, and saith, the spirit of wisdom appointed him to tell those things [to make them better advised in the choice of true ways and in the distinctions of lights. p. 72. ] and i have heard of a single devoto, herded with none of the former, with the greatest confidence affirm, that god had revealed to her, that the quakers would leave their errors and return to the church and truth again. but beyond these, because we in these kingdoms may be interested and partial, not passing right judgement, the illuminadoes in another country (who not being engaged against ours deserve more regard) do expressly declare the quakers to be impostors; and i suppose their opinions, in other points of religion to be more sound, in that they deluded the learned and useful john amos comenius. the late germane enthusiasts are the persons, his. revel. edit. per j. a. c. 1659. p. 189. in dr. spencer's vulgar prophecies. p. 6, 7. and their condemnation of the quakers i shall transcribe from a worthy hand, my circumstances not affording me as yet, a sight of the book. [they tell the world that by how much the nearer that great day of the lord is, the more evidently and familiarly doth he excite his prophets▪ and that they understand, the frequent possessions, witchcrafts, and fanatical enthusiasms of the quakers; satanicas esse praestigias, quibus opera dei obfuscare nituntur, ut olim james & jambres mosi resistêre; to be the delusions of the devil, whereby they endeavour to obscure the works of god, as james and jambres withstood moses of old.] all these condemnations of the quakers from the spirit, should have force with them who acknow●ed revelations at this day. what if the quakers be more numerous than some others of the like kidney. that is no argument of truth, else others would soon wrest it from them, as some places, so some times are more prepared for productions of monsters than others; and the late unhappy times had piled up such materials, that it was easy for the quakers to arrive at that height by starting up as the scum and froth of them all. montanus spread his poison through phrygia, donatus through africa, the messalians through syria, pamphylia, etc. and arius through the world. the familists t. is. grandfathers, are next to gone, and i hope his inspirations will run the same fate and expire like theirs; and the company called considerers foretell your extinction, traite de la voye au royaume. p. 18. [time shall make you of the number of things past.] chap. vii. concerning their own contradictory, different and designed revelations. would a man be tamely satisfied, with keiths' confutation, that [the enthusiasts, against whom luther wrote, were not true enthusiasts, as the apostles were, quakerism no popery, p. 20. but such as under a pretence of enthusiasm both taught and practised evil things, and baffle each in the former list thereby, he must allow me with equal reason, to turn it upon themselves, that [quakers are not right enthusiasts as the apostles were.] for it confutes themselves as much as others: and is a conviction on either hand equal with [mentiris bellarmine.] but supposing my temper or other motives incline me to overlook the rest, and become favourable to t. is. friends, so as to fancy or wish that they really have what they pretend; my next inquiry is to whom must i turn? to the conforming or nonconforming quakers? to some single teachers, or to the body of ancient friends, and how can i infallibly know where that supposed body lodgeth? or, who are the members of it? or when these little talkative oracles speak by inspiration, and when by their own afflatus? i would have a reasonable religion understand what to believe, do and pray, and then proceed accordingly; but if the spirit that guides be enshrined in such a body, against which so many prejudices lie, the case of those souls is very sad, whose directions flow from so foul a fountain. that they do not always act by inspiration, in rev. p. 36. we have a full confession [not as if in every thing-we did act, think, speak or write infallibly:— nor as if in nothing we could act in a disjunction from the spirit; for we do freely acknowledge we are capable to run out, and both think, speak, writ and do things that are not only not infallible, but may be wrong and false. only what is done— in conjunction with the spirit of god, and in his immediate manifestation and co-operation in us, is infallible.] and elsewhere he makes the like acknowledgement [we are conscious to ourselves that both in speaking and writing, q. no popery, p. 33. it is possible for us in some measure, more or less, to decline from those infallible leadings, and consequently both to speak and write in a mixture.] how can i then infallibly know when the conjunction is? or be able in that mixture, to separate the divine from the humane? or to know the prophet from the man? it may prove an opposition or side aspect, when i expected a conjunction, i may take him to be inspired when he writes of himself, and his wine may have a mixture of water, if not poison: if one chapter or section be writ in conjunction, and another not, he must both make an unequal yoking, and also affront the spirit in not distinguishing [this i received from above, this i invented of myself:] he also deludeth others, who in such mixtures do wrong on one hand, they in swallowing the whole as divine, we in rejecting the whole as worse than humane. let him acquaint by some marks which parts are so, and so; that we may pay our respects accordingly. their manner also of wording the receipt, as [i find it with me, i find it in my heart, i find it rising up in me, etc.] look more like an answer from pythia, which ascended up from the feet unto the breast, then divine inspiration, which is an illapse, or influx from heaven. we are told [that the children of god do infallibly know one another, im. revel. p. 118, 189. and hence have unity, peace and concord one with another.] if this be true, quakers will scarce pass for god's children; for among themselves they are as much distant, as the poles, and as other sects crumbled the anabaptists into 70, and the familists into very many; among the rest into those of caps his order, so there are quakers of the hat; the prevailing party of the foxonian order, and the murmerers under the banner of george bishop and his associates. their mutual carriages are unlike those of inspired men, and he who believes their witnessings must swallow contradictions, they set spirit against spirit, the same against itself, and that bad language which they first poured on others, is now bestowed on their own dissenters. their contradictions, carriages and expressions, are smartly exposed in three little tracts, which make unnecessary any large account thereof here: the quakers quibbles in 3 parts. only i shall observe some in prosecution of their inspirations, and digest them into what order so much variety and confusion will permit. 1. we shall consider their contradictions, or differences in doctrine. 2. their carriages therein, and means of convincing one another. 3. consider the debate about the hat, and their canons so far as inspiration is concerned. 4. present other matters, that are subservient thereto. 1. their contradictions and differences in doctrine. to begin with t. ellwood's tutor, universal grace. p. 6. who [in a book which he wrote from the lord] produceth twice or thrice, joel 2.28. for his purpose, wherein are mentioned, visions, dreams and prophecies, and yet he denyeth or minceth their having any of them. for visions and dreams he avoids them [nor dreams and visions upon the imagination in the night season, im. rev. p. 7. nor yet by trances, so called, which is by a cessation of the exercise of all the outward senses:] and for the other he denyeth the necessity thereof, as [signifying, p. 2. foreseeing or foretelling things to come:] but the rest do not digest such doctrine. will. shewin outgoes st. paul ten years' [i knew a man twenty four years ago who had heavenly sights, the true christians faith and experience. p. 130. and revelations and raptures into the third heaven, and heard and saw things unutterable; and all before his conversion and regeneration] strange doctrine indeed, an unclean thing to enter into the third or highest heaven, p. 129, 131. he names their visions also. smith's wife had a vision, in her letter. signifying to her, her husband's death, which brought her into the stillness. they also challenge prophecies, some principles, p. 26. noble salutation, p. 7. [sons and daughters do prophecy in our age, as formerly among the apostles.] [the lord raised up many servants and prophets.] but least prophecy should not be taken in the proper sense, for foretelling, they speak out to that pupose, some principles, p. 18. preface to living faith. the glory of the true church. p. 27. [it (to wit the light) will show you things to come] saith fox [naylor often prophesied, as of things which we have seen come to pass.] [the spiritual, through the spirit of prophecy, see when bells, hourglasses, pulpits, etc. shall be no more adored.] thomas ellwood seems to limit his inspirations to such as are recorded in scripture, p. 237. keith enlargeth them to all humane concernments, as [eating, im. rev. p. 6. going, etc. which are not in scripture particularly; no, not so much as by consequence] th. ellwood is for the immediate teachings of the spirit, without any help from humane learning towards the understanding of the bible, others are more wise, p. 219. im. rev. p. 39 winding sh. for controv. ended. p. 4. do not [exclude and shut out the service and usefulness of all means, and instruments whatsoever, whether books or men:] and another as freely acknowledgeth [we cannot call it our faith or knowledge, till quickened to it, by that eternal spirit, be it mediately, or be it immediately,] but here lieth the fallacy, it is immediate, though with means, with, and without, are all one. [such a way of communication, im. rev. p. 42. though it be through a means, yet this hinders it not in a true sense to be immediate▪] to palliate this paradox the better, we are informed that dreams and night visio●s (those secret ways whereby god did communicate his mind) [were but very shadowy and remote, idem. p. 17. and rather mediate than immediate] and if this liberty of confounding be thus used, they may pass for prophets when they please, p. 162. keith allows the disciples to learn something from christ. thomas ellwood makes the spirit to confer all the knowledge, so that christ's words were unintelligible, a mere gibberish or jargon. thomas ellwoood makes the whole scripture revealed or conveyed by immediate revelation, and what is not so renewed is not understood. keith is far more prudent, [i grant that the history, p. 232. or historical part of the scriptures is not conveyed unto us (nor unto any ordinarily) by immediate revelation. winding sh. 5. ] now the gospels are undoubtedly histories of christ, what he was, said, did and suffered. mr. pen calls one of them [john's history] and the rest deserve that name as much, so that they receive not the gospels by immediate revelation. and the whole bible is transmitted to us as matter of history, wherein such commands, promises, etc. are comprised. and this concession of keiths pulls down ellwoods' whole fabric. t. ellwood doth strangely interfere with himself, p. 223. p. 221. p. 235. p. 211. p. 231. he makes tongues necessary to preach to all nations, and yet confesseth it might be done by an interpreter; oft takes notice of our owning the assistance of the spirit, and yet cries out not a word of the spirit of god, but humane learning all in all, he makes knowledge to be both the cause and the effect, being strangely blundered to make out their apostolical inspirations, without the testimonials thereof, miracles and tongues. lastly he makes the gospel in all ages revealed in some degree or other, p. 237. which he anon retracts, p. 243. revealed in the first ages of christianity, and then brings on a long night of thick darkness, and a general apostasy. others of them are not more harmonious [it was never his (to wit christ's) faith to sue, naylors' living faith, p. 7. contend, etc. sheild of the truth, p. 3. ] [we sue no man at the law, but are sued by them:] but thomas ellwood is differently minded [in civil cases it is no injustice for a man to recover his due by law] going to war is by some condemned, p. 361. bishop's looking glass, p. 203. barclay in q. no popery, p. 100 tyrant. & hipo. detected, p. 22. [wars belonged to the jewish administration, which had its end.] [quakers deny that it is lawful for christians to fight and kill one another in fight.] others of them have both allowed and followed wars, and [john thompson owned by others as a quaker, was master of a ship, fought stoutly and killed many of the dutch:] one while they were against all forms, great mystery, p. 16. [christ is the end of outward forms; paul brought the saints off from things that are seen, and water is seen, and its baptism] but now they are hugely formal. true christian faith, p. 187. 189. [godliness is not manifested without a form— in thy holy form of godliness, led into by the power.] [justification by that righteousness which christ fulfilled for us wholly without us, was one while esteemed a doctrine of devils, q is paganism, 8. 9 10, 11. prin. his satisfaction counted irreligious and irrational, that he fulfilled the law only as our pattern, and that justification is by works] but the horridness thereof is now mollifyed [the spirit, pennington's naked truth, p. 35. the life, the blood of the lord jesus justifieth.] [justification, and the things accompanying it, are the benefits of christ's death.] the same person renounceth [all merit, and debt strictly taken, defines justification as it hath respect to what jesus did and suffered for us without us, uni. grace, p. 103. q. no popery, p. 47. 51. etc. the procuring cause being christ alone, who became the expiatory sacrifice and propitiation unto god for our sins.] shown dawbs it over by affixing an ill doctrine on us [that christ's sanctification without us, true christian faith, p. 69. is imputed to a man whilst unsanctified:] which is not so bad as his own being taken into the third heaven, when unregenerate. fox at sometimes calls the scripture a rule [the scriptures shall buffet you about, epis. to g. w divin. of christ. q. no pope, p. 24. in 3d. quib. p. 36. ] and you shall be whipped about with the rule.] keith calls it [a complete external secondary rule] mr. pen saith [the scripture is much like to the shadow of the true rule, etc.] a very great honour do they advance it to, to be much like the shadow, but not the substance, nor the shadow. t. ellwood daubs, will allow it to be [profitable] and so are tullyes' offices, p. 241. but not to be [a perfect and sufficient rule in order to salvation] and yet he hath nothing revealed, but what is in scripture; so that if this be not sufficient, the repartition thereof must be as defective, and having no new essentials of religion, lesser than inspiration, might convey the others; but at the last their kindness allows the scripture to be a rule in cursing and railing; [let it suffice that we give no harder names than the scripture by rule allows. hicks 3d dialogue, p. 40. ] with full mouth they declaim against judicial swearing, and yet for interest they can take an oath; some of them would have no creeds nor catechisms, others compose such things. they are much entangled when to date that apostasy of christianity which they fancy: some make it to come before miraculous gifts ceased, just upon the apostles death. in mr. jenner, p. 116. fiery darts, p. 26. so joseph frice [since the apostles days there hath been a great apostasy, and a true church of christ could not be found] during all which time [the true church hath been in a wildernessed estate] [christ had not a visible church in the world] saith farnsworth: g. w. and g. f. reply at cambridge. gag for the q. p. 5. howgils' glory of the church. p. 6. and yet they quote broken sayings of the ancients, who were within the apostasy: others of them do qualify the severity of the former [the church of christ was glorious the first hundred years after his manifestation in the flesh:] and keith more enlargeth the purity of the church [the testimony of antiquity in the purest times— especially the three or four first centuryes. q. no popery. p. 69. spirit of the hat, p. 9 ] which at length they retort home [concerning the great apostasy in this day] among themselves. in 3d. quib p. 36. g. whitehead durst one while write [that which was spoken from the spirit of truth in any, is of as great authority as the scriptures— and greater, etc.] which being odious to all good minds, he declares confidently the contrary; as if our observations were as stupid, as his conscience [nor did we ever prefer our books before the bible— but do prefer the bible before all other books extant in the world] one while man must be thou'd because god is so, q. plainness p. 70, 71. anon the hat must not be put off to man, the true christians faith, p. 187. that must be reserved to god alone, as a necessary piece of his worship. these and many such are the crooked ways, and interfering paths wherein their private spirit is bewildered. spirit of the hat, p. 25. 2. having taken an essay of their different doctrines, it will be pleasant to consider their carriages in such oppositions; and the means they have of convincing one another, for allowing no outward rule, whereby they should be concluded, spirit is opposed to spirit; and the boldest face, or the best lungs, or the strongest interest doth carry it: and should i say i wrote this tract by inspiration, upon their principles, they could not confute me, and every one having the light within, the comparatively small number of the quakers argues them to be in the wrong. when differences arise among them, they esteem the dissenters to be cheats, mr. jenner, p 86 the woman at dublin [condemned their old light, producing a span new one of her own; the rest were displeased, saying, she was a false prophetess; but she still maintained that her light came immediately from god.] living stone to the dissenters, made this rejoinder [you are led by a private spirit, 3d. quibble. p. 19 though you pretend it to be universal; here is a deceitful whining spirit,] rarely confuted; for the other upon their principles may better call living-stones, a private deceitful whining spirit. [i declare in the name of all the right quakers in the world] it seems he knows all their hearts and principles, but how must we do that? pens answer to faldo, p. 53. what is the earmark of a right quaker? can any of them be in the wrong? or is their perfection gone? or is [thee and thou the pure language. hicks 2d. dialogue. p. 12. ] the badge of a right one, as thomas ruddyer would have it. the former author calls another's dissent very prettily. tyrant. & hipo. detected, p. 16. [imaginations and whimsyes] and i can as cheaply and inspiredly call his and theirs, all by the same phrases. keith in a public dispute attempted to prove that pen speaks by immediate inspiration, and yet others say [he is a heady, rash young man, hicks 3d. dialogue, in the preface. we take no notice what he saith—] and luddington looks upon him as not catechised enough. [i would rather have compared him to apollo's, and wishing him a little more fully instructed in the ends of christ's life and death—] gotherson alarms them all to purpose, q. is paganism, p. 5, 6. saying [that wicked men are crept in among them, as judas among the apostles; calls their spirit a blind ignis fatuus; mr. jenner, p. 177, 178, 179. that they are led by imaginations, lusts and fancies. it is not as roger crab, william smith, and john dunck surmise— the head of the serpent is too powerful in roger crab and his followers.] with such like severity. and no question but crab could make the like reply, and smith's works are since printed, as living divine testimonies, but whom must i trust, when such as these can pass for inspirations and confutations of them? 'tis usual to call one another antichrist, ranters, scotchmen, tailors, or what will look ill-favouredly john swinton wrote a paper, in [the express motion of god, tyrant. and hipo. detec. p. 39— 42. spirit of the hat, p. 35. who justified him in every tittle of it after:] this he retracted and denied the spirit in which it was writ, saying [it was fit for the fire, and was done in an hour of temptation and weakness] the account is large, and deserves reading; but what evidence had he, he was in the right after retracting, more than when asserting? and if he for four or five years together took the spirit of delusion for the spirit of god, they can give no security but it is the same error that still enthralls them, contradictory parties dare both use the name of the lord [john osgoods marriage with r. t. was well approved of, spirit of the hat, p. 30.31. the elder rebeckah travers and j. o. declared it to be of the lord. john bolton with two or three more opposed its passing in the name of the lord, tyrant. and hipo. detected, p. 22. unless he would give testimony against the hat spirit.] the like difference there was about the marriage of m. b. one part [declared positively from the lord that it was to pass, briggs told the opposers that they opposed the mind of the lord, when as the good man knew not so much as the persons he spoke of, spirit of the hat, p. 33. the other part greatly opposed it under the same pretence] setting the lord against the lord. john whitehead wrote a letter in the name of the lord, tyrant, p. 20. geo. fox blotted out a line or more, altering it to a quite contrary sense, without any liberty from whitehead so to do; by which both the spirit of god and the writer were belied, and yet others of them justified that alteration. never did any in such a manner debase and prostitute sacred inspiration, as these controulers, and correctors of the spirit do. but as the romish infallibility is by some shrunk into an indefectibility, so that of the quakers keeps a somewhat like pace. whiteheads spirit offers itself [willing to receive information] and in a letter i have from a leading quaker, 3 quib. p. 49. he thus write on behalf of keith [that if he have held any thing contrary to the testimony of holy scriptures, and sound christian experience, he will be willing to hear and be convinced by a sober christian demonstration:] they either have no inspiration, or its impression is very weak, for if it was real, it would assure itself both to them and others, and leave no such place for second thoughts and demurrings. a just rebuke to 21 divines, p. 22. pen saith [we ascribe not infallibility to men, but to the grace of god, and to men so far as they are led by it; for that it certainly teacheth what it doth teach:] an acute invention, so he certainly writeth what he doth write; and i am as good an infallible as he is: but this only covers and doth not cure, for still the quaery recurs, how can i be infallibly assured, that such a person is led by god's grace or not, p. 7. he also calls it [a being assured of what a christian ought not to make a doubt of:] but certainty is capable of degrees, and there is a vast difference between actual certainty, and absolute infallibility. but it is well we have got company, whitehead at cambr. p. 10. and gag for q. p. 4. ann pearson's warning to judges, p. 7. other professions are to be guided by inspiration, [all acts of parliament are to be made and received from god.] [magistrates must make laws by god's spirit,] but not only lawyers, but physicians also instead of curing these enthusiasms, are themselves to turn inspiradoes. [he reads hypocrates, galen, and other writers concerning medicine, im. rev. p. 69. and so he thinks hereby to become a physician, etc. whiles their hands are out from the light of christ which gives ability] dr. grace thus pretended revelation for the secrets of physic, the q. spiritual court p. 39, 40. whereas it was one mrs. slack of islington who inspired him, and made him pay sauce for it. paracelsus would have been a good physician for them, or helmont who at length obtained a vision of his soul, being a [pellucid transparent substance. dr. charlton's ternary of paradoxes. ] if hermolaus barbarus had had this light, he needed not to have gone to the fiend to know the meaning of aristotle's entelechy. 3. consider the debate about the hat, and their canons, so far as inspiration is concerned, whether the hat should be put off or no in prayer, hath caused great heats among them; they who act consentaneously to their first principles, would have it left to the spirits motions: the rest, who set up a tyranny will have it off, as matter of decency, as significative that the veil is taken from their heart, as expressive honour to god, etc. the thing i debate not, but the consistency of it with their doctrines, their mournful gildaes' makes a sad narrative of [what was made known, spirit of the hat, p. 9 and manifested in him, concerning the great apostasy] to wit, among themselves, to such a height was it carried, that to keep on the hat, was a forfeiting of their privileges. perrot declared, tyrant. and hipo. detec. p. 33. [i have received by express commandment from the lord god of heaven, in the day of my captivity in rome. viz, to bear a sure testimony against the customs, and traditions of the taking off of the hat by men, when they go to pray to god, the which they never had by commandment from god.] and yet this revelation is thrown by as a delusion. fox, and the ruling party, having determined the contrary, but it is hence evident, that men may take that for inspiration which is not so, even among quakers as well as other men. and ben. furley wrote a large letter, to show that such imposing, idem. p. 67. is contrary to the freedom, or motion of the spirit of life; and the thing begot much confusion, some taking their hats off at wrong times, etc. how can i know which are the right quakers, the hat-men, or the others? spirit of the hat, p. 32. or should not i believe the revelations of the weak side, rather than the arts and tyranny of the stronger? but the most unparallelled usurpation, printed at the end of the tract. and lordliness, consists in their canons, or the testimony from the brethren, which are a direct receding from their first principles. but experiencing the light in every one, to be the way to destroy all government and order; they mint a pretty thing, called the light of the body, in which the dispersed light is concentred, and to which it must be accountable; we shall first consider the making and entertainment of this testimony, and then some of the matter of it. the makers thereof declare that [through the lords good hand being met together— were through the operation of the spirit of truth, in the preamble. as god hath put it into our hearts.— art. 1. the lord giving us to see— being thereto encouraged by the lord, whose presence is with us, etc.] which imply that testimony to be drawn up by inspiration. mr. pen calls them [inoffensive, nay christian and necessary resolves, faldo's appendix, p. 2 ] which sinks them far below revelation. but g. bishop (who deserves as much credit as any of the party) wrote a large letter in opposition to that testimony [having considered their paper in the spirit of truth, in tyrant. and hypo. detect. p. 34. he was moved of the lord to let them know, etc.] and upon their first principles he proceedeth, shaking down what the others later model had erected; but god's spirit is opposed to himself, and in such wicked debates, what side must an inquirer join unto? or what undoubted security can one party give of their having the spirit more than the other? it being in both alike invisible, and neither submitting to an outward rule, nor giving outward proofs. they enjoin them [to be read in their several meetings and kept as a testimony.] so w. d. sent his papers [to be read in the fear of the lord, in the holy assemblies of the church of the first born] an insolent act to impose their motions on others who are equally taught by god, their notion of [the body of friends, of good and ancient friends, the witness of god in friends, the judgement of the spirit of christ in his people, good and serious, faithful and sound friends, the universal spirit of truth, &c] are such canting ways of enslaving souls, that they exceed both implicit faith, and all the intrigues of the conclave: this being their new maxim and infallible rule [that the body will have a true sense, spirit of the hat, p. 21. feeling and understanding of motions, visions, revelations, doctrines, etc. and therefore safest to make her my touchstone in all things relating to god.] but what signifieth the light in every man, or immediate revelation? they are wholly useless upon these principles; for if my revelations must be tried by the body what must i be guided by in the interim, till their approbation be sent in a cloak-bag from london? but who are this body? how many members go to constitute it? where is it deposited? in what place lodged? whence have they this authority? or, how can i infallibly know when they proceed upon inspiration? are they turned into body, who were all spirit? thomas ellwood is a nonconforming brother, as he states things, but to have such a power over others, requireth a being deputed thereto, as bishop well urged, but especially the trying divine motions in that manner, requires the highest degree of inspiration and authority from god. never did any turn revelation into a craft so much before, the body to be sensible of visions, etc. where is this body? one in every county? or the universal one at london? such a representative, mankind never heard of. the apostles at the council, acts 15. received their outward information from paul and barnabas, and so proceeded; but for a body of friends to understand the motions of all the members, makes such a trifling, prodigious supersaelation of revelations, as cannot be imagined, suppose the number of quakers to be 20000. each believer of these hath scripture renewed, hath expository inspirations on it, besides all that concern civil life, as eating, drinking, marrying, etc. now what body besides its own particular ones, can possibly without omnisciency, have a feeling of those visions daily conferred upon each of that 20000? and if a man cannot obey his own motions till friends have approved, his condition is endlessly perplexed, the saints in heaven by a repercussion, or speculum hearing their votaries on earth, is nothing so entangling as the universal spirits communicating all the revelations to the body. but this expedient have they hit upon to keep private revelations in subjection, a pack of gypsies, or pluto's court, may wish for such intelligence; but the christian world, the pope himself, and the saints above, are yet strangers to this new way of communication. but supposing his body be not capable of being the rendezvous of all revelations, but be entrusted with [a discerning spirit, to discover what comes from the true light in any.] they ought to produce some deputation from those they represent, and certain proofs that they cannot be mistaken, in this snuffing of lights, and smelling of opinions, as they should first prove to us, that they have revelations before they require our belief; the same they should make out to their friends, that the light in the one is darkness if the other call it to; but how can i justify my subjection to the body, when contrary to my inward light? is not my light as certain to me, as theirs to them? and more certain than theirs can be to me? or am not i more assured of my own feelings, than i can be of another's relations? doth the spirit jest with me in discoveries, and is he in earnest with them? if the body judge me, what must judge the body? or is it so high a tribunal, that there is no appeal from it? had god entrusted the body with so vast a power, as legitimating motions; he would have provided we should have known what and where that body always is, when it determineth duly, and all other requisits to the submitting my sensations to their decisions? if i writ a thing by the spirit and then submit that to the judgement of the body, i show contempt to god, and blindness of obedience, nor can i expect god should reveal himself to me, when i submit his conveying to another's corrections, one infallible hath not power over another infallible, nor doth the truth of my inspiration depend upon having others of my judgement. it is the impression from god, and not another's acceptation which is my security, for certainly i must know my own receipts, better than i can do either those or the fidelity of another, but if twenty single ones be not infallible, those twenty when collected into one body, cannot make up one infallible; nor can i be satisfied that the light in the body is more upright, than when dispersed in the members, these proceed according to their supposed receipts; the others in lyce●sing thereof proceed by art and interest, and if one part of the body be liable to mistakes, why not the other? but they have made a good advance, by removing the light from the members into the body, the next step conveys it into one infallible head, and they may pass for good catholics of a new order. man and forms used to be cried down, but canon 1 now the ruling part are zealous for them to support canon 2 their own grandeur. opposers [are to be kept canon 3 under with the power of god, being without, they ought not to be judges in the church, being joined in one with heathens and infidels. the church hath power without the assent of such as descent, to determine, etc.] mr. pen may retract his book of liberty of conscience, none are to enjoy it but the foxonian party, for to that purpose fox spoke in a selected great assembly [though many friends have writ for liberty of conscience, the spirit of the hat, p. 41. i never liked the word, it is not a good word, no liberty to the presbyterians, no liberty to the papists, no liberty to the independants, no liberty to the baptists, etc. liberty is to be only in the truth, and saith he, no liberty out of the power.] canon 5 their viewing books before printing, argues their distrust, and confusion among pretenders, and is destructive of their main principles. for my inspiration ought not to be licenced, or suppressed at another's suggestion. we have no certificate that t. ellwoods' book was allowed by the body, and some parts of it breathe not their air: would they declare what books they own, and what authors are spurious, it might be an act of justice and charity to their proselytes; but then the procedure in condemning what came from the lord, would be ominous to their whole platform. their setting up a ministry is an eclipsing, if not extinguishing the light and inspiration in each believer, for their genuine consequent is, that both scriptures and ministers are useless; and herein they are sadly divided, george bishop as moved of the lord declares against a ministry [the spirit of the lord in this day, tyrant. & hyp. p. 35. and in the days of the apostles, bears not the same proportion. ●hen were apostles, pastors, teachers, elders, & ●. but in this day the spirit itself is pastor, teacher, elder, etc. so that if the spirit move any to declare or speak, that is the apostle, teacher, elder, etc. i know no pastor, teacher, elder, etc. but as i find moving in any to any of these things.] the eleven brethren from the lord, defend a stated ministry, condemning [those that would limit the lord to speak without instruments, canon 6 or by what instruments they list; rejecting the counsel of the wise-men, and the testimony of the prophets, that doing down the ministry is a laying wast the heritage of the lord, canon. 1. etc.] keith attempts a reconciliation of these differences [that their ministry will always be dear and comfortable to us, im. rev. p. 215. but not absolutely necessary, being come to a teacher, even the spirit of jesus, etc.] but leaning to the nonconforming side, but how can the single teachers be inspired or be infallible, when the body doth supervise and correct that which they believe to be god's spirit? or if the body be sensible of the motions of friends, why hath it not a prophetic glimpse of the books and designs of enemies? but this setting up a ministry and canons is a receding from their first claims, and is inconsistent with t. is inspiration in each believer. 4. there are various other matters related to these, by which we may gather their regard to revelation; they obey when no inspiration is named, supposing a man to be habitually inspired. to set down for the rareness thereof one extravagant of george fox, in the romish horseleech. which can scarce be parallelled at rome, the friar's case was not so peremptory. all friends every where, on your signs set not up the image, or likeness of any creature in heaven or in earth, but by the power of the lord, keep down all the makers of such things, for the ground of them is from the heathen. but set up a bedstaff, fireshovel, saw, fork, compasses, andirons, harrow, plough, or any such thing. and friends every where admonish one another, young and old; that ye do not run after the world's fashions, which are invented and set up by the vain and light mind; which if ye do, how can ye judge the world for such things? away with your skimming-dish hats, and your unnecessary buttons on your cloaks and coats, and on the tops of your shoulders behind, and on your sleeves: away with your long slit-peaks behind on the skirts of your waistcoats, and short sleeves, punishing your shoulders so as you cannot have the use of your arms. away with your short black aprons, and some having none: away with your vizards, whereby you are not distinguished from bad women, and your bare-necks, and your great needless flying scarves like colours on your backs. and so set not up, nor put on that which you did once with the light condemn; but in all things be plain, that you may adorn the truth of the gospel of christ, and judge the world, and keep in that which is comely and decent. george fox. wherein he supposeth that bed-staffs, fire-shovels, etc. are none of god's creatures, when art hath passed over things they are no part of his workmanship. his injunctions for habits are very magisterial. tyrant. and hyp. detect. p. 11. [a maid having a slit in her waistcoat skirt behind, was commanded, in obedience to the injunction above, to sew it up; her reply was, she saw no evil in it: and james claypool like a primitive quaker, said, she should first see the evil of it in herself, before she judged it, and not (saith he) because we say it, but for these words he was forced to acknowledge his error, spirit of the hat, p. 42. though in private he confessed it no error:] but others obeyed this uninspired injunction. fox gave out a paper, spirit of the hat, p. 42. that [his marriage was a figure of the marriage between christ and his church, and was above the state of adam in his innocency; in the state of the second adam who never fell.] but it was so ill resented, that the inspired man's paper was called in again, tyrant. and hypo. p. 18. and so was eccles his explication of his blasphemous words about fox, suppressed. the horrid words were these [— it was said of christ that he was in the world, spirit of the hat, p. 27. and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not: so it may be said of this true prophet (fox) whom john said he was not-] and at another time [blessed be the man that came out of the north, tyrant. p. 19 blessed be the womb— and paps—] jo. coal deifies him, [dear geo. fox who art the father of many nations, whose life hath reached through us thy children even to the isles afar off (viz. barbadoes) to the begetting of many again to a lively hope, for which generations to come shall call thee blessed, whose being and habitation is in the power of the highest, in which thou rules and governs in r ghte●usness, and thy kingdom is established in peace, and the increase thereof is without end.] a letter of su●h blasphemy as is●●●● be paralleled, unless it be in that of joan. baptist ●●atum spiritus, in f●wlis histo ●f po●●●h trea. p. 37. presented to pope innocent the tenth, in all●sion to his 〈◊〉 pamphilio, but this letter of coal, th● g●●●●er in date, is placed first in the quakers registry, that may well be apply●d to them, rev. 13.1. [upon his heads the name of blaspheme] and lest fox should only be adored, tyrant p. 53. naylor is highly advanced by r.t. preface to the possession of the living faith. i suppose rebeckah travers [as one redeemed out of the earth, in the heavenly was his dwelling, being holy, harmless, undefiled, that he appeared in this great city, in the power of an endless life, to gather us unto god—] and yet by good intentions, or figurative expressions, 'tis frequent to defend such abominations, tyrant. p. 45. the said r. travers declared, [that if she had a motion from the lord as she▪ believed, yet if fox did not own it to be so, she should deny it;] a most insolent denying god, and making another master of her revelations. newton did thus, took the oath of allegiance notwithstanding his vision, but what sin is it to deny or suppress one's own, and submit to another's inspiration? the prophet that went to bethel died for this, for revelations must be rescinded in the same way as conveyed, what is inwardly enjoined must be as inwardly prohibited: the spirits of the prophets, being subject to the prophets concerns, but the time of speaking, that the impulse was not so violent, but it might be restrained till others had done speaking, or if it should concern trial, than the prophets, owned for such by divine attestations, might approve and recommend others; but a denying my motions at another's pleasure is a contemning my inspirer, or believing my own light, how can i submit to another. and when a quaker changeth, doth he believe himself to be more infallible at one time, than at another? or to be more infallible than another man? and when one of their revelation is rescinded, as that of swintons, it is not done by command from god, but by a confession of their own mistakes. one scripture revelation no where offers to lessen or invalidate another scripture revelation: but the quakers make slight account of them, so that it cannot be the same spirit. thus mr. pen claims revelation against the sacraments [testify's by the same spirit, hicks 3. dial. p. 65. by which paul renounced circumcision, that they are to be rejected.] and others deny and sadly juggle about them: they are much fallen away from their former principles and demeanours: what security have we how far they will go, or where they will stand and fix? and in case of difference between themselves or the scriptures, what must decide it? or by what do they try the motions of their spirit? or why may not their immediate revelations altar as well as their doctrines? what marks have we to know when they speak or writ by inspiration? when at their own motion? or what reason have we to believe them when they will trust the revelation of none of their competitors? imme. rev. p. 223. when their pretences differ [we have no new revelations saith t. e.] we have, saith keith [what evil is this? or rather is it not a blessed dispensation?] whether must carry it? or must the latter be corrected by the former? and if the scripture be not the judge, by what must the debate about revelation be ended? by the spirit? that is the thing in question, and you must first prove you have it, before you can prove any thing by it. though we should think immediate teachings needful; we cannot thence infer them. but if god had so conveyed himself, he would have so ordered, that all his communications should have exactly agreed, and have told us with whom we should find them. whether may not quakerism be improved? another come and super-reform the elders as they have done the hat-men? mr. jenner p. 86. [the quaker woman at dublin cried up her span new light, which the rest had never seen nor heard of, and cried down their old light as darkness, pretending to have hers immediately.] and 'tis hard to discover, how upon their principles they can confute her rationally. sometimes they stop the mouths of such, tyrant. 15. silent meet, a wonder, p. 10. as offer to speak in the name of the lord. so ann mud, etc. was pulled away by violence? they are very curious in the time when the spirit seizeth on them [the 22. day of the 7. mouth the word of the lord came unto w. b.] another is more exact [on the 31st day of the 10th. month 1655. about 4 a clock in the morning, the word of the lord came to burroughs, etc.] the same could have gone on to minutes, seconds, etc. revelation also is challenged for bad designs. hicks. 1 dial. p. 26. a quaker debtor, replied to his creditor ['tis revealed to me, i owe thee nothing.] p. 27. ellis pseudo-christus, p. 27 studelys looking glass of schism. messages have been pretended sent from god, and the person hath been proved many miles distant, when the dreamer came to declare it, so holbrow and marshal were deluded. marry gadbury pretended a revelation to get some cloth from mrs. woodward, and such a command must be embraced. schucker beheaded his brother leonard by inspiration? and enoch ap evan, upon partly such a pretence killed his mother and his brother. kays answ. to 18. quae. p. 5. q. spi. court p. 7. 21. and two quakers near stokely in yorkshire, their conscience bidding them destroy original sin, they apprehending that their mother was the fountain thereof, murdered her. fox challenged inspiration for the earth's being flat, spirit of hat. 27. and that it was twelve a clock all the world over: and he kept part of his commission concealed a long time. [although i have not yet told it you, i do now declare it, i have power to bind and to lose whom i please.] at this rate he may keep an instrument for reconciling us to rome, dormant by him? and revelations have put them both upon hardships and going naked. idem. p. 20. but all these contentions are nothing to such inspiradoes, they are yet whole and sound [in the true church unity stands in diversityes] as if they had taken the word of the valentinians, tertul. adve. valcutin. concerning in faldo. q. no christ. p. 56. who take diversity as a charisma or gift: nec unitatem sed diversitatem, and pennington licks all right [the doing the same thing, the thinking the same thing, the speaking the same thing, this doth not unite here in this state, in this nature, but the doing, the thinking, the speaking of it in the same life, yea though the do or thoughts or words be divers: yet, if they proceed from the same principle or nature, there is a true unity felt therein, where the life alone is judge.] and by this salvo, all these contradictions hurt their unity no more than taking an oath doth prejudice their not swearing. chap. viii. concerning their expository revelations. iii. the third which these privadoes of heaven enjoy, is, they have expository revelations so t. e. [p. 238. the scriptures are understood only and alone by the openings and discoveries of that holy spirit by which they were at first revealed; those divine mysteries, are mysteires indeed, and remain so as a sealed book, until christ (the lamb) doth open them, p. 239. nor can the doctrine of the gospel, or the mysteries of god's kingdom be known to man, but by the revevelation of the holy spirit— revelation is necessary (yea of necessity) even to understand the scriptures, the true sense man can never attain unto, until the holy spirit reveal it to him: to the like purpose he writes, p. 251, 253. and 255. that the spirits helping to understand the scriptures, is by its teaching the true sense and meaning of them, by opening, discovering, and making known the mind and will of god therein expressed, this is revelation.] but there is a great craft in this procedure, for he beginneth with immediate revelation, but after he ommitteth the word immediate and slideth into revelation in general. but what makes he requisite on our part to receive this boon from the spirit? 'tis summed up into a narrower room, than the essentials by keith, viz. [waiting p. 220. desiring and waiting p. 240] but especially humane learning is disbanded from the least concern, except translating. t. es. spirit cannot translate a greek chapter, but it can infallibly expound an english one, that is, it can do nothing discernible, but it can do all things indiscernible. 〈◊〉 law of 〈◊〉 this gaping way of expounding was taught by winstanley, [all expositions upon others words shall cease, they shall 〈◊〉 with a quiet silence upon the lord; till he break forth within their hearts, and give them words and power to speak. you must get [into the h●ly silence,] 〈…〉 8.9.10 and then the spirit will instruct you. but the rule is elder than the quakers: hildegardis in that her nonsensical vision, related to arnold archbishop of colen, determines [qui autem vult bene vigilare, hunc intellectum percipiat, biblio p●trum tom. 15. p. 622. etc. he that will make or wait w●●●; shall have the understanding of her vision.] and the libertines, and swenck field, the familists, and all the herd, not so much as anna trapnel, but they all are against learning, and for t. es. easy way of inspiration, or ministers to have no help, but to speak all from the light within. so thatthere is nothing of studying, praying, reading, meditating or confering required on our part, but a supine desiring and expecting, reasoning is outdated by yawning, and brains are superseded by mere attendance. quakerism nuzzles up in sloth and idleness, they may rest day and night, and have the law writ in their hearts, without exercising themselves in it; their terms are so easy they will have proselytes: danger of enthusiasm. p 71. but saith one [jacob's venison could not be right, it came so soon to hand.] to which we may add, he lied in saying, the lord his god brought it to him, when it was his mother's art. this waiting prostitutes and layeth the soul open to every impression, what starts up first is thought a divine irradition. the devil loves a house so garnished and empty; and whilst saul was thus waiting, he started up in the room and likeness of samuel, their inspirations are both writing and seal to themselves, and being in such a passive stillness, they interpret each forward fancy, to be the whispering of the spirit, that silent attendance throws down the mounds and fences of our spirits? and whilst we lie waiting we shall not want the entertainment and variety of suggestions, but be bewildered and run on from one imagination to another. but what need t. e. wait? dr causabons enthu. p. 162 the spirit of truth dwells in them, p. 228. and being resyant, a short attendance might be sufficient. christ thus dwelled in the holy maid catherine of jesus, as well as in quakers, and their inspirations coming to none but expecters, that is a sign of their wrong original, for we cannot imagine that god will reveal his mind to such as do nothing, sooner than to such as read and pray. the ground for this waiting, is taken from acts 1.4. where the greek is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to tarry, or bodily to stay there, till the spirit descended, as the last verses of chronicles are resumed at the beginning of ezra. so the history luc. 24.49. (where the greek is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 reside or sit you down there) is resumed acts. 1. but it is not waiting in their sense, but bodily staying, and the very time is limited, ver. 5. not many days hence; cateches. 16, how many days must we wait? ten or more? why goes not t. e. to jerusalem and there attend at the right place and time? cyril of jerusalem saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 those very words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. which he renews cat. 17. and applies those texts of john wrested by t. e. to them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and makes the visible descent of the holy ghost on them, to be their being baptised therewith, and with fire. saint paul advized timothy to other means than waiting, and whether is likelier to know god's mind, he who in pursuance of his waiting, entertaineth (in the mildest terms) the first motions of his own spirit, as divine discoveries, and so [quicquid dixerint hoc legem dei putant— ad sensum suum incongrua aptant testimonia— & ad-voluntatem suam sacram scripturam repugnantem trahunt-] take what they say, st. hierome in his epistle to paulinus. to be god's law etc. or he who looking on the scriptures as the word of god, reads, compares, searches out their sense, taking the draughts of their religion thence, and leading a conversation suitable. theophylact was of a different mind from quakers [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in argumento epis. ad rom. etc. the daily constant reading of the scriptures, brings unto the knowledge of them, for he cannot lie who said, seek and you shall find, knock and it shall be opened unto you.] t. e. doth also contradict himself, making the spirit alone to reveal, and yet p. 238. he saith, christ the lamb doth open them, for he cannot make that lamb whom john baptised and pointed at, to be that holy ghost, that descended on that lamb, though he make no distinction between father son and spirit; yet he must not confound the visible lamb, with the invisible spirit; but whilst he repairs his sandy foundation, we shall view his structure raised. cateh. eccl. po. lon. c. 3. the socinians for the explaining [of prophecies, especially the obscurer, where divine men have not already done it, or given some hints that way, or where the event doth not unfold them, require the peculiar help of the divine spirit, mr. boils style of scrip. p. 38. applying 2 pet. 1.21. to that purp see) and all may accord with, that noble person that [obscureness is wont to attend prophetic raptures:] and the assigning the exact completion of many of them, hic labour, hoc opus est; but whether the history, or their motions be more truly serviceable thereto may appear in this chapter. but thomas elwood excepts no part, the whole is a sealed book to him (even that david begat solomon) till his supposed interpreter unfold it. the difference than is whether the scriptures be penned in such a style, that they need a second immediate revelation to confer their true sense, and that art, study, industry, or humane learning (which is to be conversant in natural, humane, or civil affairs p. 218, 219.) are no ways serviceable, which t. e. maintains (which though it was true, yet we have no evidences to satisfy that the quakers inclose and are entrusted with handing these inspired expositions to mankind, for taking ourselves for believers, we might put in for our share, rather than they, we owning the scriptures, and those he calleth martyrs more than they do, and so granting his whole article, we are no nearer satisfaction with whom that whole sole power is lodged.) protestants on the other hand assert, that the scriptures are so penned, that weaker parts upon reading, hearing the word, praying and endeavouring, may attain so much knowledge as will save their souls, and that the more recondite and abstrucer parts may be understood by such helps, as god hath afforded and doth bless to his church; as tongues, histories, idioms, comparing obscurer with clearer texts etc. so far as is necessary to salvation, it not being required thereto, to, to be able to give an infallible exposition on each line in those sacred pages. now, 1. this doth not exclude holiness of life, as a help to discern, the excellency of divine truths. his secret is with the righteous, prov. 3.32. with them that fear him, psal. 25.14. if any man do his will, he shall know of the doctrine whether it be of god, joh. 7.17. sapientia christiani est timor, est amor christi, salvian. 2. nor indifferency of judgement in our search, mr. mede. mr. chillingworth. freedom from the studium partium, or the traveller's indifferency, as two great names worded it. 3. nor the assistance of the spirit, which assists to know as well as to will, or do, inclines, inlightens, gives a right judgement in all things he seethe necessary, going along from the first preventing, to the utmost persevering, but the difference lieth in the kind, and the manner of its operation. this secret working and breathing, or as mr. pen words it more safely than t. e. [secret strive, winding sh. p. 4. discoveries and operations, fresh and lively touches,] is as much different from immediate apostolical inspiration, as gods minutely concourse is from the power of miracles; when he altars or exceeds the regular established course of nature, so that we allow the spirit to all purposes, but assert, god doth not multiply things unnecessary. t. e. folds his hands, and waits, and inspired expositions drop into him, we are grateful for scripture, and use our best means to understand it, and think the spirit helps the most when we are the most diligent, he is for such revelations as the apostles had conferred instantly; we are for god's ordinary assistance to our endeavours, which yet render us more infallible, than his calls do offer violence to our wills; we take the means and the s●●rit together, his spirit resolves all without means, we join the spirit and means together, as ploughing, etc. on man's part; and rain, etc. on gods do concur to the producing corn. t. e. ●●d have the best crop, an hundred sold, but the rain must do all, he cannot dig or sow, yet his increase is no less than apostolical. the divine books are so composed that they need not a second immediate teaching to give their meaning, but our diligence in the use of means blessed by god's ordinary assistance, do give us such an understanding of them, as upon our obedience thereto god will accept to our salvation: nor can we think it likely that the extraordinary visibles, as tongues, etc. should be all ceased; and the extraordinary invisibles, &c: immediate teaching, etc. should still all continue. the unintelligibleness of the scriptures, the letter as different from the spirit etc. have been so much insisted on, that i am forced to lay foundations, and premise a few things which seem to command assent upon hearing. 1. that god, that infinite wisdom and goodness is able to express his mind, so as his words may be understood. 2. his willingness to do it appears by what he hath actually done, having revealed much to men, is comprised in the bible. 3. his truth and goodness will not allow him to put a trick upon his creatures, to speak words of a different, reserved, or contrary sense, from common acception, usage of speech, or their importance. so that we cannot suppose that the scripture, the instrument in order to our salvation, should be involved or designedly unintelligible, but the plainer part should unfold the obscurer, haworths' converted. p. 22. in. univ. gra. and jo. crook confesseth [the scriptures are true as god means-them, not as man by his conce●vings interprets them.] and keith oft refereth to the truth, sincerity and righteousness of god in his offers. 4. god having conveyed his mind by words, the understanding of his words must be the best help to the understanding of his mind, and if by words inspired, then by those inspired ones written, for writing neither destroys their sense nor obligation. 5 〈…〉 holy spirit doth not improve in know●● 〈…〉 was as able to conser true meaning one thousand six hundred years ago, as he is at this ●ay. 6 that the sacred penmen were sober under●●●●●ng persons, and even without supernatural assistance, could speak and writ intelligibly. 7. that the supervening of the spirit doth not make men fools, but betters and improves them, ascertaining the truth, giving clearer perceptions of it, and ability, fitly and aptly to express it, they not receiving words without sense. 8. that words spoke or heard may be written, being written they may be preserved thousands of years, and still be understood, allowing for change of times, customs, idioms, etc. and that the original language be not extinguished. 9 that those to whom the scriptures were spoke, understood their sense, though they did not see the persons o● times in which accomplished, the law was so understood, that the tabernacle was built and the commonwealth ordered according to its prescription, so that the writing was intelligible, spiritual matters being therein veiled, but the literal sense still abiding. 10. that it is reasonable to suppose the book of god to be understood by such helps as other books are, as the phrase, the scope, the coherence, etc. and being a public lasting revelation, reason inclines to judge it should be more intelligible than any private one. 11. that the bible is as intelligible as any book of that age, considering its greatness, several penmen, variety of matter, the distance from us of the things therein transacted; the short way of expressions used by those easterns, the customs, proverbs, etc. therein referred to, especially the sublimity of the matter, that therein god addresseth himself to men, speaks in the language of the sons of men. that the heavenly light assumes a covering, etc. 12. that we may allow god to use ornaments and graces of speech, and figurative expressions, as well as other authors, for the scriptures give understanding, psal. 19.7. making wise unto salvation. 13. having abundantly expresseth all the parts of duty we may allow him sometimes to dwell in the thick darkness, and be content if some things exceed our reach: as is done with the phoenomina of nature. so the likeliest instances may satisfy in the application of prophecies, where we mix humility with diligence, god will pardon, though we miss of the prime intendment, and if not future ages, yet the next word will read us such things as ezekiels measures, etc. these and the like satisfy me of the no necessity of the second expository revelations, for if god have made them dark, it is to conciliate our reverence, that we may know our distance, to whet our industry, etc. but if one scripture revelation need another to explain it, that other will need a third to expound it, and that third a fourth, and so forward. for we cannot reasonably think that the spirit improves in speaking plainly, or that my single inspiration should be more clear than the public apostolical. but this is the smallest part of the trouble, for if i need a fresh inspiration to explain, i need another to ascertain that to be a right exposition, a third to attest the second to be right, and so in infinitum. nay there will be an endless complication of them. i shall need a revelation to ascertain this to be the scripture, than i need an expository revelation to understand that revelation and the scripture, than i need an assuring revelation to confirm those expositions, than further expositions to understand those assurances, and so on for ever. every expository will need a further expository and assuring revelation; and every assuring revelation will need the like assurance and explaining. so that if i do not stand to the certainly attested revelations, but call for more both to prove and expound them, i shall cut myself out work for ever, and such piling one inspiration upon another will multiply difficultyes but remove none. but though these expositions were not only necessary but actually conferred, the former difficulty returns. viz. certain evidence that god, by the quakers only, sends his inspired expositions into the world. the prophets suppose the law to be intelligible, rescuing it from corrupt and false glosses, and pressing to its practice. one prophet though taking somewhat from another, yet employed not his prophetic light in writing comments upon the preceding? luc. 24.27: but the doctors, etc. pressed and opened to the people that which the prophets received immediately from god. christ expounded moses and the pro●●▪ showed them fulfilled in himself, and 〈◊〉 t●ose divine expositions are not ex●an●. p●ti●●● ●th there are hard things in paul's episti●●, 〈…〉 no exposition of them, nor 〈…〉 nameth which are they, though wre●●● 〈…〉 damnation. hezekiah and josiah, etc. 〈…〉 of the law and the prophets, and the people thought they understood the meaning of the words: and god accepted their reformation. and the new testament, which is fuller of light, is not more dark certainly, it is at least as serviceable to us, as the old was to the jews, christ having taken the veil from the face of moses, hath not another drawn over his own. how much is the spirit different from the letter? or the veiled sense how far it is distant from the apparent? you put the world in bad circumstances, in debarring us to expound the letter, and challenging to yourselves the spirit. pray what teachings have you by the spirit which we find not in the letter? but you have need to make so great a distance, your expositions are so wide, for they do not appear to us in the letter, and yet they do not look like the spirit. but is there not a letter in your revelations as well as a spirit? are yours all kernel, but the scripture wrapped up in a thick husk and shell? you dare not say so. god i dare say could speak as plain to st. paul as to ellwood. we know your opinions by words and letters, may we not know gods in the like manner? assert what difficulties you will in the letter, i dare make out that your inspirations (supposing them real) labour under the like and greater prejudices: but by gingling thus with misunderstood terms, men run themselves out of their religion and reason, doth god send his love letters into the world and men can make nothing of it when they have it? his style is not so dark as yours, perfect phap. 3. that needs a lexicon to explain yours phrases, you think god to be such an one as yourselves, psal. 50.21. pretending equality with him. i have observed as much sense and life in a chapter of st. matthew, as in any part of truth prevailing: nor can i work myself off, but that i can understand a revelation made to paul, as soon as one made to t. e. supposing i had them both before me: and the apostles were as like to have clear inspiratitions as any other persons. did not christ speak intelligibly to such as heard him? have not the apostles plainly and faithfully set down his words? or, though he had spoke darkly, yet the spirits descent made things clearer, so that the darkness cannot yet continue. we shall find some, and those no believers, who understood christ's words so as to leave them without excuse. pilate, the pharisees, scribes, sadduces, officers, with the other jews, though no disciples, understood his language: their sin is heightened, not from want of knowing what he spoke; but non-entertainment of what was so convincing. judas his sin was heinous, and yet the holy ghost was not then given. this notion draws a strange cloud over god's proceed, making all sins alike, except in the degree of the revelation: for where that is not, there being no knowledge there can be no sin; and where immediate revelation is, it makes each sin to be the sin against the holy ghost. whatever ignorance we have in scriptures, upon thomas ellwood's principle, is solely imputable to the spirit not moving. waiting makes us innocent, god cannot damn any but such as have immediate inspirations, and to hear and not understand, though taken for a sin, yet is not so much as a punishment by this man's divinity; so that a quaker need not go to the temple or altar, but cripple like to wait for the moving of the waters. if revelation come, he sets up for an inspired expositor, if not, still he contives an innocent ignoramus. laws are penned in an intelligible style, else they are snares, and men know not when to yield obedience, and the scriptures were taken for a law. the apostle is for an understood language in church-assemblies; much more than in the divine oracles, which are designed for the generality, ignorant as well as learned, and so can have no crafty, concealed or reserved sense in them: the matters of necessary duty and faith may be soon known, and the spirit inclines to love, practice and believe them; and in the more difficult things he so blesseth the means, that we shall either know them or be pardoned; it is not necessary to salvation to be able to explain each verse in scripture; a man may have the true spirit of god, and yet not understand the apocalypse exactly. god requires holy living more than accurate interpreting, and an honest heart at the last day, will go further than either a critical or an inspired head. quakers also should not urge that scripture to us which they deny to be the rule; but thomas ellwood's manner of proving is strangely wild: he affirmeth scripture cannot be understood without inspiration, and to prove it, produceth scripture, which cannot be understood without that inspiration, which we deny we have. are those texts so plain that they prove it in our way? or doth inspiration light on those who dispute against against it? except it can be understood without inspiration, he should not produce it to those who deny it, for the proof of it; and as long as the manner of interpreting scripture is under debate, they should not produce one text of it, till that debate be ended: but his proving from it, supposeth it plain and full for that purpose, and is the direct confutation of his own notion. nor have quakers shown so much gratitude for the scripture discoveries, that god should discover more unto them. nay what need of scripture if they must be renewed, and cannot otherwise be understood? god had better have left men to their inward conductor, than to make a book as a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a bal of strife, about the sense of which they are quarrelling, but can do nothing really with it when they have it. nor did the apostles signify any thing upon their principles, revelation being required in the hearers as well as in the speakers. saint's paradise. p. 84. [by the anointing ye can speak the mind of the scriptures though you never see nor hear, nor read the scriptures from men.] how can we hear christ if his words be unintelligible? but thomas ellwood, 2 quib. p. 34. imme. rev. p. 131. truth exalted p. 9 is singular, others bid us. [brings plain scripture] saith fox, [mark this.] saith keith [read with understanding] saith another. what need of any translations, the spirit can expound originals, as well as english? they used to renounce all interpretations and inferences, but now give them without any security they come from god; there is much labour and trouble in the trying of inspirations, and much danger also, so that we have reason to bless god in settling religion in such a manner, leaving us his word as the record of his will, and giving us sound minds and sober reasons therewith: if i see not sufficient proofs that you are inspired, i shall sin in so tame an assenting to your naked proposals; and god who commands us not to believe every spirit, but try them will never damn me for searching and examining what is pretended to come from him. he that enjoins us to search his own revelations, will not be displeased if we use the severest caution about others; he who questions, must needs be in a safer state than he who easily believes, and he that compares and weighs will be freer from error than he who waits and entertains the first comer. their two principles of christ, the light and immediate teaching, are either inconsistent, or the one is superfluous; for in making but one essential, they invalidate one of their two principles. how do they understand their great text. john. 1.9. that christ is a saving light in every man? if by immediate revelation, than the light doth not discover all things, but needs another to discover itself? if the light interpret it in reference to itself, as most properly it should, [all power in heaven and earth being given unto it.] than something is known without inspiration immediate? if he makes them both one, than he confounds keiths two principles. hath any quakers known the idioms, customs, proverbs, rites, histories, etc. of scripture by an instant discovery? i think that they are least learned, and most inspired men either could not expound, or would sadly differ, if an experiment was made of their ability: an externall proposal hath hitherto been the means of conveying christianity. if any heathen did suddenly become an inspired christian, this might befriend them, but their englished hai ebr yokdan was not so. and the quakers are men, who read and hear, and withal fancy, and so form their notions. whither may not a man hit upon those senses by study, for which they challenge inspiration? to single out doctor hammond as the fittest: because he hath premised a discourse to his annotations on the new testament, in opposition to their very pretensions. is there not one true paraphrase or interpretation in that book? say so, and you confute yourselves, for doctor hammond expounds the seventh chapter to the romans, to be understood of a man in an unconverted estate, and keith owns that as the right sense, using the same term [metaschematismos, q no popery p. 39 40. an usual figure; the apostle, rom. 7th. from verse 14 to 25 describing not his present condition but the condition of others and himself, as they were in the struggling, etc.] whence it follows, that either a man may attain to the true sense of the scripture without inspiration, or may have it though he do not know, but disown and writ against it, which is not likely the impression of the spirit, in such matters being strong and curious, but in either way we are sufficiently secure, and god will not damn any for want of that which floweth merely from his grace. i cannot discover how i can understand the quakers books, for though they seem to use inferences, so that i may consult my reason, yet they being usually writ [from the spirit of the lord,] i need an inspiration to understand them, as much as any verse in the bible, and another to ascertain them to be divine, and so all the former difficulties recur: a papist is much more modest, for though he make his church, or its head, infallible, yet he will confess his single self fallible; and infallible claims needing infallible evidences, we can never be certain of your inspirations, without public outward demonstrations of them. truth loves calmness, and the still voice, lo here, or there is christ, are not its watchword, modest demands go furthest, when backed with strong proofs. i have the liberty to try and judge rational expositions, whereas your inspired ones impose upon me, but the design is crafty, it is a kind of sacrilege to dispute that which saith, it comes from god: so that this pretence insconces them, rendering those moving oracles sacred and venerable; and, 'tis better to buy their divine living testimonies, than a dark lettered bible. but i am at a loss to know whether their receipts are for their own use, or to benefit and oblige mankind. other quakers made the spirit the judge, the instructor, the rule, the guide, etc. thomas ellwood hath got him a further office to be the expositor, but can his inspirations which die, if he do not speak or write them, be plainer than those in scripture, which are given to all, and have the advantage in design, in continuance, in so many expositions already upon them, some of which must be divine by t. ellwoods' doctrine; peter was sent to cornelius, ananias to paul, etc. there was a mistake certainly in such outward conveyances, and attestations, the shortest and the safest cut, had been to direct them to within, it would have saved charges their vicious circle also entangles me, for i cannot discover whether they know the spirit or the scriptures first? they say, they know these to be the scriptures by the spirit, but then how do they know there is a spirit? that, they must not prove from those scriptures, whether do they believe the scriptures before the conferring these expositions, or no? if before, than they believe they understand not what, nor wherefore; if after, than the gloss is conferred before the text; secret things are made known to infidels, and pearls are thrown before swine. but t. ellwood doth not walk in that way he prescribeth others, to instance in two or three which fall short of inspired expositions. p. 35. [may not improbably refer to that great persecution raised upon stephen's death. p. 40. ] [goodwin's antiquities produced about the pharisees] [who the elect lady was, p. 47. in what relation john stood to her, or how far her temporal power might extend, does not appear.] in a discourse of inspiration, as sole expositor, he is fallen to it, [may not improbably, does not appear, and borrows some egyptian jewels.] let him blot these out, for they cut the throat of his book. universal free grace, p. 75. keith is more sober, [these plain testimonies of scripture needs no explication, nor application of mine, what more plain and evident? can more emphatical and significant expressions be used by men?] and he gives some good ways of interpreting scripture used by us [that general maxim of understanding scripture, idem, p. 15. is, that its words are to be understood in their whole latitude and extent, where no cogent reason moves to the contrary] [they pass from the sense which the words plainly import, p. 31. and seek out another sense to the words, not from any necessity, but because it pleaseth not their corrupt judgement] [plain and full scripture proofs, p. 39 — there is abundant matter in the words, or before, or after, to evince the truth—] [we are to take the most usual and proper signification of the word, p. 43. p. 15. 46. 53. 61. 68 101. 102. 106. where no cogent reason moves to the contrary.] with several of the like nature; so that he hath destroyed thomas ellwoods' notion of the obscurity of the scripture, and expository revelations of its sense. having considered their doctrine, let us briefly view their practice, in a taste of some few out of many of their inspired expositions, and this sad account we may give of them, that if they had been hired to subvert true religion, they could not have done it more effectually, by transforming histories and prophecies, as those in daniel, the revelations, etc. into internal things, and making them vanish in frothy allegories. phil. 3.21. changing vile bodies is [when oppression and injustice shall cease.] 1 cor. 2.15. new law, p. 42. p. 40. the spiritual man's judging is [according to the law of equity and reason.] but it is different from t. ellwoods' inspiration, job. 1.6. beelzebub sat among the sons of god [that is among the five senses.] saint. parad. p. 29. fire in the bush, p. 35. im. rev. p. 11. new law, p. 22. p. 132. 134. 1 cor. 15.24. putting down all rule, is [destroying all government and ministry] 2 cor. 12.3. the seed or birth is that [3d. heavens in which paul on earth, saw and felt things unutterable.] john. 14.2. [the spreading power of christ in all, is the father's house in which are many mansions,] the new covenant is [christ's spreading himself in mankind] psal. 24.1. [the earth is the lords that is man's. humble request to lawyers, etc. p. 2. p. 6. p. 4. univer. or. p. 55. p. 44. noble salutation, p. 9 saint. parad. p. 45. ] [christ's speech to the young man to sell all, concerns all people.] isa. 2.4. & ezech. 36.34, 35. belong to the [taking-in of commons, heath, and waste land for all poor people.] the light within is [the everlasting gospel which the angel preached;] the tabernacle of david is explained by the [slain image of god in man] or as another words it [it is gods own eternal witness in men] god himself is the [tree of life.] and the [gospel.] christ is [the image of god in man, he breathed in him the breath of life, than the lamb was not slain.] christ is [the true jew inwardly, the circumcision in the spirit, in rev. p. 71, the public worship in the spirit and truth.] angels are [heavenly principles and graces, looking glass, p. 4. saint parad. p. 66, 67. p. 129. p. 37. howgils' glory, p. 7. saint's paradise. p. 19 some principles, p: 68: and men taken up into god, as moses and christ were.] the lamb's book of life is [his divine nature and spirit.] the proud flesh is [the devil or father of lies.] rev. 12.1. [the woman clothed with the sun brought forth the holy child jesus,] that is, jesus was born after john's banishment into the isle of patmos. the bottomless pit is [corrupt flesh] the form of sound words is [yea and nay] or [thou] as t. ellwood seems to intimate, p. 27. there is no [devil, but flesh and outward objects] dan. 73. [the four beasts are the four powers which are to be destroyed, fire in the bush, p. 74. p. 23. ] that is, [magistracy, ministry, law, and propriety,] the beast slain, dan. 7.11. is [all imaginary selfish power, hear what the spirit speaks] dan. 9.24. true christian faith, p. 58. new law, p. 32. the finishing transgression, etc. is [having the mind truly turned, to the appearance of god in christ within.] rev. 13.1. [the flesh is the beast with seven heads] but differently expounded by t. ellwood, p. 243. rev. 3.7, 8. the beasts having power over tongues is fulfilled by [masters of arts, truth exalted, p. 8. bachelors of arts, vice-chancellors over colleges and others.] the light interpreted these two texts [rev. 9.4. saint. parad. 126. green grass— is the tender sons of christ, matth. 12.31. that old pusling text, sin here is the serpent, the holy ghost is the anointing, or spirit ruling in flesh.] the two witnesses, new law, p. 80. are [christ in one body, and christ in many bodies] or, as another will have them to be [christ the light within, and immediate revelation, which have been slain in man.] babylon is [the great city of fleshly confusion] the mystery of iniquity, univer. gra. p. 5. nsw law, p. 43. p. 94. fire in the bush, p. 11. and the man of sin are [the first adam, the mystery of godliness is the second adam] [michael and the dragon do fight in mankind] the battle between them is [in the heart:] the temple of god, 2 thes. where the man of sin sits [is man's heart.] there he is worshipped in [the degenerate state. im. rev. p. 86. p. 194. true christ. p. 185. im. rev. p. 194. truth lifting, p. 50. fire in the bush, p. 58. ] antichrist is [not a person or persons particular, but a spirit, the very spirit of satan.] the sin against the holy ghost is [sinning against that beloved son, or body in whom the father dwells bodily,] [time is monarchy, times are popery, and reformed episcopacy, the dividing of times is presbytery, independency and state government.] these are enough to cloy: thus the men of revelations do expound. chap. ix. of their demonstration of the spirit, and new dispensation. iv to appear like the apostles successors the better, univer. gr. in the title. they challenge [the evidence and demonstration of the spirit of truth] worded by t. ellwood, p. 244. thus [that the gospel should be preached in the demonstration of the spirit and power, after the apostasy as well as before.] and this belongs to them, who are emerged out of the apostasy, and are the church returned out of the wilderness, they fancy themselves to be like the apostles [they witness the spirit of god fallen upon them, some princ. p. 48. smith's gospel tidings, p. 36. as formerly among the apostles] [the gospel is now preached in the same power as formerly] but their claim is ill bottomed and their demonstration indemonstrable. first therefore we shall search into the sense of that phrase. secondly, give the quakers opinion of miracles. thirdly, supposing that their principles were right, thence infer that miracles are as necessary now as ever. 1. as for the meaning of [demonstration of the spirit and power, 1 cor. 2.4.] 'tis misunderstood by t. ellwood if he think they have it like the apostles: words and this demonstration are by the apostle opposed [not with enticing words, with excellency of speech or wisdom] that is, ver. 1.4; 5. with oratory or philosophy, and quakers bring no more than words, and those misapplyed, and inward heats, like the disciples of marcus, etc. but their internal sentiments, or consolations are not the scriptures power. demonstration is not a thing of outward words, or inward feelings [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nomine utitur, beza in his shorternotes in locum. quo significatur probatio, quae fit certis & necessariis rationibus.] demonstration is a certain proof by necessary and concluding reasons [habent mathematici, etc. the mathematicians have their demonstrations, grot. in locum. etc. how much greater is that demonstration by such and so great miracles. dr. ham. ] [not in rhetorical proofs, or probable arguments but in plain demonstration.] so that it did not consist in inward, but in outward evidences and proofs, gro●▪ theo. cum. in loc. what those were, we have recorded, ver. 1. declaring to you the testimony of god, that is, the gospel of christ, or his death, but that which was delivered by the apostles, as certain eye and ear witnesses of it, and to confirm that certain testimony of theirs, god superadded, the demonstration or evidence of the spirit and power, which by an hebraism may be conjoined [evidencing the spirit by power, theo. in loc. ] 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the power of miracles, were an evidence that the spirit owned and confirmed their certain testimony, or we may take spirit and power, as two distinct proofs of their outward attestations. 1. spirit, the evidence of that consisted in showing the old testament prophecies were fulfilled in christ: this origen makes the demonstration of the spirit [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, l. 1. con. cells. & apud. dr. h. in loc. etc. prophecies that are able to give assurance of the things that belong to christ] and thus rev. 19.10. the testimony of jesus, is the spirit of prophecy, the series of all the prophecies so wonderfully fulfilled are an evidence for him: or, it may take in the new testament prophecies, which are an evidence for christ. the revelations were by him committed to an angel, and so to john: or spirit, may refer to those visible demonstrations, when the blessed spirit visibly descended upon christ and the apostles, and so are that immediate evidence, the spirit gave to christ, dr. ham. or that record the spirit bore so clearly explained in dr. patrick's witnesses to christianity. [power] that hereby are meant miracles is indisputable; [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, origen ubi supra. those miraculous, stupendious actions, whose footsteps yet remain;] [per figna & virtutes, etc. by the holy spirit, and by the signs and powers done by him, we bring you arguments or evidences that we speak the truth, oecum. in loc. ita. grot. etc.] that by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is meant either sanationes, healings in particular, or miracles in general, will be evident by a little observing its use. mar. 9.39. [no man which shall do 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a miracle in my name,] spoke with reference to such as did cast out devils in the name of christ, and did not follow him, mat. 7.22, [in thy name have done 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, many wondrous works;] answerable to those preceding, prophesying, and casting out devils, luke 10.13. [if the mighty works, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, had been done in tyre and sydon.] 1 cor. 12.28. [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, after that miracles. as, mat. 11.21.23, & 13.54, 58, & 14.2. mar. 6.2, 5, 14. & 9.39. luc. 5.17. & 6.19. & 19.37. act. 2.22. & 8.13. & passim. ] in all which and many other places, too long to be set down, it signifieth miraculous works, or that divine power which was the evidence or seal of the holy ghost. the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not only set single, but with others that do expound it, rom. 15.19. [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, through mighty signs and wonders, by the power of the spirit of god.] that is, those signs wrought by the power of the spirit, and evidences of it. better signs of his divine commission, than the bells and pomegranates were to the highpriest, etc. 2 cor. 12.12. truly the signs of an apostle were wrought among you, in all patience, in signs and wonders 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and in mighty deeds. these are the signs of an apostle, and yet our new apostles and their successors do no such things: and fully 1 thes. 1.5. our gospel came not to you in word only, but also in power and in the holy ghost, and in much assurance, that is, in the power of the holy ghost, which is a plerophory, or which gives much assurance; by transposing the words, of which many instances are in grot. on john 35. but quakers have words merely without signs or wonders, or certain sensible testimonies, or humane learning. one of them acknowledgeth, they can give no outward evidence [seeing our opposers require of us, q. no popery, p. 62. 63. to show, or evidence unto them, some infallible 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that we have the spirit of god, i would have j. m. to know, that the same difficulty recurreth, as to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the scriptures, it being a thing which cannot be shown, or made to appear by any evidence unto the carnal mind, which yet is evident unto the spiritual.] that is like the old heretics, they are the spiritual, others not of their mind are the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the animal or carnal; but his evidence for inspiration is far inferior to the scriptures authority. and in that very text, rev. 14.6. produced by t. ellwood of the preaching the everlasting gospel after the apostasy, there is no mention of demonstration or inspiration, etc. nor was there any need thereof, the corrupt church among much dross preserving those very books, whereby her errors were detected, and that was when all learning began to revive, true religion and learning moving in equal lines. 2. but quakers have the demonstration, qu. looking glass. a true narrative. though they slight the miracles thereby employed, some attempts have been made thereto by charles baylyes stroking, richard anderson's cursing, the woman's pretending to raise the interred corpse which were reinterred when her folly had appeared. in mr. jenner, p. 93. nicholas kate of harwell said [that when the fullness of time was come, sober answer to speed. p. 76. new law, p. 37. he should work miracles,] which yet is not come to pass, but the fullness of time with such, bears a strange date [the fullness of time is, when the first man hath filled the creation full of his filthiness, and all places stink with unrighteousness.] but visible miracles failing, they turn it another way, they work invisible miracles, or miracles in spirit, so did ignatius loyola, and [doubtless to reach to the soul, to quicken it, to cure its diseases, pennington's naked truth. p. 28. is greater than the outward, and was signified by the outward.] they work miracles in [a spiritual way] t. ellwood makes tongues to be be but mediums to convey their message to others, p. 231. 3d. quill. p. 75. as if he durst outface the apostle, who declares them to be a sign to such as believed not, 1 cor. 14.22. keith prettily daubs it over [that they witness the power working miraculously in their hearts, im. rev. 〈◊〉 200. raising to life the dead souls, etc. and these are the greatest miracles, of which the outward were but a figure.] william shown almost bids defiance to them [we read not of very many converted by outward miracles— which are not of absolute necessity in the church, true christians faith, p. 150. 157. but the inward are the greater miracles, which christ promised that those who believed in him should do.] so that they do no wonders, title of a book. truth exal. p. 11. yet have [silent meetings which are a wonder to the world,] and do [preach the gospel again with the holy ghost sent down from heaven.] and at this rate they may say or be any thing, demonstrate though they cannot show, having the power but not the thing. 3. supposing the quakers principles true, miracles are more necessary now than ever: for, 1. god wrought miracles to convince unbelievers, and in the quakers charity we are no better [come you un-christians] saith the curious pen of fox [william shown calls us, 2d. quib. p. 66. pennington concerning pe●●ec. prof. barclay in q. no popery, p. 106. titular and nominal christians] through his whole book [christians according to the letter, who are as great enemies to the spirit and power, as ever the jews were.] [worldly literal christians both papists and protestants] now being such, miracles are infinitely necessary, to disabuse and to remove us from the letter into the spirit, a mistaken christianity being more obstructing and prejudicial than mere heathenism. 2. if miracles were necessary when the scriptures were writ, which are a dead letter, a sealed book and worse; then are they much more necessary, when inspired expositions thereof are given: to allude to t. ellwoods' terms of shell and kernel, etc. god would not give a demonstration, the shell was his, and leave us at a loss, whether the kernel was his also, if he send evidences along with the bark, rind, etc. he would do the same much more with the substance. the apostasy continuing 1548 years, we need signs, that this is the same doctrine with the old, especially if the scripture, the repository of that doctrine cannot be understood without inspiration; there being many pretenders, we need a sign, more at the unsealing than at the sealing of that book: if to receive the letter, much more to understand the spirit, the sense when given as from god, needs most of all his attestation to it, for the pretending to give an inspired exposition of the scriptures, is more than the bringing new scriptures, and needs greater attestations, as much as the sense is better than the letter. and thomas ellwood knows not what he hath, but if he have revelations they must be new ones, for revelation being necessary to understand the scriptures; those expositions thomas ellwood receives must be new, the repetition is the reacting the old, but then the expounding is the conferring new, which are not to be found within the bible. 3. the debate being whether or no they be inspired, upon their grounds, nothing can end it, but the interposing of god's power: for to say, they witness it is a begging the question, and to credit those witnessings will expose to delusions, to produce scripture disowned by them as the rule, is improper, and concludes nothing; being it cannot be understood without inspiration when produced; or if it could, still it concludes as equally for any other pretender as for them. 4. he who abrogates a divine law, must produce greater authority for so doing, than that by which at first it was instituted. thus christ taking down or altering that way of worship which had been set up by a power of miracles in moses, produced greater evidences than moses that he was sent from god. and that quakers do abrogate christ's commands, is evident from slighting his sacraments, etc. thus shown concerning baptism, and the disciples and apostles having baptised some, proceeds [not discerning the times and seasons, true christians faith, p. 79. and the divers dispensations of god towards mankind since the fall, nor perceiving the end of them lays hold of the shadow and figure instead of the substance, etc.] allegorising and abrogating christ's institutions. 5. he who brings a newer and an higher dispensation, must produce visible evidence for so doing, in this indeed the quakers are much divided. some making theirs a new dispensation [new heavens and a new earth; pennin. conc. persecu. pref. idem in faldo quak. no chris. p. 17. new law, p. 14. ] [the former dispensation was swallowed up— by the breaking forth of a more lively dispensation.] this fancy runs through the works of winstanley, [the ministration of the spirit, is now rising up, claims its due right by course.] and having received it from god, he thus writeth, there are seven dispensations [1. to adam. 2. the seed of the woman from adam to abraham. mystery of god. p. 21. 3. from abraham to moses. 4. from him to christ. 5. god in christ. 6. god in the flesh of his saints, as before in christ, which holds till the day of judgement, which is the 7th:] these he contracts into three, [moses, new law, p. 9 10. 11. 12. 13. 120. christ, the spirit: and as moses gives way to christ, so that single body jesus gives way to the holy ghost, or spreading power in sons and daughters, and this begun in 1648.] and every such dispensation is a full period or term of time: mystery of god. p. 38. 40. im. rev. p. 18. p. 49. others maketh theirs to be an higher improvement of the former dispensation, [the more gospel times that were to come in the latter days.] [a spiritual ministry, a gospel ministry, a powerful ministry is come and coming] or, they would have it a reviving the dead, or a restoring of the former lost dispensation. universal free grace, 92. [christ's spiritual, inward and powerful appearance, is now again revealed in this day after the apostasy] but every several way of stating makes it high, howgils' glory of the true church. 32. [for the everlasting gospel was a thing beyond, above and before the writings of the new testament.] and it requires the spirits owning it, before any should entertain it; for it is a mighty alteration, from a bodily christ without, to an invisible one within; and if the man christ wrought miracles, much more should christ the spirit, act. 2.22. the visible christ was a man approved of god, by miracles, wonders and signs, which god did by him, in the midst of them as they also knew; the new invisible christ hath nothing to approve him, but words and fancies, but either at bringing as moses, at reviving as elias, or at changing, as christ of a dispensation miracles were necessary: and though john the baptist wrought no miracles, yet his coming was prophesied of by esaias and malachy; nor did he bring in a new dispensation, only he prepared for it, but the quakers pretending to the highest dispensation, that of christ in the spirit, which is never to be out-dated, are to do greater works than christ in the body, and miracles being the work of the spirit, they being more necessary to it, than to the dispensation of christ, quakers are to have its demonstration, both to usher in its dispensation, and also to assure us that they are the sole persons entrusted with the bringing of it. but whence had they this notion? there are precedents enough for what is evil, montanus and mahomet made use of this weapon; david george took himself for the true spiritual david, sent to restore the house of israel by grace, and that all dispensations before were literal and carnal; henry nicholas made seven several dispensations, but differently computed from winstanley, which likewise he shrinketh into three, but the last, the highest, and most glorious was that which he brought by grace and love. jacob israel made three dispensations, under the emblem of three suns; the highest is, gods being in sons and daughters at the new jerusalem. keith makes four dispensations, moses and the prophets, christ in the flesh, the evangelists and apostles, and the revealing now christ's inward appearance, univer. gra. p. 92. like that which the apostles had in their day, but the fullest precedent is that of abbot joachim, and the franciscan friars, who about the year 1253. published a book evangelii aeterni nomine, set forth by johannes de parma, the design of which was to change the gospel of christ into the gospel of the spirit [that as the sun excels the moon, bp. usher de chpist. eccles. p. 277. 279. or the kernel the shell (thomas ellwood's comparison) so that of the spirit excels the gospel of christ, they said, the sacrament of the church was nothing, that the gospel of the spirit was the only gospel, ●. 280. that the new testament is to be evacuated like the old, that then men shall be in the state of the perfect, p. 281. that the spiritual sense of the new testament is not committed to the pope, but the literal, p. 282. p. 283. that when the spirit comes, former things shall be counted old, that the preachers in the end of the world shall be of greater dignity and authority than the apostles] with much such stuff. these are thomas ellwoods' antecessors, and the pope condemned the books writ against this devilish doctrine. p. 287. chap. x. concerning their experiences. v the quakers know the word of god and their revelations by experience, so thomas ellwood [we know that the word of god is quick and lively by experience. p. 249. ] but his inspiration misinforms him about the direct sense of that place, heb. 4.12. for it concerns god's oath, v. 3. of unbelievers not entering into his rest, which took hold of the israelites, and we are warned to take heed of the like unbelief, because the word of god is powerful, etc. that is, his threaten are not high ineffective words, but will seize on the impenitent, it concerns thomas ellwood not to despise the teaching of jesus, lest his experience of this commination prove sad and irreversible: thus dr. hammond from the scope expounds it, and so st. chrysostom [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. the same word which punished them will punish us, apud theoph. in loc. for it liveth always and is never extinguished.] but thomas ellwood as formerly mistakes his ground work, yet let it pass, there is not one word of experience there, but when other arguments fail, they cry out [we bear our testimony, we witness it, we experience it, etc.] who matters that? the term experience is un-scriptural and indemonstrable concerning revelation, and but rarely used concerning graces, the pharisees had that common sense, john. 8. 13. thou bearest record of thyself, thy record is not true, a rule that is owned by christ jo. 5. if i bear witness of myself my witness is not true, and john 8.14. but quakers can only witness for themselves, or at the farthest one for another. william shown in 19 chapters conjoins their faith and experience, whereas the one is matter of perception, the other the substance of things hoped for; heb. 11.1. the evidence of things not seen, what is seen is not hope, and what is experienced is not faith; but such sensual spiritualists may say and have any thing by such confusion. [jesus declared in general terms— leaving it to every son, new law p. 11. and daughter to declare their particular experiences; the scriptures are but christ in the letter, lying under the experimental words of those penmen,] keith saith, we know that immediate revelation is not ceased [from the blessed experience given us of god therein: im. rev. preface, & passim. ] but, what experiences are these? not outward and sensible, but inward and indiscernible, wherein fancy, natural enthusiasm and satan, can all play legerdemain to purpose. christian experience in matters of duty is useful to support in their practice; but it is to be an after argument, come in ad corroborandum, for man's nature is of a strange composition. comforts have much dependence on the temper of the body, they are the more usual portion of weak and young beginners, nor should we hanker so much after those real sweets or fanciful gusts; but be diligent in our christian calling. inward experience is no bottom for inspiration christianity was settled in an outward sensible way, to forestall this inward wile of satan. moses though he saw the bush burning, and had outward evidences too, yet was not hasty in believing. the apostles, i think, demurred some while upon the suggestions they received, act. 16.10. beza in loc. & in act. 9.29. [assuredly gathering.] from the vision collates argumentis colligentes, conferring and fitting as artificers do piece to piece. sancti non temerè visionibus quibusvis crediderunt, they examined their very visions, and were not hasty in entertaining them. their experiences also consist in comfort, the meanest argument whence to infer god's voice; [we know the spirit of the lord in his shinings, im. rev. p. 28. warming, quickning, water, and refresh from and by himself, sometimes, a day they could feelingly and experimentally speak of what god had wrought in their souls— could tell of sweet hours of fellowship— his revealing the hid invinsible—] but others of different judgements are as high in experiences and comforts, p. 45. new law p. 64. mist. of god pref. marry gadbury was full of singing and joy. the leveller, for that doctrine of working in the common, had peace of spirit, and from that very thing (his joy and rest in god:) he was convinced of his inspiration. the ranters have store of quiet. silent meeting. 5. exomologesis. p. 631. w. b. had more refresh in a dumb meeting than in an hundred sermons. the hearers were refreshed at the dutch woman's ununderstood preachment. newton had much joy in his visions; and the ravishment and spiritual embraces enjoyed by the carthusians, were a great motive to mr. cressyes' revolting. flashes and affecting warmths are no evidence of truth; the mass, or a turkish mosque will afford such stir of the lower powers. he who from them approves or choses his religion is fit to be a palpitating disciple of marcus, than a well-grounded servant of the lord jesus. but though they had true experiences, that is no satisfaction to another, for as god requires a reasonable religion, so a man should be able to render a reason of his hope. christianity consists not in sensible consolations, which do ebb and flow, and are oft delusive, nor in the gratifying the inferior power, but in a sound mind, a living faith, and a conscientious practice. and enthusiasm hath carried others higher than the quakers spirit (be it what it will) hath yet carried them. satan can [transform himself into the likeness of god himself, im. rev. p. 239. and actually doth it] so that men should be cautions about their comforts. the presenting some of their experiences, will discover their excellency [all that which you call the history, new law p. 97. is all to be seen and felt within you. adam and christ, cain and abel, abraham, moses, israel, canaanites, amalekites, philistines, all those armies, the land of canaan, judas, etc. are all to be seen within you] rarely experienced, devon-shire house, or the trojan horse cannot contain such a company. but keith denying the history to be conveyed by revelation, this man makes out the receipt by experience. saint's paradise. p. 29. he experiences what the devil is [i shall show in my experiences, what i see and know the devil is, viz. in the full body of him he is unrighteous flesh, and the imaginations thereof, and every lust is a particular devil] he truly found in his experience that [the flaming sword is the enmity of natures] which enmity he had before experienced [to be the devil and murderer] and lastly [from what he had received and seen within him, p. 47. p. 30. new law. p. 103. true christian. faith and experience. p. 33s 34. he denies a local hell. shown believes [god's oneness, omnipresence, and his other attributes from the manifestation of him in his own heart, so he saith, god is pure, from his appearance so pure in his heart.] strange ideas have they of the divine perfections, to measure them by their own sensations [he truly and experimentally knoweth, p. 106, that god cannot be tempted with evil, because that heavenly light he is endued withal cannot be tempted with evil.] [he can give an experimental account of the two great ordinances of christ, baptism and the lords supper: p. 76. ] that is he hath an experimental feeling of allegories. univer. gra. p. 86. p. 117. keiths' experience made him [know and feel the seed in others] and he experienced [the belief of christ in the outward, not to be necessary to salvation: univer. gra. p. 86. p. 117. ] and from this head he infers the apocrypha [to have proceeded from a measure of the true spirit: quo popery, p 30. some prim. 120. ] and pennington bids [wait to feel] the glorious state of the church before the apostasy. such men's faith consists in experience, and that in fancy, but hereby they take away the very proofs of christianity, p. 96. [women now are witnesses of christ's resurrection] but thus, they must [know only as they experience. pen. in fal. vin. of 21. diu. p. 7. true christ, experience. p. 39 ] and the knowledge of the scriptures avails nothing [except accompanied with a living experience of the same power working after the same manner as it did in others, in times past who have left their testimonies thereof upon record.] chap. xi. how the primitive christians came to the knowledge of the gospel. vi thomas ellwood is the successor of the primitive christians, as well as of the apostles, and he informs that [the primitive christians did receive the knowledge of the gospel, from the immediate teachings of the holy spirit, p. 233. to the like purpose p. 245.] which he enlargeth from the primitive christians [to have been in all ages revealed to the saints in some degree or other, p. 237.] this is matter of fact, and the truth of it depends upon proof from history: not one word thereof is produced, and the former instances about st. basil, nazianzene, etc. do not encourage us to trust either his learning or infallibility. we are now upon the negative, and it belongs to him to prove out of undoubted histories that the gospel came to be known in all ages by immediate revelation: we find the fathers very learned, and coming thereto by study, and using such means of expounding as protestants do. we find their expositions differing both among themselves, and from the quakers; let thomas ellwood show which fathers were inspired, which of their works were writ by it, how we must understand those inspired expositions of theirs; for they seem likelier to have immediate revelation than any in this age; in epist. ad paulin. st. hierom makes that prophecy of joel. 2.28. fulfilled [super 120 credentium nomina, & effusum iri in caenaculo zion.] upon those 120 names in act. 1. and at the descent upon the apostles act. 2. cateches. 17. and cyril of jerusalem refers it to the coming upon peter and the apostles. and theodoret makes it to receive its evident, comment. in loc. and literal accomplishment at the day of pentecost. thomas ellwood enlargeth it to all believers and all ages. whom shall we trust? but he making them inspired, i have more reason to believe such great names, rather than his conceit. the pretence to revelation was all along disowned in the true church after the settlement of christianity. cont. haeres 48. epiphanius condemns the montanists for bringing in new prophets, post terminum propheticorum donorum, after the expiration of prophetical gifts, and saith, they bring alios prophetas post prophetas, would introduce a new brood or series of them. the prophets of the new testament are oft by name recorded, l. 5. c. 19 which is not done to any other of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, this was urged by miltiades in eusebius, adding to them ammias of phyladelphia and quadratus: and that if the montanists challenge prophecy after the prophets, others by the like rule may challenge it after the montanists, and so in infinitum. we are certain that the extraordinary visible gifts are ceased, and thence we infer that the invisibles bore at most but an equal date with them, and that miracles continued longer in the church than immediate inspiration is apparent in that we find footsteps of the one, after the other was disowned, and the divine will might soon be made known, whereas the continuance of its testimonials in the world some while after was more necessary. tertullian called his by the name of nova prophetia, new prophecy: an evidence that the old was ceased, and how he was disowned by the church is notorious. though there were many succeeding prophets under the law, that doth not infer it must be so under the gospel, for those prophets brought in light by degrees, and prepared the way for christ: but then prophecy lay silent for about 400 years before his appearing, a sign that he came to fulfil and seal up all, and when god himself took the chair, and in our nature discharged his office, it fastens imperfection on him, to maintain a series of prophets, to explain what he spoke, or relate what he omitted. the new testament foretells of false prophets, but no where promiseth a succession of new ones. nor is it possible, christianity being entertained upon their personal knowledge of christ, and the visible evidences of the spirit; which also inwardly inclined men to search into, to approve and choose what the apostles, etc. outwardly proposed, and now learning and meditation supply to us what the spirit immediately vouchsafed to them, in epistle ad paulinuim. as st. hierom saith [quicquid enim aliis exercitatio & quotidiana in lege meditatio tribuere solet, istis hoc spiritus sanctus suggerebat.] thomas ellwood makes some attempts of proof about the reformation, as from tindal. p. 273 but neither renewed, immediate nor expository revelations are therein owned nor doth it concern notional (about which our debate is) but practical knowledge, he deals very unfaithfully with bishop jewel, who proves from the ancients, that many things are easy in the scripture, p. 393. and he strikes in with harding about the darkness of scriptures, and the understanding of them, not by reading, but by special revelation and miracle. p. 394. and that which the bishop calls help and prompting. thomas ellwood transforms into inspiration and revelation of the divine spirit. p. 275. without humane learning study or natural abilities and the answer of alphonsus the spanish friar to mr. bradford becomes thomas ellwood's mouth [you must be as it were a neuter— as one standing in doubt; pray, fox his mart. vol. 3. p. 299. and be ready to receive what god shall inspire, for in vain laboureth our tongue to speak else.] but none of his proofs concern perpetual immediate inspiration, for the spirit giving assurance of the scriptures, is a thing of a different nature. the sense of the reformers is discerned from the homily, in the exhortation to the reading of the scriptures, which requires our humility and diligent search and often reading. and john old, a famous divine in edward the sixths' days, declares how they proceeded in interpreting scripture [touching the interpretation of the scriptures, it must be expounded according to the proprieties of the tongues in which it was first written, in dr. holdsworth praele●. theolog. p. 435. and by diligent weighing of sayings that go before, and that follow after, withal the circumstances, and also according to other places that are more plain, or like or contrary, and where the fathers, the doctors of the holy church have interpreted the scriptures after this manner, and have in no wise blanched or swerved from this rule, there we do with heart and good will acknowledge and take them for faithful and diligent interpreters of the scriptures, and honourable instruments of the holy ghost, whose painful labours and industryes, our lord god hath used in the church, to the glory of his own name, and the profit of his flock, etc.] this was printed 1554. chap. xii. of their hearing the voice of god, and some other claims. thomas ellwood to all these superadds other privileges; as first, their hearing god's voice [blessed be the lord we have heard the voice of god, and when the lord hath spoken in us] p. 249. implying in a distinct articulate voice spoken within, and heard by them, a most dangerous delusion, and contrary to god's manner of proceeding, who rarely or never spoke to men without some internuntius, or medium, his voice being dreadful, no man can hear it and live; exod. 20.19. deut. 18.16. so that either angels or god incarnate signified his pleasure: the motions, and whispers of the spirit, are not an audible voice, the manner of gods speaking is related thus, [the word of god speaketh forth itself at first simply in power, uniu. grace, p. 87. 88 virtue, light and life, rather than in words— and afterwards words are given, and that very distinctly heard and apprehended.] so that the quakers inspirations come rather at first by signs and symbols than words, and that is a darker way of expression. im. re. p. 171. &. 58. [for the plainest words cannot give the knowledge of the things.] and [words even the best cannot give the knowledge of god, etc.] that must be strange which words cannot express, though they pretend to receive it from the mouth of the lord, or viuâ voce from him: q. no christ. p. 121. & 272. new law. 96 parnels shield 38. im. rev. 14. q. spi. court. p. 7. but they may questionless hear his voice, for they can see the invisible [he sees his maker and lives in the light] [some of them have had appearances of god] [the saints have an intuitive knowledge of god in this life] so that though fox in the divine light could never see angels nor spirits, yet they can see and hear god, and they succeed several herein. theod. eccl. hist. l. 4. c. 11. dr. causabons enth. p. 103. 161, 163, 164. the messalians did behold the trinity with their eyes, god did talk with ignatius loyola, and the holy maid saw god, heaven and hell and the soul of christ in its purity. and that strange enthusiast in acosta talked of conversing with god: and the alumbrados or spanish quakers said, they might see god visibly in their ecstacyes. 2. they receive the gospel [by the gift of god, p. 245. from the divine power itself p. 232.] not once naming in this regard that great prophet, who in the days of his flesh, taught us, but these are two general words technically to imply the manner of inspiration; for every good and perfect gift comes from god, and yet it is not handed down by revelation. 3. divine revelation consists in opening, discovering or expounding [teaching the true sense and meaning of scriptures, by opening, discovering, and making known the will of god therein expressed: this is revelation, for whatsoever is discovered or made known is revealed—] p. 255. a new notion: by which the apocalypse must be the easiest book, and the revelation of john must be the exposition of john, but he useth the word doubly; sometimes properly, as p. 238. for gods conveying such a message unto a man, at other times he takes it loosely, for the understanding the message so brought: whereas divine revelations do not depend upon our right understanding them, but upon gods conveying them, unless he be of the jesuits mind, that the scripture not being understood is no scripture; and if discovering be revealing, than every artist or inventor is a revealer: so dr. harvey was a revealer of the circulation of blood. pecquet the revealer of the passage of the chyle. vesputius or columbus were the revealers of america, and the discoverer of the isle of pines was such a revealer as thomas ellwood, and by this there will be plenty of books of revelations. univer gra. p. 24. [the book of creation being a sealed book till the divine and spiritual illumination of the holy spirit of god do unseal it, reveal and open, and make known the things that are therein contained.] chap. xiii. of the texts of scripture produced by him. th. ellwood representing the holy scriptures dark and unintelligible, attempts to prove his immediate teachings from those dark texts, which he saith cannot be understood without immediate inspiration, and which we deny the having of, 'tis a manner of proceeding that makes the scriptures confute themselves, and supposeth men fools, who must admit that which cannot be understood. yet so far to be understood, as to be a proof against itself, and no further, other proofs of inspiration are only in this case proper; but seeing he hath no evidences else; let us try those expositions his spirit gives of some places. this prophecy he confesseth begun to be fulfilled at pentecost, but denyeth that it is yet ended, joel. 2.28. p. 270. but joel foretells not the reacting of old prophecies only that after its cessation for many years, there should be another more plentiful effusion of the spirit, than had been before. st. peter an inspired interpreter refers it to that very thing, the descent of the spirit. act. 2.16. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, this is that, etc. in the present tense, and dare thomas ellwood sense it otherwise? well may they control expositions of men, when they contradict that of the spirit, if it belong to all, than the papacy had it, and thomas ellwood will lose his share, we being flesh and he spirit; but the apostle makes that very days wonder to be the fulfilling of it, which he uttered upon receipt of the gift of tongues, before other miracles were wrought, why is not the spirit as visible now, as in that chamber in zion? why do quakers deny prophecies, visions, dreams strictly taken, and insist for revelation not there named. joel hath afterwards, which peter adapting to the jewish state calleth the last days, the scripture sense thereof will clear it, that last days refer to some determinate period of time, reason will tell us, for that last days should signify all time is not possible, for the now last, are before the succeeding last, and each taking his own for the last days, nothing could be certain: thus h. nicholas applied the last days to his prophecy upon an hundred and twenty years agone. new law, p. 11. glory of church. 8. the leveller took (latter times) to support his own fancy. howgil in 1661. called those the last days. so did truth exalted in 1658. p. 1. but latter days is an old testament phrase, gen. 49. 1. num. 24.14. isa. 2.2. referring oft to the last days of the jewish government, within which christ was to appear, but to enlarge last days, to all the periods of christianity, is very improper, and will leave nothing determinate. thus heb. 1.2. god hath in these last days, etc. i. e. not in our last (which may not be the last by many hundreds) but in those last, a while before the throwing down of the jewish enclosure. st. peter's last days, 2 pet. 3.3. are followed v. 13. with looking for a new heaven and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness, that refers not to the day of judgement, when we look for no new earth, but to the state of christianity: the jewish last days being out, a new holy state of christianity should commence, this is that world to come, heb. 2.5. which is not put in subjection to angels, as the jewish world was: christ the everlasting father, isa. 9.6. is the father 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of this future 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 period, age, world or state, which is to be everlasting, never antiquated by any supervening dispensation. these two states of moses and christ are conjoined, 1 cor. 10.11. the ends of the world are come 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, upon the apostles the extremes of those two periods met, the ends of those two states concentred and concurred, so heb. 9.26. he hath once in the end of the world, not of this world, christ is not to die again, but at the end of the jewish world he died, at the close or shutting up of that state, and st. john surviving them all, calls it the last hour: [all flesh] refers to gentiles as well as jews, some of all ages, some of all sexes, etc. at the return of the spirit of prophecy should be so inspired. if t. ellwood enlarge this to all, he must confute st. peter's present tense, he must produce visible proofs of the spirit, as the apostles did: and lastly, both as to this and other texts, show his party to be wholly entrusted with the revelations therein supposed. ephes. 1.17. [the spirit of wisdom and revelation] or the wisdom and revelation of the spirit, but immediate, p. 227. instant conferring is not named, or if it was, it had been suitable to that first plantation, or, if you have it at present, than we desire evidences of such before we give credit, but the word either implies ability of exposition of the figures of the old testament, dr. ham. grot. or the foretelling future things, which man cannot find out, but the spirit still reveals to us gradually in blessing the used means, enlightening our minds, etc. rom. 8.9. p. 232. all true believers received and must receive the spirit, but it doth not require of immediate, instant inspiration, but the spirit of sanctification and adoption, v. 10, 13. etc. 2 cor. 4.6. [god hath shined in our hearts] but it doth not say immediately, p. 232. the gospel which is outwardly proposed is a glorious light, when it is inwardly entertained, but it was by the ministry of paul they received that light, grot. v. 7. that treasure being brought them in earthen vessels [in the face of jesus] that is by jesus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth a person, it is id omne quod sensibus exterioribus percepitur, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, theophil. p. 233. gal. 1.16. thomas ellwood crowds together several things which are not in that text, but the apostle shows how he received the gospel (not of man) by certain ear testimony as st. luke and st. mark did, but from jesus christ himself, who called him and taught him, act. 9 & 22. and 26. (in me) is either unto me, or, by me, or, if in me, yet not so as to destroy christ's outward calling and commissionating him. p. 233. ephes. 3.3, 7. he sets this in the margin without the words, which concern only the revelation of that mystery, viz. the taking in the gentiles to be fellow heirs v. 6. which revelation is oft referred to and employed in scripture. p. 237. 2 pet. 1.21. here he makes a wide inference, because prophecy came not by the will of man, etc. therefore the scriptures must be understood only by the revealing of the spirit, the immediate influx of prophetic light into another's soul is of a different nature from my sensing or understanding that light which he received, for if the prophets could not conceive or write intelligibly what the spirit spoke, no more can thomas ellwood, for the spirit was as able to speak then as now, and if he must interpret what he before spoke, than he must be fetched in to interpret that interpretation, and so on for ever. rev. 3.7. p. 238. he brings in christ the lamb with the key of david opening, etc. begging the question, that opening signifieth expounding; whereas it denoteth christ's power in governing the church, taking in and shutting out, isa. 22: 20. mat. 16.19. aretas in loc. [clavem potestatem vocat] for he who hath the keys hath the house committed to him, t. e. by this spoils his very pretensions of the spirits opening, for this lamb is not the holy ghost, but the lamb that taketh away our sins. mat. 11.27. p. 239. he must prove the spirit to be the son, that all revelation is immediate, or that text makes against him. father, son and holy ghost, are all said to reveal, and yet those works are not to be confounded. 1 cor. 2.11. p. 239. & 266. though no man know, etc. yet the spirit hath communicated some part of that knowledge, v. 12. and if those cannot be understood, we have no assurance that the next will be clearer, but v. 13. the apostle declares that they spoke those things which the spirit gave them, and in the spirits words, that is purposely to be understood: what those things were which the spirit taught appears by the coherence, v. 9 viz. a conviction of the infinite joys of heaven, theoph. in loc. [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. the spirit teacheth such things as belong to christ's dispensation, his dying for us, making us the sons of god, setting us at the right hand of his father in himself.] rev. 13.3, 4. p. 243. he states the apostasy differently both from himself and his partners and should i refer that text to heathen idolatry, and not to lapsed christianity, i see not how thomas ellwoods' spirit could confute me. judas v. 9 1 thes. 4.8. these texts he applieth severely to such as look upon the quakers light to be fantastical; but he should first prove that god speaks by them, before he make us sin in rejecting them: in epictet. l. 1. c. 22. arrian gives a good rule, that differences arise, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in the application of rules to particular cases, winstanley lays a curse on such as will not come into the levellers community; [the hand of the lord shall be upon that person whosoever he be] and yet no rich quaker will think himself obliged by it. new law, p. 75. 2 tim. 3.16. the scripture is profitable [for doctrine.] i. e. to teach true doctrine, [for reproof] to discover and reprove false doctrine, p. 251. theop. & oecum. in locum. [for correction,] to correct and amend our evil manners, [for instruction in righteousness] to direct and lead into good life and manners: that the man of god may be perfect, etc. to furnish timothy a bishop and pastor for his office, much more to instruct the people in their duty: and therefore the apostle comforts timothy, that though he die, yet he hath the scriptures, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, theoph. which can benefit thee in my absence, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, these are thy counsellors instead of me. mark 13.11. that promise belongs to the times of persecution, and should not be enlarged to all cases: p. 256. theoph. on mat. 10.19. gives a good exposition of it [when we speak among the faithful, we ought to premeditate, and be ready for a defence, as st. peter saith, but when we speak before multitudes and kings who rage, than god doth promise his strength that we should not fear.] p. 263. act. 2.4. the spirits giving utterance was by his wonderful descent, when the apostles opened in such tongues and wisdom: and quakers have no tongues, but what they learn, rhetorical and poetical enthusiasms have raised men above the quakers, by keiths' concession: serious matters require premeditated discourses, and vehement speeches more become jugglers than wisemen, as seneca at large observeth. in epist. 40. p. 263. 1 tim. 4.13, 15. the directions given to timothy about reading are inconsistent with instant inspiration, but if tymothy who had an extraordinary gift must meditate, etc. much more must others: revelation is not capable of rules and instructions, though ordered as for time, yet it cannot be for matter. and of inspirations and infusions that come instantly and unexpectedly there can be no knowledge. thomas ellwood talks much about letter, sense, and spirit, p. 249. which both reflects upon god's manner of expressing his mind, as if it was not open, true, and cordial; and also casts dirt upon the scriptures: the opposition between the gospel and the law, or the remnant, print, and mark of circumcision, is wrested to the apparent sense of sacred writ, and a supposedly concealed sense: and this method both familists, libertines and others have formerly pursued: a quaker can but write words or letters, but in his sense he cannot write, i. e. express or give the holy ghost, and moses [besides the outward had a ministration in the spirit:] all these texts come not near his design, univer. gra. p. 29. much less, that quakers are instructed with that dispensation, if it was real. chap. xiv. that thomas ellwoods' ways of expounding do destroy the scripture. our author having represented the bible dark, to prepare the way for his suppletory spirit, as if this affront was not sufficient, he doth dispersedly insinuate several things, which in effect do discharge all, or most of the written word. 1. he declines what is urged from the law, saying, p. 134. [that it was to them of old time under the law (which was a state of weakness and childhood, and so of contention and strife,) etc.] whereas christ proposeth childhood as freest from contention, mar. 9.35. and thus the anabastists, called concionatores, looked upon the old testament as abrogated. 2. he makes nothing of christ's example in preaching upon a text, luc. 4.17. by this art, p. 200. [that it was in the time of the law, and suitable to that ministration, when reading and expounding the law and the prophets was a part of the jewish service, but it is not a sufficient warrant for the like practice in the time of the gospel.] a rule that enervates christ's example and doctrine, because done and spoke before the law was antiquated. he makes nothing of what christ spoke to the pharisees [that about choosing the lowest room, luke 14.8. was spoke to the pharisees, who had an itch to take place, etc. but p. 41. what was it to christ's own disciples? did he ever instruct them after this manner? no such matter.] by which he disobligeth christians from any obedience to what christ spoke to such as were not his attendants, and so demolishes a good part of the gospels. 4. being pressed from luc. 14.8. that there ought to be distinctions of persons, he saith, p. 41. [those words were not spoken with relation to the times of the gospel, nor directed to the disciples] by which he dispatcheth also much that christ spoke. 5. to do that more effectually he breaks all in pieces with this reply, p. 37. [it was under the law before the one offering was actually offered up] making what christ spoke whilst alive, and executing his prophetic office to signify nothing to us. 6. he makes the apostles to speak by way of condescension, to take in others and omit themselves, p. 77. which though sometimes used, yet must not be pressed, when such terms as we all, jam. 3.2. do include themselves as well as others. 7. he declines the lord's prayer, as taught, p. 81. [when the disciples were young and weak, etc.] which equally destroys the whole sermon on the mount, at the same time delivered. thus david george and the familists said, the scripture was given to novices. 8. he changeth tenses, p. 137. [is should be read was] an alteration, which if allowed, may be serviceable to strange purposes. 9 he enlargeth to his party, the particular promises made to the apostles, p. 228. and the commands as matth. 10. about meat and drink. 10. he conceals the unkind parts of a text, which favour not his pretensions, p. 230. this he conceals with an etc. [he shall bring to your remembrance all things, etc.] and quoting, john, 16.13. he wholly omitteth the last word [he shall show you things to come.] and yet challengeth all the other promises. 11. he gives christ's words a downright denial, p. 20. to that command, mat. 23.3. to do whatsoever they bid them, he replies [nay, hold there, we have had too much of that already.] he fastens also a ridiculous command upon god, whilst he saith [to challenge a property in man's labour, etc. is ridiculous,] p. 335. when as the priests by god's command had a property therein, receiving the tenth of that increase obtained by sweat, care, industry, etc. and he saith, that [christ's excellency lay not in humane learning, p. 207.] had he said, his commission lay not there, he had spoken like a scholar of so all knowing a master: he that made the eye shall he not see, etc. suppose a man be pressed to any duty, thomas ellwood hath furnished him with evasions, the law doth not oblige, nor what christ spoke before his death, this discards the old testament and the gospel, and the remainder may be avoided by his rules, as spoke to such as were weak, or under the law, or by way of condescension, or if none cut the knot, yet the last breaks the bonds insunder. [nay hold there, we have had enough of that already,] thus whilst he is pleading, men may live without sin, he enervates that doctrine which was designed to keep them from it, and his new light attempts to turn true old religion out of the world. the conclusion. having considered his pretence to inspirations, i think it not necessary now to view his notion of humane learning, that being in effect yielded up, by acknowledging that learning must translate; put an english bible into his hand, for his spirit, if true, is as able immediately to do the one as the other. when thomas ellwood considers sacred geography, histories, prophecies, chronology, the fabric of the temple, the dispersion of people over the world, numbers, weights, coins, measures, customs, rites, proverbs, with many such, he must acknowledge the usefulness of learning in other concerns, besides bare translating: the most convincing and beneficial employment for him, will be to let the world see the noble fruits of his interpreting spirit, for the ministration of the spirit being given to every one to profit withal, 1 cor. 12. he is bound to acquaint the world with his inspired expositions, and if he please as a specimen to begin with the chronicles, from what he doth perform, in prol●go. we may be induced to change our thoughts about their pretensions: st. hierom saith, the book of chronicles is such that without it, if a man arrogate to himself the knowledge of scriptures, he doth but abuse and delude himself; and dr. lightfoot thinks that a close comment on it, would contribute much light to the other scriptures; when we see solid interpretations, and not allegorical fancies proceed from him, we may entertain better opinions, but he must borrow none of our egyptians jewels, nor go to the philistines forge to sharpen his weapons, nor with david make use of the sword of goliath, though wrapped in a cloth behind the ephod, and that there be none like it. for our security of his faithful performing, when he discerns his spirit to seize on him, let him repair to some justice of peace, or his parish-priest, that by them he may be certified of the truth; or, if his spirit be indisposed, like baal, be talking, pursuing in a journey, or in a sleep, and must be awaked, we shall have patience a while, till he be better fitted, such a specimen (as above) will for a while employ us; but i suppose he need no protracting of time, the spirit of truth dwelling in them, and suffering no recess, he must be always ready, but if he will bury that his talon in a napkin, and think a rejoinder sufficient, i desire he will demonstrate the fruits of the spirit in his proceedure. the jews put off difficult things till there stood up a priest within vrim and thummim, and afterwards till the coming of elias, if quakers speak true, better than those are now come among us, 'tis but a reasonable request we make, viz. apostolical proofs, of his apostolical inspirations, or convincing evidences to remove those many reasons drawn up against his claims, but he must not make out his pretensions from those sacred scriptures, which he denies to be the rule, and looks upon as unintelligible without inspiration, and when they are produced, do cunclude as fully for any other party as for his; when he demonstrates his spirit some other way, it will deserve another manner of discussion; but besides miracles, he must produce the spirit of prophecy, or certain proofs like daniel's weeks, etc. that this is the foretold season, when the dispensation of christ in the inward, or in the spirit, was to commence, and withal evidence that our english quakers (and positively whether the conforming or nonconforming party) are the persons entrusted with the delivery of it; or, if he except against their being the offspring of winstanley, it no way can prejudice us, we having as much reason to believe a levellers inspirations as a quakers. there having been in the preceding discourse reference sometimes made to the quakers testimony or constitutions, and those being destructive both of the light in each man, and of thomas ellwood's, immediate revelation in each believer, they are here verbatim, presented. a testimony from the brethren, who were met together at london, in the third month, 1666. to be communicated to the faithful friends and elders in the countries; by them to be read in their several meetings, and kept as a testimony among them. we your friends and brethren, whom god hath called to labour and watch for the eternal good of your souls: at the time aforesaid being through the lords good hand, who hath preserved us at liberty met together in his name and fear, were by the operation of the spirit of truth, brought into a serious consideration of this present state of the church of god; which in the day of her return out of the wilderness, hath not o●●● many open, but some covert enemy's to conflict against; who are not afraid to speak evil of dignities and d●spise government; without 〈◊〉 we are se●sible our societies and fellowship cannot be kept holy and inviolable. therefore as god hath put it into our hearts, we do communicate these things following unto you; who are turned from darkness to light, and profess with us in the glorious gospel throughout nations and countries. wherein we have traveled, as well for a testimony against the unruly, as to establish and confirm them, unto whom it is given to believe the truth; which is unto us very precious, as we believe it is also unto you, who in love have received it, and understood the principles, and felt the virtue and operation of it. in which our spirits breath, that we all may be preserved, until we have well finished our course and testimony, to the honour and glory of our lord god, who is over all blessed for ever. 1. we having a true sense of the working of the spirit, which, under a profession of truth, leads into a division from, and exaltation above the body of friends, who never revolted, nor degenerated from their principles, into marks of separation from the constant practice of good and ancient friends, who are found in the faith once delivered to us. and also into a slight esteem of their declarations or preaching, (who have and do approve themselves as the ministers of christ) and of the meetings of the lords people, whereby and wherein friends are, and often have been preciously revived and refreshed. and under pretence of keeping down man and forms, doing down the ministry, and meeting or encourage those that do the same. we say, the lord giving us to see, not only the working of that spirit, and those that are joined to it, that bring forth these ungrateful fruits; but also the ●vil consequents and effects of it, which are of no less importance, than absolutely tending to destroy the work of god, and lay waste his heritage. we do unanimously (being thereto encouraged by the lord, whose presence is with us) declares and testify, that neither that spirit, nor such as are joined to it, aught to have any dominion, office, or rule in the church of christ jesus, whereof the holy spirit that was poured forth upon us, hath made us members, and overseers. neither ought they to act, or order the affairs of the same: but are rather to be kept under with the power of god, till they have an e●r op●n to instruction, and come into subjection to the witness of god; of the increase of whose kingdom and government there shall be no end. 2. we do declare and testify, that that spirit, and those that are joined to it, who stand not in unity with the ministry and body of friends; that are constant and steadfast to the lord, and to his unchangeable truth, which we have received, and are witnesses of, and ambassadors, have not any true spiritual right; or gospel-authority to be judges in the church, and as the ministry of the gospel of christ, so as to condemn you and their ministry: neither ought their judgement to be any more regarded by friends than the judgement of other opposers, who are without. for of right the elders and members of the church (which keep their habitation in the truth) ought to judge matters and things that differ, and their judgement which is so given therein aught to stand good and valued among friends; which though it be kicked against and disapproved by them who have degenerated, as aforesaid. and we do further declare and testify, that it is abominable pride, which goeth before destruction, that so puffs up the mind of any particular, that he will not admit of any judgement to take place against him: for he that is not justified by the witness of god in friends, is condemn by it in himself; though being hardened, he may boast over it in a false confidence. 3. if any difference arise in the church, or amongst them that profess themselves members thereof; we do declare and testify, that the church, with the spirit of the lord jesus christ, have power (without the assent of such as descent from their doctrine and practices) to hear and determine the same. if any pretend to be of us, and in case of controversy will not admit to be tried by the church of christ jesus, nor submit to the judgement given by the spirit of truth in the elders and members of the same, but kick against their judgement, as only the judgement of man, it being manifested according to truth and consistent with the doctrine of such good ancient friends as have been, and are found in the faith, agreeable to the witness of god in his people; then we do testify in the name of the lord (if that judgement so given be risen against and denied by the party condemned:) than he or she (and such as so far partake of their sins, as to countenance and encourage them therein) ought to be rejected, and having erred from the truth, persisting therein presumptuously, are joined in one with heathens and infidels. 4. we do declare, that if any go abroad hereafter pretending to that weighty work and service, who either in life or doctrine grieve good friends, that are steadfast in the truth, sound in the faith; so that they are not manifest in their consciences, but disagree to the witness of god in them; then ought they (whatever have been their gifts) to leave them before the altar, and forbear going abroad and ministering, until they are reconciled to the church, and have the approbation of the elders and members of the same. and if any that have been so approved of by the church, do afterwards degenerate from the truth, and do that which tendeth to division, and countenance wickedness and faction (as some have done) than the church hath a true spiritual right and authority to call such to examination; and if they find sufficient cause for it, by good testimony, may judge them unfit for the work of god's ministry, whereof they have rendered themselves unworthy; and so put a stop to their proceed therein. and if they submit not to the judgement of the spirit of christ in his people, then ought they publicly to be declared against; and warning given to the flock of christ in their several meetings, to beware of them, and to have no fellowship with them, that they may be ashamed, and lambs and babes in christ preserved. 5. and if any man or woman, which are out of the unity with the body of friends, print or cause to be printed, or published in writing, any thing which is not of service for the truth; but tends to the scandalising and reproaching of faithful friends, or to beget or uphold division and faction; then we do warn and charge all friends that do love truth, as they desire it may prosper, and be kept clear, to beware and take heed of having any hand in printing, republishing or spreading such books or writings. and if at any time such books be sent to any of you that sell books in the country, after that you with the advice of good and serious friends, have tried them and find them faulty, to send them back again whence they come. and we further desire, from time to time, faithful and sound friends may have the view of such things as are printed upon truth's account (as formerly it hath used to be) before they go to the press; that nothing but what is sound and savory, and that will answer the witness of god even in our adversaries, may be exposed to public vieu. 6. we do advise and counsel, that such as are made overseers of the flock of god by the holy spirit, and do watch for the good of the church, meeting together, in their respective places, do set and keep the affairs of it in good order; beware of admitting or encouraging such as are weak and of little faith, to take such trust upon them: for by hearing things disputed that are doubtful, such may be hurt themselves, and may hurt the truth, not being grown into a good understanding to judge of things. therefore we exhort, that you who have received a true sense of things, be diligent in the lord's business, and keep the meetings as to him, that all may be kept pure and clean, according to that of god which is just and equal. we also advise, that not any be admitted to order public business of the church, but such as have felt in a measure of the universal spirit of truth; which seeks the destruction of none, but the general good of all, and especially those that love it, who are of the household of faith. so, dear friends and brethren, believing your souls will be refreshed (in the sense of our spirits, and integrity towards god) at the reading of these things, as ours were while we sat together at the opening of them; and that you will be one with us on the behalf of the lord, and his precious truth, against those who would limit the lord to speak without instruments, or by what instruments they list, and reject the counsel of the wisemen, and the testimony of the prophets, which god sanctified and sent among you in the day of his love, when you were gathered; and would not allow him liberty, in and by his servants, to appoint t●me and place, wherein to meet together to wait upon and worship him, according as he requireth in spirit, and calling it formal, and the meeting of man. we say, believing that you will have fellowship with us herein, as we have with you in the truth, we commit you to god, and the word of life, which hath been preached to you from the beginning (which is neither limited to place, nor time, nor persons; but hath power to limit us to each as pleaseth him) that you with us, and we with you, may be built up in our most holy faith; and be preserved to partake of the inheritance which is heavenly, amongst all them that are sanctified. richard farnsworth. alexander parker. george whitehead. josiah coale. john whitehead. thomas loe. stephen crispe. thomas green. john moon. thomas briggs. james parkes. the sum of the particulars handled in the preceding treatise. divisions are no argument against the truth of christianity. p. 1. the holy scriptures are by some thought too plain, and by others too obscure. p. 2. quakers give better names to their own books than to the scriptures. p. 3. their beginning was in 1648. p. 4. winstanley the leveller was their father. p. 5. 6. they have a great resemblance to rome. p. 7. 8. the many disadvantages in treating with them. p. 9 their unchristian temper in controversies. pag. 10. 11. they misapply scripture words, as the old heretics did. p. 12. 13. t. ellwood's ignorance and impudence about st. basil. p. 14. about st. greg. nazianzene, and sosiades. p. 15. and in calling the martyrs [our godly martyrs.] p. 16. 17. quakers deny themselves to be protestants. p. 16. thomas ellwood's sauciness towards the king. p. 18, 19 quakers have dangerous doctrines about kings, and magistrates. p. 19, ●●. their degrading of the nobility. p 20. and contempt of other orders of men. p. 21. thomas ellwood's manner of claiming inspirations concludes as much for others, as for themselves p. 22. god affords sufficient means of conviction. p. 23. immediate revelation should be attested with evidences. p. 24. revelation is a more easy thing than studying. p. 25. the various claimers of infallibility confute each other. p. 26. quakers challenge the internal work of the spirit, but deny the external. p. 27. thomas ellwood and his party's high demands. p. 28. his seeming concessions. p. 29. christ was the apostles instructor before the spirit. p. 31. quakers make christ's prophetic office to signify nothing, p. 32. or confound jesus and the spirit. p. 33. the manner of the apostles instructions recited. p. 34. quakers differ about the apostles knowledge. p. 35. the apostles were certain witnesses of christ, and the writers of the n. t. wrote upon their certain knowledge. p. 36. no new books of scriptures can now be written. 37. the holy spirit did inwardly pursue what christ had outwardly delivered. p. 38. enthusiasm destroys the settled grounds of religion p. 39 quakers called themselves apostles and prophets. p. 40. they make the apostasy to begin with the second century. p. 41. they are very unlike the apostles. p. 42. successors cannot receive like predecessors. p. 43. the first settling a dispersation must not always continue. p. 44. god is not prodigal of miracles. p. 45. quakers inspirations must be as unintelligible as those of st. paul or others. p. 46. the texts produced by t ●●●wood, prove against him. p. 47. what was promised 〈◊〉 he apostles should not be enlarged to all. p. 48. quakers like celsus and the gnostics pretend much knowledge. p. 49 thomas ellwood borrows renewing of revelations from george keith. p. 51. their damnable essential of religion. p. 52. 53. their great slighting of the canon of scripture. p. 54. 55. repetition of revelation reinforces the law of moses, p. 56. destroys the reality of history, p. 57 and the determinateness of prophecy, p. 58. confound the revelations of men and women. p. 60. the spirit doth not repeat, what was spoken by himself, or by other ways before. p. 61. 62. quakers pretend revelations for worldly matters. p. 64. god's dispensations are regular and orderly. p. 65. quakers lose themselves in a circle. p. 66. the light within, and inspirations from without, are too much for one man. p. 67. growth is not consistent with immediate revelation. p. 68 enthusiasts have out gone quakers. p. 69. satan would counter work god with inspirations. p. 70. such appeared in the apostles days. p. 71. several pretended to it, as the gnostics. p. 72. cerinthus. p. 72. elxai. p. 73. marcus. p. 74. the valentinians. p. 75. the montanists. p. 75. the messalians. p. 76. aetius an arian. p. 77. donatus. p. 78. the church of rome a favourer of revelations. p. 79. st. hildegardis and others spoke much like quakers, p. 80. 81. the council of lateran defends them. p. 82. the anabaptists pretended inspirations. p. 82. the libertines. p. 83. casper swenckfeild. p. 84. the familists. p. 85. jacob behmen, p. 86. g. fox his mystical language. p. 88 the english enthusiast, as seekers. p. 89. antinomian. p. 89. levellers. p. 90. ranters. p. 92. fifth monarchy men. p. 92. franklyn, and the hamp-shire revealers. p. 94. muggleton. p. 95. anna trapnel. p. 96. the gifted brethren. p. 96. the considerers. p. 97. any of these competitors deserve as much regard and credit as the quakers. p. 98. some english enthusiasts from their spirit condemn the quakers. p. 100 the late germane prophets do the like. p. 101. the numerousness of quakers is no proof for them. p. 102. they confess themselves to be not always inspired. p. 103. the danger in trusting them upon that account. p. 104. their many contradictions in doctrine. p. 105, 110. their strange ways of confuting one another in case of such differences. p. 110. 111. their boldness in rescinding and altering revelations. p. 112. inspiration is by them made requisite to other professions. p. 113. the debate about the hat considered. p. 114. their constitutions inquired into. p. 115. the unreasonableness of their newest doctrine [that the body of ancient friends is to be the tryer of inspirations.] discovered. p. 116. 118. their viewing and licensing of books before that they be printed. p. 119. their differences about their ministry. p. 120. a pope like decretal epistle of george fox. p. 121. that uninspired injunction observed. p. 122. their blasphemous letters. p. 123. divine revelations ought not to be altered. p. 124. inspiration pretended for bad designs. p. 125. their unity consists in diversities. p. 126. thomas ellwood makes the spirit to be the sole expounder of holy scripture. p. 127. and that desiring and waiting are the only requisites on our part to receive those expositions. p. 128. the dangerousness of that fancy discovered. p. 129. other means requisite besides waiting. p. 130. the style of the scriptures is intelligible. p. 133. new revelations must proceed in infinitum. p. 136. the letter and the spirit are not contrary. p. 137. christ spoke so as to be understood. p. 138. the scripture being a law ought to be intelligible. p. 139. the light and revelation are too much. p. 141. vninspired men may expound rightly. p. 142. the quakers circle. p. 143. t. e. receedes from his own and his friend's doctrine. p. 144. some of the quakers expositions presented. p. 145. the demonstration of the spirit and power explained. p. 148. quakers do undervalue miracles. p. 151. miracles are necessary now to attest their doctrine. p. 152. the quakers new dispensation. p. 154. their forefathers therein. p. 155. their inward experiences reflected on. p. 157. religion not to be entertained upon that account. p. 158. others plead experiences as much. p. 159. some of their experiences instanced in p. 160 the fathers expound scriptures unlike the quakers. p. 162. the reformers did not challenge t. is. revelations. p. 164. quakers hear god's voice. p. 166. receive the gospel by god's gift p. 167. confound revelation and exposition. p. 168. thomas ellwood mistakes the sense of joel. 2.28. p. 169. and of several other texts. p. 171. his rules of expounding destroys the scriptures. p. 176. inspired expositions upon the bible will be t. ellwood's most convincing employment. p. 179. but he must give evidence of their divine original. p. 180. the quakers testimony or constitutions. p. 182. finis. the atheist turned deist, and the deist turned christian: or, the reasonableness and union of natural, and the true christian religion. by tho. emes, chirurgo-medicus. london: printed in the year 1698. speak every man truth with his neighbour; for we are members of one another. eph. 4.25. and so speak ye, and so do ye, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty. jam. 2.12. errata. page 3. line 10. for certify, read certify. l. 20. for liar, r. lyar. p. 4. l. 26. for ll, read all. p. 6. l. last, for unbeholding, r. unbeholden. p. 21. l. 20. for then, r. than. p. 22. for beholding, r. beholden. so p. 34. l. 34. p. 43. l. 36. r. marriage-constancy. p. 45. l. 5. for countervail, r. countervale. p. 84. l. 6. for god's, r. gods. p. 95. after same, add time. p. 118. l. 26. blot and, after david. p. 181. l. 16. for they, r. the before oaths. some of the principal heads of this discourse; under which divers other things are touched upon. numb. 1. what necessary to the end of man. numb. 2. three ways whereby we know truth. numb. 3. the nearest way to prove the being of god. numb. 4. self what: the necessity of supposing a divine being, thence proved. numb. 5. god knowable by experience or sense. numb. 6. self more largely considered, and said to be cogitation, or mind. numb. 7. objections against cogitation's being the essence of self, answered. numb. 8. god considered more largely, and as in himself, or essential attributes. numb. 9 the common notion of omnipresence, false. numb. 10. god considered in relation to the creatures, negatively and positively. numb. 11. of the end of god's making things. numb. 12. man's duty or religion, considered in general. numb. 13. the same considered more particularly in love to god. numb. 14. and love to his works. numb. 15. love the foundation of all orderly behaviour. no. 16. the natural reason and sense of the decalogue. no. 17. the goodness and wellbeing of the creature wherein it consists. no. 18. the ground of unhappiness. no. 19 the true notion of sin, and that sin is a ways an act; and original sin as suppos● distinct from actual sin, a mistake; the tri● notion of it. no. 20. the fall of man from innocence, naturals known. no. 21. the aggravation, or greatness of sins disorder. no. 22. how the creature should behave itself on th● conviction of sin: with the natural dut● of repentance. no. 23. forgiveness with god, apparently discoverab●● by the light of nature. no. 24. why god made creatures capable of sin. no. 25. free will considered. no. 26. what an arbitrary command of god, and ho● reasonable. no. 27. all the commands of god tend to man's happiness, or pleasure: disobedience to the contrary; neither obedience nor disobedience add to, or take any thing from god. no. 28. that the creature having once sinned, is more inclinable to go on sinning, than to repent. no. 29. convicted sinners at first unapt to believe that god will forgive. no. 30. the scope of all god's deal with sinners in order to their recovery. no. 31. immortality, and a future life, discoverable by reason what death is, and its use since sin, with arguments for the immortality of the soul. no. 32. the resurrection of the body rationally concluded. no. 33. future judgement necessary. no. 34. man capable of repentance, and doing his duty. no. 35. the divers motives and arguments god has given men to persuade them to repent, and what the compleatest. no. 36. revelation chief for enforcing natural religion: divers considerations about revelation, miracles, faith, etc. no. 37. of christ, and his work. no. 38. of his person. no. 39 all that are saved, saved the same way, viz. by christ. no. 40. scripture a gift of god argued, and the need of revelation. no. 41. some things taught in the world as doctrines of the bible, not tending to the true end and scope of revelation. no. 42. as mistakes about reconciliation, christ's death and sacrifice, propitiation, etc. no. 43. about satisfaction. no. 44. mistakes about punishment: god not to be thought the cause of the creatures misery. no. 45. mistakes about imputation of sin and righteousness. no. 46. mistakes about merit. no. 47. about redemption. no. 48. about intercession. no. 49. how the mediation of christ becomes ●●fectual. no. 50. of the doctrine of fate, or absolute predest●●nation. no. 51. a reflection on the present state of christi●●nity. 1. there are two things necessary for man in order to his attaining the end of his being: to know the truth; and to will well. or in other words, to be wise, and good. as for knowing the truth, there are two things wherein this necessary wisdom doth chief consist; the knowledge of god, and the knowledge of ones self. and there is one thing wherein man's goodness doth consist; and that is, in the conformity of his will to the will of his maker, to will as god wills. the order of our knowledge of these two objects, god and self, seems to be this; we begin to know ourselves as the objects, of which we are first ware; and then we proceed to the knowledge of god: but the connection of the knowledge of god, and of ourselves is such, that we can never know ourselves well, tell we arise to the knowledge of god; nor know god as we ought, if we know but little of ourselves. 2. there are but three ways, i conceive, whereby we can have any knowledge of god, ourselves, or any thing else. 1. by sense. 2. by reason: or 3. by revelation. by the knowledge of sense i do not mean only the sensation, or perception of bodies; but also, and rather the experience, sense, or conscience we have of our own thoughts, or may have of others. all those notions we have as it were, passively received, without reasoning; and which are as it were, the matter or ground on which reason works. the second way of knowledge. reason is the faculty of arguing or discoursing with ourselves, whereby from considering our passive knowledges, or sensations, we arise to get more full knowledge of things, and of what we had no immediate sensation, or intuition, and by getting the knowledge of some things, we proceed by arguments, and get the knowledge, and better knowledge of others. as by considering the creatures, (especially ourselves) we may arise to the knowledge of god; and then by considering our maker, we are led back again better to know ourselves; and from a better knowledge of ourselves, we get still the clearer knowledge of our author. the third way we may be made acquainted with god, ourselves, or other things, viz. revelation is but as it were a compendious assistance of the two former: an express, or particular instruction from god, telling the creature in short, what he would have been, either ignorant of, or not so soon, or easily have known without such an immediate teaching: as for instance; what god is, and will be found to be, what we are, aught to be, and shall be hereafter. but of this i shall speak more, when the order of my discourse brings me to it again. by the knowledge of god and ourselves, which we may have these three ways, we are rationally led, or persuaded to will well, by conforming our wills to the will of god. the knowledge of god, howsoever attained, may be divided into two heads. first, that he is, or that there is a god. secondly, what he is. the knowledge of ourselves likewise will bear the same division. the knowledge of what god is may also be divided in two parts: first, what he is in himself. secondly, what he is in relation to his creatures. 3. now that we may find out, and prove to ourselves the existence of a divine being, or god, let us descend into ourselves [the nearest step we can make, and plainest way we can go, and that which i here shall choose to take, leaving those other more commonly traced paths] and see what arguments we can find within us for the being of a god, yea by what necessity we are compelled to acknowledge that he is. first, every man hath a sense, or experience of the reality of his own being certain, beyond all demonstration; so that none can doubt of his own existence, or needs to have it proved; and if any could here doubt, that very doubting would certify him that he hath a being, or is. for if there be a doubting, an enquiring, a supposing, a will to know, etc. there is something: actions and passions cannot be without being, or where there is no being; of nothing nothing can be supposed, affirmed, or denied: so that it would be but time lost to go about to convince a man of his own being, of which he cannot but be certain, and what he cannot deny, but he will at the same time affirm himself a wilful liar. 4. we shall therefore consider in the next place (so far as our present business in finding a divine being requires) what we are: and because i have but now made mention of doubting and considering, and find men so apt to doubt, question, and consider what we are as to our essence, or being, as well as of other things: i say we are doubters, questioners, considerers, and supposers: but what is doubting, questioning, supposing, and considering? it is thinking, and that an imperfect thinking; thinking that wants something, in which we find an incomplete defective understanding, and a will or desire of something we have not. now wherever is found any thing of ignorance in the understanding, or any want of power in the will, it appears that that being cannot in any wise be thought to be of itself, or selfsufficient; but must consequentially be acknowledged to be dependent, having some other being its cause: for he that finds himself insufficient to himself, can in no wise be thought to be sufficient of himself: he that not only wants something he may have, but moreover cannot give himself what he wants, is dependent on something else for some addition; when a being that is independent, and selfsufficient in its essence, cannot be supposed to need another than its own understanding and will on any account. we all find in ourselves a want of knowledge; we know but a few things, and we know but a little of those few things we know; and moreover, of those things we do know, we come to the knowledge of one after another, so that we are sometime ignorant of what we afterwards know, yea in all our thoughts we find a constant succession of one thought after another; we cannot think of all we think together, but we forget one thing while we consider another, (and we do not see it possible that it should ever be otherwise with us) which imperfection of the succession of thoughts one after another in spiritual natures or minds, is the notion of time, and that for which they are said to be in time, or timous being's, and would be so if there were no motion of bodies, or body at'll; and while there is any mind having this succession of thoughts afore and after time is, and will be, and that mind in time, or timous: notwithstanding the fancy of those who talk of souls going into eternity, or being eternal, à parte post, on the after half, half eternal, which is a whole contradiction: now where there is a succession of thoughts one after another, there was a precedure of them one before another, till we come to a first, or beginning thought, which with us is past; and what is passed was present and future, and what was future was not then in actual being, (the same must be said of men, or other things that are before one another as well as of thoughts, there must be a first) and where a thing was not, but only might be, if it be, or begin, it must be begun; and what is begun must have a cause, or be begun by another; it cannot be its own efficient, for so it would be supposed to be before it is, which is a contradiction. now if there be something that began to be, (as we must conclude of ourselves) there must be a cause of our beginning, which cause did not begin to be; for if it had it had been alike insufficient, and it-self wanted a cause, and so must be caused, and so we must run on tell we come to a first cause, which is sufficient, and necessary of it-self, always the same; and this first cause is god. and as we find ourselves from our imperfect understandings and successive thoughts, necessitated to grant ourselves caused, and that the cause of our being must be sufficient of it-self, or perfect; if we come to the particular consideration of our wills, we shall find two things there denoteing imperfection and insufficiency. first, variableness. secondly, impotence. as to the variableness of will, we all find our wills changeable, sometimes willing one thing, than another; yea sometimes one thing then the contrary; in which variableness of will, is also seen a farther imperfection of our understanding: for we will the thing which at the present appears best to us; but what at one time seems good or best, at another is not so in our judgement, but bad: now at one of these times the judgement fails and errs. secondly, we find the impotence of our wills in that we will things we cannot effect. this every one is sensible of; he that affects to be an atheist himself. we see a defect in our knowledge often, we would know somethings we don't know, and what we cannot cause ourselves to know when we would; likewise we would sometimes do the things we find we cannot do, so we still find ourselves insufficient; so that there may be something added to our knowledge, (nay we find there daily is) which we at our pleasure cannot add; and that there may be some increase of our power, which we of ourselves cannot cause. how will this prove a god, may the atheist say? i answer, most evidently: for if we want something which we see we may possibly have, and cannot at our pleasure have it, we could much less have being of ourselves; if we cannot know, or do without being beholden to some other, even things we may so come to know or do: want some other cause than our own wills for a small addition to our perfection, we could much less have being itself unbeholden to any other. again, he that wants something, he that knows but some things, and can do but some things, but may know and do more, has but so much knowledge, and so much power, and may have more, might have had less and less, and consequently the least, yea none at all, and so no being; and where being might have been wanting, there cannot be self-existence. moreover, whoever is not the cause of all other being's, is not necessary to the being of other things; we are certain that there are other being's besides ourselves, and we may be as sure that we are not the cause of their being: for we do not know ourselves to be so, nor experience our production of them; but whatever is the cause of the other being's, cannot be supposed to be ignorant of its being so, or to have produced them at unawares, an act of will being necessary to the effecting of a thing, of which none can be ignorant. now if we are not necessary in order to the being of other things, but that they may be, and are, and that unbeholding to us, we are not absolutely necessary; and if not necessary we might have wanted being; but we have being, we know by experience or conscience, tho' we are such imperfect being's, such unnecessary being's. now if we are, and are not of ourselves, we must have being from another, and that other being must be perfect, necessary, selfsufficient, or it would be in-sufficient to give being to me, or any other; and this perfect, necessary, selfsufficient being, is god. 5. again, besides the consideration of ourselves as in-sufficient being's, that of necessity must have a sufficient cause, which by reason proves the being of god; there is another way whereby we may be certain of the same truth (which for some reason i omitted, as order required, to speak of first) and that is a certain sense or experience of god, which we may find in ourselves if we will attend unto our own thoughts. thus we find several things done in us which we do not, nor can do; we have thoughts wherein we are merely passive, as in sensible perceptions, or thoughts we have by the occasion, or means of body, if we are not the cause of them, as we may well conclude when we find we cannot alter them; if we cannot but see, and hear, etc. while the organs are rightly disposed, and that so and so, and the bodies that we have the perceptions or thoughts of, cannot be the cause of those thoughts, being more imperfect and impotent than our own minds, having not so much as wills, or any power to effect reality, or cause being, but are caused themselves, and cannot create perceptions; as we find ourselves affected, or sensible of those thoughts, we shall (if we consider) find ourselves forced to acknowledge our sensibility of the cause of them. if i see, or hear, and so suffer a thought, and am not the cause of this sensation, nor can the objects of these sensations cause them in me; there must be some agent or gause of this passion, and that can be none but god. and as we believe god, and he only is able to create or cause thoughts, or perception in us, by the means of other our fellow-creatures, and thoughts or perceptions of them; so it is not less reasonable to think that he can cause thoughts in us, and apply an object to our understanding without the use of those means, even by an immediate act of his will, and present himself as the object of our understanding. we may farther suppose, god could have created one only mind, than that mind must have had an object besides it-self, it being not selfsufficient; and there being nothing else but god, it must have thought on god, and without any means, god's immediate will being sufficient, which would have been a a sense of god. and that there are other minds, and other things besides minds, does not hinder but that god may cause a sensation in the mind immediately: and some persons perhaps of considerate judgements will not think me far out of the way, if i say i have known such immediate sensations, and think others have, or may have the like experience, (if they attend to their own thoughts) especially in divers passions tending to the rectifying the disorderly will, where perhaps they cannot be said to be more sensible of any thing, than of god's acting strongly upon them, and that not barely in making impressions on their understandings, and no more, where they merely suffer the objects; but by those impressions giving the clearest and mightiest arguments to persuade and change their volitions, and better determine the acts of their wills, their own proper actions. again, every man if he considers will find he has a will as it were disproportionable to any thing in himself, or in other creatures; a mighty desire, feeling as it were after something that can satisfy, and fill it with a kind of perfection of satisfaction. this boundless and unwearied desire, that cannot fill it-self with any imperfect thing, must have another manner of object, and must have a cause, and none but that cause can be the object sufficient to satisfy it. whence could there be such a desire, if there were no object suitable? and if the cause of this desire had not made it to be satisfied, or capable to be satisfied, he had made it in vain; but he is supposed perfect, and so can do nothing in vain, or to no purpose, for so to do is an imperfection: now if this desire be to be satisfied, when ever it is so, it cannot be insensible, or want experience, of its satisfaction; for so to suppose would be to suppose it not satisfied, and none can satisfy it but its sufficient cause, that is god; therefore there is possible, yea sometimes actually, (in those who have been convinced of the insufficiency of imperfect being's) a perception or thought, and that a sensible one, of god; if sensibility be not unduly confined to the reception of those thoughts, we have by occasion, and means of body. that all bodily nature is insufficient, and must have a cause or beginning, i need not urge, when we ourselves, we are, find ourselves imperfect, and so that we cannot be without one. 6. we are come so far as by considering ourselves as imperfect, or insufficient being's, to find that we cannot be of ourselves, uncaused, but must of necessity have a sufficient cause; which is all one as to say that there is a god our author; and in doing this, we have also found in some measure what we are, and what he is: i shall now go on to consider a little more largely both ourselves and god, as to what kind of being's we are, and what god may, and must rationally be thought to be. and as, i say, i shall consider, and consider ourselves first, i say. first, we are considerers; what is considering? it is thinking, and he that considers, or thinks seriously, will find nothing which he can properly call himself but thinking, or his mind. that organic frame or body of a man, is not the possessor of a mind, or the self-using a mind, but a thing the mind, or cogitation uses, that which saith, i, me, mine, is the mind, and nothing else. and tho' thinking is called by divers names, as soul, mind, understanding, will, memory, conscience, etc. yet it is all the while but one thing, thinking: the principal diversity of which, we can possibly make, is but according to its divers applications to its objects; which if well considered can be but two, 1st. understanding, 2d. will: or in other words, knowledge and desire. under these two heads or divisions, come all the modes of thinking. the threefold division of our mind into understanding, conscience and will, which some make, and call the threefoldness of a creature, is not good, but a mistake; for conscience differs not from understanding, but in respect of the objects. other things, or self; for whether i know my own thoughts, or know any other thing, it is knowledge still; the understanding is understanding as much when applied to one object, as when applied to another; conscience is but another name for understanding, when applied to one's own thoughts: so memory is but the thinking again that we thought before of such or such a thing. i need name no more, any one may find who considers the matter, that our knowledge of things, and the acts of our wills, or our desires about them, are the two essential parts, or rather modes, or properties, we can make in any mind; and yet knowing and desiring, or if you like better the words understanding and will, ( the object of either may be, or the manner of their application) is still but one thinking; and my thinking is one, and the same being, whatever mode or object it hath; and what i call my mind or soul, myself or person: so that understanding and will are essential to a person, or intelligent being; this duality, and nothing else, or but what is reduceable to these. where there is these there is a person, and is more, or other than these, is not of the essence of a person, or intelligent being. those that make understanding and conscience two things in god, considered in himself, calling them two modes or relations, or the like, (as some witty men have done) have not considered the matter closely. for where there is nothing but god, (and nothing else is necessary and eternal) his knowing himself or conscience, is the only necessary or essential understanding, there being no other object. so that to consider god, as having necessarily or essentially an understanding, other and distinct from reflection or knowing himself, is but to give him so no understanding, and comes to no distinction at all. that original mind or wisdom which some wise men of late talk of as something other than what they call reflex wisdom, or god's knowing himself, considering god solitary, and in himself, is just no wisdom, his self being the only object; unless they persuade themselves that his thinking on creatures is his original wisdom, which i suppose they will hardly dare to do, but this by the way. against this notion, that thinking is the very essence of the mind or soul, the very person or self, i find two principal objections. first, that thinking is not that which is real, substantial, or constant enough to be the soul or mind. secondly, that it is but an act, and requires an agent, or an attribute requiring a subject; which agent or subject, is more likely to be the soul or mind. to which first, i answer, that thinking of any thing we can imagine, is most real and constant; for we may suppose bodies not really existent, but only in imagination, (and there is no notion we have of any thing but body, and thinking, wherefore we cannot honestly suppose any thing else) but we cannot suppose thinking to have no being, because while we suppose, or think, we are sure it is actually present, we may suppose we might have been without the ideas, or figure-thoughts of bodies, or any thoughts that come by occasion of them, as we find sometimes we are. we may also suppose bodies not to have been, and yet we be, they being not necessary being's; and if they had not been, we must have always been without the ideas of them: for if we try we shall find it as hard, as if we consider unreasonable to suppose, that we can frame, or stir up in ourselves thoughts of things that are not, as that we can bring things into actual being, or create, the creating of perceptions of things, i will call it, being to be done by the same power as the creating of things themselves. and we may suppose god himself, being an almighty mind, might have created minds without bodies, the notion of a mind, or cogitation, not necessarily including body or quantity. but to return; as we find thinking so real or truly existent, that we experience its existence when ever we consider it, and cannot suppose any thing to be without supposing selfexistent cogitation, or almighty mind, so as to the continual, or perpetual existence even of our thinking, [i do not mean as applied to any one object, for it is variable, and inconstant in that respect; and as it is a creature cannot be applied to many, or all its objects at once, and yet it is still thinking, it is applied to:] as to its continuation, i say, we know of no time since we began to think, or have a being, wherein we did not think; for we remember, we remember we thought on, memory being but thinking over the same thought, with reflection on it; and tho' we do not remember what we thought on at such or such a day, or hour, yet we are sure we then thought, or were thinking: to be short, we are sure we continually think except in sleep, say some, which seems to be the chief objection against continual thinking. to which, i say, we think always, one thought still following another, sleeping and waking, but we soon forget all those thoughts that make no considerable impression on our wills, or whereby we are very little affected. in the continual succession of thoughts we experience when we are awake, great numbers go as fast as they come, without being dwelled on, or repeated, of those objects that very little affect us, and so are presently forgot, and are as if they had not been, or as if the objects had not been in our mind. besides, as a great, if not the greatest number of our thoughts are of, and by the means of, external things let in by the organs of the senses, which are as conditions (in this life at least) of our receiving such cogitations, the indisposition of the senses, or want of those conditions, leaves us without those thoughts, if wholly indisposed; but if only in part, the thoughts are weak, and pass unremembered, and not reflected on, and so are by some inconsiderately supposed not to have been: but tho' our eyes are shut in sleep, and we then see nothing, we have visible ideas sometimes from the remembrance of things seen, tho' confused, (for no one born blind, and so continuing, ever dreams he sees;) yet the other senses are not quite laid by, we feel, hear, and smell, etc. tho' but remissly, and our thoughts or perceptions are but faint, and so it is no wonder if we forget them as fast as they pass, and so suppose we had none. and which to me makes the matter past doubt; i have discoursed with a person fast asleep, who hath answered me distinctly to many questions, without so much as dreaming of any thing that was said. but moreover, if we do not think when asleep, we do neither understand, nor will, or which is the same, have no understanding or will, but every morning; or perhaps twice or thrice every night a new mind; for understanding that understands not, or will that wills not, is no understanding or will, but an absurdity: and it is the same as to say, i am thinking, and yet do not think. but we remember we think sometimes in sleep, and that strongly; and though most commonly it is but weakly, yet it is thinking. and such weak thinking we may suppose a child in the womb may have; none perhaps but what comes by feeling or tasting, i speak according to the common meaning; for all senses are but different ways of feeling, and yet the very ideas that come by the grossest of the senses are thoughts still, it being the mind that perceives, not the body. from these considerations, to name no more, we may be persuaded that we always think, tho' we don't always reflect and remember our thoughts, and so that thinking is real and constant. but to the second objection, that thinking is but an act of something else, the agent, or an attribute of something, else the subject. i answer, first by demanding what this more real and noble agent is? what notion have we of it? i have long tried, and can find nothing an object of my understanding but either thinking, or body; what others may chance to do, who never tried, and are resolved they never will, i know not. let them tell us what thought they have of it, different from body and thinking, if they can: but if neither they, nor we have any notion of such a third being, we cannot with any reason affirm any thing of it, or that such a thing is. if they have any thought of it, they have some knowledge of it, and so need not acknowledge themselves at such a loss, as they commonly do when this question is put them, what is the soul? or expose themselves as they commonly do, by talking of that whose essence they acknowledge themselves wholly ignorant of. but if any suppose thinking an action, or attribute of body, or that it is body some way or other posited, or moved, (how they cannot tell) that is thinking, or that (as they rather would say) thinks; they must suppose body more noble as the cause, or agent, which i believe they will hardly do. but we can suppose body not to be; we may be ignorant of it, and yet think, which could not be if it were body that thinks; besides, if body thinks, it knows itself to think, and so the dispute is at an end; but body does not know itself to think, because it is doubted whether it thinks or no: whatever thinks cannot be ignorant of its thinking, nor can any thing be well thought to be an agent, that is ignorant of its being so, or does not will to be so. if body could be supposed to think, and know itself to think, it would be thinking, consequently not body; for of body and thinking, there are wholly different notions. but body we affirm to be no agent of any thing, or creator of ideas, or thoughts; god alone must be suppossed, with good reason, to be the cause and contriver of our thinking. as we find our thoughts do not cause our body, much less can we suppose body to cause our thoughts, or act any thing in us; our body is moved according to our will, and our will and understanding is often affected by means of our body, but body is not the cause or agent of either. besides, one half of our thoughts are passions; nothing but our desires, or the application of our will about objects, seems properly our action. and tho' thinking be looked on as an attribute requiring a subject different, we may as well suppose an essential attribute, or attribute that is identical, the same with the thing itself in the created mind, as to say is in god, is god, or that there is not another thing, which is not wisdom, goodness, power, etc. which is god; in which wisdom, goodness, power, etc. reside as things accidental. nor is it so strange an expression as that it may not be admitted to say, cogitatio est cogitans, or thinking thinks; for in truth i take it to be the same as to say, thinking is thinking, which is no worse than an identical proposition. but to leave this question, (with these few touches to give others occasion to consider) as besides my main purpose, i shall pass to that knowledge of ourselves which most concerns us; and even that knowledge is the knowledge of ourselves as thinking, and that as thinking well or ill. if our thoughts are well in order, that something else, that some fancy is the agent of the action thinking in us, that unknown soul, that chimaera, or that body whose particles are very far from one another, or friggle about very nimblely, (such is the common notion of a spirit) is of little value. if my thoughts are duly applied to their due objects, i care not for that unknowable soul; for it is in the right order of our thoughts that happiness consists, and whereby we come to attain the end of our being. 8. having thus found ourselves to be imperfect minds, variable, limited, caused or created cogitations: let us consider our cause, or creator, and that first, as he must needs be thought to be in himself, and then we shall the more fully discover the second thing, (which hath been partly discoursed already) what he is to us. and the first notion that occurs to my mind of god, or the cause of caused insufficient things, as considered in himself, is, that he is selfsufficient, or self existent. having found myself insufficient, and consequently that i must have a cause sufficient to be so, which he could not be were he himself caused, it consequently follows he is sufficient for himself, or selfexistent, tho' i were not. and as i must necessarily suppose him, because i could not be without him, so he must necessarily be selfsufficient or existent, tho' i should cease to be. from the consideration of god's being selfsufficient, it appears he is but one; for if he be sufficient, another is not necessary, and that which is not absolutely necessary, or may be supposed not to be, is not god. if one be sufficient of himself, another is to no purpose, or not necessary; one such being must be supposed, but there is no need to suppose another. if god is one selfsufficient, selfexistent being, he is but one self, or mind. he cannot properly say i, thou, and he of himself, or of any thing in his essence, but always i; nor can we say thou and thou, or he and he of him, if we speak properly and truly. again, if he is necessarily self sufficient, he must consequently know himself, and will, or love himself, desire himself, be pleased, and satisfied with himself, with the knowledge and love of himself, and so be a thinking being, mind or person. other, either persons or things, therefore are not necessary to him who is satisfied with himself, no not so much as in imagination, notion, or thought; nor needed he produce any of them. from god's knowing and loving himself, ariseth the notion of the highest wisdom and goodness, or that he is most wise and most good. he that is necessarily selfsufficient, and so has more reality or being than all other being's, (supposing them made) must needs in knowing himself have the greatest, as well as the only necessary knowledge; and in loving himself have the highest, and only necessary goodness. for he that has most of being, most perfection and reality, is the greatest object of knowledge, and most , most to be loved; and while he does not, create the only object of knowledge and desire. and here ariseth the notion of god's essential justice. that he love himself, and approve himself; because he is most worthy, it is most right and just that he love himself chief, and only necessarily; he is not so obliged to love his creatures, when he hath made them, he cannot love them as himself, because he knows they are not so good, nor does he necessarily love them, because they are not necessary to be. from god's selfsufficiency is seen also the notion of his absolute felicity, or perfect happiness, or absolute perfection, admitting no increase or decrease; for he that is enough to himself, that needs seek nothing out of himself, must needs be most happy. again; he that is selfsufficient necessarily so, can suffer no alteration, nor can he cause any in himself; and hence ariseth the notion of eternity, an attribute only belonging, and essential to god; the consideration of the manner of god's being as having no succession or alteration, but being still the same; he does not think one thing now, another thing anonforgeting one thing while he thinks another, as creatures do who are insufficient, to be all they are at once; but he is always complete, or sufficient; has not something ceasing, and another thing succeeding in his essential perfections. from the unity or simplicity of god, we are informed he is immaterial, a spiritual being or mind. all the former considerations imply god to be intelligent and voluntary; that is, thinking. now thinking and body being two things wholly different, the notions of them being not at all the same, god cannot be both, if he is one simple or single being. those that fancy thinking and body is the same, or that thinking is, or may be some mode of body, as some certain degree of rarifaction or motion, would do excellently to certify us, just at how much distance the particles of a congeries of matter must be, or how fast they must be stirred to the production of thought: one particle cannot be supposed to be rarified, or less solid than another, and consequently cannot by rarifaction attain thought; and how many of them must dance together to that end, or what jig, he would be a curious master that should discover. till which is done, we shall be confident that knowing, perceiving, desiring, or loving, are not quantity, figure, or motion, (it being nonsense to say a pound, or an ell of knowledge, or love;) but different names of the one thing thinking: and quantity, figure, and motion are not thinking, but essential, or belonging to body; so that thinking and body are two things. now, as has been said, god cannot be both these, because they are two wholly different things, and god is but one. god cannot be body, because he knows himself, and has no ignorance in him; body knows not it self, to speak improperly in calling itself. if body did know, there is no reason why all body should not know; and we have the greatest reason to affirm some body to be ignorant. if god did not know himself, he could not be happy, wise, or so much as intelligent. knowing is thinking, not body or quantity, therefore god is a mind, and not a body. father, he is not a mind and a body, for so he would be a compound, or congeries of divers things or parts. again, whatever consists of body and mind has some imperfection, and consequently is but a creature; god is all perfect, or selfsufficient. body is not so much as a person, or self. god cannot be something besides himself, or besides his person; body is but a thing, mind only, and alone is a person. if god's person, self or mind, is sufficient, he is not body also; for body is not necessary to the consideration of mind, especially of selfsufficient mind; nor is it necessary at all, being imperfect, therefore god neither is, nor has a body. besides, god cannot be a body, or a compound, forwhat ever is so may have more or less; body may be more or less, or otherwise in figure or motion, god cannot be more or less, or otherwise than he is. the greatest, or all body, may be supposed to receive an addition, and the least to cease to be. but god (as has been said) can have no alteration, or imperfection, or unnecessary thing in his being, therefore body can be nothing of his being. finally, body is visible; god is invisible: body is finite, or so much, and no more; god is infinite or unbounded, not in extension, but, which is a better notion of infinity, he is all perfection; to us incomprehensible, for quantity does not belong to god's infinity. so that to sum up all, god considered in himself, is the selfsufficient or selfexistent, necessary mind, knowing himself, loving himself, satisfied with himself, the only necessary being, in whom is no diversity or composition, or any thing but what may be supposed in mere cogitation, viz. all perfect understanding and will. 9 but if god be an all perfect being, a mere mind, and not a body, or not so much as partly body (as i think is evident) that opinion of his omnipresence that supposes him locally present, or essentially present in bodily nature, is untrue: for whatsoever is supposed to be in place is body, or quantity, has dimension, or is nothing. thinking has no dimensions, quantities or bulks, and can be said to be present with bodies only as having ideas of them, or willing about them, as they may be objects of the understanding or will. so god is present with bodies only as he knows them all, and wills about them. he is said to be eminently present here or there, as the effects of his will are seen more eminently in one place, then in another. he is more intimately present with minds, because he does not only think of all that is in them, and continually wills about them, but that they also are often very sensible of the acts of his will about them, which bodies are not: but he is especially present with himself, because he always is the chief and necessary object of his own understanding and will. but an essential local omnipresence is absurd; for if god be a body, as he must if locally omnipresent, it would follow that there is no body besides god; for if you suppose bodies that are not god, they must have some place among one another; which cannot be if god fill all with himself, two things each of which fill a place, cannot be supposed in the same place. and to suppose god every where among bodies, will not make local omnipresence; but interspersion, whereby he would be supposed as a porous body, filling the void spaces between other bodies, which would be a very foolish thought if we think it of god. besides, whatever fills any thing, fills it with its whole, or with but part of it; if god fills any, or all bodily creatures with his whole in this local way, he himself is contained, and so according to this foolish fancy is wholly finite, they being finite. if he fill them with a part of himself, he is present but in part not wholly, and so is partly finite; which is absurd. nor can bodily nature be said to be infinite even in extension, because it consists of parts; and where there are parts there is a whole; and that of which it can be said here is all, may be supposed capable of addition, and so is not infinite. but nothing can with good sense be said to be in all places, but all bodies; and place is nothing but the relation of bodies to one another, as containing and contained, on this side or that. god's more excellent and real omnipresence is virtual, as we have said; and his infinity is nothing of the nature of out-stretchedness, (whatever is extended being finite) but is the boundless or absolute perfection of all his attributes, incomprehensible to our created and limited conception. and he was the same, infinite, or complete, when he had not made body, (and consequently there was no space or place;) or any other creature to be in, or present with, and he cannot be beholding to creatures for any necessary perfection. he fills heaven and earth, it is true, but not with himself, but with the bodies they contain; bodies, i say, because no minds are capable of place, or being contained by body, or here or there among bodies, otherwise than as thinking of bodies that are here and there. now whatever god is in himself, is that without which he can't be conceived, and that which is necessary and essential to him, and implies him a necessary being. 10. but as to what he is in relation to creatures, or unnecessary being's, that might have had no being, he is indifferent, or arbitrary, which is the second way of considering him we now come to. what he is in relation to creatures, he is not necessarily or essentially; because he was indifferent to cause them, or not, no necessity compelled him to produce them. they are not necessary being's, they may be supposed not to be; and if they had not been, he had had no relation to them. neither the existence, no nor the very ideas or thoughts of creatures, or unnecessary being's, can be supposed necessary to the divine mind, while we suppose him self-sufficient. so that to be a creator or father, a lord or governor, is not necessary or essential to god; but he freely chooseth or pleaseth so to be. god must be supposed selfsufficient, or he cannot be supposed to be, and creatures must be acknowledged not selfsufficient, or they cannot be supposed creatures; if so, there can be no necessary relation between god and creatures. there can be nothing but god and creatures, and so god can be related to nothing but creatures; relations are of divers things. the notion of relation is what one individual thing is, if compared to another. creatures may be related as individuals of the same kind, but god and creatures cannot be so related; they are infinitely different, relations must have their correlates indeed; but where the relations were not necessary, the correlate depends on the relation supposed; one individual cannot be relate and correlate, so that there can be no relation essential in god. god is but one self, or mind, and there can be nothing in god different from himself; he is but one individual, not individuals, or else the divine nature could not be called he; one essential property, or attribute in god, cannot be related to another essential property or attribute, as a causer, creator, or begetter. god's understanding cannot have the relation of a cause, father or lord, to his will, or his will to his understanding. the cause, or begetter, or lord, must be supposed before, or greater than the effect begotten, and subject: but nothing in god's essential properties can be said to be before, the cause of, or greater than another; nor can one of them properly say thou to another, they all being lemma ourselves, or mind. god's fatherhood might rather be said to have the relation of an effect to his will the cause; for he was not a father as he would not, but because he willed to be so; so that fatherhood more properly is a notion resulting from the existence of things he hath willed into being. again, god could not be a necessary or eternal creator, producer or father; because things created, produced or begotten, would on that supposition be eternal and necessary. but creating, producing and begetting, imply cause and effect, and nothing essential to god can be an effect, or thing caused; an effect or thing caused was not before it was caused; and it would be the greatest absurdity to suppose something in the divine essence, which was not. this would contradict the notion of eternity, or the manner of being that hath no fore and after in it, or any alteration. god alone is such: the creatures all of them have something past, and to come; what ever has any thing past, and to come, in its nature is a creature, had a beginning, might have had none, and may have an end. whatever has a former and a later, had a first, and may have a last. nor can fatherhood, or creatorship, be thought an essential attribute in god, because whatever is in god's nature is a necessary perfection, and he cannot be supposed to receive any such perfection from the effects he hath produced, which he had not before, which would be in effect to deny him to be a selfsufficient being. nor can we with any consideration say, god might have made things sooner or later; for when he did make then began the first moment, there being no fore and after in god, from which time could be named. now tho' the attributes of creator, cause or father, began with time, resulting from things related to god, as products and effects, there cannot be said to be any alteration in god, or increase of his perfections; the things that are made are but the images, pictures, or characters of his perfections; and he is not any thing more, since he has painted out some of his excellencies, than he was before. nor can god be supposed ignorant for not knowing what is not; mere not being, is no object of knowledge; god knowing himself only, knew all when there was nothing else to know; and knowing all that now is, he can't be said to be ignorant for not knowing more than all, yet we dare not say he cannot produce more creatures: when he alone was, he knew himself the original and fountain of all perfection, and knew himself able to paint out, or make pictures of his perfections, and when he willed them they were; but before he willed them to be, they can't well be thought objects of his understanding. now tho' god may be supposed solitary, or singlely in himself, without any real relation, without so much as the thoughts of creatures in himself, the creatures cannot possibly be supposed to be without supposing their relation to god as their creator or father. as it is our experience that we are, and that we find by consideration that god must be, or we could not be, it presently appears what he is to us, viz. our cause, our maker, producer, or father, and consequently that he is our owner, sovereign, lord, and ruler. he that knows us perfectly, both as to what he hath made us, and what his ends are in making us: he cannot be supposed to make any thing of which he is ignorant in either of these respects; he must also be supposed to have will and power, [yet will and power in god are properly but two words for the same thing] and his power or will to make, must be agreeable to his wisdom or knowledge how, or what would best become him. he could make nothing but what would be an agreeable representation of himself, fit for such a being to make, such as would represent him as he is, and that must needs be good. he could make nothing ill, there could be no disorder in his works: it cannot be said that any thing might have been done better than he did it, either as to the manner or end of being. 11. the final cause or end for which god made things, (if it be not presumption to inquire) seems to be no other than the manifestation of his wisdom and power, and the communication of his goodness to his creatures; for in respect to god there can be no final cause, god being all perfect and happy in himself that is self sufficient, there can no good or end come to him from any thing; but we would rather say, he acted as became him when he pleased to make creatures, and some of them such as were capable by considering themselves, and other things they find to be made by the same power to acknowledge and admire him, and to move one another to acknowledge, and admire his wisdom, goodness, and power, so conspicuous in the curious and mighty system of the creation; and in so doing, to be pleased or happy. god being in himself absolute goodness, and so perfectly happy or pleased with himself, was pleased to make creatures capable of happiness, or pleasure, by the communication of his goodness; who is not only good, or perfect enough in himself to be altogether happy or pleased, but his goodness is also enough to make a world of creatures happy, or pleased also by having him the object of their understanding and will. the creature experiencing god's wisdom, power and goodness, being duly affected with it, and endeavouring to affect its fellows, is said to glorify god, not to make him glorious; that is, showing forth perfections, but to see him such, and be an instrument to cause him to be seen such. god being essentially wise, good, and powerful, that is knowing, and loving himself, and able to make representations of his excellencies, if he please to make any things, cannot but make them such as become him, viz. good, and for good; that is such as are capable of being pleased with being what, and how he hath made them, and wills them to be; that is, knowers and lovers of him. so that there appears in god, as considered in relation to us chief, power in producing us, wisdom and goodness as to the what, and to what end he hath made us. what god is, and will be found to be to us, considered as otherwise than he wills us, may come to be considered better hereafter in another place; nor shall we here enlarge, these considerations having laid them but as foundations or principles. 12. we shall now come to consider what we ought to be, or how we should behave ourselves to god, and for god's sake to one another. and this obligation is that which is properly called religion. man having by considering himself, found god, or his own cause; having found what god is and does, in himself, and in relation to us, what he has caused us to be, who are nothing of ourselves, the great question that concerns us is, what we ought, or what it becomes us to do? and that is in short, to exercise our wills aright, that is suitable to, or becoming the relation we stand in to god, and one another: so as becomes such creatures of such a creator. we are sure he cannot be, or act towards us, but as becomes him, that is best. and that we may do this our duty aright, we ought first to seek god, that is study to know him more and more, that the regular acts of our wills may be stronger and stronger: for the more truly and clearly we behold him the object, the more orderly and the more strongly will the acts of our wills be about him. now god being an absolutely perfect being, and consequently one who can have no acts of will, but such as become himself, or are pefectly good in relation to himself and his works, our willing suitably or orderly is determined, and made such by the conformity of our wills to the will of god, willing as he wills we should. now to will what god wills us to will, is the essence, sum, and substance of all religion: i do not say religions, for religion is but one, even this one thing; and there is not properly any false religion. for if religion is nothing but the obligation to will as god wills us to will, whatever is not according to god's will, is no obligation, and tho' called religion, is not so, but a mistake. this therefore, to will as god wills, we must fix as the general comprehensive rule of our obligation, religion or duty. and in order to the compliance with this obligation, or payment of this debt, there are these things to be considered. first, we ought to be willing, and so endeavour, to know what god wills concerning us. then having found in particular what god wills, we shall consider how it appears that to will those things that god wills, most becomes us, is our greatest obligation and happiness. 13. these things we shall discourse a little more particularly. first, that we should will to know, or be willing to inquire what god wills. having found, or rather knowing certainly that god has willed our being, and considered what we find ourselves, and that god has showed himself powerful, wise, and good, in causing us; it naturally follows that the creature finding himself an agent, or capable of acting, and inclinable to be doing, should some how or other direct his actions. now in as much as he finds himself imperfect, but a work or effect of a higher being exceeding him in wisdom, goodness, and power; it also rationally follows that this being, viz. god, his maker, must needs know better than he, what he has made him, and what is most fit, or best for him to do: and that he may know, and do what is best for him to do, he had need (as abovesaid) be willing to know it. for altho' we know many things without, or even against the acts of our wills, yet it is apparent, that for want of will or desire, we don't know many things that we might and ought to know, and so also lose some happiness we might enjoy. we find various subjects of consideration offered us, and lying before us; and we have power to apply our minds to this or that, as more necessary to be considered. now as it is evident that the will of him that is most wise, must needs be best, it follows that we ought (even on the account of interest) to desire, or seek to know it. but the reasonableness and necessity of such a search, will more appear in our finding out, by consideration (as we may) particularly what the will of god is. and here the first act of will orderly considered in god, is in and towards himself, without relation to any creature, as he is before, and without them, and that must needs be , or love to, and approbation of himself, and pleasure in himself, being a sufficient or all-perfect being. now if he loves, approves, or is pleased with himself above all, as he is best, and only necessary; he wills we should to our capacity have like thoughts of him, viz. that we should love him, approve of him, esteem him, be pleased with him above all; that is, think of him as he is, and not otherwise; for to think otherwise, is unjust or a lye. that which is most excellent, that which is best, is to be loved best, is most desirable, such is god, or the first cause. he is that being that has most, yea all absolute perfections. it is just and good for god to love himself best, because there can be no better object. and it is just for us to love, or desire, and esteem him better, or more than ourselves, or any thing else, because he is better, yea best: it lies as an obligation in justice that our desires ought to go out after him, and tend to him more than after, or to ourselves, or any thing else, not only because he is the only object that can satisfy, where interest comes in, and has ourselves at the bottom, but because he is in himself infinitely more excellent, it is his due. true love is of that nature, as to go out from self where it finds an object more excellent and , and to prefer the will of that more excellent object to its own will, and the pleasure of that more excellent object to its own pleasure, as distinct from it. where the creature's will most agrees with the will of its creator, the creature acts rather because its maker wills it so to act, then because its own advantage is in the action; the creator, and his will and pleasure, being infinitely more valuable than the creature's will and pleasure, or very being. but the creature agreeing with the will of god in loving him best, cannot possibly but find its greatest advantage and pleasure therein; and the more it goes out of self, the more it turns its eye and desire, from its self, towards god that infinite good, the less it beholds self, and thinks of, or acts as for advantage; as the more noble the action is, so the more happiness it finds. and if justice is not enough to persuade us that god is to be loved, rather because it is our duty, or his due as he is best in himself, than because we have pleasure in loving him; the very happiness or pleasure will tell us afterwards, that it comes most by that just and noble neglect of seeking it in comparison of god, or making him but subservient thereto. and indeed the creatures will seems to be made so large, and as it were unproportionable to all the rest in the creature, that it cannot possibly, as well as ought not to endeavour to be satisfied with acting in, towards, and for itself. and from this greatness of the created desire is seen the supreme cause, reason, and excellency of the creature's love to god to be, because god is in himself most excellent, (we on this account own him the the first and greatest offering) and not chief, because we are happy, or our desire filled in so doing; the higher love (i mean in a creature to god) is a love of justice, a duty of being just and true; before which if the love for interest come, it is in the sight of god an unworthy and impure offering: tho' we are highly obliged to love god out of gratitude for his benefits, yet if we love god most, or think we are obliged to love him most because we receive good from him, we love him for self-sake, and consequently love self best, tho' it is not best, which is the very root of evil, in which we belie both god and self. the creature complying with god's will always finds its advantage, and so also is bound as to a debt, to love god in gratitude; but self must have but the second place, because it is a creature consequent to the creator's will, and but an imperfect thing; which in its self has also an evident indication that it is not to be best beloved, because of its incapacity of satisfying its own desire; but it is most fully satisfied, and perfectly pleased, (i mean as a creature can be) in acting towards god with a certain noble neglect of itself, as delighting (if it had any thing to bring to god) rather in giving than in receiving. the creature being but an image of god, it is highly reasonable the creature should value, and esteem itself but as such, but should value and esteem god in truth and justice, as he is that selfsufficient being, the creature is but a shadow, or representation of, lest the good or pleasure of the creature be set in the place of its cause. in love is found the height of the creature's happiness, and the act of giving in the created desire, always contends with the passion of receiving, the creature affects, and is pleased in the act of affecting, and is again pleased with the thoughts that its affection is welcome, or agreeable to the will of the affected; but that its god's will and pleasure we should love him, is a greater reason that we should so do, than that we are pleased in doing it; for god's will or pleasure is better, and more requisite than ours. when we love god best, who we know would be loved, and so we ought to love, and who loves us again, or rather first, then will be found whatever can be in love possible to the creature. god we rationally believe cannot be profited, or have any increase of pleasure by us, or our loving him, or lose any, by the contrary, he being sufficient in himself; but as his own thoughts are in most perfect order, as he thinks aright of himself, as he is, knows himself, and his own will, to be most high, best, etc. so he loves and likes that the thoughts of his creatures should be orderly, or that they should think of him as he is, and of themselves as they are; and hence as creatures are many, and whoever loves god, and is happy thereby, cannot but suppose others capable, to be, and actually are such agents and recipients as himself; we in loving god for his benefits must never forget to love him, because he is good to others, as well as because he is good to us. 14. now as god having all absolute perfections in himself, cannot be supposed to have any thing disagreeing in his will, he must needs be supposed if he work, or make any thing to make it, such as becomes him to make, that is good; and consequently he must be supposed to love, and approve his works, he cannot be thought to disapprove any thing he himself does; and what he makes, as his work cannot be thought unworthy of his approbation and , tho' he himself is the greatest and only necessary object to himself: and if god, who is most wise, love and approve his own works, it is highly reasonable we his works should be determined by him to do so too; and of god's works it is reasonable first, that we should love ourselves (as well as we can) with such a love as god loves us, and esteem ourselves with such an esteem as god has for us; we should be well pleased, and rejoice in being what god has made us, and be ready to do what ever god wills us to benefit ourselves, and make us happy, and think of ourselves just as we are; that is as nothing in ourselves, but as the shadows, images, and creatures of god, and not as god's ourselves, or not as such whose pleasure is the chief thing. now if we are bound in compliance to the will of god, as well as by interest to ourselves, to love, or wish ourselves well, and to his truth and justice to think of ourselves as we are, to esteem ourselves such as god has made us, and be pleased in so doing; certainly the same will of god obliges us in conformity thereto to love our fellow creatures, and be pleased with what ever of god's will, or of goodness, or truth, or loveliness we see in them. god loves them as well as he loves us, as equally good, and excellent with us, as they are as much his creatures, who are as much his images, and as near to him as we are, and we ought to imitate god as he is imitable: he is pleased with his own works, as to what he hath made them; so we should be pleased with, and in them as they are his works; we should like his works, and admire him in them; delight in beholding his wisdom in making them, and endowing them, as well as in what he hath made us. and as god is good to his creatures, and loves them, that are capable of happiness, with a love of beneficence; so we should desire also to be good, and beneficial to them, to endeavour to confer to their happiness, because god wills their happiness. this love of benevolence, or act of to our fellow creatures, this desire of being good to them, because god is so, and wills us to be so, hath not only the argument of duty in conformableness to god's will to persuade it, but hath also that of pleasure in the very action, greater than any is ready to believe that doth not practise it; and as it lies not idle in the mind, but is unsatisfied tell it effects some good, if possible, to the object, and confers to its happiness, it tends to bring back advantage as it naturally inclines the benefited person to the like re-action. but this love of beneficence when it most nearly imitates god, proposing no advantage to self, is most excellent, and perhaps hath a greater delight attending it than can be found in that love which is forced by the sight of good in the creatures. there is also a love of gratitude when we love them, because their love and beneficence to us deserves it; this love is just, and so a duty, but it is a less godlike love; being grounded in creature imperfect self, which without the higher love to keep it right, would become evil: as to love god himself merely for his benefits (if there can be such a love) would be to make our own will, our own pleasure, the beginning and end of all, to make our will as ours the chief thing, and god who is infinitely better than we, and other creatures who are, if not better, as good, but subservient to us: which is unreasonable, yea the root and foundation of evil. now to love god first, because he is best, and wills that we should love, and esteem him as such, it being just and good so to do. secondly, because he is good to us, is the author and giver of all we are, and have of good; to love him for these reasons with all our heart, all our soul, and all our strength; that is truly, or unfeignedly, according to our knowledge of him, and intensely or strongly as we can: and to love our neighbour, or fellow creature, as ourselves, viz. as truly, and for the same reasons, viz. because god loves him as well as us, and would have us love him because it becomes us to imitate god as much as we can, and it is good for us so to do: this i say is the whole law, naturally written in our hearts, and legible by the consideration of god, what he is in himself, and what he is to his creatures, viz. the most perfect, or selfsufficient being, and our most wise, good, and powerful author, and of our relation to him, and our fellow creatures. 15. now from this fountain of love proceed all the orderly streams of our thoughts, and external actions. if we love god as we should, or desire as he desires, we shall hate to do otherwise, fear to do otherwise, our aversation, and avoiding that which is not right is determined by our loving that which is right; and when we once truly love god, we shall be willing to study his will that we may not ignorantly act contrary thereto. having found god our cause, selfsufficient, and all-perfect in himself, we cannot but acknowledge it fit and proper to be true, and acknowledge him such as he is; there can be no reason that we should deny what we know to be true; it is apparent that he is the most high, the greatest being, and we are things infinitely less, nay nothing of ourselves; we are but the effects of the will of the most wise, good, powerful cause; on which consideration it is most evidently fit for us to submit to his guidance and direction, as confiding in his wisdom, goodness and power, that he knows, and wills, and can do that which is best for us, and to confess the shortness of our understandings, as we are but creatures, and know infinitely less than he; and consequently our wills cannot be so good as his. hence also it naturally follows, that if god has made us good, or as becomes the best being to make, and capable of good or pleasure, we should be thankful for our being, and rejoice or take pleasure in considering god's wisdom, goodness, and power; so should we be ready to comply with his will as instruments in manifesting and communicating his power, wisdom, and goodness to ourselves, and our fellow creatures, and hate, fear, and avoid being a hindrance in any of these. again; we are rationally obliged from the consideration of god, and his will to us in relation to those parts of the creation he seems to have made for our sakes and use, to use them so as we may see most of god's perfections through them; and as we may receive most good or pleasure by them, and how this is to be done, he has made us capable by a little reasoning and attention to find out, as his will, which we have all reason to submit to, trusting his wisdom as the absolute rule wherein he directs us, he knowing best how these ends may be attained, and his goodness, that he is willing they should. god has made all things to show his own perfections to those creatures he has made capable of seeing them, and to make them happy or pleased, whom he has made capable of happiness or pleasure, in the use of them. we are ready to believe these creatures have nothing in themselves that can affect us with pleasure, but it is the will of god we should have pleasure in the use of them, that thereby we might be brought to him, the fountain of all satisfaction. 16. if this account of the will of god be not particular enough, yet a little farther. first, it is apparent, that having found our author, or cause, that only selfsufficient, and all-sufficient being, we call god, the father of all things, we should not only take him for such, but that we should have no other in the like esteem, or let him have any corrival in our thoughts. that one single supreme being, must have no fellow in our hearts. the most exact or perfect image of him, that which he hath made most like unto himself, must not be by us exalted into his throne. he is not an image, and whatever is a representation of him, he himself hath made such. we must not think therefore of any second, as we think of him the first, nor desire another equally with him. he must have the highest place, or be the only god both in our judgements and affections; who is highest, first and best, or we shall be unjust, untrue, and ungrateful. secondly, nor must we (if we are obliged to think aright of him, and duly esteem him) presume to make of our own fancy any thing as an image, or resemblance of him; we must have no other representations of god than what he himself hath made. he must not by us be misrepresented, nor must we reverence, bow to, or honour any of our fictions that we may fancy to resemble him; no, nor whatever does indeed most resemble him, with any such honour as is due to him. we cannot rationally think any image exactly like him, nor in our acts of worship have the same thoughts of him as we have of any thing his representation, because there can be no image of him but what he hath made a creature infinitely distant from him, and so far unlike him. nor must we be so foolish as to think that we can offer our homage more acceptably, or to better purpose through any of our devised mediums, than if we come to the fountain himself of all goodness and beneficence. thirdly, neither (if we are obliged to prosecute the ends and designs of god in the manifestations of himself) must we mention any of his attributes, or properties, whereby he is known to no purpose, or idly: for god is no vain or trivial being, nor is there any thing small, or of little weight, belonging to him, who is the supreme, or selfsufficient being, or a matter lightly or boldly to be played with by his creatures, who are, even the highest of them, unnecessary being's, or nothing in themselves, and compared with god infinitely beneath him: much less may we dare to take his name into our mouths, who is goodness and truth, in wishing evil, or asserting falsehood. fourthly, and as god always aught to be had in most honourable esteem in our thoughts, and be by us acknowledged to be what he is; so consequently we ought to set apart some time for the profession of our acknowledgement of our maker to others; that thereby they may be taught, stirred up to, and strengthened in the same acknowledgement, and due homage to their author: and that at the same time we all may enjoy the necessary benefits of a cessation from the fatigues of bodily works, which commonly take up six times as much time in proportion as our mental and more noble exercises. besides that our whole time is rather numbered by sevens, than by eights, or any other numbers, may be seen by the natural scale of numbers in harmony, (wherein god hath created all things) which perpetually runneth to a seventh, and no farther; the eighth being a new first, or the first but doubled, and which of the seven is the seventh, is determined from whence we begin. fifthly, as god is to have the supreme honours, and worship, as our cause, infinitely above us; so even those creatures god hath made the instruments of our being, or before us in excellency and and dignity, should be acknowledged as such, and so more worthy than ourselves; and being honoured by us, this honour should be shown, and testified by proper submission to them, with other testimonies, whereby we may show our due esteem. those that we are immediately beholding to, tho' but as instruments for our being, or well being, those we have been necessitated to depend upon, tho' but as means for the continuance of our being in this life, have in all reason due to them from us, a debt of honour, esteem and regard; and those that in any respect are better, and more excellent than us, can with no justice be denied the acknowledgement, as we find occasion, of what they really are. nor is the giving all our betters (especially those we have had our dependence on as parents) their due regard, without a natural tendency to our long, and happy continuance in this life, as they are thereby farther encouraged, and provoked to contribute the more to our felicity; and we may also hope for, as our desert, the like honour from our offspring, or bear the contrary with the less regret. sixthly, and as god has made us all the means of manifesting his excellencies to one another, the representations or images of himself, it is the highest presumption and boldness that we should attempt to put an end to, or spoil, or put out of sight so excellent an image of god, as he hath made man. and this is first most unreasonable and culpable if practised on self, it being every man's duty and interest to be, as god would have him, and a high affront and rebellion to refuse the gift of life and duties thereof; and as it were a bold revenging the crosses of our foolish wills on the author of our life, spoiling as much as we can his work. and tho' we may be persuaded that possibly there may not be so much excellency in some others as in ourselves, yet we should have so great a love and respect to the meanest man, as he is the image of god, an epitome of the creation, a lord of the corporal, and a bond of corporal and spiritual nature; wherein god may be seen, as in a map of all his works, that we should not desire, or presume to blot out so great a draught of the divine painter, or deface so great a representative of his majesty. and as man is a lord over the inferior creatures, under god, to put him as much as possible out of his office, his stewardship, or viceroyalty, is an affront to his sovereign; for which he that does so, ought himself to be put so far out of the same capacity, (tho' he ought not to put himself out:) which he himself virtually acknowledgeth, since doing as one would be done by, is a most apparently equitable rule: for if a man loves life as a good, (as every man in his right mind does) and would not that another should take that from him on which, as well or ill used, depends so much of happiness or misery; consequently he ought not to take it from another, whom god has made a living man as well as he, capable of as much good as another, and in this at least better than he that would break this rule, that he does not purpose like him, to be a declared enemy to his kind, and thereby adjudge his own life ought rightly, and also necessarily to be taken away to prevent a greater mischief, viz. the loss of another life more valuable than the life of this declared despiser, and enemy of god and man; which reasons do not only convince us that we should do nothing tending to hurt the life of another, but that we should do what in us lies to preserve it as well as our own. seventhly, as it is most reasonable we should esteem and honour particularly, and in especial manner those that have been the means of our being, and not slight and despise them; that we should do as we would be done by, and do nothing tending to destroy any of our fellow-rational creatures, but labour to preserve them. so also that we may avoid the said mischiefs, and perform the opposite duties, it is reasonable and necessary that in the business of the propagation of mankind, man should observe the laws of order and conveniency; that is, that one man and one woman should be joined together in free love and constancy, and become one in that matter, never leaving one the other to join with a third. that one man should not use more women than such a one as a wife while she lives, nor one woman more men than her husband before he is dead, is most reasonable from many considerations, tho' men are so inclinable to disorders in this matter, and so willing to be blind, and not see them. as if the promiscuous use of men, or women be practised; it will be the unavoidable confusion of relations, and cause of the many evil consequences thereof: relative duties cannot be performed where relations are not known: as for instance; a child will be sometimes ignorant of his parents, and so will not only omit the honour, gratitude, and reverence due to them, but may sometimes be liable to slight, despise, contemn, or even abuse them, or do those things to them which tho' lawful to others, not at all to be done to parents; which if ever they come to be known, might cause great disquiet of mind. again, by the promiscuous use of men or women, the right of inheritances will often be perverted and confounded; one man's child will enjoy another man's land, or goods, the true heir being unknown; a man shall labour for another's children, and not for his own. again, as all children of men are more helpless than any other animals; if both parents are not concerned for them, they will many ways be exposed to misery, in the want of that care and love, and all the effects thereof which orderly parents have for their children: and the women who are not able to go through their bringing forth, and breeding up of their children, alone as other animals, would be often exposed, with their children to great miseries, without the constant help and care of such a relation, as a husband and father ought to be. again, if one man should have divers women, tho' he were as a husband to them all, divers inconveniencies would follow; the man would love one better than another, and so not be equally just to them all; for which cause they would not agree, or live in love and content together; they would have jealousies and strifes against one another, and have many temptations to inconstancy; when one man is not enough ordinarily to satisfy the natural desire of more women, some must be defrauded; so on the other hand, if one woman should have more husbands, and if one woman does not happen to be enough in the conceit of her husband, or the man for his wife, the seldom enjoyment will render the satisfaction the greater, and better answer all the ends of marriage. besides, if one man should have many wives, some others who have as much reason to be allowed such a help and satisfaction, must have none, whereby propagation would also be much hindered. again, whoever loves a woman peculiarly, would also have her love him peculiarly, so on the other side. which rule of doing as one would be done by, cannot be kept without loving singly. no whoremonger can possibly do as he would be done by; he would not have his wife or daughters prostituted, or common: nor would any man of reason be willingly exposed to the many miseries not only of diseases, but of other natural consequences following that high injustice of breaking that most solemn contract, bargain, or oath, men make at their marriage; which need never be made but freely, and to one they themselves have chose out of the rest of men or women. nor is the benefit, convenience, or pleasure of single love, and marriage, constancy small, if the choice be well made; that is, of such as are naturally suitable to, or for one another: neither is this state to be equalled, much less exceeded, by the extravagant, and roving affections of those that take most liberty in their actions relating to propagation. but i need say no more, these disorders being seen by all men to have so great a stroke in the miseries of mankind, and appear so base to all who behold them in others. only one thing remains, which i shall here touch upon; and that is the reason of the disorder, or inconvenience of marrying our kindred, and that is founded upon the honour due to a father and mother; that they in themselves, or in their parts, should not be profaned, made common, or inferior by their children, which nothing but necessity could ever excuse, and which also would unavoidably be by the promiscuous use of men and women. eighthly, no less evident is the reason founded in the order of things, and discoverable by the natural light that we should not either privately, or by force, take away, or pervert the property of, any good that is our neighbour's; every man acknowledgeth this unjust, in that he himself would not part with that which is his propriety, otherwise than by his consent. ninthly, not so much as the good name of another aught to be taken away, or hurt, if we will do as we would be done by, nor our fellow creature represented worse, or otherwise than he is, to his damage; we must not accuse him falsely at all, much less in the name of the god of truth; whom to invoke in testifying a lie, is the highest affront, and daringest folly. nor can we pretend that we ourselves, or our neighbour, can have any advantage by a falsehood; which by observation we shall find sooner or later tending even to the external damage of one or both; but if for a time there seem to be some profit in what hath been inconsiderately called an officious lie, it is but external, and at the same time brings an evil to the mind greater than that outward seeming advantage can countervail. tenthly, and that we may be exactly conformable to all these laws of order and equity, we are to observe them in our very desires. it is most reasonable our desires should be conformable to the will of god as manifested, in the order of his works tending to our good. if we ought not to be unjust, untrue, or evil to another, either god or man, we must not so much as desire so to be; for will to do evil is the action of doing evil, and wants only (and that but in some cases) to be signified externally, or to affect another, to make it as much evil as it can be. but love is the fulfilling of the whole law, that which prevents, or as much as possible amends these disorders; he that loves god will study to comply with his will, to be just and true to him; he that loves his neighbour as he ought, will do him no harm in body or mind, but labour to do him good in both: the absence of all the good, and the presence of all the evil, relateing to ourselves and our neighbour, comes from the want of true and regulated love. 17. now as the of god is the sole cause of the being, and suchness of being of the creatures; so whatever god hath made cannot be thought to be otherwise than good, from goodness itself can nothing but good proceed: and tho' it may be said in respect of the power of god, he might have made things otherwise; yet in consideration of his wisdom and goodness, it cannot possibly be said, he might have made any thing better, without the greatest presumption and folly: so that whatever god makes any thing, such is its bestness. let us but once know what a thing was as it came from the hands of god, and what it is the will of its maker it shall be, such is its goodness, and the bounds of its creature perfection; what it shall be, i say, because it doth not appear that god made things unchangeable, but rather in a condition tending to alteration; so that tho' it be good, yea perhaps best for the creature to be so, and so at one time; yet it is good, or best at another time, to be in some respects otherwise. the intelligent creature, at least man, as he comes from the hands of god, appears capable of an increase of knowledge and of satisfaction; and tho' at first it is very good, yet it is capable of better being, in that respect, and the good will of god in making things, is not to be considered merely in their first make, but as a continual act reaching to the creatures whole duration. now the way of the creatures well being, better being, yea best possible being, viz. it's most clear beholding the perfections of god, intensest loving, and compleatest satisfaction in him, dependeth on the most wise good will, and pleasure of god, which must be known as a rule and guide unto that end, viz. that the creature will as god wills, to its utmost capacity, and be pleased with whatever god does, who can do nothing but good. this conformity to the will of god, is the only possible way for the creature to be as much as it can be pleased, or happy; and so long, and so much as it wills not otherwise than god would have it will; so long, and so much will it be joyous and satisfied, as god made it to be in him. 18. but if ever the creature wills otherwise than god wills, it must of necessity find the disorder and inconvenience of that will, and be uneasy, and displeased; it will certainly be some time or other discontented and uneasy, either that it can't have satisfaction in, and by its own foolish will, not being able to get it, (it not becoming god to comply with its disorderly desire) or that it was so foolish or wicked to seek satisfaction that way. the creature can no more be satisfied in its own will as independent, than have an independent being. it is the property of god alone, and only possible to him who is selfsufficient and all-perfect, to be pleased in himself: but as for the creature, so far and so long as it continues in its private and self-will, so far and so long it must be unhappy; that which it wills cannot always or long be done, unless god wills the same; and to will what one can't have, is the ground of all possible unhappiness. and tho' a creature may be supposed uneasy sometimes in willing good, it may be because another for whom it is concerned, wills evil against its will; and this springs from its creature nature that it is not sufficient in itself as god is, who therefore cannot be affected with uneasiness because of any thing another does. and this uneasiness of the creature, on the account of another's evil, may be grounded even in love to god, and be because god's will is disobeyed by others, it being a property of its imperfect creature nature to have passion when what it wills is not done: which may be permitted also to stir the creature up (who would otherwise be more negligent) to seek, and endeavour its fellow creatures good, creatures being mightily carried on to things by passions, pleasure, and uneasiness; just as there is a troublesome sense of things hurting the body, that we might be thereby presently drove to avoid them: but this good sorrow or discontent, because evil is done wherever it happens, will end in, and be out-ballanced by joy, either in having done the duty of love, viz. of endeavouring that god's will may be done in and by others, as well as in and by one's self, or also that the person hath by his endeavours brought another to good, to happiness in willing as god wills, as he would have him. nay this sorrow is seldom void of its present mixture of joy and satisfaction in doing one's own pleasure, as conformable to the will and good pleasure of god. on the other hand, though a creature may possibly some time rejoice in willing otherwise than god wills, as having for a time its disorderly will, it cannot be so always, but will some time or other find it has crossed itself by the loss of a greater satisfaction. and every such joy will but add, multiply, and lay up a greater ground or stock for discontent and anguish; in as much as if the bare willing otherwise than god wills, is so very unreasonable, the rejoicing in such unreasonableness, is still a greater disorder, and will yield uneasier reflections it comes to be justly thought upon. but that god made intelligent creatures capable of continual pleasure or satisfaction, is evident, because it cannot be thought that god could make, or create a desire (how large so ever) greater than he can satisfy, who is infinitely greater than it, and yet satisfied with himself, or that he would make a creature with such a desire, and design it should not be satisfied, because such a desire would be to no purpose. but that the creatures desire should be satisfied with itself, is impossible, because the creature is not selfsufficient, or god. but the creature may possibly err, and suppose its happiness to lie in doing its own will, as its own, and otherwise than god wills. 19 to will otherwise than god wills, is the only true and bottom notion of sin. and to will is always an act, and there is no act where there is no will; and it is as much an act to will one thing, as it is to will another: if i will an absurdity, or a contradiction, a disorder, a defect, such as is to please myself in all my foolish imaginations; it is as much willing, or an act of the will, as if i will a truth, a good, or what is convenient, orderly, and suitable to my nature. and there can be nothing culpable in the creature, but an act of the will must bear the blame; all other thoughts of created minds besides volitions, and all motions of bodies, are rather passions, and wholly blameless; but where an act of the will, disagreeing with the will of god, hath determined them amiss, in which act of the will, the fault lies. so that sin can be nothing but an act, or volition that is contrary to the will of god, and consequently there can be no sin but actual sin. sin in other words is said to be a transgression of the law of god; that is, a doing something contrary to the law, or will of god; and doing is an act, and nothing acts but what wills. sins that are properly called sins of omission, are not without acts of the will; even acts of will to omit what ought to be done, the not willing a good, is never without willing something else, even evil. it is from ignorance, and want of considering, that some men talk of original sin as distinct from, or other than actual sin, and it is an idle notion as they understand it; for wherever there is a thinking being or mind, there is a will willing something or other; and if that will be contrary to the will, or law of god, it is actual sin: where there is no such act of the will, there is no sin. the not knowing the will of god is an alleviation of the sin, but though the creature ignorantly wills otherwise than god wills, that ignorance if at all the creatures fault does not make it cease to be the creatures disorder, or what ought not to be. nor is god ever the cause of the creatures inevitable ignorance of what he would have them do: he cannot be supposed to cause any thing he wills not, that would be a great imperfection; therefore he cannot be said to cause the creature not to know what he would have him do; that would be all one as to will what he wills not, which is a contradiction. but he has made the intelligent creatures capable of knowing and doing his will; those being's that have no thoughts, are incapable either of sin or obedience. original sin, if we must use such a term, is nothing but the first act of will contrary to the will of god: the first disorderly act of the first creature that so acted, is the original or beginning of all sin; the first undue act of the first man is the original, or first sin of men; the first act of will, contrary to the will of god of every particular creature, is its original or first sin; and the creature is never guilty of sin, or acting contrary to god's will, till it has so acted. most absurd therefore is it to suppose me guilty of that sin which was the act of the will of another; committed before i had so much as any act of will, or being itself. 20. so far we have considered creatures as coming from the hands of god, and good; or possible to be changed, and become evil in their actions. we now come to consider them as actually evil: and it is, or may be apparent to any man that will descend into himself, and consider that man has not always and exactly done as he should; but has sometime willed, or does will otherwise than god wills. of this, i say, we may be soon convinced by our own experience or conscience, the surest of all convictions. if it be true that as god is all perfect, or sufficient in himself; so that he hath created things to manifest his wisdom, goodness and power, etc. to the intelligent creatures, that they may be as happy as they are capable of being, it is most certain; first, that if i have not considered myself, being once capable of reasoning, and so found my cause, and enquired and found what he is, admired, and loved him, and had thankful thoughts of him, it is not because i was incapable of doing so, but because i would not, and i have not willed as becomes me; as god wills i should, but have sinned. secondly, if i have willed any thing that does not tend to make me as happy as i can be, or as much pleased with god in himself, and in his works, as i should, i have willed otherwise than god wills, and so have sinned. but i find even after i have found god, and somewhat considered him, i have very much forborn or neglected to consider him, and considered other things unworthy such consideration more than him; nor have i loved him as the selfsufficient being, and my cause, aught to be loved; but have loved myself, or other things unworthy such love, more than him; while i am convinced he is better than me, or any thing, and the cause things are, and are any way condusive to my good or pleasure; and in so doing, as well as in other instances, i find i have sometimes willed those things which at other times i have found not tending to make me as much as may be happy. i have willed things before i have considered, or informed myself of the nature and tendency of them, slighting those directions god has made me capable of receiving from him; and so acted, or willed disorderly, or otherwise than becomes me. i have not always been pleased, or glad, in contemplating god in himself, and in his works, and therefore i find i have not always willed as god wills. i know (or may soon do) that god's will is best in relation to himself, and his creatures: i have been convinced such and such a thing is according to god's will; yet i have done otherwise, and chose that which my judgement informs me is not god's will, thereby asserting my own will therein better than god's, or my judgement truer than his. again, i am convinced (when i seriously consider) that god's will is that wherein i can best be pleased; but i find i have been displeased, and uneasy in mind many a time, either because i have found i chose something not best for me, or because for want of consideration i have thought something good for me, and willed it, which i could not possibly have: thus i find infallibly i have willed otherwise than god wills, and so have sinned. here we have from the light of nature, or our own reason, an evident conviction of sin, or of man's fall and degeneracy; every one may see it in himself, and the same we may observe tho' not some ways so apparently in others. and all mankind in general, how dark soever their light, and how little soever their reason is, having once attained to the use of reason, have been sometimes ready to confess themselves indeed guilty of doing amiss, and forced to accuse others as guilty of evil. what man is there but that, if i do any thing to make him less happy, is sensible i do not as i would be done by, and so do not my duty, but am a sinner? now god cannot be supposed to make man thus evil, and out of order, because he can do nothing but what is good; tho' he made man capable of sinning, or going out of order: and as man must needs be supposed to come out of god's hands good, and orderly; but is become evil, acting a miss, man must be supposed to be fallen, and degenerated from his primitive state. 21. the greatness of man's sin in willing otherwise than god wills, the grievousness of his fault in falling from what god made him, is apparent, or may be so if we but consider; that man is nothing of himself, but is beholden to god for his being, and all. it is therefore most highly unreasonable that man should deny to acknowledge such a one his author, or dare to contradict or disbelieve his wisdom and goodness, in acting as if god did not know, or would not do what is best for his creature. how unreasonable is it that man should foolishly, and with an ungrateful stubbornness, refuse the good, yea any good god offers him? had god made him less capable of good, he had been bound to be thankful for any capacity; had god denied him some good, he had made him capable of, he had been indebted to love, and thank his maker for any good he had given him. it is a high 'slight of the boundless ever-overflowing fountain of goodness, for man to refuse any, or the greatest happiness god offers him; and whoever does not study god's will as a director to happiness, will certainly miss some good. it might be love to refuse what the giver would lose or want, by giving it, or could not well spare; but a slight not to take where the giver has abundance, and will have never the less by giving. for man to refuse any happiness god offers him, is so far to desire not to be beholden to god. but he that is most beholden to god, is most happy; and he that is most happy, must consequently be most beholden to him. this will remain an everlasting truth while god and creatures have a being. is it not the height of folly, yea madness, as well as injustice, to choose misery rather than acknowledge one's maker as the author of happiness? to desire not to be beholden to god, our cause, our lord and sovereign, is the highest affront to the highest majesty, and no less than an absurd endeavour to dethrone him, and be of ourselves, that is be god: to subtract ourselves from our dependence on his will, and to prosecute our own, in distinction from, and contradiction to his, is so unreasonable, bold, and mad a presumption as to endeavour to overcome, and destroy him; so great a folly and absurdity as to endeavour the impossibility of adnihilating the being of all being's, and consequently ourselves and all. so great a treason, boldness, perverseness, madness and injustice, is contained in sin, or willing otherwise than god wills. and all acts of sin are essentially the same; and every reiterated act of sin, is virtually the approbation and ratification of all sins past, and to come. 22. now for as much as the creature is found guilty, and convicted of this mighty disorder, has done evil, and it cannot possibly be undone, but that it will eternally remain true that the creature has sinned; it follows to be considered what is now to be done, or how the creature ought to behave himself, as guilty and conscious of sin. and there are these things which by natural and right consequence, should arise in man from this consideration: first, an humble acknowledgement and confession to god of what he hath foolishly done, not to fancy he can hid his sin from god, or to go about to extenuate it, and excuse it. secondly, a sorrow, regret, and displeasure with himself for so foolish and unreasonable do; which sorrow, tho' it supposes, and is naturally consequent of evil, yet it becomes a medium in order to future joy, because the troublesome thoughts, or sense of what we have done amiss, urges and instigates to that; which is the third, and chief thing man should do, having sinned, viz. repent, or study what is god's will, and resolve to do it, or will as he wills for the future. which things on the same reason ought to be reiterated as oft as man shall fall again, or reiterate acts of sin. with these there should be a hearty desire to god that he will forgive, or manifest to us anew some acts of his wisdom, goodness, and power, whereby we may be effectually influenced to see as it is the disorder, or evil of our sinful will, to change our mind fully to conform for the future to god's will, that god may be to us for time to come, as he would have been if we had never sinned. this, i say, is the natural duty of a sinner, to repent, or be sensible of his doing amiss, and to change his mind to do well; and such a sinner may boldly, if humbly ask, and expect forgiveness of god. now if we consider the forgiveness of god well, i think nothing can be truly and properly forgiveness but (as i have said) the new manifestation of some acts of god towards the creature upon its sinning and sense of it, whereby it is effectually persuaded to change its will, and go on to change it till it comes to will again as god wills: in which god relieves the creature (more or less, according to the degree of its new obedience it finds in itself) from the uneasy thoughts of its past sins, and affects it with the same pleasure and satisfaction (proportionable to the progress of its repentance) the creature would have had in god if it had never sinned, god abating so much of his due as cannot possibly be paid, viz. the keeping of his law, which has not been done for the time past. this is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, forgiveness of sin, to be prayed for, and believed, and expected in god. but acts of god we may suppose towards the creature, if it is not brought to will again as god wills, sometime or other to do its duty, it is not really forgiven, its sins pardoned, or done away, divorced, or loosed from it, as the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies. 23. now for as much as the creature considering the unreasonableness of its sin, its will not being quite changed, or but little changed, and its understanding not fully informed, may be apt to doubt [as too inclinable to measure god by its self] whether god will indeed thus add to act towards the happiness of a once rebellious creature: we shall consider by what rational arguments we may be persuaded that god will indeed, yea is ready to forgive. first, it is god's unchangeable will and command that the creature be obedient to the will of his maker, as what is most just and reasonable; for god cannot be supposed to change his own will, or will what is not just and reasonable: to suppose he can is all one as to suppose him imperfect, or not god, or not wise and good. if so he must needs be supposed willing repentance, or a leaving, or remission of sins in the creature that has sinned, and god cannot cross or contradict himself. besides, it is better that the sinner repent, and become obedient, than that he go on in sin and disobedience; and god cannot be supposed to will that which is not best. again, if it be a good to will as god wills, and the creature having found the unreasonableness of the contrary some what desires so to do, is somewhat inclinable so to do, it cannot be supposed that the creature should desire more good than god does, or will any real, and to it possible and suitable good which god does not will. god will therefore hear the creatures desire, forgive, or promote the creatures good desire, and give it fresh arguments effectually to persuade it more and more to will as he wills; and when it is brought perfectly, or exactly so to do, it is perfectly, or fully acquitted, and fully justified, or made just, and not till then, because it is not so till it is so; nor can god reckon, think or account, or declare it so till it is so, because he can neither be deceived nor deceive. but as repentance is a work of time, even of our whole life; so forgiveness, or justification, is a work of time, not perfected till sin is done away. that god has given intelligent creatures a capacity of willing as he wills they should, is evident: if he had not, they could not be obliged so to do; and that they might possibly, and have willed otherwise, is as apparent as experience can make a thing: it is moreover manifest, that he has given them a capacity of knowing when they have willed otherwise than their maker wills: an understanding capable of seeing the unreasonableness, with a will sometime sensible of the unhappiness of so doing. we have already found, that he wills his own will to be done, and that his will is best, and unchangeably so, is evident; that he adds upon the creatures sin fresh arguments to persuade the sinning creature to change, and go on to change its evil will, till it is changed wholly; that it becomes god so to do, while nothing can be supposed better, or possibly so good, either to the manifestation of god's excellencies, or the creatures happiness, makes us positively conclude that god will never be wanting on his part to the sinner. but here perhaps some will start a not-altogether impertinent question. 24. why god made the creature capable of sinning, or willing contrary to his maker's will? i answer; that it was most becoming the perfections of god, and their manifestation in, and to the creatures, and the creatures happiness thereby, to make them capable, or able either to obey, and will as god wills; or to disobey, or sin, by willing the contrary. for the illustration of this, consider; first, god's dominion, sovereignty, or lordship, could not otherwise have been acknowledged: for if the creature had not been capable of sinning, it had not been capable of obeying; obedience to god being nothing but willing what god wills, because he wills we should, when we can possibly, will otherwise; and disobedience to god can be nothing else than willing what god does not will, when we may will what he does. there is no obedience properly so called, or of mind, but what is free, nor no disobedience of mind but what is spontaneous. to be or do what we can't but be or do, is no proper obedience; and not to be or do what we can't be or do, cannot well be called disobedience. and god did not make man capable of obeying or sinning, that he might sin; but capable of sinning or obeying, that he might obey, and so acknowledge, and show god's dominion and lordship over him. again, if man had not been a voluntary, or free being, he had been incapable of pleasure or happiness, (which consists in the satisfaction of will, or having one's desire) and so had had no such occasion of acknowledging god's goodness. nor farther would he have had the excellency of being so much the image, or representation of god, who is a free agent, or has a will tho' not indifferent to good and evil: god's will being the rule of good, he cannot but will what he wills, nor can he suppose any thing otherwise than it is, his wisdom being absolutely perfect. but man is the image of god as he is a free agent, or has a will capable of willing good. god's will is his own rule, he being selfsufficient, can have none to obey that is wiser, or that can will better. man's good depends on god, as the shadow on the substance, as the picture on the thing painted out. when man's own will interposes between god and him, he so far ceaseth truly to represent god, and be happy. god's will, which is best, is man's rule, or exemplar; and the creature can be no more like god than an image can be to a thing it represents. an image can never be the same thing itself of which it is the image, (to say it may, is all one as to say it is the image, and not the image, which is a contradiction) nor can any image be equal, or in all respects such as the thing it is the image of, or like it more than in some respects: for if we could suppose two things every way alike, neither of them could be said to be the image of the other; because the other would with as much reason be said to be the image of that: nay it would be absurd to talk of a distinction where we have supposed no difference: and the image of a creature may be more like, or nearer an equality with the creature it represents, than an image of god can be like god; for nothing can be the image of god but a creature; for there is nothing but god, and creature, and between god and creature, there cannot be less than infinite distance and inequality; which is not between creature and creature, tho' one be the most perfect, the other the most imperfect of creatures, being both finite. nothing, i say, can be said to be the image of god but a creature, unless there could be conceived any third being between god and the creature. i say farther; god cannot be said to be the image of god, or, which is the same, that which is the image of god cannot be said in a proper sense to be god; for so the image would either be said to be the image, and yet the same thing it is the image of, which is all one as to say it is the image, and not the image, or what it is, and something else than what it is, which is a contradiction. but if the image of god, being something else, or another, than what it is the image of, be yet said to be god, it is consequentially said to be another god, and such a one who is but an image of another; which also affirms it in the consequence at the same time not to be god, tho' inconsiderately said to be so: for what is in any sense but a resemblance, or imaginary, is not god. things may be said in some respects to be like god, but god cannot be said to be like any thing, he being first, original. besides, nothing in god can be the image of god, because that one thing would not be the image of god, viz. of the complete divine being, it being supposed to be the image but of something else in god, not of all in god, itself (if it were not absurd to call it, self, there being not more than one self in god) being something supposed in god. but to conclude this digression; god being altogether substance, and original, there can be nothing imaginary, or but a copy in him; whatever therefore is an image, or copy of god, is but a creature; and whoever affirms the contrary, affirms he knows not what, a chimaera, or his own vain imagination, if not worse. but to return again from this occasional digression. if man could not have willed evil, he could have had no temptation to it, either from within or without; and his disobedience could not have been so signal and great, could it be supposed any at all: virtue that is never tried, is not so eminent. god did not make the creature capable of supposing something preferable to its subjection to the will of its maker, that it might seek such a thing, or venture to try whether it were so or no, but that it might have occasion to resist and overcome such a suggestion, and own its dependence; without which it had been uncapable of, or wanted that happiness or pleasure which is found in a sort of self-denial in doing what is pleasing to a more excellent person which one loves, which is not little, as every one may experience, the love of men perhaps being always placed on the account of something seen of excellency in another which is not in one's self; and the degree of such pleasure consists in the degree of love, and the degree of love in the degree of excellency in the object; and god is the best of all things that can be loved. 25. but here may be objected what by many is asserted; that man is not free to will either good or evil. and here some affirm, that man since he hath sinned, and remains impenitent, is free only to will evil. others from more consideration, (tho' it may seem a paradox to the former, and aught to be well explained) are persuaded that man is not free to will evil, but only to will good. let us for the farther clearing this whole matter, consider it fundamentally. good, or pleasure, i take to be the same thing, and the pleasure of the selfsufficient being is the supreme good; he being of himself, and beholden to none for any pleasure, but all beholden to him for whatever can truly please, it is but just and right that all pleasure should be according to his will and pleasure, who knows what is best for all: who tho' he take pleasure in his works, it is because they are his, made according to his wisdom and goodness. he who is the cause of their being, is consequently the cause of any pleasure he can be thought to take in them, as well as of that which creatures may take in one another. now pleasure and good, being the same, it is to be considered as in the different subjects, god, or his creatures; god being selfsufficient, nothing can affect him with displeasure, or uneasy thoughts, all his pleasure arising from within, even from his unchangeable self, who cannot will to be displeased, or uneasy, nor can any thing be supposed to force him to be displeased. nor can the creature properly be said to desire its own unease or displeasure, its pleasure lying in having its will; if it could desire to be displeased, it could will, and not will at the same time, which is a contradiction as bad as to say a will is not a will. but the creatures will becomes evil two ways. first, when it wills or desires that which in itself is a good (yea perhaps the greatest good) but to it impossible, or not belonging; as to be satisfied in its own proper will, without regard of another's, as if the reason of good were to depend on its will, which is a prerogative only belonging and possible to god, whose will can give being to things, and who is sufficient in himself. the evil of this (and indeed all sinful desire includes it) lies in this, that the creature wills a contradiction, or absurdity, and not only so, but foolishly and unjustly attempts to rob god of his prerogative, or his very being, and to become god itself, or to be another god equal with him. and tho' this attempt, which is virtually in all sin, can really take nothing from god, or make him uneasy, yet in common speech, or speaking improperly as if we were speaking of men, god is said to be displeased or angry, with it; but it is indeed no more but that it is not according to god's will, he does not will it, or does not take pleasure in the creatures folly and absurdity. so that the creature thus affecting supreme good, does not only commit the evil act of injustice in attempting to take what is not its own, and of folly, in affecting what is impossible; but also has willed that which will bring in the consequence, it's own displeasure; because willing what it can't have, while it so wills it is uneasy, or else is so when it reflects on its folly. secondly, the creature wills evil in willing that which has really but the appearance of good, [appearance, i say, for at least a seeming, or supposed good, must be acknowledged the object of man's will] as when a man wills a thing which when he tries, has no satisfaction in it at all, or when he wills a created good, i mean the enjoyment of some creature that does really give him some small satisfaction; but that present and small satisfaction, takes away a greater and more lasting it might have had, if it had not willed that thing; it being according to the will of god, as well as for man's interest that man be as much as possible pleased: man really wills evil, tho' under the form of good, or even tho' there is some good in the thing when he wills that which tends to hinder, or lessen his own pleasure or happiness, which is according to the will of god. thirdly, a man's will is evil when, altho' he will that which is in itself a good, and good for him he wills it so, or in such circumstances as hinders good from another man; for there is the same reason why another man should be pleased as much as may be, as that i should be so; and in hindering the good of another i want the reasonable acts of love and justice, and not only so but even also hinder good from myself in thus disorderly seeking it; for i could be more happy and pleased if all my fellow creatures were so, than if they be not; and the more of them happy and pleased, the more may i; for the unhappiness or displeasure of others, adds to my unhappiness, if i have been any way the cause of their unhappiness, when i see my injustice; or if i have not, as i am affected with compassion, or as i therein do not see so much of the manifestation of the wisdom and goodness of god, in the order of his creatures, i have not such cause of joy, as if i see my own pleasure as it were multiplied in my fellow creatures, or have the satisfaction of being instrumental to their good. and perhaps from divers other reasons, the more of my fellows are happy, the more in degree may i be so. but let us consider wherein the evil of man's will consists, for more clearness in an instance or two. a man desires a bodily thing in the application of which to his body, god has annexed a pleasure to the mind; this gratification of the sense is good, and god causes it; but when the man wills it in such a circumstance, as of necessity robs him of a greater pleasure he might otherwise have had, or gives him in the consequence greater displeasure than the want of that thing could be, the willing of that thing becomes an evil to him in abating his happiness, and which is worse an ungrateful slight to his maker, a greater disorder in not consulting his will to guide him, or not confiding in his wisdom and goodness, who would have the man as happy as might be. as the pleasure a man receives in eating and drinking is good; but if he eat or drink too much, he dulls his appetite, and renders it less sensible, and often lays the foundation of a disease that not only affects him with its consequent displeasure, but renders him incapable of the pleasure of eating and drinking for a much longer time than he had of pleasure when he disorderly, or immoderately sought it. or if he do not thus abate his happiness, if he rob his neighbour for it, that act of injustice never fails one way or other to give him more displeasure than he had pleasure so unduly attained. so likewise the pleasure in the act of generation is good; but when ever a man goes out of the order god has set man in the reason of that satisfaction, he acts evil, either in rendering himself less capable thereof, or by procuring himself far greater evil or displeasure, in the many mischiefs that the satisfying that desire, any other way than with a wife, naturally produces to him, and his fellow creatures, with the troublesome reflection that he will sometime have on such disorders, when he sees not only that he hath deceived himself, but also the unreasonableness of his disbelief, slighting, disbelieving, and affronting his maker in not studying, but rejecting his most wise order and direction. so that if a man wills that which is good, but impossible to him, or what belongs not to him, that which is but little good, and takes away more good, hinders good to another, is but an appearance of good, his will is evil. he that desires his neighbour's wife, wills evil tho' she be the best woman in the world; for tho' she be good, she is not his; he invades fewer property, and so wills an injustice; nor can he have his desire without abating the happiness of his neighbour, and the woman's too in her becoming evil, and finding its consequences. and here i cannot but take notice of the a foolish abuse, common among mankind; that is, they confidently call the desire one man has to another's wife, or a woman to another's husband, with all such disorderly desires, by the name of love, meaning love to the person desired, when it is nothing less; being always that which so far as it is satisfied divers ways effects the unhappiness of the person said to be beloved, which such a lover can hardly be so blind as not to see. yea farther, that it is but a self-love, (if it can be called love at all) and a grossly mistaken one too, rendering the lover himself more unhappy than he would have been had he never so affected, tho' he enjoy the object of his love, i would say his lust, for that is the proper name on't. but to draw towards a conclusion of this matter; i say, whatever a man desires, the act of desire is free; to suppose otherwise would be all one as to suppose volition not to be volition, or a will not a will. a will cannot be said to be compelled; for tho' it cannot but act, or be, it is freely, or willing, compulsion, and volition are contrary and incompatible. but the will is led by arguments, and at least appearances of good. if there could be supposed but one object of the will, it could not but apply to that, yet it would be freely; but where there are many objects, it chooses by appearance. but man having the faculty of reasoning as well as desiring, aught to suspend the acts of his will by a kind of indifferency, at least as to their effects, till he is sure his choice will be good. the will is led by arguments: i say, whether the act of will be according to god's will, or no, and volition is volition, or to be willing is to be willing. and a man is (in short) more properly said to will, or desire evilly, than to desire an evil, i mean to himself; for that a man may be so wicked as often to will, and consequently freely, yea and knowingly an evil to another man, and sometimes effects it, and would also affect god with an evil, or a real displeasure, if it were possible that man's foolish will could be so done, is daily apparent, and true beyond all dispute. and that sinners may be said to will evil continually, is not to be understood as if they never desired any thing that is good, but that every act of their desire, tho' they desire good, hath some evil circumstance or other, as an evil manner, evil means, or evil ends, etc. now god, as abovesaid, cannot will either an evil, or evilly, his will being the rule of good; and to suppose god to will evil, would be all one as to suppose him to will what he don't will: nor is it for want of power or freedom that god can't will or do evil; but it is rather a note of power that he cannot be deceived, but can know all things as they are, and cannot be supposed ignorant of any truth, because he is the exemplar and cause of all truths: he cannot be supposed to do amiss, because he is all-perfect: he cannot will one thing now, another anon, because he is unchangeable, always knowing what is best. and as god, in whose being is no now and then, cannot will contrary to his own will; so he cannot be supposed (without the height of contradiction) to will that the creature should will contrary to his maker's will; this would be to suppose god to will contrary to his own will, or will a thing, and yet not will it. besides, if god please to make known his will, which he must be supposed to do one way or other, or the creature cannot well obey it, or be determined to its duty, when the creature knows it, or has reason to believe god wills so and so, he can have no reason to suppose god can have a secret will, or determination, that the creature should do the contrary: this would be to suppose god a liar, and to deceive his creature, yea to deny god to be either true or good. i have the greatest reason to believe god would have me do what he commands me, that is any way causes me to take for his will, and that he commands me what is best for me to do. i cannot err here, if i am sure he commands. if god could be supposed to will one thing, and command the contrary, he would contradict himself; for the commands of god can be nothing but his will made known to the creature, and he cannot be supposed to frustrate his own will. such an absurdity foolish man would hardly be capable of as to will his child to do, what he commands him not to do; or to command him to do that which he wills he should not do: yet i have known some so bold, or inconsiderate, or displeased with the good will of god, as to affirm in plain words, so unreasonable a thing of god, as that he willed man should do what he commanded him not to do. but god has done very great things, both within us and without us (and will do) to vindicate his wisdom, truth and goodness, against all those that are so hardy or foolish, as to deny them, either plainly, or in consequence. 26. and tho' god may oblige his creature to a thing for a time, (especially in that which seems an arbitrary command) which he may not will him to do always, but afterwards something else, it is no contradiction or change in god's will, (who wills that which is first, and last in respect to the creature, altogether) but the creature being changeable, what is best for him, or his duty under one circumstance, is not so under another: which will of god the creature comes to know part now, part anon. as for instance; god wills me to do that when i am a child, or a servant, which is not my duty when a father, or a master; and that when i am a father, or master, which is not, or ceaseth to be my duty when i am in no such relation. an arbitrary command of god i call that which man sees not, or not clearly the reason of to himself; nor has any evident argument to persuade the doing, or not doing of it, but because god commands. that which is not evidently a natural duty, but some express command, god may please to give the creature without giving him the reason of it. such a thing also god may oblige his creature to, if he please only for a time: but those duties that result from the very notion of our being god's creatures, as love, reverence, trust, dependence, etc. are unchangeable while god is god, and the creatures are creatures, whether god expressly command them or no. but if god shall expressly command his creature a thing, and yet not give the creature the reason of it as good to the creature, it must nevertheless necessarily be supposed to be good, and must so far at least appear to him as that he sees it is not evil, or contrary to a natural duty, or former command. and if we consider, we shall find it most reasonable and convenient for man to obey the will of god, not only in things that are apparently agreeable to man's relation to his maker, and for man's benefit; but in things he may not readily see the agreeableness or benefit of: if first he be sure god commands them, tho' therein god may seem for the present to limit, or abridge man's happiness; concluding god is wiser and better than the creature. for the creature is beholden to god for all he has; and if god deny him something that he may now fancy a good, he has no more reason to be displeased with god, (who arbitrarily gave him his being) than because he made him a man, and did not make him an angel. as a man who should have the gift of a good estate from a person who was no way obliged to him, would be thought most unreasonable to deny a small quit rent as an acknowledgement to his benefactor, from whence he received the estate. such a reservation, of at least a seeming good from man, was very suitable in his first creation make, and excellency, as he was in the likeness of god, lord of all the inferior creatures, that he might thereby acknowledge his subjection and dependence on god, and god's sovereignty and dominion over him. and yet it must also be affirmed most for man's profit to part with this acknowledgement, tho' the thing he forego should be supposed a real, and not a fancied good for him; because he would have kept a vastly greater good than can be supposed in any one particular creature, that is the satisfaction comes to a dependent mind in obedience to his beloved maker and sustainer, with the most pleasing sense of his love, and favour to him, the sweet familiarity, presence, or converse with his god, which was consequently interrupted, or destroyed by disobedience. yet it may be a question whether god may be supposed to will man to abstain from, is not in itself inconvenient for him, and whether it may not be thought a sufficient trial of man's submission and acknowledgement, when only the reason of the command is reserved from him. whatever god has created is certainly good, and for some wise end: those things we call poisons, or which eaten, or applied in a small quantity, will destroy the frame of man's body, are good some way or other; but it is not always necessary man should know the uses of them. if a loving and wise father a physician, should thus warn his beloved son; meddle not with that drugg tho' it hath a pleasant taste, if you eat it 'twill kill you; giving him no farther account of it, or for what use he keeps it: yet this son would not believe it, or be satisfied tell he had tried the experiment, would he not be highly to blame, as discrediting his father's truth and goodness, and disobeying his will? how could he come without shame to his father for a remedy? so much more is man blame-worthy if he refuse the direction of god in the use of the creatures what way soever he gives it. 27. but the keeping all the commands of god, or whatsoever he can be known to will, certainly tends to man's happiness; and tho' he be obliged to abstain from many things good in themselves, or rather from the use of them, according to his own hasty inconsiderate fancy; yet a general conformity to the will of god, is so far from being an unpleasant burden or yoke, that it is the only way of the greatest happiness and pleasure: the more obedient, the more easy, the more joyous a man is, or will soon be. and that man is not perpetually, and as much as may be so, is because in some thing or other he has disobeyed, or yet disobeys, or the disobedience of some other creature affects him: but to be fully obedient, is the height of the creatures felicity. the life of obedience even at present is not a way of unpleasantness, sadness and thraldom; but a path of pleasure, joy and liberty. there is nothing in doing the will of god that in itself tends to make a man uneasy, or that hinders his being pleased or happy as much as possible; and whoever fancieth there is, it is from some mistake; as either a supposition of that to be the will of god which really is not, or that the actions of the creature tend to one thing when indeed they tend to another. i cannot forbear not only to assert this as that of which i have a most clear rational conviction; but also to witness it, as having here had something of unquestionable experience: and that short pleasure which a sinner may take in an unduly enjoyed sensual good, in stealing or snatching as it were from god what he would in better time and order have given him; i have found more than equalled by the bare satisfaction in the thoughts of not having transgressed, were the pleasure of innocency no longer than the pleasure in transgressing. but in obeying are sometimes, even in this life, joys unspeakable, as fore tastes of joys future, full and perpetual, accompanying a state of perfect and perpetual obedience. those that know nothing of these felicities that are greater than can be in the disorderly enjoyment, or abuse of god's creatures; let them but try the experiment (as i have done) of god's goodness, of the pleasure of divine love, as they easily and freely may, and they will be for ever convinced. neither let any think they lose any thing, even of the good of the creatures themselves, by being restrained, or rather directed by whatever rule god gives us how to use them; no, he envies us not the greatest pleasure we are capable of taking in them. we cannot be supposed while creatures, to be capable of all pleasure, or of full satisfaction in creatures. god has indeed given man a quick sense of good, or delight even in the use of bodily things; and that not that it should be unsatisfied, but the creatures designed for man's use are so numerous, that they cannot all be used by any man, no nor by all men; nor can a man enjoy what he is capable of enjoying altogether, and at once. so that where ever god forbids what we could desire, it is but where a smaller enjoyment will hinder our having a greater; one frustrate our having many; a small present and short one, disappoint us of a future, great, and lasting one. and what folly is it to be displeased, because god some way forbids a bodily or sensual pleasure, that we may have a better, a rational, or mental one? or a joy in a creature, where it would hinder our rejoicing in the creator himself? i believe if we had time to trace in particular, the disorders of men, we should find that all and every of them (even their most beloved ones) do but abate their felicity. where is any that does not tend to destroy our health, or peace, or wealth, or ease, etc. and so bring upon us some mischief or other, by which the little pleasures in them are very much out-ballanced? is it not highly reasonable, as well as for our interest, that god who is most wise and good, should be our chooser, if he condescends to choose for us? is it not the greatest presumption, and affront to our maker, who is the cause of all our good, that we should act as if we knew better than he what is best for us? is it not the greatest injustice not to love him, and study his will to obey it, who has no profit by us, but does all for our benefit? if we may receive all the profit, shall we deny to give him all the honour? for god indeed cannot be profited by his creatures; he sees his own excellencies in them as shadows, but in himself as in the substance; but there can be no increase of his perfections, who is selfsufficient necessarily. nor can man's disobedience take away any thing from his happiness, or affect him with the least infelicity. sin does indeed obscure his glory; but not from himself, but only from the sinners, who thereby lose that most pleasant and happy vision. and a cause of that great dislike of sin in god, which hath been sometimes expressed by the symbols of anger and wrath, is that he loves his creature so well, that he cannot approve any action that in the least hides his glory and goodness, from his beloved works. and as god neither loses nor gets any thing by the creatures sin, or obedience; so in particular his justice or righteousness, cannot be impaired. he is not unrighteous or unjust, tho' he suffers man to be unrighteous and unjust: the creature cannot possibly bring any change upon god, or lay him under any necessity or obligation; god alone can oblige himself by his promise, and that is not properly an obligation in god, for 'tis but the declaration of his constant and freewill. to say god cannot in justice break his promise, is no more than to say he will not. if he leave the creature to reap the fruits of sin, he does him no wrong; if he persuade the creature to leave his sin and be happy, he wrongs not himself: he can neither lose nor get any thing by the creatures sin and unhappiness, or repentance and happiness. god is essentially righteous, or just, before creatures had a being; and his essential righteousness, or justice (as i have elsewhere said) is to love, and approve himself, and to do his own will. his justice in relation to the creatures, is his approbation of them so far as they are his work, and according to his will; what he has made, he shows his approbation of by upholding and continuing the being of. he approves not the creatures denial of him in disobeying his will, but shows the greatest testimonies of his dislike of its disobedience: so that if the creature goes on in willing or acting contrary to god's will, god will not; or which is all one, he cannot make it happy and joyous, in its continuing so to do, unless he could make it to be god, and cease to be god himself. for the creature cannot be satisfied with willing good, while it wills evil; nor can it be pleased in having its will, while it wills that which is impossible; and while it leaves god's will, or willing that which is good and possible, it must be miserable, more or less, according to the strength of its evil will; and if it for ever goes on seeking pleasure in vain, or to satisfy its will so as it cannot be satisfied, it must for ever be unhappy, and reap the natural fruit, and work of its own do; unless and until it acknowledge god's will sovereign, just and good, and its own will as disagreeing with its maker, unjust and evil, and that it ought to be subject, and be persuaded to change its foolish will, and desire to know and do the will of god for the future; that is, unless or until the sinner repent. 28. but the creature having once chose its own will against the will of god, having committed one act of rebellion against its maker is, or seems much more inclinable and propense to go on, and persist in its sin, than to repent and will well again. for having once affected to be its own lord and arbiter, or to be independent, which is the greatest perfection, and best manner of being, (tho' impossible to a creature) it goes on with a strong desire; whose perpetual acts, perfuing so great a thing, hinder its understanding to judge, and reflect on the impossibility, absurdity, injustice, and consequents of such an attempt. and every fresh act of sin does but strengthen its disobedience, in which perhaps it would go on for ever if god did not upon its mistake, give it abundant arguments by one means or other, to bring it to a stand, cause it to consider, convict it of its folly and disorder, and so change its will: till which change is effectually begun, it is always, and only endeavouring the impossibility of separating the unpleasant, or bitter effects it finds either in, or following, or fears may find the fruits of its disorderly actions: so that it would not be saved from its evil will, the cause, but from the displeasure it finds attending it, the effect. 29. but when it is once throughly convinced that its own will disagreeing with the will of god, is an impossible way, or means of happiness, or lasting pleasure; and sees the unreasonableness and badness of such an attempt, the soul is very unapt to believe that god will forgive: and considering itself and its sin, more than god and his goodness, the sight of its most irrational acts which it hath committed, with the tendency thereof, often makes such a horrid impression on the soul, and takes up its thoughts so much, that tho' god has given arguments enough to persuade that he wills all men to repent, with various and clear notices that he is ready to forgive, and yet make happy those that by persisting in rebellion do not render themselves uncapable of forgiveness and happiness; yet it is commonly blind to see god as he is, and is more apt to fly from him than come to him, measuring god by its own standard, it having been very apt to account it justice to revenge the crossing its will, on those it was able to affect, thinks god like itself; not considering that the perfect of god cannot take pleasure or satisfaction in the miseries of his creatures, tho' they are enemies, much less in their sin, or continuing enmity, the formal cause of their unhappiness. but tho' man is so apt to look upon god as an enraged enemy, hardly to be appeased, severe to reckon with the sinner, resolved that the sinner shall never be happy, unless something can be given him to purchase his favour, that he values more than the sinner's repentance, or new obedience: yet, i say, tho' man is so apt to look upon god as such, like himself, we must affirm that god is not, nor can he properly be said to be, an enemy to man, or any of his creatures, as they are to him, and to one another. he hates, or sets himself against nothing but their sins, their unhappiness; wills nothing but what is for their good, nor can he but love whatsoever is his own work; as the being's of all his creatures are, and their good order, which is their happiness; therefore he cannot but will their reconcilement to him, or to their duty. 30. now all that god hath done, does, or will do in order to man's recovery from sin and misery, tends unto this one thing; to bring man again to will as god wills. where ever this is done, it is done, and the end of god's dealing with sinners is accomplished, whatever the means were by which it was brought about; and so far as we are come towards this, so far we are in the way of salvation, or saved. to will as god wills, or to love our god with all our heart, soul and strength, and our fellow creature as ourselves, is the whole law, that god does so much to persuade man to keep. to will, and n'ill the same, is perfect love; and love is manifested by doing the will of the beloved. in doing the will of god is life, i mean happiness not only in this present state, but also in that which is to come. 31. and that there is a life to come, and immortality, discoverable clearly even by reason, and divers notices thereof implanted in nature, we shall a little attempt to show. that men are mortal, and live in this life but a little while, is the experience of the whole world. that the body is subject to decay, or the order of its motions wherein its life consists, liable to be destroyed and cease; and by another as to life, disorderly motion to be separated, and so its organical figure to be spoiled and changed, all men perceive by the least observation. but that death is not a termination or end of our being, i think will appear by these considerations. first, we have no reason to conclude that the end or design of our being, is fully accomplished in this life. the manifestations of god's perfections to man, and man's pleasure or happiness in beholding them, (the end of man) by reason of sin, are not so clear and so great in this life as they may be, should be, and are to be desired. god is not seen and enjoyed by any now, as he may be, by some but very little. the desires of some (i may say of all) that desire god, are not satisfied in this short and sinful state. none have unerringly and sufficiently beheld the divine excellencies, and acknowledged god as he ought to be acknowledged. some have lived and died, and hardly ever truly confessed and owned their maker; few or none have loved and obeyed him to their capacity, and been as pleased or happy in him as they may be: therefore it is reasonable to conclude (nay we cannot well think otherwise) that there is a life to come wherein the ends of the creation shall be accomplished. god cannot be thought to let his works perish without fulfilling his, or their true ends in them. the good, those that have been so far convicted of the disorders of sin, as to repent, and change their minds from willing contrary to god's will, in some measure to will as god wills, and to desire that they may do so more, yea perfectly, and always: those that have somewhat beheld god lovely, have not yet, or in this life, been brought up to so great a degree of obedience, as they are convinced is their duty, nor seen so much of god's excellence as they desire to see, nor been satisfied with the sense of his love as they would. if these their desires, duties and happiness, are good, convenient, suitable to the natures of god, and his creatures, as evidently they appear to be, certainly god wills them sometime or other to be, and that more than the creature can will them, because god is the supreme . so that it is altogether unlikely that the good man should perish, and not attain the good that he is capable of; desires, is convenient, and god wills more than he. nor is it any more likely that the bad man, he that hath seen no greater delight than in contradicting the will and order of god, by the disorderly enjoyment of the creatures should perish, or cease under so great a mistake as never to see, and be convinced of the absurdity and evil of prosecuting his own proper will as the chief good; as never to find that the way of happiness is not in acting contrary to the will of god. that god should have an intelligent creature never to be made acknowledge his maker, is a thing hard to be thought. it is more probable that even the bad man will remain one way or other, to be convinced of his disorders, of his rebellion against god, injustice, and want of goodness to his fellow creatures. the good man in this life seems often to be the man of sorrow, the son of adversity, that doth not gather the full-ripe fruits of his repentance and obedience; being among a world of unhappy and injurious impenitents. therefore it is requisite there should be a future state, wherein he may reap in joy what he has sowed in tears. the evil man seems often to be the man of joy and pleasure in this life; he rejoiceth, and even glorieth in his disorders, yea in that very great one of afflicting the man that is better than he: now it is most equal and just that he should some time or other come to see the good man beforehand with him, rejoicing, and happy in god, when he is sorowing to see he hath turned from the fountain of joy and blessedness. these things are not accomplished in this life, therefore we must necessarily suppose a future. again; it is certain that no creature can cause itself, or another to cease: nothing but the withdrawing the same power that caused the creature to be, and continueth its being, can be supposed a reason of its cessation. we can prove no such death as an adnihillation of any thing; nor does it appear to any that consider the matter, that even any bodily creature ceaseth to be. but the contrary might be shown by many arguments, if it were doubted of: even those things which seem to the ignorant and inconsiderate, to be most likely to be destroyed, such as things that are burnt; i can at any time demonstrate, even to the eye, that none of their parts cease, but are only separated, or altered. the death of the body is but some kind of alteration, or change of its modes or circumstances; as a separation of the parts of its organical structure, or an alteration of such and such motions, requisite to continue its particular mechanism, or animal oeconomy. the body remains, i mean all the matter of it, after the division of its parts; and it cannot rationally be supposed that the mind, the more substantial, and (as all are ready to acknowledge) the more noble part of man should suffer more alteration by the dissolution of the body, than the body itself does. the change the body undergoes is apparent, but what change you will say may the mind be reasonnably supposed to suffer at its separation from the body, or whether not enough to be called death? many treatises have been written, and discourses made to prove the immortality of the soul, and some for its supposed mortality; but the authors have not been so happy as to agree in the notion of life and death with one another, nor all so considerate as to fix any determinate notion for themselves, or to tell their readers what they mean by its living or dying; so that it may be true or false for them. but i shall here state the question more plainly, and tell you first, that by the life of the soul, i mean a continuation of thinking, or of understanding and willing. where there are these actions and passions, there is enough to be called life; and that which better deserves to be named living than any whatsoever, organization, and motion in bodies. and the plain question is this; whether upon the death, or dissolution of the body, thinking wholly ceaseth? a cessation of some of the modes of thinking, cannot be enough to be properly called the death of the soul; for so it would not only be always dying, but dead, as it altars so continually, at least every night and day. an alteration of some of the modes of thinking may in a figurative and improper sense be called death; but the question is not of any such death. it is probable that many, if not all those thoughts and ideas we have by occasion, or on condition of our body as so and so disposed, may cease; tho' it cannot easily be thought absolutely necessary: for we cannot conceive the body to be a natural occasion of any thoughts, but so by the will of god; who if he please, we may well think, can cause the same ideas and thoughts without it, tho' it seems not to any purpose, or probable that he will. for on the other hand, it is more likely that god permitted death for the cessation of those thoughts (or at least many of them) the body is the occasion of, since man's fall into sin, in good and bad: for as much as we are tempted to most of our disorders by occasion of the body, and to gratify some sense or other disorderly, or besides the direction and will of god, seems to be the first and most constant temptation every man is drawn aside with. now the good man, or repenting sinner, through the goodness of god, (on this supposition of such thoughts ceasing) gets this by death, tho' in itself an evil, that he is freed from all the allurements of this life occasioned by his use of this body. the undue gratifications of sense can now no more persuade him, the unprofitable care of avoiding little bodily displeasures, now takes not up his thoughts, the difficulties from the injustice and cruelty of sinners press him now no more to act against his maker's will; but he seems perfectly freed from temptation, having perhaps now no object of desire present but god, and nothing to interpose for his love, as a rival with his maker. nothing now seems necessary for him to know but god, and himself: nor needs he, or values he, could he have them, any little pleasures in creatures when he is at god, the fountain and cause of all. on the other side, the evil man also loses all those gratifications of sense he so much affected, and erringly counted his chiefest good; and must needs find that he foolishly set his heart on that which would not make him happy, but so soon left him. and as his will is not reconciled, and subjected to god's; but he desires still that which cannot be, god cannot so communicate himself to him to make him joyous, but he must be subject to all that anguish that the reflection on the loss of the creatures he so much delighted in, and that he hath missed the fountain of all good can cause in him; with all the vexation and trouble that all the disorderly thoughts of such a soul can raise to itself. but to come to the point in hand again; it cannot well be thought that the soul or mind of either good or bad should die, or thinking wholly and for ever cease; or yet for a time, upon the body's death; because the continuation of thinking, or life of the soul can't rationally be supposed to depend on the body, (a thing more ignoble than itself, being very unlikely to be its cause) but upon the will of god its author. and god cannot well be supposed thus to let any of his creatures cease, or disown his works that are good, as the being's of all things are; much less can minds, the intelligent and active being's, be thought to be annihilated, or cease thinking so soon, and to no purpose. change they may, and do, as all creatures are mutable; but what of god would be seen in the cessation of any, especially of minds, who are the only kind of being's capable of beholding god? if the soul ceaseth to think, and so dies more than a figurative death, it ceaseth to be; for thinking and mind are the same being: which if you will not be persuaded to believe, you must at least acknowledge them inseparable. for a mind that does not think, or a thinker that cannot think, is a contradiction; and to call that a power or agent, that can do nothing, is absurd; for that which can do nothing, is no power or agent; and a power or agent that will do nothing, is as great a contradiction; for willing is doing, even thinking. again; nothing is more strongly implanted, i may say concreated in the mind of man, than a desire to continue; and if being is good, the continuation of being is good; if the desire to continue be good, god is the cause and implanter of such a desire, and consequently wills we should have such a desire. i think none can but desire to continue, if it were the will of god we should cease to be, the desire to continue would be a sin; but god can't be supposed to will we should desire that which he don't will should be; that would be to will us to will contrary to his will. now whatever god wills to continue, cannot be supposed to cease. if god wills to manifest himself in, and to his creatures, to be loved and feared by them, he must continue them; for by their cessation, all these things will cease and be impossible. every good man that loves god, would continue to love him; it's god's will he should love him: can god be supposed to make him cease to love his maker? to what purpose? let it but be granted, that it is not god's will i should cease to love him, and the immortality of my soul is secured; for while i love i live, viz. mentally. nor can the evil man, that don't love god, nor fear to act contrary to his will, be supposed to be for ever, or for a long time exempted from the evils of his rebellion against his maker, or rendered by god himself uncapable of all conviction: or can it be thought probable, that god should make creatures to deny him a little while, and then cease under so great a mistake as never to believe and confess god to be their sovereign lord, and sufficient benefactor. but if god approve himself, and his own works, he will rather continue them, and suffer them to make themselves miserable, and find they are not god's, than not assert himself god, one way or other, to all his intelligent creatures. besides, the soul either of good or bad cannot with any reason be supposed to cease for a time, and then be again; for if it cease to be it is not, and nothing can be properly affirmed or denied, but of that which is. where there is no being, neither life nor death can be asserted. so that if a soul cease to be, and a soul be afterwards, it cannot be the same, but a new one, to whom can be charged no account of the ceased souls past actions. there must be a continuation of being, or there can be no identity or sameness; and the essentials of the thing must remain, or there is not the thing, but another. if there be not a continuation of thinking and conscience of former thoughts, it cannot be conceived how the sameness of a mind can be ascertained; and if a soul in this present state be wicked, and cease at the dissolution of the body, it can neither be just nor good, that a new one should be miserable, because the ceased soul was unrighteous, nor be determined what new one should be so: nor that a soul, penitent in this world, should not itself be happy hereafter, but have its hopes of future happiness utterly frustrated, and be put off with the mock-happiness of being happy in another soul. what encouragement can i have to my duty, if i suppose i must not continue to the perfection and happiness of my obedience; but must perish, and only now be contented to think that god will create a soul hereafter, and perhaps give it my dust, to be happy, because i only began to be holy? or how shall i be deterred from sin, if i am persuaded i myself must be discontinued, and that it is not i but another mind that is in danger of everlasting vexation; (it may be with my old body) if i now die impenitent? when we say a man is dead, (if we talk like rational creatures) we must have some determinate sense of those words; he is dead: who is dead? herald the he or person must remain. what is dead? such a thing. a man. the thing or man is, tho'dead. a man is a compound of soul and body: or a mind doing and suffering, with, or by occasion of an organical body. a man's being dead is the cessation of this manner of life, not of either of the components, being's, or essential properties. the body unacted by the mind, is useless among men, and tends to corruption, or dissolution of parts; so the living, put it out of their sight: the soul or mind is invisible of its self, and can neither converse with men, nor men with it, without the use of body; so when separate, it is not to men; yet it no way follows but that it may well be to god, and to itself, which is being enough. but the soul considered apart, can have no dissolution of parts, having none to be separated, nor can it die otherwise than in a figurative, or metaphorical sense. as it may be said to be morally dead, or dead in sin, when it is impenitent, and not conformable to its duty. to be spiritually dead, when it thinks not of, or is not busied about spiritual things: to be dead to sin, or dead to this world, when its disorderly thoughts, or undue manners of thinking on earthly, vile, sordid things cease: it may be said to be dead to joy or comfort, when it has lost all pleasant thoughts, and has only grievous, horrid, anxious ones, without all hope, or rest continually; and if such a state always continue, whether the soul be separate from, or joined to a body, it is that which is properly called everlasting death. thus, i think, it is apparent that the soul is immortal, and that which is its proper or natural life, viz. thinking, does not cease. tho' to suppose the soul immortal of its own nature, or that it is, or has any thing in itself, which necessarily infers its continuance, would be as great or a greater error than to fancy it mortal; for that would be to suppose it immortal, as its author is. but it cannot be supposed thus to be immortal; for whatsoever had a beginning, or had not being always, may be supposed to have an end, and cease to be. such are all creatures, who would fall into nothing, if god should not will their continuance. but that he does will them to continue, i think we may be persuaded by the foregoing considerations. 32. moreover, we have not only reason to believe that souls do continue tho' separate from, that is disusing their bodies, and such a life they lived with them; but that they shall have their bodies again after some time; because the end of the souls having a body, cannot easily be thought to be fully attained in this life. this material world seems to be made chief for man to be concerned with, and the things therein to be objects of his knowledge, and subjects of his actions. it is by means of his body that he is now capable of knowing and acting in bodily nature; but what he knows and does therein, is so imperfect, notwithstanding all the wonders that have come within the reach of his understanding, and great things have been effected by his hand, that we believe god will not let him lose his body, or cut the bond of corporal and spiritual nature for ever; but rather give it him again, and that so altered as wherewith he may be more capable of all those things he ought to do, and be in bodily nature. the creatures, inferior to man, and subject to his knowledge and use, are but very little known, or duly used in this life; therefore it is probable they will in another: and without a body we cannot see that the material world can signify any thing to the mind of man. man at his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or dissolution, probably ceases to be to the bodilyworld, and the bodily world to him; but in his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, resurrection, standing up, or using a body again, he is again united to bodily nature, to do, and be something again therein. and that he may be more capable of what he should be and do, than he was in his first state, or of finding the great unreasonableness and unhappiness of persisting in the contrary to his duty, it is requisite that the body he receives should be altered, or not exactly the same, but otherwise modified; so as to be capable of the state the soul is then determined to. and if we have reason to believe the body shall be changed, we cannot well think it shall be exactly the same numerical and like figured parts of matter it had before; such a supposition is needless as well as groundless, if not contradictory. the body a man of forty or fifty has, is not the same numerical matter he had at his birth, but has received the greatest part of its bulk from the various matters of his food; so that he was truly eating from his trencher, what is his body. but every soul hath its own body, tho' the body now be in continual change. the matter of the bodies of men and brutes, in the long tract of the ages of this world, hath been confounded; and the same matter, or part of it, that was the body of one at one time, has become the body, or part of the body of another, at another time; but that needs not trouble us, when the sameness of a person does not consist in the sameness of the matter of his body, but in the continuation of his thinking, and conscience of his thoughts. nor perhaps have we any ground to suppose the raised body will be altogether unchangeable; it will be enough if to the happy, it be such as will never any way hinder their happiness; to the wicked such as will continue, tho' in the want of all the disorderly beloved gratifications of sense. to believe the possibility of a soul's having a raised or refitted body, either from the common matter of the earth, or partly from those very particles it formerly had, is no difficulty, when the will of god is supposed the cause: nor need we persuade the possibility of a recollection of dispersed matter, or tell you that even the art of man can gather together that which seems to be separated as much as a rotten corpse. there is no manner of difficulty or contradiction in believing the resurrection to those that believe a god. the difficulties that some have pretended in the notion of the numerical sameness of every particle of matter, are nothing, when we are no way obliged to believe it such a resurrection. 33. moreover, as all things in this sinful life are very much out of order, and men do not sufficiently see their disorders, but think well of that which is ill, and ill of that which is well: it is very requisite, and becoming the perfections of god, beseeming his justice and truth, or his approbation of his will to man, and of his constancy, with the manifestation of the true causes of all good and evil; that there should be some time or other after this life, for a time of discovering, determination, judgement, or declaration of the truth of things. that the work of repentance and obedience may be approved, and appear to be good, and most profitable for the creature; and disobedience and impenitence may be no more mistaken by sinners for the way of goodness and happiness: that justice and injustice may no more be taken one for the other; that the good may appear to be delivered from the power of the wicked, and the wicked appear to be the fools that were deceived: and that the truth of things may be most manifest, and the determination of them clear even to wicked men, it is not only highly probable, but necessary that men shall appear again in such bodies, as whereby they may be known to one another; and these things be effected by such a means, and in such a manner, as may most aptly tend to the undoubted determination of all things to their due, and lasting condition. 34. now as it is evident that man's business is to be conformable to the will of his maker, according to that order the most wise thinks fit, wherein his perfections may be most seen, and whereby the creature may be most happy or pleased; and since it is as evident that man has failed, and gone out of this order, and vainly sought out himself an impossible way of happiness, wherein his maker cannot be duly seen: it follows that man ought to repent, and change his mind. to the doing of which, it is necessary that man should be capable of so doing. it cannot be an immediate obligation on a creature to do what he cannot do. tho' the creature has disobeyed, yet the obligation to future obedience still remains, so consequently a capacity of obeying. it would be very hard to be required to give what one has not, and cannot have. the difficulty that may seem in several instances wherein a man may in some sort render himself uncapable of what he ought to do, may be solved by this consideration: that man cannot be thought to be disabled of a will, or faculty of desire: while he has a being he always wills, or desires something, and his will is changeable by the strength of argument, or new appearance of good from one thing to another. there are the greatest arguments on the side of duty, which may possibly appear to the man, whereby his will may be changed; and the willing according to god's will, is the act of obedience, which god accepts where the soul cannot effect the outward things, which are to men the testimonies, signs, and effects of it: and such hearty desires continued, god often assists to be shown forth, and have their effects to others; or by his providence some way or other rectifies the matter. as for instance; if a man borrows money, spends it, and then can't pay it, he reputes that he has done amiss, desires and endeavours to get money to pay, but can't; god forgives his sin wherein he willed amiss, accepts of his will to pay, for the deed, supplies his creditor another way, or incites him to forgive him: if he forgives him, the debtor is no longer obliged to pay the debt, or a debtor in that matter; if the creditor will not forgive the poor man that would, and cannot pay, he looseth the condition of forgiveness with god, who will not require what the creature cannot do. god has not been wanting to the creature; he first made him innocent, and capable of continuing so, as well as of sinning; and he has made him capable of repenting, and becoming obedient and happy, tho' he has sinned: he has given him a faculty of considering, and reasoning with himself, whereby, as aforesaid, he may be, and is, whenever he is convinced. now if man notwithstanding he hath sinned, shall repent, and become (as he should be) obedient, he will also become happy, and the end of his being will be attained means god may please to make effectual to this end. 35. and that god has given divers means tending to this end ever since man hath sinned, is plainly seen. every man hath a conscience, a kind of court of judgement in himself, accusing more or less, as he hath seen his actions to have been more or less disorderly, and telling him he ought to do otherwise. besides, the experience of the disquiet, or unhappiness every man has as the fruits of his own, and other men's sins, a little consideration will make an argument to persuade him to repent, or do no more such things as make him so uneasy. the due consideration of god and himself will certainly give every man an argument enough to persuade him to behave himself according to god's will, even for his own profit. but besides this natural light of conviction, and these motives in self to repentance, which are or may be always present with a man, it cannot be thought unbecoming the goodness and power of god sometimes himself to make more strong impressions on the mind of man, or immediately to cause him to have such or such more serious, and right thoughts. he that made us thinkers, may if he please inject particular thoughts into our minds without any medium; yet it is not unreasonable to suppose that he may, and does often employ the good spirits in such errants, to instigate men to good, as he suffers the evil ones to tempt to wickedness. the existence of both which sort of spirits any one may easily be persuaded to believe from the consideration of his own mind, as a spirit capable of subsisting without a body, either obedient or disobedient. but to distinguish these thoughts which come into our minds by the silent language of spirits, (if i may use such an expression) may not be so easy: the good thoughts are easily known from the bad; the bad must be our own, or from evil spirits; but commonly those that come thus by way of injection, are strong and sudden. but to distinguish the injections from good spirits, and those from god himself, seems more difficult. some will not be pleased with these considerations; but those that attend seriously and judiciously to what passes in their own minds, may easily find something of these things. but to leave this digression: god has made man capable of, and given him yet more external motives to repentance, for the rectifying his disorders; as the beholding the actions of others, in whom the disorders are more easily seen. the fond love of self may sometime make my own action seem well to me, but an action in another is judged more impartially; but then from the judgement i make of another i may reflect back again to myself, and say: if a thing seem uncomely, and ill in another, i may easily conclude the action is alike ill in me. for instance; i presently see the injustice of another, doing any thing that abates my happiness, or takes away any good from me, or confers to my misery; thence i cannot but conclude there is the same unreasonableness in my hurting him or another. but there is yet a more extrinsic way of conviction, and leading to repentance; and that is the express admonitions, and persuasions of those who have repent, and do repent. if i have seen the evil of disagreeing with my maker, the unhappiness and farther tendency to misery of sin, and have left it; if i have seen the reasonableness of loving and obeying god, and consequently do it; i shall also be desirous that my fellow sinner should come to his right mind. what measure of love to god i have, or see i ought to have, i shall desire in another. the love of god infallibly influences me not only for god's sake, but even for the creatures sake, to love my fellow creature, and endeavour to persuade him to repentance, obedience, and happiness. such repenting sinners have there been in all ages, (tho' sometimes but a few) persuading others, and one another to repentance; and such repenting sinners god may expressly command to preach repentance and obedience to others. but yet in all these (tho' by them many have been persuaded) there is still wanting something of the height of external argument. these repenting sinners have been sinners sometime, and in some measure sinners still, and may possibly err, as well as myself, and be partial in their admonitions and counsels, and speak more or less than god's will; and above all may sometimes give examples not agreeing with their precepts, or may change, and say, and be one thing now another thing anon, as the balance of good and evil goes up and down with them. therefore if god will give the greatest, and most suitable means to persuade sinners, as it is agreeable to his wisdom and goodness to do, there ought to be some infallible instructor in the will of god, confirmed to be such beyond all exception, giving an example (with his instructions) of perfect obedience to his maker; a creature persuading both by perfection of precepts, and exactness of example, to the perfect way of obedience: one that hath no false by as for which he may be questioned to be defective of being a perfect rule to the rest of the creatures, but is capable and sufficient to give the most convincing arguments to enforce repentance and obedience. that god has given such a means to reduce man's disorderly will, we shall consider by and by, when the thread of our discourse brings us to speak of revelation, and the perfection and substance of all revelation. divers repenting sinners god has expressly commanded, and sent to the rest of mankind to manifest his will and pleasure by them, and to assure them that they will therein find their own interest and advantage. 36. and this consideration brings me at length to the business of express revelation, which when considered in the sum and substance, design and end of it, will be found to dictate, and enforce no other thing to men than what we call natural religion, of which we have been somewhat discoursing. it is but as it were a more fair edition of the same law, a more particular and express, more clear and convincing manifestation of god's will, a second witness of the same truths, confirming what is testified by the natural light of reason: which alone were enough to leave all without excuse who do not hearken to its dictates, and sufficient to lead all to the way of obedience were it harkened unto. but revelation being added, dictating and enforcing in a manner plain, and clear enough for any capacity, whatever is absolutely necessary for man to believe, and do in order to happiness; is enough to inform, and convince any of their duty that do not strongly resist. for the clearing of which matter, let us take these considerations. as god is the fountain and cause of all truths, so he is the giver or discoverer of all truths that come within the reach of created understandings. but he doth not make known things to his creatures always the same way. he hath given us sense and reason; by which, with his general and common assistance, we most commonly come to know things for some time unknown to us. but whensoever it pleaseth god to discover some truth in an express, particular, or extraordinary manner, than there is that which we call divine revelation, now this revelation may be considered two ways: in relation to the thing made known: and in relation to the manner, or measure of the manifestation. but before we come to consider it these ways, let it be noted, that as we have said revelation is some truth discovered, or made known to the creatures; so we at the same must necessarily suppose it a truth knowable to the created understanding. for to suppose a thing that is above our understanding to be revealed to us, is to suppose a revelation, and yet no revelation; whatever is made known to us we know, and what we know is not above our knowledge. the capacity of man's understanding we readily believe may be enlarged; so that he may hereafter know what at present he is not capable of; but till he is capable of knowing such or such a truth, or at least seeing it knowable, it can be no revelation to him. as for instance; none can pretend that the doctrine of transubstantiation is revealed, while it is that which is inconceivable. that all the properties wherein the nature and essence of bread consists should remain, and yet the bread be changed into flesh, is that which is unintelligible, and not a revelation. nor can they well say that tho' the manner how this unseen change can be, is not revealed; yet that it is indeed changed into flesh, (and yet more strange! the flesh of christ) is revealed: for how this change can be conceived to be made, and that it can be conceived to be made, is the very same thing, or at least as unintelligible: nay such a supposed change is a contradiction, and a contradiction can with the least reason of all be supposed a revelation. for man is not only unable to know how it can be, but is able to know, yea clearly sees it is impossible to be. with as good a pretence might a man say, that tho' to any man's understanding, two and one make three, yet god has revealed to him that in god's understanding, two and one is but one, or is nine, or what you please. but as to divine revelation, it may be (as i said) considered either as to the thing revealed, or the manner of the revelation. as to the thing revealed, it may be either that which is, or can be known no other way, viz. a truth god has reserved to such his peculiar teaching, or that which might be known without revelation; but not so clearly, easily, or soon, and in both it may be of a truth past, present, or to come. as to the manner of revelation, a truth may be communicated either immediately to the understanding, supposing only that it is god's special will that i, or he thus immediately know such or such a truth we knew not before; or yet to the understanding mediately by the ministry of some superior intelligent creature that god first made know the thing; or yet still more mediately a truth may be made known in way of revelation, even by our very senses; by means of some bodily object, as a voice, vision, or the like. again, as to the manner of revelation, it may be more general or particular, more partial or full; or in other words, fewer or more truths may be thus made known at the same time. now that god can, and may in a particular and express manner make a truth known to his creature, or to one and another, and yet not to the third, or to every one; that he may give a revelation to some immediately, and command them to tell it others; none but those that disbelieve the power goodness, and sovereignty of god, can deny. it cannot rationally be supposed but that the author of truths, can make a truth known. he who has made creatures sensible, and capable of reasoning, and finding out truths by way of induction and argument, may if he please sometimes give men the knowledge of some truths, a nearer and easier way, or cause them to understand truths not knowable by sense and reason alone; and this immediately to whom he pleaseth, and to others by them. creatures that can come to the knowledge of many things by their own industry, or application of thought, may either know the same things, or things they would never have found out so, by a special instruction. as a man unassisted by a master may find out many things in arts, but by the instruction of a skilful artist he may come to know the same and more, and in far less time than he could have known without such a teacher. now it cannot be thought unbecoming the wisdom and goodness of god, or unsuitable, or unnecessary for the present condition of mankind, if we consider it, that god should have had some special scholars of his own particular instructing, and have commanded them to teach other men in things most profitable and necessary to them; or that he should have sent some particular messengers to the rest of mankind to teach his will to those that through their own negligence, or others hindrance knew it not, or to teach it more clearly and fully to those that knew it but in part, and to urge it upon all that were negligent to do it. that god may do thus, i think is now undoubted: that he has done so, seems to me the only thing needs farther to be proved to any rational man. and that we may rationally be persuaded that god has thus instructed, or sent some particular men, either to teach others, or urge them to do their known duty, let us take these considerations. it is most evident to all those who have took notice of the actions of mankind, conveyed by the most unquestionable tradition from generation to generation, that now and then in the ages of this world there have been some men teaching and persuading others things, which when duly considered will be found truths tending to their good; and some of these have declared themselves sent of god, and commanded to teach, and persuade the things they have taught and persuaded. now suppose some of them have not had the things they taught in this special manner immediately from god, yet they are revelations to those to whom they were before unknown, tho' not properly divine ones, as to the manner of their discovery. but yet if the persons were really sent by god's express and special command, to teach men even what they might have found out themselves, nevertheless that such a person was thus sent of god, is a divine revelation, and a high argument to persuade compliance with the things taught. but if they have received the truths from god in this extraordinary, special, and particular manner; and been expressly sent, and commanded to teach, and enforce them, there is all that can be desired to a divine revelation. we have two things here principally to be satisfied in. first, whether the person teaching men, was thus particularly taught of god? secondly, whether he was expressly commanded of god to teach, either this his expressly received divine doctrine, or what he otherwise knew? that the things are of god, we cannot doubt if they appear when declared, with evidence and demonstration, god being the author and fountain of all truths. that the things are revelations, we cannot doubt if they are such as were not knowable, or could not then be known any other way. as for instance; if the person tells us, or brings to remembrance, some things past and forgotten, that were never committed either to written or unwritten tradition; or if he gives us the knowledge of things present, done at a distance, which he could not know any ordinary way, or such things to come which can be fore-known to none but god, (who is incomprehensible in knowledge) and to whom he is pleased to reveal them. that the person was sent of god, we may be persuaded, partly by the things he declares appearing thus to be revelations, partly by their being such as were good, very necessary, and beneficial to be known, or done by the persons to whom he declares himself sent: but fully and sufficiently, if some extraordinary effect is also produced by means of the person, such as never is done, or at least could be done by him without the special and uncommon operation of the divine power, or the finger of god; such as we call a miracle. when such effects accompany persons asserting themselves sent of god to teach and exhort men things in themselves, showing no repugnancy to truth, there can be no more rational doubt of them, or of the authority, and divine mission of the persons. god cannot be supposed to alter the common order of things in his creatures, in concurrence to persuade a lie, or to give his special testimony to any deceiver. but yet here we had need use our reason, and have some skill to judge of, and distinguish a true miracle from a false one, that we may be certain of the matter of fact: for there have perhaps been more pretences to miracles, or false and lying wonders, than true ones. now that i may a little help those who have not so well considered this matter, i shall lay down a few more considerations of the nature of a miracle, before i come to consider how these things may be applied particularly to the book commonly called the holy scripture. a miracle, negatively, is not a contradiction in nature, or any thing that implieth a contradiction, absurdity, or absolute impossibility; as that a thing should be made to be and not to be, so and so, and not so and so at the same time: that which the understanding of man can no ways apprehend, but as absurd or impossible, can neither be pretended as a miracle, nor could it so be, would it ever have the end of a miracle. as for instance; that a certain saint beheaded, should afterwards carry his head in his mouth for some miles; or that the body of christ should be in divers places at the same time: nor can the almighty power of god be any pretence for the belief of such absurdies; for things or truths are the products and subjects of divine power, and not contradictions. again; a miracle is not a fallacy or deception of men's senses, or understanding; for a deceit hath the nature of a lie, and is not likely to come from the god of truth. nor is a miracle a thing done by the power or art of the man, howsoever great or strange, any man's power or art may be to others that are weak or ignorant. nor is a miracle any more in the will of man, than in his power or skill; the time or subject for a miracle is not determined by man's vain will to satisfy curiosity, or unnecessary desires, but is generally wrought upon serious and weighty occasions; nor is god's will so properly said to concur with man's will, when man would work a miracle, as man's will to concur with god's will when god pleases, and sees fit to work one. but a miracle is an extraordinary effect, or alteration in nature, wrought by the will of god, above the power and art of man, at least of him who is the instrument of effecting it, in the way it was effected: a thing done by the special and uncommon operation of the divine power. the end of a miracle is the confirmation of some revelation or truth as from god, to promote some considerable good; no less than to persuade sinners to repent, or will as god wills, or to confirm them that so do, in their well-willing. and wherever there is said to be a miracle that tends not to this end, it ought to be suspected, and will be found upon serious examination to be but a pretence, and no real miracle. but now to come a little nearer to matters of fact, that we may be persuaded that there have indeed been divine revelations, and some persons sent to declare the will of god to others, and the truth of their mission, and of the things declared, confirmed by miracles, we need no more but seriously read and consider the books of moses and the prophets, and especially the writings of the apostles and disciples of jesus christ. in the reading and consideration of which books, if these two things appear, i think there is enough to satisfy any rational man in this matter. first, that the things related, as taught, persuaded and done, agree with the most rational and crittical account of divine revelations and miracles. secondly, that the history itself be undoubtedly true. let us consider both these as briefly as we can. in the first place there is to be considered in the scripture, the doctrinal or instructive part, which teacheth for a foundation: that there is one most high sufficient being, or god: and that he is the author and continuer, and consequently sovereign lord of all other being's: that at his word the heavens, and the earth, and all things in them, were made, and are upheld. that he is good, wise, just, true, benign, or merciful, etc. besides this instruction what god is, it teacheth us what we are, viz. sinful wretched fallen creatures, that can have no good or happiness in our selves: it informs us how we should behave ourselves towards god, viz. as dependent things, and that we should love him, obey him, fear to do any thing contrary to his will, trust him, or believe him, etc. and how we should carry it to one another, viz. to do as we would be done by; that is, every one to confer as he is capable towards another's happiness. having proposed things to the understanding. secondly, it addeth the persuasive part to the will, moving us to behave ourselves suitably in the actings of our wills to such truths known, by setting before us good or evil, profit or disprofit, pleasure or displeasure, seemliness or unseemliness; accompanying, or consequent on our orderly, or disorderly behaviour. now these things proposed and urged in these books, as the main scope and design of them, appear to be of god, as they come with evidence of truth and goodness; such as are agreeable to the reason of a considerate man, and are seen proper and convenient for the creatures will to comply with, things beseeming the all-perfect being to teach and command; convenient and profitable for the creature to learn and obey. which if we consider with ourselves, and compare with what has been said in the former part of this book, will appear to be the very same principles and practice of that we call natural or rational religion, which is knowable by the light of nature to all mankind. but that these same things may, and how far they may, be called revelations, will appear by considering the times and circumstances, and manners of their delivery. thus if when men had given up themselves chief to the consideration of sensual objects, and bend their wills to the disorderly satisfaction of their bodily appetites; neglected the due consideration of their author, and the end of their being: began to fancy god too much like themselves: had low, mean, gross conceptions of him, and too high conceits of creatures: confounded the properties of god with those of his works: gave divine honour to men, or any thing they fancied excellent or useful: made bodily representations of god; and as some represented him by one thing, some by another, their various and disagreeing images could not be reconciled, so as to be taken all so different, for images of one and the same being; but they began to fancy as many gods as their differing conceits had made images: so that divine nature was mistaken even as to number, uncertain without end: and even those who by long instructions had been brought again to the belief and worship of but one god, had so far mistaken his will as to fancy their good behaviour to him consisted in external ceremonies; supposing that he would be affected with the slaying of beasts, and pleased with a custom of little observances; as wearing of odd fashioned garments, keeping of certain days, using divers gestures, etc. when at the same time they neglected justice, judgement, mercy, truth, goodness, etc. grew corrupt and unreasonable in their actions, even to one another, had brought themselves into divers present miseries, and laid a foundation for future unhappiness to themselves after this life, and to their posterity; yea lived as if they believed there was no future life. if then in such times of ignorance and corruption god sent, or particularly instructed, and sent some one or more to the rest, expressly to teach the truth, and command his will; here was a revelation, and a time for the goodness of god to show itself in supplying the necessity of blind miserable sinners; when nothing could be more profitable for man, or becoming god, than such gracious discoveries. but if these men also declared some things that could not be otherwise known to them than by divine inspiration, as certain future events: if there accompanied them a supernatural power, effecting things could not otherwise (at least by them) be effected, here is enough to be called divine revelation, and miracles. and there can no more scruple remain, if we can but be persuaded to believe that the history of the bible itself is true, which is the second thing to be consisidered. and in order to which, i think it not unnecessary to lay down some general considerations about faith, as following. faith is an assent to a thing as a truth, on the word of another, which we ourselves done't know, or see; according to that complete definition thereof, heb. 11.1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the evidence of things not seen, or known; for knowledge leaves no room for faith, any more than it does for hope, which is the desire of what we only believe will be; faith being its only basis, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, faith is the foundation or ground of things hoped for; for where we have no faith of the real futurity of a thing, there hope has no ground. but faith if it hath its due circumstances, it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a convictive argument. and tho' faith and knowledge are so different that we can no longer properly say we believe a thing, when once we can say we know it, yet faith (if right) is as near to knowledge, as that which is not knowledge can be, and far from that doubtful supposition called opinion. that which is to be believed, or assented to as a truth on another's word, is either, first, an assertion or affirmation that such or such a thing was, is, or will be: or, secondly, a promise when the person on whose word we rely for the real futurity of the thing, makes us expect it from him as the cause. now that faith may be as it ought, an assent indeed to a truth, tho' we don't know it, and not the believing a lie, these things we ought to be certain in. first, that the person that hath asserted, or promised the thing we are to take for a truth, could know it, or were not liable himself to be deceived; or can or will be able to do it, it being in his power: secondly, that he be trusty, or one that will not deceive us. as to the knowledge and power of the person, that we may be sure he could, or might know the thing, or can or will be able to do it: we must see that the thing is in itself knowable, or that it may possibly be a truth; for that which i see absurd, contradictory, or absolutely impossible to be supposed, i can never well believe on any one's word, nor could i do so, would it be of any use to me. whatever i am to believe, must at least seem possible to be a truth; for nothing else can challenge my faith, or be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a sufficient argument. so whatever i am persuaded to do, must at least seem a good. as truth alone is the object of knowledge, so should it be of faith. nothing can well be believed but what may come to be known. secondly, i must see that the thing be not only knowable and possible in itself, but also knowable or possible to the person on whose word i believe it. which i may do by considering well the person, and his circumstances. as to the trust of the person whose word i assent to, i may be satisfied that he would not deceive me; if, first, i see he could propose not (at least seeming) good end in so doing: or, secondly, if i see he could not suppose it possible to attain his end, if it were to deceive me. for no one proposes to themselves the doing any thing, but for some (at least seeming) good end, much less the doing what they see they cannot be able to effect. faith without these circumstances would be groundless, uncertain, and as liable to be the belief of a lie as of a truth, and to no good purpose at all. but in giving our assent to the word even of man, if thus cricumstanced, we need fear no deception. now as the crediting man's word may be called a natural faith, so an assent to the word of god is that which is properly said to be a divine faith. but the word of man thus differs from the word of god; that tho' divers men may concur in saying one and the same thing, (and aught so to do in some cases that man's word may rationally demand our belief) and god being but one, can be but a single witness; yet god's word is greater, and surer than man's: because god cannot so much as be supposed to be deceived, being omniscient; or be thought unable to perform his promise, being almighty; nor can he be supposed to will to deceive us, who is the selfsufficient fountain of good; nor therefore can he propose the getting of any good to himself by deceiving his creatures, absolute perfection being uncapable of advantage. man may possibly be deceived, knowing but a little, or will to deceive, wanting goodness, or propose an advantage to himself being needy; and that by deceiving, as he may want power to get his end another way. he may suppose himself able, when he is not; and so not perform his promise, tho' he would; or his will may change, not knowing always what is best, and so not will to do at one time, what at another he made us expect from him. wherefore we cannot believe, or assent to as true, what man saith, merely because he saith it, but on these divers requisite considerations. there can be but one thing necessary, or pre-requisite, towards our believing god's word, and that is, that we be sure that what we credit as god's word, is indeed his word, or that he does indeed say what he is supposed so to do. whether this, or that, is truly the word of god, we may determine by considering what is before said of revelation and miracles; with the matter, the manner, the end, etc. of the thing said. but now as to the business under consideration; what has been said may be easily applied to the scripture, and here particularly to the historical parts thereof, without any farther help; and as they appear, by thus regularly considering them, so let them be esteemed. but i shall name for example the chief of them, and that briefly; in which books, (as i have before hinted) is observable a drift or design all along against wickedness and deceit, a recommendation and encouragement of goodness, truth, and all virtue; which can hardly be thought so to concur in so many writers writing at such different times, could they be thought to agree in a design to deceive mankind, or to propose any seeming good end in so doing. first, the books of moses, containing a narrative of such things as could not be done without the knowledge of a considerable part of mankind, cannot be supposed to be mere fictions: the things which he writes (or whoever writes them) as his own knowledge, he could not easily be deceived in, nor can he be thought to have seen any possibility of deceiving mankind so grossly, as he must be said to have done if his writings be no true history, it being so easy a matter for the then present, or immediately succeeding ages, to detect the fallacy; but they have not so done, but concurred with him to deliver them down to posterity. a history of famous and public actions for so many years, if no such things were done, could never be supposed to gain belief as a true history, and be so generally received, and delivered down for truth from age to age, as these books have been. nor could the design he seems to aim at, viz. the instructing the israelites in the knowledge and service of the one true god, with the promoting of all virtue and duty to man, run so smoothly along with so apparently wicked and unprofitable a design as the deceiving posterity with a fiction instead of a true story. as to the things done before his time, which he speaks of but briefly in order to his design; they might possibly be made known to him by revelation: tho', i confess, i see no ground for such a belief, or of what use it would be, much less of any necessity he should so receive them (any more than the things he saw done) when he might receive them by either oral, or written tradition. but that moses was sent of god to teach and instruct the israelites, and whosoever would learn of them, cannot be discredited if those miraculous things were done, which the whole nation of the hebrews, and many others, could not be deceived in: as the wonders in egypt; the passage through the red sea; and especially the giving the law, viz. the ten words, expressly by a voice from mount sinai; which that numerous people could not easily concur to deliver down to posterity, to deceive their children; witnessing those laws to be in such a manner given of god, tho' they were themselves so inclinable to break them, if there had been no such laws so given. nor are the other prophets less to be credited in their narratives; or whoever writes their stories, or the books under their names: that such and such men came in the name of god delivering instructions, reproofs, warnings, etc. to the people, could not be a mistake. nor could they impose upon men in those miracles they are sometimes said to do; much less in the predictions of future events, even of particular persons by name. telling the counsels of distant enemies, and even what should be the future actions of some whose hearts had not yet conceived the thoughts of them; giving also the infallible test to know a false prophet by, viz. if what he saith comes not to pass. which predictions were such as could be made by none without particular divine revelation; which when but delivered were accompanied with circumstances, making them at least credible that they might be; but when fulfilled they were seen beyond dispute to have been revelations of god. the most principal, and full of which old testament predictions related to christ, and his ministry, and were found exactly fulfilled in him; and consequently to be of god. which consideration brings me to the new testament, or the writings of the apostles, and disciples of jesus christ, the master and teacher of the christian religion; which is the main thing i would persuade him that already believes natural religion, not to be offended at. the doctrinal and preceptive part contained in these books, i'm sure none that considers it can in reason dislike, it is so rational and natural: and tho' the whole bible teaches in its precepts principally natural religion, or exact morality; yet the doctrine of christ as delivered down to us by his apostles and disciples, seems to outshine whatever was taught before in clearness, and also to outdo all former manifestations in the fullness thereof. what has he taught, or what has he commanded, but what is clearly evident, and strongly reasonable to any that without prejudice will use their reason, and consider it? and what can be desired to a most perfect rule of life, more than he hath given in his short, yet comprehensive precepts? as to the historical part of the new testament, i think i may boldly say, it hath in divers respects the advantage of any other history. as the notableness of the matters of fact: the number and character of the witnesses: their sufficient agreement and harmony in their testimony: the time and place of the things done: the reception of this history and doctrine, by succeeding ages: the change wrought in the world thereby: the succession and continuation of the professors of christianity. all which things cannot be supposed so to concur in opposition to the carnal interest, and sinful inclinations of the world, to give credit to a mere romance, or feigned story. he would be as unreasonable that should deny that there was such a person as jesus christ, and that he taught so and so, and did such and such miracles, with the consequences thereof; as he that should deny that there was such a person as charles the first king of england, and that there was a civil war between him and the parliament. but i leave these things, having just named them, to the consideration of thinking readers; who if they have any desire to be more fully satisfied in these matters, may consult several learned, and well known authors, who have handled this matter largely. but i shall come to consider as soon as i can, some particular things, at which the naturalist seems more justly offended, relating to jesus christ's person or office; that so if possible all things may be made clear, that the deist at length may see christianity most rational, and no longer refuse to embrace it. but, 37. of jesus christ, we shall first lay down this proposition: that the greatest, most adequate, and suitable means god has given among men towards their recovery from disobedience, and the clearest arguments he hath offered them to persuade them to will as he wills, in order to their happiness, he hath given in, and by the man christ. which i think will appear by the time we have a little considered his work, and his person. and concerning the work of christ, (which i think most proper to speak of first) i shall lay down this proposition. that the sum and substance, end and design of all christ has done, does, or will do in relation to fallen man's recovery, is to convince man that he hath done evil in willing contrary to god's will, and to persuade him to change his mind, and will as god wills for the future, to the manifestation of god's perfections, and man's happiness. the ways and methods christ took to perform this work, if we consider, will appear very rational and suitable to the nature of man, and the end of his being. first, man is to be fully informed of the truth of things relating to his disobedience or obedience, unhappiness or happiness. but christ hath given the fullest discovery of the mind and will of god, in relation to his creatures: he hath given the most fair edition, and interpretation of god's laws, rectifying the inveterate mistakes of mankind: he hath discovered the false glosses and interpretations, sinful men had put upon the foregoing revelations of god's will; and reconciled revelation to the natural light in such a manner, that those that heard him were forced to confess he spoke as never man spoke before: and we who have but a short account of what he said, have yet enough to show us that he was as it were the oracle of moral wisdom: such an excellency appears in his comprehensive account of the whole law of god: such an admirable method in his directory of the order of our desires: to be short, such a pre-eminence in all those say we have as coming from his own mouth, that methinks an ordinary considerer may see a wisdom distinguishable from that of all his servants, tho' some of them at least equalled him in the greatness of miraculous works. he hath both represented god far more clearly than he was before represented, what he is, and will be found to be to his creatures; and his creatures, what they ought to be to him, and one another. and particularly goodness was never so unvailed, and made to shine forth before; the goodness of god what it is, and will be; and the goodness of man what it must, or should be. the goodness of god was never before seen to be so much greater than the sin of man, as by this messenger; who comes declaring god most ready to forgive, and communicate his benefits to sinful men, as he would have done had they never sinned, if they are but willing to be forgiven, and repent: that god wills not our unhappiness, as we are inclinable to will evil to those that cross our wills. he hath taught us to come to god as to a father, expecting infinitely more goodness, (beyond our measuring) than we can from our natural fathers. and that we ought to imitate him in goodness, love, mercy, forgiveness, even in that which some have counted a paradox, loving our enemies, blessing them that curse us, and doing good to those that persecute us, and despitefully use us. the men of old were apt to pray against, or curse their enemies; and men now are too much of that spirit, in whom the love of god does not prevail; being ready to think it unreasonable, or impossible to love their enemies. but that it is both reasonable, and more easy to love our very enemies than to hate them, we may be persuaded by divers considerations. if it be an excellency to be like god, the most perfect and happy being, christ tells us, that he makes his sun to shine upon the good and the bad, and is kind unto the unthankful, and the evil; he counsels us to imitate god: who tho' men be enemies to him, does nothing to them but what may be an argument to make them his friends. is hatred an uneasy passion? let us love all men, and be at ease. would we have friends? is it better to have many than few? operative love reconciles enemies, and heaps coals of fire upon their heads, not to burn them, but to melt them down into streams of love. we cannot well love our enemies, as such, with a love of complacency, but the working love of benevolence, if we are good, does as much as may be to make our enemies such as god, and we would have them; when hatred does but increase, and continue hatred. the goodness of god leads us inimical sinners to repentance; and this godlike behaviour in us is the greatest means we can possibly use, and is often found effectual to turn the arrows of enmity against us, into beams of love. this reconciling message of heaven, sent by jesus christ to rebellious mortals, the enemies of god and one another, is not without good reason called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the good speech; or gospel; teaching love and friendship, as the soul of all duty, and essence of happiness. this gospel is not improperly also called the better testament, in comparison with the old dispensation of carnal and troublesome ordinances, which god suffered the hebrews, as well as other nations, for a long time to labour under. this gospel dispensation, if men would live to the purity of it, being most easy, reasonable, and alike suitable to all men; being but complete, or very little more than exact morality, is that which would rectify all the disorders of mankind that can be amended in this mortal state. secondly, as christ taught the most plain and reasonable doctrine, so he gave the height of argument to persuade it; such as could be most prevalent on rational creatures to gain their compliance with the mind and will of their maker. he has not only convinceingly asserted, and proved himself sent of god, (a mighty argument to procure the reception of his message) by very many miracles done by his means, but manifested the things themselves delivered, to be god's message by their excellency, as most becoming god to dictate, and most fit for man to receive. if the highest reason be enough to persuade the will of man, he hath given it. i challenge all, the most zealous jew, or reasoning deist, to show me one thing that christ hath indeed taught, or his disciples at his command, which cannot be most rationally accounted for, or where he hath imposed upon the understanding of man, or obliged him to believe, or profess any thing that is contradictory, or unintelligible, or commanded him to do any unreasonable thing, or what is against his real interest. let them show me that judaisme, or deism, is more reasonable; and he that can, may have great hopes of making me a proselyte: till that is done, (which i am confident will never be) i am resolved to remain a christian, or a disciple of him who hath given the most fair copy of truth, relating to god, and his will to man, and relating to men's present and future condition: wherein i can see no difficulty to any that fairly reasons, and looks upon christianity as it is in itself, and not as corrupted, and misrepresented by the fancies and traditions of men in the antichristian defection. moreover, what christ hath most clearly declared in way of precept, he hath backed and confirmed by his influencing example, his life being most exactly conformable to his doctrine in entire submission and conformity to the will of god, and constant perseverance therein, against the greatest temptations earth and hell could offer; thereby asserting, by a home argument, that the doing the will of god is eligible, yea best tho' we should thereby lose all the good things of this life we can lose, with life itself, in the grounded hopes of a future state free from all the evils of temptation, sin, and unhappiness. which future state he hath so plainly taught and manifested, that by him it may be well said life and immortality was brought to light; the immortality of the soul, and a future life of body and soul together after a resurrection, being truths left unto him clearly to teach. 38. that christ might thus become a most fit means or mediator between god and sinful men, to bring them from rebellion against god's will, to obedience to the will of their maker, it is to be considered what manner of person christ must be. and first it was necessary that he should be a man, that his conversation with men might be most near, familiar, and unquestionably real: a man like unto us in all things, sin only excepted; than which there cannot be conceived a more proper medium between god and sinners. nothing can possibly be supposed between god, and the creature. there can be no third, or middle being, that is neither god, nor creature to be a mediator; and god cannot be a mediator himself, because he is one of the extremes. tho' god is the first cause, or mover of man to repentance, he cannot be said to be a means, or instrumental cause; nor can there be any to use him, or send him, no nor can he be said to send himself, or any one of his attributes, or properties. nothing of god can in any proper sense be said to be absent from god, and between god and sinners. a king may declare his own will, but he cannot be said to send himself on an embassy. a sinner could not be a complete mediator; for sinners are the other extreme: repenting sinners may indeed be a sort of mediators between god and the impenitent; and have been so, as moses was and others, but they are incomplete ones; they were but the servants sent. if god would give a complete mediator, or ambassador to the world of sinners, he must give such a one as his son christ was; who tho' he might, yea must be a man like us in all things else; sin must be excepted. if he were not a man, truly; truly innocent; a second adam; he could not be an exact and perfect example, nor a most unquestionable witness, nor have showed that man might have done his duty. but he must be capable of being tempted to disobey, or he could not have been an example of resisting and obeying: none but he that might possibly disobey, could yield free obedience, such as is worthy of god's acceptance. god himself who is incapable of being tempted to sin, or of disobedience, cannot be said to obey, nor is there any above him to whom he can be obliged. if christ must be innocent, and persisting in obedience, he must not be of the common race of mankind; that is take both his body and soul mediately from sinful parents, as others do; but must as to his soul, the subject of sin, or obedience, be an immediate work of god, as the first man was. whatever comes immediately out of the hands of the creator, cannot be thought to be other than pure; but out of an unclean thing, cometh that which is unclean. that christ might be a second man in innocence, he must not be begotten by the sinful will of man, as other men are; conceptions of self will, and erring understanding, so determined to evil rather than to good, that their at first weak understanding, or reason, is not sufficient to counterbalance the manifold temptations by occasions of evil, within and without, instructions and examples to sin, they meet with very early, from parents and others, whom they little suspect such enemies to them; who use them to those actions, which tho' ignorance makes innocent, reason when they come to know what they do, makes culpable, and use determines to. but christ besides his pure original, doubtless had the special grace of god keeping him from temptation so long as god saw fit, that he might have at least the same advantage of strength of reason the first man had, who was to undergo far greater temptations. but tho' he might not be a soul derived from man's corrupt soul, yet his body might well be taken from the matter of mankind, without his being thereby sinful, or the more inclinable to sin. for the body is not the subject of sin, or that which infects the soul; it may be an occasion of temptation to sin, but sin entirely resides in the mind, being but a disorderly act of the will. that a soul coming pure out of the hands of god, should become a sinner by using a body taken from a person that was a sinner, is unreasonable to be thought, while matter has nothing in it but quantity, figure, and motion, which howsoever disposed or modified, has nothing of the notion of sin in it. we might as well suppose a man must needs become a thief, or a murderer, if he dwell in a house given him by one that was such. christ we all acknowledge received the body, god prepared him, from the virgin mary, whom all suppose a sinner, except some of the roman church; yet we suppose him not made a sinner thereby. it was convenient christ should receive a body from mankind, that he might be a real man, and a near kinsman, or brother. a rational soul using an organical body such as a man's, is really a man, tho' the soul do not begin mediately by generation, as much as if it did; otherwise the first rational creature using an organical body, would not have been a man the same in kind as others. the first adam's soul could come no way but by inspiration, and his body was a more immediate or special work of god, than the bodies of others his offspring; therefore he is called the son of god in a nearer respect than they. and that christ's soul was produced by the immediate power of god, and his body by a special work of the most high, he is the more properly said to be the second man, or adam; god forming a seed in a woman, a virgin, [that we might be sure he was not a common man] when a woman is naturally, or commonly, a creature whose seed is not in herself originally, but in the man; or perhaps to speak more properly, that hath no seed. this seed of the woman, informed with this holy soul; this one exception from the common order of the production of men, is therefore with good reason called the son of god, eminently, as distinct from others; who on any lesser, or more common accounts are said to be his children. and the same reason for subsistance we have given us in the gospel, luke 1.31. the angel said unto mary, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name jesus: ver. 32. he shall be great, and shall be called the son of the most high, and the lord god shall give him the throne of david, 〈◊〉 his father. christ is said to be the son of abraham, the son of david, only according to the flesh; because mary, from whom he received his body materially, was of the offspring of abraham and david. ver. 34. and mary said unto the angel, how shall this be, seeing i know not a man? v 35. and the angel answering said unto her, a holy spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the highest shall thee; therefore also that holy thing that shall be born of thee, shall be called the son of god. and to strengthen the virgin's faith, he tells her, ver. 36. her cousin elizabeth who was old, and accounted barren, had conceived: for, v. 37. with god nothing shall be impossible: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, every word shall not be impossible, viz. whatever can be said in reason to be a thing to be done, shall not be impossible with god. he brings her from the less to the greater; he that has caused the old and barren to be with child, a thing above the power of nature, can do more, even cause thee a virgin to conceive without the means of a man. thus christ, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, viz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; that holy soul, spirit, or mind, that received his body from mary, and so became the compositum called a man, was truly called the son of the most high, as god the father of all was in a special manner his efficient cause; and the son of mary, and her progenitors, as she was the material cause of what was material in him. and lest any should think the holy ghost the efficient cause of christ's conception, and so rather to be called his father, (from whence would arise a great difficulty) from those expressions, ver. 35. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; and math. 1.18, and 20. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; let it be considered that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, spirit, is put without the article, and is rather to be rendered a holy spirit, and of a holy spirit, than the holy spirit: a holy spirit shall come upon thee, or into thee. signifying thereby, either that she should have a holy disposition, in order to the over-shadowing power of the highest, viz. of the father, coming to effect such a conception, or that she should receive a holy conception in her, or both. so she was found with child of a holy spirit: that which is conceived in her, is of a holy spirit; that is, she hath a holy conception in her; was found with child of a holy conception; neither a spurious, (as joseph thought) nor a common conception. the particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 does not denote the efficient cause any more here, than it does when spoken of mary, luk. 1.35. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, of thee, in thee, or by thee; and matth. 1.16. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, viz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, of mary, or in mary, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, was born, or conceived jesus; not that she was the cause of the conception. when we say such a woman is with child of a boy, we mean her child is a man child, not that a boy impregnated her. now what is there inconceivable, or mystical in all this? i admire that any man should make it a difficulty to believe that god, (whom they acknowledge to be the creator) as he hath made seeds to grow in plants, and fall off, and increase in the earth to the due size of plants; as he hath caused seeds to grow in man, which ejected into their proper place for nourishment, the matrix of the woman are informed with a mind, and grow to perfect, or due sized animals, fit to be nourished another way, and so come to be born, and act of themselves, in the common order of the creation, could not as well if he pleased, go for once, on a special occasion, out of his common way in nature, and work a miracle in the first production of a humane seed, or small organical body, in a woman, and give it to a soul of his immediate producing, without the will of man: or that this mind, and organical body of god's particular making, should not be thought to be an innocent man, free as adam, that he might obey god in overcoming the greatest temprations. that such a person so produced was really given amongst men, besides the prophecies of him in the old testament; for instance; that the seed of the woman shall bruise the serpent's head, gen. 3.15. the lord thy god will raise up unto thee, a prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me, unto him shall ye hearken, according to all thou desired'st of the lord thy god in horeb, in the day of the assembly, saying, let me not hear again the voice of the lord my god, neither let me see this great fire any more that i die not: and the lord said unto me, they have well spoken, that which they have spoken. i will raise them up a prophet from among their brethren like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth, and he shall speak unto them all that i shall command him, etc. deut. 18.15, 16, 17, 18, etc. and a virgin shall be with child, and bring forth a son, etc. isa. 7.16. see chap. 11.1, etc. dan. 9.25, 26. and gen. 49.10. which texts all deserve to be well considered, tho' i omit to recite them at length. besides these prophecies, i say, and many more agreeing with his character, circumstances, and time of manifestation, we have the sufficient testimony of his disciples, not absurd and contradictory, but such (as we have endeavoured to show) might well be conceived to be true. all which i think, is enough to challenge the belief of any that will give themselves leave to consider. besides the consideration of christ's person, as an innocent, perfectly obedient man, thus produced and related; it was necessary that god should be with him in an extraordinary manner, inspiring him with wisdom, enduing him with authority, inflaming him with love; luk. 2.40, 47, 42. acting in him (who yet acted freely with god) as it were his organ, whereby he made known his will, and manifested himself most clearly to sinners, and was as it were conversing amongst them; working miracles by him to convince men of his special sonship and mission; which christ frequently asserted from that argument of the mighty works of god wrought by him. which wonders of christ were also necessary to persuade the truth of his doctrine as received from god, especially in that part of it, where he taught the insufficiency of the levitical external worship, which the jews were so unapt to believe other than the will of god, or ever to be abolished. but tho' christ taught that which to them seemed a new way, they were inexcusable in not believing him, when god concurred with real signs and wonders, which he cannot be thought to do to persuade falsehood, so much against his pure will. these miracles wrought by his means, and by his disciples from his authority, were not only testified by his disciples, but seen and confessed by many the opposers of his doctrine. it was necessary, i say, god should be with him in so extraordinary a manner, who was to be the most extraordinary ambassador, or instrument of god. and that god was so with him, cannot with any reason be doubted, if his friend's testimony, and his enemy's confession of his other miracles, be not enough; his prophecies of so many things exactly fulfilled, in relation to himself, his disciples, the city of jerusalem, etc. methinks are convincing arguments that he was the prophet that god had promised, [a prophet being to be known to be sent of god by the things coming to pass.] the anointed with whom god was in a most special manner, and never left him, unless so far as to show that the most perfect creature is insufficient in itself, and cannot be satisfied or pleased in the withdrawing of the cheering presence of god. to let it appear that an innocent man may be grieved at the disobedience and misery of sinners, and not only sympathise with them in their unhappiness, but be afflicted by them; not only be grieved at their unjust and wicked do, but suffer from them that sorrow that in the common course of nature, is occasioned by what may be done to the body. and tho' god left him so far to the will of the wicked, as that they prevailed to put him to death, [whereby we may have occasion to believe that adam was not invulnerable, or naturally immortal before the fall, but by the grace of god in the gift of the tree of life, and his special providence, which on his obedience would have prevented external hurts, and death thereby;] tho', i say, god suffered the wicked to put him to death on a false accusation, as a malefactor; and he patiently suffered, to give us an example that nothing should deter us from obedience, it was necessary that god should raise him from the dead. that as he had chose death rather than omit his duty, god should crown his sufferings with a resurrection to immortality, as a token that he had regarded his obedience as perfect, that he deserved not death; but men unjustly laid hands on him, and slew him, and that their so doing was disapproved of god. which resurrection of his, being the confirmation of his being the christ, and of his having done his work so far exactly, and that he would in due time finish it wholly, his disciples constantly witnessed, as having seen him, and conversed with him forty days after his suffering: and the jews and romans having heard it, said he would rise again after three days, taking strict care to watch the sepulchre, lest there should be any cheat in the matter; so that there can be no rational doubt of it. it is very easy to be sure a man is put to death, and as easy to know he is alive, if many persons see and hear him act as a living man. on the account of his resurrection too, he is called the first begotten son of god, rev. 1.5. 1 cor. 15.20. col. 1.18. and by his resurrection also was given a testimony of the truth of his doctrine, especially of the points of the resurrection of the body, and life immortal. and having fully instructed his disciples, and authorised them his ministers to prosecute the same end he was sent for, viz. the bringing rebellious disorderly sinners to repentance and obedience; for the fulfilling his promise of the mission of the holy ghost, the power, by means whereof they wrought miracles, it was requisite he should leave this earth, (which he did in the sight of many) and go to some heavenly mansion, till his second personal appearance; which angels at his ascension informed the beholders should be in like manner, and which he had before promised, and wherein he will wholly finish his office of mediator between god and men; a part of which is his ruling or judging the world, fully determining what's right, and what's wrong, as god has authorized him. after which he shall give up that his kingdom to his god, and father's immediate government; to whom he is, and then will more eminently appear to be subject, tho' god has made him the head, or chief of the creation. but i can but name things where every head would yield a large discourse. this is the sum and substance of the revelation of god's will by jesus christ. and whosoever believes christ's doctrine, and does it, or in his own words; he that hears his word, and believeth on him that sent him, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life, joh. 5.24. and not every one that suiths lord, lord, unto him, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doth the will of his father which is in heaven, matth. 7.21. but whosoever heareth the say of christ, and does them not, (whatever he may think of christ, or how great soever an opinion he professeth of him) hath but built upon the sand, v. 27. it is obedience that is the end of all true doctrine; and whosoever having been convinced of sin, and changed from doing his own disorderly will, does the will of god, and persevers in so doing, will be happy; nay, is saved, by what means soever this change hath been wrought. where the end is accomplished, it is accomplished. many have been the instruments, and various the means, that god hath used to reduce sinners; and some rebellious ones have been changed, to comply with their maker's will by smaller arguments, some by greater. the means of conviction god hath given the world, seems from the beginning to have grown greater and greater, as wickedness hath increased; but some sinners have been so perverse that the greatest motives god has pleased to give them, have not done; but they have appeared resolved to abandon god, and to devote themselves to their sin and misery: yet there have been many righteous men, who have not seen and heard what some others have; and yet have indeed been righteous. and they that have seen and heard the most of the manifestations of god, have little cause to censure and condemn them that have seen and heard the least; when these have sometimes shown as much or more of the end, goodness, accomplished in them. 39 but whatsoever means god may make effectual towards the salvation of men, or bringing them from sin to obedience, it may truly be said they are all saved the same way; and that is by christ. which must not be understood that it is absolutely necessary that every man should be instructed in the will of god, and receive his commends from christ's own mouth; or from those he hath expressly sent to preach the gospel. nor is it to be thought impossible that any should be saved without reading, or hearing read the books we call the holy scriptures. but whosoever is saved, is necessarily some way or other instructed in the same things christ hath taught, viz his duty to god and his neighbour, and brought to comply therewith; and so to follow christ in a life of obedience. christ is the way, the truth, and the life: there is no other way sinners can come to the father, but what he hath shown, viz. repentance bringing forth the meet fruits thereof. there are no other truth's necessary to be known, in order to living that life of obedience christ gave us the highest example of, than what he taught. there is no other man a master or teacher, teaching another doctrine, in which is salvation; for god hath given him the chief coruer stone of the spiritual building, to which the rest must be squared; and he hath given no other name among men, under heaven, in which we must be saved. there is none a different, or so complete a rule, acts 4.11, 12. the way, the truth, and the life, is the same, that all must go in, believe, and live. however men may disagree in speculations and opinions; if they know but enough to subject their wills in agreement to this life of obedience, which christ in the name of god commanded, and himself gave an example of, they may meet in heaven. those that disagree from this living rule, and persevere in their dissension, will not see life, notwithstanding their highest pretences to faith or knowledge. and if i am brought to submit to the will of my maker by reading the bible, or hearing discourses on it; it does not follow that none could be informed of the same truths, and reduced to the same obedience any other way. before the scripture was written, there were righteous men accepted of god no doubt; and since, the love of god has appeared larger than the love of christians in recommending and communicating that most useful book to the rest of mankind. for there have been examples, out of the pale of the visible christian church, of such a life as would become a considerable christian; at least of such as was proportionable to the measure of knowledge: and some things left so excellent in the writings of some of those we call heathens, that charity methinks would excuse me if i should esteem them christians indeed, without the name, or such in conformity to the will of god, as christians should be. and there have been not a few, who have been no happier than to be educated in the worship of the true god, under no better an instructor than moses, or mahomet, that might have shamed the nominal christian to behold their virtues. god sent prophets of old in a special manner to instruct the sons of heber, and doubtless it was their duty to teach others the knowledge and worship of the true god; and he sent his son jesus also, first unto some of them; but christ commanded his disciples to teach all nations. if hebrews and christians have not done their duty, it cannot be thought that therefore the rest of mankind must needs all perish. but they have not only been negligent in endeavouring the information and reformation of all mankind, but have been even stumbling-blocks; not only by teaching for the oracles of god, the unreasonable traditions of men, but even by their wicked lives, and uncharitable actions: yet god hath not left himself without a witness in all nations; but his goodness hath been an argument to persuade to obedience, some of those who have seen the invisible things of god, from the creation of the world; being understood by the things that are made, even his external power and godhead. the light of reason hath been universal to all mankind; and those who have acted according to that light, where through the fault of others no more hath been given, doubtless no more will be required. nor dare we deny but that god may have sometimes acted graciously by his spirit, where the letter of the gospel hath been wanting. so that many i am persuaded will come from the east and from the west, and sit down with abraham, isaac, and jacob, in the kingdom of heaven, that in the opinion of many christians are excluded: in whose hearts perhaps hath been more of the love of god and man, than in many of those christians so ready to condemn them, who i doubt are more likely to be themselves shut out. i think it may be well said of the christian and christianity in this matter, as the apostle speaks of the jew, and circumcision, rom. 2.29. he is not a christian which is one outwardly; neither is that christianity which consists in outward things; but he is a christian who is one inwardly; and christianity, or the religion that christ taught, is that of the heart in the spirit; and not in the letter, whose praise is not of men, but of god. the fruits of which christian spirit, are love, joy, peace, long-suffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance; against such who are endued with these virtues, there is no law, gal. 5.22. but the advantage of the visible christians is much; because unto them are committed the oracles of god, and where much is given, much will be required. the bare believing christ to be the messiah, yea the faith of those who believe most concerning his person, will not be found enough, or a saving faith; but the believing his doctrine so as to do the will of his father, is that which will give a title to the promise of admission into the kingdom of heaven, matth. 7.21. 40. to persuade to repentance, or a turning from a life of sin, to a life of obedience to god, we find the chief end and scope not only of the gospel, but of the other parts of the old and new testaments; which books the divine providence hath graciously given and preserved, as a means to that end. many have undertaken to prove these books to be the word of god, but they have not all gone the right way to do it. some think they do not enough, unless they can persuade us that every word in them was given by immediate inspiration. but there is no need of such a belief, if a considerate person were capable of having it. that they were given by the good providence of god, none can well doubt. but some part of them, as the historical, needed no such thing as inspiration: some part, as the prophetical, could not come without it. but a due esteem of the scripture may be had, and its end well accomplished, taking it altogether as it is, and as none can in reason deny it to be, viz. considering the parts of it, as some inspired, some written according to the knowledge of faithful men, some delivered according to the wisdom given the writers thereof. but the affirmation that every word of it is inspired, is not only no point of faith necessary to salvation, or ever thought so, (as i can find) by the primitive christians; but has divers inconveniences following it, which are grounds of objection to atheists and deists. as for instance; there are some little difficulties in the historical part, which are better attributed to some mistake in the writer or coppier, than to god: some few things in the old testament that seem dissonant to the spirit of the gospel, which are better thought to be from the spirit of the writer, than from the spirit of god, etc. some reckon by name so many books of the old and new testaments, and go about to prove them the word of god first, before they have well considered what they contain: but i think we should begin there, and see what we find written in them; for we cannot well assert any thing to be of god, till we know what it is. to talk of believing this or that to be a revelation, or the word of god, before we know what it speaks, is very inconsiderate. but when we find things that are apparently good, reasonable, excellent, and suitable to the understanding, nature, and circumstances of man; a design most profitable to man, and becoming god, we may well, nay cannot but think god the supreme, or first author, however or by whomsoever they were given. the truths would have been the same had they never been written; but as they are written, the way of their delivery, the matters of fact, or historical part, appearing to have all the marks of truth a history can, or at least needs have, cannot in reason but be believed. whosoever (for instance) should deny the history of jesus christ, may as well reject all history, or question the truth of every thing others declare as witnesses; which would be very foolish: nor could such a one reasonably desire any man should believe him, in any thing he relates, tho' never so probable. now as god in his good providence hath given us the bible; a book (if considerately read appearing to be) more full of instructions, precepts, and examples tending to bring man, who is turned aside, to the exact way of his natural allegiance, or religion to god, than any other book; it cannot but be acknowledged that the bible is a great and estimable gift of god, not to be undervalved as an ordinary book, nor yet to be idolised as the uncorruptible word of god, but to be duly used to our benefit. and i think i may be bold to say in relation to the contents of this book, and all others; whatsoever has not an instruction in it to inform man of his duty to god and his neighbour; or cannot yield an argument to persuade him to be reconciled thereto, cannot rationally be thought a dictate of god, but is better supposed (should there be found any such thing) merely from man. and, i think, tho' we grant that the bible is not free from all manner of corruptions, but that some mistakes have been therein made, at least by coppiers; tho' we affirm many faults to have been committed by translators, so that better translations are not only to be desired, but also wanted; yet we cannot rationally have the less esteem of what is uncontroverted, the sum and substance, end and design thereof. nor have we any reason (since we may read the book itself) to look upon the bible as it is most abused and deformed by expositors; who, if we were to take it from them, have represented it to us but as a contradictory or confused rule. 41. for we find many things taught by them, who take upon them to expound the scripture, as doctrines clearly expressed (as they say) therein, that have not only no apt tendency to the great end, the love of god and man; but some of them naturally tend, or incline to the contrary. which consideration bringeth me to the last thing i designed to speak to; the last stumbling block i shall endeavour to take out of the deists way, viz. the consideration of divers doctrines now confidently taught as orthodox, and main points of christian faith; which to render christianity more reasonable, more like itself, i shall not only readily disown, but endeavour to show that they cannot reasonably be thought to be doctrines of the gospel, necessary to christianity, or true: that they cannot be accounted for, or proved points of a rational faith, or truly deduced from the bible: but are mistakes taken up through prejudice, from tradition, and confirmed by mistaken texts of scripture. it being an evil but common custom among men to take up opinions before they carefully read the scripture, or consider the agreement or disagreement of things; and then to labour to make the scripture prove, and confirm them; endeavouring to bring scripture to their unreasonable opinions, when they should rather have brought their opinions from scripture and reason; scripture so understood as to be reconcileable to itself, and to right reason. and as this word reconcileable brings into my mind the notion of reconciliation, which i take to be misunderstood by many, i shall first begin with that point, and endeavour to show the mistakes about it. 42. it is the fancy of some that christ has reconciled god to sinners: let us a little consider the matter. reconciliation is a making friends of some or other at variance. when there is disagreement, enmity, or hate in a person that did agree, love, and was a friend, the taking away, or changing these for agreement, friendship and love, is properly reconciliation. now to say that christ hath reconciled god to us, is as much as to say god was a friend, and did love man, but then became an enemy, and hated him; and then was made a friend, and loved him again. but this can with no good reason be said of god, because he is unchangeable, and these things imply a change. foolish men are very apt to look upon god to be such a one as themselves; now willing one thing, than another; now angry, then pleased; because they find themselves so. but such things are imperfections, incompatible with a selfsufficient being. god has properly no passions must be confessed, tho' men do commonly speak of him as if he had; and he is in scripture so represented sometimes, after the manner of men. but he is the same still, has the same will, the same love to whatever is his own, and cannot have less. he represents himself as he is, hating sin, or that unjust and unhappy action of the creatures willing contrary to its maker's will: but he never hates the creature, his own work, but loves it. he cannot be supposed to be reconciled to sin, he never loved, or can love injustice: to suppose him so reconciled as to approve, like, or allow sin in his creature, would be to suppose him to will evil, or contrary to his own will. and he is not reconciled to his creature, because he was never deconciled, or an enemy to it. his goodness and bounty is over all his works; he is always ready to do good to his creatures, and make them happy; it is they that are enemies to him, and to themselves, and to their own happiness. a man that runs into a cave, and hides himself from the light and warmth of the sun, and is persuaded at length to come out, and receive the benefit of its heat and splendour, may as well say the sun was angry with him, and his his face, and withheld his beams; but now is reconciled to him, and shines on him again; as to fancy that the ever-overflowing-fountain of good withholds his streams from the works of his hands. he is the most loving father, that is always ready to do good to his children; but they, rebellious, will not always receive it. therefore we may boldly, nay we must on good consideration say, that whatever christ hath done and suffered, does not make god any more willing sinners should obey him, or be saved, than he was before. if he could at any time will sinners not to obey him, he might be supposed not to will them to be saved; but to will sinners not to obey him, is all one as to will his will to be done, and not done at the same time, which is a contradiction. we find foolish men commonly representing god as one full of wrath, anger, hatred, to his poor, silly, fallen creatures; severe, furious, and hard to be appeased; but christ as one full of love, mercy, pity, to sinners; but we must not think god to have less love, goodness, mercy, etc. than christ; that would be unreasonable, when there can be no less than an infinite distance between god, and the most perfect creature, in goodness, mercy, kindness, and all perfections; yea as much as god is above man, so much greater must we think is the mercy, goodness, and love of the father to sinners, than that of the son; who is but the image of him that is greater than all: god so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son, that whosoever believeth in him, should not perish, but have everlasting life. the love of god was the cause of christ's both sonship and mission, and the cause must be greater than the effect. god could have no external cause, or motive to love us, but loveth us freely; for he is love, which can be said of no second. no man hath greater love than christ; for he laid down his life for us even while we were enemies: but he had a motive to love, greater than from himself, viz. his duty to obey, and imitate god his father. moreover, if god has commanded all sinners to repent, believe, and be saved, he must be supposed to will that they should do so, or he deceives them; which cannot be admitted: if he wills them to repent and be saved, he is not their enemy, but their friend. what then, you will say, did christ come to reconcile? i say, with the scripture, to reconcile us to god, who were enemies to him by wicked works; to reconcile us to our best friend and father, from whom we had gone astray, and been prodigal sons; to reconcile us to our duty, yea to our own happiness, which can no way be attained but by love and obedience to god. and when we return to our father's house, and acknowledge our folly and rebellion, than we shall find it true that god is our best friend, and was so before we thought of returning. it was an opinion in the pagan divinity, that their gods were sometimes angry, and must be attoned or reconciled, and entreated to do them no mischief, or to be favourable to them; and this they thought was to be done by some thing or other, which they fancied was more pleasing to the gods, than that which they were angry at was displeasing, something or other they liked so much better than doing good, that they were thereby over persuaded to do them such favours they would not otherwise have done; such a pleasure to them, in their opinion, was the slaying of a beast, and the offering it to them, yea the horrid act of sacrificing men. but christians should have a better opinion of god, who are taught that he is love, that is unchangeable good will. who can imagine that the blood of a lamb poured out, or the wasting of a bullock on an altar, or the death, yea the murder of an innocent man, can be so grateful to the most high, as to make him a friend when he was supposed before to be an angry enemy? can this be an argument to prevail with him to alter his mind, and like the sinner any better? what delight or advantage can we suppose the death, or spoiling any creature, can be to the self sufficient god? thoed christ for some reasons is compared to, or called a sacrifice, we can with no good reason retain the vulgar notion of it, or believe that he by his being murdered, appeased god's wrath, and made him change from an angry enemy, to a pleased, loving friend, or rendered him less disliking the sins of men, than he was before: no, the enmity is in man against god, not in god against man; it is man that is to be changed, not god. besides, nothing but a wonderful prejudice can make us think, that the murder of the most innocent man the world ever had, should be so much more pleasing to the most just god, than all other sins were displeasing; so that that, and nothing else could pacify him, or make him willing men that had sinned, should yet obey him, and be happy. did we but consider, we should never have hopes to digest this opinion, so many hard things are in the bowels of it. if god hath commanded all men not to kill; can we with any sense think that god is at any time pleased with the breach of that command? yea, that the most innocent must needs be murdered, that god might be justly pleased with the guilty, yea his murderers? this is to make wickedness necessary, and god pleased with it, yea implacable without it: this is to represent god worse than man: this is to suppose that some must of necessity sin, and be damned, or else none could possibly be saved. ah poor judas, that never taught'st us such hard things of god; must thou needs betray thy innocent master, and be damned, that we might be saved, who think so hardly of our maker? why not another, that thou mightst be saved; or why not we, for others that have a better opinion of god? but god has without exception forbidden all injustice, and especially the shedding innocent blood; and if men had believed, and obeyed god as they ought, and consequently might; if they had received christ's doctrine, and followed his example, as it was god's will, and so their duty, there would have been none to have slain christ; but men would, nay must have been saved without any one's committing such a nefarious fact. yea, if the husbandmen had yielded the due fruits, at the approach of the servants, they would have been far from being so wicked as to have murdered the son. again, if god could have been supposed to will that christ should be put to death; if the slaying of christ had been that without which god would not be pleased, it had been no sin in those that did it, but some body's duty to kill him; and so the notion of their being murderers or sinners in that action, had been destroyed. but god never commanded any to put him to death; but the action of those who did it, is spoken of in scripture with the highest disapprobation. but christ was to be a sacrifice, you will say. i answer, that the business of sacrifices is not well considered by many, hor does the death of christ agree with the common notion of a sacrifice, tho' he is in some sense called a sacrifice. christ is called a priest, and an altar, and a sacrifice, when one person cannot possibly be all these in a proper sense. the priests slew the sacrifices; christ flew not himself, or any other; nor were those who slew him priests for that purpose. the priests might without sin slay the beasts they offered; those that slew christ had the absolute prohibition of god, in the sixth commandment. the offerings with the levitical priesthood, not being to be thought for any profit or pleasure to god almighty, could have no reason except some prosit to man might come thereby; some of them fed the levites, who had no portion among their brethren, a people needing a sufficient number of teachers of the moral and civil law, could they have been contented to be unlike the nations round about them, satisfied with a spiritual worship and pure theocracy, without the more pompous and insignificant ceremonies; but god knowing the inclination of that people, let them have work burdensome enough, to keep them from the abominations of the heathen; had they shown their obedience in observing no more than what they were directed in, a burden expensive enough to drain their superfluities, and enure them to spare, when they should come more to need the beneficence of one another, when they were no longer a peculiar people. but whatever might be the original reason of sacrifices, or what apt tendency there might at any time be found in them, to bring man to his chief end; we do not find that any of the inhabitants of the earth except the hebrews, nor they till they came into the wilderness, had any institutions or directions about sacrificing animals; however mankind, hebrews and others, came to be so fond of it for so many ages. but to leave this, that we may conceive how christ may be called a sacrifice, let us consider what we find in scripture as the most plain discoveries of god's mind in relation to sacrifice, by the prophets and apostles, psal. 50.8. i will not reprove thee for thy sacrifices, or thy burnt-offerings, to have been continually before me. ver. 9 i will take no bullock out of thy house, nor he-goats out of thy folds. ver. 10. for every beast of the forest is mine, and the upon a thousand hills. ver. 11. i know the fowls of the mountains, and the wild beasts of the field are mine, v 12. if i were hungry i would not tell thee, for the world is mine, and the fullness thereof. v 13. will i eat the flesh of bulls, or drink the blood of goats? v 14. offer unto god thanksgiving, and pay thy vows unto the most high. v 15. and call upon me in the day of trouble, i will deliver thee, and thou shalt glorify me. psal. 51.16. thou desiredst not sacrifice, else would i give it, thou delightest not in burnt-offerings. v 17. the sacrifices of god are a broken spirit, etc. jer. 7.22. i spoke not unto your fathers, nor commanded them in the day that i brought them out of the land of egypt, concerning burnt-offerings or sacrifices. v 23. but this thing commanded i them saying, obey my voice, and i will be your god, and ye shall be my people, etc. 1 sam. 15.22. to obey is better than sacrifice. hos. 6.6. god will have mercy, and not sacrifice. math. 9.13. if ye had known what this meaneth i will have mercy, and not sacrifice: ye would not have condemned the guiltless. spoken to the jews condemning his disciples, when they being hungry plucked the ears of corn, but might have been said to them rather when they afterwards more unjustly condemned and slew him. is. 1.11. to what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto me, saith the lord? i am full of the burnt-offerings of rams, and the fat of fed beasts, and i delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of he-goats, etc. and at the 16th. wash ye, make you clean, put away the evil of your do from before mine eyes, cease to do evil. ver. 17. learn to do well, seek judgement, relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless, plead for the widow. mich. 6.6, 7, 8. wherewith shall i come before the lord, and bow myself before the high god? shall i come before him with offerings, with calves of a year old? will the lord be pleased with thousands of rams, or with ten thousands of rivers of oil? shall i give my firstborn for my transgression, or the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul? he hath showed thee, o man, what is good: and what doth the lord require of thee, but to do justly, and love mercy, and walk humbly with thy god. but the sacrifices of god, psal. 107.22. are sacrifices of thanksgiving: psal. 4.5. sacrifices of righteousness: 1 pet. 2.5. spiritual sacrifices: ye also as lively stones are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to god, by jesus christ: sacrifices of praise and doing good, heb. 13.15, 16. by him therefore let us offer up the sacrifice of praise to god continually; that is the fruit of our lips giving thanks to his name: but to do good, and communicate forget not; for with such sacrifices god is well pleased: sacrifices of love to god and our neighbour: mark 12.33. and to love him with all the heart, and with all the understanding, and all the soul, and with all the strength, and to love his neighbour as himself, is more than all whole burnt-offerings and sacrifices: living sacrifices: rom. 12.1. i beseech you therefore brethren by the mercies of god that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy acceptable to god, which is your reasonable service. and the author to the hebrews, chap. 10.5. brings christ in from psal. 40.6, etc. saying to god, a sacrifice and offering thou wouldst not, but a body hast thou prepared me, as the septuagint reads it; but the hebrew hath it, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, my ears hast thou digged, viz. opened to hear thy commands, not to sacrifice certainly; for saith he, in burnt-offerings, and sacrifices for sin, thou hadst no pleasure: then said i, lo i come to do thy will, o god. above when he said sacrifices, and burnt-offerings for sin thou wouldst not, neither hadst pleasure therein, etc. then said i, lo i come to do thy will, o god. he taketh away the first, viz. sacrifice, that he may establish the second; viz. doing the will of god: by the which will we are sanctified, through the offering of the body of jesus christ once for all, etc. ver. 16. this is the covenant i will make with them after those days, (speaking, jer. 31.33. of the new covenant) saith the lord, i will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will i write them. ver. 17. and their sins and iniquities will i remember no more. ver. 18. now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin, etc. from all which places compared, and many more that we might consider, it appears that christ is a sacrifice or offering acceptable to god, as he does his will in prosecuting the end of his mission, the bringing sinners to repentance, and obedience to god, against all opposition, even death itself; giving up his body to death, rather than omit any thing he was to do. and sinners have the benefit of this sacrifice; not as god is appeased, atoned, or reconciled to sin or sinners by any pleasure that can be added to him by beholding the pain, bloodshed, or death of an innocent man; but rather as they are attoned, or reconciled to god, and their duty to him, by beholding christ's obedience in doing the will of his father, even under the greatest sufferings (even to death) he could meet with from the opposition of earth and hell; his constancy being a convincing argument that his doctrine was good, and his life to be imitated; a persuasive to follow him in gospel, or exact moral obedience, through whatsoever persecution for righteousness sake, leaving all those external and childish things of the levitical priesthood as useless. wherefore as a better covenant god saith, he will put his laws into their hearts. what laws? the laws of offerings, and ceremonies might possibly be put into their hearts; no, such laws as readily come into the hearts of considering persons; such as we have ver. 24. viz. love and good works. so that the obedience of christ is the christian sacrifice, but not ours, by its pacifying god for us sinners; but by our following it as it is an example, in offering up all we are and have in love to god, which is our reasonable duty. christ may also be said to be sacrificed for us as he dedicated and offered up his life in prosecuting the good of sinners, by teaching them, and persuading them to be reconciled to god. he may also be said to be a sacrifice to the wrath and malice of the wicked jews, as they devoted him, and gave him up to death according to the council of caiaphas, to prevent the romans coming upon them, on the noise of his being said to be the king of the jews; they supposing (as also his disciples for some time did) that he meant then to set up an earthly kingdom, thinking it was better that one man should die than that the whole nation should perish. again, christ is called a propitiation; not that he makes god merciful, or propitious to us, but that he makes us capable to experience god's mercy and kindness; teaching us the way of repentance and obedience, wherein god is found merciful and ready to forgive. the propitiatory, or mercy-seat, from whence christ is called a propitiation, was the cover of the ark, or coffer wherein were the ten words, or commandments; which did not typify christ as hiding the commands or law from god, or interposing between god and the commands; but signified rather that those who will come to the seat of god's mercy, will find the commands must be kept; and tho' they have run from, or broke the commands, if they will repent, and return to the commands, there they will find god's mercy above, or greater than the command, or their sin. so christ the living table, from whose mouth, and in whose life the commandments of god were most fairly given to men, comes declaring god merciful, ready to forgive; but gives us to understand whom he will forgive, and show mercy to, even the merciful; those that forgive, or are ready to be conformable to the will or commands of god, and not the impenitent. 43. there is another opinion that has prevailed much in the world, which is this; that christ by what he did or suffered, or by both, hath made perfect or full satisfaction to god for the breach of his laws by sinners. but this opinion by a little consideration, i think will appear to be a groundless, absurd, and impossible fancy, and accompanied with divers evil tendencies. as first it is incompatable with, and destroys the notion of divine forgiveness: for wherever a debt is fully paid, it cannot also be truly said to be forgiven; there is no forgiveness but where something due is abated; which i think is evident to all men. if i own a sum of money, tho' i am not able, or never do pay it; yet if i have a friend that can, and does pay it for me, my creditor does not forgive me. the greatest pretence of an answer to this objection against christ satisfying, i ever heard, is this. that tho' christ hath fully satisfied, or paid the debt for sinners, yet god may be said to forgive, because christ is a person that god hath found out, given, or prepared for this purpose. to which i answer; if christ be entirely the gift of god, or hath nothing but what he receives from god, he hath nothing to pay another's debt with; all he has, and is, is lent him of god, and is due on his own account; so that all his possible obedience is but just enough to keep himself from needing forgiveness. he that owes all he has, cannot spare to pay another's debts, without rendering himself incapable of paying his own. if christ hath any thing, or is any thing, which he has not, or is not from god, (which i think none will say) whereby he might be fancied capable of works of supererogation wherewith to make god amends for the debts of sinners, god would be nevertheless paid their debts; and so the sinner not forgiven. as if a person own me money and can't pay it, tho' i find out, and persuade another to pay the debt, i have my due, and i have not forgiven it. but let us consider this point a little more closely, as the matter is in itself, and without allusions. the law of god to his creatures requires perfect, perpetual, and personal obedience; that is, that every creature, according to its capacity, always should will as god wills. the end of the law of god is obedience, or that it never be broken; now the creature having disobeyed, or willed otherwise than god wills, nothing can possibly make it true that it hath not disobeyed; consequently there can be no perfect satisfaction to the demands of the law, when once 'tis broken. he that never breaks the law, is indeed just, and fully satisfies it; he that has broke it, may possibly come to keep it for the future; but this law saith, thou shalt, and thou shalt not, without excepting at any time what the creature is capable of; so that future obedience cannot satisfy for former disobedience; because the obedience of all the creatures time is due; and the perfect and perpetual obedience of every creature is but just enough. what is done amiss can never be undone; the obedience that is unpaid, can never be paid for the time past, because the time past wherein i ought to have been obedient, is irrevocable. now if a man's own imperfect, partial obedience, or that which was not always, can't satisfy, or be enough, or equivalent for, and with perfect, full, and perpetual obedience; much less can the obedience of one, be the same with his own and another's obedience, and so satisfy or be enough for the unperformed duty of another. if i have sinned, tho' christ hath obeyed, christ's obedience doth not make it true that i have not sinned, it is not as much obedience as his own and mine too, which the law requires; nor makes it that which was, or is due to god, not to have been due, or now not due. if i have sinned the law is broke, and nothing can possibly make it unbroke; and unless it were wholly unbroke, there is not enough done, or satisfaction made to the law. some sort of sins as they are against man, may indeed be satisfied for to man, because man may get or lose, and sometimes receive an advantage greater than his loss: but the evil of sin lies not in god's getting or losing by obedience or disobedience; for god cannot be profited. all the creature has, he has from god; and all god requires him, is but his duty, and the least breach of the law makes it not kept enough. he that is once guilty of a breach of god's law, it remains for ever true of him that he has broke it, and is guilty. all that can possibly be done on the part of the sinner, when the command has been broke, is that it be kept for the future, and more than is possible in this case cannot be done. therefore the best that can be conceived as to what has been done amiss, is that it be forgiven. he that comes at length to keep god's law perfectly, may be said then to satisfy it, not to have satisfied it. christ we believe did always perfectly satisfy the law of god for himself; and as he is the instrument that brings men to repentance and obedience, he is said to bring in everlasting righteousness: so he is said to justify as he brings men to be just. but christ's keeping the law, cannot possible be said to be another's keeping it, that don't keep it, or serve instead of it. it is not enough that one person fulfil the law, all should do so. there can be no obeying by proxy in this matter; such a fancy would be no better than being saved, or going to heaven only by proxy. again, if future obedience cannot be obedience for the time passed in disobedience; and if one man's obedience cannot be another man's obedience, much less can the suffering, or unhappiness a creature meets with in or by sin, be a satisfaction for sin, or instead of obedience, or enough without it. the law of god does not say it is alike acceptible to the lawgiver, that you do which you will, obey, or be miserable in disobeying; but saith absolutely, thou shalt, and thou shalt not; do so and so. to be unhappy is no duty or debt we own to god; nor is our discontent, tho' we are discontented for ever, equivalent to, or that which god takes instead of our being pleased, in our maker's will. 'tis obedience only he requires: happiness and misery are but the natural consequences of our being obedient or disobedient, yea in some sense the same as obedience and disobedience. to forbid sin is also to forbid misery; misery cannot be alike acceptable to god as obedience, any more than sin can. god's law is never the less broke by the creatures being unhappy, or discontent, but rather the more; because discontent is grounded chief in willing either that which is not good, or that which is not possible. god can never will the creatures misery, instead of obedience; for to be unhappy by willing otherwise than god wills, is but continued disobedience to god, who wills all men to repent, believe, and obey, or else it were not their duty. and he wills them to be saved from their sins, or else he could not will them to obey, which is the same thing. god cannot absolutely will unhappiness to the creature without willing the cause of it, its sin; nay what god wills me to do can't properly be called my sin, but my duty; and none can well believe duty is the cause of misery. sinners tho' damned, and becoming as miserable as possible, do not thereby satisfy the law of god, suffering by sinning, not being obedience, but doing one's duty. that a murderer, or thief, is commonly said to have satisfied the law, when he is put to death, is a vulgar error, especially if it be meant of god's law, according to which humane laws ought to speak. the cause why god has ordered a murderer to be put to death, is not to satisfy the law: which saith, thou shalt not kill; for that could not be said to be kept enough, tho' the death of the murderer would restore the life he took away; for it was but enough, if he had never committed murder so much as in desire. but the murderer suffers death rather because satisfaction can't be made; that he may be prevented doing such an irreparable wickedness any more. he that hath once by such an act declared himself a dangerous enemy to mankind, one that regards not his maker's law, but is very likely to be the loss of other lives better than his, if he be suffered to live, dies to prevent greater evil, and to save more precious lives. for any other man's life is worth more than the life of such a madman as a murderer, being likely to be more beneficial to mankind than such an inimical and dangerous person. but in some sins, as they are committed against man, satisfaction may possibly be made to man; and i think it unreasonable, as well as dissonant to the laws of god, that a man should be put to death for an injury done to another man, where satisfaction may fully be made, as in theft, etc. if i am robbed, what is so taken from me may be restored with such advantage that i may be really no loser, but have that returned that will be better to me than what was taken away, and countervail for the fear, danger, or other damages i may have suffered in beingrobbed; so that then i cannot truly count myself a loser, but rather a gainer. and by such satisfaction made, the thief will be a sufficient loser, without losing life, which is of more value than all the goods a man hath. and if all the goods i have is of less value to me than my life, i cannot but grant that all i have is of less value than another's life. it is certainly best where there is least evil, and the designs of all wise lawgivers is, that there may be as little evil as possible: the first intent of a law is, that it should be kept: the second, that if it be broken, amends may be made if possible, or as far as can be. and the last, that the transgressor be prevented, or discouraged from doing so any more. now in the case of theft, if i am robbed my reason presently tells me, i ought in justice to have what was took from me restored, (if it may be) which is better, and more desirable to me than that the thief should be destroyed, which no way makes me amends, unless i could count the devilish pleasure i may take in his misery, equivalent to my goods: but if the thief be caused to make restitution, there is less evil, which if it were made with sufficient interest for what he robbed, or borrowed against my will, the thief would be sufficiently discouraged by finding thieving an unprofitable trade, and no way for his interest. where the robber has nothing to restore, he might serve in prison, and work it out. by which means such crimes would be more prevented, as being made the way to poverty, and work, the things such covetous persons seek to avoid by stealing from others; when death itself is to them but as a desperate cure of the disease of want, which some passionate persons in this, and other discontents, will inflict upon themselves. but to leave this digression; if the sinner's own misery is not a satisfying god's law equal to obedience, another's misery can much less be a satisfaction for him; and least of all can the sufferings of christ, an innocent person, satisfy the law of god broken by sinners. it is true, christ suffered for sinners, as well as by sinners; that is, he underwent all the sufferings he met with in prosecuting their good, for their sakes; because he would not have suffered had it not been for them. but tho● christ suffered for sinners and by sinners, it cannot therefore be said sinners have not sinned, or that they have done enough of the law. and as christ's doing righteously, is not the sinner's doing so, so christ's suffering is not the sinner's suffering, could suffering be equivalent to, or please god as well as obedience; much less is christ's suffering the sinner's doing his duty. people very confidently fancy, and assert most absurd things of christ's sufferings; that god is so mightily pleased therewith, that he is not so much displeased with sin; nay, that he don't dislike all other sin so much, as he likes his innocent son's undeserved suffering from the hands of sinners. they fancy god loves the misery of his poor guilty creatures so much, that nothing must prevent it; rather than he will not have the pleasing sight of as great pains as all his fallen creatures can possibly suffer, he will have it in the innocent. they represent god as one that taketh pleasure in the death of him that dies; in the death of the innocent for the guilty; as one much more pleased with the punishment of the just, than of the transgressor. the most blameless creature that ever was, must not be abated one dram of torment they can devise, fancy due, or wish to their most wicked enemies. they are not contented christ should suffer those things merciless and unjust sinners could lay upon him by means of his body, or what might come by the fear and apprehension thereof; what he might suffer, in his great compassion to sinners and love to god, on the consideration of man's sin and misery, and god's leaving him for a time, who loved him so greatly, without more than common assistance under these sorrows, or what he might possibly bear from attempts of satan; but they make god the active inflicter of more than all this, of the greatest torment, even that of the damned, on that dear soul, who was the greatest saint; making god like a tyrant, like themselves or worse: they tell strange stories of christ's bearing the weight of his father's wrath, burning wrath: yea, i have heard an ignorant, but confident preacher, tell his inconsiderate hearers, that christ was a sacrifice, and roasted in his father's wrath, and his agony was certamen, a contest or fight, and that christ fought not with devils, not with men, but with his father. but god himself testified the contrary to these bold fancies, by a voice from heaven, that he was his beloved son, in whom he was well pleased; and we can't suppose that god changed his mind, and became displeased with him who never sinned, nor can he be supposed to contend, fight, or be displeased with his father's will, while we grant him without sin; which is another argument that god's will was not the cause of his sufferings; for there is no suffering but from some sort of displeasure with the case we are in; and if christ were displeased with what god did, he sinned. but we believe god could not be displeased with christ, being without any fault at all, so neither could christ be displeased with god; but he might be displeased and uneasy, by means of sinners. it must be a hard heart, and impudent tongue that can believe, or affirm that god was wrath with the most innocent creature, and tormented him, when god calls him his beloved son. god left him indeed to that cup of the sorrows of death, occasioned by the body, inflicted by wicked hands: he left him deeply to be sorry for, and sympathise with miserable sinners, and to grieve for the breach of his father's laws; but he never left him without the knowledge of god's being his god and father; he never had the misery of despair, envy, malice, wrath, strong desire of impossibilities, hate of god, etc. the chiefest ingredients of the damned's misery. whatever was his fear of that cup, the painful, and linger death of the cross, which was likely to be so tedious to one who in all probability had not been accustomed to sickness, or bodily pains; yet he was not left without the heavenly assistance of an angel to strengthening him. whatever was god's forsaking him, he was sure god was his loving father, and that that day he should be in paradise. if god left him to all the pain and anguish, the cruel death of crucifixion, or the apprehension of it might produce in an innocent man (as he has left many of his followers to cruel torments) and did not interpose and prevent the cup of sufferings by some extraordinary means; god can be thought to be no more but the permitter of the wicked so far to afflict the righteous, and to work no miracle to separate sorrows and pains, from their common conditions in humane nature. christ's patience under all, praying for his enemies, submitting to death, tho' he deserved it not, rather than omit his duty, may be of great use to us to set before us the greatest pattern of good-behaviour under sufferings for righteousness sake, and to forewarn us what we must expect if we will be his followers. and whatever was the cup christ spoke of in his agony, the author to the hebrews, ch. 5.7, 8, 9 tells us, that when he had offered up prayers and supplications, with strong crying and tears, unto him that was able to save him from death, he was heard from his fear, (which may encourage us;) and tho' he were a son he learned obedience by the things that he suffered; and being made perfect, he became a cause of eternal salvation: to whom? to all them that obey him. so that, if we should suppose satisfaction possible to be made, how full soever, this text tells us we could not be saved alone on the account of what christ hath done or suffered, because something else is yet necessary, viz. our obedience; so christ's doing and suffering is not indeed enough for us, and so really no satisfaction. but that god does truly forgive sinners, that i think is so clearly, and often declared in scripture, it needs not be farther demonstrated; and satisfaction cannot stand with forgiveness, any more than the word can be found in scripture. 44. having here discoursed somewhat concerning sufferings, i think it most proper to subjoin my thoughts about the common opinion relating to the evil called punishment, or the miseries of the creature, consequent on sin: wherein i think men are generally mistaken, while they look upon god as truly and properly the inflicter; as the sole cause, and efficient of this misery of the sinner and obliged so to be. it is no wonder indeed that those men should be of this opinion, who believe god was a punisher, and that a severe one, of the innocent jesus; they forgetting even the oath of god, that the soul that sinneth shall die; the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him; one shall not bear another's wickedness, as we read at large ezek. 18. nor is it strange that any, who do not believe the goodness of god greater than they can conceive, or desire, should esteem god the author of some sort of evil. but for my part, i must confess i do not see cause to believe that god is properly and positively a punisher, or the cause of unhappiness in any of his creatures, much less bound to be so; or that any evil can proceed from the fountain of all good, or any thing but what's good from goodness itself; but if god give any thing, it must needs be good. i would here be understood to speak properly; for i know the scripture, tropically and figuratively, after the manner of men, speaks often to the contrary. i do not deny, but affirm, that the wicked that die impenitent, shall be exceeding miserable, and suffer exquisite torments: but i do not believe that those torments, or pains, and diseases in this life, are inflicted, or caused by god's immediate hand, but are the work and procurement of sinners, according to that jer. 2.19. thine own wickedness shall correct thee, etc. god can i think be no more the cause of the creatures misery than of its sin, otherwise than as he is the cause of the creatures being capable thereof; so that the creature could neither sin nor sorrow, if god had not made it a creature. let us endeavour to clear this matter if possible, that i may not be thought by all men grossly mistaken, to hold so great a paradox as that god does not punish for sin. there are two sorts of evils the creature is capable of, sin and misery, or rather sin and displeasure; which though we call two, are in many respects the same. that god should be the cause of sin, few will in words, tho' many do in consequence, affirm; and i think i have said enough before to convince them both. but displeasure or misery most men i meet with, esteem god the cause of to the creature. in the consideration of misery, we have, first, the want of good or pleasure. secondly, the presence of evil or displeasure. first, as to the want of pleasure: it is certain god made intelligent creatures capable of intense, and perpetual pleasure and satisfaction; but if the creature has it not, it is not god's fault: it was impossible the creature should have continual happiness or pleasure, as god has it, viz. independently in itself, or by its own will as its own, opposed to the will of god: god could make it no more than a creature, and so the creature must needs be satisfied by its creator. but if the creature turns from god, and sets up a will against him, he must needs want satisfaction, when through creature-impotence he can't have his will, god's will not concurring with his; and when, through creature-folly, he has willed what was not best for him, and finds it so. so that if the creature wants any pleasure or good, it is because he has turned from it, or left it, or at least has some other sinners hindering it, or taking it from him by their sin; for even the innocent (as christ was) being creatures, may suffer by the sins of others. but the presence of this evil of displeasure, may farther be considered under two heads. 1st. displeasure merely mental. 2dly. displeasure, or pain by the occasion of the body; both of them in their centre, are nothing but discontented or uneasy thoughts; a consideration or apprehension of something against ones will. now as to the first; if i desire that which is contrary to the order of the creation, unfit to be, and cannot have it, and therefore am foolishly discontent, angry, fret, rage, etc. it is not god that makes me do so: no, the disorderly desire is a sin, something against god's will, therefore god don't will it. to will something against god's will is a sin; and to be angry, and fret and rage because we can't have our disorderly will, is a farther aggravation of the sin, a stronger will against god's will, therefore god can't cause or will it; that were to cause sin; so that god cannot be supposed the cause of the mental unhappiness, or displeasure. god has given man a very large desire, but for what; that it should be crossed because he is but a creature, and can't be god? no, but that it may be satisfied in the way it possibly can, viz. by its maker, in the compliance with his will, in the excellent order of the creation; that man willing what god wills, viz. that which is good, and so to be doneby god's power, may be very happy. but as to those uneasy thoughts we have, or may have by occasion of the body, which go under the name of pain and disease, there seems more difficulty to excuse god's hand from being the giver. but i think, if we consider, it may soon appear that god is no more the cause of all the conditions, or the actual existence of this misery, than of that discontent sinners have when they have not their foolish wills in other things. the connection of the body with the mind, without which such sensations are not probably thought to be in the mind, is to be ascribed to god as the cause. the manner of this union of soul and body, is use; the mind desires to use the body, acts upon it, by, and with it, and receives divers ideas, or thoughts of body, by occasion of it: god's will is indeed the bond of this union; he wills that the mind should desire to use its body, gives the mind power to move it, and to do divers things in bodily nature by it; and causes that when such and such conditions are in the body, the mind should have such and such ideas or thoughts, pleasing or displeasing: but, as i said before of sin, god made man capable of sin, not that he might sin; so god made man capable of displeasing thoughts by means of the body, not that he might have them as the end of the capacity, but that he might as much as possible avoid the least thing that tends to the spoiling or disordering of the body, with which he is to act a part for a time. when there are the conditions of pain or disease, god in his general law in nature wills pain, or discontented thoughts, should follow, and so this discontent in itself is not sinful: but god is not the cause of the application of the conditions, but the sinner himself, or some other sinner for him. when there is such and such a body abused, and unduly applied to man's body, the mind presently is uneasy, as at the approach of some enemy; but this uneasiness was not the end god caused in man such a sensibility; but that man might be the more affected with the pleasing sensations, he has made him capable of by avoiding at the first touch all things that tend to remove the conditions of pleasure; that he might sooner be warned so, than he could by consideration. god made man tightly sensible that he might be capable of pleasure even by having a body, and not be as it were imprisoned against his will; and whenever the conditions of pleasure are present, god fails not to cause that sensation, tho' under circumstances where the creature acts against his will: so on the contrary. but man has a power given him to use or abuse things; and it is one part of his business in this world to do all those things that tend to keep his body most in health and ease, that he may be the more capable of the chief part of his work, which does not relate only to this life, but that which is to come; viz. the rectifing his thoughts in order to his greatest, and lasting happiness. but to bring the matter near the eye if possible, take this instance. fire tends to the destruction of the body if too nearly applied, but if kept at a due distance it occasions a sort of pleasure tending to the conservation of the bodily frame: god is the cause i am pleased or displeased, as it's due or undue application, but he does not unduly apply it; nor has he created it of such a nature for my hurt or displeasure; that would be a disorder in his works, but for my good, the conservation of my body and pleasure. but when that, or any other body is applied to my hurt, it is i myself, or some other sinner, that either ignorantly, carelessly, foolishly, or wickedly abuses it. now my bare being uneasy, or displeased at the undue application of things, is not sinful; my unduely applying them may be very culpable. christ we believe was innocent, tho' he had an uneasy aversation at the application of things hurtful to his body; but he did not apply them, nor did god apply them, or will them applied; for if he had so done, christ's being uneasy or displeaed, would not easily be excused from sin. so if i drink, or eat to excess, and get a favour, headache, or vertigo, god is not properly said to be the cause of my being so disordered; but myself, in abusing my meat and drink. it is certain that 'tis the abuse of bodily things, and extravagant passions of the mind, that procures sickness and pains, and sinners are the authors of these abuses: and yet alas, i hear them often the authors of a greater, viz. to say that it is the hand of god that does all the mischief in the city. with the greatest confidence will some men affirm the greatest contradictions and absurdities, if they can but bring some mistaken place of scripture seeming to countenance their opinion; so they will not fail to prove (as they think) whatsoever they fancy, or please. and there is no fancy so extravagant but men may find some pretence of scripture for it, even to contradict sense and reason, yea to prove that god is the author of sin, and all the disorders in the world, they think they have god's own word for it. but men would do well before they affirm god to say a thing, to consider what the thing said is, and on what occasion, and whose immediate words, and how it can be understood. it is i think impossible to prove god saith a thing till we hear it, or that he saith that which appears to a considerate man unreasonable, or contradictory. god's word cannot be double, for and against. i believe i cannot have a greater notion of goodness, than there is really in god; the scriptures abound with nothing more than declarations of the goodness of god: but i had rather acknowledge myself a fool, or mistaken in scripture, or be confuted in any thing, than have a less notion of the divine goodness. if i should endeavour to prove a greater notion of the goodness of god, than is commonly believed, from texts of scripture, i should be pelted with others; which is the common way of dispute, knock down text with text, knock down reason with scripture; but what i have now said, may help any one to judge how far god may be said to cause evil. god is indeed said in scripture to send, yea to create evil; but if the matter be nearly scanned, it is no more but he permits it, leaving men to themselves, and other evil agents; or he does men a spiritual good, which indirectly is the occasion of a bodily evil; as repentance, and righteousness is the occasion of persecution. but the fountain of good, goodness itself cannot properly give any thing but good: yet often have i been grieved to hear the goodness of god blemished and wronged, as it is commonly even in pulpits, when bills are put up for prayers for the sick, and troubled in mind; how confidently will the preacher hold up his bold face to god, and tell him he hath afflicted this man, hid his face from that woman; his hand is heavy on one, and he is withdrawn from another? nay to say god hath visited a person in the usual can, is as much as to say some mischief or other hath been with them. then the preacher, as a great man with god, is to persuade him to change his mind, and forbear such his troublesome visits. and as he is in their opinion the immediate cause of such evils, they would sometimes have him without any condition, that is miraculously remove them, or if the parson, being a friend to the doctor or apothecary, advises them to use means, than god is to be entreated to bless whatever is used, (i might say abused) as an antidote to frustrate, or take away the effects of his will, tho' it be that which was never created to be a medicine for the disease they give it for. and this is also to desire a miracle, to work an effect by that god never made for a means; as to cause fire to cool one, and snow to warm one. but what is the matter good people with the man thus prayed for? why he hath got the gout, or the pox, or a fever, etc. alas, i'll tell you whence he had it. he hath took too much of the harsh liquor of a foreign country, and been too idle, and so vitiated the crasis of the liquors of his body. or he has strayed, and been too busy within the confines of a strange woman, that proved too hot a climate for him; he has been in some great passion, or vigorous pursuit of some worldly thing, and inflamed his blood; indulged his appetite, and debauched his stomach with more victuals or drink than it could digest, and so supplied his blood with a vitiated juice, or he hath been guilty of some other intemperance. poor man, dost thou think these are god's visits? no, they are rather the devils, or yet rather thou hast visited the devil. is this the hand of god? no it is the hand of thy own concupiscence: thine own wickedness hath corrected thee; god is good, and doth good; he is good to all, and his tender mercies are over all his works, and no good thing will he so much as withhold from them that walk uprightly. the council i will give thee is to repent, and do so no more; pray to god to forgive thee, and to direct thee to a physician to whom he hath given the knowledge of those things that are as natural means to reduce the effects of thy disorders, as the things thou abusedst were to procure them. but what's the matter with the poor woman that complains so of god's leaving, or hiding his face from her, whereby she is so much grieved? sure she loves him mightily, and wants a visit. shall i be as plain with her as the parson ought to be? poor soul, she's a sinner she knows full well; and tho' god has promised to forgive her if she will repent, yet she can't believe he will be so good as his word; she's loath to repent and try him, except she were sure: she can't find in her heart to forgive her poor debtors; somebody or other has wronged her, and she's resolved to have satisfaction; it is but just: so she thinks god must have satisfaction for her sins, or he can't be just; and tho' she has heard a sin-sweetning-story that christ hath made satisfaction for sinners, she can't believe she is of that number, she is not sure she's one of the small number predestinated: shall i tell her yet more plainly what's her disease? she loves sin too much, duty too little; her heart is not inflamed with love to god, so as to influence all her actions: she has not had him represented to her so good, merciful, loving, ready to forgive all freely, as indeed he is: besides that witness for god the conscience, that testifies when man hath done well or ill, is not clear perhaps, and according to the measure of obedience or disobedience, in known duty, will the comfort or discomfort generally be to a convicted soul; and faith that there is forgiveness with god is one duty, without which comfort is seldom securely enjoyed. now let us consider, has god left, or afflicted such persons? no, they have left god, and hid themselves from him; let them but be persuaded to turn to god, and believe his infinite love and goodness, and love him with all their hearts, and they will quickly find that perfect love casts out fear; their troubles will cease with the testifying their judgements, and changing their wills. now of all the miseries sinful creatures are liable to, the eternal torments (as they are called) of the damned in hell can, i think, with least reason be thought to come from the hand of the best being, as the inflicter or executioner; when these miseries may well be thought chief to consist in the exasperation, and height of those uneasy thoughts which are the very acts of sin; as wrath, envy, hate, despair, desire impossible to be satisfied, etc. add unto these their effects, with whatsoever devils, and immortal wicked men may be able to inflict upon one another, and the most uncharitable soul can hardly desire a greater hell for his greatest enemy. but what i have said already of displeasure, merely mental, and that which comes by the means of the body, may be easily applied here, if well considered. but yet farther, methinks it is a very hard thought to think that god who (as the beloved disciple tells us) is love, should hate, and take pleasure or delight in tormenting his poor, foolish, frail creatures; or that he should afflict willingly, (or from his heart;) or affect with grief the children of men, and that for ever. but he must be supposed either to do it willingly, and take pleasure in so doing, or he cannot properly be said to do it; for god cannot with any reason be said to do any thing against his own will, or in which he has not pleasure; that cannot be supposed of a perfect, or self sufficient being; nor can any action of the creature be thought to bring god under a necessity of doing any thing he delights not in; and he swears he hath no pleasure in the death of the wicked, ezek. 33.11. chap. 18.32. it is the sinner that will die, or chooseth death; he seeks pleasure indeed; but he hath it not, because he seeks it where it is not to be had, viz. in his own foolish disorderly will, distinct from god's will when god cannot give it him that way, it being impossible. the damned doubtless are exceeding uneasy; why? they have turned from god the fountain of pleasure: they have lived and died in a course contrary to god's will, contrary to the only possible way of happiness; and god is just in suffering them to have their own choice, in leaving them after innumerable arguments to persuade them to real good, to make the experiment how happy they can be without being beholden to him; and it is enough to show that god approves not of their sin, if he continue their being, his work, under the greatest misery they can bring themselves into; and as they are no more sinful than they themselves, and their fellow sinners can make them; so if they have no more misery than what they can work in themselves, and one another, it will be proportionable to their sins, and both may be exceeding great. god can't be thought to work or cause despair, wrath, malice, hate, and envy, at the greatest good, extreme discontent at his will, and the happiness of others, fierce, furious, unsatisfied desire, etc. in his creatures, he must not be thought to be the cause or agent of those sinful passions; they are all against his will, as he hath clearly manifested. and we cannot suppose, that god's justice requires, that sinners for a short life of rebellion against their maker in this world, should be bound to rebel against him for ever; or believe that they can satisfy for some sins here, with a continuance of all sins they are capable of in a state of immortality hereafter. no, there is no necessity of unhappiness but what the sinners own perverse will brings upon him; his disorderly passions are let lose, and to what extremity passions may be carried out, who knows? these will be torments if there were no devils able to vex. and where these evil passions are in their extreme, how can it be thought that the bodies such anxious souls would delight in, can be other than the occasions of far greater misery than they were capable of being in this life, [wherein some of the passions disordered have brought the bodies to be very uneasy concomitants] with this aggravation, that they have then no more death to expect to rid them of that uncomfortable companion, unless we could suppose that hell itself hath at least this happiness to be a remedy for the diseases of the body, and a safeguard from all those evils sinners could lay upon one another in this life; or that their folly could bring god under a necessity to disown his well-wrought work, their being, and to let them fall into nothing. as for the examples of external judgements (as they are called) which we have especially in scripture, wherein some may think the immediate act of god, as inflicting, is always required; when they were more than preventions of greater evils the persons would have run into, they may easily be accounted for, by supposing men sometimes left to the power of the devil, the prince of the power of the air; who seems eagerly covetous to enlarge the dominion of hell, or to do any kind of mischief. of this we have an example in job: or that god sometimes withdraws his providential hand from protecting a people, or a person that leaves him, and suffers them to fall into the hands of others that are wicked, their enemies: as were the judgements on israel, or others by inimical nations; in which instances we can't suppose god does inspire the evil agents with malicious desires of murders, robberies, rapes, etc. god may indeed be thought to permit, yea commissionate a people to stand up against another in just defence, and to cut off the declared, and dangerous enemies of mankind; but such wicked persons have brought others under a necessity of preserving themselves, and them that are better than these wicked ones, or of delivering the unhappy that are in their hands. god may likewise leave persons obnoxious to be surprised by the elements; as by thunder and lightning, earthquakes, inundations, (things not evil in themselves) falls of houses, infectious diseases, casual fires, by which wicked men may suffer, yea the good be translated from this wretched life without any special act of god. but all these things, or i think whatever you can name of evils, would be absent were men but as wise and good as they ought: wisdom would foresee and prevent, and goodness do no ill; the wise and good would not expose themselves or others to the too strong motions of bodily nature, nor want god's special preservation, which the rebellious have forfeited. were but the evil of sin absent from the world, i do not see that there would be any other evil for which mankind could be thought unhappy, or could be unthankful for their being, tho' all things else were just as they are, yea were man to lead his life on this earth for ever. had i but this one point to handle, i think i could easily show how, were there not sin, all the defects in nature would be remedied. to conclude, god hath made all things in an excellent order, such as is most conducive to man's happiness; but if man foolishly affect to be his own rule, and strive to cross the most wise order of his maker, it is no wonder that those things god made for his good and service, are often the occasions of his hurt, and too hard for him: god continues the natures and qualities of things; and it is not fit he should alter the creation, at the foolish caprice of every silly man, that fire may not burn, and water not drown, when sinners please to have them changed; but tho' fire burn, and water drown him that foolishly abuses them, yet those noxious effects cannot properly be looked on as punishments inflicted by god, any more than he that hangs himself can be said to die by the hands of the executioner. and if god cannot be said to give good to his creatures as obliged so to do, but still gives of grace; how can he be thought to be so bound to give evil, as that he cannot be said merely to permit the creature to make itself miserable. 45. another opinion that hath passed long with credit in the world, without any good ground, is the doctrine of imputation of sin and righteousness. adam's sin, say some, is imputed to his offspring, and so they become guilty in the sight of god, and are deprived of original righteousness. let us consider the plain english of it, and it is this; god reckons adam's children guilty of adam's sin: they don't mean the same sin in kind, but that god charges them as guilty of their father's very acts of transgression; which is all one as to say that adam's act of sin, is his children's act. but this cannot be true; for as my father's action is not my action, nor my action my father's, god cannot be deceived, and suppose the doing of one man is the doing of another. men commonly say we sinned in adam; but it is absurd to say a man sinned before he had a being; that which is not can have nothing said of it; nor can it do, till it is. we were indeed potentially in adam, but not actually; and where there is no actual being, there can be no action to be guilty of. god himself tells us by a prophet, the father shall not bear the iniquity of the son, nor the son the iniquity of the father; but the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him, and the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him; and the contrary would be unjust. one man may commit the same sin another did commit, and in that sense be guilty of the other man's sin, or rather of the same kind of sin the other did commit: or one man may tempt another to sin, and so be guilty of the others sin; but still a man's gild is his own, and not another's. it may with more reason be said that adam is guilty of our sins, and we of the sins of our offspring, than that we are guilty of his, or they of ours, because sinful parents are the cause of bringing a sinful off spring into the world, and often their instructers in wickedness. it is certain that one man may suffer by the sins of another; but not for the sins of another, justly. the father may waste his estate, and so the children may be brought to poverty; the father may teach his child to do evil either by precept or example, and so bring him to misery. as for the propagation or original of sin, in adam's posterity, there are two opinions, either of them much more likely to be true than the fancy of imputation of sin, or god's taking away original righteousness; which is no better than to say my first father sinned, and god charges me with it, tho' not guilty of it, and causes me therefore to want righteousness, or to become a sinner. taking away one's righteousness is tempting one to sin. the one of the two more probable opinions, is that the soul, as well as the body, is propagated; and a sinful soul is uncapable of begetting a soul, without sinful inclinations; a pure thing being unlikely to come out of an impure. now lest it should seem that the soul is supposed propagated without any ground for such an opinion, i say both scripture and reason do at least favour it: adam begat a son in his own likeness; and abraham begat isaac, and isaac begat jacob. 'tis not said adam begat a body, but a son in his own likeness; if he had begat only a body, he had not begat a son in his own likeness. adam was the image of god as he was an intelligent being, and a lord over the inferior creatures; and if adam had not begat an intelligent, or thinking son, he had not indeed begat a son in his own likeness. it is said of the regenerate they were not begotten of bloods, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, which implys that a natural man is so begotten; as to his body of bloods, that supplies matter to the seed; and of the will of the flesh, that is carnal desire, instigating its projection; but as to his soul of the will of man, desiring to get his like. that the body of a man proceeds from the bodies of his parents, none doubts; why may not the soul as well proceed from the soul of the father in the act of generation, or of the mother in conception? it is by virtue of the word of god, increase and multiply, that there is any generation at all; and why may not the same word give a power to the soul to beget a soul, as well as to the body to beget a body? the word is spoken to man as a compound of body and soul, and neither part is excepted. isaac was a complete man, consisting of body and soul; if abraham begat only isaac's body, he did not truly beget isaac. but you will say perhaps, the body is divisible, and part of it may be separated, and become another body; but the soul does not consist of parts, and so cannot be thought capable of producing another soul. i answer; this is no difficulty; for the soul to be begotten does not consist of parts, has no quantity or bulk, and so needs not a bulky thing to spare a part to make it of: why may not the soul, the immaterial and more noble part of man, by the will of god, be as capable of begetting a soul, as the body, the bulky and more ignoble, is for the production of a body? why must the soul be thought capable of less in its kind, than the body in its kind? why may not cogitation break forth into new heads of cogitation, as well as body sprout out into new organical bodies, tho' we may be ignorant of the precise manner of both? but there is a second opinion which possibly may be true whether the soul be propgated or no; and that is, that every son and daughter of adam is tempted, and falls as soon as they are capable of choosing good or evil; tho' not as their first father with a forbidden apple, yet with many other forbidden things; tho' how soon or precisely, when they thus fall, is uncertain. that children are for some time innocent, seems to some very probable, not only because the scripture in divers places speaks of them, as not having done good or evil, not knowing the right hand from the left, not knowing to choose the good, and refuse the evil; not to have sinned after the similitude of adam 's transgression, etc. but because it is not reasonable that sin should be reckoned where there is no law, and there can be no law where there can be no knowledge of a law. had god not told adam himself he should not eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge, he could not have transgressed in so doing. and that all transgress, and become sinners, is no wonder; if adam, a man in his perfect use of reason, having but one thing forbidden, and but one immediate tempter, was so soon tempted and fell, much more liable are they to fall who have not such a capacity of discerning, have many things forbidden, many tempter's within and without, yea and many examples of transgression the strongest temptation; and are thereby enured to those actions before they can judge of them, which when they are capable of knowing what they do, become sins; and tho' they come to know such actions are sinful, custom is as it were natural, and not presently changed. moreover, children are not only tempted, and taught to sin by example, but even by precept, from parents, from nurses, from servants, from playfellows, etc. to be proud, to revenge, to lie, to covet, to steal, etc. so wretched a world is every mother's child brought forth into, that there are none but the son of the blessed virgin, (who was not only begotten by the special operation of the most high, but was strong in spirit, and filled with wisdom by the special grace of god from his very infancy;) i say there are none but he who have not fallen by divers temptations: yea we are often falling even after repentance, and have every day need to renew our repentance, and come to the throne of grace for the pardon of our sins. now if every man's sin is his own, and not another's, and no man can justly suffer for another's sin, much less can the sins of fallen men be truly imputed or reckoned to jesus christ. as christ is not really guilty of the commission of any sin, or the cause of any man's sins; so it is impossible god should think he is, or reckon him guilty. neither the will of god, nor of christ, can be in such an untruth and injustice. neither god, nor christ, nor any but sinners can charge sin upon the innocent, or punish him for it. tho' christ be said to bear the sins of the sinful, it is not the gild of them; because he is not guilty, and god can't reckon him so; nor the punishment of them justly, or from god; but it is either meant he bears them away, that is saves them from them, by being an effectual means of bringing them to obedience, or that he with patience and compassion suffered under their sinful actions and miseries, bore their affronts, injuries, mockings, scourge, condemning, and crucifying of him, and was grieved at their unhappiness in so doing. neither is christ's righteousness, or any ones else, truly imputed or reckoned to others. god cannot reckon, or think christ's being obedient, is my obeying, because it is not so; or reckon any man obedient till he is so, because christ is obedient; if he could he would reckon amiss. i cannot but admire at many (who reckon themselves special christians) how they dare affirm that god reckons us guilty of adam's sin, or christ guilty of ours, and punishes the one for the other, notwithstanding god has declared the contrary, saying, the father shall not bear the iniquity of the children, nor the children of the father, and that he will not clear the guilty, nor condemn the innocent. i believe the blind fancy of our sins being imputed to, and punished in christ, and christ's righteousness being transferred on us, has been a means of transferring righteousness, and consequently salvation, from many a soul. 46. another fancy common among us, and near of kin to this is, that we are to be saved by the merits of christ, and that he meriteth of god life and salvation for us, etc. the notion of merit is this: the person meriting does something or other more than his duty, whereby he obligeth the person he merits of to something or other as due; and the meritor so deserves, that he ceaseth to be beholden for what is become by his action due to him; but it is a debt that cannot be withholden without injustice in the person he merits of. now that it is a groundless fancy that god should become indebted to christ or to us, for any thing christ hath done or suffered, will appear if we consider that it is impossible for any creature to merit any thing of god for itself; and if not for itself, much less for another. it cannot merit for itself because all that the creature has, or is, (except sin) it has from god; and all the acts of obedience it can do, are naturally due to god. god can receive but his own; he can receive no advantage, or have any thing purchased of him from being's that have nothing but what he lent them: whatever god wills the creature to do, becomes presently its bounden duty; what god does not will, it may not do. there can be no works of supererogation, as men foolishly fancy, when none can do more than his duty. adam could not have merited tho' he had not sinned, nor could have been properly said to have been saved by works; nor can any man since be said to be so saved; for to work righteousness is that unto which a man saved from sin, is brought; and perfect obedience to god is salvation. so that to say a person is saved by works, is all one as to say he is saved by salvation, or by being saved, or that salvation is the cause of salvation. we read indeed of being justified by works, which is no more than this; a man that doth such works as god wills him to do, is just, or in so doing is become just, and so accounted; but such a man hath not to glory before god, nor can god be brought in debt to man, or reckon the reward he gives him that works a debt, tho' men may reckon it so. man that owes all he hath, or can do of good, to his maker, who cannot be profited, hath nothing to oblige god with, or whereby to merit of him. christ himself could not in a proper sense merit of god, for himself, much less for others; he was made under the law, and whatever god willed him to do was his duty, and he did it, and no more; if he had done what god did not will, he had done more than was right; and if he did but just so much, he did but just what he ought. he was obliged to do the will of god against all the opposition he met with from men and devils; he could not without sin omit any part of his embassy, tho' the people god first sent him to were so rude as to evilly entreat him, persecute him, and slay him. if christ cannot offer, or bring any thing to god, that he had not from god, or do more than his duty, and so merit for himself; much less can he merit for others: for were it possible he could love, or obey god more than he ought, yet his doing could never become another's doing, or so be reckoned by god. there can be no lending of actions, or any thing that will pass for a purchase in heaven, tho' men may spare, and lend things on earth. it is god that most highly merits; he from whom the creatures have all they have, and are, and can do of good, merits a return of all, in love, thankfulness, and obedience; but he merits of the creatures, not for them; he merits for himself only; for his doing is not the creatures doing, and can never be truly so thought. god merits of christ all he has or can do, in obedience to him; consequently christ cannot merit of him, having nothing but what he hath received from his god and father. christ indeed merits of us, tho' not for us, love, faith, obedience, etc. god hath set him over us, and made him our lord and master; and he hath freely done and suffered the greatest things a created friend could for us, when he was no way obliged by us; and we are in debt to him, so much that we cannot easily be thought to merit of him. men may merit of one another, when they may be profited by one another, and do some things they are not obliged to by one another. now to conclude this point; i confess if the consideration of christ's merits, viz. what he merits of us, or what we are indebted to him, shall prevail with us to repent, and obey god as he hath taught us is our duty, we may possibly be said to be saved by christ's merits, as an instrumental cause; but this is not the common notion of the merits of christ, or the bottom on which most christians embark, and the greatest villains sail boldly out into the other world on, even from the gallows, if mr. ordinary can but teach them to say, like parrots, that they hope to be saved by the merits of christ: tho' they have spent all their time in wickedness, and would return to the same course, could they scape the halter, christ hath been righteous enough for himself and them too, and they are thought safe if they can but believe; that is, have a strong fancy that god accepts of christ's obedience and sufferings, instead of theirs. the papists are said to believe a man may merit of god by his good works; and we count them erroneous for their opinion, never considering that we protestants believe as much; tho' not that you or i can merit of him for ourselves; yet that another man, which is more strange, can merit for us, and so fall in with them, even in the foolish opinion of works of supererogation. 47. another opinion as groundlessly held among us, and near a kin to the former, is the common fancy about redemption, viz. that christ laid down his life as a randsome or price paid to god, to purchase life and salvation for us. let us consider the matter: redemption is a buying a thing again that is lost, sold, and enslaved. as for instance, a captive: in which action there are these things to be considered; the redeemer; the redeemed; the price of redemption; and the person to whom the price is paid. now as to the redemption of sinners, the redeemer in the first and highest sense is god, to wit the father, who has given us his son christ, the ransom. christ in a second sense is called our redeemer; because he freely gave himself to set us free from the slavery of sin. to whom did he give himself a ransom? not to the father; because, first, he is the father's own, and so cannot be given as a price to him. secondly, because it is the father that gives him. thirdly, because it is not god that holds us in slavery, or he that is to be hired (by something he values as much as our bondage) to let us go free from sin, and become obedient to him: no, he commands all to obey him, and not to serve sin, and does nothing less than hold us in captivity to iniquity; he wills our liberty more than we can, yea more than christ can; for as the father is greater, so must his love necessarily be greater. christ is the price or instrumental redeemer; sinners are the redeemed; but who is it holds us captive in sin, to whom the price is paid? not god as i have said, that would be the greatest contradiction; not christ, he is the price, and wills our liberty; not the devil, (as some have thought) he has not absolute power over our wills: christ was not given to him, as a ransom, or he ever on that account agreed to let us go free: it can be nothing therefore but ourselves, our own foolish will, that captivates, binds, holds, and concludes us in slavery to sin. we are slaves most properly to our own sinful wills: the ransom or price, is therefore given to us. god has given or sent his beloved son into the world, and he hath done and suffered great things for us to purchase our love. the father sent his son to court our , and it cost him his life, with a great deal of labour and pains. we are god's own by right, and christ's by gift in one sense, as he is ours in another; but we have enslaved ourselves in sin, and god does not only demand us again as his, but even hires us to be his again, that we may be willingly his, and serve him whose service is liberty. christ hath given himself to redeem us to god, not from god, by his own blood; that is, in persuading us to serve our natural lord, our maker, he hath lost his life; and we shall be very ungrateful to god and to christ, if we don't surrender ourselves, when god hath done so much to purchase our , that in loving him we may be happy. the serving our own foolish wills is the greatest slavery; and we serve not the devil, but in subserviency to our own erring wills. the serving god is liberty, the only and greatest liberty of a creature. god hath given christ to do, and left him to suffer whatever might tend to our conviction, repentance, and happiness in obedience. god hath given him to teach and instruct us in his mind and will; and if this be not enough, also to give us an exact pattern and example of so doing, and that against the greatest opposition and suffering from opposers; and if the malice and blindness of any were so great, as not to see a conviction in so clear doctrine, fair example, and great love that was seen in his life, and lesser sufferings, [love of god in sending him, and his love in an entire compliance with god's loving purpose] his patiented persevering in to them, under his greatest and last sufferings he could suffer from them, may be made the highest and last argument to make their hard hearts relent, be convinced, and and change. which argument was farther confirmed by god's raising him from the dead, and receiving him up to heaven, thereby declaring that though they erringly put him to death as an evil doer; yet he was not so in god's account, but just and good, in prosecuting god's will for the good of men, against, and surmounting the highest ingratitude. if my friend, with admirable wisdom and argument, council and direct me how i shall get out of a sad and deplorable condition he finds me in, out of a way wherein i can never be happy, shall i not hear him? shall i be so unreasonable as to slight his council? if he give me a pattern of himself in doing that wherein he is, and i may be happy; and farther, if he prosecute my good, and seek to reclaim me to the denying of himself, slighting, and foregoing his own happiness, as much as he justly can, or as much as may be an argument to me to hear him, if he undergo reproach, pains, and sorrow for my good: farther, if he patiently suffer even my unkind and ungrateful hands to be imbrued in his dear blood, while i count him my enemy, and an evil doer, and end all with the height of expressions of , forgiving and desiring god to forgive me; would not this be enough to soften, or break a heart of adamant, that should once seriously reflect, and consider christ as such a friend that hath thus done and suffered, and given the most high and admirable instance of a creatures love to creatures, in subserviency to that greater love he had to god, and aught to have, and to manifest in doing the will of him whose love must yet be thought to be greatest, and to transcend all created love, as much as an infinite being is above the finite, as much as the cause of christ's being and love, is before the effect. 48. another point, in which some men perhaps as greatly err, is that of christ's intercession; the manner of which as they suppose, is thus: christ represents our condition and desires to god, with what he hath done and suffered in our stead, and so procures of god those good things we stand in need of. but that this may appear to be a mistake, let it be considered that it cannot properly be said that christ represents our cases to god, because god can have nothing made known to him, being omniscient; nor has he any need to present his obedience, or mind god of his sufferings, who can never forget; nor can we think that christ has any need to entreat, or any capacity of procuring of god what he is not in himself as ready to give. but christ's intercession is rather a procuring, or persuading us to be willing to receive those good things god is ready, if we are but desirous of them, freely to give us. and this christ does in that power and authority god has given him, as the head and ruler of the church, by all means suitable to persuade and reduce the disorderly wills of men; since his ascension by the ministry of the word and spirit. that christ prayed to god when on earth, was not to make known his desires to god, or to move him to fulfil them, who heard him always, even his most secret desires, and was as willing any good as he, yea willed it first, which was the reason christ willed it; but he prayed for our sakes, to show what god's will was, and his compliance therewith; to profess his conformity to the will of his father, and give us an example of worship in acknowledging god's omniscience. nor do we pray when we pray aright, to persuade god to our wills; but to profess our conformity to his, the condition of our receiving; to stir up, and provoke one another thereto, and to profess our desires towards god, and our dependency on him. and when we are said to pray to god in the name, or for the sake of christ, or to come to god by christ; and when god is said to hear us for christ's sake, or do any thing for us for christ's sake, we are not to think that the bare saying for christ's sake is rightly meant, or that god will grant our requests rather because of his respect to the will and pleasure of christ, than from his own readiness to do us good. we must not think it is with god as it is with men, in this matter, who do things for one to please another they more respect, which they were not in themselves inclinable to do; because god can have no greater argument than from himself, nor can he be put in mind of any thing he forgets, or is not ready to give us. but we come to god in and by christ, or in his name on his account, or sake, when we believe christ's message, obey his precepts, and follow his example as the sent of god, or labour to be obedient to god's will, the condition of happiness; and in so doing, desire and expect of god what by christ he hath promised us. so the faithful israelites of old were used rightly to pray to god for the sake of abraham, isaac, and jacob; which was no more but this, that they came unto him as to such a one he had manifested himself to be in a special manner to abraham, isaac; and jacob, expecting from him what he had eminently declared himself to them ready to give, those that are willing to depend upon him for good. so god's giving, or forgiving for christ's sake, is as much as to say performing his promise made by christ to those that by following him, answer the conditions thereof. so by being in christ; having an interest in christ; having the spirit of christ; is truly meant being steadfast in the faith of christ's doctrine, constant in obeying his precepts, exact in following his example; or in other words, being like minded with christ; or being born again, or becoming a new creature; leaving our wicked vain conversation, and living a righteous and holy life as christ did, and so coming within the conditions of the promises god hath made by him. 49. now after all these considerations, that i may come to a conclusion, i shall lay down this proposition. that whatever christ is, or hath done, doth or will do as god's instrument in man's salvation, is effectual as it is an argument to the mind of man, influencing and persuading him to repent, and leave his rebellion against god, and to become obedient and conformable to the will of his maker. and whatsoever men may fancy to be done by christ for them, without them, unless it conclude thus in an effectual argument to persuade them to repentance and obedience, will be found indeed but fancy, and vain imagination. all the most finespun, and subtle doctrines, all the mysteries, and curious opinions men make so necessary, are of no moment unless they could have an evident tendency to this end. nor do the external, or ceremonial parts of religion, (which the world of professors makes so much ado about, and most urges) signify any thing, but so far as they can be proper motives to, or signs of our love to god, and our neighbour. and the lord's christ came besides other ends, also for this; to show useless, and put away as unacceptible to god, the most refined, and splendid farrago of external worship, and ceremonies of the levitical priesthood; and to substitute as a more spiritual, and acceptible, a more rational and profitable way; complete morality, or the simple love of god and our neighbour, with the natural fruits thereof; leaving us in the room of that multitude of burdensome ceremonies (which yet were not sufficient to satisfy the petulant humours of men) but two (by him enjoined) externals, more than reason itself could dictate. the one, that being convinced of the truth of christ's doctrine, and resolved from the reasonableness of his commands to obey them, we should by some disciple of christ be once dipped in water, thereby aptly to signify that we are dead and buried to our old rebellious life and conversation, and risen again to a new life of obedience; that we are washed from our sins, that is truly persuaded to leave them, and become clean or holy: whereby also we take upon us the outward mark or badge of christianity, in a public profession of our reception of the doctrine and commands of so excellent a master as jesus, and own him as the messiah sent by god to manifest his will to mankind. the fitness of this appointment in its whole significancy, is evident, and the obligation thereto lies entirely in the institution of christ, he having sufficient authority to command it: and i submit to it as a duty i am bound in conscience to, believing that christ could command nothing but what was according to the will of god; and not that i suppose baptism makes me or any one, a real christian, or member of christ, or of his true church, or a child of god; or certainly brings into a covenant of grace, as some sweetly persuade themselves: for the unregenerate, yea hypocrites, and profane persons, as well as those who knew nothing of the matter, may have been baptised against their wills, or willingly for some carnal reason. this ordinance is to be a sign, and as it is a duty, an effect of grace already wrought in the soul, and is not that which can confer it; nor can it work any spiritual effects unless it be this: that having solemnly professed my belief in christ, the messiah, and my obedience to god's will by him declared, i have a great argument to persuade me to continue steadfast in my profession, and shall very likely be influenced thereby. but i dare not affirm that the ends for which christ instituted this ordinance, can never be attained without it, in some who are persuaded that it is not an ordinance; but those who believe it a duty, can never be excused in the neglect thereof. the other external ordinance of christ is, that we should sometimes keep a holy feast; wherein by the breaking of bread, and pouring forth of wine, we have represented and kept in remembrance our lord's death until he come again; and by eating and drinking together as believers in him, is signified our communion and fellowship in the benefits of christ, and so love to one another promoted. the bread and the wine used in this feast, cannot be rationally thought to have any supernatural virtue, or inherent holiness; to differ from other bread and wine, or upon any such account to convey any spiritual grace, as many have inconsiderately fancied, or been easily persuaded; and thence have even worshipped the elements as a god, or at least as an idol. but whatever spiritual good may come to the partakers of this appointment, comes to the unfeigned disciples of jesus, as it is a feast they keep at their master's command, in remembrance of his death for their sakes. therefore this ordinance was never instituted for those that have not (as abovesaid) professed their christian faith, and do not live in the true christian practice; it is a profession of christ as our master, and a life contrary to his doctrine, makes it but a mocking of him: therefore it ought not to be communicated with the wicked, or any but those that at least seem real christians: it should be a holy feast, (tho' i confess few christians solemnize it like one) and ought not any way to be profaned, as god knows it has been too too much amongst us, even as much as to be made a test in state policy; not only to distinguish protestants from papists, but, as one would think, to debar from, and render incapable of all offices, those others, who understanding the nature and ends of this ordinance, cannot in conscience any way profane or abuse it, as if they were men unfit for business: when the greatest debauchees, having once signalised their wickedness in profaning the holy table of the lord, are men thought fit for employments. but such communicants show themselves no more really to be of the comprehensive church they partake with, or of any true one, (whatever the parson may fancy) than the● oaths so strictly imposed to oblige them to be faithful in all offices, makes them so. for a man that makes no conscience of profaning the sacred name of the most high in his daily conversation, or of any other immorality, cannot be thought to come to the table of the holy jesus, but for fashion or for interest; and he that calls god to witness a hundred times a day to the grandest lies, and as often swears to the promise he never so much as intends to perform, is a man very unlikely to count himself bound by a solemn oath. and i cannot but admire the profound policy of those (if there are any so cunning) who think to oblige infidels to fidelity, by swearing them; as i wonder at the excess of their religion, who will needs bind men by oaths in almost all offices, to things never intended, or hardly possible to be done. i confess i had thought the worldly interest enough to oblige any man in worldly things, and the most likely to bind those who by their immoralities show themselves men of no conscience; and i acknowledge it was my opinion, that the pinching of the pocket by squeezing a fine, or some corporal punishment for the failure in performance of an office, was more likely to be sensibly felt in this life by the drowsy conscienced sinner, than the gild of fashionable unpunished perjury: but still i think a good man the most likely person to do his reasonable duty, tho' not obliged by an oath; and a conscientious man injured, when he cannot be trusted without invoking the sacred name of god in trivial matters. 50. i should have thought of concluding here, but that a monstrous opinion at last starts up, viz. the old pagan's doctrine of fate, sprung up in christianity; which hydra must be beheaded, or all is in vain. what signifies all i have said? to what purpose should we labour to be wise, good, or penitent? if god has not absolutely decreed that we shall go to heaven, all that we can do will be in vain. god hath absolutely decreed, that a certain small number shall be saved, and none else possibly can, whatever they do; the few thus elected, cannot perish; but all the rest god hath fore-ordained to destruction, and they cannot possibly be saved, saith this doctrine. but if we consider a little, this opinion will appear highly unreasonable, even without examining those texts of scripture that some fancy do favour it; or as the custom of disputers is, opposing others. it is certain that god can never be supposed to disown himself, or contradict his own will, and therefore we may not think that god does not will the rational creatures to behave themselves as such creatures ought, or as it becomes them; that is freely to acknowledge, own, love, and obey their maker: but to say god wills the damnation of any of his creatures, is the same thing as to say he wills they should not behave themselves as becomes their relation to god, but that they should persist in setting up their own wills in opposition to their creator's: for damnation, and persevering disobedience, is the same thing, or at least inseparable; so that damnation cannot be willed, or absolutely decreed, unless sin be also so decreed, which would be to make god the author of sin, yea to destroy the notion of sin: for god's will is the rule of duty; and if it be god's will i should sin, and be damned, it is best so to be, yea my duty; and so there is neither sin nor damnation. but as god's will can't be contradictory to his will, so his will and his word cannot differ. if god has commanded me to love and obey him, (and none i think is excepted from that duty) and i suppose he has determined i shall not love and obey him, or laid me under a necessity of doing otherwise, this is to affirm god the greatest deceiver, and mocker of his creatures; but this must not, nay cannot in reason be imagined of goodness. nor can it be thought that god should be so indigent or cruel to the works of his hands, poor rail creatures, as to make or suffer them to be miserable for any satisfaction or pleasure he can have in their misery; or who can well imagine that if the creature throw down its weapons of rebellion against its maker, and submit, yield under him, and acknowledge him, god will not be ready to forgive, and make him happy in obedience? since man hath sinned, nothing can be better than his repentance, and future obedience; his rebellion can't possibly be as good as obedience; certainly then god cannot will, or effectually cause that which is not so good. god has done very great things to persuade all to obey, and be happy. if obedience or disobedience were not free, but necessary, it would cease to be obedience or disobedience. men have power to act, or suspend their action till they are persuaded by argument to act. if they will not obey god, and be happy, 'tis their own fault, not god's; he has given them means of information, as well as arguments to persuade them. god i think is but barely the permitter of any sort of evil, the creature is the cause and worker thereof; and tho' god fore-knows that his creatures will do evil, he does not by any foreknowledge determine that they shall do it, or necessitate them, or persuade them thereto. god does persuade, and that strongly, to good no doubt, but never to the contrary; nor can he be well said to necessitate us to do good: for what a man cannot but do, is no obedience, nor properly his action. god's decree, and his foreknowledge, i think, aught to be distinguished; and his decree itself also, is to be considered two ways, viz. either as absolute, or as conditional. that which he hath absolutely decreed, is that which he will certainly effect, and can be nothing but good. what he hath conditionally decreed, comes to pass but on supposition of the conditions, and it is left in the creatures liberty to perform, or not perform the conditions; and even the things thus decreed must be supposed to be good, things that god will do if the creature will perform the conditions, otherwise not; so that god is properly said to decree his own actions thus or thus. the foreknowledge of god, or what he is said to foresee, is no more but what the creature (who always chooseth an appearing good) will think well or ill, and so do or not do; so that god decrees his own actions, but fore-knows the creatures actions: and what the creature at any time thinks well or ill, depends on its capacity of knowledge, and circumstances it is then naturally in, or how far it is liable to be mistaken in itself, or imposed upon by such agents as will certainly as much as they can deceive it; and when, and where and how far god will permit, or interpose by his special acts of information, and persuasion. but that god should decree absolutely, or will any evil, is an opinion so full of absurdities, yea and in its tendency so apt to overthrow all religion, that no single probability, or other difficulty, can persuade a considerate man to believe it; therefore i think i need say no more in this matter. 51. and now after all these considerations, i cannot but reflect, and consider with grief the miserable state of christianity, and the professors thereof, (as well as of the rest of mankind) of the generality of those that call themselves the reformed, and protestants, as well as of the papists, between whom i can see but very little difference, they agree so much still in many the same unreasonable doctrines as the fundamentals of religion, as well as consent in the like wicked practices, as the upholders and effects of those doctrines. how much is the world, and many the highest pretenders to religion in it, alienated, and changed from true religion, and the scope and design thereof, in its primitive purity and plainness? how much more busy and concerned are men in contriving and contending for idle and uncertain speculations and niceties, than in doing the plain, undoubted, and necessary duties of the gospel, natural religion, or the practice of love, goodness, mercy, brotherly kindness, patience, meekness, humility, truth, & c? they seem much more intent, in considering (according as every one's fancy and education leads him) how men are, or may be saved, or not saved, than in working out their own, or in furthering other men's salvation. whilst they place the main business in hitting the right notion, how salvation is wrought, (and in this they are also commonly mistaken) they labour very little in conforming to the easily known will of god, according to the precepts and pattern he hath given us in the man christ jesus; whose pure holy life seems hard and uneasy to the rebellious will; but to be saved in the theory, is looked upon now as more pleasant and . and how apt are men now a-days to judge and condemn one another, and that merely on the account of their differences, even in their idle speculations, in which censures some are so ridged, that they will hardly allow any but themselves, and a few whose noses are just of the same length and fashion, to have smelled out the way of happiness, or to be fit for christian brotherly communion with them. but we will not be afraid to affirm, that whosoever truly loves god, and his neighbour, shall certainly be saved or happy; nay, is passed from death to life: whosoever does not, cannot be happy till he does, tho' he may have the finest, yea the best system of divinity in his head: tho' he have all faith, even to remove a mountain of contradictions, to believe the greatest mysteries, absurdities, or nonsense imaginable. that one pure, simple act, and habit of childlike love to god, is really more influencing to persevering obedience, and pleasing to god, than the most catholic orthodoxy in the world. he more truly knows god, even by experience, that loves him, tho' but a child, than the most eloquent and subtle teacher in the world, that does not love. but i am afraid, nay i think i need not question it, that the life of religion is very much eat out, and weakened by those many unreasonable doctrines: whilst we have it taught either implicitly or expressly, that god is the author of evil. one that made the greatest part of the creation for that very end, to be inevitably miserable for ever; and consequently that they must needs be, and continue sinners to make them so: that he is one that loves the miseries of his creatures, and takes such pleasure in their pains, that he will bear with their rebellion for ever, rather than not have them unhappy: that he made the most of them on purpose to show his power and sovereignty in their everlasting disorders: yea that that little number that he is said to be dearly hired, and hardly persuaded to spare, are continually afflicted with one mischief or other, from his hand; tho' they are seeking him, and crying after him continually, he is not so ready to hear, but often hides himself from them: and yet, that tho' this little number is sohardly saved, they are infallibly sure of salvation, do, or not do, what they will. who would not rather be astonished, and confounded, and rendered inactive, than influenced to love and obey god by these doctrines? when farther i am told, that i cannot keep god's commandments, but that christ hath kept them for me, (consequently my keeping them is not so necessary, if supposed possible) and god reckons christ's perfect righteousness to be mine, and i am perfect in him, tho' i am not like minded; all is done for me, without me, if i can but believe, that is fancy so. ah, but my heart misgives me; may one that considers say, i fear that if christ hath done all for me without me, he will be happy also for me without me, and i shall go to heaven but by proxy. who will be humbled before god, and thankful for his free beneficence and forgiveness, when we are persuaded that christ hath purchased it at a full rate of him, by his do, yea and sufferings for us, and we may demand happiness of god as our due? but i fear many such confidents will be put off with, i know you not. nay, how do we acknowledge god just and good, and ready to forgive, when we are persuaded that tho' he does not satisfy himself in punishing us for our sins, yet he will have them punished somewhere or other? and rather than any where, in the most innocent man jesus; on whom, they say, he laid all the punishment or misery, due for the sins of all men, (and yet nevertheless most of them are damned, and all of them die) and that he reckoned him guilty of others sins, tho' he were not so. o justice! how unjustly hath the malice of the adversary represented the fountain of goodness and justice? but what shall the generality of mankind do? what encouragement shall they have to their duty? how shall they be stirred up to seek life, and happy immortality? especially the poor convinced souls that cannot get up so high as to read their names in the eternal decree of life, or see yet much of the effects thereof in themselves? when they are told, unless they are of that little number christ has made satisfaction for, (and ten thousand to one whether they be or no) all their repentance is in vain, and their best works are sins in the sight of god, tho' perhaps splendid ones: when they are taught that greater goodness, justice, mercy, truth, etc. in one man, is less acceptible to god than much less in another, and so god a respecter of persons. supposing i cannot persuade myself (as i think all predestinarians do) that i am one of the elect, or do not believe that god has absolutely decreed either to save or damn any; i am nevertheless convinced of my sin and duty, as the way of unhappiness or happiness, and would fain be happy; shall not i do my duty on a fancy that god has not decreed the event? or must i despair in it? the former were but madness, the latter a miserable condition. but i must leave these things to the thoughts of the considerate; and to them i would propose this question; what has been the reason that no more of mankind have embraced christianity, and where has the fault been? i think surely original goodness has not hindered, nor has the fault been in the christian religion itself, or in the want of the love of happiness in mankind: i believe you must confess, that the generality of its professors have discredited christianity, and given the world a false draught, or picture thereof: till which is mended, what hopes can we have of the conversion to christianity of those who have not from their inconsiderate years its deformed doctrines, imposed upon them, and the disagreeing lives of its professors recommended to them? what expectations can we have of convincing jews, turks, and pagans, when not only the doctrines, and an hundred more perhaps, have represented christianity as full of contradictions, and absurdities, and unsuitable to the condition and nature of man: but we even seem to differ in our notions, whether there be one or more objects of divine worship; insomuch, that if those that have not yet embraced christianity were to hear our discourses, and forms of worship, they could not, i believe, but think that a great part of christians believe, and worship more gods than one, and even enjoin such a faith and practice upon pain of damnation; yea some of them, having no better arguments, urge it by the rack of persecution; while their lives also are as different from unity in pure christian morality: which now adays is distinguished from religion, o times! and a moral man is spoken of with contempt, in comparison with the religious, as a different person. but i must confess i look upon nothing as a doctrine of christianity, or think can reasonably be represented as such, or proved so to be by scripture, which does not naturally tend to promote morality, or influence to those good manners which become our relation to god, and which are convenient, and profitable towards the true interest of mankind. i would that men would once come to try doctrines by their natural inferences and tendencies; then i should hope truth would more appear. but i must here conclude, tho' i have been very short on every particular i have been discoursing, as unable now to write all i could wish to say of the natural, of the true christian, and of our laodicean religion, promising my reader an answer to what he shall rationally object against whatever has been said in this discourse; and therewith a fuller demonstration of things, if god give me life and opportunity, supposing that my whole life must be spent in labouring against our common errors, if the appearance of christ don't bring on their period sooner. finis. what is truth. or, the pattern in the mount. wherein many places of scripture are (in pursuit of truth, and the church's peace) explained. and therein, most false opinions and heresies (both modern and ancient) are clearly detected and refelled. by tho. harby. this is zion, whom no man seeketh after, jer. 30.17. they shall no more hurt, nor destroy, in all mine holy mountain, saith the lord, isa. 65.25. o magna vis veritatis, quae contra hominum ingenia, calliditatem, solertiam, contraque fict as omnium insidias facilè se per se defendit. cic. in orat. pro marc. coelio. london, printed for the author. 1671. the author. reader, thy satisfaction, whosoever, in the solution of pilat's question, and the title of this treatise, is my design therein: therein also i have (with some care and diligence) endeavoured to add all due brevity to perspicuity, and to decline the too common compilation, in taking much matter and many errors out of other authors, to bring a book into a large volume, to little or evil purpose, and pretend it to be my own. the quotations i confess (which the reader may well dispense with, if quoted to truer tendencies) may differ in their ends for which many quote them: nor are the footsteps of foregoing writers, my rules to follow; but (not wedded, with some, to vulgar errors; nor affecting selfish singularity) my design is to exert the sober truth. the reader may perhaps find some parcels of this treatise in books lately, or not long extant; yet they differ much in their ends, something from the manner that i wrote them. wherefore, of the writers of them, i may have cause, in part, to say as some did: quem recitas, meus est, o fidentine, libellus, sed, malè dum recitas, incipit esse tuus. for, so careless were some trusties of my protographs, others so intent to make the notions in them, their own, and themselves the reputed first assertors of them; that i could not shun those occasions: i only therefore request the reader, not to impute to me, that i take any notions (by them abused, but at first my own) out of the works of those pilfering writers. this treatise (because the way of dilucidation therein, and the matter of it, is somewhat unusual) may seem (at least in primo limine) a little hard to some, but is made more easy by reading on in order, and so it clears itself: but some perhaps (not trusting to the title) would see substantial testimonials (from persons of worth and estimation) of the accounts they give of it; and i were much unworthy and unfaithful, should i hide the candles of such burning-lights, under bushels. take therefore, out of many, first, the testimony of the right reverend doctor saunderson, late bishop of lincoln; to whom i read of it four hours every day, for four days, when it was but an embryo, and not come to that form and perfection that now it is. secondly, the testimony of sundry ministers consentient in the same record. last: the testimony of the learned beck of ipswich, who read it all. he was sometimes captain in the king's army, and faithful to his trust, and might, be a leader to many, for learning, piety, and integrity of life: of him the right reverend bishop hall affirmed, that he was the best scholar that ever he ordained, as mr. stinit of bacton in suffolk (who was ordained with him) witnesseth: the testimonies follow. reader farewel. thy friend t.h. the testimony of the right reverend doctor saunderson, late bishop of lincoln. whereas sundry persons, as well ministers as others, have under their hands (the hand-writing of one of whom is to me well known) given approbation to a treatise written by mr. tho. harby the bearer, and entitled, the pattern in the mount; of the contents and purpose of which treatise, the author (having read part of it to me) gave a fair and rational account. i do hereby testify, that (so far as i am able to judge by the proportion of what i heard read) i do conceive the said treatise may be profitably published as conducing to the fuller and clearer understanding of sundry prophecies of holy scripture, and that the author deserveth encouragement and furtherance towards the publication of the same. rob. saunderson, rector of boothby paynel linc. we have, read over the first part of mr. tho. harby's treatise, which (for brevity, language, order, and chiefly for matter of necessary use, and not usually found in authors) may seem (in our opinions) to surpass most works of modern writers, at least of this nature: nor have we found such full satisfaction in any. and we conceive it may be a most powerful means to evince and unite (a work most needful and grateful in these times) dissenting-brethrens, sects, and heterodox professors: and those many and material additions which he (to our knowledge) hath made therein, fully assure us, that he must be the author of it. john green, rector of owsden in suffolk. isaac key of margetting in essex. these (not eye-witnesses of the said additions, nor doubting in the least of the truth of them) witness all besides above written. john smith, rector of st. mary's colchester. dan. sutton, rector of chilton in suffolk. tracked atum hunc (cui titulus; quid est veritas) egregià domini harby operà exaratum, vel doctissimorum lectione dignissimum pronuncio. april 3.— 67. cave beck rector st. helenae gippovisensis. these suffrages (because perhaps none fuller can be given) may serve: therefore i pass by (for brevity) the testimonies of sundry doctors in oxford, and elsewhere; and of many other divines. what is truth. all men (both good and bad) busy themselves about truth or error, both which have their rerespective seats or subjects. the more proper seat of truth theological amongst men, is the mystical body of christ (the church of god) which is called, the pillar and ground of truth, 1 tim. 3.15. wherefore, what truth, and what error is, and what their subjects (the true church, and true church-opposers) are, is the grand duty of all (ministers and magistrates especially) to be resolved in: for, if they seek to support truth, and suppress error, and know not what the true church, or her antithesis is, nor what that truth is that discovers both, they but beat the air both in preaching and practice; or at least their best endeavours bring forth little: wherefore, that we may clearly discern betwixt truth and falsehood, and thereby betwixt the true church and all societies that falsely take the title of it; we shall consider that great city (the subject of errors) which is spiritually called sodom and egypt, where also our lord was crucified, rev. 11.8. for, that city (because the witnesses of christ were killed in it, and christ was crucified in the type of it) must needs be that city of grand impugnation against the gospel-church, by prophets predicted. this city had (conform to its own triplicity) three heads; the dragon, the beast, and the false prophet, chap. 16.13. we shall show, first, what this threefold city is. secondly, what those three heads of it are. thirdly, which of those three heads was the chief builder of this threefold city; or when, and by whom it was built. and fourthly, what the holy city, or true church (contrary to that threefold city) is; and give an account of her: first, as primitive in heaven, and clothed with the sun, till about 407. and secondly, as fled into the wilderness, and trodden under foot by the free denizens of this threefold city. fifthly, we shall show what the epocha's of those three heads, and of this threefold city (all synchronizing with eight others) are. sixthly, we shall give the shortest epitome (if possible) that may be, of the mystery of iniquity, by showing the series of some transactions of those twelve epocha's, for 1260 years. seventhly, we shall give some short rules of direction to judge rightly of prophetical times. lastly, we shall show the great (and that manifold) utility, and necessity of the right knowledge of prophetic and symbolical scriptures; and, therein, of these twelve intervals or epocha's: of these, at first succinctly for the readers more ready apprehending of what he reads: and no more at present; but after more at large. and first: chap. ii. what this threefold city is, or, what those three parts of it are. its first part (spiritual sodom) are sensual loose professors (common swearers, whoremongers, drunkards, etc.) such in all sects, as practise the manifest works of the flesh, gal. 5.19. that disclose their sins like sodom: to wit, such in the antitype as the sodomites were in type, but professors. spiritual egypt is worldly, churlish, uncharitable (but more formal) professors, whose practice is perfidious fraud for filthy lucre; to wit, such in the antitype as the egyptians were in type, but professors: for, egypt laid her grasping talons of sordid tenacity both upon man and beast (even upon that which was the lord's inheritance) from which prey, all the plagues of egypt could not withdraw her. thirdly, the antitype where (or in whose type) our lord was crucified, are proud, persecuting, blind, rash-judging professors; such in the antitype as the pharisees were in type, by whom especially our lord was crucified. sensuality is the sin of spiritual sodom: of spiritual egypt, greedy avarice; truth-opposing pride, envy, ignorance, and seditious discords are the sins of antitype, and apostate salem, in whose type our lord was crucified. chap. iii. what this threefold city's three heads (the dragon, the beast, and the false prophet) are. the dragon is the first head in scripture order. there were two dragons: the first was the representative of pagan rome's * or empire, containing ten kingdoms. decapolity. the second, the principal inductor, and raiser up of papal rome. the first innate in the roman empire; the second a foreign invader of it: the first was imperial under his sixth head, when john wrote the apocalyps: the second was, at first, the military leaders of the armies of those northern nations (huns, goths, franks, vandals, etc.) that (invading the nations of the empire) vanquished most, made all tributary, translated the empire, plundered, burnt, and almost depopulated rome the metropolis of it, about the year 412; and made their own leaders kings over those conquered nations. the first was, for the most part, pagan, till about the year 292, when he began to be bound for 1000 years, from the beginning of the reign of constantius the first: from that time he was interrupted in his reign, till he was cast out of the greatest part of his power about the year 324, at, or not long before, the council of nice, rev. 12.7. he (from that time) continued partly pagan, partly arrian, or otherwise heretical, till about four hundred, and ten, or twelve: and he (his rage increasing all that time against the primitive church) improved that power he had in persecuting of her. but (not, or not long prevailing, and his power railing) * doctor hammond in apocal. 17. he (about the year 400) invocated the aid of the second dragon (the military leaders of those foreign nations of the north) hammond, and salvian (quoted by hammond) calls those nation's barbarians; but i only assert, and shall show, that the heads of those barbarians were the original of the second dragon at his first rising. that second dragon (invited, revocated by the first) came, but did not strengthen the hands of the first, but (in four hundred, and ten, or twelve) swallowed him up: that is, he, then, took away him that had letted the rising up of papal rome, and destroyed him till the thousand years expired, but indeed, for ever. for, as eliah was said to come, when john came, for his like zeal; so this first dragon was no otherwise (after his 1000 years binding) loosed, than in his like persecutors, as the reader may easily observe in the sequel. texts that hold forth this first dragon, are rev. 12.3, 4, 7, to the 13. chap. 17.3, 7, to the 14th. chap. 20.2, 3, 7, 8, 9, 10. the second dragon (that destroyed that first, fallen, and bound before, for ever, as aforesaid) drove also the primitive church into the wilderness (into the secret subterfuges of obscure latency) for 1260 years, chap. 12.14. and gave his power (which he took from her, from the translated empire, and from the falling first dragon) to the (by him first wounded) beast * beast with ten crowns. decadiademick, secular, and papal: but he (by giving his power, the supremacy therein, as aforesaid, to that sea-born beast) had weakened his own kingdom, which the mahometans (by their power) resupported; and loose christians are the more spiritual part, and support of it. here some hasty readers (having no power to stay for full satisfaction in its due place) may say: but when, and how did this second dragon give his seat, power, and great authority to the sea-born beast, secular, and papal? to these, i confess, i am the more ready to return some satisfaction (perhaps sufficient) at present; because never any writers (that i find) have observed that there were two dragons, and, therefore, could never take notice which of those two gave power to the beast; nor did ever any (that i find) observe what that beast was, or when, or how he rose up: but, that there were two dragons, which of the two gave power to the beast, and what that beast was, and when, and how he rose up, will both evidently and briefly appear (though by a somewhat unwilling digress) by this disquisition: an open door also to unfold the more difficult (but most needful to be unfolded) texts in the prophets, and apocalypse will be, thereby, made. and first; i answer: alaricus * oros. lib. 7. ch. 39 hammond chap. 17. (having driven honorius into ravinna) took, plundered, and burned rome, about the year four hundred and ten, or, as some write, four hundred and twelve, and died about the same year at cosentia: him his kinsman, athaulphus, carrion 290. baron. anno 411. succeeded, head over his army, and supreme in italy; he (returning to rome with full resolution to demolish even the rumes of it) was averted from his purpose by placidia, marcel. prosp. helvic sister to honorius, whom he had married: he in her right (honorius being childless) might expect to succeed (as partly by conquest in italy) over all the empire: she (by earnest entreaties) persuaded him to spare the sad remains of that city, and to depart out of italy, spoiled already. this was not (no doubt) her single design, but her design driven on, and owned by the senate, and by a better council at ravenna: he, hereupon (having received further supplies of moneys for himself, her, and his army) marched with her into spain to subject it to himself. ed. hereupon his soldiers slew him, because he had left italy, and therein quitted a certain fruition for a doubtful event, which (without much difficulty, and no less danger) they could not expect prosperous. thus he left, near conquered italy, and taln rome (drunk with the blood of martyrs, and drunk, at that time, with her own blood) to the then newborn beast, secular and papal, whose first head was then wounded with the stroke of a sword, as it were unto death, revel. 13.3, 12, 14. to wit, by the sword of this second dragon prevailing, at the same time, under pharamont in france, and under alaricus in italy. he prevailed not only against the primitive church, imperial rome, and the then falling, and dying first dragon (all which letted, and should let [till then thus taken out of the way] the rising up of papal rome, and of the sea-born beast, her secular head) but he prevailed also (and might easily prevail) against that secular beast, and wounded as it were unto death (in the day of his birth, and when but beginning to rise out of the sea) his first, and best head: for, rome ruled over the kings of the earth; and the senate, with an emperor, ruled both her, and them: but the besieged senate ruled rome (with great grief, and no great power) without bishop, or emperor; and in that feeble, and afflicted senate did this sea-born beast (all wounded as it were unto death, in the day of his birth, by the sword of this second dragon) rise up: for, the city (saith the learned hammond) was divided into three parts (so her antitype was to be near the day of her dissolution, ham. in apocal. 16, 19 chap. 16.19.) one part was pagan, another heretical, and the third part orthodox, but grossly apostate in manners. concerning the heretical part, i observe little; but the pagan, or heathen part, was (for number, and power) most prevalent all the time the city was besieged, until it was taken. id. in apocal 175 sozom. ch. 9 carion. for attalus (a professed heathen) was so high in power, and favour with the people, that he would be caesar, aut nullus, and not be joint emperor with honorius. so was symachus (lieutenant of rome) a pagan; and such was the senate for the most part, which appears in that they sent the said symachus legate to honorius at ravenna, to request that the heathen rites might be restored: thus it appears plainly, that the heathen part was the greatest in that afflicted senate of besieged rome. but that major part, was no part of this beasts wounded head, which was after healed; but the last part of the first dragons last, and dying head, which was never healed, but then went into lasting perdition, apocal. 17.11. for, after two years' siege, and (as i rather compute the time) in 412, were those pagan senators, and imperial rome numbered, and finished. then came her, and their plagues in one day; death, mourning, famine, fire, chap. 18.8. which those barbarians (with barbarous hands) had chiefly inflicted upon those heathen senators, and citizens (that had invited, revocated and confided most in them) and that to their utter, and final excision. but the flying senators, and others (that fled to the sanctuaries of the more orthodox, but apostate in manners) found, thereby, a bare, and hard exemption from imminent death. and these (thus scarce escaped) senators, and, perhaps some others in somewhat like condition, were the visible original of the first head of this sea-born beast, weak and wounded, to be a witness to the truth performed, as was thrice foretold in three sacred texts of scripture in the same chapter, apocal. 13.3.12.14. here the scissors of eternal death, and final excision parted the last dying head of pagan, and imperial rome from the first (at first sick, and deadly wounded) head of papal rome. and i saw one of his heads wounded, etc. and his deadly wound was healed, vers. 3. wounded by the sword of this second dragon: healed (began to be healed) when atholphus (remitting rome, and most of italy, into the feeble hands of that wounded senate) made them temporal lords over rome, italy, and other nations, over which that city (for some time after) claimed some jurisdiction. then also their bishop began to be (partly by the said donation, partly by the senate's assent, partly by his own usurpation) preferred to the largest superintendency. thus this papal superintendent spiritual began to be suited with a fit power secular. for, these (near slain, but surviving) senators were (primitiae papales) papal rome's first fruits, and (though at first most feeble) her first powers secular: because they (and they first) allowed sufficiently their own bishop's supremacy over all bishops and churches, if not over all kings and councils. for, so soon as athaulphus had remitted rome and italy to that wounded beast, his bishop (fallen rome's bishop, innocent the first) returned (but no emperor with him) to rome, and ruled, as by principal authority (both spiritual and temporal) that reviving beast, and likewise rome, and italy, which that second dragon (in athaulphus, as one chief head of him) had given to that almost dying senate. and the dragon gave (began early to give) his seat, power, and great authority to the beast: he continued in giving his power, in several conquered nations, for about 200 years' space; but i may not digress from the matter in hand to insist upon so long a subject. to show when, and how he began to give his power (the supremacy therein) to that beast is sufficient at present. innocent (immediately after his return) claimed (and laboured much more hard, than any had done before him, to obtain) universal supremacy over all bishops, churches, and councils, as plainly appears by his own practice witnessed, and by his own letters (and those very many) recorded by * osiand. du bless host. circa an. 417. augustine, osiander, and others: for, the emperor's absence was innocents' advantage to augment, and exercise a more uncontrolled power: and honorius (a good prince, and orthodox, but of no great capacity to govern) came no more to rome to reside there to the day of his death. for, the romans (at least some of them) are said to hate honorius because he left rome, and went to ravenna, therefore he remained there. * phil. morn. hist. de papal. circa an. 570 and his successors (some having the title of emperors, but scarce the power of kings) made ravenna the place of their residence: rome was never more imperial, but ever after papal. the senate and bishops of rome (in the absence of honorius, and as by his authority) acted many things to further their own designs, and in defence of the church. for, he, and his brother archadius, with their councils (for they had both orthodox, and heterodox councils co-operating to some good) were the two wings of that great eagle (theodosius the great) which were given to the gospel church to flee into the wilderness (into the secret subterfuges of obscure latency) for 1260 years, as from those two texts unfolded, will plainly appear, revel. 12.6, 14. the orthodox (uncorrupt in manners) were (in innocent's time, when the grand apostasy began) very few. the heterodox papal (for i pass by all other sects of those times) were very many: the false doctrine of those heterodox was not then manifold, but very much dangerous to princes, to the primitive faith, to all true professors. * osiand. p. 473. they held that the church was built upon peter, and so upon the pope, as peter's successor: the orthodox held that the church was built upon christ, whom peter confessed. this doctrine of the heterodox was very dangerous to the true church, because a doctrine contrary to the foundation of the true faith, holding the head christ, col. 2.19. secondly, a doctrine dangerous to princes: for, if the church was built upon peter, and so upon the pope as his successor, then all kings, and councils, must submit to him as the greatest; because the church cannot be built upon the greatest of them. thirdly, this doctrine was almost universal in the body of apostasy, and so violent in its course, that the pillars, and chief fathers of the primitive church seemed shaken therewith: for, crediderunt hieronymus, id. & augustinus ecclesiam super petrum fundatam; sed retractantes ambo dixerunt; super petram, christum, quem petrus agnovit: both jerom, and augustine were induced to believe, that the church was built upon peter; but both retracting, said, upon christ the rock, whom peter confessed. this was the doctrine of the pride of the son of perdition, never delivered to the church by christ, and his apostles; a doctrine of blasphemy against god, of deceit to men, of rebellion against princes; a doctrine, perhaps inconsistent with any true church, or sincere professors, but generally held forth, and earnestly contended for (as the chief part of their faith) by papal rome, in the very beginning of the grand apostasy. secondly, the manners of these men, and times, these texts show, rev. 18.2, 5. where they are fitly compared to a cage of every unclean and hateful bird, to an habitation of devils, etc. the reader may also see the learned hammond quoting salvian; also st. jerom, augustine, and others set down in the sequel. innocent's successors added many nations (and italy more absolutely) to the papal decarchy, of which in its due place. here the reader may easily observe both a manifest, and a manifold concurrence of prophetic scriptures with the performances of them; as first, with the final excision of the first dragon, the fall of imperial rome, the profligation of the primitive church; and all these were powerful, and prevailing impediments (till then thus taken out of the way) that letted the rising up of papal rome, 2 thes. 2.6, 7. secondly, with the rising up of the second dragon, by whom these impediments, aforesaid, were taken out of the way; the church driven into the wilderness; her witnesses killed, chap. 12.14. chap. 11.7. thirdly, with the rising up (those impediments thus removed) of the decadiademick beast, secular, and papal, chap. 13.1. fourthly, with the wounding of his first, and best head, by the sword of the second dragon, vers. 3.12, 14. fifthly, with the healing of that head by the second dragon's donation of authority to him, induced to it chiefly by the design and procurement of the false prophet, as will after appear, vers. 2, 3, 12, 14. sixthly, with the primitive church's flight from the face of that second dragon for 1260 years, chap. 12.6, 14. seventhly, with the two wings of that great eagle, which were given to the gospel church to flee into the wilderness, vers. 14. for, all ages (past and to come) cannot possibly afford a time so inevitably necessary and appositely consistent, wherein the two eagles-wings could be given to the gospel-church, as only this very juncture of time aforesaid: these two young princes (or emperors) governed both by bad and good governors, had (which signified the truth of this series of things) this word, or motto, * math. endeaux. summa cadunt subitò; intimating, that the taking away, or fall of him that letted (to wit, rome pagan, and imperial) and the profligation of the primitive church fell out (as in scripture predicted) in their time. a threefold cord is not easily broken: but this sevenfold concurrence of sacred prophecies with the performances of them, (and those performances coinciding in the fame time) may irrefellibly prove the certain commencement of the grand apostasy; pagan rome's final ruin; rome papals aera; the exact time of the rise of the sea-born beast, her secular head; the fixed period when the first dragon finally expired, and second aspired; as also how, and when that second dragon gave (began to give) his seat and power to that sea-born beast: how he continued to give his power in italy, and other nations, for about 200 years, i leave it (as too long to relate here) to its proper place. doctor weames de lathoquar. christ. synag. prophecies, and their performances, (thus concurring) are called (saith weames') parallels, and give (saith he) the greatest light to the scriptures: that is, to the readers of them. to the readers of them; not because they are fulfilled, but known when, and how they were fulfilled: for, all these prophecies came to pass above twelve hundred years since, yet have not given much greater light (so far as i find) to any by their being so long fulfilled, because they were never perhaps in all that time, known whether they were fulfilled, or not, or when, or how they were fulfilled. this may fully refel that common, fond, and wicked conceit of hypocrites, and, too much, of true saints: prophecies (say they) when they come to pass, need no other explication: that's the clearest, fullest, unfolding of them: we shall therefore wait patiently upon god, till they be performed, and then we are sure to find their true and certain meaning. events best show what those texts intent. this is the common plea (not only of some true saints, perhaps, but) chiefly of hypocrites, as it was of their type (the pharisees) by whom our lord was crucified? they expected (still expect) the messiah in future to come, who came before; therefore crucified him come, whom they earnestly desired should come according to the scriptures; which (with due sedulity) to search, they profanely neglected: they had, no doubt (as modern hypocrites have) their prejudices against prophetic scriptures, and in them, against the things that belonged to their peace; might say (in the proud folly of furious jehu) what peace do such scriptures produce? so their antiype (formal professors) have like prejudices of pride and ignorance against the same scriptures, and in them, against those things that principally belong to the peace and prosperity of all princes and people: these can (with like folly) readily say; what peace, what prosperity comes by this kind of knowledge? we busy ourselves about better things, mind more necessary concerns. thus hypocrites harden their own hearts against the knowledge of those things, that chiefly belong unto their peace, and (under a blind pretence of minding the most serious things) embrace (as the pharisees did) base inanimadvertency, and brutish ignorance: our saviour (weeping for them) said of their type; hadst thou known, at least in this thy day, the things that belong unto thy peace: but they, expecting those things (come before) to come in future, never found that day, nor those things: profane disregard to prophetic scriptures, puts out quite all the eyes of providence: so formal professors follow (or rather far outgo) their footsteps; see not (in no wise will see) those things that belong unto their peace: for, formal professors feed their own folly with deceits, affect to walk in the admired sparks of their own fires (empty impertinencies) and (forsaking the means of their own safeties) tread underfoot the things, and those scriptures that principally appertain to the peace of all people. for this profaneness (and it was most just with god) even the gospel-church (as her followers trod under foot this knowledge, those things) was given to the gentiles to be trodden under foot for 1260 years, apocal. 11.2, 3. but, fabula narratur surdis; sacred prophecies (with the promises, and threatenings therein) and the performances of them, are, to formal hypocrites, as stories told to deaf, or dead men: common herds have as good care to know how, or when promises were performed, and prophecies fulfilled: therefore, their forefathers (men of like base, and brutish inanimadvertency) perished, with common herds, in the flood: but they that hate this dangerous, and degenerous wickedness of slothful hypocrites, may (from this contrary fountain) find an open gate to good manners (the surest grounds of firm peace) at present a sevenfold compliance of performances with those texts that foretold the fulfilling of them: and likewise how, and when this second dragon began to give his seat, and power to the sea-born beast. nor are these seven parallels (or prophecies performed) a sevenfold, but indeed, a seventimes sevenfold, coaltern record to each other, irrefellibly confirming the truth of each others performance. this second dragon drove the primitive church into the wilderness, translated the empire, cut off the feeble and dying remnant of the first dragon, raised papal rome by taking away all that letted, and by giving his groat authority so taken (the supremacy therein) to her secular head; favoured somewhat from the first, and by degrees received the faith of the church of rome: therefore, this second dragon is the first head, in scripture order, of papal rome: him these texts hold forth, rev. 11.7. chap. 12.14, 15, 16, 17. chap. 13.2, 4. chap. 16.13. the second head of this threefold city, was papal rome's power secular, or beast with ten crowns: how, and when he rose up we have sufficiently shown; and shall his progress: at present we shall show his disparities (to distinguish him) from the first dragon. john saw that first dragon, chap. 12.3. or the scarlet coloured beast, chap. 17.3. to wit, one and the same dragon, or beast, in those two texts. he saw this beast also, chap. 13.1. but he saw not both alike: he saw that first dragon of pagan rome historically and prophetically (as past in part, and in part to come) when he wrote the apocalyps. but he saw this sea-born beast (not historically, or as past in part, but) prophetically, as to come entire after the fall of that first dragon: to wit, the future rising up of his first head, or him in his first rising, revel. 13.1. and first, he saw that first dragon (or scarlet-coloured beast) historically, or as past in part: five are fallen (saith the text) ch. 7.10. that is, five heads (the supreme powers of pagan rome crowned in their kings, consuls, decemviri, dictator's, triumvirs) were then fallen, or past, when john wrote. and one is, vers. 10. that is, the sixth head (crowned in the emperors) then existed when john wrote. thus far he saw that first dragon historically, or as past in part. so, secondly, he saw also that first dragon prophetically, or as to come in part: and one is not yet come; and, when he cometh, he must continue a short space; that is, the seventh head should come, and came, about 292, when constantius was made caesar, and (somewhat siding with the primitive church) began to support her: his son declared fully for her: this was, divisi caput imperii divisum: the divided head of the divided empire; when some of its supreme powers sided with the primitive church, some with the pagans: therefore, this head (because thus divided) continued but a short space, and ended about the year 324, when constantine and his armies (michael's substitutes) had cast him finally from his seat of chief power, and his place was found no more in heaven, chap. 12.7, 8 etc. howbeit, he recovered power (though not supreme) for a short time. for, lastly, his eight head, who was of the seven (who existed an eighth, but sick and scarce perfect head of that dying dragon) was the paganoarrian (or otherwise heretical) head under constantius the second, julian, valens, etc. this head aspired about 340, and expired (together with that first dragon) for ever in four hundred and ten, or twelve; then this sea-born beast (by the false prophet's procurement, and the second dragons preferring of him) succeeded. secondly, john saw the first dragons ten horns all uncrowned, chap. 12.3. chap. 17.12. but he saw the ten horns of this beast all crowned, chap. 13.1. they (the ten horns of the first dragon) were proconsuls, precedents, or deputies, subject to the senate and people of rome, who ruled over the kings (and chiefly those kings) of the earth, whom, notwithstanding, the text calls kings that had received no kingdom as yet, chap. 17.12, 18. but these ten crowned horns of this beast were absolute kings, or supreme powers subject, legally, to none, but linked together by the chain of the false prophets supposed true catholic religion, chap. 13.1, 12. and this tenfold disparity (proved from the text, and the testimonies (by necessary inserences) of all chronologies of those times) evidently resels that universal opinion (so far as i find) of all expositors upon those places: to wit, that the decacerastick dragon, or scarlet-coloured beast, in the 12th and 17th chapters; and this beast in the 13th chapter, are all one, and the same dragon, or beast; and it irrefellibly proves, that this beast in the 13th chap. is signally different, and distinct from that red dragon, or scarlet coloured beast in the 12th and 17th chapters. this may seem abundantly sufficient to satisfy the reader at present; howbeit, i shall make it much more clear in the sequel. for (until this, and many like gross, grand, and i might say, general mistakes be removed) no apocalyptick true key can possibly be contrived. how the false prophet bicorne rallyed this papal, secular beast's ten kingdoms under him, we leave it to the sequel, where we handle it at large. this beast these texts mention, apocal. 13.1. to the 8th. also vers. 12, 14, 15. chap. 14.9, 11. chap. 15.2. chap. 16.2, 10, 13. chap. 19.19, 20. chap. 20.4, 10. thirdly, the false prophet is the third head of this threefold city. there were three false prophets; the sensual, secular, and spiritual: the first was the pseudoprophetick seer of the second dragon; first, as paganoarrian, after as mahometan, and (in all times of his epoch) over sensual, loose christians in all sects. this seer (ascending with the second dragon out of the bottomless pit, when he sallied out of the north about 406) is not that false prophet intended here in he text: but the bicorne beast is the false prophet here intended, revel. 13.11. whose two lamblike horns are the two false prophets, secular and spiritual. the first horn (or seer secular) was the clergy of the papal decapolity that owned the pope's supremacy over all bishops, and churches, but not over kings and councils: this horn secular was the mouth of the decadiademick beast secular; and there was given him a mouth (saith the text) speaking great things, etc. chap. 13.5. this mouth, or horn secular, was (vinculum unitatis, & catena amoris) the link of amity, and bond of unity betwixt the ten nations of papal rome. i call this horn [secular] because he was given (as a pseudoprophetick prolocutor, or mouth) to the beast secular and papal, for the purposes aforesaid. but, the second (the spiritual) horn was, more absolutely temporal than the former, and elated (in spiritual pretended proprieties) above him: this horn was such of the supreme papal clergy, as owned the pope's supremacy (not only over all bishops, and churches, as the former did, but) over all kings, and councils, and over all that is called god, 2 thes. 2.4. these two horns (or seers secular and spiritual) will be more distinctly apparent in the guelsick and gibeline factions when we come to speak of them. this spiritual horn was both temporal and spiritual, but claimed his temporal supremacy over all powers secular from his pretended spiritual right of apostolic succession, and therefore more properly spiritual. this may suffice the reader at present, to know what is meant by the dragon, the beast, and false prophet; and by their three seers, or pseudoprophetick mouths, chap. 16.13. for, this horn (as spiritual) was the mouth of the false prophet; as secular, was the civil representative of his body temporal. this series (though perhaps sufficiently clear at present) will be much more apparent in the sequel: these texts demonstrate this bicorn-beast, rev. 13.11, to 16. chap. 16.13. chap. 19.20. here is (may some say) a very fair indication of three representatives (the dragon, beast, and false prophet) and it's very probable, that these three are the three heads of this threefold city; only we could wish, that the premises were a little more plain, and the truth apparent; that these three are (undoubtedly, and undeniably) the three heads of this threefold city. i answer; and the great city was divided into three parts, chap. 16.19. there's this threefold cities three parts: and these three heads are (as heads are set above their bodies) set down a little above this threefoold body in the 13 verse of the same chapter; the words are these: and i saw three unclean spirits like frogs, come out of the mouth of the dragon, out of the mouth of the beast, and out of the mouth of the false prophet, for they are spirits of devils, etc. here's a threefold cause (three spirits of devils) of a threefold division devolved (from the three heads of it) upon this threefold body; bodies (by spirits from their heads) receive sense, and motion; and therefore, this threefold body was to be divided into three parts, because those three unclean spirits (proceeding from its three heads) were spirits of devils, causing divisions: for (so the text saith) they went forth to the kings of the earth to gather them to battle, vers. 14. and this influence (as the threefold cause from those three heads) and that threefold effect, or division in this tripolity, proves (by an inevitable necessity) the community of those heads, and this body in a threefold individuum; which we find here (at its dissolution) divided into three parts, as we find it erected of three parts at the first constituting of it, chap. 11.8. i have thus far distinguished and described this threefold city of the grand apostasy, and declared who, and what her three heads were. but (because [contraria juxta se posita maximè elucescunt] contraries compared together, best appear) we shall now show what her antithesis (the holy city, or true church) is, and handle and compare both together, that both may better appear to the reader. chap. iu. what the holy city, or true church (contrary to this threefold city) is, with an account of her; first, as primitive in heaven, clothed with the sun till about 407. and, secondly, as fled into the wilderness, and trodden under foot, by the free denizens of this threefold city, for 1260 years. cain and abel were born of the same parents, in one and the same family; so the true churches antithesis took beginning in the true church at the beginning of the grand apostasy: that apostasy brought forth antichrist sensual, secular, and spiritual, which had long struggled with the true saints (like jacob and esau) in the womb of the primitive church, but were then (about four hundred and ten, or twelve) brought forth. howbeit, antichrist sensual had his head, power, and enlargement from those foreign nations of the north, at the inundation of those barbarians upon the christian world: and those multitudes of military forces (in whose van the second dragon, after 400, advanced to the imperial seat, and overspread the christian empire) cannot be accounted so well any part of the body of apostasy: but revolted loose professors in the church (conjoined in one body sensual with those barbarians) made up the body of antichrist sensual. the five wise virgins slept; the five foolish slept also: so the primitive church, and saints fell; and her (church, and saint persecuting) professors, in her, fell also: they fell, but not internally and totally; but these fell totally to the apostasy of antichrist. the true church, and saints, were the holy city, even then after they were fallen, and whilst they were trodden under foot by the gentiles, chap. 11.2. but her, and their persecutors (falling totally) chiefly constituted (that cities antithesis) this threefold city, called spiritually sodom, etc. that trod and contemned the true church as aforesaid; they, treading her under foot; and she, trodden under foot by them, are, both, distinctly and apparently held forth in the verse abovesaid, as also in the 8th verse, etc. for, these three sorts of professors (the sensual, earthly, and devilish) in all sects, make up the whole body of the man of sin; but they most, that fell from faith, or manners in those ten nations, over whom the representatives of the primitive church once presided; because these nations were chiefly antichristian, that sometimes, held forth primitive found doctrine, and manners, and have since revolted from one, or both, which appears in thes. 2.3. where the apostle (immediately before he describes the man of sin, and foretells his coming) infers a necessity of falling away first before he could come; which evidently implies, that the body of antichrist was to be an apostate body, made up at first (for the most, and chiefest part) of revolted church-members. many expositors upon the place call that falling away, that grand and general revolt of the gospel-church from faith, and obedience. but what that falling away was, and how, and when the church fell, and fled into the wilderness, we shall further show in part, at present, but more fully afterwards. the certainty and duration of that defection (which could not be total in the true church) fully appears in two several texts of one and the same chapter, rev. 12.6, 14. and the woman fled into the wilderness, vers. 6. and to the woman were given two wings of a great eagle, that she might flee into the wilderness, etc. vers. 14. into the wilderness: that is, into the secret subterfuges of obscure latency: and the time of her continuing there is expressed in both texts. two texts (in one and the same chapter) are the sacred twofold testimony of the god of truth, showing the certainty and duration of her defection. but she could not in such sort, flee, until she fell from heaven, wherein she stood before she fled, vers. 1. heaven was her primitive station; her conversation (contrary to that, aforesaid, triplicit iniquity) was in heaven till near about 407. i shall not here stand to show how she stood in, and fell from heaven, in a twofold respect; for her standing was both temporal and spiritual. her temporal standing (for the text refers, not without the other, to that) was from about 292, to the time aforesaid, as the sequel will clearly show. her spiritual standing in heaven (her more heavenly conversation) was all the time of her primitive station: that is, she (as she ever should) held forth so long (contrary to sensuality, covetousness, and pride) sobriety, equity, and veracity. secondly, sound doctrine. thirdly, right church discipline. what sobriety, equity, and veracity (because little looked into, and perhaps, less discerned) are, we shall show afterwards. this threefold true gospel obedience (opposite to sensuality, avarice, and spiritual pride) with right discipline, and sound doctrine are (the true church's cognizance) the certain marks of the true church, which, whilst in heaven clothed (more spiritually clothed) with the sun, she held forth. but (about the year 407) her members and their successors fell, some à tanto, some à toto; they that fell only in part, fled into the wilderness, and were persecuted (because they fell, and fell but in part) by those that fell wholly to the apostasy of antichrist. and we find a third sort, more free from that defection, and less forward to fly, whom the text calls a remnant; and the dragon (saith the text) was wroth with the woman, and went, and made war with the remnant of her seed, which kept the commandments of god, and have the testimony of jesus, rev. 12.17. where they are not taxed either with falling away, or flying, but are witnessed to have kept the commandments of god, and the testimony of jesus; and that, even then, after the revolting church was fled into the wilderness from the face of the serpent; to wit, of the second dragon. these champions of christian courage (sons of fortitude) that kept the commands of god, when the rest of the primitive church were (some in part, some wholly) fallen, might seem (for they were but few) like caleb and joshua, meses and aaron, when all israel besides was fallen away (in part, or in whole) from faith in the promises, and obedience conform to god's commands, numb. 14.10. nor is it like that those professors, that stood best, were free from falling in part, or held out long against the force of the second dragon, but followed the flying church into the wilderness also: for, when the prototype church (jacob's family) fled into the wilderness, and so into egypt (her place there prepared of god) there was not one (that we find) that stayed behind, or fled not from the famine. nor may we imagine, that they that fell wholly to the apostasy of antichrist, fell wholly from sound doctrine (for they fell little from that at first) but from (the fruits of it) obedience conform to faith. for, the devils believe and tremble, but fell wholly from all obedience; and therefore (though they fell not at all, that we find, from the doctrine of faith) they fell totally. so the children of the total apostasy (in the beginning of the grand defection) were too forward to do the works of their father the devil, and (though they, like him, sell little at first from the doctrine of faith) fell wholly from obedience to oppose the truth, and persecute the witnesses of it: therefore, their apostasy (though they fell little, or had not fallen at all from the doctrine of faith) was total, as the figless figtree (though perhaps, the fullest of leaves) was wholly fruitless. for, waters oft ebb and stow with full currents, in the same channels; so sound doctrine is the channel, in which some men may, and do run the ways of god's commands; and sound doctrine is also the same channel, wherein many men (as the pharisees, who said, but did not, did) may, and do run (in full currents) quite contrary courses to impugn the practice of gospel truth, and persecute the witnesses of it. this is the greatest apostasy guilded with hypocrisy: for, if the light of the eye (saith our saviour) be darkness, how great is that darkness? so, if sound doctrine itself be (by uncharitablness) perverted to misapplications, or made to oppose the truth, and persecute the assertors of it; that's the greatest apostasy both from faith and charity; therefore, they that fell á toto, totally fell from faith of veracity, or from seeking after sincere obedience, to impugn it, and persecute the doers of it by a constant current of opposition, though many of them fell little, at first, from the doctrine of faith: for, gross heresies, or doctrine greatly corrupt, are more peculiar to sensual antichrist (such as the arrians were and mahumetans are) than to antichrist secular, and spiritual, that fell less from the doctrine of faith, and perhaps more from manners, to manners not so sensual, but more injust, and merciless, which the sequel will clearly show. but at present, we shall begin to compare both (both the holy city, and city of apostasy) together, that thereby both may plainly appear. and first, they that fell least, and they that (when they fell most) fell but in part, made up that mystical body of the holy city (the persecuted, scattered, and afflicted true church) that was given into the hands of the gentiles to be trodden under foot for forty two months. and those church-members, that fell wholly to the apostasy of antichrist, were the most proper body of that city of apostasy, and the principal part of those gentiles, that trod under foot the holy city (the revolted true church) for forty two months, which (we shall find) are 1260 years, rev. 11.2, 3. wherefore, the gospel church, whilst in heaven clothed with the sun (whilst her conversation was contrary to that triplicit iniquity of the man of sin) was conspicuous because in heaven so clothed. and the reader may observe, that when she (even her witnesses) changed her shining raiment for sable sackcloth, fell, and fled; she (falling but in part) was even then (though much less) distinguishable from apostates à toto, that (about four hundred and seven, ten, or twelve) began to constitute (as the major, phil. mo●h. hist. de papat. p. 2. or chief part of his mystical body) the antichrist predicted by prophets and apostles: wherefore, the lord d● plessis saith, that the man of sin is an estate, whereof the apostasy is the body. that is, not a single person, but (for the most part) a political body apostatical. aquin. in apocal. cap. 13. antichrist (saith aquinas) is a body, or corporation, not a man: that is, not a single person either individual, or successive, but a body politic. augustine (keeping also the conformity of a city) calls him properly (though not so comprehensively under the notion of the beast and his image) * civit as impia, & populus infidelium contrarius populo sideli, & civitati dei, lib. 20. de civit. dei, pag. 1215. the wicked city, and people unfaithful (contrary to the faithful people, and city of god) † qui velut fidem prof●●entur, & infidelitèr vivunt; fingunt se esse quod non sunt, vocant ur que non veraci effigy, sed fallaci imagine, christiani. ib. et in hom. 11. in apocal. pag. 679. who, as it were, profess the faith, and live as they that believe not; that feign themselves to be what they are not, and are called (not according to true, but false appearance) christians. thus we see this learned father makes the man of sin to be exactly the very same that i have done, and gives for substance the same description of him; to wit, that this corporation, or city, contrary to the people of god, are a people apostate (not, or not so much, from the doctrine of faith, but) from manners; not infidels, but (professing the faith) livers like those that believe not; and are only (in a verbal profession, and false appearance) christians. these christians of false appearance (repugnant to the city of god) cannot be, but by a synecdoche partis (as augustine calls them) the beast, and his image; but are in all sects, and nations (chiefly within the tenfold pale of papal rome) both the threefold body, and three heads of this triplicit city of apostasy, called spiritually, sodom and egypt, where also our lord was crucifud. what city or corporation of apostasy this is, this text further shows; and saith, it is a great city, rev. 11.8. none of its type cities, or countries (though all great) could equal it in its dimensions: that is, neither sodom, nor egypt, nor babylon, nor jerusalem, nor rome pagan could ever equal her greatness: they were but single cities, or countries; but this was constituted of ten parts, or nations: and the tenth part (saith the text) of the city fell, revel. 11.13. chap. 13.1. secondly, this city is here further distinguished from all her types; they were but literal cities, or countries; but this is a spiritual city; spiritually called (saith the text) sodom, etc. that is, a mystical corporation (according to those writers record) of wicked ones, who lest, or at least, little seem to themselves, or sensual eyes, to be what they are; and therefore spiritual. thirdly, this spiritual city is further distinguished in the text to be threefold; spiritually called (saith the text) sodom, and egypt, where also our lord was crucified: that is, tenfold in her dimension, but threefold in matter and form: a monstrous chaos of many sects of evil manners: a miscellaneum of a manifold confusion, but all referred and confined in the text, to three more general classes, or orders of professors. these three sorts of professors (conform to the filthy manners of sodom and egypt, and of cruel and hypocritical jerusalem) constituted (as the whole matter of it) the tenfold body of antichrist: nor is there, nor can there be, any other substance or matter in that body, but these three sorts of professors only; for, all that is in the world (saith the apostle, 1 joh. 2.16.) is the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and pride of life. and these are the threefold form of that matter, which makes that matter be what it is. but (may some say) there is more in the body of antichrist than these three lusts; for, the mahometans are filled with infidelity, modern sects with deceits; the jews are fast bound in chains of blindness (though they cannot be accounted, so properly, any part of the apostasy) the present papists surpass their predecessors in unsound doctrine and idolatry; and gross ignorance, and barrenness in good works overspreads almost all professors. i answer; that (though all these iniquities superabound in the body of antichrist, yet) they make, and perfect no more, nor any other than these three lusts; because all sins in all sects, spring from this threefold fountain, and are the very same lusts exerted, or the fruits and effects of them. lust (covetousness) is the root of all evil; therefore, this threefold lust must be the root of all evil in the world, and that most prevalent in (its proper subject) this threefold body. for, spiritual sodom, and her head (the dragon) is the proper subject of the lusts of the flesh, whose works are manifest, gal. 5.19. spiritual egypt, and her head (the beast) is the more proper subject of the lust of the eyes (worldly avarice) whose works are more wicked, and less manifest. the antitype where (or in whose type) our lord was crucified (censorious, proud, blind, pharisaical professors) and her head (the false prophet) is the proper subject of spiritual pride (self-love, self-elation) whose works are most wicked, and least manifest, 2 thes. 2.4, 9, 10. such as the soul is in the body, such is this threefold lust in the body of antichrist; haec tria pro trino numine mundus habet: these three lusts are the trinity (the threefold supreme object) of the antichristian world. for, sensual satisfaction of the lusts of the flesh under loose forms, or the free pursuit of sinful pleasures in some formal way of worship is the supreme object, which spiritual sodom seeks after. and, if spiritual egypt may obtain wealth and worldly preferment to satisfy the greedy lust of her eyes, and may but deeply deceive (indeed herself) by some outward way of worship: this is the supreme object after which she seeks. so, if the antitype where (or in whose type) our lord was crucified (professors proud, and pharisaical) can but have wealth without hand, or heart to use it, and may but obtain (what diotrephes drove at) pre-eminence in churches (though it be by depraving men of parts, or piety, or by taking peace from the earth) this is, as it were, all in the world (the supreme object) she looks after. for, this was her grand design till phocas (not perhaps by free grant) conferred it upon her: wherefore, these three lusts (though linked by a promiscous complication in many professors) are all (the efficient, and object of all wickedness) that is (saith the text) in the world. and, if the spirit of truth assert, that this threefold lust is all that's evil in the world, then how can any man doubt, or dare deny, that these three lusts are all that constitutes and denominates the whole body of antichrist in (their proper subjects, its three parts) spiritual sodom, and egypt, where also our lord was crucified. the premises are also plain in those three temptations wherewith satan assailed our blessed saviour: he (first tempting him to sensuality) said, if thou be the son of god, command that these stones may be made bread. secondly, he (tempting him to worldly covetousness) showed him all the nations of the world, and said, all these will i give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me. lastly, the devil (tempting him to the most desperate lust of spiritual pride, and sin of presumption) set him upon a pinnacle of the temple, and said, cast thyself down; for, it is written, he shall give his angels charge over thee. and why did not the devil tempt him to something more, or by something else, than these three lusts? because there was nothing else, or more to tempt him to, or to tempt him by; for, all that is evil in the world is the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and pride of life: and, therefore, must be all that constitutes and completes the whole body of antichrist. thirdly, the truth of the premises appears in the parable of evil grounds: for, we find three evil grounds (the highway, the thorny, the stony) and no more; because there are no more grounds mystically and truly evil, but only sensual, secular, and spiritual antichrist, serving the lusts of the flesh, the lusts of the eyes, and pride of life; and therefore called spiritually, sodom, and egypt, where also our lord was crucified. for, fourthly, the apostle plainly explicates those former texts by a threefold epithet, james 3.15. the wisdom (saith he) of this world, is earthly, sensual, and devilish. these three epithets, abundantly confirm the truth of this city's triplicity, and also show what i mean by antichrist sensual, secular, and spiritual. and, first, by sensual antichrist, i mean such professors as are profanely loose, carelessly ignorant, or grossly heretical. secondly, by secular antichrist, i mean such professors as are (according to the apostles epithet) earthly; that is (for so the word sometimes imports) worldly, covetous, or earthly-minded professors, whether civil or ecclesiastical. i also oft use it (as it more usually imports) for lay persons, and powers civil, or temporal. thirdly, by spiritual antichrist, i mean such professors whether temporal, or ecclesiastical) as exert, or hold forth spiritual wickedness; to wit, spiritual pride, busy ignorance, bloody faction, blind and rash censures, etc. that is, such in the antitype, as (by such practices) most crucify christ mystical, and kill his witnesses, as their type (the pharisees) were chief of those that crucified christ in person. wherefore, i mean, by antichrist sensual, secular, and spiritual, such in all sects, whose wisdom (or indeed whose lusts) are (according to the words of this text) sensual, earthly, and devilish: and this the reader may observe, as a rule, in reading the sequel of this treatise. all that is in the world (saith john) is the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and pride of life, joh. 2.16. and the wisdom of this world (saith james) is sensual, earthly, and devilish: that is, the threefold antithesis to gospel-truth, and the church of god is sensual, secular, and spiritual wickedness, which (in those three sorts of professors aforesaid) wholly constitutes this threefold city. fifthly, that which confirms, yet more fully, the truth of this city's triplicity, is that threefold division of it, which should forerun its final dissolution, rev. 16.19. and the great city was divided into three parts: these words (well understood) fully prove, that those three sorts of professors are (in opposition to the holy city, or true church) the triplicit matter of this threefold city. this city (called, in the 11th chapter, spiritual sodom, etc.) is called (in this 16th chapter) babylon the great: we shall therefore, further inquire what this city was, and why thus called (in two different texts) by two different appellations. and first, what this threefold city (in the 11th chapter) was (for matter and form) we showed before; and that city (divided into three parts in this 16th chapter) is the same city which we find, in the 11th chapter, made up of the same three parts. nay (say some assertors of gross absurdities) there are but two parts in your supposed threefold city; for, sodom, and egypt, where also our lord was crucified, are but two parts, because but two places are expressed. the folly of this common cavil will easily appear thus: suppose i name two places, and infer a third; as leicester, lutterworth, where also our late king was beheaded: so the text names two places, and infers a third; spiritual sodom, and egypt, where also our lord was crucified: here's the same numeral parity (mutato nomine) of parts, or places. but it were absurd, beyond belief, for a man to say; there are but two places in the instance illated, because but two (leicester, and lutterworth) literally expressed: for, the king was beheaded in neither: but there was a third place (where the king was beheaded) as clearly inferred, as if it had been literally expressed, which place was then the saddest and most direful place of all the three. so, it's no less senseless to say, the city in the text had but two parts, because but two places (spiritual sodom, and egypt) are literally expressed: for, christ was not crucified in sodom, nor egypt; but a third place (both in type and antitype) is as clearly inferred, as if it had been literally expressed: to wit, in the type that bloody city of blind devotion (proud, factious, pharisaical jerusalem) where our lord was crucified: so this antitype city necessarily infers a third (spiritually proud, factious, hypocritical) polity, that (though not primarily) should, especially, crucify christ mystical, and kill his witnesses rev. 11.2. dan. 7.25. but, some (not thus satisfied) say, that city was but one: so say i, so say the texts; but, that it subsisted of a threefold matter, or of three parts, the texts say expressly; and their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city: there that city is but one; but called, spiritually sodom and egypt, where also our lord was crucified. there's the three parts, or threefold subsistence of that city; and the great city was divided into three parts, chap. 16.19. there's that city, in existence one, but of a threefold subsistence employed. some observe, that jerusalem (at the destruction of it) was divided into three parts. the learned hammond observes, that rome imperial was (at its destruction) divided into three parts (hoathens, heretics, and orthodox much apostate in manners: and the text saith expressly, that his city (the decapolity of papal rome) should be (about the time of the dissolution of it) divided into three parts. and why into three parts at its dissolution; but because it was, at first, constituted of three parts, and subsisted of the same three parts, after the constituting of it: to wit, of a sensual, secular, and spiritual matter, called spiritually, sodom and egypt, where also our lord was crucified; because serving the lusts of the flesh, the lusts of the eyes, and pride of life, and misled by a threefold wisdom of worldly folly; the wisdom of this world (saith the text) is sensual, earthly, and devilish. this threefold city subsisted (as the three parts of it) of this threefold matter aforesaid; not distinguished by distance of place (though not wholly without that) nor by an unmixed juncture of the matter, gross, and entire; because commixed (at least in a great measure) by a promiscuous confusion. for example, the composition of pilulae ruffi, is made up of a threefold matter (myrrh, aloes, and saffron) not of each unmixed; but this threefold matter, incorporated, makes one mass, wherein each part hath, notwithstanding, its peculiar propriety, and operation; so these three sorts of professors (the profane, proud, and worldly) made up (as one mass) this great city (the decapolity of papal rome) by a promiscuous complication of all three. therefore, the threefold division of it is, or may be, much after the similitude of that threefold division of rome imperial, observed (as aforesaid) by the learned hammond. we shall examine and compare the threefold subantitype in our saviour's time with its prototypes, and their and its antitypes: and, first, there was then (in judea, and jerusalem) a sensual subantitype-part, whom the proud pharisees called sinners, and our saviour, publicans and harlots: these were (for sensuality of life, and dissolute looseness) indeed sodomites in judea and jerusalem, and agreed well with sodom as their prototype, and with their antitype spiritual sodom, which is only such loose dissolute professors in all sects of the papal decapolity, as (under some careless, trivial form, and profession of christianity, or, perhaps, even without that) follow after sensuality, as the sodomites did: the wisdom of this world (saith the text) is (first) sensual. secondly: a second sub-antitype-part in our saviour's time, was the secular part of judea, and of its metropolis, minding (like literal egypt) earthly things: pharaoh and his servants (to secure that kingdom by contrary means) slew the newborn males of israel (such cockatrice-egs are hatched by covetousness) so herod also to secure a kingdom (an earthly kingdom also) slew the newborn males of israel at the birth of our saviour: pilate and others expressed the same wisdom (covetous self-destroying wisdom) at the death of our saviour: and what was this second part, but egypt plainly sprung up (as a subantitype) in judea: here's the very identity of the same wisdom, the reality of the same works betwixt both the secular parts of these two kingdoms: and this subantitype part (as it exactly agrees with its prototype, literal egypt) agrees exactly with its antitype, spiritual egypt, whose wisdom of earthly avarice hath the same superscription with that of the subantitype in our saviour's time, and with its prototype. this second part seeks (like nabal) worldly gain by that wisdom, and wicked frugality, that produceth indeed (with the loss of their lives, and souls) the loss of it. this second part (these professors of woolf-like wisdom and greedy avarice) are ever very busy in buying and selling; yet will not buy, but sell the truth; or (if they do) will pay no price conform and adequate to the worth of it, nor recompense the witnesses thereof according to their just deserts: come (says pharaoh, when he went about a work of this wisdom) let us work wisely: and these (egypt's antitype) will needs seem more religious and sober, than spiritual sodomites are, and, in buying the truth, can go a wiser and cheaper way to work, till (through the folly of this earthly wisdom) time, truth, and their life are all lost together: the wisdom of this world is (secondly) earthly. thirdly; the third part in the subantitype was the pharisaical part, most blind, proud and bloody: we find the prototype, by our saviour himself, thus expressed: o jerusalem, jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them that are sent, etc. mat. 23.37. that is, the hierusalamites, apostate predecessors (their prototypes in pride and cruel persecutions) killed the prophets, and stoned those that were sent unto them: and their succeeding subantitype (the pharisees in our saviour's time) followed, or rather far exceeded their examples for factious pride, and blind and bloody ignorance: they (by heady prejudices, rash censures, and wicked surmises) persecuted the apostles, killed the saints, and crucified christ the king of righteousness: the same wisdom of spiritual pride works in their antitype the same wickedness, serves to kindle seditions, to create cavils, to multiply contradictions against the truth and its witnesses, and to raise much strife of words to wicked purposes, as their type (the pharisees) did against our saviour; of whom he expressly said (which is rather more true in their antitype) you are of your father the devil, etc. the wisdom of this world is (thirdly) devilish. this third part in the prototypes, and the subantitypes, was most infamous for cruelty: and this third, antitype-part (in all se●s of the papal decarchy) is the most direful impugner of gospel-truth, and persecutor of the witesses of it. but i have spent time too much about this trivial cavil. this city therefore (we clearly see) subsisted (at its first building) of three parts, as it was to be (before or about its final dissolution) divided into three parts. and secondly; it's called spiritually, sodom and egypt, where also our lord was crucified, as an aggregate of all three, in the first building of it: but called babylon in its dissolution, because divided (as babel into speeches) into a confusion of many modern sects and sub-divisions, but chiefly into three parts. that this city subsisted of three parts, is proved sufficiently: but what that city (so subsisting) is, remains to be further proved; which i shall show in part here, but more fully when i come to handle the epocha's of the six vials and six trumpets synchronizing therewith, in 1260 years: for the most judicious writers (so far as i find) are apt (more or less) to mistake this city. the most (or almost all) orthodox writers misconceive that city (in apoc. 17 & 18 chapters) to be papal rome, and the same city in the 11th & 16th chapters; because that city (in the 17th and 18th chapters) is called babylon the great; and that city in the 11th chapter is in the 16th chap. so called also; wherein their gross mistakes may be clearly manifest. for, that city (called babylon the great in the 17th and 18th chapters) was (more properly and literally) the literal city of rome pagan and imperial; because five of her heads were fallen, and the sixth existed when john wrote, which was above three hundred years before the first head of papal rome did, or possibly could aspire: for, intus existens prohibet alienum; it was impossible for rome papal to rise up in power, until pagan and imperial rome (that letted, and should let her rising up) was taken out of the way, as the apostle expressly foretold, and i shall prove from primitive fathers in its due place, 2 thess. 2.7. herein the learned hammond (in expounding those 17th and 18th chapters, to intend pagan and imperial rome) did not much deviate; for they did not intend papal rome otherwise than as that city in the said chapters (to wit. pagan rome) was the penultimate antitype of prototype babylon, and might be (in some respects only) a prophetic shadow of her immediate antitype, rome papal; and shadows and substances are distinct things. but, that city in the 11th and 16th chapters (called also babylon the great, ver. 19) was (contrary to the tenants of many learned writers) rome papal only, without the least relation to pagan rome; because we find it standing under the six vials and trumpets, and falling under the seventh trumpet and vial, whom rome pagan and imperial never reached; and so the most reformed writers, almost generally, maintain: that the transactions of the seven trumpets and seven vials respect papal rome only, though they miserably (if i may say it) confound those vials and trumpets, and transactions under both. but, the epoch of the six trumpets, or (which is all one) of the witnesses sackcloth-prophecy, is 1260 years, chap. 11.3. and the epoch of the six vials of the plagues, and wrath of god, or (which is all one) of the witnesses smiting the earth with all plagues, was 1260 years, chap. 11.3, 6. and the period of the sixth trumpet and sixth vial conterminates (as the beginning of the first trumpet and first vial began) the duration of this triplicit decapolity of papal rome, ch. 11.13, 15. ch. 16.17, 19 therefore, this threefold city of papal rome must have (of necessity) the same epoch of 1260 years, with the six vials and six trumpets; and that more inevitably, because that time is also the express predicted duration of this city (treading under foot the holy city) and of her proper head, ch. 11.2, 3, 8. ch. 13.5. and this may make the premises no less than fully concludent. but, the proper epoch of pagan rome (from the time that pompey reduced judea under its jurisdiction to the dissolution of it) was about 460 years, which are 800 years less than was the epoch of this threefold city: therefore, it follows irrefellibly, that this city (called babylon the great, in the 17th and 18th chapters) must of necessity be the literal city of pagan and imperial rome. but it follows inevitably, that this city, in the 11th and 16th chapters (called also babylon the great) must be the tenfold tripolity of papal rome. nay (say some) that city in 17th and 18th chapters is one and the same city, because both have one and the same names, and are both called babylon the great. i answer: prototype, or literal babel, was called babylon the great, dan. 4.30. therefore that city in the 17th & 18th chapters, and that in the 11th & 16th chapters, must be prototype and literal babylon, because they have the same epithet and appellation; sed faedissima foret inconsequentia: this absurdity is most shameful: for, prototype babel only was, in her time, babylon the great, dan. 4.30. and rome pagan and imperial was (as the penultimate antitype) babylon the great, only in her time, rev. 17.5. & 18.2. and so rome papal (a spiritual city, containing sometimes ten nations) was (and she only in her time) babylon the great, rev. 11.8. & 16.19. this the reader may carefully observe, and seek diligently to discern the distinct intents of those texts to avoid confusion: for such dangerous and universal mistakes in scriptures are the seeds of wicked sedition, of endless dissatisfaction betwixt dissenting brethren, and oppose truth and peace. but all papists, and some reformists, will have all those texts to intend pagan rome only, which is true only in those texts of the 17th & 18th chapters: but those texts in the 11th and 16th chapters, hold forth papal rome only, as we have proved, and shall further prove: therein all papists, and some reformists (though not mistaken in the former texts) are much mistaken. but, secondly; all reformists besides will have all those texts to hold forth papal rome only, and thereby strengthen the hands of the papists exceedingly against themselves, and against the truth: for (say the papists) that city in the 17th and 18th chapters (we are sure) was pagan and imperial rome, which is so clear from the texts, that it's impossible to have the least plea for any just ground against it; because five of its heads were fallen, and one existed when john wrote, which was above 300 years at least (as the reformists themselves affirm) before rome papal was in being. but the reformists themselves, almost generally, confess with us, that all the said texts hold forth one and the same city: and we certainly know (by irrefellible record from sacred scripture and church-history) that the city in the 17th and 18th chapters, was pagan and imperial rome, and we are sure it's one and the same city (for that the reformists themselves confess) with that in the 11th and 16th chapters: therefore that city, in all the said texts, must be (even by the necessary and inevitable concession of all reformists) pagan & imperial rome, and hath not the least relation (though all reformists, confessing it indeed, affirm the contrary) to papal rome: wherefore (not the scripture, but) the reformists (by their mistakes in them) charge us with much falsehood; but the scriptures themselves charge them as their corrupters, and our false accusers: for if all those texts hold forth (as all reformists confess, and we affirm) one and the same city; then that city (we are sure) must be pagan and imperial rome; for those texts in the 17th and 18th chapters, intent (against all contradiction, or any plea to the contrary) pagan and imperial rome. thus the protestants (in a manner jointly and generally) give their power against the papists, to the papists against themselves, and (by these and many like mistakes in scripture) strengthen their hands against the truth: such mistakes (or this only) are enough to maintain the papists (whom they should reprove and refel) in their opinions to eternity. and these, and many such mistakes amongst papists, amongst protestants, and amongst professors different from both, keep back (till they be refelled, and those mistakes removed) all societies of dissenting brethren from concentring in one spirit of truth and peace. but if it undeniably and irrefellibly appear, that those texts in the 11th and 16th chapters hold forth papal rome only, with her subdivisions: then, de illis actum est, their work is done for them: they must be (as he that had not on his wedding-garment) for ever speechless and remain silent: or rather they and their sects, shall (as the text foretold) give glory to the god of heaven, chap. 11.13. benhadad sent bands of soldiers to take elisha in dothan, but they mistook the city, and mistook the man, went to seek both in samaria; and mistook at first that city also: therefore, they were far from accomplishing their master's design that sent them: so the best writers, and expositors, are sent by their great master in heaven, to the great city of confusion (complex of many sects) to convert papists and infidels, to resel errors and reform manners; to convince and unite dissenting-brethrens. but then here's the misery: they mistake this city, or the meaning of those texts that hold it forth: therefore (it seems to me) some of them have cause to fear (till these, and many like mistakes be removed) lest they should fall short of accomplishing their master's design that sent them. here some strong pleaders for gross mistakes may object, and thus say, corah and his company coming to moses, told him he took too much upon him: but we may much better say of you, you take too much upon you, are very bold, too proud, in thus reproving even the best expositors. i answer: it's the strict charge of the living god, thou shalt not hate thy brother, but reprove him plainly: and faithful obedience to this command is the effect of humility, and fruit of charity: but they that hinder or oppose this practice, or reprove fidelity in this duty, seem rather to hold forth the pride of the son of perdition. secondly: nor will i willingly run the hazard of eli's partiality, and only say, it's not well done, it's an ill report, but rather by plain reproof discharge my duty: is the church of god (like joseph's garment) all rent (as by some evil beast) by means of many gross mistakes and errors in opinions, and manners? and is this a time for many (if not the most learned and religious) writers and expositors, to multiply mistakes, to increase errors in opinions and manners, to contend earnestly for them, as if they were the faith delivered, and to corrupt and deceive themselves, and others by persisting so doing. nor do i here denote these few, but many (precedent, subsequent) gross mistakes, which make men not know whether they should be papists, or protestants, or neither; nor are they certain whose dictates to observe, what sect to follow: wherefore do reformists hold papists in suspense? why halt they themselves betwixt pluralities of opinions? let them, at least learn to know their mistakes in opinions and manners, or meddle not with papists: for, till this be first done, they but fortify the papists, and their subdivisions in their errors against themselves, and create discords in, and amongst those that descent too much already: hence it occurreth, that the christian world, and even the church of god, are so dangerously divided, that those divisions threaten to destroy states and churches: full conviction, therefore, in few words, may stand in stead in this sad juncture of time, first seek the righteousness of the kingdom of god, and forms (the strife of these times) must follow: what true forms of godliness (not repugnant to the present government) are, and what the power of it is, will (i hope) both briefly and plainly (in its due place) appear: for (not from, but about these) most, and the most dangerous mistakes arise. errors in opinions and manners are (in their effects) wildfire in the church of god, and governments of men; so these times too truly testify: wherefore, it's the duty of all to endeavour (first and above all) to quench those church and state-consuming flames: so discords may cease, dissenting-brethrens be fully satisfied, firm peace procured to all people: therefore, this endeavour (the more it's contradicted or disowned) is every man's first and chief duty: but if any writers think i do them the least wrong by these reproofs, let them plead; i impetrate no partiality: let them (be they few or many) give their conjoynt objections in writing: but, if any bring more convincing evidence, i shall humbly and thankfully acknowledge my satisfaction from their hand. but, secondly, some may say; that city in the 17th chapter (and that in the 18th chapter is the same) is called mystery, babylon: therefore it must be papal rome. i answer; rome heathen and imperial (chiefly when the orthodox, apostate in manners, were supreme) was called mystery, babylon; because her iniquity, and mystery of that iniquity, increased as the papal apostasy increased, until she was temporally translated in four hundred and ten, or twelve, and spiritually devolved into papal rome: but that this city can be papal rome, cannot possibly be credible to any sensible person (that well considers it) for the reasons aforesaid, and those that follow. but, thirdly; heathen rome (even before apostate christians had the power) might be babel mystical, because she was not literal or prototype babel: and thus also she (in scripture-sense) was, or might be called mystical babylon. but, fourthly; the title and epithet of mystery, was more meet for literal rome, when her apostate christians had power, than for papal rome at her first commencement: because literal rome at last, and not papal rome at first, had the greatest mystery, or deceitful plea, to be the apostles successors in found doctrine and good manners, for their late predecessors had been such: but they themselves were fallen (say the texts and church-history) to be an habitation of devils, etc. chap. 18.2. hieron ad marcel. viduam. idem cont. jovin. lib. 1. et in lib. didianis de spirit sanct. therefore st. jerom himself applieth all those texts in the 17th and 18th chapters (as the purple-whore, mystery, babylon, and an habitation of devils, etc.) to imperial and christian (but apostate) rome, and not to rome papal: and the authority of a primitive father, of so great note, together with the record of scripture, and church-history, may abundantly counterbalance the groundless contrary opinions of all other mistaking writers. for, fifthly; rome imperial and christian, but apostate in manners, was a mystery (a man would think) of more iniquity than papal rome ever was for many ages after her first commencement, because she was (a little before her final excision) fallen to be the mother of abominations and filthiness, (which rome papal, her daughter, inherited) and became (terribilis, miscens sanctis aconita, noverca) no more a nursing mother, but a most cruel stepmother to the then flying true church, and to the chief of the primitive fathers: for, her whole fraternity (to a man) conspired against st. jerom, * ibid. salvian lib. de pro vid. as himself witnesseth; and she became (as salvian testifies) more intolerable for her filthiness, than the very arrians (the worst of sects) were: the harvest of her abominations (her avarice, iniquities, and black conspiracies against the best of saints) was (as rome papals sins now are) fully ripe immediately before her final downfall: therefore theodosius (that great and good emperor) loathing to die upon such a dunghill, lived with st. ambrose; jerom fled (as from a captivity) from her before her approaching fall, and god called his people out of her, lest they should partake of her sins, and receive of her plagues. but, contrarily; papal rome (though mystical also, and called a spiritual city, chap. 11.8.) was called, the place prepared of god to preserve his church for 1260 years, from the rage of the second dragon, chap. 12.6, 14. for, those two texts, in one and the same chapter, are not only a twofold witness in the word of truth, but the experience of ages doth also witness; that there was never any other place, that ever did, or possibly could preserve his church in such sort so long, but only papal rome with her subdivisions: she was more a nursing-mother, than a stepmother, for about eight hundred years, to the gospel-church, a fit place prepared of god for her defence as aforesaid, and ever had, and still hath (which the sequel will clearly show) a reverend esteem for st. jerom as chief of the primitive fathers, whom apostate rome primitive (by joint confederacy) conspired against: therefore, this city in the 11th and 16th chapters (and not that in the 17th and 18th chapters) must be the tenfold spiritual 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or city of papal rome, humbled, and somewhat reform at first (and so prepared of god) by the then late dreadful fall, and translation of imperial and christian apostate rome: i pass by (for brevity in this place) those several joyful acclamations and alleluia's of the church in the 19th chapter, which she expressed in, under, and at the beginning of rome papal, after the fall of christian apostate rome; which alleluia's, as also above 800 years of the first dragon's binding, fell out, and were fulfilled in the first times of the beast, and false prophet papal, chap. 19.20. & chap. 20.4. but the perfect dilucidation of these things (though intelligent readers may at present perceive them) appertain to their due places in the sequel, where we handle them at large. sixthly; this threefold city, and the holy city co-indent in a contrariety: but the court without leave out, for it is given to the gentiles, and the holy city shall they tread under foot, etc. chap. 11.2. the holy city: there's the city of god (the gospel-church) trodden under foot. they (those gentiles that trod her under foot) there's this threefold city, in the 8th verse more fully set forth. both are cities: therein they co-indent. the holy city shall they tread: there's their enmity, or contrariety. this contrariety, and its cause, is threefold. and first, the holy city is contrary to spiritual sodom, in opposing sensuality. contrary to spiritual egypt, in impugning sordid tenacity. contrary to apostate salem, in opposing factious pride and ignorance. this threefold opposition from the holy city, is the sum of all christian duty: herein (or in nothing) must all ministers exercise their preaching, and they, and all saints their practice, for their own salvation, and examples to others. the contrary opposition from this threefold city, is the sum of all iniquity in the tenfold body of the apostasy of antichrist: what that threefold iniquity (because wrapped in the darkest mystery of deceit) is, we shall show in its due place, and so seek to remove many gross mistakes, in manners, amongst all sects, societies of dissenting brethren, and (too much) amongst true saints, that so men may better know how, and what to reprove, or preach against, and a right means to true peace and prosperity plainly appear: for, how shall they preach (the text says) unless they be sent? and we may say (i say not of all) of too many; how shall they be sent to reprove, that know not how to reprove? or to preach, that know not what to preach (know not what manners, what opinions to approve, what to preach against:) by this means deadly strife and discords are built upon mistakes frequently every where; but peace inviolable is not, built upon the pillar and ground of truth. but the holy city or true church, is no literal, but a spiritual city: for her type (the jewish church) was a spiritual, and no literal city, but sometimes scattered in all the 127 provinces from india to ethiopia, esth. 8.9. & 9.30. so her antitype (the holy city, or gospel-church) is no literal, but a spiritual city, scattered in many nations and church-societies: her saints sit down, some in spiritual sodom; some in spiritual egypt, some in apostate salem; some are settled in this society of dissenting brethren, some in that sect. and so her antithesis (papal rome, called babylon the great in the 16th chapter) is no literal, but a mystical city, because called (spiritually called) sodom and egypt, where also our lord was crucified, chap. 11.8. and because extended as far in all sects and nations as the holy city (trodden by her under her feet) is scattered. for, seventhly; this city (say the texts in the 11th & 16th chapters) was a great city; nor sodom, nor egypt, nor pagan rome, nor apostate salem, could ever equal her greatness: literal egypt was a large nation, and the place (to the whole type-church) of her refuge, and defence from the famine: so this city (called expressly spiritual egypt, chap. 11.8.) was also the place prepared of god for the whole gospel-church; her place (i say) of refuge and defence from the face of the second dragon for 1260 years, chap. 12.6, 14. wherefore, as typeegypt was a national city; so this city (antitypeegypt, complex of many sects and nations) is a city of nations, and so the text expressly asserts, v. 9 and they of the people, and kindred's, and tongues, and nations, etc. and nations; and what of them? shall see their dead bodies; where? in the street of this great city, ver. 9 this city (as egypt was a nation) was a city of nations: that those nations in this city were at least ten, we shall show in the sequel. but literalrome (that now is) is (by the estimate of many writers) but the tenth part in extent to paganrome: and it were very absurd to imagine, that rome that now is, (the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of modern writers) but the tenth part (as many modern writers account) of the greatness of rome-pagan, can be babylon the great, or the tenfold body of the grand apostasy. herein, therefore, papists, and reformists are both mistaken: all papists (few or scarce any excepted) misapply all those texts in the 11th, 16th, 17th & 18th chapters (that mention a city) to the city of heathen and imperial rome, and bless themselves in their security, as not at all concerned therein: in those texts of the 17th and 18th chapters they are not mistaken; but much mistaken in those texts of the 11th and 16th chapters, which intent (as we have proved, and i shall further prove) papalrome only with her subdivisions. but, the reformists mistakes herein are twofold: for they misapply all the said texts to papalroom, to which those in the 11th and 16th chapters only (and not those in the 17th and 18th chapters) appertain. their second mistake herein is manifest: for they misapply all those texts to papalroom, and intent thereby rome-literal: but the city (in the 11th & 16th chapters intended) is no literal, but a spiritual city, complex of many sects and nations, as the texts themselves expressly show, and we have fully proved. howbeit, i deny not, that rome-literal (that now is) is one chief spiritual metropolis in the decapolity of the apostasy of antichrist, and may fall by fire or sword like other cities; but the decapolity, or tenfold city aforesaid, is the spiritual city properly intended in the texts of the 11th and 16th chapters, as those in the 17th and 18th chapters held forth rome-heathen and christian, apostate in manners, by whose fall in 412, rome-papal (or this tenfold city of apostasy) rose up. weapons made up of mistakes are powerful means to destroy all those that use them, most dangerous to the true church. such weapons in her hands against papists, or others, will never prosper: let it therefore be her chief care to cast away those weapons far from her. last; these two great cities (pagan and papal rome, both called babylon the great) are further sigually different and distinct: in their times, stated. in the durations of those times. in their sins. in their plagues. in their times stated; the last beginning, when the first ended, about four hundred and ten or twelve. secondly; in the durations of those times: the proper epoch of the first being but about 460 years: but, of the second, 1260 years. thirdly; in their sins: the sins of the first being (for the most part, or until she drew near her dissolution) literal and sensual; but, of the second, more spiritual. and therefore. fourthly; they signally differ in their punishments: for, the plagues of heathen and imperial rome (she being a literal city, and her sins more literal) were literal plagues (as, literal death, famine, fire) chap. 18.8. but rome-papal (she being a spiritual and an expansive city of ten nations) could not be capable of a literal circundation by an army, nor of being consumed by literal famine and fire: her plagues (she being a city of another nature) are expressly set down to be of another kind, chap. 11.13. & 16.18, 19, 20, 21. as by a tenth part of her falling, and the rest glorifying god by sincere repentance, and true conversion, ver. 13, etc. and this city (by this, and all these undeniable demonstrations) is the threesold city of papalroom, (containing many sects and nations) which the texts in the 11th and 16th chapters intent only: but i am ashamed to insist thus in reselling such plain absurdities (though it be some fault in saints) of fond pleaders for errors in opinions and manners: let the reader observe the further refutation of like mistakes, as he finds them in the sequel. this city's triplicity, and what this city is, thus fully proved, irrefellibly proves these truths: first, that the churches antithesis cannot be any one single person, city, sect, or nation; but a threefold politic body, complex of many persons, sects, and nations. secondly, that this threefold city, and the holy city, are synantitheses, or contrary to each other. thirdly, that this contrariety betwixt both consists (on this threefold city's part) in sensual profaneness, worldly avarice, and spiritual pride. and (on the holy city's part) in that sound doctrine and sobriety that brings equity. secondly, in mercy. thirdly, in veracity, or fidelity to keep god's commands (what is possible) without violation: and these three are the three fruits of faith, hope, and charity: for; he, that hath unfeigned faith, feareth god; he, that fears god, is careful to judge, and do (as for and before him) righteous judgement: righteous judgement (the root of obedience) is the more proper fruit of faith: for; the doctrine of true faith teacheth righteousness, and true faith itself lays hold on righteousness unto justification, and (by exerting righteousness) shows forth sanctification. secondly, he that hath true hope, hopeth for mercy from god, and therefore showeth mercy to men: mercy is the more proper fruit of hope. thirdly, fidelity to keep god's commands (the fruit of charity) is umbelicus obedientiae, the bond of obedience and girdle of truth, without which all good works of mercy and equity fall away, and faith and hope have no force: if you love me saith our saviour) keep my commandments: veracity or fidelity (the fruit of love is the keeping or a sincere care to keep god's commands, conform to gospel-rule: this, thus far, may briefly serve (as a synopsis of the body of divinity) to show that the mystery of god, and the mystery of iniquity (with the series and effects of both) are, which the sequel will show at large. it is needful here (before i proceed) to show the evils, mistakes in opinions and manners produce, with the necessity and difficulty of their removal: the removing of them (as the only one thing necessary) is of transcendent utility: for, if god not sparing moses, his friend) would have killed him because he had not circumcised his son, how much less will he spare these that espouse (the real uncircumcision) errors in manners and opinions instead of the knowledge of the truth and practice of is: therefore, not to remove them is most dangerous, the greatest misery; their removal the greatest mercy. the world (saith the text) lieth in wickedness: that is, all its parts and subdivisions (i wish true saints were free from this fault) lie (like birds caught with lime, or jonah wrapped in weeds) in the wickedness of errors, in opinions and manners; therefore the plagues of the wrath of god (the hail stones of his ire) are so vehement, acute, fierce, and frequent; from which plagues (that threaten perdition) they can no way fly, but by removal of those mistakes: little safety to themselves (without that) can they look for; nor hope to have any firm unity, or faithful amity from professors of different persuasions, papists, turks, nor scarce one with another: every man (till missuppositions in opinions) (the seeds of miserable dissension, and perfidious enmity) be removed) must have just cause to fear from all hands, and say perditus ensem haesurum jugulo jam puto, jamque meo: it is therefore high time that men and saints seek to remove those mistakes, that threaten to remove them from the earth. mollis ibi victoria, ubi amor, solâ veritate, vincit. all mistakes (by full and friendly conviction) may be removed, when violence avails nothing; the hardest knots are easily untied by gentle loosening, when pulling hard the cords ties them the faster: this is the means to remove those mistakes, and that the means (the only means) to remove those plagues. but secondly, so great is the difficulty of this christian duty, that few are sound fit to discharge it, therefore whiles many pretend to remove mistakes, they make many, and remove none: for, all professors (few excepted) are wilful (by earnest contending) to defend their errors in opinions and manners, as the strong man that kept the house, would not forsake his holds. therefore the world sits in darkness by means of mistakes: because the written word (the derivative fountains of light) are darkened by them; so that men draw missuppositions for truth, from them, and rather multiply than remove their errors in opinions and manners. the smoke (saith the text) of the bottomless pit, darkened the light of the sun, and the light of the air (possibly the light of reason, and the light of religion) and what was that smoke but mistakes (instead of truth) exalted, that even the scriptures are darkened thereby; therefore, the inevitable necessity of their removal is manifest. but as this christian duty is the chief duty of all (of all ministers and magistrates especially) so the difficulty to discharge it further appears from those oppositions that attend it: if any man (fit for it) does endeavour it, so far is he from finding due assistance, that all envious competitors of pride and ignorance (as corah's company against moses) cry out against him, as one that boasts in vain, seeks praise of men; they tell him he's too proud, and takes too much upon him: for it hath ever been the infallible character and practice of proud hypocrites, to deprave, in (this manner, those men: howbeit, the ingenuous concession of very many (convinced of their mistakes,) i must acknowledge. but the chief strength of all difficulties, in the discharge of this duty, is from the censorious and rash detractions of many of the most learned, and seeming most religious that mistake (of all mistakes the most dangerous) the rash spirit of truth contradicting pride for the spirit of truth, not knowing of what spirit themselves are: for, even they (if any man be fit for this duty) detract (as if they were impatient to abstain from unbridled temerity) from his works before they know them, from his words before they hear them, and from his writings before they read them: so are they too ready to aspire unto that pharisaical pride by which christ was crucified, and fall into the condemnation of the devil; whereas, were they so noble as not to censure before they see, hear, or read, they might possibly find no cause of cavil, nor perhaps of dispute: and this is all i humby request at their hands. the priests of the lord bore the ark upon their shoulders, so should all saints support the truth (which the ark figured) in theory and practice; but (nititur hoc humer is hominum genus) this sort of censorious men (i say not men of any sound judgements) set to their shoulders (not as the priests of the lord to support the truth, but) to cast it down to the ground, and tread upon it, that so (minding the praise of men, and private gain) they may establish their own brain sick conceits for substantial truths: these are men (for the most part) of much confidence, that consider little; men of much velocity in lavish loquacity, whom the multitude admires; too quick to move a question, to make objections; most slow to see, and remove mistakes; men prodigal in endless disputes of verbal impertinency: from these men the most irrational and greatest oppositions arise to retard all hands held forth to discharge this needful christian duty: but he that minds this necessary and indispensible duty to god and man, must not regard (besides sordid neglects) the worst insolences of vile ingratitude, nor many difficulties, i shall therefore humbly endeavour, in this treatise, to remove those mistakes in opinions and manners, that chiefly hinder the true prosperity and unity of all church-societies, sects, and nations. chap. v. which of those three heads of the aforesaid threefold city was the chief builder of it; or when, and by whom it was built. the founder of it was the false prophet: for the times and the laws (saith daniel) were given into his hands, chap. 7.25. that is, dominion over all powers spiritual, and over the potentates of the earth was given him, therefore he was the fittest, and most able to be the master builder of this threefold mystery of iniquity. he began to build about the year 407, and had brought his fabric to a good forwardness (had almost finished it) in 607. the threefold matter of which he made it, what it was we showed before, and likewise its threefold form: of that threefold matter (sensual, worldly, and proud professors) he made antichrist sensual, secular, and spiritual in the once decapolite pale of pagan rome, and brought all those three into one great city, called (saith the text) spiritually sodom, and egypt, where also our lord was crucified. he also bound the three heads of it (the dragon, the beast, and himself) in a seeming firm bond of deceitful amity: connubio aajanxit stobilitria numina mundi: he bound antichrist sensual, secular, and spiritual, and those three heads of their triplicit body (as it were) in a bond of wedlock: the tenure of that obligation was the false prophets supposed catholic religion, confirmed by many dreadful, false miracles; doctrine, for the most part, fundamentally sound, but shallow (carelessly, contentedly shallow) and by his peremptory claim of priority from his pretended right of apostolic succession. the premises are plain: first from scripture, rev. 13.12. and he causeth the earth and them that dwell therein, to worship the first beast: for, that beast (next himself the head cornerstone) was the strongest support of his city of apostasy; therefore it follows, and he deceiveth them that dwell upon the earth by means of those miracles, which he had power to do in the sight of the beast, ver. 14. that beast was the seven headed hydra of rome-papals power secular, that bod ten horns; and all (though not at first) crowned, rev. 13.102. he causeth (saith the text) the earth to worship the first beast; to wit, that beast, that is, he ●new by deceit them that dwell upon the earth ●as supposed living, but indeed dead stones) into the building of this threefold city, and made that ten crowned beast (though he intended himself supreme): secular head of it: for, what was this unity or grand faction of iniquity (thus wrought by the false prophet's deceit, upon those that dwelled upon the earth) but the tenfold body on apostasy, which the false prophet built by rallying the nations through his lying miracles, which he wrought in the sight of the first beast: thus, and by this means, chiefly did the false prophet build this threefold city, as it appears plainly from scripture, and will no less appear, in its due place, from church-history. he also (by that beasts joint help) built this city, therefore the text saith: and he deceiveth them that dwell upon the earth by means of those miracles which he had power to do in the sight of the beast: and why in the sight of the beast, but that he might be assisted by him? the three heads were co-assisting this building, the dragon afforded matter and power, the beast was the magazine of both, and made (by the false prophet) the instrument to use that matter, and power to perfect this threefold city; the false prophet was the master builder of it: for, the dragon (by the false prophet's procurement) gave his power and authority (the supremacy therein) to the beast: and the false prophet was the disposer, or chief orderer of it, that he might usurp power over all unto himself; therefore, he sought to strengthen that beasts hands exceedingly, subjugating by deceit the nations under him: and therefore the text saith, he deceiveth those that dwell upon the earth by means of those miracles, which he had power to do in the sight of the beast: miracles were for confirmation of doctrine, and to ratify the offices and messages of prophets and apostles, exod. 4.5, 8. heb. 2.4. so the false prophet's miracles terminated (as in their next and immediate effects) in the deceitful confirmation; first of his message, and next of his seeming, sound, or somewhat fundamentally sound, but shallow doctrine, which was (though homousian, and so far fundamentally sound) both carelessly corrupt and shallow. and first, to confirm his pretended apostolic message to them that dwelled upon the earth, that he might build the nations in the political body of his beloved city, and make them (by deceit) the matter of it; therefore the false prophet pretence to be sent to preach (for how should he preach unless he were sent) was one principal means, at first (and in all his sects) whereby he deceived them that dwelled upon the earth: and this means (his supposed message or pretence to be sent to preach) is the first means in order, whereby he deceived them that dwell upon the earth, and built this city. the second means was (the next, and immediate end of his pretended message) his doctrine of deceit, which was somewhat fundamentally sound (as we showed before) but carelessly corrupt and shallow: for such doctrine served best to make him deceive, and be deceived. the third means (and that in order to confirm both his message and doctrine, was his false miracles: and he deceiveth them (saith the text) that dwell upon the earth by means of those miracles etc. where we clearly see, that the spirit of truth asserts: that the false prophets chiefest power to deceive the nations was (as the fountain of deceits) in his false miracles: for, the text saith not; he deceived them that dwell upon the earth by his false doctrine, or pretended message (though he did that by both) but he deceiveth (saith the text them that dwell upon the earth by means of those miracles, etc. every simple impostor can deceive by unsound doctrine, but these miracles which the false prophet wrought, were (as it were) miraculous deceits: those miracles, what they were, and when, and how wrought, we shall show afterwards. them that dwell upon the earth: there's the matter of this threeforld city's building. and he deceiveth them, there's the manner and chief means (in his apostolical pretence, doctrine, and miracles) by which he built this threefold city. he (the false prophet) there's the master-builder or it. and, if he had power, in such sort, to deceive them that dwelled upon earth, and could thus compel, frame, and mould the nations by deceit; then he must needs have power to deceive the second dragon; did deceive him, caused him to accord with the wounded beast, and give him his power; and caused both to communicate, or consign their powers to himself, rev. 13.2, 4. dan. 7.25. for, there were two dragons as we showed, and shall after more fully show: the first was rome pagan's power secular till about 324, when his former might was much abated: but he retained some strength till about 412. the second dragon was, at first, the prevailing power of the nations of the north, that began to translate rome imperial about the year 407. this second dragon (by his military achievements, and enrichments thereby) became the fountain of power to papal rome, and a free dispenser of it: for, he gave his power, seat, and great authority (the supremacy therein) to the (by himself wounded, but after decadiademick) beast secular, and papal. but the false prophet, that seduced the nations, deceived this second dragon, opened his mouth of deceit (and the earth opened, saith the text, her mouth) and swallowed up that dragon's mighty flood, chap. 12.15. he in some sort swallowed up that dragon also: that is, he (the mouth of the earth, or oracle of that mouth) drew by deceit that dragon with his forces, and nations, to embrace the unity of the church of rome, which was chiefly done from about 407, in the space of 200 years. he gave (but the false prophet persuaded him to give) his seat and power (the supremacy therein) to the then rising beast secular, and papal, and persuaded both to give, or submit unto himself the pre-eminence of power: for, the first five hundred years (after the false prophet began to put his deceitful hand to this wicked work) were times of reciprocal donations, and receptions of great gifts to, and from the dragon, beast, and false prophet, and from those that dwelled upon the earth: and so the text saith expressly, rev. 11.10. and they that dwell upon the earth shall send gifts one to another: as we shall also amply show (in its due place) from church-history: therefore, those gratifying times, by sending gifts one to another, were the false prophets chief edifying times, wherein he was most successful in building by deceit, this threefold city: for, as christ (that prince of true prophets) built his church upon the sure rock of truth; so, this false prophet bicorne, built her antithesis (this threefold city) upon the seeming rock of false appearance and deceit. and, that it was the false prophet that built this city by deceit, the text expressly tells you, chap. 19.20. where this grand master of false miracles is expressly called, the false prophet that wrought miracles before the beast to deceive: he had the unhappyness to tie (not the true-love-knot of christian charity, but) ternos, tribus nodis, colores, three heterogene twists in a threefold cord of wickedness. that threefold twist was begun (but weakly begun) about the year 407. but, about the year 620, it was a threefold cord not easily to be broken: then the false prophet seemed somewhat to slack his hand: that work never went on so well after: but about 250 years before atropos should cut that cord by a final excision) it began to be divided into three parts, and much raveled into modern sects: into three parts, perhaps papists, turks, and dissentors from both: and the great city (saith the text) was divided into three parts. lastly, to these arguments, and scripture evidences (sufficiently proving that the false prophet was the master builder of this threefold city) we shall add church history for the full, and irrefellible proof of it: but that would take up more time, than i can spare otherwise then in its due place. chap. vi what the epochaes of those three heads, and of this threefold city (all synchronizing with eight other) are. we shall first unfold the meaning of the word (epoch) because some may except against the usual acceptation of it. aera, epoche, olympias, lustrum, etc. are computations of times. lustrum is not the first year of five (though that be the beginning of it) but the space of five years. olympias pro quadrennio usurpatur, is the space of four years. aera significat numerum computum, & propriè terminum a quo numeramus, is the computation of time from its beginning, but, more properly, the beginning of it. but epoche is a word, literally, of a much fuller expression, and signifies not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, principium (though it comprehends that) but is the time of any thing from the beginning to the end of it. epocha (say some) ab 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, retinere, sistere, is the retention or duration of the time of a thing. epocha (saith another) intervalla dicuntur, quòd in illis sistantur, & terminantur mensurae temporum, are the spaces betwixt two termini, which (as the first, and last parts of those epochaes) begin and end the durations of them. epocha apocalypseos (saith mead) sive statueris principium, etc. if they have a principium, they must have a period, and consequently an interstitium of time betwixt both: i might make the like irrefellible inferences from many authors, that thus take the word for two termini, and the duration of time betwixt both: and thus i take the word (epoch) especially, because it serves best to explain my meaning in this treatise. the intervals, or epochaes, i shall here insist upon, are in all twelve; and all twelve synchronize in the same duration of 1260 years: we shall first propose, or nominate all, and after prove them. the first, second, and third epochaes are of the dragon, beast, and false prophet (that cities three heads) and are proved from these texts, apocal. 16.13. chap. 12.14. ch. 13.5. dan. 7.25. chap. 12.7. the fourth is of that threefold city of the same duration, and is proved from those texts aforesaid, and sundry others. the fifth is of the church's flight and defection. the sixth is of her duration in her place prepared of god: and these two epochaes (which mutually unfold each other) we shall prove from thes. 2.3. rev. 12.1, 6, 14. the seventh is of her being trodden underfoot of the gentiles, proved from rev. 11.2, 8, 9, 10, 11. the eighth is of the death of the witnesses (not so killed, but as they might prophesy in sackcloth all the time of their lying dead) which we shall show from rev. 11.7, 9, 11. and from other texts. the ninth is of the witnesses prophesing in sackcloth, proved from ch. 11.3, 6. ch. 12.6, 14. the tenth is of the sounding of the six trumpets, proved from the texts aforesaid, and ch. 10.6, 7, etc. the eleventh is of the pouring forth of the six vials, proved from rev. 11 6. ch. 16.17. the twelfth of the restraint of spiritual rain, proved from ch. 11.3, 6. luke 4.24. james 5.17. lastly, we shall give an epitome of the denominant matter, and transactions of these twelve epochaes for 1260 years. all these twelve epochaes are of a longer duration, by above a 1000 years, than any type-interval that i observe in sacred scripture; and all twelve are longer (by above 800 years) than the proper epoch of pagan rome, or of the first dragon: therefore, all these twelve epochaes must of necessity appertain to the transactions of papal rome, as we shall instantly show. we shall also (in few lines) labour to make the premises so plain, both from those texts, and church-history, that the judicious readers may rightly judge them fully concludent: for the miseries of men and saints surpass all sorrows in this particular; that they halt betwixt pluralities of opinions in this threefold dark labyrinth of errors, and are scattered into sundry sects: and what may redress, what means may remedy those dreadful miseries? i answer, the full manifestation of these epochaes in the true series of the matter of their denominations, may be (silum certissimum) a most sure guiding thread out of this threefold furnace of afflictions, and abyss of intricate evils. nor need it be thought impossible to prove them all; nor perhaps to make them fully concludent: for god hath ordained two lawful witnesses to establish every truth; and two testimonies, for each epoch, from sacred scripture, may make them fully concludent, which are the fewest we find for each: howbeit, we shall (in the sequel of this treatise) reduplicate this double testimony (of itself sufficient) by ample church-history of consonant record. full mouthed men (the least in force) we fear not much, nor the floodgates of rash and railing folly, nor do we much dread that mis-applyed assertion [scriptura symbolica non est argumentativa] which some are pleased to abuse to blaspheme the scripture: what the right meaning of that saying is, we shall show afterwards; but i return. we shall speak of this threefold body, and of its three heads conjunct, because they are necessarily, concurrent in their epochaes. this threefold city (being the triplicit body of those three heads, the dragon, the beast, and the false prophet) must have with them the same epoch: for bodies, and their heads are so inseparable; that when either ceaseth to be, both discontinue: but the second dragon's duration (and he's the first head of this threefold city) was to be 1260 years, as will clearly appear from rev. 12.6, 14. therefore this threefold body politic must have the same epoch: but here i must further distinguish betwixt the two dragons; because their far different epochaes clearly distinguish betwixt both, and (excluding doubt) denote irrefellibly, that there were two. i have oft before briefly hinted, that there were two, but shall here (as in its more proper place) fully prove it, and clearly distinguish betwixt both. the first was roman; the second, at first teutonick: the first was originally pagan; the second (when he first invaded the primitive church, and vanquished her witnesses) was paganorian, after a papal, than mahometan: the first was the head of pagan; the second the raiser up of the first head of papal rome: without the first, pagan rome had never been; without the second, papal rome (as a body is not brought forth without an head) had not been born: for, he (her first head in scripture order) took away him that letted her rising up, thes. 2.7. that is, he translated rome imperial about the years four hundred and seven, ten, or twelve; drove the primitive church into the wilderness, killed her witnesses, and then took away the weak remnant of pagan rome by a final excision; all which letted (till then thus taken away by this second dragon) the rising up of papal rome. and when the time of those two parents (the earth, and the sea) was come to the birth, and there was no strength to bring forth the bicorne, and decacerastick beasts papal, then did this second dragon (though he wounded both those infant, new born beasts with a sword) give power to their two parents to bring them forth by affording what furthered (in that grand design) their sick desires: for he took away all that letted, and filled other nations of the empire (besides italy) with his armies, that they could not hinder it: he also gave strength and means of growth to those two parents (by him first wounded) offspring: for, he gave his power (the supremacy therein) to that decarch secular, and papal, whom the sea brought forth, and likewise power to the bicorne beast, rev. 13.2, 4. ch. 11.10. dan. 7.25. that is, he (immediately after he had taken and burnt rome) lest the ruins of it (with italy almost ruinated) to the wounded beast and false prophet papal: for, honorius (that good emperor, though a man of no great gifts) durst not, at least did not reside any more at rome: and that second dragon (in some process of time) consigned his kingdoms to the false prophet's care, embracing himself the unity of the church of rome: he, several ways, and at sundry times, gave his seat, and power (which he took away from those he took out of the way as aforesaid) to the beast, and false prophet: wherefore. he that is taken out of the way, and he that taketh him away, must needs be two: but the first dragon, and imperial rome (that letted the rising up of rome papal) were taken out of the way: but he that took away the first dragon with rome imperial was this second dragon, 2 thes. 2.6, 7. rev. 13.24. which also church history hath confirmed and will more fully confirm; therefore there must be inevitably two dragons, the second taking away the first, and the first taken away by the second; which also we find apparent from reason, scripture, and church-history. the first we find in heaven, and we find the woman (the gospel, and primitive church) in the same heaven of power at the same time, rev. 12.1, 3. but she had not (at her first ascending into that heaven of authority) such full power as that first dragon had: for, he stood before her (in the time of constantius the first, and in the beginning of constantine's reign) to devour her child so soon as it was born, ver. 4. that is, to destroy every man that might (as a christian prince, emperor, or magistrate) defend the church. the woman, or gospel church, was then in heaven in a double respect, or in a twofold acceptation of the word, heaven; but the dragon only in a single acceptation of it. and first, the word heaven holds forth an holy conversation; and, in this acceptance of the word, the church was then said to be in heaven (shining in the splendour of her primitive graces) and not then fallen from heaven, nor fled into the wildernesses, where her good works were much more dark, and less visibly conform to gospel rule. secondly, she (not only had her conversation in heaven, but) was ascended also into the heaven of power, and authority in the roman empire, and sat upon part of that dragon's throne whereon that dragon sat supreme; and, in this respect, both she, and that first dragon were said to be in heaven; that is, in the heaven of high power, and authority in the roman empire: for, in that heaven of an holy conversation with the true church, that dragon never was, nor could be: his conversation was not in heaven, but quite contrary to her heavenly conversation: nor was he in heaven: that is, (as some assert) in the true church: for, both the church and he are said to be in heaven, and he not in her, or for her, but before, and against her: but he was in heaven, that is, he inhabited the heaven of high power, and authority in the roman empire, and was far above the primitive church at her first arrival into this heaven: for, we find her there crying, travelling in birth, and pained to be delivered, that she might bring forth a manchild (a christian magistracy, or power secular) to protect her from that red dragons bloody persecutions; and we find him standing before her to devour that manchild, or christian magistracy, should she produce any: but she brought forth a manchild saith the text: that is, a christian power secular, and military (michael's substitutes) that overcame that dragon and cast him out, so as his place was found no more in the heaven of supreme power and authority in the roman empire. he strove various ways, and at several times to regain his place; regained some power, but his place was found no more in heaven: he had some power for a very short space, power to persecute the church, but prevailed not: he never after arrived to supreme power in the roman empire, but was, soon after, deprived of his being, and, (about 412) cast into the bottomless pit forever: by this it may plainly appear impossible that this dragon should give his seat, and power to the beast secular, and papal, when he himself had none to give, and when that beast was not in being, who existed not till that dragon (that letted, as the text saith, his rising up) was taken out of the way: but the dragon (saith the text) gave his seat, power, and great authority to the beast: therefore that was the second dragon. but, for the readers irrefellible eviction, we shall consider the patterns, or prophetic types, and compare them with their antitypes: and first, we find the type-woman (the jewish church primitive, jacob's family) in heaven, adorned by an heavenly conversation, having the sun, moon, and twelve stars her lights, and guides, gen. 37.9. so we find her antitype (the gospel church primitive) in heaven also, having the sun, moon, and twelve stars her lights, and guides, rev. 12.1. thus we see, that the prophecies of the old testament (even in genesis) were not finally fulfilled (as some affirm they were) at the death of our saviour, or at the destruction of jerusalem, but, signally, echoed forth future transactions far beyond those times; but of this we shall give (after a short progress) full proof. the type-woman (jacob's family) was (as it were) ascending into the heaven of power, become more mighty (saith pharaoh) than the egyptians: therefore, that dragon (for so the scripture calls pharaoh expressly; the dragon ezech. 29.3.) stood before that woman to devour her manchild: and this dragon of rome pagan (that dragon's antitype) stood before the woman (the gospel, and primitive church, ascended into the heaven of power) to devour her manchild also, so soon as it was born, rev. 12.4. the type-dragon (pharaoh with his servants) were cast out of their heaven of power into the sea; sank as a stone in the mighty waters; the sea covered them for ever, exod. 15.10. so (his, and their antitype) this dragon of rome pagan with his angels (servants, and officers) were cast also out of their heaven of high power (as a great millstone cast into the sea) into the bottomless pit for ever more, rev. 12.9. ch. 18.2. ch. 20.3. the type-dragon, pharaoh (thus sinking himself for ever) had then no seat, or authority to give to another: and this dragon of pagan rome (his antitype) thus sinking for evermore, had no seat, power, or authority to give to the sea-born beast secular, and papal, who also existed not till after that dragon fell for ever as aforesaid: thus we see the prophetic type (pharaoh with his servants) is so apposite to its antitype (the first dragon, and his angels) that it seems a real, and literal relating of it: both perished without power; both had not to give; both did not give the least power to any other: but the dragon gave his power and great authority to the beast, rev. 13.2.4. therefore that was the second dragon. we shall now examine another pattern, or prophetic type, and compare it with its antitype: how art thou fallen from heaven, o lucifer, son of the morning? how art then cut down to the ground, isa. 14.12. who was this that thus fell from heaven, and who was thus cut down, but only the representative of the kingdom of babylon? and from what heaven did they thus fall, but from the heaven of high power, and authority in that kingdom? and this dragon of pagan rome (the representative secular of subantitype babel, rev. 17.5.) was cast down from heaven unto the earth, chap. 12.8. and what was this heaven, out of which he was thus cast, but the heaven of high power, and authority in the roman empire: and thus mead, and most expositors expound the word heaven, in those texts, to be high power; and authority; and, indeed, those texts thus explain themselves: this was that heaven of power, wherein this first dragon stood, when he stood before the woman to devour her child: for, in any other heaven, he could not stand with the primitive church. and how did type babel, with her secular head, fall from this heaven of power? and how did her penultimate antitype, or subantitype (rome pagan) and her head (the first dragon) fall also from the same heaven of power, and authority, unto the earth? i answer, type babel, and her head secular, fell from that heaven, when she fell into the hands of cyrus, that subdued both her, and him. and subantitype babel (rome pagan) and her head (the first dragon) fell also from their heaven of power, when they fell into the hands of constantine, and his armies (michael's substitutes) that conquered both her, and him about the year 320. but type babel, and her captivated head, rebelled in the days of darius hystaspes, heylyn goeg. for twenty months: but she, and her fallen head (by that robellion) fell lower from heaven unto the earth: for, her rebels, in her, slew the women of that city, that they should not hinder them in their designed work; ●rog. pomp. ap●d justin. lib.i. and sopyrus (by a policy cruel to himself) betrayed the men into the hands of hystaspes: so she (as a further progress to her final depopulation) lost very many both of her men and women: she (raising that rebellion to regain her place) was exceedingly weakened thereby: it quite broke that conquered power, which she had in pieces and her place was found no more in heaven. so, the first dragon (the then fallen head of subantitype babel, or rome pagans sudued representative) rebelled also against the gospel church, and her masculine offspring, that had subdued him: he persecuted the woman (persecuted her, chiefly, under the form of an arrian in the time of constantius the second, julian, valens) but prevailed not; the primitive church prevailed against him, and his place was found no more in heaven. but: thirdly, seleucus (after type babel, to her own utter ruin, heylyn geog. had rebelled as aforesaid) drew five hundred thousand of her citizens out of her, to inhabit his (by him new built) selusia: wherefore; as cyrus drew her river dry, and so subdued that city at first; so seleucus (draining that city of her inhabitants) brought her to the next door to eternal desolation, which soon after followed: for, the place where she formerly shone like a refulgent star, was a forest, where the kings of persia used to hunt in st. jeroms time: how art thou fallen from heaven, o lucifer, son of the morning. and so; when the first dragon (the captive head of subantitype babel, or pagan rome) had rebelled against the gospel church, and his victor, her manchild: then he, and his angels (falling the faster from heaven for that rebellion) were cut down to the ground: for, the church's eagles of high power in the roman empire (the orthodox emperors, valentinian, and theodosius, with his sons) bound him (the more for that rebellion) with cords which he could not cast from him, and with strong chains (their strict edicts against arrians, and heathens) which he could never break: therefore (thus begirt with the bands of eternal death) he besought the second dragon (the barbarians of the north) to pity his deplored estate: that second dragon (mindless of his miseries) came about 407, and (about 412) trod his feeble and dying remnant under his careless feet: thus died that dragon (poor as codrus) not having any inheritance, nor heir to inherit. but the dragon gave his seat, and great authority (the supremacy therein) to the beast; therefore that was the second dragon. that beast secular, and papal, blasphemed them that dwelled in heaven, rev. 13.6. by heaven there, is meant the heavenly conversations of saints, whom that beast blasphemed. rejoyceye heavens, and ye that dwell in them, chap. 12.12. there; by heaven, is meant (not only the heavenly conversations of saints, but) the high power, and authority of the primitive church, prevailing against the first dragon, and possessing his throne of power, and authority in the roman empire, out of which heaven of power he was cast as aforesaid: for, he had no other heaven, held no other: that was his only heaven in which he was, where, and when, john saw him in heaven. and this was that heaven, in which the primitive church stood with him (when he stood before her) and was there without him (after he was cast out) when her manchild or secular head, sat sole monarch in the throne of the roman empire. but rejoice ye heavens, etc. by heavens here, is more especially, meant the western empire and churches, that were more heavenly minded, more orthodox, and more fruitful in good works (conform to gospel rule) than the eastern churches were, who were much more corrupt with heresies, arrianism, and evil manners; and therefore (as they scarce could be counted true churches, and so called heaven) were called the earth, and the sea: woe unto the inhabitants of the earth, and the sea: for; the devil is come down to you, having great wrath, because he knoweth he hath but a short time, ver. 12. for, that first dragon (acted by the devil, and therefore called the devil) got by rebellion, so much power (for a short space) against the inhabitants of the earth, and the sea (egypt and the east empire) as to persecute many precious saints in those infimous out-places, that less regarded the truth of the gospel in doctrine and manners: socrat. but he prevailed not (or very little) against the western churches, who were much more sound in fa●●● and manners, and, therefore called heaven: rejoice 〈◊〉, and ye that dwell in them; woe unto the inhabitants of the earth, and the sea, etc. but; of this i have written at large in my tract against chiliasm. this first dragon thus prevailed (under his eighth and last head, and, chiefly under the form of an arrian) against the inhabitants of the earth, and the sea (egypt, and the eastern empire) from the death of constans to the death of valens, about 18 years: then was he bound (as we have shown before sufficiently) by theodosius, and his two sons with a new recruit of chains so straight, that he could scarce breathe, or rather must breathe his last: then (seeking aid of the second dragon) that dragon came, but did not succour him (sad, poor, dying, distressed) but destroyed for ever (about 412) the feeble relics of him: therefore, this first dragon had not then, nor long before, any free power, seat, or authority: but the dragon gave his seat, etc. therefore that was the second dragon. the first dragon was draco devictus, a dragon subdued by a woman: she overcame him by the blond of the lamb, and the word of her testimony, ch. 12.11. but this second dragon overcame that woman, drove her into the wilderness, killed her witnesses: to wit, about four hundred and seven, ten, or twelve, when their testimony (by which they overcame the first dragon) grew (at least in works) weak, or in the words of the text) when they had finished that testimony, ch. 11.7. ch. 12.14, 15, 17. the first dragon was an * a native born. indigena in the roman empire; the second an † a foreigner by descent. alienigena from the north: rome pagan was the last, clearest, fullest type of the antichrist predicted by prophets and apostles; rome papal was the antitype, or substance shadowed forth by many types, but (last and above all) by pagan rome, whose head the first dragon was, as the second was the first head in scripture order (because the raiser up) of papal rome. but, before i proceed, i must first resell sundry opinions of many learned writers: for some affirm, that all prophecies under the law were fulfilled at the death of our blessed saviour, or at the destruction of jerusalem: so they cut off the prophets from giving testimony to the apostles, and the apocalypse. secondly, some affirm, that all the prophecies in the apocalypse (except the dragon's binding for 1000 years, whom they also except in vain) were fulfilled about 412, at the excision of rome imperial: then there can be no second dragon, beast, or false prophet commencing then; and then this (if not the whole) design of the apocalypse may seem a dream: i must therefore take away, of necessity, these cardinal obstacles, in the way of my progress, to explicate those intricate scriptures that are most needful to be unfolded, and to make the plain thereby the more perspicuous. and first, we shall prove (though we have done that, perhaps before sufficiently) that the prophets bore clear record to the predictions, prophetic promises, and comminations in the apostles and the apocalypse, and reached even papal rome. that there were two dragons needs no dispute: further proof of it might seem superfluous: howbeit, even that also will hereby necessarily and irrefellibly appear. the world (so far as i find) never took notice that there were two; nor do the learned grotius, hammond, and others (that i see) observe it, because they (stating the period of the apocalypse, and all prophetic scriptures about the year four hundred and ten, when rome imperial was translated) so exclude both the second dragon, beast, and false prophet, with papal rome, and all modern sects, and, so doing, must exclude (though they would except them) the mahometans also, from being any part of the churches predicted antithesis. the more literal fulfilling of the apocalypse (in many things) they, with mead, and many others, have learnedly observed, which literal fulfilling in many things (they find, and i confess) ended much about the years four hundred and ten or twelve. but, of many things that relate (not to pagan, but) to papal rome, they take little or no notice; nor are they misguided, but by a general mis-supposition, which may necessitate even the most learned to the same mistakes: for, their not observing that there were two dragons (which also never any that i find observed-) necessitates them (if not all expositors) to the same aberrations. doctor hammond (or as well any other learned or rational) did, or might (had his suppositions been right) very rationally thus argue: the dragon (for neither he, or any other perhaps, supposed more than one) ended (with the computation of the apocalypse) for ever, in four hundred and ten or twelve. but the dragon, beast, and false prophet had all one and the same synchronick epoch ending as aforesaid. therefore, after four hundred and ten or twelve, there could be never any dragon, beast, or false prophet, much less any of them (after that time, as they could not be before) applied to papal rome: papal rome (whom the apocalypse itself thus absolveth) must therefore remain free for ever from any such imputation, as being any part of the body of apostasy, or of the antichrist predicted by prophets and apostles: his, and their arguments (were those suppositions right) are very rational, and, indeed, the very truth. nor did the learned grotius, hammond, and others (as it seems to me) much observe: that (as some rocks re-eccho the first sounds given, three or four times, * thog. pomp. apud. juslin. l. 2.4 as trogus pompeius witnesseth, and i have oft observed) so some prophecies sound forth several successive transactions in four or five reverberations: for example: the prophecy in daniel, of the abomination of desolation, struck first prophetically upon the cruel practices of epiphanes, and sounded forth the jews sad calamities by his merciless persecutions, but did not terminate there, but sounded forth also the jews desolations at the destruction of jerusalem: and when you shall see the abomination of desolation spoken of by daniel (saith our saviour) etc. daniel's dimidium hebdemadis of the same duration, and denomination, and makes daniel's prophesy of the desolation, at the destruction of jerusalem to be in the third reverberation: the conformity of that half week of years (in its duration, and denomination) to its type under epiphanes, and its anti type under the apostasy, appears from these texts, dan. 9.26, 27. rev. 11.2, 3. the duration of that half week of years under epiphanes, and the pharisees (as in types) was 1260 days literal, but, in their anti types 1260 years. the desolations in those types were more literal, but, in their antitypes more spiritual, rev. 11.7, 8, 9, 11. as we shall also further show from those texts in its due place. nor did daniel's prophesies of the desolation end in epiphanes, nor in that half week of years under the pharisees, nor in the destruction of jerusalem, but reached (in the fourth reverberation) that tenfold desolation of the primitive church, persecuted by rome pagan, and imperial: for, if our saviour himself did adjudge and declare the literal desolations of the legal temple, to be the abomination of desolation spoken of by daniel; to wit, a subantitype of daniel's prediction, (as was that under epiphanes) then how much more must this tenfold desolation (not of literal, but living stones; not of the legal temple, but the gospel church) be the abomination of desolation in the fourth reverberation from daniel's prophecy; and, especially in the time of dioclesian, when his triumphant pillars (importing the gospel churches utter desolation) were erected. and that the reader may run and read this desolation (as daniel predicts it) let him read his express description of it in ch. 7.7, 23, 24, 25. where he may easily observe: that the text holds forth; first, the fourth kingdom and (its head) the fourth beast, with ten horns uncrowned: to wit, rome pagan, and her head (the first dragon) in the fourth reverberation. secondly, that the same texts hold forth (as we shall instantly show) papal rome, and her secular head (the sea-born beast papal with ten horns crowned) in the fifth reverberation from daniel's prophecy. thirdly, that the said texts hold forth a little pseudoprophetick horn rising up among the ten horns of pagan rome all uncrowned: and, fourthly, that the same texts hold forth the (at first little) pseudoprophetick horn papal, rising up among the ten horns of papal rome, all crowned. fifthly, the reader may also observe from those texts, that this little horn of rome pagan should make (in the fourth reverberation) a most dreadful church-desolation, should wear out the saints of the most high, saith the text, ver. 25. and, sixthly, the reader may observe also from those texts, that they hold forth (and that principally) the little horn papal, that produced the greatest church-desolation: for, as the texts point forth the little horn of pagan rome by his rising up amongst the ten horns of the fourth kingdom; so, they point out the little horn papal (that rose up among the ten horns, as the former of pagan, of papal rome) by his distinct epoch (as we shall instantly show) of 1260 years, which (because eight hundred years longer than the proper epoch of pagan rome) is altogether inconsistent with that little horn of pagan rome, and consistent only with that of rome papal: for, as the seven heads of rome pagan and imperial were first, seven mountains, and also seven kings; so daniel's prophesy, in the seventh chapter, pre-figured and described the decapolity, first, of pagan, and also of papal rome. that the text holds forth the fourth kingdom (the dominion of rome pagan, to distinguish it from the greek kingdom, which was the third) is evident from the text, which expressly calls the representative of it, the fourth beast, and it the fourth kingdom, dan. 7.7, 23. and, secondly, we find expressly from the text, that that little horn (roman, pagan, and in the fourth kingdom, and therefore in the fourth reverberation from daniel's prophesy) produced a most direful church-desolation: for, that (at first little) pseudoprophetick horn was (not to pull down a temple of dead stones, or made with hands, though it had some hand in that also, but) to wear out (saith the text in daniel) the saints of the most high. and what performance more sitly, and literally accommodates that prophetic description, than dioclesian's persecutions, which his pillars (with this inscription) expressed: * baron. annal. an. 303. deleto ulique nomine christi: for, that church, and saint-desolating horn was, at first, the little pseudo prophetic horn pagan, predicted by daniel, and so continued to be under the four first heads of that fourth kingdom, till it grew great in julius, augustus, and the succeeding emperors, who (adopting the title, and office of the high priest) were summi pontifices, and chief persecutors of the church and saints: for; all the edicts for the ten persecutions, and for the eleventh also, were issued forth by that pseudoprophetick horn pagan raised to power in the persons of the emperors, but, at last turned arrtan: and, secondly, that little horn in daniel 7th. shadowed forth also the bicorne-false prophet papal, but presignified not, in the least, either epiphanes or any other power except as aforesaid. therefore, that little horn in dan. 7th. (having no relation to epiphanes) and that in dan. 8. and 9 ver. are not the same, much less did that little horn in dan. 7. terminate (as many expositors assert) in epiphanes: for, the fourth beast (amongst whose ten horns the little horn in the 7. chap. rose up) was the supreme power of pagan rome: but epiphanes was but head of a fragment of power in the divided kingdom of the third beast, dan. 8.21, 23. the fourth beast was great in power; so was epiphanes: but epiphanes was not that fourth beast: for, the fourth beast devoured (saith the text) the whole earth, ch. 7.23. and epiphanes was mighty in power, but not (saith the text) in his strength, ch. 8.24. that is: he was far inferior for strength, to the first horn of the third kingdom, who was also far inferior in power, to the fourth beast: therefore, epiphanes was not that fourth beast, or that little horn, that rose up among those ten horns of that fourth kingdom: but, the false prophet (roman and pagan) rose up among the ten uncrowned horns of that roman decarch, whom daniel calls the fourth beast, dan. 7.7, 8. rev. 17 3, 13. and the false prophet papal rose up amongst the ten (not uncrowned as the former were, but) crowned horns of the sea-born beast papal, dan. 7.7, 8. rev. 13.11, 12. etc. but epiphanes came up (not among the ten horns of pagan or papal rome, but) out of one of the four horns of the third kingdom, dan. 8.9. the series, therefore, of reiterated echoes runs in this order: daniel, prophetically describes the practices of epiphanes, and foretelleth jerusalem's desolation, by his cruel persecutions in chap. 8.9. to the 15. ver. 23. to 27. chap. 12.6, 7. secondly, daniel's half week of years (wherein christ exercised his prophetical office for 1260 days) was adumbrated (in its curation and denomination) by the times and transactions of epiphanes, and was sounded forth, as in a second echo, from those texts aforesaid; nor did the pharisees less shadow forth the antichrist, (than epiphanes did) in that half week of years, and the transactions of it: for, though that half week of years (three years and an half, 1260 days) held forth some outward import, or show of joy, and of a kingdom, yet; it was the sad time of the king of righteousness, rejected of his own: and of his kingdom dejected, desolate, and trodden under soot: and (as the antitype witnesses were to prophesy in sackcloth 1260 days annual, rev. 11.3. so) christ, and his apostles prophesied (as it were in sackcloth) to that gainsaying, rebellious and bloody people of the jews, for 1260 days, as their antitype should do so many years: christ also (weeping over jerusalem) prophesied the destruction of it: that half week of years (or 1260 days) was the type-duration of the witnesses sackcloth prophesy for the desolations of zion. thirdly, the fews desolations, at the destruction of jerusalem did resound (in a third echo) from the same texts, as we see in math. 24.15. dan. 9.27. fourthly, these texts in daniel strike also prophetically, upon those sad desolations of the primitive church, wrought (as we have sufficiently shown) by the pseudoprophetick (at first little) horn of rome pagan in the fourth reverberation. and, fifthly, the same texts in daniel (as we have shown, and shall sufficiently show) are re-ecchoed by those most dreadful and durable desolations of the gospel-church, devolved upon her by papal rome in the fifth reverberation. but secondly, those texts in dan. 7. and that little horn there, do nothing respect epiphanes, or daniel's half week, or the destruction of jerusalem (either as inter-adumbrations, or subantitypes) but strike (immediately and directly) upon the decapolities of pagan and papal rome: therefore, that little horn in daniel 8th. did (but that in daniel 7th. did not at all) import epiphanes, much less did that little horn in dan. 7. terminate (is most writers affirm it did) in epiphanes. expositors (that will run with the multitude into gross mistakes) make it not their industrious care to try the truth by sacred record, and scripture-rule, but rush on in the common roads of received opinions, wherein most writers have long misled the way: these seem (as in many other) in these assertions, to err by consent. the little horn (say they) in dan. 8th. is epiphanes; and i affirm it. but, the little horn (say they) in dan. 7th. is epiphanes: and why epiphanes? because this also is a little horn: and here's the ground of their judgement: one seeming circumstantial parity in two texts against many substantial disparities in many texts, which they see not, and consider not: this is to admit, and allow of one false witness in judgement, and exclude an hundred true ones. secondly, the red dragon (say they) in ch. 12.3. and that beast in the 17th. chap. are one, and the same beast: and so they say right: but the beast (say they) in ch. 13.1. is also the same beast: and why the same? because he also had seven heads and ten honrs: this conclusion, or inference is most absurd and unjust: for, qui quicquid statueris parte inautitâ alterâ aequum licet) haud aequus fucrit; it's most unjust just to conclude those beasts in the three texts to be one, and the same from the like numbers of their heads and horns, and not see or consider the real disparities (even in all their seven heads and ten horns) betwixt that beast in the thirteenth chap. and that in 12. and 17. chapters: for, that beast in the 13th. chap. had ten crowns upon his ten horns: but that beast in the 12th. and 17th. chap. had no crowns upon his ten horns: he had seven crowns upon his seven heads. but that beast in the thirteenth chapter had no crowns upon his seven heads: therefore, their real disparities are sevenfold in their heads, and tenfold in their horns: it may seem therefore incredible, that it can be possible for all expositors (that i find) to make their ten horns (notwithstanding the tenfold disparity in their crowns) to be a tenfold comparity, and their seven heads to be (notwithstanding their sevenfold disparity in their crowns) a sevenfold parity: and that (which makes it seem strange beyond admitation) when the least of these disparities (which they mistake for parities) must, inevitably be found to make the beasts in the said texts, to be irrefellibly two. be they (say some) found irrefellible, yet are they no sundamental truths, nor notions much needful to be known. the beast opened his mouth in blasphemy to blaspheme; so profane, slothful slow-bellys, and evil beasts open their mouths to blaspheme the scriptures, and (slighting their faithful searchers) fall into the condemnation of the devil: for, the plainest scriptures (much less the more implicit, which they least know, and despise most) profit them nothing, nor desire they to know things most necessary, that are difficult to be known: for, difficilia quae pulcra: things that are most excellent, and useful to be known, are most difficult to be discerned, being kept back by the just hand of god (in dark expressions) purposely from the profanely, blind, and slothful (or from those chief) that they should not find them out: nor is the knowledge of prophetic scriptures otherwise them most necessary; nor do they import other than things most sacred of highest concernments: therefore, mysterious truths (made manifest) may prove the greatest mercy, that hath come to the christian world in many centuries of years, as will evidently appear, when we come to show the great (and that manifold) utility, and necessity of the knowledge of the prophetic and symbolical scriptures. thirdly, though (say they) many texts mention the dragon, yet there was never any more than one. and why but one? because all texts, that make mention of him, retain this appellation: the dragon. that a seeming parity of appellation is enough of itself, without other comparity, to prove anidentity of persons or things, is incomparably absurd: for, so john the baptist must be john the evangelist, because both are called john; so must this dragon be pharaoh, because he also is expressly called: the dragon, ezek. 29.3. but, secondly, there is no constant parity (to prove an identity) in their appellations; nor do all texts retain this word (the dragon) where mention is made of either; not is there the least comparity in scripture to denote them one: for, the first (called the dragon in ch. 12.3, etc.) is called a beast in ch. 17.3. and the second (called a beast in ch. 11.7.) is called: the dragon, ch. 13.2, 4. but with this signal and undeniable note of clear distinction betwixt both: to wi●, the first dragon (in ch. 12.3. ch. 17.3.) was in john's time, bestia ascensa ê mari; a beast risen out of the sea long before john's time, dan. 7.3. for five of his heads were fallen when john wrote rev. 17.10. but the second dragon was, when john wrote venturus draco, vel bestia ex. abysso ascensura, was to ascend out of the bottomless pit long after john wrote the apocalyps, ch. 11.7. thus; as we see no constant, nor the least (either nominal, or real) parity in scripture betwixt the first and second, to prove them one and the same; so we see a superabundant disparity, real, betwixt both, denoting irrefellibly, that there were two: many like vulgar, and epidemic errors the reader may note, and, perhaps find refelled in this treatise; but these at present, and in this place, may be sufficient; by which it may appear; how manifold such mistakes are, and frequent to be found in writers: but the truly learned and religious, will no doubt, willingly relinquish all known errors of mind, and manners; and to them chiefly i humbly devote my weak endeavours to manifest both. but i return. of the disparities betwixt those three (at first little) horns (the false prophet pagan, papal, and epiphanes) we have said sufficient, and clearly fee: that the whole vision of the fourth beast in daniel aptly agrees both with pagan and papal rome, and with both their false prophets, but not in the least with epiphanes: howbeit, the epoch of the little horn, in dan. 7.25. agrees in no wise with the false prophet of pagan rome, but with the false prophet papal only: and therefore. fifthly, the echoes of daniel's prophecies did not end in epiphanes, nor in daniel's half week of years, nor in jerusalem's destruction, nor in the desolations of the primitive church, by the first dragon, nor did the predictions of the apocalypse here terminate with pagan and imperial rome in 412. for, all these four reverberations were but types. but, the antitype of these, and many other types, was the grand antithesis to the gospel-church (rome papal, sometimes complex of many sects) whom daniel's prophesies (as by a fifth echo) indigitated, and the apocalypse (mediately by the adumbrations of pagan rome, and immediately without them) predicted: for daniel hath his decacerastes, or beast with ten horns: and the apocalypse hath its beast (roman and pagan) with ten horns all uncrowned, rev. 12.3. ch. 17.3, 12. and, secondly, the apocalypse hath its beast (secular and papal) with ten horns all crowned, ch. 13.1. but (may some say) we are satisfied; that the apocalypse holds forth one beast with ten horns all uncrowned, which you say was the secular power of rome pagan; and that it holds forth another beast with ten horns all crowned, which you say was the secular power of rome papal. we are also satisfied, that daniel's prophesy foretold the first beast of rome pagan, with ten horns uncrowned, and, under him the desolation in the fourth reverberation. but we are not so fully satisfied: that daniel's prophecy holds forth that beast with ten horns all crowned, and, under him the grand antitype desolation in the fifth reverberation, where the first was under epiphanes. i answer, that daniel (in one and the same prophecy) held forth the powers secular, and spiritual, both of pagan and papal rome, which in the apocalypse are more clearly distinguished: for, daniel's prophecy represents a beast with ten horns, which is alike consistent, and agreeing with both. also it represents a little horn, pseudoprophetick amongst those ten, which likewise accords with either, or rightly agrees with both. thirdly, it indicateth a desolation to be wrought, chiefly, by that little horn, and this rightly agrees with both dan. 7. ver. 25. rev. 13.16, 17. but it says, that the duration of that desolation (or of that little horn, the cause of it) should be for three times, and the dividing of a time: and this agrees (in no wise with pagan, but) with papal, rome only: for, (if you reckon that epoch to be three years and an half, or 1260 days literal) it agrees in no sort with pagan rome, whose proper epoch is above 130 times longer: or (if you count those days to be 1260 years) that also is inconsistent with pagan rome, whose proper epoch was but 460 years, and falls short (by 800 years) of that duration: but we find it congruent to papal rome only, and to her only, all these twelve epochaes of 1260 years (as they respect several transactions) appertain: therefore daniel's prophesies refer (in the fifth reverberation) to their grand anti-type (papal rome) and apparently reach her crowned beast secular, whose patriarches (the bicorne false prophets) epoche (synchronizing with that beasts, and the second dragon's durations in 1260 years) is consistent only with daniel's record, and computation, and with those consonant epochaes in the apocalypse, dan. 7.25. rev. 12.6, 14. ch. 13.5. etc. and this may, perhaps, both clearly, and fully refel all those that affirm: that daniel's prophesies ended at the death of our saviour, or at the destruction of jerusalem; and likewise all such as assert, that the computation of the apocalypse terminated (with rome pagan) in four hundred and ten, or twelve. but, secondly, the apocalypse hath an angel, that lifted up his hand to heaven, and swore by him that liveth for ever and ever: that time should be no longer: but (in the days of the voice of the seventh angel, when he shall begin to sound) the mystery of god should be finished, as he hath declared to his servants the prophets, rev. 10.6. and daniel hath (the type of it) a man clothed in linen, who held up his right hand, and his left hand, to heaven, and swore by him that liveth for ever, that it should be for a time, times, and an half, daniel 12.6, 7. here we plainly see, that some prophecies in daniel, and the apocalypse are (and that in the fifth reverberation from daniel, and in reference to rome papal, synantiphona, or uttered as it were totidem verbis, in the same words. but, time shall be no more: and how, no more? that is, there shall be no more time of the six trumpets sounding, nor of the chief prevailing power of the mystery of iniquity, but only three times, or years, and an half of days annual, or 1260 years, as it was in the type, 1260 days literal: for, in the days of the voice of the 7th. angel, when he shall begin to sound, the mystery of iniquity shall be made manifest, and the mystery of god finished, as he hath declared to his servants the prophets. and what was thus declared? it was declared to daniel; that the duration of the proto-type desolation (completed under epiphanes) was to be three times or years, and an half, or 1260 days literal: and it's more than probable, that the duration of its ultimate anti-type (1260 years) was thereby declared to daniel also. and it was declared (to omit other prophets) to this prophetic evangelist, that the duration of the ultimate defection and desolation under the gospel-churches last, and grand antithesis was to be (as the prototypes was so many days literal) six times seven months of days annual, or 1260 years: so long were the six trumpets to sound, or (which is all one) the witnesses were to prophesy in sackcloth so long: but in the days of the voice of the seventh angel, when he shall begin to sound, the mystery of iniquity shall begin to be made manifest, and the mystery of god finished etc. where the reader may evidently see, that the duratio of the six trumpets sounding, or (which is all one) the witnesses sackcloth prophesy for 1260 years, synchronizeth with the rest of those twelve epochaes, and therefore this prophecy (in rev. 10.7.) is in the fifth reverberation from its proto type prediction in dan. 12.7. in both which texts, the truth of the transactions and times expressed, is confirmed by a divine oath in the name of the living god, which makes them much more signally correlative as to type, and anti-type, and that in the fifth echo, therefore, it's sufficiently (if not abundantly) manifest, that some prophecies in daniel (reiterated as we plainly see in the apocalypse) reach rome papal (some directly, as in ch. 7.25. and some in a fifth re-ecchoed performance (as in the texts of dan. 8.9, 10. etc. and ch. 12.7) and ratify those 1260 years of all these twelve epochaes: for, all days propheticalare ever (though literal in their subantitypes) at least years in their ultimate antitypes, which is evident from numb. 14.34. dan. 9.24. ezech. 4.5, 6. and as will more irrefellibly appear when we come to treat upon those texts. as he hath declared to his servants the prophets (saith the text) ch. 10.7. where it is plain, that many things which the apocalypse predicted, were in fore-times declared to the prophets, the servants of god, which they also (as appears plainly from the said text) declared in their prophecies; wherefore many, or the most of the prophets, and not daniel only (whiles they foretold things more immediately to be fulfilled) presignified also, thereby, those things which the apocalypse predicted: but to show the comparities of prophetic prefigurations with texts in the apocalypse (wherein they seem to concentre in the anti-type) would require a large volume. we shall now take a short view of the secular head of papal rome with his comparities and disparities to his types: his mouth (saith the text) was as the mouth of a lion, so shadowed forth by the king of babylon, rev. 13.2. dan. 7.4. but he was not that supreme power, as his disparities plainly show. for, secondly, his feet were as the feet of a bear, and so figured by the king of persia, dan. 7.5. rev. 13.2. but he was not that power secular, as his disparities show. for, thirdly, he was like a leopard; so was the greek monarch, dan. 7.5. rev. 13.2. and here we plainly see a threefold, and shall, a fourfold consonancy betwixt those prophecies in daniel, and this in the apocalypse, and that in the fifth reverberation, or performance, if we take our account from those texts of the eighth chapter in daniel, that point out epiphanes; or if we count by the successions of those four beasts in the seventh chapter. but the sea-born beast papal was not that representative of the greek empire, because of many disparities in both texts. nor was he the dragon or fourth beast in the fourth reverberation from daniel, who prophetically adumbrates (by four beasts of different figures) four kingdoms (the chaldaean, persian, greck, and roman) and (by those four beasts) he shadowed forth (their anti-type) the representative of papal rome in the fifth reverberation: for, pagan rome was the fourth kingdom, and her head (the first dragon) the fourth monarch: but papal rome was the fifth monarchy, and her head secular (this sea-born beast) the fifth monarch, prophetically shadowed forth (in the fifth reverberation) by those four beasts in daniel, but, chiefly by the fourth beast of pagan rome (the first dragon) who was the last, clearest, and sullest type of this seven-headed hydra of papal rome succeeding those four beasts, but, chiefly the fourth in his seat, power, and great authority, and that in the fifth reverberation from daniel. this (may some rash inconsiderate readers say) makes it signally clear; that this, whom you call the first dragon (nor was there ever any more than one, nor ever any second) gave his seat, power, and great authority to the beast, his successor: we shall therefore further, but briefly re-enquire how, and when the dragon (and which of the two) gave his seat and power to the beast, and to which beast. what opinions most hold i mind not much, because many writers little mind how, or what they write: but all reformist expositors (so far as i find) affirm, that this beast papal was the seventh (or i know not what) head of the dragon, which should continue (saith the text) but a short space; and that sufficiently contradicts this tenent, rev. 17.10. ch. 12.12. but i answer. the dragon (saith the text) gave him (this beast papal, who is sufficiently described before, and will be further afterwards) his power, seat, and great authority to distinguish him from the first dragon, whose power was taken from him; and to distinguish him from the second, that gave him his power, and great authority, which he took from the first, and, chiefly from the representatives of the primitive church, rev. 13.2, 4. therefore, that second dragon raised rome papal (in the fifth reverberation from daniel) chiefly by raising her secular head, with his power (the supremacy therein) given unto him: for, secondly, the first dragon was no free donor, or disposer of his own power, but had it taken away before could give it, and was taken away himself before that beast was in being that should receive it; and so the text (we see) faith expressly, 2 thes. 2.6, 7. so say the best modern expositors upon that place though they sometimes contradict themselves and confound the true series of things, as we have before briefly hinted: so say the chief primitive fathers: that this dragon (rome pagans' representative) * tertul de resurrect. ch. 24. idem in apol. ch. 32. & ad sea●l. c. 1. hicron. ad algas. amb. in thessaly. 2. a●g de civit. dei ●it. 20.19 was (not to give his power himself, but) to be himself with all his power taken out of the way; and it might seem most wicked and foolish for any expositors to kick against the express tenure of the sacred text; to contradict the best modern writers, witnessing (at least by consequence) what those texts import, and to oppose the opinions of the best primitive fathers, who, no doubt, might best understand the right meaning of those scriptures: for, the apostle himself asserts expressly, that they did know the meaning of them: you know (saith he) what withholdeth; he, that now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way, 2 thes. 2.7. and this relative (he) in the text could not possibly refer to any other person political, but only to the first dragon or representative of pagan and imperial rome, who (in john's time) chiefly letted, and did after let or hinder papal rome and her head (ut intus existens prohibe● alienum) from rising up until he was finally taken away (with all his force) by the second dragon (the last sublator of his feeble power and dying person) in four hundred and ten or twelve. for, thirdly, michael and his angels (constantine and his armies, michael's substitutes) took (to the final excision of his seventh head) that first dragon's power (without ask him any leave) into his own hands; held, possessed it; so as that dragon could never regain absolute supremacy therein: that is: his place (saith the text) was found no more in heaven. theodosius with his two sons and the two valentinians partly took away, partly broke in pieces, the power of his sick, and scarce perfect, eight and last head. and, lastly, the second dragon (about the year 412) took away the very being of that first dragon, drove the primitive church, with her eagles wings, into the wilderness; took away her, and their chief power into his own hands, and gave that power, which he took from them, and they from the first dragon (to wit, the supremacy therein) to the beast secular and papal: for it had been (res maximè mir and a, minimè credenda) a thing most impossible and incredible for the first dragon to have done it: had he done it, he must have had an art never heard on; that could give his seat and great authority which he had not; and this is the mischief: as he had no power to give unto the beast, so, there was no beast in being to receive it, so long as he existed; which necessarily implies a double impossibility. but the dragon gave his great authority to the beast: therefore, that was the second dragon clearly distinct from the first, and both, from this beast: and then it must inevitably follow of necessity: that this beast, and that second dragon, and the bicorn false prophet, were contemporary, and (as the several texts plainly prove) synchronize in 1260 years, beginning about 412, though that second dragon was not drawn at first, to such compliance as afterwards: and this (contrary to doctor hammonds rational conclusion, from a mistaken supposition) is signally conspicuous (as we clearly see) from sundry texts of sacred scripture, and (as it hath appeared and will more plainly appear) from church-history: i need not, therefore (i suppose) say to any sober or judicious reader, that the text plainly says: that he that (in paul's time) letted, should let (till he were taken out of the way) the rising up of the son of perdition; but i may say (in the words of that apostle) to the silliest readers (or at least to such as have any competent animadvertency and understanding) you know that he that letted (in that apostles time) the rising up of the body of apostasy, and its spiritual and fecular heads, was the first dragon or supreme power of pagan and imperial rome: you know (from those prophetic texts and from church-history, fully witnessing the performances of those prophecies) that the said first dragon did not give (could in no wise possibly give) his power, which he had not) to the beast papal not then in being: you know that he (much more all his power was to be taken out of the way) to make way for that beast: you know also, that the dragon gave (scripture says it, church-history proves it) his great authority to the beast: and you know, that dragon (because the first and all his power was taken out of the way before as aforesaid) must, of necessity, be the second dragon: and thus (actum est de hac controversiâ) this controversy is fully ended, and, that there were two dragons, irrefellibly concludent. but, so wedded is the world to wilful errors, that men and sects (nor are saints free from this fault) take little care or pains to come to know these things: haec scire (say they) quid prodest? quid obest nescire? what are we better if we know these things, or worse if we never know them. they therefore (even many that are most studious therein) are so indocile to know (though plainly proved, and though they should be oft repeated) these things, or to see their own preservations, and chief concerns in the knowledge of them, that their progress is therein little, their profit less to themselves and others: for, such slow-bellies, are many, that they cannot imagine what real use can be made of those things, which will instantly appear to be the things of highest concernments, and the knowledge of them, and how to use them, the conservatory means of all other graces and mercies. hagar (her son ready to die, she distressed) sat by a well in the wilderness, and saw it not: little did she think of such support so nigh, till god opened her eyes and she saw the well: her sight of it was a present means to prevent imminent death and procure life to her and him: but, if present and after-ages may see and shun those evils that are worse than death, and reap those benefits that may be better than l●fe, by the knowledge of those things, i shall briefly indigitate that, and (with like brevity) conclude the premises. and first; most reformists will needs have the beast secular and papal to be the scarlet-coloured beast, chap. 17.3. or (which is an error, if not the same, not much different) the seventh head of that red dragon or scarlet beast. this gross error (the grand remora to the right unfolding of many texts) is a strong refuge to the mystery of iniquity; nor can the expositions of the best writers upon the apocalyps, and prophetic scriptures (till this and many like mistakes be removed) be otherwise then perplex ravels of intricate consusion: therefore, the perfect removal of this mistake (as the readiest way to remove many) requires my present care. nor, perhaps, have my pains hither to made the truth so fully irrefellible as instantly it will appear to be: can we but find those seven heads that were peculiar to the red dragon or scarlet-coloured beast, and his eighth head also which was of those seven; then we have all his peculiar number of heads, and so this business is fully ended: but, five of his heads were fallen, before john wrote, as we showed before; and one (his imperial head) existed when john wrote: there's six of his seven-heads; and the other is not yet come (saith the text) and when he cometh he must continue a short space: his time was short (for a kingdom divided cannot stand) because he was a divided head; for part of it fell from the pagans and took part with the christians in the time of constantius and constantine. his eighth dying, and scarce perfect head, was paganoarrian in the time of constantius the second, julian, valens; and went into everlasting perdition about 412, ver. 11. that is, he, and that first dragon (under him) then perished for ever: here's all the crowned heads (for all his heads had crowns) that were peculiar to that first dragon: then the sea-born beast papal (assisted by the second dragon through the false prophet's procurement) ascended out of the sea (the political and military deluge, which the second dragon cast out of his mouth) having seven successive heads, chap. 13.1. but here's the masterpiece of exquisite absurdity: all reformist writers (few excepted) affirm; that the seventh head of the scarlet beast (the first dragon) was the secular beast papal with seven heads; which is as good sense as to say: that a part of the body of one man is the entire individuum of another person: for that scarlet beast (that had seven heads, and an eighth also) and the sea-born beast papal, that had seven heads, were two several, individual, and clearly distinct persons political. secondly, the texts expressly assign unto the first dragon (as peculiar to him) eight heads in all: but their glosses plainly contradict those texts and allow him but six, making his seventh head to be the secular beast papal: they might be (a man would think) deterred sufficiently from adding to or detracting from the words of the book of this prophecy by the plagues therein threatened to all such; but many of them do it (no doubt) not willingly, but for want of due animadvertency. thirdly, that seventh head of the first dragon (which those writers affirm to be the sea-born beast) should continue (saith the text) but a short space; but that beast secular was to continue 1260 years, chap. 13.5. which are 100 years longer than the durations of all pagan rome's eight heads ab urbe conditâ. lastly, the texts expressly distinguish that red dragon and this beast by their disparities in their seven heads (in the one all crowned, in the other all uncrowned) and by their ten horns (in the one all crowned, in the other all uncrowned) and by their far different epochaes: but these writers (that notwithstanding) confound all the texts, and either make both those beasts to be one and the same, or make the beast papal to be the seventh head of that pagan dragon: who can imagine that men of any reason or learning could assert such matchless absurdities: their chief mistakes are these. the dragon (saith the text) gave power to the beast: but they say (contrary to the text) that his sixth head gave power to his seventh. secondly, that seventh head (say they, contrary to the scriptures) was the secular beast papal. thirdly, they mistake the first dragon (who gave none) for the second, who gave his power and authority (the supremacy therein) to that beast. fourthly, they mistake that scarlet-coloured beast, or red dragon (in ch. 12.3. ch. 17.3.) for the secular beast papal, chap. 13.1. and therefore, fifthly, they mistake the literal city of pagan and imperial rome (that ruled over the kings of the earth, and was called babylon the great in the 17th. and 18th. chapters) for the more spiritual city of papal rome (called also babylon the great, and over whom the second dragon with the sea-born beast and false prophet papal ruled or presided) in the 11th. and 16th. chapters: for, these two cities are signally distinct by this apparent disparity: the first (heathen and imperial rome) ruled over the kings of the earth; and the kings of the earth ruled in and over rome papal: so that the system of the glosses of these writers upon these and many other texts is like a large vial (filled with mistakes) which they pour forth, in their teachings and writings, upon many mindless professors that care not how, or what they hear or read. because of oaths ('tis said) the land mourns: but the whole world (may we, even weeping, say) mourns through mistakes in opinions and manners: therefore, her inhabitants sit in the shadows of death, surrounded with distresses: but what damage redounds by these and like mistakes? the disadvantages (and they great and many) that thereby come upon the christian world, and upon all church-societies, and sects, may appear as followeth. if there was but one dragon (according to the general supposition) than none gave power (for the first gave none) to the wounded beast papal: then none raised papal rome, nor her secular head) that beast, according to the scriptures: then the opinions of the learned hammond and others must stand good against all the world: to wit, that there was no further compute of the apocalypse (after 410) except in the mahometans: and then the papists and other sects, and perhaps mahumetans (unless those authors better prove the contrary) have no part in the grand apostasy predicted by prophets: for, then (as some in the apostles times concerning the truth, erred, saying; the resurrection is passed already, so) all men may much better say: that both the rise and the fall of the anti-christ (never doubt it, dispute not about it) is passed already long since, even in four hundred and ten or twelve. then all discourses concerning any such subject (whether in word or writing) are mere stories, or at best (as they have been for the most part) but fruitless, controversal pickeering (and that perpetually) to no purpose: for no reformist, nor the best informed, can make good any charge or argument against the papists or any other sects (mahumetans or others) as confining upon the apostasy of anti-christ, if that was passed for ever in four hundred and ten or twelve. thus even protestants (by means of these mistakes) give the staff in their hands (against themselves) into the hands of papists, strengthen heresies, and weaken the hands of the witnesses of the truth: for, if these errors in opinions must stand for truths, then must all reformists give prime honour to the papists, as chief of churches; and (as they of the synagogue of satan, that said they were jews, and were not, were made to come and worship at the feet of philadelphia, so) if there was but one dragron (ending as aforesaid, with all compute of prophetic scriptures, about 410) then all reformists, and sects, pretending to be reform, must come and worship at the feet of the papists (as the only mother, catholic and true church) and only assume schism, apostasy and shame to themselves: no weapon of war (form by the best reformists) can prosper in their hands (against her: she's (civit as circummurata) a city walled round, her walls are brass, which times cannot break, nor force scale. thus, we see, the sacred scriptures (by means of these mistakes, until they be removed) are (both by strict and loose professors) prostituted to the vilest disuse, are made (muri abaenei) walls of brass by protestants, against themselves, for the defence of papists, heathens, and heretics to fortify and confirm their blind and wicked confidence in all ignorance, and evil manners. for, if there was but one dragon, ending with the whole computation of the apocalypse (the mahometans excepted) in four hundred and ten (as dr. hammond and others learnedly labour, but in vain, to end it) nor do the mahometans (as they except them) signify any thing to this purpose; then the church of rome may say, she sits as queen, rules alone, nor was she raised by power of any first or second dragon: for, as nothing can exist without some cause of its being; so it was impossible for papal rome (fallen in her infancy) to be raised to power, if there was none to raise her up: but god (by his providence) did ordain or permit this second dragon (for the first fell before for ever) to raise up papal rome (the place prepared of god to preserve his church for a space) by giving his power (the supremacy therein) to her secular head, which the scripture expressly asserts, where it saith: and the dragon gave, etc. they therefore, that take in hand to explain these scriptures, or to prove rome papal (complex of many sects and nations) to be the churches antithesis, must observe the right series of the mystery of iniquity, and know when and how the apostasy sprang up; as also that there were two dragons, and which of the two raised rome papal, or the body of apostasy. all works or writings against her (till this be first done, or at least in part discerned) are little worth; scarce so much as engage rome papal against those opposers to small purpose; she may (till then) hold forth her flag of defiance against (as trivial impugners) all such, and say: the scriptures themselves (clearing her from their charge) charge them with blasphemy, schism, slander, and apostasy: her walls must stand inviolable; she invincible. thus we see (till these mistakes be removed) no reformists can undeceive, possibly, the papists, or their sub-divisions; nor be themselves rationally undeceived, or be convinced of their errors in opinions or manners: tum verò barbari barbaros invicem, & ecclesiam persequentur in aeternum: then men, saints, and sects (with feral ire and intricate confusion) must implacably pursue and persecute each other: for (if these and such obstacles to true peace multiply or are not removed) then (in chaos infandum tetus confunditur orbis) present and after-ages must ever inherit inextricable labyrinths of all dreadful (and they inemergible) miseries: men (saith the text) shall seek death, and shall not find is, and shall desire to die, and death shall, flee from them: for, their torment was as the torment of a scorpion when he striketh a man: mistakes in opinions and manners were (to those men) the cause of such torments, worse than death, as, in its due place, will appear from those texts: but these men's miseries must far exceed theirs, and death itself be much more desirable than their condition, if these and many like errors in opinions and manners be not removed: thus the evils of these and like mistakes (until they be removed) are (its evident) both great and many. but, if these and many such errors are or shall be sufficiently refelled, and men be thereof clearly convinced; then rome papals walls, and the walls of her sub-divisions (as the walls of jericho fell at once flat to the ground) are become like cobwebs which the wind scatters: then torments (greater than the pains of the stings of scorpions) may begin to cease from men, and miseries (worse than death) discontinue: but we shall dissolve (though we have done that perhaps sufficiently) this knot of manifold mistakes (in its due place) by proving a two and twenty quadripartite disparity betwixt the first and second dragon; betwixt both and the sea-bornbeast papal; and betwixt all three and the false prophet with two horns: till then, let no reader trouble himself with idle excogitations of mind, nor me with many words: for i, perhaps, have given the judicious reader full satisfaction at present, and so shall oft afterwards till i prosecute those premises in the sequel. i should not spend time to mention too many (having no mean thoughts of their own parts) that tell you: the dragon is only (because so called) the devil individual, as some (upon such solid grounds) assert transubstantiation from hoc est corpus: but i commit this chaff to the wind till afterwards. i was, unavoidably, put upon it (before i could proceed to the following epochaes) to remove those mistakes aforesaid. and, secondly, to refel their opinions that hold, that all the prophecies, before christ, were finally fulfilled at his death, or at the destruction of jerusalem. and, thirdly, to remove the mistakes of all papists, and many protestants, affirming: that all prophecies (both before and after christ) expired (if not at the destruction of jerusalem) at the translating of the empire in four hundred and ten or twelve: they except only (and that to as little purpose) the mahometans. for, if all prophecies before christ ended at his death, or at jcrusalems' destruction; and, if all in the gospel and in the apocalypse, expired as aforesaid in 412; then, non erit locus, there cannot possibly be any place for these twelve ensuing intervals or epochaes commencing then, and synchronizing from that time for 1260 years: then all these twelve epochaes, and their transactions, and the scriptures themselves that hold them forth, must (like the five foolish virgins) stand without, and not be admitted to express the mind of the spirit of truth; yea then the scripture canonical must be dismembred, and part made as apocryphal, or (which is worse) perverted to prefer heretics and promote errors in opinions and manners; then the faithful industry of the best writers must be but, labour irritus, pains herein taken to no purpose; then papists, heathens, and heretics cannot possibly be convinced of their errors in opinions and practices, nor any true peace hoped for from them or any professors of different persuasions: for these causes of highest concernments i have taken this pains to break the hardest rocks of obstacles (the confident and long-continued mistakes both of papists and protestants) and to prove; that the prophecies before christ (even in genesis) extended beyond the destruction of jerusalem: for, the type, primitive, and jewish church, whom pharaoh (expressly called the dragon) persecuted, had the sun, moon, and twelve stars her lights, and guides, and adumbrated prophetically, the gospel-church primitive (who had also the sun, moon, and twelve stars her lights and guides, and was also persecuted by the anti-evangelical dragon of pagan and heretical rome) in the antitype. i have also (perhaps sufficiently) proved (against the opinions of all papists, and many protestants) that the prophecies in daniel reach rome papal and her secular head, in the fifth reverberation: wherefore, these mistakes (impregnable obstacles against mead and all reformist writers) being thus fully removed; my way is levigated, and my aggress made plain (without any material obstacle) to treat upon the ensuing epochaes, which come next to be handled. the synchronick epochaes of the second dragon, beast, and false prophet are thus held forth. the second dragon's duration is (in apocalyps 12.14.) a time, tames, and an half. the sea-born beasts continuance is (in ch. 13.5.) forty two months. the false prophet's epoch is (in daniel 7.25.) a time, times, and the dividing of a time. the times in all those texts are the same, and make a threefold synchronism of 1260 years, to the three heads of the threefold decapolity of the grand apostasy; which duration (and therein this second dragons) is 800 years above the first dragons proper epoch, and that irrefellibly denotes two dragons. for, the epochaes of the first dragon, and of primitive rome, pagan or otherwise heretical, were proper or improper. his and her improper epoch (ab urbe conditâ) until rome imperial was made tributary to alaricus in 407, was about 1159 years; or (until it was taken, plundered and burnt by alaricus in 412) about 1164 years: i call this duration of time; his improper epoch, because it were improper to count the chaldaean or greek epochaes (in scripture predicted) from the first constituting of those kingdoms: for, the proper epochaes of all empires or kingdoms (recorded in scripture) are chiefly the durations of their dominions over the church and people of god: howbeit, it concerns us here to take notice of this improper epoch of the first dragon, because the apocalypse indigitates it ch. 17.10, 11; where john saith, five are fallen, and one is, and another is not yet come, and mentions his eighth head also, which was of the seven; the duration of all which, successively made that improper epoch aforesaid. but, pagan rome's proper epoch was but about 460 years, beginning when the third (the greek) dominion (which daniel mentions, ch. 7.) began to fall; and when the jewish church (about 56 years before the birth of our blessed saviour) fell under the jurisdiction of pagan rome. both these epochaes (both the proper and improper) of the first dragon, or of rome untranslated, ended about the year four hundred and ten or twelve; then his seven heads, and also the eighth, which was of the seven, finally expired: for, the rest of the thousand years of this dragons binding, and that little season of his relaxation after them, had not (after four hundred and twelve) any relation either to his proper or improper epochaes; because he (more literally bound, though but in part, for above an hundred years before four hundred and twelve) was so long in being and never after. and that time (from the beginning of his being bound to 412) was part (the last part) of both his epochaes: but there then remained above eight hundred of his thousand years after four hundred and twelve, in which eight hundred years' time & upwards that dragon was not in being, nor ever after: for, that decacerastick red dragon of rome pagan, was never in being after four hundred and twelve, nor ever can, or shall be in future being: therefore, he was bound for about eight hundred years, after four hundred and twelve (not literally, but) metaphorically, or not otherwise then with the chains of eternal death: that is, the first dragon (subdued by the power and authority of the primitive church-representatives) was bound (in part and more literally) by their legal institutions and civil ordinances, in the time of constantius, constantine, and their successors, till about 412. to wit, for about one hundred and twenty years, which was all the time he was in being after he began to be bound; but he was then bound (total, but metaphorically) for above 800 years by a privation of his being so long, but indeed forever: that is, there was a cessation from him of his accustomed cruelties in the christian world for above eight hundred years after four hundred and ten or twelve, till about the year twelve hundred and twelve, when he was loosed (not literally, but metaphorically loosed) for not he, but simon earl of montsord (commissioned from the pope and the king of france) re-induced dioclesian's bloody practices, and persecuted the church after the manner of the first dragon: therefore; as john the baptist was said to be elia●; because he came after the similitude of his zealous comport; so the dragon is said to be loosed in those bloody renovators of that first dragon's cruelties: but (having treated upon this subject at large, in the sequel, where the seeming disparities in the compute of those thousand years are reconciled, and the confident mis-conceirs of the contrary minded fully refelled) i need not here insist upon it. the improper epoch, therefore, of the first dragon (ab urbe conditâ, until his metropolis was taken, plundered and burnt, and his, then late empire translated in 412.) was about 1164 years; and his proper epoch was but 460 years, ending in 412 also, which proper epoch (being shorter by eight hundred years then the proper duration of the second dragon) demonstrates, irrefellibly, two dragons. i proceed to the fourth epoch. the daration of the threefold city of the grand apostasy. that the tenfold body of the churches antithesis (rome papal) was (for matter and form) threefold, and had three (the foresaid three) heads synchronizing in 1260 years, is (from sundry texts) sufficiently proved: and therefore, that tenfold city (until it should begin effectually to discontinue) must have, with them the same epoch: for, if these three heads of it were to continue 1260 years; then this city (their threefold body) must (by a necessary, individual continuity) have the same epoch. but, secondly, their and this city's durations are (in these two texts) thus terminated: it is done, rev. 16.17. there shall be no longer time, ch. 10.6. these two texts intent a time and thing. the thing intended is this threefold city: and the great (this great) city was divided into three parts, etc. ch. 16.19. the time intended is first: the duration of that city. secondly, the period of that duration, the duration of it is necessarily employed. it's period is, positively expressed. and first, its duration is employed from its period in both texts. it's period at the beginning of the seventh vial, is thus expressed: it is done, ch. 16. it's period, at the beginning of the seventh trumpet, is thus expressed: there shall be no longer time ch. 10. no longer time, that is, the more entire duration of this threefold city, or mystery of iniquity, should be no longer than the sounding of the six trumpets: for, the duration of that threefold city (and indeed of all these twelve epochaes) is commensurated by the spaces of six trumpets sounding, and terminated with the beginning of the sounding of the seventh trumpet: for, when the sixth angel was about to end the sounding of his sixth trumpet, than the angel of the covenant swore by him, that liveth for ever and ever, that there should be time no longer: but, in the days of the voice of the seventh angel, when he shall begin to sound, the mystery of god should be finished, etc. should be finished: that is, the city of god (begun to be adorned as a bride for her husband) should then begin to be freed effectually from her former, too careless, contempt of things sacred, of highest concernments; or from treading them, as it were, under her feet; and freed also (from the punishment, and effect of that profaneness: to wit, from being trodden under foot of the gentiles: and those gentiles (this threefold city, or mystery of inìquity) should then begin (as they shall be more by degrees daily convinced of their own wickedness, and folly) to abate their enmity, and embrace unity of sound faith, and manners. secondly, it is done, that is, the duration (the more entire duration) of this city should be done at the period of the sixth vial, or at the beginning of the pouring fourth of the seventh vial. that is, this city should stand all the time of the six vials pouring forth; all the time of the six trumpets sounding, and all the time (which is one and the same time, and thing) of the witnesses sackcloth-prophecy, for 1260 years. for, as we have proved, that the six trumpets sounding, and (which is all one) the witnesses sackcloth prophesy run parallel in the same epoch: so the six vials, and this city's duration, synchronize with both, which is plain from their temporal periods: for, the period of this threefold mystery of iniquity, in the tenth chapter, is thus expressed, there shall be time no longer. and its period, in the sixteenth chapter, under, or at the beginning of the seventh vial (as the former was under, or at the beginning of the seventh trumpets sounding) is likewise thus expressed, it is done: and what is done? the answer is made in the next verse but one, and the great city was divided into three parts, etc. that is, this threefold city was done, ver. 19 the scope (and almost the express words) of both texts is the same, showing; that this threefold city, or mystery of iniquity, should (at the beginning of the sounding of the seventh trumpet, and pouring forth of the seventh vial) begin, vigorously, to be made manifest, and the mystery of god (her antithesis) to be completed: that is, the true church should then begin, more vigorously, and visibly, to expatiate, and appear to all sects and nations: for, those periods (it is done; time shall be no more) are terms of expression, that are synonymous in sense, and are, in both texts, a twofold sacred record, that the duration (the more entire duration) of this threefold city should be 1260 years, synchronizing with the six trumpets, with the six vials, with the witnesses sackcloth-prophecy, and with all the rest of these twelve epochaes. thirdly, the duration of this threefold city is commensurated (which are also the epoch of the death of the witnesses) by three days, and an half, rev. 11.9, 11. in which texts, the two former texts are more fully explained, and the same period of this threefold city the third time repeated: and first, we see that the two witnesses were to lie, in that city, dead for three days and an half, ver. 8, 9 therefore, the end of those three days and an half, was the period of the witnesses death, and of the duration (as will appear) of that threefold city: for; after three days and an half (saith the text) the spirit of life from god shall enter into them, ver. 11. therefore, the end of those three days and an half, must be the period of their lying dead in that city, and the period also of that city's duration: for, the same hour saith the text) the tenth part of that city fell, ver. 13. and fell (not to, but) from apostasy in manners, to pursue sincere truth, and peace in theory, and practice, or (to use the words of the same text) shall then begin to give glory to the god of heaven: that is, shall then begin to give glory to god with greater vigour, and visibility of true obedience then formerly. and these three days, and an half, of the duration of the death of the witnesses in that city; and of that city, till it should begin to fall, as aforesaid, are also conterminated (as the same period the third time expressed) with the beginning of the sounding of the seventh trumpet, vers. 13. and the seventh angel sounded, etc. therefore, these three days, and an half (of the more entire duration of this threefold city, and of the death of the witnesses therein) synchronize with the six vials, the six trumpets, and the witnesses sackcloth prophesy in 1260 years: for, those (in this chapter, twice repeated) three days, and an half, are the same three times, and an half, chap. 12.14. the same forty two months, chap. 12.2. and the same 1260 days in the next verse, which (being 1260 days annual) are 1260 years. for, the durations of the death of the witnesses, and of this threefold city, were presignified in scripture, both by three days, and an half, artificial (or 42 hours) and by three days, and an half annual (or forty two months) as we shall fully, and that (so soon as we shall first lay down these twelve epochaes) instantly show. the fifth epoch is of the gospel churches grand revolt. fifthly, the gospel-churches profligation, and defection seems to retain the same time: for, we find her in heaven, holding forth (though at last more remissly) her primitive integrity of an heavenly conversation till about 407, rev. 12.1. and till then (from about 292) in the heaven of high power, and authority in the roman empire: for, she (casting the first dragon from his seat there) sat sole regent in his throne of power: her eagles exalted both her, and themselves into that heaven, ver. 7. to the 12th. but a falling away was to come; and the church fell (fell from heaven, fled into the wilderness for 1260 days annual). 2 thess. 2.3. rev. 12.1, 6, 14. therefore, the church fell from heaven (though not totally, and finally) in a twofold respect. first, in reference to her heaven of high power. secondly, in respect to her heavenly conversation: her fall in conversation caused her other fall. she fell, in part, from her former heavenly conversation: therefore, she fell (as the effect of that cause) from her heaven of high power, and authority. her fall in conversation was spiritual: her fall from power was temporal. in reference to both, she (according to those texts aforesaid) stood in heaven; and, in reference to both, she fell from heaven: the manner of her fall from both is plain from her pattern, or prophetic type, lament. 2.1. how hath the lord covered the daughter of zion with a cloud in his anger, and cast down, from heaven, to the earth, the beauty of israel, etc. so god covered her (the anti-type-church) with a cloud in his anger, and cast down, from heaven to the earth, the beauty of gospelisrael. for, she (like the church of ephesus) left her first love, forsook her first works (works of judgement, mercy, and faith) and remembered not (scarce yet remembreth) from whence she fell. thus she fell (first in her conversation) from heaven: therefore, god sent the second dragon with a flaming sword, who cast her (as were our first parents out of paradise) out of her heaven of power, and authority, and drove her into the wilderness for 1260 years, chap. 12.1.6.14. many expositors call that falling away in conversation, that grand, and general revolt of the gospel church from faith, and obedience: howbeit, it was in her true members (though much inwardly) chiefly in outward appearance, and practice. the gradual aggresses of the church's defection (from about 340 to 407) we shall show afterwards. the sixth interval. the sixth epoch (and this, of a different denomination, more fully proves the former) is of the church's abode in her place prepared of god, which is twice recorded in two several texts of the same chapter. and the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of god, that they should feed her there 1260 days; which (being, as we shall instantly, and irrefellibly show, days annual) are 1260 years, chap. 12.6. and there were given to the woman two wings of a great eagle, that she might flee into the wilderness, into her place, where she is nourished for a time, times, and half a time, from the face of the serpent, ver. 14. the times in both texts are exactly the same, and make a twisted, or double record: that the epoch of the church's abode in her place prepared of god, was to be 1260 years. into the wilderness: that is, into an obscure, sad, desolate, and distressed condition, both in temporal, and spiritual respects. into her place prepared of god: having here proved the epoch by the double testimony of two texts, we shall refer this place prepared of god, but a little further, to a fitter place, where we shall show, what this place, prepared of god, was where the gospel-church was to be preserved for 1260 years. the seventh epoch. is of the death of the witnesses: and when they shall have finished their testimony (their primitive testimony in 407, and not their 1260 years' prophecy in sackcloth) the beast (saith the text) that cometh out of the bottomless pit (the second dragon) shall overcome, and kill them (shall cast them out of their primitive power, and capacities (temporal and spiritual) and kill many of them corporally) and their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, called spiritually sodom, etc. that is, their dejected condition shall be visible, and obvious to the frequent view of those spiritual gentiles of that threefold city of apostasy. and they of the people's, and kindred's, &c. (those gentiles aforesaid) shall see their dead bodìes (their persecuted, and despised state) three days, and an half: that is, three times, and an half, chap. 12.14. or 1260 days annual, or years, chap. 13.3. that's the epoch both of the death of the witnesses, and of their prophesying in sackcloth: and so, their type (eliah, and the prophets of israel) finished also their (as it were) primitive testimony against the wickedness of ahab, and israel's apostasies: and (when they had finished that primitive testimony) jezabel, ahab, and the false prophets killed them for 1260 days literal. that is, killed many, or the most, and persecuted all for 1260 days: therefore, they, that escaped death corporal, fled, with the persecuted church (as into a wilderness) into the secret subterfuges of obscure latency for 1260 days literal. so long also did her, and their type-surviving witnesses (as well they might, and had most just cause) prophesy (as in sackcloth) in great obscurity, and contempt: and just so long was rain literal restrained: to wit, for 1260 days literal. but (after those flying, persecuted, type-witnesses had finished those 1260 days of their type-death, and prophesying ●n sackcloth) they were not killed; we find little of that in that grand exemplar, or pattern. so when the gospel-witnesses (st. basit, ambrose, athanasius, jerom, chrysostom, and others) had finished (not this sackcloth prophesy of 1260 years, but) their primitive testimony, about 407, against the fast approaching defections of the primitive church; and when she, and her revolting children repented not; then did the beast that came out of the bottomless pit (the second dragon) kill the witnesses: and the sea born-beast, and false prophet-papal, to whom that dragon gave his power (the supremacy therein) prosecuted (though they seemed gentle for the first 805 years) the killing of them for 1260 (as in the pattern literal) days annual. therefore, they (such as escaped death corporal) fled with the persecuted church into the spiritual wilderness (into the secret subtersuges of obscure latencies) for 1260 (as in the type literal days) days annual: just so long was rain restrained (in the type literal, in the anti-type spiritual rain) to wit, for 1260 (as in the pattern days literal) annual days, or years: and therefore, the gospel-witnesses (such as were killed by the death of persecution, but not corporally, or totally killed) prophesied (as well they might, and had most just cause) for 1260 (as in the pattern literal) days annual in sackcloth: th' it is, in great infirmity, affliction, obscurity, and contempt, for 1260 years. wherefore, when they had finished (for that's intended in the text) their primitive testimony about the year four hundred and seven, or ten, than the second dragon (somewhat assisted, even at first, by the beast, and false prophet) overcame, and killed them as aforesaid for 1260 yea: but (after that epoch of their 1260 years' death, and prophesying in sackcloth) they (as their type were not) are not to be killed: there was no such thing in the pattern, nor shall be in the anti-type of it: nor is there any ground (that i find) for it in scripture, but, abundantly sufficient for the contrary: for, we may add to this (of itself full evidence: that it plainly appears to be a matchless piece of absurdity: that the witnesses should prophesy in sackcloth 1260 years, because they should be killed (many killed, and all persecuted) so long by the dragon, beast, and false prophet, who were to continue in power so long: and then (when the witnesses should have finished that 1260 years' prophecy, and the dragon, beast, and false prophet, should cease to be in full power) the beast out of the bottomless pit (scarce in being himself, or not in such full power) should overcome, and kill them the second time, for 1260 days, immediately after he (for who else should kill them) had first killed them for 1260 years before: the futility of this absurdity, the patterns (which are more than one) sufficiently resell: but that is also fully done in the sequel by many (perhaps undeniable) demonstrations. from what already appears we plainly see; that the epoch (the twice repeated three days, and an half, in the 11th chapter) of the death of the witnesses is 1260 (as in the pattern of days literal) of days annual, or years, and runs exactly parallel with their prophesying in sackcloth succeeding their primitive testimony about the year 407, and not their prophesying in sackcloth 1260 years after it: but (to come nearer to the matter) we shall (having shown the duration of the death of the witnesses) here distinguish. the death of the witnesses was (ab extra, vel ab intra) external, or internal. their external death is threefold; corporall, civil, spiritual: corporal, chiefly from the dragon, civil from the beast, spiritual from the false prophet in all papal sects: to wit: by papal fulminations, excommunications, rash censures, slanders, etc. these external deaths, for brevity, i but briefly hint. but, secondly, their death internal is more properly spiritual, because its the death or decay of spiritual graces; whiles the lusts of the flesh, of the eyes, and pride of life seem to live, and judgement, mercy, and faith to die in the souls of saints, and whiles they manifest that internal death of graces by outward correspondent fruits, and practices: so the church of sardis had a name that she lived, and was dead: and how dead? none of her members were killed (that we read) by any corporal, civil, or spiritual death (as the witnesses were) externally: but, her death was internal, and, more properly, spiritual: her graces were dead or ready to die: therefore, their fruits, her works (differing little, perhaps, in true appearance, from dead works) were not found perfect, though their doctrine might be so sound, and profession so strict, that from thence she might be famed, or have a name that she lived, chap. 3.1, 2. for, hypocrites judge of spiritual life by outward forms, and empty verbal professions, and not by obedience conform to gospel-rule. this inward death of the witnesses (properly spiritual) was presignified, sometimes, by sleep like death; sometimes by death real and literal: and first, by sleep like death; we read, that a deep sleep, and an horror of great darkness (the sun going down) fell upon abrabam, gen. 15.12. abraham (as a prophet) suffered this passive prophecy (as the vision of outward affliction, and inward darkness, and desertion) which was after fulfilled, literally, upon his seed after the flesh in literal egypt, and likewise upon his spiritual seed in egypt spiritual, where such an horror of great darkness, and deep sleep fell upon them, that, the text saith expressly, they were dead: and their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city called spiritually, sodom and egypt, etc. they were spiritually dead, because dead in spiritual egypt, and the means of their resurrection from that death was by the spirit of life from god entering into them: that is, their graces were dead; or sick, dying graces: they did not awake unto righteousness, but slept a sleep like death in sin, and disobedience: they held forth a righteousness inconform to gospel-rule, such as some sects, heathens, and heretics hold forth; and might dream, that to be true obedience, scarce thinking upon true righteousness in practice, which we shall after show what it is. had abraham not slept, yet, that horror of great darkness, that fell upon him, had been sufficient to hide all things from his sight, that he could see little, or nothing, and do as little: but (besides that darkness) a deep sleep fell upon him, so that he might seem dead in that sleep, buried in darkness; yet abraham was not dead all that time: so a lasting lethargy like death, and a deep sleep of insensibility, and spiritual security was to fall upon his spiritual seed (the gospel-church and her witnesses) for 1260 years: yet neither they, nor she could be quite dead all this time, but should retain some inward, sick, secret (but living) graces all the time of their lying, as dead in that threefold city: for, secondly, i sleep (saith the church) but my heart waketh, cant. 5.2. she slept (after the similitude of her patriarch abraham) a deep sleep like death, but was not dead: the members of her body, both for action, and understanding (hands, feet, head) were exceeding drowsy or in a deep sleep, but her heart awaked: she was not dead, but lived by some weak, sick (but living) inward graces. an inseparable sign of such a deep spiritual sleep, is the difficulty to make her, or her members, know that such a lethargy lies upon them, with a great impugning unwillingness to be awaked. secondly, that inward spiritual death was also prefigured by death literal: for, the drybones were the whole house of israel (not so much legal as) evangelical; and those bones were dead, ezek. 37.3, 11. for, the witnesses (the subordinate heads of the church) could not be dead, but the members of the same body must be much more dead. secondly, i might here show, that jonah, & our blessed saviour presignified prophetically, not only that outward threefold death aforesaid, but also this inward and spiritual death of the witnesses: towit, jonah by a seeming death, and our saviour by a real death; the durations of both which (three days and an half artificial, or 42 hours) are exactly conform (as prophetic types) to the duration of the death of the witnesses: to wit, three days and a half; that is, three years and a half, or forty two months of days annual, which are 1260 years, as we shall more irrefellibly show in the sequel. the eighth epoch. is of the treading of the gospel-church, and her witnesses under foot by those gentiles (the spiritual gentiles of this threefold mystery of iniquity) whom we find fitly described in the 8th, and 9th. verses of the 11th chapter, to wit, the spiritual ethnics (gentiles in practice, by profession christians) of anti-christ sensual, secular, and spiritual: and the holy city (the gospel-church, and her witnesses) shall they (these very gentiles) tread under foot for forty two months saith the text, chap. 11.2. that is, they shall persecute, convitiate, rashly censure, and contemn the gospel-church, and her witnesses, and her, and their testimony, for forty two months: here needs no daniel to read the sins of the revolted church, too easy to be read in her just punishments: and what were the gospel-churches chief sins? she, and her saints trod under foot (contemned, slighted, neglected, at least too much) substantial knowledge of the truth, true obedience, and the witnesses of both, and (perhaps under a blind pretence of minding things plain, and most necessary) espoused a trivial, shallow, superficial knowledge of the truth, with like obedience: and where read you this? her just punishment renders it in capital letters; she (for treading under foot, or not promoting, and advancing, with due diligence, things most sacred, profitable and honest) was given into the hands of the gentiles to be trodden under foot forty two months: and what those forty two months are, the very next verse tells you expressly: that they are 1260 days: to wit, days annual or year, swherefore, the epoch of the thus treading underfoot of the gospel-church, and her witnesses (which also imports their death, & fully shows both the time, and manner of it) is the same with the former; all synchronizing. the ninth interval is of the witnesses sackcloth prophesy: and i will give power to my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy a thousand, two hundred, and sixty days clothed in sackcloth. rev. 11.3. our blessed saviour and his disciples prophesied (as in sackcloth) to the legal and jewish church (a rebellious and gainsaying people) for 1260 days literal, predicted by daniel's half week of years: he also wept over jerusalem for the (than chiefly spiritual) desolations of zion: we have also shown, that the prophets in ahab's time (while rain was restrained) prophesied (as prototypes) in great affliction, and sorrow (as it were in sackcloth) for 1260 days: so, their anti-type (the gospel-witnesses) were to prophesy also in sackcloth (in great sorrow, and affliction) for 1260 days: to wit, days annual, or 1260 years, which the ensuing epochaes, and sequel of this treatise, will also fully show. the tenth epoch is of the six trumpets sounding. the six trumpets sounding, and the witnesses sackcloth prophecy (though of different denominations) are the same thing, and the duration of both the same time: lift up thy voice (saith the lord to the prophet) like a trumpet, show my people their transgressions, etc. so, six angels should sound their trumpets: that is, the gospel-witnesses should prophesy six times seven months of days annual, which make 1260 years: so long they should prophesy in sackcloth: that is, they should lift up their voices like trumpets (as the priests of the lord did at the siege of jericho) six times, but with somewhat feeble blasts, and in much frailty, and without any great visible effect, or event of their sounding to convince sects, or convert heretics: but they should sound their six trumpets (prophecy in sackcloth) no longer: for, there should be no longer time saith the text. no longer time of the six trumpets sounding, of the witnesses sackcloth prophesy, nor any longer time of the transactions and durations of all these twelve epochaes: but then (or very soon after) when the 7th angel should begin to sound (when the witnesses shall begin to prophesse with more power in practice) then, the mystery of god should be finished as he hath declared, etc. that is: his church should then begin to be adorned as a bride, and the mystery of iniquity in all sects (papal, mahometan, and modern) to be made manifest: they shall proceed no further (saith the text) for their folly shall be made manifest to all men: this epoch of the six trumpets (though sufficiently clear at present) is fully proved in the precedent epochaes, and ensuing parts of this treatise. the eleventh epoch. the eleventh epoch (the same time, and thing with the former for the most part) is of the pouring out of the six vials: they were golden vials, but full of the plagues and wrath of god; therefore, they synchronize with the six trumpets sounding, and with the witnesses sackcloth-prophesie: for, the witnesses were to smite the earth with all plagues as often as they would in the days of their prophecy, which we find were 1260 days, and prophetically import (as is, or rather will be made apparent) so many years: it's apparent therefore, that the witnesses (prophesying for six times seven months of days annual, or 1260 years in sackcloth) were the six angles that sounded their six trumpets, and the six angles that poured forth their golden vials; and, that their successive prophecies in sackcloth, for six time; seven months of days annual, were those six golden vials: for, god gave them power to prophesy so long in sackcloth; and their prophecy by the power of god is, no doubt, a golden vial, and six golden vials in that sixfold space of time: but six golden vials full of the plagues, and wrath of god, contingently, or occasionally, upon the impenitent, anti-chrictian world, because of their profane contempt of their reproofs: for, corruptis optimi pessima; the best things, by abuse, bring the worst effects: so the gospel-witnesses prophecies and reproofs, by the power of god, are (& that's undeniable) golden vials full of the greatest mercies to men, by them admonished, but, by abuse, they are (though golden vials) filled with all the plagues of the wrath of god. and how do the gospel-witnesses, and the anti-christian world fill those golden vials of the witnesses reproofs with the wrath of god either against themselves or oothers? i answer, the gospel-witnesses fill (which falls out too oft) their own vials with temporal plagues against themselves: so the prophet (sent to bethel) was some what remiss (but in some circumstance only a man would think) in this duty of prophecy: therefore, he filled that golden vial (the word of the lord in his own mouth) with a self-destroying plague temporal: for, a lion forthwith met him, and slew him: so the gospel-witnesses oft fill their golden vials (their gifts of prophecy) with self-destroying plagues, when they do that duty with a cold, careless remissness, when they prophesy in words, and not in works, or practise themselves what they reprove in others; when they oppose the truth they should promote; whiles they labour not that their lips may preserve knowledge, and they prophesy by power from god; whiles they do not that duty, or do it without sedulity: thus the gospel-witnesses fill their golden vials (the word of prophecy in their own mouths) with self destroying plagues of the wrath of god. lastly, i will givepower to my two witnesses (religious ministers, and magistrates) and they shall prophesy: and what is prophesy? the spirit or gift of prophecy is (saith the text) the testimony of jesus, or a faithful witness of sincere truth both in words and works without delays, diminishing, or defalking (so much as in circumstance) any part of it, which this prophet (sent to bethel) found by sad experience. this appertains (as their duty) to ministers to do it in words, and in works also; and to magistrates to do it in, works, or practise, and in words also, though not in words altogether in such manner as it belongs to ministers. prophesia est testimonium (tum verbis tum fact is) verum afferre; non impugnationem, convitlum, vel cavillationem infer: for, they that prefer truth-opposing-contradiction, or prefer not the truth conform to god's command, prophesy not; or at least, fill that golden vial (their power, and gifts to prophesy) with the plagues, and wrath of god against themselves. secondly, others also (perhaps true saints) fill the golden vials of the gospel-witnesses with self-destroying, temporal plagues: so a certain prophet said to a man in the name of the lord: smite me i pray thee: the man (perhaps in favour to him as a prophet) refused to smite him, and so filled that golden vial (the word of the lord in the mouth of that prophet) with a self-destroying plague: for, a lion also forthwith met him, and slew him, 1 kings 20.35, 36. saints sometimes (too oft) fill the golden vials of the witnesses with the sharpest temporal plagues against themselves: oft with grievous spiritual plagues and desertions, which themselves sustain; oft with most deadly plagues upon all men: babylon the great (rome-pagan, or rather rome christian and papal, newly apostate in manners) fell: that is, the saints (that stood in her, and that only could fall indeed) fell from their first love, and works, and some fled out of her: therefore, her plagues (her witnesses having finished their primitive testimony against her defections) came in one day; death, mourning, famine, fire, chap. 18.2, 8. a few sincere saints in that city stood, and that city (supported by their standing) stood firm; a few sincere saints fell; and babylon the great fell by their fall; fell temporally, by their spiritual fall in part: their fall, (though but in part) filled the vials of her faithful. witnesses (their reproofs, and prophecies) with the plagues, and wrath of god, which they poured forth upon that falling city. true saints thus fill the golden vials of the witnesses with plagues against themselves, against the church, of god, against all men; if (whiles they sound their trumpets) they shut their ears, or are hearers of the word only, not doers of it, or do it carelessly, or inconform to god's command; if they forget judgement, mercy, faith, and mind more the tything of mint and cummin: if they deny the witnesses their due honour, or due maintenance, or tread them, or their testimony under their feet by a careless disregard, or dilatory neglect of it, or them. thirdly, the anti-christian world fills the golden vials of the witnesses with plagues, and wrath against themselves, when they design or seek to attempt any thing against them: eliah prophesied the death of ahaziah: then the captains of fifties filled that vial (by attempting against him) full of god's wrath against themselves. for, fire came down from heaven, and devoured them, and their fifties, 2 kings 1. so, if any man will hurt (his antitype) the gospel witnesses, fire proceedeth out of their mouths, and devoureth their enemies: that is, they fill their golden vials (the word of prophecy in their mouths) with devouring fire from heaven to destroy themselves, rev. 11.5. pharaoh and his servants filled the golden vials (the word of the lord in the mouth of moses) with many self-destroying plagues: and the very same also does the anti-christian world with the vials of the witnesses. and first, moses turned waters into blood: the egyptians (by their disobedience) made them so, exod. 7.19, 20. so, the gospel-witnesses (moses and aaron's antitypes) turned waters into blood: the bloodthirsty brought this plague upon themselves, rev. 11.6. ch. 16.3, 5, 6. secondly, egypt was plagued with frogs, and her antitype with frogs also, exod. 8.2. rev. 16.13. thirdly, both were plagued with boyles and sores, exod. 9.10. rev. 16.7. fourthly, egypt was plagued with the plague of hail; so was her anti-type, exod. 9.23, 4. rev. 8.7. fifthly, egypt was plagued with locusts; so was her anti-type, exod. 10.1415 rev. 9.3. sixthly, both type egypt, and her anti type were plagued with darkness. exod. 10.21. rev. 9.2. these, and sundry others were those plagues of the six golden vials (the word of the lord in the mouths of his witnesses) rebelled against. golden vials: such the propesies and reproofs of the witnesses are: filled with plagues: such, impenitent men make them to be: and how do men (the member of anti-christ) fill those golden vials with plagues against themselves. i answer, they despise reproof, persecute their reprovers: they value not the words of the witnesses; read not, regard not their writings: but (being reproved) their business is to study cavils, and contradictions, or find both without study, or care to understand what they cavil are, or whom, or for what they contradict: thus spiritual egypt (resolving like pharaoh and his servants to work wisely) do very soolishly in filling the golden vials of the witnesses with the plagues and wrath of god against themselves, by persevering in sordid avarice, and truth-opposing, saint-persecuting cruelties. secondly: filthy sodomites (the froth of fluid wit and folly) fill those vials of the witnesses with the plagues and wrath of god (as their type did) against themselves, by persisting sensual against admonitions to sobriety; slothful against their exhortations to sedulity; by entertaining their rebukes with loose laughter, and making a mock of their reproofs: solutes high captant hominum risus: lavish laughter of folly and ignorance is their food, whereby they fill their minds with windy levity, their lives with evil manners, those golden vials with the wrath of god, and so bring down fire from heaven upon their own heads: so type sodim (mocking her reprovers) perished; so perished her princes, and rulers for not reproving of her. thirdly, anti-type, apostate jerusalem (professors of blind, zealous, devout ignorance in all sects) fill the golden vials of the witnesses with most deadly plagues, by resisting them, and by bringing evil reports upon their just reproofs: so jannes and jambres resisted moses; they hardened the hearts of pharaoh's servants, by exalting themselves (the basest men) above moses, and by preferring their own illusions above his real worth & works: so their antitypes prefer their own formalities before the real works of the true witnesses: hic apprimè, hoc optimè: this man's work, these men's writings are like apples of gold in pictures of silver; but the witnesses golden vials are brass; their words false, their works counterfeits: thus they fill (by odious comparisons, and preferring their own deceits)) those vials of real gold, with the greatest and most deadly plagues against themselves. so the ten spies filled the golden vials of the promises of god with fierce plagues against themselves, and the people; by bringing evil reports upon the land of promise, and worse upon the word of god, that promised that land to the people of israel: therefore, they all perished instantly by the plague, and all israel from twenty years old upward (about four excepted) perished in the wilderness: so, the antichristian world (and, chiefly, pharisaical hypocrites) fill the vials of the witnesses with the fierce wrath of god against themselves, by bringing evil reports upon the prophetic promises, and word of prophecy in sacred scriptures through a profane careless ignorance of them: and ignorance is the mother of evil reports, and fills (not only their hearts with malice, but) their mouths with blind misconstructions, blasphemies, and, at best, with wicked excuses, cavils, slanders against the gospel-witnesses and their record: thus they fill their golden vials with the most deadly plagues against themselves: for, they affect a fruitless delibation of divine truth without depth in doctrine or due obedience, which (though a small measure of knowledge is sufficient to save the humble) serves but to harden their hearts, to seek or find cavils against solid truth, & sincere obedience: for, the three evil grounds had not, or afforded not a fruitful depth to growing seeds; but the good ground only both had, and afforded depth of earth to the seed of grace: and this depth of earth in men's judgements, and obedience (at least in their desires, and affections) makes those golden vials of the witnesses the more the vessels of honour, and fills them with all mercies: but that threefold want of fruitful depth in anti-christ sensual, secular, and spiritual (at least in their affections) fills those vials with all plagues of the wrath of god: these have power to smite the earth with all plagues as oft as they will: that is, to pour forth the six vials filled therewith: to wit: for 1260 years in the days of their prophecy, rev. 11.6. that's the epoch of these six vials, of the witnesses sackcloth prophesy of the six trumpets sounding, and of all these twelve epochaes: for, there shall be time no longer: but in the days of the voice of the seventh angel, when he shall begin to sound, the mystery of god shall be finished, chap. 10.6, 7. and, when the seventh angel shall pour out his vial, it shall be done, ch. 16.17. the mystery of god shall be finished or done, that is, the true church (as a city set upon an hill) shall begin to be seen, and embraced by all sects and nations; and the mystery of iniquity in all sects, (papal, mahometan, and modern) shall begin effectually to be made manifest to themselves and others. the signal congruity betwixt the seven vials and 7 trumpets (and that in all their transactions and in the series and places of their transactions) shows plainly that both (contrary to the opinion of many that are contrary minded) run parallel and import (if not all together) for the most part, the same times and things. one (and not the least) of the plagues of those six vials (and not the plague of one particular vial, but of all the six) is the restraint of spiritual rain: the duration of which is the next, and last epoch we shall here insist upon. the twelfth epoch. is of the restraint of spiritual rain; and (in handling of it) i shall exert that promised epitome of the series or the mystery of iniqnity, by showing some of the chief transactions of those twelve epochaes for 1260 years. i shall here also show, what that iniquity and those sins are, which shut heaven that it should not rain; and what that obedience to god and right to man is, that shall open heaven and bring down plenteous showers of temporal blessings and spiritual graces upon all churches and nations. the restraint of rain, in type was 1260 days; literal rain, literal days: this restraint of rain was of spiritual rain for 1260 days annual: that is, for 1260 years: that's the epoch of the restraint of rain spiritual, rev, 11.3, 6.) as 1260 days literal were, in the type, the restraint of literal rain, luke 4.25. james 5.17. these have power to shut heaven that it rain not (saith the text) in the days of their prophecy, ch. 11.6. and what the days of their sackcloth-prophesie are, the third verse expressly tells you, that they were 1260 days: to wit, days annual; that is, there should be a restraint (as, in the pattern, of literal) of spiritual rain. (to wit, of spiritual graces in a great measures) or 1260 years. no true grace-figuring-rain fell, in the pattern, for 1260 days, which shows the grievous restraint of spiritual graces (figured by rain) which should be in the anti-type for 1260 years: that is, there should be rather a continued decay, than any vigorous and visible return of frugiferous graces for 1260 years. apostate israel had water to keep them alive, for 1260 days, but no rain to refresh the land: that went daily back, became more barren, nor were the hearts of the people turned back to obedience till about the end of those 1260 days, 1 kings 18.17. so (it seems) gospel revolting israel was to be preserved, as it were alive (by some secret, sick graces) for 1260 years, but not raised to a fertile life so long, or not until the spirit of life should first raise her witnesses, whose three days, and an half of their spiritual death is (as a second record of confirmation) the same epoch with those 1260 years of rain restrained: so long the land of gospel, revolted israel (in some sort also dead) did, or should decay daily ingarces, grew unnatural growing seeds, and became (terra tota dehiscens) a most barren dry land, all parched into cracks, and clyftsofschisms, full of errors, and evil manners; and yet a people fond pleased with the opinion that they have repent, whiles their hearts (according to theintent of this prophecy) are not turned back from the lusts of the flesh, the lusts of the eyes, and pride of life: which threefold covetousness is idolatry, the grand idols of anti-christ sensual, secular, and spiritual, and threefold root of all evil. they (nor are true saints free from the same faulr.) turn to a form, not to the power of godliness; get faces like faces of men; hair like the hair of women, but retain teeth of lions, rev. 9.7, 8. and what's repentance? if it be not some sound, shallow (carelessly shallow) doctrine in a fruitless form, they know not what it is. they place repentance in the strict pursuit of their own seers, blind prescripts. and why were not the hearts of legal, apostate. israel turned back till about the end of 1260 days? because they turned their backs upon obedience, and their faces from repentance all that time: that time was the interval (the epoch) of typeisrael's grand apostasy. and 1260 days annual (or years) are the anti type duration of the gospel-churches grand defection from faith, and obedience: but this fully confirms it: to wit, because we find here the same duration of 1260 years to be the epoch of the restraint of spiritual rain (of spiritual graces figured by rain) which necessarily infers (for what can earth without water bring forth) the churches, and her witnesses defection (at least in part) just so long. therefore, these 1260 years were to be that time wherein gospel revolted israel (and true saints, too much) should turn their backs upon obedience, and faces far from works worthy of repentance; that time wherein self-seducing professors retrograde by going forward, and run into perdition whiles they seek to shun their own ruin. but they have been busy, as he was, here and there, whom the disguised prophet personated: about what in seeking things that belong unto their peace: to wit, according to the common, careless, blind custom of formal professors: but never did they know, little did they ever think, that they were only busy all that time in turning their backs upon obedience, and faces from repentance: a man would think (& they verily believe) that their blind zoea lous endeavours are a perpetual pursuit of true repentance, and things that belong unto their peace, whiles they thereby turn their backs upon both. little did the blind syrians believe they turned their backs upon dothan, when they went forward with their faces wards samaria: little did the pharisees think they did (by all their devout endeavours) hide the things that belonged to their peace, from their own eyes: and as little does the anti-christian world believe they take a wrong course, whiles they (by their proud and profane contempt of things profitable) put felicity far from them, and exile peace. they (well content, as the parisees were with their wont knowledge) will not know these things: what profit cometh (say they) by knowing of them? this is not the course (that such professors take) to obtain the rain of righteousness, but the ready way (though they will in no wife see it) to shut heaven that it rain not. eliah prayed, and endeavoured earnestly that the hearts of apostate israel might be turned back, which was not done till about the end of those 1260 days of rain restrained: then their hearts were turned back from halting betwixt two opinions, and from dead idols to serve the living god: that was done in a shadow, and so less permanent: but it may seem more than probable, that the hearts of revolted gospelisrael (about the end of those 1260 years' restraint of spiritual rain) shall begin to turn back from halting (not betwixt two, but) many opinions to a permanent unity of true faith, and manners; that anti-christ sensual, secular, and spiritual, may then begin (begin effectually) to return from the lusts of the flesh, the lusts of the eyes, and pride of life to true christian sobriety, mercy, and charity: that the son of perdition (as judas convinced hanged himself) shall begin to strangle (with his own hands) his own barbarrous inhumanities': that sensual professors shall begin to forsake open profaneness, secular professors sordid tenacity, and spiritual false professors their blind, senseless prescripts of pride and ignorance, that all (their errors being made manifest by gospel-light) may glorify god: sic anti-christus, penitùs evictus, exibit; so anti-christ (beirg fully, and clearly convinced) shall turn true convert. then shall his profane heart be turned back; back from proud contempt of sacred truth, and neglect of the practice of it: back from blindness of heart to heart-enlargements in the light of the truth of the gospel; and turned back from blaspheming god, and his tabernacle by bringing (as the spies did upon the land of promise) evil reports upon gospel-truth, and the witnesses of it: * phil. morn. de papat. p. 660. so many papists (and protestants, too much) blaspheme the sacred word of god saying: it's insufficient, ambiguous, dangerous, deceitful; and formal professors please themselves with a careless, trivial, shallow, sound doctrine, fond affecting the stony grounds grand curse for the greatest blessing. they pretent that the plain scriptures please them well; that the rest yields much labour, little profit: profane sloth, pride, covetousness imprint such blind opinions in the hearts of hypocrites, who (catching as they conceive at part) lose the profit, of all the scriptures: wherefore, * campd. brit. p. 141. as bede much complained, that many in his time were contented with a trivial literature; so, it hath been the misery of all times (of those times especially wherein, heaven being shut, the rain of graces should be most restrained,) that men, sects (and saints, too much) content themselves with a trivial shallow knowledge of sacred truth: for, the stony ground (of all evil grounds the worst) had a trivial, shallow superficies of fertile earth, only it wanted depth, therefore, it's most deceitful, and destructive to itself, and to thesowers of it: for, it's a true saying: non babet ars inimicum praeter ignorantem: and it may be no less truly said, that this careless, heaven-shutting, shallow ground of professors, profanely prond, contentedly ignorant, or puffed up with their shallow (though perhaps literally sound) knowledge, are the greatest opposers of profound truth, persecutors of the witnesses of it, and the chief matter (as we shall instantly show) of the son of perdition properly so called: for, filthy lucre, and pride, constrains them to cast aside all faithful care and pains in searching after substantial truth: therefore, their doctrine, and their doings are both, but deceits: for, such as their doctrine is; such their doings are such as their knowledge, such their practice: tali patellâ dignum operculum, a careless, blind, shallow, persecuting obedience best befits their fruitless superficial knowledge; so, the pharisees (figured chiefly, by the stony ground, and by whom especially our lord was crucified) had (like these their anti-type) a trivial, superficial knowledge, with like obedience: said, but did not, and were the principal part of the type-son of perdition. search the scriptures (said our saviour) for they are they that testify of me: the pharisees searched the scriptures (as they thought) di; igently, but divided them not aright: they divided the word, and their obedience thereunto by a division (not of right distinction, but) of separation, and, by that separation, separated themselves from all right to any part of it: they searched the scriptures diligently: to wit, such literally, (and those chief) that held forth legal and ceremonial ordinances; but they searched them not, as they shadowed forth christ; nor those prophecies that clearly testified of him; or they searched those scriptures slightly: they had no doubt (as modern hypocrites have) their thunderbolts of blasphemy against such scriptures, and the diligent searchers of them, and could call them perhaps, ambiguous, dangerous, deceitful; useless allusions, vain allegories: and the sober disquisitors of such sacred oracles they might account curious quaestors about trifles, and trivial expenders of wasted pains in searching things in pertinent, or to little purpose: therefore was their obedience also (conform to their knowledge) divided and separated: they diligently observed legal rites, and placed their religion (as their anti-type doth in empty forms) in their observing of them: but the grand duties or great commands (judgement, mercy, and faith) they separated from the less, and (as least regarded) rejected, math. 23.23. luke 11.42. wherefore, whiles they divided (separated, rejected) the knowledge of those scriptures, that chiefly testified of christ from those that (literally, as they took them) testified less of him, they wholly abandoned all benefit that might redound from both to themselves: and whiles they divided (separated, rejected) the grand duties of obedience to god (judgement, mercy, and faith to men) from the less, they cast off all obedience. so these professors (their offspring, and anti-type) that affect a fruitless, shallow knowledge, and such obedience, search the scriptures (as they suppose) diligently, but divide not the word aright: they divide the word, and their obedience by a division (not of right distinction but) of separation: they separate the plain from the prophetical (as saul rend samuel's mantle) and thereby separate themselves from all right to any part in either: for, as that wicked harlot would have the child divided; so they well approve (as they pretend) the plain scriptures, but reject the rest as useless, qor impertinent; and so (as she had no part in the living child) they deprive themselves of all right to the word of life. they, therefore (as the pharisees did) affect, and make a schism in doctrine, and obedience; separate and reject the solid, and retain the trivial, which serves them only to blaspheme, & bring evil reports upon all sound knowledge, & sincere obedience: and this profaneness may be found to come in the van of those sins that shut heaven. heaven shutting profaneness is threefold: sensual, earthly, and devilish. this threefold profaneness is also threefold: in thought, word, and deed; and versant in a threefold subject (the highway, thorny, and stony grounds) whose fruits are a slothful, worldly, and proud non-vacancy to seek, or submit unto sound knowledge, and sincere obedience. this threefold profaneness in thought, is a threefold inward deception of the intellect, will, and affections; but, in word, and deed, the same deception exerted. the ourward attractives, and objects of this threefold profaneness are three different forts of divertisements. the divertisements of sensual profaneness are, sloth and sinful pleasures. of secular, or earthly profaneness, worldly profits. of spiritual profaneness, pride, opinion, blind superstition, busy ignorance. the first non vacat a ventre, sensual high-way-professors are ever so busy in gathering grapes of sodom, that they have no leisure to look towards zion. professors secular are so set upon the world, that they see no benefit, but in worldly business: their grapes grow all on thorns. but, professors proud and pharisaical (the stony ground) are ever most diligent in dressing the basest briers of ambition, that bring forth nothing but evil surmises, rash censures, and all uncharitableness: only from pride come contentions and these fires issue forth (as jothams' parable proved) only, or chiefly fromthe briers of pride, and ignorance, which the stony ground produceth: and this profaneness (the devotion of pride) is that principal sin that shuts heaven, and the chief cornerstone in the fabric of the apostasy of anti-christ, which comes next to be handled. chap. vii. an epitome of the series of this threefold mystery of lniquity, wherein some chief transactions of this interval of rain restrained, and of all the twelve epochaes (for 1260 years) are briefly handle d. i have therefore, insisted the more upon this stony grounds spiritual profaneness, as the principal foundation of the apostasy, and shall therewith, instantly present the reader with the structure of it erected, chiefly, upon this ground: for, i shall here take liberty to insist a little upon this epoch of rain restrained; because i shall from hence more evidently demonstrate the commencements (not only of this, but) of all the twelve epochaes, and therewith propose this promised short epitome of the grand apostasy: to which also some necessity, upon the rea dersa ccount, constrains me: because such as are weakest to apprehend, are readiest to ask questions, before they understand the grounds of their own demands, or know what they ask, and are no less uncapable of conviction from the most rational solutions, which weakness or indisposition is double, for want of some short and perspicuous map of the series of things to be first conceived: wherefore; we shall, first. distinguish anti-christ sensual, secular, and spiritual, & show which of the three is chiefly that son of perdition intended by the apostle, 2 thes. 2.3. secondly, we shall show when, and in what manner all three came. thirdly, whereas the bicorn-beast came up out of the earth; we shall further show what earth brought him forth. fourthly, we shall show how, and when that pseudoprophetick-beast laid his foundation of deceit, and began to build thereon, the body of apostasy. fifthly, how, and when he (to that intent) took away from the primitive church her power, and, church-priviledges. sixthly, we shall show his progress in building upon that forged foundation. seventhly, we shall show, how the threefold man of sin is bound (as in a threefold chain of darkness) by a threefold inconviction (of sin, of righteousness, of judgement) whereby they cannot discern those sins that shut heaven, nor that righteousness which should open it: therefore, we shall show what those sins chiefly, are that shut heaven. and, lastly, what that righteousness to men, and true obedience to god is, that shall open heaven, and be the means (the only means under god) to bring down showers of temporal blessings, and divine graces upon all church-societies, sects, and nations. and first, we shall distinguish anti-christ sensual, secular and spiritual. sensual anti christ (or his first appearance in power) was the second dragon's military forces, when he came in the van of them, invaded the christian world, and made rome imperial tributary, about the year 407: for, that flood filled the christian world with heathenism, gross heresies, & all sensual profaneness, which body sensual, and heretical (conjunct with such as themselves were in those nations they subdued) then created, and hath from that time continued anti-christ sensual, secondly, secular anti-christ (rallyed under his head, the decapolit-beast, not pagan, but papal) were the more worldly-minded professors, and powers of the ten nations of rome papal, who (falling more fully from faith and obedience about or after the year 407) at first constituted, and have ever since in their like successors, continued anti christ secular: and these (more strict, and orthodox, but) covetous professors in all sects, are the moresecular part of the body of apostasy. thirdly, spiritual anti-christ (rallyed under his proper head the false prophet, or bicorn beast papal) was the proud, factious, blind, busy professors (most strictly formal who (falling more fully from faith (faith of veracity) about or a little after 407) at first constituted, and their successors continued, anti-christ spiritual: and these (somewhat orthodox, but proud and factious) are, in all sects, the more spiritual part of the body of apostasy. but, secondly, all three will be much more clearly distinct by our further showing when, and in what manner all three came: and first. antichrist sensual (or his supreme power) was (about the year 407) an alienigena of the northern nations, without the pale of rome imperial: but, after he had invaded & (as it were) vanquished the roman empire, he became (in short process of time) a proselyte in the body of apostasy, being drawn unto it by the bicorn-pseudo-prophetick-beast, that deceived those that dwelled upon the earth by means of those miracles, which he had power to do, etc. rev. 13. 14, for, that bicorn beast won anti-christ sensual, and his floud-like armies, and alie's (originally heathens, and arrians) to a kind of pseudo-christianity in the body of apostasy, wherein he, and his successors (or the major part of his political body) held, or might hold all the proprieties of sensual anti-christ under a loose, careless, trivial, fruitless profession of christ for 1260 years: the mahometans carried on his more literal, and loose christians his more spiritual progress. but, anti-christ secular, and spiritual (who, or whose superintendents are more properly that son of perdition of whom the apostle speaks) were indigenae in the roman empire, and are (most properly) that matter, or body of the apostasy. having thus far described and distinguished all three, we shall (as we have already showed when) further inquire in what manner anti-christ sensual, came. and secondly, when, and in what manner anti-christ secular, and spiritual, (the more proper body of the son of perdition) first came. and first, anti-christ sensual (under the conduct of his proper head, the second dragon) came, torrenti similis, like an (all overturning) deluge about the year 407. and the serpent (saith the text) cast waters out of his mouth as a flood, after the woman, that be might cause her to be carried away of the flood, rev. 12.15. but, by that flood of military forces, he could not so carry her away as to destroy her (for that was his intent as the text imports, and his practice proved) but he caused her to flee into the wilderness for 1260 years, ver. 6.14. after her flight, he went and made war with the remnant of her seed, ver. 6. and when her witnesses had finished their primitive testimony (about the year 407) he overcame, and killed them, chap. 11.7. he then also finally slew the first dragon (that had invited him for a refuge) by the conquering swordof his floud-like armies; translated his (or rather the christian princes) decapolit-empire, and seated himself in the major part of it, till he gave his power, and authority (the supremacy therein) to the (by him first wounded) beast decadiademick papal, ch. 13.7, 4. thus we see the coming of anti-christ sensual, was with all visible, and open violence, and in a profession of literal heathenism, and gross heresies; therefore, he did not, nor could come (secret, and undiscerned as the son of perdition did) with all deceiveableness of unrighteousness: for, he was so far from coming with all deceiveableness of a non-appearance, that he came (as sodom, not ashamed, disclosed her sins) openly manifest, and apparent: therefore, the church saw him openly (could not but see him) and fled from his face into the wilderness for 1260. years, verse 6.14. sundry texts so expressly assert the series of this second dragon, and of (the then chief part of the body of anti-christ sensual) his floods of visibly profane, and most wicked men, and manners, that it seems impossible to be doubted, or contadicted: and sundry faithful church-histories, uncontrollably, determine (though by undeniable collection, and consequence) the time, and manner of his coming as aforesaid, and will further appear. but, secondly, anti-christ secular, and spiritual (the more proper body of the apostasy, and son of perdition) came about the year 412. also (under the conducts of the sea-born, and bicorn beasts papal) with all deceiveableness of unrighteousness; whereby they lest appeared, what they were indeed when they came 2 thes. 2.10. rev. 13.13, 14. but this threefold distinction (as also how, and when each came at first) will be much more clear, by showing what earth brought forth the bicorn false prophet. and therefore. and i saw another beast (saith the text) come out of the earth, and he had two horns like a lamb, etc. ch. 13.11. out of the earth: non omnis fert omnia tellus: the false prophet bicorn, and papal, grew not out of every ground: the highway lest honoured him; he it as little; therefore, gross heresies, and open profaneness, (fruits of the highway ground, which neither could hide him, nor be hid from others) he (at fitst at least) affected not; nor was that his native soil that brought him forth: but the thorny and stony grounds (the truer. parents of all deceits) were the producers of him: those professors (especially the stony ground) gave him his first being, and their professions furnished him with all deceits: for, the stony ground deceives (not some single persons, but) the whole body of the apostasy of anti-christ; that is, this rocky ground (professors lightly over-layed with a trivial, and superficial earth of shallow knowledge, and obedience) deceives its painful sowers, and all that see it: it were fondness (they think) to say: at quando messis? when they see it send forth seeds of grace so fast: but it forthwith retracts its fertility, and, like a furnace, consumes that seed it cherished before, and is most cruel in killing the witnesses of the truth: for, the blind and ambitious offspring of the stony ground, brings, of all evil reports, the worst against all good men and manners; because blind vipers, of all. serpents, by't forest, and they, of all other, are most deadly. and, secondly, it deceives themselves most: if we (say they) have grace like a grain of mustardseed, we need no more; a little is enough, the least sufficient. they are much deceived, though they, in part, say the truth: for, grace like a grain of mustardseed is sufficient for the fimplest, & weakest sincere professor: but a careless, contented, proud knowledge (though it be never so great) is quite contraryto true grace, which is ever growing: sincere professors grow daily in grace, and in the knowledge of our lord christ: but a careless, contented, shallow knowledge continually resists the grace of god, is ever busy in bringing evil reports upon it, and watcheth to work the ruin of the witnesses of it: this is not (that which hypocrites take it to be) the grace of god either like a grain of mustardseed, or in any measure: nor did our saviour say, that the kingdom of god was like a grain of mustardseed, standing at a stay; but like a grain of mustardseed, which (though a small seed) grows as it were, into a tree. the son of perdition should come with all deceiveableness: and this spiritual profaneness of a contented, shallow, literally sound knowledge, with like obedience, was the way of that son of perdition: therefore; he did not, could not come as an arrian, or mahometan, or as antichrist sensual came: there was nothing so great deceievableness in such gross heresies, and open profaneness, which appertain (as more manifest) to antichrist sensual, and not so properly, to this secular, and spiritual, son of perdition, who should come, and came about the year 407 (not with open, manifest, or gross heresies, and manners conform, but) with all deceiveableness of appearance of truth in knowledge, obedience, doctrine, profession, miracles, and pretences to be the true catholic church: these are the angelical colours of deceiveableness, under which he (and chiefly his superintendents) works (secure, and as it were unseen) all works of spiritual wickedness, and under which he came: of all these we shall speak briefly, and in some order, but leave their miracles to their proper place: and first, of the deceiveableness of their pretence to be the catholic. church. it was the apostasy (over which the superintendents this man of sin presided) that seemed catholic, or universal; and that body of apostasy was the antithesis to the true catholic church: herein they deeply deceived those that dwelled upon the earth, and were themselves deceived. the text saith, a falling away must come, 2 thes. 03. that is, there should be a grand and general revolt of the gospel-church from faith, and obedience, say some expositors: they are so many, and common, we need not quote them: but there could not be a general revolt of saints from all inward faith, and from, at least, some outward, weak, and scarce-visible obedience: such therefore, must be excepted: but, otherwise, the apostasy might seem general: we shall search the truth of it in the types, and in their anti-type. and first, the apostasy of israel under the pharisees might seem general, and the pharisees might pretend (by the generality) to be (with their followers) the true catholic church. secondly, the apostasy of israel under ahab might pretend (by the generality) to be the catholick-church. thirdly, the apostasy of israel in the wilderness (when the perfidious spies searched the land of promise) might pretend (by the generality) to be the catholic church: for, all israel, to a man (about four excepted) fell from faith, and obedience: they all observed, literally, legal ordinances (so far as we find) well enough, but rejected the prophetical traditions, that promised them the land of promise: they fell from faith in the promises, from faith of veracity, and from obedience: all fell away except as aforesaid: all rebelled against god, against moses, and aaren, and would have stoned the two faithful witnesses that were sent, numb, 14.9, 10, 11. therefore the ten spies (porters of evil reports) died immediately by the plague, and all israel, whom they had infected with the pestilence of that apostasy (all to a man from twenty years upwards, two excepted) died in the wilderness, ver. 29. and all that sad prophetic story is told, (as it were mutato nomine) of their anti-type (the body of apostasy) who (by their generality) pretend to be the church catholic, who cast away (look not after) the promises in the prophetic scriptures, nor after substantial truth, and obedience; but basely espouse a trivial, superficial, shallow (though somewhat literally sound) knowledge, with obedience conform, which is the productor of evil reports, blasphemies, persecutions, and the pathway that the son of perdition came, when he came with all deceiveableness of unrighteousness about the year 412, as will instantly appear: for, this way is deceiveableness itself (most deceitful) and that sin, chiefly, that shuts heaven, whiles they, and their complices conceive it to be the only key to open it: this was the way of his coming about the year four hundred & seven, ten or twelve; let us turn, therefore, our eyes to about that time, to see more clearly, both the time, way, and manner of his coming. st. hierom's record (and he's the fittest testator here) best occurreth his commencement at such a time, and in such a manner as the apostle predicted, and i here have briefly described: of him erasmus (as clerks church-history witnesseth) thus writeth: quis doces aptiùs, quis delectas urbanùs: st. jerom was (in erasmus esteem, as it might appear) the best teacher, and most delightful writer of all the fathers: he also lived, and was at rome in that very juncture of time, when the christian world was turning upon the hinge of apostasy, and commencing that grand revolt, which ●he apostle speaks of: therefore, his authority (the best of any) may here stand good. but he (about the year 406, as we shall show) called * hieron. ad marcoll v: du am. idem contra jov●n. lib. l. rome-christian (the meiropolis of the then revolting world) a receptacle of devils, and fallen babylon: and st. jerom sure (a most vigilant father of the church, and a sober writer) would not have called rome-christian (then-reviloing) fallen, if he had not seen good reason, or rather real truth for it; that she was then fallen, or in falling: but he gave sufficient reasons; and those reasons, we shall afterwards abundantly show to be real truths: for, it follows * when i livea (saith he) in babylon, an inhatitant of the purple whore, after the roman laws, i would have written something of the holy ghost, and have dedicated the treatise to the bishop of that city: and behold that seething pot, which was seen in the prophet jeremy, looking out of the north, hieron in pref. lib. did. de spirit. sarct. beginneth already to buil, and the senate of pharisees cried out at me all at once: neither was there so simple a scribe in all that ignorant rabble, which conspired not against me: wherefore, i am now (as it were out of captivity) neturned to jerusalem, etc. tempora mutanfur: a sudden change into a strange antithesis: rome (of late, the city of righteousness) revolted, as in a moment, to be the head of the mystery of iniquity; and her professors (once fruitful in all good works) were turned pharisces: and the senate (saith he) of pharisces cried out at me all at once; neither was there so simple a scribe in all that ignorant rabble, that conspired not against me: against whom? against st. jerom, whom the papists themselves acknowledge to be a reverend father of the church. ah perfidious people of the city of apostasy! how soon is the metropolis herself of the primitive church become unstable as waters, and the once firm sear of her faithful witnesses, revolted from faith and manners: for, the manners of that upstart, proud, catholick-church pretending apostasy were (mores iniquissimi) most inhuman (above heathens insolences) even to st. jerom, one of the ablest, and most worthy fathers of the church, who, apparently had more serious and real worth, and solid depth of good ground in him, than all the petty, pebble quarry of that proud senate of pharisees had. and this anti-type (church-catholick pretending) apostasy (when she but began to put forth her rebellious head, and first opened her blasphemous mouth against the faithful witnesses of the truth) had (as much as all her types had) deceitful grounds sufficient to pretend to a church-catholick, and might, and probably did thus plead: why, jerom, do you comes (by your dedications) to dictate to us, as if we needed your instructions in the tenants of the homousian faith? had we needed your help, we had sent for you: and what need (do you think) can the supreme representatives of the catholick-church here, have of your help, a single, and obscure person? and will you insult alone over the catholick-church, tax her with covetousness, rash censures, want of charity, oppression, apostasy, and we know not what? is this your christian meckness, and submission? cannot the city live in peace for you, nor the church in quiet? we all (all here as one man) disdain your daring boldness, and detest your pride: and the senate of pharisees (said jerom) cried out at me all at once, etc. the apostasy (the truth-opposing apostasy) was, or then seemed catholic, and the true catholick-church fled (or was then flying) away into the wilderness. that wicked apostasy (even in her infancy) had aspired to the false title of the true catholick-church, whom she most persecuted, and conspired against her most faithful witnesses: and that (if the records of many, besides jeroms, may be believed) in the metropolis of the true primitive (but then revolting) church. this apostasy, therefore (as her types were) seemed general, or catholic, and did deeply deceive herself, and those that dwelled upon the earth, with the falsely arrogated or stolen title of the true catholic, and apostolic church. st. jerom was no base porter of evil reports, no morose, ●ash, t●●ie accuser, but the most faithful of all the fathers (at least then living) to reprove, exhort, correct, rebuke, instruct: et quis docet aptiùs: none taught with more sincere and true christian candour. but relapsing rome (thus reproved plainly by him) paid dear for her apostasy, and obstinate impenitence: for, about the very next year (and that fully confirms the truth of his reprooss, and the equity of his just complaints) was rome besieged, made tributary, and the body of her christian empire began to be translated: and, about five: years after, the city (the second time besieged) was taken, plundered, burnt, and almost totally depopulated by the plague, sword, famine, fire: then might that miserable city call on jerom, and cry, solon, solon: then was the first, and best head of the sea born beast secular, and papal, wounded (as it were) unto death, upon the day of his birth, or so soon as he was brought forth: and then rome papal, or the tenfold body of apostasy (persisting still obstinate, and impenitent) was, with her revolting head, or metropolis (the ruins of rome literal) given up (by a most just judgement) to persevere in that grand, blind, apostasy, and rebellion against god for 1260 years. in which epoch, heaven should be shalt, that it should not rain (at least that promised rain of special mercies, and divine graces) and yet be open all that time to send down (to pour forth) the six vials (full of the plagues, and wrath of god) upon the obstinate, impenitent, anti-christian world: and this grand inundation of dreadful evils (temporal, and spiritual) flowed (as from its proper fountain) from the churches too free contributing to the general apostasy, by falling (some wholly, some in part) from faith, and manners, to affect a careless, shallow, fruitless knowledge with obedience comform. from faith and manners: that is, not from faith of doctrine, though she fell from that (by degrees) in part: that was (in the beginning of the apostasy) somewhat competently sound, but profanely, and carelessly shallow, chiefly because it wanted right, and charitable application. but from faith and obedience; that is, in her true members (though that but in part) from her, and their first faith of veracity, and obedience conform to gospel rule: for, sound doctrine is (vas continens) a fit vessel to hold forth sincere obedience, either in a full, or a more remiss measure; and as fit (by the abuse of it) to carry on that grand defection aforesaid. and when began this grand apostrophe, or diversion of the gospel-church from faith, and obedience? st. jerom gives you an infallible character (a most sure mark) of the time of this revolt, expressly, in these words: and behold, that seething-pot, which was seen in the prophet jeremy looking out of the north, beginneth already to boil: that is, the fire of affliction from the natitions of the north (the goths, scythians, francs, and sundry others) began to make the pot of apostasy (the falling professors of the revolting church) boil in affliction, that their filthy profaneness (their careless contempt of solid truth and sincere obedience) might boil out. but it did then but begin to boil (beginneth saith he already to boil) for it had not then reached rome, the metropolis, or middle part of that pot: this complaint, therefore and that apostasy, or the nearest proximity to it (as is then appeared to st. jerom) might be, or begin about a year before she was made tributary in 407, or about six years before she was taken, plundered, and burnt by alaricus in 412. for then that fire of affliction made that pot boil in the middle: the full conclusion, and clear inserence is this: that apostasy, or nearest proximity thereto (of, and for which st. jerom so grievously, and most justly complained) might appear to him to begin, or be apparent about the year 406. for, the next year was rome besieged, and paid tribute the next year after: then that pot did more than begin to boil; and, about four hundred, and four, it did not begin: for, * oros. paul. diat. prosp. cland. then stillico subdued radigusus, killed and took all his army, consisting of two hundred thousand; * baron. annal. he also, about that year, beat alaricus two, or three times, and drove him into pannonia: then the fire of affliction scorched sore those barbarous nations, and the pot of which jerom spoke, was scarce touched, or little afflicted therewith: therefore, that grand degeneracy, of which jerom thus complained, must appear to him to be, or begin about the year 406, when the pot of apostasy began to boil, and when the powers of rome-christian, and imperial, and of the primitive church began to be translated into the succeeding kingdoms of the second dragon, beast, and false prophet (as to the far larger part of that power) for 1260 years. howbeit, i see no necessity, that we should bind the ingress of this apostasy, or the commencements of the other epochaes (by a strict-limitation) to any one certain, or fixed year: but they all (brought forth as it were together) began (circa haec tempora) much about those times: to wit, (more apparently and especially) about the years four, hundred and seven, ten, or twelve. but (may some say) st. jerom's testimony (and you produce no other) is too weak to sustain the truth of the commencement of the apostasy of anti-christ, so far as to show how, and when it began. i answer: i shall add the ample witness of sacred writ, of many writers, and of some counsels, & fathers to his testimonies, and so make a twisted cord or a manifold record, not, perhaps, easy to be broken. st jerom then lived, in that very time, wherein those sacred prophecies (pointing forth primitive rome's fall under the figure of babylon) were fulfilled; saw, and might observe the fulfilling of them: he, therefore had those advantages (above all the fathers) that might render him the fittest expounder of them: for, chrysostom died at the beginning of their fulfilling: st. ambrose died in, or soon after the fulfilling of them: st. jerom only was an eye-witness of their fulfilling, and lived after about 13. years: for, then st. augustine was scarce grown to the repute of a father, nor so fit to take notice of those transactions: he survived st. jerom about fifteen years, was a powerful impugner of primitive sects, and so far prevailed, that many owned the orthodox faith, and embraced the unity of (then revolted) papal rome, whose faith was then (excepting as aforesaid) but little heterodox: that church (not withstanding his high deserts, and great pains) persecuted and excommunicated him until his dying day, as we shall instantly show, partly by his own complaints partly from the authority of a cloud of faithful witnesses, and expressly from the testimony of boniface the second. we shall therefore first see how st. jerom (as the most competent for it) paraphraseth upon those prophetic scriptures, that foretold the time, and manner of the ingress of the grand apostasy. and first, the text faith, babylon is fallen, is fallen, apocal. 18.2. and st. jerom applies those very words to imperial rome (in name christian, not much less in outward profession, and doctrine) in that very juncture of time, when the grand defection first commenced: called her then expressly (as the text also then did) fallen babylon. we find this assertion (it is fallen) reduplicated in the text; and not improperly: for, rome imperial, and (more in name then thing) christian, then fell in a double (to wit, both temporal and spiritual) respect. and first. she fell temporally (about the year four hundred and ten, or twelve) as a great millstone cast into the sea, ch. 18.21. and a millstone so cast is seen no more for ever: the whole chapter is an entire description of her twofold fall, and plainly shows, that the terminus a quo of her temporal fall had no terminus ad quem, and, in that respect, should be eternal. here doctor hammonds paraphrases may supply the place of st. jeroms: noting (saith hammond upon the 14th. and 21th. verses) that rome shall never be the barbourer of heathen idols (her former idols) or the seat of the empire any more. the same saith morney, and many others, consubscribing with jerom, to those express texts of sacred scripture: thus we see, that the temporal fall (with the time of it) of rome imperial (than partly pagan, partly orthodox, and partly heretical) is signally apparent from sacred scriptures, and from the testimonies of the fittest unfolders of them. 'tis true (may some say) honorius (who died about the year 427) never, or scarce at any time came to rome after 407, but left that city to the bishop thereof, to the day of his death: but valentinian the third reigned after hovortus for about thirty years: therefore rome did not fall forever in 410, nor so fall temporally, but that it recovered (contrary to jeroms, hammonds, morneyes, and many others testimonies, and contrary to the records of sacred scripture, upon which chiefly they ground their assertions) to be the seat of the empire, for some time after four hundred and ten or twelve. i answer, whether valentinian resided constantly at ravenna or came sometimes to rome, i exactly observe not in history: but morney, and many other authors affirm, that ravenna was (after 412) the place of residence to the supreme powers secular in italy: to wit, to those few following (and but reputed, or so styled) emperors; to the kings of the goths, and of the heruli, and to the exarches of ravenna. if ravenna was valentinians place of residence, or he sometimes (but a stranger) at rome; then was rome no more the seat of the empire under him. but, secondly, suppose valentinian had resided at rome all the time of his reign, yet had not rome, therefore been the seat of the empire, but, at best, but the metropolis of the kingdom of italy: for, the nations of the empire were rend from her; and constantinople was then the supreme imperial seat of the remaining nations. thirdly, were it, that the nations were not then rend away from rome, and admit valentinian had reigned in her all his time; yet his government had been little more than titular; because leo magnus (than bishop of rome) ruled rome, and all that the emperor should rule, after the law of his own arbitrary will: for, rome was then no more imperial, but papal, and pope * fascic. tom pag. 51. leo was of such repute, that what he spoke was so approved, that it was not lawful for any (no, not for the emperor) to descent in the least thing: therefore, what ever valentinian did, or could say or do, it signified nothing without the condescent of leo magnus, that ruled (as it were alone) both the city, & country, and might regulate valentinian himself, as being but one horn of the wounded, (and then scarce healed, but after decadiademick) beast papal: for, leo magnus was anti christs eliah for false miracles, & as it were the pseudo prophetic mouth in his time, of the bicorn beast, that deceived those that dwelled upon the earth, by means of those miracles which were given him to do, etc. for, fourthly, attila and his armies (thatflagellum del, and scourge of the world) marched towards trembling rome to reduce herinto ashes: then the two (if i may so call them) emperors of the east and west (conjunct, or both together) durst not look upon his army. * maffae. 12. p. 164. gench. bergom. but leo alone went forth to meet him, treated with him, and terrified the said attila with an apparition of a clergyman, shaking a two-edged sword at him, and threatening to destroy him, and his armies, if he condescended not to pope leoes demands: attila, affrighted, forthwith retired with his army; and so leo saved rome and all italy from the sword. so when genserious spoiled rome, purposing to have burnt it, there was no emperor to interrupt his armies; ●o, scarce so much as the name of a king to oppose him; but the same * massaeus p. 164. gench. p. 608, leo prevailed with him to spare the city: her bishop ruled in, and over her: rome was never any more imperial; no, scarce regal; but papal: never imperial, but in name for a little time; ever in deed papal after 412. therefore, rome (after 4.2) was no more the seat of the empire, but subject to the bishop thereof, and both he, and it (for a long time) were subject to ravenna even then, when but an exarchate of the greek empire. the nine emperors after valentinian, were but augustuli (not worth the naming) therefore i omit them: and valentinian (though he reigned much longer than they all) may be reckoned one of them: they all bare little rule; leo, at that time, ruled rome and all italy; and therefore, it's signally apparent from the performances of those prophecies (in the 17 and 18 chapters) as we find them faithfully recorded in history; that rome primitive, but apostate in manners (oft adumbrated by babylon in those chapters) fell temporally about the years four hundred and ten or twelve, according to the manifold predictions of those scriptures, and the glosses and paraphrases of the fittest and ablest expounders of them: that is, that rome fell (like a great millstone cast into the sea;) finally, about 412. from all power as pagan and from ever being any more the supreme seat, either of the heathen or christian empire. and secondly, her apostasy or spiritual fall, and the time of it, is no less apparent: first from scripture. babylon (saith the text) is fallen, not fallen only temporally as aforesaid, but) spiritually fallen also: for it follows. and is become the habitation of devils, the hold of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird, vers. 2. this apostasy, and that temporal fall (as the cause and effect) are so contexed in those texts, that they cannot possibly, but be contemporal as aforesaid, which also the testimony of a cloud of writers witnesseth: therefore, that apostasy began (must needs begin) much about the time when rome fell temporally about the years four hundred and seven, ten or twelve. did the pagan and heretical parts, only, thus fall? i answer, they that never stood, never fell: prosternatus humo non habet unde cadat: they did not, could not, so fall, spiritually, as to be chiefly (if at all) intended in those texts: but the faith of the church of rome was once famous throughout the world, rom. 1.8. and, she (not like sardis, famous for a name that she lived) lived famous for utility in all good works according to gospel-rule: but a falling away was to come; and rome (the metropolite-head) with her body (some few, no doubt, excepted) then fell or began to fall from the utility of the orthodox faith, though not much at first from the doctrine of it. this faith of inutility (or the practice of that apostasy) is most in use almost every where. this apostasy was then (when those primitive apostates began to fall temporally) so grand and general; that the spirit of god useth a grandeur of words to express the greatness of it. his words (in the evangelist) are these: and after these things, i saw another angel come down from heaven, and the earth was lightened with his glory: and he cried, mightily, with a strong voice, saying; babylon the great is fallen is fallen, (not only temporally by a final excision from ever being, as formerly, pagan or imperial, but) spiritually fallen also and become the habitation of devils, etc. that is, not fallen much from sound doctrine, but sincere obedience; not from orthodox faith, but from faith of veracity or fidelity; not from a form of godliness, but from the power of it: and so far fallen as to persecute and conspire against (as it were by common consent) the witnesses of solid truth, and practisers of it. this spiritual apostasy or falling away, is also fully confirmed by (as the effect of that cause) not only the temporal fall of the empire, but the flight of the gospel-church at the same time: for, such spiritual, grand and general revolts in types, were usually acom-companyed (as their effects) with the flying of the persecuted saints (the supports of those places) and with the final excision, translating, or destruction of those places. but we shall see what expositors say and how they further show the completion (contrary to the tenants of many modern opinionists and some sober writers) of those texts in that very juncture of time. 'tis salvians complaint * dr. ham. in apocal. 17. note f. (saith doctor hammond) every where throughout his book de providentia; that the impieties of the christians were so great, and particularly those abominable commissions and customary practices of all unnatural uncleannesses (which have ever been constantly, the destroying (not only of the canaanites, but) of the jews and christians) that it was gods will they should be thus punished by the barbarians, who (being christians, though arrians) were much more tolerable than these, who (though not arrians) were (many of them) very abominable livers; where note. that not the heathens nor the heretics in rome, but the christians (for the most part orthodox, but apostate in manners) were the chief cause of salvians complaint. * id. in ch. 16.19. doctor hammond divides that great city (as it was indeed divided) into three parts: to wit, into heathens, heretics, and orthodox, which last had the supreme power and pre-eminence, and (having done this) he labours hard (as he that would wash a blackamoor white) to free the third part (the orthodox) from this signal revolt sounded forth (as by a trumpet) by the strong voice of a mighty angel; and would make the other two parts (the heathens and heretics that were not, or were less (if at all) capable of it) the matter of this stupendious revolt, causing such astonishment and destruction; for he seeks to transfer jeroms record against those real (though for the most part orthodox) revolters, against and upon those heathens and heretics, who properly, could not be said to fall then, because they either fell, or rather never stood, before: and (while he seeks to do this) he himself quotes salvian, whose record seems quite contrary: for, he expressly justifies those barbarian-arrians, (the worst heretics) as much more tolerable than those christians in rome, who (though not. arians, but more orthodox) were abominable livers. having thus far seen salvians witness, and doctor hammonds also, (partly against himself) we shall now further examine saint jeroms express testimonies of those times. when i lived (saith he) in babylon, an inhabitant of that purple whore, i would have written something of the holy ghost and have dedicated the treatise to the bishop of that city. of what city? of rome christian sure, even then when most generally orthodox, but apostate in manners, and whom st. jerom and the sacred text, calls (and therefore calls) fallen babylon, and the purple whore: for, rome was never before so generally orthodox as then; nor the orthodox therein ever before, so depraved in manners as at that time: as at that time, when imperial rome fell for ever, as the prophetic evangelist predicted, and the primitive fathers (the fittest unfolders of those texts) partly saw and bore faithful record: and at that time immediately before or at the ingress (when rome papal commenced) of the grand apostasy. and who was then bishop of rome? innocent the first was then bishop (not of the heathens or gross heretics therein, but) of the reputed, most orthodox, but apostate in manners: for he must needs be then bishop thereof (by consent of all writers of annals) about the years four hundred and five or six, when jerom would have dedicated his treatise to him. for, secondly, the pot (saith jerom) that was seen in the north, spoken of by the prophet jeremy, beginneth already to boil: but such a boiling pot of affliction was never seen by pagan or imperial rome, or by the primitive church till about the years four hundred and seven, ten, or twelve, when the apostasy of imperial rome (then full) caused her fall, and when the papal apostasy began: and then innocent, at that very time, began to rule the revolting church, which (neither in all the ten pagan, or the eleventh paganoarrian persecutions) was forced to betake herself to flight before this pot of the grand apostasy began to boil in afflictions from the flaming sword of the second dragon. that pot of tribulation was to continue boiling, from that time aforesaid, (but in the first eight centuries more mildly) for 1260 years, ch. 12.7.14. thirdly. the pot (saith he) that was seen in the north, spoken of by the prophet jeremy beginneth already to boil: this not only imports the final excision of rome pagan, the translating of the roman empire, and profligation of the primitive church; but also an ingress of the gospel church into another servitude for 1260 years: for so the boiling pot in the pattern shadowed forth the jewish captivity in type babylon, as a figure of this under papal rome: and so saint jerom here appositely applies it, as to her proper antitype expressly called also (both by him and by the sacred text) babylon. jeremiah 1.14.15. apocal. 16.19. the duration also of this boiling pot, and the further description of it is expressed in ch. 11.2.3. ch. 12.6.14. and in sundry other texts, all holding forth 〈◊〉 time aforesaid. fourthly, and the senate of pharisees, (saith jerom) cried out, etc. jam nova progenies: here's a new progeny, the offspring of the pharisees (their antitype synagone of proud, factious, censorious, christ-crucifieing professors) newly sprung up in the place of the late meek, sober, charitable professors of the primitive church. fifthly, wherefore (saith jerom) i am now (as it were out of captivity) returned to jerusalem. this denotes; that the pharisees of falling rome were the first fruits or praecursive part, of the son of perdition, that then came to lead the gospel church and saints into the last, greatest, and most grievous captivity under the antichrist, predicted by prophets and apostles. sixthly: and i saw another angel (saith the text,) and he cried mightily with a strong voice, saying babylon the great is fallen is fallen; fallen temporally from all (at least all grounded) hopes to be the imperial city, or holy city, or head city of the gospel church: and fallen spiritually, to be a senate of proud pharisees, a synagogue of censorious hypocrites, seat of the mystery of iniquity, mother of the son of perdition and the spiritual metropolis of the body of antichrist. but here we might inquire who, possibly, this angel might be, that cried thus mightily with a strong voice. i answer, the seven stars were seven angels or overseers of the seven churches of asia, ch. 1.20. therefore, this angel might be (for he could be no imaginary or chimaera-angel that cried mightily and was never heard; and filled the earth with his glory and yet was never seen) some overseer of, at least, some part of the gospel church: and, if so, why not saint jerom? for never any angel or overseer of the primitive church (after the apostles times) cried so mightily with a strong voice, saying, babylon the great is fallen, etc. but both papists and protestants (and both unawares) plainly import (in the delineation of his person) that saint jerome was indeed, this angel: for (as both draw gregory's picture with a dove at his ear) both make jeronies effigies with a lion at his foot, which is a plain-speaking hieroglyphic, that truly expounds the text: for it evidently imports; that, as the lion is king of the beasts, so jerom was the prince or chief of all the primitive fathers, for. secondly, the text saith, an angel having great power, cried mightily with a strong voice, ch. 18, 1, 2. and this device (saint jeroms picture or emblem thus drawn as aforesaid, by papists and protestants,) imports; that the voice of saint jeroms pen was a strong voice like the roaring of a lion. thirdly, that, which that mighty angel cried with a strong voice, was this, babylon the great is fallen, etc. and that which saint jerom cried with a strong voice (which denotes him undeniably, to be the same angel) was the very same thing in the same words: to wit, babylon the great is fallen, etc. no man ever cried so mightily, with a strong voice, as jerom did, against the grand apostasy at the very beginning of it: therefore saint jerom is most likely to be this angel, that cried thus mightily with a strong voice; babylon (to wit, rome imperial, babylon's penultimate antitype) is fallen, etc. and, therefore the authority of jerom alone (much more joined with the witness of sacred writ and of many writers) is more than sufficient to confirm the truth of the time when primitive apostate rome fell, and when the papal apostasy commenced. the same is also superabundant to prove that the city (called babylon in the seventeenth and eighteenth chapters) was rome imperial apostate in manners: and, thereby to refel their opinions that (seeming to make it their study how to add to or diminish from the words of the book of sacred vision) assert the contrary: it may serve also to undeceive many sober writers that hold the same errors, and so to be a key to open those (arcana theologiae) mysterious sacred truths that contain the richest treasures of the greatest mercies to present and after ages: for, as one ring wanting or misplaced in a watch makes the whole watch be of no use; so one (much more many texts) misunderstood may make the whole prophetic scripture (or at least part of it) to be of disuse (as a book fast sealed) and must needs confound the true meaning of many texts. but if saint jerom was (as both papists and protestants (though implicit to them) thus import) that angel of great power: then that angel (or however saint jerom) cried mightily with a strong voice, saying (not only that babylon the great was fallen, but) that rome primitive (then commencing papal and apostate) was that falling city, that then fell from faith and manners; he had the record of the fittest primitive fathers (as well as reason and sacred scriptures) co-asserting what he so cried with a strong voice: and this irrefellibly refells those confident opinions of very many fond opinionists and of some sober professors, who affirm, that the great city (called babylon and said to fall in the 17 and 18 chapters) was (at her final dissolution) papal rome only, whose five first heads (the scripture says it) fell before john wrote, above four hundred years before papal rome was in being; but i leave such shameful inconsequences to the sober reader: but that falling city, in the 17. and 18. chapters (which those opinionists imagine to be papal rome) was the literal city of rome of imperial (pagan egressive, papal ingressive) she (as egressive) was pagan and imperial, from which she then fell for ever: she (as ingressive) was but the spiritual metropolis of papal and apostate rome, to which she then fell: for papal rome only went on (though at first with more mildness and less violence) in the same apostasy, for which primitive rome fell; pagan and imperial rome (that apostasy of the more orthodox was the cause of it) then fell for ever. and papal, decapoliterome than rose up (by that shall of her said forerunner) in that apostasy. seventhly, i would have written (saith jerom) something of the holy ghost, and have dedicated the treatise to the bishop of that city. jerom (it seems) did not disdain either the title or office of a bishop, but the abuse of that office in any person: he would have dedicated his book to the bishop of that city, but found no acceptance from him or his associates. for, eighthly: and the senate of pharisees, (saith he) cried out at me all at once, etc. this shows the excessive insolence (in the very ingress of it) of the grand apostasy, who (most pretending to advance learning and religion) were so far from both that saint jeroms book found no acceptance from any of them; what book could be better penned by man, at that time, then saint jeroms was, or be more necessary than that of his upon the holy ghost, against arrianisme, that then threatened to swallow up the church of christ, the christian empire; and, indeed, all true learning and religion: but so far was he or it from finding due acceptance, that he found, perhaps, not one man amongst them that would take the pains to read it or that (through cursory reading of it) could understand it: such might answer him in scorn, that his book was too high for their low capacities to comprehend. they were (no doubt) too wise to read it, too learned to understand it: such learned non-intelligists now are many: or they had (they might imagine) better books of their own making, or made by orhers to better uses (besides much business of highest concernment) wherein they busied themselves (no doubt) to as good purposes as they that take in hand to treasure up thewind. suppose a man (i but suppose it) in these last times of that apostasy, should write a treatise effectual to refel errors, to reform manners, to compose those divisions in and against the church that threaten (like leaks in a weather beaten ship) to sink her and to take peace from the earth; i doubt not but the author (were any such) must expect the same or somewhat like, measure from the modern apostasy that saint jerom found from their forefathers; scarce find a man amongst them (such proud in animadvertency ever attends apostasy) that would take the pains to read it, many to condemn it unread, or before (by their cursory reading of it) they could understand it: they have also their supposed necessary business (in their opinions) of greatest importance. to wit (besides secular divertisments) their serious duties (as the pharisees had) of formal devotion (for such is the strictest unfruitful profession and soundest doctrine that deceives by busy misdoing) this they count to be a far more heavenly and powerful means to salvation, than the knowledge of the truth indeed, and the practice of it. but as all the apostasy (at the beginning of it) espoused a scornful and slothful inadvertency: so some (i hope) of the same apostasy (now near the dissolution of it) do or may begin to mind things most conducing to god's glory and a general good to all ages and nations. but the senate of pharisees cried, etc. we shall briefly, inquire what and for what they cried out against saint jerom, that so we may better perceive what apostasy is, and what the sins of it are: so a thorough reformation in practice (the main-one-thing needful among men, saints and professors) may be effectually procured; or at least, the way to remove the evil manners of the apostasy of antichrist (by their being known) may be levigated and prepared. and first, the matter of their cry and the manner of it might be this: you, jerom (we observe) are ever too censorius, (not that he was so, but themselves were such) and we utterly condemn (and that's most common with hypocrites) your confidence in that you durst, dedicate your book to the apostolic bishop of the catholic church, as if you could add the least necessary notion to his fullness, nor need you be so bold, because the book is not yours; you can give no account of it: not but that jerom could do it, but brutish inadvertists arerediest to require satisfaction and least capable to receive it from the most rational solutions: we dislike (might they say) those way esand courses you take, as mendicant and begging ways: not that jeroms ways and courses were such, but the basest of men cast, usually, the vilest imputation (as nabal upon david) upon men of greatest piety and parts: we (might they say) are so busy, and our business of such serious concernments (none are more busy than the most blind) that we have no time to regard what jerom says or writes: we mind (might they say) religious matters more necessary to salvation, than jerom new coined notions are: not but that jeroms notions were most necessary to salvation, but the rabble of revolting inadvertists think nothing so needful to salvation as their own empty brainsick conccits: nor must jerom (might they cry) command our purses, or we charge ourselves to promote his useless editions: not but that jeroms works were more worth than all the money in their purses, but blind apostates and hypocrites prefer their money above the due advancement of learning or religion, nor can they, through covetousness (nor scarce true saints) be drawn to perfect any good work: were jeroms works (might they say) of such worth, he need not want friends to further him, nor countenance to carry on his work: all, from the least to the greatest, would largely recompense him and promote it: this is the fond conceit of foolish opinionists that are least forward to do it themselves: for, virtus vix laudatur & alget. virtue seldom finds much furtherance (the apostasy so prevails even them) from those that are virtuous, much less from inadvertists and hypocrites; jerom himself found a great cry, little friendship from the senate of pharisees. and lastly, the whole senate of pharisees might cry out against saint jerom, all at once; that he deserved death, for his frequent blasphemies against the catholic church and saints: for, such blind apostates count the true records and faithful reproofs of the gospel witnesses to be blasphemies deserving death: such barbarous, blind and wicked determinations ever attend the ignorant rabble of apostates and hypocrites: so, such advance learning and religion, or at least neglect both; such rewards, the most learned and religious, must receive at their hands. so much of the matter of their cry, and manner of it: we shall now inquire what the cause of their cry and the intent of it might be. and so, secondly, an eager may be heard three or four miles off before it comes to the place where a man hears it, and its intent seems to be to overturn (as in a deluge) all before it; so this general cry, in jeroms time, was a palpable sign of the fast approaches of the apostasy of antichrist to overwhelm (as by a flood) the gospel church and her witnesses. the cause of that cry was (on the revolted parties part,) pride, envy, vainglory, which cause, they cast upon the gospel witnesses, as if they only were guilty of it: and so the type-pharisees in our saviour's time, cried out at him; crucify him, crucify him, and made this the false cause of their furious cry: that christ was proud, a self-exalter, and a blasphemous vain boaster: real pride in the pharisees, which they falsely pretended to be in our saviour, was the cause of their cry, and of his condemnation. corah's company cried out against moses; and what was the cause of their cry? they imputed pride (which was real in themselves) to him that was the meekest man on earth; you take (said they) too much upon you, ye sons of levi. smite him on the month, was the high priests cry against paul; what was the cause of it? paul (in the opinion of the high priest) was a proud self-justifier: he justified and praised himself before all the people: i have lived (said he) in all good conscience before god until this day: that is (from the day of his conversion) he did exercise himself to have always a conscience void of offence towards god and towards men, acts 21.1. ch. 24.16. had the high priest said it, it had been vain boasting, because a lie; but in paul it was no lie, and therefore no boasting; but a necessary and indispensible duty in him: for, every true saint or witness of the truth must justify himself according to sobriety; because, they that would justify the testimony of jesus (both in words and works) which they hold forth, must justify (notwithstanding the loud cries of apostates and hypocrites) themselves as the testators and subordinate fountains of that testimony; tum vero exoritur clamour: then the whole senate of pharisees and apostates cry out against them (as they did against christ and against saint jerom) all at once; that they are vain boasters, blasphemers, and proud self justifying hypocrites; and what need they any more witness than that out of their own mouths? the gospel witnesses, we read, were to be killed (as well by the bicorn beasts complices, as by the heretical beast and his adherents out of the bottomless pit) and this hath been and is constantly, the cause of their kill from the hands of lamblike hypocrites: to wit, (on the witnesses part) their abilities and fidelity of their testimony: and (on those inadvertists and apostates parts) pride and fordid, self-exalting-insufficiency, which (being folly guilty of it) they seek to put from themselves and impute it to the witnesses of the truth: therefore the faithful witnesses (as their calling to be witnesses of the truth compels them, and as it's their duty to god, unavoidable) seek to free themselves from their false charges, justify (as is most just) themselves and their own words and works: hereupon the whole ignorant rabble of revolting inadvertists redouble their cry against them all at once, as proud-vain-boasters, self-exalters, insufficient; and this wicked calumny is the chief staff antichrist hath to stay himself upon, his principal armour wherein he trusteth: wherefore, his complices have commonly, such abused sayings as these in their mouths: propria laus de te sordet in ore tuo: let not thine own lips praise thee, etc. if they can but make such misapplyed sayings the matter of their cry against the gospel witnesses, they think they have overcome them sufficiently, killed them with their own weapons, and proved them, out of their own mouths, to be proud, blasphemous, vain-boasters and hypocrites; what need we any more said the pharisees? this cry of condemnation and proness to condemn argues the damnable pride of apostates and hypocrites, and is (without all controversy) the true and infallible character of them. who art thou (saith the apostle) that judgest another? that is, who art thou that judgest (art prone to judge) another rashly, falsely, or uncharitably but a whited wall, a member of the man of sin, and a son of perdition: for the interrogation imports a positive assertion, all soundness of doctrine, zeal, and strictness of profession notwithstanding. lastly, nor was there (saith jerom) so simple and mean a scribe in all that ignorant rabble, that conspired not against me. most unhappy must those men and times be, when the blind and barbarous apostasy from faith and manners is so general, that scarce one man amongst the (at least most seeming) learned and religious can be found to be so much animadversive as to be capable to read and understand (as jeroms was) a treatise penned to good purpose, but shall rather (by cursed speaking) oppose the faithful composer of it, or at least, grossly neglect both him and it. neither was there (saith jerom) so simple and mean a scribe, in all that ignorant rabble, that conspired not against me. and they, soon after, conspired against saint augustine, against orthodox councils, and against the gospel-church, as will instantly appear. we have thus far shown that rome's temporal fall was final as aforesaid; and that her spiritual fall (some few excepted) might seem total, which shows that the apostasy (after the pattern of her foresaid types) was or might seem, general. secondly, we have shown the terminus ad quem of rome primitive and apostate; as also the terminus a quo, or commencement of rome decapolite and papal, which is also the beginning of all these twelve epochaes: for as no man can build a firm house upon a false foundation; so i (if i intent to give some short series of the transactions of these twelve epochaes) must of necessity, seek to lay (first and above all) a sure foundation in stating rightly the commencements of them. lastly, i have laboured to show in part, what the matter of the apostasy was, and what the sins of it were in the beginning of it: and (having done this,) i shall proceed to show, fourthly, how and when the bicorn beast laid his foundation of deceit, and began to build thereon the body of apostasy. that the son of perdition (the superintendent of that body of apostasy) came, and the time of his coming, we have shown sufficiently: but which way came this prince of that apostasy? how did he lead on the van of that revolted body? what was the way of deceiveableness wherein he went? what doctrine for foundation, did he first lay? what was his practice and profession in that juncture of time from 404 to about 412 and some time after? if we consult saint jerom here, he is silent: he has nothing (or not much) to say against the doctrine of the senate of pharisees. their doctrine was not arrian, but homousian; not grossly heretical, but, for the most part, orthodox: otherwise they, and their superintendent could not so well deceive those that dwelled upon the earth: but, that man of sin came (exactly as the apostle foretold) with all deceiveableness: and so his doctrine was a contented, careless, shallow (but for most part sound) doctrine (perverted by a censorious, uncharitable application) which is most deceitful: for, deceit (fortified from truth itself, mis-applyed) is most deceitful, and most properly the deceit of the false prophet bicorne: for, as the greatest knowledge (that profanely stints itself in its growth, or groweth fruitless for want of right application) is a deficient, trivial knowledge, and the stony ground's shallow superficies which is most deceitful: so the soundest doctrine (that serveth to shelter and support pharisaical pride, filthy avarice, and perfidious fraud) is but (corruptio optimi pessima) the most perverse prevarication of hypocrisy, whereby the bicorne beast most deceiveth, and his deceived: and this pillar of smoke and foundation of deceits served him best, at first, for a substructure to build the body of apostasy upon. cyprian epist. 7. he shall teach (saith saint cyprian) infidelity under a show of faith, the night for the day, destruction for salvation, and antichrist under the name of christ. he shall come (saith the apostle) with all deceivableness of unrightecusness. and shall deceive, saith our saviour (were it possible) the very elect. this way of deepest deceits was (like the way of a serpent upon a stone) the secret way (not of antichrist sensual, but) of secular, and spiritual antichrist, more properly called the son of perdition: for, antichrist sensual, and his complices, came (sodom-like) with little deceitfulness of appearance in doctrine, or profession; cared not for it in either, because they then desired not (and now desire not much) to hide their sins: but contrarily, all-deceiveableness of false appearances in sound doctrine with uncharitable application; in verbal formalities of strict profession, and in seeming-serious, fictions of false miracles, was the only, or chief way, wherein the son of perdition (conform to the testimonies of those sacred texts) came, or could come. howbeit, his white vail of deceits was somewhat spotted (even from his cradle, or first commencement) with some black spots of unsound doctrine, which made him (even then) less deceivable to the more discerning, and more visible to the simple. for, liberius (bishop of rome about the year 360) was an arrian, baron. an. 365. maffaeus and a professed adversary to athanasius: but he was bishop of rome about forty years before the superintendent of the son of perdition was advanced to preside supreme in the body of apostasy. pope anastasius the second, anastas. biblioth. in pontiff. volat. gratian. about the year 490 (holding the heresy of acatius) died the same death that arrius did. but, cyricius sought to bring in the prohibition of priests marriages about the year 400: platin. caranz. fol. 90. bergom. phil. morn. hist. de papal. circa an. 390. but this doctrine of devils (as the apostle calls it) sprung not up, to purpose, till after some centuries of years. a thing not to be forgot (saith morney upon this occasion) that corruption of doctrine, as well as of discipline should meet, and march together. for, secondly, the precedent over the apostasy (even in his, and her infancy) did not only innovate something in doctrine, but did much invade the rights of the primitive church in point of discipline. * hist. magdeb. cent. 5. ch. 10. socrat. 7. ch. 11. his encroachments herein, came with such commanding violence, that orthodox counsels could not heal her seeming mortal wounds made thereby: for, he took away her power of the keys, and church-priviledges, by rescuing, and restoring excommunicate appellants to him, as he pleased, and arrogated all her rights unto himself: wherefore (these bulworks thus broken down, and the church's defences falling on all sides) she was soon (by this means) trodden under foot of those gentiles for 1260 years, revel. 11.2.3. and a flood of (at first somewhat refined) errors, formal ignorance, filthy (but deceitful) manners began to overspread (by the same means, and at the same time) the face of the christian world. we see, therefore, some beginnings of unsound doctrine were in the ingress of the apostasy: but the breaches in church discipline (the defence both of doctrine, and manners, and support of the church) seemed (even then) irreparable. and thirdly, sundry superstitions (the least suspected seeds of the greatest heresies) were liberally sown about the beginning of the apostasy. damasus (instead of psalms) caused songs to be sung in the church; abolished, the bible-translation by the septuagint: contrary to which the council of laodicea decreed can. 69. innocent (about the year 406) decreed: caranz. fol. 115. that all persous should kiss the pax. leo (about the year 442) brought in auricular confession: geneb. 558. caranz. 143. decreed that reverence should be given to the images, of saints upon the penalty of a curse. thus we see, that the doctrine of the body of apostasy (when the bicorn beast first began to build it) was, for the most part sound, but somewhat corrupt, and (which is antichrists undeniable character) carelessly shallow. secondly, that he broke down the primitive church's wall of discipline to make his ingress the more easy, that he might ruinate her, and erect his apostasy in her place. thirdly, that he loaded her, and fortified his own city of confusion with sundry superstitions, which grew up after into dangerous heresies: thus he came, and this was the manner of his coming, when he first came to build the body of apostasy. but fourthly, the great business (from about 400, and for a long time after) was about supremacy, and to lay a firm foundation for his threefold decapolity: wise builders seek a sure rock; so these (fatui structores foolish master-builders) must pretend to find a rock, when they laid their foundation upon the sand. but where must they find this unfound rock? in the scriptures, and the nicene council. in the scriptures they find tu es petrus, and upon this rock, etc. there they find peter to be the rock, and the pope (his pretended successor) to be the foundation of the church. this fundamental heresy (for so it may well be) was so closely followed, and so subtly handled upon scripture account, in that juncture of time, that it had almost deceived, as i showed before, some chief fathers of the primitive church: crediderunt hieronymus, osiard. p. 473. & augustinus ecclesiam super petrum fundatam: sed, retractantes ambo, dixerunt; super fetram christum, quem petrus agnovit: both jerom, and augustine were brought to believe that the church was built upon peter; but they both, retracting, said, upon christ, the rock, whom peter acknowledged. the rest of the doctrine of the apostasy (when it began to prevail apparently about the year 407) was sufficiently supersicial, and shallow (but most of it literally, and fundamentally sound) and so much the more fit to deceive, conform to that coming of the son of perdition, whom the apostle foretold saying; whose coming is with all deceivableness, etc. secondly, that deceitful, fruitless knowledge brought forth like obedience: not good works, but evil reports upon all that was good, and wicked practices against the best men, which saint jorom, saint augustine, and sundry others (from their ownsad experience) sufficiently witnessed. but saint jerom calls that new created corporation of apostasy; the rabble of ignorance: neither was there (saith he) so simple a scribe in all that ignorant rabble, etc. sure saint jerom here overshoots himself: for, how could rome (then revolting) be a rabble of ignorance, seeing her doctrine was then, for the most part (though trivial, and shallow) sound, and (besides some sincere professors in her) she had, no doubt, her learned clerks famed for religion. saint jerom, doubtless, was serious, but not censorious, not rash in calling the body of that apostasy; a conspiracy, or a rabble of pride and ignorance: for, they that want (as they he complained of appeared to do) right, and charitable application in practice (though they should have all knowledge, or be never so learned) are proud (as the apostle speaks) knowing nothing: such consent not (though they should in words) at least in works, to the pattern of sound doctrine, and are, therefore, trivial, and shallow both in doctrine and obedience. and that such superficial proficients (the best of them) know nothing, appears also expressly in the words of the apostle: 1 corinth. 13.2. though i understand all knowledge, and have all faith, and have no charity, i am nothing. am nothing: ex nihilo fit nihil: little knowledge is he like to have, that is nothing, though he know never so much: he's nothing that hath not charity: that is, he hath no knowledge, and as little obedience: both are false, both but deceits, if his words, and works are without right, and charitable application; that's the depth of good ground, without which, the deepest earth is shallow, and the greatest knowledge, and gifts, the greatest deceits: what wonder then, if sacred scripture says: such men know nothing, or are nothing? and what wrong did saint jerom do to the senate of pharisees, whom (because he had sadly experienced them to be such men) he asserted to be; a rabble of pride and ignorance; seeing the scripture itself saith: such men are proud, knowing nothing. and, if the greatest knowledge, and gifts of such professors is but pseudosophia (the wisdom of folly, or deceit of fools) then how great is the deceit, and folly of the wisest, and most knowing men, that wants (or seeks not after) a meek, sober, right, and charitable application of what they do know and practice? it were better, therefore, and their christian duty to seek depth of earth at the hand of the giver of every perfect gift, to become good ground (richly furnished with a frame of right application) to get a meek candour of christian integrity, and right practising charity: the labours also of such men in sacred scripture are not usually contemptible, nor they so proud, and confident; however the failings of such may be better born with. but the senate of pharisees (of whom saint jerom so greatly complained) was (at the ingress of the apostasy) far from such a frame of spirit, as appears from their own practices, according to saint jeroms and many others testimonies aforesaid, and as we shall instantly, further show: therefore jerom was not much wrong (or rather judged very right) when he called that senate (not of true seers, but of wicked spies of evil reports) a rabble of pride, and ignorance. et quis docet aptius, who hath more fitly taught us the time of the ingress of the apostasy, with the manner of it: to wit (exactly as the apostle, expressly foretold) in all deceiveableness of unrighteousness: that is, in a fruitless, trivial, deceitful, saint-persecuting, truth-opposing (but somewhat literally sound) profession, doctrine, and obedience, etc. god, sure would so have it: that this vigilant watchman should (by his special providence, and appointment) stand at the door of the church of christ, and signify to her faithful shepherds the certain time when the wolf broke in upon her, with the manner of his ingress; that such as should be industrious, and faithful in their charge, should not need to be overmuch encumbered in finding out that instant time of his entering in, and the manner of it; which also further (and that fully) confirms the first termini (or commencements) of all these twelve epochaes. thus much of the manner, and time of his ingress: his progress with the manner of it, now invites our eye a little space. the false prophet's progress in pulling down the primitive church (her power, and privileges) to build therewith, his apostasy in her place. the false prophet (the bicorn superintendent of this decapolite body, which he was then about to build) having laid his foundation of deceit, and made this misapplyed text (tues petrus) his chief pillar in it, proceeded to build upon it: and which way goes he to work in building upon this foundation? diruit, aedificat: he destroyed, and built: destroyed primitive church privileges; built his own supremacy: beat down zion, built babel: and how was this done? he destroyed the then almost decayed unity of the church, by schism: and how may this plainly appear? innocent, zosimus, boniface, and caelestin (these four first builders of the decapolity of apostasy) claimed supremacy in, and over all churches, and councils: the three last sent their legates to the sixth council of carthage, and ordered them there, to require of that council the rights of the bishop of rome. to wit, the right of power to command, granted (as they pretended) by the nicene council: * august. epist. 47. epist. concil. sixth. afric. ad bonifac. tom. 1. concil. pag. 519. socrat. lib. 7.11. epist. concil. 6. carth. ad caelest. that council, therefore, of carthage sent messengers with letters to the bishops of constantinople, alexandria, and antioch, to send the acts of the nicene council fast sealed up: the copies came, the council examined them, and found no such canon there, as the first four superintendents of the apostasy falsely pretended, but rather the contrary: and so were all these first four fabers (or master-builders) of the mystery of iniquity, found liars, and were so proved to be by the certain experience, and authority of an orthodox council, wherein aurelius was precedent, and saint augustine himself an active member of it. boniface, hist. magdeburg. cen. 6. ch. 10. nevertheless (because that council would not receive their new found foundation of usurping pride, neither upon scripture account, from their tu es petrus, by them perverted: nor from the nicene council, which it never decreed) excommunicated that council, and therein augustine himself, and all the churches of afric. but boniface the second (about 115 years after) absolved those churches upon their humble submission: epist. bonif. 2. ad eulal. thessaly. episcop. et in edit. gregor. 13. ch. 7. his words are these, aurelius bishop of carthage (that presided in the sixth council of carthage) with his colleagues (227 fathers of afric) and amongst them, augustine himself) began (by the instigation of the devil in the time of our predecessors, boniface, and caelestin) to exalt themselves against the church of rome: but eulalius, now bishop of carthage (seeing himself, through the sin of aurelius, to stand separated from the ommunion of the roman church) hath repent him thereof, entreating to be received to peace, and communion with her, etc. it is therefore, abundantly evident (by the testimony of their own writers, and by the authority of this bishop, who upon their humble submission, absolved those churches) that the spiritual representatives of the church of rome excommunicated that sixth council of carthage, and augustine therein, and consequently the churches of afric represented in that council; and (by a synecdoche partis) they thereby excommunicated the whole primitive church, divesting her of her church power, and privileges, which that sixth council sought to maintain: and so the church of rome (by that insolent excision of the primitive churches faithful witnesses) made herself, manifestly, a sect from the true church: for, in that she excommunicated them, she cut herself off from them, and from the body of the primitive church, whom they did represent, and, in her right, officiate, for the ground of this papal protoschisme from the (then falling, or but new fallen) primitive church, was that foundation, which the bicorn beast found in his misapplyed tu es petrus, as well as he also did in the nicene council: for (this foundation being first laid, when he first began to build the corporation of apostasy about the year four hundred, and twelve) he proceeded next, to go this way to work: to wit, (ut diruat ecclesiam) to destroy the feeble (and perhaps then flying) primitive church by excommunicating her faithful martyrs, and maintainers of her just rights, and privileges; by blaspheming her, and them (the tabernacle of god in heaven) by bringing evil reports upon such as sought most to support her, and by persecuting, serveral ways, both her and them: * august. epist. 261. ad caelestin. edit. plantin. phil. morn. hist. de papat. circa an. 426. of this saint augustine himself grievously complained: we are threatened (faith he) with a posse comitatus, and force of arms, to put the sentence of the apostolic sea in execution, and so shall we (poor christians) stand in greater fear of a catholic bishop, than the heretics themselves do of a catholic emperor, etc. jerom complained of the conspiracy of the apostasy; but augustine here complains of their force of arms, and violence, by them (even in the infancy of that apostasy) threatened against st. augustine, against the churches of afric, and (by consequence) against the whole primitive church. and all these persecutions, excommunications, causeless conspiracies, threatenings, and at least, offers, or attempts of violence were done (under an outward vail of deceit) in a superficial, trivial, shallow (but somewhat literally sound) doctrine, destitute of right application from any principle of charity, or right understanding. for, here i may hint (which i shall after handle at large) this threefold clear character of, and signal distinction betwixt, the false prophets sensual, fecular, and spiritual. doctrine, grossly corrupt, with manners conform, are the image, and superscription of the sensual false prophet, and his followers: he's a political false prophet, and they false professors, because their faith (in its outward form of words) is grossly false, or their practice visibly profane. but, the false prophet secular is (no single person but) a political false prophet also, and his followers false professors (not because their doctrine of faith is false, though that may be, in many things, unsound, but) because their charity (through covetousness) is false, and their practices, and applications (from the same extract) corrupt and false as in the pharisees. thirdly: the false prophet spiritual, is a political false prophet, and his followers false professors (not because their faith, in its literal form of words, is false, though that may be much unsound, but) because their charity (extracted from censorious pride) is false, and their practices, and applications (from the same spring) most corrupt, as in the pharisees also: for the pharisees held forth (as a figure of him) the bicorn beast, or his two horns, versant about pride, and covetousness: and, as we say: omnia, s●ingratum dixeris; so we may say: all their religion, devotions, duties, and obedience are most false, if their charity, and applications (though their doctrine be never so sound) be corrupt, and false as aforesaid. this triplicit monster (the sensual, secular and spiritual antithesis to gospel truth, and the witnesses of it, thus described) is the three headed cerberus, that barks forth (day, and night) all evil reports, rash slanders, and cavils, against them, and it: for, the very heathens might have some glimpse of those three (sensual, secular, and spiritual) lusts (the three yelling mouths of this infernal beast) and did most fitly figure them by that feigned monster. but the yells of those two last (from principles of pride, and avarice) are (by far) the fellest, and most loud: therefore, the senate of pharisees (not the heathens, or gross heretics) in rome cried out against jerom all at once. therefore, the pharisees (and not the publicans) cried out against christ. for, sooner may men silence dogs, than those men from cursed speaking before they know what, for what, or against whom they speak: for, the two last (led by the most greedy, and pernicious lusts of pride, and covetousness) are the cruelest cursed speakers, violently carried on with canine appetites, to derogate from the best deserving (ut inde diruant) that, thereby, they may destroy them: for, the superintendents of the two last are the two horns of that bicorn beast, revel. 13.11. the two representatives spiritual of the son of perdition, that (under the lamblike forms of religious zeal in doctrine, and profession, void of charity, and right application) cried down christ mystical, as the type pharisees cried down christ personal: and cried down the primitive church, with all her rights, power, and privileges, as the senate of pharisees, as he calls them, cried down saint jerom all at once: for, that lamblike, bicorn beast spoke (saith the text) as a dragon: these are the means (those very means) whereby that bicorn pseudoprophetick beast (diruit ecclesiam) pulled down the primitive church: he spoke as a dragon, cried down the true church, the truth of the gospel, the faithful witnesses of both (as the first dragon did) day, and night, and that, with many cerberous mouths, all at once: thus he pulled down the primitive church, alienated her rights, destroyed her proprieties. diruit, aedificavit: he destroyed, and built: of his diruit we have, briefly done; or what, and how this bicorn false prophet pulled down what opposed, we have, briefly hinted from the testimonies of saint jerom, augustine, boniface the second, and from the sixth council of carthage, which is most evident in the letter of that council to caelestin, and in the canons of that council: his aedificavit, or what he built in the place of what he pulled down, we shall handle with like succinctness. the false prophets further proceeding in building the body of apostasy, having first pulled down what opposed. he, in the next place, went about to build, wherein his main care was to keep his new found foundation (his perverted tu es petrus) with all diligence: gelas. in epist. ad dardanos. for, (the council of chalcedon, having, about the year 450, much invalidated his claim of supremacy, from the nicene council) gelasius, about the year four hundred, and ninety two, alleged not for himself either the nicene council, or the ancient observation of the church, but held himself fast to his tu es petrus: this goeth not (saith he) by any synodal constitutions, but by the very voice of the gospel: tu es petrus. upon the rock (christ whom peter confessed) did christ (that faithful faber, and true witness) build his church: and the false prophet bicorn (his anti-faber) built her antithesis (the tower of babel) upon this chimaera rock of his misapplyed tu es petrus: he spent much time in pulling down what opposed before he could go fast forward in his building. the first nation, hist. gallic. that conferred herself (as part of it) to the false prophet's intended fabric, was france under clovis (the first christian king thereof) about the year 485. justinian (about the year 533) in his letter to john the second, lib. 8. de sum. trinit. submitted, and united to his holiness all the bishops of the east: the east empire, which justinian (as his letter witnesseth) submitted, and united to the see of rome contained these nations, that were before provinces of pagan rome: to wit, first greece, and thrace. secondly, anatolia. thirdly, syria, and palestina. fourthly, egypt. fifthly, mauritania. but the two last had submitted before to boniface the second, as we showed before: these five (at first provinces under pagan rome, after kingdoms in rome papal) with france aforesaid, made six nations of the false prophet's decapolity. gench. pag. 652. richaredus, king of spain, honoured this grand seignor, and his supposed, sacred papal city, by adding his kingdom (as a seventh part of it) to his (soon after) decarch-superintendency, about the year 586. this grand master builder took great care (in the time of gregory the great, idem p. 661. and about the year 590) of the british isles, to bring them (as an eight part of it) into the building of his beloved city. germany (the ninth part of this decapolity) came in by parcels: part, probably, might come in with clovis an. 485, whose offspring, and people of his kingdom were germane in franconia, which we find not conquered from him. part the burgundians might bring in about the year 416, who were, about that time, germans, and turned christians. part the lumbards' brought in about the year 570, ibid. 661. and 607. bavaria, and austria brought in their large parts about the year 615. thus the second dragon gave, by degrees, his seat and great authority to the ten-crowned beast papal, by submitting his nations to this bicorn builder, (who had power to deceive those nations by means of his miracles, ch. 13.14.) to become the matter of his ten fold polity, which his industrious hand was then contriving. lombary and scotland (both kingdom) i leave to the readers liberty. lastly, italy was the tenth nation, which the false prophet edified (upon his tu es petrus) in this ten fold tripolity: his operating hand was first upon it, and last in framing of it to his absolute purpose: he (to that end) supplanted the kings of the lumbards' in italy; phil. morn. hist. de. papat. p. 137 conspired against, and by conspiracy, slew the exarchs, and officers of the greek empire residing in italy. here (saith baronius) was an end of the dukes, and governors whom the emperor was wont to send to command in rome, baron an. an. 726. and places adjacent: and here we end our brief discovery, how the bicorn beast built up the papal decapolity out of the matter of the apostasy. i approve not that common opinion of many expositors, that find ten petty kingdoms (and those to no purpose) in europe: they (placing them chiefly betwixt the rheyne and danubius) thus name them: alemanni, ostrogothi, visogothi, hunni, saxoni, suevi, alani, vandali, burgundiones, franci; most of which were petty (if i may so call them) kingdoms of no continuance: and so (as if caesar's effigies upon his coin could be greater than his person, or the map of a country larger than the country itself) the nations of the prototype-monarchies (chaldaean, persian, greek, roman,) must be far greater than the ten nations of their antitype (rome papal) whom they did but prefigure or shadow forth. their tenant (so trivial) i reckon not worth refuting: but the ten nations aforesaid were large provinces under pagan rome; after under rome orthodox: and lastly, were ten large kingdoms in papal and decapolite rome: that is, they were all, at least, freed from the bondage and power of rome imperial. the supreme secular powers of those ten nations were the ten crowned horns of the sea-born beast, ch. 13.1. here the reader may observe, that three distinct powers secular are represented, in the apocalypse, by three different and distinct beast. the first is (bestia decem habens cornua sine coronis) a beast with ten horns uncrowned. the second is (bestia decem armata cornibus coronatis) a beast with ten horns crowned. the third is (bestia gentium regna transferens, vel bestia intermedia) the beast that translated the kingdoms of the falling empire. the first with ten horns uncrowned was the first dragon or the powers secular of pagan rome, whose five first heads were fallen before our blessed saviour was born (five are fallen saith the text, ch. 17.10.) he letted and should let the rising up of papal rome, till he was taken out of the way: him the 12, 17 and 18 chapters, as also thessal. 2.7. hold forth. the second beast, with ten horns crowned, was this seaborn-beast, secular, and papal, or the secular powers of those ten nations aforesaid, whom the false prophet deceived into a papal-decapolity by means of his false miracles which he had power to do, ch. 13.14. the five first heads of the this ten-crowned beast were so far from being fallen before christ was born, that neither was that beast nor any one of his heads in being for above four hundred years after the birth of our saviour: this beast these texts hold forth, ch. 13.1, 2, 3. etc. ch. 16.13. the third beast (bestia regna transferens) was the second dragon, who took away him (the first dragon) that letted the rising up of papal rome, and gave (added) his power and great authority (the nations which he took from him) to her crowned beast secular, being induced thereunto by the deceit and procurement of the bicorn beast as we have shown immediately before: this intermediate beast or second dragon these texts hold forth, ch. 11.7. ch. 13.2.4. ch. 16.13. in these things (i confess) and many other, i do (as a duty to be done of necessity) steer my course contrary to the currents of all (at least all modern) writers, whereby i am incident to incur the displeasure of many: howbeit, it seems to me no small fault of injustice and ingratitude in those that (being by long assuetude, cemented to their errors, wherein all writers, perhaps, have misled the way) cannot be content to be inconsentient to the truth themselves, but are apt to conceive a prejudicious amaritude (and that before they read or know what they write) against those that would (by undeniable eviction of reason) convince them of their errors and manifest to them (nolentibus, volentibus) not only the great dangers, but the grossness of their mistakes. the premises aforesaid may at present, fully refel many that (pretending to unfold them) pour forth confusion as a flood, upon sacred scriptures and make them much more obscure and dark by their confident false glosses and expositions: they may serve also to undeceive many sincere, but seduced professors, and sober writers that are led away with the same errors. but i return. the superindents of the false prophet pagan (the roman emperors, who were summi pontifices) fallen rather short of this expansive superintendency, over which the false prophet papal presided. and what was the means by which he built this tenfold city? he cometh (saith the text) withal deceiveableness, etc. that is, he deceived those that dwelled upon the earth (those nations chiefly, aforesaid) by means of those miracles, which he had power to do in the sight of the beast: of which miracles i have hinted something before, but shall insist upon them more fully afterwards. secondly, he laid his forged (or at least falsely applied) foundation, by deceit in doctrine: he perverted the text to cause them that dwelled upon the earth to believe (contrary to truth, and the true faith) that peter was the foundation of the church, that the pope (his supposed successor) was the same by succession, sole apostolick-bishop, primate over all churches, and supreme over all kings and councils. those that dwelled upon the earth (those thus deceived ten nations chiefly) there's the matter of this tenfold city's building. he deceived them: there's the means (his pretended message, doctrine of deceit, and false miracles) by which he built it. his doctrine was a shallow, fruitless (but somewhat literally sound) doctrine, destitute of right, and charitable application: and such means is fittest to make way for lying miracles, and both these the most effectual means (eruere ecclesiam, & aedificare mysterium iniquitatis) to destroy the church, and saints, all solid knowledge of the truth, and true obedience, by slanders, evil reports, and wicked contrivances against all that is good: for, that's proper, especially, to such profane, affected, shallow knowledge, and obedience. therefore, the son of perdition was not to come, in the van of apostasy, with gross heresy, and open scandalous practices like the arrians, or mahumetans: this is not the way of his coming, nor could he come this way: this is, via non satis deceptiva: there's not deceit enough in such open enormities to deceive the nations: this had been the way to deceive none, and to be seen of all. had he come this way (not of deceit, but apparent wickedness) he had not laid his foundation of fraud in his misapplyed tu es petrus, had not had power to pull down the primitive church, nor to assume her proprieties, and privileges to himself to build his apostasy, therewith, in her place: nor could he have drawn the nations (those that dwelled upon the earth, saith the text) nor the primitive church herself to be the burghers of his new built city, had he come with open hostility, profaneness, and gross heresies: this had been the way to affright her, and them; and to make both fly from his presence as the church then also did from the face of the serpent or second dragon, ch. 12.14. for, such professed hostility, open profaneness, and gross heresy best befits the pseudoprophetick superintendent of antichrist sensual (seated in spiritual sodom) and her head, that dragon, who (about the year 407) came (not, like this bicorn lamblike builder, with all deceivableness, but) with open violence, armies of gross heretics (heathens, and arrians) to kill the church, and her witnesses, or to cause her (saith the text) to be carried away of the flood. to wit, by that flood of military forces (vers. 15.) wherewith he vanquished rome imperial: that so neither she, nor any part of her (being quite carried away) might be ever seen any more. therefore, he did not deceive, and draw her by fraud, but by force drove her to fly with two wings of a great eagle (as into her subterfuge) into this tripolity of deceit, which the false prophet's hands had constituted (or was in constituting of it) of ten nations: for, that city of deceit, and persecution (but of her preservation from corporal, and total destruction by that second dragon) the text calls: her place prepared of god, ch. 21.6. and the woman fled into the wilderness; where she hath a place prepared of god, that they should feed her there 1260 days: the same place, and the same time is set down the second time in the same chapter, vers. 14. for, though the false prophet (by god's permission) built this tenfold city of apostasy, yet it was a place prepared of god for the purpofe aforesaid: to wit, to preserve his church (not from all persecution, but) from a total destruction by the rage of the second dragon, from whose face the church then fled for 1260 years. ver. 14. for the false prophet built that city (a city both of affliction, and refuge to the flying church) but god gave him power (all power) into his hands to erect that decalabyrinth of error: whose coming is with all power (saith the apostle) 2 thes. 2.9. he shall wear out (well nigh wear out) the saints of the most high, and think to change times, and laws, and they shall be given into his hands, (the laws of power, or all power, as it were by a law, shall be given into his hand) for three times and an half, or 1260 years to be a refuge, as well as a scourge to the church so long, dan. 7.25. for, as god prepared a fish, and that fish to be a place for flying jonah (not as a tomb to inter him in lasting oblivion, but) as a womb to preserve him for a future birth to a better life: so god prepared rome papal with her sects for his flying church, as a womb to preserve her from perishing, and for a future production of her to a far better reviction: and the woman fled into the wilderness into her place prepared of god, where she is nourished, for 1260 days, from the face of the serpent, apocal. 12.6.14. the time, in type, and antitype, and how god prepared rome papal with her sects, to be a place to preserve his church, for 1260 years, from perishing by the second dragon, we shall show afterwards. and therefore, male creditur hosti; it's dangerous trusting to turks, and mahumetants (the main continued stem and offspring of this second dragon) for (though they pretend to some slavish allowance of liberty to christians, and sects; for which some sects and wicked professors wish them before papists, and indeed, above others more orthodox) it may be, undoubtedly expected; that (had they the power absolute in their own hands, over all christians) they would massacre all (as they did formerly in spain) for the very name of christ: for, so their like paganoarrian predecessors (at the ingress of this second dragon about 407) came with floodlike armies, and with full purposes to destroy utterly, the gospel church. but, the false prophet came with all deceivableness; laid his foundation of deceit, pulled down church privileges, and built his decapolite state of apostasy under a strict, and specious pretence of the catholic, and apostolic faith, confirmed by many dreadful false miracles, and in show of all meekness, as being the servant of the servants of god, and the tender father of all the fathers of the church; when all was nothing, but a strongly deluding fraud, in a superficial, affected, shallow knowledge, and profession, fruitful only in persecution, and in bringing evil reports upon the best men then living. a knowledge and profession casting the imputation of innovations upon their ancient, catholic, and most solid truths, as in the examples of the sixth council of carthage, saint basil, jerom, augustine and others: and calling their own innovations, ancient, and catholic truths, and customs. so innocent the first did about his pretended ancient right of supremacy in his epistles to the bishop of rouen, epist. 92. apud august. augustine, and others. you have (saith he to saint augustine) had due regard of the apostolic honour: i say of him who hath the care and charge of all churches, in ask advice of him in these perplexities, and intricate causes; following therein, the ancient canon, which you know, as well as myself, to have ever been observed in all the world: and yet augustine, and the sixth council of carthage clearly proved this his pretence of an ancient, and catholic practice in all the world, to be a notorious, and remarkable lie in those four first fabers of the apostasy: to wit, innocent, zosimus, boniface, and caelestin: for, the son of perdition (in all his sects, and offspring) seeks (seeks diligently) to suppress solid truth, and sincere obedience by casting the lying imputation of innovation upon it, and to prefer a shallow, fruitless knowledge in a proud, careless, covetous practive, as ancient, catholic, and apostolic: thus he cast down the power of the primitive church, and built his apostasy in her place: that is, the bicorn seer, by deceit (by all possible deceivableness) built this city: and as the bands of the blinded syrians (sent to dothan) came (instead of it) to samaria; so these ten nations, with the dragon's floodlike armies (or they that dwelled upon the earth saith the text) and with them the primitive sects and dissenters, blinded by this architectors words, and works (words of deceit, works of false miracles) came, or rather, as it were fled (as the afflicted, pursued, primitive church also did) into this tenfold city of deceit: the church fled into it out of necessity, and constraint; but the rest flowed to it (so glorious were its buildings, and its builders strong delusions) instead of zion, and as to the true catholic church. in this decapolity of deceit (especially in the time of the building of it) did they that dwelled upon the earth, and the dragon's floods, concentre in a deceitful unity, and they, and all sects (as the different species in the ark) rested in her, somewhat peaceable for a short space. and thus much of the son of perdition, his coming with all deceivableness of unrighteousness, when he first laid his foundation of deceit, pulled down primitive church-priviledges, and built his decharcy of the apostasy from about 407 to about 620. we shall now show his further proceedings after 620. the false prophet's further progress in supporting (but with a much more remiss hand) his new built city of apostasy. he (his work by him thus finished about the year 620) did not lay aside, but less regarded, his first (but fitter) instruments of deceit, whereby he built that city: therefore it fell to many decays for want of his wont care, and soon became (as it were equally) divided betwixt christians and mahometans: for, the false prophet (remitting his usual, stricter reigns of government) began to indulge himself (more than before) to sensual delights; would oft wallow in the filthy sties of spiritual sodom; oft accompany himself with the beast in secular covetousness, oft with the dragon in voluptuous pleasures: nor did he so cast aside secular and spiritual wickedness, but superadded sensual filthiness to both: in a word, he (steering a most irregular course) ran the hazard to destroy his new erected decaprincipality, continuing, and proceeding still worse till about the year 1210. nor did he then reclaim himself, but rather disclaimed to be some shelter (as formerly) to the gospel church, nor did he so much defend her, as before, from the second dragon's fury, but loosed the (till then, for about 1000 years bound) first dragon upon her: that is, he acted the dragon's part himself by persecuting her members after the manner of dioclesian: for he and (by his procurement) the king of france commissioned simon earl of montford to perpetrate most horrid massacres upon her: then also that loosed dragon (or not long after) sent abroad his bloody inquisition, breathing forth slaughter both to papists and protestants that had but so much as the least appearance of honesty or religion: howbeit, the (thus afflicted) church found some small shelter from religious kings, nobles and emperors: and the gibelin faction afforded her some succour. but she continued (thus trodden under the loosed dragons feet, and driven by fierce storms and tempests) till about the year 1417. next (and not without great need) came in the locusts, a relief to the church ready to perish by the rage of the loosed dragon, apocal. 9.1. to the 12 ver. but here may elephants swim, or rather these texts seem fathomless: here difficulties, with double files, stand prepared to stop my progress: therefore i must (of necessity) first untie many gordian knots seeming indissoluble: because these locusts seem to be reformists most deceitfully formal, some refuge to the church, and so, most difficult to be discerned (though most contrary to them) from true saints; men somewhat reform in doctrine, nothing in manners, but affecting manners more confining upon the deceiveableness of spiritual wickedness than the usual practices, perhaps, of former hypocrites: but we shall first see what sacred writ says of them: and smoak (saith the text) ascended out of the bottomless pit, and out of the smoke came locusts: this shows them to be the offspring of those, that hold forth only formal, smoky pretences of seeming-religious deceits. secondly, and smoke ascended out of the bottomless pit, etc. this also shows them to be the products of the bottomless pit, whose duties, devotions, knowledge, faith, formal reformations, and fruitless obedience are bottomless, or have no bottom: that is, are without fidelity or veracity: for veracity is the reality of truth, the bottom of all gifts and graces, without which they are inconform to gospel rule, and but formal smoky deceits: therefore, reformation (all reformation) in doctrine, and not in manners; in profession, and not in practice; in practice, but not conform to gospel rule, is bottomless reformation; no reformation indeed, but real deceits. these locusts seem (the rather because said to ascend out of the bottomless pit) to be the successors of the gibelin faction, which and whose like predecessors (s; ubservient to the secular horn of the bicorn beast) had regulated his temporal principality and spiritual superintendency with more seeming sober moderation and discretion of deceit (during the time of his spiritual horns extravagant and ambitious exorbitances) for about 800 years. in these locusts (at least near their latter end) anti-christ seems to end (as he began at first) with all (or as it were double) deceivableness: for, they had faces like the faces of men (seeming sound doctrine and profession) but neither so, in deed; but deceits, ver. 7. secondly, they had hair as the hair of women (a right ordered, and right ordering discipline in appearance) but that was nothing so but deceit, ver. 8. thirdly, they had crowns like gold (like crowns of righteousness, and true obedience) but they were not such, but deceits, ver. 7. for they had (o truculent cruelties of detracting covetousness!) teeth of lions. ver. 8. they, strictly in a blind profession, professed christ, and pursued covetousness eagerly. fourthly, their shapes were like horses prepared to battle, ver. 7. and yet their shapes were partly like men, partly like women, and partly like unto lions, as we showed before: therefore, the aggregate of their politic body was (chimaera multiformis) a manifold monster of mysterious deceit. but their shapes (their principal shapes) were like horses prepared to battle: they were all (more, or less) bent (as in a military order) against those that had not the seal of god in their foreheads: all rallyed (as in several regiments) in sundry factions against them. but they were commanded not to hurt the grass, nor any green thing, nor any tree, ver. 4. that is, not the servants of god, that had his seal in their foreheads; whose doctrine they partly espoused, whose persons and professions (though they followed not their manners) they defended: for, that was, as it were, a command from god not to hurt, but defend them, because they (much alike outwardly) embraced the same common faith, and profession: therefore, they (by an implicit command of a much like common profession) were commanded not to hurt these, but only those men that had not the seal of god in their foreheads. not these: not the servants of god, not the true church: that is, her, and their hurt, which they should receive from those locusts, should be overbalanced by greater benefits, and defences: but they were commanded to torment those that had not the seal of god, for five months, ver. 5. that is, to torment those saint-persecuting papists, that had tormented the servants of god. the pattern in the prototype (the locusts which god sent upon the land of egypt) plainly shows the manner of their coming, and the end of their message, which was to torment those persecutors, and somewhat to defend persecuted saints. from hence riseth a perplex knot of deceit to those locusts, and others: they think that because they torment and oppose papists, or seek (perhaps to very little purpose) by their teachings, and writings, to evert or refel their tenants, therefore they are saints, their works sincere, doctrine sound: they have no affinity (they think) with the son of perdition; his deeds of darkness lie far from their doors: whereas this was the grand deceit of their predecessors (the papists) when they first erected the apostasy: they (because they refeled, converted, and partly compelled the arrians, and other sects to the unity of the deceit of that city) gave their own deceitful slandering, shallow doctrine and obedience, the titles of true, ancient, catholic, and apostolic, and reputed themselves, and were, undoubtedly reputed the true church: herein those papists were, and these locusts are much deceived: for, the orthodox papists of the rising apostasy (no less sound in doctrine then modern locusts) were against the arrians, and other gross heretics, and many of them might not be sensual professors: yet salvian saith; that (because of their evil lives) even the arrians were more tolerable; and saint jerom, and sacred writ itself, applies to them all those attributes in the 17 and 18 chapters, that are, chiefly due to the son of perdition; not because their doctrine was false, but their manners corrupt; nor because their manners were sensual (though such were the fruits of some) but because their apostasy in manners consisted in secular, and spiritual wickedness, whiles they served but to resist the truth, and to exclaim, and conspire against the faithfullest witnesses of it, or, at least, to neglect both them, and it. this is the reformation of pharisees, and hypocrites, which they cry up, but they never seek sincere obedience conform to gospel rule. such formalists, or hypocrites (be their doctrine never so sound, or their professions strict) are the head of the body of apostasy, and the highest pinnacles upon the towers in that tripolity of deceit. and therefore, from hence springs a second deceit (not much unlike the former) of the locusts: they cast usually, the grievous imputation of antichrist, solely upon that ancient sect of the papists, or upon the literal city of rome alone, and will not (no not be taught it) so much as touch that burden (though they have no less reason to bear it) with their little finger; but lay it solely, upon that sect, or city, or the superintendent of it; whereas the apostasy of antichrist is common to all revolted professors, that follow the lusts of the flesh, the lusts of the eyes, and pride of life: for, the apostle did not tax the defection of demas with turning aside to any one sect, or heresy, but with secular covetousness: he hath (saith he) forsaken us, and embraced (not this, or that sect, or heresy, but) this present evil world: sensual, secular, and spiritual wickedness is the chief visible form of the apostasy, which gives being to it: but the different false opinions, and deceitful professions therein are but (forma figurae) the protean colours, and outward cloathings upon the several members of the same apostasy, which makes the many different divisions thereof the more distinguishable: for, if we fill an hundred glasses (of so many different colours) with the same liquor, or matter; each glass renders the same liquor of a different colour; whereas indeed, there is no difference in the matter, but in the colour of those glasses, that contain it: so all formal professors in the body of the apostasy of antichrist, differ not so much in deed, as in colour: there's the same sensual, secular, and spiritual wickedness in all, except that, in many, some one of those three lusts may be most predominant: and their outward different forms, or professions make no more real reformation, or alteration of that threefold matter of iniquity, than the different colours of those glasses alter the matter contained in them: therefore, these locusts, or formal professors, that would seem much reform from papists in doctrine, discipline, and obedience (having attained faces like the faces of men, hair like the hair of women, and crowns like gold) remain papists in manners, or out strip them for pride, and covetousness: and such have no plea, or privilege, but abundant disadvantage thereby, because their hearts are, thereby, much more deceived, blinded, and hardened against true faith, discipline, and manners, and are made more adverse to truth, and averse from peace. but we shall come nearer home to the matter. try all things (saith the text) and we (at this time) shall try the spirit of truth and the spirit of error (of christ and antichrist) and show what the works and practices of primitive saints were, what they have been since and wherein they differ (or rather shall differ) from deceiveableness of unrighteousness, or the locusts gold like crowns of deceits; that so saints and sects may not ever swell with intermutual strife, wander in wildernesses of obscure aberrations, and grabble in darkness, to the continual dishonour of god, the extreme hazard of the true church, and ineffable infelicity of all nations. that we may more assuredly know who these locusts were, and what their crowns of deceit are, we shall inquire when they rose up: and the fifth angel sounded. vers. 1. and we find them rising up in the time of the fifth trumpets sounding, which was the penultimate dispensation of the apostasy of antichrist; for that time was to be the last interval save one, of the son of perditions duration; because when the seventh angel shall begin to sound, the mystery of god should be finished, ch. 10.7. the time therefore of these locusts coming, was to be near the end of the epoch of the apostasy of antichrist: for the locusts and plague of darkness came, in type, together, and were the last plagues, but one, when they came, exod. 10. and so these antitype-locusts and darkness came together, and were to be (so exact are prophetic types with their antitypes) the last plagues, but one, in the epoch of the grand apostasy, ch. 9.1, 2. ch. 16.10. therefore these locusts (coming near the end of the apostasy) could not be the saracens that came near the beginning of it; nor be (as many expositors would have them) monks, friars or jesuits, who were far from being (as these were to be) some refuge to the church; nor do i think any man can imagine they could be the true church: wherefore, if they could not, possibly, be the saracens, nor monks and friars, nor, possibly, be the true church; then i conceive; with submission (at least unless any can give a better account of them) they were (if i may so say) a semi-papal body of apostasy, (formalists in profession, papists in practice) that sprung up about the year, 1417. when the fifth angel might begin to sound; and that they might have some footing or beginning in those victorious taborites, whose victories had been more happy, had they not fought against their superiors: howbeit, they were to be some relief to the church; and many amongst them (though perhaps not of them) might chiefly intend that, though the most might do it for seditious and self-ends. for, i partly showed before; that there is antichristus adjuvans, and antichristus destruens; antichrist (in some respects) helping the church; and antichrist seeking to destroy her. and first, antichrist seeking to destroy her: and the dragon (the second dragon) cast out of his mouth waters, as a flood, after the woman, that he might cause her to be carried away of the flood, chap. 12.15. that is, that he might destroy her. for gross heretics, (such as the arrians then were, and the mahometans are) and all sensual, carelesly-ignorants, and loosly-inanimadversive professors constitute antichrist sensual, and their design is (had they power to do it) to destroy, utterly, the church and saints. but, secondly, there is antichristus aliquando adjuvans; antichrist (sometimes, and for self-ends) helping the church: and the earth (saith the text) helped the woman, etc. ver. 16. that is; the earth (men minding earthly things) and her son (the bicorn-beast) whom she brought forth; she (i say) & her son (the papal apostasy then new sprung up) affecting, for the said ends a fruitless, formal (though somewhat literally sound) doctrine and profession, helped the woman, and swallowed up the flood which the second dragon cast out of his mouth to destroy her: that is; she helped her by converting (through deceit) his nations and military forces to the unity of the church of rome. and he deceiveth (saith the text) those that dwell upon the earth, by means of those miracles, which he had power to do, etc. chap. 13.14. and these locusts, no doubt, were a new progeny and a principal part of antichirst adjuvant, that helped the church (as the earth had done against the floods of the second) against the swelling floods of the loosed dragon: to wit; against those church-persecuting papists, that revolted from being some shelter to her, as formerly, to work (by all ways and means) to destroy her: they helped her (i say) not (as their predecessors did the second serpent's) by swallowing up this food of the loosed dragon, nor by killing his military forces; but they (being commanded not to kill them) tormented (saith the text) those men (to wit; those church-persecuting papists) that had not the seal of god in their foreheads, for five months, which are one hundred and fifty years: that is; they tormented those true-church-destroyers by abating their power, by alienating their proprieties, and assuming to themselves their church-revenues; and so the text saith expressly; and to them it was given that they should not kill them, but that they should torment them five months, chap. 9.5. and if they did thus bend the forces of their superficial, fruitless, formal (though their doctrine was somewhat literally sound) knowledge and profession against the true church and saint-persecuting papists, it was the best service they could do (for want of better) to the true church and saints, then ready to perish by the unbridled rage of the loosed dragon. nay (say some) these locusts were the saracens: and this opinion seems part of their smoke: for when (i pray) did their apollyon ever see the mahumet-saracens so much favour true saints? how came they so quicksighted to see the seal of god in their foreheads? who bound them (as these locusts were) by a law, that they should not hurt (any green thing) the servants of god? when were they commanded (by any command either express or implicit) to spare or protect true saints, and to torment the papists, their persecutors? boniface (we read) received them into pay to invade sicily, du. pleff. hist. de papat. pag. 432. to war against christians, and by that means, against saints: but when did saints and saracens so comply? such doctrine may well serve to teach christians to fall in love with mahumetans and turn turks: and how should a proud, trivial, contented knowledge (joined with a covetous blind profession) bear better light? but many men learned & religious (say these locusts) are of our opinions (as in many other things) that those mahomet-saracens were these locusts: more's the misery and the greater pity, that such men (either learned or religious) should so misled or be misled: or it may, at least, serve to show (as a means to humble them the more) the instability and weakness of some able and sincere witnesses of the truth. here we may mark, with admiration, how appositely the wise and almighty hand frames similitudes in sacred scripture: for, what creature did god ever make that loves (like the locusts) to live in dark cliffs, and smoak ascending from subterranean fires, in which places i have seen them (like bees about to swarm) in great abundance? and what professors love to live in the smoke of a fruitless blind zeal, formal worship and a superficial (though somewhat sound) doctrine than these locusts do? smoke is insufferable to all creatures living except to locusts: nor can any men (in the least, moral or ingenuous) endure a smoky, empty, ignorant, proud, barren profession, but only locusts and hypocrites. the vulgar observation (though that may be true) that these creatures live but five months in the open fields, plin. 11.29. i voluntarily omit: but these locusts, in the text, were to torment men (saith the text expressly) for five months, vers. 5. and they had power to hurt them (saith the second text) for five months, vers. 10. five months (counting a day for a year) make just one hundred and fifty years: and these locusts (if we count from about 1417) when they, most probably, might begin, to about 1567.) continued in chief power to torment the saint-persecuting papists, for five months of days annual or about 150 years: for, zisca (always victor) signally beat the imperial armies in eleven battles about the year 1417. and, after his death, procopius and his confederates beat them in two battles about the year 1424. but what are they or their armies to these locusts? 'tis said, castra sequentes vix pietas sequitur: little religion attends arms: howbeit, procopius and zisca (their leaders) might be men of much valour and piety, but the major part of their armies (as will appear) seemed to have some lion's teeth like these locusts. after those battles, these (if i may so call them) modern formalists (though many true saints might be amongst them) expatiated and prevailed against the papists till about 1567. nor were they (all that time) a small assistence to the servants of god (nor to some kings) that had the seal of god in their foreheads, to further their reformation in doctrine and defend their lives: but we shall further take the truest survey of them from several texts of sacred scripture. and the sound of their wings (saith the text) was as the sound of charets of many horses running to battle, vers. 9 and why comes this account of them from the pen of the prophetic evangelist? because they sometimes subdued their enemies with the sound of their wings only: for ziscae's armies beat their enemies in eleven battles, more by the sound of their wings, than force of arms; more by the noise or report of their coming, then by their power; which fully ratifies the truth of the prophecy in reference to those so much feared assailants. but secondly, after zisca's death, sigismond the emperor, invaded bohemia with a threefold army: the first was of saxons and other cities; aeneas silvins (papa pius 2.) in hist. bohe. ch. 48. dupless. hist. de papat. pag. 555. the second of fanconians, led by the marquis of brandenburg; the third was levied of rhenenses, bavarians, and swevians led by otho, archbishop of trevers: all these three mighty armies met at misna: but the next day, they all (not seeing any enemy, but hearing the report of procopius his coming) fled to thacovia, leaving a great prey and their arms behind them. thirdly, (this threefold army thus defeated, with the sound of the wings of their enemies only; sigismond raised a far greater army of forty thousand horse, besides foot, aeneas sil ch. 48, 49. fox martyr. lampad. hist. mellif. and invades bohemia. but was put to flight, and his whole army ran, in a confused and amazed fright, though they saw none of those winged locusts pursue them: res crat imperiosa sonitus alarum: the sound of their wings (the noise or report of their coming) made that mighty army fly confused, whiles the emperor could not (by his command) cause them to rally. ages cannot parallel such precedents, nor the world since the first creation. the host of syria heard a noise of charets and horses, and, that one time, fled affrighted (though they saw no man) from the walls of samaria: but these mighty armies fled many times (not from a noise of terror from the lord of hosts, but) from the noise (or report of the coming) of a few weak men, though they saw no man: and these many precedents (of such stupendious strangeness) prove irrefellibly, that those formal reformists were (at least the victorious part of) those locusts, that then vanquished their and the church's enemies with the sound of their wings only: for, if ever armies were put to flight by the sound of the wings of their enemies; then were these thirteen puissant and imperial armies so put to flight. if ever any (since men were on earth) subdued their enemies with the sound of their wings, than those victorious taborites were (therefore they could possibly be none but they) the only armies that so subdued them; and (by so subduing of them) did, indubitably fulfil this prophecy in the performance of it: and the sound of their wings was like the sound of charets of many horses running to battle. secondly, and they had a king over them, which is the angel of the bottomless pit, whose name in the hebrew tongue is abaddon, but, in the greek tongue, hath his name appollyon, verse 11. and they had a king: and what king? sure not sigismond that could not rule them; nor any earthly man or king: their king was a spiritual king, no earthly potentate: his name in greek was apollyon and he, graeculus esuriens, an hungry greek: covetousness and spiritual pride in them was king over them, that (contrary to god's command) ruled in their mortal bodies; and, so ruling over them, was their king. for what king had the type-locusts (that commanded them to devour the fruits of egypt) but their own eager and unsatiable appetites; and these (their antitype) must of necessity, hold a just symmetry or due proportion with them, the type of these: nor could the devil be the king of these more than of other wicked men; for, he's the general king, that rules in the hearts of all the children of disobedience: therefore, let none tax zisca, or procopius (they might be persons of great worth and piety) not jerom of prague, nor john hus, nor any other persecuted saints (that were occasions of their coming) as kings over them: for, moses himself was a means of the coming of the type-locusts, but not their king: so the persecuted church and saints were the occasion of these locusts coming but no king over them; but covetousness and pride, conjunct, was their king: for the locusts were only formal professors, reform from papists to a somewhat sound doctrine, and many of them perhaps, to strict profession, but remained papists in manners, or rather outstripped them for pride and covetousness: for covetousness, the root of all evils: for pride, the chief cause of all coutentions: and this double iniquity or combined wickedness (pride and covetousness) was ('tis most like) the locusts king: and they had a king over them, etc. for, thirdly, their teeth, (saith the text) were as the teeth of lions, vers. 7. this further shows what the locusts king was: to wit, their lion-like rapacity and greedy avarice; and shows their parity therein, to those saint-persecuting papists, whom (with like retaliation) they were sent to persecute: peccato par poena: the papists oppressed the poor, and those servants of god that had his seal in their foreheads, as it were with teeth of lions: therefore god sent those locusts to oppress, and suppress those saint-persecuting papists (that had not the seal of god in their foreheads) as it were with teeth of lions: theod. a niem. ch. 36, 37. morn. hist. de papat. p. 527. for the papists (as it might appear) were not only cruel to the servants of god, that thus had his seal inserted, but uncharitable also and merciless to the poor, which their own writers witness even of their spiritual persons. they are always careful (saith theodoret a niem) to advance their kindred, nephews, etc. are seldom seen any poor: and, if perhaps, any poor body beg an alms of them, they presently turn away their eyes; and, if perhaps, extreme want urge him to ask the second time, they threaten him. he (speaking of vrban the sixth, innocent the seventh, boniface the ninth, and gregory the twelfth) saith, that these four gave no alms, which (saith he) is a sign of damnation, and (though a fault in all, yet) worst in them, because no man can be saved without charity: and this he wrote being notary of the apostolic letters in 1408. and secretary, successively, to urban, boniface, innocent, gregory, and alexander. and locusts are no less cruel and uncharitable than the papists: the papists may plainly see their own sins in those punishments, which god inflicted upon them by their hands: both are alike (the locusts and the papists) in their practices: both are cruel, both extremely covetous; the charity of both is but a verbal pretence, and in neither real: both have the same sign, (as the author saith) of damnation in giving no alms, (or alms inconsiderate) to the poor: both have much alike (or the locusts the longer of the two) teeth of lions: and their teeth (saith the text) were like the teeth of lions. i have oft observed, with much admiration, that many strict professors are extreme covetous and could not (upon due consideration) but imagine they might either be locusts crept into strict forms, or else true saints corrupted by the evil and cruel examples of their covetous conversations: covetousness (a shame to heathens) is most uncomely in christians, and most destructive in church-societies, like achan in the host of israel. fourthly, they had power (saith the text) to vex men five months: that is the time of their chief power to vex or torment those men that had not the seal of god in their foreheads, but not the full time of their continuance: therefore, we may distinguish those locusts into penultimate and ultimate; pristine and present. those pristine (or first appearing) locusts had (for five months (or 150 years) wings (ran with winged-speed) to take away the power and maintenance of the papal clergy in many nations: but some of the modern locusts (their successors) are no less willing (had they wings to do it) to take away the maintenance of the most reformed ministry: but, as many of the first were, doubtless, defenders of good men and ordained of god so to be; so i dare not deny; that some of the last may be, at least, docible and ductile to found faith and good manners. to be short: as it's apparent to me, that the mahomet saracens were far enough from being any part of these locusts, so, if any shall render a more rational account of them, and make them appear to be any other people or professors, i shall readily relinquish my own opinion and receive theirs; till then; their manifold deceivableness in their hair, crowns, faces (discipline, doctrine, profession, practice) and their offices and functions for the servants of god and against the unsealed in their foreheads, must confirm me in this tenent; that some of them aforesaid were the first fruits of those locusts, that, for filthy lucre, took up stricter forms to devour church-revenues: of whom and for which, sleiden. lanquet. the germane emperors sometimes complained; see sleiden, and lanquet, etc. circa an. 1538. and both luther and calvin (which so far shows the integrity of them and their true followers) testified sharply against the litigious pride and silthy avarice of those professors, that, thereby (pretending to be members of them) brought much infamy and disturbance upon their church-societies: for this is certain; that the locusts (formal, smoky, proud, professors) are (for silthy lucre) readiest to creep into the truest churches and (by their covetous conversations) to corrupt them and turn them (if possible) into dens of thiefs. it shows also that the devoutest professors (though their doctrine be never so sound) import not any thing, if they remain papists in manners or outstrip them for pride and covetousness. and, here, remarkable were the mercies of god and the wisdom of his providence: for many sincere professors were (as men hid among them, and as eliah was kept from death by greedy ravens) preserved, from horrid massacres, by these modern formalists. but i must not here omit some readers of great repute, that say, i make (and that they read it in this treatise) john hus, jerom of prague, luther, calvin, and all reformists to be the locusts: nor must i hate, but plainly reprove these men: it's a duty indispensive; i dare not but do it; these men reckon themselves, and are reputed, long students and great proficients in the prophetic scriptures: sure then, they make themselves, at least seem to be very unjust stewards of those sacred mysteries. the unjust steward (calling his lords debtors to account) asked the first what he owed: he answered, an hundred measures of oil: take thy pen quickly (says he) and write in thy bill fifty: i doubt not but that might be read in his bill (if he wrote it) because it was written: but these could read that in my treatise which was never written! here, nor (i think ever thought on by any; that which many learned doctors and knights (that read it all) could never read or find in it, as their own hand-writings fully witness: but these readers are, themselves not throughly consentient to sound doctrine and (finding in this treatise, their chima'ras and illusions cast down, like dagon when he lost his head) sought (1 conceive) a feeble revenge by raising these slanders, and taught others (as sapph taught his birds to speak) to proclaim in city and country, that i make all reformists to be the locusts, to my unspeakable and most causeless detriment. nor is this (i think) the sole cause; careless inadvertency might be some cause of their mistakes: for inconsiderate rashness is the first fruit of uncharitableness, as due and diligent animadvertency is of charity; and the want of both in these readers might cause their rash mistakess: for many things (much alike) are, oft, most contrary; as the parelia or mock-suns in watery clouds or ponds, seem as fair as the sun itself; but are no true suns; so these locusts are parelia sanctorum, mock-saints, and may seem as fair (in all outward formalities) as the saints themselves, and yet are no more true saints than those mock-suns are true suns: it were therefore extreme foolishness in any to charge me that i make those mock-suns to be true suns, or the true sun to be no more or better than one of them; so it is no less fondness for any careless, cursory (and therefore, uncharitable) it caders to charge me that i make true saints to be those mock-saints, or saintlike locusts from whom (we shall find) they differ as far as light from darkness, when we come to examine what the locusts crowns, as it were like gold, are; what their sun-darkening smoke of deceit is; and wherein both differ from that sincere practice and profession, which is (or rather should be) the righteousness of true reformists and saints. the subject i now insist upon, is to show what evil manners are, that men may avoid them; and inanimadvertency is the foundation of all evil manners, and principal cause, indeed, of all the miserable divisions amongst us: we shall therefore spend no more time about those trivial readers, but proceed: as christ nevertheless, looked upon peter and brought him to repentance; so i may, in love to them, look a little back upon them, but not digress from the design of this treatise. the primitive fathers and profeffors made mention of the man of sin, or son of perdition (according to the text) under the notion, or by the name of apostasy or refuga. lambert. danae. de antic. ch. 5 august. lib. 20. de civit. dei ch. 19 apostasy is a falling away from heavenly mindedness to inanimadvertency, or to mind earthly things: some sects are the subdivisions of the grand apostasy, or of the antichrist predicted by prophets and apostles: such sects, nevertheless, come nearest to true churches, that (holding forth sound doctrine) are sound most fruitful in the practice of good manners. sects are either more general, or more special. sects more special are societies of professors fallen from sound doctrine or good manners, and separated from churches more sound than themselves. the more general sect, are such professors in all sects and churches as are fallen (though not from sound doctrine) from the practice of good manners: doctor colet calls this sect; the sect of evil manners. many saints (at least men somewhat moral and ingenuous) may be found in many sects, who are the supports of them, and are usually lest regarded, and most persecuted in and by those sects: for locusts are apt to creep into, and corrupt (through inadvertency, pride, ignorance and avarice) all sects, and even the truest and best church-societies; cause dissensions in them, oppose diligence and fidelity, and endanger to destroy them: therefore it is not my design, in this treatise, to fall foul (as weatherbeaten ships at sea) upon any sects or church-societies, but, in love, to reprove them plainly, and to manifest to them their manifold, gross, and dangerous mistakes in opinions and manners, of which their inconviction, (though they little mind it) is their greatest misery they do, or can sustain on earth.) to that end, i shall (beginning at the foundations of both) endeavour to distinguish the true church and saints from false professors in all sects and churches: and first. the rock whereon the true church is built is christ alone; sunt caetera arenae: all other formal, fruitless, christ-pretending professions are but sands of deceit or smoke, whereon the apostasy of antichrist and all false practices are built. the first superstructure upon the true rock is animadvertency: for faith comes by hearing, and hearing by animadvertency to hear. he heareth to very little purpose, that minds not much what or how he hears. for secondly, the first superstructure upon the sandy foundation of the apostasy of antichrist is inanimadvertency or a careless unmindfulness, to hear profitably, or, to do what they hear. animadvertency (the first superstructure upon the sure rock) is threefold (a mindfulness to hear, to expect, and to practise what is heard and read, and brings forth a threefold operative grace, faith, hope, and charity, though true animadvertency (and more accepted of god) is a fruit of that threefold grace. inanimadvertency (the first superstructure upon sandy foundations) is threefold) non animadversive, semi-animadversive, mis-animadversive) and brings a threefold effect contrary to faith, hope, & charity; to wit, perfidy, false confidence, and rash and censorious uncharitableness: this threefold inadvertency (opposite to true repentance) is the threefold substructure of antichrist sensual, secular and spiritual. and first, non-animadvertency is the substructure of antichrist sensual, or of such professors as mind nothing (orlittle else) but loose profaneness: such were the men of the old world: they knew nothing (saith the text) till the flood came, etc. and no marvel; for how should thew know any thing, that minded nothing: nonadvertists are very beasts, both have hearts alike to mind nothing; therefore both perished alike in the flood: these slothful citizens of spiritual sodom regard not to read the scriptures that testify of christ, or books that unfold the meaning of them: or they read both, but mind not (through sensual levity and folly) to understand what they read: such were the men and swine of gadara: they cared not to know christ (the living truth) and these care as little to know what truth in practice is; so far are they from that, that they mind not so much as the proper objects of right-producing animadvertency, or the principles of the practice of good manners; which principles (because little minded by most professors through almost a general inanimadvertency) we shall insert in the sequel: such nonadvertists are the owls of ignorance, unclean and hateful birds, that hate the light, and would (were it in their power) utterly extinguish it, and destroy the witnesses of it: for, truth in doctrine and manners is directly contrary to the brutish ignorance of nonadvertists; therefore they oppose both by a direct opposition: yet these seek shelter for their sins of bestial ignorance under some careless formalities, or in some corner of the court that was cast out and given to the gentiles; and receive the seed of grace like the high-way-ground; let it lie where it's scattered, till it's lost, but it takes no root there as it did in the thorny and stony grounds. secondly, semi-advertency is the substructure of secular apostasy, or of men minding earthly things: these professors (for such as the cause is, such is the effect) worship god by halves, do good works by halves, are half-christians in show, in deed heathens; and (though spiritual egypt owns them) are much like those samaritans that succeeded captive israel in their vacant habitations: they worshipped the lord, and worshipped their idols also: and these locusts are such semiadvertists; seem to serve god by halves, but, in deed, covetousness (which is idolatry) altogether: they were men and women in appearance, lions in practice, winged. horses in pursuit of their practices; for, semiadvertists assume several shapes, according to which their evil manners differ: under these men (if i may so call them) not only good men, but good works suffer martyrdom: they spin many threads of good works, and go on for a space; but their lion's teeth of avarice (before these good works be finished) by't in pieces those threads, and lay those good works a bleeding: all their good works are opera refuga, works of apostasy: they begin many and perfect none: for thorns sprang up in the thorny-ground and choked the good seed; and these are that thorney-ground wherein cavils, slanders, quarrels, missuppositions, pretences, excuses and busy neglect of the best things springs up and (through pride and covetousness) choke every good work before it be finished. pilate was guilty of this sin, so was saul: both did very much, and then turned apostates in not perfecting what they had begun: true saints are oft guilty of these sins, and pay dear for their semi-advertencies and half performances: for moses omitted to circumcise his son, therefore god met him and would have killed him; 'tis like he lay sick near unto death. so the prophet, sent to bethel, had performed (within a very little) all the task that god sent him to do: but a lion met him and slew him, because he left part (a very little part) of his work undone: little do many true saints imagine, that the cause of their losses, languishing sicknesses, and, oft, untimely deaths, is, their semi-advertency, causing careless, half-performances and keeping them back from perfecting any good work: such saints can scarce be discerned, by theirs works, from locusts and hypocrites. semi-advertency is so much worse than non-advertency, as apostasy is worse than profaneness, or as, to know and profess the truth, and oppose it, is worse than bare ignorance. balaam was much guilty of this sin of semi-advertency, half mindful of god's command, and half unmindful: therefore (drawn by the strong cords of covetousness) he came, at last, to act directly coutrary to god's command: but an angel stood in his way to kill him, and he was slain, at last, for the same sin: but modern semiadvertists (his and his followers antitypes) are apt to stand (contrary to that angel) in the way against the truth to stop the progress of it, and destroy such as do assert it: for covetousness (adjoined to semi-advertency) is soon filled with canine anger against all truth, and chiefly against the practisers of it; and readily complyes with all such (as seem religious) that are most ready to slander and asperse them and it; so the senate of pharisees consented (as one) to the sentence of the high priest against christ, semiadvertists extend, at first, some trivial half performed help to the truth and the witnesses of it, but after oppose it, and desert or destroy them: they hear, read, and pray by halves, or so far as to get a form of religion, but not the power of it; begin many good works, finish none, do half, leave half undone; are half hot, half cold, which god abhors. judas (when the seventy forsook christ) did not forsake him, nor was found blame worthy, by the apostles, for about 1260. days; but then (through semi-advertency caused by covetousness) turned traitor: what family or church could be more pure than that whereof christ was head? what doctrine more perfect than that he taught? yet that locust lurked even there: semiadvertists sow pregnant seeds of perfidious prodition, schism and apostasy even in the best church-societies, and endanger to destroy them. thirdly, mis-animadvertency (the fruit of charity-wanting pride, and parent of the greatest ignorance) is the principal ground of the spiritual apostasy, whose professors (like the pharisees) take the greatest pains to least purpose; pray, hear and read (not by halves, but) amiss; and misapply (through uncharitableness) all their devotions, doctrine, gifts and parts, to deprave the truth and destroy the witnesses of it: these search the scriptures and such books as unfold the meaning of them, and find in both (so blind and perverse is wicked uncharitableness) that which was never written in either: so the pharisees searched the scriptures with much uncharitable, blind, truth-misapplying sedulity, and found there that our blessed saviour should die as a blasphemer, which was never written: and those readers aforesaid might read (through cursory haste, and uncharitable misapplication) my treatise and find therein, that i made luther, calvin, and all reformists to be the locusts, which was not written. misadvertists are readiest to cast their blind bolts of precipitate rashness against truth in doctrine and practice, and the assertors of both: the stony ground owns them, and they receive the seed of grace like it: they aspire to the most specious pretences, and seek tegment and shelter in the fairest corners of the court that was cast out and given to the gentiles. herein lies the spirit and life of the apostasy of antichrist; that men mind not, half mind, or mind amiss those proper objects of due animadvertency, that are principia praecognoscenda, the principles and grounds of all obedience to god and right to men. improbus non animadvertit ut intelligat: a wicked man (saith the text) minds not, or regards not that he may understand, prov. 29.7. therefore, nonadvertists must needs be desperately wicked, because they know not, nor mind to know, what the grounds of doing right or wrong are. therefore, semiadvertists must be more wicked because they mind but by halves, and so to less and worse purpose than they that mind nothing: for, those ten semiadvertist-spies (sent to search the land of promise) gave in part, a good report, but otherwise an evil report of it, and of the promise of god; which brought swift destruction upon themselves, and caused that all israel (four excepted) were destroyed; whereas nonadvertists (that as bruit beasts mind nothing) cannot be so guilty of bringing evil reports upon that which is good, or of causing such general calamity and destruction in states and churches. lastly, misadvertists must be most wicked, because they (above all professors) are most fruitful in evil reports: they search the scriptures and such books as unfold them and find in both (as the pharisees did) what was never written in either: you (saith our saviour) are of your father the devil, and the works of your father you will do: lying derogation, and worth and truth-detraction; in careless and uncharitable misadvertists (especially in such as most desire to seem religious) is ex digito daemonis opus, a more peculiar work wrought by the very singer of the devil in the hearts and mouths of hypocrites. this threefold inanimadvertency or carelessness to know what truth is, in practice as well as in doctrine, is almost general, and seems to overspread the earth as waters cover the sea: to know the truth of it; and the dangers of it, if it be true, and how to prevent those dangers is a duty universal, incumbent upon all and of the highest, and most necessary concernment to all. the prototype apostasy of the old world was almost universal: noah preached an hundred and twenty years, and we read not of one man (more than his own family) that was brought, thereby, to due animadtency, the ground of true repentance: i am, therefore very much afraid, that the grand apostasy is more general than men and saints imagine it to be; i need not name those texts that denote the antitype: in that world (as well as in this) there wanted not (no doubt) many learned men, reputed religious, if not famous both for learning and religion, and yet the text says (so universal was the inanimadvertency of that type-apostacy) they knew nothing till the flood came, etc. this, therefore (to foresee and shun the dangers of such an epidemic sin, and that sin itself of careless disregard, that's the cause of all ignorance and impenitence) is opus opere dignum, a work worth all acceptation (as the apostle speaks in another case) & of absolute necessity to be set about, with all diligence, by all: for it's least safe to rely upon smoke in the mouth of the bottomless pit, or upon the locusts crowns of deceit; and the righteousness of true saints (too guilty of this sin of the grand inadvertency and apostasy) is (like the oil in the wise virgin's lamps) but enough (if that) for themselves only. the finding out of the gunpowder-plot was a most happy discovery; but this discovery (to prevent the most dreadful and epidemic dangers) is of far greater concernment then to foresee and prevent the conflagration of the greatest city or the total destruction of any nation; and admits not a minute of delay by any that's at all animadversive: we shall, a little further examine the generality of the grand apostasy. st. jerom was a man of a serene mind and quick sight, and seemed to be a second jeremiah: for, as jeremiah wrote the history of the sad calamities of captive israel; so st. hierom wrote the beginning of the history of gospel revolted israel with like lamentations: and as jeremiah shadowed typeiraels' bondage by a boiling pot, looking out of the north; so st. jerom represented gospelisrael's thraldom & apostasy by a boiling pot, looking out of the north also: that the boiling pot in jeremiah was all the remnant of the whole house of israel, plainly appears from the text: then the lord said (saith the text) out of the north an evil shall break forth upon all the inhabitants of the land, chap. 1.14. and that st. jerom's pot of apostasy (the whole gospel-church and saints) was (if conform to her prototype or pattern) general (of formal professors a toto, of saints a tanto) cannot be denied. and that boiling pot of deadly broth (which the prophet healed) did, no doubt, prefigure the general apostasy grievous miseries and evil manners of all israel in type and antitype: there was not one drop of broth in that pot that was not deadly bitter and unwholesome, because the bitter fruits of inanimadvertency (mistaken wild gourds for good potherbs) were put into it: careless inadvertency and inconformity in practice, to gospel rule are the colocynthes that embitter and poison all good works of men, sects, and saints in the body of apostasy: nor does long boiling make them better, but their manners more bitter: the broth was never the better for long boiling till the prophet healed it, and then there was no more death nor hurt in the pot: and the healing of this pot of the grand antitype apostasy (if we can but hint that) will, doubtless be the healing of the sad, bleeding divisions and evil manners of all church-societies, sects and nations. and why is there such need now of the balm of gilead? because the waters of strife in the boiling pot, beat like billows one against another, and the general practice seems but a continued dashing of divided sect and church-societies, whiles the locusts formal smoke is magnified, and their crowns of deceit most admired and mistaken for true practice: for jerubaal made a golden ephod, and placed it in ephrah; and all israel saith the text (that apostasy was likewise general) went a whoring after it, which caused the ruin of jerubaals' family: so all professors, and, i might say, almost all saints (pudet posse dici, non posse refelli) run a whoring after the locusts crowns, as it were like gold; and mistake them for true righteousness; which general apostasy hath (the more because least perceived) procured many general calamities and threatens more (if not inevitable destruction) to those that persist therein. and i saw (saith the text) when the lamb opened one of the seals, and i heard as it were, the voice of thunder, one of the four beasts saying; come and see, chap. 6.1. and when he had opened the second seal, i heard the second beast say; come and see, verf. 3. and when be had opened the third seal, i heard the third beast say; come and see, vers. 5. and so the fourth beast, vers. 7. and what was the cause of this fourfold call, like thunder? there was need of it then, and now more: men were ever inadversive, and most men now mind nothing. come and see: what shall we see? might slothful professors say: the prophetic scriptures (so blasphemous are blind hypocrites) show nothing to any: and what can be gathered from them are but conjectures: we search those scriptures that show us the plain way to salvation; but have no leisure to mind useless and uncertain notions: thus these filthy heathens tread under their feet the knowledge of those things that are most sacred & of highest concernments to them & to all natitions; nor do such mind at all, things necessary to their own salvation, but forsake the means of their own safeties: for, whiles they thus contemn the prophetic scriptures and despise their loud calls like thunder, they reject the plain, and have no profit by either. this fourfold call (come and see) was a call to animadvertency, that men might hear, and hearing, obey: there were never more hearers than now, nor fewer that hear: many hear to no purpose, few hear indeed: many attend diligently to lo here, and lo there; few harken to those sacred calls of god that call to animadvertency: and what are the fruits of their fruitless hearing? faith comes by hearing, saith the text; but by their hearing comes strife: effectual hearing is like the small rain that distilleth upon the tender grass and makes it grow, but these, by hearing, grow worse: fruitful hearing renders men animadversive to act conform to gospel rule, but formal professors, by hearing, become more mindless, mind either nothing or what is evil: violence, therefore, (as it was once filled therewith before) filleth the earth: for, what is the (almost universal) practice of men and professors but a coaltern colluctation (like swelling waves of the sea) of sects against sects and of one church-society against another, whiles formal smoke usurps the place of pure religion, and the locusts crowns are cried up for true christian practice. nor better fruits can they bear, that mind not to know truth from error; that mind not, or mind by halves, or mind amiss: paul was minded to know nothing (nothing in comparison to him) but christ and him crucified; but men and professors seem minded now to know nothing absolutely: this threefold inanimadvertency (the threefold foundation of the apostasy of antichrist and of all evil manners) is, we see (as an epidemic sleep) almost universal. abraham slept a deep sleep and an horror of great darkness fell upon him: and men, saints and sects now sleep (like that prophetick-adumbration) a deep sleep also, but do not so much as dream, that such a general, deadly lethargy and darkness of inadvertency and apostasy lies upon them: there is, therefore, now transcendent need of a four fold call to animadvertency that men sects and saints (as christ called lazarus out of his grave) may thereby live and manifest their life by their ready minding of those things wherein their own safeties and highest concernments chiefly consists. elisha asked and obtained of eliah that a double portion of his spirit (there was need of that then) might be upon himself: and it hath been and is my daily prayer for all religious ministers and magistrates, that a double portion of the spirit of god (never was more need) may rest upon them, that, thereby, they may have a double proportion of power to call unto animadvertency and say (like thunder) come and see, that so all sects, saints and heterodox professors may come and see what the locusts crowns, like gold, are, and what true righteousness in practice (contrary thereunto) is, what their smoke of formal profession is, and what pure and undefiled religion (contrary thereunto) ought to be, which come next to be handled. fifthly: and there arose a smoke, and out of the smoke came locusts, chap. 9.2, 3. and on their heads were as it were crowns like gold, ver. 7. [and on theirheads,] etc. here's deceptio coronata, crowned deceit: deceit hath its exaltation in these grand deceivers of themselves and others. the right solution of this question [what is truth] may seem to be the sum of satisfaction to all sects, people and professors: and the diligent disquisition of it (that all might know what truth in opinion and practice is) is the sum of the design of this treatise: but here it seems (not needful only but) of necessity and our prime duty to endeavour to discover unto all what the truth of those gold-like crowns of the locusts is, or (if there be no truth in them) what their deceits are. the deceits of the locusts are in form and profession. and, secondly, in practice and power. their deceits in form and profession are shadowed forth by their concomitant smoke. their deceits in practice and power are presignified by their crowns as it were like gold. and first, their deceits, in form and profession, are shadowed forth by smoke: for, all profession (all zeal, prayer, prophecy) without practice, is but smoke, whose bottom is no where: true practice is the bottom of true profession, and the substance, whereof that is but the shadow: to seem, and not be religious, is but groundless appearance and deceit, and all gifts (be they never so great) give no bottom to a fruitless profession: though i speak with tongues of men and angels, (saith the apostle) and though i have the gift of prophecy and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge, and though i have all faith and have no charity, i am nothings 1 cor. 13. if paul (having all these) had been nothing without charity; then all these and all strict profession and gifts of prayer and prophecy (without practice-producing charity) are, at best, but smoke: what that product is, and what produceth it, claims our more serious care to inquire, in this place. faith, hope and charity (the first fruits of attentive animadvertency) are (subordinate to christ) that threefold tree of life that bears the true fruits of all obedience to god, and good manners towards men: that tree (during the time of the grand apostasy) seems like that tree in daniel, that was hewn down and had its branches cut off, and its fruit scattered, but it shall bear twelve manner of fruits, saith the text, dan. 4.14. revel. 22.2. we shall show here the series of it, and so proceed. faith is the root, hope the stem, charity is the branches that bear and extend the fruit of it. faith, is faith, hope and charity impressive, as the threefold life of the tree is in the root. hope is faith, hope and charity intensive, as the threefold life of the tree is in the stem also. charity is faith, hope and charity expressive as the threefold life of the tree is, likewise, in its branches. and first, true faith is faith, hope and charity impressive; for, faith, without hope and charity, is but a false pretence. hope is faith, hope and charity intensive; for, hope without faith and charity is but smoak. charity is faith, hope and charity expressive; for, charity without faith and hope, is but (like locusts crowns) a crown of deceit. faith works in hope, by charity. hope works from faith, by charity. charity works from faith and hope. the fruit of this threefold tree is true christian practice. we have shown what the deceits of the locusts are in profession: we shall now show what their deceits are in practice. secondly, as the deceits of the locusts in profession are figured by smoke; so their deceits in practice are shadowed forth by the false appearances of crowns like gold: crowns of gold, in scripture, are hieroglyfick-intimations of equity, and emblems of righteousness; but the crowns of the locusts are deceptious appearnces of truerighteousness and most contrary to it. and what's most like gold, and most contrary to it? nothing is more like it, and less the same, than straw: the locust● liberality (though it look like gold) is chaff or st●●w for levity, and withal, so dilatory, that it tends to destroy those that receive the deceitful benefit of their seeming good works: their crowns are made of gold-like straw, which many besides them, mistake for pure gold. but because, contraria, juxtase posita, maxim clucescunt, contraries appear clearest by being set together) we shall here handle the locusts deceits in practice, and true christian practice; and (that the difference betwixt both, may better appear) compare both together. the righteousness of locusts (as is the righteousness of all hypocrites) is clipped, dilatory, or accompanied with censorious insolence, or performed by halves, or however, inconform to gospel-rule. but true righteousness in practice is not dilatory, defalked or performed by halves, or inconform to gospel-rule: for, the kingdom of god must be a kingdom of righteousness, and the streets of the holy city shall be (not gold-like-straw, but) pure gold, revel. 21.18. that is, all the ways and works of her inhabitants, shall be right in practice, conform to gospel rule: and wherein consists this conformity? truth in practice is a quadruplex conformity, and (containing these gradual parts) is incomplex. complex. triplex. quadruplex. truth incomplex (derivative) is a conformity; alste. metaph. est conformitas rei cum principiis a quibus orta est, vel, est ipsius rei veritas: a conformity in itself with its own principles. complex truth is a conformity; swarez. metaph. est conformitas (saith swarez) judicii cum rebus, unde provenit, ut res ita vere dicantur sicut judicatae; it's a conformity of the judgement with things, whereby they are rightly called as they are judged to be. verit as triplex (truth triplicit) is a threefold conformity, & more comprehensive than the two former; it comprehends incomplex and complex truths (conformity of things in themselves, and of the judgement with things) and is itself a conformity also of the will with both: and, therefore, in truth triplicit is first, truth simplex, which is the first principle of true practice, and the extrinse subject of true righteousness, the mind of man is the intrinsic, and secondly, therein is complex-truth (conformit as intellectus cum rebus) a conformity of the judgement with things, wherein practice-producing animadvertency must of necessity, be first versant: for, de ignotis nulla agendi ratio; there can be no right of action, where there is no right understanding of the incomplex principles of true righteousness, or of things to be done. and thirdly, truth triplicit comprehends a third conformity; est conformitas (non solum rei in se, &, cum re, intellectus, sed) voluntatis etiam cum rebus agendis; it's a conformity of the will, as well as of the understandng, with causes or things to be understood, willed and done, whereby they are willed as they are rightly understood: this is that truth in the inward part, which god loveth; (thou lovest truth in the inward part, psal. 51.9. because (not only the intellect, but) the will is, therein, conform to gospel-rule and gods command: but god worketh to will and to do; not only to will, but to do. and therefore fourthly, true righteousness, or truth in practice, is quadruplex; and this is most comprehensive; it comprehends truth incomplex, complex and triplex: and is itself (above all these) a conformity: est conformitas (non tantum intellect us & voluntatis, sed &) acticnis cum rebus agendis; it's a conformity (not of judgement and will only, but) of works with the incomplex principles of true practice or extrinsic subjects of true righteousness. the extrinse subject of true practice, or first considerations of due animadvertency to do right, are these: a quo, quid, cui, quantum, quoties; to which we may add quomodo; though that (comprehending, in some sort, the five former) is oft interserted in the handling of them. and first, a quo, that is, such as seek to be sincere must consider (and how far it concerns themselves) who are most fit to hold forth judgement, merey, faith: for all (though all must endeavour it) are not alike able to do it. secondly, quid, what recompenses (poenam vel praemium) are right to retribute. thirdly, cui: to whom punishments, and to whom therewards of well doing, are due. fourhly, quantum; how much punishment or reward: for, peccata non sunt aequalia: offences are not alike, nor good works or desers equal. fifthly, quoties; how oft judgement, mercy and faith must be held forth to the same men, saints, sects, or dissenting brethren. david had respect to all the commadements of god, and all, that respect his commands, to practise right, must have due respect, at least, to these five or six (principia praecognoscenda) principles of incomplex truth: therefore true righteousness in practice comprehends first, truth incomplex; for without that, there can be no truth complex, because there can be no conformity of the intellect with those outward principles of true practice, if they are not known; for, complex truth (haec mensura rei est in ment vel ore loquentis) is the true measure of things in the mind or mouth of man: but incomplextruth (est mensura rei in se) is the measure of every thing in itself; wherefore, where no such thing is, or (if in being) is not known, there can be no complex-truth or know ledge so much as of any outward object or ground of true righteousuess. and therefore secondly, true righteousness comprehends complex-truth, because it's a conformity also of the will; and there can be no conformity of the will with the intellect without complex-truth; because the mind of man can never will that rightly, which it does not first truly understand. thirdly, true righteousness in practice comprehends also veritatem triplicem, a threefold truth; because it's a conformity of action with a right informed-will and intellect: for, actions can never be right in practice, unless the will that works them, and the intellect that guides the will be conform to (principia veritatis praecognoscenda) those incomplex principles of truth in practice, that are the first outward matter of true righteousness: and therefore fourthly, truth in practice is quadruplex; or a conformity of actions with a right-informed will and understanding: that is, a conformity of all three, (will, understanding and actions) with the incomplex principles of truth in practice. thus we see that true christian practice must be (of necessity unavoidable) a quadruplex conformity and, therefore, not be (like locusts crowns) works of deceit and sloth, but a system of animadvertency versant in more noble actions of berean sedulity and fidelity: in which true practice (though it be a work, by the best professors, of arduous acquisition) even the conformity of the intellect with the incomplex principles of practick-truth is the gift of god to such as ask it as they ought: for god is the giver of wisdom to such as rightly seek it, and every good and perfect gift cometh down from god: but truth triplex and quadruplex (or the conformity of will and works with the said first grounds of true righteousness is, more especially, the work of god, who worketh to will and to do. this is that gold (or the more visible manifestation of it) which god exhorteth the church of laodicea to buy of him to make her rich; that gold, whereof the rich crowns of all true saints (as they are visible to men) are (or rather shall be) made; and shall be that pure gold, that shall pave the streets of the holy city, revel. 21.18. but the locusts have upon their heads as it were crowns like gold: as it were like (in deceit and appearance and, in deed, most unlike) unto true righteousness: for, their righteousness of deceit is either dilatory, or defalked, or insolent, or rashly censorious, or otherwise inconform to the right principles of truth in practice: and, therefore, it is (though it look like gold) light as straw, if laid in the balance. this straw-like levity of love and works (which we find in the locusts) hath ever been the swift subversion and perdition of all persons and places (true saints scarce excepted) that have perished upon earth. belshazzar was laid in the balance and found wanting: how wanting? his, his princes and kingdoms, judgements and works were found wanting in weight: therefore, he lost his life, and his kingdom was translated that very night. eli (a true, but too careless servant of god) was laid in the balance and found wanting: and how did elie's good works want weight? his sons ran into a slander and he stayed them not: his reproof seemed fit from a father, for such offenders, but it wanted weight, was too mild; such sins deserved more sharp rebuke and severer discipline: therefore god cut him off and all his offspring not leaving one alive: but true saints themselves (in these times) think it no such great sin to be wanting in all good works; either their promises want performance, or their profession wants practice, or their practice is wanting in conformity to the incomplex principles of truth in practice: nor will they be reproved, nor reprove others; except perhaps, as eli did. they (like him) stay very few (by the reproving of them) from running into slanders, they evidence not clearly what truth is, nor discover sin, but earnestly declaim against it, and are, very much ignorant of it: they convince not dissenters, convert not the diffident, reclaim not the disobedient, stay none, or very few, and they themselves will scarce be stayed (by just reproofs) from running into errors in faith and manners; that is little their study or care. their studies are versant about things of much higher concernment, and they mind more serious matters: such levity of love and works and inconformity in practice to gospel-rule is (or next to it) the smoke of the locusts. babel's penultimate antitype (rome partly heretical, but chiefly as orthodox apostate in manners) was laid in the balance and found wanting (wantinng in the weight of her former graces, in the worth of her first works) she fell from being most fruitful in well doing to be a cage of every hateful bird; therefore, her plagues came in one day; death, mourning, famine, fire, etc. i might produce many precedents; as the fall of pharaoh's servants, sodom, jerusalem; and indeed, all places and persons that have perished, have had this levity of judgement, and works, the cause of their perdition: therefore, it requires our speedy disquisition to find out what this dangerous levity (that brings such swift destruction) is, that we may (with all diligent care) avoid it, and find out that substantial gold of sound judgement and sincere obedience, which shall be (subordinate to christ the rock of safety to ages, and support of all princes (and people. levity in love and works is sensual, earthly, and devilish. and first, sensual. sensual professors (filthy sodomites) make substantial truth, sober advice, and sincere obedience, matters of extreme laughter; so lot seemed to his sons in law as one that mocked, or made sport; and this makes all their sins so far incorrigible: these professors (though they scarce can be so called) can condemn any man (o horrendum, bestiale!) before they hear him, any book before they read it; and the grounds of their such solid judgements is their trivial levity of lavish petulancy. sodom ('tis not said she gave no alms) strengthened not, by giving, the hands of the poor; and her antitype (such sodomites) do the same; give, perhaps, but (by giving) strengthen not the needy. these men grow daily (as they grow in years) not in grace but wit; and that wit is only extreme folly: these wild beasts are but senseless risibilists, and their judgements and works so light, that they are not worth the weighing of them; but god will lay them and their works (as he did revelling belshazzar) in his balance. secondly, the judgements and works of earthly-minded professors (seeming more solid) are much lighter: their levity is less seen and longer before it be discerned; so pilate heard and examined (seemed duly to examine) our blessed saviour, found no fault in him, and then (through earthly interests) condem'nd him to be put to death; whereas filthy sodomites (professors sensual) are not fit nor able to examine any man, searce with any appearance of sedulity: their volatile petulancy and levity of folly permits them not to be so serious or industrious; or (if they have so much sobriety as to examine any man and find him faultless) they are not, usually so wicked (with pilate and secular professors) as to condemn him: for, it is not so much sensual as covetous and earthly interests that tend to condemn the truth in deed, and the witnesses thereof to death: their doom (the sentence of men earthly-minded) falls (far above the bolts of filthy sodomites) heavier upon the truth, and the witnesses of it at last, though they seem greatly to favour both at first. for, their levity of love and works (being less seen) is longer before it be discerned: so judas was earthly-minded (a thief, saith the text) long before he was found out, nor was he perceived by the apostles for about 1260. days but then that type-son of perdition, and the mystery of iniquity in him was revealed; his love to the truth, loyalty to his master, charity to men, and care of the poor was laid in the balance and found wanting. the levity of the love of earthly-minded professors is discovered by the outward indices: angustum pectus, parca manus; narrow hearts, hands not enlarged: their rewards are ever inconform to the works of the well deserving, or dilatory to destroy them; their grand pretence for their so doing, is their great business both secular & sacred: so ahab (a type of antichrist) was busy (here and there, saith the prophet) and by means of that business, minded not the command of god, lost his kingdom thereby, and destroyed himself and his family for ever. so secular antichrist (ahab's antitype) is not ashamed (no more than ahab was) to make the pretence of much business his plea against obedience: for earthly minds (full of worldly business) exclude the testimony of the truth (at least in works) and all due regard to the witnesses of it. therefore men earthly-minded (secular antichrist) may be well known by their accumulating such business as arms them with sufficient excuses against the practice of good manners: their business is either secular for earthly interests, or seeming sacred for secular ends: therefore, there's no weight in all their good works of which the best are strangled with a straight hand, and (being laid in the balance) are found light like the crowns of the locusts. but thirdly, the levity of professors proud and pharisaical (being most light) is more traductive and devilish; therefore, they can censure (not as sodomites, but as it were in sobriety) before they see cause, condemn before they know whom or for what: they can readily say (with apostate julian) legi, cognovi, damnavi: legi: here's some labour (lost labour, the worst labour) cognovi, here's some profit (a man would think) of their pains (pains to no purpose, pains without profit) damnavi, here's the cursed, truthcondemning fruit of proud professors, the fruit of all their pains in reading, the result of all their acquisitions; they only dream they know (as some prophets did) and discern nothing: therefore (as balaam could not be stoptin his course to curse israel) these cannot be stayed by any course, from rashcensuring: the cataracts of rash condemnation fall (not to be, by any force repelled) from the high praecipices of pride and ignorance, and are the infallible characters of locusts and hypocrites: they are ever most busy, and their business is about (they think) things sacred, but serves only to deceive and be deceived: in a word; their good works are so light that, in substance, they are but words, of which none are good, but in appearance and deceit. the levity of the righteousness of the locusts and others, consists in their inadvertency or want of care to conceive and observe those principles aforesaid, of incomplextruth (a quo, quid, cui, quantum, quoties) whose necessary considerations (being but hinted before) here fall under our further examination. and first. a quo, or from whom what truth in practice should chiefly proceed: silver and god (said peter) have i none, such as i have, i give: rise up and walk, acts 3. from such as have no silver nor gold, neither is due, nor must we expect that such as have no spiritual use of any limb themselves should afford the means to make others walk in right obedience to god and good works to men: no man (though many pretend it) gives that to another, which himself hath not to give: but it's a duty universal, from all, to do good to all, which that they may do, they must first have, or seek to have, the gift of so doing from the hand of god. but locusts conceive not themselves greatly concerned in the discharge of any such duty: quid hoc ad nos? what's this (say they) to us? they are otherwise busy in serving god, and their best service is but some blind, careless fragment of obedience, void of conformity: this righteousness is no fruit of the true vine, but the wild grapes of desperate deceits; an agrest righteousness growing upon every hedge (heathens, or heretics) for many turks, and papists (as well as locusts) think it sufficient to declaim in general, against sin, and (out of a strict, blind zeal) to call for, and excite unto repentance, but in particular show not, nor know what sin is, nor what true repentance meaneth: but (as it's the property of all blind hypocrites) it's their practice to seem to impugn, with violence in their doctrine (& so they should do) sensual profaneness; but never lift up their little finger against secular and spiritual wickedness, which (closely vailed under strict forms) they mistake for the power of godliness, and count that to be the richest piece in their crowns of righteousness: wherefore (having as it were crowns like gold) they think it lest belongs to them of any to labour to get crowns of gold, or to distinguish betwixt truth and deceit: truth therefore in practice is no part of their quid, nor do they make the practice thereof (being ignorant of it) any duty from them. but secondly, quid; the quid, or what true saints should ask of god and give to men, is gold: i counsel thee (saith christ) to buy of me gold, that thou mayest be rich, and white raiment that thou mayest be clothed, rev. 3.18. to wit; the gift or power to practise such works as are not found (like the crowns of locusts) wanting in weight; that are not dilatory, nor defalked, nor done with unwilling minds, but conform to the incomplex principles of truth in practice: but the locusts quid is gold like straw of deceit, good works delayed, done by halves, or with an unwilling mind, or mixed with insolence or morosity, or otherwise, inconform to the principles of truth in practice. i counsel thee to buy of me gold, etc.] and must men buy the free gifts of god? god is bountiful, but men must buy every good and perfect gift of him: such gifts are seldom purchased without much pains and cost; so the man, that found a treasure in a field, sold all that he had, and bought that field, matth. 13.44. but locusts love money too well, and are too lazy to purchase such gifts with much pains or charge. but i could wish (to counsel them unworthy) that all true saints and sackcloth witnesses, would give due attention to the counsel of god, and buy of him gold that they may be rich, and white raiment to be better clothed for shame; and not be (like laodiceans) extreme poor and naked: and i could wish that locusts and hypocrites (whough! they are busy, and mind matters of an hundred times higher concernment) would do the same: but their smoky service to god is sufficient (the chief good) they think, and count their crowns of desperate deceit to be the most inestimable treasure: such treasure, such service is the locusts quid. thirdly, their cui: they little care whom they hurt, and mind not much to profit any: they are oft kind to their kin, which kindness seldom falls due till after death: they have, however, gifts to gratify the rich, and rewards for some of their own societies. and they that dwell upon the earth shall send gifts one to another, apoc. 11.10. these gifts were no good works, nor this kindness charity, but a commutual, corrupt gratifying of the most wicked members of the body of apostasy. one to another: this is philautia, self-ended charity, and the kindness of hypocrites: to those of the same stock, kin, sect; the pharisees did so: but true charity opens her hand wide to the poor in want; to good and bad, to strangers in distress, to professors of contrary opinions, but, especially, to the well-deserving. be not overcome with evil, but overcome evil with good, rom. 12.21. and is doing good the way to vanquish? or good works weapons to overcome? i answer; good works are the best weapons to overcome sects and dissenting brethren: overcome, therefore, their errors in doctrine by undeniable dilucidations of sacred truth; overcome their manners by manners contrary (by kindness, mercy and goodness) send thy gifts even to locusts and hypocrites (not, as they that dwelled upon the earth did, to encourage one another in doing evil, but) to win them with good, to unity of faith and true obedience: let thy kindness convince their uncharitableness; thy mansuetude their merciless inhumanities'; abandon rigour, banish cruelties; be not overcome with evil, but overcome evil with good, as the best way to win thy worst enemies, and the most effectual means to convince and convert infidels, sects, and dissenting brethren. the wise and ancient counsellors, that stood before king solomon, gave some such counsel to his son: for, this way, of overooming evil with good (the errors and evil manners of enemies, sects, and dissenters) is * flixweed. sophia-chirurgorum, the balsam of wisdom to heal the bleeding wounds of the gospel-church and christian-states; whereas the contrary counsel of the young, rash, heady counsellors procured the final rent and revolt of the ten tribes: and the like contrary counsels cause and continue like, sad rents and divisions in the church of god. i shall here but briefly solve two questions, and so proceed. first, whether the superfluities of nabals' feast were more due to his sheep-shearers than to david? that feast, in nabals' judgement (and he was a fool) was due to his sheep-shearers, and no part of it to david that defended his flocks, and his servants that kept them: so locusts and hypocrites judge nothing due to faithful shepherds that feed christ's flocks by sound doctrine, and, chiefly by good example: for truth-practising ministers are the best preachers, though their gift of vocal prophecy were very weak and mean: but any sycophant and pretender (not true proficients) is the locust's cui, to whom (in their account) the rewards of the well deserving are due. the second question is this: whether that ointment wherewith mary anointed our saviour's feet, was due to him or to the poor, joh. 12.3. it was the judgement of judas, that it should have been sold, and the price given to the poor: so, locusts and hypocrites are of the same judgement with judas, that no recompense is due to the best deserving, but take as great care, as he did, of the poor. the poor (though that be usually, far from them) ought to be sufficiently provided for; but the well-deserving have most right to just rewards: the time (saith the text) is come that thoushouldest give reward to thy servants the prophets, and to those that fear thy name, small and great, revel. 11.18. these, and what is profitable and honest (to promote and practise it with fidelity) should be (a duty chiefly incumbent upon magistrates) each true curistians principal quibus or cui: but the locusts cui is the proud hypocrite, whose practice is formal smoke and deceit: they are ever great pretenders (like judas) for the poor, and the poor receive least from them. fourthly, their quantum holds no proportion with the principles of truth in practice nor conformity with equity: and what's the quantum of the locusts liberality? it's usually (seldom other) thin and withered, like the corn of egypt, when seven years' drought had dried the land; and sometimes (less usual) it's more large than the true christian's quantum needs to be: for, the true christians quantum is quantum sufficit; but the locusts quantum is quantum destruit vel desicit, aut dando parca manu vel cunctando: the true christians quantum of pains or charge is (provided that may stand with other incomplex principles of right) so much as may perfect every good work, and recompense the doers of it: for he is not bound to extend sufficient to the poor, or to perfect (actually in his own person) every good work, that hath not sufficient to sustain himself: but the locusts quantum (wanting weight) falls short of perfecting good works and damnifies or destroys the doers of them; or else it's the deceitful bounty of liberal donations (lost by delays) that, therefore, destroys both, with greater deceivableness of unrighteousness; so it was foretold of the false prophet (the son of perdition) that he should wear out the saints of the most high; not so much, perhaps, by retributing sparing recompenses, as by delaying large donations, till they lose their benefit, and thereby destroy the receivers of them. the question is not, therefore, how much pains or charge for measure or magnitude, but how much for sufficiency, is expended (and how opportunely) to relieve the poor, to recompense desert, to advance good works, as we see in the good samaritan, and in elishaes' supplies of oil to the widow in want: for, the locusts quantum may be as large as solomon's donations to king hiram, who gave him twenty cities; or as herod's expenses, who rebuilt (at least repaired) the temple of god; or as the pharisees alms, when they caused trumpets to sound before the loaded bearers of their liberal bounty: such bounty (though it seem large and liberal) it not the true christians quantum, which must be the product of due animadvertency, and have diligent respect to all the principles of right in practice: but herod rebuilt the temple of god, and sought to kill christ, the living temple, who should have been the principal cui of his love and liberality: so the pharisees gave large alms, in appearance, to the poor, and they themselves devoured poor widows houses, who should have been the cui of their mercy and compassion: such bounty, such liberality is the locusts quantum. the jews (when an horse or ox fell into a pit or ditch) did not use idle praise, or empty pity; but the quantum or proportion of their pains was so much as served to pull him forth; so the quantum of relief, which men should extend to the poor, fatherless, or to strangers in distress should be so much as may serve (if possible) to draw them out of the pit of their present wants and distresses; otherwise they show less mercy to men, and, perhaps to saints, than the jews themselves did to their beasts: but the inadvertency of men is so general, so great the grand apostasy, that if any good work, or the doer of it, fall into a ditch, there may it stick, there may he stay; locusts will not, nor scarce will true saints, take due pains to pull forth him or it. but locusts (in part like men, in part like beasts, as the text shows) practise, commonly, by pieces and half performance; wherefore (as lying ananias kept back part of the price of his possession, so) they commonly, keep back part of the rewards due to the well-deserving, detain part of that testimony which should be given of them: therefore, they witness not the truth, or witness it partially or falsely in another's praise, proportion recompenses with like partiality; and, as gehazi hid two talents (taken by sinister deceit) to enrich himself, so they (no less greedy) surreptitiously derogate part of the praise and rewards of the faithful witnesses to advance themselves, or advantage their own designs by such thievish depredations. but the due and full quantum of pains and charge (necessary to perfect any goodwork, requisite to commensurate the works of the well-deserving is (as (it was the judgement of judas) in their judgements, lost labour, waste expense, pains and charge cast away: in a word, their alms and equity are usually (calabri xenia) gifts and rewards so trivial that they trouble, or so dilatory and desalked that they destroy the receivers of them. fifthly, quoties, or how oft men must practise, towards all, truth conform to its incomplex principles. but here we should first, further inquire, what those incomplex truths (that are the original matter of all equity in practice) are. i answer; they are, cuique suum in se, or that meum & tuum, in itself, that is due from every man, to god and man. for example. elipl●az and his two friends spoke not of god the thing that was right like his servant job: there's res recta, de deo, dicenda. secondly, david deserved (both in word and deed) well at the hand of nabal: there was (res rect a dicenda & agenda) that incomplex-right, or due debt, which should have been both spoken of, and done to david, but both omitted. thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of thine ox, etc. there's (res rect a agenda agentibus) the thing which is right, or the due debt to the industrious. do good to all, gal. 6.2. that is; do unto all men, good conform to the incomplex-grounds of doing good, at least let that be really intended: there's (res rect a agenda universis) the thing which is right or the debt due to every man: we shall touch these briefly. and first, the indignation of god was kindled against eliphaz and his two friends: why? because they spoke not the thing that was right of god, nor of his servant job: and why did they not speak the thing that was right? because it was incomplex of itself (or a debt due, but unknown to them) and they, possibly, did not strive nor faithfully endeavour to make it complex: that is; did not labour (with due industry) to know the thing that was right, without which they could never speak it: and this is the epidemic deceit (though most prevalent in locusts and hypocrites) of men, and, too much, of men learned and religious; they labour not (at least not so much as they ought) to make the thing, that is right in itself, complex or to come to the right and full knowledge of it, but busy themselves (and that in the first place) about many words of impugnation against the thing that is right: thus (by this rashness) they render themselves more unrighteous than mere heathens, and kindle the indignation of god (to their swift destruction) against themselves. secondly, the indignation of god was kindled against eliphaz and his two friends: and why against them? not only because they made not the thing that was right (though for that in the first place) complex, but because they made it not triplex, or wrought not a conformity formity of the will and affections to the thing that was right, which they could never practise without making it first complex: for, ignoti nulla cupido; no man can attain the love of the truth, or make a conformity of his will and affections to the thing that is right, if he first make it not complex, or (through covetous or careless inadvertency) care not to come to the knowledge of it: and this is condemnation; that light is come into the word, and men love darkness. love darkness]: that is, love slothful inadvertency, for men-inadversive are men of dark minds, not differing much (if any thing) from beasts: therefore; that so great (the greatest) remora to all righteousness and true practice might be removed, we briefly hinted before the order of the working of those three fundamental operative graces, that work due animadvertency, and are wrought by some (but more remiss) degree of it. these three operative graces (faith, hope and love) are all three (as we showed) in each; and each, without all three, is nothing: all three (wrought by animadvertency) work it; and by it, reciprocally, with greater power: therefore it must be, radically, a part in, and the operative power of, all three. for, faith works by love: that is; by animadvertency; for men mind what they love, and love what they chiefly mind: love and animadvertency, in this sense, seem synonymous, and it to be the operative virtue in love or charity. faith works by love or animadvertency, first, humility; for god giveth grace (a greater degree of it) to the humble; but locusts and hypocrites are too proud to practise right conform to gospel-rule; cannot (like cain) submit to be their brother's keepers, nor admit of animadvertency, but censure before they consider, and condemn before they examine the incomplex grounds of their so doing. secondly, faith is mindful to work a care to consider that right that is due to god and man; not like that of pilate (who ask what truth was) went forth without due pursuit of that necessary disquisition; but true faith works (should, at least work) a full and perfect enquiry after that which is right to every man until it amount to a true conformity of the understanding to that right. thirdly, true faith works a real conformity of the will to right known (not like agrippa's half willingness, but) to do it without delays or defalking. but, secondly, david deserved great praise and good recompense (but found neither) from nabal: and why did not nabal both say and do the thing that was right? because nabal did not care to make that incomplex-right, complex, or to come to the knowledge of it; at least, not to conform his will and affections thereunto: therefore was nabals' practice and comport, most wicked and foolish: and so must their practices needs be, that are profanely careless, like nabal, to take pains to make that which is right, complex; and complex-right, triplex; and triplex truth quadruplex; or to conform their wills and actions (as well as their understandings) to that which is right: ratio est una, eademque: there's the same necessity and series to be observed in doing right to the industrious, to the well-deserving, and in all practice of true righteousness. therefore, the locusts practices (wanting this care) are confusion and every evil work; they are too proud or worldly, to take pains to know what true christian practice meaneth; too busy about serious impertinences to go about it; too slothful and careless to make themselves capable of knowing or doing of it. we come now to show; what the true christians quoties is; or how oft good works (wrought, in some measure, in a right frame of a quadruplex conformity, for otherwise they can never be good) must be done to the same man (man of merit, or in misery) and to every man: to which i answer. how oft shall my brother sin against me (said peter to our blessed saviour) till seven times? jesus said unto him; i say not until seven times, but until seventy seven times, mat. 18.21. every true christian must forgive his offending brother seventy seven times: that is: as oft as he humbleth himself: so oft he must forgive, and give (if need require) as oft as he forgiveth: he must exert relief to the poor, rewards to men of deserts, succour to strangers, caesar's due, and suum cuique and that conform to that quadruplicity aforesaid: the quoties of these duties is seventy seven times, or as oft as due or need requireth: for otherwise he lieth to-god, denies to be his brother's keeper, forgives not his brother, nor is in charity with him. we come now to the locusts quoties. locusts have no quoties: that is; their good works have none: for, as its impossible for that, which was never spoken to be repeated; so it is not possible for hypocrites (that never in deed, did one good work) to have any quoties in the doing of them: they are otherwise busy to make themselves like men in face, in hair like women: that is; to be (non veraci effigy, as augustine saith, sed fallaci imagine, christiani) christians in form, and profession; in practice, nothing; not christians, most contrary to christianity: but they bring forth many seeming-good fruits; but seldom twice to the same man: they relieve the poor, but strengthen not their hands by relieving of them; reward those that do well, but not adequate to their deserts; recompense the industrious, but not according to their works; they do good, perhaps to all, but not conform to gospel-rule, or without conformity; and these dilatory, or defalked fragments of seeming good works they seldom exert twice to the same man: but (if any man's need or equity requires their doing good the second or third times, and he desire it at their hands) they either answer him as baal did his servants, or stand ready armed against that man with aspersions, and (without mercy or remorse) sting him with all manner of slanders, lying imputations, murmurings and morosities, that so they may have some, seeming-just grounds to decline their further pursuit of every good work. there is an herb called herba paris or one-berry, and it bears but one berry (but one in a year) and these locusts love to hold some parity with herba paris, to bear but one fraction of a good (or seeming good) work to the same man: they seldom exceed once in doing of it: or (if they exceed once, yet) their quoties never comes to compare with the true christian's quoties, who must have due regard to every incomplex-right; a quo, quid, cui, quantum, quoties. and lastly, quomodo, or how true practice must be performed: this principle comprehends the five former, but we shall here add something more peculiar to it to clear the former more fully, because there's the most need of it imaginable: for (as the augean stables were said to be so full of dirt, that it seemed impossible to cleanse them without letting the river alpheus into them) so the system of the practice, even of saints is so filled with filth of evil manners, that it seems a hercules-labour to cleanse and wash it forth: the work is difficult, but must be done; we shall, therefore, set about it by god's assistance, and first, insulting pride destroys true practice, because it destroys animadvertency, the ground of it: let therefore, every true christian be sincerely affable and friendly to all; not insolent to the poor, whom he relieves; not void of due regard to the rich. moses, from mount pisgah, saw a large part of the land of promise; but pride is the mount of ignorance and evil manners, whence formal professors (and saints too) overlook good works, and therefore, tread them under foot: for their punishment bears the express signature of their sins: they were given into the hands of proud heathens to be trodden under foot for 1260. days annual, because they (not with unlike pride) trod under foot (profainly contemned) all that time, the practice of good manners, and made them the least matters of their due care. all men must study with greatest care (chiefly in these times) to be peaceable as the apostle gave charge; but than they must not be, reciprocally, proud, for only through pride come contentions, prov. 13.10. and the many animosities; schisms, and divisions in churches and states seem to be the branches of that cursed briar, whence the fire of strife, to devour each other, issueth forth: men, therefore, that hope to find peace with god and man, must be very careful to cast this quomodo of pride far from their christian practice. hear now, ye rebels (said moses) must we fetch you water out of this rock? numb. 20.10. what a storm is here of unbridled passion in the mouth of moses, the meekest man on earth? the sin, no doubt, was greatest in those that gave the provocation, too great in moses, and might, doubtless, humble him much, and be an exemplary means to humble true saints in all future ages, by showing them that they may, sometimes, have like passions as moses and eliah had: but this insolent comport procured not, to moses, peace with god or man; but the anger of the lord was kindled against him, and he (by shortening his life) cut him off from entering into the land of promise. contumacious pride is the floodgate of froward manners & makes a man much worse than an unbridled beast: nabuchadnezzar was turned, as it were, into a beast, the very same hour wherein he made himself a beast by swelling pride: pride is no part of the quomodo of true christian practice. secondly, avarice also destroys animadvertency, from whence truth in practice proceeds: for, due adnimadvertency informs the intellect, and a well-informed intellect reforms the will; but, where these are wanting, there can be no will to do right conform to gospel-rule, and, consequently, no true christian practice: the practice therefore, of worldly professors (wanting) conformity of the will) is done (if at all) either by halves or grudgingly and with an unwilling mind: therefore; they, readily receive lies, and liars, that pretend to be religious, gladly, that they may help them, (as balaam helped balack, what he could, to curse israel) to asperse the pious and traduce the well-deserving; that so they may seem to have just cause to decline their furthering of them, and to shun all occasions to perform or perfect any good work: covetousness is, calcar acutum, a most sharp spur to cursed-speaking in the hearts of locusts and hypocrites. where the will (for want of complex-truth) is not well informed and is kept back, by covetousness, from that care, there the practice is repining and grudging unwillingness, reflecting opprobrious obloquy and lying imputations. the herd of swine (christ permitting the devils to possess them) perished in the sea: and why did our blessed saviour inflict a punishment of such evil upon swine, whom he, himself, had created good? many creatures were made for slaughter, and swine serve for no other use: but christ made the best use of the most useleless creature, and that (their life being altogether unprofitable) in their death: for that signal destruction of those swine stands (like lot's wife) a lasting monument and memorandum, to be a necessary caveat and admonition to all men, saints, and sects, in after ages, that they make, by no means, swinish repining, greedy murmuring, and grudging unwillingness, the quomodo of their christian practice: this is the locusts quomodo, and practice of swine. thirdly, let all true saints and sincere professors use no leaven of lies and deceit in their quomodo or manner of their practice: the prophet, that lived in bethel, relieved his brother (a true prophet) with a meal, and destroyed him with a lie? liars (though true saints are too oft guilty of this sin) slay their brother, but are in most danger to destroy themselves. the pharisees sometimes entertained our saviour, and through lies (at last) put him to death: beware of the leaven of the pharisees (saying and not doing; slanders and detractions joined with trivial helps) that it be no part of thy quomodo in thy christian practice. nor was that the least evil in the leaven of the pharisees, when they charged our saviour, that he wrought the works he did, by belzebub; which false charge was near unto that unpardonable sin: nor is that sin now (or what seems something like it) a stranger in israel, though the objects of it are infinitely more unworthy: howbeit, christ imputes it (though done to another) as done unto himself. i may (and must as a duty to god and man) best affirm it, that have found it by experience: very many impute to me, that i am not the author of this book, but it must be done (say they) by some other more able. this leaven is a deadly mixture to destroy both me and mine, and those most that raise this false charge: i must not let so great a sin (a dangerous lie of vile ingratitude) lie upon my brother, but reprove him or them plainly; that he or they (in sincere obedience to god) may better bridle their tongues, lest their religion be in vain. i wonder much that some saints (if such be saints) are not more careful to keep themselves far from a false matter; for i never found from any (though they seemed somewhat) scarce so much as the least contribution to the matter of it; and (the truth is) i scarce ever found any so well furnished to be so bountiful; nor can any claim, but myself only (under god) the doing of it: my damage therefore, and causeless wrong from those that raise this injurious imputation, and their busy ingratitude, is very great. i am damnified also much, and the truth much more, by many that falsely charge me with false dealing with the protestant party in asserting, that sundry texts in the seventeenth and eighteenth chapters of the apocalypse hold forth properly (as the primitive fathers, and sundry modern protestant writers affirm) imperial pagan, and also christian rome, primitive, but apostate in manners (which that they do, i suppose, is fully proved in sundry precedent places of this treatise) and not papal rome otherwise than by a prophetic adumbration: but they (careless to read it, or not careful to understand what they read) impute to me this (perhaps irrefellible) truth, as a most dangerous tenent, tending to strengthen the papists; whereas the contrary opinion (so blind are nonadvertists) does rather really confirm them in all their errors: i suppose some of those, that thus far, perhaps, oppose the truth, are persons of great worth and piety, and my friends; i have therefore, oft desired sundry of them to lay down, briefly their further grounds of their contrary opinions, and i shall give (by god's assistance) full satisfaction to them and others: but they (pursuing, notwithstanding, their false charge against me to my causeless ruin) decline to do it. concerning all such as dare to be too bold to taste the forbidden fruits of the father of lies, i briefly conclude: if any man so far own the leaven of commixed falsehood, as to do good in part to any (like that prophet of bethel) and destroy him by a lie; or (like the pharisees) to rob and ruin any by lies of base ingratitude; i say to such, only as michael did; the lord rebuke thee: for, such instruments of wickedness and weapons of cruelty, are far from being any part of the true christian's quomodo. nor is, lastly, negligence: busy neglect leaves all good works either not begun, or done but by halves: thy servant: (said ahab, a figure of antichrist) was busy, etc. and the man (to me committed to keep) is gone: god never committed formal smoke nor locusts crowns to the keeping of saints; but obedience, or true christian practice, in a quadruplex conformity, is res commissa, that thing which god commits to the care of all saints and sincere professors: but formal professors, and (i am ashamed to say it) saints also, are very busy about smoke and gold-like works of straw-like levity, or, at best, about good works (half, perhaps, performed, never perfected) but mind not, tread underfoot (so general is the grand apostasy) the thing which god commits to their charge: this busy neglect, or half-performed practice, was the loss of ahab's life, and of his family and people: saul, pilate, judas, were guilty of the same half practice, which very many (almost all men) miserably mistake for true righteousness; but it's most abominable in god's sight, and by him compared to witchcraft, and rebellion, 1 sam. 15.23. the reason (i conceive) why men, saints, and sects, so much mistake semipersormance for true practice is their common false opinion, that a form of godliness (a fomal smoky profession) is the power of godliness and the duties contained in the first table; but the power of godliness (truth in practice, or the fruit of faith, hope, and charity, conform to gospel-rule) they reckon to be but moral duties of the second table, not (or not much) worth their minding: therefore, they tread under foot (and no marvel) all true obedience to god, and good manners towards men, or perform such duties negligently, or but by halves; and (for that very cause) they themselves were given to the gentiles to be trodden under foot for 1260. years, chap. 11.1, 2. to be short: it was john's doctrine to the pharisees; that they should bring forth fruits meet for repentance, or answerable to amendment of life, math. 3.8. but good works done negligently or by halves, are, in no wise, answerable to amendment of life: but such works as are worthy of repentance, pleasing to god, and profitable to men, must be wrought in a quadruplex conformity, without any quomodo of pride, avarice, lies or negligence. here i may add a word of the excellency and necessity of this quadruplex-right, and of the real want of it. should i (said the vine) forsake my wine which cheereth god and man: that is; men of high and low degree: but this righteousness is both bread to strengthen, and wine to cheer the hearts of such gods and men; and it, only, is wellpleasing to the living god: for, this righteousness is the fruit of the true vine, and effect of justification by faith: it's (panis vitoe, sub christo vita, universis, vel agni convivium) that promised-refection of the lamb's supper, or antitypefeast, wherein men and saints shall (by sincere and genuine obedience to god) begin to be freed from schism and divisions, and servile bondage to the lusts of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and pride of life, rev. 14.1. secondly, nor shall it cheer such gods and men as bread, wine, or as a feast, but (as music from heaven) raise their hearts to heaven by its harmony. and i heard the voice of harpers harping, apoc. 14.2. their harps are called the harps of god, chap. 15.2. what these harps of god are, is well worth our enquiry, and perhaps, not hard to find: we shall show negatively, what they are not; and positively, what they are; and both are briefly held forth in this halfverse,— non musica chordula, sed cor: the harps of men, are no harps of god; but the heart of man, framed by the hand of god in this quadruplex-righteousness, is the harp of god. these harpers appear in both texts, to be those first-fruits, redeemed from the earth, and from among men, chap. 14.3, 4. that is, the first-fruits (after the grand apostasy) visibly redeemed from antichristian blindness and barbarities [modo tollite mores barbarorum] this work seems to be [the work] because these manners are the colocynthes or death in all men (and in saints chiefly) from which their redemption or deliverance is, a resurrection from death to life: these are the first fruits (saith the text) redeemed (visibly and vigorously redeemed, after the grand apostasy) from the earth, ver. 3.4. for, we find others in scripture (before the apostasy, and in the primitive times) called the first fruits, clearly distinct (as is evident) from these, who were to be the first-fruits (as they were before it) after that grand apostasy: therefore; the great utility of these harps (this righteousness though slighted by heathens and hypocrites, chap. 11, 2. fully appears from these texts: for, they expressly show it to be a redemption (a visible redemption) from death: and reason itself shows the same utility and necessity of it to destroy dead works, to convince and unite dissenting brethren, to refel errors, and to make men, saints, states, and churches flourish in temporal and spiritual felicity; which mercies of the largest magnitude must needs amount to a redemption from death: righteousness (saith the text) delivereth from death: but the want of this righteousness is as death to those that want it, and their usual (both temporal and spiritual) overthrow. vespasian asked apallonius, what was nero's overthrow? nero (said he) could touch and tune the harp well, but would sometimes screw up the pins too high, sometimes too low: and this ill-tuned harp (a heart tuned too high or too low, like the harp of nero) is the almost epidemic overthrow: they thereby, usually, perish that have it, and are the cause that others perish. i shall but present this perfect pattern of a wel-tuned harp: the man, wounded by thiefs, wanted help: there was (res rect a in se) right in itself: the good samaritan (the best harper) considering that incomplex-right, made it complex, took care to know it, and to conform his will, and work to that known right: they that are so buss as to pass by that which is right to others, or take no due notice of it, have not the harps of david, but nabals' voice; folly, is with them, be they never so wise or learned: but, god would have all men to be saved, and come to the knowledge of the truth, 1 tim. 2.4. god therefore (as the greatest meroy to fallen man, and saints revolted) hath promised to call, raise, and draw them by the delicious harmony of the harps of god; that so they (hearing his call) may come to the knowledge of the truth and be saved: for, truth is the door of life, and knowledge the key to open it. knowledge of the truth is twofold. in theory. in practice. theorical knowledge (chiefly from scripture as its fountain) is the knowledge of sound doctrine. practic knowledge is the knowledge of that which is right in itself, and due to be done to every man. the first is opposite to heresy. the second opposeth heathenism and hypocrisy. the first serveth to acquire a form of godliness. the second conduceth to procure the practice and power of it. the first is the extrinse ground of faith. the second is the fruit and proof of faith, and the immediate foundation of all good manners. the object of the first is, (janua doctrinae) truth in doctrine. the object of the second is (janua justitiae) truth in practice,: b are the key or means to men, saints, and sects, to come to the door of life, that they may be saved; without both, can none come. they that read not the scriptures, nor hear them read, or seek not diligently, to understand them by reading such books, or hearing such teachers as fitly unfold them, come not to the knowledge of the truth: therefore, such slothful professors that would be saved by a faith implicit, or wanting practice, come not to the door of truth that they may be saved: for, god would have all men to be saved by a regular means in a rational way, and come to the knowledge of the truth (truth in doctrine, truth in practice) without which they cannot be saved. he that will come to the knowledge of the truth, must try all things: try all things, saith the text, 1 thes. 5.21. jacob wrestled with god, by prayer, all night (not without much corporal labour) prevailed and obtained the blessing: so they, that would come to the knowledge of the truth, must (not only wrestle with god by prayer, but) expect to take serious pains in trying all things, that they may find that which is pleasing to god and profitable to men; which beroean-disquisition is the greatest pleasure to such as are sincere, but a burden to base minds, heathens and hypocrites: therefore; few find the strait-gate (the door of life) by coming to the knowledge of the truth, because they wrestle not (like jacob) with god by prayer, nor take the pains to try all things: but (if prayer, without pains, will procure it) many will not want this blessing; but, de caelo, ignavis precibus, deus ipse repugnat, god resists the slothful, though they make many prayers: hence we may demand why such sects (jews, papists, turks, etc.) and many formal professors so long abide in their blind schisms and fruitless formalities? the answer is almost as obvious as the demand easy: they count it sacrilege to try their own tenants: filthy heathens hold it the highest profaneness (and so do formalists and hypocrites) to examine what themselves mis-suppose to be true religion: but sola nobilitas, est unica virtus; virtus consist it in actione; actio virtutis est disquisitio veritatis, none are noble but who try all things to find the truth: there's no nobility but what's faithfully and soberly disquisitive. a second answer to the same demand may be this: therefore, sects, saints and nations are so far from agreeing, and so ready to make and maintain divisions; because these harpers (that, by their exemplary practice, shall appease their rage) scarce yet appear to be the precedents (those predicted first-fruits) for others to follow. samuel's sons (the text says not, they knew not the law, but) walked not in his ways, turned aside after lucre, took bribes, perverted judgement; they gave no good examples for others to follow: samuel was sufficient to teach his sons the knowledge of the truth in the doctrine of faith and manners; but they were so wicked, that they would not learn to know that particular truth that attends upon practice, for which cause they were cast out, and their government translated: for men may (and many do) attain to the knowledge of the truth in the doctrine of faith and manners, and may add the greatest gifts and parts to the strictest profession and soundest doctrine, and yet never come to the knowledge of the truth to be saved, but remain (as eli's sons did) men of belial, and most wicked, if they seek not to come to the knowledge of the truth (that particular truth) that attends upon practice, that is, if they do not duly consider that right and mercy that is due to be done (and that they may do it) to every man: for the doers only, of the truth in practice, and not the sayers, hearers or knowers of the truth in doctrine, are justified and accepted in god's sight: but it's the common practice of many strict professors (of locusts and hypocrites, especially) and too much of true saints, to take competent pains to come to the knowledge of the truth in the doctrine of faith; but to the knowledge of the truth in practice, they come not, or scarce come: they have hired farms, or are busy in seeking, perhaps, to come to the knowledge of the truth in the doctrine of faith without regard to the knowledge of it in practice, whereby they may be saved, and by which, true conviction and peace may be procured to all people. lastly, supercilious pride surpasseth all other means that most oppose the peace of men, sects and nations: who is david (says nabal) who's the son of jesse? nabals' folly might further thus plead: i profess ingenuously, i could never yet observe the deserts of this david; what's his merit or worth if well examined? i am not now to learn what he can teach; nor are his, supposed sacred, notions of necessary use, at least not new to me: once i read but five lines of his learned work, and was so weary (it was so ill composed, and to little purpose) i could read no more: he observes no method, and is too tedious in all he writes; i could have contracted his matter, to better purpose, in the tenth part of his words: but why sends david upon such a a day as this, which, he knows to be a busy day? he should have first sat down and cast up the cost of keeping so many men (so all wise men do) and not send to me to maintain them: i was ever bountiful (ti's well known) to the well-deserving; but who is david? who's this son of jesse? sic bacchantur moriones: thus proud professors (folly's offspring) swell (with brutish insolence) against the knowledge of the truth in practice, and those by whose examples they might come to the knowledge of it: virtutis hoec merces, meriti hoc praemium: thus proud professors cast down peace and truth by their folly, as the foolish woman pulled down her house with her hands: this is not that peace-producing harmony of those harps, that are the harps of god. but, because two contrary paterus (set together) must needs make each other more elucid and apparent, i shall, in such sort, set two; by comparing the good samaritans perfect pattern with those evil-examples of that priest and levite, that (passing by) came not to the knowledge of the truth in practice. a certain priest (saith the text) saw the man wounded, and passed by; a levite likewise looked on him, and passed by on the other side, luke 10.30 the text chargeth neither as nescient, or not knowing the scriptures; both might come to a large measure of the knowledge of the truth in the doctrine of faith and manners, but took no notice of, considered not, that which is right in itself, and due to be done to the wounded man; they passed by truth in practice: what profit, to what purpose, is it, for formal professors to attain a large measure of the knowledge of the truth in the doctrine of faith and manners (to attain all faith, all knowledge) if they pass by obedience to god, mercy and equity to men? for it was the trade (not of that priest and levite alone, but) of the whole tribe of pharisees and apostate jews (by whom our lord was crucified) to say, and not do; to assert the truth in doctrine, and pass by the practice of it: and so their antitype (locusts and hypocrites, by whom our lord is, more spiritually, crucified in his mystical body) make it their chief business to come, perhaps, to the knowledge of the truth in doctrine, that they may (the better by that means) pass by the practice of it: for, the pharisees searched the scriptures that testified of christ, that they might find testimony in them against him to put him to death: death they found due to blasphemers; this doctrine was true; and this, misapplyed to christ, was enough, they needed no more, to put him to death. omnia sunt hominu, tenui pendentia filo. surely the lives of men and saints, and the lives of princes depend upon a very slender thread, if one text of scripture, misapplyed by blind hypocrites, be sufficient to make them to pass by all equity to men, and loyalty to princes: certainly, such professors (be their doctrine never so sound, their professions most strict) most deserve effectual refutation and rebuke: for misapplyed sound doctrine is the doctrine of devils, that very doctrine which the devil delivered, when he tempted our blessed saviour; and the very same doctrine, which the blaspheming pharisees practised when they put him to death: and this way of blasphemy (by which the son of perdition slays the witnesses of the truth) draws so near (though in these times of the grand misadvertency almost universal) to that sin unpardonable, that it is a desperate misaffection of the will, more than a mistake of the intellect. i know (said christ) the blasphemy of them, who say they are jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of satan, revel. 2.9. where we clearly see, that, to boast of a lie, is blasphemy; and such blasphemers are most contrary to those harpers that have the harps of god: we shall, therefore, handle both briefly together, that both may more clearly appear: and first, such blasphemers are so far boasters as to become rash judges of other meus persons and actions, of which and whom they are least able to judge. but, secondly; such blasphemers misapply (by sacrilegious and most wicked uncharitableness) the same text, that the pharisees did against our blessed saviour, and sundry others against the witnesses of the truth, whereby they ruinated their estates, and destroy their lives: such rewards must the best deserving find almost from all hands: unhappy saints of the living god unhappy witnesses of his truth! in this, unhappy; that any envious, ignorant, and unworthy hypocrite needs but falsely charge them (for their faithful testimony) with boasting or blasphemy, and the business is done to their utter undoing: what need we any more, said the pharisees? but we shall here labour to remove the common mistake that's the principal cause of that boasting and blasphemy, that brings the greatest mischief to mankind, and especially to the witnesses of the truth. and first, though i would desire (saith the apostle) to glory, i shall not be a fool; for i will say the truth, 2 cor. 12.6. whence it's undeniably manifest, that he that speaks or writes the truth (but than most, when it makes for god's glory, or a general good) is no fool, nor a boaster (though he seem to fools and hypocrites so to be) but a faithful witness of the truth; and does, therein, but discharge charge his inevitable and indispensible duty to god and man: but it's the common opinion of depravers and hypocrites, that to speak or write any thing true or false (if it but reflect to the praise of him that speaks or writes it) is boasting or vainglory: then all the prophets, apostles, saints and martyrs must needs be boasters and blasphemers. this was the mistake of korah and his 250 conspiring princes, that told moses and aaron, they took too much upon them, were proud; but were, themselves, signally proved to be sinners against their own souls, rebels in god's sight, exod. 16.38. ch. 17.10. this was the mistake of aaron and miriam when they said; hath the lord, indeed, spoken by moses? hath he not spoken also by us? numb. 12.2. they imputed pride & self-exalting to moses, the meekest man upon the face of the earth: thus we see, that the most faithful prophets and martyrs (such is the envious pride even in many saints) have been and may be grossly misled (by this almost universal mistake), to judge the meekest and most innocent to be self-exalters and vain-boasters, only because they are faithful to bear witness to the truth. this was the grand mistake of that learned and devout council, by whom our lord was crucified: he (as he must inevitably do) spoke the truth; and the truth cannot but dignify the doers and sayers of it with the title and due praise of being the oracles of god: but that blind (but knowing, puft up) senate of pharisees and hypocrites misconceived, that the truth which he spoke, was boasting, vainglory, and blasphemy; and therefore, they all (unanimously, and with one consent) cried out, crucify him, crucify him. the witnesses were to be killed, and the holy city (the church of god) persecuted and trodden under foot in the antitype-place, where our lord was crucified: to wit, by such censorious, blind professors as the pharisees were, rev. 11.2, 8. and this slanderous imputation and mis-supposition (that they are boasters, blasphemers, and men that take too much upon them) is the chief or almost only and universal cause or instrument of their being so killed, persecuted, and trodden under foot: nor are true saints (as we showed before) free from this frenzy of heady and censorious rashness. elisha discovered the king of syria's counsel and design, several times to the king of israel; whereby the king of israel saved himself, not once; nor twice, king. 6.10. such discoveries were signal advantages and deliverances to the king and people of israel: nor could i but (in love to my country, and in fidelity to the church) make this discovery of the chief cause of the kill of her witnesses; that so ministers and magistrates (as the church of ephesus tried those that said they were apostles, and were not) may try those truth-misapplving blasphemers, that charge her witnesses falsely with boasting; and (finding them to be the seditious synagogue of satan) may rebuke them sharply; so may they save themselves and the church (not once or twice) from such distress, as fell upon the jews for the very same sin; to wit, because their rulers did not duly reprove and rebuke those christ-crucifying blasphemers, that charged him with blasphemy: so may the rain of righteousness (after 1260 years' restraint) fall in plenteous showers upon all nations; so peace and prosperity may spring up to all princes and people; so may ministers and magistrates (they being faithful in the discharge of this duty) save the witnesses of the truth, and, perhaps, themselves from the bloody eruptions of merciless cruelties in the mouths of depravers and hypocrites, that falsely accuse them (as the first dragon did primitive saints) day and night as boasters, as blasphemers, or as persons unworthy, and the worst of evil doers; whereby the defences of states and churches, and the healers of their breaches, are broken down by the basest of men: these derogating hypocrites, and those harpers that have the harps of god, are most contrary, by whose contrariety (predicted) those first fruits of true obedience to god, and good works to men, will more easily appear. these harpers (saith the text) sung, as it were, a new song, which no man could learn, but those 144000 first-fruits, vers. 2, 3, 4. ch. 15.2. therefore these harpers must be (as those texts plainly import) the same 144000 that had the name of god written in their foreheads, or, at least, the teachers of them. but, we must here distinguish betwixt these 144000 having the name of god written in their foreheads, and those 144000, in the seventh chapter, that were sealed with the seal of god in their foreheads; and betwixt both, and those that have not the seal of god in their foreheads, chap. 9.4. and first, we shall distinguish betwixt these 144000 having the name of god written in their foreheads, and those 144000, in the seventh chapter, that were sealed with the seal of god in their foreheads. these sealed 144000, were sealed under the sixth seal, chap. 6.12. chap. 7.4. but these 144000 (chap. 14.) having the name of god written in their foreheads, were to stand with the lamb upon mount zion under the seventh trumpet, chap. 10.7. chap. 11.19. chap. 13.18. chap. 14.1. therefore, these 144000, conscript in the fourteenth chapter, are not the same gospel-church in the same respects to times and things (though otherw see the same), with-those 144000 sealed servants of god in the seventh chapter: for the seven seals (as most writers, and i with them, agree) had respect to the transactions of literal and imperial rome, and showed the state of the church under that power: but the seven trumpets and vials have respect to papal rome, and (running parallel in the same synchronism) show the state of the church under that power. the opening of the sixth seal, shows the fall of the sixth head of the tenfold body of heathen rome, and the fall of the pagan power under that head, which is more fully expressed in chap. 12, to the 14. verse. the final excision of imperial and apostate rome, is held forth under the seventh seal, chap. 8.5. and this prophecy is more amply unfolded in the eighteenth chapter. but, the fall of papal rome, or of the grand apostasy, is predicted to be under the seventh trumpet, and seventh vial, chapter 10.7. ch. 11.11, 15. ch. 16.17. then the couscript-church (it seems) should be manifest, as the texts show. also the texts, in the seventh chapter, from the ninth verse to the end, and the manifold prophetick-promises in those texts, refer to the conscript-church, chap. 14. chap. 21. chap. 22. rather than to the sealed-church, or not to her until (after many centuries of years) her offspring should have the name of god written in their foreheads; thus their disparities further appear. those 144000, in the seventh chapter, sealed with the seal of god; and these 144000 having the name of god written in their foreheads, are both the church of god, but in different respects and times: for those 144000, in the seventh chapter, were the gospel-church sealed and numbered in the same chapter, measured in the eleventh chapter; fed and defended in the wilderness for 1260 years from the rage of the second dragon, chap. 12.6, 14. contemporal with (her antithesis) those saint-persecuting, truth-pretending professors that had not the seal of god in their foreheads, chap. 9.4; and brought from wallowing in blood under the bloody feet of the roman red dragon, chap. 12.10. chap. 18.20. for these 144000 in the seventh chapter, were sealed and numbered immediately after the fall of the first dragon, chapter 7.3. but these 144000 having the name of god written in their foreheads, chap. 14. were to stand upon (lasting foundations of true faith and good manners) mount zion; not immediately after the fall of the power of rome imperial, but immediately after the fall of papal rome, rev. 11.13, 15. chap. 15.2. chap. 10.7. chap. 13.18. chap. 14.1. but, because these texts contain the myrrh of ages to heal all nations, and the best writers fall short in unfolding of them, i shall endeavour to show, briefly, what their use and meaning is: wherefore, we shall distinguish (by their respective works or fruits they bring forth) betwixt the sealed and conscript-churches; and betwixt both and those that have not the seal of god, nor his name in their foreheads. and first, the works of the flesh are manifest, etc. gal. 5.19. such works are not sealed works nor deceitful; god sets no seal to the doers of them, vers. 21. nor are they much deceitful; for there is no great deceit or mystery in the more proper works of the flesh, which are manifest: of these i have written at large before, and therefore need not now insist upon them. but, secondly; the practice of truth-pretending formalists is justitia insigillata & deceptiva, an unsealed, half-performed righteousness of deceit. it was commanded them (saith the text) that they should not hurt the grass, neither any green thing, nor any tree, but only those men, which have not the seal of god in their forebeads, ch. 9.4. that is; the locasts (as it were by a command from god, ver. 5.) should torment truth-pretending, church-persecuting papists (that had not the seal of god in their foreheads) with like retaliation, as they had persecuted and tormented the saints of god, that had his seal in their foreheads: nor had these locusts themselves his seal, as neither typeegypt, nor the locusts that tormented her had the seal of the covenant; and the practice of those papists, and these locusts that tormented them (being both alike unsealed) was a persecuting practice, and a righteousuess not sealed, but deceitful, showing that the doers of such rash violence have not the seal of god: fiat tamen justitia; right must be done to evil-doers, and not withheld from the well-deserving; to omit either, or do both negligently, is not the least persecution, as we have seen in eli and others: such persecution (on the right hand or left) is (though almost universally practised by such as are sealed) the practice, properly, of those that have not the seal of god in their oreheads thirdly; the practice of those 144000, that were sealed with the seal of god, is justitia sigillata & vera, sedvix-manifesta; true righteousness (through much weakness and many deficiencies) not clearly manifest. these 144000 were not the aggregate of the whole gospel-church, but a select part of it, excluding the outward court that was cast out and given to the gentiles, chap. 11.2. for, the son of perdition was to sit as god in the temple of god, yet was not sealed, or accepted of him, as a select member of his church, 2 thes. 2.4. the seal of god is inward or outward; 2 tim. 2.19. the foundation of god standeth sure, having this seal, the lord knoweth who are his: and, let every one that nameth the name of christ, depart from iniquity. the lord knoweth who are his there's the inward and invisible seal: and let him, that nameth the name of christ, depart from iniquity: there's the outward and more visible seal of god in the foreheads of his saints, wherewith these 144000 were sealed. primitive saints were wont to show their faith by their works, jam. 2.18. and so these 144000 (especially at first) did for a long time: but they (though sealed with the seal of god) were not like the church of thyatira, of whom this record is given of god; i know thy works, and charity, and service, and faith, and thy patitience, and thy works, and the last to be more than the first, rev. 2.19. but the works of these 144000 were more and more perfect, at first than at last: for the seal of god in their foreheads, (though it might suffer some decay at the grand apostasy about or before 412) continued, competently, visible near a thousand years: tum vetus ipsa dies extenuabat opus: then the impression of the seal of god in their foreheads was much defaced, and their departing from iniquity less apparent: wherefore god loosed the first dragon out of the bottomless pit (after he had been bound about 1000 years) upon the gospel-church, fallen from her first love and works; but god hath since greatly multiplied (as he did the type-fallen-womans') her sorrows; not by her bearing many children, but by suffering (for her sins) her children to wound her with many darts of afflicting calamities, and to rend her into schisms & subdivisions; which balm can scarce heal, nor any art bind up: were any of her sons so dutiful to her, so faithful for her, as to tell her, and declare unto her, her deplorable and desperate condition; 'twere in vain, she minds it not, but lies as it were insensible, upon her sleepy pillow; seems to have given herself up to inanimadvertency and forgetfulness; begins many good works, forgets to finish them; torpor corpus totum tenuit, sopor animam: a desperate insensibility hath seized upon the members of her body, and a deep sleep on her senses: she is, quasi ecclesia moritura, non mortua; as a dying church, only not dead: but god shall wipe away all tears from her eyes, ch. 7.17. ch. 21.4. he hath promised it, and will perform it, which must be done (if ever it be done) by his writing the name of god in the foreheads of his servants, her sons; so may she be revived in her offspring. for, fourthly; these 144000, in the 14th chapter, are the same gospel-church redeemed, as it were, from death; redeemed from the earth, saith the text, ver. 3. both are the same church, but in different respects and times: for, the 144000, in the 7th ch. to the 9th vers. were the church of god fed in the wilderness for 1260 years, ch. 12.6, 14. but these 144000 shall be the same gospel-church fixed upon mount zion, ch. 14.1. that 144000, in the 7th chapter, was ecclesia sigillata, the sealed church of god; but these 144000 shall be ecclesia conscripta, the same gospel-church, having the name of god written in her forehead. that sealed church triumphed over primitive apostate rome, ch. 18.20. ch. 19 to the 7th vers. this conscript-church (the same church in succeeding times) should triumph over papal rome, ch. 15.2, 3, 4. therefore, both differ much in distance of time; for that 144000, in the 7th chapter, were sealed long before these 144000, in the 14th chapter, should have the name of god written in their foreheads. and lastly; they differ much (though both the same church in preceding and succeeding times) in respect to things: for, those 144000 in the 7th chapter (sealed above 1200 years before the name of god should be written in the foreheads of these, their successors) were not (though so long before them) called, the first-fruits; but these 144000, in the 14th chapter (though so long after those former) are called, the first-fruits, redeemed from the earth, and from among men, vers. 3.4. therefore it requires necessarily our serious disquisition to examine, for what causes these (the conscript church) are called, the first-fruits so long after those in the 7th chapter, were sealed. i answer; their title teacheth us the causes of their being so called: they are called, the first-fruits, (it seems) because they are to be the first after (the grand apostasy) that shall bring forth fruits of more visible and conspicuous obedience to god, and good works to men: and the 144000, in the 7th chapter to the 9th verse. (the church sealed), were (for different or contrary causes) not called; the first-fruits: to wit; because they (during the time of the grand apostasy) ' did not bring forth fruits of such visible obedience to god, nor good works so apparent to men: for, such as the tree is, such is the fruit; but that numerus sigillatus was the sealed church; and such must her fruits be (sealed works) of necessity: for a book or letter sealed is scarce at all legible; and such is the love and works of that sealed church: there's little exemplariness in her practice for others to follow: her works (so weak are they, so overgrown with weeds of evil manners) are scarce at all manifest: but the fruits of these first-fruits cannot but be manifest; must of necessity, be signally manifest; because they shall have the name of god written in their foreheads; and their works (wrought in a quadruplex conformity, after the pattern of the good samaritan, their grand exemplar) shall be that name of god written in their foreheads, exemplary and legible to all ages and nations. i do not absolutely state the epoch of the sealed church at the commencement of the 1000 years, about the beginning of the reign of constantius the first; for, they are said to come out of great tribulations, which is more truly intended of their conscript antitype, vers. 14. howbeit, they did then begin to come out of those tribulations, when the first dragon began to fall; therefore, their epoch of being sealed might seem to begin then: but if they begun to be sealed (as 'tis likely they might) at the beginning of the fall of the first dragon; then they were, at first, that woman in heaven, clothed with the sun, etc. ch. 12.1; and the same church that triumphed over that false-accusing, first dragon in these words: now is come salvation, and strength and the kingdom of our god, and the power of his christ: for the accuser of our brethren is scast down: vers. 10. from that time, her graces decayed till after 400, when she fell from heaven, and fled into the wilderness, vers. 1, 6, 14. after that time she retained a great part (though ftill decaying) of her primitive integrity for above 800 years; then her graces grew still weaker, till they were almost wasted, and near quite spent. for abraham put bread, and a bottle of water upon hagars' shoulder, and sent her away with her son: she wandered in the wilderness till the water was spent, and the child ready to perish, for whom she lifted up her voice and wept; but god opened her eyes to see a well of water, and she gave the lad drink, and he revived. so the righteousness and graces of the sealed church, are like hagars' bottle of water; she also hath wandered in the wilderness above 1200 years, till her bottle is almost spent: well may her children and she (both ready to perish) sit down and weep: but the name of god (written in her and their foreheads) shall be a fountain of living waters to revive both her and them: for it is not an empty crackling of thorns in a formal profession, nor the vain blaze of foolish virgin's half-performances, nor litigious contradiction, nor bold confidence in blind obedience, nor the stony-grounds shallow superficies of found doctrine, and practice like it, nor lo here, nor lo there, nor the witnesses, weak (and that also now expiting) sackcloth-prophecy, that can support the gospel-church, whiles she herself is shivered into schisms and subdivisions; brought to the brink of the grave; and her righteousness, that should sustain her, almost spent: wherefore, a necessity (a necessity urgent and indispensible) even comples the gospel-church, and all ministers and magistrates, to ask of god to open their eyes, that they may see the life-redeeming river of apparent righteousness; and do, as hagar and her son did, drink, and not die: that is; that they may find what that sacred name of god, in the foreheads of his servants, shall be, and seek to have it fairly transcribed in their own, that so they may be a part of those first-fruits redeemed from the earth, vers. 3, 4. we must, therefore, give all diligence to make this sacred name of god sure to ourselves; to know what that life-redeeming righteousness is, and how to work it; but how shall we know how to work it without a pattern? a pattern (a perfect pattern) is and hath been long wanting upon earth; where then shall we find it? we must seek the pattern in the mount. and i looked, and lo a lamb stood upon mount zion, and with him an hundred forty and four thousand, having his fathers name written in their foreheads, chap. 14.1. there's the pattern in the mount, and he that holds it forth; the name of god written, and the writer of it. that lamb was a light to the sealed-church, at least for about a thousand years, ch. 20.4. but to the conscript-church, he shall be a temple in her, a pattern to her (not for a thousand years, but) unto all ensuing ages; not by any corporal presence, but by the abundance of the graces of his spirit. when he was corporally present on earth, he was called (in scorn by the pharisees) a samaritan, and was indeed, that good samaritan; that left the best pattern, upon scripture record, of perfect righteousness, to all posterity, and first, jesus said, a certain man went down from jerusalem to jericho, and fell among thiefs, which stripped him of his raiment, and wounded him, and departed, leaving him half dead. and by chance there came down a certain priest that way, and when he saw him, he passed by. and likewise a levite, when he was at the place, came and looked on him, and passed by on the other side. but a certain samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was: and when he saw him, he bad compassion on him, and went to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring in oil and wine, and set him on his own beast, brought him to an inn, and took care of him, and said to the host, take care of him, etc. luke 10.30, to 38. [saw him] not only the man, but that which was right in itself, and due to be done: for the priest and levite (passing by) saw him, but would not see to do what was right: their seeing him signified nothing. so the children of the son of perdition see their neighbour; so the sealed and true saints commonly see their brother. their seeing signifies little: inanimadvertency (next to avarice, if not before it) is the root of all evil in the body of the apostasy of antichrist. but the wounded man wanted speedy help: there was veritas incomplexa, or res recta in se, that which was right in itself and due to be done: the good samaritan (so soon as he saw him) made that incomplextruth) complex; saw and considered what he had need of: they that see and consider not, see without eyes; their eye is evil; they see nothing, and can never do that which is right: for how can they do what they approve not; or approve what they know not: this seems to be (through shameful inadvertency) the common bestial custom, well nigh, of all men, and the practice almost (so universal is the grand apostasy) of all professors: men see, hear, and read, and mind nothing, to make it (nor scarce that) more than complex. but, secondly; the good samaritan did not only make that incomplextruth, or right in itself, complex by taking care to know it; but made it triplex, had his harp ready twed to a conformity of will to do that right which he knew due to be done: he that takes care to know what is right to be done to other men (& that is every man's first duty in christian practice) but takes no care to conform his will to do it as it should be done, doubles his iniquity, and his own just punishment: for, he that knows his master's will, and doth it not, shall be beaten with many stripes; nor can such be said to be doers of the will of god, as do it without diligence, but by halves, or with unwilling minds, or without conformity of works to his will: such works (though commonly practised by sealed saints) are no part of their practice which they should perform; and such professors seem so far from being those first-fruits, that they appear not to be any part of the sealed servants of god. but, thirdly; the good samaritan did not only make that incomplextruth complex, by a conformity of the intellect to that which was right in itself; nor did he only make that complex-truth triplex, by a conformity of will to that known right; but he made it quadruplex, by a conformity of works to a right informed will and intellect; he readily set about (without delays) the discharge of that duty to god & man: nor did he allege the difficulty of the man's recovery to retard his duty; the passers-by might pretend that; and that's oft pretended by hypocrites, to pass by the works of mercy and equity: want of care towards others in their extremities is the cause that many are cast away, undone in their estates, destroyed in their sicknesses: such professors (be they never so strict) stand not with the lamb upon mount zion, nor seem, indeed, to be his disciples: for, the good samaritan pretended no impossibility of the man's recovery to decline his duty, much less did he wound that wounded man afresh with false aspersions; did not tell him, his covetousness, in travelling to get illgot gain, was the cause of his calamity; nor retort to him in scorn, that, had he kept honest men's company, he had not fallen into the hands of thiefs; nor did he say, such sad distresses were evident signs he was a wicked man: to deride men in distress is high profaneness; but to rail upon those, to whom they should do right, is most unchristian and inhuman: but most pretenders, in these times, and many (i hope i may call them so) sealed servants of god, make it no great matter (that so they may decline their duty of doing right or showing mercy) to rail upon such; so desperately depraved are their manners! and they dare invade other men's rights so far as to become judges of their persons and actions, whom they know not, and which they do not understand. fourthly; had the good samaritan delayed the man half-dead, he had died, no doubt, outright, and he himself had passed by (as that priest and levite did) his duty of doing right, or showing mercy: right long delayed, is usually lost thereby, or comes (like the repentance of judas) when its too late: let none, therefore, be hearers of the word, or knowers of the will of god only, deceiving themselves, but doers of it without delays or defalcation. the good samaritan (to that end) had his harp well tuned; his heart was not surfeited or overcharged with the cares and business of antichrist, that continually resist true obedience to god, and right to men: but unsealed locusts and hypocrites have their hearts and hands ever overcharged with abundance of business, that they can never mind good works worth the name of good: they therefore, are ever ready to say with ahab (who was an express figure of antichrist) thy servants were busy, (very busy) here and there, that we forgot obedience, could not remember to show mercy, or mind to do right in a forefold conformity: these are not harpers haviing the harps of god, but loaded camels that can never pass through the eyes of needles; are always fitted and prepared (like that priest and levite) to pass by all obedience to god, right and mercy to men. and the sealed servants of god may very well make (in a great measure) the same excuse and say, thy servants are ever so busy (minding earthly things, or having our hearts devoutly set upon serious formalities) that we have not leisure to look after the life of religion, and power of godliness, practised in a fourfold conformity; nor did we ever imagine that any such practice (though now we perceive it) had been in being: mercy and right we mind not; or we mind such duties but as moral works, not worth the minding: these (though the sealed servants of god) take not (or very little) the example of their practice from the pattern of the lamb upon mount zion, but (so prevalent is the power of the grand apostasy even in saints) from the customs and manners of men: but this chorus incontaminatus, or conscript-number, must make the works of the lamb (not the manners of men) the pattern of their christian practice, which above all things calls for our further consideration. fifthly; we find not that the good samaritan did summon near neighbours to make a rate to relieve the wounded man, and so let him (whiles they through covetousness could not agree) be lost, but defrayed the whole charge himself: but the sealed servants of god differ far from his practice, and either omit good works, or must have perhaps, an hundred to co-adjoyn in copartnership to perform half a good work, at three halfpences charge; and unless many do join, will not have (no by no means) any hand in it: such as thus learn christ, show not themselves, by their practice, to be the sealed servants of god, much less to have his name written in their foreheads: but the good samaritan manifestly condemned such multipartite practice of shrivelled and sordid tenacity, by his own example: he (not seeking assistance from others, where it needed not) expended the whole charge himself, in doing that good work to the wounded man, completed a perfect pattern in a quadruplex-conformity. sixthly; he took care of him (saith the text) and said to the host; take care of him. care is, to all good works, the girdle of truth, without which they are neither true nor good: had not the good samaritan (though he had done all he did besides) taken care of him, he had wholly omitted his christian duty: for, as faith without charity, is dead; so charity without care is dead; a true christian care to do good is the edge of charity and the life of it. it's the grand misery and mistake of men and saints, to do, perhaps, many good works carelessly, whereby they become (not good works but) deceits: such works (though commonly practised by sealed or wilderness-saints) are far from that practice which they should perform; but are the proper works of the members of of antichrist and the characters of them: by those characters, therefore, we shall discover who are (or appear to be) careless professors, and who are careful in the practice of christianity. and first, they that are careless to collect and consider the incomplex-principles of right in itself, are careless in their conversations, and cannot come to the knowledge of the truth in practice: these incomplex-principles (rightly collected) are the basis and grounds of all mercy and equity to men; and that which the scriptures, and we commonly, call, the cause of any man (plaintiff or defendant) stated: neither doth the cause of the widow (saith the text) come unto them, isa. 1.23. that is, they do not collect nor consider the incomplex-principles, aforesaid, of mercy and equity: such professors, judges, or magistrates (it matters not what their church-society, sect, or their repute for learning, strictness or religion is) are corrupt and unjust professors, and (at least in appearance) members of antichrist: but we shall illustrate the premises, for the reader's better understanding, by one or two examples. and first. a prophet's poor widow made her address to elisha, and (stating her own cause herself) thus laid down the principles of right in itself, necessary and due to be satisfied unto her; thy servant, my husband (said she) is dead, 2 king. 4.1. there's the cui (a desolate widow) to whom mercy and equity was due to be done. a second incomplex-right in itself was, a quo, or from whom (which is employed in the same words of the poor widow) to wit, prophet, who was principally concerned, and bound both by the levitical law, and by the royal law of love, to make her incomplex-condition, complex, or to take notice of it, and duly consider it, levit. 25.35. to the end: deut. 15.8, 11. a third incomplex-right is expressed in these words; thou knowest that thy servant (that widow's late husband) did fear the lord: that was a further tye (though he must do right and show mercy to all men) to the prophet, to make her condition complex, or to have full knowledge of it. a fourth principium praecognoscendum, or truth in itself, which the prophet was bound to know, is expressed in these words; and the creditor is come to take unto him my two sons to be bondmen. these principia praecognoscenda, or truths in themselves (thus laid down) were the cause of the poor widow stated before the prophet; and they that are not truly careful and diligent to know and rightly apprehend the causes of plaintiffs or defendants (stated by word or writing) are unjust judges, corrupt magistrates, careless christians, & make themselves (at least appear to be) the members of antichrist: the cause of the poor, of the widow, of the fatherless, and of strangers in distress, comes not before those careless christians, nor can they discharge any duty of mercy or equity to men. but the prophet did not tell the poor widow, she was a trouble to him, or that he was busy about matters of much higher concernment, nor did he bid her come two months hence and talk with him; nor tell her (to encourage her) he would move it to friends at his best leisure (as many professors commonly do) and at last, perhaps, revolt from all he had promised to little purpose, and she expected: but he immediately bid her borrow many vessels, and pour oil, out of a vial she had, into those vessels, and (filling them with oil) sell so much as would pay her creditors, and live herself upon the rest. thus the prophet took effectual care to make the poor widows incomplex cause complex, or to take full cognizance of it. secondly: he took care to make her complex (or by him known) cause, triplex, by conforming his will (that he might relieve her) to his right informed intellect. thirdly; he took care to conform his works to his right-informed will and intellect, wherein he had due respect to another, incomplex-right, to wit, quantum: the fruit of his charitable care was not a fragment or piece of a good work, nor an half-performance, but a plenary supply of full relief to all her wants with due respect to all principles of right in itself: such works only are christian, and shall be the practice of that incontaminate company of conscript harpers, that shall be found without fault in god's sight. we shall show a contrary pattern in pilat's careless practice; pilate was careful to do right by halves, or but half careful: christ's cause came under his disquisition. the first incomplex truth, in his cause, was, that he was blameless, or without fault: pilate made that truth in itself, half-complex, or took half cognizance of it: for he (having examined him) said thrice, i fina in him no failt. john 18.38, ch. 19.4. luke 23.4. he was willing to release him, but not effectually careful to do it: for (overpowered by his adversaries importunities) he gave sentence to put him to death: so, all laodicean (half hot, half cold; half careless, half careful) spurious professors (though never so strict, devout, or zealous) will but talk, trifle, cavil, delay; promise, not perform; practise by halves, falsify, forget, or before they begin, be weary of well doing, and thereby wear out the saints of the most high, and destroy his faithfullest witnesses, as pilate (by like practices) caused christ to be put to death: for, all professors, judges, and magistrates (half-careful only to collect and consider the systems of incomplex-causes) cannot expect to exceed pilat's unjust practice, by whom our lord was crucified. had pilate been faithfully careful to do right, he had not regarded the jews favour, nor been (by any business or other means) drawn or deterred from doing of it. a second incomplextruth in christ's cause, was; that the scribes and elders (as judas had betrayed him to them through covetousness) had delivered him into pilate's hands out of envy; who was but half-careful to make this truth itself, complex, or to know it: he knew (saith the text) that for envy they had delivered him, mat. 27.18. but his care to know the cause of christ was but by halves. for, to this end (said our blessed saviour) was i born, and for this cause came i into the world, that i should bear witness unto the truth, john 18.37, 38. this is the final cause and supreme end, for which christ was incarnate, man created, saints regenerated; that they should bear witness to the truth in words and works; not in words only, as the leaves of a fruitless tree, but in works also, as the fruits: all hearing, reading, preaching, praying are but subordinate duties to this supreme end: that they should let their works (wrought in a foursold conformity) so shine before men, that they (seeing them) may glorify god, must be every man's chief christian care. but pilate (though much more careful than many strict and orthodox professors are) was scarce so much as half-careful to make christ's cause and this truth in itself, complex or known to himself: what is truth (said pilate) and, when he had so said, he (stayed not for an answer, but) went out again to the jews, and said unto them; i find in him no fault at all, john 18.38. what is truth?] a cursory careless question of regardless pilate! si licet exemplis in parvo grandibus uti, if we may (by the pattern of one man) manifest the practice of many; if we may (by the example of one heathen) express the manners, almost, of all modern christians; then this is their manner of advancing virtue, and the way of their seeking the truth: sic virtutis alumni sumus, sic veritatem quaerimus! men and many saints are now (as pilate was) more cursory, swister than asahel in running: doth the cause of the widow, of the fatherless, of the stranger come before them? they can run by it, or glide over it, and take no notice of it: is any thing spoken to them? they can run over it by a rash answer before they hear it: is any work in writing (requisite to refel errors, to reform manners) offered to them? they can run by it, or run over it (by a cursory reading) and never understand it: is any man fallen amongst thiefs and wounded like the wayfaring man? they can run by him and never mind him: is any thing, that is right in itself, laid before them? they can run by it, and take no notice of it: what may i say of such men, of such saints, but this? their feet are swift (too swift) to shed blood: these are not the works of the good samaritan; this is the practice of pilate. pilate examined christ once with some seeming meekness, and sobriety: thrice did he justify him as a man in whom he had found no fault: once he washed his hands in water before the multitude, to signify his guiltlessness of his innocent blood: five times did he refist the rash violence of that blind zealous council: what professor now, or, perhaps, what saint, would take that care and pains (that pilate took for christ) for the most innocent man manifestly injured? pilate took care (for the pharisees did not) not to credit christ's false-accusers, and found them liars; but professors now (and, i am afraid, i may say, many sealed saints) take little or no care how they credit false accusers, according to scripture-rule, deut. 19.16, 17, 18, 19 but they, by believing their lies (they seeming to them devout and zealous) justify the wicked, and condemn the most innocent; wherefore eveu pilate (by whose wicked sentence christ was condemned and crucified) shall rise up in judgement and condemn many careless modern professors and saints. but the good samaritan was faithfully careful to do all good works in a fourfold-conformity: he took care for him (saith the text) and said to the host, take care of him. go and do likewise, said christ to all saints and professors in all ages and nations. lastly, had the good samaritan poured wine & oil into the wounds of the wayfairing man, had he bound up his wounds; had he also given him money for his relief with a liberal hand, and had so left him; he had, no doubt, perished in the place, and had been re-exposed to robbers to kill him outright for that money (for all times aftord many thiefs, sew samaritans) such careless care and helpless half-help had not exceeded the righteousness and mercy of locusts & hypocrites; and such pains and expenses had but been the price (the blackest simony) of exemption from performing good works: for, simon the sorcerer, sought to purchase the gifts of the holy ghost with money; but double-minded men deceive themselves, and deceive others with far more depraved simony, in seeking to purchase, by careless half-performances (not the gifts of the holy ghost, but) their exemption from them, or from bringing forth the fruits of them. the man of sin is a man of mistakes and deceits; his coming and continuance was with all deceivableness; but this is the masterpiece of deceit (saints scarce excepted) in that son of perdition, that his members mistake the purchase of their exemption from good manner, by half-performances, for true christian-practice. false sincerity (the parent of half-performances) is the fountain of deceits in the apostasy of antichrist, and is, itself, a deficiency in the knowledge of that incomplextruth of degree or quantity, and in conforming the will to the knowledge of it: lovest thou me (said christ to peter) more than these? that is; than these earthly or worldly things: covetous professors deceive themselves, but can never be sincere, nor their practice more than half-performances. peter, lovest thou me (said christ)? peter replied, lord, thou knowest that i love thee. feed my sheep, said christ. and so he said thrice. covetous professors can never be sincere, nor fit to feed christ's sheep: for, covetousness is quite contrary to sincerity, which is the superlative degree in the quantity of love, pains, and expenses to promote the truth in doctrine and practice: had peter loved the things of this life as much as the living god, or as much as his kingdom and the righteousness thereof, he had not been sincere, but an hypocrite in his heart, and his religious actions had been but hypocritical half-performances. half-performances (or a constant falling short of the quantity of love, care, pains, or expenses to practise good works) are the fruits and infallible characters of hypocrites, and do denote, in incult, barren wilderness-saints (that commonly perform such works) great want of sincerity. sincerity is a sufficient care, pains, and expense to perform good works in a fourfold conformity, and such practice is the express command of god, deut. 15.7, 8. thou shalt open thine hand wide to thy poor brother, and shalt surely lend him sufficiennt for his need: thou shalt surely give him, and thine heart shall not be grieved, vers. 10. shalt surely lend him sufficient] sufficient care, pains and charge is the substance of sincerity, and the due measure of right and mercy, as we showed in the foresaid examples of elisha and the good samaritan: but quantum deficit, deficient care, pains, and charge, is the false measure of impostors in the apostasy of antichrist; and the fruit of it, the deceitful price of exemption from the practice of good manners: almost all professors, and many saints, much deceive themselves by being of this or that sect, or church-society, and, by being therein vainly confident; whereas a sect signifies nothing; but sincerity is the substance of true obedience. saul (so desperately deceitful are half-performances) paid a large price of exemption from obedience to god, and doing good to himself, his country and family: he went, saw, and overcame amaleck as god commanded, brought away their best catcle, etc. who could (nor could he himself) imagine that more to please god could be done that service? nor scarce could samuel beat him out of the strong confidence of that misbelief, but samuel told him, that all that large price of exemption (for it seemed to exceed an half-performance) from true obedience, was as witchcraft and rebellion. why as witchcraft? because half-performances deceive unsealed hypocrites more than witchcraft, and would deceive (were it possible) the very elect: but the practice of the good samaritan is a perfect pattern in a fourfold conformity for all men and nations to follow, having due respect to all the principles of right in itself: a quo, quid, cui, quantum, quoties, etc. and such works (and they only) are the sacred harmony of the harps of god. and i looked, and lo, a lamb stood upon mount zion, etc.] we shall (and so conclude the first part of this treatise) further inquire; first, who that lamb is. secondly, what is here meant by mount zion. thirdly, who those harpers shall be. fourthly, why they are called the first-fruits. fifthly, what is meant by those harps of god. and first, that the lamb on mount zion shall be christ, is not doubted (i suppose) nor denied by any: not that christ shall then stand, corporally, in his hypostatical person there, or any where else upon earth (either for 1000 years, or more, or less time) when these 144000 shall attend him; but, by the lamb, in this text, is meant christ's substitutes (his revived witnesses, religious ministers and magistrates) raised from the sleep of spiritual death to the life of animadvertency, and to mind to do right and show mercy (after the pattern of the good samaritan) in a fourfold conformity, which only is christian true practice: for, as michael and his angels are said to fight with the first dragon, and to bind him, etc. ch. 12.7. ch. 20.2. it was michael's delegates and substitutes (constantin with his armies and officers) that fought (and not michael personally and literally) on earth; so the lamb, in the text, upon mount zion, shall be his witnesses and representatives (religious kings and ministers) standing firm (as upon mount zion) upon lasting principles of sound faith and good manners: nor was it god and christ literally (but the said substitutes with their successors) that reigned on earth, when the 1000 years began, ch. 12.10. nor shall god and the lamb literally (but their representatives) be the temple in the conscript-city of god, ch. 21.22. secondly, we shall further inquire who this conscript-number (that shall accompany the lamb) shall be, and see wherein they differ from locusts and hypocrites. and first, they clearly appear to be the gospel-church (after liar wilderness-pilgrimage) brought to, and built upon immovable foundatious of truth and peace: for two texts, in one and the same chapter, expressly tell us, that the woman fled into the wilderness, and was to remain there at least 1260 days (days annual) which are 1260 years, ch. 12.6, 14. and (the duration of that desert-condition by her finished) we find her (immediately, or very soon after) firmly seated upon mount zion: and it is well known to all, that know any thing, that mount zion was never in the wilderness. ch. 11.11, 13, 15. ch. 13.18 ch. 14.1. that mount was the type-seat of true worship; this the antitype: that for a time; this till time be no more: that was literal; this shall be spiritual: to wit, lasting and inviolable principles of true faith and good manners, whereon the gospel-church (firmly built) shall perform true obedience to god, and good works to men in a fourfold conformity. therefore, locusts and hypocrites can be none of this couscript-company; their harps of pride, strife, and ignorance (if such instruments can be called harps) sound forth rash and foolish questions, cavils and impugnations against that which is right; their works (and true saints, too off, practice the same) are torn sacrifices, clipped fragments, half-performances, good beginnings never finished, works of negligence, and careless forgetfulness, or wicked exemptions from good works: they scatter some fragments (the worst simony) to be rid of doing good, whiles they relieve the poor, reward the well-deserving, but strengthen not their hands (as sodom did not) by relieving or rewarding of them: their works (not performed in a fourfold couformity) are contrary to the pattern in the mount, and the practice of the good samaritan; therefore (being laid in the balance) they are ever found wanting. this company (having the name of god in their foreheads) may be called, coetus virgineus, vel chorus incontaminatus, the virgin or undefiled company; these were not defiled with women (saith the text) for they were virgins, vers. 4. they seem to differ from the profuga or sealed church, only, as christ, transfigured in the mount, differed from what he was before: christ in the mount, was not another man, but a man (the same christ) of another manner; so these 144000, conscript in the mount, shall be the same gospel-church, that was sealed before, that fled into the wilderness, and was fed there for 1260 years; not, for matter, another church, but a church of other manners, transfigured as it were, in the mount of god, and not floating (as the ark in the flood) upon unstable waters; not driven to and fro with every wind of false doctrine and different opinion; not broken by proad billows of swelling schisms and subdivisions, but shall be immovably fixed (like the ark at last) upon a sure rock which can never be shaken. many rich, prophetick-promises to the gospel-church are held forth in the 7th chapter from the ninth verse to the end; but those manifold promises of the richest mercies seem to be made, chiefly to the conscript-church; and were not so fully fulfilled to the sealed servants of god in that chapter; for, after the sealing of them, the text saith; after this i beheld, and lo, a great multitude, etc. vers. 9 for, as god did not begin to smite egypt with the plagues of excision, till his people were first sealed, in the fronts or door-posts of their habitations, with the blood of the lamb, exod, 12. so these (their penultimate antitype) were first sealed in their foreheads before god smote imperial and apostate rome about the beginning of the fifth century: but, as his prototype sealed servants (the people of israel) finished forty two journeys in the literal wilderness; so these sealed servants of god in the 7th chapter, were to fulfil forty two months prophetical (1260 years) in the spiritual wilderness, before they should stand with the lamb upon mount zion, ch. 11.2. ch. 12, 6.14. ch. 13.5. that type-wilderness was the place of provocation, wherein those (in a figure sealed) servants of god (erring in their hearts, and not knowing the ways of god) provoked him to anger, and they all perished in that place for their provocations; that type-desert was a literal, local, barren part of the world: but this antitype-wilderness is less literal, more spiritual, no less barren in good works, and is (in the aggregate of it) the whole world: for, the prototype, apostate-church was driven out of paradise into the barren world, that brought forth (as a curse laid upon it) briars and thorns: and the antitype revolted woman (the gospel-church) fled from heaven (her primitive stations) and was driven thence into the wilderness (this wicked world) where evil beasts (heathens, heretics, and proud and blind hypocrites) in habit, and which is an inextricable labyrinth of investigable entanglements, and ways all overgrown with briers and thorns of the cares and pride of this life; a place where the sealed servants of god habituate themselves to err in their hearts, and to be ignorant of his ways with all confidence, and continually provoke him to anger. but, the gospel church was not to continue scatrered over all this spiritual wilderness, but to be more strictly confined for 1260 years, to her more pecular place there, prepared of god. the p●●ce prepared in the literal wilderness, was egypt, as we shall, in the sequel, fully show. another prophetick-place prepared of god (and that more mystical) was the apostate body of israel, or they in their journeys and places of their pitching their tents; for all israel above twenty years old (about four excepted) fell away (when the faithless spies brought evil reports upon the land of promise) from faith and obedience: that apostate body was a place prepared of god to preserve his truly sealed servants: so the papal-apostacy, and her subdivisions (such at least as held the homousian faith) were the antitype-place prepared of god to preserve his truly sealed servants for 1260 years. but these 144000, upon mount zion, shall not need any place prepared in the wilderness, to preserve them, because they themselves shall not be there; nor shall they need a body of death (the body of the apostasy of antichrist) to preserve (as the fish did jonah) their lives from death; but they shall have the name of god written in their foreheads; and that name (true practice in a fourfold conformity) shall be a strong tower to descend them from all distresses: nor shall that name of god (the vivid practice of the power of godliness) be an anchor in a storm, but an impreguable rock, above all seas, which storms can never reach. paul's ship, wherein he sailed, was long driven to and fro; dashed with impetuous storms, at last split in pieces; the passengers got its brokenboards to bring them to shore; and the profuga, gospel-church, that fled from the serpent for 1260 years, hath been long driven (too much like paul's ship) to and fro, broken with violent storms, and is now ready (by dashing billows of dissenting brethren) to split inpieces. but these 144000 upon mount zion shall not need to fear sea-storms of tribulations, or persecutions, because there shall be no more sea, saith the text, chapter 21.1. no more sea] that is, no more coaltern persecutions betwixt professors of different persuasions, nor tempestuous dashings of civil divisions, nor any more distresses (as formerly) for faithless disobedience: so the whole world, in time of the flood, was a stormy-sea, wherein the ark (the prototype-church) was driven; but, when it rested on ararat, there was no more sea of dashing billows against that weatherbeaten type; and so the sealed, wilderness-church, hath been driven to and fro (though her first 800 years were more favourable) for about 1260 years, as in a troubled sea; but, when she shall arrive upon mount zion, there shall be no more sea: righteousness delivereth from death; but her righteousness of a fourfold conformity (which only is the fruit of true faith) shall deliver her from all future sea-storms and shipwrecks. but this righteousness is much more difficult to be done, than the righteousness of formal professors, and far different from the promiscuous, clipped, and defalked righteousness of such true saints, whose harps are ever out of tune. for, formalists and hypocrites (nor are true saints free from this fault) really imagine, that the way to work true gospel-righteousness is obvious to any; every man (they think) may do it without much direction for any difficulty therein: the ground of this, almost general, misconceit is this; they mistake the deceiveableness of unrighteousness for the righteousness of saints, and the gold-like crowns of locusts for the name of the living god written in the foreheads of his servants; and this righteousness (mistaken for true) is most easy to be done by the most indocible: it's most easy for men to pretend religion, and practise none; to profess to witness the truth and testify lies in words and works; or to witness it in both with those delays, and such slackness or partiality, that it profits none; to take much care to come to the knowledge of the truth in the doctrine of faith and manners, and be deceived, but not to come to the knowledge of the truth in practice, that they may be saved: this is doctrina dedocenda. doctrine to be learned at least to better ends. to pass heady censures, and practise actions of precipitate rashness, which even heathens abhor, is (as bestial) abhorred of god: our law (said an heathen) condemns no man unheard; but corrupt, careless, true christians, can, and commonly do, condemn (indictâ causâ, inaudito viro) any man or thing unseen and unheard: but no law, literature, nor religion, nor strict profession, nor sound doctrine; no gifts nor parts can bind or debar unsealed evil-beasts from this barbarous frenzy, which the laws, even of wicked heathens, allow not; and which makes men more brutish than the worst heathens: this desperate wickedness of barbarous folly (so easy it is to be learned) is little less frequent, nor less esteemed for true righteousness, than it was by the pharisees, who (by this temerity of blind hypocrisy) condemned and crucified the king of righteousness. but the righteousness of this chorus virgineus (contrary to the crowns of locusts, deceits of hypocrites, and the dangerous diversious of corrupt, careless, true christians) shall be (as the text infers) every way conform to that which is right: therefore it must be (for difficilia quae pulcra) far more difficult to be attained and practised. these were not defiled with women (saith the text) for they are virgins: that is; they shall not pollute themselves with the false doctrines and foolish opinions of erroneous professors, nor espouse their works: their works shall not be (like the fruits of formalists) withered for want of rain, nor blasted with the wind, but be good and perfect fruits of a foursold conformity, wellpleasing to god, and profitable to man; for, so their site, position, and number import: we find them not wandering in the wilderness, nor sitting under shadows of death, as they did before, when the woman fled into the wilderness, and her witnesses were killed for 1260 years, revel. 12.6, 14. ch. 11.7, 9, 11. but we find them situate and built (standing no doubt, after the pattern of the lamb) upon mount zion, where solomon's temple was built, and so the antitype of it, ch. 14.1. for, we find their number to be 144000, ch. 14.1, 3. and the quadrate dimensions of solomon's temple were 144000 cubits, thus cast up. it's length (60 cubits) multiplied by its breadth (20 cubits) makes its product 1200 cubits, which multiplied by 30 cubits (the height of it) makes 36000 cubits, whose square is 144000 cubits; and we find this sacred company to be 144000, & to stand upon mount zion: that is, to be the antitype of solomon's temple, or the true gospel-church returned out of the wilderness and turned back to obedience: that is, to have the name of the father of the lamb written in their foreheads: which necessarily infers, that this caetus virgineus must needs be, chorus agni, the church of christ: that is, the city of god rebuilt upon mount zion: to wit; upon inviolable principles of truth in faith and manners. for, secondly, both their number and position imports a quadruplex-conformity in practice: for this city (saith the text) lieth foursquare in 12000 furlongs, ch. 21.16. it's quadrate dimensions (it's so easy and evident, that it needs no casting up) are 144000 furlongs; which principally imports, that the righteousness of this chorus incontaminatus should be of a quadruplex-conformity, or every way conform to that which is right in itself; a righteousness of arduous industry and acquisition, directly contrary to the goldlike-crowns and deceits of locusts and hypocrites. thirdly, the name of god shall be in the foreheads of his servants (the inhabitants of this holy city) saith the text, chap. 22.4. and his name shall be written in the foreheads of these 144000, ch. 14.1. therefore, these 144000 shall be that city of god. i omit, for brevity, many other comparityes betwixt this conscript 144000, ch. 14. and the holy city, ch. 21. the position of the prototype twelve tribes about the tabernacle was in a fourfold figure; and their antitype, this 144000 (ch. 14.) are of a square number; and the holy city, ch. 21. is to be both of a quadrate number and figure; and this fourfold congruity betwixt both (in their number, in the name of god, in the place of that name, and in their quadrate position) signally proves that these 144000 (ch. 14.) shall be the same city of god, ch. 21. and likewise that the practice of that quadrate polity (for such as the tree is, such is the fruit) shall be a righteousness of a quadruplex or fourfold conformity, which only (or what tends thereunto) is substantial and true righteousness; all other is but deceits. we have already shown who that lamb upon mount zion, shall be. secondly, who these conscript first-fruits, that shall attend him, are to be. and, thirdly, we shall further inquire, why this conscriptcompany is called, the first-fruits redeemed, etc. or from what, and for what they shall be so redeemed? and first from what they shall be redeemed; to which i answer: they shall be redeemed from doing the works of heathens and hypocrites, that are contrary to gospel-rule; and from those obscure, commixed works of proud, careless, true christians, that are inconform to christ's commands, and render them (though true saints) doubtful to themselves and others whether they be such or not. secondly, we shall inquire; for what they should be thus redeemed? the text, expressly answers this demand in these words: these are the first-fruits: that is, they should be thus redeemed to be the first-fruits, or foregoing examples for all ages to follow: to wit; to draw the nations (both heathens, sects, and saints) to practise good works, conform to that which is right in itself: for the works of hypocrites have no power to draw others to practise sincere obedience, because they (by their works) give not, nor can give any good examples for papists, jews, or turks to follow. nor can careless, true christians, corrupt in manners, draw others, nor be drawn without those first-fruits, for them to run after their examples: therefore, all sects and nations (without these first-fruits, and the lamb for their pattern) must remain (statu quo prius) ever unconverted, never truly united; but be as they are and long have been; or be (if that be possible) worse than ever they were: sic subitò deterrima, deteriora si sint, sequentur saecula: for, corrupt, careless, slothful, true christians cannot run, nor draw others to run the ways of god's commands: they (though their doctrine were most sound, they strict, and devour, their gists' great and many) have more need to be drawn, than power to draw others by their examples: their drawing is rather a drawing back of themselves, and a withholding of others from pressing forwards: for, the proud, covetous, careless, conversations of such true saints have no attractive force to good, draw forceably to evil: their slothful pains of careless levity, pride and avarice are usually fond, and rash impugnations of censorious ignorance against the practice of that which is right: therefore the secret and scarce discerned graces of such true saints are too feeble to draw others by solid doctrine or depth of knowledge which they never seek after; or by good examples, which they never give: these are no attractive first-fruits, though they may (in due time) be drawn by them, but the righteousness of these first fruits shall be (opposite to the works of darkness) justitia manifesta, works of light, made thereby manifest, and (for that cause) forceable to draw: he nations (men, sects and saints) to god, and to bind the attentive ears of all to hearken and obey by its delicious harmony. nor shall that sacred company serve for patterns of practice to posterity, but be gnomon judicij vel norma judicandi, the rule of right judgement to all saints, sects, and professors that pretend to extraordinary gifts of the spirit of god, and to be endowed with power from above, above their brethren of present or former times: such may try and judge themselves, and discern and be discerned by others (in a very large measure) whether they be led by the spirit of delusion, or by the spirit of truth and sobriety: for, the gospel-church was to be in the wilderness (vailed in great obscurity, involved in great distresses, and decaying daily in graces) for 1260 years, and until these first-fruits (her offspring) should begin to stand upon mount zion: therefore, all sects and professors, that pretend to be endowed, extraordinarily, with gifts and power from above before this time expire, appear, inevitably, and may appear to themselves (by undeniable record of sacred scripture) to be, so far impostors, and seducers of others: for (if the first-fruits are, in future, to come, then) these pretenders (incult, and careless of true christian practice) cannot be the first-fruits for others to follow: such professors cry up (with vain acclamations) old errors and deceits, for new lights; and are, so far, found liars. we shall now inquire, fourthly, what is here meant by mount zion in the text? it's type had its higher and lower parts: it's higher part contained moriab, zion and calvary: on moriab stood the temple; on zion was the tower and city of david; on calvary was christ crucified: jerusalem was built on the lower part of it: the upper and lower parts had the denomination (from its highest part) of mount zion. zion and sinai are synantitheses, or directly contrary; so was the wilderness and the land of promise. as jerusalem was the metropolis of the land of promise, and zion the chief place of note therein; so sinai was the head and symbol of the barren wilderness: their disparities appear thus expressly from the text. tell me (saith the apostle) do ye not hear the law? for is written, that abraliam bad two sons, the one by the bondmaid, the other by a freewoman: which things are an allegory; for these are the two covenants: the one from mount sinai, which is hagar, and engendereth to bondage: but he of the freewoman was by promise: and jerusalem above (the mother of us all) is free. the mother of us all] that is, of all sarah's seed, the since of promise: wherefore zion and sinai (as types) differed, as hagar and sarah; as the two covenants, as grace and the law, life and death, bondage and freedom. typezion was a threefold foundation (the substructure of the temple, of the city of god, of the city of david) thither the twelve tribes came to keep the passover: therefore, typezion was a figure of the foundation of the church of god, and a literal place; but spiritualzion (no literal place) shall be the antitype-foundation of the gospel-church: for the lamb, and with him 144000, having his fathers name written in their foreheads, shall stand there, ch. 14.1. the foundation of the church of god is transcendent. secondly, derivative. the transcendent substructure is, deus in christo pacatus, god reconciled in christ: this foundation (the rock and pillar of truth from eternity) stands for ever. the derivative foundation of the gospel-church is the knowledge and love of the truth, or a fruitful faith in the promises of god through christ: christ said to his disciples, but who say ye that i am? peter said, thou art christ the son of the living god. jesus answered; thou art peter, and upon this rock will i build my church, matth. 16.15. this derivative foundation of the gospel-church was the faith which peter confessed; and it had respect to and was built upon that first and transcendent foundation: this derivative foundation (a living and fruitful faith) shall be that mount zion, (ch. 14.) where those conscript 144000 (the antitype of solomon's temple) shall stand, and whereon the city of god shall be built, chap. 21.2. the prophetick-promises are express, and the texts full and clear that prove it; which notwithstanding, many may object and say, that this foundation was laid long before. the assertion i confess, and grant that this foundation was laid long before, even in the primitive times: but a falling away was to come, and a departing from the faith, 1 thess. 2. 1 tim. 4.1. for the church (at least in a very large measure) forsook the rock of her safety (the foundation of her standing) fell from heaven (where she stood) and fled into the wilderness for 1260 years, revel. 12.1, 6, 14. so the prototype-church (jacob's family) fell away, departed out of the land of promise, fled into the wilderness, and into her place there prepared of god: to wit, egypt (the most barren place in that wilderness, were it not miraculously prepared of god, and as it were in the middle of it) and returning thence, through part of the wilderness, turned aside there also; they were then far remote, and long removed from the type-foundation (zion literal) where abraham would have offered his son, melchizedeck was king of righteousness, and where the lord was twice seen in abundant grace and mercy. so their antitype (the gospel-church) was long removed (as aforesaid) into the spiritual wilderness, from the foundation of her standing: but as many of the captives carried to babylon, were mindful of zion, and would not forget jerusalem, psal. 137.5, 6. so some of the fallen servants of god in the gospel-church, have had some weak desires of zions welfare, and are somewhat (though very little) mindful of their first foundation: but (may some say) this foundation (faith in the promises) stands still firm. i answer, zion stood (after the city and temple, built upon it, were turned to ashes) but it was left desolate, the living were departed, the dead only and the slain were left there, as the lamentatious declare at large. and so the faith of the antitype revolted-church, in the spiritual wilderness, was, and is a desolate faith, a faith fruitless (or far from being fruitful) in the practice of good manners, and, at least, drawing near to a dead faith; and therefore no way fit to be the foundation of the gospel-church adorned to be the lamb's bride, ch. 21.9. but antiypezion shall be a fruitful foundation, a living faith, giving life to the city of god that shall be built thereon: for, such as the tree is, such is the fruit; and such as this foundation, shall be the superstructure upon it: but these 144000 (the antitype of solomon's temple built thereon) shall be undefiled and without fault, saith the text, vers. 4.5. that is, their righteousness shall be so perfect in a fourfold conformity (but there is no man that sinneth not, i kings 8.4, 6:) that it shall be a sweet savour and a sacrifice wellpleasing to god: but the faith of the gospel, wilderness-church is (as was that of her prototype) a barren faith, affording very little fruit to god's glory, or the good of men. the wituesses (we read) were to be killed; and this faith is much after the manner of the carcases of those killed witnesses; and, indeed, their carcases was such a faith (a dead or dying faith) having some small, insensible, and almost unperceivable true life: for, faith without works (saith the apostle) is dead, a carcase of christian profession without power, james 2.17, 20. and such a carcase of the killed witnesses (or somewhat like it) the spiritual gentiles kept unburied to be a foundation to build the apostasy of antichrist upon, and it's the pillars of it to support it: nor are inanimadversive, clipped, inconform half-performances any fruits of a living, but the deceits of a dead faith: such a faith, such a fruitless foundation is sinai, not mount zion, and most unfit to be the substructure of the church of the living god; nor can it procure his favour, but his anger or enmity, for so * issid. sinai signifies. therefore was god angry forty years with the type, wilderness-church, and swore in his wrath that they should not enter into his rest: so the antitype-wilderness is the place or dispensation of god's heavy anger and sore displeasure even against his own church and people; because (saith he of the figure of these) they do always err in their hearts, and have not known my ways, heb. 3.10. do always err, etc. their antitype also err always, because they are ever inanimadversive, and mind not (or mind not much) what they say or do. one said of the troubled sea, nibil bio nisi pontus, & aether; so may we say of the dead faith of this spiritual, dreadful wilderness; there is nothing there but errors in men's imaginations, and little else in the hearts and hands of saints: for the fruits of a dying or desert-faith are (through brutish inadvertency) erring imaginations, ignorant animosities, schisms, deceits in opinions, and mistakes in manners. a dead faith (the foundation of the apostasy of antichrist) is threefold, or subsists of three parts. first, inanimadvertency. secondly, ignorance, or erroneous knowledge, which the apostle calls, science, falsely so called, 1 tim. 6.20. from these two proceeds the love of a lye. and these three constitute a fruitless dead faith. and secondly, antitypezion (or a fruitful living faith, the derivative foundation of the church of god) is also threefold, or subsists of three parts. first, animadvertency. secondly, true knowledge; and from these two proceeds love, the life of a fruitful living faith: for knowledge comes by animadvertency, and from both springs love, the life of faith. and i looked, and lo, etc. animadvertency is the root of faith; knowledge the eye of it; love is the life thereof: but a dead faith acts, and looks not; censures, and sees not; reads, and minds not, or (with an evil eye) minds amiss, mistakes pieces and fragments of good works for perfect obedience, and deceits for truth: no better fruits must they expect that make a dead faith the foundation of their-works, and the substructure of the church of god. break off thy sins (said daniel) by righteousness, and thine iniquities, by showing mercy to the poor; if it may be a lenthening of thy tranquillity: nabuchadnezzar, no doubt, did as daniel directed: but it's not a careless, clipped righteousness of a dead faith, nor half-performed mercy to the poor, that can secure professors, salnts, states, or churches from dreadful calamities: he was driven (as a man without rule or reason) from amongst men, and his dwelling was (as in a wilderness) with the beasts of the field, till twice 1260 days passed over him: his faith was a wilderness dead faith, bringing fruits forth by halves. the dreadful evils of the barren desert (literal and spiritual) and the contrary benefits and blessings of zion (in type and antitype) may briefly appear from the fastings of moses, eliah, and christ, forty days in the wilderness: the time was above forty days, and perhaps, about 42 days, conform to 42 months propbetical, which was the time that the gospel-church should fulfil in her place in the spiritual wilderness, chap. 12.6, 14. ch. 13.5. for christ had finished 40 days fasting before the devil began to assail him with his fiercest temptations, matth. 4.2. so eliah took one days journey into the wilderness, and was miraculously fed there before he fasted 40 days, 1 king. 19.4. and moses fasted 40 days and 40 nights, before god gave him the tables of the covenant, deut. 9.11. forty days and forty nights (rotunditatis gratiâ, or as a round number) are expressed, but the whole time of the fastings of all the three appears to be longer: that time was an abbreviated adumbration of the gospel-churches continuance in the antitype-wilderness; and what they did or suffered, in that time there, prefigured, prophetically, the state of the profuga-church. and first. moses fasted, two several times, 40 days; and when he had finished his first 40 days in horeb, he found israel (more degenerate in manners and opinions than they had been before) worshipping a calf, deut. 9.12. so the gospel-church and professors (having now near finished their wilderness-pilgrimage) are so far from being nearer to mount zion, that they are much more erring in their hearts, and ignorant of the ways of god; more abundant in mistaking evil manners for good works, and more blindly superstitious in worshipping (as israel did a calf) the works of their own hands. the works of their hands, revel. 9.20. and what are those works? i answer, all careless, deficient, long-delayed, or half-performed works of mercy and equity, are (though wrought by saints) the works of men's hands, which god abhors: such much more are the works of all saints and professors that mistake (their cui) persons or things whom they misintend to right or promote. we are debtors (saith the apostle) not to the flesh to live thereafter, rom. 8.12. but this is the misery of modern times, that all men (and saints for the most part) mistake their creditors, and mind not to whom they themselves are debtors: for the miserable, wilderness-christians are all debtors, and owe almost all they have to themselves; little or nothing to their neighbours, to whom, what is part of their due they pay (as the pharisees did) to their own proselytes, kin, friends, or members of their own societies; but to things profitable and honest, and to the pursuers of such things, they find nothing (or the least part) due, and accordingly repay them: these are debtors (be they never so spiritual) to the flesh, and these their fruits (the works of their own wicked hands) are worshipped almost by all, as israel (when moses had finished his 40 days fasting) were found worshipping a calf. no less wicked are the works of the hands of hypocrites, that make the witnesses the cui of their condemnation, and false accusers, forgers of lies (through their indulgent, or not diligent examining of them) their cui of credit and reputation: for this cause multitudes of blind, zealous, careless professors readily give credit to, and capitulate with the greatest impostors against the injured most innocent: this practice is the power of the prince of darkness in the mystery of iniquity, whereby he crucifies christ mystical, and kills his witnesses in the spiritual wilderness. secondly, eliah wandered, and fasted forty days in the dreadful wilderness; and (when he had finished that sore travel) he was so sar from mount zion, that he was got to horeb, quite contrary to it; so the gospel-wandring saints and professors (having almost finished their much more sore travel in a far more troublesome wilderness) are so far from drawing near to mount zion, that they are come to horeh; so horrible are the mistakes and deceits of these men and times. but how and when did eliah begin his eremitetiavel. i answer, he fled for his life from jezabel, as his antitype (the gospel-church) fled from the second dragon, but, indeed, at first, from both combined, ch. 12.6, 14. he came to beersheba, where he left his servant; there and then he began his prophetick-pilgrimage: for he traveled thence one days journey into the wilderness; lay down and slept under a juniper-tree: there, an angel (touching him) awaked him, and bid him eat and drink: he lay down again, and the angel (touching him the second time) bid him eat and drink: so christ commanded his disciples to watch and pray, and, coming the first time, found them asleep; so did he three times, and said, now sleep on. eliah so sleeping, and the disciples sleeping three times as aforesaid, prophetically prefigured the sleepy disposition of the gospel-church and saints in the spiritual wilderness. and what is sleep? sleep is a mirror of false ideas, wherein all the imaginations of men are vain visions, and the things and actions which they dream they see, or do, are not in the least, the same; not seen, nor done indeed: so the antitype-hermitage of the gospel-churches aberrations is a large valley of vain vision, where saints and professors wander in darkness, and live (if such may be said to live) in a deep lethargy of forgefulness; forget the manner how to show mercy, keep faith, or practise right; but dream they see what indeed they see not, and do what, in deed, they do not; mistaking morose, long-delayed, half-performed goodworks (the imposturous deceits of antichrist) for true christian practice: but, zion signifies (not a sleepy couch, but) a watch-tower, and shall afford a clear prospect; where men and saints (awaked from sleep, revived from death) shall see a far off, right ideas, real substances, and practise according to right representations. thirdly, christ was led of the-spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil; there he fasted forty days, and forty nights; then, and not till then, did the devil fiercely assault him with his fiery darts: which shows that the gospel-church and saints should fustain the forest brunts, and sharpest assaults of dangerous trials and temptations about the end of her and their wilderness-pilgrimage. satan's first inducement was to sensuality: most men, and most professors fall into, and fall by, this temptation of the devil; and many, without his tempting, can be drawn away of their own lusts and enticed: but christ was far from being brought to practise this pollution, or being otherwise drawn or enticed. secondly, the devil (taking him into an high mountain) tempted him to worldly covetousness, luke 4.5. this is the deplorable state, and desperate condition of saints and professors in the spiritual wilderness; that they are, there, always subject to be haled by the hands of the devil, to be tempted by him to their own destruction. lastly, the devil (tempting him to spiritual pride) set him upon a pinnacle of the temple: the temple was built upon mount moriah, that was part of zion; there the devil departed; there christ overcame the devil; to intimate to all ages, that when the gospel-church and saints shall arrive unto, and be built upon mount zion, (to wit, upon the lasting foundation of a fruitful and living faith) than the fiery darts of the devil shall be spent; then shall she be ever victrix, and they overcome the devil. for, secondly, the prototype-desert was, as it were, more peculiarly under the devil's jurisdiction: there he tempted our blessed saviour; there typeisrael tempted and provoked god to wrath: such is the antitype and spiritual wilderness, much more; for that is the place where the seven vials full of the plagues and wrath of god, were to be poured forth, for above 1260 years upon gospel apostateisrael, for her continual provocations, rev. 15.1. ch. 16.1. but god chose mount zion which he loved; for, in salem is his tabernacle, his dwelling place in zion, psal. 76.2. psal. 78.68. that is, god chose, loved, and dwelled in literal zion by a prophetick-adumbration; but shall choose, love and dwell (unto all after-ages) in spiritual zion by a much more manifest, and real love, power, and presence, revel. 14.1. ch. 21.3. ch. 22.3, 4. because, thirdly, from horeh (part of sinai) was sin (from the law there given) made exceeding sinful: but in moriah (part of zion) did the lamb of god (by the sacrifice of himself) take away the sins of the world: but the efficacy of the satisfaction of that sacrifice shall be principally illustrated and manifested to all ages, in spiritual zion, where the conscript-church is called, the first-fruits redeemed unto god, and to the lamb, ch. 14.1, 3. where its manifest from these express texts, that the hermite-churche's arrival in spiritual zion is (contrary to the careless inadvertency of formal true saints and professors) accounted, (and so called) matter of redemption. redemption (the price and fruit of christ's blood) was wrought in zion; he first brought it forth, planted it there; thence it was disseminated into many nations, where it brought forth its first-fruits: that primitive dispensation was the gospel-churches spting, succeeded by a short summer; for both expired soon after the year 400: then a sharp winter, and a dark night began to surprise that royal plant, wherein it continued in much like condition to that tree in daniel (and, indeed, was shadowed by it) that was hewn down, had its branches cut, its leaves shaken off, its fruits scattered, till seven times passed over it, as they shall over this, dan. 4.16. revel. 10.7. ch. 11.15. this royal plant (those times and that winter of tempests overpast) shall be (by the lamb) replanted (not as at first in literal zion, but) in zion spiritual, and shall again bring forth the first-fruits, redeemed from the earth to god and to the lamb, ch. 14.1, 3, 4. fourthly, both the legal and gospel-churches, in the literal and spiritual wildernesses, provoked the most high, psal. 78.17. then, was his wrath kindled against his people, insomuch that he abhorred his own inheritance: therefore he consumed their days in vanity, and their years in trouble, vers. 33. psal. 80.40. consumed their days in vanity, etc. how in vanity? the true gospel-witnesses had power to prophesy 1260 years in sackcloth, vers. 3. and what was the power of that prophecy? they had, thereby power to shut heaven that it should not rain in the days of their prophecy, and to smite the earth with all plagues, vers. 6. that is, power to render the antichristian world inexcusable, to make their sins exceeding sinful, their plagues insusserable: at quando messis? what reformation of mistakes in manners? what information against errors in opinions? where are the first-fruits? and what's more vain? therefore god listed up his hand against his inheritance to overthrow them in the wilderness, consumed their days in vanity, their years in trouble, rev. 11.2, 7. ch. 12.15, 17. but god shall wipe away all tears from their eyes in spiritual zion, ch. 7.17. ch. 21.4. rectified their judgements, reform their manners, and render them undefiled, and without fault in his sight, ch. 14. but. fifthly, great was the cause when god complained of his own people in the desert; that they provoked him to swear in his wrath, that they should not enter into his rest: and what was the cause of such great wrath? because (saith he); they always erred in their hearts, and have not known my ways. they always erred, etc.] et quid error mentis? what's an error of the heart, or rather what, and how many are the errors of the hearts of professors (saints not excepted) in the spiritual wilderuess? had they utterance (and indeed they have that) they might auswer for themselves, and say, my name is legion, for we are many; so many are the errors of the hearts of men, that they are (as also their prophetic type predicted) continual and universal, scarce admitting any limitation; so, god saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth (towards the end of the old world) and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was evil continually, gen. 6.5. the limitation or exception was only of one or two men, ver. 8. so all israel (in the type-wilderness, two or four only excepted) had corrupted their ways, were fallen away from faith and obedience, and so gospelisrael (especially towards the end of her wilderness aberration) hath so corrupted her ways, that scarce may faith be found: and they (very few excepted) always err, not caring to know the ways of god. and wherein are all the imaginations of their hearts thus only evil continually? it's a continual error in the hearts of men and saints, to imagine that a careless, shallow, trivial knowledge, and like practice is sufficient to please god, and purchase their own salvation; this was the delusion of laodicea, and is the deceit of locusts and hypocrites: therefore, their practice (conform to that knowledge) is ever half-performances; good works, perhaps, well begun, but desisted from before they be finished. bede (we noted before) complained that christians, in his time, were contented with a trivial literature: his complaint then is not now without cause, and it's t●e fault of many that the female sex suffers most under the burden of this misery: by this means many men and women are, at best, like those silly women, that were ever labouring, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth: these may be ready to hear (like herod) gladly, and to read books that unfold the scriptures, but cannot understand what they hear or read for want of due literature, whereby they may understand: but this kind of incult christians are usually (through for did illiterature and beastial ignorance) the railing frogs of croaking convitiations against men of parts and deserts; for art and desert hath no adversary like unto ignorance: nor is careless, contented ignorance, the mother of devotion, but parent of divisions and the fountain of factions and schisms in states and churches, that divides and destroys both. but bede's complaint (in his time grievous) hath now got another complaint more grievous than itself, which is this: most men, that have gained a competent literature, and many that have attained a large measure of learning, abuse those gifts, to advance avarice, ignorance, and evil manners, and make themselves, thereby, much worse, and more wicked than any careless incult and illiterate professors are, and (having less cause) are more confident, than the most ignorant: this careless, contented ignorance and vain confidence, is a continual error in the hearts of those men, and many saints; their fruits are usually but the deceitful works of half-performances; for which the plagues of the wrath of god are poured forth upon them, as they were upon here, saul, judas, for like contented, shallow knowledge, and half-practices. and secondly, it's an error in the hearts of men to imagine, that the witnesses sackcloth-prophecy can procure that promised, vigorous repentance, which prophets and apostles predicted: it may and doth oft work a weak, barren, scarce-visible, wilderness, true faith and repentance, whereby many are saved, but it's too weak to bring forth those generous fruits of the conscript first-fruits in a fourfold consormity to the perfect and durable good of men, and to god's glory in all ensuing ages: for the winesses were to prophesy 1260 years in sackcloth, and, thereby, to smite the earth with all manner of plagues, rev. 11.3, 6. but they that were not killed by those plagues (saith the text expressly) yet repented not, ch. 9.18. and that particle of time [yet] is the period of the six trumpets sounding, and conterminates the witnesses 1260 years' sackcloth-prophecy. and therefore thirdly, they much err in their hearts that imagine that the ministry under which they live, or the strictness of the sect or church of which they are members, or that their own zeal and devotion, can exempt them from the plagues and wrath of god, which he pours forth upon such semiadvertists and half-performists; for, then had herod, saul, and judas been free from such plagues, because the greatest prophets were their guides and teachers: and the pharisees, and the church of the jews might have been exempted from the final excision of them, and that nation; because they were the peculiar people and church of god, and the pharisees, the devoutest and most orthodox of all sects: thus we see; that type and antitype, apostateisrael in the literal and spiritual wilderness, erred, do always err; in their hearts, and know not, ineed, (for such works are far from them) the ways of god, nor are saints themselves, there, exempted from the same vail of universal darkness, that overspreads all nations: for, there is a cloud of darkness, that covers all people, as barrenness the wilderness, or waters cover the sea, isa. 25.7. but that darkness of ignorance was to be more prevalent during the time of the gospel-churches abode in her place prepared in the spiritual wilderness, but most effectual, immediately, before or after the period of that duration. this cloud of darkness was signally shadowed forth by that borrour of great darkness and deep sleep that fell upon abraham, gen. 15.12; which prophecy was fulfilled in his literal and spiritual seed in the type and antitype-wilderness: but, that the right-series of the mystery of god, and of the mystery of iniquity may plainly appear, and what the power of religion is, may be more evident, we shall (with some diligence) further inquire, first, what the wilderness (literal and spiritual) was. secondly, what the place prepared of god was in both. thirdly, we shall prove that place to be the theatre or proper seat of the apostasy of antichrist. fourthly, we shall show what that apostasy is. and lastly, we shall show, that, antitypezion shall be the derivative foundation of the church's deliverance and redemption from the grand apostasy. and first, we need not describe the desert wherein egypt stands, that is done already sufficiently for this purpose; and we shall but hint it here; but egypt was the place (or one place) therein prepared of god to preserve his church in a figure; it was chiefly a figure of its antitype in the space of its seven years' famine; it was part of the wilderness, and (of itself) more barren than any part of it; for, in seven years, when the river did not overflow, it brought forth nothing: but it was a place miraculously prepared of god, by a more general providence, through the river's yearly overflowing it: and it was, more remarkably prepared by a special providence of god, in sending joseph thither to foresee and prevent the miserable calamities of its seven years native barrenness. spiritual egypt (the subject of the secular and spiritual-apostacy) was the place prepared of god to preserve the gospel-church for 1260 years in the antitype-wilderness, rev. 12.6, 14. ch. 11.8. and therefore thirdly, literal and spiritualegypt were the theatres or proper places of the type and antitype-apostasies. and fourthly, we shall show what the grand apostasy is, and first, in a figure; the patriarches sold their brother into egypt, and god sold them into the same place: they fell away from faith and love: from faith to their own father, from love to him, and their own brother, from care of both. and the apostasy of the gospel-church is exactly the same: she and her members fell (in a very great measure) from faith and obedience; from faith to men; from love to their brethren, and thereby from obedience to god: the fruits of egypt in the famine, were ill-favoured and withered fruits; such are the fruits of saints and professors in the spiritual wilderness, their good works are dwarf-manners, half-performances; they sell their brethren for lucre, without showing mercy, or doing right; they err in their hearts, and are ignorant of the ways of god: they mind not (or very little) what they are. the grand apostasy is twofold. the first; and the second; such was it in the types thereof. typeegypt's apostasy was twofold: she at first, savoured israel, was a nursing mother to the profuga. church, but fell away to afflict and persecute that people; that was her first apostasy. but secondly, she oft repented (as hypocrites do) to no purpose; and then pursud israel into the red sea to slay them all by a total excision, and they all, that pursued them, perished themselves in that sea; this was egypt's second and last apostasy. secondly; the old world revolted from its primitive integrity: therefore god appointed noah (a preacher of righteousness, a figure of the witnesses prophesying in sackcloth) to forewarn the world for 120 years: that might be the principal time of its first type-apostasie; but (all that time spent) they repented not, and the fear of god was reduced to some few in a single family: that diminution of the fear of god, and increase of impenitence, after so long admonition, was a second apostasy: then the flood came (as an universal sea) and destroyed the world. thirdly, baal's prophets and confederateisrael fell away to worship baal for 1260 days: that was the chief time of their first apostasy: but, after that, satan became a lying spirit in the mouths of all the surviving prophets; that was their second apostasy; then the total excision of all those prophets soon after followed. thirdly, judas (a man of half-performances, and a figure of the apostasy of antichrist) is expressly called the son of perdition, john 17.12. and the antichrist (i say not sensual, but secular and spiritual) is called also, the son of perdition, 2 thes. 2.3. that type-son of perdition, judas, apostatised twice; and first, he was (or seemed to be) a chosen vessel: christ chose him to be a disciple, luke 6.13. but he fell away to be a thief and a hypocrite, and so continued for about 1260 days (daniel's half week of years, dan. 9.27.) and was all that time undiscovered, or not known to the apostles to be an hypocrite: that time was the duration of his first apostasy: but than secondly, satan entered into judas; that was his second apostasy; he then, immediately betrayed his master, and hasted to hang himself. this second apostasy was a falling away (non à bono ad malum, sed à malo ad pessimum) not from seeming good to real evil (so he had fallen before for 1260 days) but from real evil to most desperate wickedness, from seeming fidelity to real perfidy: so his antitype (the son of perdition) was to apostatise twice: his first revolt was from primitive faith and love: that desertion was to continue entire 1260 years. his second apostasy is, or shall be, a falling away (à malo in deterrimum) from evil to all excessive wickedness, perfidy, and iniquity, which the apostle thus predicted; this know, that in the last days, perilous times shall come; for men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, without natural affection, false accusers, traitors, etc. this is (apostasia novissima & pessima) the last and worst apostasy: therefore it is that we find such a prodigious and sudden mutation of men's manners: they had sometimes (yea lately) some mansuetude, some love, some seeming good; now nothing but deceit; they incline their ears to liars and hypocrites, harken unto lies, become false accusers, and traitors, as if satan, with seven spirits, were reentered into judas: and indeed; as satan entered into baal's servants, and into judas also, and thereby initiated his and their second and last apostasy; so we find it expressly said; that spirits of devils shall seduce the antitype-apostasie, and (after 1260 years, the time of its first revolt) actuate the impenitent part of that apostate body (as the devil did the swine of gadara) into the sea of perdition, revel. 11.13, 18. ch. 16.19. that time is or shall be (perditissimorum morum tempus pessimum) the most depraved time of sinister prevarication, wherein men and manners are most degenerate from being, or doing good: their half performances are broken into fractions, and yet they retain a form, etc. religion is made (almost universally) a cloak for ignorance and iniquity. the first apostasy of antichrist was like green tares that encumber growing corn; the second apostasy is compared to a ripe harvest, wherein the evil fruits of the mystery of iniquity are fully ripe, rev. 14.15, 18. we return. the place prepared in the antitype wilderness is (vas continens) the proper subject and theatre of the grand apostasy, and of the plagues that attend it: but spiritual zion shall be the theatre or derivative foundation of the church's reversion and repentance, the receptacle of all the mercies of the promises of god, and the fountain of those healing waters of life to all nations, ezek. 47. to the 13th. rev. 22.2, 3. the grand apostasy is only blindness of mind, and barrenness in manners, affected and espoused by men, saints, and professors: and this apostasy (with little limitation) is almost universal, as barrenness in the seven years' famine, overspread the land of egypt, and only shrubs and fruitless sands covered the face of the wilderness: but it must be then universal, when the smoke of the bottomless-pit darkened the light of the sun, and the light of the air, chap. 9.2. then universal darkness (and more near the end of the church's eremite-pilgrimage) did, and doth cover all people. but in antitypezion (the promised jerusalem) there shall be no more sun-darkening smoke of refined deceits; nor shall any clouds of universal darkness cover any more all people, nor any veil of ignorance overspread all nations: for, in that mountain, will god destroy the face of the covering cast over all people, and the veil that is spread over all nations, isa. 25.7. he hath promised it, and will certainly and speedily perform it; nor shall any cloud then guide the church by day, nor any pillar of fire by night: but the glory of god shall enlighten it, and the lamb shall be the light thereof, chap. 21.23. to be short; antitypezion and the gospel-church built upon it, shall be the persection of beauty, and pure gold, as it were transparent glass, psal. 50.2. rev. 15.12. ch. 21.21. there the beauty and harmony of truth (both in doctrine and practice) shall be plainly and powerfully illustrated to all ages: and this is zion whom no man seeketh after, jer. 30.17. we shall now further inquire. fifthly, what those harps of god are? ch. 15.2. i answer, they are called; the harps of god; and therefore cannot be made by the art of man, but must be harps framed by god's hand, to found forth (to the good of all) his praise and glory: that is; they shall be the hearts of men and saints turned backwards: how long (said elijah) halt ye between two opinions? if the lord be god, follow him: but if baal, follow him: and they answered not a word, 1 king. 18.21. and they answered him not a word] why not? decause their hearts were no harps of god, nor then turned backward: but hear me, lord (said eliah) and let this people know, that thou art the lord god, and that thou hast turned their heart back again. then the fire of the lord fell, and consumed the burnt-sacrifice, and the wood, and the stones, etc. vers. 37, 38. and when all the people saw it, they fell on their faces; and they said, the lord, he is the god, the lord, he is the god, vers. 39 the lord, be is the god] and whence was this great acknowledgement of the truth to god's glory? the hearts of the people were become the harps of god, and were turned backward: that was done in a type, and (being more in word than in works) continued but for a time: but these harps of god shall be the hearts of men and saints turned back, and turning others back from blind sacrifice to sincere obedience; not in word, but in deed; nor for a time, but to eternity: harps that (by good works wrought in a fourfold conformity) shall greatly sound forth god's glory, and procure the general good of after-ages. for secondly, eliah (we read) repaired an altar of the lord that was broken down, ver. 30. and took twelve stones according to the number of the tribes of the sons of jacob, etc. rebuilt it, and offered upon it: this was not written for nothing, that eliah did thus: but be repaired the altar of the lord] god accepts no sacrifices, but what are offered upon his own altars: he took twelve stones, according to the number of the twelve tribes. twelve is a quadrate number, and the root or basis of twelve times twelve thousand, or 144000, that adumbrate the gospel-church, ch. 14.1. ch. 21.16. which principally denotes a quadri-formity, or a fourfold conformity in the practices of all truly reformed saints, or rightly repaired altars of god; who are far from those formalists and hypocrites of blind inanimadvertency, that mind not, in their practices of good manners, to conform their intellects to that which is right in itself, or to come to the knowledge of the truth in practice that they may be saved; nor care to conform their wills to their right-informed intellects, nor their works to both: these are the baalitish altars of blind obedience, such altars god abhors, hates such sacrifices: but these harps of god shall be the repaired altars of the lord prepared by his hand to practise right in a fourfold conformity: such altars only god accepts, with such sacrifices only is be well-pleased. for the only original altar (transcendent and above all) is christ: but, the harps of god (the hearts of men and saints, purified by faith, and made conform to christ) are derivative altars, which god accepts in him: and with their works (wrought in a fourfold conformity) is he well-pleased: for, god affects not fables, nor fig-leaves of deceits (fragments or half-performances) but substantial righteousness wrought in a fourfold conformity, which only is christian and true righteousness. lastly, elijah (when the people halted between two opinions) brought them to be of one mind; and turned back their hearts, that, with one mouth, they gave glory to the god of heaven: so shall their antitype do, rev. 14.7. we shall here further show, first, from what the hearts of men and saints shall be turned back? secondly, to what they shall be turned? thirdly, what their exceeding great danger is, if their hearts be not turned back? lastly, what their inestimable benefits and safeties shall be by having their hearts turned back again? and first, from what the hearts of men and saints shall be turned back? i answer, they shall be turned back from the practice of those sins of which they have not yet repent: and the rest of the men (saith the text) which were not killed by these plagues, yet repented not of the works of their hands, that they should not worship devils, and idols of gold, and silver, and brass, and stone, and of wood, which neither can see, nor hear, nor walk. neither repented they of their murders, nor of their sorceries, nor of their fornication, nor of their theft, rev. 9.20, 21. yet repented not this particle of time (yet) is the period of the six trumpets sounding, and terminates the 1260 years of the witnesses sackcloth-prophecy. noah preached 120 years to the old world, and not a man (that we find) more than of his own family, repent at the period of that time; and the witnesses prophesied 1260 years, and men, yet repented not. many repent, no doubt, by a feeble, secret, and almost unperceivable, true repentance, whereby they were saved; but not according to that repentance promised to the gospel-church, whereby god might be effectually glorified; and the rest of the men yet repented not, saith the text. the chaldeans praised gods of gold, and of silver, of brass, of iron, of wood, and of stone, dan. 5.4. the words, in type and antitype, are literally, almost the same, ver. 23. rev. 9.20. we shall examine what some of these sins are; that so the christian world (for praevisi mali mollior ictus) may foresee and shun the punishments that must fall for those sins. the first sin, in the antitype, is idolatry: they worshipped devils, and idols of gold, and silver, and brass, and stone, and of wood, which neither can see, etc. in the type they were literal idols, but these, in the antitype, must be more spiritual; because the city of the antitype-apostasie is said to be a spiritual city, rev. 11.8. literal idols are more congruous to sensual antichrist, whose sins are more sensual and literal; but the idols of secular and spiritual antichrist (that denominate that city spiritual) must be more spiritual idols. some sects have in them, true witnesses prophesying in sackcloth, and some (nor do i exclude the roman nor greek churches from being sects) have (instead of such witnesses) their idols of gold, or of silver, or of stone, or of wood: that is; men of greater or meaner capacities, and parts to be their blind seers. the man micab took a straggling young levite to be to him a father and a priest in a way of idol-worship: so any man (more stupid than wood or stone) will serve some sects well enough; to be to them a father and a priest, or, indeed, the very idol of their ignorant admiration: that straggling levite was no ordinance of god in micab's house; but the man mitah made him an idol of wood with his own hands, vers. 12. the words run thus: and the rest of the men which were not killed by these plagues, yet repented not of the works of their hands, that they should not worship devils and idols, etc. that they should not worship devils. this further shows what the works of their own hands, and what those idols are; to wit, deceits; the serpent (said eve) beguiled me: the devil was a liar and a deceiver from the beginning: and men and professors of these times are greatly pleased in deceiving and being deceived with the works of their own hands: their works of mercy and justice (to omit their mistakes in opinions) are inconform, or but half performances, and those usually so long delayed, that they damnify or undo (by fruitless attendences) the receivers of them: that is; men, in these times, are marvellously delighted in deceiving themselves, whiles they imagine themselves (like laodicea) to be rich in good works, and do none, but beguile and deceive themselves, with works inconform, or long delayed half-performances, like saul's half-service: they that so worship god, worship, in deed, devils. the following sins of the impenitent apostasy (and perhaps of saints) are these; neither repent they of their murders, nor of their sorceries, nor of their fornications, nor of their thefts, vers. 21. neither repented they of their murders. murders literal were sins of the type-apostasie, and are the sins of antichrist sensual; but they are more spiritual in the antitype-mystery of iniquity: thou hast slain (said nathan to david) uriah the hittite with the sword of the children of ammon, 2 sam. 12.9. david did not slay uriah, nor did joab flay him, the children of ammon slew uriah; but it was done by david's order and direction to joab: this was spiritual or mystical murder, more wicked and deceitful than literal murder can be. were nathan now living, he might say to many (if not almost to every man) something that is like to what he said to david: to some he might say; thou hast slain (as cain did) thy brother and thyself by the sword of careless disregard of his and thy sasety. to another he might say: thou hast slain (as david did) thy fast friend by the sword of deceitful dealing. he might say to very many; ye have slain the poor with the sword of sordid tenacity; and, not to a few: ye have slain the well-deserving with the sword of inconform rewards. to some he might say; ye have slain the injured, and oppressed, by the sword of long delays, letting them perish or be undone before you went about to right or relieve them. he might say to very many; ye have slain the witnesses of the truth by the sword of slanderous tongues in the mouths of men of beliel, their false accusers: thus was christ (that faithful and true witness) slain; and by this means are the gospel-witnesses, and the most injured innocent, killed: pilate found no fault in christ, and the pharisees found no fault in his false accusers: very many (and they seeming religious) resolve, with pilate, to right the injured, to relieve the oppressed; but then run to their adversaires and false accusers, and (like the pharisees) find no fault in them, for want of due examination according to scripture-rule, deut. 19.18. therefore they justify their adversaries and false accusers, and (through their forgeries) delay, or condemn, and ruinate those that are wronged, and the most faithful witnesses of the truth: thus are waters turned into wormwood, judgement into gall, revel. 8.11. this common practice (the practice too oft of saints) plainly discovers a pusilanimous and feeble levity of mind, or want of judgement in them that follow it: they pretend, and perhaps, suppose those depravers are conscientious and religious; so the pharisees thought of themselves, whereas there was but one or two wise and religious men, in deed, in all that council, by whom our lord was crucified, though it might consist of hundreds, all famous for the repute of wisdom and strict religion: for the generality of seeming, strict, and zealous professors (if types must co-indent with their antitypes) are (like their types the pharisees) neither wise nor religious; few there are like pilate, that will not co-incide and capitulate with false accusers; scarce any like nicodemus, that would not consent to the foolish and wicked determinations of that hypocritical and blind council: for, as many are called, and few chosen; and, as many shall strive, and few enter in at the straight gate; so the seeming religious and blindly devout are many; but they that are religious indeed, are few, and lest appear to be what they are. lastly, nathan might now say to several: thou hast slain thyself and thine with the sword of secular business, thy servant (said ahab as the prophet employed) was busy here and there, that he let the man go committed to him to keep: therefore (said the lord) shall thy life go for his life, and thy people for his people: ahab lost his own life, the life of all his family and posterity, and lost all the people of israel by a busy catching at some secular shadow of his own covetous conceit; so, many professors (and too many saints) are so busy about secular affairs, that they let go obedience; so busy for self-ends, that they let go right and mercy to men, forget both; so busy about outward forms, that they let go the life and power of religion, and thus, miserably slay themselves and others by the sword of secular and spiritual business: this is spiritual murder, from which the hearts of men and saints are not, but must be turned back. thirdly, nor of their sorseries. and (to omit the literal, which are many) what are spiritual sorceries? balaam was partly careful to make the living god the oracle of his counsels, and director of his actions; was, or seemed to be, very strict to speak and do only what god commanded, numb. 22, 38. ch. 23.12, 26. but he was covetous, and his practices partial, or but in part; and such services to god joined with covetousness; also all half performances, and commixed worshippings of god and baal; christ and belial, or of god and mammon; and all haltings betwixt two contrary practices or opinions, are spiritual sorceries, and are expressly compared to witchcraft and idolatry, 1 sam. 15.22, 23. because the best works of such professors, are mixed, heterogene, or lincy-woolsy, works of deceits, and wicked exemptions from sincere practice and true obedience. fourthly, nor of their fornications. literal fornications, in sensual antichrist are many; but the fornications of the mystery of iniquity (and these intended in the text are the same) are more spiritual; and what are they? when few or many join in outward-worship, or in any church-society to act spiritual-filthiness, that's spiritual fornication: that is; when such come together not for the better, but for the worse; not to be more fruitful, but more barren in good works; when they meet together (not to edify, but) to increase strife and ignorance; this and such like conjoynt-practices are spiritual fornication. it is an absurdity in the very 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, evoco. name of a true church; that god should call any people out of the world to practise covetousness; or to become vines bringing forth (if any) fruits for themselves, for their proselytes, co-associates; nothing for others, nor to further any thing that's profitable or honest: but the conscript-church shall not be defiled with women, for they are virgins, ch. 14.4. that is; her sacred company shall abhor the pollutions of this spiritual filthiness, and be redeemed, from the earth, and among men, to god and the lamb, ver. 3, 4. but it's contrary to the nature of a true church; that she should be called or redeemed of god from the earth to follow earthly things; or that she should be redeemed from among men to mind nothing, or to omit good manners, and be ignorant of them: such co-adjoynings, as produce these or such like ends, are spiritual fornications, & far from the ends of that conscript, incontaminate company: but there is no church (till those first fruits appear) can be free from gross pollutions of spiritual fornication, because they have not their hearts turned back, they yet repented not (saith the text) of their murders, nor of their sorceries, nor of their fornications. nor, fifthly, of their thefts and what are they? to diminish or derogate from the due worth or works of any man is spiritual thievery: such are all half-performances, like that of the unjust steward's, who set down but fifty measures of oil, where an hunred were due: and therefore all witnessing of the truth in words and works (as pilate did) by halves, seconded by recidivations or oppositions, are spiritual thievery, and murderous thefts, as that in pilate was. all careless or wilful derogations from the true meaning of the scriptures, or from the truth in the writings of those that rightly unfold them, are spiritual thievery, and such detractors have all plagues, that can be possible, denounced against them, revel. 22.19. and therefore, to affirm, that no right collection can be made, nor clear conclusion drawn from prophetick-scriptures, is sacrilegious and blaspemous theft, as i shall further show, in the second pare, in answer to that mistaken assertion; scriptura symbolica non est argumentativa. blind hypocrites will, by no means, believe, that inanimadversive men, that mind not (hear not, read not) the incomplex principles of right in itself (and that's the shame and folly of beastial professors, be they never so literate or seeming religious) must needs be wicked men; but their practice is a continual derogation from the truth, and their works, at best, but works of darkness and ignorance, wrought without any rule of reason; and therefore must be spiritual theft of necessity. for thirdly, ut jugulent homines surgunt de nocte latrones; theft is the proper work of darkness; and spiritual theft delights most therein; it oft makes the truth itself to be a mysterious means to practise murder, and promote robberies; so doeg (by speaking the truth when he should not, and by not speaking the whole truth) rob david of his due repute with saul, and robbed the priests of the lord of their lives. a theft like unto this (but much worse) is when men and saints (as they commonly do) raise slanders from shadows, and say; they hear such and such evil reports from the mouths of other men; that many affirm the same, etc. but never name who those speakers are, conceal those slanderers, or rather feign such to be, whereas, in deed, there were never any such speakers, nor such things spoken; or, at least, they make it not appear; and de non apparentibus, & non existentibus eadem ratio: things that appear not to be, are not in being in the eye of reason and judgement of equity: this way of wounding men, is a most wicked way of lying defamation: such fictitious slanders did doeg never produce against david, or the priests of the lord: these (speluncarum mendacia) thefts lest perceived (whereby many are robbed of their lives, ruinated in their estates) come out of dark dens; but, indeed those reporters themselves (where the first pretended speakers are not produced) are those robbers and thiefs that slay others by the sword of their slanderous tongues. ad fabulas credendas facilitas, an easiness to believe lies, or a disposition apt to derogate (rash censoriousness) is a thievish disposition, and denotes that such depravers are spiritual thiefs: such surreptitious professors (where they prevail), are the excision of mercy and equity, and supplant all good manners, because they steal away the hearts of the ministers of justice (as absalon did the hearts of israet) and make them basely subservient to sycophants, and to receive and believe lies. it's the most deplorable demonstration of base degenerosity in men, and chiefly in magistrates, to suffer themselves to be made miserable preys (so they seem strict and religious) to depravers and hypocrites: nor was there (said jerom) so simple and mean a scribe that conspired not, etc. but now, we may rather say; there is no such sordid pickthank or ignorant depraver, no such treacherous ziba, or slavish servant, nor a lad so silly or illiterate, that is not sufficiently able to carry away an hundred captives, and to alienate (through lying defamations) their judgements and affections far from doing right or showing mercy. and therefore, thou shalt not run with a multitude to do evil: for he that runneth with a multitude of evil men, is a member of that multitude; so men and ministers of justice (that suffer themselves to be, in such sort, basely stolen away by spiritual thiefs) make, by that means, themselves thieves. these (now more than ever increasing) worshippings of idols, and these spiritual murders and sorceries, and fornications, and thefts, are the sins of which men and saints have not yet repent; and from which their hearts and hands must be turned back. but, secondly, to what must they be turned? i answer; the conscript first-fruits shall (as elijah and john did in types) turn the hearts of the fathers to their children, the hearts of children to their fathers, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just (that is, to do right, and show mercy in a fourfold conformity) lest god come and smite the earth with a curse, malach, 4.6. luke 1.16, 17. and thirdly, what is that curse? or, what are the dangers, if the hearts of men and saints are not turned back from those (now more than ever swelling) sins? i answer; the old world harkened not to noah's sackcloth-prophecy, but remained inanimadversive, minded nothing, and knew nothing (till the flood came) saith the text: therefore god smote the earth with a curse, destroyed the world. apostateisrael harkened not to elijah's, and the prophet's sackcloth-prophecy for 1260 days, and the restraint of rain continued so long: had it continued longer, it had cut off man and beast; so the antitype-apostasie harkened not to the witnesses prophesying in sackcloth for 1260 years, they yet repented not, saith the text: therefore, the neglected, and not regarded witnesses smote the earth with all plagues, and with (the plague of all plagues) the restraint of the rain of spiritual graces in the days of the 1260 years of their sackcloth-prophecy; wherefore, should not their hearts be turned back at last, nothing could be expected, but that the curse threatened should devour the earth: therefore hath the curse devoured the earth, saith the text, isa. 24.6. the earth shall reel to and fro like a drunkard, the transgression thereof shall be heavy upon it; it shall fall and not rise again, vers. 9 lastly, babylon the great came in remembrance before god to give unto her the cup of the wine of the fierceness of his wrath, ch. 16.19. the old apostate world was drowned with water; but the antitype-apostasie shall be drunk with the wine of the fierceness of the wrath of god, jerem. 25.15, 27, etc. the wine of the fierceness of bis wrath.] this is an expression that (a man would think) could scarcely be expressed, and the plague, thereby threatened, is the plague of all plagues: from all the plagues, wherewith the sackcloth-wituesses smote the earth, and principally from this plague (may all men and saints have great cause to say) good lord deliver us. thus we see the dangers are most dreadful and superabundant, if the hearts of men and saints are not turned back from the sins aforesaid: but, they may say, we see the dangers sufficiently, and that the plagues are (like the curse laid upon cain) greater than we can, possibly, bear; but, where's our safety? wherein consists our remedy? i answer, fourthly, the safeties of men and saints consist in having their hearts turned back from those sins aforesaid, in getting (like those harpers) the harps of god, in learning their song, not in deceit, but in deed, and in flying from sinai to mount zion, as lot to zoar: for those harpers shall be the first-fruits redeemed from the earth, and from among men, ch. 14.3, 4. to wit; from those sius aforesaid, and from those dreadful plagues they produce; for they shall not be defiled with women, vers. 4. and therefore shall not worship idols, nor act spiritual fornications: their worship shall be according to the sincerity of the simplicity in christ, and the practice of it wrought in a fore-fold conformity of truth, contrary to the prevaricatory multiplicity of antichrist in deceitful pretences, delays, and half-performances: such shall be the fruits of those first-fruits in antitypeston, where safeties shall cloth the conscript-church, as dangers compassed her about before in the spiritual-wilderness: there shall, in no wise, enter any thing that defileth, neither whatsoever worketh abomination or maketh a lie, ch. 21.27. there shall be no faithless dealers, nor false accusers; therefore there shall be no more curse, ch. 22.3. there, a river of water of life shall refresh the city of god, and the tree of life shall afford food for her inhabitants; and the leaves of that tree shall be to heal the nations: that is, to turn their hearts back, that so they may be safe, ch. 22.1, 2. turn us again, o god, and we shall be saved, psal. 80.3. turn us again, o god of hosts, and we shall be saved, vers. 7. turn us again, o lord god of hosts, and we shall be saved, vers. 19 this petition (we see) is three times expressed in the same psalm; and this assertion (we shall be saved) is thrice annexed to that prayer: this prayer is the prayer of these times: i wish with all my heart, that all ministers, and magistrates, men, and saints would make this seasonable formula the pattern of their prayers in this juncture of time, and (praying continually) say, turn us again, o god, from halting betwixt halves in our opinions and practices, and we shall be saved. turn us again, o god, from our disloyal revoltings from faith and good manners, and from affecting a confident, fruitless, dead, or dying faith: turn us again, o god, from the constant errors of our hearts, and our contented ignorance of thy ways, and we shall be saved: turn us again, o god of hosts, from worshipping the works of our own hands (literal and spiritual idols of gold, etc.) and from our spiritual and literal murders, and sorceries, and fornications and thefts; and we shall be saved: for, as there is no name, but the name of jesus, under heaven, by which we can be saved; so there is no other way or means on earth, by which men, saints, sects, and all nations can be safe, but by turning from sinai to zion; from those sins to serve the living god, and stand with the lamb: he is and shall be the rock of safeties to all ages; and, to follow his perfect pattern of true christian practice in a fourfold conformity is (as the fruit only, keeps the tree from being cursed) the only outward means thereunto. but here i must (partly by constraint) conclude this first part, because many that promised to further me are slack in persormance, and not a few fallen off (like demas) through covetousness, whereby i am betrayed into the hands of deceitful men, drawn into some debt, and, thereby, have suffered long imprisonment; haecreferunt tantos secula fabricios. paul was a day and a night in the deep; but my dangers are most from the multiplicious dasnings of shallow waters: shallow professors (men of busy ignorance, some literate, some illiterate) have most resisted me, & retarded this treatise: such men (that cannot read it, or not understand what they read) have done me (as the coppersmith did to the apostle) the most harm by their ignorant defaming of me and it: wherefore, i humbly request the truly learned and judicious (if they find we deserve it) to suffer me and it to anchor in the safe harbour of their candid favour and protection. lastly, a third cause, compelling me, is the confident opposition of very many learned and religlous divines. (some of whom are my intimate friends) who maintain that the texts in the 17th and 18th chapters of the apocalypse hold forth papal rome only, and not imperial, nor primitive rome apostate in manners, contrary to what i, perhaps, have fully proved in this treatise, and primitive fathers affirm: to wit, that those texts hold forth heathen and imperial rome, and likewise christian primitive rome apostate in manners; but not papal rome, otherwise than by a prophetick-adumbration; which tenent, many doctors and divines of note count a dangerous error in my treatise, and, in me, a great mistake, and (representing me and it in such manner to many) draw back their hands from furthering me, to my great damage: wherefore (not being able to stand against the violent cataracts of their manifold erroneous contradictions) i cannot proceed, but must set all aside to refel, effectually, their confident, and, indeed dangerous errors: i shall therefore intersert a short answer to their objections, betwixt this first, and the second part of this treatise. finis. errata. page 64. line 30. for paganorian, read paganoarrian. p. 155. l. ult. read qui jacet in terrâ. p. 166. l. 23. read, in them. p. 187. l. 31. read, of this, p. 233. l. 13. read, subjects. p. 239. l. 13. read, by these. p. 168. l. 13. read hominum. decennium luctuosum. an history of remarkable occurrences, in the long war, which new-england hath had with the indian savages, from the year, 1688. to the year, 1698. faithfully composed and improved. infandum, .... jubes renovare dolorem. boston in new-england. printed by b. green, and j. allen, for samuel phillips, at the brick shop near the old-meeting-house. 1699. the dedication. to the people of new-england. sirs, you are welcome unto the history of a tedious war, and unto a period of that war so far in prospect, as to render its history seasonable. every reasonable man will readily allow, that ●t is a duty to god, and a service to the world, ●or to preserve, the memory of such matters, as ●ave been the more memorable occurrences in the war, that has for ten years together, been multiplying changes and sorrows upon us. and the author, in whose historical writings, the most inquisitive envy, has never to this hour detected, so much as one voluntary and material mistake, or one farthing paid unto the readers in the coin of candia, has now chosen to preserve the memory of these matters, while they are fresh & new, and one hath not fifty years, which is the channel of the river of oblivion, to pass over unto them. this expedition is used in the publication of our decennium luctuosum, in hope that if any mistake, worth noting, do appear in these writing●, it may, like and perhaps with, a second edition, be corrected and amended. he expects no thanks for his essays to do good, in this way, or any other, unto any part of his country, to whom he would gladly devote all his talents, if he were a thousand times better talented than he is; and though the most ungrateful trea●s imaginable (which are too well known by the name of country-pay) should be given him, he would still be of that opinion, recte fecisse merces est, if a man may do good, it is enough. all the favour he desires of you, is, that you would not inquire after him; or ask, who he is? but that, as he is at best, but an obscure person, he may continue in yet more obscurity: which will be a greater pleasure to him than to be placed among the great men of achaia. for indeed, he hath often thought on a passage written by holy mr. row, to his excellent son, i pray, that god would make use of myself and you, in such a way, as that god only may be seen, and we not be taken notice of at all; that he may have the glory, and we may not be seen. can he have invited his excellency unto such a glorious table, as that in a certain cabinet at florence, which is furnished with birds and flowers, all consisting of nea●ly polished jewels it laid into it; a work fifteen years in making, and worth an hundred thousand crowns: or could he have written a book, worthy to be laid up in the cabinet of darius: the author might have been under a temptation to have had his name engraved upon his work. but a little boiled indian corn in a trey, is as much as our best history of an indian war, composed perhaps in fewer days, than there were years in the war, may presume to be compared unto and since our history will not afford such a diversion unto his excellency, under the indispositions of his health, as those of livy & curtius did unto the princes that recovered their lost health by reading them; nor can any any passage here be so happy, as that which cured laurentius medici's of a malady, by having it read unto him it will require no more than a nameless writer, to assure that great person on this occasion, that all the good people of new-england, make their fervent vows unto the almighty, for his excellency's prosperity, and the welfare of his excellent lady, and of his noble and hopeful offspring. and the naming of the author, is as little necessary to qualify him, that he may pay public acknowledgements unto the honourable, the lieutenant governor; not only for his cares about the public, while it was tempestuated, with the indian war, which now makes an history; but chief for his more than ordinary tenderness of that society, which has been the very, decus ac tutamen, of new england. the nameless writer of this history, may report, that with a greater expense, than that of the first-founder, this honourable person proves, that he loves our nation, by building us another edifice, for the supply of all our synagogues, and stoughton-hall, out shines harvard-colledge: and he speaks kinder language, as well as better latin, than that eminent statesman in flanders, whose answer to a petition for the privileges of an university there to be restored, was, non curamus vostros privilegios. this report may he give, without being obliged for to confess any other name than this, which he readily confesses; one that was once a member of harvard-colledge. i pray, sirs, ask no further; let this writing be, like that on the wall to belshazzar, where the hand only was to be seen, and not who's it was. the history is compiled with incontestable veracity; and since there is no ingenuity in it, but less than what many pens in the land might command, he knows not why his writing anonymously may not shelter him, from the inconveniencies of having any notice, one way or other, taken of him. though among his other small furniture, he hath not left himself unfurnished with skill in the spanish language, yet he never could bring himself to the belief of the spanish proverb, quien no parece, perece; i. e. he that appears not, perishes; he that shows not himself to the world, is undone. at milan, there is an academy of sensible persons, called the nascosti, or, hidden men; at venice, there is one of such persons, called, the incogniti; and at parma, there is one of them, called, the innominatis. if there were nothing else disagreeable in them, the author of this history, would be glad of an admission into such an academy. the history is indeed of no very fine thread; and the readers, who every where fish for nothing but carp, and who love, like augustus to tax all the world, may find fault enough with it. nevertheless, while the fault of an untruth can't be found in it, the author pretends, that the famous history of the trojan war itself, comes behind our little history of the indian war; for the best antiquaries, have now confuted homer; the walls of troy were it seems, all made of poet's paper; and the siege of the town with the tragedies of the wooden horse, were all but a piece of poetry. and if a war between us, and an handful of indians, do appear no more than a batrachomyomachie, to the world abroad yet unto us at home, it hath been considerable-enough, to make an history. nor is the author afraid of promising, that of all the thirty articles which make up this history, there shall not be one, without something in it, that may by ourselves be justly thought considerable. should any petit monsieur complain (as the captain, that found not himself in the tapestry hang, which exhibited the story of the spanish invasion in 1588.) that he don't find himself mentioned in this history, the author has his apology. he has done as well and as much as he could, that whatever was worthy of a mention, might have it; and if this collection of matters be not complete, yet he supposes it may be more complete, than any one else hath made; and now he hath done, he hath not pulled up the ladder after him; others may go on, as they please, with a completer composure. if the author hath taken delight, in this history, and at all times, to celebrate the merits, of such as have deserved well of his country, [which he has here done it may be, for some that never could afford him a good word!] especially, if he do erect statues for dead worthies, when there is no room left for flattery, [for who will bestow paint upon a dead face!] and if he do all this, with all possible concern, to avoid casting aspersions upon others: why should any betray such ili nature, as to be angry at it? my good country, forgive him this injury! huic uni forsan poteram succumbere culpae. but, whatever this history be, it aims at the doing of good, as well as the telling of truth; and if its aim shall be attained, that will be a sufficient reward for all the trouble of writing it. when he desires any more, he'll give you his name; in the mean time, as a far greater man once was called, ludovicus nihili, which you may make, lewis of nothingham; so the author will count himself not a little favoured, if he may pass for one of no more account, than a, no body; which would certainly make a very blameless person of him. however, that the history may not altogether want a subscription; the author, finding it a custom among the christian writers of the orient, when they have written a treatise, to subscribe it after this manner; scriptum per servum vilem pauperem, omnibus justitiis privatum, peccatorem magis quam omnis caro; or, scripsit hoc pauper n. n. or, est scriptura servi pauperis, et qui benevolentia dei indiget, et miserationibus; he will accordingly subscribe himself, the chief of sinners. nevertheless, he will humbly lay claim to the words, used by the nameless author of a treatise, entitled, the faithful steward: tho' i am worse than they speak of me, who cast disgrace upon me, and i can espy ten faults in myself, where they can discern one, yet i can, through grace, appeal to thee, o lord, with some comfort, that i am displeased with myself for my sins, and would fain please thee, in all things, at all times, in all places, and in every condition. decennium luctuosum. or, the remarkables of a long war with indian-salvages. introduction. twenty three years have rolled away since the nations of indians within the confines of new england, generally began a fierce war, upon the english inhabitants of that country. the flame of war than raged through a great part of the country, whereby many whole towns were l●id in ashes, and many lives were sacrificed. bu● in little more than one years' time, the united-colonies of plymouth, massachuset, and conne●ticut, with the●r united endeavours, bravely c●●quered the savages. the evident hand of heaven appearing on the side of a people whose hope and helpe was alone in the almighty lord of hosts, extinguished whole nations of the savages at such a rate, that there can hardly any of them, now be found under any distinction upon the face of the earth. only, the ear of our northern and eastern regions in that war, wa● ve●y different ●●om that of the rest. the desolations of the war had overwhelmed all the settlements to the north-east of west's. and when the time arrived, that all hands were weary of the war, a sort of a peace was patched up, which left a body of indians, not only with horrible murders unrevenged, but also, in the possession of no little part of the country, with circumstances which the english might think, not very honourable. upon this peace, the english returned unto their plantations; their number increased; they stocked their farms, and sowed their fields; they found the air as healthful; as the earth was fruitful; their lumber and their fishery became a considerable merchandise; continual accessions were made unto them, until ten or a dozen towns, in the province of main, and the county of cornwall, were suddenly started up into something of observation. but in the year, 1688. the indians which dwelled after the indian manner among them, commenced another war upon these plantations, which hath broke them up, and strangely held us in play for ten years together. in these ten years, there hath been a variety of remarkable occurrences; and because i have supposed that a relation of those occurrences may be acceptable and profitable to some of my country men, i shall now with all faithfulness endeavour it. with all faithfulness, i say; because tho' there should happen any circumstantial mistake in our story, (for 'tis a rare thing for any two men, concerned in the same action, to give the story of it, without some circumstantial difference,) yet even thi● also, i shall be willing to retract and correct, if there be found any just occasion: but for any one material error, in the whole composure, i challenge the most sagacious malica, upon earth to detect it, while matters are y●● so fresh, as to allow the detection of it. i disdain to make the apology, once made by the roman historian; nemo historicus non aliquid mentitus, et habiturus sum mendaciorum comites, quos historiae et eloquentiae miramur authores. no, i will write with an irreproachable and incontestable veracity; and i will write not one thihg, but what i am furnished with so good authority for, that any reasonable man, who will please to examine it, shall say, i do well to insert it as i do: and i will hope, that my reader hath not been studying of godefridus de valle's book, de arte nihil credendi; about, the art of believing nothing. wherefore, having at the very beginning thus given such a knock upon thy head, o malice; that thou canst never with reason hiss at our history, we will proceed unto the several articles of it. article. i. the occasion and beginning of the war. if diodorus siculus had never given it as a great rule of history, historiae primum studium, primariaque consideratio esse videtur, insoliti gravisque casus principio causas investigare, yet my reader would have expected, that i should begin the history of our war, with an history of the occurrences and occasions which did begin the war. now, reader, i am at the very first fallen upon a difficult point; and i am in danger of pulling a war upon myself, by endeavouring of thy satisfaction. in truth, i had rather be called a coward, than undertake myself to determine the truth in this matter: but having armed myself with some good authority, for it, i will transcribe two or three reports of the matter, now in my hands, and leave it unto thy own determination. one account, i have now lying by me, written by a gentleman of dover; in these terms. the eastern indians, and especially those of saco, and ammonoscoggin, pretend many reasons, for the late quarrel against the english, which began this long and bloody war. 1. because the english refused to pay that yearly tribute of corn, agreed upon, in the articles of peace, formerly concluded with them, by the english commissioners 2. because they were invaded in their fishery, at saco river, by certain gentlemen, who stopped the fish, from coming up the river, with their nets, and sains. this they were greatly affronted at; saying, they thought (though the english had got away their lands as they had, yet) the fishery of the rivers had been a privilege reserved entire unto themselves. 3. because they were abused by the english, in suffering, if not turning, their over to a certain island to destroy their corn. 4. but the fourth, and main, provocation was, the granting, or pattenting of their lands, to some english; at which they were greatly enraged; threatening the surveyor, to knock him on the head, if he came to lay out any lands there. 5. to these may be added, the common abuses, in trading; viz. drunkenness, cheating, etc. which such as trade much with them, are seldom innocent of. doubtless, these indian allegations may be answered with many english vindications. but i shall at present intermeddle no further, than to offer another account, which also i have in my hands, written by a gentleman of casco. it runs in such terms as these. many were the outrages and insulting of the indians upon the english, while sir e. a. was governor. at north yarmouth, and other places at the eastward, the indians killed sundry , came into houses, and threatened to knock the people on the head; and at several times gave out reports, that they would make a war upon the english, and that they were animated to do so, by the french. the indians behaving themselves so insultingly, gave just occasion of great suspicion. in order for the finding out the truth, and to endeavour the preventing of a war, capt. blackman, a justice of peace, with some of the neighbourhood, of saco river, seized several indians that had been bloody murderous rogues, in the first indian war; being the chie● ring leaders, and most capable to do mischief. the said capt. blackman seized to the number of between sixteen and twenty, in order for their examination, and to bring in the rest to a treaty. the said blackman soon sent the said indians, with a good guard, to falmouth, in casco-bay, there to be secured, until orders could come from boston, concerning them. and in the mean time, the said indians, were well provided with provisions, and suitable necessaries. the rest of the indians robbed the english, and took some english prisoners: whereupon post was sent to boston. sir edmond andross being at new-york, the gentlemen of boston sent to falmouth, some soldiers for the defence of the country, and also the worshipful mr. stoughton, with others, to treat with the indians, in order for the settling of a peace, and getting in of our english captives. as soon as the said gentlemen arrived at the eastward, they sent away one of the indian prisoners, to the rest of the indians, to summon them, to bring in the english they had taken; also, that their sachims' should come in, to treat with the english, in order that a just satisfaction should be made on both sides. the gentlemen waited the return of the indian messenger; and when he returned, he brought answer, that they would meet our english at a place, called, macquoit, and there they would bring in the english captives, and treat with the english. and although the place appointed by the indians, for the meeting, was some leagues distant from falmouth, yet our english gentlemen did condescend to it, in hope of getting in our captives, & putting a stop to further trouble. they dispatched away to the place, and carried the indian prisoners with them, and stayed at the place appointed, expecting the coming of the indians, that had promised a meeting. but they like false perfidious rogues, did not appear. without doubt they had been counselled what to do, by the french, and their abettors; as the indians did declare afterwards; and that they were near the place, and saw our english, that were to treat with them, but would not show themselves, but did endeavour to take an opportunity to destroy our english, that were to treat them. such was their treachery! our gentlemen stayed days to wait their coming; but seeing they did not appear at the place appointed, they returned to falmouth, and brought the indian prisoners; expecting that the other indians would have sent down some reason, why they did not appear at the place appointed, and to make some excuse for themselves. but instead of any compliance; they fell upon north yarmouth, and there killed several of our english. whereupon the eastern parts were ordered to get into garrisons, and to be upon their guard, until further orders from sir edmond andros; and that the indian prisoners should be sent to boston; which was done with great care, and not one of them hurt; and care taken daily for provision. but sir e. a. returning from new york, set them all at liberty; not so much as taking care to redeem those of our english for them, that were in their hands. i had kept one at falmouth, a prisoner to be a guide into the woods, for our english, to find out the haunts of our heathen enemies. but sir e. a sent an express to me, that upon my utmost peril i should set the said indian at liberty, and take care that all the arms, that were taken from him, and all the rest of those capt. blackman had seized, should be delivered up to them, without any orders to receive the like of ours from them. it will be readily acknowledged, that here was enough done, to render the indians inexcusable, for not coming in, upon the proclamation, which sir edmond andros, than governor of new-england, immediately emitted thereupon, requiring them, to surrender the murderers, now among them. a spaniard, that was a soldier, would say, that if we hav● a good cause, the smell of gunpowder in the field is as sweet as the incense at the altar. let the reader judge after these things, what scent there was in the gunpowder spent for nine or ten years together in our war with the indian savages. now, that while we are upon this head, we may at once dispatch it, i will unto these two accounts, add certain passages of one more; which was published in september. 1689. such were the obscure measures taken at that time of day, that the rise of this war, hath been as dark as that of the river nilus; only the generality of thinking people through the country, can remember when, and why, every one did foretell, a war. if any wild english (for there are such as well as of another nation,) did then, begin to provoke and affront the indians, yet those indians had a fairer way to come by right, than that of blood shed; nothing worthy of, or calling for, any such revenge was done unto them. the most injured of them all, (if there were any such) were afterwards dismissed by the english, with favours, that were then admirable even to ourselves; and these too, instead of surrendering the persons, did increase the numbers, of the murderers. but upon the revolution of the government [april 1689.] the state of the war, became wholly new: and we are more arrived unto righteousness as the light, and justice as the noon day. a great sachim of the east, we then immediately applied ourselves unto, and with no small expenses to ourselves we engaged him, to employ his interest for a good understanding between us, & the party of indians then in hostility against us. this was the likely, the only way, of coming at those wand'ring savages: but that very sachim now treacherously, of an ambassador became a traitor, and annexed himself, with his people, to the herd of our enemies, which have since been ravaging, pillaging, and murdering at a rate, which we ought to count, intolerable. the penacook indians, of whom we were jealous, we likewise treated with; and while we were, by our kindnesses and courtesies endeavouring to render them utterly inexcusable, if ever they sought our harm: even than did these also, by some evil instigation (the devils, no doubt!) quickly surprise a plantation, where they had been civilly treated a day or two before, & commit at once, more plunder and murder, than can be heard with any patience. reader, having so placed these three accounts as to defend my teeth, i think, i may safely proceed with our story. but because tacitus teaches us, to distinguish between, the mere occasions, and the real causes, of a war, it may be some will go a little higher up in their inquiries: they will inquire, whether no body seized a parcel of wines, that were landed at a french plantation to the east ward? whether an order were not obtained from the king of england, at the instance of the french ambassador, to restore these wines? whether upon the vexation of this order, we none of us ran a new line for the bounds of the province? whether we did not contrive our new line, so as to take in the country of monsieur st. casteen? whether monsieur st. casteen flying from our encroachments, we did not seize upon his arms, and goods, and bring them away to pemmaquid? and, who, were the we, which did these things? and whether, the indians, who were extremely under the influence of st. casteen, that had married a sagamores daughter among them, did not from this very moment begin to be obstreperous? and, whether all the sober english in the country, did not from this very moment, foretell a war? but for any answer to all these inquiries, i will be myself a tacitus. article. ii. the first acts of hostility, between the indians, and the english. when one capt. sargeant had seized some of the principal indians about saco, by order of justice blackman, presently the indians fell to seizing as many of the english, as they could catch. capt. rowden, with many more, in one place, and capt. gendal, with sundry more, in another place, particularly fell into the hands of these desperate man catchers. rowden, with many of his folks, never got out of their cruel hands: but gendal with his, got a release, one can scarce tell, how, upon the return of those which had been detained in boston. hitherto there was no spilling of blood! but some time in september following, this capt. gendal, went up, with soldiers and others, to a place above casco, called, north yarmouth; having orders to build stockadoes, on both sides the river, for defence of the place, in case of any sudden invasion. while they were at work, an english captive came to 'em, with information, that seventy or eighty of the enemy were just coming upon 'em: and he advised 'em, to yield quietly, that they might save their lives. the soldiers that went thither from the southward, being terrified at this report, ran with an hasty terror to get over the river; but with more hast, than good speed; for they ran directly into the hands of the indians. the indians dragging along these their prisoners with 'em, came up towards the casconians; who, having but a very little time to consult, yet in this time resolved; first, that they would not be seized by the savages; next, that they would free their friends out of the hands of the savages, if it were possible; thirdly, that if it were possible, they would use all other force upon the savages, without coming to down right fight. accordingly, they laid hold on their neighbours, whom the savages had seized, and this with so much dexterity, that they cleared them all, except one or two; whereof the whole number was about a dozen. but in the scuffle, one sturdy and surly indian, held his prey so fast, that one benedict pulcifer, gave the mastiff a blow, with the edge of his broad axe upon the shoulder, upon which they fell to't with a vengeance, and fired their guns, on both sides, till some on both sides were slain. these were, as one may call them, the scower-pit, of a long war to follow. at last, the english, victoriously chased away the savages and returned safely unto the other side of the river. and thus was the vein of new england first opened, that afterwards bled for ten years together! the skirmish being over, capt. gendal, in the evening, passed over the river, in a canoe, with none but a servant; but landing where the enemy lay hid in the bushes, they were both slain immediately. and the same evening, one ryal, with another man, fell unawares into the hands of the enemy; ryal was afterwards ransomed, by monsieur st. casteen, but the other man, was barbarously butchered. soon after this, the enemy went eastward, unto a place called, merry-meeting, (from the concourse of divers rivers there,) where several english had a sad meeting with them; for they were killed, several of them even in cold blood, after the indians had seized upon their houses & their persons. and about this time, the town called sheepscote, was entered by these rapacious wolves; who burned all the houses of the town, save two or three. the people saved themselves by getting into the fort, all but one man, who going out of the fort, for to treat with 'em, was treacherously assassinated. thus the place, which was counted, the garden of the east, was infested by serpents; and a sword expelled the poor inhabitants. little more spoil was done by the savages before winter, except only, that at a place called kennebunk, near winter harbour, they cut off two families, to wit, barrows, and bussies; but winter coming on, the serpents retired into their holes. when summer comes, reader, look for tornadoes enough to over-set a greater vessel, than little new-england. article. iii. the first expedition of the english, against the indians. when the keeper of the wild beasts, at florence, has entertained the spectators, with their encounters on the stage, he has this device to make 'em retire into the several dens of their seraglio. he has a fearful machine of wood, made like a gre●t green dragon, which a man within it rolls upon wheels, and holding out a couple of lighted torches at the eyes of it, frights the fiercest beast of them all, into the cell that belongs unto him. sir edmond andros, the governor of new-england, that he might express his resolutions, to force the wild beasts of the east into order, in the winter now coming on, turned upon them as effectual a machine, as the green dragon of florence; that is to say, an army of near a thousand men. with this army, he marched himself in person, into the caucasaean regions, where he built a fort at pemmaquid, and another fort at pechypscot falls, besides the fort at sheepscote. he, and his army, underwent no little hard ship, thus in the depth of winter to expose themselves unto the circumstances of a campaign, in all the bleak winds and thick snows of that northern country. but it was hoped, that good forts, being thus garrisoned with stout hearts, in several convenient places, ●he indians might be kept from their usual retreats, both for planting, and for fishing, and lie open also to perpetual incursions from the english, in the fittest seasons thereof: and it was thought by the most sensible, this method would in a little while compel the enemy to submit unto any terms: albeit others considering the vast woods of the wilderness, and the french on the back of these woods, fancied, that this was but a project to hedge in the cuckoo. however, partly the army, and partly the winter, frighted the savages, into their inaccessible dens: & yet not one of the indians was killed; but sickness, & service, killed it may be more of our english, than there were indians then in hostility against them. the news of matters approaching towards a revolution in england, caused the governor to return unto boston in the spring; & upon his return, there fell out several odd events, with rumours, whereof i have now nothing to say, but, that i love my eyes too well, to mention them. some of the soldiers, took advantage, from the absence of the governor, to desert their stations in the army; and tho' this action, was by good men generally condemned, as an evil action, yet their friends began to gather together here and there in little bodies, to protect them from the governor, concerning whom, abundance of odd stories than buzzed about the country made 'em to imagine, that he had carried 'em out, only to sacrifice 'em. some of the principal gentlemen in boston, consulting what was to be done, in this extraordinary juncture, they agreed, that altho' new-england had as much to justify a revolution as old, yet they would, if it were possible, extinguish all essays in the people, towards an insurrection; in daily hopes of orders from england for our safety: but that if the country people, by any unrestrainable violences pushed the business on so far, as to make a revolution unavoidable, then, to prevent the shedding of blood by an ungoverned mobile, some of the gentlemen present, should appear at the head of it, with a declaration accordingly prepared. he that reads the narrative of grievances under the male administrations of the government then tyrannising. written and signed by the chief gentlemen of the governors' council, will not wonder at it, that a revolution was now rendered indeed unavoidable. it was a government whereof ned randolph, a bird of their own feather, confessed, as we find in one of his published letters, that they were as arbitrary as the great turk. and for such a government, a better similitude cannot perhaps be thought on, than that of monsr souligne; 'tis like the condition of persons possessed with evil spirits, which will go an hundred leagues in less time than others can ten; but at the journeys end find themselves to be so bruised that they never can recover it. the revolution, (and, ye tories, a just one) was accordingly made, on the eighteenth of april; which their majesties, then happily seated on the british throne, kindly accepted and approved. the governor and magistrates of the massachusetts colony, which were in power three years and half before, [a period often observed!] did some time after this resume their places, and apply themselves to such acts of government, as emergencies made necessary for them, fortified with a letter from the king, to authorise and empower them in their administrations. thus they waited for further directions from the authority of england, and such a settlement, as would most conduce (which were the words of the king's letter, bearing date, aug. 12 1689.) to the security and satisfaction of the subjects in that colony. article. iv a flame spreading, upon the best endeavours to quench it. it was hoped, the war would now come to an immediate end; but the great god, who creates that evil, had further intentions to chastise a sinful people, by those who are not a people. the government sent capt. greenleaf, to treat with the indians at penacook, who answered him with fair pretences and promises of amity. they procured an interview, with some of the more eastern sagamores, who not only promised friendship themselves, but also undertook to make our enemies become our friends. they sent unto the soldiers, yet remaining at pemmaquid, for to keep their post, engaging to them that they should not want their pay. but all this care, was defeated by methods of mischiefs, too deep for our present penetration. the savages, began to renew their hostilities, at saco falls, in the beginning of april, on a lords day morning, some while before the revolution. the penacook indians, were all this while peaceably conversant at quochecho; and so long as that conversation continued, the inhabitants were very secure, of any danger, not only from those cutthroats, but also from their brethren. happy had it been for those honest people, if their fear, had made so much hast, as my pen has done, to call 'em cut throats! for, the penacookian joining with the saconian indians, hovered about quochecho, where one mesandowit, a sagamore, being that night kindly entertained by major richard waldein, horribly betrayed his kind host, with the neighbours into the hands of murderers. above an hundred, some say five hundred of the indians, about break of day, having surprised the secure and silent english, they particularly rushed into the garrison of the generous major, which was by sinon mesandowit (for, bestowing a heathen name upon him, we'll now call him so,) opened for them, and having first barbarously murdered the old gentleman, who was equivalent unto two and twenty, they then murdered two and twenty more, and captived nine and twenty of the people; burnt four or five of the best houses, took much plunder, and so drew off: but killed mr. john broughton in their drawing off: while mr. john emmerson, a worthy preacher at barwick, by declining to lodge at the hospitable majors, that night, when strongly invited, received a remarkable deliverance. hereupon, forces were dispatched for the relief of what remained in quochecho; capt. noyes also with more forces, visited penacook, where though the men escaped him, he destroyed the corn of our new enemies: but the skulking enemies, at the same time slew several persons at an out-farm, on the north-side of merrimack river. a party of men, were soon after sent out of piscataqua, under the command of capt. wincal, who went up to winnopisseag ponds, (upon advice of one john church, who ran from them, that the indians were there:) where they killed one or two of the monsters they hunted for, and cut down their corn. four young men of saco, desirous to join with them, went into the woods to seek their horses, and found their deaths, by an ambush of indians. twenty four armed men, going forth from saco falls, to bury the slain, had a brisk encounter with the indians, whom they pursued into a vast swamp, until a greater number of indians pouring in upon them, obliged 'em with the loss of about five or six more, to retire from any further action. but before the dog days were out, there was more bleeding still, that proved fatal to us. on aug. 2. one starky, going early in the morning, from the fort at pemmaquid, unto new harbour, fell into the hands of the indians, who to obtain his own liberty, informed them, that the fort had at that instant, but few men in it: and that one mr. giles, with fourteen men, was gone up to his farm, and the rest scattered abroad, about their occasions the indians hereupon divided their army; part going up to the falls, killed mr. giles, and others; part, upon the advantage of the tide, snapped the rest, before they could recover the fort. from a rock near the fort, which inconveniently over looked it, the assailants now over looked it, as over lincoln, and grievously galled the defendants. capt. weems, had but few with him, that were able to fight; and his own face, was in the fight by an accident, horribly scorched with gun powder. wherefore, the day following, they surrendered the fort, upon capitulations for life and liberty; which yet the indians broke, by butchering and captiving many of them. capt. skinner & capt. farnham, repairing to the fort, from an island about half a mile distant from it, were both slain, as they landed on the rocks; and mr. patishal, as he lay with his sloop in the barbican, was also taken and slain. this, together with more spoil done by the indians on the english, at sheepscote, and kennebeck, and other places eastward, caused the inhabitants to draw off unto falmouth as fast as they could: and, well if they could have made good their standing there! mantissa. the foregoing article of our tragaedies, hath related the taking of quochecho! the condition of two persons, under and after the fate of quochecho, may have in it, an entertainment aceeptable for some sort of readers. it shall be in this place reported, from the communications of mr. john pike, the worthy minister of dover; to whom i have been beholden, for communicating to me, many other passages also, which occur in this our history. i. mrs. elizabeth herd, a widow of a good estate, a mother of many children, and a daughter of mr. hull, a reverend minister formerly living at piscataqua, now lived at quochecho. happening to be at portsmouth, on the day before quochecho was cut off, she returned thither in the night, with one daughter, and three sons all masters of families. when they came near quochecho, they were astonished, with a prodigious noise of indians, howling, shooting, shouting, and roaring, according to their manner in making an assault. their distress for their families carried them still further up the river, till they secretly and silently passed by some numbers of the raging savages. they landed about an hundred rods from major walderns garrison; and running up the hill, they saw many lights in the windows of the garrison, which they concluded, the english within had set up, for the direction of those who might seek a refuge there. coming to the gate, they desired entrance; which not being readily granted, they called earnestly and bounced, and knocked, and cried out of their unkindness within, that they would not open to them in this extremity. no answer being yet made, they began to doubt, whether all was well; and one of the young men then climbing up the wall, saw a horrible tawny in the entry, with a gun in his hand. a grievous consternation seized now upon them; and mrs. herd, sitting down without the gate, through dispair and faintness, unable to stir any further, charged her children to shift for themselves, for she must unavoidably there end her days. they finding it impossible to carry her with them, with heavy hearts forsook her; but then coming better to herself, she fled and hid among the barberry-bushes in the garden: and then hastening from thence, because the daylight advanced, she sheltned herself (though seen by two of the indians,) in a thicket of other bushes, about thirty rods from the house. here she had not been long, before an indian came towards her, with a pistol in his hand: the fellow came up to her, and stared her in the face, but said nothing to her, nor she to him. he went a little way back, and came again, and stared upon her as before, but said nothing; whereupon she asked him, what he would have? he still said nothing, but went away to the house, co hooping, and returned unto her no more. being thus unaccountably preserved, she made several essays to pass the river; but sound herself unable to do it; and finding all places on that side the river, filled with blood and fire, and hideous out cries, thereupon she returned to her old bush, and there poured out her ardent prayers to god, for help in this distress. she continued in the bush, until the garrison was burnt, and the enemy was gone; and then she stole along by the river side, until she came to a boom, where she passed over. many sad effects of cruelty, she saw left by the indians, in her way; until arriving at captain gerrishes garrison, she there found a refuge from the storm; and here she soon had the satisfaction, to understand, that her own garrison, though one of the first that was assaulted, had been bravely defended and mentained, against the adversary. this gentlewoman's garrison, was the most etxreme frontier of the province, and more obnoxious than any other, and more uncapable of relief; nevertheless, by her presence and courage, it held out all the war, even for ten years together; and the persons in it, have enjoyed very eminent preservations. the garrison had been deserted, if she had accepted offers that were made her b● her friends, or living in more safety at portsmouth; which would have been a damage to the town and land: but by her encouragement this post was thus kept; and she is yet living in much esteem among her neighbours. ii. mrs. sarah gerish, daughter to captain john gerish of quochecho, a very beautiful and ingenious damsel about seven years of age, lodged at the garrison of her affectionate grandfather, major waldern, when the indians brought an horrible destruction upon it. she was always very fearful of the indians; but what fear may we think now surprised her, when they fiercely bid her go into such a chamber, and call the people out? finding only a little child in the chamber, she got into the bed unto the child, and hid herself in the , as well as she could. the fell savages quickly pulled her out, and made her dress for a march, but led her away with no more than one stockin upon her, a terrible march, through the thick woods, and a thousand other miseries, till they came to the norway plains. from thence they made her go to the end of winnopisseag lake, and from thence to the eastward, through horrid swamps, where sometimes they must scramble over huge trees fallen by storm or age, for a vast way together, and some times they must climb up long, steep, tiresome, and almost inaccessible mountains. her first master was one sebundowit, a dull sort of a fellow, and not such a devil as many of 'em were; but he sold her, to a fellow that was a more harsh, and mad, sort of a dragon; and he carried her away to canada. a long and a sad journey she had of it, through the midst of an hideous desert, in the midst of a dreadful winter: and who can enumerate the frights, that she endured, before the end of her journey? once her master commanded her to loosen some of her upper-garments, and stand against a tree, while he charged his gun; whereat the poor child shrieked out, he's going to kill me! god knows what he was going to do; but the villian having charged his gun, he called her from the tree, and forbore doing her any damage. another time, her master ordered her to run along the shore with some indian girls, while he paddled up the river in his canoe. as they were upon a precipice, a tawny wench violently pushed her head long into the river: but it so fell out, that in that very place, the bushes hung over the water; so that getting hold of them, she recovered herself. the indians asked her. how she became so wet? but she durst not say, how; through dread of the young indians, who were always very abusive to her, when they had her alone. moreover, once being spent with travelling all day, and lying down spent and wet at night, she fell into into so profound a sleep, that in the morning she waked not. the barbarous indians left her asleep, and covered with snow; but at length waking, what agonies may you imagine she was in, to find herself left a prey for bears and wolves, and without any sustenance, in an howling wilderness many scores of leagues, from any plantation? she ran crying after them; and providence having ordered a snow to fall, by means thereof, she tracked them until she overtook them. now the young indians began to terrify her, with daily intimations, that she was quickly to be roasted unto death; and one evening, much fuel was prepared, between two logs, which they told her, was for her. a mighty fire being made, her master called her to him, and told her, that she should presently be burnt alive. at first, she stood amazed; afterwards she burst into tears; and then she hung about the tiger, and begged of him, with an inexpressible anguish, that he would save her from the fire. hereupon the monster so relented, as to tell her, that if she would be a good girl, she should not be burnt. at last, they arrived at canada, and she was carried unto the lord intendants house, where many persons of quality took much notice of her. it was a week after this, that she remained in the indian hands, before the price of her ransom could be agreed on. but then the lady intendant sent her to the nunnery, where she was comfortably provided for; and it was the design, as was said, for to have brought her up, in the romish religion, and then have married her unto the son of the lord intendant. she was kindly used there, until sir william phipps lying before quebeck, did upon exchange of prisoners, obtain her liberty. after sixteen months' captivity, she was restored unto her friends; who had the consolation of having this their daughter again with them, returned from the dead; but coming to be sixteen years old, in the month of july 1697. death, by a malignant , more irrecoverably took her from them. article. v new forces raised, and new actions done. on aug. 28. 1689. major swain with seven or eight companies raised by the massachusett colony, marched eastward; and soon after, major church with a party of english, and christian-indians, raised in plymouth colony, followed them. while these were on their march, the indians, that lay skulking after the indian-fashion in the thick woods, took notice how many men, belonged unto lieut. huckins' garrison: and seeing 'em all go out unto their daily work, nimbly ran so between them and the garrison, as to kill 'em all (about eighteen) but one, who being accidentally gone over the river, escaped them. they then attacked the garrison, in which there now were only two boys, (and one of them lame) with some women and children; but these two boys, very manfully held 'em in play a considerable while, and wounded several of them, and kept 'em off, till the assailants had found a way to set the house on a light fire over their heads. they then urging 'em to surrender, for the sake of the goods, the boys, [brave boys, truly!] would not, until they had solemnly promised 'em their lives: but the perfidious wretches broke their promise, for they presently killed three or four of the children: however one of these minutius', the day after, very happily got out of thei● clutches. it was by a particular accident, that these indians, were delivered from falling into the hands of capt. garner, who pursued 'em vigorously. but while the forces now gone into the east, were settling of garrisons in convenient places, a huge body of indians, fell upon casco, where one of their first exploits, was their kill of capt. bracket. nevertheless, capt. hall, (a valiant soldier in the former war, and a valiant commander in this) with his vigorous lieutenant dawes, just then arriving with his company, the english hotly engaged them for several hours; and after a deal of true english valour discovered in this engagement, and the loss of ten or a dozen men, the indians ran for it, with what loss on their part, we do not know: that with some we do. presently after this, major swain, passing through extreme difficulties to get at it, gave some relief to a garrison at blue point, which was beset by the indians; who still fled into their inaccessible swamps, when our bullets began to be hailed upon them. it was judged, that here one or two opportunities, of bringing the war unto an end, were strangely missed, and lost: but where the mismanagement lay, i cannot remember: nor what were the faux pas of the actors. our honest major will clear himself, who returning then to his head quarters at berwick, sent abroad scouts, to learn, if it were possible, where they might have the best game, at the chasse a la bete noire, then to be followed. capt. wiswel having with him, a party of indian auxiliaries, they were sent out, under the conduct of lieu. flag: but coming to winnopisseag, these indians, had a consult in their own language, and sending back their lieutenant, with two indians, nineteen of them stayed in that country eleven days, not having any english with them: at which the major was justly, and greatly offended. it was then suspected, and afterwards (by escaped captives) asserted, that these wretches, found the enemy, and lodged with 'em two nights, and told 'em what they knew of the english numbers and motions. the enemy then retired into the howling deserts, where there was no coming at them: & no endeavours being able to reach them, the army, in the month of november following was dismissed: only some soldiers were left in garrison at wells, at york, at barwick, and at quechecho, for the assistence of the poor inhabitants, against any more invasions. there has been little doubt, that our northern indians are originally scythians, and it is become less a doubt, since it appears from later discoveries, that the pretended straits of anian are a shame; for asia and america, it seems, are there contiguous. now of these our scythians in america, we have still found, what julius caesar does report concerning them of asia; difficilius invenire quam interficere: it is harder to find them, than to foil them. a digression, relating some wonderful judgements of god. before we pass to another year, stand still, reader, and behold some wonderful events, proper here to be introduced. the relation thereof shall be given, as i have received it. portsmouth feb. 27. 1698, 9 monsieur vincelotte of quebeck, arrived here, the 25th. of the last month, and since embarked for france, by way of bilboa, as agent to represent the affairs of canada. he says, that about nine or ten years since, the earl of frontenac, governor of that place (who died last november,) did personally attempt to subdue, the maquas, etc. having no less than fifteen hundred soldiers in his army. after a few day's march, they (being much wearied and very thirsty) came unto a certain small well, of which they drank very plentifully. but in a few hours after, sundry complained of much illness, and according to their various constitutions fell sick (as it seemed) of different distempers; which occasioned so great disorder and confusion in the army, that no less than four well men, for a while, were engaged in taking care of every one that was sick. about three days after, the maqua scout, narrowly observing the motions of the french, rallyed together, as many as possible, to give a check unto their undertaking; which they soon accomplished, with very considerable advantage. but the french appearing so numerous, forced them to retreat, and in pursuit of them, took and ransacked a small town. the sickness by this time increased unto so great an height, as to occasion a council of war, which ordered their speedy return; and in a short time, no less than eight hundred persons died out of the army. now about three years ago, a certain soldier, who belonged at that time to the army, went into france. in a short time after his arrival, he robbed one of the churches, of a considerable value of plate; but being soon discovered, he was sentenced to be burnt: he then sent unto sundry father-confessors, unto whom he acknowledged his many sins; particularly, that fact for which he was condemned. but he therewithal said, that he had something else of more considerable moment to impart, which did much afflict his conscience; namely, an action of his, about seven years before committed, when listed under the conduct of the earl of frontenac, in an enterprise against the sennakers and maquas '; for, said he) i was the only person at that time instrumental to the death of near eight hundred souls. having received some affront, from some of the officers, i was prompted to seek some speedy revenge, which my own corrupt nature with the instigation of satan, did instantly accomplish; for being plentifully stored with some rank poison upon another account, i threw it all into a well, of which the thirsty army drank freely, and in the event it proved so fatal unto them. for the further confirmation of this report monsieur vincelotte at the same time told me, that he was himself wounded in the engagement, and should continue lame to his dying day. reverend sir, your most humble servant, s. penhallow. article. vi new assaults from the indians, with some remarkables of captives taken in those assaults. the sun, and the war, be again returning! the year 1690. must begin, very inauspiciously. in february, the french, with indians, made a descent from canada, upon a dutch town called schenectada, twenty miles above albany under the government of new york; and in that surprising incursion, they killed about sixty persons, whereof one was their minister, and carried about half as many into captivity; but the people there, assisted by the maquas, pursued them, and recovered some of their captives from them. upon the advice of this mischief in the west, order was dispatched unto major frost, in the east, that the towns there should stand upon their guard. the major did his duty; but they did not theirs: they dreamt that while the deep snow of the winter continued, they were safe enough; but this proved as vain as a dream of a dry summer. on march 18th. the french, with indians, being half one, half t'other, half indianized french, and half frenchified indians, commanded by monsieur artel, and hope-hood, fell suddenly upon salmon falls, destroying the best part of the town, with fire and sword. near thirty persons were slain, and more than fifty were led into what the reader will by'nd by call, the worst captivity in the world. it would be a long story to tell, what a particular share in this calamity, fell to the family of one clement short; this honest man, with his pious wife, and three children, were killed; and six or seven of their children, were made prisoners: the most of which arrived safe to canada, through a thousand hardships; and the most of these were with more than a thousand mercies afterwards redeemed from canada, unto their english friends again. but my readers, will be so reasonable, as to excuse me, if i do not mention the fate of every family, that hath suffered a share in the calamity of this grievous war; for 'tis impossible that i should know all that hath happened; and it would be improper for me to write all that i know: and very little is the advantage of having a name standing upon record, only among unhappy sufferers. about seven score english went out after 'em, and came up with 'em: nevertheless, through the disadvantages of their feet by the snow, they could make no hand on it. four or five of ours were killed, and as many of the enemy; but the night put an end unto the action. ours took one prisoner, a french man, who confessed, that they came from canada, where both french and indians, were in pay, at ten livers per month, and he particularly declared the state of canada. this prisoner met with such kind usage from us, that he became a freeman of christ, and embraced and professed the protestant religion. but of the prisoners, which the enemy took from us, there were two which immediately met with a very different fate. three indians hotly pursued one thomas toogood, and one of them overtaking him, while the rest perceiving it, stayed behind the hill, he yielded himself a prisoner. while the savage was getting strings to bind him, he held his gun under his arm; which toogood observing, suddenly plucked it from his friend stark naught, threatening and protesting, that he would shoot him down, if he made any noise; and so, a●ay he ran with it, unto quochecho. if my reader be inclined now to smile, when he thinks, how simply poor isgrim looked, returning to his mates behind the hill, without either gun, or prey, or any thing but strings, to remember him of his own deserts; the smiles will all be presently turned into tears. the indians had now made a prisoner of one robert rogers, and being on their journey, they came to an hill, where this man, being through his corpulency, (for which ●he was usually nicknamed, robin pork) and an insupportable and intolerable burden laid upon his back, not so able to travel as the rest, he absconded. the wretches missing him, immediately went in pursuit of him; and it was not long before they found his burden cast in the way, and the track of his going out of the way, which they followed, until they found him hidden in an hollow tree. they took him out, they stripped him, they beat him, and pricked him, and pushed him forward with their swords, until they were got back to the hill; and it being almost night, they fastened him to a tree, with his hands behind him, and made themselves a supper, singing, dancing, roaring, and urtering many signs of joy, but with joy little enough to the poor creature, who foresaw, what all this tended unto. they then cut a parcel of wood, and bringing it into a plain place, they cut off the top of a small red oak tree, leaving the trunk for a stake, whereto they bond their sacrifice. they first made a great fire near this tree of death, and bringing him unto it, they bid him take his leave of his friends; which he did in a doleful manner; no pen, though made of an harpies quill, were able to describe the dolour of it! they then allowed him a little time, to make his prayers, unto heaven; which he did with an extreme fervency and agony: where-upon they bond him to the stake, and brought the rest of the prisoners, with their arms tied each to other, so setting them round the fire. this being done, they went behind the fire, and thrust it forwards upon the man, with much laughter and shouting; and when the fire had burnt some while upon him, even till he was near stifled, they pulled it again from him. they danced about him, and at every turn, they did with their knives, cut collops of his flesh, from his naked limbs, & throw them with his blood into his face. when he was dead, they set his body down upon the glowing coals, and left him tied with his back to the stake; where the english army soon after found him. he was left for us, to put out the fire with our tears! reader, who should be the father of these myrmidons? article. vii. the condition of the captives, that from time to time fell into the hands of the indians: with some very remarkable accidents. we have had some occasion, and shall have more, to mention captives, falling into the hands of the indians. we will here, without any thing worthy to be called a digression, a little stand still, and with mournful hearts, look upon the condition of the captives in those cruel hands. their condition truly might be expressed in the terms of the ancient lamentations, (thus by some translated,) lam 4 3. the daughter of my people, is in the hands of the cruel, that are like the ostrich in the wilderness. truly, the dark places of new england, where the indians had their unapproacheable kennels, were habitations of cruelty: and no words can sufficiently describe the cruelty undergone by our captives in those habitations. the cold, and heat, and hunger, & weariness, and mockings, and scourge, and insolences, endured by the captives, would enough deserve the name of cruelty; but there was this also added unto the rest, that they must ever now and then have their friends made a sacrifice of devils before their eyes, but be afraid of dropping a tear from those eyes, lest it should, upon that provocation, be next their own turn, to be so barbarously sacrificed. indeed some few of the captives, did very happily escape from their barbarous oppressors, by a flight wisely managed: and many more of them, were bought by the french, who treated them with a civility ever to be acknowledged, until care was taken to fetch 'em home. nevertheless, many scores of them died among the indians; and what usage they had, may be gathered from the following relations, which i have obtained from credible witnesses. relation. i. james key, son to john key of quochecho, was a child of about five years of age, taken captive, by the indians at salmon falls; and that hellish fellow, hope-hood, once a servant of a christian master in boston, was become the master of this little christian. this child, lamenting with tears the want of his parents, his ●aster threatened him with death, if he did not refrain his tears; but these threaten could not extinguish the natural affections of a child. wherefore, upon his next lamentations, this monster stripped him stark naked, and lashed both his hands round a tree, and scourged him, so that from the crown of his head unto the sole of his foot, he was all over bloody and swollen: and when he was tired with laying on his blows, on the forlorn infant, he would lay him on the ground, with taunts remembering him of his parents. in this misery, the poor creature lay horribly roaring for divers days together, while his master, gratifyed with the music, lay contriving of new torments, wherewith to martyr him. it was not long, before the child had a sore eye, which his master said, proceeded from his weeping on the forbidden accounts: whereupon, laying hold on the head of the child with his left hand with the thumb of his right, he forced the ball of his eye quite out; therewithal telling him; that when he heard him cry ag●●● he would serve t●othe● so too, and leave him 〈◊〉 an eye to ●eep withal about nine or ten day● after, his wretch had occasion to remove, with his family, about thirty miles further: and when they had gone about six miles of the thi●ty, the child being tired and faint, sat him down to rest, at which, this horrid fellow, being provoked, he buried the blade of his hatchet, in the brains of the child, and then chopped the breathless body to pieces before the rest of the company, & threw it into the river. but for the s●ke of these and other such truculent things done by hope hood, i am resolved, that in the course of our story, i will watch to see what becomes of that hideous loup garou, if he come to his end, as i am apt to think he will, before the story. relation. ii. mehetabel goodwin, being a captive among the indians, had with her a child about months old; which through hunger & hardship, she being unable to nourish, it often made most grievous ejulations. her indian master told her, that if the child were not quiet, he would soon dispose of it; which caused her to use all possible means, that his netop-ship might not be offended; and sometimes carry it from the fire, out of his hearing, where she sat up to the waist, in snow and frost, for several hours, until it was lulled asleep. she thus for several days preserved the life of her babe, until he saw cause to travel with his own cabs farther afield; and than lest he should be retarded in his travel. he violently snatched the babe out of its mother's arms, and before her face knock out its brains, and stripped it of the few rag it had hitherto enjoyed, and ordered her the task, to go wash the b●oody . returning from this melancholy task, she found the infant hanging by the neck, in a forked bough of a tree. she desired leave to lay it in the earth; but he said, it was better as it was, for now the wild beasts would not come at it, [i am sure, they had been at it!] and she might have the comfort of seeing it again, if ever they came that way. the journey now before them, was like to be very long, even as far as canada, where his purpose was to make merchandise of his captive, and glad was the captive of such happy tidings. but the desperate length of the way, and want of food, and grief of mind, wherewith she now encountered, caused her within a few days to faint under her difficulties. when at length, she far down for some repose, with many prayers, and tears unto god, for the salvation of her soul, she found herself unable to rise, until she espied her furious executioner coming towards her, with fire in his eyes, the devil in his heart, and his hatchet in his hand, ready to bestow a mercy-stroke of death upon her. but then, this miserable creature, got on her knees, and with weeping and wailing & all expressions of agony and entreaty, prevailed on him, to spare her life a little, and she did not question but god would enable her to walk a little faster. the merciless tyrant was prevailed withal, to spare her this time; nevertheless her former weakness quickly returning upon her, he was just going to murder her; but a couple of indians, just at that instant, coming in, suddenly called upon him to hold his hand; whereat such an horror surprised his guilty soul, that he ran away. but hearing them call his name, he returned, and then permitted these his friends, to ransom his prisoner from him. after this, being seated by a river side, they heard several guns go off, on the other side; which they concluded, was from a party of albany indians, who were enemies unto these: whereupon this bold blade, would needs go in a canoe, to discover what they were. they fired upon him, and shot through him, and several of his friends, before the discovery could be made unto satisfaction. but some days after this, divers of his friends, gathered a party to revenge his death, on their supposed enemies; with whom they joined battle, and fought several hours, until their supposed enemies, did really put 'em to the rout. among the captives, which they left in their fight, one was this poor goodwin, who was over joyed in seeing herself thus at liberty; but the joy did not last long, for these indians were of the same sort with the other, and had been by their own friends, thus through a strange mistake set upon. however, this crew, proved more favourable to her, than the former, and went away silently with their booty, being loath to have any noise made of their foul mistake. and yet, a few days after, such an other mistake happened; for, meeting with another party of indians, which they imagined in the english interests, they furiously engaged each other, and many were killed and wounded on either side: but they proved a party of the french indians, who took this poor goodwin, and presented her to the french captain, by whom she was carried unto canada; where she continued five years, & then was brought safe back into new-england. relation. iii. marry plaisted, the wife of mr. james plaisted, was made a captive by the indians, about three weeks, after her delivery of a male child. they then took her, with her infant, off her bed, and forced her to travel in this her weakness, the best part of a day, without any respect or pity. at night, the cold ground, in the open air, was her lodging; and for many a day, she had no nourishment, but a little water, with a little bears-flesh: which rendered her so feeble, that she, with her infant, were not far from totally starved. upon her cries to god, there was at length, some supply sent in, by her masters taking a moose, the broth whereof recovered her. but she must now travel, many days, through woods, and swamps, and rocks, and over mountains, and frost and snow, until she could stir no farther. sitting down to rest, she was not able to rise, until her diabolical master helped her up; which when he did, he took her child from her, and carried it unto a river, where stripping it of the few rags it had, he took it by the heels, and against a tree dashed out its brains, and then flung it into the river. so he returned unto the miserable mother, telling her, she was now eased of her burden, and must walk faster than she did before! relation. iv marry ferguson, taken captive by the indians at sa●mon falls, declares, that another maid, of about fifteen or sixteen years of age, taken at the same time, had a great burden imposed on her. being over born with her burden, she burst out into tears telling her indian master, that she could go no further. whereupon he immediately took off her burden, and leading her aside into the bushes, he cut off her head, and scalping it, he ran about laughing and bragging, what an act he had now done and showing the scalp unto the rest, he told them, they should all be served so; if they were not patiented. in fine; when the children of the english captives cried at any time, so that the were not presently quieted, the manner of the indians was, to dash out their brains against a tree. and very often, when the indians were on, or near the water, they took the small childre●, and held 'em under water, till they had near drowned them; and then gave 'em unto their distressed mothers to quiet 'em. and the indians in their ●rolicks, would whip and beat the small children, until they set 'em into grievous out cries, and then throw 'em to their amazed mothers, for them to quiet 'em again, as well as they could. this was indian captivity! reader, a modern traveller assures us, that at the villa ludovisia, not far from rome, t●e●e is to be seen the body of a petrified man; and that he himself saw, by a piece of the man's leg, broken for satisfaction both the bone, and the stone crusted over it. all that i will say, is, that if thou canst read these passages without relenting bowels, thou thyself art as really petrified, as the man at villa ludovisia. nescio tu quibus es, lector, lecturus ocellis; hoc scio quod siccis scribere non potui. article viii. a little account of the greatest action, that ever new england attempted. i have read or herd, that when the insufferable abuses, which the english nation suffered from the abbeys, were in the parliament complained of, the total dissolution of those abbeys, was much forwarded, by a speech of a gentleman in the house of commons, to this purpose; that his own house had been much annoyed by rooks building in a tree, near unto it, and that he had used many ineffectual ways to disturb, and disroost these mischievous rooks: until at last, he found out an infallible way to be delivered from the rooks, and that was to cut down the tree that lodged 'em. the distresses into which new-england was now fallen, made this very comparison to be thought of. the indian rooks grievously infested the country; and while the country was only on the defensive part, their men were thinned, their towns were broken, and their treasures consumed, without any hope of seeing an end of these troublesome tragedies. the french colonies to the northward, were the tree, in which those rooks had their nests; and the french having in person first fallen upon the english of new-england, it was thought that the new-englanders might very justly take this occasion, to reduce those french colonies under the english government, and so at once take away from all the rooks for ever, all that gave 'em any advantage to infest us. accordingly, a naval force, with about seven hundred men, under the conduct of sr. william phips, was dispatched away to l'accady, and nova scotia. this fleet, setting sail from new-england, april 28. 1690. in a fortnight arrived at port-royal, and sir william having the fort surrendered unto him, took possession of that province, for the crown of england. but this was only a step towards a far greater action! there was no speech about the methods of safety made, which did not conclude, with, a, delenda est carthago. it was become the concurring resolution, of all new-england, with new-york, that a vigorous attack should be made upon canada, at once, both by sea, and land. a fleet of thirty two sail, under the command of sr. william phips, was equipped at boston, and began their voyage, aug. 9 and the whole matter was put into form, with so much contrivance and caution, and courage, that nothing but an evident hand of heaven, was likely to have given such a defeat unto it, as has been indeed generally and remarkably given unto all the colonies of america, when they have invaded one another. if this expedition did miscarry, and if canada proved unto new england, what it proved unto the spaniards, when at their deserting it, they called it, il capo de nada or, the cape of nothing (whence the name canada) there is no new englander, but what will mentain, that it was with a less disgraceful miscarriage, than what baffled, every one of those, that were made in this war, against the french islands, by more powerful fleets of those, who were forward enough to reproach new-england. i am sure, he that reads the account of what was done at martineco, in the relation of the voyage of m. de gennes, lately published, must be very easy in his reflections upon what was done at canada. and i will add, that if the new-england men returned re infecta from canada, yet they did not leave two hundred men behind them to the mercy of the french, as they who most reproached new england, soon after did at guadalupa. the fuller narrative of these memorable things, the reader may find written, in, the life of sir william phipps, lately published; of wh●ch i must here give this attestation, that as my acquaintance with the author, gives me assurance, of his being as willing to retract a mistake, as unwilling to commit one, and of his care in whatever he writes, to be able to make the profession of oecolampadius, nolui aliquid scribere, quod improbaturum putem christum: so i have compared this narrative with the journals of the expedition, and i find the most contested passages of the story (nor did i ever hear of any more than one or two little circumstantial passages contested, as carrying a sound a little too rhetorical; but, i say, i find them) to be the very express words thereof, contained in those journals; and more than so, that very credible persons, concerned therein, have readily offered their depositions upon oath, to the truth of what is written. so i take my leave of that history, and of sir william phipps, the memorable subject of that history, whom i leave under this epitaph. bonus non est, qui non ad invidiam usque bonus est. [a digression.] reader, since we can give no better an account, of the last english expedition to canada, why may we not for a minute or two, refresh ourselves, with a story of an old one. in the very year, when the massachusett-colony began, the english attempted the conquest of canada, and though the first attempt miscarried, the second prospered. the story of it, makes a chapter, in father hennepins account of the vast country lately discovered, betwixt canada, and mexico: and this is the sum of it. while a colony was forming itself at canada, an english fleet was equipped, in the year, 1628. under the command of admiral kirk, with a design to take possession of that country. in their vogage, having taken a french ship, at the isle percee, they sailed up the river, as far as tadousac, where they found a bark, in which they set ashore some soldiers, to seize on cape tourment. and here a couple of savages discovering them, ran away to advise the people of quebeck, that the english were approaching. when the fleet arrived, the admiral summoned the town to surrender by a letter to monsieur champelin, the governor; but the governor notwithstanding his being so surprised with the invasion, made such a resolute answer, that the english, (though as the historian says, they are a people that will sooner die than quit what they once undertake) did conclude the fort quebeck, was in a much better condition for defence than it really was; and therefore desisting from any further attempt at this time, they returned into england, with resolution further to pursue their design at a more favourable opportunity. accordingly, on july 19 1629. in the morning, the english fleet appeared again, over against the great bay of quebeck, at the point of the isle of orleans; which fleet consisted of three men of war, and six other vessels. admiral kirk sending a summons formed in very civil expressions, for the surrender of the place, the miserable state of the country, which had been by the english interceptions, hindered of supplies from france, for two years together, obliged the sieur champelin to make a softer answer, than he did before. he sent father joseph le charon, aboard the admiral to treat about the surrender, and none of his demands for fifteen days, and then for five days, time to consider on't, could obtain any longer time, than till the evening, to prepare their articles. upon the delivery of this message, a council was held, wherein some urged, that the english had no more than two hundred men, of regular troops aboard, and some others which had not much of the air of soldiers; and that the courage of the inhabitants was much to be relied upon, and therefore it was best for to run the risk of a siege: but monsieur champelin, apprehending the bravery of the english, remonstrated unto the council, that it was better to make a surrender on good terms, than be all out in pieces by an unreasonable endeavour to defend themselves. upon this, the articles regulating all matters, were got ready, and father joseph had his commission, to carry them aboard the english admiral, where the signing of them was deferred until to morrow. on july 20. the articles of capitulation were signed, on both sides, and the english being landed, were put in possession of canada, by the governor of it. the french inhabitants, who were then in the country, had twenty crowns a piece given them, the rest of their effects remained unto the conquerors, but those who were willing to stay, were favoured by the english with great advantages. the fleet set sail again for england, sept. 14. and arrived at plymouth, octo. 18. in that year. article. ix. casco lost. when the indians at last perceived that the new englanders were upon a likely design to swallow up the french territories, the prospect of it began to have the same operation upon them, that the success of the design, would have made perpetual; that is, to dispirit them, for giving the new englanders any further molestations. nevertheless, before and until, they were thoroughly advised of what was a doing, and likely to be done, they did molest the country with some tragical efforts of their fury. captain james convers was marching through the vast wilderness, to albany, with some forces, which the massachusets colony were willing to send by land (besides what they did send by sea unto quebeck,) for the assistence of the army, in the west, that was to go from thence over the lake, and there fall upon mount real: but unhappy tidings out of the east required the diversion of those forces thither. about the beginning of may, the french and indians, between four and five hundred, were seen at casco, in a great fleet of canoes passing over the bay: but not seeing or hearing any more of them, for two or three weeks together, the casconians flattered themselves with hopes, that they were gone another way. but about may 16 those hopes were over; for one gresson, a scotchman, then going out early, sell into the mouths of these hungry savages. it proved no kindness to casco, tho' it proved a great one to himself, that a commander so qualified, as captain willard, was called off, two or three days before. but, the officers of the place, now concluding, that the whole army of the enemy, were watching for an advantage to surprise the town, resolved that they would keep a strict watch, for two or three days, to make some further discovery, before they salleyed forth. notwithstanding this, one lieut. clark, with near thirty of their stoutest young men, would venture out, as far as the top of an hill, in the entrance of the wood, half a mile distant from the town. the outlet from the town to the wood, was through a lane, that had a fence on each side, which had a certain block-house at one end of it: and the english were suspicious, when they came to enter the lane, that the indians were lying behind the fence, because the stood staring that way, and would not pass into the wood as they use to do. this mettlesome company, than ran up to the fence, with an, huzzab! thinking thereby to discourage the enemy, if they should be lurking there: but the enemy were so well prepared for them, that they answered them with an horrible vengeance, which killed the lieutenant, with thirteen more upon the spot, and the rest escaped with much ado unto one of the garrisons. the enemy then coming into town, beset all the garrisons at once, except the fort; which were manfully defended, so long as their ammunition lasted; but that being spent, without a prospect of a recruit, they quitted all the four garrisons, and by the advantage of the night, got into the fort. upon this, the enemy setting the town on fire, bend their whole force against the fort, which had hard by it, a deep gully, that contributed not a little unto the ruin of it: for, the besiegers getting into that gully, lay below the danger of our guns. here the enemy began their mine, which was carried so near the walls, that the english, who by fight five days and four nights, had the greatest part of their men killed and wounded, (captain laurence mortally, among the rest,) began a parley with them. articles were agreed, that they should have liberty to march unto the next english town, and have a guard for their safety in their march; and the french commander, lifting up his hand, swore by the everlasting god, for the performance of these articles. but the agreement was kept, as those that are made with hugonots use to be: the english being first admonished, by the french, that they were all rebels, for proclaiming the prince of orange their king, were captived, and many of them cruelly murdered by the indians: only some of them (and particularly, major davis,) were carried unto canada, where the gentry, very civilly treated them. the garrisons at papoodack, spurwink, black point, and blue point, were so disanimated at these disasters, that, without orders they drew off immediately, to saco, twenty miles, within casco, and from saco in a few days also they drew off to wells, twenty miles within the said saco; and about half wells drew off as far as lieut. storers. but the arrival of orders and soldiers from the government, stopped them from retiring any further, and hope hood, with a party that stayed for further mischief, meeting with some resistance here, turned about, and having first had a skirmish with captain sherborn, they appeared the next lord's day at newichawannick, or, barwick, where they burnt some houses, and slew a man. three days alter, they came upon a small hamlet, on the south side of piscataqua river, called, fox point, and besides the burning of several houses, they took half a dozen, and killed more than a dozen, of the too securely ungarrisoned people: which it was as easy to do, as to have spoilt an ordinary hen roost. but captain floyd, and capt. greenleaf, coming upon those indians, made some slaughter among them, recovered some captives, with much plunder, and bestowed a good wound upon hope-hood, who left his gun, [villian! thou shalt not escape so: there must quickly be another stroke upon thee!] (which was next his life) in this action. all that shall further belong to this paragraph of our story, is, that when the indians were got into the woods, they made one goody stockford their messenger, to her neighbours, whose charity she so well solicited, that she got a shalop full of it unto casco, where the indians permitted us to redeem several of the prisoners. article. x. harm watched, and catched by the indians, and several rare instances of mortal wounds upon the english, not proving mortal. that memorable tiger, hope-hood, (called also, wohawa,) finding the coast hereabouts too hot for him, went away with his crew, a great way to the westward, with a design to bewitch another crew at aquadocta into his assistence. here a party of french indians, by a strange mistake, supposing hope hood, & his wretches, to have been the indians, who had lately done some spoil upon them at canada, furiously fell upon them, and in their blind fury slew him, and a considerable part of his company. so, we have now done with him! ●n the mean time, some other indians came upon an helpless place, called, spruce creek, and killed an old man, and carried a woman into captivity; but tho' captain convers pursued 'em three days, they were too nimble for him. on july, 4 eight or nine persons working in a field, at a place called, lampereel river, the scythe of death, unhappily mowed them down, in that field of blood: the indians by surprise, killed 'em all, and carried a lad captive. about this time, a council of war, was called, at portsmouth, by which 'twas thought adviseable, to send out captain wiswel, with a considerable scout for to scour the woods, as far as casco: and it being resolved, that one of the other captains with about fourscore stout men should accompany captain wiswal in this action, they all with such a generous emulation offered it, that it was necessary to determine it by a lot, which fell upon captain floyd. on july 4. assisted with lieut. andrews, and a detachment of twenty two men from wells, they took their march from quochecho, into the woods. but the day following, the enemy set upon captain hiltons' garrison in exeter, which lieut. bancroft, then posted at exeter, with the loss of a few of his men, relieved. at this time, there happened a remarkable thing. i know not whether the story told by plato be true, that one herus armenius (whom clemens will have to be zoroaster) being slain in war, lay ten days among the dead, and then being brought away, and on the twelfth day laid on the funeral pile, he came to life again. but it is true, that one simon stone being here wounded with shot, in nine several places, lay for dead, (as it was time!) among the dead. the indians coming to strip him, attempted, with two several blows of an hatchet at his neck, to cut off his head, which blows added, you may be sure, more enormous wounds unto those portholes of death, at which the life of the poor man, was already running out, as fast as it could. being charged hard by lieut. bancroft, they left the man, without scalping him; and the english now coming to bury the dead, one of the soldiers perceived this poor man to fetch a gasp: whereupon an irish fellow then present, advised 'em, to give him another dab with an hatchet, and so bury him with the rest. the english detesting this barbarous advice, lifted up the wounded man, and poured a little fair water into his mouth, at which he coughed; then they poured a little strong water alter it, at which he opened his eyes. the irish fellow was ordered now to hale a canoe ashore, to carry the wounded men up the river, unto a cheirurgeon; and as teague was foolishly pulling the canoe ashore, with the cock of his gun, while he held the muzzle in his hand, his gun went off, and broke his arm, whereof he remains a cripple to this day: but simon stone was thoroughly cured, and is at this day a very lusty man, and as he was born with two thumbs on one hand, his neighbours have thought him to have at least as many hearts as thumbs! reader, let us leave it now unto the sons of aesculapius, to dispute out the problem, what wounds are to be judged mortal? the sovereign arbiter of life and death, seems to have determined it, that no wounds are mortal, but such as he shall in his holy providence actually make so. on the one side, let it be remembered, that a scratch of a comb has proved mortal; that the incomparable anatomist spigelius, at the wedding of his daughter, gathering up the relics of a broken glass, a fragment of it scratched one of his fingers; and all his exquisite skill in anatomy, could not prevent its producing an empyema, that killed him: that colonel rossiter, cracking a plumbstone with his teeth, broke his tooth, and lost his life; that the lord fairfax, cutting a corn, in his foot, cut asunder the thread of his life; that mr. fowler, a vintner, playing with his child, received a little scratch of a pin, which turned unto a gangrene, that cost him his life. and, reader, let the remembrance of such things, cause thee to live, preparing for death continually. but then, on the other side, that nothing may be despaired of, remember simon stone. and besides him, i call to remembrance, that the indians making an assault upon deerfield in this present war, they struck an hatchet some inches into the skull of a boy there, even so deep, that the boy felt the force of a wre●ch used by 'em to get it out. there he lay a long while weltering in his blood; they found him, they dressed him, considerable quantities of his brain came out from time to time, when they opened the wound; yet the lad recovered, and is now a living monument of the power and goodness of god. and in our former war, there was one jabez musgrove, who tho' he were shot by the indians, with a bullet, that went in at his ear, and went out at his eye, on the other side of his head; and a brace of bullets, that went in to his right side, a little above his hip, and passing through his body within the back bone, went out at his left side; yet he recovered, and lived many years after it. article xi. a worthy captain dying in the bed of honour. on july 6. lord's day, captain floyd, and captain wiswell, sent out their scouts, before their breakfast, who immediately returned, with tidings of breakfast enough provided for those, who had their stomach sharp set for fight: tidings of a considerable track of the enemy, going to the westward. our forces vigorously followed the track, till they came up with the enemy, at a place called wheelrights pond; where they engaged 'em in a bloody action for several hours. the manner of the fight here, was as it is at all times, with indians; namely what your artists at fight do call, a la disbandad: and here, the worthy captain wiswel, a man worthy to have been shot (if he must have been shot,) with no gun interior to that at florence, the barrel whereof is all pure gold, behaving himself with much bravery, sold his life, as dear as he could; and his lieutenant flag, and sergeant walker, who were valiant in their lives, in their death were not divided. fifteen of ours were slain, and more wounded; but how many of the enemy, 'twas not exactly known, because of a singular care used by them in all their battles, to carry off their dead, tho' they were forced now to leave a good number of them on the spot. captain floyd maintained the fight, after the death of captain wiswal, several hours, until so many of his tired and wounded men drew off, that it was time for him to draw off also; for which he was blamed perhaps, by some that would not have continued at it so long as he. hereupon captain convers repaired, with about a score hands to look after the wounded men, and finding seven yet alive, he brought 'em to the hospital, by sun-rise the next morning. he then returned with more hands, to bury the dead, which was done immediately; and plunder left by the enemy at their going off, was then also taken by them. but the same week, these rovers made their descent as far as amesbury, where captain foot being ensnared by them, they tortured him to death; which disaster of the captain, was an alarm to the town, and an effectual word of command, causing 'em to fly out of their beds into their garrisons; otherwise they had all undoubtedly before the next morning slept their last: their beds would have been their graves. however, the enemy killed three persons, burnt three houses, butchered many ; and so, that scene of the tragedy being over, away they went. in fine; from the first mischief done, at lampereel river, to the last at amesbury, all belonged unto one indian expedition, in which, though no english places were taken, yet forty english people were cut off. article xii. an indian fort or two, taken, and some other actions. reader, i remember the prolixity of guicciardine, the historian, gave such offence, that boccalini, brings in an offender at verbosity, ordered for his punishment by the judges at parnassus, to read that punctual historian; but the poor fellow begged rather to be flayed alive, than to be tortured with reading an historian, who in relating the war between the florentines and pisans, made longer narrations, about the taking of a pigeon house, than there needed of the most fortified castle in the world. for this cause, let me be excused, reader, if i make short work; in our story, and leave the honest actors themselves to run over circumstances more at large, with their friends by the fireside. the enemy appearing a little numerous and vexatious, the government sent more forces to break up the enemy's quarters; and auxiliaries both of english and indians, under the command of major church, assisted the enterprise. about three hundred men, were dispatched away upon this design, in the beginning of september, who landed by night in casco bay, at a place called, macquoit, and by night marched up to pechypscot fort; where, from the information of some escaped captives, they had an expectation to meet with the enemy; but found that the wretches were gone farther a field. they then marched away for amonoscoggin fort, which was about forty miles up the river, and wading through many difficulties, whereof one was a branch of the river itself, they met with four or five savages, going to their fort, with two english prisoners. they saved the prisoners, but could not catch the savages; however, on the lordsday they got up to the fort undiscovered, where to their sorrowful disappointment, they found no more than one and twenty of the enemy, whereof they took and slew twenty. they found some considerable store of plunder, and rescued five english captives, and laid the fort in ashes: but one disaster they much complained of; that the captain of the fort, whose name was agamcus, alias, great tom, slipped away from the hands of his too careless keepers. but if this piece of carelessness did any harm, there was another which did some good: for, great tom having terribly scared a party of his countrymen, with the tidings of what had happened; and an english lad in their hands also telling some truth unto them, they betook themselves to such a flight, in their fright, as gave one mr. anthony bracket, than a prisoner with 'em, an opportunity to fly fourscore miles another way. our forces returning to mackquoit, one of our vessels was there carelessly run a ground, and compelled thereby to stay for the next tide: and mr. bracket, had been miserably a ground, if it had not so fell out; for he thereby got thither before she was afloat; otherwise he might have perished, who was afterwards much improved in service against the murderers of his father. arriving at winter harbour, a party of men were sent up the river, who coming upon a parcel of the mankeen wolves, then hunted for, killed some of them, and siezed most of their arms, and stores, and recovered from them an english man, who told them, that the enemy were intending to rendezvous on pechypscot plain, in order to an attempt upon the town of wells. upon this, they re embarked for macquoit, and repaired as fast as they could unto pechypscot plain, and being divided into three parties, they there waited for the approach of the enemy. but being tired with one of the three italian miseries, waiting for those who did not come, they only possessed themselves of more plunder there hid by the enemy, and returned unto casco-harbor. the enemy it seems dogged their motions; and in the night they made a mischievous assault upon such of the english army, as were too remiss, in providing for their own safety, in their going ashore; killing, five of our plymouth-friends, who had lodged themselves in an house, without commanders or sentinels. the english as soon as the light of the day, (which was the lordsday, sept. 21.) gave 'em leave, quickly ran upon the enemy, and eased the world of some of them, and made the rest scamper from that part of the world, and got many of their canoes, and not a little of their ammunition, and their best furniture for the winter. the army was after this dismissed; only an hundred men, were left, with captain convers, and lieutenant plaisted, who spent their time, as profitably as they could, in scouting about the frontiers, to prevent surprisals, from an enemy which rarely did annoy, but when they could surprise. article. xiii. a flag of truce. new-england was now quite out of breath! a tedious, lingering, expensive defence against an ever approaching, and unapproachable adversary had made it so. but nothing had made it more so, than the expedition to canada; which had exhausted its best spirits, and seemed its ultimus conatus. while the country was now in too great amazements to proceed any farther in the war, the indians themselves entreat them to proceed no farther. the indians came in to wells, with a flag of truce: and there ensued some overtures, with the english commissioners, major hutchinson, and captain townsend sent from boston, to join with some others at wells. at length a meeting was appointed and obtained at sagadehock, nou. 23. where the redemption of ten english captives was accomplished; one of whom, was one mrs. hull, whom the indians were very loath to part withal, because being able to write well, they made her serve them in the quality of a secretary: another was named nathanael white, whom the barbarous cannibals had already tied unto a stake, & cut off one of his ears, and made him eat it raw, and intended for to have roasted the rest of him alive: the poor man, being astonished at his own deliverance! at last, they signed articles, dated, nou. 29. 1691. wherein they engaged, that no indians, in those parts of the world, should do any injury, to the persons or estates, of the english, in any of the english colonies, until the first of may, next ensuing; and that on the said first of may, they would bring in to storers garrison at wells all the english captives in their hands, and there make, and sign, and seal articles of peace with the english; and in the mean time give seasonable advice of any plots, which they might know the french to have against them. to this instrument were set the paws, of edgeremet, and five more of their sagamores, and noblemen. but as it was not upon the firm land, but in their canoes upon the water, that they signed and sealed this instrument; so reader, we will be jealous, that it will prove but a fluctuating, and unstable sort of a business; and that the indians will do a , as they use to do. however, we will dismiss all our soldiers to their several homes, leaving only captain convers to keep wells in some order, until the first of may, do show, whether any more than a mere flag of truce be yet shown unto us. article. xiv. remarkable encounters. at the day appointed, there came to the place, mr. danforth, mr. moodey, mr. vaughan, mr. brattle, and several other gentlemen, guarded with a troop, to see how the frenchified indians, would keep their faith with the heretics of new-england. the indians being poor musicians for keeping of time, came not according to their articles, and when captain convers had the courage to go fetch in some of them, they would have made a lying excuse, that they did not know the time. they brought in two captives, and promised. that in twenty days more, they would bring in to captain convers all the rest: but finding that in two and twenty days they came not, with much concern upon his mind, he got himself supplied, as fast as he could, with five and thirty men, from the county of essex. his men were not come half an hour to storers house, on june 9 1691. nor had they got their indian weed fairly lighted into their mouths, before fierce moxus, with two hundred indians, made an attacque upon the garrison. this recruit of men, thus at the very nick of time, saved the place; for moxus meetting with a brave repulse, drew off; and gave modockawando cause to say, (as a captive afterwards related it) my brother moxus ba's missed it now, but i will go myself the next year, and have the dog convers out of his hole. about this time, the enemy slew two men at berwick, two more at exeter, and the biggest part of nine, loading a vessel at cape nidduck. but about the latter end of july, we sent out a small army, under the command of captain march, captain king, captain sherburn, and captain walton, (convers lying sick all summer, had this to make him yet more sick, that he could have no part in these actions,) who landing at macquoit, marched up to pechypscot, but not finding any signs of the enemy, marched down again. while the commanders were waiting ashore, till the soldiers were got aboard, such great numbers of indians poured in upon them, that tho' the commanders wanted not for courage or conduct, yet they found themselves obliged, with much ado, (and not without the death of worthy captain sherburn) to retire into the vessels, which then lay aground. here they kept pelting at one another all night; but unto little other purpose, than this, which was indeed remarkable: that the enemy was at this time going to take the isle of shoales, and no doubt, had they gone, they would have taken it, but having exhausted all their ammunition on this occasion, they desisted from what they designed. for the rest of the year, the compassion of heaven towards distressed new-england, kept the indians under a strange inactivity; only, on sept. 28. seven persons were murdered and captived, at berwick; and the day following, thrice seven, of sandy-beach: on octob. 23. one goodridge, and his wife, were murdered at newberry, and his children captived: and the day following, the like fate befell a family at haverhil. and this year, a very good strong fort, at cape nidduck, owned by a widow, was unhappily deserted; after which, the enemy came, and burned the houses in it. article. xv. the martyrdom of mr. shubael dummer, with the fate of york. but the winter must not pass over, without a storm of blood! the popish indians, after long silence and repose, in their inaccessible kennels, which made our frontier towns, a little remit their tired vigilance, did, janu. 25. 1691. set upon the town of york, where the inhabitants were in their unguarded houses, here and there scattered, quiet and secure. upon the firing of a gun by the indians, which was their signal, the inhabitants looked out, but unto their amazement, found their houses to be invested with horrid savages, who immediately killed many of those unprovided inhabitants, and more they took prisoners. this body of indians, consisting of divers hundreds, then sent in their summons, to some of the garrisoned houses; and those garrisons whereof some had no more than two or three men in them, yet being so well manned, as to reply, that they would spend their blood unto the last drop, they would surrender; these cowardly miscreants had not mettle enough to meddle with 'em. so they retired into their howling thickets, having first murdered about fifty, and captived near an hundred, of that unhappy people. in this calamity, great was the share, that fell to the family of mr. shubael dummer, the pastor of the little flock thus preyed upon those bloodhounds, being set on by some romish missionaries, had long been wishing, that they might em●r●e their hands, in the blood of some new english minister; and in this action, they had their diabolical satisfaction. our dummer, the minister of york, was one, of whom, for his exemplary holiness, humbleness, modesty, industry, and fidelity, the world was not worthy. he was a gentleman well-descended, well-tempered, well-educated; and now short of sixty years of age. he might have taken for his coat of arms, the same that the holy martyr hooper prophetically did, a lamb in a flaming bush, with rays from heaven shining ●n it. he had been solicited with many temptations, to leave his place, when the clouds grew thick and black, in the indian hostilities, and were like to break upon it; but he chose rather, with a paternal affection to stay amongst those, who had been, so many of them, converted and edified by his ministry; and he spent very much of his own patramony to subsist among them, when their distresses made them unable to support him, as otherwise they would have done. in a word, he was one that might, by way of eminency, be called, a good man. this good man was just going to take horse, at his own door, upon a journey in the service of god, when the tigers, that were making their depredations upon the sheep of york, seized upon this their shepherd; & they shot him so, that they left him dead among the tribe of abel, on the ground. thus was he, as ambrose in his elegant oration, de obitu fratris, expresses it, non nobis ereptus, sed periculis. his wife they carried into captivity, where through sorrows and hardships among those dragons of the desert, she also quickly dyed; and his church, as many of them, as were in that captivity, endured this, among other anguishes, that on the next lord day, one of the tawnies, chose to exhibit himself unto them, [a devil as an angel of light!] in the , whereof they had stripped the dead body of this their father. many were the tears, that were dropped throughout new-england, on this occasion; and these among the rest: for, tho' we do not, as tradition tells us, the antediluvians did use to do, by the blood of abel, yet we cannot but mournfully, sing of the blood of such an abel. epitaph. dvmmer, the shepherd sacrificed, by wolves, because the sheep he prized. the orphan's father, church's light, the love of heaven, of hell the spite. the countries gapman, and the face, that shone, but knew it not, with grace. hunted by devils, but relieved by angels, and on high received. the martyred pelican, who bled rather than leave his charge unfed. a proper bird of paradise, shot, and flown thither in a trice. lord, hear the cry of righteous dummers' wounds ascending still against the savage hounds, that worry thy dear flocks; and let the cry add force to theirs, that at thine altar lie. to complete the epitaph of this good man, there now needs no more, than the famous old chancers motto, mors mihi aerumnarum requies. article. xvi. the memorable action at wells. a vessel, the name whereof i know not, [reader, let it be, the charity,] being immediately dispatched unto sagadehock, by the charitable compassions of the more southward neighbours, with effects to accomplish it, happily effected the redemption of many that were taken captives at york. but the rest of the people in that broken town, talking of drawing off, the government sent captain convers and captain greenleaf, with such encouragements unto them, to keep their station, as prevailed with 'em still to stand their ground. in february major hutchinson, was made commander in chief, & forces under the command of captain convers, captain floyd, and captain thaxter, were by him so prudently posted, on the frontiers, that by mentaining a continual communication, it became a difficult thing for the enemy to make any more approaches. lieutenant wilson particularly hearing of a man shot at, in quochecho-woods, went out with a scout of about eighteen men, who came upon the indians that had shot at the man; and killed and wounded all but one, of the whole company. but now, reader, the longest day in the year is come on, and, it i mistake not, the bravest act in the war, fell out upon it. modockawando is now come, according to his promise a twelve month ago. captain convers, was lodged in storers garrison at wells, with but fifteen men; and there came into wells, two sloops, with a shallop, which had aboard supplies of ammunition for the soldiers, and contribution for the needy. the this day came frighted, and bleeding but of the woods, which was a more certain omen of indians a coming, than all the prodigies that livy reports of the sacrificed oxen. convers immediately issued out his commands unto all quarters, but especially to the sloops just then arrived. the sloops were commanded by samuel storer, and james gouge, and gouges being two miles up the river, he wisely brought her down undiscovered, unto storers, by the advantage of a mist then prevailing. a careful night, they had on't! the next morning, before daylight, one john diamond, a stranger that came in the shallop on a visit, came to captain conver's garrison, where the watch invited him in; but he chose rather to go aboard the sloops, which were little more than a gun-shot off; and, alas, the enemy issuing out from their lurking places, immediately seized him, and haled him away by the hair of the head, (in spite of all attempts used by the garrison, to recover him) for an horrible story, to be told by'nd by concerning him. the general of the enemy's army was monsieur burniff; and one monsieur labrocree was a principal commander; (the enemy said, he was lieutenant general:) there were also divers other frenchmen of quality; accompanied with modockawando, and moxus, and egeremet, and warumbo, and several more indian sagamores; the army made up in all, about five hundred men, or fierce things in the shape of men; all, to encounter fifteen men, in one little garrison, & about fifteen more men, [worthily called such!] in a couple of open sloops. diamond having informed 'em, how 'twas, in all points, (only that for fifteen, by a mistake he said, thirty,) they fell to dividing the persons and plunder, and agreeing, that such an english captain, should be slave to such a one, and such a gentleman in the town should serve such a one, and his wife be a maid of honour, to such or such a squaw proposed, and mr. wheelright (instead of being a worthy counsellor of the province, which he now is!) was to be the servant of such a netop; and the sloops, with their stores, to be so and so parted among them. there wanted but one thing to consummate the whole matter, even, the chief thing o● all, which i suppose they had not thought of; that was, for heaven to deliver all this prize into their hands: but, aliter statutum est in caelo! a man habited, like a gentleman, made a speech to them in english; exhorting 'em to courage, and assuring 'em, that if they would courageously fall upon the english, all was their own. the speech being ended, they fell to the work, and with an horrid shout and shot, made their assault, upon the feeble garrison: but the english answered with a brisk volley, and sent such a leaden shower among them, that they retired from the garrison to spend the storm of their fury upon the sloops. you must know, that wells-harbour is rather a creek than a river, for 'tis very narrow, and at low water, in many places dry: nevertheless, where the vessels ride, it is deep enough, and so far off the bank, that there is from thence not leaping aboard. but our sloops were sorely incommoded, by a turn of the creek, where the enemy could lie out of danger, so near 'em, as to throw mud aboard with their hands. the enemy was also privileged with a great heap of plank, lying on the bank, and with an hay stock, which they strengthened with posts, and rails; and from all these places, they poured in their vengeance upon the poor sloops, while they so placed smaller parties of their savages, as to make it impossible for any of the garrisons, to afford 'em any relief. lying thus, within a dozen yards of the sloops, they did with their fire arrows, divers times desperately set the sloops on fire: but the brave defendants, with a swab, at the end of a rope, tied unto a pole, and so dipped into the water, happily put the fire out. in brief the sloops gave the enemy so brave a repulse, that at night they retreated: when they renewed their assault, finding that their fortitude would not assure the success of the assault unto them, they had recourse unto their policy. first, an indian comes on, with a slab, for a shield, before him; when a shot from one of the sloops, pierced the slab, which fell down, instead of a tombstone with the dead indian under it: on which, as little a fellow as he was, i know not whether some will not reckon it proper to inscribe the epitaph, which the italians use to bestow upon their dead popes; when the dog is dead, all his malice is dead with him. their next stratagem was this: they brought out of the woods, a kind of a cart, which they trimmed, and rigged, and fitted up into a thing, that might be called, a chariot: whereon they built a platform, shot-proof in the front, and placed many men upon that platform. such an engine they understood how to shape, without having read, (i suppose) the description of the pluteus in vegetius! this chariot they pushed on, towards the sloops, till they were got, it may be, within fifteen yards of them; when, lo, one of the wheels to their admiration sunk into the ground. a frenchman stepping to heave the wheel, with an helpful shoulder, storer shot him down; another stepping to the wheel, storer with a well placed shot, sent him after his mate: so the rest thought, it was best let it stand as it was. the enemy kept galling the sloops, from their several batteries, and calling 'em to surrender, with many fine promises to make them happy, which ours answered with a just laughter, that had now and then a mortiferous bullet at the end of it. the tide rising, the chariot overset, so that the men behind it lay open to the sloops, which immediately dispensed an horrible slaughter among them; and they that could get away, got as fast, and as far off, as they could. in the night, the enemy had much discourse with the sloops; they enquired, who were their commanders? and the english gave an answer, which in some other cases, and places, would have been too true, that they had a great many commanders: but the indians replied, you lie, you have none but convers, and we will have him too before morning! they also knowing, that the magazine was in the garrison, lay under an hill-side, pelting at that, by times; but captain convers, once in the night, sent out three or four of his men, into a field of wheat, for a shot, if they could get one. there seeing a black heap lying together, ours all at once let fly upon them, a shot, that slew several of them that were thus caught in that corn, and made the rest glad, that they found themselves able to run for it. captain convers was this while in much distress, about a scout of six men, which he had sent forth to newichawannick, the morning before the arrival of the enemy, ordering them to return the day following. the scout returned, into the very mouth of the enemy, that lay before the garrison; but the corporal, having his wits about him, called out aloud, (as if he had seen captain convers making a salley forth upon 'em,) captain, wheel about your men round the hill, and we shall catch 'em, there are but a few rogues of 'em! upon which the indians imagining, that captain convers had been at their heels, betook themselves to their heels; and our folks got safe into another garrison. on the lord's day morning, there was for a while, a deep silence among the assailants; but at length getting into a body, they marched with great formality towards the garrison, where the captain ordered his handful of men to lie snug, and not make a shot, until every shot might be likely to do some execution. while they thus beheld a formidable crew of dragons, coming with open mouth upon them, to swallow them up at a mouthful, one of the soldiers began to speak of surrendering; upon which the captain vehemently protested, that he would lay the man dead, who should so much as mutter that base word any more! and so they heard no more on't: but the valiant storer was put upon the like protestation, to keep 'em in good fight trim, aboard the sloops also. the enemy now approaching very near, gave three shouts, that made the earth ring again; and crying out, in english, fire, and fall on, brave boys! the whole body, drawn into three ranks, fired at once. captain convers immediately ran into the several flankers, and made their best guns fire at such a rate, that several of the enemy fell, and the rest of 'em disappeared almost as nimbly, as if they had been so many spectres. particularly, a parcel of them got into a small deserted house; which having but a board-wall to it, the captain sent in after them, those bullets of twelve to the pound, that made the house too hot, for them that could get out of it. the women in the garrison, on this occasion took up the amazonian stroke, and not only brought ammunition to the men, but also with a manly resolution fired several times upon the enemy. the enemy finding that things would not yet go to their minds, at the garrison, drew off, to try their skill upon the sloops, which lay still abrest in the creek, lashed fast one to another. they built a great fire work, about eighteen or twenty foot square, and filled it up with combustible matter, which they fired; and then they set it in the way, for the tide now to float it up, unto the sloops, which had now nothing but an horrible death before them. nevertheless, their demands, of both the garrison, and the sloops, to yield themselves, were answered no otherwise than with death upon many of them, spit from the guns of the besieged. having towed their firework, as far as they durst, they committed it unto the tide; but the distressed christians that had this deadly fire, swimming along upon the water towards 'em, committed it unto god: and god looked from heaven upon them, in this prodigious article of their distress. these poor men cried, and the lord, heard them, and saved them out of their troubles; the wind, unto their astonishment, immediately turned about, and with a fresh gale drove the machine ashore on the other side, and split it so, that the water being let in upon it, the fire went out. so, the godly men, that saw god from heaven thus fight for them, cried out, with an astonishing joy, if it had not been the lord, who was on our side, they had swallowed us up quick; blessed be the lord, who hath not given us a prey to their teeth; our soul is escaped, as a bird out of the snare of the fowlers! the enemy were now in a pitiful pickle, with toiling, and moiling in the mud, & black'ned with it, if mud could add blackness to such miscreants: and their ammunition was pretty well exhausted: so that now they began to draw off, in all parts, and with rafts get over the river; some whereof breaking, there did not a few cool their late heat by falling into it. but first, they made all the spoil they could, upon the about the town; and giving one shot more at the sloops, they killed the only man, of ours, that was killed aboard 'em. then, after about half an hours consultation, they send a flag of truce to the garrison, advising 'em with much flattery, to surrender; but the captain sent 'em word, that he wanted for nothing, but for men to come, and fight him. the indian replied unto captain convers, being you are so stout, why don't you come, and fight in the open field, like a man, and not fight in a garrison, like a squaw? the captain rejoined; what a fool, are you? do you think, thirty men a match for five hundred? no, (says the captain, counting as well he might, each of his fifteen men, to be as good as two!) come with your thirty men upon the plain, and i'll meet you with my thirty, as soon as you will. upon this, the indian answered; nay, me own, english fashion is all one fool; you kill me, me kill you! no, better lie some where, and shoot a man, and he not see! that the best soldier! then they fell to coaksing the captain, with as many fine words, as the fox in the fable had for the allurement of his prey unto him; and urged mightily that ensign hill, who stood with the flag of truce, might stand a little nearer their army. the captain, for a good reason, to be presently discerned, would not allow that: whereupon they fell to threatening, and raging, like so many defeated devils, using these words, damn ye, we'll cut you as small as tobacco, before to morrow morning. the captain, bid 'em to make hast, for, he wanted work; so, the indian throwing his flag on the ground, ran away, and ensign hill nimbly stripping his flag ran into the valley, but the savages presently fired, from an ambushment behind an hill, near the place, where they had urged for a parley. and now for poor john diamond! the enemy retreating (which opportunity the sloops took, to burn down the dangerous hay-stock,) into the plain, out of gun-shot, they fell to torturing their captive john diamond, after a manner very diabolical. they stripped him, they scalped him alive, and after a castration, they finished that article in the punishment of traitors upon him; they slit him with knives, between his fingers and his toes; they made cruel gashes in the most fleshy parts of his body, and stuck the gashes with firebrands, which were afterwards found sticking in the wounds. thus they butchered one poor englishman, with all the fury that they would have spent upon them all; and performed an exploit, for five hundred furies to brag of, at their coming home. ghastly to express! what was it then to suffer? they returned then unto the garrison, and kept firing at it now and then, till near ten a clock at night; when they all marched off, leaving behind 'em some of their dead; whereof one was monsieur labocree, who had about his neck, a pouch with about a dozen relics ingeniously made up, and a printed paper of indulgences, and several other implements: but it seems, none of the annulets about his neck, would save him from a mortal shot in the head. thus in forty eight hours, was finished an action as worthy to be related, as perhaps any that occurs in our story. and it was not long before the valiant gouge, who bore his part in this action, did another that was not much inferior to it, when he suddenly recovered from the french a valuable prey, which they had newly taken upon our coast. i doubt, reader we have made this article of our history a little too long. we will finish it, when we have remarked, that albeit there were too much feebleness discovered by my countrymen, in some of their actions, during this war, at sea, as well as on shore, yet several of their actions, especially at sea, deserve to be remembered. and i cannot but particularly bespeak a remembrance, for the exploit performed by some of my neighbours, in a vessel going into barbadoes they were in sight of barbadoss assaulted by a french vessel, which had a good number of guns, and between sixty and seventy hands. our vessel had four guns, and eight fight men. [truly such!] with two tawny servants. the names of these men, were barret, sunderland, knoles, nash, morgan, fosdyke, and two more, that i now forget. a desperate engagement ensued: wherein our eight mariners managed the matter with such bravery, that by the help of heaven, they killed between thirty and forty of the french assailants, without losing one of their own little number: and they sank the french vessel, which lay by their side, out of which they took twenty seven prisoners, whereof some were wounded, and all crying for quarter. in the fight the french pennant, being by the wind fastened about the top mast of the english vessel, it was torn off by the sinking of the french vessel, and left pleasently flying there. so they sailed into barbadoes; where the assembly voted them one public acknowledgement, of their courage and conduct, in this brave action, and our history now gives them another. article. xvii. the fort at pemmaquid. his excellency sir william phipps, being arrived now the governor of new england, applied himself, with all possible vigour, to carry on the war: and the advice of a new slaughter some time in july made by the indians, on certain poor husbandmen, in their meadows, at the north side of merrimack river, put an accent upon the zeal of the designs, which he was now vigorously prosecuting. he raised about four hundred and fifty men, and in pursuance of his instructions from whitehall, he laid the foundations of a fort at pemmaquid, which was the finest thing that had been seen in these parts of america. captain wing, assisted with captain bancroft, went through the former part of the work; and the latter part of it was finished by captain march. his excellency, attended in this matter, with these worthy captains, did, in a few months, dispatch a service for the king, with a prudence, & industry, and thirftiness, greater than any reward, they ever had for it. the fort, called, the william henry, was built of stone, in a quadrangular figure; being about seven hundred and thirty seven foot in compass, without the outer walls, and an hundred and eight foot square, within the inner ones. twenty eight ports it had; and fourteen (if not eighteen) guns mounted, whereof six were eighteen-pounders. the wall, on the south line, fronting to the sea, was twenty two foot high, and more than six foot thick at the ports, which were eight foot from the ground. the great flanker, or round tower, at the western end of this line, was twenty nine foot high. the wall on the east line, was twelve foot high, on the north it was ten, on the west it was eighteen. it was computed, that in the whole, there were laid above two thousand cart-loads of stone. it stood about a score of rods from high water mark; and it had generally at least sixty men posted in it, for its defence, which if they were men, might easily have maintained it against more than twice six hundred assailants. yea, we were almost ready to flatter ourselves, that we might have writ on the gates of this fort, as the french did over that of namur, (yet afterwards taken by k. william) reddi, non vinci potest. now, as the architect, that built the strong fortress at narne in poland had, for his recompense, his eyes put out, lest he should build such another; sir william phipps was almost as hardly recompensed, for the building of this at pemmaquid. although this fort thus erected in the heart of the enemy's country, did so break the heart of the enemy, that indeed they might have called it, as the french did theirs upon the river of the illinois, the fort of crevecoeur; and the tranquillity after enjoyed by the country, (which was very much more than before,) was, under god, much owing thereunto: yet the expense of maintaining it, when we were so much impoverished otherwise, made it continually complained of, as one of the country's grievances. the murmur about this fort, were so epidemical, that, if we may speak in the foolish cant of astrology, and, prognosticate from the aspect of saturn upon mars, at its nativity, fort william-henry, thou hast not long to live! before the year ninety six expire, thou shalt be demolished. in the mean time, let us accompany major church going with a company to penobscot, where he took five indians; and afterwards, to taconet, where the indians discovering his approach, set their own fort on fire themselves, and flying from it, left only their corn to be destroyed by him. and so we come to the end of 1692. only we are stopped a little, with a very strange parenthesis. article. xviii. a surprising thing, laid before the reader, for him to judge, (if he can) what to make of it. reader, i must now address thee, with the words of a poet: dicam insigne recens, adhuc indictum ore alio. horat. but with truths more confirmed, than what uses to come from the pen of a poet. the story of the prodigious war, made by the spirits of the invisible world, upon the people of new england, in the year, 1692. hath entertained a great part of the english world, with a just astonishment: and i have met with some strange things, not here to be mentioned, which have made me often think, that this inexplicable war, might have some of its original among the indians, whose chief sagamores are well known unto some of our captives, to have been horrid sorcerers, and hellish conjurers, and such as conversed with daemons. the sum of that story is, written in, the life of sir william phipps; with such irreproachable truth, as to defy the utmost malice and cunning of all our saducees, to confute it, in so much as one material article: and that the balant, and latrant noises of that sort of people, may be forever silenced, the story will be abundantly justified, when the further account written of it, by mr. john hale shall be published: for none can suspect a gentleman, so full of dissatisfaction, at the proceed then used against the supposed witchcraft, as now that reverend person is, to be a superstitious writer upon that subject. now in the time of that matchless war, there fell out a thing at gloucester, which falls in here most properly to be related: a town so situated, surrounded, and neighboured, in the county of essex, that no man in his wits, will imagine, that a dozen french men and indians, would come, and alarm the inhabitants for three weeks together, and engage 'em in several skirmishes, while there were two regiments raised, and a detachment of threescore men sent unto their succour, and not one man hurt in all the actions, & all end unaccountably. and because the relation will be extraordinary, i will not be myself the author of any one clause in it; but i will transcribe the words of a minister of the gospel, who did me the favour, with much critical caution to examine witnesses, not long after the thing happened, and then sent me the following account. a faithful account of many wonderful and surprising things, which happened in the town of gloucester, in the year, 1692. ebenezer bapson, about midsummer, in the year, 1692. with the rest of his family, almost every night heard a noise, as if persons were going and running about his house. but one night being abroad late, at his return home, he saw two men come out of his door, and run from the end of the house into the corn. but those of the family told him, there had been no person at all there; where upon he got his gun, and went out in pursuit after them, and coming a little distance from the house, he saw the two men start up from behind a log, and run into a little swamp, saying to each other, the man of the house is come, now else we might have taken the house. so, he heard, nor saw, no more of them. upon this, the whole family got up, and went with all speed, to a garrison near by; and being just got into the garrison, they heard men stamping round the garrison. whereupon bapson took his gun, and ran out, and saw two men again running down an hill into a swamp. the next night but one, the said bapson going toward a fresh meadow, saw two men, which looked like french men, one of them having a bright gun upon his back, and both running a great pace towards him, which caused him to make the best of his way to the garrison, where being come several heard a noise, as if men were stamping and running, not far from the garrison. within a night or two after this, the persons in the garrison, heard a noise, as if men were throwing stones against the barn. not long after this, bapson, with john brown, saw three men, about a gunshot off the garrison, which they endeavoured to shoot at, but were disappointed by their running to and fro, from the corn into the bushes. they were seen two or three nights together; but though the abovesaid strove to shoot at them, they could never attain it. on july. 14. bapson, and brown, with the rest of the men in the garrison, saw within gun-shot, half a dozen men; whereupon all the men, but one, made hast out of the garrison, marching towards them. bapson presently overtook two of them, which run out of the bushes, and coming close to them, he presented his gun at them, and his gun missing fire, the two men returned into the bushes. bapson then called unto the other persons, which were on the other side of the swamp, and upon his call, they made answer, here they are! here they are! bapson then running to meet them, saw three men walk softly out of the swamp by each others side; the middlemost having on a white wast coat. so, being within two or three rod of them, he shot, and as soon as his gun was off, they all fell down. bapson then running to his supposed prey, cried out unto his companions, whom he heard on the other side of the swamp, and said, he had killed three! he had killed three! but coming almost unto them, they all risen up, and one of them shot at him, and hearing the bullet whyss by him, he ran behind a tree, and loaded his gun; and seeing them lie behind a log, he crept toward them again, telling his companions, they were here! so, his companions came up to him, and they all ran directly to the log, with all speed; but before they got thither, they saw them start up, and run every man his way; one of them run into the corn, whom they pursued, and hemmed in; and bapson seeing him coming toward himself, shot at him, as he was getting over the fence, and saw him fall off the fence on the ground, but when he came to the spot, he could not find him. so they all searched the corn; and as they were searching; they heard a great discoursing in the swamp, but could not understand what they said; for they spoke in an unknown tongue. afterwards, looking out from the garrison, they saw several men skulking among the corn, and bushes, but could not have a shot at them. the next morning, just at day break, they saw one man come out of the swamp, not far from the garrison, and stand close up against the fence, within gun shot. whereupon isaac prince, with a long gun, shot at him with swan-shot, and in a moment he was gone out of sight, they saw him no more. upon this, bapson went, to carry news to the harbour; and being about half a mile in his way thither, he heard a gun go off, and heard a bullet whyss close by his ear, which cut off a pine bush just by him, and the bullet lodged in an hemlock tree. then looking about, he saw four men running towards him, one with a gun in his hand, and the other with guns on their shoulders. so he ran into the bushes, and turning about, shot at them, and then ran away, & saw them no more. about six men returned from the harbour with him, searching the woods as they went; and they saw, where the bullet had cut off the pine bush, and where it was lodged in the hemlock tree, and they took the bullet out, which is still to be seen. when they were come to the garrison, they went to look for the tracks of the strange men, that had been seen, and saw several tracks; and whilst they were looking on them, they saw one, which looked like an indian, having on a blue coat, and his hair tied up behind, standing by a tree, and looking on them. but as soon as they spoke to each other, he ran into a swamp, and they after him, and one of them shot at him; but to no purpose. one of them also saw another, which looked like a french man, but they quickly lost the sight of him. july 15. ezekiel day, being in company with several others, who were ordered to scout the woods, when they came to a certain fresh meadow, two miles from any house, at some distance from the said meadow, he saw a man, which he apprehended to be an indian, clothed in blue; and as soon as he saw him start up and run away, he shot at him; whereupon he saw another rise up a little way off, who also run with speed; which together with the former, were quickly out of sight; and though himself, together with his companions, diligently sought after them, they could not find them. the same day, john hammond, with several other persons, scouting in the woods, saw another of these strange men, having on a blue shirt, and white breeches, and something about his head; but could not overtake him. july 17. three or four of these unaccountable troublers, came near the garrison; but they could not get a shot at them. richard dolliver, also, & benjamin ellary, creeping down an hill, upon discovery, saw several men come out of an orchard, walking backward and forward, and striking with a stick upon john row's deserted house, (the noise of which, was heard by others at a considerable distance;) ellery counting them, to be eleven in all; dolliver shot at the midst of them, where they stood thickest, and immediately they dispersed themselves, and were quickly gone out of sight. july 18. which was the time, that major appleton sent about sixty men, from ipswich, for the towns assistance, under these inexplicable alarms, which they had suffered night & day, for about a fortnight together; john day testifies, that he went in company with ipswich and gloucester forces, to a garrison, about two miles and an half, from the town; and news being brought in, that guns went off, in a swamp not far from the garrison, some of the men, with himself, ran to discover what they could; and when he came to the head of the swamp, he saw a man with a blue shirt, and bushy black hair, run out of the swamp, and into the woods; he ran after him, with all speed, and came several times within shot of him; but the woods being thick, he could not obtain his design of shooting him; at length, he was at once gone out of sight, and when afterwards, he went to look for his track, he could find none, though it were a low miry place, that he ran over. about july 25. bapson went into the woods, after his , and saw three men stand upon a point of rocks, which looked toward the sea. so he crept among the bushes, till he came within forty yards of them; and then presented his gun at them, and snapped, but his gun missed fire; and so it did above a dozen times, till they all three came up towards him, walking a slow pace, one of them having a gun upon his back. no● did they take any more notice of him, than just to give him a look; though he snapped his gun at them, all the while they walked toward him, and by him; neither did they quicken their pace at all, but went into a parcel of bushes, and he saw them no more. when he came home, he snapped his gun several times, sometimes with but a few corns of powder and yet it did not once miss fire. after this, there occurred several strange things; but now concluding they were but spectres, they took little further notice of them. [several other testimonies, all to the same effect, with the foregoing, my friend has added, which for brevity i omit; and only add, the most considerable of these passages, were afterward sworn, before one of their majesty's council.] reverend and truly honoured sir, according to your request, i have collected a brief account of the occurrences, remarked in our town, the last year. some of them are very admirable things, and yet no less true than strange, if we may believe the assertions of credible persons. tho' because of great hast, it is a rough draught, yet there is nothing written, but what the persons mentioned, would, if duly called, confirm the truth of, by oath. i might have given you a larger account; only several who saw and herd some of the most remarkable things, are now beyond sea. however, i hope, the substance of what is written, will be enough to satisfy all rational persons, that gloucester was not alarmed last summer, for above a fortnight together, by real french and indians, but that the devil and his agents, were the cause of all the molestation, which at this time befell the town; in the name of whose inhabitants, i would take upon me, to entreat your earnest prayers to the father of mercies, that those apparitions may not prove, the sad omens of some future, and more horrible molestations to them. may 19 1693. sir, your very humble servant, j. e. now, reader, albeit that passage of the sacred story, 2 chron. 20.22. the lord set ambushments against the children of ammon, moab, and mount seir, and they were smitten: is by the best expositors thus understood; that there was the ministry of the holy angels wondrously employed in this matter; the angels in the shape of moabites and ammonites, fell upon them of mount seir, and upon this apprehended provocation they then all fell upon one another, until the whole army was destroyed: nevertheless, i entirely refer it unto thy judgement (without the least offer of my own,) whether, satan did not now set ambushments against the good people of gloucester, with daemons, in the shape of armed indians and frenchmen appearing to considerable numbers of the inhabitants, and mutually firing upon them, for the best part of a month together. i know, the most considerate gentlemen in the neighbourhood, unto this day, believe this whole matter to have been a prodigious piece of the strange descent from the invisible world, then made upon other parts of the country. and the publication of this prodigy among other wonders of the invisible world among us, has been delayed until now, that so the opinion of our most considerate gentlemen about it, might have time for a thorough concoction: and that the gentlemen of the order of st. thomas, may have no objection to make against it. but, be it what it will, they are not a few profane squibs from the sons of the extravagant bekker, that will be a fit explication, for things thus attested, and so very marvellous. article. xix. pacem, te poscimus omnes. in the year, 1693. his excellency sent away captain convers, to draw off the fittest of the officers and soldiers, quartered in the east, for a march, and causing about three hundred and fifty more to be levied, gave him, what he had merited above a year ago; even a commission of major and commander in chief over these forces. while major convers was at wells, hearing of some indians, that were seen in the woods, he surprised them all, and finding that they had cut off a poor family at oyster river, he gave the chief of them, something of what they also had merited. going to pemmaquid; after some service there, they sailed up sheepscote river, & then marched through the woods to taconet, which being deserted by the indians, they ranged through many other woods; but could meet with none of their enemies. repairing then to saco, they began another fort, which was carried on by that worthy gentleman major hook, and the truly commendable captain hill, and proved a matter of good consequence unto the province. while these things were doing, some time in july, the straggling indians did some spoil, upon quaboag, a remote village, in the road unto connecticut; but advice being dispatched unto the towns upon connecticut-river, a party immediately salleyed out after the spoilers, and leaving their horses at the entrance of a swamp, whither by their track they had followed them, they come upon the secure adversary, and killed the most of them, and recovered the captives, with their plunder; and returning home, had some reward for so brisk an action. but now, the indians in the east, probably disheartened by the forts erecting that were like to prove a sore annoyance to them, in their erterprises; and by the fear of wanting ammunition, with other provisions, which the french were not so able just now to dispense unto them; and by a presumption that an arr●y of maqua's, [part of those terrible cannibals to the westward, whereof 'tis affirmed by those who have published the stories of their travels among them, that they have destroyed no less than two million savages of other nations about them, through their being supplied with fire-arms, before hundreds of other nations, lying between them, & the river meschasippi,] was come into their country, because they found some of their squas killed upon a whortle berry plain; and all the charms of the french friar then resident among them, could not hinder them, from suing to the english for peace. and the english, being so involved in debts, that they scarce knew how to prosecute the war any further; took some notice of their suit. accordingly, a peace was made, upon the ensuing articles. province of the massachusetts bay in new-england. the submission and agreement of the eastern indians, at fort william henry in pemmaquid the 11th. day of august, in the fifth year of the reign of our sovereign lord and lady, william and mary, by the grace of god, of england, scotland, france and ireland, king and queen, defenders of the faith, etc. 1693. whereas a bloody war has for some years now past been made and carried on by the indians within the eastern parts of the said province, against their majesty's subjects the english, through the instigation and influences of the french; and being sensible of the miseries which we and our people are reduced unto, by adhering to their ill council: we whose names are hereunto subscribed, being sagamores and chief captains of all the indians belonging to the several rivers of penobscote and kennebeck, amanascogin, and saco, parts of the said province of the massachusetts bay, within their said majesty's sovereignty: having made application unto his excellency sir william phipps, captain general & governor in chief in and over the said province, that the war may be put to an end; do lay down our arms, and cast ourselves upon their said majesty's grace and favour. and each of us respectively for ourselves, and in the name & with the free consent of all the indians belonging unto the several rivers aforesaid, and of all other indians within the said province of and from merrimack river, unto the most easterly bounds of the said province; hereby acknowledging our hearty subjection and obedience unto the crown of england: and do solemnly covenant, promise's and agree to and wi●h the said sir william phipps, and his successors in the place of captain general and governor in chief, of the aforesaid province or territory, on their said majesty's behalf, in manner following, viz. that at all time and times for ever, from and after the date of these presents, we will cease and forbear all acts of hostility towards the subjects of the crown of england, and not offer the least hurt or violence to them or any of them in their persons or estate: but will henceforward hold and maintain a firm and constant amity and friendship with all the english. item. we abandon and forsake the french interest, & will not in any wise adhere to, join with, aid or assist them in their wars, or designs against the english, nor countenance, succour, or conceal any of the enemy indians of canada or other places, that shall happen to come to any of our plantations within the english territory, but secure them if in our power, and deliver them up unto the english. that all english captives in the hands or power of any of the indians within the limits aforesaid, shall with all possible speed be set at liberty, and returned home without any ransom or payment to be made or given for them or any of them. that their majesty's subjects the english, shall and may peaceably and quietly enter upon, improve, and for ever enjoy, all and singular their rights of lands, and former settlements and possessions within the eastern parts of the said province of the massachusetts-bay, without any pretensions or claims by us or any other indian●, and be in no wise molested, interrupted, or disturbed therein. that all trade and commerce which hereafter may be allowed between the english and indians, shall be under such management and regulation as may be stated by an act of the general assembly, or as the governor of the said province for the time being, with the advice and consent of the council shall see cause to direct and limit. if any controversy, or difference, at any time hereafter happen to arise between any of the english and indians for any ●eal or supposed wrong or injury done on one side or the other, no private revenge shall be taken by the indians for the same, but proper application be made to their majesty's government, upon the place, for remedy thereof in a due course of justice, we hereby submitting ourselves to be ruled and governed by their majesty's laws, and desire to have the benefit of the same. for the more full manifestation of our sincerity and integrity in all that which we have herein before covenanted and promised, we do deliver unto sir william phipps, their majesty's governor as aforesaid, ahassombamett brother to edgeremett; wenong ahewitt cousin to madockawando, and edgeremett, and bagatawawongon; also sheepscoat john, to abide and remain in the custody of the english, where the governor shall direct as hostages or pledges, for our fidelity, and true performance of all and every the foregoing articles, reserving liberty to exchange them in some reasonable time for a like number, to the acceptance of the governor and council of the said province, so they be persons of as good account, and esteem amongst the indians, as those which are to be exchanged. in testimony whereof, we have hereunto set our several marks and seals, the day and year first above written. the above written instrument was deliberately read over, and the several articles and clauses thereof interpreted unto the indians, who said they well understood, and consented thereto, and was then signed, sealed, & delivered in the presence of us, john wing. nicholas manning. benjamin jackson. egereme●t madockawando. wessambomett of navidgwock. wenohson of teconnet in behalf of moxis. ketterramogis of narridgwock. ahanquit of penobscot. bomaseen. nitamemet. webenes. awansomeck. robin doney. madaumbis. paquaharet, alias nathaniel. inrerpreters. john hornybrook, john bagatawawongo alias sheepscoat john. phill. ounsakis squaw. article. xx. bloody fishing at oyster-river. and sad work at groton. a years breathing time, was a great favour of heaven to a country, quite out of breath, with numberless calamities: but the favour was not so thankfully enjoyed, as it should have been. and now, the clouds return after the rain. the spectre that with burning tongues drove xerxes to his war upon the grecians, had not lost his influence upon our indians. the perfidy of the indians appeared first, in their not restoring the english captives, according to their covenant; but the perfidious wretches excused this, with many protestations. that which added unto our jealousies about them, was, their insolent carriage towards a sloop, commanded by captain wing; and the information of a fellow called hector, that the indians intended most certainly to break the peace, and had promised the french priests, taking the sacrament thereupon, to destroy the first english town they could surprise. rumours of indians lurking about some of the frontier-plantations, now began to put the poor people into consternation; but upon an imagination, that they were only certain beaver hunters the consternation of the people went off into security. 'tis affirmed by english captives, which were then at canada, that the desolation of oyster-river was commonly talked in the streets of quebeck, two months before it was effected; for the spies had found no town so secure as that. and now, what was talked at quebeck in the month of may, must be done at oyster river in the month of july; for on wednesday, july 18 1694. the treachearous enemy, with a great army fell upon that place, about break of day, and killed and captived, ninety four, (or, an hundred) persons; about a score of whom, were men belonging to the trained band, of the town. several persons remarkably escaped this bloody deluge, but none, with more bravery, than one thomas bickford, who had an house, a little pallisadoed, by the river side; but no man in it besides himself. he dexterously put his wife, and mother, and children aboard a canoe, and sending them down the river, he alone, betook himself to the defence of his house, against many indians, that made an assault upon him. they first would have persuaded him, with many fair promises, and then, terrified him with as many fierce threaten, to yield himself; but he flouted and fired at them, daring 'em, to come if they durst. his main stratagem was, to change his livery as frequently as he could; appearing sometimes in one coat, sometimes in another, sometimes in an hat, and sometimes in a cap; which caused his besiegers, to mistake this one for many defendants. in fine, the pitiful wretches, despairing to beat him out of his house, even left him in it; whereas many that opened unto them, upon their solemn engagements of giving them life and good quarter, were barborously butchered by them; and the wife of one adam's, then with child, was with horrible barbarity ripped up. and thus there was an end of the peace, made at pemmaquid! upon this, the friends of mrs ursula cutt, (widow of mr john cutt, formerly precedent of new-hampshire,) desired her, to leave her farm, which was about a mile above the bank exposed unto the enemy, on the south side of piscataqua river. she thanked them for their care, but added, that she believed, the enemy had now done their do for this time; and however, by the end of the week, her business at the farm would be all dispatched, and on saturday, she would repair to her friends at the bank. but, alas, before the end of the week, she saw the end of her life: on saturday, about one or two a clock, in the afternoon, the business at the farm was dispatched, sure enough! the indians then killed this gentlewoman, and three other people, a little before they had finished a point of husbandry, then in their hand. nor did the storm go over so: some drops of it fell upon the town of groton, a town that lay, one would think, far enough off, the place, where was the last scene of the tragedy. on july 27. about break of day, groton felt, some surprising blows, from the indian hatchets. they began their atta●ques, at the house of one lieutenant lakin, in the out skirts of the town: but met with a repulse there, and lost one of their crew. nevertheless, in other parts of that plantation, (when the good people had been so tired out, as to lay down their military watch,) there were more than twenty persons killed, and more than a dozen carried away. mr. gershom hobart, the minister of the place, with part of his family, was remarkably preserved, from falling into their hands, when they made themselves the masters of his house; though they took two of his children, whereof the one was killed, and the other some time after happily rescued out of his captivity. i remember, the jews, in their book taanith, tell us, the elders proclaimed a fast in their cities, on this occasion, because the wolves had devoured two little children beyond jordan. truly, the elders of new-england, were not a little concerned at it, when they saw the wolves thus devouring their children, even on this side of merrimack! article. xxi. more english blood, swallowed, but revenged. reader, we must after this, ever now and then, expect, the happening of some unhappy accident. the bloodthirsty savages, not content with quaffing the blood of two or three persons, found at work, in a field at spruce creek, on aug. 20. & of another person at york, the same day, (captivating also a lad, which they found with him;) they did on aug. 24. kill & take, eight persons at kittery. here, a little girl, about seven years old, the daughter of one mr. downing, fell into their barbarous hands; they knocked her o' th' head, and barbarously scalped her, leaving her on the cold ground, (and it was then very cold, beyond what use to be,) where she lay all the night ensuing: yet she was found alive the next morning, and recovering, she is to this day alive, and well: only the place broke in her skull, will not endure to be closed up. he had another daughter, which at the same time, almost miraculously escaped their hands. but so could not at another time, joseph pike, of newbury, the deputy sheriff of essex, who, on sept. 4. travelling between amesbury and haverhil, in the execution of his office, with one long, they both had an arrest of death served upon them, from an indian ambascado. bommaseen, a commander of prime quality among the indians, who had set his hand unto the late articles of submission, came nou. 19 with two other indians, to pemmaquid, as loving as bears, and as harmless as tigers, pretending to be just arrived from canada, and much afflicted for the late mischiefs, (whereof there was witness, that he was a principal actor,) but captain march, with a sufficient activity siezed them; as robin doney, another famous villain among them, with three more, had been seized at saco fort, a little before. bommaseen, was conveyed unto boston, that he might in a close imprisonment there, have time to consider of his treacheries, and his cruelties, for which, the justice of heaven, had thus delivered him up. when he was going to pemmaquid, he left his company, with a strange reluctancy and formality, as if he had presaged the event; and when at pemmaquid, he found the event of his coming, he discovered a more than ordinary disturbance of mind: his passions foamed and boiled, like the very waters at the fall of niagara. but being thus fallen upon the mention of that vengeance, wherewith heaven pursued the chief of the savage murderers, it may give some diversion unto the reader, in the midst of a long and a sad story, to insert a relation of an accident that fell out a little after this time. the indians, (as the captives inform us) being hungry and hardly bestead, passed through deserted casco; where they spied several horses in captain brackets orchard. their famished squas begged them to shoot the horses, that they might be revived with a little roast meat; but the young men, were for having a little sport before their supper. driving the horses into a pound, they took one of them, and furnished him with an halter, suddenly made of the main and the tail of the animal, which they cut off. a son of the famous hegon, was ambitious to mount this pegasaean steed; but being a pitiful horseman, he ordered them, for fear of his falling, to tie his legs fast under the horse's belly. no sooner was this beggar set on horse back, and the spark in his own opinion throughly equipt, but the mettlesome horse furiously and presently ran with him out of sight. neither horse nor man, were ever seen any more; the astonished tawnies howled after one of their nobility, disappearing by such an unexpected accident. a few days after they found one of his legs, (and that was all,) which they buried in captain brackets cellar, with abundance of lamentation. article. xxii. a conference with an indian-sagamore. but now bommaseen is fallen into our hands, let us have a little discourse with him. behold, reader, the troubles, and the troublers of new-england! that thou mayst a little more exactly behold the spirit of the matter, i'll recite certain passages, occurring in a discourse that passed between this bommaseen (who was one of the indian princes, or, chieftanes,) and a minister of the gospel, in the year. 1696. bommaseen, was, with some other indians, now a prisoner, in boston. he desired a conference with a minister, of boston, which was granted him. bommaseen, with the other indians assenting and asserting to it, than told the minister, that he prayed his instruction in the christian religion; inasmuch as he was afraid, that the french, in the christian religion, which they taught the indians, had abused them. the minister enquired of him, what of the things taught 'em by the french, appeared most suspicious to 'em? he said, the french taught 'em, that the lord jesus christ, was of the french nation; that his mother, the virgin mary, was a french lady; that they were the english who had murdered him; and, that whereas he risen from the dead, & went up to the heavens, all that would recommend themselves unto his favour, must revenge his quarrel upon the english, as far as they can. he asked the minister, whether these things were so; and prayed the minister to instruct him in the true christian religion. the minister considering, that the humour and manner of the indians, was to have their discourses managed, with much of similitude in them, looked about for some agreeable object, from whence he might with apt resemblances convey the idae's of truth unto the minds of savages: and he thought, none would be more agreeable to them, than a tankard of drink, which happened then to be standing on the table. so he proceeded in this method with 'em. he told ●hem, [still with proper actions painting, and pointing out the signs unto them,] that our lord jesus christ, had given us, a good religion, which might be resembled unto the good drink in the cup, upon the table. that if we take this good religion, (even that good drink,) into our hearts, it will do us good, and preserve us from death. that god's book, the bible, is the cup, wherein that good drink, of religion is offered unto us. that the french, having the cup of good drink, in their hands, had put poison into it; and then made the indians to drink that poisoned liquor, whereupon, they run mad, and fell to killing of the english, though they could not but know, it must unavoidably issue in their own destruction at the last. that, it was plain, the english had put no poison, into the good drink; for they set the cup wide open, and invited all men, to come & see before they taste; even, the very indians themselves; for we translated the bible into indian. that they might gather from hence, that the french had put poison into the good drink; inasmuch, as the french kept the cup fast shut, (the bible in an unknown tongue,) and kept their hands upon the eyes of the indians, when they put it unto their mouths. the indians expressing themselves to be well-satisfied, with what the minister had hitherto said, prayed him, to go on, with showing 'em, what was the good drink, and what was the poison, which the french had put into it. he then set before them distinctly the chief articles of the christian religion, with all the simplicity and sincerity of a protestant: adding upon each, this is the good drink, in the lord's cup of life: and they still professed, that they liked it all. whereupon, he demonstrated unto them, how the papists had in their idolatrous popery, some way or other depraved, and altered, every one of these articles; with scandalous ingredients of their own invention; adding upon each, this is the poison which the french have put into the cup. at last, he mentioned this article. to obtain the pardon of your sins, you must confess your sins to god; & pray to god, that he would pardon your sins, for the sake of jesus christ, who died for the sins of his people: god loves jesus christ infinitely, and if you place your eye on jesus christ only, when you beg the pardon of your sins, god will pardon them. you need confess your sins to none but god, except in cases, where men have known your sins, or have been hurt by your sins; & then those men should know that you confess your sins; but after all, none but god can pardon them. he then added; the french have put poison into this good drink; they tell you, that you must confess your sins to a priest, and carry skins to a priest, and submit unto a penance enjoined by a priest; and this priest is to give you a pardon. there is no need of all this: 'tis nothing but french poison, all of it. the wretches appearing astonished, to meet with one who would so fairly put them into a glorious way to obtain the pardon of their sins, and yet take no beaver skins for it: in a rapture of astonishment, they fell down on their knees, and got his hand into theirs, and fell to kissing of it with an extreme show of affection. he shaking them off, with dislike of their posture, bommaseen with the rest of them stood up; and first lifting up his eyes, and hands, to heaven; declaring, that god should be judge of his heart in what he said; he then said, sir, i thank you for these things; i resolve to spit up all the french poison; you shall be my father; i will be your son; i beseech you, to continue, to instruct me, in that religion, which may bring me to the salvation of my soul!— now, god knows, what heart this indian had, when he so expressed himself: to him let us leave it. but so much for this digression. article. xxiii. more mischiefs, in spite of treaties. except it were the falling of two soldiers belonging to saco garrison, into the hands of the enemy, who took the one, and killed the other, some time in march. 1695 many months passed away, without any action between them and us; and it is reported by returned captives, that the hand of god, reached them, when the hand of man could not find them, and a mortal sickness, did at a strange rate carry off multitudes of them. at length, upon the mediation of old sheepscoat john, once a praying indian, of the reverend eliot's catechmuens, but afterwards, a pagan, and now a popish-apostate, a great fleet of canoes came, in to an island, about a league from the fort at pemmaquid, may 20. 1695. and, after they had laid still there, all the lordsday, on monday morning they sent unto the english, for another treaty. they declared, their design was to exchange captives, and renew the peace, and condemned themselves for their violating the peace made near two years ago. eight captives, they immediately delivered up; and upon a grant of a truce for thirty days, colonel john phillips, lieut. colonel hawthorn, and major convers, were sent commissioners unto pemmaquid, for the management of that affayr. our commissioners, with good reason, demanding a surrender of all the english captives, according to former agreement, before they would allow any new propositions of peace to be offered, the indians, digusted that their idol bommaseen was left at boston, broke off the conference, and went off in discontent. advice was immediately dispatched into all parts of the eastern country, to stand well upon their guard: notwithstanding which, on july 6. major hammond of kittery, fell into the hands of the lurking indians; and the next week, two men at exeter were killed by some of the same dangerous lurkers. major hammond was now aboard a canoe, intending to put ashore at saco; but some of the garrison-souldiers there, not knowing that they had such a good friend aboard, inadvertently fired upon the canoe; and so, the indians carried him clear away. they transported him at length to canada; where he met with extraordinary civilities; count frontenack, the governor himself, nobly purchased him, of his tawny-master; and sent him home to new-england, by a vessel, which also fetched from thence a considerable number, (perhaps near thirty) of english prisoners. in august, the house of one rogers at billerica, was plundered, and about fifteen people killed and taken, by indians, which, by appearing and approaching, 'tis said, on horseback, were not suspected for indians, [for, who set them on horseback?] till they surprised the house they came to. and about the same time, sergeant haley, venturing out of his fort, at saco, stepped into the snares of death. on sept 9 sergeant march, with three more, were killed by the indians, and six more, at the same time wounded at pemmaquid, rowing a gondula, round an high rocky point, above the barbican. on oct. 7. the indians entered the house of one john brown at newbury; carrying away nine persons with them; whereupon captain greenlief, nimbly pursuing the murderers, did unhappily so stumble on them in the night, that they wounded the good man, and made their escape over the river. the captain retook all the captives; but the indians, in their going off, struck them all so violently on the head, with the clubs, which i remember a french historian somewhere calls by the frightful name of head-breakers, that they afterwards all of them died, except a lad that was only hurt in the shoulder. some of them lingered out for half a year, and some of them for more than a whole year; but if the doctors closed up the wounds of their heads, they would grow light headed, and faint, and sick, and could not bear it; so at last, they died, with their very brains working out at their wounds. but having thus run o●er a journal of deaths, for the year, 1695. let us before the year be quite gone, see some vengeance taken upon the heads in the house of the wicked. know then, reader, that captain march petitioning to be dismissed from his command of the fort at pemmaquid, one chubb succeeded him. and this chubb, found an opportunity, in a pretty chubbed manner, to kill, the famous egeremet, and, ahenquid, a couple of principal sagamores, with one or two other indians; on a lordsday, the sixteenth of february. some that well enough liked the thing, which was now done, did not altogether like the manner of doing it, because there was a pretence of treaty, between chubb, and the sagamores, whereof he took his advantage to lay violent hands on them. if there were any unfair dealing (which i know not) in this action of chubb, there will be another february, not far off, wherein the avengers of blood, will take their satisfaction. article. xxiv. still, mischief upon mischief. the next whole year, namely, 1696. had it not been for the degree of a famine, which the alteration of the course of nature in these, as well as other parts of the world, threatened us withal, would have been a year of lesle trouble, than some of the rest, in our troublesome decad. the most uneasy accident of this year, shall be told, when we arrive unto the month of august; but in the mean time, it was a matter of some uneasiness, that on may. 7. one john church of quochecho who had been a captive, escaped from the hands of the indians, almost seven years before, was now slain, and stripped, by their barbarous hands: and, on jun. 24. one thomas cole, of wells, and his wife, were slain by the indians, returning home with two of his neighbours, and their wives, all three sisters, from a visit, of their friends at york: and, on jun. 26. at several places within the confines of portsmouth, several persons, twelve or fourteen, were massacred, (with some houses burnt,) and four taken, which, yet were soon retaken; among whom, there was an ancient women scalpt for dead, and no doubt the savages upon producing her scalp, received the price of her death, from those that hired them, and yet she so recovered, as to be still alive. moreover, on july 26. the lords day, the people at quochecho, returning from the public worship of god, three of them were killed, three of them were wounded, and three of them were carried away prisoners to penobscut; which last three, were nevertheless in less than three weeks returned. but now we are got into fatal august; on the fifth or sixth day of which month, the french having taken one of the english men of war, called, the newport, and landed a few men, who joined with the indians, to pursue their business, chubb, with an unaccountable baseness, did surrender the brave fort at pemmaquid into their hands. there were ninety five men double armed, in the fort, which might have defended it against nine times as many assailants; that a fort now should be so basely given up! imitating the style of homer and virgil, i cannot forbear crying out, o merae novanglae, neque enim novangli! and yet if you read the story written by the sieur froger, how poorly st. james' fort, in africa, was given up to the french in the year, 1695. you'll say, the things done in america, are not so bad, as what have been done in either parts of the world. the enemy having demolished so fair a citadel, now grown mighty uppish, triumphed, as well they might, exceedingly; and threatened, that they would carry all before them. the honourable lieutenant governor stoughton, who was now commander in chief, over the province, immediately did all that could be done, to put a stop unto the fury of the adversary. by sea, he sent out three men of war, who, disadvantaged by the winds, came not soon enough to engage the french. by land, the indians being so posted in all quarters, that the people could hardly stir out, but about half a score of the poor people in their fields here and there were picked off, he sent colonel gidney with five hundred men; who perceiving the savages to be drawn off, only strengthened the garrisons, and returned. the lieutenant governor, that he might not in any other point be wanting, to the public safety, hereupon dispatched, colonel nawthorn, with a suitable number of soldiers, and frigates unto st. john's, with orders to fetch away some great guns that were lying there, & join with major church who was gone with forces that way, to attack the fort at st. john's, which was the nest of all the wasps that stung us: but the difficulty of the cold season so discouraged our men, that after the making of some few shot, the enterprise found itself under too much congelation to proceed any further. so we will afflict ourselves no further for this year; except only with mentioning the slaughter of about five poor soldiers, belonging to saco-fort, oct. 13. who had a discovery of the enemy, seasonable enough, to have made their escape; yet, not agreeing about the way of making it, as it led by some fatality to their destruction, or, as if they had been like the squirrels, that must run down the tree, squeaking and crying, into the mouths of the rattle-snakes, that fix their eyes upon them; they went back in to the very path, where the indian ambush was lying for them. article. xxv. a notable exploit; wherein, dux faemina facti. on march 15. 1697. the savages made a descent upon the skirts of haverhil, murdering and captiving about thirty nine persons, and burning about half a dozen houses. in this broil, one hannah dustan, having lain in about a week, attended with her nurse, mary neff, a widow, a body of terrible indians drew near unto the house, where she lay, with designs to carry on their bloody devastations. her husband, hastened from his employments abroad, unto the relief of his distressed family; and first bidding seven of his eight children (which were from two to seventeen years of age) to get away as fast as they could, unto some garrison in the town, he went in, to inform his wife, of the horrible distress come upon them, she could get up, the fierce indians were got so near, that utterly despairing to do her any service, he ran out after his children; resolving, that on the horse, which he had with him, he would ride away with that, which he should in this extremity, find his affections to pitch most upon, and leave the rest, unto the care of the divine providence. he overtook his children about forty rod from his door; but then, such was the agony of his parental affections, that he found it impossible for him to distinguish any one of them from the rest; wherefore he took up a courageous resolution to live and die with them all. a party of indians came up with him; and now, though they fired at him, and he fired at them, yet he manfully kept at the rear of his little army of unarmed children, while they marched off, with the pace of a child of five years old; until, by the singular providence of god, he arrived safe with them all, unto a place of safety, about a mile or two from his house. but his house must in the mean time, have more dismal tragaedies acted at it. the nurse trying to escape, with the newborn infant, fell into the hands of the formidable savages; and those furious tawnies coming into the house, bid poor dustan, to rise immediately. full of astonishment, she did so; and sitting down in the chimney, with an heart full of most fearful expectation, she saw the raging dragons riffle all that they could carry away, and set the house on fire. about nineteen or twenty indians, now led these away, with about half a score other english captives; but e'er they had gone many steps, they dashed out the brains of the infant, against a tree; and several of the other captives, as they began to tyre in their sad journey, were soon sent unto their long home; the savages would presently bury their hatchets in their brains, and leave their carcases on the ground, for birds and beasts to feed upon. however, dustan (with her nurse) notwithstanding her present condition, traveled that night, about a dozen miles; and then kept up with their new masters, in a long travel of an hundred and fifty miles, more or less, within a few days ensuing, without any sensible damage, in their health, from the hardships, of their travel, their lodging, their diet, and their many other difficulties. these two poor women, were now in the hands of those, whose tender mercies are cruelties; but the good god, who hath all hearts in his own hands, heard the sighs of these prisoners, and gave them to find unexpected favour from the master, who laid claim unto them. that indian family consisted of twelve persons; two stout men, three women, and seven children; and for the shame of many an english family, that has the character of, prayerless, upon it, i must now publish what these poor women assure me: 'tis this; in obedience to the instructions, which the french have given them, they would have prayers in their family, no less than thrice every day: in the morning, at noon, and in the evening; nor would they ordinarily let their children eat or sleep, without first saying their prayers. indeed these idolaters, were like the rest of their whiter brethren, persecutors; and would not endure, that these poor women should retire to their english prayers, if they could hinder them. nevertheless, the poor women, had nothing but fervent prayers, to make their lives comfortable, or tolerable; and by being daily sent out, upon business, they had opportunities together and asunder, to do like another hannah, in pouring out their souls before the lord: nor did their praying friends among ourselves, forbear to pour out supplications for them. now, they could not observe it without some wonder, that their indian master, sometimes, when he saw them dejected, would say unto them; what need you trouble yourself? if your god will have you delivered, you shall be so! and it seems, our god would have it so to be. this indian family, was now travelling with these two captive women, (and an english youth, taken from worcester, a year and half before,) unto a rendezvouz of savages, which they call, a town, somewhere beyond penacook; and they still told these poor women, that when they came to this town, they must be stripped, and scourged, and run the gauntlet through the whole army of indians. they said, this was the fashion, when the captives first came to a town; and they derided some of the faint hearted english, which, they said, fainted and swooned away under the torments of this discipline. but on april. 30. while they were yet, it may be, about an hundred and fifty miles from the indian town, a little before break of day, when the whole crew was in a dead sleep; (reader, see if it prove not so!) one of these women, took up a resolution, to imitate the action of jael upon sisera; and being where she had not her own life secured by any law unto her, she thought she was not forbidden by any law, to take away the life of the murderers, by whom her child had been butchered. she heartened the nurse, and the youth, to assist her in this enterprise; and all furnishing themselves with hatchets for the purpose, they struck such home blows, upon the heads of their sleeping oppressors, that e'er they could any of them struggle into any effectual resistance, at the feet of those poor prisoners, they bowed, they fell, they lay down; at their feet they bowed, they fell; where they bowed, there they fell down dead. only one squaw escaped sorely wounded from them, in the dark, and one boy, whom they reserved asleep, intending to bring him away with them, suddenly waked, and skuttled away from this desolation. but cutting off the scalps of the ten wretches, they came off, and received fifty pounds from the general assembly of the province, as a recompense of their action; besides which they received many presents of congratulation from their more private friends, but none gave 'em a greater taste of bounty, than colonel nicholson, the governor of maryland, who hearing of their action, sent 'em a very generous token of his favour. article. xxvi. remarkable salvations; and some remarkable disasters. besides a man taken at york, in may, and another man killed at hatfield, in june, and a third killed at groton; and a fourth with two children carried captives: there fell out more mischief, with no small mercy, on jun. 10. at exeter. the day before, some women & children, would needs ramble without any guard, into the woods, to gather strawberries; but some that were willing to chastise them with a fright, for their presumption, made an alarm in the town; whereupon many came together in their arms. the indians it seems, were at this very time, unknown to the english, lying on the other side of the town ready to make a destructive assault upon it; but supposing this alarm to be made on their account, they therefore supposed themselves to be discovered. wherefore they laid aside their purpose of attempting the destruction of the town; and contented themselves, with killing one man, taking another, and wounding a third. but on july. 4. lord's day, major charles frost, who had been a person of no little consequence to our frontiers, returning from the public worship of god, in berwick, (to repair unto which, about five miles from his own house, he had that morning expressed such an earnestness, that much notice was taken of it,) passed several more dangerous places, without any damage; but in a place, on a little plain by the turn of a path, where no danger was expected, the adder in the path surprised him; the indians having stuck up certain boughs upon a log, there mortally shot him, with two more, while his two sons, that were in the front of the company happily escaped: and the two young men, that road post unto wells, with these tidings, in their going back, had their own death added for another article of such unhappy tidings. about the latter end of this month also, three men mowing the meadows at newichawannic, were themselves cut down by the indians; tho' one of the mowers bravely slew one of the murderers. but the most important action of this year, was a little further off. about the beginning of july, major march was employed, with about five hundred soldiers, not only to defend the frontiers, but also to seek out, and beat up, the enemy's quarters. in the mean time, the lieutenant governor, apprehending an invasion from a formidable french fleet on the coast of new-england, with his accustomed prudence and vigour, applied himself to put the whole province into a posture of defence: and the militia, with the several forts, especially that of boston, (very much through the contrivance and industry of captain fairweather,) were brought into so good a posture, that some could hardly forbear too much dependence on our preparations. but, it being more particularly apprehended, that in the intended invasion, the indians, assisted by the french, would make a descent upon our frontiers by land, major march was advised therefore to employ some of his forces, in scouting about the woods. before the major arrived at york, a party of the enemy killed a man that stood centinel for some of his neighbours at work in the marsh at wells; and catching another alive, they carried him a mile and half off, and roasted him to death: but captain brackett, that followed him quite as far as kennebunk, did but almost overtake them: for truly, reader, our soldiers cannot, as antiquity reports, the old grecian, and roman soldiers could, march at a running pace or tro●, heavily loaded, five and twenty miles in four hours; but rather suspect whether those reports of antiquity be not romantic. three soldiers of saco fort, after this cutting some firewood, on cow-island, for the use of the fort, were by the indians cut off; while that lieutenant fletcher with his two sons, that should have guarded them, went a fowling; and by doing so, they likewise sell into the snare. the indians carrying these three captives down the river in one of their canoes, lieutenant larabe, that was abroad with a scout, waylaid them; and firing on the foremost of the canoes, that had three men in it, they all three fell and sank in the river of death. several were killed aboard the other canoes; and the rest ran their canoes ashore, and escaped on the other side of the river: and one of the fletcher's, when all the indians with him were killed, was delivered out of the hands which had made a prisoner of him: though his poor father afterwards dyed among them. hereupon major march, with his army, took a voyage farther eastward; having several transport vessels to accommodate them. arriving at casco-bay, they did, upon the ninth of september, come as occult as they could, further east among the islands, near a place called, corbins' sounds; and landed before day, at a place called, damascotta river: where, before half of them were well got ashore, and drawn up, the scarce-yet-expected enemy, entertained them with a volley, and an huzza! none of ours were hurt; but major march, repaid 'em in their own leaden coin; and it was no sooner light, but a considerable battle ensued. the commanders of the transport-vessels, were persons of such a mettle, that they could not with any patience, forbear going ashore, to take a part of their neighbours far; but the enemy seeing things operate this way, fled into their fleet of canoes which hitherto lay out of sight, and got off as fast, and as well, as they could, leaving some of their dead behind them; which they never do, but when under extreme disadvantages. our army thus beat 'em off, with the loss of about a dozen men: whereof one was, the worthy captain dymmock of barnstable: and about as many wounded, whereof one was captain phillips of, charlstown; and in this action, captain whiteing a young gentleman of much worth, and hope, courageously acting his part, as commander of the forces, the helpers of the war, which the colony of connecticut had charitably lent unto this expedition, had his life remarkably rescued, from a bullet grazing the top of his head. but there was a singular providence of our lord jesus christ, in the whole of this matter. for by the seasonable arrival and encounter of our army, an horrible descent of indians, which probably might have laid whole plantations desolate, was most happily defeated and at the same time, the signal hand of heaven, gave a defeat unto the purposes of the french squadrons at sea, so that they had something else to do, than to visit the coast of new-england. article. xxvii. the end of the year, and we hope of the war. o thou sword of the wilderness; when wilt thou be quiet? on sept. 11. a party of the enemy came upon the town of lancaster, then prepared for mischief by a wonderful security, and they did no little mischief unto it. near twenty were killed, and among the rest, mr. john whiteing, the pastor of the church there: five were carried captive; two or three houses were burnt, and several old people in them. captain brown, with fifty men, pursued them, till the night stopped their pursuit: but it seems, a strange dog or two, unknown to the company, did by their barking, alarm the enemy, to rise in the night, and strip and scalp an english captive-woman, and fly so far into the woods, that after two days bootless labour, our men returned. november arrived, before any farther blood shed; and then, 'twas only of one man, in the woods, at oyster-river. december arrived with the welcome tidings, of a peace concluded between england and france; which made us hope, that there would be little more of any blood shed at all. the winter was the severest, that ever was in the memory of man. and yet february must not pass, without a stroke upon pemmaquid chubb, whom the government had mercifully permitted after his examination, to retire un●o his habitation in andover. as much out of the way as to andover, there came above thirty indians, about the middle of february, as if their errand had been for a vengeance upon chubb, whom (with his wife) they now massacred there. they took two or three house, and slew three or four persons; and mr. thomas barnard, the worthy minister of the place, very narrowly escaped their fury. but in the midst of their fury; there was one piece of mercy, the like whereof had never been seen before: for, they had got colonel dudley bradstreet, with his family into their hands; but perceiving, the town mustering to follow them, their hearts were so changed, that they dismissed their captives without any further damage unto their persons. returning back by haverhil, they killed a couple and a couple they took, with some remarkable circumstances, worthy to be made a distinct history. but, reader, we are now in hast, for to have our present history come unto an end: and though the end of this year did not altogether prove the end of the war; for, on may 9 1698. the indians murdered an old man, at spruce-creek, and carried away three sons, of that old man; and wounded a man at york: yet we were not without prospect of our troubles growing towards a period: and even in that very murder at spruce-creek there fell out one thing that might a little encourage our hopes concerning it. the murderer was a famous kind of a giant among the indians; a fellow reputed seven foot high: this fellow killed the poor old man in cold blood, after he had surrendered himself a prisoner: but behold, before many hours were out, this famous and bloody fellow accidently shot himself to death, by his gun going off, when he was foolishly pulling a canoe to the shore with it. the last bloody action, that can have a room in our story is this the indians, (though sometimes, it hath been much doubted, what indians!) have in this war, made several descents upon some of the upper towns, that were our most northerly settlements upon connecticut river. but the pious, and honest people in those towns, have always given them a brave repulse, and had a notable experience of the divine favour to them, in their preservations. deerfield has been an extraordinary instance of courage, in keeping their station, though they have lived all this while in a very pihahiroth; and their worthy pastor, mr. john williams, deserves the thanks of all this province, for his encouraging them all the ways imaginable, to stand their ground. once the enemy was like to have surprised them into a grievous desolation; but he, with his praying, and valiant, little flock, m●st happily repelled them. and now, about the middle of july, 1698. a little before sun set, four indians, killed a man and a boy, in hatfield meadows; and carried away two boys, into captivity. the advice coming to deerfield in the night, they presently dispatched away twelve men, to way lay the enemy coming up the river; having first, looked up unto the lord jesus christ, that they might find the enemy, and harm none but the enemy, and rescue the children which the enemy had seized upon. after a travel of near twenty miles, they perceived the indians, in their canoes coming up the river, but on the other side of it, within a rod or two, of the opposite shore: whereupon they so shot, as to hitt one of the indians, and then they all jumped out of the canoes, and one of the boys with them. the wounded savage crawled unto the shoar; where, his back being broken, he lay in great angush, often endeavouring with his hatchet, for to knock out his own brains, and tear open his own breast, but could not: and another indian seeing the two boys getting one to another, designed 'em a shot, but his gun would not go off: whereupon he followed 'em with his hatchet, for to have knocked 'em on the head; but just as he come at 'em, one of our men sent a shot into him, that spoiled his enterprise; and so the boys getting together, into one canooe, brought it over to the friends thus concerned for them. these good men, seeing their exploit performed thus far; two indians destroyed, and two children delivered, they fell to praising of god; and one young man particularly, kept thus expressing himself; surely, 'tis god, and not we, that have wrought this deliverance! but, as we have sometimes been told. that even in the beating of a pulse, the dilating of the heart, by a diastole of delight, may be turned into a contracting of it, with a systole of sorrow: in the beating of a few pulse, after this, they sent five or six men, with the canooe, to fetch the other, which was lodged at an island not far off, that they might pursue the other indians: when those two indians having hid themselves in the high-grass, unhappily shot a quick death, into the young man, whose expressions were but now recited. this hopeful young man's brother-in-law, was intending to have gone out, upon this action; but the young man himself importuned his mother to let him go: which, because he was an only son, she denied; but then, fearing she did not well to withhold her son from the service of the public, she gave him leave: saying, see that you do now, and as you go along, resign, and give up yourself unto the lord; and i desire to resign you to him! so he goes, and so he dies; and may he be the last, that falls in a long and sad war, with indian savages! article xxviii. the epilogue of a long tragedy. for the present then, the indians have done murdering; they'll do so no more till next time. let us then have done writing; when we have a little informed ourselves what is become of the chief murderers among those wretches, for whom if we would find a name of a length like one of their own indian longwinded words, it might be, bombardo-gladio-fun-hasti-flammi-loquentes. major convers, and captain alden, in pursuance of instructions received from the lieut. governor and council, arriving at penobscet, on oct. 14. 1698. were there informed, that madockawando, the noted sagamore, with several other sachims' of the east, were lately dead. and six days after this, the chief sachims' now living, with a great body of indians, entertained them with a friendly discourse; wherein they said, that the earl of frontenac had sent them word, there was a peace concluded between the kings of france and england, and that one of the articles in the peace was, for prisoners on both sides to be returned, and they were resolved to obey the earl of frontenac as their father; and accordingly such prisoners of ours, as they had now at hand, might immediately return, if we could persuade them, for they would not compel them. when our english messengers argued with them, upon the perfidiousness of their making a new war, after their submission, the indians replied, that they were instigated by the erench to do what they did, against their own inclinations; adding, that there were two jesuits, one toward amonoscoggin, the other at narridgaway, both of which, they desired the earl of bellomont, and the earl of frontenac, to procure to be removed; otherwise it could not be expected, that any peace would continue long. the indians also, and the english prisoners, gave them to understand, that the last winter, many, both indians, and english prisoners, were starved to death; and particularly, nine indians, in one company went a hunting, but met with such hard circumstances, that after they had eat up their dogs, and their coats, they died horribly famished: and since the last winter, a grievous and unknown disease is got among them, which consumed them wonderfully. the sagamore saquadock, further told them, that the kennebeck indians, would fain have gone to war again, this last summer, but the other refused, whereupon they likewise desisted: and they resolved now, to fight no more; but if any ill accident or action, should happen on either side, he did in the name of the indians desire, that we would not presently make a war upon it, but in a more amicable way compose the differences. that the indian affairs might come to be yet more exactly understood, the general assembly of the province, employed colonel john phillips, and major convers, to settle them. these gentlemen, took a difficult and a dangerous voyage, in the depth or winter, unto the eastern parts, in the province-galley, then under the command of captain cyprian southack; and the principal sagamores of the indians there coming to them, did again renew, and subscribe the submission, which they had formerly made in the year 1693. with this addition unto it. and whereas, notwithstanding the aforesaid submission and agreement, the said indians belonging to the rivers aforesaid, or some of them, through the ill counsel and instigation of the french, have perpetrated sundry hostilities against his majesty's subjects, the english, and have not delivered and returned home several english captives in their hands, as in the said submission they covenanted. wherefore, we whose names are hereunto subscribed, sagamores, captains, and principal men of the indians belonging unto the rivers of kennebeck, ammonoscoggin, and saco, and parts adjacent, being sensible of our great offence and folly, in not complying with the aforesaid submission and agreement, and also of the sufferings and mischiefs, that we have hereby exposed ourselves unto; do, in all humble and most submissive manner, cast ourselves upon his majesty's mercy, for the pardon of all our rebellions, hostilities, and violations of our promises, praying to be received into his majesty's grace, and protection; and for, and on behalf of ourselves, and of all other the indians, belonging to the several rivers and places aforesaid, within the sovereignty of his majesty of great britain, do again acknowledge, and profess our hearty and sincere obedience, unto the crown of england, and do solemnly renew, ratify, and confirm all and every of the articles and agreements, contained in the aforesaid recited commission. and in testimimony thereof, we, the said sagamores, captains, and principal men, have hereunto set our several marks and seals, at casco bay, near mares-point, the seventh day of january, in the tenth year of the reign of his majesty, king william the third; annoque domini, 1698, 9 subscribed, by, moxus, and a great number more. in the presencee of james convers, cyprian southack. john gills, interpreter, and scodook, alias samson. at this time also, the indians restored as many of the english captives, in their hands, as were able to travel above an hundred miles in this terrible season of the year, from their headquarters, down to the seaside; giving all possible satisfaction, for the restoration of the rest, as early in the spring, as there could be any travelling. the condition of these captives, has afforded many very remarkable things, whereof 'tis a thousand pities that so many are lost. but because one of the two gentlemen employed as commissioners for the treaty with the indians, took certain minutes of remarkable things from some of the captives, i am willing to give the reader a taste of them. at mare's point in casco-bay, jan. 14. 1698, 9 the captives informed me, that the indians have three forts, at narridgawog, and narrackomagog, and amassacanty. and at each of these forts, they have a chapel, and have images in them. they informed me, that three captives in one wigwam, were starved to death last winter. marry fairbanks, and samuel hutching, and some other captives, told me, that jonathan hutching, belonging to spruce-creek, a lad fourteen years old; they met him crying for want of victuals, for in two or three days he had nothing to eat. afterward, as he was going to fetch some wood, he felt something hard in his bosom. he put in his hand, and unto his astonishment, he found there two great, large ears of indian corn, which were very well roasted. he eat them, and knew not how they came unto ●im. some other of the captives told me, that one mary catter, (which person we now brought home with us, belonging to kittery) her master and many other indians, came down to casco-bay. there seeing some sloops, or shallops, they thought they were the english coming upon them, and ran away, into the woods, and left the said mary catter very sick in the wigwam, without any thing at all to eat. they stayed away many days; but left a fire in the wigwam. she lay wishing for something to eat, and at length in came a turtle. she got that, and eat it; but afterwards began to despair of out living the famine, which was returned upon her. at length, when she was very hungry, in came a partridge; she took a stick, and struck it, and dressed it, and eat it. and by that time she was hungry again, her master came to look after her. they tell of several of the indians, that have killed themselves, with their own guns, in taking them out of their canoes. assacombuit scent thomasin rouse, a child of about ten years old, unto the waterside, to carry something. the child cried: he took a stick, and struck her down: she lay for dead: he took her up, and threw her into the water: some indians, not far off, ran in, and fetched her out. this child we have now brought home with us. this assacombuit hath killed and taken this war, (they tell me) an hundred and fifty men, women, and children. a bloody devil. thus the paper of minutes. the reader now has nothing but peace before him. doubtless he comforts himself with hopes, of time's better to live in, than to writ of! but that which yet more assures a break of day after a long and sad night unto us, is, that the best king at this day upon earth, and the greatest monarch, that ever swayed the sceptre of great britain, hath commissioned a noble person, who hath in him an illustrious image of his own royal virtues, to take the government of these provinces; and he is accordingly arrived now near our horizon. when the schools of the jews delivered, that there were three great gifts of the good god unto the world, the law, the rain, and the light; r. zeira added, i pray, let us take in peace for a fourth. all these four gifts of god, are now enjoyed by new-england: but i must now ask, that our hope of a fifth may be added unto the number; which is, a governor, of signalised virtues. to the truly noble earl of bellomont, the whole english nation must own itself indebted, while it is a nation, for the most generous and successful zeal, with which he laboured for those acts of parliament; by assenting whereunto, the mighty william, hath irradiated england, with blessings, that it never saw before his happy reign: blessings richly worth all the expenses of a revolution. england owes no less immortal statues, unto the earl of bellomont, than ireland, unto his illustrious ancestors. but the continent of america, must now share in the influences of that noble person, whose merits have been signalised on the most famous islands of europe; and the greatest person, that ever set foot, on the english continent of america, is now arrived unto it. we are now satisfying ourselves in the expectations of the great and good influences, to be derived from the conduct of a governor, in whom there will meet, — virtus et summa potestas. and now, reader, i will conclude our history of the indian war, in terms like those used by the syrian writer at the conclusion of his book; finis, per auxilium domini nostri jesu christi, mense duodecimo, per manus peccatoris pauperis et errantis. article xxix. quakers encountered. for the present then, we have done with the indians: but while the indians have been thus molesting us, we have suffered molestations of another sort, from another sort of enemies, which may with very good reason, be cast into the same history with them. if the indians have chosen to prey upon the frontiers, and out-skirts, of the province, the quakers have chosen the very same frontiers, and, out-skirts, for their more spiritual assaults; and finding little success elsewhere, they have been labouring incessantly and sometimes not unsuccessfully, to enchant and poison the souls of poor people, in the very places, where the bodies and estates, of the people have presently after been devoured by the savages. but that which makes it the more agreeable, to allow the quakers, an article in our history of the indians, is, that a certain silly scribbler, the very firstborn of non-sensicality, (and a firstborn too, that one might salute as the martyr polycarp once did the wicked martion,) one tom maule; at this time living in salem, hath exposed unto the public, a volumn of nonsensical blasphemies and heresies, wherein he sets himself to defend the indians, in their bloody villainies, and revile the country for defending itself against them. and that the venom of this pamphlet might be improved unto the height of slanderous wickedness, there hath been since added unto it, in another pamphlet, a parcel of ingredients compounded, for mischief, as if by the art of the apothecary. none but he, whom the jews, in their talmuds call, ben-tamalion could have inspired such a slanderer! have the quakers ever yet censured, this their author, for holding forth in his alcoran, [pag. 221.] that the devil, sin, death, and hell, are but nothing, they are but a nonentity: and, [pag. 183.] that all men who have a body of sin remaining in them, are witches? i have cause to believe, that they never did! nor that they ever advised him to pull in his horns, from goring the sides of new-england, with such passages as those, in [pag. 195.] the same horrible pamphlet: god hath well rewarded the inhabitants of new-england, for their unrighteous deal, towards the native indians, whom now the lord hath suffered to rew●r● the inhabitants, with a double measure of blood, by fire and sword, etc. and those unrighteous deal, he explains, to be the killing of the indians, (or murdering of them) by the old planters of these colonies, in their first settlement. thus are the ashes of our fathers vilely staled upon, by one, who perhaps would not stick at the villainy of doing as much upon their baptism itself. i must tell you, friends, that if you done't publicly, give forth a testimony to defy, tom maule, and his works, it will be thought by some, who it may be don't wish you so well, as i do, that you own this bloody stuff: which, doubtless you'll not be so ill advised as to do. but, certainly, if the good people of new-england, now make it not a proverb for a liar of the first magnitude, he is as very a liar as tom maule; they will deprive their language of one significant expression, which now offers itself unto them. let us now leave our friend maules' works, as a fit volumn to be an appendix unto the famous tartaretus, and worthy of a room in pantagruels library. the fittest way to answer him, would be to send him to boston woods! in the mean time, i own unto the public, a piece of history, which it may be for the safety of our northern towns, to be acquainted withal. know, sirs, that once the famous george keith, undertook to be the champion of our new-english quakers; and bid fair to be the very dalae, or prester john, of all the english tartars; but a minister of boston, upon that occasion, publishing a book, entitled, little flocks guarded against grievous wolves, could not but complain of it, as a very scandalous thing, in george keith, to maintain the points of the foxian quakerism, while he really differed from them. all this while, george keith was admired by our quakers, as an apostle, or, an oracle: but, he finding it impossible to mentain the gross tenets of the common quakers, preached unto them the necessity of believing on a christ without, as well as a christ within. hereupon, there grew such alienations between him, and the other quakers, (who had been taught by george fox, to say, the devil is in them, who say, they are saved by christ without them:) that he not only has written divers learned books, to confute those very doctrines of the common quakers, which the pastors of new-england had, upon his provocation, written against, but also has therefore undergone a storm of persecution, from the friends in pensylvania: yea, 'tis verily thought, that poor george would have been made a sacrifice to squire samael jennings, and the rest of the pensylvanian dragons, and that, since a crime which their laws ha● made capital, was mentioned in the mittimus whereby keith was committed, they would have hanged him, if a revolution upon their government had not set him at liberty. being by the fines, and gaols, and fierce usages of the quakers in pensylvania, driven over to england, the wonderful hand of god, hath made this very man, i think i may say, incomparably the greatest plague, that ever came upon that sect, of energumen. although he do himself still retain the name of a quaker, yet he hath in one treatise after another, earnestly called upon the divines, throughout the nation, more vigorously to employ their talants, against the quakers, as a more dangerous generation of people than they are well ware; and he did in the year 1696. with the leave of the lord mayor, challenge the quakers, to make their appearance at turner's hall, in the chief city of europe; where he proved unto the satisfaction of a vast assembly, that the chief writers of the quakers, assert christ neither to be god, nor man; and that they deny christ to be prayed unto; and that they had affirmed, christ's outward blood, shed on the ground, to be no more than the blood of another saint; and that they had charged him with new-doctrine, for directing to faith in christ without us, as well as within us; and that at their meetings, they had censured him, for saying, that christ's body came out of the grave, which they say, it never did: and many more such horrid matters. to confirm these things, besides the grievous bites which francis bugg, one of their late friends, hath given them, one daniel leeds, without wholly casting off the profession of a quaker, hath lately printed a book, wherein he produces above threescore instances, of the flat contradictions, which he hath observed in the books of the friends, that have most pretended unto infallibility; and he demonstrates from evident matter of east, that though they declared unto the world, that their sufferings had been greater, and more unjust, than the sufferings of jesus, and his apostles; yet they themselves were no sooner mounted into the seat of government, than they fell to persecuting as bad as any in the world. albeit fox writes, they that cause people to be put in prison, and have their goods taken away, are disorderly teachers, and shall be rooted out: nevertheless leeds proves by many exemples, that the pensylvanians did it, even upon their own friends, for mere scruples of their consciences. 'tis reported, the quakers are so confounded at this book of leeds, that they have been at the charge to buy up the whole impression of it, and so to stifle and smother it: if it be so, i hope 'twill but produce a new impression of so rare a book. the marvellous providence of our lord jesus christ, having thus employed, the pens of the quakers themselves, to warn you, that you beware of quakerism, it will be a marvellous infatuation in any of you, after this, to be led away with that error of the wicked. reader, make a pause, and here admire the marvellous providence of our lord jesus christ! the first and great apostle of the quakers, even george fox, the shoemaker, in his, great mystery, pag. 94. excludes from the church of christ, those who are not infallible, in discerning the hearts of other men. whereas now in spite of all their infallibility, such friends as keith (and leeds) whom they once admired, profess that they never in their hearts believed, as the common foxian quakers do; and quakerism suffers from none in the world more than these. but that i may a little suggest unto you, certain methods of encountering those adversaries of your faith, which go about, seeking whom they may deceive, and whom i do here offer to prove as horrid idolaters, as even those that worshipped the rats of egypt, if it be fairly demanded of me, i will first recite unto you, certain passages, of a discourse, which a minister of boston, had with a very busy and noisy teacher among the quakers, (and another of the friends,) in his return from his visitation unto some of our northern towns, where the giddy people, had cried him up for a none-such. quaker. we are come to give thee a friendly visit. minister. i am glad to see you, at my house; you shall be welcome to the best entertainments, my house can afford you. but will you do me the favour, to let me understand, the designs upon which you visit these parts of the country? quaker. i come to preach jesus christ. minister. excuse me— what christ, i pray? quaker. the same christ, that appeared unto abraham, and isaac, and jacob; and that appeared unto moses in the bush, and that was with israel in the wilderness.— minister. i would interrupt you. i perceive, that we shall be drawn into some discourse. matter of argument will occur, i foresee, in our discourse. argument sometimes does draw forth words that may have too much warmth in them. i purpose none such. but if you are sensible, that i do let fall any one such word, in our disputation, do me the favour, to take notice of it unto me, and i'll immediately correct it. now, if you please;— quaker. thou speakest very well. this is but according to the good report we have heard of thee. minister. friend, i am sensible, that you are come among us, to preach a religion, different from that which is commonly preached, professed, & practised in the country. if you approve the religion of the country, i can't see, where's the sense of it, for you to take such tedious journeys for our illumination. i pray, be so kind as to let me know, what point in our holy religion, you do not approve? quaker. 'tis not my business here to inquire into thy religion. i am come to preach the religion of jesus christ; the same that the holy prophets and apostles believed; even the inward manifestation of christ in our hearts,— minister. to make short work on it; i perceive you both to be that sort of people, we call quakers. now, there is among the quakers, that extreme uncertainty, variety, and contradiction, that no man, can say what you hold, any further than each individual person, will confess his own tenets. i must therefore, pray the favour of you, to tell me; do you own george fox's book, entitled, the great mystery? quaker. 'tis none of our business, to tell what books we own, and what we do not own: and it is none of thy business to ask us. i say, we own jesus christ, and his inward manifestation in our hearts. and that's enough! minister. you'll excuse me: i do again ask, whether you do own george fox's book, of, the great mystery? because doubtless you have read it. and if you'll ask me, as much concerning any book under heaven, (that i have read,) whether i own it, or, how much i own of it, i'll answer you with all the freedom in the world. quaker. i say, what hast thou to do with george fox? or, to examine me? minister. yes, friend, i do, and must, and will examine you. for you are come to hold forth unto as many of my flock, as you can. and the word of god bids me to try you. and, i have to do with george eox too: because george fox, in his writings, has to do with me. and if you will sincerely tell me, whether you own george fox, or no, i shall more probably tell, who you are. in short; if you'll say, you deny and renounce george fox, than i must go another way to work with you. if you'll say you own him, than i must endeavour to save you, from some of his damnable heresies. quaker. what heresies? minister. numberless. but i do at this time call to mind three of them. first. that the soul of man, is without beginning, and infinite. this is, if i forget not, in the 90th page of that book. secondly. that it is not contrary to the scripture, that god the father took upon him humane nature. and, that the scripture does not tell people of a trinity, nor three persons in god; but that these three persons were brought in by the pope. this is in pag. 246. thirdly. that they that are not complete in sanctification, are not complete in justification. this is in, pag. 284. now, what say ye, sirs? quaker. what hast thou to do, to rake into the ashes of the dead? let george fox alone. hast thou any thing to charge upon me? minister. i shall know, if you'll tell me, whether you own george fox or no. and you can tell me, if you will. i would be more civil to you, sirs. quaker. i never saw that book of george fox. [and so said, the other quaker, that was with him.] minister. sirs, you astonish me! what? never see george foxes book, of, the great mystery! 'tis impossible! this thing is to me, a mystery! sirs, that book is the very bible of quakerism. 'tis essential unto a quaker, at least, unto a teaching quaker, as you are, to be indoctrinated from that book. never see it, man!— however, if you say so, i must believe it. quaker. [fell into an harangue, repeating what he had preached abroad, about the country; which, because i would misrecite nothing, i dare not undertake exactly to recite in this place.] minister. i perceive our conversation, will be to little advantage, except we get a little closer to some certain point, which i have hitherto endeavoured but ineffectually. sirs, there are several points, which i would willingly bring you to. and there happening to be several of my honest neighbours at hand, i have prayed them (with your leave,) to walk in, that they may be witnesses of what passes between us. first, i'll begin, if you please, with this. i told you at the beginning, i would not willingly treat you, with one hard word. there is an hard word, which will presently occur, by the unavoidable course of disputation. i would pray you, to ease me of the trouble of speaking it. you shall yourself have the speaking of it. quaker. what's that? minister. i pray, friend, what doth the scripture say, of them that say, they know jesus christ, and yet keep not his commandments? quaker. nay, what dost thou say, the scripture says in that case? minister. you will compel me, i see.— i say then: the scripture says, he that says, i know him, and keeps not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. 'tis in 1 joh. 2.4. quaker. and what then? minister. why this then. he that says, i know jesus christ, and yet keeps not the commandments of jesus christ, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. you say, you know jesus christ. but you must give me leave to say, that you keep not the commandments of jesus christ. therefore,— pray sirs, do you help out the conclusion. i am loath to speak it. you know what it is. quaker. yes, yes. we know well enough what conclusion, thou wouldst be at: thou wouldst say, that we are liars, and that the truth is not in us. minister. right! since it must be so. quaker. but what commandment of jesus christ, is there, that we don't keep? minister. the commandment of jesus christ, is, for his disciples to be baptised with water; but you, qua●kers, do not keep that commandment of jesus christ. quaker. how dost thou prove, that jesus christ commanded baptism with water? minister. i know, you must have the word, water, or nothing will content you. else i would have urged, for a sufficient proof, our lords commanding his ministers, to baptism men, [matth. 28.19.] this command expresses our duty. 'tis not our duty to baptism men with the holy spirit. this belongs not unto us, but unto him, who's that holy spirit is. you will not say, we sin, if we don't baptism the disciples in all nations, with the holy spirit. so then, it must be a baptism with water, which is there commanded by our lord. but, as i said, you must have the word, water; & you shall have it. the apostle peter said,— quaker. the apostle peter! the apostle peter! thou wast to prove that jesus christ commanded baptism with water. and now, thou art come to the apostle peter! minister. stay, friend; not so fast! will you say then, that the commandments brought by the apostle peter, as the commandments of jesus christ, are not the commandments of jesus christ? but however, i'll mend the expression,— the spirit of jesus christ in the apostle peter, (now, i hope, it fits you!)— quaker. [j. s.] thou art a monster, all mouth, and no ears,— minister. — prithee, talk civilly, don't make me believe, that i am at ephesus. if i were in one of your houses, i would not give you such language; you had but now, a greater liberty to use your mouth, than i have hitherto taken; and my ears were patiented. but, you foresee my argument, is going to pinch you. 'tis but civility to let me finish it. quaker. thou wast to prove, that jesus christ commanded baptism with water. and thou hast not proved it. and therefore thou speakest falsely. minister. what do you mean? these little shuffles won't help you. i say, the spirit of jesus christ, in the apostle peter, after our lord's ascension, when it was impossible for john's baptism (which was into the messiah suddenly to come, not, already come,) should have place, did say, in act. 10 47. can any man forbidden water, that these should not be baptised, which have received the holy ghost? quaker. how does this prove, that jesus christ commanded these to be baptised with water? minister. thus;— if jesus christ had not commanded baptism with water, any man might have then forbidden it. but, no man could forbidden it. therefore jesus christ commanded it. quaker. therefore! therefore! argo, argo! why, dost thou think, religion is to be proved by thy th●●efore's, by thy argo's? minister. friend, i perceive, the word, therefore, is a ver● dead doing sort of a word to ye. i'll dismiss this terrible word. i'll only say, the reason, why none could forbid believers to be baptised with water, was merely because jesus christ commanded it. quaker. because; why, the word, because is as bad as the word, therefore. minister. [smiling.] it may be so. but in the mean time, you are wonderfully unreasonable! i say, why could none forbid water, for the faithful to be baptised. quaker. who says, none could forbidden water? 'tis only said, can any man forbidden water? minister. i pray, sirs; and is not this, none can. but i'll bring the matter to bear upon you, without those two dangerous words, therefore, and because; at which you are so terrified. i will put the matter into the form of a question: and your answer to this question, shall put an end, to our present velitations. quaker, what have we to do to answer thy questions? minister. my question is, whether a man might not forbid in the worship of jesus christ, what jesus christ himself hath no way commanded? you can answer this question, if you will; & i desire, i demand your answer. quaker. what? for us to answer thy questions! that would be, to ensnare ourselves. minister. i am very sensible of that. therefore, take notice, you are ensnared, in the toils of your own miserable delusions. but still, i say, answer my question. quaker. do you see, neighbours? friend m. was to prove, that jesus christ commanded baptism, and now, he's come to a question! minister. so i am truly. and, i see 'tis a question, that puts you into a sweat. i beseech you to answer it. i require you to answer it. what shall i say? i defy you to answer it. pardon my cogency; you force me to ' t! quaker. i say, how does a question prove, that jesus christ commanded baptism with water? and why dost thou baptism infants? minister. nay, i'll keep you to the question. your answer to the question, will prove it; i am designing to make you yourselves prove it. and, sirs, i do here offer to you, that i will give the best answer i can, to any question in the world, that you shall put unto me: why are you so loath to answer one short question of mine? quaker. i be not obliged to answer thy question? minister. i must contrive some fair way, to compel some answer unto this one question. give me leave therefore to tell you, that if you do not answer this question, you go away conquered and confounded. yea, sirs, i must in faithfulness tell you, that you carry away, the dreadful mark of heretics, upon you, even, to be condemned in your own conscience. you go away, self-condemned, that you don't keep the commandments of jesus christ; and therefore, that you are,— what, you remember, the apostle john said concerning you. quaker. i don't condemn thee, for using baptism with water. minister. this is no answer to the question still: for you don't observe it yourself; neither you, nor any quakers under heaven. wherefore i still urge for an answer. quaker. thou art not civil to us. is this thy civility to strangers? we have heard a great fam● of thee, for thy civil, and obliging carriage, towards others that are not of thy persuasion. but now thou are uncivil to us. that which i have to say, is, i will keep to that book, the bible, and i will preach what is in that book. minister. [taking up the bible,] friend, you pretend then to understand this book. i do here make you this offer; that i will immediately turn you to ten several places, in one book of this holy bible, [the chronicles,] and if you can give me a tolerable solution of any one of them, i'll acknowledge that you are worthy to preach out of it. quaker. canst thou do it thyself? minister. i humbly hope, i can. quaker. how dost thou know that i can't? minister. i say, you can't. now do you accept my offer: if you can, i'll own, that i have wronged you. quaker. what's that to thee, what i can do? minister. look you, neighbours: i think, 'tis to no purpose, to proceed unto any other points, with such unreasonable folks as these. you see, how ‛ tis. if you desire it, i'll proceed. neighbours. no, sir, 'tis to no purpose, they are a people of no reason. quaker. nay, friend m.— i would not have thee to be so hard upon us. i mean thee no harm. i hear, thou takest a great deal of pains for the good of thy people. and they will do well, to harken to thee. i have rebuked some of them for speaking evil of thee. yea, it is my judgement, that thou, and other such ministers as thou art, ought honourably to be maintained by the people. minister. you differ from all your friends, methinks. what? would you have us to be hirelings? 'tis very strange to hear a quaker plead for the maintenance of our ministry. but for your satisfaction, i'll tell you, the people whom i serve, i never once in all my life asked for any maintenance or salary; and i never made any agreement with them about any salary, in all my life. quaker. i say, i would not have thee too hard upon us. new england has persecuted our friends at a grievous rate.— minister. nay, friends, be not you too hard upon me, about that matter. i approve persecution, as little as any of you all. i abhor it; i have preached against it, i have writ against it, i have bewailed the mistakes that some good men have committed in it. i would have you treated with all the civility, imaginable. i would not have the civil magistrate inflict up on you, the damage of one farthing for your consciences. quaker. but now, you may see, how the judgements of god, are come upon the east country, by the indians for your persecution. minister. i can't tell that neither. for tho' i am sorry at my heart, that ever you were persecuted: yet, i can't say, that because boston was guilty of persecution, therefore newichawannic, and casc● bay, (places in other provinces,) that never had any such thing in it, must be cut off. quaker. yes, they persecuted at the east ward. there were two women, of our friends, cruel●y scourged there. minister. i suppose, you refer to a story, published by one george bishop, a quaker: he complains bitterly, of the new england persecution, because there came two quaker women stark naked, into our public assemblies, and they were carried unto the whipping post for it. this was in the northern parts of the country, as i have been told. these baggages, i believe, were the persecuted women, you talk of! quaker. well, and what if they did appear naked, to show the people the nakedness of their sins? minister. for shame, sirs, let us have no more of this talk. quaker. why didst thou treat george keith so hardly? minister. he deserved it, when i so treated him. and you quakers, have since treated him ten times worse than ever i did. you writ whole books of railing against him. i never got him into goals, and under fines. i should have been troubled at any that would have done so. but you have done it. therefore, i believe, 'tis best for you to leave that subject. and so after a few other small pulls, the saw stood still. the conference ended. there are five or six witnesses, which i have to attest unto the truth of this relation, which i have here given, of a conference, with a quaker, which had all the friends far and near wondering (as well as wand'ring) after him. and yet these cretians boasted among their friends, how much they had confounded the minister in this conference. all that i would presume now to commend unto those towns, which have such quakers annoying of them, is this brethren, carry it well, even with all convenient civility & humanity, towards this poor deluded people; while you charge your children and servants, that they do not go unto their meetings: and cast not yourselves also into temptation, by needlessly being there. but after all, yea, before all, make an experiment, which the good people at lyn made a little while ago, with a success truly observable and memorable. the quakers made a more than ordinary descent upon the town of lyn, and quakerism suddenly spread there, at such a rate as to alarm the neighbourhood. the pastor of the church there, indicted a day, for prayer with fasting, to implore the help of heaven against the unaccountable enchantment; and the good people presented accordingly, on july 19 1694. their fervent supplications, unto the lord, that the spiritual plague might proceed no further. the spiri● of our lord jesus christ gave a remarkable effect, unto this holy method of encountering the charms of quakerism: it proved a better method, than any coercion of the civil magistrate: quakerism in lyn received (as i am informed) a death-wound, from that very day; the number of quakers in that place hath been so far from increasing, that i am told, it hath since rather decreased notably. now let other endangered plantations; go, and do likewise. the quakers, are such enemies, to the holy religion, which is the life of new england, that you must excuse my concern to have you fortified against their attempts also, while i am giving you an history of your other enemies. what all of them would be at, methinks, was a little intimated by what one of them once declared. the globe tavern was near our public and spacious meetinghouse at salem: and a noted quaker there caused a paper to be set up on the door of that meetinghouse, which had such stuff as this written in it. beware, beware, and enter not: but rather to the globe, and spend a pot. this is but like a passage mentioned in the life, of that excellent man mr. p. henry, lately published. a debauched gentleman, in his revels, drinking and swearing, at malpas, was reproved by a quaker, then in his company. why, said the gentleman, i'll ask thee one question; whether it is better for me to follow drinking and swearing, or to go and hear henry? the quaker answered; nay, of the two, rather follow thy drinking and swearing. behold, the spirit of quakerism! when i once compelled a quaker to confess, that the body of jesus of nazareth risen from the grave, and went up into the heavens, he begged me that i would not improve his confession, as if made on the behalf of all his friends. and another of them, as, i hear, publicly held forth by one of his late stercorations, that the husks of the swine, on which the prodigal fed in the parable, were, the bread and wine, in that which people call, the sacrament. but what will become of those forlorn villages, that shall resign themselves to the conduct of that light within; which our sacred scriptures indeed never expressly mention but once or twice, and then call it, real darkness; and which may lead men to all this wickedness? there was among the mahometans in the eastern parts of the world, a sect called batenists, from the arabic, baten, which signifies within:) who were enthusiasts that followed, the light within, like our quakers; and on this principle, they did such numberless villainies, that the world was not able to bear them. none of all their diabolical raveries which i know i am now pulling on myself, and which i value no more, than if they came from the pouliats of malabar, shall frighten me from soliciting your christian cares & prayers, that you be not overrun with english batenists. and i must solicitously make the observation, that although such a number of quakers in our nation, be a dreadful judgement of god upon men, smiting them with spiritual plagues for their unfruitfulness and unthankfulness under the gospel; nevertheless, of a special favour of god, that the number of quakers is no greater; for if they should multiply, not only would christianity be utterly extinguished, ●ut humanity itself exterminated. it is well known, that when a quaker had stolen an hourglass, their mahomet, george fox of whom sol. eccles, in a sheet called, the quakers challenge, pag. 6. says, he was the christ,) thus vindicated it [great mist. pag. 77.] as for any being moved of the lord, to take away your hourglass from you, by the eternal power it is owned. reader, dost not thou even tremble to think, what a dark land, we should have, if it should ever be filled with these pretended followers of the light; who wear the name of tremblers? in truth, i know not unto what better one might compare them, than unto the macheveliers growing upon st. lucia; trees which bear apples of such an odour and colour as invites people to eat thereof; but it is horribly dangerous to do so; for there is no antidote that can secure a man from speedy death, who hath once tasted of them. the leaf of the trees, makes an ulcer on any place touched with it; the dew that falls from them fetches off the skin; the very shadow swells a man, so as to kill him, if he be not speedily helped. article xxx. things to come. from relating of things past, it would not doubt, be very acceptable to the reader if we could pass to foretelling of things to come our curiosity in this point may easily come to a, degree culpable, and criminal. we must be humbly content, with what the god in whose hands are our times, hath revealed unto us. two things we will venture to insert. first, for ourselves, at home, let us remember an awful saying of our goodwin, quoted by my reverend friend, mr. noyes, in his late excellent sermon at our anniversary election. as you look for storms in autumn, and frosts in winter, so expect judgements, where the gospel hath been preached; for the quarrel of the covenant must be avenged. secondly. for the church abroad, i am far from deserting, what was asserted, in the sermon preached at our anniversary election, in the year, 1696. the tidings which i bring unto you, are, that there is a revolution, and a reformation, at the very door, which will be vastly more wonderful, than any of the deliverances yet seen by the church of god, from the beginning of the world. i do not say, that the next year will bring on this happy period: but this i do say, the bigger part of this assembly, may, in the course of nature, live to see it. these things will come on, with horrible commotions, and concussions, and confusions: the mighty angels of the lord jesus christ, will make their descent, and set the world a trembling at the approaches of their almighty lord: they will shake nations, and shake churches, and shake mighty kingdoms, and shake once more, not earth only, but heaven also. unto these two things, my reader will not misimprove it, i hope, if i add a third, lately fallen into my hands; and never yet so exposed unto the public. a wonderful matter incontestably demonstrated, and much desired by some good men, to be in this place communicated. mr. john sadler, a very learned and a very pious man, and a most exemplary christian, lay sick in his bed, at his manor, of warmwell in : in the year, 1663. in the time of his illness, he was visited by mr. cuthbert bound, the minister of warmwell mr. sadler then desired his man, (one thomas grace,) to see that there should be no body else in the room, and lock the door, and give him the key. he then sat up in his bed, and asked mr. bound and the attendent grace; whether the● saw no body? and, whether they did no● hear, what a person said, that stood at the corner of the chamber? they replied, no. h● wondered at it, and said, the man spoke so loud that the whole parish might hear him. hereupon, calling for a pen and ink, h● wrote what was told him, and made them le● their hands to it; for he told them, the ma● would not be gone, till he had seen that done. the articles written down, were; i. that there would, after so many months be a plague in london, whereof so many woul● dye: [naming the number.] ii. that the greatest part of the city woul● be burnt, and paul's, he particularly show'● him, tumbled down into ruins, as if beate● down with great guns. iii. that there would be three— so● height between the english and the dutch. iv that there would appear three blazi●● stars; the last of which, would be terrible t● behold. [he said, the man showed him th● star.] v that afterwards, there would come thr●● small ships, to land in the west of weymout● which would put all england in an uproar, b●● it would come to nothing. vi that in the year 1688. there would come to pass such a thing in the kingdom as all the world would take notice of. vii. that after this, and after some further disturbance, there would be happy times: and a wonderful thing would come to pass, which he was not now to declare. viii. that he, and his man (grace) should die, before the accomplishment of these things; but mr. bound should live to see it. ix. for the confirmation of the whole, the man thus appearing, told him, that he should be well the next day; and there would come there men to visit him, one from ireland, one from guernsey, and his brother bingham. accordingly, the day following mr. sadler went abroad: and this day, there accidentally met at his house, and so dined with him, first, the lord steel, who had been lord chancellor of ireland, and now returning from thence, in his way to london, came to see mr. sadler: secondly, monsieur de la marsh, a french minister from guernsey, and lastly, his brother bingham. mr. bound, and grace, within three days after this, made affidavit of it, before colonel giles strangewayes, and colonel cocker, who is yet alive. mr. daniel sadler, and mr. john sadler, the sons of this old mr. sadler, very serious and worthy christians, are at this time living in rotterdam; one of them, is his majesty's agent for transportation. mr. daniel sadler, making his applications to mr bound, for his testimony about this matter, the said old mr. bound, in a letter, dated, warmwell, aug. 30th. o. s. 1697. asserts the matter at large ●nto him; and subscribes, this i shall testify before the king himself, if occasion be; when he comes into england. yours, cuthbert bound, yet minister of warmwell. mr. daniel sadler, has this testimony further fortified, by a letter from one mr. robert loder, telling him, that he had met with an old copy of the depositions aforesaid; which accordingly he transcribes for him; and several yet living in dorchester affirmed unto him, the truth of the story. the copies of these letters are now in boston in new-england. mr. john sadler, adds his testimony, that his father told unto his mother, and himself, that he had been told of remarkable things to come to pass, particularly, the burning of london, and paul's. but that they were not acquainted with all the matters, he foretold unto mr. bound, and grace. only he remembers well, they two were with him in his chamber alone; and his father went abroad within a day or two; and that, (according to the sign he had given to them,) the three persons aforesaid visited him. he adds, that his father spoke of leaving in writing, the things that had been shown to him; and that a little after, he saw once a thin octavo manuscript in his father's study, which he believed had those things in it: but after that, he could never find it. this testimony, is dated, in october. 1697. a worthy and a godly gentleman, at this time, living in rotterdam, and well-acquainted, with both mr. daniel, and mr. john sadler, sends this to mr. increase mather, in new-england; with a letter dated, 26. march. 1698. reader, i am not ignorant, that many cheats and sham's, have been imposed upon the world, under the notion of communications from the invisible world; and, i hope, i am not becoming a visionary. but fancies, and juggles, have their foundation laid in realities: there would never have been impostures of apparitions, and of communications from the invisible world, if there never had been really some such things, to be counterfeited and imitated. wise men therefore, will count it a folly in its exaltation and extremity, to deride all instances, of strange things arriving to us, from the invisible world, because that some things have been delusions. no, 'tis a wisdom, that is pleasing to god, and useful to the world, for a due notice to be taken, of rare things; wherein we have incontestable proofs, of an invisible world, and of the interest it hath in humane affairs. the narrative of mr. sadler, is advantaged with such incontestable proofs, and contains in it such notable passages, that, i believe, i do well to lay it before serious men; and, i believe, no serious men, will play the buffoon upon it. by no means pretend i to pass any judgement upon this remarkable narrative; by no means do i presume to tell what i think it, any more than this, that it is remarkable. nevertheless, for the caution of unwary readers, i will annex the words of an excellent writer upon divine providence. watch against an unmortified itch, after excentrical, or extraordinary dispensations of providence. luther said, the martyrs, without the apparition of angels, being confirmed by the word of god alone, died for the name of christ; and why should not we acquiesce? and he observeth, how the devil hath greatly deluded parties who have been gaping after visions. nor will it be unprofitable, to recite the words of another author, whom i must quote, as r. david kimchi, did use to quote r. joseph kimchi, under the title of, adoni avi. evil angels do now appear, more often than good ones. 'tis an unwarrantable, and a very dangerous thing, for men to wish, that they might see angels, and converse with them. some have done so; and god hath been provoked with them for their curiosity and presumption, and hath permitted devils to come unto them, whereby they have been deceived and undone. more particular prognostications, upon the future state of new-england. but, oh, my dear new-england, give one of thy friends leave, to utter the fears of thy best friends concerning thee; and consider, what fearful cause there may be for thee to expect sad things to come? if every wise man be a prophet, there are some yet in thee, that can prophecy. predictions, may be formed out of these ¶ reasonable expectations. i. where schools are not vigorously and honourably encouraged, whole colonies will sink apace into a degenerate and contemptible condition, and at last become horribly barbarous: and the first instance of their barbarity will t●● that they will be undone for want of men, but not see and own, what it was that undid them. ii. where faithful ministers, are cheated and grieved, by the sacrilege of people that rebel against the express word of christ, let him that is taught in the word, communicate unto him that teacheth in all good things, the righteous judgements of god will impoverish that people; the gospel will be made lamentably unsuccessful unto the souls of such a people; the ministers will either be fetched away to heaven, o● have their ministry made woefully insipid by their encumbrances on earth. iii. where the pastors of churches in a vicinity, despise or neglect form associations for mutual assistence in their evangelical services, woe to him that is alone. 'tis a sign, either that some of the pastors want love to one another, or that others may be conscious to some fault, which may dispose them to avoid inspection; but fatal to the churches will be the tendency of either. iu. where churches, have some hundreds o● souls under their discipline; but the single pastors, are not strengthened, with consistories o● elders, or, an agreeable number of wise and good and grave men chosen to join with th● pastor, as their president, in that part of hi● work, which concerns the well ruling of the flock, there discipline will by degrees be utterly lost; the grossest offenders, will by degrees, and through parties, be scarce to be dealt withal. v where pastors, do not quicken orderly private meetings of both elder and younger christians, for exercises of religion, in their neighbourhood, the power of religion will observably decay, among those christians; the seed sown in the public, will not so much prosper, for want of being watered in private: and when the pastor shall fall sick, there will not be so much as one company of christians in all his flock, that can come together, to pray for his life. vi where churches professing a great reformation, shall in their constitution cease to represent unto the world, the holiness of the lord jesus christ, and of his heavenly kingdom; they will become loathsome to that holy lord; their glory is gone, and their defence goes with it: the dreadful wrath of heaven, will astonish the world, with the things which it will do unto them. vii. where churches are loath to give unto councils regularly upon complaints enquiring into their administrations, an account thereof, 'tis much to be suspected, that they are chargeable with maladministrations; and if the advice of regular councils come once to be trod under foot, by any particular churches, all serious men will be afraid of joining to such unaccountable societies. viii. where a mighty body of people in a country, are violently set upon running down the ancient church state in that country, and are violent for the hedge about the communion at the lords-table to be broken down, and for those who are not admitted unto the communion, to stand on equal terms in all votes with them that are; the churches there are not far from a tremendous convulsion, and they had need use a marvellous temper of resolution with circumspection to keep it off. ix. where churches are bend upon backsliding, and carried away with a strong spirit of apostasy, whatever minister shall set himself to withstand their evil bends, will pull upon himself an inexpressible contempt and hatred; be his merits never so great, a thousand arts will be used for to make him little; he had need be a man of great faith and great prayer; but god will at length honour such a man, with wonderful recompenses. x. where a fountain shall become corrupt, there the streams will no longer make glad the city of god. xi. the gospel of our lord jesus christ, we have with much expense, lately sent unto several of our southern plantations: if it be rejected, there are terrible things to come upon them; 'twere better to have lived in sodom, than in one of those plantations. xii. god prepare our dear brethren, in connectecut, for certain changes that are impending over them. finally; there was a town called, amyciae, which was ruined by silence. the rulers, because there had been some false alarms, forbade all people under pain of death to speak of any enemies approaching them: so, when the enemies came indeed, no man durst speak of it, and the town was lost. corruptions will grow upon the land; and they will gain by silence: 'twill be so invidious to do it, no man will dare to speak of the corruptions; and the fate of amyc●e will come upon the land. reader, i called these things prophecy; but, i wish, i be not all this while writing history. now, if any discerning persons, apprehend any dangers to impend over new-england, from any of the symptoms mentioned, it is to be hoped, they will employ their best thoughts, how to anticipate those dangers. and whereas, 'tis the sense of all men, who discern any thing, that it is in vain to hope for any good, until a spirit of grace, be poured out from heaven, to dispose men unto it, i beg them to consider, whether the only way to obtain that spirit of grace, be not, humbly to ask it, by prayer with fasting before the god of heaven. it was therefore an article in an advice agreed, by some of the principal ministers in this province; and with the mention of that advice, (which doubtless, all but the sleeping will follow) i'll conclude; solemn days of prayer with fasting, celebrated in our churches, to implore the grace of god, for the rising generation, would probably be of blessed consequence, for the turning of our young people, unto the god of our fathers. the more there is this way ascribed unto grace, the more the grace of god is like to be communicated; and there is in this way, a natural and a plentiful tendency to awaken our unconverted youth, unto a sense of their everlasting interests: which were it generally accomplished, a remarkable reformation where therein effected. observable things. the history of ten years rolled away under the great calamities of a war, with indian-salvages: repeated and improved, in a sermon, at boston-lecture. 27 d. 7 m. 1698. judg. vi 3, 5, 6. the children of the east came up against them; and they entered into the land, to destroy it; and israel was greatly impoverished. boston, printed for samuel phillips, at the brick shop. 1699. preface. when the israelites were engaged in a war, they made choice of a priest among them, to serve some of their greatest occasions in it, and after a sacred unction bestowed upon him, we are told by maimonides, he was called mashuach milchamah, that is to say, unctus belli; which was as much as to say, the priest of the war. to bring unto a people profitable advices & reflections upon a war, wherein they are engaged, and sound the silver trumpet, of the gospel, with agreeable notes unto them in it, is to do in some sort, the office of the mashuach milchamah; and this office the ensuing discourse presumes to do, with endeavours that the voice of heaven by the trumpet of our late war, may he heard giving a certain sound, in these echoes of it. the history of a long war, hath, with all possible care of truth, been given you. the author earnestly prays, that if the least material mistake have happened in the history, he may be advised, & it may be corrected. the noise that may be made, by a few sordid people, here & there, in a room tophetized with smoke, and rhum, and spittle, and malice, and lies, crying out concerning the most conscientious essays, to preserve memorable truths, they are a parcel of lie! he values not. but he now tenders to the acceptance of the more civilised readers, an improvement of memorable truths, which it was his duty to make, & it will be theirs to mind. the remarkeables of a long war, collected and improved. boston-lecture, 27 d. 7 m. 1698. if a book of some consequence, be laid open before one that cannot read, he may look, and gaze upon it; but unto what purpose, as long as he cannot understand it? this very comparison, is by the great austin well applied unto, the judgements of god. and i will therefore so far improve the comparison, as to observe, that the judgements of god, under which we have been languishing for ten years together, are a sort of a book put into our hands; a book indeed all written in blood; a book yet full of divine lessons for us. but can every man read this terrible books? no, methinks, i see the book managed like the book brought unto the blessed prophet of old, in isa. 29.12. the book is delivered unto him that is not learned, saying, read this, i pray thee; and he saith, i am not learned. it will certainly be a work, well becoming a minister of the gospel, and every serious christian will be glad of seeing the work done; to take this book, and help you, as well as we can to spell the divine lessons contained in it christians, let us now do a work, for which the great god hath given us, that warrant, and that command, in psal. cvii. 43. who is wise, and will observe these things? the various and marvellous dispensations of the divine providence, towards the children of men, are in this elegant psalm admirably set before us. among those dispensations, there is a particular mark set upon this, that the god of heaven turns a fruitful land into barrenness, for the wickedness of them which dwell therein; & tho●gh men have sown fields there and have multiplied greatly, yet they are again diminished, & brought low through oppression, affliction, and sorrow. of such dispensations, is this passage to be understood, as a quaestion, who is wise, and will observe these things? but if you will rather take it as a sentence, it still comes to the same sense, whose is wise, will oserve these things. and the french version very expressively intimates the design, as well as the event of this observation; that so they may consider the favours of the lord. no less than ten years have rolled away, since we have been plunged into the distresses of a war, with a barbarous enemy. in this war, we have seen the fruitful land of almost one whole province, and another whole county turned into barrenness; doubtless, not without provocations of wickedness in them, who dwelled therein; men had sown fields there along the shore in settlements for an hundred miles together, and had multiplied greatly into a cluster of towns (besides lesser villages,) that might challenge the name of a, decapolis; but in this war, we have seen them diminished again and brought low, through oppression, affliction, and sorrow. i am to led you this day through a spacious country, which has been on many accounts, the most charming part of new-england; and i must herewithal say, come, behold the works of the lord, what desolations he has made in that land. sirs, 'tis time for us, to observe these things; and this, not with a mere athenian, but with a more profitable observation. i must not be discouraged from this holy service, by the vain scoffs of those that blaspheme all attempts to consider the wondrous works of god, as if it were nothing but a telling of news in the pulpit. the biggest part of the holy bible, which is but a relation of such wondrous works, would be scoffed by such profane men, if they might not thereby become obnoxius. no: if whoso is wise, will observe these things; then let no man call it folly to make the observation. a long war, is the text, which i am now to insist upon: and, if we would approve ourselves wise, after all the stripes, that have in this war been given us, these things will occur to our observation in it. i. in the war that hath been upon us, whoso is wise, may observe the consequence of entertaining the gospel of the lord jesus christ, and obtaining and mentaining the ordinances of that glorious gospel. the gadarens of old, were loath to have any thing of christ in their coast: and anon comes a roman war which distressed all the land: but the woeful town of gadara was the very first place besieged in that war, and sad things were done unto it. alas, how little of an evangelical church-state, was there to be seen among all our eastern settlements! it hath been for the want of this, that the judgements of god, have more than once forbidden them to be called settlements. the towns were generally without preachers of christ, and much more generally without churches of christ, for to irradiate 'em: yea, not one of the towns, that are utterly broken up, had any minister in it, for a long while before their final darkness came upon them. such a way of living did content many of them, that it were horrible to tell, what ignorance of christ they were thereby sunk into. i would never have told you, that some young men, twenty years old, in this land, never so much as once heard the name of christ, in all their lives, if i did not think, that the god of heaven required us, all to mourn before him, for such an horrible thing in the land. indeed the strange disasters which attended the first essays, to settle that good country, made many people, imagine the indian sorcerers had enchanted the ground so that no english could thrive on such an enchanted soyl. but had they carried the gospel of the lord jesus christ with them, doubtless they had confuted that vain imagination; all the spells of hell would have been insignificant; there would not have prevailed any enchantment against a gods-spel which we have in our gospel. the original design of new-england, was to settle congregations, wherein the lord jesus christ, should be known and served according to his gospel; and instruct families, that should be the nurseries of those congregations. the plantations of the east, had little of this illustrious design in their eye; the enjoyments of gadarens did seem too much to satisfy too many of them. for this cause, we may believe it is, that our lord jesus christ looking down from heaven upon these unchristian undertake, thunderstruck them with his indignation: he saw the foolish taking root, but suddenly he cursed their habitation. when some of our eastern people have been pining away under the fatigues of their captivity among the indians, who had stripped them of all they had, then they cried out, now, now the lord is punishing of us, for our leaving of his ordinances, and removing to a place of no gospel for larger accommodations in the world, and exposing our children to be bred up like the very indians, into whose hands we are fallen! that which invites one to think, it may be for this cause, is the singular distinction and protection, which the churches of our lord, have enjoyed, throughout the whole progress of our calamity. no places that have had churches gathered in them, have all this while been broken up, however some of them have had much bread of adversity, and water of affliction. the enemy that have come in upon our land like a flood, carried all before them as an irresistible torrent, until they came to places that have churches as it were to garrison them. there the almighty lord hath checked the proud waves, and said, hitherto ye shall come, and no further! but here let me add a very observable thing: the lord had some of his elect among our eastern people; but he has brought those elect home unto himself, by burning them out of their homes and habitations. the indians have driven 'em hither, and here they have met with the gospel of christ, and been effectually called unto the lord, and joined unto our churches, and blessed the name of god for bringing them unto these churches. periissent nisi periissent! now, whoso is wise, and will observe these things, cannot but wish, that the folly of erecting plantations, without the worship of the lord jesus christ, may be no more committed among us. it was wholesome council, given, and usually taken, in the beginning of new-england; let christians no where sit down without good ministers, but let them rather tarry where they are, as ezra tarried by the river ahava, till he had got some levites to go with them. and it was even then observed, that places which made beginnings any long while without ministers, were with miserable unsettlements broken all to pieces. i suppose, our eastern country, will shortly again be peopled: but let the people which intent there to settle themselves, in the fear of god remember this admonition; don't venture to form towns without the gospel in them any more. if the lamentable experience which you have more than once had, of a blast from heaven upon erterprises to live without the gospel of the son of god, will not inspire you with more of wisdom for the future, i will foretell your fate, in those awful words, psal. 28.5. because they regard not the works of the lord, nor the operation of his hands, he shall destroy them, and not build them up. yea, but let all new-england at the same time learn, what the welfare of the ruin, of all, will turn upon. the whole world was made for our lord-messiah, and the curse of god will more or less plague the world, according to the respects, which that second adam, our lord messiah finds in it. but new-england, is by a more eminent profession that immanuels land, let the interests of the christian religion in reformed churches, be pursued and preserved among us; then, all will go well! our acknowledgement of our lord jesus christ in churches, that shall be so ordered, as to represent him, and his kingdom, unto the world; this will be our glory; and this glory will be our defence; or, as 'tis promised, in isa. 4.5. upon all the glory shall be a defence. but if once the spirit of this world, eat out the spirit and power of religion, and the order of our churches, and men's value for a room in the churches, be lost, then, writ, ichabod, upon all our glory; and let us expect, that our holy lord will spew us out of his mouth. ii. in the war that hath been upon us whoso is wise, may observe, in the very instruments of our calamity, shroud intimations of the provoking evils, for which the righteous god hath chastised us, by such instruments. when the miseries of the sword are inflicted on a people, it becomes them to consider what provocations they have given to the almighty god, who makes peace, and creates evil; for 'tis he, the lord, who doth all these things. the sword by which we have been so grievously harassed, hath been in the hands of god: and if our father had not been very angry, would he have taken a sword into his hands? we are blind before lightning, we are deaf unto thunder, if we do not sensibly perceive the anger of god, in the tremendous rebukes that we have suffered: and we are unaccountably, and inexcusably stupid, if we do not inquire, what means the heat of this anger? it was once the commirration of god, in ezek. 7.24, 27. i will bring the worst of the heathen, and they shall possess their houses, and the hands of the people of the land shall be troubled: such trouble hath come upon us, from the worst of the heathen! but what was the cause of all? it follows, i will do unto them after their way, and i will judge them according to their deserts, and they shall know that i am the lord. it is but seasonable for us now to look back upon our own way, and see how much we have deserved all this vengeance, by going out of the way. two persons in their travels beholding the horrid ruins of germany, one of them said, hic fuit hostilitas; behold the fruit of hostility! his friend answered, hic fuit iniquitas; behold the fruit of iniquity! if you will travel over our east country, how frequent, how dismal occasions will you see, to sigh, see what has been done by hostility! but there will be as many occasions for a sadder sigh than that; namely, see the sad effects of iniquity! now, in this contemplation, i do not go to charge them that were once inhabitants of the now ruined plantations, with any sins, but what are more or less to be found in all our colonies. i ask no more from our brethren who yet survive the desolations that have come upon their estates and neighbours in those plantations, but that they join with the rest of us all, in searching and trying of our ways, and in judging of ourselves. for, alas, every mouth must be stopped, and all the land is become guilty before god let us all then inquire, what may have been those provoking evils, for which the holy and blessed god, hath given the sword a commission so dreadfully to devour us? but then, let us be sure to inquire wisely concerning that matter. and here, i will not inquire, whether those that went before us, might never be too forward in any unjustifyable encroachments, to possess and command those lands, which have since proved so expensive unto us? older men than i, are best able to manage that enquiry, though i also have heard it made. but that whereupon i rather bespeak your thoughts, is this: will you please to inquire into the properties and qualities, of our adversaries? 'tis possible, that in their properties and qualities, we may read something of those miscarriages, for which our god, hath raised them up to be our adversaries. it hath been commonly seen, that when the people of god have sinfully come to imitate the evil manners of other nations, god hath made those very nations to be a so●e scourge unto them. and the sense of this was that which long ago caused many sensible persons, to foretell, which of the neighbour nations, would bring our dear england low. now, since the indians have been made by our god. the rod of his anger, 'tis proper for us to inquire, whether we have not in some instances too far imitated the evil manners of the indians? the indians are infamous especially for three scandalous vices. first, they are liars of the first magnitude; one cannot believe a word they speak. secondly, they are sluggards to a proverb; they are for any way of living rather than work. thirdly, they are abominably indulgent unto their children; there is no family government among them. will you now inquire, sirs, how far we have indianized in every one, but especially, the last of these evil manners? if we find these indian-vices to grow epidemical among us, oh! don't wonder, that our god hath been with indian hatchets cutting down the tree, that brings forth fruits thus disagreeable to him that planted it. now, whoso is wise, will observe these things. and yet the observation may extend itself a little further. sometimes, the sovereign god chooses a nation remarkably laudable, for some good thing, to punish his own people, for the want of that thing. thus, when the christian churches fell into idolatry, god sent the mahometans upon them, to torment them with one woe a●ter another horribly; and the mahometans are very remarkable for this, that they are great haters of idolatry, and wherever they come, they destroy those idols, and works of men's hands, which are adored in the antichristian apostasy. well, but can any good thing be reported of our indian invaders? yes, there is one good thing which the french have taught them; there is family-prayer among them, a daily family-worship upheld among them. i fear, i fear, this is more than can be said of many english sufferers, that have been annoyed by those indian-invaders. it may be, the wretched indians have cut off multitudes of families, to whom they might have said, these families never prayed unto god once in a month, and we have done it every day! and many of our poor folks, never heard any family-prayer in their lives, till they were dragged into the forlorn and howling wigwams, of those wretched savages. i have hea●d it said, that in a town or it may be more than seventy families, there have not been twice seven families, that have had any constant invocation of god in them. if it be so, then hear the voice of god in it, when he sent those monstrous and furious barbarians, to burn down such prayerless houses: the voice of heaven in it, is, if indians will pray in their families more than english, then let indians destroy those english families. it was once the direful imprecation, in jer. 10.25. pour out thy great wrath upon the heathen that know thee not, and upon the families that call not on thy name. truly, god has used a sort of heathen, to pour out his great wrath upon families, which in this one point, were worse than those heathen, that they did not call on his name. for god's sake, be so wise as to observe these things, and let family prayer, be not where neglected throughout the land, lest while god is punishing us by the pagans, we become worse than pagan's. let me faithfully and solemnly advise you, sirs; a prayerless family is a pagan family. do not now imagine, that it is only the more strict and severe doctrine of a nonconformist that now smites your consciences; it is the doctrine of a christian; and it may be 'twill have the more force upon some of you, if i tell you, that the late archbishop of canterbury, in a book on that subject, has this passage; that constant family-worship is so necessary to keep alive a sense of god and religion, in the minds of men, that he sees not, how any family that neglects it can in reason be esteemed a family of christians, or indeed to have any religion at all. i will add but this word unto all the rest: if after this there be a prayerless family, among us, i would, if i could, writ upon their door; lord have mercy upon us; for there is a plague in that pagan family. iii. in the war that hath been upon us, whose is wise, may observe, that the very objects, of our sins, have been made the very engines of our plagues. it is a thing extraordinarily observable, though it ordinarily happens; that, in quo quis peccat, in eo punitur; men are plagued by those very things, with which they have sinned. if an eli omit his duty towards his children, it follows, in 1 sam. 2.33. those very children, shall consume thine eyes, and grieve thine heart. i am very much mistaken, if our eyes have not been consumed, and if our hearts not grieved, by those, to whom we have omitted our duty exceedingly. the grand crime of the jews, was in relation to the romans, and god made the romans the destroyer's of the jews. you will now demand of me, whether i think, that we are chargeable, with any crime, relating to the indians, which have been so bloodily destroying of us. i must freely tell you, i think, we are, the old britons, did not what they should have done, to convert the saxons unto christianity; and when the britons were afterwards fearfully destroyed by the saxons, their famous countryman gildas told them, this is the vengeance of god upon you, because you did no more, for the conversion of those miserable heathen. and i admire, that the english protestants in ireland, after such massacres from the irish papists, do no more effectually make this reflection. but that which i am now to reflect upon, is this: had we done, but half so much as the french papists have done, to proselyte the indians of our east, unto the christian faith, instead of being, snares and traps unto us, and scourges in our sides, and thorns in our eyes they would have been, a wall unto us, both by night and day. what a sting was there in those words, which the indians have used unto some of our captives, had the english been as careful to instruct us, as the french, we had been of your religion! indeed, it can scarce, without an harsh catechresis, be called, the christian faith, which the french papists have made the savages to swallow: but it the savages had been enlightened with the christian faith, f●om us, the french papists could never have instilled into them those french poisons, that have made such raging devils of them. through the blessing of god, upon the endeavours of good men, in this one massachuset province, the indians have mostly embraced the christian religion. [* of that matter see a printed account, at the end of mr. noyes' election-sermon; whereto i have here this to add, that an hopeful and worthy young man, mr. experience mayhew, omitted in that printed journal, merely because he was more largely mentioned in the annexed proposals of the gentlemen that made it, which are not printed with it, must now have the justice done him, of this character, that in the evangelical service of the lord jesus christ, among the indians, there is no man that exceeds tha● mr. mayhew, if there be any that equals him. so i am informed concerning him.] there are, i suppose, more than thirty congregations of indians, and many more than thirty hundred indians, in this one province, calling on god in christ, and hearing of his glorious word. whoso is wise, will observe a notable smile of god upon those that have worthily encouraged and prosecuted this evangelical work. but shall we not, at the same time observe, how signally the wrath of god hath fallen upon the persons, or estates, of them that have debauched the indians, by selling of drink unto them. the trading houses, where the indians of the east, had so much, of their drink and bane, what is become of them, every one of them? the sword has been drunk with the blood, of the english, in the hands of those very indians, which have been so often drunk among them. and these bloody merchants of the souls of the indians, when they have summed up all their gains, the foot of the account has been this, woe to him that gives his neighbour drink, that puts the bottle to him, to make him drunk. those men, are not wise but mad, who can observe these things, and now dare to repeat this iniquity, or dream that any gains are to be got by feeding the indian lust of drunkenness. iv in the war that hath been upon us, whoso is wise, may observe the loud calls of heaven to all ranks of men, in the sharp strokes of heaven on all ranks of men. as it was said, in mic. 6.9. the lord's voice crieth unto the city, and the man of wisdom shall see thy name; hear ye the rod: so i say, there has been a voice of god unto all the country in that indian rod, which hath been used upon us: and men of wisdom, in all ranks of men, will observe, and see, and hear, the meaning of this rod; inasmuch as all ranks of men have smarted under it; yea, it has fetched blood from all ranks of men among us. we will a little particularise 'em. and first of all, you that are our honoured shepherds; will you observe how many of our shepherds have been worried unto death, by the scythian wolves of our wilderness? two of our magistrates, have been treacherously and barbarously killed by the indian murderers: they whom god entrusted with the sword of justice have had their lives taken away by the sword of the wicked. i persuade myself, that the rest will be so wise as to observe these things, and observe how to answer the just expectation of god, in their administrations. after this, oh! why should not our civil rulers, with more zeal than ever set themselves to ponder, how may i most glorify god, and christ,, and serve his dear people with my opportunities! two of our ministers, have been struck down into the earth by the indian dragons. they that have used nothing but the sword of the spirit, which is the word of god, for the saving of all about them, have had the destroyer's coming upon them, and have been waited for of the sword. i assure myself, that the rest will be so wise, as to observe these things, and observe how to fulfil our ministry, with a very excited watchfulness. may all our settled pastors, upon such a thing befalling our brethren, resolve with themselves; am unworthy i spared? i will do more for my lord, and more for my flock, and more for all the churches, than ever i did. we will pass on, there have been some rich men, that were finely situated, and had all things richly to enjoy: but this war has reduced them to such necessity, that within less than one year, they have come to beg their bread: all their treasures have been treasures of snow; one summer has melted all away to nothing. i remember, the jewish talmuds tell us, of a gentlewoman, who had a thousand thousand pieces of gold. given with her, at her marriage, by her father nicodemus, for her portion; and yet she was reduced unto such penury, that she picked barley-corns out of the cattles dung for her food. have not we seen almost such vicissitudes? rich men, if you are wise, (which the rich are not always!) you will observe these things, and upon the observation say, well, what man in his right wits, will now set his heart upon such transitory, as all sublunary vanities! oh! my soul, do thou make sure of a better and a lasting substance in heaven; for earthly riches, take themselves wing, and flee away towards heaven. again, there have been abundance of poor men, who have been by this war plunged still into deeper poverty: they have gone without a bit of bread, for many days together the straits, the wants, the cares of widows, and orphans, or of those that have had many mouths to feed, especially in our exposed frontiers; none can express them, none can conceive them, but they, (nor they!) who did endure them all. poor men, if you are wise, (which the poor may be!) you will observe these things, and upon the observation, says: well, i had need make sure that my soul may not be starved by wanting the bread of life, and that my soul may not be naked without the garments of righteousness; how dolefully am i circumstanced, if i go down from one hell unto another at the last! once more; how many women have been made a prey to those brutish men, that are skilful to destroy? how many a fearful thing has been suffered by the fearful sex, from those men, that one would fear, as devils rather than men? let the daughters of our zion think with themselves, what it would be, for fierce indians to break into their houses, and brain their husbands and their children before their eyes, and led them away a long journey into the woods; and if they began to fail and faint in the journey, then for a tawny savage to come with hell fire in his eyes, and cut 'em down with his hatchet; or, if they could miraculously hold out, then for some filthy and ugly squaws to become their insolent mistresses, and insolently to abuse 'em at their pleasure a thousand inexpressible ways; and, if they had any of their sucking infants with them, then to see those tender infants handled at such a rate, that they should beg of the tigers, to dispatch 'em out of hand. such things as these, i tell you, have often happened in this lamentable war. and now, o ye handmaids of the lord; will you not be so wise, as to observe these things? but upon the observation, say, well, i will bless god, for my enjoyments; my afflictions, be they never so many, are not such as my neighbours have seen: my enjoyments are more than my afflictions. but, oh! let me love and serve the good god, that has distinguished me with his mercies. it is to be added; we have had our old men whose grey hairs have not come down to the grave in peace. young indians have with grievous flouts and wounds, butchered many of our old english men. the grey hairs of our old men, have been died red with their own blood; and their carcases have been thrown unto the swine, to mangle them. old men, if you are wise men, you will observe these things; but observing of them, say, oh! let my hoary head be found in the way of righteousness! but our young men are they whom the fury of war, hath been chief poured out upon alas, alas, for our young men! they are the persons, with whom, it seems to have been the very errand of this war, to manage the terrible controversy of god. new-england sets a peculiar accent of grief upon this, among all her lamentations; the lord has trodden under foot my mighty men in the midst of me, he hath called an assembly against me, to crush my young men. come then, my young men; be so wise, as to observe these things; and upon the observation, say, lord, let not me, and the rest of my generation, continue among the generation of thy wrath. yea, to have done; children also have not been excused from a snare in the blows of this hideous war. little boys and girls, even these little chickens, have been siezed by the indian vultures. our little birds have been spirited away by the indian devourers, and brought up, in a vile slavery, till some of them have quite forgot their english tongue, and their christian name, and their whole relation. yea, those babylonians, have dashed out the brains of our little ones against the stones. and our little ones have been hideously whipped unto death, by those merciless tigers, whose tender mercies are cruelty. children, god make you so wise, as to observe these things; and upon the observation, oh! see that you become serious, pious, orderly children; obedient unto your parents, conscientious to keep the lords day, and afraid of committing any wickedness. upon the whole; when a dead man was thrown into the grave of elisha, a touch from the bones of the prophet in the grave raised him from the dead. i am desiring, that religion may be revived out of the death which has too much enfeebled it among us. behold, sirs, i have now cast you into the graves of our dead friends; it may be, by wisely observing of them, and the things that have befallen them, we may be somewhat raised out of our deadly security. let our observation of these things, give some life to the practice of religion among us. v in the war that hath been upon us, whoso is wise, may observe, those tragical things undergone by many in captivity, that are full of admonition unto us, that have never felt the tragaedies of such a captivity. several hundreds of our neighbours, first and last, have been carried into captivity, by the most beastly and bloody things that ever wore the shape of men, in the world. new-england makes that moan, in lam. 1.18. hear, i pray you, all people, and behold my sorrow; my virgins and my young men are gone into captivity. but oh! the prodigious, and stupendous things, that they have undergone in this captivity! what weary days and nights have rolled over the miserable captives, while they have not had a bit of meat allowed 'em, except what a dog would hardly meddle with! while they have sometimes been pinched with the bitter frost without rags to cover their nakedness, and sometimes been parched with the burning heat, without any cordial or shelter to refresh them: while they have seen their nearest relations torn in pieces alive before their eyes, and yet those eyes afraid of dropping a tear at the mournful sight: yea, while they have every hour, looked when they should be themselves roasted alive to make a feast, and a sport for the horrid cannibals! need i tell you, that those devils incarnate, have tied their captives unto trees, and first cutting off their ears, have made them to eat their own ears, and then have broiled their whole bodies, with slow fires, dancing the mean while about them, and cutting out collops of their flesh, till with lingering tortures they have martyred them to death! such things have been done, by the inhuman savages upon our captives, that is a sort of inhumanity barely to mention them. now, shall we be wise, to observe these things? the observation must be made, with that admonition, in luk. 13.4, 5. think ye, that these were sinners above all men? i tell you, nay; but except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish. wherefore, let us penitently confess, that we have all deserved those miserable things, wherewith some have been so marked out, by the sovereignty of heaven. in the things that have been done to our captives, the great lord of hosts, hath dealt with us as generals use to do, upon the sedition and mutiny of military legions: he makes a sort of decimation among the offenders, and by what he does to some, he declares what he might justly do to all the rest. we must all ascribe it unto the mere sovereign mercy of god, that we are not every one of us, broken in the place of dragons, as these desolate captives were. that which the scripture calls, the place of dragons, i remember one of the jewish rabbi's expounds, a wilderness. truly our wilderness hath been, the place of dragons. but, while we observe these things, we shall not be wise, if we do not learn, oh! what an evil and a bitter thing is our sin! and what horrendous miseries must we expect among the devils, if we die with our sin impardoned! vi in the war that hath been upon us, whoso is wise, may observe, a work, a strange work of heaven, as it were devising of ways, very strangely to distress all sorts of people, in all sorts of interests. truly the very character of our calamity, hath all along been this; the great god has written still upon it, we may read upon it in a very legible character, those words, in jer. 18.11. thus saith the lord, behold, i frame evil against you, i devise a device against you. it hath been, as if ways had been deliberately, and tightly studied, and as if with much contrivance plotted for to bring us all within the reach of the general calamity. we have now languished through ten years, which have been the saddest, and the darkest, and the stormiest years, that ever we saw. if the history of these ten years were to be written, i am thinking, what should be the title; truly, it might be entitled, as ezekiels roll was, lamentation, and mourning, and wo. yea, you shall now have the history of these ten years written for you; i'll give it you, in as expressive words as can be; even in those words, 2 chron. 15.5, 6. in those times, there was no peace to him that went out, nor him that came in, but great vexations were upon all the inhabita●●● of the countries, for god did vex them with an adversity. there is a variety of adversity, with which the tedious war itself hath vexed us. the general fate of the war, hath involved numberless families in several circumstances of adversity; and the expensive part of the war hath been an heavy scourge of adversity upon those that could not be reached by the destructive part of it, you could not but observe these things: but then, have you not observed, what a further variety of adversity hath been contemporary with this vexatious war. alas, there hath been such a complication of other distresses added unto the war, in the time of it,, that nobody, no, i say, nobody hath been left free from those dolorous ejulations, i am one that hath been afflicted by the rod of the wrath of god. a great king of persia, having by death lost the nearest relation he had in the world, and being too passionate a mourner for his loss, an ingenious man undertook, to raise the dead relation, unto life again, if the king would but furnish him in one point, that he apprehended necessary; it was demanded, what that was? and it was replied, furnish me but with the names of three persons, who have never met with any sadness and sorrow, and by writing those names on the monument of the dead, i'll bring the dead person to life. truly, the ten years of our war have set many ten hundreds of persons a mourning over their dead friends; we have seen every where, the mourners go about the streets: now, i durst make you this offer; that if you can find three persons, who have met with no matter of sadness and sorrow in these ten years, with the names of them, we'll fetch your dead, friends to life again. it 'twas said, in job 21.17. god distributeth sorrows in his anger. you may observe a marvellous distribution of sorrows made among us, by the anger of god. and here, first, i say nothing of that amazing time, when the evil angels in a preternatural and in an unparallelled manner being let lose among us; god cast upon us the fierceness of his anger, & wrath and indignation and trouble. it was the threatening of god against a people, which he had called his children; in deut. 32.23, 24. i will heap mischiefs upon them, i will spend my arrows upon them, they shall be devoured with a bitter destruction; what was the bitter destruction thus threatened unto an apostatising people? i remember, the famous jew onkelos renders it, they shall be vexed with evil spirits; and indeed, that sense well agrees with what follows, i will send upon them the poison of the serpents of the dust. sirs, for our apostasy (which is the very sin of the evil spirits!) the god of heaven, a while ago turned in the armies of hell upon us; and in that matchless dispensation of god, we underwent a bitter destruction, from the poison of the serpents of the dust. but there are other points, not a few, wherein the great god hath heaped mischiefs upon us; and fulfilled unto us that holy commination, ezek. 7.26. mischief shall come upon mischief. what shall i say? while the lord of hosts hath been against us, the hosts of lord have been so too; all the elements have as it were been up in arms against us. particularly; you may observe, that epidemical sicknesses, have in these years, been once and again upon us; wherein the angels of death, have shot the arrows of death, into such as could not be reached by the bullets of the indian enemy. this one town, did in one year, lose, i suppose, at least six or seven hundred of its people, by one contagious mortality. and tho' of about three and twenty hundred men, that we employed in one action, we did, in that action, lose hardly thirty men, yet how many hundreds did afterwards miserably perish? again; you may observe, that the harvest, hath once and again grievously failed in these years; and we have been struck through with the terrible famine, almost as much as if the indian enemy had been all the while skulking about our fields. the very course of nature hath been altered among us; a lamentable cry for, bread, bread! hath been heard in our streets: the towns that formerly supplied other places with grain, had now been famished, if other places had not sent in a supply to them, and had a black prospect of being famished, notwithstanding that supply. once more; you may observe, that the sea hath in these years been swallowing up our neighbours, and their estates, far more than the sword of the wilderness. alas, the devouring displeasure of god, hath said concerning us, though they go to hid themselves from my sight afar off upon the sea, thence will i command the serpent, and he shall by't them. and here, hath it been enough, that our vessels, enough to make an huge fleet, have been taken by the french enemy? a certain writer hath computed it, that in only the first two or three years of the war, the english nation lost unto the french, more than fifteen millions of pounds sterling. but no part of the english nation hath been more frequently or sensibly preyed upon, by the french, than what hath gone out of new england, ever since the war began. i say, has this been enough? no, the wrath of god said, this is not enough! i appeal to you, that have been owners of vessels, or sailors in them, whether horrible shipwrecks have not been multiplied since the war began, very much more than ever they were before? ah, lord! how many of us, have shed rivers of tears, over our dear friends that have been buried in the ocean! moreover; you may observe, that in these years, those very things which were intended for our defence, have oftentimes been so much improved for our damage, that it was hard for us to say, which was the greater, the defence, or the damage, which we had from them. it was a lamentable time with the jews, when that curse came upon them, that which should have been for their welfare, let it become a trap, & pour out thine indignation upon them. truly, the indignation of god hath been poured out upon us, in this fruit of the curse, no less frequently then sensibly, that some things which should have been for our welfare, have at the same time, served also to entrap the persons, and interests of many people, into sore inconveniencies. there is no need of explaining this article; they that have been under this indignation of god, know the explaining of it! finally, you may observe, what untimely ends, and what surprising fates, have come upon our sons, in these years of the wrath of the right-hand of the most high. when croesus was in war taken by cyrus, this captive made unto the conqueror, this remark upon the difference between peace and war; o sir, i see, that in a time of peace, the sons bury their fathers, but in a time of war, the fathers bury their sons, truly, sirs, our time of war has in various ways of mortality, been embittered with this remark, the fathers have been burying their sons, all the country over! many of us, have had our sons, even those very sons, of whom we said, this same shall comfort us! we have had them violently snatched away from us, and cropped in the very flower of their youth; and they have left us deploring, oh, my son, with all my heart could i have dyed for thee, my son, my son! but in the midst of these deplorable things, god hath given up several of our sons, into the hands of the fierce monsters of africa. mahometan turks and moors, and devils, are at this day oppressing many of our sons, with a slavery, wherein they wish for death, and cannot find it; a slavery, from whence they cry and write unto us, it had been good for us, that we had never been born. — quis talia fando temperet a lacrymis?— thus, as job sometimes complained, chap. 10.17. thou renewest thy witnesses against me, and increasest thine indignation upon me; changes and war are against me: thus, in our long war, we have seen those changes on all hands, and in all kind's, which have witnessed against us, the dreadful indignation of god. god threatened his people, (so i read it,) amos 2.13. behold, i will press your place as a full cart presses the sheaf: ['tis an allusion to the old way of threshing the corn, by drawing a loaden cart with wheels, over the corn. 9 d. you shall undergo tribulation.] ah, new-england, thou hast been under such a tribulation. sirs, have you not observed these things? but you must wisely observe them. and a wise observation of these things, will cause you to see, that the war which hath been upon us, hath been a war of god. the indians have been but a small part of those armies, which the great god, hath been bringing out against us, for ten years together; and we may conclude, that all the land have been more or less concerned in those crimes, for which the almighty god, hath been with these armies managing his controvesy with us: our confession must be, peccavimus omnes; we have all gone astray! but shall we not upon this observation, take up some resolution? if we are wise, we fhall thus resolve; 'tis time, 'tis time, 'tis high-time for us, to make our peaee with god, oh, let us not go on to harden ourselves against god; we are not stronger than he: but let us all fly to the lord jesus corist, who is our peace, and so lay down the arms of rebellion, that god may be reconciled unto us. vii. in the war that hath been upon us, whoso is wise, may observe those dispensations of heaven towards us, that have carried more than ordinary humiliations in them. it was said concerning miriam, (the type of the now leprous and out-cast church of israel; the lord hasten that seventh day, wherein it shall be restored!) numb. 12.14. if her father had spit in her face, should she not be ashamed? ah new england, thy father hath been spitting in thy face, with most humbling dispensations; god hath been bringing of thee down to sat in the dust. when the war commenced, new-england might say, my god will humble me! for, first; shall our heavenly father put a rod into the hands of base indians, and bid them to scourge his children! oh! the humiliation of such rebellious children! oh! the provocation, that certainly such sons and such daughters have given him! it was a very humbling thing, that the lord threatened unto his provoking sons & daughters, in deut. 32.21. i will move them to jealousy, with those which are not a people; i will provoke them to anger with a foolish nation. should a child of yours be refractory, and you, sir, should bid a negro or an indian slave in your house, go, take that child, and scourge him till you fetch blood of him! surely, this would be to humble him unto the uttermost. thus doth thy god humble thee, o new-england, by putting thee over, into the vile hands of those which are not a people, but a foolish nation. again; who are they, by whose means we are now crying out, we are brought very low? when the most high god, was determined effectually to humble, his people, he said, in jer. 37.10. though ye had smitten the whole army of the chaldeans, that fight against you, and there remained but wounded men among them, yet should they rise up every man in his tent; and burn this city with fire. truly, we had smitten the whole army, of the indians that fought against us three and twenty years ago, from one end of the land unto the other; only there were left a few wounded men among them in the east; and now, they have risen up every man, and have set the whole country on fire. certainly, a more humbling matter cannot be related! moreover; is it not a very humbling thing, that when about an hundred indians durst begin a war, upon all these populous colonies, an army of a thousand english raised, must not kill one of them all; but instead thereof, more of our soldiers perish by sickness and hardship than we had enemies then in the world? our god has humbled us! is it not a very humbling thing, that when the number of our enemies afterwards increased, yet an handful of them should, for so many summers together continue our unconquered spoilers, and put us to such vast charges, that if we could have bought them, for an hundred pound an head, we should have made a saving bargain of it? our god has humbled us! is it not a very humbling thing, that we should have had several fair opportunities, to have brought this war unto a final period, but we should still by some fatal oversight let slip those opportunities? our god has humbled us. is it not a very humling thing, that whatever expeditions we have undertaken, for the most part we have come off loser's, and indeed but plunged ourselves into deeper straits, by our undertake? our god has humbled us! is it not a very humbling thing, that more than one or two of our forts have been surrendered, and one of them that was almost impregnable, given away with a most shameful surrender, by one that hath since received something of what he deserved? thus, our god has humbled us. is it not a very humbling thing, that we should have evil pursuing of us at such a rate, that in other lands afar off, and on the exchange in london, strangers have made this reflection, doubtless, new-england is a country in ill terms with heaven? but so, our god has humbled us. what shall i say? is it not a very humbling thing, that when peace is restored unto the whole english nation, and when peace is enjoyed by all america, poor new-england should be the only land still embroiled in war? but thus, our god, thou hast humbled us, and shown us great and sore troubles, and brought us down into the depths of the earth. o my dear people; how can i observe these things, and not like joshua now fall to the earth on my face before the lord, and say, what shall i say? but if you will wisely observe these things, you will now get up, and sanctify yourselves, and put away the accursed thing from among you, o new-english israel! certainly, the high and lofty one, who dwells in the high and holy place, expects that we should be a very humbled people. i beseech you, sirs, observing these things, let us in all the methods of repentance humble ourselves under the mighty hand of god. after such humbling things, as have befallen us, god forbidden, that it should be said of us, as in jer. 44.10. they are not humbled, even unto this day! viii. in the war that hath been upon us, whoso is wise, may observe the compassions of god, wonderfully exercised, and manifested, and magnified, in the midst of our confusions. there was a time, when a bush burned with fire, and yet the bush was not consumed: whereupon said moses, in exod. 3.3. i will now turn aside and see this great sight! sirs, i am now to call upon you, o turn aside, and see such a great sight as that! indeed, in the midst of all our lamentations, we must own, with the church, in lam. 3: 22. it is of the lords mercies, that we are not consumed, because his compassions fail not. but there are many particular and astonishing articles of mercy, which we have seen in this tedious war. sirs, come now to observe some of those things, with prepared hallelujahs! it was the petition, in hab. 3.2. o lord, in wrath remember mercy. new england, thy god hath heard this petition for thee, in very wonderful instances! for, first, after a very amazing manner has mercy been remembered in the midst of wrath, when we have been rescued by the mercy of god, at the very point of our being else ruined by his wrath. lord, thou hast showed thy people hard things, and made us drink the wine of astonishment. but our extremity hath been god's opportunity, to relieve us. several times in the late years of our affliction, we have been brought unto a dismal nonplus in our affairs, and we would scarce imagine it possible for us to subsist any longer. but just then! the bowels of our compassionate god have been moved for us; he hath said, how shall i give thee up, o new-england? how shall i give thee up, o massachusetts? and so, he would not execute upon us the fierceness of his anger, but with some unexpected succours from the machine of heaven he hath relieved us. we have several times been, like a little vessel in a storm; the swelling waves have dashed, & raged, and roared; the rude billows have been going over us, and we have been ready to sink. but just then! our compassionate lord jesus christ, hath awaked for our safety, and marvellously calmed our circumstances. o thou land, strangely saved by the lord, say now, as in psal. 136.23. o give thanks unto the lord, who remembered us in our low estate, because his mercy endureth for ever. when our debts have become insupportable, god has then remembered us in our low estate, because his mercy endureth for ever, and strangely extricated us. when our foes have been as an overflowing scourge, like to carry all before them, god has then remembered us in our low estate, because his mercy endureth for ever, and strangely lifted up a standard against them. when fearful divisions have arisen among us, and horrid convulsions have been ready to pull all to pieces,— i don't care to remember them, any farther than to say, god has then, remembered us in our low estate, because his mercy endureth for ever, and strangely healed those breaches, that set the land a trembling. moreover; it hath been a very strange thing, and a wondrous remembrance of mercy in the midst of wrath; that the indians have been unaccountably restrained, from giving us, an hundred part of the trouble, which they might have done, had they but known, or used their own advantages. this one thing, whosoever does wisely observe it, must needs ascribe it unto a special operation of that god, who forms the spirit of man within him. it was the promise of god, unto his people, exod. 34.24. no man shall desire thy land, when thou shalt go up to appear before the lord thy god. the faithful god strangely. fulfilled this promise, for many hundreds of years together; no enemy desired the land of that people, at the time of their going up to worship the lord in his temple. and whereas, the roman enemy, did at length desire their land, at the time of their going up to the passover, this one thing, was enough to prove, that the messiah was come, and the passover no longer commanded. it shows, that there is a strange operation of god, upon the minds of men, to curb and check, and blind the evil-minded. well; we have had our frontier towns, in many of which, the lord jesus christ hath been worshipped, and sought, and served continually. had the lurking enemy done as they might have done, how easily might one dozen of them, have kept the towns in such perpetual and perplexing alarms, as would have caused them, even to have broken up! and what unknown mischiefs might a few more of 'em, have brought upon our scattered plantations! i do again, and again say, this is from the strange operation of god, upon the minds of the enemy, that they have no more disturbed our land. for my own part, i will observe it, and admire it, in such terms as austin used upon a remarkable providence; quisquis non videt, caecus; quisquis videt, nec laudat, ingratus; quisquis laudanti reluctatur, insanus: they are blind, and mad, that are insensible of it! yet again, have not our english prisoners been favoured with such a remembrance of mercy, in the midst of wrath, as aught never to be forgotten? the mercy of god, inclined the french to buy 'em out of the hands of the indians, and use them with an exemplary humanity and civility. the mercy of god preserved many of them alive, under prodigious and incredible hardships, and at length returned many scores of them home. and may not our english women, that were prisoners, take notice of one singular mercy shown by god unto them, in preserving them from violations by the outrageous lusts of the savages? this one thing will be thought by some, almost as great and strange an instance of an immediate interposition of the angels of god, as the muzzling of the lions in the den of daniel! o ye redeemed of the lord, you, whom he hath redeemed from the hand of the enemy; give thanks, to the lord, for he is good? charge your own souls, that you never forget his benefits; ask your own souls, what you shall render to the lord for all his benefits: and remember that admonition of the lord jesus christ unto you, sin no more, lest a worst thing do come unto thee. furthermore; who could not see mercy remembered, in the midst of wrath, when god hath put it into the hearts of his people in the southern parts of the country, to make liberal contributions of money, and corn, and men, for the relief of the northern parts? more than once, has the noble charity, of our brethren in plymouth, and in connecticut, as well as of this town, been expressed in such contributions. their alms are gone up for a memorial before the lord! the blessing of many that have been ready to perish, hath come upon you, o ye merciful children of god, and you shall obtain mercy from him. once more: was ever mercy remembered in the midst of wrath, more conspicuously than when powerful adversaries designing inroads upon us, have been diverted wonderfully. advice hath been seasonably dispatched unto us, of the intentions in our enemies to fall upon our frontiers, and this advice hath proved our safety. yea, sometimes when we have had no advice, a strange direction from heaven has led us to those actions, which have as much defeated the intentions of our enemies, as if we had received the fullest advice in the world: besides this, boston, and salem, and portsmouth especially: will they ever forget the last year? it was a year of salvations; yea, it was a year of miracles! never, never such a year passed over us. the almighty showed that favour to his people of old, zech. 9.8. i will encamp about my house, because of the army, because of him that passeth by, and because of him that returneth. alexander in an expedition to the southward did pass by the land of israel, and he did return again to the northward, without hurting that land, that had the house of god in it. formidable french squadrons, have more than once passed by, to the southward, and have returned again to the northward, intending doubtless a destroying visit into this land by the way; but our lord jesus christ hath encamped about his house here, because of the navy. yea, once, o new-england, the lord thy god, he that would be the holy one of new-england, gave carthagena for thy ransom, he gave men for thee, and spaniards for thy life. another time, when a force likely enough to have carried all before them, were almost arrived unto us, we are advised, that god sent such a sudden, and such a wasting sickness among them, as to make them for want of hands, to desist from their attempt. these were illustrious deliverances! and yet give me leave to say, we did the last year, see another deliverance, that for aught i know, may be equal to any of the rest. there was an english fleet of our good friends with a direful plague aboard 'em, intending hither. had they come, as they intended, what an horrible desolation had cut us off, let the desolate places that some of you have seen in the colonies of the south, declare unto us; and that they did not come, it was the signal hand of heaven, by which the go of men are ordered. in fine; because god, being full of compassion, would not stir up all his wrath, he hath remembered mercy to us, in the midst of wrath, by raising us up generous benefactors, who have been able and willing to oblige us, with their benefits. it must be with shame acknowledged, our usage of our public servants has commonly been such, that for any thinking man, to be willing at all to serve the public, seems to be a mark and fruit of no little generosity. nevertheless, we have had persons of exemplary patience, and prudence, and self denial, sitting at the helm of our government, all this while that the horrible tempest hath been enough to make any man living sick of being there. we have had persons, who have disbursed and expended of their estates, and considerably damnified their interests for us, in our distresses, when yet they foreknew what pay they should have after all. yea, we have had, and still have, [i can at this moment fasten my eye upon some of them, in the assembly where i am now speaking,] brave men, who have bravely jeoparded their lives in the high places of the field, for our defence. o treat 'em not with vile ingratitude, after all the service they have done: prefer them on all fit occasions, while they live, embalm their memories, and requite their families, when they are dead. but while we are thankful to them, let us much more give thanks to god for them, even, for such gifts of heaven as we have enjoyed in them. well; will you wisely observe these things? wisely! that is to say, thankfully, and fruitfully. it may be, if more distinct and solemn thanksgivings, were made unto god our saviour, for these things, the relics of our enemies would quickly feel the rebukes of god upon them; not unlike those, in 2 chron. 20.22. when they began to sing and to praise, the lord set ambushments against their enemies, and they were smitten. ix. in the war that hath been upon us, whoso is wise, may observe those things, that may mightily encourage our prayer, and our faith, for a total ruin, to be hastened on the remainders of our enemies. there yet remains a knot of our enemies, in those inaccessible thickets, where we despair ever to find 'em out; but i will read their doom, from psal. 21.8, 9, 10 thine hand, o lord, shall find out all thine enemies, thy right hand shall find out th●se that hate thee; the lord shall swallow them up in his wrath, and the fire shall devour them; their fruit shalt thou destroy from the earth, and their seed from among the children of men. what remains for us, is, that we do by prayer and faith, put our enemies over, into those omnipotent hands, that can find them out, and cut them off. oh! let us keep our hands lifted up in prayer, for a total dissipation of those amalekites, which have thus long and thus far prevailed against us! we have already had many notable answers of prayer, in this our war: every one of our deliverances have been very notably such! we cannot say, how many particular persons, have received answers of prayer, in the particular troubles, which this evil time hath ensnared them withal. doubtless, many a christian, has in this time, had opportunity to say, this poor man cried, and the lord herd him, and saved him out of all his troubles! and several towns, that have had a remarkable protection of god upon them, in this long time of danger, they have had a praying people in them, and that praying people have been the chariots and the horse men thereof. why else does deerfield stand? how should our prayer be quickened by such experiences! but there is this further quickening for it, that with the cry of our prayer, there will go up unto the lord, the cry of blood; much innocent, & righteous, & precious blood, cries to heaven, from the ground against those bloody and crafty men, that have treacherously shed it. certainly, they must not live out all their days! and we have this prevailing plea against them, in the court of heaven! that they have most falsely broken their covenants, in their outrages. we may venture, to present our memorials, in the court of heaven, against these covenant breakers, who are implacable and unmerciful; and we may use the words of jephtah, against his heathen adversaries, the lord the judge, be judge between us and them! we may use the words of jehoshaphat against his heathen adversaries, o our god, wilt thou not judge them? vladislaus, the king of hungary, scandalously breaking his league, with amurath the turkish emperor, brought an army into the field against him. the turkish army being horribly broke, and slain, and almost vanquished by the hungarian, amurath in his anguish, took out of his bosom, the written league, that vladi slaves had made with him, and holding it up in his hands, with his eyes to heaven, he cried out, behold, o crucified christ, the league which thy christians in thy name have made with me, and now without cause do violate; if thou be a god, revenge the wrong that is now done unto thy name, and show thy power upon a perjurious people, who in their deeds deny their god immediately the course of the battle turned; and perjurious king was killed; and the turks w●n a most unexpected victory. truly we may in like manner now take the instrument of the submission and agreement of the eastern indians, which thirteen of their chief commanders did sign more than five years ago; and holding it up to heaven, we may cry out, ah, lord god of truth, wilt thou not be revenged upon the false wretches that have broken this league! doubtless, our god will execute a dreadful vengeance upon them, if we humbly make our suit unto him for it; and he has ways for his vengeance to come at them, which we cannot imagine. 'tis affirmed, that several times in this war, our enemies, have in the woods met with parties of indians, which were their own friends, but by a mistake apprehending each to be enemies unto each other, they have hotly fallen upon one another, and many have been killed oh both sides before the mistake was discovered. yea, 'tis affirmed, that not a few of the chief murderers among our enemies, have accidentally killed themselves; the most murderous indians, have in a little while been their own executioners. who can tell, what strange ways, the god unto whom vengeance belongeth, hath to inflict it, on a generation of his curse? only, let us remember to plead the sacrifice of our lord jesus christ, in our prayer, with our faith, for the perfection of our deliverance. our lord jesus christ, hath been a sin-offering for the congregation, and a sacrifice pleadeable, not only for persons, but also for peoples that belong unto him. we read in 1 sam. 7.9, 10. samuel offered a burnt-offering wholly unto the lord, and samuel cried unto the lord of israel, and the lord heard him; and the lord thundered with a great thunder on that day upon the philistines, and discomfited them. when we cry to the lord, let us plead the burnt-offering of the lord jesus christ, & plead, that god has more glorified his justice in the sufferings of our lord jesus christ, than if our houses were all filled with the cries of our people massacred by indian savages. then will our god thunder with a great thunder of his consuming wrath upon our indian philistines! that note, which the great calvin has above an hundred times over, in his commentaries on the psalms, nunquam irritas fore preces, or, prayers will never be lost! prayers will never he lost! it will much oftener be repeated in our blessed experience, if our prayers do present before god that blessed sacrifice, of which he says, 'tis a sweet odour to me! x. in the war that hath been upon us, whoso is wise, may observe those loud calls to a reformation of our miscarriages, which 'tis a dangerous and a desperate thing to neglect any longer. it was the voice of the blessed god, in psal. 81.13, 14. o that my people had harkened unto me, and israel had walked in my ways! i should soon have subdued their enemies, and turned my hand against their adversaries. ah, new-england; thy god hath not soon subdued thine enemies, nor soon turned his hand against thine adversaries: but let 'em vex thee for ten years together. surely, thou hast not harkened unto him, nor walked in his ways! in that which was called, the holy war, the ambassadors of a saracen prince, demanded of a famous christian general, how he came to have, manus tam doctas ad praeliandum, hands that were so able to fight? the christian general replied, quia manus semper habui puras, because i never defiled my hands, with any notorious wickedness. alas, our hands have made but poor work at fight. 'tis time for us, then to reform all the notorious wickedness in our hands! do we dream that the almighty hath spent all his arrows? no, after, all that for ten years together have been spent upon, us there are yet more arrows, and judgements left in the quiver of god: and except we turn unto him, who can say, what arrows he may next ordain against us? the roman emperor upbraided his general terentius, for losing a battle; but the general, having too much occasion to say so much, replied, sir, i must tell you, that it is you that lost the day for us, by your open fight against the god of heaven as you do. if it be asked, how 'tis come to pass, that we have sped so ill in many a battle, since this war began? some will blame one, and some will blame another: but i will take leave to tell all them that led an ungodly life, sirs, 'tis to you, that we own all our ill success! i need not quote one of the ancients, namely, ambrose, for that observation, graviores inimici sunt mores pravi, quam hostes infensi: we have had enough in our own experiments to convince us, that our worst enemies are our vices, which provoke heaven to chastise us with all our other enemies: and indeed, if our ways did please the lord, our enemies would be at peace with us. observe wisely, and you cannot but observe, the language of heaven, in the circumstances through which we have passed for a whole decad of years together, to be that, in leu. 26.23, 24. if ye will not be reform by me, by these things, but will walk contrary unto me, then will i also walk contrary unto you, and i will punish you yet seven times for your sins. and that the demand of reformation may be loud enough, it arrives to us now with a more than ordinary accent of authority upon it. we have seen, and, blessed be god, that we have seen, the greatest monarch that ever sat upon the british throne, issuing out his royal proclamation, upon the pious address of the commons of england, assemble in parliament; a proclamation, wherein that illustrious prince declares his royal resolution to discountenance all vice whatsoever, and requires all officers whatsoever to be vigilant, in the discovery, prosecution, and punishment thereof. we have seen a most excellent governor, who is the greatest person that ever set foot on the english continent of america, beginning his government, with proclaiming for the suppression of all vice in one of his provinces: that noble person has therein done, like a vicegerent of god! his very honourable lieutenant, hath worthily done his part, with the advice of his council, in another of his provinces. if these things prove but mere formalities, among a people, hating to be reform after all, what will they be, but more terrible prognostics of tremendous and amazing desolations at hand, than so many blazing stars on fire, in heaven over us. it is to be hoped, the ministers of the gospel, will do what belongs to them, for the assistence of all holy essays about reformation; and their churches, if called upon, will join with them, in the methods of covenant, and of discipline, for the promoting of it. yea, it is to be hoped, that we shall all zealously in our several stations, do all that we can, for the pleasing of god, and for the correction, and suppression, and reformation of the sin that may be displeasing to him. it is a thing very notorious unto us, that idleness, drunkenness, uncleanness, cheating, lying, profane swearing, and above all, that which is the root of all, the profanation of the lordsday, gains ground upon us. let all that have any power in their hands, unto the utmost of their power, endeavour to keep under those enormities. but last of all, nay, i should rather say, first of all, o let every man set upon self-reformation, with all his might! i remember, that passage, in prov. 18.17. he that is first in his own cause, seemeth right, is translated by the vulgar latin, so as to carry a further, and an useful admonition in it; justus primus est accusator sui, a just man, before he meddles with the reproof of others, will first accuse himself, and search the state of his own soul, and life, and faithfully reform it. oh! that very much of this might be done among us! how doth an army of thrice ten thousand men, presently turn from east to west, because every one turns one? sirs, we have wisely observed the things that have in our afflicted years befallen us, and we have now to good purpose heard a sermon of observations upon those things, if we will now retire, and ponder seriously with ourselves, what is there amiss, in my own heart, and in my own life, and in my own family and by what reformation of myself may i best answer the expectation of the god, who has chastised us all? we have been under the lamentable punishments of our sins, for two lustres of years together; 'tis time for every man, and for all of us, as one man, to say, as in lam. 3.40. let us search and try our ways, and turn again unto the lord. finis. errata. reader, carthagena was of the mind, that unto those three things, which the ancients held impossible, there should be added this fourth; to find a book printed without erratas. it seems the hands of briareus, and the eyes of argus will not prevent them. i take notice of a few in this book; and those few are scarce worth having any notice taken of them. e. g. pag. 45. l. 4. f. must, r. most. p. 60. l. 9 f. il. r. el. p. 68 l. 18. f. left. r. lost. p. 83. l. 7. f. newberry. r. rowley. p. 128. l. 12. r. idaea's. p. 146. l. 4. f. him. r. them. p. 167. l. 1. f. fast. r. fact. p. 184 l. 6. f. by. r. in. p. 198. l. 22. f. where. r. were. p. 200. l. 17. f. he. r. be. advertisement. there will speedily he published, a little book, much desired and expected; whereof the title is, a family wellordered. or, a brief essay, to render parents and children, happy in one another. being two sermons preached, at boston-lecture, by mr. cotton mather. printed for and sold by michael perry, at his shop over against the town house, and benjamin eliot, at his shop under the west-end of the town-house. 1699. the defence of truth against a book falsely called the triumph of truth sent over from arras a. d. 1609. by humphrey leech late minister. which book in all particulars is answered, and the adjoining motives of his revolt confuted: by daniel price, of exeter college in oxford, chaplain in ordinary to the most high and mighty, the prince of wales. 1. king. cap. 20.11. let not him that girdeth his harness, boast himself, as he that putteth it off. ac: ox oxford university coat of arms at oxford, printed by joseph barnes. 1610. to the most illustrious prince henry, prince of wales, duke of cornwall, and earl of chester, the confluence of those choice blessings peace, grace, and glory. most gracious prince with all reverence and devotion, i present to your highness this labour. to whom should i dedicate it? but to your princely goodness, to whose service i have consecrated my tongue, and pen, and heart, and all the offices of my life: it is an answer to a revolted late minister, a business (i may say) imposed me, by some, of very honourable respect, & much encouraged by others, especially the most reverend archbishop: our late chancellor. it is the maintenance of truth, o let it receive countenance from the royal heir apparent of the defender of the truth. the infection of popery spreads too far: some come not to our church, others fly our land and church, both revile and slander the church. the eyes, and hearts, and hopes of all the protestant world, be fixed upon your highness, all expecting your gracious faithfulness, & readiness in the extirpation of that man of sin. march valiantly herein, most gracious prince, and the god of princes shall protect you, his grace and providence shall reward your faith and confidence, and shall heap upon your highness, favour, and honour, and glory, in both worlds. for which, as long as i have being, i shall never cease praying. your highness most humbly devoted, and faithful servant daniel price. answer to the epistle. mr leech. to the learned, wise, and ingenious academics flourishing in the renowned university of oxford. answer. sir, your book sent from arras, as a piece of work of diverse colours, is at length surveyed and reviewed, to see whether it be worth the answering. the opinion of many was, as that of tully concerning a act. 4. in verrem. heius, that you had rather marred the cause then bettered it, and therefore your tract unworthy to be answered. but my mind was otherwise, that the cause marred you, and therefore you and it to be viewed, to be pitied, to be answered. in which succeeding discourse would i could deal with you as s. b jerome. tom. 2. jerome desired to deal with origen, that our countrymen should know your best things, and be ignorant of your worst. for my witnesses be in heaven, & in my own bosom, that no motion of envy, gain, glory, irregular provocation or popular ostentation, have drawn me to this: but the all guiding spirit of god, by the honourable motion of some, and comfortable encouragement of others. and therefore i do refrain all disparagements, and personal aspersions against you: wishing you had done so, against those many worthy doctors of our university. an act, which i know you once disliked in that baaling priest c his book entitled de triplici hominis officio & his epistle to the university. weston, who as if he had been one of psilli who only fed on poison, or the voice of a man in the mouth of a devil, d esay 36.4. or rabshekah sent out of hell to blaspheme god, did vilify all the bewclarks of learning alive & dead, doctors and governors of our academy. but let his branded character remain upon him and his memory. cams' curse, and cain's mark, e gen. 4.12. vagus & profugus in terris. the front of your epistle showeth at first that you think otherwise of us then he doth; seeing that you style our students the learned, wise, ingenious academics flourishing, and our university the renowned oxford: we shall see how you proceed. mr leech. experience doth well approve saint bernard's saying; efficacior lingua, quàm litera: the tongue is of greater efficacy, than the pen. and therefore i suffer no little disadvantage, in that i must now speak unto you in a silent letter, & plead my cause by a mute advocate of my mind. answer. it is true, efficacior lingua, quàm litera; but yet, melior anima, quàm lingua. if your pen express not what your tongue is able fully, i would your heart would conceive that which your tongue may speak truly, that as some think there be certain strings that pass from the heart to the tongue, so there might be a concatenation that what your heart thinketh, & your tongue speaketh, and your pen writeth, may so agree, that they may be all to the glory of god, the instructing of others, and saving of your own soul. for if your tongue could thunder, as f aul. gell. lib. 17c. 17. aristophanes spoke of pericles; or you had a tongue like a trumpet, as g hier. adver. ruffin. tom. 2. fol. 221. hierome saith hilary had; or, as saint h 1. cor. 13. paul observeth, the tongue of men, or angels, and had not charity: it were but vain sounding, tickling, tinkling. the tongue not powerful without charity, and charity not fruitful without verity. s. austin noted that all marveled at tully's tongue, but not at his invention; and at aristotle's invention, but not his tongue: i know not that ever you were admired for either: but remember to use the talon given in both, as you ought; & think not, you suffer disadvantage in that you speak in a silent letter: i would it were not silent both for proof and profit, and that your mute advocate were not mutinous. mr. leech. but since i writ unto them, who are not strangers in my business, but as well eye witnesses of the wrongs, which i have endured, as ear witnesses of the doctrine which i preached among you; my undoubted hope is, that your hearts will be touched with some compassion either toward me, unworthily entreated by a faction (for i will not impute the crime of a few unto all) or towards yourselves, whom this particular doth very highly import, in respect of your learning, honour, and estimation. anrwere. you writ to those that are strangers, to your doctrine, not to your person; or strangers, not to the hearing, but approving your opinion: strangers we are all to any wrongs done to you, not to the wrongs offered by you. and therefore think you not to touch the heartstrings of our students with a ditty of compassion, as if you were (as you say) wrongfully and unworthily entreated by a faction. compassion every honest heart will afford you for being misled, rather than misused. i lib. 1. de controver. ad cler. c. 31. st bernard distinguisheth of pacidicos and pacificos, those that in word speak of peace, but indeed make ready to battle. so may i concerning your request for compassion, and yet even in that your petition, you break into a furious passion, to accuse those reverend learned doctors, who censured you, as if they had been a faction. i will not be nice to climb over those seeming difficulties that lie in my way: and yet without enlarging the limits of your speech, as all your assertions like so many diseases attend upon the ague of error; so this among the rest, wherein you censure those that judicially censured you, to be a faction. if any afforded your pen maintenance, or your sermons countenance by clancular approbation, contrary to the judgement and truth delivered by the learned vicechancellor, and his worthy asistants; they were the faction, not these. it is not a factious position which is generally maintained by the happy and gracious church of england, grounded upon irrefragable places of holy scriptures, taught by many impregnable places of ancient fathers, yea your grand jury of fathers called into the star chamber of judgement by a judicious learned & religious k doctor benefield. divine, now all witnessing against you. were you unworthily entreated when love alured you, and authority solicited you to take better council? were you silenced, or imprisoned, or censured at all, till that engastred impostume broke out, in your last sermon, all daily expecting a much more earnest course against you, the discommoning rather of you, than the loss of your commons? and whereas you desire us to be moved with compassion toward ourselves; we may use the words of our saviour, weep not for me but weep for yourselves, so compassionate not us, but yourself. and for myself among many others i shall ever afford you that hearty pity, non l bernard. oris attactu, sed mentis affectu, as to say to you as the m 1. kings. 13.30. old prophet did of the seduced prophet, alas for thee my brother. mr leech. for as the injury, which god, and his truth have sustained in my person, is now made known not only unto our nation, but the fame thereof beginneth to spread itself abroad in these foreign parts, so it concerneth you (my loving fathers and brethren) to wipe away that disgrace, and blemish from your mother, and yourselves, which some of her unnatural children would both stain her with, and derive upon you; endeavouring to obscure their private folly in the public shame. which protection i will never afford unto them, unless they can obtain it by your own consent. answer. was the quiet and long forborn conventing of you, judicial hearing, learned opposing, religious counseling, calm censuring of you such an injury unto god, and his truth, that not only the whole university, but also the whole nation, and, quae regio in terris vestri non plena furoris? almost all the world taketh notice (as you say) for the fame thereof beginneth to spread itself in those foreign parts. a good thing the more generally it is spread, the better: but of the contrary ever the contrary falleth out. n plut. plutarch telleth of a plague that began in aethiopia, thence filled athens, killed pericles, vexed thucydides, and spread itself far. it should seem by the spreading of that report of what you endured, that it was some contagious stuff that did so expatiate. but what if it do so, among those, who have banished truth as a stranger, & chained up religion as a prisoner? to preach a doctrine twice before forbidden you, was seditious; to preach a doctrine no way to be warranted, was erroneous; that doctrine so soon to spread itself, through so great a nation, so many foreign parts, it was dangerous. good things are not so fertile. the great eye of heaven, and the god which must judge you, and that conscience which must accuse you, do all witness how injuriously you dealt here with your governors in disobeying them, and now how unjustly abroad in traducing them. durst any in those foreign parts, so peremptorily, and presumptuously, publicly have maintained any point of the contrary religion, but he had been apprehended and presently cast into the jaws of that monster the spanish inquisition: your usage was otherwise, you were warned by some, counseled by others, pitied by all, not publicly convented, not commanded to recant, not imprisoned, not expelled, only forbidden to preach because you offended by preaching, & put out of commons for a while the common punishment for any collegiate offence; & the fame of this so far to spread, it cannot profit you any way nor prejudice the chariots of our israel the governors of our university. only remember what o de fam. & spe. diat. 117. petrarch admonisheth in such a case: multi famam se mereri sperant, dum infamiam mereantur. let not this fame be your infamy, nor let these blemishes and disgraces which you impute to our academical mother, or the unnaturalness you deem to be in her children, be found all of them in you; fear your own private folly, fly your own public shame (i use your own words.) to make a show of nakedness where there is none, is worthily condemned: but to spit such words of blemish, disgrace, folly and shame in the face of such reverend fathers, o remember it is accursed. i have gathered up all your burdens, bonds pressures, complaints; sum them up all, they be all nothing. mr leech. wherefore, out of my affectionate zeal unto your credit i do both humbly desire, and earnestly require you to avert this infamy from your noble mother, and to free her from the imputation, which, otherwise, you draw upon her, as being either a patroness of falsehood, or fearful to defend the truth: which folly in the first, or pussillanimity in the second, is a great stain to men of your quality and place. answer. it was p diog. laert. in vita diog. diogenes speech; oportet sapientiam ab insipientibus feriri: but yet ᵍ wisdom shallbe justified by her children, q mat. 11.19. and the blow given by you in the pulpit which you think shall leave a scar in the face of oxford, is easily removed. for no sooner were you removed hence, but the infamy was averted & the air purged from receiving the contagion of any such amphibious amphibologious heresy. for your zealous affection, when you are truly zealous towards god, you will be truly affectionate towards his servants; let not the fume of envy, and foam of vanity, turn holiness into hypocrisy, zeal into folly, and assure yourself as long as this metropolis of learning shall stand, which i hope shallbe as long as the sun and moon endure, she will be so far from being either patroness of falsehood, or fearful to defend the truth, that she will ever have, many strong men armed in the studies of divinity, furnished with the skill of tongues, laboriously exercised in the sacred scriptures, studiously conversant in the fathers, well acquainted with the history of times, who like the valiant men of israel, that guarded r can. 3.7.8. salomon's bed, will be ever provided to encombat any jesuitical philistin that revileth the host of the lord of hosts. it lacked not such worthies in the former time, such was our s scot 4. see dist. 18. scotus resisting the real presence, anno 1290. our t wolsius lect memor. tom 1. occam confuting the pope's authority, anno 1330. our u balaeus cont. 6. cap. 1. wickliff writing against most points of popery about the year 1360. besides those roses of the field, and lilies of the valleys, as * aug. augustin called martyrs, cranmer-ridly. latimer. those reverend and holy bishops, who sealed our religion in oxford with their own blood. and it lacketh not such worthies in these later times, such as are those reverend doctors, who openly in schools; & those learned preachers, who have publicly and frequently in disputations, and sermons, worthily confuted unsound and unsavoury positions, & among the rest this of yours. for many have descended so low as to take knowledge of this your unsound receipt or conceit, all which have valiantly discharged peals of ordinance against it, maintaining the contrary, irrefragably in divinity schools in disputations, in st. maries and christ-church most frequently in sermons, besides letters of condemnation against you from the right reverend father our chancellor to the convocation, my l. grace of canterbury in his letters to the convocation anᵒ 1608. speeches in our public act, by the vicechancellor, proctors, respondents, and almost all that can write, or speak among us, will witness how poor your hope of allowance is here. nothing at this time and ever since the publishing of your book being more commonly grateful to the hearers, graceful to the speakers, them the daily condemning & confuting of this your extravagant paradox; so that for folly or pusillanimity, it is not harboured in the breast of our university. mr leech. for you style your university the fountain, and eye of the kingdom. and you say not unfitly; forasmuch as the doctrine there taught doth stream forth into all parts of our nation: and all men come unto you to receive information of their understandings, by your academical instruction. in which respect you stand deeply obliged unto god, and men (as you have care of his glory, and their benefit) to vindicate the truth from oppression, and to redeem her out of captivity into freedom, that her lustre may not be darkened, where so great a pretence is made of the gospels light. answer. ex ore tuo? shall i condemn you out of your own mouth? the story in y gell. noct. attic. lib. 18. cap. 3. gellius tells you that when a bad man had set down a good cause, the people liking the speech, but disliking the man, caused it to be pronounced by one of better respect. i will not deal so with you, but i will take even your own testimony. it is the fountain of our kingdom, and her streams be clear as crystal, sweet as the waters of bethel, and fluent as jordan that maketh glad the city of god. it is the eye of the land, wherein neither the moat of schism, nor beam of superstition (i hope) shall ever take place, to darken the sight of this glorious light. naioth in samuel's time, jericho in elizeus time, jerusalem in josias time, corinth in s. paul's time, all schools of the prophets, and universities; never more illustrious for colleges and students than this eye of our land, heart of our body, fort of our country, glory of our kingdom. neither need you ever doubt, but that there be many here, able, willing, pressing, sweeting, & striving to vindicate the truth from oppression, and redeem her out of captivity; yea to lead captivity captive, and to seek to bring redemption unto those, that sit in darkness, and to reduce them into the glorious liberties of the sons of god: here being no pretence of the light of christ's gospel, but the real presence of his spirit. mr leech. which just kindness if i may not procure at your hands, yet the truth shall not be impaired thereby: nor will i be any whit discomfited, otherwise then in a sorrowful commiseration of your estate. for my resolution is firmly made within mine own heart, to spare no travel, that i may purchase condign approbation of my cause, from all the universities in europe: if justice may not be there done, where god's truth, and i (merely for her sake) have received such injury, as seemeth almost incredible unto strangers, who do not yet sufficiently understand the courses of d. king, and of other calvinists; the assistants of his spleneticall proceed. answer. the law holds it injustice to afford kindness to an adversary, and so you are held, if not to our persons yet to our positions: truth by you hath been impugned, not impaired; for rome and hell cannot suppress it: oppugnari potest, non expugnari, saith the orator. for your commiserating of us, it is impossible you should afford us such kindness, being so unkind unto yourself. quid miserius misero non miserant seipsum, saith z aug. augustin? charity must begin with itself. begin then to pity yourself, & pray for yourself, that though you be led into temptation yet the tempter prove not victor. your resolution to travel all the universities of europe willbe very laborious, and yet very idle, for the university of leaden may satisfy you well enough: and it willbe very laborious, to carry such a mass of flesh about you, and so mountainous a heap of torments of conscience, if you have any conscience, to remember that in a discontented humour you have forsaken your god, religion, nation, vocation, the truth in which you were baptised, by which you were bred, and unto which you agreed, subscribed, vowed your whole life and labour. but if you determine to be so resolute a pilgrim as to travel all universities in europe, assure yourself it willbe as idle as laborious, for it willbe to no purpose. and if for idle i mat. 12.37. words, much more for idle actions, answer must be made. yet in your travel, think not to darken the sun as you may a candle, offer not to traduce him, whom manners & oaths of the university & college where you lived, have obliged you to honour; think not to subject the honourable reputation of your thrice worthy deane, our most worthy vicechancellor, by any slanderous, scandalous speeches nor let any phrenetical humour in you, judge his wise proceed to relish of any spleneticall savour. let neither nature through custom, nor bitterness through discontent force you, so far to forget the duty you own to this k basil. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 this most worthy servant of god, seeing they that live with him, love him, all that know him reverence him, they that hear of him admire him; qui primas non habuisti sapientiae, secundas habeas partes modestiae, saith l austin. retract. austin in his retractations. i would you would so retract. it is not credible that you received (as you say) incredible injury in the lawful proceed against you. the university censured you, not imprisoned you. the college for a time discommoned you, not expelled you. this small punishment no banishment, your complaint is the same with m in orat. pro sexto roscio. fimbria in tully, quod non totum tèlum in corpore recepisset, you received great injury, because you were not suffered to do great injury. but be not deceived, god is not mocked, enter into a serious and religious cogitation, whether in this course that you are, you need not fear the true description of malcontented apostates, i would you were not suitable to them, as they be lively deciphered both by s. n 2. pet. 2. peter and s. o jude. 13. jude, to be presumptuous, standing in their own opinion, wandering stars, raging waves of the sea foaming out their own shame, and, speaking evil of them which are in authority, which a man that maintaineth your third counsel of obedience should not do. the scornful aspersion you cast upon us by the byname of calvinists we neither reject nor receive. reverend, learned, holy calvin, was the greatest glory of the french church that ever was, since he was, hooker praef. to his church politic. as a famous writer witnesseth. and though our religion seek neither antiquity nor authority from him, nor we denomination or confirmation by him, because as the apostle speaketh we rejoice not in men: yet we reverence him, because as the same apostle in the same verse concludeth, o 1. cor. 3.22.23. whether it be paul, or apollo's, or cephas, all are ours we christ's, and christ gods. mr leech. finally (my brethren) with my honest petition, and necessary counsel, i join my hearty prayers (and tears with them) that it would please the author of all goodness, and the god of all truth, to power the abundant riches of his grace into your souls, that your understandings may be fully enlightened with his truth, and that your wills may be made conformable thereunto in your profession of the holy catholic faith. for which as i now suffer the want of my native country, so, in defence thereof, i shall be ready to yield up my life, when it shall please my gracious lord to call me unto that honour: whereof i am unworthy. your devoted brother in christ. humphrey leech. answer. the epistolary conclusion with a petition, and counsel, we should receive more willingly, if your petition were more honest, and your counsel more evangelical. your prayers we return tenfold into your bosom, beseeching the lord that it may please him, to free your understanding by truth, ab p albert. in comp. theol. lib. 5. ignorantia veri; to rectify your will by good, a concupiscentia mali; and to purge your whole soul by grace, ab impotentia boni: that your will may be subject to his will, your life to his service, not his service to your will; and so you may be reduced to the true apostolic, catholic faith: that as you complain you suffer the want, though the wanton want of your native country; so you may not endure the want of heavenly jerusalem, your spiritual country: that when you are to appear at the fatal, and final judgement among the great and small, when the muffling of conscience shall be discovered, the worm of conscience be not your portion. and that in your pilgrimage here, you may rather wash your garments in the blood of the lamb, then in your own blood: so by the tears of a sinner, blood of a saviour, & prayers of his saints on earth, you may be brought again to this militant church, & in the better world receive a permanent state in his triumphant church. yours, if you be christ's, daniel price. the preface unto the whole discourse. mr leech. when first i set footing into this present business, my purpose was not (no not in my most secret thoughts) to enter into any point of controversy, or to give occasion of offence, or dislike unto any: only my resolution was, plainly, & positively (as the course of my studies had ever bend, and carried me) to glance at a main point of doctrine (it coming but obiter in my way) directly warranted, nay lineally deduced from the uniform consent of all ancient times; bequeathed unto us by the perpetual tradition, and practise of the church. answer. you took wrong footing in this business, both in secret, and in open sight of god, men, and angels: wherein let me remember you, how many aims you gave to this question, how desirously you entered into it, how, not only in academical, but parochial sermons you taught it, how you frequently seasoned your inkepot with the coloquintida of contradiction, sometimes openly, sometimes secretly, continually full of opposition. wherein as you were not often happy in the choice so not in the success, one being the cause of your pastoral remove in * a most fair large, and ancient town, famous for building, and clothing, but more especially for civil government care of religion, detestation of popery, & what soever is praise worthy. shrewsbury, the other the cause of your academical censure in oxford. and whereas you say, you meant to give but a glance, the purport of your whole sermon of distinguishing great and small, (a matter of great consequence prosecuted to small purpose) showeth how you did wiredraw a distinction upon one part of your text, and prosecute especially that one point so far as the hour and your paper could afford: and indeed your glance so glanced upon the whole auditory, that some departed, others were perplexed, all offended therewith. religion so wronged, and the university disgraced, by the public contesting of a superstitious, supercilious doctrine, the consequences whereof are pernicious and dangerous, and the question itself the very ground of monkish life, as the rhemists confess, annot. rhen. in nou. test. wherein men flying some occasions of evil, they fly all occasions of doing good; and prove dry fig trees, withered vines, empty sepulchres, broken cisterns. and, whereas you affirm that the position was directly warranted, nay lineally deduced from the uniform consent of all ancient times; i think i may speak of it, as a cael. rhod. antiq. lectionum. rhodogine did of old images, perierunt cum antiquitate: you have nothing to prove your position to be old, but because it is rotten. but we deny it, as it shall appear, to have any part of reverend antiquity to countenance it. and, whereas you affirm your main point of doctrine to be bequeathed; i inquire, if bequeathed, by what testament? surely neither by the old, nor new; by what legacy? neither by the fathers, nor general counsels: but by tradition (you say;) wherein i may say to you, as our b mark. 7.9. saviour said to the pharisees, well do ye reject the commanmandements of god, that you may observe your own traditions. and yet for any apostolical tradition to confirm this, it will be no otherwise proved than c confess. petric. c. 92. de traditionibus. hosius proveth that the greatest part of the gospel is come to us by tradition, and very little of it committed to writing; which is a most rash, & false conceit of his. but andradius acknowledgeth that the city of refuge for all the runagate points in religion, is tradition. his words d andrad. orthod. explic. lib. 2. pag. ●0. be, quam traditionum autoritatem si tollas, nutare & vacillare videbuntur: many points would reel & totter, if not supported by the help of traditions. saint e 1. cor. 9.6. paul hath warned, that no man presume above that which is written: and f regul. contract. 95. fol. pag. 502. basill admonisheth that it is necessary and consonant to reason, that every man learn that which is needful out of scripture, both for the fullness of godliness, and lest they be enured to human traditions. yet i answer concerning traditions, that when this controversy is fully discussed, you willbe as unable to prove your position from any apostolical tradition, as the men of doryla in g cicero pro l. flacco. tully, who when they were to prove somewhat against flaccus out of their public records, and their records were called for, they said they were robbed of them by the way: so your traditions which must speak for you, they are lost by the way; no one, neither bellarmine, nor coccius, nor sonnius, nor any writer can produce one apostolical sanction, tradition, or authority. and for the practice of the church, the ecclesiastical histories show, that the ancient servants of god, which first retired themselves from the world, did it not for any opinion they had hereby to obtain perfection: but to escape persecution, as h sozomen. lib. 1. c. 12. sozomen writeth, and to hide themselves. and some of them were laymen, as k athan. ep. ad dracont. dyonisius voucheth; some of them married men, as i dion. ecclesiae hierar. c. 6. athanasius recordeth; all of them freemen from binding themselves with vows, as l nic. lib. 9 c. 14. nicephorus proveth. and for the practice of popish monks, now the patterns of this evangelical perfection, m philobib. c. 5. dunelmensis delivereth it; greges & vellera, fruges & horrea, porci & olera, potus & patera, lectiones sunt hody & studia monachorum. and you know the old verse; o monachi, vestri stomachi sunt amphora bacchi: vos estis, deus est testis, teterrima pestis. mr leech. but yet since, contrary to my probable persuasion, certain private spirits (whose faith is their own fancy) itching rather after profane novelty, and heretical innovation, then abiding the wholesome doctrine of sacred antiquity, and the churches dogmatical tradition, have by all means, laboured to impugn my doctrine, and to defame my person: i have thought myself in conscience, and duty (both before god, and man) obliged, a swell for the general satisfaction of all, whom this present business may any way concern, as for my own discharge in particular (being the party herein especially interessed) briefly to compile, and publish the whole carriage, and progress of this matter, in the ensuing treatise; humbly recommending, and ever submitting my opinion unto the grave, and infallible judgement of the church, at whose feet, and tribunal alone prostrating myself, i must stand, or fall: as also referring myself, with the moderate deportment of my cause, unto the sincere judgement of the discreet, and impartial reader. answer. you were drawn to this, unwillingly, in respect of your unabillity to maintain the opinion; but most willingly in desire to stand out in contradiction. but why should you rub over any here, with the title of itching spirits? barn. it is the rule of s. bernard, when in disputation or conference there is railing or reviling, tunc non veritas quaeritur, sed animositas fatigatur: truth is not sought for, but strong and stubborn stomachs disgorge their poison. he that hath given leave to try the spirits, hath prohibited the condemning, nay judging of a brother: and therefore while you slander them with the itch of profane novelty, you bewray yourself to be infected with the scab of heresy. they that gainsaid your doctrine, were wise and honest, learned and religious; not a few, but the consent of all, of all degrees, among us. and so far are they from defaming of your person, that i do assure myself that every religious honest heart in oxford, will be desirous to cover it with the mantle of charity, & to pray that it may be invested with the rob of christ's righteousness: wishing from our hearts, that no other cause then conscience, and duty (as you say) had obliged you to publish this your treatise; and that the discharge of yourself, and satisfaction of others, had been more truly, and charitably performed; & that you had submitted your opinion to god's word, rather than the church, seeing the church is not the infallible rule of judgement (as you hold.) n relec. controu. 4. de potestat. ecclesiae in se. q. 3. art. 2. resp. ad arg. 5. stapleton himself, after long discussing, durst not absolutely affirm it but seemeth to make it, rather probable, then credible, when he confesseth that it is not any article of our faith to believe that the authority of the church is the rule of our faith. and not only a doctor, but a pope speaketh in this case more plainly, o decret. greg. lib. 5. de sent. excom. c. 28. a nobis saepe. innocentius affirming that the church's judgement followeth opinion, which often deceiveth and is deceived. and howsoever i may say to you, as p aug. de unit eccles. cap. 2. s. augustine did to some heretics of his time; de hoc inter nos quaestio versatur, utrùm apud nos, an apud illos, vera ecclesia sit: the question being controverted between you and us, whethers is the true church; neither of us can prove the argument by the church, seeing q chrysost. in hom. 10. in 1. tit chrysostome doth conclude that the scriptures must teach who hath the true church, r de unit. eccles. cap. 16. s. austin resolving that scriptures be documenta, fundamenta, firmamenta; the proofs, foundations, grounds of our cause: and therefore, unless you be contented to submit your opinion to the scriptures, it is manifest that you acknowledge that your doctrine and the scriptures were never acquainted. the pharisees the false porters of the kingdom, s mat. 23.13. took away the key of knowledge; and they received their reward, a volley t luk. 11.42. of wo. take heed lest doing the like, you incur the like danger. more respective are the schoolmen of scripture, than you are. u lom. dist. 23. lombard, x scot 3. dist. 23. q. vin. scotus, y oc. 3. q. 8. art. 3. ockam, z by 3. dist. 23. q. 2. lit. g. & h. biell in their distinction of faith; they hold, that it is either fides infusa & inspirata, an infused faith wrought in us by the enlightening spirit of god, and resting itself upon the truth of god; or else it is acquisita & suasa, a natural faith grounding itself upon human authority, and wrought by human motions and persuasions. the faith we have of the points in scripture, is of the former and better kind, not relying on the testimony of the church, whose authority is but a created thing from the first verity, as a prin. fid. doct. lib. 8. stapleton confesseth; when as the first verity enforceth the mind without further authority to yield obedience. as also scripture is that b rom. 1.16. power commanding, that c eph. 6.17. sword dividing, that d jer. 23.27. hammer driving in, that e 2. cor. 10. pyoner powerful to overthrow strong holds, and to cast down every high thing: & therefore only the authority of the scripture is to be relied upon; because our faith would reel, and totter, and fall, if the authority of scriptures stand not fast. o then submit yourself to the censure of scripture, whose majesty is ineffable, whose decree inevitable: which rightly looked into, with the eye of humility, hearkened unto with the ear of attention, and understood with the heart of faith, willbe the certain rule, authority, testimony, only to be relied on; the pillar of truth, and school of goodness. mr leech his title. a triumph of truth. answer. a triumph, and why? c ludou. vives in praefatio ad libros aug. de civet. dei. honorius the emperor had a fight cock called rome, whereupon vives records that when the goathes surprised rome the city, & news was brought that rome was lost, the emperor thought it was his cock, not his city. your triumph, and his cock may go together. d a book in folio upon the 4. gospels. johannes de la hay the jesuit, hath lately robbed you of the title, his great volume being entitled triumphus veritatis: and surely he had some semblance for it; for his volume seemed to be a vessel of good lading, though it have nothing in it but stubble and hay. but you, to give your boat of so small burden, the title of a man of war; sure your title is too big, & your book is too little. it is a triumph, got by flying; or, a triumph, got without fight. let the pharisee be the herald of his own praises, pygmalion enamoured with his own devises; let narcissus do eaten on his shadow; let thersites vaunt without modesty: but how much better were it for you, that you had styled your book with some humble and religious title, savouring of grace, not of vainglory? but alas, religion, without truth, willbe ever unsavoury; and reading, without judgement ever peremptory. mr leech. chap. 1. entreating of this parcel of holy scripture; i saw the dead, in a sermon at christ-church in oxford 1607 apoc. 20.12. both great, and small, stand before god; i distinguished a fowrefolde acception, or signification of great, and small. first; great, and small for worldly authority, and temporal condition. secondly; great, and small in respect of heavenly supereminency of grace, and spiritual infusion. thirdly; great and small in am of diversity of rewards, and retribution. fourthly; great, and small in regard of contrariety, and disparity of works, and operation. answer. a time there shall be, when the books of every man's conscience shall be laid forth; a day of fear and fury, when an universal flowed of fire shall overstreame the whole world, when the heavens shall threaten, the earth cast up, all creatures cry vengeance, devils accuse, conscience give evidence, and the whole jury of saints pass verdict upon sinners: and then the secrets of all hearts shall be disclosed. in holy scripture this judgement is often mentioned: but of all others, hier. that glorious eagle s. john, mounting the high sphere of divinest contemplation, doth most expressly by his vision and revelation, manifest the declaration thereof; and of all other places, most pregnantly in this your text, apoc. 20.12. and i saw the dead both great and small stand before god, and the books were opened. was there no other place to confirm an untruth, but that which shall confound all untruth? no other scripture to justify you, but that which shall judge you? would you sow tars upon that ground, upon which, wheat, and tars shallbe distinguished? remember whence you are fallen, and repent, and do the first works or else i will come against thee, saith christ, rev. 2.5. o the eternity of that cursed time, rev. 2.5. to be spent in wretchedness and confusion; no myriads of years to free from the execution of that perpetual judgement. an end not ending, a death not dying should terrify and amaze you, and make you return, seeing the dead both great and small shall stand before god. but to your distinction. there is a great mistake in your fourfold acception of great and small. for antiquity, which you so much boast of, do all expound it otherwise: a rupert. in apoc. rupertus, by mortuos, magnos, and pusilloes, understanding homines impios, spiritus malignos; b anselm. in apoc. 12. c lyra in apoc. 12. anselmus, lyra, d hugo in apoc. 12. hugo, the e gloss. in apoc. 12. ordinary gloss, and many others understanding by the dead, great, and small, malos, only wicked men. and f carthus. in eund. carthusian intimateth so much of st augustine's opinion, that he understandeth not, by mortuos magnos and pusillos, the saints; but by libros apertos. carthusians words be plain; augustinus per libros apertos, intelligit sanctos, in quibus mali poterunt legere, seu videre bona, quae facere debuerunt, & neglexerunt: austin understandeth by the books that were opened, the saints, in whom the wicked might see, and read the good which they ought to have done, and have neglected. how then holds your fourfold acception, if by the dead you mean the living, and by the wicked you mean the saints? g caelius rhodog. lib. 20. rhodogine recordeth, that polemo being the spectator of a tragedy at smyrna, a ridiculous actor comes out upon the stage, and being to pronounce, o coelum, o terra! bends his hands and eyes to the earth and crieth o coelum! and than lifts his eyes and hands to the heaven and pronounceth, o terra! polemo condemneth his action for a soloecism. it is no less in you, to call evil good, and good evil: and in the prophet it is forewarned with a woe. whose fourfold acception this should be, i know not. if your own, i am sorry for the mistake, and i confess it is the first notice that i ever took of your breathing in any school learning and in that, i shall do you no more injury than h gretzer. app. 1. ad lib. 1. bellarm. § idem dictum pag. 558. caietanus, homo potiùs in scholasticis subtilitatibus & argutiis, quàm in lectione patrum, conciliorum, & veteris memoria exer●itatus. gretzer (that great sir railer of the society of bar-iesus) doth to caietan: for he taxeth the cardinal that though he were well seen in the subtleties of schools; yet he was not so in the writings of the fathers. so you on the contrary, have taken upon you the reading of the fathers; but your poverty in school learning this naked distinction showeth. mr leech. hereunto i applied that distinction of s. gregory; moral. lib. 26. cap. 24.25. quidam judicantur, & pereunt; quidam non judicantur, & percunt: quidam iudicantur, & regnant: quidam non iudicantur & regnant. that is (as an other ancient writer, somewhat varying the words, but keeping the sense, doth excellently render it) some are to be judged, and damned; perishing by judgement. some are judged, and damned already; perishing without judgement. some are to be judged and saved; saved with judgement. some are judged and saved already; saved without judgement. and all this diversity of judgement ariseth from contrariety, and disparity of works, acted, and done here in this life, by great and small mentioned in my text. answer. in the two chapters of s. gregory which you cite in your margin, though the distinction be found, according to your quotation, but in some copies: yet it maketh no more for your purpose, than that place that i bellarm. de mon. c. 5. §. habemus in primis. bellarmine bringeth to prove the antiquity of monks; enos coepit invocare nomen domini: ergo enos was the first founder of monkery. so you infer that there is a disparity of works, acted, and done in this life, by great and small; ergo there is a distinction betwixt precepts and counsels: an argument as forcible, as that common non sequitur of schools, a baculo ad angulum. but of this more hereafter. for many things that seem most material about the question, are repeated so oft and in diverse places, that i must be constrained to bring those wanderers to your sermon. mr leech. this distinction i briefly dilated upon, as the straightness of time (which now had overtaken me) would give me leave, and coming to the last member of the distinction, in the very close, and upshot of the sermon, i concluded, that those, that were to be saved without judgement, are such, as did transcend the precepts of the law by due performance of evangelical counsels of perfection; endevoring not only to perform the moral obligatory decalogue, but thirsting after more eminent perfection added, nay voluntarily by power of an arbitrary choice, offered unto the lawgiver more, than the general precepts of the law necessarily tied them unto; devoting and consecrating themselves unto the heavenly profession of spiritual poverty, angelical chastity, and humble obedience, renouncing their own will, foregoing carnal concupiscence, forsaking all things, yea and themselves, for christ, and heavens sake. that is to say; they despise the world's transitory trash, and pleasures; and only thirst after spiritual goods, which are the true treasure of heaven. answer. conclusio sequitur deteriorem partem; what a concatenation of mistake are here? your text misinterpreted, anselme hugo. gloss. carth. aug. etc. ut supra. as antiquity, the fathers, and glosses prove against you; your distinction to no purpose urged and now the last member thereof so misapplied by inserting into the words of s. gregory evangelical counsels of perfection, when as no such point is in that chapter, that pity rather than pith must answer you. you have wire-drawn this distinction, and twyned such webs in it, as have caught yourself. your first overture of this doctrine, was not so much as you here report; it began like a snail to creep out then, but neither head nor horns appeared then. i reiourne the full answer of this, to the due place. your positions be ubiquitaries, i can apprehend them where i will, and i will do it, where i see most sting and strength. mr leech. this was the sum, and substance delivered in my first entrance into the point, mr doctor king (vicechancellor of the university) being then present; and giving no signification of dislike conceived by him against the verity of this doctrine. answer. your discourse upon evangelical counsels was thrice presented to the public auditory: but with much more reservation than you let your readers understand. in the first you did but intimate or insinuate that which followed. and boast not much that you handled it thrice, seeing it was misliked thrice, that in this you may speak as the poet did in another kind; * ovid. de trist. lib. 1. ter limen tetigi, ter sum revocatus. of mr vicechancelors manifesting no dislike you do oppose, and i will answer in your next chapter. mr leech. chap. 2. now let the indifferent, & judicious reader observe, whether i may not more than probably conclude, that either the vicechancelor, at this time, apprehended it not; or apprehending it, in his own true judgement, and conscience disgusted it not; or distasting it, yet being not able to convince, and refel the demonstrative evidence of it, could have been content to wink at it, and give it his indulgent connivency, so that it might thus have passed away in silence. answer. that you accuse the most vigilant governor of our university for silence as if either by negligence, or connivance he did let pass your error, who hath as a true and most faithful servant in god's church watched ever in his government, that the wicked man sow no tars, you do it very impudently without sense or shame. all confess with admiration the speediness of his apprehension, the soundness of his judgement, the all ability of his knowledge. his continuance, experience, honourable and holy employments in the work of a true evangelist have manifested to the world how far he is from the imputations you put upon him, the reasons why he made no public dislike at first, follow. mr leech. was the point erroneous? where then was his judgement, that should have descried it, if it deserved his censure? why escaped it then unrebuked? might this doctrine now pass currant, and must it afterwards be judged counterfeit? in a word: is the doctrine as it was generally intimated, allowable; and are the particulars thereof being now dilated, and amplified, made thereupon intolerable? answer. many questions not worth the answering; idle and dull interrogations only worth the censuring. two qualities strive for the first place in this paragraph, impiety and absurdity, fit twins, but most unfitly bestowed in your injurious traducing this honour of our oxford. you might foreconceive what is answered to this before you read it, but to awaken you, receive thus much: how your sermons were approved of (especially after you became the hackney preacher of the university) both by him and others, is not unknown to you: they were ever accounted the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of postillary friars, bestowing those sacred hours in gathering sticks, never making judgement the master of your opinion, seldom adorning your speech with the better part of that which the navy of hiram brought to solomon, i mean with gold and silver; but with ivory and apes and peacocks, legends, allegories, etc. but nearer to the purpose, to answer why your doctrine was not descried by his vigilant wisdom and rebuked; the reason was, either his absence at that time, which whither he were or no he knoweth not, being not only then, but ever since he governed us, employed continually in the greatest and most advantageous business that ever any vicechancellor laboured in: or else because of the undisposed, undigested, rude, and crude manner of your preaching, wherein you proposed your positions so darkly and obscurely, that unless you were unacquainted with yourself, you had not begun your epistle with efficacior lingua quam litera; for if * some body doth much injury you if he were not author of much & corrector of most in this your book. none had mended your pen, your most ingenuous friends, would have as much neglected your paper work, as your pulpit. o how much are you to answer for the profanation of that holy place, and for your idle words in that holy work, beating the air, misspending the time, mistaking the text, that the most judicious among us, could hardly conceive, whether your doctrine were positive, or privative, affirmative or negative, & the most charitably censorious thought it perdere horan to hear you; arist. as the philosopher spoke to such another 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, whose speech was composed of non sense & non sequitur. if in your first sermon, you only urged the distinction, and began to build your rotten wall upon that foundation afterwards: marvel not that when like a mole you were working under ground, you were not descried when you were not above ground. for as it is a doctrine conceived in darkness, so you brought it forth in clouds of darkness. mr leech. howbeit certain of a purer strain (brethren some men call them; and brethren i confess them to be; fratres in malo, as simeon & levi sometimes were) secretly murmured, and began in corners privately (as heretics usually have done) to traduce me, my doctrine, and my author s. gregory: calunniating that in secret, which openly they durst not yet adventure substantially to impugn. answer. nullus est eorum fidus affectus, jerom. quorum est diversa fides, saith s. jerom: difference in religion extinguisheth charity in affection. you prove this true when you tax the purer strain, and yet you strain for a more perfect strain. do any of the more pure strain profess angelical integrity, virginal chastity, spiritual transcendency? as you teach. or to come to your meaning, be any here, of those purer strain? whom while you scoff, he that sitteth in heaven shall laugh you to scorn: be there i say, any here of those who making conscience of their ways have refused in manual subscription, and oral declaration, willingly to manifest their hearty consent and reverence to the religious articles in our church maintained? the name of brethren is much abused by you: a name that christ by his own mouth sanctified, the apostles in the acts so frequently used, s. john in his epistles so familiarly recited, the primitive church in their time so blessedly entertained. the a ratisbon. in comp. theol schools observe the name of brother to be nomen unitatis, aequalitatis, charitatis & societatis, and even by this brotherhood, we have santiorem copulam cordium quam corporum saith bernard: bern. a name more welcome to the godly, than the olive branch to noah, than david to jonathan, than the waters of bethel to david. it is an oade, a psalm, a canticle, a c cant. 1.2. name as an ointment powered out, as that name in the canticles. it was the oyer and determiner of d gen. 13.8. abraham and lot's controversies in the law, and it is the bond of peace and girdle of truth to all true christians in the gospel. of joseph's miseries it is recorded that the archers grieved him, and shot against him, and hated e gen. 49.23. him. malicious, perfidious, murderous brethren grieved him, iniuriâ operis; shot against him, blasphemiâ oris; and hated him, invidiâ cordis, saith f hugo in gen. hugo. you may be ranked with such brethren if you continue the cacoethes of traducing those worthies, whose lives shine before men, that they honour god and glorify their father which is in heaven. discharge not then such arrows, even bitter words, headed with venom, feathered with fury, and shot off with folly. but these brethren you say they be fratres in malo, such as were simeon and levi. how caiphas-like you denounce judgement against fratres in malo, your brethren in iniquity, look the text gen. 49.5. gen. 49.5. etc. never any scripture, came so near to any offenders, as that to fratres in malo, the salt peter pioneers; who like as if the dream of the stoics had come to pass, that the world should be fired, had instruments of cruelty in their habitations, into their secrets let not my soul come (saith old and reverend jacob) my glory be not joined with their assemblies: for in their wrath, they killed a man; and in their self will, they digged down a wall: cursed be their wrath, for it is fierce; and their rage, for it is cruel. nay the very curl of curses, and very bottom of the vial and dregs of vengeance, with the dissipation and dispersion of their families upon the face of the earth; the eternal detestation of their names, with the clapping and hissing and supplotion of all the world against them, be upon them, and their posterities, that practise such helborne boundless conspiracies. we have no such fratres in malo. object not murmuring against any among us; it is the brand of malcontented traitors, not of godly preachers. the christians in this life may be compared to the stork, desolately sitting; to the turtle, mourning; to the dove, lamenting; to rahel, weeping; and to the souls under the altar crying out, how long lord, holy and true, dost not thou avenge? so they may sorrowfully complain to see the abomination of desolation, romish, devilish, antichristian positions presume ever to be taught in our churches and temples. it was no factious murmuring, no secret calunniating, as you unjustly term it: but the vindicating of truth from oppression, which neither policy for example, nor religion for peace could tolerate. your preaching was misliked, not your author. s. gregory's praises we neither deny, nor envy: yet h bar. tom. 8. annal. an. christi. 1593. num. 62. p. 57 baronius affirmeth that he lived in a barren time, and therein taxeth him for some wants in learning. and i canus loc. theol. lib. 11. c. 6. canus observed that he was overcredulous in the reports of miracles in his time, & therein toucheth his defect in judgement. but whatsoever he was in other points, sure he was no father, or author of your position; your citations out of him, have no one word of evangelical counsels of perfection. mr leech. the report, and rumour whereof (by relation of some friends) no sooner came unto my ears, but presently (knowing well the assured grounds of my doctrine) i addressed myself to have satisfied, and contented any ingenious, and unpassionate auditor, by a second repetition, with a brief, punctual, and perspicuous explanation and confirmation of my aforesaid doctrine: for i was altogether unwilling to suffer the least imputation or scandal to be fastened upon it, or upon the author (were it but in corners secretly) and farther, though i intended not to run into a public opposition, yet now occasion might be ministered unto me, & others to vindicate a necessary truth from the detraction of calumnious tongues. answer. to satisfy any auditor is not only ingenuous, but a religious act. but did you give content to any man that conferred with you in it? did you not rather in your preparation for the second sermon, take occasion to cast the stumbling block of offence in your third, verifying that speech, 〈◊〉. finis unius mali gradus est futuri? i will not ask you whether the second sermon were your own: or whether you purged the bowels of a friars postil, & could all those your pearls (as you thought them) out of the dunghill of some moth-eaten monk, tied up in chains, till you came to free him, and to bind yourself. the general judgement upon your book, when it came first forth, was this, that it was composed of two styles, divers in form, uneequall in fabric; the one somewhat dull and leaden very resty, the other more nimble and quicke-silvered but somewhat scurvy: whereupon a familiar acquaintance of yours censured it thus, that the ground of your paper was ploughed by an ox and an ass, a conjunction forbidden in the law. i do not desire to make my paper guilty of idle words, but yet this i must profess that your second repetition, which you mention, doth savour of much unsavoury stuff, and hath in it ᵈ sapientiam attramentalem, non mentalem. senec. you say, you did not purpose to run into a public opposition, when you did reiterate that, in your second, which you had in your former sermon. but i desire you to summon the sobriety of your senses before your own judgement, and confess plainly how it could otherwise be, but that the proclamation of contradiction in you, would prove a public opposition maintained by you: weigh this in the balance of discretion, and you will find it lightness and innovation. you seem to join your forces in mainetenance of your position, when you say occasion was given to you and others to vindicat this necessary truth. what others assisted you? among us, all desire to purge the temple from superstition, & to sweep away those cobwebs which the spiders of rome have hanged up. there is no one, that dare pollute our holy places public, with any such infectious doctrine: so far are your fellow counsellors from making a plural number, that a dual number never showed themselves amongst us yet in this controversy. mr leech. chapt. 3. being thus occasioned by the secret, & clancular murmuration of brethren (the fame whereof began now to disperse itself abroad) to address some defence of my former doctrine; i took the next opportunity to supply the public place, & willing rather to give a little farther touch to convince the said brethrens, then to dwell, as yet, upon any main, and full discourse (which was not my purpose; the point being yet not publicly contradicted) i repeated, and dilated upon the point more at large, as it was originaly deduced out of the last branch of s. gregory his distinction; to wit, quidam non judicantur, & regnant: to this purport, and effect. answer. occasion and scandal be either given or taken, they were both given by you rather than offered you. you desired to give a touch to convince the said brethren: all of us were brethren in this, all agreed in dislike of your manner of preaching; which was so dull and delphically mystical, that few heard you, and none approved you. but i would willingly desire you to reconcile these two places in this paragraph. first that the fame of the brethren's murmuration began to spread itself abroad, and yet within five lines you confess, the point was not publicly contradicted. if murmuration be contradiction, then non sense may serve as a marginal note. but because you breath at the brethren again in this chapter (though i defend none that schismatically contradict the state or break the blessed peace of our flourishing church, neither do know any such here, god that knoweth the secrets of all hearts, bearing me record;) seeing you so maliciously traduce this honourable university, as if it were an anabaptistical seminary: i do challenged you, or any of your part, to answer these two points; first that there be * vide iohan pappium. peace of rome and many other books. more material differences in points of religion, and more gross points of chatharisme among papists, then among all the schismatics or separists: secondly, that the church of england never had any so puritanical; as to judge themselves celestial men, terrestrial angels, excelling, surmounting, transcending in perfection, fulling the law, nay more than the law. mr leech. of this point (said i) i may speak as s. john speaketh to the seven churches of asia; concluding ever the burden of his admonition which a pathetical epiphonema in the reprehension; let him that hath an ear to hear, hear what the spirit saith to the churches. and may not i apply, let him that hath not only an ear to hear, but a soul to save by the ears hearing, hear what the celestial oracle heavenvly spirit & catholic church jointly speak, & deliver concerning evangelical counsels. answer. remember not only what s. john endeth his epistle with: but also what he sealeth up his whole revelation with, i a apoc. 22.19. protest unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, if any manshal add unto these things, god shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book. for that sweet aphorism and acclamation of every of s. john's epistles cited by you, i acknowledge the power and divine spirit speaking in it. for what is recorded of hercules gallicus, that his speeches tied the ears of his hearers to his tongue, is more true by many degrees concerning god: and therefore it is not only david's incitation, * ps. 34.9. o come and see and taste how good the lord is; but b ps. 34.12. apoc. 1. o come hither childs and hearken, i will teach you the fear of the lord. and s. john's proclamation in the first of the apocalyps; blessed are they that read, and they that hear, and they that keep the words of this book, & therefore let him that hath an ear, hear what the spirit saith to the churches: yet whosoever heareth and receiveth false doctrine willingly, receiveth and heareth his own damnation. and for the catholic church you brag of, c lactantius lib. 4. institutio. cap. vlt. lactantius hath given warning of such boasts, singuli haereticorum coetus suam esse ecclesiam catholicam putant. the celestial oracle, heavenly spirit, & true catholic church (i say and will confirm it by all manner of arguments) they never taught that point as you seek to maintain it, concerning evangelical counsels of perfection. mr leech. or i may speak with our blessed saviour, advising, exhorting, counseling, yea, out of the whole mass of mankind, inviting, nay inciting some to that angelical gift of virginal chastity; qui potest capere, capiat; he that can aspire to the top of angelical integrity, let him become a votary of virginal chastity. answer. the strangest exposition of words, that ever i read or heard. virginal chastity: the word virginal is out of tune; a weak wired chastity, to ascend the top of angelical integrity. paul did not only approve, but appoint ministers: and yet asketh the question, 2. cor. 2.16. quis idoneus ad haec? and though christ not only was a virgin, but did allow of virgins: yet he may pronounce this speech, qui potest capere, capiat, without any such inference or consequence. you deliver no gold without dross, no place of scripture without some wrested and impertinent gloss. but in your sermon you shall receive more satisfaction. mr leech. this is s. paul his sapientia inter perfectos; apostolical wisdom for men of angelical perfection. these easily disclose, and discover the world's foolishness & impostures, when they paragon them with heaven's remuneration, & treasures. these are the salt of the earth, & the light of the world: stars fixed in the sphere of heaven, the church militant; not wandering in their motion towards heaven, the church triumphant. answer. the ancient writers do not so expound those words. all show that the apostle doth therein distinguish between the believers & unbelievers, as may be seen by the connexion: but more especially a chrysost. in 1. cor. 2.6. chrysostome thus expoundeth perfectos, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, he calleth them perfect which did believe. s. hierome expoundeth so, theodoret so, & the whole current of expositors understand a kind of perfection in belief, not in life. aquinas hath such a restriction that agreeth with the rest: and all this showeth that your speech is mere pelagianisme, wherein you magnify the arm of flesh, and the nature of mankind, and so seem to approve a perfect perfection, which you do most unperfectly. it is s. b de peccat. mer. & remission. 15. augustine's advice, cum dicitur cuiusque perfectio, qua in redicatur videndum est: when perfection, saith he, is named, we must consider wherein it is named. perfectus est aliquis sapientiae auditor, non perfectus doctor: a man may be a perfect hearer of righteousness, not a perfect doer, or as some think, a perfect knower why? we know but in part, 1. 1. cor. 15. cor. 15. yes we know perfectly perfectione viae, non perfectione patriae, by the perfection of the way here, not by the perfection of our country hence, say the schools. perfectione ordinis, non finis, saith d junius. junius; perfectione partium, non graduum, saith e lomb. lombard; perfecti viatores non perfecti possessores, saith f aug. in ps. 38. austin, perfect travelers in righteousness, not perfect possessors: and this so limited, by that good father, as that he alloweth it only pro consortio humanae societatis, pro huius vitae capacitate, pro statu viatoris, pro huius vitae modulo, only for a perfection sufficient to converse and hold society with mankind, a perfection for the model & capacity of this life, for the state of passengers and wayfaring men; and concludeth, g ad bonif. lib. 3. omnium in carne nostra imperfecta perfectio, the perfection of all men while they are in the flesh, is unperfect. john baptist had not a greater among the sons of women: but whosoever was least in the kingdom of god, & all the celestial spirits, is far beyond him. inter natos mulierum, non autem inter choros coelestium spirituum, h bern. serm. 38. in cantie. saith s. bernard: among sons of women, not among armies of angels. not john baptist, a prophet, nay more than a prophet? who had for his clothing hair; for his habitation, a desert; for his meat, wild locusts; for his title, the praecursor; for his preaching, repentance; for his ministration, baptism; the usher, and harbinger of our saviour: had not he angelical perfection? if he that so faithfully attended his master, had it not: how should you, that have fled from your master, attain unto it? i say not, * esay 14.12. o lucifer how didst thou fall? but, o lucifer, whether wouldst thou rise? is it obedient humility, to be so proud? spiritual poverty, to desire to be so pompous? angelical chastity, to be so luxuriant? i acknowledge, that there be some that are salt of the earth, lights of the world, roses in the field, lilies in the valleys, terrae gemmula, coeli stellulae; yet far from angelical integrity. they may climb a step, but not to the top of jacobs' ladder. mr leech. these are our best pilots amongst men; their godly conversation ought to be our holy imitation. these guide by their examples the barks of our bodies (wherein the eternal treasures of our souls are carried, as in earthen vessels) through the perilous rocks of the seas of this world, that they may arrive safely at the designed haven of heaven, when they flit from the bed of this mortal body. answer. pilots they may be: and yet, as the i ovid. de trist. lib. 1. poet of his pilot spoke; rector in incerto est; nec quid fugiátue, petátue, denotat: ambiguis ars stupet ipsa malis, so i of the best; they have their slidings, falls, faults, trances, appolexies. if you have read over s. austin, you may find the distinction between peccatum, & crimen: sin in general, which no man is freed from; and heinous, notorious, scandalous sin, culpable in the eyes of men, crying in the ears of heaven. in his k enchir. ad laurent. enchiridion ad laurentium he affirmeth this; the life of holy men may be found, though not without fault, yet without an offensive fault; and more whosoever teacheth, is heretical. beware in defending your perfect pilots, you make not shipwreck of a good conscience: the mast of your faith is shaken; let not the anchor of your hope be broken. mr leech. these are beacons on a hill (the hill of the church) whose lives as lights, and burning lamps, forewarn, and so forearm us against all invasion of any spiritual enemies. these are entia transcendentia men soaring above the ordinary pitch of men, celestial men, terrestrial angels, surmounting and transcending the precepts of the law by evangelical counsels of perfection: endeavouring not only to perform the law, but thirsting after a more holy, heavenly, & excelling perfection, have performed more than the laws general precepts obliged them unto; adding over, and above the law, de vera virginitatate prope finem. that which the law wanted of the merit of perfection; as s. basill speaketh; professing spiritual poverty, angelical chastity, and humble obedience; and all this for heaven's sake. answer. holy men in all ages through faith, as the apostle speaketh, have obtained good report. we yield it with reverence unto them, we honour their virtues, & seek to imitate their examples. but that you should separate any from the predicament of humanity by being transcendents, that they should so far hurl beyond the reach of man, i know no reason for it. some may transcend the politic laws of nations, but not the laws of god, as a p. matt. loc. com. clas. 3. peter martyr distinguisheth: or some may be transcendents respectively, if compared with others, but simply, they are not so, in themselves. gregory doth not teach it, you cannot prove it. you affirm that the keeping of more than the laws general precepts, is possible. i answer, that we do understand the keeping of the law either according to the letter of the law, loc. come. clas. 3. cap. 3. or according to the meaning of the law or as peter martyr distinguisheth, the law may be considered either by the general outward judgement of man, no farther than the bark of the letter, as the pharisees did: mat. 5. or by the inward sense & pith of the law, as our saviour in the fift of matthew expounded it. according to the letter of the law, a man may be so happy by grace, as not to be a worshipper of images, no blasphemer, no adulterer, no thief, no murderer, & so of the rest: but according to the meaning of the law, it is impossible for any in this mass of corruption, to perform perfectly, & fully, any of the precepts of the law; much less, more than the precepts. and hereupon i infer what s. b in cant. ser. 50. bernard in this case speaketh, the commandment neither hath been fulfilled in this life, nor can be. and that which an ancient c marc. herem. de lege spir. hermit voucheth to this purpose, seek not the perfection of the law in man's virtues, for no man is found perfect in it. you unjustly accuse the law, that it wanteth perfection: it must judge you, condemn you it not. scripture saith it, heaven and earth cannot gain say it, that d psal. 119. the law of the lord is perfect. the best that ever were, wanted much of the fulfilling of the law, confessing themselves unprofitable servants. you seek to prove comparatively, that one man may soar above the ordinary pitch of others, by reason of his gifts: & this we grant. but hence to prove that the law is unperfit, and that man may pass absolutely beyond the law, is absolutely untrue. the place in basil cannot prove any such point; and your own speech in your sermon, doth disprove any such assertion, when you urge david's confession of the immense measure of the law, e psal. 109. mandatum tuum nimis latum: so that like peter in the mount, you speak you know not what. mr leech. and that they may more readily follow, and devoutly adhere unto christ they cast away that which presseth down so fast, nay which often times presseth down to hell; overloading, and surcharging the soul with immoderate weight; the thorny cares, and choking riches of this present world. answer. the abnegation of the world, yea of themselves, is the first vow in baptism: no sooner we come into the world, but vow to forsake the world. the apostle in the phrase f heb. 12.1. heb. 12.1. exhorting to cast away every thing that presseth down, & hangeth on so fast: meaneth that riches should be cast away then, when they are the occasion of sins. and therefore s. jerom doth condemn, not him g in 6. matth. qui habet, sed qui servit divitiis. so in regard of christ, we must discharge ourselves, if they be hindrances to us, of whatsoever; though never so dear or precious to us: we must put them of, as bartimaeus did cast away his cloak, to follow christ. it is most true, they be thorny cares, the roots thereof ilia terrae, the exenterated guts and garbage of the earth; and fruits thereof, though lillia terrae, yet but the fading strewing flowers of the earth, the roots stinking, the fruits dying. and yet as of poison, * plin. amulets may be made: so of the unrighteous mammon, there may be good use; a man being no more to leave his riches and possession, than his place and vocation, unless he find that god so appoint and call him, & that his riches do corrupt and hurt him. mr leech. these with fear and trembling recount, and remember that terrible interrogation of our saviour concerning the world's riches, and the profit redounding unto man in the vain, and main pursuit thereof; what shall it advantage a man to win the whole world, and to lose his own soul? answer. if conscience be, as some define it, a bit before sin, a scourge after sin: think upon it, lest it do worthily torture you for knowing your masters will and doing it not. recount, and remember, and examine your own soul; whether, like to the profane h heb. 12.16 person in the epistle to the hebrews, you have not sold your birthright for a portion of meat. a sin against knowledge, & conscience, is near to the unpardonable sin. seeing you know, nothing can redeem a soul without christ; remember with fear, and trembling, your own speech, what shall it advantage a man to win the whole world, and to lose his own soul? which place, as you use it, doth justify my former speech, that then riches, and the whole world are to be contemned; when the soul by delighting in them, is endangered. mr leech. and therefore these professors of evangelical counsels, merchandising for their souls earnestly with all spiritual endeavour upon the seas of this world, follow the counsel, which christ gave to the young man (who came to the way to learn the way to heaven) if thou wilt be perfect, go sell all that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven, and come & follow me. answer. professors of evangelical counsels s. gregory calleth them not: s. gregory hath no such word as profession of evangelical counsels. you lack both proofs and grounds for your assertion. the young man i shall bring to your sermon: there you shall see, that, though s. gregory use the same words of christ to the young man, yet to no such purpose. till than i say to you, as our saviour did to another young man; young man, i say unto thee arise: and if you hear not this, i ingeminate his speech yet to a third young man; i act. 9.4. saul, saul, why persecutest thou me? mr leech. o what an exchange had this young man made, what an offer did christ make him, what counsel did the wisdom of the father give him, how much doth it now repent him? in a word: o how happy had he been, both in body and in soul, since he had been secure of the salvation both of body, and of soul, and not only secure of that, but thesaurum habuisset in coelo, his penny had been of pure gold, & he had had measure for measure, yea above measure, heavens remuneration heaped upon him in am of christian perfection, if he had parted with himself, and abandoned the world's trash, to have partaked with christ, and heavens treasure. answer. it had been a royal exchange, if he hereby for riches that are transitory, had obtained heavens bliss, his soul's security. i am glad that all your lamp is not leavened; that yet, you believe a man may be secure and certain of his salvation, which is a point uncertainly delivered among you. what mean you by his now repenting? think you that he is in hell? i doubt not but you may easily know, seeing in rome you have news every day from hell and purgatory. certainty of salvation, howsoever it be opposed by the jesuits in general; yet k medina. 1. 2 q. 112. art. 5. p. 630. medina averreth, that he would have every believer certainly to hope he shall obtain eternal life: & vega (saith l greg. de valentia tom. 2. pag. 957. gregory de valentia) holdeth, that some spiritual men may be so certain that they be in grace, that this their assurance shall be without all fear and staggering. and m catarrh. assert. & apolog catharinus holds the same certainty of faith which we teach. i might urge much out of n 3. d. 23. p. 46. scotus, o par. 3. q. 61. mem. 7. art. 3. alexander of hales, p lib. 3. distin 20. q. 1. art. 2. bacon, & others whom you claim yours. and q stap. de justif. pag. 341. stapleton cometh so near to the point, as that he professeth thus we leave not a sinner hanging in the midst of wavering doubtfulness, but we place him in good and firm hope. your penny of pure gold i will not stand to weigh: if i should bring it to the balance of the sanctuary, i should find it scarce sense, and much less scripture. mr leech. and yet this being a counsel not a precept, it is not enjoined as a precept to all, but given by way of counsel unto perfecter men, as the fathers teach. and the reason is excellently rendered by s. gregory the great, to be this. it is not enjoined as a precept to all (for then were it sin either to marry, or to possess any of the worlds goods) but yet it is counseled unto men of more holy rank; for these have an arbitrary, and voluntary choice in their things. answer. that your own advocate should give evidence against you, is great disadvantage. s. gregory himself calleth it, praeceptum; a precept, not a counsel. i desire all indifferent readers to look on the 25 chapter of his 26. book of morals, greg. mor. lib. 26. where (as i said before) you borrowed this distinction: there is only the word precept; neither counsel, nor counseled is there mentioned. and in your place, urged, but not quoted, not found in s. gregory, suppose it were so, it may have a good meaning: for that which you call a counsel, is nothing but a particular precept; which, though it bind not all, yet it must be observed of those who are furnished with gifts, and find themselves fitted thereto by god's spirit. mr leech. such were the apostles, and those apostolical men, that having possessions, sold them, brought in the money & laid it down at the apostles feet. answer. what apostles did so? indeed peter and andrew forsook their nets, mat. 4.20. & a mat. 9.9. matthew forsook his custom. reliquerunt, non vendiderunt, saith one. b luk. 19.8. zaccheus did restore all; luk. 19.8. c mat. 19.27. the disciples did forsake all; mat. 19.27. s. d phil. 3.8. paul did vilely value all, phil. 3.8. only the merchant did sell all, mat. 13.46. but that is but a parable. laert. plut. heathens did somewhat in this kind. e mat. 13.46. diogenes neglected all, socrates contemned all, crates cast away all: and yet these were as far short of the disciples, as the disciples of angelical perfection. but to the purpose: that the apostles sold all, it is not so; they sold nothing, for they had nothing to sell. that the apostolical men sold their possessions, act. 4.35. act. 4.35. it is true: but it was not by evangelical counsel, nor for angelical perfection; but to supply the present want of the church. mr leech. such was holy antony that ancient monk of egypt; s. paul the hermit; s. benedict; s. hierom; s. basil; s. gregory nazianzen; s. gregory the great; s. bernard, and many other doctors, and fathers; the most renowned lights of learning, and greatest pillars of the church. answer. for your catalogue of saints; f trithem. anthony was no such monk, nor benedict: the former lived in the year 330; the later in the year 500 i marvel not, that you make these to be monkish counsellors; seeing before, you have so reckoned the apostles themselves. you join the saints very unequally; and claim kindred of some, that never knew your religion. i examine not the sanctity of some of them, but deny all their bills of sale: or, if they sold all, i hope you willbe accountable what they did with the money. i acknowledge the reverence of those blessed fathers, s. hierom, s basil, s. gregory nazianzen, etc. i marveled why you brought not in s. francis, till i remembered that g canus loc. theol. l. 11. c. 7. canus calleth him a lousy saint: and yet he instructed a cade lamb so well that it would kneel at mass, and the saint was wont to preach to geese which heard him with devotion. or why remembered you not s. h baron. ano 1208. n. 5. fulbert, a man of evangelical perfection; who being sick, the virgin marie came & gave him suck from heaven? or, among many others, i ant. part. 3. art. 23. c. 1. §. 1 s. dominicke, whom antoninus maketh the first inventor of evangelical counsels? of whom he affirmeth, that before he was borne, there were two images found in a church at venice; the one of s. paul, the other of dominicke: on s. paul's image was written, by this man you may come to christ; on dominickes image, but by this, easier. antoninus giveth the reason; because paul's doctrine led but to faith, and keeping of the commandments: but dominicke should teach the observing of evangelical counsels, which is the easier way. risum teneatis amici? this story might have fitted you. mr leech. and was not christ himself master, & regius professor of this spiritual poverty? spiritual i call it, because the contempt of this world for the hope of heaven, is the work of god's spirit, wrought within our souls. witness his entrance into this world, when his house was a stable, his cradle a cratch; witness his continuance in the world, living merely upon alms ministered unto him by certain godly women, and devout persons. witness his complaint; the foxes have holes, and the birds of heaven have nests, but the son of man hath not, whereon to rest his head. and was he any richer at his departure out of this world, when wanting a sepulchre of his own, he was interred in an other man's tomb? answer. ●ri●●. mot. 6. it is blasphemous in ᵏ bristol, to affirm, that no man is able to put difference between the miracles of christ, and of his apostles, and of thomas aquinas, bernard, bonaventure, becket, francis, dominicke, & others. it is almost as much in you, to parallel christ jesus, blessed for ever & ever, with your saints: i mean not with the fathers (that were more tolerable, though unfit) but that his sacred name, person, function, birth, life, death; his precepts, actions, passions, all his conversations, should be paralleled, with false, utopicall, annalogicall, imaginary, statuary saints. know, and hear, and fear, and tremble; he will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain. but i will catechize you, in this point farther: was that practice of poverty in christ, performed by any evangelical counsel, or not? if by counsel; from whom received he counsel, that was the wisdom of his father, and himself the great a esay. 9.6. counsellor? if not by evangelical counsel; why do you bring christ for an example of the practice? we confess to our endless comfort, his willing and gracious readiness to become poor, to make us rich, in that he borrowed a stable, to be borne in; a cratch, to be laid in; a pitcher, to drink in; a parlour to sup in; and a tomb, to lie in: but this is not to your purpose. mr leech. finally; though he were lord, & owner of all (being god the lord, and creator of all) and the sole heire-apparant of heaven, and earth; yet was he content to forsake all: of rich he became poor, teaching aswell opere, as over, by example of living, as manner of teaching; real practising, as or all instructing; first doing, & then teaching; and all to this end, ut conversatio magistri forma esset discipuli; as blessed leo speaketh; that is, that he might generally wean all christians from the love of this world; but especially, that he might become unto his disciples, and all apostolical men, a perfect pattern of this spiritual poverty; the masters conversation being the scholars best instruction. answer. every action of christ serveth for our instruction, but not every action for our imitation. it were ridiculous in us, if we should presume to think we might b mat. 14.15. walk on the water as he did, or c mark. 8.3. endeavour to cleanse the lepers, or d mat. 9.25. to raise up the dead, or e john. 9.1. give sight to the blind, or f mat. 4.1. to fast forty days and forty nights, or to go about to live in such hunger and thirst and want, as our blessed saviour did: it is impossible we should perform them. we have no lawful warrant for these; & more the apostle teacheth, whatsoever is not of faith is sin. as for poverty, it is no where in scripture enjoined us. a blessing, spiritual poverty hath, g mat. 5.3. blessed are the poor in spirit, it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but for the want of temporal things, it afflicteth so many, that none need to affect it. h hugo de claustro animae. hugo de claustro animae, showeth how some affect a monkish poverty, that they may come to some spiritual dignity: and giveth the reason; et in ecclesia honorari volunt, qui in sua domo non nisi contemptibiles esse poterant. you know by practice among you, this to be true, that among the monks, and monkeys of rome, poverty is made the first step to ambitious vain glory, & masked humility the usher to obtain aspiring dignity. the words in leo in the end of that sermon, make not for you. they only show the humility of christ in all passages of his life: and in that close exhort us thereunto, as he himself did by his own mouth; learn of me to be humble and meek. mr leech. for christ came not down from heaven to earth, from the bosom of the father, by his eternal generation, god, to the womb of his mother, by temporal incarnation, man; when he deigned to stoop down so low, nay vouchsafed exinanire seipsum, to put of the garment of his fathers, and heavens glory, investing his incomprehensible deity with the base rags of finite mortality; i say christ did not perform all this only to fulfil the moral decalogue, but over, and above the laws righteousness, se s. basil de vera virginit. he taught that, which the law wanted of the merit of perfection. answer. the conclusion of this, is nothing else but this, christ did more than the law required, therefore there is somewhat more than is required in the law. i answer he did more than the law required of him, for himself, by his passive justice in suffering that which was due unto us; whereas, his active justice, was enough to satisfy for himself, and whereby also the law is satisfied by us. but this argument is like mephibosheth, lame in both feet; for neither did christ all this to practise evangelical counsels as you infer, nor did he hereby manifest any want of perfection in the law, as you do urge, out of basil de vera virginitate, which book is misdoubted to be his, because it is one of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which are fathered on basil, of which works eustathius, one violent against marriage, was the author, as i sozom. l. 3. cap. 13.14. sozomen witnesseth. besides the disallowing of the book, receive this satisfaction. if the book were s. basils', and that it were his speech that christ did add perfection to the law: it must so be understood, as that he added fulfilling & perfect observing to the law, not thereby manifesting that the law did want perfection. for if that be perfect, as the philosopher defineth it, to which nothing can be added; and that god himself gave that especial command in three several places in k deut. 4.2. & 5.32. & 12.32. deuteronomy, that nothing should be added to the law: how dare you accusing the law of imperfection, stand out against god's wisdoms proclamation? 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which is commonly translated transgression, may also be interpreted outlawry: 1. joh. 3.4. you are subject to the sentence and punishment of outlawry; the law doth accuse you for sin, and you accuse it for imperfection. unless you send for an advocate to hell, there is none to speak for you. briefly to your quotation, i say the law wanted not perfecting, but man wanted means of fulfilling it. christ in that sense added perfection to the law in fulfilling it, because as cardinal l cusanus excit l. 10. cusanus confesseth, never did any fulfil the commandments but christ. but in this there was no addition, and therefore no former imperfection in the law. mr leech. and as he taught this unto us by practice in his own most sacred person, and in the persons of his apostles, so he left us the first pure primitive church, and raised up many in the other succeeding ages and centuries of the catholic church, to be examples, and patterns of these evangelical counsels. answer. it is a toil that my pen must follow yours, in these so idle repetitions and needless tautologies. i ingeminate my former answer; christ did not profess the teaching of evangelical counsels, he came not from heaven with another edition of the law then what moses had brought. the primitive church knew not the name of evangelical counsels: that as m assert. luther conf. art. 18. pag. 86. fisher b. of rochester said of purgatory, that there was little mention or none at all, among the ancients, thereof; so i say of counsels, this opinion was a posthume to the primitive church. anselmus, that lived many hundred years after, denieth that any man may perform more than he oweth, as you would teach by counsels. his words be, n anselm. de concep. virg. c. 21. nullus potest reddere quantum debet, solus christus reddidit pro omnibus qui salvantur, plus quàm debetur. but as o dion. xiphilin. in epitome domit. decebalus, king of dacia, put to flight the romans, by arming trunks of trees instead of soldiers: so the new romans suppose to gull us, by obtruding shadows instead of substance; inserting into their pamphlets the name of the primitive church, ancient catholic church, fathers of the church, in those matters controversed between us, whereas the church and fathers in this case may answer papists, as answer was made to p 1. sam. 28.26 saul, in the 1. sam. 28.16. wherefore dost thou ask of me, seeing the lord is gone from thee and is thine enemy? mr leech. this was the sum of my repetition, with a more ample explanation of my former doctrine; justified now in public against the brethren, who had traduced it in their whispering conventicles, according to the liberty of their private spirits. answer. you have landed this discourse, thinking hereby to gain the name of an authorizer, if not an author. but brag not that you have publicly justified that against the brethren, which you will be constrained to deny before the saints. the written copy which you delivered, is much different from this second repetition, & you and it far from truth. because with peter, you hope to warm your hands at the high priests fire: therefore you deny the truth of your master. fellow peter rather in repenting, then in forswearing. chap. 4. mr leech. this sermon being ended, and supper time immediately approaching; m. doctor hutton (one of the cannons of christ church; now deputed provicechancellour in the absence of mr. doctor king) sent for me by one of my fellow chaplains into the common kitchen, a place fit to treat upon jovinianisme; but unfit for the sacred mysteries of religion. to confer with me upon the point delivered in my sermon. answer. the sum of this ensuing chapter, was begot in the kitchen, it is so full of smoke & heat. your marginal note doth much traduce doctor hutton, prebendary, & subdeane of christ-church; an ancient learned preacher, professor, doctor of divinity: the least of these titles might have restrained you in your duty towards him. but a more near respect of observance bound you to reverence him, not only for private, but for public authority; not only for fear, but for conscience sake, saith the apostle. he was the magistrate, provicechancellor, deputy governor of your betters, at that time; not in that house alone, but in the whole university. he might have sent for you by an officer, not your fellow chaplain; unto a public place, not so familiar; to convent, censure, imprison, punish you, not to confer with you. it is not the place, that doth honest the man but the man the place. lucifer rebelled in heaven, adam sinned in paradise; when as lot served god in sodom, joseph in egypt. better to speak truth in the kitchen, than falsehood in the pulpit. the place of all other is least circumstantial. mr leech. hither i no sooner came, but, he (interessing himself in the quarrel of jovinian) began very fiercely to assault, and charged me for preaching scandalous & erroneous doctrine; excepting farther against the terms of angelical chastity, and evangelical counsels of perfection; expressly mentioned by me in the aforesaid sermon. answer. for any jovinian heresy that you tax him with, or the opposers of your opinion, you know in your conscience that no protestant ever defended any of them. s. r aug. de haeresibus ad quod vult de 'em haeres. 82. augustine in his tract de haeresibus ad quodvult deum, the 82. heresy, reciteth the diverse positions of jovinian: and i do freely and fully protest, that i know no point wherewith our church in that kind may be accused. in what point of jovinianisme was he guilty? name it. i am sure, if you could, you would. your doctrine offered much offence, & therefore was scandalous; and was opposite to our church's doctrine, and therefore to be called erroneous. mr leech. the onset being thus given by his worship, my ward was; sir. (under your correction) the doctrine lately by me preached (howsoever you disconceipt it) is not, nay cannot possibly be either scandalous, or erroneous; for it is the doctrine of that great pillar of the latin church s. gregory; accorded unto, and confirmed by uniform consent of fathers, both of the greek & latin church. answer. as solomon spoke of s eccl. 12.12. making many books, so may i of using many words; there is no end: the one, wearying of the flesh; the other, angariation to the spirit. it is not as you take it, the doctrine of that great pillar of the church, s. gregory: it is a doctrine which is the pillar of monks, & i assure myself the monks would not maintain it, unless it did maintain monks. the fathers of the greek and latin church, are answered so sufficiently, as that i hope you will change and challenged your grand-jury for being too partial for our part. mr leech. as for the terms of a virginity equalleth itself to angels; yea, if we examine well the matter we shall find it to exceed angels; for that contrary to nature, it getteth a victory in flesh above flesh which angels do not. cypr. de bono pudicitiae. virginity (an angelical gift) exceedeth matrimony, as much as an angel excelleth a man. damas'. l. 4. orthodoxae fidei cap. 25. vide cypr. de nativitate christi & hieron. lib. 1. contra jovinian. angelical chastity; & evangelical counsels of perfection, i have not hammered them upon any anvil in the forge of my own brain, but rather borrow them from orthodox antiquity. answer. it is no doubt that you forged not these terms: for this mystery of iniquity, though it be but novelty, hath been more ancient than you. you quote places in the margin: the first out of cyprian de bono pudicitiae, a book much doubted of to be his, as reverend mr t perkins in his problem. perkins in his problem proveth; and the other out of damascene, and cyprian de nativitate, & s. hierome contra jovinianum. for that book of cyprian de nativitate, it is not only doubted of, but denied by the u cent. 3. cap. 10. p. 245. magdeburgenses, * in edit. bas. apud froben. 1520. erasmus, x medul. patrum come. 1. lib. 24. p. 37. scultetus; & by your own, y in argument, lib. de card. operibus christi. jacobus pamelius, z biblioth. sanctae lib. 4. de falsa librorum inscriptione. sixtus senensis, a in appar. sacr. voce cyprianus. antonius possevinus, and b de amist. great. & stat. pec. lib 6. c. 2. bellarmin. but suppose it were cyprians, & that those other fathers did speak so largely of virginity: yet you know that by their hyperbolical praising of it, they almost made an idol of it. and therefore the jesuit c acosta lib. 2. de virginitate c. 18. acosta confesseth, concerning s. hierome; dum oppugnatores virginitatis insectans, videtur aliquando matrimonio iniquior. they thought it the fittest kind of life, for those times, because of the imminent danger of persecution: but c espen. come. in 1. tim. 3. espencaeus denieth not, nay absolutely affirmeth, that in these times a man may marry, & yet his marriage no hindrance to his desire of a more perfect life: nuptiae licèt plurimum difficultatis habent, sic tamen assumi possunt, ut vitae perfectiori impedimento non sint. mr leech. against this he replied; that if i preached any erroneous doctrine out of s. gregory (such as this must needs be) then both the defence of the doctrine, and author himself would be required at my hands. for (said he) cannot gregory have his errors, but you must broach them here to infect this place with popery? answer. he required with much wisdom but that which was reason. if it be the apostles rule, that every one must be able to give account of the hope that is in him: then much more a preacher to give account of his doctrine. and that gregory is thought to hold some points erroneous, i doubt not but your ghostly fathers will enjoin you to believe. for besides that many errors are imputed to the fathers by d biblioth. sanct. l. 5. c. 6. sixtus senensis, e biblioth. select. lib. 12. c. 23. p. 53. possevine, and f mel. can. lib. 7. de loc. theol. l. 4. c. 6. obs. 2. p. 558 melchior canus: gregory in particular, is rejected by a g tumul tuaria apol. pro dispens. matrim. henri. fol. 46. § de noverca. champion of your own, in apologia tumultuaria, wherein the author thus basely disclaimeth gregory's judgement; gregorius hîc non est audiendus, neque quantum ad ius naturae, neque quantum ad honestatem: gregory here is not to be heard, neither as concerning the right of nature, nor honesty. and before giveth the reason, apol. tumul. scripturas obtorto collo ad suum institutum pertrahit: for with a wrested neck he draweth the scripture to his own purpose. and hart in his conference with doctor rainolds, conference between doctor rainolds and hart. pag. 386. line 21. gregory did mistake the words of scripture. doth scornfully reject the opinion of gregory: and therefore it was not so unfitly said that gregory had his errors. the church of rome denieth him in many things, as will appear: and h durand. l. 4. sent. dist. 7. q. 4. durand concludeth; gregorius, quum fuerit homo, non deus, potuit errare. and therefore d. hutton spoke truly, gregory hath his errors. mr leech. this was the account, that the culinarian doctor made of s. gregory the great; one of the holiest, ildephons. de viris illustribus ca 2. isidore de viris illustribus cap. 2. vide greg. turon. lib. 20. histor. de laudibus gregorii. & learnedst doctors, that ever breathed in the catholic church; excelling s. antony in holiness, s. cyprian in eloquence, s. augustin in wisdom; full of compunction, humility, the grace and fear of god; endued with such light of knowledge, that not any of the present time was equal unto, no nor of the former: to whose moral exposition of scripture all the doctors give place, & that in the judgement of a general council. answer. i'm in noah's family, or dathan in moses policy, could not have vented out more loathsome unseemly speeches, than this your culinarian title of him, whom you were bound to, not only for the participation of god's blessings to you in his learning, wisdom, government; but especially for his worthy care, and love to you, being a special means to bring you into that college. of god the psalmist testifieth, that he setteth up one, and putteth down another: but that you should so presume to extol one doctor, and disgrace another, i do believe you will much blame yourself upon due examination. your scoffing at doctor hutton is senseless and graceless: the most learned, reverend, and ancient here, will testify against your greasy scoff, that his young years were beautified with all kind of learning, in which he was eminent, his middle years with all ingenuity in judgement, his reverend years with great wisdom in government. therefore forbear scorns. concerning s. gregory, we are willing to give him whatsoever he deserveth: but it is very hyperbolical and undiscreet in you, to affirm, that none of the latter should be like him, none of the former. comparisons are ever odious, and dangerous. and yet we could be content to afford s. gregory that attribute of greatness, which alexander had in greece, pompey in rome, arsaces in parthia, euseb. and charles in france: but to give him so many titles as eusebius records that galerius had, pontifex maximus, thebaicus maximus, sarmaticus maximus, quinquies persarum maximus, &c: the greatest bishop, greatest in thebes, greatest in sarmatia, in persia five times greatest, greatest in germany, greatest in egypt, to give so many titles of greatness to your gregory, is to make him a monster. that he should exceed s. anthony, s. cyprian, s. austin; all that know their story, will deny. anthony not worthy to be compared with austin: nor gregory with cyprian, or austin: for these two most worthy pillars of the church, were as the flowers of roses in the spring of the year, as lilies by the fountains of waters, as branches of frankincense in the time of summer, as fair olives that be fruitful, or cypress trees that grow to the clouds, as i ecclesiast. ecclesiasticus speaketh of others. cyprian for eloquence, austin for dexterity of wit, wisdom, learning. cyprian was, as k naz. orat. in cyprianun. nazianzene reporteth him, the great name of carthage & of all the world; whose name was famous in all churches, both heretic and christian; whose name and works nazianzene professeth he reverenced, more than he did all others, and for his eloquence surpassed all other men, so far as other men do bruit beasts. saint l epist. ad paulinum de instit. monat. jerome calleth him sweet, professing that the lord dwelled in him, and m de doct. christ. c. 40. austin calleth him a most sweet doctor, and most blessed martyr, and concludeth of him; tanti meriti, tanti pectoris, tanti oris, tantae virtutis episcopus. and concerning blessed austin, n epist. ad aug. 31. & 37. paulinus calleth him the salt of the earth, a candle worthy to be set on the candlestick of the church, his mouth like a conduit pipe of living water, a vein of that eternal fountain. o eras. epist. praef. 1. tom. augustini. erasmus testifieth of him, his name being aurelius augustinus, that the world hath nothing magis aureum, vel augustius; that there never was a golden name more worthily given to any, then to him. and if i shall reckon titles given to him, that is called the perfection of the fathers, the hammer of heretics, the treasure, megasine, living library of learning, and infinite his other titles: it would be tedious. nay jesuits and all kind of papists afford him such encomtasticks, that never had any father of the church so many. look c possevin. in appar. sacr. p. 151. 152. possevin in his aparatu sacro, where he giveth him the greatest and worthiest titles, that ever any doctor of the church had, and testifieth that by the consecration of the d synod. florent. florentine synod, he was called illustrissimus latinorum doctorum. you see how gross your comparison is. concerning the approbation of a general council, there is no such thing directly named in any of the concilia toletana, being 13 in number. the only council of all which, that mentioneth gregory, is the last; of which e caranza in epitome conciliorum. caranza in the epitome of councils, giveth this note, nihil habet hoc concilium singulari annotatione dignum. mr leech. concilium tolctan. did it then become m. doctor hutton to detract from the due worth of so great, and learned a saint? since i may yet add this to perfect his praise; whatsoever he was unto others, doubtless unto us he was an apostle (to speak in the phrase of the apostle) to whom our english nation standeth perpetually obliged for her conversion from paganism unto the christian faith. beda, eccles. hist. angl. lib. 2. cap. 1. answer. gregory was not our apostle. all histories be against you. britain had true religion planted here, before your gregory or his monk austin were extant. it is recorded by your f baron. ann. 35. num. 5. chronological cardinal, that joseph of arimathaea was here: g theod. de curand. grec affect. lib. 9 theodoret saith, s. paul; h bar. anno 597. n. 20. baronius thinketh, s peter; i nic. l. 2. c 40. nicephorus saith, that simon zelotes: and k tertul. advers. judaeos tertullian, l orig. in hom. 4. in. esec. origen, and other of the most worthy of the fathers do affirm, that the gospel was planted here in the time of the primitive church. and that you shall not reply, that religion was extinguished, and afterwards lightened by gregory: i say, religion was not extinct at the coming of that proud petty monk, austin, whom he sent. witness m lib. 1. c. 8. 17. 21. bede whom you untruly cite, who writeth that before augustine's coming, the britain's were troubled with arrianisme and pelagianisme: but that three french bishops delivered them. and the forger of the three conversions n three con. par. 1. c 9 n. 1 testifieth more, that from king lucius time until the coming of austin, which was four hundred years and more, they did not alter their faith, but it remained among them when he entered. therefore gregory converted not our land, per se, nor per alium. and austin, as impetuous or imperious as he was, was but gregory's curate. for gregory, at that time, as o ordo. rom. praef. cassander observeth, did change the liturgies and service books, used in our western parts: for which cause it is likely austin came over. so that gregory and austin converted books, not souls: and therefore were translators, correctors; no apostolical doctors, or founders of our church. mr leech. but to pass over the praise of this bright shining star in the firmament of the church; my rejoinder was, that this doctrine must first be proved to be erroneous & scandalous before any such imputation ought (upon any absolute necessity) to be imposed, and fastened upon it, since scandal doth arise from error, & error is an approbation of that, which is false in judgement, and understanding. answer. the answer of the philosopher in p diog. laert. in vit. phil. laertius, to one that immoderately praised him, was fit for you: me hic aut ludit, aut odit; this fellow would procure me to be scorned, or hated. your unmeasurable lashon of commending gregory, it deserveth no other speech. we esteem gregory to be the best pope, from the year about 600, wherein he lived, to this present. he never held the q reg. epist. lib. 9 ep. 9 supremacy, r lib. 7. ep. 69. l. 7. ep. 30. merits, and other points of popery: and he never taught this doctrine, as you do; & therefore the error, & scandal must remain with you not with him. mr leech. and as for defending of s. gregory, my opinion then was, and now is, that the very name, itself, and authority of this worthy father ought and would rather (amongst all learned, and judicious divines) be my just defence & full discharged, then that his credit should be so far called in question, as now (after a 1000 years continuance in the catholic church of christ: being generally reputed orthodox so long) to stand in need of mine, or any other man's defence whatsoever. answer. the worthiness of gregory is not denied: but that his very name should be sufficient to prescribe against all opposers, and to patronize your conceit, it is much doubted. concerning gregory, i think of the reading of him, as s. s hier. in ep. ad romanum jerome doth of reading the other fathers: meum propositum est antiquos legere, probare singula, retinere quae bona sunt, & à fide ecclesiae non recedere. i would you had taken this course in reading gregory. but for the point in hand; you have not in all the words of s. gregory, the distinction of praeceptum, & consilium: no place that defineth evangelica consilia, neither their name, number, or any thing concerning them. and therefore to any never so little intelligent, you will seem strangely ridiculous, to make gregory, godfather to that child he never knew; or author of that doctrine, which he never taught, or thought. we call not his credit into question: i would yours did it not, as i formerly showed, and especially t bar. tom. 8. annal. ann. christi 1593. num. 62. p. 57 baronius, who speaking of the barrenness of learning in gregory his time, showeth that gregory himself was ignorant in many things. mr leech. and yet rather than the doctrine shall be thus odiously traduced, and my author want his promerited defence, i will according to that poor ability (wherewith god hath enabled me) endeavour to defend both it, and him: and therefore if s. gregory, in this point, hath not transgressed the bounds of ancienter church, nor crossed any tenant of his own present church, nor yet, for this, hath hitherto been censured by the lawful judgement of any catholic succeeding church; nay if the church more ancient than his, his own present, and the ever after succeeding centuries of catholic church have, from hand to hand, delivered unto him, received with him, and with uniform consent followed him in this point of doctrine, never so much as once noting it, questioning it, impugning it, contradicting it (which certainly they would have done, had the doctrine been erroneous: for their devoted piety spared no heretic, origen. millienar; tertul. montanising cypr. rebaptising. no not the most renowned martyrs, nor glorious fathers of the church in any of their errors, repugnant unto the unity of catholic verity) then, upon these premises, i may irrefragably conclude in defence of my author, and doctrine, that s. gregory his position is no private opinion hatched out of his own brain, but the uniform deduction, and tradition of christ his spouse the true catholic, never erring church inspired, guided, & directed by god his holy spirit in all ages. answer. rather than you will let truth have the supereminence, quae magna est & praevalet, you will continue to father your opinion upon gregory, yea and upon the primitive & derivative church. act. 9 but it is hard for you to kick against the truth. the weeds of supererogation, growing under the shadow of evangelical counsels, have had no time of increase of growing, in the ancient primitive church. none of the first and worthier fathers, taught it. it is a common, but not commendable use among you, of imposturing & interpreting the fathers in a wrong sense. the chiefest ground for your doctrine, is the misinterpreting of that place of s. paul: which sense neither the original will carry, nor any greek father ever followed. and that blessed servant of god mr perkins, in his problem, proveth against opposers, how far the fathers were from mainetaining works of supererogation. physicians, that mean to cure the disease, first beginnne with the cause: so give me leave, seeing works of supererogation be only the inductions and cause of teaching this doctrine. first i desire you to answer, whether s. hierome thought any such works were performed, who disclaiming them, thus speaketh, p hier. lib. 1. c. 3. cont. pelag. tum ergo justi sumus, quando nos peccatores fatemur, & justitia nostra non ex proprio merito, sed ex dei consistit misericordia; or, whether s. q retract. l. 1. c. 19 augustine doth think a man might supererogate, who affirmeth a contrary position, omnia mandata dei facta deputantur, quando quicquid non fit, ignoscitur; or r chrys. in 8. hom. in. 4. ad. roman. chrysostome, who in his 8. homily on the 4. to the romans affirmeth, no man to be justified by the law, because none can fulfil the law; s bern. in 73 ser. in cant. or bernard, in his 73. upon the canticles, who wisheth no man to trust to his own justice, or fulfilling of the law; or, to approach nearer, what meant t de consil. evang. & statu perfectionis. gerson, that famous doctor, to deny any perfection in evangelical counsels. secondly, i desire you to answer, why u aq. 22dae. art. 5. aquinas teacheth that perfection doth essentially (which is perfectly) consist in keeping the commandments (which none can do,) and in the fulfilling of the law, if that perfection of counsels be so much above the law; why x in sent. lib. 3. distinct. 34, q. 3. paludanus upon the sentences, doth affirm, that some men may attain to as great height of perfection, living in marriage, and possessing much, as they that live single, and give away all that they have. i will ask no more questions, but seeing this is so taught by so many reverend ancients, yea & by many of your own later, y jans. in 100 cap. in evang. jansenius in his 100 chapter upon the evangelical concord professing with gerson and aquinas, that only the fulfilling of the law doth justify, and z cus. excit. lib. 10. cardinal cusanus confessing that none but christ ever did fulfil the commandments; seeing all this is thus: why will you so boldly affirm, that this doctrine was never impugned, never contradicted, &c: which indeed was never rather taught, never approved? it is true, s. gregory was never contradicted in this, for he never taught any such thing: but this opinion was gainsaid, and disliked; and the church never received, never generally delivered any such position. although if it had, your epithet of never erring church is scarce currant: for you cannot deny but the church hath had her blots. a dial. contra lucif. s. jerome complained that the whole world groaned and wondered to see itself arrian; & b adverse. proph. novit. vincentius lerinensis confesseth, that not only some portion of the church, but the whole church may be blotted with contagion. but this was none of her blots, spots, or infectious blemishes: for she never generally maintained, or taught this doctrine. mr leech. but m. doctor hutton lending a deaf ear unto my defence (though in my conscience, and judgement, it ought to have satisfied him) sounded another alarum, and ringed a fresh peal in my ears, charging, nay surcharging me (ad nauseam usque) for holding any distinction betwixt precepts & counsels. for (said he) there is no such distinction: those, which you falsely call counsels, are in deed precepts and not counsels. answer. the comedian c plautus. plautus taxeth some that had no stuff in them but in their tongue, and that only in speaking lewdly of their betters; isthic est thesaurus stultis in lingua situs, ut quaestui habent malè loqui melioribus. let the laws of god, nature, and nations move you to reverence this honest and learned doctor: he did truly, and wisely charged you, that s. gregory had no such distinction. praeceptum, and praecipitur, be gregory his words. in your strongest place out of him, you can urge no such thing. that the fathers have called virginity, poverty, &c: precepts, shall hereafter appear at large. in the mean time, to prescribe against all opposers, to give you a taste, & to bring your metal to the test before i try it by the balance: virginity is called a precept by d athan. in edit. comelin. graecol. p. 77. athanasius, his words be, omnium rex christus tantùm valuit praeceptis sui●, ut pueri nondum maturi legum disciplinae, virginitatem quae supra leges, profiteantur; poverty and leaving of all, is accounted a precept by e hilary in 19 mat. hilary on the 19 of matthew, where on those words, vend omnia, he thus speaketh, adolescens insolens iacturam legis facere praecipitur. and not only these, but many other of the fathers do so call them, thereby strongly invading your opinion. mr leech. and this was his definitive resolution, sifting out of the sieve of the church all the wheaten meal, i mean the fine flower of spiritual poverty, angelical chastity, & leaving nought else within it, but the bran, and husks of jovinian his heresy; which (to speak of it in one word, as it deserveth) is the very evacuation, and exinanition of all the best fruits of our christian religion. and this he did with an earnest protestation; not being able to contain himself from vowing, and solemnly swearing before god, that he would send me up to my lord bishop of london, to answer the point before the high commission. answer. the church is compared to the house of god: but that in this house there should be such a vtensile as a sieve, i never read nor heard. it is not mystica vannus jacchi, that it should as you think, after such a preposterous manner, retain the bad and shake out the good. i leave your sifting comparison, and yet will remember you, f mat. 3.12. that there is one, who shall come with his fan in his hand, & shall purge his flower, gathering his wheat, burning his chaff. you seem ignorant of the difference between asseverations & oaths, when you term doctor huttons' earnest and religious protestation, an oath, david to jonathan, vriah to david, elisha to eliah, the sunamite to elisha, s. paul to the g 2. cor. 11.31 corinth's, h 1. tim. 2.7. timothy and i gal. 1.20. galathians, did use more earnest and vehement protestations: and yet were not taxed for swearing. satan hath his brand for accusing his brethren: how full you are of accusatives, every page doth betray itself. he maintained no part of jovinians heresy, uttered no oath in any violent fervency: you strain out vires and virus, passion and poison against him, that afforded you much love and compassion, who was a means to obtain a place for you in that house, and, when some distasting you sought to work your remove, he defended you against that storm. mr leech. to this i replied. sir: the distinction betwixt precepts & counsels is no devise of mine, but the doctrine of s. paul, grounded upon christ his restrictive negative; non omnes capiunt: whereupon s. paul had no precept: and upon christ his exhortative affirmative, qui potest capere capiat. hereupon the apostle giveth his counsel; consilium do: 1. cor. 7.21. and thus all ancient church hath interpreted his sentence. answer. it was not s. paul's doctrine, counsel is not his word, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not so translated, the lexicons show that the greek poets & orators did not so understand it, doctor benefield hath so sufficiently answered it, that there is no gainsaying. the heresy of nestorius lay but in the change of one letter, taking 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: & those many bishops that resisted nestorius as s. k basil. apud theod. l. 4. c. 19 basill observeth, were so religious in the carriage of that controversy, that they would not exchange a syllable or letter. if the change of a letter may do so much: what may the misinterpretation of a word? though it be a very naked proof, to ground any point of belief upon one word, howsoever understood. i know you have not distilled much out of the school-limbiques, & therefore will remember you of this distinct difference between counsel, & sentence; that the one is proper to the will, aquin. 22 daes. the other to the understanding. the place of scripture out of christ's mouth, maketh nothing in this matter for you, non omnes capiunt, etc. the later words of the text answer the former: omnes non capiunt hoc: christ his speech is interpreted in respect of the common condition of nature in general. so virginity may be proposed, not imposed upon any: none may be compelled, none constrained thereunto; but capiuntij quibus datum, they must, that are able to take it upon them. and so christ inioineth, enforceth, & commandeth them by an imperative in the 12. verse; he that is able to receive this, let him receive it. thus the church hath, and doth interpret this speech. omnes non capiunt, all in general not enforced, because not enabled: but, qui potest capere capiat, he that is so furnished by god's spirit, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, he is commanded by this word of god: it is not voluntary, but necessary; therefore no counsel, but a command, and so consequently, the place maketh not for you. mr leech. but admit (by way of supposition) your peremptory conclusion, and suppose that there be no counsels, but let all be precepts; do they not then as precepts bind you, & that sub poenâ? for that which is a precept is commanded; that which is commanded, must be done of necessity; that, which must perforce be done, is punished being left undone: & in vain is that commanded as necessary, which is left in the free choice of the commanded as voluntary as s. hierome teacheth. wherefore give me leave (without offence) to demand; why do you, or any other marry, or possess any of the world's goods? ought your practice to be contrary to the precept? and doth not s. gregory teach, that if counsels were precepts, than were it sin, and that damnable too, to possess any of the world's goods? and were not marriage taken away (which is no less than flat heresy) if virginity were a precept? as s. basill and the fathers teach. answer. the stoics divided the offices of philosophy into 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, perfectum et common. so the papists distinguish all the duties of a christians life, into these two; counsels, and precepts: k mat. 7.11. and so by the pharisees ˡ corban, they affect such perfection by the rule of counsel, as that they transgress the law of commandment: for, as m pez. p. 552. pezelius noteth, they make them perfectiores leges evangelicas', which be but enarrationes decalogi. but to your supposition, how umbragious soever you seem to be, it is manifest you never understood the state of the question. counsels are precepts, i can easily bring a jury of fathers to prove it, not such as you empaneled to condemn yourself. precepts, i say, they be to particular men, who exceed others in gifts of grace. and because much shall be required of him, that hath much given him: therefore a counsel as a precept doth oblige not all in general, but him that is particularly furnished by god, for such a purpose and service; and therefore he that hath the gift of chastity, other circumstances concurring, is bound sub poena, not to marry. s. hierom doth only speak of general precepts: and the place in gregory is oft cited, and as oft answered, but not quoted at all. but i say the same of him, greg. mor. l. 26. cap. 25. as of hierome: for gregory is most plain in the point, in the 25 chapt. of the 26 book of morals, his words be, specialis iussio, and specialia praecepta, and specialiter imperatur; and the distinction of generale praeceptum, & speciale praeceptum, is so often repeated about the midst of that chapter, as nothing can be more plain. so that jerome and gregory come over to us: for they mean special precepts, not general. and certainly, as s. basil speaketh, if virginity were a general command to all, it would exclude marriage but being not, some may marry, some live chaste, all do well. mr leech. this i demanded; but he than passed it over with silence; and therefore i expect his answer now, how he can avoid this consequence, which followeth upon his own learning. answer. eccles. 12. the words of the wise are like goads, & like nails fastened by the masters of the assemblies, saith solomon. his words might have satisfied you, if truth and reason would have yielded you satisfaction: but a false opinion once grounded is like poison fully settled, or like deianiraes' shirt; it will hardly be shaken of without plucking the skin with it. mr leech. as for sending me up to london, to answer the point there, my reply was; that, for my part, i was ready to answer unto the point, and to justify the doctrine either there, or else where in what consistory soever in the kingdom. only for your own credit sake, and place (said i) which you supply, i wish that it would please you to be better advised; at least to confer with some other doctors, who heard the sermon as well as yourself, and maturely to deliberate, whether there be scandalum datum, or acceptum, a scandal on my part justly given, or on your part unjustly taken; and whether your exception against my doctrine will bear weight, or no being poised in an indifferent balance of equity; before you resolve upon this precipitation. otherways, you shall bewray great want of sound judgement in opinion, and disclose much oversight in discretion. answer. o theod. in plut. pericl. pericles had that skill in wrestling, that though he received a fall, yet he would persuade the wrestler that cast him, and others that beheld him, that he conquered. i know no such subtlety in you, as you would have your hearers to believe: but sure i am, you did not brave it so with the doctor as you here relate. in all these proceed of d. hutton, you have injured him much, but yourself more: you know what slayeth the soul, and therefore aught to forbear all insulting terms, injust imputations, circumstantial disparagements, false relations, and to regard age and authority, learning & piety, so are you bound by fear and conscience. what, other doctors judged, concerning your sermon, you know, by those reverend divines and governors among us, when you were censured about it: and therefore it is an idle question, whether you gave or took the offence. the doctrine, you know, was papistical: therefore you ought not to have obtruded such a point in the pulpit. christ's speech is general, p ● mat. 18.6. whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea. your weapons were made on the philistims forges: aug. your arguments were neither de veritate, nor pro veritate; neither truth of matter, nor sobriety of speech, had place in your tempestuous conceit, & disjointed sermon. you were not so willing to answer at london, nor so peremptory to accuse the doctor for want of judgement in opinion, or oversight in discretion. mr leech. and farther; i assure you; call me whether you will into question, i shall discharge myself with sufficient credit, when you shall gain little by questioning my doctrine or molesting me causelessly. answer. you well add the word farther, for you never spoke so far as this: you have a strange gift of amplification, you scarce spoke the tenth part of that, which you have here so enlarged, as is confirmed and averred by wise & honest witnesses that heard it. this large discourse was not extant then. you neither durst, nor could babble so much in so short a time. you durst not, for your distraction that night, observed by many, was very much: it showed that then you had not altogether dispassioned your conscience, but that there was some spark, which did fear and follow you, observed by her own eye, though no other eye should perceive her; chased by her own foot, though nothing, either in heaven, or earth should pursue her. relation tells me there was some overture of compunction then, in you; your looks, gestures, words gave testimony, that you durst not speak so peremptorily. and, that you could not, it is plain: scarce three questions and answers passing between you, and those rather commanding your copy, then disputing the question. mr leech. here the kitchin-conference broke up: only, in the lose, he required a copy of that doctrine of counsels delivered by me out of s. gregory. to this i voluntarily condescended: adding these words to intimate my confident resolution. sir. for the doctrine, i will request no favour at your hands: only i hope that you will do me justice: if not, assure yourself, i shall right myself else where. this was the last period of our conference at that time: and so we parted: supper calling us both away. answer. so much for your saucy & unsavoury kitchen-stuff. you need not again to insist upon the place, a circumstance in that business lest material. and the advantage of malice and hatred hence, is very small, if duly considered. therefore briefly to inform the christian indifferent reader; concerning that aspersion of disgrace, you call the kitchen conference, thus it was, as i have received it, from the mouths, & under the hands of those it concerneth. presently upon your sermon, you were sent for, because of the general distaste thereof: being not found before evening prayer, you were sought for again, after that divine service, but not found, till m. doctor hutton, subdeane, was come into the kitchen, instantly before supper. a common order and custom in that house required, that the subdeane & treasurer should (as you well know) come into the kichin to see that provision & service performed, as bursers do in some of our lesser colleges, stewards in others. you being first met with there, were examined, the copy required, you were admonished not to preach the like doctrine, taxed for not understanding s. gregory, reproved learnedly; and lastly, threatened to be sent to the castle, if you did not with some speed yield up your papers. chap. 5. mr leech. some two days following (upon the very point of the prefixed time, which doctor hutton had appointed) i delivered unto him (in his own lodging) a punctual sum, & copy of the doctrine, so vehemently by him excepted against, & so earnestly required. answer. you desired but till the next morning, & then promised to bring that part of the sermon, but did not till two or three days after: which showed, either negligent presumption, in contemning authority; or ignorant dullness, in compiling your notes without method or dexterity. mr leech. the said copy, with all seeming alacrity he cheerfully, & contentedly received at my hands, dismissing me without any further questioning about the point, either then or any other time after. whereupon i concluded, that he had retracted his former opinion, by a more prudent circumspection. answer. you conclude not logically, the premises be not well collected: it was a censure, if you well observe it, that you were inhibited to preach that doctrine any more: he did neither fear, nor faint in the business, as by the remainder will appear. mr leech. and that he now determined to pursue me no farther, i was then, & am now the rather induced to believe, because, on the very night of our said kitchin-conference, he repaired unto a very grave, & learned doctor in that university (who had heard my sermon) to crave his opinion, & resolution concerning the point; complaining first of my peremptory, & obstinate resolution; discovering withal his disgust of the doctrine; certifying him farther of his purpose to send me up to the bishop of london to answer the point there. answer. it is a fiction that there was any reluctation in mr doctor hutton, or that he desired by any to be resolved in the point: he was no reed to be shaken with the wind of unsavoury breath. he only repaired to that excellent pattern of learning, life, and government doctor kilby, to desire the help of his memory, concerning the point that you delivered in that evening sermon, thinking you would not have endured to deliver your copy: and therefore, being to send the notes the next morning to our vicechancellor, then at london, because he would not be partial, or confident in his own memory, he desired the brotherly help of this grave and worthy doctor, and this was his only occasion of repair unto him that night. mr leech. the venerable doctor perceiving his heady resolution & withal conceiving the truth of the doctrine (which his discreet & mature judgement could not possibly suffer him to dissemble) very prudently, & learnedly advised him to stir no more in the point; but to pass it over with a calm, & quiet silence. for (said he) in sending him up to london, well you may put him to trouble & charged: but for the doctrine (for aught that i could conceive) the issue will be this: he may, & will answer it either here, there, or else where, with more credit, than you shall possibly gain in calling it into question. answer. the reverend doctor consulted with, was a friend to your person, not to your doctrine: and that rather in commiseration, than approbation of you. how often did he dissuade you, from maintaining any such positions? intimating that it had been the course of heretics in all times, to open some strange points to get them a name. the general notice of his soundness of doctrine, and excellency of learning, may free him: but more than this he protesteth utterly against any adhering to your opinion, ever distasted and detested your venting & ventilating of such heresies. besides, it is false that the doctor should use any such speeches, plaut. pyrgopol. that you could answer the doctrine with credit. the bragging soldier in plautus, thought to purchase himself very high commendation in the comedy, when he cried out, magnum me faciam nunc, quoniam illi me collaudârunt: and so you attribute much to yourself, because, you say, you have the opinion and approbabation of this reverend doctor. and i must confess, if you had any such shelter, you were in better state than you are. but seeing his wisdom, & integrity, uprightness before god, and man, do deliver the contrary, and his religious protestation doth seal it: silence yourself, and repent with other, this error. mr leech. and is this said he the reward of our pulpit pains? are scholars, whose state you know to be but mean, to be put by scholars unto this extraordinary charge, needless, and causeless expense? ought not you, & i, & all of our rank, rather study to give them all lawful content, then to seek their grievances, by surmising against them unjust matter; taking exception, where no scandal is given, to bring them to just discontent? wherefore (master subdeane) to waste neither more time, nor words about this point; for conclusion (since, as you say, you are come purposely to ask my opinion & counsel in this matter) my advice is (if you will be ruled by me) let all matters be hushed; rest as they are; & there an end, without either further troubling, or provoking him. answer. it is a true saying sometimes, z aug. qui volens detrahit famae, nolens addit mercedi. you do in this supposed dialogue, detract from the worth of this learned doctor, & yet unwillingly you accumulat much honour to him in traducing him. they that are so pitiful in the grievances of scholars, are to be reverenced, and no doubt shallbe rewarded. i would scholars were not wanting to scholars in these offices. but your case was so spiteful, that it deserved not to be accounted pitiful: and therefore his wisdom knowing the apostles cannon, reject him that is an heretic after once or twice admonition, did then no farther intercede for you, then that you might be censured at home, & receive condign reformation here, rather than to be transported to london: and that he did for many reasons, either because the world should not take notice that any durst make our pulpits antichristian oracles, as you did; or, because he knew that your censure in that high and honourable court of commission, would be like a gen. 4.13. cain's sentence, to heavy for you to bear. whereas you double that speech in this paragraph, that mr doctor hutton came to ask counsel or advise, both these doctors do utterly deny it: and i am sorry you so maliciously repeat it again, knowing how confident each of them be in the contrary opinion to you. caietan. in thom. 22dae. q. 184. art. 7. caietan his censure upon the doctrine of counsels, is, that he thinketh this doctrine fit to be sprinkled with salt. i apply it to you; your lines be unseasoned, they lack truth in relation, soundness in opinion, want of verity in them, want of charity in you, want of salt in both. mr leech. thus the good doctor sound, plainly, &, on all parts, charitably afforded him his friendly advice. and hereupon it was, that doctor hutton was satisfied; whereof he gave sufficient signs, when he received the aforesaid copy. answer. the hebrew c buxdorf. in hebrea gram coniug. grammarians have a rule, that characteristicum temporis excludit characteristicum coniugationis: so the characters of the time in many apostates, do exclude the notes of all honest respects, and characters of all parts of honesty. your paper seemeth to groan under your lines, it is so heaped and daubed with untruths. the doctor spoke charitably, but his charity did not so fully you, but he left place for the rod of correction. and though doctor hutton for a small time seemed content, having received your copy: yet he daily expected besides your silence, some recantatory satisfaction. mr leech. so the matter was, for that time, ended; and the doctrine, without any manner of prejudice, or farther contradiction, cleared: being now at two several times by me preached; first generally glanced at, & intimated only: secondly, against the brethren (who in private corners traduced it) publicly repeated, amplified, & explained. answer. there was only a cessation a while from your trouble, no satisfaction given for your doctrine. your fear was somewhat calmed, but the point no way cleared: your inhibition was sufficient note of the contradiction of your opinion; but that was not all, for all among us did distaste it. you did present this twice to the university: but it was denied grace as oft as presented. you verify the psalmists speech, d psalm. impij ambulant in circuitu: the wicked weary their souls untruly, in their unruly designs and desires. chap. 6. mr leech. and now resolved, as my next occasion drew me to preach, to proceed forwards with the exposition of my text, & to have unfolded the sense of the opening of those mystical books; the book of conscience, & the book of god his eternal prescience; for so it followed in my text; the books were opened, & an other book was opened; which is the book of life. this was my intention; because i had now spoken sufficiently of that point (as i thought) which i met withal but obiter in my text, upon a subdivision, and a distinction cited forth of s. gregory. answer. it had been good that you had here ended your course discourse upon counsels, without counsel, rather than to sow up these thin fig-leaves which you gathered out of bellarmine and coccius to cover the nakedness of the cause: you thought you spoke sufficiently of the former point, few so thought but yourself. sufficiently indeed to manifest the corruption of your heart, but not sufficiently to teach the truth of the point. mr leech. as i resolved privately upon this course, so i had performed it accordingly, if a certain exorbitant accident had not interrupted, and disturbed this my quiet, and settled resolution; diverting my purpose (for that present) & converting my forces another way. the occasion whereof was as followeth. answer. d greg. mor. lib. 18. c. 6. gregory in his morals writeth of some newfangled questionists, praedicamenta doctrinae quae quaerunt ad quaestionem habere non valent ad refectionem, that as e 1. tim. 1.4. s. paul speaketh they give heed to wrangling, which breed questions, rather than godly edifying which is by faith. you have been ever ready, but ever unhappy in these questions, for still coming to the well of a deep and profound controversy, either with the woman in the gospel, you had nothing to draw with, or else with the child in the fable, your bucket was too small, and your roap too short. what forces you mean i know not, but it seemeth they were conducted under the regiment of the whore of babylon. mr leech. in the easter time following m. benefield (one of the inceptors of divinity for the act ensuing) whether it were of his own proper motion (which i very hardly can suppose) or upon the instigation of some other of the brethren (which i do more easily believe; since he must needs go, whom a main schism driveth) purposedly provided one of his six solemn lectures (read for the assumpt of his degree of doctorship) mainly, and directly by way of opposition, and confutation of that erroneous popish doctrine. a new doctor of oxford contrary to all the catholic doctors of the church. for so it pleased this initiate doctor to brand the doctrine of all the ancient catholic doctors, delivered concerning evangelical counsels. wherein whether i, and my doctrine were mainly shot at and impugned or no, i will not judge in my own cause; let the equal, and impartial reader umpire for us both. answer. this worthy, discreet, and learned doctor ( f corp. christi college. of that honourable foundation, which hath bread as rarely endowed divines, ludou. vives. b. jewel. mr hooker. d. rainolds. etc. as ever lived in our church) is much abused by you, yet not so much injured by you, as honoured by all others. in respect of him, and the choicest oracles of our wisdom, whom you abuse, i cannot but break out into that speech of seneca, g seneca. trag. in thyestes. quid sancta prodest pietas, quid vita prodest honesta, flagit io carens? this good servant of god, neither by instigation of others, nor in contradiction of you, as he protesteth, provided and promised in the public school to read on this point, eight weeks before. you know those solemn lectures are commonly all, concerning points of controversy: and why then might not this be the subject of one of his readings, as well as any other? no main schism ever drew him to this action or any exotical opinion; he was never subject to interpretation for any schismatical contradiction: his worthy lord, the most reverend bishop of london, bishop ravies of honourable memory, cuius pia memoria defleri potest, non deleri, approved him to be free from schism and abounding in science; and his sermons, lectures, exercises, actions, all proceed justify him, and condemn you: in his lecture he never named you, nor aimed at you; he only read against the question, as bellarmine defended it. mr leech. this business was not so secretly plotted by the aforesaid brethren, nor yet so privately intended, and carried by the actor himself, but i had certain notice given me by a friend of mine (a grave bachellour in divinity, m. r. and a man of good esteem) who was acquainted both with the project, and the day of lecture: whereof he gave me a particular intimation. answer. as s. paul speaketh of some widows, h 1. tim. 5.11. that being idle, they go from house to house, & not only idle, but prattlers & busy bodies: so no doubt we may judge of some intelligencers or relators, that bestow only their time, in condemning the time, in accusing of their brethren, abusing of their betters. but mr russell, whom you quote in your margin, is none such: and the learned doctor did desire him to certify this to you, because you might take notice he read against bellarmin, not against you. mr leech. this lecture i both heard, and noted in writing. but such an other lecture, so false, so heretical, with such violent wresting of sacred write, such impudent rejecting of holy fathers, quite besides the drift of the one, & clean contrary to the resolution of the other, i seldom, or never heard in that famous, and renowned academy. answer. quousque tandem: how far shall the bounds of your frothy and foaming waves pass? a job. god hath set land marks to the sea, and the b arist. in ethic. philosopher hath set limits to that salt & sulphureous humour of raging: and will neither divinity, plut. nor humanity confine you? plutarch setteth down the difference between the sea, and those that be tempestuous sailors ever in the storm of unsavoury wind of words. the sea raging in a tempest casteth mire & dirt, sed mare tum purgatur, but the sea is then purged of the filth, and froth, & scum: but the heart of such, when it rageth, casteth their stomach of bad and boiling virulent speeches: ea dicentis animum conspurcant, the words that come from them, defile them, saith c math. 7.23. christ; and they foam out their own shame, saith d jude. 13. jude. helvidius (saith s. e hier. count helvidium. jerome) thought his conscience then best discharged, when by reviling, his stomach was most disgorged. but do you not so: for god knoweth, i wish your good and salvation in christ jesus; and these kind of actions will much impeach and impair your spiritual good. yet seeing you have blown out such a tempest of disgrace, i will in the rugged sea of your last paragraph cast anchor for this worthy doctor, and to vindicat him whom soundness of judgement in learning, sincere conscience in his actions, and singular mildness in his deportment, do immure and compass from any just imputation: know that his learned reading upon the point now in hand, his lecture is extant, read it, answer it, or acknowledge, that you have uncharitably, and unchristianly traduced him, who never injured you: he hath wrested no scriptures, rejected no fathers, falsified nothing in his lecture. mr leech. the text by him treated upon was; go sell all that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven; and come, and follow me. a main ground, & pregnant text (as i take it; & i take it aright, if all ancient church mistake it not) to build up rather than to batter down; to confirm rather, then to confute evangelical counsels. the fathers which he cited, and named to stand for counsels were diverse: he might have urged all, both of the greek, and latin church; all of them being resolute for counsels (and that upon those words of our saviour; go sell all, etc. as also upon that distinction of the apostle; now concerning virgins i have no precept from our lord; but i give my advice; or counsel) which is a weighty consideration, if their joint consent and uniform authority might have borne any sway with this noble inceptour. answer. the text and interpretation thereof by all ancients, as is by him most amply proved, maketh against you. some friars he named, that maintained the point, but no fathers: professing then, neither to name, nor number those authorities, that bellarmin unsitly collected out of the fathers. how plainly, & yet profoundly he hath delivered the opinion of all ancient, & modern, fathers, and sons, both in his text, and that place of s. paul 1. cor. 7. i desire every honest ingenuous reader to observe; and yourself to examine his lecture, and appendix. mr leech. but this novitiate doctor (if yet he deserve that title, who dealt thus rudely with the true doctors of the church) as he perverted the sacred writ of god (his revealed will in his word) so rejected the fathers, blasting them all with this one heretical breath, that they were all bewitched, deceived, and carried away as men with the errors of the time wherein they lived. thus calvin, luther, the four good fellow germans (who composed their false, and fond centuries in a stone of magdeburge) taught their novice to blaspheme. o times, o ages, wherein we now live; when calvin, luther, four carousing almans (nay rather ale-men) and one puny doctor, dare thus openly (in the ears of christendom, and in the public eye of so famous an university) blaspheme god his holy spirit, promised by christ to lodge in the bosom of these venerable, and sober aged fathers, chief pillars of the holy catholic church. answer. f ambros. in psal. 118. s. ambrose observed of an adversary of the truth, quem veritate non potest, laceret convitijs. it is your practice; whom you cannot tax with untruth, you torment with slanderous reproaches. it was a base retaliation of him in the g terent. in andria. comedy, si mihi pergit quae vult, dicere: ea quae non vult, audiet. it were vile, if you should hear again such words as you spoke. h eph. 4.29. s. paul mentioneth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 epes. 4.29. corrupt speech, which is as a stinking breath, outwardly breathed corruption, a sign as physicians hold of inward putrefaction. when you make your throat thus an open sepulchre, to belch out such unsavorynesse, it is an argument that like a grave, you are full of dead men's bones: and i fear that your inward parts are full of wickedness. d. benefield used no such uncivil speeches of bewitched fathers: unless you were bewitched, you would not so accuse him. concerning your scornful speeches against calvin, luther, and the magdeburgenses, i say not as zachary said to the angel, the lord rebuke thee, but from my heart i wish the lord to forgive it you. of that rare and blessed instrument of god, reverend calvin, i may truly speak, as mr i hooker in the pref. to church polity. hooker doth in the preface to his polity, for my part, i think he was incomparably the wisest man, that ever the french church did enjoy, since the hour it enjoyed him. and for luther, let k eras. lib. 11. epist. ad car. eborac. erasmus who was his familiar, give testimony of him, that his life was approved with great consent of all men, and that the integrity of his manners was so great, that his very enemies could find nothing which they could calunniate. and for his learning, let l hosian. trist. cat. cent. 16. p. 837. andreas masius speak for him, whom you have reason to believe: who reporteth of him, that there was more divinity in one page of luther, then sometimes in a whole book of some father. the magdeburgenses, though they seem to be censorious, and aristarchical, were very special servants of god: for lives, most honest; for knowledge, most learned: the ears that heard them, blest them; and the eyes that saw them, gave witness unto them, and, as job speaketh of himself, so i of them, they broke the jaws of the unrighteous man, and plucked the pray out of his mouth. neither they, nor doctor benefield did blaspheme god's spirit, as you slander them. neither was gods spirit promised to lodge only in the fathers of the church, but even jointly in all the members of the church. and yet for the fathers, we do reverence them, as much, or more than the papists do: as the king's most excellent majesty, m in his premon. to his book in his premonition, doth profess. mr leech. this is right the puritan cut: as d. bancroft observeth against the presbyterian faction, in some whole chapters of his survey. and yet after he had thus censoriously handled the fathers, upon my private conference with him, in stead of the fathers, which i called for, he offered unto me two english pamphlets; one whereof was entitled the apology of the church of england; whereat i could not but smile, in regard of his simplicity, though inwardly grieved much at the times misery, when a statizing pamphleter (who would fly upon the wing of his pen unto the height of some ambitious designment) shall be compared, nay preferred before the ancient orthodox divines, that painfully laboured in the vineyard of the church against the brunt of all heresies. answer. that you came to doctor benefield, to be informed about this doctrine, it is true: you came even then, when you knew the instant approach of the act was at hand; the very next saturday before the vespers which time being unseasonable did abridge him of any large or ample discourse with you. otherwise, i assure myself, that, as no suitor came to that good emperor titus, that returned discontented: so none shall ever come to this worthy doctor to ask counsel or conference, that shall return unsatisfied. the two books that you were offered, either of them might have informed you, that you held an opinion contrary to the church of england, to whose doctrine you subscribed. the one, which you call the apology of the church of england (oportet esse memorem) was a book entitled, the catholic doctrine of the church of england, an exposition of the articles of religion professed here, published by authority: the other, reverend mr perkins reform catholic; such a book, and such an author, that your bishop could wish he had never been priest, it hath so entoiled him, & he n in the beginning of his answer. confesseth that he never saw any book of like quantity published, by a protestant, to contain either more matter, or to be delivered in better method. for mr rogers, he liveth, worthy of much commendation for that necessary pain: and his learned labour will live long after him. m. perkins he is asleep in the lord; his holiness of conversation, soundness of learning, actions, labours, life, death, have sealed him a blessed servant of god. i would others were as free from being flying wanderers, as he, or m. perkins from being statizing pamphleteers. you smiled, you say, at the doctor's simplicity: but, unless you repent, the world will laugh and hiss at your folly. was it simplicity? indeed, as simplicity is taken for integrity, veritas est simplex, the greatest attribute of truth is to be simple, and so he might well prefer the simple positive truth, in one of those books, before all the juggling expunged, impostured copies, which you urge for the fathers. the name of the orthodoxal fathers in matter of controversy, i hold to be nomen verendum & reverendum; and the current of the fathers in the true copies, for the first 500 years, or thereabout, after christ, is like jordan which passeth sweetly and quietly through canaan: but for their current in some points, after that time, it is (i will not say, like to jordan falling into mare mortuum) but it is much hindered, corrupted, and abused. i had here ended this point, but that your marginal urgeth a testimony from that most wise and learned observation of dangerous positions, and proceed, published and practised for the presbyterial discipline. first, you may please to understand, that there was want of good manners in neglecting the reverence you own to that rightly honourable author whose eminent place in the state, my lord's grace of canterbury. painful government in the church, careful authority over our university, and other his honourable respects, do adorn him with the confluence of many titles; & yet this sacred prelate, grave counsellor, our noble chancellor, must pass so unregarded by you. but what do you ground out of that note? his grace wrote against the ambitiously factious, and paradoxically furious presbytery. doctor benefield, none such: his profession, an honourable bishop's chaplain; his positions, mainly against presbytery, declare so much. haec nota nihil notat, praeter notam malitiae. chap. 7. mr leech. this solemn lecture, read in public schools by an inceptor in divinity for so venerable a degree, enforced me now (even as i would not openly betray the truth of this doctrine) unto a more plain, ample, and personal defence, inciting me also, nay inflaming me with some extraordinary desire, for the rejection, and depulsion of his infirm reasons. answer. it is observed, a plin. nat. hist. lib. 11. c. 37. that in the falling sickness, the eyes though open, see nothing, when the mind is darkened & dim-sighted: so seemeth it with you, when in your declining and falling away, you could not see; or, like the deaf adder, would not hear, charm the charmer never so wisely. you say, you were inflamed with an extraordinary desire, for the rejection of the infirm reasons of the lecture. i marvel you should be in such a heat. it had been well, if with david you had cried out; my heart is hot, and the fire is kindled within me: that was a heat that took fire from the altar; but yours was no such spiritual heat. b albert. in comp. theol. albertus observeth, that many sins are deciphered by many sicknesses; luxury by a fever, envy by a leprosy, anger by a frenzy, and pride by an inflammation: take head of proud heat, such inflaming will breed flashing. i would be sorry from my heart, to hear that you should turn melancholy dominican, or lousy franciscan, or lazy capuchin; but of all others, a jesuitical incendiary: for he is the wild fire of the world: in mind, ravenous as a wolf; in head, crafty as a fox; in heart, fierce as a tiger; in tongue, poisonous as an asp; in eye, deadly as a cockatrice; in hand, bloody as a lyon. o avoid the heat of a jesuite: he is hell fire, heaping powder, breathing fire, writing blood. c reip. geren. precept. plutarch's speech is true, that fire beginneth not commonly in public and sacred places, but often breeds first in a private house, by some snuff of a candle among straw, and after sets on fire churches and temples: so the stinking snuffs of candles, that fall among quarreling papers in the study of a male content, if they be not quenched, may fire god's church. take care that you be not so inflamed. mr leech. and though diverse of my best friends (whose entreaty in any other matter, might have prevailed with me) dissuaded me from this enterprise (as being to full of peril) fearing the violence of the time, and the manifold dangers, that by this resolution i stood likely to expose myself unto, yet ten thousand such like motives of terror could not detain me, nor deter my resolution. for a higher hand then human (even the hand of heaven) so overruled me (commanding, nay countermaunding all my affections that way) that partly the pure zeal, and entire affection (which i ever bare unto the blessed fathers; being wholly indebted unto them for that little which i have) and partly my devoted love unto many of that university; whom i could not patiently suffer to be thus perverted in so main a doctrine, tending to all religious piety; and lastly the perfect hatred, that from my innermost soul, i ever conceived against puritanisme (the very bane of ancient christianity) these i say, and the like motives (to recollect them altogether) could not suffer me, without the shipwreck of all conscience, to fit still and to be silent, whilst god his eternal truth, christ his holy direction, and the perpetual tradition of the catholic mother-church were so publicly impugned, and so notoriously profaned. answer. importunity of friends could not withdraw you, manifold ensuing perils could not touch you: yet the d book of canons agreed upon with the king's majesties licens in the synod at london 1603 canon 53. canon, provided against the public contradiction of preachers in the pulpit, should have stayed you. you attribute your act to the hand of heaven, very rashly. howsoever, e senec. quicquid agimus, quicquid patimur, venit ex alto, as the poet well noteth: yet, that by the hand of heaven, you should be moved so much to magnify the arm of flesh, that, whereas god f job. layeth folly on his angels, you will lay such perfection of glory on his mortal creatures, it may seem strange. it was not the direction of the hand of heaven. your motives commanding, and countermanding you, were, as you say, first your entire affection unto the fathers: 1. mot. your mother the church, should have been dearer unto you then all your fathers, her peace more than their credit, her maintained religion, rather than out of them your conceited opinion. but you would uncover nakedness in the fathers, where there is none: the fathers disclaim your position, for illegitimate. i know you boast that you have read all the fathers, and i think you have seen all the world: but the one in a map, the other in a model. in this your tract when you brag so much of reading the fathers, it calleth to my memory the distinction of g goron. goronides concerning readers: some are sponges, which draw up all with out distinguishing; others are hourglasses, which receive, and power out, as fast as they fill; others are bags which retain only the dregs of the spices, and let the purest escape; 2 mot. others, like sieves, only retain the best. i reckon you in the first number. your second motive was your devoted love to many of that university, whom you could not suffer patiently to be thus perverted in so main a point of doctrine, tending to all religious piety. did ever any point that you preached, gain any such belief, applause, acceptance, as that you should imagine that many would have been perverted, but for the opening thereof by you? or was that, so main a point, tending to all religious piety, which served for no other use, but the induction of monkery: when as monkery itself, is but the privation of virtue, the life of vice, the habitation of darkness, stove and stews of filthiness, 3 mot. lethargy of drowsiness, dormitory of profaneness, and profession of idleness? your third motive, was the perfect hatred that from your innermost soul you conceived against puritanisme, which you call the very bane of ancient christianity. for puritanisme, if there be any spark of conscience, or religious fear of god in you: confess how idly you traduce those reverend fathers, that opposed your doctrine. these were no motives: temptations were your motives, which you obeyed; by the tempter you were drawn to run from god, from the truth, from your country from your self. mr leech. 1. reg. 26. therefore as abishai, out of his love to his anointed king, said unto david, benefield, with all his compeers. when he meant by one blow (surely laid on) to end all quarrels betwixt saul and him, let me strike him but once, yea nail him to the earth with a spear, seeing god hath thus closed him into thy hands & i will strike him no more; even so (to apply the words only; for i justify not the intended fact of abishai) my love unto the king of heaven (when i purposed by one other blow sound given, to end this controversy) forced me to cry within any heart; let me strike him but once & i will strike him no more. answer. your abuse of scripture is so common through out your book, that i admire it not only here, 1. sam. 26.8. in your wresting of that place of abishais speech, let me strike him but once, and nail him to the ground. impar congressus achilli; it was a very unequal match: abishai, unworthy to strike a king; and abishag, the father's ignorance, as the word importeth, unworthy to deal with a doctor. first i marvel you would offer to strike, seeing s. paul hath bound all clergy men to the peace, 1. tim 3.2. 2. tim. 4.10. and to the good behaviour. but demas is fallen away, and forgetteth s. paul. but if you would strike, think you that this paper-gun can strike down such a worthy of israel? cedar's stir not at such blasts, strong martialists fall not at such blows. give me leave to catechize you in the intended fact of abishay to kill saul. do not you justify it? take heed lest you be put out of commons again. are you one of those israelits, that spoke ashdod, and hebrew? do not you justify that horrid fact of that tragic fury, who hath lately murdered that most illustrious, and victorious prince, the french king? which, howsoever, that blood shall ever cry for vengeance, being an act, h seneca in thyestes. quod nulla posteritas taceat, sed nulla probet, exceeding any particular scythian, scillian, marian, tartarian, barbarian, jewish, turkish villainy: yet it was plotted by catholics, anticoton. conspired by catholics, acted, joh. mariana. and to be acted by catholics, and maintained as a lawful doctrinal position, by catholics. heretofore it was a catholic doctrine, held tyrannous in a king, to kill a priest: but now it is thought a meritorious point, in a priest, to kill a king: and you must justify it. if you justify not it, they will not justify you. mr leech. and if this blow have not hit home to the final deciding of this quarrel, depriving his heresy of all breathing, let him, or any, or all his complices (and especially those six well selected doctors, who have so far engaged their credits by interessing themselves so deeply in the quarrel) ward, and answer the blow which they have publicly received, doctor benefield. for all of them put together have not yet diverted the stroke. or if the cause, which the principal actor undertook, will abide so much as the least touchstone of trial, let him, upon what grounds, and confidence soever he standeth (as i dare boldly charged & challenge him he standeth upon none, but heretical) divulge his lecture unto the censure of the world. answer. your challenged is received. but why were not those many challenages answered by you, which were offered by the ingenious and learned students of christ-church, and by the ingemminated motions of the reverend deane, that you should sit, to answer or oppose in the scholastical form of disputations, about this point. the six doctors need not to raise their forces to encounter you: one of them, whom it most concerneth, hath opposed more than you and rome will ever answer. his lecture is divulged to the world's censure, & so it was desired, by the rightly honourable, and most reverend bishop ravis, whose great care before his death, was, that your ignorant & scandalous pamphlet (they were his own words) might receive a rigid answer. the learned and painful lecture is able to satisfy any, who give i 1. tiim. 4.1. no heed unto spirits of error & doctrines of devils: which speak not lies through hypocrisy, having their consciences seared with a hot iron. with that lecture the places of scripture be truly expounded; the question, as in the sight of god, truly discussed: & in the appendix, the ancient fathers most sufficiently answered. mr leech. mean while, for the honour of god, & confusion of satan, to preserve christ his word (the word of verity) from the infection of heresy; for the just defence of this doctrine & the due reproof of heretical innovation, i have thought good here to insert a true copy of the sermon preached by me in oxford to justify evangelical counsels upon the occasion above mentioned. anno dom. 1608. 27. die junii. answer. k chem. in loc. commun loc. de cons. evang. luther, about to confute this very doctrine, useth these words; in perpetuam rei memoriam, maximè verò in redemptoris gloriam, ista sunt memori mente servanda & exaggeranda, adversus impudentissimos rabulas, papisticae abominationis defensores. i will not be so bitter: but to the glory of god, discharged of my conscience, and satisfying of those great and honourable friends that did importune me to this business, i follow you line by line, to see whether your copy be right. you say you have endeavoured to reprove heretical innovation; i say so much: dicit scaurus, negat varius, utri creditis? you must put yourself upon god and the country. mr leech. read it (dear christian brother) severely; judge of it impartially; and god grant it may effect in thee what i wish heartily: and that is (if thou feelest thyself called, and thy soul moved effectually) to practise the same. amen. answer. wish faithfully, pray religiously; & then no doubt, god will give you understanding in all things: which you must have in yourself, before you can wish it, or teach it to others. i lament you should so oppose yourself to the doctrine of christ's holy catholic church, & in a mercenary respect, and discontented humour, burden your soul with so fowl a sin as this is truly judged to be, even apostasy. all such to the life s. paul doth decipher, and giveth order against such. 1. tim. 6.3, 4.5 if any man teach otherwise, and consenteth not to the wholesome doctrine, which is according to godliness: he is puffed up, and knoweth nothing, he doteth, or languisheth about questions, and strife of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmises, vain disputations of men of corrupt minds, & destitute of the truth, which think that gain is godliness. fly such, and fear such. so i wish you, so i counsel you, so i pray for you, and seal my counsel wishes and prayers with amen. mr leech. the sermon preached in defence of evangelical counsels, and the fathers. answer. it was, and ever will be true; causa patrocinio, non bona, peior erit. in that it is bellarmine's doctrine, all your authorities gathered from him: you are his advocate, he your author. but i know not whose the sermon is: he made it, but preached it not; you preached it, but made it not. mr leech. and i saw the dead, both great, and small stand before god, apoc. 20.12. & the books were opened, and another book was opened which is the book of life, and the dead were judged of those things, which were written in the books according to their works. this verse naturally floweth, into three streams, of christian doctrine: the first is a general citation of all; and i saw the dead, both great, and small stand before god. the second is a particular examination of all, upon a twofold evidence brought in: liber conscientiae, librum praescientiae: the book of conscience, and the book of god his eternal prescience: the books were opened, and another book was opened, which is the book of life; a final retribution, involved in the act, and particular manner of the judgement; and the dead were judged of those things, which were written in the books according to their works. answer. as the surgeon, seeking to heal some ulcerated parts of a corrupted body, doth not apply his kataplasmes unto every member, but unto those that are worse affected: so must i deal with your sermon, seek to cure only those parts, that are most tainted. in this first passage, if by the rules of criticism i should examine it, i should find it guilty of divers errors, but chief of your mistake in calling the first part of your text a citation, which is an appearance, or a vision of the appearance, the effect of the citation: i saw the dead both great and small: your best help here willbe to let it be dispensed with, per metonimiam satis impropriam. mr leech. the general citation, more particularly wrappeth in it the persons appearing; the dead: the extent of this appearance; great, and small: subjection to this throne; stand together with the judge, before whom this grand appearance is made; god: and i saw the dead both great and small stand before god. of the persons appearing, summoned by christ his imperial power commanding, and produced by angels voluntary ministering, & all creatures necessary obeying, (sea, death, and hell surrending their dead) i have already spoken; as also of the extent of this appearance; subjection to this throne, and of the judge before whom this appearance is made. in the extent of this appearance i noted a fourefould acception of great and small. first, great and small for worldly authority, and temporal condition. secondly, great and small, in respect of heavenly supereminency of grace, and spiritual infusion. thirdly, great & small, in consideration of diversity of rewards, and retribution. fourthly, great and small, in regard of disparity, yea contrariety also of works, and operation. answer. supereminence of grace causeth a disparity of working: and therefore two of your interpretations be coincident, and make but one. but i urge a farther, & more material point: you ground the argument of your sermon upon a symbolical interpretation, aquin. and therefore, as the schools have noted it, can prove nothing. that it is a symbolical interpretation i prove, because it is not the true literal sense: that it is not the true literal i prove, because the literal sense is but one, as aquinas teacheth, sensus literalis est, aq. prim. primae. q. 1. art. 10. quem autor intendit, that which the author intendeth, and therefore your text cannot literally be interpreted so many ways: and so consequently your acception of it in the last sense (great and small, in regard of disparity, yea contrariety also of works & operation) can be the ground of no argument, because it is not the proper sense of the letter of your text. the rule of the schoolmen is, multiplicitas sensuum in una scriptura, aq. 1a. 1ae. q. 1 art. 10. aug, 48. cp. ad vincentium parit confusionem & deceptionem, & tollit arguendi firmitatem, & secundum hoc aliquae fallaciae assignantur: and s. austin in his 48 epistle ad vincentium, doth worthily tax the donatists for grounding arguments upon mystical senses of scriptures, de verbo dei lib. 3. cap. 3. which bellarmin acknowledgeth and expressly delivereth, ex solo literali sensu peti debere argumenta efficacia, & concludeth that oftentimes it cannot be proved that mystical senses be the meaning of the holy ghost. aust. carthus. lyra. hugo. gloss. so that my exceptions against this part, be chiefly these two: first, that the ancient interpreters, as before is proved, do understand the text otherwise than you interpret it; secondly, that the symbolical acception of great and small, if it were truly expounded, cannot be the ground of any effectual argument, to found any point of doctrine and belief, but rather a use, allusion, or application. mr leech. and from this last signification, arose that fourfold distinction of s. gregory: quidam non judicantur, & pereunt; quidam judicantur, & pereunt; quidam iudicantur, & regnant; quidam non judicantur, & regnant. that is (as another ancient writer, commenting upon my text, fitly rendereth it) some are not judged but condemned already; perishing without further judgement; some are to be judged, and condemned; perishing by judgement; some are to be judged, & saved; saved by judgement; some are judged & saved already; saved without judgement. answer. distinctions in divinity, are like fomentations in physic: cor. celsus. the one to be applied in dissolving tumours; the other, in resolving doubts. in all diseases to let blood, saith celsus, it is a strange fashion: and in every occasion to use a distinction, it is means to dull the text, & darken the cause; but then especially, when besides the sound constitution of the distinction, you infer an unsound addition and conclusion, following in the sequel of the sermon. mr leech. the first rank are such, whose damnation sleepeth not, joh. 3.18. but is already certain: qui non credit in filio dei jam judicatus est; he that believeth not in the son of god is already condemned, being thereto ordained, & predestinated; ad poenam, non ad culpam; ad supplicium, non ad peccatum, ad mortem animae, non impietatis primam, sed ad mortem animae, damnationis secundam: as that mellifluous father fulgentius speaketh: de praedestinatione ad monimum. that is to penalty, not to iniquity; to the wages of sin, not to the guilt of sin; not to the first death of the soul, that is transgression, but to the second death of the soul, to wit certain damnation. for their sins (being loud crying sins) cry with sodom in the ears of heaven: are open before hand, and go before them unto judgement. answer. s. augustin teacheth; opera non praecedunt justificandum, sed sequuntur justificatum. and, as that is true in salvation, so this is true in damnation; peccata sequuntur reprobationem, praecedunt damnationem. aug. polan. partit. lib. 2. p. 356. sins do follow reprobation, in him that is to be damned; but sins do not predestinate him to this reprobation: the rule of schools being this, voluntas dei reprobat, peccatum damnat; the hidden inscrutable judgement of god doth determine man's reprobation, but his sins do cause the execution of damnation. and so the words of fulgentius (which you have by fragments taken out of the place cited) are to be understood. though god hath ordained some ad poenam, non ad culpam: yet he hath so appointed them, ad poenam propter culpam. exod. 33.19. for it standeth not with god's justice to condemn any one without offending: though he will show mercy, rom. 9.15. upon whom he will show mercy. we are all in his hands, as the clay in the potter's: if he ordain one to honour, rom. 9.20. another to dishonour, who can say, why hast thou made me thus? i intend not a litigious discourse about words that may be well construed, but i attend your progress. mr leech. the second sort are such, whose damnation is yet uncertain; for admit, that they be now in the state of damnation, yet let them turn from their sins, god will turn from his wrath: he offereth them heaven, and threateneth them hell: he setteth life, and death, good & evil, before them: let them reach out their hand, and choose whether they will. answer. your second branch of the distinction concludeth these to be judged and perish; and according to gregory, iudicantur & pereunt: how then is their damnation uncertain? if this be not a soloecism, what is? they are judged, there is certitudo reprobationis; they perish, there is certitudo condemnationis. their condemnation sealed, and delivered, & an unmovable stone of heavy vengeance, lying upon the mouth of hell, that they shall never come forth: job. 14.14. & yet, the damnation of these to be uncertain. it is jobs question, can a man that is dead, live again? i ask in another sense the same question, can he that is denounced reprobate, judged, & condemned to eternal torture, can his damnation be uncertain? you will answer, it is uncertain while he is in this life, because he may turn from his sin, and so god turn him from his wrath, etc. but though this be true in some, that are predestinated to life before the beginning of the world: yet it is never so with those, that are ordained to death; their damnation is certain. for, tho. in quaestione de veritate quaest. 16. art. 1. as aquinas teacheth that necessariae propositiones & deus, be both immutable and unmovable: so the judgement of god, it is like the law of the meads & persians, it altereth not. and, if god's judgement should be any way uncertain: it were to make god subject to inconstancy, which, as * tho. 22ae. q. 55. art. 2. thomas teacheth, is speciale peccatum imprudentiae. no marvel you seem ignorant of what is true in judgement, and good in will: if you pursue your corrupt opinion with such abortion of contradiction. this is certainty or uncertainty. you reprieve those in this section, whom you find to be judged, & damned, in gregory's distinction; judicantur, & pereunt. mr leech. he that would not the death of a sinner, (for our merciful god, would have all to be saved) offereth means of salvation, unto these sinners; knocking outwardly, inwardly, by the operation of his word, by the inspiration of his spirit, at the steepy door, of their drowsy consciences, to awaken them (if it be possible) from the dead sleep, and lethargy of sin: opening their eyes sometimes, and inlardging their hearts, that, if they will, they may come to repentance, and amendment of life, out of the snare of the devil, who are taken of him at his will. answer. the pope, your lord god, * dist. 61. catinensis. cannot bind a man to do things impossible, as in the canons is taught: and yet you will enforce the everliving god to things impossible, as if he offered means of salvation to those whom your second branch holdeth to be judged and perish. the extent of gods mercy is such, that no dimension in art, no proportion in nature can describe: but, ab inferis non est redemptio. there is a time, when (as s. john saith) there shall be no more time: rom. 10.6. and the large extent of mercy reacheth not so far. though mercy, the sweetest companion of man upon the face of the earth, psal. did fetch david's soul from the snares of death, from the chambers of death, yea metaphorically from the neither most hell: yet they that are ordained to damnation, shall never be redeemed thence, but for ever receive the execution of condemnation; ab inferno non est redemptio. mr leech. which means of their conversion, proceeding from his mere compassion (which should lead them to compunction) if they refuse, and after their hardness of hard that cannot not repent, rom. 2.6. treasure up wrath against the day of wrath, then are they taken of satan at his will. hence springeth the second branch; some are judged, and condemned. these happily, though they have not sinned with so high a hand against heaven, as the former have done; yet certainly have they so grieved the spirit, which should have sealed them up unto the day of redemption, and so highly have they offended the majesty of heaven, that their sins follow them unto judgement; nay dog them, as a sergeant at heels, to arrest them. answer. in the former paragraph almost in the last line, you say they come to repentance: and yet here you urge that scripture against them, that after the hardness of their heart they cannot repent. you are quickly turned thomist, to produce your secunda secundae. review your words: in the last paragraph but one, you say the second sort of these whose damnation is uncertain, and now in this that second hath got this second; here springeth the second branch, some are judged & condemned. this is like the fellow in the comedy, haec nunc quasi cum, terent. heau act. 2. scen. 2. that spoke he knew not what: and my answer to you is the same as his was, quas, malùm, ambages mihi narrare occipis? in your written copy delivered at the command of authority, there be many cloudy, ambagious, obscure lines, so enveloped in the mists of error, as if the ambiguous oracles had spoke again: in this printed copy, so many strange, disjointed, unsinnned sentences, as if you would profess to read a lecture of non sense: one paragraph doth not know the other; or, if they be acquainted, they contradict each other. * pag. 31. § and from. pag. 32. § the second sort. pag. 32. § he that would. pag. cad.. § which means. some are damned, and perish, say you; and yet of these within * pag. 31. § and from. pag. 32. § the second sort. pag. 32. § he that would. pag. cad.. § which means. few lines you affirm, they may be saved: some may come to repentance and amendment of life; and yet of the same penitentiaries you deliver, that after the hardness of their heart they cannot repent, & so you make them impenitentiaries. of the second branch you say there are some, whose damnation is uncertain: and yet here you infer, hence springeth the second branch, some are judged, and condemned. then their condemnation and judgement is certain. mr leech. the third sort are such, whose salvation is not yet certain, certitudine rei, though it be spei; not sui, though dei: with certainty of real possession, though it be of spiritual expectation; with any certainty arising from themselves, but with a certainty proceeding from god. god's promises are conditional, and his election infallibly implieth in it, nay pointeth unto the very means of our salvations; his eternal prescience so directing the decree of his counsel. answer. the works of god, as the schools teach, are either interna seu immanentia, aq. or externa seu transeuntia: the former are immanent in ipsa dei essentia, the other transeunt in all his creatures. of all other works of the later kind, predestination is a most special one, and in it the certainty is of much moment, & in the certainty the manner of our certainty of salvation is chiefly to be considered. our adversaries & we in this point, differ most about the manner of this certainty they hold a certainty by revelation, by the mission of an angel, by some extraordinary miraculous manner: we go further, that we are certain of salvation, not certitudine intellectus, for that is but the natural assent, grounded upon inbred principles; neither certitudine scientiae, for that is certainty of conclusions, begot from those principles; nor only certitudine experientiae, for that is drawn from sense; nor only, as you affirm, certitudine spei, for that may be wavering: but we are sure, certitudine fidei, by the certainty of faith, & that not a dead, temporal, historical, miraculous faith, but by a true, lively, quickening, justifying faith. lastly your distinction seemeth very strange, which saith, a man cannot be certain of his salvation, certitudine rei: & yet he may certitudine dei. i had thought that certitudo rei, and certitudo dei, had been the same. because god judgeth not as we misconceive, but as the thing is. mr leech. these though they stand, 1. cor. 10.12. yet must they take heed lest they fall. for these are but yet in via, not in patria; upon the seas of this world, floating, not in the haven of heaven, reigning. begin they in the spirit? yet they must not end in the flesh, or be made perfect by the flesh. for they are yet in certamine, not in triumpho, warfaring on earth, encompassed with thieves and pirates, the world, flesh, and devil on all sides assaulting them; not triumphing in heaven, environed and guarded, with legions of angels, & armies of the spirits of just and perfect men. answer. the words of s. paul do not serve to prove any uncertainty in the faith of the saints, 1. cor. 10.12. any hesitation or doubting concerning their salvation: but (those & the like words, be not high minded, but fear) are inculcated rather, ad supprimendam praesumptionem, non ad imprimendam dubitationem. a filial fear is the character of the child of god: a fear of offending, nor of final falling; for he knoweth that to be true, quos amor verus tenuit, tenebit. howsoever there may be this fear in faith, as that a christian be in his faith, as christ in his fight; in agony, passion, sweat, and blood: yet he resisteth unto blood, yea unto hell; for the gates of hell cannot prevail against him. mr leech. these must remember, & remembering tremble at that fearful distriction, & terrible commination (so often reiterated & direfully threatened by the prophet.) if the righteous turn away from his righteousness, & commits iniquity, and do according to all the abominations, that the wicked man doth, shall he live, saith the lord god of hosts? all his righteousness that he hath done, shall not be mentioned, but in his transgression, that he hath committed, and in his sin, that he hath sinned, in them shall he die. and the same reason is excellently rendered by the apostle: hebr. 6.4.5.6. for it is impossible, that they which were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the holy ghost, and have tasted of the good word of god, & of the powers of the world to come, if they fall away, should be renewed by repentance, seeing they crucify again to themselves the son of god and make a mock of him. answer. the infernal furies, distrust, fear, & horror do keep the souls of the wicked continually in alarm: but these be strangers, yea enemies to the godly; they know how to temper their fear with joy, to cast sweet wood into the bitter waters, to cast anchor in the tempestuous storms of distrust, knowing that they cannot fall finally and totally from god. and howsoever the frequent mentions of these & the like scriptures are very necessary, yet neither of these do prove that the true and faithful saints do fall: for the place in ezekiell is (as danaeus answereth bellarmine) to be interpreted only of those that are just in their own eyes, not of those truly just before god. they do not hereby prove that ever the truly righteous have fallen finally, but in such sort that they may rise again: and so you grant in your former distinction that they are certain certitudine dei, and is not that sufficient assurance for the conscience to build upon? the place out of the hebrews is very obscure, and one of those places that s. peter spoke of, 2. petri, 3.16. that in s. paul's epistles there were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, places hard to be understood, which unstable and unlearned men pervert, as they do other scriptures, to their own damnation. novatus, who lived about the year 253. abused this place to prove that it was impossible for those that had once fallen, after baptism, to be renewed by repentance. your doctrine seemeth to be neighbour to his error. chrysost. epiphanius, athanasius, ambrose, & austin, do interpret it against rebaptisation: that such as fall, should not be renewed again with another baptism. but others interpret s. paul by himself, heb. 10.26. in the 10. chap. ver. 26. that he understandeth those only, paraeus in heb. not that fall in part, as david into adultery; nor wholly, of infirmity, as peter in his abnegation: but wholly, finally, and maliciously, as julian, and porphiry did, because they spite the spirit of god, and count the blood of the testament an unholy thing. others may fall, and rise again: as, i trust, you wil and for the objections against our certainty of salvation, i briefly answer them thus: if you object saul to have fallen finally, we acknowledge it, but we deny him to have been endowed with the spirit of grace: he had only spiritum consilij, & dominationis, not gratiae, & regenerationis. if you object judas fall, you cannot prove that ever he had the true justifying faith: he had gratiam gratis datam, not gratiam facientem gratum. if you urge the rejection of the jews, the olive branches, we answer that these branches were grafted in, only quoad externam & visibilem ecclesia faciem, not quoad internam & invisibilem gratiam, according to that of christ, every plant which my father's right hand hath not planted, shall be rooted out. if lastly, you urdge moses, & paul, (for i know you will disturb not only prophets & apostles, but even saints & angels: nay and lucifer from hell, concerning whom this answer is sufficient, stella cadens, non est stella, cometa fuit) for moses & paul, when they did wish that their names might be razed out of the book of life, they did it, rather out of an ardent forcible zeal, z●nch. danaeus. them out of a possible act: non propriè & verè, sed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; if it could have been, which was not possible to be done: herein expressing their care, and love, and zeal of the salvation of their brethren. but absolutely, it is the most certain 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that can be, that any true servant of god should finally fall from grace: the promise of the father is, i will put my fear into their hearts, luk. 22.32. & they shall not departed from me; and the prayer of the son is, for peter, and in him for all faithful, i have prayed that thy faith fail not. faith may sometimes be seen orient, in her full heat and lustre; sometimes in the occident. sometimes it is in the flower, sometimes private in the root; sometimes in the flame, sometimes in the spark: but as that stone in pliny once made hot, never looseth its heat; so faith is never dead, dried, or extinguished. if faith take fire from god's altar, it is like the fire in the temple on the altar, never goeth out. men, angels, devils cannot extinguish it. it is as mount zion, that shall never be removed. flac. illir. contra relig. pp. catharinus thought so, and maintained it against dominicus soto in the council of trent, of which council they that were the precedents, did protest they did not think the question to be sufficiently discussed, and therefore the decision thereof was deferred two several times. and antonius marinarius doth exquisitely speak herein, if heaven fall, if the earth vanish, dominic. quad. 4. if the whole world ran headlong, i will look to the goodness of god, and, as he addeth, if an angel from heaven shall labour to persuade me against the certainty of my salvation, i will say anathema to him. so against such we will shut up the bowels of charity, and as far as the power of the keys is given unto us, the gates of everlasting life. mr leech. the last sort are such, whose salvation is already certain; and these differ from the other, quoad gradum; gradum in via, perfectionis; gradum in patria, retributionis. 1. cor. 15.41. for if stella à stella differt gloria (the apostle applieth it to the bodily resurrection) that is, if there be degrees of exaltation in the kingdom of glory; of necessity, by force of inevitable consequence, it must follow, that there be degrees of christian perfection in the kingdom of grace, the one being a retribution of the other; heavens remuneration awarded, according to christian perfection practised. answer. this is your part of the division that divided you from your part among us, upon this all your paper building consisteth, upon this champion ground you marshal your munition, & here be the sluices of your invasion: this is the squadron you encounter us with. but in this paragraph, three things are to be reproved. the first, your misinterpreting of the place of the apostle s. paul. there be interpreters that prove that that speech, and the collation thereof, is only inter corpus depositum & corpus restitutum: it is not a comparison between the elect in glory, but between a glorified and a corruptible body, pet. martyr class 3. c. 17. § 8. paraeus com. in 1. cor. 15. to manifest resurrection. secondly, your disjointed consequence is to be reproved, stella à stella differt gloria, ergo there be diverse degrees of exaltation in the kingdom of glory, according to christian perfection practised in this life. aristotle, 2. post. c. 15. 4. top. c. 3. 6. top. c. 2. 7. top. c. 2. in many places of the organon, giveth caveats against arguing from metaphors, & figurative speeches; and therefore your foundation is faulty in logic, but much more in the law. thirdly, though we deny not but that there be degrees of holy life in the kingdom of grace: yet the reason is not good, that therefore there be degrees of perfection in this life, because degrees of exaltation in the life to come; in as much as these degrees of exaltation depend not on that proportion you imagine, which is between the work and reward, but on the grace and favour of god, who bestoweth liberally. i am not ignorant, that jerom is fierce against jovinian for maintaining an equality of glory, s. austin joineth with jerome, & mr calvin with both, and peter martyr acknowledgeth, aug. ench. c. 3. epist. 146. that all the fathers believe it. yet this was never urged or held, that it deserved the name of an inevitable consequence: but rather, of a probable opinion. mr leech. these join with their faith, virtue, 2. pet. 1.5.6.7.10. with virtue knowledge, with knowledge temperance; with temperance patience, with patience godliness; with godliness, brotherly kindness; with brotherly kindness, love; the very bond of perfection, nay plíroma tou nomou; the fulfilling of the law; and doing these things they can never fall. these give all diligence to make their calling, and election sure by faith, by works, by precepts, by counsels. these are terrestres angeli, coelestes homines, earthly angels, heavenly men: their names are written in heaven, and themselves registered, and enrolled, in the book of life, and of the lamb. these (i remember well) i styled entia transcendentia, men soaring with the wings of faith and works, above the ordinary pitch of men: etiam praecepta legis perfectiori virtute transcendentes; transcending, surmounting the precepts of the law, by evangelical counsels of greater perfection: so speaketh s. gregory in the place about cited. answer. so speaketh not s. gregory: you insert the words, evangelical counsels, in place above cited. it is the most absolute distinction of general and special precepts that can be urged, praecepta generaliter specialis iussio perfectiorib' imperatur. praecepta ●●●cialia. but no word of counsels mentioned. four especial notes be there, for to guide any man (that runneth not astray through the wilderness of his will) to the true knowledge of the difference of that division. your very paper is a writ against you, for you cannot out of gregory cite the word counsel. as for the fulfilling of the law, it can be in this life but only ex part, non ex toto, as is taught in the third of the sentences, 3. sent. dis. 17. the 17 distinction, and as calvin and bucan worthily teach, the best of god's servants have peccatum domitum, greg. 4. mor. cap. 24. manuscripts in the public library of oxford wherein are found many 1000 differences in the works of gregory and many a hundred contradictions to the now extant roman copy, as will shortly appear. non dominum, sin doth remain in them, though it doth not reign in them. s. gregory doth elegantly prove this, chananaeus populus non occisus, sed factus tributarius: meaning hereby, that the saints here, as long as they live in the world, have the flesh to vex them, and the angel of satan to buffet them. and for that fragment out of gregory, perfectiori virtute transcendentes, or perfectionum virtute as some copies, or perfectionis virtute: i say none can so transcend as you interpret, some men may transcend other men, but yet not transcend the law, or they may unproperly be said to transcend the precepts, that is, the ordinary and customary observing of the precepts: they may transcend in seeking to keep them in a more holy manner than others, that be not so well enabled by gifts, but yet they do not surmount the precepts of the law, nor pitch beyond the commandments. if you pitch beyond that pitch, he that toucheth your pitch, will be defiled with it. the poet's observation may warn you, deus immortalis haberi dum cupit empedocles ardentem firgidus etnam insiluit. hor. art. poet. mr leech. for explanation of which sentence of that good father and great pillar of the latin church we are to note, that precepts and counsels, may be considered comparatively two manner of ways; viz. either generally, camparing all the precepts of the law jointly with the counsels of the gospel severally, or particulary, by comparing several counsels of the gospel, not with every, or with all the precepts of the law jointly in one aggregate body, but severally with the precepts conversant circa eandem materiam. answer. you went upon trust, but not on credit, for this distinction: lib. 2. de monach. cap. 6. acknowledge the principal and pay bellarmin the interest for great part thereof. the first member of your distinction, is very ridiculous, to compare all the precepts of the law, with one counsel of the gospel. the second member is verbatim taken out of bellarmin, to which junius answer is prompt: first, annot. in bellar. he denieth counsels to be any thing besides personal precepts, and therefore they cannot be preferred before precepts in general: secondly, he answereth, that bellarmin out of aquinas doth grant that counsels avail but instrumentally to perfection, aq. 22ae. q. 184. ar. 3. but precepts essentially. this is therefore to prefer the colour before the cloth, or the pen before the writer, or, more properly, a river before the ocean. mr leech. in the first consideration, i stand not to justify those words of s. gregory, psalm. 119. transcendunt aliqui praecepta legis perfectiori virtute. for mandatum tuum nimis latum domine: thy commandment, o lord, is exceeding broad: yea so broad, that the law alone, lex immaculata, that undefiled law of god, containeth in it, primarily, originally, essentially, all kind of christian perfection; and it was never that orthodox father's meaning so to compare them. but in the later consideration, most true are those words of s. gregory; transcendunt aliqui praecepta legis perfectiori virtute. answer. as the apostle spoke of the love of god, o the height, and breadth, and the depth, and length of the love of god: ps. 9.119. so say i of the law of god, it passeth all dimensions, all proportions we can conceive; mandatum tuum nimis latum, tertul. domine. and as tertullian spoke of all scripture, so i of the law, cuius plenitudinem adoro, whose fullness i adore and reverence: because this law, as you upon fear of anathema are constrained to confess, containeth all perfection, yea all kind of perfection. and seeing it doth contain all kind of perfection, what kind of perfection is left for counsels? but you may make something to be transcendent to all, seeing you make man, who (david saith) is nothing, to transcend the law. esop's collection was this, aesop. vit. when his fellows were to be sold with him in the market & the merchants asked of every one of them what they could do, they answer, all things: but when the buyers questioned aesop what he could, nothing saith he, giving the reason, he could do nothing because his fellows had professed severally to do all things, therefore nothing was left for him to do. so, ask your counsels what they shall do, they will answer; nothing, for you acknowledge that the law doth perform & contain all. besides, your gloss is a great stranger, and your comparison most odious when by mandatum tuum nimis latum you say, id est, all precepts of the law, jointly, are more than one counsel of gospel. none of the father's father this. mr leech. to illustrate this comparison by example. first compare that evangelical counsel, vade, vend omnia, & da pauperibus, & sequere me, with that precept, non furaberis. and secondly, compare that evangelical counsel of virginity, qui potest capere capiat, mat. 19.12. (which luther himself in the 30. article of his assertion, held to be the only evangelical counsel) with that precept, non moechaberis: than you shall see evidently, that an higher degree of perfection is in the action conformable to those two counsels, then in the actions enjoined in the other two precepts. for in actions there must needs be degrees of goodness; witness some actions good in a mean degree of goodness; as not to hate his own flesh, to requite good for good, not to steal, not to commit adultery, etc. wherein i may demand with our saviour, what singular thing is done? do not publicans do the same? did not blindfolded gentilism do these things? other actions there are, which are good in a higher degree of goodness: such are the actions, performed in the counsels of voluntary poverty, virginity, and the like. answer. that which should lighten and illustrat your meaning, doth clod and cloud it. such illustrations as these are broods of the night of ignorance; begot in darkness, conceived in blindness, and brought forth in doubtfulness. luther tom. 2. assert. art. 30. luther is here ill cited by you: for in the place quoted, he alloweth john hus to have offended in numbering 12. evangelical counsels, quum non sit nisi unicum virginitatis sive caelibatus, when as, saith luther, there is but one only, luther 2. to. de votis mon. ●. de virgin. and that of virginity. but luther afterwards teacheth otherwise, & denieth virginity to be a counsel, in his 2. tom. de votis monasticis, c. de virginitate. degrees of goodness we deny not: but will you then in these actions, make an opposition between these degrees, where there only is a supposition, and call the imperfecter degree, a precept; and the perfecter, a counsel, when a counsel is but a degree of the same precept? it is as if jacob should dream a lower round of his ladder to be a ladder, and a higher round to be above a ladder. to hold, that calor ad octo is more than heat, because calor ad quatuor is heat, would argue much weakness and ignorance in philosophy: to hold that to love the lord with all the heart, with all the mind, and with all the soul, is more than to love, or more than the law requireth, is false in divinity. mr leech. all perfection of man here, is it is in the way of perfection to the service of god, is not equal, witness the apostles forsaking all, & following christ: did all do so that believed in christ? witness the first fervour, & zeal, of the primitive church (newly founded, in the blood of christ, & watered in the blood of his apostles) selling all their possessions, without the least reservation of any part, and laying down the whole price thereof at the apostles feet; witness s. austin in his 18. sermon de verbis apostoli: where that good father speaketh thus in the person of certain virgins (in his time) religiously devoted, and consecrated unto the entire service of their god, quod jubes, ne adulterae simus, hoc praecipis: amando te plus facimus quàm jubes. whereas thou commandest us not to commit adultery, this thou givest us in charge by way of precept: but in loving thee, we do more than thou commandest. witness learned, & judicious hooker in the second book of his church polity, in the third page before the end of the same book: witness also the apology in defence of him, written by doctor covell; in the 14. chapt. of satisfaction. answer. tertullian observeth, that orthodoxal teachers use first to teach, lib. contra valent. c. 1. and then to persuade: but heretics use first to persuade, and then to teach. i can find abundance of wants both in your manner & method & matter of this sermon, this sermon doth neither teach nor persuade. teaching by false proof, & persuading by feigned power, to strengthen that which no man besiegeth, or gain saith, that there be degrees of perfection. in this part, your proofs so sinisterly collected, from the practice of the apostles, authority of s. austin, from the opinion of mr hooker, & doctor covell, need rather an interpretive answer, than a defensive encounter. 1. for the apostles, that they did forsake all, the necessity of the times, and their vocation required it: legend. yet christ biddeth them keep their scrip & coat. friar juniper thought that was too much, & ran about, without his breeches: and friar ruffin, as sedulius witnesseth, apol. l. 2. c. 5. n. 7. did preach naked. secondly, for the virgins in s. austin, whose speech is amando te plus facimus quàm jubes, serm. 18. de verbis apost. by loving thee we do more than thou commandest, that is more than thou commandest, perkin. prob. tit. super. hoc mandato de non moechando, as learned perkins answereth, or it is to be understood in genere to others, that god did not command all so to love him as they did: that is, in that kind, he commandeth all to avoid adultery, but he commandeth not all to profess virginity; and yet those that he hath separated for that kind of life, are bound, because commanded so to live, and cannot say plus facimus quàm jubes. for your third allegation out of that reverend author mr hooker; in the place cited, he maketh not any mention of the word counsel. one of his propositions among others is this, that god approveth much more than he doth command, which may be spoken in a good sense, for as much as god doth approve many things he doth not particularly command in holy scriptures. i will seek no other example then that which mr hooker allegeth there, his words be these, hook. 2 book of eccles. polity § 8. p. 120 lin. 39 hereat s. paul undoubtedly did aim, in so far abridging his own liberty, and exceeding that which the bond of necessary and enjoined duty tied him unto. what that was his marginal quotation showeth. 1. thes. 2.9. the words be these, 1. thess. 2.9. ye remember brethren our labour & travail, for we laboured day and night, because we would not be chargeable to any of you, and preached unto you the gospel of christ. to preach the gospel so freely, as that he that serveth at the altar, doth not seek maintenance from the altar, is more than is enjoined generally to the ministers of the gospel, and yet is approved in the sight of god, and no doubt rewarded. yet upon some circumstances, where the people are unwilling to hear, because unwilling to pay for their hearing: a minister, ratione officij, rather than beneficij, is bound to preach, because his rule is this, ubicunque quandocunque quomodocunque, wheresoever, whensoever, howsoever: he is commanded to preach the word, in season, & out of season. for your authority out of learned doctor covell, i answer aetatem habet, doctrinam habet, he may save you the help of a friar to lash you, for stealing out of that one article above forty lines of his words without his meaning. according to my understanding, all that he endeavoureth to show, is, that there be diverse degrees of perfection in this life, and of glory in the life to come; that, to attain this perfection, some courses be more exquisite than others; that such courses are not of necessity prescribed to all, & therefore in that regard they may be said to be more than is commanded in general, or in particular to any absolutely, but only conditionally with supposal of gift or vocation. these he calleth counsels. and we refuse not the name if the thing were taken aright, but that by such we may merit for ourselves and others, and come with an overplus to be treasured up, to make merchandise for indulgences, let him speak himself what he thinketh in this article whence you borrowed much, but understood little. the 8. article 8. of defence of m. hooker. title super. article of his defence of mr hooker, in the title, works of supererogation: whereas you quote him for the 14. chapter, the title satisfaction. but to the purpose, in the place above cited the upshot of his tract is this, we cannot supermerit, by these more than we ought. therefore his speech fasteneth no post in your weak building. and in a word, to add this corollary to mr. hooker & doctor covell which will i hope give some light to any that shall sinisterly interpret them: lib. 3. de anima. it is a position in aristotle lib. 3. de anima, that intellectus coniunctus semper progreditur ab imperfecto ad perfectum, which thomas & the schools have made use of in the metaphysics to prove that conceptus particularis, a particular conceit, is ever more perfect than an universal, so species than genus, individuum then species is held more perfect because in descending downward there is ever something added to the perfection of the universal, which the particular includeth. this may be well applied, to the present, and to the conceit of these learned men, to which you never attained. though the universal precept bindeth all, and in that may be said to want no perfection, yet the particular, adding some thing from extraordinary means to a branch of the general precept, is some way said, to be a more exquisite way: notwithstanding, these lists are ever to be kept: that as the poet spoke est modus in rebus sunt certi denique fines: quos ultra, citraque nequit consistere rectum. so say i, and so held these in divinity, in all the actions of our life there be land marks of our procession, which strive we never so earnestly we cannot go beyond: and therefore not beyond the precept. mr leech. the perfection of man here in this life, is the soul's union with god; not essential, (for this is peculiar only to the trinity.) not personal (this proper to christ his humanity.) not sacramental (this extendeth to the whole church in general.) but it is, unio animae spiritualis, the souls spiritual union with god, when the soul is wholly sequestered from the world, and is sincerely ravished with the love of god, of christ, and of her neighbour; guided, & led thereunto by precepts, and counsels. answer. it is true according to bernard, that the union of the soul in this life, is not essential, or personal, or sacramental, but spiritual. but this union hath not its full complement in this world, the soul cannot be wholly sequestered from the world. it hath not the true participation and fruition, therefore not the true reality of this union: not so ravished with the love of god, of christ, heb. 12.1. and the neighbour, but that much imperfection hangeth on, and tainteth, & leueneth the best parts of the best saints. rom. 7.19. witness paul, the good that i would do, i do not; but the evil that i would not do, that do i. mr leech. which precepts, and counsels, though they perform this, yet do they diversely direct thereunto, according to the diversity of those things, about which they are conversant; differing only in modo, not in re. answer. a monstrous contradiction. you say counsels and precepts are conversant about divers things, this is a real diversity: and yet they differ in modo, not in re, hereby you contradict a real diversity. mr leech. to explain this point. some things are contrary to the love of god, wherewith charity, and the love of god, can have no more agreement, then light and darkness, god and beliall, the ark and dagon, baal his false priests, and eliah the lords true prophet. and for removing these forth of the way of perfection, precepts are mainly given. answer. it is true, some things are so diametrally opposed, as the northern and southern poles shall sooner meet, than they shall ever agree. and such is, for example, the disagreement of us and the papists, in 2 tracts dedicated to the last king of france. in points of religion: in which pier coton hath taken some pains to reconcile both, which is as impossible, as if reconciliation might be made between righteousness, 2. cor. 6.14. and unrighteousness; believers, and infidels; the cup of the lord, and the cup of devils. for our difference is not for circumstance, but for substance: and, academy. quaest. as tully spoke of the stoics and academics, non de terminis, sed de tota possessione contentio, it is not for the bounds and limits, but for the whole possession of religion; whether god or man, nature or grace, the blood of christ or merits of saints, a written verity or unwritten vanity, honourable marriage or abominable monkery, the lion of the tribe of juda in authorizing kings, or the bull of the pope of rome in deposing kings, shall take place. these be contrary as the ark, and dagon; baal his false priests, and eliah the lords true prophet. but to the purpose, precepts are not only given for removing these out of the way of perfection: but for removing all kind of hindrances whatsoever. every spot of sin by the precept is prohibited: and therefore every spark of occasion of sin, is by the precept to be removed. mr leech. other things are impedimenta charitatis, or impedimenta actus charitatis: bern. ser. 35.36 parvorum sermonum. that is, non illicita, sed impedimenta justitiae; impediments of charity, or impediments of the acts of charity, to wit not things simply unlawful, but encumbrances unto righteousness: and for removing of these lets, counsels are given. answer. aq. it is so that they be impedimenta, but it is as the schools teach, vitio hominum, non natura rei; adiumenta his: impedimenta illis: pro donorum varietate. riches a great means to set forth god's glory: abraham was rich, so was joseph, so was job. can not these therefore be perfect? riches well used may serve even in the way of perfection, ad necessitatem, ad honestatem, ad liberalitatem: &, the schools observe, that there is triplex solicitudo; providentiae, necessitatis, & diffidentiae: the two former are lawful and commendable: so may the possession & christian use of riches, be not only tolerable, but available to god's glory. mr leech. the first inioineth abstinence from things simply evil and unlawful, that cannot stand with the love of god, nay contrary to the love of god, and of our neighbour. and for removing of these, a precept is necessary. the second commandeth not, but adviseth abstinence, from things not simply evil, nor in themselves unlawful; as marriage, & the riches of this world (the good creatures of god) but they may well stand with the love of god; yet may they be so used, nay rather abused, that they may withdraw the mind from the love of god. qui duxit uxorem, 2. cor. 7.33. curate quae sunt mundi: the married man careth for the things that are of this world, etc. again; it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, then for a rich man, that trusteth in his riches, (for so christ expoundeth it) to enter into the kingdom of heaven. are not here marriage, and the consequences thereof (necessarily ensuing) riches, and the cares thereof, impedimenta justitiae, lets, & encumbrances unto righteousness? and therefore these are left arbitrary, and at our free choice, to be followed, or pretermitted, as every man's proper gift shall be; unusquisque suum habet donum; 2. cor. 7.7. every man hath his proper gift. so s. hierom ad eustochium; and against jovinian, s. ambrose, in the 10. book of his epistles; the 82. epistle ad vercellensem ecclesiam; and in his tract de viduis, towards the end. s. augustine in his 61. sermon de tempore: the second book of his evangelical questions, chapter the 19 and in his enchiridion, ad laurentium chapter the 121. answer. your distinction is not found, your authority unproved, and your discourse impertinent. the second member of your distinction by which you mean counsel, doth not only advise, but command i must return the speech of gregory upon you, wherein he fully doth overthrow this your distinction and the whole tenet of your doctrine; lib. 26. mor. cap. 15. aliud est quod per sacram scripturam omnibus generaliter praecipitur, aliud quod perfectioribus imperatur: here is no counsel or advise, but a command, yea so expressly commanded as that it argueth inexcusable negligence, palpable ignorance, or damnable impudence to deny it. for riches & marriage they be not properly impedimenta actus charitatis. the necessity, the use the blessing of riches i spoke of in the former paragraph. and of marriage i may speak much more, it may be a help to attain salvation. how was eve adam's helper, if it so much be hindrance to god's glory? how was adam being married perfect in state of innocency, how shall the believing wife save her unbelieving husband, how shall sara among the married, hanna among the barren appear in perfection, ad eustoch. espen. come. in 1. tim. 3. as s. hierome saith? and how may a man marry and not hinder his desire of perfect life, as espencaeus doth affirm and teach: if that marriage be such an obstacle and impediment? yet notwithstanding all this, if marriage be like to be an unavoideable hindrance to the service of god, a man must cut of the thought of marriage not by advise but by express command, mat. 5.30. yea upon pain of eternal damnation as christ doth witness; if thy hand offend thee cut it of, and if thy eye offend thee put it out: better it is to go into heaven with one eye or one hand, then into hell. now for your authorities: coccius. what * cock hatched your authority, and like a cuckoo brought them into his own nest i find, whence these testimonies be urged verbatim as you quote them. the most authorities drawn from bellarm. coccius & others from their tracts of monkish life. coccius treasury out of the bad treasure of his heart lent you them. vita monastica is the common place and arsenal from whence you furnished yourself, which is the less credit to your opinion, and you cannot deny but from mare mortuum you did fetch your water in as much measure as the pitcher of your understanding could carry, otherwise bellarmine & jodocus coccius could have furnished you with many more * i am far from terming the ancient fathers so, but i mean, the authorities falsely & sinisterly drawn out of them be false witnesses. false witnesses. but if i should take out a commission from the king's bench of scripture to examine these, not one of them would stand to you. you begin with saint hierome, if i should usher saint hierome, with the estimation that some great clerks among your priests and jesuits have afforded him for his contempt of marriage in comparison of virginity, tom. 14. in 1. cor. 7. disput. 14. § ad dubium. de continent lib. 3. cap. 11. de rati studij theol. l. 4. c. 5. obl. 2. i should quickly unedge the authority you seek from him: salmeron affirming that he was in this, iniquior & acerbior; espencaeus, that he was aequus sanè parum nuptijs; villavincentius, malè audit accusatúrque hieronimus dum pro virginitate propugnans; the jesuit acosta, virginitatis oppugnatores insectans, videtur aliquando matrimonio iniquior. but i proceed to the exposition of him, rather than exposing so holy a father to detraction. s. hierom ad eustochium hath these words, quod non habet domini de virginitate praeceptum, etc. besides that s. hierom is hardly censured by your own, for that and the like speeches, it is manifest that there his words be rather declamatory than assertatory: and howsoever he speak thus, si virginitas imperata, nuptiae videbantur ablatae; yet, that virginity is commanded, he granteth, when in another place he calleth it praeceptum virginale. again, in his 1. book against jovinian though he hath such words as you intend, quia ubi consilium datur, offerentis arbitrium est; ubi praeceptum, necessitas est servientis: yet i again answer s. hierom doth call that which is here by him termed a counsel a precept, in his commentary on the 19 of mat. he hath not only the words before urged, but more, praeceptum pudicitiae, praeceptum virginale etc. secondly, if you urge the power and strength of this his speech, ubi consilium datur, offerentis arbitrium est: i answer that the word arbitrium doth interpret the word consilium, for it is arbitrium in respect of the things commanded, which lie indifferent to the choice; but it is mandatum in respect of the commander. answer to s. ambros. s. ambrose authority out of the first place upon the words of the apostle, apostolus de virginibus praeceptum non habet, consilium habet; non enim praecipitur quod supra legem est: it is thus easily resolved, s. ambrose did follow the vulgar translation of the bible which so doth read that place of s. paul, but there is no warrant for such interpretation. what need we seek light of a candle when we have the most resplendent beams of the sun? and what need we to crave the help of a translation in a point of controversy, when we have the original? 2. cor. 7.25. first i say the greek hath the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifieth advise, not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is interpreted counsel: & therefore though i own all reverence to s. ambrose, and the other fathers, yet if they read it so, when the word in the primitive sacred copy doth not so render it, i had rather prove the fathers by scripture, then prove scripture by the fathers. sixt. senens. bibl. lib. 8. in fine p. 365. d. bannes in 1. part. thomae q. 1. p. 67. line. de opt. gen. interpr. l. 3. c. 1.2.4.6. sixtus senensis, & dominicus bannes, but especially lindanus do condemn the vulgar translation to have monstrous corruptions of all sorts. scarce one copy to be found undefiled, sundry places to be thrust from their natural sense, the translator to be no latinist but a smattering grecian. and sure, as your own do thus condemn your own copy of the trent vulgar translation, so do i the old vulgar (for i will never believe that s. jerom so translated it.) but as lindan thought of your translation, that he was a grecian, no latinist: so think i the contrary of him that interpreted 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to signify counsel, he was scarce latinist, but sure no grecian. but to the later inference out of ambrose, quod supra legem est, non praecipitur; it is true, if we consider supra legem to be supra legis observationem: so virginity is above the law, above the general law commanded to all, but not above that proper law and precept of virginity which s. hierome calleth praeceptum virginale. hier. in 19 math. ambros. tract de viduis. the second place you urge out of ambrose; foeminae non coguntur autoritate aliqua praecepti, etc. it is meant not by authority of any general precept commanding all women, but by the especial which doth enjoin some furnished with that spirit, and gift: and the words following enforce not any more, honorabile coniugium sed honorabilior integritas, marriage is honourable, but integrity more honourable: integrity, not virginity, for in marriage there may be great measure of integrity. that which closeth up this sentence, bene dixit apostolus, de virginibus praeceptum non habeo, consilium do, the fathers are no strangers to this interpretation that there is praeceptum omnium common, greg. in 26. moral. c. 25. & praeceptum aliquorum particular, a general precept enforcing all men, such a precept concerning virgins, the apostle had not; and there is an especial precept enjoining some men, this was the counsel paul meant, and that counsel is the precept which christ gave, qui potest capere capiat. s. austin in his 61. sermon de tempore, answer to s. austin. hath these words, aliud est consilium, aliud praeceptum, distinguishing there, the common precept from a special precept, which he calleth by the name of counsel, and so doth expound himself in his 3 book de doct. christ. c. 17. when he affirmeth alia omnibus communiter praecipi, alia singulis & quibusque generibus personarum: here is the universal or common, and that proper or special precept distinguished & he giveth the reason, that god hath not in this only taken care for the general infections, sickness of sin in all; but particularly for the spiritual disease and infirmity of every one, psal. 103. he hath given medicine to heal these sicknesses, and the direction of the receipt is a praecipi. conf. l. 10. c. 29.30. and not only here, but in his confessions he acknowledgeth that god doth command virginity and continency: imperas nobis continentiam, continentiam jubes; da quod jubes, & iube quod vis. the second and third places of s. augustin may be so answered. but in a word to either, the former of the two, in which i must aim at the word, for i find no quotation of these places oft urged, i say the former of these * evang quaest. 2. l. cap. 19 whence you would prove not only counsels, but supererogation, meaneth nothing else, but that a man may by grace outstrip the common injunction enjoined other men; but that ex debito, not ex consilio, as in other places austin holdeth. and to his latter place, enchr. ad laur. c. 121. quaecunque ergo mandat deus, etc. danaeus answereth, that howsoever austin seemeth to distinguish counsels and precepts there: yet the very word in that place, speciali consilio, doth sufficiently manifest his meaning to be of precepts. for an especial counsel is only herein especial, as having reference to a general: but general counsels there be none, but only precepts: therefore it is plain, by speciali consilio he meant a special precept. thus you are left without authority, the scabbard whereof you will presume to keep, for you see the sword is taken from you, or else so unedged that it serveth not for your turn. mr leech. precepts and counsels therefore differ thus. precepts are of necessity; counsels arbitrary, left to our free choice. both aim at the mark of heaven, by shooting at the butt of christian perfection, but differ in the manner. both level at the means of salvation: that is, perfection of charity, yet counsels after a more exquisite, and excelling perfection. answer. counsels and precepts do differ no more than genus and species; for counsels be but the branches and species of precepts: neither be they left to our free choice, for we have no free choice, but in every good thing the directing hand of heaven doth dispose of us. secondly, they be not arbitrary simply. if we grant them to be arbitrary in regard of the things to be undertaken which be indifferent: yet they be not so in regard of the persons undertaking, who are bound to love, & serve, and fear god as much as they can with their best gifts, and yet in the end be unprofitable servants. mr leech. the stage of this world, and the theatre of the church present unto our free choice the world's trash, and heavens true treasure, the more man cleaveth to heavens permanent felicity, the more perfect, & excellent is he; nay to cast the world's trash wholly away in lieu of heavens treasure, as seafaring men do their goods & wares, in danger of shipwreck, when the life is in hazard, this is no precept of necessity, but only an advice of greater perfection. answer. the stage of the world, and the theatre of the church, are very unfit phrases, and more unfit to be coupled. but these do not present to our free choice the casting away of the world's trash: for the apostle, necessitate praecepti, heb. 12.1. doth bind every man to cast away every thing that presseth down. and yet all christians are not generally commanded to give away all, or cast away all, but to imitate the merchant in a dangerous tempest, to cast away all, rather than hazard his life, and this is but conditional: and when the danger is less, he will departed but with some part, reserving the rest for helping forward his traffic. so the christian seafaring man, will upon an extremity rather forsake all worldly profit, then endanger the shipwreck of faith, & a good conscience. nevertheless in the common course of his life, which is ordinarily hazardous, will not be wanting, to throw daily some of his goods into the salt sea of other men's misery, for their relief, always so giving, that he may always give. mr leech. transgressor's of the laws precepts, deserve punishment; but they that perform not counsels sin not; only they want some measure of perfection. answer. they that perform not counsels, as evangelical precepts particularly enjoined them, sin peccato omissionis. for a man must serve god, as much as he is able, obligatione praecepti, as it is iterated in matthew, mark, mat. 22.37. mark. 12.30. luc. 10.27. and luke; thou shalt love the lord thy god, with all thy heart, with all thy soul, and with all thy mind: which is not only by the fathers, aq. 22ae q. 44. art. 5. com. in math. 22. but by aquinas and caietan thus expounded, that in the service of the heart is dedicated the affection; in the soul, the consecration of the life; in the mind, the sacrifice of the understanding. yea scire is required in the heart; velle in the soul; posse in the mind: all our faculties, of soul, and body, are required by that precept, delivered in the law, confirmed in the gospel, and containing the very sum of law and gospel, of precepts and counsels, and requiring the utmost degrees of perfection that may be performed in this life. mr leech. observers of counsels shall have greater reward, yea they shall sit upon thrones; and not only judge the twelve tribes of israel, but doom both men and angels. it was christ his promise of remuneration made to his disciples for their consolation, to encourage them to go forwards with the practice of christian perfection, embracing for his, and heavens sake, voluntary poverty, virginal chastity, and humble obedience. it was proclaimed also by that trumpet of the apostles, preacher of the world, apostle of the gentiles, and descrier of heavenly mysteries, holy, and blessed s. paul; know you not, that we shall judge the angels? etc. the words are so pregnant, that all the wrangling wits, and contentious private spirits in the world cannot wrest them. but law breakers, without repentance, shall have greater punishment. answer. to the saints in general it is promised by the oracle of truth, mat. 19.28. the truth himself, not only in matthew, that they shall sit upon twelve thrones, and judge the twelve tribes of israel: luk. 22.30. but also in luke, that they shall eat & drink at his table in his kingdom, & sit on seats, and judge the twelve tribes of israel. and it is most true, that s. paul saith to the corinth's, 1. cor. 6 2. that the saints shall judge the world, & shall judge the angels. in the gospel, christ pronounceth it unto them of the regeneration; and in the epistle, paul proclaimeth it unto the saints: and will you impropriate so great an honour, only to your observers of evangelical counsels? the saints shall judge the angels, judicio assessionis, or approbationis, as the schools speak: but they have this endowment of honour, for being of the regeneration, not mentioned for keepers of counsels. and it was not only an assurance made to the disciples, but to all the saints; neither were the disciples professors of voluntary poverty, virginal chastity, or humble obedience, as you interpret obedience. first, not of voluntary poverty; we never read they begged: paul made tents, and peter did fish; neither of them did beg: and, not only the disciples did labour, but, as s. austin proveth, the monks & clergy men of ancient times, enjoyed both their possessions, and wives, and taxeth the apostolici, some, ad quod vult deum. haeres. 40. that in a blind superstitious ambition, would imitate the apostles in refusing those into their company that had goods and wives. arrogantissimè se vocaverunt, saith s austin, they did most arrogantly call themselves apostolici; i may add, that most falsely they called themselves so: for the apostles did not refuse the communion and fellowship of any, in that kind, neither were they professors of voluntary poverty, as it is proved; neither did they profess virginal chastity, as i proceed to prove. the apostles, for the most part, were married men: s ambrose saith, in 2. cor. 11. all but only john the evangelist. the old postils, dormi secure in johan. 2.1. dormi secure, bentontine, & others, say that s. john was also married, and that when christ was at the marriage of canaan in galily, than john his marriage was celebrated: and pontanus, diez, costerus, pontan. bibl. con. tom. 1. fol. 217. diez. con. 1. cost. to. 2. with many others of the most quicksilverd wits among the new papists do so affirm. for their humble obedience, they practised all obedience in general, but not monastical obedience, as you intent; not such obedience, as ignatius warneth his fellows of in an epistle to them, that they be careful lest (saith he) the famous simplicity of blind obedience should decay. ep. ad fratres in lusitan. a blind obedience indeed: for it is so straightly enjoined them, pseudo martyr cap. of jesuits obedience. that if one of them were so highly dignified, as in a revelation to talk with angels, if his superior call him, he is bound to leave them and come away. the obedience of the apostles was no monastical obligation. and howsoever bellarmin would found this upon christ his speech to the young man, sequere me: yet, de monach. c. 9 § sex test mat. 19.21. if it would please his fatherhood to look into the text, he shall find, that that obedience is there commanded, not counseled; matth. 19.21. it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, an imperative, follow me. but his cardinals hat, serveth for a cap of maintenance, for more wrest and enforcements of scripture than this. you double your citation of the saints judging the angels, which you say all the wrangling wits, and private contentious spirits in the world, cannot wrest them. the words of scripture with all joy and comfort we acknowledge: but the inference we deny. you sprinkle your lines with sulphur, in steed of salt: we wrangle not about scriptures, we abuse them not, we wrist them not; we say to all, that shall read our interpretations, aug. ad petil. as austin said of petilian, petilianus manichaeum me esse dicit, dico me non esse, eligite cui credatis. so you say we are wrangling wits, and contentious spirits: we say we are not. let the world choose whether of us they will believe. but, for the abuse, detraction, profanation, falsification, and blasphemation of scripture by men of your side, it is so common, that men and angels stand aghast at it. the young novice, that understood his father was an abbot, said he might well cry abba pater. owen. epig. and gonzaga himself, the devout jesuit, vita gonz. fol. 187. when he heard his father was dead, answered, that now nothing could hinder him from saying, our father which art in heaven. these jocular wrest be hateful, and harmful: but there be not only these among you, but most monstrous, and blasphemous wrest of holy writ, whereby, as enemies of righteousness, act. 13.10. ye cease not to pervert the strait ways of the lord. mr leech. to shut up all in one word; precepts are exalted as necessary; counsels are offered as voluntary, and arbitrary. the one being done, is praised, & highly rewarded: the other being undone, is reprehended, and punished. answer. in one word, bell. de mon. cap. 7. you should have urged bellarmin his own words, from whom you had this paragraph, lib. 2. de monachis, cap. 7. praeceptum visua obligat etc. to which junius & others answer, human counsel are arbitrary; divine, necessary. for if that of plato be true, plato ep. 7. ad dion. propin. & fam. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that the petitions or requests of kings lay a command: much more should the counsels of god, rev. 3.18. those counsels being commands as, among others, that to the church of laodicaea, i counsel thee to buy of me gold tried by the fire, that thou mayest be made rich: it is a command, because it hath a threatening inferred in the former words; rev. 3. ●6. it will come to pass, that i will spew thee out of my mouth: the threat menaced, enforceth it, as necessary; if necessary, a precept, and so your distinction between the precept and counsel, properly holdeth not. mr leech. this distinction betwixt precepts, and counsels, is no new doctrine. s. hierom ad eustochium, de custodia virginitatis, and against jovinian, layeth down the point, and differences thus. where there is a counsel, there is left a freedom; but precepts enjoin a necessity; precepts are common to all, counsels are the perfection of some few. (and this is agreeing with that of gregory in the place above cited; non omnibus praecipiuntur, sed perfectioribus consuluntur: they are not commanded to all, but advised to men of the perfecter rank. precepts observed have a reward, not observed a punishment; counsels not observed have no punishment, but observed have a greater reward. answer. your urging of these fathers is no new argument, it is twice before answered. is this no new doctrine? plead antiquity while you will, scripture hath taught me that the gibeonites old shoes were but feigned, and that bildad stood on antiquity to overthrow the truth. his words prove your work, for he was the first that corruptly urged the fathers; ios. 3.5. job. 8.8. prepare thyself to search of their fathers (saith he.) how the fathers have understood, hath been sufficiently delivered. the point is this: doth s. hierome, s. gregory, or s. augustine, any where affirm that a man furnished with gifts beyond other men, is not bound by god's commandment, to make use of those gifts to the utmost of his ability, to set forth god's glory & his own good? if you show this, you prove somewhat: if not, nothing. where you infer, that counsels not observed have no punishment: bellarmine in those words wrested out of s. austin against himself, lib. de mon. cap. 7. § 2. is thus evicted. the cardinal confesseth, that a counsel includeth a precept: if therefore he that observeth not a counsel be not punished, than the observation of the precept is not punished. and if the careful keeping of a counsel be not punished, it is to be only so interpreted, that it is not punished in those who are not tied to it: as, if abraham neglect virginity, it is not censured; but, if the nazarite breaketh that injunction, it is condemned. mr leech. and to this purpose, almost in the very self same words speaketh s. augustine in his 61. sermon de tempore: his 18. sermon de verbis apostoli: his second book of evangelical questions cap. 19 & in his enchiridion ad laurentium cap. 12. s. ambrose in the 10. book of his epistles, the 82. epistle ad vercellensem ecclesiam, and his tract de viduis, propè finem: & generally the greek and latin fathers: such is the uniform consent, & heavenly harmony of all orthodox antiquity in this point of doctrine. answer. you quote strangely, sometimes words, but not the places; and often places, as here, but not words: so that it proveth, that either these often urged authorities make but weakly for the cause; or else you took them up in gross from coccius treasury, or some polyanthy. the mad man in athenaeus, athen. dipnos. that thought all the ships that came to the haven to be his, was for no other cause more ridiculous then for such a brag as yours, that all the greek and latin fathers, heavenly harmony of all antiquity is yours. in your pythagorean cares you hold the orbs to make music, and dream of a harmony and consent, where there is none. all the fathers disclaim as illegitimat this opinion, and so your jury hath given verdet against you. and * jerom, pa. 145 ambros. p. 146. aug. pag. 147. these in particular are answered. mr leech. the defence therefore of evangelical counsels of perfection quoad viam, & quoad gradum, which i would only commend unto the learned and judicious (who well know that the whole course of antiquity, and concurrence of the fathers do often mention them) is this; that there are in the gospel of christ certain counsels, which the ancient pillars, and patriarchs of divinity, call consilia perfectionis counsels of perfection: and they are so called, non quòd ipsae sint perfectiones, sed dispositiones quaedam ad perfectionem, quae constat in hoc, ut mens hominis deo vacet: that is, not that they are in themselves perfections indeed, but rather dispositions, directions, preparations to perfection, which consisteth mainly in this; that the soul (wholly sequestered from the world) may be truly, and sincerely ravished with the love of god, and of his neighbour. answer. you should say, the offence therefore of evangelical counsels: for the defence was so bad, that heresy, novelty, and almost blasphemy were the best upholders of you. i would not possess your will, unless i entered in with authority by the portal of your judgement: but certainly, if you would drive away those impediments of conceit, opinion, prejudice, and error, from the entrance of your soul, you might easily admit the truth to keep mansion in you, where now she hath small habitation. you present your doctrine, you say, to the judicious and learned, that know the course of antiquity: you should say iniquity, for who knoweth not by reading of you, how you derogate from the law? approve that a man may do more than is commanded by god, make angels but equal to men, before teach the greatest degrees of perfection, & now, when you have better consulted about your counsels you teach they be not the perfections of man, but dispositions to perfection. when you were among us, you were such a one as the soldiers of gastro, polycenus de strat. an egyptian in grecian harness: and as you were then ready to hold papistical paradoxes among protestants; so now you are constrained to confess a truth of zion, in babylon, that counsels are but dispositions. act. 9.5 tho. 22ae. q. 184. and so hard a point it is, to kick against the truth, that bellarmine is also forced to confess out of thomas that perfection doth consist essentially in precepts. and thus what gerson hath formerly delivered truly, that counsels do only dispose to the better fulfilling of the precept, the same at length you are drawn to acknowledge unwillingly. where be your entia transcendentia in regard of the general precept? logic will not admit a particular to transcend a general. and whereas you require that the soul should be ravished with the love of god, thus much the precept commandeth in the highest manner that may be performed. what did david practise and profess but the law? & he was so ravished by this law, as that he protesteth twice, psal 69 4. ps. 119.139. that the zeal of god's house had eaten him up. if your counsels stretch further than the law, you know the story of esop's frog, that would swell bigger than his skin could stretch, and so broke. mr leech. and therefore as origen excellently observeth in his commentary upon s. matthew his 8. homily, upon those words of our saviour, given by way of counsel to the young man: if thou wilt be perfect, etc. non sic debemus intelligere, ut in eo ipso tempore, quo homo dat bona sua pauperibus, efficiatur omnino perfectus, sed incipit ex eo tempore speculatio dei adducere eum ad omnes virtutes, ut incipiat ex eo tempore proficere: that is to say; we are not so to understand perfection, ●hat in the very moment, wherein a man giveth all his goods to the poor, he is made altogether perfect, but from that time forwards, the speculation of god beginneth to lead him unto all virtues, that ever after he maketh a good progress. answer. origen his speech is most true, and none deny it. but i may ask you, as the poet did, quo nunc se proripit ille? i confess the true urging of an orthodoxal father in a sound point of religion, it is either a light to confirm, or as lightning to confound any that contradict that doctrine. but, as pliny mentioneth, when divinations were made upon the fall of lightnings, plin. lib. 2. c. 43. those lightnings that fell into the sea, or on tops of mountains, were never brought into observation, but were called bruta fulmina: so when the testimonies which you urge, fall not upon the point in hand, i may call them bruta fulmina, though the authors be most worthy, yet their authority unfitly, & therefore unworthily urged. you urge origen here, but observe whether to the purpose or no. you are to prove, that there are counsels of perfection that surmount the precepts of the law, whereby a man may do more than he is commanded. but how doth this appear? you answer by this argument out of origen, when a man forsakes all, than he beginneth to be perfect. ergo he doth more than the law commands. do you hold this to be good fustian? i would be loath to give you any thing for it. mr leech. this also is evident in the words of our saviour, where he placeth not perfection in ipsa divitiarum abdicatione, in the very renouncing of riches, but rather teacheth, that the forsaking of the world is a certain direction, preparation, or disposition unto perfection. and so the very form, and manner of christ his speech doth evidently convince. for first he proposeth the question to his arbitrary election: if thou wilt be perfect. secondly, he pursueth it with a direction: go sell all that thou hast, and give to the poor. thirdly, he inferreth the conclusion, the very life, and consummation of perfection; follow me. lastly, he annexeth the remuneration, the forciblest motive that possible could be to draw a man to that resolution of christian perfection; thesaurum habebis in coelo, thou shalt not want thy reward. answer. our saviour indeed placeth not perfection in divitiarum abdicatione, or in rerum carnalium abnegation, but teacheth that the forsaking of the world, is a certain direction or disposition to perfection, in those that are covetously affected, as the meaning of the place showeth. such a one was this young man, for when he heard that he was to sell all, he went away sorrowful, so that as much as i can draw out of the elixir of the best interpreters, it is proved strongly to my judgement and understanding (both which i seek to keep inviolably as my soul, from deceiving, or being deceived,) that christ's speech was a personal precept proposed to him, and not a counsel arbitrary, as you gather. all are not obliged to do the like, but all so affected (as he was) are enjoined, & without forcing or wresting, out of your own words i will evict it to be a personal precept: you close up the paragraph; pag. 41. the distinction of precepts and counsels, thus; precepts observed have a reward, not observed a punishment; counsels not observed have no punishment, but observed, have a greater reward. i argue thus, if the neglect of this injunction to the young man were punished, then was it no counsel, but a precept: but the neglect of this injunction to the young man was punished: ergo it was no counsel, nil. thes. de precat. papae. but a precept. nilus' thought it in vain to debate with the pope, because the pope would be judge himself. but i think it my best advantage to decide this with you, when, ex ore tuo, your own words shall be judge for yourself. for the mayor, i prove it out of your own words, precepts not observed, are punished; counsels not observed, are not punished, page 41. § the distinction. pag. 41. in the end of the paragraph, the distinction. the minor, i prove out of your former words of this young man, pag. 8. § o what an exchange. p. 8. parag. o what an exchange etc. where afterwards showing his grief for his negligence, you say; how much doth it now repent him? which repentance as albertus observeth, was not poenitentia vera, albert. com. theol. lib. de sacra. but poenitentia sera, the repentance of the wicked in hell. and in the lines following you intimate that he was damned, for not obeying christ; when in these words you affirm, if he had done this he had been secure of his salvation: therefore not doing it, the rules of the school make plain, contrarij affectus habent contrarios effectus. and to make this more plain, if he were in heaven, he needed not repent; nay he could not repent. for, as s. john in the revelation speaketh, rev. 21.4. there shall be no more death, nor sorrow: & sorrow is a most essential part of repentance. so then a counsel neglected is punished; & therefore, habeo confitentem reum that it is a precept, for he now repenteth, and is punished. but i return to your young man. the scope of our saviour in his speech to him, was no other than this, to correct by the law, that which was amiss; and to increase by his love, what he saw laudable in him: resolved paraphrastically in this manner; somewhat it is thou sayst o young man, and i approve thy endeavours. thou sayest thou hast observed the law from thy youth, yet mistake not: the sense of the law is stricter, than thou collectest of the words; the justice of the scribes and pharisees must be exceeded, & more performed than the old gloss requireth. for thyself, i know thee to be tainted with the leaven of covetousness: thou lovest thyself, which howsoever the world taketh no notice of, yet the trier of the hearts, and rains, seethe it to be thy imperfection. if thou wilt therefore be perfect, that is, if thou wilt fulfil the law, not to satisfy the letter only, which commonly is held enough; but exactly take the sense, as the lawgiver strictly requireth: go and sell all (for thy riches are a clog unto thee, they possess thee, not thou them) & then thou shalt be fit to fulfil the law according to the meaning, and then the better mayest thou follow me as thou oughtest. hieron. beda. chrysost. in hunc loc. ambros. hierom. austin. bellarm. 2. de mon. c. 9 the father's favour this exposition; hierome, and beda, non voto discentis, sed tentantis interrogat: though chrysostome dislike this, yet he denieth not but that he was covetous, and a lover of money. ambrose, hierome, and austin cited by bellarmine against us, prove no other thing, but that our saviour teacheth here a perfection no more than the law requireth, in its own true meaning; but more than the young man had attained. bellarmine's own close is, si vis esse perfectus, vend omnia; nam hinc apparebit te habere perfectam charitatem: which perfect charity i take to be no other, but to love the lord with all thy heart, mat. 22. mind, & soul. in the end of this paragraph as in many others, you contradict yourself: for having already taught that voluntary poverty is a perfection, now you acknowledge that if the young man had sold all, and so undergone this poverty; yet the consummation of perfection had not been in this, but in sequere me, in following of christ. mr leech. now this following of christ (which is nothing else but the soul's spiritual union with god) is our christian perfection: whereunto the abdication of riches fitteth, & prepareth a man, listening not so much to that which is lawful, as to that which is expedient: avoiding riches, and other things of like nature, not as things unlawful, but as impediments, and hindrances unto righteousness. answer. abdication of riches fitteth those indeed, that are covetously minded: for to such only these are hindrances and impediments, and no other. did god grant a clog to solomon, when he gave him wealth? let me propose a question. is it lawful for all men to sell all that they have, and pursue this perfection? i see no reason but they should: for why in good matters should not one be as forward as another? if so: who should buy, when all sell; or give alms, or exercise deeds of liberality, when they have nothing? if otherwise: then this is no arbitrary counsel, but a particular precept to some, to whom it may do good. and, howsoever that be true which s. austin in the 61. psalm speaketh, that god doth not say, nolite habere, aust. 61. psal. sed nolite cor apponere; non enim damnat divitias, sed cor appositum, quod scilicet non expendit, sed recondit: yet i say, riches are unlawful when they be impediments unto righteousness. mr leech. and s. augustine, in his enchiridion ad laurentium, is of opinion, that perfection of charity (which is the perfection of christian life) consisteth neither in the sole performance of the actions of precepts, conformable to non moechaberis: nor yet in the performance of the actions of counsels, unless both actions of precepts, and counsels, be rightly referred with relation to the end, of all the actions of precepts and counsels, which is charitas erga deum, & proximum propter deum: charity toward god primarily, and charity towards our neighbour for god's sake, secondarily. answer. this place of austin is most forcible for our assertion, and returneth upon you vnavoidably. for if all that we can do by precepts and counsels, deut. 6.5. mat. 22.37. marc. 12.30. luk. 10.27. are referred as means to attain this end, to love god above all &c. and if this be so expressly and often commanded, not only by moses in the law; but thrice by christ, in the gospel: how then can counsels outstrip precepts, that by them may be performed works of supererogation, unless the means should exceed the end, and the middle the top. s. austin doth highly extol our love of god, the more to exhort us thereunto: and the schoolmen with him, and out of him, do urge the worthiness of charity, being (as they affirm) bonorum principium, quia à deo; bonorum medium, quia secundum deum; albert. aquin. bonorum finis, quia propter deum: and do further observe, that, whereas other virtues have bonum for their object, and yet not for their end; charity hath bonum pro fine, & obiecto: all, as austin speaketh, performed to god; and all christian offices to our neighbour, for god's sake. nostrarum haec meta viarum mr leech. and because the performance of the actions of precepts, are, in themselves, absolutely necessary for atcheiving this end (being such, as without it, the end cannot be attained) and the performance of the other of counsels doth only secondarily tend thereunto, as a help, or as a removens impedimentum: hence is it that schoole-divines, have this distinction, or rather conclusion comprised in a distinction: viz. perfection of charity, which is the perfection of christian life, consisteth primario, & essentialiter in praeceptis; but secundario, & accidentaliter in consilijs; primarily, and essentially in precepts; but secondarily, and accidentally in counsels. answer. you come nearer and nearer to us. if perfection consist accidentaliter & secundariò in consilijs: then counsels are of less value than precepts, caietan, in th. aq. 22ae. hoc articulo. as much as the circumstance is less than the substance. and caietans' grain of salt must season this distinction, and then it may well be admitted: precepts necessary to all, as including the thing to be done; counsels necessary to some, as prescribing secondarily and accidentally, the best manner for them of fulfilling the precepts, which, as i have often said, be particular to such, gers. de confilijs evang. paludan. in sent. lib. 3. dist. 34. q. 3. because each man is tied to the fulfilling of the law, in the highest degree, and best sort he can, according to the talon received, & the ability wherewith god hath endowed him. so gerson, and paludanus: the one in his tract de consilijs evangelicis, & statu perfectionis; the other, in sent. lib. 3. distinct. 34. q. 3. mr leech. benefield, & his confederates in jovinians heresy. if any be so wedded to his own private humour, as not, in this sense, to admit of evangelical counsels of perfection, quoad viam, and quoad gradum, but that they will confound precepts, and counsels together (holding both of like necessity, counsels as well precepts) so did the heretics called apostolici: austin. haeres. 40. epiphane haeres. 61. or that counsels contain in them no kind of perfection; it is a branch of jovinian, and vigilantius their condemned heresy. read saint hierom against jovinian; and s. ambrose in the 10. book of his epistles, the 80. and 81. epistles. or lastly, if any will hold the profession of them unlawful, and that there be none; the first crosseth many pregnant testimonies of scriptures verity; and the second thwarteth the joint consent of all orthodox antiquity. the which tertullian de praescriptionibus adversus haereticos; cyprian de unitate ecclesiae: augustine de utilitate credendi; vincentius lyrinensis in his commonitorium against all the profane innovation of heretics of his time, make to be the very square of prophetical, and apostolical interpretation, drawn along by the line of the church. answer. we admit of evangelical counsels in the same sense that the fathers did, not as transcending the strict meaning of the law. that famous, and ancient chancellor of paris, did sufficiently tax the error of those, that understand not the fathers in this point; for according to his judgement, counsels & precepts be coincident: and yet neither that famous gerson, nor we do maintain any heresy herein. our tenet is this; we deny not, but there may be a verbal distinction of precepts and counsels, as that thrice worthy austin of our age, the dean of winchester doth grant: d. morton in his appeal. lib. 5. c. 4. sect. 3. num. 11. but we abhor and detest the maintaining of them, as the workmen of babel uphold them. we hold that they transcend not the strict meaning of the law nor have heat enough to hatch the addle eggs of works of supererogation, which are of a later brood: but we maintain against the gates of rome, and the strength of hell, that counsels tie not all, but those only who are better enabled with gifts then others or tied by their vocation to some stricter courses; as abraham is tied to marry, john to live single, peter to forsake all, philip to keep somewhat for his daughter. some quoad viam in this life, may go further than other men, as having greater graces from above, and a richer talon committed to them: & quoad gradum, as in this life there is of christian perfection, so some degrees in the life to come of celestial glorification, may be obtained by god's infinite mercy. we confound not therefore precepts and counsels (understanding the word aright:) yet distinguish them, as in our university the general statutes which bind all, and the particular which tie only those of such a quality and degree. whence it appeareth, that we hold not the like necessity, as you conceit, who never knew what we held: for the general precept necessarily bindeth all, the particular being that which in regard of indifferency of the courses to be vndergon some call a counsel, but so that the same act may be consilium in electione, praeceptum in opere, and they only can, and if they can must perform these, who are extraordinarily disposed and furnished beyond other men. and that this is true doctrine, faith and reason do both join in the proof. for if all be too little, can somewhat be too much? and canst thou help me with thy oil, tertull. saith tertullian, that art a sinner, & wantest for thy own lamp? no, our conclusion must be; that we are ready to confess, as christ taught his servants to profess, luk. 17.10. we have done nothing but that which was our duty to do. in the old testament just noah, faithful abraham, meek moses, true hearted david, beloved daniel could do no more; did profess no more. tom. 2. epistolar. lib. 2. adver. pela. and in the new testament, ecce apostolos omnes ardentes etc.: saith s. jerom; behold all the apostles, and all believers come short of that they should: and whosoever hold that they may do more, an ostracism must be had for them, for they are too just. hier. comment in 19 mat.. and for the fathers so heaped, & wrested, there be as many that call these precepts, as counsels. i will trouble the reader but with some virginity by the decretals is called a precept; lib. de incar. verbi dei. in edit. comel. greek. and hierome calleth virginity, virginale praeceptum; and so athanasius, speaking of virginity, chrysost. in tit 3. col. 1636. in huiusmodi praeceptis tantum christus valuisset ut pueri virginitatem, etc. and concerning poverty, the injunction of christ to the young man, is called a precept by s. chrysostome, austin. ep. 84. g. 4. hilary. can. 18. in matth. in tit. 3. vides ut ideo praeceperit ei ut christum sequeretur; & s. austin in his epistle 84. hath much to this purpose; & hilary, on the place, calleth it utile relinquendi seculi praeceptum; euseb. lib. 3. historiae. c. 31. cocc. thes. cath. tom. 2. l. 4. art. 3. p. 383. aug. de dat. christ. c. 17. greg. moral. lib. 26. c. 25. by euseb. in his history, praeceptum domini antea traditum; by saluianus as coccius confesseth, imperativum officium. and, to omit others, s. austin doth so plainly distinguish the difference (in his 3. book de doctrina christiana, the 17. chapter) between praeceptum commune omnium, and particular praeceptum aliquorum; & gregory doth so absolutely deliver (in his 26. book of morals, the 25. chapter) the distinction of generale praeceptum, and particular, that nothing is more resolutely and positively taught by that reverend father. and yet neither gregory, nor the other fathers, nor we are guilty of being apostolici: we abhor their sect, & heresy, and yet think precepts and counsels both to enjoin necessity. the apostolici mentioned in augustin, are not branded with any character, but that which is the indelible mark of monks, to refuse the society of those that have possessions & wives, therefore were they condemned, but no word of precepts and counsels in that chapter of austin. epiphanius, aust. ad quod vult deum haeres. 40. in his chapter of apostolici, hath no word of counsels & precepts, neither do i find any part of their heresy to concern this point. secondly, we teach that counsels contain not in them perfection. first, not the perfection of a few, for all are called to perfection. 2. cor. 13.11. ephes. 4.3. col. 1.28. paul inviteth all the corinthians, and afterwards all christians, as in the epistle to the ephesians: giving reason hereof to the collossians, because perfection is the end of all preaching. if all are called, and commanded to be perfect: then counsels of perfection serve not as you teach, for some few. but i step a degree further; there is no perfection in counsels: you affirm it pag. 41. parag. the defence, in these words, they are not in themselves perfections, but dispositions, directions, prepaparations to perfection. so that in denying them to have perfection in them, we are no more guilty for jovinians heresy or virgilantius, than you are. according to the way, act. 24.14. which you call heresy, so worship we the god of our fathers, believing all things written in the law and prophets. in which oracles of truth, of the law & gospel, we find no lawfulness to vow single life: ramus well observing, ram. lib. 2. de relig. de talibus perpetuae virginitatis votis fides nulla, nulla in sacris literis est litera. whatsoever was heresy in jovinian, we detest: and yet in this equalling of marriage with virginity, we are no more jovinianists than s. austin, clem. alex. storm. l. 7. c. 6. who equalled abraham's married state, with john's single life; or clemens alexandrinus, who affirmeth that the conjugal parties do overmatch the virginal profession in perfection of holy life, & giveth instance in the apostles-vigilantius heresy we are no way tainted with: and espencaeus, espens. l. 1. de con. pag. 3. more charitable than many of the calumnious papists, did profess he thought it a slander to the churches reform, to be accused of vigilantius heresy. lastly, to answer to your objection, if we hold none we thwart all antiquity, i deny your inference: for never did antiquity maintain any such profession of monkish counsellors. they were free from the new bond of human ordinances, polyd. virg. l. 7. inu. c. 1. and vows, as polidor virgil testifieth: and they had both goods, possessions, and wives, as s. austin teacheth. aug de haeres. ad quod vult deum haer. 40. the profession of every christian, god hath appointed it unto him; he must keep sentinel, follow his vocation, seek to give holy example by his profession, not outwardly only, but inwardly: acknowledging, according to our saviour's interpretation, that the law requireth the exactest obedience, and that we are not able in this life to do so much as is commanded, not in the precept: and therefore works of supererogation, are supervacaneous, yea derogatory to both law and gospel, founded on hay and stubble, one of the greatest impostures and mountebankish gulleries, that ever the world was cozened with. demas? what in your marginal note you demand of d●●enefield, he hath answered, and you will never reply. mr leech. principally benefield. and therefore first; i would but ask them, what our blessed saviour meant, mat. the 19 (who upon occasion of the divorce, his disciples perplexed, the difficulty of chastity, exemplified by eunuchs so borne, so made, so making themselves; à natura; à violentia; à voluntate, naturally, violently, voluntarily; as aquinas well observeth upon the place) i say, what meant our saviour to propose, qui potest capere, capiat, if there be no counsel of virginity? secondly; i would demand; what christ meant, mat. the 19 to advise the young man (and that in a matter of the greatest moment; even the salvation of his soul) go sell all that thou haste, and give to the poor, & thou shalt have treasure in heaven, etc. if here be not a counsel of voluntary poverty? for as truly as christ meant to perform his promise in the remuneration, thesaurum habebis in coelo; so was it upon condition, that the young man should embrace that counsel of voluntary poverty, tending to the top of christian perfection. answer. sigonius tells us that albericus was better at writing then disputing: cor. sigon. de reg. ital. lib. 9 i can attribute dexterity to you in neither. theological disputations you never undertook among us: and your confusion in writing is such, that he that but readeth you, had need to pray for patience, much more, he that answereth you. besides that these examples now produced be very many times answered already, in your text, here you again urge them in worse manner than ever before, with a parenthesis no less than six lines, long enough for you to ride your wild-goose chase. from the 19 of matthew you ask two questions: the one what our saviour meant by that speech, qui potest capere, capiat. your ignorance doth ask, and our grammar doth answer you, that the original word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is an imperative enjoining, pet. martyr. in 1. cor. 7.1. & 26. enforcing, and commanding. and further peter martyr doth silence all that shall violate the sacred sense of this scripture to your purpose, by this distinction, alij uruntur, & non continent; alij verò donum habent continentiae: qui uruntur et non continent, etc. the sum of which distinction, & that which followeth is this; they which have not the gift of continency, are bound to marry, by the general precept: but they which have the gift, and do find themselves called by god, to a single life, they are commanded so to live, by a special precept, & such is this, qui potest capere, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, no potential, but an imperative, a word of command, a corpus capias, a writ to cease upon the body of sin, that by breach of chastity, it sin not against the spirit. your supplicat secundò, when in the second place out of the same chapter, you demand, what christ meant to advise the young man to sell and give to the poor: i thus answer. the manner of speech, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, give, and follow, (both imperatives) do both show that it was a speech full of commanding power, & may be considered either in case of necessity, or without necessity. extra necessitatem, they are no precept, individual circumstances not concurring. for it is not precisely commanded to all, god's affirmative precepts being not obligatory always, as the schools observe, because obligant semper, sed non ad semper; tho. 22ae. quaest. 71. art. 5. ad 2. n. ad semper velle, but not ad semper agere: they require disposition to be perpetual, but not action to be continual; willingness ever to be afforded, but practise so often only as occasion is offered. but if we consider this speech in casu necessitatis, they are a precept, as to him: necessity did enforce him to do it, and therefore it was a precept personally enjoined him; if he would follow christ, he must, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, go sell. and in the last clause, in your own words, you manifest so much, in acknowledging it to be conditional, in that you say, that christ would have kept his promise and his part of the counterpane, for remuneration; if the young man had kept his part, to sell all, and to follow him in that degree of perfection. so that hence i infer, that seeing he did not undertake this profession in this required duty to sell all and to follow: therefore christ did not so far (as to his salvation) extend his mercy conditionally promised, and therefore the young man was punished, and so consequently this was a precept: for you affirm that not the observation of counsels, but of precepts only is punished. lastly you ask principally d. benefield, what the meaning is of that text. mat. 19 if with humility & integrity, you had attended his worthy lecture upon this text, whereat you were present, you need not here require the answer. mr leech. calvin. mark. 10.21. did christ, in this, discover the young man his hypocrisy? some interpreters say so: but s. mark saith no. for christ looked upon him, and he loved him. it was not (i hope) for his hypocritical profession and vain ostentation; but for some good performance, disposition, and inclination. again; christ had erroneously taught him the way to life, by vade, & vend omnia, and that this was that one thing necessary to aspire to the top of christian perfection, calvin is a blasphemous interpreter. if here be not a counsel of voluntary poverty. and this is no less than open blasphemy against the majesty of heaven. answer. hier. come. in mat. hil. con. in 19 mat. ambr. com. aug. ep. 89. some interpreters, therefore not only calvin, whom you so uncharitably abuse, jerom, hilary, ambrose, austin, theophilact, beda, & more do interpret it so, that making himself so absolute a insticiarie, he did bewray his hypocrisy. s. mark, if you mark it, doth not deny this mark. 10.21. basil. hom. 2. contr. divit. avaros. chrysost. euthim. in loc. , as you say; but in the 10.21. he saith, jesus looked upon him, and loved him: and hereupon basill, and chrysostome, & euthimius deliver, that the young man spoke truly, and not hypocritically. both may well be reconciled: christ loved him, for the good disposition he saw in him; yet discovered the covetousness that hindered him: the first, was to cherish that which was good; the second, to remove that which was ill: a man may have in him much laudable, hyperoclis facetiae. and yet much vituperable. hyperocles tells of a schoolman (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: is his word,) who to know, whether sleep became him, clausis oculis inspexit speculum: if you had not done the like, you had never rambled on such a collection as this, to say christ had erroneously taught him the way to life, by vade & vend omnia, if this be not a counsel of voluntary poverty. your sequel is out of joint, and absurd: rather, christ would have never applied this plaster, if he (looking through the windows of this young man's soul, into his inward most retired room) had not found covetousness to be his hindrance, and encumbrance. and this proveth itself in the text: for he went away sorrowfully. i cannot but note the malice and virulent dealing of your ignorant contradicting spirit, traducing calvine for a blasphemous interpreter, who taught no more than he learned of the fathers: and if among those that did interpret scripture, since the father's time, any one is worthy to be accounted fidus interpres, horat. art. poet. for his soundness, and profoundness; blessed calvin is, who was as eramsus wrote of tonstall, a world of learning, eras. epist. 84. claud. verderius conscio. in autores pag. 174. and as theodorus gaza testified of plutarch, that if any man were so limited that he could only read one human authors books, he would read plutarch, so many renowned divines, next unto sacred scripture have of all other authors, choisly and chiefly selected this holy servant of god. so that in this paragraph you blaspheme god, injure truth, accuse your knowledge and abuse your conscience. mr leech. lastly i would but demand, what s. paul meant 2. cor. 7.25. vid. damas'. dict. gnomis in indice. to distinguish plainly betwixt precepts & counsels, thus; praeceptum non habeo, consilium do (for so the vulgar readeth; which all the latin church followeth: and all the greek fathers have so taken it) if there be no counsels? for he groundeth this his distinction upon his master's words; non omnes capiunt, and therefore s. paul had no precept. but qui potest capere, capiat. and hence floweth the second branch; consilium do: as s. hierom, s. basill, and diverse others of both churches do observe. answer. discourses that grow tedious, are odious; and such is this your frequent and too often querulous quaere. the distinction in s. paul is between 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, between a precept and sentence, no word signifying counsel in that place. i have already showed how antoninus maketh s. dominick the author of evangelical counsels, anton. part 3. ut ante. and s. paul the teacher of faith and the law: and yet you produce s. paul as a special bulwark for your counsel house. many fathers have, (i confess) read that text so: but the original ministereth no such interpretation, nor do the fathers themselves otherwise hence ground, but that qui potest, being enabled, is, qui debet he that is commanded. you, and coccius teach the fathers to speak very preposterously. beware of the father's curse, or rather of god's curse, seeing you call them to bear false witness, against the law, gospel, and god himself. mr leech. and that this point may be every way full, and perfect, builded upon so many several rocks, as there be several places of scriptures: let the doctors of the church speak, vincentius lyrin. in commonitorio. being the most probable masters and teachers in the church: &, against quot capita, tot sensus (the very bane of all religion & mother of innovation) let the church interpret scripture; and he that will not hear the church, you know what followeth; 2. pet. 1. vlt. sit tibi tanquam haereticus? nay; sit tibi tanquam ethnicus. for as it is said of the letter of the scripture, that it is not of any private inspiration (for it came not in old time, by the will of man, but holy men spoke as they were moved by the holy ghost. serm. 17. in cantic. ) so may it be as truly said of the sense of the scripture, that it is not of any private spirits interpretation. and the reason, why every man should fly from a private spirits interpretation, a sentence that striketh the religion in england as dead, as a door nail. is this (as it is excellently rendered by that mellifluous father, s bernard) nonnulli adesse putant spiritum, cùm non adest, suúmque sensum pro sensu spiritus sequuntur deviantes, suásque sententias magistrorum sententijs praeferunt; that is (for i cannot but translate it) many men think that they have the spirit of god, when they have it not: erroneously following the sense of their own private spirits for the meaning of the holy ghost: preferring their own private opinions before the public judgements of their masters, and teachers. answer. you have suffered shipwreck upon your rocks. they be several indeed, psal. for they are severed far from you, which is manifest in that you rock to and fro in your preposterous building, like a tottering wall, or like a broken hedge. you call for advocates, the doctors of the church, num. 23.38. and fetch them in as balaac did balaam: but they answer, as there he did, but with a more holy spirit. we are come unto thee, and can we now say any thing at all? the word that god hath put in our mouths, that shall we speak. but if this help you not, you call the church to testify with you. to the church we leave as much, as the spouse hath made her jointer: & in the interpretation of scripture by the church, tertull. libro de praescrip. haereticorum. that of tertullian is to be remembered, who warneth of some, qui non ad materiam scripturas, sed materiam ad scripture as excogitant, and thereby run into one of those two miseries which s. austin observeth, aust. comm. faustum lib. 22. cap. 32. caiet. in praef. com. in lib. mosis aut falli imprudenter, aut fallere impudenter. you say the fathers of the church are for you: yet caietan believeth, that god hath not tied the exposition of the scriptures to the senses of the fathers. and if the fathers serve not, you say let the church interpret scripture. we distinguish the church from the synagogue of antichrist: and seeing we hold that scriptures must tell which is the church; we must deny that the church must tell us the sense of scripture: & gerson doth disclaim the judgement of pope, gerson. de exam. doct. part. 1. con. 5. council, or church, concerning interpretation of scriptures, and trial of doctrine, when he delivereth that the examination of doctrine concerning faith, belongeth not to the council, or pope, but to every one that is sufficiently learned in scriptures. cus. ep. 2. pag. 833. and cusanus cannot deny but that by the judgement of the church, the scripture is fitted to the time, and the sense altered, as the time altereth. we make the spirit of god speaking in scripture, to be judge of the scripture: and, act. 17.17. as the men of berea sought the scripture to approve the doctrine of the apostles, though the apostles doctrine was scripture; so we admit of no fundamental interpretation to build upon, but that which is approved by the sacred scriptures. the place that you urge out of matthew, math. 18.17. he that will not hear the church, let him be tanquam ethnicus: you may (upon your better review) find, it is spoken concerning those that refuse to hear the admonition or judicial censure of the church, not the gloss, or interpretation of the church. we confess the letter of scripture was not, nor the sense is, of any private inspiration; and therefore, trial which is made by the scriptures, is no private judgement, but the public censure of god's spirit that speaketh openly in the scriptures, to all men. and basils' rule shall be ever the true practice of the true church, basil. de examine. doctr. part. 1. cons. 5. that they that be conversant in the scriptures, should examine all that is said, whether it agreeth with scriptures. from a private interpretation not agreeing with the canon of scripture, we fly; because, as you urge out of bernard, nonnulli adesse putant spiritum, acts and monuments by mr fox. many think that they have the spirit of god with them, as they that in that council sang, veni spiritus, and an owl was sent them, & they killed that spirit. and many think they have the spirit, nicol. clau. disput. de council. and yet shut out the spirit, as the council of pisa did. you say the sentence of bernard striketh our religion, as dead as a door nail: it is a clownish marginal; you might have learned amongst scholars, that a door nail could not be said to be dead, because it had never life. private opinions with us sway not; each well disposed man, submitteth himself to the censure of the church wherein we live, our church to the scriptures, and this we make to be the last resolution. mr leech. it is lawful to follow the spirit in interpreting the scripture: but it must be the spirit of the church: that spirit of peace, unity, charity, that descended upon the apostles united, for domus una, etc. they abode all in one house; a sign of external charity; men's, & anima una; one mind, one soul; for they had but one god, one faith, one church; ancient church. calvins', and luther's congregations. a sign of internal, spiritual unity. the same spirit ever since continued in the church, united in faith, not divided in faction. and we may seek for the sense of the scripture: but where? it must not be out of the stinking puddle of a private brain; the aforesaid gentlemen, etc. but forth of the treasuring memory of the church. christi evangelio vim non inferat humana praesumptio: patrum semel definita non sunt iterum in dubium vocanda: this is contrary to cursed luther. it is blessed leo in his 94. epistle: let not human presumption dare to offer violence unto the gospel of christ: for the constitutions of fathers, once decreed, are not further to be questioned. nec definitiones eorum perpetuae commutandae, quorum regulam secundum scripturam esse didicimus. (so speaketh flavianus bishop of constantinople in his epistle to pope leo the first.) neither are the perpetual determinations of them to be changed, whose rule we have learned to agree with scripture. answer. unity was the bond of patriarchs, chariot of the prophets, refuge of the apostles, solace of the saints, and character of christians. but is this belonging to them who abhor unity, whose religion is rebellion, whose faith is faction, as our church lethargy speaketh in the prayer against the conspiracies of papists? what part in unity have they, that have divided christ's coat; nay christ's body, christ's church? quis tulerit gracchos de seditione loquentes? do all the opinions in the world, squadron themselves into so many divided factions, as papists? do not they, like the midianits, sheath every man his sword in his neighbour's side? cumel is against suarez, bellarmine is invaded by carerius, for giving to little to the pope marsilius and father paulus encounter him, for giving to much: cardinal columna striveth with baronius, barelay with boucher, antonius augustine tilts against gratian. that, as jeronymus de cavallos hath set forth, in the law, his speculum aureum opinionum communium, contra communes, so also in the diversity of contradictions, riotting one against another, the sweet and mellifluous author of the peace of rome (whom i may term a library for a whole nation as mirandula entitled another great scholar) hath most amply delivered and sealed it with their own proofs; doct. hall. so also hath crastovius, in his book bellum jesuiticum, 205 contradictions of the jesuits; pappus hath collected 237 differences in doctrine out of bellarmine. laborious and reverend d. willet proveth that there be 70 main contradictions between the old papists and the new, 37 among the jesuits, 57 points wherein bellarmin is at strange variance with himself, 39 essential contradictions of popish religion, 100 opposite constitutions of the popish canons. and many more might in this kind be registered, wherein are diverse assertions which are only taile-tied, as sampsons' foxes, with a firebrand between them: but are head-severed, wrenching one from another? so that you are the divided faction, not we: our difference only de fimbria, non de toga; yours de toga, de corpore, de christo: many ridiculous, many blasphemous, all erroneous. we do not seek the sense of scripture out of the stinking puddle of a private brain as out of the crow's nest of your invention, that impostumated phrase doth traduce us; nor do we by human presumption offer violence to the gospel of christ, as many thousand places in popery be abused, as your blasphemous pope, who upon that place, act. 2. papa clem. in canonis cap. disertiss. 12. quaest. 1. bellar. lib. 2. de sacram c. 1 bell. tom. 1. lib. 3. cap. 3. bell. de mon. erant apostolis omnia communia, addeth, immo & coniuges; or your detorting cardinal tortus, the torturer of scripture, upon that, spiritus domini ferebatur super aquas, ergo baptismus confert gratiam ex opere operato; or again, upon that scripture, bibite ex hoc omnes, id est, saith he, omnes apostoli; or upon that place, vocavit nomen eius enos, & coepit vocare nomen domini, ergo, enos fuit monachus: and infinite many more violences by him offered. your cursed epithet against luther is full of hellish fury. i do assure myself, that god blesseth, where the pope curseth: and as sure i am, blessed are they that die in the lord, and so is he, for he resteth from his labours. and was luther cursed for denying some interpretations of the fathers? did not caietan as much, in praef. come. in lib. mosis. in affirming that god had not tied the expositions of the scriptures to the sense of the fathers? and did not andradius, so who teacheth that the fathers do in many places not expound the scriptures according to the literal sense, the only which, hath power to prove points of faith, and that when they seek the literal sense, they do not always find them, but give divers senses one unlike another, therefore we may forsake their senses all, and bring a new unlike to theirs? now, dare you curse caietan and andradius, andrad. desens. fid. trid. lib. 2. and bestow that epithet upon these, that you do on luther? i know you dare not. but as in others, so in you, tully's observation is remarkable, tully. that bad orators instead of reasons, use exclamations. the reason why luther is so much vilefied among you, erasmus gave long since, chronic. carion. auct. a melanthon. lib. 5. when being asked by frederick duke of saxony, what he thought of luther so earnestly seeking reformation; erasmus answered, as carrion records it, that luther had committed two great errors one was, that he touched too near the crown of the pope; another, that he purged too much, the belly of the monks. but, the name of luther shall remain among the posterities for ever: and howsoever, hell and papists, have endeavoured to transfer upon the cause, personal weakness, most falsely imputed unto him; yet that epitaph of his, framed by reverend beza, shall be monumentum aere perennius, beza in epitaphijs. roma orbem domuit, romam sibi papa subegit: viribus illa suis, fraudibus iste suis. quanto isti maior lutherus, mayor & illa, istum illúmque uno qui domuit calamo? the last part of this paragraph urgeth flavianus, to which speech, we most willingly agree. the determinations of the fathers are not to be changed, when their rule is consonant to scripture: but we deny, that the general consent of the fathers, ever held this point; for many of them whom you urge, have not (as in your proofs it is plain) so much as the distinction, or any word of counsel. and again, if by the misinterpretation of that place of s. paul, some of the fathers read the place so: yet the greek fathers have not any word of counsels, d. benefield his appendix pag. 186. in all their works, as doctor benefield in his appendix witnesseth. mr leech. and therefore to exemplify further upon this ground, and to raise the particular building upon this general foundation: i would but ask; what meant s. cyprian (that ancient famous martyr, in his tract de nativitate christi. sectione 10. penultima) and s. gregory (that worthy pillar of the latin church) in his 26. book on job to style these consilia perfectionis, counsels of perfection, if there be no counsels? secondly; what meant theodoret, primasius, sedulius, haymo, theophylact, ambrose, augustine, hierome, gregory, basill, chrysostome, beda, lyra, aquinas, anselmus, with all antiquity greek and latin church, so to expound that place of s. paul 1. cor. 7.25. answer. suffragia potiùs sunt pendenda, quàm numeranda; voices and authorities are rather to be weighed, than to be numbered. cyprian or gregory have no word of counsels. the book falsely ascribed to cyprian, is denied to be his by pamelius, bellarmine, possevine, & many others of your own, as hath been proved: & the ancient manuscript thereof, in the library of allsoules college here in oxford, entitleth arnold, an abbot, to be the author of it. for gregory, as i have many times cited, so do i now again, if in that place so often quoted, viz. the 26. book 24. & 25. chapters, you find the word counsel: i will surcease to answer, & begin to believe you. it is an easy business in you, to feign the distinction of counsels to be in gregory, seeing that the vatican cyclopses have foisted 168. epistles into him, besides infinite corruptions, and contradictions, as will shortly appear by the exact, and laborious endeavours, of that living library, mr thomas james, the indefatigable, and careful precedent of that business; and the diligent assistance of many, some whereof are the choicest, & most eminent in all our university. the fathers, that you muster together out of rank, i reverence: yet what austin, in his 19 epistle, said in such another case, that i hold good; for all these, austin. in ep. 19 and above all these we have the apostle paul (saith he.) though some of these fathers do so read, according to the translation formerly condemned: yet, habemus apostolum paulum, we have paul to witness the contrary, in his own word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; it was but his advice or sentence, not counsel. mr leech. thirdly; what meant s. hierome ad eustochium, and against that epicurean heretic jovinian (one of the first impugners of this doctrine) s. ambrose in the tenth book of his epistles, the 82. ad vercellensem ecclesiam, & in his tract de viduis propè finem: s. augustine in his 61. sermon de tempore, his 18. tract de verbis apostoli, chapter the 21. his 2. book of evangelical questions, chapter the 19 and in his enchiridion ad laurentium, chapter 121. origen upon the 15. to the rom. s. basill de vera virginitate: s. chrysostome in his 8. homily de poenitentia: nazianzen in his 3. oration (which is the first invective against julian) and many others? the time would fail me, if i should reckon up all. and therefore to close up all in a word; what meant all antiquity, greek, and latin fathers, so to distinguish betwixt precepts, and counsels, if there be no counsels. answer. lubertus truly observeth of bellarmine, that in a point where he is weakest, there will he name and quote authorities most plentifully: but, when he should come to the life of the point, than he shuffles away among his multitude, like a cut purse in a throng, or like the fish sepia, who being ready to be caught, darkens the sea round about with a black water issuing from her. these authorities and testimonies of the fathers, have been answered in that part of the tract before the sermon, and, as the occasion was offered, in the sermon; and all of them, even the most strong, and selected authorities that you could gather, are answered plentifully in doctor benefields appendix: where it is proved, that the fathers did not set a man beyond the landmark of god's commandment: but that by the general precepts, enjoining all; & the particular, commanding some; every man, is bound to serve, and fear, and love the lord, with all his heart, with all his soul, and withal his mind. and this, necessitate praecepti, by the necessary obligement of the commandment, austin. in 38. psalm. that which austin upon the 38 psal. hath written with the pen of a diamond, standing fast as hercules ne plus ultra; that no man can say, he is perfect, nemo se dicat esse perfectum, and so proceedeth, that if any man do look for perfection in this life, decipit se, fallit se, seducit se, non potest hîc habere perfectionem. mr leech. to these i might add wickliff against the order of begging friars: where he styleth them christ his high counsels. likewise luther in the 30. article of his assertions. judicious and learned hooker in his church polity, and the apology in defence of him in the chapter of satisfaction. d. barlow. the bishop of rochester (and elect of lincoln) in his sermon preached at court concerning the authority of bishops; the 4. page, before the end. answer. it is not unfitly said by you, i might add: for never was so small a book so stuffed with additions and detractions, as this is, adding to diverse authors, detracting from diverse persons. heresy is a bastardy, it seldom knoweth the true father: that names many fathers falsely, this urgeth many feignedly, and indeed hath no lawful father but that outlawried pervagus terrae in the first of job, job. 1. gen. 4. itself being vagus terrae, as cain was, in the 4. of genes. for those that here you add to your catalogue of authors and authorisers. first, wickliff must be heard in his own manner of speech, wick. against begging friars chap. 34. luther. yet he needs no interpreter. in the 34 chapter against begging friars, these be his words, many blind fools binden them to the high counsels of christ, that cannot keep the least commandment: but see hypocrisy of them; sith each counsel of christ is commandment for some time and some circumstances, how binden they them to more than the commandments? not by the counsels, for they been commandments: but they fainen this, to draw young children, into their rotten habit, and other fools, that known not the perfection of christ's order. now, you have heard wickliff himself, believe him, and read no reporters of his fragments. next, luther favoureth your cause very little. in the place you cite him, he saith that there is but one counsel evangelical: if you stand to him there, avowing only the counsel of virginity you must let poverty go beg, and obedience go lose. but luther upon better consideration, doth utterly discharge all counsels, luther de votis monasticis tom. 2. fol. 300. in his book de votis monasticis tom. 2. fol. 30. a. mr hooker is before interpreted, and i hope will give satisfaction, though you quote him falsely, in his chapter of satisfaction, the place being found in the article of supererogation. his apologist is also made plain in the same place. the bishop of rochester, now of lincoln; then the austin of hippo, now the ambrose of milan; doth no way yield you suffrage in his powerful sermon concerning the antiquity & superiority of bishops, showing out of clemens alexandrinus, that the apostles manured the church, with a double tillage 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: if (saith he) any think that this maketh way to popish traditions, unwritten verities, it is no other than s. paul's distinction of praeceptum and consilium etc. his reverend wisdom, & most acute judgement, alleging the word out of a vulgar translation meaneth by the name consilium those things which s. paul 1. cor. 11.34. calleth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, things unwritten, which the apostles did or spoke, as the times occasioned, and the holy ghost directed; further than this, there is nothing in that place or sermon, giving warrant to your opinion, of justifying popish & monkish counsels, and how great his dislike is to any such position, his learned speech at lambeth (which like a thunderbolt struck you dumb) doth testify to all. so that all these witnesses refuse you. luther, wickliff, hooker, d. covell, and this most reverend prelate not vouchsafing your doctrine countenance or maintenance. mr leech. these, and many more of their rank i might add; if i could be persuaded, that the fathers needed their son's suffrages. and yet certain i am, sons in this point; or such like. for no otherways did i mean. that the sons stand in need of their father's testimonies. or were it not rather so, that all these (being men of eminent note in our church) are rather relatores antiquae fidei, quàm authores novae doctrinae; relators of the ancient faith of the church, (to their credit and honour, in that respect, he it spoken) rather than authors, and coiners of any new doctrine? and therefore passing them, and for this time sparing them, not to strike a hairs breadth from my former grounds; leo epist. 17. & 94. my main conclusion is this: maneant termini patrum, intráque fines proprios se quisque contineat: sufficiant limits, quos sanctorum patrum providentissima decreta posuerunt: let the bounds of ancient church abide, and let every man keep himself within due bounds, & limits; let the meets which the father's most provident decrees have set, content us. and the reason is excellently rendered by s. bernard: epist. 77. ad hugonem de s. victore. viz: quantò viciniores erant adventui salvatoris, tantò mysterium salutis pleniùs praeceperunt: the nearer the fathers were to christ his incarnation, the more clearly, and fully received they the mystery of salvation. answer. it is true the orthodoxal fathers need not the suffrages of their sons, and yet bellarmine denieth it, and is so unnatural to the fathers as that he maketh them to need the suffrage of the pope: bellar. de pont l. 2. c. 27. § respon. istos for when he is pressed by nilus, to follow in the question of the primacy, the opinion of the fathers, he professeth that the pope hath no fathers in the church, for they are all his sons. so by this gregory the great shall stand in need of burgesies testimony. can you endure this, that gregory, whose learning holiness eloquence etc. was so eminent, he that you call patron, though he never bestowed so much as opinion upon you, shall he need the testimony of mounsieur burghesi, whom your own confess to be none of the best popes, and sure not of the best men. but to the fathers this i say, we respect and honour them in general: and the present quotation of s. bernard, we dislike not. for patres quo saniores, eo seniores; quo iuniores, eo ieiuniores; but they being impostured, as papists profess to practise it, in their index expurgatorius, that if the fathers speak against any points now maintained by papists, ind. expurg. belg. fol. 20. than the index warneth thus, let us excuse it, or extenuat it, or deny it by some devise, or feign some other convenient sense when it is opposed in disputation: our main conclusion hence is, patres quo papis viciniores, eo corruptiores. mr leech. to these, were my judgement and opinion any, of luther, calvin, & all their proper disciples qui non consentit sanctorum patrum expositionibus, seipsum alienat ab omni sacerdo tali communione, & à christi praesentia. eudoxius in concil. chalced. i durst not otherways then subscribe with all humble submission to the censure of the church; fearing that censure of flavianus (bishop of constantinople,) in his first epistle to pope leo the first; haeretici est praecepta patrum declinare, & instituta eorum despicere: it is the property of an heretic to decline the precepts of holy fathers, contemning their cannons, and decrees. answer. your judgement or opinion is very small, seeing you take up any thing at the second hand, and from coccius treasury, that cock's dunghill, cull pearls as you think them. twice before you submitted yourself to the church, and in every page almost to the interpretation of the fathers. that the church hath necessarily a stroke in the decision of controversies, we deny not: but so ever that it subscrib to the truth of scriptures. next you submit to the fathers: the fathers we reverence more than any papists in the world do: neither do i believe that ever any protestant in the christian world, hath offered so much disreputation, unto the fathers, as bellarmin himself hath done not only in general, de pont. lib. 2. c. 27. § resp. istas. bell. de purg. c. 18. praeter●a & q. ad quartum de penitent. l. 1. c. 1. § igitur. beilar. de verbo dei. l. 3 c. 10. § dicens. making all the fathers but children, and novices to the pope, but in particular, almost every father, is vilified by him. to damascene he gives the flatly, and affirmeth that tertullian is not to be reckoned among catholics, & so, & worse than so, he speaketh of many others, so ill a patron is he of them, that disesteeming any of them in any thing that crosseth his assertions, he concludeth thus; it is evident that the chiefest of them have grievously erred. so that it seemeth bellarmine is the heretic, that leo speaketh of, who declineth from the precepts, and contemneth the decres of holy fathers. mr leech. thus much be spoken in defence of that great pillar of the latin church s. gregory saying; quidam non iudicantur, & pereunt, quidam iudicantur, & pereunt; quidam iudicantur, & regnant, quidam non iudicantur, & regnant: as also in defence of that sentence, inferred upon the last branch, transcendunt aliqui praecepta legis perfectiori virtute. answer. it is strange in divinity not only, but in common sense, that first you should make your sermon, & then after choose your text: it was usual in you, if those that were best acquainted with your unmethoded studies, be not mistaken. you grounded your distinction upon that text, that without much wresting and wiredrawing, would not serve you. and you accommodated your distinction as unfitly to this doctrine of counsels, as you father this doctrine upon gregory, from whose authority you cannot produce any word of evangelical counsel; your defence was a very poor on, you left s. gregory to fight for himself, for you fled. cum caeteri pugnabant maximè, tu fugiebas maximè, saith the comedy. father anbignies defence, for concealing ravelliacks damned treason against the last french king, was this, anti-coton. that god had given him a grace to forget, all that he heard in confession: it appears you have the like gift, to mistake most that you read in the fathers, else you would never have maintained such disjointed inferences. mr leech. this i have the rather done (god, and his holy angels in whose presence i now stand, and speak, de mysterio mediatoris lib. 1. as heretics as temporizers. bearing me witness) lest that imputation of fulgentius should light upon me, viz. fidem ecclesiae nolle asserere, est negare, uno eodémque silentio firmat errorem, qui errore, seu tempore possessus, veritatem silendo non astruit; dominicam gloriam qui non firmârit, evacuat; & divinan contumeliam qui non refutârit, accumulat. miles ignavus som nolento corpore depressus, regia castra oppugnantibus tradit, dum competentibus vigilijs non defendit. that is; not to aver the doctrine of the church, is to deny the faith of the church; so are some in england. so are others for with one, & the self same silence, he strengtheneth an error, who being possessed or carried away with error, or time, avoucheth not truth by his silence. he that confirmeth not the glory of god, weakeneth it; and he that confuteth not injury offered unto god, augmenteth it. the slothful sleepy soldier betrayeth the king's tents to his enemies, whilst he keepeth not true sentinel as he should. answer. fulgentius speech, fitteth us, as well as you: your protestation we partly believe, and yet, but partly, because you sin more of negligence then of ignorance. i would i could give you that testimony which s. paul did the israelits, rom. 10.2. i bear you record that you have the zeal of god, but not according to knowledge, or as another testimony of scripture in the like case, that you do only stray by ignorance: then would i hope, that terror of conscience should not punish your error in knowledge. the donatists loved their opinions better than their lives, and you affect your own folly more than god's glory: wherefore my exhortation to you is; return, return o shunamite: can. 6.12. if you will not, my prayer and petition for you is this, father forgive him, for he knoweth not what he doth. your marginallis false: scandal not our church, slander not our professors. the law & gospel agree in this, cursed be he that revileth the elders of his people. mr leech. hath any weeds of superstition grown up with this doctrine in the field of the church? oh let not the pure wheat of evangelical counsels of perfection quoad viam, quoad gradum, far the worse for the weeds. unskilful husbandmen are they, and very unfit to manure the lord his tillage, whose preposterous zeal issuing from the ground of a private groundless judgement, would pull up both wheat, and tars together. answer. the words be otherwise in your copy, commanded by authority, and by the notes, against which, exception was taken by the learnedst of our assembly. under your own hand. this paragraph beginneth thus; hath any weeds of supererogation grown up, etc. and dare you not now use the same term? instead of supererogation, you put in, superstition. i grieve to think, that you do receive the wages of iniquity for maintaining (as far as your poor revenues serves) these two bastards of the pope, aug. retract. l. 1. c. 19 hier. l. 1.3., contra pelag. theodor. in rom. 10. chrysost in rom. 10. hom 17. sed. in 10. rom. impiety & absurdity. the works of supererogation are of all other points of popery most abominable, besides that none of the fathers teach so, and that many of them be expressly against them, as austin, hieron, theodoret, chrysostome, sedulius: your own defenders aquinas, gerson, jansenius, paludanus, and cusanus, all deny this point. and seeing, that scarlet whore of babylon, drunk with the blood of god's saints, is now carted by heavenly justice through all the reformed congregations of the world: i see not but every true christian should be ready to cast a stone, & the stone which i cast against supererogation is no other, than that which s. john cast against it, who giveth the lie to him that saith he hath no sin. bell. de. mon. lib. 2. c. 13. and bellarmine is constrained to confess that s. austin, bernard, and thomas do think it impossible to keep that commandment, thou shalt love the lord thy god, with all thy heart, with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. mr leech. these are wiser, & fuller of zeal, than christ himself, who suffered, nay gave commandment (as it is in the parable) that both tars and wheat should grow together, until the harvest of the last judgement; and then should the tars, and weeds be bound up in bundles, fitted for the fire; and the wheat should be gathered into his barn. for at the last judgement, sermo 3. de le iunio & collectis. 1. cor. 3.12.13. there are some things urenda flammis, other things condenda horreiss, as s. leo speaketh. and doth not s. paul allude to this? whose words be; if any man build upon christ (the foundation) gold, silver, precious stones, timber, hay, stubble; every man's work shallbe made manifest, for the day shall declare it, because it shallbe revealed by the fire, and the fire shall try every man's works, of what sort they are. to which fire, let this doctrine be reserved to stand, or fall; to burn as stubble, hay timber; or rather to escape, as gold, silver, and precious stones. answer. true zeal, is the true seal of a christian. if you had any spark thereof, i would wish, as porsenna did to scaevola concerning his country, lavater. juberem macte virtute esse, si pro mea patria virtus ista staret. so i for true religion. jobs friends had a bad cause, but handled it well; job had a good cause, but maintained it ill; neither ability of the cause, nor dexterity of the handling have assisted you. the multiplicious abuse of scripture in your text, is frequent: that, as the prophet spoke of aslying book, so may all of your lying book. you would by intimation of that scripture in the parable of the tars, desire, that as the tars are suffered to grow, mat. 13.30. so your doctrine may remain uncensured till the judgement. it is well that you acknowledge your doctrine to be like the tars. fearful will that judgement be at that universal sessions where christ will be judge, & the saints the jury, when you are accused with those words of the parable, master sowedst not thou good seed in thy field? whence them are these tars? in that parable of christ, as the stream of interpretation doth carry it, is meant, that by the evil seed mixed with the good, the church shall never be free from some wicked, & that it is impossible to root them finally out: for if we wish to avoid these so fully as the godly could wish, we must go out of the world, as the apostle speaketh. so that of lewd persons, not of heretical positions, that place is to be understood: for christ doth threaten the churches in the revelation, for connivency of false doctrine: laodicaea, rev. 2.3. chap for being neither hot nor cold; rev. 2.14. rev. 2.20. gal. pergamus, for maintaining the doctrine of balaam thyatira, for suffering jesabel to teach and deceive his servants. the church of galatia is reproved, for that they suffered the copartnership of jewish ceremonies, when they were established in the gospel of christ and shall religion the truest bond betwixt man and man, the knot of conjunction and consociation, in dion. cass. shall it be divided? shall maecenas wish augustus to hate and correct any that change any thing in the service of the gods? joseph. count ap. 2. shall the athenians enact that they that spoke of their god otherwise then the law appointed should be severely punished? and shall we so much neglect the atonement of judgements, and peace of souls, as to suffer blending of doctrines, not only leaven in our lump, but poison in our bread? far be it from us and from our seed for ever. let it be the brand not only of a lukewarm affection, and of a policy overpolitique, but of machiavillians and matchless villains, to call for connivency of heretical positions. from hell it came, to hell it must return again. we cannot choose but suffer the tars of iniquity to grow up: but we will endeavour pro aris & focis to eradicat the tars of heresy. your second place of scripture out of s. paul (a chardgeable appeal) is very fit for your purpose; and the words in the next present verse, as fit for mine, 1. cor. 3.11. let every man take heed how he buildeth: & the later of those verses shall be my prayer for you, that though your work burn at that day and you lose, yet you may be saved. in the mean time scripture hath disapproved you, and the fathers have refused you. mr leech. now to god only wise be rendered praise, power, might, majesty, rule, dominion, and thanksgiving, and let all the creatures in heaven, in earth, or under the earth, say so be it; amen. answer. unto that supreme judge, rev. 22.13. and to the last judgement be this referred, and unto the everliving god, who is in himself α & ω in angelis sapor et decor, aust. in justis adiutor & protector, in reprobis pavor et horror, be ascribed, the admiration of his majesty, the acknowledgement of his mercy, the awful remembrance of his power, the joyful continuance of his favour. and hallelujah, rev. 19.1.2. salvation, and glory, and honour, and power be to the lord our god, for true and righteous are his judgements, for he hath condemned that great whore, which did corrupt the earth with her fornications. amen. hallelujah. chap. 8. mr leech. thus (gentle reader) thou hast seen my main defence of this doctrine, wherein i have followed the mature advice of the philosopher, and orator. for i thought it not sufficient to confirm truth in the former part of this sermon, unless i confuted falsehood also in the later. and this i did for establishing thee if thou be in the right: or reducing thee unto it if thou hast been in the wrong. answer. thus (gentle reader) thou hast seen the mean defence of this doctrine, wherein whether the author (as he professeth) hath followed the advice of the philosopher or orator, judge by the contradictions, misapplications, falsifications in the sermon. can oratory or philosophy be obtained without grammar? or cannot a grammarian distinguish between concilium & consilium, the one, coming originally a conciendo, calepin. id est, convocando; the other, derived from consileo, eo quòd uno consulente, caeteri consileant? it was a most probable trial of the ephraimits in shibboleths, judg. 12.6. and shibboleth; the mistaking, cost the death of the body. it was a laudable trial between the counsel of nice, and arius, in the difference of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; the mistaking was heresy, the death of the soul. the hebrews have a tradition in their talmud, that they that could not discern the pronouncing of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, should not be made priest, meg. c. 3. p. 24 or reader in their synagogue. and surely, unfit is he to write of counsels, that knoweth not the difference of letters in concilium, and consilium. i hold those titivillitious altercations of some critics, not altogether so necessary: as whether epistula, or epistola; iccirco, or idcireo; cotidie, or quotidie be the better reading. but, in a matter of moment, of main difference, a letter may much alter the sense. caranza, caranza in epit. concil. in concil. laodicens'. can. 35. in the council of laodicaea, the 35 canon, which was made against the worship of angels, putteth in angulos instead of angelos, having no other corner to run into, to free his church from the assertion of idolatry; and in this there was wit joined with knavery, so that it was pretty, though pestilent: but it was absurd to continue in your written copy, ever to write concilia with the ● in steed of s, as fearing to make longam literam, the great difference of the things, and the warning of franciscus sonnius should have made you more critical. for sonnius very plainly, giveth a caveat in this behalf, as supposing some such as yourself should hereafter need it. this is such a soloecism, in any learned judgement, that it would have cost a lashing in any free school in england. and howsoever, you hold that common rude speech of the pope's true fiatur, in contumeliam omnium grammaticorum, yet not theologorum. mr leech. and howsoever the truth of this doctrine hath not already (nor yet haply hereafter shall) escape the tongues, and pens of some malicious, or ignorant carping adversaries (enemies of god, and his church) yet can it never be suppressed; but it will prevail in the end, and flourish like a green palm tree; being justifiable and glorious both before god, and man where reason swayeth, and not passion rageth. answer. heresy hath been gainsaid in all ages, and among the rest this, where, by the title of evangelical counsels of perfection, vain imaginarists have sought to prove merits, perfection, supererogation, and other strange and false positions. to the suppressing of which, the fathers in all ages, have concurred, as to the extinguishing of a general devastation by fire. account you the opposers of your doctrine, malicious and ignorant carping adversaries: but god, whose cause they have in hand, seethe and judgeth, whether they that acknowledge their sins, or they that object their merit; whether they that confess themselves unprofitable servants, or they that profess angelical perfection; psal. 19.7. they, that with reverence do believe the law of the lord to be perfect, and an undefiled law, or they that accuse it for want & imperfection; they that profess, it is impossible to fulfil the law, or they that vaunt of performing more than is required by the law: and, as he seethe and judgeth, so he rewardeth every man according to his work; and hath pronounced that the wicked shall be as the chaff, that the wind scattereth to and fro. psal. 1.4. mr leech. farther; i can for more full complement (if need be) produce all charters, rolls, evidences, judgements, censures, sentences, arrests of all christian parliamen, the umpiring determinations of the highest ecclesiastical tribunals, and general councils notwithstanding all pretences, pleas, intrusions, surreptions, shifts, contentions of all heretical jovinianists. answer. this paragraph hath put you out of breath, & put truth out of you: it is like that congerious and multiplicious numeration of critics phrases in merula, where he reckoneth up, commentarios, adversaria, merula. pag. 218. annotationes, scholia, observationes, animadversa, castigationes, disquisitiones, miscellanea, centurias, syntagmata, collectanea, catalecta, spicilegia etc. such is your disfigured figure in conglomerating your charters, rolls, evidences, sentences, arrests, etc. but what have these to do with evangelical counsels, quid ad rhombum. any of sense, that readeth it, will afford no other allowance, but this of the poet; hor. art. poet quid dignum tanto feret hic promissor hiatu? if i should follow you in this kind, i could urge, to make up an army royal in encounter of yours, all scriptures, patriarchs, prophets, apostles, martyrs, saints, kings, bishops, fathers, doctors, professors, schools, chairs, universities, decrees of the church, canons of counsels, constitutions of synods, histories, acts and monuments of all times and of all places: notwithstanding the index expurgatorius of the pope, the demolishing of antiquity by the jesuits, the corruption of the fathers & all authorities by the vatican impostors; and all the endeavours of rome, and hell, to violate the truth. mr leech. ad nihilum devenient tamquam aqua decurrens: which s. austin doth fitly apply unto heresies. such is the difference betwixt truth, and falsehood, that error in time (as it is but the entertainment of time) will of itself fall away, when truth will stand impregnable, how many soever impugn her; so true is that of the apostle; we can do nothing against truth. answer. the difference between truth and falsehood is as much, as the height of heaven, and the depth of hell. but you never took pains to distinguish truth from falsehood, never to inquire publicly, or to study seriously the arguments against your opinion. s. augustine thought it fit to make known whereof he stood in doubt, and also wherefore: your course was otherwise, aug de genesi literam. you conceived in the ear, and brought forth in the mouth; you read coccius & bellarmine, believed them, and preached them, and took up from them, upon trust, but not upon truth. you builded upon the sands, & your building is fallen, because not founded on the corner stone, for other foundation can no man lay, then that which is laid, even jesus christ. mr leech. and therefore leaving thee (modest, and discreet reader) to judge of the matter, & doctrine now in difference, as reason, and religion shall induce thee, and not as the instigation and humour of some factious persons will seek to misled thee; i proceed to prosecute the remainder of this business; hoping that no man (of any apprehension) will suffer himself to be deceived by vain, & unlearned suggestions. answer. reason must be submitted unto religion, but the trial of religion only is submitted unto truth, the anchor of christians in the tempest of controversy. accounted it no instigation by humour, or prosecution against you by favour. the poet is my warrant, hominem malignum forsan te credant alij, ego te miserum credo, etc. neither fathers in divinity, nor fathers by authority can satisfy you, but you presume to proceed. i fear that like a fly about the candle, you will perish, in the gainsaying of corah. none here will be worthily thought men deceived by vain and unlearned suggestions. mr leech. and if some men will obstinately shut their eyes, yet my trust is, that others will look up to heaven, whence this doctrine descended, and whether it doth most readily conduce; and that they will no longer take darkness for light, night for day, poison for medicine, heresy for verity; since truth bringeth ever with it, certainty, peace, and security at the last. answer. psal. 135.16.17. the legend giveth scripture the lie. scripture saith that idols have eyes, and see not; ears have they, and they hear not: legend. aurea. and yet the legend reporteth that many of the idols & images have spoken, seen, and hard. they open their eyes and see not, we may shut our eyes and yet see, that this doctrine never proceeded from heaven, or if it descended from thence, the descension was like to lucifer that fell from thence into the bottomless pit, and no doubt lucifer's sin was no other than this, so far by elation to superlative man, that in pride he rebel against god. by respiration we send our prayers to heaven, by inspiration we receive instruction from heaven, but i find not that phrase in any approved author, that doctrine descended from heaven. and though the priest in the law could only distinguish between a leper and a leper, yet in the gospel the lord hath so illuminated his servants, that they can easily discern between the darkness of the understanding which is falsum and the light thereof which is verum. which truth is the daughter of zion, and is attended with peace of conscience, joy in the holy ghost, remission of sins, communion of saints and life everlasting. mr leech. the second part containing the irregular, and violent process of the vicechancellor, and his complices against me, and the former doctrine. wherein the reader may excellently discern the nature of heresy, and the condition of heretics, as in a perfect glass. * ⁎ * as jannes', and mambres resisted moses, so do these resist the truth; men corrupt in mind, and reprobat concerning the faith. 2. tim. 3.8. answer. the second part containeth, the exorbitant and virulent disobedience, and palpable & heretical ignorance of the author of the triumph; as also the false suggestions, and uncharitable imputations, against most of the reverend and worthy doctors of the university of oxford: wherein the nature of a conceited malcontented apostate is discovered, who having out of heresy spun the spider's web, an opinion popish, & ridiculous; & out of slander and unsavoury words, hatched the cockatrice eggs, phrases reproachful & malicious; doth behold his natural face in a glass. psal. 75. i said unto the fools, deal not so madly. jud. 11. they have followed the way of cain, and are cast away by the deceit of balam's wages, and perish in the gainsaying of korah. a triumph of truth. or declaration of the doctrine concerning evangelical counsels; mr leech. chap. i. when i had ended my sermon, it seemed good unto mr doctor hutton (who was there present, & confronted me with ridiculous behaviour) to cite me before himself immediately in his own lodging; where i found him accompanied with two other doctors; d. kilby, and d. benefield, who gave special attention unto my sermon, with great show of discontent. answer. chrysost. in 2. epist. ad tim. 2. it is s. chrysostom's observation, that the cause of all evil, is the neglect of the authority of spiritual governors, when no reverence or fear or honour is used towards them. if this had not proved true in you, you had not presumed (when authority contradicted it to reiterate your former opinions. or to accuse d. hutton of ridiculous behaviour, whose gravity, and reverend deportment according to his place & age, found not in the whole course of his life any accuser but you: his resolution in judgement and office then in government, were the motives causing him to send for you: you confess that the doctors accompanying him, attended, but much disliked your sermon so did not they only, but the whole church, many standing amazed to see you bring forth so publicly those two twins ignorance and impudence. of these two doctors in the former part you affirmed that one of them approved your doctrine, and apologisd for your opinion, which is most untrue for he ever abhorred your assertion, as formerly i have answered you that his worthiness protesteth, and as here plainly unto all appeareth in that you say these two doctors gave attention to your sermon with great discontent. mr leech. before these men, d. hutton began to charge me with scandalous, erroneous, and popish doctrine, fit to be preached in rome, then in oxford; and therefore in no case to be suffered there to disturb the peace of the university. answer. the provice chancellor and these doctors as indices et judices veritatis did discharge that true care of god's glory, to charge you with the breach of the peace of the church, by obtruding a doctrine scandalous for the occasion, erroneous for the opinion, unsafe to be read and unsound to be preached. mr leech. to this accusation, i framed my answer to the same tenor, and effect, as you have formerly seen in the kitchin-conference; adding farther, that the doctrine of the trinity, consubstantiality etc. might be branded with the imputation of popery, as well as this doctrine of evangelical counsels. answer. you preached this doctrine twice over (verbatim almost) as appeareth by the copies under your hand that now i have in keeping, at least verbatim in your extorted producing of testimony: and now verbatim you have the same apology for your doctrine of the trinity, consubstantiality, etc. which you rank with evangelical counsels, and of which i shall have occasion to reckon with you in your motives. mr leech. but such is the temerity of some men, that they will rather disclaim a manifest truth, than they will concur in opinion with the church of rome. and for my part, i see no reason, why you may not as well renounce that popish doctrine of the trinity, as this of evangelical counsels, since both have their evidence from the same ground (canonical scripture and ecclesiastical tradition) yea the later hath more clear deduction, and testification out of the scripture than the former. answer. such is the misery of some men, that they will in the corruption of their rotten hearts, undertake the defence of some manifest untruth, to get them a name; as reverend d. kilby protesteth he often warned you: and it is the baseness of some, that in the fruitful grounds of learning, they smell after some dunghill questions of popery, to obtain a title of singularity. mistake not, slander not, we disclaim not positions, so much, because rome maintaineth them, as because antichrist and heresy invented them: and yet look into her streets, mark well her bulwarks, and religiously consider, what fountain hath she not poisoned, what part of religion hath she not corrupted? the doctrine of the trinity, seeing you here again urge it as above, so i hence remove it as above, to your motives. mr leech. secondly; his worship objected unto me that d. benefield had lately, and learnedly confuted the said popish doctrine of evangelical counsels, and that thereupon i ought to have surceased; my reply was, that d. benefield his opinion was no canon of my faith, nor that his authority was of such value with me, as to preponderate the judgement of the ancient church, and testimonies of the venerable fathers. and therefore since i began to publish this doctrine upon such grounds, i was bound in conscience to defend the same; and specially, since he made an opposition in schools unto my position in the pulpit; so that i could not be silent without treason unto god, & his truth. answer. the argument consisted of reason and religion, in reason if the doctrine were answered, how could it be gainsaid? the learning, wisdom, degree, of doctor benefield by infinite degrees paramounting all that ever will be in mr leech. in religion, for if the canons of the church (grounded on scripture) do someway oblige our consciences, & that among the rest, one especially provideth that there be no public contradiction of points in religion, how durst this to be infringed, and opposition so peremptorily maintained by you in the pulpit. but you say you did so, because that his opinion was no canon of your faith etc. and yet you did make opinion the canon of your faith and produced your conceit, distinction, grounds, testimonies, proofs, etc., all for the most part out of bellarmine, and though you disclaim it, yet you underwent that babylonical servitude, which by alphonsus de castro is called miserrima servitus jurare in alicuius verba magistri: alphons. de castro. count haeres. lib. 1. cap. 7. so that opinion was your canon. i have already professed from the protestation of d. benefield that he read, no way with purpose, to touch you: but only in general as this controversy was the occasion of much innovation, much corruption: so that yours was the contradiction, not his. mr leech. thirdly; whereas he laid unto my charge, that he had inhibited me to intermeddle any farther with this point; i answered; that de facto, he had never done it, and that de iure, he could not do it. for god must be obeyed rather then man. besides; though in discretion, & submission unto your authority, i would have surceased from prosecution of this matter, yet this notorious, and intolerable impugnation did force me to break my intended silence. answer. deny it not, for you were charged upon your second sermon, not to intermeddle any further in this point: and therefore your distinction de facto and de iure, is fond. your inhibition de facto, should have restrained you; de iure, should have feared you: for the magistrate beareth not god's sword in vain. but you say, god must be obeyed rather then man. by what revelation or feigned new found vision, had you command from god to preach this sermon the second time? we must obey (say the lawyers) parents and magistrates in licitis & honestis: but god in omnibus; because all things are not only lawful to us, but fruitful for us, if enjoined by him. but god, stella in luc. glory, judgement, vengeance, proper to god only. psal. 8.5. that (as stella observeth) hath impropriated 3 things unto himself, the first being his glory; never did send any warrant to you, so much to oppose his glory, as to place man, not as david speaketh, little lower, but equal, or somewhat higher than the angels, in angelical integrity, spiritual transcendency, &c: as if man should be beholden to you, more than to his glorious maker. besides, (say you) intolerable impugnation did break your silence: you would make the world believe, you were injured. s. austin asketh in this case a question; libet hominem vindicare? tom. 10. ser. 42. in orat. domin. and must you encourage yourself in the unlawfulness of revenge? but god, & men, & angels testify, you do injury, to affirm you had injury, by any notorious or intolerable impugnation. were you imprisoned, censured, excommunicated? deserving all these, you were punished by none of these. mr leech. fourthly; whereas he demanded a copy of my sermon (protesting upon his faith and troth to god, that he would send me presently unto the castle, unless i then delivered it) i was content (upon the persuasion of doctor kilby) to yield into his hands the original, and only copy thereof. and so i was dismissed for this time. answer. the copy was demanded. and, though you say you delivered it upon persuasion: yet it might have been enforced from you. this protestation you objected once before against the provice chancellor, and now again. if you could fasten any aspersion upon him, or any that the cause concerned. i know you would. protestations are often justifiable and commendable, rom. 9.1. 2. cor. 11.31. gal. 1.20. as i have given instance before in many of the saints, but especially in paul in diverse epistles: to the romans, i say the truth, and lie not, my conscience bearing me witness; to the corinthians, god, the father of our lord jesus christ, knoweth that i lie not; to the galathians, i witness before god that i lie not. and espencaeus, in his own practice showeth, that a protestation may very religiously be used; espenc. tract. 6. epist dedic. ad card. cast. his words translated be these, i do religiously swear, that as often, as i thought upon the report of obtaining the red hat freely, (which others hunted after for money, who were repulsed) i give immortal thanks unto god, that he suffered not, i will not say so much good, but so much evil to happen unto me: quid facerem romae? mentiri nescio. what should i do at rome? i cannot lie. thus much, for your objection against his protestation: and thus much, for the honesty of the place, where your habitation is now supposed. mr leech. chap. 2. this storm being thus overblown, a quiet calm ensued, until m. doctor king (deane of christ-church, and vicechancellor of the university) was now returned from london; unto whom i made repair partly to do my duty unto him, and partly to prevent that sinister impression, which d. hutton, and others sought to work in him to the prejudice of me and of the doctrine which i had preached. for which purpose, i had collected the testimonies of 24. fathers; that thereby he might be well informed in the state of this present question. answer. a storm it was not: you felt neither the thunderbolt of excommunication, nor lightning of expulsion. if in this storm, as you call it, you had shed a shower of repentant tears, than you might have been happy, aust. in that which s. austin applieth to such a purpose, post plwiam sequitur magna serenitas, post nubilun magna claritas, post tempestatem magna tranquillitas. though you thought the storm calmed; yet it was no otherwise then that the expectation of our most worthy vicechancellors coming home stayed it: to whom by prevention & anticipation, you made repair, to repair your weatherbeaten credit, and (you say) to do your duty, which you had neglected to his deputy. but why feared you sun sinister impression in him, who like that noble emperor, in all causes kept an ear as well for defendant, as plaintiff? i conjecture the cause: conscience was the notary, register, & remembrauncer of an offence; and will prove the sting and scourge for the offence. conscience, at this your first appearing, made you inwardly cry guilty. mr leech. assoon as he beheld me, he broke forth into this passionate declamation. sir, would you have a word with me? in very good time; i have many words to speak with you: for the shameful rumour of your doctrine hath filled my ears wheresoever i came, in london, in lambeth, or else where: your doctrine was still laid in my dish; yea i have been charged by diverse to my face, for tolerating such scandalous, and erroneous doctrine freely, and openly to be preached in this university. answer. his passion was no other, then that which should be the proper passion of every true hearted christian. he was (with elias) jealous for the lord of hosts: 1. king. 19.14. 2. cor. 11.2. and as s. paul was jealous with a godly jealousy, so was he passionate with a religious holy passion. it concerned him in a double respect: as a provident vicechancellor of the university, to see that the lords ground receive no tars; as the diligent governor of that honourable college, to see that the envious man live not in his house, that would sow these tars. his burden of this double labour, requireth a double ardour, and without doubt it will receive a double honour. the speech he used to you, was the living representation of himself, full of courage, wisdom, truth, and honourable spirit: and therefore i may return martial his apostrophe upon you, sed malè dum recitas, incipit esse tuum; his sweet speech hath lost much, by running through your channel. occasion of much grief it was to him, to hear that under his collegiate regiment, any one should presume to teach that, which was scandalous & most erroneous doctrine. and what freedom the world useth in taxing governors, as guilty of connivency to some unruly heretoclits under their authority, separatists and papists (like herod & pilate) in their daily invectives do testify. mr leech. to whom returning my answer in dutiful sort, i protested first, that i came not to insinuate with him, nor to divert any course of justice. secondly; i know the doctrine to be founded upon such invincible proofs, and reasons, that it will stand impregnable against all assaults whatsoever. for demonstration whereof i presented the aforesaid testimonies unto him, and desired him to take a diligent review of the places alleged in that schedule. answer. your dutiful answer was undutiful: in that, first, you came not to crave his favourable interpretation, and thereby in submission, to have committed yourself and cause unto his worthy judgement, as being in a double respect under his government; secondly, you might have remembered to speak truth, in this your answer, for you presented no such testimony of fathers, as you report here, nor collected any authorities out of them at all. when you were collector for the poor proofs, that you produce, it seemeth you were collector for the high ways also: you gathered that rubbish out of bellarmine and coccius, jerem. 6.16. not out of the old way as the prophet calleth them. mr leech. whereupon he contemptuously entwited me, saying: go, go; you are a fool, an ass, &c: when you preach, here is nothing but leo, leech, and all the fathers. a proverb, which he had borrowed from some brainsick puritans, and profane scoffers. answer. reproofs be as necessary purgations: & you know how lawful it is according to the proverb, to affirm, schapha est schapha, as also that it is held true in physic, morality, and divinity, varium poscit remedium diversa qualitas passionum. joh. 4.7. acts. 7.51. john baptist to the pharisees crieth out, o ye generations of vipers; stephen to the jews, o ye stiff necked, and of uncircumcised hearts & ears; peter to ananias, why hath satan so filled thy heart, acts. 5.3. acts. 13.10. that thou shouldest lie unto the holy ghost; and paul to elymas useth no other language but this, o full of all subtlety and of all mischief, the child of the devil and enemy of all righteousness, wilt thou not cease, to pervert the strait ways of the lord? such reproofs even to the dividing asunder the bones and the marrow, have been used frequently and necessarily. but the wisdom of the reverend vicechancellor forbore any such words as you impute here to him: & therefore in being the false relator, you are become the author of these titles you give yourself. the title of leo leech, was so commonly grown to a proverb of you, as that you grew proud of it: but without reason, for you know, how the creature was dealt with, that strouted in the lions skin. but this title of leo leech, was not named then, but deferred till your final censure, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is your disease, your title of brainsick puritans is spleneticall if not phrenetical. we are all free from the note of that schism, we profess no transcendency, every man hath subscribed, and willingly acknowledged, the most auspicious and gracious government by the religion professed, and for ever to be avowed in our church. forbear then this tongue murdering, and malignant slandering. mr leech. which contumely i repelled with few words, and digested it with patience; assuring him, that leech with one leo would be too hard for any man that impugned this doctrine. answer. why should you boast of leo, when you had neither strength nor honey from this lyon. leo is none of your jury, you have no counsel from him. look over your catalogue, you find him not there; and look into your conscience, and you will find, that you made no mention of him here: though you be false in opinion, yet continue not in every paragraph to be false in relation. mr leech. and truly i could not but marvel, that he, who in his lectures upon jonah, hath made a copious defence of the holy fathers, and approved the use of their testimonies in public sermons, should now so vehemently except against me, and so meanly esteem of them. but such is the condition of these men, that they will accept, and reject the fathers at their own pleasures; as wind, & weather go. answer. that our worthy vicechancellor was no antipater, may be plainly seen by his most exquisite apology for the use of those great fathers and doctors of the church, who derived their streams of divine knowledge from the scriptures, and from whose lamps all christendom have received light. but in this, art, & grace so far above art, have so enriched his judgement by study, that though he mainetaineth the reading of the fathers and the frequent quotation of them, and maketh use of them in sermons as much as any whatsoever (in which kind, as in all others his talon is most extraordinary) yet he far disclaimeth, that ever he believed that you could produce any true authorities either in general from the fathers, or in particular from gregory, whom you make the author, pillar and maintainer of your doctrine. the observation of ludovicus rabus is fit to be remembered by you: in his 1. volume of collection out of austin, lud. rab. in 1. tom. to reconcile (by the meditation of that reverend father) diverse places of scriptures. there be, saith he, two sorts of men which much wrong antiquity, quorum alterum iniquum nimis & planè distortum, omnia à veteribus, & piâ antiquitate prodita magno supercilio fastidit atque contemnit. d. kings 40. lecture upon jonas. and these are most learnedly confuted by the 40. lecture of doctor king upon jonas. being worthy to be hissed at, and contemned, for contemning those blessed ornaments of learning and pillars of religion in their time, who spoke, and wrote, & lived, and died in defence of christ's truth. ambrose worthily styled orbis terrarum oculus, augustin haereticorum malleus, great athanasius, eloquent cyprian, golden mouthed chrysostome, and the rest. their names be memorable, and their monuments of indefategable pains, be honourable throughout all generations, and let it for ever be a brand of the greatest ignorance, to contemn their learning and writing. lud. rab. ibid. alterum vero nimis cautum & circumspectum absque iuditio aut discrimine ullo, omnia veterum dicta & scripta tanquam praetoria amplectitur & mordicus defensa cupit, such as suck only the gall of their ink, & study only the blotts of their papers, and if there be any 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 imposed and impostured into the father's writings, these they study to maintain. that if tertullian savour of montanisme, or cyprian of rebaptisme or origen of millieranisme; if nazianzen seem to be an angelist, or hierome a monagamist, this they swallow without distinction or discretion, never looking into the interpretations or retractations of those opinions. and this they will as resolutely teach as canon of scripture, whereas the most worthy father that ever lived since christ time, s. austin, in his 2 tome epist. 19 aust. 2. tom. ep. 19 ep. 40. ad vinc. ep. 111. ad fortun. ad hieronymum, in his 48 epistle ad vincentium, in his 111 epistle ad fortunatianum, doth absolutely conclude, neque enim quorumlibet disputationes, quam vis catholicorum & laudatorum hominum, velut scripture as canonicas habere debemus, ut nobis non liceat, salva honorificentia, quae illis debetur hominibus, aliquid in eorum scriptis improbare, atque respuere, si forte invenerimus, quoad aliter senserint quàm veritas habet, divino adiutorio vel ab alijs intellecta, vel à nobis. talis ego sum in scriptis aliorum, tales volo esse intellectores meorum. this caveat may serve you, especially who rely more upon reading, then upon understanding. your clause of accusation is false, wherein you impute to that famous doctor and others, the accepting and rejecting of the fathers at their pleasure. it is the common practice of your own, as i have already showed. mr leech. now, whereas i added farther, that the best learned in oxford concurred with me in this point; yea (said he) there are many of you, that will play with popery, as the fly doth with the candle: you hoover, over and about it, as near as you dare, but you will be sure to keep your wings from singeing. answer. you that father opinions upon the ancient fathers, may as easily traduce modern doctors. did ever any concur with you in public declaration of this doctrine. i speak it again, and am assured of it, that you traduce some that favoured your person, rather than your doctrine, and did much distaste, that you should any way deal with controversy. who interceded for you? who offered to defend it? to dispute it? the speech of mr vicechancelour, concerning those that play with popery etc. i believe was only and particularly appropriated to yourself, though you desire to draw others into your reputation & livery. if any do confectionat their religion, and double in the true worship of god, i fear to judge them, and as much fear to follow them. mr leech. though i made a friendly defence of those men (at whom he maliciously girded) as being men of incomparable worth in that place, yet i disclaimed all assistance from them, or any others, protesting, that i depended not upon men, nor angels; but only upon the sacred scripture, interpreted by the ancient church. which rule of faith as it is most certain, so my application thereof, in this particular, is free from all exception. answer. your friendly defence, it doth offer offence, in continuing the derivation of your own folly upon any of incomparable worth. incomparable worth, is a title to be bestowed only, upon men of incomparable pains and studies, and so are our public governors, and most learned readers in divinity. of these (as many as had occasion to discourse upon your doctrine) have all gainsaid it, and in solemn lectures and disputations in our public divinity school it hath been often fanned, & confuted. you say you depend not upon angels, so think i also: for though the angels be not ambitious, yet i am sure they would think it some injury (if not to them, yet) to the truth, that man should be equal to them in perfection, and angelical integrity, as you affirm. from scriptures interpreted by the church you received it not; the church did never grant it, the scriptures do no where ground it. what the rule of faith is, you have already been taught. mr leech. well (quoth he) whether i shall be able to prove this doctrine, false, or not, i cannot tell but, as i think i shall. howsoever; certain i am, that i shall be able to condemn you of great indiscretion, for preaching such doctrine in these revolting times, when there is such general apostasy from the gospel unto popery. answer. qui semel verecundiae limites transilijt, gnaviter fit impudens. whether this your speech deserve not the blackest character of falsehood or no, i will not say i cannot tell, but i am bound by all the assurances of truth, to believe, that your report in this, will be an article against you in judgement. o● impudens! was there diffidence, or distrust, or the least touch of doubt in him? was not his resolution so firm, and his protestation so faithful, that he told you with much zeal and earnestness, he knew, and would prove your doctrine to be false and shameful, and yourself ignorant and most unskilful in point of controversy. of revolting in these later times, he had reason to speak when the misery of this age is such, that an asses head is sold at a shekle, and our philistine adversaries will offer any preferment to him that will turn their proselyte, and yet when they receive them, admit them into no order but of mendicants, as the late proof of some, & present experience of yourself show. ●. pet. 2.1. apostasy was foretold, as by others, so prophetically by peter, that there shallbe false teachers, which shall privily bring in damnable heresies. and who can ponderat this? but with much sense and sorrow he will lament that any son of this country, nay any son (in the outward appearance) of the church should exenterat his natural, nay his spiritual mother, and do this in a sinister conceit either for some particular discontent, or for want of preferment, ever for want of judgement? lamentable is such apostasy to antichristian popery. mr leech. at which simple suggestion i could not but smile within myself; first to consider, that whereas he had absolutely charged this doctrine to be erroneous, yet now he could not tell whether it were true, or false. secondly, to observe, that the preaching of truth, contained in the gospel, should be a means to draw men from the gospel unto popery; as he was pleased to speak. answer. simple suggestion. if the cumane beast could speak, more modesty and duty would be uttered. you smile like the picture, that having two faces, hath his emblem over it, nos tres, & so you by an interchangeable view looking on them two, you smile as ill favoured as they, and so make three. the first cause of your unseemly smile is, that which will cause gnashing of teeth, unless you repent. he whose wisdom and knowledge joined together faithfully and strongly to charge you with the error of your doctrine, did he now doubt whether it were erroneous? it is a mint of forgeries and falsehood, and unworthy the invention of any that is called christian. your second smiling consideration was as fond as the other was false, did you preach the truth out of the gospel? bern. sup. cant. ser. 65. evangelium apellasti, ad evangelium ibis: hast thou appealed to the gospel (saith bernard) unto the gospel thou shalt go. the law is said to be the kill letter, but the gospel will be the kill letter at the arraignment of this supposititious erroneous position. mr leech. but perceiving him to be enkindled with the flames of passion, i forboare to add fuel unto the fire; and therefore i pretermitted the mentioning of his follies at that time. only i made this brief answer: that if some truth be not to be preached at all times, yet the contrary unto truth was to be preached at no time: and if it be lawful for any man to impugn it, is it not lawful for me to defend it, and especially, when it concerneth myself in particular? for so it did in this case: the eye of the whole university being cast upon me in this behalf. answer. rather say, but trembling and fearing to stay, much less to speak: that there is so black livor in your paper, seeing you had so white a liver at your speech, i admire not much, jam. 3. seeing your fictions be great, though your poetry none at all. you say you forbear to add fuel unto the fire. s. james saith the tongue is a fire, but i find that your pen is a fire, and yet but ignis fatuus: i wonder that these poisonful and filthy calumnies, fabricated in the forge of a frothy brain, eat not through your paper. lubert. replic. l. 1. c. 1. if you continue this railing, reviling, slandering, you will so envenom your book, that none will buy it: as gretzer (the devils agent in slandering villainy, and railing scurrility) was used in frisia, where only one of his books were to be sold: which none would buy, because that foul mouthed cerberus doth so besmear all men's reputations he dealeth with. the conceited malice in you, whetted with a custom of slander, and edged with a contagion of error, hath made your tongue so keen, your style so sharp, and your truth so short, that you wound whom you can. what follies can the bottomless pit of your open sepulchre, mention against this paragon of men? in whose defence men and angels stand against all clamorous railers. when you say, only i made this brief answer etc. that only, is only more, you neither did, nor could reply so. you never had that advantage given you, as the acknowledgement of one spark of truth in that doctrine, nor ever was there doubt made but truth is allowed to be preached, and that you say the eye of the university was upon you, it was only the eye of judgement and condemnation, not the eye of respect or expectation: few lent you their eyes, fewer their ears, none their belief. mr leech. thus i took my leave of m. vicechancellor, he being full of passion and i of resolution for this matter: against which he declamed with many words, and without any reason; consorting herein with those furious donatists, of whom s. augustin pronounceth truly: contra lit. petil. l. 2. c. 51. quid hoc aliud est, quàm nescire quid dicere, & tamen non posse nisi maledicere? answer. he was full of resolution, you full of discontented turbulent passion, you were glad to be gone, being so beaten with the power of truth: for the words that struck you, were full of reason, faith, and religion, as your conscience knoweth, notwithstanding your profusd dissembling, and professed railing. s. augustine's speech to the donatists retorteth itself upon you so full of contradiction and malediction: aust. and with it i return another speech of s. austin, non est intuendum quàm amarum, sed quàm falsum. i stand not so much upon your acerbity, as to show to the world how you falsify. mr leech. chap. 3. this magistrate intending a preposterous course against me, and yet pretending a formality of justice, convented me before him in juridical manner, upon the vigil of s. peter, a practitioner of my doctrine. lord (said he) what shall we have, that have forsaken all, and followed thee? answer. this faithful deputy of his maker and master, intended no preposterous course against you. his breast like the heart of a good magistrate, is the ocean whereinto all the cares of our academical causes empty themselves, which he ever sendeth forth again in a wise conveyance by the streams of justice; he hath in all the time of his government, been the paymaster of good deserts and patron of peace; it was not formality of justice he pretended, but the satisfaction of the whole university, who importuned that you might be convented and censured. what vainglorious humour riseth up in that froth of ostentation, to cause you call s. peter a practitioner of your doctrine? he was married, therefore practised no counsel of virginity; he continued his fishing, therefore undertook no wilful poverty; he carried his sword & stroke malchus, and therefore professed no monastical obedience: you deal with s. peter, as the printers in rome do with christ, for they in their printed tables of the popes, first place christ then peter, etc. as if christ had been pope. but as christ is contrary to the pope antichrist: so s. peter is most opposite to this your doctrine, and giveth command to put to silence the ignorance of foolish men. 1. pet. 2.15. mr leech. appearing now upon my summons, other doctors (of better worth) who heard my sermons were not called unto my trial; whereas two only of these six judges were my auditors. i found m. vicechancellor assisted with 5. compeers; d. airay, d. aglionbee, d. hutton, d. harding, d. benefield; a selected company for his own humour. who as they were generally to be excepted against by me, as incompetent judges: so in special d. hutton for his inveterate malice conceived against me long since upon a base, and unworthy respect. d. benefield, as he was my principal opposite, so he, with the rest, being a doctrinal calvinist could never afford me an equal trial in this issue, quid mihi dabis etc. depending upon the fathers; which he, and they, do really disclaim. answer. these five assistants are known to be of much worth and sufficiency. just censures they deserve not, as living without the compass of an adversary; unjust they contemn. although you load all of them plentifully, you should express some reason why these were incompetent judges in general, seeing these were as eminent for learning, honest for life, & have been oft chosen delegates by our whole university in our convocation for the greatest affairs that concern our academical state. or what inveterate hate doctor hutton had against you in particular. he was a special means to obtain your place, a continual shelter for you against all storms while you were in the house: when he might have imprisoned you, he forbore: is this the inveterat malice? he may say as our saviour said, for which of these good deeds do you persecute me? for any aspersion of base bribery in your marginal quid mihi dabis, he disclaimeth the thought, and abhorreth the fact: his free, and good disposition, course of life, ability, and integrity be his compurgators, and his protestation shall more prevail with all honest men, than all your oaths. your exception against doctor benefield is as unsufficient as the former malignant. though he were, as you in scorn entitle him, a calvinist; yet he doth not disclaim the fathers, as in his practice, we all can testify having red more in them, than your head and your back can carry: & what his estimation of the fathers is, in his appendix he doth manifest, and for mr calvin his works show that he did read and use the fathers, & not only approved them, but even the citing of heathen authors as may be seen, cal. com. in 1. cor. 15.33. in his comment upon the corinth. 1. cor. 15.33. though he be maliciously traduced to the contrary. mr leech. these petty judges being thus assembled; m. vicechancellor inveighed against me with a bitter, and passionate speech, containing in it these capital accusations. first; that i had lately preached scandalous, & erroneous doctrine. secondly; that i was vehemently suspected of popery, and that, by this doctrine, i had now justified the suspicion. thirdly; that i had brought an infamy upon the university, and in special upon him, and his house. wherefore i must expect a censure according to my demerit. answer. it is scornful & shameful in you so to term men, of as beaw-desert as our church or kingdom hath any. the vicechancelour, in this your blast of words, is often falsely taxed for being passionate, whose passions are as so many good servants, which stand in a diligent attendance ready only to be commanded by reason, and religion, in no other sort is he passionate. the accusation consisting of those three articles, was most true: your doctrine was scandalous, it offered much offence, being generally distasted; and was erroneous, being detected to be the floodgate of traitors stairs, losing in some supposititious doctrines, and many blasphemous arrogating much to man, derogating much from god. secondly, it was suspected (by many of our most religious and observant doctors and students) that you were much tainted with popish corruption, and it now grew manifest; by the breaking forth of the impostume in your last sermon. thirdly, that you drew public infamy upon oxford, where popery in former ages of blindness, had been discovered, that now in the splendour of the gospel here popery should be, by any maintained. and you derived from the general inundation, a stream of aspersion upon your collegiate governor, and his house; the worthy deane and all his society, who all profess thus, i and my house will serve the lord: upon these your errors, you were to expect the ensuing censure. mr leech. to the first i answered, that as upon sufficient descovery of the pretended error, i would recant it (since i sought nothing but the advancement of truth) so i should consequently acknowledge that i have given the scandal if i have preached the error. but my conscience telleth me that i have offended neither in matter, nor manner; substance, nor circumstance. to the second; that men might suspect what they pleased, and that it lay not in me to hinder every suspicion. as for the imputation of popery in this point, it cleaveth unto the scripture, and all antiquity from which (jointly) i assumed this popish doctrine. to the third; that as he, and his house could receive no infamy by such a truth, so much less the university; forasmuch as the best in judgement there, (if not the most in number also) concurred with me in this point. answer. i answer these three paragraphs together, thus. first, the discovery was made of the falseness and faultiness of the doctrine, by d. huttons' inhibition, and by d. benefields lecture: and therefore your conscience might have been informed that you offended in matter, by condemning the law for being imperfect, and therefore requiring counsels, in mad insolence durst you control? where you should wonder. in manner you offended, daring to say over the same lesson, which was by authority forbidden you. thus you were guilty both in substance and circumstance. secondly, you ought to abstain, as the apostle speaketh, from all show of evil, as well in opinion as in action, and therefore not to give so just occasion of suspicion, or more; of detection of popery in you. this point of popery, like a high house built upon small pillars, though you say it had countenance from scripture & antiquity: yet it is most plain, that both these authorities do disclaim utterly any maintenance of the point in controversy. thirdly, that the best, or most, concurred with you is most untrue. saint austin in one of his epistles, mentioneth his conference with one, that sought to overcome him, aust. ep. 174. non veritate, sed clamore. and such a one you seem to be, bragging of scriptures, and antiquity, of the most and best to concur with you: whereas no one ever showed himself, in teaching or defending any such point. so that this bladder full of wind, and skin full of words showeth you to be your own broker, having no author, no protector. mr leech. here d. aglionbee suddenly interrupted me; demanding, who they were; and, making me the trumpeter only of other men's opinions, he said, that i was set on by some, who, though they affected this, and other such like points of popery, yet they dare not broach them themselves, but whosoever they are, they shall be met withal either in schools, or pulpit. answer. his interrogation was no interruption: he might well think you were set on by some, but sure his charity exempted his thought, from any of our university. i dare be so bold to interpret his meaning, that he affirmed that some papistical alients to our congregation incited you: no domestical commorants in the university did instruct you. which interpretation i have the more reason to believe, because he professed they should be met with, either in schools, or pulpit; for with whom do our sermons and disputations contend, but with foreign persons & positions, with rome, and antichrist, and heresy? but this is the most grating ingratitude that can be, whom you dare not openly backbite, or wound with a direct censure, those pyonerlike, you would privately blow up, as smoke smatcht in opinion, and reputation. mr leech. this is the miles gloriosus, who challengeth his betters for popery; at merton coll. before a great assembly. but they are able, and will confidently appeach him, not only of jovinian heresy (which he defended expressly against s. hierome) but of sundry other blasphemies, & heresies, which he preached publicly in s. mary's church: the particulars whereof i have seen in writing. answer. he is indeed miles gloriosus, not in the comical sense, but in the evangelical: he is one of those glorious and triumphant martialists in the 19 of the revelation, that attend the lamb, to the conquest of the beast. he is dead; o dead i say: quàm parva tellus nomen ingens occulit! prosper de august. and this testimony i dare send after him; acer erat ingenio, suavis eloquio, in secularibus literis peritus, in ecclesiasticis laboribus studiosus, in quotidianis laboribus clarus, in omni sua actione compositus, in quaestionibus solvendis acutus, in convincendis haereticis circumspectus, in expositione fidei nostrae catholicus, in explanandis scripturis canonicis cautus: such an austin for the pulpit, such a aquinas for the schools; that it deserveth an chrysostome to emblason this babilas, or an austin to praise this cyprian. but to the purpose: what jovinian heresy defended he? s. austin ad quod vult deum in his tract de haeresibus the 82. heresy, mentioneth the positions of jovinian, omnia peccata (sicut stoici) dicebat esse paria, nec posse peccare hominem, lavacro regenerationis accepto, etc. and after reciteth his opinion, in equalling the state of marriage with virginity. i know that any man that ever read s. austin will acknowledge, that in his works he shall find the same position defended, & therefore writers on both parts have granted that matrimony may be equallized with virginity. i could urge many of your own: the confession of wittenberg in express words doth deliver, lindan. panopl. lib. 4. non est sentiendum quòd hoc genus vitae (speaking of virginity) per se sit coram tribunali dei, excellentius, aut sanctius quàm coniugium: episc. espenc jesuita in 1. tim. 3. and bishop espencaeus, a jesuit (as before i have urged) teacheth in his commentary on timothy, that marriage may so be undertaken that it may no way hinder a perfect life? and if this were heresy in that famous schoolman , and blessed christian d. aglionbe: what was it in erasmus, eras. arg. in lib. 1. advers. jovin. rhen. argum in tertul. de extract castitat. salmer. tom. 4. in. 1. cor. 7. disput. 14. § ad dubium. villavin. de stud. theol. lib. 4. cap. 5. obser. 2. espenc. de continentia. lib. 3. cap. 11. acosta. libro 2. de christo revelato. cap 20. in rhenanus, in salmeron, in villavincentius, in espencaeus, in acosta, in many others of your own, who all taxed s. jerome for over much contempt of marriage and excessive praise of virginity? what heresies did d. aglionbe preach, what particulars have you in writing? can ill will have dispersed any more spiteful narration? how unhappy it is to be only witty, in devising suggestions? first you accuse him for table talk, which if any place should challenge immunity for freedom of speech it might. each such solemn meeting at our university meals should be like to augustus' table, fraught as well with disputations as dishes: and cannot that liberty be enjoyed, but you must gather up the crumbs of contradiction and calunny, and not only this, but tax him with sundry other blasphemies & heresies, whose knowledge and life contained such sufficiency and sanctity as was honoured of all. mr leech. these things i could have then objected unto him. but being not willing now to exasperate him, or any other there present, i returned him my answer in this manner. sir; it may suffice you now to understand, that there are such men in this university, that will constantly defend this doctrine: who they are, i leave it unto your inquiry; you may find them out by getting a general subscription here unto your opinion, or by some other means. only, to give you farther assurance of there resolution in this point, it pleased some of them freely (without my desire or knowledge) to draw a letter, wherein they recommended me, and my cause unto the archbishop of canterbury; informing his grace that the doctrine was most clear on my side, and that they would stand in public justification thereof. answer. this paragraph wrappeth in it, a narration; which being begot by error, hath never yet been carried into the world by rumour: and no marvel: for even the worst of men and most subject to credulity, will never believe that any in this university did, or can defend this doctrine, either by open profession or private subscription. you are your own secretary and of your counsel, but few others (if any) did agree with you. to hold that there is a verbal distinction of precepts and counsels, i know that some deny not & some whose abundance of learning and worth i honour: but that any among us, do maintain the opinion, as you preached it, by counsels to induce men to monkery, to accuse the law of insufficiency, to invest man in angelical integrity, etc. i never will believe it, as knowing that this untrue suggestion hath disjointed the affection of those that did most pity you, and that you will deeply answer this, unless you stain your cheeks with the blushes of recantation, & send over the form of your penance without the secret glosses of double and reserved senses. did some in over much charity petitionat for your pardon, from the heavy burden of censure: & do you traduce their innocency, so far as to accuse them for connivency, nay for authorizing your doctrine? you shall pardon me for crediting this any more, than that of doctor kilby, of whom in your first book and 8. chapter you report, that he contested with doctor hutton, for the truth of the doctrine, and that you might answer it with credit: whose reverend protestation against that speech, and against your opinion, & against this subscription, into which you entitled him, is forcible and suasible, and available with any honest heart to measure this speech by that, and to assure all that here you traduce others, as there him. mr leech. but i pray you, sir to be advertised by me; that i never made use of their letters: one reason whereof meeteth with your objection. for as i assumed this doctrine from the holy scriptures, and ancient fathers, so i determined to maintain it upon these grounds, without any assistance: and much less was i set on by any of them. answer. this is a firm confirmation of my former opinion. would not you have used those letters, and produced them, if you had any such? you, that ransacked all the inventories, and catalogues you could, to muster up testimonies: & your modesty so to modify your cause, as not to urge vivum testimonium, the living witnesses of your assertion? absit, far be it, but that all here should hate falsehood more than death, and be so faithful clients of truth, as not to yield an ear, much less a hand or heart to any startling opposer. object as oft as you will, that you used not these letters because you relied on scriptures and fathers: yet if you had had but the least manual or oral assistance, you would have produced it, and traduced the authors whosoever. mr leech. and that you may know upon what authority i first began, and do now proceed; here are the doctors (24. in number 12. greek 12. latin) who set me on; here are their testimonies; produce their books; convince me if you can. answer. and that you may know that there be ashes scattered to descry your footing: it is manifest that as in your sermon you gleaned from bellarmine very much, so in your proofs you have borrowed from coecius much more; the quotations that you cite, in the same order found in him, as in you. but as bellarmine in the point of purgatory, professing to prove it by 10. places in the old testament, & 9 in the new to make for it, is afterwards constrained to confess that there is no direct place in scripture. for being in the last chap. 1. book of purgatory, urged by the argument of peter martyr and others, that purgatory is found in no place of scripture therefore no matter of faith answereth non est necesse ut scriptura ubique omnia dicat. bellar. c. vlt. lib. 1. de purg. and again, talia enim ad apostolicam traditionem sunt referenda. so some of your fathers have not so much as the word counsel, others that use it, do either in the same words or in other places, as i have showed, distinguish the general from the special precept by the name of counsel, that whereas some challenged their jury, your jury doth challenged you, of rash indiscretion and false information. mr leech. whereat his courage began to abate; and first he excepted against me for producing the greek, in whose language (said he) you have but slender skill. answer. his purposes be so deliberate, and resolution so firm that your paper gun could not abate his courage, as you falsely inform, your leane-heart-fretting envy, fatting itself with contumelious scorns. you were questioned with twice whether you understood the greek, first your answer was affirmative: being pressed again, you confess, you understood it only by the translation, it was replied by the vicechancelour, that if the translation erred then you did partake in that error, instance given in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, so much mistaken in the vulgar: to this you did, nor could answer a word. you were not able to understand the greek fathers, and in retaliation none of the greek fathers will afford you one word of counsel. mr leech. to which malicious, and impertinent exception, i answered first; that it was sufficient for me to rely upon the translations approved commonly in the church. secondly that i had so much skill in greek, as to compare the translation with the original, and that none there was so exact, as to understand some greek fathers (and namely s. gregory nazianzen) in their native idiom. thirdly; that if i had no greek author on my side; yet here is a sufficient jury of latin fathers; whose language i understand, and whose conspiring tenant, i hope, you dare not renounce. answer. a scandalous and unreverent phrase. was it malicious and impertinent, to ask whether you understood the greek, when you dosend up the greek fathers as if they had been pickled herrings, & yet understood them only by the use of an interpreter. that you answer, (first it was sufficient for you to rely upon translations, i say in point of controversy it is not so: s. hierome did practise and did counsel the contrary, hier. epist. ad suniam & fret. tom. 3. aug. de doc. christ. lib. 2. c. 11. theol. lov. praef. lib. var. lect in lat. bib. edit. vulg. and s. austin giveth the same rule in his book de doctrina christiana. the divines of louvain approve the same, & villavincentius doth prescribe it, as most necessary. in differences or doubts, or controversies to repair to the hebrew for the old testament, and to the greek for the new. secondly, in that you affirm that you have so much knowledge in greek, as to compare the translation with the original, and that none there were so exact as to understand some greek father &c. both parts be faulty. he that is able to compare the translation, must carry in his head a lexicon: you have the room, but you lack this furniture. it is the labour of a well read, & thoroughly grounded grecian. and that any father should be so hard to be interpreted, that it were difficulty to find out in this choice company, one able to translate him: it is a calumny to the ancient fathers, and to these reverend doctors; the former writing elegantly, these able to translate them faithfully. your third, hath cut, off the third part, but half your army of fathers: you are driven out of greece, and as the greek fathers knew you not, so the latin fathers (as is plentifully proved) assist you not. mr leech. doctor aglionbee being thus pressed by me & having nothing to answer in his defence; d. king interposed himself; objecting that d. hutton had inhibited me: that d. benefield (whose books i was not worthy to carry) had publicly confuted my doctrine etc. with such like frivolous allegations. answer. here to help your memory, which wandereth as much as your judgement, you forget that upon your brag, that all the latin church held with you: d. aglionbee asked you what was the church, and you receiving a blow, where you had no ward, were driven so far out of the way, as to affirm, the last resolution of the church, to be, not in primam veritatem, but in the judgement of men: the absurdity of which position i have dealt with in your epistle. the vicechancellor seeing such presumptuous insolence joined with ignorance, hereupon remembered you, how the inhibition by authority, and the confutation of that controversy, might have stayed your proceed, and added the due worth of the doctor who had determined that point in his solemn lecture. mr leech. as for d. hutton his inhibition i answered as before; adding farther that i respected not his judgement in this matter. for i knew (indeed) that as his understanding is not very deep, so his affection is not very good; who, in a certain book (or rather statizing pamphlet) concerning the cross in baptism; defendeth this laudable christian ceremony by tradition of the church, as it is witnessed by the holy fathers: and yet now in a point of greater importance, expressed in scripture, taught by fathers, practised by the saints, defined by the whole church, he blushed not to accuse me, nay s. gregory himself of popery in this doctrine. but singular is my comfort to consider, by what judge, i am thus used, in what cause, and with what patron; from whom our nation first received her first faith, & for whose faith i must now forsake my nation. answer. you leave the answer of your neglect of d. huttons' government, and traduce his judgement. inhibition is matter of authority, not of learning: why disobeyed you that command, you answer (but not to the purpose) you respected not his judgement. let not malice be judge, but consider how base, infamous, & malicious your reproaches be: his soundness of judgement, is approved sufficiently by the consent of our whole university. and that book which so scornfully you reproach, is esteemed deservingly, and is of reverend respect with the best bishops of our church. where the father's agreeing to scripture, are truly urged, and understandingly interpreted, both d. hutton and all of our part, with all willingness, receive their assertions. but, when fathers are misurged, arrested, and impostured by coccius, or bellarmin and you receive them at second hand, not from the fountain but from the ditches: we return your particoloured, blended sentences, as unworthy of approbation, because they be used as the tyrant entertained his guest, if to long for his bed to chop of; if to short, to rack them out: the doctrine which you call a point of great importance expressed in scripture, taught by fathers, practised by the saints, and defined by the whole church, is not so founded, as you presume to teach, scriptures no where express it, fathers teach it not, the saints of god have not practised it, the church of christ hath not defined it. therefore he only accused you of popery, but not gregory. for as formerly hath been said, d. hutton, and all any way seen in gregory's morals, may perceive how you foist into the text, the words [evangelical counsels] your comfort, will prove your corrosive; your judge in this was god, others were but his deputies; the cause was religion, nay the very marrow & pith of religion, and the opposition of many absurd heretical positions. your patron, was not gregory, he neither taught you this, nor from him our church received their first faith. neither for defending this were you constrained to leave the land; you forsook your religion, rather than your nation. vegetius tells that in the roman armies, vegetius. non fugere, was a special precept. the way for you to triumph, had been to recant, and to remain in your station, not to fly. bosquiers speech is true, bonsq. count 7 the devil is overcome by resisting; but the flesh and the world, by running away: but you fled because you would run into the world. mr leech. as for d. benefield with his lecture, & his books, i passed them over: considering that m. vicechancellor made excursions from the point, loading me only with contumely and disgrace. answer. you passed him over, because he doth so far overpass you, but he is in your bosom, his lecture lieth heavy on your heart, it is such a pang, that you will not easily remove. the vicechancellor loading you (as you call it) with disgrace, knew you had a back provided for a burden. if his speech seem harsh to you, you turned his tongue, being turned yourself. otherwise, his tongue is the hearauld of encouragement and comfort, himself the refuge of innocency, a tutor to his college and a father to the clergy, in his accademical government. mr leech. wherefore, not suffering him to divert me from the main issue, haeretici est praecepta patrum declinare; saith worthy flavian in his first epist. to leo the great. i desired him to deal punctually, that is to say, first to admit a trial by the fathers, or to deny it: if he denied it, he should be thereby sufficiently convinced. secondly; if he admitted this trial, then either to disprove my authorities, or to approve my doctrine. answer. to deal punctually, is so proper unto all his discourses, that all his auditors will acknowledge this a special felicity, in the power of his speech. your demands were preposterous: in your epistle, you commit yourself to the censure of the church, now to the trial of the fathers: no appeal at all to the scriptures, without which, whatsoever is taught, is like israells' building in egypt, without stuff, no warrant for the matter they build with. mr leech. but he not daring to make a brief, and punctual answer to my reasonable demands, fell extravagantly into a mention of the reformed churches; summoning me before their tribunal, for the censuring of this doctrine. answer. not daring? why continueth this bracchadochian humour? it hath long been in the consumption, it will at length spend itself. what dareth not he, that undertakes without rashness, and performs without fear? did ever your experience find him to be a read shaken with the wind, or to want the sinews of courage and resolution? no you know he is ballaced with wisdom, and worth, able to undertake the most resolute and undauntedest of the contrary side in the world. neither in this was there the least note of extravancie, as your exorbitancy of accusation doth impute: for by whom should a minister of the reformed churches be censured, but by the power & judgement of the reformed churches? mr leech. which course of proceeding, i utterly disclaimed, as unequal; because the later church is not to judge the former, but contrarily the former is to judge the later. answer. who ever, that was a supposed member in our ecclesiastical state, durst disclaim the judgement, censure, authority of our church? but your reasonless reason is, the later church is not to judge the former. if by the former church, you mean the ancient catholic church for the first 500 years, we maintain our reformed church to be the same: but if by the former church you mean the now roman catholic faith, as bristol and the rhemists deliver, bristol. mot. 12. in mark rhem in annot. in rom. 1 8. that the roman and catholic church be all one; then we reject and abhor that synagogue of satan, wherein ziim and limb, the ostrich and vulture and schritchowle do remain. and by many more degrees than papists prefer the pope before the emperor, we prefer the reformed churches, which do maintain the ancient, catholic, apostolic faith, reform from errors, superstitions, and heresies, stealing in by the degrees of time, and occasion, into the window of the church. mr leech. and what did i herein (good reader) but observe the prescription of antiquity in this behalf, contr. julian pelag. lib. 2. and namely that of s. augustine against the pelagian heretics; patres oportet ut populi christiani vestris novitatibus anteponant, eisque potius eligant adhaerere, quàm vobis? answer. nay what did you, but as pelagian himself did, magnify the nature of man, & so strengthen the arm of flesh, as if you would incite it, to rebel against heaven: and what did you otherwise then as heretics of all ages, who have stood so much upon authorities out of some authors falsely collected, that they will not be drawn, no not by scriptures, to the acknoweledgement of their errors? such s. austin observed the donatists to be. aug. contra donatist. quis autem nesciat sanctam scripturam canonicam tam veteris quam novi testamenti, etc. where in a large discourse, he manifesteth that the canon of scripture, is only so sure, that there ought to be no doubt or disputation thereof: but for fathers and ancient bishops, much might be reprehended therein. the cause that s. austin (in confuting the pelagians) did appoint the reading of the fathers to the people, was this, because the fathers formerly had delivered by strength of scripture, the contrary doctrine to that heresy. and yet that holy father, speaking of himself and all the ancients before him: neque enim debeo negare (saith he ad vincentium) sicut in ipsis maioribus, aug. ad vincentium. victorem. ita multa esse in tam multis opusculis meis quae possunt justo judicio culpari, that in him, nor in any other this is a prescription of antiquity, to rely only on fathers. mr leech. here d. airay distasting my refusal to stand unto the verdict of the reformed churches, questioned with me about the rule of my faith; i answered him briefly; contr. haeres. cap. 1. etc. see d. field pag. 239. that i wholly followed vincentius lyrinensis his direction; to wit, canonical scripture, and ecclesiastical tradition; the first being sensed by the second. answer. to refuse the judgement of the ruler, and to fly to a stranger, is punishable in policy: to condemn, and contemn your own mother church, and to stand to the judgement of a strange church, nay of a synagogue a stranger from the church, is culpable in divinity. it was a seasonable question, to ask the rule of your faith, when it was manifest you had forsaken the faith: & your answer was unsound, joining with canonical scripture, ecclesiastical tradition; these be two, & therefore not the rule but rules, whereas canon & regula must be but one, aq. lect. 1. in 1. tim. 6. aquinas on timothy affirming, that the doctrine of the prophets and apostles is called canonical, because it is the rule. traditions we renounce as unworthy to be joined with scripture, melch. can. lib. 3. c. because canus in this doth expressly teach that whatsoever the church of rome practiseth and hath not warrant from scripture, the same things and the practice of them she hath received by tradition: which popish traditions we abhor to supply scripture with, as knowing that the scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: and also affirm that the most certain rule of interpretation, is by comparing scripture with scripture. vincentius lerinensis is not for you: he alloweth nothing barely upon tradition. for by all the passages of his book he doth plainly teach, that no tradition is to be received, but that which is consonant unto scripture, such as s. austin delivereth, quod universa tenet ecclesia, lib. 4. contra don. cap. 23. such as the whole church hath, & doth hold, agreeing to the canon of the revealed word. and from famous d. field (that powerful hammer of all heretics that claim tenure in the church) you can produce nothing to help your cause, either in that page, or in his whole book. neither is tradition to sense or expound the scripture, as you say. this is your third interpreter: first, you appealed to the church; then, to the fathers; now, to traditions; the next appeal must be to the pope, or else you will be cashiered. mr leech. this rule he called popish, exclaiming against it as the very ground of popery, and superstition. whereupon i desired him (for my better instruction) to give a rule of faith more certain, & infallible than this, which be branded with such disgraceful imputation. answer. popish it is, without all gainsaying. for howsoever, we reject not all traditions: as first, d. field in his 4 book of the church. the number and names of the authors of canonical scripture; secondly, the chief heads of christian doctrine, as delivered in the creed of the apostles; thirdly, the religion purely collected out of scripture, delivered to succeeding ages; four, the continual practice of the primitive church, though not expressly commanded, but necessarily contained in scripture; and lastly, traditions of order, not of faith, such as are our canons and constitutions agreeing to the ancient, and grounded on s. paul's speech, let all things be done in order: i say, we reject not these, though waldensis in his time, complained, waldens'. tom 3. tit. 7. cap. 63. that the necessary traditions of the church were so confounded, that they could hardly be discerned from the rest. the points that we deny, be these: first, scripture needeth not the adjective help of traditions, it is a most sufficient rule, and containeth all things necessary to salvation; secondly, we abhor the comparison of these two, and much more the preferring of tradition before scripture, as hosius, baronius, symancha, and others profess: some affirming, hosius contr. petric. c. 92. baron. an. 33. nu. 11. sym. instit. tit. 24. n. 40. that all scripture came to us by tradition, therefore tradition more worth; others, that scripture needeth help from traditions, but traditions need no assistance from scripture. and therefore, if you desire to be taught the rule of faith, out of an humble, and a religious meaning, here you may learn it: it was a question worth his ask, a point worthy your learning. mr leech. why (said he) what other ground of faith, than the pure word of god? i demanded then; who shall interpret this word? he replied; the spirit. what spirit good sir? the spirit of god only which private men think they have? against which rule i except, for that it was the common plea of all condemned heretics. wherefore i required a trial of this pretended spirit; for i cannot admit that to be god his spirit in any private man, which consenteth not with the spirit of the catholic church. and thus you see m.d. airay that what you formerly rejected out of my rule, as popish, you must necessarily admit as true; that is: ecclesiastical tradition annexed to the sacred canon for the discerning of private spirits. otherways each heretic will sense scripture in the mould of his own brain. answer. that the word of god, is the ground of belief in god, sacred scripture itself proveth in manifold and pregnant places, as in the old testament, in the proverbs, prov. 2.9. they make a man understand righteousness, and judgement, and equity, and every good path; esay. 8.19.20. in esay, should not a people inquire at their god? at the law, and at the testimony? they that speak not according to this word, there is no light in them; by malachi, mal. 4.4. remember the law of moses which i commanded all israel with the statutes and judgements: in the new testament, in s. paul, 2. tim. 3.15. the scriptures are able to make a man wise unto salvation, through the faith which is in christ jesus; in s. peter, 2. pet. 1.19. we have a most sure word of the prophets whereunto we must give heed, as to a light that shineth in darkness, till the day star arise in our hearts; luc. 1.4. in s. luke, they contain the certainty of those things whereof we are instructed; and in s. john, joh. 5.39. these things are written, that ye might believe, that jesus is that christ, the son of god, and in believing ye might have eternal life, and by christ himself sealing this point, search the scriptures, for in them you have eternal life, and they are they which testify of me: but to this also the fathers with all reverence have agreed. basil. ep. 80. add eust. med. let the scriptures be arbitrators between us, saith basill, in his 80 epistle, and whosoever holds consonant opinions to those heavenly oracles, let the truth be adjudged on their side. we are to inquire for judges, saith optatus contra parmenianum; de coelo quaerendus est judex, optat. cont. parmen. l. 5. the judge must be had from heaven: but, saith he, wherefore need we to knock at heaven, when we have a judge, & wohm we find in the gospel? the scripture is the rule of faith, saith tertullian, contra hermogenem. tertull. count hermog. chrysost. in 13. homil. in 2. corinth. it is a most exquisite rule, saith chrysostome, in his 13 homily upon the second to the corinth's. it is an inflexible rule, greg. nyss. grati. de ijs qui adeunt hierosolyman. saith gregorius nyssenus. and s. austin, ample for this, in many places in his book de bono viduitatis, testifieth, that the scripture pitcheth down the rule of our faith. and not only the ancient fathers, but the schoolmen have succeeded in the same resolution. aquinas writeth expressly, aq 1. qu. 1. art. 8. that our faith must rest upon the canonical books of scripture. durand agreeth with this, durand. pref. in senten. that the manner of our knowledge exceed not the measure of faith, and the holy scripture expresseth the measure of faith. sum part 3. tit. 18. c. 3. nay, papists have acknowledged this. antoninus confesseth, that god hath spoken but once to us, and that in scripture, so plentifully, that, he voucheth, gregory in the 22 book of his morals, thus; god needeth to speak no more concerning any necessary matter, al. 1. sent. quaest. 1. art. 3 1. coral. seeing all things are found in scripture. alliaco consenteth to this, the verities of scripture be the principles of divinity, quoniam ad ipsas, saith he, fit ultima resolutio theologici discursus. bell de verbo dei. lib. 1. c. 2. in one word, bellarmin agreeth to all these testimonies, in his first book de verbo dei; sacra scriptura est regula credendi certissima, tutissima. this may serve to show you, that there is no other ground of faith then the word of god; scriptures, fathers, schoolmen, nay even our adversaries being witnesses, deut. 32.31. as moses speaketh. you demand, who shall interpret this word. it is replied, the spirit of god: which spirit the elect do know certainly that they have; not only think, as you traduce the speech of this reverend doctor, but they assure themselves that they have the spirit, and he that knoweth not this, ●. cor. 3.16. is ignorant, as paul teacheth by an interrogation, know ye not that ye are the temples of the holy ghost, and that the spirit of god dwelleth in you? but against this rule you except: for this was, you say, chrysos. prolog. in epist. ad rohan. 3. de lazar. the plea of all heretics. it is false. heretics and the devil did urge scripture: but these could never for want of god's spirit, compare scriptures together. the private spirit, even every private man, of himself (saith chrysostom) only by reading, may understand, yea need nothing else but to read, chrysos. hom 13. in gene●. by which he meaneth to confer one place of scripture with another. and the same father giveth the reason, scriptura seipsam exponit & auditorem errare non sinit: the scripture expoundeth itself, and suffereth not the hearer to be deceived. distinct. 37. relatum. so speaketh chrys. 13. hom. in genes. the canon law is most plain herein, non enim sensum extrinsecus alienum & extraneum, sed ex ipsis scriptures, sensum capere veritatis oportet: for we must not from without them, seek a foreign and strange sense; but we must out of the scriptures themselves, receive the meaning of the truth. and a cloud of witnesses do testify the same. wherefore it is no way necessary, that we ask help of tradition: which is, as i formerly spoke, the city of refuge for all runagate points in your religion. popish tradition in the church, sojourning only as the devil doth, to deceive; as a treacherous stranger, not to be acquainted with; or, as an infidel, not to be conversed with: and therefore d. airay taught you the truth, when you heretically thought you might mould the sense of scripture in the brain of the brazen head tradition. mr leech. and now m. d. airay being thus overthrown in the rule of his faith, proposed unto me a question of capital danger; wishing m. vicechancellor to question me upon the point of the king's supremacy; for surely (said he) you shall find him unsound therein. answer. the reverend, faithful, and laborious doctor, must possess his soul in patience, and receive his part of your improbable, and uncharitable interpretations, as well as others. his understanding, enlightened with the beams of divine truth, suffer not (as you slander) him to be overthrown in his rule of faith: his memorable free-will offerings in sabaoth exercises to turn many to righteousness, his worthy performance of all university exercises, his indefatigable studies, so great that a place of the most public charge did sue to him, to draw him from his chosen retiredness, his zeal, pain, faith, doctrine, manner of living, though he hold his mind unfeignedly below his place: yet these testify to the world, his worth to be far above his state. the reason that he proposed the point of supremacy to you, was this: in the course of the proceed, and speeches with you, he observed, that you had forsaken the reformed congregations of the church, the scriptures, the infallible rule of faith; and therefore, seeing your fidelity to god was so changed, it was fit time to observe how you were affected to the king's majesty, seeing the apostle joineth them together, fear god, honour the king; & you having neglected the first, the second was to be feared. the question of the supremacy in this kind, was the only touchstone, the shibboleh, to try an ephramit: jud. 12.6. for in every true subject there ought not to be more love in his heart, than liberty in his tongue; to profess the crown, and dignity, and supremacy, of that loadstone and gracious lodestar of hearts, the kings most royal majesty. this being not only an ancient canon. and a point confessed by bishops in this our land, in the reign of the most ancient kings, who resisted the usurpation of that man of blood, the pope: but (as in the beginning of many princes reigns, so revived) in the inauguration of our most peaceable, most wise, most religious solomon. canons and constitutions made 1603. canon. 1. when in the convocation, held by all the beaw-peeres of learning, the bishops and clergy, it was commanded, that all ecclesiastical persons of what degree soever, should maintain no obedience, or subjection, to be due, to any foreign power: but that the king's power within his realms of england, scotland, and ireland, and all other his dominions & countries, is the highest power under god, to whom all men as well inhabitants, as borne within the same, do by god's laws own most loyalty and obedience, afore and above all other powers and potentates in earth. if you give not god, what is due to god: no marvel you gave not cesar, what is due to cesar. a disease in the head, is the head of diseases: and rebellion against the head, doth manifest the infectious state of the whole body of your belief. and therefore it wisely was questioned concerning the supremacy. it was a question, guided by a religious intention, and grounded upon wise observation. mr leech. but m. vicechancellors thoughts carried him so far away at that present, that he gave no care unto this impertinent, & bloody question: but prosecuting the vindictive designment (formerly concluded upon betwixt d. aglionbee, and himself who held a secret conference together) he resumed his old accusations of false, erroneous, scandalous, and popish doctrine: for delivering, and reinforcing whereof, i deserved the severity of justice. answer. his vigilancy was not absent. had he been set on vengeance, as you shamefully accuse, now had been the time to be avenged: but now you see, notwithstanding all your reproaches and slanders of passion; the worthy vicechancellor limited his power, by his will; and this was a noble revenge, that he might hurt, and did not. there was no such conference between doctor aglionbee and him, as you report. but he did truly and worthily ingeminate and often repeat those terms, of erroneous, scandalous, and popish doctrine. mr leech. perceiving now their resolution to punish me without farther examination of my cause, or respect of my just defence, i finally proposed unto them these two demands. first; that they would proceed against me iuridically, & by way of articles; so i should know precisely what was the error, and falsehood of my doctrine; and they should receive my answer made in form of law. for this hath ever been the custom of proceeding in this university, and in god his church. answer. it was time, when you held right neither in point of scripture, of faith, of the church; or of the point in controversy: rejected their censure, neglected their judgement, and able to uphold yourself by no means but negatives. and therefore never continue this obstinate accusation, that they did not examine your cause or respect your defence. the cause was offered by disputation to be discussed, by lecture it was already confuted: defence you were able to make none, but what you brought in a schedule transcribed out of coccius. your first demand was senseless. was it not a juridical proceeding? to be called according to our university statute in that behalf: which is this, that for scandalous preaching the vicechancellor require the assistance of the doctor of the chair, whose incomparable & indefatigable pains hindering him, he desired to be spared at that time by the present approach of the act. d. holland. upon the absence of the reverend father of the chair, some other doctors of divinity are to be called, and there were five more in juridical manner appointed: here you were convented and censured, by the most absolute form of law. mr leech. hereunto m. vicechancellor replied. what? articles? you shall have articles time enough: mean while, i say that all (meaning my sermon) is false; scandalous, popish, erroneous, etc. answer. articles were not promised you: you accused yourself, and delivered your articles in your sermon; no mention, no promise, no expectation of any at this your conventing. you prevaricat by prescription and custom. the old monk almost blasphemously applied, sicut erat in principio: but i may say truly, beginning, middle, & ending, every page, section, & paragraph have matter faulty in faith, or false in fact. and among the rest, this article is to be preferred against you, for speaking of articles here, where there was no such request obtained by you, nor expectation of any, by promise from him. it was justified and ever will be till you recant, that your doctrine was false in opinion, scandalous for the occasion, popish for tradition, and erroneous for heretical innovation. mr leech. my second demand thereupon was; that he, and his associates would condescend unto this small request; to wit; i will here set down this affirmative proposition; sunt evangelica consilia; and subscribe unto it in your presence. may it please you also to set down the negative; non sunt evangelica consilia; and subscribe your several names thereunto; and signify therewithal, that you have punished me for teaching the contrary assertion. answer. your second demand, was out of all course of reason or sense. was it not known to all, that you were censured for preaching such evangelical counsels of perfection, whereby a man might do more than the law required, yea more than man need to have performed? was not your convention now, and inhibition before, & censure at last, sufficient witness to all the world what you delivered, why you were censured? etc. nay was not this, yea more than this, your request, offered you? viz. that you should, if you durst hold your position in the divinity chapel, in christ church, and in form of a respondent, answer; the vicechancellor promising to appoint five pairs of masters to oppose you, which you knew had easily been performed, in that honourable and fruitful college. this you refused, and thereby showed, that you had not an original state, but a traditional insight in this question. this you durst not, and therefore you required the subscription, to make way to some threatening opposition. that, as the poet speaketh, pede pes, & cuspide cuspis: so now you hoped there might have been another kind of digladiation; pen against pen, and hands against hands, which you never could have obtained. mr leech. this request, d. king not only denied, but also exclaimed against me for making this petition. and no marvel; for he that durst never, throughout this whole proceeding, formally, and by express mention, condemn evangelical counsels; how could he yield unto any such subscription? whereby he and the rest might have remained heretics upon their own record. answer. you neglected the reverence you did owe to his government, and detected the wilful weakness of your own judgement to require it. no such course usual in any juridical proceed. and for your vile slander, that the vicechancelour durst not condemn evangelical counsels: it is impudent. he did in the proceed, often rebuke, and confute your manner of handling that point, not denying but that a nominal distinction of counsels was sometimes used, but he expressly condemned such counsels as you preached, being of another kind, then s. austin delivereth with the rest of the fathers, and wickliff, whom you urge: who all maintain each counsel to be a command for some time and some circumstance. which sentence and judgement how you oppugned in your sermons, may be seen: where, till you recant, you remain an heretic upon your own record. i use your own words. mr leech. the conclusion of all was this, m. vicechancellor beating me down with the blow of authority (having no other means to convince me) pronounced his definitive sentence against me; which i will here relate word for word, as near as i could possibly bear it away. answer. you were beaten down (as you truly say) by authority but more than by, human by divine. you were driven by scripture to refuse scripture to be your judge; beaten by the censure of the church, that you deny to be censured by the church; convicted for stubborn impudence, for preaching that doctrine which was inhibited you, when you were countermanded it. you were convinced for ignorance, in that you produced witnesses that you knew not, and urged greek fathers that you read not. and this conviction was not only by the blow of authority: but by such a blow from heaven, as paul in the acts was strooken; scripture, church, fathers, acts. 9 and all arguments of power did agree to this dejection of you and your cause, and to the censure that ensueth. mr leech. m. leech; for preaching scandalous, and erroneous doctrine (doctrine, as you well know, stiffly defended by the church of rome, and whereupon many absurdities do follow) i do first as vicechancellor silence you from preaching. secondly; as deane of this house, i suspend you from your commons and function here for the space of twelve months. this is my sentence; and before these my associates i require you to take notice thereof. answer. here is the act, the manner of the act, the reason of the act, or censure. the sentence was deliberate, and guided with ripe wisdom; & the hand of justice in him, was slower than the tongue. for besides your heresy in the delivery, there was contumacy in you for presuming so to preach forbidden by authority: and yet was this censure easy, by many wished to be more, by all marveled at, that it was no more. for as the times increase in danger: so the rigour should increase in discipline. but the manner of this censure was mild: it passed no farther than loss of commons for a time, this was within the walls of the college; and silence for preaching within the precincts of oxford, and this within the limits of the university. this was no ejection, expulsion, out of college and university. it had been worse by infinite degrees, had you been sent to london. and the reason of all this, was first intimated, for your scandalous, erroneous doctrine, a doctrine stiffly defended by the church of rome, inducing many absurdities. i will use an honourable speech of that most noble counsellor at the arraignment of garnet, earl of northampton. fit to be bestowed upon you; currat lex, vivat rex, vincat veritas. the marginal scurrile note, which you borrowed from some more witty, but as wicked pate as your own; i could return as a dart to your very soul: but i forbear, because all reproach and contumelies against this worthy, do break themselves, as waves shattered in pieces by the force of a rock. mr leech. which sentence though it were tyrannical and unjust, yet it no ways discouraged me, but rather confirmed me in my opinion. wherefore i protested the doctrine again more resolutely, then before; wishing m. vicechancellor, and his assistants to understand thus much from me. first: that i held the doctrine with as much, nay more confidence than ever i did. secondly: that i farther concluded the invincibility of the point out of the manner of their proceed, whereat they were driven into the extremity of fury, and passion. answer. this was a great degree of the hardness of your heart, and it is manifest that you apprehended this, as a pretence of your revolt. the vicechancelour was urged, to this doom; which, as it was impartial, so was it no way tyrannical: had it been any other, it had been merciful injustice. you should have acknowledged the truth's victory, & given some sign of humility, modesty, and reverence to authority. you say, you were hereby confirmed. confirmed you were in your flight; not in your faith. and in your boast, that you so again protested the doctrine, if it had been so, you showed more boldness than goodness, and the truth had lost less than you gained: but it was not so, you did not, you durst not contest, so umbragiously, as you protest here. my observation through your whole book, holdeth true: where you brag most, you feign most; & where you paint your speech, there it is most corrupted and falsified. mr leech. thus the assembly was dissolved, & i, putting m. vicechancellor in mind of the articles (which he formerly promised, and bade me now to expect within two, or three days) took my leave for that time. answer. what prostituted conscience would so persevere in falsity? this must not pass unconfronted. articles were not promised you. it is more than improbable, that such experienced discretion, and expert resolution, should first condemn and sentence, and after give the reason. it is neither the custom, nor commendation of juridical proceed. his wisdom prevented you in this scandal, and told you before many, that you most falsely did belly him: all may perceive your spiting spleen, to break out in revenge: which revenge that you seek to wreak upon others, will without repentance prove vengeance to yourself. mr leech. and now (courteous reader) since thou hast seen the proceed of these men, consider with me, whether i have not just cause to complain against them as s. augustine complained long before against the donatistical faction, fecerunt quod volverunt tunc in illâ caecitate▪ non judices sederunt, non sacerdotes de more, quod solent in magnis causis congregati judicare: non accusator, & reus steterunt in quaestione, non testes, & documentum: quo possent crimen probare. sed furor, dolus, tumultus: qui regnant in falsitate. wherefore i conclude this whole passage with the burden of that excellent psalm: omnes qui gaudetis de pace, modò verum judicate. answer. consider christian reader, & duly ponderat, whether a malignant adversary, or a repugnant controversiary, may more truly be portrayed, than these antecedent proceed of m. leech, have most lively deciphered. malice hath strengthened error, error begot heresy, and this last brought forth apostasy. the virulence of speech is much, in the former chapters; prologue. ad. 1. sentent. the accusation in this paragraph, is the sum of all. lombard well noteth that in such cases, fidei defectionem sequitur hypocrisis mendax. and, i fear me, this will prove a remaining disease in the bowels, not only of this triumphant pamphlet, but of any thing that shall come from the same author. it is absurd you should so unfitly and rudely apply s. augustine's verses. fury, deceit, and tumult, are the upholders only of heretics. and as good physic misapplied, is but poison: so good authorities misused, though they keep the sense, yet lose their reason. to your verses so rudely applied, in prose we return s. chrysostome his speech upon genesis; chrysost. in gen. hom. 5. quocirca divinae scripturae vestigia sequamur, neque feramus eos qui temerè quidvis blaterant: and this shall be the resolution of us, to follow the steps of holy scripture, and not to endure those that rashly babble every thing. and if this prose serve not, we return part of the same psalm of austin contra partem donati, sacerdotes transmarini possent inde judicare? quid curritis ad schisma, & altar contra altar? quod postea iudicatum est, iam non possetis audire, et à judicibus vestris cogeremini appellare, dum vultis erroris regnum quoquo modo confirmare. you may abuse and accuse your judges, seeing like to the donatists, you appeal from them. the clause and aphorism of the song of s. austin we receive, and honour: our saviour is the prince of peace, our gospel the gospel of peace, we are the children of peace, and the end of our belief is the peace of god that passeth all understanding. chap. 4. mr leech. when s. paul had appealed unto the tribunal of caesar: festus (the deputy) thought it an unreasonable thing to send a prisoner unto his lord, and not to signify the cause. for thus the light of nature could teach an heathen, that, in discretion, and in justice no man should be called into question, without a pretence (at the least) of some special crime. but see now a christian magistrate inferior unto an heathen in this behalf: who did not only convent, but condemn me: and never signified the cause: which yet could be none other, 1. cor. 7.25. then that which concerned s. paul himself: consilium do etc. answer. to whom appealed you? whether were you sent prisoner? an idle and dull comparison. and (to use your own words) if but the light of nature, had taught you any thing: your comparison had not been so rude, nor your senses so dulled, as not to remember what was objected, not as a pretence, but as a general scandal, offered, not only against authority, and the university, but against the law, and the truth of god. for which, you were often convented, threatened, inhibited, & now censured. was not the cause signified by doctor hutton, by the vicechancellor in your censure, and by all that were assistants? and dare you say the cause was never signified? was it so: and do you deny it? do you deny it in one line, & in the next say it could be no other than that, which concerned s. paul himself, consilium doo: whereas, it is manifest s. paul hath not the word consilium? by this you confess the cause of the censure, though we deny that ever s. paul was the cause of your doctrine. mr leech. howbeit, if he had dealt with me according to the law spark of sin: he would answer him, as he answereth you, avoid satan; i will worship the lord my god, i abhor the name of perjury, i will never swear, but in truth and judgement and justice. and for that which followeth in this poisonful paragraph: i say that which s. jerome in the like case counseleth, jerom. prol. super mat. if shemei bark and snarl at thee: contumelious words are to be regarded only as the barking of dogs. and i end this with the speech of seneca; men speak evil of him, but evil men. if marcus cato if wise lelius, if scipio should so speak, it would grieve him: but when professed slanderers, branded with the indelible mark of falsehood, and pursued with the fury of fear, taught by error, tempted by satan, replenished with unrighteousness and maliciousness; let it no way grieve goodness itself. mr leech. when i perceived what small conscience he made either of faith in his promise, or of equity in his proceed, i desired him with many earnest obtestations, that it would please him, at the least, to signify unto me now by word of mouth, expressly what that point is, for which he had thus punished me to my disgrace, and loss. and this favour i humbly requested at his hands as much for the general, as my own particular satisfaction. for many saw the punishment, but could not know the cause. answer. is there extant in the world's greatest volume of history, example of such dullness, and senseless apprehension, that when the cause had been ingeminated, yea tergeminated, so often mentioned, yea so often exprobrated and censured: that yet you should plead, that you knew not the cause? and that without fear of god, or care of truth, you did so importunately crave for occasion of public advantage: which, as oft as you desired, so oft you received the resolute repulse? you pretended the general and particular satisfaction only, as a pretext: for who heard your sermon, that desired not censure against your opinion? mr leech. this petition was reinforced in my name by a grave, and ancient m. of arts; who pleaded to obtain the same in regard of justice, wisdom, and charity. justice; see act. 25.16. ut accusatus locum defendendi accipiat ad abluenda crimina quae ci obijciuntur. because (said he) it was the form of law, that the party accused should answer articulately unto the crime objected. wisdom; that you may deliver yourself from the suspicion of injury; and especially since the whole university is much distracted upon these late proceed. charity; that you may rectify m. leech his understanding by a proper conviction of his supposed error: to punish without, instruction, it is tyranny. sallust. and i dare promise in his behalf, that if you can convince his judgement, he will recant the doctrine; for i have heard him often protest thus much. these reasons, and persuasions of my friend, entered so deeply into m. doctor king's heart for the present, that he promised to convent me again, and that he would proceed with me according to my desire herein. notwithstanding he violated this promise also to his exceeding great disreputation. answer. the grave and ancient m. of arts, though able to speak very elegantly, yet not very willing in so bad a cause: protesteth he used no such terms as you do by attorney here utter. his honest care was such, that first he sought to remove your opinion, before he made means for your pardon: which motion of his to you, as he testifieth, took so good effect, that he found you willing to acknowledge the offence, till some nocturnus ambulo, diurnus nebulo, some romish fugitive altered you, who is not only suspected, but known to have dealt with you here, in this business. by this your grave and learned advocate, the vicechancelour was moved only as deane of christ-church, to vouchsafe you the benefit of your commons. this, conditionally he promised: for no man is more mild to a relenting vanquished adversary. but for promise of second convention, the reverend deane, and your loving and learned friend do both disclaim any speech of it. upon your and his importunacy, you were promised one to confer and dispute with you, if you would. but first the condition was to be performed, namely, that as you had offended in disobedience to authority, contrary to d huttons inhibition presuming to preach: so you should come first to acknowledge this, and after you should be conferred with. but this conference you accepted not, fearing it would prove a disputation, as knowing the much difference between dicere, and disserere. your opinion you knew was but chemical, & durst not abide the touchstone of argument. it is shameless therefore to urge any promise of another convention, your conviction being past; and graceless to accuse the vicechancelour for violating such a promise, which he never mentioned, and which your friend never moved. conscientia cauterizata, having lost spiritual feeling, cannot be more hardened, than i fear me you are. a bramble having no reputation, would set on fire a cedar's estimation. mr leech. but i come now unto his answer, which he made unto my former humble petition. sir. (said he) it shall satisfy you, and the university, that i have done it; take your remedy, where you can. if i have wronged you here, right yourself elsewhere. this was spoken like a king indeed; and not like a subject; who though he be a magistrate over others yet should be subordinate unto a common law, and lord. and happy are those governments, where the wise sentence of an heathen poet is not neglected. quicquid à vobis minor extimescit, horat. major hoc vobis dominus minatur. this was my last refuge, and final hope; but how far i was deceived in my just expectation, the sequel shall declare. answer. as your petition was most unreasonable, so also the time was unseasonable, the reverend vicechancelour at that time being negotiated, with the particular occasions & presence of very many. upon your preposterous coming to him, and vehemently desiring not so much as formerly you did, but that you might answer at another place; his wisdom did as earnestly wish it, as you did impetuously and intempestiously move it: not only because he knew his proceed to be justifiable, but that by this, the light of his judgement against you, might the more appear by the darkness of your understanding, and apprehension, that had followed so bad a cause, with so incessant suit. the resolute answer, gave you leave, and encouragement, if you had had any such intent, your scorn, this was spoke like a king indeed, calleth to mind not only what a resolute champion of truth doth testify for this worthy against parsons, d. morton, deane of winchester. encounter. who venteth his choler adust upon the name of doctor king; where parsons is answered, that he considered not the admirable, and indeed kingly worthiness of this our doctor: and to this i may add the title that majesty itself hath bestowed upon him, entitling him, the king of preachers. and though he be a magistrate over others, yet no one more considerate of his awful observance to those above him, or of his respectful care of those below him. and this may be his crown and garland, that he hath ever so confined himself within the circle of justice, that his ears never heard any accusation against his government but yours, which is as hateful as shameful. all hearts else, have both the affections, of love, & fear, so sweetly conjoined, that there is as much joy in us, that we live under such a governor, as in such a place. your verses quoted out of horace, but not found there, are in seneca his thyestes. and i requite them with horace, seeing you quote him, who prophesied of you; hor. de art. poetic. non missura cutem nisi plena cruoris hyrudo. chap. 5. mr leech. being now silenced by the vicechancellor from preaching within the precincts of the university, so that i could not exercise my function neither in the public audience of the learned, nor yet in any of the parish churches (which i had usually visited, by course, every sabbath, and holy day; unless some special occasion diverted me from my customable practice) i received letters from the lord bishop of london (my very honourable, and much respected friend; whom it pleased freely to bestow that place upon me, in regard of my first sermon preached in oxford, from which his successor had now suspended me for the last) wherein his lordship required me to preach at s. paul's cross, and not to fail at the time prefixed in his summons. whereupon i prepared myself accordingly, and certified his lordship thereof, as he had enjoined me in his said letters. answer. many offend as much in obtruding themselves, as others in retiring, & especially when their doctrine is unsound. in this is your condemnation (rather, then commendation) more, that you acted the best part, with so bad a mind; seminare zizaniam, as the old seminary satan, had done long before. you were silenced not for assiduous, but erroneous preaching: and being desirous to utter some such point in a more eminent place, (though wise men hold our university sermons to be as solemn, and more censorious than any other in the land,) you by great means obtained letters from some chaplain, to be sent for to preach a vacation sermon; the common course of which letters was, that they pass in name of the bishop, who often knoweth not the men, or their worth. i must confess that the right reverend bishop, the angel of that church, did know your person, and your no worth, and had bestowed upon you a chaplains place by the earnest suit of some of reverend & eminent place, in oxford, but not for your first sermon as you arrogate. his lordship did not request you at all, nor enjoin you, not to fail your summons, as you boast. they be the cursary terms of every of those missive letters. mr leech. the vicechancellor, getting notice of these summons sent for me immediately, and requested that he might have a view of the bishop's letters; which, in courtesy, i then communicated unto him, howbeit i had just reason to suspect (for his countenance expressed much perturbation in his heart) that he would plot some means to hinder this designment. and as (in all probability) he did conjecture that i would have constantly assevered my former doctrine in the greatest audience of the kingdom, so i must acknowledge that this was my resolved determination. answer. the reverend bishop most earnestly required the vicechancellor to call for those letters, and the first notice that he had, was from the bishops own mouth, whereby it is manifest that his lordship sent no such letters, nor knew of them at first: for he was so earnest with his worthy successor, that in a zealous vehemency, he desired, that upon his coming home to christ-church you might be expelled, grieving he had been a means to give any encouragement to any so stubborn, disobedient, & ignorant. the letters being demanded by the bishop, it was not courtesy (as you call it) but duty, to communicate, or rather to render up those letters? there was no perturbation expressed by the faithfully zealous & (in this) wisely jealous goveror, he only grieved that such a shame was like (by your scandal) to be imputed to oxford? howsoever, what he did in this, was by the direction, yea & obsecration of that reverend bishop of london. and durst you intent again, to presune to appear, i say not in the face of men, but in the sight of god, to deliver a doctrine, so confuted, so condemned, & for preaching of which you were twice inhibited, censured, silenced? this determination (as you call it) came not from god, no motion of his spirit. but the truth is this, how ever you brag here, you avowed with all earnestness and the most eager protestations & imprecations against yourself, that if you might be suffered this time to preach at the cross, you would neither preach this, nor any point of controversy. mr leech. but master d. king fearing least with so public a promulgation of this truth, i should also blazon his shame (which now neither oxford, nor london, nor our divided world itself shall contain within her limits) handled the matter so by his policy, and authority, that my lord of london (through his misinforming suggestions) countermanded the former by second letters; discharging me from the performance of that duty. and now master vicechancellor thought that he had not only inconvenienced me, but also secured himself. answer. had the ink that wrote this, been mixed with the poison of spiders, it could not have been more venomous, than this is malicious. i grieve to think how little in this book doth savour of a minister, nay of a christian. what son of zerviah can utter more reproachful, & shameful speeches? and what ropes can be used to draw down more speedy vengeance upon your head, than these false accusations against him, that is true of heart? he to fear his shame, whose conscience is murus ahaeneus? he receive any disparagement, from the mouth of any railer, that by reviling of the most bright fixed stars in the firmament of our church, hath manifested an infallible demonstration of his degenerous and degenerate mind? shall not oxford, and london, or the divided world, only contain the promulgation of this? i will not injure scripture, but i hope i may safely apply that speech of christ to the woman: and therefore, to counterblast your unsavoury breath, i say, wheresoever the gospel shall be preached, mention shall be made of him, no way but in honour, for the clearness of judgement, sweetness of style, gravity of person, grace of conversation, and true hearted soundness in religion; let them all, backbiting dogs, spit out livor, & liver, and heart, and all. for what erasmus spoke of prudentius, shall be true of him, ibis quovis seculo inter doctos prudenti. there was no suggestion used by the vicechancelour against you: it was the bishops own motion, and earnest impetrature, who also in his second letters manifested his reasons of disliking, and disabling you for that service. mr leech. for this end, and purpose also he repaired then unto a doctor of principal place, and eminent worth (a man not under any; if not over all) with whom he entertained long discourse touching the doctrine of evangelical counsels; complaining that in oxford, it had been lately broached, and obstinately defended. and now, i pray you, good sir (said he) what is your opinion concerning this point? answer. to this reverend deane, he was with many other doctors, invited to dinner: he repaired not to him as to a counsellor in this business as you falsely inform. the worth and eminency of this oracle of textual & school divinity, is acknowledged with reverence: but from his own mouth i have received it, that he protesteth against you in this imputation, absolutely denying that the vicechancellor ever asked counsel or opinion of him. only among many other discourses at table, this question was repeated, but not debated. besides this false imputation here, it is confessed by you that you obstinately defended the point, and obstinacy is offensive whatsoever the defence be. mr leech. here by the way, give me leave (good reader) to propose two things unto thy discreet consideration. first; that d. king either had no knowledge at all, or not well grounded in that point, wherein he condemned me by violence of authority, and not by force of reason. secondly; that as i suffered with a good conscience, so he punished me with an evil. for i had not the least scruple, nor diffidence in this point. all testimonies, divine, human; of god, and of his church, did firmly establish me therein. and therefore, though i conferred with many learned men upon the same, yet i never demanded of any man, by way of doubt; sir. what is your opinion etc. but, i always said; this is the doctrine of all the fathers; this is the judgement of the whole church; it is founded upon sacred scripture etc. will you stand to it, or will you disclaim it? whereupon i commonly received this answer; the doctrine is true in itself, though not seasonable for these times. but master d. king having not any such certainty of infallible grounds, could not but fluctuate in the instability of his private judgement. answer. which two proposed considerations be both false. how can any indifferent reader look upon your lines with any other entertainment but contempt. first you accuse doctor king to want well grounded knowledge whom your conscience knoweth to be profound, ready, and resolute: in all faculties, in all studies, in all learning: was not the force of reason used, as the means to convert you, when a solemn lecture was read upon the point, was not the tenent of our church showed you, were not disputations many times offered you, and did not the doctors that assisted at the convention of you, catechize you, so far, as they found you not able to answer what the church was, what faith was, what the rule and canon was, &c: was this violence of authority or force of reason. violence did not appear in authority against you, never was wild fire so quietly quenched, nor open mouthed adversary so favourably handled, so movingly incited, or so fully confuted. your secondly is twin with the former, only the limbs be greater. did he punish you with an evil conscience, & you suffered with a good? or you suffered with an evil, and he censured you with a good? you say you had not the least scruple of diffidence or distrust in this point. doubting in some causes is commendable, it is the means to sift, and fan, & try the wheat of truth, from the chaff of error. what mist had veiled and enveloped that eye sight that saw not the monstrous absurdities of this point? but (you say) all testimonies are for you; divine, human, etc. your testimonies have been perused, and in them there is nothing worthy to command affection, or belief, god and his church i am sure, certitudine fidei, be against you: and this i am established in, that god's law is not wanting, nor imperfect, craveth not the assistance and support of counsels; god useth not second editions with supplements, he hath set forth no other deuteronomy. in your conference with many, i believe you traduce many: for i know that some that you had personal, though not doctrinal favour from, do for ever disclaim any honest thought of you. were any common measure of hatred fit for a revolter, i should have hoped that you would forbear your slanders against many: but your heat and hate do both conspire to make them subject to interpretation, who are most opposite to your opinion. i dare pronounce it, that no one of judgement learning, & sound religion, did give you that answer, that here you deliver. i have been bold to inquire of your questions with some of very worthy respect, and they disclaim the countenance, and mainetenance of your opinion: & you know, you were so repressed from preaching this doctrine, that while a reverend and learned doctor, of public respect and place in the church, and private government in the university, remained here, you durst not deliver this; but in the time of his attendance and absence in convocation business, than you began to settle yourself, & unsettle truth. traduce none, nor gull the world, as if any affirmed your doctrine to be true. all the learned in the world can not make sense of that which you by your written copy delivered: where your literal meaning is often so poor, that it can reach no sense; and your mystical so transcendent, that no sense can reach it. truth is seasonable at all times, and only enemies of truth will at any time suppress it. falsify no man's speech. this slander cometh from no good spirit. the well rooted resolution of the vicechancelour, anchored him, his grounds had certainty, & (if scripture contain it) he had truth, & infallibility; his judgement was not private, his certainty did not fluctuate. jude. 11. 2. pet. 2.17. s. jude doth attribute this to apostates, and s. peter describeth them to be clouds without water, carried about with a tempest, to whom the blackness of darkness is reserved for ever. mr leech. to return now unto the conference of m. vicechancellor with the aforesaid doctor; he received a cold satisfaction unto his hot demand. for the doctor, wondering that any difficulty should be made in this matter, answered presently without any demur; there are evangelical counsels; and no doubt can be made thereof. and what was (think you) doctor kings reply unto this grave, and confident assertion? did he dispute against it? no; he could not. did he gainsay it? no; he durst not. thus the renowned pulpit-doctor, that could domineer over his poor inferior, censure him, deprave him, vilify him with intolerable reproaches (such as he feared not to utter, but i am ashamed to mention) stood mute; not daring to disclose his opinion, which he could not justify by any weight of reason. answer. to return to your most untrue relation. as before, so again i answer, that the vicechancelour did not doubt of the doctrine, he manifested no haesitation, he sought no satisfaction. the discourse was at dinner, where neither argument was urged, nor any suffrage of judgement required: the allowance of the distinction being granted by this reverend deane, what followeth thereupon? dare you conclude therefore, that your doctrine was true. the other sister and famous university, hath had much experience of his rare dexterity in cleared the obscure subtleties of the school, and easy explication of the most perplex discourses: and not only he, but others have granted such a distinction, for distinctions be but intentions, they are signarerum, non res signatae: many grant counsels, that do as much hate your opinion, as you hate our religion. and how different from your tenent this learned doctor is, doth appear in the sequel of this chapter: but first to your interrogation, or rather your imaginary supposition. the vicechancelour needed not to dispute it, nor meant to gainsay it. for howsoever properly there be no evangelical counsels & so he doth and ever did maintain, yet he never denied such a distinction, reprehending the consequents, & positions you grounded thereupon, rather than the name of counsels. in scorn you call him the renowned pulpit doctor a title generally & worthily bestowed upon him, for who ever saw him without reverence, or hard him without wonder. yet you heap so many obloquys upon him, that i marvel your soul doth not break with the burden. did he domineer over you? whose care did pity you, and if in any thing he be partial it is to his enemy. did he vilify you, who received many slanders, many scandals, nay many bitter imprecations (o bloody) against him and his. and yet hated to pay these private wrongs with the advantage of his public office. was he mute, who was as able and resolute in the point as any whatsoever? if you suffer your lawless tongue, to walk through the dangerous paths, of such false conceited suppositions: each ear will be weary of you, & you at length weary of yourself. mr leech. now, if doctor king will stand in denial hereof, or any other be in doubt of my report, i protest in the faith of a catholic man, that i writ this from the immediate relation of the doctor himself, unto whom i was led by the conduct of my good angel. farther; i am so well persuaded of his resolute judgement, and honest heart, that i dare boldly say; doctor king shall never be able to procure his subscription against this doctrine. answer. i will not bandy oaths with you: but in the religion and faith and truth of a christian, i do protest, that from the immediate, and proper, personal speech, and mouth of this monument of learning, i received these circumstances following, to satisfy all that see how you traduce him. you came to inquire his opinion concerning the point (as you falsely traduced d. king, in the former paragraphs) and received this answer; the distinction of counsels may be used, so that hence, merit, perfection, or supererogation be not taught, for this is erroneous & popish. to which answer you replied, that the fathers were absolute for that point. his wisdom sounding the depth of you, and finding that your collection of the fathers, was but at the second hand, blamed you much, showing how herein any may be seduced: and further told you plainly, how worthy you were of censure, and how unworthy to deal in controversy, that so impudently would assume authorities out of bellarmin, or any other papist. with these and other such goads, (as solomon calleth the words of the wise, eccl. 11.11. ) you were pricked, that you departed much discontented, because all his words tended to condemn your judgement, yielding no jot of encouragement, as here you brag. and howsoever there needeth not so great means to convince your ignorant impudence, as to seek subscription from any, for that which god himself hath subscribed: yet i return your own words, i am not only persuaded, but i am sure (such is the riches of his learning) he is in argument so powerful, in knowledge so plentiful, in truth so faithful, that he denieth, defieth the least maintenance of the point, and that all the means of the world shall not obtain approbation from him of those popish doctrines, and consequences, that you preached. and this you might have observed by his speech. but the deaf adder will not here, charm the charmer never so wisely. chap. 6. mr leech. as i always had comfort in my wrongs, because i suffered for righteousness sake; so i conceived good hope, that the superior magistrate would rectify the proceed of his inferior. wherefore, being oppressed with the injuries of the vicechancellor, i appealed unto the archbishop; thinking that his house had been as jerusalem, when justice and judgement were lodged therein. being admitted into his grace's presence, i unfolded the whole process of this business; acquainting him first, with the doctrine, which i had preached. secondly, with the grounds, and reasons whereupon i built the same. thirdly; with the entertainment, which it, and i for it, had found within the university of oxford. answer. persecution for righteousness sake is pronounced blessed, but neither were you persecuted, nor your cause righteous. your appeal was needless & causeless, your offence being censured not by rigour, but favour of the proceed. you fled from the vicechancellor to the chancellor, but the higher the worse like phaeton here you burnt your wings, and received your fall. the asylum of justice and judgement, you found in the archbishop's house: but you injure all you deal with. your admittance was an appearance, and at your declaration what circumstances passed, (all tending to your disgrace) i omit. in your third, you confessed, how general the mislike of this doctrine was in oxford. mr leech. the main sum of his answer consisted in these two particulars. first; that he must defend the estimation of his vicechancellor, of whom a good opinion was generally conceived. secondly; that the text of s. math. (commonly alleged for that purpose) doth not afford the doctrine of evangelical counsels. 19 21. vade, vend omnia etc. and here his grace (falling into calvins' false, and absurd exposition) said, that our saviour doth not here give any counsel of poverty, but only dismasked the hypocrisy of the young man, being a proud, boasting pharisee etc. answer. first, that it is the care of superior magistrates, to defend the estimation of their deputies, piety in many causes, and policy in all doth command: but then especially, when the eye of the world doth behold the integrity and dignity of the governor. secondly, it was not only calvins' exposition, that this young man did mask under a vail of hypocrisy: but as i formerly showed, hilary, hierom ambrose, austin, theophylact, and beda, do all concur in this opinion, and therefore the epithets of false and absurd belong not to calvins' interpretation. mr leech. my whole reply was, that as i sought not the impeachment of his vicechancellors credit, farther than he had wronged it himself by his indirect proceed, so, if i could not make my accusations good against him, i would be content to sustain my former punishment, with a greater augmentation. answer. how you sought the impeachment of the vicechancellors credit, and how many breaches you sought to make, for invasion into the general & honourable reputation of him, the former passages do testify. your accusations, what, how many, and how faulty they were, i have examined: but had you been so observant as you profess, your journey had been spared, and the business ended at oxford, where your doctrine had been brought to the touch, and test, and balance, by disputation. mr leech. as for the text of s. matth. i expounded it by saint mark: who saith that christ beholding the young man, loved him; which love of christ did clear him from all suspicion of hypocrisy, and dissimulation. besides; i humbly entreated his grace to remit himself, and me, unto the general consent of antiquity in this matter. answer. the text of s. matthew, compared with s. mark do both join to afford that interpretation, which is proved true in my answer to your sermon, pag. 176. that christ loved that which he saw good in him, and yet did descry the covetousness of him. and for your request to his grace to remit you to antiquity: compare jerom, and austin, theophylact, etc. with basill, and chrysostom, and euthymius, & you will prove the truth of this, that as christ did look upon him and loved him, thereby to excite him, & to cherish the good, so also he did unmask him in that covetousness, which hypocritically lay hid, thereby to cure and remove the ill. mr leech. here doctor barlow interposed his verdict: whom if i had known aswell by his face, as i knew him by his sermon, i had then appeached as a man of little honesty, or conscience: pag. fourth before the end. because he (in a sermon preached before his majesty at hampton court, concerning the authority of bishops) doth justify the distinction betwixt precepts, and counsels; citing a text of s. paul to that effect; 1. cor. 7.25. & yet now, seeing his grace of canterbury disaffected towards this doctrine, he also spoke against it. and thus it pleased d. shaw (who proclaimed the earl of essex his cales triumph, and his london ruin) to cross himself with a flat contradiction, rather than to dissent from his assertion, by whose favour he had mounted into the chair of honour. answer. this reverend prelate did interpose, both because of your brag of antiquity, (in which he observed your insufficiency) as also, that you did seek to besmear the credit of the vicechancelour: for both which, his lordship did powerfully reprove you, and so puzzle you, that as a man amazed you were able to reply nothing. the distinction used in the sermon, i have answered, page 191. where how far the meaning of the words be from strengthening of your assertion, may be seen. your intolerable impudence in scornful manner, to cast the by name of that popish priest shaw, upon this honourable bishop, is to be repaid you in another world. and therefore i forbear to defile this paper with such terms as you deserve. what was done, was commanded by the state, into the depth of whose actions, your shallowness cannot look: and if charity and truth had observed that sermon, as well as spite and misprision, it had appeared to all, how great a share in the general sorrow, this worthy preacher and prelate had, lamenting the death of that peerless & renowned earl, acknowledging that a great prince was fallen that day in israel. mr leech. many occurrences there passed at that time; with the recapitulation whereof i will not now surcharge this little treatise. in conclusion; my lord of canterbury demanded a copy of my sermon; which i delivered unto master barkham (one of his chaplains) together with the authorities, which do hereafter ensue. in the end of all. the sermon was received, the authorities were returned unto me again: which made me think, that my cause should never come unto an indifferent trial. and truly i saw no probability of any trial. for though i gave continual attendance at lambeth, for the space of fifteen, or sixteen days, yet i was fed with delays, to my just grief and great expense. answer. all occurrences tended to your reproof, confutation and condemnation of your carriage in your sermon and convention. the authorities were returned you, because it was known, whence they were had, as also how great your crack and how little your knowledge was in the true use & reading of the fathers. trial you needed not to expect farther; so weakly you were able to defend yourself at your first appearance before his grace, that (with desire) you could not expect a second. your attendance at lambeth was needless, you had your answer at the first. the proceed in oxford were justified, your doctrine condemned, and your censure continued. mr leech. wherefore, seeing no hope of redress, where it lastly remained, and was justly expected, i retired myself unto some privateness; recollecting my thoughts in meditation betwixt god, and my own soul. and now, in the sweetness of contemplation, having god only for the object of my comfort, i took an intellectual review of my cause, and all circumstances of the forepassed business; commending the whole unto god, the great and sovereign judge. for i had now resolved to be no farther troublesome unto his grace of canterbury, who had so little respect of truth, and no greater compassion of my wrongs. answer. what hope to be expected, when contumacy so remained, as an inseparable quality in you? neither the inhibition, convention, censure in oxford; nor here the dislike, opposition, contradiction, and detestation of your wilful deportment both in action and opinion privacy, is then happy, when men be free as well from vices and discontentments, as from tumults: but other wise the tempter hath no fit apprehensive opportunity, than retiredness. the world knew you, but did not want you: and had you continued your contemplative privacy here, you had done better then in your active monastical poverty where you be. your retiredness had wrought your happiness, if you had duly, as in the sight and fear of god, considered all circumstances belonging to the cause, the weakness and wilfulness of your assertion, and especially how in all the particular passages you found god still opposite to you. you commend that business to god, that hath had so much dispraise before men: but how dare you commend that cause which doth so much derogate from the law, and truth of god? dare you offer a blind sacrifice without the eye of truths direction; or an oblation without salt, the seasoning of religious discretion? the apostles and martyrs, though their defence were good, did show reverence to heathen judges when they appeared before them: but you manifest all contempt, contumacy, calumny, and uncivility before christian governors, though your cause be most faulty. and because god (to whom you say you commended your cause) hath not redressed it, you fled to the pope, where you serve and starve. chap. 7. mr leech. when i had now remained a fortnight space in my private meditations, his grace's chaplain (accompanied with a doctor of divinity) made diligent inquiry after me; and finding me out, d. childerly who is a chaplain also unto his grace. he demanded of me what was the reason of my long absence from his lord; who (as he said) would write his letters effectually unto his vicechancellor for our reconciliation: so that i should be relieved, and restored aswell unto my former liberty of preaching, as unto the fruition of my place. but here i remembered the answer of jehu unto the question of joram. is it peace jehu? what peace (said he) while the fornication of jezabel, thy mother, & her witchcrafts are yet in force? so, what reconciliation, what peace betwixt me, and d. king, while truth was thus suppressed, and his heresy (worse than witchcraft) stood yet in force? answer. the company that you frequented in this space, and the provisions for your flight, are discovered: your private meditations were public circumvagations. these learned & reverend divines, (when they found you,) offered you this promised favour, only upon condition of your submission: for otherwise it was not only improbable, but impossible to obtain the benefit of your place, or faculty to preach. that being most true (which you falsely apply) of jehu and joram: while the fornications of jezabel, and the abominations of babel, were maintained by you, no peace to be kept with you. isay 48.22. god commandeth it, there is no peace to the wicked, saith god. mr leech. wherefore, after signification of my thankful mind to his lordship, who now vouchsafed in some sort, to commiserat my unjust vexations: i answered, that i had greater respect of the cause, for which i suffered, then of the punishment, which i did sustain: assuring m. barkham, that restitution unto my place was not the principal part of my desire. for as god did require of me the constant justification of his eternal truth, so i could not but require it also at their hands, who by their function (as ministers) and dignity (as bishops) were specially obliged thereunto. answer. his grace commiserated your stubborn opposition, but never judged your just punishment, unjust vexation. the respect you had of the cause, was more than your respect of god, truth, faith, peace, or conscience. if restitution to your place, was not the chiefest of your desires: what was? was it your desire of conquest and victory? that your individual sentence, should have overswayed the judgement & definitive resolution of so many, so wise, and learned judges? it is impiety to aver that god did require the justification of this truth by you. truth it is not: to be justified it was not: & by all the proceed it is manifest, that god (by the mediation & mouth of his magistrates) approveth it not. the function and dignity of your judges did yield you all equity; though you continue your accusations and supercilious detractions against them. mr leech. whereas he pressed me farther, with motives of profit, and that i hindered the course of my preferment, by contending against the authority of magistrates (who as he said, must stand one with another) my reply was to this effect, that i desired not to rise where truth must fall: virtue is the path to honour: heaven must not be lost for earth: the plenty of riches doth not recompense the emptiness of the soul: a good conscience is a continual feast. answer. these motives of profit and preferment (if they were used) are subordinate to the motive of saving your soul. these can neither repair, nor impair those directing, inciting comforts, that come from above. the contentments, that the world can afford, are but weak and momentary: but the ambition of preferment in heaven, is the holy resolution, making a true christian firm and square. you hindered yourself in your worldly & heavenly course, in contending with religious authority. and howsoever you profess, you made virtue the path to honour yet this is proved contrary, for you refused the best of virtues, lombard. quadruplex conscientia. your religion. and, though a good conscience be a continual feast, yet lombard and others distinguish of conscience, that as a good conscience may be troubled, so an evil conscience may be so quieted, that it thinks itself good. mr leech. as for the magistrates i reverenced their persons, and honoured their places; knowing that their power is from god, but designed for the preservation of his truth: which if i impugned, let them strike me with the sword of justice: but if they withstood it, yet, i must defend it with courage, ecclus. 4. as also i shall suffer for it with patience. for i always had the counsel of the wise man before mine eyes, strive for the truth unto death etc. answer. had you considered duly, that not only their power is from god, rom. 13.2.4. as paul speaketh, but as he addeth, he that resisteth the power resisteth the ordinance of god; and they that resist shall receive to themselves condemnation; giving the reason, for he beareth not the sword in vain: your respect had been more to them, if you had thus remembered the dignity from god given them. courage is then good, when a good cause and a good conscience meet. but to be courageous in defence of any adulterine proposition that hath not radical truth: it is condemned, and will be punished. acts are to be measured by desires, desires by integrity. and, had you had god always before your eyes: you had not been so apocryphally wife, in your own eyes. mr leech. which resolution in me though it sorted not with his liking, nor yet (perhaps) was expected from a poor, oppressed scholar (whom his uncharitable adversaries had determined either to bow, or break) yet he importuned me, at the least to see his lord, and not to neglect his favourable inclination to do me good. answer. poor, and lame, and slack arguments, cannot enforce resolution in the will, or settle information in the understanding. all the connexion's, and all your concoxions out of coccius, had not this nutritive power to nourish your conscience to such a strength of resolution. but some other unrevealed cause there is, which only the searcher of all hearts knoweth. reprehension is not oppression, nor had you any uncharitable adversaries: they are adversaries to all uncharitableness, they meant to direct & straighten you: not to bow, much less to break. some upon whom you seemed to rely most in oxford, have protested, that they had proceeded in the same, or a more strict course against you, if the censure had passed their hands. mr leech. whereupon i made a show that i would shortly visit his grace. and this i did, because i did probably collect, that my intention was by some means disclosed unto him; whereby i might be defeated of that course, upon which i was now wholly resolved. for me thought that god did speak within my heart, as he spoke sometimes unto abraham his servant. go forth of thy land, gen. 12.1. and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house, and come into the land, which i shall show unto thee. for, can any church, or any faith be in that land, where the very grounds, and principles of ancient christianity are dissolved, where there is no certain foundation to build religion upon? where every man's power is his reason to make good his doctrine? where an injury sustained for the truth, can find no redress without treasonable connivency to see the truth oppressed? answer. this was equivocation in speech, and action: neither honest, but both common among papists. s. austin condemned the priscilianists, for this, and so other fathers have reproved this lying mummery & hypocrisy. sepulueda de ration. dicendi testimon. et de ratione dicendi occulta. in praefat. azor. ies. inst par. 1. l. 11. c. 4. in fine cap. emanuel. sa. in aphor. and not only scotus, aquinas, henricus, gabriel biell are resolute against it, as sepulveda witnesseth: but also jesuits themselves have reproved it, as azorius, emanuel sa, and others. you began to equivocate timely, i doubt not but you have increased it. the reason of making this hypocritical show, was, lest you should be defrauded from robbing the church of a son, the king of a subject, and yourself of a soul. your misapplication of that speech of god to abraham, i might dilate much upon, as having variety of interpretations, which do understand that place, of the devil, the world, & the flesh. but i come nearer to your purpose, hoping that those words, that you say god spoke to you, were received by no revelation: a frequent imposture among papists, filling the mouths of many, swaying the faiths of some. but what is the blemish you see in your mother? ●oth our church deny the principles of ancient christianity? do we not receive the scriptures, the creeds, and fathers of the first 500 years? do we not build our religion upon the foundation jesus christ the corner stone? is the rule of our doctrine any other, than god's sacred will revealed in his word? is any injury sustained by you, for truth? it is not injury but true justice, to punish those that be stubborn in action, precipitat in resolution, and faulty in opinion: not able to maintain their cause but with much wresting of conscience, their revolt ever attended with sedition, scandal, and human respect. mr leech. but i will pretermit (good reader) here to make a special enumeration of my motives, drawing me unto my final resolution; for they will ensue orderly in the third, & last part of this treatise. only consider (with me) now, with what conflict of flesh, & blood i could entertain this resolution, to come out of my land, & from my kindred, and from my father's house; with what grief i could forsake a noble university, the company of my kindest friends, the comfort of my dearest familiars; other emoluments, which such a place doth actually yield, and prepareth unto greater. answer. your motives shall be answered, as briefly as urged, because they be to be scanned at a higher bar. your conflict was not with flesh and blood, but you did agree with the world and the devil, and applied yourself, to the service of that painted, but ill-favoured witch, the church of rome. neither did you forsake our university, friends, and familiars, before they forsook you. they at length heard, & hated, who at first observed your folly and pitied. mr leech. howbeit (my brethren) since there is banishment indeed, where no place is left for truth, i esteem all these things as dung, that i may gain christ; for he is my sufficient reward. i did not conceive that when i preached my doctrine among you, i should have given you such an example thereof in mine own person. but thanks be unto him who disposeth all things sweetly for the benefit of his children. finally (my brethren) i wish that you may enjoy your country, which is above, without forsaking that, which is below: but if you cannot, by reason of the time; them look up unto your eternity; let not your excellent spirits abase themselves unto the love of transitory things; for behold i show you a more excellent way. 1. cor. 12.13. answer. if in the world there be any sanctuary for truth: it is there where she may appear without control, without colours or disguises. which you would willingly acknowledge to be true, if ignorance were not the mother of your devotion. to forsake all for christ, is blessed: but to forsake even christ himself, it is most cursed. he is a sufficient reward to all that fear, & follow him: and will follow them, that fly from him. how pervious you were, to fly from your country, after you had fled from the truth, your intent before, and your practices since, have manifested. but far be it, that god should be reputed as the disposer of you, to this unnatural and unchristian disobedience to the church and state. o what bitter punishment must attend that presumption, that endangers a double perishing, and is so far from having express command, that it hath direct and just inhibitions! your wish that we may enjoy our country that is above, is a wish above your charity. we wish your admission into the heavenly jerusalem which is above, and would from our hearts pray for your triumphant state there: luke. 16.25. but that, as abraham said to dives, remember thou in thy life time receivedst thy pleasure, and lazarus pains, therefore he is comforted and thou art tormented: so we are willing to awake you, with this that seeing, you make yourself of the church triumphant in earth, you (continuing this course) are like to have small part in the triumphant glory in heaven. and while we (for our parts, and stations) are here, we will affect no pilgrimage, but from nature to grace, & so to glory; hoping to accompany them, that are in possession of the laurel. and to this journey we have no other high way, 1. kings 8.36. 1. sam. 12.23. jer. 6.16. joh. 14 6. but the good way which god teacheth, and the right way which samuel describeth, and the old way which jeremy informeth; all which be not as yours be, cross ways, but do terminat in the way, even christ jesus. the third part containing 12. motives, which persuaded me to embrace the catholic religion. briefly, and naturally derived out of the premises. * ⁎ * s. august. in psal. contra partem donati. scitis catholica quid sit, & quid sit praecisum à vite: si qui sint inter vos cauti, veniant, & vivant de radice. the third part containeth 12. articles against you: whereby your 12. motives are disproved, as having not affinity with the faith of the 12 patriarchs, or spirit of the 12. prophets, or doctrine of the 12. apostles, or belief of the 12. articles of our creed: showing that as art doth imitate nature, and an ape a man, so as many grounds as good christians rely upon for their faith, apostates boast to allege for their fall. wherein as in the premises, the particular apostasy is confuted & condemned, with much facility and brevity. * ⁎ * s. august. in eod. psal. contra partem donati. ipsam formam habet sarmentum, quod praecisum est de vite sed quid illi prodest forma si non vivit de radice? venite fratres si vult is ut inseremini in radice, dolour est cum vos videmus praecisos ita iacere. aug. de unitate ecclesiae. cap. 2. de hoc inter nos & illos quaestio versatur, utrum apud nos an apud illos, vera ecclesia sit. mr leech. to the conscionable, and ingenious reader. though the general motives unto the catholic religion, are many, and weighty; yet the particular, which issued out of this present business, where such, as convinced my understanding, and swayed my affection to approve, and embrace the same. wherefore (courteous reader) aswell to procure thy good, as to justify myself, and to satisfy others, i have communicated them unto thy view. for matter; they are the same now, as when i conceived them in the beginning: for manner; they are brought forth in somewhat a different shape. thus much may suffice for thy instruction concerning these motives. only i may not forget to advertise thee; that whereas through their titles, i use this perpetual style: the protestants etc. (howbeit the most learned amongst them, differ in judgement from the common sort: and in this respect, cannot be concluded in the generality of all) i have not done this without good consideration. for though the principal divines in england, do utterly distaste the vain opinions of d. king, and such like; yet, since by public profession of the truth, they give not sufficient notice unto the world of their catholic positions, i must involve them also in this common accusation. and as they, against their knowledge, cord creditur ad justitiam; o'er fit confessio ad salutem. do suffer a prejudice to fall upon god his truth, they must likewise, against their will, suffer an infamy to remain upon their own persons. answer. the catholics, like to the old circumcellions are individua vaga ever in motion. campians reasons, bristol motives, the one ten, the other 48, yours a jury. this former treatise hath answered all yours. but seeing they so commanded your affection, and convinced your understanding, we will hear your descriptions, and mark the motions. if it be the good of your reader, you wish, you would not lead him into so many dark entries of the chambers of death: your book is come into the hands of many better informed souls then yourself, and some that have breathed lately from their antichristianisme, that have seen, and heard more than you have, and have hated and abhorred and returned. you seek to justify, but do condemn yourself: and you hope your satisfaction, will prove an infection to some. but each man doth disdain, that these should draw over any wise proselyte. they are the same in substance, as in your sermon, only as the patron of error can change his shapes, so do these. you say you must not forget, to advertise, and i cannot omit to descry, the untruth in the advertisement. for if with an indifferent eye, any, observant in the state of our church, do look upon the more learned. of our divines he shall find that either they be writers, or public readers, or continual preachers against popery, neither do they differ in judgement from the common sort, as most injuriously you traduce them. by public profession in the unity of the spirit, in the bond of peace, in the essense, and substance of religion, all agree. and howsoever there have been some differences in opinion, between many of the most orient fixed stars in the firmament of the church as between ruffinus & jerom, jerom & austin, austin & symplician, and many others: yet all the world will free our church from having in her religion, any diversely affected from the truth, & addicted to popery, at the least, any that ever were of deserving note, or accounted the principal divines. if there be any such homely and home-made pieces as yourself that coccle, they be no sooner noted, but punished. your prejudice and infamy, will return upon yourself, for accusing our worthiest to maintain a linsey woolsey, blended, mangled religion. being supplanted yourself in reputation, you seek to supplant others: the utmost spirits of your malice and spite, being as engineers, to overthrow the credit of those, that by their learned pains do seek to overthrow the walls of babel, their public profession and positions free them from your common accusation; their sermons, lectures, writings, might satisfy you, but that these heavenly showers have fallen besides you: error surprising your will, & ignorance your knowledge; a small things may move you that were never settled. mr leech. the first motive. the protestants admit not a trial of their religion, by the testimony of the fathers; whatsoever they pretend to the contrary. because it is a preposterous devise to judge the former ages of the church by the later; d. field. pag 204. we willingly admit a trial by the fathers; saith he in the name of his church. therefore the courses of my study have ever been directed unto a diligent perusal of ancient fathers; whose authority, simply considered, as it may preponderate our modern writers; so, in reference unto the church, being her witnesses (who is the judge to define all controversies) their testimony is to be preferred before all authors whatsoever. neither resolved i thus without serious deliberation; and especially, contra haeref. cap. 1. &. 2. the grave counsel of vincentius lyrinensis did prevail with me, seeing, that learned & holy men did generally conspire in this opinion: if any man will discern heretical pravity from catholic verity, he must be furnished with a double help; first the canon of sacred scripture: secondly the tradition of the catholic church: wherein three things inseparably concur; universality, antiquity, consent. the reason of which prescription is yielded by him to be this. the scripture is sublime; and, forasmuch as all men sense it not alike, it is necessary to adjoin thereunto the continual interpretation of the church. upon this infallible ground (evident unto all men of any apprehension) i builded my faith; conforming it always unto those orthodox principles, which i had derived out of the venerable fathers. hence i assumed this doctrine of evangelical counsels, which as i delivered out of the sacred volumes of antiquity; so antiquity itself deduced it (with me) out of the divine oracles of holy scripture. and therefore seeing that my opinion was clearly built upon this foundation: i pressed it uncessantly, until my unjust judges were enforced to forsake this means of trial, and consequently to punish the fathers in me, as i had spoken by them. but when i plainly saw, that my doctrine could not be condemned without condemnation of the ancient church, and that my judges were driven to this extremity, i inferred that their religion could not be good; and that their consciences were very bad. answer. it is a most preposterous devise, to make the father's judges of the scriptures, whereas the scriptures as s. austin confesseth, aught to be the judges of the fathers: otherwise, what you impute to us, is the practice of yourselves, which you seek approbation of the former church by the latin. that the fathers may preponderate the modern writers; i answer, for their antiquity they do: but where the same truth is in both, for their authority, they do not exceed. hath the church had no growth since their time? hath the son of righteousness, psal. 19 going from the end of the heavens, and in his compass returning to the end thereof again, by his beams given no more light, then when it first rose? hath not god revealed somethings to one, which he hath not to another, 1. cor. 14.30. as s. paul speaketh? our reverend estimation of the fathers is most learnedly and fully delivered, by his majesty, in his premonition: and our willingness of a trial by the fathers is openly testified by the reverend bewcleark d. field, these exceptions or rather annotations considered, that there are diverse fathers merely forged, as hippolytus, amphilochius, the epistles of cletus, anacletus, etc. b. jewel, d. rainolds, & that world of learning the honourable b. of winchester, have proved which point was never answered, as yet. secondly diverse false tracts are fathered on the true fathers, as mr perkins problem (a book never answered) & the work now in our oxford library in hand, for comparing all the fathers with their most ancient manuscripts, do show136. bastard epistles already discovered, in gregory. thirdly, the fathers are rejected most scornfully, by papists, where they cannot wrest them to their purpose, as is proved by the practice of canus, villa vincentius, sixtus senensis, baronius, bellarmine. fourthly that all of these papists have taxed the fathers, for particular errors. fiftly (omitting many more reasons) the fathers make more for us than for papists nay only for us not for papists; as that precious jewel of the church hath irrefragably proved. the counsel out of lyrinensis, is already answered, but this i add, he doth not there mean unwritten verities, or a supply to be made to scripture, for he doth acknowledge in the next chapter, and so again in the 41. that solus canon scripturae sufficit ad omnia, vincent. lirinens. satis supérque, that the scripture is sufficient alone, against all heretics, yea alone for all things, & more than this, that it is more than sufficient, & his 41. chapter doth plainly deliver, unam regulam, to be scripture, the interpretation of which, is ever to be approved by scripture. and for those notes of universality antiquity, and consent, which you say do inseparably concur, vinc. c. 4. c. 5. & 11. he saith not so, the word inseparably is not his, for vincentius showeth that heretics have claimed the two former, showing that the arrians had universality, and the donatists antiquity. and for consent, he forewarneth (as a prophet) in 39 chapter, that when men endeavour maiorum volumina vitiare, to corrupt the ancient fathers as papists most openly do to obtain consent: then the only remedy is sola scripturarum authoritate convincere, to convince them by the only authority of scripture. and therefore if you built your fort upon this ground as not having red, or not understood your author, choosing some fragments and not observing all the particulars, and passages of his meaning, your foundation is not on the corner stone, the foundation rotten, the building reeling, and your doctrine hath no approbation from universality, antiquity, or lastly from consent, either jointly from all, from the greatest number of fathers, or from that which is the only countenance and approver of spirits & doctrines, from the scripture. that therefore, which you make your first motive to have rended you from the truth, the same i make my first confirmation, to settle me therein, and to detest popery, that seeing papists admit not a trial of their religion by scriptures, & that the fathers admit none that reject scriptures, as also that papists approve not always the testimony of the fathers (as they pretend) i infer in particular that this doctrine of yours, is worthily condemned, but not the ancient church; as also in general, that by condemning of us in any point you condemn antiquity, seeing our reformed churches be reduced to the ancient primitive. and therefore your new found religion is rebellion against the truth, & apostasy from scripture and antiquity. mr leech. the second motive. the protestants prefer their reformed congregations, before the ancient catholic church. as my violent judges did palpably disclaim the sentence of the ancient church, so they unreasonably required my submission unto their reformed congregations; which, as they be not comparable with the purity of the former, so their principal doctors (luther, & zwinglius; men no less odious each unto the other, s. austin. s. ambros. s. hierom. than both are hateful unto the church of rome) are no ways matchable with the patrons of my doctrine. for as s. gregory nazianzen justly excepted against the arrians in this manner; if our faith be but 30. s. gregory. epistola 1. ad cledon contra arrianos. years old (400 years being passed since the incarnation of christ) than our gospel hath been preached in vain; our martyrs have died in vain until this time, etc. so if for a point of faith i must remit myself unto luther, zwinglius, calvin and their reformed conventicles, rather than unto the holy fathers, & ancient church; them surely the gospel hath been miserably taught, and all our predecessors have been pitifully deceived for 1600. years since. singular therefore was the folly, and partiality of my judges, to detract authority from our blessed fathers, & to yield it unto lutherans (men of as new a stamp in these times, as the arrians were in s. gregory nazianzen his time) whose carnal appetites, and base condition of life, drew them to allow that in their doctrine which they performed in their practice; being contrary in both unto the canon of scripture, and continual succession of the church. the consideration whereof did manifestly detect unto me, that either their understanding is very mean, or their will very perverse; who feared not to disauthorise the fathers, & yet would not grant me the same liberty against their brethren; in whom i never approved any thing other ways, than it was consonant with the prescription of antiquity, or dissonant from her tradition. answer. the reformed church that hath left babylon, and is escaped as a bird out of the snare of the fowler, having received true religion 〈◊〉 according to scripture, was in all reason to have had submission performed from you, both because that the truth professed is against this position, as also for that profession and subscription you had willingly afforded to her, when you were supposed to be not only a member, but a minister in her congregation. had you strayed as a sheep through simplicity, it had been lamentable, but to fly being a shepherd, through apostasy, this is damnable. luther and zwinglius, though they agreed not in all points, yet they both joined in demolishing your dagon. great lights of the church have diffred in some particulars, nay have whet their pens like razors, and edged their tongues like swords, & yet in the truth of god they have agreed to the suppressing of the kingdom of satan. the differences between these two, were nothing so scandalous as their joint conflicts with rome, were victorious. to countervail your place out of gregory nazianzene, prudent. peristep. him. 10 which you apply improperly. prudentius witnesseth the heathens did scornfully so deal with the religion of christianity in the beginning thereof, nunc dogma nobis christianum nascitur, post evolutos mill demum consuls: so you, as if after so many holy fathers, our religion had beginning from luther, zwinglius, or caluin. but how contrary to all truth, this is: bristol motive 45. bristol his confession showeth in these words, the truth is, that some there have been, in many ages, motive. 46. in some points of their opinion & in his next motive, that many points of protestancy were long before, and in diverse places. as also the waldenses spoken of by many, who were almost 400. years since, do manifest our religion, to have been more ancient than so but we stand not so much upon these, as because we are certain that from the time of christ, the profession and succession of the doctrine of protestant religion, hath with much happiness continued: and hath appeared in place and persons, and time and doctrine: and from the beginning of the church's declination, there have been some ever who resisted the church of rome, and refused their doctrine, and therefore you may conclude as you do: that the gospel hath been miserably taught among them who have not sought after the purity of doctrine. scornful and shameful is that title you call us by, in the byname of lutherans: we have no other title, but christians. and as unjust is your slander, that lutherans are men of carnal appetites and base condition: whose regularity in life, by integrity of conversation, is far above any sort of papists. and this your second consideration is my second confirmation, that papists having not true knowledge cannot have true faith, either originally in the foundation, or doctrinally in their assertions, because they want the assurance either evidentiae, or inhaerentiae, accounting the scriptures subordinat, and the reformed churches illegitimat. mr leech. the third motive. the protestants brand the catholic doctrine with the name of popery. luther. the name of papists was first devised by a luxurious apostata; inventour also of the name of sacramentaries; for so both catholics, and zwinglians stand indebted unto him in these respects. by the insolency of this man it came to pass, that as many other doctrines, so particularly this, had been stamped with the imputation of popery; whence it was that my calvinian judges (calumniating both me and it) were pleased to fasten the note of popery upon it, and of a papist upon me. but since my grounds are merely catholic (as you see) and since this doctrine itself is the common faith of ancient church; it followeth, either that it is no popery, (as these men term it) or that popery (truly conceived) is the very catholic faith. but of the two, the later is more probable. whereupon i inferred this conclusion for my final resolution; that popery was necessarily consequent upon the true grounds of divinity; and therefore my judges betrayed their own folly in this behalf; for as much, what pope did ever devise this and many other doctrines which are called popepery? as by a condemnation of this doctrine, they must inevitably confess, that popery (well understood) is the doctrine of antiquity; and that the fathers were no less papists have in then myself. answer. lvxurious apostate you, know is a scandalous title, cast upon luther: whose many volumes, continual sermons, and indefatigable pains did receive a better testimony out of the mouths of learned papists, as is before proved. the surname of papists, is among some of you gloried in: and are you ashamed of it? seeing it cometh from the word papa, that is, the pope, to (whom you all profess) subjection, as a matter necessary to salvation: why should you abhor it? indeed it is s. hieromes rule adversus luciferianos; if any, which are said to belong to christ, will be termed not of our lord jesus christ, but of some other, hier. advers. lucif. &c: they are not the church of christ, but the synagogue of antichrist. but you reply, that you do not approve and assume this name: more learned and more wise papists do. anast. cochel palaestrit. honoris & 1. p. 9 & 6. cochelet is zealous in the defence of it: if it be odious to others it is glorious to him; we are papists, saith he, and confess it, and glory in that name: and to this purpose i could cite others. luther was the first author (you say) of this name. it were the abuse of my reader to discourse about such impertinencies: but otherwise i could easily disprove this. this doctrine was by luther and your calvinian judges called popery. it was some injury sure to join things, of so dislike natures, as to call him papist, who holds popery: and it had been a great calumny to you, if you had not become papist, because than you were termed so, and now profess yourself to be so. is not this a good reason, to make you turnecoate, & to leave the religion and church wherein you were baptized? or because we term your catholic doctrine, popery; therefore you are so angry you will leave us. but consider that catholic doctrine is the doctrine of the catholic church, and the true catholic church by the signification of the word, is the universal church so called because it is over all the world, & is not tied to any country, place, person, or condition of men. according to which sense, the roman church cannot be called the catholic church. boz. sig. eccl. l. 19 c. 1. bell. de rom. pont praef. & lib. 3. c. 21. for bozius, & bellarmine do complain that the protestants doctrine possesseth many and large provinces; england, scotland, denmark, norwey, sweden, germany, madge gregor. descrip. 166. poland, bohemia, hungaria, prussia, litvania, livonia. and maginus in his geography saith, that the greeks long since departed from the church of rome, & appointed themselves patriarchs: & these provinces follow the greeks religion; circassia, walachia, bulgaria, moscovia, russia, mingrelia, brosina, albania, illyricum, part of tartary, servia, croatia, and all the provinces living upon the euxine sea. and not only all these, but how manifest is it, that the kingdom of france, and the low country's flourish in the protestant belief, besides many thousands in spain, and italy? it is as easy to prove that popery is not catholic in time, as it is plain it is not universal in place: for besides that reynerius, who lived three hundred years ago, refert. illyr. catol. tom. 2. doth acknowledge that the waldenses which professed as we do, were reputed to have been ever since the apostles time: so on the contrary, it is open to all the world, that the roman church hath received many new born bastardly opinions, which were never before extant. i know there was a time when the faith of the romans was published through out the whole world. rom. 1.8. but now the angel hath told us, that babylon is fallen: many alterations from the state of that church. who knoweth not how strange the point of supremacy was even in the time of gregory the great? how the councils of lateran, and trent, give the pope so great a transcendency, as that he is above a general council? that the council of constance and trent forbidden the cup to the lay people? that transubstantiation was made a matter of faith by innocent the third, in the lateran council, within these 400 years? that the council of trent proposed images not only to be worshipped, pol. virg, lib. 6 c. 13. de inventi. which as polydore confesseth all the fathers condemned: but it also enjoined men to yield them divine honour? these and infinite more alterations in religion, falling from god, truth falling from them, do show, that the name of their opinions deserveth not a catholic title, but is mere popery. you lay for your ground, that it is probable only, that popery truly conceived, is the very catholic faith: yet notwithstanding you conclude for your final resolution, that popery is the necessary consequent upon the true grounds of divinity. can this stand together, that popery dependeth necessarily upon the grounds of divinity: and yet it is but probable, that it is the catholic faith? this your third unconsiderat consideration is my absolute resolution that either the catholic faith is not a necessary consequent as the grounds of divinity, which is absurd to think: or popery is not the catholic faith, which i verily believe, and have proved by many testimonies. mr leech. the fourth motive. the protestants subvert the truest means of piety, and perfection. perfection is not absolute in this life, but gradual; that is to say; men are perfect in a degree: some more, some less, according to their cooperation with divine grace to which end, and purpose, there are consilia perfectionis, counsels of perfection, as virginity, poverty etc. which removing the impediments of perfection, are excellent means to conduct us thereunto; in as much as they withdraw us from the love of the flesh and of the world, which are our capital enemies assaulting us with their continual delights, and pleasures. but the protestants (being in the number of them, of whom the apostles, by prophetic spirit, spoke long before; that they would not suffer wholesome doctrine) renounce the advice of their saviour; qui potest capere, capiat; they reject the monition of s. paul, consilium do; they cast behind them the common judgement of ancient fathers in this point. and whereas themselves are now carried away with the evil current of this worst age; they fear not, not only to disclaim the fathers but irreligiously to slander them, d. benefield. in his lecture. as as men bewitched with the errors of their time. hence it is that the plausibility of the fift gospel seeketh not to cast any rains upon the fervour of nature, but yieldeth passage rather, and help unto her precipitate course. s paul was of a contrary opinion; witness his own words, castigo corpus etc. antiquity was of another disposition; witness s. hierom in his epistle unto pope damasus, and unto the virgin eustochium. witness s. gregory nazianzen in his funeral oration upon s. basill. witness the whole choir of ancient church; carnem legibus fraenavit. which with a sweet heavenly harmony, aswell in practice, as in doctrine, hath commended unto us the restraint of lawful things with a singular austerity of life. these things, being wholly opposite unto the delicacy of luther's spirit, are reputed popish by him, and by his carnal sectaries; whose single faith (not clogged with the burden of pious works) can more easily mount unto heaven. thus are they lulled a sleep in the cradle of security, dreaming of a victory without any striving at all. if this be the way, unto happiness, the way itself hath misled us; our guides have seduced us; our teachers have misinformed us: the austerity of so many saints registered in the canon of god's word, and recorded in the calendar of the church, hath been practised in vain; and the late gospel is more profitable than the former. but whether i may rely more safely upon the first, or last; i remit me unto the consideration of any man, that hath the sense of true piety lodged in his breast. answer. perfection we teach thus. all true believers have a state of perfection, in this life, and that this perfection hath two parts: first, the imputation of christ's perfect obedience, which is the ground and fountain of all our perfection whatsoever; secondly, sincerity, or uprightness. and this standeth in two things: first, in the acknowledging of our imperfection and unworthiness, in respect of ourselves; secondly, in a constant purpose, endeavour and care to keep the commandments of god. so far are we, from perverting the true means of perfection, as hath been often answered, & needeth no more to be answered, but that your odious tautology doth expect some kind of answer. we refuse not that which is called by the apostle wholesome doctrine, but that which the same spirit hath called doctrinam daemoniorum, doctrine of devils; the texts of scripture are often and fully satisfied, and the fathers plainly and truly interpreted, so that it is most contrary to our practice, to disclaim the fathers to slander them as you slander us: but especially seeing herein you cast this imputation on d. benefield his lecture, see his answer, praefatione ad academicos oxonienses §. 4. ad 7. where how untruly you tax him, and how unworthily the papists have dealt with the fathers may appear. how many points of the popish religion, do directly tend to subversion of pieety, to maintenance of sin, and liberty of life? have not they variety of dispensations for any sin, licences for all things unlawful; and as if popery consisted but of this triplicity, impudence, ignorance, and indulgence it is maintained, they may believe as the church believeth, & never need to learn what the church holdeth; they may justify the allowance of stews for a common wealth, so harding teacheth; hard. confut. apol. p. 161. they profess that papists are discharged of all bond of allegiance towards princes, if they be not of the same religion, so the jesuits hold; they profess that debtors may except against their creditors, & choose whether they pay them, if they be not of the same religion, ovand. 4. d. 13 sam ang. p. 101. nu. 15. caiet. 22ae. p. 144. greg. de val. tom 3. pag. 1090. so ovandus professeth; that prisoners may break jail as caietan averreth; that children may marry without consent of their parents, as gregory de valentia maintaineth; that the sabaoth may be broken, obedience neglected, an oath infringed, murder justified, and what not? your fift gospel, we are not to be taxed with, we only acknowledge the 4 rivers of that paradise of god. the fift was the work of a monk of your own, of the same stamp with alcoranum fransciscanum, and our lady's psalter, all manner of blasphemies abound in both. you urge s. paul his castigo corpus: doth not every true christian seek to practise this among us, letting blood in the swelling veins of pride, lancing the impostume of greedy desires, quenching the fire of filthy lusts, and all the fiery darts of the devil? saint hieroral, whom you urge, did worthily practise this, (i confess:) and had that good father not been over luxuriant, in commending virginity, and condemning matrimony, your own men had not so censured him, as they do. gregory nazianzene his speech concerning basill, no doubt is as true of many thousand protestant's, who have bridled the appetites, and lusts of the flesh, and have subdued themselves to the obedience of god's spirit. and howsoever antiquity have commended the restraint of lawful things to us: yet in this they ever taught that lawful things when they are hurtful to us, are unlawful, & we are bound to avoid all things that are hindrances to god's service. continued your virulency and acrimony of speech against luther: let his works and studies testify, whether he were of so delicate a spirit as you affirm: and, if by his carnal sectaries you mean protestants, read our d. downham, mr rogers, mr greenham, nay luther himself, and see whether we maintain not that a christian is bound to watch, and pray, & fast, & then consider whether we teach a single faith or no: for as we teach, that faith only must justify us, so also we declare that works must justify our faith, and continually we preach the excellency and necessity of good works. if you lacked chastisement, you might have complained and been supplied: fasting, i doubt not but you were practised in, you were put out of commons: & for whipping (the monks exercise) though it sort better that you have it abroad, then at home; yet that should not have been wanting to you, if you had acquainted your friends. seriously, i answer, that protestants are not lulled a sleep in the cradle of security. how many sighs, do many send up to heaven, for their sins, what strains of compunction, what streams of contrition flow from the limbeck of many of their souls? and yet this only serveth not. for, if this had been the only way to happiness: them had the pharisees by violence obtained heaven. the holiness of their carriage, continuance at devotion, avoidance of all means of pollution, their yearly tithing, monthly alms, weekly fastings, daily whip, hourly prayers had holp them. but of all such, god asketh, who required these things at your hands? nay who counseled any man, to do this, but only such as require will-worship? all these ways, in the balance of the sanctuary, appear to be but hay, and stubble, & straw. to this the way hath not led, the guides not directed, the teachers not informed. for performing of this, the true saints have not been registered; in this, the true church hath never been practised. wherefore my fourth confirmation, is to stick to the unity of that happy church, which hath so worthily cleared itself, from these vizards of perfection and rags of superstition. mr leech. the fift motive. the protestants corrupt the holy scripture in defence of their opinions. the proper means designed by god to convince heresy, are two, to wit, sacred scripture; and ecclesiastical tradition. now because heretics are clearly refuted by the second, therefore they fly only unto the first, which they deprave, and mangle according to the liberty of their spirits. and this they perform partly in their translations, and partly in their interpretation thereof. though many examples might be afforded in this kind yet i need not seek after further proof, than this present business doth afford, whereof i now entreat. for whereas the words of our saviour are easy, and plain; all men do not receive this saying; as though there were such an impossibility therein, that the freedom of will concurring with the grace of god, could not subdue the inclinations of corrupt nature. tom. 7. in ep. ad wolfgang. hence luther (the slave of his affections) saith, that the propension of fervent nature in man towards a woman is so created by god in his body, that it cannot be extinct by any vows, and therefore he, that resolveth to live without a woman, must leave the name of a man, and make himself to be plainly an angel, or spirit. for it is by no means granted unto him by god; so that it is above his strength to contain himself from a woman. and this is by the compulsive word of god, willing, and commanding the same. wherefore the counsel of virginity is intolerable with them, that conceive such an impossibility to fulfil it. to increase, tom. 5. serm. de matrimon and multiply, it is not a precept (saith luther) but it is more than a precept; it is implanted nature; it is as necessary as meat, and drink. it is no more in the power of man to live without a woman, then to be a woman, and no man. in vain then doth our saviour give his advice, and s. paul his counsel. for, in luther's gospel, it is more than a precept to avoid virginity. and yet my judges not admitting it to be a counsel, could not deny it to be a precept. which yet if it be so; why do they then make less conscience to fulfil a precept, than catholics do to follow a counsel? for the neglect of the first is a sin; but it is not so in the second; unless we tie ourselves unto it by a voluntary vow, being not constrained thereunto by a necessary command. answer. the proper means appointed by god to confute all sprouting heresy is scripture, which, because it is so powerful, against popery, therefore papists do disclaim it, and with the most contemptuous phrases brand that testimony, that hath marked them with the stamp of heresy. terming it a nose of wax, as peresius blasphemously doth, peres. de tradit. praef. pighius con● 3. eckius enchr. c. 1. prop. 4. or dead ink & a dumb judge, as pighius (and besides many other titles of disgrace) eckius affirmeth that god never commanded his apostles to write any scripture. thus they vilify the word, to magnify tradition: which tradition we acknowledge not, for with mary we have chosen the better part, and do assure ourselves, that there is no means so absolute as scripture to convince heretics: which means you would take from us, by laying to our charge false translations, and corrupt interpretations. concerning false translations, much might be spoken, conferring yours with the original, how many hundred differences will be found? how many additions, detractions, falsifications, depravations, lyndan. de opt. gen. interpret. l. 3. c. 1. 2. 4. 6. and intolerable barbarisms be in the vulgar lindanus hath confessed, who acknowledgeth that there be monstrous corruptions, of all sorts in it, scarce one book of scripture that is undefiled, and so have bannes, and sixtus senensis, and others accused it. and i desire but this resolution of any learned papist, that seeing the council of trent hath approved & commanded the use of the vulgar translation, affixing a bull before it; and sixtus quintus hath afterwards commanded only his translation to stand in force, showing many errors in the vulgar, & therefore hath prefixed his bull before it; & after him, clemens octavus, finding manifold corruptions in the bible of his predecessor, caused it again to be translated with the preface of his bull upon fear of a curse, commanding all to approve only this, of his: i ask, seeing these translations differing in so many hundred places, some merely contradicting each others, and seeing all of these are commanded upon no less than the thunderboult of anathema, bellum papa●●. to which of these must papists adhere for their resolution in doubts. i am sure doctor morrice being asked that question was not able to answer: and being again pressed to this, was as silent as before showing thereby the translations insufficiency. this motive you had from gretzer, who maketh himself sport with our later translations, fit for a stage then a matter of such consequence. interpretation and concerning interpretation of scripture, if you go no farther than the rhemists' testament, it were enough to pay him in his own kind: these & such other more absurd be the common words of the rhemists' translation. be not these dainty words to instruct the unlearned, agnition for acknowledgement, azimaes for unleavened bread, didrachmes for tribute money, the dominical day for sunday, for preaching evangelize, for a young scholar a neophyte, paraclite for a comforter, victims for sacrifice, & many, many more? and for the place you lay to the charged of our translation: first i may answer it, as bellarmine doth answer chemnicius, concerning a place in ecclesiastes, non numerando verbo, sed expendendo, & sensum eorum exprimendo: which kind of translation s. hierome approveth. secondly, the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 used in the original text, mat. 19 doth not only signify, caepio, actively: but also passively, capax sum. whereupon erasmus translates it, non omnes sunt capaces, and the syriae according to your own fabritius boderianus rendereth it omnes non sufficienter capiunt: not so much because they will not, but because they have not the gift, and therefore cannot. to a man that will admit reason the next words enforce it; all receive not this saying (or word:) yet some do. what are they that receive it? they to whom it is given. is it not manifest then, that a peculiar gift enableth a man to such a course of life and not any thing of himself? s. augustine (which both the rhemists and your gregory martin urge to maintain this your frivolous exception) is wrested, contrary to his meaning: his words are these; all men take not this saying, but they to whom it is given, quibus enim non est datum, aut nolunt, aut non implent, quod volunt. this nolunt you refer to the gift, as though all might take it, if they would, and if they do not, it is no aversment. but s. augustine understands it, of the effect of the gift as if he should have said; they that have not such a gift (let them vow what they will) they enjoy not the fruit of it: either they mind not to do what they are enabled for; or, if they purpose any such matter, they fail because the groundwork which should come from above, is wanting: whereupon s. augustine in another place saith, aust. in psal. 147. paucorum est virginitas in carne, omnium debet esse in cord. but your rhemists urge origen. it is given to all that ask it. it is true, but look what doctor fulke answereth out of origen, tract. 7. in matth. utile est autem scire, quid quis debeat petere. the places you wrist out of luther, be to be interpreted (as by circumstances of the places may be collected) of the ordinary strength of men. for he denieth not a peculiar gift. conscience is to be made of doing that which god enableth us to do: & yet presumption is to be feared, if we undertake that which we cannot perform. it is better to marry then to burn: and s. augustine's conclusion is firm, lib. de sancta virginit. cap. 18. melior est in scriptura dei veritas, quàm in cuiusquam mente virginitas. and this is not against christ's gospel, or s. paul his advice: for the same act is in the choice and election, a counsel; and in the performance and practise a precept neither do protestants less care or endeavour, to fulfil in general, the precept then in particular, each man enabled, to exercise his gift in the counsel or branch of the general precept. knowing, that punishment is certainly due to neglect of both. and therefore this is my fift resolution, and pillar in the building of my faith, that papists understand not scripture fully, nor interpret truly, who have so many wrested opinions, and manifested corruptions. mr leech. the sixth motive. the protestants are jovinianists, and therefore heretics, and not catholics, even for this cause. s. augustine (as a register of the cotholique church) doth witness that jovinian broached this heretical fancy, heres. 82. see the perorat. of s. august. his treatise, vide ambros. 10. lib. epist. epist. 80 & 81. contrary to the received opinion of the whole church. there is no more merit in the virginity of nuns, and other continent persons, then in chaste marriage. the very same opinion is defended, counsels of perfection denied by jovinian. and embraced by the lutherans, and caluinists; and they both conspire with jovinian in this heretical tenant; that there is no greater perfection in a virginal, than in a conjugal estate. and though it pleased doctor feild to say; pag. 143. we do not approve any private opinion of jovinian, contrary to the judgement of god's church; yet both he, & his grace of cant. (who approved his book) speak herein against their own conscience, yea mine own experience in this particular business informeth me otherways then they pretend. and i desire no better witness to convince them then s. augustine, who writeth of this matter in the name of the universal church. according to whose relation (compared with the general opinion of lutherans, & calvinists) i do confidently affirm, that the protestants are heretics in this behalf; and that, for this cause (besides many others; which i spare to deal in at this present) they are exiled out of the society of the ancient catholic church. for s. augustine protesteth (in the peroration of his aforesaid treatise) that whosoever doth maintain any of these heresies, which he hath recorded before, he is not a catholic christian; and therefore an heretical companion. which censure doth necessarily fall upon my calvinian judges, and upon all such, as concur with their irreligious opinion. answer. the private opinions of jovinian, disagreeing from the judgement of the holy catholic church, we approve not. the opinion for which you term us heretics, is noted by s. austin to have been an equalling of married, with single life. s. augustin numbereth this among their heresies, not so much because he thought it to be a heresy, for in many places that good father doth equallise matrimony with virginity: but he mentioneth it rather, because s. jerom had not long before written against that point as heretical, for which act, s jerom himself was much condemned: and how his books against jovinian were excepted against, even at rome d. field showeth in the place cited by you. whose words (which you propose so disgracefully) are better worth the pondering than you think. our determination & state of that question, is this briefly; virginity is a state of life, wherein, if all things be answerable in the parties that embrace it, there are fewer occasions of distractions from god, and more opportunities of attaining to the height of excellent virtue, then in the opposite state of marriage: yet so, that it is possible for some married men, so to use their estate, that they be no way inferior to those that are single. this doth s. austin confidently defend, so your jesuit espencaeus, as before, and so also gregory nazianzen absolutely doth prove it, nazianz. in his oration made in the praise of gorgonia his sister. i might stand much in proof of this, as also, that the old roman church did defend and maintain the cause of jovinian. but i have in many places already answered this accusation, and therefore i retort upon you, that seeing your imputations be furnished with malice & spite, rather than truth and spirit, my sixth resolution is, to acknowledge with thankfulness, duty, & comfort, the truth of god, defended in this church of england, from whence rather out of a desire to malign, them out of strength of argument to repugn, you are fallen by contumacy in action, and heresy in opinion. mr leech. the seventh motive. the protestants accommodate their religion unto the state, and present time. as the forms of ecclesiastical governments are varied by the calvinists in sundry places according unto the state, under which they live, so their doctrines are framed according to the times, and made suitable unto the policy of their common wealths. pipe state; and dance church. religion must have no coat otherwise, than measure is taken by the state. aiust experience whereof i had in the passage of this business. for as the more gross, and senseless calvinists in england do heretically confound evangelical counsels with legal precepts, so others, more regardful of the time, wherein they live, then of the truth which they should profess, do willingly yield (for if they should do otherways, they should speak against their judgement, and conscience) that this distinction is founded in the gospel, and propounded by the church; but they say, that it is not a doctrine seasonably to be delivered in these times. and might not this statizing reason aswell plead for arrius his damnable heresy, being more generally disaffected by the state in those times, contra lucifer. dum totus mundus ingemuit sub arrianismo; as s. hierom speaketh. but i considered first; that truth is not to be impugned & suppressed, is the common fury of calvinists hath ever sought to extinguish it, to the uttermost of their power. in which respect i found myself extraordinarily affected for the rejection of their heresy in this behalf. and i trust it was not without special motion of that spirit, which breatheth in the whole body of the catholic church, and consequently in every member of the same. secondly, though time bear the blame, yet men are in the fault: & therefore seeing that the open enemies of truth did bark, when her secret friends did hold their peace: i conceived that it was my duty rather to change the time from evil into good, then to suffer it to grow from evil in to worse. and though some men (assisted with power to punish that, which their peevish fancy disaffected) did bear me down by violence, yet i took no less comfort by this injury which they offered unto me, then courage by the course which they held against my doctrine. for i saw that they rather observed profane policy to force me unto silence, then either show of justice or piety in proceeding against my (falsely supposed) crime, or weight of reason in convincing my understanding. and why? they are the slaves of time, but not disciples of truth. answer. how true this imputation (urged against us) is in the roman religion, some parts of the christian world see, and others feel it. leo, that kinsman of the roaring lion, when he was about to go in visitation to his infernal cozen, confessed how much worth to his purse, fabula christi, that tale of christ was (as he blasphemously, called the gospel.) and is it any better esteemed at this day among papists? at , have they not enjoined tales and fables and lies, to be believed as well as the gospel? indulgences, and purgatory (to go no farther) be they not only invented to get money? doth the pope ever keep fire, but he hath his fuel from purgatory? is not this doctrine of monkery, only invented to humour diverse melancholic fat paunches. if our land were a poor country the pope would never keep such a stir: it is not to gain souls but peter pence. and to sum up all in one word, all religion depends on the pope's pleasure. that, as in the metaphysics, the utmost proposition is, nihil simul est & non est: so in popish divinity the utmost resolution is, papa non potest errare. wherefore bellarmine holdeth question of supremacy (which all the world seethe to be but a matter of policy. bellarm. in praef. ad 3 controvers. ) to be summam rei christianae,) who then are the statizers? to say nothing of your jesuits, that manage all the affairs of those princes, in whose courts (like salomon's spiders) they remain. our religion is the same which the apostles did teach, & was in practice in the primitive church; & happy is the state in which this true religion flourisheth: your distinction of precepts and counsels hath been sufficiently canvased, and you have been taught in what sense we retain the name of counsel, and that s. austin calleth your consilia perfectionis, aug. lib. de perfect. justitiae ad coelestinum. praecepta perfectionis. it is a slander by which you seek to deceive by your speech of accusing any of our part, as if they did profess, that your doctrine was true, but not seasonable for these times. we hold that all places and all times must entertain truth, and therefore your first collection is false. calvinists extinguish not truth, rome doth rack, & burn, & torture the gospel and the truth thereof: but we fear the punishment of sinning against conscience and knowledge, if we should suppress but the lest truth; we behold it with an impartial eye, we repress not the professors, but adversaries thereof, of which number you were accounted one. your second collection (which hath more sound than sense) is easily refuted: time beareth no blame for truth, secret enemies may look against her open friends, but wisdom will be justified: and though satan seek to sow bad seed in good ground, yet the lords busbandmen sleep not, but will reform ill by good, & refute that is false, by faith. your last close, concerning men assisted with power to punish you, disaffected by peevish fancy, is merely false: it was not peevish fancy, as your popish folly termeth it, but it was religious piety & policy that disaffected, & rejected your doctrine, the power of scripture, of fathers, of all authority assisting them. rage, not courage strengthened you, and therefore justice and religion did censure & punish you: and god will (without your repentance) plague you for your vile and violent terms against the disciples of truth, yourself being a fellower of blindness, and a hater of goodness. in the mean time this is my 7 confirmation, that our doctrine is true religion and catholic, seeing they that seek to disgrace it, be either statizing politics, or slandering heretics, able to say little in show, less in sense, least in truth. mr leech. the eight motive. the protestants can patiently suffer the articles of the creed, etc. to be violated: but they are severe in those things, that repugn their utility, or sensuality whatsoever. every truth, in respect of god revealing it, and the church propounding it, is of equal necessity to be believed; howbeit, in respect of the matter itself; one truth may be of greater consequence, and dignity than an other. and yet it is not the greatness of the matter itself, but the manner of revealing, which toeth us to a necessity of belief. i will instance in this present business. the distinction of evangelical counsels from legal precepts, is a truth to be accepted upon necessity of salvation. why? because it is sufficiently revealed unto us by god, and fully propounded by the catholic church; so that it is either wilful ignorance, not to know it, or extreme obstinacy to withstand it. but yet the articles of the creed, which are the first elements of faith, commended unto us by apostolical tradition, may justly be reputed more weighty, in respect of the matter, which is handled therein; as namely the descent of christ into hell. which article of faith, is admirably perverted by the ministers in england, un so much as 3. or 4 sundry opinions thereof are freely, and uncontroulably delivered by them, unto their simple flocks. i might instance in their different opinions about the sacraments, and other high mysteries of salvation, wherein fanatical spirits expatiate without any reproof. but i willingly pretermit these, and come to other particular points of doctrine, which i preached amongst them without impeachment. first, against caluin his heretical autotheisme destroying the unity of the divine essence, i taught, with the nicene creed, and all antiquity; that christ is deus de deo, having the same substance that is in the father, really communicated unto him in his eternal generation. secondly; with s. gregory, damascen, the greek, & latin church i taught, that christ assumed our nature perfect, and complete in the very instant of his conception: contrary to the absurd opinion of diverse calvinistical protestants, who avouch that his incarnation was by temporal degrees, and not by entire perfection in an instant. thirdly; that god was only the permissive, not any impulsive cause of sin; though calvin blaspheme to the contrary, and deride the distinction. fourthly, christ crying out, deus meus, deus meus, &c: was not in a trance; he suffered no torments of hell; died not by degrees (as though his senses decayed by little and little) but in perfect sense, pain, obedience, patience, humility, constancy, he rendered up his righteous soul a voluntary sacrifice for sin. but the common opinion of calvinists is contrary unto this position. fiftly; filius & spiritus sanctus quoniam non sunt a se diem & horam judicij nesciunt a se, pater autem quoniam a se est scit a se hilar. in mat. respectu ordinis non teporis. lib. epist. 8. c. 42. in marc. 13.32. christ was not ignorant of the day of judgement either as god or man: not as god: for though he knew it not primarily, & originally as of himself (being not god of himself) yet did he know it secondarily by way of communication from the father. not as man, for though he did not know it ex naturâ humanitatis, yet did he know it in naturâ humanitatis, as s. gregory distinguisheth. and this doctrine is contrary to calvin his blasphemous gloss; to wit, christus communem habuit cum angelis ignorantiam. these, and many such like doctrines (directly opposite to calvin his tenants) as he is contrary to truth (for though his disciples call him a great light of the gospel, yet i rather approve the censure of d. hunnius, calvin. judaiz. a famous lutheran, saying, that calvin is an angel of darkness) could pass unnoted, and uncontrolled by my calvinian judges, and all other adherents unto that faction. why then is this distinction of precepts & counsels so hateful unto the calvinists? alas, it toucheth their copy hold, most of them being either married men, or bending that way: and therefore let sacraments, christ, church, &c: be abused, nay let many points of catholic doctrine be preached by orthodox divines, yet they are more attentive unto the suppression of this truth, & the like, which doth more directly concern their carnal pleasure, and worldly profit. for they that have sold themselves to be the exact vassals of their own affections, and other men's wills, are careful to provide against any thing right, or wrong; true, or false; which may be prejudicial thereunto; rather attending what it is which will maintain their sensuality, then what is orthodox in sound divinity. answer. the dignity of truth, with the necessity of every truth we preach: but this distinction so oft, & idle and unnecessarily repeated i pass over, as ever holding that they be evangelical precepts: the article of christ his descent into hell, is not perverted by our ministers, it is believed & taught by us, witness mr rogers in his book the catholic doctrine of the church of england, mr perkins on the creed, our articles concluded upon in convocation, and other books in this kind. bellar. de anima christi. l. 4. cap. 6. §. quaeritur. bellarmin de anima christi lib. 4. cap. 6. §. quaeritur 2. saith thus; omnes conveniunt quòd christus aliquo modo ad inferos descenderit. of the manner only of this descending if there be some doubt, there was the like also among the fathers, and so bellarmine also in the place before cited, declareth that above threescore creeds of the ancient fathers & councils, leave out this article: yet luther, brentius the centuriasts retain it, and calvin cited by bellarmin lib. 2. inst. cap. 16. §. 8. dicit hunc articulum in praecipuis habendum, the schoolmen agree not on it. durand 3. sent. dist. 22. quaest. 3. durand. 3. sent. dist. 22. quaest. 3. is confuted by bellarmin in his book de anima christi lib. 4. cap. 15. so that if this be a motive to forsake us, it should also be a motive for you to forsake the fathers, and schoolmen. our differences about the sacraments are none at all. crastovius hath observed many contradictions of the jesuits herein. the doctrines that follow in rehearsal, crastov. which (you say) you preached without impeachment, were censured though not publicly, yet privately: you were then pitied, rather than opposed, as being known to be ungrounded in these principles. for you understood not calvin, bellarmine doth defend him, nescio (saith he, bell. lib. 2. lib. 2. de christ. cap. 19 speaking of this imputed error) an sit in re, ●n solùm in verbis; and again, non facilè pronuntio eum in hoc errore fuisse; and again, that calvin was free from error, he absolutely affirmeth, in the matter he erred not, in re non est quaestio, and again in the * tom. 3. in edit. lugdun. an. 1596. index of his book, referring the reader to the place these be his words, calvini sententia 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 explicatur & defenditur: and more than all this, speaking of symlerus expounding calvins' meaning in this point, iosi● sententia non video cur catholica dicenda non sit. so that bellarmin alloweth calvins' opinion to be catholical, and you revile it with the term of heretical: ergo, with you catholica sententia est haeretica. secondly, for the conception of christ, thomas stateth the question, after this manner. in the conception three things are to be considered: 1 the confluence of the matter, 2 the forming of the body of christ out of this matter, 3 the growth of it so form in the womb: this confluence, & growth he acknowledgeth to have proceeded successively; but concerning the forming of this body, in the which the essence of the conception consisteth, his assertion is, that it was in an instant, not member after member, or lineament after lineament, in 46. days, as the conception is of other men. this opinion of his, which he groundeth on gregory's authority, though it do scarcely relish with caietan, psal. 139. v. 15 16. yet by us was not so much disliked, as meddled not with: we hold with david, that the fashioning of us in the womb, is a secret, clasped in god's book, which yet hath not been opened. and if it be so in the fabric and framing of our bodies: how much more secret, is that sacred mystery of christ's incarnation? of which matter with what unsanctified and unpolished terms you did sometimes entreat, you know, and many of a religious understanding congregation in england will never forget. it is not therefore absurd to deny that which we see no ground for: but presumption in such matters, to affirm more than is revealed. which euclid a heathen did acknowledge, when being asked a curious question, about the gods, he answered, caetera quidem nescio, illud scio quòd odere curiosos. thirdly, your rebukeable rebuke of calvin, which unjustly you tax him for, is easily answered. no doubt but that in the actions & passions of unrighteous men, there is more to be deemed of god, than his bare permission, for doubtless, he hath his will therein: yet not in counseling, and much less in compelling thereunto, but in ordaining and governing them, in applying them to better ends, than sinners be aware of, he hath a will, but not a willingness, and this not in respect to the sin itself, but to some other good, adjoined unto it. as in the statutes of our common wealth, there are many things contained, more than the laws either commit or allow, as treasons, felonies, heresies, etc. which notwithstanding the laws do order and dispose of: so in the will of god, within the compass & and pale of his arbitrement, much more is contained, then either by action or authorizement from him, could ever be defended, and yet that will of his is the judge and disposer of all those particulars. but, to come unto that which bellarmine and you enforce upon calvin, & beza: after many windings and turnings, bellarmin is driven at length unto the same tenant. for who acknowledgeth not this received distinction, how in every sin two things are to be considered: first, the action itself, which the schoolmen call the subject or materiality of the offence; secondly, the obliquity or deformity of the action, as oc●am calleth it, which is the swerving from the line (according to bellarmin) which gods word hath drawn us? the first hath god for his author, and the papists cannot deny it: the second, man's will, and the devil, and no more have our men affirmed. suarez, the great schoolman among the jesuits ingeniously professeth so much: the protestants, saith he, knew well that god intendeth not that which is formal in sin, nor inclineth the will of man, that he should intend it. and bellarmine his words be these to that purpose, bell. de amiss. great & statu perfect. c. 2. adversarij verbo fatentur, id quod catholici docent, in words (saith he) our adversaries teach no otherwise then we do. god is not properly the author of sin, but the orderer: he ordaineth the work, not the fault; the effect, not the defect: and by this it is plain, he is more than the permissive cause. and if you observe calvin truly without common malice, you will find that he is much wronged, and wrested, and may say for himself; if i have evil spoken, bear witness of the evil: but if i have well spoken, joh. 10.23. why smitest thou me? fourthly, christ crying to his father, deus meus, deus meus, may in some sort (saith bernard) be said to be forsaken, non per dissolutionem unionis, sed per substractionem visionis: he suffered all penal punishments, but not peccant, as aquinas; all miserable pains, but not damnable, as s. austin distinguisheh. and howsoever calvins' words be wrested, as if he thought christ was in some kind of despair: yet they bear it not it was vox tanquam desperantis, but not simply desperantis; the sacrifice he offered, as it was most necessary in regard of our sins, so was it most voluntary in respect of himself, and caluin holdeth no other position. fiftly, christ was not ignorant of the day of judgement: caluin doth pass no further than the words of christ, marc. 13. 3●. that none knoweth, not the son, but the father only. he was ignorant, secundum concomitantiam, non secundum causam, as bonaventure speaketh: and, as bernard speaketh, he took all infirmities, and therein this of ignorance, all which made for the appearance of the truth of his humanity, and these he had by necessity, not a derived, but an assumed necessity, as bonaventure proveth: & caluin hath not any where further: for in respect of christ his human nature, he witnesseth himself, none but the father knew this; but by the hypostatical union, joining both, he was equal to his father in this knowledge. what may seem in calvin to relish otherwise, is not his own opinion, as by the place is most plain. papists have given as reproachful titles, to their own fellows, as this: the advantage is small, to take up a term of contumely from any hot-brained railer, to cast upon the name of this angel of his church. your paradoxes did not pass unnoted, both because of the rudeness of the delivery of them, the unaptness of the terms; as also your ignorance, that, as you would not truly preach as a protestant, so you knew not how neatly to play the papist. all of any note, noted your absurdity, and insufficiency either to show yourself a friend, or an enemy. you ask why this distinction was so hateful. i answer, the distinction so used as the fathers interpreted, was not denied: but the consequences of it, as you urged it, were harmful, & therefore hateful not because so many of our religion be married: for howsoever marriage is a most honourable state, how many hundreds in our university have consecrated themselves to god in the ministry, that abhor your opinion, and yet be not matched, or married? but the cause of the contempt and loathing of the doctrine, is, that it was derogatory to the law of god, to the church of god, to the son of god: a doctrine, that hath bewitched many, and led them captives into the habitation of darkness, the cell, or hell of blindness: a doctrine, whose root is heresy, whose trunk vncommanded privacy, whose branches be infidelity, against truth, violating the law, contemning the precept: whose leaves be pertinacity, hypocrisy; whose fruits be idleness, drowsiness, filthiness. this is the cause of the suppressing and choking of this, and such continuing weeds of heresy, that seek growth in our church, no other cause of pleasure or profit, god and his angels be witnesses. they that have sold themselves to work wickedness with greediness, looking for the reward of balaams' wages, are ready to resist all truth, and if it fall within compass of their itching humour, willing (to get a name) will be the patrons of bewitching error. and therefore, here i fasten my right constant determination, to avoid that religion that corrupteth the knowledge with blindness, and the heart with hardness. mr leech. the ninth motive. the protestants do unconscionably impugn the known, and manifest truth. since the controversies of religion are many in number, and intricate in nature, it was my desire (from the beginning of my pains in the study of sacred theology) to find out the true church, that so i might refer myself unto her decision, and rest within her bosom. for which cause i wholly employed myself in turning over the volumes of the ancient fathers; and whatsoever i found clearly expressed by their uniform testimony; i accepted that (according to vincentius his rule) as the judgement of the church. among other doctrines (which seem popish unto the new evangelists) i received this particular from their instruction; so clearly taught, so conformably witnessed, so jointly approved, that, if the grounds of religion be not uncertain, than this doctrine is absolutely free from all exception. and for proof hereof, i remit me unto the sentences of the fathers, wherewith i thought it meet to conclude this discourse. wherefore, since they that glory in the fathers (& want neither wit, nor learning for this matter) do impugn this doctrine, and punish her professors; how can i think that they do not fight against their conscience, and reason? and how can i think that any truth will find entertainment at their hands, when this truth so potent, & so irrefragable: is thus fond rejected by my calvinian judges? but whom have they condemned? me? a brother sometimes of their gospel, a graduate of their schools, a minister of their church? no; but in me, and with me, reverend antiquity, the grey headed fathers, the venerable doctors, yea holy scripture itself is censured by my unworthy judges. wherefore, as jeremiah, see apolog. justi calvin. pag. 11. 12. the patriarch of constantinople, wrote unto the lutherans, so may i testify, and proclaim unto these men, the ancient divines, who were the light of the church, you entreat at your own pleasure; honouring and extolling them in words but rejecting them in deed; endeavouring to shake them out of our hands, whose holy and divine testimonies we should use against you. we see that you will never submit yourselves unto the truth. finally, as the patriarch concludeth, that he will have no intercourse with the lutherans, forasmuch as he is taught by s. paul to avoid an heretic, after the first, or second admonition, so i (being persecuted by men of this condition) am bound to a void them; knowing (as s. paul speaketh) that such (as they) are condemned by their own judgements. answer. the controversies in religion are many, hence great alterations have been moved in europe, great changes through the world. controversies were in abundance raised by the infection of the smoke of the bottomless pit: diverse armies of heretics, vanquished by the reverend fathers, yet all these, as if but half dead, are again revived by antichrist, only this is the difference: the former heretics were confuted, because they opposed the fathers; these later (wiser in their generation) seek to confute all other that oppose them, by the fathers. each man among them at first asketh the way to the church, & no church can serve them but rome, that is their parish church, all other but chapels, they observe not the alteration of many christian nations from the sea of rome, or the occasion of this revolt, the declination of that sea from the sincerity of the faith, and the unspeakable corruption thereof. which separation was made, upon these two grounds: first, because rome did persecute the professors of this reformation with all bloody massacres; secondly, because that antichristian sea would admit no reformation of her corruptions, but grew uncurable, according to that of the prophet, we would have cured babylon, but she would not be healed. and such hath been the growth of this reformation (the lords most holy name for ever be praised:) that the church hath recovered more health in one age, than she had lost in two; and the roman synagogue left infected, as that it hath not only drunk the cup of all others abominations, but breedeth heresies in itself inwardly, and hath received such poisons by ambition, such corruptions by want of reformation, and such indelible marks of antichrist by continual persecution, outwardly, as now it is made plain to all the world she is not the church. but the question of the church you ask of the fathers. it is a worthy speech of job, ask the fathers and they shall tell thee: but how unhappy is he that perverteth all he readeth; or that stomach, that turneth all into poison, that it receiveth? (you say) you bestowed your whole time in turning over the volumes of the fathers (you did turn them indeed from their meaning) it was no more commendable than the continual praying of the eutichae, or the continual reading of the pharisees: the one without care, senseless; the other without knowledge, fruitless; and both superstitions. vincentius rule is twice already interpreted, and without any further answer to your clamorous repetitions & interrogations, you received not this point jointly from the fathers. the latin fathers, how ever they retain upon mistake of s. paul, the word counsel: yet have no part of your meaning: the greek are so far from your meaning, that they had not so much as the word. they therefore that impugn your doctrine, do it not untruly, or unconscionably; nor have condemned you as a brother, a graduate, or a minister: but because you were a false brother and betrayed truth, and in your degrees, like the sun that went many degrees backward, that in your ministry you were disobedient, you were no better than a minister of satan, to buffet the ears of gods servantes with heresies, and in a stubborn opposition & contradiction you did repugn authority and orders, & stood out against the judges and magistrates that confuted and censured you. and how could you profess such reverence to the fathers you knew not: when you were so opposite to your natural fathers, as this is, your country; academical fathers, as this is, your university; spiritual fathers, as this is, aust. 48. epist. your church? we answer your patriarch with saint austin in his 48. epistle, audi, dicit dominus: non dicit donatus, aut rogatus, aut vincentius, aut hilarius, aut ambrose, aut augustinus: sed, dicit dominus. we honour the fathers, and where they bring dicit dominus, our ears, and hearts be open to entertain them. and as s. austin using the same words which your patriarch doth, both using the words of scripture, haereticum devita: so this is my 9 irrefragable position, to avoid that religion which claimeth, but hath no antiquity; and only hath, though it confesseth it not, the most absurd and ridiculous novelty for mainetenance of their positions. mr leech. the tenth motive. the protestants, for want of better means to convince the catholics, propose unto them questions of capital danger. i have often heard the catholics complain, that, where as they are persecuted for righteousness sake, & for their religion; yet they are traduced with the crime of obstinacy, disobedience, treason, and such like odious imputations. but above the rest, their just grief (arising from unjust vexations) did seem to deserve great compassion, forasmuch as their life, and livelihood is always in the mercy of a most unmerciful law, touching reconciliation and the supremacy; matters of high, and capital nature. touching the later of these two, i can say more, doctor array. because the bloody heart of a calvinist did seek my ruin and subversion thereby. for whereas, in my sermons, i continually gave this style unto his excellent majesty; viz: in all causes, and above all persons, for justice, and judgement, supreme head, and governor; the calvinist suspecting me not to stand thoroughly affected to the king's supremacy, according to the purport of the law (whereby his majesty hath as much spiritual jurisdiction, as ever the pope, de facto, had in england; and, 26. henr. 8. chap. i. i. edward 6.1. elizab. see these things excellently discoursed by a cath. divine against the 5. part of sir ed. cooks reports. by virtue of his said supremacy, power of excommunication is granted by the lord chancellor unto the delegates upon appeals, from the archbishop of canterbury his courts,) wished m. vicechancellor to examine me upon this point, and to require my opinion therein. which severity though it was then declined, yet if that other calvinist had been in office (as lately he was) all men may easily conceive into what extremity of peril i had been cast. for though i ever did, and shall attribute that right unto his majesty, which, by the law temporal (not dissenting from law divine) is annexed unto his imperial crown; yet i must confess that i did purposely moderate his title of supremacy (as the law hath established it) because i always conceived, that the style of defensor fidei (given unto the crown of england, by the pope) did more properly belong unto him, than the other, which was translated from the pope unto the crown, by the violence of a king, and by the flattery of his subjects. and if doctor airay had made a conscience of his master's judgement, he would rather have condescended unto the equity of my opinion, than sought to draw my life into the certainty of such a danger. but these men are so possessed with malice, and adulation, that they rather desire to satisfy their own passions, and to win favour from their superiors, then to speak, or do according to the truth which pleadeth for itself within their corrupt hearts, and daily accuseth them before the throne of greatest justice. answer. many complain without a cause, as the full bellied monks: so fat that they could scarcely breathe, & yet cry, heu quanta patimur pro christo? the protestants never persecuted your religion, but for the unrighteousness thereof. the mulct was inflicted for popish opinion, but execution never was threatened for religion. the oath of supremacy required, is not (as you treacherously call it) a most unmerciful law: if it were not required, it were an unwise & unjust mercy. your accusation so uncharitable, as to term him bloody, who in his government hath been meek as moses, nay in heavy injuries, cast upon him, hath been as meek as a lamb and not opened his mouth: i would you were as far from bloodthirsting, as his heart was from the desire of your bloodshedding. but if you remember the particulars, as they be discussed in my answer pag. 262. it was most seasonable, to sound how you stood affected to the king's majesty: when you denied your faith, and appealed from your church. the rather, because in your prayer you often left out the words, supreme head and governor. for, howsoever (you infer,) that you used all that belongeth to the supremacy in acknowledging his most excellent majesty to be supreme head and governor in all causes and above all persons for justice and judgement: yet seeing in the form of the oath, prescribed unto all, you were in particular bound utterly to testify, & declare in your conscience, that the king's highness is the only supreme governor of this realm, and of all other his highness dominions, and countries, as well in spiritual or ecclesiastical things or causes, as temporal; you ought for the avoidance of this suspicion, to have spoken clearly and plainly. i know there be some, that use such manner of speech, in their public prayers for his majesty: yet their form is much more consonant to the required form, then yours is. and howsoever solomon was placed on his throne for justice and judgement, as the queen of sheba told him; and doctor raynolds in the end of the preface to heart's conference, 1. reg. 10.9. affirmeth, that the lords anointed are the higher powers, ordained to execute justice and judgement: yet ever these words have been interpreted, to contain not only ius politicum, but ecclesiasticum, in which point you were most unsound, & vouchsafed not to afford so much unto the kings most royal majesty, as heart doth, who in the end of the conference, thus cloaseth out of s. austin; d. rain. conf. with hart. c. ● 10. fol. 589. kings do serve god in this, as kings, if in their own realm they command good things and forbidden evil, not only concerning the civil state of men, but the religion of god also, and thus much (saith he) i subscribe to. i omit here to lengthen my discourse, by inserting any speech, concerning the oath. the apology where of, seeing majesty hath so divinely, and powerfully delivered, as also that the grounds of all that can be said, are so exactly long since proved by that reverend father of our church, the bishop of winchest. & now of late, in the diverse answers to the snarling curs that bark at the ecclesiastes of our solomon. i also omit purposely the quotation of your cath. divine against the exquisite labours of that most reverend and most judiciously learned sir edward cook, because others of eminent place, either have already perfected, or very shortly will silence your catholic divine. your profession that you attribute as much to his majesty, as the law temporal requireth (not dissenting from the law divine) is false. the law divine doth give unto caesar place upon earth next unto god. and from the virtue of that law is derived, the oath of english men for the king's majesty against the pope, 2. kings. 11.4 usurping part of his right, as well as jehoiada of the men of juda for joas their king against athalia that usurped his state. and do you presume to moderate this title of supremacy? i would from my soul, that i might moderate your title of traitor. it is too much to be an apostate, an adversary: but in this kind to offend, it is an offence with a high hand. you see then, that the doctor had good reason to suspect you, when you translated yourself from the title of subjection; & the king's majesty, as much as in you lieth, from his lawful dominion. you shoot at calvin in your margin, and again, and at the doctor in your text: the reverend doctor is scholar to none but christ, though he and all honest men do reverence blessed calvin. and calvin in the place quoted reproveth not the title of head, as protestants granted it: but in that sense which popish prelates gave it him, namely stephen gardiner, who did urge the title of head so; as if he had meant thereby that the king might do things in religion according to his own will, and not see them done according to gods will. wherefore cease that calumny, and quench that tongue which setteth on fire the course of nature, and is inflamed by hell fire. you were not oppugned by any flattering devise, or spiteful malice, as you affirm: but by truth and faith, allegiance to god and the king. hence i ground my tenth pillar, that their religion is bad, who possessed with malicious recusancy, and treacherous apostasy speak evil of those that be in authority, and yield not caesar, that which is caesar's, or unto god, that which is gods. mr leech. the eleventh motive. the protestants manner of proceed against catholics, and catholic religion, is absurd in reason, and unequal in justice. and hence they are proved to be heretics. in my perusal of the ancient fathers and ecclesiastical histories, i did very often observe these two things. first; that the catholic church had wisdom to discern heretical innovations. secondly; that she had power to enact necessary laws for the suppression thereof; so that an heresy could not escape her censure, nor an heretic her justice. if popery therefore be heresy, and papists heretics (as some fanatically brand them) then surely the catholic protestanticall church is able to show, that she, in all ages, hath impugned this heresy, and that she hath her proper laws to proceed against heretical offenders: if not so; then doubtless she is no more catholic, than the furious congregations of donatists, arrians, and such like; who afflicted the true church against all order of justice, being never able to show any catholic predecessors, who maintained their opinions, nor any laws made by them to correct the impugners thereof. that this is the condition of protestants, i am a witness by their disorderly proceeding against the doctrine, which i delivered out of the conform testimonies of the church. for whereas it pleased my calvinian judge to call it popish, erroneous, false, lying, absurd doctrine; they could not reprove it otherways, than arrians, and donatists, that is to say, by rejecting the fathers, and by a tumultuous process, without any legal course. and though i required them to deal with me as with an heretic, by refelling my doctrine, and by proceeding canonically against me; yet they oppressed me with authority alone; having their will for reason, and their power for justice. but for as much as i have such abundant proof for the verity of my doctrine, and that their opinion is condemned in the church for no less than heresy, ambr. 10. lib. epist. epist. 80 & 81. (by syricius bishop of rome; and a counsel there: by s. ambrose bishop of milan, and a counsel there) i appeach them confidently as heretics for embracing jovinianisme; as heretics for contemners of antiquity; and therefore as heretics culpable of singular pride. which infamy if they can wash away from themselves by learning, and honesty, than i will retract my sentence, and confess myself to be an heretke (for the one of us must needs be heretics) howsoever every ingenuous, & indifferent man must needs confess, that they did not carry themselves as they should have done to prove me guilty of this crime. answer. in your abusall of the ancients, you observed much, and deserved little for it: because it was far from their meaning, to speak as you desired to teach them. your two observations here, be good (i confess) but ill applied. for the catholic church being the same with our protestants, in all ages, hath impugned the heresies which papists maintain. the valentinians worshipped the cross, and were condemned as heretics, saith irenaeus. the carpocratians worshipped images, & they were condemned for heretics, iren. lib. 1. aug. haeres. 7. saith s. austin. collyridiam heretics, for adoring the virgin mary; angelici, heretics, for adoring the angels; pelagians, heretics, for holding perfection; priscilianists, heretics, for mental reservation; manichees, herteicks, forbidding to eat flesh; tatians, and montanists, forbidding marriage, and anthropomorphites, painting god in similitude of a man. are not these all by austin, irenaeus, and epiphanius, and others condemned? & be not all these positions by the church of rome maintained? for our catholic protestant predecessors the fathers of the first 500 years are ours: and from thence a continual succession, of learned, faithful, & courageous teachers in all the following ages, as mr white in his learned chronological collection, in the 50. paragraph of his way to the true church doth prove. and that we have had the assistance of counsels, in all ages to make laws against such positions, witness the greek church against bonif. his supremacy the 6. general council decreeing the marriage of priests; the general council of constantinople, under leo isamus, against images; the council of constantinople, under constantine capronymus; of frankford, under charles the great, the second nicene council, and many others. this doctrine of yours was repugned by doctrinal and legal authority, and without rejecting of the fathers, we rejected your doctrines: we maintain, that they never received it: with arrians, or donatists we reject not the fathers. all that shall see the premises, will witness that you were dealt with legally according to the statutes of our university for the breach of that order, which inhibited you to forbear preaching this doctrine again: as also you were censured canonically for infrindging that canon made against the public oppositions of preachers. your pope syricius, and his council, tax no position that we hold: & if ambrose had any more than what doctor benefield hath fully satisfied, you had, before this, produced it. satan was at your elbow, when you wrote that heretical imputation of singular pride: and therefore you are culpable of judgement, if not of further punishment. stand to your promise, come back, confess, repent, retract: if you be not convinced by truth which stirreth in your conscience, and moaneth that you have so repressed her, then for ever forget the name of any thing but heretic. otherwise this shall be my 11. motive to abhor that religion that doth so possess any, that they grow resolute in evil actions, peremptory in talking, fastidious in hearing, hard-hearted in obeying, hypocritical in professing the word of god. mr leech. the twelfth motive. the superior magistrates amongst the protestants concur with their subordinate's, to suppress the truth, and to oppress the patrons thereof, against all equity, and conscience. though there be a very near connexion betwixt the superior, and inferior magistrate, yet since all magistracy is ordained for the conservation of truth, and justice aswell in the church, as in the common wealth (nay much more in the first, then in the second) it is very requisite, that the superior should yield redress, where the inferior hath done a wrong; and that rather respecting the cause, than the persons, he should minister equity unto both with an impartill hand. for which consideration, when my petty judges had oppressed me according to their own humours, and passions; i appealed unto my lord of canterbury his grace; in regard of his academical sovereignty over me, and them (being our honourable chancellor) and much more in respect of his archiepiscopal dignity; he being the primate of our church; persuading my self also, that as he is more high in place, so he would have been more equal in justice; and specially in this cause, since his grace hath sufficiently manifested himself (and hath been so generally reputed) to be averse from calvinisme, tempora mutantur, & nos mutamur in illis. and my hope was, that his present place had not changed his former understanding. to whom though i truly unfolded the whole business, and acquainted him with all circumstances thereunto belonging, yet his grace seeming to favour calvins' opinion (but how conscionably, it shall be now referred unto the judge of all the world; and he will reveal it in the appointed time) put me of with continual delays. but his grace had just reason to expect a strong resolution in me; since i did appeal unto him to do me justice only; and much more to give his verdict upon the doctrine itself. for, otherways, no favour, nor benefit whatsoever could yield contentment unto my grieved soul. i leave it unto others to consider, how his grace standeth affected unto truth; as for me, i trust, that i have given a sufficient demonstration, on my part, that i would rather lose my liberty of speech, then that she should want my uttermost defence. here the indifferent reader may also conceive with me, that if my doctrine had been liable unto a just censure, then surely his grace would have made no stay to condemn it in solemn manner; especially since it was so publicly taught, so earnestly defended by me; and since i did now entirely desire him to do me justice without any favour. but since this doctrine was not subject unto his condemnation, why then had his grace so little reverence unto the eternal truth of god, and so small respect of me, that he would suffer it to be so indignly censured by his vicegerent, and leave me helpless from such injurious oppression? his pretences to the contrary (if he have any) are nothing but smoky evaporations. i am nothing, and worse than nothing. but i pleaded for justice. in what? in a point of faith. when? being violently oppressed. before whom? my most proper judge, to whom the decision of these things doth most fitly appertain. for what end? the honour of god, and his gospels sake; which i truly delivered, and for which i was shamefully entreated. answer. this 12 and last motive serveth rather to fill the number, than the matter, wherein is a rhapsody of insolent indiscretion and malapert irreligion, wronging the living memory of a dead monument of most honourable and reverend estimation, the late worthy chancellor of this university, who being appointed for the conservation of truth and justice, did justify the proceedings of his worthy and only vicechancellor: and therefore you call in question, his truth first, and then his justice. for any averseness in him from calvinisme, (by which you mean the protestants religion) it is (to say no more of it) a biting slander, unfit to proceed from the mouth of a minister. in another man, it is a double sin against his own soul, and doth prove him guilty not only of malicious slander, to revile the innocent: but of impudent and infamous libeling, to dishonour the name of a parsonage, so truly reverend. but in a minister, it is not only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as philo speaketh, not a twofold, but a manifold offence, bad in intent, in act, in example, in consequence, etc. his works follow him: his judgement proved him to be sound, by his preferment of those that were sound; by his government repressing the opinions & censuring the authors of any positions unsound; by his dear and near respect of those, that he foresaw were like to stand in the gap courageously and victoriously, against the popish philistims. truth hath lost a defender, and the church a father: the one he maintained by precepts and constitutions; the other, he defended not only with prayers & petitions, but, as paul spoke, cum lachrymis & suspirijs, with sighs & lamentations, to see how the venomous gangrene of atheism doth infect this age, some flying from the religion of the church, others stealing from the possession of our church, thereby incurring that curse of eradication to be rooted out of their possessions, whereas otherwise their days might have been long in the land which the lord their god had given them. the most reverend, but now deceased much lamented prelate, did not by change of place change his thoughts: your intimation is base and false, to make the world believe any other affection in his grace towards religion, than what god and man approved openly, & so by the sequel of your business it is manifest. where in your second limb (of that monstrous accusation,) is against his justice, his approbation of the university censure, was as much as another condemnation of you: pretences his grace needed not for main reasons wanted not: his experience of the truth, knowledge, wisdom, judgement and government of his vicegerent, and the world's experience of his graces prudent, and eminent carriage, in all his high and honourable employments, do free them both from your imputations, and return you your smoky evaporations (a phrase lent you from the sulphureous fume of the bottomless pit.) but you conclude that you are nothing, and worse than nothing. the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of your book, showeth that you are somewhat more than nothing: the only argument to serve your turn, to prove the pope to be god, is because he can make something of purgatory which is nothing. i could turn this upon you, but i forbear, and only return to your own figure. how pleaded you for justice? with stubborn, tumultuous, quarrelous disobedience. in what? in a point derogatory to the justice, and law of god. when? then, when you oppressed truth, rejected your faith, disobeyed your judge, began to forsake your church. before whom? in the open face of heaven, in the presence of god, men, and angels, in the holy place, the pulpit, in the best place, on the best day. for what end? the dishonour of god, the disgrace of his law which you accused of insufficiency and imperfection. thus you did delude, and were deluded: & for this these reverend doctors have been by you injuriously traduced. that i may truly say, no revolter ever did offer more scandal in general to our church; or slander in particular, to so many, worthy members thereof. mr leech. to m. doctor king deane of christ-church in oxford, and vicechancellor of the university, h. l. wisheth health and salvation in christ jesus. sir, though your will was your law to punish me without my offence, yet it shall not be your sanctuary to defend yourself, without more sufficient reason. for as you convented me before a selected calvinian assembly, so now i convent you, and them, before all men in the assured confidence of my good cause, and in the comfortable peace of my sincere heart. and since you dealt with me as a magistrate, by the strength of your authority, you must give me leave now to deal with you as a scholar, by the validity of arguments. finally; because i wish your future happiness, i cannot omit to acquaint you with your present misery, which i will lay forth before your eyes in syllogistical manner and then i will refer you unto the consultation of your own heart. whatsoever doctrine is founded upon scripture, according to the conformable opinion of the ancient church, that is a point of catholic faith. but the doctrine of evangelical counsels is founded upon scripture, according to the conformable opinion of the ancient church. therefore the doctrine of evangelical counsels is a point of catholic faith. the mayor is a maxim in all christian schools. the minor is proved by the ensuing testimonies of the fathers: whose uniform verdict in this behalf is the judgement of the church. whosoever doth obstinately impugn any point of catholic faith, he is an heretic. but doctor king, d. aglionby, d. airay, d. hutton, d. benefield etc. do obstinately impugn a point of catholic faith. therefore d. king, d. aglionby etc. are heretics. de haeres. ad quodvult d. in perorat. the mayor is granted by all men of judgement, and is confirmed by s. augustine's rule. the minor is proved by their own proceed against me in this particular. every heretic is bound to recant his heresy, or else he is liable to the punishment, decreed in the canonical law of the church. but d. king, d. aglionby etc. are heretics. therefore d. king, d. aglionby etc. are bound to recant their heresy, or else they are liable to the punishment decreed in the canonical law of the church. the mayor is clear of itself. the minor is proved already. and because it shall appear yet more sensibly, i pray you to consider, that whosoever rejecteth the joint consent of fathers in a point of doctrine (as d. king doth herein) he is an heretic: and this i will briefly declare by four evidences. first: epist. 1. ad leon. cap. 1. by the testimony of flavianus patriarch of constantinople, saying: haeretici est praecepta patrum declinare, & instituta eorum despicere. in concil. chalced. secondly: by the testimony of eudoxius admitted in a general council: qui non consentit sacrosanctorum patrum expositionibus, alienat se ab omni sacerdotali communione, & a christi praesentia. see sozom. l. 7. c. 12. thirdly: by the proceed of the most christian emperor theodosius against the proud, distracted hetikes: who would not submit themselves unto the judgements of the venerable fathers. see vincent. lit. cap. 41. fourthly: by the practice of the ephesine counsel against nestorius: who was judged an heretic, not only in regard of the matter itself, veterum interpretum scripta perdiscere dedignatus est. see socrat. l. 7. c. 32. nota. wherein he erred damnably, but in regard of the manner and trial by the holy fathers, which his contemptuous spirit did utterly decline. many also of those fathers by whose testimony the cause was then handled against nestorius, are the very same, whose verdicts i shall now produce against d. king, and against his abettors whosoever. answer. to mr. humphrey leech, late minister, now revolter. sir, it is salomon's counsel, in the 4. verse of the 26. chap. of proverbs, not to answer some sort of men: yet in the next verse, he adviseth to answer such, lest they triupmh in their own eyes. upon the instruction of the former verse, this worthy deane, intends to contemn rather than answer: and yet wisheth you less presumption, greater knowledge, less sophistry, & more honesty: but upon the direction of the ensuing verse, i, the weakest of many, yet strong enough for this cause have upon reasons, of some importance, undertaken to confute your calumnies, to clear the truth, & to confirm the faithful. in christian policy you were to be answered, and in common charity you are to be counseled, hereafter to care what you writ, & whom you revile, so to rule your pen, and order your tongue, that you be not judged either in this world, or in the future, or in both, for a prostituted conscience if not a hardened heart. in that presumptuous speech (that will, was the law to punish you without an offence, & yet shall not be the sanctuary, to defend that reverend governor that censured you) you are much offensive to truth. it was your ignorance that betrayed you, the offence condemned you, the law did censure you. now you are far of, you vent your gall like unto gall his reproach against abimelek when he supposed him far enough from him; who is abimelek? and who is shechem, that we should serve him? your threats be blasts, he needs no sanctuary, that hath so many in the ears and hearts of the most honoured and best affected of this land. and though you presume, to convent him, yet at this time, a far meaner man shall discharge him: you desire leave to deal as a scholar: it is well you will ask leave, that you neglect not all duty to your master: but i assure you it is generally believed, that if any thing in your whole book be truly your own, it appeareth in the validity of these arguments, framed so sophistically, as if you had only learned logic by that rude prescription; discere si cupias logicam, discas titlemannum; ille sophistarum crimina pandere vult. mr wright complains that none of our protestants answer briefly and punctually: you shall not need to complain so. in two words i answer your three arguments: negatur minor. for, ever you affirm as a principle, the things to be proved, which manner of argumentation, 2. prior. c. 16. 8. topic. 13. 1. soph. 5. 2. soph. 12. aristotle reckons for a fallacy in many places, and terms it by this name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a begging to have that granted, which in the beginning was the main controversy. so archimedes, would move the whole earth, if he could obtain a separate standing from the earth, which might not be. and this is the dealing, of all your champions: first they take this, as granted, that the church of rome is the catholic church; and then conclude, that we are the heretics, which is the especial point to be proved. in your first syllogism, your presumption rather than assumption is faulty; but the doctrine of evangelical counsels is founded upon scripture, according to the conformable opinion of the ancient church. was there any hope that this might pass uncontrolled? being the main controversy of all? but it is proved, (say you) by the ensuing testimonies of the fathers: but it is disproved say i, both by that which hath been said in this tract, as also in particular answer to every father by d. benefield, that except you be more then perversely obstinate, you will undertake no more such challenges. the minor in both your other syllogisms assume that d. king, d. aglion by etc. obstinately oppugn a point of catholic faith, and are heretics, and therefore must recant etc. and your poor proofs be their proceed against you in this particular. alas do you boast of reading fathers, & schoolmen: children, & schooleboyes would be ashamed of such arguments, which i easily return again in this manner: whatsoever doctrine is not founded upon scripture etc. aut the doctrine of evangelical counsels is not founded etc. therefore the doctrine of evangelical counsels is not a point of catholic faith. the syllogism is good in the first figure, by the rules of logic, though the minor be negative, because the mayor is convertible. the minor is proved before in the right interpreting of the testimonies of the scriptures & fathers which you manifestly wrested and perverted. whosoever doth obstinately maintain any point of doctrine contrary to catholic faith, is etc. but mr leech doth obstinately maintain a point of doctrine contrary to catholic faith. therefore mr leech is an heretic. the mayor is granted by all men of judgement, and it is taught by the same rule of austin. the minor is proved by his own proceed in this particular. every heretic as in your own words, etc. but mr leech is an heretic etc. therefore mr leech etc. the mayor is clear of itself. the minor is proved already, and your four evidences that follow, are evidently turned upon yourself. thus baal's priests lance themselves, and saul falleth on his own sword. and in full satisfaction, that it may appear to all men, that we suppress not the truch, we rejected not the fathers, for though by the rule of vincentius and the grant of bellarmin, & all learned papists, we are only to receive the uniform consent of the fathers, yet in this you have neither all, nor the most, nor any places pregnant for your doctrine, as is manifest by the answer to them and the interpretation of the fathers. to your fourfold evidence: in praef. come. lib. mosis. i might return. first, the authority of cardinal caietan thus, god hath not tied the exposition of the scripture unto the sense of the fathers. andrad. defence. fidei trid. lib. 2. secondly, the judgement of andradius, that they spoke not oracles when they expounded the scriptures, & that the oversights of the translation, which they followed, must needs cause them to mist sometimes the right meaning of the holy ghost. turrecrem. in c. sancta. romana d. 15 nu. 4. possev. bibl. select. l. 12. c. 23. thirdly, what turrecremata hath delivered herein thus, at this day there be many things found in the father's deserving no credit. fourthly, what possevine concludeth, somethings in the fathers wherein unwittingly they dissented from the church, are judged and condemned. i could urge for your four, forty of your own, that do disclaim the authority of fathers: your grand jury is answered so fully by d. benefield, that as no man can say more, so i hope it will make you say much less. i denied not these 4 authorities you here bring but i deny that they be applied to the present, for in all the course of your testimonies we denied no fathers, but interpreted all. and now mr leech, let me tell you, your undeceiveable judge doth see you, and we both must receive our censure at another bar. once, one church held us in an honourable function, one university in a loving communion, one town the flourishing and happy and chief town of our shire, in a kind participation of all good offices. but you are departed. now you are gone: you have broken all these leagues, nay more, broken your covenant with god in the ministry of his church. shame the devil, forsake your stepmother, satisfy the world, & save your soul. we shall wish you, but not miss you, & weep for you, but not want you. understand not amiss, good reader, for nothing is so contrary to the will & consent as error. had these offers been proposed, these propositions had never been refused. first he only proposed out of a popish, peevish writer these extracted, or rather extorted authorities and would never condescend to answer the point as a scholar in disputation. secondly, it was disproved by a public lecture, & it was maintained against him, by the reverend doctors his judges, that neither scriptures nor orthodox fathers were for him. thirdly, it was manifest that to preach perfection in this life (especially angelical integrity) was at the least pelagianisme heresy, condemned by the fathers and ancient church. fourthly that this doctrine being the ground of works of supererogation, merit, etc. was plainly against the position of our church, as doctor benefield in private conference offered to prove. the scandals therefore be full of iniquity, which you impose on the reader, if he believe your advertisement. i wish you may find more acceptance before god in the day of retribution, than your words are like to find with any true hearted christians. seeing error conceived them & humour produced them. finis. christian reader, this book was long since promised, my attendance was the cause of the stay, but at length it is finished. i had rather with cato crave pardon for my fault, in doing this, then keep myself clear from committing this fault: for i have herein satisfied the importunity which imposed it, on me, and the necessity of the cause which drew me, to it. in the triumph, that is proved true which tully spoke of athenagoras: of his offence he spoke nothing, but complained of his punishment. there was small cause of the authors flying, less of his reviling. his reproachful terms, defiling and besmearing those many and worthy divines, i could have returned in the same language: hardly can any that shall answer him, avoid it, without calumny, or so pay him his own, without note of infamy. but in these labours, nothing is to be more prayed for, than a sanctified spirit, and therefore i have as much as possibly i might, avoided any thing that may seem contumelious or malicious. it resteth, that i find christian, and brotherly interpretation, in this labour, by those that shall peruse it. my haste may betray the manner of my writing, not the matter. and it may be, i shall find some such readers, higher prooem. in l. 2 comet. in osean. as s. hierom did: alij (saith he) quasi parva contemnunt, & quicquid dixerimus contractare despiciunt; alij magis aliorum silentium, quàm nostrum studium probant; quidam in eo, se disertos arbitrantur & doctos, si alieno operi detrahant. if such readers meet with my book, i fear not. if my book meet with such, i care not. the better sort i hope to find, & leave attentive, and will pray for all means of their instruction in this world, and salvation in the better world. errata. read children. p. 40. l. 16. metonymiam, p. 113. l. 30. some acknowledge some deny. p. 126. l. 10. aetnam, p. 131 l. 9. quo seniores, eo saniores 193. l. 5. ambigne. p. 195. l. 15. quod. 227. l. 4. editions. p. 336. l. 19 norris. l 24. w. faithorne sculp. two choice and useful treatises: the one lux orientalis; or an enquiry into the opinion of the eastern sages concerning the praeexistence of souls. being a key to unlock the grand mysteries of providence. in relation to man's sin and misery. the other, a discourse of truth, by the late reverend dr. rust lord bishop of dromore in ireland. with annotations on them both. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, plato. london, printed for james collins, and sam. lowndes over against exeter exchange in the strand, 1682. to the honourable sir john finch sir, you may well be surprised at this unexpected dedication from one that may seem an utter stranger to your person; but the fame of your singular knowledge in the choicest parts of philosophy, and all other worthy accomplishments, will make this presumption of me, the publisher of these two treatises, as pardonable by yourself, so, i hope, justifiable to all the world. not to say that it is a piece of indispensable justice that one of them be dedicated to you; the author thereof being that excellent person the reverend dr. rust, late bishop of dromore in ireland, once fellow of christ's college in cambridge, to which you lately have been so noble a benefactor. wherefore in hopes that you will be pleased to take the dedication of this whole book, the two treatises, and the annotations thereon in good part, craving pardon for this boldness i humbly take leave, and am, honoured sir, your most obedient and humble servant. james collins. the publisher to the reader. these two choice and useful treatises i present thee with the name of the author of the latter of them is set down in the title page, the reverend dr. rust late lord bishop of dromore in the kingdom of ireland; whose virtues parts and abilities are copiously set out in a letter of mr. jos. glanvill prefixed to the discourse itself. and i● thou hast the curiosity to know who is the author of the former treatise lux orientalis (who then thought fit to conceal his name as himself takes notice in his epistle dedicatory) i can assure thee, that it is the said mr. jos. glanvill, a person reputed one of the most ingenious and florid writers of his age. but for my own part i must ingenuously confess, that i am no competent judge, and consequently can be no fit encomiast of the abilities or performances of either. only this i know, that both these treatises have sold very well, and that there is none to be got of the discourse of truth; though it is not many years since it was printed. and for lux orientalis, which was printed about twenty years ago, when the book grew scarce, it was so much valued by the more eager and curious searchers into the profoundest points of philosophy, that there was given for it by some, four or five times the price for which it was at first sold. the considerations whereof coming into my mind, i thought i should both gratify the learned world and benefit myself, if i reprinted these two treatises together. which i do the more willingly, because the former editions were too too false and corrupt, especially of lux orientalis. which faults of the press, or mss. are carefully corrected in this. and besides that this edition is more correct than the former, there are also annotations added to each treatise by one not unexercized in these kind of speculations. and in the annotations upon the discourse of truth, there is inserted a digression that contains a brief answer to mr. baxter's placid collation with the learned dr. henry more. and because men usually have a fondness even for the smaller toys or trifles of well esteemed writers after their decease, i have prefixed a latin dedication of lux orientalis (which i opportunely had by me) before the epistle dedicatory: which latin dedication the author sent so prefixed, in a copy to the party it is made, and i have printed it in the same order it was there found, that it may be one monument amongst many other of the author's wit and ingenuity. i have also, that nothing may be wanting to thy content, got a friend to devise an hieroglyphical frontispiece, intended more especially for lux orientalis. but i do not profess myself able to unriddle the meaning thereof. the best interpreter will be the book itself. to the reading whereof i leave thee and rest your humble servant james collins. lux orientalis, or an enquiry into the opinion of the eastern sages concerning the praeexistence of souls. being a key to unlock the grand mysteries of providence, in relation to man's sin and misery. cardanus. quid jucundius quam scire quid simus, quid fuerimus, quid erimus, atque cum his etiam divina illa atque suprema post obitum mundique vicissitudines? london, printed for j. collins, and s. lowndes over against exeter exchange in the strand, 1682. doctissimo viro domino doctori henrico moro maximo purioris philosophiae magistro & sapientiae orientalis restauratori in exiguum summi affectûs testimonium et aeternae observantiae pignus a suis flammis mutuatam hanc orientis scintillam d. d. d. humillimus virtutum ejus et candoris non minùs quam doctrinae cultor; qui ei exoptat lucem sempiternam, & petit ut candidè accipiat lucem orientalem. to the much honoured and ingenious francis willoughby esquire. sir, 'tis likely you will no less wonder at this unexpected sally of my pen; than at my having prefixed your name to a small trifle, that owns no author. of the former, you will receive an account in the preface. and the latter, if the considerations following are not of weight, to atone for; i know you have goodness enough to pardon, what i have not reason sufficient to excuse, or vindicate. well meaning intentions are apology enough, where candour, and ingenuity are the judges. i was not induced then to this address, because, i thought, i could oblige you; worth describes itself in the fairest character. but reflecting upon that delight and satisfaction, that i have received in discoursing with you on such matters; and knowing that your noble genius is gratisied by such kind of speculations; i thought, i could not make more suitable payment for my content, or better acknowledge the favour i receive in your acquaintance, then by presenting you a discourse about preexistence; and giving you a peculiar interest in it, as you have in its author. not that i would suggest, that you are a favourer of any strange opinions, or hold any thing in this particular, or any other, that is sit to be discountenanced. but i know you love to be dealing in high and generous theories, even where yourself are a dissenter, nor is it the least evidence of the greatness and heroic nobleness of your spirit; that amidst the slowing abundance of the world's blessings, with which you are encircled, you can yet dedicate yourself to your beloved contemplations, and look upon the furniture and accomplishments of the mind, as better riches, than the largest doals of fortune, and the wealth and revenues of an ample inheritance. andmethinks, while most others at the best, do but use the donatives of providence, you enjoy them. and, by a nobler kind of chemistry, extract from them a pleasure, that is not to be met with in all the trivial sports of empty gallantry. to be reveiwing the recesses of nature, and the beauteous inside of the universe, is a more manly, yea angelic felicity, than the highest gratifications of the senses; an happiness, that is common to the youthful epicure, with his hounds and horses; yea, your ends are more august and generous, then to terminate in the private pleasure you take, even in those philosophical researches; for you are meditating a more general good in those careful and profound inquiries you are making into animals, and other concerning affairs of nature, which i hope, one day the world will be advantaged by. but i must not engage in an encomium, in which i cannot be just, but i must be troublesome. for your modesty is no more able to bear it, than my pen can reach. wherefore i shall dismiss your eyes from this tiresome attendance; and only beg, that you would assure yourself that no man is more your servant, than the author of lux orientalis: the preface. it is none of the least commendable indulgences of our church, that she allows us a latitude of judging in points of speculation; and ties not up men's consciences to an implicit assenting to opinions, not necessary or fundamental; which favourable and kind permission, is questionless a great obligation upon the ingenuous, submissively to receive and observe her pious appointments for peace and order. nor is there less reason in this parental indulgence, than there is of christian charity and prudence; since to tie all others up to our opinions, and to impose difficult and disputable matters under the notion of confessions of faith, and fundamentals of religion, is a most unchristian piece of tyranny, the foundation of persecution, and very root of antichristianisme. so that i have often wondered, that those that heretofore would have forced all men to a compliance with their darling notions, and would have made a prey of them, that could not bow down before the idol of their new-framed orthodoxy; should yet have the face to object persecution and unchristian tyranny to our church appointments; when themselves lie under a deep and crimson guilt of those very same miscarriages, which they endeavour to affix upon those more innocent constitutions. for is it not a far more unblamable and obnoxious imposition to frame systems of disputable opinions, and to require their admittance into our creeds, in the place of the most sacred, necessary, and fundamental verities; than it is to appoint some harmless orders of circumstance and ceremony, which in themselves are indifferent and innocent? and let any equal man be judge, which is the greater superstition, either to idolise and place religion in things of dispute and mere opinions; or conscientiously to observe the sanctions of that authority we are bound to obey. but how all those ill applied reproaches of the church of england, recoil upon those that discharge them, i have fully proved in a discourse on this subject, which in its due time may see the light. but for the present i go on with what i was about; therefore i say, 'tis a most commendable excellency in our ecclesiastical constitutions; which with all due regard ought to be acknowledged; that they lay stress on few matters of opinion, but such as are of important concernment, or very meridian truths. which i mention not to this purpose, as if men might therefore indulge themselves in what conceits and dangerous opinions soever their fancies might give birth to, (this were an unpardonable abuse of that noble and ingenuous liberty that is afforded us;) but that they might see the beauty of those well tempered constitutions; and that the mouth of obloquy might be stopped that slanders our church, as if it yielded no scope at all for free inquiry; when i dare say there is not a church in christendom, that in this regard is less taxable. as for the opinion of praeexistence, the subject of the following papers, it was never determined against by ours, nor any other church, that i know of; and therefore i conceive is left as a matter of school speculation, which without danger may be problematically argued on either hand. and i have so great confidence in all true sons of our common mother, to think, that they will not fix any harsh and severe censures, upon the innocent speculations of those, though possibly they may be errors, who own the authority, articles, canons, and constitutions of that church which they are so deservedly zealous for. therefore let me here premonish once for all, that i intent no innovation in religion, or disturbance of our established and received doctrines, by any thing i have undertaken in this little treatise; but only an innocent representation of an ancient and probable opinion, which i conceive, may contribute somewhat towards the clearing and vindicating the divine attributes, and so representing the ever blessed deity, as a more fit object of love and adoration, than the opinions of the world make him. and what ever may be thought of the thing itself, or the manage of this affair, i'm sure the end and design is concerning and important, and deserves at least a favourable construction of the undertaking. for there is nothing more for the interest of religion, than that god be represented to his creatures as amiable and lovely, which cannot be better done, than by clearing up his providences and dealings with the sons of men, and discovering them to be full of equity, sweetness and benignity; so that though i should be mistaken in the opinion which i endeavour to recommend, yet i expect the candour of the ingenuous, being betrayed into an error, if it be one, by so pardonable an occasion. if it be excepted against this undertaking, that the doctrine of pr●eexistence hath in a late discourse been purposely handled; besides what the learned dr. more hath written of it; and therefore that this labour may seem a superfluous, unnecessary repetition: i answer, that that very treatise, viz. the account of origen, made some such thing as this expedient. for though the proof and management of this affair be there unexceptionable, as far as the author is by his design engaged; yet, he being confined to the reasons of origen, and to the answering such objections, as the fathers urged against him; hath not so fully stated and cleared the business, but that there was room for afterundertakers. and 'tis a great disinterest to so strange and unusual a doctrine as this, to be but partially handled: since so long, it will not be understood, and consequently be but exposed to contempt and ignominy. nor can we hope that the world will be so favourable to a paradox, or take so much pains for the understanding of that which they think a gross absurdity, as to collect those principles that are scattered up and down the writings of that great and excellent restorer of the platonic cabbala, and accommodate them to the interest of this opinion. so that i thought that till the reasons, answers, principles, and particular state of the hypothesis were brought all together, to talk of praeexistence in earnest were but to make a man's self ridiculous, and the doctrine, the common ludibrium of fools and ignorants. and yet i must confess myself to be so much a contemner of the half-witted censurers of things they know not, that this reason alone could not have moved my pen the breadth of a letter; but some ingenious friends of mine, who were willing to do their maker right, in a due apprehension of his attributes and providences, having read the letter of resolution, and thence being induced to think favourably of preexistence, were yet not fully satisfied in the proof, nor able to give stop to those objections, which their imperfect knowledge of the hypothesis occasioned; wherefore they desired me to draw up a more full and particular account of that doctrine, which they had now a kindness for, and which wanted nothing more to recommend it to them, but a clear and full representation. for their satisfaction then, i drew up the following discourse, intending at first, that it should go no further than their hands, whose interest in mine affections had commanded it; but they being more than i could well pleasure with written copies, and perceiving others of my acquaintance also, to whom i owe regard and service, to be in the like condition with these; i was induced to let this little trisle tread a more public stage; and to speak my mind to them from the press. if further reason be expected for mine undertaking a business in which others have been engaged, i would desire them to consider what an infinite of books are written upon almost all subjects can be named. and i am confident, if they turn o'er libraries, they'll find no theme, that is of any consideration, less traced than this is. so that no body hath reason to call it a crambe, who considers, that there are multitudes, even of scholars that have never seen or heard of any thing of this nature; and there is not, that i know of, any one book extant in any language besides this, that purposely, solely, and fully treats of praeexistence. wherefore who ever condemns this as a superfluous engagement, if he will be just, must pass the same censure upon well nigh every discourse the press is delivered of; for he'll meet with few written on less handled subjects. i might urge also if there were need on't, that various representations of the same thing, fit the variety of fancies and gusts of perusers; and that may have force and prevalence to persuade in one, which signifies nothing in another. but 'tis enough; he that will judge me on this account, must pass the same award on every sermon he hears, and every book he looks on; and such a censure will do me as little hurt, as him good, that passeth it. besides this exception, 'tis not unlikely that some may object, that i use arguments that have already been pleaded in behalf of this opinion; which rightly understood, is no matter of disrepute; since every one else doth it that deals in a subject formerly written of. and i would have him that commenceth such a charge against me, to consult divers authors who have handled the same subject; and if he find not the same arguments and reasons infinitely repeated every where, let him call me plagiary, and spare not. 'tis true therefore i have not baulked the reasons of origen, dr. more, or the author of the letter of resolution, because they had been used already; but freely own the assistance of those worthy authors; however i think i have so managed, fortified, and secured them against exceptions, especially the most considerable, that i may reasonably expect a pardon, yea and an interest in them also. for 'tis the backing of an argument that gives it force and efficacy; which i have done to the most weighty of them, at my proper cost and charges. nor should i have been faithful to my cause, had i omitted any thing that i thought confirmed it, upon any pretence whatever; since possibly this discourse may fall into the hands of some, who never met with those other authors. and my design being a full proof, defence, and explication of praeexistence, it had been an unpardonable defect to have pretermitted those weighty reasons by which its learned assertors have enforced it. if any yet should criminate me (as i know some did the account of origen,) for using many of the same words, and some of the same phrases and expressions, that those others, who have writ about those matters, have made use of; i am not very careful to answer them in this matter; and i doubt this engagement against those little scruples, will but seem importune to the judicious. for no body blames the frequent usage of words of art; or those which the first masters or restorers of any doctrine have been wont to express their notions by; since that such words and expressions are best understood, as have by custom, or the authority of some great authors, been appropriated to such doctrines, as they have employed them in the service of. and should every man that writes on any subject, be obliged to invent anew, all the terms he hath need of, and industriously to shun those proper expressive words and phrases that are fitted to his hands, and the business he is about; all things will be filled with impertinency, darkness and confusion. it must be acknowledged then, that most of the peculiar words and phrases that either i, or any body else that will speak properly and intelligibly in this matter, make use of, are borrowed from the judicious and elegent contriver of them, the profound restorer and refiner of almost-extinct platonism: whose invention hath been so happy in this kind, that it hath served up those notions in the most apposite, significant, comprehensive and expressive words that could well be thought of. wherefore 'twere an humoursome piece of folly for any man that deals in these matters, industriously to avoid such terms and expressions as are so adapted and fitted to this purpose, and so well known among those that are acquainted with this way of learning; when without vanity he could not think to be better furnished from his own fancy. if in the following papers i have used any expressions of others, which these considerations will not warrant; i must beg pardon for my memory, which doth not use to be so serviceable. and where i writ this discourse, i had not one of my books within my reach, that treated of this, or indeed any other subject. nor am i at leisure now to examine them and this, to see whether i can find any such coincidences; which a man's fancy dealing frequently in such matters, might insensibly occasion. if any there be, let those that find them out, pardon them, as the slips of a too officious imagination; or however else they treat them, they shall not much displease the author. and now that this discourse may pass with less control among those that shall light on it, i find myself engaged to speak a little to a double sort of readers, who are like to be offended at my design, and averse to the doctrine asserted in these papers. and (1) some will boggle at praeexistence, and be afraid to entertain it, upon an apprehension that the admission of this opinion will disorder and change the frame of orthodox divinity; which, were there cause for such a jealousy, were but a commendable caution; but there's hope this may prove but a panic fear, or such a needless terror as surpriseth children in the dark, when they take their best friends for some bugbear that would carry them away, or hurt them. for 'tis but supposing (as i have somewhere intimated in the discourse itself) that god created all souls together as he did the angels; that some of them sinned and fell with the other apostate spirits; and for their disobedience were thrust into a state of silence and insensibility; that the divine goodness so provided for them, that they should act a part again in terrestrial bodies, when they should fitly be prepared for them; and that adam was set up as our great protoplast and representative, who, had he continued in innocence and integrity, we had then been sharers in that happiness which he at first was instated in; but by his unhappy defection and disobedience we lost it; and became thus miserable in our new life in these earthly bodies. i say the doctrine of preexistence thus stated, is, in nothing that i know of, an enemy to common theology: all things hence proceeding as in our ordinary systems; with this only difference, that this hypothesis clears the divine attributes from any shadow of harshness, or breach of equity, since it supposeth us to have sinned and deserved all the misery we suffer in this condition before we came hither: whereas the other which teacheth, that we became both guilty and miserable by the single and sole offence of adam, whenas we were not then in being, or as to our souls, as much as potentially in our great progenitor; bears somewhat hardly upon the repute of the divine perfections. so that if the wary reader be afraid to venture upon the hypothesis, that i have drawn up at the end, (which, i confess, i would not give him the least encouragement to meddle with) yet without danger he may admit of praeexistence as accommodated to the orthodox doctrine. nor should i indeed have meddled with the other scheme, which is built upon the principles of mere reason and philosophy; but that those friends who drew the rest of the discourse from me, engaged me to give them an account of the philosophical hypothesis. in which, i know, i have not in every particular, followed the mind of the masters of the origenian cabbala; but kept myself to the conduct of those principles, that i judged most rational; though indeed the things wherein i differ, are very few and inconsiderable. however for that reason i thought fit to entitle no body to the hypothesis that i have made a draught of, lest i should have affixed on any one, what he would not have owned. but for the main, those that understand it, know the fountain; and for others, 'tis no great matter if they be ignorant. now if any one judge me to be a proselyte to those opinions, because i call them not all to nought, or damn not those, that have a favour for them; i know not how to avoid the doom of their severe displeasure; having said as much in the place where i treat of those matters, to purge myself of such a suspicion, as i thought necessary to clear me, in the opinion of any competently ingenuous. as for others, let me say what i can, i shall be what their wisdoms think fit to call me; and let that be what it will, i am very well content to bear it. i'll only add, to take off the ground of this uncharitable jealousy, that among the favourers of praeexistence, i know none that are adherers to those opinions; and therefore for me to have declaimed against any, on this account, had been a piece of knight-errantry; and those dons that do so make giants of the windmills of their own imaginations. but, (2) there are another sort of readers that i have a word to say to, who contemn and laugh at every thing that their narrow noddles comprehend not. this, i confess, is a good easy way of confutation, and if we may take every fool's smile for a demonstration, praeexistence will be routed. but the best on't is, to call things by their right names, this is but a vulgar, childish humour arising from nothing but a fond doting on the opinions we were first instructed in. for having made those the standard of truth and solidity, these prepossessed discerners presently conclude every thing that is a stranger to their ears and understandings, and of another stamp from their education-receptions, ●alse and ridiculous; just like the common people, who judging all customs and fashions by their own, account those of other nations absurd and barbarous. 'tis well for those smiling co●●uters, that they were not bred in mahumetism, for then without doubt they would have made sport of christianity. but since they are so disposed, let them laugh at the opinion i have undertaken for, till they understand it; i know who in the judgement of wise men will prove ridiculous. it was from this very principle that the most considerable truths, that ever the world was acquainted with, were to the jews, a stumbling block, and to the greeks, foolishness; and 'twas such a spirit as reigns in these children of self-confidence, that called s. paul a babbler. and methinks till these narrow-sculled people could boast themselves infallible, and all their opinions, an unerring canon, common modesty and civility should teach them better manners, than at first dash to judge that a ridiculous absurdity, which the greatest and wisest sages, that enlightened the ancient world, accounted so sound and probable a conclusion. especially it being a matter not determined against, but rather countenanced in scripture, as will appear hereafter. but opinionative ignorance is very weak and immoral. and till those slight and vulgar discerners have learned that first principle of true wisdom, to judge nothing till they throughly understand it, and have weighed it in the balance of impartial reason; 'tis to no purpose to spend one's breath upon them. the contents of lux orientalis. chap. 1. the opinions proposed concerning the original of souls. pag. 1 chap. 2. daily creation of souls is inconsistent with the divine attributes. pag. 3 chap. 3. (2) traduction of souls is impossible, the reason for it weak and frivolous; the proposal of praeexistence. pag. 16 chap. 4. (1) praeexistence cannot be disproved. scripture saith nothing against it: it's silence is no prejudice to this doctrine, but rather an argument for it, as the case standeth. praeexistence was the common opinion of our saviour's times. how, probably, it came to be lost in the christian church. pag. 27 chap. 5. reasons against praeexistence answered. our forgetting the former state is no argument to disprove it: nor are the other reasons that can be produced, more conclusive. the proof of the possibility of praeexistence were enough, all other hypotheses being absurd and contradictious. but it is proved also by positive arguments. pag. 45 chap. 6. a second argument for praeexistence drawn from the consideration of the divine goodness, which always doth what is best. pag. 51 chap. 7. the first evasion, that god acts freely, and his mere will is reason enough for his doing, or forbearing any thing, overthrown by four considerations, some incident evasions, viz. that god's wisdom, or his glory, may be contrary to this display of his goodness, in our being made of old, clearly taken off. pag. 55 chap. 8. a second general evasion, viz. that our reasons cannot tell what god should do, or what is best, overthrown by several considerations. as is also a third, viz. that by the same argument god would have been obliged to have made us impeccable, and not liable to misery. pag. 61 chap. 9 a fourth objection against the argument from god's goodness, viz. that it will conclude as well that the world is infinite and eternal, answered. the conclusion of the second argument for praeexistence. pag. 71 chap. 10. a third argument for praeexistence, from the great variety of men's speculative inclinations; and also the diversity of our genius's, copiously urged. if these arguments make praeexistence but probable, 'tis enough to gain it the victory. pag. 74 chap. 11. great caution to be used in alleging scripture for our speculative opinion. the countenance that praeexistence hath from the sacred writings both of the old and new testament; reasons of the seeming uncouthness of these allegations. praeexistence stood in no need of scripture-proof. pag. 82 chap. 12. why the author thinks himself obliged to descend to some more particular account of praeexistence. the presumption positively to determine how it was with us of old. the author's design in the hypothesis that follows. pag. 90 chap. 13. seven pillars on which the particular hypothesis stands. 94 pillar 1. all the divine designs and actions are laid and carried on by pure and infinite goodness. pag. 95 pillar 2. there is an exact geometrical justice that runs through the universe, and is interwoven in the contexture of things. pag. 97 pillar 3. things are carried to their proper place and state, by the congruity of their natures; where this fails, we may suppose some arbitrary managements. pag. 100 pillar 4. the souls of men are capable of living in other bodies besides terrestrial; and never act but in some body or other. pag. 102 pillar 5. the soul in every state hath such a body as is fittest for those faculties and operations that she is most inclined to exercise. pag. 105 pillar 6. the powers and faculties of the soul are either (1) spiritual, and intellectual: or (2) sensitive: or (3) plastic. pag. 107 pillar 7. by the same degrees that the higher powers are invigorated, the lower are consopited and abated, as to their proper exercises, and è contra. pag. 108 chap. 14. a philosophical hypothesis of the souls praeexistence. 113 her aethereal state. the aereal state. pag. 102 the terrestrial state. pag. 122 the next step of descent, or afterstate. pag. 126 the conflagration of the earth. pag. 137 the general restitution. pag. 142 the errata correct thus: in lux orientalis. for read pag. 9 lin. 6. for * for. pa. 61. l. 3. reasons reason. p. 78. l. 1. his this. p. 126. l. 6. course coarse. in the annotations. pag. 34. l. 28. promptus promptos. p. 38. l. 27. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 45. l. 12. tie lie. p. 51. l. 5. plaistick plastic. p. 53. l. 7. zoophiton's zoophyton's. p. 54. l. 29. unluckily unlucky. p. 56. l. 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 62. l. 19 other the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 over the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 74. l. 8. property properly. p. 80. l. 2. doors: for doors for. ibid. l. 21. properly property. p. 84. l. 2. fitted sited. ibid. l. 21. restore resolve. p. 94. l. 15. vigorous rigorous. p. 95. l. 8. this humane his humane. p. 101. l. 30. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 104. l. 28. corporeal incorporeal. p. 106. l. 13. alleged allege. p. 113. l. 20. psychopanychites psychopannychites. ibid. l. 31. to two. p. 119. l. 7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 144. l. 23. ante. interiisse ante ●●●●●●sse. p. 184. l. 26. nymphs nymph. p. 209. l. 16. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. 238. l. 26. slawes flaws. p. 255. l. 11. sesquealtera sesquialtera. p. 265. l. 3. the steady their steady. p. 268. l. 10. to those so those. p. 275. l. 2. heaven's haven's. lux orientalis. chap. i. the opinions proposed concerning the original of souls. it hath always been found a matter of discouraging difficulty, among those that have busied themselves in such inquiries, to determine the soul's original. insomuch that after all the contests and disputes that have been about it, many of the wisest inquisitors have concluded it undeterminable: or, if they have sat down in either of the two opinions, viz. of its immediate creation, or traduction (which of later ages have been the only competitors); they have been driven to it, rather from the absurdities of the opposite opinion, which they have left; than drawn by any rational alliciency in that which they have taken to. and indeed, if we do but impartially consider the grand inconveniences which each party urgeth against the others conclusion, it would even tempt one to think, that both are right in their opposition, and neither in their assertion. and since each side so strongly oppugns the other and so weakly defends itself, 'tis a shrewd suspicion that they are both mistaken. wherefore if there be a third that can lay any probable claim to the truth, it deserves to be heard to plead its cause; and, if it be not chargeable with the contradictions or absurdities either of the one or other, to be admitted. now though these later ages have concluded the matter to lie between immediate creation, and seminal traduction; yet i find that the more ancient times have pitched upon praeexistence, as more likely than either; for the platonists, pythagoreans, the chaldaean wise men, the jewish rabbins, and some of the most learned and ancient fathers were of this opinion. wherefore i think we owe so much at least to the memory of those grave sages, as to examine this doctrine of theirs, and if neither of the later hypotheses can ease our anxious minds, or free themselves from absurdities; and this grey dogma fairly clear all doubts, and be obnoxious to no such contradictions; i see no reason but we may give it a favourable admittance, till something else appear more concinnous and rational. therefore let us take some account of what the two first opinions allege one against another, and how they are proved by their promoters and defendants. now if they be found unable to withstand the shock of one another's opposition; we may reasonably cast our eyes upon the third, to see what force it brings to vouch its interest, and how it will behave itself in the encounter. chap. ii. daily creation of souls is inconsistent with the divine attributes. the first of these opinions that offers itself to trial is, that god daily creates humane souls, which immediately are united unto the bodies that generation hath prepared for them. of this side are our later divines, and the generality of the schoolmen. but not to be born down by authorities, let us consider what reason stands against it. therefore, (1) if our souls came immediately out of the hands of god when we came first into these bodies, whence then are those enormously brutish inclinations, that strong natural proclivity to vice and impiety, that are exstant in the children of men? all the works of god bear his image, and are perfect in their kind. purity is his nature, and what comes from him, proportionably to its capacity partakes of his perfections. every thing in the natural world bears the superscription of his wisdom and goodness; and the same fountain cannot send forth sweet waters and bitter. therefore 'tis a part of our allegiance to our maker to believe, * that he made us pure and innocent, and if we were but just then framed by him when we were united with these terrestrial bodies, whence should we contract such degenerate propensions? some tell us, that this impurity was immediately derived from the bodies we are united to; but, how is it possible, that purely passive insensible matter should transfuse habits or inclinations into a nature that is quite of another make and quality? how can such a cause produce an effect so disproportionate? * matter can do nothing but by motion, and what relation hath that to a moral contagion? how can a body that is neither capable of sense nor sin, infect a soul, as soon as 'tis united to it, with such vicious debauched dispositions? but others think to evade by saying, that we have not these depravities in our natures, but contract them by custom, education, and evil usages. how then comes it about, that those that have had the same care and industry used upon them, and have been nurtured under the same discipline and severe oversight, do so vastly and even to wonder differ in their inclinations? * how is it that those that are under continual temptations to vice, are yet kept within the bounds of virtue, and sobriety? and yet that others, that have strong motives and allurements to the contrary, should violently break out into all kinds of extravagance and impiety? sure, there is somewhat more in the matter than those general causes, which may be common to both; and which many times have quite contrary effects. (2.) this hypothesis, that god continually creates humane souls in these bodies, consists not with the honour of the divine attributes. for, (1.) how stands it with the goodness and benignity of that god, who is love, to put pure and immaculate spirits, who were capable of living to him and with him, into such bodies as will presently defile them, deface his image, pervert all their powers and faculties, incline them to hate what he most loves, and love what his soul hateth; and that, without any knowledge or concurrence of theirs, will quite mar them as soon as he hath made them, and of dear children, render them rebels or enemies, and in a moment from being like angels transform them into the perfect resemblance of the first apostates, devils? is this an effect of those tender mercies that are over all his works? and (2.) hath that wisdom that hath made all things to operate according to their natures, and provided them with whatever is necessary to that end, made myriads of noble spirits capable of as noble operations, and presently plunged them into such a condition wherein they cannot act at all according to their first and proper dispositions, but shall be necessitated to the quite contrary; and have other noxious and depraved inclinations fatally imposed upon their pure natures? doth that wisdom, that hath made all things in number, weight, and measure, and disposed them in such exact harmony and proportions use to act so ineptly? and that in the best and noblest pieces of his creation? doth it use to make and presently destroy? to frame one thing and give it such or such a nature, and then undo what he had done, and make it another? and if there be no such irregular methods used in the framing of inferior creatures, what reason have we to suspect that the divine wisdom did so vary from its self in its noblest composures? and (3), is it not a great affront to the divine justice, to suppose, as we are commonly taught, that as●oon as we are born, yea, and in the womb, we are obnoxious to eternal wrath and torments, if our souls are then immediately created out of nothing? for, to be just is to give every one his due; and how can endless unsupportable punishments be due to innocent spirits, who but the last moment came righteous, pure, and immaculate out of their creator's hands; and have not done or thought any thing since, contrary to his will or laws, nor were in any the least capacity of sinning? ay, but the first of our order, our general head and representative, sinned, and we in him; thus we contract guilt as soon as we have a being, and are liable to the punishment of his disobedience. this is thought to solve all, and to clear god from any shadow of unrighteousness. but whatever truth there is in the thing itself, i think it cannot stand upon the hypothesis of the souls immediate creation, nor yet justify god in his proceedings. for, (1.) if i was then newly created when first in this body; what was adam to me, who sinned above 5000 years before i came out of nothing? if he represented me, it must be as i was in his loins, that is, in him as an effect in a cause. but so i was not, according to this doctrine; for my soul owns no father but god, its immediate progenitor. and what am i concerned then in his sins, which had never my will or consent, more than in the sins of mahom●t, or julius caesar? nay, than in the sins of beelzebub or lucifer? and for my body, 'tis most likely, that never an atom of his, ever came at me; or, if any did, he was no cause on't. besides, that of itself is neither capable of sense, sin, guilt, nor punishment: or, (2.) admitting that we become thus obnoxious assoon as in the body, upon the account of his default, how doth it comport with the divine justice, in one moment to make such excellent creatures, and in the next to render them so miserable, by thrusting them into a condition, so fatally obnoxious; especially since they were capable of living and acting in bodies more perfect, and more accommodate to their new undefiled natures? certainly, could they have been put to their choice whether they would have come into being upon such terms, they would rather have been nothing for ever. and god doth not use to make his creatures so, as that, without their own fault, they shall have cause to unwish themselves. hitherto in this second general argument i have dealt against those that believe and ass●rt the original depravity of our natures: which those that deny, may think themselves not pin●●'t by or concerned in; since they think they do no such dishonour to the divine attributes, while they assert, that we were not made in so deplorable and depraved a condition, but have so made ourselves by our voluntary aberrations. but neither is this a fit plaster for the sore, supposing our souls to be immediately created and so sent into these bodies. for still it seems to be a diminutive and disparaging apprehension of the infinite and immense goodness of god, that he should detrude such excellent creatures as our souls into a state so hazardous, * wherein he seeth it to be ten thousand to one, but that they will corrupt and defile themselves, and so make themselves miserable here, and to eternity hereafter. and certainly, be we as indifferent naturally to good and evil as can be supposed; yet great are the disadvantages to virtue that all men unavoidably meet with, in this state of imperfection. for considering, that our infant and growing age is an age of sense, in which our appetites, and passions are very strong, and our reasons weak, and scarce any thing but a chain of imaginations, 'tis i say great odds, but that we should be carried to inordinacy, and exceed the bounds the divine laws have set us. so that our lower powers of sense and passions using to have the head, will grow strong and impetuous, and thus 'tis an hundred to one but we shall be rooted in vice, before we come to the maturity of our reasons, or are capable of the exercise of virtue. and woeful experience teacheth us, that most men run so far before they consider whither they are going, that the care and diligence of all their lives after, will scarce reclaim them. besides, the far greatest part of the world are led into wickedness and all kinds of debauchery, by corrupt and vicious education. and 'tis not difficult to observe what an enormous strength, bad education hath to deprave and pervert well disposed inclinations. which things considered, this way also methinks reflects a disparagement on the divine attributes: since by creating souls daily and putting them into such bodies, and such parts of the world as his infinite wisdom sees will debauch them, and pervert them from the ways of righteousness and happiness, into those of vice and misery; he deals with them less mercifully than a parent among us would with his offspring. and to suppose god to have less goodness than his degenerate creatures, is to have very narrow apprehensions of his perfections, and to rob him of the honour due to his attributes. (3) it hath been urged with good probability by great and wise sages, that 'tis an unbecoming apprehension of the majesty on high, * to suppose him assistant to unlawful and unclean coitions, by creating a soul to animate the impure foetus. and to think, it is in the power of brutish lust to determine omvipotence to create a soul, whensoever a couple of unclean adulterers shall think fit to join in their bestial pleasures; is methinks to have a very mean apprehension of the divine majesty and purity. this is to make him the worst of servants by supposing him to serve his creatures' vices, to wait upon the vilest actions, and to engage the same infinite power that made the world for the perfecting what was begun by dissolute wantoness. this argument was used of old by pious and learned origen, and hath been employed in the same service since, by his modern defendants. but i foresee an evasion or two, that possibly with some may stand for an answer, the removal of which will clear the business. it may be pretended that god's attending to create souls for the supply of such generations, is but an act of his justice, for the detection, and consequently punishment, of such lawless offenders; which therefore will be no more matter of disparagement than the waiting of an officer of justice to discover and apprehend a malefactor. but this subterfuge cannot elude the force of the argument, for it hath no place at all in most adulteries; yea great injustice and injury is done many times by such illegitimate births; the child of a stranger being by this means admitted to carry away the inheritance from the lawful offspring. besides, god useth not ordinarily to put forth his almighty power to discover secret miscarriages, except sometimes for very remarkable and momentous ends, but leaves hidden iniquities to be the objects of his own castigations. and if discovery of the fault be the main end of such creations, * methinks that might be done at a cheaper rate, that should not have brought so much inconvenience with it, or have exposed his own innocent and harmless offspring to undeserved reproach and infamy. but further it may be suggested, that it is no more indecent for god to create souls to furnish those unlawful generations, than it is that a man should be nourished by meat that he hath unlawfully come by, or that the cattle which he hath stolen should engender with his own. but the difference of these instances from the case in hand is easily discernible; in that the nourishment and productions spoken of, proceed in a set orderly way of natural causes, which work fatally and necessarily without respect to moral circumstances; and there is no reason, it should be in the power of a sinful creature to engage his maker to pervert or stop the course of nature, when he pleaseth. but in the case of creating souls, god is supposed to act by explicit and immediate will, the suspending of which, in such a case as this, is far different in point of credit and decorum, from his altering the settled laws he hath set in the creation, and turning the world upside down. i might further add (4ly), that * it seems very incongruous and unhandsome to suppose, that god should create two souls for the supply of one monstrous body. and of such prodigious productions there is mention in history. that's a remarkable instance in sennertus, of a monster born at emmaus with two hearts, and two heads; the diversity of whose appetites, perceptions, and affections, testified that it had two souls within that bi-partite habitation. now, to conceive the most wise maker and contriver of all things, immediately to create two souls, for a single body, rather than suffer that super-plus of matter which constitutes the monstrous excrescence to prove effete & inanimate, is methinks a derogatory apprehension of his wisdom, and supposeth him to act more ineptly in the great and immediate instances of his power, than in the ordinary course of nature about less noble and accurate productions. or, if it be pretended, that souls were sent into them while the bodies were yet distinct, but that afterwards they grew into one: this, i say, will not heal the breach that this hypothesis makes upon the divine wisdom; it tacitly reflecting a shameful oversight upon omniscience, that he should not be aware of the future coalescence of these bodies into one, when he made souls for them; or at least, 'tis to suppose him, knowingly to act ineptly. besides, that the rational soul is not created till the body, as to the main strokes of it at least, is framed, is the general opinion of the assertors of daily creation; so that then there is no room for this evasion. and now one would think that an opinion so very obnoxious, and so liable to such grand inconveniences, should not be admitted but upon most pressing reasons and ineludible demonstrations. and yet there is not an argument that i ever heard of from reason to enforce it, but only such as are brought: from the impossibility of the way of traduction; which indeed is chargeable with as great absurdities, as that we have been discoursing of. 'tis true, several scriptures are pressed for the service of the cause; but i doubt much against their intent and inclination. general testimonies there are to prove that god is the father and creator of souls, which is equally true, whether we suppose it made just as it is united to these bodies, or did praeexist, and was before them; but that it is just then created out of nothing when first it comes into these earthly bodies, i know not a word in the inspired writings that speaks it. for that saying of our saviour, my father worketh hitherto, and i work, is by the most judicious understood of the works of preservation and providence: those of creation being concluded within the first hebdomade, accordingly as is expressed in the history, * that god on the seventh day rested from all his works. nor can there an instance be given of any thing created since, or is there any pretended, but that which hath been the subject of our inquiry; which is no inconsiderable presumption, that that was not so neither; since the divine way of working is not parti-colour or humoursome, but uniform and consonant to the laws of exactest wisdom. so that for us to suppose that god, after the completing of his creation, and the laws given to all things for their action, and continuance, to be every moment working in a quite other way in one instance of beings, than he doth in all besides; is methinks a somewhat odd apprehension, especially when no reason urgeth to it, and scripture is silent. for such places as this [the god of the spirits of all flesh, the father of spirits. the spirit returns to god that gave it. the souls which i have made. we are his offspring. who formeth the spirit of man within him, and the like] signify no more, but that our souls have a nearer relation to god than our bodies, as being his immediate workmanship, made without any creature-interposal, and more especially regarded by him. but to infer hence, that they were then produced when these bodies were generated, is illogical and inconsequent. so that all that these scriptures will serve for, is only to disprove the doctrine of traduction, but makes not a tittle for the ordinary hypothesis of daily creation against praeexistence. chap. iii. (2) traduction of souls is impossible, the reasons for it weak and frivolous, the proposal of praeexistence. thus than we have examined the ●irst way of stating the soul's original, that of continual creation; and finding no sure resting place for our inquiry here, we remove to the second, the way of traduction or seminal propagation. and the adherers to this hypothesis are of two sorts, viz. either such as make the soul to be nothing but a purer sort of matter, or of those that confess it wholly spiritual and immaterial. i'll dispatch the former, briefly strike at the root of their misconceit of the souls production, and show it cannot be matter, be it as pure as can be conceived. therefore (1) if the soul be matter, than whatever perceptions or apprehensions it hath, or is capable of, they were l●● in at the senses. and thus the great patron of the hypothesis states it, in his leviathan, and other writings. but now clear, it is that our souls have some conceptions, which they never received from external sense: for there are some congenite implicit principles in us, without which there could be no sensation▪ * since the images of objects are very small and inconsiderable in our brains, comparatively to the vastness of the things which they represent, and very unlike them in multitudes of other circumstances; so that 'twere impossible we should have the sensible representation of any thing, * were it not that our souls use a kind of geometry, or mathematic inference in judging of external objects by those little hints it finds in material impressions. which art and the principles thereof were never received from sense, but are presupposed to all sensible perceptions. * and, were the soul quite void of all such implicit notions, it would remain as senseless as a stone for ever. besides, we find our minds fraught with principles logical, moral, metaphysical, which could never owe their original to sense otherwise, than as it gives us occasions of using them. * for sense teacheth no general propositions, but only affords singulars for induction; which being an inference, must proceed from an higher principle that owns no such dependence on the senses, as being found i● the mind, and not derived from any thing without. also we find in ourselves mathematical notions, and build certain demonstrations on them, which abstract from sense and matter. and therefore never had them from any material power, * but from something more sublime and excellent. but this argument is of too large a consideration to be treated of here, and therefore i content myself with those brief touches, and pass on. (2) if the soul be matter, 'tis impossible it should have the sense of any thing: for either the whole image of the object must be received in one point of this sensitive matter; a thing absurd at first view, that such variety of distinct and orderly representations should be made at once upon a single atom; or the whole image is impressed upon every point, and then there would be as many objects as there are points in this matter; and so every thing would be infinitely multiplied in our delusive senses. or finally, every part of the soul must receive a proportionable part of the image; and then, how could those parts communicate their perceptions to each other, and what should perceive the whole? this argument is excellently managed by the great dr. h. more, in whose writings this fond hypothesis is fully triumphed over, and defeated. since therefore the very lowest degree of perception, single and simple sense, is incompatible to mere body or matter, we may safely conclude, that the higher and nobler operations of imagining, remembering, reasoning, and willing must have a cause and source that is not corporeal. thus therefore those that build the souls traduction upon this ground of its being only body and modified matter, are disappointed in the foundation of their conclusion. but (2) another sort of assertors of traduction teach the soul to be spiritual and incorporeal, and affirm that by a virtue derived from the first benediction, it can propagate its like; one soul emitting another as the body doth the matter of generation. the manner of which spiritual production useth to be illustrated by one candle's lighting another; and a man's begetting a thought in another's mind, without diminishing of his own. this is the most favourable representation of this opinion, that i can think on. and yet, if we nearly consider it, it will appear most absurd and unphilosophical. for if one soul produce another, 'tis either out of nothing or something preaexistent. if the former, 'tis an absolute creation, which all philosophy concludes impossible for a creature. and if it be pretended that the parent doth it not by his proper natural virtue, but by a strength imparted by god in the first blessing, increase and multiply, so that god is the prime agent, he only the instrument: i rejoin, that then either god hath thereby obliged himself to put forth a new and extraordinary power in every such occasion, distinct from his influence in the ordinary ●ourse of nature: or else (2) he only concurs by his providence, as he doth to our other natural actions, we having this ability bestowed upon our very natures. he that asserts the first, runs upon all the rocks that he would avoid in the former hypothesis of continual creation, and god will be made the cause of the sin, and misery of his spotless and blameless creatures; which absurdities he cannot shun by saying, that god, by interposing in such productions, doth but follow the rules of acting, which he first made while man was innocent. for certainly, infinite goodness would never have tied up itself to such laws of working, as he foresaw would presently bring unavoidable inconvenience, misery, and ruin upon the best part of his workmanship. and for the second way, it supposeth god to have no more to do in this action than in our eating and drinking. consequently, here is a creation purely natural. and methinks, if we have so vast a power to bring the ends of contradictories together, something out of nothing, (which some deny to omnipotence itself) 'tis much we cannot conserve in being our creature so produced, nor our own intimate selves, since conservation is not more than creation. and 'tis much, that in other things we should give such few specimen of so vast an ability; or, have a power so divine and excellent, and no faculty to discern it by. again, (2) if the soul be immediately produced out of nothing, be the agent who it will, god or the parent, it will be pure and sinless. for, supposing our parents to be our creators; they make us but as natural agents, * and so can only transmit their natural qualities, but not their moral pravities. wherefore there can no better account be given from this way how the soul is so debauched and infected assoon as it comes into the body, than in the former, and therefore it fails in the main end it is designed for. thus we see then that the traduction of the soul, supposing it to be produced out of nothing, cannot be defended. nor doth the second general way yield any more relief to this hypothesis. for if it be made of any thing preaexistent, it is either of matter or spirit. the former we have undermined and overthrown already, in what was said against those, that hold it to be body. and if it be made out of any spiritual substance, it must be the soul of the parent, (except we will revive the old enthusiastic conceit of its being a particle of the divine essence) which supposition is * against the nature of an immaterial being, a chief property of which, is to be indiscerpible. nor do the similitudes i mentioned in the proposal of the hypothesis, at all fit the business; for one candle lights another, * by separable emissions that pass from the flame of that which is kindled, to the wick of the other. and flame is a body whose parts are in continual flux, as a river. but the substance of the soul is stable, permanent, and indivisible, which quite makes it another case. and for a man's informing another's mind with a thought which he had not conceived, it is not a production of any substance, but only an occasioning him to exert an operation of his mind which he did not before. and therefore makes, nothing to the illustrating, how a soul can produce a soul, a substance distinct and without itself: thus we see how desperate the case of the souls original is in the hypothesis of traduction also. but yet to let it have fair play, we'll give it leave to plead its cause; and briefly present what is most material in its behalf. there are but two reasons that i can think of, worth the naming: (1) a man begets a man, and a man he is not without a soul, therefore 'tis pretended that the soul is begotten. but this argument is easily detected of palpable sophistry, and is as if one should argue, a man is mortal, therefore his soul is mortal; or is fat and lusty, therefore his soul is so. the absurdity of which kinds of reasoning lies in drawing that into a strict and rigorous affirmation, which is only meant according to vulgar speech, and is true only in some remarkable respect or circumstance. thus we say, a man begets a man because he doth the visible and only sensible part of him; the vulgar, to whom common speech is accommodate, not taking so much notice of what is past the ken of their senses. and therefore body in ordinary speaking is oft put for person, as here man for the body. sometimes the noblest part is used for the whole, as when 'tis said 70 souls went down with jacob into egypt; therefore such arguments as the asserters of traduction make use of, which are drawn from vulgar schemes of speech, argue nothing but the desperateness of the cause, that needs such pitiful sophistries to recommend it. such are these proofs which yet are some of the best i meet with, the seed of the woman shall break the serpent's head; sixty six souls descended out of jacob's loins; adam begat a son in his own likeness, and such like. according to this rate of arguing the scripture may be made speak any thing that our humour some fancies please to dictate. and thus to rack the sacred writings, to force them whether they will or no to bring evidence to our opinions, is an affront to their authority, that's next to the denying on't. i might add (2) that begetting also hath a latitude, and in common speech signifies not a strict and philosophical production; so that a man begets a man, though he only generates the body, into which fitly prepared descends a soul. and he that doth that upon which another thing necessarily follows, is said to be the cause of both. (2) the adherents to traduction use to urge, that, except the whole man, soul and body, be propagated, there is no account can be given of our original desilement. and scripture gives evident testimony to that early pollution; for we are said to be conceived in sin, and transgressors from the womb. we have already seen that indeed the way of daily creating souls, cannot come off but with vilely aspersing the divine attributes. and it hath been hinted, that neither can traduction solve the business: for if the parent beget the soul out of nothing, it will be as pure and clean as if god himself were its immediate creator; for though a clean thing cannot come out of an unclean, when any thing of the substance of the producent is imparted to the effect; yet where 'tis made out of nothing, the reason is very different: yea, the soul in all the powers that ar● concerned in this production is now as clean and pure as ever 'twas; for it is supposed to do it by a capacity given, at its first creation while pure and innocent; in which respect it is not capable of moral contagion; this being an ability merely natural and plastic, and not at all under the imperium or command of the will, the only seat of moral good and evil. or, if our souls are but particles and decerptions of our parents, than i must have been guilty of all the sins that ever were committed by my progenitors ever since adam; and by this time, my soul would have been so depraved and debauched, that it would be now brutish, yea diabolical. thus than we see, that even upon this reason, 'tis necessary, to pitch upon some other hypothesis, to give an account of the pravity of our natures; which both these fail in the solution of. and, since the former commits such violence upon the honour of the divine attributes, since the latter is so contrary to the nature of things, and since neither can give any satisfaction in the great affairs of providence and our natures, or have any encouragement from the sacred volume; 'tis i think, very excusable for us to cast our eyes abroad, to see if there be no other way, that may probably unriddle those mysteries, and relieve the minds of anxious and contemplative inquirers. in which search, if we light on any thing that doth sweetly accord with the attributes of god, the nature of things, and unlocks the intricacies of providence; i think we have found, what the two former opinions aim at, but cannot make good their pretences to; and may salute the truth with a joyful 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. wherefore from the modern disputants, let us look towards the ancient sages, those eastern sophi, that have filled the world with the fame of their wisdom; and since our inquiries are benighted in the west, let us look towards the east, from whence 'tis likely the desired light may display itself, and chase away the darkness that covers the face of those theories. therefore it was the opinion of the indian brahmin's, the persian magis, the egyptian gymnosophists, the jewish rabbins, some of the grecian philosophers, and christian fathers, that the souls of men were created all at first; and at several times and occasions upon forfeiture of their better life and condition, dropped down into these terrestrial bodies. this the learned among the jews made a part of their cabbala, and pretend to have received it from their great lawgiver, moses; which hypothesis, if it appear but probable to an impartial inquiry, will even on that account be preferrible to both the former, which we have seen to be desperate. chap. iu. (1) praeexistence cannot be disproved. scripture saith nothing against it. it's silence is no prejudice to this doctrine, but rather an argument for it, as the case standeth. praeexistence was the common opinion of our saviour's times. how, probably, it came to be lost in the christian church. therefore let us see what title it can show for our assent, or whether it can prove itself worthy of the patronage of those great authors that have owned it. (1) then, whether this doctrine be true or no; i'm confident it cannot be proved false: for if all souls were not made together, it must be, either because god could not do it; or because he would not. for the first; i suppose very few have such narrow conceptions of the divine power, as to affirm that omnipotence could not produce all those beings at first, which apart he is supposed to create daily; which implies no contradiction, or as much as difficulty, to be conceived; and which the facto he hath done in the case of angels. or, if inconsistence with any attribute should be pretended, that shall be proved quite otherwise hereafter; and the amicable consistence of this hypothesis with them, yea, the necessity of it, from this very consideration of the divine attributes, shall be argued in the process. therefore, whoever concludes that god made not all souls of old, when he produced the world out of nothing, must confess the reason of this assertion to be, because he would not. and then i would ask him, how he came to know what he affirms so boldly? who acquainted him with the divine counsels? is there a word said in his revealed will to the contrary? or, hath he by his holy penmen told us that either of the other ways was more suitable to his beneplaciture? indeed, 'tis very likely that a strong and ready fancy, possessed with a persuasion of the falsehood of this hypothesis, might find some half phrases in scripture, which he might suborn to sing to the tune of his imagination. for, in such a miscellaneous piece as the bible is, it will not be difficult for a man that's strongly resolved against an opinion, to find somewhat or other that may seem to him to speak the language of his fancy; and therefore it shall go hard, but that those whom their education or prejudice have engaged against this hypothesis, will light on some obscure pieces of texts, and broken sentences or other, that shall seem to condemn what they disapprove of. but i am securely confident, that there is not a sentence in the sacred volume, from end to end, that ever was intended to teach, that all souls were not made of old; or that, by a legitimate consequence, would infer it. and if any there be that seem to look another way, i dare say they are collateral, and were never designed by the divine authors for the purpose they are made to serve, by the enemies of praeexistence. wherefore not to conceal any thing that with the least show of probability can be pretended from the sacred volume in discountenance of the doctrine of praeexistence, i'll bring into view whatever i know to have the least face of a testimony to the contrary, in the divine revelations. that so, when it shall appear that the most specious texts that can be alleged, have nothing at all in them to disprove the souls praeexistence, we may be secure that god hath not discovered to us in his written will, that 'twas not his pleasure to create all souls together. therefore (1.), it may be pretended, that the doctrine of praeexistence comports not with that innocence and integrity in which the scripture determines adam to have been made. since it supposeth the descent into these bodies to be a culpable lapse from an higher and better state of life, and this to be a state of incarceration for former delinquencies. to this i answer, (1) no one can object any thing to purpose against praeexistence from the unconceiveableness of it, until he know the particular frame of the hypothesis, without which, all impugnations relating to the manner of the thing, will be wide of the mark, and but little to the business. therefore, if the objector would have patience to wait till we come to that part of our undertaking, he would find that there was but little ground for such a scruple. but however, to prevent all cavillings, in this place i'll show the invalidity of this objection. wherefore, (2) there is no necessity from the doctrine of praeexistence to suppose adam a delinquent, before his noted transgression in a terrestrial body: for considering, that his body had vast advantages above ours, in point of beauty, purity, and serviceableness to the soul, what harshness is there in conceiving that god might send one of those immaculate spirits that he had made, into such a tenement, that he might be his steward in the affairs of this lower family; and an overseer, and ruler of those other creatures that he had ordered to have their dwelling upon earth? i am sure, there is no more contrariety to any of the divine attributes in this supposition, than there is in that, which makes god to have sent a pure spirit, which he had just made, into such a body. yea, (3) supposing that some souls fell, when the angels did (which the process of our discourse will show to be no unreasonable supposition) this was a merciful provision of our maker, and a generous undertaking for a seraphic and untainted spirit. for by this means, fit and congruous matter is prepared for those souls to reside and act in, who had rendered themselves unfit to live and enjoy themselves in more refined bodies. and so those spirits that had sinned themselves into a state of silence and inactivity, are by this seasonable means, which the divine wisdom and goodness hath contrived for them, put once more into a capacity of acting their parts anew, and coming into play again. now if it seem hard to any to conceive how so noble a spirit in such an advantageous body, should have been imposed upon by so gross a delusion, and submit so impotently to the first temptation; he may please to consider, that the difficulty is the same, supposing him just then to have been made; if we grant him but that purity and those great perfections both of will, and understanding, which orthodox theology allows him. yea, again (4) i might ask, what inconvenience there is in supposing, that adam himself was one of those delinquent souls, * which the divine pity and compassion had thus set up again; that so, so many of his excellent creatures might not be lost and undone irrecoverably; but might act anew, though upon a lower stage in the universe? a due consideration of the infinite foecundity and fullness of the divine goodness will, if not warrant, yet excuse such a supposition. but now if it be demanded, what advantage adam's standing had been to his posterity, had he continued in the state of innocence; and how sin and misery is brought upon us by his fall, according to this hypothesis? i answer, that then among many other great privileges, he had transmitted downwards by way of natural generation that excellent and blessed temper of body; which should have been like his own happy crasis. so that our apprehensions should have been more large and free, our affections more regular and governable; and our inclinations to what is good and virtuous, strong and vigorous. for we cannot but observe in this state, how vast an influence the temper of our bodies hath upon our minds; both in reference to intellectual and moral dispositions. thus, daily experience teacheth us, how that, according to the ebb or flow of certain humours in our bodies, our wits are either more quick, free, and sparkling, or else more obtuse, weak, and sluggish. and we find that there are certain clean and healthy dispositions of body which make us cheerful, and contented; others on the contrary morose, melancholy, and dogged. and 'tis easy to observes how age or sickness sowers, and crabs our natures. i might instance in almost all other qualities of the mind, which are strangely influenced and modifyed according to the body's constitution. but none will deny so plain a truth; and therefore i forbear to insist further on it. nor need i mention any more advantages; so many, and such great ones, being consequent upon this. but our great protoplast and representative, falling through his unhappy disobedience, besides the integrity and rectitude of his mind, he lost also that blessed constitution of body, which would have been so great a privilege to his offspring: so that it became now corrupt, weak, and indisposed for the nobler exercises of the soul; and he could transmit no better to us, than himself was owner of. thus we sell in him, and were made miserable by his transgression. we have bodies conveyed to us, which strangely do bewitch and betray us. and thus we all bear about us the marks of the first apostasy. there are other sad effects of his defection, but this may suffice for my present purpose. thus we see how that the derivation of original depravity from adam is as clear in this hypothesis, as can be pretended in either of the other. and upon other accounts it seems to have much the advantage of both of them. as will appear to the unprejudiced in what is further to be discoursed of. finally, therefore, if the urgers of the letter of genesis of either side, against this hypothesis, would but consider, that the souls that descend hither, for their prevarication in another state, lie in a long condition of silence and insensibility, before they appear in terrestrial bodies; each of them then might, from the doctrine of praeexistence thus stated, gain all the advantages which he supposeth to have by his own opinion, and avoid all those alsurdities which he seeth the other run upon. if the asserters of daily creation think it clear from scripture that god is the father of spirits, and immediate maker of souls, they'll find the same made good and assented to in this hypothesis. and if they are unwilling to hold any thing contrary to the nature of the soul, which is immortal and indiscerpible, the doctrine of praeexistence amicably closeth with them in this also. and if the patrons of traduction would have a way, how sin and misery may be propagated from our first parent without aspersing the divine attributes, or affirming any thing contrary to the phaenomena of providence, and nature; this hypothesis will clear the business; it giving us so fair an account how we all die in adam, without blotting the wisdom, justice, or goodness, of god, or affirming any thing contrary to the appearances of nature. i have been the longer on this argument, because 'tis like to be one main objection; and we see it is so far from prejudicing, that it is no inconsiderable evidence of the truth of praeexistence. and now, besides this that i have named, i cannot think of any arguments from scripture against this doctrine, considerable enough to excuse a mention of them. however, if the candid reader will pardon the impertinency i'll present to view what i find most colourable. therefore (2), it may be some are so inadvertent as to urge against our souls having been of old, that, sacred writ says we are but of yesterday; which expression of divine scripture, is questionless to be understood of our appearance on this stage of earth. and is no more an argument against our praeexistence, than that other phrase of his, before i go hence, and be no more, is against our future existence in an other state after the present life is ended. nor will it prove more the business it is brought for, than the expression of rachel's weeping for her children because they were not, will infer, that they were, absolutely nothing. nor can any thing more be made. (3.) of that place in ecclesiastes, yea, better is he than both they, (meaning the dead and living) which hath not yet been; since, besides that 'tis a like scheme of speech with the former, it seems more to favour, than discountenance praeexistence; for what is absolutely nothing can neither be worse, nor better. moreover, we coming from a state of silence and inactivity when we drop into these bodies, we were before, as if we had not been; and so there is better ground in this case, for such a manner of speaking, than in mere non-appearance; which yet scripture phraseth a not being. * and now i cannot think of any place in the sacred volume more that could make a tolerable plea against this hypothesis, of our souls having been before they came into these bodies; except (4.) any will draw a negative argument from the history of the creation, concluding that the souls of men were not made of old, because there is no mention there, of any such matter. to which i return briefly, that the same argument concludes against the being of angels, of whose creation there is no more said in the first story than of this inferior rank of spirits, souls. the reason of which silence is commonly taken to be, because moses had here to do with a rude and illiterate people, who had few or no apprehensions of any thing beyond their senses, and therefore he takes notice to them of nothing but what was sensible and of common observation. this reason is given also why minerals were omitted. 'twere an easy matter, to show how the outward cortex, the letter of this history is adapted to mean and vulgar apprehensions, whose narrowness renders them incapable of sublimer speculations. but that being more than needs for our present purpose, i shall forbear to speak further of it. i might (2) further add, that great and learned interpreters tell us, that all sorts of spirits, angels, and souls are symbolically meant by the creation of heaven, and light. and, if it were directly in the way of our present business, it might be made appear to be no improbable conjecture. but i refer him that is curious in this particular to the great restorer of the ancient cabbala, the learned dr. h. more in his conjectura cabbalistica. and now from the consideration of the silence of the first history, we descend to the last and most likely to be urged scruple, which is to this purpose. (5.) we are not to step beyond the divine revalations, and since god hath made known no such doctrine as this, of the souls praeexistence any where in his word, we may reasonably deny it, or at least have no ground to embrace it. this is the most important objection of all the rest, and most likely to prepossess timorous and wary inquirers against this hypothesis; wherefore i conceive that a full answer to this doubt, will prevent many scrupulous haesitations, and make way for an unprejudiced hearing of what i have further to allege in the behalf of this opinion. and (1.) i wish that those that urge scripture silence to disprove praeexistence would consider, how silent it is both in the case of daily creation, and traduction; we have seen already that there is nothing in sacred writ to warrant either, but only such generals from which the respective patrons of either doctrine would infer their own conclusion, though indeed they all of them with better right and congruity prove praeexistence. (2.) i suppose those that argue from scripture-silence in such cases mistake the design of scripture, which is not to determine points of speculation, but to be a rule of life and manners. nor doth it otherwise design the teaching of doctrinals, than as they have a tendency to promote the divine life, righteousness and holiness. it was never intended by its inspired authors to fill our heads with notions, but to regulate our disorderly appetites and affections, and to direct us the way to a nobler happiness. therefore those that look for a system of opinions in those otherways-designed writings, do like him that should see for a body of natural philosophy, in epictetus his morals, or seneca's epistles. (3.) christ and his apostles spoke and writ as the condition of the persons with whom they dealt administered occasion, as as did also the other penmen. therefore doubtless there were many noble theories which they could have made the world acquainted with, which yet for want of a fit occasion to draw them forth were never upon record. and we know, sew speculative truths are deliver'ed in scripture, but such as were called forth by the controversies of those times: and praeexistence was none of them, it being the constant opinion of the jews, as appears by that question, master, was it for this man's sin or his fathers, that he was born blind, which supposeth it of the disciples also. wherefore (4.) there was little need of more teaching of that, which those times were sufficiently instructed in: and indeed, as the case stands, if scripture-silence be argumentative, 'twil be for the advantage of praeexistence; since it being the then common opinion, and the disciples themselves being of that belief, 'tis very likely, had it been an error, that our saviour or his apostles would have witnessed against it. but there being not a word let fall from them in disapproval of that opinion, though sometimes occasions were administered (as by the question of the disciples, and some other occurrences) 'tis a good presumption of the soundness of it. now that praeexistence was the common opinion of the jews, in those times might be made good with full and convictive evidence, were it worth our labour to insist much upon this inquiry; but this being only a by-consideration, a brief touch of it will suffice us. one of the great rabbins therefore, * mr. ben israel in his problems de creatione, assures us, that praeexistence was the common belief of all wise men among the jews, without exception. and the author of the book of wisdom, who certainly was a jew, probably philo, plainly supposeth the same doctrine in that speech, for i was a witty child, and had a good spirit, wherefore the rather being good, i came into a body undefiled. as also did the disciples in their foremention'd question to our saviour; for except they supposed, that he might have sinned before he was born, the question had been senseless and impertinent. again, when christ asked them, whom men said he was they answered, that some said john the baptist, others elias, others jeremias or one of the prophets, which sayings of theirs suppose their belief of a metempsychosis and consequently of praeexistence. these, one would think, were very proper occasions for our saviour to have rectified his mistaken followers, had their supposition been an error, as he was wont to do in cases not more considerable. therefore if the enemies of praeexistence will needs urge scriptures supposed silence against it; they have no reason to take it amiss if i show them how their argument recoils upon themselves, and destroy their own cause, instead of their adversaries. (5.) besides, there were doubtless many doctrines entertained by the apostles and the more learned of their followers, which were disproportioned to the capacities of the generality, who hold but little theory. there was strong meat for the more grown and manly christians, as well as milk for babes, and weaker constitutions. now scripture was designed for the benefit of the most, and they could little understand, and less make use of a speculation so remote from common conceit, as praeexistence. among us, wise men count it not so proper to deal forth deep and mysterious points in divinity to common and promiscuous auditories. wherefore the apostles and others of their more improved and capable disciples might have had such a doctrine among them, though it were never expressly defined in their public writings. and the learned origen and some other of the ancients affirm that praeexistence was a cabbala which was handed down from the apostolic ages, to their times; and we know those were early, and had therefore better advantages of knowing the certainty of such a tradition, than we at so vast a distance. nor need any wonder how it came at length to be lost, or at least kept but among a few, who considers the grossness of succeeding ages, when such multitudes could swallow the dull and coarse anthropomorphite doctrines; much less, if he reflects upon that black night of barbaric ignorance which spread itself over this western world, upon the incursion of those rude and uncivilised nations that ' ore-ran the empire: out of which darkness, 'twas the work of some centuries to recover the then obscured region of civility and letters. moreover, it would allay the admiration of any one inquisitive in such researches, when he shall have taken notice of the starting up and prevailing of school-divinity in the world, which was but aristotle's philosophy theologised. and we know that philosophy had the luck to swim in the general esteem and credit, when platonism and the more ancient wisdom, a branch of which, praeexistence was, were almost quite sunk and buried. so that a theology being now made, out of aristotelian principles, 'tis no wonder that praeexistence was left out, nothing being supposed to have been said of it, by the great author of that philosophy; and his admiring sectators were loath to borrow so considerable a theory, from their master's neglected rival, plato. but (6) at once to remove this stone of offence out of the way, i think scripture is not so silent in this matter as is imagined. and i'm confident, more can be said from those divine writings in behalf of praeexistence, than for many opinions, that its opposers are very fond of, and think to be there evidently asserted. and had this been a commonly received doctrine, and men's wits as much exercised for the defence on't, as they have been for the common dogmata, i nothing doubt, but that scriptures would have been heaped up in abundance for its justification, and it would have been thought to have been plainly witnessed too, in the inspired volume. for, as men's, fancies will readily furnish them with a proof of that, of whose truth they are strongly prepossessed; so, on the contrary, they'll be very backward to see any evidence of that which is strange to them, and which hath always been reputed an absurdity. but my scripture-evidence is not so proper for this place, i intending to make it an argument by itself. therefore if the urger of this objection, will but have a little patience till i come so far on the way of my discourse, i hope he may be satisfied that praeexistence is not such a stranger to scripture as he conceits it. chap. v. reasons against praeexistence answered. our forgetting the former state is no argument to disprove it: nor are the other reasons that can be produced, more conclusive. the proof of the possibility of praeexistence were enough, all other hypotheses being absurd and contradictious. but it is proved also by positive arguments. now therefore to proceed, let us look back upon our progress, and so enter on what remains. we have seen, that god could have created all souls at first had he so pleased, and that he hath revealed nothing in his written will to the contrary. and now if it be found also, that he hath not made it known to our reasons that 'twas not his will to do so, we may conclude this first particular, that no one can say, that the doctrine of praeexistence is a falshhood. therefore let us call to account the most momentous reasons that can be laid against it, and we shall find that they all have not weight enough in the least to move so rational and solid an opinion. (1.) then, 'tis likely to be urged, that had we lived and acted in a former state, * we should doubtless have retained some remembrance of that condition; but we having no memory of any thing backwards before our appearance upon this present stage, it will be thought to be a considerable presumption, that praeexistence is but a fancy. but i would desire such kind of reasoners to tell me, how much they remember of their state and condition in the womb, or of the actions of their first infancy. and i could wish they would consider, that not one passage in an hundred is remembered of their grown and riper age. nor doth there scarce a night pass but we dream of many things which our waking memories can give us no account of; yea, old age and some kinds of diseases blot out all the images of things past, and even in this state cause a total oblivion. * now if the reasons why we should lose the remembrance of our former life be greater, than are the causes of forgetfulness in the instances we have produced, i think it will be clear, that this argument hath but little force against the opinion we are enquiring into. therefore if we do but reflect upon that long state of silence and inactivity that we emerged from, when we came into these bodies; and the vast change we underwent by our sinking into this new and unwonted habitation, it will appear to the considerate, that there is greater reason why we should have forgotten our former life, than any thing in this. and if a disease or old age can raze out the memory of past actions, even while we are in one and the same condition of life, certainly so long and deep a swoon as is absolute insensibility and inertness, may much more reasonably be thought to blot out the memory of an other life, whose passages probably were nothing like the transactions of this. and this also might be given as an other reason of our forgetting our former state, since usually things are brought to our remembrance by some like occurrences. but (2.) some will argue, if this be a state of punishment for former miscarriages, how comes it about then, that 'tis a better condition than that we last came from, viz. the state of silence and insensibility? i answer, that if we look upon our present terrestrial condition as an effect of our defection from the higher life, and in reference to our former happiness lost by our own default, 'tis then a misery and a punishment. but if we compare our now-being with the state of inactivity we were delivered from, it may then be called an aftergame of the divine goodness, and a mercy. as a malefactor, that is at first put into a dark and disconsolate dungeon, and afterwards is removed to a more comfortable and lightsome prison, may acknowledge his remove to be a favour and deliverance compared with the place he was last consigned to; though with respect to his fault and former liberty, even this condition is both a mulct and a misery. it is just thus in the present ca●e, and any one may make the application. but it will be said, (3) if our souls lived in a former state, did they act in bodies, or without them? the former they'll say is absurd, and the latter incongruous and unlikely; since then all the powers the soul hath to exert in a body, would have been idle and to no purpose. but (1) the most that can be argued from such like objections, is, that we know not the manner of the thing; and are no arguments against the assertion itself. and were it granted that the paticular state of the soul before it came hither is inconceivable, yet this makes no more against it, than it doth against its after-condition; which these very objectors hold to be so, as to the particular modus. but (2) why is it so absurd that the soul should have actuated another kind of body, before it came into this? even here 'tis immediately united to a purer vehicle, moves and acts the grosser body by it; and why then might it not in its former and purer state of life have been joined only to such a refined body, which should have been suitable to its own perfection and purity? i'm sure, many, if not the most of the ancient fathers, thought angels themselves to be embodied, and therefore they reputed not this such a gross absurdity. but an occasion hereafter will draw our pen this way again, and therefore i pass it to a third return to this objection. (3.) therefore, though it were granted that the soul lived afore-times without a body, what greater incongruity▪ is there in such a supposition, than that it should live and act after death without any union with matter or any body whatsoever, as the objectors themselves conceive it doth? but all such objections as these will fly away as mists before the sun, when we shall come particularly to state the hypothesis. and therefore i may be excused from further troubling myself and the reader about them here. especially since, as hath been intimated, they prove nothing at all, but that the objectors cannot conceive what manner of state that of praeexistence was, which is no prejudice to the opinion itself; that our souls were extant before these earthly bodies. thus than i hope i have clearly enough made good that all souls might have been created from the beginning; for aught any thing that is made known, either in the scriptures or our reasons to the contrary. * and thereby have removed those prejudices that would have stood in the way of our conclusion. wherefore we may now without control, from our proof of, that it may be so; pass on to inquire, whether indeed, it is so; and see, whether it may as well be asserted, as defended. and truly considering that both the other ways are impossible, and this third not at all unreasonable, it may be thought needless to bring more forces into the field to gain it the victory, after its enemies are quite scattered and defeated. yet however, for the pomp and triumph of truth, though it need not their service, we shall add some positive arguments, whereby it may appear, that not only all other ways are dangerous and unpassable, and this irreproveable; but also that there is direct evidence enough to prove it solid and rational. and i make my first consideration of this kind, a second argument. chap. vi a second argument for praeexistence drawn from the consideration of the divine goodness, which always doth what is best. (2) then, whoever conceives rightly of god, apprehends him to be infinite and immense goodness, who is always shedding abroad of his own exuberant ●ulness: there is no straitness in the deity, no bounds to the ocean of love. now the divine goodness refers not to himself, as ours extends not unto him. he acts nothing for any self-accomplishment, being essentially and absolutely complete and perfect. but the object and term of his goodness is his creatures good and happiness, in their respective capacities. he is that infinite fountain that is continually overflowing; and can no more cease to shed his influences upon his indigent dependants than the sun to shine at noon. * now as the infinite goodness of the deity, obligeth him always to do good, so by the same reason to do that which is best; since to omit any degrees of good would argue a defect in goodness, supposing wisdom to order, and power to execute. he therefore that supposeth god not always to do what is best, and best for his creatures (for he cannot act for his own good) apprehends him to be less good than can be conceived, and consequently not infinitely so. for what is infinite, is beyond measure and apprehension. therefore to direct this to our purpose, god being infinitely good, and that to his creatures, and therefore doing always what is best for them, methinks it roundly follows that our souls lived and 'njoy'd themselves of old before they came into these bodies. for since they were capable of living, and that in a much better and happier state long before they descended into this region of death and misery; and since that condition of life and self-enjoyment would have been better, than absolute not-being; may we not safely conclude from a due consideration of the divine goodness, that it was so? what was it that gave us our being, but the immense goodness of our maker? and why were we drawn out of our nothings, but because it was better for us to be, than not to be? why were our souls put into these bodies, and not into some more squalid and ugly; but because we are capable of such, and 'tis better for us to live in these, than in those that are less suitable to our natures? and had it not been better for us, to have enjoyed ourselves and the bounty and favours of our maker of old, as did the other order of intellectual creatures, than to have lain in the comfortless night of nothing till t'other day? had we not been better on't to have lived and acted in the joyful regions of light and blessedness with those spirits that at first had being, than just now to jump into this sad plight, and state of sin and wretchedness? infinite power could as well have made us all at once, as the angels; and with as good congruity to our natures we might have lived and been happy without these bodies, as we shall be in the state of separation: since therefore it was best for us, and as easy for our creator so to have effected it, where was the defect, if it was not so? is not this to flurr his goodness, and to strait-lace the divine beneficence? and doth not the contrary hypothesis to what i am pleading for, represent the god of love as less good and bountiful, than a charitable mortal, who would neglect no opportunity within his reach of doing what good he could to those that want his help and assistance? i confess, the world generally have such narrow and unbecoming apprehensions of god, and draw his picture in their imaginations so like themselves, that few i doubt will feel the force of this argument; and mine own observation makes me enter the same suspicion of its success that some others have who have used it. 'tis only a very deep sense of the divine goodness can give it any persuasive energy. and this noble sentiment there are very few that are possessed of. however to lend it what strength i can, i shall endeavour to remove some prejudices that hinder its force and efficacy; and when those spots and scum are wiped away, that mistake and inadvertency have fastened on it, 'twill be illustrious by its own brightness. chap. vii. this first evasion, that god acts freely, and his mere will is reason enough for his doing, or forbearing any thing, overthrown by four considerations. some incident evasions, viz. that god's wisdom, or his glory, may be contrary to this display of the divine goodness, in our being made of old, clearly taken off. (1.) therefore, will some say, god worketh freely, nor can he be obliged to act but when he pleaseth. and this will and pleasure of his is the reason of our beings, and of the determinate time of our beginning. therefore if god would not that we should have been made sooner, and in a better state of life, his will is reason enough, and we need look no further. to this evasion, i thus reply. (1.) 'tis true indeed, god is the most free agent, because none can compel him to act, none can hinder him from acting. nor can his creatures oblige him to any thing. but then (2.) the divine liberty and freedom consists not in his acting by mere arbitrarious will, as disjunct from his other attributes. for he is said to act according to the counsel of his own will. so that his wisdom and goodness are as it were the rules whereby his will is directed. therefore though he cannot be obliged to act by any thing without himself, yet he may be the laws of his own essential rectitude and perfection. wherefore i conceive he is said, not to be able to do those things (which he might well enough by absolute power) that consist not with his ever blessed attributes. nor by the same reason can he omit that which the eternal law of his most persect nature obligeth him to. the sum is, * god never acts by mere will or groundless humour, that is a weakness in his impersect creatures; but according to the immutable rules of his ever blessed essence. and therefore, (3) 'tis a derogation from his infinite majesty to assert any thing contrary to his goodness upon pretence of his will and pleasure. for whatever is most suitable to this most blessed attribute, and contradicts no other, that be sure he willeth. wherefore (4) if it be better, and more agreeable to the divine goodness that we should have been in an happier state, before we came into these bodies, god's will cannot then be pretended to the contrary, (especially it having been proved already, that he hath no way revealed any such will of his) but rather it is demonstratively clear that his will was, it should be so. since as god never acts in the absence of his wisdom and goodness, so neither doth he abstain from acting when those great attributes require it. now if it be excepted again (2) that 'tis tr●e that this hypothesis is most suitable to the divine goodness, and the consideration of that alone would infer it: but how know we but his wisdom contradicts it? i return briefly, that if it be confessed to be so correspondent to, and inferrible from one attribute, and cannot be proved inconsistent with another, my business is determined. therefore let those that pretend an inconsistence, prove it. (2) the wisdom of god is that attribute and essential perfection, whereby the divine actions are directed to their end, which is always good, and best: therefore to do that which is best, cannot thwart the divine wisdom, but always includes and supposeth it: whence it follows, that what so comports with goodness, cannot stand opposite to wisdom. wisdom in god being indeed nothing else but goodness, contriving and directing for the creature's good and happiness. for we must remember, what was said above, that what is infinitely full and perfect, can have no ends for any self-advantage; and therefore the ends of the divine wisdom are something without himself, and consequently the good and perfection of his creatures. so that unless it can be proved to have been contrary to ours, or any other creatures good, that we should have been extant as soon as the light, it cannot be concluded to have any contradiction to the divine wisdom. but it will be said again, (3) gods glory is his great end, for the promoting of which his wisdom directs all his actions; and consequently, that which may be best for the creature, may not be so conducive to the divine glory, and therefore not agreeable with his wisdom. now, though i think the world hath a very mistaken apprehension of god's glory, yet i shall not here engage in more controversies, than i must needs. 'tis enough for my present purpose to intimate; that god's glory is no by-end or self-accumulation, nor an addition of anything to him which he was not eternally possessed of; nor yet is it any thing that stands in opposition to the good of his creation; but the display and communication of his excellencies; among the which, his goodness is not the least considerable, if it be not that most divine and fundamental attribute which gives perfection to all the rest. so that we may assure ourselves, that when ever his goodness obligeth him to action, his glory never stands in opposition. for even this is his glory, to communicate to his creatures suitably to his own absolute fullness, and to act according to the direction of his essential perfections; yea, though we should state his glory to consist alone, in the honour and renown of his attributes, yet even then the hypothesis of our having been made in the beginning will accumulate to his praises, and represent him to his creatures as more illustrious; since it is a more magnificent apprehension of his goodness, and clears his other attributes from those stains of dis-repute that all other suppositions cast upon them. and though his glory should consist, as too many fond imagine, in being praised and admired by his creatures, even on this account also it would have obliged him to have made us all of old, rather than opposed it; since, then, his excellencies had been sung forth by a more numerous choir, in continual hallelujahs. now if it should be urged, * that god made all things for himself, and therefore is not obliged to consult the good of his creatures in all his actions: i rejoin, that god's making all things for himself, can argue no more than his making all things for his own ends, viz. the ends of goodness. besides, the best critics make that place to speak no more but this, that god order all things according to himself; that is, according to the rules of his own nature and perfections. thus then, we see that for god to do that which is best for his creatures, is neither contrary to his will and pleasure, his wisdom, nor his glory, but most consonant to all of them. and therefore since the praeexistence of souls, is so agreeable to the divine goodness, and since nothing else in the deity opposeth, but rather sweetly conspires with it, methinks this argument were enough to conclude it. but yet there are other evasions which would elude this demonstration; i shall name the most considerable and leave it to the judicious to determine, whether they can disable it. chap. viii. a second general evasion, viz. that our reasons cannot tell what god should do, or what is best, overthrown by several considerations. as is also a third, viz. that by the same argument god would have been obliged to have made us impeccable, and not liable to misery. wherefore the second general evasion is, that our reasons cannot conclude what god should do, there being vast fetches in the divine wisdom which we comprehend not, nor can our natural light determine what is best. i answer (1) our saviour himself, who was the best judge in the case, teacheth us, that the reason of a man may in some things conclude what god will do, in that saying of his, if ye being evil, know how to give good things to your children, much more shall your father which is in heaven give his spirit to them that ask him: plainly intimating, that we may securely argue from any thing that is a perfection in ourselves, to the same in god. and if we, who are imperfectly good, will yet do as much good as we can, for those we love and tender; with greater confidence may we conclude, that god, who is infinitely so, will confer upon his creatures whatever good they are capable of. thus we see our saviour owns the capacity of reason in a case that is very near the same that we are dealing in. and god himself appeals to the reasons of men to judge of the righteousness and equity of his ways. ye men of israel and inhabitants of jerusalem, judge between me and my vineyard; which place i bring to show that mere natural reason is able to judge in some cases what is fit for god to do, and what is suitable to his essence and perfections. and if in any, methinks (2) its capacity in the case before us should be owned as soon as in any. for if reason cannot determine and assure us, that a blessed and happy being is better than none at all; and consequently, that it was best for our souls to have been, before they were in this state of wretchedness; and thence conclude, that it was very congruous to the divine goodness to have made us in a former and better condition; i think then (1) that it cannot give us the assurance of any thing, since there is not any principle in metaphysics or geometry more clear than this, viz. that an happy being, is better than absolute not●eing. and if our reasons can securely determine this, 'tis as much as we need at present. or ●f this be not certain, how vain are those learned men that dispute whether a state of the extremest misery a creature is capable ●of, and that everlasting, be not better than nonentity?▪ (2) if we cannot certainly know that it had been better that we should have existed in a life of happiness, proportioned to our natures of old, than have been mere nothing, till some few years since; we can never then own and acknowledge the divine goodness to us in any thing we enjoy. for if it might have been as good for us not to be, as to be, and happily; then it might have been as good for us to have wanted any thing else that we enjoy, as to have it; and consequently, we cannot own it as an effect of god's goodness that he hath bestowed any blessing on us. for if being be not better than not-being, then 'tis no effect of goodness that we are; and if so, then 'tis not from goodness that we have any thing else, * since all other things are inferior to the good of being. if it be said, it had been better indeed for us, to have lived in a former and happier state; but it may be, it had not been so for the universe; and the general good is to be preferred before that of particulars; i say then, and it may serve for a (3) answer to the general objection: if we may deny that to be done by almighty goodness, which is undoubtedly best for a whole species of his creatures, merely on this account, that, for aught we know, it may be for the advantage of some others, though there be not the least appearance of any such matter; we can never then argue any thing from the divine goodness. it can never then be proved from that glorious attribute, that he hath not made some of his creatures on purpose that they might be miserable; nor can it be concluded thence, that he will not annihilate all the pure and spotless angels; both which i suppose, any sober inquirer will think congruously deducible from the divine goodness. and if to say, for aught we know, it may be best for some other creatures, that those should be miserable, and these annihilated, be enough to disable the argument; on the same account we shall never be able to prove aught from this, or any other attribute. i might add, (2) there is not the least colourable pretence for any such suspicion. for, would the world have been too little to have contained those souls, without justling with some others? or, would they by violence have taken any of the privileges of the other intellectual creatures from them? if so, how comes it about that at last they can all so well consist together? and, could other creatures have been more disadvantaged by them, when they were pure and innocent, than they will at last, when they are so many of them debauched and depraved? (3) if this be enough to answer an argument, to say, for aught we know, it may be thus and thus, when there is not the least sign or appearance of any such thing, than nothing can ever be proved, and we are condemned to everlasting scepticism. we should never, for instance, from the order, beauty, and wise contrivance of the things that do appear, prove there is a god, if it were sufficient to answer, that things are indeed so made in this earth, on which we are extant; but, it may be, they are framed very oddly, ridiculously, and ineptly in some other worlds, which we know nothing of. if this be answering, any thing might be answered. but there is yet another objection against mine argument from the divine goodness, which looks very formidably at a distance, though when we come near it, we shall find, it will not bear the trial. and it may thus be urged. (3) if the goodness of god always obligeth him to do what is best, and best for his creatures, how is it then, that we were not made impeccable, and so not obnoxious to misery? or how doth it consist with that overflowing goodness of the deity, that we were let to lie in a long state of silence and insensibility, before we came into these bodies? this seems a pressing difficulty, but yet there's hopes we may dispatch it. therefore, (1) had we been made impeccable, we should have been another kind of creatures than now; since we had then wanted the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or liberty of will to good and evil, which is one of our essential attributes. consequently, there would have been one species of beings wanting to complete the universe; and it would have been a slur to the divine goodness not to have given being to such creatures as in the idea were fairly possible, and contradicted no other attribute. yea, though he foresaw that some would sin and make themselves miserable, yet the foreseen lapse and misery of those, was not an evil great enough to overbalance the good the species would reap by being partakers of the divine goodness in the land of the living; therefore however 'twas goodness to give such creatures being. but it will be urged upon us, if liberty to good and ●vil be so essential to our natures, what think we then of the ●lessed souls after the resurrection; are not they the same creatures, though without the liberty of sinning? to return to this; i think those that affirm, that the blessed have not this natural liberty, as long as they are united to a body, and are capable of resenting its pleasures, should do well to prove it. * indeed they may be morally immutable and illapsible: but this is grace, not nature; a reward of obedience, not a necessary annex of our being's. but will it be said, why did not the divine goodness endue us all with this moral ●ability? had it not been better for us to have been made in this condition of security, than in a state so dangerous? my return to this doubt will be a second answer to the main objection. therefore secondly, * i doubt not, but that 'tis much better for rational creatures, that this supreme happiness should be the reward of virtue, rather than entailed upon our natures. for the procurement of that which we might have missed of, is far more sensibly gratifying, than any necessary and unacquired enjoyment; we find a greater pleasure in what we gain by industry, art, or virtue, than in the things we were born to. and had we been made secure from sin and misery from the first moment of our being, we should not have put so high a rate and value upon that privilege. (3) had we been at first established in an imp●ssibility of lapsing into evil; then many choice virtues, excellent branches of the divine life had never been exercised, or indeed have been at all. such are patience, faith, and hope; the objects of which are, evil, futurity, and uncertainty. yea, (4) had we been so sixth in an inamissible happiness from the beginning, there had then been no virtue in the world; nor any of that matchless pleasure which attends the exercise thereof. for virtue is a kind of victory, and supposeth a conflict. therefore we say, that god is good and holy, but not virtuous. take away a possibility of evil, and in the creature there is no moral goodness. and then no reward, no pleasure, no happiness. therefore in sum (5ly), the divine goodness is manifested in making all creatures suitably to those ideas of their natures, which he hath in his all-comprehensive wisdom. and their good and happiness consists in acting according to those natures, and in being furnished with all things necessary for such actions. now the divine wisdom is no arbitrary thing, that can change, or alter those settled immutable ideas of things that are there represented. it lops not off essential attributes of some being's, to inoculate them upon others: but distinctly comprehending all things, assigns each being its proper nature, and qualities. and the divine goodness, according to the wise direction of the eternal intellect, in like distinct and orderly manner produceth all things: viz. according to all the variety of their respective ideas in the divine wisdom. * wherefore as the goodness of god obligeth him not to make every planet a fixed star, or every star a sun; so neither doth it oblige him to make every degree of life, a rational soul, or every soul, an impeccable angel. * for this were to tie him to contradictions. since therefore, such an order of being's, as rational and happy, though free, and therefore mutable creatures, were distinctly comprehended in the divine wisdom; it was an effect of god's goodness, to bring them into being, even in such a condition, and in such manner, as in their eternal ideas they were represented. thus than we see, it is not contrary to the infinite plenitude of the divine goodness * that we should have been made peccable and liable to defection. and being thus in our very essential constitutions lapsible; 'twas no defect in the goodness of our maker that he did not interpose by his absolute omnipotence to prevent our actual prevarication and apostasy. since his goodness obligeth him not to secure us upon any terms whatever, but upon such, as may most promote the general good and advantage. and questionless, 'twas much better that such, as would wilfully depart from the laws of their blessed natures, and break through all restraints of the divine commands, should feel the smart of their disobedience; than that providence should disorder the constitution of nature to prevent the punishment, which they drew upon themselves: since those apostate spirits remain instances to those that stand, of the divine justice, and severity against sinners, and so may contribute not a little to their security. and for that long night of silence, in which multitudes ofsouls are buried before they descend into terrestrial matter, it is but the due reward of their former disobedience; for which, considering the happy circumstances in which they were made, they deserved to be nothing for ever. and their reinstating in a condition of life and self-injoyment after so highly culpable delinquencies, is a great instance of the overflowing fullness of the divine compassion and benignity. thus than we see, that gods making us lapsible and permitting us to fall, is no prejudice in the least to the infinite fecundity of his goodness, and his making all things best. so that mine argument for praeexistence bottomed on this foundation, stands yet firm and immovable, notwithstanding the rude assault of this objection. from which i pass to a fourth. chap. ix. a (4th.) objection against the argument from god's goodness, viz. that it will conclude as well that the world is infinite and eternal, answered. the conclusion of the second argument for praeexistence. therefore fourthly, it will be excepted, if we may argue from the divine goodness, which always doth what is best, for the praeexistence of souls; then we may as reasonably thence conclude, that the world is both infinite and eternal, since an infinite communication of goodness is better than a finite. to this, because i doubt i have distressed the readers patience already, i answer briefly. (1) every one that believes the infiniteness of god's goodness is as much obliged to answer this objection, as i am. for it will be said, infinite goodness doth good infinitely, and consequently the effects to which it doth communicate are infinite. for if they are not so, it might have communicated to more, and thereby have done more good, than now 'tis supposed to do, and by consequence now is not infinite. and to affirm that goodness is infinite, where what it doth and intends to do is but finite, will be said to be a contradiction, since goodness is a relative term, and in god always respects somewhat ad extra. for he cannot be said to be good to himself, he being a nature that can receive no additional perfection. wherefore this objection makes no more against mine argument, than it doth against the infinity of the divine goodness, and therefore i am no more concerned in i● than others. yea (2 lie.) the scripture affirms that which is the very strength of mine argument, viz. that god made all things best; very good, saith our translation: but the original, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a particle of the superlative. and therefore every one that owns its sacred authority is interested against this objection. for it urgeth, it had been far more splendid, glorious, and magnificent for god to have made the universe commensurate to his own immensity; and to have produced effects of his power and greatness, where ever he himself is, viz. in infinite space and duration, than to have confined his omnipotence to work only in one little spot of an infinite inane capacity, and to begin to act but t●other day. thus than the late creation, and finiteness, of the world, seem to conflict with the undoubted oracle of truth as well as with mine argument, and therefore the objection drawn thence is of no validity. (3) those that have most strenuously defended the orthodox doctrine against the old opinion of the eternity and infinity of the world, * have asserted it to be impossible in the nature of the thing. and sure the divine benignity obligeth him not to do contradictions; or such things, as in the very notion of them, are impossible. but in the case of praeexistence, no such thing can be reasonably pretended, as above hath been declared; and therefore there is no escaping by this evasion neither. nor can there any thing else be urged to this purpose, but what whoever believes the infinity of the divine bounty will be concerned to answer; and therefore 'twill make no more against me, than against a truth on all hands confessed. let me only add this, that 'tis more becoming us, to enlarge our apprehensions of things so, as that they may suit the divine beneficence, than to draw it down to a compliance with our little schemes, and narrow models. thus than i have done with the argument for praeexistence drawn from the divine goodness. and i have been the longer on it, because i thought 'twas in vain to propose it, without taking to task the principal of those objections, that must needs arise in the minds of those that are not used to this way of arguing. and while there was no provision made to stop up those evasions, that i saw this argument obnoxious to; the using of it, i was afraid, would have been a prejudice, rather than a furtherance of the cause i engaged it in. and therefore i hope the ingenious will pardon this so necessary piece of tediousness. chap. x. a third argument for praeexistence, from the great variety of men's speculative inclinations; and also the diversity of our genius's, copiously urged. if these arguments make praeexistence but probable, 'tis enough to gain it the victory. but now i proceed to another argument. therefore, thirdly, if we do but re●●ect upon what was said above, against the souls daily creation, from that enormous pravity which is so deeply rooted in some men's natures, we may thence have a considerable evidence of praeexistence. for as this strong natural propensity to vice and impiety cannot possibly consist with the hypothesis of the souls coming just out of god's hands pure and immaculate; so doth it most aptly suit with the doctrine of its praeexistence: which gives a most clear and apposite account of the phaenomenon. for let us but conceive the souls of men to have grown degenerate in a former condition of life, * to have contracted strong and inveterate habits to vice and lewdness, and that in various manners and degrees; we may then easily apprehend, when some men's natures had so incredibly a depraved tincture, and such impetuous, ungovernable, irreclaimable inclinations to what is vicious; while others have nothing near such wretched propensions, but by good education and good discipline are mouldable to virtue; this shows a clear way to unriddle this amazing mystery, without blemishing any of the divine attributes, or doing the least violence to our faculties. nor is it more difficult to conceive, how a soul should awaken out of the state of inactivity we speak of, with those radical inclinations that by long practice it had contracted, * than how a swallow should return to her old trade of living after her winter sleep and silence; for those customs it hath been addicted to in the other state, are now so deeply fastened and rooted in the soul, that they are become even another nature. now then, if praeexistence be not the truth, 'tis very strange that it should so exactly answer the phaenomena of our natures, when as no other hypothesis doth any whit tolerably suit them. and if we may conclude that false, which is so correspondent to all appearances, when we know nothing else that can yield any probable account of them, and which is not in the least repugnant to any inducement of belief, we then strangely forget ourselves when we determine any thing. we can never for instance, conclude the moon to be the cause of the flux and reflux of the sea, from the answering of her approaches and recesses to its ebbs and swellings. nor at this rate can the cause of any thing else be determined in nature. but yet besides, (2) we might another way enforce this argument, from the strange difference and diversity that there is in men's wits and intellectual craseiss, as well as in the dispositions of their wills and appetites. even the natural tempers of men's minds are as vastly different, as the qualities of their bodies. and 'tis easy to observe in things purely speculative and intellectual, even where neither education or custom have interposed to sophisticate the natural 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that some men are strangely propense to some opinions, which they greedily drink in, as soon as they are duly represented; yea, and find themselves burdened and oppressed, while their education hath kept them in a contrary belief, * when as others are as fatally set against these opinions, and can never be brought favourably to resent them. every soul brings a kind of sense with it into the world, whereby it tastes and relisheth what is suitable to its peculiar temper. and notions will never lie easily in a mind, that they are not fitted to; some can never apprehend that for other than an absurdity, which others are so clear in, that they almost take it for a first principle. and yet the former hath all the same evidence as the latter. this i have remarkably taken notice of, in the opinion of the extension of a spirit. some that i know, and those inquisitive, free, and ingenuous, by all the proof and evidence that is, cannot be reconciled to it. nor can they conceive any thing extended, but as a body. whereas other deep and impartial searchers into nature, cannot apprehend it any thing at all, if not extended; but think it must then be a mathematical point, or a mere nonentity. i could instance in other speculations, which i have observed some to be passionate embracers of upon the first proposal; when as no arguments could prevail on others, to think them tolerable. but there needs no proof of a manifest observation. therefore before i go further, i would demand, whence comes this mere notional or speculative variety? * were his difference about sensibles, yea, or about things depending on the imagination, the influence of the body might then be suspected for a cause. but since it is in the most abstracted theories that have nothing to do with the grosser phantasms; since this diversity is found in minds that have the greatest care to free themselves from the deceptions of sense, and entanglements of the body, what can we conclude, but that the soul itself is the immediate subject of all this variety, and that it came praejudiced and praepossessed into this body with some implicit notions that it had learned in another? and if this congruity to some opinions, and averseness to others be congenial to us, and not advenient from any thing in this state, 'tis methinks clear that we were in a former. * for the soul in its first and pure nature hath no idiosyncrasies, that is, hath no proper natural inclinations which are not competent to others of the same kind and condition. be sure, they are not fatally determined by their natures to false and erroneous apprehensions. and therefore since we find this determination to one or other falsehood in many, if not most in this state, and since 'tis very unlikely 'tis derived only from the body, custom, or education, what can we conceive on't, but that our souls were tainted with these peculiar and wrong corruptions before we were extant upon this stage of earth? besides, 'tis easy to observe the strange and wonderful variety of our genius; one man's nature inclining him to one kind of study and employment, another's to what is very different. some almost from their very cradles will be addicted to the making of figures, and in little mechanical contrivances; others love to be rhyming almost as soon as they can speak plainly, and are taken up in small essays of poetry. some will be scrawling pictures, and others take as great delight in some pretty offers at music and vocal harmony. infinite almost are the ways in which this pure natural diversity doth discover itself. * now to say that all this variety proceeds primarily from the mere temper of our bodies, is me thinks a very poor and unsatisfying account. * for those that are the most like in the temper, air, complexion of their bodies, are yet of a vastly differing genius. yea, they that have been made of the same clay, cast in the same mould, and have lain at once in the same natural bed, the womb; yea whose bodies have been as like as their state and fortunes, and their education and usages the same, yet even they do not unfrequently differ as much from each other in their genius and dispositions of the mind, as those that in all these particulars are of very different condition. besides, there are all kind of makes, forms, dispositions, tempers, and complexions of body, that are addicted by their natures to the same exercises and employments: so that to ascribe this to any peculiarity in the body, is me seems a very improbable solution of the phaenomenon. and to say all these inclinations are from custom or education, is the way not to be believed, since all experience testifies the contrary. what then can we conjecture is the cause of all this diversity, but that we had taken a great delight and pleasure in some things like and analogous unto these, in a former condition, which now again begins to put forth itself, when we are awakened out of our silent recess into a state of action? and though the employments, pleasures and exercises of our former life, were without question very different from these in the present estate; yet 'tis no doubt, but that some of them were more confamiliar and analogous to some of our transactions, than others: so that as any exercise or employment here is more suitable to the particular dispositions that were predominant in the other state, with the more peculiar kindness is it regarded by us, and the more greedily do our inclinations now fasten on it. thus if a musician should be interdicted the use of all musical instruments, and yet might have his choice of any other art or profession, 'tis likely he would betake himself to limning or poetry; these exercises requiring the same disposition of will and genius, as his beloved music did. and we in like manner, being by the ●ate of our wretched descent hindered from the direct exercising ourselves about the objects of our former delights and pleasures, do yet as soon as we are able, take to those things which do most correspond to that genius that formerly inspired us. and now 'tis time to take leave of the arguments from reason that give evidence for praeexistence. if any one think that they are not so demonstrative, but that they may be answered, or at least evaded; i pray him to consider how many demonstrations he ever met with, that a good wit, resolved in a contrary cause, could not shu●●le from the edge of. or, let it be granted, that the arguments i have alleged are no infallible or necessary proofs; yet if they render my cause but probable, yea but possible, i have won what i contended for. for it having been made manifest by as good evidence as i think can be brought for any thing, that the way of new creations is most inconsistent with the honour of the blessed attributes of god: and that the other of traduction is most impossible and contradictio●s in the nature of things: * there being now no other way left but preexistence, if that be probable or but barely possible, 'tis enough to give it the victory. and whether all that hath been said prove so much or no, i leave to the indifferent to determine. i think he that will say it doth not, can bring few proofs for any thing, which according to his way of judging will deserve to be called demonstrations. chap. xi. great caution to be used in alleging scripture for our speculative opinions. the countenance that praeexistence hath from the sacred writings both of the old and new testament; reasons of the seeming uncouthness of these allegations. praeexistence stood in no need of scripture-proof. it will be next expected, that i should now prove the doctrine i have undertaken for, by scripture evidence, and make good what i said above, that the divine oracles are not so silent in this matter as is imagined. but truly i have so tender a sense of the sacred authority of that holy volume, that i dare not be so bold with it, as to force it to speak what i think it intends not; a presumption, that is too common among our confident opinionists, and that hath occasioned great troubles to the church, and disrepute to the inspired writings. for, for men to ascribe the odd notions of their overheated imaginations to the spirit of god, and eternal truth, is me thinks a very bold and impudent belying it. wherefore i dare not but be very cautious what i speak in this matter, nor would i willingly urge scripture as a proof of any thing, but what i am sure by the whole tenor of it, is therein contained: and would i take the liberty to fetch in every thing for a scripture-evidence, that with a little industry a man might make serviceable to his design; i doubt not but i should be able to ●ill my margin with quotations, which should be as much to purpose as have been cited in general catechisms and confessions of faith, and that in points that must forsooth be dignified with the sacred title of fundamental. but reverend assemblies may make more bold with scripture than private persons; and therefore i confess i'm so timorous that i durst not follow their example: though in a matter that i would never have imposed upon the belief of any man, though i were certain on't, and had absolute power to enjoin it. i think the only way to preserve the reverence due to the oracles of truth, is never to urge their authority but in things very momentous, and such as the whole current of them gives an evident suffrage to. but to make them speak every trivial conceit that our sick brains can imagine or dream of, (as i intimated) is to vilify and deflower them. therefore though i think that several texts of scripture look very fairly upon praeexistence, and would encourage a man, that considers what strong reasons it hath to back it, to think, that very probably they mean some thing in favour of this hypothesis; yet i'll not urge them as an irrefutable proof, being not willing to lay more stress upon any thing than it will bear. yea, i am most willing to confess the weakness of my cause in what joint soever i shall discover it. and yet i must needs say, that whoever compares the texts that follow, with some particulars mentioned in the answer to the objection of scripture-silence, will not choose but acknowledge that there is very fair probability for praeexistence in the written word of god, as there is in that which is engraven upon our rational natures. therefore to bring together here what scripture saith in this matter, 1. i'll lightly touch an expression or two of the old testament, which not improperly may be applied to the business we are in search of. and methinks god himself in his posing the great instance of patience, job, seems to intimate somewhat to this purpose, viz. that all spirits were in being when the foundations of the earth were laid: when saith he, the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of god shouted for joy. by the former very likely were meant the angels, and 'tis not improbable but by the latter may be intended the blessed untainted souls. at least the particle all me thinks should comprise this order of spirits also. and within the same period of discourse, having questioned job about the nature and place of the light, he adds, i know that thou wast then born, for the number of thy days are many, as the septuagint render it. * and we know our saviour and his apostles have given credit to that translation by their so constant following it. nor doth that saying of god to jeremias in the beginning of his charge seem to intimate less, before i form thee in the belly i knew thee, and before thou camest out of the womb i gave thee wisdom; * as reads a very creditable version. now though each of these places might be drawn to another sense, yet that only argues that they are no necessary proof for praeexistence, which i readily acknowledge; nor do i intend any such matter by alleging them. however i hope they will be confessed to be applicable to this sense; and if there be other grounds that swade this hypothesis to be the truth, 'tis i think very probable that these texts intent it favour, which whether it be so or no, we have seen already. 2. for the texts of the new testament that seem to look pleasingly upon praeexistence, i shall as briefly hint them as i did the former. * and me thinks that passage of our saviour's prayer, father, glorify me with the same glory i had with thee before the world began, sounds somewhat to this purpose. the glory which he prays to be restored to, seems to concern his humane nature only; for the divine could never lose it. and therefore it supposeth that he was in his humanity existent before: and that his soul was of old before his appearance in a terrestrial body. which seems also to be intimated * by the expressions of his coming from the father, descending from heaven, and returning thither again, which he very frequently makes use of. and we know the divinity that ●ills all things, cannot move to, or quit a place, it being a manifest imperfection, and contrary to his immensity. i might add those other expressions of our saviour's taking upon him the ●orm of a servant, of rich for our sakes becoming poor, and many others of like import, all which are very clear if we admit the doctrine of praeexistence, but without it somewhat perplex and intricate: since these things, applied to him as god, are very improper and disagreeing, but appositely suit his humanity, to which if we refer them, we must suppose our hypothesis of praeexistence. but i omit further prosecution of this matter, * since these places have been more diffusely urged in a late discourse to this purpose. moreover the question of the disciples, * was it for this man's sin, or for his fathers that he was born blind? and that answer of theirs to our saviour's demand, whom men said he was; in that some said he was john the baptist, some elias, or one of the prophets; both which i have mentioned before; do clearly enough argue, that both the disciples and the jews believed praeexistence. and our saviour saith not a word to disprove their opinion. but i spoke of this above. now however uncouth these allegations may seem to those that never heard these scriptures thus interpreted; yet i am confident, had the opinion of praeexistence been a received doctrine, and had these texts been wont to be applied to the proof on't, they would then have been thought to assert it, with clear and convictive evidence. but many having never heard of this hypothesis, and those that have, seldom meeting it mentioned but as a silly dream or antiquated absurdity, 'tis no wonder that they never suspect it to be lodged in the sacred volume, so that any attempt to confirm it thence, must needs seem rather an offer of wit than serious judgement. and the places that are cited to that purpose having been frequently read and heard of, by those that never discerned them to breathe the least air of any such matter as praeexistence, their new and unexpected application to a thing so little thought of, must needs seem a wild fetch of an extravagant imagination. but however unconclusive the texts alleged may seem to those a strong prejudice hath shut up against the hypothesis; the learned jews, who were persuaded of this doctrine, thought it clearly enough contained in the old volume of holy writ, and took the citations, named above, for current evidence. and though i cannot warrant for their judgement in things, yet doubtless they were the best judges of their own language. nor would our school-doctors have thought it so much a stranger to the new, had it had the luck to have been one of their opinions, or did they not too frequently apply the sacred oracles to their own fore-conceived notions. but whether what i have brought from scripture prove any thing or nothing, 'tis not very material, since the hypothesis of preexistence stands secure enough upon those pillars of reason, which have their foundation in the attributes of god, and the phaenomena of the world. and the right reason of a man, is one of the divine volumes, in which are written the indelible ideas of eternal truth: so that what it dictates, is as much the voice of god, as if in so many words it were clearly expressed in the written revelations. it is enough therefore for my purpose, if there be nothing in the sacred writings contrary to this hypothesis; which i think is made clear enough already; and though it be granted that scripture is absolutely silent as to any assertion of preexistence, yet we have made it appear that its having said nothing of it, is no prejudice, but an advantage to the cause. chap. xii. why the author thinks himself obliged to descend to some more particular account of praeexistence. 'tis presumption positively to determine how it was with us of old. the author's design in the hypothesis that follows. now because inability to apprehend the manner of a thing is a great prejudice against the belief on't; i find myself obliged to go a little further than the bare proof, and defence of praeexistence. for though what i have said, may possibly induce some to think favourably of our conclusion, that the souls of men were made before they came into these bodies; yet while they shall think that nothing can be conceived of that former state, and that our preaexistent condition cannot be represented to humane understanding, but as a dark black solitude: it must needs weaken the persuasion of those that are less confirmed, and ●ill the minds of the inquisitive with a dubious trouble and anxiety. for searching and contemplative heads cannot be satisfied to be told, that our souls have lived and acted in a former condition, except they can be helped to some more particular apprehension of that state; how we lived and acted of old, and how probably we fell from that better life, into this region of misery and imperfection. now though indeed my charity would prompt me to do what i can for the relief and ease of any modest inquirer; yet shall i not attempt to satisfy punctual and eager curiosity in things hidden and unsearchable. much less shall i positively determine any thing in matters so lubricous and uncertain. and indeed considering how imperfect our now state is, how miserable shallow our understandings are, and how little we know of our present selves, and the things about us, it may seem a desperate undertaking to attempt any thing in this matter. yea, when we contemplate the vast circuits of the divine wisdom, and think how much the thoughts and actions of eternity and omniscience are beyond ours, who are but of yesterday, and know nothing, it must needs discourage confidence itself from determining, how the oeconomy of the world of life was ordered, in the day the heavens and earth were framed. there are doubtless infinite ways and methods according to which the unsearchable wisdom of our maker could have disposed of us, which we can have no conceit of; and we are little more capable of unerringly resolving ourselves now, how it was with us of old, than a child in the womb is to determine, what kind of life it shall live when it is set at liberty from that dark enclosure. therefore let shame and blushing cover his face that shall confidently affirm that 'twas thus or thus with us in the state of our fore-beings. however, to show that it may have been that our souls did praeexist, though we cannot punctually and certainly conclude upon the particular state, i shall presume to draw up a conceivable scheme of the hypothesis; and if our narrow minds can think of a way how it might have been, i hope no body will deny that the divine wisdom could have contrived it so, or infinitely better than we can imagine in our little models. and now i would not have it thought that i go about to insinuate or represent any opinions of my own, or that i am a votary to all the notions i make use of, whether of the ancient, or more modern philosophers. for i seriously profess against all determinations in this kind. but my business only is, by some imperfect hints and guesses to help to apprehend a little how the state of praeexistence might have been, and so to let in some beams of ancient and modern light upon this immense darkness. * therefore let the reader if he please call it a romantic scheme, or imaginary hypothesis, or what name else best fits his fancy, and he'll not offend me; nor do i hold myself concerned at all to vindicate the truth of any thing here that is the fruit of mine own invention or composure; though i confess i could beg civilities at least for the notions i have borrowed from great and worthy sages. and indeed the hypothesis as to the main, is derived to us from the platonists: though in their writings 'tis but gold in oar, less pure and perfect: but a late great artist hath excellently refined it. and i have not much work to do, but to bring together what he up and down hath scattered, and by a method-order, and some connexion's and notions of mine own, to work it into an entire and uniform mass. now because the frame of the particular hypothesis is originally philosophical, i shall therefore not deprave it by mingling with it the opinions of modern theologers, or distort any thing to make it accommodate to their dogmata, but solely and sincerely follow the light of reason and philosophy. for i intent not to endeavour the late alteration of the ordinary system of divinity, nor design any thing in this place but a representation of some harmless philosophical conjectures: in which i shall continually guide myself by the attributes of god, the phaenomena of the world, and the best discoveries of the nature of the soul. chap. xiii. (7) pillars on which the particular hypothesis stands. now the fabric we are going to build, will stand like as the house of wisdom upon seven pillars; which i shall first erect and establish, that the hypothesis may be firm and sure like a house that hath foundations. therefore the first fundamental principle i shall lay, is this first pillar. (1) all the divine designs and actions are laid and carried on by pure and infinite goodness. and methinks this should be owned by all for a manifest and indisputable truth; but some odd opinions in the world are an interest against it, and therefore i must be fain to prove it. briefly then, every rational being acts towards some end or other; that end where the agent acts regularly and wisely, is either some self-good or accomplishment, or 'tis the good and perfection of some thing else, at least in the intention. now god being an absolute and immense fullness, that is incapable of any the least shadow of new perfection, cannot act for any good that may accrue to his immutable self; and consequently, whatever he acts, is for the good of some other being: so that all the divine actions are the communications of his perfections, and the issues of his goodness; which, being without the base alloy of self-interest, or partial fondness, and not comprised within any bounds or limits, as his other perfections are not, but far beyond our narrow conception, we may well call it pure and infinite benignity. this is the original and root of all things, so that this blessed, ever blessed attribute being the spring and fountain of all the actions of the deity, his designs can be no other but the contrivances of love for the compassing the good and perfection of the universe. therefore to suppose god to act or design any thing that is not for the good of his creatures, is either to fancy him to act for no end at all, or for an end that is contrary to his benign nature. finally therefore, the very notion of infinite fullness is to be communicating and overflowing; and the most congruous apprehension that we can entertain of the infinite and eternal deity, is * to conceive him as an immense and all glorious sun, that is continually communicating and sending abroad its beams and brightness; which conception of our maker, if 'twere deeply imprinted on us, would i am confident set our apprehensions right in many theories, and chase away those black and dismal notions which too many have given harbour to. but i come to erect the second pillar. (2) then, there is an exact geometrical justice that runs through the universe, and is interwoven in the contexture of things: this is a result of that wise and almighty goodness that praesides over all things. for this justice is but the distributing to every thing according to the requirements of its nature. and that benign wisdom that contrived and framed the natures of all being's, doubtless so provided that they should be suitably furnished with all things proper for their respective conditions. and that this nemesis should be twisted into the very natural constitutions of things themselves, is methinks very reasonable; since questionless, almighty wisdom could so perfectly have form his works at first, as that all things that he saw were regular, just, and for the good of the universe, should have been brought about by those stated laws, which we call nature; without an ordinary engagement of absolute power to effect the●. and it seems to me to be very becoming the wise author of all things so to have made them in the beginning, as that by their own internal spring and wheels, they should orderly bring about whatever he intended them for, without his often immediate interposal. for this looks like a more magnificent apprehension of the divine power and prescience, since it supposeth him from everlasting ages to have foreseen all future occurrences, and so wonderfully to have seen and constituted the great machina of the world, that the infinite variety of motions therein, should effect nothing but what in his eternal wisdom he had concluded fit and decorous: but as for that which was so, it should as certainly be compassed by the laws he appointed long ago, as if his omnipotence were at work every moment. on the contrary, to engage gods absolute and extraordinary power, in all events and occurrences of things, is m●s●●ms to think meanly of his wisdom; as if he had made the world so, as that it should need omnipotence every now and then to mend it, or to bring about those his destinations, which by a shorter way he could have effected, by his instrument nature. can any one say that our supposition derogates from the divine concourse or providence? for on these, depend continually both the being and operations of all things, since without them they would cease to act, and return to their old nothing. and doubtless god hath not given the ordering of things out of his own hands; but holds the power, to alter, innovate, or change the course of nature as he pleaseth. and to act by extraordinary means, by absolute omnipotence, when he thinks fit to do so. the sum of what i intent, is, that god's works are perfect; and as his goodness is discovered in them, so is his justice wrought into their very essential constitutions: so that we need not suppose him to be immediately engaged in every event and all distributions of things in the world, or upon all occasions to exercise his power in extraordinary actions, but that he leaves such managements to the oeconomy of second causes. and now next to this, (for they are of k●n) i raise the third pillar. (3) things are carried to their proper place and state, by the congruity of their natures; where this fails, we may suppose some arbitrary managements. the congruity of things is their suitableness to such or such a state or condition; and 'tis a great law in the divine and first constitutions, that things should incline and move to what is suitable to their natures. this in sensibles is evident in the motions of consent and sympathy. and the ascent of light, and descent of heavy bodies, must i doubt when all is done, * be resolved into a principle that is not merely corporeal. yea, supposing all such things to be done by the laws of mechanics, why may we not conceive, that the other rank of being's, spirits, which are not subject to corporeal motions, are also disposed of by a law proper to their natures, which since we have no other name to express it by, we may call congruity? we read in the sacred history that judas went to his own place; and 'tis very probable that spirits are conveyed to their proper states and residence, * as naturally as the fire mounts, or a stone descends. the platonists would have the soul of the world to be the great instrument of all such distributions, as also of the phaenomena, that are beyond the powers of matter: and 'tis no unlikely hypothesis: but i have no need to engage further about this: nor yet to speak more of this first part of my principle, since it so nearly depends on what was said in behalf of the former maxim. yet of the latter we need a word or two. when therefore we cannot give account of things either by the laws of mechanics or conceivable congruities, (* as likely some things relating to the states of spirits, and immaterial being's can be resolved by neither) i say then, we may have recourse to the arbitrary managements of those invisible ministers of equity and justice, which without doubt the world is plentifully stored with. for it cannot be conceived that those active spirits are idle or unemployed in the momentous concerns of the universe. yea, the sacred volume gives evidence of their interposals in our affairs. i shall need mention but that remarkable instance in daniel, of the endeavours of the prince of persia, and of grecia, to hinder michael, and the other angel, that were engaged for the affairs of judea; or if any would evade this, what think they of all the apparitions of angels in the old testament, of their pitching their tents about us, and being ministering spirits for our good. to name no more such passages. now if those noble spirits will engage themselves in our trifling concernments, doubtless they are very sedulous in those affairs that t●nd to the good and perfection of the universe. but to be brief; i advance. the fourth pillar. (4) * the souls of men are capable of living in other bodies besides terrestrial; and never act but in some body or other. for (1.) when i consider how deeply in this state we are immersed in the body, i can methinks scarce imagine, that presently upon the quitting on't, we shall be stripped of all corporeity; for this would be such a jump as is seldom or never made in nature; since by almost all instances that come under our observation 'tis manifest, that she useth to act by due and orderly gradations, and takes no precipitous leaps from one extreme to another. 'tis very probable therefore, that in our immediately next state we shall have another vehicle. and then, (2.) considering that our souls are immediately united to a more tenuious and subtle body here, than this gross outside; 'tis methinks a good presumption, that we shall not be stripped and divested of our inward stole also, when we leave this dull earth behind us. especially (3) if we take notice how the highest and noblest faculties and operations of the soul are helped on by somewhat that is corporeal, and that it employeth the bodily spirits in its sublimest exercises; we might then be persuaded, that it always useth some body or other, and never acts without one. and (4) since we cannot conceive a soul to live or act that is insensible, and since we know not how there can be sense where there is no union with matter, we should me seems be induced to think, that when 'tis disjunct from all body, 'tis inert and silent. * for in all sensations there is corporeal motion, as all philosophy and experience testifies: and these motions become sensible representations, by virtue of the union between the soul and its confederate matter; so that when it is loose and disunited from any body whatsoever, it will be unconcerned in all corporeal motions, (being a penetrable substance) and no sense or perception will be conveyed by them. nor will it make any thing at all against this argument to urge, that there are n●● and purely unembodied spirits in the universe, which live and act without relation to any body, and yet these are not insensible: for what they know, and how they know we are very incompetent judges of, they being a sort of spirits specifically distinct from our order: and therefore their faculties and operations are of a very divers consideration from ours. so that for us to deny what we may reasonably argue from the contemplation of our own natures, because we cannot comprehend the natures of a species of creatures that are far above us, is a great mistake in the way of reasoning. now how strange soever this principle may seem to those, whom customary opinions have seasoned with another belief, yet considering the reasons i have alleged, i cannot forbear concluding it very probable; and if it prove hereafter serviceable for the helping us in some concerning theories, i think the most wary and timorous may admit it, till upon good grounds they can disprove it. the fifth pillar. (5) the soul in every state hath such a body as is fittest for those faculties and operations that it is most inclined to exercise. 'tis a known maxim, that every thing that is, is for its operation; and the contriver and maker of the world hath been so bountiful to all being's, as to furnish them with all suitable and necessary requisites for their respective actions; for there are no propensities and dispositions in nature, but some way or other are brought into actual exercise, otherwise they were mere nullities, and impertinent appendices. now for the employment of all kinds of faculties, and the exerting all manner of operations, all kinds of instruments will not suffice, but only such, as are proportioned and adapted to the exercises they are to be used in, and the agents that employ them. 'tis clear therefore, that the soul of man, a noble and vigorous agent, must be fitted with a suitable body, according to the laws of that exact distributive justice that runs through the universe; and such a one is most suitable, as is fittest for those exercises it propends to; for the body is the souls instrument, and a necessary requisite of action: whereas should it be otherwise, god would then have provided worse for his worthiest creatures, than he hath for those that are of a much inferior rank and order. for if we look about us upon all the creatures of god, that are exposed to our observation, we may seal this truth with an infallible induction; that there is nothing but what is sitted with all suitable requisites to act according to its nature. the bird hath wings to waft it aloft in the thin and subtle air; the fish is furnished with fins, to move in her liquid element; and all other animals have instruments that are proper for their peculiar inclinations: so that should it be otherwise in the case of souls, it would be a great blot to the wise managements of providence; and contrary to its usual methods; and thus we should be disfurnished of the best and most convictive argument, that we have to prove that a prinoiple of exactest wisdom hath made and ordered all things. the sixth pillar: (6) the powers and faculties of the soul, are either (1) spiritual, and intellectual: (2) sensitive: or, (3) plastic. now (1) by the intellectual powers i mean all those that relate to the soul, in its naked and abstracted conception, as it is a spirit, and are exercised about immaterial objects; as, virtue, knowledge, and divine love: this is the platonical n●●; and that which we call the mind: the two other more immediately relate to its espoused matter: for (2) the sensitive are exercised about all the objects of sense, and are concerned in all such things as either gratify, or disgust the body. and (3) the plastic are those faculties of the soul, whereby it moves and forms the body, and are without sense or animadversion: the exercise of the former, i call the higher life; and the operations of the latter, the lower; and the life of the body. now that there are such faculties belonging to our natures, and that they are exercised upon such and such objects respectively, plain experience avoucheth, and therefore i may be excused from going about to prove so universally acknowledged a truth: wherefore i pass to the seventh pillar. (7) by the same degrees that the higher powers are invigorated, the lower are consopited and abated, as to their proper exercises, & è contra. (1) that those powers should each of them have a tendency to action and in their turns be exercised, is but rational to conceive, since otherwise they had been supers●uous. and (2) that they should be inconsistent in the supremest exercise and inactuation, is to me as probable. for the soul is a finite and limited being, and therefore cannot operate divers ways with equal intention at once. that is, cannot at the same time employ all her faculties in the highest degree of exercise that each of them is capable of. for doubtless did it engage but one of those alone, the operations thereof would be more strong and vigorous, than when they are conjunctly exercised, their acts and objects being very divers. so that i say, that these faculties should act together in the highest way they are capable of, seems to be contrary to the nature of the soul. and i am sure it comports not with experience; for those that are endowed with an high degree of exercise of one faculty, are seldom, if ever, as well provided in the rest. 'tis a common and daily observation, that those that are of most heightened and strong imaginations, are defective in judgement, and the faculty of close reasoning. and your very large and capacious memories, have seldom or never any great share of either of the other perfections. nor do the deepest judgements use to have any thing considerable either of memory or fancy. and as there are fair instances even in this state of the inconsistence of the faculties in the highest exercise; so also are there others that suggest untous, (3) that by the same degrees that some faculties fail in their strength and vigour, others gain and are improved. we know that the shutting up of the senses, is the letting loose and enlarging of the fancy. and we seldom have such strong imaginations waking, as in our dreams in the silence of our other saculties. as the sun recedes, the moon and stars discover themselves; and when it returns, they draw in their baffled beams, and hide their heads in obscurity. but to urge what is more close and pressing; it is an unerring remark, that those that want the use of some one natural part or faculty, are wont to have very liberal amends made them by an excellency in some others. thus those that nature hath deprived of sight, use to have wonderfully tenacious memories. and the deaf and dumb have many times a strange kind of sagacity, and very remarkable mechanical ingenies: not to mention other instances; for i'll say no more than i must needs. thus then experience gives us encouraging probability of the truth of the theorem asserted. and in its self 'tis very reasonable; for (as we have seen) the soul being an active nature, is always propending to the exercising of one faculty or other, and that to the utmost it is able, and yet being of a limited capacity, it can employ but one in height of exercise at once; which when it loseth and abates of its strength and supreme vigour; some other, whose improvement was all this while hindered by this its engrossing rival, must by consequence begin now to display itself, and awaken into a more vigorous actuation: so that as the former loseth, the latter proportionably gaineth. and indeed 'tis a great instance of the divine wisdom, that our faculties▪ are made in so regular and equilibrious an order. for were the same powers still uppermost in the greatest height of activity, and so unalterably constituted, there would want the beauty of variety, and the other faculties would never act to that pitch of perfection that they are capable of. there would be no liberty of will, and consequently no humane nature. or if the higher powers might have lessened, and failed without a proportionable increase of the lower, and they likewise have been remitted, without any advantage to the other faculties, the soul might then at length fall into an irrecoverable recess and inactivity. but all these inconveniences are avoided by supposing the principle we have here insisted on; and it is the last that i shall mention. briefly then, and if it may be more plainly, the higher faculties are those, where by the soul acts towards spiritual and immaterial objects: and the lower whereby it acts towards the body. now it cannot with equal vigour exercise itself both ways together; and consequently the more it is taken up in the higher operations, the more prompt and vigorous it will be in these exercises, and less so about those that concern the body, & è converso. thus when we are very deeply engaged in intellectual contemplations, our outward senses are in a manner shrunk up and cramped: and when our senses are highly exercised and gratified, those operations monopolise and employ us. nor is this less observable in relation to the plastic. for frequent and severe meditations do much mortify and weaken the body; and we are most nourished in our sleep in the silence of our senses. now what is thus true in respect of acts and particular exercises, is as much so in states and habits. moreover, 'tis apparent that the plastic is then most strong and vigorous when our other faculties are wholly unemployed, from the state of the womb. for nature when she is at her plastic work, ceaseth all other operations. the same we may take notice of, in silkworms and other infects, which lie as if they were dead and insensible, while their lower powers are forming them into another appearance. all which things put together, give good evidence to the truth of our axiom. i'll conclude this with one remark more, to prevent mistake; therefore briefly; as the soul always acts by the body; so in its highest exercises it useth some of the inferior powers; which, therefore must operate also. so that some senses, as sight and somewhat analagous' to hearing may be employed in considerable degree, even when the highest life is most predominant; but than it is at the command and in the services of those nobler powers; wherefore the sensitive life cannot for this cause be said to be invigorated, since 'tis under servitude and subjection, and its gusts and pleasures are very weak and flaccid. and this is the reason of that clause in the principle (as to their proper exercises.) having thus laid the foundation, and fixed the pillars of our building, i now come to advance the superstructure. chap. xiv. a philosophical hypothesis of the souls praeexistence. the eternal and almighty goodness, the blessed spring and root of all things, made all his creatures, in the best, happiest, and most perfect condition, that their respective natures rendered them capable of, by axiom the first; and therefore they were then constituted in the inactuation and exercise of their noblest and most perfect powers. consequently, the souls of men, a considerable part of the divine workmanship, were at first made in the highest invigoration of the spiritual and intellective faculties which were exercised in virtue, and in blissful contemplation of the supreme deity; wherefore now by axiom 6 and 7, * the ignobler and lower powers, or the life of the body, were languid and remiss. so that the most tenuious, pure and simple matter being the fittest instrument for the most vigorous and spiritual faculties according to principle 2, 4, and 5. the soul in this condition was united with the most subtle and aethereal matter that it was capable of enacting; and the inferior powers, those relating to the body, being at a very low ebb of exercise, were wholly subservient to the superior, and employed in nothing but what was serviceable to that higher life: so that the senses did but present occasions for divine love, and objects for contemplation; * and the plastic had nothing to do, but to move this passive and easy body, accordingly as the concerns of the higher faculties required. thus then did we at first live and act in a pure and aethereal body; and consequently in a place of light and blessedness, by principle 3d. but particularly to describe and point at this paradisaical residence, can be done only by those that live in those serene regions of lightsome glory: some philosophers indeed have adventured * to pronounce the place to be the sun, that vast orb of splendour and brightness; though it may be 'tis more probable, that those immense tracts of pure and quiet aether that are above saturn, are the joyous place of our ancient celestial abode: but there is no determination in matters of such lubricous uncertainty, where ever it is, 'tis doubtless a place and state of wonderful bliss and happiness, and the highest that our natures had fitted us to. in this state we may be supposed to have lived in the blissful exercise of virtue, divine love and contemplation, through very long tracts of duration. but though we were thus unconceivably happy, * yet were we not immutably so; for our highest perfections and noblest faculties being but finite, may after long and vigorous exercise, somewhat abate and remit in their sublimest operations, and adam may fall asleep; in which time of remission of the higher powers, the lower may advance and more livelily display themselves than they could before, by axiom 7; for the soul being a little slacked in its pursuits of immaterial objects, the lower powers which before were almost wholly taken up and employed in those high services, are somewhat more released to follow a little the tendencies of their proper natures. and now they begin to convert towards the body, and warmly to resent the delights and pleasures thereof; thus is eve brought forth, while adam sleepeth. the lower life, that of the body is now considerably awakened, and the operations of the higher, proportionably abated. however, there is yet no anomy or disobedience, for all this is but an innocent exercise of those faculties which god hath given us to employ, and as far as is consistent with the divine laws to gratify. for it was no fault of ours that we did not uncessantly keep our spiritual powers upon the most intense exercises that they were capable of exerting; * we were made on set purpose defatigable, that so all degrees of life might have their exercise; and our maker designed that we should feel and taste the joys of our congenite bodies, as well as the pleasures of those seraphic aspires and enjoyments. and me thinks it adds to the felicity of that state, that our happiness was not one uniform piece, or continual repetition of the same, but consisted in a most grateful variety, viz. in the pleasure of all our faculties, the lower as well as the higher; for those are as much gratified by suitable exercises and enjoyments as these; and consequently according to their proportion capable of as great an happiness: nor is it any more derogation from the divine goodness, that the noblest and highest life was not always exercised to the height of its capacity, than that we were not made all angels, all the planets so many suns and all the variety of the creatures form into one species: yea, as was intimated above; 'tis an instance of the divine benignity, that he produced things into being, according to the vast plenitude of forms that were in his all-knowing mind; and gave them operations suitable to their respective natures; so that it had rather seemed a defect in the divine dispensations, if we had not had the pleasure of the proper exercise of the lower faculties as well as of the higher. * yea, me thinks 'tis but a reasonable reward to the body, that it should have its delights and gratifications also, whereby it will be fitted for further serviceableness. for doubtless it would be in time spent and exhausted were it continually employed in those high and less proportioned operations. wherefore god himself having so ordered the matter, that the inferior life should have its turn of invigoration; it can be no evil in us, * that that is executed which he hath so determined, as long as we pass not the bounds that he hath set us. adam therefore was yet innocent, though he joyed in his beloved spouse, yea, and was permitted to feed upon all the fruits of this paradise, the various results of corporeal pleasure, as long as he followed not his own will and appetites contrarily to the divine commands and appointments. but at length unhappily the delights of the body betray us, through our over indulgence to them, and lead us captive to anomy and disobedience. the sense of what is grateful and pleasant by insensible degrees g●ts head over the apprehension of what is just and good; the serpent and eve prove successful tempters; * adam cannot withstand the inordinate appetite, but feeds on the forbidden fruit, viz. the dictates of his debauched will, and sensual pleasure. and thus now the body is gotten uppermost, the lower faculties have greater exercise and command than the higher, those being very vigorously awakened, and these proportionably shrunk up, and consopited; wherefore by axiom 3. and 5. the soul contracts a less pure body, which may be more accommodate to sensitive operations; and thus we fall from the highest paradise the blissful regions of life and glory, and become inhabitants of the air. not that we are presently quite divested of our aethereal state, as soon as we descend into this less perfect condition of life, for retaining still considerable exercises of the higher life, though not so ruling and vigorous ones as before, the soul must retain part of its former vehicle, to serve it as its instrument, in those its operations: for the aethereal body contracts crasness and impurity by the same degrees as the immaterial faculties abate in their exercise; so that we are not immediately upon the expiring of the highest congruity wholly stripped of all remains of our celestial bodies, but still hold some portion of them, within the grosser vehicle, while the spirit, or higher life is in any degree of actuation. nor are we to suppose that every slip or indulgence to the body can detrude us from our aethereal happiness; but such a change must be wrought in the soul, as may spoil its congruity to a celestial body, which in time by degrees is effected: thus we may probably be supposed to have fallen from our supreme felicity. but others of our order have made better use of their enjoyments, and the indulgences of their maker; and though they have had their perigae's as well as their apogae's: i mean their verges towards the body and its joys, as well as their aspires to nobler and sublimer objects, yet they kept the station of their natures, and made their orderly returns, without so remarkable a defection: and though possibly some of them may sometimes have had their slips, and have waded further into the pleasures of the body than they ought to have done, yet partly by their own timely care and consideration, and partly by the divine assistance, they recover themselves again to their condition of primigenial innocence. but we must leave them to their felicity, and go on with the history of our own descent. therefore after we are detruded from our aethereal condition, we next descend into the aereal. the aereal state. now our bodies are more or less pure in this condition, proportionably to the degrees of our apostasy: so that we are not absolutely miserable in our first step of descent; but indeed happy in comparison of our now condition: as yet there may be very considerable remains of virtue and divine love, though indeed the lower life, that of the body be grown very strong and rampant: so that as yet we may be supposed to have lapsed no lower than the best and purest regions of the air, by axiom 2 and 3. and doubtless there are some, who by striving against the inordinacy of their appetites, may at length get the victory again over their bodies, and so by the assistance of the divine spirit, who is always ready to promote and assist good beginnings, may re-enkindle the higher life, and so be translated again to their old celestial habitations without descending lower. but others irreclaimably persisting in their rebellion, and sinking more and more into the body, and the relish of its joys and pleasures, these are still verging to a lower and more degenerate state; so that at the last the higher powers of the soul being almost quite laid asleep and consopited, and the sensitive also by long and tedious exercises being much tired, and abated in their vigour, * the plastic faculties begin now fully to awaken; so that a body of thin and subtle air will not suffice its now so highly exalted energy, no more than the subtle aether can suffice us terrestrial animals for respiration; wherefore the aereal-congruity of life expires also, and thus are we ready for an earthly body. but now since a soul cannot unite with any body, but with such only as is fitly prepared for it, by principle▪ 3. and there being in all likelihood more expirations in the air, than there are prepared bodies upon earth, it must needs be, that for some time it must be destitute of any congruous matter that might be joined with it; and consequently by principle 4. 'twill lie in a state of inactivity and silence. not that it will for ever be lost in that forgotten recess and solitude, * for it hath an aptness and propensity to act in a terrestrial body, which will be reduced into actual exercise, when fit matter is prepared. the souls therefore, that are now laid up in the black night of stupidity and inertness will in their proper seasons be awakened into life and operation in such bodies and places of the earth, as by their dispositions they are fitted for. so that no sooner is there any matter of due vital temper, afforded by generation, but immediately a soul that is suitable to such a body, * either by mere natural congruity, the disposition of the soul of the world, or some more spontaneous agent is attracted, or sent into this so befitting tenement, according to axiom 2 and 3. terrestrial state. now because in this state too we use our sensitive faculties, and have some, though very small relics of the higher life also; therefore the soul first makes itself a vehicle out of the most spiritous and yielding parts of this spumous terrestrial matter, which hath some analogy both with its aethereal and aereal state. this is as it were its inward vest, and immediate instrument in all its operations. by the help of this it understands, reasons, and remembers, yea forms and moves the body. and that we have such a subtle airy vehicle within this terrestrial, our manifest sympathising with that element, and the necessity we have of it to all the functions of life, as is palpable in respiration, is me thinks good ground for conjecture. and 'tis not improbable but even within this it may have a purer fire and aether to which it is united, being some little remain of what it had of old. in this state we grow up merly into the life of sense, having little left of the higher life, * but some apish shows and imitations of reason, virtue, and religion: by which alone with speech, we seem to be distinguished from beasts, while in reality the brutish nature is predominant, and the concernments of the body are our great end, our only god and happiness; this is the condition of our now degenerate, lost natures. however, that ever overflowing goodness that always aims at the happiness of his creatures, hath not left us without all means of recovery, but by the gracious and benign dispensations which he hath afforded us, hath provided for our restauration; which some (though but very few) make so good use of, that being assisted in their well meant and sincere endeavours by the divine spirit, they in good degree mortify and subdue the body, conquer self-will, unruly appetites, and disorderly passions, and so in some measure by principle 7. awaken the higher life, which still directs them upwards to virtue and divine love; which, where they are perfectly kindled, carry the soul, when dismissed from this prison, * to it's old celestial abode: for the spirit and noblest faculties being so recovered to life and exercise require an aethereal body to be united to, and that an aethereal place of residence, both which, the divine nemesis that is wrought into the very nature of things bestoweth on them by principle the second. but they are very few that are thus immediately restored to the celestial paradise, upon the quitting of their earthly bodies. for others that are but in the way of recovery, and die imperfectly virtuous, mere philosophy and natural reason (within the bounds of which we are now discoursing) can determine no more, * but that they step forth again into airy vehicles; that congruity of life immediately awakening in them after this is expired. in this state their happiness will be more or less, proportionably to their virtues, in which if they persevere, (we shall see anon how they will be recovered. but for the present we must not break off the clue of our account, by going backwards before we have arrived to the utmost verge of descent in this philosophical romance, or history; the reader is at his choice to call it which he pleaseth. wherefore let us cast our eyes upon the most, in whom their life on earth hath but confirmed and strengthened, their degenerate sensual, and brutish propensions; and see what is like to become of them, when they take their leave of these terrestrial bodies. only first a word of the state of dying infants, and i come immediately to the next step of descent. * those therefore that pass out of these bodies▪ before the terrestrial congruity be spoiled, weakened, or orderly unwound; according to the tenor of this hypothesis, must return into the state of inactivity. for the plastic in them is too highly awakened, to inactuate only an aereal body; and, there being no other more congruous, ready, and at hand for it to enter, it must needs step back into its former state of insensibility, and there wait its turn, till befitting matter call it forth again into life and action. this is a conjecture that philosophy dictates, which i vouch not for a truth; * but only follow the clue of this hypothesis. nor can there any danger be hence conceived that those whose congruities orderly expire, should fall back again into a state of silence and inertness; * since by long and hard exercises in this body, the plastic life is well tamed and debilitated, so that now its activity is proportioned to a more tenuious and passive vehicle, which it cannot fail to meet with in its next condition. for 'tis only the terrestrial body is so long a preparing. but to the next step of descent, or afterstate. to give an account of the afterstate of the more degenerate and yet descending souls, some fancy a very odd hypothesis, imagining that they pass hence into some other more course and inferior planet, in which, they are provided with bodies suitable to their so depraved natures; but i shall be thought extravagant for the mention of such a supposition; wherefore i come to what is less obnoxious. when our souls go out of these bodies therefore, they are not presently discharged of all the matter that belonged to this condition, but carry away their inward and aereal state to be partakers with them of their after fortunes; only leaving the useless earth behind them. for they have a congruity to their airy bodies, though that which they had to a terrestrial, is worn out and defaced. nor need we to wonder how it can now have an aereal aptitude, when as that congruity expired before we descended hither; if we consider the reason of the expiration of its former vital aptitude, which was not so much through any defect of power to actuate such a body, but through the excess of invigoration of the plastic, which was then grown so strong, * that an aereal body was not enough for it to display its force upon. but now the case is altered, these lower powers are worn and wearied out, by the toilsome exercise of dragging about and managing such a load of flesh; wherefore being so castigated, they are duly attempered to the more easy body of air again, as was intimated before; to which they being already united, they cannot miss of a proper habitation. but considering the stupor, dulness and inactivity of our declining age, it may seem unlikely to some, that after death we should immediately be resuscitated into so lively and vigorous a condition, as is the aereal, especially, since all the faculties of sense and action, are observed gradually to fail and abate as we draw nearer to our exit from this stage; which seems to threaten, that we shall next descend into a state of more stupor and inertness. but this is a groundless jealousy; for the weakness and lethargic inactivity of old age, ariseth from a defect of those spirits, that are the instruments of all our operations, which by long exercise are at last spent and scattered. so that the remains can scarce any longer stand under their unwieldy burden; much less, can they perform all functions of life so vigorously as they were wont to do, when they were in their due temper, strength, and plenty. however notwithstanding this inability to manage a sluggish, stubborn, and exhausted terrestrial body, there is no doubt, but the soul can with great ●ase, when it is discharged of its former load, actuate its thin airy vehicle; and that with a brisk vigour and activity. as a man that is overladen, may be ready to faint and sink, till he be relieved of his burden; and then, he can run away with a cheerful vivacity. so that this decrepit condition of our decayed natures cannot justly prejudice our belief, that we shall be erected again, into a state of life and action in aereal bodies, after this congruity is expired. but if all alike live in bodies of air in the next condition, * where is then the difference between the just and the wicked, in state, place and body? for the just we have said already; that some of them are reinstated in their pristine happiness and felicity; and others are in a middle state, within the confines of the air, perfecting the inchoations of a better life, which commenced in this: as for the state and place of those that have lived in a continual course of sensuality and forgetfulness of god; i come now to declare what we may fancy of it, by the help of natural light, and the conduct of philosophy. and in order to this discovery i must premise somewhat concerning the earth, this globe we live upon; which is, that we are not to conceive it to be a full bulky mass to the centre, but rather that 'tis somewhat like▪ a sucked egg, in great part, an hollow sphere, so that what we tread upon, is but as it were, an arch or bridge, to divide between the upper and the lower regions: not that this▪ inward hollowness is a mere void capacity, for there are no such chasms in nature, but doubtless replenished it is with some fluid bodies or other, and it may be a kind of air, fire and water: now this hypothesis will help us easily to imagine how the earth may move, notwithstanding the pretended indisposition of its bulk, and on that account i believe it will be somewhat the more acceptable with the free and ingenious. those that understand the cartesian philosophy, will readily admit the hypothesis, at least as much of it as i shall have need of: but for others, i have little hopes of persuading them to any thing, and therefore i'll spare my labour of going about to prove what they are either uncapable of, or at first dash judge ridiculous: and it may be most will grant as much as is requisite for my purpose, which is, that there are huge vast cavities within the body of the earth; and it were as needless, as presumptuous, for me to go about to determinemore. only i shall mention a probability, that this gross crust which we call earth, is not of so vast a profundity as is supposed, and so come more press to my business. 'tis an ordinary observation among them that are employed in mines and subterraneous vaults of any depth, that heavy bodies lose much of their gravity in those hollow caverns: so that what the strength of several men cannot stir above ground, is easily moved by the single force of one under it: now to improve this experiment, 'tis very likely that gravity proceeds from a kind of magnetism and attractive virtue in the earth, which is by so much the more strong and vigorous, by how much more of the attrahent contributes to the action, and proportionably weaker, where less of the magnetic element exerts its operation; so that supposing the solid earth, to reach but to a certain, and that not very great distance from the surface, and 'tis obvious this way to give an account of the phaenomenon. * for according to this hypothesis the gravity of those bodies is less, because the quantity of the earth that draws them is so; whereas were it of the same nature and solidity to the centre, this diminution of its bulk, and consequently virtue would not be at all considerable, nor in the least sensible: now though there are other causes pretended for this effect, yet there is none so likely, and easy a solution as this, though i know it also is obnoxious to exceptions, which i cannot now stand to meddle with; all that i would have, is, that 'tis a probability, * and the mention of the fountains of the great deep in the sacred history, as also the flaming vulcano's and smoking mountains that all relations speak of, be others. others now i intent not that after a certain distance all is fluid matter to the centre. for the cartesian hypothesis distributes the subterranean space into distinct regions of divers matter, which are divided from each other by as solid walls, as is the open air from the inferior atmosphere: therefore i suppose only that under this thick outside, there is next a vast and large region of fluid matter, * which for the most part very likely is a gross and fetid kind of air, as also considerable proportions of fire and water, under all which, there may be other solid floors, that may encompass and cover more vaults, and vast hollows, the contents of which 'twere vanity to go about to determine; only 'tis very likely, that as the admirable philosophy of des cartes supposeth, * the lowest and central regions may be filled with flame and aether, which suppositions, though they may seem to some to be but the groundless excursions of busy imaginations; yet those that know the french philosophy, and see there the reasons of them, will be more candid in their censures, and not so severe to those not ill-framed conjectures. now then being thus provided, i return again to prosecute my main intendment; wherefore 'tis very probable, that the wicked and degenerate part of mankind, * are after death committed to those squalid subterraneous habitations; in which dark prisons, they do severe penance for their past impieties, and have their senses, which upon earth they did so fond indulge, and took such care to gratify, now persecuted with darkness, stench, and horror. thus doth the divine justice triumph in punishing those vile apostates suitably to their delinquencies. now if those vicious souls are not carried down to the infernal caverns by the mere congruity of their natures, as is not so easy to imagine; we may then reasonably conceive, * that they are driven into those dungeons by the invisible ministers of justice, that manage the affairs of the world by axiom 3. for those pure spirits doubtless have a deep sense of what is just, and for the good of the universe; and therefore will not let those inexcusable wretches to escape their deserved castigations; or permit them to reside among the good, lest they should infect and poison the better world, by their examples. wherefore, i say, they are disposed of into those black under-abysses, where they are suited with company like themselves, and matched unto bodies as impure, as are their depraved inclinations. not that they are all in the same place, and under the like torments; but are variously distributed according to the merits of their natures and actions; some only into the upper prisons, * others to the dungeon: and some to the most intolerable hell, the abyss of fire. thus doth a just nemesis visit all the quarters of the universe. now those miserable prisoners cannot escape from the places of their confinement; for 'tis very likely that those watchful spirits that were instrumental in committing them, * have a strict and careful eye upon them to keep them within the confines of their goal, that they rove not out into the regions of light and liberty, yea, 'tis probable that the bodies they have contracted in those squalid mansions, may by a kind of fatal magnetisme be chained down to this their proper element. or, they having now a congruity only to such fetid vehicles, may be no more able to abide the clear and lightsome air; than the bat or owl are able to bear the sun's noonday beams; or, the fish to live in these thinner regions. this may be the reason of the unfrequency of their appearance; and that they most commonly get them away at the approach of light. besides all this, some there are who suppose that there is a kind of polity among themselves, which may * under severe penalties, prohibit all unlicensed excursions into the upper world; though i confess this seems nor so probable, and we stand in no need of the supposition. for though the laws of their natures should not detain them within their proper residences; yet the care and oversight of those watchful spirits, who first committed them, will do it effectually. and very oft when they do appear, they signify that they are under restraint, and come not abroad, but by permission; as by several credible stories i could make good: but for brevity i omit them. now though i intent not this hypothesis, either for a discovery of infallible truth, or declarement of mine own opinions, yet i cannot forbear to note the strange coincidence that there is between scripture expressions in this matter, some main strokes of the orthodox doctrine, and this philosophical conjecture of the state and place of the wicked. 'tis represented in the divine oracles as a deep pit, a prison, a place of darkness, fire, and brimstone; and the going thither, is named a descent. all which most appositely agree with the representation we have made; and the usual periphrasis of hell torments, fire, and brimstone, is wonderfully applicable to the place we have been describing; since it abounds with fuliginous flames, and sulphureous stench and vapours; and, as we have conjectured, the lowest cavity, is nothing else but a vault of ●●re. for the other expressions mentioned, every one can make the application. so that when a man considers this, he will almost be tempted to think, that the inspired writers had some such thing in their fancies. and we are not to run to tropes and figures for the interpretation of plain and literal descriptions; except some weighty reason force us to such a refuge. moreover hell is believed among the orthodox to have degrees of torments, to be a place of uncomfortable horror, and to stand at the greatest distance from the seat and habitation of the blessed. all which, and more that i could reckon up, cannot more clearly be made out and explained, than they are in this hypothesis. thus than we see the irreclaimably wicked lodged in a place and condition very wretched and calamitous. if any of them should be taught by their miseries to renounce and forsake their impieties; or should have any dispositions to virtue and divine love re-inkindled in them; mere philosophy would conclude, that in time they might then be delivered from their sad durance; but we know what theology hath determined. and indeed those brutish apostates are so fixed and rooted in their sensual and rebellious propensions, that those who are not yet as far distant from their maker as they can be, are still verging downwards; and possibly being quite void of the divine grace, and any considerable exercises of reason and conscience, they may never stop till they have run through all the infernal stages, and are arrived to the extremest degree of misery, that as yet any are obnoxious to. wherefore the earth and all the infernal regions being thus monstrously depraved; 'tis time for the divine justice to show some remarkable and more than ordinary severity upon those remorseless rebels; and his goodness is as ready to deliver the virtuous from this stage of wretchedness and impiety. when therefore those have completed the number of their iniquities, and these are sit for the mercy of so great a deliverance; then shall the great decree for judgement be executed; which though it cannot be expected that mere philosophy should give an unerring and punctual account of, yet we shall follow this light as far as it will lead us; not entrenching upon the sacred rights of divinity, nor yet baulking what the ancient eastern cabbala, assisted by later discoveries into nature, will dictate; but sincerely following the hypothesis, we shall leave all its errors and misguidances to be corrected by the more sacred canons. so that where we shall discern the wisdom of the world to have misdirected the most knowing and sedulous inquirers, we may duly acknowledge the great benefit of that light which we have received to guide us in matters of such vast and concerning speculation, the conflagration of the earth. therefore at length, when the time preappointed by the divine wisdom for this execution, is come; * the internal, central fire shall have got such strength and irresistible vigour, that it shall easily melt and dissolve that fence that hath all this while enclosed it; and all those other smaller fires, which are lodged in several parts of the lower regions joining themselves with this mighty flame, shall pray upon what ever is combustible, and so rage first within the bowels of the earth, beginning the tragic execution upon those damned spirits that are there confined; these having been reserved in the chains of darkness to the judgement of this great day; and now shall their hell and misery be completed, and they receive the full reward of their impieties, which doubtless will be the most intolerable and severe torment that can be imagined, these fierce and merciless flames sticking close to, yea, piercing through and through their bodies, which can remove no where to avoid this fiery overspreading vengeance. and now the subterranean vaults being thus all on fire, it cannot be long ere this prevailing combustion take hold of the upper regions, wherefore at last with irresistible violence it breaks forth upon these also: so that the great pyre is now kindled, smoke, fire, darkness, horror and confusion, cover the face of all things. wherefore the miserable inhabitants of the earth and inferior air, will be seized on by the devouring element, and suffer in that fire that was reserved for the perdition of ungodly men. but shall the righteous perish with the wicked? and shall not the judge of all the earth do right? will not the sincere and virtuous both in the earth and air be secured from this sad fate? and how can their deliverance be effected? doubtless providence that in all things else hath been righteous and equal, will not fail in this last scene; but provision will be made for their recovery from this vengeance that hath taken hold of the wicked. but all natural causes failing here, since their bodies are not pure enough to waft them up the quiet regions of the un infested aether; and the higher congruity of life, being yet but imperfectly inchoated; they would be detained prisoners here below by the chains of their unhappy natures, were there not some extraordinary interposure for their rescue and enlargement; wherefore when we contemplate the infinite fertility of the divine goodness, we cannot think, that he will let those seeds of piety and virtue, which himself hath sown and given some increase to, to come to nought; or the honest possessors of them, fatally to miscarry: but that he will employ his power for the completing what he hath begun, and the deliverance of those, who have relied upon his mercies. but for the particular way and method how this great transaction will be accomplished, philosophy cannot determine it. happy therefore are we, who have the discoveries of a more certain light, which doth not only secure us of the thing, but acquaints us with the way and means, that the divine wisdom hath resolved on, for the delivery of the righteous. so that hereby we are assured that our ever blessed redeemer shall appear in the clouds before this fiery fate shall have quite taken hold of the earth, and its condemned inhabitants. the glory of his appearance with his celestial legions, shall raise such strong love, joy, and triumph in his now passionately enamoured expectants, as shall again enkindle that high and potent principle, the spirit, which being throughly awakened and excited, will melt the grossest consistence into liquid aether, so that our bodies being thus turned into the purest flame, we shall ascend in those fiery chariots with our glorious redeemer, and his illustrious and blessed attendants to the celestial habitations. this is the resurrection of the just, and the recovery of our ancient blessedness. thus have some represented this great transaction; but i dare warrant nothing in this matter beyond the declarations of the sacred scriptures; therefore to proceed in our philosophical conjectures, however the good shall be delivered, be sure the wicked shall be made a prey to the scorching element, which now rageth every where, and suffer the judgement threatened. but yet the most degenerate part of mankind (if we consult mere reason and the ancient eastern cabbala) who are detained prisoners in the now inflamed atmosphere, shall not for ever be abandoned to misery and ruin. for they are still pretended to be under the eye and tender care of that almighty goodness, that made and preserveth all things, that punisheth not out of malice or revenge, and therefore will not pursue them to their utter undoing for ever: but hath set bounds to their destruction, and in infinite wisdom hath so ordered the matter that none of his creatures shall be lost eternally, or endure such an endless misery, than which not being itself were more eligible. wherefore those curious contemplators fancy, that the unsupportable pain and anguish which hath long stuck to those miserable creatures, will at length so consume and destroy that insensible pleasure and congruity that unites soul and body, that the thus miserably cruciated spirit must needs quit its unfit habitation; and there being no other body within its reach that is capable of a vital union, according to the tenor of this hypothesis, it must become senseless and unactive by axiom, 4. and so be buried in a state of silence and inertness. at length when these greedy flames shall have devoured what ever was combustible, and converted into a smoke and vapour all grosser concretions, that great orb of fire that the cartesian philosophy supposeth to constitute the centre of this globe, shall perfectly have recovered its pristine nature, * and so following the laws of its proper motion, shall fly away out of this vortex, and become a wand'ring comet, till it settle in some other. but if the next conflagration reach not so low as the inmost regions of the earth, * so that the central fire remains unconcerned, and unemployed in this combustion, this globe will then retain its wont place among the planets. and that so it may happen, is not improbable, since there is plenty enough both of fiery principles and materials in those regions that are nearer to the surface, to set the earth into a lightsome flame, and to do all that execution that we have spoken of. some conceive therefore, that the conflagration will not be so deep and universal as this opinion supposeth it; but that it may take beginning from a less distance, and spend itself upwards. and to this purpose they represent the sequel of their hypothesis. the general restitution. those thick and clammy vapours which erstwhile ascended in such vast measures, and had filled the vault of heaven with smoke and darkness, must at length obey the laws of their nature and gravity, and so descend again in abundant showers, and mingle with the subsiding ashes, which will constitute a mud vegetative and fertile. for those warm and benign beams, that now again begin to visit the desolate earth, will excite those seminal principles into action, which the divine wisdom and goodness hath mingled with all things. wherefore they operating according to their natures, and the dispositions which they find in the restored matter, will shoot forth in all sorts of flowers, herbs, and trees; making the whole earth a garden of delight and pleasure; and erecting all the phaenomena proper to this element. by this time the air will be grown vital again and far more pure and pleasant, than before the fiery purgation. wherefore they conceive, that the disbodyed souls shall return from their unactive and silent recess, and be joined again to bodies of purified and duly prepared air. for their radical aptitude to matter still remained, though they fell asleep for want of bodies of fit temper to unite with. this is the sum of the hypothesis as it is represented by the profoundly learned dr. h. more, with a copious and pompous eloquence. now supposing such a recess of any souls into a state of inactivity, such a restitution of them to life and action is very reasonable; since it is much better for them to live and operate again, than to be useless in the universe, and as it were nothing for ever. and we have seen above, that the divine goodness doth always what is best, and his wisdom is not so shallow as to make his creatures so as that he should be fain to banish them into a state that is next to nonentity, there to remain through all duration. thus then will those lately tormented souls, having smarted for their past iniquities, be recovered both from their state of wretchedness and insensibility; and by the unspeakable benignity of their maker, placed once more in such conditions, wherein by their own endeavours, and the divine assistance they may amend what was formerly amiss in them, and pursue any good resolutions that they took while under the lash of the fiery tortures; which those that do, when their good inclinations are perfected, and the divine life again enkindled, they shall in due time re-ascend the thrones they so unhappily fell from, and be circled about with unexpressible felicity. but those that for all this, follow the same ways of sensuality and rebellion against their merciful deliverer, they shall be sure to be met with by the same methods of punishment; and at length be as miserable as ever. thus we see the air will be repeopled after the conflagration: but how the earth will so soon be restored to inhabitants, is a matter of some difficulty to determine, since it useth to be furnished from the aereal regions, which now will have none left that are fit to plant it. for the good were delivered thence before the conflagration: and those that are newly come from under the ●iery lash and latter state of silence, are in a hopeful way of recovery; at least, their aereal congruity cannot be so soon expired, as to fit them for an early return to their terrestrial prisons. wherefore to help ourselves in this rencontre, we must remember, that there are continually multitudes of souls in a state of inactivity, for want of suitable bodies to unite with, there being more that die to the airy state, than are born into this terrestrial. in this condition were myriads, when the general fever seized this great destempered body; who therefore were unconcerned in the conflagration, and are now as ready to return into life and action upon the earth's happy restauration, as if no such thing had happened. wherefore they will not fail to descend into fitly prepared matter, and to exercise all the functions proper to this condition. nor will they alone be inhabitants of the earth. for all the variety of other animals, shall ●●ve and act upon this stage with them; all sorts of souls insinuating themselves into those bodies, which are ●it for their respective natures. thus then supposing habitable congruous bodies, there is no doubt, but there will be humane souls to actuate and inform them; but all the difficulty is to conceive how the matter shall be prepared. for who shall be the common seedsman of succeeding humanity, when all mankind is swept away by the fiery deluge? and to take sanctuary in a miracle is unphilosophical and desperate. i think therefore, it is not improbable (i mean according to the dust of this hypothesis) but that in this renewed youth, of the so lately calcined and purified earth, there may be some pure efflorescences of balmy matter, not to be found now in its exhausted and decrepit age, that may be proper vehicles of life, into which souls may descend without further preparation; and so orderly shape and form them, as we see to this day several sorts of other creatures do, without the help of generation. for doubtless there will be great plenty of unctuous spirituous matter, when the most inward and recondite spirits of all things, shall be dislodged from their old close residences, and scattered into the air; where they will at length, when the fierce agitation of the fire is over, gather in considerable proportious of tenuious vapours; which at length descending in a crystalline liquor, and mingling with the finest parts of the newly modified earth, will doubtless compose as genital a matter as any can be prepared in the bodies of animals. and the calm and wholesome air which now is duly purged from its noxious reeks and vapours, and abounds with their saline spirituous humidity, will questionless be very propitious to those tender inchoations of life; and by the help of the sun's favourable and gentle beams, supply them with all necessary materials. nor need we puzzle ourselves to fancy, how those terrae filii, those young sons of the earth will be fortified against the injuries of weather, or be able to provide for themselves in their first and tender infancy; since doubtless, if the supposition be admitted, * those immediate births of unassisted nature will not be so tender and helpless as we, into whose very constitutions delicacy and effeminateness is now twisted. for those masculine productions which were always exposed to the open air, and not cloistered up as we, will feel no more incommodity from it, than the young fry of fishes do from the coldness of the water they are spawned in. and even now much of our tenderness and delicacy is not natural but contracted. for poor children will endure that hardship that would quickly dispatch those that have had a more careful and officious nurture. and without question we should do many things for self-preservation and provision, which now we yield no signs of; had not custom prevented the endeavours of nature, and made it expect assistance. for the indian infants will swim currently, when assoon as they are born, they are thrown into the water. and nature put to her shifts, will do many things more than we can suspect her able for the performance of; which considered, 'tis not hard to apprehend, but that those infant aborigines are of a very different temper and condition from the weak products of now decayed nature; having questionless, more pure and serviceable bodies, senses and other faculties more active and vigorous, and nature better exercised; so that they may by a like sense to that which carries all creatures to their proper food, pursue and take hold of that nutriment which the free and willing earth now offered to their mouths; till being advantaged by age and growth, they can move about to make their choice. * but all this is but the frolic exercise of my pen choosing a paradox; and 'tis time to give over the pursuit. to make an end then, we see that after the conflagration the earth will be inhabited again, and all things proceed much-what in like manner as before. but whether the catastrophe of this shall be like the former or no, i think is not to be determined. for as one world hath perished by water, and this present shall by fire, 'tis possible the next period may be by the extinction of the sun. but i am come to the end of the line, and shall not go beyond this present stage of providence, or wander into an abyss of uncertainties, where there is neither sun nor star to guide my notions. now of all that hath been represented of this hypothesis, there is nothing that seems more extravagant and romantic than those notions that come under the two last generals; and yet so it falls out, that the main matters contained under them, one would think to have a strange consonancy with some expressions in the sacred oracles. for clear it is from the divine volume, that the wicked and the devils themselves are reserved to a further and more severe judgement than yet afflicteth them; it is as plainly declared to be a vengeance of fire that abides them, as a compleatment of their torments: and that the earth shall be burnt, is as explicitly affirmed, as any thing can be spoken. now if we put all these together, they look like a probability, that the conflagration of the earth shall consummate the hell of the wicked. and * those other expressions of death, destruction, perdition of the ungodly, and the like, seem to show a favourable regard to the state of silence and inactivity. nor is there less appearing countenance given to the hypothesis of restitution, * in those passages which predict new heavens and a new earth, and seem to intimate only a change of the present. and yet i would have no body be so credulous as to be taken with little appearances, nor do i mention these with an intent that they should with full consent be delivered to intend the asserting any such doctrines; but that there is show enough both in reason and scripture for these opinions to give an occasion for an hypothesis, and therefore that they are not mere arbitrary and idle imaginations. now whatever becomes of this particular draught of the souls several conditions of life and action, * the main opinion of preexistence is not at all concerned. this scheme is only to show, that natural and imperfect reason can frame an intelligible idea of it; and therefore questionless the divine wisdom could form and order it, either so, or with infinitely more accuracy and exactness. how it was with us therefore of old, i know not; but yet that we may have been, and acted before we descended hither, i think is very probable. and i see no reason but why praeexistence may be admitted without altering any thing considerable of the ordinary systeme of theology. but i shut up with that modest conclusion of the great des cartes: that although these matters seem hardly otherwise intelligible than as i have here explained them: yet nevertheless remembering i am not infallible, i assert nothing; * but submit all i have written to the authority of the church of england, and to the matured judgements of graver and wiser men; earnestly desiring that nothing else may be entertained with credit by any persons, but what is able to win it by the force of evident and victorious reason. des cartes princ. philos. lib. 4. ss. cvii. finis. a discourse of truth. by the reverend doctor rust, late lord bishop of dromore in ireland. london, printed for j. collins, and s. louns over against exeter exchange in the strand, 1682. a letter concerning the subject and the author. sir, i have now perused, and returned the manuscript you sent me; it had contracted many and great errors in the transcription, which i have corrected: i was enabled to do it by a written copy of the same discourse, which i have had divers years in my hands. the subject is of great and weighty importance, and the acknowledgement of the truths here asserted and made good, will lay a foundation for right conceptions in the doctrines that concern the decrees of god. for the first error, which is the ground of the rest, is, that things are good and just, because god wills them so to be; and if that be granted, we are disabled from using the arguments taken from natural notions, and the attributes and perfections of the divine nature, against the blackest and most blasphemous opinions that ever were entertained concerning gods proceedings with the sons of men. if there be no settled good and evil, immutable and independent on any will or understanding, than god may have made his reasonable creatures on purpose to damn them for ever. he may have absolutely decreed that they should sin, that he may damn them justly; he may most solemnly and earnestly prohibit sin by his laws, and declare great displeasure against it; and yet by his ineluctable decrees force men to all the sin that is committed in the world: he may vehemently protest his unfeigned desire of their life and happiness, and at the same time secretly resolve their eternal destruction; he may make it his glory and pleasure to triumph eternally in the torments of poor worms, which himself hath by his unalterable and irresistible will made miserable; yea, (as the discourse instanceth) he may after his decrees concerning the salvation of the elect, after the death of his son for them, and the mission of his spirit to them, and after all the promises he hath made to assure them; thrust them also at last into the dreadful regions of death and woe; i say if there be no immutable respects in things, but just and unjust, honourable and dishonourable, good and cruel, faithful and deceitful, are respects made by mere arbitrarious will, it will be in vain to dispute from them against any such dismal opinions: yea it will be great folly to argue for the simplicity of the divine nature against the vile conceits of the old anthropomorphites, and the blasphemies of the present muggletonians, of god's having a corporal shape, parts and members, if there be no necessary independent connexion, betwixt immensity, spirituality and perfection. but this being established, that there are immutable respects in things, and that such and such are perfections, and their contrary, defects and imperfections; hence it will follow, that it is impossible the forementioned doctrines can be true concerning god, who cannot lie, cannot deny himself: viz. he being absolute and infinite perfection, cannot act any thing that is evil or imperfect; but all the expressions in scripture, that at first sight look towards such a sense, must be interpreted by the general analogy and course of them, which declares his infinite, immutable excellencies, and these notions of himself, which he hath written on the souls of men. so that the subject of this little discourse, is of vast moment, and the truth asserted in it, is, i think, confirmed with an irresistible strength and force of reasoning; and not to be convinced by it, will argue either great weakness of understanding, in not perceiving consequences that are so close and plain; or great obstinacy of will, in being shut up by prejudices, and preconceived opinions against light that is so clear and manifest. the author was a person with whom i had the honour and happiness of a very particular acquaintance; a man he was of a clear mind, a deep judgement and searching wit: greatly learned in all the best sorts of knowledge, old and new, a thoughtful and diligent enquirer, of a free understanding, and vast capacity, joined with singular modesty, and unusual sweetness of temper, which made him the darling of all that knew him: he was a person of great piety and generosity; a hearty lover of god and men: an excellent preacher, a wise governor, a profound philosopher, a quick, forcible, and close reasoner, and above all, a true and exemplary christian. in short, he was one who had all the qualifications of a primitive bishop, and of an extraordinary man. this i say not out of kindness to my friend, but out of justice to a person of whom no commendation can be extravagant. he was bred in cambridge, and fellow of christ's college, where he lived in great esteem and reputation for his eminent learning and virtues; he was one of the first that overcame the prejudices of the education of the late unhappy times, in that university, and was very instrumental to enlarge others. he had too great a soul for the trifles of that age, and saw early the nakedness of phrases and fancies; he out-grew the pretended orthodoxy of those days, and addicted himself to the primitive learning and theology, in which he even then became a great master. after the return of the government, the excellent bishop taylor, foreseeing the vacancy in the deanery of connor, sent to cambridge, for some learned and ingenious man, who might be fit for that dignity. the motion was made to dr. rust, which corresponding with the great inclination he had to be conversant with that incomparable person, he gladly accepted of it, and hastened into ireland, where he langed at dublin about august 1661. he was received with much respect and kindness by that great and good bishop, who knew how to value such jewels; and preferred to the deanery as soon as it was void, which was shortly after. he continued in that preferment during the bishop's life, always dearly loved, and even admired by him. at his death (that sad stroke to all the lovers of religion and learning) he was chosen for the last solemn office to his deceased father and friend; and he preached such a funeral sermon as became that extraordinary person and himself. it hath been since published, and i suppose you may have seen it, upon the lamented death of bishop taylor, which happened august 13th. 1667. the bishoprics were divided; dr. boil dean of cork, was nominated bishop of downe and connor; and dr. rust dean of connor, bishop of dromore; he lived in the deanery about six years, in the bishopric but three; for in december 1670, he died of a fever (in the prime of his years) to the unspeakable grief of all that knew his worth, and especially of such of them as had been blest by his friendship, and most sweet and indearing conversation. he was buried in the choir of his own cathedral church of dromore, in a vault made for his predecessor bishop taylor, whose sacred dust is deposited also there: and what dormitory hath two such tenants? this is the best account i can give you of the work and the author: and by it you may perceive his memory deserves to live, and this product of him: but there is so much reverence due to the manes of so venerable a person, that nothing should be hastily published under his honoured name. i know, had he designed this exercitation for the public, he would have made it much more complete and exact than we now have it; but as it is, the discourse is weighty, and substantial, and may be of great use. as it goes about now in written copies▪ it, is (i perceive) exceedingly depraved▪ and in danger of being still worse abused; the publication would preserve it from further corruptions. however i dare not advise any thing in it, but this, that you take the judgement of that reverend doctor you mention (the deceased author's friend and mine,) and act according as he shall direct. i am, your real friend, jos. glanvil. a discourse of truth. sect. i. that truth is twofold; in the object, and in the subject. that in the object what it is; and that it is antecedent to and independent of any will or understanding whatever. truth is of aequivocal signification, and therefore cannot be defined before it be distinguished. it is twofold; truth in things, which you may call truth in the object: and truth in the understanding, which is truth in the subject. by the first i mean nothing else but that things necessarily are what they are: and that there are necessary mutual respects and relations of things one unto another. now that things are what they are, and that there are mutual respects and relations eternal, and immutable, and in order of nature * antecedent to any understanding either created or uncreated, is a thing very plain and evident; for it's clearer than the meridian light, that such propositions as these, homo est animal rationale, triangulum est quod habet tres angulos, are not arbitrarious dependencies upon the will, decree, or understanding of god, but are necessary and eternal truths; and wherein 'tis as impossible to divide the subject, and what is spoken of it, as it is for a thing not to be what it is, which is no less than a contradiction; and as indispensible are the mutual respects and relations of things both in speculatives and morals. sect. ii. the necessity of there being certain arguments, means and objects for certain conclusions, ends and faculties; and that every thing will not suit every thing. for can it be imagined that every argument can be made a proportioned medium to prove every conclusion? * that any thing may be a suitable means to any end? that any object may be conformable to any faculty? can omnipotence itself make these propositions, that twice two are four, or that parallels cannot intersect, clear and convincing arguments to prove these grand truths, that christ came into the world to die for sinners, and is now exalted as a prince and a saviour at the right hand of god? * is it possible that there should be such a kind of geometry, wherein any problems should be demonstrated by any principles; quidlibet ex quolibet; as that a quadrangle is that which is comprehended of four right lines: * therefore the three angles of a triangle are equal to two right ones? sect. iii. an instance or two of gross and horrid absurdities, consequent to the denying the mutual respects and relations of things to be eternal and indispensible. can the infinite wisdom itself make the damning of all the innocent and the unspotted angels in heaven a proportionate means to declare and manifest the unmeasureableness of his grace and love, and goodness towards them? can lying, swearing, envy, malice, nay hatred of god and goodness itself, be made the most acceptable service of god, and the readiest way to a man's happiness? and yet all these must be true, and infinitely more such contradictions than we can possibly imagine, if the mutual respects and relations of things be not eternal and indispensible: which that they are, i shall endeavour to prove. sect. iv. the entrance into the first part of the discourse, which is of truth in the object. that the divine understanding does not make the respects and relations of its objects, but finds them or observes them. first, we must premise that * divine understanding cannot be the fountain of the truth of things; * nor the foundation of the references of one to another. for it is against the nature of all understanding, to make its objects. * it is the nature of understanding, ut moveatur, illuminetur, formetur, etc. of its object, ut moveat, illuminet, formet. intellectus in actu primo hath itself unto its object, as the eye unto the sun; it is irradiated, enlightened and actuated by it: and intellectus in actu secundo, hath itself unto its object, as the image to that it represents; and the perfection of understanding consists in being actuated by, and in an adequate conformity to its object, according to the nature of all ideas, images or representations of things. the sum is this, * no ideas or representations are or make the things they represent; all understanding is such; therefore no understanding doth make the natures, respects and relations of its objects. sect. v. that the divine will does not determine the references and dependencies of things, because that would subvert his other attributes. * it remains then, that absolute, arbitrarious and independent will must be the fountain of all truth; and must determine the references and dependencies of things: * which assertion would in the first place destroy the nature of god, * and rob him of all his attributes. for then it's impossible that there should be such a thing as divine wisdom and knowledge, which is nothing else but an apprehension of common notions, and the natures and mutual respects and relations of things. for if the nature of god be such, that his arbitrarious imagination that such and such things have such and such natures and dependencies, doth make those things to have those natures or dependencies, he may as easily unimagine that imagination; and then they that before had a mutual harmony, sympathy and agreement with one another, shall now stand at as great a distance and opposition. and thus the divine understanding will be a mere protaean chimaera, a casual conflux of intellectual atoms: contradictions are true, if god will understand them so, and then the foundation of all knowledge is taken away, and god may as truly be said to know nothing as every thing; nay, * any angel or man may as truly be said to know all things, as god himself; for then every thing will be alike certain, and every apprehension equally conformable to truth. these are infallible consequences, and a thousand more as absurd as these, if contradictory propositions may be both true: and whether they be so or no, it's a mere casual dependence upon the arbitrarious pleasure of god, if there be not a necessary immutability and eternal opposition betwixt the being and the not being of the same thing, at the same time and in the same respect. likewise all those truths we call common notions, (the systeme and comprehensions of which, is the very essence of divine wisdom; as the conclusions issuing from them, not by any operose dèduction, but a clear intuitive light, are the very nature of divine knowledge, * if we distinguish those two attributes in god) i say, all these propositions of immediate and indemonstrable truth, if these be only so, because so understood by god, and so understood by god because he pleased so to have them, and not because there is an indispensible relation of harmony and proportion betwixt the terms themselves; than it is a thing merely casual, and at the pleasure of god to change his former apprehensions, and ideas of those truths, and to make their contradictories as evident, radical and fundamental as themselves but even now were; and so divine wisdom and knowledge will be a various, sickle and mutable thing, a mere tumult and confusion. all these consequences infallibly flow from this certain principle, that upon a changeable and uncertain cause, effects must needs have a changeable and uncertain dependence. and there is nothing imaginable in itself, more changeable and uncertain than will not regulated by the dictates of reason and understanding. sect. vi the avoidance of the foregoing ill consequences by making god immutable, with an answer thereto. if any deny these consequences and deductions, * because they suppose that god is mutable and changeable; i answer, by bringing this as another absurdity, that if there be no indispensible and eternal respects of things, it will rob god of his immutability, and unchangeableness: for if there be no necessary dependence betwixt vnchangeablness and perfection, what should hinder, but that if god please to think it so, it will be his perfection to be changeable? and if will, as such, be the only principle of his actions, it is infallibly his perfection to be so. for 'tis the perfection of every being to act according to the principle of its nature, and it is the nature of an arbitrarious principle to act or not, to do or undo upon no account but its own will and pleasure; to be determined, and tied up, either by itself, or from abroad, is violent and contranatural. sect. vii. an hideous, but genuine inference of a pamphleteer from this principle, that absolute and sovereign will is the spring and fountain of all god's actions. and therefore from this principle, that absolute and sovereign will is the spring and fountain of all god's actions, it was rightly inferred by a late pamphleteer, that god will one day damn all mankind, good and bad, believers and unbelievers, notwithstanding all his promises, pretensions or engagements to the contrary; because this damning all mankind in despite of his faithfulness, justice, mercy and goodness will be the greatest advancement of his sovereignty, will and prerogative imaginable. his words are, god hath stored up destruction both for the perfect and the wicked, and this does wonderfully set forth his sovereignty; his exercising whereof is so perfect, that when he hath tied himself up fast as may be, by never so many promises, yet it should still have its scope, and be able to do what it will, when it will, as it will: here you have this principle improved to the height. and however you may look upon this author as some new light, or ignis fatuus of the times, yet i assure you in some pieces by him set forth, he is very sober and rational. sect. viii. that the denial of the mutual respects and relations of things unto one another to be eternal and unchangeable, despoils god of that universal rectitude of his nature. in the next place, to deny the mutual respects and rationes rerum to be immutable and indispensible, * will spoil god of that universal rectitude which is the greatest perfection of his nature: for then justice, faithfulness, mercy, goodness etc. will be but contingent and arbitrarious issues of the divine will. this is a clear and undeniable consequence. for if you say these be indispensible perfections in god, for instance, if justice be so, then there is an eternal relation of right and equity betwixt every being and the giving of it that which is its propriety; if faithfulness, than there is an indispensible agreement betwixt a promise and the performance of it; if mercy, than there is an immutable and unalterable suitableness and harmony between an indigent creature, and pity and commiseration; if goodness, than there is an everlasting proportion and symmetry between fullness and its overflowing and dispreading of itself, which yet is the thing denied: * for to say they are indispensibly so, because god understands them so, seems to me extreme incogitancy; for that is against the nature of all understanding, which is but the idea and representation of things, and is then a true and perfect image, when it is exactly conformed to its object: and therefore, if things have not mutual respects and relations eternal and indispensible, than all those perfections do solely and purely depend upon absolute and independent will, as will; and consequently, it was and is indifferent in itself that the contrary to these, as, injustice, unfaithfulness, cruelty, malice, hatred, spite, revenge, fury; and whatever goes to the constitution of hell itself, should have been made the top and highest perfections of the divine nature: which is such blasphemy as cannot well be named without horror and trembling. for instead of being a god, such a nature as this is, joined with omnipotency, would be a worse devil than any is in hell. and yet this is a necessary and infallible consequence from the denial of these mutual respects and relations of things unto one another, to be eternal and unchangeable. sect. ix. that the denial of the unchangeableness of the said mutual respects and relations of things to one another, takes away all knowledge of god and of our own happiness, and lays a foundation of the most incurable scepticism imaginable. and as by the denial of these, the nature of god is wholly destroyed, so in the second place, the mind of man would have no certainty of knowledge, or assurance of happiness. he can never come to know there is a god, and consequently not the will and mind of god, which if there be no intrinsecal and indispensible respects and relations of things, must be the ground and foundation of all knowledge; for what means or arguments should we use to find out, or prove a divine nature? it were folly and madness to sit down and consider the admirable contrivement and artifice of this great fabric of the universe; how that all natural things seem to act for some end, though themselves take no cognizance of it: how the sun by its motion and situation, or (which is all one) by being a centre of the earth's motion, provides light and heat, and life for this inferior world, how living creatures bring forth a most apt composure and structure of parts and members, and with that a being endued with admirable faculties, and yet themselves have no insight into, nor consultation about this incomparable workmanship; how they are furnished with powers and inclinations for the preservation of this body when it is once brought into the world; how without praevious deliberation they naturally take in that food which without their intention or animadversion is concocted in their ventricle, turned into chyle, that chyle into blood, that blood diffused through the veins and arteries, and therewith the several members nourished, and decays of strength repaired; i say, the gathering from all these (which one would think were a very natural consequence) that there is a wise principle which directs all these being's unknown to you, in their several motions, to their several ends, (supposing the dependence and relations of things to be contingent and arbitrarious) were a piece of folly and incogitancy; for how can the order of those things speak a wise and understanding being, which have no relation or respect unto one another, but their whole agreement, suitableness and proportion is a mere casual issue of absolute and independent will? if any thing may be the cause of any effect, and a proportionate mean to any end, who can infer infinite wisdom from the dependence of things and their relations unto one another? * for we are to know that there is a god, and the will of that god before we can know the mutual harmony, or disproportion of things; and yet, if we do not know these principal respects that things have among themselves, it is impossible we should ever come to the knowledge of a god: for these are the only arguments that any logic in the world can make use of to prove any conclusion. but suppose we should come to know that there is a god, which, as i have demonstrated, denying the necessary and immutable truth of common notions, and the indispensible and eternal relations of things, is altogether impossible: however, let it be supposed; yet how shall we know that these common notions, and principles of natural instinct, which are the foundation of all discourse and argumentation, are certain and infallible truths; and that our senses, (which with these former principles, we suppose this divine nature to have given us to converse with this outward world) were not on purpose bestowed upon us, to befool, delude and cheat us; if we be not first assured of the veracity of god? and how can we be assured of that, if we know not that veracity is a perfection? and how shall we know it is so, unless there be an intrinsical relation betwixt veracity and perfection? for if it be an arbitrarious respect depending upon the will of god, there is no way possible left whereby we should come to know that it is in god at all; and therefore we have fully as much reason to believe that all our common notions and principles of natural instinct, whereupon we ground all our reasonings and discourse, are mere chimaeras to delude and abuse our faculties; and all those ideas, phantasms and apprehensions of our external senses, we imagine are occasioned in us by the pre●ence of outward objects, are mere spectrums and gulleries, wherewith poor mortals are befooled and cheated; as that they are given us by the first goodness and truth to lead us into the knowledge of himself and nature. this is a clear and evident consequence, and cannot be denied by any that doth not complain of darkness in the brightest and most meridian light. and here you have the foundations laid of the highest scepticism; for who can say he knows any thing, when he hath no basis on which he can raise any true conclusions? sect. x. that the denying the eternal and immutable respects of things frustrates all the noble essays of the mind or understanding of man. thus you see the noble faculties of man, his mind and understanding, will be to no end and purpose, but for a rack and torture; for what greater unhappiness or torment can there be imagined, than to have faculties, whose accomplishment and perfection consists in a due conformation unto their objects, and yet to have no objects unto which they may be conformed; to have a soul unmeasurably breathing after the embraces of truth and goodness, and after a search and enquiry after one and the other, and to find at last they are but ●iery, empty and uncertain notions, depending upon the arbitrarious determinations of boundless and independent will; which determinations she sees it beyond her reach ever to come to any knowledge of? sect. xi. that in the abovesaid denial are lad the foundations of rantism, debauchery, and all dissoluteness of life. here you have likewise the true foundations of that we call rantism; for if there be no distinction 'twixt truth and falsehood, good and evil, in the nature of the things themselves, and we never can be assured what is the mind and pleasure of the supreme and absolute will (because veracity is not intrinsically and ex natura re●, a perfection, but only an arbitrarious, if any attribute in the deity) * then it infallibly follows, that it is all one what i do, or how i live; and i have as much reason to believe that i am as pleasing unto god, when i give up myself unto all f●●thiness, uncleanness and sin; when i swell with pride, envy, hatred and malice, etc. as when i endeavour with all my might and strength to purge and purify my soul from all pollution and defilement both o● flesh and spirit; and when i pursue the mortification of all my carnal lusts and inclinations: and i have fully as much ground and assurance, that the one is the ready way to happiness, as the other. sect. xii. that our assurance of future happiness is quite cut off by the denying of the eternal and immutable respects of things. and this is another branch of this second absurdity, from the denial o● the intrinfecal and eternal respects and relations of things, that a man would not have any assurance of future happiness; for though it be true indeed, or at least we fancy to ourselves that god hath sent jesus christ into the world, and by him hath made very large and ample promises, that whosoever believes in him and conforms his life unto his precepts, shall be made heir of the same inheritance and glory which christ is now possessed of and invested with in the kingdom, of his father; yet what ground have we to believe that god does not intend only to play with and abuse our faculties, and in conclusion to damn all those that believe and live as is above expressed; and to take them only into the enjoyments of heaven and happiness, who have been the great opposers of the truth, and gospel, and life and nature of jesus christ in the world? for if there be no eternal and indispensible relation of things, then there's no intrinsical evil in deceiving and falsifying, in the damning the good, or saving obstinate and contumacious sinners (whilst such) notwithstanding any promises or threatenings to the contrary: and if the things be in themselves indifferent, it is an unadvised confidence to pronounce determinately on either side. yea further, suppose we should be assured that god is verax, and that the scripture doth declare what is his mind and pleasure; yet if there be not an intrinsecal opposition betwixt the being and not being of a thing at the same time, and in the same respect; then god can make a thing that hath been done, undone; and that whatever hath been done or spoken either by himself, or christ, or his prophets, or apostles, should never be done, or spoken by him or them; though he hath come into the world, yet that he should not be come; though he hath made these promises, yet that they should not be made; though god hath given us faculties, that are capable of the enjoyment of himself, yet that he should not have given them us; and that yet we should have no being, nor think a thought while we fancy and speak of all these contradictions: in fine, it were impossible we should know any thing, * if the opposition of contradictory terms depend upon the arbitrarious resolves of any being whatsoever. if any should affirm, that the terms of common notions have an eternal and indispensible relation unto one another, and deny it of other truths, he exceedingly betrays his folly and incogitancy; for these common notions and principles are foundations, and radical truths upon which are built all the deductions of reason and discourse, and with which, so far as they have any truth in them, they are inseparably united. all these consequences are plain and undeniable, and therefore i shall travel no further in the confirmation of them. sect. xiii. several objections propounded, against the scope of this discourse hitherto, from the independency of the divine understanding and will. against this discourse will be objected, that it destroys god's independency and selfsufficiency; * for if there be truth antecedently to the divine understanding, the divine understanding will be a mere passive principle, acted and enlightened by something without itself, as the eyes, by the sun, and lesser objects, which the sun irradiates: and if there be mutual congruities, and dependencies of things in a moral sense, and so, that such and such means have a natural and intrinsecal tendency, or repugnance to such and such ends, then will god be determined in his actions from something without himself, * which is to take away his independency, and selfsufficiency. the pardoning of sin to repenting sinners seems to be a thing very suitable to infinite goodness and mercy, if there be any suitableness, or agreement in things antecedently to gods will; therefore in this case will god be moved from abroad, and as it were determined to an act of grace. this will also undermine and shake many principles and opinions which are looked upon as fundamentals, and necessary to be believed: it will unlink and break that chain and method of god's decrees, which is generally believed amongst us. god's great plot, and design from all eternity, as it is usually held forth, was to advance his mercy and justice in the salvation of some, and damnation of others; we shall speak only of that part of god's design, the advancement of his justice in the damnation of the greatest part of mankind, as being most pertinent for the improving of the strength of the objection against our former discourse. sect. xiv. a main objection more fully insisted on, namely how well the advancement of god's justice in the damnation of the greatest part of mankind consists with the scope of this discourse, especially it being stated as is here set down. that god may do this, he decrees to create man, and being created, decrees that man should sin; and because, as some say, man is a mere passive principle, not able, no not in the presence of objects, to reduce himself into action; or because in the moment of his creation, as others, he was impowered with an indifferency to stand or fall; therefore, ●est there should be a frustration of god's great design; he decrees in the next place, infallibly to determine the will of man unto ●●n, that having sinned he might accomplish his damnation; and what he had first, and from all eternity in his intentions, the advancement of his justice. now if there be such an intrinsical relation of things, as our former discourse pretends unto, this design of god will be wholly frustrated. for it may seem clear to every man's understanding, that it is not for the honour and advancement of justice to determine the will of man to sin, and then to punish him for that sin unto which he was so determined; whereas if god's will, as such, be the only rule and principle of actions, this will be an accommodate means (if god so please to have it) unto his design. the sum is, we have seemed in our former discourse to bind and tie up god, who is an absolute and independent being, to the petty formalities of good and evil, * and to fetter and imprison freedom, and liberty itself, in the fatal and immutable chains, and respects of things. sect. xv. an answer to that objection that concerns the understanding of god, showing that the divine understanding does not depend upon the natures and mutual respects of things, though they be its objects. i answer▪ this objection concerns partly the understanding of god, and partly his will; as for the divine understanding, the case is thus; there are certain being's, or natures of things which are logically possible; it implies no contradiction that they should be, although it were supposed, there were no power that could bring them into being; which natures, or things, supposing they were in being, would have mutual relations of agreement or opposition unto one another, which would be no more distinguished from the things themselves, than relations are from that which found'st them. now the divine understanding is a representation, o● comprehension of all those natures or beings thus logically, and in respect of god absolutely possible, and consequently it must needs be also a comprehension of all these sympathies, and antipathies, either in a natural or a moral way, which they have one unto another: for they, as i said, do necessarily, and immediately flow from the things themselves, as relations do, posito fundamento, & termino. now the divine understanding doth not at all depend upon these natures, or relations, though they be its objects; for the nature of an object doth not consist in being motivum facultatis, as it is usually with us, whose apprehensions are awakened by their presence; but its whole nature is sufficiently comprehended in this, that it is termination● facultatis; and this precisely doth not speak any dependency of the faculty upon it, especially in the divine understanding; where this objective, terminative presence flows from the foecundity of the divine nature: for the things themselves are so far from having any being antecedently to the divine understanding; that had not it been their exemplary pattern, and idea, they had never been created, and being created they would lie in darkness; (i speak of things that have not in them a principle of understanding, not conscious of their own natures, and that beauteous harmony they have among themselves) were they not irradiated by the divine understanding, which is as it were an universal sun that discovers and displays the natures and respects of things, and does as it were draw them up into its beams. sect. xvi. an answer to that objection which concerns the will of god, showing, that liberty in the power or principle, is no where a perfection, where there is not an indifferency in the things or actions about which it is conversant. to the second part of the objection, the strength whereof is, that * to tie up god in his actions to the reason of things, destroys his liberty, absoluteness, and independency. i answer, it is no imperfection for god to be determined to good; it is no bondage, slavery, or contraction, to be bound up to the eternal laws of right and justice: it is the greatest impotency and weakness in the world to have a power to evil, and there is nothing so diametrically opposite to the very being and nature of god. stat pro ratione voluntas, unless it be as a redargution and check to impudent and daring inquirers, is an account no where justifiable. the more any being partakes of reason and understanding, the worse is the imputation of acting arbitrariously, & pro imperio. we can pardon it in women and children, as those from whom we do not expect that they should act upon any higher principle; but for a man of reason and understanding, that hath the laws of goodness and rectitude (which are as the laws of the medes and persians that cannot be altered) engraven upon his mind, for him to cast off these golden reins, and to set up arbitrarious will for his rule and guide, is a piece of intolerable rashness and presumption. this is an infallible rule, that liberty in the power or principle is no where a perfection, where there is not an indifferency in the things or actions about which it is conversant: and therefore it is a piece of our weakness and imbecility, that we have nature so indetermined to what is good. these things need no proof, indeed cannot well be proved, otherwise than they prove themselves: for they are of immediate truth, and prove themselves they will, to a pure unprejudiced mind. sect. xvii. that the discourse hitherto does not infer any dependency of god upon any thing without himself; but only occasions are offered to him of acting according to his own intimate nature and essence. 2. * our former discourse doth not infer any dependency of god, upon any thing without himself; for god is not excited to his actions by any foreign, or extrinsical motives; what he does, proceeds from the eternal immutable respects, and relations, or reasons of things, and where are these to be found, but in the eternal and divine wisdom? for what can infinite wisdom be, but a steady, and immovable comprehension of all those natures and relations? and therefore god in his actions, does not look abroad, but only consults, (if i may so speak) the ideas of his own mind. what creatures do, is but the offering a particular case, for the reducement of a general principle into a particular action: or the presentment of an occasion for god to act according to the principles of his own nature; when we say that god pardoneth sin upon repentance, god is not moved to an act of grace from any thing without himself; for this is a principle in the divine wisdom, that pardon of sin to repenting sinners, is a thing very suitable to infinite goodness, and this principle is a piece of the divine nature: therefore when god upon a particular act of repentance puts forth a particular act of grace, it is but as it were a particular instance to the general rule, which is a portion of divine perfection, when 'tis said, to him that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance; the meaning is, he that walks up unto that light, and improves that strength, that god hath already communicated unto him, shall have more abundant incomes of light and strength from god: it doth not follow that god is moved from without to impart his grace. for this is a branch of divine wisdom; it is agreeable to the infinite goodness of god, to take notice of, and reward the sincere, though weak endeavours of his creatures, after him; so that what is from abroad, is but a particular occasion to those divine principles to exert, and put forth themselves. sect. xviii. the second part of the discourse, which briefly treats of truth in the subject; what it is: what in god, and what in the creature; and that in both it is, a representation or conception in the mind, conformable to the unchangeable natures and mutual respects of things. thus have we spoken concerning the truth of things, or truth in the object. it follows that we speak concerning truth in the power, or faculty, which we called truth in the subject; which we shall dispatch in a few words. * truth in the power, or faculty is nothing else but a conformity of its conceptions or ideas unto the natures and relations of things, which in god we may call an actual, steady, immovable, eternal omniformity, as plotinus calls the divine intellect, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which you have largely described by him. and this the platonists truly call the intellectual world, for here are the natures of all things pure, and unmixed, purged from all those dregs, refined from all that dross and alloy which cleave unto them in their particular instances. all inferior and sublunary things, not excluding man himself, have their excrescences, and defects; exorbitances, or privations are moulded up in their very frames and constitutions. there is somewhat extraneous, heterogeneous, and preternatural in all things here below, as they exist amongst us; but in that other world, like the most purely fined gold, they shine in their native and proper glory. here is the first goodness, the benign parent of the whole creation, with his numerous offspring, the infinite throng of created being's: here is the fountain of eternal love, with all its streams, and rivulets: here is the sun of uncreated glory, surrounded with all his rays, and beams: here are the eternal, and indispensible laws of right and justice, the immediate and indemonstrable principles of truth, and goodness: here are steady and immovable rules, for all cases and actions, however circumstantiated, from which the will of god, though never so absolute, and independent, from everlasting to everlasting, shall never depart one tittle. * now all that truth that is in any created being, is by participation and derivation from this first understanding, and fountain of intellectual light. and that truth in the power of faculty is nothing but the conformity or its conceptions, or ideas with the natures and relations of things, is clear and evident in itself, and necessarily follows from what hath been formerly proved concerning the truth of things themselves, * antecedently to any understanding, or will; * for things are what they are, and cannot be otherwise without a contradiction, and their mutual respects and dependences eternal and unchangeable, as hath been already showed: so that the conceptions and ideas of these natures and their relations, can be only so far true * as they conform and agree with the things themselves, and the harmony which they have one to another. finis. the contents of the discourse of truth. sect. 1. that truth is twofold; in the object and in the subject. that in the object, what it is; and that it is antecedent to and independent of any will or understanding whatever. p. 165 sect. 2. the necessity of there being certain arguments, means and objects for certain conclusions, ends and faculties; and that every thing will not suit every thing. p. 166 sect. 3. an instance or two of the gross and horrid absurdities, consequent to the denying the mutual respects and relations of things to be eternal and indispensible. p. 167 sect. 4. the entrance into the first part of the discourse, which is, of truth in the object: that the divine understanding does not make the respects and relations of its objects, but finds them or observes them. p. 168 sect. 5. that the divine will does not determine the references and dependences of things, because that would subvert his other attributes. p. 169 sect. 6. the avoidance of the foregoing ill consequences by making god immutable, with an answer thereto. p. 172 sect. 7. an hideous, but genuine inference of a pamphleteer from this principle, that absolute and sovereign will is the spring and fountain of all god's actions. p. 173 sect. 8. that the denial of the mutual respects and relations of things unto one another to be eternal and unchangeable, despoils god of that universal rectitude of his nature. p. 174 sect. 9 that the denial of the unchangeableness of the said mutual respects and relations of things to one another, takes away the knowledge of god and of our own happiness, and lays a foundation of the most incurable scepticism imaginable. p. 176 sect. 10. that the denying the eternal and immutable respects of things, frustrates all the noble essays of the mind or understanding of man. p. 180 sect. 11. that in the abovesaid denial are laid the foundations of rantism, debauchery, and of all dissoluteness of life. p. 181 sect. 12. that our assurance of future happiness is quite ●ut off by the denying of the eternal and immutable respects of things. p. 182 sect. 13. several objections propounded, against the scope of this discourse hitherto, from the independency of the divine understanding and will. p. 184 sect. 14. a main objection more fully insisted upon, namely, how well the advancement of god's justice in the damnation of the greatest part of mankind, consists with the scope of this discourse, especially it being so stated as is here set down. p. 186 sect. 15. an answer to that objection that concerns the understanding of god, showing hat the divine understanding does not depend upon the natures and mutual respects of things, though they be its objects. p. 187 sect. 16. an answer to that objection which concerns the will of god, showing, that liberty in the power or principle, is no where a perfection, where there is not an indifferency in the things or actions about which it is conversant. p. 189 sect. 17. that the discourse hitherto does not infer any dependency of god upon any thing without himself; but only occasions are offered to him of acting according to his own intimate nature and essence. p. 191 sect. 18. the second part of the discourse which briefly treats of truth in the subject: what it is. what in god, and what in the creature. and that in both it is, a representation or conception in the mind conformable to the unchangeable natures and mutual respects of things. p. 193 annotations upon the two foregoing treatises, lux orientalis, or, an enquiry into the opinion of the eastern sages concerning the preexistence of souls; and the discourse of truth. written for the more fully clearing and further confirming the main doctrines in each treatise. by one not unexercized in these kinds of speculation. london: printed for j. collins, and s. lounds, over against exeter-change in the strand. 1682. annotations upon lux orientalis. these two books, lux orientalis and the discourse of truth, are luckily put together by the publisher, there being that suitableness between them, and mutual support of one another. and the arguments they treat of being of the greatest importance that the mind of man can entertain herself with, the consideration thereof has excited so sluggish a genius as mine to bestow some few annotations thereon, not very anxious or operose, but such as the places easily suggest; and may serve either to rectify what may seem any how oblique, or illustrate what may seem less clear, or make a supply or add strength where there may seem any further need. in which i would not be so understood as that i had such an anxiety and fondness for the opinions they maintain, as if all were gone if they should fail; but that the dogmata being more fully; clearly, and precisely propounded, men may more safely and considerately give their judgements thereon; but with that modesty as to admit nothing that is contrary to the judgement of the truly catholic and apostolic church. chap. 2. p. 4. that he made us pure and innocent, etc. this is plainly signified in the general mosaic history of the creation, that all that god made he saw it was good; and it is particularly declared of adam and eve, that they were created or made in a state of innocency. pag. 4. matter can do nothing but by motion, and what relation hath that to a moral contagion? we must either grant that the figures of the particles of matter and their motion, have a power to affect the soul united with the body, (and i remember josephus somewhere speaking of wine, says, it does 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, regenerate, as it were, the soul into another life and sense of things) or else we must acknowledge that the parts of matter are alterable into qualifications, that cannot be resolved into mere mechanical motion and figure; whether they be thus altered by the vital power of the spirit of nature, or however it comes to pass. but that matter has a considerable influence upon a soul united thereto, the author himself does copiously acknowledge in his fourth chapter of this book; where he tells us, that according to the disposition of the body, our wits are either more quick, free, and sparkling, or more obtuse, weak, and sluggish; and our mind more cheerful and contented, or else more morose, melancholic, or dogged, etc. wherefore that he may appear the more consistent with himself, it is likely he understands by this moral contagion the very venom and malignity of vicious inclinations, how that can be derived from matter, especially its power consisting in mere motion and figuration of parts. the psalmist's description is very apposite to this purpose, psal. 58. the ungodly are froward even from their mother's womb; as soon as they are born they go astray and speak lies. they are as venomous as the poison of a serpent, even like the deaf adder that stoppeth her ear. that there should be such a difference in the nativity of some from that of others, and haply begot also of the same parents, is no slight intimation that their difference is not from their bodies, but their souls; in which there is so sudden eruptions of vicious inclinations which they had contracted in their former state, not repressed nor extinct in this, by reason of adam's lapse, and his losing the paradisiacal body in which he was created, and which should, if it had not been for his fall, been transmitted to his posterity; but that being lost, the several measures of the pristine vitiosity of humane souls discover themselves in this life, according to the just laws of the divine nemesis essentially interwoven into the nature of things. pag. 5. how is it that those that are under continual temptations to vice, are yet kept within the bounds of virtue, etc. that those that are continually under temptations to vice from their childhood, should keep within the bounds of virtue, and those that have perpetual outward advantages from their childhood to be virtuous, should prove vicious notwithstanding, is not rationally resolved into their free will; for in this they are both of them equal: and if they had been equal also in their external advantages or disadvantages, the different event might well be imputed to the freedom of their will. but now that one, notwithstanding all the disadvantages to virtue should prove virtuous, and the other, notwithstanding all the advantages to virtue should prove vicious; the reason of this certainly to the considerate will seem to lie deeper than the mere liberty of will in man. but it can be attributed to nothing, with a more due and tender regard to the divine attributes, than to the pre-existent state of humane souls, according to the scope of the author. pag. 9 for still it s●●ms to be a diminutive and disparaging apprehension of the infinite and immense goodness of god, that he should detrude such excellent creatures, etc. to enervate this reason, there is framed by an ingenious hand this hypothesis, to vie with that of pre-existence: that mankind is an order of being's placed in a middle state between angels and brutes, made up of contrary principles, viz. matter and spirit, endued with contrary faculties, viz. animal and rational, and encompassed with contrary objects proportioned to their respective faculties, that so they may be in a capacity to exercise the virtue's proper and peculiar to their compounded and heterogeneal nature. and therefore though humane souls be capable of subsisting by themselves, yet god has placed them in bodies full of brutish and unreasonable propensions, that they may be capable of exercising many choice and excellent virtues, which otherwise could never have been at all; such as temperance, sobriety, chastity, patience, meekness, equanimity, and all other virtues that consist in the empire of reason over passion and appetite. and therefore he conceives that the creating of humane souls, though pure and immaculate, and uniting them with such brutish bodies, is but the constituting and continuing such a species of being, which is an order betwixt brutes and angels; into which latter order, if men use their faculties of the spiritual principle in them well, they may ascend: forasmuch as god has given them in their spiritual principle (containing free will, and reason to discern what is best) a power and faculty of overcoming all their inordinate appetites. this is his hypothesis, mostwhat in his own words, and all to his own sense, as near as i could with brevity express it: and it seems so reasonable to himself, that he professes himself apt to be positive and dogmatical therein. and it might very well seem so to him, if there were a sufficient faculty in the souls of men in this world, to command and keep in order the passions and appetites of their body, and to be and do what their reason and conscience tells them they should be and do, and blames them for not being and doing. so that they know more by far than they find an ability in themselves to perform. extremely few there are, if any, but this is their condition: whence all philosophers (that had any sense of virtue and holiness) as well as jews and christians, have looked upon man as in a lapsed state, not blaming god, but deploring the sad condition they found themselves in by some foregoing lapse or fault in mankind. and it is strange that our own consciences should fly in our faces for what we could never have helped. it is witty indeed which is alleged in the behalf of this hypothesis, viz. that the rational part of man is able to command the lower appetites; because if the superior part be not strong enough to govern the inferior, it destroys the very being of moral good and evil: forasmuch as those acts that proceed out of necessity cannot be moral, nor can the superior faculties be obliged to govern the inferior, if they are not able, because nothing is obliged to impossibilities. but i answer, if inabilities come upon us by our own fault, the defects of action then are upon the former account moral, or rather immoral. and our consciences rightly charge us with the vitiosities of our inclinations and actions, even before we can mend them here, because they are the consequences of our former gild. wherefore it is no wonder that there is found a flaw in a subtlety that would conclude against the universal experience of men, who all of them, more or less, that have any sense of morality left in them, complain that the inferior powers of the soul, at least for a time, were too hard for the superior. and the whole mass of mankind is so generally corrupt and abominable, that it would argue the wise and just god a very unequal matcher of innocent souls with brutish bodies, they being universally so hugely foiled or overcome in the conflict, if he indeed were the immediate matcher of them. for how can that be the effect of an equilibrious or sufficient free will and power, that is in a manner perpetual and constant? but there would be near as many examples one way as the other, if the souls of men in this state were not by some precedent lapse become unable to govern, as they ought, all in them or about them that is to be subjected to their reason. no fine fetches of wit can demolish the steady and weighty structure of sound and general experience. pag. 9 wherein he seeth it, ten thousand to one but that they will corrupt, etc. the expression [ten thousand to one] is figurative, and signifies how hugely more like it is that the souls would be corrupted by their incorporation in these animal or▪ brutish bodies, than escape corruption. and the effect makes good the assertion: for david of old (to say nothing of the days of noah) and paul after him, declare of mankind in general, that they are altogether become abominable; there is none that doth good, no not one. wherefore we see what efficacy these bodies have, if innocent souls be put into them by the immediate hand of god, as also the force of custom and corrupt education to debauch them; and therefore how unlikely it is that god should create innocent souls to thrust them into such ill circumstances. pag. 10. to suppose him assistant to unlawful and unclean coitions, by creating a soul to animate the impure foetus, etc. this seemed ever to those that had any sense of the divine purity and sanctity, or were themselves endued with any due sensibleness and discernment of things, to be an argument of no small weight. but how one of the more rude and unhewen opposers of pre-existence swaggers it out of countenance, i think it not amiss to set down for a pleasant entertainment of the reader. admit, says he, that god's watchful providence waits upon dissolute voluptuaries in their unmeet conjunctions, and sends down fresh created spirits to actuate their obscene emissions, what is here done which is not very high and becoming god, and most congruous and proportionable to his immense grandeur and majesty, viz. to bear a part amongst pimps and bawds, and pocky whores and woremasters, to rise out of his seat for them, and by a free act of creation of a soul, to set his seal of connivance to their villainies; who yet is said to be of more pure eyes than to endure to behold wickedness. so that if he does (as his phrase is) pop in a soul in these unclean coitions, certainly he does it winking. but he goes on: for in the first place, says he, his condescension is hereby made signal and eximious; he is gloriously humble beyond a parallel, and by his own example lessons us to perform the meanest works, if fit and profitable, and to be content even to drudge for the common bénefit of the world. good god what a rapture has this impure scene of venery put this young theologer into, that it should thus drive him out of his little wits and senses, and make him speak inconsistences with such an affected grace and lofty eloquence! if the act of gods freely creating souls, and so of assisting wretched sinners in their foul acts of adultery and whoredom, be a glorious action, how is it an abasement of him, how is it his humiliation? and if it be an humbling and debasing of him, how is it glorious? the joining of two such 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, are indeed without parallel. the creating of an humane soul immortal and immaculate, and such as bears the image of god in it, as all immaculate souls do, is one of the most glorious actions that god can perform; such a creature is it, as the schools have judged more of value than the frame of the whole visible world. but to join such a creature as this to such impure corporeal matter, is furthermore a most transcendent specimen of both his skill and sovereignty; so that this is an act of further super-exaltation of himself, not of humiliation. what remains then to be his humiliation, but the condescending to assist and countenance the unclean endeavours of adulterers and adulteresses? which therefore can be no lessons to us for humility, but a cordial for the faint-hearted in debauchery, and degeneracy of life; wherein they may plead, so instructed by this rural theolog, that they are content to drudge for the common profit of the world. but he proceeds. and secondly, says he, hereby he elicits good out of evil, causing famous and heroic persons to take their origine from base occasions; and so converts the lusts of sensual varlets to nobler ends than they designed them. as if an▪ heroic offspring were the genuine effect of adultery or fornication, and the most likely way to people the world with worthy personages. how this raw philosopher will make this comply with his profession of divinity, i know not; whenas, it teaches us, that marriage is honourable, but whoremongers and adulterers god will judge; and that he punishes the iniquities of the parents on their children. but this bold sophist▪ makes god adjudge the noblest offspring to the defiled bed, and not to punish, but reward the adultery or whoredom of debauched persons, by giving them the best and bravest children: which the more true it could be found in experience, it would be the stronger argument for pre-existence; it being incredible that god, if he created souls on purpose, should crown adultery and whoredom with the choicest offspring. and then thirdly and lastly, says he, hereby he often detects the lewdness of sinners, which otherwise would be smothered, etc. as if the alwise god could find no better nor juster means than this to discover this villainy. if he be thus immediately and in an extraordinary way assistant in these coitions, were it not as easy for him, and infinitely more decorous, to charge the womb with some mola or ephemerous monster, than to plunge an immaculato humane soul into it? this would as effectually discover the villainy committed, and besides prevent the charge parishes are put to in maintaining bastards. and now that we have thus seen what a mere nothing it is that this strutter has pronounced with such sonorous rhetoric, yet he is not ashamed to conclude with this appeal to i know not what blind judges: now, says he, are not all these actions and concerns very graceful and agreeable to god? which words in these circumstances no man could utter, were he not of a crass, insensible, and injudicious constitution, or else made no conscience of speaking against his judgement. but if he speak according to his conscience, it is manifest he puts sophisms upon himself, in arguing so weakly. as he does a little before in the same place, where that he may make the coming of a soul into a base begotten body in such a series of time and order of things as the pre-existentiaries suppose, and gods putting it immediately upon his creating it into such a body, to be equally passable, he uses this slight illustration: imagine, saith he, god should create one soul, and so soon as he had done, instantly pop it into a base begotten body; and then create another the matter of an hours space before▪ its precipitation into such a receptacle: which of these actions would be the most diminutive of the creator's honour? would not the difference be insensible, and the scandal, if any, the same in both? yet thus lies the case just betwixt the pre-existentiaries and us. let the reader consider how senseless this author is in saying the case betwixt the pre-existentiaries and him is just thus, when they are just nothing akin: for his two souls are both unlapsed, but one of the pre-existentiaries lapsed, and so subjected to the laws of nature. in his case god acts freely, raising himself, as it were, out of his seat to create an immaculate soul, and put into a foul body; but in the other case god only is a looker on, there is only his permission, not his action. and the vast difference of time, he salves it with such a quibble as this, as if it were nothing, because thousands of ages ago, in respect of god and his eternity, is not an hour before. he might as well say the difference betwixt the most glorious angel and a flea is nothing, because in comparison of god both are so indeed. wherefore this anti-pre-existentiary is such a trifler, that i am half ashamed that i have brought him upon the stage. but yet i will commend his craft, though not his faithfulness, that he had the wit to omit the proposing of buggery as well as of adultery, and the endeavouring to show how graceful and agreeable to god, how congruous and proportionate it were to his immense grandeur and majesty, to create a soul on purpose (immaculate and undefiled) to actuate the obscene emissions of a brute having to do with a woman, or of a man having to do with a brute: for both women and brutes▪ have been thus impregnated, and brought forth humane births, as you may see abundantly testified in fortunius licetus; it would be too long to produce instances. this opinion of gods creating souls, and putting them into bodies upon incestuous and adulterous coitions, how exceeding absurd and unbecoming the sanctity of the divine majesty it seemed to the churches of aethiopia, you may see in the history of jobus ludolphus. how intolerable therefore and execrable would this doctrine have appeared unto them, if they had thought of the prodigious fruits of successful buggery? the words of ludolfus are these: perabsurdum esse si quis deum astrictum dicat pro adulterinis & incestuo●is partubus animas quotidie novas creare. hist. aethiop. lib. 3. cap. 5. what would they then say of creating a new soul, for the womb of a beast buggered by a man, or of a woman buggered by a beast! pag. 12. methinks that may be done at a cheaper rate, etc. how it may be done with more agreeableness to the goodness, wisdom, and justice of god, has been even now hinted by me, nor need i repeat it. pag. 13. it seems very incongruous and unhandsome, to suppose that god should create two souls for the supply of one monstrous body. and there is the same reason for several other monstrosities, which you may take notice of in fortunius licetus, lib. 2. cap. 58. one with seven humane heads and arms, and ox-feets; others with men's bodies, but with a head the one of a goose, the other of an elephant, etc. in which it is a strong presumption humane souls lodged, but in several others certain. how does this consist with god's fresh creating humane souls pure and innocent, and putting them into bodies? this is by the aforesaid anti-pre-existentiary at first answered only by a wide gape or yawn of admiration. and indeed it would make any one stare and wonder how this can consist with gods immediately and freely intermeddling with the generation of men, as he did at first in the creation. for out of his holy hands all things come clean and neat. many little efforts he makes afterwards to salve this difficulty of monsters, but yet in his own judgement the surest is the last; that god did purposely tie fresh created souls to these monstroûs' shapes, that they whose souls sped better, might humbly thank him. which is as wisely argued, as if one should first with himself take it for granted that god determines some men to monstrous debaucheries and impieties, and then fancy this the use of it, that the spectators of them may with better pretence than the pharisee, cry out, lord, we thank thee that we are not as these men are. there is nothing permitted by god, but it has its use some way or other; and therefore it cannot be concluded, because that an event has this or that use, therefore god by his immediate and free omnipotence effected it. a pre-existentiary easily discerns that these monstrosities plainly imply that god does not create souls still for every humane coition, but that having pre-existed, they are left to the great laws of the universe and spirit of nature; but yet dares not conclude that god by his free omnipotence determines those monstrous births, as serviceable as they seem for the evincing so noble a theory. pag. 15. that god on the seventh day rested from all his works. this one would think were an argument clear enough that he creates nothing since the celebration of the first seventh days rest. for if all his works are rested from, than the creation of souls (which is a work, nay a masterpiece amongst his works scarce inferior to any) is rested from also. but the abovementioned opposer of pre-existence is not at a loss for an answer; (for his answers being slight, are cheap and easy to come by:) he says therefore, that this supposeth only that after that time he ceased from creating new species. a witty invention! as if god had got such an easy habit by once creating the things he created in the six days, that if he but contained himself within those kinds of things, though he did hold on still creating them, that it was not work, but mere play or rest to him, in comparison of his former labour. what will not these men fancy, rather than abate of their prejudice against an opinion they have once taken a toy against! when the author to the hebrews says, he that has entered into his rest, has ceased from his own works, as god ceased from his; verily this is small comfort or instruction, if it were as this anti-pre-existentiary would have it: for if god ceased only from creating new species, we may, notwithstanding our promised rest, be tied to run through new instances of labours or sins, provided they be but of those kinds we experienced before. to any unprejudiced understanding, this sense must needs seem forced and unnatural, thus to restrain god's rest to the species of things, and to engage him to the daily task of creating individuals. the whole aethiopian church is of another mind: qui animam humanam quotidiè non creari hoc argumento asserunt, quòd deus sexto die perfecerit totum opus creationis. see ludolfus in the place abovecited. chap. 3. pag. 17. since the images of objects are very small and inconsiderable in our brains, etc. i suppose he mainly relates to the objects of sight, whose chief, if not only images, are in the fund of the eye; and thence in virtue of the spirituality of our soul extended thither also, and of the due qualification of the animal spirits are transmitted to the perceptive of the soul within the brain. but how the bignesses and distances of objects are conveyed to our cognoscence, it would be too tedious to signify here. see dr. h. moor's enchiridion metaphysicum, cap. 19 pag. 17. were it not that our souls use a kind of geometry, etc. this alludes to that pretty conceit of des cartes in his dioptrics, the solidity of which i must confess i never understood. for i understand not but that if my soul should use any such geometry, i should be conscious thereof, which i do not find myself. and therefore i think those things are better understood out of that chapter of the book even now mentioned. pag. 17. and were the soul quite void of all such implicit notions, it would remain as senseless, etc. there is no sensitive perception indeed, without reflection; but the reflection is an immediate attention of the soul to that which affects her, without any circumstance of notions intervening for enabling her for sensitive operations. but these are witty and ingenious conjectures, which the author by reading des cartes, or otherhow, might be encouraged to entertain. to all sensitive objects the soul is an abrasa tabula, but for moral and intellectual principles, their ideas or notions are essential to the soul. pag. 18. for sense teacheth no general propositions, etc. nor need it do any thing else but exhibit some particular object, which our understanding being an ectypon of the divine intellect necessarily, when it has throughly sifted it, concludes it to answer such a determinate idea eternally and unalterably one and the same, as it stands in the divine intellect, which cannot change; and therefore that idea must have the same properties and respects for ever. but of this, enough here. it will be better understood by reading the discourse of truth, and the annotations thereon. pag. 18. but from something more sublime and excellent. from the divine or archetypal intellect, of which our understanding is the ectypon, as was said before. pag. 21. and so can only transmit their natural qualities. they are so far from transmitting their moral pravities, that they transmit from themselves no qualities at all. for to create a soul, is to concreate the qualities or properties of it, not out of the creator, but out of nothing. so that the substance and all the properties of it are out of nothing. pag. 22. against the nature of an immaterial being, a chief property of which is to be indiscerpible. the evasion to the force of this argument by some anti-pre-existentiaries is, that it is to philosophise at too high a rate of confidence, to presume to know what the nature of a soul or spirit is. but for brevity's sake, i will refer such answerers as these to dr. h. moor's brief discourse of the true notion of a spirit, printed lately with saducismus triumphatus; and i think he may be thence as sure that indiscerpibility is an essential property of a spirit, as that there are any spirits in the universe: and this methinks should suffice any ingenuous and modest opposer. but to think there is no knowledge but what comes in at our senses, is a poor, beggarly, and precarious principle, and more becoming the dotage of hobbianism, than men of clearer parts and more serene judgements. pag. 22. by separable emissions that pass from the flame, etc. and so set the wick and tallow on motion. but these separable emissions that pass from the flame of the lighted candle, pass quite away, and so are no part of the flame enkindled. so weak an illustration is this of what these traducters would have. chap. 4. pag. 32. which the divine piety and compassion hath set up again, that so, so many of his excellent creatures might not be lost and undone irrecoverably, but might act anew, etc. to this a more elegant pen and refined wit objects thus: now is it not highly derogatory to the infinite and unbounded wisdom of god, that he should detrude those souls which he so seriously designs to make happy, into a state so hazardous, wherein he seeth it to be ten thousand to one but that they will corrupt and defile themselves, and so make them more miserable here and to eternity hereafter? a strange method of recovering this, to put them into such a fatal necessity of perishing: 'tis but an odd contrivance for their restauration to happiness, to use such means to compass it which 'tis ten thousand to one but will make them infinitely more miserable. this he objects in reference to what the author of lux orientalis writes, chap. 2. where he says, it is a thousand to one but souls detruded into these bodies will corrupt and defile themselves, and so make themselves miserable here and to eternity hereafter. and much he quotes to the same purpose out of the account of origen. where the souls great disadvantages to virtue and holiness, what from the strong inclinations of the body, and what from national customs & education in this terrestrial state, are lively set out with a most moving and tragical eloquence, to show how unlikely it is that god should put innocent and immaculate souls of his own creation immediately, into such bodies, and so hard and even almost fatal condition of miscarrying. upon which this subtle anti-pre-existentiary: thus you see, saith he, what strong objections and arguments the pre-existentiaries urge with most noise and clamour, are against themselves. if therefore these phaenomena be inexplicable, without the origenian hypothesis, they are so too with it; and if so, than the result of all is, that they are not so much arguments of pre-existence as aspersions of providence. this is smartly and surprisingly spoken. but let us consider more punctually the state of the matter. here than we are first to observe, how cunningly this shrewd antagonist conceals a main stroke of the supposition, viz. that the divine pity and compassion to lapsed souls, that had otherwise fallen into an eternal state of silence and death, had set up adam for their relief, and endued him with such a paradisiacal body of so excellent a constitution to be transmitted to all his posterity, and invested him, in virtue of this, with so full power non peccandi, that if he and his posterity were not in an happy flourishing condition as to their eternal interest of holiness and virtue, it would be long of himself. and what could god do more correspondently to his wisdom and goodness, dealing with free agents, such as humane souls are, than this? and the thing being thus stated, no objections can be brought against the hypothesis, but such as will invade the inviolable truths of faith and orthodox divinity. secondly, we are to observe, how this cunning objector has got these two pre-existentiaries upon the hip for their youthful flowers of rhetoric, when one says, it is hundreds to one; the other, ten thousand to one, that souls will miscarry put into these disadvantages of the terrestrial state, by which no candid reader will understand any more, than that it is exceeding difficult for them to escape the pollutions of this lower world once incorporated into terrestrial bodies. but it being granted possible for them to emerge, this is a great grace and favour of the divine goodness to such peccant wretches, that they are brought out of the state of eternal silence and death, to try their fortunes once more, though encumbered with so great difficulties which the divine nemesis suffers to return upon them. that therefore they are at all in a condition of recovery, is from the goodness and mercy of god; that their condition is so hard, from his justice, they having been so foully peccant. and his wisdom being only to contrive what is most agreeable to his mercy and justice, it is not at all derogatory to the infinite and unbounded wisdom of god thus to deal with lapsed souls. for though he does seriously intend to make them happy, yet it must be in a way correspondent to his justice as well as mercy. thirdly and lastly, besides that the spirit of the lord pervades the whole earth ready to assist the sincere; there is moreover a mighty weight of mercy added in the revelation of our lord jesus christ to the world, so that the retriving of the souls of men out of their death and silence into this terrestrial state, in which there is these helps to the sincere, it is manifestly worthy the divine wisdom and goodness. for those it takes no effect with, (they beginning the world again on this stage) they shall be judged only according to what they have done here, there being an eternal obliteration as well as oblivion of the acts of their pre-existent state; but those that this merciful dispensation of god has taken any effect upon here, their sincere desires may grow into higher accomplishments in the future state. which may something mitigate the horror of that seeming universal squalid estate of the sons of men upon earth. which in that it is so ill, is rightly imputed by both jews and christians and the divinest philosophers to a lapse, and to the mercy and grace of god that it is no worse. from whence it may appear, that that argument for pre-existence, that god does not put newly created innocent souls into such disadvantageous circumstances of a terrestrial incorporation, though partly out of mercy, partly out of justice, he has thought fit lapsed souls should be so disposed of, that this i say is no aspersion of divine providence. pag. 36. and now i cannot think of any place in the sacred volume more, that could make a tolerable plea against this hypothesis, etc. it is much that the ingenious author thought not of rom. 9 11. [for the children being not yet born, neither having done either good or evil, that the purpose of god according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth.] this is urged by anti-pre-existentiaries, as a notable place against pre-existence. for, say they, how could esau and jacob. be said neither to have done good nor evil, if they pre-existed before they came into this world? for if they pre-existed, they acted; and if they acted, they being rational souls, they must have done either good or evil. this makes an handsome show at first sight; but if we consult gen. 25. we shall plainly see that this is spoke of jacob and esau yet struggling in the womb; as it is said in this text, for the children being not yet born; but struggling in the womb, as you may see in the other. which plainly therefore respects their actions in this life, upon which certainly the mind of st. paul was fixed. as if he should have expressly said: for the children being not yet born, but struggling in the womb, neither having done either good or evil in this life as being still in the womb, it was said of them to rebeckah, the elder shall serve the younger. which sufficiently illustrates the matter in hand with st. paul; that as jacob was preferred before esau in the womb, before either of them was born to act here on the earth, and that therefore done without any respect to their actions; so the purpose of god touching his people should be of free election, not of works. that of zachary also, chap. 12. 1. i have heard alleged by some as a place on which no small stress may be laid. the lord is there said to be the former of the spirit of man within him. wherefore they argue, if the spirit of man be form within him, it did never pre-exist without him. but we answer, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is but the same that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. and then the sense is easy and natural, that the spirit that is in man, god is the former or creator of it. but this text defines nothing of the time of forming it. there are several other texts alleged, but it is so easy to answer them, and would take up so much time and room, that i think fit to omit them, remembering my scope to be short annotations, not a tedious commentary. pag. 41. mr. ben israel in his problems de creatione assures us, that pre-existence was the common belief, etc. that this was the common opinion of the wiser men amongst the jews, r. menasse ben israel himself told me at london with great freedom and assurance, and that there was a constant tradition thereof; which he said in some sense was also true concerning the trinity, but that more obscure. but this of pre-existence is manifest up and down in the writings of that very ancient and learned jew philo judaeus; as also something toward a trinity, if i remember aright. chap. 5. pag. 46. we should doubtless have retained some remembrance of that condition. and the rather, as one ingeniously argues, because our state in this life is a state of punishment. upon which he concludes, that if the calamities of this life were inflicted upon us only as a punishment of sins committed in another, providence would have provided some effectual means to preserve them in our memories. and therefore, because we find no remainders of any such records in our minds, 'tis, says he, sufficient evidence to all sober and impartial inquirers, that our living and sinning in a former state is as false as inevident. but to this it may be answered, that the state we are put in, is not a state only of punishment, but of a merciful trial; and it is sufficient that we find ourselves in a lapsed and sinful condition, our own consciences telling us when we do amiss, and calling upon us to amend. so that it is needless particularly to remember our faults in the other world, but the time is better spent in faithfully endeavouring to amend ourselves in this, and to keep ourselves from all faults of what nature soever. which is a needless thing our memory should discover to us to have been of old committed by us, when our consciences urge to us that they are never to be committed; and the laws of holy lawgivers and divine instructers, or wise sages over all the world, assist also our conscience in her office. so that the end of god's justice by these inward and outward monitors, and by the cross and afflicting rencounters in this present state, is to be attained to, viz. the amendment of delinquents if they be not refractory. and we were placed on this stage as it were to begin the world again, so as if we had not existed before. whence it seems meet, that there should be an utter obliteration of all that is past, so as not to be able by memory to connect the former life and this together. the memory whereof, if we were capable of it, would be inconsistent with the orderly proceedings of this, and overdoze us and make us half moped to the present scene of things. whenas the divine purpose seems to be, that we should also experience the natural pleasures and satisfactions of this life, but in an orderly and obedient way, keeping to the prescribed rules of virtue and holiness. and thus our faithfulness being exercised 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in those things which are more estranged from our nobler and diviner nature, god may at last restore us to what is more properly our own. but in the mean time, that saying which the poet puts in the mouth of jupiter, touching the inferior deities, may not misbeseem the mercy and wisdom of the true god concerning lapsed souls incorporate into terrestrial bodies. has quoniam coeli nondum dignamur honore. quas dedimus certè terras habitare sinamus. let them not be distracted betwixt a sensible remembrance of the joys and glories of our exterior heaven above, and the present fruition of things below, but let them live an holy and heavenly life upon earth, exercising their graces and virtues in the use and enjoyment of these lower earthly objects, till i call them up again to heaven, where, after this long swoon they are fallen into, they will more seasonably remember their former paradisiacal state upon its recovery, and reagnize their ancient home. wherefore if the remembering or forgetting of the former state depend absolutely upon the free contrivance of the divine wisdom, goodness, and justice, as this ingenious opposer seems to suppose, i should even upon that very point of fitness conceive that an utter oblivion of the former state is interwoven into the fate and nature of lapsed souls by a divine nemesis, though we do not conceive explicitly the manner how. and yet the natural reasons the author of lux orientalis produces in the sequel of his discourse, seem highly probable. for first, as we had forgot some lively dream we dreamt but last night, unless we had met with something in the day of a peculiar virtue to remind us of it, so we meeting with nothing in this lower stage of things that lively resembles those things in our former state, and has a peculiar fitness to rub up our memory, we continue in an utter oblivion of them. as suppose a man was lively entertained in his sleep with the pleasure of dreaming of a fair crystal river, whose banks were adorned with trees and flags in the flower, and those large flies with blue and golden-coloured bodies, and broad thin wings curiously wrought and transparent, hover over them, with birds also singing on the trees, sun and clouds above, and sweet breezes of air, and swans in the river with their wings sometimes lifted up like sails against the wind. thus he passed the night, thinks of no such thing in the morning, but rising goes about his occasions. but towards evening a servant of a friend of his presents him with a couple of swans from his master. the sight of which swans striking his perceptive as sensibly as those in his dream, and being one of the most extraordinary and eximious objects of his night-vision, presently reminds him of the whole scene of things represented in his sleep. but neither sun, nor clouds, nor trees, nor any such ordinary thing could in any likelihood have reminded him of his dream. and besides, it was the lively resemblance betwixt the swans he saw in his sleep, and those he saw waking, that did so effectually rub up his memory. the want therefore of such occurrences in this life to remind us of the passages of the former, is a very reasonable account why we remember nothing of the former state. but here the opposers of pre-existence pretend that the joyous and glorious objects in the other state do so pierce and transport the soul, and that she was enured to them so long, that though there were nothing that resembled them here, the impression they make must be indelible, and that it is impossible she should forget them. and moreover, that there is a similitude betwixt the things of the upper world and the lower, which therefore must be an help to memory. but here, as touching the first, they do not consider what a weapon they have given into my hand against themselves. for the long inuredness to those celestial objects abates the piercingness of their transport; and before they leave those regions, according to the platonic or origenian hypothesis, they grow cooler to such enjoyments: so that all the advantages of that piercing transport for memory, are lost. and besides, in virtue of that piercing transport, no soul can call into memory what she enjoyed formerly, but by recalling herself into such a transport, which her terrestrial vehicle makes her uncapable of. for the memory of external transactions is sealed upon us by some passionate corporeal impress in conjunction with them (which makes them whip boys sometimes at the boundaries of their parish, that they may better remember it when they are old men;) which impress if it be lost, the memory of the thing itself is lost. and we may be sure it is lost in souls incorporate in terrestrial vehicles, they having lost their aereal and celestial, and being fatally incapacitated so much as to conceit how they were affected by the external objects of the other world, and so to remember how they felt them. and therefore all the descriptions that men of a more aethereal and entheous temper adventure on in this life, are but the roaming of their minds in virtue of their constitution towards the nature of the heavenly things in general, not a recovery of the memory of past experience; this state not affording so lively a representment of the pathos that accompanied the actual sense of those things, as to make us think that we once really enjoyed them before. that is only to be collected by reason; the noble exercise of which faculty, in the discovering of this arcanum of our pre-existence, had been lost, if it could have been detected by a compendious memory. but if ever we recover the memory of our former state, it will be when we are reentered into it; we then being in a capacity of being really struck with the same pathos we were before, in virtue whereof the soul may remember this was her pristine condition. and therefore to answer to the second, though there may be some faintness of resemblance betwixt the things of the other state and this, yet other peculiarities also being required, and the former sensible pathos to be recovered, which is impossible in this state, it is likewise impossible for us to remember the other in this. the second argument of the author for the proving the unlikeliness of our remembering the other state is, the long intermission and discontinuance from thinking of those things. for 'tis plain that such discontinuance or desuetude bereaves us of the memory of such things as we were acquainted with in this world. insomuch as if an ancient man should read the verses or themes he made when he was a schoolboy, without his name subscribed to them, though he pumped and sweated for them when he made them, could not tell they were his own. how then should the soul remember what she did or observed many hundreds, nay thousands of years ago? but yet our author's antagonist has the face to make nothing of this argument neither: because, forsooth, it is not so much the desuetude of thinking of one thing, but the thinking of others, that makes us forget that one thing. what a shuffle is this! for if the soul thought on that one thing as well as on other things, it would remember it as well as them. therefore it is not the thinking of other things, but the not thinking of that, that makes it forgotten. vsus promptus facit, as in general, so in particular. and therefore disuse in any particular slackens at first, and after abolishes the readiness of the mind to think thereof. whence sleepiness and sluggishness is the mother of forgetfulness, because it disuses the soul from thinking of things. and as for those seven chronical sleepers that slept in a cave from decius his time to the reign of theodosius junior, i dare say it would have besotted them without a miracle, and they would have rose out of their sleep no more wise than a wisp; i am sure not altogether so wise as this awkward arguer for memory of souls in their pre-existent state after so hugely long a discontinuance from it. but for their immediately coming out of an aethereal vehicle into a terrestrial, and yet forgetting their former state, what example can be imagined of such a thing, unless that of the messias, who yet seems to remember his former glorious condition, and to pray that he may return to it again? though, for my part i think it was rather divine inspiration than memory, that enabled him to know that matter, supposing his soul did pre-exist. our author's third and last argument to prove that lapsed souls in their terrestrial condition forget their former state, is from observation how deteriorating changes in this earthly body spoils or quite destroys the memory, the soul still abiding therein; such as casualties, diseases, and old age, which changes the tenor of the spirits, and makes them less useful for memory, as also 'tis likely the brain itself. wherefore there being a more deteriorating change to the soul in coming into an earthly body, instead of an aereal or aethereal, the more certainly will her memory of things which she experienced in that state, be washed out or obliterated in this. here our author's antagonist answers, that though changes in body may often weaken, and sometimes utterly spoil the memory of things past, yet it is not necessary that the souls changing of her body should therefore do so, because it is not so injurious to her faculties. which if it were, not only our memory, but reason also should have been cashiered and lost by our migration out of those vehicles we formerly actuated, into these we now enliven; but that still remaining sound and entire, it is a sign that our memory would do so too, if we had pre-existed in other bodies before, and had any thing to remember. and besides, if the bare translocation of our souls out of one body into another, would destroy the memory of things the soul has experienced, it would follow, that when people by death are summoned hence into the other state, that they shall be quite bereft of their memory, and so carry neither applause nor remorse of conscience into the other world; which is monstrously absurd and impious. this is the main of his answer, and mostwhat in his own words. but of what small force it is, we shall now discover, and how little pertinent to the business. for first, we are to take notice that the deteriorating change in the body, or deteriorating state by change of bodies, is understood of a debilitative, diminutive, or privative, not depravative deterioration; the latter of which may be more injurious to the faculties of the soul, though in the same body, such a deteriorating change causing frenzies and outrageous madness. but as for diminutive or privative deterioration by change, the soul by changing her aereal vehicle for a terrestrial, is (comparing her latter state with her former) much injured in her faculties or operations of them; all of them are more slow and stupid, and their aptitude to exert the same phantasms of things that occurred to them in the other state, quite taken away, by reason of the heavy and dull, though orderly constitution of the terrestrial tenement; which weight and stupor utterly indisposes the soul to recall into her mind the scene of her former state, this load perpetually swaying down her thoughts to the objects of this. nor does it at all follow, because reason is not lost, therefore memory, if there were any such thing as pre-existence, would still abide. for the universal principles of reason and morality are essential to the soul, and cannot be obliterated, no not by any death: but the knowledge of any particular external objects is not at all essential to the soul, nor consequently the memory of them; and therefore the soul in the state of silence being stripped of them, cannot recover them in her incorporation into a terrestrial body. but her reason, with the general principles thereof, being essential to her, she can, as well as this state will permit, exercise them upon the objects of this scene of the earth and visible world, so far as it is discovered by her outward senses, she looking out at those windows of this her earthly prison, to contemplate them. and she has the faculty and exercise of memory still, in such a sense as she has of sensitive perception, whose objects she does remember, being yet to all former impresses in the other state a mere abrasa tabula. and lastly, it is a mere mistake of the opposer, or worse, that he makes the pre-existentiaries to impute the loss of memory in souls of their former state, merely to their coming into other bodies; when it is not bare change of bodies, but their descent into worse bodies more dull and obstupifying, to which they impute this loss of memory in lapsed souls. this is a real death to them, according to that ancient aenigm of that abstruse sage, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we live their death, namely of separate souls, but are dead to their life. but the changing of our earthly body for an aereal or aethereal, this is not death, but reviviscency, in which all the energies of the soul are (not depressed, but) exalted, and our memory with the rest quickened; as it was in esdras after he had drunk down that cup offered to him by the angel, full of liquor like fire, which filled his heart with understanding, and strengthened his memory, as the text says. thus we see how all objections against the three reasons of lapsed souls losing the memory of the things of the other state, vanish into smoke. wherefore they every one of them single being so sound, all three put together methinks should not fail of convincing the most refractory of this truth, that though the soul did pre-exist and act in another state, yet she may utterly forget all the scenes thereof in this. pag. 46. now if the reasons why we lose the remembrance of our former life be greater, etc. and that they are so, does appear in our answer to the objections made against the said reasons, if the reader will consider them. pag. 50. and thereby have removed all prejudices, etc. but there is yet one reason against pre-existence which the ingenious author never thought of, urged by the anti-pre-existentiaries, namely, that it implies the rest of the planets peopled with mankind, it being unreasonable to think that all souls descended in their lapse to this only earth of ours. and if there be lapsed souls there, how shall they be recovered? shall christ undergo another and another death for them? but i believe the ingenious author would have looked upon this but as a mean and trifling argument, there being no force in any part thereof. for why may not this earth be the only hospital, nosocomium or coemeterium, speaking platonically, of sinfully lapsed souls? and then suppose others lapsed in other planets, what need christ die again for them, when one drop of his blood is sufficient to save myriads of worlds? whence it may seem a pity there is not more worlds than this earth to be redeemed by it. nor is it necessary they should historically know it. and if it be, the eclipse of the sun at his passion by some inspired prophets might give them notice of it, and describe to them as orderly an account of the redemption, as moses does of the creation, though he stood not by while the world was framed, but it was revealed to him by god. and lastly, it is but a rash and precarious position, to say that the infinite wisdom of god has no more ways than one to save lapsed souls. it is sufficient that we are assured that this is the only way for the saving of the sons of adam; and these are the fixed bounds of revealed truth in the holy scripture which appertains to us inhabitants on earth. but as for the oeconomy of his infinite wisdom in the other planets, if we did but reflect upon our absolute ignorance thereof, we would have the discretion not to touch upon that topick, unless we intended to make ourselves ridiculous, while we endeavour to make others so. chap. 6. pag. 51. now as the infinite goodness of the deity obligeth him always to do good, so by the same to do that which is best, etc. to elude the force of this chief argument of the pre-existentiaries, an ingenious opposer has devised a way which seems worth our considering, which is this; viz. by making the idea of god to consist mainly in dominion and sovereignty, the scriptures representing him under no other notion than as the supreme lord and sovereign of the universe. wherefore nothing is to be attributed to him that enterferes with the uncontroulableness of his dominion. and therefore, says he, they that assert goodness to be a necessary agent that cannot but do that which is best, directly supplant and destroy all the rights of his power and dominion. nay, he adds afterwards, that this notion of god's goodness is most apparently inconsistent, not only with his power and dominion, but with all his other moral perfections. and for a further explication of his mind in this matter, he adds afterwards, that the divine will is endued with the highest kind of liberty, as it imports a freedom not only from foreign violence, but also from inward necessity: for spontaneity, or immunity from coaction, without indifferency, carries in it as great necessity as those motions that proceed from violence or mechanism. from whence he concludes, that the divine will cannot otherwise be determined than by its own intrinsic energy. and lastly, forasmuch as no courtesy can oblige, but what is received from one that had a power not to bestow them, if god necessarily acted according to his goodness, and not out of mere choice and liberty of will, there were no thanks nor praise due to him; which therefore would take away the duties of religion. this is the main of his hypothesis, whereby he would defeat the force of this argument for the pre-existence of souls, taken from the goodness of god. which this hypothesis certainly would do, if it were true; and therefore we will briefly examine it. first therefore i answer, that though the scriptures do frequently represent god as the lord and sovereign of the universe, yet it does not conceal his other attributes of goodness and mercy, and the like. but that the former should be so much inculcated, is in reference to the begetting in the people awe and obedience to him. but it is an invalid consequence, to draw from hence that the idea of god does mainly consist in dominion and sovereignty; which abstracted from his other attributes of wisdom and goodness, would be a very black and dark representation of him, and such as this ingenious writer could not himself contemplate without aversation and horror. how then can the idea of god chiefly consist in this? it is the most terrifying indeed, but not the most noble and accomplishing part in the idea of the deity. this sovereignty than is such as is either bounded or not bounded by any other attributes of god. if bounded by none, than he may do as well unwisely as wisely, unjustly as justly. if bounded by wisdom and justice, why is it bounded by them, but that it is better so to be than otherwise? and goodness being as essential to god as wisdom and justice, why may not his sovereignty be bounded by that as well as by the other, and so he be bound from himself of himself to do as well what is best as what is better. this consists with his absolute sovereignty, as well as the other. and indeed what can be absolute sovereignty in an intelligent being, if this be not? viz. fully and entirely to follow the will and inclinations of its own nature, without any check or control of any one touching those over whom he rules. whence, in the second place, it appears that the asserting that god's goodness is a necessary agent (in such a sense as god's wisdom and justice are, which can do nothing but what is wise and just) the asserting, i say, that it cannot but do that which is the best, does neither directly nor indirectly supplant or destroy any rights of his power or dominion, forasmuch as he does fully and plenarily act according to his own inclinations and will touching those that are under his dominion. but that his will is always inclined or determined to what is best, it is the prerogative of the divine nature to have no other wills nor inclinations but such. and as for that in the third place, that this notion of god's goodness is inconsistent with all his other moral perfections, i say, that it is so far from being inconsistent with them, that they cannot subsist without it, as they respect the dealings of god with his creatures. for what a kind of wisdom or justice would that be that tended to no good? but i suspect his meaning is by moral perfections, perfections that imply such a power of doing or not doing, as is in humane actions; which if it be not allowed in god, his perfections are not moral. and what great matter is it if they be not, provided they be as they are and aught to be, divine? but to fancy moral actions in god, is to admit a second kind of anthropomorphitism, and to have unworthy conceits of the divine nature. when it was just and wise for god to do so or so, and the contrary to do otherwise, had he a freedom to decline the doing so? then he had a freedom to do unjustly and unwisely. and yet in the fourth place he contends for the highest kind of liberty in the divine will, such as imports a freedom not only from foreign violence, but also from inward necessity, as if the divine will could be no otherwise determined, than by its own intrinsic energy, as if it willed so because it willed so; which is a sad principle. and yet i believe this learned writer will not stick to say, that god cannot tie, cannot condemn myriads of innocent souls to eternal torments. and what difference betwixt impossibility and necessity? for impossibility itself is only a necessity of not doing; which is here internal, arising from the excellency and absolute perfection of the divine nature. which is nothing like mechanism for all that; forasmuch as it is from a clear understanding of what is best, and an unbiased will, which will most certainly follow it, nor is determined by its own intrinsic energy. that it is otherwise with us, is our imperfection. and lastly, that beneficence does not oblige the receiver of it to either praise or thanksgiving when it is received from one that is so essentially good, and constantly acts according to that principle, when due occasion is offered, as if it were as absurd as to give thanks to the sun for shining when he can do no otherwise; i say, the case is not alike, because the sun is an inanimate being, and has neither understanding nor will to approve his own action in the exerting of it. and he being but a creature, if his shining depended upon his will, it is a greater perfection than we can be assured would belong to him, that he would unfailingly administer light to the world with such a steadiness of will, as god sustains the creation. undoubtedly all thanks and praise is due to god from us, although he be so necessarily good, that he could not but create us and provide for us; forasmuch as he has done this for our sakes merely (he wanting nothing) not for his own. suppose a rich christian so enured to the works of charity, that the poor were as certain of getting an alms from him, as a traveller is to quench his thirst at a public spring near the highway; would those that received alms from him think themselves not obliged to thanks? it may be you will say, they will thank him, that they may not forfeit his favour another time. which answer discovers the spring of this misconceit, which seems founded in self-love, as if all duty were to be resolved into that, and as if there were nothing owing to another, but what implied our own profit. but though the divine goodness acts necessarily yet it does not blindly, but according to the laws of decorum and justice; which those that are unthankful to the deity, may find the smart of. but i cannot believe the ingenious writer much in earnest in these points, he so expressly declaring what methinks is not well consistent with them. for his very words are these: god can never act contrary to his necessary and essential properties, as because he is essentially wise, just and holy, he can do nothing that is foolish, unjust, and wicked. here therefore i demand, are we not to thank him and praise him for his actions of wisdom, justice, and holiness, though they be necessary? and if justice, wisdom, and holiness, be the essential properties of god, according to which he does necessarily act and abstain from acting, why is not his goodness? when it is expressly said by the wisdom of god incarnate, none is good save one, that is god. which must needs be understood of his essential goodness. which therefore being an essential property as well as the rest, he must necessarily act according to it. and when he acts in the scheme of anger and severity, it is in the behalf of goodness; and when he imparts his goodness in lesser measures as well as in greater, it is for the good of the whole, or of the universe. if all were eye, where were the hearing, etc. as the apostle argues? so that his wisdom moderates the prompt outflowing of his goodness, that it may not outflow so, but that in the general it is for the best. and therefore it will follow, that if the pre-existence of souls comply with the wisdom, justice, and holiness of god, that none of these restrain his prompt and parturient goodness, that it must have caused humane souls to pre-exist or exist so soon as the spirits of angels did. and he must have a strange quicksightedness that can discern any clashing of that act of goodness with any of the abovesaid attributes. chap. 7. pag. 56. god never acts by mere will or groundless humour, etc. we men have unaccountable inclinations in our irregular and depraved composition, have blind lusts or desires to do this or that, and it is our present ease and pleasure to fulfil them; and therefore we fancy it a privilege to be able to execute these blind inclinations of which we can give no rational account, but that we are pleased by fulfilling them. but it is against the purity, sanctity, and perfection of the divine nature, to conceive any such thing in him; and therefore a weakness in our judgements to fancy so of him, like that of the anthropomorphites, that imagined god to be of humane shape. pag. 59 that god made all things for himself. it is ignorance and ill nature that has made some men abuse this text to the proving that god acts out of either an humourous or selfish principle, as if he did things merely to please himself as self, not as he is that sovereign unself-inreressed goodness, and perfect rectitude, which ought to be the measure of all things. but the text implies no such matter: for if you make 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a compound of a preposition and pronoun, that so it may signify [for himself] which is no more than propter se, it then will import that he made all things to satisfy his own will and pleasure, whose will and pleasure results from the richness of his eternal goodness and benignity of nature, which is infinite and ineffable, provided always that it be moderated by wisdom, justice, and decorum. for from hence his goodness is so stinted or modified, that though he has made all things for his own will and pleasure who is infinite goodness and benignity, yet there is a day of evil for the wicked, as it follows in the text, because they have not walked answerably to the goodness that god has offered them; and therefore their punishment is in behalf of abused goodness. and bayns expressly interprets this text thus: vniversa propter seipsum fecit dominus; that is, says he, propter bonitatem suam; juxta illud augustini, de doctrina christiana, quia bonus est deus, sumus & in quantum sumus boni sumus. but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may be a compound of a participle and a pronoun, and then it may signify [for them that answer him] that is, walk anserably to his goodness which he affords them, or [for them that obey him] either way it is very good sense. and then in opposition to these, it is declared, that the wicked, that is, the disobedient or despisers of his goodness, he has (not made them wicked, but they having made themselves so) appointed them for the day of evil. for some such verb is to be supplied as is agreeable to the matter, as in that passage in the psalms; the sun shall not burn thee by day, neither the moon by night. where [burn] cannot be repeated, but some other more suitable verb is to be supplied. chap. 8. pag. 63. since all other things are inferior to the good of being. this i suppose is to be understood in such a sense as that saying in job, skin for skin, and all that a man has, will he give for his life. otherwise the condition of being may be such, as it were better not to be at all, whatever any dry-fancied metaphysicians may dispute to the contrary. pag. 67. indeed they may be morally immutable and illapsable; but this is grace, not nature, etc. not unless the divine wisdom has essentially interwoven it into the natural constitution of our souls, that as after such a time of the exercise of their plaistick on these terrestrial bodies, they, according to the course of nature, emerge into a plain use of their reason, when for a time they little differed from brutes; so after certain periods of time well improved to the perfecting their nature in the sense and adherence to divine things, there may be awakened in them such a divine plaistick faculty, as i may so speak, as may eternally fix them to their celestial or angelical vehicles, that they shall never relapse again. which faculty may be also awakened by the free grace of the omnipotent more maturely: which if it be, grace and nature conspire together to make a soul everlastingly happy. which actual immutability does no more change the species of a soul, than the actual exercise of reason does after the time of her stupour in infancy and in the womb. pag. 67. i doubt not but that it is much better for rational creatures, etc. namely, such as we experience our humane souls to be. but for such kind of intellectual creatures as have nothing to do with matter, they best understand the privileges of their own state, and we can say nothing of them. but for us under the conduct of our faithful and victorious captain, the soul of the promised messias, through many conflicts and trials to emerge out of this lapsed state, and regain again the possession of true holiness and virtue, and therewith the kingdom of heaven with all its beauty and glories, will be such a gratification to us, that we had never been capable of such an excess thereof, had we not experienced the evils of this life, and the vain pleasures of it, and had the remembrance of the endearing sufferings of our blessed saviour, of his aids and supports, and of our sincere and conscientious adhering to him, of our conflicts and victories to be enroled in the eternal records of the other world. pag. 69. wherefore as the goodness of god obligeth him not to make every planet a fixed star, or every star a sun, etc. in all likelihood, as galilaeus had first observed, every fixed star is a sun. but the comparison is framed according to the conceit of the vulgar. a thing neither unusual with, nor misbecoming philosophers. pag. 69. for this were to tie him to contradictions, viz. to turn one specifical form or essence into another. matter indeed may receive several modifications, but is still real matter, nor can be turned into a spirit; and so spirits specifically different, are untransmutable one into another, according to the distinct ideas in the eternal intellect of god. for else it would imply that their essential properties were not essential properties, but loose adventitious accidents, and such as the essence and substance of such a spirit, could subsist as well without as with them, or as well with any others as with these. pag. 69. that we should have been made pe●cable and liable to defection. and this may the more easily be allowed, because this defection is rather the affecting of a less good, than any pursuing of what is really and absolutely evil. to cavil against providence for creating a creature of such a double capacity, seems as unreasonable as to blame her for making zoophiton's, or rather amphibion's. and they are both to be permitted to live according to the nature which is given them. for to make a creature fit for either capacity, and to tie him up to one, is for god to do repugnantly to the workmanship of his own hands. and how little hurt there is done by experiencing the things of either element to souls that are reclaimable, has been hinted above. but those that are wilfully obstinate, and do despite to the divine goodness, it is not at all inconsistent with this goodness, that they bear the smart of their obstinacy, as the ingenious author argues very well. chap. 9 pag. 73. have asserted it to be impossible in the nature of the thing, etc. and this is the most solid and unexceptionable answer to this objection, that it is a repugnancy in nature, that this visible world that consists in the motion and succession of things, should be either ab aeterno, or infinite in extension. this is made out clearly and amply in dr. h. moor's enchiridion metaphysicum, cap. 10. which is also more briefly touched upon in his advertisements upon mr. jos glanvil's letter written to him upon the occasion of the stirs at tedworth, and is printed with the second edition of his saducismus triumphatus. we have now seen the most considerable objections against this argument from the goodness of god for proving the pre-existence of souls, produced and answered by our learned author. but because i find some others in an impugner of the opinion of pre-existence urged with great confidence and clamour, i think it not amiss to bring them into view also, after i have taken notice of his acknowledgement of the peculiar strength of this topick, which he does not only profess to be in truth the strongest that is made use of, but seems not at all to envy it its strength, while he writes thus. that god is infinitely good, is a position as true as himself; nor can he that is furnished with the reason of a man, offer to dispute it. goodness constitutes his very deity, making him to be himself: for could he be arrayed with all his other attributes separate and abstract from this, they would be so far from denominating him a god, that he would be but a prodigious fiend, and plenipotentiary devil. this is something a rude and uncourtly asseveration, and unluckily divulsion of the godhead into two parts, and calling one part a devil. but it is not to be imputed to any impiety in the author of no-pre-existence, but to the roughness and boarishness of his style, the texture whereof is not only fustian, but over-often hard and stiff buckram. he is not content to deny his assent to an opinion, but he must give it disgraceful names. as in his epistle to the reader, this darling opinion of the greatest and divinest sages of the world visiting of late the studies of some of more than ordinary wit and learning, he compares it to a bug and sturdy mendicant, that pretends to be some person of quality; but he like a skilful beadle of beggars, lifting up the skirts of her veil, as his phrase is, shows her to be a counterfeit. how this busy beadle would have behaved himself, if he had had the opportunity of lifting up the skirts of moses' veil when he had descended the mount, i know not. i dare not undertake for him, but that according to the coarsness of his fancy he would have mistaken that lucid spirit shining through the skin of moses' face, for some fiery fiend, as he has somewhere the spirit of nature for an hobgoblin. but there is no pleasure in insisting upon the rudenesses of his style; he is best where he is most unlike himself, as he is here in the residue of his description of the divine goodness. 'tis goodness, says he, that is the head and glory of god's perfect essence; and therefore when moses importuned him for a vision of his glory, he engaged to display his goodness to him. could a man think that one that had engaged thus far for the infiniteness of god's goodness, for its headship over the other attributes, for its glory above the rest, nay for its constitutiveness of the very deity, as if this were the only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or god himself, the rest of him divided from this, a prodigious fiend, or plenipotentiary devil, should prove the author of no-pre-existence a very contradiction to this declaration? for to be able to hold no-pre-existence, he must desert the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of god, and betake himself to the devil-part of him, as he has rudely called it, to avoid this pregnant proof for pre-existence taken from the infinite goodness of god. and indeed he has picked out the very worst of that black part of god to serve his turn, and that is self-will in the worst sense. otherwise goodness making god to be himself, if it were his true and genuine self-will, it were the will of his infinite goodness, and so would necessarily imply pre-existence. but to avoid the dint of this argument, he declares in the very same section for the supremacy of the will over the goodness of the divine nature. which is manifestly to contradict what he said before, that goodness is the head and glory of god's perfect essence. for thus will must have a supremacy over the head of the deity. so that there will be an head over an head, to make the godhead a monster. and what is most insufferable of all, that he has chosen an head out of the devil-part of the deity, to use his own rude expression, to control and lord it over what is the only god himself, the rest a fiend separate from this, according to his own acknowledgement. these things are so infinitely absurd, that one would think that he could have no heart to go about to prove them; and yet he adventures on it, and we shall briefly propose and answer what he produceth. and this supremacy of the will, saith he, over the goodness of the divine nature, may be made out both by scripture and other forcible evidences. the scriptures are three; the first, psal. 135. 6. whatsoever the lord pleased, that did he in heaven, and in the earth, and in the seas, and in all deep places. now if we remember but who this lord is, viz. he whom goodness makes to be himself, we may easily be assured what pleased him, namely, that which his wisdom discerned to be the best to be done; and therefore it is very right, that whatsoever he pleased he should do throughout the whole universe. the second place is mat. 20. 15. is it not lawful for me to do what i will with mine own? yes i trow, every one must acknowledge that god has an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (for the word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the original) to dispose of what is his own; and indeed all is his. no one has either a right or power to control him. but this does not prove that he ever disposes of any thing otherwise than according to his wisdom and goodness. if his goodness be ever limited, it is limited by his wisdom, but so then as discerning such a limitation to be for the best. so that the measure of wisdoms determination is still goodness, the only head in the divine nature, to which all the rest is subordinate. for that there are different degrees of the communication of the divine goodness in the universe, is for the good of the whole. it is sufficient to hint these things; it would require a volume to enlarge upon them. and then for the last place, exod. 33. 19 i will be gracious to whom i will be gracious. this only implies that he does pro suo jure, and without any motive from any one but himself, communicate more of his goodness to some men or nations than others. but that his wisdom has not discovered this to be best for the whole constitution of things, i challenge any one to prove. but of this we shall have occasion to speak more afterward. these are the scriptures. the other forcible evidences are these: the first, the late production of the world. the second, the patefaction of the law but to one single people, namely, the jews. the third, the timing the messias' nativity, and bringing it to pass, not in the world's infancy or adolescence, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, heb. 1. 2. in its declining age. the fourth, the perpetuity of hell, and interminableness of those tortures which after this life shall incessantly vex the impious. the fifth and last, god's not perpetuating the station of pre-existent souls, and hindering them from lapsing into these regions of sin and death. these he pretends to be forcible evidences of the sovereignty of gods will over his goodness, forasmuch as if the contrary to all these had been, it had been much more agreeable to the goodness of god. as for the first of these forcible arguments, we have disarmed the strength thereof already, by intimating that the world could not be ab oeterno. and if it could not be ab oeterno, but must commence on this side of eternity, and be of finite years, i leave to the opposer to prove that it has not been created as soon as it could be; and that is sufficient to prove that its late production is not inconsistent with that principle, that god's goodness always is the measure of his actions. for suppose the world of as little continuance as you will, if it was not ab oeterno, it was once of as little; and how can we discern but that this is that very time which seems so little to us? as for the second, which seems to have such force in it, that he appeals to any competent judge, if it had not been infinitely better that god should have apertly dispensed his ordinances to all mankind, than have committed them only to israel in so private and clancular a manner; i say▪ it is impossible for any one to be assured that it is at all better. for first, if this privilege which was peculiar, had been a favour common to all, it had lost its enforcement that it had upon that lesser number. secondly, it had had also the less surprising power with it upon others that were not jews, who might after converse with that nation, and set a more high price upon the truths they had traveled for, and were communicated to them from that people. thirdly, the nature of the thing was not fitted for the universality of mankind, who could not be congregated together to see the wonders wrought by moses, and receive the law with those awful circumstances from mount sinai or any mount else. fourthly, all things happened to them in types, and themselves were a type of the true israel of god to be redeemed out of their captivity under sin and satan, which was worse than any egyptian servitude: wherefore it must be some peculiar people which must be made such a type, not the whole world. fifthly, considering the great load of the ceremonial law which came along with other more proper privileges of the jews, setting one against another, and considering the freedom of other nations from it, unless they brought any thing like it upon themselves, the difference of their conditions will rather seem several modifications of the communicated goodness of god to his creatures, than the neglecting of any: forasmuch as, sixthly and lastly, though all nations be in a lapsed condition, yet there are the relics of the eternal law of life in them. and that things are no better with any of them than they are, that is a thousand times more rationally resolved into their demerits in their pre-existent state than into the bare will of god, that he will have things for many ages thus squalid and forlorn, merely because he will. which is a woman's reason, and which to conceive to belong to god, the author of no-pre-existence has no reason, unless he will allege that he was styled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the ancients for this very cause. wherefore the divine nemesis lying upon the lapsed souls of men in this terrestrial state, whose several delinquencies in the other world and the degrees thereof god alone knows, and according to his wisdom and justice disposes of them in this: it is impossible for any one that is not half crazed in his intellectuals, to pretend that any acts of providence that have been s●nce this stage of the earth was erected, might have been infinitely better otherwise than they have been, or indeed better at all. power, wisdom, goodness, sure did frame this universe, and still guide the same; but thoughts from passion sprung, deceive vain mortals: no man can contrive a better course than what's been run since the first circuit of the sun. this poetical rapture has more solid truth in it than the dry dreams and distorted fancies, or chimerical metamorphoses of earthly either philosophers or theologs, that prescinding the rest of the godhead from his goodness, make that remaining part a foul fiend or devil; and yet almost with the same breath pronounce the will of this devil of their own making, which is the most poisonous part of him, to have a supremacy other the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, over the divine goodness; which makes god to be himself, that is, to be god, and not a plenipotentiary devil. wherefore we see from these few small hints, (for it were an infinite argument fully to prosecute) how feeble or nothing forcible this second evidence is. now for the third evidence, the timing of the messiah's nativity, that it was not in the infancy of the world, but rather in its declining age, or in the latter times. in which times the ancient of days, according to his counsel and purpose, (which the eternal wisdom that was to be incarnate assented and subscribed to) sent his son into the world, the promised messiah. this did the ancient of days and the eternal wisdom agree upon. but oh the immense privilege of youth and confidence! the author of no-pre-existence says, it had been better by far, if they had agreed upon the infancy of the world. as if this young divine were wiser than the ancient of days, or the eternal wisdom itself. ay, but he will modestly reply, that he acknowledges that the ancient of days and the eternal wisdom are wiser than he, but that they would not make use of their wisdom. they saw as clearly as could be, that it was far better that the messiah should come in the infancy of the world; but the father would not send him then, merely because he would not send him: that his will might act freely as mere will prescinded from wisdom and goodness. this is the plain state of the business, and yet admitted by him, who with that open freeness and fullness professes, that prescind the divine goodness from the godhead, what remains is a prodigious fiend or devil. what is then: mere will and power left alone, but a blind hurricane of hell? which yet must have the supremacy, and overpower the divine wisdom and goodness itself. his zeal against pre-existence has thus infatuated and blinded this young writers intellectuals, otherwise he had not been driven to these absurdities, if he had been pleased to admit that hypothesis. as also that wisdom and justice, and fitness and decorum attend the dispensation of divine goodness; so that it is not to be communicated to every subject after the most ample manner, nor at every time, but at such times, and to such subjects, and in such measures as, respecting the whole compages of things, is for the best. so that goodness bears the sovereignty, and according to that rule, perpetually all things are administered, though there be a different scene of things and particulars in themselves vastly varying in goodness and perfection one from another as the parts of the body do. and so for times and ages, every season of the year yield disserent commodities: nor are we to expect roses in winter, nor apples and apricocks in spring. now the infinite and incomprehensible wisdom of god comprehending the whole entire scene of his providence, and what references there are of one thing to another, that this must be thus and thus, because such and such things preceded; and because such things are, such and such must be consequent; which things past and to come lie not under our eye: i say, if this hasty writer had considered this, he need not have been driven to such a rude solution of this present problem, why the messiah came no sooner into the world, viz. merely because god willed it should be so, though it had been far better if it had been otherwise; but he would have roundly confessed, that undoubtedly this was the best time and the fittest, though it was past his reach to discover the reasons of the fitness thereof. this as it had been the more modest, so it had been the more solid solution of this hard problem. i but then it had not put a bar to this irrefragable argument from the goodness of god, for proving pre-existence: which he is persuaded in his own conscience is no less than a demonstration, unless it be acknowledged that the will of god has a supremacy over his goodness; and therefore in spite to that abhorred dogma of pre-existence, he had rather broach such wild stuff against the glory of god, than not to purchase to himself the sweet conceit of a glorious victory over such an opinion that he has taken a groundless toy against, and had rather adventure upon gross blasphemies than entertain it. the devout psalmist, psal. 36. speaking of the decrees of god and his providence over the creation, thy righteousness, says he, is as the great mountains, thy judgements are a great deep. and st. paul, rom. 11. after he has treated of intricate and amazing points, cries out, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, oh the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of god how unsearchable are his judgements, and his ways past finding out! now according to the rudeness of our young writer, there is no such depth of wisdom, or unsearchableness in the judgements and decrees of god and his providences in the world that most amaze us, but the reasons of them lie very obvious and shallow. where we fancy that things might have been better otherwise, (though of never so grand import, as the coming of the messiah is) it is easily resolved into the supremacy of the will of god, which it has over his wisdom and goodness. he willed it should be so, because he would it should be so, though it had been sar better if the messiah had come sooner. but see the difference betwixt an inspired apostle, and a young hotheaded theologist: this latter resolves these unsearchable and unintelligible decrees of god and passages of providence, into the mere will of god, lording it over the divine wisdom and goodness: but the apostle, by how much more unsearchable his judgements and decrees are, and the ways of his providence past finding out, the greater he declares the depth of the richness of his wisdom, which is so ample, that it reaches into ways and methods of doing for the best beyond the understandings of men. for most assuredly, while the depth of the wisdom of god is acknowledged to carry on the ways of providence, it must be also acknowledged that it acts like itself, and chooseth such ways as are best, and most comporting with the divine goodness; or else it is not an act of wisdom, but of humour or oversight. but it may be the reader may have the curiosity to hear briefly what those great arguments are, that should induce this young writer so confidently to pronounce, that it had been far better that the messiah should have come in the infancy of the world, than in the times he came. the very quintessence of the force of his arguing extracted out of the verbosity of his affected style, is neither more nor less than this: that the world be●ore the coming of christ, who was to be the light of the world, was in very great darkness; and therefore the sooner he came, the better. but to break the assurance of this arguer for the more early coming o● christ, first, we may take notice out of himself, chap. 3. that the light of nature is near akin not only to the mosaic law, but to the gospel itself; and that even then there were the assistances of the holy ghost to carry men on to such virtuous accomplishments as might avail them to eternal salvation. this he acknowledges probable, and i have set it down in his own words. whence considering what a various scene of things there was to be ●rom the fall of adam to the end of the world, it became the great and wise dramatist not to bring upon the stage the best things in the first act, but to carry on things pompously and by degrees; something like that saying of elias, two thousand years under the light of nature, two thousand under the law, and then comes the nativity of the messiah, and after a due space the happy millennium, and then the final judgement, the completed happiness of the righteous in heaven, and the punishment of the wicked in hell-fire. but to hasten too suddenly to the best, is to expect autumn in spring, and virility or old age in infancy or childhood, or the catastrophe of a comedy in the first act. secondly, we may observe what a weak disprover he is of pre-existence, which like a giant would break in upon him, were it not that he kept him out by this false sconce of the supremacy of the divine will over his wisdom and goodness; which conceit, how odious and impious it is, has been often enough hinted already. but letting pre-existence take place, and admitting that there is, according to divine providence, an orderly insemination of lapsed souls into humane bodies, through the several ages of the world, whose lapses had several circumstantial differences, and that men therefore become differently fitted objects of grace and favour; how easy is it to conceive god according to the fitnesses of the generality of souls in such or such periods of times, as it was more just, agreeable, or needful for them, so and in such measures to have dispensed the gifts of his ever-watchful and all-comprehending providence to them, for both time and place. this one would think were more tolerable than to say, that god wills merely because he wills; which is the character of a frail woman, rather than of a god, or else, as this writer himself acknowledges, of a fiend or devil. for such, says he, is god in the rest of his attributes, if you seclude his goodness. what then is that action which proceeds only from that part from which goodness is secluded? so that himself has dug down the sconce he would entrench himself in, and lets pre-existence come in upon him, whether he will or no, like an armed giant; whom let him abhor as much as he will, he is utterly unable to resist. and thirdly and lastly, suppose there were no particular probable account to be given by us, by reason of the shortness of our understandings, and the vast fetches of the all-comprehensive providence of god, why the coming of the messiah was no earlier than it was; yet according to that excellent aphorism in morality and politics, optimè praesumendum est de magistratu, we should hope, nay be assured it was the best that he came when he did, it being by the appointment of the infinite good and alwise god, and cry out with st. paul, oh the depth of the riches of both the wisdom and knowledge of god how unsearchable are his judgements, and his ways past finding out! and in the psalmist, thy judgements are like a great deep, o lord, thou preservest man and, beast. and so acknowledge his wisdom and goodness in the ordering his creatures, even there where his ways are to our weak and scant understandings most inexplicable and unsearchable. which wisdom and goodness as we have all reason to acknowledge in all matters, so most of all in matters of the greatest concernment, that there most assuredly god wills not thus or thus merely because he wills, but because his wisdom discerns that it is for the best. and this is sufficient to show the weakness of this third evidence for proving the supremacy of the divine will over his wisdom and goodness. his fourth evidence is, the perpetuity of hell, and interminableness of those tortures which after this life vex the wicked. for, says he, had the penalties of men's sins here been rated by pure goodness, free and uncontrolled by any other principle, it is not probable that they should have been punished by an eternal calamity, the pleasures of them being so transient and fugitive. thus he argues, and almost in the very same words; and therefore concludes, that the authority of gods will interposed, and pro suo jure, having the supremacy over his goodness, over-swayed the more benign decree; and will, because it would have it so, doomed sinners to these eternal torments. but i would ask this sophister, did the will of god in good earnest sentence sinners thus in decree, merely because he willed it, not because it was either good or just? what a black and dismal reproach is here cast upon the divine majesty! that he sentences sinners thus because he will, not because it is just. the sense whereof is, so he will do, right or wrong. but the patriarch abraham was of another mind, shall not the judge of the whole earth do right? this he said even to god's face, as i may so speak. wherefore god doing nothing but what is just, does nothing but what is also good. for justice is nothing but goodness modified. nor is it asserted by those that make goodness the measure of god's providence, that the modification and moderation thereof is not by his wisdom and justice. so that this sophister puts [pure] to goodness, merely to obscure the sense, and put a fallacy upon his reader. the sins of men here are not rated by pure goodness, but by that modification of goodness which is termed justice; which is not a distinct principle from goodness, but a branch thereof, or goodness itself under such a modification, not mere will acting because it will, right or wrong, good or evil. wherefore the state of the question is not, whether the eternal torments of hell are consistent with the pure goodness of god, but with his justice. but if they are eternal merely from his will, without any respect to justice, his will does will what is infinitely beyond the bounds of what is just, because endless is infinitely beyond that which has an end. such gross absurdities does this opposer of pre-existence run into, to fetch an argument from the supposititious supremacy of the will of god over his wisdom and goodness. but as touching the question rightly proposed, whether the perpetuity of hell to sinners consists with the justice of god, a man ought to be chary and wary how he pronounces in this point, that he slip not into what may prove disadvantageous to the hearer. for there are that will be scandalised, and make it serve to an ill end, whether one declare for eternal torments of hell, or against them. some being ready to conclude from their eternity, that religion itself is a mere scarecrow that frights us with such an incredible mormo; others to indulge to their pleasures, because the commination is not frightful enough to deter them from extravagant enjoyments, if hell torments be not eternal. but yet i cannot but deem it a piece of great levity in him that decided the controversy, as the complesant parson did that about the maypole; they of his parish that were for a maypole, let them have a maypole; but they that were not for a maypole, let them have no maypole. but this in sobriety one may say, that the use of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in scripture is indifferent to signify either that which is properly everlasting, or that which lasts a long time. so that by any immediate infallible oracle, we are not able to pronounce for the eternity or perpetuity of hell-torments. and the creeds use the phrase of scripture, and so some may think that they have the same latitude of interpretation. but it is the safest to adhere to the sense of the catholic church, for those that be bewildered in such speculations. but what the writer of no-pre-existence argues from his own private spirit, though it be not inept, yet it is not over-firm and solid. but that the penancies of reprobates are endless, i shall ever thus persuade myself, saith he, either the torments of hell are eternal, or the felicities of heaven are but temporary (which i am sure they shall never be:) for the very same word that is used to express the permanence of the one, measures out the continuance of the other; and if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 denotes everlasting life, a blessedness that shall never end, (mat. 25. ult.) what can 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the same verse signify, but perpetual punishment, a misery that shall never cease? this is pretty handsomely put together, but as i said, does not conclude firmly what is driven at. for it being undeniably true that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies as well that which only is of a long continuance, as what is properly everlasting; and it being altogether rational, that when words have more significations than one, that signification is to be applied that is most agreeable to the subject it is predicated of, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in that higher sense of property and absolutely everlasting, not being applicable to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but upon this writers monstrous supposition that the will of god has a supremacy over his wisdom, goodness, and justice (as if the righteous god could act against his own conscience, which no honest man can do) it is plain, that though 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signify properly everlasting, that there is no necessity that it should signify so in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but have that other signification of long continuance, though not of everlastingness, and that continuance so long, as if considered, would effectually rouse any man out of his sins; and eternity not considered, will not move him. this one would think were enough to repress the confidence of this young writer. but i will add something more out of his fellow anti-pre-existentiary. that comminations are not, though promises be obligatory. forasmuch as in comminations the comminator is the creditor, and he that is menaced the debtor that owes the punishment (with which that latin phrase well agrees, dare poenas) but in promises, he that promiseth becomes debtor, and he to whom the promise is made, creditor. whence the promiser is plainly obliged to make good his promise, as being the debtor: but the comminator, as being the creditor, is not obliged to exact the punishment, it being in the power of any creditor to remit the debt owing him if he will. wherefore in this commination of eternal fire, or everlasting punishment, though 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signify here properly everlasting, as well as in everlasting life, yet because this latter is a promise, the other only a commination, it does not follow, that as surely as the righteous shall be rewarded with everlasting life, so surely shall the wicked be punished with everlasting fire, in the most proper and highest extent of the signification of the word. because god in his comminations to the wicked is only a creditor, and has still a right and power to remit either part or the whole debt; but to the righteous, by virtue of his promise, he becomes a debtor, and cannot recede, but must punctually keep his word. to all which i add this challenge: let this writer, or any else if they can, demonstrate that a soul may not behave herself so perversely, obstinately, and despitefully against the spirit of grace, that she may deserve to be made an everlasting hackstock of the divine nemesis, even for ever and ever. and if she deserve it, it is but just that she have it; and if it be just, it is likewise good. for justice is nothing else but goodness modified in such sort, as wisdom and sense of decorum sees fittest. but the election of wisdom being always for the best, all things considered, it is plain that justice and the execution thereof, is for the best; and that so goodness, not mere will upon pretence of having a supremacy over goodness, would be the measure of this sentencing such obdurate sinners to eternal punishment. and this eternal punishment as it is a piece of vindicative justice upon these obdurate sinners, so it naturally contributes to the establishment of the righteous in their celestial happiness. which, this opposer of pre-existence objects somewhere, if souls ever fell from, they may fall from it again. but these eternal torments of hell, if they needed it, would put a sure bar thereto. so that the wisdom and goodness also of god is upon this account concerned in the eternal punishments of hell, as well as his justice. that it be to the unreclaimable, as that orphick hemistichium calls it, — 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. the fifth and last forcible argument, as he calls them, for the proving the sovereignty of gods will over his goodness, is this. if god's goodness, saith he, be not under the command of his will, but does always what is best, why did it not perpetuate the station of pre-existent souls, and hinder us (if ever we were happy in a sublimer state) from lapsing into these regions of sin and death? but who does not at first sight discern the weakness of this allegation? for it is plainly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, an absurd thing, and contrary to reason, to create such a species of being, whose nature is free and mutable, and at the first dash to damn up or stop the exercise of that freedom and capacity of change, by confining it to a fixed station. as ridiculous as to suppose a living creature made with wings and feet, and yet that the maker thereof should take special care it should never sly nor go. and so likewise, that the mere making of such an order of being's as have a freedom of will, and choice of their actions, that this is misbecoming the goodness of god, is as dull and idiotical a conceit, and such as implies that god should have made but one kind of creature, and that the most absolutely and immutably happy that can be, or else did not act according to his goodness, or for the best: which is so obvious a falsehood, that i will not confute it. but it is not hard to conceive that he making such a free-willed creature as the souls of men, simul cum mundo condito, and that in an happy condition, and yet not ●ixing them in that station, may excellently well accord with the sovereignty of his goodness, nor any one be constrained to have recourse to the supremacy of his will over his goodness, as if he did it because he would do it, and not because it was best. for what can this freedom of will consist in so much as in a temptableness by other objects that are of an inferior nature, not so divine and holy as the other, to which it were the security of the soul to adhere with all due constancy, and therefore her duty. but in that she is temptable by other objects, it is a sign that her present enjoyment of the more divine and heavenly objects, are not received of her according to their excellency, but according to the measure and capacity of her present state, which though very happy, may be improved at the long run, and in an orderly series of times and things, whether the soul lapse into sin or no. for accession of new improvements increaseth happiness and joy. now therefore, i say, suppose several, and that great numbers, even innumerable myriads of pre-existent souls, to lapse into the regions of sin and death, provided that they do not sin perversely and obstinately, nor do despite to the spirit of grace, nor refuse the advantageous offers that divine providence makes them even in these sad regions, why may not their once having descended hither tend to their greater enjoyment, when they shall have returned to their pristine station? and why may not the specifical nature of the soul be such, that it be essentially interwoven into our being, that after a certain period of times or ages, whether she sin or no, she may arrive to a fixedness at last in her heavenly station with greater advantage to such a creature, than if she had been fixed in that state at first. the thing may seem least probable in those that descend into these regions of sin and mortality. but in those that are not obstinate and refractory, but close with the gracious means that is offered them for their recovery, their having been here in this lower state, and retaining the memory (as doubtless they do) of the transactions of this terrestrial stage, it naturally enhances all the enjoyments of the pristine felicity they had lost, and makes them for ever have a more deep and vivid resentment of them. so that through the richness of the wisdom and goodness of god, and through the merits and conduct of the captain of their salvation, our saviour jesus christ, they are, after the strong conflicts here with sin and the corruptions of this lower region, made more than conquerors, and greater gainers upon the losses they sustained before from their own folly. and in this most advantageous state of things, they become pillars in the temple of god, there to remain for ever and ever. so that unless straying souls be exceedingly perverse and obstinate, the exitus of things will be but as in a tragic comedy, and their perverseness and obstinacy lies at their own doors: for those that finally miscarry, whose number this confident writer is to prove to be so considerable that the enhanced happiness of the standing part of pre-existent souls and the recovered does not far preponderate the infelicity of the others condition. which if he cannot do, as i am confident he cannot, he must acknowledge, that god in not forcibly fixing pre-existent souls in the state they were first created, but leaving them to themselves, acted not from the supremacy of his will over his goodness, but did what was best, and according to that sovereign principle of goodness in the deity. and now for that snitling dilemma of this eager opposer of pre-existence, touching the freedom of acting and mutability in humane souls, whether this mutability be a specific properly and essential to them, or a separable accident. for if it were essential, says he, then how was christ a perfect man, his humane nature being ever void of that lapsabilitie which is essential to humanity? and how come men to retain their specific nature still, that are translated to celestial happiness, and made unalterable in the condition they then are? to this i answer, that the pre-existentiaries will admit, that the soul of the messiah was created as the rest, though in an happy condition, yet in a lapsable; and that it was his peculiar merit, in that he so faithfully, constantly, and entirely adhered to the divine principle, incomparably above what was done by others of his classis, notwithstanding that he might have done otherwise; and therefore they will be forward to extend that of the author to the hebrews, chap. 1. v. 8. (thy throne, o god, is for ever and ever, the sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom. thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore god, even thy god, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows) to his behaviour in his pre-existent state, as well as in this. and whenever the soul of christ did exist, if he was like us in all things, sin only excepted, he must have a capacity of sinning, though he would not sin; that capacity not put into act being no sin, but an argument of his virtue, and such as if he was always devoid of, he could not be like us in all things, sin only excepted. for posse peccare non est peccatum. and as for humane souls changing their species in their unalterable heavenly happiness, the species is not then changed, but perfected and completed; namely, that faculty or measure of it in their plastic, essentially latitant there, is by the divine grace so awakened, after such a series of time and things, which they have experienced, that now they are firmly united to an heavenly body or ethereal vehicle for ever. and now we need say little to the other member of the dilemma, but to declare, that free will, or mutability in humane souls, is no separable accident, but of the essential contexture of them; so as it might have its turn in the series of things. and how consistent it was with the goodness of god and his wisdom, not to suppress it in the beginning, has been sufficiently intimated above. wherefore now forasmuch as there is no pretext that either the wisdom or justice of god should straighten the time of the creation of humane souls, so that their existence may not commence with that of angels, or of the universe, and that this figment of the supremacy of god's mere will over his other attributes is blown away, it is manifest that the argument for the pre-existence of souls drawn from the divine goodness, holds firm and irrefragable against whatever opposers. we have been the more copious on this argument, because the opposer and others look upon it as the strongest proof the pre existentiaries produce for their opinion. and the other party have nothing to set against it but a fictitious supremacy of the will of god over his goodness and other attributes. which being their only bulwark, and they taking sanctuary nowhere but here, in my apprehension they plainly herein give up the cause, and establish the opinion which they seem to have such an antipathy against. but it is high time now to pass to the next chapter. chap. 10. p. 75. to have contracted strong and inveterate habits to vice and lewdness, and that in various manners and degrees, etc. to the unbiased this must needs seem a considerable argument, especially when the parties thus irreclaimably profligate from their youth, some as to one vice, others to another, are found such in equal circumstances with others, and advantages, to be good; born of the same parents, educated in the same family, and the like. wherefore having the same bodily extraction, and the same advantages of education, what must make this great difference as they grow up in the body, but that their souls were different before they came into it? and how should they have such a vast difference in the proclivity to vice, but that they lived before in the state of pre-existence, and that some were much deeper in rebellion against god and the divine reason, than others were, and so brought their different conditions with them into these terrestrial bodies? pag. 75. then how a swallow should return to her òld trade of living after her winter sleep, etc. indeed the swallow has the advantages of memory, which the incorporate soul has not in her incorporation into a terrestrial body after her state of silence. but the vital inclinations, which are mainly if not only fitted in the plastic, being not only revived, but (signally vicious of themselves) revived with advantage, by reason of the corruption of this corpse earthly body into which the soul is incorporate, they cannot fail of discovering themselves in a most signal manner, without any help of memory, but from the mere pregnancy of a corrupt body, and formerly more than ordinarily debauched plastic in the state of pre-existence. pag. 76. whenas others are as fatally set against the opinions, etc. and this is done, as the ingenious author takes notice, even where neither education nor custom have interposed to sophisticate their judgements or sentiments. nay, it is most certain, that they sometime have sentiments and entertain opinions quite contrary to their education. so that that is but a slight account, to restore this phaenomenon into education and custom, whenas opinions are entertained and stiffly maintained in despite of them. this i must confess implies that the aerial inhabitants philosophise, but conjecturally only, as well as the inhabitants of the earth. and it is no wonder that such spirits as are lapsed in their morals, should be at a loss also in their intellectuals▪ and though they have a desire to know the truth in speculations, it suiting so well with their pride, that yet they should be subject to various errors and hallucinations as well as we, and that there should be different, yea opposite schools of philosophy among them. and if there be any credit to be given to cardan's story of his father facius cardanus, things are thus the facto in the aereal regions. and two of the spirits which facius cardanus saw in that vision (left upon record by him, and of which he often told his son hieronymus while he was living) were two professors of philosophy in different academies, and were of different opinions; one of them apertly professing himself to be an aven-roist. the story is too long to insert here. see dr. h. moor his immortality of the soul, book 3. chap. 17. so that lapsed souls philosophising in their aerial state, and being divided into sects, and consequently maintaining their different or opposite opinions with heat and affection which reaches the plastic, this may leave a great propension in them to the same opinions here, and make them almost as prone to such and such errors, as to such and such vices. this, i suppose, the ingenious author propounds as an argument credible and plausible, though he does not esteem it of like force with those he produced before. nor does his opposer urge any thing to any purpose against it. the main thing is, that these propensities to some one opinion are not universal, and blended with the constitution of every person, but are thin sown▪ and grow up sparingly. where there are five, says he, naturally bend to any one opinion, there are many millions that are free to all. if some, says he, descend into this life big with aptnesses and proclivities to peculiar theories, why then should not all, supposing they pre-existed together, do the like? as if all in the other aereal state were professors of philosophy, or zealous followers of them that were. the solution of this difficulty is so easy, that i need not insist on it. pag. 78. were this difference about sensibles, the influence of the body might then be suspected for a cause, etc. this is very rationally alleged by our author, and yet his antagonist has▪ the face from the observation of the diversity of men's palates and appetites, of their being differently affected by such and such strains of music, some being pleased with one kind of melody, and others with another, some pleased with aromatic odours, others offended with them, to reason thus: if the body can thus cause us to love and dislike sensibles, why not as well to approve and dislike opinions and theories? but the reason is obvious why not; because the liking or disliking of these sensibles depends upon the grateful or ungrateful motion of the nerves of the body, which may be otherwise constituted or qualified in some complexions than in other some but for philosophical opinions and theories ' what have they to do with the motion of the nerves? it is the soul herself that judges of those abstractedly from the senses, or any use of the nerves or corporeal organ. if the difference of our judgement in philosophical theories be resolvible into the mere constitution of our body, our understanding itself will hazard to be resolved into the same principle also: and body will prove the only difference betwixt men and brutes. we have more intellectual souls because we have better bodies, which i hope our author's antagonist will not allow. pag. 78. for the soul in her first and pure nature has no idiosyncrasies', &c. whether there may not be certain different characters proper to such and such classes of souls, but all of them natural and without blemish, and this for the better order of things in the universe, i will not rashly decide in the negative. but as the author himself seems to insinuate, if there be any such, they are not such as fatally determine souls to false and erroneous apprehensions. for that would be a corruption and a blemish in the very natural character. wherefore if the soul in philosophical speculations is fatally determined to falsehood in this life, it is credible it is the effect of its being enured thereto in the other. pag. 79. now to say that all this variety proceeds primarily from the mere temper of our bodies, etc. this argument is the less valid for pre-existence, i mean that which is drawn from the wonderful variety of our genius's, or natural inclinations to the employments of life, because we cannot be assured but that the divine providence may have essentially, as it were, impressed such classical characters on humane souls, as i noted before. and besides, if that be true which menander says, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. that every man, as soon as he is born, has a genius appointed him to be his instructor and guide of his life: that some are carried with such an impetus to some things rather than others, may be from the instigations of his assisting genius. and for that objection of the author's antagonist against his opinion touching those inclinations to trades, (which may equally concern this hypothesis of menander) that it would then be more universal, every one having such a genius; this truth may be smothered by the putting young people promiscuously to any trade, without observing their genius. but the chineses suppose this truth, they commonly showing a child all the employs of the city, that he may make his own choice before they put him to any. but if the opinion of menander be true, that every man has his guardian genius, under whose conduct he lives; the merchant, the musician, the ploughman, and the rest; it is manifest that these genii cannot but receive considerable impressions of such things as they guide their clients in. and pre-existent souls in their aereal estate being of the same nature with these daemons or genii, they are capable of the same employment, and so tincture themselves deep enough with the affairs of those parties they preside over. and therefore when they themselves, after the state of silence, are incorporated into earthly bodies, they may have a proneness from their former tincture to such methods of life as they lived over whom they did preside. which quite spoils the best argument our author's antagonist has against this topick; which is, that there are several things here below which the geniusses of men pursue and follow with the hottest chase, which have no similitude with the things in the other state, as planting, building, husbandry, the working of manufactures, etc. this best argument of his, by menander's hypothesis, which is hard to confute, is quite defeated. and to deny nothing to this opposer of pre-existence which is his due, himself seems unsatisfied, in resolving these odd phaenomena into the temper of body. and therefore at last hath recourse to a secret causality, that is, to he knows not what. but at last he pitches upon some such principle as that whereby the birds build their nest, the spider weaves her webs, the bees make their combs, etc. some such thing he says (though he cannot think it that prodigious hobgoblin the spirit of nature) may produce these strange effects, may bias also the fancies of men in making choice of their employments and occupations. if it be not the spirit of nature, than it must be that classical character i spoke of above. but if not this, nor the preponderancies of the pre-existent state, nor menander's hypothesis, the spirit of nature will bid the fairest for it of any besides, for determining the inclinations of all living creatures in these regions of generation, as having in itself vitally, though not intellectually, all the laws of the divine providence implanted into its essence by god the creator of it. and speaking in the ethnic dialect, the same description may belong to it that varro gives to their god genius. genius est deus qui proepositus est, ac vim habet omnium rerum gignendarum, and that is the genius of every creature that is congenit to it in virtue of its generation. and that there is such a spirit of nature (not a god, as varro vainly makes it, but an unintelligent creature) to which belongs the nascency or generation of things, and has the management of the whole matter of the universe, is copiously proved to be the opinion of the noblest and ancientest philosophers, by the learned dr. r. cudworth in his system of the intellectual world, and is demonstrated to be a true theorem in philosophy by dr. h. moor in his euchiridion metaphysicum, by many, and those irrefutable arguments; and yet i dare say both can easily pardon the mistake and bluntness of this rude writer, nor are at all surprised at it as a novelty, that any ignorant rural hobthurst should call the spirit of nature (a thing so much beyond his capacity to judge of) a prodigious hobgoblin. but to conclude, be it so that there may be other causes besides the pristine inurements of the pre-existent soul, that may something forcibly determine her to one course of life here, yet when she is most forcibly determined, if there be such a thing as pre-existence, this may be rationally supposed to concur in the efficiency. but that it is not so strong an argument as others to prove pre-existence, i have hinted already. pag. 79. for those that are most like in the temper, air, complexion of their bodies, etc. if this prove true, and i know nothing to the contrary, this vast difference of genius's, were it not for the hypothesis of their classical character imprinted on souls at their very creation, would be a considerably tied argument. but certainly it is more honest than for the avoiding pre-existence to resolve the phaenomenon into a secret causality, that is to say, into one knows not what. pag. 82. there being now no other way left but pre-existence, etc. this is a just excuse for his bringing in any argument by way of overplus that is not so apodictically concluding. if it be but such as will look like a plausible solution of a phaenomenon (as this of such a vast difference of genius's) pre-existence once admitted, or otherwise undeniably demonstrated, the proposing thereof should be accepted with favour. chap. 11. pag. 85. and we know our saviour and his apostles have given credit to that translation, etc. and it was the authentic text with the fathers of the primitive church. and besides this, if we read according to the hebrew text, there being no object of job's knowledge expressed, this is the most easy and natural sense: knowest thou that thou wast then, and that the number of thy days are many? this therefore was reckoned amongst the rest of his ignorances', that though he was created so early, he now knew nothing of it. and this easy sense of the hebrew text, as well as that version of the septuagint, made the jews draw it in to the countenancing of the tradition of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, the pre-existence of souls, as grotius has noted of them. pag. 85. as reads a very credible version. r. menasse ben israel reads it so: [i gave thee wisdom,] which version, if it were sure and authentic, this place would be fit for the defence of the opinion it is produced for. but no interpreters besides, that i can find, following him, nor any going before him, whom he might follow, i ingenuously confess the place seems not of force enough to me to infer the conclusion. he read, i suppose, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in piel, whence he translated it, indidi tibi sapientiam; but the rest read it in cal. pag. 86. and methinks that passage of our saviour's prayer, father, glorify me with the glory i had before the world began, etc. this text, without exceeding great violence, cannot be evaded. as for that of grotius interpreting [that i had] that which was intended for me to have, though it make good sense, yet it is such grammar as that there is no schoolboy but would be ashamed of it; nor is there, for all his pretences, any place in scripture to countenance such an extravagant exposition by way of parallelism, as it may appear to any one that will compare the places which he alleadges, with this; which i leave the reader to do at his leisure. let us consider the context, joh. 17. 4. i have glorified thee upon earth, during this my pilgrimage and absence from thee, being sent hither by thee. i have finished the work which thou gavest me to do, and for the doing of which i was sent, and am thus long absent. and now, o father, glorify me, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, apud teipsum, in thine own presence, with the glory which i had before the world was, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, apud te, or in thy presence. what can be more expressive of a glory which christ had apud patrem, or at his father's home, or in his presence before the world was, and from which for such a time he had been absent? now for others that would salve the business by communication of idioms, i will set down the words of an ingenious writer that goes that way: those predicates, says he, that in a strict and vigorous acception agreed only to his divine nature, might by a communication of idioms (as they phrase it) be attributed to his humane, or at least to the whole person compounded of them both, than which nothing is more ordinary in things of a mixed and heterogeneous nature, as the whole man is styled immortal from the deathlessness of his soul: thus he. and there is the same reason if he had said that man was styled mortal (which certainly is far the more ordinary) from the real death of his body, though his soul be immortal. this is wittily excogitated. but now let us apply it to the text, expounding it according to his communication of idioms, affording to the humane nature what is only proper to the divine, thus. father, glorify me [my humane nature] with the glory that i [my divine nature] had before the world was. which indeed was to be the eternal, infinite, and omnipotent brightness of the glory of the father 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. this is the glory which his divine nature had before the world was. but how can this humane nature be glorified with that glory his divine nature had before the world was, unless it should become the divine nature, that it might be said to have pre-existed? (but that it cannot be. for there is no confusion of the humane and divine nature in the hypostasis of christ:) or else because it is hypostatically united with the divine nature; but if that be the glory, that he then had already, and had it not (according to the opposers of pre-existence) before the world was. so we see there is no sense to be made of this text by communication of idioms, and therefore no sense to be made of it without the pre-existence of the humane nature of christ. and if you paraphrase [me] thus, my hypostasis consisting of my humane and divine nature, it will be as untoward sense. for if the divine nature be included in [me] then christ prays for what he has aleady, as i noted above. for the glory of the eternal logos from everlasting to everlasting, is the same, as sure as he is the same with himself. pag. 86. by his expressions of coming from the father, descending from heaven, and returning thither again, etc. i suppose these scriptures are alluded to, john 3. 13. 6. 38. 16. 28. i came down from heaven not to do my own will, but the will of him that sent me. i came forth from the father, and am come into the world; again i leave the world, and go to the father. whereupon his disciples said unto him, lo now speakest thou plainly, and speakest no parable. but it were a very great parable, or aenigm, that one should say truly of himself, that he came from heaven, when he never was there. and as impossible a thing is it to conceive how god can properly be said to come down from heaven, who is always present every where. wherefore that in christ which was not god, namely his soul, or humane nature, was in heaven before he appeared on earth, and consequently his soul did pre-exist. nor is there any refuge here in the communication of idioms. for that cannot be attributed to the whole hypostasis, which is competent to neither part that constitutes it. for it was neither true of the humane nature of christ, if you take away pre-existence, nor of the divine, that they descended from heaven, etc. and yet john 3. 13, 14. where christ prophesying of his crucifixion and ascension, saith, no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the son of man, [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] who was in heaven. so erasmus saith, it may be rendered a participle of the present tense, having a capacity to signify the time past, if the sense require it, as it seems to do here. qui erat in coelo, viz. antequam descenderat. so erasmus upon the place. wherefore these places of scripture touching christ being such inexpugnable arguments of the pre-existence of the soul of the messiah; the writer of no pre-existence, methinks, is no where so civil or discreet as in this point. where, he says, he will not squabble about this, but readily yield that the soul of christ was long extant before it was incarnate. but then he presently flings dirt upon the pre-existentiaries, as guilty of a shameful presumption and inconsequence, to conclude the pre-existence of all other humane souls from the pre-existence of his. because he was a peculiar favourite of god, was to undergo bitter sufferings for mankind; and therefore should enjoy an happy pre-existence for an anti-praemium. and since he was to purchase a church with his own most precious blood, it was fit he should pre-exist from the beginning of the world, that he might preside over his church as guide and governor thereof; which is a thing that cannot be said of any other soul beside. this is a device which, i believe, the pre-existentiaries, good men, never dreamt of, but they took it for granted, that the creation of all humane souls was alike, and that the soul of christ was like ours in all things, sin only excepted; as the emperor justinian, in his discourse to menas patriarch of constantinople, argues from this very topick to prove the non-pre-existence of our souls, from the non-pre-existence of christ's, he being like us in all things, sin only excepted. and therefore as to existence and essence there was no difference. thus one would have verily thought to have been most safe and most natural to conclude, as being so punctual according to the declaration of scripture, and order of things. for it seems almost as harsh and repugnant to give angelical existence to a species not angelical, as angelical essence. for according to them, it belongs to angels only to exist a mundo condito, not to humane souls. let us therefore see what great and urgent occasions there are, that the almighty should break this order. the first is, that he may remonstrate the soul of the messiah to be his most special favourite. why? that is sufficiently done, and more opportunely, if other souls pre-existed to be his corrivals. but his faithful adhesion above the rest to the law of his maker, as it might make him so great a favourite: so that transcendent privilege of being hypostatically united with the godhead, or eternal logos, would, i trow, be a sufficient testimony of god's special favour to him above all his fellow pre-existent souls. and then, which is the second thing for his anti-praemial happiness (though it is but an hysteron proteron, and preposterous conceit, to fancy wages before the work) had he less of this by the coexistence of other souls with him, or was it not rather the more highly increased by their coexistencie? and how oddly does it look, that one solitary individual of a species should exist for god knows how many ages alone? but suppose the soul of the messiah, and all other souls created together, and several of them fallen, and the soul of the messiah to undertake their recovery by his sufferings, and this declared amongst them; surely this must hugely enhance his happiness and glory through all the whole order of humane souls, being thus constituted or designed head and prince over them all. and thus, though he was rejected by the jews and despised, he could not but be caressed and adored by his fellowsouls above, before his descent to this state of humiliation. and who knows but this might be part at least of that glory which, he says, he had before the world was? and which this ungrateful world denied him, while he was in it, who crucified the lord of life. and as for the third and last, that the soul of the messiah was to pre-exist, that he might preside over the church all along from the beginning of it: what necessity is there of that? could not the eternal logos and the ministry of angels sufficiently discharge that province? but you conceive a congruity therein; and so may another conceive a congruity that he should not enter upon his office till there were a considerable lapse of humane souls which should be his care to recover; which implies their pre-existence before this stage of the earth: and if the soul of the messiah, united with the logos, presided so early over the church; that it was meet that other unlapsed souls, they being of his own tribe, should be his satellitium, and be part of those ministering spirits that watch for the churches good, and zealously endeavour the recovery of their sister-souls, under the conduct of the great soul of the messiah, out of their captivity of sin and death. so that every way pre-existence of other souls will handsomely fall in with the pre-existence of the soul of the messiah, that there may be no breach of order, wherias there is no occasion for it, nor violence done to the holy writ, which expressly declares christ to have been like to us in all things (as well in existence as essence) sin only excepted; as the emperor earnestly urges to the patriarch menas. wherefore we finding no necessity of his particular pre-existing, nor convenience, but what will be doubled if other souls pre-exist with him; it is plain, if he pre-exist, it is as he is an humane soul, not as such a particular soul; and therefore what proves his soul to pre-exist, proves others to pre-exist also. pag. 87. since these places have been more diffusely urged in a late discourse to this purpose. i suppose he means in the letter of resolution concerning origen, where the author opens the sense of philip. 2. 6. learnedly and judiciously, especially when he acknowledges christ's being in the form of god, to be understood of his physical union with the divine logos. which is the ancient orthodox exposition of the primitive fathers, they taking this for one notable testimony of scripture, for the divinity of christ. whenas they that understand it politically of christ's power and authority only, take an excellent weapon out of the hands of the church wherewith she used to oppose the impugners of christ's divinity. but how can christ being god (verus deus, as vatablus expounds 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉,) empty himself, or any way deteriorate himself as to his divinity, by being incarnate, and taking upon him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the form of the terrestrial adam? for every earthly man is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as the apostle seems to intimate, rom. 8. 21. as this ingenious writer has noted; and the apostle likewise seems so to expound it in the text, by adding presently by way of exegesis, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and was made in the likeness of men; like that gen. 5. 3. adam begot a son in his own likeness, a terrestrial man as himself was. wherefore the incarnation of christ being no exinanition to his divinity, there was an humanity of christ, viz. his soul, in a glorious state of pre-existence, to which this voluntary exinanition belonged. pag. 87. was it for this man's sin, or his fathers, that he was born blind? for the avoiding the force of this argument for proving that pre-existence was the opinion of the jews; and that christ when it was so plainly implied in the question, by his silence, or not reproving it, seemed to admit it, or at least to esteem it no hurtful opinion: they allege these two things: first, that these enquirers having some notions of the divine prescience, might suppose that god foreknowing what kind of person this blind man would prove, had antedated his punishment. the other is, that the enquirers may be conceived to understand the blind man's original sin. so that when they enquired whether the man was born blind for his own or his parent's sin, they might only ask whether that particular judgement was the effect of his parents, or of his own original pravity. this is cameron's. but see what forced conceits learned men will entertain, rather than not to say something on a text. what a distorted and preposterous account is that found, that god should punish men before they sin, because he foresees they will sin? and he only produces this example, and a slight one too, that jeroboams hand was dried up as he stretched it forth to give a sign to apprehend the prophet. and the other is as fond an account, that god should send such severe judgements on men for their original pravity, which they cannot help. and original pravity being so common to all, it could be no reason why this particular man should be born blind, more than others. wherefore grotius far more ingenuously writes thus upon the place: quoerunt ergo an ipse peccaverit, quia multi judoeorum credebant 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 animarum. and as our saviour christ passed it for an innocent opinion, so did the primitive church, the book of wisdom being an allowable book with them, and read in public, though it plainly declare for pre-existence, chap. 8. 20. chap. 12. p. 93. therefore let the reader, if he please, call it a romantic scheme, or imaginary hypothesis, etc. this is very discreetly and judiciously done of the author, to propose such things as are not necessary members or branches of pre-existence, and are but at the best conjectural, as no part of that otherwise-useful theory. for by tacking too fast these unnecessary tufts or tassels to the main truth, it will but give occasion to wanton or wrathful whelps to worry her, and tug her into the dirt by them. and we may easily observe how greedily they catch at such occasions, though it be not much that they can make out of them, as we may observe in the next chapter. chap. 13. pag. 96. pill. 1. to conceive him as an immense and all-glorious sun, that is continually communicating, etc. and this as certainly as the sun does his light, and as restrainedly. for the sun's light is not equally imparted to all subjects, but according to the measure of their capacity. and as nature limits here in natural things, so does the wisdom and justice of god in free creatures. he imparts to them as they capacitate themselves by improving or abusing their freedom. pag. 100 pill. 3. be resolved into a principle that is not merely corporeal. he suspects that the descent of heavy bodies, when all is said and done, must be resolved into such a principle. but i think he that without prejudice peruses the eleventh and thirteenth chapters (with their scholia) of dr. mores enchiridion metaphysicum, will find it beyond suspicion, that the descent of heavy bodies is to be resolved into some corporeal principle; and that the spirit of nature, though you should call it with the cabalists by that astartling name of sandalphon, is no such prodigious hobgoblin, as rudeness and presumptuous ignorance has made that buckram writer in contempt and derision to call it. pag. 101. as naturally as the fire mounts, and a stone descends. and as these do not so (though naturally) merely from their own intrinsic nature, but in virtue of the spirit of the universe; so the same reason there is in the disposal of spirits. the spirit of nature will range their plastics as certainly and orderly in the regions of the world, as it does the matter itself in all places. whence that of plotinus may fitly be understood, that a soul enveigled in viciousness, both here and after death, according to her nature 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is thrust into the state and place she is, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as if she were drawn thither by certain invisible or magical strings of natures own pulling. thus is he pleased to express this power or virtue of the spirit of nature in the universe. but i think that transposition she makes of them is rather 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, than either 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a transvection of them, rather than pulsion or traction. but these are overnice curiosities. pag. 101. as likely some things relating to the state of spirits, etc. that is to say, spirits by the ministry of other spirits may be carried into such regions as the spirit of nature would not have transmitted them to, from the place where they were before, whether for good or evil. of the latter kind whereof, i shall have occasion to speak more particularly in my notes on the next chapter. pag. 102. pill. 4. the souls of men are capable of living in other bodies besides terrestrial, etc. for the pre-existentiaries allow her successively to have lived, first, in an ethereal body, then in an aereal; and lastly, after the state of silence, to live in a terrestrial. and here i think, though it be something early, it will not be amiss to take notice what the anti-pre-existentiaries alleged against this hypothesis; for we shall have the less trouble afterwards. first, therefore, they say, that it does not become the goodness of god to make man's soul with a triple vital congruity, that will fit as well an aereal and terrestrial condition, as an aethereal. for from hence it appears, that their will was not so much in fault that they sinned, as the constitution of their essence: and they have the face to quote the account of origen, pag. 49. for to strengthen this their first argument. the words are these: they being originally made with a capacity to join with this terrestrial matter, it seems necessary according to the course of nature that they should sink into it, & so appear terrestrial men. and therefore, say they, there being no descending into these earthly bodies without a lapse or previous sin, their very constitution necessitated them to sin. the second argument is, that this hypothesis is inconsistent with the body's resurrection. for the aereal body immediately succeeding the terrestrial, and the aethereal the aereal, the business is done, there needs no resuscitation of the terrestrial body to be glorified. nor is it the same numerical body or flesh still, as it ought to be, if the resurrection-body be aethereal. the third is touching the aereal body; that if the soul after death be tied to an aereal body (and few or none attain to the aethereal immediately after death) the souls of very good men will be forced to have their abode amongst the very devils. for their prince is the prince of the air, as the apostle calls him; and where can his subjects be, but where he is? so that they will be enforced to endure the company of these foul fiends; besides all the incommodious changes in the air, of clouds, of vapours, of rain, hail, thunder, tearing tempests and storms; and what is an image of hell itself, the darkness of night will overwhelm them every four and twenty hours. the fourth argument is touching the aethereal state of pre-existence. for if souls when they were in so heavenly and happy an estate could lapse from it, what assurance can we have, when we are returned thither, that we shall abide in it? it being but the same happiness we were in before: and we having the same plastic with its triple vital congruity, as we had before. why therefore may we not lapse as before? the fifth and last argument is taken from the state of silence. wherein the soul is supposed devoid of perception. and therefore their number being many, and their attraction to the place of conception in the womb being merely magical, and reaching many at a time, there would be many attracted at once; so that scarce a foetus could be form which would not be a multiform monster, or a cluster of humane foetus', not one single foetus. and these are thought such weighty arguments, that pre-existence must sink and perish under their pressure. but, i believe, when we have weighed them in the balance of unprejudiced reason, we shall find them light enough. and truly, for the first; it is not only weak and slight, but wretchedly disingenuous. the strength of it is nothing but a maimed and fraudulent quotation, which makes ashew as if the author of the account of origen, bluntly affirmed, without any thing more to do, that souls being originally made with a capacity to join with this terrestrial matter, it seems necessary, according to the course of nature, that they should sink into it, and so appear terrestrial men: whenas if we take the whole paragraph as it lies, before they cast themselves into this fatal necessity, they are declared to have a freedom of will, whereby they might have so managed their happy estate they were created in, that they need never have fallen. his words are these: what then remains, but that through the faulty and negligent use of themselves, whilst they were in some better condition of life, they rendered themselves less pure in the whole extent of their powers, both intellectual and animal; and so by degrees became disposed for the susception of such a degree of corporeal life, as was less pure, indeed, than the former; but exactly answerable to their present disposition of spirit. so that after certain periods of time they might become far less fit to actuate any sort of body, than the terrestrial; and being originally made with a capacity to join with this too, and in it to exercise the powers and functions of life, it seems necessary, etc. these are the very words of the author of the account of origen, wherein he plainly affirms, that it was the fault of the souls themselves, that they did not order themselves then right when they might have done so, that cast them into this terrestrial condition. but what an opposer of pre-existence is this, that will thus shamelessly falsify and corrupt a quotation of an ingenious author, rather than he will seem to want an argument against his opinion! wherefore briefly to answer to this argument, it does as much become the goodness of god to create souls with a triple vital congruity, as to have created adam in paradise with free will, and a capacity of sinning. to the second, the pre-existentiaries will answer, that it is no more absurd to conceive (nor so much) that the soul after death hath an airy body, or it may be some an ethereal one, than to imagine them so highly happy after death without any body at all. for if they can act so fully and beatifically without any body, what need there be any resurrection of the body at all? and if it be most natural to the soul to act in some body, in what a long unnatural estate has adam's soul been, that so many thousand years has been without a body? but for the soul to have a body, of which she may be the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, certainly is most natural, or else she will be in an unnatural state after the resurrection to all eternity. whence it is manifest, that it is most natural for the soul, if she act at all, to have a body to act in. and therefore, unless we will be so dull as to fall into the drowsy dream of the pyschopannychites, we are to allow the soul to have some kind of body or other till the very resurrection. but those now that are not psychopannychites, but allow good souls the joys and glories of paradise before the resurrection of the body, let them be demanded to what end the soul should have a resurrection-body; and what they would answer for themselves, the pre-existentiaries will answer for their position that holds the soul has an aethereal body already, or an aereal one which may be changed into an aethereal body. if they will allege any concinnity in the business, or the firm promise of more highly completing our happiness at the union of our terrestrial bodies with our souls at the resurrection; this, i say, may be done as well supposing them to have bodies in the mean time as if they had none. for those bodies they have made use of in the interval betwixt their death and resurrection, may be so thin and dilute, that they may be no more considerable than an interula is to a royal robe lined with rich furs, and embroidered with gold. for suppose every man's body at the resurrection framed again out of its own dust, bones, sinews and flesh, by the miraculous power of god, were it not as easy for these subtle spirits, as it is in the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to enter these bodies, and by the divine power assisting, so to inactuate them, that that little of their vehicle they brought in with them, shall no more destroy the individuation of the body, than a draught of wine drunk in, does the individuation of our body now, though it were, immediately upon the drinking, actuated by the soul. and the soul at the same instant actuating the whole aggregate, it is tightly the same numerical body, even to the utmost curiosity of the schoolmen. but the divine assistance working in this, it is not to be thought that the soul will lose by resuming this resurrection-body, but that all will be turned into a more full and saturate brightness and glory, and that the whole will become an heavenly, spiritual, and truly glorified body, immortal and incorruptible. nor does the being thus turned into an heavenly or spiritual body, hinder it from being still the same numerical body, forasmuch as one and the same numerical matter, let it be under what modifications it will, is still the same numerical matter or body; and it is gross ignorance in philosophy that makes any conceive otherwise. but a rude and illnatured opposer of pre-existence is not content that it be the same numerical body, but that this same numerical body be still flesh, peevishly and invidiously thereby to expose the author of the account of origen, who, pag. 120. writes thus: that the body we now have, is therefore corruptible and mortal, because it is flesh; and therefore if it put on incorruption and immortality, it must put off itself first, and cease to be flesh. but questionless that ingenious writer understood this of natural ●lesh and blood, of which the apostle declares, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of god. but as he says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, there is a natural body and there is a spiritual body: so if he had made application of the several kinds of flesh he mentions, of men, of beasts, of fishes, and birds, he would have presently subjoined. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, there is a natural flesh and there is a spiritual flesh. and 'tis this spiritual flesh to which belongs incorruption and immortality, and which is capable of the kingdom of heaven. but for the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the natural flesh, it must put off itself, and cease to be natural flesh, before it can put on immortality and incorruption. so little inconsistency is there of this hypothesis (as touching the souls acting in either an aereal or aethereal vehicle, during the interval betwixt the resurrection and her departure hence) with the resurrection of the body. but in the mean time, there is a strong bar thereby put to the dull dream of the psychopanychiles, and other harshnesses also eased or smoothed by it. now as for the third argument, which must needs seem a great scarecrow to the illiterate, there is very little weight or none at all in it. for if we take but notice of the whole atmosphere, what is the dimension thereof, and of the three regions into which it is distributed, all these bugbears will vanish. as for the dimension of the whole atmosphere, it is by the skilful reputed about fifty to italic miles high, the convex of the middle region thereof about four such miles, the concave about half a mile. now this distribution of the air into these three regions being thus made, and the hebrew tongue having no other name to call the expansum about us, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 heaven, here is according to them a distribution of heaven into three, and the highest region will be part of the third heaven. this therefore premised, i answer, that though the souls of good men after death be detained within the atmosphere of the air, (and the air itself haply may reach much higher than this atmosphere that is bounded by the mere ascent of exhalations and vapours) yet there is no necessity at all that they should be put to those inconveniencies, which this argument pretends, from the company of devils, or incommodious changes and disturbances of the air. for suppose such inconveniencies in the middle and lowest region, yet the upper region, which is also part of the third heaven, those parts are ever calm and serene. and the devil's principality reaching no further than through the middle and lowest region next the earth, (not to advertise that his quarters may be restrained there also) the souls of the departed that are good, are not liable to be pestered and haunted with the ungrateful presence or occursions of the deformed and grim retinue, or of the vagrant vassals of that foul fiend, that is prince of the air, he being only so of these lower parts thereof, and the good souls having room enough to consociate together in the upper region of it. nor does that promise of our saviour to the thief on the cross, that that very day he should be with him in paradise, at all clash with this hypothesis of aereal bodies, both because christ by his miraculous power might confer that upon the penitent thief his fellow-sufferer, which would not fall to the share of other penitents in a natural course of things; and also because this third region of the air may be part of paradise itself: (in my father's house there are many mansions) and some learned men have declared paradise to be in the air, but such a part of the air as is free from gross vapours and clouds; and such is the third region thereof. in the mean time we see the souls of good men departed, freed from those panic fears of being infested either by the unwelcome company of fiends and devils, or incommodated by any dull cloudy obscurations, or violent and tempestuous motions of the air. only the shadowy vale of the night will be cast over them once in a nycthemeron. but what incommodation is that, after the brisk active heat of the sun in the daytime, to have the variety of the more mild beams of the moon, or gentle, though more quick and cheerful, scintillations of the twinkling stars? this variety may well seem an addition to the felicity of their state. and the shadowyness of the night may help them in the more composing introversions of their contemplative mind, and cast the soul into ineffably pleasing slumbers and divine ecstasies; so that the transactions of the night may prove more solacing and beatific sometimes, than those of the day. such things we may guests at afar off, but in the mean time be sure, that these good and serious souls know how to turn all that god sends to them to the improvement of their happiness. to the fourth argument we answer, that there are not a few reasons from the nature of the thing that may beget in us a strong presumption that souls recovered into their celestial happiness will never again relapse, though they did once. for first, it may be a mistake that the happiness is altogether the same that it was before. for our first paradisiacal bodies from which we lapsed, might be of a more crude and dilute aether, not so full and saturate with heavenly glory and perfection as our resurrection-body is. secondly, the soul was then unexperienced, and lightly coming by that happiness she was in, did the more heedlessly forgo it, before she was well aware; and her mind roved after new adventures, though she knew not what. thirdly, it is to be considered, whether regeneration be not a stronger tenor for enduring happiness, than the being created happy. for this being wrought so by degrees upon the plastic, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, with ineffable groans and piercing desires after that divine life, that the spirit of god co-operating exciteth in us; when regeneration is perfected and wrought to the full by these strong agonies, this may rationally be deemed a deeper tincture in the soul than that she had by mere creation, whereby the soul did indeed become holy, innocent and happy, but not coming to it with any such strong previous conflicts and eager workings and thirstings after that state, it might not be so firmly rooted by far as in regeneration begun and accomplished by the operation of god's spirit, gradually but more deeply renewing the divine image in us. fourthly, it being a renovation of our nature into a pristine state of ours, the strength and depth of impression seems increased upon that account also. fifthly, the remembrance of all the hardships we underwent in our lapsed condition, whether of mortification or cross rencounters, this must likewise help us to persevere when once returned to our former happiness. sixthly, the comparing of the evanid pleasures of our lapsed or terrestrial life, with the fullness of those joys that we find still in our heavenly, will keep us from ever having any hankering after them any more. seventhly, the certain knowledge of everlasting punishment, which if not true, they could not know, must be also another sure bar to any such negligencies as would hazard their settled felicity. which may be one reason why the irreclaimable are eternally punished, namely, that it may the better secure eternal happiness to others. eighthly, though we have our triple vital congruity still, yet the plastic life is so throughly satisfied with the resurrection-body, which is so considerably more full and saturate with all the heavenly richness and glory than the former, that the plastic of the soul is as entirely taken up with this one body, as if she enjoyed the pleasures of all three bodies at once, aethereal, aereal, and terrestrial. and lastly, which will strike all sure, he that is able to save to the utmost, and has promised us eternal life, is as true as able, and therefore cannot fail to perform it. and who can deny but that we in this state i have described, are as capable of being fixed there, and confirmed therein, as the angels were after lucifer and others had fallen? and now to the fifth and last argument against the state of silence, i say it is raised out of mere ignorance of the most rational as well as most platonical way of the souls immediate descent 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. for the first mover or stirrer in this matter, i mean in the formation of the foetus, is the spirit of nature, the great 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the universe, to whom plotinus somewhere attributes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the first predelineations and prodrome irradiations into the matter, before the particular soul, it is preparing for, come into it. now the spirit of nature being such a spirit as contains spermatically or vitally all the laws contrived by the divine intellect, for the management of the matter of the world, and of all essences else unperceptive, or quatenus unperceptive, for the good of the universe; we have all the reason in the world to suppose this vital or spermatical law is amongst the rest, viz. that it transmit but one soul to one prepared conception. which will therefore be as certainly done, unless some rare and odd casualty intervene, as if the divine intellect itself did do it. wherefore one and the same spirit of nature which prepares the matter by some general predelineation, does at the due time transmit some one soul in the state of silence by some particularising laws (that fetch in such a soul rather than such, but most sure but one, unless as i said some special casualty happen) into the prepared matter, acting at two places at once according to its synenergetical virtue or power. hence therefore it is plain, that there will be no such clusters of foetus' and monstrous deformities from this hypothesis of the souls being in a state of silence. but for one to shuffle off so fair a satisfaction to this difficulty, by a precarious supposing there is no such being as the spirit of nature, when it is demonstrable by so many irrefragable arguments that there is, is a symptom of one that philosophizes at random, not as reason guides. for that is no reason against the existence of the spirit of nature, because some define it a substance incorporeal, but without sense and animadversion, etc. as if a spirit without sense and animadversion were a contradiction. for that there is a spirit of nature is demonstrable, though whether it have no sense at all is more dubitable. but though it have no sense or perception, it is no contradiction to its being a spirit, as may appear from dr. h. moor's brief discourse of the true notion of a spirit. to which i direct the reader for satisfaction, i having already been more prolix in answering these arguments than i intended. but i hope i have made my presage true, that they would be found to have no force in them to overthrow the hypothesis of a threefold vital congruity in the plastic of the soul. so that this fourth pillar, for any execution they can do, will stand unshaken. pag. 103. for in all sensation there is corporeal motion, etc. and besides, there seems an essential relation of the soul to body, according to aristotle's definition thereof, he defining it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that which actuates the body. which therefore must be idle when it has nothing to actuate, as a piper must be silent, as to piping, if he have no pipe to play on. chap. 14. pag. 113. the ignobler and lower properties or the life of the body were languid and remiss, viz. as to their proper exercises or acting for themselves, or as to their being regarded much by the soul that is taken up with greater matters, or as to their being much relished, but in subserviency to the enjoyment of those more divine and sublime objects; as the author intimates towards the end of his last pillar. pag. 114. and the plastic had nothing to do but to move this passive and easy body, etc. it may be added, and keep it in its due form and shape. and it is well added [accordingly as the concerns of the higher faculties required] for the plastic by reason of its vital union with the vehicle, is indeed the main instrument of the motion thereof. but it is the imperium of the perceptive that both excites and guides its motion. which is no wonder it can do, they being both but one soul. pag. 114. to pronounce the place to be the sun, etc. which is as rationally guessed by them, as if one should fancy all the fellows and students chambers in a college to be contained within the area of the hearth in the hall, and the rest of the college uninhabited. for the sun is but a common focus of a vortex, and is less by far to the vortex, than the hearth to the ichnography of the whole college, that i may not say little more than a tennis-ball to the bigness of the earth. pag. 115. yet were we not immutably so, etc. but this mutability we were placed in, was not without a prospect of a more full confirmation and greater accumulation of happiness at the long run, as i intimated above. pag. 116. we were made on set purpose defatigable, that so all degrees of life, etc. we being such creatures as we are and finite, and taking in the enjoyment of those infinitely perfect and glorious objects only pro modulo nostro, according to the scantness of our capacity, diversion to other objects may be an ease and relief. from whence the promise of a glorified body in the christian religion, as it is most grateful, so appears most rational. but in the mean time it would appear most irrational to believe we shall have eyes and ears and other organs of external sense, and have no suitable objects to entertain them. pag. 117. yea, methinks 'tis but a reasonable reward to the body, etc. this is spoken something popularly and to the sense of the vulgar, that imagine the body to feel pleasure and pain, whenas it is the soul only that is perceptive and capable of feeling either. but 'tis fit the body should be kept in due plight for the lawful and allowable corporeal enjoyments the soul may reap therefrom for seasonable diversion. pag. 117, that that is executed which he hath so determined, etc. some fancy this may be extended to the enjoying of the fruits of the invigouration of all the three vital congruities of the plastic, and that for a soul orderly and in due time and course to pass through all these dispensations, provided she keep herself sincere towards her maker, is not properly any lapse or sin, but an harmless experiencing all the capacities of enjoying themselves that god has bestowed upon them. which will open a door to a further answer touching the rest of the planets being inhabited, namely, that they may be inhabited by such kind of ●ouls as these, who therefore want not the knowledge and assistance of a redeemer. and so the earth may be the only nosocomium of sinfully lapsed souls. this may be an answer to such farfetched objections till they can prove the contrary. pag. 118. adam cannot withstand the inordinate appetite, etc. namely, after his own remissness and heedlessness in ordering himself, he had brought himself to such a wretched weakness. pag. 121. the plastic faculties begin now fully to awaken, etc. there are three vital congruities belonging to the plastic of the soul, and they are to awake orderly, that is, to operate one after another downward and upward, that is to say, in the lapse, the aereal follows the aethereal, the terrestrial the aereal. but in their recovery or emergency out of the lapse, the aereal follows the terrestrial, and the aethereal the aereal. but however, a more gross turgency to plastic operation may haply arise at the latter end of the aereal period, which may be as it were the disease of the soul in that state, and which may help to turn her out of it into the state of silence, and is itself for the present silenced therewith. for where there is no union with body, there is no operation of the soul. pag. 121. for it hath an aptness and propensity to act in a terrestrial body, etc. this aptness and fitness it has in the state of silence▪ according to that essential order of things interwoven into its own nature, and into the nature of the spirit of the world, or great archaeus of the universe, according to the eternal counsel of the divine wisdom. by which law and appointment the soul will as certainly have a fitness and propensity at its leaving the terrestrial body to actuate an aereal one. pag. 122. either by mere natural congruity, the disposition of the soul of the world, or some more spontaneous agent, etc. natural congruity and the disposal of the plastic soul of the world (which others call the spirit of nature) may be joined well together in this feat, the spirit of nature attracting such a soul as is most congruous to the predelineated matter which it has prepared for her. but as for the spontaneous agent, i suppose, he may understand his ministry in some supernatural birth. unless he thinks that some angels or genii may be employed in putting souls into bodies, as gardiner's are in setting pease and beans in the beds of gardens. but certainly they must be no good genii then that have any hand in assisting or setting souls in such wombs as have had to do with adultery, incest, and buggery. pag. 123. but some apish shows and imitations of reason, virtue and religion, etc. the reason of the unregenerate in divine things is little better than thus, and virtue and religion which is not from that principle which revives in us in real regeneration, are, though much better than scandalous vice and profaneness, mere pictures and shadows of what they pretend to. pag. 123. to its old celestial abode, etc. for we are pilgrims and strangers here on the earth, as the holy patriarches of old declared. and they that speak such things, saith the apostle, plainly show 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that they seek their native country, for so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 properly signifies. and truly if they had been mindful of that earthly country out of which they came, they might, saith he, have had opportunity of returning. but now they desire a better, to wit, an heavenly, hebr. 11. pag. 124. but that they step forth again into airy vehicles. this is their natural course, as i noted above. but the examples of enoch and elias, and much more of our ever blessed saviour, are extraordinary and supernatural. pag. 125. those therefore that pass out of these bodies before their terrestrial congruity be spoilt, weakened, or orderly unwound, according to the tenor of this hypothesis, etc. by the favour of this ingenious writer, this hypothesis does not need any such obnoxious appendage as this, viz. that souls that are outed these terrestrial bodies before their terrestrial congruity be spoiled, weakened, or orderly unwound, return into the state of inactivity. but this is far more consonant both to reason and experience or story, that though the terrestrial congruity be still vigorous, as not having run out it may be the half part, no not the tenth part of its period, the soul immediately upon the quitting of this body is invested with a body of air, and is in the state of activity not of silence in no sense. for some being murdered have in all likelihood in their own persons complained of their murderers, as it is in that story of anne walker; and there are many others of the same nature. and besides, it is far more reasonable, there being such numerous multitudes of silent souls, that their least continuance in these terrestrial bodies should at their departure be as it were a magical cue or tessera forthwith to the aereal congruity of life to begin to act its part upon the ceasing of the other, that more souls may be rid out of the state of silence. which makes it more probable that every soul that is once besmeared with the unctuous moisture of the womb, should as it were by a magic ointment be carried into the air (though it be of a stillborn infant) than that any should return into the state of silence or inactivity upon the pretence of the remaining vigour of the terrestrial congruity of life. for these laws are not by any consequential necessity, but by the free counsel of the eternal wisdom of god consulting for the best. and therefore this being so apparently for the best, this law is interwoven into the spirit of the world and every particular soul, that upon the ceasing of her terrestrial union, her aereal congruity of life should immediately operate, and the spirit of nature assisting, she should be dressed in aereal robes, and be found among the inhabitants of those regions. if souls should be remanded back into the state of silence that depart before the terrestrial period of vital congruity be orderly unwound, so very few reach the end of that period, that they must in a manner all be turned into the state of inactivity. which would be to wove penelope's web, to do and undo because the day is long enough, as the proverb is, when▪ as it rather seems too short, by reason of the numerosity of silent souls that expect their turn of recovery into life. pag. 125. but only follow the clew of this hypothesis. the hypothesis requires no such thing, but it rather clashes with the first and chiefest pillar thereof, viz. that all the divine designs and actions are laid and carried on by infinite goodness. and i have already intimated how much better it is to be this way that i am pleading for, than that of this otherwise-ingenious writer. pag. 125. since by long and hard exercise in this body, the plastic life is well tamed and debilitated, etc. but this is not at all necessary▪ no not in those souls whose plastic may be deemed the most rampant. dis-union from this terrestrial body immediately tames it, i mean, the terrestrial congruity of life; and it● operation is stopped, as surely as a string of a lut● never so smartly vibrated is streightways silenced by a gentle touch of the finger, and another single string may be immediately made to sound alone, while the other is mute and silent. for, i say, these are the free laws of the eternal wisdom, but fatally and vitally, not intellectually implanted in the spirit of nature, and in all humane souls or spirits. the whole universe is as it were the automatal harp of that great and true apollo; and as for the general striking of the strings and stopping their vibrations, they are done with as exquisite art as if a free intellectual agent played upon them. but the plastic powers in the world are not such, but only vital and fatal, as i said before. pag. 126. that an aereal body was not enough for it to display its force upon, etc. it is far more safe and rational to say, that the soul deserts her aereal estate by reason that the period of the vital congruity is expired, which according to those fatal laws i spoke of before is determined by the divine wisdom. but whether a soul may do any thing to abbreviate this period, and excite such symptoms in the plastic as may shorten her continuance in that state, let it be left to the more inquisitive to define. pag. 128. where is then the difference betwixt the just and the wicked, in state, place, and body? their difference in place i have sufficiently shown, in my answer to the third argument against the triple congruity of life in the plastic of humane souls, how fitly they may be disposed of in the air. but to the rude buffonery of that crude opposer of the opinion of pre-existence, i made no answer. it being methinks sufficiently answered in the scholia upon sect. 12. cap. 3. lib. 3. of dr. h. mores immortalitas animae, if the reader think it worth his while to consult the place▪ now for state and body the difference is obvious. the vehicle is of more pure air, and the conscience more pure of the one than of the other. pag. 130. for according to this hypothesis, the gravity of those bodies is less, because the quantity of the earth that draws them is so, etc. this is an ingenious invention both to salve that phaenomenon, why bodies in mines and other deep subterraneous places should seem not so heavy nor hard to lift there, as they are in the superior air above the earth; and also to prove that the crust of the earth is not of so considerable a thickness as men usually conceive it is. i say, it is ingenious, but not so firm and sure. the quicksilver in a torricellian tube will sink deeper in an higher or clearer air, though there be the same magnetism of the earth under it that was before. but this is not altogether so fit an illustration, there being another cause than i drive at conjoined thereto. but that which i drive at is sufficient of it self to salve this phaenomenon. a bucket of water, while it is in the water comes up with ease to him that draws it at the well; but so soon as it comes into the air, though there be the same earth under it that there was before, it feels now exceeding more weighty. of which i conceive the genuine reason is, because the spirit of nature, which ranges all things in their due order, acts proportionately strongly to reduce them thereto, as they are more heterogeniously and disproportionately placed as to their consistencies. and therefore by how much more crass and solid a body is above that in which it is placed, by so much the stronger effort the spirit of nature uses to reduce it to its right place; but the less it exceeds the crassness of the element it is in, the effort is the less or weaker. hence therefore it is, that a stone or such like body in those subterraneous depths seems less heavy, because the air there is so gross and thick, and is not so much disproportionate to the grossness of the stone as our air above the earth here is; nor do i make any doubt, but if the earth were all cut away to the very bottom of any of these mines, so that the air might be of the same consistency with ours, the stone would then be as heavy as it is usually to us in this superioor surface of the earth. so that this is no certain argument for the proving that the crust of the earth is of such thinness as this author would have it, though i do not question but that it is thin enough. pag. 131. and the mention of the fountains of the great deep in the sacred history, etc. this is a more considerable argument for the thinness of the crust of the earth; and i must confess i think it not improbable but that there is an aqueous hollow sphaericum, which is the basis of this habitable earth, according to that of psalm 24. 2. for he hath founded it upon the seas, and established it upon the floods. pag. 131. now i intent not that after a certain distance all is fluid matter to the centre; that is to say, after a certain distance of earthly matter, that the rest should be fluid matter, namely, water and air, to the centre, etc. but here his intention is directed by that veneration he has for des cartes. otherwise i believe if he had freely examined the thing to the bottom, he would have found it more reasonable to conclude all fluid betwixt the concave of the terrestrial crust and the centre of the earth, as we usually phrase it, though nothing be properly earth but that crust. pag. 131. which for the most part very likely is a gross and foetid kind of air, etc. on this side of the concave of the terrestrial crust there may be several hollows of foetid air and stagnant water, which may be so many particular lodgings for lapsed and unruly spirits but there is moreover a considerable aqueous sphaericum upon which the earth is founded, and is most properly the abyss; but in a more comprehensive notion, all from the convex thereof to the centre may be termed the abyss, or the deepest place that touches our imagination. pag. 131. the lowest and central regions may be filled with flame and aether, etc. that there was the relics of a sun after the incrustation of the earth and aqueous orb, is according to this hypothesis reasonable enough. and a kind of air and aether betwixt this diminished sun and the concave of this aqueous orb, but no crass and opake concamerations of hard matter interposed betwixt. which is an hypothesis the most kind to the ingenious author of telluris theoria sacra, that he could wish. for he holding that there was for almost two thousand years an opake earthy crust over this aqueous orb unbroke till the deluge, which he ascribes to the breaking thereof, it was necessary there should be no opake orb betwixt the central fire and this aqueous orb; for else the fishes for so long a time had lived in utter darkness, having eyes to no purpose, nor ability to guide their way or hunt their prey. only it is supposed, which is easy to do, that they then swum with their backs toward the centre, whenas as now they swim with their bellies thitherward; they then plying near the concave, as now near the convex of this watery abyss. which being admitted, the difference of their posture will necessarilly follow according to the laws of nature, as were easy to make out, but that i intent brevity in these annotations. only i cannot forbear by the way to advertise how probable it is that this central fire which shone clear enough to give light to the fishes swimming near the concave of this watery orb, might in process of time grow dimmer and dimmer, and exceeding much abate of its light, by that time the crust of the earth broke and let in the light of the sun of this great vortex into this watery region, within which, viz. in the air or aether there, there has been still a decay of light, the air or aether growing more thick as well as that little central fire or sun, being more and more enveloped with fuliginous stuff about it. so that the whole concavity may seem most like a vast duskish vault, and this dwindling overclouded sun a sepulchral lamp, such as, if i remember right, was found in the monuments of olybius and tulliola. an hideous dismal forlorn place, and fit receptacle for the methim and rephaim. and the latin translation, job 26. 5. excellently well accords with this sad phaenomenon. ecce gigantes gemunt sub aquis, & qui habitant cum eyes. here is that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as symmachus translates the word. and it follows in the verse, nudus est infernus coram eo, hell is naked before god. and symmachus in other places of the proverbs puts 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 together, which therefore is the most proper and the nethermost hell. and it will be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the highest sense, whenever this lurid light (as it seems probable to me it sometime will be) is quite extinct, and this central fire turned into a terrella, as it may seem to have already happened in saturn. but we must remember, as the author sometimes reminds us, that we are embellishing but a romantic hypothesis, and be sure we admit no more than reason, scripture, and the apostolic faith will allow. pag. 132. are after death committed to those squalid subterraneous habitations, etc. he seems to suppose that all the wicked and degerate souls are committed hither, that they may be less troublesome to better souls in this air above the earth. but considering the devil is called the prince of the air, & that he has his clients and subjects in the same place with him; we may well allow the lower regions of the air to him, and to some wicked or unregenerate souls promiscuously with him, though there be subterraneous receptacles for the worst and most rebellious of them, and not send them all packing thither. pag. 132. that they are driven into those dungeons by the invisible ministers of justice, etc. he speaks of such dungeons as are in the broken caverns of the forth, which may be so many vexatious receptacles for rebellious spirits which these invisible ministers of justice may drive them into, and see them committed; and being confined there upon far severer penalties if they submit not to that present punishment which they are sentenced to, they will out of fear of greater calamity be in as safe custody as if they were under lock and key. but the most dismal penalty is to be carried into the abyss, the place of the rephaim i above described. this is a most astonishing commination to them, and they extremely dread that sentence. which makes the devils, luke 8. 31. so earnestly beseech christ that he would not command them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to pack away into the abyss. this punishment therefore of the abyss where the rephaim or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 groan, is door and lock that makes them, whether they will or no, submit to all other punishments and confinements on this side of it. michael psellus takes special notice how the daemons are frighted with the menaces 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, with the menaces of the sending them away packing into the abyss and subterraneous places. but these may signify no more than cavities that are in the ruptues of the earth, and they may steal out again if they will adventure, unless they were perpetually watched, which is not so probable. wherefore they are imprisoned through fear of that great horrid abyss above described, and which as i said is an iron lock and door of brass upon them. but than you will say, what is the door and lock to this terrible place? i answer, the inviolable adamantine laws of the great sandalphon or spirit of the universe. when once a rebellious spirit is carried down by a minister of justice into this abyss, he can no more return of himself, than a man put into a well forty fathoms deep is able of himself to ascend out of it. the unlapsed spirits, it is their privilege that their vehicles are wholly obedient to the will of the spirit that inactuates them, and therefore they have free ingress and egress every where; and being so little passive as they are, and so quick and swift in their motions, can perform any ministries with little or no incommodation to themselves. but the vehicles of lapsed spirits are more passive, and they are the very chains whereby they are tied to certain regions by the iron laws of the spirit of the universe, or hylarchick principle, that unfailingly ranges the matter every where according to certain orders. wherefore this sergeant of justice having once deposited his prisoner within the concave of the aqueous orb, he will be as certainly kept there, and never of himself get out again, as the man in the bottom of the well abovementioned, for the laws of the same spirit of nature that keeps the man at the bottom of the well (that every thing may be placed according to the measure of its consistency) will inhibit this captive from ever returning to this superior air again, because his vehicle is, though foul enough, yet much thinner than the water; and there will be the the same ranging of things on the concave side of the aqueous orb, as there is on the convex. so that if we could suppose the ring about saturn inhabited with any living creatures, they would be born toward the concave of the ring as well as toward the convex, and walk as steadily as we and our antipodes do with our feet on this and that side of the earth one against another. this may serve for a brief intimation of the reason of the thing, and the intelligent will easily make out the rest themselves, and understand what an ineluctable fate and calamity it is to be carried into that duskish place of dread and horror, when once the angel that has the keys of the abyss or bottomless pit has shut a rebellious spirit up there, & chained him in that hideous dungeon. pag. 133. others to the dungeon, and some to the most intolerable hell the abyss of fire. the dungeon here, if it wer● understood with an emphasis, would most properly denote the dungeon of the rephaim, of which those parts nearest the centre may be called the abyss of fire more properly than any vulcano's in the crust of the earth. those souls therefore that have been of a more fierce and fiery nature, and the causers of violence and bloodshed, and of furious wars and cruel persecutions of innocent and harmless men, when they are committed to this dungeon of the rephaim, by those inevitable laws of the subteraqueous sandalphon, or demogorgon if you will, they will be ranged nearest the central fire of this hellish vault. for the vehicles of ●ouls symbolising with the temper of the mind, those who are most haughty, ambitious, fier●e, and fiery, and therefore, out of pride and contempt of others in respect of themselves and their own interest, make nothing of shedding innocent blood, or cruelly handling those that are not for their turn, but are faithful adherers to their maker, the vehicles of these being more thin and fiery than theirs who have transgressed in the concap●●c●ble, they must needs surmount such in order of place, and be most remote from the concave of the aqueous orb under which the rephaim groan, and so be placed at least the nearest to that abyss of fire, which our author terms the most intolerable hell. pag. 133. have a strict and careful eye upon them, to keep them within the confines of their goal, etc. that this, as it is a more tedious province, so a needless one, i have intimated above, by reason that the fear of being carried into the abyss will effectually detain them in their confinements. from whence if they be not released in time, the very place they are in may so change their vehicles, that it may in a manner grow natural to them, and make them as uncapable of the superior air as bats and owls are, as the ingenious author notes, to bear the sun's noon-day-beams, or the fish to live in these thinner regions. pag. 134. under severe penalties prohibit all unlicensed excursions into the upper world, though i confess this seems not so probable, etc. the author seems to reserve all the air above the earth to good souls only, and that if any ●ad ones appear, it must ●e by either stealth or licence. but why bad souls may not be in this lower region of the air as well as devils, i understand not. nor do i conceive but that the kingdom of darkness may make such laws amongst themselves, as may tend to the ease and safety of those of the kingdom of light. not out of any goodwill to them, but that themselves may not further smart for it if they give licence to such and such exorbitancies. for they are capable of pain and punishment, and though they are permitted in the world, yet they are absolutely under the power of the almighty, and of the grand minister of his kingdom, the glorious soul of the messiah. pag. 137. the internal central fire should have got such strength and irresistible vigour, etc. but how or from whence, is very hard to conceive: i should rather suspect, as i noted above, that the fire will more and more decay till it turn at last to a kind of terrella, like that observed within the ring of saturn, and the dungeon become utter darkness, where there will be weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth, as well as in the furnace of fire. pag. 141. and so following the laws of its proper motion shall fly away out of this vortex, etc. this looks like an ●eedless mistake of this ingenious writer, who though he speak the language of cartesius, seems here not to have recalled to mind his principles. for the earth according to his principles is never like to become a sun again. nor if it had so become, would it then become a comet. forasmuch as comets according to his philosophy are incr●stated suns, and planets or earth's in a manner, and so to be deemed so soon as they settle in any vortex, and take their course about the centre thereof. nor if the earth become a sun again, is it like to leave our vortex according to the cartesian principles, but rather be swallowed down into the sun of our vortex, and increase his magnitude; the ranging of the planets according to des cartes mechanical laws being from the difference of their solidities, and the least solid next to the sun. whither then can this sol redivivus or the earth turned wholly into the materia subtilissima again be carried, but into the sun itself? this seems most likely, especially if we consider this sol redivious or the earth turned all into the materia subtilissima, in itself. but if we take into our consideration its particular vortex which carries about the moon, the business may bear a further debate which will require more time than to be entered upon here. but it seems plain at first sight, that though this sol redivivus should by virtue of its particular vortex be kept from being swallowed down into the sun and centre of the great vortex, yet it will never be able to get out of this great vortex, according to the frame of des cartes philosophy. so that there will be two suns in one vortex, a planetary one and a fixed one. which unexpected monstrosity in nature will make any cautious cartesian more wary how he admits of the earth's ever being turned into a sun again; but rather to be content to let its central fire to incrustrate itself into a terrella, there seeming to be an example of this in that little globe in the midst of the ring of saturn; but of an earth turned into a sun no example at all that i know of. pag. 142. so that the central fire remains unconcerned, etc. and so ●t well may, it being so considerable a distance from the concave of the aqueous orb, and the aqueous orb itself betwixt the crust of the earth and it. but the prisoners of this gaol of the rephaim will not be a little concerned. this hell of a sudden growing so smothering hot to them all, though the central fire no more than it was. and whatever becomes of those spirits that suffer in the very conflagration itself, yet ab hoc inferno nulla est redemptio. pag. 147. those immediate births of unassisted nature will not be so tender, etc. besides, the air being replenished with benign daemons or genii, to whom it cannot but be a pleasant spectacle to behold the inchoations and progresses of reviving nature, they having the curiosity to contemplate these births, may also in all likelihood exercise their kindness in helping them in their wants; and when they are grown up, assist them also in the methods of life, and impart as they shall find fit the arcana of arts and sciences and religion unto them, nor suffer them to symbolise overmuch in their way of living with the rest of their fellow terrestrial creatures. if it be true that some hold, that even now when there is no such need, every one has his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, his genius or guardian angel, it is much more likely that at such a season as this, every tender foetus of their common mother the earth, would be taken into the care of some good daemon or other, even at their very first budding out into life. pag. 148. but all this is but the frolic exercise of my pen choosing a paradox. and let the same be said of the pen of the annotator, who has bestowed these pains not to gain proselytes to the opinions treated of in this discourse, but to entertain the readers intellectuals with what may something enlarge his thoughts; and if he be curious and anxious, help him at a pinch to some ease of mind touching the ways of god and his wonderful providence in the world. pag. 149. those other expressions of death, destruction, perdition of the ungodly, etc. how the entering into the state of silence may well be deemed a real death, destruction and perdition, that passage in lucretius does marvellously well set out. nam si tantopere est animi mutata potestas, omnis ut actarum exciderit retinentia rerum, non, ut opinor, ea ab letho jam longiter errat quapropter fateare necesse est, quoe fuit ante. interiisse, etc. de rerum natura, lib. 3. and again in the same book he says, though we were again just as we were before, yet we having no memory thereof, it is all one as if we were perfectly lost. and yet this is the condition of the soul which the divine nemesis sends into the state of silence, because afterwards she remembers nothing of her former life. his words are these: nec, si materiam nostram collegerit oetas post obitum, rursúmque redegerit ut sita nunc est, atque iterum nobis fuerint data lumina vitoe, pertineat quicquam tamen ad nos id quoque factum interrupta semel quom sit retinentia nostri. pag. 150. in those passages which predict new heavens and a new earth, etc. i suppose he alludes especially to that place in the apocalypse, chap. 21. where presently upon the description of the lake of fire in the precedent chapter which answers to the conslagration, it is said, and i saw a new heaven and a new earth. but questionless that passage, as in other places, is politically to be understood, not physically, unless this may be the ingenious author's meaning, that the writer of the apocalypse adorning his style with allusions to the most rousing and most notable real or physical objects (which is observable all along the apocalypse) it may be a sign that a new heaven and a new earth succeeding the conflagration, is one of those noble phaenomena true and real amongst the rest, which he thought fit to adorn his style with by alluding thereto. so that though the chief intended sense of the apocalypse be political, yet by its allusions it may countenance many noble and weighty truths whether physical or metaphysical. as, the existence of angels, which is so perpertually inculcated all along the book from the beginning to the ending: the divine shechina in the celestial regions: the dreadful abyss in which rebellious spirits are chained, and at the commination whereof they so much tremble: the conflagration of the earth; and lastly, the renewing and restoring this earth and heaven after the conflagration. pag. 150. the main opinion of pre-existence is not at all concerned, etc. this is very judiciously and soberly noted by him. and therefore it is by no means fairly done by the opposers of pre-existence, while they make such a pother to confute any passages in this hypothesis, which is acknowledged by the pre-existentiaries themselves to be no necessary or essential part of that dogma. but this they do, that they may seem by their cavils (for most of them are no better) against some parts of this unnecessary appendage of pre-existence, to have done some execution upon the opinion itself; which how far it extends, may be in some measure discovered by these notes we have made upon it. which stated as they direct, the hypothesis is at least possible; but that it is absolutely the true one, or should be thought so, is not intended. but as the ingenious author suggests, it is either this way or some better, as the infinite wisdom of god may have ordered. but this possible way shows pre-existence to be neither impossible nor improbable. pag. 151. but submit all that i have written to the authority of the church of england, etc. and this i am persuaded he heartily did, as it is the duty of every one, in things that they cannot confirm by either a plain demonstration, clear authority of scripture, manifestation of their outward senses, or some rousing miracle, to compromise with the decisions of the national church where providence has cast them, for common peace and settlement, and for the ease and security of governors. but because a fancy has taken a man in the head, that he knows greater arcana than others, or has a more orthodox belief in things not necessary to salvation than others have, for him to affect to make others proselytes to his opinion, and to wear his badge of wisdom, as of an extraordinary master in matters of theory, is a mere vanity of spirit, a ridiculous piece of pride and levity, and unbeseeming either a sober and staunched man or a good christian. but upon such pretences to gather a sect, or set up a church or independent congregation, is intolerable faction and schism, nor can ever bear a free and strict examination according to the measures of the truest morals and politics. but because it is the fate of some men to believe opinions, to others but probable, nor it may be so much (as the motion of the earth suppose, and des cartes his vortices, and the like) to be certain science, it is the interest of every national church to define the truth of no more theories than are plainly necessary for faith and good manners; because if they either be really, or seem to be mistaken in their unnecessary decisions or definitions, this with those that are more knowing than ingenuous will certainly lessen the authority and reverence due to the church, and hazard a secret enmity of such against her. but to adventure upon no decisions but what have the authority of scripture (which they have that were the decisions of general councils before the apostasy) and plain usefulness as well as reason of their side, this is the greatest conservative of the honour and authority of a church (especially joined with an exemplary life) that the greatest prudence or politics can ever excogitate. which true politics the church of rome having a long time ago deserted, has been fain, an horrid thing to think of it! to support her authority and extort reverence by mere violence and blood. whenas, if she had followed these more true and christian politics, she would never have made herself so obnoxious, but for aught one knows, she might have stood and retained her authority for ever. in the mean time, this is suitable enough, and very well worth our noting, that forasmuch as there is no assurance of the holy ghost's assisting unnecessary decisions, though it were of the universal church, much less of any national one, so that if such a point be determined, it is uncertainly determined, and that there may be several ways of holding a necessary point, some more accommodate to one kind of men, others to another, and that the decisions of the church are for the edification of the people, that either their faith may be more firm, or their lives more irreprehensible: these things, i say, being premised, it seems most prudent and christian in a church to decline the decision of the circumstances of any necessary point, forasmuch as by deciding and determining the thing one way, those other handles by which others might take more fast hold on it are thereby cut off, and so their assent made less firm thereto. we need not go far for an example, if we but remember what we have been about all this time. it is necessary to believe that we have in us an immortal spirit capable of salvation and damnation, according as we shall behave ourselves. this is certainly revealed to us, and is of indispensable usefulness. but though this opinion or rather article of faith be but o●e, yet there are several ways of holding it. and it lies more easy in some men's minds, if they suppose it created by god at every conception in the womb; in othersome, if they conceive it to be ex traduce; and lastly in others, if it pre-exist. but the ways of holding this article signify nothing but as they are subservient to the making us the more firmly hold the same. for the more firmly we believe it, the greater influence will it have upon our lives, to cause us to live in the fear of god, and in the ways of righteousness like good christians. wherefore now it being supposed that it will stick more firm and fixed in some men's minds by some one of these three ways, rather than by either of the other two, and thus of any one of the three; it is manifest, it is much more prudently done of the church not to cut off two of these three handles by a needless, nay, a harmful decision, but let every one choose that handle that he can hold the article fastest by, for his own support and edification. for thus every one laying firm hold on that handle that is best fitted for his own grasp, the article will carry all these three sorts of believers sa●e up to heaven, they living accordingly; whenas two sorts of them would have more slippery or uncertain hold, if they had no handle offered to them but those which are less suitable to their grasp and genius. which shows the prudence, care, and accuracy of judgement in the church of england, that as in other things, so in this, she has made no such needless and indeed hurtful decisions, but left the modes of conceiving things of the greatest moment, to every one's self, to take it that way that he can lay the fastest hold of it, and it will lie the most easily in his mind without doubt and wavering. and therefore there being no one of these handles but what may be useful to some or other for the more easy and undoubted holding that there is in us an immaterial and immortal soul or spirit, my having taken this small pains to wipe off the soil, and further the usefulness of one of them by these annotations, if it may not merit thanks, it must, i hope, at least deserve excuse with all those that are not of too sour and tetrick a genius, and prefer their own humours and sentiments before the real benefit of others. but now if any one shall invidiously object, that i prefer the christian discretion of my own church the church of england, before the judgement and wisdom of a general council, namely, the fifth ecumenical council held at constantinople in justinians time under the patriarch eutychius, who succeeded menas lately deceased, to whom justinian sent that discourse of his against origen and his errors, amongst which pre-existence is reckoned one: in answer to this, several things are to be considered, that right may be done our mother. first, what number of bishops make a general council, so that from their numerosity we may rely upon their authority and infallibility that they will not conclude what is false. secondly, whether in whatsoever matters of debate, though nothing to the salvation of men's souls, but of curious▪ speculation, fitter for the schools of philosophers than articles of faith for the edification of the people (whose memory and conscience ought to be charged with no notions that are not subservient to the rightly and duly honouring god and his only begotten son our lord jesus christ, and to the faithful discharging their duty to man) the assistance of the spirit of god can rationally be expected; or only in such things as are necessary to be professed by the people, and very useful for the promoting of life and godliness. and as moses has circumscribed his narrative of the creation within the limits of mundus plebeiorum, and also the chronology of time according to scripture is bounded from the first adam to the coming again of the second to judgement, and sentencing the wicked to everlasting punishment, and the righteous to life everlasting: so whether the decisions of the church are not the most safely contained within these bounds, and they faithfully discharge themselves in the conduct of souls, if they do but instruct them in such truths only as are within this compass revealed in sacred scripture. and whether it does not make for the interest and dignity of the church to decline the meddling with other things, as unprofitable and unnecessary to be decided. thirdly, whether if a general council meet not together in via spiritus sancti, but some stickling imbittered grandees of the church out of a pique that they have taken against some persons get through their interest a general council called, whether is the assistance of the holy ghost to be expected in such a meeting, so that they shall conclude nothing against truth. fourthly, whether the authority of such general councils as providence by some notable prodigy may seem to have intimated a dislike of, be not thereby justly suspected, and not easily to be admitted as infallible deciders. fifthly, whether a general council that is found mistaken in one point, anathematising that for an heresy which is a truth, forfeits not its authority in other points, which than whether falsehoods or truths, are not to be deemed so from the authority of that council, but from other topics. sixthly, since there can be no commerce betwixt god and man, nor he communicate his mind and will to us but by supposition, that our senses rightly circumstantiated are true, that there is skill in us to understand words and grammar, and schemes of speech, as also common notions and clear inferences of reason, whether if a general council conclude any thing plainly repugnant to these, is the conclusion of such a council true and valid; and whether the indelible notices of truth in our mind that all mankind is possessed of, whether logical, moral, or metaphysical, be not more the dictates of god, than those of any council that are against them. seventhly, if a council, as general as any has been called, had in the very midnight of the church's apostasy and ignorance met, and concluded all those corruptions that now are obtruded by the church of rome, as transubstantiation, invocation of saints, worshipping of images, and the like, whether the decisions of such a council could be held infallible or valid. what our own excellently well reformed church holds in this case, is evident out of her articles. for, eighthly, the church of england plainly declares. that general councils when they be gathered together, forasmuch as they be an assembly of men whereof all are not governed with the spirit and word of god, they may err, and sometimes have erred even in things pertaining to god. wherefore, saith she▪ things ordained by them as necessary to salvation have neither strength nor authority, unless it may be declared that they be taken out of holy scripture. artic 21. ninthly, and again, artic. 20. where she allows the church to have power to decree rites and ceremonies, and authority in controversies of faith, but with this restriction, that it is not lawful for the church to ordain any thing that is contrary to god's word written, neither may it so expound one place of scripture that it be repugnant to another: she concludes: wherefore although the church be a witness and keeper of holy writ, yet as it ought not to decree any thing against the same, so besides the same ought it not to enforce any thing to be believed for necessity of salvation. what then, does she null the authority of all the general councils, and have no deference for any thing but the mere word of god to convince men of heresy▪ no such matter. what her sense of these things is, you will find in 1 eliz. cap. 1. wherefore, tenthly and lastly, what general councils the church of england allows of for the conviction of heretics you may understand out of these words of the statute: they shall not adjudge any matter or cause to be heresies, but only such as heretofore have been adjudged to be heresy by the authority of the canonical scriptures, or by the first four general councils or any of them, or by any other general council wherein the same was declared heresy by the express and plain words of the said canonical scriptures. by brief reflections upon some of these ten heads, i shall endeavour to lessen the invidiousness of my seeming to prefer the discretion of the church of england before the judgement of a general council, i mean of such a general council as is so unexceptionable that we may rely on the authority of their decisions, that they will not fail to be true. of which sort whether the fifth reputed general council be, we will briefly first consider. for reflecting on the first head, it seems scarcely numerous enough for a general council. the first general council of nice had above three hundred bishops; that of chalcedon above six hundred: this fifth council held at constantinople had but an hundred sixty odd. and which still makes it more unlike a general council, in the very same year, viz. 553, the western bishops held a council at aquileia, and condemned this fifth council held at constantinople. secondly, the pre-existence of souls being a mere philosophical speculation, and indeed held by all philosophers in the affirmative that held the soul incorporeal; we are to consider whether we may not justly deem this case referrible to the second head, and to look something like pope zacharies appointing a council to condemn virgilius as an heretic, for holding antipodes. thirdly, we may very well doubt whether this council proceeded in via spiritus sancti, this not being the first time that the lovers and admirers of origen for his great piety and knowledge, and singular good service he had done to the church of christ in his time, had foul play played them. witness the story of theophilus bishop of antioch, who to revenge himself on dioscorus and two others that were lovers of origen and anti-anthropomorphites, stickled so, that he caused epiphanius in his see, as he did in his own, to condemn the books of origen in a synod. to which condemnation epiphanius an anthropomorphite, and one of more zeal than knowledge, would have got the subscription of chrysostom the patriarch of constantinople; but he had more wisdom and honesty than to listen to such an injurious demand. and as it was with those synods called by theophilus and epiphanius, so it seems to be with the fifth council. piques and heart-burnings amongst the grandees of the church seemed to be at the bottom of the business. binius in his history of this fifth council takes notice of the enmity betwixt pelagius, pope vigilius' apocrisiarie, and theodorus bishop of caesarea cappadociae an origenist. and spondanus likewise mentions the same, who says, touching the business of origen, that pelagius the pope's apocrisiarie, eam quaestionem in ipsius theodori odium movisse existimabatur. and truly it seems to me altogether incredible, unless there were some hellish spite at the bottom, that they should not have contented themselves to condemn the errors supposed to be origen's (but after so long a time after his death, there being in his writings such chopings and change and interpolations, hard to prove to be his) but have spared his name, for that unspeakable good service he did the church in his life-time. see dr. h. moor's preface to his collectio philosophica, sect. 18. where origen's true character is described out of eusebius. wherefore whether this be to begin or carry on things in via spiritus sancti, so that we may rely on the authority of such a council, i leave to the impartial and judicious to consider. fourthly, in reference to the fourth head, that true wisdom and moderation, and the holy assistance of god's spirit did not guide the affairs of this council, seems to be indicated by the divine providence, who to show the effect of their unwise proceedings in the selfsame year the council sat, sent a most terrible earthquake for forty days together upon the city of constantinople where the council was held, and upon other regions of the east, even upon alexandria itself and other places, so that many cities were leveled to the ground. upon which spondanus writes thus: haec verò praesagia fuisse malorum quae sunt praedictam synodum consecuta, nemo negare poterit quicunque ab eventis facta noverit judicare. this also reminds me of a prodigy as it was thought that happened at the sixth reputed general council, where nigh three hundred fathers were gathered together to decide this nice and subtle point, namely, whether an operation or volition of christ were to be deemed, una operatio sive volitio 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, according to that axiom of some metaphysicians, that actio est suppositi, and so the humane and divine nature of christ being coalescent into one person, his volition and operation be accounted one as his person is but one; or because of the two natures, though but one person, there are to be conceived two operations or two volitions. this latter dogma obtained, and the other was condemned by this third constantinopolitan council: whereupon, as paulus diaconus writes, abundance of cobwebs or spiders webs fell or reigned, as it were, down upon the heads of the people, to their very great astonishment. some interpret the cobwebs of heresies; others haply more rightfully of troubling the church of christ with overgreat niceties and curiosities of subtle speculation, which tend nothing to the corroborating her faith, and promoting a good life; and are so obscure, subtle, and lubricous, that look on them one way they seem thus, and another way thus. to this sixth general council there seemed two operations and two wills in christ, because of his two natures. to a council called after by philippicus the emperor, and john patriarch of constantinople, considering christ as one person, there appeared numerosissimo orientalium episcoporum collecto conventui▪ as spondanus has it: but as binius, innumerae orientalium episcoporum multitudini congregatae, but one will and one operation. and certainly this numerous or innumerable company of bishops must put as fair for a general council as that of less than three hundred. but that the authority of both these councils are lessened upon the account of the second head, in that the matter they consulted about tended nothing to the corroboration of our faith, or the promotion of a good life, i have already intimated. these things i was tempted to note, in reference to the tenth head. for it seems to mean undeniable argument, that our first reformers, which are the risen witnesses, were either tightly well seen in ecclesiastic history, or the good hand of god was upon them that they absolutely admitted only the four first general councils; but after them, they knew not where to be, or what to call a general council, and therefore would not adventure of any so called for the adjudging any matters heresy. but if any pretended to be such, their authority should no further prevail, than as they made out things by express and plain words of canonical scripture. and for other synods, whether the seventh, which is the second of nice, or any other that the church of rome would have to be general in defence of their own exorbitant points of faith or practice, they will be found of no validity, if we have recourse to the sixth, seventh, eighth and ninth heads. fifthly, in reference to the fifth head. this fifth council loseth its authority in anathematising what in origen seems to be true according to that express text of scripture, john 16. 28. (especially compared with others. see notes on chap. 11.) i came forth from the father, and am come into the world; again i leave the world, and go to the father. he came forth from his father which is in heaven, accordingly as he taught us to pray to him (the divine shechina being in a peculiar manner there) he leaves the world and goes to the father, which all understand of his ascension into heaven, whence his coming from the father must have the same sense, or else the antithesis will plainly fail. wherefore it is plain he came down from heaven (as he signifies also in other places) as well as returns thither. but he can neither be truly said to come from heaven, nor return thither, according to his divine nature. for it never left heaven, nor removes from one place to another; and therefore this scripture does plainly imply the pre existence of the soul of the messiah, according to the doctrine of the jews, before it was incarnate. and this stricture of the old cabala may give light to more places of st. john's writings than is fit to recite in this haste; i will only name one by the by, 1 john 4. 2. every spirit that confesseth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that jesus is the christ come in the flesh, that is to say, is the christ incarnate, is of god. for the messiah did exist, viz. his soul, before he came into the flesh, according to the doctrine of the jews. which was so well known, that upon the abovecited saying (john 16. 28.) of our saviour, they presently answered, lo, now speakest thou plainly, and speakest no parable; because he clearly discovers himself by this character to be the expected messias incarnate. nor is there any possible evasion out of the clearness of this text ●rom the communication of idioms, because christ cannot be said to come down from heaven according to his humane nature before it was there, therefore his humane nature was there before it was incarnate. and lastly, the authority of the decision of this council (if it did so decide) is lessened, in that contrary to the second head (as was hinted above) it decides a point that faith and godliness is not at all concerned in. for the divinity of christ, which is the great point of faith, is as firmly held supposing the soul of the messias united with the logos before his incarnation, as in it. so that the spite only of pelagius against theodorus to multiply anathematisms against origen, no use or necessity of the church required any such thing. whence again their authority is lessened upon the account of the third head. these things may very well suspend a careful mind, and loath to be imposed upon, from relying much upon the authority of this fifth council. but suppose its authority entire, yet the acts against origen are not to be found in the council. and the sixth council in its anathematisms, though it mention theodoret's writings, the epistle of ibas and theodarus mopsuestenus who were concerned in the fifth council; yet i find not there a syllable touching origen. and therefore those that talk of his being condemned by that fifth council, have an eye, i suppose, to the anathematisms at the end of that discourse which justinian the emperor sent to menas. patriarch of constantinople, according to which form they suppose the errors of origen condemned. which if it were true, yet simple pre-existence will escape well enough. nor do i think that learned and intelligent patriarch photius would have called the simple opinion of pre-existence of souls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but for those appendages that the injudiciousness and rashness of some had affixed to it. partly therefore reflecting upon that first anathematism in the emperor's discourse that makes the pre-existent souls of men first to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as if their highest felicity consisted in having no body to inactuate (which plainly clashes with both sound philosophy and christianity, as if the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and rephaim were all one, and they were not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 till they were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, grown cold to the divine love, and only gathered body as they gathered corruption, and were alienated from the life of god; which is point-blank against the christian faith, which has promised us, as the highest prize, a glorified body:) and partly what himself adds, that one soul goes into several bodies; which are impertinent appendages of the pre-existence of the soul, false, useless and unnecessary; and therefore those that add these appendages thereto, violate the sincerity of the divine tradition to no good purpose. but this simple doctrine of pre-existence is so unexceptionable and harmless, that the third collection of councils in justellus, which is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, though it reckon the other errors of origen condemned in the fifth council, omits this of pre-existence. certainly that ecclesiastic that framed that discourse for the emperor, if he did it not himself, had not fully, deliberately and impartially considered the dogma of pre-existence taken in its self, nor does once offer to answer any reasons out of scripture or philosophy that are produced for it. which if it had been done, and this had been the only error to be alleged against origen, i cannot think it credible, nay scarce possible, though their spite had been never so much against some lovers of origen, that they could have got any general council to have condemned so holy, so able, so victorious a champion for the christian church in his life-time for an heretic, upon so tolerable a punctilio, about three hundred years after his death. what father that wrote before the first four general councils, but might by the malevolent, for some odd passage or other, be doomed an heretic, if such severity were admittable amongst christians? but i have gone out further than i was aware, and it is time for me to bethink me what i intended. which was the justifying of myself in my seeming to prefer the discretion of our own church in leaving us free to hold the incorporeity and immortality of the soul by any of the three handles that best fitted every man's genius, before the judgement of the fifth general council, that would abridge us of this liberty. from which charge i have endeavoured to free myself, briefly by these two ways: first, by showing how hard it is to prove the fifth ecumenical council so called, to be a legitimate general or ecumenical council, and such as whose authority we may rely on. and secondly, if it was such, by showing that it did not condemn simply the pre-existence of souls, but pre-existence with such and such appendages. so that there is no real clashing betwixt our church and that council in this. but however this is, from the eighth and ninth heads its plain enough that the church of england is no favourer of the conclusions of any general council that are enjoined as necessary to salvation, that be either repugnant to holy scripture, or are not clearly to be made out from the same; which non-pre-existence of souls certainly is not, but rather the contrary. but being the point is not sufficiently clear from scripture either way to all, and the immortality of the soul and subsistence after death is the main useful point; that way which men can hold it with most firmness and ease, her candour and prudence has left it free to them to make use of. and as for general councils, though she does not in a fit of zeal, which theodosius a prior in palestine is said to have done, anathematise from the pulpit all people that do not give as much belief to the four first general councils as to the four. gospels themselves; yet, as you may see in the tenth head, she makes the authority of the first four general councils so great, that nothing is to be adjudged heresy but what may be proved to be so either from the scripture or from these four councils. which encomium might be made with less skill and more confidence by that prior, there having been no more than four general councils in his time. but it was singular learning and judgement, or else a kind of divine sagacity in our first reformers, that they laid so great stress on the first four general councils, and so little on any others pretended so to be. but in all likelihood they being persuaded of the truth of the prediction of the apostasy of the church under antichrist how universal in a manner it would be, they had the most confidence in those general councils which were the earliest, and that were held within those times of the church which some call symmetral. and without all question, the two first general councils, that of nice, and that other of constantinople, were within those times, viz. within four hundred years after christ; and the third and fourth within the time that the ten-horned beast had his horns growing up, according to mr. mede's computation. but the definitions of the third and fourth councils, that of ephesus, and that other of chalcedon (which are to establish the divinity of christ, which is not to be conceived without the union of both natures into one person; as also his theanthropy, which cannot consist with the confusion of both natures into one) were virtually contained in the definitions of the first and second councils. so that in this regard they are all of equal authority, and that unexceptionable. first, because their decisions were concerning points necessary to be decided one way or other, for the settlement of the church in the objects of their divine worship. and therefore they might be the better assured that the assistance of the holy ghost would not be wanting upon so weighty an occasion. and secondly, in that those two first councils were called while the church was symmetral, and before the apostasy came in, according to the testimony of the spirit in the visions of the apocalypse. which visions plainly demonstrate, that the definitions of those councils touching the triunity of the godhead and divinity of christ are not idolatrous, else the apostasy had begun before the time these oracles declare it did; and if not idolatrous, than they are most certainly true. and all these four councils driving at nothing else but these necessary points to be decided, and their decision being thus plainly approved by the suffrage of the holy ghost in the apocalypse, i appeal to any man of sense and judgement if they have not a peculiar prerogative to be believed above what other pretended general council soever; and consequently with what special or rather divine sagacity our first reformers have laid so peculiar a stress on these four, and how consistent our mother the church of england is to herself, that the decisions of general councils have neither strength nor authority further than the matter may be cleared out of the holy scriptures. for here we see, that out of the holy scriptures there is a most ample testimony given to the decisions of these four general councils. so that if one should with theodosius the prior of palestine in a fit of zeal anathematise all those that did not believe them as true as the four evangelists, he would not want a fair plea for his religious fury. but for men after the symmetral times of the church, upon piques and private quarrels of parties, to get general councils called as they fancy them, to conclude matters that tend neither to the confirmation of the real articles of the christian faith, or of such a sense of them as are truly useful to life and godliness, and herein to expect the infallible assistances of the holy spirit, either upon such terms as these, or for rank worldly interest, is such a presumption as to a free judgement will look little better than simony, as if they could hire the assistance of the holy ghost for money. thus have i run further into the consideration of general councils, and the measure of their authority, than was requisite upon so small an occasion; and yet i think there is nothing said, but if seriously weighed may be useful to the intelligent reader, whether he favour pre-existence or not. which is no further to be favoured than is consistent with the known and approved doctrines of the christian faith, nor clashes any thing with the soundest systemes of divinity, as dr. h. more shows his way of exhibiting the theory does not, in his general preface to his collectio philosophica, sect. 19 whose cautious and castigate method i have imitated as near as i could in these my annotations. and he has indeed been so careful of admitting any thing in the hypothesis that may justly be suspected or excepted against, that his friend mr. glanvil m●ght have enlarged his dedication by one word more, and called him repurgatorem sapientiae orientalis, as well as restauratorem, unless restaurator imply both: it being a piece of restauration, to free an hypothesis from the errors some may have corrupted it with, and to recover it to its primeval purity and sincerity. and yet when the business is reduced to this harmless and unexceptionable state, such is the modesty of that writer, that he declares that if he were as certain of the opinion as of any demonstration in mathematics, yet he holds not himself bound in conscience to profess it any further than is with the goodliking or permission of his superiors. of which temper if all men were, it would infinitely contribute to the peace of the church. and as for myself, i do freely profess that i am altogether of the selfsame opinion and judgement with him. annotations upon the discourse of truth. into which is inserted by way of digression, a brief return to m r. baxter's reply, which he calls a placid collation with the learned dr. henry more, occasioned by the doctors answer to a letter of the learned psychopyrist. whereunto is annexed a devotional hymn, translated for the use of the sincere lovers of true piety. london: printed for j. collins, and s. lownds, over against exeter-change in the strand. 1683. the annotatour to the reader. about a fortnight or three weeks ago, while my annotations upon the two foregoing treatises were a printing, there came to my hands mr. baxter's reply to dr. moor's answer to a letter of the learned psychopyrist, printed in the second edition of saducismus triumphatus: which reply he styles a placid collation with the learned dr. henry more. i being fully at leisure, presently fell upon reading this placid collation; which i must confess is so writ, that i was much surprised in the reading of it, i expecting by the title thereof nothing but fairness and freeness of judgement, and calmness of spirit, and love and desire of truth, and the prosperous success thereof in the world, whether ourselves have the luck to light on it, or where ever it is found. but instead of this, i found a magisterial loftiness of spirit, and a study of obscuring and suppressing of the truth by petty crooked artifices, strange distortions of the sense of the doctor's arguments, and falsifications of passages in his answer to the letter of the psychopyrist. which surprise moved me, i confess, to a competent measure of indignation in the behalf of the injured doctor, and of the truth he contends for: and that indignation, according to the idiosyncrasy of my genius, stirred up the merry humour in me, i being more prone to laugh than to be severely angry or surly at those that do things unhandsomely; and this merry humour stirred up, prevailing so much upon my judgement as to make me think that this placid collation was not to be answered, but by one in a pleasant and jocular humour; and i finding myself something so disposed, and judging the matter not of that moment as to be buzzed upon long, and that this more lightsome, brisk and jocular way of answering the placid collation might better befit an unknown annotatour, than the known pen and person of the doctor, i presently betook myself to this little province, thinking at first only to take notice of mr. baxters' disingenuities towards the doctor; but one thing drawing on another, and that which followed being carefully managed and apparently useful, i mean the answering all mr. baxter's pretended objections against the penetrability or indiscerpibility of a spirit, and all his smaller criticisms upon the doctor's definition thereof, in finishing these three parts, i quickly completed the whole little work of what i call the digression, (inserted into my annotations upon bishop rusts ingenious discourse of truth) which, with my annotations, and the serious hymn annexed at the end (to recompose thy spirits, if any thing over-ludicrous may chance to have discomposed them) i offer, courteous reader, to thy candid perusal; and so in some haste take leave, and rest your humble servant, the annotatour. annotations upon the discourse of truth. sect. 1. pag. 165. and that there are necessary mutual respects, etc. here was a gross mistake in the former impression. for this clause there ran thus: by the first i mean nothing else, but that things necessarily are what they are. by the second, that there are necessary mutual respects and relations of things one unto another. as if these mutual respects and relations of things one to another were truth in the subject, and not truth in the object; the latter of which he handles from the fourth section to the eighteenth, in which last section alone he treats of truth in the subject or understanding. the former part of the discourse is spent in treating of truth in the object; that is to say, of truth in the nature of things, and their necessary respects and mutual relations one to another. both which are antecedent in the order of nature to all understandings, and therefore both put together make up the first branch of the division of truth. so grossly had the authors ms. been depraved by passing through the hands of unskilful transcribers, as mr. j. glanvil complains at the end of his letter prefixed to this discourse. and so far as i see, that ms. by which he corrected that according to which the former impression was made, was corrupt itself in this place. and it running glibly, and they expecting so suddenly the proposal of the other member of the division, the error, though so great, was overseen. but it being now so seasonably corrected, it gives great light to the discourse, and makes things more easy and intelligible. sect. 2. pag. 166. that any thing may be a suitable means to any end, etc. it may seem a monstrous thing to the sober, that any man's understanding should be so depraved as to think so. and yet i have met with one that took himself to be no small philosopher, but to be wiser than both the universities, and the royal society to boot, that did earnestly affirm to me, that there is no natural adaptation of means to ends, but that one means would be as good as another for any end if god would have it so, in whose power alone every thing has that effect it has upon another. whereupon i asked him, whether if god would a football might not be as good an instrument to make or mend a pen withal, as a penknife. he was surprised; but whether he was convinced of his madness and folly, i do not well remember. pag. 167. is it possible there should be such a kind of geometry, wherein any problem should be demonstrated by any principles? some of the cartesians bid fair towards this freakishness, whenas they do not stick to assert, that, if god would, he could have made that the whole should be lesser than the part, and the part bigger than the whole. which i suppose they were animated to, by a piece of raillery of des cartes, in answering a certain objection; where, that he may not seem to violate the absolute power of god for making what laws he pleased for the ordering of the matter of the universe (though himself seems to have framed the world out of certain inevitable and necessary mechanical laws) does affirm, that those laws that seem so necessary, are by the arbitrarious appointment of god, who, if he would, could have appointed other laws, and indeed framed another geometry than we have, and made the power of the hypotenusa of a rightangled triangle unequal to the powers of the basis and cathetus. this piece of drollery of des cartes some of his followers have very gravely improved to what i said above of the whole and part. as if some superstitious fop, upon the hearing one being demanded, whether he did believe the real and corporeal presence of christ in the sacrament, to answer roundly that he believed him there booted and spurred as he road in triumph to jerusalem, should become of the same faith that the other seemed to profess, and glory in the improvement thereof by adding that the ass was also in the sacrament, which he spurred and rid upon. but in the mean time, while there is this frenzy amongst them that are no small pretenders to philosophy, this does not a little set off the value and usefulness of this present discourse of truth, to undeceive them if they be not wilfully blind. pag. 167. therefore the three angles of a triangle are equal to two right ones; namely, because a quadrangle is that which is comprehended of four right lines. it is at least a more operose and ambagious inference, if any at all. the more immediate and expedite is this, that the two internal alternate angles made by a right line cutting two parallels, are equal to one another: therefore the three angles of a triangle are equal to two right ones, p. ram. geom. lib. 6. prop. 9 if the reasoning had been thus: a quadrangle is that which is comprehended of four right lines, therefore the three angles of a triangle are not equal to two right ones; as the conclusion is grossly false, so the proof had been egregiously alien and impertinent. and the intention of the author seems to be carried to instances that are most extravagant and surprising; which makes me doubt whether [equal] was read in the true ms. or [not equal] but the sense is well enough either way. sect. 4. pag. 168. the divine understanding cannot be the fountain of the truth of things, etc. this seems at first sight to be a very harsh paradox, and against the current doctrine of metaphysicians, who define transcendental or metaphysical truth to be nothing else but the relation of the conformity of things to the theoretical (not practical) intellect of god; his practical intellect being that by which he knows things as produced or to be produced by him, but his theoretical that, by which he knows things as they are: but yet in an objective manner, as existent objectively, not really. and hence they make transcendental truth to depend upon the intellectual truth of god, which alone is most properly truth, and indeed the fountain and origine of all truth. this in brief is the sense of the metaphysical schools. with which this passage of our author seems to clash, in denying the divine intellect to be the fountain of the truth of things, and in driving rather at this, that the things themselves in their objective existence, such as they appear there unalterably and unchangeably to the divine intellect, and not at pleasure contrived by it (for as he says, it is against the nature of all understanding to make its object) are the measure and fountain of truth. that in these, i say, consists the truth in the object, and that the truth in the subject is a conception conformable to these, or to the truth of them whether in the uncreated or created understanding. so that the niceness of the point is this: whether the transcendental truth of things exhibited in their objective existence to the theoretical intellect of god consists in their conformity to that intellect, or the truth of that intellect in its conformity with the immutable natures and relations or respects of things exhibited in their objective existence, which the divine intellect finds to be unalterably such, not contrives them at its own pleasure. this though it be no 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or strife about mere words, yet it seems to be such a contest, that there is no harm done whethersoever side carries the cause, the two seeming sides being but one and the same intellect of god necessarily and immutably representing to itself the natures, respects, and aptitudes of all things such as they appear in their objective existence, and such as they will prove whenever produced into act. as for example, the divine understanding quatenns exhibitive of ideas (which a platonist would call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) does of its infinite pregnancy and fecundity necessarily exhibit certain and unalterable ideas of such and such determinate things, as suppose of a cylinder, a globe and a pyramid, which have a settled and unalterable nature, as also immutable properties, references and aptitudes immediately consequential thereto, and not arbitrariously added unto them, which are thus necessarily extant in the divine intellect, as exhibitive of such ideas. so likewise a fish, a fowl, and a fourfooted beast, an ox, bear, horse, or the like, they have a settled nature exhibited in their ideas, and the properties and aptitudes immediately ●lowing therefrom. as also have all the elements, earth, water and air, determinate natures, with properties and aptitudes immediately issuing from them. nor is a whale fitted to fly in the air, nor an eagle to live under the water, nor an ox or bear to do either, nor any of them to live in the fire. but the ideas of those things which we call by those names being unchangeable (for there are differences indeed of ideas, but no changing of one idea into another state, but their natures are distinctly settled; and to add or take away any thing from an idea, is not to make an alteration in the same idea, but to constitute a new one; as aristotle somewhere in his metaphysics speaks of numbers, where he says, that the adding or taking away of an unite quite varies the species. and therefore as every number, suppose, binary, quinary, ternary, denary, is such a settled number and no other, and has such properties in itself, and references immediately accrueing to it, and aptitudes which no other number besides itself has; so it is with ideas) the ideas i say therefore of those things which we call by those name's above-recited being unchangeable, the aptitudes and references immediately issuing from their nature represented in the idea, must be also unalterable and necessary. thus it is with mathematical and physical ideas; and there is the same reason concerning such ideas as may be called moral. forasmuch as they respect the rectitude of will in whatever mind, created or uncreated. and thus, lastly, it is with metaphysical ideas, as for example; as the physical idea of body, matter or substance material contains in it immediately of its own nature or intimate specific essence real divisibility or discerpibility, impenetrability and mere passivity or actuability, as the proper fruit of the essential difference and intimate form thereof, unalterably and immutably as in its idea in the divine intellect, so in any body or material substance that does exist: so the idea of a spirit, or of a substance immaterial, the opposite idea to the other, contains in it immediately of its own nature indiscerpibility, penetrability, and selfactivity, as the inseparable fruit of the essential difference or intimate form thereof unalterably and immutably, as in its idea in the divine intellect, so in any immaterial substance properly so called that doth exist. so that as it is a contradiction in the idea that it should be the idea of substance immaterial, and yet not include in it indiscerpibility, etc. so it is in the being really existent, that it should be substance immaterial, and yet not be indiscerpible, etc. for were it so, it would not answer to the truth of its idea, nor be what it pretendeth to be, and is indeed, an existent being indiscerpible; which existent being would not be indiscerpible, if any could discerp it. and so likewise it is with the idea of ens summè & absolutè perfectum, which is a settled determinate and immutable idea in the divine intellect, whereby, were not god himself that ens summè & absolutè perfectum, he would discern there were something better than himself, and consequently that he were not god. but he discerns himself to be this ens summè & absolutè perfectum, and we cannot but discern that to such a being belongs spirituality, which implies indiscerpibility, (and who but a mad man can imagine the divine essence discerpible into parts?) infinity of essence, or essential omnipresence, self-causality, or necessary existence immediately of itself or from itself▪ resulting from the absolute and peculiar perfection of its own nature, whereby we understand that nothing can exist ab aeterno of itself but herald and lastly, omniscience and omnipotence, whereby it can do any thing that implies no contradiction to be done. whence it necessarily follows, that all things were created by him, and that he were not god, or ens summè perfectum, if it were not so: and that amongst other things he created spirits (as sure as there are any spirits in the world) indiscerpible as himself is, though of finite essences and metaphysical amplitudes; and that it is no derogation to his omnipotence that he cannot discerp a spirit once created, it being a contradiction that he should: nor therefore any argument that he cannot create a spirit, because he would then puzzle his own omnipotence to discerp it. for it would then follow, that he cannot create any thing, no not metaphysical monads, nor matter, unless it be physically divisible in infinitum; and god himself could never divide it into parts physically indivisible; whereby yet his omnipotence would be puzzled: and if he can divide matter into physical monads no further divisible, there his omnipotence is puzzled again; and by such sophistical reasoning, god shall be able to create nothing, neither matter nor spirit, nor consequently be god, or ens summè & absolutè perfectum, the creator and essentiator of all things. this is so mathematically clear and true, that i wonder that mr. rich. baxter should not rather exult, (in his placid collation) at the discovery of so plain and useful a truth, than put himself, p. 79. into an histrionical (as the latin) or (as the greek would express it) hypocritical fit of trembling, to amuse the populacy, as if the doctor in his serious and solid reasoning had verged towards something hugely exorbitant or profane. the ignorant fear where no fear is, but god is in the generation of the knowing and upright. it's plain, this reasoning brings not the existence of god into any doubt, (for it is no repugnance to either his nature or existence, not to be able to do what is a contradiction to be done) but it puts the indiscerpibility of spirits (which is a notion mainly useful) out of all doubt. and yet mr. baxter his fancy stalking upon wooden stilts, and getting more than a spit and a stride before his reason, very magisterially pronounces, it's a thing so high, as required some show of proof to intimate that god cannot be god if he be almighty, and cannot conquer his own omnipotency. ans. this is an expression so high and in the clouds, that no sense thereof is to be seen, unless this be it: that god cannot be god, unless he be not almighty; as he would discover himself not to be, if he could not discerp a spirit of a metaphysical amplitude when he has created it. but it plainly appears from what has been said above, that this discerping of a spirit, which is immediately and essentially of its own nature indiscerpible, as well as a physical monad is, implying a contradiction, it is no derogation to the almightiness of god that he cannot do it; all philosophers and theologers being agreed on that maxim, that what implies a contradiction to be done, is no object of god's almightiness. nor is he less almighty for not being able to do it. so that the prick-eared acuteness of that trim and smug saying, that seemed before to shoot up into the sky, flags now like the flaccid lugs of the over-laden animal old silenus rid on when he had a plot upon the nymphs by moonshine. pardon the tediousness of the periphrasis: for though the poet was pleased to put old silenus on the ass, yet i thought it not so civil to put the ass upon old mr. baxter. but he proceeds, pag. 80. your words, says he, like an intended reason, are [for that cannot be god from whom all other things are not produced and created] to which he answers, (1.) relatively, says he, (as a god to us) it's true, though quoad existentiam essentiae, he was god before the creation. but, i say, if he had not had the power of creating, he had been so defective a being, that he had not been god. but he says (2.) but did you take this for any show of a proof? the sense employed is this [all things are not produced and created by god, if a spiritual ample substance be divisible by his omnipotency that made it: yea; then he is not god. negatur consequentia. ans. very scholastically disputed! would one think that reverend mr. baxter, whom dr. more for his function and grandevity sake handles so respectfully, and forbears all such juvenilities as he had used toward eugenius philalethes, should play the doctor such horseplay, having been used so civilly by him before? what buffoon or antic mime could have distorted their bodies more ill-favouredly and ridiculously, than he has the doctor's solid and well-composed argument? and then as if he had done it in pure innocency and simplicity, he adds a quaker-like [yea] thereunto. and after all, like a bold scholastic champion, or polemic divine, courageously cries out, negatur consequentia. what a fardel of freaks is there here, and illiberal artifices to hide the doctors sound reasoning in the 28th section of his answer to the psychopyrists letter? where having plainly proved that god can create an indiscerpible being though of a large metaphysical amplitude, and that there is nothing objected against it, nor indeed can be, but that then he would seem to puzzle his own omnipotency, which could not discerp such a being; the doctor shows the vanity of that objection in these very words▪ the same, says he, may be said of the metaphysical monads (namely, that god cannot discerp them) and at that rate he shall be allowed to create nothing, no not so much as matter (which consists of physical monads) nor himself indeed to be. for that cannot be god from whom all other things are not produced and created. what reason can be more clear or more convincing, that god can create a spirit in the proper sense thereof, which includes indiscerpibility? there being no reason against it but what is false, it plainly implying that he can create nothing, and consequently that he cannot be god. wherefore that objection being thus clearly removed, god, as sure as himself is, can create a spirit, penetrable and indiscerpible, as himself is, and is expressly acknowledged to be so by mr. baxter himself, pag. 5●. and he having created spirits or immaterial substances of an opposite species to material, which are impenetrable and discerpible of their immediate nature how can these immaterial substances be any other than penetrable and indiscerpible? which is a very useful dogma for assuring the souls personal subsistence after death. and therefore it is a piece of grand disingenuity in mr. baxter, to endeavour thus to slur and obscure so plain and edifying a truth, by mere antic distortions of words and sense, by alterations and mu●ilations, and by a kind of sophistick buffonery. this is one specimen of his difingenuity towards the doctor, who in his answer has been so civil to him. and now i have got into this digression, i shall not stick to exemplify it in several others. as secondly, pag. 4. in those words: and when i presume most, i do but most lose myself, and misuse my understanding. nothing is good for that which it was not made for. our understandings, as our eyes, are made only for things revealed. in many of your books i take this for an excess. so mr. baxter▪ let me now interpose a word or two in the behalf of the doctor. is not this a plain piece of disingenuity against the doctor, who has spent so great a part of his time in philosophy (which the mere letter of the scripture very rarely reveals any thing of) to reproach him for his having used his understanding so much about things not revealed in scripture? where should he use his understanding and reason, if not in things unrevealed in scripture; that is, in philosophical things? things revealed in scripture are objects rather of faith than of science and understanding. and what a paradox is this, that our understandings, as our eyes, are made only for things revealed? when our eyes are shut, all the whole visible world, by the closing of the palpebrae is vailed from us, but it is revealed to us again by the opening of our eyes; and so it is with the eye of the understanding. if it be shut through pride, prejudice, or sensuality, the mysteries of philosophy are thereby vailed from it; but if by true virtue and unfeigned sanctity of mind that eye be opened, the mysteries of philosophy are the more clearly discovered to it, especially if points be studied with singular industry, which mr. baxter himself acknowledges of the doctor, pag. 21. only he would there pin upon his back an humble ignoramus in some things, which the doctor, i dare say, will easily admit in many things, yea in most; and yet, i believe, this he will stand upon, that in those things which he professes to know, he will challenge all the world to disprove if they can. and for probable opinions, especially if they be useless, which many books are too much stuffed withal, he ca●●s them out as the lumber of the mind, and would willingly give them no room in his thoughts. firmness and soundness of life is much better than the multiplicity of uncertain conceits. and lastly, whereas mr. baxter speaking of himself, says, and when i presume most, i do but most lose myself; he has so bewildered and lost himself in the multifarious, and most-what needless points in philosophy or scholastic divinity, that if we can collect the measures of the cause from the amplitude of the effect, he must certainly have been very presumptuous. he had better have set up his staff in his saints everlasting rest, and such other edifying and useful books as those, than to have set up for either a philosopher or polemic divine. but it is the infelicity of too many, that they are ignorant— quid valeant humeri, quid ferre recusent, as the poet speaks, or as the pythagoreans— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. and so taking upon them a part in a play which they are unfit for, they both neglect that which they are fit for, and miscarry, by reason of their unfitness, in their acting that part they have rashly undertaken; as epictetus somewhere judiciously observes. but if that passage, and when i presume most, i do but most lose myself, was intended by him as an oblique socratical reproof to the doctor; let him instance if he can, where the doctor has presumed above his strength. he has meddled but with a few things, and therefore he need not envy his success therein, especially they being of manifest use to the serious world, so many as god has fitted for the reception of them. certainly there was some grand occasion for so grave a preliminary monition as he has given the doctor. you have it in the following page, p. 5. this premised, says he, i say, undoubtedly it is utterly unrevealed either as to any certainty or probability, that all spirits are souls, and actuate matter. see what heat and hast, or some worse principle has engaged mr. baxter to do; to father a downright falsehood upon the doctor, that he may thence take occasion to bestow a grave admonition on him, and so place himself on the higher ground. i am certain it is neither the doctor's opinion, that all spirits are souls, and actuate matter, nor has he writ so any where. he only says in his preface to the reader, that all created spirits are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 [souls] in all probability, and actuate some matter. and his expression herein is both modest and true. for though it is not certain or necessary, yet it is very probable. for if there were of the highest orders of the angels that fell, it is very probable that they had corporeal vehicles, without which it is hard to conceive they could run into disorder. and our saviour christ's soul, which actuates a glorified spiritual body, being set above all the orders of angels, it is likely that there is none of them is so refined above his humane nature, as to have no bodies at all. not to add, that at the resurrection we become 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, though we have bodies then; which is a shrewd intimation that the angels have so too, and that there are no created spirits but have so. thirdly, mr. baxter, pag. 6. wrongfully blames the doctor for being so defective in his studies as not to have read over dr. glisson de vita naturae; and says he has talked with divers high pretenders to philosophy, and asked their judgement of that book, and found that none of them understood it, but neglected it, as too hard for them; and yet contemned it. his words to dr. more are these: i marvel that ●hen you have dealt with so many sorts of dissenters, you meddle not with so subtle a piece as that of old dr. glissons, de vita naturae. he thinks the subtlety of the book has deterred the doctor from reading it, as something above his capacity, as also of other high pretenders to philosophy. this is a book it seems calculated only for the elevation of mr. baxter's subtle and sublime wit. and indeed by the benefit of reading this book he is most dreadfully armed with the affrightful terms of quoddities and quiddities, of conceptus formalis and fundamentalis, of conceptus adaequatus and inadaequatus, and the like. in virtue of which thwacking expressions he has fancied himself able to play at scholastic or philosophic quarterstaff with the most doughty and best appointed wits that dare enter the lists with him; and as over-neglectful of his flock, like some conceited shepherds, that think themselves no small fools at the use of the staff or cudgil-play, take vagaries to fairs or wakes to give a specimen of their skill; so he ever and anon makes his polemic sallies in philosophy or divinity to entertain the spectators, though very oft he is so rapt upon the knuckles, that he is forced to let fall his wooden instrument, and blow his fingers. which is but a just nemesis upon him, and he would do well to interpret it as a seasonable reproof from the great pastor of souls, to whom we are all accountable. but to return to his speech to the doctor; i will adventure to answer in his behalf, that i marvel that whenas mr. baxter has had the curiosity to read so many writers, and some of them sure but of small concern, that he has not read that sound and solid piece of dr. more, viz. his epistola altera ad v. c. with the scholia thereon, where spinozius is confuted. which if he had read he might have seen volume. philosoph. tom. 1. pag. 604, 605, etc. that the doctor has not only read that subtle piece of doctor glissons, but understands so throughly his hypothesis, that he has solidly and substantially confuted it. which he did in a faithful regard to religion. for that hypothesis, if it were true, were as safe, if not a safer refuge for atheists, than the mere mechanic philosophy is: and therefore you may see there, how cuperus, brought up amongst the atheists from his very childhood, does confess, how the atheists nowadays explode the mechanic philosophy as not being for their turn, and betake themselves wholly to such an hypothesis as dr. glissons vita naturae. but, god be thanked, dr. h. more in the forecited place has perfectly routed that fond and foul hypothesis of dr. glisson, and i dare say is sorry that so good and old a knight errand in theologie and philosophy as mr. richard baxter seems to be, should become benighted, as in a wood, at the close of his days, in this most horrid dark harbour and dismal receptacle or rendezvous of wretched atheists. but i dare say for him, it is his ignorance, not choice, that has lodged him there. the fourth disingenuity of mr. baxter towards the doctor is, in complaining of him as if he had wronged him by the title of his answer to his letter, in calling it an answer to a psychopyrist, pag. 2. 82. as if he had asserted that materiality of spirits which belongs to bodies, pag. 94. in complaining also of his inconsistency with himself, pag. 10. as if he one while said that mr. baxter made spirits to be fire or material, and another while said he made them not fire or material. but to the first part of this accusation it may be answered, that if it is mr. baxter that is called the learned psychopyrist, how is the thing known to the world but by himself? it looks as if he were ambitious of the title, and proud of the ●ivil treating he has had at the hands of the doctor, though he has but ill repaid his civility in his reply. and besides this, there is no more harshness in calling him psychopyrist, than if he had called him psycho-hylist, there being nothing absurd in psychopyrism but so far forth as it includes psycho-hylism, and makes the soul material. which psycho-hylism that mr. baxter does admit, it is made evident in the doctor's answer, sect. 16. and mr. baxter in his placid collation (as he mis-calls it, for assuredly his mind was turbid when he wrote it) pag. 2. allows that spirits may be called fire analogicè and eminenter, and the doctor in his preface intimates that the sense is to be no further stretched, than the psychopyrist himself will allow. but now that mr. baxter does assert that materiality in created spirits that belongs to bodies in the common sense of all philosophers, appears sect. 16. where his words are these: but custom having▪ made materia, but especially corpus to signify only such grosser substance as the three passive elements are (he means earth, water, air) i yield, says he, so to say, that spirits are not corporeal or material. which plainly implies that spirits are in no other sense immaterial, than fire and aether are, viz. than in this, that they are thinner matter. and therefore to the last point it may be answered in the doctor's behalf, that he assuredly does nowhere say, that mr. baxter does not say that spirits are material, as material is taken in the common sense of all philosophers for what is impenetrable and discerpible. which is materia physica, and in opposition to which, a spirit is said to be immaterial. and which briefly and distinctly states the question. which if mr. baxter would have taken notice of, he might have saved himself the labour of a great deal of needless verbosity in his placid collation, where he does over-frequently, under the pretence of more distinctness, in the multitude of words obscure knowledge. fifthly, upon sect. 10. pag. 21. where mr. baxter's question is, how a man may tell how that god that can make many out of one, cannot make many into one, etc. to which the doctor there answers: if the meaning be of substantial spirits, it has been already noted, that god acting in nature does not make many substances out of one, the substance remaining still entire; for then generation would be creation. and no sober man believes that god assists any creature so in a natural course, as to enable it to create: and then i suppose that he that believes not this, is not bound to puzzle himself why god may not as well make many substances into one, as many out of one, whenas he holds he does not the latter, etc. these are the doctors own words in that section. in reply to which, mr. baxter: but to my question, says he, why god cannot make two of one, or one of two, you put me off with this lean answer, that we be not bound to puzzle ourselves about it. i think, says he, that answer might serve to much of your philosophical disputes. here mr. baxter plainly deals very disingenuously with the doctor in perverting his words, which affirm only, that he that denies that god can make two substances of one in the sense above-declared, need not puzzle himself how he may make one of those two again. which is no lean, but full and apposite answer to the question there propounded. and yet in this his placid collation, as if he were wroth, he gives ill language, and insinuates, that much of the doctor's philosophical disputes are such as are not worth a man's puzzling himself about them; whenas it is well known to all that know him or his writings, that he concerns himself in no theories but such as are weighty and useful, as this of the indiscerpibility of spirits is, touching which he further slanders the doctor, as if it were his mere assertion without any proof. as if mr. baxter had never read, or forgot the doctor's discourse of the true notion of a spirit, or what he has writ in the further defence thereof. see sect. 26, 28, 30, 31. thus to say any thing in an angry mood, verily does not become the title of a placid collation. sixthly, the doctor in sect. 11. of his defence of his notion of a spirit, writes thus: i desire you to consider the nature of light throughly, and you shall find it nothing but a certain motion of a medium, whose parts or particles are so or so qualified, some such way as cartesianism drives at. to this mr. baxter replies against the doctor, pag. 59 really, says he, when i read how far you have escaped the delusions of cartesianism, i am sorry you yet stick in so gross a part of it as this is; when he that knoweth no more than motion in the nature of fire, which is the active principle by which mental and sensitive nature operateth on man and brutes and vegetables, and all the passive elements; and all the visible actions in this lower world are performed, what can that man's philosophy be worth? i therefore return your counsel, study more throughly the nature of ethereal fire. satis pro imperio! very magisterially spoken! and in such an igneous rapture, that it is not continuedly sense. does mental and sensitive nature act on brutes and vegetables and all the passive elements? but to let go that: is all the doctor's philosophy worth nothing if he hold with des cartes touching the phaenomenon of light as to the material part thereof? it is the ignorance of mr. baxter, that he rejects all in des cartes, and judiciousness in the doctor, that he retains some things, and supplies where his philosophy is deficient. he names here only the mechanical cause of light, viz. motion, and duly modified particles. but in his enchiridium he intimates an higher principle than either fire or aether, or any thing that is material, be it as fine and pure as you please to fancy it. see his enchirid. metaphys. cap. 19 where he shows plainly, that light would not be light, were there not a spiritus mundanus, or spirit of nature, which pervades the whole universe; mr. baxters ignorance whereof has cast him into so deep a dotage upon fire and light, and fine discerpible corporeities, which he would by his magisterial prerogative dubb spirits, when to nothing that title is due, but what is penetrable and indiscerpible by reason of the immediate oneness of its essence, even as god the father and creator of all spirits is one indiscerpible substance or being. and therefore i would advise mr. baxter to study more throughly the true nature of a spirit, and to let go these ignes fatui that would seduce him into thick mists and bogs. for that universal spirit of nature is most certainly the mover of the matter of the world, and the modifier thereof, and thence exhibits to us not only the phaenomena of light and fire, but of earth and water, and frames all vegetables into shape and growth; and fire of itself is but a dead instrument in its hand, as all is in the hand of god, who is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉! and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as synesius, if i well remember, somewhere calls him in his hymns. seventhly, that is also less ingenuously done of mr. baxter, when the doctor so friendly and faithfully puts him in a way of undeceiving himself, sect. 17. touching the doctrine of atoms, that he puts it off so slightly. and so sect. 18. where he earnestly exhorts him to study the nature of water, as mr. baxter does others to study the nature of fire; he, as if he had been bitten, and thence taken with that disease the physicians call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and which signifies the fear of water, has slunk away and quite neglected the doctor's friendly monition; and is so small a proficient in hydrostatics, that pag. 68 he understands not what greater wonder there is in the rising of the dr.'s rundle, than in the rising of a piece of timber from the bottom of the sea. which is a sign he never read the 13th chapter of the dr.'s enchiridion metaphysicum, much less the scholia thereon. for if he had, he would discern the difference, and the vast usefulness of the one above that of the other to prove a principium hylarchicum distinct from the matter of the universe, against all evasions and tergiversations whatsoever. but these things cannot be insisted on here. eighthly, mr. baxter, pag. 76. charges the doctor with such a strange paradox as to half of it, that i cannot imagine from whence he should fetch it. you seem, says he, to make all substance atoms, spiritual atoms and material atoms. the latter part of the charge the doctor i doubt not but will acknowledge to be true: but may easily prove out of mr. baxter, pag. 65. that he must hold so too. for his words there are these: tha● god is able to divide all matter into atoms or indivisible parts i doubt not. and can they be physically divided into parts of which they don't consist? but mr. baxter by the same reason making spirits divisible by god, though not by any creature, makes them consist of spiritual atoms, for they cannot but consist of such parts as they are divisible into. and if they be divisible by god into larger shreds only but not into atoms, than every created spirit, especially particular ones, are so many subtle living puppets made up of spiritual rags and clouts. but if god can divide them neither into spiritual atoms nor larger spiritual parcels, he can't divide them at all. and so according to what the doctor contends for, they will be, as they ought to be, absolutely indiscerpible. i omit here to take notice of another absurdity of mr. baxters, that though the substance of a spirit he will have to be divisible, yet he will have the form indivisible, pag. 50, 99 and yet both parts to be spirit still; which implies a contradiction. for than one of the parts will be without the form of a spirit, and consequently be no spirit, and yet be a spirit according to mr. baxter, who makes spirits divisible into parts of the same denomination, as when water is divided into two parts, each part is still water, pag. 53. ninthly. that which occurrs pag. 48. is a gross disingenuity against the doctor, where mr. baxter says, and when you make all spirits to be souls and to animate some matter, you seem to make god to be but anima mundi. how unfair and harsh is this for you mr. baxter, who has been so tenderly and civilly handled by the doctor in his answer to your letter, he constantly hiding or mollifying any thing that occurred therein that might overmuch expose you, to represent him as a favourer of so gross a paradox as this, that there is no god but an anima mundi, which is the position of the vaninian atheists, which himself has expressly confuted in his mystery of godliness, and declared against lately in his advertisements on jos glanvil's letter to himself, in the second edition of saducismus triumphatus? this looks like the breaking out of unchristian rancour, in a reply which bears the specious title of a placid collation. which is yet exceedingly more aggravable, for that this odious collection is not made from any words of the doctor, but from a fiction of mr. baxter. for the doctor has nowhere written, nor ever thought that all spirits, but only all created spirits, might probably be souls, that is to say, actuate some matter or other. and those words are in his preface to his answer to the letter of the psychopyrist, as i noted before. i might reckon up several other disingenuities of mr. baxter's towards the doctor in this his placid collation; but i have enumerated enough already to weary the reader, and i must remember i am but in a digression. i shall only name one disingenuity more, which was antecedent to them all, and gave occasion both to mr. baxters' letter, and to the doctors answer thereto, and to this reply of mr. baxter. and that was, that mr. baxter in his methodus theologiae (as he has done also in a little pamphlet touching judge hales) without giving any reasons, which is the worst way of traducing any man or his sentiments, slighted and slurred those two essential attributes of a spirit, penetrability and indiscerpibility, which for their certain truth and usefulness the doctor thought fit to communicate to the world. but forasmuch as mr. baxter has in this his reply produced his reasons against them, i doubt not but the doctor will accept it for an amends. and i, as i must disallow of the disingenuity of the omission before, yet to be just to mr. baxter, i must commend his discretion and judgement in being willing to omit them; they appearing to me now they are produced, so weak and invalid. but such as they are, i shall gather them out of his reply, and bring them into view. first then, pag. 13. it is alleged, that nothing hath two forms univocally so called. but if penetrability and indiscerpibility be added to the virtus vitalis, to the vital power of a spirit, it will have two forms. therefore penetrability and indiscerpibility are to be omitted in the notion of a spirit. see also p. 22. secondly, pag. 14. penetrable and indiscerpible can be no otherwise a form to spirits, than impenetrable and discerpible are a form to matter. but impenetrable is only a modal conceptus of matter, and discerpible a relative notion thereof, and neither one nor both contrary to virtus vitalis in a spirit. thirdly, pag. 14. he sees no reason why quantity, and the trina dimensio, may not as well be part of the form of matter as discerpibilitie and impenetrabilitie. fourthly, pag. 15, 16. nothing is to be known without the mediation of sense, except the immediate sensation itself, and the acts of intellection and volition or nolition, and what the intellect inferreth of the like, by the perception of these. wherefore as to the modification of the substance of spirits which is contrary to impenetrabilitie and divisibility, i may grope, says he, but i cannot know it positively for want of sensation. fifthly, pag. 16, 17. if indiscerpibility be the essential character of a spirit, than an atom of matter is a spirit, it being acknowledged to be indiscerpible. wherefore indiscerpibility is a false character of a spirit. sixthly, pag. 17, 18. [penetrable] whether actively or passively understood, can be no proper character of a spirit, forasmuch as matter can penetrate a spirit, as well as a spirit matter, it possessing the same place. see pag. 23. seventhly, pag. 40, 41. immateriality, says he, penetrability and indiscerpibility, in your own judgement i think are none of them proper to spirit. for they are common to divers accidents in your account, viz. to light, heat, cold. and again in his own words, eighthly, pag. 77. if your penetrability, says he, imply not that all the singular spirits can contract themselves into a punctum, yea that all the spirits of the world may be so contracted, i find it not yet sufficiently explained. see also pag. 52, 78, 89, 90. ninthly, pag. 50. seeing, says he, you ascribe amplitude, quantity, and dimensions and logical materiality to the substantialitie of spirits, i see not but that you make them intellectually divisible, that is, that one may think of one part as here, and another there. and if so, though man cannot separate and divide them, if it be no contradiction, god can. tenthly, and lastly, pag. 90. the putting of penetrability and indiscerpibility into the notion of a spirit, is needless, and hazardous, it being sufficient to hold that god hath made spirits of no kind of parts but what do naturally abhor separation, and so are inseparable unless god will separate them, and so there is no fear of losing our personality in the other state. but penetrability and indiscerpibility being hard and doubtful words, they are better left out, lest they tempt all to believe that the very being of spirits is as doubtful as those words are. thus have i faithfully though briefly brought into view all mr. baxter's arguments against the penetrability and indiscerpibility of spirits, which i shall answer in order as they have been recited. to the first therefore i say, that the doctor's definition of a spirit, which is [a substance immaterial intrinsically endued with life and a faculty of motion] where substance is the genus, and the rest of the terms comprise the differentia (which mr. baxter calls conceptus formalis and forma) i say, that this difference or form though it consist of many terms, yet these terms are not heterogeneal, as he would insinuate, pag. 22. but congenerous, and one in order to another, and essentially and inseparably united in that one substance which is rightly and properly called spirit, and in virtue of that one substance, though their notions and operations differ, they are really one inseparable specific difference or form, as much as mr. baxter's virtus vitalis un a-trina is; that is to say, they are specific knowable terms, succedaneous to the true intimate specific form that is utterly unknowable; and therefore i say, in this sen●e these knowable terms are one inseparable specific difference or form whereby spirit is distinguished from body or matter in a physical acception. which the universality of philosophers hold to consist in impenetrability, and discerpibilitie, and self-inactivitie. which if mr. baxter would have been pleased to take notice of, viz. that a spirit is said to be a substance immaterial in opposition to matter physical, he might have saved himself the labour of a deal of tedious trisling in explication of words to no purpose. but to show that this pretence of more forms than one in one substance is but a cavil, i will offer really the same definition in a more succinct way, and more to mr. baxters' tooth, and say, as corpus is substantia materialis (where materialis is the specific difference of corpus comprised in one term:) so spiritus is substantia immaterialis (where immaterialis the specific difference of spiritus is likewise comprised in one term, to please the humour of mr. baxter.) but now as under that one term [materialis] are comprised impenetrabilitie, discerpibilitie, and self-inactivity; so also under that one term [immaterialis] are comprised, as under one head, penetrability, indiscerpibility, and intrinsical life and motion, that is, an essential faculty of life and motion, which in one word may be called selfactivity. whence penetrability, indiscerpibility, and selfactivity are as much one form of a spirit, as mr. baxter's vita, perceptio, and appetitus, is one form thereo●. for though in both places they are three distinct notions, at least as mr. baxter would have it, yet they are the essential and inseparable attributes of one substance, and the immediate fruit and result of the specific nature thereof. they are inseparably one in their source and subject. and this i think is more than enough to take off this first little cavil of mr. baxter's against the doctors including penetrability and inseparability in the form or specific difference of a spirit. for all that same is to be called form, by which a thing is that which it is, as far as our cognitive faculties will reach, and by which it is essentially distinguished from other things. and if it were not for penetrability and indiscerpibility, spirit would be confounded with body and matter. and body or physical matter might be self-active, sentient, and intelligent. to the second i answer, that whosoever searches things to the bottom, he will find this a sound principle in philosophy, that there is nothing in the whole universe but what is either substantia or modus. and when a mode or several modes put together are immediately and essentially inseparable from a substance, they are looked upon as the form, or the only knowable specific difference of that substance. so that impenetrability and discerpibility, which are immediately essential to, and inseparable from body or matter, and self-inactivitie, (as irrational is made the specific difference of a brute) may be added also: these, i say, are as truly the form or specific difference of body or matter, as any thing knowable is of any thing in the world. and self-inactivity at least, is contrary to the virtus vitalis of a spirit, though impenetrability and discerpibility were not. so that according to this oeconomy, you see how plainly and tightly body and spirit are made opposite species one to another. and 'tis these modal differences of substances which we only know, but the specific substance of any thing is utterly unknown to us, however mr. baxter is pleased to swagger to the contrary, p. 44, 62. where he seems to mis-understand the doctor, as if by essence he did not understand substance, as both 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and essentia usually signify (especially with the ancients) but any being at large. but of substance it is most true, we know it only by its essential modes, but the modes are not the substance itself of which they are modes; otherwise the substance would want modes, or every substance would be more substances than one. and mr. baxter himself saith, pag. 62. to know an essential attribute, and to know ipsam essentiam scientiâ inadaequatâ, is all one. which inadequate or partial knowledge, say i, is this, the knowing of the essential mode of the substance, and not knowing the substance itself; otherwise if both the essential modes were known, and also the specific substance to which the modes belong (more than that those modes belong to that substance) the knowledge would be full and adequate, and stretched through the whole object. so that mr. baxters scientia inadoequata, and the doctors denying the bare substance itself to be known, may very well consist together, and be judged a mere 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. which is an exercise more grateful it's likely to mr. baxter, than to the doctor. to the third i say, any one that considers may find a necessary reason why quantity or trina dimensio should be left out in the form of body or matter, especially why the doctor should leave it out, because he does professedly hold, that whatever is, has metaphysical quantity or metaphysical trina dimensio; which no man can deny that holds god is essentially present everywhere. and no man, i think, that does not dote can deny that. wherefore allowing matter to be substance; in that generical nature, trina dimensio is comprised, and need not be again repeated in the form. but when in the forma or differentia, discerpible and impenetrable is added, this is that which makes the trina dimensio (included in the genus, substantia) of a corporeal kind, and does constitute that species of things, which we call corpora. this is so plain a business, that we need insist no longer upon it. now to the fourth, i answer briefly, that from what knowledge we have by the mediation of the senses and inference of the intellect, we arrive not only to the knowledge of like things, but of unlike, or rather contrary: as in this very example, we being competently well instructed, indeed assured by our senses, that there is such a kind of thing as body, whose nature is to be impenetrable and discerpible, and our reason certainly informing us, as was noted even now, that whatever is, has a kind of amplitude more or less, or else it would be nothing; hence we are confirmed, that not extension or trina dimensio, but impenetrabilitie and discerpibilitie is the determinate and adequate nature of what we call body; and if there be any opposite species to body, our reason tells us it must have opposite modes or attributes, which are penetrability and indiscerpibility. this is a plain truth not to be groped after with our fingers in the dark, but clearly to be discerned by the eye of our understanding in the light of reason. and thus we see (and many examples more we might accumulate) that by the help of our senses and inference of our understanding, we are able to conclude not only concerning like things, but their contraries or opposites. i must confess i look upon this allegation of mr. baxter as very weak and faint. and as for his fifth, i do a little marvel that so grave and grandaevous a person as he should please himself in such little ●●irts of wit and sophistry as this of the indiscerpibility of an atom or physical monad. as if indiscerpibility could be none of the essential or specifical modes or attributes of a spirit, because a physical monad or atom is indiscerpible also, which is no spirit. but those very indiscerpibilities are specifically different. for that of a spirit is an indiscerpibility that arises from the positive perfection and oneness of the essence, be it never so ample; that of an atom or physical monad, from imperfection and privativeness, from the mere littleness or smallness thereof, so small that it is impossible to be smaller, and thence only is indiscerpible. the sixth also is a pretty juvenile ferk of wit for a grave ancient divine to use, that penetrability can be no proper character of a spirit, because matter can penetrate spirit as well as spirit matter, they both possessing the same space. suppose the body a. of the same amplitude with the body b. and thrust the body a. against the body b. the body a. will not nor can penetrate into the same space that the body b. actually occupies. but suppose the body a. a spirit of that amplitude, and according to its nature piercing into the same space which the body b. occupies, how plain is it that that active piercing into the same space that the body b. occupies, is to be attributed to the spirit a. & not to the body b? for the body a. could not get in. these are pretty forced distortions of wit, but no solid methods of due reason. and besides, it is to be noted, that the main character of a spirit is, as to penetrability, that spirit can penetrate spirit, but not matter matter. and now the seventh is as slight as the fifth. divers accidents, saith he, penetrate their subjects, as heat, cold, etc. therefore penetrability is no proper character of a spirit. but what a vast difference is there here! the one pierce the matter, (or rather are in the matter merely as continued modes thereof) the other enters into the matter as a distinct substance therefrom. penetration therefore is here understood in this character of a spirit, of penetratio substantialis, when a substance penetrates substance, as a spirit does spirit and matter, which matter cannot do. this is a certain character of a spirit. and his instancing in light as indiscerpible, is as little to the purpose. for the substance of light, viz. the materia subtilissima and globuli, are discerpible. and the motion of them is but a modus, but the point in hand is indiscerpibility of substance. to the eighth i answer, that mr. baxter here is hugely unreasonable in his demands, as if penetrability of spirits were not sufficiently explained, unless it can be made out, that all the spirits in the world, universal and particular, may be contracted into one punctum: but this is a theme that he loves to enlarge upon, and to declaim on very tragically, as pag. 52. if spirits have parts which may be extended and contracted, you will hardly so easily prove as say, that god cannot divide them. and when in your writings shall i find satisfaction into how much space one spirit may be extended, and into how little it may be contracted, and whether the whole spirit of the world may be contracted into a nutshell or a box, and the spirit of a flea may be extended to the convex of all the world? and again, pag. 78. you never tell into how little parts only it may be contracted; and if you put any limits, i will suppose that one spirit hath contracted itself into the least compass possible; and then i ask, cannot another and another spirit be in the same compass by their penetration? if not; spirits may have a contracted spissitude which is not penetrable, and spirits cannot penetrate contracted spirits, but only dilated ones. if yea; than quaero, whether all created spirits may not be so contracted. and i should hope that the definition of a spirit excludeth not god, and yet that you do not think that his essence may be contracted and dilated. o that we knew how little we know! this grave moral epiphonema with a sorrowful shaking of the head is not in good truth much misbecoming the sly insinuating cunning of mr. richard baxter, who here makes a show, speaking in the first person [we] of lamenting and bewailing the ignorance of his own ignorance, but friendly hooks in, by expressing himself in the plural number, the doctor also into the same condemnation. solamen miseris— as if he neither did understand his own ignorance in the things he writes of, but will be strangely surprised at the hard riddles mr. baxter has propounded, as if no oedipus were able to solve them. and i believe the doctor if he be called to an account will freely confess of himself, that in the things he positively pronounces of, so far as he pronounces, that he is indeed altogether ignorant of any ignorance of his own therein; but that this is by reason that he according to the cautiousness of his genius does not adventure further than he clearly sees ground, and the notion appears useful for the public. as it is indeed useful to understand that spirits can both penetrate matter and penetrate one another, else god could not be essentially present in all the parts of the corporeal universe, nor the spirits of men and angels be in god. both which notwithstanding are most certainly true, to say nothing of the spirit of nature, which particular spirits also penetrate, and are penetrated by it. but now for the contraction and dilatation of spirits, that is not a property of spirits in general as the other are, but of particular created spirits, as the doctor has declared in his treatise of the immortality of the soul. so that that hard question is easily answered concerning god's contracting and dilating himself; that he does neither, he being no created spirit, and being more absolutely perfect than that any such properties should be compatible to him. and it is reasonable to conceive that there is little actually of that property in the spirit of nature, it being no particular spirit, though created, but an universal one, and having no need thereof. for the corporeal world did not grow from a small embryo into that vast amplitude it is now of, but was produced of the same largeness it now has, though there was a successive delineation and orderly polishing and perfecting the vast distended parts thereof. and to speak compendiously and at once, that god that has created all things in number, weight & measure, has given such measures of spiritual essence and of the faculty of contracting and dilating the same, as also of spiritual subtlety of substance, as serves the ends of his wisdom and goodness in creating such a species of spirit. so that it is fond, unskilful, and ridiculous, to ask if the whole spirit of the world can be contracted into a nutshell, and the spirit of a flea extended to the convex of the universe. they that talk at this rate err, as aliens from the wisdom of god, and ignorant of the laws of nature, and indeed of the voice of scripture itself. why should god make the spirit of a flea, which was intended for the constituting of such a small animal, large enough to fill the whole world? or what need of such a contraction in the spirit of nature or plastic soul of the corporeal universe, that it may be contrived into a nutshell? that it has such spiritual subtlety as that particular spirits may contract themselves in it so close together, as to be commensurate to the first inchoations of a foetus, which is but very small, stands to good reason, and effects prove it to be so. as also this smallness of a foetus or embryo that particular spirits are so far contracted at first, and expand themselves leisurely afterwards with the growth of the body which they regulate. but into how much lesser space they can or do contract themselves at any time, is needless to know or inquire. and there is no repugnancy at all, but the spirit of nature might be contracted to the like essential spissitude that some particular spirits are; but there is no reason to conceit that it ever was or ever will be so contracted, while the world stands. nor last is there any inconvenience in putting indefinite limits of contraction in a spirit, and to allow that after such a measure of contraction, though we cannot say just what that is, it naturally contracts no further, nor does another so contracted naturally penetrate this thus contracted spirit. for as the usefulness of that measure of self-penetrability and contraction is plain, so it is as plain, that the admitting of it is no incongruity nor incommodity to the universe, nor any confusion to the specific modes of spirit and body. for these two spirits, suppose, contracted to the utmost of their natural limits, may naturally avoid the entering one another, not by a dead 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as in bodies or matter, but by a vital saturity, or natural uneasiness in so doing. besides that, though at such a contracted pitch they are naturally impenetrable to one another, yet they demonstrate still their spirituality, by self-penetration, haply a thousand and a thousand times repeated. and though by a law of life (not by a dead 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉), they are kept from penetrating one another, yet they both in the mean time necessarily penetrate matter, as undergoing the divers measures of essential spissitude in the same. so that by the increase of that essential spissitude, they may approach near to a kind of hylopathick disposition of impenetrability, and thence, by the matter of the universe (out of which they never are) be curbed from contracting themselves any further, than to such a degree; and i noted at first, that spiritual subtlety, as well as amplitude, is given in measure to created spirits. so that penetrability is still a steady character of a spiritual essence or substance, to th● utmost sense thereof. and to argue against impenetrability its being the property of matter from this kind of impenetrability of contracted spirits, is like that quibbling sophistry against indiscerpibility being the property of a spirit, because a physical monad is also indiscerpible. the ninth objection is against the indiscerpibility of spirits, and would infer, that because the doctor makes them intellectually divisible, therefore by divine power, if it imply no contradiction, a spirit is discerpible into physical parts. but this is so fully satisfied already by the doctor in his discourse of the true notion of a spirit, and its defence, to say nothing of what i have said already above to prove it does imply a contradiction, that i will let it go, and proceed. to the tenth and last allegation, which pretends, that these two terms penetrable and indiscerpible are needless and hazardous in the notion of a spirit. but how useful or needful penetrability is, is manifest from what we have said to the eighth objection. and the needfulness of indiscerpibility is also sufficiently shown by the doctor in his defence of the true notion of a spirit, sect. 30. but now for the hazardousness of these terms, as if they were so hard, that it would discourage men from the admitting of the existence of spirits; it appears from what has been said to the eighth objection, that penetrability is not only intelligible and admittable, but necessarily to be admitted, in the notion of a spirit, as sure as god is a spirit, and that there are spirits of men and angels, and that the souls of men are not made of shreds, but actuate their whole grown body, though at first they were contracted into the compass of a very small foetus. and that there is no repugnancy that an essence may be ample, and yet indiscerpible, mr. baxter himself must allow, who, pag. 51. plainly declares, that it is the vilest contradiction to say that god is capable of division. so that i wonder that he will call [penetrable] and [indiscerpible] hard and doubtful words, and such as might stumble men's belief of the existence of spirits, when they are terms so plain and necessary. nor can that unity that belongs to a spirit be conceived or understood without them, especially without indiscerpibility. and indeed if we do not allow penetrability, the soul of a man will be far from being one, but a thing discontinued, and scattered in the pores of his corporeal consistency. we will conclude with mr. baxters' conceit of the indivisibleness of a spirit, and see how that will corroborate men's faith of their existence, and put all out of hazard. various elements, saith he, pag. 50. vary in divisibility; earth is most divisible; water more hardly, the parts more inclining to the closest contact; air yet more hardly; and in fire, no doubt the discerpibility is yet harder: and if god have made a creature so strongly inclined to the unity of all the parts, that no creature can separate them but god only, as if a soul were such, it is plain that such a being need not fear a dissolution by separation of parts. ans. this is well said for an heedless and credulous multitude; but this is not to philosophise, but to tell us that god works a perpetual miracle in holding the small tenuious parts of the soul together, more pure and ●ine than those of fire or aether; but here is no natural cause ●●om the thing itself offered, unless it be, that in every substance, or rather matter, the parts according to the tenuity and purity of the substance, incline to a closer contact and inseparable union one with another; which is a conceit repugnant to experience, and easily confuted by that ordinary accident of a spinner hanging by its weak thread from the brim of ones hat; which ●eeble line yet is of force enough to divide the air, and for that very reason, because it consists of thinner parts than water or earth. as also, we can more easily run in the air than wade in the water, for the very same reason. these things are so plain, that they are not to be dwelled upon. but mr. baxter is thus pleased to show his wit in maintaining a weak ●ause, which i am persuaded he has not so little judgement as that he can have any great confidence in. and therefore in sundry places he intimates that he does allow or at least not deny but that penetrability and indiscerpibility is contained in the notion of a spirit; but not as part of the conceptus formalis, but as dispositio or modus substantiae, but yet withal such a dispositio as is essential to the substance that with the conceptus formalis added, makes up the true notion of a spirit. see pag. 30, 32, 61, 85. and truly if mr. baxter be in good earnest and sincere in this agreement without all equivocation, that penetrability and indiscerpibility is essential to the true notion of a spirit, only they are to be admitted as dispositio substantiae, not as pars formae, i confess, as he declares pag. 94. that the difference betwixt him and the doctor lieth in a much smaller matter than was thought; and the doctor i believe will easily allow him to please his own fancy in that. but then he must understand the terms of penetrability and indiscerpibility in the doctor's sense, viz, of a spirits penetrating not inter parts, but per parts materi●●, and possessing the same space with them. and of an indiscerpibleness not arising from thinner and thinner parts of matter, as he imagines air to be more hardly discerpible than earth or water, forasmuch as by reason of its thinness its parts lie closer together, as was above noted; but from the immediate essential oneness of substance in a spirit, according to the true idea of an indiscerpible being in the divine intellect, which, whether in idea or in actual existence, it would cease to be, or rather never was such, if it were discerpible, and therefore implies a contradiction it should be so. but if a spirit be not penetrable in the doctor's sense, it is really impenetrable; and if not indiscerpible in his sense, it is really discerpible, and consequently divisible into physical monads or atoms, and therefore constituted of them, and the last inference will be that of the epigrammatist: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. to this sense: all a vain jest, all dust, all nothing deem, for of mere atoms all composed been. and thus the fairest and firmest structures of philosophical theorems in the behalf of the providence of god, the existence of spirits, and the immortality of the soul, will become a castle of come-down, and fall quite to the ground. whence it was rightfully done of the doctor to lay such stress upon these two terms penetrability and indiscerpibility, they being the essential characteristics of what is truly a spirit, and which if they were taken out of the world, all would necessarily be matter, i mean physical matter (to prevent all quibblings and fiddle about words and phrases) and this physical matter would be the subject and source of all life whatever, intellective, sensitive and vegetative. and mr. baxter did ill in not only omitting these terms himself in his notion of a spirit, but in publicly slighting and disgracing of the doctors using of them, and afterwards in so stomaching his vindication of the same in public, whenas we see that without them there can be nothing but physical matter in the world, and god and angels and the souls of men must be such matter, if they be any thing a● all: and therefore in such an error as this, mr. baxter with christian patience might well have born with the doctors calling it, not only a mistake, but a mischief. and i hope by this time he is such a proficient in that virtue, that he will cheerfully bear the publication of this my answer in the behalf of the doctor to all his objections against these two essential and necessary characters of a spirit; and not be offended if i briefly run over his smaller criticisms upon the doctor's definition of the same, which do occur, pag. 80, 81. and elsewhere, as i shall advertise. the doctor's definition of a spirit in his discourse of that subject, sect. 29. is this [a spirit is a substance immaterial intrinsically endued with life and the faculty of motion] where he notes that immaterial contains virtually in it penetrability and indiscerpibility. now let us hear how mr. baxter criticizes on this definition. first, says he, pag. 80. your definition is common, good and true, allowing for its little imperfections, and the common imperfection of man's knowledge of spirits. if by [immaterial] you mean not [without substance] it signifieth truth, but a negation speaketh not a formal essence. ans. how very little these imperfections are, i shall note by passing through them all; and for the common imperfection of man's knowledge of spirits, what an unskilful or hypocritical pretence that is, the doctor hath so clearly shown in his discourse of the true notion of a spirit, sect. 16, 17, 18, 19 that it is enough to send the reader thither for satisfaction. but as for [immaterial] how can any one think that thereby is meant [without substance] but those that think there is nothing but matter in the physical sense of the word, in the world? as if [substance immaterial] was intended to signify [substance without substance]! and lastly, the doctor will deny that [in] in immaterial signifies negatively hear more than in immortal, incorruptible, or infinite, but that it is the indication of opposite properties to those of physical matter, viz. impenetrability and discerpibility, and that therefore immaterial here includes indiscerpibility and penetrability. secondly, pag. 81. spirit itself, says he, is but a metaphor. ans. though the word first signified other things before it was used in the sense it is here defined, yet use has made it as good as if it were originally proper. with your logicians, in those definitions, materia est causa ex qua res est, forma est causa per quam res est id quod est; materia and forma are metaphorical words, but use has made them in those definitions as good as proper; nor does any sober and knowing man move the least scruple touching those definitions on this account. to which you may add, that aristotle's caution against metaphors in defining things, is to be understood of the definition itself, not the definitum; but spirit is the definitum here, not the definition. thirdly, [intrinsically endued with lise] tells us not that it is the form. qualities, and proper accidents are intrinsecal. ans. mr. baxter, i suppose, for clearness sake, would have had form written over the head of this part of the definition, as the old bungling painters were wont to write, this is a cock, and this a bull; or as one wittily perstringed a young preacher that would name the logical topics he took his arguments from, saying he was like a shoemaker that offered his shoes to sale with the lasts in them. i thought mr. baxter had been a more nimble logician than to need such helps to discern what is the genus in the definition, what the differentia or forma. and for [intrinsically endued] i perceive he is ignorant of the proper force and sense of the word intrinsecùs, which signifies as much as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 only, which implies that this life is from the intimate essence of a spirit quatenus a spirit, and therefore can be no common quality nor a faculty clarted on, as mr. baxter fancies god may clart on life the specific form of spirit, as he himself acknowledges, on matter, though materia quatenus materia implies no such thing; but, i say; spiritus quatenus spiritus does, which is both the source and proper subject of life. but it is the effect of an ill perturbed sight, to fancy flaws where there are really none. and to fancy that a vis vitalis, or power of living can belong to materia physica immediately, which power must necessarily be the result of an essence specifically distinct from physical matter, i think may justly be called clarting of this power on a subject it belongs not to, nor is intrinsecal to it, there being no new specific essence from whence it should spring. fourthly, the [faculty of motion] says he, is either a tautology included in life, or else if explicatory of life, it is defective. ans. it is neither tautological nor exegetical, no more than if a man should define homo, animal rationale risibile. [risibile] there, is neither tautological, though included in animal rationale; nor exegetical, it signifying not the same with rationale. and the definition is as true with risibile added to it, as if omitted. but the addition of risibile being needless, is indeed ridiculous. but it is not ridiculous to add the faculty of motion in this definition of a spirit, because it is not needless, but is added on purpose to instruct such as mr. baxter, that an intrinsical faculty of motion belongs to spirit quatenus spirit, and endued with life; whenas yet he, pag. 35. will not admit that selfmotion is an indication of life in the subject that moves itself, although it is the very prime argument that his beloved and admired dr. glisson useth to prove, that there is universally life in matter. but it is the symptom of an overpolemical fencer, to deny a thing merely because he finds it not for his turn. in the mean time it is plain the doctor has not added [the faculty of motion] rashly out of over sight, but for the instructing the ignorant in so important a truth, that there is no 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but there is life and spirit. this is so great a truth, that the platonists make it to be the main character of soul or spirit, to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as you may see in proclus. fifthly, no man, saith he, can understand that the negative [immaterial], by the terms, includeth penetrability and indiscerpibility. ans. no man that rightly understands himself but must conceive that [immaterial] signifies an opposite or contrary condition to [material]: and he knowing (as who is ignorant of it?) that the proper and essential characters of [material] in substantia materialis, is to be impenetrable and discerpible, he will necessarily, even whether he will or no, discover that [immaterial] which signifies the opposite to these in substantia immaterialis, must denote penetrability and indiscerpibility. sixthly, you do not say here, saith he, that they are the form, but elsewhere you do; and the form should be expressed, and not only virtually contained, as you speak. ans. what would you have him in the very definition itself, which is so clear an one, say, this is the genus, this the form, as those bunglers i mentioned above writ the names of the animals they had so badly drawn? and that the form should be expressed is true, but it is sufficient it be expressed in such a comprehensive term as contains under it all that belongs to such a species. as when we have divided vivens into planta and animal, if we then define animal to be vivens sensu praeditum, that one word sensus, is sufficient, because it reaches any species of animal, and none but animals. and yet here the doctor is not so niggardly as to pinch the expression of all the form or difference, into that one word immaterial, whereby he here only intimates penetrability and indiscerpibility; but for fuller explication addeth, intrinsically endued with life and the faculty of motion. but lastly, for his elsewhere calling penetrability and indiscerpibility the form of a spirit, he nowhere makes them the whole form of a spirit, but makes the logical form or differentia of a spirit, to be all that which he has expressed in this definition, viz. [immaterial] which denotes penetrability and indiscerpibility, and [intrinsical life and motion]. and it is evident that when he calls this differentia in his definition, form, that he does not mean the very specific substance or essence, whereby a spirit is a spirit, but only essential or inseparable attributes, which only are known to us, and which are only in an improper sense said to be the form itself, or specific nature. they are only the result of the form and notes of an essence or substance specifically distinct from some other substance. it is not so in substantial forms as in geometrical forms or figures, as to visibility or perceptibilitie. dic tu formam hujus lapidis, says scaliger to cardan, & phyllida solus habeto. but there are inseparable and essential properties of a substantial form, necessarily resulting from the form itself, as there are in external forms or figures. as for example, from the form of a globe, which is a round form, defined from the equality of all lines from one point drawn thence to the superficies. from this form does necessarily and inseparably result the character of an easy rolling mobility. that a body of this form is the most easily moved upon a plain, of any body in the world. and so from the form of a piece of iron made into what we call a sword; fitness for striking, for cutting, for stabbing, and for defending of the hand, is the necessary result from this form thereof. and so i say that from the intimate and essential form of a spirit, suppose, essentially and inseparably result such and such properties by which we know that a spirit is a distinct species from other things, though we do not know the very specific essence thereof. and therefore here i note by the by, that when the doctor says any such or such attributes are the form of a spirit, he does datâ operâ balbutire cum balbutientibus, and expresses himself in the language of the vulgar, and speaks to mr. baxter in his own dialect. for it is the declared opinion of the doctor, that the intimate form of no essence or substance is knowable, but only the inseparable fruits or results thereof. which is a principle wants no proof, but an appeal to every man's faculties that has ordinary wit and sincerity. seventhly, they are not the form, saith he, but the dispositio vel conditio ad formam. ans. you may understand out of what was said even now, that penetrability and indiscerpibility are so far from being dispositio ad formam, that they are the fruits and results of the intimate and specific form of a spirit, and that they suppose this specific form in order of nature to precede them, as the form of a globe precedes the rolling mobility thereof. in virtue of a spirits being such a specific substance, it has such inseparable attributes resulting from it, as a globe has mobility. and as the globe is conceived first, and mobility inseparably resulting from it; so the specific nature of a spirit, which is its true and intimate form, and made such according to the eternal idea thereof in the intellect of god, being one simple specific substance or essence, has resulting from it those essential or inseparable properties which we attribute to a spirit, itself in the mean time remaining but one simple self-subsistent actus entitativus, whose penetrability and indivisibility mr. baxter himself, pag. 99 says is easily defendible. and the doctor, who understands himself, i dare say for him, defends the penetrability and indivisibility of no essences but such. eighthly, if such modalities, says he, or consistence were the form, more such should be added which are left out. ans. he should have nominated those which are left out. he means, i suppose, quantity and trina dimensio, which it was his discretion to omit, they being so impertinent as i have shown above, in my answer to his third objection against the penetrability and indiscerpibility of a spirit. ninthly, penetrability and indiscerpibility are two notions, and you should not give us, says he, a compound form. ans. this implies that penetrability and indiscerpibility are the form of a spirit; but i have said again and again, they are but the fruits and result of the form. a spirit is one simple specific essence or substance, and that true specifickness in its essence, is the real and intimate form, or conceptus formalis thereof, but that which we know not (as i noted above out of julius scaliger) though we know the essential and inseparable attributes thereof, which may be many, though in one simple specific substance, as there are many attributes in god immediately and inseparably resulting from his most simple specific nature. tenthly, yea you compound, saith he, pe●etrabilitie and indiscerpibility with a quite different notion [life and the faculty of motion], which is truly the form, and is one thing, and not compounded of notions so different as consistence and virtue or power. ans. i say again as i said before, that neither penetrability nor indiscerpibility, nor life nor motion, are the specific form itself of a spirit, which is a simple substance, but the fruits and results of this specific form; and all these have a proper cognation with one another, as agreeing in immateriality or spirituality: and how the common sagacity of mankind has presaged, that the most noble functions of life are performed by that which is most subtle and most one, as penetrability and indiscerpibility makes the consistence of a spirit to be, the doctor has noted in his discourse of the true notion of a spirit. mr. baxter in reading theological systems may observe, that attributes as much differing among themselves as these, are given to the most simple essence of god. eleventhly, you say, says he, pag. 82. life intrinsically issues from this immaterial substance: but the form is concreated with it, and issues not from it. ans. i grant that the form is concreated with the spirit. for a spirit is nothing else but such a specific simple substance or essence, the specifickness of whose nature only is its real intimate form. and if we could reach by our conception that very form itself, it would be but the conceptus inadaequatus of one simple substance, and be the true conceptus formalis thereof; and the conceptus fundamentalis, to speak in mr. baxters or dr. glissons language, would be substance in general, which is contracted into this species by this real intimate form; which both considered together, being but one simple essence, they must needs be created together, according to that idea of a spirit which god has conceived in his eternal mind. and life will as naturally and necessarily issue from such a species or specific essence, or from substance contracted into such a species by the abovesaid form, as mobility does issue from the form of a globe. from whence it is plainly understood how life does intrinsically issue from immaterial substance, nor is the form itself but the fruit thereof. and as it were but trifling to say that the power of easy rolling every way on a plain were the very form of a globe, the word power or virtue being but a dark, loose, general, dilute term, and which belongs to every thing, and is restrained only by its operation and object; but it is the form or figure of the globe that is the immediate cause that that virtue or power in general is so restrained to this easy rolling: so it is in mr. baxters' pretended form of a spirit, which he makes virtus vitalis, a power of living: power there, is such a dark dilute term, loose and general. but that it is determined to life, it is by that intimate specific form, which we know not; but only this we know, that it is to the power of living as the figure of a globe is to the power of easy rolling, and that in neither, one can be without the other. there must be a specific essence, which is the root of those powers, properties, or operations from whence we conclude distinct species of things: for 'tis too corpse and slovenly to conceit, that these are clarted on them, but the specific powers arise immediately, and inseparably from the specific nature of the thing; else why might they not be other powers as well as these? twelfthly and lastly, pag. 32. but do you verily believe, saith he, that penetrability or subtlety is a sufficient efficient or formal cause of vitality, perception and appetite, and so of intellection and volition? i hope you do not. ans. i hope so of the doctor too; and before this, i hoped that mr. baxter had more insight into the nature of a formal cause and into the laws of logic, than once to imagine that any one in his wits could take penetrability to be the formal cause of intellection and volition. for then every spirit being penetrable, every spirit even of a plant, at least of the vilest animalonium, would have intellection and volition. nor, for the same reason, can any body think that penetrability is a sufficient efficient cause of intellection and volition. nor is it so much as the efficient cause of vitality, perception, appetite, much less the formal. so infinitely is mr. baxter out in these things. but the case stands thus: the substance of that species of things which we call a spirit, and is so by that intimate specific form which i named before, this substance is the cause of vitality in such a sense as the round form of a globe, or any matter of that form is, quatenus of that form, the cause of its own rolling mobility. i say therefore, that vitality is as immediate and necessary a fruit or effect of the real and intimate form of a spirit, as that easy mobility is of the form of a sphere or globe; and such a kind of vitality, vegetative, sensitive, intellective of such a species of spirit: these kinds of vitalities are the fruits or effects necessary and immediate of the abovesaid so specificated substances; that is to say, they are immediately self-living, and all of them penetrable and indiscerpible of themselves, quatenus spirits, all these essential attributes arising from the simple essence or specificated substance of every spirit, of what classis soever, created according to its own idea eternally shining in the divine intellect. as for example; in the idea of a plastic spirit only; penetrability, indiscerpibility, and plastic vitality, whereby it is able to organize matter thus and thus, are not three essences clarted upon some fourth essence, or glued together one to another, to make up such an idea: but the divine intellect conceives in itself one simple specific essence immediately and intrinsically of itself, endued with these essential properties or attributes. so that when any thing does exist according to this idea, those three properties are as immediately consequential to it, and as effectually, as mobility to the form of a globe. it is the specific substance that is the necessary source of them, and that acts by them as its own connate or natural instruments, fitted for the ends that the eternal wisdom and goodness of god has conceived or contrived them for. for it is manifest, that those essential attributes of a spirit contrary to matter are not in vain. for whenas a plastic spirit is to actuate and organize matter, and inwardly dispose it into certain forms, penetrability is needful, that it may possess the matter, and order it throughout; as also that oneness of essence and indiscerpibility, that it may hold it together. for what should make any mass of matter one, but that which has a special oneness of essence in itself, quite different from that of matter? and forasmuch as all souls are endued with the plastic whether of brutes or men, not to add the spirits of angels; still there holds the same reason in all ranks, that spirits should be as well penetrable and indiscerpible as vital. and if there be any platonic 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that have no plastic, yet penetrability must belong to them, and is of use to them, if they be found to be within the verges of the corporeal universe (and why not they as well as god himself?) and indiscerpibility maintains their supposital unity, as it does in all spirits that have to do with matter, and are capable of a vital coalescency therewith. but i have accumulated here more theory than is needful. and i must remember that i am in a digression. to return therefore to the particular point we have been about all this while. i hope by this time i have made it good, that the dr.'s definition of a spirit is so clear, so true, so express, and usefully instructive (and that is the scope of the doctors writings) that neither he himself, nor any body else, let them consider as much as they can, will ever be able to mend it. and that these affected cavils of mr. baxter argue no defects or slaws in the doctor's definition, but the ignorance and impotency of mr. baxters' spirit, and the undue elation of his mind, when notwithstanding this unexceptionableness of the definition, he, pag. 82. out of his magisterial chair of judicature pronounces with a gracious nod, you mean well— but all our conceptions here must have their allowances, and we must confess their weakness. this is the sentence which grave mr. baxter, alto supercilio, gives of the doctor's accurate definition of a spirit, to humble him, and exalt himself, in the sight of the populacy. but is it not a great weakness, or worse, to talk of favourable allowances, and not to allow that to be unexceptionable against which no just exception is found? but to give mr. baxter his due, though the extreme or extimate parts of this paragraph, pag. 82. which you may fancy as the skin thereof, may seem to have something of bitterness and toughness in it, yet the belly of the paragraph is full of plums and sweet things. for he says, and we are all greatly beholden to the doctor for his so industrious calling foolish sensualists to the study and notion of invisible being's, without which, what a carcase or nothing were the world? but is it not pity then, while the doctor does discharge this province with that faithfulness and industry, that mr. baxter should disturb him in his work, and hazard the fruits and efficacy thereof, by eclipsing the clearness of his notions of spiritual being's, (for bodies may be also invisible) by the interposition or opposition of his own great name against them, who, as himself tells the world in his church-history, has wrote fourscore books, even as old dr. glisson his patron or rather pattern in philosophy arrived to at least fourscore years of age? and mr. baxter it seems is for the common proverb, the older the wiser; though elihu in job be of another mind, who says there, i said days should speak, and multitude of years should teach wisdom; but there is a spirit in man, and the inspiration of the almighty giveth him understanding. but whither am i going? i would conclude here according to promise, having rescued the doctor's definition of a spirit from mr. baxter's numerous little criticisms, like so many shrill busy gnats trumpeting about it, and attempting to insix their feeble probosces into it; and i hope i have silenced them all. but there is something in the very next paragraph which is so wrongfully charged upon the doctor, that i cannot forbear standing up in his justification. the charge is this: that he has fathered upon mr. baxter an opinion he never owned, and nicknamed him psychopyrist from his own fiction. as if, says he, we said that souls are fire, and also took fire, as the doctor does, for candles and hot irons, etc. only. but i answer in behalf of the doctor, as i have a little touched on this matter before, that he does indeed entitle a certain letter (which he answers) to a learned psychopyrist as the author thereof: but mr. baxters' name is with all imaginable care concealed. so that he by his needless owning the letter, has notched that nickname (as he calls it) of psychopyrist upon himself, whether out of greediness after that alluring epithet it is baited with, i know not; but that he hangs thus by the gills like a fish upon the hook, he may thank his own self for it, nor aught to blame the doctor. much less accuse him for saying, that mr. baxter took fire in no other sense than that in candles and hot iron, and the like. for in his preface, he expressly declares on the psychopyrists behalf, that he does not make this crass and visible fire the essence of a spirit, but that his meaning is more subtle and refined. with what conscience then can mr. baxter say, that the doctor affirms that he took fire in no other sense than that in candles and hot iron, and the like, and that he held all souls to be such fire? whenas the doctor is so modest and cautious, that he does not affirm that mr. baxter thinks any to be such; though even in this placid collation, he professes his inclination towards the opinion, that ignis and vegetative spirit is all one, pag. 20, 21. i have oft professed, saith he, that i am ignorant whether ignis and vegetative spirit be all one, (to which i most incline) or whether ignis be an active nature made to be the instrument, by which the three spiritual natures, vegetative, sensitive, and mental work on the three passive natures, earth, water, air. and again, pag. 66. if it be the spirit of the world that is the nearest cause of illumination, by way of natural activity, then that which you call the spirit of the world, i call fire; and so we differ but de nomine. but i have (saith he as before) professed my ignorance, whether fire and the vegetative nature be all one, (which i incline to think) or whether fire be a middle active nature between the spiritual and the mere passive, by which spirits work on body. and, pag. 71. i doubt not but fire is a substance permeant and existent in all mixed bodies on earth. in your blood it is the prime part of that called the spirits, which are nothing but the igneous principle in a pure aereal vehicle, and is the organ of the sensitive faculties of the soul. and if the soul carry any vehicle with it, it's like to be some of this. i doubt you take the same thing to be the spirit of the world, though you seem to vilify it. and, pag. 74. i suppose you will say, the spirit of the world does this. but call it by what name you will, it is a pure active substance, whose form is the virtus motiva, illuminativa & calefactiva, i think the same which when it operateth on due seminal matter is vegetative. and lastly, pag. 86. i still profess myself in this also uncertain, whether natura vegetativa and ignea be all one, or whether ignis be natura organica by which the three superior (he means the vegetative, sensitive, and intellective natures) operate on the passive. but i incline most to think they are all one, when i see what a glorious fire the sun is, and what operation it hath on earth, and how unlikely it is that so glorious a substance should not have as noble a formal nature as a plant. this is more than enough to prove that mr. baxter in the most proper sense is inclined to psychopyrism as to the spirit of the world, or vegetative soul of the universe; that that soul or spirit is fire: and that all created spirits are fire, analogicè and eminenter, i have noted above that he does freely confess. but certainly if it had not been for his ignorance in the atomick philosophy which he so greatly despiseth, he would never have taken the fire itself, a congeries of agitated particles of such figures and dimensions, for the spirit of the world. but without further doubt have concluded it only the instrument of that spirit in its operations, as also of all other created spirits, accordingly as the doctor has declared a long time since in his immortalitas animae, lib. 2. cap. 8. sect. 6. and finding that there is one such universal vegetative spirit (properly so called) or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the world, he could not miss of concluding the whole universe one great plant, or if some obscure degree of sense be given to it, one large zoophyton or plantanimal, whence the sun will be endued or actuated as much by a vegetative nature as any particular plant whatsoever; whereby mr. baxter might have took away his own difficulty he was entangled in. but the truth is, mr. baxters' defectiveness in the right understanding of the atomick philosophy, and his averseness therefrom, as also from the true system of the world, which necessarily includes the motion of the earth, we will cast in also his abhorrence from the pre-existence of souls (which three theories are hugely necessary to him that would philosophise with any success in the deepest points of natural religion and divine providence) makes him utter many things that will by no means bear the test of severer reason. but in the mean time this desectiveness in sound philosophy neither hinders him nor any one else from being able instruments in the gospel-ministrie, if they have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in a due measure; if they have a firm faith in the revealed truths of the gospel, and skill in history, tongues and criticism, to explain the text to the people, and there be added a sincere zeal to instruct their charge, and (that they may appear in good earnest to believe what they teach) they lead a life devoid of scandal and offence, as regulated by those gospel-rules they propose to others; this, though they have little of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 properly so called, that reaches to the deepest account of things, (but instead thereof, prudence and ingenuity) will sufficiently enable them to be guides to the people, especially by adhering in matters of moment to the ancient apostolic and unapostatized church, and presuming nothing upon their private spirit against the same. such, questionless, will prove able and safe pastors, and will not fail of being approved of by our lord jesus the great shepherd and bishop of our souls. but if any such, as i noted above, for that they conceit themselves also dapper fellows at cudgils or quarterstaff, shall, leaving their flocks solitary in the fields, out of an itch after applause from the country-fry, gad to wakes and fairs to give a proof of their dexterity at those rural exercises; if they shall, i say, for their pains return with a bruised knuckle or broken pate, who can help it? it will learn them more wit another time. thus much by way of digression i thought fit to speak, not out of the least ill-will to mr. baxter, but only in behalf of the doctor, hoping, though it is far from all that may be said, that yet it is so much, and so much also to the purpose, that it will save the doctor the labour of adding any thing more thereto. so that he may either enjoy his repose, or betake himself to some design of more use and moment. in the mean time, i having dispatched my digression, i shall return to the main business in hand. i think it may plainly appear from what has been said, that it is no such harsh thing to adventure to conclude, that the truth of the divine intellect quatenus conceptive, speculative, or observative, which a platonist would be apt to call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as the divine intellect exhibitive 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, (for though it be but one and the same intellect, yet for distinctness sake we are fain to speak as of two) does consist in its conformity with the divine intellect exhibitive, with the immutable ideas, respects and references of things there. in conceiving and observing them (as i may so speak) to be such as they are represented in the said intellect quatenus necessarily and unalterably representing such ideas with the immediate respects and references of them. in this consists the truth of the divine intellect speculative. but the transcendental truth of things consists in their conformity to the divine intellect exhibitive. for every thing is true as it answers to the immutable idea of its own nature discovered in the divine intellect exhibitive. to which also the same divine intellect quatenus conceptive, speculative, or observative, gives its suffrage steadily and unalterably, conceiving these immutable ideas of things in their objective existence what their natures will be, with their necessary references, aptitudes or ineptitudes to other things when they are produced into act. from whence we may discern, how that saying of this ingenious author of the discourse of truth is to be understood. where he writes, it is against the nature of all understanding to make its object. which if we will candidly interpret, must be understood of all understanding quatenus merely conceptive, speculative or observative, and of framing of its object at its pleasure. which as it is not done in the settled idea of a sphere, cylinder and pyramid, no more is it in any other ideas with their properties and aptitudes immediately issuing from them, but all the ideas with their inevitable properties, aptitudes, or ineptitudes are necessarily represented in the divine intellect exhibitive, immutably such as they are, a triangle with its three angles equal to two right ones, a rightangled triangle with the power of its hypotenusa equal to the powers of the basis and cathetus both put together: which things seem necessary to every sober man and rightly in his wits, our understanding being an abstract or copy of the divine understanding. but those that say that if god would, he might have made the three angles of a triangle unequal to two right ones, and also the powers of the basis and cathetus of a rightangled triangle unequal to the power of the hypotenusa, are either buffoons and quibblers, or their understandings being but creatural huffiness of mind and an ambition of approving themselves the broachers and maintainers of strange paradoxes, has crazed their intellectuals, and they have already entered the suburbs of downright frenzy and madness. and to conclude; out of what has been insinuated, we may reconcile this harsh sounding paradox of our author, that seems so point-blank against the current doctrine of the metaphysical schools, who make transcendental truth to depend upon the intellectual truth of god, which they rightly deem the fountain and origine of all truth, whenas he plainly declares, that the divine understanding cannot be the fountain of the truth of things: but the seeming absurdity will be easily wiped away, if we take notice of our distinction touching the divine understanding quatenus merely conceptive, speculative or observative, and quatenus necessarily (through its own infinite and immutable pregnancy and foecundity) exhibitive of the distinct and determinate ideas or natures of things, with their immediate properties, respects or habitudes in their objective existence, representing them such as they certainly will be if reduced into act. his assertion is not to be understood of the divine understanding in this latter sense, but in the former. but being it is one and the same understanding, though considered under this twofold notion, our author, as well as the ordinary metaphysicians, will agree to this truth in the sense explained; that the divine understanding is the fountain of the truth of things, and that they are truly what they are, as they answer to their ideas represented in the exhibitive intellect of god. how the author himself comes off in this point, you will better understand when you have read the fifteenth, sixteenth and seventeenth sections of his discourse. let this suffice in the mean time for the removing all stumbling-blocks from before the reader. pag. 168. nor the foundation of the references one to another; that is to say, the divine understanding quatenus conceptive or speculative, is most certainly not the foundation of the references of things one to another; but the divine understanding quatenus exhibitive, that represents the ideas or natures of things in their objective existence such as they would be if reduced really into act, represents therewith all the references and habitudes they have one to another. which habitudes are represented not as flowing from or arbitrariously founded in any intellect whatsoever, but as resulting from the natures of the things themselves that respect one another, and are represented in the exhibitive understanding of god. which is the main thing that this ingenious author would be at, and such as will serve all his intents and purposes. pag. 168. it is the nature of understanding ut moveatur, illuminetur, etc. namely, of understanding quatenus conceptive or speculative, not quatenus exhibitive. pag. 169. no ideas or representations either are or make the things they represent, etc. this assertion is most certainly true. but yet they may be such ideas and representations as may be the measure of the truth of those things they represent: and such are all the ideas in the divine intellect exhibitive, their settled distinct natures necessarily exhibited there in virtue of the absolute perfection of the deity, though only in their objective existence, are the measures of the truth of those things when they are reduced into act, as i have noted above; but they are not the things themselves reduced into act, no more than an autographon is the very copy. ibid. all understanding is such; that is, ideas and representations of the natures of things in their objective existence, the patterns of what and how they are when they exist, and what references and aptitudes they have. i suppose he means here by understanding, not any power of the mind to conceive any thing, but understanding properly so called, viz. that, whose objects are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as the platonists speak, the ideas or representations of such things as are necessarily and unalterably such, not fictions at pleasure. let the intellect speculative be such ideas or representations as these, and then what it perceives, conceives, or observes, it does not make, but it is made to its hand, as not being able to be otherwise, nor itself to think otherwise. and therefore it is rightly inferred as follows: that no speculative understanding in that restrict sense abovenamed makes at pleasure the natures, respects and relations of its objects represented in the intellect exhibitive in their objective existence, but finds them there. nor does any intellect whatsoever make them at pleasure, but they are necessarily and unalterably represented in the exhibitive intellect of the deity, both their natures, respects, and habitudes, as i noted above. sect. 5. pag. 169. it remains then that absolute, arbitrarious and independent will must be the fountain of all truth, etc. it being supposed that the divine understanding and the independent will of god are the only competitors who should be the fountain of all truth, and the former section proving in a sense rightly understood, that the divine understanding cannot be the fountain of truth, it remains that the mere will of god should be the fountain of truth, and that things are true only because he wills they be so. as if four bore a double proportion to two because god would have it so; but if he would that two should bear a double proportion to four, it would immediately be so. ibid. which assertion would in the first place destroy the nature of god, etc. nay, if he will, it destroys his very existence. for if all truths depend upon god's will, than this truth, that god exists, does. and if he will the contrary to be true, namely, that he does not exist, what becomes of him then? ibid. and rob him of all his attributes. that it robs him of science and assured knowledge, whose objects are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, things immutable and necessary, this section makes good. and that it despoils him of his rectitude of nature, the eighth section will show. pag. 170. any angel or man may as truly be said to know all things as god himself, etc. because this supposition takes away all the steady and scientifick knowableness in things, it taking away their settled, fixed and necessary habitudes one to another, as if double proportion of four to two did no more belong to it in truth and reality than sub-double, and that four in truth were no more the quaternary number than the binary, but indifferently either, as the will of god will have it. this plainly pulls up by the roots all pretence of science or knowledge in god, angels, and men. and much more, flatly to assert, that if god will, contradictions may be true. for this plainly implies that there is really no repugnancy nor connection of one thing with another, and that therefore no one thing can be proved or disproved from another. pag. 171. if we distinguish those two attributes in god, etc. namely, of wisdom and knowledge, as if the one were noematical, the other dianoetical; although that discursiveness is more quick than lightning, or rather an eternal intuitive discernment of the consequence or cohesion of things at once. sect. 6. pag. 172. because they suppose that god is mutable and changeable, etc. this can be no allegation against the other arguings, because we cannot be assured of the immutability or unchangeableness of god, but by admitting of what those arguings drive at, namely, that there is an immutable, necessary and unchangeable reference and respect or connection of things one with another. as for example, of immutableness or▪ unchangeableness with perfection, and of perfection with god. for to fancy god an imperfect being is nonsense to all men that are not delirant; and to fancy him perfect, and yet changeable in such a sense as is here understood, is as arrant a contradiction or repugnancy. wherefore they that would oppose the foregoing alguing by supposing god unchangeable, must acknowledge what is aimed at, that there is a necessary and unchangeable respect and connection betwixt things, or else their opposition is plainly weak and vain. but if they grant this, they grant the cause, and so truth has its just victory and triumph. this section is abundantly clear of itself. sect. 8. pag. 174. will spoil god of that universal rectitude which is the greatest perfection of his nature, etc. in the fifth section it was said, that the making the will of god the fountain of all truth robs him of all his attributes. and there it is proved how it robs him of his wisdom and knowledge. here it is shown how it robs him of his justice, mercy, faithfulness, goodness, etc. pag. 175. for to say they are indispensably so because god understands them so, etc. this, as the author says, must be extreme incogitancy. for the truth of the divine understanding speculative consists in its conformity with the ideas of things and their respects and habitudes in the divine understanding exhibitive, which necessarily, unchangeably and unalterably represents the natures of things with their respects and habitudes in their objective existence, such as they necessarily are when they do really exist. as of a sphere, pyramid, cube and cylinder. and there is the same reason of all natures else with their respects and habitudes, that they are as necessarily exhibited as the cube and cylinder, and their habitudes and respects one to another, as the proportion that a cylinder bears to a sphere or globe of the same altitude and equal diameter. which archimedes with incomparable clearness and subtlety of wit has demonstrated in his treatise de sphaera & cylindro, to be ratio sesquealtera, as also the superficies of the cylinder with its bases to bear the same proportion to the supersicies of the sphere. and as these ideas are necessarily and unalterably with their respects and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 represented, so are all ideas else, physical and moral, as i have noted above. and the nature of justice, mercy, faithfulness and goodness are with their habitudes and respects as sixedly, determinately and unalterably represented in their ideas, as the sphere and cylinder, or any other form or being whatsoever. sect. 9 pag. 178. for we are to know that there is a god, and the will of god, etc. that is to say, if there be no settled natures and respects and habitudes of things in the order of nature antecedent to any will whatever, meditation or contrivance, nor there be any certain nature, respects, habitudes, and connections of things in themselves; it will be necessary that we first know there is a god, and what his will is touching the natures, respects and habitudes of things. whether these which we seem to discern and do argue from are the same he means and wills, or some other. and so there will be a necessity of knowing god and his will, before we have any means to know him; or, which is all one, we shall never have any means to know him upon this false and absurd hypothesis. sect. 11. pag. 181. then it infallibly follows that it is all one what i do or how i live, etc. this, as the following words intimate, is to be understood in reference to the pleasing god, and to our own future happiness. but it is manifest it is not all one what i do or how i live (though i did suppose there were no real distinction betwixt truth and falsehood, good and evil in the sense here intended) in reference to this present condition in this world, where the sense of pain and ease, of imprisonment and liberty, and of the security or sasety of a man's own person will oblige him to order his life in such a manner as hath at least the imitation of temperance, faithfulness, and justice. sect. 12. pag. 183. if the opposition of contradictory terms depend upon the arbitrarious resolves of any being whatsoever. the plainness and irrefragableness of this truth, that the opposition of contradictory terms is an affection, habitude or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 betwixt those terms that no power in heaven or earth can abolish, methinks should assure any that are not pure sots or crazy fantastics, that there may be many other such unalterable and immutable habitudes of terms, natures or things that are every jot as unabolishable as this. which is no derogation to the divine perfection, but an argument of it; unless we should conceit that it is the height of the perfection of divine omnipotence to be able to destroy himself. and truly to fancy an ability in him of destroying or abolishing those eternal, necessary and immutable habitudes or respects of the natures of things represented in their ideas by the divine intellect exhibitive, is little less than the admitting in god an ability of destroying or abolishing the divine nature itself, because ipso facto the divine wisdom and knowledge would be destroyed, as was shown in the fifth section, and what a god would that be that is destitute thereof! wherefore it is no wonder that those men that are sober and in their wits, find it so impossible in themselves but to conceive that such and such natures are steadily such and no other, and betwixt such and such natures there are steadily and immutably such habitudes and respects and no others. forasmuch as the intellect of man is as it were a small compendious transcript of the divine intellect, and we feel in a manner in our own intellects the firmness and immutability of the divine, and of the eternal and immutable truths exhibited there. so that those that have their minds so cracked and shattered as to be able to fancy that if god would, he could change the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or common notions into their contradictories, as the whole is less than its part, etc. must have very crazy intellectuals, and have taken their lodging at least in the suburbs of downright dotage or frenzy, as i noted above. pag. 184. if any one should affirm that the terms of common notions have an eternal and indispensable relation to one another, etc. that this privilege is not confined to the common notions they are abundantly convinced of, that have bestowed any competent study upon mathematics, where the connection of every link of the demonstration is discerned to be as firmly and indiflolubly knit, as the terms of a common notion are the one with the other. and it is our impatience, carelessness or prejudices that we have not more conclusions of such certitude than we have in other studies also. sect. 13. pag. 184. for if there be truth antecedently to the divine understanding, etc. this objection of the adversaries is framed something perversely and invidiously, as if the other party held, that there were truth antecedently to the divine understanding, and as if from thence the divine understanding would be a mere passive principle actuated by something without, as the eye by the sun. but it is a plain case, out of what has been declared, that the divine understanding (though there be such eternal natures and unchangeable respects and habitudes of them represented in the ideas that are in the exhibitive intellect of the deity) that it is, i say, before any external object whatever, and yet always had exhibited to itself the eternal and unalterable natures and respects of things in their ideas. and it was noted moreover, that the truth of the external objects, when brought into act, is measured by their conformity to these ideas. besides, the divine understanding being before all things, how could there be any truth before it, there being neither understanding nor things in which this truth might reside? or the divine understanding be a mere passive principle actuated by something without, as the eye by the sun, whenas questionless the divine intellect quatenus exhibitive is the most active principle conceivable; nay, indeed actus purissimus, the most pure act, as aristotle has defined god? it is an eternal, necessary, and immutable energy, whose very essence is a true and fixed ideal representation of the natures of all things, with their respects and habitudes resulting eternally from the divine foecundity at once. how then can this, which is so pure and pregnant an energy, be a mere passive principle, or be actuated by any external object, when it was before any thing was? but a further answer is to be found of the author himself in the fifteenth section. pag. 185. which is to take away his independency and self sufficiency. namely, if there be mutual and unalterable congruities and incongruities of things, as if they would determine god in his actions by something without himself. which is a mere mistake. for the pregnant fullness of the divine essence and perfection eternally and necessarily exerting itself into an ideal display of all the natures, properties, respects and habitudes of things, whether congruities or incogruities, and these fixed, immutable, necessary and unchangeable in their ideal or objective existence; and in time producing things according to these paradigms or patterns into actual existence by his omnipotence, and ever sustaining, supporting and governing them by his unfailing power and steady and unchangeable wisdom and counsel; i say, when all things are thus from god, sustained by god, and regulated according to the natures he has given them, which answer the patterns and paradigms in him, how can any such determination of his will any way clash with his selfsufficiency or independency, whenas we see thus, that all things are from god and depend of him, and his actions guided by the immutable ideas in his own nature, according to which all external things are what they are, and their truth measured by their conformity with them. but there is a fuller answer of the author's, to this objection, in the sixteenth and seventeenth sections. sect. 14. pag. 187. and to fetter and imprison freedom and liberty itself in the fatal and immutable chains and respects of things, etc. this is a misconceit that savours something of a more refined anthropomorphitism, that is to say, though they do not make the essence of god finite and of an humane figure or shape, yet they imagine him to have two different principles in him, an extravagant and undetermined lust or appetite, as it is in man, and an intellectual or rational principle, whose laws are to correct the luxuriancies and impetuosities of the other, and to bridle and regulate them. but this is a gross mistake; for there is no such blind and impetuous will in god upon which any intellectual laws were to lay a restraint, but his whole nature being pure and intellectual, and he acting according to his own nature, which contains those ideas and immutable respects, congruities and incongruities of things there eternally and unalterably represented, he acts with all freedom imaginable, nor has any chains of restraint laid upon him, but is at perfect liberty to do as his own nature requires and suggests. which is the most absolute liberty that has any sound or show of perfection with it, that can be conceived in any being. sect. 15. pag. 189. and does as it were draw them up into its own beams. this is something a sublime and elevate expression. but i suppose the meaning thereof is, that the natures and respects of the things of this lower creation, the divine understanding applies to the bright shining ideas found in his own exalted nature, and observes their conformity therewith, and acknowledges them true and right as they answer to their eternal patterns. sect. 16. pag. 189. to tie up god in his actions to the reason of things, destroys his liberty, absoluteness, and independency. this is said, but it is a very vain and weak allegation, as may appear out of what has been suggested above. for reasons of things and their habitudes and references represented in the eternal ideas in their objective existence, which is the pattern of their natures when they exist actually, is the very life and nature of the divine understanding; and as i noted above, the most true and perfective liberty that can be conceived in any being is, that without any check or tug, or lubricity and unsteadiness, it act according to its own life and nature. and what greater absoluteness than this? for that which acts according to its own nature, acts also according to its own will or appetite. and what greater independency than to have a power upon which there is no restraint, nor any modification of the exercise thereof, but what is taken from that which has this power? for the eternal and immutable reasons of things are originally and paradigmatically in the divine understanding, of which those in the creatures are but the types and transitory shadows. the author in this section has spoke so well to this present point, that it is needless to superadd any thing more. sect. 17. pag. 191. in this seventeenth section the author more fully answers that objection, as if gods acting according to the reasons of things inferred a dependency of him upon something without himself; which he does with that clearness and satisfaction, that it is enough to commend it to the perusal of the reader. sect. 18. pag. 193. truth in the power or faculty is nothing else but a conformity of its conceptions or ideas unto the natures and relations of things which in god we may call, etc. the description which follows is (though the author nowhere takes notice of that distinction) a description of the divine understanding quatenus exhibitive, not conceptive or speculative. the truth of which latter does indeed consist in the conformity of its conception unto the natures and relations of things, but not of things ad extra, but unto the natures, habitudes and respects of things as they are necessarily, eternally and immutably represented in the divine understanding exhibitive, which is the intellectual world, which the author here describes, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the vast champion or boundless field of truth. so that in those words [unto the natures and relations of things which in god we call an actual, steady, immovable, eternal omniformity, etc.] which is to be referred to [the natures and relations of things] as is evident to any that well considers the place. and with this sense that which follows the description is very coherent. pag. 194. now all that truth that is in any created being, is by participation and derivation from this first understanding (that is, from the divine understanding quatenus exhibitive) and fountain of intellectual light. that is, according to the platonic dialect, of those steady, unalterable and eternal ideas (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) of the natures and respects of things represented there in the divine understanding exhibitive in their objective existence; in conformity to which the truth in all created things and understandings doth necessarily consist. pag. 195. antecedently to any understanding or will, etc. that is, antecedently to any understanding conceptive, observative or speculative whatsoever, or to any will; but not antecedently to the divine understanding exhibitive. for that is antecedent to all created things, and contains the steady, fixed, eternal, and unalterable natures and respects or habitudes, before they had or could have any being. i say it contains the truth and measure of them; nor can they be said to be truly what they are, any further than they are found conformable to these eternal, immutable ideas, patterns and paradigms, which necessarily and eternally are exerted, and immutably in the divine understanding exhibitive. and of these paradigmatical things there, what follows is most truly affirmed. pag. 195. for things are what they are, and cannot be otherwise without a contradiction, etc. this was true before any external or created things did exist. true of every form in that eternal omniformity, which the platonists call the intellectual world, as the author has observed above in this section. a circle is a circle, and a triangle a triangle there, nor can be otherwise without a contradiction. and so of a globe, cylinder, horse, eagle, whale, fire, water, earth, their ideal fixed and determinate natures, habitudes, aptitudes, and respects necessarily and immutably there exhibited, are such as they are, nor can be otherwise without a contradiction. and because it is thus in the divine nature or essence, which is the root and fountain of the exterior creation, the same is true in the created being's themselves. things are there also what they are, nor can they be a globe suppose, or a cylinder, and yet not be a globe or a cylinder at once, or be both a globe and cylinder at once; and so of the rest. as this is a contradiction in the intellectual world, so is it in the exterior or material world, and so, because it is so in the intellectual. for the steadiness and immutableness of the nature of all things, and of their respects and habitudes, arise from the necessity, immutability, and unchangeableness of the divine essence and life, which is that serene, unclouded, undisturbed, and unalterable eternity, where all things with their respects and aptitudes, their order and series, are necessarily, steadily and immutably exhibited at once. p. 195. as they conform & agree with the things themselves, etc. the more platonical sense, and more conformable to that we have given of other passages of this learned and ingenious author is, if we understand the things themselves, at least primarily, to be the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of plato, which is the term which he bestows upon his ideas, which are the patterns or paradigms according to which every thing is made, and is truly such so far forth as it is found to agree with the patterns or originals in which all archetypal truth is immutably lodged. all created things are but the copies of these, these the original, the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or writing itself, from whence plato calls them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as if those archetypal forms were the forms or things themselves, but the numerous created being's here below, only the copies or imitations of them. wherefore no conception or ideas that we frame, or any intellect else as conceptive merely and speculative, can be true, but so far as they agree with these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in that sense we have declared, or with cre●ted things so far as they are answerable to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or archetypal things themselves. and from hence is sufficiently understood the nature of truth in the subject. these few cursory notes i thought worth the while to make upon these two learned and ingenious writers, the subjects they have written on being of no mean importance and use, and the things written in such a time of their age, as if men be born under an auspicious planet, best fits their minds for the relishing and ruminating upon such noble theories. for i dare say, when they wrote these discourses or treatises, they had neither of them reached so much as half the age of man as it is ordinarily computed. which has made them write upon these subjects with that vigour and briskness of spirit that they have. for the constitution of youth, in those that have not an unhappy nativity, is far more heavenly and angelical than that of more grown age, in which the spirit of the world is more usually awakened, and then begins that scene which the poet describes in his de arte poetica, quaerit opes & amicitias, inservit honori. their mind then begins to be wholly intent to get wealth and riches, to enlarge their interest by the friendship of great persons, and to hunt after dignities and preferments, honours and employments in church or state, and to those more heavenly and divine sentiments through disuse and the presence of more strong and filling impressions are laid asleep, and their spirits thickened and clouded with the gross fumes and steams that arise from the desire of earthly things; and it may so fall out, if there be not special care taken, that this mud they have drawn in by their corpse desires, may come to that opaque hardness and incrustation, that their terrestrial body may prove a real dungeon, & cast them into an utter oblivion of their chiefest concerns in the other state. — nec auras respicient clausi tenebris & carcere caeco. which i thought fit to take notice of, as well for the instruction of others, as for a due appretiation of these two brief treatises of these florid writers, they being as it were the virgin-honey of these two attic bees, the primitiae of their intemerated youth, where an happy natural complexion, and the first rudiments of christian regeneration may seem to have conspired to the writing of two such useful treatises. useful, i say, and not a little grateful to men of refined fancies and gay intellectuals, of benign and philosophical tempers, and lovers of great truths and goodness. which natural constitution were a transcendent privilege indeed, were there not one great danger in it to those that know not how to use it skilfully. for it does so nearly ape, as i may so speak, the divine benignity itself, and that unself-interessed love that does truly arise from no other seed than that of real regeneration (which self-mortification and a serious endeavour of abolishing or utterly demolishing our own will, and quitting any thing that would captivate us, and hinder our union with god and his christ, does necessarily precede) that too hastily setting up our rest in these mere complexional attainments, which is not spirit but flesh, though it appear marvellous sweet and goodly to the owner, if there be not due care taken to advance higher in that divine and eternal principle of real regeneration, by a constant mortification of our own will, the●e may be a perpetual hazard of this flesh growing corrupt and flyblown, and sending up at last no sweet savour into the nostrils of the almighty. that which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the spirit is spirit; and all flesh is grass, and the beauty thereof as the flower of the field; but that which is born of the eternal seed of the living word, abideth for ever and ever. and therefore there is no safe anchorage for the soul, but in a perpetual endeavour of annihilating of her own will, that we may be one with christ, as christ is with god. otherwise if we follow the sweet enticing counsels of mere nature, though it look never so smugly on it, it will seduce us into a false liberty, and at last so corrupt our judgement, and blind us, that we shall scarce be able to discern him that is that great light that was sent into the world, but become every man an ignis fatuus to himself, or be so silly as to be led about by other ignes fatui, whenas it is most certain that christ is the only way, the truth and the life, and he that does not clearly see that, when he has opportunity to know it, let his pretence to other knowledge be what it will, it is a demonstration that as to divine things he is stark blind. but no man can really adhere to christ, and unwaveringly, but by union to him through his spirit; nor obtain that spirit of life, but by resolved mortification of his own will, and a deadness to all worldly vanities, that we may be restored at last to our solid happiness which is through christ in god, without whose communion no soul can possibly be happy. and therefore i think it not amiss to close these my theoretical annotations on these two treatises, with that more practical and devotional hymn of a. b. that runs much upon the mortification of our own wills, and of our union and communion with god, translated into english by a lover of the life of our lord jesus. the devotional hymn. 1. o heavenly light! my spirit to thee draw, with powerful touch my senses smite, thine arrows of love into me throw. with flaming dart deep wound my heart, and wounded seize for ever, as thy right. 2. o sweetest sweet! descend into my soul, and sink into its low'st abyss, that all false sweets thou mayst control, or rather kill, so that thy will alone may be my pleasure and my bliss. 3. do thou my faculties all captivated unto thyself with strongest tye; my will entirely regulate: make me thy slave, nought else i crave, for this i know is perfect liberty, 4. thou art a life the sweetest of all lives, nought sweeter can thy creature taste; 'tis this alone the soul revives. be thou not here, all other cheer will turn to dull satiety at last. 5. o limpid fountain of all virtuous leer! o wellspring of true joy and mirth! the root of all contentments dear! o endless good! break like a flood into my soul, and water my dry earth, 6. that by this mighty power i being reft of every thing that is not one, to thee alone i may be left by a firm will fixed to thee still, and inwardly united into one. 7. and so let all my essence, i thee pray, be wholly filled with thy dear son, that thou thy splendour mayst display with blissful rays in these hid ways whereingods nature by frail man is won. 8. for joined thus to thee by thy sole aid and working (whilst all silent stands in mine own soul, nor oughtst assayed from self-desire) i'm made entire an instrument fit for thy glorious hands. 9 and thus henceforwards shall all workings cease, vnlessed be those thou dost excite to perfect that sabbatick peace which doth arise when self-will dies, and the new creature is restored quite. 10. and so shall i with all thy children dear, while nought debars thy workings free, be closely joined in union near, nay with thy son shall i be one, and with thine own adored deity. 11. so that at last i being quite released from this straitlaced egoity, my soul will vastly be increased into that all which one we call, and one in't self alone doth all imply. 12. here's rest, here's peace, here's joy and holy love, the heaven's here of true content, for those that hither sincerely move, here's the true light of wisdom bright, and prudence pure with no selfseeking mient. 13. here spirit, soul and cleansed body may bath in this fountain of true bliss of pleasures that will ne'er decay, all joyful sights and hid delights; the sense of these renewed here daily is. 14. come therefore come, and take an higher flight, things perishing leave here below, mount up with winged soul and spirit, quick let's be gone to him that's one, but in this one to us can all things show. 15. thus shall you be united with that one, that one where's no duality; for from this perfect good alone ever doth spring each pleasant thing, the hungry soul to feed and satisfy. 16. wherefore, o man! consider well what's said, to what is best thy soul incline, and leave off every evil trade. do not despise what i advise: finish thy work before the sun decline. finis. books printed for, or sold by samuel lownds, over against exeter exchange in the strand. parthenissa, that famed romance. written by the right honourable the earl of orrery. clelia, an excellent new romance, the whole work in five books. written in french, by the exquisite pen of monsieur de scudery. the holy court. written by n. causinus. bishop saunderson's sermons. herbert's travels, with large additions. the complete horseman, and expert farrier, in two books: 1. showing the best manner of breeding good horses, with their choice, nature, riding and dieting, as well for running as hunting; as also, teaching the groom and keeper his true office. 2. directing the most exact and approved manner how to know and cure all diseases in horses: a work containing the secrets and best skill belonging either to farrier or horse-leach: the cures placed alphabetically, with hundreds of medicines never before imprinted in any author. by thomas de grey. claudius mauger's french and english letters upon all subjects enlarged, with fifty new letters, many of which are on the late great occurrences and revolutions of europe; all much amended and refined, according to the most acquaint and courtly mode; wherein yet the idiom and elegancy of both tongues are far more exactly suited than formerly. very useful to those who aspire to good language, and would know what addresses become them to all sorts of persons. besides many notes in the end of the book, which are very necessary for commerce. paul festeau's french grammar, being the newest and exactest method now extant, for the attaining to the elegancy and purity of the french tongue. the great law of consideration; a discourse showing the nature, usefulness, and absolute necessity of consideration, in order to a truly serious and religious life. the third edition, corrected and much enlarged, by anthony horneck, d. d. the mirror of fortune, or the true characters of fate and destiny, treating of the growth and fall of empires, the misfortunes of kings and great men, and the ill fate of virtuous and handsome ladies. saducismus triumphatus: or full & plain evidence concerning witches and apparitions, in two parts, the first treating of their possibility, the second of their real existence; by joseph glanvil, late chaplain to his majesty, and fellow of the royal society. the second edition. the advantages whereof above the former, the reader may understand out of dr. henry more's account prefixed thereunto. with two authentic but wonderful stories of swedish witches, done into english by anthony horneck, d. d. french rogue, being a pleasant history of his life and fortune, adorned with variety of other adventures of no less rarity. of credulity and incredulity in things divine and spiritual, wherein (among other things) a true and faithful account is given of platonic philosophy, as it hath reference to christianity. as also the business of witches and witchcraft, against a late writer, fully argued and disputed. by merick causabon, d. d. one of the prebend's of canterhury. cicero against catiline, in four invective orations, containing the whole manner of discovering that notorious conspiracy. by christopher wase. cambridge jests, being witty alarms for melancholy spirits. by a lover of ha, ha, herald finis. clarior e tenebris beatam aeterna caeli specto asperam at levem christi tracto in verbo tuo spes mea mundi calco splendidam at gravem alij diutius imperium tenuerunt, nemo tam fortiter reliquit. tarit, histor. lib. 2. c. 47. p. 417. portrait of charles the second augustissimi caroli secundi dei gratia angliae scotiae franciae et hiberniae rex. bona agere & mala pati regium est page. 1. the established church: or, a subversion of all the romanist's pleas for the pope's supremacy in england. together with a vindication of the present government of the church of england, as allowed by the laws of the land, against all fanatical exceptions; particularly of mr. hickeringill, in his scandalous pamphlet, styled naked truth, the 2d. part. in two books. by fran. fullwood, d. d. archdeacon of totnes in devon. london, printed for r. royston, bookseller to the king's most sacred majesty, at the angel in amen-corner, mdclxxxi. reverendissimo in christo patri gulielmo archiepiscopo cantuariensi, totius angliae primati, & regiae serenissimae majestatis à sanctioribus conciliis. franciscus fullwood, olim collegii emanuel. apud cantabrigienses, librum hunc, humillimè d. d. d. to the right reverend father in god, george lord bishop of winton, prelate of the most noble order of the garter. my very good lord: blessed be god, that i have survived this labour, which i once feared i should have sunk under; and that i live to publish my endeavours once more, in the service of the church of england; and thereby, have obtained my wished opportunity, to dedicate a monument of my deep sense, of your lordship's manifold obligations upon me. in particular, i rejoice in the acknowledgement, that i owe my public station, next under god and his sacred majesty, to your lordship's assistance and sole interest; though, i cannot think, so much out of kindness to my person (then, altogether unknown to your lordship) as affection and care of the church; grounded in a great and pious intention, (however the object be esteemed) truly worthy of so renowned a prelate, and (many other ways) excellent and admired patriot of the church of england. if, either my former attempts have been anywise available to the weakening the bulworks of nonconformity; or my present essay, may succeed, in any measure, to evince or confirm the truth in this greater controversy; i am happy; that, as god hath some glory, and the church some advantage; so some honour redounds upon your lordship; who, with a virtuous design, gave me a capacity at first, and ever since, have quickened and animated my endeavours, in those services. i may be permitted to name our controversy with the church of rome, the great controversy: for having been exercised, in all the sorts of controversy with adversaries, on the other hand; i have found, that all of them put together, are not considerable; either, for weight of matter, or copiousness of learning; or for art, strength, or number of adversaries, in comparison of this. it takes in, the length of time; the breadth of place; and is managed, with the height of wit, and depth of subtlety; the hills are covered with the shadow of it, and its boughs are like the goodly cedars. my essay in these treatises, is, to shorten and clear the way; and therefore, though i must run with it through all time; i have reduced the place; and removed the wit and subtleties, that would impede our progress. i have endeavoured to lop off luxuriant branches, and swelling excrescencies; to lay aside all personal reflections, captious advantages, sophistical and sarcastical wit; and to set the arguments on both sides, free from the darkness of all kind of cunning, either of escape or reply, in their plain light and proper strength; as also, to confine the controversy, as near as i can, within the bounds of our own concern, i. e. our own church. and when this is done, the plain and naked truth is; that the meanest of our other adversaries (i had almost said the silly quaker himself) seems to me, to have better grounds, and more like christian, than the glorious cause of the papacy. but to draw a little nearer to our point; your lordship cannot but observe, that one end of the roman compass, is ever fixed upon the same centre; and the sum of their clamour is, our disobedience to the see of rome. our defence stands, upon a twofold exception: 1. against the authority: 2. against the laws of rome; and if either be justified, we are innocent. the first exception (and the defence of our church, against the authority of that see) is the matter of this treatise; the second, is reserved. i have determined, that all the arguments for the pope's authority, in england, are reduceable, to a plea: the right of conversion as our apostle; the right of a patriarch; the right of infallibility; the right of prescription, and the right of universal pastorship: the examination of them, carries us through our work. verily, to my knowledge, i have omitted nothing argumentative of any one of these pleas: yea, i have considered all those little inconsiderable things, which, i find any romanists seem to make much of. but, indeed, their pretended right of possession in england, and the universals pastorship, (to which they adhere, as their surest holds) have my most intended and greatest strength, and care and diligence; that nothing material, or seemingly so, might escape, either unobserved, or not fully answered; let not the contrary be said, but shown. i have further laboured to contract the controversy, two ways. 1. by a very careful, as well as large, and i hope, as clear state of the question, in my definition and discourse of schism, at the beginning: whereby, mistakes may be prevented, and much of matter disputed by others, excluded. 2. by waving the dispute of such things, as have no influence into the conclusion; and (according to my use) giving as many and as large concessions to the adversary, as our cause will suffer. now, my end being favourably understood, i hope, there is no need to ask your lordships, or any others, pardon, for that i have chosen not to dispute, two great things. 1. that, in the words (tu es petrus, & super hanc petram) there is intended, some respect, peculiar to saint peter's person: it is generally acknowledged, by the most learned defenders of our church, that saint peter had a primacy of order; and your lordship well knows, that many of the ancient fathers have expressed as much; and i intent no more. 2. that tradition may be infallible, or indefectible, in the delivery of the essentials of religion, for aught we know. by the essentials, we mean no more, but the creed, the lord's prayer, the decalogue, and the two sacraments: in this i have my second, and my reason too: for than rushworth's dialogues, and the new methods of roman opposition, need not trouble us. my good lord, it is high time, to beg your pardon; that i have reason to conclude with an excuse, for a long epistle: the truth is, i thought myself accountable to your lordship, for a brief of the book, that took its being from your lordship's encouragement; and the rather, because it seems unmannerly to expect, that your good old age should perplex itself with controversy: which the good god, continue long and happy, to the honour of his church on earth; and then, crown with the glory of heaven. it is the hearty prayer of, my lord, your lordship's most obliged and devoted servant, fr. fullwood. a preface to the reader. good reader, our roman adversaries claim the subjection of the church of england by several arguments; but insist, chief, upon that of possession, and the universal pastorship: if any shall deign to answer me, i think it reasonable to expect, they should attach me there, where they suppose their greatest strength lies: otherwise, though, they may seem to have the advantage, by catching shadows, if i am left unanswered in those two main points, the substance of their cause is lost. for, if it remain unproved, that the pope had quiet possession here; and the contrary proof continue unshaken, the argument of possession is on our side. i doubt not, but you will find, that the pope had not possession here before; that he took not possession by austin the monk; and that he had no such possession here, afterwards, sufficient to create or evince a title. ‛ 'tis confessed, that austin took his archbishopric of canterbury, as the gift of saint gregory; and having recalled many of the people to christianity, both the converts and the converter, gave great submission and respect▪ to saint gregory, then bishop of rome; and how far the people were bound to obey their parent that had begotten them, or he, his master, that sent him and gave him the primacy, i need not dispute. but, these things to our purpose, are very certain. 1. that conversion was anciently conceived to be the ground of their obedience to saint gregory, which plea is now deserted; and that saint gregory himself abhorred the very title of universal bishop, the only thing now insisted on. 2. ' 'tis also certain, that the addition of authority, which the king ' s silence, permission or connivance gave to austin, was more than saint gregory's grant; and yet, that connivance of the new converted king, in the circumstances of so great obligation and surprise, (who might not know, or consider, or be willing to exercise his royal power, then, in the point) could never give away the supremacy, inherent in his crown, from his successors for ever. 3. ' 'tis likewise certain, that neither saint gregory's grant, nor that king's permission, did or could obtain possession for the pope, by austin, as the primate of canterbury, over all the british churches and bishops: which were then many, and had not the same reason from their conversion by him to own his jurisdiction; but did stiffly reject all his arguments and pretences for it. king ethelbert, the only christian king at that time, in england, had not above the twentieth part of britain, within his jurisdiction; how then can it be imagined, that all the king of england' s dominions, in england, and wales, and scotland, and ireland, should be concluded within the primacy of canterbury, by saint augustine ' s possession of so small a part? 4. ' 'tis one thing to claim, another to possess. saint augustine's commission was, to subject all britain: to erect two archbishoprics, and twelve bishoprics, under each of them; but what possession he got for his master, appears in that, after the death of that gregory and austin, there were left, but one archbishop and two bishops, of the roman communion, in all britain. 5. moreover, the succeeding arch-bishops of canterbury, soon after, discontinued that small possession of england which augustine had gotten; acknowledging, they held of the crown, and not of the pope; resuming the ancient liberties of the english church, which before had been, and aught always to be independent on any other; and which of right returned, upon the return of their christianity: and accordingly our succeeding kings, with their nobles, and commons, and clergy, upon all occasions, denied the papal jurisdiction here, as contrary to the king's natural supremacy, and the customs, liberties, and laws of this kingdom. and, as augustine could not give the mitre, so neither could king john give the crown of england to the bishop of rome. for (as math. paris relates) philip augustus answered the pope's legate) no king, no prince, can alienate or give away his kingdom, but by consent of his barons (who, we know, protested against king john' s endeavour of that kind) bound by knighs service to defend the said kingdom; and in case the pope shall stand for the contrary error, his holiness shall give to kingdoms a most pernicious example: so far is one unwarrantable act of a fearful prince, under great temptations, from laying a firm ground for the pope's prescription; and 'tis well known, that both the preceding and succeeding kings of england, defended the rights of the crown, and disturbed the pope's possession, upon stronger grounds of nature, custom, and plain statutes, and the very constitution of the kingdom, from time to time, in all the main branches of supremacy; as, i doubt not, but is made to appear by full and authentic testimony beyond dispute. 2. the other great plea for the pope ' s authority in england, is that of universal pastorship: now, if this cannot be claimed by any right, either divine, civil or ecclesiastical; but the contrary be evident; and both, the scriptures, emperors, fathers and councils, did not only not grant, but deny and reject the pope ' s supremacy, as an usurpation; what reason hath this, or any other church to give away their liberty, upon bold and groundless claims? the pretence of civil right, by the grant of emperors, they are now ashamed of, for three reasons; 'tis too scant, and too mean, and apparently groundless; and our discourse of the councils, hath beaten out an unanswerable argument against the claim by any other right, whether ecclesiastical or divine: for all the general councils are found; first, not to make any such grant to the pope, whereby the claim, by ecclesiastical right, is to be maintained: but, secondly, they are all found, making strict provisions against his pretended authority; whereby, they, and the catholic church in them, deny his divine right. 'tis plainly acknowledged by stapleton himself, that, before the council of constance, non divino sed humano jure, & positivis ecclesiae decretis, primatum rom. pont. niti senserunt, speaking of the fathers; that is, the fathers before that council, though the primacy of the pope, was not of divine right; and that it stood only upon the positive decrees of the church: and yet he further confesseth in the same place, that the power of the pope now contended for (nullo sane decreto publico definita est) is not defined by any public decree, tacito tamen doctorum consensu. now what can remain, but, that which we find him immediately driven to, viz. to reject the pretence of humane right by positive decrees of the church; and to adhere only (as he himself affirmeth, they generally now do) to the divine right: nunc (inquit) autem nemini amplius catholoco dubium est, prorsus divino jure, & quidem illustribus evangelii testimoniis hunc primatum niti. thus, how have they entangled themselves! if they pretend a humane right, he acknowledgeth, they cannot find it, where it ought to be found, in the public decrees of the church: if a divine right, he confesseth, the fathers denied it, before the council of constance; and he knows, that council condemned it. stapleton at length affirms, that, now no catholic doubts, but the pope's primacy is of divine right; whence the heart of the roman cause is stabbed, by these clear and sharp conclusions. 1. concl. that, all catholics of the present roman church, do, now hold, a new article, touching the pope's primacy, not known to the fathers before the council of constance, an. 1415. and condemned by that council, as an error. 2. concl. that, therein, the faith of the present roman church, stands counter to the faith, decrees, and practices of all the first general councils; consisting of fathers that flourished therein, long before the council of constance, i. e. in their own sense, the ancient catholic church. you will find that the evidence hereof ariseth, not only from the words of stapleton, but from the decrees of all the first eight general councils, every one of them, one way or other, expressly declaiming that supremacy, which the pope and his present church would arrogate; and in those councils, all the fathers, and the catholic church are confessedly concluded; and consequently, antiquity, infallibility, and tradition, are not to be found at rome. the sum is, the church of england, that holds the true, ancient, catholic faith; and the four first general councils: and hath the evidence of four more in the point; cannot be blamed, for rejecting, or not readmitting, a novel and groundless usurpation, contrary to them all; and contrary also, to the profession of the present roman church; that pretends to believe, that the faith of the eight first general councils, is the catholic faith. imprimatur, guil. jane r. p. d. hen. episc. land. à sacris domest. jan. 24. 1678. the contents of the chapters and sections. the introduction. the design. the controversy contracted into one point, viz. schism. page 1 chap. i. the definition of schism. sect. 1. of the act of it. p. 3 sect. 2. the subject of schism. p. 4 sect. 3. the object of schism. 1. faith. p. 7 2. worship. p. 9 3. government. p. 11 sect. 4. the conditions. causeless. voluntary. p. 14 sect. 5. the application of schism; 'tis not applicable to us. p. 16 in the act. p. 17 or cause. p. 19 sect. 6. the application of it to the romanists. p. 20 sect. 7. the charge retorted upon them. p. 21 the controversy broken into two points. the authority. the cause. p. 23 chap. ii. an examination of the papal authority in england. five arguments proposed and briefly reflected on. p. 24 1. conversion. 2. prescription. 3. western patriarchate. 4. infallibility. 5. succession. p. 25 chap. iii. of the pope's claim from our conversion, by eleutherius, gregory. p. 28 chap. iv his claim as patriarch. four propositions laid down. 1. the pope was patriarch of the west. p. 32 2. he had then a limited jursdiction. p. 33 3. his patriarchate did not include britain. p. 35 4. a patriarch and universal bishop inconsistent. p. 37 chap. v the third papal claim, prescription. the case stated. p. 39 their plea. our answer, in three positions, viz. 1. the pope never had possession absolutely. 2. that which he had, could never create a title. 3. however his title extinguished with his possession. p. 40 chap. vi the papacy of no power here for the first 600 years (augustine dionoth.) in fact, or faith p. 41. etc. sect. 1. no one part of papal jurisdiction was exercised here, for six hundred years; not ordination, till 1100 years after christ, etc. nor any other. p. 46 sect. 2. no possession of belief of his jurisdiction then, in england or scotland. p. 52 sect. 3. this belief could have no ground in the ancient canons. apostolic. nicen. milev. etc. p. 54 sect. 4. of concil. sardi. calced. constantinop. p. 56 sect. 5. arabic canons forged; not of nice. p. 60 sect. 6. ancient practice interpreted the canons against the pope: disposing of patriarches: s. cyprian, s. augustine's sense, in practice. p. 63 sect. 7. the say of ancient popes, agath●, pelagius, gregory, victor, against the pretence of supremacy. p. 69 sect. 8. the words of the imperial law against him. p. 90 sect. 9 the conclusion, touching possession in the first ages, vix. six hundred years from christ. p. 97 chap. vii. the pope had not full possession here, before hen. 8. i. not in st. augustine's time, nor after. p. 100 sect. 1. not in st. augustine's time. ibid. a true state of the question betwixt the pope and the king of england in seven particulars. p 102 sect. 2. no clear or full possession in the ages after austin, till hen. 8. p 104 in eight distinctions of supremacy. ibid. the question stated by them. p. 105 chap. viii. what supremacy hen. 8. took from the pope; the particulars of it; with notes upon them. p. 107. etc. chap. ix. whether the pope's possession here, was a quiet possession till hen. 8. as to the point of supremacy. p. 109 sect. 1. of appeals to rome. three notions of appeal. appeals to rome locally, or by legates. wilfrid. anselm. ibid. sect. 2. of the possession by legates; the occasion of them here; their entertainment. p. 117 chap. x. of the pope's legislative power here, before hen. 8. canons oblige us not without our consent: our kings, saxon, danish, norman, made ecclesiastical laws. p. 126 chap. xi. of the power of papal licenses, etc. in edw. 1. 3. rich. 2. hen. 4. hen. 5. hen. 6. hen. 7's. time. p. 133 chap. xii. the patronage of this church; ever in our own kings; by history; by law. p. 140 chap. xiii. of peter-pences, and other payments to the pope. p. 149 first-fruits. p. 151 payments extraordinary. p. 154 casual. p. 156 chap. xiv. the conclusion of the argument of prescription; 'tis on our side. p, 158 on their side, of no force. p. 159 chap. xv. the plea from infallibility; considered, in its consequence; retorted. p. 161 sect. 1▪ scripture examples for infallibility. p. 163 high priest, not infallible, nothing to the pope. p. 164 apostles. p. 166 sect. 2. scripture-promises of infallibility. p. 167 chap. xvi. 2. argument for infallibility, viz. tradition; four concessions; three propositions about tradition. arguments. objections. p. 171 etc. chap. xvii. the third way of argument for infallibility, viz. by reason; three reasons answered; the point argued; retorted. p, 177 chap. xviii. the universal pastorship; its right, divine or humane; this, civil or ecclesiastical; all examined; constantine; king john; justinian; phocas, etc. p. 182. as to civil right. chap. xix. his ecclesiastical right, by general councils; the eight first, to which he is sworn. justinians sanction of them; canons apostol. allowed by the council of nice and ephesus. p. 190 sect. 1. canons of the apostles. p. 194 sect. 2. 1. general council of nice. bellarmine's evasion. p. 195 sect. 3. council 2 gen. constantinop, an. 381. p. 196 sect. 4. concil. ephesin. 3 gen. an. 431. p. 197 sect. 5. concil. calced. 4 gen an. 451. p. 199 sect. 6. concil. constantin. 2. the fifth gen. council, an. 553. p. 202 sect 7. concil. constant. 6 gen. an. 681. v. 685. concil. nic. 7 gen. an. 781. p. 203 sect. 8 concil. gen. ● constant. an. 870. p. 204 seven conclusions from councils. p. 205 sect. 9 of the latin church; the councils of constance; basil. etc. an. 1415. 1431. p. 206 sect. 10. the greek church; african canons; synod. carthag. council▪ antiochen. the faith of the greek church, since in the point. p. 208 etc. sect. 11. the sardican canons. no grant from their matter, manner, or authority. no appendix to the council of nice. zozimus his forgery; they were never ratified, nor received, as universal; and were contradicted by after councils. p. 212 chap. xx. the pope's title, by divine right. the question. why not sooner? 'tis their last refuge. p. 217 sect. 1. whether the government of the church be monarchical, jure divino? bellarmine. reason. scripture. p. 218 promises, metaphors▪, and example of the high priest in scripture. p 221 sect. 2. of st. peter's monarchy. t●●e● petrus. p. 223 fathers expressions of it. p 228 fathers corrupted, and council of chalcedon, by thomas. p. 230 etc. chap. xxi.▪ of the pope's succession. p: 237 sect. 1. whether the primacy descended to the bishop of rome, as such, by succession from saint peter. neg. bellar. 28 prerogatives of saint peter; personal or false. p. 238, 239 etc. application of this section. p. 241 by three great inferences: the pope's ancient primacy not that, of saint peter: not, jure divino; not to descend to succeeding popes. sect. 2. whether the pope have supremacy, as successor to saint peter. neg. not primate, as such: peter himself not supreme; the pope did not succeed him at all. p. 244 sect. 3. arg. 1. peter assigned it to the pope: answered. p. 245 sect. 4. arg. 2. the bishop of rome succeeded peter, because antioch did not: answered. p. 246 sect. 5. arg. 3. saint peter died at rome; answered: question de facto, not the fide. p. 247 sect. 6. arg. 4. from councils, popes, fathers, p. 249 sect. 7. arg. 5. for prevention of schism, saint hierom. p. 250 sect. 8. arg. 6. the church committed to his care; saint chrysostom. p. 251 sect. 9 arg. 7. one chair. optatus, cyprian, ambrose, acatius. ibid. sect 10. the conclusion touching the fathers. reasons, why, we are not more particular about them. a challenge touching them: there cannot be a consent of the the fathers for the papacy; as is evident from the general councils: reasons▪ for it: rome's contradiction of faith: the pope's schism, perjury, etc. p. 255 etc. the sum of the whole matter: a touch of another treatise; the material cause of separation. p. 261 the postscript: objections touching the first general councils; and our arguments from them, answered more fully. sect. 1. the argument from councils drawn up; 'tis conclusive of the fathers, and the catholic church. p. 263 sect. 2. obj. touching the council of nice answered. p. 267 sect. 3. obj. touching the council of constant. second general. p. 269 sect. 4. the third general council, viz. ephesin. p. 272 sect. 5. of the fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth general councils. binius his quotations of ancient popes, considered. p. 274 conclusion. p. 279 an appendix. a serious alarm▪ to all sorts of englishmen, against popery; from sense and conscience; their oaths and their interests. p. 281 the oath of allegiance and supremacy. p. 289 errata. page 6. line 7. for and the, read and though, p. 136. l. 13. add, ' 'tis observed that, p. 137. l. 23. blot out and the abundant, p. 138. l. 5. add of, before the grievances, p. 147. l. 17. before the word evacuate, add not, p. 164. l. 24. for is, r. are, p. 175. l. 10. for his messenger, r. the pope's messenger, p. 177. after sentence, add with the fathers, was ever taken, p. 205. l. 22. after the word faith, add of the church, p. 213. l. 31. for they r. these canons, p. 227. l 34. for kingdoms, r. the kingdom, p. 235. l. 1. for are, r. are not. the printer to the reader. the absence of the author, and his inconvenient distance from london, hath occasioned some lesser escapes in the impression of this book. the printer thinks it the best instance of pardon, if his escapes be not laid upon the author, and he hopes they are no greater than an ordinary understanding may amend, and a little charity may forgive. the introduction. the design. the controversy contracted into one point, viz. schism. the church of england hath been long possessed, both of herself and the true religion; and counts it no necessary part of that religion to molest or censure any other church: yet she cannot be quiet, but is still vexed and clamoured with unwearied outcries of heresy and schism from the church of rome, provoking her defence. the ball hath been tossed as well by cunning as learned hands, ever since the reformation; and 'tis complained, that by weak and impertinent allegations, tedious altercations, unnecessary excursions, and much sophistry, needlessly lengthening and obscuring the controversy, it is in danger to be lost. after so great and so long exercises of the best champions on both sides, 'tis not to be expected, that any great advance should be made on either: yet how desirable is it, that at length the true difference were clearly stated, and the arguments stripped of their said cumber, and presented to us in their proper evidence, and the controversy so reduced, that the world might perceive where we are: and doubtful inquirers after truth and the safest religion, might satisfy their consciences and fix their practice. this is in some measure the ambition of the present essay: in order to it, we▪ have observed that the shop out of which all the arms, both offensive and defensive, on both sides are fetched, is schism; and the whole controversy is truly contracted into that one point, which will appear, by two things. 1. by the state of the allowed nature of schism. 2. by the application of it so explained. chap. i. the definition of schism. sect. 1. of the act of schism. that we may lie open to their full charge, we lay the notion in as great a latitude, as, i think, our adversaries themselves would have it. schism is a voluntary division of a christian church, in its external communion, without sufficient cause. 1. 'tis a division, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, divisions or act. division in the church particular. rents among you: this division of the church is made either in the church or from it; in it, as it is a particular church, which the apostle blames in the church of corinth, c. 11. though they came together, and did not separate from the external communion, but divided in it and about it. 2. division is made also in the church as catholic. catholic or universal, and some charge the church or court of rome (as we shall observe hereafter) herewith, as the cause of many deplorable rents and convulsions in the bowels of it, and indeed in a true sense, all that are guilty of dividing either in, or from a particular church (without just cause) are guilty of schism in the catholic, as the aggregatum of all particular churches. there is division as well from, as in the church, and this is either such as is improperly called separation, or properly, or more perfectly so. 1. separation improperly so called, we may term, negative; which is rather a recusancy or a denial of communion, where it is either due or only claimed and not due, but was never actually given. 2. 'tis properly so, where an actual separation is made, and communion broken or denied, where it has wont to be paid. 3. or yet more perfectly, when those that thus separate and withdraw their communion from a church, join themselves in an opposite body, and erect altar against altar. sect. ii. subject of schism. thus of the act of schism, division: let us briefly consider the subject of this division, subject. which is not a civil or an infidel society, but a christian church. i do not express it a true church; for that is supposed: for if it be a christian church it must be true, otherwise it is not at all. some learned of our own side, distinguish here of the truth of the church physically or metaphysically considered; or morally: and acknowledge the roman church to be a true church, or truly a church, as some would rather have it, but deny it to be such morally: and plead for separation from it only in a moral sense, or as it is not a true church, i. e. as it is a false and corrupt church, not as it is a church. but finding this distinction to give offence, and perhaps some advantage to our adversaries, at least for the amusing and disturbing the method of disputation, and being willing to reduce the difference as much as i am able, i shall not insist upon these distinctions. i confess (pace tantorum) i see no danger in, but rather a necessity of granting the church of rome to be a true church even in a moral sense, largely speaking; as moral is distinguished from physical or metaphysical: and the necessity of this concession ariseth from the granting or allowing her to be a true church in any sense, or, a church of christ. for to say, that a christian church is not a true church morally, yet is so really, i. e. physically or metaphysically, seems to imply that it is a christian church, and it is not a christian church; seeing all the being of a christian church depends upon its truth in a moral sense, as i conceive is not questioned by either side. and when we grant that the church of rome or any other is a true christian church in any sense, we do mean that she retains so much of christian truth in a moral sense, as is requisite to the truth and being of a christian church. indeed the very essence of a christian church seems to be of a moral nature, as is evident in all its causes; its efficient, the preaching of the gospel under divine influence is a moral cause; the form, living in true faith, and religion, is moral; its end and all its formal actions, in profession and communion, are of a moral nature, and the christians as they are men, are indeed natural being's, yet as they are christians and the matter of the christian church, and more, as they are in a society, they fall properly under a moral consideration. but how can a church be true and not true, and both in a moral sense? how can we own the church of rome as a true church, and yet leave her as a false church, and true and false be both taken morally? very well: and our learned men intent no other, though they speak it not in these terms. for to be true and false in the same (moral) sense; doth not imply the being so, in the same respects: thus the church of rome may be granted to be a true christian church, with respect to those fundamentals retained in her faith and profession, wherein the being and truth of such a church consisteth; and yet be, very false, and justly to be deserted, for her gross errors, in many other points, believed also and professed by her: as a bill in chancery, may be a true bill for the substance of it and so admitted; and yet in many things falsely suggested, it may be very false, and as to them, be rejected. 2. the church as the subject of schism may 1. catholic. be further considered as catholic, i. e. absolute, formal, essential, and as it lies spread over all the world, but united in one common faith: from this church the donatists and other ancient heretics, are said to have separated. 2. as particular, in a greater or lesser number 2. particular. or part of the catholic: thus the modern separatists forsaking the church of england are said to be schismatics. 3. in a complex and mixed sense, as the particular 3. mixed. roman church pretending also to be the catholic church, calls herself roman catholic, and her particular bishop the universal pastor. in which sense, the church of england is charged with separation from the catholic church, for denying communion with the particular church of rome. sect. iii. object of schism. 1. faith. the third point is the object, about, and external communion. in which, separation is made: namely, external communion; in those three great means or bonds of it; faith, worship and government: under that notion, as they are bonds of communion. the first is faith or doctrine: and it must faith. be acknowledged, that to renounce the church's faith, is a very great schism: yet, here, we must admit two exceptions; it must be the church's faith: that is, such doctrine, as the church hath defined as necessary to be believed; if we speak of a particular church: for in other points, both authorities allow liberty. again, though the faith be broken, there is not schism presently or necessarily, except the external communion be also, or thereby disturbed. heretical principles not declared, are schism in principle, but not in act: hast thou faith, have it to thyself. 'tis farther agreed, that we may and some times must differ with a particular church in doctrine; wherein she departs from the catholic faith: but here we must take care, not only of schism, but damnation itself, as athanasius warns us. every one should therefore endeavour to satisfy himself in this great question; what is truth? or the true catholic faith? to say presently, that it is the doctrine of the roman church, is to beg a very great question, that cannot easily be given. i should think athanasius is more in the right; when he saith, this is the catholic faith, etc. in my opinion, they must stretch mightily that can believe, that, the catholic faith, without which no man can be saved; and therefore, which every man ought to understand, takes in all the doctrines of the council of trent. till the contrary be made evident; i shall affirm after many great and learned men, that he that believes the scriptures in general, and as they are interpreted by the eathers of the primitive church; the three known creeds; and the four first general councils, and knows and declares himself prepared to receive any further truth that he yet knows not, when made appear to be so, from reason, scripture, or just tradition, cannot justly be charged with schism from the catholic faith. methinks, those that glory in the old religion, should be of this mind; and indeed, in all reason, they ought to be so; unless they can show an older and better means of knowing the catholic faith, than this: what is controverted about it, we shall find hereafter in its due place. in the mean time, give me leave to note, that our more learned and moderate adversaries, do acquit such a man or church, both from heresy and schism; and indeed come a great deal nearer to us, in putting the issue of the controversy very fairly upon this unquestionable point. they who first separated themselves mr. knot in fid. unm. c. 7. s. 112. p. 534. from the primitive pure church, and brought in corruptions, in faith, practice, lyturgy, and use of sacraments, may truly be said to have been heretics, by departing from the pure faith; and schismatics, by dividing themselves from the external communion of the true uncorrupted church. 2. object. worship. a second band of external communion is 2: worship. public worship; in which, separation from the church, is notorious. but here (public worship) must be understood, only so far, as it is a bond of communion, and no farther; otherwise, there is no breach of communion, though there be difference in worship, and consequently no schism. this will appear more plainly, if we distinguish of worship in its essentials or substantials, and its modes, circumstances, rites and ceremonies. 'tis well argued by the bishop of chalcedon, that none may separate from the catholic church, (or indeed from any particular) in the essentials or substantial parts of worship: for these are god's ordinary means of conveying his grace for our salvation; and by these, the whole church is knit together, as christ's visible body for divine worship. but, what are these essentials of worship? surely nothing else but the divine ordinances, whether moral or positive, as abstracted from all particular modes, not determined in the word of god. such as prayer, the reading the holy canon, interpreting the same, and the sacraments: therefore, that church that worships god in these essentials of worship, cannot be charged, in this particular, with schism, or dividing from the catholic church. and, as for the modes and particular rites of worship, until one public liturgy and rubric be produced, and proved to be the rule of the catholic church, if not imposed by it, there is no such bond of union in the circumstantial worship in the catholic church; and consequently, no schism in this respect. much less, may one particular church, claim from another (par in parem non habet imperium) exact communion in all rites and ceremonies, or for want thereof, to cry out presently, schism, schism! indeed, our roman adversaries do directly and plainly assert; that about rites and ceremonies, the guilt of schism is not concerned; and that particular churches may differ from one another therein, without breach of communion. though, for a member of a particular church to forsake the communion of his own church, in the essentials of worship, merely out of dislike of some particular innocent rites, seems to deserve a greater censure. but the roman recusants in england, have a greater difficulty upon them, to excuse their total separation from us, in the substantials of our worship (at which they can pretend to take no offence; and wherein they held actual communion with us many years together, at the beginning of queen eliz. reign) against the law of cohabitation, observed in the scripture, where a city and a church were commensurate, contrary to the order (as one well observes) which the ancient church took for preserving unity, and excluding schism: by no means suffering such disobedience or division of the members of any national church, where that church did not divide itself from the catholic. and lastly, contrary to the common right of government; both of our civil and ecclesiastical rulers, and the conscience of laws, both of church and state. but their pretence is, obedience to the pope; which leads us to consider the third great bond of communion, government. 3. object. government. thirdly, the last bond of ecclesiastical external government. communion, is that of government; that is, so far as it is lawful in itself, and exerted in its public laws. this government can have no influence from one national church to another, as such; because, so far they are equal (par in parem) but must be yielded by all members of particular churches, whether national, provincial, or truly patriarchal, to their proper governors in all lawful things, juridically required; otherwise, the guilt of schism is contracted. but for the government of the catholic, we cannot find it wholly in any one particular church, without gross usurpation; as is the plain sense of the ancient church: indeed it is partly found in every church: it was at first diffused by our universal pastor and common lord, into the hands of all the apostles; and, for aught hath yet appeared, still lies abroad among all the pastors and bishops of particular churches, under the power, protection and assistance of civil authority. except, when they are collected by just power and legal rules, into synods or councils; whether provincial, national or general: here, indeed, rests the weight of the controversy, but, i doubt not, it will at last be found to make its way, against all contradiction from our adversaries. in the mean time, we do conclude, while we profess and yield all due obedience to our proper pastors, bishops and governors, when there are no councils sitting; and to all free councils, wherein we are concerned, lawfully convened; we cannot be justly charged with schism from the government of the catholic church: though, we stiffly deny obedience to a foreign jurisdiction, and will not rebel against the government, that god hath placed immediately over us. this fair respect, the church of england holds to the communion both of the catholic and all particular churches; both in doctrine, worship and government: and the main exception against her is, that she denies obedience to a pretended power in the see of rome; a power, not known, as now claimed, to the ancient church; a power, when once foreseen, warned against, as antichristian, by a pope himself; and when usurped, condemned by a general council: and lastly, such a power, as those that claim it, are not agreed about, among themselves. but the charge of schism falls after another sort, upon our roman adversaries; who have disturbed the universal, and all particular churches by manifest violation of all the three bonds of external communion. the doctrine and faith, by adding to the canon of the scripture, apocryphal books; by adding to the revealed will of god, groundless traditions: by making new creeds without the consent of the present, and against the doctrine and practice of the ancient churches: and as for worship, how have they not corrupted it? by substraction, taking away one essential part of a divine ordinance, the cup from the laity, etc. by additions infinite, to the material and ceremonial parts of worship; and by horrid alterations of the pure and primitive worship, to childish superstitions, and some say, dangerous idolatry. lastly, as to government: they have plainly separated themselves, both from the ancient and present catholic church, and all other particular churches; by usurping a dominion, condemned by the ancient, and that cannot be owned, without betraying the liberty of the present church. by exerting this usurpation in unlawful and unreasonable conditions of communion; and as it is said, by excommunicating for nonobedience to these impositions, not only the church of england, but three parts of the christian world: the proof, on both sides, we are to expect in due place. sect. iv the conditions of schism. causeless. voluntary. the fourth and last thing considerable condition: in the definition, is the condition; which adds the guilt and formality of schism to separation: which is twofold, it must be causeless and voluntary. 1. it must be voluntary separation, or denial voluntary. of communion: but of this, i shall say nothing; a greater man received a check from his romish adversaries for the proof of it; saying, who knows not that every sin is voluntary? s. w, causeless. 2. it must be causeless, or as it is usually expressed, without sufficient cause: 'tis a rule generally allowed, that the cause makes the schism; i. e. if the church give cause of separation, there is the schism; if not, the cause of schism is in the separatist; and consequently, where the cause is found, there the charge of schism resteth. i know, 'tis said, that there cannot be sufficient cause of separation from the true church; and, therefore, this condition is needless: but, they ever mean (by the true church) the catholic church. 'tis granted, the catholic church cannot be supposed, to give such cause; she being the ordinary pillar of truth, wherein the means of salvation can be only found; therefore, we rarely meet with any such condition, in the definitions of schism, given by the fathers of the ancient church; because they had to deal with schisms of that kind, that separated from the whole church. but hence to infer, that we cannot have just cause to separate from the church of rome, will be found bad logic. however, if we could grant this condition to be needless, it cannot be denied to be true. and the lawfulness of separation for just cause, is an eternal verity; and if the cause be supposed just, cannot be said to be unjust; seeing there cannot be supposed a sufficient cause of sin; the act is justified while it is condemned. besides it is not questioned by our adversaries, but there may be sufficient cause of separation from a particular church; then if at last we find, that the church of rome is no more, there is more than reason to admit this condition in the present controversy. but the cause must not be pretended to effect, beyond its influence or sufficiency: therefore none may be allowed to deny communion with a church, farther than he hath cause; for beyond its activity, that which is said to be a cause, is no cause. hence we admit the distinction of partial and total separation; and that known rule, that we may not totally separate from a true church; and only so far, as we cannot communicate without sin. the reason is evident, because the truth and very being of a christian church, implieth something wherein every christian church in the very foundation and being of it, hath an agreement both of union and communion. far be it from us therefore, to deny all kind of communion with any christian church, yea we frankly and openly declare, that we still retain communion, out of fraternal charity, with the church of rome, so far as she is a true church: only protesting against her usurpations, and reforming ourselves from those corruptions of faith and worship, of which rome is too fond and consequently the more guilty. sect. v the application of schism. not to our church. if this definition of schism be not applicable to the church of england, she is unjustly charged with the guilt of schism. if the church of england doth not voluntarily divide in or from the catholic church, or any particular church, either by separation from, or denying communion with it, much less by setting another altar against it without sufficient cause, than the definition of schism is not applicable to the church of england. but she hath not thus divided, whether we respect the act or the cause. with respect to the act, viz. division: we 1. in the act. argue, if the church of england be the same for substance since the reformation, that it was before; then by the reformation we have made no such division: for we have divided from no other church further than we have from our own, as it was before the reformation, as our adversaries grant: and therefore if we are now the same church as to substance that we were before, we hold the same communion for substance, or essentials with every other church now, that we did before. but, for substance, we have the same faith, the same worship, the same government now, that we had before the reformation; and indeed from our first conversion to christianity. indeed, the modern romanists have made new essentials in the christian religion, and determine their additions to be such: but so weeds are of the essence of a garden, and botches of the essence of a man. we have the same creed to a word, and in the same sense, by which all the primitive fathers were saved; which they held to be so sufficient, con. ept. p. 2. act. 6. c. 7. that in a general council, they did forbid all persons (under pain of deposition to bishops and clerks, and anathematization to laymen) to compose or obtrude upon any persons converted from paganism or judaisme. we retain the same sacraments and discipline; we derive our holy orders by lineal succession from them. it is not we who have forsaken the essence of the modern church by substraction, or rather reformation, but they of the church of rome, who have forsaken the essence of the ancient roman church, by their corrupt additions, as a learned man observes. the plain truth is this, the church of rome hath had long and much reverence in the church of england; and thereby we were by little and little drawn along with her into many gross errors and superstitions both in faith and worship; and at last had almost lost our liberty, in point of government. but that church refusing to reform, and proceeding still further to usurp upon us, we threw off the usurpation first, and afterwards very deliberately reformed ourselves from all the corruptions that had been growing upon us, and had almost overgrown both our faith and worship: if this be to divide the church, we are, indeed, guilty, not else. but we had no power to reform ourselves: here indeed is the main hinge of the controversy; but we have some concessions from our worst and fiercest adversaries, that a national church hath power of herself, to reform abuses in lesser matters, provided she alter nothing in the faith and sacraments without the pope: and we have declared before, that we have made no alteration in the essentials of religion. but we broke ourselves off from the papal authority, and divided ourselves from our lawful governors: 'tis confessed the papal authority we do renounce; but not as a lawful power, but a tyrannical usurpation; and if that be proved, where is our schism. but this reminds us of the second thing in the definition of schism, the cause: for, what 2. the cause. interpretation soever be put upon the action, whether reformation or division and separation, 'tis not material, if it be found we had sufficient cause; and no doubt we had, if we had reason from the lapsed state and nature of our corruptions, to reform; and if we had sufficient authority without the pope, to reform ourselves: but we had both, as will be evident at last. both these we undertake for satisfaction to the catholic church; but in defence of our own church against the charge of schism by and from the church of rome, one of them, yea either of them, is sufficient. for if the pretended authority of the church of rome over the church of england be ill grounded, how can our actions fall under their censure? especially seeing the great and almost only matter of their censure, is plainly our disobedience to that ill grounded authority. again, however their claim and title stand or fall, if we have or had cause to deny that communion which the church of rome requires, though they have power to accuse us, our cause being good will acquit us from the guilt, and consequently the charge of schism. here than we must join issue, we deny the pretended power of the church of rome in england, and plead the justness of our own reformation, in all the particulars of it. sect. vi the charge, as laid by the romanists. this will the better appear by the indictment of schism drawn up against us, by our adversaries; i shall receive it as it is expressed by one of the sharpest pens, and in the fullest and closest manner i have met with, viz. card. perron against archbishop laud, thus. protestants have made this rent or schism by their obstinate and pertinacious maintaining erroneneous doctrines, contrary to the faith of roman or catholic church; by their rejecting the authority of their lawful ecclesiastical superiors, both immediate and mediate: by aggregating themselves into a separate body or company of pretended christians, independent of any pastors at all, that were in lawful and quiet possession of jurisdiction over them; by making themselves pastors and teachers of others, and administering sacraments without authority given them by any that were lawfully impowered to give it; by instituting new rites and ceremonies of their own in matters of religion, contrary to those anciently received throughout all christendom; by violently excluding and dispossessing other prelates of and from their respective sees, cures, and benefices; and intruding themselves into their places, in every nation where they could get footing. a foul charge indeed, and the fouler because in many things false. however, at present we have reason only to observe the foundation of all lies, in our disobedience and denying communion with the church of rome; all the rest either concerns the grounds, or manner, or consequences of that. therefore if it appear at last, that the church of england is independent on the church of rome, and oweth her no such obedtence as she requires; the charge of schism removes from us and recoils upon the church or court of rome, from her unjust usurpations and impositions; and that with the aggrevation of sedition too in all such whether prelates or priests, as then refused to acknowledge and obey the just power and laws of this land, or that continue in the same disobedience at this day. sect. vii. the charge of schism retorted upon the romanists. the controversy to two points. it is well noted by a learned man, that while the papal authority is under contest, the question dr. hammond. is not barely this, whether the church of england be schismatical or no? (for a romanist may cheaply debate that and keep himself safe, whatsoever becomes of the umpirage) but indifferently and equally, whether we, or the romanist be thus guilty, or which is the schismatic that lies under all those severe censures of the scriptures and fathers, the church of england or her revolters, and the court of rome. till they have better answered to the indictment than yet they have done; we do and shall lay the most horrid schism at the door of the church or court of rome: for that they have voluntarily divided the catholic church, both in faith, worship, and government, by their innovations; and excommunicated and damned, not only the church of england, but as some account, three parts of the christian church, most uncharitably and without all authority or just cause, to the scandal of the whole world. but we shall lay the charge more particularly, as it is drawn up by archbishop bramhal. the church, saith he, or rather the court of rome, are causally guilty, both of this schism, and almost all other schisms in the church. 1. by usurping an higher place and power in the body ecclesiastical, than of right is due unto them. 2. by separating, both by their doctrines and censures, three parts of the christian world from their communion, and as much as in them lies, from the communion of christ. 3. by rebelling against general councils. lastly, by breaking or taking away all the lines of apostolical succession except their own; and appropriating all original jurisdiction to themselves: and that which draws sedition and rebellion, as the great aggravation of their schism, they challenge a temporal power over princes, either directly or indirectly. thus their charge against us, is disobedience; our charge against them is usurpation and abuse of power: if we own no such obedience, or if we have cause not to obey; we are acquitted: if the pope have both power and reason of his side; we are guilty: if he fail in either; the whole weight of schism, with all its dreadful consequences, remains upon him or the court of rome. the conclusion. tthus, we see, the controversy is broken into two great points: 1. touching the papal authority in england. 2. touching the cause of our denying communion in some things, with the church of rome, required by that authority. each of these, i design to be the matter of a distinct treatise. this first book, therefore, is to try the title the sum of this first treatise. betwixt the pope and the church of england: wherein we shall endeavour impartially to examine all the pleas and evidences, produced and urged by romanists on their master's behalf; and show how they are answered: and where there appears greatest weight and stress of argument, we shall be sure to give the greatest diligence: omitting nothing but vnconcluding impertinencies, and handling nothing lightly but colours and shadows that will bear no other. now to our work. chap. ii. an examination of the papal authority in england. five arguments proposed, and briefly reflected on. this is their goliath; and indeed their whole army: if we rout them here, the day is our own: and we shall find nothing more to oppose us, but skirmishes of wit, or (when they are at their wit's end) fraud and force; as i am troubled to observe, their use hath been. for if the see of rome hath no just claim or title to govern us, we cannot be obliged to obey it: and consequently these two things stand evident in the light of the whole world. we are no schismatics, though we deny obedience to the see of rome, seeing it cannot justly challenge it. 2dly, though we were so, yet the see of rome hath no power to censure us, that hath no power to govern us. and hereafter we shall have occasion further to conclude, that the papal authority, that hath nothing to do with the english church, and yet rigorously exacts our obedience, and censures us for our disobedience; is highly guilty, both of ambition in its unjust claim, and of tyranny in unjust execution of an usurped power, as well in her commands as censures, which is certainly schism, and aliquid ampliùs. they of the church of rome, do therefore, mightily bestir themselves to make good their claim; without which they know, they can never hope either to gain us, or secure themselves. i find five several titles pretended, though methinks the power of that church should be built but upon one rock. 1. the pope being the means of our first conversion, as they say, did thereby acquire a right 1. conversion. for himself and successors, to govern this church. 2. england belongs to the western patriarohate; 2. patriarch. and the pope is the patriarch of the west, as they would have it. 3. others found his right in prescription, and 3. prescription. long continued possession before the reformation. 4. others flee much higher; and derive this 4. infallibility. power of government from the infallibility of the governor: and indeed who would not be led by an unerring guide? 5. but their strong hold, to which at last resort 5. succession. is still made; is the pope's universal pastorship, as successor to st. peter, and supreme governor not of rome and england only, but of the whole christian world. before we enter upon trial of these severally, we shall briefly note, that where there are many titles pretended, right is justly suspected, especially if the pretences be inconsistent. 1. now, how can the pope, as the western patriarcb, or as our first converter, pretend to be our governor; and yet at the same time pretend himself to be universal bishop: these some of our suttlest adversaries know, to imply a contradiction, and to destroy one another. 2. at first sight therefore, there is a necessity on those that assert the universal pastorship, to wave the arguments, either from the right of conversion, or the western patriarchate: or if any of them will be so bold as to insist on these, he may not think the chair of st. peter shall be his sanctuary at a dead lift. 3. also for possession; what need that be pleaded, if the right be evident; possession of a part if the right be universal; unless by england, the pope took livery and seizin for the whole world. besides, if this be a good plea, it is as good for us, we have it and have had it time out of mind; if ours have not been quiet, so neither was theirs before the reformation. 4. for infallibility, that's but a qualification, no commission: fitness sure gives no authority; nor desert, a title, and that by their own law: otherwise they must acknowledge the bishops of our church, that are known to be as learned and holy as theirs, are as good and lawful bishops, as any the church of rome hath. thus we see where the burden will rest at last; and that the romanists are forced into one only hold: one great thing concerns them to make sure, or all is lost; the whole controversir is tied to st. peter's chair, the supremacy of the pope must be maintained, or the roman and catholic are severed, as much as the church of england and the church of rome; and a great breach is made indeed, but we are not found the schismatics. but this is beside my task: lest we should seem to endeavour an escape at any breach, all the said five pleas of the romanists, shall be particularly examined, and the main arguments and answers on both sides faithfully and exactly as i can, produced: and where the controversy sticks, and how it stands at this day, noted, as before we promised. chap. iii. of the pope's claim to england from our conversion, by eleutherius, gregory. this argument is not pressed with much confidence in print, though with very much in discourse, to my own knowledge: perhaps 'tis rather popular and plausible than invincible. besides, it stands in bar against the right of st. peter, which they say was good, near six hundred years before; and extends to very many churches, that received grace neither by the means of st. peter or his pretender successor; except they plead a right to the whole church first, and to a part afterwards; or one kind of right to the whole, and another to a part. the truth is, if any learned romanist shall insist on this argument in earnest, he is strongly suspected, either to deny or question the right of st. peter's successor, as universal pastor. but we leave these advantages to give the argument its full liberty; and we shall soon see, either its arms or its heels. the argument must run thus: if the bishop of rome was the means of the english churches conversion, than the english church oweth obedience to him and his successors. we deny both propositions: the minor, that the pope was the means of our first conversion: and the consequence of the major; that if he had been so, it would not follow that we now own obedience to that see. for the minor, bishop jewel knocked it down so perfectly at first, it was never able to stand since; he saith it is certain, the church of britain we were converted 9 years before rome. baron. an. 35. n. 5. & marg. & an. 39 n. 23. & suarez. c. 1. 1▪ contr. angl. eccl. error. now called england, received not first the faith from rome. the romanists proof, is his bare assertion, that eleutherius the pope was the first apostle of the britain's, and preached the faith here by damianus and fugatius within little more than an hundred years after christ's death. bishop jewel answers, that king lucius was baptised near 150 years before the emperor constantine; and the same constantine, the first christian emperor, was born in this island: and the faith had been planted here long before, either by joseph of arimathea, or simon zelotes, or the greeks, or some others; which is plain, because the king being christian before, requested pope eleutherius to send hither those persons, damianus and fugatius, to reform the bishops and clergy, which were here before; and to put things into better order. they also urged, that, as pope elutherius in britain; so saint gregory in england, first planted the faith by austin. but bishop jewel at first dashed this argument out of countenance; plainly proving out an. 210. an. 212. an. 334. an. 360. an. 400. an. 367. of tertullian, origen, athanasius, const. emp. chrisost. theod. that the faith was planted in england long before austin's coming hither. see his defence of his apol. p. 11. some would reply, that the faith was utterly rooted out again, upon the invasion of heathen english: 'twas not so, saith he, for lib. 1. c. 26. & lib. 2. c. 2. beda saith, that the queen of england was christened; and that there were then in this realm seven bishops, and one archbishop, with other more great learned christian men: and galfridus saith, there were then in england, seven lib. 82. 24. bishoprics, and one archbishopric, possessed with very many godly prelates, and many abbeys in which the lord's people held the right religion. yet we gratefully acknowledge that saint gregory was a special instrument of god, for the further spreading and establishing the gospel in england: and that both elutherius and this gregory seem to have been very good men, and great examples both of piety and charity to all their successors in that see; and indeed of a truly apostolical spirit and care, though not of authority; but if all history deceive us not, that austin the monk, was far enough from being saint augustine. but, what if it had been otherwise; and we the consequence. were indeed, first converted by the means of these popes; will it therefore follow, that we ought for ever to be subject to the papacy? this is certainly, a nonsequitur, only fit to be imposed upon easy and prepared understandings: it can never bear the stress and brunt of a severe disputation; and indeed the roman adversaries do more than seem to acknowledge as much. however, the great archbishop and primate of armach, hath slurred that silly consequence bramhall. with such arguments as find no answer. i refer the reader, if need be, to his just vindication, p. 131, 132. where he hath proved beyond dispute that conversion gives no title of jurisdiction; and more especially to the prejudice of a former owner dispossessed by violence; or to the subjecting of a free nation to a foreign prelate without or beyond their own consent. besides, in more probability, the britain's were first converted by the eastern church; (as appeared by our ancient customs) yet, never were subject to any eastern patriarch. and sundry of our english and british bishops, have converted foreign nations, yet never pretended thence to any jurisdiction over them. lastly, what ever title saint gregory might acquire by his deserts from us, was merely personal; and could not descend to his successors. but no more of this, for fear of the scoffing rebukes of such as s. w. who together, with the catholic gentleman, do plainly renounce this plea; ask doctor hammond with some show of scorn, what catholic author ever affirmed it? there is no doubt (though some other romanists have insisted upon this argument of conversion) some reason why these should think fit to lay it aside; and we have no reason to keep it up, having otherwise work enough upon our hands. an end therefore of this first plea. chap. iu. of the pope's supposed claim as patriarch. this point admits likewise of a quick dispatch, by four propositions; and the rather, for a reason you will find in the close of our discourse, upon the last of them. prop. i. the pope was anciently reputed the western patriarch. pope a patriarch. to this dignity, he proceeded by degrees: the apostles left no rule for a forreigu jurisdiction from one nation to another: but according to the 33 cannon of the apostles, (if they were indeed theirs) it behoved the bishops of every nation to know him, who is their first (or primate) and to esteem him as their head. the adventitious grandeur which the ancient patriarches afterwards obtained, is judged to arise three ways: by the canons of the fathers, the edicts of princes, or ancient custom. upon the last ground, viz. of custom, the c. nice. c. 6. council of nice settled the privileges of those three famous patriarchal sees, rome, alexandria and antioch: saying, let ancient custom prevail; which custom proceeded from the honour such churches had, as being founded by the apostles, if not rather from the eminency of the cities: therefore the council of chalcedon, gives this as a reason of the greatness of the sees of rome and constantinople, because they were the seats of the emperors. prop. ii. the pope, as patriarch, had but a limited jurisdiction. limited jurisd. 1. a patriarchate, as such, is limited; especially, if the title restrain it to the west: for east, north, and south, are not the west, in the same respect. 2. it is further evident, from the first number of patriarches; for, if there were more than one of the same dignity and jurisdiction; they must be therefore, limited: for a patriarch, as such, could have no jurisdiction over a patriarch, as such; for so they were equal; & par in parem non etc. 3. but indeed, the first time, we hear of three, and then of five patriarches at once; viz. five patriarches. of rome, constantinople, alexandria, antioch, and jerusalem: and that these had all their jurisdictions limited to them; and no one of them had any thing like a universal monarchy, is evident, both from canons and history; and also by this undeniable observation; that several parts of the world had their own primates independent, and exempt from all these, in the height of their power: as afric at carthage; the rest of italy at milan; france at arles, or lions; germany at vienna; and britain also had the same privilege. 4. the sixth canon of the council of nice, c. nice. saith thus expressly: let ancient custom prevail; according to which, let the bishop of alexandria have power over them of egypt, libya, and pentapolis; because this was likewise the custom for the bishop of rome; and accordingly in antioch, and other provinces, let the privileges be preserved to the churches. the occasion of this canon is said to be this: miletius a bishop of egypt, ordained bishops and others in egypt, without the consent of the bishop of alexandria: the case heard in the council, they pronounce such ordinations null, depose miletius, and by this canon (the more venerable because the first in such cases) confirm the ancient customs of that, and all other churches. the romanists object, the council did not object. assign any limits to those jurisdictions. but 'tis fully answered, that the council supposed answ. such limits, and proceed upon that supposition, to allow of them, and to enjoin the observation of them; and that is so much the more than a present limitation, as it is a proof of the greater antiquity of such limitation. sure bellarmine was hard put to it, when the object. words (because the roman bishop hath so accustomed) must be forced to speak against all sense of words, and scope of the matter; thus, i. e. saith he, the roman bishop hath so accustomed to let the alexandrian bishop govern them. the occasion of the canon we had before▪ answ. the words themselves are these, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. who but bellarmine seethe not, that (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉,) imports a like custom in the church of rome; as the excellent and learned doctor, stinlingfleet observes? the bishop of rome had such jurisdiction over the churches under him; and therefore ought the bishop of alexandria over the churches under him: upon this consideration the council concludes, that so it should be. if it be replied, the pope had limits as a metropolitan, but not as head of the church; this grants the thing in present question; that, as a patriarch, the pope's jurisdiction was limited. what power he had as head of the church, shall be examined in its due place. what power▪ the pope had anciently in confirming, deposing and restoring patriarches, will hardly be found so ancient as the council of ephesus; and indeed, was challenged by him, not as a private patriarch, but as head of the church; and therefore is to be considered under that head also. prop. iii. the ancient patriarchate of rome did not include britain excluded. britain. but according to ruffinus, (a roman, who ruffinus. lived not long after the council of nice) it was limited to the suburbicary cities; i e. a part of italy, and their islands, sicily, sardinia and corsica: much less did it ever pretend to britain, either by custom, canon, or edict of any of our princes. consequently, we say, the papal power over us, was an afterencroachment and usurpation, and a plain violation of the general council of ephesus. our argument is this; the general council par, 2. act. 7. of ephesus declare, that no bishop should occupy any province, which before that council, and from the beginning had not been under the jurisdiction▪ of him or his predecessors; and that if any patriarch usurped any jurisdiction over a free province, he should quit it; for so it pleased the holy synod, that every province should enjoy its ancient rites, pure and inviolate. but it is evident, the bishop of rome had no power in britain, from the beginning; nor yet before that general council; nor for the first six hundred years after christ (as will appear when we speak of the next claim, viz. possession.) now, if the pope had no patriarchal power in britain before the six hundredth year of pope boniface. christ, he could not well have any since: for pope boniface, three years after saint gregory's death, disclaimed this power, by assuring an higher title: so that had we been willing to admit him our patriarch, contrary to what augustine found, time had been wanting to settle his power, as such, in england. from the whole, we conclude, either the pope is none of our patriarch: or if such; he stands guilty of contempt of a general council, and hath done so, many hundred years; i. e. he is no patriarch at all, or a schismatical one. prop. iu. to be a patriarch and universal bishop, in the inconsistent with head of the church. sense of the romanist, is inconsistent. therefore the pope must let fall his claim as a patriarch, if he pretend to be universal bishop: thus the great archbishop bramhall reasons wisely and strongly; but s. w. gives no answer to it, only that he argues weakly and sillily. the lord primate proves the inconsistency by arguments not yet answered: the patriarch (saith he) professeth humane; the universal pastor, challengeth divine institution: the one hath a limited jurisdiction over a certain province; the other pretendeth an universal jurisdiction over the world: the one is subject to the canons of the fathers, and a mere executor of them; and can do nothing either against, or besides them; the other challengeth an absolute sovereignty above the canons, to make, abrogate, suspend them at his pleasure, with a nonobstante, when, where, and to whom he pleaseth▪ therefore, the claim of this absolute power disclaimeth the limited; and the donation and acceptance of a limited power, convinceth that there was no such absolute power before: had the pope been unlimited before, by divine donation; who can imagine, that he would ever have taken gradum simeonis in this sense, by just. vind. p. 282. stooping so low to receive from the hand of man, the narrower dignity of a patriarch? besides, it is fully proved by doctor hammond patriarches subject to civil power. in his book of schism, beyond all the little exceptions of the romanists, (as more at large hereafter) that, the see of a patriarch is disposable by the civil power: and therefore, what ever power the pope may be thought to have had heretofore in britain, is now lawfully otherwise disposed of by the kings of england; as well as evidently rejected by the usurpation of an higher, and an higher kind of title, inconsistent with it; and justly forfeited many other ways, as will appear hereafter. but though our adversaries would seem to say something in favour of this title, they dare not stand to it; as indeed it is not convenient they should, if they would save their head whole. therefore, after much ado to very schis. diarm. p. p. 157. little purpose, s. w. concludes against doctor hammond thus. besides, saith he, were all this granted, what is it to your, or our purpose? since we accuse you not of schism, for breaking from the pope's subjection, as a private patriarch, but as the chief pastor and the head of the church. so there is an end of their second plea. chap. v. the third papal claim, viz. prescription, or long possession. case stated: their plea; our answer in three propositions. the true state of the case here, is this: case stated. it cannot be denied but the church of england was heedlessly and gradually drawn into communion with the roman church, in her additions, superinduced upon the ancient faith and worship: and likewise into some degrees of subjection to papal jurisdiction. and in this condition we had continued for some considerable time, before king henry the eighth; and that bold king (upon what motives is not here material) with the consent of his three estates in parliament, both houses of the convocation, and both the universities of the land, threw off the roman yoke, as a manifest usurpation, and a very grievous oppression; and recovered the people and church of england to their ancient liberties of being governed by their own domestic rulers. afterwards, in the reigns of edward the sixth, and queen elizabeth, and by their proper authority, we reform ourselves by throwing off the roman additions to our faith and worship. had we gone about a reformation while we acknowledged subjection to the see of rome, or indeed, before we had renounced it, there had been more colour to charge us with schism and disobedience: but now the proper question is, first whether the state of england did then justly reject the jurisdiction of the pope in england; and only consequently, whether we did afterwards lawfully reform without him: the cause of our reformation belongs to another argument, which we shall meet hereafter. the papal plea here, is; the pope's authority was established here by long possession: and therefore plea. if nothing else could be pleaded for it, prescription was a good title: and therefore it was injurious and schismatical, first to dispossess him, and then to go about to reform without him. our answer is home and plain, in these three propositions. 1. the church of england was never actually ans. under the pope's jurisdiction, so absolutely as is pretended. 2. the possession which it had obtained here, was not sufficient to create the pope a good title. 3. or if it were, yet that title ceased when he lost his possession. chap. vi prop. i. the papacy had no power here, for the first six hundred years. st. aug. dionoth. the first proposition is this, that the church of england was not actually under the papal jurisdiction, so absolutely as is pretended; that is, neither primarily for plenarily. first not primarily, in that we were free from 1. not primarily. the papal power for the first six hundred years. this is confirmed beyond all exception, by the entertainment augustine found among the sturdy britain's, when he came to obtrude that jurisdiction upon them: whence 'tis evident, that at that time, which was near six hundred in fact or belief. years after christ, the pope had neither actual possession of government over, nor of the belief of the britain's, that he ought to have it. the good abbot of bangor, when pressed to submit to the roman bishop, answered, in the name of the britain's; that he knew no obedience spel. conc. an. 601. due to him, whom they called the pope, but the obedience of love; and adds those full peremptory exclusive words, that under god, they were to be governed by the bishop of caerleon: which the lord primate bramhall saith, is a full demonstrative convincing proof, for the whole time, viz. the first six hundred years. vind. p. 84 but 'tis added, that which follows, strikes the question dead. augustine, st. gregory's legate, proposing three things to the britain's. 1. that they should submit to the roman bishop. 2. that they should conform to the roman customs. 3. lastly, that they should join with him in preaching to the saxons. hereupon, the british clergy assembled themselves together, bishops and priests in two several synods one after another; and upon mature deliberation, they rejected all his propositions synodically; and refused flatly and unanimously to have any thing to do with him upon those terms: insomuch as augustine was necessitated to return over sea to obtain his own consecration; and after his return hither, to consecrate the saxon bishops alone; without the assistance of any other bishop. they refused indeed to their own cost: twelve hundred innocent monks of bangor, shortly after, lost their lives for it. the foundation of the papacy here, was thus laid in blood. 'tis objected; that the story of the abbot of obj. bangor is taken by sir h. spelman, out of an old welsh author of suspected credit; but all objections to that purpose are removed by my lord primate, and dr▪ hammond: besides, we have other authority sufficient for it, and beyond contradiction. the story in bede himself, as vouched by bed. li. 2. c. 2. t. h. himself, against dr. hammond, puts it beyond all doubt, that the abbot and monks opposed austin, and would not subject themselves to the pope of rome, but referred themselves only to their own governors, which is also the general result of other author's account of this matter; and if the matter of fact be established, 'tis enough to disprove the pope's possession at that time; whether they did well or ill, is not now considered. baleus speaking of that convention, saith, dinoth in dinoth. disputed against the authority of rome: and defended stoutly (fortitèr) the jurisdiction of st. david's, in the affairs of his own churches. the same is observed by geoffrey of monmouth, and sigebert and others, for which dr. in an. 602. hammond refers us to the collection of the anglicane councils, and mr. whelocks notes on the saxon bede. p. 115. and indeed, the author of the appendix written on purpose to weaken this great instance, confesseth as much; when he concludes austin in the right, from the miracles and divine vengeance upon the refusers, continuing still refractory to his proposals. of the right of the cause we now dispute not; and he acknowledgeth, that augustine had not possession; the thing we contend for. however, this instance being of great moment in the whole controversy, let us briefly examine what t. h. hath said against it. t. h. questions the authority of the welsh obj. 1 m. s. but the account there, is so perfectly agreeable an. to the general account given by others (most competent witnesses) and even bede himself, that as we have no necessity to insist much upon it; so they have no reason at all to question it. besides if the reader would more fully satisfy himself, he may see all the exceptions against this by m. s. at large answered by dr. hammond and the archbishop bramhall. but bede concludes, that the britain's ought obj. 2 to have yielded in the points specified, from the miracle wrought by augustine upon the blind man; and from that divine vengeance, prophetically foretold by augustine. 1. we now know what tricks are used to an. counterfeit miracles, in the sight of simple people. 2▪ we know not, but that miracle might be said, but never done, as many in the legends are: and bede might report, from very slight tradition, a thing tending to the confirming his own cause. 3. by bede's own confession, the miracle did prevail with the britain's, to acknowledge, that the way of righteousness augustine preached, was the true; yet they added, that they could not renounce their ancient customs, without the consent and licence of their own superiors: i e. they thought the miracle confirmed his doctrine, but not the pope's authority over them: and therefore lastly, at their second meeting, they deemed his pride a stronger argument against him, than his miracle for him. 2. and for that latter argument from the slaughter, first threatened and then fulfilled: bed. sigisbert. sure 'twas not strange thing, that a proud man an. (as augustine appeared to be) should threaten revenge: and a bloody minded man, to endeavour to execute it, as is evident he did. neither is it like a great miracle, that a vast army should first overcome unarmed monks; and then proceed victoriously against other opposers. yet the latter part of the story quite spoils the miracle; or the argument from it: for when edilfred in the heat of his rage and victory, proceeded to destroy the remainder of those monks; the avenger of blood met him: the british forces routed his army, and killed ten thousand and sixty of them. but the conclusion for my present turn, stands firm however; that, notwithstanding these pretensions of miracles, the british rejected the papacy, and adhered to their proper governors; i e. the pope then had not the possession of them. i shall conclude here, with that smart reply of archbishop bramhall to s. w. to demonstrate evidently how vain all his trifling is against the testimony of dionothus: why doth he not answer to the corroboratory proof, which i brought out of bede and others, of two british synods, held at the same time, wherein all the british clergy did renounce all obedience to the bishop of rome, of which all our historiographers do bear witness? why doth he not answer this; but pass it by in so great silence? he might as well accuse this of forgery as the other; since it is so well attested, that dionothus was a great actor and disputer in that business. sect. i. that no one part of papal jurisdiction was exercised here, for the first six hundred years; not ordination: st. telaus, etc. till 1100 years after christ, etc. nor any other. if we consider the pope's jurisdiction in its not plenarily. particular acts, we find not so much as any one exercised or acknowledged here, during the space of the first six hundred years; but, as far as history gives us any account thereof, all acts of jurisdiction were performed by our own governors. first, had the pope had any jurisdiction here at all, it would doubtless have appeared in the ordination or consecration of our bishops. ordinationis jus caetera jura sequuntur, is a known rule in law: but 'tis evident that our own primates were independent themselves, and ordained not ordination. new bishops, and created new bishoprics, without licence first obtained from, or giving any account thereof to the pope. saint telaus consecrated and ordained bishops, as he thought fit: he made one hismael bishop of saint david's; and in like manner advanced many others of the same order to the same degree; sending them throughout the country, and dividing the parishes for the best accommodation of the clergy and the people. vid. regl. apud usher. prim. eccles. brit. p. 56. but were not our primates themselves nominated quest. or elected by the pope, and consecrated by him or had licence from him? the contrary is manifest enough: all our answ. british arch-bishops and primates were nominated and elected by our princes, with synods, and ordained by their own suffragans at home; as dubricius, saint david, samson, etc. not only in the reigns of aurelius ambrose, and king arthur; but even until the time of henry the first, after the eleven hundredth year of christ, as giraldus cambrensis saith; and always until the first conquest of wales they were consecrated by the archbishop of saint david's; and he was likewise consecrated by other bishops, as his suffragans, without professing any manner of subjection to any other church. itinera. cambr. l. 2. c. 2. now is it not fair to expect from our adversaries one instance, either of a bishop or archbishop, ordained or consecrated, during the first six hundred years, by papal authority in britain from their own, or our british records? but this challenge made by archbishop bramhall receives no answer. here the bishop of chalcedon only offers, object. ●. c. that few or no records of british matters for the first six hundred years, remain. this is no answer (saith the primate) while answ. all the roman registers are extant: yea, so extant, that platina, the pope's library keeper, is able out of them, to set down every ordination, made by the primitive bishops of rome, and the persons ordained. he adds, let them show what bishops they have ordained for the first six hundred years: i have showed plainly (though he please to omit it) out of the list of the bishops ordained, three by saint peter, eleven by linus, fifteen by clement, six by anacletus, five by evarastus, five by alexander, and four by sixtus. etc. that there were few enough for the roman province; none to spare for britain. vid. bramh. tom. 1. disc. 3. p. 207. it is said that saint peter ordained here; but st. peter. that was before he had been at rome: therefore not as pope of rome. nor any other. eluth. 2. elutherius sent fugatius, etc. but what to do? to baptise king lucius: upon the same errand he sent victor into scotland. 3. palladius and ninian are instances of men pallad. etc. sent to preach to the picts and scotland, as saint patrick into ireland: this was kindly done; but we have not one syllable of any jurisdiction all this while: besides it is remarkable, though there be a dispute about palladius his being sent; yet, 'tis certain, he was rejected, and after bed. in vit. s, pat. l. 1. died; in whose place, saint patrick succeeded, without any mandate from rome that we read of. jeffry of monmouth saith, that dubricius primate object. legates. s. w. of britain, was legate of the see apost: and we say that jeffry tells many fables: and that it is gross credulity to believe him contrary to the authentic history, and more undoubted practices of those times: we read (saith the primate) of many legates; but certainly, they were either no papal legates; or papal legates, in those days, were but ordinary messengers, and pretended not to any legantine power, as it is now understood: for we read so much as any one act of jurisdiction done by them, and firmly conclude, thence, that there pall. was none. but r. c. saith st. samson had a pall from obj. rome. he had a pall, but 'tis not proved that he had sol. it from rome; 'tis certain, arch-bishops and patriaches in the primitive times had palls, which they received not from rome. besides, if he did receive that pall from rome, in all probability it was after the first six irin. cam. p. 1. c. 1. hundred years: if either, according to cambrensis, he was the five and twentieth archbishop after st. david, or, according to hoveden, the r. hoved. an. 1199. four and twentieth; and then 'tis nothing to our present question. st. gregory granted to austin the use of the pall, saith r. c. the proper badge and sign of obj. pall. archiepiscopal dignity; and gave him liberty to ordain twelve bishops under his jurisdiction, as archbishop of canterbury. this was done at the end of the first six hundred years, and therefore not to our present sol. question: however, if the pagan saxons had destroyed christianity among the britain's, (as they say) it was very christianly done of st. gregory, to send augustine to convert and re-establish the church among them; but none can imagine, that by receiving augustine and his bishops, they intended to submit themselves and posterity to the see of rome, which when pressed before, the britain's so unanimously rejected. neither indeed, could they do it to the prejudice of the ancient primacy of the britain's; existing long before; and confirmed in its independency upon any foreign power: for bede himself, as well as all our own historians, makes it most evident, that the britain's had bishops long before: we find the subscriptions of three of them to the first council of arles; eborius of york restitutus of london, and adelfius de civitate coloniae lond. and from the presence of some of them at the sardican synod, and the council of ariminum; as appears by athanasius and others; and that they had also an archbishop or primate, whose ancient seat had been at caerleon; who rejected the papacy; then possessing and defending the privilege of their freedom from any foreign jurisdiction. this their privilege was secured to them, both by the nicene, calcedonian, and ephesian councils. contrary to these councils, if the pope did intent to give augustine the primacy over the britain's, it was a plain usurpation. certainly the privileges of the britannic church returned with its christianity; neither could gregory dispose of them to austin, or he to gregory. besides lastly, 'tis not possible any sober man can imagine, that that humble and holy pope, st. gregory, who so much detested, if in earnest, the very title of universal bishop, should actually invade the privilege of the britain's, and if in earnest. hazard his own salvation in his own judgement, when he so charitably designed the conversion of england by sending austin hither. t. c. saith, it appears that britain was anciently obj. subject to the see of rome: for wilfred, archbishop of york, appealed to rome twice; wilfred. and was twice restored to his bishopric. a, 673. we see when this was done: seventy and three sol. an. 673. years after the first six hundred. he appealed indeed, but was still rejected; notwithstanding the sentence of rome in his favour, for six years together, during the reigns of king egbert and alfrid his son; so far is this instance, from being a proof of the pope's possession here at that time: yet this is the most famous, saith my lord bramhall, i had almost said, the only appellant from england to rome, that we read of before the conquest. moreover, the answer of king alfred to the alfred. spell. conc. an. 705. pope's nuncio, sent hither by the pope on purpose, is very remarkable: he told him, he honoured them as his parents for their grave lives and honourable aspects; but he could not give any assent to their legation because it was against reason, that a person twice condemned by the whole council of the english, should be restored upon the pope's letter. at this time it is apparent, neither the kings of england, nor the councils of english churchmen (as my lord bramhall expresseth it, two kings successively, and the great councils of the kingdom, and the other archbishop theodore, with all the prime ecclesiastics, and the flower of the english clergy, opposing so many sentences and messages from rome) did believe, that england was under the jurisdiction of rome, or aught to be so. yea, the king and the church, after alfred's after alfred. death, still made good this conclusion; that it was against reason, that a person twice condemned by the whole council of the english, should be restored upon the pope's bull. malmsbury would suggest, that the king and the archbishop theodore, were smitten with remorse before their deaths, for the injury done to wilfred, etc. but not the king only, but the whole council; not theodore alone, but the whole clergy opposed the pope's letter: which is enough both to render the dream of malmsbury, a ridiculous fable; and for ever to confirm this truth, that england was not then, viz. in the six hundred seventy and third year of christ, under the jurisdiction of the pope, either actually or in the belief of the church or kingdom of england. the latter, viz. the non-possession of out belief of the pope's universal jurisdiction, (which is so much insisted upon by the romanists) will yet more evidently appear, by that which followeth. sect. ii. no possession of our belief, ancient. we have found the britain's, by the good abbot, and two several synods; not in england. we have found the state of england in three successive kings, their great councils and body of the clergy, refused to yield obedience both to the pope's persuasions, injunctions, sentences, and legates: therefore it seems impossible that britain or england should then believe either the pope's infallibility, or their obligation to his jurisdiction; or that there was any such thing as the tradition of either delivered to them by their ancestors or believed among them. indeed, by this one argument, those four great characters of the papacy are deleted and blotted out for ever, viz. possession, tradition, infallibility, and antiquity. i shall add the practice and belief of scotland nor in scotland. too; that other great part of our king's dominions: when the pope's legate, more than math. par. in h. 3. an. 1238. twice six hundred years after christ, viz. about 1238. entered scotland, to visit the churches there; alexander the second, than king of the scots, forbade him so to do. alleging, that none of his predecessors had ever admitted any such, neither would he suffer it: and therefore willed him at his own peril to forbear. hence 'tis evident, there was neither tradition nor belief, either of the pope's ancient and necessary government, and therefore not of his infallibility; much less that anciently and from the beginning, the pope had exercised his jurisdiction more in scotland than in england. we have that king's word for it, none of his predecessors had ever admitted any such. sect. iii. in canons, apost: nice, milev, etc. this belief could have no ground. sardia. what could possibly sway the first ages to such a belief of the pope's universal vid. c. 20. jurisdiction? certainly nothing from the councils; nor the practice of the church in other places, nor indeed the declared judgement of the pope himself, nor the words of the laws. 1. nothing to be found in the canons of the not councils. apostles. ancient councils could invite to such belief. in the apostles canons, we find the quite contrary; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the first or primate among the bishops of every nation shall be accounted 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as their head; and that every one of those primates shall 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 do those things only which belong to his province and the regions under it; and in pursuance of those canons, the first nicene council decreed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, ●ic●. etc. that they that are cast out by some, shall not be received by other bishops, and that this must be observed by the bishops through every province; and in further harmony the milevetan council prohibits all appeal from their mileve. own bishops, but to the african councils and primates of their own provinces; and that they which shall appeal to any foreign, whether bishop or council shall not be received into communion with any in afric. and lastly, the practice of all this is visible in the very synodical epistle of the african council to pope celestine, where vid. v. dr. ham. at large. dispar. disp. 397 398, 399, etc. they beseech him for the future, that he will receive none such, because he may easily find it defined in the council of nice. these canons are all in the roman codex, and cannot be pretended to be invalid; neither can they possibly oblige any man to believe that the pope had universal jurisdiction as is now pretended. moreover, as dr. hammond notes, to some of these canons the pope himself makes oath, disp. disp. p. 178. pope swears to the canons. that he will inviolably observe them (see corp. juris can. decret. part. 1. dist. 16. c. 8.) and from that oath, of the pope, our bishops made this very conclusion, that the popes that exercised a primacy over any other bishops but those of their own province in italy, transgressed their own profession made in their creation: as further appears by the institution of a christian man in the year 1538. but more largely of this in the last chapters. therefore, the britain's could not believe that they then owed subjection to the papacy, but they must charge the writers of the apostolic cannons (whether by apostles or apostolical men) and the councils, for enacting sacrilegious decrees; and the pope also for swearing the inviolable observation of them. these things are plain, and s. w. by pretending in general, that words admit of various interpretations, without applying his rule to the case; gives but too just occasion to dr. hammond to expose him as he doth. see disp. disp. p. 181 182 183 184. eadmer speaks plain and home too; it was p. 58. 43. inauditum in britannia, quemlibet hominum super se vices apostolicas gerere, nisi solum archiepiscopum cantuariae. it was a thing unheard of, no practice of it, no tradition for it; therefore no such thing can be believed, that any other (not the pope himself) did apostolically govern the affairs of britain, but only the archbishop of canterbury. sect. 4. conc. sard. calced. constantinop. it may be said, the britain's might hear vid. cap. 20. sict. 9 of the canon of the council of sardica; where it was decreed that bishops grieved, might sardica. appeal to the bishop of rome. the words of the council are these, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, sol. etc. in case any bishop thought himself unjustly condemned; if it seem good to you, let us honour the memory of peter the apostle; that it be written by those who have judged the cause to julius the bishop of rome; and if it seem good, let the judgement be renewed, and let them appoint such as may take cognizance of of it. hereupon 'tis plain 1 these fathers did not acknowledge the pope's supremacy, who thus laid it at the feet, and pleasure of others, (if it seem good to you) 2. here is no peremptory order, neither, and it might not seem good to civil princes, to suffer such appeals. 3. no absolute appeal it seems was intended: but only the bishop of rome might review the case: and how much a review differs from apeal; more of conc▪ sar. hereafter. and that nothing but power to revew is here given to the bishop of rome, are both fully manifested by the archbishop of paris, petr. de maro. de concord. l. 7. c. 3. sect. 6, 7. etc. 4. the decree (such as it is) is not grounded upon any prior right, from scripture, tradition, or possession, or any former council; hath no other argument but the honour of saint peter; and that not in his authority, but his memory; who first sat in that see, where julius was now bishop: but we may have leave to ask, where was the supremacy of the church of rome before? or how should the britain's dream of it before? or why did not these canons take notice of the undoubted canon of nice to the contrary, made two and twenty years before, either to null or explain it? but that these sardic canons, neither established the pope's supremacy; nor were acknowledged to bind the church afterwards; nor could be accounted an appendix to the council of nice; and what weakness and falseness has been practised upon this argument, is so largely, ingenuously and satisfactorily manifested by doctor sillingfleet, that i shall for his fuller satisfaction refer the reader to him, in his ration. acc. p. 419, 420, 421. etc. it is strongly argued in the last reasonings of my lord bramhall, that after the eastern bishops were departed, this council of sardica was no general council; because the presence of five great patriarches were ever held necessary to the being of a general council; as bellarmine confesseth the conc. li. c. 17. if this council had been general: why do saint gregory, isiodore, and bede, leave it out of the number of general councils? why did saint austin, alipius and the african fathers, slight it? and which is more, why doth the eastern church not reckon it among their seven; nor the western church among their eight first general councils? why did the english church omit it in their number in the synod of hedifeld apud spel. an. 680. l. 169. in the year 680. and embrace only unto this day the council of nice, the first of constantinople, the first of ephesus, and the first and second of chalcedon? the five first general councils were therefore incorporated into our english laws; but this council of sardica never was: therefore contrary to this canon of appeal, 'tis the fundamental law of england, in that famous memorial of clarendon: all appeals in england must proceed regularly from the archdeacon to the bishop, from the bishop to the archbishop, and if the archbishop failed to do justice, the last complaint must be to the king to give order for redress. 'tis evident, the great council of chalcedon p. 2. ac. 14. c. 9 contradicted this canon for appeals to rome: where appeals from the archbishop are directed to be made to every primate, or the holy chalcedon. see of constantinople, as well as rome: from which evidence, we have nothing but silly evasions, as that primate truly observs, v. sch. guarded p. 374. besides, if our forefathers had heard of the canons of the councils truly general, (as no doubt they had) how could they possibly believe the unlimited jurisdiction of rome, the council of chalcedon is not denied to give equal privileges to the patriarch of constantinople, with the patriarch of rome. and the council of constantinople conclude thus: for the (nicene) fathers did justly give privileges to the see of constantinople. old rome, because it was the imperial city; and the 150 godly bishops moved with the same consideration, did give equal privileges to the see of new rome; that that city which was the sear of the empire and senate should enjoy equal privileges with the ancient imperial city of rome; and be extolled and magnified in ecclesiastical affairs as well as it, being the second in order from it: and in the last sentence of the judges upon review of the cause: the archbishop of the imperial city of const. or new rome, must enjoy the same privileges of honour; and have the same power out of his own authority, to ordain metropolitans in the asiatic, pontic, and thracian diocese. are these the words of a general council? could these fatbers imagine the pope at that time monarch of the whole church? or could this be acknowledged by england at first, and they yet give up their faith to the pope's universal power? can these things consist? yea, is there not something in all the councils allowed by the ancient britain's, and the ancient english church, sufficient to induce a faith quite contrary to the roman pretensions? but as to this canon of constantinople, s. w. object. quits his hands; roundly telling us, that it was no free act, but voted tumultuously, after most of the fathers were departed. s. w. had been safer, if he had been wiser: sol. for that which he saith, is altogether false; and besides such a cluster of forgeries, as deserves the whetstone to purpose; as my lord bramhall manifests against him, sch-guard. p. 354. 1. false: the act was made before the bishops had licence to departed; it had a second hearing; and was debated by the pope's own legates on his behalf, before the most glorious judges; and maturely sentenced by them in the name of the council. this was one of those four councils, which saint gregory honoured next to the four gospels. this is one of those very councils, which every succeeding pope doth swear to observe to the least tittle. 2. for his forgeries about it, he is sufficiently shamed by the primate in the place cited: 'tis pity such shifts should be used; and 'tis folly to use them; when the truth appears, what remains, but, both the person and the cause reproached. see more of the councils at the latter end. sect. v arabic canons forged; no canons of the council of nice. yet 'tis a marvellous thing, that the romanist object. should dare to impose upon so great and learned a primate, as the late archbishop land; that by the third canon of the council of nice, the patriarch is in the same manner over all those that are under his authority; as he who holds the see of rome is head, and prince of the patriaches, resembling saint peter, and his equal in authority. when 'tis most evident to the meanest capacity, answ. that will search into it; that, that is no canon of the true council of nice; and that in stead of the third, it is the thirty ninth of the supposititious and forged canons; as they are set forth in the arabic editions, both by pisanus and turrianus. in these editions there are no less than eighty canons pretended to be nicene; whereas the nicene council never passed above twenty: as is evident from such as should know best, the greek authors; who all reckon but twenty hist. ecl. l. 1. c. 7. canons of that council. such as theodoret, nicephorus calistus, gelasius cricenus, alphonsus ecl. hist. l. 8. c. 19 act. conc. nic. lib. 2. pisanus, and binnius himself confesseth that all the greeks say there were no more but twenty canons, then determined. yea, the latins themselves allowed no more: for although ruffinus make twenty two, 'tis by splitting of two into four. and in that epitome of the canons, which pope hadrian sent to charles the great, for the government of the western churches, anno 773. the same number appears: and in hincmarus' m. s. the same is proved, from the testimonies of the tripartite history, ruffinus, the carthaginian council, the epistles of ciril of alex. atticus of constant. and the twelfth action of the council of chalcedon: and if we may believe a pope, viz. stephen, in gratian, saith, the roman church did allow of no more gra. dis. 16. c. 20. than twenty. the truth is put beyond all question, lastly, both by the proceed of the african fathers, in the case of zosimus about the nicene canons, when an early and diligent search made it evident; and also by the codex canonum. eccl. afric. p. 363. p. 58. where it is expressly said, there was but twenty canons. but this matter is more than clear, by the p. 391, 392 elaborate pains of dr. still. defence of the late archbishop land, to whom, i must refer my reader. yet bellarmine and binius would prove there obj. were more than twenty. but their proofs depend either upon things, sol. as suppositions, as the arabic canons themselves; such as the epistles of julius and athanasius ad marcum: or else they only prove, that some other things were determined by that council, viz. concerning rebaptisation, and the keeping of easter, etc. which indeed might be acts of the council, without putting them into the ad an. 325. p. 108. canons; as baronius himself confesseth, and leaves the patronage of them, and spondanus, in his contraction of baronius, relates it as his positive ad an. 325. n. 42. opinion, that he rejected all but twenty, whether arabic or other, as spurious. so that it will bear no further contest, but we may safely conclude, the arabic canons, and consequently this of the pope's authority, is a mere forgery of later times; there being no evidence at all, that they were known to the church in all the time of the four first general councils. vid. ●. 20. sect. vi practise interpreted the canons to the same sense against the pope: disposing of patriarches. cyprian. aug. we have found nothing in the canons of the ancient councils that might give occasion to the belief of the pope's jurisdiction in england, in the primitive ages of the church; but indeed, very much to the contrary: but the romanist affirms against my lord of canterbury, that the practice of the church is always the best expositor and assertor of the canons. we are now to examine, whether the ancient practice of the church was sufficient to persuade a belief of the pope's jurisdiction as is pretended. in the mean time not doubting, but that it is a thing most evident; that the pope hath practised contrary to the canons; and the canons have declared, and indeed been practised against the pope. but what catholic practice is found on record, that can be supposed a sufficient ground of this faith, either in england or any part of christendom? certainly not of ordinations or appeals, or visitations. yea, can it be imagined, that our english ancestors, had not heard of the practice of the britain's in maintaining their liberty when it was assaulted by austin; and rejecting his demands of subjection to the see of rome? no doubt they had heard of the cyprian privilege; and how it was insisted on in bar of the universal pastorship, by their friends the eastern church: from whom, they in likelihood received the faith; and with whom they were found at first in communion, about the observation of easter and baptism; and in practice, divers from the church of rome. but one great point of practice is here pitched obj. upon by baronius; and after him by t. c. it is the pope's confirmation of the election, deposing and restoring of patriarches: which they say he did, as head and prince of all the patriarches, and consequently of the whole church. but where hath he done these strange feats? sol. certainly not in england: and we shall find the instances not many nor very early, any where else. but to each branch. 1. 'tis urged, that the pope's confirmation confirm. patriarches. is required to all new elected patriarches. admit it; but the archbishop of paris, petrus dr. still. de marca, fully answers baronius (and indeed every body else) that this was no token of jurisdiction; but only of receiving into communion; de conc. l. 6. c. 5. s. 2. and as a testimony of consent to the consecration. if any force be in this argument, than the bishop of carthage had power cypr. ep. 52. p. 75. over the bishop of rome; because he and other african bishops, confirmed the bishop of rome's ordination. baronius insists much upon the confirmation of anatolius by leo i. which very instance answers itself. leo himself tells us, that it was ep. 38. to manifest, that there was but one entire communion among them throughout the world. yet it is not to be omitted, that the practice of the church supposeth that the validity of the patriarches consecration, depended not upon consec. depends not on confirmation. the confirmation, or indeed, consent of the pope of rome. yea though he did deny his comunicatory letters, that did not hinder them, from the execution of their office. therefore flavianus the patriarch of antloch; though opposed by three roman bishops, successively, who used all importunity with the emperor, that he might be displaced; yet because the churches of the orient, did approve of him and communicate with him, he was allowed; and their consent stood against the bishops of rome. at last, the bishop of rome, severely rebuked for his pride by the emperor, yielded; and his consent was given only by renewing communion with him. but where was the pope's power; either to make, or make void a patriarch, while this was in practice? 2. doth practice better prove the pope's deposing▪ patriarches. power, to depose unworthy patriarches? the contrary is evident; for both before and after the council of nice; according to that council, the practice of the church placed the power of deposing patriarches, in provincial councils; and the pope had it not, till the council of sardica decreed in the case of athanasius, as p. de marca abundantly proves: vid. de concord. l. 7. c. 1. sect. 6. also, that the council of sardica itself, did not (as is commonly said) decree appeals to rome; but only gave the bishop of rome power to review their actions; but still reserving to provincial▪ councils, that authority which the nicene council had established them in. but t. c. urgeth, that we read of no less than obj. eight several patriarches of constantinople deposed by the bishop of rome. where doth he read it? in an epistle of pope sol. nicolaus to the emperor michael. well chosen saith doctor still. a pope's testimony in his own cause. and such a one, as was then in controversy with the patriarch of constantinople, and so late too, as the ninth century is: when his power was much grown from the infancy of it. yet, for all this, this pope on such an occasion, and at that time, did not say, that the patriarches mentioned by him, were deposed by the pope's sole authority, but not ejected (sine consensu romani pontificis) without his consent: and his design was, only to show that ignatius the patriarch, ought not to have been deposed without his consent v. nic. 1. 8. mich. imp. tom. 6. con. p. 506. did not sixtus the third depose policronius obj. bishop of jerusalem? no. he only sent eight persons from a synod sol. at rome to jerusalem; who offered not, by the pope's authority, to depose him, as should have have been proved: but by their means seventy neighbour bishops, were called; by whom, he was deposed: besides binius himself, t●m. 2. con. p. 685. condemns those very acts, that report this story, for spurious. 3. but have we any better proof of the restoring patriarches. pope's power, to restore such as were deposed? the only instance in this case, brought by t. c. is of athanasius and paulus, restored by julius, and indeed to little purpose. 'tis true, athanasius cndemned by two synods, goes to rome, where he and paulus, are received into communion by julius; not liking the decree of the eastern bishops. julius never pleads, his power to depose patriarches; but that his consent for the sake of unity, should also have been first desired; and that so great a matter in the church, required a council both of the eastern and western bishops. vid. p. de marca l. 7. c. 4. s. 6. but, saith dr. still. when we consider, with what heat and stomach this was received by the p. 401. q. ac. eastern bishops; how they absolutely deny, that the western bishops had any more to do with their proceed, than they had with theirs: when they say, that the pope by this usurpation, was the cause of all the mischief that followed: you see what an excellent instance you have made choice of, to prove the pope's power of restoring bishops, to be acknowledged by the whole church. sure, so far the church's practice abroad, could not prevail to settle his right of jurisdion in the english faith; especially, considering the practice of our own church, in opposing the letters and legates of popes for six years together, for the restoring of archbishop wilfred by two of our own successive kings; and the whole state of england ecclesiastical and civil, as appeared above. moreover st. cyprian professeth in the council of carthage, neque enim quisquam, etc. for no one of us hath made himself bishop of bishops: or driven his fellow bishops to a necessity of obedience: particularly relating to stephen then bishop an. 258. n. 24. of rome; as baronius himself resolves. but upon a matter of fact, st. august. gave his st. august. own judgement, both of the pope's power and action in that known case of the donatists. first, they had leave to be heard by foreign bishops. 2. forti non debuit, yet perhaps melciades, the bishop of the roman church, ought not to ufurp to himself this judgement which had been determined by seventy african bishops, tigisitanus sitting primate. 3. st. augustine proceeds, and what will you say, if he did not usurp this power? for the emperor (being desired) sent bishops, judges; which should sit with him, and determine what was just upon the whole cause: so that upon the whole, 'tis easily observed, that in st. augustine's judgement, both the right and the power, by which the pope (as the rest) proceeded; was to be resolved to the emperor, as a little before, ad cujus curam; to whose care it did chief belong; de qua, rationem deo redditurus est, of which he was to give account to god. can this consist with the belief of the pope's universal pastorship by divine right? if there can possibly, after so clear evidence need vid. dr. ham. disp. p. 398. etc. & still. rationale. p. 405. more to be said of st. augustine's judgement in this; it is only to refer you to the controversies between the african bishops, and the bishop of rome in case of appeals. sect. vii. not the sayings of ancient popes, or practice. agatho, pelagius, gregory, victor. we can find nothing in the ancient canons, or ancient practice, to ground popes claimed. a belief of the pope's authority in england upon, yet sure popes themselves claimed it; and used expressions to let us know it. were it so indeed, experience tells us how little popes are to be believed in their own cause; and all reason persuades us not to believe them, against the councils and practice of the church, and the judgement of the fathers. but some of the ancient popes have been found so honest, as to confess against themselves; and acknowledge plain truth against their own greatness. the pope's universal headship, is not to be believed from the words of pope agatho, in his agatho. letter to the emperor; where st. paul stands as high as st. peter, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, con. to. 2. p. 61. b. both are said by him to be heads or chief of the apostles: besides he expressly claimed only the western patriarchate. but pope pelagius the second, is more plain pelagius. and home, to rome itself. nec etiam romanus pontifex universalis est appellandus, the pope of decret. p. 1. dis. 99 n. 10. rome is not to be called universal bishop: this was the opinion of that pope of rome himself, as it is cited out of his epistle, and put into the body of the law by gratian: now, one would think, that the same law denied the power, that denied the title properly expressing that power. how triflingly doth s. w. object: these words are not found in the council of carthage, while they are found in the corpus juris; the law, now of as much force at rome as that council. 'tis weaker to say, they are gratians own addition, seeing his addition is now law; and also proved to be the sense of the pope pelagius: in his epistle, he saith, let none of the patriarches ever use the name of universal, applying in the conclusion to himself, being then pope, as one of that number; and so, if he were either pontifex maximus, or a patriarch, and neither himself nor any patriarch might be dr. ham. disp. disp. p. 418, 419. called vniversalis; then sure nothing was added by him, that said in his title to the fourth chapter as gratian did; nec etiam pontifex, not even the bishop of rome must be called universal bishop. but what shall be said to saint gregory: who, gregory. in his epistle to eulogius, bishop of alexandria, tells him, that he had prohibited him to call him universal father; that he was not to do epis. ex reg. l. 8. indic. 1. c. 30. etc. 4. ind. 13. c. 72 & 76. it; that, reason required the contrary; that, it's derogatory to his brethren; that this honour had, by a council, that of chalcedon, been offered to his predecessors, but refused, and never used by any. again, higher, he tells mauritius, fidenter dico, who ever calls himself universal priest, or l. 7. ep. 30. desires to be so called; is by his pride, a forerunner of antichrist; his pride is an indication of antichrist approaching: as he saith to the lib. 4. ep. 38. empress, l. 4. ep. 34. yea, an imitation of none but the devil; endeavouring to break out to the top of singularity; as he saith, to john himself: yea, elsewhere, he calls this title, the name of blasphemy; and saith, that, those that ibid. ep 32 & 40. consent to it do, fidem perdere, destroy the faith. a strong title, that neither saint gregory, nor, as he saith, any one of his predecessors; no pope, that went before him, would ever accept of: and herein, saith he, i plead not my own ibid. ep. 32. cause, but the cause of god, of the whole church, of the laws, the venerable councils, the commands of christ; which are all disturbed with the invention of this proud pompatick stile of universal bishop. now, can any one imagine, except one prejudiced, as s. w. that the power is harmless, when the title that doth barely express it, is so devilish a thing? can any one imagine, that saint gregory knew himself to be that indeed, which in word he so much abominates? or that he really exercised that universal authority, and universal bishopric; though, he so prodigiously lets fly against the style of universal bishop? yet all this is said, and must be maintained, lest we should exclude the universal pastorship out of the primitive church. there is a great deal of pitiful stuff used by the romanist, upon this argument; with which i shall not trouble the reader, yet nothing shall be omitted that hath any show of argument on their side: among which the words of saint gregory following in his argument, are most material. saint gregory saith, the care of the whole object. church was by christ committed to the chief of the apostles, saint peter; and yet he is not called the universal bishop. 'tis confessed that saint gregory doth say sol. that the care of the whole is committed to saint peter: again, that he was the prince of the apostles; and yet he was not called universal apostle: 'tis hence plain, that his being prince of the apostles, did not carry in it so much as universal bishop: otherwise, saint gregory would not have given the one, and denied him the other; and 'tis as plain, that he had the care of all churches, and so had saint paul; but 'tis not plain, that he had power over all churches. doctor hammond proceeds irrisistibly to prove the contrary from saint gregory himself in the novels: if any complaint be made, saith he, against a bishop, the cause shall be judged before the metropolitan, secundum regulas ex reg. lib. 11. ep. 54. sanctas & nostras leges; if the party stand not to his judgement, the cause is to be brought to the archbishop or patriarch of that diocese; and he shall give it a conclusion, according to the canons and laws aforesaid; no place left for appeal to rome. yet it must be acknowledged, saint gregory object. adds, si dictum fuerit etc. where there is no metropolitan nor patriarch, the cause may be heard by the apostolic see, which gregory calls the head of all churches. now, if this be allowed, what hath the pope sol. gained, if perhaps such a church should be found, as hath neither primate nor patriarch? how is he the nearer to the universal authority over those churches that have primates of their own; or which way will he by this means extend his jurisdiction to us in england, who have ever had more than one metropolitan? the archbishop of canterbury was once acknowledged by a pope to be alterius orbis apostolicus & patriarch. but admitting this extraordinary case; that where there is neither metropolitan nor patriarch there, they are to have recourse to the see apostolic: 'tis a greater wonder that the romanist should insist upon it, then that his late (grace) should mention it; at which a. c. so much admires: for this one observation with the assistance of that known rule in law (exceptio confirmat regulam in non exceptis) puts a plain and speedy end to the whole controversy: for if recourse may be had to rome, from no other place, but where there is neither primate nor patriarch; than not from england, either when saint gregory laid down the rule, or ever since, and perhaps then from no other place in the world; and indeed provision was thus made against any such extraordinary case that might possibly happen; for it is but reason▪ that, where there is no primate to appeal to, appeal should be received somewhere else; and where better, than at rome, which saint gregory calls caput omnium ecclesiarum? and this is the utmost advantage, the romanist can hope to receive from the words. but we see saint gregory calls rome the head object. of all churches. 'tis true, whether he intends a primacy, of sol. fame or visible splendour and dignity, being the seat of the emperor, or order and unity, is not certain? but 'tis certain, he intends nothing less by it, than, that which just now he denied; a supremacy of power and universal ordinary jurisdiction; he having, in the words immediately foregoing, concluded all ordinary jurisdiction within every proper primacy or patriarchate. but saith s. w. saint gregory practised the object. thing, though he denied the word of universal. what hypocrisy! damn the title as he sol. doth, and yet practise the thing! you must have good proof. his first instance, is of the primate of byzacene; wherein the emperor first put forth his authority, and would have him judged by gregory: piissimus imperator eum per nos voluit vid. ep. 65. l. 7. judicari, saith gregory: hence, as doctor hammond smartly and sound observes, that appeals from a primate, lie to none but the supreme magistrate. to which purpose, in the case of maximus bishop of solana, decreed excommunicate, ep. l. 3. ep. 20. by gregory; his sentence was still with this reserve and submission, nisi prius: unless i should first understand by my most serene lords (the emperors) that they commanded it to be done. thus, if this perfect instance (as s. w. calls it) have any force in it; his cause is gone, what ever advantage he pretends to gain by it. besides, the emperor's command was, that gregory should judge him, juxta statuta canonica; and gregory himself pleads, quicquid esset canonicum judicaremus. thus s. w's. 'cause is killed twice by his own perfect instance: for if saint gregory took the judgement upon him in obedience to the emperor; and did proceed, and was to proceed in judging, according to the canons; where was then the universal monarchy? yet, it is confessed by dr. hammond, which is a full answer to all the other, (not so perfect instances) that in case of injury done to any by a primate or patriarch, (there being no lawful superior, who had power over him) the injured person sometimes, made his complaint to the pope, as being the most eminent person in the church; and in such case, he questionless might and aught, in all fraternal charity, admonish the primate or patriarch, or disclaim communion with him, unless he reform. but it ought to be shown that gregory did formally excommunicate any such primate or patriarch; or juridically and authoritively act, in any such cause, without the express licence of the emperor, which not being done, his instances are answered: besides, saint gregory always pleads the ancient canons; which is far from any claim of universal pastorship by divine right, or donation of christ to saint peter. i appeal (saith doctor hammond) to s. w. whether that were the interpretation of secundùm canon's; and yet, he knows, that no other tenure but that, will stand him in stead. indeed, the unhappiness is, as the doctor vid. dispat. disp. p. 408. to p 423. observes, that such acts at first, but necessary fraternal charity were by ambitious, men drawn into example, and means of assuming power of universal pastorship; which yet cannot be more vehemently prejudiced by any thing, than by those ancient examples, which being rightly considered, pretend no higher than ecclesiastical canons, and the universal laws of charity; but never made claim to any supremacy of power over all bishops, by divine institution. it yet appears not that saint gregory practised, the thing, but to avoid arrogance disclaims the name of universal bishop. a. c. against my lord of canterbury, goes another way to work: he grants the title, and also the thing signified by it, to be both renounced by saint gregory; but distinguishes of the term universal bishop, into grammatical, to the exclusion of all other bishops, from being properly bishops; and metaphorical, whereby the bishops are secured, as such, in their respective dioceses; yet all of them under the jurisdiction of the universal bishop, viz. of rome. this distinction, doctor stillingfleet destroys, sol. not more elaborately than fully and perfectly: showing, that, 1. 'tis impossible saint gregory should understand the term of universal bishop lib. 4. ep. 32. in that strict grammatical sense: for the reason, why this title was refused, was because it seemed to diminish the honour of other bishops, when it was offered the bishops of rome in a council of six hundred and thirty bishops; who cannot be imagined to divest themselves, by their kindness, of their very office; though they hazarded somewhat of their honour. can we think the council, that gave the same title to john, intended thus to depose themselves? how comes it to pass that none of john's or ciriacus' successors, did ever challenge this title, in that literal sense, if so it was understood. but to wave many things impertinent; 'tis evident, saint gregory understood the title metaphorically, from the reasons he gives against it; which also equally serve to prove against s. w. that it was not so much the title as the authority of an universal bishop, which he so much opposed. he argueth thus to john the patriarch: what wilt thou answer to christ the head of the universal lib. 4. ep. 38. church in the day of judgement, who dost endeavour to subject all his members to thee, under the name of universal bishop? again, doth he not arise to the height of singularity, ibid. that he is subject to none, but rules over all? and can you have a more perfect description of the present pope, than is here given? or is it the title or the power, that makes him. subject to none, that rules over all? again, he imitates the pride of lucifer, endeavouring ibid. to be head (not sure, in title, but power) of the church triumphant; as the pope of the church militant: exalting his throne, ibid. (not his name) as gregory adds, above the stars of god, viz. the bishops, and the height of the clouds. again, saint peter was the first member of the church: paul, andrew, and john, what are they else but heads of particular churches; and yet they are all members of the church under one head, i. e. christ; as before he had said: we see he allows not peter himself to be head of the church. none that was truly holy, was ever called by that name of universal bishop: which he makes to be the same with the head of the church. but lastly, suppose st. gregory did mean, that this title in its strict grammatical sense, was to be abhorred, and not as metaphorically taken, what hath the pope gained? who at this day bears that title in the highest and strictest sense imaginable? as the dr. proves; and indeed needs no proof, being evident of itself, and to the observation of the whole world. thus all the hard words of st. gregory uttered so long agone, against such as admitted or desired that title, avoidable fall upon the modern roman bishops, that take upon them to be the sole pastors of the church; and say that they are ecumenical bishops, and that all jurisdiction is derived from them: they are lucifers and princes of pride; using a vain, new, rash, foolish, proud, profane, erroneous, wicked, hypocritical, singular; presumptuous, blasphemous name; as that holy pope inveighed against it. moreover, as he also adds, they transgress gods laws, violate the canons, dishonour the church, despise their brethren, and cause schism. istud nomen facere l. 6. ep. 30, 31. obj. in dissessionem ecclesiae. but it is said, that pope victor excommunicated the asian churches all at once: therefore, saith a. c. the pope had of right some authority over the asian bishops; and by confequence over the whole church: and this appears in that, irenaus in the name of the gallican bishops, writes to victor not to proceed so rashly in this action: as appears in eusebius. 1. we answer, that those bishops, among sol. whom irenaeus was one, did severely rebuke that pope for offering to excommunicate those asian vid. eus. l. 5. c. 24. churches: therefore they did not believe him to be the supreme, infallible pastor of the whole church. 2. his letters declaring that excommunication, ibid. not pleasing all his own bishops, they countermanded him: surely not thinking him to be what popes would now be esteemed. 3. hence card. perron is angry with eusebius, and calls him an arrian; and an enemy to the church of rome; for hinting, that though the pope did declare them excommunicate, yet it took no effect, because other bishops continued still in communion with them. 4 but the force of the whole argument leans upon a plain mistake, of the ancient discipline, both in the nature and the root or ground of it. for the nature of ancient excommunication, mistake of the nature. root of discipline. especially when practised by one church against another, did not imply a positive act of authority, but a negative act of charity; or a declaring against the communion of such with themselves: and therefore was done by equals to equals; and sometimes by inferiors to superiors. in equals; thus johannes antiochenus in the ephesine council, excommunicated cyril, patriarch vict. tu. nu. cro. p. 10. of alexandria; and in inferiors (in the sense of our roman adversaries) for the african bishops excommunicated pope vigilius: hence, also, acacius the patriarch of const. expunged the name of foelix bishop of rome; out of the diptychs of the church: and hilary anethamatized pope liberius, therefore victors declaring the asian churches to be excommunicate, is no argument of his power over them. 2. the root or ground of the ancient discipline, is also as plainly mistaken, which was not authority always, but care and charity. care, i say, not only of themselves who used it, but also of the church that was censured, and indeed of the whole church. 'tis here proper to consider, that though bishops had their peculiar seats, and limits for their jurisdictions; yet they had all a charitive inspection and care of that universal church, and sometimes denominations accordingly. hence we deny not that the ancient bishops of rome deservedly gained the title of ecumenical bishops, a thing of so great moment in the controversy, that if well considered, might advance very far towards the ending of it: for so the title hath been given to others, as well as the bishop of rome; and therefore, it could not argue any authority peculiar to him. also the same universalcare of the church (the occasion of the title) hath been acknowledged in others as well as in him; and indeed the power; which is the root of that care, as the occasion of that title, is founded in all bishops. here are three things noted, which may be 3 notes. distinctly considered. 1. power is given to all bishops with an immediate respect to the good of the whole church▪ so that if it were possible, that every particular bishop could take care of the whole church, they have authority enough in their function to do it; though it be impossible, and indeed inconsistent with peace and order, that all should undertake it: and therefore they have their bounds and limits set them; hence their particular dioceses: therefore, as st. cyprian, there is but one bishopric in the whole world; a part of which is held by every bishop. 2. thus we find in the primitive church, that every bishop had his particular charge, yet they still regarded the common good; extending their care (the second thing observed) sometimes beyond their own division, by their council and direction; yea and exercised their functions sometimes in other places: of which dr. stillingfleet rat. ac. p. 424, 425. gives many instancesin polycarp. ignatius, irenaeus, st. cyprian, faustus. yea upon this very ground, nazianzen saith or. 18. p. 281. of st. cyprian, that he not only governed the churches of carthage, but all the western parts, and even almost all the eastern, southern, and northern too, as far as he went. arsenius speaks more home to athanasius; atha. ap. ad imp. const p. 786, etc. we embrace (saith he) peace and unity with the catholic church, over which, thou, through the grace of god, dost preside. whence gregory or. 21. p. 392. naz. saith of athanasius, that he made laws for the whole earth: and st. basil writes to him, ep. 52. that he had care of all the churches as of his own; and calls him the head and chief of all. and st. chrisostom in the praise of eustathius, tom. 5. p. 631. savil. the patriarch of antioch, saith, that he was instructed by the divine spirit; that he was not only to have care of that church over which he was set, but of the whole church throughout the world. now what is this but to say in effect, these great men were universal bishops; though indeed, they, none of them, had power of jurisdiction over any church but their own; as, notwithstanding the general care of the ancient good bishops of rome, had of the good of the whole, (and their influence and reverence in order thereunto) the bishops of rome had not. 3. upon the former ground and occasion, some bishops in the most famous churches, had the honour of the title of ecumenical or universal bishops. but here we must confess, the bishops of rome had the advantage, being the most famous of all; both by reason of their own primitive merit, and the glory of the empire, especially the latter. the roman empire was itself accounted universal; and the greatness of the empire advanced the church to the same title; and consequently the bishops of that church, above others. 1. that the roman empire was so, appears r. ac. p. 425, 426. by a multitude of testimonies making orbis romanus & orbis humanus, synonimous; collected by dr. still. hence am. marcellinus. calls l. 14. c. 16. rome, caput mundi, the head of the world: and the roman senate, asylum mundi totius: and it was usual then to call, whatever was o● of the roman empire, barbaria; as the same dr. ibid. proves at large: therefore that empire was called in greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. act. 11. 28. 2. some bishops in the great churches in the roman empire, were called ecumenical, as that relates to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, viz. the roman empire. this appears because the very ground of the advancement of the patriarch of constantinople, was the greatness of the city; as appears in the councils of constantinople and chalcedon about it; and the privileges of old rome gave the measure of the privileges of new rome. and in probability, the ground of that patriarch's usurping the title of ecumenical patriarch, was but to correspond with the greatness p. 426. of his city; which was then the seat of the empire, as dr. still. very reasonably conjectures. moreover, all the three patriarches of alexandria, antioch, and constantinople, had expressions given them tantamount to that title: the government of the whole world, the care of all r. ac. p. 426. the churches, the government as it were of the whole body of the church: as dr. stillingfleet particularly shows. but most clear and full to that purpose, theod. haer. fab. l. 4. c. 14. p. 245. to. 4. oper. as he observes, is the testimony of theodoret concerning nestorius, being made patriarch of constantinople: he was entrusted with the government of the catholic church of the orthodox at constantinople; and thereby, of the whole world. where shall we find so illustrious a testimony for the bishop of rome? or if we could, we see it would prove nothing peculiar to him. therefore, if the council of chalcedon did offer the title of universal patriarch; or if they did not, but as the truth rather is, some papers received in that council, did give him that title, it signifieth nothing to prove the pope's universal authority. therefore, sim. vigorius ingeniously confesseth, comento. ad res. syn. conc. bas. p. 36. that when the western fathers call the roman bishops, bishops of the universal church, they do it from the custom of their churches; not that they look on them as universal bishops of the whole church; but in the same sense, that the patriarches of constantinople, antioch, alexandria, jerusalem, are called so; or as they are universal over the churches, under their own patriarchate; or that in ecumenical councils, they preside over the whole church: and after acknowledgeth, that the title of universal or ecumenical bishop, makes nothing for the pope's monarchy. it is too evident, that that humble pope gregory seems to glorify himself, while he so often mentions that offer of the title of universal; and his refusing of it, and inveighing against it; and that these were engines used by him to deprive others of the same title, if not to advance his own see to the power signified by it; though if he did indeed design any such thing, it is an argument that he was ashamed openly to claim or own it, while he rails against the title, in the effects of it, which depended upon the power itself, as such an abominable thing. however, if the council of chalcedon did indeed offer, (or only record) that title to gregory, it is more than manifest, it could not possibly be intended to carry in it the authority of the whole church; or any more than that qualified sense of vigorius before mentioned; because other patriarches had the same title; and we see no reason to believe, that that council intended to subject themselves, and all patriarches to the authority of the western pope; contrary to their great design of advancing the see of constantinople to equal privileges with that of rome, as appears by their 16 sess. can. 28. and their synodical epistle to pope leo. thus the bare title is no argument; and by what hath been said touching the grandeur of the roman empire, and the answerable greatness and renown of the roman church, frequent recourse had unto it from other churches, for counsel and assistance; is of no more force to conclude her supremacy, nor any matter of wonder at all. experience teacheth us that it is and will be so in all cases: not only a renowned lawyer, physician, but divine, shall have great resort, and almost universal addresses. an honest and prudent countryman shall be upon all commissions: the church of rome was then famous both for learning, wisdom, truth, piety, and i may add tradition itself as well as greatness both, in the eye of the world and all other churches; and her zeal and care for general good, keeping peace and spreading the grace of the gospel, was sometimes admirable. and now no wonder that applications in difficult cases were frequently and generally made hither, which at first were received and answered with love and charity, though soon after, the ambition of popes knew how to advance, and hence to assume authority. from this, we see, it was no great venture, iren. l. 3. c. 3. how ever a. c. term it, for archbishop laud to grapple with the authority of irenaeus: who saith, to this church, meaning rome, propter potentiorem principalitatem, for the more powerful principality of it, 'tis necessary that every church, that is the faithful, undique, should have recourse, in qua semper ab his qui sunt undique, conservata est●ea quae est ab apostolis traditio. his lordship seems to grant the whole: rome being then the imperial city; and so a church of more powerful authority than any other▪ yet not the head of the church universal; this may suffice without the pleasant criticising about undique, with which, if you have a mind to be merry, you may entertain yourself in dr. still. p. 441. etc. but, indeed a. c. is guilty of many mistakes in reasoning, as well as criticising: he takes it for granted, that this principality is attributed by irenaeus here to rome, as the church, not as the city. 2. that the necessity, arising hence, was concerning the faith, and not secular affairs; neither of which, is certain, or in likelihood true, vid. dr. still. p. 444. besides, if both were granted, the necessity is not such as supposeth duty or authority in the faithful, or in rome; but as the sense makes evident, a necessity of expedience, rome being most likely to give satisfaction touching that tradition about which that dispute was. lastly, the principality here implies not proper authority, or power to decide the controversy; one kind of authority it doth imply, but not such as a. c. enquired for: not the authority of a governor, but of a conservator; of a conservator of that truth, that being made known by her, might reasonably end the quarrel; not of an absolute governor, that might command the faith, or the agreement of the dissenters. this is evident: 1. because the dispute was about a matter of fact, whether there was any such tradition or not, as the valentinians pretended. 2. because irenaeus refers them to rome under this reason, conservata est, the apostolical traditions are kept there; being brought by the faithful undique thither: and therefore, brought thither, because of the more principality of the city, all persons resorted thither. lastly, it is acknowledged that pope gregory obj. eph. 65. ind. 2. doth say; that, if there be any fault in bishops, it is subject to the apostolical see; but when their fault doth not exact it, that then, upon the account of humility, all were his equals. indeed, this smells of his ambition and design sol. before spoken of; but if there be any truth in it, it must agree with the canon saint gregory himself records; and suppose the faulty bishop hath no proper primate or patriarch to judge him: also, with the proceeding then before him; and suppose complaint to the emperor; and the emperor's subjecting the cause to the apostolical see; as that 'cause was by saint gregory's own confession. however, what he seems here to assume to his own see, he blows away with the same breath; denying any ordinary jurisdiction and authority to be in that see, over all bishops, while he supposes a fault necessary to their subjection; and that, while there is no fault, all are equal: which is not true, where, by a lawful standing ordinary government there is an eternal necessity of superiority and inferiority. but of this, i had spoken before, had i thought (as i yet do not) that there is any weight or consequence in the words. further evidence, that the ancient popes themselves, though they might thirst after it; did not believe, that they were universal bishops and monarches over the whole church; and that they did not pretend to it in any such manner, as to make the world believe it; i say, further evidence of this, ariseth from their acknowledged subjection to the civil magistrate in ecclesiastical affairs. pope leo begged the emperor theodosius with tears; that he, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that he would command (not permit) a council to be held in italy: that sure was not to signify his authoritative desires. that instance of pope agatho, in his epistle to the emperor, is as pertinent as the former; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. with praise we admire your conc. tom. 5. p. 60. e. f. purpose well pleasing to god (not to the pope) and for these commands of yours we are rejoiced, and with groans, give thanks to god; and many such, doctor hammond saith, might be afforded. pope gregory received the power of hearing and determining causes several times, as he himself confesseth, from the emperor; as we shown before. hence pope eleutherius, to king lucius: you are the vicar of christ: the same in effect which is contained in the laws of edward the confessor. and pope vrban the second, entertained our archbishop anselm in the council of bar, with the title of the pope of another world, or (as some relate it) the apostle of another world, and a patriarch worthy to be reverenced. malm. pro. ad lib. de gest. pont. angl. now, when the bishops of rome did acknowledge that the civil magistrate had power to command the assembling of general councils, and to command popes themselves to hear and determine ecclesiastical causes: when they acknowledged the king of england to be the vicar of christ; and the archbishop of canterbury, pope of another world: we may, i think, safely conclude, that whatever they thought of the primacy of dignity, they did not believe themselves; or, give occasion to others, to believe; that they had then, the jurisdiction of england; much less of the whole world. indeed, the powers of emperors over popes, vid. king james' defence, p. 50. was exercised severely; and continued long in practice, an. 654. constantius bound and banished pope martin. an. 963. otho rejected pope john 13. and made leo 8. pope. and john 14. gregory 5. and sylvester 2. were made popes by the otho's an. 1007. hen. 2. deposed three popes: this practice is confessed till gregory 7. and before an. 679. pope's submitted to emperors by purchasing their investitures of them; by submissive terms, and bowing the knee before them, platin. baron. segeb. sect. viii. nor the words of the imperial law. if the ancient councils, or practice, or popes themselves, offered nothing to persuade our ancestors to a belief of the pope's universal power or possession of england; certainly, we may despair of finding any such thing in the ancient laws of the church; which are justly presumed to contain the sense and rule of all: were all other records of antiquity silent, saith our late primate, the civil law is proof enough: for, that's a monument of the primitive church: and not only so; it being the imperial, as well as canon law, it gives us the reason and law both of the church and the whole world. now, what saith the law? it first forbids the title, and then the practice. primae sedis apostolus, the patriarch or bishop cor. jur. can. de pa. 1. dist. 99 c. 3. can. 4. of the first see, is not to be called prince of the priests, or supreme priest; nor, as the african canon adds, aliquid hujusmodi, any other thing of that kind. the practice of any such power was expressly forbidden; and not the proud title only: the very text of the law saith, à patriarcha non datur appellatio: from a patriarch there lies no appeal, cod. lib. 1. tit. 4. l. 29. auth. collat. 9 tit. 15. c. 22. and this we have found agreeable to the melivetane council, where saint augustine was can. 23. present, forbidding under pain of excommunication, any appeal to any foreign councils or judicatures: and this is again consonant to the fifth canon of nice; as that was to the thirty fourth apostolic, where the primate in every nation is to be accounted their head. now what do our adversaries say to this? indeed, they seem to be put to it; and though their wits are very pregnant to deliver many answers, such as they be, in most cases, they all seem to join in one poor slight evasion here; namely, that the laws concerning appeals, did only concern inferior clergymen: but bishops were allowed to appeal to rome; even by the african canon, and acknowledged in that councils epistle to pope boniface. three bold say: first, that the law concerned not the appeals of bishops. 2. the council of africa decreed bishops appeals to rome. 3. and acknowledged it in their letter to pope boniface: but are these things, as truly, as boldly said? for the first which is their comment, whereby they would restrain the sense of the laws, to the exclusion of the bishops, we shall consider their ground for it; and then propose our reason, and the law expressly against it, and then their reasons will need little answer. they say, the law reacheth not the difference object. between patriarches themselves. but if there should happen a difference betwixt sol. a patriarch and the pope, who shall decide that? both these inconveniences are plainly solved by referring all such extraordinary difficulties to a general council. but why should the law allow foreign appeals to bishops and not to priests? are all bishop's patriarches? is not a patriarch over his bishops, as well as a bishop over his priests? may not the gravamen of a priest be given by his bishop? or the difference among priests, be as caelestus necessity of grace. milev. con. considerable to the church, sometimes as among bishops? or hath not the universal pastor if the pope be so, pour over and care of priests, as well as bishops? or can the summum imperium receive limits from canon or law? to say, that priests are forbidden to appeal, but the pope is not forbidden to receive their appeals, is plainly to cripple the law, and to make it yield to all the inconveniences of foreign appeals against its true end. but what if this very canon, they pretend to allow appeals from bishops to rome, do expressly forbid that very thing it is brought to allow? can. 28. and it doth so undeniably, as appears in the authentic collection of the african canons, non provocent ad transmarina judicia, sed ad primates suarum provinciarum, aut ad universale concilium, sicut de episcopis saepe constitutum est. the same thing had often been determined in the case of bishops. perron, and others say, this clause was not obj. in the ancient milevetan canons. have they nothing else but this groundless sol. conceit to support their universal pastorship against express law, for four hundred years after christ? sure it behoved highly to produce a true authentic copy of those canons, wherein that clause is omitted; which because they do not, we conclude they cannot. however it is manifest, that the same thing against appeals of bishops to rome, had been often determined, by far greater testimony than the bare assertion of perron and his partners, viz. that general council of carthage, an. d. 419. about three years after that milevetan; at the end of the first session, they reviewed the canons of the seventeen lesser councils, which justellus mentions; and wherein, no doubt, that point had been often determined; and out of them all composed that c●dex canonum ecclesia africanae, with that clause inserted, as appears both in the greek and many ancient latin copies; and was so received and pleaded by the council of rheims, as hincumarmus proves as well as others. gratius confesseth it; but adds this antidote; nisi forte romanam sedem appellaverit. i e. none shall appeal to rome (the main design of the council) except they do appeal to rome; not expounding the canon, but exposing himself and that excellent council. but a. c. urgeth the epistle of that council to obj. boniface, as was before noted; and thence proves that the council acknowledged, that bishops had power in their own cause to appeal to rome. 'tis true, they do say, that in a letter written sol. a year before to zosimus, they had granted liberty to bishops to appeal to rome. this is true, but scarce honest; the next words in the letter spoil the argument and the sport too: for they further say, that because the pope contended that the appeals of bishops were contained in the nicene canons, they were contented to yield that it should be so, till the true canons were produced. now what can the reader desire, to put an eternal end to this controversy, and consequently to the claim of the universal pastor in this age; but an account of the judgement of this council, when they had received the copy of the nicene canons (on which the point depended) out of the east. this you have in that excellent epistle of theirs to pope celastine, who succeeded boniface, and the elaborate dr. stillingfleet, who searcheth r. ac. p. 410, 411. all things to the bottom, hath transcribed it at large, as a worthy monument of antiquity; and of very great light in the present controversy: to him i shall refer the reader for the whole; and only note some few expressions to the purpose. we (say they) humbly beseech you to admit no more into your communion those whom we have cast out: for your reverence will easily perceive that this is forbid in the council of nice. for if this be taken care for, as to the inferior clergy and laity, how much more would it have it to be observed in bishops. the decrees of nice have subjected both the inferior clergy and bishops to their metropolitans, for they have most wisely and justly provided, that every business be determined in the place where it begun. especially seeing that it is lawful to every one if he be offended, to appeal to the council of the province, or even to an universal council. or how can a judgement made beyond the sea be valid, to which the persons of necessary witnesses cannot be brought by reason, etc. for this sending of men to us from your holiness, we do not find it commanded by any synod of the fathers. and as for that council of nice, we cannot find it in the truest copies, sent by holy cyril bishop of alexandria, and the venerable atticus bishop of constantinople; which also we sent to your predecessor boniface. take heed also of sending any of your clerks for executors, to those who desire it; lest we seem to bring the swelling pride of the world into the church of christ; and concerning our brother faustinus (apiarius being cast out) we are confident that our brotherly love continuing, africa shall no more be troubled with him. this is the sum of that famous epistle, the pope and the african fathers referred the point in difference to the true canons of the nicene council: the canons determine against the pope, and from the whole story 'tis inferred evidently. 1. that pope boniface himself implieth, his jurisdiction was limited by the general council of nice, and that all the laity and clergy too, except bishops, that lived beyond the seas, and consequently in england, were exempted from his jurisdiction by that council. 2. pope boniface even then, when he made his claim and stood upon his terms with the african fathers, pleads nothing for the appeals of transmarine bishops to rome, but the allowance of the council of nice, no tu es petrus then heard of. 3. then it seems the practices of popes themselves were to be ruled and judged by the ancient canons and laws of the church. 4. the african fathers declared the pope fallible and actually mistaken, both to his own power and sense of the council: proving substantially that neither authority from councils, nor any foundation in justice, equity or order of government or public conveniency, will allow or suffer such appeals to rome; and that the pope had no authority to send legates to hear causes in such cases. all these things lie so obviously in prejudice both of the pope's possession and title, as universal pastor at that time, both in his own & the church's sense, that to apply them further would be to insult; which i shall forbear, seeing baronius is so ingenious as to confess, there are some hard things in this epistle: and perron hath hereupon exposed his wit with so much sweat and so little purpose, but his own correction and reproach, as dr. still. notes. yet we may modestly conclude from this one plain instance; that the sense of the nicene council was defined by the african council, to be against the pope's supremacy, and consequently they did not submit to it nor believe it; and a further consequence to our purpose is, that then the catholic church did not universally own it: i. e. the pope's supremacy than had not possession of the faith of the whole church: for as a. c. p. 191. maintains, the africans, notwithstanding the contest in the sixth council of carthage, were always in true communion with the roman church, even during the term of this pretended separation: and celestine himself saith, that st. augustine one of those fathers, lived and died in the communion of the roman church. sect. ix. the conclusion touching possession anciently. we hope it is now apparent enough, that the pope's supremacy had no possession in england from the beginning, or for the first six hundred years; either de facto or in fide. our ancestors yielded not to it; they unanimously resisted it, and they had no reason to believe it, either from the councils or practice of the church; or from the edicts and rules of the imperial law, or the very say of the popes themselves. thus sampson's hair, the strength and pomp of their best plea, is cut off: the foundation of the pope's supremacy is subverted, and all other pleas broken with it. if according to the apostles canons, every nation had its proper head in the beginning, to be ackonwledged by them under god: and according to a general council, all such heads should hold as from the beginning; there can be no ground afterwards, for a lawful possession to the contrary. if tu es petrus, & pasce oves, have any force to maintain the pope's supremacy, why did not the ancient fathers, the authors of those canons, see it? why was not it shown by the popes concerned, in bar against them when nothing else could be pleaded? when both possession and tradition were to be begun, and had not yet laid their foundation? yea when actual opposition in england was made against it: when general councils abroad, laid restraints upon it; and the eastern church would not acknowledge it. indeed both antiquity, universality, and tradition itself, and all colour of right for ever, fails with possession. for possession of supremacy, afterwards, cannot possibly have either a divine or just t●●; but must lay its foundation, contrary to god's institution and ecclesiastical canon. and the possessor is a thief and a robber, our adversaries being judges. he invades others provinces; and is bound to restore: and long possession, is but a protracted rebellion against god and his church. however it be with the secular powers, christ's vicar, must certainly derive from him; must hold the power he gave; must come in it at his door. and s. w. himself, p. 50 against dr. hammond, fiercely affirmeth, that possession in this kind aught to begin ne● christ's time; and he that hath begun it later, unless he can evidence that he was driven out from an ancient possession, is not to be styled a possessor but an usurper, an intruder, an invader, disobedient, rebellious, and schismatical. good night, s. w. quod ab initio fuit invalidum, tractu temporis non convalescit, is a rule in the civil law. yea, whatever possession the pope got afterwards, was not only an illegal usurpation, but a manifest violation of the canon of ephesus; and thereby condemned as schismatical. chap. vii. the pope had not full possession here, before hen. 8. 1. not in augustine's time. ii. nor after. 'tis boldly pleaded; that the pope had possession of the supremacy in england for nine hundred years together, from augustine till hen. 8. 〈◊〉 no king on earth hath so long, and so clear prescription for his crown. to which we answer: 1. that he had not such possession. 2. if he had, 'tis no argument of a just title. sect. i. not in austin's time. state of supremacy questioned. we shall consider the pope's supremacy here, as it stood in and near st. augustine's time, and in the ages after him to hen. 8. 1. we have not found hitherto, that in or about the time of augustine, archbishop of canterbury, the pope had any such power in england as is pretended. indeed, he came from rome; but he brought no mandate with him; and when he was come, he did nothing without the king's licence: at his arrival, he petitions 〈◊〉 king; the king commands him to stay in the isle thanet, till his further pleasure was known: he obeyed; afterward, the king gave him licence to preach to bed. l. 1. c. 25. his subjects; and, when he was himself converted, majorem praedicandi licentiam, he enlarged his licence so to do. 'tis true, saint gregory presumed largely, to subject all the priests of britain under augustine; and to give him power to erect two archbishoprics, and twelve bishoprics under each of them; but 'tis one thing to claim, another thing to possess: for ethelbert was then the only christian king, who had not the twentieth part of britain; and it appears, that after both saint gregory and austin were dead, there were but one arch▪ bishop, and two bishops, throughout the british islands, of the roman communion. indeed, the british and scotch bishops were bed. l. 2. c. 2 etc. 4. many, but they renounced all communion with rome, as appeared before. we thankfully acknowledge the pope's sending over preachers; his commending, sometimes arch-bishops when desired, to us; his directions to fill up vacant sees: all which, and such like, were acts of charity, becoming so eminent a prelate in the catholic church: but sure these were not marks of supremacy. 'tis possible, saint milet, as is urged, might bring the decrees of the roman synod hither to be observed; and that they were worthy of our acceptance, and were accepted accordingly; but 'tis certain, and will afterwards appear to be so, that such decrees were never of force here, further that they were allowed by the king and kingdom. 'tis not denied, but that sometimes we admitted the pope's legates, and bulls too; yet the legantine courts were not anciently heard of; neither were the legates themselves, or those bulls, of any authority without the king's consent. some would argue from the great and flattering titles that were anciently given to the pope; but sure such titles can never signify possession or power, which at the same time, and perhaps by the very same persons that gave the titles, was really and indeed denied him. but the great service the bishop of calcedo● hath done his cause by these little instances before mentioned, will best appear, by a true state vid. bramh. p. 189. etc. of the question touching the supremacy betwixt the pope and the king of england; in which, such things are not all concerned. the plain question is, who was then the political head of the church of england? the king or the pope? or more immediately, whether the pope then had possession of the supremacy here in such things, as was denied him by hen. 8. at the beginning of our reformation? and the pope still challengeth? and they are such as these. 1. a legislative power in ecclesiastical causes. 2. a dispensative power, above and against the laws of the church. 3. a liberty to send legates, and to hold legantine courts in england, without licence. 4. the right of receiving the last appeals of the king's subjects. 5. the patronage of the english church, and investitures of bishops; with power to impose oaths upon them, contrary to their oath of allegiance. 6. the first fruits and tenths of ecclesiastical live; and a power to impose upon them what pensions, or other burdens, he pleaseth. 7. the goods of clergymen, dying intestate. these are the flowers of that supremacy which the pope claimeth in england, and our kings, and laws, and customs deny him; as will appear afterwards in due place: for this place, 'tis enough to observe, that we find no footsteps of such possession of the pope's power in england, in or about augustine's time. as for that one instance of saint wilfred's appeals, it hath appeared before; that it being rejected by two kings successively, by the other archbishop, and by the whole body of the english clergy, sure, 'tis no full instance of the pope's possession of the supremacy here at that time; and needs no further answer. sect. ii. no clear or full possession in the ages after austin, till hen. 8. eight distinctions; the question stated. it may be thought that though the things mentioned were not in the pope's possession so early; yet, for many ages together they were found in his possession, and so continued, without interruption, till hen. 8. ejected the pope, and possessed himself and his successors, of them. whether it were so or not, we are now to examine; and lest we should be deceived with colours and generalities, we must distinguish carefully. 1. betwixt a primacy of order and dignity and unity; and supremacy of power, the only thing disputed. 2. betwixt a judgement of direction resulting from the said primacy; and a judgement of jurisdiction depending upon supremacy. 3. betwixt things claimed; and things granted and possessed. 4. betwixt things possessed continually; or for some time only. 5. betwixt possession partial, and of some lesser branches; and plenary or of the main body of jurisdiction. 6. betwixt things permitted of courtesy; and things granted out of duty. 7. betwixt encroachment through craft, or power or interest, or the temporary ossitancy of the people; and power, grounded in the laws, enjoyed with the consent of the states of the kingdom in times of peace. 8. lastly, betwixt quiet possession; and interrupted. these distinctions, may receive a flout from some capricious adversary; but, i find, there is need of them all, if we deal with a subtle one. for the question is not, touching primacy in the bishop of rome; or an acknowledged judgement of direction flowing from it; or a claim of jurisdiction, which is no possession; or a partial possession of power in some lesser things; or a larger power in greater matters, yielded out of courtesy, ossitancy, or fear, or surprise; and held only for a time, while things were unsettled; or by power, craft or interest; but soon after disclaimed, and frequently interrupted: for, this is not such a possession as our adversaries plead for; or, indeed, will stand them in stead. but the question in short, is this; whether the pope had a quiet and uninterrupted possession of the supreme power over the church of england in those great branches of supremacy denied him by henry the eighth, for nine hundred years together, or for many ages together before that time? this, strictly, must be the question: for the complaint is; that hen. 8. disposessed the pope of the supremacy which he had enjoyed for so many ages; and made himself head of the church of england: therefore, those very things which that king then denied to the pope, or took from him, must be those flowers of the supremacy, which the papists pretend, the pope had possession of, for so many ages together before his time. two things, therefore, and those only, are needful to be sought here: what those branches of power are, which henry the eighth denied to the pope, and resumed to himself and his successors? and whether the pope and quietly, and without plain interruption, possessed the same for so many ages before his time? and in order thereunto, when and how he got it? chap. viii. what the supremacy was, which henry the eighth took from the pope: the particulars of it, with notes. 'tis true, henry the eighth resumed the title of the only supreme head in earth, of the church of england; and denied this title to the pope: but 'tis plain, the controversy was not so much about the title as the power; the honours, dignities, jurisdictions, authorities, profits, etc. belonging or appertaining to the said dignity of supreme head of the church of england: as is evident by the statute, hen. 8. 26. c. 1. the particulars of that power were such as these. 1. henry the eighth prohibited all appeals to the pope, an. 24. c. 12. and legates from rome. 2. he also forbade all payments of money, upon any pretence, to the pope, an. 25. c. 12. 3. he denied the pope the nomination and consecration of arch-bishops and bishops, and presentations, an. 25. 20. 4. he prohibited all suits for bulls etc. to be made to the pope, or the see of rome, 25. c. 21. 5. he prohibited any canons to be executed here, without the king's licence, an. 25. 19 i have perused the statutes of king henry the eighth; and i cannot find any thing which he took away from the pope, but it is reducible to these five heads: touching which, by the way, we note. 1. the controversy was not about a primacy of order, or the beginning of unity; but a supremacy of power. 2. all these things were then denied him, not by the king alone; but by all the states of the kingdom, in many statutes. 3. the denial of all these branches of supremacy to the pope, were grounded upon the ancient laws and customs of the realm, as is usually noted in the preamble of the said statutes: and if, that one thing shall be made to appear; we must conclude, that the pope might be guilty of an usurpation, but could never have a legal possession of that supremacy, that is in the question. 4. note, that the states of the kingdom in the reign of queen mary, (when by means of cardinal pool, they recognized the pope's supremacy) an. 1. 11. mar. c. 8. it was with this careful and express limitation; that nothing therein should be understood to diminish any the liberties of the imperial crown of this realm; which did belong unto it in the twentieth year of hen. 8.— without diminution or enlargement of the pope's supremacy in england as it was in the twentieth year of hen. 8. so that queen mary, and her parliament, added nothing to the pope, but only restored what he had before; and when and how that was obtained, is next to be examined. chap. ix. whether the pope's supremacy here, was in quiet possession till henry the eighth? we have found, what branches of the pope's power, were cut off by hen. 8. the question is, whether the pope had possession of them, without interruption, before that time? and, that we may proceed dictinctly, and clearly; we shall consider each of the former branches by themselves: and first we begin with the pope's power of receiving appeals from hence; which carries a very considerable part of his pretended jurisdiction. sect. i. of appeals to rome. three notions of appeal. appeals to rome locally, or by legates. wilfrid. anselm. appeals to rome, we have found among these things which were prohibited by henry the eighth: therefore no doubt the pope claimed, and in some sort possessed the power of receiving such appeals before. but what kind of possession, how free, and how long, is worthy to be enquired. appeal, is a word taken several ways: sometimes it is only to accuse; so we find it in the 3 senses of appeal. statutes of the 11 and 21 rich. 2. sometimes to refer ourselves for judgement, to some worthy person; so francfort, etc. appealed to john calvin. 3. but now it is chief used for a removing a cause from an inferior to a superior court, that hath power of disannulling what the other did. in this last sense, historians tell us, that appeals to rome were not in use with us, till about five hundred years agone, or a little more, viz. the year 1140. these appeals to rome were received and judged either in the pope's court at rome; or by his legates in england. a word or two of each. for appeals to the pope at rome, the two famous instances of wilfred and anselm, take up much ●. locally. of our history. but they both seem, at least at first, to have wilfred. appealed to the pope, under the second notion anselm. of appeal: not to him as a proper or legal judge; but as a great and venerable prelate. but not to stick there; 'tis well known what effect they obtained: as for wilfred, his account was of elder date; and hath appeared before, to the great prejudice of the pope's possession in england at that time. but anselm is the great monument of papal obedience; anselm. and, as a learned man observes, the first promoter of papal authority in england. he began his enterprise with a pretence, that he ought not to be barred of visiting the vicar of st. peter, causâ regiminis ecclesiae; but he was not suffered to do that: so far was the pope then, from having the power of receiving appeals, that he might not receive the visit of a person of anselm's quality, without the king's leave. first, he was told by the bishops, as well as lay-lords, that it was a thing unheard of, and altogether against the use of the realm, for any of the great men, especially himself to presume any such thing, without the king's licence. notwithstanding, he would, and did go; but what followed? his bishopric was seized into the king's hand: and the pope durst not, or thought not good, to give him either consilium or auxilium, as sir rog. twisd. p. 11. & 12. makes appear out eadmer, p. 20, 26, 38, 39, 53. in the dispute, the king told anselm, the pope had not to do with his rights; and wrote that free letter, we find in jorvalensis col. 999, 30. and upon the ambiguous answer of the pope, the king sent another letter by anselm himself to rome, who spoke plainly, his master, nec amissione eadem. 73. 13. regni, etc. for the loss of his kingdom, he would not lose the investiture of his churches. but anselm, as archbishop, took the oath, obj. that was appointed by the pope to be taken at the receiving of the pall, which allowed his power to receive appeals. 'tis true; but pope paschalis himself, who ans devised that oath, acknowledgeth, that it was as anselm signified to him, not admitted; but wondered at; and looked on as a strange innovation both by the king and the great men of the kingdom. baron. an. 1102. nu. 8. the king pleaded the fundamental laws and customs of the land against it; it is a custom of my kingdom instituted by my father, that no pope may be appealed unto, without the king's licence. he that takes away the customs of the kingdom, doth violate the power and crown of the king. and 'tis well noted by archbishop bramhall, malms. l. 1. digest. pont. ang. that the laws established by his father, viz. william the conqueror, were no other than the laws of edward the confessor; that is to say, the old saxon laws, who had before yielded to the ●● hen. 2. request of his barons (as hoveden notes) to confirm those laws. but, though anselm had obliged himself by the said oath to the pope, yet the rest of the bishops refused the yoke; and thereupon, malms●, tells us, in his etc. that, in the execution of these malm. ibid. things, all the bishops of england did deny their suffrage to their primate. consequently, the unanimity of the whole realm, appeared in the same point, in the reign of this king's grandchild, in the statute of clarendon; confirming the former british, math. par. 1164. hoved. in hen. 2. english custom, not only by their consents, but their oaths: wherein generally every man is interdicted to appeal to rome. this statute of clarendon was made, when popery seemed to be at the height in england: it was made to confirm the customs and liberties of henry the seconds predecessors; that is to say, as the words of the statute are, his grandfather henry the first, son of the conqveror, and other kings. now the customs of england are our common laws, and the customs of his predecessors were the saxon, danish, and norman laws; p. 73. and therefore aught to be observed of all, as my lord bramhall reasons. what these customs were, i may show more largely hereafter; at present this one is pertinent. all appeals in england must proceed regularly, from the archdeacon to the bishop, from the bishop to the arch▪ bishop; and if the archbishop fail to do his duty, the last must be to the king, to give order for redress, that is, by fit delegates. in ed. the thirds time, we have a plain law to 27 ed. 3. c. 1. the same purpose in these words; whosoever should draw any of the king's subjects out of the realm in plea about any caufe, whereof the cognizance belongeth to the king's court, or should sue in any foreign court to defeat any judgement given in the king's court, (viz. by appealing to rome) they should incur the same penalties; and upon the same ground, the body of the kingdom would not suffer edward the first, to to be cited before the pope. 'tis confessed, that in the laws of hen. 1. 'tis granted, that in case a bishop erring in faith; and obj. on admonition, appearing incorrigible, ad summos pontifices (the arch-bishops) vel sedem apostolicam, accusetur: which passage, as sir ro▪ twisden guesses, was inserted afterwards; or the grant gotten by the importunity of the then pope. but the same learned man's note upon it, is, ans. p. 32. that, this is the only cause wherein i find any english law approve a foreign judicature. 'tis plain, anselm's appeal (now on foot) was disapproved by the whole kingdom: 'tis evident, that this clause was directly repugnant to the liberties and customs of the realm; upon which anselm's appeal was so ill resented. 'tis manifest in those days, and after, appeals to rome were not common: yea this very pope paschalis complains to this king, vos oppressis apostolicae sedis appellationem substrahitis, eadm. p. 113 3. which was an. 1115. and that they were held, a cruel intrusion on the church's liberty; so as at the assize at clarendon, 1164. this law, if it were so, was annulled and declared to be contrary to the liberties and customs of the realm; the eighth chapter whereof, is wholly spent in showing the right of the kingdom in this point, quod non appellaretur, for any cause, ad sedem apostolicam, without leave had first, from the king and his officials, as joh. sarisb. interprets, ep. 159. p. 254. indeed, the king did personally yield afterwards, an. 1172. not to hinder such appeals in obj. ecclesiastical causes. but the whole kingdom four years after, would ans. not quit their interest; but did again renew the assize of clarendon, 1176. using this close expression. justitiae faciant quaerere per consuetudinem hoved. f. 314. b. 3. terrae illos qui a regno recesserunt, & nisi redire voluerint, & stare in curia domini regis, ● legentur, etc. as gervase also notes. au. 1176. col. 1433. 19 accordingly, was the practice, during k. rich. the seconds time: geffrey archbishop of york, was complained of; that he did not only refuse appeals to rome, but imprisoned those that made them: and though upon that complaint, a time was assigned to make his defence to the pope, yet he refused to go; because of the king's prohibition and the indisposition of the air. after this, upon a difference with the king, the archbishop went to rome; and made his peace with the pope, and returns; but the king offended with it, committed the care even of the spirituals of his archbishopric to others, till he had reconciled himself to the crown, which was ne'er two years after, about 1198. after this, again, he received complaint from innocentius iii. non excusare te potes, etc. thou canst not excuse thyself as thou oughtest, that hou. an. 1201. thou art ignorant of the privilege of appeals to us; seeing thou thyself has sometimes done the same. and near about the same time (as twisden observes) robert abbot of thorney, deposed by hubert archbishop, was kept in prison a year and an half, without any regard had to his appeal hou. f. 430. b. 37. made to the pope. indeed, that pope innocent the third and his obj. clergy, great instruments in obtaining magna charta from that prince, had got that clause inserted, liceat unicuique, it is lawful for any one to go out of our kingdom, and to return, nisi in tempore guerrae, per aliquod breve tempus. after which, saith twisden, it is scarce imaginable how every petty cause was by appeals removed to rome; which did not only cause jealousy at rome, that the grievance would not long be born; and put the pope, in prudence to study and effect a mitigation, by some favourable privileges, granted to the archbishopric: but it did also awaken the king and kingdom, to stand upon, and recover their ancient liberty in that point. hereupon, the body of the kingdom, in their matth. par. p. 668. 3. querelous letter to innocent the fourth, 1245. or rather to the council at lions, claim, that no legate ought to come here, but on the king's desire, & ne quis extra regnum trahatur in causam: which math. par. left out; but is found in mr. roper's m. s. and mr. dugdale's; as sir roger twisden observes; agreeable to one of the gravamina angliae, sent to the same pope 1246. viz. quod anglici extra regnum in causis, apostolica authoritate trahuntur. therefore, it is most remarkable, that at the revising of magna charta by edw. 1. the former clause, liceat unicuique etc. was left out. since which time, none of the clergy might reg. 193. coke inst. 3. p. 179. 12 r. 2. c. 15. go beyond seas, but with the king's leave; as the writs in the register, and the acts of parliament assure us; and which is more, if any were in the court of rome, the king called them home. the rich cardinal, and bishop of winchester, knew the law in this case; and that no man was so great, but he might need pardon for the offence: and therefore, about 1429. caused a petition to be exhibited in parliament, that neither himself, nor any other, should be troubled by the king etc. for cause of any provision or offence done by the said cardinal against rot. parl. 10 hen. 6. n. 16. any statute of provisions etc. this was in the eighth of henry the sixth, and we have a plain statute making such appeals a praemunire in edward 9 ed. 4. 3. the fourth. sir roger twisden observes, the truth of this barring appeals, is so constantly p. 37. averred, by all the ancient monuments of this nation, as philip scot, not finding how to deny it, falls upon another way; that, if the right of appeals were abrogated, it concludes not the see of rome had no jurisdiction over this church: the concession gives countenance to our present enquiry; the consequence shall be considered in its proper place. what can be further said, in pretence of a quiet possession of appeals, for nine hundred years together? since it hath been found to be interrupted all along, till within one hundred years before hen. 8. especially seeing my lord bramhall hath made it evident by clear instances, that it is the unanimous judgement of all christendom, that, not the pope, but their own sovereigns in their councils, are the last judges of their national liberties, vid bramh. p. 106. to 118. sect. ii. of the pope's possession here by his legates; occasion of them; entertainment of them. it is acknowledged by some, that citing englishmen to appear at rome, was very inconvenient; therefore the pope had his legates here, to execute his power without that inconvenience to us. how the pope had possession of this legantine power, is now to be enquired. the correspondence betwixt us and rome, at first, gave rise to this power; the messengers from rome, were sometimes called legati; though at other times nuncii. after the erection of canterbury into an archbishopric: the archbishop, was held, quasi alterius orbis papa, as, urban. 2. styled him: he exercising vices apostolicas in anglia; malms. f. 127. 15. that is, used the same power, within this island, the pope did in other parts. consequently, if any question did arise, the determination was in council; as the deposing wigorn. an. 1070. stygand, and the settling the precedency betwixt canterbury and york. the instructions mentioned of henry the first, say, the right of the realm is, that none should be drawn out of it, authoritate apostolicâ, and do assure us, that our ancient applications to the pope were acts of brotherly confidence in the wisdom, piety and kindness of that church; that it was able and willing to advise and assist us in any difficulty; and not of obedience, or acknowledgement of jurisdiction; as appear, by that letter of kenulphus etc. to pope leo the third, an. ●797. malms. de reg. l. 1. f. 16. quibus sapientiae clavis, the key of wisdom, not authority, was acknowledged therein. much less can we imagine, that the pope's messengers, brought hither any other power, than that of direction and counsel at first, either to the king or archbishop; the archbishop was, nullius unquam legati ditioni addictus: therefore, none were suffered to wear a mitre, within his province; or had the crecier carried; nor laid any excommunication, upon this ground; in diaecesi archiepiscopi apostolicam non tenere sententiam, gervas'. col. 1663. 55. & an. 1187. col. 1531. 38. the church of cant. being then esteemed, omnium nostrum mater communis sub sponsi jesu christi dispositione, ibid. true, the pope did praecipere; but, that did not argue the acknowledgement of his power; so john calvin commanded knox: the question knox hist. scot 93. is, how he was obeyed? 'tis certain, his precepts, if disliked, were questioned, eadm. p. 92. 40. opposed gervas'. col. 1315. 66. and those he sent not permitted, to meddle with those things they came about, ibid. col. 1558. 54. but historians observe, that we might be occasion of legates. wrought to better temper, some persons were admitted into the kingdom, that might by degrees, raise the papacy to its designed height: these were called legates; but we find not any courts kept by them, or any power exercised with effect, beyond what the king and kingdom pleased, which indeed was very little. the pope's legate was at the council touching the precedence of the arch-bishops; but he subscribed the sixteenth, after all the english bishops, and not like the pope's person, or proctor; as sir roger twisden proves, p. 20. the first council, wherein the pope's legate preceded arch-bishops, was that of vienna, a little more than three hundred years agone, viz. 1311. as the same author observes; wherein he looked like the legate of his holiness indeed. but let us examine what entertainment the power of a legate found here: the archbishop math. par. p. 440. 17. an. 1237. was jealous that a legate residing here, would prove in suae dignitatis praejudicium: and the king himself, was not without suspicions; and therefore, would suffer none, so much as to be taken for pope, but whom he approved; nor any to receive so much as a letter from rome, without acquainting him with it; and held it an undoubted right of the crown, that, ut neminem eadm. p. 125. 53. p. 6. 25. p. 113. 1. etc. none should be admitted to do the office of a legate here, if he himself did not desire it. things standing thus in 1100. the archbishop of vienna, coming over, reported himself that he had the legantine power of all britain committed not him; but, finding no encouragement eadm. p. 58. 41. to use his commission, departed, (à nemine etc.) by none received as legate, nor doing any part of that office. fourteen years after, paschalis the second, by letters, expostulates, with the king about eadm. p. 113. p. 116. several things; in particular, his non-admitting either messenger or letter▪ without his leave. a year after, addressed anselm, nephew to the late archbishop; showing his commission vices gerere apostolicas in angliâ: this made known; the clergy and nobility, in council at london, sent the archbishop to the king in normandy, to make known unto him, the ancient custom of eadm. p. 118. 120. the realm; and, by his advice to rome, ut haec nova annihilaret. after this, an. 1119. the king sent his bishops to a council held by calixtus the eleventh, at rheims, with instructions, among other things, that they should humbly hear the pope's precepts, but bring no superfluas adinventiones into his kingdom. in november following, the pope and king had a meeting at guysor's in normandy; where calixtus confirmed unto him his father's usages; in special, that of sending no legate hither, but on the king's desire: and when the same pope, not full two years after his grant to the contrary, addressed another legate to these parts; eadm. p. 137, 46. p. 138. 21. the king's wisdom so ordered it, that (qui legati etc.) he which came to do the office of a legate in all britain, was sent as he came, without doing any part of that office. but it is said that calixtus confirmed unto the obj. king, his father's usages: therefore, it was in the pope's power originally and by delegation, and not in the king. accordingly in our best authors, and in particular, eadmer, we find these words; collata, concessa, impetrata, permissa; as is urged in answer to my lord cook. these words indeed intimate the pope's kindness ans. and peaceable disposition at present, viz. that he will not disturb, but allow our enjoyment of our ancient privileges: concessa, fungi permissa; the same eadm. calls antiqua angliae consuetudo, libertas regni p. 118. 33, 40. 2. the words do seem also to intimate, the pope's claim at that time; but the true question is, about his possession; which in placing legates there, was ever denied him not as a thing granted formerly by the pope, but as one of the dignitates, usus, & consuetudines, as hen. 1. claimed and defended. 3. lastly, they rather intimated the pope's want of power, than proved his authority here: and what our princes did in their own right, he would continue to them as a privilege: for no other reason but because he could not take it from them; or durst not deny it to them; so he dealt with edw. the confessor. vobis regibus angliae committimus advocationem ejusdem loci; but long before that, our kings looked upon it as their office, regere populum domini & ecclesiam baron. an. 1059. n. 23. ejus; which the pope knew well enough▪ therefore, a legate landing in england in ed. 4. time, was obliged to take oath, that he would attempt nothing to the derogation of the rights of the king or crown. in hen. 4's nonage, his uncle was sent legate edw. 4. 16. by martin. 5. rich. cawdry the king's attorney, made protestation; that none was to come as legate from the pope, or enter the kingdom without the king's appointment: a right enjoyed from all memory. in the reign of hen. 5. the design of sending a legate from rome, though it were the kings own brother, was opposed; the enterprise took no effect during that king's reign: vit. arch. chic. p. 78, 80. and in the eleventh of the same king, the judges unanimously pronounce, that the statutes mentioned were only declaratory of the common custom of england. fol. 69, 76. it was in the year 1242. when the whole matth. par. 1245, 1246. state of england complained of the pope's infamous messenger, (non obstante) by which oaths, customs etc. were not only weakened but made void: and unless the grievances were removed, opportebit nos ponere murum pro domo domini, & libertate regni. yea long after this, in the year 1343. edw. 3. made his addresses likewise to rome, which the pope branded with the title of rebellion: but to requite him, that wise and stout prince, made the statutes of provisoes and praemunire, directly opposed to the encroachments and usurpations walsing. p. 161. of the court of rome; whereby he so abated their power in england for sundry ages following, that a dean and chapter was able to deal bramhall p. 99 with the pope in england, and to foil him too. an. 1420. the sum is, during the reigns of all the british and saxon kings, until the norman conquest, legations from rome were seldom, and but messengers: a legantine or nuncio's court we find not. gregory, bishop of ostium, the popes spel. conc. an. 784. own legate, did confess, that he was the first roman priest that was sent into those parts of britain, from the time of st. austin. when these legates multiplied, and usurped authority over us, the kingdom would not bear it; as appears by the statute of clarendon, confirming the ancient british english custom, with the consent and oaths of all the prelates and peers of the realm: and upon this custom was the law grounded, si quis inventus, etc. if any one be found bringing in the pope's letter or mandate, let him be apprehended, let justice pass upon him without delay, as a traitor to the king and kingdom. math. par. an. 1164. hoved. in hen. 2. and all along afterwards we have found, that still as occasion required, the same custom was maintained and vindicated both by the church and state of the realm till within an hundred years before hen. 8. so that the rejection of the pope's legate is founded in the ancient right, the common and statute laws of the realm; and the legantine power is a plain usurpation contrary thereunto; and was ever looked upon as such, it never having any real possession among us by law, or quiet possession in fact, for any considerable time together; but was still interrupted by the whole kingdom, by new declaratory laws against it. thus, we have seen how the pope's possession of the formal branch of jurisdiction, by appeals and legates, stood here, from st. austin to hen. 8. and that it was quiet and uninterrupted for nine hundred together, passeth away as a vapour. the contrary being evident by as authentic testimonies as can be desired: and now what can he imagined to enervate them? if it be urged that it was once in the body of obj. our laws, viz. in magna charta; liceat unicuique de caetero exire de regno nostro, & redire salvo & securè per terram & per aquam, salva fide nostra, nisi in tempore guerrae per aliquod breve tempus; 'tis confessed. but here is no expression, that plainly and in ans. terms, gives licence of appeals to rome: 'tis indeed said, that it is lawful for any to go out of the kingdom and to return safe: but mark the conditions following, nisi in etc. 'tis likely, these words were inserted in favour of appeals, but it may be the authors were timorous to word it in a more plain contradiction to our ancient liberties. 2. the very form of words as they are, would seem to intimate that the custom of england was otherwise. 3. lastly, if it be considered, how soon after, and with what unanimity and courage our ancient liberty to the contrary, was redeemed and vindicated; and that clause left out of magna charta ever since, though revised and confirmed by so many kings and parliaments successively, it is only an argument of a sudden and violent torrent of papal power in king john's time, etc. not of any grounded or well settled authority in the english laws, as our english liberties have. i conclude, with those weighty words of the statute of ed. 3. an. 27. c. 1. having regard to the said statute made in the time of his said grandfathers, which statute holdeth always in force, which was never annulled or defeated in any point: and for as much as he is bound by his oath to do the same, to be kept as the law of the realm, though, that by sufferance and negligence it hath been since attempted to the contrary. vid. preamble of the statute. whereupon, it is well observed, that queen acts & mon. mary herself denied cardinal pelow to appear as the pope's legate in england, in her time: and caused all the seaports to be stopped, and all letters, briefs, and bulls to be intercepted and brought to her. chap. x. the pope's legislative power in england before hen. 8. no canons of the pope oblige us without our consent; our kings, saxons, danes, normans, made laws ecclesiastical. we have found possession of the executive power otherwise than was pretended; we now come to consider how it stood with the legislative: the pope, indeed claimed a power of making and imposing canons upon this church: but henry the eighth denied him any such power; and prohibited any canons whatsoever to be executed here, without the king's licence, an. 25. 19 the question now is, whether the pope enjoyed that power of making and imposing canons effectually and quietly here, from the time of saint augustine to henry the eighth, or indeed any considerable time together? and this would invite us to a greater debate, who was supreme in the english church (the pope or the king) during that time; or rather who had the exercise of the supremacy: for the power of making laws, is the chief flower or branch of the supremacy; and he that freely, and without interruption, enjoyed this power, was doubtless, in the possession of the supremacy. that the pope had it not, so long and so quietly, as is pleaded by some; and that our kings have generally enjoyed it, will both together appear with evidence enough by the particulars following. 1. if none were to be taken for pope but by the king's appointment: sure his laws were not to be received, but with the king's allowance. 2. if not so much as a letter could be received from the pope without the king's knowledge, who caused words prejudicial to the crown to be renounced: sure, neither his laws. both the antecedents we find in e●dm. p. 626. p. 131. 1. 3. if no canons could be made here without the king's authority; or being made, could have any force, but by the king's allowance and confirmation, where was the pope's supremacy? that canons could not be made here without convocations by kings. the king's authority, is evident; because the convocations themselves, always were, and aught to be assembled by the king's writ, eadm. p. 24. 5. 11. besides, the king caused some to sit therein, to supervise the actions: & legato ex parte regis & regni inhiberent, ne ibi contra regiam coronam & dignitates aliquid statuere attentaret; and when any did otherwise, he was forced to retract what he had done; as did peckham: or were, in paucis servatae; as those of boniface, math. par. an. 1237. p. 447. 51. lindwood. c. 1. glos. 1. if canons were made, though the pope's legate, and consequently all his power, was at can. confir. by kings. the making of them; yet had they no force at all, as laws over us, without the king's allowance and confirmation: the king having first heard what was decreed, consensum praebuit authoritate regiâ & potestate confirmavit statuta concilii, by his kingly power he confirmed the statutes of the council of william archbishop of cant. and the legate of the holy church, celebrated at westminster— by the assent of the king, and primorum omnium regni: the chapters subscribed were promulged. eadm. p. 6. 29. flor. wigorn. an. 1127. p. 505. gervase an. 1175. col. 1429. 18. twisden concludes, as for councils, it is certain, none were here called from rome, till 1127. p. 19, 20. if they did come to any, as to calcuith, the king, upon the advice of the archbishop, statuit diem appointed the day of the council: so when william the first, held one at winchester, 1070. for deposing stygand; though there came to it three sent from alexan. 2. yet it was held, jubente & present rege; who was precedent of it; wherein, as before was noted, the pope's legate subscribed the sixteenth after all the english bishops. vita lanfranci. c. 7. p. 7. col. 1. d. all our canons are therefore (as they are justly) canon's kings laws. called, the king's ecclesiastical laws, because no canons have the power of laws, but such as he allows and confirms: and whatsoever canons he confirmed of old, that had their original from a foreign power, he allowed for the sake of their piety or equity, or as a means of communion with the church from whence they came, but his allowance or eonfirmation gave them all the authority they had in england. 'tis a point so plain in history, that it is beyond before conquest. question, that during all the time from st. gregory to the conquest, the british, saxon, and danish kings (without any dependence on the pope) did usually make ecclesiastical laws. witness, the laws of excombert, ina, withered, alfrede, edward athelstan, edmond edgar, athelred, canutus, and edward the confessor; among which laws, one makes it the office of a king, to govern the church as the vicar of god. indeed, at last the pope was officiously kind, and did bestow after a very formal way, upon the last of those kings, edward the confessor, a privilege, which all his predecessors had enjoyed as their own undoubted right before, viz. the protection of all the churches of england, and power to him and his successors the kings of england for ever; in his stead, to make just ecclesiastical constitutions, with the advice of their bishops and abbots. but with thanks to his holiness, our kings still continued their ancient custom which they had enjoyed from the beginning, in the right of the crown, without respect to his courtesy in that matter. after the conquest, our norman kings did after conquest. also exercise the same legislative power in ecclesiastical causes over ecclesiastical persons from time to time, with the consent of the lords spiritual and temporal. hence all those statutes concerning benefices, tithes, advowsons', lands given in mortmain, prohibitions, consultations, praemunires, quare impedits, privilege of the clergy, extortions of ecclesiastical courts or officers, regulation of fees, wages of priests, mortuaries, sanctuaries, appropriations; and in sum, as bishop bramhall adds, all things which did belong to the external subsistence, regiment, and regulating of the church; and this in the reigns of our best norman kings before the reformation. arch bishop bramh. p. 73. but what laws do we find of the pope's making in england? or what english law hath he ever effectually abrogated? 'tis true many of the canons of the church of rome were here observed; but before they became obliging, or had the force of laws, the king had power in his great council to receive them, if they were judged convenient, or if otherwise to reject them. 'tis a notable instance that we have of this, 20 ed. 3. c. 9 in ed. 3. time: when some bishops proposed in parliament, the reception of the ecclesiastical canon, for the legitimation of children, born before marriage; all the peers of the realm stood up, and cried out with one voice, nolumus leges angliae mutari; we will not have the laws of england to be changed: a clear evidence, that the pope's canons were not english laws, and that the popish bishops knew they could not be so, without the parliament. likewise, the king and parliament made a legislative exposition, of the canon of the council of lions, concerning bigamy, which they would 4 ed. 1. c. 5. not have done had they not thought they had power according to the fundamental laws of england, either to receive it or reject it. these are plain and undeniable evidences, that when popery was at highest, the pope's supremacy in making laws for the english church was very ineffectual, without the countenance of a greater and more powerful, viz. the supremacy of our own kings. now, admit that during some little space, obj. the pope did impose, and england did consent to the authority of his canons; as indeed the very consent admitted. rejecting of that authority, intimates: yet that is very short of the possession of it, without interruption, for nine hundred years together; the contrary being more than evident. however, this consent was given either by by permission. permission or grant: if only by permission, whether through fear or reverence, or convenience, it signifies nothing, when the king and kingdom see cause to vindicate our ancient liberties, and resolve to endure it no longer. if a grant be pretended, 'twas either from or by grant. the king alone; or joined with his parliament. if from the king alone, he could grant it for his time only, and the power of resuming any part of the prerogative granted away by the predecessors, accompanies the crown of the successor; and fidelity to his office and kingdom, obligeth him in justice to retrieve and recover it i believe none will undertake to affirm, that the grant was made by the law; or the king, with his parliament: yet if this should be said and proved too; it would argue very little to the purpose; for this is to establish iniquity by a law: the king's prerogative, as head of this church, lieth too deep in the very constitution of the kingdom, the foundation of our common law, and in the very law of nature; and is no more at the will of the parliament, than the fundamental liberties of the subject. lastly, the same power that makes, can repeal a law: if the authority of papal canons had been acknowledged; and ratified by parliament, which cannot be said; 'tis most certain, it was revoked, and renounced, by an equal power, viz. of henry the eighth, and the whole body of the kingdom, both civil and ecclesiastical. it is the resolution both of reason and law, that no prescription of time can be a bar to the supreme power; but, that, for the public good it may revoke, any concessions, permissions or privileges: thus it was declared in parliament in edward the third his reign, when reciting the statute of edward the first; they say, the statute holdeth always his force; and that the king is bound by oath, to cause the same to be kept, (and consequently, if taken away, to be restored to its observation) as the law of the land: that is, the common, fundamental, unalterable, law of the land. besides, the case is most clear, that when henry the eighth began his reign, the laws asserting the supreme authority in causes, and over persons ecclesiastical, were not altered or repealed; and henry the eight used his authority against papal encroachments, and not against, but according to the statute; as well as the common law of the land: witness all those noble laws of provisors and praemunire, which, as my lord bramhall saith, we may truly call, 25 ed. 1. 27 ed. 3. 2 hen. 4. c. 3, 4. 7 hen. 4. c. 6. the palladium which preserved it from being swallowed up in that vast gulf of the roman court made by edw. 1. edw. 3. rich. 2. hen. 4. chap. xi. of the power of licences etc. here; in edw. 3. rich. 2. hen. 4. hen. 5. hen. 6. hen. 7. though, the pope be denied the legislative and judiciary or executive power in england; yet, if he be allowed his dispensatory power, that will have the effect of laws; and fully supersede or impede the execution of laws, in ecclesiastical causes, and upon ecclesiastical persons. 'tis confessed, the pope did usurp and exercise this strange power, after a wonderful manner in england before henry the eighth; by his licences, dispensations, impositions, faculties, grants, rescripts, delegacies, and other such kind of instruments, as the statute 25 hen. 8. 21. mentions; and that this power was denied or taken from him by the same statute; as also by another, 28 hen. 8. 16. and placed in, or rather, reduced to the jurisdiction of the archbishop of canterbury, saving the rights of the see of york, in all causes convenient and necessary for the honour and safety of the king; the wealth and profit of the realm; and not repugnant to the laws of almighty god. the grounds of removing this power from the pope, as they are expressed in that excellent preamble to the said statute, 25 hen. 8. are worthy our reflection: they are. 1. the pope's usurpation in the premises. 2. his having obtained an opinion in many of the people, that he had full power to dispense with all humane laws, uses, and customs, in all causes spiritual. 3. he had practised this strange usurpation for many years. 4. this his practice was in great derogation of the imperial crown of this realm. 5. england recognizeth no superior, under god, but the king only; and is free from subjection to any laws, but such as are ordained within this realm; or admitted customs by our own consent and usage, and not as laws of any foreign power. 6. and lastly, that according to natural equity, the whole state of our realm in parliament, hath this power in it, and peculiar to it; to dispense with, alter, abrogate etc. our own laws and customs, for public good; which power appears by wholesome acts of parliament, made before the reign of henry the eighth, in the time of his progenitors. for these reasons, it was enacted in those statutes of henry the eighth. that no subject of england should sue for licences etc. henceforth to the pope, but to the archbishop of canterbury. now, 'tis confessed before, and in the preamble to the statute, that the pope had used this power for many years: but this is noted as an aggravation of the grievance, and one reason for redress; but whether he enjoyed it from the time of saint austin, or how long quietly is the proper question; especially seeing the laws of the land, made by king henry's predecessors, are pleaded by him in contradiction to it. yea, who will come forth, and show us one instance no instance 1110 years after christ. of a papal dispensation in england for the first eleven hundred years after christ? if not, five hundred, of the nine hundred years' prescription, and the first five hundred too, as well as the first eleven hundred of the fifteen, are lost, to the popes, and gained to the prescription of the church of england: but, did not the church of england, without any reference to the court of rome, use this power during the first eleven hundred years; what man is so hardy as to deny it, against the multitude of plain instances in history? did not our bishops relax the rigour of ecclesiastical canons? did not all bishops, all over the christian world, do the like before the monopoly was usurped? in the laws of alured alone, and in the conjoynt gervis dorober. p. 1648. laws of alured and gunthrun, how many sorts of ecclesiastical crimes were dispensed with, by the sole authority of the king and church of england, and the like we find in the laws of spel. conc. p. 364. etc. some other saxon kings. dunstan the arch bishop, had excommunicated a great count; he made his peace at rome; the pope commands his restitution: dunstan answered, i will obey the pope willingly, when i ibid. p. 481. see him penitent; but it is not god's will that he should lie in his sin, free from ecclesiastical discipline, to insult over us. god forbidden that i should relinquish the law of christ for the cause of any mortal man: this great instance doth two things at once; justifieth the arch-bishops, and destroyeth the pope's authority in the point. the church of england dispensed with those irreligious nuns, in the days of lanfrank with the council of the king; and with queen maud; the wife of henry the first, in the like case, in the days of anselm, without any suit to rome, or foreign dispensation, lanfr. ep. 32. eadm. l. 3. p. 57 these are great and notorious and certain instances; and when the pope had usurped this power afterwards. as the selected cardinals style the avaricious dispensations of the pope, sacrilegious & vulnera legum; so our statutes of provisors expressly 27 ed. 3. say, they are the undoing and destruction of the common law of the land: accordingly. the king, lords and commons, complained of this abuse, as a mighty grievance; of the frequent coming among them, of this infamous math. par. au. 1245. messenger the pope's nonobstante, that is, his dispensations; by which, oaths, customs, writings, grants, statutes, rights, privileges, were not only weakened, but made void. sometimes these dispensative bulls came to legal trials: boniface the eighth dispensed with the law where the archbishop of canterbury was visitor of the university of oxford; and by his bull exempted the university from his jurisdiction, and that bull was decreed void in parliament by two successive kings; as being obtained to the prejudice of the crown, the weakening of the laws and customs of the kingdom, and the probable ruin of the said university, ex arch. tur. londini. ex antiq. acad. cantab. p. 91. in interruption of this papal usurpation, were those many laws made in 25 edw. 1. and 35 et 12 rich. 2. edw. 1. 25 edw. 3. and 27 and 28 edw. 3. and afterwards more expressly in the sixteenth of richard the second, where complaining of processes and censures upon bishops of england, because they executed the king's comandments, in his courts; they express the mischiefs to be the disinherison of the crown; the destruction of the king, laws, and realm: that the crown of england is subject to none under god; and both the clergy and laity severally and severely protest to defend it, against the pope; and the same king contested the point himself with him, and would not yield it. an excommunication by the archbishop, albeit lord coke. cawdry's case. it be disannulled by the pope, is to be allowed by the judges against the sentence of the pope, according to the 16 edw. 3. titl. excom. 4. for the pope's bulls in special, our laws have abundantly provided against them; as well in case of excommunication, as exemption. vid. 30 edw. 3. lib. ass. pl. 19 and the abundant, as is evidenced by my lord coke out of our english laws, in cawd. case p. 15. he mentions a particular case, wherein the bull was pleaded for evidence, that a person stood excommunicate by the pope; but it was not allowed; because no certificate appeared from any bishop of england, 31 edw. 3. title excom. 6. the same again, 8 hen. 6. fol. 3. & 12 edw. 4. fol. 16. & r. 3. & 1 hen. 7. fol. 20. so late as henry the fourth, if any person of stat. 2 hen. 4. c. 3. religion, obtain of the bishop of rome to be exempt from obedience, regular or ordinary, he is in case of a praemunire; which is an offence contra regem, coronam & dignitatem suam. again, more plain to our purpose, in henry hen. 5. the fifth's time, after great complaint in parliament, the grievances, by reason of the pope's licences to the contrary, it was enacted that the king, willing to avoid such mischiefs, hath ordained and established, that all incumbents by the patronage of spiritual persons, might quietly 3 hen. 5. c. 4. enjoy their benefices without being inquieted, by any colour of provisions, licences and acceptations by the pope: and that all such licenses and pardons upon, and by such provisions made in any manner, should be void and of no valour; aod that the malefactors by virtue thereof incur the punishments contained in the statutes of provisors before that time made. the king only may grant or licence, to found a 9 hen. 6. fol. 16. spiritual corporation as it is concluded by our law, even in henry the sixth's time. further, in edward the fourth's reign, the pope granted to the prior of saint john's to have 1 hen. 7. fol. 20. a sanctuary within his priory; and this was pleaded and claimed by the prior; but it was resolved by the judges, that the pope had no power to grant any sanctuary within this realm; and by judgement of the law it was disallowed. we have thus, fully i hope, justified the words of the statute of henry the eighth; that the laws made in the times of his predecessors, did in effect the same things: especially those of edw. 1. edw. 3. rich. 2. hen. 4. which that parliament, 24 hen. 8. c. 12. refer us to, expressly and particularly; and how small time is left, for the pope's prescription (if any at all for his quiet possession) of the power of licences in england. yet it is confessed, he had usurped, and by several instances been heedlessly, or timerously permitted, to exercise such a power, for many years together, as the parliament acknowledgeth; though, contrary to the ancient liberty, the common law; and so many plain decrees of our judges, and statutes of the land from age to age, as have appeared. chap. xii. of the patronage of the english church, in our kings, by history. law. this flower of the crown was derived from our ancient english and british kings to william the conqueror, william rufus, and hen. 1. who enjoyed the right of placing in vacant sees, by the tradition of a ring and a crocier staff, without further approbation, ordination, or confirmation from rome; for the first eleven hundred years. indeed, then hildebrand, and after calixtus did condemn and prohibit all investitures taken from a lay-hand. that, before hildebrand, this was the undoubted right of the crown, is evident both by history and law. for history, we find malms. notes, that king edgar did grant to the monks of glastenbury the free election of their abbot for ever: but he reserved to himself and his heirs, the power to invest the brother elected by the tradition of a pastoral staff. malms. de gest. r. l. 2. c. 8. therefore ingulf the abbot of crowland, in the time of the conqueror, saith, for many years, ibid. (he might have said ages) past, there hath been no free election of prelates; but the king's court did confer all dignities, by a ring and a crocier staff. lanfrank desired of william the conqueror, the patronage of the abbey of st. austin; but the king answered, se velle, etc. that he would keep all the crociers staffs (i e. investitures) in his own hand. the same is testified of anselm himself by eadm. he after the manner and example of his predecessor, was instructed according to the custom of the land; and did homage to the king; as lanfrank his predecessor, in the see of canterbury, in his time had done; and william the agent of hen. 1. protested openly to pope paschal,— i would have all men here to know, that my lord the king of england will not suffer the loss of his investitures, for the loss of his kingdom. indeed pope paschal was as resolute, though it be said, not so just in his answer. i speak it before god, eadm. l. 3. p. 73. paschal the pope will not suffer him to keep them without punishment; no not for the redemption of his head. here was indeed a demand made, with confidence and courage; but, had that pope no better title than that of possession to claim by, he had certainly none at all: for, as eadm. concludes, the case seemed a new thing (or innovation) to this our age; and unheard of, to the english, from the time that the normans began to reign, (that, i say not sooner) for from the time that william the norman conquered the land, no bishop or abbot was made, (before anselm) who eadm. ●er. in praef. p. 2. did not first do homage to the king; and from his hand by the gift of a crocier staff, receive the investiture to his bishopric or abbacy, except two bishops of rochester, who were surrogates to the archbishop; and inducted by him by the king's leave. indeed, now the pope began to take upon him in earnest; and to require an oath of fidelity of the archbishop when he gave him the pall; and to deny that pall if he would not take it. a new oath never before heard of, or practised: an oath of obedience to himself; as it it is expressly called, in the edition of gregory 13. an oath not established by any council; but only by papal authority, by paschalis himself, as gregory the ninth recordeth. this oath, at first, though new, was modest; bounding the obedience of the arch-bishops only by the rules of the holy fathers; as we find in the old roman pontifical; but it was quickly changed from regulas sanctorum patrum, to regalia sancti pet●i: the change, as my lord bramhall observes, not great in words, but in sense, abominable. p. 320. twisd. p. 47: bellarmine would persuade us, that the like oath was given, in gregory the firsts time; but that was nothing like an oath of obedience, and was only an oath of abjuration of heresy; not imposed but taken freely, no common oath of bishops, nor any thing touching the royalties of st. peter, as may be seen greg. epist. 1. 10. ep. 30. indic. 5. about an hundred years after, in the time of gregory the ninth, they extended the subjects of the oath, as well as the matter; enlarging it from arch-bishops to all prelates, bishops, abbots, priors, and now they cry up the canons above all imperial laws. but to decide this point of swearing allegiance to the pope; which could not be done without going in person to rome; it is sufficient that by all our laws, no clergyman could go to rome without the king's licence; and that by an ancient britannic law; if any subject enter into league with another (prince) professing fidelity hect. bottle. hist. and obedience to any one (besides the king) let him lose his head. but, let us admit, that the pope eleven hundred years after christ, got possession of the english church, and the conscience of the bishops by investiture and oaths; who will show us that he had it sooner? who will maintain that he kept it quietly till hen. 8? this last point will be clear, by examining 2. law. our laws, the second topick propounded at the beginning of this discourse: for if his possession were good, it was settled in law; and if quiet, the laws were not made to oppose it, by the great states of the kingdom. my lord bramhall hath produced three great laws, as sufficient to determine this controversy; 1. clarendon. whether the king or the pope be patron of the english church; the assize of clarendon, statute of carlisle, and of provisors. the first tells us plainly, that the election of an archbishop, bishop, abbot and prior was to be made by the respective dignitaries upon the kings calling them together to that purpose; and with the king's consent. and then the person elected, was presently to do homage to the king as his liege lord. and that this method was exclusive of the in ed. 1. pope, that of carlisle is very distinct: the king is the founder of all bishoprics, and aught to 2. carlisle. have the custody of them in the vacances, and the right of patronage to present to them; and that the bishop of rome usurping the right of patronage, giveth them to aliens. that this tendeth to annullation of the state of holy church; to the disinheriting of kings; and the destruction of the realm. this is an oppression, and shall not be suffered. the statute of provisors. 15. ed3. affirms, that elections were first granted by king's progenitors, provisors. upon condition to demand licence of the king to choose, and, after the election, to have the royal assent. which conditions not being kept; the thing ought by reason to return to its first nature. and therefore they conclude, that in case, reservation, collation or provision be made by the court of rome, of any archbishopric etc. the king and his heirs shall have the collations for the same time, such as his progenitors had before the free elections were granted. and they tell the king plainly, that the right of the crown is such, and the law of the land too, that the king is bound to make remidies and laws, against such mischiefs. and acknowledge that he is advower paramont, immediate of all churches, prebend's, and other benefices, which are of the advowrie of holy church. i e. sovereign patron of it. my lord coke, more abundantly, adds, the wil 1. resolutions and decrees of the law, to confirm 7. ed. 3. tit. qu. i. e. p. 19 us in the point. in the time of william the first, it is agreed that no man only can make any appropriation of any church having cure of souls, but he that hath ecclesiastical jurisdiction: but william the first did make such appropriations, of himself without any other. edward the first presented his clerk; who was refused by the archbishop; for that the ed. 1. pope by way of provision, had conferred it on another. the king brought his quare non admisit, the archbishop pleaded the supremacy of the pope; and that he durst not, nor had power to put him out, which was by the pope's bull in possession, for which— by judgement of the common law, the lands of his whole bishopric were seized into the king's hands, and lost during his life: and my lord coke's note upon it is, that this judgement was before any statute was made in that case. in the reign of edw. 3. it is often resolved, ed. 3. that all the bishoprics within england, were founded by the king's progenitors; and therefore, the advowsons' of them all belong to the king; and at the first they were donative: and that if any incumbent dye, the lapse comes to the bishop▪ then to the archbishop; and lastly, by the common law to the king, as to the supreme within his own kingdom, and not to the bishop of rome. this king presented to a benefice, his presentee 21 ed. 3. 40. s. 40. was disturbed by one that had obtained bulls from rome; for which offence he was condemned to perpetual imprisonment. it is no small spice of the king's ecclesiastical patronage, that we find, the king made canons secular to be regular; and that he made the prior and covent of westminster, a distinct corporation from the abbot. 38. li. ass. pl. 22. 49. ed. 3. l. ass. pl. 8. but more full is the case of abbot moris, who sent to rome to be confirmed by the pope; who 46 ed. 3. tit. praem. 6. by his bull slighted the election of moris; but gave him the abbey, of his spiritual grace, and at the request (as he feigned) of the king of england. this bull was read and considered of in council, that is, before all the judges of england; and it was resolved by them all; that this bull was against the laws of england; and that the abbot for obtaining the same, was fallen into the king's mercy: whereupon all his possessions were seized into the king's hands. in the reign of richard the second; one sued 12 rich. 2. tit. juris. 18. a provision in the court of rome, against an incumbent, recovered the church; brought an action of account for oblations, etc. but the whole court was of opinion against the plaintiff; and thereupon he was nonsuit. vid. stat. 16. rich. 2. c. 5. against all papal usurpations; and this in particular; the pain is a praemunire. in hen. 4s reign, the judges say that the statutes 11 h. 4. f. 69, 76. which restrain the pope's provisions to the benefices of the advowsons' of spiritual men, were made; for that the spiritualty durst not in their just cause say against the pope's provisions; so as those statutes were made but in affirmance of the common laws. now what remains to be pleaded in behalf of the pope's patronage of our church, at least as to his possession of it, against so many plain and great evidences both of law and deed? all pretences touching the pope's giving the pall are more than anticipated: for it is not to be denied, but that was not held necessary, either to the consecration, confirmation, or investiture of the very archbishop before anselm's time: yea 'tis manifest that lanfrank, anselm, and raulf did dedicated churches, consecrate bishops and abbots, and were called arch-bishops, while they had no pall, as twisden proves out of eadmer. p. 47. we never read, that either laurentius or milletus received the pall from rome, who, no doubt, were as lawful arch-bishops as austin. girald and hoveden both give us an account, that samson of st. david's had a pall, but do not say from rome; and, though in the time of infection, he carried it away with him. after paulinus, there are five in the catalogue of york, expressly said to have wanted it (and wilfred was one of them) yet are reputed both vid. twisd. ibid. arch-bishops and saints; and of others in that series, it is not easy to prove they ever used it; nor adilbaldus, till the fourth year after his investiture. and gregory the great saith, that it ought not to be given, nisi fortiter postulanti. what this honorary was anciently, seems uncertain; but 'tis most certain, it could evacuate the king's legal and natural patronage of our church; or discharge the bishops from their dependence on, and allegiance to his crown. 'tis true indeed, when pope nicolaus could not deny it, he was graciously pleased to grant this patronage to edward the confessor: vobis & posteris, etc. committimus advocationem, etc. we baron. an. 1059. n. 23. commit the advowson of all the churches of england to you and your successors, kings of england: it might have been replied, nicolaus papa hoc domino meo privilegium, quod ex paterno jure susceperat praebuit, as the emperor's advocate said. this is too mean as well as too remote a spring of our kingly power in the church of england, though it might, ad hominem, sufficiently supersede (one would think) all papal practices against so plain and full a grant: if any thing passed by it, certainly it must be that very power of advowson, that the popes afterwards so much pretended, and our laws (mentioned) were made on purpose to oppose them in. we see no reason therefore, against the statute of hen. 8. so agreeable to the ancient rights and laws of this realm: be it enacted, that no person shall be presented, nominated, or commended to the pope, to or for the dignity of an archbishop or bishop within this realm, nor shall send or procure thence for any manner of bulls, briefs, palls, or other things requisite for an archbishop or bishop.— all such, viz. applications and instruments, shall utterly cease and no longer be used within this realm; and such as do contrary to this act, shall run in danger of the statutes of provision and praemunire. h. 8. 25, 20. chap. xiii. of peterpence, and other moneys formerly paid to the pope. upon complaint, by parliament in 25 hen. 8. 21. henry the eighth's reign, of intolerable exactions of great sums of money by the pope; as well in pensions, censes, peter-pences, procurations, etc. and for infinite sorts of bulls, etc. otherwise than by the laws and customs of the realm should be permitted; it was enacted, that no person should thenceforth pay any such pensions, peterpence, etc. but that all such payments should thenceforth clearly surcease, and never more be levied, taken, or paid; and all annates, or first-fruits and tenths of 25 hen. 8. 20. arch-bishops and bishops were taken away, and forbidden to be paid to the pope, the year before. our payments to the court of rome, seem to have been of four sorts; peter-pences, first-fruits and tenths; casual, for palls, bulls, etc. and extraordinary taxations: briefly, of each. 1. for peter-pences; (the only ancient payment) peter-pences. it was, at first, given and received as an alms; eleemosina beati petri, saith paschalis, 2. ep. hen. 1. apud eadm. p. 113. 27. perhaps, rendered out of gratitude and reverence to the see of rome; to which england was, no doubt, frequently obliged, for their care and council, and other assistances; and by continuance, this alms and gratitude, obtained the name of rent: and was metaphorically called, sometimes, tributum, but never anciently understood vid. twisd. p. 75. to acknowledge the pope as superior lord of a layfee. but, when the pope changed advice into precept, and counsel into law and empire; and required additions, with other grievous exactions, unto his peter-pences; it was a proper time to be better advised of ourselves, and not to encourage such a wild usurpation with the continuance of our alms or gratitude. this alms was first given by a saxon king; but by whom, it is not agreed; but that there was no other payment besides this, made to rome before the year 1246. appears: for that, though there was much complaint and controversy about our payments, we find the omission of no payment instanced in, but of that duty only; neither do the body of our kingdom in their remonstrance to innocent the fourth 1246. mention any other, as claimed from hence to rome. yet this payment, as it was not from the beginning, and as it was, at first, but an alms; so it was not continued without some interruptions, when rome had given arguments of sufficient provocation, both in the times of william the first, and henry his son, and henry the second▪ this latter, during the dispute with becket and alex. 3. commanded the sheriffs through england, that peter-pences should be gathered and kept, quousque inde dominus rex voluntatem suam praeceperit. historians observe that edward the third, during the french war gave command, that no peter-pences should be gathered or paid to rome; stow an. 1365. and the restraint continued all that prince's time, for his successor richard the second, at the beginning of his reign, caused john wickliff to consider the point, who concludes, those payments being no other than alms, the kingdom was not obliged to continue them longer, vid. twisden. p. 76. than it stood with its convenience, and not to its detriment or ruin, according to the rule in divinity, extra casus necessitatis & superfluitatis eleemosyna non est in praecepto. indeed, in the parliament, held the same year, the question was made, and a petition preferred (which surely was some kind of disturbance of the payment) against them, with no effect: the king restored them, and the payment of them continued till hen. 8. so much for peter-pences; for the other payments, 2. first-fruits. viz. first-fruits aend tenths, and the casual payments, for bulls, etc. they so evidently depend on the pope's supremacy for legislation, jurisdiction, and dispensation, that they are justly denied with it; however, we shall briefly examine the rise and the possession of them. for the annates and tenths, which the pope clemang. platina. pol. virg. received from our arch-bishops and bishops, the historians agree, that england, of all nations, never submitted to the full extent of the papal commands or expectations; which no doubt, was occasioned by the good laws made here against them. there is difference amongst writers, in de scysm. 6. lib. 2. c. 9 whose time the first-fruits began to be taken theodoricus a niem saith, boniface 9 about the tenth year of his government was the first that reserved them; with whom platina agrees, in vit. bon. 9 de inven. rer. l. 8. c. 2. and polid. virgil, and many others, as twisden notes; and walsingham reduces them but to 1316. hist. an. 1316. p. 84, 85. but the question is, how long the pope quietly enjoyed them? the kingdom was so intolerably burdened with papal taxes, before (of which we shall speak hereafter) and these, first-fruits and tenths, being a remembrance of those extraordinary taxes, and a way devised to settle and continue them upon us, they were presently felt and complained of. the parliament complained in general of such oppressions, 25 edw. 3. an. 1351. and again more particularly, among other things of first-fruits in the fiftieth of edward the third, and desire rot. parl. n. 105, 106. his majesty, no collector of the pope may reside in england. the king not complying, they, again, instance the year following, that the pope's collector rot. parl. 51 edw. 3. n. 78, 79. was as very an enemy to this state as the french themselves: that he annually sent away 20000 marks; and sometimes 20000 pounds; and that, he now raised for the pope, the first-fruits of all dignities, which, in the very beginning, aught to be crushed. yet they prevailed not to their minds; and in the next parliaement, the commons preferred three petitions: first, touching the payment of rot. parl. 1 r. 2. n. 66, 67, 68: first-fruits, not used in the realm before these times. secondly, reservation of benefices. thirdly, bestowing them on aliens, etc. praying remedy; as also, that the petitions of the two last parliaments, might be considered, and convenient remedies ordained: the king hereupon, refers the matters for remedy to his grand or privy-council. but neither yet was full satisfaction obtained as appears; for that the commons renewed rot. parl. rich. 2. n. 37. in effect the same suits in the third and fifth of rich. 2. the inconveniences still continuing: after which the next parliament obtained the statute 13 ri. 2. c. 2. of praemunire; which, as pol. virgil observes, was a confining the papal authority within the ocean. to which law three years after, some 16 r. 2. c. 5. additions were made, and none of these laws were repealed by queen mary. to say, the bishops were pressed by the laity to pass that last act, is so much otherwise, as that it is enroled, as twisden observes, on the desire of the archbishop of canterbury. rot. parli. 16. rich. 2. n. 20. in fine. neither would answer to sir edward cook. the pope tolerate (as one insinuates) any thing so exceedingly prejudicial to him, upon any reasonable pretence whatsoever. in the same parliament, the commons petition that the pope's collector may have forty days for his removal out of the kingdom; the king considers. but in the sixth of hen. 4. upon grievous 6 hen. c. 1. complaints made by the commons to the king; of the horrible mischiefs and damnable customs which are introduced of new by the church of rome, that none could have provision for an archbishopric or bishopric, until he had compounded with the pope's chamber, to pay great excessive sums of money, as well for the first fruits as other lesser fees— it was enacted, that whosoever shall pay such sums shall forfeit all they had. this statute was made about an hundred years before hen. 8. an inconsiderable time for so considerable a prescription. 3. we have noted, that the clergy of england were not free from roman taxations before payments extraordinary. the payment of annates and tenths, as they were afterwards stated: for there were occasional charges exacted from us by the pope, which afterwards terminated in those constant payments, as before was intimated. the first extraordinary contribution raised by allowance for the pope's use in this kingdom, twisden observes to have been an. 1183. far enough hoved. an. 1183. f. 354. b. 43. off from the time of st. austin. when lucius the third (at odds with the citizens of rome) sent to hen. 2. postulans auxilium of him and his clergy, whereupon two things considerable are observed. 1. the king in this point concerning the pope, consulted his own clergy, and followed their advice. 2. the great care the clergy took to avoid ill precedents, for they advised the king, that he would receive the moneys as given by them to him, and not to the pope, leaving the king to dispose it as he thought fit. this wariness being perceived, the pope did not suddenly attempt the like again: we do not find any considerable sum raised from the body of the clergy for the support of the papal designs, till gregory 9 demanded a tenth of all the moveables both of them and the laity, an. 1229. the temporal lords refused; and the clergy unwillingly were induced to the contribution, for it was no other. the pope ventured no more upon the laity, but eleven years after, he demanded of the clergy a fifth part of their goods: and after many math. par. an. 1240. p. 526. 20. p. 534. 8. 39 contests and struggle, and notwithstanding all the arguments of the poor clergy, by the kings and arch-bishops means, they were forced to pay it. but neither that reluctancy, nor the remonstrance of the kingdom at the council of lions, 1245. nor that to the pope himself the year following, could prevail then to change the shoulder or the method of oppression: for innocent 4. 1246. invents a new way, by charging every religious house with finding of soldiers for his service, for one year, etc. which amounted to eleven thousand marks for that year; with many devices for his advantage: but did he rot. parl. 50. ed. 3. n. 107. go on more quietly than he began? no certainly. see the petition of the commons in parliament, 1376. the two cardinals priests agents, were not suffered to provide for them a thousand marks a year apiece: but the state chased them out of the kingdom; and the king sent through every county, that none henceforth should be admitted per bullam, without the special licence of the king. and a while after, the parliament held the 20 ed. 3. 1346. petition more plainly; and mention the matter of the two cardinals, as an intolerable ro. par. n. 33, 35. grievance, in which the king gave them satisfaction. however, the usurpation grows against all opposition, and 'tis no longer a tax for one year only as at first; but for six years successively, pretending war with infidels, so dealt john 21. an. 1277. and clement 5. in the council of vienna 1311. exactions of this kind were so abominable, that martin 5 at the council of constance, 1417. sess. 43. was constrained to make that remedy; nullatenus imponantur, etc. upon which decree a supply of the tenth being twice demanded, viz. 1515, and 1518. by leo 10. against the turk, the english clergy denied them both times. thus the papacy by little and little, and through great opposition, at length brought the taxes to that we now call tenths: and annates proceeded gradually, but by milder measures, to a like settlement; yet neither continued without the disturbances before mentioned. 4. there is nothing remains under the head of money, but the casual and accidental profits, accrueing by bulls and licenses and lesser ways casual payments. and conditions of advantage, which did much help the rest to drain us of our wealth: but these obtained upon private persons, and many times in methods not cognizable by law; neither were the people so apt to complain in such cases, because they had something (which they unaccountably valued) for their money: and the possession of a false opinion in the vulgar, as jugglers and cheats may equally glory in, can never be soberly interpreted to be a good and sufficient title to the supremacy of the church of england: yet it is not amiss to remember, that the pope's messenger, jo. opizanus, for acting against the king's laws in getting money for his master, was cast into prison as we find it, vit. hen. chich. p. 86. neither can we reasonably imagine, but that much of that vast sum was gathered by those ways, which in the reign of hen. 3. the lords and commons complain of, viz. that above four hundred thousand pounds yearly was carried hence into italy. it was some disturbance of such kind of receipts, stat. de 7. h. 1. c. 6. that the law forbids any such bulls to be purchased for the time to come upon pain of praemunire: and that 'twas decreed, that the pope's collector, though he have a bull for the purpose, hen. 4. fol. 9 hath no jurisdiction within this realm. and if the ancient law of the realm saith, that the pope cannot alter the laws of england, that law condemns his raising money upon the people in any kind, without special law to that purpose; a prerogative the kings of england themselves do not claim. therefore, that standing fundamental law of england, always lay in bar against, and was a continual, real, and legal disturbance of the pope's possession of power to impose taxes; or by any devices to collect money from the english, either laity or clergy. chap. xiv. the conclusion of the argument from prescription. 'tis on our side: no force for the pope. we have seen what the argument from prescription is come to; how far short of nine hundred years, and how unsettled, both in law and practice it ever was; both as to jurisdiction in the pope's court at rome, and by his legates here; and as to legislation by the force of his canons, and his dispensation by faculties, licenses, and any sort of bulls, etc. and as to his patronage of, or profits from the english church. if a just computation were made, i believe the argument from possession would really appear to be on our side: our kings having enjoyed and flourished in the exercise of supremacy over us, ever since the act of hen. 8. extinguishing the pope's usurpation here, with far more quiet and less interruption, than ever the pope did for so long a time. besides, other qualifications of our king's possession, do mightily strengthen the plea above any thing that can be alleged on the pope's behalf. 1. our kings had possession from the beginning nice. ephe. according to the canon; and therefore could never be lawfully divested: ancient histories are evident for us; and baronius determines well, what is said by a modern concerning ancient tom. 1. an. 1. n. 12. affairs, without the authority of any more ancient, is contemned. this ancient possession of our kings, hath ever been continued and declared and confirmed by our laws; and the consent of the whole kingdom signified thereby: and these laws have still been insisted on, and repeated when there hath been any great occasion, and fit opportunity to vindicate our ancient liberties. but the pope could never obtain any legal settlement of his power here, before queen mary's reign; nor by her neither in the main branches of it, though indeed she courted him with the dignity of a great name and a verbal title. indeed, the subject of the question being a spiritual right, our adversaries themselves agree, that possession sufficient to prove it, aught to begin near christ's time: and he that hath begun it later (as certainly the pope did) unless he can evidence that he was driven out from an ancienter possession (as the pope can never do) is not to be styled a possessor, but an usurper, an intruder, an invader, disobedient, rebellious, and schismatical; as, no doubt, by s. w's logic, the pope is as before was noted. i shall conclude, with the grave and considerate concession of father barnes (noted by dr. stillingfleet) who after his thorough study of the point, upon clear conviction determined it positively for us in these words. the britannic church may plead the cyprian dr. still. p. 398. privilege, that it was subject to no patriarch, and although this privilege was taken away by force and tumult, yet being restored, in henry the eighth's time, and quietly enjoyed since, it ought to be retained for peace sake, without prejudice of catholicism, and the brand of schism; by which he grants all that is pertinent to our cause, that the pope had not possession here, from the beginning, nor aught to have had. 2. that he took advantage, bellorum tumultibus & vi, for his usurpation. 3. that our ancient cyprian privilege was restored by henry the eighth, totius regni consensu, with the consent of the whole kingdom. 4. that never since it hath been peaceably prescribed (pacifice praescriptum) or quietly enjoyed. 5. and that therefore, it still ought to be retained, sine schismatis ullius notâ, without the brand or charge of schism, which is the only thing contended for. chap. xv. the argument from infallibility, considered; in its consequence, retorted. the two last arguments, for proof of the pope's authority, are general, and not limited to the church of england, as the three former were; and are his infallibility and his universal pastorship, which remain to be examined. from his infallibility it may be argued thus: arg. whether the pope were the means of our conversion, or have a patriarchal right over us, or have had possession of the government of the english church heretofore or not; if he be really and absolutely infallible, he hath thereby a right to govern us; and we are bound to be ruled and directed by him; but the pope is really and absolutely infallible: ergo. the consequence would tempt a denial: indeed, consequence. infallibility is an excellent qualification for an universal rector; but are not, qualification and commission two things? hath god given authority to every man, equal to his parts? to his natural, acquired, or infused abilities? if not; what necessity is there, that he hath, to the pope? if all power, as well as all wisdom is from god; the prime fountain of them both; and if we pretend to both, need we evidence only one? indeed, we ought to be guided by one that is infallible (if such a one there be) but the necessity ariseth from prudence, not immediately from conscience; unless by some other way of authority, god hath given him power to govern us, as well as ability; otherwise, we ought to submit ourselves to the guidance of the pope, as a good and wise man, or as a friend, as our ancestors did, and not as our lord. the true question is, whether god hath given the power of government to the pope; and directly appointed him to be the universal pastor of his church on earth? so that the controversy will bear us down to the last chapter, what ever can be said here; and infallibility is such a medium, as infallibly runs upon that solicism of argument, obscurum per obscurius: and indeed, if there be any inseparable connexion, betwixt infallibility and the universal pastorship, as is pretended, the contrary is a lawfuller way of concluding: viz. if there be no one man appointed to govern the church as supreme pastor under christ, then there is no necessity that any one man should be qualified for it, with this wonderful grace of infallibility. but it doth not appear, that god hath invested any one man with that power; therefore, not with that grace. but least this great roman argument should suffer too much; let us at present, allow the consequence; but then we must expect very fair evidence of the assumption; viz. that the pope is indeed, infallible. i am ware that there are some vexing questions about the manner and subject of this infallibility; but if we will put them out of the way, than the evidence of the pope's or church of rome's infallibility breaks out from three of the greatest topics we can desire: scripture, tradition, and reason; let them be heard in their order. sect. i. argument from scripture for infallibility, viz. example. high priest of the jews. apostles. whether it be an excess or defect of charity in me, i know not; but i cannot bring myself to believe, that the fiercest bigot of popery alive, can seriously think the pope infallible, in the popish sense of the word; especially that the holy scriptures prove it. i know, that some fly the absurdity, by hiding the pope, in the church: but, if the church be infallible; 'tis so, as it is representative in general councils; or diffusive, in the whole body of christians: and than what is infallibility to the church of rome, more than to any other? and how shall that which is common to all, give power to one over all? or what is it to the pope, above another bishop or patriarch? but the pope is the head and universal bishop, as he is bishop of rome: that is begging a great question indeed; for the proof of the pope's infallibility, which his infallibility ought to prove; and to prove the medium by the thing in question, after a new logic. besides, if the proper seat of infallibility be the church, in either of the senses, it concerns our adversaries to solve divine providence; who use to argue for this wonderful gift in the church: if there be no infallibility, god hath not sufficiently provided for the safety of souls, and the government of his church; for seeing the church diffusive, cannot be imagined to govern itself, but as collected; and seeing, as the christian world is now circumstantiated, it is next to impossible, we should have a general and free council; how shall this so necessary infallible grace in the church be exerted, upon all occasions, for the ends aforesaid? it is therefore most consonant to the papal interest and reason, to lodge this infallible gift in the pope, or court of rome: however, let us attend their arguments for the evidence of it, either in the pope, or court, or church of rome, in any acception: which is first drawn from scripture; both examples and promises. 1. from scriptureexamples they reason, arg. thus: the high priest with his clergy, in the time of the low, were infallible; therefore the pope and his clergy, are so now: the high priest with his clergy, in the time of the law were so; as appears deut. 17. 8. where, in doubts, the people were bound to submit and stand to their judgement; which supposeth them infallible in it; as a. c. argues with archbishop lawd. p. 97. n. 1. dr. stillingfleet with others, hath exposed this ans. argument beyond all reply. in short, the consequence of it supposeth what is to be proved for the proof of infallibility, viz. that the pope is highpriest of the christian church: and we must still expect an argument for the pope's headship, if this must be granted, that we may prove him infallible, to the end we may prove his headship. were it said to the christian church, when any controversy of faith ariseth, go to rome, and there inquire the judgement of the bishop, and believe his determinations to be infallible, there had been no need of this consequence, but seeing we read no such thing, the consequence is worth nothing. besides, the minor affirming the infallibility minor. of the highpriest from that law of appeal in deut. 17. 8. is justly questioned. there was indeed an obligation on the jews to submit and stand to the judgement of that high court; but no obligation nor ground to believe the judgement infallible: the same obligation lies upon christians, in all judiciary causes, especially upon the last appeal to submit in our practices, though not in our judgement or conscience, to believe that what is determined to be infallibly true: a violence that neither the whole world nor a man's self, can sometimes do to the reason of a man. the text is so plain, not to concern matters of doctrine, to be decided whether true or false; but matters of justice to be determined, whether right or wrong; that one would think the very reading of it, should put an end for ever to this debate about it. the words are, viz. if there arise a matter too hard for thee in judgement, between blood and blood, between plea and plea, and between stroke and stroke, being matters of controversy within thy gates; then shalt thou arise and get thee up into the place which the lord thy god shall choose, etc. thus god established a court of appeals, a supreme court of judicature, to which the last application was to be made, both in case of injury and in case of difficulty, called the great sanhedrin: but note, here is no direction for address to this court, but when the case had been first heard in the lower courts, held in the gates of the cities: therefore the law concerned not the momentous controversies in religion, which never came under the cognizance of those inferior courts. therefore it is not said, whosoever doth not deut. 17. ●2. believe the judgement given, to be true; but whosoever acts contumaciously in opposition to it: and the man that will not hearken— but do presumptuously, even that man shall die. besides, god still supposeth, a possibility of error in the whole congregation of israel, leu. 4. 15. and chargeth the priests with ignorance, and forsaking his way, frequently by the prophets. but alas! where was the infallibility of the highpriest, etc. when our blessed saviour was condemned by him, and by this very court of the sanhedrin: and when israel had been for a long season, without the true god, without a 2 cr. 15. 3. teaching priest, and without law. vid. dr. still. p. 239, etc. 2. it is also argued, from that example of ar. 2. example n. t. the apostles under the new testament; that they were assisted with an infallible spirit, and there is the same reason for the pope. but this ans. is to dispose god's gifts and wisdom by our own reason: the apostles infallibility attested with miracles, was necessary to the first plantation and state of the church; and it no more followeth, that therefore the succeeding bishops must be infallible, because they were so; than that because moses wrought miracles for the confirmation of the law, therefore the sanhedrin should work miracles for the ordinary government of israel, according to the law. besides, what reason can be given, why this privilege of infallibility should be entailed upon the bishops of rome more than other bishops, who succeeded the infallible apostles, as well as the pope? what ground hath he to claim it more than they? or if they have all an interest in it, what becomes of the argument that the pope is the universal head and governor of the church, because he is infallible? sect. two arg. 2. from the promises of infallibility. god hath promised that his church shall be preserved; which promise engageth his infallible ar. 2. assistance. therefore the church by that assistance is always infallible: to this mighty purpose a. c. reasons with a. b. laud. god will certainly and infallibly have a church, therefore that church shall not only ans. be, but be infallible in all her decrees de fide: is not this strong reason? god is infallible, therefore his church is so; a church shall continue, therefore it shall not err? pray what security doth the promise of the church's perpetuity, or infallibility as to fundamentals, give to any single person or particular church, that they shall continue in the christian faith, more than it did to seven churches in asia? and where are they now? the argument will conclude as well: god hath promised his church shall ever exist upon earth; therefore christians, of which the church consists, shall never die, as well as never fall away: for if the promise be made to the present church in the romanists sense, it is made to the individuals, that make the church. 2. and that every particular christian, as well as every particular church, having an equal & common interest in the promise of assistance, is infallible. if we should grant the universal church to be infallible; not only as to her perpetuity but her testimony, which the argument reacheth not; yet it rests to be proved, that the church of rome is the catholic church; and than that the pope is the church of rome in the same sense that the church of rome is the catholic church, and that in the same consideration, as the catholic church is infallible. but if we consider the particular promises, the argument thence is so wide and inconclusive, that one would think no considerate man could be abused by it. these promises are such as concern the apostles and church in general; or such as are pretended general to apostles. to dignify st. peter in special, and above the rest. such as concern the apostles and the church luc. 10. 16. math. 28. 20. in general are these three. he that heareth you heareth me, &c: true; while you teach me, that is my doctrine. i am with you always to the end of the world: true; while you are faithful, and teach whatsoever i command. the comforter, joh. 14. 16. the holy ghost, shall abide with you for ever: true also, while you love me, and keep my commandments. as the condition is just before the promise. now what are these texts to the pope or the church of rome in special? they certainly that plead the promise, should not neglect the duty; it were well if that was thought on. the pope's special friends insist on other promises more peculiarly designed; as they would have them for st. peter's prerogative: they are st. peter. these. 1. the first is math. 16. 18. thou art peter, text. and upon this rock will i build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. but what is this to st. peter's infallibility? an. the church shall not be overthrown, therefore st. peter is infallible: what's this to the pope's infallibility? the gates of hell shall not prevail against the church, therefore the pope is infallible? can god find no other way to preserve the church, but st. peter's infallibility, and the pope's infallibility? is this promise made to secure the church under st. peter and his successors, absolutely from all error? how came st. peter himself to act. 1. 6. fall then, by denying his master; and to err about the temporal kingdom of christ? and popes to be blasphemers, heretical, atheistical? how came so many particular churches, that were under the apostolic chair (if all were so at first) to miscarry, as those first churches in asia did? but whatever is here promised to st. peter, is nothing to the pope; unless the pope be indeed st. peter's successor, and sit in his chair; the great point reserved for the last refuge, and shall there at large be examined. the next promise is, joh. 21. peter, feed my text. 2. sheep; therefore the pope is infallible: but must not others feed christ's sheep; and are they infallible too? 'tis acutely said, that peter was to feed the sheep as ordinary pastor, the rest of the apostles as extraordinary ambassadors. but doth this text say so, or any other text? how came it to pass, that the ordinary pastor should be greater than the extraordinary ambassadors? how is it proved, that this power of feeding is infallible, only as in st. peter? or as such, is transmitted to st. peter's successor in a more peculiar manner, than to the successors of other apostles? and that the pope is this successor? this must be considered hereafter, their proof is not yet ready. another is luke 22. 31. simon, simon, satan text. 3. hath desired to winnow thee, but i have prayed that thy faith fail not: (viz. that thou perish not in apostasy) not that thou be absolutely secured from error, nor thy pretended successors: and had not others the prayer of christ also? joh. 17. even all that should believe on him? in a word, what is this to the pope, that peter should not utterly miscarry in the high-priests hall? unless it fignifie that the pope may err grievously as st. peter did, though he hath no more the security of not failing in the faith, than every ordinary christian hath. but this trifling with holy scripture provokes rebuke; and deserves no answer. if any desire further satisfaction, either upon these, or other like scriptures urged for the p. 254. etc. popes or the church's infallibility; let them peruse dr. stillingfleet in defence of my lord of canterbury, and mr. pool's treatise written on purpose upon this subject. chap. xvi. ii. arg. for infallibility, viz. tradition. concessions 4. propositions 3. arguments. objections answered. that the difference may not seem wider than indeed it is, we shall make way for our discussion of this argument by a few, but considerable concessions. 1. we yield that tradition truly catholic is apostolical. truly catholic, that is in all the three known conditions, ab omnibus, semper, & ubique: for we cannot imagine that any thing should be believed or practised by all learned christians at all times and in all places, as a point of christian religion, that was not received as such either from christ himself or his apostles. 2. we grant, that tradition hath been and ever will be both useful and necessary for the delivering down to the faith of the church, in all succeeding ages, both the canon of the scripture and the fundamentals of the christian religion: the necessity hereof ariseth from the distance of time and place; and must be supposed, upon the succession of generations in the church, after the removal of the first preachers and writers, and consequently the first deliverers thereof. 3. we need not stick to agree, that tradition is infallible, (if we abuse not the term too rigidly) in conveying and preserving the substance of religion, which i was much inclined to believe before; and am now much encouraged to express, after i had read the learned and ingenious book of the several ways of resolving faith; (he concludes p. 129.) the necessaries to salvation should ever fail to be practically transmitted from generation to generation, is alike impossible; as that multitudes of people should not in every age be truly desirous of their own, and their posterities everlasting happiness; seeing it is a thing both so easy to be done, and so necessary to salvation. by the substance of christian religion, i mean the credenda and the agenda, or as he doth, the creed, the lords prayer, the ten commandments, and the two sacraments. 4. we may, for aught i see to the contrary, gratify the author of rushworth's dialogues, and the abettors of that late new found tradition of the present church of rome: for every church of christ, as such, hath possession of the substance of christian religion, and without it cannot be a church: and i am sure by this concession, the great argument for tradition is allowed; and we are so far agreed in a main point. i am troubled we must now differ; but our propositions shall be such, as none that have weighed antiquity can well doubt of them. we affirm, that whatsoever matter of faith 1 prop. or practice, is not derived from the first hands by tradition catholic, as explained in the first concession, is not necessary to salvation: for 'tis agreed, if it were, it would have been preserved by tradition. but, it is against all sense, to believe, that 2 prop. tradition is sufficient to secure us from all additions to the first faith; or additions and alterations, in ceremonies and worship, or any thing that is not necessary to salvation: and herein, indeed, lies the controversy: for if midwives, nurses, parents and tutors have, as it is said, tradition in their hands; and hold themselves obliged not to poison little babes as soon as they can receive instructions accordingly; and tradition could not possibly admit or deliver any thing but what is necessary to salvation; it were not possible for any error to obtain in the church, or with any one party, or even member of it; but truth would be equally catholic with tradition: and then, charity will not suffer us to believe, that the jews, that kept the law, should be guilty of any vain traditions, contrary to our saviour's reproofs; or that there should be any such parties as hugonites and protestants in the world; or such various sects in the church of rome itself; or so many successive additions to the faith and worship of that church, as none may have the confidence to deny, have happened. vincentius speaks very truly (saith rigaltius) observe. in cyp. p. 147. and prudently, if nothing were delivered by our ancestors, but what they had from the apostles; but under the pretence of our ancestors, silly or counterfeit things may by fools or knaves be delivered us, for apostolical traditions: and we add, by zealously superstitious men; or by men tempted (as is evident they were about the time of easter and rebaptisation in the beginning) to pretend tradition to defend their opinions when put to it in controversy. it further follows, that the infallibility of 3 prop. the pope, or court of rome, or church, in matters of faith, is no necessary point of faith; because it is not delivered down to us, as such, by lawful, i. e. catholic tradition: this is the point. now here we justly except against the testimony of the present oral tradition of the roman church, or tradition reversed; because it cannot secure us against additions to the faith: it is no evidence that tradition was always the same in that point; it cannot bear against all authentic history to the contrary. that popes, and councils, and fathers, and the church too, have erred in their belief and practice, is past all doubt, by that one instance of the communion of infants for some hundred of years together; which is otherwise determined by the council of trent. yea, that there was no such tradition of the pope's, or the church of rome's infallibility in ancient times, is as manifest, by the oppositions betwixt the eastern and western churches; which could not consist with such tradition or belief of it. and for the church of england; had she owned such tradition, her ancient bishops would not have contended with and rejected his messenger, st. austin and his propositions together. neither can any considering man imagine, that the tradition of the pope's infallibility is catholic, or generally received and believed in the church of rome at this day: 'tis well known, many of their eminent men renounce it; and indeed the pope himself doth not believe it, or he does not believe that all his doctors believe it: for if he does believe both, why does he not make use of his talon, and put an end to all the scandalous broils and ruptures occasioned by the doctrinal differences and disputes, among the several factions of his church; and have peace within his own borders? but this admits no answer. 'tis said by the romanist, that universal traditions are recorded in the fathers of every succeeding age; and 'tis reasonably spoken. it behoves him as to the present point, to show us in some good authors, in every age since the apostles, this tradition for infallibility; then indeed he hath done something which ought to be done: but till that be done, we must adhere; that there is no such ground of the pope's authority over us as his infallibility, proved by scripture or tradition. this proof, i think was never yet so much as undertaken, and may be expected: hoc opus est. 'tis observed by dr. stillingfleet, that there is but one eminent place in antiquity produced on their side in the behalf of traditions; and that is out of st. basil de sp. sanc. ad amphilo: but the book, with just reason, is suspected. three of the traditions mentioned in the place, are the consecration of the person to be baptised, the standing at the prayers until pentecost; and above all, the trine immersion in baptism. the two first of these, are not acknowledged by the present church of rome; and the last, by the very council of trent, is pronounced not to be of apostolical tradition. here is not one word touching any tradition for the infallibility of the church; but indeed much reason against it: for either the present church at that time, was actually deceived, and took that to be apostolical which was not so; or the present church in the council of trent, took that not to be apostolical which indeed was so, and was actually deceived in her judgement and determination to the contrary: for those words of that author, (parem vim habent ad pietatem) unwritten traditions have equal force to stir up piety with the written word, put the dilemma beyond exception, as those known words of hom. 29. de tri. to. 1. the true basil. [that it is a manifest falling from the faith, and an argument of arrogancy, either to reject any point of those things which are written, or to bring in any of those things which are not written] make it justly suspicious, that the book extolling unwritten traditions was none of his. bellarmine's three arguments. [1. the fathers say the sentence of general councils admits of no appeal. 2. such as submit not to them are heretics. 3. such sentence is divine.] prove their authority but not their infallibility; and the force of such sentence is from scripture, syst. fid. 1. c. 26. nu. 2. or reason, or miracles, or approbation of the whole church; as occam, and santa clara after st. augustine affirm. therefore the fathers generally allow us liberty of examination; and derogate faith from all men beside the apostles. chap. xvii. arg. iii for infallibility from reason. 3 reasons answered. point argued. retorted. 'tis confessed, that though scripture and tradition prove it not; yet if there be indeed any sound reason (which is a kind of divine law) for the pope's infallibility, that will go a great way. but it doubtless aught to be very clear and strong reason, that is able to carry it in so great a point, without either scripture or tradition: let us hearken. perhaps we have tradition offering its service r. 1. to reason in another form; and the argument may stand thus: tradition is infallible, but the pope in the church of rome is the keeper of tradition; therefore thereby the pope is infallible. this argument indeed, hath countenance ans. from antiquity: for iraeneus adviseth his adversaries, who pretended tradition, to go to rome; and there they might know what was true and apostolical tradition, for there it was preserved. but how could that father assure us, that rome would always be a faithful preserver of true apostolical tradition? what security could he give to after ages, against innovations and additions to tradition itself in the church of rome? remember what hath been said, that tradition can be thought infallible, only in the substantials of religion; and consequently cannot protect, either it self or the church, from additional errors in other things. besides, in the substantials of religion, the protestant churches have the benefit of tradition as well as the church of rome; and if that carry infallibility with it, our church is infallible as well as the church of rome; and consequently thereby hath a right to govern its self. but the great reason always gloried in, is reas. 2 from the wisdom and prudence of our blessed saviour; who had he not intended to afford the assistance of infallibility to the succeeding pastors of his church, to lead them when assembled in a general council, he had built his church upon the s●nd; as a. c. argues with his grace of canterbury. admit the necessity of this assistance to the ans. pastors of the church; what is this to prove the government of the church in the pope, because of his infallibility? but if our saviour should not have assured us that he will thus assist his church in all ages, as you cannot show; how do you know he hath intended it? and how unchristian is your reason, to impeach your saviour with the inference of folly; and, as at other times, with ignorance and imposture, if he hath not? take heed, hath not our saviour built his church upon the foundation of the prophets and apostles? and is this sand in the roman sense? is not christ himself the chief cornerstone? is he sand too? doth not he that keepeth his say build upon a rock, as firm as the decrees of a general council? where hath our saviour given us the least intimation, that inherent infallibility is the only rock to secure the church from error? is there not sufficient ground to rely on the doctrine of christ, had there never been a general council? what? was the church built upon the sand only, before the council of nice? why did it not then fall in the storms of persecution? did not the apostles commit the doctrine of christ to writing? is not tradition the great mean of delivering the scriptures, and all things needful to salvation, by your own arguments? may not the latter be done by nurses and tutors, etc. without a general council? and if there be lesser differences in the church, is the foundation subverted presently? and may not those lesser differences among christians be healed with argument, or at least quieted; and the peace of the church preserved by the decrees of councils, without infallibility? how unreasonable is it, to deny it? we grant, saith doctor stillingfleet, infallibility p. 259. in the foundation of faith: we declare the owning of that infallibility is that, which makes men christians, (the body of whom we call the church) we further grant, that christ hath left in that church sufficient means for the preservation of it in truth and unity: but we cannot discern, either in scripture, antiquity or reason, that such infallibility, is necessary for the church's preservation, by the councils of succeeding pastors; much less, a living and standing infallible judge, as the head of the church. but they say, the infinite dissensions and divisions object. r. 3. amongst those that deny it, make this necessary. how is it in the roman church? are there answ. no divisions there? or is the sole remedy ineffectual? yea, are there no differences there, about infallibility itself? the manner and subject of it? are not many of yourselves, ashamed, and weary of it? do not some of you deny it, and set up tradition, in stead of it? was not the apostle too blame, to say, there must be heresies or divisions among you, and not to tell them, there must be an infallible judge among you, and no heresies? but now men are wiser, and of another mind. to conclude; whether we regard the truth or unity of the church; both reason and sense assures us that this infallibility signifies nothing: for, as to truth, 'tis impossible men should give up their faith and conscience, and inward apprehension of things, to the sentence of any one man, or all the men in the world, against their own reason; and for unity, there is no colour or shadow of pretence against it; but that the authority of ecclesiastical government, can preserve it, as well without, as with infallibility. but if there be any sense in the argument, methinks, 'tis better thus: the head and governor of the christian church, must of necessity be infallible: but the pope is not infallible, either by scripture, tradition, or reason; therefore the pope is not the head and governor of the christian church. chap. xviii. of the pope's universal pastorship; its right; divine or humane; this civil, or ecclesiastical; all examined; constantine; king john; justinian; phocas, &c. we have found some flaws in the pretended title of the pope; as our converter, patriarch, possessor; and as the subject of infallibility: his last and greatest argument is his universal pastorship: and indeed, if it be proved that he is the pastor of the whole church of christ on earth; he is ours also: and we cannot withdraw our obedience from him, without the guilt of that which is charged upon us, viz. schism; (if his commands be justifiable) but if the proof of this fail also, we are acquitted. this right of the pope's universal pastorship, is divine or humane, (if at all;) both are pretended, and are to be examined. the bishop of chalcedon is very indifferent and reasonable as to the original: if the right be granted, 'tis not the fide, to believe whether it come from god or no. if the pope be universal pastor jure humano only; his title is, either from civil or from ecclesiastical power; and lest we should err fundamentally we shall consider the pretences from both. if it be said, that the civil power hath conferred this honour upon the pope: may it not be questioned, whether the civil powers of the world extend so far, as either, to dispose of the government of the church; or to subject all the churches under one pastor. however, de facto, when was this done? when did the kings of england, in conjunction with the rulers of the whole world, make such a grant to the pope? i think the world hath been ashamed of the const. donat. donation of constantine long agone; yet, that no shadow may remain unscattered, we shall briefly take an account of it. they say constantine, the third day after he was baptised, left all the west part of the empire to pope sylvester; and went himself to dwell at constantinople; and gave the whole imperial and civil dominion of rome, and all the western kingdoms, to the pope and his successors for ever. a large boon indeed: this looks, as if it was intended that the pope should be an emperor; but who makes him universal pastor? and who ever since hath bequeathed the eastern world to him, either as pastor or emperor? for, it should seem, that part, constantine then kept for himself. but mr. harding throws off all these little cavils; and with sufficient evidence out of math. hieromonachus, a greek author, shows the very words of the decree, which carry it for the pope, as well in ecclesiastical as civil advantages: they are these: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. we decree, and give in charge to all lords, and to the senate of our empire, that the bishop of rome, and successor of saint peter, chief of the apostles, have authority and power in all the world; greater than that of the empire; that he have more honour than the emperor; and that he be head of the four patriarchal seats; and that matters of faith be by him determined: this is the charter, whereby some think the pope hath power (saith de potest. pap. c. 19 harveus) as lord of the whole world, to set up and pull down kings. 'tis confessed, this grant is not pleaded, lately, with any confidence. indeed bishop jewel did check it early, when he shown harding; the wisest and best among the papists have openly disproved it: such as platina, cusanus, petavius, laurent. valla, antoninus florentinus, and a great many more. cardinal cusanus hath these words: donationem constantini dilligenter expendens, etc. carefully weighing this grant of constantine even conc. cath. lib. 3. c. 2. in the very penning thereof, i find manifest arguments of forgery and falsehood. 'tis not found in the register of gratian; that is, in the allowed original text; though, it be indeed in the palea of some books; yet that palea is not read in the schools: and of it pope pius himself said, dicta palea [constantinus] pius. 2. dial. falsa est; and inveighs against the canonists that dispute an valuerit id, quod nunquam fuit: and those that speak most favourably of it, confess, that it is as true, that [vox angelorum audita est,] that, at the same time, the voice of angels was heard in the air, saying, hodie venenum effusum est in ecclesiam. much more to the discountenance of this p. 537, 538. 539. vain story you have in bishop jewel's defence; which to my observation was never since answered; to him therefore i refer my reader. but, alas, if constantine had made such a grant; pope pipus, tells us it was a question among the very canonists an valuerit? and the whole world, besides, must judge the grant void in itself, especially after constantine's time. had satan's grant been good to our saviour, if he had fallen down and worshipped him? no more had constantine's; pardon the comparison: for in other things, he shown great and worthy zeal, for the flourishing grandeur of the church of christ; though, by this he had, as was said, given nothing but poison to it: for the empire of the world and the universal pastorship of the church, was not constantine's to give to the pope and his successors for ever. arg. 2 king john. but it is urged, nearer home, that king john delivered up his crown to the pope; and received it again, as his gift. 'tis true; but this act of present fear, could not be construed a grant of right to the pope; if king john gave away any thing, it was neither the power of making laws for england; nor the exercise of any jurisdiction in england, that he had not before; for he only acknowledged (unworthily) the pope's power; but pretended not to give him such power, to confer the crown for ever; much less to make him supreme disposer of our english church. but if our constitution be considered, how inconsiderable an argument is this? our kings cannot give away the power of the crown during their own times, without an act of parliament: the king and parliament together, cannot dispose of any thing inherent to the crown of england, without a power of resumption; or to the prejudice of succeeding kings: besides, no king of england ever did, (not king john himself) either with, or without his parliament, by any solemn public act transfer the government of this church to the bishop of rome; or so much as recognize it to be in him before henry the eighth; and what john did, harpf. ad 5. re. 14. c. 5. was protested against by the three states, then in parliament. and although queen mary, since, made a higher acknowledgement of his holiness, than ever we read was done here before; yet 'tis evident, she gave him rather the compliment of the title of that uncertain word (supreme head) than any real power; as we observed before; and yet her new act to that purpose, was endured to remain in force, but a very short time, about four or five years. but although neither constantine, for the justinian. whole world; nor king john for england, did or could devise the supremacy to the pope; 'tis confessed, the emperor justinian endeavoured somewhat that looked like it. justinian was a great friend of the roman bishop: cod. inter claras. he saith, properamus honorem & authoritatem crescere sedis vestrae, we labour to subject and unite all the eastern priests to the see of your holiness. but this is a plain demonstration that the see of rome did not extend to the east, near six hundred years after christ; otherwise that would have been no addition of honour or authority to it; neither would justinian have endeavoured what was done before; as it doth not appear that he afterwards effected it. therefore the title that he then gave the pope [of the chief and head of all the churches] must carry a qualified sense; and was only a title of honour befitting the bishop of the chief and most eminent church, as the roman church then was: (and indeed justinian was a courtier; and styles the bishop of contantinople universal patriarch too) or at most can only signify, that his intentions were to raise the pope to the chief power over the whole church; which, as was said before, he had not yet obtained. this is all that can be inferred, if these epistles betwixt the emperor and the pope be not forged; as learned papists suspect, because in greg. holiand. & azo. the eldest and allowed books, they are not to be found. however, if justinian did design any thing in favour of the pope, it was only the subjecting of the clergy to him as an ecclesiastical ruler; and yet that no farther, than might well enough consist with the supremacy of the empire, in causes ecclesiastical as well as civil; which memento spoils all the argument. for we find the same justinian under this imperial stile, we command the most holy arch-bishops and patriarches of rome, constantinople, alexandria, antioch, and jerusalem. authent. colla. 1. we find him making laws upon monks, priests, bishops, and all kind of churchmen, to enforce them to their duty. we find him putting forth his power and authority for the sanction of the canons of councils; and making them to have the force of laws. we find him punishing the clergy, and the popes themselves; yea 'tis well known and confessed by romanists, that he deprived two popes, sylverius and vigilius: indeed mr. harding saith, that was done by theodora the empress; but it is otherwise recorded in their own pontifical; the emperor demanded of belsarius what he had done with the romans, and how he had deposed sylverius, and placed vigilius in his stead? upon conc. to. 2. in v. vigil. his answer, both the emperor and empress gave him thanks: now it is a rule in law, rati habito retrotrabitur, & mandato comparatur. zaberel declares it to be law, that the pope, de schis. & conci. in any notorious crime, may be accused before the emperor; and the emperor may require of the pope an account of his faith: and the emperor ought to proceed, saith harvy, against de potes. pap. c. 13. the pope, upon the request of the cardinals. and it was the judgement of the same justinian himself, that there is no kind of thing but con. const. 5. act. 1. it may be thoroughly examined by the emperor: for he hath a principality from god over all men; the clergy as well as laity. but his erecting of justiniana prima, and giving the bishop, locum apostolicae sedis; to which all the provinces should make their last appeal, gothop. nou. 13. c. 3. nou. 11. whereby, as nicephorus affirms, the emperor made it a free city, a head to itself; with full power independent from all others: and as it is in the imperial constitutions; the primate thereof should have all power of ecclesiastical jurisdiction, the supreme priesthood, supreme honour and dignity. this is such an instance, both of justinian's judgement and power, contrary to the pope's pretensions of supremacy, (as granted or acknowledged by the emperor justinian) that all other arguments of it are ex abundanti; and there is no great need of subjoyning that other great and like instance of his restoring carthage to its primacy after the vandals were driven out; and annexing two new provinces, that were not so before, to its jurisdiction, without the proviso of submitting itself to rome; though before carthage had ever refused to do it. phocas the emperor and pope boniface, no doubt, understood one another; and were well enough agreed upon the point: but we shall never yield that these two did legally represent the church and the world; or that the grant of the one, and the greedy acceptance on the other part, could bind all christians and all mankind, in subjection to his holiness' chair for ever. valentinian said, all antiquity hath given the principality of priesthood to the bishop of rome: but no antiquity ever gave him a principality of power; no doubt he, as well as the other emperors, kept the political supremacy in his own hands. charles the great might compliment adrian, and call him universal pope; and say he gave st. wilehade a bishopric at his command: but he kept the power of convocating synods every year, and sat in them as a judge himself. auditor & arbiter adfui: he made ecclesiastical decrees in his own name, to whom this very pope— acquitted all claim in the election of succeeding popes for ever. a great deal more in answer to both these, you have in archbishop bramhall. p. 235, 236. and king james' defence. p. 50. etc. chap. xix. the popes pretended ecclesiastical right. not by general councils. 8 first. to which sworn. justi. sanction. can. apost. allowed by c. nice and ephesus. though it seem below his holiness' present grandeur to ground his right upon the civil power, especially when that fails him; yet methinks the jus ecclesiasticum, is not at all unbecoming his pretences, who is sworn to govern the church according to the canons, as they say the pope is. if it be pleaded, that the canons of the fathers do invest the pope with plenary power over all churches: and if it could be proved too; yet one thing more remains to be proved, to subject the church of england to that his power, viz. that the canon law is binding and of force in england as such, or without our own consent or allowance: and 'tis impossible this should be proved, while our kings are supreme; and the constitution of the kingdom stands as it hath always stood. however, we decline not the examination of the plea, viz. that the pope's supremacy over the whole church is granted by the canons of councils, viz. general: but when this is said, it is but reasonable to demand which? or in what canons? it is said, the pope receives his office with an oath, to observe the canons of the eight first general councils; in which of these is the grant to be found? sure so great a conveyance should be very legible and intelligible. we find it very plain, that in some of those councils, and those the most ancient; this power is expressly denied him, and that upon such reason, as is eternal: and might justly and effectually prevent any such grant or usurpation of such power for ever; if future grants were to be just and reasonable, or future popes were to be governed by right or equity; by the canons of the fathers, or fidelity to the church, to god or their own solemn oaths at their inaugurations. but we are prepared for the examination of the councils in this matter, by a very strong presumption: that seeing justinian made the canons to have the force of laws, and he had ever showed himself so careful to maintain the rights of the empire in all causes, as well as over all persons, ecclesiastical; & even popes themselves; 'tis not credible that he would suffer any thing in those canons to pass into the body of the laws, that should be agreeable to the pretended donation of constantine; or to the prejudice of the emperor's said supremacy; and consequently, not much in favour of the supremacy claimed by later popes. justinian's sanction extended to the four justin. sanction of four first. great councils, nic. constant. ephes. 1. and chalcedon; in these words, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. sancimus vicem legum obtinere sanctos ecclesiasticos canon's, qui à sanctis quatuor conciliis constituti sunt & confirmati; hoc est niceno, etc.— praedictorum enim consiliorum dogmata, sicut divinas scripturas, accipimus, & canon's sicut leges observamus. perhaps, it may be doubted, why he did not apostles▪ canons not mention. reason. confirm those canons which were then well known by the title of the canons of the apostles: whether, because their authority was suspected, especially many of them; or, because vid. bin. to. 1. p. 17. a. they were not made by a truly general council; or, because they were confirmed in and with the council of nice and ephesus, etc. or lastly, whether, because the first fifty had before, a greater sanction from the general reception of the whole ibid. church; or the greater authority of the sacred names of the authors, the apostles, or apostolical men; i venture not to declare my opinion. but truly, there seems something considerable for the later; for that the council of nice do not pretend to confirm the apostles canons, but their own, by the quotation of them; taking authority from them, as laws, founded in the church before to build their own and all future canons and decrees of councils upon, in such matters as were found there determined. a great instance of the probability of this conjecture we have, full to our present purpose given us by binius, nicena synodus can. 6. bin. to. 1. p. 20. etc. the nicene and ephesine synods followed these canons of the apostles, appointing that every bishop acknowledge suum primum their chief and metropolitan, can. ap. allowed by c. nice and ephesus. and do nothing without their own diocese: but rather, the bishop of alexandria; according to the canons (understand saith binius those 35, 36 of the apostles) must govern the churches of egypt; the bishop of the east, the eastern churches: the ephesine synod, also saith, it is besides the canons of the apostles, that the bishop of antioch should ordain in the provinces of cyprus, etc. hence, it is plain, that according to apostles canons, interpreted and allowed as authentic, so far at least, by the synods of nice and ephesus, the metropolitan was primate or chief oyer the churches within his provinces; and, that he, as such (exclusive of all foreign superior power) was to govern and ordain, within his own provinces; not consonant to, but directly against the pretended supremacy of the bishop of rome. but let us consult the canons to which binius refers, and the matter is plainer. sect. i. can. apostol. there is nothing in the canons of the apostles to our purpose, but what we find in can. 35, 36. or in the reddition, as binius gives it, can. 33 and 34. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. let the bishops of 35, 33. every nation know, or they ought to know, who among them is accounted (or is) chief; and esteem him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ut caput; and do nothing difficult (aut magni momenti) praeter ejus conscientiam, vel sententiam: but, what if the matter were too hard for the primate; is no direction given to go to the infallible chair at rome? here, was indeed a proper place for it, but not a word of that. in the 36 alias 34. it is added, that a bishop should not dare to ordain any, beyond the bounds of his own jurisdiction: but neither of these canons concern the pope; unless they signify, that the pope is not head of all churches, and hath not power in any place, but within the diocese of rome: or, that binius was not faithful in leaving out the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or head, in his note upon these canons. sect. ii. concil. nicen. gen. 1. bellar. evasion. we find nothing in the true canons of the nicene synod, that looks our way, except can. 6. and 7. they are thus; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. let ancient custom be kept, through can. 6. egypt, libya and pentapolis; so, as the bishop of alexandria may have power over all these, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, because also the like custom is for the bishop of the city of rome: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉▪ as likewise at antioch and other provinces, let the privileges be kept in their own churches: but suppose differences arise; is no liberty or remedy provided, by going to rome? no more, than if differences arise in the roman church, they may have remedy from any other; a remedy is indeed provided by the canon; sin duo aut tres, & c. ●f two or three do contradict, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. not go to rome; but obtineat sententia plurimorum, let the major vote carry it. in the seventh canon, custom and tradition can. 7. both, are the grounds upon which the council confirmed the like privilege of the church of jerusalem; because custom and ancient tradition, ut aeliae episcopus honoretur, let him have have the consequence of honour, with a salvo, for the proper dignity of the metropolis; but not a word of rome. note, that in can. 6. the power of the alexandrian bishop is grounded upon ancient custom (antiqua consuetudo servetur) and not upon the concession of the roman bishop; as berlarmine would force it; and that the like manner or custom of rome, is but another example of the same thing, as antioch was and the rest of the provinces; but this ungrammatical and illogical evasion was put off before. sect. iii. concil. constantinop. gen. 2. an. 381. the next council, admired by justinian, as one of the gospels, is that famous council of constantinople adorned with 150 fathers. hath this made any better provision for the pope's supremacy? certainly no: for the very can. 1. bin. p. 660. alter. editio. bin. p. 664. can. 2. first canon, chargeth us not to despise the faith of the 318 fathers in the synod of nice; which ought to be held firm and inviolate. the second canon forbids the confusion of dioceses; and therefore enjoins (secundum regulas constitutas, i. e.) the rules of the apostles, and nicene fathers to be kept: the bishop of alexandria must govern them in egypt only; and so the rest, as are there mentioned more particularly, than in nicene canons. in the third, is reinforced the canon of the can. 3. former council against ordinations by bishops out of their own jurisdictions; and adds this reason, that casts no countenance upon any foreign jurisdiction; 'tis manifest that the proper provincial synod ought to administer and govern all things, per quasque singulas provincias, within their peculiar provinces; secundum ea quae sunt in nicaea definita. this third canon honours the bishop of constantinople, next after the bishop of rome; as binius renders 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. but binius is very angry that such a canon is found there, and urgeth many reasons against it; and therefore bin. to. 1. 672. we shall conclude, that as none of the rest, so neither doth this canon, confer the universal government of the church upon the bishop of rome. sect. iv concil. ephesin. gen. 3. an. christi 431. the third general council, whose canons justinian passed into laws, is that of ephesus, and this so far abhors from the grant, that it is a plain and zealous contradicter of the pope's pretensions. in act the seventh, 'tis agreed against the invasion of the bishop of antioch, that the cyprian prelates shall hold their rights untouched and unviolated, according to the canons of the holy fathers (before mentioned) and the ancient custom, ordaining their own bishops; and let the same be observed in other dioceses, and in all provinces, that no bishop occupy another province, (or subject it by force) which formerly and from the beginning, was not under his power or his predecessors: or if he have done so let him restore it, that the canons of the fathers be not slighted, nor pride creep into the church— nor christian liberty be lost. therefore it hath pleased the holy synod, that every province enjoy its rights and customs unviolated, which it had from the beginning, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, twice repeated, whereby we are to learn a very great rule; that the bounds of primacies were settled very early, before this council or any other general council, before this even at the beginning: and that those bounds ought to be observed to the end, according to the canons of the fathers and ancient custom: and consequently, that such as are invaders of others rights, are bound to make restitution. now 'tis evident, we were a free province in england in the beginning, and when st. augustine came from rome to invade our liberties; 'tis evident this council gave the pope no power or privilege to invade us: yea, that what power the pope got over us in after times, was a manifest violation of the rights we had from the beginning; as also of the canons of the ancient fathers, in the three mentioned sacred and general councils of nice, constantinople, and ephesus; all grounded upon the ancienter canons called the apostles. lastly, such usurpers were always under the obligation of the canon to restore and quit their encroachments; and consequently the brittanick churches were always free to vindicate and reassume their rights and liberties, as they worthily did in hen. 8. sect. v concil. chalcedon, gen. 4. a, 451. s. w's gloss. there is little hope that this council should afford the pope any advantage, seeing it gins (canon's &c.) with the confirmation of all the canons made by the fathers in every synod before that time; and consequently of those that we have found in prejudice to his pretensions among the rest. the ninth canon enjoins upon differences can. 9 betwixt clerks, that the cause be heard before the proper bishop; betwixt a bishop and a clerk, before the provincial synod; betwixt a bishop or clerk and the metropolitan, before 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or the see of the royal city of constantinople. to the same effect we read can. 17. can. 17. si quis a suo, etc. if any one be injured by his bishop or metropolitan, apud exarchum seu primatem dioceseos, vel constantinopolitam sedem litiget. but where is any provision made for remedy at rome? indeed that could not consist with the sense of this synod, who would not endure the supremacy, or so much as the superiority of rome above constantinople. this is evident in can. 28 the fathers gave can. 28. privilege to the see of old rome; quod vrbs illa imperaret, & eadem consideratione, saith the canon, and for the same reason an hundred and fifty bishops gave 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, equal privileges to the seat of new rome; recte judicantes, rightly judging that that city that hath the empire and the senate, should enjoy equal privileges with old royal rome, etiam in rebus ecclesiasticis non secus ac illa extolli ac magnifieri, secundam post illam existentem. now to what purpose doth s. w. (to dr. s. w.'s gloss. hammond) trifle on the canon, and tell us that these privileges were only honorary pomps; when the canon adds in ecclesiastical matters, and names one, the ordination of bishops and metropolitans within themselves; as before was declared by the divine canons. we conclude that this bar against the pope's universal pastorship, will never be removed. these are the four first general councils, honoured by justinian as the four gospels; to which he gave the title and force of laws. by which all popes are bound (by solemn oath) to rule the church: yet we find not one word in any of them, for the popes pretended universal pastorship: yea in every one of them we have found so much and so directly against it; that as they give him no power to govern the whole church; so by swearing to observe them in such government as the canons deny him; he swears to a contradiction as well as to the ruin of his own pretensions. we conclude from the premises, that now, argument. seeing all future councils seem to build upon the nicene canons; as that, upon the apostles; if the canons of nice do indeed limit the power of the bishop of rome, or suppose it to have limits; if his cause be tried by the councils, it must needs he desperate. now if those canons suppose bounds to belong minor. to every patriarchate, they suppose the like to rome: but 'tis plain, that the bounds are given by those canons to the bishop of alexandria; and the reason is, because this is also customary to the bishop of rome. now 'tis not reasonable to say, alexandria must have limits because rome hath, if rome have no limits. pope nicolas himself so understood it, whatever i. e. pis. 8. s. w. did: nicena, etc. the nicene synod, saith he, conferred no increase on rome, but rather took from rome an example, particularly, what to give to the church of alexandria. whence dr. hammond strongly concludes, that if at the making of the nicene canons rome had bounds; it must needs follow by the ephesine canon, that those bounds must be at all times observed in contradiction to the universal pastorship of that see. the matter is ended, if we compare the other latin version of the nicene canon, with the canon as before noted. antiqui moris est ut vrbis romae episcopus habeat principatum, ut suburbicana loca, & omnem provinciam suâ sollicitudine gubernet; q●e vero apud aegyptum sunt, alexandrinae episcopus omnem habeat sollicitudinem: similiter autem & circa antiochiam & in caeteris provinciis privilegia propria serventur metropolitanis ecclesiis. whence it is evident, that the bishop of rome then had a distinct patriarchate as the rest had; and that whatever primacy might be allowed him beyond his province, it could not have any real power over the other provinces of alexandria, etc. and 'tis against the plain sense of the rule, that the antiquus mos should signify the custom of the bishop of rome's permission of government to the other patriarches, as bellarmine feigneth. this edition we have in christopher justellus' library; the canon is in voel. biblioth. jur. cano. tom. 1. p. 284. sect. vi concil. constant. 2. the fifth general conc. of 165 bishops. an. 553. baronius and binius both affirm, that this was bar. an. 553. nu. 224. bin. to. 2. not. in con. const. 5. a general council; and so approved by all popes, predecessors and successors of st. gregory, and st. gregory himself. the cause was; pope agapetus had condemned anthinius; the matter was afterwards ventilated in the council: now where was the pope's supremacy? we shall see immediately. after agapetus, succeeded vigilius: when the council condemned the tria capitula, pope vigilius would defend them; but how did he carry it in faith or fact? did the council submit to his judgement or authority? no such thing: but quite contrary, the council condemned the tria capitula and ended: the pope for not consenting, but opposing the council, is banished by the emperor justinian. then vigilius submits, and confirms the sentence of the council; and so is released from banishment. this is enough, out of both * ibid. n▪ 223. baronius and binius. the sum is, we condemn (say they as is expressed in the very text) all that have defended the tria capitula; but vigilius, say the historians, defended the tria capitula; therefore was vigilius the pope condemned by this council: such authority they gave him. sect. vii. concil. constant. of 289 bishops. 6 general. an. 681 vel 685. concil. nic. 7 general. of 350 bishops. an. 781. bellarmine acknowledgeth these to be sixth and seventh general councils; and both these he acknowledgeth did condemn pope honorius for an heretic. lib. 4. de pont. c. 11. for bellarmine to urge that these councils were deceived in their judgement touching his opinion, is not to the point; we are not disputing now, whether a pope may be a heretic in a private or public capacity, in which the councils now condemned him; though he seems to be a bold man, to prefer his own bare conjecture a thousand years after about a matter of fact, before the judgement of two general councils, consisting of 659 bishops; when the cause was fresh, witnesses living, and all circumstances visibly before their eyes: but our question is whether these councils did either give to the pope as such, or acknowledged in him an authority over the whole church? the answer is short, they took that power to themselves; and condemned the pope for heresy as they also did sergins of constantinople. sect. viii. concil. gen. 8. constant. 383 bishops. an. 870. conclusions from them all. how did this eighth general council recognize tom. 3. p. 149. the pope's supremacy? binius himself tells us; this council condemned a custom of the sabbath-fast in lent; and the practice of it in the church of rome; and the word is, we will that the canon be observed in the church of rome, inconfuse vires habet. 'tis boldly determined against the mother church; rome concerned, reproved, commanded? where is the authority of the bishop of rome? rome would be even with this council, and therefore, saith surius, she receives not this 55 canon. (tom. 2. in conc. const. 6. p. 1048. ad can. 65 in not. bin. but why must this canon only be rejected? oh! 'tis not to be endured, that's all the reason we can have. but was not this a general council? is it not one of the eight sworn to by every pope? is not this canon of the same authority (as of the council) with all the rest? or is it tolerable to say, 'tis not authentic because the pope doth not receive it; and he doth not receive it because it is against himself? quia matrem ecclesiarum omnium rom. ecclesiam reprehendit, non recipitur. saith surius, ibid. these are the eight first general councils, allowed by the roman church at this day: what little exceptions they would defend their supremacy with, against all that hath appeared; are answered in the post script at the latter end of the book, whither i refer my readers for fuller satisfaction. in the mean time we cannot but conclude, conclus. 7 infer. 1. that the fathers during eight hundred and seventy years after christ, knew no such thing as the pope's supremacy by divine right or any right at all, seeing they opposed it. 2. that they did not believe the infallibility of the church of rome. 3. that they had no tradition of either that supremacy or infallibility. 4. that 'tis vain to plead antiquity in the fathers or councils or primitive church for either. 5. that the judgement of those 8 general councils was at least the judgement and faith, not only during their own times, but till the contrary should be decreed by a following council of as great authority; and how long that was after, i leave to themselves to answer. 6. that the canons of those 8 first general councils, being the sense both of the ancient and the professed faith of the present church of rome; the pope's authority stands condemned by the catholic church at this day; by the ancient church and the present church of rome herself, as she holds communion, at least in profession, with the ancient. 7. that this was the faith of the catholic church, in opposition to the pretended supremacy of the pope, long after the eight first general councils, is evident, by the plain sense of it, in the said point, declared by several councils in the ages following; as appears both in the greek and latin church: a word of both. sect. ix. the latin church. constance. basil. councils, etc. the council of constance in germany, long after; of almost a thousand fathers, an. 1415, say, they were inspired by the holy ghost; and a general council, representing the whole church, and having immediate power from christ; whereunto, obedience is due from all persons, both for faith and reformation, whether in the head or members: this was expressly confirmed by pope martin, to be held inviolable in matters of faith, vid. surium. concil. const 99 4. tom. 3. conc. their great reason was, the pope is not head of the church by divine ordinance; as the council of chalcedon said, a thousand years before. now, where was necessary union and subjection to the pope? where was his supremacy jure divino? where was tradition, infallibility, or the faith of the present church, for the pope's authority? concil. basil. bin. to. 4. in conc. basil. initio. the council of basil. an. 1431. decreed, as the council of constance; pope eugenius, would dissolve them; the council commands the contrary, and suspend the pope: concluding, that who ever shall question their power therein, is an heretic: the pope pronounceth them schismatics; in the end, the pope did yield, and not dissolve the council: this was the judgement of the latin church above 1400 years after christ; and indeed to this day, of the true church of france; and in henry the eighth's time of england; as gardner said; the pope is not a head by dominion, but order: his authority, is none, with us; we ought not to have to do with rome; the common sense of all in england. bellarmine saith, that the pope's subjection to de conc. li. 2. c. 14. general councils is inconsistent with the supreme pastorship: 'tis repugnant to the primacy of saint peter, saith gregory de valentiâ: yet nothing anal. fid. l. 8. c. 14. is more evident, than that general councils did exercise authority over popes; deposing them; and disposing of their sees, as the council of constance did, three together; and always made canons in opposition to their pretensions. yea, 'tis certain, that a very great number, if not the greater, of the roman church itself, were ever of this faith; that general vid. dr. hammond's dispute. p. 102. councils are superior; have authority over; give laws unto; and may justly censure the bishop of rome. pope adrian the sixth, and very many other learned romanists, declared this to be their judgement, just before, or near upon the time, that henry the eighth was declared supreme in england: so much for the latin church. sect. x. the greek church. african can. synod. carth. cancil. antiochen. the faith of the greek church since. that the greek church understood the first general councils, directly contrary to the pope's supremacy, is written with a sunbeam; in several other councils. 1. by the canons of the african church. the 27th canon forbids all transmarine appeals; can. 27. threatens such as make them with excommunication; makes order that the last appeal be to the proper primate, or a general council; to the same effect, is the 137 canon; and the notes of voel, upon these canons, put it beyond question, that in the transmarine appeals, tom. 1. p. 425. they meant those to rome; as it is expressed, the church of rome, and the priests of the roman church. 2. const. concil. antiochen. this council is more plain: it saith, if any bishop, in any crime, be judged by all the bishops in the province, he shall be judged in no wise by any other: the sentence given by the provincial bishops, shall remain firm. thus the pope is excluded, even in the case of bishops, out of his own province; contrary to the great pretence of bellarmine, ibid. 3. syn. carthag. this synod confirmed the twenty canons of nice; and the canons of the african councils: and then, in particular, they decreed, ab vniversis can. 4. — si criminosus est non admittatur: again, 8. if any one, whether bishop or presbyter, that is driven from the church, be received into communion (by another) even he that receives him is held guilty of the like crime: refugientes sui episcopi regulare judicium. again, if a bishop be guilty, when there is no synod, let him be judged by twelve bishops; secundum statuta veterum conciliorum, the statutes of the ancients knew no reserve for the pope in that case. further; no clergyman might go beyond the seas, viz. to rome, without the advice of his metropolitan; and taking his formatam, vel commendationem. the 28 canon is positive, that priests and deacons shall not appeal, ad transmarina judicia, viz. to rome; but to the primates of their own provinces: and they add, sicut & de episcopis saepê constitutum est: and if any shall do so, none in africa shall receive them; and can. 125. 'tis renewed; adding, the african councils, to which appeals are allowed, as well as to the primates; but still rome is barred. the sense of the greek church, since. now when did that church subject itself to rome in any case? our adversaries acknowledge the early contests betwixt the eastern and western churches, in the point of supremacy; where, then, is the consent of fathers; or universality of time and place, they use to boast of? bellarmine confesseth, that an. 381. to the time of the council of florence, viz. 1140 years, the greek church disclaimed subjection to the pope, and church of rome; and he confesseth, they did so, in several general councils. and he doth but pretend, that this church submitted itself to rome, in the council of florence, an. 1549. for the contrary is evident, in that they would not yield, that the pope should choose them a patriarch; as surius himself observes, tom. 4. p. 489. so true is it, that maldonate and prateolus mald. in math. 10. 2. prate. in haer. tit. grae. vid. st. aug. to. 2. epist. 162. acknowledge and record; the greek church always disliked the supreme dignity of the pope; and would never obey his decrees. to conclude, the law of the greeks hath always been against the pope's supremacy; the fundamental law was, a prohibition of appeals to rome: therefore, that church acknowledged no absolute subjection to rome. 2. they excommunicate all african priests appealing to rome; therefore, they held no necessity of union with rome. 3. they excommunicate all such (qui putaverint) as should but think it lawful to appeal to rome; therefore, they had no faith of the necessity of either union or subjection to the church of rome. enough, to the pope's prejudice, from the councils of all sorts: we must, in the foot of the account, mind our adversaries, that we have found no colour for the pretence of a grant, from any one general council, of the pope's authority; much less over the church of england: which, their plea from the canons, expressly requires at their hand. for, my lord bramhall, with invincible reason, affirms: we were once a free patriarchate, independent on any other: and, according to the council of ephesus, every province should enjoy its ancient rights, pure and inviolate: and that, no bishop should occupy any province, which did not belong to him, from the beginning; and, if no true general council, hath ever since, subjected britain, under the roman court; then, saith he, the case is clear, that rome can pretend no right over britain, without their own consent; nor, any further; nor, for any longer time; then, they are pleased to oblige themselves. we must expect, therefore, some better evidence, of such grant to the pope; and such obligation upon england, by the canons of some truly general council; and we may still expect it; notwithstanding the canons of sardice: which, yet shall be considered; for it is their (faint) colour of antiquity. sect. xi. the sardican canons. no grant from the matter, manner or authority. no appendix to council of nice. zozimus his forgery never ratified; nor thought universal; after contradicted, by councils. the pope at length usurped the title, and pretended the power of supreme; and the canons, in time obtained the name of the pope's decrees; but the question is, what general council gave him either? doctor stillingfleet observes, that nothing is more apparent, than, that when popes began to pirk up, they pleaded nothing but some canons of the church for what they did; then their best and only plea, when nothing of divine right was heard of; as julius, to the oriental bishops; zozimus to the african; and so others: but still what canons? the romanist, against archbishop laud, argues arg. p. 193. thus: it was ever held lawful to appeal to rome from all parts; therefore the pope must be supreme judge: this, saith he, is evidenced by the sardican canons; accounted anciently, an appendix to the council of nice; this he calls an unanswerable argument. but it is more than answered; if we consider, answ. either, the matter, or the manner, or the authority of these canons. 1. the matter, said to be granted, appears 1. for the matter of these canons. in the words themselves, can. 3. it is said, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. if it seem good to you, let us honour the memory of saint peter, and by those bishops that are judges, scribatur julio, romanorum episcopo; and by the next bishops of the province, if need be, let the judgement be revoked; & cognitores ipse praebeat. but 1. here is no grant, so much as of appeal, only of a review. 2 'tis not pretended to be according to any former canons. 3. the judgement is to be revoked by a council of bishops chosen for the purpose. 4. the request seems to terminate in the person of julius, and not to extend to his successors; for else, why should it be said to julius bishop of rome, and not to the bishop of rome absolutely? 2. the manner of the motion spoils all: if manner. it please you; did the universal pastorship then lie at the feet, or depend upon the pleasure of this council? did no canons evidence the pope's power, and right till then? eleven years after the death of constantine? besides, how unworthily was is said, let us honour the memory of saint peter; did the pope's succession of saint peter depend upon their pleasure too? 3. but lastly, the main exception, is against the authority of this council; or, at least, of authority. this canon; as cusanus questions, concord. cathol. lib. 2. c. 15. 1. 'tis certain, they are no appendix to the no appendix to nice can. council of nice; wherein their strength is pretended to consist; though, zozimus fraudulently sent them, under that name to the african bishops; which can never be excused; for they are now know to have been made twenty two years, after that council. upon that pretence of zozimus indeed, a zozimus' forgery. temporary order was made in the council of afric; that appeals might be made to the pope, till the true canons of nice were produced; which afterwards being done, the argument was spoiled; and that pope, if possible, was put to shame: hereupon, that excellent epistle was written to pope celestine, of which you had account before. 2. this council was never ratified by the reception not received. of the catholic church; for the canons of it were not known by the african bishops, when zozimus sent them, and saint augustine discredits them; saying, they were made by a synod of arrians. 3. it is evident, that this council was never or thought universal▪ accounted truly universal; though constance and constantius intended it should be so: for, but seventy of eastern bishops appeared, to three hundred of the western; and those eastern bishops, soon withdrew from the other, and decreed things directly contrary to them: so that balsomon and zonarus, as well as the elder greeks, say, it can only bind the western churches: and indeed, it was a long time before the canons of it were received in the western church; which is the supposed reason, why zozimus sent them, as the nicen, and not as the sardican canons. 4. after the eastern bishops were departed, there were not patriarches enough, to make a general council; according to bellermine's de conc. l. ●. c. 17. own rule. consequently, venerable bede leaves it out of the number: the eastern churches do not reckon it among their seven, nor the western among their eight first general councils. the english church, in their synod at he difield, an. 680. left it out of their number, and embrace only the council of nice, the first of constantinople, the first of ephesus, the first and second of chalcedon to this day. therefore archbishop bramhall, had reason to say, that this council was never incorporated into the english laws, and consequently, hath no force in england: especially, being urged in a matter contrary to the famous memorial of clarendon; a fundamental law of this land: all appeals in england must proceed regularly, from the bishop to the archbishop, and from him to the king to give order for redress. but to wipe away all colour of argument; what ever authority these canons may be thought to have in other matters, 'tis certain they have none in this matter of appeals; for, as to this point the undoubted general councils, afterward decreed quite otherwise; reducing and limiting appeals ultimately to the primate of the province, or a council; as hath been made to appear. when, i hear any thing of moment urged, from any other council, as a grant of the pretended supremacy to the pope, i shall consider what may be answered; till then, i think there is an end of his claim, jure humano; either, by a civil or canonical grant; by emperors or general councils. so much hath been said against, and so little to purpose, for the council of trent, that i shall excuse myself and my reader from any trouble about it. but i must conclude that the canons of the council of trent were never acknowledged or received epist. synod▪ conc. basil. by the kingdom of england as the council of basil was, which confirmed the acts of the council of constance; which council of constance without the presence or concurrence of the pope, did decree themselves to be a lawful complete general council superior to the pope; and that he was subject to their censures; and deposed three popes at a time. the words of the council are remarkable, the pope is subject to a general council, as well in matters of faith as of manners; so as he may not only be corrected, but if he be incorrigible, be deposed. to say, this decree was not conciliarly made; and consequently not confirmed by pope martin the fifth signifies nothing; if that martin were pope; because his title to the papacy depended merely upon the authority of that decree. but indeed, the word conciliariter was spoken by the pope upon a particular occasion, after the council was ended and the fathers were dismissed; as appears in the history. chap. xx. of the pope's title by divine right. the question. why not sooner? 'tis last refuge. the modern champions of the church of rome, slight all that hath been said; and judge it beneath their master and his cause to plead any thing but a jus divinum for his pretended supremacy; and indeed will hardly endure and tolerate the question, whether the pope be universal monarch; or bishop of the whole church as saint peter's successor, jure divino? but if this point be so very plain; may i have leave to ask, why was it not urged sooner? why were lesser inconsistent pleas, so long insisted on? why do not many of their own great men discern it to this day? the truth is, if the managery of the combat all along be seriously reflected on, this plea of divine right seems to be the last refuge; when they have been driven by dint of argument out of all other holds, as no longer to be defended. and yet give me leave to observe, that this last ground of theirs, seems to me to be the weakest, and the least able to secure them; which looks like an argument of a sinking cause. however, they mightily labour to support it, by these two pillars. 1. that the government of the whole church is monarchical. 2. that the pope is the monarch; and both these are jure divino: but these pillars also must be supported, and how that is performed we shall examine. sect. i. whether the government of the whole church be monarchical, by divine right? bellar. reason. scripture. bellarmine hath flourished with this argument through no less than eight whole chapters, and indeed hath industriously and learnedly beaten it as far as it would go; and no wonder if he have left it thin. what solidity is in it, we are to weigh both from reason and scripture. not from reason in 3 arg. from reason they argue thus: god hath appointed arg. 1 the best and most profitable government: (for he is most wise and good) but monarchical government is the best and most profitable. 'tis plainly answered that to know which is ans. the best government, the state of that which is to be governed must be considered; the end of government being the profit and good of the state governed; so that unless it appear that this kind of government be the most convenient for the state of the church, nothing is concluded. 2. we believe that god hath the care of the world, and not only of the church; therefore in his wise and good providence, he ought to have settled the world under the best and most profitable government, viz. under one universal monarch. 3. bellarmine himself grants, that if particular churches should not be gathered, inter se, so as to make one, (visible, political body) their own proper rector would suffice for every one, and there should be no need of one monarch. but all particular churches are not one visible political body, but, as particular bodies, are complete in themselves; enjoying all parts of ordinary worship and government singly; neither is there any part of worship or government proper to the ecumenical church, qua talis. 4. the argument seems stronger the contrary way: god is good and wise, and hath appointed the best government for his own church; but he hath not appointed that it should be monarchical: therefore that kind of government seems not to be the best for his church. christ might foresee the great inconveniences of his churches being governed by one ecclesiastical monarch, when divided under the several secular powers of the world; though the ambition of men overlook it and consider it not. yet that the government of the church appointed by god, as best for it, is monarchical, is not believed by all catholics. the sorbon doctors doubt not to affirm, that aristocratical government is the best of all, and most agreeable to the nature of the church. de eccl. polit. potest. an. 1611. 6. but what if we yield the whole argument: as the government of the church is imperial, 'tis in christ, the universal monarch over it; but he being in a far country, he governs the several parts of his church in distinct countries, by visible ministerial monarches or primates, proper to each: the distinction of imperial and ministerial power, is given us in this very case by our adversaries: there is nothing unreasonable, unpracticable, or contrary to the practice of the world in the assertion. we grant that monarchy is the best kind of government in a due sphere; the world is wide enough for many monarches, and the church too: the argument concludes for primates over provinces; not for an universal monarch, either over the world or the whole church. 2. the church cannot be propogated (as bell. argues) without a universal monarch, to send arg. 2 preachers into other provinces, etc. who can doubt but that the governors of any ans. church, have as much power to send any of her members; and have as much power in pagan and infidel countries as the supposed universal bishop? and if heretics can propagate their errors, why should not the orthodox, the truth, without the pope? 3. 'tis necessary (saith bellar.) that all the arg. 3 faithful should have one faith, which cannot be without one chief judge. in necessaries they may, in other things they ans. need not; as appears sufficiently among the romanists, about this as well as other points; neither could peter himself, with the help of the rest of the apostles, in their time prevent heresies and schisms. these things are too weak to bear up the great power and universal monarchy pretended; and indeed an impeachment of the wisdom and goodness of christ; if he have not provided such a government for his church as they plead a necessity of, for the said ends. the thing next to be enquired. 2. not from scripture prophecies, promises, metaphors, or example of highpriest. they affirm, that the scriptures evince an universal monarchy over the church: but how is it proved? the prophecies and promises and sundry metaphors arg. (of a house, kingdom, body, flock, etc.) prove the church to be one in itself; and consequently it must have one supreme governor. we are agreed, that the church is but one; and that it hath one supreme governor: and ans. we are agreed, that christ hath the supreme government of it, and that those scriptures too signify that he is such; if we consider the government to be imperial, as hart confesseth to dr. raynolds: and thus the argument passeth without any harm; but it still rests to be proved that the ministerial governor is but one; or that the scriptures intent so, or st. peter or the pope, as his successor, is that one governor over the whole church. 'tis true; as our saviour saith, there is one flock and one shepherd, but 'tis as true, which he saith in the same place; i am that good shepherd; but as that one principal pastor, had many vicars, not peter only but 12 apostles, to gather and feed the sheep; who were therefore sent to preach to all nations: and did, as it said, divide the world into 12 provinces respectively. so that one great monarch might have many viceroy's, if we may so call the future bishops to govern the church; though in faith but one, yet in site and place divided: 'tis no unreasonable thing, that the king of britain and ireland, should govern scotland and ireland, which lie at some distance from him, by his deputations as before was hinted. there was one highpriest over the church of the jews; and by analogy it ought to be so, arg. 2 in the christian church. many things were in that church which ought ans. not to be in this. they were one nation as well as one church; and if every christian nation have one highpriest the analogy holds well enough. the making the nations of the world christian, hath, as experience shows, rendered the government of the church by one person, that cannot reside in all places, very inconvenient if not impracticable. now if our saviour foresaw this; and hath ordered the government of the christian church otherwise, than moses had that of the jews, who shall say, what hast thou done? 2. it can never be proved, that the highpriest vid. ray. and hart. p. 240. over the jews, was either called the judge, or had such power over that church, as the pope pretends over the christian. lastly, 'tis not doubted but moses was faithful, and christ as faithful in appointing a fit government for these great and distinct states of the church: but what kind of government moses appointed, is nothing to the question; unless it appear that christ hath appointed the same. the proper question is, whether christ hath appointed that the christian church should be governed by one universal monarch, let us apply to that. the great issue is, the instance of st. peter. 'tis affirmed that our lord committed the government of the christian church to st. peter, and his successors; the popes of rome for ever. a grant of so great consequence ought to be ar. 3. peter. very plain, the whole world is concerned and may expect evidence very clear. 1. that christ gave this universal supremacy to st. peter. and 2. to the pope as his successor; if either fail, roma ruit. sect. ii. of st. peter's monarchy. tu es petrus. fathers abused. we are now come to the quick. the first great question is; whether christ gave his apostle st. peter the government of his whole church. this would be proved from matth. 1 scrip. matth. 16: 18. 16. 18. thou art peter, and upon this rock i will build my church. the argument is, what christ promised he gave, but in these words christ promised to make peter the supreme head and governor of his church; therefore this power was given him. if this argument conclude, by [this rock] ans. must be meant st. peter; and the words [i will build my church upon it] must signify the committing the supreme power of the church to him. for the first, it is at least a controversy among the ancient fathers; and many of them do deny that by this rock we are to understand any thing, but that confession which was evidently the occasion of this promise, and was made by peter just before, as st. cyril, hilary, jerom, ambrose, basil, and st. augustine, whose lapsus humanus in it is reproved by stapleton. princ. doct. li. 6. c. 3. but i am willing to agree as far as we may; and therefore shall not deny, but something peculiar to st. peter's person was here promised; (though i believe it was a point of honour, not a supremacy of power;) what that was will appear by the thing promised, i will build my church— that is, upon my doctrine preached by thee. i will build my church, thou shalt have the honour, of being a prime and principal author of the world's conversion; or as dr. reynolds against hart: peter, was in order with the first who believed; p. 60. and amongst those first, he had a mark of honour in that he was named stone above his brethren. yet as he, so the rest are called foundations; and indeed so were in both these senses: for the twelve were all prime converts, and converters of others; and were foundations in their respective provinces on which others were built: but they were not built one upon another, and they had no other foundation on which they themselves were built but christ himself. we are willing to any thing, that the sense of the words will conveniently bear; but that they should signify power and government over the whole church, and the rest of the apostles, we cannot understand: for, the rock is supposed before the building upon it; and the building before the government of the house; and the government of the church, cannot tolerably be thought to be of the foundation, or first building of the church; but for the preservation or augmentation of it after its existence is supposed. perhaps there is ground to allow, that peter's foundation was the first; as his name was first among the apostles; and that this was the reason of that primacy of order and dignity which some of the ancients, in their writings paul had the fame primacy over barnabas, that peter over apost. as st. amb. in 2 ad. gal. acknowledged in saint peter: but certainly, there is need of a plainer text to argue this text to signify that supremacy of power over the rest of the apostles and the whole church; which is so hotly contended for by our romish adversaries to be given saint peter: however, after the resurrection of christ, all were made equal, both in honour and power; as saint cyprian saith, de vnita: eccles. but it is urged, that the other part of the 2. script. matth. 16. 19 promise, is most clear, to thee will i give the keys of the kingdom of heaven, viz. the fullness of celestial power, as hart expressed it. our answer is, that christ, here, promised no answ. more power to peter, than he performed to all the apostles: peter's confession was made in the name of all; and christ's promise was made to peter in the name of all; and nothing can be clearer, either in the text, or in fact. the text is plain; both, in itself, and in the judgement of the fathers; that peter stood in the room of the rest; both when he made the confession, and received the promise, vid. st. aug. in joh. tract. 1 18. st. ambr. in psal. 38. jerom. adv. jovi: li 1. orig. in math. tract. 1. vid. concor. cottrol. l. 2. c. 13. hilary de trinit. l. 6. etc. cardinal. cusan. is plain in this point also. and, that it did equally concern the rest of the apostles, is evident, by the performance of it. a promise, is of something the futuro: our saviour saith to peter, i will give thee the keys; but when did he do it? and how did he do it? certainly at the time, when he delivered those words recorded, john 20. 21, 23. and after the manner there expressed, and by that form of words: now, are not those words spoken by christ equally to all the apostles? as my father sent me, so do i send you; whose soever sins ye remit, etc. nothing plainer. to say, that christ gave not the keys to all; but only the power of remitting and retaining sins, seems pitiful, unless some other proof be offered, that christ, did actually perform this promise to saint peter apart; and give him the keys at some other time, in distinction to the power given in the 20. john to all together. remitting and retaining sins, is certainly the power of the keys; and so called, by the council of trent itself, chatech. in sacram. paenit. and 'tis not the keeping, but the power of the keys, is the question; and indeed bellarmine proves, that the whole power of the keys, and not a part only, as stapleton supposed, was granted to all the apostles in the words john 20. to be the general interpretation of the fathers, in prael. rom. controu. 4. q. 3. de sum. pontif. stapleton from turrecrem; distinguisheth betwixt from turrecrem. the apostolic, and the episcopal power; and they grant, that the apostolic power was equal in all the apostles, and received immediately from christ; but the episcopal power was given to saint peter with the keys; and immediately and by him, to the rest. this is a new shift: else, why is the title, apostolical, given to the pope, to his see, to all acts, etc. seeing the pope, according to the sineness of this distinction, doth not succeed peter, as an apostle, but as a bishop. 'tis as strange, as new: seeing the power of the keys, must as well denote the episcopal power of the rest of the apostles, as of peter; and the power of using them, by remitting, etc. was given, generally and immediately, by christ to them all alike. this distinction of turrecremata, was as reynolds against hart showeth, spoiled, before relect. 2. de potest. eccl. doctor stapleton new vamped it, by two learned friars, sixtus senensis and franciscus victoria; evidencing both out of the scriptures, that the bibli sanc. l. 6. annot. 269 & 271. apostles received all their power immediately of christ; and the fathers, that in the power of apostleship and order, (so the two powers were called) paul was equal to peter; and the rest, to them both. therefore, this distinction failing, another is invented, and a third kind of power is set up; viz. the power of kingdoms; and now from the threefold power of saint peter; apostolatus, ordinis, regni, it is strongly affirmed: 1. touching the apostleship, paul, as jerom saith, 1. in com. ad gal. was not inferior to peter; for he was chosen to preach the gospel, not by peter, but by god, as peter was. 2. touching the power given 2. advers. jovini. & ad evag. in the sacrament of order, jerom saith well too; that all the apostles received the keys equally; and that they all, as bishops, were equal in the degree of priesthood, and the spiritual power of that degree: thus the first distinction is gone. but, thirdly, touching the power 3. advers. jovin. & luci●. of kingdom, saint jerom saith best of all, that peter was chosen among the twelve, and made the head of all, that all occasion of schism might be removed. these are fancies of the schoolmen; but where are they grounded? we are seeking for saint peter's supremacy, in the scripture; where do we there, find this power of the kingdom given him by christ? or what ancient father ever so expounded this text of the keys? we grant, many expressions are found in the fathers, in honour of saint peter: saint augustine affirms his primacy is conspicuous and preeminent with excellent grace: saint chrysostom, calleth him the mouth, the chief, the top of the company; theodoret styles him, the prince; epiphanius the highest; saint augustine the head, precedent and first of the apostles; which he proveth out of saint cyprian, who saith, the lord chose peter first; and saint jerom saith, he was the head, that occasion of schism might be taken away, and gives him the honour of great authority; all these were used by hart against raynolds. to them all, doctor raynolds gives clear and satisfactory answers showing largely that they signify nothing but a primacy of election, or order, or dignity, or esteem, and authority in that sense: or a primacy in grace and gifts, viz. a principality or chiefness in worth; or a primacy of presidentship in assemblies, as the mouth and moderator; or the head of unity and order, as jerom means: but 'tis not to be proved from any or all of these encomiums, that the fathers believed that the other apostles were under saint peter as their governor; or that he had any real power given him by christ more than they. the words of saint cyprian are plain and full: albeit christ, saith he, gave equal power to 1. st. cyp. de unit. eccl. all the apostles after his resurrection; and said, as my father, etc. yet to declare unity, he disposed by his authority, the original of that unity, beginning in one: no doubt, saith he, the rest were the same that peter was; endued with the like fellowship (pari consortio) of honour and power; but, the beginning doth come from unity, that the church of christ may be showed to be but one. thus, this topick of the fathers, expounding the text, being found to fail; another device, and such a one as the very detection, both answers and shames the authors, is fled unto; viz. to corrupt instead of purging the fathers; and to make them speak home indeed. the place of saint cyprian, just now set, is a in opusc. contr. graec. very clear instance of this black art, allowed by the popes themselves; the place in the former prints, was, as it is set down, in the roman-purged. cyprian, is thus altered by addition of these words, and the primacy is given to peter. again he appointed one church, and the chair to be one; and to make all sure, the antwerp cyprian addeth conveniently peter's chair: and then, saith he, who forsaketh peter's chair, on which the against hart. church was founded, etc. and by this time peter's primacy is the pope's supremacy. vid. dr. rain. p. 210, 211. but tho. aquinas hath dealt worse with st. cyril, fathering a treasure upon him which he never owned, beyond all tolerable defence. to the grecians st. cyril is brought in speaking thus: christ did commit a full and ample power both to peter and his successors— the apostles in the gospels and epistles have affirmed (in every doctrine) peter and his church to be instead of god; and to him, even to peter, all do bow by the law of god, and the princes of the world are obedient to him, even as to the lord jesus; and we as being members must cleave unto our head, the pope and apostolic see, etc. now either st. cyril said thus, or not: if he did; who will believe him, that shall make such stories, and father them upon every doctrine in the new testament, contrary to common sense, and the knowledge of all; or trust his cause to the interpretation of such fathers. but if this book called st. cyril's treasure, be none of st. cyril's, as certainly it is not; then though i am provoked, i shall say no more; but that we should weigh the reasons, but not the authority of such a schoolman, especially in his master's cause. 'tis certain, the words are not to be found in those parts of cyril's treasure, which are extant, as hart acknowledgeth to dr. raynolds. yet the abuse of single fathers is not so heinous ibid. a thing, as thomas committed against 600 bishops even the general council of chalcedon, when he saith they decreed thus. if any bishop be accused let him appeal freely to the pope of rome, because we have peter for a rock of refuge; and he alone hath right with freedom of power, in the stead of god, to judge and try the crime of a bishop, according to the keys which the lord did give him; calling the pope the holy apostolic and universal patriarch of the whole world. now in that council there is not a word of all this; and they answer, heretics have razed it out, if you will believe it, but neither surius nor caranza find any thing wanting. i shall only make this note, that seeing the fathers have been so long in the hands of those men that stick at nothing that may advance the power of their master: 'tis no wonder that their learned adversaries are unwilling to trust their cause with such judges, but rather appeal to the true canon and call for scripture. one would think this were enough: but this opinion of the equality of power among the apostles, was not only the concurrent judgement of the ancients, but even of learned later men in the church of rome even from these words, tues petrus etc. upon unanswerable reason. lyra, on matth. 16. durand a st. porciano in 4 cent. dist. 18. q. 2. both in the 14 cent. and abulensis in the in matth. 18. q. 7. in matth. 20. q. 83, 84. 15 cent. the latter argues earnestly, that none of the apostles did understand those words of christ, to give any supremacy to peter; for afterwards they contended for superiority, matth. 18. and after that the two sons of zebedee desire it, matth. 20. and at the last supper the question is put again, luke 22. therefore he concludes, they thought themselves equal till christ's death, when they knew not which of them should be greatest. cusanus his contemporary the concord. cath. l. 2. c. 13. and 34. and fran. victoria. this was the interpretation of all the doctors of paris, bin. conc. an. 1549. and of adulphus archbishop of cologne, and of the bishops of his province; the decrees of whose synod, with this interpretation, were ratified in every point by charles the fifth, and enjoined to be observed. thus the chief ground of st. peter's supremacy is sunk, and there is little hopes that any other text will hold up that weighty super-structure. another scripture much insisted on for the 3. joh. 21. 14, etc. support of st. peter's supremacy, is joh. 21. 14, 15, 16. peter lovest thou me, feed my sheep, feed my lambs: wherein is committed to peter the power of the whole church. 'tis answered, this text gives not any commission ans. or power to st. peter; it gives him charge and commandment to execute his commission received before. now it hath appeared sufficiently, that the commission was given equally to all the apostles in those words; as my father sent me, so send i you, etc. so that the power of feeding, and the duty of pastors was alike to them all; though this charge was given to peter by name here, with so many items perhaps intimating his repeated prevarications; yet were they all sent, and all charged with a larger province than these words to peter import: teach all nations, preach the gospel to every creature; are our saviour's charge to them all. in the apostolic power all were equal (saith obj. hart) not in the pastoral charge. we answer with a distinction (allowed by ans. stapleton) of the name pastor; 'tis special and distinct from apostle: some apostles— some eph. 4. pastors; or general and common to all commissioned to preach the gospel: so christ is called pastor, and all the apostles were pastors as well as peter. but st. peter was the pastor over the rest; for obj. he is charged to feed all the sheep, the whole church: now the rest of the apostles were christ's sheep, and members of his church. hart and ray. p 129. christ saith not to peter, feed (all) my sheep, ans. but he doth say to them all preach— to every creature: and if peter have power over the rest, because they are sheep, and he is to feed the sheep; then every one of the rest have power over peter because he is a creature, and they are to preach to every creature. but this is trifling, so is all that is further argued from this text; though by feeding we understand ruling, ruling of pastors, or what you will; while whatsoever was charged on peter here, is within the same commission, wherein peter and all the rest of the apostles are equally impowered as before; and that of bellarmine, [that peter was to feed the sheep as ordinary pastor; the apostles as extraordinary ambassadors] is altogether as groundless; as if there were any colour of reason, that an ordinary pastor should have more power than an extraordinary ambassador. dr. hammond observes, bellarmine was not 13 oct. 1562. the author of that artifice; cajetan and victoria had used it before him; and obtained it the honour of coming into the council of trent; where the bishop of granada derided it, and the authors of it; and soon after the bishop of paris expressly affirmed, that cajetan was (about 50 years before) the first deviser of it. the bishop of granada confutes it by scripture, as understood by all the fathers and schoolmen; as he affirmed. concord. cathol. l. 1. c. 11. to conclude this matter, feed my sheep, are not a ground for the pope's presidency; which are found not to be so of peter's, above the body of the universal church; as was publicly pronounced in the covent of the friar's minors, and appears by the opusc. of john patriarch of antioch: and cardinal cusanus who lived at the same de conc. cath. l. 2. c. 23. time, makes them words of precept not of institution; and both are agreeable to the interpretation of the ancients. st. ambrose de dign. sacerd. c. 2. aug. de ago. christiano c. 30. theoph. in joh. c. 21, etc. it is time to look further. the third great luk. 22. 31 place of argument is luk. 22. 31. thou being converted, strengthen thy brethren. whence hart reasons thus: christ commands peter to strengthen rain. and hart. p. 142. his brethren; and his brethren were the apostles: therefore he was to strengthen the apostles, and by consequence he must be their supreme head. when hart urged this argument, with all ans. his wit and might; and dr. raynolds had made it evident, there is no authority given by the words; nor carried in the word strengthen, that equals and inferiors are capable of it as well as superiors: (much less can it necessarily imply a supremacy over the whole church; he confesseth with stapleton, that christ gave the power to peter after his resurrection, when he said to him, feed my lambs; (which we have weighed before) but those words of (strengthening, etc.) he spoke before his death, and did but (futuram insinuaverat) insinuate therein; and as heart's word is, that he would make him supreme head; then if he did not make him so afterward, he did it not at all. that peter had power over the rest of the 4 scrip. apostles, would be proved, as before; from the promise and commission of christ, so at last by act. 1. 25. peter's execution; he proposed the election of a new apostle in the room of judas. therefore he was speaker (at lest pro tempore) ans. in the assembly; but not a prince or supreme monarch. but st. chrysostom saith, that though peter's obj. modesty was commendable for doing all things in matth. 40. 51. by common advice and consent, and nothing by his own authority; yet addeth, that no doubt it was lawful for peter to have chosen mathias himself. yet the same father calls this seat given him ans. in matth. hom. 15. by the rest, a primacy, not a supremacy: again he derives this primacy from the modesty of the apostles, (not the donation of christ) as hart rain. hart. p. 156. confesseth. but indeed the father exceeded in his charity; and 'tis he that said that peter might have chosen one himself: the scripture saith not that he might; yea it saith he did not. and the argument from peter's execution of this power is come to this, that he did not execute it. besides, many fathers and in council too; together with st. cyprian, pronounce; that peter proposing the matter, to the end it might be carried by common advice and voice, did according to the lessons and precepts of god; therefore, jure divino, they thought peter had no such power as dr. raynolds shows. p. 159. but when peter had been heard, all the multitude 5 scrip. act. 15. held their peace; and james and all the elders did agree unto peter's sentence. what is this to prove his supremacy? because ans. the council having heard gamaliel agreed to him, was therefore gamaliel (a pharisee, a doctor of the law, whom all the people honoured) supreme act. 3. 34. head, and superior to the highpriest and council? and if jerom say, peter was princeps decreti, he acknowledged perhaps the reason, the motion, and the delivery or declaration of it, principally to peter, the first author of the sentence, as the same jerom calls him; and explains himself epist. 11. inter epistol. august. so was pro cor. balbo. tully called, viz. prince of decrees, when he was neither precedent nor prince of the senate. we conclude, that peter had no superiority of power or government over the rest of the apostles, or the whole church; because it neither was promised him, nor given him, nor peter added, nihil doctrinae aut potestatis aquinas. not inferior to the chief apost. 2 cor. 11. 5. executed by him; notwithstanding bellarmine's 28 prerogatives of st. peter; from which i presume none can be so hardy as to venture to argue: many of them being uncertain; some vain and trifling, and some common with the rest of the apostles; but neither divisim or conjunctim sufficient to make, or to evince any real supremacy of power in st. peter. 5. 'tis indeed, said, by some of the fathers; so paul judged. chris. hom. 12. 2. & 87. that the government of the world, and the care of the whole church was committed to peter: but it is plain they speak of his apostleship; for they say the same of paul; ille solusgerebat, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 & orbis praefectam suscepit; and the like, of timothy; who was never reputed universal monarch: paul and peter had two different primacies (saint hom. 1. ad pop. orat. 6. con. jud. ambr.) had the same dignity; (chrisost.) were equal.) oecumenius. chap. xxi. of the pope's succession. i have laboured the more to scatter the pretences of saint peter's supremacy; because (though the consequence be not good from that to the popes, yet) 'tis a demonstration; that if saint peter had it not, the pope cannot have it, as his successor, jure divino. we must leave saint peter's supremacy, to stand or fall to the reason of the discourse before; and must now examine the plea of successor; and the pope's authority over the church, as he is successor to saint peter. now, that it may appear we love not quarrelling; we shall not dispute; whether peter was a bishop of a particular see? whether he was ever at rome? whether rome was at first converted by him? whether he was bishop of rome? whether he resided there for any considerable time? whether he died there? whether the pope had any honour as his successor? or lastly, whether the pope had the primacy of all bishops in the former ages of the church? 'tis well known, that few adversaries would let you run away quietly, with all or any one of these. yet there are two things, that i shrewdly question1. whether the pope had at first the primacy itself, as successor of saint peter. 2. much more, whether by that succession, he received supreme power over the whole church, jure divino; the main point to be proved, is the last: yet it may be worth the while, to examine the first. sect. i. whether the primacy of peter, descended to the bishops of rome? neg. it doth not appear, that saint peter had his peter primate. primacy, over the rest of the apostles, as bishop, much less as bishop of rome; but the contrary doth appear. 1. because he was primate, long before he reas. 1 was bishop, if he was so, at all; and therefore, before. if he was primate, ratione muneris, or with respect to any office; it was that, of his apostleship, and not of his episcopacy; the consequence, then, is evident, that the pope could not succeed saint peter, in the primacy, as bishop of rome; or indeed in any sense; for the apostolical office was extraordinary; and did not descend by succession, as the romanists yield. that, saint peter was primate, not as bishop, not as bishop. but was antecedently so; it is most apparent upon the grounds of it allowed and pleaded by our adversaries; because he was first called to the apostleship, he was named, the first of the apostles; he had the first promise of the keys; he was the first converter of the gentiles, etc. privilegium personale, cum persona extinguitur. jesuit salas. 2. indeed, the primacy of saint peter arose reas. 2 on personal respects. from such personal respects and grounds, that rendered it incapable of succession; and therefore, none could derive that prerogative, though they had succeeded him both as bishop and apostle. these prerogatives of saint peter, which bellarmine himself lays down as the grounds and arguments of his primacy, are generally such, at least, all of them that appear in the scriptures; all of them but such, as either beg the question or depend on notorious fables: as appears at first view. 1. saint peter was primate, because his name 21 prerogatives. bell. was changed by christ. 2. because, he was always first named. 3. he alone walked on the waters. 4. he had peculiar revelation. 5. he paid tribute with christ. 6. he was the chief in the miraculous fishing. 7. he is commanded to strengthen his brethren. 8. he was the first of the apostles, that saw christ risen from the dead. 9 his feet christ first washed. 10. christ foretold his death, to him alone. 11. he was precedent at the election of mathias. 12. he first preached after the holy ghost was given. 13. he did the first miracle. 14. he condemned the hypocrisy of ananias, etc. 15. he passed through all quarters, acts 9 32. 16. he first preached to the gentiles. 17. he was miraculously delivered out of prison. 18. paul envied him. 19 christ baptised him alone. 20. he detected and condemned simon magus. 21. he spoke first in the council, acts 15. these are 21 of the prerogatives of saint peter, which bellarmine makes grounds and arguments of his primacy; which, if one say them over, and endeavour to apply them to any but saint peter's (individual) person, it will appear impossible; the reasons of this primacy, cannot be supposed out of peter's person; therefore argum. the primacy cannot pass to his successor: mark them, and you will find they are all either acts done by saint peter, or graces received by him; and so personally in him, that, whatsoever depends on them, must needs die with saint peter's person, and cannot be inherited by his successor. indeed, this primacy risen of such grounds; and was in saint peter by consequence of them; had the primacy been an office, or a grace given, of or in or for itself, without respect to any of these grounds, there had been some shadow (and but a shadow) for its succession: but it having an essential dependence on those reasons which were peculiar and proper to saint peter's person, they cease together. but, lest it should be thought, that there is other seven prerog. bell. more of argument in the other seven prerogatives which bellarmine mentioned; i beg my readers pardon, to set down them also: the first is, perpetual stability is promised to peter and his see. 2. he alone, was ordained bishop by christ, and the rest by him. card cusan believes aneclet. epis. bellarmine proves it counterfeit, c. 34. p. 771. azorius. suarez. and cosm. ph. deny it (these plainly beg the thing in question.) 3. he placed his seat at rome. 4. christ appeared to him, a little before he died; therefore primate? and his successor too? 5. the churches which he founded, were always counted patriarchal. 6. the feast of his chair was celebrated. 7. and his name added to the name of the trinity, in literis formatis: what then, was he not yet primate before all this? was not his primacy founded upon the reasons above? will you say, he was not primate; or by virtue of his primacy was not precedent in the two councils mentioned? and, if that be more than confessed, (even pleaded by you) must not the former personal respects, be the grounds of that primacy? and is it possible for such a primacy, by succession, to descend to any other person? none, that consider, will say it. the fathers acknowledge a primacy in saint fathers. peter; but upon such personal grounds▪ as are mentioned. saint peter was called a rock (saith serm. 47. saint ambrose (if the book he his) eò quòd primus in nationibus, etc. because he was the first that laid the foundation of faith in the world. cerameus gives him likewise, primus aditus aedificationis spiritualis. christianorum pontifex primus, petrus; & reliquorum apostolorum princeps, propter virtutis euseb. amplitudinem: he was prince, for the greatness of his virtue. virtue, is a personal gift, and cannot pass by succession. saint chrisostom indeed, is urged against us— object. curam, tum petro, tum petri successoribus committebat. lib. 2. de sacerdotio. 'tis granted, peter had his successors in time answ. and place; and that's all the words, (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to be rendered those which followed him) will conclude. however, admit the bishop of rome, did succeed saint peter in his care, as the word is; doth it follow, that he succeeded him in his primacy? which hath appeared not capable of succession. application of sect. 1. therefore, i conclude, that whatsoever inference. primacy the bishop of rome obtained in the ancient church, it was not the primacy of saint peter; or, as he was successor of saint peter in his primacy; but he obtained it, upon other grounds, not those antecedent in saint peter; but such as arose afterwards, and were peculiar to the church of rome. a note as easy to be observed by such as look into the practice of the ancient church; as of great caution and use in this controversy. the grounds are known to be such as these; because rome was the imperial city; because the church of rome was then most famous for the christian faith; because, she was the most noted seat of true tradition; because her bishops were most eminent for piety, learning, and a charitable care for other churches: and lastly, perhaps, because saint peter had been bishop there, his memory might deflect some honour, at least, by way of motive, on the bishop of rome; as the council of sardica moveth; if it please you let us honour the memory of saint peter: but, though the memory of saint peter might be used, as an argument of the pope's priority; 'tis far from concluding his inheriting saint peter's primacy; though he had honour by being his successor. 2. it further follows, that the primacy of inference. primacy not jure divino. that see heretofore, was not jure divino, but from the civility of the world; and the courtesy of princes; and the gratitude of the church. indeed, this primacy was not an office, but an honour; and that honour, was not given by any solemn grant of god or man; but seems to have gained upon the world insensibly, and by degrees, till it became a custom, as the council of nice, intimates. 3, lastly, it follows, that this primacy, was inference; not in succeeding popes. not derived to the succeeding bishops of rome; it standing upon such temporary grounds, as too soon, failed: for, when that, which was the cause of it, ceased; no wonder, if the honour was denied. when the faith of the see was turned to infidelity, and blasphemy, and atheism, and sorcery (as their own men say) when their piety was turned into such villainies of pride, simony, uncleaness, and monstrous lawdness, (as themselves report) when their care and vigilance was turned into methods of wasting and destroying the churches; when the exordium vnitatis was turned into a head of schism and division; no wonder that the primacy and honour of the see of rome, which was raised and stood upon the contrary grounds, was at length discovered to be groundless; and the former primacy which stood on courtesy, and was exalted by an usurped supremacy and tyranny, was thrown off by us; and our ancient liberty is repossessed, and the glory of rome is so far departed. sect. ii. whether the pope be supreme as successor of peter, by divine right? neg. not primate as such. peter himself not supreme. pope not succeed him at all. this is the last refuge, and the meaning of it is; that our saviour made st. peter universal monarch of the whole church, and intended the pope of rome should succeed him in that power. all possible defence herein, hath been prevented: for if the bishop of rome did not succeed him in his primacy, how should he succeed him in his supremacy? again, if st. peter had no such supremacy, as hath appeared, how should the pope receive it as his successor? besides, what ever power st. peter had, it doth no way appear that the pope should succeed him in it; much less in our saviour's intention, or by divine right. however, let us try their colours. will they maintain it, that christ appointed the bishops of rome to succeed st. peter in so great a power? the claim is considerable, the whole world in all ages is concerned; none could give this privilege of succession, but the giver of the power. but where did he do it? where or how, when or by whom was it expressed? should not the grant of so great an empire, wherein all are so highly concerned, especially when it is disputed and pretended, be produced? instead of plain proof we are put off with obscure and vanishing shadows, such as follow. sect. iii. arg. 1. peter assigned it. instead of proving that christ did, they say arg. 1 that st. peter when he died, bestowed the supremacy upon the bishops of rome, in words to this effect; as hart expresseth them. i ordain this clement to be your bishop; unto whom alone i commit the chair of my preaching and doctrine; and i give to him that power of binding and losing, which christ gave to me. and what then? (i ordain) than he had it ans. not, as peter's successor by divine right, but as a gift and legacy of st. peter. 2. (this clement) a foul blot to the story: for it's plain in records, that linus continued bishop eleven years after peter's death; and cletus twelve after linus; before clemens had the chair. [your bishop] euseb. in chron. that is the bishop of rome; what's this to the universal bishop? [and i give to him] what? the chair of preaching and doctrine, and the power of the keys. viz. no more than is given to every bishop at his ordination. now 'tis observable, though this pitiful story signify vid. raynolds and hart. p. 269 etc. just nothing; yet what strange arts and stretches of invention are forced to support it, and to render it possible though all in vain. sect. iv arg. 2. bishop of antioch did not succeed: ergo of rome. bellarmine argues more subtly, yet supposeth arg. 2 more strongly than he argues. pontifex romanus, the highpriest of rome, succeeded st. peter (dying at rome) in his whole dignity and power; for there was never any that affirmed himself to be st. peter's successor any way, or was accounted for such; besides the bishop of rome and the bishop of antioch: but the bishop of antioch did not succeed st. peter in pontificatu ecclesiae totius; therefore the bishop of rome did. he supposeth that st. peter's successor succeeded ans. him in all his dignity and power; but 'tis acknowledged by his friends, there was no succession of the apostolic, but only of the episcopal power. 2. if so, then linus, cletus, and clemens, should have had dignity and power over john, and the other apostles; (who lived after st. peter) as their pastor and head; according to their own way of arguing. 3. besides, st. peter had power of casting out of devils, etc. and doing such miracles as the pope pretends not to do. lastly, what if the pope affirms that he is, and others account him to be st. peter's successor; the point requires the truth thereof to be shown, jure divino. sect. v arg. 3. st. peter died at rome. then de facto, not the fide. bellarmine saith, the succession itself is jure arg. 3 divino; but the ratio successionis arose out of the fact of st. peter (planting his see and dying at rome;) and not from christ's first institution: then doubts (quamvis non sit etc.) whether this succession be so according to his own position, fortè non est de jure divino; but neither shows the succession itself to be christ's institution at all; nor proves the tradition of peter, on which he seems to lay his stress; and we may guests why he doth not. in short, if the succession of the bishop of rome ans. be of faith; 'tis so either in jure or in facto: but neither is proved. yea the contrary is acknowledged by bellarmine himself. not in right because that is not certo divinum, as bellarmine confesseth: nor in fact, because before peter's death, which introduced no change in the faith, as bellarmine also confesseth, this succession was not of faith. indeed it is well observed, that the whole weight of bellarmine's reasoning, is founded in fact; (then where is the jus divinum?) 2. in such fact (of peter) as is not found in scripture, or can be proved any way. 3. in such fact as cannot constitute a right either divine or humane. 4. in such fact as cannot conclude a right, in the sense of the most learned romanists. scot in 4. dist. 24. cordubensis lib. 4. qu. 1. cajetan de prim. pap. c. 23. bannes in 2. 2. q. 1. a. 10. who contend, that the union of the bishopric of the city and the world, is only per accidens, and not jure divine, vel imperio christi. but when the uncertainty of that fact (on which the right of foe great and vast an empire is raised) is considered; what further answer can be expected? for is it not uncertain whether peter were ever at rome? or whether he was ever bishop of rome? or whether he died at rome? or whether christ called him back that he might die at rome? or whether he ordained clement to succeed him at rome? indeed there is little else certain about the matter but this; that peter did not derive to him that succeeded him, and his successors for ever, his whole dignity and power; and a greater authority than he had himself, jure divino. but if we allow all the uncertainties mentioned, to be most certain; we need not fear to look the argument, with all its attendants and strength, in the face. peter was bishop of rome, was warned by christ immediately to place his seat at rome, to stay and die at rome; and before he died, he appointed one to succeed him in his bishopric at rome: therefore the bishops of rome successively are universal pastors, and have supreme power over the whole church jure divino. is not the cause rendered suspicious by such arguments? and indeed desperate, that needs them, and has no better? sect. vi arg. 4. councils, popes, fathers. bellarmine tells us boldly, that the primacy arg. of the roman highpriest, is proved out of the councils; the testimonies of popes, by the consent of the fathers, both greek and latin. these great words are no arguments; the matter hath been examined under all these topics, ans. and not one of them proves a supremacy of power over the whole church to have been anciently in the pope, much less from the beginning and jure divino; especially when st. augustine and the greek fathers directly opposed it as an usurpation. a primacy of order is not in the question; though that also was obtained by the ancient popes, only more humano; and on temporary reasons as hath before appeared. but as a learned man saith, the primacy of a monarchical power in the bishop of rome, was never affirmed by any ancient council, or by any one of the ancient fathers, or so much as dreamt of; and at what time afterwards the pope took upon him to be a monarch; it should be inquired qno jure, by what right he did so: whether by divine, humane, or altogether by his own, i. e. no right at all. sect. vii. arg. 5. the prevention of schism. st. jerom. a primacy was given to peter for preventing ar. 5. schism, as st. hierom saith: now hence they urge, that a mere precedency of order is not sufficient for that. the inference is not divine; it is not st. hieroms; ans. it is only for st. peter and reacheth not the pope: besides it plainly argues a mistake of lib. 1. jou. c. 14. st. jerom's assertion, and would force him to a contradiction. for immediately before; he teacheth, that the church is built equally on all the apostles, and that they all receive the keys, and that the firmness of the church is equally grounded on them all; so that what primacy he meant, it consisted with equality, as monarchy cannot. therefore st. hierom more plainly in another epis. ad evagr. place, affirms; that wherever there is a bishop, whether at rome, constantinople, etc. ejusdem meriti est, ejusdem est & sacerdotii. again, 'tis neither riches nor poverty which makes bishops higher or lower, but they are all the apostles successors. sect. viii. arg. 6. church committed to him. st. chrysostom saith, the care of the church ar. 6. was committed, as to peter, so to his successors. (tum petro, tum etc.) therefore the bishops of rome being successors of st. peter in that chair; have the care, and consequently the power committed to them, which was committed to peter. true, the care and power of a bishop, not ans. of an apostle or universal monarch; the commission of all other bishops, carried care and power also. but indeed, this place proves not so much as that the pope is peter's successor in either; much less jure divino, which was the thing to be proved: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, those which followed in time and place, not otherwise; as before. sect. ix. arg. 7. one chair. optatus, cyprian, ambrose, acacius. there is one chair (saith optatus) quae prima arg. 7 est de dotibus; in which peter sat first; linus succeeded him; and clemens, linus. optatus speaks nothing against the title or power of other chairs; or for the pre-eminence of power in this one chair above the rest. he intended not to exclude the other apostolical seats from the honour or power of chairs: for he saith as well that james sat at jerusalem, and john at ephesus; as that peter sat at rome, which tertullian calls apostolicas cathedras; all presiding in their own places. de praescrip. c. 36. 'tis most evident, that optatus calls the chair of peter one, not because of any superiority over other apostolical chairs; but because of the unity of the catholic church, in opposition to the donatists; who set up another chair in opposiion (altar contra altar) to the catholic church. bellarmine well observes, that optatus followed the doctrine of st. cyprian, who said, there is but one church, one chair, etc. and out of st. cyprian himself, his meaning therein is manifest cyprian. to be no other, than a specifical, not numerical unity. he tells us plainly in the same place, that the other apostles were the same with peter, equal in honour and power: he teacheth that the one bishopric is dispersed— consisting of the unanimous multitude of many bishops; that the bishopric is but one; a portion whereof is wholly and fully head of every bishop: so there ought to be but one bishop in the catholic church, i. e. all bishops ought to be one in faith and fellowship. vid. cypr. de vnit. eccles. & lib. 3. epis. 11. but is it not prodigious, that men should build the pope's dominion, upon the doctrine of saint cyprian and optatus? the latter tells us roundly; that whosoever is without (the communion of) seven churches of asia, is an alien; in effect, calling the pope infidel; and saint cyprian, is well known to have always styled pope cornelius, brother; to have severely censured his successor pope stephen, contradicting his decrees; opposing the roman councils; disclaiming the pope's power of appeals, and contemning his excommunications. a council at afric under saint cyprian; as another, wherein saint augustine sat, rejected and condemned the jurisdiction of the pope over them; as is frequently observed; and why do men endeavour to blind the world with a few words of these great father's contrary to the known language of their actions and course of life. the sense of the words may be disputed, but when it came to a trial, their deeds are known to have showed their mind, beyond all dispute. for instance, ambrose calls pope damascus' ambr. rector of the whole church: yet 'tis known that he would never yield his senses to the law of rome about easter, lib. 3. de sacr. c. 1. for which, the church of milan, was called the church of ambrose 670 years after his death, when the clergy of milan withstood the legate of leo 9 saying, the church of ambrose had been always free, and never yet subject to the laws of the pope of rome; as baron. notes, an. 1059. nu. 46. many other airy titles and courtly addresses given to the pope in the writings of the fathers, we have observed before, to carry some colour for a primacy of order; but no wise man can imagine, that, they are an evidence or ground, much less a formal grant of universal dominion: seeing, scarce one of them, but is, in some of the fathers; and usually by the same fathers, given, as well to the other apostles, and to other bishops, as to peter and the pope; and so unfortunate is bellarmine in his instances, that usually, the very same place carries its confutation. it is strange, that so great a wit should so egregiously bewray itself; to bring in acacius, bishop of constantinople, submitting, as it were, the eastern church to the see of rome; because, in his epistle to pope simplicius, he tells him, he hath the care of all the churches: for, what one bishop of those times could have been worse pitched upon for his purpose? who, ever opposed himself more fiercely against the jurisdiction of the pope than acacius? who, more boldly rejected his commands than this patriarch? or stands in greater opposition to rome in all history? yet acacius must be the instance of an eastern patriarch's recognition of the an. 478 n. 3. an. 483. n. 78. an. 484. n. 17. as they say. see of rome. acacius, phrenesi abreptus (as baronius hath it) adversus rom. pontificem violenter insurgit. acacius, that received those whom the pope damned. acacius, excommunicated by the pope; and the very head of the eastern schism; this is the man that must witness the pope's supremacy against himself, and his own▪ and his churches famous cause: and this, by saying in a letter to the pope himself, that he had the care of all churches; a title given to saint paul in the days of peter; to athanasius, in the time of pope julius; to the bishops of france, in time of pope elutherius; and to zecharias an archbishop, by pope john the first; but conferred no monarchy upon any of them. i do not remember, that i have yet mentioned the titles of summus pontifex, and pontifex sum. & max. pontifex. maximus; which are also said to carry the pope's supremacy in them; but it is impossible any wise man can think so. azor. (jesuit) acknowledgeth these terms, may have a negative sense only: and baronius saith, they do admit equality. in this sense, pope clemens called saint james, bishop of bishops; and pope epis. 8● leo, styled all bishops, summos pontifices; and the bishops of the east write to the patriarch of constantinople under the title of universal patriarch, and call themselves chief priests. epist. ad tharasiam, etc. sect. x. the conclusion touching the fathers. reasons why no more of them. a challenge touching them. no consent of fathers in the point. evident in general councils. reasons of it. rome ' s contradiction of faith. pope, schism, perjury, etc. i was almost tempted, to have gone through, with a particular examination of all the titles and phrases, which bellarmine hath with too much vanity, gathered out of the fathers both greek and latin, on behalf of the pope's supremacy: but, considering, they are most of them very frivolous and impertinent; and that i conceive i have not omitted any one that can be soberly thought material; and, that all of them have been frequently answered by learned protestants; and very few of them (so answered) thought fit to be replied to by our adversaries; i thought it prudent, to excuse that very needless exercise; and i hope none will account me blame-worthy for it: but, if any do so, i offer compensation, by this humble challenge upon mature deliberation. if any one, or more places, in any of the a challenge. ancient fathers, greek or latin, shall be chosen, by any sober adversary; and argued from, as evidence of the pope's supremacy, as successor to saint peter; god giving me life and health, i shall appear and undertake the combat, with weapons extant, in our english writers; though they may not think, that one or two, or more passages out of single fathers are sufficient, to bear away the cause in so great a point: seeing, they themselves, will not suffer the testimony of many of the same fathers, to carry it for us, in a point of the least concernment. in the mean time, i most confidently conclude; that the pope's supremacy hath not the consent of the primitive fathers; as bellarmine boasts; and that, what ever he would have them say; they did not believe, and therefore not intent to say; that, the pope was absolute monarch of the catholic church: and consequently, that there was no such tradition in the primitive ages; either before, or during the time of the eight first general councils; is to me, a demonstration, evident, for these reasons. the eight first general councils, being all reas. 1 called and convened by the authority of emperors, stand upon record, as a notable monument of the former ages of the catholic church; in prejudice to the papal monarchy, as saint peter's successor, in those times; the first eight general councils (saith cusanus) were gathered, concord. cathol. l. 2. c. 25. by authority of emperors, and not of popes: insomuch that pope leo, was glad to entreat the emperor theodosius the younger, for the gathering of a council in italy, and (non obtinuit) could not obtain it. every one of these councils opposed this pretended reas. 2 monarchy of the pope: the first by stating the limits of the roman diocese; as well as other patriarchates: the second, by concluding, the roman primacy not to be grounded upon divine authority; and setting up a patriarch of constantinople, against the pope's will: the third, by inhibiting any bishop whatsoever, to ordain bishops, within the isse of cyprus: the fourth, by advancing the bishop of constantinople, to equal privileges, with the bishop of rome; notwithstanding the pope's earnest opposition against it: the fifth, in condemning the sentence of pope vigilius although very vehement in the cause: the sixth and seventh, in condemning pope honorius of heresy: and the eight and last, by imposing a canon upon the church of rome, and challenging obedience thereunto. this must pass for the unquestionable sense reas. 3 of the catholic church, in those ages, viz. for the space of above 540 years together, from the first general council of nice: for our adversaries themselves, style every one of the general councils the catholic church; and what was their belief, was the faith of the whole church; and what their belief was, hath appeared; viz. that the pope had not absolute power over the church jure divino; an opinion abhorred by their contrary sentences and practices. 'tis observed by a learned man, that the reas. 4 fathers, which flourished in all those eight councils, were in number 2280. how few friends 2280 fathers. had the pope left to equal and countermand them? or, what authority had they to do it? yea name one eminent father, either greek or latin, that you count a friend to the pope, and in those ages; whose name we cannot show you in one of those councils: if so, hear the church; the judgement of single fathers is not to be received, against their joint sentences and acts, in councils; 'tis your own law: now, where is the argument for the pope's authority from the fathers? they are not to be believed against councils: they spoke their sense in this very point, as you have heard, in the councils; and in all the councils rejected and condemned it. the belief of these eight general councils reas. 5 is the professed faith of the roman church: therefore, the roman church hath been involved rome's contradiction of faith. and entangled, at least ever since the council of trent, in the confusion and contradiction of faith; and that in points necessary to salvation. for the roman church hold it necessary to salvation, to believe all the eight general councils; as the very faith of the catholic church; and we have found all these councils, have one way or other, declared plainly, against the pope's bull. pii. 4. supremacy; and yet the same church holds it necessary to salvation to believe the contrary, by the council of trent; viz. that the pope is supreme bishop and absolute monarch of the catholic church. some adversaries would deal more severely rome's heresy. with the church of rome upon this point; and charge her with heresy in this, as well as in many other articles: for there is a repugnancy in the roman faith, that seems to inter no less than heresy, one way or other: he that believes the article of the pope's supremacy, denies, in effect, the eight first general councils, at least in that point; and that's heresy. and, he that believes the council of trent; believes the article of the pope's supremacy: therefore, he that believes the council of trent, does not believe the eight first general councils; and is guilty of heresy. again, he that believes, that the pope is not supreme, denies the council of trent, and the faith of the present church, and that's heresy; and he that believes the eight first general councils, believes that the pope is not supreme: therefore, he denies the council of trent, and the faith of the present church, and is an heretic, with a witness. 'tis well if the argument conclude here; etc. infidelity. and extend not its consequence to the charge of infidelity, as well as heresy, upon the present roman church: seeing, this repugnancy in the roman faith seems to destroy it, altogether: for, he that believes the pope's supremacy, in the sense of the modern church of rome, denies the faith of the ancient church in that point, and he that believes it not, denies the faith of the present church; and the present church of rome that professeth both, believes neither. these contrary faiths put together, like two contrary salts, mutually destroy one another. he that believes that, doth not believe this; he that believes this, doth not believe that: therefore he that professeth to believe both, doth plainly profess he believes neither. load not others with the crimes of heresy and infidelity, but pull the beams out of your own eye. but the charge falls heavier upon the head of pope's schism and perjury. the present roman church: for not only heresy and infidelity, but schism, and the foulest that ever the church groaned under; and such as the greatest wit can hardly distinguish from apostasy; reas. 6 and all aggravated with the horrid crime of direct and self-condemning perjury, fasten themselves to his holiness' chair, from the very constitution of the papacy itself. for the pope as such, professeth to believe, and sweareth to govern the church according to the canons of the 8 first general councils; yet openly greg. 7. bin. to. 3. p. 1196. innoc. 3. bonif. 8. calechis. ro. nu. 10, 11, and 13. claims, and professedly practiseth a power condemned by them all. thus quatenus pope, he stands guilty of separation from the ancient church; and as head of a new and strange church, draws the body of his faction after him into the same schism; in flat contradiction to the essential profession, both of the ancient and present church of rome: and to that solemn oath, by which also the pope as pope, binds himself at his inauguration, to maintain and communicate with. hence, not only usurpation, innovations, and tyranny, are the fruits of his pride, ambition, and perjury; but if possible, the guilt is made more scarlet by his cruelty to souls; intended by his formal courses of excommunications, against all that own not his usurped authority, viz. the primitive churches, the 8 first general councils, all the fathers of the latin and greek churches, for many hundred years; the greater part of the present catholic church, and even the apostles of christ, and our lord himself. the sum of the whole matter. a touch of another treatise. the material cause of separation. the sum of our defence is this: if the pope have no right to govern the church of england, as our apostle or patriarch, or as infallible; if his supremacy over us was never grounded in, but ever renounced by our laws and customs, and the very constitution of the kingdom: if his supremacy be neither of civil, ecclesiastical, or divine right; if it be disowned by the scriptures and fathers, and condemned by the ancient councils; the essential profession of the present roman church, and the solemn oaths of the bishops of rome themselves: if, i say, all be certainly so as hath appeared; what reason remains for the necessity of the church of england's readmission of, or submission to the papal authority, usurped contrary to all this? or what reason is left to charge us with schism for rejecting it? but it remains to be shown; that as the claim of the pope's authority in england cannot be allowed; so there is cause enough otherwise of our denial of obedience actually to it, from reason's inherent in the usurpation itself, and the nature of many things required by his laws. this is the second branch of our defence; proposed at first to be the subject of another treatise. for who can think it necessary to communicate with error, heresy, schism, infidelity and apostasy; to conspire in damning the primitive church, the ancient fathers, general councils, and the better and greater part of the christian world at this day? or willingly at least, to return to the infinite superstitions and idolatries; which we have escaped, and from which our blessed ancestors (through the infinite mercy and providence of god) wonderfully delivered us. yet these horrid things cannot be avoided, if we shall again submit ourselves, and enslave our nation to the pretended powers and laws of rome; from which, libera nos domine. the postscript. objections touching the first general councils, and our arguments from them, answered more fully. sect. i. the argument from councils drawn up, and conclusive of the fathers, and the cath. church. in this treatise i have considered the canons of the ancient councils two ways; as evidence, and law. as evidence, they give us the undoubted sense and faith, both of the catholic church, and of single fathers in those times; and nothing can be said against that. as law, we have plainly found that none of them confer the supremacy pleaded for, but every one of them in special canons condemn it. now this latter is so great a proof of the former, that it admits of no possible reply; except circumstances on the by, shall be set in opposition and contradiction to the plain text in the body of the law. and if neither the church nor single fathers had any such faith of the pope's supremacy, during the first general councils; then neither did they believe it from the beginning: for if it had been the faith of the church before, the councils would not have rejected it, and indeed the very form and method of proceeding in those ancient councils, is sufficient evidence that it was not. however, why is it not shown by some colour of argument at least, that the church did believe the pope's supremacy before the time of those councils? why do we not hear of some one single father, that declared so much before the council of nice, or rather before the canons of the apostles? or why is there no notice taken of such a right, or so much as pretence in the pope, either by those canons or one single father before that time? indeed our authors find very shrewd evidence of the contrary. why (saith casaubon) was dionysins so utterly dionysins. silent, as to the universal head of the church reigning at rome; if at that time there had been any such monarch there? especially seeing he professedly wrote of the ecclesiastical hierarchy and government. exerc. 16. in bar. an. 34. nu. 2●0. the like is observable in ignatius, the most ignatius epist. ad tral. ancient martyr and bishop of antioch; who in his epistles frequently sets forth the order ecclesiastical, and dignity of bishops upon sundry occasions, but never mentions the monarchy of st. peter or the roman pope. ibid. he writing to the church of trallis to obey bishops as apostles, instanceth equally in timothy st. paul's scholar, as in anacletus successor to st. peter. the prudence and fidelity of these two prime fathers, are much stained, if there were then an universal bishop over the whole church; that professedly writing of the ecclesiastical order, they st. paul. should so neglect him, as not to mention obedience due to him; and indeed of st. paul himself, who gives us an enumeration of the primitive ministry, on set purpose, both in the ordinary and extraordinary kinds of it, [viz. some apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers] and takes no notice of the universal bishop; but we hence conclude rather, there was no such thing. for who would give an account of the government of a city, army, or kingdom; and say nothing of the mayor, general, or prince? this surpasseth the fancy of prejudice itself. irenaeus is too ancient for the infallible chair; ireneus lib. 2. c. 3. p. 140, 141. and therefore refers us, in the point of tradition, as well to polycarp in the east, as to linus bishop of rome in the west. tertullian adviseth to consult the mother-churches tertullian praescr. p. 76. immediately founded by the apostles; and names ephesus and corinth as well as rome; and polycarpus ordained by st. john, as well as clemens by peter. upon which their own renanus notes, that tertullian doth not confine the catholic and apostolic church to one place; for which freedom of truth, the judex expurgatorius corrected him, but tertullian is tertullian still. these things cannot consist, either with their own knowledge of an universal bishop, or the churches at that time; therefore the church of egypt held the catholic faith with the chief-priests, naming anatolinus of constant. basil of antioch, juvenal of jerusalem, as well as leo bishop of rome. bin. to. inter epist. illust. person. 147. and it is decreed (saith the church of carthage) we consult our brethren, syricius bishop of rome, and simplicius bishop of milan. concil. carth. 3. c. 48. the like we have observed out of origen, clemens alex. cyprian, etc. before. hence it follows, that the church and the fathers before the councils, had no knowledge of the pope's supremacy, and we have a plain answer to all obscure passages in those fathers to the contrary. besides, whatever private opinion any of them might seem to intimate on the pope's behalf before, 'tis certain it can have no authority against the sense and sentences of general councils, which soon after determined against him, as hath appeared in every one of them, in so express and indisputable terms, in the very body of the canons; that it is beyond all possible hopes to support their cause from any circumstantial arguments touching those councils: yet these also shall now be considered in their order. sect. ii. objections touching the council of nice, answered let us begin with the council of nice, consisting 1. general. of 318 bishops, which is found so plain in two special canons, (the one forbidding appeals, and the other limiting the jurisdiction of the provinces according to custom) against the papal supremacy; that one would think nothing could be objected: but bellarmine will say something that was never said before. he saith, the bishop of alexandria should obj. 1 have those provinces, because the bishop of rome was accustomed to permit him so to do. we have given full answer to this before; but ans. a learned prelate of ours hath rendered it so senseless morton grand impost. p. 132 etc. and shameless a gloss, in so many and evident instances; that i cannot forbear to give the sum of what he hath said, that it may further appear our greatest adversaries are out of their wits, when they pretend a fence against the canons. after the nonsense of it, he shows its impudence against the sunshine light of story and grammar; because it is so evident, that the words [because the bishop of rome hath the same custom] are words of comparison betwixt alexandria and rome, in point of ancient privilege, both from the words [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] and three editions; now entered into the body of the councils by their own binius; wherein the words are, because the church of rome hath the like custom. yet this were modesty, did they not know, saith he, that the council of chalcedon did against the will of the pope, advance the privilege of constantinople, upon this ground of custom? the matter is so plain, that 〈◊〉 own cardinal cusan. concord catho. li. 2. cap. 12. concludes thus; we see how much the bishop of rome, by use and custom of subjectional obedience hath got at this day, beyond the ancient constitutions; speaking of this very council. bellarmine saith, the beginning of that canon in the vulgar books is thus: the roman church obj. 2 semper habet primatum, mos autem perduret. the answer is; 'tis shameful to prefer one ans. vulgar book before all other greek or latin copies; and before the book of the pope's decrees, set out at paris, an. 1559. or the editions sent by two patriarches, on purpose to give satisfaction in this cause; which bellarmine himself acknowledgeth, lib. 2. de rom. pont. c. 13. in none of all which, the word [primacy] is to be found; and consequently is foisted into that vulgar book. but what if it were? the bare primacy is not disputed in the sense given of it by the council of chalcedon; it behoves, that the archbishop of const. (new rome) be dignified with the same primacy of honour after rome: prerogativam dignitatis zozom. l. 7. c. 9 sect. iii. 2. gen. council. objections touching the council of constantinople, answered. next, to the council of constantinople, being 2. general. the second general; let us hear what is objected. they say themselves, saith bellarmine, that obj. 1 they were gathered by the mandate of pope damasus. 1. what then? suppose we should give the ans. pope as the head of unity and order, the honour of convening general councils; and of sitting as precedent in them? what's this to the supremacy of government? or what more than might be contained in the primacy, that is not now disputed. 2. but bellarmine himself confesseth, that those words are not in the epistle of the council as all mandates use to be; but of certain bishops that had been at the council. 3. 'tis recorded, that the mandate from the vid. theod. l. 5. c. 7. zoz. l. 7. c. 7. neeeph. l. 12. emperor gathered them together: the testimony will have credit before the cardinal. 4. indeed the pope sent letters, in order to the calling this conncil, but far from mandatory; neither were they sent to the eastern bishops, to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. require, but to the emperor theodosius by way of request, for the obtaining liberty to assemble a synod. did he command the emperor? why did not pope leo afterwards command a general council in italy nearer home, when he had entreated theodosius for it with much importunity; and could not obtain? the time was not ripe for the pope's commands, either of emperors or synods. it is also said, that the council acknowledged obj. 2 that the church of rome was the head, and they the members, in their very epistle to pope damasus. bellarmine confesseth, this is not in their epistle, ans. but the epistles of the bishops as before. 2. if they had thus complemented the pope, it could not be interpreted beyond the head of a primate and their union with him in the same faith: 'tis evident enough they intended nothing less than a supremacy of power in that head, or subjection of obedience in themselves as members. 3. this is evident in the very inscription of the epistle, which was not to damasus only, but jointly to others, thus. most honourable and reverend brethren and colleagues: and the epistle itself is answerable; we declare ourselves to be your proper members: but how? that you reigning, we may reign with you. 4. the sum is, there were at this time two councils, convened by the same emperor theodosius both to one purpose; this at constantinople, the other at rome: that at rome was but a particular, the other at constantinople was ever esteemed a general council. who now can imagine, that the general was subject to the particular; and in that sense, members? no, the particular church of rome then, was not the catholic; they humbly express their communion: we are all christ's, who is not divided by us; by whose grace we will preserve entire the body of the church. they did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, (as their word was) their fellow members, which they styled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 their fellow workers. this second canon against the pope, was never obj. 3 baron. binius. received by the church of rome; because furtive, as baronius, inter acta relatus. this is beyond all colour; for the bishops of ans. rome opposed it as unfit, yet never said it was forged. leo, gelasius, gregory, all took it very ill, but no one said it was false: the pope's legates also in the council of chalcedon made mention of this canon by way of opposition, but yet never offered at its being surreptitious: but that which is, instar omnium, in this evidence, is this; the fathers of the council of chalcedon, in their letters to pope leo, say, that with mutual consent, they confirmed the canon of 150 bishops at const. notwithstanding that his bishops and legates— did descent therefrom. now what if a few histories do not mention this canon, which is all that remains to be said? socrates and zozomon do, and two positive witnesses are better than twenty negative. besides, though it's much against the hair of rome, yet it's so evident, that gratian himself reports that canon verbatim, as acted in that council. sect. iv objections against the third general council at ephesus, answered. it is said by bellarmine, that they confessed obj. 1 they deposed nestorius, by the command of pope celestine. we answer; that command should appear in ans. 1 the pope's letters to them, but it doth not; the stile of command was not then in use, for almost 200 years after, pope gregory abhors it. li 7. ep. 30. 2. the words intended are these; tum ecclesiae canonibus, tum epistolâ patris (celestini) & verb. conc. de nest. l. 1. c. 4. collegae nostri, compulsi: they were compelled both by the canons and by his letters, therefore they did it by the pope's command; an excellent consequence from the part to the whole. indeed they first show, that they were satisfied both by his words and letters, that he had deserved deposition; and then acknowledge they ought by the canons, and no doubt would have deposed him, as well as john of antioch shortly after, without the pope's authority; though they give this compliment to celestine, for his seasonable advice, grounded upon the canons and merits of the cause. but the council, say they, durst not judge▪ obj. 2 john bishop of antioch; and that they reserved him to the judgement of pope celestine. strange! bellarmine hence 1. denies matter ans. of fact, mentioned in the very same paragraph. they durst not depose this patriarch, when they tell the pope in terminis they had done it: se illum prius excommunicasse & omni potestate sacerdotali exuisse. what is this but deposition? 2. he hence concludes, a wonderful right; that the pope is absolutely above a general council: a conclusion denied by their own general councils of constance and basil, ever disclaimed by the doctors of paris, as contrary to antiquity; and which no council since the beginning of christianity did expressly decree; as dr. stapleton himself confesseth; and therefore flies to silence as consent. quamvis nullo decreto publico tamen tacito doctorum consensu definita etc. doctr. princ. l. 13. c. 15. but all this is evidently against both the sense of the council declared in this point, and the reason of the canon itself. 1. they sufficiently declared their sense in the very epistle alleged, where speaking of the points constituted by the pope; we, say they, have judged them to stand firm: wherofore we agree with you in one sentence, and do hold them (meaning pelagius and others) to be deposed: so that instead of the pope's confirming acts of councils, this council confirms the acts of the pope, whom indeed they plainly call their colleague and fellow-worker. epis. syn. 2. in the acts or canons (their reason and very words, establishing the cyprian privilege, as hath been shown) they bond and determine the power of rome, as well as other patriarchates; and certainly they therefore never intended to acknowledge the absolute monarchy of the pope over themselves, by reserving john of antioch to celestine, after they had deposed him; they declare their own end plainly enough: vilius temeritatem animi lenitate vinceremus; that is, as you have it in binius, celestine might try whether by any reason he could bring him to a better mind, that so he might be received into favour again. sect. v objections touching the fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth general councils especially. touching the fourth general council of chalcedon, answered. conclusion. this council styled the pope, ecumenical patriarch, obj. 1 bellar. or universal bishop. the title was not given by the council itself, but by two deacons writing to the council, and of paschasius the popes legate in the council. 2. though the council did not question the form of the title, yet no one can think that they either intended to grant or acknowledge the pope's universal authority by such their silence: for, 'tis incredible that the same council which gave equal privileges to constantinople, should give or acknowledge an universal jurisdiction to rome, over the whole church. 3. but the words answer themselves; vniversali archiepiscopo magnae romae, universal archbishop, conc. calc. act. 3. not of the whole church, but of great rome: which grand restriction denies that universal power, which they would argue from it●▪ the stile of the roman emperor▪ is universal emperor of rome, and thus is distinguished from the emperor of turkey and all others; and denieth him to be the emperor of the whole world. saith binius, in annot▪ in conc. calced. act 3. ex obj. baron. the title at first was the bishop of the universal church, because it is so read in the epistle of leo; but was altered by some greek scribe in envy to the church of rome. 'tis likely that a private man could or durst ans. alter the style of a general council, against the dignity of the pope, his legate present; but 'tis more likely that▪ some latin scribe hath added that inscription to the epistle of pope leo, in honour of the church of rome; as is confessed by cusanus to have been done to the epistle of anacletus; and by baronius to have been done to the epistle of pope boniface; and by three other popes themselves unto the council of nice, viz. zosimus, boniface, and celestinus. and the rather▪ because as was just now noted, this council at the same time, honoured the bishop of constantinople, with equal privileges to the bishop of rome. pope leo opposed this decree of the council, obj. 3 and disclaimed it. no wonder; but it seems general councils ans. were not always of the pope's mind; and the pope would then have had a greater privilege than a general council; and if that was a general council, as they themselves say it was, the controversy is ended: for by their own confession, this general council made a decree against the pope's pretences of superiority, and therefore it did not intent, by the title of bishop of the whole church, to acknowledge that superiority which he pretended; and that council of 400 bishops denied him. this decree was not lawfully proceeded in, because obj. the legates of the pope were absent. bel. l. 2. de pont. c. 22. the legates were there the next day; and ans. excepted and moved to have the acts of the day before, read. aetius for the council showeth, that the legates knew what was done; all was done cononically: then the acts being read, the pope's legates tell the council, that circumvention was used in making that canon of privileges, and that the bishops were compelled thereunto. the synod with a loud voice cried, jointly, we were not compelled to subscribe. after, every one severally protest, i did subscribe willingly and freely, and the acts are ratified and declared to be just and valid; and wherein say they, we will persist: the legates are instant to have the act revoked, because the apostolical see is humbled or abased; thereto the fathers unanimously answered, the whole synod doth approve it. this clear account we have in bin. in concil. calced. act. 16. p. 134, and 137. bellarmine saith, that the pope approved all the decrees of this council, which were de fide: and doth not bellarmine argue that the pope's superiority is jure divino? and the present church of rome hold, that his supremacy is a point necessary to salvation? how comes it to pass, that he would not approve this decree? or how can they esteem this council general and lawful, and swear to observe the decrees of it, when 'tis found guilty of heresy in so great a point as the pope's primacy? but to end with this, the very title itself of bishop of the universal church, in the stile of those ages, signified certainly neither supremacy nor primacy; universal bishop of the church seemed a dangerous title, importing universal power over it, and was therefore so much abhorred by pope gregory. but the title of bishop of the universal church signified the care of the whole church, to which, as origen saith, every bishop is called: therefore aurelius, fortunatianus, augustine, are called bishops of the universal church, and many in the greek church had the same honourable titles given them; which signified either that they professed the catholic faith, or as bishops, had a general regard to the good of the catholic church. but your own jesuit confesseth, that pelagius azorius. and gregory both popes, have born witness that no bishop of rome before them, did ever use the style of universal bishops. however, universal patriarch makes as great a sound as universal bishop; yet that title was given to john bishop of constantinople, by the bishops of syria. cod. authent. constitu. 3. the custody of the vine, i. e. the whole obj. bell. de pont. l. 2. c. 13. church, the council saith is committed to the pope by god. true, so that primitive pope elutherius said to ans. bin. epist. eleuth. the bishops in france, the whole catholic church is committed to you. st. paul also had the care of all the churches, but that is high which greg. nazian. saith of athanasius; that he having the presidence of the church of alexandria, may be said thereby to have the government of the whole christian world. sai. tom. 16. in 1 pet. 5. now, saith a learned man, we are compelled to ask with what conscience you could make such objections bishop morton. in good earnest, to busy your adversaries and seduce your disciples withal, whereunto you yourselves could so easily make answer. we find no further objection against the other obj. councils, worthy notice: bellarmine argues the pope's supremacy, because the synod of const. being the fifth general council, complemented the pope as his obedient servants; nos (inquit praeses) apostolicam sedem sequimur & obedimus, etc. bell. lib. 2. de pont. c. 13. though this very council both opposed, accused, and condemned the pope for heresy; which could not possibly consist with their acknowledgement of his supremacy or infallibility. the same is more evident, in the sixth, seventh, and eighth general councils, condemning the persons and judgements of, and giving laws to the bishops of rome; to which nothing material can be objected, but what hath been more than answered. binius indeed in his tract de prim. eccl. rom. gives us the sayings of many ancient popes for the supremacy pretended; especially in two points, the power of appeals, challenged by pope anacetus; zepherinus, fabianus, sixtus, and symachus; and exemption of the first see from censure or judgement by any other power; claimed by pope sylvester and gelasius. but these are testimonies of popes themselves in their own cause, and besides both these points have been found so directly and industriously determined otherwise by their own general councils, that further answer is needless. conclusion. thus objections being removed, the argument from the councils settles firm in its full strength; and seeing both the ancient fathers and the catholic church have left us their sense in the said councils; and the sense of the councils is also the received and professed faith of the present church of rome itself; who can deny that the catholic church to this day, hath not only not granted or acknowledged, but even most plainly condemned the pretended supremacy of the bishop of rome: yea who can doubt but our argument against it, is founded upon their own rock, the very constitution of the papacy itself, as before hath appeared? therefore the pope's claim upon this plea, as well as upon any or all the former, is found groundless; and england's deliverance from his foreign jurisdiction, just and honest as well as happy: which our good god in his wise and merciful providence, ever continue, preserve, and prosper. amen, amen. a serious alarm to all sorts of englishmen against popery, from sense and conscience; their oaths and their interest. 1. the kings of england seem bound, not only by their title, but in conscience of their ministry under god, to defend the faith and the church of christ within their dominions, against corruption and invasion, and therefore against popery. they are also bound in honour, interest, and fidelity, to preserve the inheritance and rights of the crown; and to derive them entire to their heirs and successors; and therefore to keep out the papal authority. and lastly, 'tis said they are bound by their oaths at their coronation, and by the laws of nature and government, to maintain the liberties and customs of their people; and to govern them according to the laws of the realm, and consequently not to admit the foreign jurisdiction of the pope, in prejudice of our ancient constitution, our common and ecclesiastical laws, our natural and legal liberties and properties. 2. the nobility of england have anciently held themselves bound, not only▪ in honour, but by their oaths, terras & honores regis etc. to preserve together with the king, the territories and honours of the king, (omni fidelitate ubique) most faithfully; and to defend them against enemies and foreigners, meaning especially the pope of rome. 'tis expressed more fully in their letter to the pope himself, in edw. 1. reign, to defend the inheritance and prerogative of the crown, the state of the realm, the liberties, customs and laws of their progenitors, against all foreign usurpation, (toto posse, totis viribus) to the utmost of their power, and with all their might: adding, we do not permit, or in the least will permit, (sicut nec possum ●● nec debemus) though our sovereign lord the king do, or in the least wise, attempt to do any of the premises, (viz. owning the authority of the pope, by his answer touching his right to scotland) so strange, so unlawful, prejudicial, and otherwise unheard of, though the king would himself. see that famous letter sent to the pope, the 29 of edw. 1. taken out of cor. christi college-library, and printed this year at oxford, the reading of which gave the occasion of these meditations. 3. it appears further, in the sheet where you have that letter; that the commons in parliament have heretofore held themselves bound, to resist the invasion and attempts of the pope, upon england, though the king and the peers should connive at them; their words are resolute, si dominus rex & regni majores hoc vellent (meaning bishop adomers' revocation from banishment upon the pope's order) communitas tamen ipsius ingressum, in angliam nullatenus sustineret. this is said to be recorded about the 44 of hen. 3. 4. it is there observed also, that upon the conquest, william the conqueror made all the freeholders of england to become sworn brethren; sworn to defend the monarchy with their persons and estates to the utmost of their ability; and manfully to preserve it: so that the whole body of the people▪ as well as the lords and commons assembled in parliament, stood anciently bound by their oath, to defend their king and their country against invasion and usurpation. 5. the present constitution of this kingdom, is yet a stronger bulwark against popery: heretofore indeed the papal pretensions were checked, sometimes in temporal, sometimes in spiritual concerns and instances: but upon the reformation, the pope's▪ supremacy was altogether and at once rejected, and thrown out of england; and the consequence is, an universal standing obligation upon the whole kingdom, by statutes, customs, and most solemn oaths, to defend our monarchy, our church, our country, and our posterity, against those encroachments and that thraldom, from which we were then so wonderfully delivered, and, for this hundred years have been so miraculously preserved, blessed be god. accordingly in our present laws, both the temporal and ecclesiastical supremacy is declared to be inherent in the crown; and our kings are sworn to maintain and govern by those laws: and i doubt not but all ministers of the church, and all ministers of state, and of law and war, all mayors and officers in cities and towns corporate etc. together with all the sheriffs and other officers in their several countries; and even all that have received either trust or power from his majesty within the kingdom: all these i say, i suppose are sworn to defend the king's supremacy as it is inconsistent with, and in flat opposition to popery. in the oath of allegiance, we swear to bear true allegiance to the king, and to defend him against all conspiracies and attempts, which shall be made against his person and crown, to the utmost of our power; meaning especially the conspiracies and attempts of papists, as is plain by that which follows in that oath, and yet more plain by the oath of supremacy. in which oath we swear, that the king is the only supreme governor in this realm, as well in all spiritual things and causes, as temporal; and that no foreign prince or prelate, hath or aught to have any jurisdiction ecclesiastical within this realm; and that we do abhor and renounce all such. we swear also, that we will bear faith and true allegiance to the king— and to our power assist and defend all jurisdictions, viz. ecclesiastical as well as temporal, granted or belonging to the king's highness. 6. now next to oaths, nothing can be thought to oblige us more than interest: but if neither oaths nor interest, neither conscience nor nature, neither religion nor self-preservation, can provoke us to our own defence; what remains! but a certain fearful expectation of judgement to devour a perjured and senseless generation. if either our joint or several interests be considerable, how are we all concerned? 1. is there any among us that care for nothing but liberty and money? they should resist popery, which would many ways deprive them of both. 2. but if the knowledge of the truth, if the canon of life in the holy scriptures, if our prayers in our own tongue, if the simplicity of the gospel, the purity of worship and the integrity of sacraments, be things valuable and dear to christians; let them abhor popery. 3. if the ancient privileges of the british church, the independency of her government upon foreign jurisdiction; if their legal incumbencies, their ecclesiastical dignities; if their opportunities and capacities of saving souls in the continuance of their ministries; if their judgement of discretion touching their doctrine and administrations; their judgement of faith, reason, and sense, touching the eucharist; if exemption from unreasonable impositions of strange doctrines, romish customs, groundless traditions, and treasonable oaths: and lastly, if freedom from spiritual tyranny and bloody inquisitions; if all these be of consequence to clergymen, let them oppose popery. 4. if our judges and their several courts of judicature, would preserve their legal proceed, and judgements and decrees; if they would not be controlled and superseded by bulls, sentences and decrees from the pope, and appeals to rome; let them never yield to popery. 5. if the famous nobility and gentry of england would appear like themselves and their heroic ancestors, in the defence of the rights of their country, the laws and customs of the land, the wealth of the people, the liberties of the church, the empire of britain, and the grandeur of their king, or indeed their own honour and estates in a great measure; let them never endure the readmission of popery. 6. yea, let our great ministers of state, and of law, and of war consider, that they stand not firm enough in their high and envied places, if the roman force breaks in upon us; and remember, that had the late bloody and barbarous design taken effect, one consequence of it was, to put their places into other hands: and therefore in this capacity as well as many other, they have no reason to be friends to popery. 7. as for his most excellent majesty, no suspicion either of inclination to, or want of due vigilance against popery, can fasten upon him; and may he long live in the enjoyment, and under a worthy sense of the royalties of monarchy, and the honour and exercise of his natural and legal supremacy, in all causes and over all persons within his dominions, both civil and ecclesiastical, his paternal inheritance of empire; and at last leave it entirely to his heirs and successors upon earth, for a more glorious crown in heaven. and in the mean time, may he defend the faith of christ, his own prerogative, the rights, privileges, and liberties and estates of his people, and the defensive laws and customs of his royal progenitors: and therefore may he ever manage his government, both with power, care and caution, in opposition to the force, and detection and destruction of the hellish arts and traitorous designs and attempts of popery. 8. i conclude, that if the precious things already mentioned, and many more, be in evident danger with the return of popery, let us again consider our oaths as well as our interest; and that we have the bond of god upon our souls; and, as the conqueror's words are, we are jurati fratres, we are sworn to god, our king and country, to preserve and defend the things so endangered, against all foreign invasion and usurpation, i. e. against popery. accordingly, may our excellent king and his councils and ministers; may the peers of the realm, and the commons in parliament; may the nobility and gentry, may the judges and lawyers, may the cities and the country, the church and state, and all ranks and degrees of men amongst us; may we all, under a just sense, both of our interest and our oaths, may we all as one man, with one heart stand up resolved by all means possible to keep out popery; and to subvert all grounds of fear of its return upon england for ever. amen, amen. origen, cont. cells. l. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. it is fit that the governor of the church of each city, should correspond to the governor of those which are in the city. praesumi malam fidem ex antiquiore adversarii possessione. leg. civil. ad transmarina concilia qui putaverint appellandum, a nullo intra africam in communionem recipiantur. concil. milevitan. the oaths of allegiance and supremacy. the oath of allegiance. i a. b. do truly and sincerely acknowledge, profess, testify and declare in my conscience before god and the world, that our sovereign lord king charles is lawful and rightful king of this realm, and of all other his majesty's dominions and countries: and that the pope, neither of himself, nor by any authority of the church or see of rome, or by any other means with any other, hath any power or authority to depose the king, or to dispose any of his majesty's kingdoms or dominions, or to authorise any foreign prince to invade or annoyed him or his countries, or to discharge any of his subjects of their allegiance and obedience to his majesty, or to give licence or leave to any of them to bear arms, raise tumults, or to offer any violence or hurt to his majesty's royal person, state or government, or to any of his majesty's subjects within his majesty's dominions. also i do swear from my heart, that notwithstanding any declaration or sentence of excommunication or deprivation made or granted, or to be made or granted by the pope or his successors, or by any authority derived or pretended to be derived from him or his see, against the said king, his heirs or successors, or any absolution of the said subjects from their obedience; i will bear faith and true allegiance to his majesty, his heirs and successors, and him and them will defend to the uttermost of my power, against all conspiracies and attempts whatsoever, which shall be made against his or their persons, their crown and dignity, by reason or colour of any such sentence or declaration, or otherwise; and will do my best endeavour to disclose and make known unto his majesty, his heirs and successors, all treasons and traitorous conspiracies which i shall know or hear of, to be against him or any of them. and i do further swear, that i do from my heart abhor, detest and abjure, as impious and heretical, this damnable doctrine and position, that princes which be excommunicated or deprived by the pope, may be deposed or murdered by their subjects, or any other whatsoever. and i do believe, and in conscience am resolved, that neither the pope, nor any person whatsoever, hath power to absolve me of this oath, or any part thereof, which i acknowledge by good and full authority to be lawfully administered unto me, and do renounce all pardons and dispensations to the contrary. and all these things i do plainly and sincerely acknowledge, and swear according to these express words by me spoken, and according to the plain and common sense and understanding of the same words, without any equivocation or mental evasion, or secret reservation whatsoever: and i do make this recognition and acknowledgement hearty, willingly and truly, upon the true faith of a christian. so help me god, etc. the oath of supremacy. i a. b. do utterly testify and declare in my conscience, that the king's highness is the only supreme governor of this realm, and of all other his highness dominions and countries, as well in all spiritual or ecclesiastical things or causes, as temporal: and that no foreign prince, person, prelate, state or potentate, hath, or aught to have any jurisdiction, power, superiority, pre-eminence or authority ecclesiastical or spiritual within this realm: and therefore i do utterly renounce and forsake all foreign jurisdictions, powers, superiorities and authorities, and do promise from henceforth i shall bear faith and true allegiance to the king's highness, his heirs and lawful successors, and to my power shall assist and defend all jurisdictions, privileges, preeminences and authorities granted, or belonging to the king's highness, his heirs and successors, or united and annexed to the imperial crown of this realm. so help me god● and by the contents of this book. the end. a catalogue of some books reprinted, and of other new books printed since the fire, and sold by r. royston. (viz.) books written by h. hammond, d. d. a paraphrase and annotations upon all the books of the new testament, in folio. fourth edition. the works of the said reverend and learned author, containing a collection of discourses chief practical, with many additions and corrections from the author's own hand; together with the life of the author, enlarged by the reverend dr. fell, now bishop of oxford. in large fol. books written by jer. taylor, d. d. and late lord bishop of down and connor. ductor dubitantium, or, the rule of conscience, in five books, in fol. the great exemplar, or, the life and death of the holy jesus, in fol. with figures suitable to every story, engraved in coper: whereunto is added, the lives and martyrdoms of the apostles, by will. cave, d. d. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or, a collection of polemical discourses addressed against the enemies of the church of england, both papists and fanatics, in large fol. the third edition. the rules and exercises of holy living, and holy dying. the eleventh edition, newly printed, in octavo. books written by the reverend dr. patrick. the christian sacrifice: a treatise showing the necessity, end, and manner of receiving the holy communion: together with suitable prayers and meditations for every month in the year; and the principal festivals in memory of our blessed saviour: in four parts. the third edition corrected. the devout christian instructed how to pray and give thanks to god: or a book of devotions for families, and particular persons, in most of the concerns of humane life. the second edition, in twelves. an advice to a friend. the third edition, in twelves. a friendly debate between a conformist and a nonconformist, in octavo, two parts. jesus and the resurrection justified by witnesses in heaven and in earth, in two parts, in octavo, new. the glorious epiphany, with the devout christians love to it, in octavo, new. the book of job paraphrased, in octavo, new. a collection of sermons upon several occasions, together with a correct copy of some notes concerning god's decrees, in quarto. enlarged by tho. pierce, d. d. dean of sarum. the history of the church of scotland, by bishop spotswood. the fourth edition, enlarged, fol. memoires of the late duke hamilton, or a continuation of the history of the church of scotland, beginning in the year 1625. where bishop spotswood ends, and continued to the year 1653. fol. new. the lives of the apostles, in fol. alone, by will. cave, d. d. chirurgical treatises, by r. wisman, serjeant-surgeon to his majesty, fol. new. go in peace; containing some brief directions for young ministers in their visitation of the sick. useful for the people, in this state both of health and sickness. in twelves, new. the practical christian; in four parts: or a book of devotions and meditations. also with meditations and psalms upon the four last things; 1. death, 2. judgement, 3. hell, 4. heaven: by r. sherlock, d. d. rector of winwick. in twelves. the life and death of k. charles the first; by r. perenchief, d. d. octavo. bishop cozen's devotions, in twelves. the true intellectual systeme of the universe, the first part: wherein all the reason and philosophy of atheism is confuted, and its impossibility demonstrated: by r. cudworth, d. d. fol. new. the jesuits loyalty, manifested in three several treatises lately written by them against the oath of allegiance: with a preface, showing the pernicious consequence of their principles as to civil government. also three other treatises concerning the reasons of the penal laws. (viz.) 1. the execution of justice in england, not for religion but for treason. 2. important considerations by the secular priests. 3. the jesuits reasons unreasonable. in quarto, new. the sinner impleaded in his own court: wherein are represented the great discouragements from sinning, which the sinner receiveth from sin itself. to which is added the signal diagnostic, whereby we are to judge of our own affections; and as well of our present, as future state. by tho. pierce, d. d. dean of sarum, and domestic chaplain to his majesty, the fourth edition, in quarto. les provinciales, the mystery of jesuitism, discovered in certain letters, written upon occasion of the present differences at sorbonne, between the jansenists and the molinists, displaying the pernicious maxims of the late casuists, with additionals, in octavo. the penitent pardoned: or, a discourse of the nature of sin, and the efficacy of repentance; under the parable of the prodigal son, by j. goodman, d. d. rector of hadham. in quarto, new. to which is added a visitation sermon. a century of select psalms, and portions of the psalms of david, especially those of praise; turned into meter and fitted to the usual tunes in parish churches, for the use of the , london. by j. patrick preacher there, in octavo, new. the end. dux mea in tenebras et gaudium in merorem vt pellicana in deserto nunquam christo charior quam sub cruce gemens ecclesia leges angliae. the lawfulness of ecclesiastical jurisdiction in the church of england, asserted and vindicated in answer to mr hickeringill's late pamphlet styled naked truth, the 2d part. gen. ii. ult. naked— but not ashamed. by fran. fullwood, d. d. archdeacon of totnes in devon. london, printed for r. royston, bookseller to the king's most excellent majesty, at the sign of the angel in amen-corner, 1681. to the reader i must beg my readers pardon, that i have not chastised so spiteful an adversary, according to his merits and provocations; for i verily want his talon, and dislike the sport. i confess that when a divine of the church of england, who hath also a share in her government, when such a one shall be taken throwing dirt in the face of his mother, fathers, brethren, and his own profession, he cannot but expect to be lashed to purpose, and to be told roundly, that none but accursed children and very fools would speak such naked truth. some censors, that observe his endeavours, to make not only the canons of the church, but the very canon of scripture itself to veil to the law of the land, would charge him with the profaneness of hobbs: yea, others that find him playing tricks, and sporting (according to his little wit) with the very names of canon, clergy, church and churchmen; and scoffing at almost all that's sacred, will take him to be at hugh peters' game, and running his wretched race. but while he damns the presbyterians, independents▪ and the fifth-monarchy, together with the church of england, he tempts the wits to produce thirty one reasons to prove he is something, viz. a papist; notwithstanding his drollery and raillery about foppery and popery. lastly, for pride, envy, wrath, malice, spite and revenge, some say he is a very angel of light, and in somewhat more excellent; for the scriptures witness that the devil himself spoke many words both of truth and soberness; and that he seldom or never speaks like an atheist. for my part, i say nothing of him further than this, that if others can find truth in the man, i cannot: and though i am sure he lies open and naked enough, yet i had never troubled myself to expose him, had it not been to secure the government, and to preserve the simple from being betrayed to the danger of the laws by the insolent rant of a pitiful sophister. the proem. the contents of it. 1. power purely spiritual of divine right. 2. emperors confirmed bishops-canons. 3. the force of our canons not from rome. 4. officers of our courts. 5. magna charta. 6. the author's concessions. 1. discoursing in the following treatise of the forensic jurisdiction of this church, as established by the law of the land, we had no direct or necessary occasion to speak of the church's power, as purely spiritual, touching preaching, the sacraments and censures. for this is certainly of divine right; and was given to the church by christ himself, with the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and was accordingly exercised in the apostles times, and several hundred years after, without the allowance of the civil magistrate; and was also supposed, allowed, and admitted as such in our own kingdom; and by all the world, even with their receiving christianity, without question or alteration, as is evident in all our histories: and indeed our own laws exclude this purely spiritual power of the keys from the supremacy of our kings, except it be to see that spiritual men do their duty therein. 2. neither doth it concern me to inquire what power the church had, and exercised after the empire became christian: only it seems very clear, that constantine, and the other eminent christian emperors never made any ecclesiastical laws without the counsel of bishops; but only in confirmation, or for the execution of ecclesiastical canons: yet it cannot be denied, but they called councils; they approved their canons; and afterwards entered them into the body of their laws; and still ratified the sentences of ecclesiastical judges with civil penalties. 3. nor yet is't my present province to recollect what influence imperial christian rome had upon the tender age, and immature state of the new born church of england: though we do not deny, but it might be considerable, both as to the form and order of our external jurisdiction in our inferior ministers and ancient canons. but how great soever it was, it was at first only by way of example and direction: and when afterwards it was by command, it was such command, as according to the rights and constitution of this church, had no legal obligation upon us, but by our own consent; and as it became part of our own establishment, either by custom or express law; upon such an occasion the ancient state of england cry out, nolumus mutare leges angliae. this realm hath been and is free from subjection to any man's laws, but only to such as have been devised— within this realm, or to such other as by sufferance of your grace and your progenitors, the people of this realm have taken at their free liberty, by their own consent to be used amongst them; and have bound themselves by long use and custom to the observance thereof; not as to the observance of the laws of any foreign prince, 25 hen. 8. 21. for (as coke declares in cawdries case) as the romans fetching divers laws from athens, yet being approved and allowed by the state there, called them jus romanorum; and as the normans borrowing all or most of their laws from england, yet baptised them by the name of the laws or customs of normandy; so albeit, the kings of england derived their ecclesiastical laws from others, yet so many as be proved, approved and allowed here, by and with a general consent, are aptly and rightly called, the king's ecclesiastical laws of england. 4. as for the inferior ministers in the ecclesiastical courts, that seem to be so offensive to weak people, that they are▪ not popish, or so slanderously to be reported, there is this plain demonstration, that these courts are the king's courts, and the laws thereof are the king's laws; and that notwithstanding all the severe statutes, especially since the reformation, against all foreign jurisdiction, and all such as act under, or by virtue of any foreign power within this realm; yet such ministers are both permitted and required to execute their places in the said courts by the laws and statutes of the kingdom. but grave mr. hickeringill saith, there is not the least specimen of chancellors, registers, summoners, officials, commissaries, advocates, notaries, surrogates, etc. or any ejusdem farinae in holy writ: and hence 'tis learnedly inferred by some, that we have made so many new officers in the church of christ. but how witless and quaker-like is this? and how unlike mr. hickeringill? i should suspect he would call for scripture, for an hourglass, and for clerks and sextons, were it not that he is so palpably in the service of a vile hypothesis, that will stand upon no better grounds; for he knows, that these are not so many new officers of the church, but only assistants allowed by law under bishops, and such other spiritual men as have proper power of ecclesiastical jurisdiction: he knows there is no other canon, but the law of the land; and that the civil magistrate hath power to tell us what is scripture: and that he hath told us s. paul's epistles are so, where we read of helps in 1 cor. 12. 28. government; and that chancellors, commissaries, officials and surrogates are but such helps under different names, from the several ways and degrees of their delegation: that registers are but to make and keep the acts of court, etc. advocates and proctors to order and manage causes; and apparators to serve process, and execute mandates: and that none but one in orders meddles with the keys, either for excommunication or absolution; mr. hickeringill is a man of great experience in spiritual jurisdiction, and need not be told of these plain matters. 5. and seeing the statist will not be quieted, but by argument taken from law; i have written the following treatise, wherein i hope i have sufficiently demonstrated, that our ecclesiastical courts are established in the laws and statutes of this kingdom. our magna charta itself, or the great charter of the english liberties doth suppose and acknowledge the legal exercise of ecclesiastical jurisdiction by the forementioned ministers, as one of the ancient rights and liberties of this church; and doth also ratify, confirm and establish it for ever; at least in the judgement of my lord coke, in these words. this charter is declaratory of the ancient law and liberty of england.— [et habeat omnia jura sua integra] that is, that all ecclesiastical persons shall enjoy all their lawful jurisdictions, and other their rights, wholly without any diminution or substraction whatsoever: and [jura sua] show plainly, that no new right was given unto them, but such as they had before, hereby are confirmed. libertates suas illaesas] libertates are here taken in two senses; 1. for the laws of england. 2. for privileges held by parliament, charter or prescription more than ordinary. coke magna charta. by all which titles the church of england (ecclesia non moritur, but moriuntur ecclesiastici) holds her ancient liberty of keeping courts to this day. 6. yet i do not say but the manner of proceed in these courts may be justly and reasonably altered, as his gracious majesty may be advised; and yet the true liberty of the church be rather fortified than violated. therefore, after some overtures made lately, by a far greater person, in a larger sphere, my narrower subject may suffer me humbly to offer my thoughts touching some alterations, that perhaps might not prejudice our ecclesiastical ministers, or their courts; with all due submission to my superiors. these things following have been long in my thoughts. 1. that a speedier way might be appointed for the dispatch of causes in the spiritual courts than the present legal rules thereof will allow. 2. that trivial matters (such as small tithes and church-rates) might be summarily ended, without exposing the solemn sentence of excommunication, as is generally complained. especially considering that the statute touching the writ de excom. capi. (as well as vulgar apprehension) makes a difference in original causes; though indeed the immediate cause of all excommunication is always the contempt of the king's ecclesiastical jurisdiction, in not obeying, either its summons or sentence; both these perhaps may be contrived by wise men, without prejudice to the said jurisdiction. 3. that there is reason to reascertain the fees for probates of wills, and granting letters of administration, with some moderate respect had to the difference of the value of money, when the former act was made, and at this time, so as the officers in the king's spiritual courts may live upon their employment. 4. and why excommunication decreed in court may not be sent to the parochial minister, to be, not only declared, but executed by him, as the bishops surrogate; and convenient time allowed him to endeavour to reconcile the offender, and to prevent the sentence, if it may be, i see not, if that may give any satisfaction. such kind of alterations perhaps may be admitted without real prejudice to the church, or rather with advantage, as well as those made by the conqueror, when he divided the ecclesiastical from the civil courts: the law by which he made that division is famous, the clauses of it concerning this matter may be desired by the reader, therefore i shall take the pains to transcribe them; they are these: willielmus gratia dei, rex anglorum, etc. william by the grace of god, king of england— to all— that have land in the bishopric of lincoln; know ye all, and all others my faithful people in england, that the episcopal laws, that have [non benè] not well been exercised, nor according to the precepts of holy canons, even to my time in this kingdom (concilio communi) with common counsel, and with the counsel of the bishops and abbots, and all the chief men of my kingdom, i judge (fit) to be amended. moreover, i command, and by my kingly authority enjoin, that no bishop or archdeacon de legibus episcopalibus, hold (placita) pleas any longer in hundret, nor bring any ecclesiastical cause to the judgement of secular men; but whosoever shall be called or questioned for any cause according to the ecclesiastical laws, he shall come to the place which the bishop shall choose, and there shall answer for his cause; and not secundum hundret; and he shall do right to god and the bishop; not according to the hundred, but according to the canons and episcopal laws. — but if any through pride will not appear [venire ad justiciam episcopalem] let him be called the first, second and third time, and if yet he will not come, let him be excommunicated, and if need be, let the strength and justice of the king or sheriff, ad hoc vindicandum adhibeatur— this also i defend, and by my authority interdict, that no sheriff or other minister of the king, or any layman do intermeddle with the laws which belong to the bishop. give me leave to subjoin a few notes upon this law of the conqueror and i have done. 1. the substance and matters of ecclesiastical power and connusance, was the same long before this law was made, and not altered by it: 'twas a law of king alured. si quis dei rectitudines aliquas deforciat, reddat lathlite cum dacis, witam cum anglis: and the same is afterwards confirmed and renewed by canutus and other kings: whereby it appeareth, that long before the conquest the authority and jurisdiction of the church was maintained by the settled laws of the kingdom; and that ecclesiastical judges had power so anciently to excommunicate; and had the help of the king and the sheriff to proceed against the obstinate. 2. 'tis yet very remarkable, that for the form and manner of their spiritual courts and proceed before the conquest, it was not here in england as it was at rome; and therefore our most ancient church-government was not derived or received from rome: this law observes, that before the conqueror, the precepts of holy canons, as to distinct jurisdictions, were not observed in england; that is, the canons of the imperial church, for six or seven hundred years before the jurisdiction of that church was divided from the civil, even by the emperor constantine himself; but for so many hundred years before the conquest, our jurisdictions were exercised together in hundret, as the law acknowledgeth, and is confessed. 3. we here see a plain establishment of our spiritual courts, with power of excommunication, for non-appearance, in the letter of this ancient law, under the king's defence, and enforced with the secular arm; and 'tis observable, that the distinction of the ecclesiastical front the civil courts, was made in the kings own name, and not the pope's, by the king's power and none other; with the counsel of his own subjects only, and not of rome that we read of; and only with respect, and not in any obedience to the ancient canons or foreign methods: and thus the jurisdiction in our courts ecclesiastical as distinct from the civil, is as far from being popish in their original, as it was when they were conjoined; and therein so unlike to the distinct proceed of the spiritual power beyond the seas so many hundred years before: and thus our spiritual courts, both before they were divided, and when they came to be divided from our civil courts, stand firm in the ancient laws of this land. 4. there are certain great epoche's of the legal establishment of the church's power, which i shall but touch; 1. it was received with christianity, and grew and flourished by our ancient laws before the conquest. 2. in the beginning of our norman constitution, it was thus distinguished and established by the conqueror. so it was in magna charta, the first statute. 3. upon the reformation in hen. 8. it was re-established. 4. so it was upon the return of reformation after queen mary by queen eliz. and 5. so likewise upon the return of our present gracious sovereign king charles ii. 5. further, i hence observe, that some alterations in ecclesiastical proceed may be made by law, without any prejudice to the church's power: 'tis observed out of spelman before, that by this law the conqueror did not lessen the church's power: indeed some inconveniences are usually consequent to public changes; and 'tis thought by our civilians, that the many prohibitions which interrupt our ecclesiastical courts are occasioned by their being divided from the temporal: but may not that inconvenience be accidental to that division? or if at any time there be just cause for the church to complain in that respect, is it not rather of the judges than the laws or the constitution? but to the matter before us; admit, for instance, that after summary hearing and sentence of the judge, in cases of small tithes, church rates, and such trivial matters, a justice of the peace, or some other person being legally certified, were impowered and obliged to grant warrants of distress: it seems to me a greater inconvenience in exposing excommunication in such light causes would be hereby removed, than any contracted by such an alteration; and methinks no one should disdain the new office, seeing the superior judge hath been ever bound to issue out the writ de excom. cap. and the sheriff to imprison the party, upon a certificate from the bishop. but i must humbly leave such things to wiser judges. the contents of the chapters and sections. chap. i. the general proposition. the ecclesiastical jurisdiction, as now exercised in the church of england, is allowed and established by the laws of the land. sect. 1. an account of the method. page 1. sect. 2. mr. hickeringill ' s reasoning noted and resolved. p. 2. sect. 3. the propositions suggested by m. hickeringill are these following. p. 4. chap. ii. our ecclesiastical jurisdiction in england was not derived from the pope, but from the crown before the reformation by henry the eighth. p. 5. proof against this popish principle. sect. 1. from the root and branches of ecclesiastical power, donation, investiture, laws. p. 6. sect. 2. jurisdictions. p. 7. sect. 3, 4, 5. p. 9▪ 11, 12. chap. iii. king hen. 8. did not by renouncing the power pretended by the pope, make 〈◊〉 the ecclesiastical jurisdiction: neither was it void before it was restored by edw. 6. 2. p. 13. sect. 2, 3. p. 16, 20. chap. iu. ecclesiastical jurisdictition is lawfully exercised, without the king's name or style in processes, etc. notwithstanding the 1 edw. 6. 2. p. 22. sect. 1, 2, 3. p. 23, 24, 26. sect. 4. 1 edw. 6. 2. repealed, appears from practice. p. 28. sect. 5. 1 edw. 6. 2. repealed in the judgement of all the judges, the king and council. p. 31. sect. 6. mr. h. cary ' s reason to the contrary considered. p. 36. chap. v. the act of 1 eliz. 1. establishing the high-commission court, was not the foundation of ordinary ecclesiastical jurisdiction in england, against mr. hickeringill. p. 41. chap. vi how our ecclesiastical jurisdiction in england came at first, and is at present established by law. p. 46. sect. 1. jurisdiction of the church in common law. p. 51. sect. 2. the government ecclesiastical is established in the statutes of this realm. p. 54. chap. vii. of canons and convocations. p. 60. the conclusion. p. 64. the postscript. p. 67. the bookseller to the reader. the absence of the author, and his inconvenient distance from london, hath occasioned some small erratas to escape the press. the printer thinks it the best instance of pardon, if his escapes be not laid upon the author, and he hopes they are no greater than an ordinary understanding may amend, and a little charity may forgive. r. royston. chap. i. the general proposition. the ecclesiastical jurisdiction, as now exercised in the church of england, is allowed and established by the laws of the land. sect. i. an account of the method. after so many hundred years' confirmation, both by law and practice, 'tis a marvellous thing this should be a question: yet, of late two worthy gentlemen, treading in the steps of some former malcontents, have ventured to make it one. mr. edmond hickeringill, and mr. h. cary: the first, in his book called naked truth, the second part: the other, in his, modestly styled, the law of england: and it is to be observed, they were both printed very seasonably for the settling our distractions through the fears and danger of popery. i shall note what they say, discover their gross and dangerous mistakes, answer and remove their pitiful objections, and then endeavour to satisfy ordinary and honest enquirers both that, and how our ecclesiastical jurisdiction stands firm and unshaken upon the basis of our english laws. sect. ii. mr. hickeringill's reasoning noted and resolved. mr. hickeringill is pleased to say, that upon the stat. 1 eliz. 1. was built the high commission court, and the authority of all canon-makers synodical; but down came the fabric, when that act was repealed by 17 car. 1. 11. and 13. car. 2. 12. where provision was made by striking at the foundation 1 eliz. 1. that no more commissions of that nature be granted any more; only the spiritual courts by 1● ca●. 2. 12. were to be in statu quo, wherein they were 1639. what state? no great i'll warrant you, if the basis, on which their star-chamber and high-commission-court were built, be taken away. all ecclesiastical jurisdictions till hen. 8. were derived from the pope, as supreme of the church ● this head being beheaded, the supremacy was invested in the crown. but 1 edw. 6. 2. enacts, that all process ecclesiastical should be in the name and with the stile of the king, etc. so that if there be any ecclesiastical jurisdiction in england distinct from his majesty's day courts, all their processes must be in the king's name, etc. 'tis true 1 edw. 6. 2. is repealed by the 1 mar. 2. but i care not for that, for 'tis revived by the act of repeal 1 jac. 25. the clergy in convocation acknowledged in their petition, that their ecclesiastical power was at that time taken away. so that their present jurisdiction (being not from god; that's certain) 'tis not from man, because his majesty has promised 13 car. 2. 12. never to empower them with any more commissions to the world's end. but this i do not peremptorily assert. i here protest, i know not by what authority we do these things, considering the premises, and the repealing of 1 eliz. 1. by the statute of hen. 8. all these ordinary jurisdictions were cut off, and were revived by 1 edw. 6: upon conditions only. this is the very naked truth, under his first query, and in his conclusion, and up and down this worthy book; that is, such a shabby lawless logic; such a rude and shattered way of reasoning, as deserves to be reduced with a rod, and lashed into method and sense, and better manners. especially if you single out his false and study begging propositions; fraught with a wretched design of robbing his own mother, in the king's high way, with which he challenges passage to cheat and abuse the country. my business is only to apprehend the vagabonds, and commit them to the justice of some more severe and smarter hand. sect. iii. the propositions suggested by mr. hickeringill are these following. i. that before hen. 8. all ecclesiastical jurisdiction in england was derived from the pope: as mr. cary, p. 6. ii. that hen. 8. when he annexed the ecclesiastical jurisdiction to the crown, he took it wholly away from our ecclesiastical ministers. iii. that the church had no jurisdiction after hen. 8. had annexed it to the crown, till 1 edw. 6. 2. iv that if there be any ecclesiastical power in our church, it cannot be executed, but in the name and with the style, etc. of the king, according to 1 edw. 6. 2. v that all our ecclesiastical power was lately founded in 1 eliz. 1. as it established the high-commission-court; and that act being repealed, all ecclesiastical power was taken away with the power of that high commission. on a rock consisting of these sands, stands our mighty champion, triumphing with his naked truth; but we come now to sift them. chap. ii. our ecclesiastical jurisdiction in england was not derived from the pope, but from the crown before the reformation by henry the eighth. dare any protestant stand to the contrary? had the pope really authority here before henry the eighth? did our bishops indeed receive all their power, exercised so many hundred years together, originally from the pope? was not their political jurisdiction derived from and depending on the crown imperial? and founded in our own laws, the customs and statutes of the realm? are these the pope's laws, and not the kings? was there not ecclesiastical power in england, both for legislation and execution ab origine, before the papal usurpation? was not popery at first, and all along, till hen. 8. an illegal usurpation upon our more ancient government, never owned much less established in the true & ancient laws of england, and under that very notion rejected and expelled by him? how then did our bishops, etc. derive all their power from the pope before hen. 8. to say so, is not more like an hobbist than a papist. i thought i had caught an hobby, but war-hawk. proof against this popish principle. sect. i. from the root and branches of ecclesiastical power, donation, investiture, laws. i. it was a known law long before hen. 8. that the church of england was founded ●5 edw. 3. 25 edw. 1. in episcopacy by our kings, etc. and not in the papacy. ii. the collaetion and donation of bishoprics, and nomination of bishops did always belong to the king; yea all the bishoprics in this realm are of the king's foundation: and the full right of investiture was ever in the crown. coke 1. inst. 2. s. 648. to deny it may be a praemunire. iii. when once the bishops are legally invested, their proper jurisdiction came into ●5 hen. 8. 20. their hands, by the laws, without any power derived from the pope: who saith otherwise, knows nothing, or means ill. iv it was acknowledged, that convocations are, always have been, and aught to be assembled by the kings writ only: 'tis law, 35 hen. 8. 19 v as the power to make laws for the church was ever in the king, so the laws themselves must be his, and none other bind us. this realm recognising no superior 35 hen. 8. 21. as 16 rich. 2. 5. under god but the king, hath been, and is free from any laws, but such as have been devised within this realm, or at our liberty, have been consented to, and made custom by use, and not by any foreign power. sect. ii. jurisdiction. thus our ancient ecclesiastical governors and laws depended upon the crown, and not upon the pope, by the laws of england, and in the judgement of all the states of the kingdom before hen. 8. and so did also the execution of those laws by those governors in the same public judgement: a little better than mr. hickeringill's popish opinion. 2. in sundry old authentic histories and chronicles, it is manifest, that this realm is an empire, having an imperial crown, to which belongs a body politic, compacted of spiritualty and temporalty: furnished thus, with— jurisdiction to yield justice in all causes without restraint from any foreign prince. the body spiritual having power, when any cause of divine law happened to come in question, the english church, called the spiritualty, which always hath been reputed, and also found of that sort, for knowledge, etc. (without any exterior person) to declare and determine all such doubts, and to administer all such offices as appertain to them: for the due administration whereof the kings of this realm have endowed the said church both with honour and possessions▪ both these authorities and jurisdictions do conjoin in the due administration of justice the one to help the other. and whereas the king his most noble progenitors, and the nobility and commons of this realm at divers and sundry parliaments, as well in the time of king edw. 1. edw. 3. rich. 2. hen. 4. (all which were certainly before hen. 8.) and other noble kings made sundry ordinances, laws, statutes, and provisions for the entire and sure preservation of the prerogatives and jurisdiction spiritual and temporal of the said imperial crown, from the annoyance and authority of the see of rome from time to time, as often as any such attempt might be known or espied. vid. 25 hen. 8. 12. these things plainly show, that the whole state in hen. 8's. time was not of mr. hickeringill's mind; but that before that time, the whole power of the church was independent on the pope, and not derived from him, but originally inherent in the crown and laws of england, whatever he blatters to the contrary. vid. 25 edw. 3. stat. 4. cap. 22. pag. 123. sect. 3. 27 edw. 3. cap. 1. & 38 edw. 3. c. 4. & stat. 2. c. 1. 2 rich. 2. cap. 6. 3 rich. 2. c. 3. s. 2. 12 rich. 2. c. 15. & 13 rich. 2. stat. 2. c. 2. 16 rich. 2. c. 5. 2 hen. 4. c. 3, & 4. 7 hen. 4. c. 6. 9 hen. 4. c. 8. 1 hen. 5. 7. 3 hen. 5. stat. 2. c. 4. add to these mr. cawdries case in my lord coke, and he must be unreasonably ill affected to the church of england, that is not more than satisfied, that the chief and supreme governors thereof, were the kings of england, and not the pope, before the reign of hen. 8. 3. also it was the sense of the whole kingdom, that the pope's power and jurisdiction here, was usurped and illegal; contrary to god's laws, the laws and statutes of this realm; and in derogation of the imperial crown thereof: and that it was timorously and ignorantly submitted unto, before hen. 8. as the words of that statute are, 28 hen. 8. cap. 16. sect. iii. but if our gentleman be wiser than to believe their words; the matter is evident in our ancient laws, and constant practice accordingly, before hen. 8. his time: indeed all the statutes of provision against foreign powers, are to own and defend the ecclesiastical jurisdiction at home, under this crown. yea all the statutes made on purpose, to restrain and limit the spiritual jurisdiction in certain cases, and respects, do allow and establish it in others, exceptio confirmat regulam in non exceptis. 2. much plainer, all the statutes that prohibit the king's civil courts to interrupt the ecclesiastical proceed, but in such cases, and the statutes granting consultations in such cases; and the statutes directing appeals in the spiritual courts, and appeals to the chancery itself, and the laws ratifying and effectually binding their sentence by the writ de exc. cap. much more plainly do these establish the ecclesiastical jurisdiction in the laws of the land, before hen. 8. 3. by this time 'tis vain to mention the statutes which of old did specify and allow particular matters to be tried only in the ecclesiastical courts: such as tithes, 18 edw. 3. 7. the offences of ecclesiastical persons, 1 hen. 7. c. 4. causes testamentary, 18 edw. 3. 6. synodals and procurations, and pensions, etc. 15 hen. 8. 19 defamations, 9 edw. 2. 3. 1 edw. 3. c. 11, etc. all which are clear evidences that the ecclesiastical jurisdiction was established by the statute-laws of this realm, and consequently, did not depend upon, was not derived from any foreign power before the 20 of hen. 8. sect. iv to seek for the original of our ecclesiastical jurisdiction and courts, in the statute-book, is more than ridiculous; seeing they both stood in a flourishing estate long before the beginning of that book: and are among the number of the great things, which were then, secundum consuetudinem & leges angliae, and are plainly established in the common law of the land: by which they have stood and been practised, ever since (as we shall prove more fully anon.) 2. magna charta, which is found first in the book of statutes, and is said by lawyers to be common law (i. e. shows us what is common law) in this kingdom; gins thus, we have granted and confirmed for us and our heirs for ever, that the church of england shall be free; and shall have all her whole rights and liberties inviolable. reserving to all archbishops and bishops, and all persons as well spiritual as temporal all their free liberties and free customs, which they have had in times past, and which we have granted to be holden within this realm; and all men of this realm, as well spiritual as temporal, shall observe the same against all persons. 3. now what can any man, that knows the practice of the spiritual courts, before that time, at that time, and ever since, imagine what is meant by the liberties and customs of the church, (i. e. in the sense of mr. hickeringill) and the words of magna charta, archbishops, bishops, and all spiritual men, but the jurisdiction ecclesiastical in the first and chief place? and these, by the great charter, are confirmed for ever; and the like confirmation hath been made by the many succeeding kings and parliaments, in their confirmation of magna charta. 4. therefore i cannot but conclude, that the ecclesiastical jurisdiction being founded in the common law, magna charta, and the statutes, by so long practice beyond all records, is in the very constitution of the kingdom: the great men of the church having always had authority in the very making of laws as they had before magna charta, and been reputed (as in the statute of eliz.) one of the three states in parliament; and the execution also of the ecclesiastical laws of the church of england. sect. v lastly, all this is plainly confirmed by ancient ecclesiastical canons (which seems to be an argument of great weight with mr. hickeringill) as well as by the ancient laws and customs of the land. in the apostles canons 'tis ordained, that every national church should have its own chief or head, and thence derive all power under the crown: 'tis acknowledged, against the papists, that we had our archbishops and bishops before the usurpation of the pope: we were anciently a patriarchate independent upon rome: the four first councils confirmed the apostles canons; and established our ancient cyprian privilege: let afterencroachments of the pope be accordingly renounced as lawless usurpations: let us quietly enjoy our restored ancient privileges; and let ancient custom prevail, according to the sentence of the ancient councils, in spite of all papists and hobbists. chap. iii. king hen. 8. did not, by renouncing the power pretended by the pope, make void the ecclesiastical jurisdiction: neither was it void before it was restored by 1 edw. 6. 2. it's somewhat difficult to make this proposition than it is in its self more plain: pray mr. wiseman, where and by what words did hen. 8. cut off, as you say, all those ordinary jurisdictions? did that great prince and his parliament intent by any statute then made, to cut them off, or not? if they did intent it, how came it to pass that they continued in their usual course of power and proceed all the rest of his reign? which may be presumed to be near ten years? was that watchful prince so asleep? was the whole kingdom so stupid, so long a time, to suffer such oppression, by invasion of the crown and the people's liberties, by a company of churchmen, now deprived of the pope's assistance, and without any power at all? or were the ecclesiastical governors so desperate or careless, as to lie under so much danger of praemunire, neither desisting to act without power, nor to sue for it? 2. but perhaps, though the king and parliament did not intent it, yet the words of the statute express enough to dissolve and cut off all those ordinary jurisdictions: and no body could see through this millstone, or tumble it upon the church's head, before mr. hickeringill was inspired to do it in a lucky time. i will answer him with a story; there was a certain lord laid claim to a manor that was in another lord's possession: upon trial it was found, that the plaintiff had the right of it; and he that had had possession was thrown out, and the other (the right owner) was, as he ought to be, put into the possession of the said manor; but it was observed, that, though the lords were changed, yet the customs, and courts, and officers were not changed at all, but all things proceeded as before. 3. thus king hen. 8. and his parliament expressed themselves as if on purpose to our present case; only that the pope's power than was rather in a pretended claim, than in possession; as is evident from that notable statute 24 hen. 8. c. 12. where we have the king's supremacy first asserted, with a body politic of the spiritualty and temporalty, every way furnished with authorities and jurisdictions, to administer justice to the whole realm. thus the imperial crown fully accomplished, throws off the pretence of the pope, as king edw. rich. and hen. 4. had done before, yet as they also did, reserves as well the spiritualty and its jurisdiction, as the temporalty and its jurisdiction. afterwards 4. the king doth by his royal assent, and by the assents of the lords spiritual and temporal, and the commons assembled, and by the authority of the same, enact, establish and ordain, that all causes testamentary, causes of matrimony and divorces, rights of tithes, oblations and obventions, the knowledge whereof, by the goodness of princes of this realm, and by the laws and customs of the same, appertaineth to the spiritual jurisdiction of this realm, shall be from henceforth heard, examined, discussed, clearly, finally and definitively adjudged and determined in such courts, spiritual and temporal, as the natures of the controversy shall require. 5. 'tis plain therefore, that though hen. 8. did cut off the pope's pretence, which is the great intention of that excellent law, yet the ecclesiastical jurisdiction was not dissolved, but annexed or declared to be annexed to the imperial crown of this realm, and to continue to exercise its power in the spiritual courts, as before, according to the laws and customs of the land. read the statute, and you will not only see a continuance of the spiritual courts supposed and allowed, but special directions touching proceed and appeals therein. sect. ii. if king hen. 8. did take away the ecclesiastical authority of the church of england, he did either remove the officers, or deny their power to make canons, or destroy their courts, and the exercise of their jurisdiction; but he did do neither, but rather by acts of parliament established them all. i. for the first, touching the governors of the church, consult statute 31 hen. 8. 3. that it may be enacted by the authority of this present parliament, that all archbishops and bishops of this realm, may, by authority of this present parliament, and not by any provision, or other foreign authority, enjoy and retain their archbishoprics and bishoprics in as large and ample manner, as if they had been promoted, elected, confirmed and consecrated according to the due course of the laws of this realm: and that every archbishop and bishop of this realm may minister, use and exercise all and every thing and things pertaining to the office or order of any archbishop or bishop, with all tokens, ensigns and ceremonies thereunto lawfully belonging. further, that all ecclesiastical persons of the king's realm, all archdeacon's, deans, and other having offices, may by authority of this act (and not &c.) administer, use and exercise all things appertaining to their dignities and offices, so it be not expressly against the laws of god and this realm. ii. neither did king hen. 8. take away the power of the bishops and others, to make canons in convocation, as appears by the statute of the 25 of hen. 8. 19 in that statute, among other things, upon the petition of the clergy, two things are granted to our purpose, touching ecclesiastical canons. 1. the old ones; 'tis provided that such canons being already made, which be not contrariant nor repugnant to the laws, statutes and customs of this realm, nor to the damage of the king's prerogative royal, shall now be used and exercised as they were before the making of this act, till such time as they be viewed by the said thirty two persons, according to the tenor of this act, which was never done; therefore such old canons are yet of force by this act. vid. sect. 6. 2. for the making of new canons; the convocation hath power reserved by this same act, provided the convocation be called by the king's writ; and that they have the royal assent and licence to make, promulgate, and execute such canons: as you may read sect. 1. of the said statute. indeed the convocation used a larger power in making canons before, as is there noted, which, they say, they will not henceforth presume to do: but it therefore follows, that they may still use their power, so limited and derived from the crown; which is the evident intention of the act. for by restraining the clergy thus to proceed in making canons, the law allows them the power so to do; and by making the exceptions and limitations confirms their authority so far as it is not excepted against. iii. neither, lastly, did king hen. 8. take away the ordinary jurisdiction of ecclesiastical governors as exercised in the spiritual courts, according to the laws and canons of this church: but indeed established them by acts of parliament, as is plainly to be seen in the 37 hen. 8. c. 16. sect. 4. in these words: may it therefore please your highness, that it may be enacted, that all singular persons which shall be made— deputed to be any chancellor, vicar-general, commissary, official, scribe or register, by your majesty or any of your heirs or successors, or by any archbishop, bishop, archdeacon or other person whatsoever, having authority under your majesty, your heirs and successors, to make any chancellor, vicar-general, commissary, official or register, may lawfully execute all manner of jurisdiction, commonly called ecclesiastical jurisdiction: and all censures and coertions appertaining unto the same, etc. 2. 'tis acknowledged, that in the sect. 2. of this statute, it seems as if the parliament concluded, that by the 25 of hen. 8. 19 the ancient canons were abrogated, which i wonder mr. hickeringill his sagacity had not discovered: yet 'tis plain enough, that wise parliament did not thereby reflect upon or intent all the canons; but such canons, as the present matter before them was concerned in; that is, such canons as forbade ecclesiastical officers to marry; as the words sect. 1. are, that no lay or married man should or might exercise any ecclesiastical jurisdiction, etc. directly repugnant to your majesty's as supreme head, your grace being a layman: than it follows in the next words, and albeit the said decrees, viz. being contrary to the royal prerogative as supreme head of the church, be in the 25 year of your most noble reign utterly abolished. that this is the meaning of that clause is reasonable to believe, because they take no further care to correct the matter, but only by enacting persons lawfully deputed, though they be lay persons, though married or unmarried, shall have power, and may exercise ecclesiastical jurisdiction, notwithstanding any law or constitution to the contrary, as the statute is concluded. 3. besides, we are assured, that all the ancient canons, that were not repugnant to the king's prerogative, or the laws and customs of this realm were not abrogated; but declared to be of force, i. e. to be executed in the spiritual courts, as was noted in the very letter of that statute 25 hen. 8. 19 and that this clause, speaking only of such canons as were abrogated by that statute, abrogates nothing that was not so, by the act referred to. 4. and thus the jurisdiction and canons of the church stood in force, at the latter end of the reign of hen. 8. this statute being made in the last year, wherein any were made by that great prince. 5. thus we have found in the time of king hen. 8. an ecclesiastical jurisdiction exercised in england, without any dependence on the pope, and other authority for canon-makers synodical (as mr. hickeringill cants) besides the statute for the high commission 1 eliz. upon which statute of eliz. mr. hickeringill very learnedly asserts the authority of all canon-makers synodical was built: qu. naked truth. sect. iii. no more is needful under this head, but to show my respect to mr. hickeringill his doughty and only argument, taken out of the petition of the clergy to queen mary; whereby he would fain prove, that the extinguishing act of hen. 8. took away all ordinary jurisdiction from the church of england, and that there was no such thing till she revived it. 2. the words of the petition, from whence he thus argues, you shall have in his own translation, in this manner: they pray that her majesty would make such provision, that those things which belong to our ecclesiastical jurisdiction and liberties (without which we cannot duly discharge, etc.) and taken from us lately by the iniquity of the times, may be again restored; and that all laws which have taken away, or do any ways hinder our ecclesiastical jurisdiction and liberties, may be made null and void. hence he concludes, that in the judgement of the convocation at that time, their jurisdiction and liberties were taken away. is this proof sufficient against all the laws and practice of the kingdom during the reign of hen. 8. after the extinguishing act? or do they say that hen. 8. took away the ecclesiastical jurisdiction? how can mr. hickeringill divine that it was not the renouncing the pope as head of their jurisdiction and liberties, that was the very grievance that they complained of? 3. this is certain, that queen mary succeeded edw. 6. that edw. 6. did require more express testimonies of the clergy's recognition of the crown, in the exercise of the ecclesiastical jurisdiction by the statute (of which we shall take more notice presently) than hen. 8. did; and 'tis past mr. hickeringill his skill to prove, that the convocation in their said petition, did not principally, if not only intent that severe act of edw. 6. however that pass, mr. hickeringill his argument, deserves not the strength of a convocation to confute it. 4. i leave it to mr. hickeringill himself; for if he think, that that convocation spoke that which was not true, he hath said nothing to the purpose: but if he think they did speak truth, than he thinks, that the jurisdiction of the church of england, as derived from the king, according to the statute of edw. 6. or in hen. 8's time, was no lawful jurisdiction, that is, mr. hickeringill thinks as the papists think; war hawk again mr. hickeringill, and a praemunire too. but this brings us to consider the statute of edw. 6. chap. iu. ecclesiastical jurisdiction is lawfully exercised, without the king's name or style in processes, etc. notwithstanding the 1 edw. 6. 2. that all ecclesiastical processes should be in the name and style of the king, etc. according to the statute of 1 edw. 6. 2. is the great and old objection, not only of mr. hickeringill, but several others. sect. i. answ. but first, if this statute were not repealed (as indeed it is) there are several things in the body of it very considerable against mr. hickeringill, and to our advantage. 1. the statute observes in the very foundation of it, that it's justly acknowledged by the clergy of the realm, that all courts ecclesiastical within the realms of england and ireland, be kept by no other power or authority, but by the authority of the king; which, it seems, was then known without the testimonies thereof, then to be required; and indeed is so still by the oaths which all ecclesiastical persons cheerfully take before their instalment. 2. that there was such a thing in practice before the making this act, as ecclesiastical jurisdiction in the church of england: for the statute saith, that archbishops, etc. do use to make and send out their summons, etc. in their own names at that time, who yet acknowledged all their authority from the crown, sect. 3. 3. the statute allows the ecclesiastical jurisdiction itself; and that the archbishops and bishops shall make, admit, etc. their chancellors, and other officers and substitutes, which supposeth the constitution of the spiritual courts, under their own names, and with their own seals, sect. 6. 4. this statute also allows, that some things are limited by the laws and customs of this realm, and if such things are depending in the king's courts of record at common law, are to be remitted to the spiritual courts to try the same, sect. 7. 5. but what is the penalty if they do not use the king's name and style, and put the king's arms into their seals of office? this is considerable. 'tis well the statute provided sect. 4. a better hand to punish the delinquents than mr. hickeringill, and a milder punishment than he interprets the law to do: the punishment is the king's displeasure, and imprisonment during his pleasure; not the voiding the jurisdiction, as mr. hickeringill would have it: and while the king knows the statute is repealed, as shall next appear, we fear not but his majesty is pleased with, and will defend our jurisdictions, while we humbly acknowledge their dependency on the crown, and exercise the same, according to his laws, though we presume not to use his name, and style, and arms, without the warrant of law. sect. ii. 1. for that statute of 1 edw. 6. 2. was repealed by the first and second of philip and mary, c. 8. wherein we have these plain words; the ecclesiastical jurisdiction of the archbishops and ordinaries (are declared) to be in the same state for process of suits, punishment of crimes, and execution of the censures of the church, with knowledge of causes belonging to the same; and as large in these points, as the said jurisdiction was the said twentieth year of hen. 8. whereby that statute is also revived, as my l. coke affirmeth. thus, by act of parliament, of which that queen was the undoubted head, (and by the power of the crown of england, and not the pope) the ecclesiastical jurisdiction of this realm was established by our own law is the same state wherein it stood before the twentieth of hen. 8. and then, we find, that by our ancient laws and customs, it was dependent on the crown, whatever some churchmen thought to the contrary. 2. i have read, that this same queen mary wore the title of head of the church of england herself; though in other points too too zealous for popery: and by this very statute it is enacted, that nothing in this act shall be construed to diminish the liberties, prerogatives, or jurisdictions, or any part thereof, which were in the imperial crown of this realm the twentieth year of hen. 8. or any other the queen's progenitors before: and we have found, that the ecclesiastical jurisdiction of this kingdom was subject to, and dependent on the imperial crown, secundum consuetudinem & legem angliae in her ancestors time: we have found also, that this was the undoubted judgement of the whole kingdom in the statutes of hen. 8. edw. 6. queen eliz. king james, etc. now let it be shown, that this clause of the statute of queen mary is repealed, which is so agreeable to the ancient customs and rights of the crown; let this be shown, and you do something: this statute of my lord coke's is not repealed by the 1 of eliz. or king james, though the 1 of mary should be granted to be so. also the 25 hen. 8. 20. being contrary to 1 edw. 6. 2. is revived by 1 eliz. and never repealed. rep. coke 12. p. 9 i. mr. hickeringill indeed is bold enough, but i find mr. cary timorous in the point, though against the hair: for though he toll on his weak and prejudiced readers, to their great hazard, in putting their whole case upon this one point, whether the court can show the broad seal, etc. yet when he comes home to the matter, he tells them, that the aforesaid statute of edw. 6. not being mentioned by king james' act of repeal, and expressly revived, is thought not to be of force; so that a citation in the bishops own name, may, at this day, be good in law. law of engl. c. 2. p. 12. mr. hickeringill should have taken the advice of this his friend, a great lawyer certainly, that entitles his minute and thin piece, the law of england. sect. iii. mr. cary indeed mistakes the statute; for it is the first of king james 25. not the fourth: yet we have his learned opinion, that citations in the bishops own name, may, at this day, be good in law; and for aught i know, his reason for it may be good too, viz. because the statute of queen mary, especially that of the first and second of phil. and mar. c. 8. is not in the said act of repeal expressly revived, according to the express words of the act, vid. 1 eliz. sect. 13. but, o mr. cary! though we have here your opinion and your reason, where was your conscience? where was your kindness to your beloved dissenting clients? when you dared to betray them to the devil and the gaoler (to speak in mr. hickeringill's language▪) (a far heavier sentence than curse ye meroz) and that upon no other ground, that i can find, in your english law, but this statute only; which yet for the reason aforesaid, you say, is thought not to be of force; and though, you say, the bishops may at this day send forth citations in their own names by law; yet your grave advice to those friends is this; when you are cited, appear and demand, whether they have any patent from the king for the same, and under his great seal or no; if they will not show you by what authority— protest against their proceed, and go your way, i. e. the way of disobedience, contempt the way to the gaol and the devil; but that's no matter, he hath showed his spite to ecclesiastical authority against his own law and conscience: he was not to satisfy a doubt, but a lust; and his confidence is as able to secure the deluded people from the danger of contempt of the king's ecclesiastical courts, as his wise notion of magna charta, c. 14. from paying their tithes. see this point excellently and fully argued on both sides, and the judges, etc. opinion and reasons silencing this objection in king james' time, coke rep. 12. p. 7, 8, 9 sect. iv 1 edw. 6. 2. repealed appears from practice. ii. a further argument, that the stat. 1 edw. 6. 2. is repealed is taken from the uninterrupted practice, both of the ecclesiastical jurisdiction, and the kings of england, and their own immediate courts, contrary to it: and i think it is a rule in law, that in doubtful cases, lex currit cum praxi. 1. the ecclesiastical judges have, ever since the repealing act of queen mary, before and since the statute of queen eliz. and king james, called statutes of repeal, uncontrollably proceeded in their own names, and not expressly in the name or stile of the king (let one instance be shown to the contrary) than who can imagine without a fancy possessed, that the crown and states of the realm should intent so great an alteration in the ecclesiastical government; and that in the behalf of the supremacy, and for the rights of the crown, as is pretended, by reviving that act of 1 edw. 6 and yet, neither then, not even since, expect a conformity to, and observance of it? were queen eliz. and king james so easy and careless of their crowns as this would make them? were all the bishops, who were concerned in making those acts of repeal, and all ecclesiastical judges ever since, so dull and stupid, as not to know the force of those acts; not to mind either their duty, or their safety, in so great and hazardous a point, as some would have it of a praemunire? or so foolhardy, as to bear against the crown itself, on which alone they know they depend against plain acts of parliament, in the midst of froward and watching enemies on every side them? who can think it? i must conclude, that if it be possible that the act of queen mary should be repealed in this point, either by queen eliz. or king james, 'tis more than ever the lawmakers themselves thought of, understood or intended. 2. for secondly, the practice of the crown that was in the first place highly concerned in that stat. 1 edw. 6. 2. hath been ever since the act of queen mary that repealed it, directly contrary to it; and, in a very great point or flower of the supremacy, managed itself ever since, just as it did before that act of edw. 6. and, as i said, directly contrary to it: therefore 'tis past all doubt but that the sense of the queen and kings of england, and the sense of those great lawyers and statesmen, that direct the crown in such great affairs, is evident, that the statute of edw. 6. stands repealed, and is not revived; for in that stat. 1 edw. 6. 2. 'tis expressly enacted, that whereas elections of bishops by deans and chapters upon a writ of congee d'eslire— seeming derogatory and prejudicial to the king's prerogative royal; for a due reformation thereof, be it enacted, that from henceforth no such congee d'eslire be granted, not election made, but, etc. yet ever since congee d'eslires have been granted, and such elections thereupon have been returned and accepted. 3. the king's immediate courts, so far as they have been concerned with jurisdiction of the church, and the king's civil judges therein, have ever since owned, and as occasion hath required, ratified, fortified, and made effectual all our ecclesiastical proceed ever since, though not acted in the king's name, contrary to the said statute; though 'tis a great part of their places and offices to secure the prerogative against all invasion, especially of the church: thus by their constant practice it appears, that they never understood that statute of edw. 6. to be in force, since queen mary repealed it: was the whole kingdom so long, and in so deep a sleep, to be awakened by such impertinent and little barkings? sect. v 1 edw. 6. 2. repealed in the judgement of all the judges, the king and council. the objection from the 1 edw. 6. is no new light of mr. hickeringill's, we find it busy in the time of king charles the first, anno 1637. and by the king's proclamation it seems it had troubled the kingdom before, as indeed it had in the fourth of king james. in that year 1637. upon an order out of the star-chamber, the learned judges were commanded to give their opinion in this matter: and they all met together, and deliberately, and distinctly, and fully declared, that the 1 edw. 6. 2. is repealed, and is not in force; and that the ecclesiastical judges did (in all the points called in question) act legally, and as they ought to do; hereupon the king and council being satisfied, issued forth the said proclamation to silence and prevent all such objections against ecclesiastical judges, courts and proceed for the future; and the judgement of the judges under their hands, was enrolled in the courts of exchequer, king's bench, common pleas, etc. as law; where any one may find it that desires to be further satisfied in the truth of it. 2. hence i argue, that that statute of 1 edw. 6. is repealed in law; at least that the subjects ought so to esteem it, until they have the judgement of the judges declared otherwise; yea, though those judges (which is profane to imagine) did err in that their declaration through ignorance or fear of the high commission, as mr. hickeringill meekly insinuates, p. ult. for the law is known to the subject, either by the letter or by the interpretation of it: and if the letter of the law be not plain, or be doubtful, we take the interpretation of it from such as by law are of right to make the interpretation, to be the law; and this i think is the common law of england, and believe that mr. cary himself thinks so too. 3. now, who is or can be thought to be the most proper interpreter of a doubtful law, but the king with his council, by all the judges of the land? especially if that law concern ecclesiastical jurisdiction, and the ecclesiastical supremacy of the crown, as the law in question plainly doth. but the king himself with his council, by all the judges of the land, hath solemnly declared, that the 1 edw. 6. 2. is repealed, and not of force; this is a legal interpretation of the law; this is law, and aught so to be taken, rebus sic stantibus, by all the subjects of england, whatever little men that talk of the law in their own narrow and private sentiments presume to vent, to the scandal of the people, the trouble of the kingdom and slander of the church, and ecclesiastical proceed: and indeed it would be an insufferable sauciness, to say no worse, for any ecclesiastical judge to act by a law that is none, against the so solemn declaration of the king, the council, and all the judges of the land, and this is the case. i shall therefore trouble, if not pleasure, my reader with the declaration of the judges, and the sense of the king and council of it. primo julii 1637. the judge's certificate concerning ecclesiastical jurisdiction. may it please your lordships, according to your lordship's order made in his majesty's court of star-chamber the twelfth of may last, we have taken consideration of the particulars, wherein our opinions are required by the said order, and we have all agreed: that processes may issue out of the ecclesiastical courts, and that a patent under the great seal is not necessary for the keeping of the said ecclesiastical courts, or for the enabling of citations, suspensions, excommunications, or other censures of the church; and that it is not necessary that summons, citations, or other processes' ecclesiastical in the said courts, or institutions, or inductions to benefices, or correction of ecclesiastical offences by censure in those courts, be in the name or with the style of the king, or under the king's seal; or that their seals of office have in them the kings arms. and that the statute of primo edvardi sexti c. 2 which enacted the contrary, is not now in force. we are also of opinion, that the bishops, archdeacon's, and other ecclesiastical persons may keep their visitations as usually they have done, without commission under the great seal of england so to do. john brampstone, john finch, humph. davenport, will. jones, jo. dinham, ri. hutton, george crook, tho. trevor, george vernon, ro. berkley, fr. crawly, ri. weston. enrolled in the courts of exchequer, king's bench, common pleas; and registered in the courts of high commission and star-chamber. hereupon followed the king's proclamation, declaring that the proceed of his majesty's ecclesiastical courts and ministers are according to the law of the land; as are the words of the title. i shall only transcribe the conclusion of the proclamation, which you have faithfully in these words. and his royal majesty hath thought fit, with the advice of his council, that a public declaration of these opinions and resolutions of his reverend and learned judges, being agreeable to the judgement and resolutions of former times, should be made known to all his subjects, as well to vindicate the legal proceed of his ecclesiastical courts and ministers, from the unjust and scandalous imputation of invading or entrenching on his royal prerogative, as to settle the minds, and stop the mouths of all unquiet spirits; that for the future they presume not to censure his ecclesiastical courts and ministers in these their just and warranted proceed: and hereof his majesty admonisheth all his subjects to take warning, as they shall answer the contrary at their perils: given at the court at lindhurst, aug. 18. in the thirteenth year of his majesty's reign. god save the king. you may see the case fully, the reasons on both sides, and the judge's determination the fourth of king james, to which this proclamation may refer, coke rep. 12. p. 7, 8. now i could almost submit it to mr. cary or mr. hickeringill himself, whether it be fit or safer for ecclesiastical judges to proceed in their courts as they now do; or altar their proceed, and presume upon the king, by using his royal name, and style, and arms, contrary to all this evidence, and reason, and law. sect. vi mr. h. cary's reason to the contrary considered. but mr. cary saith, he seethe not a drachm of reason, why the spiritual courts should not make their process in the king's name, as well as the temporal courts, since those, as well as these, are the king's courts. he seems to talk apothecary, without so much as a drachm of reason; the usage of the courts, and the evidence aforesaid, is better law than his pitiful guesses. neither is there colour of reason in what he saith, if these two things appear. 1. that the ecclesiastical ministers do sufficiently and openly acknowledge the dependence of their courts upon the crown without using his majesty's name, or style, or arms. 2. that there is not the same reason that the spiritual courts should use the king's name, etc. that there is for the temporal. 1. for the first, the ecclesiastical judges accept their places thankfully as the king's donation, and not the popes: then they readily grant they depend upon the crown, even for the exercise of their spiritual function; and that they receive all coercive and external jurisdiction immediately from the crown and the laws of the land, and not from the pope. again, they all take the oaths of supremacy and allegiance before their instalment, which are the fence of the crown against popery. and then in all their public prayers before their sermons, the bishops and archdeacon's, &c. do recognize the king's supremacy in all ecclesiastical things and causes as well as civil. again, they take the late test and the same oaths at the public sessions. and lastly, mr. cary himself confesseth, that they acknowledge the said supremacy in their public canons or constitutions of the whole church of england, as he notes p. 2. in can. 1, 2, 1603. and are all these less significant to testify their dependence on and acknowledgement of their derivation from the crown, than the king's name, and style, and arms (which may be far enough from the conscience) in a process? 2. for the second, that there is not the same reason to use the king's name in ecclesiastical as in civil courts, is apparent from the true cause of using it in the civil courts, which being not known or well heeded, may be the cause of the exception: for bishop sanderson hath well observed the true reason of using the king's name in any court, is not thereby to acknowledge the emanation of the power or jurisdiction of that court from, or the subordination of that power unto the king's power or authority, as the objector seems to suppose; but rather to show the same court to be one of the kings own immediate courts, wherein the king himself is supposed (in the construction of the law) either by his personal or virtual power to be present: and the not using the king's name in other courts doth not signify, that they do not act by the king's authority, but only that the judges in them are no immediate representatives of the king's person; nor have consequently, any allowance from him to use his name in the execution of them. 1. this difference is evident among the common law courts of this kingdom; for though all the immediate courts of the king do act expressly in his name, yet many other more distant courts do not; as all courts-baron, customary-courts of copyholders, etc. and such courts as are held by the kings grant, by charter to corporations, and the universities: in all which summons are issued out, and judgements given, and all acts and proceed made and done in the name of such persons as have chief authority in the said courts, and not in the name of the king; thus their styles run; a. b. major civitatis exon. n. m. cancellarius vniversitatis oxon. and the like, and not carolus dei gratia. 2. once more a little nearer to our case; there are other courts that are guided by the civil (as distinguished from the common) law; as the court-marshal and the court of admiralty; the king's name in these is no more used, than it is in the courts spiritual; but all processes, sentences, and acts in these courts, are in the name of the constable, head marshal, or admiral, and not in the king's name. 3. i shall conclude this with those grave and weighty words of the same most admirable bishop sanderson, in his excellent treatise, showing, that episcopacy as established by law in england, is not prejudicial to regal power; worthy of every englishman's reading: his words to our purpose are these; which manner of proceeding, like that of the spiritual courts, constantly used in those several courts before mentioned; sigh no man hath hitherto been found to interpret, as any diminution at all or disacknowledgment of the king's sovereignty over the said courts: it were not possible the same manner of proceeding in the ecclesiastical courts should be so confidently charged with so heinous a crime, did not the intervention of some wicked lust or other prevail with men of corrupt minds to become partial judges of evil thoughts, p. 68, 69. mr. hickeringill is one of those whom the bishop describes, i. e. that so confidently chargeth the ecclesiastical courts with that heinous crime, and foundeth that confidence in the statute of the 1 eliz. 1. in charity to him, i shall give him such words out of that statute, as do not only secure the act of queen mary that repealed the act of 1 edw. 6. 2. (requiring the use of the king's name in our proceed) from repeal in that particular; but directly and expressly ratifies and confirms the same, and our contrary proceed accordingly. so that our proceed in the ecclesiastical courts without using the king's name, or style, or arms, according to 1 edw. 6. 2. are allowed and established by this very act of queen eliz. thus; further enacted by the authority aforesaid, that all other laws and branches of any act repealed by the said act of repeal of mar. and not in this act specially mentioned and revived, shall stand and be repealed in such manner and form as they were before the making of this act; any thing herein contained to the contrary notwithstanding, 1 eliz. 1. 13. but the act of 2 phil. and mar was not specially mentioned in this act of repeal, nor any other: and the learned judges in 4 jac. observe, that this act of 1 eliz. revives an act of hen. 8. repealed by queen mary, and in both these statutes 1 edw. 6. 2. is made void; and the present proceeding of spiritual courts without the king's name, etc. plainly confirmed; but vid. coke rep. 12. p. 7. chap. v. the act of 1 eliz. 1. establishing the high-commission court, was not the foundation of ordinary ecclesiastical jurisdiction in england, against mr. hickeringill. the worthy gentleman, though he useth much modesty, and will not peremptorily assert; and hath only fitted the matter for the consideration of wiser men (if he can think there be any such) reason's wonderfully after this new and unheard of manner, or to this purpose, if at all. the statute of eliz. for the high-commission court was the only basis of all ecclesiastical power; this continued indeed during her time, and king james'; but being repealed by 17 car. 1. 11. and 13 car. 2. 12. down came the fabric; their great foundation thus torn up, now they have neither power from god nor man, nor ever shall; for his majesty hath by statute enacted never to empower them with any more commissions to the world's end. now their basis is taken away, i cannot discern where their authority lies, nak. t. q. 1. p. 4, 5, 6. this is the spirit of his reason, which he confesseth is not infallible; for he saith as before, he doth not peremptorily assert it. but can a man have the face to write this first, and then to say he is not peremptory? would a man in his wits expose himself in this manner in print, and blunder out so much prejudice, envy, spite and wrath against government? and talk such pitiful unadvised stuff about law? and think to shake the fabric of ecclesiastical jurisdiction, that hath stood firm so long in the midst of all its enemies, with shadows of straws? had he advised with the learned sage, his friend mr. cary, who is the author of the law of england, certainly he could never have talked so idly and impertinently, but would have put some colours at least upon his honest designs, as mr. cary himself hath done. but what if this wise mr. hickeringill err fundamentally all this while? and the clause of 1 eliz. and consequently the stat. of car. 1. and 2. touch not, concern not the ordinary jurisdiction of the church at all? as certainly they do not; and the only wonder is, so wise a man should not see it: a man of so great, and long experience, and practice in the jurisdiction and laws of the church: so diligent and accurate in his writings, and especially of naked truth; wherein he assures us, nothing is presented crude or immature, but well digested; as a few of those things that his head and heart, that is, his stomach have been long full of; as he saith, if you will believe him, p. ult. but doth not that clause that establisheth the high-commission affect our ordinary jurisdictions at all? what pity 'tis, that so excellent a book as this second part of naked truth is, should miscarry in its main project, and in the very foundation too: the fundamental supposition, on which all its strength is built; and in a maxim peculiar to the author's invention, and singularly his own, for aught i know; and wherein he seems to place his glory, especially seeing, as he tells us, p. ult. he has no pique, private interest, or revenge to gratify: and writes only to cure old ulcers; and with such hearty wishes that ecclesiastical jurisdiction, which is his interest as well as others, were of force, strength and virtue, and not so disorderly uncertain and precarious; as he proves it to be, without one argument, if this beloved one, taken from the high-commission, fail him. and yet alas! it will fail him do what we can: for the clause in the stat. 1 eliz. 1. 18. granted a power to the crown to establish the high-commission court, as a court extraordinary; consisting of extraordinary and choice ministers, not restrained to ordinary ecclesiastical officers: and the ordinary jurisdiction did never derive from it, was never disturbed or altered by it; but was ever from the beginning of it, consistent with and subordinate to it; therefore was it called the high-commission. this is evident, as from the concurrence of both jurisdictions all a long; so from the letter of the statute itself, and clearly declared to be so by my lord coke. this clause (saith he) divideth itself into two branches, the first concerning the visitation of the ecclesiastical state and persons; this branch was enacted out of necessity, for that all bishops and most of the clergy of england, being then popish, it was necessary to raise a commission to deprive them that would not deprive themselves: and in case of restitution of religion, to have a more summary proceeding than by the ordinary and prolix course of law is required. this branch concerns only ecclesiastical persons: so that, as necessity did cause this commission, so it should be exercised but upon necessity; for it was never intended that it should be a continual standing commission; for that should prejudice all the bishops in their ecclesiastical jurisdictions, and be grievous to the subject, to be drawn up from all the remote parts of the realm, where before their own diocesan they might receive justice at their own doors. so that this power of the high-commission, neither granted any new power to the ordinary ecclesiastical jurisdiction, nor took away any of the old. yea, it plainly supposeth the preexistence and exercise of the ecclesiastical jurisdiction in an ordinary way, and meddles no further with it than to take its measures from it, which by consequence allows it in itself, as well as for a rule of its own proceed, as my lord coke observes in these words. that your highness— shall name— to execute under your highness— all manner of jurisdiction, etc. and to visit and reform, etc. all errors, etc. which by any manner spiritual or ecclesiastical power— can or may lawfully be reform, etc. now if the ordinary jurisdiction by bishops, etc. did not derive from, or depend on that high-commission, the repealing the statute (i mean the clause) that empowered the high-commission can no wise affect, much less destroy that ordinary jurisdiction; and mr. hickeringill's foot is gone from his ground, and the ordinary jurisdiction of the church of england stands fixed upon its ancient bottom, on which it stood before the high-commission, and ever since, notwithstanding the high-commission is taken away, and should never be granted more. now i cannot but observe, that mr. hickeringill hath the ill luck to cut his own fingers with every tool he meddles with. the stat. of 13 car. 2. 12. which continues the repeat of the clause in 1 eliz. for the high-commission by the 17 of car. 1. which also took away our ecclesiastical jurisdiction; i say this stat. 13. car. 2. 12. restores the ordinary ecclesiastical jurisdiction, and excludes the power of the high-commission. whence it is plain, that the ecclesiastical jurisdiction does not essentially depend on, but may and doth now stand by act of parliament without the high-commission. again, whereas 'tis provided that the jurisdiction so restored shall not exceed in power, what it was in 1639. it is clear, that the church had a lawful jurisdiction before the wars, otherwise nothing is restored: yea, 'tis nonsense, or a delusion unworthy of a parliament, if they that made that act did not suppose and allow, that the ordinary exercise of jurisdiction in the spiritual courts in 1639. was according to law; and i am sure that was just such as is now exercised. chap. vi how our ecclesiastical jurisdiction in england came at first, and is at present established by law. to show how the ecclesiastical jurisdiction came at first to be established by law, is a point not so difficult as much desired. 'tis agreed, i hope, that all kindred's, tongues and nations own their obedience to the gospel, when and wheresoever it comes: and that england was one of the first of the nations that embraced it, and became a church of christ; then we were a rude unpolished and barbarous people, and knew little of civil policy or order of government; but by the gracious ministry of holy men sent from god, our manners began to be softened, and our minds sweetened and enlightened, and our princes became early nourishers and honourers of religion and religious persons; and good nursing fathers and nursing mothers to the church then planting among us; and began to endow it with wealth and power. arviragus, marius, coilus (as the three kings in malmesb. are named by capgravius) entertained christians exploded from all parts of the world, in this kingdom: and gave them peace, and provided them a country to dwell in; and first gave liberty to build and defend churches in public. lucius the first christian king, built churches at his own charge; first constituted bishops seats, and built dwellings for priests, and much enriched all things of that nature: and that religious men might with more safety enjoy what they had given them, amplis munivit privilegiis, fortified them with large privileges. here was born also (as baronius confesseth) constantine the great, who brought peace to the whole church; who was the first christian emperor; and likewise the first christian queen, his mother helen. if we come to the kings of the ages following, quis non stupeat, as spelman saith, who can choose but be astonished at the eximious piety, incredible zeal (ardorem) extraordinary (insignes) alms, manifold works of mercy, munificence towards god's ministers, and their magnificent and wonderful (profusionem) liberality and expense in building, adorning, enriching churches, insomuch, as one saith, mirum tunc fuer at regem videre non sanctum: and as another, there were more holy kings found in england than in any one, though the most populous province in the world. the day would fail (that worthy antiquary adds in his most excellent epistle before his councils, enough to inflame the coldest age with zeal for religion) the day would fail me, saith he, should i speak of edwin, ina, offa, ethered, edmund, ethelstan, canute, edward the confessor, and many others; seeing among all the illustrious kings, who were westsaxons, the third is scarce found, qui ecclesiam dei, in aliquibus, non ornaverit, auxerit, ditaverit, who did not adorn, augment and enrich the church of god. in these early times of zeal and piety among the kings of england, the jurisdiction and authority of the church took root, and began and proceeded to flourish; now, no doubt, but religion sincerely managed by good and meek churchmen, was a great mean to move the nation towards a better order in the civil state, both in government and law. now i say (to use spelman's words) when os sacerdotis oraculum esset plebis, os episcopi, oraculum regis & reipublicae, the mouth of the priest was an oracle to the people, and the mouth of the bishop was an oracle to the king and the commonwealth. in the time of ethelbert, the first christian king of the saxons, we find a convention at canterbury of bishops and lords, to settle the affairs of church and state. in the time of the heptarchy summons was, ad episcopos, principes, etc. decrees were made afterward, cum concilio episcoporum, thus during the time of the saxons, etc. and until the pope got footing here by the conqueror, ecclesiastical authority went on apace: yea 'tis evident, that it went on step by step with the progress of the civil, and was gradually owned, enlarged and established in the very essence and degrees, and together with the establishment of the civil state. insomuch, that ecclesiastical jurisdiction was so twisted and interwoven, and, as it were, wrapped in the very bowels of the civil; and the ecclesiastical law so concerned and intimately wrought into the temporal law and government, that 'twas hard to make the separation, or indeed clearly to assign the distinction betwixt them; which hath taken up the care, both of lawyers and statutes to do it effectually and throughly; and perhaps may be in some measure a reason of many prohibitions against ecclesiastical prohibitions to this day. hence also it was, that beyond all known time of christianity in england, our great churchmen have had no small hand in making all our laws, both ecclesiastical and civil: and also sat many hundred years together with our temporal judges in all places of public judicature. primi igitur sedebant in omnibus regni comitiis & tribunalibus episcopi: in regali quidem palatio cum regni magnatibus: in comitat●s unà cum comite & justitiario comitatus: in turno vicecomitis cum vicecomite: in hundredro cum domino hundredi. so that in promoting justice every where the sword might aid the sword, & nihil inconsulto sacerdote (qui velut suburra in navi fuit) ageretur, sp. epis. conc. yet we must remember, and 'tis carefully minded in our statutes before mentioned, that our kings were the true and acknowledged fountains of the beginning and increase of that wealth, and honour, and power, which the church and churchmen then enjoyed; and that the kings of england were ever supreme over this church, and all its ministers; and not the pope, or any foreign power; the pope's collector or minister (so say our ancient books) had no jurisdiction in this land, lord coke of courts, p. 321. in our law before the conquest, the king was the vicar of the highest king, ordained to this end, that he should above all govern the church, edw. laws, c. 19 and this hath been carefully maintained by our laws ever since. see cawdries case. sect. i. jurisdiction of the church in common law. thus the power and jurisdiction ecclesiastical grew up with and received much perfection by and in common law. by common law, i mean, long and general use in the whole land; for as i take it, my lord coke saith, that time and use make a custom: when that's general in england, it's called common law; that is my meaning; whether my notion be right, i weigh not, if the matter and argument prove and express the manner of the churches ancient authority and jurisdiction before the statutes. 'tis most evident, william the conqueror found the bishops and other ecclesiastical ministers in great power and with large jurisdiction, which they had long enjoyed, according to the law and custom of the realm. call that law what you will, by that they enjoyed their ancient rights and government, and that's enough. 'tis true indeed, william changed the ancient custom we spoke of, and distinguished the tribunals one from the other: but saith spelman, secrevit, non diminuit jurisdictionem cleri, he did not lessen the jurisdiction of the clergy: yea, by swearing, he confirmed the laws of holy church, quoniam per eam. rex & regnum solidum subsistendi sistendi habent fundamentum. prooemium ll. suarum, ut spel. epis. because, by the church both king and kingdom have a solid foundation of subsisting. thus the church's rights, in being before, were confirmed by the conqueror. my lord coke notes two excellent rules of common law to our purpose. 1. the law doth appoint every thing to be done by those unto whose office it properly appertaineth. 2. 'tis a maxim of the common law, that where the right is spiritual, and the remedy thereof only by the ecclesiastical law, the connusance thereof doth belong to the spiritual court, coke instit. p. 1. 3. hence it follows, that there being many cases in which there is no remedy any other way provided, by common law vid. cawdries case, answ. to object. 4. they belong to the spiritual courts, and the common law both empowers and requires those courts to give remedy in those cases. thus stood ecclesiastical jurisdiction in england by common law before our statutes took so much notice of it; and our statutes since, whenever they mention it, do generally mention it, as a government supposed, upon grounds good and firm in law to have existed before, and also then to be in use, and to flourish in its present exercise, and proceed in its proper course and courts. 'tis as idle a thing to look in the statute-books for the beginning of ecclesiastical power and its courts, as for the beginning of courts-baron, which are such by common law, as coke saith, or the court of marshalsea, which, as coke's words are, hath its foundation in common law; or courts of copyholders, which are such by custom: and for the same reason to question the lawfulness of these courts, because, in their original, they were not established by act of parliament, as well as the legality of the courts spiritual; these being equally founded in the ancient usage, custom and law of england; and all taken care for in magna charta, that ancient authentic account of our common law. and why are ecclesiastical judges (i mean not bishops only, whom mr. hickeringill finds in scripture, but) archdeacon's, chancellors, officials, etc. as well established in their proper power, as coroners, high-constables, etc. that have the origine of their offices before statutes? have not ecclesiastical officers, when lawfully invested, power, as well as they, to act in their proper jurisdictions, by the same common law? by long, ancient and established custom; or as the usual word in our statutes in this very case is, secundum consuetudines & leges angliae? my lord coke saith, the king's prerogative is a principal part of the common law, which also flourisheth in this part of it, the ecclesiastical power and jurisdiction, as well as in the civil state and government. thus we acknowledge, the ecclesiastical state, and external, and coercive jurisdiction derives from and depends upon the crown of england by common law: and i am bold to add, that the former cannot easily be abolished and destroyed (i do not say altered) without threatening the latter, i mean the crown (at least some prejudice to it) on which it depends. thus ecclesiastical jurisdiction stands by common law, on which also most of our civil rights depend; but we confess it is bounded (as my lord coke) by the same common law; and in all reason it must be so, it being subordinate to the king as supreme, who is supposed to be personally or virtually present in his great courts of common law; and is so declared to be by acts of parliament. instit. p. 1. pag. 344. of my lord coke. sect. ii. the government ecclesiastical is established in the statutes of this realm. the ecclesiastical jurisdiction being thus found established by law before the statute-books were made, the statutes do establish it as much as any reasonable unprejudiced man can expect or desire. we shall begin with magna charta, which is statute as well as common law, and seems to unite and tie them together; this stands at the beginning of our statute-book; and the first thing in this, is a grant and establishment for ever of the rights and liberties of the church; that must be understood of the rights and liberties then in being; and among the rest, sure the great right and liberty of the church's power, and the free use of her ecclesiastical jurisdiction. magna charta itself expounds what it means by holy church, i. e. the bishops and ministers of it, which king hen. 8. in the statute saith is commonly called the spiritualty: and mr. hickeringill, for all his scoffing, knows that the church of england allows a larger sense of the word [church] viz. the congregation of all faithful men, etc. and when we call the clergy, or the governing-part of the church, the church, we use it in a law-sence, and as a term of law, as acts of parliament as well as the civil or canon-law do: but this by the way. 2. when the subsequent acts of parliament do so frequently mention the spiritual courts, and their jurisdiction; this to me is a legal allowance of them; and indeed a tacit or implicit acknowledgement of their more ancient antecedent power and common right and liberty, by the undoubted custom, i. e. the common laws of the land. yea those very statutes that look at least obliquely upon them; that say they are bounded by the common law; that do of themselves limit and prohibit the ecclesiastical courts in some cases, seem plainly to acknowledge them in other cases not excepted from their jurisdiction. but, 3. more plainly and directly, those acts of parliament that appear in the behalf of ecclesiastical jurisdiction in times of its trial and danger, and vindicate its rights, and preserve and maintain its liberties when most in question: there have happened such occasions, wherein the statutes have rescued and replevied the ecclesiastical power; in all which the statutes have been thus favourable to it; three of late, not to mention many formerly. 1. thus, when some might imagine, that by the alteration made by king hen. 8. the bishops and their power was shaken: the statutes made in his time assure us, that it was but to restore the ancient jurisdiction, and not to destroy it; that bishops should be elected and act as formerly; especially as coke noteth, by the 25 hen. 8. c. 20. it is enacted, that every person chosen, invested, consecrated, archbishop or bishop, according to this act, shall do and execute every thing and things as any archbishop or bishop of this realm, without offending of the prerogative royal of the crown, and the laws and customs of the realm at any time heretofore have done. note, that this statute, contrary to the 1 edw. 6. 2. was revived by queen eliz. 1. cap. 1. which the judges thought and judged a full answer to all the objections against the churches proceed contrary to the 1 edw. 6. 2. and by this very statute 1 edw. 6. 2. stands clearly repealed, as my lord coke observes rep. 12. 8, 9 which caused me to make choice of it for my present purpose. 2. the second is observed in the time of phil. and mar. when the manner of ecclesiastical jurisdiction had been altered by the 1 edw. 6. the statute establisheth the same as it was before in these words: and the ecclesiastical jurisdictions of the archbishops, bishops, and (other) ordinaries, to be in the same estate for process of suits, punishment of crimes, and execution of censures of the church, and knowledge of causes belonging to the same; and as large in those points, as the said jurisdiction was the 20 hen. 8. which statute of phil. and mar repealed the 1 edw. 6. 2. and was never repealed since, as the judges resolved in the foresaid case 4 jac. but evidently revived by 1 eliz. 1. sect. 13. 3. when thirdly, the long parl. 17 car. 1. had disabled the jurisdiction of the courts ecclesiastical, it was very carefully restored and established by the stat. 13. car. 2. in these words; neither this act— shall take away any ordinary jurisdiction from the said archbishops, etc. but that they, and every of them, may proceed— in all manner of ecclesiastical jurisdiction; and in all censures and coertions belonging to the same, as they did and might lawfully have done before the making of the said act. vid. 17 car. 1. 4. 'tis sufficient, yet i cannot but subjoin one notable way more argumentative enough, alone by itself, to prove the ecclesiastical courts to be allowed and confirmed by statute, viz. when the statutes direct such particulars to be tried in these courts; and require these spiritual courts to use their power for the punishment of offenders, and the doing justice: and i think there cannot be a better medium or clearer evidence than we have in this matter. for if the spiritual courts have no power to try such matters, and pass judgement, and punish in such cases, why do the statutes direct and remit such matters to them? and why do the statutes enjoin them to take connusance and proceed accordingly? that so they do, is plain. in the 18 of edw. 3. 6. 'tis said, that process in causes testamentary notoriously appertaineth to holy church. we must not blemish the franchize of holy church: and in the 18 of edw. 3. 6. parties are to be dismissed from secular judges in cause of tithes, and left to the church: ordinaries have power to punish ministers and priests; as in 1 hen. 7. c. 4. synodals, proxies, pensions, etc. are to be recovered in the spiritual courts. vid. 15 hen. 8. c. 7. sect. 7. the like is known touching causes matrimonial and defamations, etc. i shall only instance one more, viz. in the great cause of nonconformity; and that in an act that is nearer to us, and of unquestionable authority, which both directs what we should punish, and most solemnly requires by its own authority to exercise our ecclesiastical power, by the very rules and proper methods of our spiritual courts; in these words, 1 eliz. before the common prayer: provided always, and be it ordained and enacted by the authority aforesaid, that all and singular archbishops and bishops, and every of their chancellors, commissaries, archdeacon's, and other ordinaries, having any peculiar ecclesiastical jurisdiction, shall have full power and authority by virtue of this act, as well to inquire in their visitatiions, synods, and elsewhere, within their jurisdiction, at any other time or place, to take accusation and informations of all and every the things above mentioned, done, committed or perpetrated within the limits of their jurisdictions and authority, as to punish the same, by admonition, excommunication, sequestration, or deprivation, and other censures and process, in like form as heretofore hath been used in like cases, by the queen's ecclesiastical laws. this doubtless is very plain. and hereupon, 'tis solemnly required in these words a little-before: for the due execution hereof, they do in god's name earnestly require and charge all archbishops, bishops, and other ordinaries, that they shall endeavour themselves to the utmost of their knowledges, that the due and true execution hereof may be had, throughout their dioceses and charges, as they will answer before god for such evils and plagues, whereby almighty god may justly punish his people for neglecting this good and wholesome law. now if in like cases it had not been lawful before this act, for the spiritual courts so to proceed, why are the former laws and use to be followed by these directions? or if this act cannot empower us, give us reason or law against it. or if any thing be a greater grievance to you in the spiritual courts, than the punishment provided for the crimes mentioned in this act, say what it is, or say nothing. but if these cases be not sufficient, mr. cary can tell you of at least ten particular matters, upon which the law is, to grant the writ de excommunicato capiendo: and according to a know act of parliament made after this, viz. 5 eliz. 23. which sufficiently allows and confirms our ecclesiastical proceed to the fences of too many, as some complain. chap. vii. of canons and convocations. we see what reason mr. hickeringill had to keep such a pother about the force of ecclesiastical canons, and the authority of convocations. especially, 1. seeing the late mentioned act of 1 eliz. supposeth the ecclesiastical laws, i. e. the canons to be her own laws; and requires ecclesiastical judges so severely to put them in execution. 2. seeing, since the reformation, most of the matters of canons are expressed and enjoined in acts of parliament; insomuch, that ecclesiastical jurisdiction might stand and proceed well enough, had we no other canon but acts of parliament, as mr. hickeringill insinuates: and 'tis worthy his observation, that the greatest complaints of dissenters, since the king's happy return, have been upon the execution of acts of parliament, and that not so much by ecclesiastical as civil ministers. indeed the statute of car. 2. that restored the ecclesiastical jurisdiction, hath a proviso, that by virtue of that act, the canons of 1640. shall not be of force; and that no canons are made of force by that act that were not formerly confirmed by acts of parliament, or by the established laws of the land, as they stood in ann. 1639. but 'tis evident enough, that by the 25 hen. 8. c. 19 the old canons, not against law or prerogative, are of force; and that the king with the convocation, may make new ones, with the same condition; and indeed, while the convocation is so limited by that act, their power seems not very formidable. my lord coke, who was not a bigot for spiritual power, declares the law in both those cases; and tells us, that it was resolved by the judges at a committee of lords, these restraints of the convocation were grounded on that statute. 1. they cannot assemble without the assent of the king. 2. they cannot constitute any canons without his licence. 3. nor execute them without his royal assent. 4. nor after his assent, but with these four limitations. 1. that they be not against the king's prerogative. 2. nor against common law. 3. nor against statute law. 4. nor against any custom of the kingdom, rep. 12. p. 720. and my lord coke adds, that these restraints put upon the convocation by the 25 hen. 8. are but an affirmance of what was before the statute; and, as he saith (in his book of courts) are but declaratory of the old common law: pag. 323. consequently the courts of common law are to bond and overrule all ecclesiastical executions of canons, and secure the crown and the laws against them. but what acts of parliament have abrogated the authority of the synod 1603. and quite annihilated the very beings of convocations, i am yet to learn; though mr. hickeringill so boldly after his own way vents so wild a notion p. 3. & 12. or when that of 25 hen. 8. 19 was repealed, or how they are made less than nothing at this day, than they were before, since that statute of limitations, as he is pleased to insult? he saith, they are far from being the representative church of england; for that the people have not the least vote in their election. pray, when was it otherwise than 'tis now? if the law by institution make the clerk a guide to his flock in spirituals; if the people do expressly make choice of him for such, or virtually consent in law he should be so; and thereupon the law allows this clerk to elect members for the convocation, and also reckons the convocation to be the representative church of england; how comes it that mr. hickeringill who is so great a stickler for a legal religion should be so much wiser than the law? and to scoff at its constitutions? i wish mr. hickeringill to beware of touching foundations with his rude and bold fancies, and disturbing the frame of government. i am sure he will not abide by his own rule, if he be well advised of the manner of electing the great representative of the people of england: 'tis our duty to study to be quiet, but some study to be otherwise. the wisest word in his naked truth is this; if men once come to dispute authority, and the wisdom of the laws and lawmakers, the next step is confusion and rebellion, p. 11. the conclusion. thus you have a taste of the spirit and sense that runs through the book called naked truth; his other little gross mistakes are not worthy observing, much less insisting on: such as these: 1. first, that all archdeaconries have corpses annexed, which is certainly otherwise, in most archdeaconries in some dioceses. 2. then that archdeacon's require procurations when they do not visit; which is not done in some, and i hope in no diocese. 3. lastly, that procurations and synodals are against law, and not to be recovered by law or conscience; when he himself confesseth that they are due by ancient composition: that provision (notwithstanding his old canons) in visitations is due; for which the money, paid for procurations, is paid for them by virtue of that composition: and whereas, they are due by undoubted and long possession and custom, which is as law in england: and to conclude, are not only expressly allowed as due, but declared to be recoverable in the ecclesiastical courts, by the statute of 34 hen. 8. 19 i have, at this time, done with his materials; and for the manner of his writing, let the sentence of every reader reproach and shame him. i like not the office of raking kennels or emptying jakes; and all the harm i return him, is to pray hearty for him, that god would give him grace soberly to read over his own books, and with tears to wash these dirty sheets, wherein he hath played the wanton; and indeed defiled himself more than his own nest (whatever the unlucky bird intended) and that with such a barbarous wit, and vile raillery, as is justly offensive to god and man: with such wild triumphs of scorn and contempt of his own order and office, his betters and superiors; with such a profligate neglect of government and peace; and of his own conscience and law (against which, he confesseth, he still acts) yea, against his own interest, safety, and his very reputation. for all which notorious and public miscarriages, i wish he thought it fit to do public penance in another new and cleaner sheet. i have to do with two adversaries, mr. hickeringill and mr. cary: the first wisheth the church of england had more power than it now hath; the other, that it had less. i presume in the name of the true sons of this church, that we are very thankful for the power we have, by the favour of our gracious king and his good laws. and as we do, and always shall acknowledge the dependence of our ecclesiastical jurisdiction upon the imperial crown of this realm: so whether it seem good to the king and his high court of parliament, to augment or lessen it, or to continue it as it is, we shall still maintain our loyalty, and manifest our duty, and cheerfully submit ourselves. but, lord, forgive our enemies, persecutors and slanderers, and turn their hearts. the postscript. i have reserved a few authorities for the satisfaction of such as have no mind or leisure to read the book; which alone are sufficient to oppose and expose my adversaries objections. i. episcopal government in the church of england is as ancient as the church; and at first was subordinate, under god, only to our kings, without any relation to or▪ dependence on the pope; and declared to be so, with the grounds and reasons thereof, very early by edw. 1. and edw. 3. and so established by acts of parliament. read 25 edw. 3. the sum is thus. here we have a recital of the first statute against provisors, to this effect; whereas the holy church of england was founded in the estate of prelacy by the grandfather of this king and his progenitors, etc. and by them endowed with great possessions, etc. for them to inform the people in the law of god; to keep hospitality, etc. and whereas the king and other founders of the said prelacies were the rightful adowers thereof; and upon avoidance of such ecclesiastical promotions, had power to advance thereunto their kinsmen, friends, and other learned men of the birth of this realm; which being so advanced, became able and worthy to serve the king in council, and other places in the commonwealth: the bishop of rome usurping the seignory of such possessions and benefices, did give the same to aliens,— as if he were rightful patron of those benefices; whereas, by the law of england, he never had the right patronage thereof: whereby in short time all the spiritual promotions in this realm would be engrossed into the hands of strangers, canonical elections of prelates would be abolished, works of charity would cease, the founders and true patrons would be disinherited, the king's council weakened, and the whole kingdom impoverished, and the laws and rights of the realm destroyed. upon this complaint it was resolved in parliament, that these oppressions and grievances should not be suffered in any manner; and therefore it was enacted, that the king and his subjects should thenceforth enjoy their rights of patronage: that free elections of archbishops and bishops, and other prelates elective should be made according to the ancient grants of the king's progenitors and their founders; and that no provision from rome should be put in execution; but that those provisors should be attached, fined and ransomed at the kings will; and withal imprisoned, till they have renounced the benefit of their bulls, satisfied the party grieved, and given sureties not to commit the like offence again. ii. before this forementioned act was made, the spiritual courts were in being, and had power by the law of the land, to try such causes as were not to be tried by common law: so declared and established by acts of parliament. vid. in the time of edw. 1. and edw. 2. near four hundred years since. circumspect agatis, 13 edw. 1. an. 1285. the king to his judges sendeth greeting: use yourselves circumspectly, in all matters concerning the bishop of norwich and his clergy; not punishing them if they hold plea in things as be mere spiritual, as penance enjoined by prelates, corporal or pecuniary— for fornication, adultery, or such like: for tithes and oblations due and accustomed; reparations of the church and church-yard; mortuaries, pensions, laying violent hands upon a clerk, causes of defamation, perjury: all such demands are to be made in the spiritual courts; and the spiritual judge shall have power to take knowledge of them notwithstanding the king's prohibition. iii. hereupon a consultation was to be granted 24 edw. 1. as followeth. whereas ecclesiastical judges have often surceased to proceed by force of the kings writ of prohibition in cases, whereas remedy could not be had in the king's courts— our lord the king willeth and commandeth, that where ecclesiastical judges do surcease in the aforesaid cases, by the king's prohibition, that the chancellor or the chief justice, upon sight of the libel, at the instance of the plaintiff (if they can see that the case cannot be redressed by writ out of chancery, but that the spiritual court ought to determine the matters) shall write to the ecclesiastical judge, that he proceed therein, notwithstanding the king's prohibition. more particularly, those cases reserved by law and statute, against which no prohibition can be legally granted, are enumerated in articul. cleri, 9 edw. 2. iv thus the proceed of the spiritual courts, and the causes belonging to them were supposed, directed, allowed, and established by these ancient statutes. and lest those causes have not been sufficiently specified, no prohibition shall be awarded out of chancery, but in case where we have the connusance, and of right aught to have; as it is in the 18 of edw. 3. provided. whence 'tis a general rule, both in law and statute, that such cases as have no remedy provided in the other law, belong to the spiritual courts: and indeed, it hence appears they have ever done so; because we no where find in our laws, that the common law did ever provide for them: and because the kingdom of england is an entire empire, where the king is furnished with a temporalty and spiritualty, sufficient to administer justice to all persons, and in all causes whatsoever: and consequently, what causes are not in the connusance of the common law, belong to the spiritual jurisdiction, which is plainly implied in 24 hen. 8. c. 12. and other statutes. upon the same ground in law depend three great truths. 1. the antiquity of ecclesiastical courts. 2. their dependence upon the crown. 3. the perfection of the government, to administer justice in all cases to all persons, from the supreme power exercised in the temporal and spiritual courts; all which lie in the preamble of that statute according to our ancient laws. for, saith my lord coke in the conclusion of cawdries case, it hath appeared, as well by the ancient common laws of this realm, by the resolution of the judges and sages of the laws of england in all succession of ages, as by authority of many acts of parliament, ancient and of latter times, that the kingdom of england is an absolute monarchy, and that the king is the only supreme governor, as well over ecclesiastical persons, and in ecclesiastical causes, as temporal: to the due observation of which laws, both the king and the subject are sworn. v if you desire a more full and particular account of such cases, as being not provided for at common law, are therefore, and have been ever under the spiritual power, take this excellent enumeration of my lord cawdries case. coke. observe (good reader) seeing that the determination of heresies, schisms, and errors in religion, ordering, examination, admission, institution and deprivation of men of the church (which do concern god's true religion and service) of right of matrimony, divorces, and general bastardy, (whereupon depend the strength of men's descents and inheritances) of probate of testaments, and letters of administration (without which no debt or duty due to any dead man can be recovered by the common law) mortuaries, pensions, procurations, reparations of churches, simony, incest, adultery, fornication and incontinency, and some others, doth not belong to the common law, how necessary it was for administration of justice, that his majesty's progenitors, kings of this realm, did by public authority authorise ecclesiastical courts under them, to determine those great and important causes ecclesiastical (exempted from the jurisdiction of the common law) by the king's laws ecclesiastical, which was done originally for two causes. 1. that justice should be administered under the kings of this realm, within their own kingdom, to all their subjects, and in all causes. 2. that the kings of england should be furnished upon all occasions, either foreign or domestical, with learned professors, as well of the ecclesiastical as temporal laws. vi ecclesiastical laws are the king's laws, though process be not in the king's name. now, albeit the proceed and process of the ecclesiastical courts be in the name coke, cawdr. case, latter end. of the bishops, etc. it followeth not therefore, that either the court is not the kings, or the law, whereby they proceed, is not the king's law. for taking one example for many, every leet or view of frankpledge holden by a subject is kept in the lords name, and yet it is the king's court, and all the proceed therein are directed by the king's laws. vii. spiritual causes secured from prohibitions, notwithstanding, by acts of parliament. lord coke, cawdries case in edw. 2. albeit, by the ordinance of circumspect agatis made in the 13 year of edw. 1. and n. b. by general allowance and usage, the ecclesiastical court held plea of tithes, obventions, oblations, mortuaries, redemptions of penance, laying of violent hands upon a clerk, defamations, etc. yet did not the clergy think themselves assured, nor quiet from prohibitions purchased by subjects, until that king edw. the second by his letters patents, under the great seal, in, and by consent of parliament, upon the petitions of the clergy, had granted unto them to have jurisdiction in those cases. the king in a parliament holden in the ninth year of his reign, after particular answers made to their petitions concerning the matters abovesaid, doth grant and give his royal assent in these words. we desiring, as much of right as we may, to provide for the state of the church of england, and the tranquillity and quiet of the prelates of the said clergy, to the honour of god, and the amendment of the state of the said church, and of the prelates and clergy; ratifying and approving all and singular the said answers which appear in the said act; and all and singular things in the said answers contained, we do for us and our heirs grant and command, that the said be inviolably kept for ever: willing and granting for us and our heirs, that the said prelates and clergy, and their successors for ever, do exercise▪ ecclesiastical jurisdiction in the premises, according to the tenor of the said answer. viii. the ecclesiastical jurisdiction is a branch of the king's supremacy; and he that denieth it, denieth the king to be a complete monarch, and head of the whole entire body of cawdries case. the realm, as my lord coke assures us, both from the common law and many statutes in all ages— made on purpose, from time to time, to vindicate the crown and secure our own church and its jurisdiction under the crown from the pope, and his illegal encroachments and usurpations before, and more especially by hen. 8. and since the reformation; as is very amply proved by my lord coke, in his most excellent discourse on cawdry's case, and since very learnedly and fully by sir john davis, attorney general in ireland, in his case of praemunire, called lalor's case; both which should be well read by all that desire satisfaction in this weighty point. thus the jurisdiction of this church, in subordination to the supreme head of it, hath proceeded through all time, in the laws and statutes of our own kingdom; and was never legally interrupted, till the 17 of car. 1. but that act repealed by the 13 of our present gracious king, it stands firm again, according to the letter of the said last act, upon its ancient legal basis. ix. the old objection, that the spiritual courts do not act in the king's name, etc. is fully answered in the book; but, because it is only mentioned there, that the case was resolved by the judges in king james' time: i shall here set it l. coke, rep. 12. p. 7. down, as abridged (for brevity) out of my lord coke by manly. pasch. 4 jac. regis. at this parliament, it was strongly urged at a grand committee of the lords and commons in the painted chamber; that such bishops as were made after the first day of the session, were not lawful bishops. 1. admitting them bishops, yet the manner and form of their seals, stiles, process and proceed in their ecclesiastical courts, were not consonant to law; because, by the stat. 1 edw. 6. 2. it is provided, thenceforth bishops should not be elective, but donative, by letters patents of the king; and for that, at this day, all bishops were made by election, not donation of the king; therefore the said bishops are not lawful. 2. by the same act it is provided, that all summons, etc. and process in ecclesiastical courts shall be made in the king's name and style, and their seals engraven with the king's arms, and certificates made in the king's name: it was therefore concluded, that the said statute being still in force, by consequence all the bishops made after the act of 1 jac. were not lawful bishops; and the proceed being in the name of the bishop, makes them unlawful, quia non observata forma infertur adnullatio actus. upon consideration of these objections, by the king's commandment, it was resolved by popham chief justice of england, and coke attorney of the king, and after affirmed by the chief baron, and the other justice's attendant to the parliament, that the said act of 1 edw. 6. 2. is not now in force; being repealed, annulled and annihilated by three several acts of parliament; any whereof being in force, it makes that act of 1 edw. 6. that it cannot stand, quia leges posteriores priores contrarias abrogant: and by the act of the 25 hen. 8. c. 20. is set forth the manner of election and consecration of archbishops and bishops; and also for the making and execution of all things which belong to their authority: with which words the style and seal of their courts, and the manner of their proceed are included: which act of 25 hen. 8. is revived by 1 eliz. c. 1. and consequently, that of 1 edw. 6. c. 2. is repealed. i advise the reader to see it, as more at large, expressed; and the repealing statutes particularly mentioned, and argued in my lord coke, 12 rep. p. 7, 8, 9 and bid him farewel, and not be wiser than the law. finis. a catalogue of some books lately printed for richard royston. roma ruit: the pillars of rome, broken: wherein all the several pleas for the pope's authority in england, with all the material defences of them, as they have been urged by romanists from the beginning of our reformation to this day, are revised and answered. by fr. fullwood, d. d. archdeacon of totnes in devon. the new distemper: or the dissenters usual pleas for comprehension, toleration, and the renouncing the covenant, considered and discussed; with some reflections upon mr. baxter's and mr. alsop's late pamphlets, published in answer to the reverend dean of s. paul's sermon concerning separation. the lively picture of lewis du moulin, drawn by an incomparable hand. together with his last words: being his retractation of all the personal reflections he had made on the divines of the church of england, (in several books of his) signed by himself on the fifth and the seventeenth of october, 1680. christ's counsel to his church: in two sermons preached at the two last fasts. by s. patrick, dean of peterburgh, and chaplain in ordinary to his majesty. the end. politic discourses upon trveth and lying. an instruction to princes to keep their faith and promise: containing the sum of christian and moral philosophy, and the duty of a good man in sundry politic discourses upon the truth and lying. first composed by sir martin cognet, knight, one of the king's privy council, master of requests of his household, and lately ambassador to the cantons of switzers & grizons. newly translated out of french into english, by sir edward hoby, knight. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. it is better to trust in the lord, then to put any confidence in princes. psal. 118.9. printer's or publisher's device desir n'a repos 1586 at london, printed by ralph newberie. cum gratia & privilegio regiae maiestatis. 1586. uni soli et semper to the right honourable, sir william cecil, of the most noble order of the garter, knight, baron of burghley, lord high treasurer of england, and one of her majesties most honourable privy council. my good lord: it may seem in the conceits of the over-curious, that in some sort it fareth at this instant with me, as it did sometime with the old philosopher phormio: who amidst the most sumptuous entertainmentes at ephesus, which k. antiochus made unto hannibal in the time of his banishment from carthage, for a further delight and recreation was willed to dilate upon some theme: and accordingly he took in hand to discourse of the duty of a captain, and to teach what was appertaining to the discipline of war: which when he had finished, hannibal being desired by the standers by, to deliver his opinion of him, answered, that he had before seen many old men dote, but never none more than phormio. like blame than i may incur, in being thought too busy in dealing with matters of philosophy, a matter as contrary to my profession as the other was to the philosophers, and in me to be turned to the rashness of youth, what in him was to the dotage of old age. but howsoever these my endeavours may lie in the consideration of the envious or overcurious, with which two humours this age most aboundeth, yet if by your lo: they may be esteemed worthy of your honourable protection, i shall not only think it my greatest happiness to have employed my time herein, but also with the like opportunity and leisure shallbe encouraged to wade into some argument of greater pains and moment: having at the first entered hereinto through the persuasion of a friend of mine, who being in the court of france the last year when the author first published this book, sent me one over highly commending the same, and praying me for his sake to spend some time in perusing thereof, the which i was the more willing to perform, considering how convenient it was, when through the thick mists and unhoalesome airs of this solitary island, i was hindered of other recreation, for the avoiding of idleness, to betake myself to the contemplation of my study: and so only that thereby the matter might be the better understood and carried away by me, i bestowed pains in the translation thereof, which fully finished, hath a good while since lain by me, and longer, (knowing mine own weakness and imbecility) had done, had i not lately been much pressed by my good friend master t. d. to give my consent to the publishing thereof, as a matter necessary, as he thought for the time, and especially for such as understood not the french tongue. the matter contained in the book may be a commendation of this work. sir, with no small contentation of mind, i have according to your request perused your translation of mounsieur coggnets moral politic or rather right christian discourses, in commendation of verity, and detestation of her contrary. and as that honourable author made most grave election, to handle such matter and subject as for this time and state of his country was more than necessary, so can i not but singularly commend your choice of this stranger, & your endeavour to make him an english denizen, thereby to transport, and communicate with your country generally such precious wares as will be found no less wholesome & commodious, then delectable and pleasant to all degrees, but especially to the best and most noble. for although princes and great estates have many felicious blessings, whereof private men can not be partakers, yet in this one respect is their estate more miserable, that they seldom or never find a faithful friend that sincerely will or dare auriculas teneras mordaci rodere vero. whereby they reject often the unsavoury wholesome bitter medicine, that would reduce their health and preserve their strength. and in steed thereof swallow up the delicate sweetened poison that finally works their helpless bane and mortal confusion. and therefore have the wise philosophers admonished emperors, kings, princes, and other great and honourable persons, that swim in the seas of felicity, by reading histories and moral politic discourses to inform themselves of such matters, as their parasites will not, and honest servants or friends many times dare not reveal unto them, thereby to escape the dangerous downfall of impendant calamities, whereunto the greatest princes are much more subject than the most inferior private persons. since then this treatise (containing a methodical abundance of such godly grave admonitions for all estates) may aptly be compared to a precious posy of most fragrant flowers (compendiously for that purpose gathered from infinite variety of foreign gardens, historical, poetical, politic, moral, human and divine, gravely, discreetly and christianly, conferred and applied) deprive not your self of dew praise and thanks, for publishing and emparting with your countrymen so rare a jewel, whom you shall thereby also suspend in reverent expectation of more honourable fruits to succeed this your first right virtuous blossoms: the true ensigns and very original cause of right nobility: whereunto with your happy society of the muses, i wish and very heartily recommend you. yours dutifully to command, thomas digges. the contents. that the truth is a virtue most praise worthy, by what it may be discerned, and of that which hindereth the knowledge thereof. fol. 1. the definition of truth and faith. fol. 3. properties of the truth, and how much it is requisite in a prince and clergy. 5 extremities in the truth, and how men may speak of themselves, and of that which they understand, and that men ought not to publish any writing, but of their own invention and to some purpose, nor to attribute to themselves the honour of a thing well done. 7 of feigning and dissembling. 10 that the deed ought to be correspondent to the word, and to fly hypocrisy. 12 that those which love the truth should show it by good works, and of the means which do lead us thereunto, and of those which are far from it. 15 how much true men have been esteemed and that all magistrates ought to be so, and of the riches of princes. 21 that it behoveth to keep promise, with instruction not to make it with one's disadvantage, and not to give place to the importunate. 24 examples of evils happened to breakers of promise, and of that which dependeth thereupon. 26 effects of the truth, with exhortation not to change the statutes or laws, and not to dance upon holy days, praise of frenchmen, and a solution of that for which they are blamed. 29 of the means to withstand inconstancy and lightness, and not to take in hand war or fight without necessity, of the point of honour, that one ought not to defer a good purpose, that the reading of good books giveth hardiness and prudence, that one ought not too hastily proceed in criminal judgement, that one ought to fly evil and seducing companies with other instructions to nobility, worthy to be noted. 42 that the truth findeth good, that which many fear and fly, and giveth contentment. 51 of the care which men have had that youth might be instructed in the truth. 60 how requisite it is to speak little, and not to blaze a secret, with advise upon news invented, and of that which is to be spoken. 61 that aswell of friends as enemies one should learn the truth. 68 that it is needful to read histories, there to see the truth which one is afraid to speak, with advise upon the reading of all books, and of the conquests of frenchmen, of the means to keep them, and to assure a victory, of the duty of a captain, and of that which is to be considered, in examples and alterations. 69 that one ought not to suffer himself to be deceived by praises, nor be carried away from modesty, and that honour dependeth upon virtue, with advise upon the same, or upon the reproaches or lies of the people, and how much it is requisite to command one's self. 74 that without the truth there is nought else but darkness and confusion, and how much the philosophers have laboured to find it out, and how far wide they have been of it. 80 of disguisings done to princes, and what is their duty for their honour and quiet of their subjects, and of the miseries of the wicked, of the observation of ordinances, and of that which maintaineth or altereth an estate. 83 that princes ought to have about them good councillors, which may not spare to tell them the truth, and that their life ought to serve as a rule and instruction to their subjects, not to grant to any unjust thing, of excessive gifts, an advertisement to such as are in favour, of warnings, and that in all actions of importance one ought to take council, without trusting to his own sufficiency. 95 that one ought not to judge too readily of another. 108 of reprehensions, and force of the truth, with a description of detraction. 109 that anger hindereth the truth, of the evils which it brings with it, and of the means to resist it. 113 of the error of some authors which have praised promise breakers, and the cruel, of punishments of such, what our gettings and dealing with the great aught to be, advertisements to the readers, and of pardoning. 119 the definition of lying. 127 the effects of lying. 128 the punishments of lying. 129 that the perjured and plasphemers are detestable liars, and the pains for them. 130 that lying, in doctrine is most pernicious, and that one ought carefully to search for the truth. 134 that those which defer their amendment, do wrap themselves in a dangerous lie. 142 that ignorance is a lie, and the gap of great inconvenience. 148 that one ought not rashly to borrow money, nor answer for another man, for fear of lying. 153 of lying ingratitude. 155 that lying hath made poets and painters to be blamed, and of the garnishing of houses. 159 of backbiters, mockers, and evil speakers, and why the comedians stage players and jugglers have been rejected. 161 that accusers, tale-bearers, false pleaders, and curious persons are of the same brotherhood of lying. 165 of flatterers. 168 that envy is a miserable lie: and of the means to remedy it. 171 how pride, ambition, vain boasting and presumption are lying, and how all passions lead clean contrary to what they pretend, and who may be termed men of humility, and of the mean which containeth us therein. 174 that painting is lying. 183 that witches, soothsayers, sorcerers, and usurers, are replenished with lying and how a man may exempt himself from them. 185 of the punishments which have befallen unto such as have given ear unto malicious surmises rejecting the truth. 190 that we must avoid suits in law, because of the lying and cawtell of the practitioners. 192 that it is a lying in judges to receive presents, and what exercise is to be required to be meet with avarice, buying of offices, and covetousness. 198 that it is a lie, to be intemperate, drunk, excessife, whoremonger, player, and idle, and to say that one would be in health, of music & physic, as well for the body as the soul. 209 what we ought to judge of certain examples of lying. 225 of the means how to render a nation true and happy, and of the bringing up of youth. 227 of certain points which might be added to this discourse. 236 the conclusion. 245 politic discourses upon truth and lying. chap. i. that the truth is a virtue most praiseworthy, by what it may be discerned, and of that which hindereth the knowledge thereof. among the virtues contained in moral philosophy, the truth hath ever been esteemed as one of the most praise worthy: truth, a virtue most praise worthy. the which plato called the fountain of all goodness; and s. augustine in his book of the city of god, ordaineth it as the king, and faith as the foundation and pillar of justice and all comen wealths: for so much as there is nothing more proper to man, being form according to the image of god, than in his words and manners to approach him the nearest that he is able, & to make his words serve for no other end, than to declare his good intent & meaning, whereby he may be better able to inform his neighbour. agathius having written of the manners & religion of the persians saith, that they had two gods (as martion, martion & manichaeus heresy. & manichaeus the heretics have heretofore held) the one good, creator and author of all good, and of the light, whom they called by the name of truth; the other wicked, author of all evil, the religion of the indians touching the soul's departure out of the body. resembling him to darkness and ignorance. and martyr entreating of the west indies, declareth that a certain old man of the same country, praying the first discoverer of them to behave himself courteously, showed him, that the souls of men departing their bodies, passed by two ways, as also philemon, and plato in his phedon, and tenth book of his common wealth hath written. the one dark and obscure, through which the souls of all cruel men wade grievously tormented; the other shining, & clear, full of all happiness, ordained for those that love peace, truth, and quietness. this the holy scripture ought more deeply to impress into us, having been hitherto very ill considered of the spaniards, who for having exercised all their cruelty, and inhumanity which they were able to imagine against the poor indians, the cruelty of the spaniards. for the most part have ended their lives most miserably, as such as have entreated of this history more at large declare: and that the same spaniards counterfeiting as though they would instruct them in the truth, through their wicked life and excess, have most estranged them from it, and of a most populous country, made a most horrible desert. this truth is called a virtue, because they that use to tell the truth do love it, truth called a virtue. and she hath such a force, that wheresoever she is seen, she causeth herself to be the rather desired and loved. now, since that our creator, of his pure grace, performeth all the promises, which he hath made unto us, in the truth whereof consisteth our assurance, and salvation, we likewise ought to make good whatsoever in our christian profession we have promised to him, serving for nought else then our own good, quiet, and happiness. and leaving all together the philosophers dalying touching the true mark and knowledge of the truth, nor respecting their opinions, who have doubted of all things, common sense. and held for certain that no man knew aught, seeing how senseless they were, we will wholly cleave to common sense, the only mean between the senses and understanding, and will think that reasonable, which we have seen, heard, tasted, and felt, and so have recourse to each one in his science, the sun 166 times greater than the earth, 6545 times greater than the moon. l. 2. ca 3. contra academ. as lawyers and others, yield to physicians in their art, and run to astrologians when they would understand by what means the sun is one hundred threescore & six times greater than the earth, and six thousand, five hundred and five and forty times greater than the moon, albeit there be no appearance thereof at all: and will wholly follow the rules and maxims of divines, who through the very word of god declare his will & infallible truth. and herein it behoveth us to shun two faults, which s. augustine doth think greatly hindereth the knowledge of the truth, to wit desperation & presumption. but most especially to have a great desire to know it, as a treasure and true science, prou. 2. according to the exhortation of solomon. and humby beseech at god's hands, that we may learn and understand it: and let us bend ourselves thereto by reading of good books, and frequenting of sermons and honest company, not imagining we see more than in deed we do see, following the lesson of our saviour to the scribes and pharisees, in the ninth of saint john, and in the chapter going before, where he said to his disciples: if you continue in my word, john. 8.32. you verily are my disciples, and shall know the truth. so must we hear the word of god, as believing it and persevering therein. for through faith is our entrance thereto. in this respect spoke saint peter in the name of the whole, in the sixth of saint john: master, to whom shall we go, thou hast the words of eternal life? john. 6.68. and we believe and know that thou art the christ, the son of the living god. saint augustine likewise is of opinion that man's mind given to vice, cannot be capable of the truth. s. augustine. some have written that saint peter said, how the truth appeareth. that god did not cover nor hide the truth under a mountain, to the end that none, but such as toiled far for her, might find her. but as with the heavens he hath environed the earth and the hills, so hath he covered the truth with the veil of his charity, whereby whosoever will knock at the heavenly door, might easily enter in. therefore it is a matter necessary, that who so will love the truth, must first know her, and loving her, search her out, and searching her, must knock at the gate of the heavenly love, our saviour having promised, that ask and it shallbe given you, matth. 7.7. two principal parts in man. seek and you shall find, knock and it shallbe opened unto you. and those of old time have set down two principal parts to be especial in man, to wit, his understanding, and his will: which being once corrupted, turn him clean from the way of truth, and leadeth him into an infinite number of discommodities and errors: and all good things have this nature and property, that they be desirous not only to be known, but likewise to be beloved, and coveted; and the understanding doth serve as a means to affection, to show what it should most of all pursue, as hereafter we will more at large declare. chap. ii. the definition of the truth and faith. what truth is. cicero writeth that the truth causeth us to speak assuredly without changing of ought which hath been, is, or shall be: and that it is a virtue through which we are inclined to speak no otherwise then as we think. the which definition saint augustine followed in his book of true religion, adding it further to be a true signification of the voice: psa. 119.105 2. pet. 2.19. john. 5.39. it is taken for the gospel, and the word of god, the which as david, and saint peter saith, is a lantern to our feet, and a light, that shineth in a dark place. and our saviour saith, that this truth shall deliver us from the world, sin, and devil, through faith, which we have in him, being given us from god, for righteousness, 2. cor. 1.30. and sanctification, and redemption, who came into the world to accomplish the truth of the promises of god; who is as saint paul saith, 2. tim. 6.16. john. 3.16. a light that none can attain unto, to the which christ jesus doth guide us being the clearness of the world, and his reconciliation. it is likewise taken for an inward integrity, and a rule teaching to live well according to the holy will of god. and when ezekias desired there might be truth in his days, isaiah. 39.8. it is interpreted, that thereby he meant the continuance of a quiet and peaceable state. and as the truth conformeth words, according to the meaning of the heart, so doth faith in the promises, being a virtue which maketh our deeds answerable to our promises, faith. and a habit through which we are inclined to perform whatsoever we have promised. and our saviour in the gospel of saint matthew, saying, that the weighty matters of the law consisted in judgement, mercy and fidelity, by this word of fidelity, math. 23.23. meant a truth, far from any disguising, and treachery. and the romans in old time dedicated a temple to faith, the better to cause the people to keep and reverence it. i leave to the divines the definition of faith, which consisteth in the substance of that we hope for, and in the knowledge of the good will of god towards us, john 6. & 8. heb. 11.1. of our reconciliation & justification founded upon the promises freely given unto us in christ jesus which quickeneth the soul, and purifieth the heart, act. 15.9. gal. 4.6. ephes. 1.4. act. 19 rom. 8.1. 1. cor. 13.2. 2. thes. 1.3. mat. 6.8. joh. 14.1. maketh us the children and sons of god, causeth in us a desire to walk holy and unblamable, taketh away the poison, & abateth the sting of death, and engendereth within us an amendment of life, ready obedience, and love towards god and our neighbour, giveth unto us the hope of eternal life, and of obtaining what we ask at god's hands, rendereth our conscience peaceable, maketh us to persevere in the good, giveth unto us a boldness to address ourselves to the throne of grace, bringeth with itself a constancy and patience in all adversities, and comforteth us clean removing away all fear, anguish, & vexation of mind. for this cause god is called by s. paul in the beginning of his second epistle to the corinthians: the god of mercy and consolation. 2. cor. 1.3. ephe. 6.16 and in the sixth to the ephesians, he doth exhort us, to take upon us the shield of faith, wherewith we may quench all the fiery darts of the wicked. chap. 3. properties of the truth and how much it is requisite in a prince, and clergy. saint paul recommendeth this truth unto us as an especial and principal part of the armour required to be worn by a christian knight, ephes. 6.14 and as a bulwark against all assaults. and most excellent is that saying in the 8. chapter, of the prophesy of zecharie, zechar. 8.16. ephes. 4.15. where he exhorteth, every man to speak the truth unto his neighbour: and as the body bereft of the soul, is nought else then stinking carrion, so man deprived of this truth, is no better than a very infection, and filthy carcase. plato. for this cause plato in his commonwealth, ordained for a law that above all things, zenophon. a king to be faithful. aristotle. the truth might be preserved. and xenophon bringing in a good prince under the person of k. cyrus, requireth especially that he be found true. this was also the first lesson which aristotle taught alexander the great. isaiah. 32.1. and isaiah setteth down a king to reign in justice, and a prince to rule in judgement, being as an hiding place from the wind, and as a refuge for the tempest. and a bishop of cologne, frederick emperor. declared to fredoric the emperor, that the bare word of a prince ought to be of as great weight, as other men's oaths, and that the truth ought to be his chiefest ornament. the answer which charles the fift emperor, charles the 5 emperor. made unto such as would have persuaded him by no means to send back luther, christ jesus the son shining of justice. being come unto him under his safe conduit, is greatly praised, saying that though the performance of promises were clean banished the face of the earth, yet it should be kept by an emperor. john 14.6. john 8.45. our saviour also in many places of the evangelists, commandeth us in any wise to keep truth, and nameth himself the son of justice, and the essential truth. on the other side the devil is called a liar, the devil a father of lies. and the father thereof: to the end that every one, abiding in god, who is the sovereign good, and having him for a father, lord, saviour, and protector, might be found true: and that we should not serve so wicked a murderer, and cruel deceiver, as satan, and that we should abhor lying, job. 24.13. with which he only serveth his turn to extinguish the light of the truth, the only life of the soul. and job saith, that the wicked abhor the light, they know not the ways thereof, nor continue in the paths thereof. the catholic church is likewise called of s. paul, 1. tim. 3.15. lactantius, the pillar and ground of truth. and lactantius calleth it the fountain of truth, house of faith, and temple of god, into which who so doth not enter is clean shut up from any hope of eternal life. for out of her is there no salvation to be found, but even as it fared with them, that were without the ark of noah in the time of the flood. gen. 7.21. and our religion hath been founded upon faith, which dependeth of this truth which alone hath much more virtue than cicero would attribute to philosophy, as in casting out of spirits, removing vain solitariness, cicero. delivering us from lusts, and chase away all fear. for she teacheth us the true service of god, how to worship his mightiness, admire at his wisdom, love his bounty, trust unto his promises, and rule our life according unto his holy will. she cleareth and giveth light unto the course of reason through the knowledge of things: and guideth our will unto the true good and taketh away the clouds of our understanding, as it is said the north wind doth in the air. and we daily see, that the afflicted and wretched innocent taketh his greatest comfort in that the truth is of his side. and this truth causeth that part of our understanding wherein reason lieth, to rule, and our will, to what the doctrine of the law tendeth. affections and like parts willingly obey thereto and suffer themselves to be governed thereby. and we may the rather be termed men, in near approaching to god our patron. for all the doctrine of the law, deut. 6.14. tendeth to join man through holiness of life unto his god, & as moses in deuteronomy saith to make him lean unto him. how man becometh happy. for neither the world nor any other creature can make man happy, but he alone which made him man. and through this truth are we delivered from false opinions and ignorance, and in all actions she is the light to guide us from stumbling, and bringeth forth all virtues. and since that the end of grammar is to speak aptly and agreeably; and the end of speech, society: of rhetoric to carry all men's minds to one opinion: the end of all arts. and of logic to find out a truth amidst many falsehoods: all other arts do likewise tend to this truth. and let us make our senses to serve our understanding and that understanding of ours to serve him by whom it is, and doth understand. and since this truth is a light, her property is to chase away the darkness, blindness, and ignorance of our understandings: and to rejoice and comfort us, as the sun rising doth to pilgrims, joh. 3.19. except they be such as our saviour spoke of, who love darkness more than the light, which maketh us to perceive what hath been hidden from us. and men are more afraid to do amiss by day, then by night, and we are better able to guide ourselves, and can yield a better testimony of what we have seen, as our saviour said in s. john, we speak that we know, and testify that we have seen. john 3.11. chap. 4. extremities in the truth, and how men may speak of themselves, and of that which they understand, and that men ought not to publish any writing, but of their own invention and to some purpose nor to attribute to themselves the honour of a thing well done. since that this truth is approved to be a virtue, all virtues hold a mean. she ought to hold a mediocrity, & to be set between two vicious extremities of either too little, or too much, as it is said of the rest of the virtues, which make themselves more apparent in gaining unto themselves by those actions which consist in the midst of two contrary vices, as doth the true tune among discords. the excess and overplus shall proceed of arrogancy, pride, vaunting, disdain, & insolency. the defect in dissembling, when one speaketh less than in deed is, & so wandereth from the truth, which reckoneth things such as they are in deed, without causing any variance between the heart and the tongue, as if one should fit himself with a garment which is neither bigger, nor less than it ought to be. democritus speech. democritus likewise said, that speech was but a shadow of the effect, as if he would have said, that it ought simply to follow the plain meaning. and as euripides wrote: speech agreeing with the truth, euripides. is single, plain, without colour, or counterfeit. and the light which assisteth it, is a demonstration which manifesteth, whatsoever is obscure, discovereth the original, plato. method. the end, the uniting, and difference of two extremities. and plato called a method, a fire sent from heaven, which giveth the light that maketh the truth known. photion was praised, photion. because in few words he comprehended much matter; for sith that all discourse consisteth in words and the subject: the words have no place at all if you take away the subject; nor the matter or substance hath any show without the speech. for we read in ecclesiasticus, ecclesiast. that the mouth of the wise is in their thought: for we are to consider, wherefore we speak, before what persons, what in speech is to be considered. and in what time and place. and it seemeth that the truth doth less vary from the defect, and the overlitle extremity especially when a man speaketh of himself, as solomon exhorteth us to let another praise us. proverb. 27.2 and we must take heed least led through glory and ambition we be ready to give that unto ourselves, which we ought to receive from other: if it be not to turn aside a reproach, or that occasioned by the time, we might the rather encourage and give heart to youth, and prick them forwards to enterprise and achieve, matters of virtue, & such things as are praiseworthy, and then, speak of ourselves the most modestly that we are able, not meant hereby that we should conceal such benefits as we have received from others. august. upon the psalm. 85 as saint augustine in like sort reproved not the christians for attributing some holiness unto themselves, so long as it proceeded not from pride and vain boasting, but only with intent to acknowledge the benefits, not to be unthankful for benefits received. and yield due honour unto him which imparted his holiness unto us. and to the end we should not be unthankful, we ought to confess such good turns as we receive, and especially at their hands, that for our advancement bestoweth them on us. and they have been ever blameworthy, who like aesop's crow dress themselves with other birds feathers, which being taken back again of the right owners, they remain all bare; as we see in sundry writers of our time, who in their books set forth many leaves, whereof other men be the true authors, not perceiving the difference of the excellency of others writings, how it causeth that which is their own due, to look with a pale and wan countenance, never acknowledging aught to them by whom they have been so much helped, albeit it be a great part of honesty, plin. in his not, hist. (as pliny wrote to vespasian) to confess those by whom we receive profit. to this purpose i mought allege, that which vitruus wrote how ptolemy, having set up a most sumptuous library in alexandria, the library of ptolemy. and furnished it with more than seven hundred thousand volumes, and proclaimed great rewards to those which should make of the best invention: six of the judges awarded the price to those, which were most pleasing to the people, but the seventh which was aristophanes, adjudged it unto another, and showed, that he alone deserved the prize, having composed all of his own invention, and that the rest did but repeat what they had learned out of other authors, whereof he brought a book of the same library. which was afterward approved by the king and the rest of the judges. it becometh one as ill, to speak of matters he understandeth not; not to speak of what a man doth not understand. as one day appelles answered frankly to a great lord, discoursing in his shop about the art of painting. the children saith he, who grindeth colours, as long as thou heldest thy peace, beheld thee attentively, as wondering at thy brave apparel; but since they have heard thee speak, they begin to laugh & mock at the discourses, which thou hast made touching the shadowing of a picture, and matters which thou hast never learned. he said as much to a shoemaker, passing the controlment of his pantable. and the carpenter apollodorus to adrian the emperor, speaking of architure. and a physician to antigonus discoursing of music. and the wise captains, have ever observed for a rule, not to attribute all the praise unto themselves, but to god or their companion. as it is written of titus the emperor, & one piton fuius, who being praised for a victory, he had obtained, answered, that it proceeded from god, who made his hands but the instrument to serve him. plutarque writeth as much of timoleon & in the life of sylla, how the gods were angry with timotheus an athenian captain, because he attributed his victories to his own wisdom, and afterwards caused all his actions to go clean topsy-turvy. amasias' puffed up with pride for the victory he obtained against the idumeans, now hit acknowledging it to proceed from god, & careless of the prophets reprehending him, 2. chr. 25.17. provoked the king of israel, of whom he was overcome, taken, peeled & slain. the like happened to manasses & amon. we read likewise that minos, zoroaster, laws and policy ordained from god. trimegitus, carondas, lycurgus, solon, draco, numa, and other lawgivers, have ever fathered their laws upon some god, the better to have them in authority, nature teaching them that it appertained to god alone, to dedicate their service, & that otherwise the laws would not be observed, and the wit of man is too feeble, & his reasons too short to attain unto it. they in like sort who attribute unto themselves the glory of any virtue, diminish so much from the bounty & liberality of god, & do not bear that love, honour, & respect unto him, which is due. the which the ordinary words in the bible have taught us, that god giveth them into our hands; god is our victory, he is a like strong in great or small number, the lord will deliver us. the same doth the wise man writ prou. 16. the answer of the tongue is of the lord, and the lord doth direct the steps of man, pro. 16.2.9. phil. 2.13. 2. cor. 3.8, who worketh in us both the will & the deed, & all our sufficiency is from him, as s. paul saith phil. 2. 2. cor. 3. chap. v of feigning and dissembling. counterfeiting. dissembling. to feign and dissemble, was ever condemned by aquilius law, like lying and deceit, as the civil law and cicero declare it to be: and have ever been esteemed parts unworthy of a man to make semblance of one thing, & execute another. as guichardin wrote of pope alexander 6. that he never did, alexander 6. duke of valentinois his son. what he said; and of the duke of valentinois his son, that he never said what he would do, and pleased themselves in counterfeiting and dissembling, to deceive and falsify their faith. and when the son had caused certain princes to be murdered contrary to his oath, the father laughing said, that he played a right spaniards part. they both died most miserably. frederick emperor. frederick the emperor desired that his counsellors would at the entering in of his court, lay aside all counterfeiting and dissembling. i have learned of some persons worthy to be believed, that paulus iovius, paulus iovius. demanded why in his chronicle, he feigned many things as false, and dissembled the true, which thereby might breed his history to be suspected, answered, that he did it to please his friends, and those from whom he received pensions and rewards, and that the posterity mought easily give credit to the same. it is called feigning to make that to be which is not, or that which is, not to be, or to be greater than in deed it is. and it is dissembling, to make that which is not to be, aristotle. or less than it is. aristotle, imputed counterfaitinge to an excess of truth, and dissembling to the defect. the lawyers calleth that covin, when to deceive another, a man maketh semblance of one thing, and performeth clean contrary. saint peter in his first epistle exhorteth us to lay aside all malice, guile, 1. pet. 2.1. and dissimulation. it is not meant for all that, that every one, nor at all times, nor of every matter, should speak what he thinketh. for it is wisdom not to discover, but for some good respect, what we would not have known; as if a man would preach all the gifts he hath received from god, or the vice or fault which by infirmity he is fallen unto, or discover to every one the secret of his mind, he should be counted but a dizzard. every counterfeiting done to the end to deceive an other is reproved; but if it be to conceal a good counsel, fearing lest it might be prevented, then is it not to be blamed, neither is it always requisite to make manifest what we do conceive. which hath caused some emperors and kings to say, that he who cannot dissemble, shall never reign prosperously. and the old proverb meaneth the same, that whatsoever is in the heart of a sober man, is found in the tongue of a drunkard. our saviour in the gospel made as though he would have gone further, luke, 24.28. 1. sam. 21.13. great personages have feigned themselves mad but it was to stir up the burning desire of his disciples. and david feigned himself mad to escape the hands of king achys. and so have they written of solon, brutus, and other very great personages. chap. 6. that the deed ought to be correspondent to the word, and to fly hypocrisy. speech a shadow of deeds. since therefore that speech is but a shadow of deeds, there must be such an unity as that there be found no difference at all, for it is a very great guile to speak otherwise then the heart indeed thinketh. the emperors tiberius, emperors of double heart. calligula, nero, domitian, commodus, and some others, among an infinite number of vices wherewith they were possessed, were most of all blamed because their heart was double, doing clean contrary to that they said, and making a show in the beginning of their reign to love the truth, pertinax surnamed chrestologus. did most of all corrupt it, by their vices, and enormities. the emperor pertinax was likewise surnamed chrestologus, that is to say, tiberius: well speaking but ill doing. and dion wrote of the said tiberius (who was so called of a stream defiled and stained with blood) that he was wont to say that one ought not to know the will of a prince, and that he should show good countenance to such, whose death he meant to practise. these men resemble those which row in a galley, who albeit that they look towards the hinder part, & beat the wave towards it, yet do they altogether drive forwards the nose. and the divines upon the 32. psalm, and other places, speak. show that the analogy of this word speak, in the hebrew phrase, importeth a signification both of speaking and thinking, to declare that we ought not to speak otherwise then we think, homer. othon 4. frederic. 2. innocent. 3. as homer did write of ulysses, that his speech proceeded from his heart; at what time othon the fourth, and frederic the second, contended for the empire, pope innocent the third made fair wether with them both, and never the less made a very solemn and eloquent oration of the agreement and unity which ought to be among christian princes: but a citizen of rome presumed to answer him, holy father, your words seem to be of god, but your deeds and practices which thereto are so contrary, surely proceed from the devil. guychardyne. guychardin and others writ of certain popes that they bended all their forces, to nourish through sundry sleights and dissimulations, the princes in dissension, and that they were more politic, then good, and under a colour of procuring peace, set them worse together by the ears. as cicero said of augustus, when he made as though he would not accept the empire, augustus. that his honest orations were not correspondent to his dishonest deliberation. and if the speech of a philosopher, as it is written, is a law which men voluntarily set before themselves, to make their life conformable and answerable to his doctrine, we christians, which profess the true philosophy and holiness, as s. peter hath written, aught to shun the two extremities of too much or too little, and follow the mean which is to do well, and speak accordingly, using our words, as garments well besytting the body. why the lacedæmonians banished chesiphon. the lacedæmonians banished one chesiphon, for that he vaunted that he could discourse a whole day long of any theme, that was put unto him: because that speech ought to be so precious a treasure, as hesiodus said, that it is not to be used, hypocrisy, an enemy to the truth. but for necessity. hereupon will i not forget to declare how dangerous an enemy hypocrisy is to the truth. for yielding an appearance, and opinion of all truth and holiness, it is inwardly clean contrary, and disguising and cloaking itself with a show of truth, it is within full of all wickedness, cozenage and deceit. and as plato wrote, it is a most extreme injustice, of him who maketh show to be just, and is not so. dissembled equity double iniquity. and saint augustine writeth that dissembled equity is double iniquity. for this cause the lacedæmonians condemned one that did open penance, wearing haircloth upon his skin for that thereby they discovered his hypocrisy, in as much as it was woven with pourpure. as alexander said to antipater that outwardly he ware a white garment but it was lined with purple. and it seemeth that such men would make god a mean of their deceit, who beholdeth the heart, and the pureness thereof. 1. sam. 16.7. and for this cause are they often punished. the holy scripture doth oft times call them painted sepulchres, deceivers, wolves, and esteemeth worse of them then of publicans and sinners. a man might compare them to the pots of the apothicaries which carry an inscription in the front, of many remedies and excellent drugs, but within there is either nought available, or else peradventure some poison which our saviour reproached the pharisees with, that they cleansed the outside, but within was full of ravening, and iniquity. and god in the 29. of isaiah saith: this people cometh near unto me with their mouth, isaiah. 29.13. and honour me with their lips, but have removed their heart far from me, and their fear toward me was taught by the precepts of men. the same did he cast in the jews teeth, matth. 15. mar. 7. and in the 48. of isaiah, you turn yourselves from me, and make mention of me but not in truth nor righteousness. it is not without cause written in job, the hypocrites hope shall perish, his confidence also shall be cut off, job. 8.13. and his trust shall be as the house of a spider. neither was it ill pictured of him, who in the right hand put a tongue, and in the left drew a long a heart. all deceits are likewise proper, as seneca writeth, to a base and mischievous mind, and to be detested of an honest man. i would desire every one that meaneth to estrange himself from hypocrisy to consider, the duty of man towards god. his debt unto his creator, to wit, to employ himself, and whatsoever is given unto him, our being, our life, our senses, our speech, our actions, briefly all that we have in us, or without us for his service. and that contrariwise we turn all things to ourselves as to their end. and if we make a register of our life, what part thereof we give to god to whom all is dew? and see how much we are moved, if a body do but speak evil of our friend, and never regard nor care for blasphemies against god, or injuries against our neighbour being his image? we deserve to be called the children of the earth, as they were wont to call bastards. for we do follow earthly things, despising the spiritual, for which we were created. we must not think it strange, diogenes. if the philosopher took a light at noon day to seek a man in the midst of a press, for the greatest part serve to vanity and leasing, and no whit obey virtue. and if our eye sight could but enter so far, we should find many savage beasts hidden in some men, which make semblance to be virtuous, and yet will not confess their fault to the physician, who by their confession should the nearer approach to justice, according to the opinion of aristotle, the divines, and other ancient writers, which say, that the confession of sin, is the remedy thereof. s. basil praised the above said opinion of plato, confession of sin a remedy. ad pop. ho. 24. psal. 32.2. touching the unjust that counterfeited to be just, and blamed that said in euripides that he rather desired to seem good then to be. david after he had declared the happiness of them whose sins the lord had pardoned and covered, addeth those in whose spirit there is no guile nor hypocrisy, with which that faith which resteth in the heart, not in bare countenance, hath no acquaintance. chap. 7. that those which love the truth should show it by good works, and of the means which do lead us thereunto, and of those which are far from it. our saviour sayeth, john. 18.37. that they which are of the truth hear his voice, & so consequently obey him; and saint john in his first epistle after having showed our inclination to sin, and that our saviour christ jesus offered himself for our deliverance, and that he is our advocate, and also that faith in the mercy of god, is joined with a love and obedience, he addeth that he wrote those things unto them, that they sin not, and he that saith he knew god, and doth not keep his commandments is a liar, 1. john, 2.1. and the truth is not in him. for as paul writeth, we are delivered from sin, to the end we should live to righteousness; rom. 6.18. and their sins are forgiven that acknowledge and confess them, detesting and shunning them, and hope for life eternal. and to this end as well the law as the gospel tendeth that we live no more in sin, but enforce ourselves to follow truth, righteousness, and holiness. yea the very world was created for the use of men, that thereby they might glorify god. the promises were given, and christ jesus came into the world to the end that by participating his so great benefits, we should learn to obey god, whose people we are, called of him in his church, that every one should know how to possess his vessel in holiness and honour, and not in the lust of concupiscence, being justified through him to the end we should serve through righteousness, and not defile our bodies, being his temple. for the eyes of the lord (saith jeremy) are upon the truth. 1. thess. 4.4. 1. cor. 6.19. jeremiah. 5.3 james. 2.20. s. james writeth, that they abuse themselves, who boast that they have faith, and show it not by their good works. s. paul also requireth that faith that worketh through charity, for as much as the son of god appeared, to the end that they which are his should be cleansed of all their filthiness: and required such disciples, who renouncing themselves should follow him, not searching any more their own pleasure, but to obey god, and dispose themselves, to patience, long suffering, and all virtues. and we have been delivered from the bondage of sin, luke. 1.75. to the end we should walk before god all the days of our life in in holiness, and righteousness. and the grace of god that bringeth salvation unto all men, hath appeared unto us, and teacheth us that we should deny ungodliness and worldly lust, and that we should live soberly and righteously, and godly in this present world, looking for the blessed hope and appearing of the glory of the mighty god, titus 2.11. and of our saviour jesus christ. we be the temples of the holy ghost which we must not defile, we are consecrated and dedicated to god, and are not our own, nor darkness, but light in god, and therefore we ought to walk as children of the light, and to live and die to the lord to whom we appertain. and our sanctification is the will of the lord, to the end we should abstain from all naughty desires. and s. john said in his first canonical, that in this the children of light differ from the children of darkness, in that they love one another as members of one body, 1. john. and that they who have hope of life, sanctify themselves, since their god is holy. and if we love god, in respect of the benefits which we receive continually at his hands, and believe that he is our provident father, it is unpossible but we should manifest this love by our obedience. david said, mercy is with thee o lord that thou mayst be feared. psalm. 130.4. as if he would say that the foundation of the fear of god is to know his great mercy. and in respect of the accord, which is between truth, and mercy, they have ever been joined together, as in the psalms, 25.36.45.117. and 138. s. augustine in his book of confessions writeth, that accursed is all our righteousness, de la. & vita be. 1. ch. 6. if it should be examined and judged without god's mercy. and saint ambrose faith, that a man should not glorify himself as just, but in that he hath been redeemed, not in that he was without sin, but in that he hath pardon for it, not that i should advance myself over other, but in that jesus christ is my advocate towards his father, having shed his precious blood for me: for he came into the world to destroy the works of the devil, to regenerate, and justify us: not to the end we should be unprofitable, and without fruit, but to exercise ourselves in all good works. first to the end that through them, the effects of good works. and the shining of our light (as our saviour said matth. 5.) god might be glorified, we stand more assured of our vocation and election: and our faith the more strengthened, exercised, 2. pet. 1.10. mat. 5.16. 1. timoth. 1. 2. cor. 9.2. and embraced as paul wrote to timothe 1. cap. 1. that likewise our neighbours, by our good example may be moved and provoked to live well 2. cor. 9 and that we minister to the necessities of poor orphans, widows, and such as have need of our succour, as members of one body. mat. 10. & 25. and since that faith purifieth the hearts as s. peter saith acts. 10. what faith i pray you can they pretend, that are full of filthiness, enmity and corruption? and which are puffed up with passions and disordinate affections? this faith ought to regenerate us, and make us new creatures, exempting us from condemnation, and clothing us with the righteousness and spirit of jesus christ. the which spirit can not abide in our hearts, but it must work, that is to say, that it lighteth us, quickeneth and guideth all our counsels, thoughts, words, and actions. what is faith, except we show it by our holy conversation, mortifying our concupiscences, eschewing all vice, gal. 5.22. ephes. 4.4. 1. thes. 5.22. and applying ourselves to all virtue, not only abstaining from that which is evil, but from whatsoever carrieth any show thereof? persevering in this exercise, even until the end of our life. now if we have the fear of god and a good conscience, how cometh it to pass that we do not abhor any more to defile ourselves having been once cleansed? cantie. 5.3. i have washed my feet (saith the faithful soul) how shall i again defile them? integrity of life required in a christian. for god having made an alliance with us, mutually requireth of all his children, servants and creatures, an integrity of life. and we must discover, a melody, and accord, between the righteousness of god and our obedience. and by this means we ratify the adoption, through which god hath received us for his children. and holiness is the chain of our conjunction which tieth us to god, to whom we ought to dedicate all our life as to the author thereof. and to say the truth, we abandon our creator, wanton and disloyally, and renounce him for our saviour, when we deform ourselves in sin, col. 3.1. where we ought always to aspire to a heavenly life, and lay aside all earthly affections, being raised up with christ jesus, as saint paul writeth: and even we deny with jeremy that he hath received the true knowledge of god, except we put of the old man, which is corrupt in his disordinate desires, to put upon us the new. phil. 4.5. and to the philippians he requireth, that our patiented mind be known unto all men. the lord is at hand, let not us take care for aught, 2. tim. 2.1. but that in all things our requests may be made known to god by prayers, and supplications with giving of thanks. phil. 4.8. and the peace of god, which passeth all understanding shall keep our hearts and senses in christ jesus. moreover, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things pertain to love, whatsoever things are of good report, if there be any virtue, or if there be any praise, let us think of these things. and he wrote to the corinthians in his second epistle, cor. 7.1.2 since we have received the promises, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, and grow up unto full holiness in the fear of god. ephes. 4.20. and to the ephesians: ye have not so learned if you have been taught by him, tit. 8.16. as the truth is in jesus. and he complained greatly to titus, mat. 7.20. how they professed to know god, but by their abominable works deny him. and our saviour sayeth in s. matthew that by their work ye shall know them. for such as follow not the good which they speak, resemble monsters, which have but one mouth, and one tongue, but no feet nor hands at all. he doth therefore falsely boast to know the truth, if his life be not good and correspondent. for the doctrine of truth is not a doctrine of the tongue, but of life. and if for good cause, the philosophers were wont to be angry with such as made profession of their art, which they called the mistress of life, and in the mean time turned it but to a sophistical babbling, and did ever esteem wicked livers and such as were covetous not worthy to speak, (as the emperors dioclesian, and maximian wrote, that their profession and inward desire belied themselves) how much greater reason have we to detest these babblers, which only content themselves to have the gospel at their finger's ends, and in their life, rebellious and seditious clean despise the same? considering that the power and efficacy thereof, aught to pierce the very bottom of our heart: and from thence to be showed in all our behaviours, grace, garments, col. 1.10. and all other our actions and comportmentes as tertullian did wright. we have heretofore declared, how we ought to have this end before our eyes, to tend to that perfection which god hath commanded us, to wit an integrity, which signifieth a pure simplicity of the heart, void of all feignedness, and contrary to a double heart. every one ought thus far to walk according to his might. and it shall avail much, if to day surmount yesterday. and being entered into the lists, we should enforce ourselves to go out to the very end, assured to obtain a very great prize. to declare particularly every virtue, would be too tedious in this chapter, but i will add that which doth most entertain and delight some men in lying, that is: that they be too much lovers of themselves, and are very forward for their particular profit, hindrances to the truth. which doth altogether blemish their sight, and hindereth them so as they can not consider the will of god nor his promises. for whatsoever we deliberate, covet, and poursue, aught to be joined with the good and profit of our neighbour. and we must not be stirred up nor moved with any pick, against the law of charity. charity. saint augustine in his first book of christian doctrine writeth, that he liveth excellently well, which the least he is able liveth to himself: de doct. ch. lib. 1. car. 23. because the observance of the law, consisteth in the love towards god, and our neighbour. and we read in many places of cicero and others, that the better a man is, the less he tendeth all his actions to his own profit, and the more he doth study to serve god and his commonwealth. plato himself wrote to architas, man is not only borne for himself that man was borne for his parents, friends and country: in sort that the least part of him remaineth to himself, and for this cause man is named a civil and communicative creature. and as s. paul wrote, jesus christ was borne for us to the end that they which live should not live any more unto themselves, but to him which died for them. and exhorteth us no more to purchase after our own profit, but that which may concern our neighbour; and that we be made rich in good works, which he calleth a treasure and foundation to come. in which doing we shall follow the paths of truth, nilus' a bishop. and shallbe counted most happy, especially if we retire our affections from uncleanness, from whence nilus an ancient bishop said, a smoke proceeded which blacked the soul with sowte. two sorts of christians there be then two sorts of christians, the one in name and profession only, the other in effect. the first care not but for their body, honours, riches and pleasure, without aught regarding the fear of god. the other with all their affection dedicate themselves to god, at whose hand they take all in good part, and despise the world loving god, and his word, and commandments: isaiah 52. and of these isaiah writeth that they which shall see them shall know they are the blessed seed of the lord: and in another place he calleth a naughty conscience a narrow bed, in which a man cannot well stretch out his body nor lie at ease, for he which hath a wounded conscience can never find out any condition, place, or state that is not too little for him, and which may any ways content him. psal. 4.1. &, 119. this is the cause why david requireth at god's hand to set at large his imprisoned heart, that is to say that he will do him the grace, to cause him to have a sound and neat conscience. i will not here forget that as god is honoured by the good life of the faithful, god is blasphemed and dishonoured by our wickedness. (according as the holy scripture witnesseth) so is he blasphemed, and dishonoured through wickedness. and there is no doubt but the behaviour of christians, have caused the turks and infidels even to detest the true religion. lopes a spaniard and beuzo a millannese, and other that have written of the history of america and the west indies, have been constrained to confess, the cruelty of the spaniards towards the indians. that the cruelty, covetousness, blasphemies and wickedness of the spaniards hath altogether alienated the poor indians from the religion, which the said spaniards gave out they held for true, who did not long enjoy those goods, which by detestable means they had there gathered. and all men write, that they were less worth than the idolatrous indians. the cruel handling of those indians and that which the turk did to them of asia, africa, and part of europe, who lived as we do, the turk notwithstanding being the farther, advertisement to amend our life. are set before our eyes as an example: to the end that we should change ourselves, and seeing the behaviour of christians and their obstinacy to vice, we should look but even for such cursedness and miseries, as we read they have been enwrapped and fallen into. and we may well say that we touch even near the end of the world already quaking and doting through old age, and full of the wrinkles of lying: which notwithstanding can not obscure the son of truth, nor take away the light of them which fear god, which see, godly exercise. and love the way which we ought to follow, to attain to life eternal. and that we need not further wander, we must exercise ourselves in reading of good books, in prayer, fasting, and works of godliness. and as xenophon writing of the duty and office of an esquire, warneth him above all things, to beseech at god's hand to make, his thought, speech, and deeds such as shall be agreeable unto him, and contentment to all his friends, and honourable and profitable to his commonwealth without molesting of any man; by far greater reason the christians ought to pray unto god, without intermission, that he will teach them his will, and dress their paths, to love and fear his name. when a man speaketh of good works, it is thereby meant such as are furthest from all superstition and hypocrisy, and proceed from a faith working through charity, and a pure heart, mat. 25 34. 2. cor. 9.8. 1. tim. 6.18. witnessing the great bounty and excellency thereof, and profiting our neighbours, referring all to the glory goodness and grace of god, which bringeth forth in us good fruits, and giveth unto us both to will and to perform as saint paul saith, and crowneth in us his own works. chap. 8. how much true men have been esteemed and that all magistrates ought to be so, and of the riches of princes. in exodus jethro counseled moses, exod. 18, 21. to appoint rulers over the people, men of courage, fearing god, who ought to be rulers. men dealing truly hating covetousness, and in egypt, the chief magistrate ever carried a picture of truth, hanging at his neck. the which amian writeth also of the druids, showing that a judge ought to carry it in his heart, his judgements, and all other his actions. and the tablet hanging with two chains upon the heart of the high priest, (whereof mention is made in exod. 28. exod. 27.30. and numbers 3.) was called urim which signifieth light. urim. for the kings in all their actions of importance, demanded counsel of god by his high priest, or prophets. pythagoras, and demosthenes, pythagoras. demosthenes. esteemed to be true, and to do good to another, the two most excellent things that were given from heaven to mankind. and the same pythagoras, pythagoras. being demanded, wherein men were likest unto god, answered in truth. and it was a sufficient reason for any thing he said to say, he said it. and the great theban captain epaminondas, epaminondas. was most especially praised because he loved the truth, and never made lie. pyndarus. and pyndarus praised him, as he did before one pyttacus a tarentine, pyrrhus. for that knowing much he spoke little. and albeit pyrrhus was an enemy to the romans, yet nevertheless did he give this praise unto fabritius, fabritius. that a man might assoon turn him from the truth and honesty, as the sun out of his course. and the chiefest praise, bishops in time past. which historiographers give to bishops in time past, is, that they never lied, and in the psalms, and apocalypse, zachar. the saints were ever honoured with this title, that a lie was never found in their mouth. and zacharie praising jerusalem calleth it the city of truth. psal. 38.56.135. isaiah 54. and in the holy scripture, this word of think, say, or promise, is interpreted in god to do: because all which he thinketh, saith, or promiseth, is surely executed and put in effect. pomponius a friend of cicero's, was extolled, for that he had gotten such an opinion to be counted true, that every one trusted him, demonar. and referred himself unto him. which was likewise said of demonar in the time of the emperor adrian. and our chronicles do greatly praise king john, king john. for that he was open, never making show of loving him, whom in deed he did not. titus livius, in the 5. titus livius. book of his fourth decade, and fourth of his 5. made a great matter that the romans kept their faith exactly. and in the first book of his first decade he writeth, that faith, and a single oath, (all fear of laws and chastisements not thought on) governed the whole city, attilius regulus. to which he attributed the course of all their great prosperities. attilius chose rather to return back, to torments and death prepared for him, antiochus. ptolemy epiphanes. popilius. than to break his faith. and when antiochus would have usurped egypt, upon ptolemy epiphanes, whose protection the romans had already taken upon them, they sent unto him popilius, who made a circle about the said antiochus, and constrained him before he departed to promise him, that he should enterprise nothing, over their said pupil. we read of many other kings and commonwealths, that in their differences, referred themselves to the people of rome. cato as plutarch hath written, having laid to murena his charge, cato. custom of the romans that he bought the voices of the people, the better to attain to the consulship, went here and there gathering his profess, and according to the custom of the romans, had on the defendants behalf, certain guards, which followed him every where, marking what he did for the better instruction of his bill; these watchmen would often ask him, if that day he meant to search out aught, that appertained to his accusation, if he said no then they departed, whereupon is grown this proverb, when one telleth a thing that seemeth strange, this is not to be believed, though cato himself should tell it. and pliny in his preface, describeth the opinion was then had of his manhood, and innocency, which saith he caused cicero to cry out, o gentle cato how happy art thou to have been such a one, that never man yet durst presume to solicit thee in any dishonest cause, or contrary to duty? he writeth also of scipio surnamed asiaticus, scipio asiaticus. for to have subdued natolie, being called before the tribunes, gracchus being one, whom he held for his enemy, that he had such an assurance in his speech, that his very enemies were sufficient witness of his manhood. a good advise of a liar rejected. and in lacedaemon, when there was one that was known to be a dissolute person, and a liar, & that he had proposed a very profitable advise, & necessary for that time, yet was it clean rejected of the people. and the ephors, having choose a senator that was very true, commanded him continually to propose unto them like council, whereby they might restore their commonwealth, as it were from an unclean and foul vessel, into a pure & neat. cicero in his oration he made for balbus, maketh mention of an honourable person, who being called into the senate at athenes, to depose touching some matter, the senators would by no means have him take the accustomed oath; knowing him to be a virtuous honest man. such an efficacy hath the opinion of manhood, in a parsonage accounted true. artabanus judge of the controversy between xerxes and ariamenes. parliament of paris. xerxes & ariamenes in the great controversy which was between them for the kingdom of persia, referred themselves to their uncle artebanus, to whose judgement they stood. i could here reckon many foreign princes, who in time past have had such an opinion of the court of parliament of paris, composed of grave, learned, and reverent counsellors, chosen according to the right and ordinances, that they have had recourse thither, as to a temple of justice. we read of the emperor frederic the second, leather money. and certain kings of france, that they have been so greatly esteemed of their subjects that in steed of fine gold they have received lethermonie, others have borrowed great sums with good liking, which they have restored again, as soon as conveniently they were able. this is the means which cirus showeth, cyrus. zonare. in xenophon, and zonare, to croesus, wherein a prince's treasure most consisteth. king francis 1. henry 2. prince's true and keeping their promise beloved of their subjects. king pharamonde named warmond. whereby they may obtain what they will of their subjects: when they have once gained an opinion to be accounted true he saith likewise that their treasures consist most in enriching of their friends, without caring for any other guards. we have seen, what credit by this means, the great kings francis, and henry, obtained throughout all europe, and what loss and dishonour such have received as both before, and since have failed of their promise. i will not here omit, how pharamonde our first king was named warmond which signifieth truth. and a man is not able to declare what profit, and solace he which is true, bringeth to every man, as ending of suits in law, enmities, discords, and other seeds of mischiefs dispersed through a country, by the revealing of the truth which he discovereth, xenephon. his words being received as an oracle. and xenophon in his seventh book of young cirus, showeth that the bare word of such a man prevaileth more, than other men's constraint, threats or punishment: and gaineth more by his bare promise then other do by their rewards. he saith moreover that there is no greater, nor more excellent riches especially to a prince, than virtue, justice, and greatness of courage, because such can neither want friends, nor ought else. chap. 9 that it behoveth to keep promise, with instruction not to make it with one's disadvantage, and not to give place to the importunate. faith● of princes. titus' livius, in his third book of his first decade, declareth what great damage ensueth him who breaketh his faith, and looseth his credit; for the society of men is only maintained by dew keeping of promises. and all good princes have esteemed, that their authority, isocrates. puissance, and safety dependeth thereon. hereupon isocrates wrote to king nicocles, that he should be found true of his word in all his promises: in sort that one should give greater credit to his bare word, then to others oaths. and the wise man writeth in the proverbs, that well-doing and faith conserveth a prince's estate, but a lying talk becometh him not. himself is the only preserver of faith among his subjects, and their debtor for justice. dion reciteth that the emperor marcus antonius was wont to say, marcus antonius. faith once broken, of what importance. king attalus that it was a very lamentable thing, that a man's faith should be violate or suspected, without which nought can be assured. king attalus in his death bed, warned eumenes his son, to esteem fidelity, & the good opinion of his subjects, the chiefest part of the inheritance he could leave him. and sueton praised caesar, caesar. for that he kept his faith with his enemies, though they broke theirs with him for as cicinnatus said in titus livius, a man must not offend, cicinnatus. augustus. led by an other man's example. and dion reporteth of augustus, that having made proclamation, that he would give five and twenty thousand crowns, to whosoever would present him with one that was the ringleader of certain thieves, the same man presented himself, & obtained both the crowns & his pardon. we read in sundry places of titus livius, the romans performers of their promises. how the romans were ever very curious in maintaining their promise, & polybius being a greek writeth of them, that their very word was enough among the romans; and in greece although they had notaries and seals, oftentimes they broke their faith, for which they were grievously punished. joshua. 9, 20. and in josua it is written, that he kept his faith with the deceitful barbarians, to the end, saith he, that the wrath of god should not be upon his people, because of the oath which they swore unto him, as it afterwards fell upon all them of the house of saul, who were hanged for having violated their own. and the prophet writing in his psalms, of such conditions as the faithful aught to be endued with insisteth greatly upon this, that they keep their promise, yea, though it were to their own hindrance. cicero in his offices showeth by many examples, that one's faith is broken, when faith is broken. if one do aught to the detriment thereof, what colour soever he will set upon it. but that we should not run further headlong into these inconveniences, seneca wrote that he which was not able to set light a sottish shame, is no disciple of philosophy; which opinion brutus was likewise of as plutarque writeth. and it is an overgreat fault in princes, remedy. either not to dare to refuse, or too lightly to agree to whatsoever is demanded of them: which they ought to endeavour to refourm, by custom proceeding from lesser things, refusing greater. it is also required that we promise not aught, which proveth not to our advantage, or aught else that lieth not in our power, but diligently to take heed, that we suffer not ourselves to be enforced, nice shamefastness. or led with a nice shamefastness, which many have, when they dare not contrary, or refuse to grant what they are required: for which oft times they much repent themselves, zeno. notable examples not to grant that is unjust. rutilius. as zeno wisely did reprehend him, who was not ashamed to require a matter both unjust & unreasonable. and rutilius to one that found fault, that his friendship was so light set by, as not to be able to obtain his request, made answer, but what have i to do with thine, if thou wouldst enforce me to do contrary to all justice? agesilaus. and king agesilaus, said to certain importunate persons, that a man ought not to demand at a king's hands, aught that were unjust: and being entreated by his father to give judgement in a cause contrary to right, he answered him: you have taught me from my youth to follow the laws, i will yet now obey you in ought not judging against them. alexander. alexander the great made the like answer to his mother, adding further, that she asked to great a recompense for having borne him nine months: and because of her ill carriage of herself, when antipater (to whom macedonia fell) died, he prayed his subjects (as diodorus wrote) never to leave the managing of affairs in the hands of a woman. the emperor frederick said to certain his minions about him, frederick. that were very importunate to get into their hands some of the ancient domain of the empire, that he rather chose to be accounted of small liberality, sigismond. then perjured. they writ as much of sygismond. chap. x. examples of evils happened to breakers of promise, and of that which dependeth thereupon. the punishment & vengeance upon such as broke their faith. the examples of such miseries, as they have run into which have not performed their promises, aught to make us think their faults more strange, than we win for. titus livius reciteth of a dictator of albany, who was drawn in pieces with four horses, for that he had broken his faith, & the city of albe was razed clean down, and carthage dissolved into ashes, and the people of capua murdered, and kept in bondage. he maketh likewise mention of sundry hostages given in pledge for the better assurance of such treaties as passed through the volsques, tarentines, and others, who were executed for the breach of promise their people made. zedechiah king of juda, having rebelled contrary to his promise, was led captive, after that, his sons were slain before his eyes, and had his own eyes put out. 2. kings. 25.7 caracalla, the emperor having pursued the king of persia, caracalla. justinian. contrary to his promise, was himself afterward slain. justinian having falsified his faith to the camphors, was sent into banishment. cleomenes, cleomenes. having made a league with the argiens', seeing that under the assurance thereof they were lulled a sleep, murdered and imprisoned some of them; nevertheless not being able to surprise the town, which was defended by the women, ran mad, & killed himself. the king of hungary ladislaus, after certain victories obtained against amurates, made a most honourable truce, during which he suffered himself to be persuaded by the cardinal julian, ladislaus. cardinal julian. ambassador from pope eugenes to break it: which was the cause why the said turk, had a most memorable conquest, and the said ladislaus together with the chief of his army, & the said cardinal, were either slain outright, or stifled within the marshes. and after such time as he had thus falsified his faith, there ensued an infinite number of mischiefs through out all christendom. and even so went it with us, after we had conquered milan, and naples, for that we observed not duly the treatise which we there promised. and for the like cause before that, happened the sicilian vespers, frenchmen. and for that we rather gave credit to pope clement the fourth, then to the counsel of the earl of flanders, adrian pope pope adrian took a solemn oath to observe the peace concluded with the emperor frederick, and afterwards breaking it, as he drank he was choked with a fly. alexander 6. pope. it came in like sort to pass with pope alexander the sixth, who took himself such poison as he had prepared for the cardinals he had invited to supper: and to julius the second, julius 2. pope. who was wont to say that the treaties he concluded, was but to abuse and ruin the one through the other. andronicus conneus, andronicus conneus. clean contrary to his faith given to the infants of emanuel, and to them of nice, usurped the empire, but after sundry other ill haps, he was soon after hung by the feet, and hewn in pieces. joys sforce, joys sforce. uncle to john galleace invested himself in the duchy of milan. he likewise broke his promise made to king francis; he was afterwards carried prisoner into france. michael paleologue, being chosen emperor of the greeks, michael paleologue. promised & swore, that he would render up the empire into the hands of john lascaris when he should come of age, but notwithstanding he still held it. he died miserably, & to his posterity ensued an infinite number of mischiefs, & was occasion of the first beginning of the turkish monarchy. charles duke of burgundy charles duke of burgundy, having violated his faith, promised to the suissers, and before that to the earl of s. pol was vanquished, and all ill hap accompanied him ever after. hildebran otherwise named gregory the seventh, gregory 7. pope. rodolph emperor. swore an accord, with the emperor henry the fourth, from whom as soon as he was departed, he created rodolph emperor, who afterwards was overcome by the said henry; and seeing his hand cut off said unto the bishops: behold the hand which i did lift up, when i made the oath of fidelity to the emperor. and anon after he died, & the said pope was deposed & put to flight. which ought to serve for an example to great personages to hold their promises. i will not here forget what we have seen of our time happen to christian king of danemarke, who for having broken his faith given to his subjects, christian king of danemarke. was deprived his realm, and afterwards lived miserably, for all the succours which he received from charles the fift, emperor. richard the 3. king of england. as also the histories recite of one richard, who caused his nephews to be murdered, and his nieces to be declared bastards, to make himself king of england: but he was afterward vanquished and put to flight by one as then scarce known. i omit sundry examples, boccace. set forth by boccace in nine books which he wrote touching the misadventures of notable personages, which every one may read. and could here touch that which plutarch writeth of cato's opposing himself, cato. to the sacrifices which they would make, for the victory obtained by caesar, against the almains, meaning that they ought to had delivered it for them, whom he had outrageously wronged, and contrary to the peace, they had made with the people of rome, to the end to cast upon him alone, the fault they had committed in violating their faith. and without searching of any further examples, through the folliciting of cardinal caraffe, cardinal caraffe. troubles caused by religion. sent from pope paul the third, & through other men's ambition, was there broken a most honourable truce, and thereby a great war undertaken, which had very ill success. i pass over in silence the great calamities, ruins, dissipations, disorders, excess, losses, dissolutions, subversions of states, ravishments & mischiefs happened in christendom since thirty years past, through a dispensation, which men take, to violate their faith, promise, and edicts. and we have very great occasion to beseech god that he will give remedy thereto, and hinder these defiances, evil fortunes, divisions, and storms, which as yet are like to happen. and albeit, that according to bias opinion, how a man may dispense with a promise. no excuse is to be received, to make one able to break his promise, nevertheless he ought not to be accused for a liar, who may not lawfully keep it, for some just occasion, afterwards happened unto him. as if a mad man should demand the sword which he had given another to keep, or if a more mighty man should oppose himself, or if by that means another would attempt against his person, or estate which did promise, or if thee keeping of his promise, new matters & strange, new and strange counsel. l. 6. de iurieur. should turn him to any great dishonour, mischief, error, fraud or any other prejudice not to be recovered. for matters not already in practice, strange and new, require a new counsel, according to the saying of the layers, who even dispense with a promise, after an oath taken. and often times men promise, with an intent to accomplish that which lieth not in their power, through an indisposition, or matter fallen out of more great importance. judges. 11.30. alexander. l. placuit. l. de iudi. necessity the mother of dispensations. as the vow and promise which jephthe made, aught to be otherwise interpreted. and as alexander did, having promised he would slay the first that should come out of the town, killed an ass in am of him that led her: as by equity the rigour of a law is often times moderated. and ancient men have said, that necessity is the mother of dispensation. it is likewise excusable, if any prejudice, or interest happen not through the not accomplishing of a promise. chap. xi. effects of the truth, with exhortation not to change the statutes or laws, and not to dance upon holidays, praise of french men, & a solution of that for which they are blamed. if the light of the truth take from us the vail which blemisheth our judgement, the effects of truth. we shall modestly behave ourselves, without any colour, or disguising in our words, habits, or any other our actions: we shall know how we ought to render unto god, all reverence, obedience, trust, prayers, actions of thanksgiving, and praise with peace in our spirits: and how we ought to honour, love, serve and secure all kind of persons: we shall be ready to obey our king, his laws and magistrates, and wisely to command over subjects: we shall have sufficient of little, magnanimity, easy access, humanity, a nature not dissembling nor feigned, constancy in our counsels and enterprises, with a resolution always to do that which our duty commandeth: we shall not be dissolute in pleasures, nor insolent in prosperity, nor too much carried away with our passions: we shall contemn death, and the dangers thereof, in respect of a better life: we shall lose no heart in adversity, we shall rightfully follow what either is to be chosen, or left, treading upon the thorns of this life without pricking us, ezech. 2.6. and upon scorpions without feeling their venom, as it is written in ezekiel. and would to god that all french men might so know the beauty of this truth, that they might become amorous thereof, & altogether cast off their lying & unconstancy, to the end they might no more be cast in the teeth, with not performing their promises, & that the city of paris might of every one be called the city of truth, as the prophet zecariah called the city of jerusalem, zecha. 8.3. and according to his vision god, placed a woman in the midst of the ephah, 5.8. named iniquity, upon the mouth whereof he cast a weight of lead, because she should not escape. or as philip king of macedon, assembled together the most wicked persons and furthest from correction of all his subjects, and put them into a town which he builded of purpose, and named it poneropolis, that is the city of wicked persons. poneropolis, a city builded by k. philip. so that there mought be sent & enclosed in some one place in france all such as do delight in inconstancy, lightness, falsehood, against promise and truth, seditions, liings, pilling, extortion, knavery, cozenage, pernicious inventions, murders, reproaches, and perjuries; to the end that the rest might live in greater honour, peace, reputation, & credit. now standing not at all upon the praise, which proceedeth from the beginning & ancestors of frenchmen, not being pertinent hereunto, & may easily be seen in the historiographers, i will thus much say for frenchmen, that if we consider their antiquity, praise of frenchmen. piety, valour, manhood, courage, humanity, mercy, gentleness, dexterity, quickness of spirit, and all other their virtues and perfections, they give place to no nation under the sun whatsoever, but rather excelleth it, as a french man said to the ambassadors of rome in titus livius. and there be divers grave writers, 1. dec. l. 5. and of good credit, which attribute unto them a gentle heart, rhenanus, agathius, odo, regino. chron. l. 1. v. 32. favourable, courteous, religious, upright virtuous, loving one each other, and keeping their faith more constantly, than any other people, and they have been called the invincible and most noble. and if they have any imperfections at all, as no man is without, yet are they covered with an infinite number of virtues: for as much as reason causeth them to tame, and subdue this liveliness, promptness, and heat which they have naturally. and histories are full of the prowess of our ancestors, who with their victorious hand have run over well-near the whole world, setting down orders and laws to all provinces, there planting the memory of their name, and marks of their empire. italy, which speaketh of envy, hath been well coursed and tamed and sundry other countries as well in europe as asia, have hence been peopled and received their governors. and an infinite number of emperors, princes, and provinces, have had recourse unto them, for their own assurance, and have left behind them most notable monuments of their government and justice, to the profit of many provinces. this would gladsomly, encourage me particularly to declare, and make recytall of the most famous in all disciplines, and knowledge of tongues & sciences, of a great number of martyrs, which have suffered for the testimony of the faith, of excellent emperors, captains, and soldiers, that we might well compare to the most valiant that ever was, during the very flower of the romans and greeks. i will not forget what julius caesar in the sixth of his commentaries, frenchmen preferred before almain and tacitus hath written, that the french men have far surpassed the almains, in prowess, valour, and courtesy, and have ever had the first start of them. sallust in the end of the war of jugurth writeth, that the ancient romans, and such as have been since, have ever had this opinion, that by their own valour, they easily attained to the end of all other nations: but that with the french men, they strove for their own safety, and not for honour. and it is not to be red in all histories, of any people that hath attained to their valour, and dexterity, nor whose conquests were more wonderful, expeditions more remarkable, and success of their battles more happy, and policy or laws better ordained, or piety, bounty, and religion better, nor their unity greater. and there is no nation whose brightness is not darkened and obscured through the high shining of the glory of the french men. but to satisfy what the said caesar hath written, frenchmen blamed. that frenchmen are sudden, heady, desirous of novelties, and deliberating upon uncertain purposes, and coiners of affairs of importance, whereupon they must needs quickly repent themselves. other historiographers strangers, condemn them of lightness; and the emperor charles the fifth, said to the kings ambassador, the which before that he had proposed to the consistory of rome, that he was nowise able to assure himself of the french, because they began many things, but brought nothing to end: and did no otherwise by their words, then by their garments, which they disguised into so many fashions, as one day they were of one mind, and tomorrow of another. and that a body could not believe aught except he saw it done: and that if they did any good at all, it was by bounty, for the great desire they had to draw others to their own advantage. and that they had ever their foot, and their wit in the air, & their purposes more changeable than the wind. and further discharging his choler at that time, as the ambassador himself told me, he greatly blamed the diversity and changing of edicts and ordinances, which we handle so ill, and publish so lightly, that anon after we are constrained to change them: being a cause, that they were so little made account of. and then in his passion he repeated certain places, wherein he thought some words wanted, which speech of his notwithstanding he afterwards excused. and in truth plato did not amiss compare, plato. how many more taverns, so many more drinkers: laws not to be altered the number of physicians, the increase of diseases; the more account the justice is made of, the more suits: so the more laws, the more corruption: as daily experience doth teach us, profiting us no more, then great variety of medicines doth to a very weak stomach. and in the time of the emperors caligula & claudus, were many laws made, and yet tyranny and corruption took never more place. if youth were well taught in prince's courts, universities & schools, but constancy, gravity, & the truth, they should be a great deal better received, and strangers would more assure themselves of our promises: and then mought we well say of france, as s. jerom attributed unto it, the counsel of the persians. that it were a country refined, and purged of monsters. i will not here sylently pass over to this purpose, that counsel, which the princes of persia & media gave to king darius, as the prophet daniel witnesseth, daniel. 6.8. ester. 8 8. diodorus. demosthenes. that he should be found true, and never change a law which was once made, according to the custom of the medes and persians which altereth not. it is also written in the book of hester: that the writings written in the k. name, and sealed with the king's ring, may no man revoke. diodorus and demosthenes, tell of certain people, that no man mought so much as speak of the change of a law, except he wore a halter, with which he was hanged, if his opinion took not place. so greatly in ancient time did they detest all changes and novelties. marseilles. the citizens of marseilles were much renowned by cicero and titus livius, for that they remained constant in their laws, customs, and fashions, paler. l. 2. ch. 15. without changing aught, yea, and as a great treasure they kept their old sword of justice in the smallest matters to show how much they honoured antiquity. and for the like constancy have the romans received great glory. paulus aemilius. and paulus aemilius writeth that the french men ever took great heed, that nought in their laws and customs should be changed. and greatly was lycurgus praised, for that after he had brought the lacedæmonians to receive his laws, he made them all swear that they should alter no one jot of them during his absence; and after that never returned into his country again, which caused it to far much the better with them. for as plato hath written in the seventh of his laws, and xenophon likewise. change, in all matters, except they be mischievous, plato. xenophon. is most dangerous, be it in the diet of the body, or in manners. and according to the old proverb, a man should not awake a sleeping dog. and every known evil, to which a man is used, change, a matter dangerous. titus livius. aristotle. is tolerable as titus livius writeth. and aristotle in his politics, showeth, it is much better to bear with some imperfections & faults in laws & magistrates, if they be not too notorious then in thinking to change them, to ruin a whole estate, which is as a great frame made of divers pieces, so joined and linked in together, that it is unpossible to take away the least part, but the whole shall feel it. it is greatly doubted, whether we ought to receive a better law for a more ancient. for the principal matter which maketh a law to be obeyed, is custom which cannot be confirmed but by continuance of time: so that alteration greatly weakeneth the force and virtue of a law. plato. and plato in his politics, and fourth of his common wealth, reprehendeth such as by new laws imagine they may remedy mischiefs: and deem them rather an occasion thereof, as if one cut off the head of hydra, by and by seven new spring up: hydra. and by change is taken away that respect and reverence, which we ought to bear them, which once being lost, there is no more obedience. we read in ancient histories, orpheus. that orpheus was cut in pieces by the women of thrace, because he had changed their laws. for this cause, as the lawyers write, if we be not constrained thereto by an apparent and evident profit, we ought not to alter what hath been before ordained. and as s. bernard wrote to one at lions: novelty is the mother of rashness, i. in rebus de consta. princi. bernard. galba emperor. sister of superstition, & daughter of lightness. the emperor galba was greatly praised because he would neither change ancient law, nor create new. and plutarque exhorteth trajan, to take greater care in seeing his ancient laws to be observed, plutarque. then in making of new; and above all things, that his life should serve for a law. one asked pausanias, why it was not lawful in lacedaemon, pausanias. to alter any ancient law, he answered, that laws ought to have authority over men, not men over laws. otherwise, as plato & aristotle maintained, solon. it was a subversion of an estate. the answer which solon made to anatharsis, saying: that his laws were like to spiders cobwebs, which hold but the little flies, deserveth to be well considered of: that as men keep their contracts, that it is not expedient that any bargainer should break, so the athenians would willingly cleave to his laws, out of which no man should receive any damage, but every one very great profit. it were very necessary we had such officers as were wont to be in greece, called nomothetes, who took great regard that no man should derogate from any good law, nor publish any that were pernicious or superfluous: nomothetes in greece. which the parlements ought to do. notwithstanding a man may allege the saying of our lawyers, that it is unpossible to set down an order certain, simple, and of one sort, to things which daily vary: and that which an ancient man said, that a mutton had but one voice, but a man divers, because we must do as time, and affairs require, all humane affairs being in perpetual motion, and france being composed of so many kinds of people, and differing in fashions and language. in the first book of thucydides, thucydides. the corinthians set down, that as in a city, which is in quiet and peace, it is not meet their ancient laws and customs should be changed: so where a common wealth is overpressed with diverse and unlike affairs, it is necessary they look out many new helps, as to diseases strange and unknown, strange remedies must of necessity be applied. gellius. l. 12. cap. 1. colum l 2. c. 4. plato 4. de legibus decad. 4. and in titus livius it is declared, how men's laws altar according to the time. and aristotle in the third of his ethics, compareth them to measures, and solon to coins, which are not alike in all. and in the sixth he sayeth, that laws do not proceed from art, or any other science, but from wisdom, which regardeth things in particular, as they change, and attaineth to experience by exercise & time: as terence said: this age requireth an other life, terence. and other manners. for this cause solon prayed his laws might be observed for a hundred years space, solon. to the end that they mought not be afterwards changed. moreover we have often seen, what credit they have had about princes, which have counseled them to alter the laws for their own lucre, or particular passions. and such as are studied in the constitutions of the cannon and civil law, may see, how popes and emperors, have established, & abolished, and then put in use again, certain laws, & what hath pleased one hath displeased his successor. and what hath had his course in one time, is clean rejected in another. so much is man's mind inclined to contradiction and change. l. 2. c. 3. de baptis. come. don. s. augustine writeth, that the decrees of particular bishops have been corrected by provincial counsels, and provincial by universal, and the former general counsels disannulled by the latter, when through experience of things, that which lay close is opened, & what was hid is brought to light, which may be seen more at large in histories. here i could allege the opinion of an athenian ambassador, policy in a prince. recited by thucydides, that a prince ought sometime to be a friend, sometime an enemy, & to ply himself according to occurrents, & sometime it behoveth him to release the laws, as k agesilaus ordained that for an accident than happened they must be winked at, & afterwards be observed. another said to pericles that since it was not lawful to take clean away the table, wherein the law was written, plutarque. yet they ought to turn the other side. and plutarque praised flaminius for that he knew how to command over laws, tacitus. the necessity of the time requiring it. and in tacitus the almains were praised, for changing their customs found to be but bad. as also valerus a senator of rome showeth in titus livius, that it becometh men so to do. titus livius. and some have condemned the law of the persians & medes, which was above recited, when the usage, & state of a comen wealth, hath found it unprofitable & pernicious. every man also will confess, that in men's deeds & speeches, the mean called constancy is to be required: which is a mean between lightness & stubbornness and to persever in one mind, is not always to be praised, cicero. as cicero in many places declareth, yielding those for an example, which upon the sea are constrained to yield to tempests & winds, and oft times to alter their course, never standing stiff in one deliberation. and there is no nation, nor people which hath not some time been accused of inconstancy, man's life being so full of contrarieties: as hipocrates in a certain epistle declareth it to be. hipocrates. every one ought also to consider, that the cause why we are so blamed and found fault with by other nations, proceedeth by reason of the notable victories which french men have obtained against them, and that they have so often been subdued by the valour of the french: and not being able to revenge with the sword, guychardine a true writer, justifieth the frenchmen, & condemneth the venetians. they will do it with the feather. and whereas paulus iovius, bembus, sabellicus, and pandolphus, accuse the french men for not keeping their promise with the venetians, as well he as other credible authors, discovereth the falsehood, and reproach of these writers, showing it rather proceeded from the lightness of other nations, as in sundry places in cicero we may perceive. and titus livius calleth them of syria, asia, and greece, very light persons. tacitus attributeth as much to the almains, the inconstancy of strangers. & scythians. what unconstancy and lightness since two hundred years last passed, have we i pray you seen, among romans, neapolitans genoese, milanois, florentînes, and other italians which they have used towards their princes & governors? and for the very almains, have they not oft abandoned their emperors, endured, and made means, that strangers enriched themselves with the spoils of th'empire? have they not served their turn with the son to ruin the father? and have they not afterward left the son as a pray unto the enemy? and upon the like occasions auentin crans, auentin crans. & some other almains, have to small purpose, and foolishly blamed the french men of lightness & fantasticalnes, & named them by sundry other injurious epithetons, so as they which see clear may easily judge by their very writings, & by other authors better trained up in matters of state & seasons of time than they, how they have written full of backbiting, lying, pride, & envious malice. beatus rhenanus calleth such historiographers ambitious, praisers of their germane nation, & blameth them for so robbing & concealing the praises, deserved by the french. and the said italians unable to excuse the great faults, cruelties, italian prudence. italian writers not of credit. treacheries, cowardness, treasons, and dissimulations of their nation, go about to disguise these villainies with a name of italian prudence: and to diminish the noble exploits and enterprises of the french, they counterfeit a letter of an italian, as it were descended out of the clouds, thereby to give thereto greater honour. and yet in those very examples which they do allege, they show how they of their own nation, have with all their great discourses, been as ill advised, irresolute & unconstant in all their affairs, yea and more than any other nation. and howsoever they enforce themselves to stain the french, we must needs confess, that there was never nation that ever enterprised, well guided, nor more happily executed brave & lofty enterprises, and matters worthy of memory, than the french: nor that ever with greater manhood, constancy & perseverance, hath conquered, defended, & recovered their own country, than they did even at that instant wh●●●hese men so passionately wrote of them. jerosme beuzo a●… ila●ois, who wrote of the west indies, jerosme beuzo having remained there above fourteen years with the spaniards, showeth how far the spanish chroniclers have spared the truth, & do go about to cover the cruelties, inconstancies, and villainies of their nation, of whom part at their return home were well chastened by the french, yea, and in the very place by themselves, pilling and murdering one an other through the just judgement of god. moreover every one seethe, that in that they blame the french to be too open, prompt, movable & light, they might better construe it to a virtue: and such reproaches setteth them again in so good away, that they take away all occasion of speech: as philip king of macedon was wont to say of the railing athenians: and causeth in them a habit to every virtue. and to persons of colerique humour, as frenchmen are, galene attributeth prompnesse and prudency in their actions. and this word of fantasticalness in respect of the french, may be taken in a signification, as other author's use, for a courage and readiness, in all matters worthy praise. and they are not to be blamed if they take their party the best to help themselves, occasioned by the incommodity of their enemies, nor if they show themselves careless in small matters, the better to be able to achieve things of greater importance, nor if they keep themselves from the treacheries, deceits, dissemblings, and falsehood of faith, which their enemies have ever been accustomed to use, nor if they render like for like as they are able, and occasion may serve. and whereas k. alphonsus, of dancing. and divers other authors have greatly blamed frenchmen because they delighted so much in dancing, they might easily excuse themselves through an old ancient custom, which hath been received in sundry provinces, and by reason of the exercise therein taken, so as a man modestly behave himself without counterfeiting a mad man. it is to be wished for all that our paths might be as well ruled as our words ought to be, & that dancing were in less estimation than it is, especially upon holy days, by reason of the inconvenience, disorder, insolency & dissoluteness that ensueth thereon. as in time past the romans, lacedæmonians, and other comen wealths well ordered, yea, the very king s. lewis banished out of their towns all vain pleasures, which served for nought else then to effeminate young men, & allure them to vice, and above all they have been enemies to dancing, which a man easily may gather, in an oration that cicero made for murena, assuring that no man danced, except he were drunk or mad, & that such a vice proceeded from the dissolute banquet of drunkenness, love & lechery, whereof no man was able to accuse the said murena, being a man given to all honest exercises. and the same orator, finding fault with an enemy of his called him a brave danser. and in his offices he showeth that for nothing in the world, a virtuous & wise man ought to dance in public, albeit he had so promised. and frederick the emperor was wont to say, that he rather chose to have an ague, then to dance. and plutarch in his communings at board saith, that the persians never durst dance in presence of their wives. and domitian deposed one ruffian out of the senate, because he danced, as though he had committed an act unworthy of an honest man. and it seemeth they which so well love it, have more brain in their feet then head, & think to play the fools with reason, as terence saith. and aristotle in his ethics writeth of the milesians, ●. 3. c. 8. prou. 4.26. that they were not fools but did the self-same things that fools are accustomed to do. and herein they follow not the precept of the wise man, to ponder the path of our feet, & to let all our ways be ordered aright. for vanity is so great in many men, that they altogether study to keep measure & follow the tune in dancing, & in their actions, countenance, speech, & counsels; they go headlong observing neither measure, wisdom, nor reason. it is the very right occupation of jesters & jugglers, noted of infamy in good comen wealths. and to cause laughture, & pastime, they were wont in time passed to counterfeit persons adjudged to die, ●. aut. damnat. de panis. whereto all great princes ought to take heed that their sceptres serve not for a scoff to their subjects, & themselves there by run in contempt. heb. 11.25. the pleasures of the court of pharaoh are called in the epistle to the hebrews: prou. 6.27. the pleasures of sins. and it is a hard matter as solomon saith, for a man to take fire in his bosom & his clothes not to be burned. and in the 16. chap. he declareth, that such pleasures are converted into tears, & torments. men of ancient time have named dances allurings, poisonings, & bauderies of satan, who by the means thereof corrupteth us, as lizander softened the walls of athens, & burned their ships, by sound of flutes. the lord reprehended them in isaiah for using banquets, harps, tabors, & other dissoluteness. isaiah. and without any more repeating the places of holy scripture, wherein we are commanded to resist the desires of the flesh, dancing condemned by the doctors of the church to shun all appearance & occasion of evil, & to show a good example as i touched before. s. basil in a sermon he made against drunkenness, flatly forbiddeth profane songs & dancing, as things repugnant to all the holy duties of a christian man, basil. in steed of bending his knees before god, which he ought to do. chrysostom. which likewise s chrisostom doth in many homilies upon matthew, the epistle to the coloss. and upon genesis, speaking of the marriages of isaac & jacob, s. ambrose. augustine. & in another homely, he praised the people for having left it. s ambrose in his third book of virgins, & s. augustine against petilian, declare that in the well ordered churches, dancings were banished & reproved, as unworthy dissoluteness, & upon the 32. psalms, he is of opinion that it is not so ill to travail, & plough the ground, upon the sunday, as to dance. the which nicholas of clemenge, an ancient doctor of the sorbonists doth commend in a treatise he made, of not augmenting of holy days. and the said s. augustin in another place, inconveniences happened by dancing. rather liketh the wife or maid, that soweth upon the holy day, than her that danceth. in the sea of histories, is mention made of an archbishop of magdebourg that broke his neck dancing with a damsel. other have been stroke down with thunder, or knocked & bruised in pieces with the fall of the house, where they danced. our writers make mention of the great danger which k charles 6. escaped, having like to have been burned in a dance, as some other great lords were. k. charles 6. and by dancing herodias caused john baptist to be beheaded. and by bills of inditements drawn against sorcerers, it hath been found true, that in their devilish synagogues they go all dancing. and not without cause one of ancient time named dancings snares for maids, misfortune for men, and a bait for bawds. and the voltes, courantes, and violent dances, proceed from fury, and hath caused many women to be delivered before their time. and god in isaiah greatly threateneth the daughters of zion, for that they went winding & prancing, making their steps to be heard again. origen. origen writeth that all persons have been forbidden them, but especially women, plutarcke. for fear of defile their sex. plutarque likewise writeth, that they ought to be ashamed to be found dancing. judg. 21.23. council. 30. & 33. and the daughters of israel were by that means ravished. i could allege sundry counsels which have forbidden it, yea, and of our own ordinances, exod. 16.29. & 31.13. deut. 5.14. levit. 23.3. heb. 3.11. & 4.3. 1. cor. 5.8. isaiah. 66.23 which we ought to keep, and among other at the last assembly of the estates holden at orleans. for the sanctification required by the law of god, upon the sabbath & feastdaies is thereby maintained, the which figureth in us a spiritual rest, which god worketh in his faithful, sanctifying them, regenerating, and making them aspire to things heavenly & divine, keeping their feast in sincerity & truth, as s. paul hath written. and this aught to be a continual sabbath to the said faithful, to the end that every day, they may live holily, renouncing the works of the flesh, why holy days be ordained. & honour god both in body & mind. and the holy day is principally ordained to hear the word of god, to serve him, to call upon his name, to remember his benefits & free gifts, to give him thanks, to dedicate ourselves unto him, to perform all works of piety, to participate with the public prayers made in the churches, & to set ourselves far of from all appearance of ill. as s. paul saith, coloss. that god hath purified to himself a people, making profession of good works, & this sanctification is declared in isaiah to consist in doing of no ill, isaiah. 58.13 & in following the will of god not our own, profaning of holy days & suffering ourselves to be governed by him. for how can we name ourselves christians, & keep holy days, if we profane them with dancing, banqueting, masking, spending excessively, & playing dissolutely, provoking the wrath of god upon us? which will bring forth her accustomed effects & chastisements, if we do not amend. and if according to the saying of our saviour we must render account for every idle word, math. 12.36. how much more for our songs which men vomit out in dances from a heart impure, the more to give fire to our covetous desires, sufficiently occasioned by other mean to boil, in stead of employing our tongue to the praise of our creator, and giving him thanks for his benefits? and as the mysteries of religion are spiritual, so do they require the mind of man, to the end to nourish it, instruct, reform, humble it, if it be too much exalted, and lift it up, if it be too much thrown down, to comfort and regenerate it, without applying it to vain things, dishonest and hurtful, which was the cause that saint augustine and other doctors found it strange, that men are offended if they see one plough upon a holy day, but not if one be drunk, go a whoring, or work any other iniquity. it is to be feared that god will object unto us that in the first of isaiah, my soul hateth your appointed feasts; i am weary of them, isaiah 1.14. and i will not hear your prayers. and in amos, i hate and abhor your feasts days, and i will not smell in your solemn assemblies, amos 5.21. & 8.10. though you offer me burned offerings, and meat offerings i will not accept them, and i will turn your feasts into mournings, and all your songs into lamentations, and i will bring sackcloth upon all loins. the purity of the gospel calleth us to a profession, that we should reform and cut off all evil customs, and eloign ourselves from all dangers, vanities, antisthenes. and lightness. and not without cause, antisthenes being demanded, what a feast was, answered that it was an occasion of surfeiting and disorders. and oftentimes no days are less festifall, and less observed, than the festifall days, which many dedicate to bacchus and venus. which surely would require to be well reform. pleas and saytes. and whereas they blame frenchmen for great pleaders, those that are of the best advised exempt themselves, make a appointment, and quit one part to conserve the rest in peace, and wind themselves out of the hands of these suckpurses and palterers, thinking it a true saying of chilo, that quarrels, suits, and debts, are ever accompanied with miseries: as more at large hereafter it is declared. chilo. now to conclude the justifying of ourselves, we will cleave to these places of the holy scripture, all nations noted of vice and imperfections. which accuse all nations of lightness, vanity, inclination to evil, lying, change, self-love, inconstancy, infirmity and hereditary vices, which every one by experience may find in himself. and no man in this world is able to glorify himself, but only in that god hath showed him mercy, in that he is called to his church, and put in the rank of his children and heirs to be partaker of the heavenly benefits. and i will pray all them which will not be satisfied with my excuses, civil wars. to consider, the saying of the emperor augustus, that civil wars cause many inconveniences and disorders, which are amended through a good peace: as sundry authors have written of divers people, especially xenophan of the lacedæmonians famous for a time, for their great discipline, but in succession of time, yielded themselves to all dissoluteness. some bewail in france the diversity of fashions taken from strangers, and desire that it might have the honesty, courtesy, gentleness, humanity, valour, justice, honest exercises, frugality, and temperance, to clothe themselves, drink, eat, and speak, which the ancient french men were accustomed to have. and as plutarch writeth of the sicilians that their continual wars made them like to savage beasts, so is it not strange to see a change in france, occasioned through so often wars especially civil, as tacitus at large describeth it in like sort to have happened to the romans. chap. 12. that we ought to fly evil and seducing companies with other instructions to nobility, worthy to be noted. choler and headiness enemies to good counsel. choler, and headiness, have ever been taken for enemies to good counsel; and sudden, and quick natures, are ever subject quickly to enterprise, and shortly after to repent themselves. wherefore it is necessary, that we accustom ourselves by little and little, thoroughly to consider of our deliberations and enterprises. yea in matters of small importance, not to do or speak any thing, but first thoroughly to consider what may ensue thereon. for when one hath undertaken a matter through counsel, it is a great contentment and occasion to continue what he hath already begun, if the time which is ever true schoolmaster, and corrector, teach not a better advise. iphicrates. to this end iphicrates said, that the worst speech possible to come out of a captains mouth, is, i never doubted that, or else, i never once thought of it. and we see that wise men, have ever in the beginning, to their power, applied provisions to all accidents and good counsels, to the end they might not be surprised: being a matter necessary in war, and other affairs, to change sometime our deliberation, according to the course of affairs, having regard to the disposition, will and nature of those, with whom we are to negotiate, and be ready prepared before the assault. i will dispense with myself to say, that in charge that i have had of great importance, i have had sent me, many remembrances, commandments and letters, whereof i made no semblance at all, knowing the difficulty and impossibility to accomplish that, exercise of what efficacy and force. which was contained therein. and i ever took heed not to advance myself in words, and to hold back from making any promise. there is nothing so hard or difficile, that custom will not render easy. and exercise in matters of virtue is of so great efficacy and force, that she attaineth to the top of all. and we overcome the vices and passions of the mind, through judgement and exercise. judgement, that is knowledge, precedeth, because no man doth exercise himself in rooting out the vices of his mind, except he have them in hatred; and we then begin to hate them when we perceive the filthiness, shame, and damage that followeth thereon: as we see that flatterers, curious men, babblers, and liars, whilst they would be beloved, bring themselves into further hatred; and the contrary to that they pretend doth often happen to lewd persons. the which we ought first to consider, and afterward that there is nothing more pleasing to god and man, nor more agreeing to nature, then to be a virtuous man, constant, true, round, offensive to no man and despising all passion. we must likewise consider how wise they are reputed, who speak little, and are constant in their deeds and words, whereof there ensueth a good conscience and hope, which accompanieth them all the days of their life. and since we are created of god to serve to his glory and the advancement of our neighbour, the end of the birth of man. and to approach the nearest we are able to his holiness, and are borne, and predestinate to honesty, as cicero himself declared, by the opinion of zeno, and aristotle, we ought to take great heed, that no unconstancy, lightness, or lie be found in our actions: and that no word proceed out of our mouth, but advisedly pondered. we ought also to consider, that our creator is good, just, wise, and almighty, and proceedeth slowly to the chastisement of the wicked: to the end that through his example, we should shun all beastly headiness, not doing aught rashly or by adventure, as being the fountain whence all faults spring, as it is taughtus in the proverbs, that whosoever is hasty cometh surely to poverty: and that there is more hope of a soul then of him. pro. 21, 5. & 29.20. constancy. justice. temperance for constancy ever accompanieth the other virtues. and therefore justice is defined to be, a constant will, to render to every one, what appertaineth of right unto him. and temperance to be a constant moderation to use all things aright. and it cometh to pass, as titus livius hath written, that good success ever followeth good counsel, good counsel causeth good success. and abandoneth rashness: whereof we have infinite examples, which ought to keep us back from being too sudden, & to exhort us to follow the properties that are in god, in showing all virtue clemency & patience, taking the fear of his name for our guide and counsellor. and for this cause alexandridas said that the lacedæmonians stayed many days in deciding their criminal causes, criminal causes. where question passed of men's lives: because they which once erred in the death of a man, could no more sufficiently make recompense for their faults. and there have been emperors that have said, that there could not be too long time taken about the condemnation of a man: and the ancient proverb doth carry, l. 3. ch. of the warreof the ieuves. that we must long time deliberate, for that we would execute but once. josephus attributeth the greatness of the romans to be, because they enterprised nothing, inconsiderately or unadvisedly. and they esteemed those accidents of fortune which had ill success, much better being deliberated of by counsel, then if without having taken counsel they should have succeeded as they would have had it: contenting themselves & rejoicing, li. 2. ch. 16. in the misfortune which arrived unto them, after the matters were debated, and consulted of. and in the second book agrippa declared that nothing in the world sooner remedied wounds, then long patience, nor any thing bringeth more shame to the violent and furious persons, than the patiented, who endure their eagerness and violence without making any show or semblance. patience. and in the 4. li. 4. ch. 1. book vespasian saith, that it is the fashion of the romans, to begin and finish all things, with order, knowledge and industry, the contrary being proper and natural to the barbarous, using immoderate hastiness. the examples likewise of such evils as hath fortuned to many through this headiness and choler, aught to make us more advised, as that written of sundry in time past, choler. who have kept in, and retired themselves, feeling choler coming on them, and especially of one architas, who said to his servants keeping ill rule, it is a good turn for you that i am in a chafe. and agesilaus counseled the athenians to set all their force against epaminundas alone, adding that none but the wise and prudent were valiant, and the only cause of victory, and that the other would be soon enough vanquished. we see likewise that light brains, go themselves up and down gathering of matter to inflame their passions, and voluntarily cast themselves headlong into such vices, as of themselves they are inclined unto: and so it cometh of necessity, that he which is once disposed to stumble, doth ever so continue. and since that vice is made a virtue, a custom to evil most dangerous. and that the evil is turned into a custom, there is small remedy, as seneca writeth, or as experience doth declare. and we must in the beginning be well advised how we deliberate, because we can not afterward without dishonour and danger leave it, or take an other course, having long time persevered therein. and if the reasons be contradictory, we must follow the more reasonable, and the most strong conjectures, hoping for remedy, as well through time, as other accidents. men praised the prudence of fabius, because he broke the point of fortune, fabius' surnamed the linguerer. and hindered the advancement of hannibal, in a shunning to fight, temporizing & attending his advantage, which is a virtue that is named long sufferance. and scipio was wont to say, scipio. that he might the better keep his people in, that he was accustomed rather to buy surety, then to submit himself to any hazard. and did like unto the surgeons, who never work with their instruments when they may find any other remedy. he punished the carthaginians for their unconstancy, for which fault we have seen as well french as other to be bitterly chastened. it is also very requisite, to estrange ourselves from filthy talk & company. to estrange ourselves from foolish talking, lewd company and unconstant people. for men of ancient time, without any further inquiry, eph. 5 4 tit. 2. tim. 5. judged a man to be such, as they were whom he most frequented. saint paul teacheth us discreetly to have regard to the humours of such company as we would frequent, for fear lest we be partakers of their evil. in an ancient tragedy there was a wicked man brought in, forbidding any man to come near him, eccles. 7 2. fearing least by his shadow the good might be annoyed. and ecclesiasticus doth counsel, that we depart from the thing that is wicked, and sin shall turn away from us. which moved david in sundry his psalms to protest, that he both hated and shunned all wicked company, and was not able to endure within his court, any wicked or disloyal person. wherefore i beseech the nobility and good wits of france, because it is a matter so easy to be done, that they will once master their wills, passions, headiness, soddainenesse, and choler; and that they would for ever accustom themselves to patience, gentleness, silence, and modesty, giving as it were a bridle to their desires, and as the psalmist sayeth: a watch before their mouth, to the end they may do or say nothing, but what they have well before thought of. and that they will begin by little matters to gain upon greater, which may be able to hurt us, eccles. for as it is written in ecclesiasticus, he which despiseth small things shall fall. cassiodorus. lib. 5. and in cassiodorus king theodoric writeth, that it is the lightness of the wit, lightly to promise, what a man will not or is not able to perform. as we will more at large declare hereafter. he likewise that could accustom himself not too much to love himself, nor his commodities, not to much to love one's self. nor that which they call overwinning, the which causeth the usurpation of an other man's goods, but contrary wise to follow the rule of charity, so much recommended unto us from god, shall not easily cast himself headlong, isocrates. into this inconstancy. isocrates wisely counseled his king, to consider well, what he would say or do, for fear lest he failed therein. basil. and albeit it be no light combat as basil said to vanquish an evil custom, yet by little & little must a body change itand of rash inconstant and light, to become modest, constant and stayed. comen. li. 7 let us consider what caesar in his commentaries, layeth to the charge of the frenchmen, because they bore arms too lightly, mutinous, and not so subtle in war, as hardy and courageous; and that he no less desireth in a man of war, modesty, and obedience, obedience. thucydides. than prowise, and greatness of courage. thucydides the great captain and historiographer of the greeks, esteemed, the fortunate and happy conduct of the war, to hang on three points, that is, to be willing, to reverence, and to obey; as paulus aemilius was in like sort wont to say. we have many examples, that may serve to instruct and teach us, in the journeys that have been made into flaunders, since ten years past, of the evil fortunes and mishaps, and disorders happened during our troubles, and an infinite number of enterprises, to inconsiderately and lightly undertaken, upon vain imaginations and deceitful hopes, having reaped nought else thereby, damages in wars. then loss and dishonour: and the profit of all the wars, since one hundred years past, is not able to be compared, to the damages and evils that have thence proceeded. whereby we must confess that god hath weighed all things in an even balance, mingling losses and victories together, that thereby he might set forth his judgements, and make us shun lightness, warly discipline. avarice and ambition, as well of great as small. the discipline of war consisteth rather, in not putting ourselves without necessity to dangers, and in making void the effortes of the enemy, and in turning upside down their enterprises with industry and patience, without shedding the blood of subjects, than to combat courageously, and valiantly. and there is often times more hope of victory, in standing only to defend ourselves, and let the time run, then in putting ourselves to the arbitrage of fortune. and there are infinite examples, what losses have been sustained by giving of battles, following the counsel which timotheus gave to the thebans, except one be thereto encouraged through a great advantage or constrained by an urgent necessity: god being accustomed as he said, to throw down the proud, and lift up the humble. and it is no less the duty of a captain, which is valiant, to show himself wise in his actions then courageous. it were very expedient that were practised, which happened in our time, in the year of our lord, one thousand five hundred fifty and one, between gonstave king of sweden, and the moscovite, where all those that were occasioners of the war, they had so lightly undertaken, authors of war punished. were executed, and put to death. and not without cause did pausanias call all the captains in the war, both peloponesians and greeks, murderers and destroyers of their country. it is to be desired that the nobility of france would accustom themselves to modesty, rule, order, constancy, and to mortify this their great heat, war unnecessary. to arms, and war unnecessary. and as the physician preventeth sickness, through small preparatives, and apostumes; so beginning with their lesser inclinations, choler, and passions, they may the easilier attain to the end of the more strong: and consider that which is written in the life of saint augustine, that he would never pray for such, murder. as of their own voluntary motion had been at a strange war: and greatly reproved, as saint cyprian did donatus and others, that killing of a private man, was in particular punished, but he who had slain many in war was greatly praised. in titus livius scipio showeth to king masinissa, that a man ought not so much to doubt his enemies armed, as those pleasures which render a man effeminate and unconstant it was wisely said of an ancient man, that the foundations of all counsels and actions, aught to lean to piety, justice and honesty, without using of any headiness. i would willingly give that counsel to french men, which archidamus gave unto the aeoliens, archidamus. meaning to aid the argians in their war, within a letter containing only these words, quietness is good. and said unto such as praised him for the victory he had obtained against the argiens', it had been more worth to have overcome them by wisdom then by force. xenophon writing of the acts of the greeks, xenophon. showeth, that all wise men abstain the most they are able from war, albeit they have thereunto just occasion. and that saying of sundry emperors was very famous, that war ought not to be taken in hand without great need. augustus. and the emperor augustus was wont to say that a war which were good must be commanded by the gods, and justified by philosophers and wise old men. for the time serving for laws, & for arms is diverse, as caesar said to metelius. and we have had too good experience how much god, the weal public, order, and justice hath been offended herewith. and war hath been called a gulf of expense, and a cruel tyrant ransacking the people: and peace ordered with good policy, as a good king, moderating, charge, and excess. and as horace feygneth, that the place into which aeolus shut his winds being open, the sea is troubled in every part: so by the opening of war, partiality, insolency, and all vices manifest themselves. and wars are nought else then a horrible punishment of a whole people, a ruin of a whole country state and discipline. and wisely did spartian write, how trajan was never vanquished, because he never undertook war without just cause. the very which titus livius declareth of the romans, in the end of the first decade. otho the emperor chose rather to die, than to raise a civil war. for which men likewise praise zeno the emperor: and cicero in his philippiques, calleth him which is desirous thereof a detestable citizen. study in learning. i am also of opinion that the conversation with the muses, and study of good letters, would render the nobility more advised and constant, as we have well marked else where. and am not of the swissers mind, which thinketh too much study marreth the brain: nor of the almains, who in the time of galienus the emperor after that the city of athenes was taken, kept them from setting a fire a great heap of books, they had there made, saying: let us leave them to the greeks, to the end that applying themselves to them, they may be less proper for the war. for the reading of good books (as alexander the great, and diverse other of the most valiant captains said) maketh the nobility more hardy, and wise, and containeth them within the bounds of their duty. and what good nature soever a captain be of, he falleth into an infinite number of faults, for want of reading of good books. and that being true which diverse have written of xenocrates, xenocrates. that he did so pierce the heart of his auditors, that of dissolute persons they became temperate and modest, what ought we to judge of the instructions, taken out of the holy letters? and as some have counseled, before they sleep they are to demand of themselves a reason and account, of that which they shall have gained of modesty, gravity, constancy, and facility of complexions. socrates. it is written of socrates, that when he was dry, he would never drink, but first he would cast out the first bucket full of water that he drew out of the well: to the end said he that he might accustom his sensual appetite, to attend the fit time and opportunity of reason. of the soul and body. theophrastes. plutarque. theophrastus' said, that the soul paid well for her higher to the body considering what she there suffered. but plutarch writeth, that the body hath good cause to complain of the noises which so grievous and troublesome a guest maketh him, which notwithstanding is within the body, as in a sepulchre or den, which she ought to guide being before lightened by the truth, and ruling herself according to it, both in respect of her own safety, and of her hosts. i would also counsel them to shun all dissoluteness, be it in bitter, dissoluteness or villainous words, uncomely garments, and unshamefast countenance. for it is all one in what part soever of the body a man show his unshamefastness, vanity, pride, and lightness. and the lacedæmonians were highly commended, because they banished a milesian out of their city, for going too sumptuously apparelled. we ought also rather to desire to be virtuous then to seem, to use wisdom and discretion in all assays, avoiding debates and self-will (without witnessing whether it be true or false not hurtful) following the precept of epictetus, in yielding unto the greater sort, persuading the inferiors, with sweetness and modesty, consenting to the equal, to the end to avoid quarrels. above all things we ought to enforce ourselves to tame our covetous desires and concupiscences, especially where liberty to take and enjoy them is offered unto us, to refrain our concupiscences. and to accustom ourselves to patience & meekness, in keeping under the desire of revenge, knowing, as the great monarch alexander was wont to say, that it is a sign of a more heroical heart, and praise worthy, for a man that hath received an injury to pardon his enemy, then to kill him or revenge himself upon him. and that revenge proceeded of a baseness of mind, and virtue consisted in matters hardly reached unto. and it is written in the proverbs, that it is a greater honour for a man to overcome himself, and command his passions, then to raze cities, and castles. it is that which god requireth by his prophets to cut off the forskinne of the heart. prover. the which saint paul to the romans recommended to the end we should cut off the bad thoughts and desires of revenge. and the platonists said that the shortest way to return unto god, was to mortify our affections, and that virtue was a victory of reason over passions. i think they long a go that wrote, monsters subdued. so much of monsters, perils, tyrants, and thieves, vanquished by hercules, theseus, ulysses, and jason, meant thereby to teach us, revenge forbidden. that men virtuously disposed and well taught, have subdued their pleasures, desire of revenge, inconstancy, lightness, intemperancy, & other passions and vices. which also the poets figureth by aeolus, which moderateth & keepeth in his winds. the most valiant lacedæmonians highly extolled him, that endureth an injury. and a philosopher gave counsel if he which harmed us were weaker than ourselves to pardon him: if more mighty to pardon ourselves. and by the law of god and man, all ways of revenge are forbidden; and reconciliation & atonement, commanded by god the king and the laws: and the peacemakers are called the heirs and children of god, who will never pardon us, if we pardon not those offences which other have committed towards us. mat. 5.5. s. augustine calleth the obedience which we render to god, the mother and garden of all virtues. and when our saviour in s. matthew calleth the meek blessed some have reduced to them that are not moved with injuries. and s. paul commandeth us to live peaceably one with an other. the which we have handled else where, and deserveth to be again repeated, for that point in which the nobility judgeth all honour to consist, but amiss, and being carried without the bars of reason, they hazard themselves to the peril both of their corporal and spiritual life, willing to be the accuser and slayer of themselves, the witness, judge and hangman of such as they pretend to have offended them. and it is not possible to revenge themselves, but through a thousand perturbations, which causeth them clean to departed from tranquillity, which an ancient writer termed to eat out ones heart, & to offend one's self more than his enemy. and often times through a little miscontentment, which we coin to ourselves, we enter into choler, and melancholy, forgetting the pleasures we receive else where, and as if we were bewicthed suffer ourselves to be so transported. s. john in his first epistle, joh. 4.20. calleth him a liar that saith he loveth god, and hateth his brother: and we ought not to have respect to a corrupt custom or opinion, but to that which god and the king commandeth. for as demosthenes was wisely wont to say, we live and rule by laws not by examples. we read in good authors that in old time, that words were never revenged but by words, and never came to handstrokes. i counsel the nobility likewise, not to differ, any resolution in a good matter. for slackness doth often time make that hard, which is most easy to be brought to pass in his time. not to differ as the loss of the roman legions was attributed to the negligence of varus. and it is a very easy matter, to note an infinite number of losses, happened through such slacking. the answer which alexander the great made to him which asked him, alexander. how he had gained & subdued all asia in so short a time, is to be recommended to all captains, following homer's precept, never to differre or omit what was to be done. diligence of caesar. which was in like sort reported by julius caesar, and the old proverb, is very notable, he that will not when he may, deserveth when he would to have a nay, and to abide the smart of it. the said caesar showeth likewise, how much quickness and diligence is profitable, to the end we should not give time, to our enemies astonished, to assemble themselves, religion. eph. 4, 14. heb. 13.6. but to use the victory, not tarrying about the pillage. i will not here forget to exhort them to shun all inconstancy, in religion, faith, and doctrine, not to vary nor suffer themselves to be carried about with every wind of doctrine, as saint paul teacheth us: and saint james chap. 1. and 3. constancy is preserved by patience; as tertullian declared in the book he made, and impatience is the cause of all mischiefs. it is also necessary to provide, for that which they so much reprooch french men with, that is, that they commence and pursue many things happily enough, but for lack of constancy, staydenesse and discretion, they never come to the end of their enterprises: and never consider that they which do not so lightly run about their business, proceeding with a ripeness of judgement, and a more stayed brain, carrieth away the honour and profit, of their enterprises wisely undertaken, and courageously executed. chap. 13. that the truth findeth good that which many fear and fly, and giveth contentment. it were no small happiness, if in life, we put in practice, that which we have marked in sundry philosophers, who albeit they were destitute of the light of the gospel, philosopher's despisers of the world. and the certainty of the promises of god, yet have they discovered the mask of this world, contemning the honours, riches, and pleasures thereof, delighting in their poverty, patience, sobriety, and temperance, carrying meekly all losses, mocking at the foolish opinions which drive men into passions, condemning false appearances, and vanities, themselves remaining in great tranquillity, and calm in all perturbations: and having nought but their wallet and certain vile garments did nothing but laugh all their life, as if they had been at a feast, and eaten (as they say) of a bride cake. and we which have so great pledges of eternal life, christians. and an assurance of the divine promises, bounty, and more than a fatherly affection of our god towards us, have much more occasion, not to esteem these corruptible things, and to live joyfully in respect of that which hath been given unto us, without being desirous or coveting any other thing, then that which proceedeth from the will of the almighty. seneca in the second of his epistles writeth, nature contented with little. that such as live according to nature, are never poor, and according to the opinion of men they are never rich, because nature contenteth herself with little, and opinion doth infinitely covet. and in his 4. book, he counseleth a friend of his, to despise all that which other so hotly pursue. for that which men esteem as great advancement in honour, goods, or pleasures, when they once approach to the truth, to virtue, and heavenly goodness, it looseth clean his appearance, and lustre, even as the stars, when they are near the sun beams. for the dispositions of such as are moderated, and instructed in the truth, rendereth a life peaceable, and like unto herself, the occasion of the quietness of the mind proceeding thence, through his grace which communicateth so great a good, as it is written in the book of wisdom, i do rejoice in all things because wisdom goeth before. and it receiveth no grief, possidonius. but such as ourselves are content to yield unto as possidonius said to pompey. and there is an other savour given and an other kind of face set upon that which they call evil. and virtue, valour, force, patience & magnanimity, can no ways play their part without grief & pain. and as diamans & other precious stones, have either a more high or dim colour according to the foil in which they are set; so fareth it with the evil haps, & grief which taketh place, man's life compared to a game at draughts. as a man is either strong or weak. and as all things in this world in the end referreth itself wholly to the glory of god, so doth all things turn to good to such as are good. plato and terence compareth our life to a game at draughts, where the player must ever mark well what shall befall unto him, and dispose every thing either to profit him, or little to hurt him. and they which care least for to morrow following the commandment of our saviour, arrive there most joyfully, having not the will unproportionate to the might, nor their mind afflicted. not to care for to morrow. vessels in heaven full of desteneis. homer maketh two vessels to be in heaven full of destinies, the one of good the other of bad; & he accounteth him happy, which equally partaketh as well of the one as the other, & as much honey, as gall. and seneca writeth that the destinies lead gently such as consent, & draw by force such as refuse. notwithstanding the wise do temper, and turn the evil into good, drawing out of their good adventures what nought soever is there mingled, & by this means pass away the more easily the course of this life. to which the old proverb agreeth, that every man is the workman of his own fortune, and fashioneth her according to his manners. and if we do contemn honours, riches, pleasures, banishmentes, griefs, and sickness, we shall be clean exempt, from all covetous desires, passions, what profit ensueth the contempt of riches and pleasures. pheraulas. and torments of the mind. as xenophon in his pedia reciteth of one pheraulas, to whom cirus gave a lordship, of a very great revenue: but having well considered the ease & contentment which he took during his poverty, and the care which he must then needs take for his revenue and domestical affairs, he put all again into the hands of a friend of his. anacreon. as anacreon having had five talents worth three thousand crowns, given him by polycrates, after he saw that he had passed two nights together studying what he should do with it, he sent them back again, saying that they were not worth the care he had taken for them. and when news was brought unto zeno, and certain other, that their ships, goods, zeno. and merchandise were lost, they rejoiced, because it was a cause to make them apply themselves to philosophy, which yielded them far greater contentment. philoxenes having purchased a farm, whereby he might live the better at ease, quitted it again and returned to athens saying, these goods shall not lose me, but i them. philoxenes. as seneca wrote to a friend of his, seneca if thou hadst not lost thy goods it might be they might have lost thee. and the brickleness of the advised, serveth them as it were to be shod with shows of ice against sin. anacharsis. anacharsis left the kingdom of scythia to his younger brother, to grow to be a philosopher, in the said city of athenes. aristides chose likewise to remain in his poverty, though it lay in his power to have made himself a lord of great riches. scipio scipio having by force taken cartharge, touched no whit of the sacking or spoil thereof. epaminundas camillus epaminundas, and camillus among all the victories they obtained, never carried any thing else away then honour. an infinite number of other, as well captains, as philosophers, have contemned goods, albeit this moderation which was so greatly praised in them, was never joined together with a hope of eternal life, hope of the christians as the christians is, who know that the creator of heaven and earth, is their father and lord almighty, that he loveth them, and knoweth full well the way they ought to hold, the medicines which they ought to use, and whatsoever is most expedient, to bring them to the promised bliss; after this their pilgrimage and exile. therefore they suffer themselves to be conducted by him without murmuring, approving for good whatsoever proceedeth from his fatherly hand, and by this mean remain in the peace of the spirit, and calmness, what wind soever blow, without being tossed in the troubles & storms of this life. they know likewise that if god do strick them down with the left hand, he raiseth them up with the right again, according to the promiss he made by his prophet ose. hosea 11. and as all meats are agreeing with a good stomach, and to a bad the most delicate seem corrupt, as it is written in the proverbs, that to a hungry soul all bitter things seem sweet: rom. 8.28. eccles. 39.27 so, all things turn to good to the faithful, as s. paul hath written. and in ecclesiasticus, all things are turned into good to such as fear god, but to the sinners they are turned into evil, who turn light into darkness, and good into evil. and money is to good men a cause of good, to the wicked of evil and cruelty. and as the show is fashioned according to the foot, so his disposition which is wise, & moderate, leadeth a life like unto it, to wit peaceable, cicero. and without passion, coveting nothing unpossible, and contenting itself with the present. that is it which cicero writeth, that virtue in trouble doth ever remain quiet, and being cast into banishment, never departeth from her place. for the goods of fortune, rejoice those most which least doubt their contraries: and the fear of losing them, maketh the pleasure of the enjoying of them, plato more feeble and less assured. plato gave counsel not to complain in adversity, for that we know not whether it happen unto us for our hurt or no. and in his phedon he writeth, that look what beauty, riches, honour, and kindred we here desire, it is so far off from being good, that indeed they do rather corrupt and impair us. but a christian man, aught to esteem all good, and for his health, which persuasion serveth unto him, as the meal did which elisha cast into the pot, 2. king. 4.41 exod. 15.25. which took clean away all the bitterness of the pottage, and as the tree with which moses made the waters sweet. from thence ensueth that christian parradoxe so often times verified, that there never happeneth evil to the good, nor good to the wicked, whose nature is changed by blessing. as it is said of a diseased body, that the more it is nourished, the more it is offended. and as strange dreams, show that there be gross and clammy humours, and perturbation of the vital spirits; so the passions, covet, and misknowledge, of the goods which god hath bestowed upon us, are the bad vapours which obfuscate and torment our senses. and even as to rid a man pained with a grievous dream, the next way is to awake him: even so the truth doth declare, that that which many fear, is but an opinion and foolish imagination, and as it were a picture of a tyrant or cruel beast which astonieth no man. and as the fire which moses saw in the bush did neither burn nor endamage him because god was in the midst thereof; exod. 3.2. worldly accidents how easy to be borne. so intermingling god & his promises with our human affairs and accidents, all shall be easy for us to bear: and god being for us none can annoy us, as the apostle saith. it is also called a wall of brass a rampire and a defence for us to defend us from all dangers. rom. 8.33 and as it is written in job: god maketh the wound and bindeth it up, he smiteth & his hand maketh whole, he shall deliver thee in six troubles, and in the 7. job. 5.18. the evil shall not touch thee, in famine he shall deliver thee from death, and in battle from the power of the sword: thou shalt be hid from the scourge of the tongue and thou shalt not be afraid of destruction when it cometh. and in jeremy it is written of the faithful, that he shall rest & be at his ease, & none shall make him afraid, because god is with him to succour him after he hath gently corrected him, and will heal his stripes. and as the higher we climb, the less those things under us seem to be, so the nearer that we approach to the knowledge of god, and his truth, the less account do we make of these earthly, base, and corruptible things. to be therefore contented and rich, contentment and true riches. we must not add goods upon goods, but diminish & take away as socrates said from our covetous desires and we ought to consider, how many persons in the world, are worse at ease then ourselves and to draw aside as one may say, the curtain & vale of appearance, & opinion, which covereth them whom we esteem happy & great, the better to perceive the travails, troubles and griefs, which thy have, and how often they hoist up the sail of their ship so high, that they are forced to make shipwreck. for this cause scipio being censor, a public & solemn prayer changed by scipio made the prayer to be changed, which was wont to be said upon certain high days, for the increase of wealth to the people of rome, saying: that it was sufficient, and that they ought only to pray unto god, to preserve it such as it was. it is written of antiochus, antiochus. that when the romans had gotten from him the greatest part of his kingdom, he should say he was much beholding unto them, for so much more care as they had eased him of. and philip father to alexander the great, being fallen upon the sands, philip k. of macedon, and seeing there the mark and print of his body. o lord, saith he, how little a plat of ground is nature contented with, and yet we covet the whole world. when god seethe that high callings, riches, health or any thing else doth turn us from him, god doth deprive us of such things as we are to far in love with for our own good. (as in zacharie prosperity is called a canker and pyndarus saith that nothing is harder to digest, and that it doth make us drunk) he doth deprive us thereof, and sundry ways correcteth us removing the hindrances of his approaching nigh us, to the end that shutting our eyes at the miserable estate of this world, we should open our ears to the hearing of his promises, and according unto the counsel which he giveth us, lay up our treasures in heaven, mat. 6.20. where there is neither fear of thieves, nor canker, and range ourselves under the yoke and obedience, of his divine, just, upright, and equitable will, holding impatience for a rebel thereunto. in histories we find examples enough of popes, emperors, princes, the mean is to be kept both in prosperity and adversity. and other that have even died for grief and anger, for resolving too much upon the unstableness of this life, and by weighing the incommodity, by other graces, which god bestowed on them. in great prosperity we glutton up the benefits of god, without sa: voring of them, and thereby become insolent and blind: and in adversity many lose heart not thinking of any other gifts they have received at god's hands: by this means a man is miserable, if he hold not the mean, & if this truth doth not open our eyes, that we may see god through all things, and thereby discover his bounty. for the accidents of this world, nor all that which they call fortune, is no way able to make us unfortunate, except malice & vice aid them finding a faint heart delicate, effeminate, & not acquainted with the affairs & changes of the world, and retain the corrupt opinion of the vulgar sort, which hath been imprinted within it: but mingling such things as are fierce, rude and sour with the sweet and gracious, and obscuring the ill adventures, with the conference of the good, and mixing sufferance together with hope, whatsoever is most disagreeable, yea, the very sting of death, dieth itself, fear apprehension and opinion being cast out; the which serveth for a receipt to all mischiefs. judges. 14.8. and as samson found honey in the body of the lion, so the faithful findeth joy in the bottom miseries, and peace amidst storms, & through the virtue of faith resisteth all fears, and as a wise and well experienced pilot, who ever doubteth a great calm, in the main sea, never abuseth his good fortune, the abuse of gifts and graces of god and helpeth himself with all winds to arrive at his desired port. but a man may say that the most part of men pass over that which they call their fortune, through a strainer, wherein all the bad stick and remaineth, but the good drop out. and as a cordmaker, that was pictured in an old temple, had behind him an ass, which eat his cord as fast as he made it: so the chagraine, and melancholy, and the understanding foolishly settled upon that which displeaseth, doth clean deface, devour, & pass over carelessly all other goods and commodities, without any savour at all, or better consideration for their own comfort. or as a fly entered into a bottle, or a fish into the net, tormenting themselves, not able to take the right way to escape. true riches in heaven. many do not temper their small discommodities, with other infinite goods that they receive from god, and never settle the discourse of their understanding to consider what false appearances and vanity consisteth even in that, which they make so much account of, & never think of the unconstancy of the things of this world, whereby they might find nothing strange nor new, and fasten their ancre, treasure, and hope in heaven, where it is most safely laid up against all assaults and enterprises. and we ought to put the saying of ecclesiasticus in practice, that he which feareth the lord, shall not be afraid, ecclesiast. for he is his hope, pillar & defence. and that which david song, psal. 112.7. that he whose heart is fixed, & believeth in the lord, will not be afraid of any evil tidings. aristotle, pindarus, tacitus, salustus & cato, were wont to say that it was a harder matter to govern a man's self well in prosperity, then in adversity, because often times prosperity is accompanied with pride, ignorance, wantonness, contempt of others, the benefit of adversity. licentiousness, intemperance and other vices, which provoke the wrath of god: whereas adversity doth quicken our sleepy spirits, encourageth us to modesty to fear, praise & call upon god, & to take better counsel, & reform our life, as a french poet wrote, that adversity and contrary fortune, did profit men more, and do them more good than the sweet & pleasant: for by the latter they learn but ignorance, & through adversity are taught knowledge. which also isocrates most learnedly entreated of in his areopagitique, thinking it a very hard matter to judge, which of the two, either poverty or riches, a man ought to leave behind him, & to covet for his children. the which made aristides, curius, & an infinite number of other to live in a very base condition, the which demosthenes & lucain called a singular gift of god, and unknown of men. poverty a singular gift of god. and plutarque had reason to write, that lisander did more hurt the lacedæmonians, in sending them store of riches and precious movables, than sylla did the romans, in consuming the revenues of their treasure. and pliny in his seventh book declareth, what a number of men have been even lost through too much wealth. riches an occasion of the ruin of many and the wise man sayeth in the proverbs, that fools are clean ruined through prosperity, and the end of all joy is sorrow. and the said isocrates, entreating of peace, is of opinion, that it is a most hard matter to govern one's self well, prou 2. & 14 in great estates and dignities, the which he compareth to a courtesan and strumpet, who enticeth to her love the unwise, as a bait to the ruin both of their body & soul: and declareth that men are often times more sharp, & addicted to evil matters, & superfluous rather then to the good & necessary. men more given to naughtiness, than goodness. and in what is to be desired, they have want of judgement. he likewise describeth how much more pleasant & happy their life is, which are accustomed to little, than other to great riches. and seneca alloweth the saying of demetrius, that nothing is more unhappy, then him who never knew what evil fortune or adversitiement, and that the more torments be endured, the more honour; and that the more ill that happeneth unto us, the more god is mindful of us, as the psalmist saith. in this life few are exempted from affliction, be it in mind, body, or goods. jerem. 32.41. and albeit that god delighteth to do good as jeremias sayeth chapter 32. yet doth he sometime, what is not proper unto him, as to afflict to finish his work, and what good he pretendeth to do, sayeth esay chap. 21. & saint paul. 1. cor. 11. heb. 12. and osea writeth chap. 2. that god will stop the way with thorns, hosea 2.6. and make a hedge, which leadeth to destruction, to make us return unto him. afflictions instruct us to patience, & hope, rom. 5. they make us humble, & incline us to obey god, psalm. 119. they retain us back from pleasures, & worldly things, & make us have recourse to god. which hath moved some to name affliction the saulce of prayer, as appetite is of meat. affliction the saulce of prayer. moreover we perceive thereby that god hath a care of us, and doth not account us unworthy of his visitations, & often times doth recompense us doubly: as we read in joseph, job, & others. and s. paul saith, that they are not to be compared to the glory promised us. it is not to be doubted but a sensible man, will carry himself even in each fortune, promising no certainty at all unto himself in matters of this world, being by nature so uncertain. and having considered the unstableness of human things, and the fatherly care which it hath pleased god to take of his, he cannot be surprised at unawares, a wise man in each fortune behaveth himself alike. as in a sudden incursion of the enemy. and knowing he holdeth all things from god, as borrowed ware, he rendereth them voluntarily, and without grief, when he which lent them doth redemand them, giving him thanks for the time it hath pleased him to suffer him to enjoy them, that he might not be found ungrateful. they also which desire but little, cannot want much, content with little. leading their barbarous and coveting passions by reason, as the masters voice maketh the dog to couch. chrysostom. saint chrysostom entreating of covetous desires sayeth, that as the form of the shoe is the foot, and if it be greater than it should be, be it of velvet or of cloth of gold, yet is it unfit; so the body ought to be the form of whatsoever we possess. and if we swarm from this form and usage, then is there nought else but a confusion, disorder, superfluity, abuse, and excess. and oftentimes, lack of experience, and want of good discourse, and not knowing well how to apply ourselves to the present state, causeth us to wrap ourselves in an infinite number of passions and torments. we ought then earnestly to desire this truth, to the end we should not be dismayed, if god do not suffer us to wallow and tumble in too much ease. besides wherefore doth wealth serve, to what end wealth serveth. but only as a testimony of his favour, and an occasion to acknowledge it from him, well to use it to his honour, and relieve of our neighbour? and apollonius had reason to say, apollonius. that virtue and riches were two contrary things, and that the one increasing the other was ever diminished. and as the greater we see our shadow, the nearer we draw towards night: so must we fear, lest the more that we see ourselves charged with honours & wealth, goodness and riches seldom coupled together. the further off truth & the light estrange themselves from us. and platon in the fourth of his laws, thinketh it a matter unpossible for a man to be both honest and rich. diogenes. diogenes was wont to say, that virtue never found any place in a rich city or house, seneca. and that it was a great happiness to have both wealth and understanding. seneca wrote that he was a mighty man who esteemed himself poor amidst plenty of riches, and did not in respect of them, carry himself more loftly: matth. 5.3. but that he who had none at all, went a great deal more surely, prosperity doubted and suspected. and in greater safety: following that which our saviour taught us, when he called the poor in spirit blessed. and as men in old time, ever held in suspicion the end of their fortune, k. amasias. so have they done in great prosperity: as king amisias said to polycrates, seeing that one had brought him back again his ring which he flung into the main sea. these good haps do not please me, because i fear me they will turn into calamities & miseries: s. ambrose. as afterwards it befell unto him. saint ambrose happening into a rich man's house, and understanding that he had every thing as he would wish it, never having occasion of disquiet or anger, presently departed, fearing lest he should be partaker of some misfortune: anon after was the house swallowed up with an earthquake. s. jerom. saint jerome allegeth an ancient proverb, that a rich man is either wicked of himself, or heir to a wicked man. and he wrote unto saluia, that even as poverty is not meritorious if it be not borne with patience, no more are riches hurtful if they be not abused. s. chrisostom. the which s. chrisostom in his homely of the poor man and the rich, more amply entreateth of. chap. xiiii. of the care which men have had that youth might be instructed in the truth. parent's have been commanded to bring up and instruct their children, but especially to teach them how to know, exod. 12.26. & 13.8. & 14. and fear god, in exodus chap. 12. & 13. deut. 4.6. & 7. in saint paul to the ephes. 6. deut. 4.25. & 6.7. & 7.3. eph. 6.4. in sundry psalms. in persia, lacedemonia, and sundry other provinces, the most virtuous grave, and learned men, the instruction of children commanded. had the charge of the education, & instruction of youth, and endeavoured most especially to make them true and hate lying, following plato's counsel in sundry of his treatises. and in alcibiades he writeth that there was given unto the princes of persia their children, a tutor which had care above all things, to make them love the truth: for of the four virtues, which concern manners, to wit, prudence, justice, fortitude, moral virtues & temperance, the truth especial draweth near unto justice, which rendereth unto every one what appertaineth unto him, and keepeth equality, being the spring and foundation of all virtue, and preserver of the society of man. which was the cause that in time passed they had so great care to teach their children, together with their mother's milk, a habit and custom to be true, and hate lying, dissembling, and hypocrisy, and that they employ that time which is given unto them, to all matters of virtue, and reform them, making them more advised, and capable to serve god, the common wealth, and their parents. divers emperors have been greatly praised, for erecting of common schools, common schools erected. the better to instruct youth to discern truth from lying. and those princes which gave stipends to schoolmasters, were accounted to have done more good to the common wealth, than they which ordained wages for physicians, because the former bettered the wit, the other only the body, which is the lesser part, and of less account. for this cause alexander the emperor, commenes, and divers other, alexander. commines. leo emperor guichardin. li. 10. are recommended to famous memory, for providing for all things necessary to schoolmasters, readers, and poor scholars. great account was made of the speech of leo the emperor, who wished that schoolmasters might receive the pay of men of arms. guichardin writeth, that sundry popes gave consent to the venetians, to gather money of the clergy, the better to encourage, and find scholars in learning. and there were in the old time, certain persons chosen out of the quarters, & wards of good towns, which they called sophronistes, who had a continual charge, and care, sophronistes. to control, moderate, and rule the manners of youth: which being well instructed, all things prosper more fortunately, learning. and every one doth his duty, without need of any more laws. for as diogenes said, and since cicero: learning is the temperance of youth, the comfort of old age, standing for wealth in poverty, and serving for an ornament to riches, as more at large is discoursed of hereafter. chap. xv. how requisite it is to speak little, and not to blaze a secret, with advise upon news invented and of that which is to be spoken. ecclesiasticus doth counsel us to use but few words: praise of silence and few words. because many multiply vanity, and a man of good understanding speaking little shallbe much honoured. pythagoras willed all those he received into his school, to tarry five years before they spoke. pythagoras his scholars. and it is ever seen that children which are long before they speak, in the end do ever speak best: as among many, it is written of maximilian the first: & that they which cannot hold their peace, do never willingly give ear to aught. and by a good occasion one made answer to a prater. it is great marvel that a man having feet can endure thy babbling. and those that have been long time past, have said, that men taught us to speak, but the gods to hold our peace: as also it is written in the proverbs, that god hath the government of the tongue, and that a wise men doth ever hold his peace, & he that can countermand his mouth, keepeth his own soul. joined with all, that by a light word, oftentimes great pain is endured, whereas silence doth not only nowhit alter, lycurgus' the law giver of the lacedæmonians. but is not at all subject to account nor amends. for this cause one being asked, why lycurgus made so few laws, answered, that such as used few words had no need of many laws, and would accustom their youth to deeds, the answer of k. francis the great. and not to writing. and the great k francis made answer to one that asked pardon for one speaking evil of him, if he will learn to speak little, i will learn to pardon much. and cicero in his book of the orator, writeth, cato. piso. that cato and piso, esteemed breefenes, a great praise of eloquence, so as thereby they make themselves to be fully conceived. among such as speak much i comprehend, following the opinion of them of old time, such as speak either what is hurtful, or serveth to no end, or as saint paul calleth them, things pleasing for the time which do no whit edify. geese, cranes, and quails. plutarque setteth us down certain geese, and pliny certain cranes, which when they pass over cicilie upon the mount taurus, fill their beck full of flints, for fear of making any noise, lest they should serve for a pray to the eagles that are there. the like experience we have had of quails after harvest, calisthenes. simonides. in france. aristotle sending calisthenes a kinsman and friend of his to alexander, counseled him to speak but little, which he not observing, it fared with him but badly. simonides was wont to say, that he repented himself oftentimes in speaking, but never in holding his peace. the which valerius attributeth to xenocrates, following the rule which is in our law, xenocrates. that those things hurt which are expressed, but not such as are not. and apollonius said, that many words breed often times offence, but that holding one's peace was the more sure. apollonius. greatly was the breefenes of the lacedæmonians praised in their letters, as amongst other things of a prince, which put in his answer but this word no: and that which we touched above of archidamus to the aeoliens dissuading them from war, k. philip the fair. saying that quietness is good. and k. philip the fair, answering a letter of adolphe the emperor, gotten by the englishmen, in all his packet had but these two words too much almane. an ambassador having long time spoken before agis king of the lacedæmonians, asked him what answer he should carry back: thou shalt say (quoth he) that i have suffered thee, to speak whatsoever thou wouldst, & have heard thee continually without replying any word. and the great k francis, k. francis. 1. to an ambassador of charles the fift emperor, who began his oration with these words: when scipio arrived before carthage, said, grow to your end, for we know well enough he went not a foot but a horseback. the athenians made a feast to k. antigonus ambassador, zeno. & among other called thither zeno the philosopher, who was held in great reputation: and for because he had not spoken one word all the whole banquet, they asked him what they should say of him to their prince: he answered, speech hardly tempered. what you have seen: because speech is hardly tempered, & as bion said: it is unpossible for a fool to hold his peace at the table, & it is not so dangerous stumbling with the foot, as with the tongue. alexandridas alexandridas, to one which made a very good discourse, yet longer than needed. my friend, said he, you say as it ought to be, cleomenes. but not as you ought. cleomenes to a long oration of the ambassadors of samos answered: as for your exordium i do not well remember it, nor so consequently the midst, and i will say little to your conclusion. philip king of macedon. of like sort was the answer made by k philip to an other ambassador. we have not understood your conclusion, because we forgot your beginning. and after he had asked the athenian ambassadors, if they desired aught else at his hands then to have him their friend, & that they answered that they wished, that he had hung himself: he told them that he which bore these words, was much more modest than the athenians, who had not the discretion to keep them in. and another was cast in the teeth, that for a drop of wit, he had a flood of words: and that he which is liberal and abounding in words, is ever sparing in deeds. solomon sayeth: he which hath knowledge spareth his words. even a fool when he holdeth his peace is counted wise. prou. 17.27. which gave occasion to men of old time to write, harpocrates. that harpocrates was the superintendant, & correcter of man's speech, being drawn with a ring fastened on his lips. and they ordained certain ceremonies to use men to silence, & not to speak but upon good deliberation. other worshipped angerona the goddess of silence, drawn with her finger upon her mouth, angerona. showing in what reverence they ought to hold secrecy. it is written of s. pembo, pembo. that he was wont to say, that he had spent nineteen whole years, to put in practise the beginning of the 39 psalm: i though i will take heed to my ways, that i sin not with my tongue: i will keep my mouth bridled. the ambassador of the rhodes greatly accounted of before k. ptolemy, psal. 39.1. that in his country women were given to solitariness, & little speech. to this cometh the custom which the popes observe, that when they receive any cardinal, custom observed in receiving a cardinal. they stop his mouth, & after certain days that he may learn of his seniors, they open it again. job also fearing to have spoken too lightly, said that he would hold his hand upon his mouth. and s. jerom writeth how he saw some that in seven years never spoke. amb. lib. 2. de virgin. s. ambrose cast the christians in the teeth, for that the infidels in their temples, & sacrifices, used great silence, but that christians did not so. and to show how a secret ought not lightly to be revealed, metallus. we have the answer of metellus a roman captain, to one that asked of him his opinion: that if his shirt knew his counsel, he would presently throw it off, and cast it into the fire. charles 8. the which our french writers have noted to have been since that, antigonus. the speech of charles the eight. and antigonus answered his son, demanding of him when he should go fight: art thou afraid for not hearing the sound of a trumpet? for it is a very hard matter, not to publish what one hath heard, which maketh us often times, lose many good occasions. as an indiscreet word of one man, k. lycimachus. hindered the whole city of rome, that it was not delivered from the tyranny of nero. king lycimachus asked philippides, what he would have him grant unto him: he answered, proverb. 25.3. what it will please you (mileeche) to part with so it be not any of your secrets; eccl. 27.16. for as it is written in the proverbs: the kings heart can no man search out, and a secret thing must be concealed. and in ecclesiasticus: he which discovereth secrets, loseth his credit. alexander perceiving that ephestion had read a letter, alexander. ephestion. which his mother had sent him, with his signet closed his lips, as who would say, he ought not to disclose what he had read. pompey. pompey suffered a finger of his own to burn, because he would not reveal the counsel of the senate. the like is noted in papirius. and plyny telleth of one, that cut out his tongue, and cast it at the face of a tyrant, because he would not discover a conspiracy. one asked anacharsis (who invested his younger brother in his kingdom) why when he lay down, anacharsis. he always held his right hand upon his mouth, he answered, because he might neither reveal any secret, nor speak rashly: for that he to whom one revealeth it, diodorus. gaineth the liberty of the other. diodorus writeth, how the egyptians did ever cut out his tongue, that had disclosed any secret, or revealed any practice to the enemies. and one valerius a poet was executed at rome. king seleucus, called the conqueror, valerius. soranus. having lost a battle, fled by many crooked ways, and in the end arrived at a poor peasants cottage, who gave unto him what he was able to come by: in the end he knew it was the king, and not being able to keep in his joy, nor disguise with the king, who desired nothing but to be unknown, he guided him, into the highway, where taking his leave he said: farewell my leech seleucus. k. seleucus. the king made a sign to one of his company to kill him: whereas if he had held his tongue, for a while until the king had better fortune, he might have been highlier rewarded for his secrisie, then for his good cheer, for since that a word issueth out of one's mouth as out of his haven, there is no more harbour, a word escapeth the mouth returneth not. where to shroud, nor anchor to trust unto, but in the end bursteth against some rock or gulf, to his great danger that suffered it to pass. and as the viper is torn asunder, when she bringeth forth her little ones, so secrets coming out of their mouths, that are not able to conceal them, do but utterly undo and ruin such, as have revealed them, and through the intemperance of their tongue cast themselves down headlong, as one made an example of cruel beasts, that were penned up, who if they once go abroad, did much harm, and oftentimes men were constrained to kill them. in the time of augustus one fuluius, fuluius. for having disclosed a secret to his wife, caused themselves both to be put to death. and quintus cursius showeth what great punishments the persians ordained for the like. amasis' king of egypt, qu. curtius. lib. 4. amasis' king of egypt. sent unto pittacus, one of the seven wise men of greece, that was come to see him, a mutton, willing him to send back that piece which he accounted as best, and that which he judged to be the worst, in steed of the two pieces so differing, the tongue the best and worst piece of the body. he sent unto him the tongue, as the instrument both of the greatest good, & greatest harm that might be: and that therein (as it is said among great wits) consisted most excellent virtues, and notorious vices: as it is written in the proverbs, prou. 13.3. that death and life are in the power of the tongue, and that he which keepeth his mouth and his tongue, keepeth his soul from tribulations. let us than i pray you consider that we have two eyes, and two ears, but one only tongue, and that to enclosed within the teeth, and lips, between the brain and the heart, serving as their truchman, the seat and piece of the tongue. having above it the instrument of all the senses, the eyes, the ears and the nose obedient unto reason, to the end she put forth nothing, before she have taken counsel of the said senses her neighbours, and of the inward faculties of the soul, which are the understanding, and reason placed within the brain: whereby we may easily judge how faulty they are, who are so lavish of their tongue, before they have fully pondered and considered, what they ought to speak. homer. homer blamed thersites, for too much speaking, and praised menelaus, because he spoke little. the which plutarque did of photion, photion spoke better than demosthenes. by whom it was written, that he spoke better than demosthenes, because when he spoke in few words he comprehended much matter. the said demosthenes likewise termed him the knife of his words. and was wont to say, that such as knew much spoke little. pericles. pericles before he mounted into his cheyre, was wont to pray unto god, that no word might escape his mouth that served not to the matter he had in hand. and zeno reproached a great prater, zeno, in that his ears was founded upon his tongue. and to an other he said he was borne of a drunken father: drunkenness subject unto much babbling the pie consecrated to bacchus. for drunkenness is mixed with this vice, that it causeth one to speak more than appertaineth. the pie in this respect was consecrated to bacchus. certain of ancient time said that wine descending into the body, caused the words to ascend. ecclesiasticus called, the comprehending of much in little speech, eccle. 22 good music. we must then set before our tongue the bulwark of reason, which hindereth flowing, and the slypperinesse of inconstancy. and as riders when they break their coultes, first teach them to have a good mouth, cato of the greeks and romans. and obey the bridle: so ought we to teach our children, to hear much, and speak little. cato said of the greeks, that their speech came but from the teeth outward, but the romans spoke from the heart, (as homer writeth of ulysses,) and in his youth he said he refrained from speech, until he knew how to speak well: and that it was the property of lelius to speak too much. and if there proceeded but this benefit unto a man which had once gained this reputation to be accounted, discreet in his speech and true, that he is beloved of god and men, he is honoured and believed in what so ever he saith, he goeth with his head lifted up; and contrariwise he which is once caught with a lie, or is a prattler, is hated, blamed, and destitute of friends, looseth his credit, and means to teach, it were sufficient to make us to embrace the truth, and shun lying. and whereas caesar in his commentaries found fault with the french men, because they received for certain such brutes as ran up and down, caesar. comment. lib. 6 and uncertain advertisements whereof shortly after they repented, as before i touched: it were very requisite that that order which he then writeth to have been observed, were at this present practised, that he which had learned aught that concerned the state, counterfeit news should presently make relation to the magistrate, and not speak thereof to any other person: for that saith he we have often seen by experience that men being light and ignorant, easily made themselves afraid with false and counterfeit news, which led them to a resolution to undertake matters of importance, and dangerous, to be silent is dangerous. as we have sundry examples of our time: and all histories are full of the misfortunes which have happened to such, as have spoken, enterprised, and believed too lightly. moreover in some cases to be silent is as dangerous, as if any know any conspiracy, against their country, or king, or any that might greatly prejudice their neighbour they ought to discover it. to them likewise, whose duty is to teach virtue, and reprehend vice, and to preach, silence is forbidden both by god and the laws. and as saint ambrose learnedly writeth, if we must render account to god for every idle word, so must we likewise for our idle silence, if at any time we have omitted (according to our duty,) to instruct or correct our neighbour, there by being able to turn him from his evil way or error. we must likewise consider the time and place to speak, or hold our peace: circumstances of time and place to speak. as it is written that socrates being requested at a feast that he would speak of his art, had reason to answer, it is not now time for what i can do, and that which the time now requireth can i not do. chap. 16. that as well of friends as enemies one should learn the truth. by friends, & enemy's truth is discerned from falsehood divers have written, that the better to discern truth from falsehood, it were requisite to have either very entire friends or enemies: for these meaning to anger one, do upraide, and blame whatsoever seemeth vicious unto them, and as out of a watch discover such imperfections as oftentimes men do not think on, and so are a means that they are corrected. xenophon. philip king of macedon. as xenophon writeth that a wise man is able to reap his profit by his enemies. and philp king of macedon said, that he was bound to the athenians which reviled him, because they were an occasion to make him the more virtuous, and advised, and enforced him all his life long, both in his actions, and words to make them liars. and in truth they are a cause, that maketh men contain their fashions and manners, the profit which men reap by their enemies. scipio. as in a strait diet. and this habit that one undertake nothing upon the sudden, clean taketh away all occasion from our enemies of mocking us, or rejoicing: for this cause scipio answering them that imagined the estate of the romans to be in very great surety, the carthagenians being overthrown, and the acheens subdued, said, nay now are we in greatest danger, having taken away all those, whom either we ought to reverence, or mought justly fear. a lacedaemonian captain, answered to the complaint of a athenian: if the athenians took good heed to what they did, they should never be troubled nor need to care, what the spartiates reported of them. contrariwise friends, i mean without flattery or disguising, the profit of friends. euripides. diogenes. declare freely what they think amiss, and il beseeming. which moved euripides to exhort men to get such friends as would not spare them: as diogenes said that other dogs used to bite their enemies, but he his friends, for their own good. and such an amity, which is a benevolence, a conformity of wills and pleasures, and a desire of the good of an other joined with virtue, amity. is (as some have said) a beast of the company, but not of the troop, because there be very few true friends. menander. and menander said not without cause that he was happy, that could meet but with the shadow of his friend, eccles. 6.16. who is called by ecclesiasticus a treasure, and the medicine of life. pythagoras. plato. a man must not shake every man by the hand as pythagoras said plato wisely discoursed how the greatest of all evils doth spring up with us, and that we desire not to be delivered of it, to wit that every man loveth himself, love of itself is blind & delighteth in his own opinions: because love is blind, and one easily deceiveth himself, in what he loveth, being prevented and abused through fancies before conceived. therefore he said it was very requisite to shun this foolish love, the similitude of demosthenes. which taketh from us our judgement. and the similitude which demosthenes made is very true, that as the pain in the eyes hindereth one from seeing what lieth before his feet, so the first conceits and fancies, obfu. scate the understanding. wherefore to the end we may see the naked truth, we must be void of all passions, loving to hear of our faults and to be corrected, to be warned by our friends. which the wise man esteemeth as a chain of gold about one's neck, and ought rather to desire it might proceed from our friends, then from our enemies, because we must eschew vice, led thereunto through virtue, and shame, and not by the contrary way, or by fear. and it is a great deal better to abstain from doing ill following the counsel of our friends, then to repent ourselves for having done ill, when we see our selves accused and blamed by our enemies: and such warnings as go before disorders, are a great deal more fit, and render better fruit than such as follow after. chap. 17. that it is needful to read histories, there to see the truth which one is afraid to speak, with advise upon the reading of all books, and of the conquests of french men, of the means to keep them, and to assure a victory, of the duty of a captain, and of that which is to be considered, in examples and alterations. demetrius' gave counsel to king ptolemy, that he should diligently read such books, as entreated of the governments of kingdoms, and segnuries, knowledge of histories necessary for princes. to the end he might be instructed in those things, which men dare not so freely, deliver themselves to princes: for the pen is of a more free condition then the tongue. we read likewise how the cato's, aemiles, scipios, caesars, and sundry other emperors, have been so studious in reading of them, that they have copied out with their own hand, whole histories, and even themselves composed such as were in their own time. and have been more curious to have of them in their hands, than their swords by their sides, to the end to join the written discipline of war, to take counsel of the dead. with the practice of the wars. for this cause alphonsus said of qu. cursius, that he was sooner healed by his history, than his physicians, and that he took counsel of the dead. which ferdinand king of spain likewise said by titus livius. and the reading of xenophon moved scipio to undertake those prowesses which he performed. and the great selim having caused julius caesar's commentaries, to be translated into his own tongue, and heard them, caesar's commentaries translated by the commandment of selim by imitating of him he knew the greatest part of asia and africa. and the said julius endeavoured altogether to imitate alexander, who likewise set achilles before himself as an example. and the emperor charles the fift, had in hand the history of philip of commines. laurence of medici's surnamed the father of learning, the love the women of bavire bare to their husbands. recovered his health in reading the history of conradus the emperor, who resolved to make guelphe the duke of bauire to die, and to ruin both the place, and the inhabitants of the city, which he had long time besieged, in the end overcome with the intercessions of the women of the city, suffered them to departed, their lives and baggage saved, with all that they could carry upon their own shoulders: but leaving all their goods they carried their duke, their husbands, fathers, children and friends, as many as they were able: of which the said conrade conceived such contentment, the monuments of our ancestors inflame us to virtue. that he gave pardon both unto his enemy, and all the rest. and if the fabians and scipios, as polybus and salustus have witnessed, have been greatly inflamed to virtue, when they have beheld the statuas and monuments of their ancestors, and by the remembrance of the high feats of arms which they most prosperously have achieved, this flame increased in the hearts of generous persons, and was not quenched until such time as their virtue had equalled their glory, themistocles awaked through the trophies of the miltiades. and high renown: and if themistocles said that the victories and trophies, of the miltiades kept him, that he could not sleep: how much more ought it to prick us forward, when we read in histories of the prowesses and magnanimous feats that have been consecrated to immortality, and more lively representing such manners, counsels, occasions, and means as have been held in enterprises and executions of brave attempts, together with the events, the better to resolve in all affairs, and to judge what we ought to follow, or fly in like occurrence of humane accidents? and there may princes learn without hazard, expense, or danger, how deeply they are charged: and the better impress within their memory the precepts either of politic laws, or of the art of war, than they should do in philosophers books, seeing what praises are given to the well doers, and what blame and punishment to the wicked, as in the middle of a theatre. and they are awakened, to take the way of virtue, as out of a trumpet of honour, and the seeds thereof are taken out of the valour and gentleness of our ancestors. and albeit there be great difference between the actions of our ancestors, and ours,, yet we ought to follow, and practise according to the reason, by which they have guided their inventions, carrying the like spirit, judgement and hardiness that they did. and since that as seneca hath written in the first book of his epistles, if one have a mind to do ill, and espieth one present by him that will be a witness thereof, he sinneth the less, so is there no doubt but many tyrants have refrained the executing of a number of mischiefs they have determined, fear of blame and dishonour causeth the wicked to refrain. for fear of the spot which a history would stain them with. as democritus likewise rehearseth, how many kings of egypt have been bridled from committing of evil, fearing a custom which the people had, to oppose themselves to the pomps and magnificences, that were wont to be celebrated at the obsequies of their good kings. without histories, custom of egypt. diod. lib. 2●. cap. 3 we are never able to know the benefits which god hath bestowed upon men, nor the chastisements with which he correcteth the wicked: nor the beginning, progress, and success of all things, nor the mischief which both the public and particular weal suffer, nor what doctrine is more ancient, and to be followed. for this cause cicero calleth it, the light of truth, the witness of times, the mistress of life, the messenger of antiquity, and the life of memory preserving from oblivion deeds worthy of memory, achieved through long process of times. and this same seed of virtues, which plato sayeth is in our spirits, lifteth itself up through the emulation of them, which have been such as we now are: and we do gain more by reading thereof in our youth, then by whatsoever is either attributed to sense, charlemain. or experience of old men, or to such as have been in far voyages. it is written that charlemain, would ever have a history read unto him during his meals: and that, perceiving the small regard the ancient gaulois had, of setting down the monuments of their ancestors in writing, songs containing the high enterprises of virtuous persons. he caused certain songs to be made, commanding they should teach their children to sing them by heart, to the end the remembrance thereof might endure from race to race, and that by this means other might be stirred up to do well, and to write the gests of valiant men. which they say was likewise observed by the indians, and homer writeth the same of achilles. and the like is mentioned in the 78. psalm. and caesar in his commentaries, lucan and tacitus, maketh mention of certain philosophers, that were french men, bards. called bards, which song the praises of valiant men, and the blame and reproach of lewd persons, tyrants and base minded: and polybus showeth that a history doth teach and prepare the way to the affairs of policy: and to carry well the changes of fortune, time left. and to know what we are. and if that which pliny writeth be true, that all that time which is not employed to the study or exercise of good things is lost: and that which seneca hath written, that they are all fools, that in this great scarcity of time which is bestowed of them, learn but matters superfluous: we ought much to lament, that the desire which the common sort have to histories, fables and old wife's tales. is an occasion that they give themselves to fables and old wives tales, where is nought else but a vain delight without any profit: where as in histories, besides pleasure, there is great learning, to teach us not to undertake upon the fiske and flying, either any war that is not necessary, or any quarrels, suits in law, or other affairs of importance. and we see how many mischiefs, prudence required in reading histories losses, and faults, ignorance hath been the cause of. but prudence is greatly required, especially in holy histories. for there must we confrant the examples to the commandments of god: because the very saints themselves have had their faults which we ought not to follow, and the holy scripture is a good looking glass, which representeth as saint augustine said, things as they in deed are, setting before us virtues to follow them, and vices and imperfections to shun them, and to praise the mercy and bounty of god in that he covereth them. and as touching the profane, we must carry the like judgement, and therein consider the particularities, the causes, the conduct, and prudence which men have used, and the fortune, and success that hath proceeded from above. it shall not here be amiss, for the readers, if i admonish them not to take for good money, not to account all that which profane authors have written as articles of their faith, all profane authors writ not truly nor indifferently to trust thereunto without examining them further. i comprehend herein all such, where they which can see clearly may discover lies and untruths amidst good things, and some beasts come from a pencil, and not by nature. therefore we must apply thereto a good sieve, to sift, and separate, the one from the other. and me thinketh what knowledge soever those books teach us, is very small if one be not acquainted with the use and practise of the world, a reader of histories must not be too quick of belief nor too credulous. and be likewise accompanied with a judgement, and quickness of spirit. and it was very wisely written by aristotle that in reading of histories a man must not be of too quick a belief, nor too incredulous, for fear he take not false for true, or else profit no whit at all. and what colour or disguising so ever, men set on to flatter great ones, they which pry narrowly into their behaviours, & take their counsels and actions in time of peace and war, are not deceived: and discern toys, and cavillinges amidst deep counsels, and do discover pretexts, cloaking, and occasions, with the true causes never having their judgement there by deceived, referring and examining all things to the rule of the holy scripture. the holy scripture the rule of all things. besides we ought to esteem most, of such histiographers, which have had least passions, and partiality, and the best means to discover the truth, either being there themselves in person, or having certain intelligence from them that were present, men of faith, and sincere judgement, speaking without affection: to the end they set not out fables, and lies, as many of our time have done: and that which they steal from other, is as a precious stone, ill set in work. it were also requisite, they should be conversant, and nourished in affair of state, what writers soonest to be credited. and acquainted with the proceedings of the world: and not give themselves so much to pleasure as to speak the truth, not being enough not to write false, but to declare the very truth, without any partiality at all. for if in any one place, a writer be found a liar, the rest of his history is clean rejected as alexander the great was wont to say. it is also needful to observe, what sundry italians, spaniards, flemings, as almames, of an envious malice, and want of right judgement, have even enforced themselves to praise their country, and cover their faults, enemies envying the french. and diminish the greatness, and excellency, of matters done by the french men, to the advancement of whole christendom, affections & passions of men stain the truth. and profit of sundry nations. and it is no strange thing to see how much the passions and affections of men do stain the truth, which is the very eye of histories, (polibus himself rehearseth the examples of sundry historiographers before his time) and discover contrarieties between themselves, and by other greater authors than they are condemned of lying, as we have marked in the spaniards before, which have written the history of the new world, and of the west indies, who cover and make less, their own excess, and incredible villainies, the greatest part of them being revenged and punished through the just judgement of god. the englishmen have somewhat run awry, in handling the affairs on this side the sea. paulus iovius, was wont to say, that to do favour to such great personages as gave him pensions, he set things down, in such sort as they that lived in that time, were well enough able to discover them, marry the posterity should hold them for true. and in truth sundry historiographers of all times, through ignorance, hatred, covetousness, or ambition, take a colour to warrant their lying and disguising, upon a belief they have, that few shall be able to discern their coseninges. and for because through this error of discourse, they name sundry wise and prudent, which in deed have been most wicked, and blame french men that have been virtuous, of a good conscience, and have ended their lives honestly, and laudably, condemning them of fool hardiness and vice, men ought therein to carry a good sound, and right judgement. considering that such authors do not always measure, not to judge things according to the event. the manners and actions of men according to the unmovable rule of the word of god, and moral philosophy, nor distinguish the vicious by the intention or conscience, but only by the issue, dexterity, and industry, or rather subtlety of such as know how to apply each thing, to the end which they pretend, never regarding whether it be honest, laudable, and just or no. they do not in respect of the french men refer any of their acts at all to virtue, if they be not led thereto by that which they account prudence, but rather to rashness: as they do in regard of their own nation, imputing their own acts of cowardness, baseness of mind, disceat, dissembling, treason, cruelty, disloyalty, infidelity and ambition, to wisdom and prudence. nevertheless here we may well consider for what cause, they have made the like comparison of french men that antigonus did of pyrrhus, to a gamester, whom the dise favoured well, but knew not how to serve himself, of those chances that happened unto him: to make conquests assured. (for that look what he got by the effect, he lost through, hope, coveting in such sort what he had not, that he clean forgot to assure himself of what he had gained) because they are more ready to get then wise to keep, and that by feats of arms they make brave conquests, but they preserve them but a while, not knowing that a country conquered by such as observe not discipline, is both unprofitable, and hurtful. therefore they conjecture, that valour and dexterity in arms, is a great matter: but that nobility not brought up in learning, nor in reading of histories, hath not this wisdom to moderate itself, and to provide by such means as they ought to take, to be able in peace to conserve what they have conquered, and suffer themselves to be led by the coloured words of their enemies: who after that the first fire, and french boiling is extinguished, they know well enough how to use their occasion, and serve their own turns, with the ignorance of such as esteem nought but arms, without running over, the courses held by their ancestors, in keeping their conquests, and using of their victories: as we have but too many examples, which is the cause that caesar writeth in his commentaries, comment. li. 6 that french men are more hardy and courageous, then fine in war, (which they make great account of) joinct, that they give themselves more to the hope which they take of conquering, men differ from beasts by reason. than they do to any fear of losing. every man confesseth that men differ from beasts in reason: if this good nature be not manured, with the reading of histories & good letters, what other thing is it than a precious stone hid in a dunghill? cassiod. lib. 1. we ought to account the saying of k. theodoric true, that what was begun with good advise & prudence, & preserved with care, is of long lasting & strong. and if victories be not made sure with temperance, & prudence, they dim through some unlooked for accident, the glory which was before gotten: and in short time loseth the whole fruit through insolency, carelessness, causes of losses. delicacies, arrogancy, violentnes of taking up of lodging, & yet to be well entreated, in capacity of a governor, covetousness confusion, & to make no distinction between persons, in giving, taking away, or changing, and sometime a commandment amiss conceived, an ordinance ill executed, rashness, & vanity of speech, carrieth the victory away clean unto such, as before seemed already vanquished. and a marvelous prudence is required, to foresee an innumerable number of other accidents in matters of war, and sometime to apply counsel to necessity: being no less the duty of a valiant captain to show himself wise in his actions then courageous, to the end he approve, deliberation less difficile, and dangerous, and clean reject all rash counsels attending likewise the opportunities of times, and ripeness of occasions, not for all that presupposing for certain, those perils that are uncertain, being more afraid than he ought, calling hope no less to his counsel, more laudable to keep then to get than fear. cirus likewise in the end of the seventh book of the pedion of xenophon, thought it a matter more laudable to keep then to get, because often times in conquests is nothing but hardiness, but a body can not conserve what he hath taken without temperance, continence, care and diligence besides valour. and as it is a greater grief to become poor, than never to have been rich, so is it to lose, more bitter, than never to have gotten. i do not think that garrisons serve to so great an end, as if the conquerors show themselves meek, and lovers of good things: and that no thing can succeed well to such as abandon virtue and honesty. aristotle dedicating his rhetoric to alexander, writeth unto him, that as the body is entertained through a good disposition, use & practise. so is the wit by discipline and erudition: which were the causes that not only he had ever an address to do well, but also to conserve what he had gotten. it is likewise requisite, that we put the said reading in use and practise, thereby to become more virtuous, wise, and advised, and that we confer, things passed with the present and such as might ensue: and to apply examples, to the rule of verity, justice, aug. cap. 131 mor. epise. and equity. and albeit that saint augustine, attributed much to histories, yet doth he add, that he can not see how all that which is written by the wit of man can be in every point true, considering that all men are liars, and that it cometh to pass often times, men's writings in all points can not be true. that they which follow the reason of man in any history, build upon the brutes of the vulgar sort, and are abused by the passions of sundry men, which report nothing of certain. notwithstanding they are to be excused, if they keep a liberty, and writ not to the end to deceive. but in the holy history, they ought to fear no such thing since that it proceedeth of the holy ghost, and thence a man may take out certain witnesses and sovereign arrests. now that we may the better reap our profit out of histories, the beginnings and motife causes of all things as to be considered. we must consider the beginning, and motyfe cause, of all enterprises, the means which therein they have held, and afterwards the issue thereof, which cannot possibly be good proceeding from an evil beginning. and after having known the root, and causes thereof, we must judge what may happen in like cases, and consider other circumstances which beautify the actions, and refer all to the glory of god, through whose bounty the events have succeeded well, and gloriously, to praise and thank god for our good success rom. 15.4. to the end we may render praises and thanksgiving unto him, which are due unto him; for asmuch as by weak and vile persons, he oftentimes compasseth high, and mighty things. whatsoever is written, aught to serve for one learning. and because that whatsoever things are written afore time, are written for our learning, we ought to apply unto ourselves whatsoever we read, and to behold as in a looking glass our own affections: to the end we might follow good, and eschew evil, and clean remove from us, all disguising and corruption, and above all things we ought to acknowledge the judgements of god, against the wicked, and contemners of his law. and for because that great dangers ensue those which indifferently govern themselves by examples. i thought good to advertise, examples. that it is diligently to be considered, whether there be a concurrence of like reasons not only in general, but also in particular. it is also necessary to rule one's self as prudently, as they did whom we would imitate, and to demand of god like success. mutations is common weals. and in our enterprises we must not only consider, the superficies and beginning of things, but to look more inwardly what may happen in time. we must not likewise take too exactly, what is written by ancient historiographers, but confer them with the new, having regard to the great changes which happen in all countries: and that there are few cities or nations which hold their former name, nor their ancient seats, and fashions: otherwise we should wander awry, and judge amiss. and this consideration of the unstableness, subversions, dissipations, and lamentable changes of sundry peoples and families, aught to prepare us to bear all accidents sent from god: knowing that this life is but a sorrowful exile, subject to storms, and continual tempests: this life but a sorrowful exile. and that there is no seat nor haven sure, but in the heavenly and eternal life, to the which the son of god, our lord, and saviour jesus christ, hath prepared the way for us, and let us humbly beseech him to guide us therein. chap. 18. that one ought not to suffer himself to be deceived by praises, nor be carried away from modesty, and that honour dependeth upon virtue, with advise upon the same, or upon the reproaches or lies of the people: and how much it is requisite to command one's self. prases deceive men. who so would not serve from the truth, ought not to be moved with praises, which for the most part are disguised: for as saint augustin hath written, he which often praiseth one, abuseth himself, confirmeth an error, and proveth in the end a liar: and he which is praised becometh thereby a great deal more vain. and dion said, the over great praises and honours out of measure carry with them a misknowledge, lightness, and insolensie, yea among such persons as of themselves are modest enough: because they are persuaded that they deserve them, and every man pleaseth them, and puffeth them up as xenophon writeth, though in deed they might well be termed mockeries. and such excessive honours, are neither more nor less, then as portraitures ill proportioned, which fall to the ground of themselves, as the three hundred statuas of demetrius, which never engendered either rust or filth, statuas thrown down and broken. being in his own life time broken in pieces. and those likewise of demades were bruised, & made to serve for chamber-pots, and basins in close stools: and so have sundry other princes their monuments been served. the inhabitants of the city of pills, honours refused by theopompus. in their counsels, ordained most mighty honours for theopompus: he wrote back unto them, that time was accustomed to increase honours moderately bestowed, and to deface the immoderate. niger. when niger was chosen emperor, they recited certain verses in his praise: but he said, that they ought rather to praise hannibal, or the prowess of some other great captains, to the end they might be imitated, and that it was a mockery to praise men while they lived, which peradventure might alter. and that there was great presumption, that either they did it for fear, or for hope to obtain somewhat of them, and that for his part he rather desired to be favoured and loved during his life, and praised after his death. other were wont to say, that they never acknowledged such praises, but wished to god that they were worthy of them. bracidas bracidas his mother was highly commended for answering the ambassadors of thrace, comforting her for the death of her son, affirming that he had not left his like behind him, that she knew well enough, that the city of sparta had many citizens a great deal more worthy and valiant than him. as antigonus said unto a poet, who called him the son of the sun, antigonus. that he which emptied his close stool knew well enough there was no such matter. the shadow shunneth those which follow it, and followeth those which shun it, and so fareth it with praise. sigismond the emperor, struck one that praised him too much, sigismond. justinian. saying that he bit him: so was it likewise reported by justinian. when they offered to titus a crown of gold, together with great praises, for his taking of jerusalem, he answered, titus. that he himself was not the author thereof, but that god served himself through his hands, in that he made manifest his anger against the jews. fabritius. timoleon. antisthenes. as much is said of fabritius, for the delivery of greece, and of timoleon, for restoring sicily to liberty. and antisthenes commanded his children, never to con any thanks for praising of them: for often times it is with men as with an number of beasts, which suffer a man to do with them what he will, yea to tumble and drale them on the ground, as long as he tickleth them. galen entreating how the sickness of the mind might be discerned writeth, galen. that he learned of his father to despise glory, as an enticement to evil, and enemy to truth. offices and dignities called charges. and josephus writeth, that honours bestowed on young men, are as matches of folly and rashness. and in our french tongue we call offices, and dignities, charges. and varro in his fourth book of the latin tongue writeth, that this name of honour proceedeth from a name which signifieth an honest burden, which bindeth us to do well, and to take care, and travail: honours. because that praises are allied with virtues, and are as the badge thereof, and followeth it as the shadow doth the body. the ancient fathers have likewise noted, that in the holy scripture, the triumphs and honours of the common sort, are not termed glory, but only virtuous acts. glory. the temple of glory adjoining to that of virtue and cicero in his tusculans questions defineth glory to be a consent of praises, by virtuous men, which judge without corrupting virtue: for they which are of good judgement know better our valour then the grosser sort. and there was some mystery in that the romans builded the temple of glory, adjoining to that of virtue, through which they must of necessity pass that will go to the other: as if one would say that there were no honour without virtue. epictetus. epictetus' said likewise that glory, and virtue were two sisters which could not be severed one from the other. and cicero calleth praise the higher of virtue. cicero. solomon. ecclesiasticus. 10. and solomon in his proverbs writeth that the nobleness of young men is their virtue. and when it is said in ecclesiasticus, that the land is happy when their king is noble he meaneth thereby virtuous and not young of understanding. the which is well marked in the first law de cond. in pub. hor. l.x. c. & l.i. de dignitat. l. 12. c. marius maintaineth in sallust, that they may be called noble and gentle, marius. which are most honest, and virtuous: and that all nobility proceeded at the first from virtue. and it is better to bring it into a man's house, than to diffame it, when he found it already there. and the glory of our ancestors serveth unto the posterity as a light which suffereth neither good nor evil actions to lie hid. majesty pictured. some have pictured majesty appareled with a cloak of admiration, tissued, with great virtues and honesty, the marks whereof are in her gesture and actions, and that great personages ought to conserve and maintain her. and they which command aught derogating unto her or that is unjust, cannot excuse themselves of high treason, and diminishing her majesty. and sometimes it is a great honour, when benefits are not proportioned according to the valour of deserts. and it is far better to be worthy of honour then to receive it: cato. as cato said that he had rather one should ask him why he made not a monument for himself, then why he had erected one. he said likewise that every man, being well borne, and of an honest heart, aught to carry in his mind and remembrance his nobility and his ancestors, to the end he should do nothing worthy of reprehension, and might be ashamed of all actions of reproach. the ancient kings of france used many ceremonies in making of a knight, the better to induce them to all honesty, and above all things to keep their faith and truth, a knight. maximilian. which custom as it is told me remaineth yet in england: and at that time every man contented himself with a single promise. maximilian the emperor answered one that desired his letters patents to ennoble him, i am able to make thee rich, but virtue only to make thee noble. and there is great likelihood that that which moved the lacedæmonians to sacrifice unto the muses, at such time as they went to warfare, was to give courage to men to do so well that they might afterwards be praised. above all things we must take heed of praising ourselves with our own mouth, as the wise man warneth us. but if our life & holy conversation do show it, virtue shall ever be followed with praise. i do not for all that think that a wise man ought to despise the true honour, which consisteth in the good will of such as have received any pleasure. honour to be accepted. and from this reputation proceedeth faith and confidence, which pusheth men forward to the enterprise of all good actions, and serveth as a rampiar against the envious. and it is to be excused in young men, youth stirred up to virtue through praise if they please themselves in doing well: because virtues do double and flourish in that age, and do increase through moderate praise given unto them. and the common wealth hath an interest, in making the praises of famous men to remain engraven, to serve for an imitation pricking forward, & example to all ages. pope john the 23. said unto the cardinals, who had heard what was spoken in his praise, pope john. 23 that they mingled therein many things not true, & yet he took pleasure to hear them. themistocles. and themistocles being asked what music or voice he desired most willingly to hear, said, such a one as praised his virtue. yet such as so loftily carry themselves, are like such as brag they have received false and naughty money. remedy against praise and glory. and that we may not be abused, it is very good to consider thoroughly the infirmity of man, the shortness of our life, the defilings of our flesh, & that whatsoever is in us to be praised, proceedeth from the pure liberality & loan of god, which is able to take all from us again in a moment; to the end that we contain ourselves in modesty & humbleness of mind. pyndarus likewise compareth the life of men unto a dream of a shadow, the which is as the psalmist saith, psal. 62.9. & 144.4. more vain than vanity itself, and as a flower vanishing away. but because that many fearing to be falsely blamed of the common sort, are thereby fallen into great inconveniences, i willingly would advise quick wits, not to surcease the pursuit of a good enterprise, nor to undo themselves through the fear of such a blame. plutarque. as plutarch said in his poem of the lives of agis & cleomenes, that having well considered the accidents of the brethren named gracchi, gracchi. who having been well borne, brought up, & nourished, and now attained to the managing of the affairs of the common wealth & that with a very good intent, yet were they both destroyed in the end, not so much through an unmeasured desire of honour, as through fear of dishonour, the which for all that proceeded not, but from a great & noble heart. virtuous persons in like sort, have ever made small account, of counterfeit words & false lies imagining, their conscience, & the virtuous course of their life, & the behaviours of themselves before time, would sufficiently warrant & defend them, & the contempt which one hath of a foolish word, maketh the envious clean confounded: demosthenes. and railing as demosthenes said, which maketh him never the worse against whom it is used, is not esteemed among any virtuous persons. that is to say, that the reputation of a good man, is not diminished through any blame that is unjustly laid to his charge. and sundry of our kings were willing to meet with the quarrels & lightness of the nobility, that a man might know by good & sufficient proof, the lie. if the lie were well or ill given, to the end it might be judged upon whom it ought to fall. titus titus the emperor was wont to say, that because he did nothing that deserved blame or reprehension, he cared not for any lies were made of him. fabius. as also fabius surnamed the most high, answered some that railed on him, that a captain & ruler in the field, who for fear of speaking, or of the opinion of the commons, ceased from doing what he knew to be profitable, or to desist from a purpose fully deliberated of, & whereof he well understood the causes & reasons, aught to be esteemed more faint, than he which feareth to prove his strength, when he seethe occasion given for his advantage. and chose rather that his wise enemy might fear him, than the foolish citizens should praise him, & that being well advised he cared not for being accounted too fearful or too slack. it is the lesson of ecclesiasticus. set not thy heart upon every word that is reported. ecclesiasticus. plato. and plato in criton admonisheth us not to regard what every man saith, but what he saith that seethe all things, & the truth. and not without cause an ancient father said, i will lose the very reputation of an honest man, cato. rather than not to be an honest man. cato was accustomed as plutarque writeth in his life time to be ashamed only for dishonest things, but ever to despise what was reproved by opinion. s. augustine attributed the death of lucretia to her imbecility, lucretia as fearing the evil opinion & suspicion of the common sort. and there is no enterprise or execution so right, & worthy of praise, that is not subject to the reproach & detraction of the ignorant, to the passions of the malignant & envious, & to rash judgements. a good conscience. for this cause in all our actions we ought to content ourselves with a conscience well informed. and but that i fear i should be too tedious, i could allege a number of most notable examples, of the inconveniences that have happened as well to them of old time as of ours, for esteeming more the judgement of the ignorant than the truth. which detractions k. demetrius was wont to say, he cared not for, k. demetrius not esteemed them better than a fart, not much passing whether it made a noise before or behind, above or below. marius likewise spoke wisely in sallust, marius. how no report was able to offend him, because if it were true it would sound to his praise, if false his life & manners should prove it contrary. by this discourse i desire to impress into the nobility a sound judgement, of true honour, which is engendered but by virtue & good deeds: and to make them lay aside that foolish opinion which they have of falsehood, under colour whereof, upon light occasion and offence they undertake combats, never regarding the laws of god, nature, civil, canonical, private, nor their own salvation, or duty of charity, hazarding their lives, souls, goods & friends, for that stolen, infected passionate, & fantastical tyrant, termed honour, never embracing such means of concord as the laws command. and remain so stubborn & blind, that whereas the true honour consisteth in obeying god and his laws, in mastering once passions, in loving, forgiving, & succouring once neighbour, they make it to be in disobeying of god & his holy laws, going about to diffame, destroy, & murder their neighbours, & render themselves slaves to their own choler. and how can that be honourable which god forbiddeth, detesteth, & condemneth to eternal death? and also to be meek, peaceable, & reconciled to overcome wrath and passions, to approach near unto god through his clemency, and mercy, (which are the acts of virtue, and of true christians,) how can these i say, breed unto the nobility either dishonour or infamy? considering that by the ancient discipline of war, it was adjudged dishonest, & worthy of punishment, warly discipline. if one combated with his enemy without his captains leave, or if he left the place given to him in guard. and the ancient emperors and kings esteemed it a point of greater magnanimity and nobility to pardon and command one's self, then to be revenged, & as a murderer of himself, to lay open his own life to evident peril. we proceed all of us from god our creator, not of ourselves: into his hands we ought to put all our revenges, vengeance reserved to god as he himself willeth us: and not to make ourselves the accusers, judges, and hangmen, of him, whom we pretend to have cast an eye upon the shadow of this delicate honour, as i have else where touched, for the importance of this pernicious error. chap. xix. that without the truth there is nought else but darkness, and confusion, and how much the philosophers have laboured to find it out, & how far wide they have been of it. truth in policies and governments. he made no bad comparison in my opinion, that said, that policies, governments and kingdoms, were like an empty lamp, or lantern: and that the truth was the match with the oil, and the wax, or the tallow that gave the light: for without this sun shine of truth, there is nothing but darkness and disorders in this life, and we may say with the prophets, that without it, the people remain lying in darkness, and in the region of the shadow of death. and with jeremy that the wise boast not in his knowledge, nor the strong in his force, jerem. 3. luke 1. nor the rich in his wealth, but that all our glory be to know him which is the very truth: for whatsoever men may allege unto us, of victories, triumphs, honours, eloquence, force, and other gifts and graces, they are nought else if this truth be taken away, but as if one should sail in a dark night, among the floods, rocks, and tempests of the sea, phil. 3.8. and in the end prove a sorrowful tragedy. saint paul judged all things to be dung in respect of this knowledge, and the excellency thereof, which hath lain hidden many ages, and made most clearly manifest, through our lord and saviour christ jesus, who hath imparted unto us the heavenly treasures, and hath been made for us, justice, righteousness, life, sanctification, philosophers of old time have not attained to the light of the truth. and redemption. and albeit the philosophers of old time, attained not unto this light, yet did they not cease to pursue the shadows thereof, of which in part we entreat, leaving unto the divines the deep insight into this light, and majesty of the essential truth. the said philosophers, as socrates, plato, democritus, aristotle, pliny, architas, tales, tianeus, & an infinite number of other, have made very far & long voyages the better to be instructed in this truth, & in the knowledge hereof, to the end they might not overlightly believe or speak out of purpose. tales. the said tales being demanded, what distance there was between the truth and a lie, answered, as much as between the eyes, and the ears; as if he would have said, that we may boldly declare what we have seen, but that often times one is deceived, trusting unto another's report. and albeit, the said plato, aristotle, and other philosophers, have written many notable things concerning the virtues, yet have they not declared, the ignorance of the philosophers. at whose hands they ought to be demanded, nor whither they ought to be referred: neither have they known the beginning of the corruption of man's nature, nor the remedy of all evils, which is revealed in the gospel, by the knowledge of the truth, and the adoption of the christians, the remission of sins, and the promises, which give us a certainty, of the favour, blessing, and good will of our good god, whereof ensueth a good conscience, hope, and peace in the spirit, which consumeth all the grief and sorrow, as the sun doth the morning dew. and there is none of the said philosophers, except plato, which was able to set down, that the sovereign good of man, was to be joined with god, but he had no taste at all what this conjunction meant, man's sovereign good. nor the mean to attain unto it. and as touching the comforts of the philosophers, the complaint which cicero made, in his epistle to atticus is true that the medicine is not of force enough for the disease, the philosopher's comforts. & that neither the discipline, learning, nor books ought profited him. which a body cannot aver by the holy scriptures, as david said, holy scripture psal. 119. that he was quickened, comforted, & instructed, & that they gave light to idiots. and there is another manner of efficacy, than the drougg which homer called nepenthes, which he said was able to keep one from smelling ill savours, & charm grief, homer's nepenthes. understanding thereby a discreet speaker, & one able to apply himself, to the present affections, times & affairs: as more at large we have before declared. which maketh me to disprove, the opinion of seneca, seneca & horace reproved. which attributeth it to god in that we live, but in that we live well to philosophy; which in deed ought rather to be referred to god the author of all good. horace spoke as ignorantly, writing, that god gave him life & riches, but that he furnished himself with a good and right understanding. for god causeth the eye to see, the ear to hear, and giveth the right judgement, both to will and to perform, philosophy the love of wisdom. as s. paul saith, and he disposeth the paths, & intentions of men. this word philosophy hath been interpreted for the love of wisdom, and aristotle in his second book of his metaphysics, taketh it for the knowledge of the truth. many have noted great variety, aristotle reprehended. ambiguity & uncertainty in the doctrine of aristotle, and that he was ignorant of the most excellent things of nature, & used very necessary demonstrations. the which men in time passed well marked, picturing behind his portraiture a woman, which had her face covered with a veil, physis. named physis, that is to say, nature. and it is no marvel at all, if all of them were not able to attain to those supernatural things, since that the most excellent treasures of nature, were concealed from them. the which ought to make us admire at god's speech in the five last chapters of job, discoursing of the movings of the heavens, job. force of the stars, of the earth founded upon the waters, & of the waters hanging in the middle of the world: and sundry other wonders which a body may perceive, able to declare the knowledge of man to be very full of ignorance. the life of the pagans. s. augustine compared the life of the ancient pagans which were accounted so wise & virtuous, to a wandering course, & their arguments to a glass which is shining, but very brickle: concluding it better to halt in the way of truth, then to run lightly without it. he wrote likewise that their virtues were impure, & imperfect; because there is nothing good, without the sovereign good. and where there is defect of the knowledge of eternal life, there virtue is false & men's intentions go awry. the promises of god are certain. and there is no man that can have any quietness of conscience, but through the promises of god (from which they were shut out,) & also by the inward obedience, required of god, by trusting in him, by repentance, righteousness, & justification of the faithful, by the free forgiveness of our sins, by hope, patience, confidence in adversity, confession & giving of thanks, & by referring all things to the glory of god, & to charity. and s. chrisostom upon the first to the corinthians & fourth homely, chrysostom. compareth the subtle disputations of the philosophers to cobwebs which break & rend asunder with the wind, & speaking of a happy life, rom. 1.22. were never able to attain unto it, and as s. paul writeth, professing themselves to be wise, they became fools. and not without cause socrates in plato, the lamentation of socrates. lamented that the philosophers studied more the contemplation of nature, & knowledge, then to live well, or give good precepts. and towards the end of the treatise of his laws, as through a divine inspiration, he giveth hope of the coming of one more excellent, more redoubted, and more holy than any man, whose office was to open the secret places of truth, and the hidden fountains, who should be followed & honoured of all men, which surely could not be understood, but by our lord jesus christ, which is the way, job. 14.6 the truth and the life. s. chrysostom setteth down in the rank of philosophers, aristides, cato, solon, lycurgus, epaminundas, & sundry other, who besides their knowledge, were excellent in matters of state & government, (as was our lawyer ulpian) and studied more to do good to every one, then to be conversant in contemplation. for the sophisters counterfeit to be wise, sophisters. & in deed their end is but glory, and proud boasting. and s. augustine thought that all philosophers were rather given to the service and searching out of the intelligences separate, lib. 10. cap. 2 de civit. dei. which we call angels & devils, and which they called gods and spirits, then of the true god, albeit they confessed there was one only almighty, father of the gods and men. and it is easy to gather out of their writings, against atheists and epicures. how they confessed one only god in three persons, the father, the son & the holy ghost, and other articles contained in the apostles creed, to convict atheists and epicures withal. chap. xx. of disguisings done to princes, and what is their duty for their honour, and quiet of their subjects, and of the miseries of the wicked, of the observation of ordinances, and of that which maintaineth or altereth an estate. princes were ordained of god, to be fathers, protectors, why god ordained princes. and shepherds over the people committed to their charge, to serve to maintain their liberty, and to defend them against all injuries, and to show them good example, to entertain justice and peace, to cause virtue, learning, sciences and good laws to flourish, to provide for the instruction of youth, to esteem of the good, and chastise the wicked. plato did write, following the fixion of homer, that children, king's children. born of kings were composed of a precious mass, to be separate from the common sort. and it is said of scipio, scipio. and certain other great personages, that they were descended from a divine race; because god giveth particular graces to such as he setteth over others. horace likewise named kings diogenes, that is to say, the generation of jupiter, & diotrephes, nourished by jupiter, & aristes, of jupiter, which signifieth as plato interpreteth, the familiars, & disciple in politic sciences. and frederick is as much to say, as the k. of peace. and for as much as artaxerxes mnemon, delighted in peace, was affable and virtuous, the rest of the kings of persia since his time have been called by his name. and it is incredible, how so many should fall headlong into so great dishonours and misfortunes, as we have both seen and red of, had the truth been laid open before them. it is written that k. lewis the eleventh was wont to say, k. lewis. 11. that he found every thing within his kingdom, but only one, which was truth. k. lewis the twelfth, permitted all commedians and stage players, to speak freely and to reprehend such vices as were manifest, k. lewis. 12. to the end they mought be amended: and said that for his own part he knew many things by them, which he was not before witting of. dyonisius the tyrant of sicily, being retired to athens, dyonisius the tyrant of sicil. after he was deprived of his kingdom bewailed the estate of princes, but especially, in that men never spoke freely unto them, and that the truth was ever hidden and concealed from them. the emperors gordian the younger, and dioclesian, the complaint of gordian & dyoclesian emperors. made the very like complaint that every thing was disguised and coloured unto them, and that flatterers cast dust before their eyes, making them believe, the evil to be good. that they were often times cozened, and sold under hand; that they put the sword into the hands of furious magistrates, and bestowed states & honours upon unworthy, covetous, & lewd persons: that they were caused to turn the day into night, and the night into day: that they were altogether conversant, and brought up, in delicacies, huntings, and other pastimes, whereby their minds might be turned from remembering that charge which god had laid upon them: and all this were they brought to do, to the end that such flatterers as were about them, might the better attain to the depth of their devices: and that oftentimes they were but emperors and kings in name, as if they had played their part but upon a stage, or had been commedians. and that their counsellors were the true actors, and reaped all the profit & honour. it is likewise written in the rest of hester, hester. 16.6. that they which deceitfully abuse the simplicity and gentleness of princes with lying tales, make themselves partakers of innocent blood, and wrap themselves in calamities, which can not be remedied. flatterers compared to the sirens. and flatterers have been compared to the sirens, who through their singing enticed all passengers upon the sea, that heard them to draw near unto them. we may very well impute to such disguysinges, the great expenses which the emperors tiberius, nero, caligula, commodus, domitian, heliogabalus, and sundry others, have foolishly spent under a colour of liberality, and the better to maintain their prodigalities, put to death and impoverished many: k. antiochus. which prodigality we very well may term a kind of lying. king antiochus in hunting lost his way, and was constrained to retire to a poor yeoman's house of the country, who not knowing told him all the faults that he, and his favourites had committed: to whom at his return he declared, that he never understood the truth until that night: and ever after he carried himself most virtuously. we read of sundry our kings of france who have done the like: and of some emperors, who have disguised themselves, thereby the better to understand what the people spoke of them. eugenes pope platina writeth of pope eugenes, how he sent certain round about the city, to espy what men most blamed either in him or his, k. lewis the gross. that it might be amended. king lewis the gross, which builded s. victors disguised himself often times, the better to be informed of the truth. and king lewis the 12. as charlemain, k. lewis 12. and saint lewis had done before him, took great pleasure to understand the complaints of his subjects applying thereto such remedy as their case required. and for this cause he obtained the name of father of the people, and his memory is more famous to serve for an example to the posterity, than all the conquests and victories of other kings. sundry of our kings in the beginning were greatly blamed, for that they suffered themselves to be so much governed by the principal of their court: and some have been resembled to golden images, that are guilded and shining without, but within are full of rust, cobwebs and filthiness. for the crown doth not take away the passions nor grief of the spirits, ptolemy. but rather doth it diminish the true pleasure. as ptolemy seeing certain fishers sporting themselves upon the sea shore, wished he were like one of them, adding that monarchies are full of cares, fears, charles the 4 and 5. seleucus. mistrustes, and disguised miseries. which also charles the 4. and 5. emperors were wont to say, desiring to lead a private life. seleucus before that did the like, adding that if he should cast his crown into the high way, there would be none found, that would take it up, knowing the charge and griefs that ever did accompany it. adrian pope, and pope adrian said that he thought no estate so miserable nor so dangerous as his own, and that he never enjoyed a better or more pleasant time, trajan emperor. then when he was but a simple monk: and trajan the emperor wrote unto the senate of rome, that having now tasted the cares and pains which the imperial state led with itself, he did a thousand times repent that ever he took it upon him. homer. 2. iliad. homer feigneth all the gods to sleep except jupiter, who was altogether exempt from sleep. saint chrysostom upon the second to the corinthians, an art of great difficulty to command and rule well. dioclesian. & 15. homely, said that to govern and command well was the greatest and most hard art of all, as his fault is more dangerous which guideth the stern, than his which holdeth the owers. it is written of dioclesian that he was wont to say before his empire, that there was nothing so hard as to command well. yet many place therein their felicity, and acquit themselves with pleasure of the charge which god hath laid upon them. in my speech before i do not comprehend the wicked and tyrannical princes, the miserable life of tyrants & wicked princes. who as tacitus writeth in the life of tiberius, are perpetually tormented and torn a sunder in their consciences; yea and sundry of them have lamented the infamy they should endure which they saw very well men would do unto them after their death. and allege the saying of plato, that if their souls could be discovered, they should be seen full of stinching scars, and torn in pieces with a hidden iron that ever burneth them. wisd. 17.10. and as it is written in the book of wisdom, it is a fearful thing when malice is condemned by her own testimony and a conscience that is touched doth ever forecast cruel things. it is written of nero and certain other, that they were of an opinion, that the earth did open before them, and saw the shadows of such as they had caused to die ready to torment them. guichardin writeth of alphonsus k. of naples, guichard lib. 1 of naples. that neither night nor day he could rest in his spirit, thinking the very heavens & elements had conspired against him: that in sleeping the ghosts of such as he had put to death seemed to appear unto him, & in the day thought his subjects to rise to do vengeance upon him: which was the cause that he did not abide the coming of the frenchmen. plutarch saith that the souls of tyrants, are composed of arrogancy and cruelty: plutarque. demosthenes. and demosthenes is of opinion, that they be enemies to liberty & laws. and artemidorus describeth the visions, and fearful & dreadful dreams which have affrighted the wicked. the which ought to move all princes to fear god, the duty of a good prince to subject themselves unto the laws of nature, even as they desire the obedience of their own subjects, procuring their good, unity and quiet, revenging their injuries, charging them with as little as they may bestowing their governments upon virtuous persons, giving good wages without selling of offices, as the emperors alexander, severus, pertinax, sundry of our kings, & divers other have greatly recommended unto us. and claudius the emperor was wont greatly to thank such as he had provided for offices, for that they being men worthy and capable of them would accept them. it were also a very great praise, if men would not so easily dispense with the holy ordinances, and especially those that touch age, and forbidden two of one parentage, claudius' emperor. dispensing with holy ordinances. comment. lib. 7 to be of one chamber and bed, as also it is reported in the commentaries of caesar that it was a matter straightly forbidden at authun. such ordinances likewise as have been renewed through policy, the garments, banquetes, and justice, would breed great quietness were they well observed. and if according to the disposition of the law, for every matter contained in the kings letters, l. 5. si contra ius. which should not be found true, there were a good fine set, according to the condition of those which so greatly abuse the favours of the prince. and were it not that i feared to offend such as reap profit and commodity by the seal, i would desire that those restitutions & remedies which the law doth give, l. 5. de thesau. l. x. c. might be accorded by the ordinary judges without letters. for as the emperors and lawyers have said what need one trouble a prine, or be too importunate upon him for that which the law of itself permitteth? and all policy tendeth to a public profit as we have heretofore noted. it were likewise an ordinance very laudable, that all offices were bestowed, by an election made of three persons, to the most capable of which the king should give the estate that is void without any money. selling offices. for the sale of offices is an occasion of sundry mischiefs, as aristotle declareth in his politicques. there are likewise a great number, which following the first ordinances, are very desirous to see those said offices and estates, to be once again reduced to their ancient number, and what ever were superfluous to be suppressed as near as possible mought be, suppressing of offices. for that the over great number of judges and governors (as plato sayeth) is an occasion of great disorder. the king in like sort should ease himself of many importunities, and great, if he would cause a role to be made, of such benefices, offices, and charges, as are vacant, and within one month or a little after they be void, to provide good servants and worthy members to occupy the same. and he should deserve great praise, if he would cause his places upon the frontiers, to be well furnished and fortified, frontiers & high ways and the high ways to be amended and repaired: as the said emperor trajan did, & other lords, and commonwelthes. and should greatly comfort his subjects, superfluous ordinances. if he would cause all superfluous ordinances to be rejected, and which are no more in use, and leave a little volume of such as are necessary. and for as much as the offices of marshal chief, and governor, require a far more great wisdom, and experience, the faults which they should commit being of so great importance, offices requiring great wisdom they ought not to be bestowed upon young men that are not experienced, & of whose virtue there is no further proof than favour, but upon well tried captains, and men of years. as also he ought to take the like order, in the principal offices of judgement, and among the generals of revenues, of the justice of moneys, procurers general, and commissioners of war. and above all things princes ought to measure their actions by the standard of their laws to be gracious, maintainers of godliness, justice, and faith, pitiful to the oppressed, modest in prosperity, patiented and constant in adversity, courteous unto the good, and terrible unto the wicked, to flatterers, tale carriers, and coiners of new inventions, clean abolishing all occasion, that might tend to move sedition, trouble, and dissension, matters leading men to uproars, equality to be observed. arms, and partialities clean dismembering the due obedience we own unto our sovereign. aristotle comprehendeth all the public vices under this word inequality, which severeth the hearts of the people: therefore it is requisite a geometrical equality be kept to meat with such miscontentmentes: for if the entreaty which is made between divers persons, be temperate and well proportioned, than peace ensueth thereon: if it be dissolute and out of proportion, wars, commotions and dissensions arise thereupon. 2. cor. 15. and albeit there be no agreement between light and darkness, edicts of religion made for necessity. nor between christ and belial, as s. paul writeth in 2. to the corinthians, and that every good man ought to desire a unity in religion: yet do i greatly commend their wisdom, who seeing the urgent necessity, that france hath of a long and quiet peace, (to the which the king hath now guided it, as a ship in main sea often times sore bruised with storms and tempests) are not of opinion it should be again put to the mercy and injury of the waves, and the rage of bloystering winds of partialities and divisions, which so long time have tossed too and fro this state, nor that the edicts should be broken, having so many times been sworn unto and published, after having taken the advise of the whole body of the kings privy counsel, and of the principal sovereign courts of the whole realm, as a man may say, besides an infinite number of reasons founded, upon that, which the emperors constantine, licinius, nerua, gratian, and sundry other emperors have done, in respect of the necessity of the time, thereby to be the better able to establish peace, and quietness, & so better preserve their own estate. christians in turkey. i leave the turk which doth not at all enforce the consciences of the christians: yea and some religious persons, in the holy mount anciently called athos, and near unto constantinople receive yearly alms from him. the princes of italy support the jews rank enemies to our religion. in polognia, both the greekish and romish religion, hath each had their course time out of mind: yea and in sundry cities as well of germany as swyserlande, there be churches of two religions, and since certain years, the nobility make profession there of the religion of the protestants. the emperor charles the fift, so puissant, and wise, after sundry deliberations had of this matter, the edict of the emperor charles the 5. at ausbourgh. agreed & gave consent by an order made at ausbourge in the year 1530 to the peace named of religion. and in the year 1555. a perpetual edict was to that end established. ferdinando. ferdinando his successor endured the change of religion in diverse provinces of his kingdom of bohemia, and certain places of austria. maximilian. and since maximilian his son, philibert d. of savoy. permitted the like to his nobles and gentlemen of austria, as likewise did the late duke of savoy to diverse of his subjects. and the counsel of the king of spain so greatly catholic was yet constrained to suffer the like in sundry places in flanders. and in the time of our saviour and before, there were in jerusalem sundry sects, whereof some clean impugned the principal articles of our faith. demosthenes. whereupon i am not of the mind to found any certain rule, knowing we ought to live according unto laws, not examples as demosthenes was wont to say: but considering the mischiefs and disorders of times, and that the sweetness of religion and justice is impatient of cruelty, of the excess and unworthiness of troubles, having too feeble a voice to be understood, amidsts the horrible clatteringes of bloody weapons as marius said, i desire that they may not stir up a mischief now lying quiet, and that each one praise the king, for the constancy and equality which he hath kept in his promises, rather attending a more mild and fit remedy for a greater unity, acts. 5.38. esteeming the counsel which gamaliel gave to the pharisees as true, that no force nor practise of man can destroy what is of god, and if it be of men it will come to nought and perish of itself. the laws of the twelve tables required that the safety of the people, were the most sovereign law, and esteemed that patron as abominable, that would defraud his subject or freed bondman. so ought subjects to be entreated without oppression. prince's ought likewise to beware of two things which aristotle in his politics saith subverteth empires, two things which subvert empires to wit, hatred and disdain, rather making themselves to be beloved and esteemed, and abstaining from all kind of injustice and violence, and whatsoever else deserveth blame. as the emperors titus, nerua, and sundry other boasted of themselves, that they were able to say, that they ever behaved themselves towards their subjects, even as they would have their subjects do towards themselves if they were in their place. pensions to strangers. and to preserve peace among subjects, they ought to take order that every one be occupied and follow his vocation honestly, and leave to give excessive pensions to strangers and unworthy subjects, following the maxim of alexander severus, alexander severus. that men are not to be nourished which are neither necessary nor profitable for a common wealth. and anthony the emperor gave charge, trains of princes. his train by no means should press the people. galba often said that a prince ought to provide that they of his court should offer wrong to no man, galba. and that their guards that offended herein should be rigorously punished, or they which in hunting would mar either corn or fruits. seneca. and as seneca sayeth, the good renown of servants increaseth the glory of their masters. it were also to be desired that the ordinance of taxes were observed, and that the men of arms, and soldiers were well paid, without marring of the plain country, attending other means of remedy, until they be clean removed. cassiod. lib. 4. for as king theodoric wrote, the army which is not entertained with pay, furniture & munition can by no means keep discipline: as likewise alexander severus the emperor was wont to say. tiberius. the emperor tiberius the 2. accounted for counterfeit coin that money which was levied with the tears & cryings out of the people. and pertinax the emperor was highly extolled for his liberality, pertinax. & for that he did abolish all taxes, customs, subsidies, & other imposts, which he said were the invention of tyranny, & restored all to the former liberty. it were also a very great commodity if the matter whereof they make money, were not so mingled, money. but either were pure gold, silver, or brass. for the delaying is a most pernicious invention, as it is in like sort to have so many officers about the mint: above all things the key of the revenues ought to be put in sure handling. the last will & testament of the king saint lewis may not be here omitted, the testament of k s. lewis in which he commanded his son & successor, to preserve the good laws, to be charitable towards the poor, to take great regard, that he might have wise counsellors, and of ripe age, in no wise to sell his estates, that he should make choice of servants, prudent and peaceable, not covetous, given to speak ill or quarrelers: that he minister justice alike to all, through which kings reign: that he should not be too light of belief, nor raise taxes, or relief of his subjects without very urgent necessity, the which we may say to be able to support an infinite number of charges, and business, the better to administer justice, to preserve the public weal from all dangers, to suppress the wicked, and maintain all his country and subjects in quietness, and to be able to pay what is dew to strangers and his own subjects: which cannot be brought to pass without great means and expenses. julian the emperor pardoneth the alexandrians it is written of julian the emperor that he pardoned the people of alexandria, who had trailed their bishop through the city and killed him; because that he had given counsel to constance his predecessor, to raise certain new taxes upon them. the bull of the supper by the bull of the supper on holy thursday, the pope doth excommunicate all such as levy new subsides, or exact what is not their dew. i will not in like sort pass over with a dry pen, the remembrances which basil the emperor of constantinople left unto leo his son, the instructions basil gave to his son leo emperor that he should be a virtuous emperor, not becoming slave to his own affections, that he should remember what sins himself committed against god, to the end he might pardon such as were committed against his person: that he should be more careful to adorn his words with good manners, than his manners with words: that he should give himself to learning which beutifieth the spirit, showing himself worthy to be the image, and lieutenant of the king of heaven. for subjects rule their manners according to the pattern of their prince. that he should get nothing unjustly for fear of losing all, that he should be courteous, gracious and grave; that he should banish from his court all lewd counsellors, such as charge the people with new inventions, that his life should serve for an unwritten law, that he be such towards his own subjects as he would require of god to be towards him, that he manifest not himself either to sorrowful or to joyful, that by no means he sell his offices: for he that selleth them maketh sale of his own subjects. agesilaus contrary to many tyrants. me thinketh we ought in no wise to forget the commendation which xenophon gave to king agesilaus, comparing him as contrary to many tyrants, that he ever measured his expenses with his revenue, fearing least for the furnishing thereof, he should do aught that were unjust: greatly delighting to see his subjects rich, and that they being valiant, he commanded over valiant people: that he esteemed it a greater praise, not to be overcome with money, pleasures, and fear, then to take by assault most strong cities: that he showed himself much to the people, and courteously entreated every one that had any supplication or suit to make unto him, and as soon as he was able gave order for the dispatch of whatsoever was proposed unto him with reason. the holy ordinance of antony emperor. the ordinance of anthonye the emperor, was holy for his time, that no tribute should be exacted without the consent of the senate and the people, and also that it should not be employed to any use but by their especial authority. for there must be a geometrical proportion kept between the king and the people. and when he would wrest all unto himself, it is as the emperors trajan & adrian were wont to say, the oath the emperors take at their coronation. that when the spleen is swollen, all the rest of the members wax dry. among the oaths which the emperors make at their coronation, one is that they shall lay no tax or tribute without the consent of the estates of the empire. the which the kings of polognia, hungary, inglande, and danemarc, do in like sort. thence proceeded the ordinance made by philip de valois, procurers general. and other of our kings. and if such as are charged by virtue of their office, to see the buildings of churches to be repaired, the poor to be well used, to hinder the excessive fellings of timber, to cause the good laws to be put in execution, to hold the mercurials, to control each one, would perform their duty every thing would prosper better. conduits of cities. the law which titus livius, and plutarch writeth was practised at rome, were very profitable, to be put in ure within the city of paris, that all fountains which were drawn into particular houses, through favour, corruption or otherwise, might be clean stopped, and placed in public places, or out of the same houses, that particular persons might not be able to withdraw the water, in abusing the public benefit as they do. guards not necessary for good kings. the saying of king agis agasicles, and titus the emperor is worthy to be well considered, that a prince may easily reign without any guard or weapons, when he commandeth over his subjects, as a father over his children, using them withal meekensse, sweetness and clemency. for if a prince tend to nought else, then to maintain himself, and bring his people into slavery, there is no more any name left of city or people as saint augustine sayeth. and it is not enough that a prince knoweth what establisheth, preserveth, l. 4. c. 4 & l. 9 c. 21. 〈◊〉 civit. dei. or destroyeth seignuries, if he do not withhold or reject away clean the cause, and prevent troubles, or if they do chance to happen presently quench them, with small damage. it were beside to be desired that they had a care to the maintenance of godliness and religion, of hospitales and schools, k. philip de valois. and that they put in execution what king philip de valois said to the archbishoprics, bishops, and prelates, of his realm, whom he had caused to assemble together: that if they would correct what were worthy of amendment, he would alter nothing in the state of the church: but if they differred to do it, he would remedy it in such sort, as god thereby should be better served, the people contented, and the nobility (which so much complained thereof,) without cause given of offence. it would also breed a very great benefit, if according to the ordinance of charlemain, lewis 12. otho the first of counsels, decrees, cannons, and the advise of sundry good popes, divines, and doctors, they would institute into benefices the most learned men, and of best life, and which mought be found more agreeable to ecclesiastical functions and to the people, not depending of one alone which careth for nought but to put in his coffers the yearly revenue, which appertaineth according to the cannons, and meaning of such as were founders to other as well as to the poor, and by this reformation would justice be maintained, and a better order established through out. for if the duty of a magistrate be to see that the people live well and virtuously, arist. lib. 3 c. 6 (according to aristotle his opinion in his politics) religion is one of the greatest virtues. as in like sort moses, josua, samuel, david, solomon, aza, josophat, joab, ezechias, josias, and other, greatly travailed to refine the service of god. and saint ambrose writeth that theodosius when he died, theodosius. had a greater care of the church, then of his sickness. and socrates in the poem of the fift book of the ecclesiastical history, showeth the great care that the emperors ever since they became christians took, touching ecclesiastical affairs. and the divines are of opinion that the name of melchisedech king of salem, showeth what kings ought to be, to wit, kings of justice and peace. and the word abimilech signifieth my father the king. melchisedec. abimilec. sundry have likewise wished, for the quiet of the commonwealth, that princes would oft set before their eyes the causes, by means whereof an estate is turned topsy-turvy, and changed, according to the rules in the holy scripture, and histories, through vice, hatred which god carrieth to impiety, idolatry, unjustice, the causes of the alteration of states. tyranny, sorcery and whoredom. and often times the envy of such as govern, their ambition, desire of revenge, choler, rashness, obstinacy, despite, covetousness, trust in their own strength, accompanied with haughtiness, foolish imitation and curiosity, corrupteth their counsels, and provoketh them to stir up out of season, what they should let lie in quiet. and we in our own time have seen, what troubles have ensued hereon. for which a good prince ought to provide: and if he chance to forget himself, he ought to be brought back again, the condition of princes uncertain through the gnawings and bitings of the sharp teeth, and smarting pricks of his conscience. and he ought well to weigh the threatenings contained and set forth in the holy scripture, and that which seneca writeth, that there is no tempest upon the sea so sudden, nor wave that followeth one an other sooner, than the condition of princes is variable, for that they are subject to dreadful faults and changes. psal. 107.40 and the psalmist saith, job. 12.18. that the lord poureth contempt upon princes, and causeth them to err in desearte places out of the way. the which job setteth forth more at large. and the alterations which we see happen in our age in so many countries, might serve for a notable table to behold the judgements of god, clean abolishing whole empires for cause of our sins. deut. 18 11 and god declared that he cast the people out of the land of palestina, for the sorceries which they used. and threatened that he would not only root out sorcerers, levit. 20.6. but those likewise that suffereth them to live. and in jeremy he saith: jer. 15.4. that he will scatter them in all kingdoms of the earth, because of manasses for that which he did in jerusalem. which ought to move all princes to detest them, and cause them to be punished according to the law of god. sundry histories do witness that upon the image of sennacharib in egypt was written, learn by me to fear god. chap. xxi. that princes ought to have about them good counsellors, which may not spare to tell them the truth, and that their life ought to serve as a rule and instruction, to their subjects not to grant to any unjust thing, of excessive gifts, an advertisement to such as are in favour, of warnings, and that in all actions of importance one ought to take council, without trusting to his own sufficiency. malice and vice, taking their full swing, tyrannical licence through the carrier, of the power, & liberty, which wicked princes yield unto them, do push forward every violent passion, making every little choler occasioned upon some false report, to turn anon either to murder or banishment: & every regard, and love, to a rape or adultery: and covetousness to confiscation. the sight of what is precious, causeth a mischievous desire of making war, & is the occasion that a million of sword are naked, flatterers of court micheas 2.3. which peace would keep within the scabbard. the importunity of a flatterer driveth away a good counsellor, a light belief or suspicion, causeth the innocent often times to lose his life, as the prophet mycheas describeth. through inequality, injustice, or ambition, an entry is made to seditions & troubles. and a wicked counsel causeth the ruin of a whole estate, & the order of justice, & affairs is clean turned upside down, and as isocrates writeth, the amities of tyrants, through a false report, are often turned into most deadly enmities. they proceed rather with a headiness, than counsel, without resisting their appetites, they are insolent and impatient, imagining that with a look they are able to remedy all hindrances, and to surmount the nature of things, not taking counsel of wisdom and reason, but of their own will, their words ever differing from their works, and preferring profit before saith. caligula the emperor, caligula his wish. wished that all the people of rome had but one head, that he might cut it off at a blow. and one day having two senators at dinner with him, that asked him what made him to laugh, it is answered he, because in the twinkling of an eye, i am able to hang you both. the which other emperors both have said, and put as much in execution. and as saluste writeth, tyrants rather suspect the good than the wicked, and stand in fear of such as are virtuous, and are many. as horace (after other historiographers) reciteth of one dionysius a tyrant, horat. ode. 2. lib. 3. dyonisius. damocles. that he caused a friend of his to sit, in a place abounding with all kind of delicacies and delights, but over his head he had a naked sword hanging by a thread, thereby to show him the estate in which all tyrants stood. the emperor alexander severus did as it were the like, severus. ouinius. to a delicate senator named ouinius. and in truth, if justice, reason, laws, and the fear of god, did not contain, and keep within bounds such power and might, and that they were not accustomed to demand account of themselves, condemnations would go before profess, and all justice, policy, varus. and order should lie under feet. varus the emperor was wont to say after marius in saluste, & divers other of old time, that it was a most hard matter for one in great power and authority to temper himself, or not to be corrupted, and to put a bridle to his desires. 1. sam. 8.11. herodotus showeth how easily royal government is degenerated into tyranny, (whereof samuel advertised the people of ggd so plainly) by the example of deioces, deioces. who being greatly renowned and loved of every one, for his virtue and justice, was chosen as bayleife among the medes, and in the end crowned their king: and to the end he should have greater authority, and be the better able to maintain justice, and to oppose himself to any harm, they gave him a guard, and a very strong place of defence. but he seeing himself so assuredly established, changed his manners clean according to the fashion of tyrants, and thought of nothing else but how he mought be revenged, and contemned and oppressed every one, theodosius. for his own greatness and pleasure. and not without cause theodosius the emperor exhorteth his children arcadius, and honorius, to put a bridle to such licentiousness, as never regarded what was just, and to moderate their first motions and choler, without trusting too much to fortune, which is like unto a glass, the more it is shining, the more is it brickle. wherefore plato, fortune like a glass— xenephon, aristotle and plutarch, counseled all good princes to provide about them men learned, well advised, modest, and of good understanding to confer with, and to understand of them what their duty is. isocrates wrote unto nicocles that he should procure friends, isocrates. not such as should be ever ready to show him pastime, but such as should assist him in well governing of his kingdom, and that ever would tell him the truth. and he addeth that it is a greater felicity to obey a good king then to reign, theopompus made answer unto him, theopompus. that demanded how a king with safety might govern his kingdom, in giving liberty unto his friends frankly to speak the truth, and in taking heed that he oppress not his subjects. plutark showeth that philosophers ought especially to converse with princes, alleging the answer of solon, solon. to him which said that one ought not to approach near princes except he purpose to do all things to please them; but contrariwise saith he you ought not to be about them, except you ever tell them the truth. as he did in visiting k. croesus. and plato in sicily to dionysius & dion. philostratus reciteth in the life of apollonius that when titus returning from judea was invested in the empire, titus. apollonius. he required the said apollonius, to give him certain politic instructions, the better to be able to govern his empire: to whom he answered that he would give him a certain disciple of his, that should teach him the manner a good prince ought to use. and being demanded what qualities he had, he is (saith he) a man frank of speech, that will not hold his peace for fear of any when it should be time to speak, cinike. and you shall find in him such a courage and virtue, as diogenes the cinike had, that is to say a dog lover of mankind: and this dog shall be capable of reason, that for your sake will bark against any other, and against you to, if you do aught worthy of blame ever for all that using prudence and discretion, and having regard to the time and season when he ought to perform his duty. then titus prayed him he would with speed bestow that dog upon him, that was so compagnable and loyal, to whom he would give leave not only to bark when he should do aught worthy of reprehension, but also to bite him, if he saw him do any thing unworthy his authority. he likewise never used such violence, cruelty, or tyranny as did his brother domitian. for in truth when the people of rome and other nations, people yielding their right. yielded the sovereign power and right which they had unto monarchs, they never meant to put their liberty into their hands that would rather use violence and passion than reason and equity, but to yield themselves to the tuition of such a one, as would govern according to laws, reason, and justice. and it is not possible that this first ordinance could be made without the consent of the subjects, for otherwise it could not be grounded upon a lawful empire or kingdom, but upon an unlawful and tyrannical usurpation, and it is necessary that such a consent should retain the nature of a contract in good faith, and a bond counterchangable. as we see it in like sort practised at this day, in the greatest part of kingdoms and empires that are in christendom, that it is the only foundation which maintaineth them, & as plutarch writeth the posts & pillars which uphold an estate. the oath princes take at their coronation. the cause of the creation of kings. neither are princes able without necessity to dispense with the oath they take at their coronation and with the obligation which they own to god, and their subjects. and according as aristotle, herodotus, tacitus, demosthenes, and cicero have written, the first soverainitie proceeded from the good will and well liking of such, as for their commodity quiet, and surety, submitted themselves to such as excelled in heroical prows, the better to be able to maintain their civil society through laws. and that he, in whom was not found, the cause of this original and image of safety, justice, clemency, and divine bounty, was a person unworthy of such honour, causing an infection to the body of the whole public weal. and most notable is the saying of king cyrus, that it appertained to none to command, but such as excelled their subjects in bounty & goods of the mind. the great king of sparta agesilaus, agesilaus. answered those that so highly commended the magnificence & greatness of the k. of persia, wherefore is he greater than i, except he be more just than i? for a king ought to cause himself to be loved and admired of his subjects, through the virtuous examples of his good life. and plutarch in the life of pyrrhus writeth that the kings took an oath that they should govern according to their laws, and that in so doing the people would obey them. kings given of god. dan. 2.21. pro. 8.16. now we must needs confess that they are given of god, who (as daniel witnesseth) establisheth, and putteth down kings. and jeremiah writeth that he will bestow kingdoms on whom it him best liketh. and god saith in the proverbs, through me kings reign, job. 13.18. 2. chron. 9.8. and princes judge the earth; and if they do not he threateneth them in job, that he will lose their celer, and guirde their loins with a girdle. and the queen of saba said to solomon, that god had set him in his throne as king, instead of the lord god, to execute judgement and justice. the which more plainly solomon speaketh in his book of wisdom, 1. sam. 9.2. sa. 6 & 21. 1. chron. 19 2. kings 19.11.20.35. polit. lib. 5. ch. 21. & 3 ch. 7. lord thou hast chosen me to rule over thy people and to judge thy sons & daughters. and the people is called the heritage of the lord, and the king the governor of this heritage, the guide & light of god's people. and aristotle in the fift book of his politics showeth, that kings often times took certain officers to contain them in their duty, as did the ephors about the kings of sparta. the which caesar declareth was greatly observed among the gaulois, yielding an example of ambiorix and vercingentorix. the oath the greatest part that the christian kings took was, the oath of christian princes. i will minister law, justice, & protection aright to every one. and zonarus wrote after xenephon, that the kings of persia showed themselves more subject to laws, than lords, zonar. lib. 3. cap. 11. & had more fear & shame to break the laws, than the people had to be punished what they had offended. and god instructing joshua what he should do, joshua 1.8. above all things commanded him, that the book of the law should not departed out of his mouth, but that he should meditate therein day & night, that he might observe and do according to all that is written therein. for than should he make his way prosperous and have good success. then it followeth in the text that the people promised to obey him in all. as xenophon writing of the commonwealth of the lacedæmonians saith that monthly the kings did swear to guide themselves according to the laws, kings of lacedaemon. and the ephors took oath in the people's behalf, that upon that condition they would maintain them. rom. 13.1. and s. paul saith that every power is of god, whose servants they are for the benefit of their subjects, deuter. 17. consequently they are bound to follow his will & rule given by moses. and the means which are of succession or election, depend of the divine providence which causeth them to prosper. 2. sam. 6. david humbled himself, to what was his duty & office, making alliance with the deputies of the people, and describeth the duty of a good king in the 72.82. & 101. psalms. and whilst he, solomon, joas, ezechias, & other lived well, they continually prospered, but falling from that fell into many miseries. pericles. pericles was commended for that as often as he put on his gown, he said unto himself, remember that thou dost command over a free nation, over athenians, and over greeks. the which christian princes have more occasion to speak and observe. agapet said of justinian, that he maystred his pleasures, justinian being adorned with the crown of temperance, and clad with the purple of justice. and ammian writeth, that a kingdom or dukedom is nought else, than the care of an others safety: and that where the law doth not govern, there ruin is at hand. as antiochus said to his son demetrius, antiochus. that their kingdom was a noble slavery. and plutarch in the life of nicias reciteth the saying of agamemnon in euripides. we live to outward show, in greatness, state, and might, yet in effect we are you know, but people's servants right. titus livius writeth, that the carthaginians punished their rulers, when they followed any evil counsel, albeit it succeeded well: the which was long time observed in the kingdom of persia. for as brutus wrote unto cicero, a man once placed in great dignity hath more to do to maintain the grace and reputation which he hath already gotten, than he which doth but begin to get. even as king philip answered arpalus, k. philip. who greatly did importunate him to reverse a suit that a kinsman of his had in the law: it were better that thy cozen, in the estate which he is in, be defamed through his own outrageousness, then that i, who am a king commanding over so great a country, should give cause to my subjects to speak evil of me, for having done so great injustice either in favour of him or thee. k. artaxerxes. as also the great king artaxerxes, gave a great sum of money to a gentleman of his chamber, in steed of a suit he besought at his hands which well he mought not grant, saying that for giving that he should not be the less rich; but if he had yielded to what he unjustly craved, he should have been less esteemed, and not have performed the duty of a good king, the life of princes a rule. which above all things ought to have in price, justice, and equity. for as pliny declared unto trajan his master. the life of a prince is a censure, that is to say, the rule, the square, the frame, and form of an honest life; according to which their subjects frame the manner of their life, and order their families: and rather from the life of princes, do subjects take their pattern and examples, isocrates. then from their laws. this was it which moved isocrates to write unto nicocles, it serveth to prove that thou hast well governed, if thou see thy subjects become more modest and rich under thy empire. for the subjects follow the example of their princes, as certain flowers turn according to the sun. and theodoric the k. of the goths wrote unto the senate of rome, in cassiodorus that the course of nature would fail, before the people would be other than their prince. claudian. and claudian was of opinion, that the edicts and laws were not so well able to amend and temper the manners and hearts of the people, hos. 4.9. xenophon. as did the good life of their governors. and in hosea it is written that there shallbe like people, like priest. xenophon in the eight of his pedion, writeth that subjects are as it were enforced to do well, when they see their princes temperate, not given to unjustice and for the most part fashion themselves according to their mould. for this cause great personages have the more need to have good counsellors about them, whose understanding, ●ib. 2. polit. ch. 12. mouths, eyes, and ears, may serve them, to make them better able to acquit themselves of their charge, as aristotle saith. and it were to be wished, plynye. q. cursius. that they were not corrupt, but well remember what pliny the younger wrote unto trajan, that a prince ought only to will that which he may. quintus cursius writeth, that a prince rather ought to employ his time, and to spend in getting and maintaining a wise counselor about him then in conquests. anthony anthony the emperor only amended his manners, by the report of those as he had sent about the city to understand what was said of him. theodoricus 2 and the emperor theodosius the second, copied out with his own hand all the new testament, and red every day one chapter, and made his prayers, a landable custom of s. lewis, and other kings. and sung psalms together with his wife and sisters. and many have commended the custom of divers of our kings, and especially saint jews, who when they rose out of their bed, kneeled down, thanking god, that he had preserved them that night, beseeching him to pardon them their sins, for his mercy's sake, and to continue them in his holy custody and favour, to the end that without offending of him, they might employ all the day to his honour, and acquit themselves of the charge which he had bestowed on them. and they caused a chapter of the bible or some other good book to be red while they appareled themselves, the better to teach them to govern. for to rule is as much to say, deuter. 17.19 as to amend what is amiss or awry. and in deuteronomy it is commanded the king to have the book of the law, job. 8.8. pro. 1.35. & 11.14. & 24 6. council. and to read therein all the days of his life, as above we have noted was enjoined to josua. and it is written in job that we should inquire of the former age and search of our fathers, because of our ignorance. and in the proverbs, where no council is, the people fall: but where many councillors are, there is health. and that health cometh from many councillors, but good council proceedeth from god. and we see by sundry histories, that such emperors as have contemned the senate, have had a very evil end. and that some of our kings, though they were but of mean capacity, yet so guided themselves through counsel, that they achieved great matters, and thucydides called them bondmen, slaves, thucydides. and of very base minds, that were led by lewd council. edward king of england, said of king charles the fifth, surnamed the wise, that he feared more the learning, k. charles the wise. and remembrances of that wise king, than he did the puissant armies of his predecessor. and k. lewis the eleventh, said it was as much as to fish with a hook of gold, to send an army beyond the mountains, k. lewis 11. where the loss is assuredly greater than can be the profit. agamemnon said in homer, princes, who ever had especial care to retain about their persons such as were the wisest to counsel them the better in the managings of the affairs of their kingdoms. that he had rather choose two like unto his old counsellor nestor, then so many achilles or ajax. darius' king of the persians and medes, made great account of daniel. pericles had about him anaxagoras, cato, anthenodorus, scipio, having in charge, and being appointed to go look and sound out, what justice reigned through the world, presently sent to fetch panetius, and oftentimes served his turn through the council of lelius. julius caesar took advise of aristo: augustus, of maecenas: pompey, of cratippus. nero, all the five first years of his empire, wisely conducted himself through the counsel of seneca. marcus antonius had apollodorus: demetrius, crates, of whom he was wont to say, that he conned small thanks to his business, and affairs, which so much hindered him from sooner having attained to knowledge. pyrrhus said likewise of cineas his councillor, that he more esteemed his eloquence, than the valour of all his captains. alexander the great, had in high estimation anaxarques and aristotle: to whom he confessed, that he owed no less unto them then to his own father, having of the one received life, but of the other to be able to live well, and that the best munition, weapons, and maintenance of war that he had were the discourses he had learned of philosophy, and the precepts touching the assurance of fearing nought, and the diligence, in differing nothing that was to be done. cyrus' used the counsel of xenophon, croesus' king of lydia sought by great presents to recover anacharsis, and that little which he learned of solon, saved his life. and dionysius the tyrant of syracuse had aristippus and plato: ptolomeus stilpo and aristophanes: antigonus, bias, attalus & lycon: marcus aurelius apollonius. mithridates, so far adored the said plato, that he caused his image to be erected to do him the greater honour. and antiochus marvelously mourned for the death of zeno, plato's image erected. because he said he spoke his mind unto him more frankly than did either bias or demetrius. epaminundas was instructed by lysias: theodosius counseled by s. ambrose. agesilaus by xenophon. theodosius the emperor was greatly assisted by the council of saint ambrose, and learned of him to be ready to hear what any one had to declare unto him, and to repeat over all the letters of the alphabet, before he should command any thing, when he found himself moved with choler, which before that time augustus was warned of, who one day being in his throne ready to condemn certain persons, the said maecenas not being able to come near him for the press, cast unto him a little scroll wherein was contained these words: arise hangman, which caused him to arise and go away, without further execution of his passion. the said theodosius likewise, l. digna vo. ●. a wise prince rendereth himself subject to laws. zaleveus. and valentinian wrote in a certain law that it was a speech worthy of a prince, and a royal majesty, to say he was a subject, and submit himself to the laws: because the authority of a prince dependeth on the preservation of justice. the which valerius reciteth of zaleveus the governor of locres, who caused one of his own eyes, and another of his sons, who was found in adultery, to be put out, for that the people so much besought him, that he would not put out both his sons eyes, according to the law. charondas. manlius the like diodorus witnesseth to have been done by charondas and titus livius by manlius, who caused his own son to be beheaded, the better to maintain the discipline of war. we read likewise, that antigonus made answer to one of his councillors, k. antigonus who said it was lawful for kings to do what best listed themselves: nay, that which you say i think be very true among kings of barbarous nations, nourished in ignorance, and void of learning, and which know not the difference between honour and dishonour, between equity and inequity: nothing lawful that is not honest. but to us who have an understanding both political and moral, through the instinct of learning, capable of wisdom and justice, having ever been thereto brought up and instructed, there is nothing honest and lawful that is not so in his own nature. the which in like sort trajan learned of pliny, plato. tacitus lib. 3. and to guide himself in such manner as though he should be ever ready to render an account of all his actions. the which plato setteth down in the fourth of his laws. tacitus discoursing of the original of the civil law sayeth, that servius the third king of romans established many laws, to which the kings were subject, diod. lib. 2. c, 2. and diodorus reciteth of the kings of egypt, that without any dispensation they executed and followed the ordinances of the laws. for as cicero said in his oration for cluens, the heart, understanding, good laws are the souls of common wealths. and counsel in a public weal, are within the good laws, and ordinances: and a political estate is not able to use his own parts without laws, no more than the body of man can exercise his due operations, without reason and understanding, nor the hogshead keep his liquor, if you take away the hoops. trajan. faithful and true friends most profitable. the said emperor trajan highly esteemed those friends & councillors, whom he found true, faithful and loyal. and when he was desired to tell how he made so good choice. marry quoth he, because it was ever my good fortune, to choose those that were neither covetous nor liars: because that they in whom covetousness and lying have once taken deep root, can never perfectly love. prince's ought in like sort to consider the malignity & lack of wisdom in such as they put in trust under them, who either through negligence not attending their business, naughty & foolish ministers to princes very pernicious. or for lack of capacity do not discern of themselves the good counsel from the wicked. and it were necessary that they should not be permitted to receive any pension or benefit from any other prince or lord. one of the hebrews which translated the bible, answered ptolemy, that he might assuredly trust him, who was not withdrawn from his amity, neither by fear, gifts or any other gain. celius writeth that the emperor charles the fift, when he was at naples, sent for one nyphus a very great philosopher, and demanded of him the way to govern well an empire. to which he answered, if you will keep near your person, such councillors and men of virtue, as you o emperor make show to think i am. for this cause isocrates and tacitus have written, that there is no instrument so good for an empire, xenophon. nor so profitable, as the virtuous, and well advised friends of a prince. xenophon in his pedion bringeth in cyrus, saying to cambyses, that friends are the very sceptre and bulwark of kingdoms. it were to be desired that every one were as well advised, as was that virtuous king charles the eight, who oftentimes of would tell his favourites, minion's of court. a good admonition of charles 8. that he had chosen them for the opinion he had that they were of the most virtuous, and of whom he mought assuredly trust, fearing but one fault in them, that they would suffer themselves to be spotted with covetousness, having easy means to be drawn and tempted thereto, in respect of the great credit they had about him. but if he mought once perceive that for their profit, they would cause aught to be commanded that were unjust and unhonest, they should lose his favour for ever. that they mought have just occasion to content themselves with the goods of this world, since god had made him rich enough for them all, he prayed them to make profession of honour, the only means that brought them and could preserve them in his good favour, whereof he did admonish them, to the end to take heed, that neither he nor they might fall into any mischief, which he willingly would eschew. and as marcellinus wrote, speaking of the unsatiable covetousness of the officers, of the emperors constance and julian, that they were the nursery of all the vices that infected the common wealth in their time. and from this desire of riches, means to meet with the avarice of the courtiers. proceedeth the riotousness & superfluity of expenses in all estates, the which cicero in like sort lamented in his time, & certainly we may well bewail the same at this present. and to meet herewith, it were very good to put that in practise which hath been used after the decease of some of our kings, basil emperor of constantinople. to resume from such as have received too excessively. the which likewise basile emperor of constantinople, ordained by edict, that they which had received money without reason, & huge gifts of the emperor michael his predecessor should render them back again. and so by the ordinances of the kings charles 6, & 9 philip 6. john 2. charles 5.6. & 8. the ordinances of the kings of france. such alienations were revoked. and at an assembly of the three estates held at tours, the said charles the 8, being himself present, sundry alienations made by lewis the 11. were repealed. and sundry places that he had bestowed upon tanored du chastel his chief minion, were taken away from him. the like was renewed at the last parliament holden at orleans. hence came the order & decree concluded in the treasury chamber. trop donne soit repeat. too large & excessive gifts must be called back. i will not here omit how sundry authors have written of the kings of persia, that every one had one of his chamber, ordained of purpose, to come every day very early into his chamber, the alarm of the k. of persia. & say unto him: arise mileach & provide for the affairs which the great god hath committed to thy charge, the which we read was in like sort used by philip k. of macedon. and sundry kings have been called some philadelphes, that is to say, lovers of their brethren: others euergetes, surnames of good kings, that is to say benefactors, soter, swyor, eupater good father, theophiles lovers of god, others, favourable shepherds, & fathers of the people, & by sundry other names mentioned in the former chapter proper to good princes. and yet we see in sundry ancient stamps of augustus, nerua, trajan, lewis the 12. & others, how great account they made of the names of protectors & fathers of the people. quintus cursius reciteth how alexander boasted & vaunted of himself, alexander, that in all his actions, he esteemed himself in the theatre of the whole world. the which cicero in like sort saith aught to take place in all magistrates, spartianus, suetonius. lampridius. to the end they may guide themselves the more wisely. spartianus, suetonus, & lampridius write, how tiberius, claudus, alexander severus & adrian the emperors, often went to the senate, & called to their council, not their favourits, but men learned, grave, well experienced and of a good conscience; and that there ensued less danger if the counsellors were virtuous, and the prince wicked, than if the prince were good and they of his council nought. garneades. we may nevertheless justly complain at this present, as carneades said of his time, how the children of kings and great lords, learn nothing aright but to ride well, and manage their horses, which know not how to flatter or spare the great more than the simple. the image of osiris. in egypt they pictured their god osiris, with an eye upon a sceptre, understanding by the eye, the providence and knowledge of the truth, and by the sceptre, authority and power. and many have thought the custom that is observed in france, king's kiss the book of the holy evangelists. the picture of pallas. to make our kings kiss the book of the holy evangelists, is to admonish them to honour and follow the truth. men of old time painted pallas armed, having a cock upon her helmet, as governing as well over learning as war. for many have the nobility not so accomplished as their calling required, nobility ought to be learned. except they intermingled learning with arms, knowledge, wisdom, and skill in histories, and the mathematics mixed with valour and activity. charles 5. the emperor charles the fifth, oftentimes was much grieved that he never learned latin, paulus iovius and confessed he had great hindrances thereby, as also did hannibal. and they which have not been learned, have run into the common error, and have suffered themselves to be blindfolded, to the end they mought not further search into that, which should give unto them great judgement, and ornament. and if i were not afraid i should be too tedious, i could reckon most notable, & very prejudicial faults, which sundry great captains, governors, and kings have committed, through a fond opinion they conceived of their own sufficiency, and for lack of demanding counsel of them, that were about them more advised and experienced. seigneur de lautrec. i will content myself with one example recited by some historiographers, of the late lord of lautrec viceroy for the king in the kingdom of naples, who was so self-willed in his opinions, that he had rather miss his enterprise, then be helped by the counsel of other captains. to whom the loss of the said kingdom, and of all italy was attributed. pope alexander the sixth, pope alexander 6. xerxes. was greatly blamed by guichardin for the same fault, who writeth that he never consulted but commanded. xerxes' king of persia having determined to invade greece, said unto his counsel, i have assembled you together, to the end it may not be thought that i have undertaken this enterprise on my own brain: but i will that, without either further deliberating or dissuading you obey. he went away likewise faster than he entered in, and received there a very great dishonour, and irrecoverable loss. there be but too many examples of our time, whosoever would coat them, that are able to teach great personages to distrust of their own senses, wits, advise, & sufficiency, and to undertake nothing without good deliberation, lest they repent themselves long after, as it often happeneth. and in titus livius, he which only followeth his own opinion, decad. 5. is rather judged presumptuous, then wise, for a man is not able continually of himself, to consider, and know all things, or among many contrary reasons to discern the best. prudence required to discern opinions. in which wisdom is required, that a man be not deceived through an unfaithful counsellor, who tendeth nought else then his own particular interest. and the counsel of the wise carrieth greater commodity then of the imprudent. for this cause princes ought to take in good part, when they shallbe advised by their chancelers and sovereign courts according to their duties, prince's ought to take in good part what their counsellors say unto them. for the preservation of their honour, and benefit of their affairs: and not to think that they pretend to make doubt of their power, but to esteem their good will, when they see they judge but according to justice, equity and benefit of the common wealth, opposing themselves to the importunities, false suggestions and disguisings of the courtiers. in which the said princes do repose themselves, and rely upon the conscience, fidelity, allegiance, and oath of their officers, according as the lawyers and emperors have left behind them written in the civil law, and our kings in their ordinances, especially philip le bel, charles 7. and lewis the twelfth, and by the law inviolably kept in egypt, as plutarque sayeth, and i else where have recited. and if princes take in better part the counsel of their physician, to shun and hate intemperance, and meats offensive to the stomach, then of a flatterer who shorteneth their days: so ought they to esteem of their officers, which have the laws in estimation, and just government, which leadeth to a happy end, without listening unto such as desire an unbridled power, which turneth upside down all laws, policy, justice, order and states. for this cause our kings have likewise ordained, that no regard should be had to their letters, if they were not sealed with the great seal; to the end that if aught had inconsiderately escaped their mouth, or that their letters had been rashly signed and passed the signet, by reason of their great business and affairs, or for not having been fully informed how matters stood, it mought the more easily be moderated and remedied. they willed likewise all their letters to be examined by the sovereign courts and ordinary judges of their realm. eccle. 37.15 ecclesiasticus also admonisheth us to pray unto the most high, that he will direct our way in truth, and that reason go before every enterprise, and council before every action. hence proceedeth the ordinary clauses, had by the counsel, advise, and ripe deliberation of our council. there are likewise some that have well understood the saying of the wiseman: where there is no vision, pro. 29.18. the people decay to be meant of a good government, ruled by good council. and the foundations of good counsels and actions, aught to be laid upon piety, justice, and honesty, and to be executed with diligence, and prudence, otherwise, they are altogether unprofitable. these two discourses concern in especial the greatness, of the comfort of the subjects ensueth amity. safety, & profit of princes: because that of the comfort of their subjects ensueth amity, and of this amity, proceedeth a ready will to expose their persons and goods for the affairs of their sovereign. chap. xxii. that one ought not to judge too readily of another. backbiters not to be listened unto. simonides. it was not said without cause in the old time, that he which believed a backbiter, committed no less offence, than he did. and simonides complained of a friend of his, that had spoken ill of him, of his ears, and lightness of belief, which ought not to have place in any before they be thoroughly informed of the truth. for by how much by speech a man approacheth nearer to the seat of understanding & reason which is in the brain, by so much doth it the more hurt & mar him which believeth, if a man take not very diligent heed, and the hearer partaketh half with the speaker. it is also very strange, to see what care we have to keep the gates of our houses shut, and yet how we leave our ears open to railers: and even as homer homer. praised them which stopped their ears sailing on the sea near unto the sirens, syrenes. for fear of being healed, enticed by their melody & singing, and so fall into the dangers that ensued thereon, so should not we give audience to tale carriers, and detractors of men's good name, and if they chance to prate in our presence, we should examine the whole, and take things in the best part without giving too light credence thereto. thucydides. thucydides the historiographer, in his preface greatly blamed such, as would report of credit sundry things of old time, founding their belief upon an uncertain brute, without taking pains to inquire further. the which caesar in like sort writeth of the gaulois, comment. li. 7 aristotle. which caused a lie often times to be put in stead of the truth, and aristotle having given this precept to alexander to be found true, addeth that he should not believe too lightly. and it was ever esteemed an act of a wise man, to retain his judgement without discovering it especially in matters uncertain, and to consider all the circumstances and consequence thereof. and we ought to be as it were guardians of the renown and good of our neighbour, fearing lest being men we should fall into that evil, which is reported of an other. and we ought to put in ure the counsel of ecclesiasticus. blame no man before thou have inquired the matter, eccles. 11.7. understand first and then reform: give no sentence before thou hast heard the cause. the which principally we ought to practise in the wonderful and unsearchable works of god, and rather to think ourselves short in our own understanding, then to suspect that god failed in his providence, and in the government of the universal world, and by no means to control the work whereof we have no skill at all. chap. 23. of reprehensions, and force of the truth, with a description of detraction. many have said, that it is a great corsie to a man of courage, liberty of speech. to be barred liberty of free speech. and the emperors augustus and tiberius, and pope pius the second have said that in a city that is not bond tongues ought to be free. s. ambrose. and s. ambrose writeth to theodosius the emperor, that nothing better beseemed a prince, then to love liberty of speech, nor nothing worst for a priest, than not to dare to speak what he feeleth. and as socrates writeth free speech, and discourse is the principal remedy of the afflicted and grieved mind. pyndarus. and pyndarus made answer to a king of sparta, that there was nothing more easy for a man to do, then to reprehend an other, nor harder then to suffer himself to be reprehended. the custom of the lacedæmonians was very commendable, to punish him that saw one offend without reprehending him for it, and him likewise that was angry when he was told of his fault. for a man is bound to them that tell him of his faults, and admonish him of the right way that he should hold. and a man ought not to suffer his friend to undo himself though he would as photion saith. solomon describeth in his proverbs the profit that it yieldeth, pro. 10.17 & 12.1 & 13.1 & 15.5. & 31 and how necessary a thing it is to the amendment of ones life: and one ought not tarry till the fault be committed, but to prevent it by admonition. the which caused certain of our kings of france, and some other common wealths have endured the same, that in public plays men should reprehend such notable faults as were committed. the custom of alexandria and in alexandria certain were appointed, to go some time in a coach through out the city blaming such persons as they saw do any fault, to the end they might be more afraid to do ill, and that shame might be of more force than the law. and if at any time any mislike to have the truth told them as comicus hath written it proceedeth of the corruption of men, of their haughtiness and ignorance. as ptolomeus put aristomenes his tutor in prison, truth engendereth hatred because that in the presence of an ambassador, he waked him out of his sleep, that he mought be more attentive to what was said unto him. pope boniface the seventh, being returned home again to rome, from whence he was driven away for his dissoluteness, caused the eyes of cardinal john, who had told him of his faults to be put out. fulgosus writeth of pope innocent, that, having been reprehended by some of the citizens of rome, because he provided not sufficiently against schisms, he sent them back to his nephew for answer: which was that he made them all be cast out of windows, albeit the said innocent before he came to that dignity, often times used towards his predecessors, vrbain and bennet, l●ke reprehension. in the time of honorius the second they put arnulphe to death because he so liberally rebuked vice. sundry emperors have done the like. we have sundry examples in the scriptures, 1. king. 16. of baasha for killing the prophet jehu because he told him the truth. likewise of achab, asa, joas, and ozias, 1. king. 22.2. paral. 18.16.24, & 26. of sedichias, of joachim, and of the princes of juda. jerem. 23.32. & 38. but as the wise man saith in the proverbs, in the end, he shall be conned more thank, which rebuketh, than he that deceiveth by flattery. notwithstanding every man according as his vocation, the times, the persons, and places, observation in reprehension. will permit him, aught to declare the truth to such as he seethe need, with an intention to profit & instruct them, without any choler, disdain immodesty or other passion, mingling with the bitterness of reprehension, the sweetness of some praises. a man ought likewise to consider, that the eagerness and sharpness of biting words, especially spoken to one that is in adversity, profiteth nothing, being a kind of incontinency, of a tongue mingled with malignity and a will to injury, carrying a very declaration of enmity, which is the cause that they which use it hurt themselves. as did antiphon about dyonisius the tyrant, where a dispute being held between them what brass was best, he answered that, whereof the athenians made the statuas of armodius and aristogiton: for this sour answer caused him to be put to death. and as plutarque said in the life of photion even as the honey which is sweet of his own nature, engendereth grief, and pain being applied to parts infected, so do true admonitions the more provoke such as are in misery, if they be not well sweetened and mingled with pity, and consolation. clitus an ancient captain of alexander's, may serve for an example, who was slain for using too arrogant an admonition. reprehensions ill beseeming at the board. in like sort one ought not at the board to use such reprehensions as make men knit the brows, forgetting the occasion and place of pleasure: and there is required a dexterity as it is written of socrates, who being desired at a feast to speak, socrates and discourse of his art, it is not now time said he to discourse of what i know, and in that for which the time now serveth, damaratus i am no whit skilful in. and when damaratus was arrived in macedonia, during the time that king philip was fallen out with his wife and son, the king having saluted and embraced him, demanded of him if the greeks agreed well one with an other: demaratus who was very familiar with him answered, k. philip. it becometh you very well (o king) to inquire of the concord of the athenians and peloponesians, & in the mean time suffer your own house to be so full of discord and division. a captive which the said philip caused to be sold to him that would give most, bade him in his ear, to let down the fore part of his rob, because he showed what was not comely to be discovered: the which was the cause of his delivery. an other being taken for a spy said unto him, that he came to espy his folly, in that without necessity he put both his realm, and life in hazard. some have compared reprehensions, to the remedies of the spleen, which ought to be sooner and sharp: so truth told in fit opportunity is profitable, the force of truth. and is of such force, as eschines said that she surpassed all the cogitations of man. and menander wrote, that she cometh into light although she be not sought for, and defendeth herself easily against all the deceits, craftiness, and wiliness of men. 1. esd. 4.38 and in the disputation that was held before darius, truth was found the greatest and most strong for ever: s. augustin in the city of god, augustinus de civit dei, l. 2. c. 19 lib. 2. c. 19, calleth her an eternal victory, and in the question, 108, ex utr. he saith that it is better to be overcome of the truth, then to be willing to surmount her in vain. to which purpose may very well serve, the summary description of the table which apelles painted, apelles' table after he was escaped out of a false accusation, and an extreme danger. he had pictured a judge, with the ears of an ass, having on the one side two ladies, ignorance and suspicion: before him stood false accusation with a countenance full of rage, and fury, holding in the left hand a burning torch, and with the right pulled a young man by the hear, lifting up his eyes and hands to heaven, near unto whom was a man painted looking pale, earthly, and a squint, which was envy: two damsels followed false accusation named treason, and deceat, behind whom stood a lady all wailing and mourning which was repentance, which fastened her eye sight upon a very fair lady entitled truth, declaring by this picture to all princes and judges, that they ought not too lightly to believe. as alexander closing one of his ears to an accuser, said he kept the other for him which was accused. and it was commanded moses, straightly to forbid the children of israel, lying, false accusation, and malicious detraction, plato. and cause them to keep justice, equality, and truth. i will not hear omit, the advertisement given by wise plato, commended so much by plutarque, that when one found any committing any fault, he ought to descend into himself, and say privately unto himself. am not i such a one? to the end we may avoid the like errors. when in like sort we would justify ourselves for any reprehension we mought pray him that did it, to reserve that freedom of speech, against he committed a fault himself. and it was not said amiss of them of old time, that the beginning to live well, and repulse ignorance, was to be reprehended, mocked, and blamed. saint basyl for this cause named reprehension, the healing of the soul: and in the proverbs 25. pro. 25.12. & 29.1. it is called an ornament of fine gold. and in the 29. it is written, a man that hardeneth his neck when he is rebuked, shall suddenly be destroyed, psal. & can not be cured. and david psal. 41. said that it was like the precious balm. we read even of the emperors, philip, theodosius, and valentinian, that they did great penitence after they were admonished, as also did david and other kings being reprehended by the prophets. augustine. speusippus. and saint augustine in his book of recantations acknowledged how he had erred. but as plato said, that speusippus corrected other by the example of his own life, so men ought to esteem those reprehensions that are made, without a word speaking, through a single life, irreprehensible, and virtuous. chap. 24. that anger hindereth the truth, of the evils which it brings with it, and of the means to resist it. physicians esteem the sickness very dangerous, when the face is disfigured. choler darkeneth judgement and perverteth reason the which we may say of choler, which altereth the countenance, speech, and all the senses of man. it hath been termed a fury darkening judgement. and as in the dark a man is not able to discern his kinsman or friend from his enemy, so amidst the smoke, and mists of choler, truth can not be discerned from falsehood. alexander. alexander overtaken with choler, caused parmenio, chalistenes, philotas and other to be put to death, and with his own hand slew clitus one of his chiefest favourites. and after that his choler was appeased would have killed himself. for this cause anthenodorus, augustus' concelled by anthenodorus and theodosius by s. ambrose. counseled the emperor augustus, the which saint ambrose did since to theodosius, that when they felt themselves enter into choler, they should take heed of speaking or doing any thing, until they had repeated the twenty four letters of the alphabet. the which gave the occasion of making that holy law, si vindicari: and of the chapter cum apud, to temper and slack the heady commandements of princes. and the said augustus, for having injured a gentleman, whose daughter he had brought to his pleasure, and was cast in the teeth with what he had done, and saw that himself had broken the law julia, eph. 4 26. which condemneth the adulterers, he was so mad with himself that for a time he abstained from eating saint paul counseleth us that the son go not down upon our wrath. the manner of the pythagoriens. the manner of the pythagoriens was much commended, that when they had once uttered their choler, they would take one an other by the hand, and embrace one an other before it was evening. and plato being demanded how he knew a wise man, plato. answered, when being rebuked he would not be angry, seneca. and being praised he would not be too proud. seneca writeth, that such as taught to play, at fence, and to exercise the body, commanded their scholars in no wise to be choleric, because that clean marred the art: and he which is not able to bear a little injury, a remedy against choler. shall in the end have one mischief, heaped on an other. and against this it is thought an excellent remedy not to be delicate, nor too light of belief, nor to think, one may contemn & injury one as he listeth, nor to have a will thereto, and to use delays and protraction of tyme. the faggots of the licturs as plutarque writeth, that the carrying of bundles of sticks bound together, upon poleaxes, was to show that the wrath of a magistrate, ought not to be prompt and lose, for that while leasurelye, those bundles so bound together were loosed, it brought some delay & space to choler, which buyeth her pleasure with peril of life, as sundry poets have written. and there is nothing that men dare not adventure and commit, when they are inflamed with anger, except they retain themselves under the obedience of reason: socrates. for as socrates said, it is less danger to drink intemperately of puddle or troubled water, then to glut one's appetite with revenge, when man's discourse and reason is occupied with fury, and besides himself, before that he be settled and purified. and archytas said to one that had offended him, i would punish you for this gear if i were not in choler. architas. and to bridle such choler it is not every man's skill, except he have been used to it of a long time: considering that nothing can be comely nor honest, if it be spoken sharply, and in choler. the pythagoriens in like sort by the allegorical commandment, that they should not leave the bottom of the pot or caudern, imprinted in the ashes, would teach according to plutarques opinion, that no mark or apparent show of choler should remain, the which as s. chrysostom saith, is a fire, a hangman, a most difformed drunkenness, and a mad dog that knoweth noman. therefore it was that they of old time, by the difformed monster of chimera, which spit fire, described choler, and as they which are possessed with unclean spirits some at the mouth and swell, so the spirit, and speech of choleric persons foameth, and often times dangerous discourses scape them. which was the cause that alexander, menander, seneca, & others have written, how choler proceedeth of baseness of mind, as also we see it more incident to women then to men, & to the sick more than to the whole. and the fault is so measured, as he to whom the offence is committed is persuaded. but by how much more the fault is greater, so much is his humanity the more to be commended, when he pardoneth without being moved, & the offender by so much the more bound, in that he seethe his submission accepted for revenge & satisfaction. the destruction of 15. thousand souls, was attributed to the choler of theodosius, which afterward he greatly repented himself of. it was likewise the death of aurelian, and of the cruelty of the emperor valentinian, as macellinus wrote: the which so reigned in him, many mischiefs have ensued choler. the death of valentinian. that if one had spoken but one word that had misliked him, he would change his colour & voice & he committed much unjustice, in hindering true judgement, in the end it was the cause of his death, and his entrails were so terribly burned, that there was not found so much as a drop of blood. others were of opinion that he broke a vain in crying. yet sallust thinketh, that that which in private persons is termed choler, in great ones is called fury & cruelty. plutarque likewise attributed the ruin of sertorius, to that he was so choleric, sertorius. which made him so unaccompanable, & unmeet to live among the society of men. as also did valerius, the death of caesar, caesar. & sueton greatly blamed for the same tiberius & nero. in like sort, to those, which had arms so insolently of themselves, that they would command the very laws to cease, the administration of justice was ever denied. and for the maintenance of both, justice was reserved to the judges, and to such as force was committed, it was straightly commanded them to obey justice, and that she aid force with good counsel of which if it be once destitute, greater harm ensueth then good. and among all estates, it is required, that they assemble a counsel, to advise what may be profitable. but as the goodness of ships is best perceived in a storm, so doth a good understanding most discover itself, when having just cause to be angry, the mind is for all that quiet and the judgement settled. and it is the property of a magnanimous heart to despise injuries, how a good understanding is discovered. which we read was ever done by great personages. and david made no account of the words of semey, nor the kings antigonus, philip, and pericles, of those whom they heard revile them. solomon saith in his proverbs, that a man inclined to wrath, shall quickly be destroyed. and compareth a choleric man, to a city overthrown: and solon maketh him like to one that neither cared how he lost friends, nor how he procured enemies. and in the first of ecclesiasticus it is written, that rashness in anger breedeth destruction, eccl. 1.27. rashness in wrath whence it proceedeth. the which proceedeth not, but of the inflammation of the blood about the heart, of too great a heat and suddenness, the which by no means yieldeth the leisure, to understand the circumstances which reason teacheth which a man that hath received an injury ought to keep and observe, as above i have touched, and it is only long suffering that in the end biteth. to pardon is a testimony of a valiant mind. col. 3.12. and to pardon, is a sign of a heroical and noble heart: and as homer writeth, the more excellent a man is, the less is his anger burning, and every gentle heart is easily contented. saint paul writeth to the collossians, as the elect of god holy and beloved, put on tender mercy, kindness, humbleness of mind, meekness, long suffering, forbearing one an other, and forgiving one an other, if any man have a quarrel to an other, even as christ forgave you, even so do ye. and above all these things put on love, which is the bond of perfection. and let the peace of god rule in your hearts, to the which ye are called, in one body, and be ye amiable. they ought to be accounted wise, who knowing how apt of their own inclination they be to choler, wisdom is seen in temperating of choler. use notwithstanding such remedies as they think fit to retire themselves, either in bearing patiently, forgetting, pardoning, moderating of themselves without being too much moved, or breaking that which is easy to be dashed in pieces of a servant, as did calias, and cotis, or in burning their enemy's letters before they see them, as pompey did those of sertorius, and caesar those of pompey. the holy scripture doth often times exhort us to forbear one an other. to forbear one another. dion. and whereas saint paul writeth that we should portion a like to one an others charges, he understandeth infirmities. dion after he had restored his country again to liberty, was counseled to put to death one of the greatest enemies that he had now fallen into his hands, but he said that he had long ago learned to surmount wrath, envy and all evil will, whereof the proof consisted in behaving one's self temperately and courteously towards his enemies, and that he rather chose to surmount in bounty and courtesy, then in power: revenge proceeding from a base mind. we ought then to shun all suspicion of contempt and audacity, rather casting the fault upon the ignorance, mistaking, or lack of those which have offended us, to the end we may escape that vengeance which is so often forbidden of the lord, and which proceedeth from the same spring, as doth the injury, and offence. notwithstanding, that anger is not to be blamed, which is used sometimes to make men amend when they have done a fault. for as aristotle writeth in the fourth of his morales, anger allowed. even as disordinate anger is a fault, so is sometime the want of moderate choler, or rather hatred of vice. and it seemeth that they, which are not angry, when it is required at their hands, to fear offenders, are very evil advised and expose themselves to many injuries. for this cause plato called anger the sinew of the soul, for that it served to increase valour, being moderate, and temperate. anger the sinew of the soul. lactan. de ira dei cap. 17. and aristotle writeth that it is an armour to virtue, but such a one as rather moveth us, then is aught moved itself. lactantius in his book entitled of the wrath of god, c. 17. writeth, that it is necessary, that those things which are nought, should displease such as are virtuous persons, and that he which is displeased at evil, should be moved when he seethe it wrought, so we do decline to vengeance, not because men have offended us, but to the end discipline may be kept, manners corrected, and licentiousness repressed. this kind of choler is lawful, which as it is necessary to man for the amendment of lewdness, so is it found in god of whom man taketh example: for as much as we ought to chastise our subjects, so ought god to repress the vices of each one. and to bring this to pass it is necessary that he be angry, and that it is natural and good to be moved and stirred to wrath. therefore, jactant his error. definition of anger. anger ought to be defined, a motion of the spirit, lifted up for the repression of sin. for the definition which cicero, maketh of the desire of revenge, is not much different from this, but that anger which we call choler, or fury, ought not to fall within man, being a thing vicious & unprofitable. notwithstanding i am of opinion that the divines will not be of lactantius his mind, in that he attributeth any passion to god: for he worketh nothing either with grief or pain. the old proverb holdeth that an ant will be angry, and yet we are not able to discern when she is moved, much less in god whose works are unsearchable, and pass the capacity of our understanding. albeit the holy scripture doth often apply itself to our fashion of speech, who trouble ourselves with passions, in taking pity, or in punishing, or in seeing some disorder. and s paul writeth that of our own nature we are the children of wrath, eph. 2.3. rom. 6.23. psal. 103.10. from whence we are delivered by christ jesus our mediator. david said psa. 103. psal 86 15. psal. 143.9. exod. 34 6. nomb. 14.18 nehe. 5.17. jer. 15.13. io●l. 2.13. jonas.. 4.2.. nahum. 1.3. deut. 9.14 & 32.39. exod. 17.2. psal 78.41. numb. 12.9. & 14.9. exod. 22 22. that god hath not dealt with us, after our sins, nor rewarded us after our iniquities. and psal. 86. he calleth him a pitiful god, and merciful, slow to anger, and great in kindness and truth and psal. 145. that the lord is good to all, and his mercies are over all his works. the which is likewise repeated in exodus 34 numbers 14. nehemiah 9 jeremiah 15 joel 2. jonas 4 nahum 1. a man ought diligently to take heed how he committeth those sins which provoke the wrath of god, especially to be no idolater, deu. 9 & 32. nor to tempt god exod. 17. & psal. 78. nor to murmur against his providence, nom. 12. & 14. nor to be rebellious deu. 9 nor to shed the blood of the innocent, math. 25. nor to molest the widows, and fatherless. exod. 22. the holy scripture speaketh of the old and new man, and of the circumcision of the heart. so meant the philosophers when they said we were made of two parts, and that he which made the worse, subject unto the better, was counted continent: and contrariwise, he which made the brutish and unreasonable part of his mind, to preceded and command the more noble, was accounted incontinent and worse than it. for this cause is it required, that through the bit of reason we put back and tame that felonious courage of ours, to submit it unto the most mild yoke of the holy laws of god, valerius. which so much recommendeth unto us, peace, patience, and mercy. valerius and others have written, that injuries are surmounted through courtesy and bounty, not by the revenge of a new hatred. cicero. and cicero in his oration for murena and demosthenes particularly, in that he made before alexander the great, to hinder the siege of athenes, do amply show, that it is an act nearest approaching unto divinity, demosthenes. to vanquish ones own courage, repress his wrath, moderate victory, amplify the dignity of ones enemy, command over ones self, and not too much to trust in anger a mortal enemy to counsel. for as our saviour christ said the violent that is to say such as can command over themselves enter heaven. the ancient custom observed among the princes and gentlemen of france, written by agathius deserveth here to be recited: that when any one had a quarrel or was at variance with an other, a great number of gentlemen would presently present themselves in arms, the ancient on some of the french and constrain those that had a mind to fight, to end their controversy, by lawful and amiable means: which occasioned the subjects, a great deal more willingly to apply themselves to justice, which they saw so much esteemed among their lords and princes. and it was one of the chief articles, in the league of the grecians and all allies, 4. powers in the soul. to undertake nothing by arms but by justice. the philosophers set down four powers to rule in the mind, reason, will, anger, and concupiscence: in which they lodged four virtues, to every one, one, prudence, justice, fortitude, & temperance. so as they made choler to serve to fortitude, so it be not infirm, or out of square. chap. 25. of the error of some authors which have praised promise breakers and the cruel, of punishments of such, what our gettings and dealing with the great aught to be, advertisements to the readers, and of pardoninges. i ever found it a very strange matter in divers authors who lacked no judgement at all, it doth not become princes to use deceit. in that they produced those for example, who during the whole course of their conquests violated their faith with sundry princes, and esteemed it very necessary for a great prince that he should learn to deceive. i do not in like sort approve the opinion of lysander, that where a lion's skin will not suffice, it must be patched up with a foxes: lizander. confessing in deed that the truth is better than falsehood, but that the dignity and price of each of them ought to be measured, and turned to commodity and profit, saying further that children must be deceived with trifles, dyonisius. polycrates. & men with oaths. the which likewise the tyrants dionysius and polycrates were wont to say, authorizing impiety lying and deceat. which maxim hath been followed of sundry princes, as king pyrrhus confessed himself to the athenians in recompense for their good cheer, counseling them ever to distrust all tyrants, because they did ever observe or break their faith, according as they served their turns in their commodities, profits, or ambition. as in thucydides an athenian ambassador said, k. pyrrhus. an aleman proverb. that a tyrant is a friend and enemy according to the time and season. there is likewise an aleman proverb, that it is for noble men to promise, and clowns to observe. and in sophocles, ulysses taught neoptolemus the son of achilles, to deceive by lying: and whereas the said child demanded how it was possible to lie without blushing he answered that such was the use in the traffic of men, and that one never is to be ashamed where any profit may be reaped. caligula. the which that wicked emperor caligula in like sort said, praising impudency. thrasimachus moreover i approve no whit at all the saying of thrasimachus the calcedonian, that the pleasure and profit of princes is the rule and definition of all laws: anaxarchus. nor that which anaxarchus said unto alexander when he saw him so much vexed, for the death of his friend clitus, whom he had slain, that themis and justice were set of each side a king to confirm his faults: nor that which that villainous stepmother said unto caracalla, that whatsoever he listed was lawful for him. but we will maintain that god, god and the laws govern kingdoms. and the laws are set over kingdoms, to punish such as violate the majesty of the laws, and that right blindeth the profit and pleasure of princes, and that nothing is lawful, save what the laws permit. and it is certain, that the higher any person is exalted, the more ought he to show himself virtuous and true, in all actions what is to be considered. as above we have noted. and in all actions a man must consider, the motife, root, and counsel, with sundry other circumstances, and therein discover, if there have been any cloaking, infidelity, trumpery, peril or deceat, that the bare matter may be perceived, and confront what ill soever is found under an appearance of good, knowing that an evil beginning, can not but lead an evil end. and if we should take away this first excellency of sudden conquests, power obtained by mischeafe of small durance we shall find a tragical issue, and a change in extreme calamities. as quintus cursius wrote, that power gotten by mischief endureth but a while. the which likewise the prophets besides experience do in sundye places witness. and the duke of valentinois son of pope alexander, d. of valentinois. and others which michiavel set before us to imitate, have had most miserable ends, machiavelli a pernicious auctor. after having been made a laughing stock unto their enemies. and the said author hath not without just cause had his qualities painted out by paulus iovius, as one ignorant both of g●d, and learning, and so censured by the counsel of trent. and as accompanied with truth and virtue every kind of life is sweet and easy, so doth there ever ensue lying, sorrow, pain, loss, repentance, and care, and it is unpossible to have any joy or contentment, if quietness of the mind, constancy, piety, justice, and full assurance have not laid the foundation. and a good conscience carrieth a calm with itself, which can not be found in falsehood against promise, & trust, the which as every other kind of wickedness, is the occasion, and brewer of her own torment, being a marvelous worker of a miserable life, with great shame suffering many fright's, furies and perturbations of the mind, full of unquietness and sorrows, jer. 2. as jeremy the prophet witnesseth. and not without cause did isocrates entreating of peace, compare such men to wolves and beasts, who while they think to raven upon some pray cast themselves headlong into the snare, or toil. and we may say with david that iniquity is seated in a slippery and dangerous place. psal. 27.15. i have seen the wicked strong and spreading itself like a green bay tree, yet i passed away and lo he was gone. for since that god is true, just, constant and like unto himself, his judgements are ever found a like against all the enemies of the truth, as it is said in jeremy, jer. 34.5. and in ezechiel speaking of sedechias. think you it is possible, for him that breaketh his promise, long to endure and reign? and since that isaiah termeth righteousness the mother of peace, we must no whit marvel if lying, and treason be punished by war, plague, isaiah. habacue. haggaeus. famine, sedition, and disorders in a realm: or if that which is attained by leasing, and lewd means, be called by the prophets a fire bran wherewith one burneth his own house, a heap of earth which one causeth to fall upon himself, and a pit to stifle and bury one's self in, and as silver put into a rented sack, euripides in like sort esteemeth whatsoever is unjustly added to a house, as a plague and infected air, and every man may perceive such gotten goods melt away as snow. this is it which solomon meaneth in the end of his first chapter of proverbs, pro. 1.32. that the prosperity of fools destroyeth them. i will not here forget, what s. chrysostom writeth of upon the fift of the first to the corinthians, that a little gain fraudulently gotten, chrysostom. is often times the occasion of the loss of great wealth though well come by. and in vain do men lock their chests with chains, springs & padlocks, when they have enclosed therein deceat, a most violent thief, which desperseth what ever it findeth within the coffer. dan. 11.45. we read in histories and in daniel, the miserable end of many, and among other of nabuchodonosor, and of alexander the great, pro. 11.4. & 20.17. & 21 7. who left nothing to their heirs but their wickedness. we read likewise in the proverbs, that the riches of the wicked avail not in the day of wrath, and that the bread of deceat is sweet to a man, but afterward his mouth shall be filled with gravel. and that the robbery of the wicked shall destroy them: for justice being removed every state falleth to ruin, and an inheritance hastily purchased shall not be blessed. and god saith by jeremy, jerem 17.11 that as the partridge gathereth the young which she hath not brought forth, so he that getteth riches and not by right shall leave them in the midst of his days, and at his end shallbe a fool. and he pronounceth a curse on his head, that buildeth his house by unrighteousness. an admonition to the nobility to keep their promises faithfully. and in toby, and some of the psalms, a little is more worth with right, then much heaped up in iniquity. and it hath not without cause been said in ancient time, that whatsoever vice buildeth, it destroyeth. which being well considered it ought to stir up all manner of persons, who will not degenerate from the ancient nobility which hath taken foot and sure foundation upon virtue, to be true and keep their promises, what soever should chance to happen, and not to seek aught but by honest means. for if you will exempt justice and truth out of a government, it is then no more than a very robbing, as saint augustin affirmeth. to negotiate with princes. and for as much as the inconstancy of princes and almost of all other kind of men is sufficiently apparent, and sundry inconveniences have ensued, where too much trust hath been yielded, the wiser sort and best advised have stood upon their guard, have not been too light of belief and have so provided that men shall not easily break their faith with them or surprise them. i think likewise that they have healed a very absurd opinion, cruelty that commend cruelty in governors. for he which delighteth in taxing can never be beloved or esteemed of. i could answer them as king alphonsus did that such men deserved to be governed by lions, pro. 20.28. bears, dragons, and such like beasts. for as solomon writeth the kings throne shall be established with mercy, the which together with subjects love and justice is the very chain that holdeth together and maintaineth an estate, and not force, fear, or great guards as dion declareth in plutarque. god being willing to make him known to moses, exod. 34.5. calleth himself the lord, the lord, strong, merciful, and gracious, slow to anger and abundant in goodness and truth. and the grecians called the king of their god's melchins, that is to say sweet as honey. and the athenians called him memactis, that is to say succourable. and the holy scripture and sundry philosophers calleth him a father, a shepherd, a refuge, and protector of his people. for to murder and torment is the office of a devil, of fury, of a hangman & not of a king or honest man. and subjects ought otherwise to be accounted of then as slaves, as bartole in his treatise de regimine civitatis, declareth it upon the seventh of deuteronomy, where kings are exhorted not to lift their hearts up above their brethren, among which god had made choice of them. for the puissance of a father, as martian the lawyer wrote l. s. de paracid. consisteth in piety and mercy, no whit at all in rigour. it is written in the second of the kings how the cruel senacherib, after the angel had put to death 155000. of his men, was himself slain by his own children. and in the same book he writeth of sundry kings and queens, abandoned of god, peeled, and murdered for their cruelty. like end had ptolemy surnamed the lightning, & ptolemy lamious, that is to say the babbler. cambyses killed himself with his own sword, princes murdered for their cruelty. xerxes was slain by his uncle seleucus: nicanor killed by ptolemy kerapnos antiochus jerax surnamed the sacre, because he lived upon pillage was in like sort slain: as also was seleucus surnamed the lightning because of his violence. antiochus the great, pilling of the temple was slain of his people, as were epiphanes, and eupator, & the histories are full of an infinite number of others which had like end for their cruelty and covetousness. a man may see in an apology of saint cyprian against demetrian, the names of those which persecuted the church, the enemies of the church punished. and how they have been punished, holding it for a maxim that there was never no cruelty used against the christian church that was not in short time after revenged. aristotle exhorted alexander to do good to every one, and not to be cruel, theodosius. rather to be praised for his clemency then conquests. it is written of theodosius, that when he delivered his sword to his constable, he willed him to use it only against malefactors, and if he commanded any thing cruel or unjust, than he should draw it against himself. as also the kings of egypt would swear their judges, that they should not obey them in aught they demanded of cruel, unjust, or against the laws. the like did antiochus also write to the cities under his obedience, that they should obey and keep such his commandments, as oppressed none. antonius pius held opinion of scipio african, that he rather chose to preserve one of his subjects, then slay one thousand of his enemies. which i greatly wish all kings would observemarecellinus termeth the vice of cruelty, the boche of the soul, proceeding from the feebleness and baseness of the heart. and the said antoninus said, that nothing rendereth an emperor more famous among all nations than clemency, & upon this and graciousness, is the assurance of the public weal founded as valerius publicola repeateth in titus livius and plutarque. and antigonus was wont to say that clemency worketh more than violence. one of the interpreters of the bible counseled ptolemy to use patience and long suffering, imitating the sweetness of god to the end he mought reign well. and marrinus the emperor wrote to the senate, what good is there in nobility, if a prince's heart be not replenished with bounty and sweetness toward his subjects? plutarque mentioneth of the great captain pericles, pericles. that when his friends came to visit him in his sickness, and had put him in mind of the great exploits he had made, of his victories, eloquence, wisdom, and other singular virtues wherewith he was endued, he then made them answer, you clean forget the principal, and which is to me the most proper, photion. a brave answer of k. francis 1. that hitherto i never in my life caused any man to wear a mourning garment. which was in like sort reported of photion, in respect of his great clemency. with this agreeth that article of the answer made by the late great king francis of famous memory, to the supplication, of those of rochel, & of the isles adjoining, which greatly deserveth not to be forgotten. let others do, and rigorously exercise their power, i will be always as much as in me shall lie, prone to pity, and mercy, and will never use my subjects, as the emperor did them of gaunt, for a less offence than you have committed, which causeth him at this instant to have bloody hands and i thank god mine are as yet without any stain of my people's blood, also he hath together with the effusion of his subjects blood, and the loss of so many heads and souls, lost likewise their good wills and hearts for ever. and after the king had thoroughly forgiven them, he caused the prisoners to be delivered, the keys and arms of the city to be rendered, all his garrisons to be voided, and their ancient liberty and privileges to be again fully restored unto them. if i were not afraid i should be too tedious, i could show a number of miserable ends that chanced to other emperors and kings for their cruelty. tales the chief of the seven wise men of grece, tales. being demanded what in all his life seemed most strange unto him, answered an old tyrant. which agreeth with the saying of ecclesiasticus, that all tyranny is of small endurance. eccles. 10.10 and in the rest of the history of hester, artaxerxes said that he purposed with equity always and gentleness to govern his subjects, esther. 13.2. pittacus thereby to bring his kingdom unto tranquillity, that might safely live in peace. and pittacus said that a prince by nothing becometh more glorious, then when he maketh his subjects to fear not him, but for him: the which was always in time passed reported of the french men. and not only the tyrants themselves have been hated and defeated, but what soever they have besides taken pleasure in: as after that they of ariginta were delivered from phalaris that great tyrant, they by and by published an edict, that from that day forward it shall be lawful for no man to wear any garment of blue, because his guard were ever wont to wear cassocks of the same colour. and after the death of domitian, they defaced his name in all places. and the month of october was no more called by his name, as he had ordained it, nor april by nero's, nor may by claudus, nor september by tiberius, clean defacing their tyrannical and unfortunate names. philip. philip answered such as advised him to plant garrisons in the cities of greece, which he had conquered, that he rather chose to be called for a long time courteous, then for a short time lord. and as the wise man writeth in his proverbs: in the multitude of the people is the honour of a king, pou. 14.28. and for the want of people cometh the destruction of the prince. sundry have said, that as he which diminisheth his troop, can never be termed a good herdman or shepherd, so he which causeth his subjects to be unjustly murdered, can never be accounted a good prince. the emperor rodolph, was wont to say, rodolphe. that he greatly repent, that ever he had been a severe prince, but never in that he had been gracious or bountiful. martian. martian and sundry other emperors have been of opinion, that a prince ought never to enter into wars, if conveniently he mought avoid it, discretion required in reading and retain peace. for this cause, we ought not to read machiavelli, and such like authors, clean void of conscience, foresight, & religion, but with great judgement and discretion, without trusting too much unto them; and to confront their writings, and whatsoever else they have taken of tyrant's qualities, with cannon rules and honesty, trying all things, and keeping that which is good: 1. thes. 5.21 according unto the council of s. paul, in his first epistle to the thessalonians: and of s. jerom in his epistle to minerius, by following the example of exchangers, aug. l. de doct christ. c. 3. which try their good money from the counterfeit. the which saint augustine in his second book de doctrina christiana chap. 3. applieth unto the philosopher's books, to the end they mought serve to good use, taking them back again of them, as of unlawful possessors it is also very requisite, as i before mentioned, we should observe, how sundry historiographers, and in especial the italians, do never measure their actions by the intention and conscience, or according unto the infallible rule of the word of god, but by the events, and their own ableness, cunnings and subtleties, ever in applying their vain discourses, to their end which they pretend, without any consideration whether it be virtuous and lawful or no. and in this respect have they given the name of prudence unto some, which have been most wicked, and miserably have ended their lives: and to strangers which have been endued with a good conscience, magnanimity, and have died happily, do they yield most reproachful names. and we must confront their reproaches with other authors more worthy of trust, and with the times, circumstances and behaviours of those whom they writ of. i do not for all that any whit allow the unjustice which is committed in not punishing such as are lewd. for as the king s. lovis was wont to say: a fault not to punish malefactors. k s. lovis. a prince which may punish a fault, and will not, is as much culpable thereof, as if he had committed it himself. and that it is a work of pity and not of cruelty to do justice: and that he which justifieth the wicked, is not in less abomination, before god, than he which condemneth the just, as solomon said: homer writeth that the sceptre, and the laws were given by god to agamemnon, to the end he should minister right to each one, and that jupiter had themis, that is to say right and justice set by his side. exod. 21.34. and it is commanded, that the murderer should be pulled away from the very altar, that he may die, and be punished without remission. the which is marueilousstraitly observed in suitzerlande. and god is always like unto himself executing righteousness and judgement upon the earth, and hating all iniquity and vice. sigismond the emperor having pardoned one of a murder, which afterward committed another, said, that it was he that had committed the second, and that princes ought not to dispense or pardon, without very urgent cause, any which hath deserved punishment. and if he cannot quite the civil interest of his subject, how can he quite the pain which god hath ordained by his law? and often times too great meekness causeth the magistrates and laws to run in contempt. and both the one and the other is to be found fault with, ●. sam. 15.12 1. king 20 42 & 21 16. if it be not tempered. saul was reprehended of god because he slew not amelec. and the prophet said to achab, that he should die because he had pardoned benadad the king of syria, who had deserved death, as also because he caused naboth to be murdered. the holy scripture doth also teach us, that the wrath of god is appeased by the punishment of the wicked, and that his vengeance extendeth over all people for their iniquity, and contrariwise his blessing doth spread itself upon whom soever he chasteneth. the wicked shallbe afraid and kept back, but the righteous shall be preserved from the contagion of them that work iniquity. for this cause the book of the law found again in the time of josias, is called the book of the alliance of the lord, the which he commanded the priests to deliver to the king. 2. king. 22.10 samuel following this rule put it into the hands of saul, and according unto the tenure thereof, josias yielded himself the feodary, and vassal of the lord. likewise the law which was given in the ark, was called the covenant of the lord. and solomon said unto god: lord, thou hast chosen me to reign over thy people, 2. chron. 6.11 and to judge over thy sons and daughters. for this cause our kings were ever willing, that none should regard the pardons they yielded, if they were grounded upon so ill a foundation. as also micheas the prophet detesteth, and curseth in the name of god all such as obey the wicked ordinances of kings, who for this cause have had especial care and commandment to administer justice, esteeming themselves rather armed with the sword to chastise the wicked, then to repulse their enemies, and are the ministers of god for the people's benefit, as the apostle sayeth. rom 13 4 and to this end they establish good and learned judges in all places that are void of passions, if they follow the laws; otherwise they should bring into the flock the wolf, which they ought to chase away, and render themselves culpable of the death of those innocentes that such pardoned men should kill, and so grace should never be without cruelty. chap. xxvi. the definition of lying. the philosophers were never wont to content themselves in declaring the property of virtues, except they opposed unto them their contrary vice, to the end, that the loathsomeness thereof being well regarded, the other mought be found more agreeable. definition of a lie so have we of purpose discoursed of the truth, before we come to show the vice of lying, the which we may define by a contrary signification unto the truth when one speaketh of things uncertain, contrary to that which one knoweth, making them seem other than they are. s. augustin writeth to consentius, that it is a false signification of speech, with a will to deceive. and when one speaketh more or less than is in deed, it is a member of injustice, turning topsy-turvy all human society, and the amity due unto our neighbour: for since that speech is given unto us, to make manifest what we think, and to instruct his understanding of whom we speak: it is a foul fault to abuse it, and to behave ourselves in other sort towards our neighbour, than we willingly would he should towards us: for as much as he which desireth and expecteth from us the truth is deceived and led into an error: and having afterwards in time discovered the lie, liars lose all credit. he will no more believe us, and we shall lose the means to be able to instruct for ever. for liars only gain this, that albeit they say and speak the truth, yet shall they never be believed. and in the holy scripture idolatry, hypocrisy, superstition, false weights, false measures, and all cosinages are called lying, to the end that by so disformed a name, we should the rather eschew them. the liar is detested of god, and called double of heart and tongue, because he speaketh one thing and doth an other. and for very good respect sundry of the ancient doctors have written, that the truth being depraved, there are engendered an infinite number of absurdities, socrates. heresies, schisms, and contentions. and socrates was wont to say, that it proceeded from a good will, to enforce itself to remove the foolish opinions of men, and that it was not possible for him to approve a lie, nor to dissemble the truth. and homer writeth of the great and valiant captain achilles, that he did more hate and abhor lying, achilles. than hell, or death. and it is written in the old and new testament, that god doth abhor all lying, and that the true, are gracious in his sight: yea, that a thief is better than a man that is accustomed to lie, and lying is contrary to nature, aided by reason, and servant or handmaid to the truth. it is written in leviticus: eccles. 20.24 levit. 16.11. ye shall not steal, neither deal falsely, neither lie one to another. chap. xxvii. the effects of lying. all wickedness proceedeth of lying philo in his first book of the contemplative life, setteth down, all kind of wickedness to proceed from lying, as all good doth from the truth. and if we well consider the causes, of the seditions, troubles, heresies and quarrels, which altar whole estates, public quiet and man's conversation, we shall find all to proceed from the infected fountain of lying. and that achab and the most part of the kings of israel, the emperors nero, commodus, maximinus, julius, valentinus, and sundry other as well of old time as of ours, have thereby been ruined. 2. king. 5.27. acts 5.5. esther 7.10. 1. king 13.4. gehazi the servant of elisha was strooken with a leprosy. ananias & saphira fell down dead. haman was hanged on the tree he had prepared for mardocheus. the hand of jeroboam was dried up. croesus' king of lydia drove away solon, rejecting the truth he had told him, croesus'. which for all that afterwards saved his life, and dionysius the tyrant of sicil, not being able to make his profit of that which plato had declared unto him, dionysius. nor to wash away the stain of tyranny, was constrained in his banishment to confess, that that which he had heard of plato, made him the better able to carry so great a change. gen. 39.20. through a lie joseph was cast in prison, and s. chrysostom sent into banishment, and an infinite number of other holy and great personages have been marvelously afflicted, and many realms and common wealths have even had the very beginning of their ruin from thence. chrysostom the said chrysostom, in the 28. homely upon john, sayeth, that nothing is so unfirme or unconstant as lying, for what aid or pillar so ever it can come by, it weakeneth so as it causeth it to fall of itself. chap. 28. the punishments of lying. it is written in the proverbs: pro. 19.5. w●● 1.11. eccles 20.25. he that speaketh lies, shall not escape: and in the book of wisdom: the mouth that speaketh lies, slayeth the soul: and in ecclesiasticus: the condition of liars are unhonest, egyptians. and their shame is ever with them. the egyptians ordained death itself for a punishment to perjured persons, and to such as declared not the very truth, in their declaration which of necessity each one was to make yearly, both touching his name, and the means he had to nourish his family. the scythians and garamanthes followed the same law, scythians & garamantes, persians & indians. and there was he condemned that had prognosticated any false things to come. the persians and indians deprived him of all honour and farther speech which lied. the gimnosophistes, chaldeans, barred them all companies & dignities, & condemned to remain in perpetual darkness without speaking. nestorius. and nicephorus reciteth how the very worms did eat the tongue of the cozener nestorius in his life time. popiel k. of pologne. monstrelet writeth of popiel k. of pologne, who had ever this word in his mouth: if it be not true, i would the rats might eat me: that he was so assailed by rats in a banquet, that neither his guards nor fire nor water could preserve him from them. other do assure us that an archbishop of magence died of the like death. artexerxes. solon. josua. 9.21. k. artexerxes made one of his soldiers tongues to be nailed with iij nails that had made a lie. the laws of solon imposed great pains upon such, trajan. cebalus. & for that cause did the gabaonites lose their liberty. the emperor trajan surnamed the good prince, took away from the son of cebalus the kingdom of dace, which we term at this day transiluania, & valachia, only because he caught him in a lie, & told him that rome the mother of truth could not permit a liar to possess a kingdom. cirus in like sort told the k. of armenia, that is was most manifest, cyrus. a lie was not capable of pardon, as xenophon writeth in his 3. book of his pedia. alexander. after that one had red unto alexander the great a history out of aristobulus, wherein he had intermingled certain counterfeit praises, he flung the book into the river, saying the said writer deserved to have been fling in himself: because men ought to study to search out the truth, without which nothing can be well done, & that it was a shame & great damage, when a lie should put good words out of credit. and he found fault with another, when he compared him to hercules. if he had in this sort remained all the rest of his life, & that prosperity & flattery had not rendered himself more insolent, he had been worthy of much greater honour. i could here very well allege how in almanie the lie hath been always extremely hated & shunned as it were a plague, & bastards could never obtain the prize of any ocupation whatsoever, nor take degree in any art or science, deut. 23.2. as also in the old testament they were excluded both out of the church & sanctuary for they are ever in doubt which of the sundry minion's that their mother entertained was their father. for this cause philo alexandrin, compareth those with idolaters, who through ignorance of their creator and his bounty call upon many, & declareth that a multitude, as much to say as a plurality of gods is very atheism, & the ground of lying, banishing for ever from thence life everlasting. chap. xxix. that the perjured and blasphemers are detestable liars, and the pains for them. cicero was of opinion that there was no difference between the liar and the perjured person, and that god had ordained to each like punishment, and that he which was accustomed to lie, did easily perjure himself. the which opinion sundry doctors of the church have in like sort held. others notwithstanding have thought that they have offended more deeply, which abuse the name of god to confirm their lying, the which sort of people deserved death by the laws of plato & egypt, as committers of sacrilege. and the prophet ezechiel calleth it the profaning of the name of god, & the spoiling him of his truth. eccles. 23.11 chrysostom. he saith also that he which despiseth his oath, shall never escape. and it is written in ecclesiasticus, that a man that useth much swearing shallbe filled with wickedness, and the plague shall never go from his house. saint chrisostom made sundry homilies & sermons to the end we should hate & leave all oaths; & that there mought never be among men following the commandment of our saviour, but yea, yea, & nay, nay, without blaspheming the name of god by swearing. and he greatly marveled to see us so ready to obey the laws & ordinances of princes albeit they be very hard & unreasonable, & that of god's commandment so expressly given unto us not to swear at all, plato 2. de legibus. we make so little account, whereof also plato greatly complaineth, and that men cover themselves with a lewd custom which every man ought to enforce himself utterly to abolish. the said doctor in like sort writeth, that it is unpossible that he which much sweareth, should not forswear himself. as we read of the oath rashly made by king saul, 1. sam. 14.39 whereby he was constrained either to put to death his innocent son, or to remain perjured: and god revenged upon his race, and people, the great slaughter that he made of the gabaonites contrary to the oath sworn unto them by his predecessors. and the other tribes of israel having sworn that they would not give their daughters in marriage to that of benjamin, because they would not break their oath, chose rather to council them to ravish their said daughters. and titus livius showeth that the petelins in calabria, titus livisu. & the sagontines in spain, chose rather to die a most miserable death, then to break the faith they had plighted. it is written in zechariah: zecha. 5.2.4. i saw a flying book, the length thereof is 20, cubits, and the breadth 10. the curse whereof shall enter into the house of him that falsely sweareth, and it shall remain in the midst of his house and shall consume it with the timber thereof, and stones thereof. now that all is full of blasphemies, oaths, and perjuries, we greatly aught to fear a most sharp chastisement of the wrath of god, for so ordinary a contempt of his holy name and follow the counsel of ecclesiasticus: agesilaus. keep thy mouth from being accustomed to swear: for that carrieth great at ruin withal. k. agesilaus having understood that tisaphernes k. of persia had broken the promise which he had sworn unto him answered that therein he had done him a very great pleasure: because that by his perjury he had rendered himself odious and enemy both to the gods and men. si duo de iu. l. vlt. de cr●stel. & ad leg. lul. rep. gel. li, 7. c, 18 and truly all policies and matches are clean turned topsy-turvy, if the promise be not observed. titus livius in the beginning of his history, greatly commendeth the common wealth of rome because it was governed by faith and simple oath, not by fear of laws, or chastisements. it was also the principal charge of the censors of rome, as cicero writeth to punish the perjured, against whom there is great threats in the holy scripture: and in leviticus, not only the perjured man is condemned, but they which are consenting thereto and know him, & do not reveal him, to the end that the holy name of god be not profaned, contrary to the first table of commandments, which forbiddeth us to take it in vain. the which hath been the cause that some divines have esteemed it a greater and more heinous sin, then murder forbidden by the second table, the rather for that if proofs be wanting against the murderer, men have recourse to his oath. solomon in his prayer that he made at the dedication of the temple, demanded the punishment of such as should perjure themselves. the egyptians and scythians put them to death, the indians cut off the tops of their feet and hands, for an example to show the offence they had committed against god and their neighbour. saint lewis the king caused their lips to be feared with a hot iron: punishment of perjured persons in zuiserland they fasten their tongue with two nails, and in some cantons they make them die like felons, or pull out their tongue. and against them there are sundry ordinances made by the kings of france, which we ought to observe, pro. 10.31. especially against blasphemers the which god in leviticus would should be stoned unto death. it is written in the proverbs: the tongue of the froward shallbe cut off. and justinian the emperor ordained by sundry laws, that such should be executed. and not without cause have the divines accounted blasphemy much more worthy of punishment than any other fault & wickedness, which as samuel saith are chiefly committed against men, whereas blasphemies are directly against the honour of god and in despite of him. and by some decrees of the court, they have been condemned to a most grievous fine and to have their tongue pierced through with a hot iron, and after to be hanged and strangled. lib. 2. cap. 17 it is worthy to be considered what john viet a physician in his history of the deceits of devils and sundry other writers have testified of some that have been visibly carried away by devils, in calling upon them or giving themselves uno them. pope john the 12. john 12. was deposed and afterwards put to death, justinian. for having broken his oath made to otho touching berangare. justinian the son of constantine the fourth, for having violated his faith given to the camphors, and perjured himself in assailing of the saracens, was deposed from his imperial crown and banished. i omit an infinite number of other, who have received like punishments for their perjuries. pericles. pericles being required by a certain friend of his to soothe a certain matter for his sake, answered: i am thy friend as far as the altar, that is to say so far as not to offend god. to which that which is written of hercules may be very well referred, hercules. that he was so religious and virtuous that he never swore in all his life but once; and it was one of the first things that children were forbid as favorinus testified: and the better to retain and keep them from this vice, there is a very ancient ordinance at rome that expressly forbiddeth them to swear. and the prophetess of delphos made answer unto the lacedæmonians, that every thing should prosper better and better if they forbade all oaths. also it was in no case permitted to the priests of jupiter to swear, for that often times an oath endeth in cursing and perjury. and stobeus writeth that for this cause the phrygians did never swear. they which perjure themselves as an ancient father saith very well, show sufficient testimony how they despise god, and fear men. and if one thoroughly examined all estates, and whereto every office is bound, oath of magistrates and officers. to god, to the king and to justice by his oath, he should find a marvelous number of perjured. cicero in his oration which he made for balbus saith, that what oath soever he that is already perjured can take, yet must one not believe him, and in the end shall carry his own pain. for what shall remain to god, if he be spoiled of his truth, making him a witness and approver of falsehood? therefore josua when he would have had achan to confess the truth unto him said, josua 7.19. my son i beseech thee give glory unto the lord god of israel, declaring that god is greatly dishonoured if one perjure himself, & by the like conjuration that the pharisees were wont to use in the gospel, it appeareth that they commonly accustomed this kind of speech. if we will then live with quietness of mind, without destroying ourselves, we must eschew all lying & perjury, follow our vocation, & observe whatsoever we have promised to god & men. chap. xxx. that lying, in doctrine is most pernicious, and that one ought carefully to search for the truth. man treated for the service of god. every man confesseth, yea the very pagan philosophers, that men were created for the service of god, and that above all things they should make account of religion, which giveth the only means to unite and reconcile man to god, for his salvation. cicero and lactantius in sundry places declare, besides that we find written in the old & new testament that only by serving of god men differ from brute beasts, and the good from wicked: and that the authority of philosophy consisteth in the searching out of the principal end & sovereign good of man. and since that godliness is the scope of the rest, it is requisite that it be fixed; & unmovable, & yet there is nothing wherein men err so much as in that which ought to be most known. the cause of the error proceedeth, godliness the scope of other virtues as in sundry places s. augustin writeth by the testimony of the scriptures, for that the most part measure, the said service rather according unto their own blind brain, then by the rule given in the word of god, & according to our corrupt reason, through the hereditary fall of our prime parents, who were not able to comprehend (as the apostle saith) the divine & heavenvly things. from thence hath proceeded the multitude of gods, when they have thought that one was not able to suffice & provide for all, & so were sundry kind of services in show invented which might please the common people & the creature taken in place of the creator, nothing in steed of infinite. basil. s. basil in a poem writing of the judgements of god, greatly lamenteth that the church was so severed in divisions. and searching into the cause thereof, he remembered, that passage in the book of judges, where it is written, that every man did that which was good in his own eyes. since than that no error is so dangerous, judg. 17.6. as that which is committed in religion, for as much as our salvation, quietness, error in religion most dangerous. and happiness dependeth thereon, it is very requisite that we apply thereto what sense or understanding soever is within us, & according to the opinion of s. augustin, if it be a lewd part to turn the wayfaring man out of his right way, then are such as teach false doctrine much more to be detested: because through such a mischief, they lead men to destruction, turning them from the eternal felicity, and infect the most pure doctrine which is our spiritual food, and so separate men from the catholic church, without which is no salvation. s. augustin in his 4. book of the city of god, reproveth varro & pontifex scevola, who were of opinion that it was very expedient men should be deceived in religion, because that there is no felicity or rest, but in the certainty thereof, and in an infallible truth. and chrysippus said, that without divinity, & the doctrine of god none could take any principle at all in the discipline of manners. and polybius showeth that there was nothing which so much advanced the romans as their religion, albeit it was not pure. s. paul writeth to the corinthians, that he had prepared them for one husband, 2. cor. 11.2. to present them as a pure virgin to christ. and the prophets call lying adultery. and s. chrysostom upon the argument of the epistle to the romans showeth, that all mischief proceedeth from the ignorance of the scriptures, as our saviour christ imputed unto the jews, that they were deceived not knowing the scriptures nor the power of god. matth. 22. mat. 22.29. marc. 12.24 mark. 12. and if it have been said of the ancient fathers, that the word is a medicine to the grieved spirit, a man may well say it is also poison being falsely taught. the which moved the prophets & apostles so carefully to warn men to beware of false prophets, seducers & wolves, which speak not by the mouth of god, neither are sent by him, because there is no comparison to be made, between the straw and the corn, nor between an infected river and a good spring. again we are exhorted, to stand in the ways & behold and to ask for the old way which is the good way, and walk therein, jer. 15.4. to the end we should not wander from that life through deserts, but find rest for our souls. and we read in the acts of the apostles, that at the end of the sermons, every man searched the scriptures to see whether those things they had hard were so. for god by isaiah sendeth us back to the law and to the testimony, because if they speak not according to this word, it is for that there is no light in them, as who would say that they were abused and remained in darkness. and s. peter caught nothing when he fished by night, until he cast out his net into the sea at the commandment of our saviour, john. 21.3. as some ancient fathers have gathered hereon. what ever we do without the word of god profiteth us nothing, and it shall be said unto us as in the first of isaiah, who hath required these things at your hands? and if they say that the holy scripture is hard and not easily to be understood, god protesteth in isaiah that he hath not spoken in secret, isaiah. 45.19 neither in a place of darkness, and his doctrine is not obscure nor doubtful, but ready to instruct us to perfection, to lighten us, and guide us to salvation. and in an other place he saith that the word of god, is as the words of a book that is sealed up, esaiah 49.11 2. cor. 4.3. to the unbelievers. and saint paul wrote to the corinthians that if his gospel were hid, it was hid to the infideles that were lost. for this great prince making his alliance with his subjects and creatures to save them, delivered all in clear and simple terms. and saint augustine writeth that whatsoever appertaineth to salvation is manifestly set down in the scripture, and whatsoever is obscure in one place is manifested in another: and in the 15. chapter of the same book he giveth us a notable rule how to discern figurative speeches: as if we be commanded to do well, strait we are forbid the evil, and so is it no figure, for in that one shall find the very scope of the scripture, to wit the glory of god and charity; but contrariwise if taken according unto the letter, if it seem to command ill, and forbidden the good, then may we easily judge it to be a figure: whereof he giveth us sundry examples. and saint paul in his second to timothe, 2. tim. 3.16. showeth that the whole scripture, is given by inspiration of god, and is profitable to teach, to improve, to correct, and to instruct, in righteousness, that the man of god, may be absolute being made perfect unto all good works. the holy ghost the spirit of prudence. the holy ghost is likewise called the spirit of prudence and discretion, entertained by meditating of the scriptures, contrary unto the philosopher's books where leaves are only gathered, and not the true fruit. and after that the prophet baruch had set down what a number of mischiefs grew by the carelessness of hearing of the word of god, and that we should draw from the fountain of wisdom, he exhorteth us to learn where is wisdom, where is strength, where is understanding, that we might know also from whence cometh long continuance and life, and where the light of the eyes, and peace is. the holy scripture is also called the word of reconciliation, of life, of peace, and of salvation, and there is not almost one line through out the hole bible, which doth not pull us by the ear and sleeve to awake us out of the sleep of this world, and to pull us out of the clammy vanities, wherein we hang, that it may bring us to the glory and presence of god, which is our salvation. the which moved s. augustine, chrysostom, jerome, theophilact, and other doctors, to exhort the laity, the simple people, artificers and all kind of persons, daily to exercise themselves in the reading and meditating of the holy scriptures, adding that they which have found a gold, or silver mine, travail to dig the earth, and endure most pestiferous overheating of themselves, so as they may gather some few drams of gold and silver, and ought we that have so rich & precious a treasure in the holy scriptures, to neglect and not search it out being called thereto by god? yea we see what toil men take in harvest season, and yet how slack and sluggish we are to reap our celestial wheat. and the said holy scriptures are better understood of a modest idiot, then of an arrogant philosopher. and as saint basile wrote the lamb wadeth through the streams of the scriptures, when the elephant swimmeth. and in 119. psalm, it is said that this word of god serveth for a rule, and correction to youth, and lighteneth and giveth grace to the humble. and the most ancient truth, saith tertullian is the most certain. it is also called a testament and alliance, because we find therein the legacy of eternal life, and an immortal succession, in communicating of all the riches, the scripture called a testament and alliance. merits and perfections, of our lord, and saviour christ jesus, through the faith which we have in his promises. it is given unto us, for a buckler defence, and safeguard against all assaults, for a present medicine, comfort, instruction, & counsel in all affairs, and for a guide to lead us through the straits of this world. it is also called the square, balance, judge of all nations, the canon, the scripture called a square and balance. and rule to live well by, and the very touchstone which discerneth truth from falsehood. and s. basile wrote that it resembled a great shop full of all kind of medicinable drugs, where each man might find a fit salve for his sore. and it is to be feared, which god threatened in ezechiel that he will take away the force of bread from the unthankful. and in amos, that he will send a famine not of bread, but of hearing of his word. and in the apocalypse, that he will take away the candlestick, as much to say, as that his word shall be no more purely preached. and we ought well to weigh the saying of solomon in his proverbs, that where there is no vision understanding hereby the preaching of the word, there the people decay, for this cause s. peter exhorteth us so to speak, 2. pet. 1.19. as it be agreeable to the word of god, which he termeth to be a light that shineth in a dark place. and s. paul requireth of us that our charity may abound in all knowledge and understanding to the end we might follow what were best, rom. 15.4. be entire, and able to teach one an other, for as much as whatsoever things are written afore time are written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures, might have hope. this was the reason why the council of cartharge forbade any thing to be read in the church but the very scripture. l. cunctos pop. and the emperor in the code, showeth the difference between the catholics and heretics, by the apostolical and evangelical doctrine. and constantine after that he had assembled the council of nice, gave in charge to three hundred & eighteen bishops which were there present, to follow this rule, that they should ever dissolve all questions, by the books of the prophets, evangelists, and apostles. the which saint augustine ever maintained, cont. cresc. l. 2 c 22. & de ba: count done. l. 5. c. 17. & cont max: l. 3. c. 13 marks to discern true religion judging all from thence. and the auntience fathers have given three principal marks, by which the true religion may be discerned, that it serveth the true god, that it serveth him according unto his word, and that it reconcileth that man unto him which followeth it. the shadows are passed, and the veil of the temple clean taken away to the end that all men might enter in. our saviour also in the prayer that he made to god his father, when he was ready to enter into the combat for our redemption, and to fasten our bonds to his cross, prayed that he would sanctify his in the truth: that is to say, that his church might be adorned with the true light. the which i have the rather amplified, because that pontanus, & quintus cursius wrote that alexander the great much commended superstition, accounting that above all other things it was that which guided & gained the multitude. superstition. and it were a very easy matter to show how much it prevailed for a time, and what multitudes of people have been easily drawn to embrace a strange & untrue religion. but to the end that we may both discern & shun the enemies to this truth, & follow the right way of eternal life, we must have recourse to the fountains of this doctrine, & meditate therein & on that which may concern the glory of god, & love towards our neighbour; the gospel is the sustenance of our souls. & often to pray unto him which is the true wisdom, & take council of the divines, & pastors of the church. for as the young plants, have need of watering & our bodies of food, so must we for the sustenance of our souls, often call the gospel to memory, as it is commanded in deuteronomy, deut. 6.6. these words which i command thee this day shallbe in thy heart, & thou shalt rehearse them continually unto thy children, & thou shalt talk of them when thou tarriest in thy house, & as thou walkest by the way, & when thou liest down & when thou risest up. 1. tim. 4.13. and s. paul exhorteth timothe, to give attendance to reading. for by that god speaketh unto us, reformeth our life, inspireth into us, & maketh savoury eternal life, & strengtheneth us against the dangers of this world. the saying of epictetus, deserveth to be here greatly commended. epictetus. if we have any understanding at all (saith he) what should we do but praise god daily, & sing unto him psalms, & actions of thanksgiving? in digging & ploughing of the earth, in travail, & in rest. and what? o great god, mighty are thou in having bestowed upon us, these thy instruments wherewith we plough the earth, & more mighty which hast given unto us hands, but most mighty in that thou hast given unto us the increase, without thinking thereon, & to take breath in sleeping: for by no means can we attribute these things to our own industry: if i were a nightingale, i would do as the nightingales do, but since that i am a reasonable creature, i will praise god, without ceasing, & so i beseech all you to do the like. simplicius. simplicius who translated him, addeth, that he which is negligent & slack in the service & honour of god, cannot be careful of any other cause. for this cause sundry have well said, that religion did link & unite us together to serve one god almighty, the saviour of us, & that it was the guide of all other virtues, & that such as do not exercise themselves therein, are like them which go to the battle without a weapon. what religion requireth. sundry likewise affirm, that in our late navigations they have discovered sundry sorts of people straggled in woods, without either laws or magistrates, but none without some service or shadow of religion the which as of ancient time we have been taught, requireth of us in substance, that we render an entire obedience to god, that we consecrate to his glory our thoughts, words & works, & refer ourselves & what ever is in us, to his honour, and the succour of our neighbour, otherwise it is but hypocrisy, & sacrilege. the which maketh us to run to the merciful god, which hath made satisfaction for us, the bible translated into french by the commandment of s. lovis. & is our payer & creditor, to which scope all ceremonies tend. we read in the histories of sundry emperors & kings, that they have been marvelously given to the reading of the bible. and k. s. lovis, willed that his subjects should read it, having to that end made it to be translated into french. the which our historiographers do also writ of k. charles the 5. surnamed the wise, and our most gracious, and valiant k. henry reigning at this present, hath confirmed the same by his especial privilege and commandment. and if there be any which abuse the same, it is by their own fault, in that they suck poison out of the same flower whence the bee taketh honey. notwithstanding as men ought not to cast pearls and precious stones to swine, nor holy things to dogs, and often times the ignorant and unconstant do turn the scriptures to their own ruin, as our saviour and s. peter witness, some kind of books not fit every man should read. so is it very requisite that in the reading thereof, men carry a sound judgement, and certain books to be forbidden to be read of every one, and not to give strong meat unto such as have need of milk, and in this point is it very convenient to follow the decree of the council of trent in those places where it is received, heb. 5.12. gregory nazianzene. and the instruction of their curate and pastor gregory nazianzene in his apology maketh mention of the custom of the hebrews, who never accustomed all ages to every kind of doctrine, nor revealed their secrets, but to such as were of a sound judgement. jerome. ambrose. augustine. the which s. jerome marketh well in the beginning of ezechiel, and s. ambrose upon the 35. psalm, and s. augustine li. de spir. & lit. allege for example the cantickes, which some for their own pleasure have very disorderly applied. i leave to the judgement of every man, whether we have now less occasion, than had the prophets to complain of some pastors, which they termed by the name of thieves, zozom lib. 6. cap. 5. wolves, dumb dogs, seducers, idols, covetous, voluptuous, hypocrites, and by sundry other most detestable names. the dream, or vision of s. anthony, where he imagined he saw certain swine, and moils, defiling the altar, is verified in this time. our duty is to beseech at god's hands that it well please him, to send us such as be good, that they may search nought else then his glory, and nourish their flock with good & wholesome food. for from thence as pliny doth witness cometh the good wool, that is to say, l. 1. de consensu euan. c. 18. good life. s. augustine commended the saying of socrates, that both god, and man will be served as he commandeth. the which he applieth to the service of the true god, who commandeth, that nothing be either added or diminished unto his word. and saith, that for this cause the romans allowed the service of all gods, having for that end builded a temple to all gods called pantheon, and yet would never receive the true, to wit the god of the hebrews. because if they had served him otherwise then he commanded, they had not served him at all, but their own fictions, & if they had done as he had ordained, then had they clean rejected and set aside all other gods. 1. sam. & 11 13. for the principal service of god consisteth in obedience, as samuel said unto saul. the prophets called it a spiritual chastity, not to serve therefrom, nor to think that whatsoever we find good in our own eyes pleaseth him. and as nahas the ammonite, would by no means receive them of jabes a city in judea, which he had besieged, to his mercy, until he had put out their right eye. and when the philistines, had subdued the children of israel, they disarmed them even to their knives. so did that apostata emperor julian, dioclesian, and other, who studied in what they could, to make the christians continue in ignorance, and blindness, never inquiring of the will of god or order of the primative church, euseb. lib. ●… 33. and under a great pain, made them to be disarmed of that word, which the scripture calleth the knife of the spirit. josephus. lib. 2. josephus. contra apionem, setteth down the custom which the jews observed every week in reading of the holy scripture, so as each man understood it and knew it by heart. the which socrates lib. 5. cap. 22. showeth was also observed in alexandria, and it may be seen by that which is written of our saviour, luke. 4. acts. 5. 1. tim. 4 when in the time of josias, 2. kings 21, the book of the law, after it had long line hid was found again, he made great estimation thereof, and said unto the priests: 2. king. 22.13 go ye and inquire of the lord for me, and for the people, and for all judah concerning the words of this book that is found: for great is the wrath of the lord, that is kindled against us, because our fathers have not obeyed the words of this book, to do according to all that, which is written therein for us. we must likewise imagine, that such as have taken upon them to teach the way to that happiness which all men covet to attain unto, have been but counterfeit, except they have laid the foundation out of the holy and canonical scriptures: and the lies wherein their fathers lived, led them into error, according as amos wrote. we ought therefore often to pray unto god with david, solomon, and saint paul, that he will give us wisdom and understanding, and open our eyes that we may follow that which may be most agreeable unto him, without deceiving of ourselves. s. jerome. saint jerome in his epistle to laeta, sayeth excellently well, that reading aught to follow prayer and prayer reading. a man might very well impute the cause that so many provinces have been made subject unto the tyranny of the turk, so many disorders, corruptions, wars, seditions, maladies, the effects which ensue the contempt of god's word. murders, and other calamities have happened, to the contempt of this word, according to which a man will not reform, his life, nor his strange opinions, nor support one an other, knowing that this word teacheth nought else then peace, concord and amity: and that we may be wise as serpents which to save their head lay open their body, and with their tail stop their ear against the enchanter. so let us spare nothing for the maintenance, of this doctrine so long a go left unto us, without dissoluteness, sects, or dissensions, for there is nothing so well established which discord can not ransack, and as saint augustine, augustine. saith very well, the knowledge of the true doctrine, humility, q. capitolius and patience, entertaineth concord. and quintius capitolius in titus livius saith, that partiality poisoneth and infecteth commonwealths, making such as would gain say not to consider what is most expedient, as we find by experience in france, and have too many examples both at home, and abroad. the emperor maximilian the second, had often in his mouth, that it was a grievous sin and error, to reign over men's consciences, as the laws carried it. i can here affirm that if men did know the truth, and the happiness which followeth the knowledge of true religion, the voluptuous man would there search his pleasures, the covetous his wealth, the ambitious his glory, the only mean which can fill their heart, and satisfy their desire, and it serveth us for a guide to lead us unto god, whereas the false doth clean withhold us from him. chap. xxxi. that those which defer their amendment, do wrap themselves in a dangerous lie. we have already showed, that if they which name themselves christians would but follow their profession, vice should not reign so plentifully. for who so would believe the promises of god, and settle therein a full assurance, and consider what a great blessing is prepared for such as fear him, and what everlasting punishment is ordained for the wicked; he would set all his care in seeking how to please and obey him, which hath honoured him with so manifold blessings. the disorderly life of a christian proceedeth from infidelity. and this is the very true cause, that we so much lament their folly and misery, which do ever defer the amendment of their disordered life proceeding only from their infidelity, and want of believing, of the threatenings of the judgements of god, who will render to every man according to his works, to whose self we must render account, of all our idle words, thoughts, and affections. the hour of death uncertain. moreover every one knoweth that the hour of death is uncertain, and we indifferently see the young die as well as the old, and that nothing is more common than sudden death, demonax. the which caused the great philosopher demonax, to warn the emperor adrian and such as lived at their ease, in no wise to forget how in very short time they should be no more. k. philip. and an other did often times put king philip in mind, that he should remember he was a man. and the emperor maximilian the first, maximilian. did always cause to be carried about with him among his robes, whatsoever was necessary for his burial, as one that was always booted, and ready to departed. we must not excuse ourselves with the patience, bounty, and mercy of god, we must not abuse the patience of god. except we be determined to amend, and thereby be drawn to repentance, so much commanded in the holy scriptures: but still be afraid of his judgements, and call to mind that which is so often written, 1. cor. 6.9. that neither the unrighteous, neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor wantonness, nor buggers, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor railers, nor extortioners, nor murderers, nor gluttons, gal. 5.20. nor such as are full of wrath, envy, contentions, seditions, or heresies, shall inherit the kingdom of god. and every one shall reap what himself hath sown. and saint paul addeth that they which are of christ have crucified the flesh together with the affections and concupiscence thereof. therefore ecclesiasticus exhorteth us, to make no tarrying to turn unto the lord, eccles. 5.7. and not to put off from day to day, for suddenly shall the wrath of the lord break forth, and in our security, we shall be destroyed and perish in time of vengeance. and the wisdom of god in the beginning of the preverbes of solomon, doth amply exhort us to receive in dew time his correction, & not to reject his council, and that the foolish are slain through their ease, but he which will obey, shall dwell surely, and rest without fear of evil. let us consider that the most just god doth recompense the good, and punish the wicked, and payeth not every night, nor every saturday, but as valerius sayeth, counterpeaseth the slackness of his deferred punishment by the grievousness thereof when it cometh. and the afflictions of this present time, rom. 8.16. (sent unto the good to contain them in their duty) are not worthy of the glory which shallbe showed unto us as s. paul saith. and all the delights and pleasures of this life, are turned into sourness, and it is the act of a christian, to look that at the hour of his death, he run to none but to god and himself, nor take care of aught else. for we shall have enough to do, without taking such cark and care, for the affairs of this world, and to premeditate thereof giveth great advantage. our saviour in saint luke said unto him which still delighteth himself in heaping up of riches: o fool this night will they fetch away thy soul, from thee: luk. 12.20. amendment of ●●●e and repentance. than whose shall those things be, which thou hast provided? the prophets and apostles, very often admonished us to amend while there is time, to the end we should not tarry until the gates of repentance, were fast locked up, and barred. the which our saviour would also teach us by the parable of the foolish virgins, mat. 25.10. who were suddenly surprised, and shut out of the hall where the bridegroom made his feast, to the end that after the confession of our sins, we might run to the promises and mercy of god, isaiah 55.6. and dispose ourselves to a new and holy life. isaiah warneth us to seek the lord while he may be found, and to call upon him while he is near: and it is to be feared if we over slip the opportunity, lest he will leave us. and if such as search the riches and vanities of the world, forget nothing, which may further them, i pray you with what ferventness ought we to search god and our salvation? isaiah 66.2. let us take heed, lest that reprooche in isaiah be not cast in our teeth, i have spread out my hands all the day unto a rebellious people. jerem. 5.3. and jeremiah writeth: thou hast stricken them, but they have not sorrowed, thou hast consumed them, but they have refused to receive correction: they have made their faces harder than a stone, heb. 3.7. and have refused to return: for this cause saint paul to the hebrews, putteth them in mind of that in the 95. psalm, to day if you will hear my voice, harden not your hearts. the accustoming of ourselves to sin, and the examples of other greatly harm us. for when men see the elder sort to fail, then doth youth take example thereby, and being ill brought us followeth the same train, all the rest of their life. but by little and little this custom must be changed, & nothing is so hard as seneca saith, but the understanding of man surmounteth it, and is able to attain what ever it seeketh. let us call to mind what god saith in isaiah, your refuge in falsehood shall be made void, your covenant with death shall be disannulled, and your agreement with hell shall not stand: when a scourge shall run over and pass through, then shall ye be trod down by it. now therefore be no mockers, hearken ye and hear my voice, hearken ye and hear my speech. and he sayeth in jeremy, jeremy. 13 16 give glory to the lord your god, before he bring darkness, and or ever your feet stumble in the dark mountains, and whiles you look for light, he turn it into the shadow of death, and make it as darkness. can the black more change his skin? or the leopard his spots? nothing hard to a good will. then may ye also do good, that are accustomed to do evil. we must then undertake the good way, guided thereunto through the assistance of god, and what difficulty soever we find, yet to strive to come to our pretended end, and we shall find the paths of justice pleasant and easy. we read in histories that sundry pagans, have overcome their evil and natural inclination; and what ought a christian to do? if riches, honours, and pleasures slack us, let us call to mind the sundry threatenings in the holy scriptures, against the rich, the proud, and ambitious, and have all our own greatness in suspicion, and enjoy all things, as not possessing them, and let it be the least part of our care, 2. cor. 5.20. the affairs of this world. we must remember how saint paul prayeth us to be reconciled to god, to watch and be sober, and to live well, while we have the light, and while it is called to day, not being able to assure ourselves thereof in time to come. and that we may the better be brought thereto, we must shun all lewd companies, and evil livers, and acquaint ourselves with persons which have the fear of god, as saint paul warneth us, evil company to be shunned. yea in no case to meddle with men of evil life. let us not then be christians in name only, as we have before declared: and let us be patiented in adversity, modest in prosperity, in our duty temperate, in our life just, charitable towards our neighbours, towards the poor sweet and tractable, in our conversation loving peace, integrity, and truth, beseeching to this end by earnest prayers the aid of god through his holy spirit, and imagining that we are always in the presence of god, his holy saints and angels. and since that we are the heirs of god, and coheir with christ jesus, the temple of the holy ghost, and fellow bourgeses with the saints and servants of god, let us be ashamed to defile that temple and holy company, through the lewdness of our life. and call to mind over and beside that we find so much marked in the holy scriptures, the heathen of singular virtues. the excellent virtues of the heathen as the innocency and abstinence of aristides, the integrity of photion, the holiness of socrates, the charity of cymon, the temperance of camillus, the thriftiness of curius, the uprightness, gravity, justice, and faith of the cato's, yea the sobriety of the very turks, and an infinite number of examples so much recommended unto us, the which may make us blush; as our saviour said unto the jews, that they of sodom, tire and sidon, shallbe better entreated than they except they repented, and amended their lives. i know that therein lieth great difficulty, but a man must surmount all for the good that ensueth thereon: and as cursius writeth, physicians cure the grievousest diseases by bitter and sharp remedies. and cicero wrote unto octavian, that men never apply salves to grievous wounds, but such as do as much smart as profit. and there is no good without pain, cicero likewise in some places, and plato in his phedon, in gorgias, and in axiochus, describe the strange kind of punishments that are prepared for the wicked in the jail of vengeance, which he calleth tartarus, a place of darkness and torments; and that the good are heaped up with all happiness & prosperity, and sent to paradise, or a garden which he setteth forth to be the most pleasant that may be, and termed to be the place of judgement and the field of truth. and in the tenth of his commonwealth he writeth, that neither the pains, nor rewards in this world, are aught, either in number or greatness, in respect of what each of them are in an other life. whereof we are better certified, in the holy scriptures, to the end we should be reconciled unto god, without differing, or longer wallowing in the filth of sin, for which we ought most earnest to beseech of him pardon, disposing ourselves wholly to obey him, since that he is our father, & rendering unto him all homage & fealty, for whatsoever we hold of him in chief, calling upon him in all our business. and since that he hath pomised to hear, and provide for all, let us not abuse his bounty, but in dew time reconcile ourselves unto him, luke 12.35. as saint paul exhorteth us. i will not here forget the exhortation which our saviour maketh in saint luke cap. 12. how we should have our loins guirde about, and our lights burning, to be ready at the instant to perform what he commandeth us; our faith being always accompagned with this ready obedience, as we see by experience in abraham the father of the faithful, and in sundry other, whose names are celebrated in the 11. to the hebrews, how they left all respect of commodity, as soon as they were called. this is that which we beseech at god's hands in the lord's prayer, that his will may be done in earth as it is in heaven, as much to say, as that he give us grace to be so prompt and ready to do his will, as are the angels that are in heaven, who no sooner receive any commandment from god, but at the instant put it in execution. for since that god is our sovereign lord, which commandeth nothing that is not reasonable, & for their profit whom he will employ in his service, we ought not to consult or descant, if we should obey what he commandeth, nor be more slack or slow to accomplish his will, then are his creatures without soul, which as it is written in sundry of the psalms and prophets, leave no one jot to do in whatsoever their creator commandeth them. our saviour christ in saint luke, said unto him that was so ready to follow him, marry upon condition that he mought first go unto his own house, and take his leave of such his friends as were there, no man which putteth his hand to the plough, and looketh back, luke 9.62. is apt for the kingdom of god. and we must not as we have said let slip the opportunity to do well, or receive that good, which god presenteth unto us when it is offered, but to serve him readily, for fear lest if it be once lost it be no more possible to recover it, being as old writers report bawlde behind and not able to have any fast hold laid thereon. this is that, which our saviour said speaking unto the jews: yet a little while is the light with you, john. 12.35. walk while you have light, lest the darkness come upon you, for he that walketh in the dark knoweth not whether he goeth. which afterwards they had by experience good proof of. for by reason that they did not receive this light which was then offered unto them, they were thereby deprived thereof, & became most miserable, not knowing the time of their visitation, having rejected those benefits which god was willing to have bestowed on them. mat 22.4. we read in s. matth. cap. 22. that such as were invited to the marriage of the king's son, excused themselves, some alleging their merchandise, other their domestical affairs, & other hindrances to be the cause. the king being extremely angry with them, for that they so little regarded the favour & honour which he had offered them, pronounced them unworthy of his liberality, & never after to be received into his house. and in the 24. chap. of that gospel mention is made of the evil servant, which said in his heart, my master doth differ his coming, mat. 24.8. let us drink, eat, and be merry, and in the mean time that he was so careless, came his master, and put him in the rank of hypocrites where there was weeping, and gnashing of teeth: the which teacheth us by no means to be slothful, as we have in jeremiah the example of the pismire, which prepareth her meat in summer, knowing that in winter she neither shall have time nor leisure: and likewise of the swallow, pro. 5.6 jerem 8..7 turtle, and stork who observe the time of their coming, that they may not be prevented with cold, which is so contrary unto their nature. our saviour jesus christ, in like sort reproveth the scribes and pharisees: mat. 16.6. for if men return not unto him and leave their evil way, they have occasion to fear his justice. for in the 13. of the prophet hosea, he protesteth, that the fault lay not in him that we are not saved, and that none is the cause of our ruin and destruction but our own selves. and we must not resemble them of whom it is said in the 24. of saint math. that they never believed they should be surprised or overtaken. for as s. paul saith in the first to the thessalonians, the day of the lord shall come as a thief in the night, a fit hour to convey one's self secretly into the house, he doth mean to rob: and as the lightning, which no sooner is perceived, than it vanisheth away. we have before greatly esteemed, and commended fabius maximus, for that by delay, and temporizing, he clean broke the fury of hannibal; fabius maximus. but such wisdom prevaileth not with god, in respect of whom nothing is more wholesome, than a readiness to execute what he commandeth, which is not without very great reason, and for the especial good of such as obey him. in the first of zephaniah god saith: i will visit the men that are frozen in their dregs, as much to say that they chose rather to lie wallowing in their filth, then to hasten the preventing of the judgement of god. zepha 1.12. let us then cast away, every thing that presseth down, and the sin which hangeth so fast on, heb. 12.1 ● and let us run with patience the race which is set before us, and let us so run as we may carry the price. and let us crave at god's hand, with the psalmist, that he will break in sunder the cord which so fast tieth us, and deliver us from all vain desires, slothfulness, and delays which are so dangerous. here i will crave of the reader, if it please him to hold me excused, in having been so tedious in this discourse of so great weight and importance. chap. xxxii. that ignorance is a lie, and the gap of great inconvenience. plato in his second and seventh book of his common wealth writeth, that ignorance is a spiritual lying, which we ought to shun. ignorance. and in timeus he termeth it the sickness of the mind, and the occasion of evil. and in the tenth of his laws; he addeth that the soul receiving and comprehending the divine understanding, conducteth all things rightly, and happily: but if she be once joined with ignorance, she worketh clean contrary, and the understanding is unto the soul, as the sight is unto the body. and in his discourse of the sovereign good, he saith that ignorance is a most dangerous matter to fall into great personages, which ought to serve as a light and example unto the people. and pythagoras his counsel was, that above all things we should have a care to keep the body from diseases, the soul from ignorance, eccles. 4.25. and the city from sedition. and ecclesiasticus biddeth us to be ashamed of the lies of our own ignorance. ciril. and isaiah setteth it down for the fountain of all evils. and as s. ciril wrote, there is no mischief, which ignorance doth not undertake. augustine. falsehood & doubt the daughters of ignorance. s. augustine in his third book of the city of god, was of the same opinion, and placed it amidst the temporal pains of this life. and from this lewd mother of ignorance, have two daughters issued, to wit, falsehood, and doubt. this is the reason why solomon sayeth in ecclesiastes: eccl. 2.14. that the wise man's eyes are in his head, but the fool walketh in darkness. for ignorance maketh one fearful, base minded, unconstant, like unto beasts, and such as are dead, and as cleanthes was wont to say, suffereth itself to be deceived, and to deceive: beside, it knoweth not how to use that well which it possesseth. it is rash, taketh the false for the true, the uncertain for the certain, vice for virtue, and as menander said, it believeth not what it seethe, for this cause k. philip, k. philip. when he gave his son alexander to aristotle to be instructed by him, exhorted him in any wise to apply himself unto philosophy, to the end he should do nothing whereof he mought repent. sundry other have likewise been of opinion, that knowledge was the true substance of felicity, and the efficient cause of wisdom profitable to all mankind. solomon writeth that men are adorned and preserved by wisdom: and from thence receive infinite benefits: and for the most part all great captains of ancient time were given to learning. theodosius. the emperor theodosius the second with his own hand copied out all the new testament and the psalms. vespasian. as titus vespasian, did the whole history of josephus: and other all homer. epaminundas it is written of epaminondas, who obtained so many and great victories, that he was instructed by the philosopher licides, and that through learning he became much more valiant, just, and modest. the like hath been reported of julius caesar, of augustus of the scipios, fabius, & cato's: and that life without learning, the life of man without learning a very death is but a very death, and as a man buried while he is yet living. for as a philosopher said, the understanding seethe, heareth, and liveth: all the rest is blind and deaf, wanting reason. and high dignities, estates, and riches, doth greatly blemish such as possess them, unless truth be joined therewithal, which causeth all to be well used. the poets described one typhoon an enemy to knowledge, as a man puffed up, proud, and scattering all things by his ignorance, for there is great difference between the judgement, contentment, sight and feeling of a learned man, zeuzis. and of one that is ignorant. as upon a time that great painter zeuzis, not being able to satisfy himself, in beholding the excellent workmanship of a picture, answered an ignorant man; you would not demand of me, why i so much admire it, if you had my eyes: which was the occasion that plato said, hos. 4.6. col. 1. eph. 4. 1. cor. 14. & 15. jer. 8.4, that for to love well virtue, wisdom, and the truth, philosophical eyes were required. and it is written in hosea: that for lack of knowledge the people were destroyed. and saint paul exhorteth us carefully to avoid ignorance, and diligently to search the knowledge of the will of god. and the prophet jeremiah complaineth: shall they fall and not arise; shall he turn away and not turn again? wherefore is this people of jerusalem turned back by a perpetual rebellion they gave themselves to deceit, and would not return? pope pius the second, pope pius 2. said that his books were his treasure. and a philosopher being demanded, if the king of persia were not most fortunate, made answer, i know not what virtue and learning he hath. alexander. and alexander said that those discourses which he had learned in philosophy, made him much more valiant, advised and assured, as well in wars as all other enterprises. and not without cause menander called ignorance a voluntary misfortune; and seneca esteemed the unwise man, alphonce. to be unthankful, of small assurance, and angry with his own self. one told alphonsus that a king of spain said, that a prince ought not to be endued with learning: then he cried out that it was the voice of a beef, and not of a man. and termed ignorant kings, crowned asses, saying, that by books men learned arms, and should thereby know more, than their experience would teach them in a thousand years. sigismond. and the emperor sigismonde persuaded a county palatine, that was already well stricken in years to learn latin. petrarque rehearseth of one robert king of sicily, petrarque. that he was wont to say: he had rather be deprived of his realm, then of his learning. and we read in sundry histories, that it hath been inflicted to many as a punishment that they should not be admitted to learning. and it was not without cause said of them in old time, that nothing was more pernicious, than an ignorant man in authority, as i could show by many examples: and the deliberations of the ignorant, can not be but very ambiguous, slow, and without effect. leonce. sundry have blamed leonce the emperor, for that he could neither write nor read, and pope paul the second, for that he hated such as were learned. paul 2 pope celestine the fift, deposed himself by reason of his ignorance. celestine 5. and the emperor julian, to the end he mought molest the christians, forbade them the reading of all good books. but the good emperors and kings have founded colleges, colleges founded by good kings. and trajan found five thousand children at school, thereby to drive away and banish the vice of ignorance. and for the most part all princes have aided themselves by learning or at the least made show of esteeming it. aristotle said, that it were better to beg and be needy, then unlearned: because the one hath need of humanity, the other of money, which may more easily be recovered. he said likewise, (as plato and demanes) that there was as much difference between a learned man and an ignorant, as between alive and a dead, a whole and a sick, a blind and one of clear sight, or as between the gods and men. this made menander to write, the scope of learning. that learning increased and doubled the sight. yet men ought not to esteem one that hath red much, except he wax the better thereby, no more then as a bath which serveth to nothing except it be cleansed. and if we be accustomed in a barber's chair to behold ourselves in a glass, much more ought we by a lesson, sermon, or lecture, to examine ourselves, and see how our spirit is purged of sin, and how much we thereby grow better. and we must together with a good nature join the contemplation of learning, the better to inform us of our duty, & afterwards to put in use & practise that good which we have learned, for as plato wrote, the end of philosophy, from contemplation must proceed practice. and of our studies is that by the search which we have made of natural things, we may be lead to the knowledge of god, and use that light which is bestowed upon us, to conduct our life to piety, all good works and virtue. even demosthenes wrote to a friend of his, that he was glad he followed philosophy, which detested all unhonest gain and deceit, and whose final scope was virtue and justice. the which with much more certainty we may aver of the holy scripture, wherein we ought to exercise ourselves for fear of falling into that threatening which god pronounced by his prophet, because thou hast rejected knowledge, therefore i will cast thee off. s. augustin handling that place of s. paul to the romans, where he speaketh of the ignorance of the jews, writeth, that in them which would not understand or know, ignorance was a sin: but in them which were not able, nor had the means how to know or understand, it was the pain of sin. so the not knowing of god or of ourselves, before we were instructed by the word of god, was the pain of sin unto condemnation, but after we have heard the word, ignorance is of itself a most grievous sin. for as s. bernard writeth, they which are ignorant, and either for negligence or slothfulness do not learn, or for shame inquire not out the truth, are void of all excuse. and if the egyptians counted it a most intolerable calamity, to endure but for three days the darkness which god sent unto them by moses: exod. 10.22 how much more ought we to be afraid, when we remain all our life long in the night of ignorance? i could to this end allege sundry examples of inconveniences that have ensued through ignorance of the natural causes of the eclipse of the moon, and sun, of the impressions which are fashioned in the air, and of a superstitious fear of the celestial signs, and how by the ignorance of the mathematics, of cosmography, inconveniences ensuing by ignorance chorography, and geography, they have not been able to know their way, nor to judge of the height of a wall to be scalled, nor of the passages, rivers, marshes, and proper places to pitch a camp, or retire themselves into, and how much sundry historiographers have failed herein, but that i may not be too tedious, i will refer the reader to the greek, latin, and french histories. for this cause we ought to enforce ourselves to learn, and to profit in the knowledge of the truth, that that in jeremiah may not be reproached unto us: jer, 5 21 you have eyes & see not, and have ears and hear not. chap. xxxiii. that one ought not rashly to borrow money, nor answer for another man for fear of lying. it is greatly to be presumed that the principal cause, which moved them of old time to council a man not to be surety for an other, nor to borrow money without very urgent necessity, or good pawn for the repayment, was for fear one should be found a liar, which is a vice accompanied with impudency, and unjustice. the persians. the persians in like sort, as herodotus witnesseth blamed greatly two sins, the one of owing, the other of lying. alexander. the which also moved alexander the great after the victory which he obtained against darius, sophy. to pay and acquit his soldiers debts: and sophy the wife of justin, to answer sundry debts of the subjects of the empire, out of her own coffers; and solon at athens, to establish an abolishing of all debts, solon. which he termed by a word which signified a diminution of charge; nehem. 5.11. and sundry other to do the like in lacedaemon, and nehemiah to restore again the burdens & exactions. and in deuteronomie every seventh year called the year of freedom, deut. 15 2. debts could no more be demanded, to the end this vice of lying might be met with, which accompanieth the disability of restoring. photion. the which likewise was the cause of the answer which photion made unto them which demanded of him to contribute where every man had very frankly given: nay, i should be much ashamed to give unto you, and not to restore unto him, pointing unto a creditor of his own. and seneca writeth, that often times he which dareth money unto his friend, loseth both money and friend. aulus gellius. l. 7. c. 18. seneca. & l. 16. c. 7. telleth of one which termed an oath a plaster of them which borrowed. aulus gellius and to the end the boetiens and sundry other mought be kept from borrowing, they tied a collar of iron about such as paid not at their day, bankrupts fastened to a collar. and they stood long time open to the reproach of such as passed by. the father of euripides was in like sort handled. and sueton writeth that claudus was so served before he was chosen emperor. and hesiodus parents to avoid that shame were constrained to quit their country. that is worthy of marking which pausanias writeth that the athenians before they gave charge to any captain, tit. de legate. either by sea or by land, acquitted their debts, otherwise no account was made of him. and according to the disposition of the law, one that is indebted ought not to take upon him the office of an ambassador. i have seen this same law of the collar observed in certain cantons of zuizerland, to make men thereby the better to keep their promise. in saxe they made them prisoners which did not acquit themselves. the law of the twelve tables was far more severe: the law of 12 tables rigorous. for if one did not pay what he borrowed, they would give unto him a short peremptory day, in which time, if he did not acquit himself, they sold him, or he was given to his creditor to serve him as his slave: & if he had many creditors, they mought dismember him, & take every one a piece. such a law notwithstanding, was not long since in use, l. 20. cap. 1. as titus livius and aulus gellius have written, and was repealed at the request of the tribunes of the people & afterward by dioclesian. indians. among the indians likewise, if the debtor did not discharge himself in his prefixed time, they mought take from him either a hand or an eye, and if he died indebted, they would not suffer him to be buried, until his children or friends had answered it. we read in the second book of the kings, the miracle which eliseus did, 1. kings 4.1. to pay the debt of a widow, from whom her creditor would have taken away her two children, to have served him for want of payment. pro. 22.7. and it is written in the proverbs, that the borrower is servant to the man that dareth: and so is it in the law 3. c. de novatio. titus livius, and plutarque, in the lives of coriolanus and sertorius describeth the sedition which fell out at rome, sedition at rome for debts. which was abandoned of many, because the creditoures lead as slaves their debtors, abissius. and detained them in most cruel bondage. aluare which wrote the history of the abissius, setteth down that debtors were delivered as bondmen to their creditors: and some others have written that in the realm of calicut, calicut. upon complaint made to the bramains against the debtor, they gave the creditor an instrument wherewith he mought make a circle in the earth, and therein enclose his debtor, commanding him in the kings name not to departed from thence until he were satisfied, and so was he constrained either to pay, or die there for hunger. at athens there was a judge which had no other charge then to see debts paid: the tribunes likewise at rome, had the like charge against the greater sort. and by the civil law, if a man called one his debtor which in deed was not, he mought lawfully have an action of the case against him; so odious was that name. as touching the inconveniences of suretyship. solomon setteth them down in the proverbs— he shallbe sure vexed that is surety for a stranger, pro. 6.1. & 11 15. & 22.26. and he that hateth suretyship is sure. be not among them that are surety for debts, if thou hast nothing to pay, why causest thou that he should take thy bed from under thee? and in ecclesiasticus: suretyship hath destroyed many a rich man, and removed them as the waves of the sea. ecclis. 29.29. for the condition of the surety is sometime worse than his that borroweth, because not making account to pay it, he is prosecuted, and put in execution, and often times constrained to help himself by very sinister means, to his great disadvantage. the which agreeth with the old proverb: be surety, and thy pain is at hand. and according to the opinion of bias, he which loseth the credit of his word, loseth more than he which loseth his debt. i do not for all that mean by this that charity should therefore wax cold, nor that there should be any let why both in word and deed, we should assist and help the necessity of our neighbour, according unto such means as god hath bestowed upon us. chap. xxxiiii. of lying ingratitude. the unthankful man hath ever been accounted a more dangerous liar, the unthankful man a more dangerous liar than the debtor. than the debtor: for as much as he is only bound by a natural obligation to acknowledge the benefit which he hath received, and notwithstanding impudently dissembleth the same, thinking it a sufficient excuse, for that he can not be by law constrained thereunto as the debtor, & shunneth him whom he ought to seek, breaking that conversation, & humanity, which preserveth the society of men. he despiseth god, his kin, and friends. and through this impudency, he is even driven to all villainy, and mischief, and maketh himself a slave, and aught to be grievously chastised as xenophon writeth. and plutarque interpreteth pythagoras symbol of not receiving of swallows, pythagoras' symbol. that a man ought to shun ungrateful persons. the which hath been an occasion that many have refused great presents, fearing that they should not have means to requite the same, and thereby to avoid the suspicion of ingratitude which hath always been condemned for a most manifest injury and unjustice: and under the word ungrateful have all vices with a curse been comprehended. the romans likewise, in the middle of their city, caused a temple to be builded, and dedicated it to the graces, the temple of graces. hesiodus. thereby to admonish every man to love peace, & detest ingratitude, and to render to every one, according to hesiodus rule, (a man famous among the philosophers) with increase, and greater measure, whatever we have received, imitating therein (as cicero sayeth) the fertile lands well laboured, and sown, which bringeth forth more than four fold increase. for this cause xenophon among the praises which he gave unto agesilaus, reputeth it a part of injustice not only, not to acknowledge a good turn, but also if more be not rendered then hath been received. and if we be naturally inclined to do good to them of whom we conceive good hope, how much more are we bound to those at whose hands we have already received a good turn. for it is in our power to give, or not to give, but as seneca writeth, it is by no means lawful for a good man not to render again the like pleasure which he hath already received, and showeth that he is most miserable which forgetteth it; the ungrateful of worse condition than serpents and that the ungrateful man is of worse condition than the serpents, which have venom to annoy an other, but not themselves, whereas he is in perpetual torment, making that which he hath received seem less than in deed it is, judging it in himself a most dishonest part not to acknowledge it, and yet against his own conscience giveth place to his covetousness, and often times wisheth them dead to whom he is most bound. the histories are full of plagues, and miseries sent by god to the unthankful, and of praises that have been given unto those, which have acknowledged even towards very beasts, that good which they have received, & of the great expense, & travail taken by many, to take away the very suspicion of ingratitude, to which for brevity sake i will refer you. i will not for all that forget here the example of k. pyrrhus, who greatly lamented the death of a friend of his, k. pyrrhus. because thereby he had lost the means to requite those benefits which he had received of him, and greatly blamed himself, in having before so long time differred it. and it was not without cause said by publius mimus, pub. mimus. that who so receiveth a benefit selleth his own liberty, as who would say, that he made himself subject to render the like. and that we may be the rather stirred up to preserve this human society, and thankfulness, thanks rendered unto god for his benefits. we must account what we receive of greater value than in deed it is, and what we give to be of less, and not suffer ourselves, to be overcome by benefits. through the whole course of the holy scripture we read, how the saints and patriarchs, have been diligent and careful, in praising of god, & rendering thanks unto him for the benefits and favours received at his hands, and greatly lamenting the unthankful, showing the miseries that lighted upon them; even god complaineth in isaiah, isaiah. 14. and the rest of the prophets, that he nourished and brought up children, but they rebelled against him: and that beasts had more judgement to acknowledge their benefactors then men. hos●a. 2.8. and reproached them in hosea: that they did not know that he gave them corn and wine. and complained in deuteronomie: that the people being waxed gross, deut. 32.25 and laden with fatness, forsook god that made them, michah. 6. ● and regarded not the strong god of their salvation. in micah, he calleth more amply to mind his benefits bestowed on the jews, & asketh what he hath done, to see himself so ill acquitted? and yet declareth, that the lord requireth of them surly to do justly, and to love mercy, and to humble themselves, to walk with their god: and sundry other like passages are there in the bible. and solomon writeth, pro. 17.13. that he that rewardeth evil for good, evil shall not departed from his house. senec. l. 2. de benes. c. 6 the laws of athens, persia, and macedonia, were in time past highly commended, for giving judgement against the ungrateful: yea, the ungrateful by laws condemned to die. so far as they condemned him to the death; as it was in like sort in the law of periander. as touching lycurgus, he would ordain nothing therein, esteeming it a most monstrous thing, k. philip. that a benefit should not be acknowledged. it is written of k. philip, that he put one of his soldiers out of pay, and proclaimed him a villain, and uncapable of all honour, because he was found unthankful, and caused to be printed in his forehead this word ungrateful, and for this cause it was written of socrates, socrates. that he would receive nothing from any man how great a parsonage so ever he were, except in short time he had been able to have requited him with the like. and sundry philosophers & great captains have sent back great presents, when they were offered unto them: yea, & forbade their ambassadors in no wise to receive any, liberties & franchises upon vnthākf●lnes to be revoked. (as we will hereafter declare) fearing lest they should thereby remain more bound, & unthankful. and by the oracle of apollo, an ungrateful person ought to be rejected & blamed throughout the world. and it was lawful to revoke liberties & franchises for ingratitude, into the which we our selves fall, as cicero in his oration of the consular provinces declareth, except we acknowledge what was in our liberty to receive, or were offered unto us: and be thankful as well for the benefits which we receive at god's hand, as for those which he adorneth our neighbours withal, declaring thereby his good will which he beareth towards men, which are as one body of many members. and if that which publius mimius was wont to say be true, that what soever is given to a good man bindeth every man, then have we great occasion to be thankful unto god, for that good which he bestoweth of our neighbours. furthermore we ought to esteem adversities, adversity a blessing and testimony of the good will of god towards us. as great blessings, and testimonies of the good will of god towards us, thereby to humble us, & retain us in that discipline & due obedience, which we own unto him, as we have marked heretofore. and we ought to take as great pleasure, in calling to remembrance, what benefits we have received in time past, as in those which are in present offered unto us, thereby to prick us forward to acknowledge them, by faith, hope, charity, patience, good works & giving of thanks & to aspire unto riches more certain: otherwise we shall clean turn from us, the course of those benefits & gifts of god, which through men, as a mean he bestoweth upon us, & render ourselves most unworthy of all. cicero in his oration for plancus, calleth thankfulness the mother of all other virtues, thankfulness the mother of other virtues. and saith, that there is nothing so inhuman or brutish, as to suffer ourselves to be found unworthy, & very beasts to surmount us, in acknowledging of benefits bestowed. as in sundry histories a man may see it evident that very lions, bears, serpents, dogs, & other like beasts, have acknowledged the help which hath been done them, sufficiently to confound such as remain ungrateful. 2. tim. 3.2. pro. 17.13. pliuie. and s. paul among the vices, and wickedness, that shall happen in the latter time comprehendeth unthankfulness; and solomon in his proverbs writeth, that evil shall not departed from the house of the unthankful▪ pliny wrote not without cause that an ill, and over dear bargain, is always unthankful because it condemneth his master of folly, & lightness. we ought not then so much to cast our eye upon those which seem unto us to live more at their ease then ourselves, as upon an infinite number of other that are less, and which have not so much health, friends, & commodities; whereof we have cause to thank god, & shun this so great a vice. prince's ought in like sort above all things to detest it, & to use liberality, liberality of princes. to the end they may provoke & draw every man to embrace the good & happiness of their estate, & hold men still diligent in their service, in the duty of good men. de bello ing. sylla. and as sallust rehearseth bocchus the king of the getules, had reason to tell sylla that it was a less shame for a king to be overcome by arms then by courtesy. and before he wrote of the same sylla, that he never willingly would receive a pleasure at the hands of any, except he mought very speedily requite them, and never asked his own of any, studying above all things to make multitudes of nations fast bound unto him. chap. xxxv. that lying hath made poets and painters to be blamed, and of the garnishing of houses. plato wrote, poets banished plato's common weal. that poetry consisted in the cunning invention of fables, which are a false narration, resembling a true, and that therein they did often manifest sundry follies of the gods; for this cause he banished and excluded them out of his common wealth, as men that mingled poison with honey. besides through their lying and wanton discourses they corrupt the manners of youth, and diminish that reverence which men ought to carry towards their superiors, and the laws of god, whom they feign to be replenished with passions & vice. and the principal ornament of their verses are tales made at pleasure, & foolish & disorderly subjects, clean disguising the truth & history to the end they might the more delight: and for this cause have they been thrust out of sundry cities. among other, archilochus chased out of sparta. after that archilocus came into sparta, he was presently thrust out, as soon as they had understood, how he had written in his poems, that it was better to lose a man's weopens then his life, & forbade ever after all such deceitful poesies. hence grew the common proverb, that all poets are liars. and it was written of socrates, socrates not brought up to poetry. that he was ill brought up to poesy because he loved the truth. and a man mought say, that this moved caligula to condemn virgil's & homer's books, because of their profane fables, which spaul exhorted timothy to cast away. plutarque telleth of a lacedaemonian, tirteus who when he was demanded what he thought of the poet tirteus, hieron. answered that he was very good to infect young men's wits. and hieron of siracusa condemned epicarinus the poet in a great fine, because in his wives presence he had repeated certain lascivious verses. and vives writeth, ovid. that ovid was most justly sent into banishment, as an instrument of wantonness. he which first invented the jambique versifying, to bite, and quip, was the first that felt the smart. archilochus. and archilocus the poet fell into confusion, through his own detractions, as horace and sundry other have written, and aulus gellius reporteth that orpheus, homer, and hesiodus gave names & honours to the gods. pythagoras. and pythagoras said, that their souls hung in hell upon a tree, juvenal still pulled of every side by serpents, for their so damnable invention. and domitian banished juvenal: and pope paul 2. eusebius and adrian 6. held them as enemies to religion. eusebius in his 8. book & first chapter de preparatione evangelica, setteth down an example of a poet, who for having lewdly applied a piece of scripture to a fable, suddenly lost his natural sight, and after that he had done penance, it was restored to him again. and as touching painters, they have been greatly misliked of, for representing such fictions, painters simonides & poetical deceits. for as simonides said: painting is a dumb poesy, and a poesy is a speaking painting: & the actions which the painters set out with visible colours and figures, the poets reckon with words as though they had in deed been performed. and the end of each is, but to yield pleasure by lying, not esteeming the sequel and custom, or impression, which hereby give to the violating of the laws and corruption of good manners. for this cause the prophets called the statuas, images, and wanton pictures, the teachers of vanity, of lies, deceit, & abomination. and lactantius writeth, that a counterfeit took the name of counterfeiting, habac isaiah 3. and all deceit (as we before declared) springeth from falsehood and lying. this was it which moved s. john, deut. 27.15. in the end of his first epistle to warn men to keep themselves from images: for an image doth at their fancy counterfeit the body of a man dead, but is not able to yield the least gasp of breath. and idolatry, is properly, such service as is done unto idols. we read how god especially forbade it in the first table, and how long the romans and persians lived without any use thereof: and how the lacedæmonians could never abide that an image should stand in their senate. augustine. there hath been in sundry counsels mention made thereof & s. athanasius more at large discoursed thereof in a sermon he made against idols: and s. augustin in his book de fide & simbolo, and upon 150. psalms, & in his eighth book of the city of god, & damascene in his 4. book & 8. c. the occasion of so free passage given to poets is, for that their fables slide away easily, and cunningly turn themselves, to tickel at pleasure, whereas the truth plainly setteth down the matter as it is in deed, albeit the event thereof be not very pleasant. plato. plato in like sort compared, the disputes in poetry, to the banquets of the ignorant, who use music in steed of good discourse, and in his third book of his commonwealth, he forbiddeth poets or painters to set down or represent any thing dishonest or wanton, for fear of corrupting of good manners. aristotle. and aristotle in his politics, the third book, and 17. chapter would have all vile words to be banished. and saint paul to the ephesians, eph. 5.3. that any uncleanness, foolish jesting, tertullian. or talking should be once named among them. and tertullian an ancient doctor of the church, called poets, and certain philosophers, the patriarchs of heretics. this which i have spoken of must not be understood, of poesies, wherein much truth and instruction is contained, nor of pictures which represent the acts of holy and virtuous personages, nor of fables taken out of histories, whereof, there may grow some edifying: but only of that which is lascivious, and grounded upon naughty argument, rendering youth effeminate, and men more given to wantonness, pleasures, passion, & vain opinions, then to virtue, clean turning away the honour that is due unto god, or to good edifying; for according unto the commandment of god, cherubins were made. the admonition which epictetus gave to such as were too curious in pictures, epictetus. aught by no means to be here forgotten: trim not thy house (saith he) with tables and pictures, but paint it and gild it with temperance: the one vainly feedeth the eyes, the other is an eternal ornament which cannot be defaced. the same doth plutarque teach in the life of dion, plutarque. that more care is to be taken for the hanging and adorning of the palace of the soul, then of the outward. and the same philosopher did not much out of the way warn us, that we should take heed that the skirt of our garments should not carry a stench of life. chap. xxxvi. of backbiters, mockers, and evil speakers, and why the comedians, stage players and jugglers have been rejected. we have heretofore showed that our mouth ought to serve our neighbour, as well to preserve him in honour as in profit: and for that our lord god commandeth, levit. 19.11. that we should neither deal falsely, nor lie one to another. he forbiddeth us, either to deprave or deceive any: for depraving & backbiting is an enemy unto the truth, to the weal, & honour of our neighbour, exod. 20.16. & forbidden by god in the commandment of not bearing false witness: & hath ever been accounted as manslaughter, & stealing away of the renown, which we ought to esteem, according to the saying of the wise man above great riches. pro. 6.1. plato in his common wealth greatly praised the laws of lydia, which punished backbiters, lib. 3. as murderers, neither do we want sundry examples which show what mischief hath ensued through backbiting. we have one in hester c. 3. ester 3.1. of the mischief which haman pursued against the jews, which k. ahashueroh; & of doeg, which through his backbiting was the cause of the death of 85. 1. sam 22.18 1. sam. 24.10 persons that did wear a linen ephod, & sundry other miseries. and david did attribute unto slanderers all the evil which saul had wrought against him. the backbiter is in degree near unto the flatterer, & hurteth three persons, the absent, of whom he speaketh, the present, which giveth ear unto him, 2. cor. 6.9. & himself. and it is written in ecclesiast. that hatred, enmity, & reproach attendeth the backbiter. and s. paul writeth that railers shall not inherit the kingdom of god: eph. 4.31. & to the ephesians: let all bitterness & anger, & wrath, crying, & evil speaking, be put away from you, with all maliciousness. be ye courteous one to another, & tender hearted, forgiving one another, even as god for christ's sake forgave you. solon being demanded what was more cutting then a knife, answered, a slanderous tongue, the which david calleth a sharp razor, and hot burning coals. the same writeth s. james in his epistle more at large. and as it is taken for a sign of health, so is it a sign of a sound understanding to be exempt from all words that may do harm. pro. 18.21. and not without cause said solomon, that death & life are in the power of the tongue, sup. psal. 57 & more perish thereby then by the sword. and addeth, that he which keepeth his tongue, keepeth his life. s. augustin showeth that the truth hath written in our hearts this commandment: do unto an other, as thou wouldst be done unto thyself. and s. jerom upon isaiah in like sort saith, even as we would not that men should speak evil of us, isaiah. 14. no more ought we to deprave our neighbour. s. paul willeth us not so much as to eat or drink with the railers: 1. cor. 5.11. and so did s. james. all kind of mockery ought also to be shunned, which is a reproach covered with some fault, and which accustometh the mocker to rail, & lie, mockery. & moveth more than an injury when it proceedeth from a will to outrage, & a malice without necessity. the which moved some to term it an artificial injury. solomon writeth in his proverbs that god doth abhor all mockers, the which isaiah comprehendeth c. 38. & 57 the lieutenant of k. darius' put to death one of his soldiers which had railed upon alexander, railers and mockers punished. saying that the part of a soldier was to fight, not to rail. antigonus caused one to die for the like cause, 1. king. 2.23. and they of alexandria were well chastised by vespasian, and divers children were torn in pieces for mocking of elisha, with wild bears. at the least we ought to resemble the physicians which hipocrates made to swear, that they should not bewray the secret and hidden faults and evils. gregory. and saint gregory in his morals compareth the backebiter unto him, which bloweth the powder that flasheth into his own eyes, and hindereth his seeing. for this cause ought we to follow the council given unto us by saint peter: 1. pet. 2.1. that laying aside all maliciousness, and all guile, and dissimulation, and envy, and all evil speaking, as new borne babes we desire the milk of the word, that we may grow thereby. and above all things, following the council of demosthenes, we must take heed of speaking ill of the absent, or giving ear unto the backbiters, as alexander severus was wont to say and do. and for as much as comedies are compounded of fixions, comedies. fables, and lies, they have of divers been rejected. plays. as touching plays, they are full of filthy words, which would not become very lackeys, and courtisanes, and have sundry inventions which infect the spirit, and replenish it with unchaste, whorish, cozening, deceitful, wanton, and mischievous passions. atheneus writing of the invention of a comedy, and tragedy, sayeth, that they have ever been invented in a time of vintage & drunkenness. and for that, besides all these inconveniences, comedians. and stage-players. comedians, and stage players, do often times envy and gnaw at the honour of another, and to please the vulgar people, set before them sundry lies, & teach much dissoluteness, and deceit, by this means turning upside down all discipline and good manners, many cities well governed, would never at any time entertain them. and the city of marseilles, marseilles. hath been marvelously praised in ancient time, for that she always rejected such kind of people. and the emperors augustus, anthony, frederick the first, and henry the third, caused them to be driven out of their empire. and the tribunes banished one nevius out of rome. chrysostom. and s. chrysostom, in his 17 homily upon s. matth. saith, that there is no peril upon the sea so dangerous, theatres. as are the theatres and places of comedies & plays; and declareth at large what dissoluteness, disorder, factions, mischiefs & inconveniences have ensued thereby. seneca. the like doth seneca declare in his first epistle of the first book, caelius rodiginus. augustine. & caelius rodiginus in his 5. book & 7. chapter. and s. augustine in his city of god commendeth scipio, for that he forbade the use of any such pastimes as an enemy to all virtue & honesty. and saith that the devils under the similitude of false gods erected them. lacedæmonians. the lacedæmonians also would never permit such plays & acts, for fear somewhat might be imprinted into the people's breast, contrary to the laws & truth. for as the apostle writeth: 1. cor. 15.33. evil words corrupt good manners. and this caused the good king s. lovis to banish them out of his court. k. s. lovis. s. jerome. and s. jerom towards the end of his first book against jovinian writeth, that tragedies are full of contempt of marriage & good laws. and seneca wisely wrote in his epistles that it is very dangerous to be present at all shows. seneca. and by some counsels have they been flatly forbidden for the subject thereof is filthy & unhonest, & the action of the players leaveth an impression of wantonness, whoredom & villainy in the soul of the assistants, & that which they see so dissolute & vile, when it is joined with words & deeds, (whereby the comedians enrich their filthy & unhonest subject) infecteth more the spirits, & wrappeth them in passions, than drunkenness itself would do. and in cassiodorus, k. theodorick writeth a long letter to his provost, k. theodoric. that he should hinder all such spectacles, as corrupted manners & honesty, & raised nothing but quarrels, and contention the which moved aristotle in his politics, to exhort all magistrates to forbid such plays, aristotle. and banish all vile words out of their city. and saint paul exhorteth the ephesians: that no corrupt communication proceed out of our mouth: and addeth, grieve not the holy spirit of god, by whom you are sealed unto the day of redemption. i would wish that theatres might be defaced, and no occasion given for such plagues to enter within cities and houses, according to the opinion of saluian bishop of marseilles, esteeming all such spectacles to be a very apostasy, and leaving of the faith of sacraments, and christian religion; and therefore as the occasion of so great mischief they ought to be shunned. plato: plato his opinion was, that governors of common weals should in sort not suffer tragedies to be rehearsed, except they had been first considered of by censors and judges, and found good, and full of mortality, without any one the least word that mought be offensive to chaste ears. aristotle. and aristotle in the end of the eight book of his politics, forbiddeth all youth to be assistant thereat. chap. xxxvii. that accusers, tale-bearers, false pleaders, and curious persons, are of the same brotherhood of lying. since that all the virtues of the soul ought to be applied unto charity, slanders & false reports then are slanders and false reports to be greatly eschewed, proceeding out of the same shop of lying. the slanderer doth ever unjustly accuse & aught to be punished, with the same manner of punishment, as the party accused should have been, if it had been found true: as the emperors theodosius and honorius, ordained in the latter law, and tranquillus in augusto. and in ancient time they marked them in the forehead with a hot iron, as pliny reporteth in panegyr, c. de calumni. and cicero in his oration pro roscio. the emperors tiberius, nero, vitellius, and sundry other taking pleasure therein, have been the occasion of much mischief. when agesilaus king of the lacedæmonians, agesilaus. at any time had heard any praise, or discommend one, he was wont to say, that he was as well to consider the behaviour of him that spoke, as his of whom he spoke. and after that a roman knight, had showed unto augustus the emperor, that that was most false which had been reported of him, he humbly besought him, that for ever after he would have great regard, of what was laid to the charge of any person of quality, that it mought be done by good men, and of an approved truth. god forbiddeth us to judge lightly, or to give credit to a sole witness, and if our sight, our hearing, and our taste oft times deceive us, no doubt so may our judgement. the emperors titus, vespasian, nerua, and trajan, punishment of tale-bearers. made tale-bearers to be whipped and banished. domitian, anthony, and macrinus, thrust them out of the empire, saying: that who so did not punish them encouraged them. and leontius the emperor after that he had put justinian to flight, caused two of his tale bearers to be trailed by the feet and burned. and after the death of apollodorus and phalaris the tyrants, they caused such hell hounds to be flayed, and burned, and put them in the rank of the accursed. the which was likewise done in the time of the emperor pertinax, & after the decease of maximinus, pro. 18.8. and his son. solomon wrote, that the words of a talebearer are as flatterings, and they go down into the bowels of the belly. and pliny the younger calleth them robbers and thieves. and ecclesiasticus abhorreth them and all such as are of a double tongue, and thanketh god (as also did david in sundry psalms) that he had delivered him from the snare of the false tongue, dan. 6.24. devil. and tale-bearers. and darius made the accusers of daniel to be devoured by the lions. the word of devil is as much to say as an accuser. doeg by the tale he carried to k. saul, 1. sam. 22.18 aristobulus. caused the priests to be murdered. aristobulus the k. of the jews, through a false report put to death his own brother, herod. and afterwards died for sorrow. herod in like sort caused his wife & son to be murdered, & had like for grief to have died after that he was better informed of the truth: as also it befell to constantine the emperor, constantine. who was the cause of the death of his own son & mother in law: francis d. of bretaigne. and to francis duke of bretaigne that caused giles his own brother to be slain. we read of the end of seian, tiberius, plautian, and severus. many emperors have put men to death with hearing of them, and there is no person whatsoever be he never so upright and innocent, remedy against accusers. but through such hellhounds may very well be brought into trouble. as socrates in xenophon, and our own experience may teach us. and to be able to avoid all slanders & reproach, we must observe that instruction which s. paul giveth to the ephesians, so holily & wisely to behave ourselves, as no occasion or place be given to the accuser. he giveth the like advise in his 2. 1. pet. 2.12. epistle to the cor. and s. peter in his first epistle, willeth us to have our conversation honest, that they which speak evil of us, as of evil doers, may by our good works which they shall see glorify god. for good men by their virtue and innocency do quench reprooch, as fire is quenched by water. false pleaders are such as betray their clients, and dissemble the truth, false pleaders. l. praevaricatores de verb. sig. titulo ad senatusc. turpil. which setteth down a punishment for slanderers, false pleaders, and wranglers. such plagues did plato banish his commonwealth. a man likewise may name them false pleaders, which do not acquit themselves of the charge committed unto them, and pass it over as it were only for a fashion to be dispatched of it. the which is also to be understood of soldiers suspected of treason or failing in service of importance. and for as much as the condition of accusers and tale-bearers is much supported by curiosity and babbling, and thereby hath great alliance with envy and malice, and is engendered through idleness and folly. i have placed those curious men in the same rank, which desire so earnestly to know the imperfections of an other. and such should do very much for themselves, if they would bestow that same desire upon their own faults to amend them, curious persons. shutting their windows & lopeholes that look upon their neighbour, to the end they may have better sun, and more wholesome wind from some other part, and thereby better inform themselves of the private government of their own family, and of matters fit for them to know. they shall find enough at home to pass away their time withal, without resembling the lady fairies, that some say do never use the aid of their eyes but abroad, & out of their own houses. it was never lawful for stage players among the turiens to talk of any citizen, except he were either an adulterer or curious. and by the law of locres, if any man coming out of the country, should ask, what news were stirring, he was by and by greatly fined, to the end curiosity mought not have too much place. anthony. sundry writ that antony the emperor, going one day to the house of one ouilius a senator, demanded of him how it was possible for him to recover so great store of pillars of porphire, to whom he made answer, that when you enter into an other man's house, you must learn to be deaf, and dumb. the which the emperor took in very good part. and as we fear those winds which blow about our ears our clothes, and customers & farmers when they pry too near into small trash and private business, so ought every one to look to such curious persons, and when they once accost them, to answer them that the retreat is sounded, & the hens have espied the kite, and so shift from them as soon as they may be able. for nothing can enter into their ears but what evil so ever they can hear, like unto cupping glasses, which draweth nothing from the skin but the naughty blood that is within it, eccles. 21.21 and many times they interpret all to the worst. ecclesiasticus admonished us not without great cause, to take heed of being over-curious in matters superfluous and saith: that a fool will peep in at a door into the house, but he that it well nurtured will stand without. and s. paul in the end of his second epistle to the thessalonians, and in his first to timothy, li. 10 de confessi. blameth such as are curious. s. augustine teacheth us to change this curiosity, into a care to amend our life, and to know that which appertaineth unto our salvation: and tertullian wrote that it ought to take no place at all with us, since that jesus christ was manifested unto us in the gospel. and according to the greek proverb alleged by cicero, each man ought to busy himself in the art which he knoweth, and in his own vocation. of this vice bartole writeth upon the law, doli mali de novatio. nu. 5. tertullian. voyages into far countries. death of aristotle. death of pleny. remedies against curiosity. chap. 17. i could here impute to curiosity a great part of the art of navigation, and voyages into far countries, whence nothing is brought home but strange customs and corruption of manners: in like sort the death of aristotle not being able to comprehend the secret of euripus, nor why the sea in the strait of negrepont every 24. hours, flowed and ebbed apace 7. times: and of pliny smothered in the flames and vapours of montgibel, and the heresies of sundry other persons. and that we may the better keep ourselves from sinning herein, we must accustom ourselves not to be too much inquisitive after matters that are lawful, nor make account of inventors and coiners of news. as photion answered upon the brute of alexander's death: photion. deliberate of your affairs: for if the news be true to day, then will they be true to morrow. socrates. the answer which socrates made, to him which asked him what the world was, seemeth worthy to be here remembered: that ever since he came to any judgement, he applied his time to search his own self, thereby to know himself the better: which as yet he could not attain unto, and when he should then would he employ himself to other things which might serve him for nought, or not import him so much. he was wont likewise to say, geometry & arithmetic. that it was enough to learn so much geometry, as mought make him know, and maintain his own land from his neighbours: and so much arithmetic as to keep the account of his own money, movables, and merchandise. and in the ancient time they were greatly seized, which unprofitably consumed their brain, in the superfluous search of matters buried in obscure darkness, uncertain, and frivolous. chap. xxxviii. of flatterers. we have before declared how necessary a matter it is, flatterers. for one to have near unto him such entire friends as will always tell him the truth without flattery. for flatterers as s. augustine saith, do poison men's understanding, and still drive them into further error, making of a thersites an achilles, and of a little fly, an elephant, having no other scope in the world but deceit. and that which yieldeth unto them so large a field is self love, and over winning of one's self, which clean taketh away right judgement, self love blind and is blind in regard of what it loveth, except it fall out among such as have of long time been accustomed and taught, more to esteem honesty, then that which naturally springeth up with it. plato his followers would ever counterfeit his high shoulders, aristotle's his stammering, alexander's his double chin and shrillness of speech, & the poet ennius, his drunkenness. and in the time of tiberius the emperor, tiberius a flatterer said unto him, that since his pleasure was that every free city should be free of speech, a man ought not to be silent in that which he knew would prove profitable: and after he had prepared sundry men's ears ready to give him hearing, he began in this sort. hearker o caesar, wherein we find ourselves aggrieved with thee, and there is no man which dareth openly to tell thee thereof. it is for that thou makest no account of thyself, but abandonest thy own person, and afffictest thy body with the continual care and travail which thou takest for us, never yielding unto thyself thy dew rest, either by day, or night. and as he went on further with the same discourse, one cried out. the liberty which this man useth will cause him to die, other said he will mar the emperor. princes have always been subject to flatterers: for as the bigger the tree is, the mor fat there is for worms to remain in, prince's subject to flatterers so the more wealth a man is of, the more is he sought of flatterers, which address themselves to that part of the soul which is most unreasonable. the emperors augustus, titus, niger, alexander severus, frederic the second, and sundry other held them in great hatred: augustus. yea augustus being come into the theatre, flatterers banished the courts of princes. when one that was present cried out, o good and just lord, showed himself highly displeased therewith, and forbade that any should call him any more lord, as sueton writeth. and philip surnamed god's gift, constantine and sundry other, banished them their courts, as the very ruin and plague of princes: and at athenes they were put to death. a wise abbot wrote of charles the 3. that above all things he took heed, that flattering courtiers should not ravish from himself, the favour of his benefits: as they are whom they term sellers of smoke. for besides the mischief which they work, they serve with all change of fortune, & leave men as lice do a dead carcase, or flies an empty chychen. jovinian. and jovinian the emperor compared them to the ebb and flowing of the sea, agesilaus. and said that they only adored the rich robes of princes agesilaus k. of the lacedæmonians was wont to say that they were far more dangerous than either thieves or murderers. and isocrates, isocrates. & since his time k. alphonsus were wont to say that of all mischiefs, k. alphonsus. that were possible to happen to a prince, the greatest was, when he gave ear to flatterers: & counseled them to shun them like fire, hos. 7.3. plague, & wolves. the which the prophet hosea confirmeth, and solomon in his proverbs. julian. the emperor julian, being one day highly commended by his courtiers, for that he was so good a justicer, had reason to say, that if those praises had proceeded from any men's mouths, who had durst condemn, or mislike his actions, when they should be contrary thereunto, then had he had occasion to have esteemed thereof. dion. quintus cursius. dion attributed the hatred, which was conceived against julius caesar, & his very death to flatterers. and q. cursius showeth that great segneuries & kingdoms, lie by that means more desolate then by wars. vopiscus. vopiscus setteth down flattery, as the principal cause that corrupteth princes. philip de comines. and philip de comines, rendereth the reason thereof to be, for that princes do lightly overwin too much of themselves, & of those whom they find agreeable unto their humour. one of alexander his lieutenants on a time wrote unto him, alexander. that he had in his government a boy of incomparable beauty, & that if it so liked him he would send him unto him: he wrote back unto him, o accursed & mischievous caitiff, what hast thou ever known in me that thou shouldst thus dare to flatter me by such pleasures? likewise having on a time understood, that one with whom he ran a race, had suffered him to win the wager, by his swiftness, he grew marvelous angry: dionysius. contrary to dionysius of siracusa the elder who sent philoxenes the poet to the gallows, with such as were condemned to die, because he would not flatter him nor yield unto him in poesy. for as aristotle declareth in the 1. book of his politics, tyrants greatly take pleasure in being flattered, tyrants delighted with flattery. & favour the wicked. some are of opinions that flatterers are far worse than false witnesses or false coiners, because they infect the understanding. and antisthenes judged them more dangerous than ravens, plato: for that they do but devour the bodies of such as are dead. and plato in menedemus calleth them enchanters, sorcerers, & poisoners. theopompus & atheneus witness, that the thessaliens clean razed a city of the melians, because it was named flattery. one demanded of sigismonde how he could endure flatterers about him? sigismonde. he answered that he knew not how he gave ear unto them, of his own nature hating them. for albeit that they clean overturn & ruin kingdoms, yet have they commonly better entertainment then plain dealing or virtue. as alexander said that he loved better the idolatry of ephestion, than the sincerity of clitus. seneca. and seneca his book natural. quaest. writeth, that flattery is of that nature that it ever pleaseth though it be rejected, and in the end maketh itself to be received. thales, other say pittacus being demanded of all beasts which was the most cruel, answered that among princes the flatterer. photion said to k. antipater, photion. thou canst not have me both for thy friend and flatterer. atheneus & sundry other authors do impute alexander his faults & changes, his delicateness, drunkenness, alexander. dissoluteness, & the murders which he committed to his flatterers: he remained a time without burial, & his conquests occupied by strangers, after the massacre of such as were nearest unto him. the which ought to move us to cast off that opinion which we hold of ourselves, & so to consider of our imperfections & faults intermingled among our actions, remedy against flattery that we suffer not ourselves to be abused by flatterers, & as a man would say make litter of ourselves for their pleasure. for they transform themselves into all shapes (as the polepus & chameleon) that they may please. and it was not amiss said of him, that the flatterers of princes do resemble those which infect, and taint a common spring, & which put out the eyes of the guide, & are the occasion of the subjects harm, no man so pestilent as the flatterers. as the wiseman near a prine is the cause of the universal wealefare. other have said that there is no kind of man more pestilent, nor which sooner marred youth, than the flatterer, presenting an inevitable bait of pleasure, wherewith they are deceived. and if the said youth look not well about them, and hold a hard hand over their appetites, it is quickly entrapped: and they are among princes like fowlers which take birds in their snares by counterfeiting of their call. chap. xxxix. that envy is a miserable lie, and of the means to remedy it. all christians are one body where of christ is the head for as much as all christians are members of one self same body, whereof jesus christ our saviour is the head, those gifts and graces which each one hath particularly received at god's hands, are for the ornament, pleasure, and profit of all: as beauty and the agility of one of the members of the body, is common to all the rest, which are distinguished, and separate, each one having a particular office for their mutual weal. and in that the members do so knit and join themselves together, it is not accounted of their free accord, but as a satisfaction dew by the law of nature. so doth neither the foot, nor the hand envy one the other, though the one be adorned with rings, & the other be at rest, but as hipocrates & galen wrote, there is a kind of divine consent, and accord, betwixt all the members of the body. and the very true badge to discern a christian by is mutual love, the which tertullian named the sacrament of faith, christian love and the treasure of a christian name. and as the holy scripture teacheth us, we are not to ourselves, but to god, who most freely bestoweth all things upon us, to the end we should impart the same unto our neighbour. and we ought to esteem, whatsoever any man possesseth, not to happen unto him as by chance or fortune, but through the distribution of him, mal. 2.10. who is the sovereign master, disposer, and lord of all. and as it is written in malachi, have we not all one father? hath not one god made us? why do we transgress every one against his brother, and break the covenant of our fathers? and it was wisely set down by an ancient father, that upon whatsoever we possess we ought to engrave this title, it is the gift of god. and s. paul wrote to the corinthians, 1. cor. 6.20 gal. 3.15. that love envieth not, and if ye bite and devour on an other, take heed lest ye be consumed one of an other. notwithstanding whosoever he be that is already possessed and replenished with this mischievous vice of envy, envy. he violateth the dispensation of god, & is himself mightily afflicted at the prosperity & good of his neighbour, whereas he ought to have rejoiced thereat, as though he had been partaker thereof: and even as if he were grievously pained in the eyes, he is always offended, not able to abide any clearness or light, but gnaweth & consumeth himself as the rust doth iron. socrates. this moved socrates to term this vice the filth, slime & impostume of the soul, and a perpetual torment to him in whom it abideth, a venum, poison or quick silver, which consumeth the marrow of the bones, taking away all pleasure of the light, of rest, & of meat. and the wise man in his proverbs writeth, pro. 14.30. job 5. eccle. 30.24. & 31. that envy is the rotting of the bones, and in job, that it slayeth the idiot, and in ecclesiasticus, that it shorteneth the life, and there is nothing worse than the envious man. and in the pro. that he shallbe filled with poverty, & through envy man is made incompatible, and plutarch writeth that it filleth the body, with a wicked & pernicious disposition, and charmeth itself bewitching & darkening the body, the soul, & the understanding. for this cause isocrates wrote to enagoras, that envy was good for nothing, but in that it tormented them which were possessed therewith, which evil, the envious do no whit at all feel, but contrariwise make it an argument of their virtue. as themistocles in his youth said, that as then he had never done any thing worthy of memory, in that there was no man whom he mought perceive did any ways envy him. and thucydides was of opinion that a wise man was ever content to be envied. this passion doth often engender enmity & mislike, which is flatly forbidden of god except it be against sin. remedy against envy. this was the very cause why the philosophers did give us council, to praise our enemies when they did well, and not to be angry when any prosperity befell them, to the end we mought thereby be the further off from envying the good fortune of our friends. and can there be any exercise in this world, able to carry a more profitable habit to our souls, then that which clean taketh away this perverse emulation of jealousy, and this inclination to envy, a sister germane to curiosity, rejoicing in the harm of an other? and yet this is still tormented with an others good. both which passions proceed from a wicked root, and from a more savage, and cruel kind of passion, to wit malice. and not without cause did seneca stand in doubt, whether envy were a more detestable or deformed vice. and bion on a time seeing an envious man sad, demanded of him whether any evil had betide him, or good to an other. description of envy. neither was envy amiss described by a poet, imagined to be in a dark cave, pale, lean, looking a squint, abounding with gall, her teeth black, never rejoicing but at an others harm, still unquiet, and careful, and continually tormenting herself. and the same poets have written, that the envious were still tormented by megaera, one of the eumenides, and furies, megarein likewise in greek is as much to say as to envy. we ought then to consider that a great part of these things which we commonly envy, is attained unto by diligence, prudence, care & virtuous actions; to the end we should exercise, & sharpen our desire to honour, & seek by all means to attain to the like good, agis k of lacedaemon. without envy. some report, how agis k. of lacedaemon, when it was told him that he was greatly envy, by his competitors, made answer. they are doubly plagued: for both their own lewdness doth greatly torment them, and beside are grieved at that good which they see in me & mine. for envy, both maketh the body to be very ill disposed, & changeth the colour of the countenance, therefore was it termed the which & fever hepticke of the spirit. aristotle. pliny and as aristotle & pliny wrote, that in the mountain of care, and in mesopotamia, there is a kind of scorpions, and small serpents, the nature of certain scorpions & serpents. which never offend, or harm strangers, but yet do deadly sting the natural inhabitants of the place so envy never doth exercise itself, but upon such as it most frequenteth, and is most private with. and most wisely was it said of the ancient fathers, that the envious man is fed with the most dainty meat, for he doth continually gnaw on his own heart, and shorten his life, hannibal. and often times is the cause of great sedition and ruin. hannibal often times complained that he was never vanquished by the people of rome, bellisare. but by the envy of the senate of carthage, as also did that great captain bellisare, being thereby brought to extreme beggary. i do not exempt hence, their fault who, when they have attained to any science, or particular knowledge, that might be profitable, and serviceable to the common wealth, will never impart the same to any: but choose rather to die, and let such a gift received from god, be buried with them, defrauding their successors and posterity thereof, who shall in the end receive dew chastisement therefore: the only cause of the loss of so many and excellent inventions. chap. xxxx. how pride, ambition, vain boasting, and presumption are lying, and how all passions lead clean contrary to what they pretend, and who may be termed men of humility, and of the means which containeth us therein. ●ide. divers have set down two impediments as chief hinderers of the truth, to wit, despair, & presumption. and the wise bion said that pride kept men from learning, & profit. and ecclesiasticus termeth it the beginning of sin. and philo in his book of the contemplative life showeth, that the spring of pride is lying, as the truth is of humbleness. and aristotle wrote in his morales, aristotle. that the proud boasting man, doth feign things to be which indeed are not, or maketh them appear greater than they are, whereas the desebler contrariwise doth deny that which is, or doth diminish it, but the true man telleth things as they are indeed, holding a middle place between the presumptuous & the dissembler, as we have before touched. augustine. s. augustine showed how pride was the beginning of all mischief: & upon s. mat. entreating of the words of our saviour, he maketh pride the mother of envy, & saith that if one be able to suppress it, the daughter shallbe in like sort. and in the 56. epistle which he wort to dioscorides he saith, as demosthenes the greek orator, being demanded what was the first precept of eloquence, answered, to pronounce well, being demanded what was the 2. answered the like, & so to the 3. in like sort saith he if i be asked of the precepts of religion, i will answer that the 1.2. and 3. is humility. humility. and s. chrysostom in the homely of the perfection of the gospel saith that the very foundation of our philosophy is humility. for arrogancy is always accompanied with folly, audacity, rashness, insolency, & as plato writeth solitariness: as if one would say, that the proud is abandoned of all the world, ever attributing to himself that which is not, never measuring his will according to his force, having much more brag than matter of worth. s. augustine compareth him, to a ship tossed with winds without a pilot. and an ancient father writeth, that presumption is the mother of all vices, presumption. & is like unto a great fire which maketh every one retire back. we read in the works of ancient physicians, how some that were of a melancolicke or sad humour, thought their own selves to be some senseless thing, or beast. aristotle and galen yield us sundry examples thereof, & how some in their own fancies imagining wonderful matters through the illusions of wandering & transported wits, constantly affirmed, that they saw, and did that which indeed was not, as he which believed all the ships that came into the haven to be his own: and other that thought they saw, and heard players upon a wide stage, as horace writeth. such are the proud which delight themselves in their own foolish inventions. dan. 4.20. there is in daniel a notable example of king nabugodonozur, and of sennacharib that was slain of his own children, after that the angel had discomfited his army. and likewise of antiöchus and sundry other which proveth that most true which our saviour saith, that he which exalteth himself shallbe brought low, and he which humbleth himself shallbe exalted. and that which is written in ecclesiasticus the beginning of man's pride is to fall away from god, & to turn away his heart from his maker. eccles. 10.13. for pride is the original of sin, and he that hath it shall power out abomination till at last he be overthrown. i touch no whit at all here the licantropie, licantropie. when as sundry certainly perceive a change of human shape, their mind and reason remaining in their accustomed order, referring myself to that which many have written thereof. all wits in like sort that are given to prejudice, & opinions, judge otherwise then they ought solomon saith in his proverbs, that all that are proud in heart, pro. 16.5. are an abomination to the lord, & that among the proud is nothing but strife, & counseleth us not to haunt them, nor to be too conversant with over far reaching heads, adding that the pride of a man shall bring him low. jer. 50.32. in jeremiah god saith, the proud shall stumble & fall, and none shall raise him up, & i will kindle a fire in his cities, and it shall devour all round about him. and in isaiah they are sore threatened, & he saith that the magnificence shallbe brought low, & that pride destroyeth all commonwealth & states. as also in ezechiel, & in the 1. tob. 4.13. of abdias it is written, the pride of thy heart hath deceived thee. and in tobit, in pride is destruction, & much trouble, and in fierceness is scarcity and great poverty. k. philip. the son of agesilaus wrote unto k. philip, who much gloried in some of his victories, that if he measured his shadow he should find it no greater than it was before the victory. the same poor king was slain of one to whom he refused to minister justice, and histories declare how his successors through their disloyalty fell into great calamities. and yet was he praised among the rest of his virtues, for that one of his people said unto him 3. times every morning, to the end he should not wax too haughty, remember thyself philip that thou art a man. theodosius the emperor had often times the like warning given him by his wife. theodosius. alexander. arrian in the 7, of his history reciteth, how alexander demanded of certain wise men of the indies, why as soon as they had espied him, they stamped upon the ground with their feet; they answered him that no man held aught saving the ground upon which he trod, & that they esteemed him like other men, save only that he came so far, to put himself & other to much more pain, & that when he should die he should enjoy no more earth, then of necessity to cover his body: but ambition clean turned him from following of any good council, and for a good time was he afterward deprived of any burial. nicanor, when he went about to assail the jews, sold them before he came near them, but in the end he was overcome: as in like sort the marquis of gast in our time, at cerisoles, marquis of gast. divided among his favourites the spoil of the french, and prepared sundry ropes to lead them prisoners, and to put them to ransom, and yet in the end his self was vanquished. herod glorying in his raiment & the honour which was done him, was shortly after eaten up with worms. like unto this pride was the vanity of caligula, caligula. & of divers other which must in any wise have their feet to be kissed. sigibert found fault with charlemain, charlemain. because that after he was chosen emperor he despised the fashions of france. for the same cause was alexander reprehended. k. lewis, the 11. was wont to say, that when pride was on horseback, mischief & shame was on the croper. alexander. k lewis 11. comparison. and as husbandmen, rather allow of those ears which bow down, & wax crooked; then such as grow streigh, as thinking least store of grain to be in them, & as it is written that if a stone be hung upon the bough of a tree to weigh it down, it shall carry the more fruit, and as valleys are commonly more fertile than mountains, and as the more liquor a man putteth into a vessel the more vain air goeth out, and the empty hogshead carrieth a greater sound than the full; so the more that men arm themselves with virtue, vanity, hypocrisy, and lying doth departed, not seeking preferment before other but in honest actions, and the more that a man shall think of his vices and imperfections, the more shall his wings fall from presumption. experience teacheth us, man's imbecility. that infancy is but a foolish simplicity, full of lamentations, filthiness, and harms, as it were laid open to a main sea, without a stern: and youth but an indiscreate heat, outrageous, blind, heady, violent, and vain: man's estate, trouble, and vexation of mind, full of repentance, and plunged in care. old age a noisome languishing and full of grief, still feeling the excess of immoderate youth: and all man's life consumed in tears, trouble, and grief, where pleasures are the fevers of the spirit, goods torments: honours heavy charges: and rest unquietness itself, and to pass from one age to an other, is to fall from one mischief to an other, drawing towards death. with good discretion did solon call towns, boroughtes, and villages, the retreats of man's miseries, full of noisomeness, travail, and fortune. and aristotle termeth man to be the disciple of imbecility, of inconstancy, of ruins, and diseases. all which ought to make us humble ourselves. the old proverb is common, who knoweth himself best, esteemeth himself least. for if any man seem to himself that he is somewhat, when he is nothing, gal. 6.3. he deceiveth himself in his imagination saith s. paul. this is also the reason why the prophet abacuc writeth that the just man liveth by faith: and that they which exalt themselves shall have a fall. sundry writers make mention of k. sesostris, that he made himself be drawn by four kings which he held captives, and one of them ever used to turn his face backward, and being demanded why he did so, answered, that in beholding the wheels, how the highest part became lowest, sesostris. he remembered the condition of men: with which answer the same sesostris became a great deal the more civil. saladin saladin after his death, made his shirt to be carried at the end of a lance, and to be cried that of all the realms and riches he had, now nothing was left him but that. in sundry places doth the holy scripture, impute this quality of pride left to them which distrust in god, and presume of themselves. and would to god each one would practise the exhortation of s. paul to the philippians, phil. 2.2. to be like minded, having the same love, being of one accord and one judgement. that nothing be done through contention, or vain glory, but that in meekness of mind, every one esteem other better than himself. looking not every man on his own things, but every man also on the things of an other man. and to the romans he desireth them, rom. 12.10. to be affectioned to love one an other with brotherly love, in giving honour going one before an other. herodotus telleth of one apricus king of egypt, apricus. who was so insolent that he would say that there was neither god nor man could abate him, or dispossess him of his kingdom: but shortly after amasis put him by it, and he was strangled by his own subjects. the like doth ovid make mention to befall to one niob. goliath was slain by david. julius caesar. julius caesar was so arrogant, as he would say, that it should stand for a law, whatever pleased him. other princes have had this word in their mouth, i will it be so, never considering that their wills ought to be measured by the will of god, the will of princes ambitious. justice, and laws, for the preservation of their estate, as king theopompus, and the emperor alexander, severus, were wont to say, and as we recited before of king antigonus, good princes ought to esteem nothing honest and lawful, that is not so of his own nature, and agreeable to the laws. and as touching such as are ambitious, they never do aught that is entirely pure and neete, but ever in their actions you shall discern a kind of bastardy, full of faults dispersed according to the diversity of the winds, which drive them forward: and never measuring themselves, do daily commit notorious errors, and ruin themselves in undertaking more than they are able, or then is honest. whereupon it is very necessary that the counsel of ecclesiasticus be put in practice: seek not out the things that are too hard for thee, eccles. 3.21. & 23.2. neither search the things rashly that are too mighty for thee, and burden not thyself above thy power, while thou livest. plutarch in the life of agis, ixion. applieth the fable of ixîon, which was tormented in hell, and of him which found a cloud instead of juno, to such as are ambitious & ungrateful. and so do some other refer that which homer in his odes reciteth of sisyphus, who continually rolled the stone which he was never able to carry to the top of the mountain, sisyphus. phaeton. and of phaethon who would needs guide the horses of the sun. it hath been an old proverb, that he which advanceth himself further than he ought, receiveth more than he would. they resemble the fisherman in theocrites, who satisfied his hunger with dreams of gold and with very great reason may a man impute, all sects, heresies, & divisions, heresies combats and wars imputed to ambition foolish enterprises, combats, and unnecessary wars, to the ambition of unquiet & moving spirits, which never content themselves in their vocation: for this cause s. gregory nazianzene wrote to procopius, that he never saw any good issue come of any council or synod, by reason of ambition, which did more impair controversy than amend them. and aristotle in the 2. of his politics showeth, that the greatest part of faults which men commit proceedeth from ambition or covetousness: as there are infinite examples of factions, which have long time endured in france, england, & italy. hesiodus writeth that the unwise do not understand that the half is more than the hole. for this cause it often chanceth that they lose what ever they have gotten & which peaceably before they enjoyed, the ambitious often lose what they get. through a greediness of undewly getting from other, as we see it fell out, & so doth it every day to a number, which have not retired themselves in dew time, not being able to stay the course of their fortune. the which in the end antiochus full well understood: for after that he was vanquished, and that the romans had taken from him the province of asia, he was wont to say that he esteemed himself much bound unto them, for the learning which they had taught him, and for their graciousness and courtesy, which they had used towards him: for when i enjoyed (saith he) so large a circuit of country i could not content myself, nor set an end to my ambition, or desires: but since such time as the romans have abrydged my limits, they have so gnawn my wings of ambition, that i am more content than i was: and now my care needeth not to be so great, to govern well, my little kingdom which is left, before not being able to be satisfied. augustus' the emperor said that he wondered how so great a king as alexander, alexander. who had conquered all greece, egypt, and asia, and yet could not be quiet except he mought still be in hand with new business continuing war, not considering that it was both as great a virtue, & redounded as much to his glory, by wholesome laws and ordinances, to establish the government of a well pacified monarchy, as it was to conquer it. i greatly commend the council of one democrites, the council of democrites that a man should ever propose unto himself and covet things possible, and be contented with the present, and with that portion and measure, which it hath pleased god to yield unto him, and to fashion himself according to that faculty and mean which is given unto him, never coveting the manuage of any greater affair than appertaineth to his own estate, as the psalmist, and s. peter exhorteth us. they have always in like sort been highly esteemed of, which have stayed the violence of their desires, and moderated the unbridled fierceness of their ambition, to moderate ambition. by prudence, and will with regard of honesty. as we read of lucullus, dioclesian, curius cincinnatus, scipio, and sundry other. the very same moved trajan to write to plutarch, that he did more admire the contempt, which the said cincinnatus, scipio, dioclesian. and m. porcus made of great estate and wealth, than he did at their victories. the said dioclesian, answered him which egged him forward again to re-enter into the empire, that having once escaped the plague, pro. 28.25. he would no more drink poison, and was contented to become a gardener. concerning such as are proud in heart, solomon saith that they stir up strife. for as saint paul saith: we have nothing which we have not received from god, nor we must not glory in our wisdom, in our strength, nor in our riches, as jeremy exhorteth us. 1. cor. 4.7. jeremy 9.23. the miserable end of such as have vaunted in their strength, is fully set down before our eyes, in exodus of pharaoh, of absalon, of roboam, of jesabel, and of beneadad. 1. rings 14.19. and 20. of the k. of assiria, and of babylon, of nabugadonozor daniel 3. and 4. and in sundry other places as well scripture as histories. plato, or rather better ecclesiasticus and s. augustine have taught us, that experience sufficiently showeth unto such as take heed thereof, that all passions, concupiscences, and griefs of the soul, are for the most part accompanied with inconveniences, which in show a man endeavoureth to shun by them, & yet they lead to the contrary: as the vice of ambition is followed with dishonour, passions lead to the contrary. dissoluteness & pleasure bringeth grief and repentance, delicateness & daintiness breedeth travail, stubborness contentions with loss, & unshamefastness, and while they seek to shun blame, fall into further infamy, peril & enmity: and for fear of refusing one that is importunate, sustain great losses and suits. he likewise which unconsiderately maketh a promise, is oft constrained to break it: & to possess goods which one hath not deserveth, giveth occasion as demosthenes saith, to commit many follies, the last perfection is subject to alteration. & to become unfortunate. as also hypocrates said, that it is most perilous, when a good disposition arriveth at his last point; because whatsoever is in the last perfection and excellency is subject to change, by reason of the feebleness & imbecility of the body. and our life is a pilgrimage unstable and unconstant, and we contain within ourselves the matter of all diseases. and not without cause did thales the milesian call vice, the most harmful matter of the world; vice. because where that is, it loseth all, and destroyeth what ever was before builded. god reproacheth in isaiah: that they have kindled a fire, isaiah. 50.11 and are compassed about with sparks, and have walked in the light of their feet, and in the sparks that they have kindled. wisd. 11.13. and it is written in the book of wisdom, that wherewith a man sinneth, with the same shall he be punished. and s. augustine teacheth us, that every disordinate appetite, carrieth his own pain, as we see sundry examples of such, which while through murder, usury, falsehood, theft, or other villainy, they seek to enrich themselves, do contrariwise lose what wealth soever they before had, besides the pain, and punishment which they endure. this is that which solomon sayeth, pro. 10.24. & 14.12. that what the wicked feareth shall befall unto them. and that there is a way which seemeth righteous to a man, but the issues thereof are the ways of death. and it was a common saying of old, that the proud fat themselves with vain hope, which by little choketh them, as water doth to him which hath the dropsy, or naughty fat to man's body, or the grease of an horse, when it is melted. i will not speak of pastors, which have only the bare name, pastors in name. never executing aught which apertaineth to their charge, employing those blames which the holy scripture giveth them: and yet no man would have a servant ignorant of the charge, which is required of him. hypocrisy. it were not impertinent to discourse here, of the hypocrisy and lyings, which is found in all estates and officers which acquit not themselves faithfully, were it not for fear of being too tedious. we may say, as that great captain marcellus did unto his soldiers, & also xerxes to his, i see many bodies, countenances & garments of romans, but no roman. and how far are we estranged from our principal, and important profession of christianity? rightly may they cast us in the teeth, as god by his prophet malachi did unto the jews: mal. 6.6 if then i be a father, where is my honour? if i be a master, faith without works is dead where is my fear? considering that in vain doth man boast of faith without good works, from which it is no less separate than heat is from the sun. and the shadow from the body as we have above declared. who are to be named men. for we ought not to term such men (as s. chrisostom most excellently said) which have hands, a head, feet, and some reason, but such as remain in the truth and fear of god, and have a lively faith working by charity. as solomon showeth in the end of ecclesiastes saying: eccles. 12.13 fear god and keep his commandments, for this is the whole duty of man. even the greatest part of the philosophers have maintained, that man's felicity consisted not in this life but in another, and that his scope is to refer this life to the knowledge and service of god to enjoy all bliss eternally in an other. but now in this old age of the world, of all good things there resteth nought, but the name, and a vain shadow. remedies against pride. now that we may be delivered from a vice so pernicious as pride is, we must fall into due consideration of our own vanity, our faults, and imperfections, and remember that we are but filth, worms, dust and putrefaction, as the psalmist saith, & as aug. upon john saith, very devils, and satan's, except god of his mercy show pity upon us. the birthday is in greek called genethliae, the beginning of travels, and death thanatas, thence up to god. and menander said, that life and misery were two twins, which increase are nourished and live together. aristotle also upon the question which was propounded unto him, what man was answered that he was the example of imbecility, pray of time, sport of fortune and envy, the image of unconstancy, & seat of phlegm, choler, and rheums. and solon called cities, the retreats of miseries, tears, and sorrows. the which is more plainly set forth unto us, both in holy and profane histories. some have compared man to a bubble made of a drop of rain, and to the dream of a shadow. it is said of the peacock, when he spreadeth abroad his goodly plumes, the nature of the pacocke. if he look down upon his feet, he shutteth them in again for shame, and remaineth abast: so we considering the excellency of our soul in his own nature, have great cause to boast in god which hath given it unto us, and through his bounty hath vouchsafed to honour us far above all other creatures: but looking back how this nature hath been corrupted, and esloyned from her first original, there remaineth nought to us but shame. and if there be any good in us, it proceedeth from the liberality of god, by whom if we be not continually supported, we shall fall into all misery and mischief. all good proceedeth from god. let us likewise considered how many great personages, fearing to be too much exalted, have refused empires, kingdoms, bishoprics, abbeys, and other dignities. and have accounted themselves happy, when god hath done them the honour to humble them, and bring them unto him through sundry afflictions. philo the jew writeth, that the occasion why leaven was forbid unto the jews at the feast of easter, why leaven was forbid unto the jews. was to teach them to have a great care to keep themselves from pride and presumption, into which they fell which held any good opinion of their own selves, and puffeth themselves up therewith, as the dough is with the leaven. chap. xli. that painting is lying. for as much as sincerity, simplicity, roundness, and truth, painting & disguising. are proper to such as are virtuous, and all disguising hath been accounted odious; it is not without cause that sundry have blamed and found fault with painting, which serveth not but to delight such as are licentious, and proceedeth as saint cyprian and chrysostom wrote, from the devil a liar, and deceiver. and if saint peter, 1. pet. 3 tit. 2. and saint paul exhort women not to have their appareling outward, as with broidered hair, and gold put about, or in putting on of apparel, but what is comely to women making profession of the truth through good works, much less will they allow of painting. god in isaiah reprehendeth the daughters of zion, because they minced as they went, and decked themselves too curiously. among other things he sayeth: that because they were haughty and walked with outstretched necks, isaiah 3 and with wandering eyes walking & mincing as they went, & making a tinkling with their feet, therefore shall the lord make the heads of the daughters of zion bald, & discover their secret parts, and in that day shall take away the ornament of the slippers, and the calls, and the round tires, the sweet balls & the brasselets, and the bonnets, the tires of the head, and the slops, & the headbands, and the tablets, and the ear rings: the rings & the mufflers, the costly apparel, & the veils, & the wimples, and the crisping pings, and the glasses, and the fine linen, and the hoods, and the lawns, and the men shall fall by the sword for suffering such pride of women. deut. 22.3. in deuteronomie it is written: the woman shall not wear that which pertaineth voto the man, neither shall a man put on a woman's raiment. and we must glorify god in our bodies, and in our spirits, 1. cor. 6.20. which are his, and the temples of the holy ghost (as s. paul saith) and take heed of giving offence to any. it is without all doubt, that there chanceth sundry great imperfections to children, when women with child go too strait laced. tertullian in his book of the raiments of women, would have them simple and differing from common maidens, and such as were nice and drunken. s. cyprian, and s. ambrose upon the like argument, and s. chrysostom upon the 12. to the hebrews, forbidden painting to women, and say that they give occasion of offence, and cause men to sin, and wallow in the sty of the brickle vanities of this world. and sueton telleth how augustus called gorgeous garments, gorgeous raiments. marks of pride, and nests of riotousness. and many old doctors of the church, have greatly complained against such as curl their hair, and above all things reproved the use of wearing of perwigs. and clement alexandrin writeth, lib. 3. praed. c. p. 2. that as a man would judge one to be ill at ease, which weareth a plaster on his face, or one that hath been scourged to have been punished by law, so doth painting betoken a diseased soul marked with adultery, as jezabel was found fault with and punished. and platina reprehendeth pope paul the second. the ancient fathers called it a corruption and stain, if many colours were mingled together. and homer speaking of a piece of ivory that was coloured red, writeth, that it was polluted with a stain. a man may rather say so by ones face. as also horace called lentiscus a liar, archidamus. because he blacked his hair. and k. archidamus told an orator which had done the like, that he carried a lie in his head, k. philip. & therefore could say nothing well. k. philip said as much to one of antipater's friends, from whom he took away his office, after that he understood that he curled his hair, marriage without dower. & beard, telling him that he which in his hair was false & a liar, could hardly be loyal in any good affair. this is the reason why lycurgus forbade all kind of painting, & artificial garnishing to be used in the city of sparta: ordaining in like sort that maidens should be given in marriage without dower, to the end that for want of money none should remain unmarried, nor any sought for their goods, sparta a well governed city. but respecting the manners of the maiden, each one should make election of virtue, in her whom he would marry. a lacedaemonian being demanded by a stranger, why there was no law made against adulterers? why said he, should there be any, since all riches, delicateness, all painting, & outward garnishing is forbidden in sparta, & shame to do ill, honesty & obedience there hath all the authority, & pre-eminence. and if a painter would take it grievously, & for a great injury offered unto him, if any other should add any colours to the picture which had finished, especially upon the counterfeit of princes, which themselves would hold for a great contempt, & by the civil law, l. sistatuas. the child may have an action of the case against him which shall deface the portrait of his father. we may well imagine how much it displeaseth god, if by painting we seek to correct his work, & pollute his temple as s. jerom writeth in an epistle to laeta, & against heluidie. and s. chrisostom upon the ninth of s. matth. addeth, that it maketh us resemble strumpets, & hasteneth wrinkles before old age. titus livius telleth of one vestal postumea, posthumia vestale. that she was accused under colour of appareling herself too netely. s. peter would have a christian woman which maketh profession of godliness, to live holily, as if she were of a religion well reform. and it was excellently well written by tertullian, that the force of faith is such, that it is perceived by man's understanding, tertullian. by his countenance, garments, & every action. and plato said, plato: that they which were curious in bedecking of their body, despised the care of their soul. it were not amiss, if every one that were curious were served, as a treasurer of dionysius k. of sicil was, who bragging to aristippus of the garnishing of his house, & furniture in all respects, the said philosopher not seeing where he might spit without marring, aristippus. cast his phlegm in the face of this magnifico, telling him that he saw nothing less filthy. chap. xlii. that witches, soothsayers, sorcerers, & usurers, are replenished with lying, & how a man may exempt himself frrm them. soothsayers witches and astrologers. soothsayers, witches, and astrologers, judging without the compass of the order of nature, have always been detested and condemned, through the whole course of the holy scripture, in that they durst foretell of things to come: except it were, of that, which they mought make conjecture of, through the said order, by long experience, and observations given from hand to hand, following the ordinary course of the heaven, common rules, and as god hath been accustomed to do at all times, having all in his own hand, moderating and guiding the course of heaven, and the issues of all enterprises: as pindarus wrote that a good husband ought to foresee a tempest many days before: and sundry philosophers by speculative astrology, have foretold the dearth, and plenty of fruits as should fall out that year, following the said rules and signs which have been accustomed to precede, and when experience answereth to the cause. for otherwise they are not able to foretell aught without lying, & aiding themselves with art, long experience and revelation of the devil, the father of lies, to whom they have wholly abandoned themselves, as s. augustine showeth in his book of the city of god. li. 24. c. 11. aulus gellius writeth, that if they foretell any thing that is good, and deceive thee, thou shalt attend them but in vain. if they threaten thee mischief, and lie, thou art also miserable, fearing in vain. if they answer thee according as thou fearest, thou art unfortunate before it happen. and if they promise thee happy success, the attending of that hope will so trouble thee, holding thee still in suspense, that that very hope will take away the flower and fruit of thy joy. judicial science is but vain. ptolemy. and this proceeding which dependeth of the variable senses, of many which observe, it is both hard and false. and that judicial science is but vain, as ptolemy showeth it in his quadripartite, adding very wisely, that the opinions of astrologians are not the decrees of sovereign judges. and many years pass over before one self same constellation of heavenly bodies do again appear. and the most part of the accidents of this world being unfortunate, the knowledge thereof would breed great inconveniences and travail. lib. 3. tacitus had reason to write, that whatsoever dependeth of destiny or the divine ordinance, cannot be avoided, albeit it be foretold. the which opinion plutarque is likewise of in the life of hannibal. a man hath enough to do to digest things present, without busying himself with future, francis marquis of salusses. and we read of great inconveniences that have ensued too much trust given to prognostications, to which some have attributed the revolt of francis marquis of salusses, both harmful to him, and all france. and to such prognosticators swallowed up in the gulf of lying, icarus. the fable of icarus is applied, who fell from heaven into the sea, because in flying to high his waxed wings were melted. porphyre. porphiry who greatly esteemed of oracles, was yet constrained to confess, that devils or gods foretold of natural things, by the order of natural causes which they observed, & of things which depended of our will, by conjectures taken of our actions: but as they are more sudden than we, and of a more sharp eyesight, so do they prevent & go before us, in such sort that as natural things are false, and human accidents movable and uncertain, so are they subject to lie: that is to say, that they cannot foretell any things of us, but what they learn out of our own actions, nor of natural things, but what they read in the course of nature: for neither angels nor devils can read in stars that which is not, prophets. nor in men that which they know not, as did the prophets inspired of god, who seem to have touched as in a history, whatsoever happened more than one hundred years after. the which causeth us to admire the mightiness, and truth of god, creator of the whole world. besides what need we be so curious to understand what should happen unto us, when we can by no means avoid it. doth it not double ones misery, as demonax said? aristotle likewise in the fourth of his ethicques, findeth fault that their cosinages and liings went unpunished. and the romans made sundry ordinances to banish them italy as tacitus writeth: yea, the lawyer ulpian sayeth, lib. 12. latem apud. s simo quis de minor. that the cunning man, which shall tell any thing of one that stole aught which was lost, shall not be quit for an action of the case, but shallbe grievously punished. the greeks also term a which mantin, which approacheth the french word menteur. as touching prophecies, which have been made through the inspiration of god, concerning alterations of kingdoms, we have always found them prove true, whereas the answers of the pagan's oracles, prophets. li 4. were ever uncertain & obscure, as eusebius declareth. wherefore following the commandment of god, the ordinance of france, especially the iij estates assembled at blois, the 36. article, & sundry counsels, which have excommunicated witches & sorcerers, we ought to abandon such as liars and pernicious abusers, who are not able to judge of spirits, deut. 28. exod. 12. the hour of death, and marriages. and it is impiety to be too inquisitive therein. god himself in leviticus adjudgeth them to die; lib. 9 c. 9 and as eusebius reciteth in his ecclesiastical history, the emperors augustus, tiberius, galerius, and maximinus, caused them all, either to be banished, or put to death: as also they did those priests which stirred up to cruelty. 1. sam. 15.23 and samuel said: that rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft. 2. king. 23: 24 and in the second of the kings, josiah took away them that had familiar spirits, and the soothsayers. and in the first of the chronicles, 1. chro. 19.23. it was imputed unto saul for a great transgression which he had committed against the lord, jer. 50.36. in that he sought & asked council of a familiar spirit. and it is written in jeremy, that a sword is upon the soothsayers. isaiah 44.25. other translate it liars. and isaiah blamed them, & saith, that god will destroy the tokens of the soothsayers; & turn them into fury, & commandeth only to take council of himself, & his word: because that if we refer not ourselves thither, the morning will no more shine unto us. aeneas silvius maketh mention of a virtuous prince, aeneas' silvius. who was very bountiful to learned men, & being demanded why he was not so to astrologers, said, that the stars governed fools, & that wise men commanded them, & that it appertained only to ignorant princes, to honour astrologers, witches & soothsayers. scipio. lycurgus. scipio as soon as he arrived in his camp, did forthwith banish all sorts of witches & tellers of fortunes. lycurgus did the like. and if we mark it well, we shall find that they cast & sow in the air, as it were in a sea, without any judgement, and at the adventure of ambiguous words, tending to all sorts of accidents, passions, de nat. deo. & chance, of a hundred perhaps one falleth out right, which was never foreseen or thought by them, & for the most part we see the contrary happen of that which is prognosticated. cicero for this cause writeth, that plato was wont to say, that he marveled when such people met together, how they could abstain from laughter, jer. 10.2. seeing the cozening tricks which they played. and god by jeremy commanded us not to be afraid for the signs of heaven: from whence these abusers say they take their foundation. homer. and homer bringing in the gods deliberating of things to come, daniel. declared thereby how it passeth man's capacity as isocrates writeth: yea, daniel in the end of his prophesy, saith, that he understood not the words of the angel, speaking of the end of the world. the which maketh me greatly to condemn such as have written thereof, & especially leovitius, end of the world. who setteth it down to be in the year 1583, & yet he forgeth an ephemerides of nigh hand 30. years after that year. astrologers likewise foretold of the year 1524, that such an other conjunction should meet as was at the time of the flood, and that all the face of the earth should be covered with water, and there was never seen a more fair and dry year then that was as vives writeth. in short, that kind of people have skill of any thing, but to tell true. for sorcerers, the laws of the 12. tables, and sundry other, sorcerers. have condemned them to death, as worse than murderers, most wicked and abominable enemies both unto nature, and mankind. the title of the code, de maleficiis, and the law neminem, containeth this curse that the cruel pestilence eat them out and consume them. li. 4. de civit. dei c. 3. and god condemneth them in exod. c. 2. levit 20. & 21. deu. 18. isaiah 3. jere. 19.17. & 50. for such sorceries jehu made queen jezabel to be eaten with dogs. it is very requisite that judges take great pains and be very severe herein, because they grow so common, and god threateneth that he will root out the people, which shall leave them unpunished. deut. 18. lib. 11 s. augustine also greatly detesteth them. and the reason why the canaanites were rooted out is expressed in deut. to wit for the abominable sorceries which they used. and plato in his laws condemned them to die: for they renounce god & all his religion, they blaspheme him, they do homage to the devil, they vow their children unto him, they promise to draw unto him whatsoever they are able, they poison men, beasts and fruits, they are incestuous, and work much mischief. of usurers. and as touching usurers plutarque in his book which he made, to which i refer the reader, is of opinion that no kind of people of the world, are so notorious liars, nor which use more to falsify their faith in all their practices: they have been condemned both by the law of god and man, and excommunicated by a counsel holden in spain. and the persians always reputed loan to usury, to be deceat, lying and wickedness. appian in his first book of the civil wars wrote, that by an ancient law at rome usury was forbidden upon great pains: and we see in titus livius, and in tacitus, the great searches and punishments that ensued therefore. and in the time of king philip augustus, of s, lewis, of king john and charles the sixth, the jews and italians which held banks, jews and italians chased out of france. and exercised usury through out france, were driven out and rifled: because they marred the houses and families, that adjoined near unto them. the ancient cato held them as liars, murderers, thief's, cato. and a continual fire, which ever increased, through the loss and ruin of such as fell there in. and so they which have to do with usurers, are by little and little, consumed and gnawn a sunder. and as he which is stung with the asp dieth sleeping, so sweetly doth he consume himself which hath borrowed upon usury. and michah writeth that they devour the flesh of the people, flay their skin and gnaw their bones. micah. 3. moreover the word usury in the hebrew tongue is as much to say as biting. and money is brought forth before it be begot. usury the daughter of avarice and ambition. the which caused some to term, loan to usury the great chastiser of fools for their incontinency. and usury was ever accounted, the daughter of covetousness and ambition, which leadeth to all evil. wherefore according to the lesson of the wise man, each one ought to beware that he fall not into so great a mischief, but it is requisite rather to be content with a little, remedy against usury to shun things superfluous, to use parsimony and sparing: thinking that if one be not able to live with a little, he will lesselive with nothing. and as in sundry places debtors were priviliged, among other in diana's temple at ephesus: so was the temple of sparing and well ordered expense into which usurers mought not enter, open unto the wise and yieldeth to them a joyful rest. and for because such as intermeddle with selling again, do it without any art or travile, and with lying, they have been in like sort blamed as well by aristotle, as by cicero. chap. 43. of the punishments that hath be fallen unto such as have given ear unto malicious surmises, rejecting the truth. false accusations in the end discovered. if what we have before set down, touching forged accusations, do not so soon discover itself, & if choler, false reports & opinions, do so far insinuate themselves, as truth can take no place, nor justifications be heard, yet will god the protector of innocency set to his helping hand, and discover the truth, as the holy scriptures affirm. and theophrastus said, that surmises would die by little and little, but truth was the daughter of time. among an infinite number of examples, i will content myself with a few the most notable. leo the emperor, condemned michael to die, & the execution was differred but until christmas was ended, in which time he died suddenly: & the same michael was not onle delivered from prison, but chosen emperor of constantinople. mathias the son of that great captain hunniades, was charged of ill behaving himself, towards ladislaus k. of boheme, & hungary: & as he was ready to be condemned, his eldest brother having been before executed through envy, & false information, the said ladislaus minding to marry margrite daughter to charles the 7. died suddenly, and the said mathias, castrutio. attending but the hangman of prag was chosen k. of hungary. as also one castrutio retired from an obscure prison, was chosen governor of lucques, by the death of the tyrant vgutio. and one jacques de lusignan, aques de lusignam. theodoric. prisoner at genes was chosen k. of cyprus. theodoric, k. of the ghots, in his rage through a forged accusation, executed boetius, & simmachus, two very honourable personages, shortly after he was served at the table with a head of a fish, which seemed unto him to be the head of the same simmachus, looking a squint upon him, & grinning with his teeth, & so with this fright & conceit, fell he sick and died. thrasibulus k. of the jews conceived such a grief in that he had slain his brother without hearing his excuse, that he died. the like also befell to aristobulus for murdering his brother antigonus, & for sorrow vomited up his own blood, which was cast in the place where his brothers was spilled, & with a remorse of conscience died as josephus writeth. and in th'end of his history he telleth of a governor, of libya under the romans, who with false surmises, having made many be put to death to get their wealth, was surprised with a sudden fright & astonishment: & often cried out, that the shadows of such as he had caused to be murdered appeared unto him, & cast himself upon his bed, as if he had been in torments, & fire, & in th'end died his entrails gushing out of his body. they which by wrong accusation caused socrates to die not being able any longer to abide, accusers of socrates herode. the public hate which was carried unto them, hung, & strangled themselves. the great lord soliman made his own son be strangled: k herod did the like unto his, and after that the truth was discovered they both too late sorrowed. there is as much written of a k. of spain, and of cambyses the k. of persia, who put his brother to death, whereof ensued great alteration of state. marry of arragon, accused an earl, marry of arragon. before the emperor otho, her husband, feigning that he would have defiled her, & he was beheaded: but the truth being afterwards discovered, she was publicly burned. nicephorus writeth as much of the wife of constantine the great. sedechias caused jeremy to be imprisoned, who had told him the truth to keep him from breaking his faith, was led away captive, jer. 59 after his eyes were thrust out, & his children beheaded. conrad that writeth the chronicles of magence, saith of one henry archb. of the same sea, henry archbishop of magence accused by arnold. who to purge himself, of a certain charity which was lent unto him, sent to rome one arnold whom he had highly advanced: but instead of excusing him he aggrevated the matter, to the end that through presents he might attain unto his masters seat, which he did compass with his masters own money: and there upon carried home with him as far as vnormes two cardinals from rome, where he caused the said archbishop to be deposed from his sea, who appealed unto god the most just judge. anon after one of those cardinals miserably burst a two, the other as frantic, tore his hands in pieces with his teeth, and so died. and the said arnold who had compassed the archbishopric by so lewd means, ferdinand k. of castille. was murdered by them of the city. ferdinand the fourth king of castille, caused two of his greatest lords of spain, which had been falsely accused to have conspired against him, to leap down from the top of a high tower: they appealed before god, before whom within thirty days they adjourned him to appear, and at the end of thirty days the same king when men thought he was a sleep was found dead. it is also written of the great m. of the templars, that when he was upon the point to be burned at bourdeaux, the great master of the templars. he adjourned pope clement the fift, and king philip the fair, to appear before the throne of god to receive justice: shortly after they both died. so hath god always been accustomed to revenge perjuries, and such as will shut their ears to the truth, which ought to be consecrated only to hear what is just good, true, and appertaining to his glory. chap. 44. that we must avoid suits in law, because of the lying and cautel of the practisers. pleas and suits to be avoided. the knowledge of the truth holdeth many back, and keepeth them from embarking themselves amid the floods of suits, and seats of petefoggers, which are but the shops of falsehood, deceat, and counterfeit lying, through disguising and formality perverting the uprightness of a cause. for as demosthenes, & anacharses said, wisdom and eloquence, without truth and justice, are a panurgie, that is to say a guile or sleight, such as we read the slaves to use in comedies, which still turneth to their own damage and confusion. and in truth, the fashion which they hold in many sovereign and base courts, is but a kind of sophistry, which casteth smoke and dust into the eyes of the judges, to the end to cover lying and pilfery. and we may say with ecclesiasticus, eccles. 3.16. i have seen the place of judgement where was wickedness, and the place of justice where was iniquity. it were also very requisite, that lawyers, besides that god doth especially command them, would observe the precepts of plato repeated in thucydides, that in pleading they should not so much regard to please men, as to speak the truth: the office of a good lawyer. to the end they should neither charge their own consciences nor their clients, knowing that wealth gotten with lying will never profit. solomon said that the beginning of a controversy is, as when waters soaking through a bank, by little and little, make a great breach, or like hydra who for every head which was struck off, brought out seven other. tacit. l. 6. seneca found fault with the lawyers of his time, as also tacitus did, because they sold their lies. the emperor licinius termed them the plagues of a common wealth. apuleus named them cormorants, because of their greediness. other termed them * j ravenous fowls, or heilish furies described by vergil in his eneidos. harpies. and florus writeth that when varus was vanquished in germany they put out the eyes of all the lawyers which they could find, florus. lib. 4. and from some pulled out their tongue. frederic the third said, thy defiled the place of justice, and equity, making it a bank of deceat and cozenage. s. augustin in one of his sermons writeth, augustine. that there is nothing so impudent as arrogancy, and the babbling of a lawyer. ambrose. and saint ambrose saith that they deceive the judges, and gain them by falsehood and that they ought to repay whatsoever they take against the truth. and s. bernard said that they were the enemies of justice, bernard. overthrew the truth, and gnawed like rats. and origen called them swollen frogs, which sell even their very silence, & rather increase the charge, more than the profit will avail, when they have gained their cause. and ammian thought that it was as unpossible, to find out in all asia a true lawyer as a white crow. tacitus writeth that there is nothing so saleable. cicero likewise complained that through them good laws were corrupted. and it is too notorious to see, how many of them give rash and uncertain counsel, very lewdly acquit themselves of their charge, pleading only upon the superscription of their bags, or not looking half way into them, whence much injustice hath proceeded. pausanias writeth that in the pleading place of atheves were two benches, the pleading place at athens. the one of contumely, the other of impudence. it was also uncovered, as that at rome was, cato. which cato made be paved with sharp flints, and wished that it might be flowered with iron caltrops, to the end the romans should have no delight to plead. he forbade any to be called to the bar, whom he knew eloquent in a bad cause. and said as plutarque reciteth, that it was meet for a prince or judge, to give no ear to the persuasion of an orator, or lawyer, making a motion for any matter unjust. for as cicero writeth (which was also attributed to the emperor valentinian) if he ought to be punished which corrupteth a judge with money or presents, how much more ought he which coseneth than with his fair speech, babbling of lawyers more dangerous than presents. & babbling: because a virtuous man will not suffer himself to be corrupted with presents, but he may be deceived through their cunning tales & lies. and cicero in his oration which he made for murena, discourseth at large, of the vanity, & deceit of practitioners. we prove by the civil law, that in sundry places, the number of lawyers hath been limited, & how k ptolemy conferring with an ambassador, l. petitionem de advocate. tit de ï rescri. pr. which the siciones had sent unto him, inquired of him of the state & form of their common wealth: he answered, that his lords maintained no inventors of new things, nor received any physicians which altar health, & much less lawyers, because they disguise the truth, practisers in law driven out of rome. & prolong suits. pope nicolas the 3, thrust all practisers in the laws out of rome, saying that they lived by the blood of the poor people. and it was a use in most holy france, that no proctor should be appointed but by licence from the k. & all procurations ended together with the year, which was a great cause of dispatch of suits. domitian in like sort banished some, & galeace duke of milan, caused one to be hanged for his delatory pleas, & delaying of a suit, against a manifest and clear debt. and pope pius 2. compared pleaders to birds, the place of pleading to the field, the judge to the net, the proctor's & advocates to fowlers, & birders. a man may say that the cause why caligula would have burned all law books, caligula would have had all law books to be burned. although himself were very ill given, was to have suits sooner dispatched, & to meet with the cautels and delays, which men toward the law study, by their book & practice. and hereupon i will not let pass, a tale of mathias corvinus k. of pannonia, who having married the daughter of ferdinand k. of naples, brought a long in his train out of italy certain lawyers and advocates of great practice, who as soon as they were arrived in his realm, by little & little changed the course which they had found, in manner that an infinite number of suits were bred thereby. and the k. perceiving how every day the number increased, he was constrained to send them back again, that he might establish the ancient custom, simplicity, & quiet. in like sort they writ that ferdinand themperor, sending a viceroy into the indies, which had been newly discovered, forbade him by no means to carry over any lawyer with him, to the end he should not sow there, the seeds of suits. there are some which attribute this infection, & contagion of pettifoggers, brought into france in the time of philip the fair, to pope clement 5, when as he transported his seat from rome to avignon, together with all his bullistes, practisers, when pettifoggers first set foot in france. & pettifoggers, by frequenting of whom french men first learned this brave piratical art, as it were never once dreamt of before. and sundry authors as well french as italians and germans have written that since that french men have suffered themselves to be governed by the popes which were retired to avignon, and have intermingled their affair and practices together, they have ever waxed worse and worse, and their delicateness hath even abastarded the good warlike discipline, whereof there was forewarnings, the druids and their authority. comment. lib. 6 when as the said pope clement made his entry into lions we read in the time of charlemain and before him how the druids in france took notice of all differentes and process in law, and caesar in his commentaries reciteth the like. and if there were any which would not stand to their award, they straightly forbade him their sacrifices, which of all other was the most grievous punishment: because then they were held in the rank of men abominable and accursed, every one abhorred their company, or to talk with them, for fear lest some misfortune might ensue, after such communication: which were to be wished, might now take place, for the dispatching and abolishing of suits. and paulus emilius writeth, that the french men in matter of trial, french men simple in matters of trial. and law, did so simply behave themselves, that they stuck to their first judgement, and never appealed further. but since deceit was the cause of a sovereign jurisdiction, which held once a year for a few days, and afterward the said philip the fair, caused the palace to be builded, which sufficeth not for all that to satisfy the heat of pleading. eschines in that famous oration, which he made against cthesiphon, reprehending the manners & corruption of his time, & calling to remembrance the ancient customs, & good laws saith that if they were well observed all things would go well, many suits and pleas the greatest mischief can happen to a common wealth. and there should be few suits or pleas at all, as if the commennes of them, were one of the greatest mischiefs could hap to a commonwealth, as plato was of opinion in his discourses. and socrates showing how good laws never engendered suits, said the multitude of them to be a sign of corruption. strabo commended the indians, the indians no pleaders. because they were no pleaders, and ever in their laws and barganes used great simplicity, & kept their word, without using of any witness or seals. the poets in their verses, wish for seats and trials without pleaders, and esteem that man happy which hath no process in law. and the german proverb showeth it, that if a man have two kine, he were better give awayone, than not to enjoy the other quietly, or go to judgement, in which place it seemeth that many turmoils & troubles meet, & a multitude of people throng themselves together. for this cause the said isocrates in an oration which he made being of the age of 80. years and two, pleaders in small estimation or account. said that he had all his life shunned process, & benches of pleading, & that men accounted him an unworthy advocate to have any disciple, and he was ill accounted of at athenes, which haunted the said benches, and was often seen there. and the principal doctors which have written upon our civil law have always been of opinion, questions between the lawyer and physician that every good man ought to abhor suits, & that such as loved them aught to be accounted cavillers, and exception to be taken to their witness. upon the contention & question which grew before sforce duke of milan, who ought to take place the lawyer or physician, it was not ill guessed of him which said, that when a thief is led to hanging, the thief goeth before, & the hangman cometh after. it were very requisite, that as the emperor probus promised he would so order justice, that there should be no more need of companies at arms, so that some good king would in such sort tame the malice of men, & establish such a discipline, that there might be no more proctor's nor advocates, but that where any doubt grew, the parties might appear at an assigned day & hour, by bill carrying a clear demand, readily to receive sentence, as almost it is through out the world. and in all the countries of zuizerland, & in the imperial cities, there is neither proctor's nor lawyer's, & suits are ordinarily dispatched at the first assignation, & without cost or trouble. and truly the natural sense assisted with an upright conscience, joined with experience, setteth a rule down for judgements: for france, it hath of long time had this epitheton given unto it, that she is the mother nurse of practisers: & a stranger which made a commentary upon ptolemy saith, that in france is more pettifoggers, and wasters of paper to be found, them in all germany, italy, or spain. and claud of sessel, archb. of marseilles, in the 15. cha. of the monarchy of france saith, that there are more there, then in all the rest of christendom. statue of martia. horace in his satyrs maketh mention of a statue of martia, which none durst behold, that undertook not a good cause. it is not my meaning for all this to speak against a sufficient number, of proctor's & lawyers which are honest, & of great knowledge & discretion, which will not alter the truth, nor charge either their own conscience or their clientes, with any goods gotten unjustly or by cautel, nor make themselves the ministers of a wicked gain, which in small time is taken again out of their hands or their heirs which possess it, as the holy scripture & experience doth teach us. for other i think the proverb was meant by them, that with a white net they cousin other of their wealth. for by their writings, pleas, quintil. l. 12. c. 1. gell●us l. 1. c. 18. formalities, & petifogging they pill the whole country, & as juvenal writeth, they sell the very sight of their hoods & long robes, plumming and devouring up to their very snout & feathers, their poor clients even to the bones prolong their causes as much as may lie in them, & fasten, & clean unto them, as the hop doth unto the pole. and it seemeth that jeremiah speaketh hereof when he saith, jerem. 5.27. & 6.13. as a cage is full of birds, so is their houses full of deceit: yet they prosper though they execute no judgement for the poor. for from the least of them even to the greatest of them every one is given unto covetousness. and in hosea you have eaten the fruit of lies. and micah curseth them that pluck of the skins of the people and their flesh from their bones, and work wickedness in their own imaginations. he saith further, that the heads judge for rewards, and are full of rapine and deceit. they shall eat and not be satisfied, every man hunteth his brother with a net, the best of them is a briar. isaiah. 9.6. and in isaiah you have eaten up the vineyard the spoil of the poor is in their houses. and woe unto you which join house to house, & lay field to field. and in truth the facility of arguing, scamning and pleading which is in france, is the cause of so many proctor's lawyers and judges, that they grow like hornets and grasshoppers, which will live as plato writeth without doing aught else then sting & bite. lycurgus also which by his laws banished all superfluity out of lacedaemon, took away practisers and all kind of pleading. and we may say with the ancient poets, astrea. that astrea which maintained good laws, & by the equity thereof gave great quiet & contentment to every one, is flown her ways up into heaven, ate. not being able to endure such iniquities, and ate, which is the goddess of all confusion damage, disorder, troubles & wickedness that may alter a state, hath succeeded in her place. the said the sessel in his monarchy, philip de comines, gagnin, and late m. bude upon the pandects, have greatly bewailed, the corruption, confusion & disorder of such pettifoggers as the very scum of italy, and a most dangerous infection. chap. 45. that it is a lying in judges to receive presents, and what exercise is to required to meet with avarice, buying of offices, and covetousness. cato the censor was of opinion, that a man ought not to pray a judge or magistrate for any thing being just or unjust. he said also that judges, captains, or governors, ought not to enrich themselves in their charges, but with honour & good reputation. and aristotle in the 5. of the politics writeth, that nothing is more to be considered in a common wealth, then that the laws should provide, that magistrates be not covetous not bitter for their own commodity. isaiah. 1. & 33. and god by his prophet isaiah reprehendeth the princes & governors of his people, terming them thieves, because they took presents, and praised the faithful man, because he kept back his hand from any present, or unlawful gain polybus also writeth that, alexander severus. buying of offices. that the ancient romans punished a judge by death, which received any presents. and the emperor alexander severus, caused such to be deposed & grievously punished, as bought their of sices, saying they sold dearer in retail them they bought in the gross. which opinion lewis th' 12, the emperor antoninus & sundry other were of; and therefore bestowed they all offices by consent of the senate, niger. wages appointed to officers. and after a very careful consideration had. and the emperor niger ordained them wages, to the end they might not be a charge to any, saying that a judge neither aught to take nor give. and plutarque in his politics teacheth us, that a magistrate ought not to go to the court or common wealth as to a fair to buy & sell, as some wicked ones have said that they went to a golden harvest. for this cause the emperor justinian in his 8 institution vipraesides, laws of justinian. & in the 24, & 25, especially forbiddeth all such merchandise & corruptions of judges, adding that they ought to carry a fatherly affection towards the people. the which likewise was the cause of those ancient laws which ordained that all magistrates should be called to a reckoning, & render account of whatsoever they had done, & might be accused of every one if they had taken aught. among the oaths of judges repeated by demosthenes, oaths of judges. one was that they should take no present. the sentence of justinian the emperor ought not to be forgotten auth. de judicibus, that all judges ought to contemn riches and to show their hands undefiled to god, their emperor, king and law: which also is to be understood of all counsellors, & governors, a poetical fiction applied. auth. de manda princ. and the poets feigning that juno through her riches, mercury through his eloquence, venus through her niceness, mars through his threats, and the rest of the gods having all conspired against jupiter, & yet were not able to pull him out of heaven, meant thereby that a man of virtue could by no means be turned a side from justice. it hath been said of many that they which give presents to judges are most notably abused, for the contrary party giveth likewise, & maketh the balance equal, they which give presents to judges are notably cozened. & often time the velvet disgraceth the satin, & the horse taketh away the force of the hacney, and the chain of gold covereth the ring. and yet by the oath which judges have made to god & to their king, they are debtors of justice, without respect of persons: so when they receive presents, they deceive the poor suitors, and lie giving them hope, that their gifts shall prevail with them. for this cause diodorus great esteemed a picture which was within a chamber of the palais, a picture within the palace. philip. of thirty judges which were all without hands, and the precedent looking only upon the image of truth which hôg about this neck. k. philip said to his son alexander, that he deceived himself, if he looked for fidelity at their hands whom he had corrupted by money. and we must not marvel if the first day they be received in they be perjured, selling again what they have bought, & exercising as it were the art of robbing, through out the palace & presidial seats. k. agesilaus had once a custom, to send a beuse to every senator of lacedaemon, as soon as he was chosen, in sign of his virtue. the ephors which were as overseers of every one, condemned him in a fine, to the public use adding that it was because through such favours he went practising & gaining to himself alone those which ought to be common to al. justice a virgin undefloured. for as hesiodus said justice is a virgin undeflowred always lodged with honour, reverence temperance, & public utility, and hating all presents. there are certain old ordinances even in bourgundy, which forbidden all kind of presents to governors & judges. k. s. lewis, made a most rigorous law, which it were well if it were revived. and in the alcoran it is forbidden upon pain of death, that judges receive no presents. laws forbidding judges to receive presents. and if we receive what plutarque teacheth, instructing such as manage the affairs of state, that he which enricheth himself by the handling of public causes, and taketh presents is a committer of sacrilege, an unfaithful counselor, a perjured judge, a magistrate polluted and defiled with all the wickedness which man can commit: and that which was said that he which first gave money to the people, taught the true way to ruin and confusion of a popular estate. the said plutarque in the life of pomp, showeth what mischief hath ensued through presents. it was not without a mystery contained therein, judges drawn without hands. that at thebes, the judges and councillors were drawn without hands, and the precedent blindfold: to give to wit that justice ought not to be defiled, favourable, nor corrupted through presents. and as the ears when they are full of bussing, and noise, are not able comprehend what is said, marius as marius excused himself that the sound of trumpets made him that he could not hear the laws. so if there be any present which soundeth back, hardly shall truth and justice take place, but rather favour and injustice. the lawyers in the treaties de officio praesidis, & de officio proconsulis, & legati, expressly forbade all governors and judges to receive any present. and so doth the law cincia. isaiah. 1.23. & 33.1. isaiah complained that the princes were rebellious and companions of thieves, every one loveth gifts, and followeth after rewards: and pronounceth a woe to them that spoil, for they shall be spoiled. in ancient time as soon as it was known that a judge had taken any thing, all the honour that in his whole life he could gain, was now clean stained and lost. and if it were but known in the cantons of surich or berne, that one of the council had taken were it never so little, exod. 23.8. micach. 3.11. deut. 16.19. 1. sam. 12.3. the best bargain he could make were banishment. god in exodus forbiddeth to take reward, for the reward blindeth the eyes of the wise, and perverteth the words of the just. the which also is repeated in 16. of deuteronomy. and samuel rendering an account of his whole life, insisted principally, in that he never received bribe to blind his eyes therewith, his children were blamed for receiving and were the cause of the change of the state. judas went and hung himself. and job said that fire shall devour the houses of bribes: and he whose hands are pure shall increase his strength. job. 15.34. & 17.9 whence greediness of bribes proceedeth. and s. ambrose upon s. luke saith, that even as they that are in a trance, can not discern things in such sort as they indeed are, but only the illusions and fancies of their passions: so the thought of a greedy judge, wrapped within the cords of covetousness, & fastened by the bonds of avarice, neither seethe or thinketh of any thing but gold, plato his council. silver, and riches, and all his study is but how to augment his wealth. and plato in his common wealth calleth them drones which mar the honey, and pikes which devour the rest of the fish. the desire of these bribes proceed from a greediness, which repugneth his fill, whereas all other yield thereunto: for it exerciseth the appetite, & taketh away the pleasure: & the children of such corrupt judges do often times follow their trace. plato gave counsel to accustom young men in their infancy to think that it was not lawful to have or wear any gold to be deck their body with, to the end that when they came to the maniging of affairs, they should not seek to enrich themselves, nor receive bribes, knowing that the inward gold which is virtue is proper unto them. but now we may say that we are in the golden age, where no account is made but of gold and silver. and as one finding fault with the corrupt manners of the athenians said, that at athenes all was honest, so may one affirm now that of vice is made virtue. the remedy to meet with covetousness and greadines of bribes. our ancient fathers had great reason to think it fit, that there should be an exercise to meet with covetousness, and the greediness of having and receiving bribes, which was to abstain from any lawful gain, to the end men mought be accustomed to estrange themselves from all unjustice and unlawful taking of money, and from long continuance mought tame and chasten that greediness to gain, and get, which thorough enough of other habits and actions is nourished and exercised always to be willing to gain impudently, and seeketh after unjustice, hardly abstaining from autraging of any, if any profit may thereby ensue unto them, ready to take at all hands. for as ecclesiasticus writeth, eccles. 19.1. he that contemneth small things shall fall by little and little. and according to the opinion of isocrates, the covetous man at all assays forsweareth and deceiveth himself: but this covetousness shall never assault or surprise any, which shall not be even given over to receive gifts and rewards, having his heart well settled and yielding to no motion that shall not be honourable and good. and truly where bribes take place, there is law and justice banished, and it can not be, that he should not incline to him, which giveth, because as we have before mentioned, bribes make men blind. and in ecclesiasticus they are termed a bridle for his mouth which receiveth them: eccles. 28.25 & 31.5. and he that loveth gold shall not be justified, but he that hateth gifts shall live. for after that entrance be once thereto admitted, all honesty and integrity slideth away: and as it is said in a common proverb, gold maketh all things preignable. and bribes resemble hooks hid under a bait, which beasts can better avoid then men. i think that gifts between man and wife, besides causes contained in the civil law, were forbidden to the end women should take less of strangers, and their love be mutual without hire or mercenary reward. it is also to be presumed that that which moved the emperor adrian, and alexander severus to proportion the expenses of judges, and there to give them wages, was to the end they should take nothing of parties, as also of some it was expressly forbidden. spice money for suits. and that which through out all france they take under colour to buy spice, was at the first a pound of comfits of less value than 12. pence, and that was ever when their suit was ended. romans very continent. and in titus livius we see how the ancient romans abhorred presents, & cicero wrote of the fabritii, curiens, scipio's, pisces, & cato's, that they were not only honoured for their prows, but in that for all their poverty, they could never be gotten to receive present. and titus livius. valerius. highly commended valerius who having been 4. times consul, yet so poor he died, that they were feign to bury him at the charge of the common stock he telleth the like of one agrippa, agrippa. who appeased the seditions which were between the people & nobility. those two great captains epaminondas, epaminondas. & pericles, of which the one governed the thebans, the other the athenians many years, & obtained great victories, never augmented their patremony the value of one bare denier, nor ever would accept present, as a thing unworthy of a man of courage, & a valiant head. scipio refused to join with a certain senator, after he knew that he took. and bribes were so highly detested of all people, that it was not so much as lawful for ambassadors sent to princes to receive any thing, whereon grew the complaint, not lawful for ambassadors to receive presents. photion. which dionysius k. of sicily made, because them bassadors of corinth refused to take what he offered them, as if that law there were such as a tyrant had a better. the like was written of other ambassadors, sent unto ptolemy. photion refused the presents of alexander the great of antipater & other, adding that if they esteemed him an honest man, they should leave him so. it is written of him that would not assist his son in law, which was accused for taking, saying that he had made him his ally only for lawful & reasonable causes. xenocrates would not take anything either for himself or his friends of the 3000. crowns which alexander sent unto him. alcibiades and other could never fasten upon socrates to make him receive aught: for he said that his good spirit abhorred all presents and sent word unto archidamus which offered it unto him, that a peck of wheat was sold at athens for a double, & watercost nothing & that he contented himself with what he had. menander also found but two things necessary for the use of our life bread and water, for the pleasure of life according to the opinion of cicero, is rather in desire than satiety. agesilaus agesilaus refused the k. of persias present: demetrius, julius caesar's: the said epaminondas sent back to the k. of persias, his 3000. daricques or crowns, extremely chafing with diomedes which presented them, ask him if he had undertaken so long a navigation, to think to corrupt epaminondas, commanding him to make report unto his k. that as long as he wished & procured the good of thebans, he should have him his friend, & it should cost him nothing, but if he should seek their endemnity, he would be unto him a mortal enemy. jason. and jason prince of thesalia coming on a time to the city of thebes with which he was allied, sent unto the same epaminondas 2000 crowns for a gift, knowing him to be very poor, but by no means would he receive them, & the first time that he saw him after he told him, thou beginnest to outrage me. in the mean time he borrowed of a burges of the town a little some, with which he entered into arms within peloponese, now called lafoy mores, & put away his esquire, having understood that he had received a present. eliseus. 2. king. 5.16. eliseus' refused the presents which nahaman the constable of the k. of syria whom he had healed of the leprosy would have bestowed on him: & giezi became a leper for receiving them. abraham refused the presents of the k. of sodom albe it he had well deserved them. the advise of philopemen general of the achaians, written of by plutarque ought not to be omitted, who after he had refused 612000, crowns of the lacedæmonians told them, philopemen. that it was not for them to go about to corrupt, & gain with their money, honest men & their friends, in that they might at all assays assure themselves to be served by them, but that it was for them to be lewd fellows & mutinans, to the end that having their mouthsstopped by bribes, cimon they should less annoy them. it is written of cimon, that he demanded whether they would have him a friend or hireling, & since he was a friend that they would carry away their gold & silver. they writ of many saints, which never would receive any presents. the romans refused 400000. crows sent from the k. of egypt. romans. they did the likeby the crown of gold offered by the k. of sicily. titus livius in the 2. book of the 3. decade, & 6. of the 4. showeth how the romans refused the presents which the ambassadors of naples and they of peston had offered unto them, and so did they k. philips and ptolemies. yea they would not receive the very payment which was due unto them before their time; for fear lest that had bound them as a preventing, menander. and present made at that time. menander the tyrant of samos, by reason of the coming down of the persians, cleomenes. retired himself into the city of sparta with much gold and silver which he showed to cleomenes, praying him to take what liked him thereof. he refused to take any thing, but fearing lest he would have given to other of the city, he went to the ephors, & said that it was better for the weal of sparta to put out their samien guest out of peloponese, for fear he should entice any spartians to become nought. the said ephors giving ear to this advise banished him the very self same day. and demosthenes was banished by the senate of areopage, demosthenes. for having received a present from arpalus. curius and fabritius, refused the presents of the samnites and pyrrhus. fabritius. as also did daniel of king baltazard: and the said fabritius said that as long as he could command his own members, he should never have need of much money. lysander would not receive the apparel and jewels which was sent unto his daughter from dionysius the tyrant saying that his presents more dishonoured then honoured his daughters. sophocles. sophocles before said the like. the which was the very cause that alexander severus, tulg. l 6. ca 3 so grievously punished such of his officers, as he knew had taken bribes. and according unto that most excellent saying of our saviour christ jesus, recorded by s. paul, it is a blessed thing to give, rather than to take. which also king ptolemy philadelphus was wont to repeat, and that it was better to enrich an other than himself. even the very epicuriens held, that it was more excellent and pleasant to do good to an other then to receive a benefit. and cicero in his oration which he made for plancius declareth, that it is an inhuman thing, and brutish, to suffer one's self to be overcome through benefits. and as king cyrus was wont to say, that he heaped up great treasures when he enriched his friends and subjects. and constance the emperor had often in his mouth, that it were better that public riches, and appertaining to a king were possessed by private men, then kept in a coffer or treasury. and for the ease of the empire he used only earthen vessel, and was content with little: for as seneca writeth, he is as great which useth earthen vessel as silver, and silver as if they were earth. remedy against avarice cato, cicero, and titus livius, teacheth us a means to meet with avarice, in taking away all riotousness and superfluous expense, as sundry common weals and empires have done. pluto was called dis, pluto the god of riches. that is to say the god of riches and hell, as if too great wealth made the way more easy for us. and the poets feign that the furies were the daughters of pluto and proserpina, allotted to great revenues: as if the abundance thereof took away our understanding, except god inclined us to use it better. and with great consideration did lycurgus' king of sparta abolish the use of all gold and silver, lycurgus. as the very occasion and subject of the wickedness which man committed. and pliny wished that gold mought be clean rooted out, pliny. as if it had been first found out for the ruin and destruction of man's life, esteeming that age happy in which those things changed. artaxerxes was wont to say, that it was far more royal to add then to take away. and isocrates wrote to nicocles, that he should be more esteemed of in giving, isocrates then taking, for these respects one ought not easily to receive a present, and to charge himself hereby with a further recompense, except he willbe polluted with that villainous vice of ingratitude heretofore described. whereon the minds of men most runneth. if we consider the intents of the most part of men, we shall find they tend to the heaping up of wealth, to join stone and wood, one upon another, without once thinking of the life of the soul, as though we had none at all. the which causeth me to remember an aphorism of hipocrates. they, saith he, hipocrates aphorism. which in their sickness feel no pain at all, & toss, & tumble their clothes, tear their hair, and pill straw, it is a very ill sign, and no appearance at all that they shall live. for it is less decent to settle our wits upon heaping up of riches, then to draw a piece of cloth of gold through a sink. and such as are given thereto, are clean out of taste, as they are which have the green sickness, who love to eat coals and ashes, which is a strange cacochimie, and corruption of nature. and riches do not consist but in opinion, themistocles. and estrange us from god: themistocles said, that it was very requisite for the chief of an army to know the enemy's council, yea (answered aristides) but it is more decent, and praise worthy to have pure hands. as pericles was also wont to say. and if we should put in practise the judgements of k. cambyses, cambyses who caused a judge to be flayed which was corrupted with bribes, and fastened his skin to the seat which afterward he caused his son to hold, & that of darius, who for the like cause caused one to be hanged, darius. bishop of cologne. and of a bishop of cologne, who caused the eyes of six of his counsellors to be put out, and left one to the seventh, which had taken least of any, to the end he mought guide the rest through the city, thereby showing how much himself detested to be corrupted with bribes, there would be an infinite number at this time, flayed, hanged, & made blind. i could here discourse, avarice. how great miseries avarice breedeth, & how much it ought to be detested, resembling the devil from whence it is sprung, which delivereth up his followers to the hangman, & breaketh their neck after that he hath a while called them; but enough of others have entreated thereof. and the holy scripture causeth us often times to fly it as a plague, and root of all evil, & a bottomless pit, making us sustain much evil, to attain unto evil, & to turmoil & toil one's self, to pleasure his heir, who is often time unknown. and the better hap a man hath to attain thereunto the more is he accursed, in being more tormented with the fevers of the mind, & unquietness. not without cause do they compare a covetous man, to one in a dropsy, or to him which hath been stung by that dangerous serpent dipsas, both which are never satisfied with drink until they die therewith. and it was wisely said, that the poor man wanteth but a little, and the wise man all things: & that he never doth good until he die, & the longer he liveth the more he tormenteth himself. s. chrysostom often times preached that the more money a man heaped together, the more he coveted: & that with great wealth poverty increased. and solomon writeth: pro. 15.27. he that is greedy of gain troubleth his own house, but he that hateth gifts shall live, & the covetous are excluded out of the kingdom of god, 1. cor. 6. ephes. ●. 2. tim. 6. seneca writeth that if covetousness do once surprise youth, she will strangle it before she will leave it. it is a strange matter to see, how many are withdrawn from the fear of god through riches & wealth, riches withdraw from the fear & love of god. which notwithstanding proceed but from his liberality, & therefore ought rather to make the possessors of them more devout, & affectionate unto his service. and how we pull up the briars & weeds which hinder the good seeds from growing in our gardens; luke. 7. & yet few have regard to this covetousness, which keepeth the word of god (the only incorruptible seed) from being able to take root, crates. & choketh it when it would grow. crates finding that the wealth of this world did hinder him from the study of philosophy, cast his goods into the sea, saying, that he had rather drown them, then be drowned by them. we have before made mention of sundry other, which have left their goods & possessions, the better to intend their study: the which poor pagans will condemn such as are slaves to their own substance. and would to god men would learn that lesson of s. paul: tim. ●. 6. godliness is great gain if a man be contented with that he hath. for we brought nothing into the world, celestial gods. & it is certain that we can carry nothing out: therefore when we have food & raiment, let us therewith be content. and showeth of how many mischiefs covetousness hath been the cause. and he writeth in the 3. to the philippians that after that he knew jesus christ, & the great riches which he brought to them which received & possessed them through faith, 3. col. 7.31. he then began to account all those things which the flesh was accustomed to glory in, but as loss & dung. and all such as through reading & preaching, have known & well tasted of those goods which god the father, by the means & favour of his son, would bestow of us, esteem not of this worldly riches & muck, but enjoy them as though they enjoyed them not, & do not set their hearts upon so frivolous & uncertain things, as we have infinite examples in the scripture to declare: for as we have above noted, the knowledge of spiritual goods maketh vile the price of earthly. the desire & love whereof beginneth to vanish as soon as we have but tasted of the other, which are sound, permanent, & breed true contentment. is●●h. 9.6. rom. 5. ●. worldly goods. our saviour christ is called in isaiah, the prince of peace; & that faith which we have in him is such as thereby we have peace toward god, & rest in our spirit: and contrariwise covetousness & desires trouble the same; for they are unsatiable, & infinite, & they which are possessed with them are accursed like the serpent: for that like unto him they live with earth, & therein settle their paradise like moles. for where their treasure is, there is their heart their god & paradise. let us consider, that very little will content a mind, which is but desirous of what is necessary for to entertain it here; and if we seek his kingdom & the righteousness thereof, all temporal things as he hath promised shallbe given unto us without needing for our further enriching, to fashion ourselves or do aught against our duty or honour, or rendering ourselves too much addicted unto them. it is here where we ought to use violence, not only, if our eye cause us to offend, to pluck it out: if our hand or foot cause us to stumble, to cut them off, & cast them from us, as our saviour counseleth us in the 18. of s. matth. but to cut off these accursed desires which in such sort presseth down our hearts, & keepeth them from not being able to lift up themselves on high, to search out heavenly things, col. 3.1. as all good christians ought to do. the which i have the rather amplified, besides that which is before contained in the 25 discourse, to the end we mought endeavour to diminish these accursed desires, which are the cause of so great mischiefs, annoys, & miseries throughout the world. and to make us to have less occasions to take, we may not be too curious in our raiments, banquets & buildings; for as cicero writeth, remedy against covetousness. if one will exempt himself from covetousness, he must take away riotousness which is the mother, & it shallbe very requisite that they by no offices, buying of offices. which the emperor justinian thought to be the very beginning of naughtiness and the emperors theodosius & valentinian, ordained that all judges & governors of provinces should at their entrance into their office, swear, that they neither gave nor promised any thing, nor had any will to give, or cause ought to be given, & also that they should take nothing but their wages. and if it were found that they had received any thing, in which it was lawful for every one to be an informer, than paid they quadruple, besides the infamy they sustained of perjury. and the like pain was ordained to him which gave the bribe. i would commend it much more for the weal both of the king & realm, if the youth mought rather give themselves to learning, discipline, and philosophy, or to the mathematics, divinity, physic, or some honest trade of merchandise, to husband well their revenues left unto them by their ancestors, then both dearly & foolishly to buy offices, to gain by them, & pill the poor people. that would be a cause both of fewer officers, fewer suits, & more learned men. and for the most part the money which cometh of such a sail, turneth into smoke, through a just judgement of god: and often time such purchasers leave behind them no heirs. now the precedents, counsellors, & judges, being chosen according as the ordinances carry, would be much more honoured & france in more quiet. li. 5. sabellic reciteth that in the grave senate of areopage, none was received, except he had made some notable proofs of his virtue, knowledge, & dexterity. and if any one suffered himself to be corrupted & impaired, he was so ashamed among so many virtuous men, that voluntarily he quited his estates, & absented himself. and every one was above forty years of age. the holy scripture attributed the change of the jewisse common wealth, to that they demanded a king, 3. sam. 7.3 founded upon that the sons of samuel turned aside after lucre and took rewards. and david said, that man was happy which took not. and our saviour bade his disciples give for nothing, liberality of princes. what they received for nothing. yet will i not hereby restrain the liberality of princes, as we have sundry examples in the scripture, & it is praise worthy to relieve such as have need thereof, and to entertain amity, and reconcile themselves, and especially the holy scripture commandeth us to give of our substance to the poor, as if it were to god, even to attain to eternal life. tiberius' the second made a notable answer to his wife, that a man should never want wealth, while he gave great alms. and that good bishop nilus exhorted us to entertain the poor, because they rendered our judge more favourable unto us. guiciardin in his second book greatly commended the venetians, liberality of the venetians. because they did not only increase the pay to such as had valiantly behaved themselves at the day of tournawe, but also yielded pensions and sundry recompenses to many of their children which died in that battle, and assigned dower to their daughters, which was also done by sundry other princes. let us follow the lesson of ecclesiasticus: let not thy hand be stretched out to receive, and shut when thou shouldest give. but demosthenes and plutarque have set down, that by how much their particular which bear public office is increased, that common profit is diminished, as we have before set down by the example which theodosius made of the spleen, which putteth all the parts of the body in hazard, it being too much increased. chap. xlvi. that it is a lie, to be intemperate, drunk, excessife, whoremonger, player, and idle, and to say that one would be in health, of music & physic, as well for the body as the soul. they cannot be well exempted from lying, the intemperate in vain seek health. as democrites said, which so much commend health, and seek all means possible to preserve it, and yet run into so great excess, of eating, drinking, sleeping, and other pleasures, never applying themselves to honest exercises, suffering their members and senses, to be mortified with idleness: and esteem more of a slavish body, then of the mind, which ought to command, of the raiment more than of the body, of the box or bag more than of the precious stones contained therein: they fear wandering, as they go by the way, and yet in their life and conversation, they still go contrary to the way which they ought to hold: they have ears & hear not, eyes & see not, they are blockish in whatsoever they do, & (as horace saith) made drunk with their sweet fortune: and which is worse, they will never examine their life according to the true rule, nor amend in themselves, what they reprehend in an other, & ask health at god's hands, they mar it through their disordinate life. zonarus & sigebert make mention of one alexander emperor of the east, alexander an emperor of the east. given to great idleness and gluttony, who on a time demanded of his wise men if he had long to live: they answered him, yea, if he could take away the teeth, & privy parts of a brazen bore that stood in the market place, meaning thereby that he would shorten his days except he became more temperate & continent. the which happened shortly after, as it hath done to sundry emperors & kings, which have died through intemperancy. and a senator of rome which was saluted by another riding in his chariot, answered, i will not say unto you, god save you, since in going thus at your ease, you show you have no desire to live long. and a certain k. said unto one of his counsellors, which pampered up himself very much without doing any thing. cease to build thee so grievous a prison of thy body. and epaminondas discharged all his soldiers which grew fat thinking, epaminondas allowed not of soldiers. that as a woman too fat doth not easily conceive, so doth fat hinder a man from doing of his charge, as arms do, which are too heavy. and when he was chosen captain of greece, immediately he made all his people to exercise, & all superfluities to be taken away. scipio. as also scipio did, who being arrived at his camp, banished all soldiers slaves, and pages, and all unprofitable people, & made each one carry his own armour. fat. li. 2. c. 1 a girdle of the gaulois & iberiens. likewise the word fat, as well in the latin tongue, as in ours, is taken for grossness, and without spirit. alexander telleth how among the gaulois and iberiens. the magistrate had a strait girdle, with which they girt men and women which were not with child, and such as by reason of their fatness were not able to enter therein, were esteemed as dishonoured. and in lacedaemon they condemned them in a fine. elian telleth how that to this end there were certain deputes appointed to control youth, controllers of youth. and to correct their idleness and excess. and in egypt, before they did eat, all youth was of necessity to exercise themselves until they sweat, each one according to his quality. the like was done in persia. exercises against idleness. and lucullus who was ever wont most sumptuously to entertain his friends, had still one of his servants to stand behind him, to put him in mind of sobriety. and aulus gellius telleth how if a knight of rome grew to fat, lib. 22. the censors would ever take away his horse. the lacedæmonians very sober. in lacedaemon exercise was very much used and their diet was very slender, to the end that of long continuance they should accustom themselves never to be full, that they might be the apt for war, if the learned, to take pains, live soberly, & last long with small expense, and they called their public feasts phedetia; because they learned to live soberly, of the word phido, fatenesse. which signifieth sparing: & every man sent thither in the beginning of every month, a few victuals, as plutarque & aristotle wrote: for fullness hath always been the fountain, from whence sundry grievous & long diseases do proceed, replenish the body with humours, wind, inflammations, distillations, and oppilations, which happeneth unto such as through a disordinate appetite, & gluttony, feed of every kind of meat which is served unto them, & being full, seek to please their appetites. and if any present unto them any exquisite or strange meat at the end of all the rest, they will for all that they be already full, feed thereof through very doltishness. and for the most part this change & disguising of meats, change of meats. maketh our health to decay, although we confess that the mingling of sundry meats engender sundry accidents; because it is that which draweth pleasure out of the bounds of sufficiency, pleasure, in all things which pleaseth: whereas in simple & uniform kinds, delight never exceedeth the appetite, & natural necessity, eccles. 21.23. lysimachus. it is written in eccl. pain in watching & choleric diseases, & pangs of the belly are with an unsatiable man. k. lysimachus, having yielded himself by reason of his extreme thirst, after he had drunk some water said: o god how great felicity have i lost for one so short a pleasure. a man may well say so of such as are intemperate, which lose their health thereby, & often times their life. it was wisely said of old men in time past, that the well conditioned belly, & lasting, brought great liberty and health and isocrates gave council to bridle it, & not too much to pamper it, because it was very unthankful. seneca. and seneca called sickness the chastisement of intemperance. calisthenes answered him which would needs urge him to drink, as other did, at alexander his feasts, i will not for to drink to alexander have need of an esculapius, meaning a physician. the said alexander after he was well tippled, was banqueted by one of his captains, where he fell again to tippling more than before, whereof he died. he was also compared by daniel foretelling of the monarchies, to a leopard, which cannot be so well taken as through wine: for being drunk he falleth into the toils as some writ. the wise man saith very well to purpose, reprehending the drunkards: to whom is woe? to whom is sorrow? to whom is strife? to whom is murmuring? to whom are wounds without cause? and to whom is the redness of eyes? even to them that tarry long at wine, to them that go & seek mixed wine. and s paul exhorteth us, to walk honestly, rom. 12.10. as in the day, not in gluttony & drunkenness, neither in chambering & wantonness, nor in strife & envying: because there is ever great dissoluteness, riotousness, & looseness in all such excess. the glutton & the drunkard shall be poor saith solomon, & especially forbiddeth it to princes as both eccl. & isaiah do. and it was not amiss said, that wine hath drowned more than the sea. plutarque in the life of cleomenes writeth that ptolemy philopater, ptolemy philopater. so named in mockery saith zonarus because he put to death both his father and mother, was destroyed through wine and women, and died like a beast. another ptolemy was termed the belly man because of his gluttony. callicratidas being sent to cyrus, after that he had remained certain days, necessary points to preserve health. & not had any audience, by reason the king was retired & occupied in continual banquets & feastings, it was thought meet he should return without doing any thing, saying that as there was great reason they should have consideration of their weal so ought they to commit nothing unworthy of sparta. caesar writeth in his commentaries, that the almains would not suffer any wine to be brought. men in old time set down three most necessary points to continue health, to eat without being full, to labour without sparing one's self, and to preserve his seed. there hath been also certain priests, which would never use salt with their meat, salt. because it sharpened appetit, and provoked to eat & drink more, fearing to be fat, and lest that divine part which was in them, should be pressed down and kept under by the mortal. and thereunto that the extremity in good point according to the opinion of physicians is very dangerous, & the excellency of too much welfare inclineth toward the opposite. josephus describing the manner of living of three sorts of philosophers or sects in judea, especially of the esseniens, highly commended them because they loved truth, & never did eat or drink aught, whereby nature mought be offended: & by reason of their great sobriety they lived long in health, some unto a hundred years. and truly it is a great mean to live happily, when a man's body is well disposed, and in good temper not drowned with wine, nor grieved with meats, ready to be employed in any action he desireth. plato the which also moved plato to call intemperancy a root proper to every disease. and gorgias being demanded how he attained to so great years, of a hundred & eight, answered, in never having eaten or done any thing through pleasure. the old proverb saith: much meat, much malady. and very wisely was socrates wont to say, that such as were accustomed to frugality, & continency, enjoy great pleasure & delight, aswell for the quiet of their conscience, as good disposition of their body. and for as much as in ancient time, fish was accounted a more dainty, fat and hungry soils. & exquisite kind of meat than flesh, they which often fed thereon were called by an infamous name, opsophagi, gluttons, & wantoness. this is the reason why in titus livius barrenness is preferred before fruitfulness; because that men in a fat soil are often times cowards & lubberly fellows, & in a hungry, they are more industrious, sober, and painful as experience teacheth us. and whensoever we have a mind to eat, let us consider that we have to banquet both the soul, and body together, following the advise of epictetus. after that alexander had vanquished darius, he caused a goodly pillar to be hewn down, and burst in pieces, wherein was engraven the order, and quantity, of such meats, as were every day set before the kings of persia, saying that it was not fit for kings to learn to sup so prodigally and sumptuously. and diodorus the sicilian writeth that there were laws set down to the kings of egypt, not only to show what they ought unto their subjects, but also to serve as a rule and diet of their own particular. and zonarus after xenophon in his pedia writeth, the bringing up of the persian youth that all the youth of persia, at schools and places where they learned and exercised, were never nourished but with bread and water, & some time for better cheer saith cordamus they added a few cresses. and they never eat until they had done their ordinary task. the which in his second book he writeth was also enjoined to soldiers, and in that country it was a very great dishonour for one to show himself subject to natural eiections; which they never knew to do, but with abstinence, moderateness, and good diet: through which together with their exercise, they consumed and diverted such superfluities and humours, socrates' his council. as proceeded from too great nourishment. socrates in xenophon wisheth such as would live in health, to beware of meats which enticed them to eat when they had no appetite, and of drinks which provoked them to drink when they had no thirst, teaching us only to use that which we have need of, in joining pleasure together with necessity. julius caesar, augustus, titus, vespasian, trajan, tacitus, alexander severus, prince's very sober. and charlemain, grew most famous for that they used so great sparing, and their table talk was more accounted of then great fare. and they made ordinances upon expenses, for the preservation of health and sparing of the gifts of god. it is written of vespasian that once a month he would fast one whole day. vespasian. cato, and of cato that for the most part he never eat but of bread and beef, and never drank but water, with which sometime he mingled a little vinegar. the like is said of scipio. fabritius was found by the samnite ambassadors feeding of turnup's which he roasted between the cenders. massinissa king of the numides never did eat but of ravel bread, and very simple meat, without sauce, and that but once a day according to the ancient order. hannibal never used other ordinary than the worst of his soldiers. and cicero allegeth the saying of plato, that it was very strange to see one feed twice on one day. and he which saith that the life of a sober man, and one that is content with little, resembleth him which maketh a voyage in the spring time, by little journeys, through a pleasant & fertile country, compareth it very fitly, and aught to withdraw us frenchmen, from so great wantonness, for which the very turks have found fault with us, as paulus iovius writeth. at rome in old time wine was forbid unto women, the which the inhabitants of marseilles long time observed. wine forbidden to roman women. we see likewise that vessels when they are more fraught, than they are able to carry do sink: even so fareth it with such as eat & drink too much. as it is written in eccl. excess of meats bringeth sickness, eccles. 37.29. & gluttony cometh into choleric diseases, by surfeit many perisheth, but he that dieteth himself prolongeth his life. and socrates was wont to say that there is no difference between a choleric man & a beast. xenophon. as also xenophon declareth in his pedia, commending k. cyrus for his sobriety, & for that he exercised, until he sweat. and in the 2. socrates. book of the deeds & sayings of socrates, he advised a man never to contract amity, with any that is too much addicted to their belly, to drinking, eating, sleeping drowsiness, & covetousness. who will have pity on the charmer that is stinged with the serpent? as eccl. writeth: eccles. 12.15 less pity then, ought there to be had of him which suffereth himself to be thrown down headlong through pleasure, which is said to resemble the thieves of egypt, called philistes, which ever made much of the people, & embraced such as they had a mind to strangle. pleasure. and isocrates called her a traitor, deceiver, hangman, cruel beast, and tyrant. amos 6.4. god by his prophet amos greatly threatened those that love to live delicately, as also did our saviour by the example of the wicked rich man. and s. august. upon the 41. psalm, allegeth the old saying, that the incontinent man calleth upon death. as also the proverb carrieth, of a short pleasure cometh a long displeasure. and there lieth poison ever hidden, & the hook is covered with a bait. and we must behold them behind, & not before as aristotle counseleth us. for pleasures seem very beautiful before, as do the sirens, & sundry other monsters: but behind they train a long & ugly serpent's tail. whoredom is also forbidden by god, & the immoderate use of the act of venery ought to be shunned, of whoredom. as altering, drying, & marring the body, weakening all the joints & members, making the face blobbed, & yellow, shortening life, diminishing memory, understanding, and the very heart, 1. thes. 4.3 as hosea saith. s. paul in the first to the thessalonians writeth, that the will of god is our sanctification, and that we should abstain from fornication, that every one should know how to possess his vessel in holiness, and honour: and not in the lust of concupiscence. in the first to the corinthians he exhorteth us to fly it, 1. cor. 9.18. because he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body, that is to say, he doth injury it, profaning and defileth the poverty, and holiness thereof, he saith further that of the members of christ we make them the members of an harlot, and profane the temple of the holy ghost, and that being bought with great price, we are not our own but gods, and therefore should glorify him in our body and spirit. public honesty lieth there violate, and as cupid was made blind, so do they which are bewitched with this foolish love, stain, and abandon, their own honour, pro. 7.22. wealth, liberty, and health. for this cause solomon compared the whoremonger, to an ox that goeth to the slaughter, and to a fool to the stocks for correction, and to a bird that hasteneth to the snare, not knowing that he is in danger. we read what happened to dina, the beniamites, and david. and histories are full of examples of mischiefs which have ensued thereon. and he which committeth that sin, wrappeth and setteth an other as far in, and sinneth not alone. by god's law adultery was punished by death. gen. 20. leu. 22. and according to the civil law. instit. de pub. iud. sicut lib. julia. de adult. lib. in ius. c. but to cast off so dangerous a vipor, remedy against whoredom. we must crave at god's hand, that he will bestow of us a pure and chaste heart, that we may live soberly, avoid idleness, & all foul and filthy communication, be it by mouth, writing, or picture. ezechiel attributeth the sin of sodom, to fullness of bread, and abundance of idleness. ezec. 16 49. david prayed to god to turn his eyes from vanity. psalm. 119. and job said, i made a covenant with my eyes, why then should i think on a maid? and in gen. 6. the children were blamed that kept not their eyes, job. 13.1. but looked on fair women as also did sichem. gen. 34. and putifer his wife gen. 39 and ammon 2. sam. 13. notwithstanding as isocrates said, that a less labour and grief is made not to be left through a greater, so do those pleasures, which proceed from virtuous and honourable actions, as from temperance continency, and other virtues, clean mortify, with their joy and greatness, such as come only from the body, which engender nothing but gouts, sciaticas, cholicques, palsies, griefs of the stomach, tremblings, leprosies, pangs, vomits, inflammations, and other dangerous accidents. and when we feel heaviness, and wearisomeness in our members, head aches, or stitches in our side, which for the most part proceed from crudities, & lack of digestion, we must not persuade ourselves to do as before, and as they say to cach hear from a beast, but rest quietly and observe good diet, and long before to foresee the storm that is at hand. and when we go to visit such as are sick, and understand the cause of their diseases, we ought to look into ourselves according to plato his council, and see whether we commit not the like excess, to the end we may take heed by an other body's harm, and to stand upon our guards, and consider how precious a thing health is. and let us thankfully receive at god's hand, such instructions, as by chastising of us, he sendeth by reason of our intemperancy, to the end we may learn to prevent such as may happen unto us. antigonus. and as king antigonus said, that sickness had warned him not to wax proud, so ought we to learn to humble ourselves, and to live better, for that god sendeth that as a means, as well to us as other, to awake us, and keep us within the bounds of our dewetie. for vices are as the very proper inheritance of man, which we must seek to correct, taking away from goods a vehement covetousness, correction of vices. and unbridled greediness, and from evils, fear and sorrow, which come but from conceit, the very cause of unquietness, and perturbation, which putteth me in mind often times of the saying of an ancient father, that as the body in health easily endureth both cold, and heat, and maketh his profit of all kind of meats, so doth the christian, which hath his soul well compounded, moderate anger, joy, and all other affections, hipocrates advise to physicians. which offend both body and soul. hypocrates above all things recommendeth to a physician, that he should well advise himself, if in plagues, and ordinary diseases, he found nothing which was divine, that is to say, whether the hand of god were not the proper causes of the sickness, of the party diseased. for truly, sickness, and afflictions are sent from god for our good and profit. he often times sendeth sickness for remedies, and means to withdraw those whom he loveth from eternal ruin. and to punish such excess, he armeth grasshoppers, noisome flies, worms, frosts, winds, plagues, war, dews and vapours of the earth. as before we declared those things which they call evils, are as great helps to the good to do well, and to profit in the exercise of virtue: poverty, to moderate their desires, baseness to humble themselves, sickness to live patiently, and more soberly, and all kinds of griefs to make us run unto god, good & evil. and reconcile ourselves unto him, and to secure our neighbour in like distress when god shall have drawn us out. for i esteem none good but such as follow true riches which are godliness and virtue: and contrariwise the wicked are fastened to true evils, that is vice and impiety. that was the reason why in the council of latran it was enjoined, that the sick man should call for his spiritual physician. diognes' was angry with such as sacrificed to health, and in the mean time lived in all pleasures and idleness: and said that as in a house where much provision and victual is, are many rats and cats: so the body that is replenished with meats draw sundry diseases unto it. frugality. and he called frugality the mother of health, for which without great need a man need not use laxative medicines, because they are offensive to the stomach, and often times breed more superfluities and excrements, than they draw out of the body. plato also in the 8. of his commonwealth, counseleth us not to provoke sickness with physic, except the disease be most dangerous and vehement. physic aurelius it is written of the emperor aurelian and sundry other, that they never called for physicians or used physic: as at this day most part of the almains & zuzers use, but they healed themselves through good and spare diet, and some of them with a quart of strong wine and spice. and as herodotus wrote, babylonians. the babylonians never used physic but all sick persons were brought into the market place, in the temple of esculapius, were all receipts registered. to whom all such as had been cured of the like disease, taught their remedies. and there was found in the temple of esculapius, enregistered, all such receipt as had been experimented, for to serve in like case. plin. lib. 29. for otherwise physic consisted in the knowledge of sundry herbs, and they were almost all instructed in anatomies, and simples, as galen writeth. and we see even very many beasts and birds, to find out herbs and remedies fit for themselves which they have taught unto men, with the use of letting of blood and glisters. yet they have always thought, that they are often deceived, when there is nothing but experience without judgement and contemplation, to apply remedies in time and place, with other consideration of the age, strength or debility of person, condition, manner of living, the season of the year, the cause, beginning, increase, asclepiades. growing, and declining of the disease. asclepiades set all physic at nought, and counseled only sobriety, to rub over the whole body every morning and to exercise. and some have compared such as take physic, to those which drive out the burgess out of the city, to place strangers there. cato. m. cato feared lest the grecians would send physicians to rome, and therefore made some to be banished and driven thence; and expressly forbade his son in any wise to use or deal with them, as appeareth in a letter he wrote unto him. they in like sort of the same profession which since have crept into rome, were mere strangers, rome lo●ng time without physicians the romans themselves having been above 600. years together without physicians, & since they have even abhorred them, saying their irresolution & hazardous advise: which was the very cause that they termed them hangmen & thieves, and so the most part of the citizens endeavoured only to be skilful in simples, using no other drugs then what proceeded from nature, & of their own growing. indeed they had certain deputies which sent them panniers full of simples out of the isles which appertained unto them as sundry have written. and were it not that i fear being too tedious, i could allege a great number of kings & princes, which have been very curious in knowing, & seeking out the property of herbs & plants, & some have written thereof to the great profit of their posterity, & an immortal glory is remained unto them. galen himself writeth, that sundry emperors have gratly studied to attain unto the knowledge of simples, & to adorn that art amidst their business & in sundry places entertained arborysts, and in their triumphs caused rare plants to be carried. the temple of esculapius without the city. the temple of esculapius was in old time builded, without the city, teaching us thereby how we ought to esloyne ourselves from physicians & physic, which kind of people plato could never like of, except they were surgeons, & marvelous well experienced, thinking it to be a great sign of intemperancy where he found any of the other sort. and in his dialogue philosophus he esteemeth physic to consist only in opinions & uncertain conjectures. nicocles called physicians happy men, because the sun made manifest what good success soever happened in their cures, and the earth buried what fault soever they committed. and some say they are very angry men when they see their neighbours in health, & not to need them. the said plato and cato were likewise wont to say, that men in doing nothing learned to do ill. and eccl. counseleth us to exercise, because idleness breedeth much evil, & slothfulness poverty, which tenteth us to do ill as isocrates wrote. and xenophon exhorted hierom to spend his time in honest exercises, to make both his body and mind better disposed. and the athenians ordained a great punishment for idleness. for this cause scipio was wont to say, that he was never less in rest, then when he rested himself, understanding thereby that when he was not busied in public affairs, his own particular & his study sufficiently held him occupied & that in solitariness he consulted with himself. the wise men of the indies called gymnosophistes so greatly detested idleness, that they caused every man to render a particular account of what he had learned or did every day. we read in s. ambrose in the 82. epistle of his 10. book, & in s. jerom in sundry treaties, and other ecclesiastical authors that monasteries were first ordained for academies & schools of travail and exercise as well of the body, as of the mind, of learning, virtue, abstinence, fasting, patience, & all good example. and the word of the emperor severus was, travaillons. and the emperors adrian, antonius, cyrus, sertorius and sundry other captains, have still kept their men of arms, and soldiers, yea their very horses in continual exercise, travail, & sobriety. and we read in the commentaries of caesar, that his soldiers had no other provision, than corn, and a little vinegar to mingle with their water, and that some would never suffer any to bring them wine, imagining that that made men more nice & effeminate, and less able to endure pain and travail: and showeth as also did titus livius, how they sought to cut off all occasions, and means of delicateness: and how the soldiers were all the day long kept to travail in works, and constrained to carry about them sufficient corn for one whole month, and seven piles to serve for a rampire. veget. l. 1 c. 19 and vegetius ordained that young apprentices and novices should carry burdens to threescore pound weight. and marius so charged his soldiers and employed them in the ditches near unto the rhine, marius' his moils. that they were after termed the moils of marius, yea they were often times employed in amending the high ways called military, and there they made ditches to make them the drier, and the waters to soak away. the said marius said likewise in sallust, that his father and sundry other personages had taught him, that daintiness, de bello jug. and niceness were fit for women, but travail for men, and that all good men ought rather to esteem a good reputation, than riches: and that weapons beautified a house, and not fair movables. the said sallust reciteth before, metellus kept the discipline of war. how that when metellus was arrived in africa, he took away whatsoever might seem to nourish slothfulness, and caused proclamation to be made throughout the camp, that none should be so hardy as to presume to sell either bread, or any other meat dressed, that the carriers of water should not follow the camp; that the simple soldiers should never have page, nor beast of carriage: that each one should keep his rank, cast his trench, and carry his victual together with his furniture. and xenophon in the second of the pedia of cyrus writeth, that the soldiers and men at arms, did never dine and sup, until they travailed and sweat. the which ought to make our men ashamed, that have so many boys, & drabs to carry their furniture; such ought rather to be held in the rank of thieves, robbers, cowards, and boys, then of valiant men for combat. the said caesar writeth also of a fashion which the gaulois had, the ancient fashion of the galois at an entrance into war. the which titus livius and tacitus do likewise affirm, that when by public ordinance proclamation of war was made, all young men above the age of 15. years were summoned to appear armed, and furnished as they ought, and he which arrived last, was put to death. the which pliny also doth recite of storks, how they detest slothfulness. and in certain islands namely the baleares now called maiorque and minorque, the children can not break their fast nor eat, baleares. until with their slings they strike down, their meat which is set upon the top of a high beam or pole. other used to give their children nothing but what they could get by hunting. and they of crete, caused them continually to exercise, to make themselves the more nimble. yea amasis k. of egypt, forbade to all his subjects upon a great penalty, that none should eat before he had long journeyed or travailed in his occupation, alexander and thereof should render account. alexander the great called travail a royal thing, and idleness servile. and in the proverbs idleness is forbidden, and he writeth, that a slothful hand maketh poor: and he that sleepeth in harvest is the son of confusion. and in ecclesiastes the sleep of him which travaileth is sweet. and the said king amasis' condemned to death all idle persons except they had wherewithal to live: and in all sorts greatly blamed idleness, and would that once a year each one should render account, by what science or occupation he gained his living. the egyptians & athenians rendered account how they lived. the which the athenians and sundry other well ordered commonwealth diligently observed. and cicero entreating of the laws writeth, that none went in the streets but he carried the badge and mark whereby he lived. which is yet observed in sundry cities of germany, and cantons of zuizerlande. of others they writ that sometimes men so employed themselves at rome that there was not to be found so much as one idle man. and a philosopher said that as a woman can not engender any thing to purpose without a man, no more doth hope without travail: and there is nothing which continual labour will not attain unto, and through care and watchfulness, a man overcometh things more than hard, as seneca said. and hesiodus counseled the labourer, to make his prays to the gods before he went to his work or saying, marry he must lay his hand on the plough tail. and plato hath most holily written, that as through great, and continual labours, concupiscences, and riotousness were quenched, so were they set a fire again by idleness. money lost lent to an idle person. stobeus writeth that in sundry countries, if a man lent money to one that were idle or given to his pleasure, he should lose it for ever. and if at rome one had negligently husbanded his inheritance, ezec. 16 49. he was straightways censured. and god in ezechiel among the causes of the destruction of sodom setteth down idleness for a principal. and themistocles was wont to say, that slothfulness buried men while they were living in their grave. and s. ambrose called idleness the pillow of satan. and it is written in ecclesiasticus, what ever thou do, take exercise, and cruel sickness shall not meet with thee, and that idleness breedeth much evil. for she is the spring of injustice, of poverty, and evil disposition. and seneca wrote that travail nourished gentle spirits. and the holy scripture teacheth us that as the bird is borne to fly, so is man to travail, and to employ himself to many fair and good offices: for vice which watcheth hard, cometh and runneth over, as soon as ever it perceiveth that one is given over to idleness, & maketh them give way, because that nature being always in a perpetual motion, desireth to be driven to the better part, man's nature. or else she suffereth herself to be weighed down as a balance to the worse. which was the cause that plato was wont to say to his children when they went out of his school, go to masters, 1. thes. 2.9 study to employ your leisure to some honest pastime. s. paul in the first epistle to the thessalonians declareth how he had eat his bread travailing both day & night, to the end he would not be chargeable unto any, and that he which refused to work ought not to eat, adding that some walked disordinately, doing nothing, and living wanton: wherefore he commanded those which were such and be sought them through christ jesus, to eat their bread labouring peaceably. xenophon reciteth among the sayings of socrates, pithagoriens that it is idleness if one do no good. the pithagoriens commanded none to help their friends to ease them of their burden, but to charge them well, as not approving idleness. and k. cyrus boasted, cirus. that he never did eat, before he had first done some exercise, alexander. as a sauce to breed him a good appetite. the which alexander was often times wont to say, & that he had no need of any other cooks for his dinner then to rise early, nor for his supper then to eat little at dinner, and refused the cooks which the queen of carie sent unto him. the like is written of julian the emperor. agesilaus. to which purpose we read that the thessalonians sent unto agesilaus certain refreshings of corn, foul, comfits, baked meats and other exquisite fare, and most dainty wine: he took the corn only and commanded such as brought it to carry away the rest, as a thing which he had no need of: but in the end, through the great instancy, which they made unto him, he took them, and willed them to make division thereof among the slaves, telling them that it was not meet, for such as made profession of valour and prowess, to receive such nice dainties: and that which is proper and serveth to a servile nature, ought not to agree with such as are of a frank & free courage. a lacedaemonian. a lacedaemonian answered one, that wondered how he could live so sparingly, considering he was of such wealth; that it was an honest matter when one having great store of riches, could notwithstanding live according unto reason and not appetite. and archidamus told one that had promised to give him excellent wine, archidamus. that that would serve but to make one drink more, and become less man, of sleeping. too much sleeping also fatteth and diminisheth the spirits of life, and of time. and not without cause said a philosopher, that it annoyed the body, the mind, and all business, except it were moderated to suffice nature, egalling our felicity with an other misery: and that like unto a toll gatherer it took away the half part of our life. and if as plutarch, varro and pliny wrote, to live is to watch, than they which sleep do not properly live, as they writ of epaminondas, who after that he had killed one of his soldiers, epaminondas that was set to watch, because he found him sleeping, answered that he left him in the same estate he found him in. from whence i imagine the custom first grew, of which i spoke before, to awake the kings of persia and macedonia early, k. of persia & macedonia. to put them in mind to take care of that which god had committed unto their charge. virtue. hesiodus describeth virtue unto us to be environed, with sweat, watching and great travail. and we see that sluggishness maketh both mind and body to languish. and if the air in which we live, and the waters were not tossed with winds there would be nought else but corruption. quintus cursius writeth of alexander and of the lacedæmonians, and titus livius of hannibal and the carthaginians, that they which were not able to be overcome and vanquished by their enemies and infinite harms which they endured were notwithstanding clean destroyed through delights and pleasures. and the poets wrote of perseus, that through the aid of minerva he cut off gorgon's head, which turned men into stones, understanding thereby that princes through wisdom, have surmounted pleasures, which make men as blockish as images. and we see by experience that the poor hath this advantage over the rich, that they are exempt from pleasure. the which curius & corancanus well knowing, when it was told them that some referred all to pleasure said, soldiers employed in trifles to avoid idleness. would to god that the samnites & pyrrhus had been as well persuaded herein, to the end that giving themselves to pleasure, they mought more easily have been vanquished. and many have said that all pleasure was followed by enemies, & it is to be conjectured that it was not through folly, that sundry emperors have made all the spider cobwebs through out the city of rome, to be gathered & heaped together & created a senate of women, led their armies to the sea shore to gather cockles, as though there were want of enemies, to stand catching of flies, but it was to avoid idleness, & rather to occupy their soldiers in such trifles, & toys, than quarrels, to sell smoke rather than to do worse, which likewise as pliny wrote, moved them which builded those so wonderful pyramids where about one of them 300. and threescore thousand men wrought the space of 20. years; & yet he writeth that their remembrance was clean lost, which spent so much treasure and time in such vanities. and it had been much more commendable, to have bestowed that time & expense, by what means health is preserved. in matters profitable to the common wealth. gelon after that he had vanquished the carthaginians, led the siracusians often times into the field to labour and plant as well as to war, to the end to enrich their land, and that they should not wax worse in doing nothing. the ancient proverb carrieth, that the gods sell riches unto men for their travail. so following galens counsel, who so would be in health ought to live soberly, and to take pains, except he will cozen himself, as we see that all things alter, except they be put in use. a great lord told king alphonsus that he toiled too much, to whom he answered: thinkest thou that god and nature have given hands unto kings in vain? and if they desire to live in health, why should they seek the contrary through idleness and delights? as solomon teacheth in his proverbs, ease slayeth the foolish, and the prosperity of fools destroyeth them. our forefathers counseled us to exercise our body and mind equally together, as a couple of horses, set in a coach together. and zenon was wont to say, that the life of scholars, that is to say, of such as are given to idle study, differeth not from the voluptuous and epicurians. for knowledge and study ought as well to profit other as one's own self. of gaming. and for as much as idleness draweth to unprofitable and dishonest games, here were a very good place to show the mischiefs, noisomeness, blasphemies and cozenage, that they carry with them: and to praise chilon the lacedaemonian, who returned from corinth without delivering what he had in charge, because he found the governors playing at dice. and it were very requisite that the good ordinances, which are made therefore were well observed. alphonsus. the which alphonsus forbade to those in his court, and to all his subjects, not permitting them to play under a great forfeiture. turkey. and in turkey he was noted of great infamy, which played for money, and grievous pains are appointed, if he return to it again. sundry have written that king cyrus to punish them of sardes, cirus. commanded them to pass away their time in plays and banquets, thereby to render them less men and keep than from rebellion. it were very requisite that all playing at chance and hazard were banished out of france, as well in deed, as they are by the edicts, young gentlemen wndone by play. by the law martia, & sundry other. every man may see how many young gentlemen have been clean undone by playing at cards and dice, by gluttony, drunkenness, whoredom, expenses, honest pastime allowed. and excess, which proceed thereof. i will not for all that mislike honest pastime, and yet we ought to be sorry with apelles, if we scape a day without drawing a line, or with cato the censor, if through negligence we have neither done nor learned any thing that is good, and at night call all our actions to account, and see what loss we have made of the time, which is so precious, and not able to be again recovered. and in a good beginning we ought to persever without losing courage. and forasmuch as mere leisure is the cause of disorders, and little honest thoughts we ought not to spend one bare hour in vain. many have counseled youth to exercise themselves in music, music. to employ their time in those harmonies, which stir up to commendable operations and moral virtues, tempering desires, greediness, and sorrows, for so much as rhymes & melodies consist in certain proportions and concords of the voice. and so long as this pleasure without wantonness allureth them, they lose the occasion of devising any less honest sport, according to plato his opinion, the second of his laws and eight of his commonwealth, and aristotle in his politics lib. 8.3. 5. & 7. this moved architas to invent a certain musical instrument, architas. men giving over, public charge to live privately to stay the running wit of children. i could here extol curius, diocletian, lucullus, and sundry other, who retired themselves into a little small farm to the plough. and cicinnatus, who after he had given over his dictatorshippe, returned to his plough, as did attilius calatinus, attilius regulus, and sundry other, who contented themselves with the labour of the field, despising all honours. the which in my opinion moved plynie to write that the ground took pleasure in being ploughed by emperors. wantonness, and daintiness breedeth vexation of mind, strange fashions, and choler: whereas facility of manners, maketh one content with what he hath in hand, manner of the egyptians. and to seek nothing too exquisite or superfluous. i am of opinion that the manner which the egyptians held, and long time observed, in carrying up and down the hall at feasts, a dried anatomy of a dead man's body, and showing it unto the company, thereby admonishing men to remember that in short time they should be a like, was to make men more sober and temperate. and sundry before time have written that the diseases of the body be not to be feared so as the soul be sound, the health whereof consisteth in the good temperature of powers courageous or wrathful, coveting and reasonable, temperature of the soul. she being the reasonable mistress, and bridling the two other, as two furious and unbroken colts. for as we are curious to preserve the health of our body, through the receipt which are given and prescribed unto us by physicians or experience, and so abstain from meats and excess, which may offend or alter the same, it is more required at our hands to remain in the truth, and to have a greater desire and care to preserve the health of our souls, diligently observing all the rules which god the sovereign physician of all prescribeth unto us: and taking great heed on the other side that we shun and avoid whatsoever he hath forbidden. and if we be careful to seek out, the health of the soul. those remedies which nature, art, and experience present unto us to preserve the health of our body, much more ought we to draw, and suck out of the holy scriptures and histories, that which formeth, dresseth, teacheth, adviseth, reformeth and healeth the most noble and excellent part of us, which prepareth and strengtheneth us at all assays, to receive and carry with great contentment & hope, (god assisting) whatsoever may befall unto us in this life. chap. xlvii. what we ought to judge of certain examples of lying. we have before recited the maxim which ulysses in sophocles would teach the son of achilles, as a matter very necessary, never to be ashamed to lie when a man may reap profit thereby: as also we put in ure what plato permitted to magistrates and physicians to lie, so some other benefit mought be reaped: for the scriptures, and doctors of the church, forbidden all kind of lying as well to great as to small. and none ought to save his corporal life, to lose his spiritual. all manner of lying forbidden of god. lying joyful or offici officious. and such help as we ought to minister unto our neighbour, aught to be without offence to god, & by just, upright and honest means. a man must not in like sort do evil in hope of good. and as touching that kind of lying which is called joyful or officious, it discovereth itself easily, & doth no great harm. now to satisfy what may be objected of the lie which the midwives of the hebrews made, and of rahab which hide the spies of the children of israel, the lie which the midwives of the hebrews made. of jacob which said he was esau, and of other places which seem to derogate from the truth, s. augustine saith, that as touching the midwives we ought not so much to respect the lie, as the faith which they had in god, and the affection and mercy which they showed unto the children of israel. in the rest we are to consider the will of god, and that they have been moved through the holy ghost, to foretell like prophets, what god had ordained for his glory. and when he willeth a thing, then is sin clean excluded: and what may seem unto men most unjust, is in respect of our sovereign lord most just. constance the father of constantine the great, made proclamaton that all christians should give over their offices, and living, which the good did and went from the court, but such as were but in name, gave over their religion. the said emperor shortly after, caused all those to be called home again which were departed, and drove away the rest, saying that if they were not faithful to god, they would not be to his service. 2. king 10.25 the like was done by jehu, who after he had summoned all the priests of baal, as though he would re-establish their idolatry, put them all to the edge of the sword, and made a jakes of their temple. yet ceased he not to worship the golden calves. we ought then to admire the sayings and deeds of great personages and not to imitate them in what is not conformable to the rule which god hath prescribed, or wherein they shall fail like men, and to follow the counsel given unto us by s. paul to try all things and hold that which is good. 1. thes. 5.21. chap. xlviii. of the means how to render a nation true and happy, and of the bringing up of youth. albeit that sundry of those means, may be perceived by that which we have before touched, yet by reason of their importance & to be meet with sundry inconveniences which happen, i thought good to set forth more at large, how the very fountain of all truth, bringing up of youth of what importance. godliness, bounty, justice, policy, and virtue, proceedeth from a natural good, and that through the carelessness of heads & magistrates, guiding their affairs by hazard without any foresight, & according to the humour of men which in all time have halted in their duty, youth never having received good bringing up, corruption hath in every place mightily increased. for as isocrates wrote in his areopagiticke; it is not great revenues nor riches, nor laws & ordinances which make a city quiet and happy, but the good nurture of youth; which being ill brought up maketh no account of laws; good laws straighly to be observed. l. 5. c. 6 and contrariwise becometh very obedient unto magistrates, & giveth itself to all kind of virtue, if betime it receive a good impression. it were also very requisite to cause laws to be straightly observed; but in vain do men make laws as aristotle in his politics said, if youth be not brought up in good manners, and nourished therein. and plato in the 4. of his commonwealth was of opinion, that it had no great need of laws, by reason of the good discipline in which his citizens had been nourished, as such as without laws were able to govern themselves as they ought. and in his politics and books of laws, he attributeth all the disorder of a country or city, to the multitude of laws and so often change of them, nurture & bringing up of children. and all delights to lewd bringing up, & showeth that the principal scope of a good establisher or reformer of a commonwealth, aught to be in causing youth to be well brought up & instructed: & to the end it mought be more capable of good discipline, it is required that the fathers and mothers should be sober, moderate, and quietly minded: that when children are borne, they should suck their own mother's breasts, to be sure that they should not be nourished in delights nor idleness, and in playing might fashion themselves to virtue. he would also that whatsoever might breed happiness, were engraven through good nurture in the manners & hearts of men to remain there all their life as a good impression: because that while they are young, they have more need to be well looked unto & diligently taken heed of, than any other kind of beasts. and it is more meet that care shallbe taken hereof, then of getting or preserving of wealth, or enclosing our parks, or gardens, with walls, or hedges. and there is no doubt, as s. jerom and other ancient doctors have written, that the cause which moved the most part of such, as heretofore founded churches, the foundation of churches prebends and colleges prebend's, & colleges was chief for to bring up youth in learning, & to render them more capable to serve god & the commonwealth, and the better to imprint in them the fear of god which is the beginning of all wisdom, & which formeth the mind to the true mould of truth & virtue, and carrieth it far off from vice, foolish fashions, & lewd companies, whence there is always carried away, some botch & stain of the infection of their wickedness. good bringing up of children maketh them moderate and temperate. and by the ordinance of the three estates in all cathedral and collegiall churches of this realm, the revenue of one prebend, is still allotted to a schoolmaster. for that according unto the saying of plato, when youth in the beginning hath been well taught, then is the navigation & voyage of this world happy; and all the life after is accompanied with contentment, felicity, & good hope, and such as have been well nourished & brought up, become for the most part very moderate & temperate & the old proverb averreth that nurture passeth nature. the which lycurgus showed by the nourishing of 2. dogs, the one to the field, the other to the kitchen: & if one sow good corn in harvest he shall reap the like. themistocles was wont to say, that colts & fierce beasts became tame through discipline. and it is manifest that the almains and sundry other nations which were marvelous barbarous, as we read in caesar and tacitus, became more meek and industrious by better education. and some have written that at rome in ancient time, it was ordained that children for the first fault should be told of it, punishments of children's faults at rome. for the second punished, for the third hanged, and the father banished. and plato was always of opinion, that enourmious vices proceeded more from a generous nature corrupted, then from vility, or low estate. and the first thing which ought to be beaten into youth, is to love honour, to fear god and to obey his will, to make no account of the brickle goods of fortune, but of the eternal and spiritual and of virtue; to set before their eyes the examples and praises of virtuous personages, and the blames and miseries of the lewd and wicked, to the end they may become wise by others harms, and detest all vice and evil company, receiving correction at the hands of every one, without presuming aught of themselves, shunning wantonness and delights, neither speaking nor believing too lightly, not being to obstinate, hard, stubborn, choleric, impatient, nor unconuersable. saint jerome writing to nepotian, thought that all poor scholars, poor scholars nourished with tenths. dan. 1.5. and such as had will to serve the common wealth or the church, were to be nourished with the tenths. we see in daniel, the care which was had to the bringing up of youth. and strabo in his geography, showed sundry examples of the indians and persians, for the eschewing of that vice of ignorance, whereof we have before entreated, deut. 25. l. 2. c. 6 l. 2. de stud. litera. the principal care which parents ought to have over their children as moses complained, and josephus. and the ordinance of the emperors is set down in the eleventh of the code. it falleth out oftentimes, that the wicked abhor the remembrance of their fathers and mothers, when through their damnable liberty, wanton pleasures, lasciviousness, fond collinges, and evil examples they have been lead away; whereas contrariwise the well nourished, give thanks unto them which have been the occasion of their so great good. and solomon affirmeth, that a wise son maketh a glad father, but a foolish son is a heaviness unto his mother. the wife crates was wont to say, that if it were possible for him he would climme up to the top of the city, and cry aloud: o men, whither do you carry yourselves thus headlong, that take what care you can to heap up wealth, and yet make small account of those to whom you are to leave it, as caring more for the doublet or show, than the body or foot. the same solomon in his proverbs saith, that wisdom crieth throughout. to this purpose, the contents of an epistle written by xenophon to crito, seemeth worthy of marking. know ye that socrates hath often told us, that such as leave great riches to their children, without seeing them brought up well and honestly, are like unto such as give much provender unto young horses, but never break them at all: for so they wax fat, but unprofitable. the praise of an horse consisteth not in the fashion of his body, but in his service and dexterity. they also are in as great an error, which buy heritage's for their children which set little by them; because they will esteem of the wealth, but despise them, whereas there is a great deal more reason that the guardian should be better liked then the possession. he then which maketh his son worthy to be had in estimation, hath done much for him although he leave him but little wealth. for it is the understanding which maketh every thing seem great or small, because that whatsoever the well brought up possesseth, knowledge and virtue a more sure inheritance than riches. is moderate & sufficient, but unto the evil nurtured it is very little. leave no more then unto thy children, then very necessity requireth: for they shall very much esteem that which is sufficient, if thou hast well brought them up: photion. and if they be ignorant, then will they have less care, fear, and occasion to do evil. the which photion practised, refusing the presents of alexander as plutarque writeth. let us then consider that knowledge is not laid open to fortune as are richesses, the which are very often possessed by the wicked: nor mutable as glory: nor cometh by descent, as nobility: nor of small lasting as beauty: nor changeable as health: nor decayeth & diminisheth as strength: but increaseth with time, stilpon. & is not vanquished by war, as stilpon told k. demetrius. and the laconien schoolmaster, answered very well, that he would make the noble gentleman which was his pupil, to sport himself in things honest, just & true: and to be offended at unhonest, unjust, & lies. for manners being through discipline well composed within, are the very fountain, whence all contentment proceedeth. and children are by custom trained into the way of virtue. and the pithagoriens lesson seemeth unto me to be very wise, choose the best way, custom shall make it agreeable, & pleasant unto thee. the komanes had a good custom, to place their children with those whom they would have them to imitate, and in france, there is great account made of one which hath been brought up as a page to some valiant and wise gentleman. good example to be showed to children. cirus in the end of the 7. book of xenophon, desireth every man to give a good example to children, because if they see no uncomeliness, they shallbe enforced to follow goodness, and virtue, & be fit for all things. a king of sparta answered him wisely, which asked what children ought to learn; that said he, which they ought to do when they are men: he told another, that they were to learn to know how to obey & to command. lessons to youth. we must then more study to fill the understanding then the memory, not only to have a care to besprincle the soul with knowledge, but to make it grow perfect, and learn by study, not of the tongues, but of wisdom, courage, and resolution, to avoid the baits of pleasure, and to throw down with an invincible courage the threats of fortune and death to be sound and short in discourse, to render themselves, and quite their force to truth, as soon as they shall perceive it, without being too stubborn, that their conscience, sincerity, and virtue, be manifested in their words and deeds, that in company they cast their eyes round about, and in themselves control the manners of each one, to follow the good and contemn the wicked. and they ought not to let one word or sentence fall to ground, without putting it in their tables, to make their profit thereof, as bees draw honey out of sundry flowers, so learning the discourse of philosophy, they shall clear the tempests of fortune. they must also take away strangeness and partiality, enemies to society, and apply the supple bodies to all kind of fashions, customs & companies, to be able to do all things, but loving to do but what is good. and if they go to the war, youth going to wars. to fear nothing but god, and an evil renown. to learn to combat with the enemy, and above all things to obey their head, com. 6. as caesar in his commentaries desired the french to do. to accustom themselves to endure pain, cold and heat, to lie hard, to assault well, and to keep a fort. the chief care which kings and governors ought to take, is of the honour of god, and maintenance of his church, and next of policy and justice, following the lesson of our saviour, in seeking the kingdom of god, and then whatsoever is necessary for them shall be given unto them. now the kingdom of god is the church of the faithful, the seed whereof is youth, which is consecrated to god through baptism, under the church. then this seed ought to be well husbanded, and kept from weeds, which might choke it, that the ears may be gathered full of grain. it is an old saying, that he which hath begun well, the beginning is chiefly and principally to be considered. hath half ended. the beginning is in the first youth, whence the good burgesses, magistrates and governors do spring. and there is great advancement and hope to be looked for in that place, where youth is well brought up in godliness, and honesty. for this cause aristotle in the end of the seventh of his politics, would have them turn their eyes and ears, from all injuries, fowl and undecent actions, and communication. and the more that we see all things to impair, good manners subverted, wickedness, covetousness, ignorance, and unjustice, not by stealth, but publicly, and without shame to run their course, of which our predecessors greatly complained, and we complain of at this day, and it is very likely, that they which come after us shall rue it: the more regard ought we to have, that the nursery of our posterity, which is the youth, may be taught to live soberly, and justly, & not so much to speak well as to live well: to the end that what the vessel being new hath once been seasoned with, it may long keep the sent thereof, as horace writeth. and there is no doubt, but that man being desirous to know, adolescency is from 12. to 21. years. and incline to virtue from his birth, if by a good guide he be until the last year of his adolescency kept and defended from the snares, which the delights of senses and pleasures draw with them, his understanding being once fortified through good instructions, shall after of himself be so well rooted in the love of knowledge, virtue, and the fear of god, that it shallbe very hard ever after to withdraw him. the which was the cause that the lacedæmonians answered antipater, that they would rather die than give him their children which he demanded for hostages, so great account made they of their education. this felicity and happiness, as aristotle showeth in the end of his ethics, dependeth principally of the grace of god, of a good reformation, of the liberality, magn●●cence, bounty, and courtesy of princes, which hereby provoke, and prick forward the advancement of arts, and of good wits; as contrariwise they languish, and clean decay, through the ignorance, envy, covetousness, tyranny, and stubbornness of such as govern, and through great disorder, and corruption. i have before touched the inconveniences and mischiefs which happen in france, k. francis 1 by reason that the nobility is not trained up in learning: and not without cause the great king francis said, that it greatly grieved him that the gentlemen of his realm, gave themselves no more to study, and learning, to the end he mought have provided for them the chief offices of the long rob; thinking that thereby he should have been better served, both in his governments and wars. bayart. and that great captain bayart, answered him that asked him the difference between a learned man and an ignorant: as much as between a physician and a patiented, a live man, aristippus. and one dead. aristippus answered likewise, send them into a far country, and then you shall know, and there is nothing but knowledge which causeth a man to be esteemed. and the oracle given unto the greeks, of the doubling of the house, was interpreted by the wise men, that it was meant thereby, that they should leave arms, and converse with the muses and learning, which would mollify their passions and drive away ignorance, and procure courage and good council: agesilaus. as agesilaus maintained, that the laws of lycurgus' bread a contempt of pleasures. to accustom youth in like sort to follow virtue, to bridle passions and choler, to shun vice, and lying, to enter into consideration how good and virtuous personages have in all times behaved themselves, to remember the harms happened to the wicked, and the blessings and honours which have accompanied the good, breedeth a great quiet all the life long, because such a custom hath a marvelous efficacy, in advancing of a man: and betimes is the judgement that proceedeth from an evil custom to be corrected, the which in a vile nature doth oft by process of time throw down and abase our minds, and render us contemptible. the which may be helped and amended through virtuous exercises. for if that resistance which reason maketh to the appetite of eating, and drinking, forceth very often hunger, & thirst: much more easy shall it be for one to cut off covetousness, ambition, pride, envy, choler, curiosity, lying, and other vices, by refraining and abstaining from those things which he coveteth, so as in the end they shall all remain clean discomfited. to abstain also from pleasures which are permitted, is a good exercise to meet with such as are forbidden. i leave here to declare how much france was dishonoured when as the polakes made their entry into paris accompanied with the french gentlemen, an embassage from pologne to k. henry 3 who for the most part were doom not able to speak or understand latin, and were rather brought up to wear a rapiar be their side, ride a horse, dance, and play at fence, then to have skill in languages, and arts, with which the very barbarians in old time were adorned, honoured, & became more valiant in the wars. alexander. as alexander and sundry other great captains and princes have confessed. yea, himself grew extreme angry that aristotle had published his metaphysics, because, (he said) he had rather a desire to pass all others in learning and knowledge, then in arms and force. and we before have noted, that he attributed all his victories, to what he had learned of philosophy. the emperor antonin the philosopher, went himself to seek out learned men in their own houses, saying, that it very well became a man, yea, though he were old, to learn what he was ignorant of. the which cato and other of our lawyers have affirmed. and paulus iovius writeth of charles the fifth, charles 5. that his schoolmaster adrian, who since was pope, did with very great cause often times foretell him, that he would greatly repent that in his youth he had not learned the latin tongue. for it is very requisite that youth be brought up in that part of learning which is called humanity; because that without the discipline thereof, the world should live but brutishly. and that it be accustomed to make account of laws and superiors, and to keep a strait discipline in the manner of life, which it chooseth, youth showeth by his blossoms what fruit it will bear in age. be it in war, and defence of their country. and a man followeth all his life long his first addressing in his youth. as if a tree blossom not in the spring, it will hardly bear fruit in the autumn. the which ought to stir parents to chastise their children, and to make them to be diligently taught, and not to pamper them. apes. as pliny writeth of apes which choke their little ones in embracing them too hard. and we ought greatly to weigh the saying of origen, that the sins which the evil nurtured, and unchastised children commit, shallbe laid to the father's charge, 1. sam. 4.18. as it is said in samuel of ely. and if it be written of xenocrates, xenocrates. that his auditors of dissolute became temperate and modest, what fruit are we to think that youth will bear, through the sweetness, and benignity of the muses? that is through the knowledge of learning, which as plutarque writeth in the life of sertorius, causeth them to tame and sweeten their nature which before was wild and savage, holding the mean by the compass of reason, and rejecting the extreme. lycurgus and lycurgus the lawgiver said, that he never used to set down his laws in writing, because such as had been well nourished, would approve, and follow whatsoever were most expedient for the time. which was the cause of the laws so much commended by diodorus, that children should be brought up in learning, at the public expense. the effects of good education. to be short, good bringing up of youth, maketh it to be true, constant and joyful. for having a good conscience, true comfort, and resolution, which sweeteneth all the bitterness of this life, and knowing the causes why god hath always been accustomed to punish his, maketh them carry all things cheerfully, not doubting, but that he loveth, and hath a fatherly care over them. so do they repose themselves upon the assurance of this good will, and endeavour to obey him, and die with a good hope, acquitinge themselves of their duty. sundry have greatly commended the laws of the lydes, laws of the lydes. because they deprived such children as were not virtuous from their inheritance; which caused them to correct their naughty inclinations, and to shun vice: as also they had certain officers in sundry provinces, which took care of youth, and punished the parents which did not well bring up their children. and for as much as it is a great happiness unto a country, when the prince hath been well instructed: plato in his alcibiades, the children of the kings of persia. and xenophon do write, that out of the whole realm of persia, were four most sufficient men chosen to bring up the kings children: the one in learning: the second, to teach them all their life to be true: the third, to instruct them to command their passions, and not to addict themselves to pleasures; the fourth, to make them hardy, and courageous. we ought to make our profit of the lamentation, which the prophet baruche made, in that the young sought after wisdom upon the earth, baruc. 2.23. and became expounders of fables, and knew not the way of wisdom, which was the cause of their destruction. psal. 119.9. david also found no means for a young man to redress his way, but in taking heed thereto, according to god's word. the apostle admonished timothy, to fly from the lusts of youth: 1. cor. 9.24. and to humble the flesh to the spirit, to the end no advantage be given unto the enemy, which will be an evil token for the rest of the course which is to be run all our life long. and saint peter commandeth young men to be wise, modest and humble. saint paul joineth shamefastness and gravity, of which he desireth titus to be the patron. eccles. 2●. 23 and ecclesiasti, cousin willeth them to give no ear unto the enchauntrise for feare-of being surprised. and as we have before mentioned, offices and riches which are left unto children, are sometime the very cause of their destruction, except the knowledge and fear of god be imprinted within them. for this cause ecclesiastes writeth: remember thy creator in the days of thy youth, whiles the evil days come not. and jeremiah in his lamentations sayeth: jer. 3. 2●. it is good for a man that he bear the yoke in his youth, because young men become unruly, except they be held short. god also said of abraham: i know that he will command his sons, and his household after him, that they keep the way of the lord to do righteousness, deut. 4.10. and judgement. and in deuteromie: i will cause them hear my words, that they may learn to fear me all the days that they shall live upon the earth, and that they may teach their children. and every christian is commanded to follow all things that are honest towards all men, and to avoid all appearances of evil, referring all to the glory of god, and betimes to accustom himself thereunto, to the end that more easily he may broke the storms of this life, and without any trouble wade out of all business. and to this end is every man to beseech at god's hands, that he will lighten him through his word, great happiness dependeth of ●…od education. and bend his heart therein to obey him. from this good education, proceedeth great happiness, obedience to god, their king, and superiors, choice of virtuous men, without money, rewards, or offices, and every man performeth his duty the better in that vocation to which he is called, and followeth other lessons and reformations, noted at large before. chap. xlix. of certain points which might be added to this discourse. this matter which we have undertaken to discourse of, an argument ample and fertile. is so fruitful and ample, that i were able to heap sundry chapters one upon another, containing summarily what the office of kings, prelates, clergy, captains, soldiers, merchants, and artificers, masters, servants, fathers, children, judges, counsellors, & practisers at the law is, therein to discover the abuse and perjury, which is used in this time. there were also very great means to dilate at large, of the inconvenience which sophistry bringeth, the which the lawyers term cavilling, sophistry. when from truth, through some alteration, the disputation is brought to that which is most evidently false. in old time it was terribly detested; for it corrupted all arts and disciplines, and bread sundry heresies, and false opinions. i were able likewise to set down, how many cousin themselves, which in marriage respect more the wealth and beauty, marriage. than modesty, & good education of a maid: and are not so much husbands unto their wives, as slaves unto their wealth, for which they abandon that commandment and authority, which god and all laws have aforded unto them over their wives, over whom they ought to rule, not as the lord over his servant, but as our lord and saviour jesus christ doth over his church, and the soul over the body, through a mutual love, and reciprocrate affection wherewith he is tied unto it. and solomon calleth the contract of marriage, the contract of god, as more excellent than any other. lycurgus, solon, and the twelve laws ordained, that maidens should be married without dower, for the causes before specified. and some have written of the egyptians, alexan. l. 2. c. 2 that if any received money with his wife, he remained as a slave unto her. and in plautus he which was cast in the teeth, that he had nothing with his wife, answered, that if every one would do like him, there would be better agreement and amity among the citizens, and their wives would honour them much more, and be less chargeable unto them. strabo l. 4: strabo commended the laws of the massilians, which forbade him which was richest, to give with his daughter above one hundred crowns, and ten for her apparel and jewels. and it were very requisite that the good laws in france made to this end mought be better observed. and likewise as a matter depending hereunto, there were ministered very great occasion of reprehending and detesting such as they term tires of points, which oppose themselves against that holy contract, and ordinance of god, and his commandment, and are the cause of divorces, enmities, whoredoms, tiers of points. and other evils, combating with the majesty of god, and damning themselves through a secret alliance which they make with satan. it were not also much out of the way, to show what a pernicious lie they incur, which from the birth of their daughter bring her up so delicate, that she is less fit to perform the part of a good housewife, and is always more sickly, serving rather as a picture or dead image, then fit to hold that place which she ought. and to declare withal the great injury which women offer unto their children, in denying that milk unto them with which they were nourished within their womb, with great pain and grief, drying up that holy fountain of their breasts, given of god, to that end, banishing their children into the hands of a strange nurse, often times a whore, drunk, pocky, and evil conditioned, of which the said children savour, all their life long, as we see by experience too much. lampidius writeth that titus was subject to sundry diseases, by reason of his nurse. and dion, that caligula was the more cruel, by the nature of his nurse, and that she rubbed the end of her teat with blood. and that tiberius & sundry other were given to wine, tiberius. having been weaned, with sops steeped in wine. the which we see in lambs nourished by goats, & in seeds & fruits which hold of the earth. i leave all other reasons recited by aulus gellius. and for as much as an ambassador sent from a prince, ambassadors is as his eye, his ear, & his tongue, & bindeth him by what he promiseth, it had not been impertinent, to have discoursed, how in choice to be made of him, his honesty, age, experience, integrity, learning, dexterity, & gravity ought to be considered: because by his carriage of himself, & train, strangers do often time judge of the whole nation, as if he had been chosen out of the most excellent. and it were very convenient to send with him some number of young gentlemen well brought up, to make them capable of the like charges, & to learn the passages, fashions, alliances & manners of the country, & to file & polish their own brain, with strangers. i could also describe the inconveniences which arise by masques, which disguise both the body & mind, masques. & causeth great impudency, the very cause of so manylyes, & uncomely speeches, & of the execution of so great wickedness. s. cyprian entreating of the apparel of virgins, allegeth to this purpose the example of judges, who when he saw thamar, judged her a whore, for she had covered her face. and god in zephaniah threateneth, gen. 38.15 that he will visit the princes, and the king's children, and all such as are clothed with strange apparel. and it was forbidden to men to wear woman's garments, & to women to wear men's. and an account must be rendered of every idle word. and as s. paul alleged of menander: evil words corrupt good manners. the which moved sundry well governed common wealths to forbid masks upon great pains, & in england, of death. it had been no ways impertinent to have showed how much princes have abused themselves, rather in taking care, & giving themselves to conquer cities & countries, a greater matter to preserve what is gotten than to get. & make great buildings, then to preserve & well govern what they have already gotten, and to maintain those houses, which have been left unto them very commodious. as augustus the emperor greatly wondered, to see that alexander did not esteem it so great a matter and honour to govern well an empire, already conquered & left, as to conquer a great country, and prefer necessary and profitable expenses before voluptuous. according to the disposition of the law likewise, the legacy, or gift that is appointed for to be employed about a new building, aught to be converted to the repairing and amending of the old, in the latter law d. de operibus publ. l. decuriones de administr. re. ad ciu. pert. i mought also speak, how idolatry & the gods of the pagan, first began, and how they were left, according unto the prophesy of jeremy, that the gods which have not made the heavens and the earth shall perish. i could also blame the condition of hucksters, & sellers by retail, in that as cicero writeth, they gain nothing except they lie, which was before confirmed by ecclesiasticus. eccles. 3.16. misseres. i mought also amplify, how deeply they lie, which live wickedly, dishonour and perjure themselves, that they may leave their heirs rich, which often times are such as love them not. the dissoluteness which is too much spread throughout france, would have required a discourse upon the law, which was made to forbid taverns, taverns and play. and playing at dice and cards, considering the inconveniences which daily happen thereby, and that in turkey all play is punished by infamy, & great penalties, as cuspinien writeth. one might also show how much they deceive themselves, which covet to come to extreme old age, because that the long life is not the better, but the more virtuous. and as it is written in the book of wisdom: the honourable age is not that which is of long time, neither that which is measured by the number of years, but wisdom is the grey hair, & an undefiled life is the old age. and many have esteemed them most happy which have changed this miserable life, with an immortal, ●esire of old age before such time as the discommodities & wearisomeness of old age hath crept upon them. and besides the assured testimony which we have out of the holy scriptures aristotle wrote that when silenus was taken he said, silenus the condition of dead men was better than of the living. and pliny after that he had in the beginning of his seventh book, pliny showed at large the miseries of men, concluded that nature gave nothing better than a short life. notwithstanding, to the faithful, no estate of living cometh amiss, since they wholly refer themselves to the will of god, & taketh every thing in good part, as a blessing proceeding from his hand. we mought also show how perniciously, they lie, which clip, wash and delay coin, as the poet dante called philip the fair, a falsifier of coin, because by reason of his affairs he was constrained to delay his silver. and very wisely did the emperor tacitus forbidden the mingling of metals in his coin, where there ought to be a correspondance and proportion between the gold and silver or other metal: in which now a days sundry pernicious faults are committed. consequently, i could describe the vanity of alquemie, which hath impoverished those which have used it, and turned the gold which they have put thereto into smoke, whereof we daily see but too many examples: the which gave occasion to domitian, to cause all the books to be burned, which he was able to find out. i could also set forth the fault which they commit, dreams. who put too much trust in dreams, according as ecclesiasticus hath written, that dreams have deceived many, and they have failed which have put their trust therein. and lucian in the city of sleep which he describeth, in which dreams do dwell, saith that they are all cosenners and liars. it were also a very large matter to write of, to demand council. to show how, albeit that blind men choose some one to lead them, yet an infinite number of persons, which have their judgement and wit blinded, and go groping at all their business, & wandering, without knowing the way which they ought to hold, do not for all that seek either council or guide, and are marvelously polluted with the same fault which they find in an other, and in their own ignorance become censors over other men's manners. superstition. it were not likewise unprofitable to declare how dangerous a matter superstition is, the which is so fruitful that of one error or lie, it engendereth a great number, and through a kind of sleight, simplicity, or false appearance, it clean chooketh the truth, and is for this cause termed in the holy scripture, whoredom, saints. and adultery, violating the promise which we have before made unto god. we mought likewise extol the saints in all ages, which have taken pains to maintain the truth against lying, and to make a register of all virtues and abuses which are committed. i could likewise enlarge sundry chapters, in showing how dangerously they do lie, who after so many examples, and experiences, ruins, defacings, desolations and mischiefs happened in france, desire for all that, that men would yet the fifth time cast themselves headlong into a civil war, covering their passion with a cloak of religion, civil wars. which is settled in the understanding the which can not be gained, but through a persuasion founded upon the holy and canonical scriptures, and not by violence or constraint, as saint augustine in sundry places, and other ancient fathers have maintained. and the war which is not necessarily undertaken, is an enemy to religion, justice, order, reformation, and good manners: and as the emperor justinian writeth, it carrieth great grief to every good man, it is brutish, dissolute, and without all ho, especial, the civil, which is miserable, and most pernicious, as well in regard of the victors, as of the vanquished, as cicero affirmeth in sundry places: and in his philippiques he adjudgeth him which desireth it to be a most detestable citizen. it were not also a matter much different from that which we now discourse of, if i should set down the opinion of pliny, which affirmeth that there are no lies more dearly sold, l. 29. physicians. nor more dangerous than those of the physicians, who learn to the peril of the patiented and murder without being punished: and that there was never any vocation found, in which there was more danger or cosininge: albeit that their ignorance and error, whatsoever he said, pliny said, pliny his error. aught by the very law to be punished. lib. 7. c. seq. ad legem aquil. l. illicitas. sicuti de office praep. l. si quis, celsus locasti l. quod nerua depositi. sundry have justly complained, that the greatest part of physicians have no skill at all in such simples, and mineral matters as they have need of, but trust unto apothecaries as unskilful as themselves, which give a qui for quo, simples. apothecary's and engender diseases, the which ought to give occasion to have them rigorously and exactly looked unto, and to have their drugues and spices, to be often over looked, by such as are skilful therein. and if the said physicians and apothecaries, were well practised (as it is very requisite) in the knowledge of such simples, as god hath abundantly bestowed through out this realm, and which are proper to our nature, we should have no need to fetch drugs from the infidels and barbarians, in a contrary climate to our own. we mought also take occasion here with great profit to declare, how far they serve from the truth, the assembly of a council or estates. which mislike the assembling of a general or national council, or of the general estates of a realm, the only means invented by our ancestors, to meet with the corruptions and disorders, which crept as well into the church as into place of justice, and all other vocations, and to hear the complaints of every one, to apply remedy thereto, and make necessary provision for the same, to the end the evil which grew might be cut off, and good ordinances revived and kept, and corrupt doctrine and manners reform, which is a sovereign medicine for kings and all other sort of people. i could also declare how pernicious a matter despair is, despair. and how contrary to the truth, and handle the means which keepeth us from it: and also how much the lying of such as are too suspicious is to be detested, which often times engendereth curiosity, backbiting, suspicion. unquietness, factions, jealousies, and other mischiefs. and further how uncertain a proof that is which is drawn out by torture, torture. because that as publius mimus said, smart will constrain even the very innocentes to lie. and vives writeth upon saint augustine his book, of the city of god, that if a man be able to endure torture he will not tell truth, if he can not he will surely lie. the examples are in marcellin lib. 4. and 29. and in valerius lib. 3. c. 3. & lib. 8. c. 4. the which sundry doctors upon the law have followed, and very many judges have had experience of. it had not also been very unprofitable, to have discoursed which opinion of the two were more true, the government of women. bartolus his opinion not to be followed. either theirs which allow woman's government in respect of their wisdom, and quickness of spirit, and of the laws which confirm the same in sundry provinces, (wherein i will by no means allow the opinion of bartolus, and other doctors, which deny that they are any ways able to make laws, under the colour for sooth that a law is defined to be a counsel of wise men, having many examples in plutarque lib. 6. of the virtue of women, and else where to the contrary) or theirs which exclude them clean thereof, and of all other civil affairs, for their infirmity of counsel and weakness of judgement, leaving them wholly in the perpetual power of their husbands, parents, and curators, as cicero wrote of the romans. i could also have added a long chapter fit for this time, to confute the impiety of the atheists, atheists. and to show even by the very ancient philosopher's writings, that there is but one god, who through his bounty and wisdom is the creator and guider of the world, and of whatsoever is contained therein, that in the world he hath created man the image of the creator, according to his own understanding, and the image of his creatures according to his life, sense, and moving, mortal in what he holdeth of the likeness of the creature, immortal in as much as he carrieth the image of his creator in his soul: and that god will crown and recompense good works to the good and chastise the vicious and infidels with pains eternal. the which almost all contemners of religion and epicures have been constrained to confess, and in their own conscience have stood convicted thereof before their death. it had not been much out of the way, nor very unapt for this time, alliance of the zuizers. wherein there hath been a fresh renewing of the alliance, with the zuizers, to set down what were the most expedient, for as much as they are more nearelye bound, by the latter then by the precedent alliances. and by the histories of the later wars, men hath sufficiently known, the valour, succour, and military discipline which they have observed: and contrariwise, seen the excessive expense, difficulties, and pensions that hath been bestowed as well on public, as particular, to bring about the said alliance: that by the treaty of perpetual peace they are bound to secure the king in his need, and never ought to serve his enemies: that now the discipline is not such as in time past it hath been, that through the great pensions, presents, gold, and silver of france, delicacy, and riches, they are much changed, and there is no doubt, but without making any alliance, a man may now have as many as he list to serve his turn, so as the crown be in the hand, and the treasury well furnished. and not without cause did king lewis 12. as well as other, find it strange to support the insolency of such people, and to become as it were tributaries unto them: albeit that then he had much more occasion to seek them, than now, and they were far better than they are, having now more need of the help amity, & support of the king of france, than he hath of them. and the more favour, and gifts a man bestoweth of them, the more do they covet, and less thank do they cun him. and oftentimes those which receive the greatest pensions are they which most stubbornly oppose themselves, to what the king's ambassadors shall demand, and their covetousness can be no more filled, wherein man's felicity consisteth. than one that hath the dropsy can be kept from drink. i could also amplify a long chapter, how many men lie and are abused, as touching the felicity of man: and show that it cannot be found in riches, which vanish away, and are easily lost with sorrow, and as solomon saith are gotten with travail, and possessed with fear and care. and that in glory there is nothing but vanity, and it easily vanisheth away, riches as we have before declared. as touching pleasure solomon saith it endeth in heaviness. glry o● pleasure and an ancient writer compared it to a live body on a bier. god is the true & only felicity. it is not found likewise in any part of this brittle and wretched life: but in the trust, mercy, puissance, and bounty of god, and remission of our sins, as david setteth it 32. psalm: and saint paul to the romans, in the fear and love of god and of his word, and to put our whole confidence in him: and in that which our saviour reciteth in the 6. of saint matthew. it had not likewise been unfruitful, to have showed, how hurtful impatience, and murmuring are, and how necessary to be eschewed, following the instruction of solomon, proverb. murmuring. 14. & 19 and of saint paul 1. corrinth. 10. & 2. phil. the example of achitophel is in the 2. of samuel cap. 17. i refer other greater reasons of the above said articles until an other season. i could also have discoursed at large of sundry other opinions which are in controversy, were it not for fear of being too long, and over tedious. the conclusion. chap. l. to the end than that we may rest beloved of god, and of good men, and have a good conscience, a peaceable life, a guide in all affairs with hope of eternal life, admonishment to follow the truth and shun lying and heap of bliss, we must walk wisely, and be found true in all our thoughts, words, and actions: and so to accustom ourselves thereto, that we give no place to any lie, though it be the lightest which may be made. now for fear lest we should fall hereunto, to our great grief, let us be time think of what we would do or say, before we put it in execution, beseeching god with david, that he will address us in his truth, and that it may always remain in our heart and mouth, that he will make us to understand, how short and uncertain the course of this our life is, to the end that we may retire our hearts from the vanities and false appearances of this world, and spend that little time which we have to live, in learning of his wisdom, that is to say, to believe and assure ourselves upon his promises, to obey whatsoever it pleaseth him to command us, and carefully to eschew, whatsoever he hath forbidden. and as this contagion of lying, hath well gained place in many, through custom, and is grown by little and little, so let us exercise ourselves to follow truth though in trifles, and every day before we sleep, examine, and try what we have gotten by being true and virtuous: and according to seneca his counsel, in all our actions how secret soever they be, let us imagine that god, his saints, and angels, be present, or some man of great authority and gravity: to the end our countenances, words, and actions may be the better governed. deut. 3. blessings promised to such as follow the truth and curses to such as followelying. and of such as shall live in this truth shunning lying, we may say as moses prophesied and pronounced to the children of israel, to whom all christians have succeeded, that they shall be blessed in the city, and blessed also in the field, blessed shallbe the fruit of their body, and the fruit of their ground, and the fruit of their cattle: god shall make an alliance with them, he shall make them increase and multiply in abundance, of whatsoever is necessary: but if contrariwise they follow lying and live disorderly, fear and trembling fevers, burning agues and all sorts of curses there set down shall fall upon them. there is no question to be made which way is to be followed, that we may attain to all felicity, and the inheritance promised to such as are sanctified of god, and to those are things which neither eye hath seen, nor ear hath heard, nor came into man's heart which god hath prepared for them which love him. saint paul wrote to the romans, that the wrath of god is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness, and unrighteousness of men, which withhold the truth in unrighteousness. and to them which by continuance in well doing seek glory, honour, and immortality, to give everlasting life, but to them that are contentious and disobey the truth, and obey unrighteousness shall be indignation and wrath, tribulation and anguish shall be upon the soul of every man, that doth evil, but to every man that doth good shallbe glory, and honour, and peace. and seeing the chastisements, miseries, and afflictions, & so many tragical events sent from god to so many people, christians but in name, which are set before our eyes for an example, to reconcile us to god, we have great occasion humbly to beseech by fervent prayers and groans, that he will bend our hearts to his obedience, and so make other men's plagues and visitations to profit us, that we may not draw through our unthankfulness more grievous pains upon us and ours, most humbly thanking him, for that amidst so great darkness, error and ignorance as covereth the world, it pleaseth him to cast some beams of his grace, and truth upon us, beseeching him that he will warm, quicken, and illuminate us more and more attending the day of our delivery out of this world already vanquished by him. τω θεω δωξα. τελος mercy & truth. or charity maintained by catholics. by way of reply upon an answer lately framed by d. potter to a treatise which had formerly proved, that charity was mistaken by protestants: with the want whereof catholics are unjustly charged for affirming, that protestancy unrepented destroys salvation. divided into two parts. mercy and truth have met together. psalm. 84. v. 11. better are the wounds of him that loveth, than the fraudulent kisses of him that hateth. prou. cap. 27. v. 6. we love you brethren, and desire the same things for you, which we do for ourselves. s. aug. ep. 166. permissu superiorum, m.dc.xxxiiii. to the most high mighty, just, and clement prince, charles king of great-brittaine, france, and ireland, etc. these titles (most gracious sovereign) partly flowing from your royal authority, and partly appropriated to your sacred person, have by their happy conjunction emboldened me to lay at your princely feet, with most humble respects, and profound submission, this reply of mine to a book, lately written in obedience, as the author thereof affirms, to your majesty's particular command. for, though your regal authority may seem to be an object of only dread and awe; yet doth it not so much avert, as invite men to a confident approach, when it appears so swetly tempered, and adorned with such rare personal qualities as your majesties are; justice to all; clemency to every one of your meanest subjects; wisdom to discern with quickness & depth, and to determine with great maturity of judgement, between right and wrong; a princely disdain, and just indignation against the least dissimulation, which may be repugnant to the secret testimony of conscience; an heroical affection, and even as it were a natural kind of sympathy with all sincerity, and truth. so that, when your majesty thought fit to impose a commandment of writing upon one; i could not but conceive it to be also your gracious pleasure and will, that in virtue of the same royal command, others who are of contrary judgement, were suffered at least, if not obliged, to answer for themselves; but yet with all due respect, and christian moderation: which, i have as carefully endeavoured to observe, as if i had written by the express command, & spoken in the hearing, and acted the part of truth, in the presence of so great, so modest, and so judicious a monarch, as your majesty is. i was therefore supported by contemplation of these your rare endowments of mind: which, as they are the happiness of all your subjects; so were they no less a hope to me, that your majesty would not disdain to cast an eye of grace upon this reply, not according to the face of present times, but with regard to the plea's of truth, appearing in times more ancient, and in places more diffused, by the allegation of one, who doth so cordially profess himself your majesty's most humble subject, as that from the depth of a sincere hart, and with all the powers of his soul, he wishes that god be no longer merciful, and good to him, and all your other catholics subjects, than they, and he shall both in desire, and deed, approve themselves upon all occasions, sincerely loyal to the most excellent person, and thrice hopeful issue of your sacred majesty. this our catholic religion teaches us to profess and perform: and heerwith i lay this poor work, and prostrate the author thereof, at the throne of your royal feet. your majesty's most humble and most loyal subject. i. h. advertisement of the printer. this reply, good reader, was indeed long since finished by the author: but by reason of some impediment, it could not be commodiously transported, so soon as he wished, and desired it should. to the reader. give me leave (good reader) to inform thee, by way of preface, of three points the first concerns d. potter's answer to charity mistaken. the second relates to this reply of mine. and the third contains some premonitions, or prescriptions in case d. potter, or any in his behalf think fit to rejoin. 2. for the first point concerning d. potter's answer, i say in general, a general consideration of d. potter's answer. reserving particulars to their prroper places, that in his whole book he hath not so much as once truly and really fallen upon the point in question, which was, whether both catholics and protestants can be saved in their several professions. and therefore charity mistaken judiciously pressing those particulars, wherein the difficulty doth precisely consist, proves in general, that there is but one true church; that all christians are obliged to hearken to her; that she must be ever visible, and infallible; that to separate one's self from her communion is schism, and to descent from her doctrine is heresy, though it be in points never so few, or never so small in their own nature; and therefore that the distinction of points fundamental, and not fundamental is wholly vain, as it is applied by protestants. these (i say) and some other general grounds charity mistaken handles, and out of them doth clearly evince, that any least difference in faith cannot stand with salvation on both sides: and therefore since it is apparent, that catholics and protestants disagree in very many points of faith, they both cannot hope to be saved without repentance: and consequently, as we hold, that protestancy unrepented destroys salvation; so must they also believe that we cannot be saved, if they judge their own religion to be true, and ours to be false. and whosoever disguizeth this truth, is an enemy to souls, which he deceives with ungrounded false hopes of salvation, indifferent faiths, and religions. and this, charity mistaken performed exactly, according to that which appears to have been his design, which was not to descend to particular disputes, as d. potter affectedly does, namely, whether or no the roman church be the only true church of christ; and much less whether general counsels be infallible; whether the pope may err in his decrees common to the whole church; whether he be above a general council; whether all points of faith be contained in scripture; whether faith be resolved into the authority of the church, as into his last formal object, and motive; and least of all did he discourse of images, communion under both kinds, public service in an unknown tongue, seven sacraments, sacrifice of the mass, indulgences, and index expurgatorius: all which and diverse other articles d. potter (as i said) draws by violence into his book. & he might as well have brought in pope loan, or antichrist, or the jews who are permitted to live in rome, which are common themes for men that want better matter, as d. potter was forced to fetch in the aforesaid controversies, that so he might dazzle the eyes, & distract the mind of the reader, and hinder him from perceiving that in his whole answer he uttered nothing to the purpose, & point in question: which if he had followed closely, i dare well say, he might have dispatched his whole book in two or three sheets of paper. but the truth is, he was loath to affirm plainly, that generally both catholics and protestants may be saved: and yet seeing it to be most evident that protestants cannot pretend to have any true church before luther except the roman, and such as agreed with her, and consequently that they cannot hope for salvation, if they deny it to us; he thought best to avoid this difficulty by confusion of language, & to fill up his book with points which make nothing to the purpose. wherein he is less excusable, because he must grant, that those very particulars to which he digresseth, are not fundamental errors, though it should be granted that they be errors, which indeed are catholic verities. for since they be not fundamental, nor destructive of salvation, what imports it whether we hold them or no, for as much as concerns our possibility to be saved? 3. in one thing only he will perhaps seem to have touched the point in question, to wit, in his distinction of points fundamental, and not fundamental: because some may think, that a difference in points which are not fundamental breaks not the unity of faith, and hinders not the hope of salvation in persons so disagreeing. and yet in this very distinction, he never speaks to the purpose indeed, but only says, that there are some points so fundamental, as that all are obliged to know and believe them explicitly, but never tells us, whether there be any other points of faith, which a man may deny or disbelieve, though they be sufficiently presented to his understanding, as truths revealed, or testified by almighty god; which was the only thing in question. for if it be damnable, as certainly it is, to deny, or disbelieve any one truth witnessed by almighty god, though the thing be not in itself of any great consequence, or moment; & since of two disagreeing in matters of faith, one must necessarily deny some such truth; it clearly follows that amongst men of different faiths, or religions, one only can be saved, though their difference consist of diverse, or but even one point, which is not in his own nature fundamental, as i declare at large in diverse places of my first part. so that it is clear, d. potter even in this his last refuge and distinction, never comes to the point in question: to say nothing that he himself doth quite overthrew it, and plainly contradict his whole design, as i show in the third chapter of my first part. 4. and as for d. potter's manner of handling those very points, which are utterly beside the purpose, it consists, only in bringing vulgar mean objections, which have been answered a thousand times, yea, and some of them are clearly answered even in charity mistaken; but he takes no knowledge at all of any such answers, and much less doth he apply himself to confute them. he allegeth also authors with so great corruption and fraud, as i would not have believed, if i had not found it by clear, and frequent experience. in his second edition, he hath indeed left out one or two gross corruptions, amongst many others no less notorious, having as it seems been warned by some friends, that they could not stand with his credit: but even in this his second edition he retracts them not at all, nor declares that he was mistaken in the first, and so his reader of the first edition shall ever be deceived by him, though withal he read the second. for preventing of which inconvenience, i have thought it necessary to take notice of them, and to discover them in my reply. 5. and for conclusion of this point i will only say, that d. potter might well have spared his pains if he had ingenuously acknowledged, where the whole substance, yea and sometime the very words & phrases of his book may be found in fare briefer manner, namely, in a sermon of d. ushers preached before our late sovereign lord king james the 20. of june. 1624. at wansted, containing a declaration of the universality of the church of christ, and the unity of faith, professed therein, which sermon having been roundly and wittily confuted by a catholic divine, under the name of paulus veridicus, within the compass of about 4. sheets of paper, d. potters answer to charity mistaken was in effect confuted before it appeared. and this may suffice for a general censure of his answer to charity mistaken. 6. for the second, touching my reply: if you wonder at the bulk thereof, compared either with charity mistaken, or d. potter's answer, concerning my reply. i desire you to consider well of what now i am about to say, and then i hope you will see, that i was cast upon a mere necessity of not being so short, as otherwise might peradventure be desired. charity mistaken is short i grant, and yet very full, and large for as much as concerned his design, which you see was not to treat of particular controversies in religion, no not so much as to debate, whether or no the roman church be the only true church of christ, which indeed would have required a larger volume, as i have understood there was one then coming forth, if it had not been prevented by the treatise of charity mistaken, which seemed to make the other intended work a little less seasonable at that tyme. but charity mistaken proves only in general out of some universal principles, well backed and made good by choice and authorities, ●hat of two disagreeing in points of faith, one only without repentance can be saved; which aim exacted no great bulk. and as for d. potter's answer, even that also is not so short as it may seem. for if his marginal notes printed in a small letter were transfered into the text, the book would appear to be of some bulk: though indeed it might have been very short, if he had kept himself to the point treated by charity mistaken, as shall be declared anon. but contrarily, because the question debated betwixt charity mistaken & d. potter, is a point of the highest consequence that can be imagined, & in regard that there is not a more pernicious heresy, or rather indeed ground of atheism, than a persuasion that men of different religions may be saved, if otherwise forsooth they lead a kind of civil and moral life: i conceived, that my chief endeavour was not to be employed in answering d. potter, but that it was necessary to handle the question itself somewhat at large, and not only to prove in general, that both protestants and catholics cannot be saved; but to show also, that salvation cannot be hoped for out of the catholic roman church; and yet withal, not to omit to answer all the particules of d potter's book which may any way import. to this end i thought it fit, to divide my reply into two parts: in the former whereof, the main question is handled by a continued discourse without ste●●ping aside to confute the particulars of d. potter's answer, though yet so, as that even in this first part, i omit not to answer such passages of his, as i find directly in my way, and naturally belong to the points whereof i treat: & in the second part i answer d. potter's treatise, section by section, as they lie in order i here therefore entreat the reader, that if heartily he desire satisfaction in this so important question, he do not content himself with that which i say to doctor potter in my second part, but that he take the first before him, either all, or at least so much as may serve most to his purpose of being satisfied in those doubts which press him most. for which purpose i have caused a table of the chapters of the first part, together with their titles & arguments, to be prefixed before my reply. 7. this was then a chief reason why i could not be very short. but yet there wanted not also diverse other causes of the same effect. for there are so several kinds of protestants, through the difference of tenets which they hold, as that if a man convince but one kind of them, the rest will conceive themselves to be as truly unsatisfyed and even unspoken to, as if nothing had been said therein at all. as for example, some hold a necessity of a perpetual visible church, and some hold no such necessity. some of them hold it necessary to be able to prove it distinct from ours; & others, that their business is dispatched when they have proved ours to have been always visible: for than they will conceive that theirs hath been so: and the like may be truly said of very many other particulars. besides, it is d. potter's fashion, (wherein as he is very far from being the first, so i pray god he prove the last of that humour) to touch in a word many trivial old objections, which if they be not all answered, it will, and must serve the turn, to make the more ignorant sort of men believe, and brag, as if some main unanswerable matter had been subtly & purposely omitted; and every body knows that some objection may be very plausibly made in few words the clear and solid answer whereof will require more leaves of paper then one. and in particular d. potter doth couch his corruption of authors within the compass of so few lines, and with so great confuseones and fraud, that it requires much time, pains, and paper to open them so distinctly, as that they may appear to every man's eye. it was also necessary to show, what d. potter omits in charity mistaken, and the importance of what is omitted, and sometimes to set down the very words themselves that are omitted, all which could not but add to the quantity of my reply. and as for the quality thereof, i desire thee (good reader) to believe, that whereas nothing is more necessary than books for answering of books: yet i was so ill furnished in this kind, that i was forced to omit the examination of diverse authors cited by d. potter, merely upon necessity; though i did very well perceive by most apparent circumstances, that i must probably have been sure enough to find them plainly misalleadged, and much wronged: and for the few which are examined, there hath not wanted some difficulties to do it. for the times are not for all men alike; and d. potter hath much advantage therein. but truth is truth, and will ever be able to justify itself in the midst of all difficulties which may occur. as for me, when i allege protestant writers as well domestical, as foreign, i willingly and thankfully acknowledge myself obliged for diverse of them to the author of the book entitled, the protestants apology for the roman church, who calls himself john brereley, whose care, exactness, and fidelity is so extraordinary great, as that he doth not only cite the books, but the editions also, with the place and time of their printing, yea and often the very page, and line where the words are to be had. and if you happen not to find what he cities, yet suspend your judgement, till you have read the corrections placed at the end of his book; though it be also true, that after all diligence and faithfulness on his behalf, it was not in his power to amend all the faults of the print: in which prints we have difficulty enough for many evident reasons, which must needs occur to any prudent man. 8. and for as much as concerns the manner of my reply, i have procured to do it without all bitterness, or gall of invective words, both for as much as may import either protestants in general, or d. potter's person in particular; unless, for example, he will call it bitterness for me to term a gross impertinency, a sleight, or a corruption, by those very names, without which i do not know how to express the things: and yet wherein i can truly affirm that i have studied how to deliver them in the most moderate way, to the end i might give as little offence as possibly i could, without betraying the cause. and if any unfit phrase may peradventure have escaped my pen (as i hope none hath) it was beside, and against my intention, though i must needs profess, that d. potter gives so many and so just occasions of being round with him, as that perhaps some will judge me to have been rather remiss, then moderate. but since in the very title of my reply i profess to maintain charity, i conceive that the excess will be more excusable amongst all kinds of men, if it fall to be in mildness, then if it had appeared in too much zeal. and if d. potter have a mind to charge me with ignorance or any thing of that nature, i can, and will ease him of that labour, by acknowledging in myself as many & more personal defects, than he can heap upon me. truth only and sincerity i so much value and profess, as that he shall never be able to prove the contrary in any one lest passage or particle against me. 9 rules to be observed if d. potter intent a re●oynders. in the third & last place, i have thought fit to express myself thus. if d. potter, or any other resolve to answer my reply; i desire that he will observe some things which may tend to his own reputation, the saving of my unnecessary pains, and especially to the greater advantage of truth. i wish then that he would be careful to consider, wherein the point of every difficulty consists, and not impertinently to shoot at rovers, and affectedly mistake one thing for another. as for example, to what purpose (for as much as concerns the question between d. potter and charity mistaken) doth he so often and seriously labour to prove, that faith is not resolved into the authority of the church, as into the formal object and motive thereof? or that all points of faith are contained in scripture? or that the church cannot make new articles of faith? or that the church of rome, as it signifies that particular church or diocese, is not all one with the universal church? or that the pope as a private doctor may err? with many other such points as will easily appear in their proper places. it will also be necessary for him not to put certain doctrines upon us, from which he knows we disclaim as much as himself. 10. i must in like manner entreat him not to recite my reasons & discourses by halves, but to set them down faithfully & entirely, for as much as in very deed concerns the whole substance of the thing in question; because the want sometime of one word may chance to make void, or lessen the force of the whole argument. and i am the more solicitous about giving this particular caveat, because i find how ill he hath complied with the promise which he made in his preface to the reader, not to omit without answer any one thing of moment in all the discourse of charity mistaken. neither will this course be a cause that his rejoinder grow too large, but it will be occasion of brevity to him, and free me also from the pains of setting down all the words which he omits, and himself of demonstrating that what he omitted was not material. nay i will assure him, that if he keep himself to the point of every difficulty, and not weary the reader, and overcharge his margin, with unnecessary quotations of authors in greek and latin, and sometime also in italian and french, together with proverbs, sentences of poets, and such grammatical stuff, nor affect to cite a multitude of our catholic school divines to no purpose at all; his book will not exceed a competent size, nor will any man in reason be offended with that length which is regulated by necessity. again before he come to set down his answer, or propose his arguments, let him consider very well what may be replied, and whether his own objections may not be retorted against himself, as the reader will perceive to have happened often to his disadvantage in my reply against him but especially i expect, and truth itself exacts at his hand, that he speak clearly and distinctly, and not seek to walk in darkness, so to delude and deceive his reader, now saying, and then denying, and always speaking with such ambiguity, as that his greatest care may seem to consist in a certain art to find a shift, as his occasions might chance, either now, or hereafter to require, and as he might fall out to be urged by divernty of several arguments. and to the end it may appear, that i deal plainly, as i would have him also do, i desire that he declare himself concerning these points. 11. first, whether our saviour christ have not always had, and be not ever to have a visible true church on earth: & whether the contrary doctrine be not a damnable heresy. 12. secondly, what visible church there was before luther, disagreeing from the roman church, and agreeing with the pretended church of protestants. 13. thirdly, since he will be forced to grant that there can be assigned no visible true church of christ, distinct from the church of rome, and such churches as agreed with her when luther first appeared, whether it do not follow, that she hath not erred fundamentally; because every such error destroys the nature and being of the church, and so our saviour christ should have had no visible church on earth. 14. fourthly, if the roman church did not fall into any fundamental error, let him tell us how it can be damnable to live in her communion, or to maintain errors, which are known & confessed, not to be fundamental, or damnable. 15. fiftly, if her errors were not damnable, nor did exclude salvation, how can they be excused from schism, who forsook her communion upon pretence of errors, which were not damnable? 16. sixtly, if d. potter have a mind to say, that her errors are damnable, or fundamental, let him do us so much charity, as to tell us in particular what those fundamental errors be. but he must still remember (and myself must be excused, for repeating it) that if he say the roman church e●●ed fundamentally, he will not be able to show, that christ our lord had any visible church on earth, when luther appeared: & let him tell us how protestants had, or can have any church which was universal, and extended herself to all ages, if once he grant, that the roman church ceased to be the true church of christ; and consequenly how they can hope for salvation, if they deny it to us. 17. seaventhly, whether any one error maintained against any one truth though never so small in itself, yet sufficiently propounded as testified or revealed by almighty god, do not destroy the nature and unity of faith, or at least is not a grievous offence excluding salvation. 18. eightly, if this be so, how can lutherans, caluinists, zwinglians, and all the rest of disagreeing protestant's, hope for salvation, since it is manifest that some of them must needs err against some such truth as is testified by almighty god, either fundamental, or at least not fundamental. 19 ninthly, we constantly urge, and require to have a particular catalogue of such points as he calls fundamental. a catalogue, i say, in particular, and not only some general definition, or description, wherein protestants may perhaps agree, though we see that they differ when they come to assign what points in particular be fundamental; and yet upon such a particular catalogue much depends: as for example in particular, whether or no a man do not err in some point fundamental or necessary to salvation; and whether or no lutherans, caluinists, and the rest do disagree in fundamentals, which if they do, the same heaven cannot receive them all. 20. tenthly, and lastly i desire that in answering to these points, he would let us know distinctly, what is the doctrine of the protestant english church concerning them, and what he utters only as his own private opinion. 21. these are the questions which for the present i find it fit and necessary for me to ask of d. potter, or any other who will defend his cause, or impugn ours. and it will be in vain to speak vainly, and to tell me, that a fool may ask more questions in an hour, than a wiseman can answer in a year; with such idle proverbs as that. for i ask but such questions as for which he gives occasion in his book, and where he declares not himself but after so ambiguous and confused a manner, as that truth itself can scarce tell how to convince him so, but that with ignorant and ill-iudging men he will seem to have somewhat left to say for himself, though papists (as he calls them) and puritan should press him contrary ways at the same time: and these questions concern things also of high importance, as whereupon the knowledge of god's church, & true religion, and consequently salvation of the soul depends. and now because he shall not tax me with being like those men in the gospel whom our blessed lord and saviour charged with laying heavy burdens upon other men's shoulders, who yet would not touch them with their finger: i oblige myself to answer upon any demand of his, both to all these questions, if he find that i have not done it already, and to any other concerning matter of faith that he shall ask. and i will tell him very plainly, what is catholic doctrine, and what is not, that is, what is defined or what is not defined, and rests but in discussion among divines. 22. and it will be here expected, that he perform these things, as a man who professeth learning should do, not flying from questions which concern things as they are considered in their own nature, to accidental, or rare circumstances of ignorance, incapacity, want of means to be instructed, erroneous conscience, and the like, which being very various and different, cannot be well comprehended under any general rule. but in delivering general doctrines we must consider things as they be ex naturarei, or per se loquendo (as divines speak) that is, according to their natures, if all circumstances concur proportionable thereunto. as for example some may for a time have invincible ignorance, even of some fundamental article of faith, through want of capacity, instruction, or the like, and so not offend either in such ignorance or error; and yet we must absolutely say, that error in any one fundamental point is damnable, because so it is, if we consider things in themselves, abstracting from accidental circumstances in particular persons: as contrarily if some man judge some act of virtue, or some indifferent action to be a sin, in him it is a sin indeed, by reason of his erroneous conscience; and yet we ought not to say absolutely, that virtuous, or indifferent actions are sins: and in all sciences we must distinguish the general rules from their particular exceptions. and therefore when, for example, he answers to our demand, whether he hold that catholics may be saved, or whether their pretended errors be fundamental and damnable, he is not to change the state of the question, and have recourse to ignorance, and the like, but to answer concerning the errors being considered what they are apt to be in themselves, and as they are neither increased nor diminished, by accidental circumstances. 23. and the like i say of all the other points, to which i once again desire an answer without any of these, or the like ambiguous terms, in some sort, in some seize, in some degree, which may be explicated afterward as strictly or largely as may best serve his turn; but let him tell us roundly and particularly, in what sort, in what sense, in what degree he understands those, & the like obscure mincing phrases. if he proceed solidly after this manner, and not by way of mere words, more like a preacher to a vulgar auditor, then like a learned man with a pen in his hand, thy patience shall be the less abused, and truth will also receive more right. and since we have already laid the grounds of the question, much may be said hereafter in few words, if (as i said) he keep close to the real point of every difficulty without wand'ring into impertinent disputes, multiplying vulgar and threadbare objections and arguments, or labouring to prove what no man denies, or making a vain ostentation by citing a number of schoolmen, which every puny brought up in schools is able to do; and if he cite his authors with such sincerity, as no time need be spent in opening his corruptions▪ and finally if he set himself a work with this consideration, that we are to give a most strict account to a most just, and unpartial judge, of every period, line, and word that passeth under our pen. for if at the later day we shall be arraigned for every idle word which is spoken, so much more will that be done for every idle word which is written, as the deliberation wherewith it passeth makes a man guilty of more malice, and as the importance of the matter which is treated of in books concerning true faith and religion, without which no soul can be saved, makes a man's errors more material, than they would be, if question were but of toys. a table of the chapters, and contents of this ensuing first part of reply. chap. i. the true state of the question: with a summary of the reasons, for which, amongst men of different religions, one side only can be saved. chap. ii. what is that means whereby the revealed truths of god are conveyed to our understanding, and which must determine controversies in faith and religion. chap. iii. that the distinction of points fundamental, and not fundamental, is neither pertinent, nor true in our present controversy. and that the catholic visible church cannot err in either kind of the said points. chap. four to say, that the creed contains all points necessarily to be believed, is neither pertinent to the question in hand, nor in itself true. chap. v. that luther, caluin, their associates, and all who began, or continue the separation from the external communion of the roman church, are guilty of the proper, and formal sin of schism. chap. vi that luther, and therest of protestants have added heresy to schism. chap. vii. in regard of the precept of charity towards ones self, protestants are in state of sin, as long as they remain separated from the roman church. the first part. the state of the question; with a summary of the reasons for which amongst men of different religions, one side only can be saved. chap. i. never is malice more indiscreet, then when it chargeth others with imputation of that, to which itself becomes more liable, even by that very act of accusing others. for, though guiltiness be the effect of some error, yet usually it begets a kind of moderation, so far forth, as not to let men cast such aspersions upon others, as must apparently reflect upon themselves. thus cannot the poet endure, quis tulerit gracchum etc. that gracchus, who was a factious and unquiet man, should be inveighing against sedition: and the roman orator rebukes philosophers who, to wax glorious, superscribed their names upon those very books which they entitled, of the contempt of glory. what then shall we say of d. potter, who in the title, and text of his whole book doth so tragically charge want of charity on all such romanists, as dare affirm, that protestancy destroyeth salvation; while he himself is in act of pronouncing the like heavy doom against roman catholics? for, not satisfied with much uncivil language, in affirming the roman church many (a) pag. 11. ways to have played the harlot, and in that regard deserved a bill of divorce from christ, and detestation of christians; in styling her, that proud (b) ibid. and cursed dame of rome, which takes upon her to revel in the house of god; in talking of an idol (c) pag. 4. edit. 1. to be worshipped at rome; he comes at length to thunder out this fearful sentence against her: for that (d) pag. 20 mass of errors (saith he) in judgement and practice, which is proper to her, and wherein she differs from us, we judge a reconciliation impossible, and to us (who are convicted in conscience of her corruptions) damnable. and in another place he saith: for us who (e) pag. 81. are convinced in conscience, that she er in many things, a necessity lies upon us, even under pain of damnation, to forsake her in those errors by the acerbity of which censure, he doth not only make himself guilty of that, which he judgeth to be a heinous offence in others, but freeth us also from all colour of crime by this his unadvised recrimination. for, if roman catholics be likewise convicted in conscience of the errors of protestants; they may, and must, in conformity to the doctors own rule, judge a reconciliation with them to be also damnable. and thus, all the want of charity so deeply charged on us, dissolves itself into this poor wonder, roman catholics believe in their conscience, that the religion which they profess is true, and the contrary false. 2. nevertheless, we earnestly desire, and take care, that our doctrine may not be defamed by misinterpretation. far be it from us, by way of insultation, to apply it against protestants, otherwise then as they are comprehended under the generality of those who are divided from the only one true church of christ our lord, within the communion whereof he hath confined salvation. neither do we understand, why our most dear country men should be offended, if the universality be particularised under the name of protestants, first given (g) sleïdan. l. 6. fol. 84. to certain lutherans, who protesting that they would stand out against the imperial decrees, in defence of the confession exhibited at ausburge, were termed protestants, in regard of such their protesting: which confessio augustana disclaiming from, and being disclaimed by caluinists, and zwinglians, our naming or exemplifying a general doctrine under the particular name of protestantisme, ought not in any particular manner to be odious in england. 3. moreover, our meaning is not, as misinformed persons may conceive, that we give protestants over to reprobation; that we offer no prayers in hope of their salvation; that we hold their case desperate. god forbidden! we hope, we pray for their conversion; and sometimes we find happy effects of our charitable desires. neither is our censure immediately directed to particular persons. the tribunal of particular judgement is gods alone. when any man esteemed a protestant, leaveth to live in this world, we do not instantly with precipitation avouch, that he is lodged in hell. for we are not always acquainted with what sufficiency or means he was furnished for instruction; we do not penetrate his capacity to understand his catechist; we have no revelation what light might have cleared his errors, or contrition retracted his sins, in the last moment before his death. in such particular cases, we wish more apparent signs of salvation but do not give any dogmatic sentence of perdition how grievous sins, disobedience, schism, and heresy are, is well known. but to discern how far the natural malignity of those great offences might be checked by ignorance, or by some such lessening circumstance, is the office, rather of prudence, then of faith. 4. thus we allow protestants as much charity, as d. potter spares us, for whom, in the words above mentioned, and else where, he (h) see pag. 39 makes ignorance the best hope of salvation. much less comfort, can we expect from the fierce doctrine of those chief protestants, who teach that for many ages before luther, christ had no visible church upon earth. not these men alone, or such as they, but even the 39 articles, to which the english protestant clergy subscribes, censure our belief so deeply, that ignorance can scarce, or rather not at all, excuse us from damnation. our doctrine of transubstantiation, is affirmed to be repugnant to the plain words of (i) art. 28. scripture; our masses to be blasphemous (k) art. 31. fables, with much more to be seen in the articles themselves. in a certain confession of the christian faith, at the end of their books of psalms collected into meeter, and printed cum privilegio regis regali, they call us idolaters, and limbs of antichrist; and having set down a catalogue of our doctrines, they conclude that for them we shall after the general resurrection be damned to unquenchable fire. 5. but yet lest any man should flatter himself with our charitable mitigations, and thereby wax careless in search of the true church, we desire him to read the conclusion of the second part, where this matter is more explained. 6. and, because we cannot determine, what judgement may be esteemed rash, or prudent, except by weighing the reasons upon which it is grounded, we will here, under one aspect, present a summary of those principles, from which we infer, that protestancy in itself unrepented destroys salvation: intending afterward to prove the truth of every one of the grounds, till, by a concatenation of sequels, we fall upon the conclusion, for which we are charged with want of charity. 7. now, this is our gradation of reasons. almighty god, having ordained mankind to a supernatural end of eternal felicity; hath in his holy providence settled competent and convenient means, whereby that end may be attained. the universal grand origen of all such means, is the incarnation and death of our blessed saviour, whereby he merited internal grace for us; and founded an external visible church, provided and stored with all those helps which might be necessary for salvation. from hence it followeth, that in this church amongst other advantages, there must be some effectual means to beget, and conserve faith, to maintain unity, to discover and condemn heresies, to appease and reduce schisms, and to determine all controversies in religion. for without such means, the church should not be furnished with helps sufficient to salvation, not god afford sufficient means to attain that end, to which himself ordained mankind. this means to decide controversies in faith and religion (whether it should be the holy scripture, or whatsoever else) must be endued with an universal infallibility, in whatsoever it propoundeth for a divine truth, that is, as revealed, spoken, or testified by almighty god, whether the matter of its nature, be great or small. for if it were subject to error in any one thing, we could not in any other yield it infallible assent; because we might with good reason doubt, whether it chanced not to err in that particular. 8. thus fare all must agree to what we have said, unless they have a mind to reduce faith to opinion. and even out of these grounds alone, without further proceeding, it undeniably follows, that of two men dissenting in matters of faith, great or small, few or many, the one cannot be saved without repentance, unless ignorance accidentally may in some particular person, plead excuse. for in that case of contrary belief, one must of necessity be held to oppose god's word, or revelation sufficiently represented to his understanding by an infallible propounder; which opposition to the testimony of god is undoubtedly a damnable sin, whether otherwise, the thing so testified, be in itself great or small. and thus we have already made good, what was promised in the argument of this chapter, that amongst men of different religions, one is only capable of being saved. 9 nevertheless, to the end that men may know in particular what is the said infallible means upon which we are to rely in all things concerning faith, and accordingly may be able to judge in what safety or danger, more or less they live; and because d. potter descendeth to diverse particulars about scriptures and the church etc. we will go forward, & prove, that although scripture be in itself most sacred, infallible, & divine; yet it alone cannot be to us a rule, or judge, fit and able to end all doubts and debates emergent in matters of religion; but that there must be some external, visible, public, living judge, to whom all sorts of persons both learned & unlearned, may without danger of ●●●our, have recourse; and in whose judgement they may rest, for the interpreting and propounding of god's word or reuclation. and this living judge, we will most evidently prove to be no other, but that holy, catholic, apostolic, and visible church, which our saviour purchased with the effusion of his most precious blood. 10. if once therefore it be granted, that the church is that means, which god hath left for deciding all controversies in faith, it manifestly will follow, that she must be infallible in all her determinations, whether the matters of themselues be great or small; because as we said above, it must be agreed on all sides, that if that means which god hath left to determine controversies were not infallible in all things proposed by it as truths revealed by almighty god, it could not settle in our minds a firm, and infallible belief of any one. 11. from this universal infallibility of god's church it followeth, that whosoever wittingly denieth any one point proposed by her, as revealed by god, is injurious to his divine majesty, as if he could either deceive, or be deceived in what he testifieth. the averring whereof were not only a fundamental error, but would overthrew the very foundation of all fundamental points, and therefore without repentance could not possibly stand with salvation. 12 out of these grounds, we will show, that although the distinction of points fundamental, and not fundamental, be good and useful, as it is delivered and applied by catholic divines, to teach what principal articles of faith, christians are obliged explicitly to believe: yet that it is impertinent to the present purpose of excusing any man from grievous sin, who knowingly disbelieves, that is, believes the contrary of that which gods church proposeth as divine truth. for it is one thing not to know explicitly some thing testified by god, & another positively to oppose what we know he hath testified. the former may often be excused from sin, but never the latter, which only is the case in question. 13. in the same manner shall be demonstrated, that to allege the creed, as containing all articles of faith necessary to be explicitly believed, is not pertinent to free from sin the voluntary denial of any other point known to be defined by god's church. and this were sufficient to overthrew all that d. potter allegeth, concerning the creed: though yet by way of supererogation, we will prove, that there are diverse important matters of faith which are not mentioned at all in the creed. 14. from the aforesaid main principle, that god hath always had, and always will have on earth, a church visible, within whose communion salvation must be hoped, and infallible, whose definitions we ought to believe; we will prove, that luther, caluin, and all other, who continue the division in communion, or faith, from that visible church, which at, and before luther's appearance, was spread over the world, cannot be excused from schism, and heresy, although they opposed her faith but in on● only point; whereas it is manifest, they descent from her, in many and weighty matters, concerning as well belief, as practise. 15. to these reasons drawn from the virtue of faith, we will add one other taken from charitas propria, the virtue of charity, as it obligeth us, not to expose our soul to hazard of perdition, when we can put ourselves in a way much more secure, as we will prove, that of the roman catholics to be. 16. we are then to prove these points. first, that the infallible means to determine controversies in matters of faith, is the visible church of christ. secondly, that the distinction of points fundamental, and not fundamental, maketh nothing to our present question. thirdly, that to say the creed contains all fundamental points of faith, is neither pertinent, nor true. fourthly, that both luther, & all they who after him, persist in division, from the communion, and faith of the roman church, cannot be excused from schism fifthly, nor from heresy sixtly and lastly, that in regard of the precept of charity towards ones self, protestants be in state of sin, as long as they remain divided from the roman church. and these six points, shall be several arguments for so many ensuing chapters. 17. only i will here observe, that it seemeth very strange, that protestants should charge us so deeply with want of charity, for only teaching that both they, and we cannot be saved, seeing themselves must affirm the like of whosoever opposeth any least point delivered in scripture, which they hold to be the sole rule of faith out of which ground they must be enforced to let all our former inferences pass for good. for, is it not a grievous sin, to deny any one truth contained in holy writ? is there in such denial, any distinction betwixt points fundamental, and not fundamental, sufficient to excuse from heresy? is it not impertinent, to allege the creed containing all fundamental points of faith, as if believing it alone, we were at liberty to deny all other points of scripture? in a word: according to protestants; oppose not scripture, there is no error against faith. oppose it in any least point, the error (if scripture be sufficiently proposed, which proposition is also required before a man can be obliged to believe even fundamental points) must be damnable. what is this, but to say with us, of persons contrary in whatsoever point of belief, one party only can be saved? and d. potter must not take it ill, if catholics believe they may be saved in that religion for which they suffer. and if by occasion of this doctrine, men will still be charging us with want of charity, and be resolved to take scandal where none is given; we must comfort ourselves with that grave, and true saying of s. gregory: if scandal (l) s. greg. hom. 7. in ezes. be taken from declaring a truth, it is better to permit scandal, then forsake the truth. but the solid grounds of our assertion, and the sincerity of intention in uttering what we think, yield us confidence, that all will hold for most reasonable the saying of pope gelasius to anastasius the emperor: fare be it from the roman emperor that he should hold it for a wrong to have truth declared to him. let us therefore begin with that point which is the first that can be controverted betwixt protestats & us, for as much as concerns the present question, & is contained in the argument of the next ensuing chapter. chap. ii. what is that means, whereby the revealed truths of god are conveyed to our understanding, and which must determine controversies in faith and religion. of our estimation, respect, and reverence to holy scripture even protestants themselves do in fact give testimony, while they possess it from us, & take it upon the integrity of our custody no cause imaginable could avert our will from giving the function of supreme & sole judge to holy writ if both the thing were not impossible in itself & if both reason & experience did not convince our understanding, that by this assertion contentions are increased, and not ended. we acknowledge holy scripture, to be a most perfect rule, for as much as a writing can be a rule: we only deny that it excludes either divine tradition though it be unwritten, or an external judge to keep, to propose, to interpret it in a true, orthodox, and catholic sense. every single book, every chapter, yea every period of holy scripture is infallibly true, & wants no due perfection. but must we therefore infer, that all other books of scripture, are to be excluded, least by addition of them, we may seem to derogate from the perfection of the former? when the first books of the old & new testament were written, they did not exclude unwritten traditions, nor the authority of the church to decide controversies; & who hath then so altered their nature, & filled them with such jealousies, as that now they cannot agree for fear of mutual disparagement? what greater wrong is it for the written word, to be compartner now with the unwritten, then for the unwritten, which was once alone, to be afterward joined with the written? who ever heard, that to commend the fidelity of a keeper, were to disauthorize the thing committed to his custody? or that, to extol the integrity and knowledge, and to avouch the necessity of a judge in suits of law, were to deny perfection in the law? are there not in common wealths besides the laws written & unwritten customs, judges appointed to declare both the one, the other, as several occasions may require? 2. that the scripture alone cannot be judge in controversies of faith, we gather very clearly. from the quality of a writing in general: from the nature of holy writ in particular, which must be believed as true, and infallible: from the editions, & translations of it: from the difficulty to understand it without hazard of error: from the inconveniences that must follow upon the ascribing of sole judicature to it: & finally from the confessions of our adversaries. and on the other side, all these difficulties ceasing, and all other qualities requisite to a judge concurring in the visible church of christ our lord, we must conclude, that ●he it is, to whom in doubts concerning faith and religion, all christians ought to have recourse. 3. the name, notion, nature, and properties of a judge cannot in common reason agree to any mere writing, which, be it otherwise in its kind, never so highly qualified with sanctity and infallibility; yet it must ever be, as all writings are, deaf, dumb, and inanimate. by a judge, all wise men understand a person endued with life, and reason, able to hear, to examine, to declare his mind to the disagreeing parties in such sort as that each one may know whether the sentence be in favour of his cause, or against his pretence; and he must be appliable and able to do all this, as the diversity of controversies persons, occasions, and circumstances may require. there is a great & plain distinction betwixt a judge and a rule. for as in a kingdom, the judge hath his rule to follow which are the received laws and customs; so are not they fit or able to declare, or be judges to themselves, but that office must belong to a living judge. the holy scripture may be, and is a rule, but cannot be a judge, because it being always the same, cannot declare itself any one time, or upon any one occasion more particularly then upon any other; and let it be read over an hundred times, it willbe still the same, and no more fit alone to terminate controversies in faith, than the law would be to end suits, if it were given over to the fancy, & gloss of every single man. 4. this difference betwixt a judge and a rule, d. potter perceived, when more than once, having styled the scripture a judge, by way of correcting that term, he adds or rather a rule, because he knew that an inanimate writing could not be a judge. fron hence also it was, that though protestants in their beginning, affirmed scripture alone to be the judge of controversies; yet upon a more advised reflection, they changed the phrase, and said, that not scripture, but the holy ghost speaking in scripture, is judge in controversies. a difference without a disparity. the holy ghost speaking only in scripture is no more intelligible to us, than the scripture in which he speaks; as a man speaking only latin, can be no better understood, than the tongue wherein he speaketh. and therefore to say, a judge is necessary for deciding controversies, about the meaning of scripture, is as much as to say, he is necessary to decide what the holy ghost speaks in scripture. and it were a conceit, equally foolish and pernicious, if one should seek to take away all judges in the kingdom, upon this nicety, that albeit laws cannot be judges, yet the lawmaker speaking in the law, may perform that office; as if the lawmaker speaking in the law, were with more perspicuity understood, than the law whereby he speaketh. 5. but though some writing were granted to have a privilege, to declare itself upon supposition that it were maintained in being, and preserved entire from corruptions; yet it is manifest, that no writing can conserve itself, nor can complain, or denounce the falsifier of it; and therefore it stands in need of some watchful and not erring eye, to guard it, by means of whose assured vigilancy, we may undoubtedly receive it sincere and pure. 6. and suppose it could defend itself from corruption, how could it assure us that itself were canonical, and of infallible verity? by saying so? of this very affirmation, there will remain the same question still; how it can prove itself to be infallibly true? neither can there ever be an end of the like multiplied demands, till we rest in the external authority of some person or persons bearing witness to the world, that such, or such a book is scripture: and yet upon this point according to protestant's all other controversies in faith depend. 7. that scripture cannot assure us, that itself is canonical scripture, is acknowledged by some protestants in express words, and by all of them in deeds. m. hooker, whom d. potter ranketh (a) pag. 131. among men of great learning and judgement, saith: of things (b) in his first book of eccles. policy sect. 14. pag. 6●. necessary, the very chiefest is to know what books we are to esteem holy; which point is confessed impossible for the scripture itself to teach. and this he proveth by the same argument, which we lately used, saying t'has: it is not (c) ibid. lib. 2. sect. 4. p. 102. the word of god which doth, or possibly can, assure us, that we do well to think it his word. for if any one book of scripture did give testimony of all, yet still that scripture which giveth testimony to the rest, would require another scripture to give credit unto it. neither could we come to any pause whereon to rest, unless besides scripture, there were something which might assure us etc. and this he acknowledgeth to be the (d) l. 3. sect. 8. pag. 1. 146. & alibi church. by the way. if, of things necessary the very chiefest cannot possibly be taught by scripture, as this man of so great learning and judgement affirmeth, and demonstratively proveth; how can the protestant clergy of england subscribe to their sixth article? wherein it is said of the scripture: whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation: and, concerning their belief and profession of this article, they are particularly examined when they be ordained priests and bishops. with, hooker, his defendant covell doth punctually agree. whitaker likewise confesseth, that the question about canonical scriptures, is defined to us, not by testimony of the private spirit, which (saith he) being private and secret, is (e) aduersus stapl. l. 2. cap. 6. pag. 270 & pag. 357. unfit to teach and refel others; but (as he acknowledgeth) by the (f) aduersus stapl. l. 2. c. 4. pag. 300. ecclesiastical tradition: an argument (saith he) whereby may be argued, and convinced what books be canonical, and what be not. luther saith: this (g) lib. de captain. babyl. tom. 2. wittomb. fol. 8●. indeed the church hath, that she can discern the word of god, from the word of men: as augustine confesseth, that he believed the gospel, being moved by the authority of the church, which did preach this to be the gospel. fulke teacheth, that the church (h) in his answer to a countefaite catholic pag. 5. hath judgement to discern true writings from counterfeit, and the word of god from the writing of men, and that this judgement she hath not of herself, but of the holy ghost. and to the end that you may not be ignorant, from what church you must receive scriptures, hear your first patriarch luther speaking against them, who (as he saith) brought in anabaptisme, that so they might despite the pope. verily (saith he) these (i) epist. count. anabap. ad dnos parochos tom. 2: germ. wittemb. men build upon a weak foundation. for by this means they ought to deny the whole scripture, and the office of preaching. for, all these we have from the pope: otherwise we must go make a new scripture. 8. but now in deeds, they all make good, that without the church's authority, no certainty can be had what scripture is canonical, while they cannot agree in assigning the canon of holy scripture. of the epistle of s. james, luther hath these words: the (k) praefat. in epist. lac. inedit. jenensi. epistle of ●ames is contentions, swelling, dry strawy and unworthy of an apostolical spirit. which censure of luther, illyricus acknowledgeth and maintaineth. kemnitius teacheth, that the second epistle (l) in enchirid. pag. 63. of peter, the second and third of john, the epistle to the hebrews, the epistle of james, the epistle of jude, and the apocalyps of john are apocryphal, as not having sufficient testimony (m) in exa. min. conc. trid. part. 1. pag. 55. of their authority, and therefore that nothing in controversy can be proved out of these (n) ibid. books the same is taught by diverse other lutherans: and if some other amongst them be of a contrary opinion since luther's time, i wonder what new infallible ground they can allege, why they leave their master, and so many of his prime scholars? i know no better ground, then because they may with as much freedom abandon him, as he was bold to alter that canon of scripture, which he found received in god's church. 9 what books of scripture the protestants of england hold for canonical, is not easy to affirm in their sixth article they say: in the name of the holy scripture, we do understand those canonical books of the old and new testament, of whose authority was never any doub●● in the church. what mean they by these words? that by the church's consent they are assured what scriptures be canonical? this were to make the church judge, and not scriptures alone. do they only understand the agreement of the church to be a probable inducement? probability is no sufficient ground for an infallible assent of faith. by this rule (of whose authority was never any doubt in the church) the whole book of esther must quit the canon because some in the church have excluded it from the canon, as (o) apud eus●b. l. 4. hist. cap. 26. melito asianus, (p) in synop. athana●us, and (q) in corm. de genu●●●s scriptures. gregory nazianzen. and luther (if prote stants will be content that he be in the church) saith: the jews (r) lib de seruo arbitr●o contra eras. tom. 2. witt. fol. 471. place the book of esther in the canon, which yet, if i might be judge, doth rather deserve to be put out of the canon. and of ecclesiastes he saith: this (s) in latinis sermonibus convivialibus francof. in 8. impr. anno 1571. book is not full; there are in it many abrupt things: he wants boots and spurs, that is, he hath no perfect sentence, he rides upon a long reed like me when i was in the monastery and much more is to be read in him: who (t) in germanicis colloq. lutheri ab aurtfabro editis francofurti tit. de libris veteris & novi test. fol. 379. saith further, that the said book was not written by solomon, but by syrach in the time of the maccabees, and that it is like to the talmud (the jews bible) out of many books heaped into one work, perhaps out of the library of king ptolomous and further he saith, that (u) ibid. tit. de patriarchis & prophet fol. 282. he doth not be lief all to have been done as 〈◊〉 is ●●t down. and he teacheth the (w) tit de lib. vet. & rout test. book of job to be as it were an argument for a fable (or comedy) to set before us an example of patience. and he (x) fol. 380. delivers this general censure of the prophet's books: the sermons of no prophet, were written whole, and perfect, but their disciples, and auditors snatched, now one sentence, and then another, and so put them all into one book, and by this means the bible was conserved. if this were so, the books of the prophets, being not written by themselves, but promiscuously, and casually, by their disciples, will soon be called in question. are not these errors of luther, fundamental? and yet if protestants deny the infallibility of the church, upon what certain ground can they disprove these lutherian, and luciferian blasphemies? o godly reformer of the roman church! but to return to our english canon of scripture. in the new testament by the above mentioned rule (of whose authority was never any doubt in the church) diverse books of the new testament must be discanonized, to wit, all those of which some ancients have doubted, and those which diverse lutherans have of late denied. it is worth the observation how the before mentioned sixth article, doth specify by name all the books of the old testament which they hold for canonical; but those of the new, without naming any one, they shuffle over with this generality: all the books of the new testaments as they are commonly received, we do receive, and account them canonical. the mystery is easily to be unfolded. if they had descended to particulars, they must have contradicted some of their chiefest brethren. as they are commonly received etc. i ask: by whom? by the church of rome? then, by the same reason they must receive diverse books of the old testament, which they reject. by lutherans? then with lutherans they may deny some books of the new testament. if it be the greater, or less number of voices, that must cry up, or down, the canon of scripture, our roman canon will prevail: and among protestants the certainty of their faith must be reduced to an uncertain controversy of fact, whether the number of those who reject, or of those others who receive such and such scriptures, be greater. their faith must alter according to years, and days. when luther first appeared, he, and his disciples were the greater number of that new church; and so this claim (of being commonly received) stood for them, till zvinglius & caluin grew to some equal, or greater number than that of the lutherans, and then this rule of (commonly received) will canonize their canon against the lutherans. i would gladly know, why in the former part of their article, they say both of the old and new testament: in the name of the holy scripture, we do understand those canonical books of the old and new testament, of whose authority was never any doubt in the church; and in the latter part, speaking again of the new testament, they give a far different rule, saying: all the books of the new testament, as they are commonly received, we do receive, and account them canonical. this i say is a rule much different from the former (of whose authority was never any doubt in the church.) for some books might be said to be commonly received, although they were sometime doubted of by some. if to be commonly received, pass for a good rule to know the canon of the new testament; why not of the old? above all we desire to know, upon what infallible ground, in some books they agree with us against luther, and diverse principal lutherans, and in others jump with luther against us? but seeing they disagree among themselves, it is evident that they have no certain rule to know the canon of scripture, in assigning whereof some of them must of necessity err, because of contradictory propositions both cannot be true. 10. moreover the letters, syllables, words, phrase, or matter contained in holy scripture have no necessary, or natural connexion with divine revelation or inspiration: and therefore by seeing, reading, or understanding them, we cannot infer that they proceed from god, or be confirmed by divine authority, as because creatures involve a necessary relation, connexion, and dependence on their creator, philosophers may by the light of natural reason, demonstrate the existence of one prime cause of all things. in holy writ there are innumerable truths not surpassing the sphere of humane wit, which are, or may be delivered by pagan writers, in the self same words and phrase as they are in scripture. and as for some truths peculiar to christians, (for example, the mystery of the blessed trinity etc.) the only setting them down in writing is not enough to be assured that such a writing is the undoubted word of god: otherwise some sayings of plato, trismegistus, sibyls, ovid etc. must be esteemed canonical scripture, because they fall upon some truths proper to christian religion. the internal light, and inspiration which directed & moved the authors of canonical scriptures, is a hidden quality infused into their understanding and will, and hath no such particular sensible influence into the external writing, that in it we can discover, or from it demonstrate any such secret light, and inspiration; and therefore to be assured that such a writing is divine we cannot know from itself alone, but by some other extrinsecall authority. 11. and here we appeal to any man of judgement, whether it be not a vain brag of some protestants to tell us, that they wots full well what is scripture, by the light of scripture itself, or (as d. potter word's it) by (y) pag. 14●. that glorious beam of divine light which shines therein; even as our eye distinguisheth light from darkness, without any other help then light itself; and as our ear knows a voice, by the voice itself alone. but this vanity is refuted, by what we said even now; that the external scripture hath no apparent or necessary connexion with divine inspiration, or revelation. will d. potter hold all his brethren for blind men, for not seeing that glorious beam of divine light which shines in scripture, about which they cannot agree? corporal light may be discerned by itself alone, as being evident, proportionate, & connatural to our faculty of seeing. that scripture is divine, and inspired by god, is a truth exceeding the natural capacity and compass of man's understanding, to us obscure, and to be believed by divine faith, which according to the apostle is; argumentum (z) heb. v. 1 non apparentium; an argument, or conviction, of things not evident: and therefore no wonder if scripture do not manifest itself by itself alone, but must require some other means for applying it to our understanding. never theles their own similitudes and instances, make against themselves. for suppose a man had never read, or heard of sun, moon, fire, candle etc. and should be brought to behold a light, yet in such sort as that the agent, or 'cause efficient from which it proceeded, were kept hidden from him; could such an one, by only beholding the light, certainly know, whether it were produduced by the sun, or moon & c? or if one hear a voice, and had never known the speaker, could he know from whom in particular that voice proceeded? they who look upon scripture, may well see, that some one wrote it, but that it was written by divine inspiration, how shall they know? nay, they cannot so much as know who wrote it, unless they first know the writer, and what hand he writes: as likewise i cannot know whose voice it is which i hear, unless i first both know the person who speaks, & with what voice he useth to speak; and yet even all this supposed, i may perhaps be deceyved. for there may be voices so like, and hand so counterfeited, that men may be deceyved by them, as birds were by the grapes of that skilful painter. now since protestants affirm knowledge concerning god as our supernatural end, must be taken from scripture, they cannot in scripture alone discern that it is his voice, or writing, because they cannot know from whom a writing, or voice proceeds, unle, first they know the person who speaketh, or writeth nay i say more: by scripture alone, they cannot so much as know, that any person doth in it, or by it, speak any thing at all: because one may write without intent to signify, or affirm any thing, but only to set down, or as it were paint, such characters, syllables, and words, as men are wont to set copies, not caring what the signification of the words imports; or as one transcribes a writing which himself understands not: or when one writes what another dictates, and in other such cases, wherein it is clear, that the writer speaks, or signifies nothing in such his writing; & therefore by it we cannot hear, or understand his voice. with what certainty then can any man affirm, that by scripture itself they can see, that the writers did intent to signify any thing at all; that they were apostles, or other canonical authors; that they wrote their own sense, and not what was dictated by some other man; and finally, & especially, that they wrote by the infallible direction of the holy ghost? 12. but let us be liberal, and for the present suppose (not grant) that scripture is like to corporal light, by itself alone able to determine, & move our understanding to assent; yet the similitude proves against themselues. for light is not visible, except to such as have eyes, which are not made by the light, but must be presupposed as produced by some other cause. and therefore, to hold the similitude, scripture can be clear only to those who are endued with the eye of faith; or, as d. potter above cited saith, to all that have (a) pag. 141. eyes to discern the shining beams thereof; that is, to the believer, as immediately after he speaketh. faith then must not originally proceed from scripture, but is to be presupposed, before we can see the light thereof; and consequently there must be some other means precedent to scripture to beget faith, which can be no other than the church. 13. others affirm, that they know canonical scriptures to be such, by the title of the books. but how shall we know such inscriptions, or titles to be infallibly true? from this their answer, our argument is strengthened, because diverse apocryphal writings have appeared, under the titles, and names of sacred authors, as the gospel of thomas mentioned by s (b) cont. adimantum c. 17. augustine: the gospel of peter, which the nazaraei did use, as (c) l. 2. heretic fab. theodoret witnesseth, with which scraphion a catholic bishop, was for sometime deceived, as may be read in (d) lib. 6. cap. 10. eusebius, who also speaketh of the apocalyps of (e) lib. 6. cap. 11. peter. the like may be said of the gospels of barnabas, bartholomew, and other such writings specified by pope (f) dist. can. sancta romana. gelasius. protestants reject likewise some part of esther and daniel, which bear the same titles with the rest of those books, as also both we, and they hold for apocryphal the third and fourth books which go under the name of esdras, and yet both of us receive his first and second book. wherefore titles are not sufficient assurances what books be canonical: which (h) in his defence art. 4. pag. 31. d. covell acknowledgeth in these words: it is not the word of god, which doth, or possibly can assure us, that we do well to think it is the word of god: the first outward motion leading men so to esteem of the scripture, is the authority of god's church, which teacheth us to receive marks gospel, who was not an apostle, and to refuse the gospel of thomas who was an apostle: and to retain luke's gospel who saw not christ, and to reject the gospel of nicodemus who saw him. 14. another answer, or rather objection they are wont to bring: that the scripture being a principle needs no proof among christians. so d. (i) pag 234 potter. but this neither a plain begging of the question, or manifestly untrue, and is directly against their own octrine, and practise. if they mean, that scripture is one of those principles, which being the first, and the most known in all sciences cannot be demonstrated by other principles, they suppose that which is in question whether there be not some principle (for example, the church) whereby we may come to the knowledge of scripture if they intent, that scripture is a principle, but not the first, and most known in christianity, than scripture may be proved. for principles, that are not the first, nor known of themselves may, & aught to be proved, before we can yield assent, either to them, or to other verities depending on them. it is repugnant to their own doctrine, and practise, in as much as they are wont to affirm, that one part of scripture may be known to be canonical, and may be interpreted by another. and since every scripture is a principle sufficient, upon which to ground divine faith, they must grant, that one principle may, and sometime must be proved by another. yea this their answer, upon due ponderation, falls out to prove, what we affirm. for since all principles cannot be proved, we must (that our labour may not be endless) come at length to rest in some principle, which may not require any other proof. such is tradition, which involues an evidence of fact, and from hand to hand, and age to age, bringing us up to the times, and persons of the apostles, and our saviour himself comes to be confirmed by all those miracles, and other arguments, whereby they convinced their doctrine to be true. wherefore the ancient fathers avouch that we must receive the sacred canon upon the credit of god's church. s. (k) in synopsi. athanasius saith, that only four gospels are to be received, because the canons of the holy, and catholic church have so determined. the third council of (l) can. 47. carthage having set down the books of holy scripture gives the reason, because, we have received from our fathers that these are to be read in the church. s. augustine (m) cont. ep. funaam. c. 5. speaking of the acts of the apostles, saith: to which book i must give credit, if i give credit to the gospel, because the catholic church doth a like recommend to me both these books. and in the same place he hath also these words: i would not believe the gospel unless the authority of the catholic church did move me. a saying so plain, that zuinglius, is forced to cry out: hear i (n) tom. 1. fol. 135. implore your equity to speak freely, whether this saying of augustine seem not overbould, or else unadvisedly to have fallen from him. 15. but suppose they were assured what books were canonical, this will little avail them, unless they be likewise certain in what language they remain uncorrupted, or what translations be true. caluin (o) instit. c. 6. §. 11. acknowledgeth corruption in the hebrew text; which if it be taken without points, is so ambiguous, that scarcely any one chapter, yea period, can be securely understood without the help of some translation. if with points: these were after s. hierom's time, invented by the jews, who either by ignorance might mistake, or upon malice force the text, to favour their impieties. and that the hebrew text still retains much ambiguity, is apparent by the disagreeing translations of novellists; which also proves the greek for the new testament, not to be void of doubtfulness, as caluin (p) instit. ca 7. §. 12. confesseth it to be corrupted. and although both the hebrew and greek were pure, what doth this help, if only scripture be the rule of faith, and so very few be able to examine the text in these languages. all then must be reduced to the certainty of translations into other tongues, wherein no private man having any promise, or assurance of infallibility, protestants who rely upon scripture alone, will find no certain ground for their faith: as accordingly whitaker (q) lib. de sancta scriptura p. 523. affirmeth: those who understand not the hebrew and greek do err often, and avoidable. 16. now concerning the translations of protestants, it will be sufficient to set down what the laborious, exact, and judicious author of the protestants apology &c. dedicated to our late king james of famous memory, hath to this (r) tract. 1. sect. 10. subd. 4. joined with tract. 2. cap. 2. sect. 10. subd. 2. purpose. to omit (saith he) particulars, whose recital would be infinite, & to touch this point but generally only, the translation of the new testament by luther is condemned by andreas, osiander, keckermannus, and zuinglius, who saith hereof to luther. thou dost corrupt the word of god, thou art seen to be a manifest and common corrupter of the holy scriptures: how much are we ashamed of thee who have hitherto esteemed thee beyond all measure, and now prove thee to be such a man? and in like manner doth luther reject the translation of the zwinglians terming them in matter of divinity, fools, asses, antichrists, deceavers, and of asslike understanding. in so much that when proscheverus the zwinglian printer of zurich sent him a bible translated by the divines there, luther would not receive the same, but sending it back rejected it, as the protestant writers hospinians, and lavatherus witness. the translation set forth by oecolampadius, and the divines of basil, is reproved by beza, who affirmeth that the basil translation is in many places wicked, and altogether differing from the mind of the holy ghost. the translation of castalio is condemned by beza, as being sacrilegious, wicked, and ethnical. as concerning caluins' translation, that learned protestant writer carolus molinaeus saith thereof: caluin in his harmony maketh the text of the gospel to leap up and down: he useth violence to the letter of the gospel; and besides this addeth to the text. as touching beza's translation (to omit the dislike had thereof by seluccerus the german protestant of the university of jena) the foresaid molinaeus saith of him, de facto mutat textum; he actually changeth the text; and giveth further sundry instances of his corruptions: as also castalio that learned caluinist, and most learned in the tongues, reprehendeth beza in a whole book of this matter, and saith; that to note all his errors in translation, would require a great volume. and m. parkes saith: as for the geneva bibles, it is to be wished that either they may be purged from those manifold errors, which are both in the text, and in the margin, or else utterly prohibited. all which confirmeth your majesty's grave and learned censure, in your thinking the geneva translation to be worst of all; and that in the marginal notes annoxed to the geneva translation, some are very partial, untrue, seditious, etc. lastly concerning the english translations, the puritans say: our translation of the psalms comprised in our book of common prayer, doth in addition, subtraction, and alteration, differ from the truth of the hebrew in two hundred places at the least. in so much as they do therefore profess to rest doubtful, whether a man with a safe conscience may subscribe thereto. and m. caerlile saith of the english translators, that they have depraved the sense, obscured the truth, and deceived the ignorant; that in many places they do detort the scriptures from the right sense. and that, they show themselves to love darkness more than light, falsehood more than truth. and the ministers of lincoln diocese give their public testimony, terming the english translation: a translation that taketh away from the text; that addeth to the text; and that, sometime to the changing, or obscuring of the meaning of the holy ghost. not without cause therefore did your majesty affirm, that you could never yet see a bible well translated into english. thus far the author of the protestants apology etc. and i cannot forbear to mention in particular that famous corruption of luther, who in the text where it is said (rom. 3. v. 28.) we account a man to be justified by faith, without the works of the law, in favour of justification by faith alone, translateth (justified by faith a loan.) as likewise the falsification of zuinglius is no less notorious, who in the gospels of s. matthew, mark, and luke, and in s. paul, in place of, this is my body; this is my blood; translates, this signifies my body; this signifies my blood. and here let protestants consider duly of these points. salvation cannot be hoped for without true faith: faith according to them relies upon scripture alone: scripture must be delivered to most of them by the translations: translations depend on the skill and honesty of men, in whom nothing is more certain than a most certain possibility to err, and no greater evidence of truth, then that it is evident some of them embrace falsehood, by reason of their contrary translations. what then remaineth, but that truth, faith, salvation, & all, must in them rely upon a fallible, and uncertain ground? how many poor souls are lamentably seduced, while from preaching ministers, they admire a multitude of texts of divine scripture, but are indeed the false translations, and corruptions of erring men? let them therefore, if they will be assured of true scriptures, fly to the always visible catholic church, against which the gates of hell can never so far prevail, as that she shall be permitted to deceive the christian world with false scriptures. and luther himself, by unfortunate experience, was at length forced to confess thus much, saying: if the (s) lib cont, zwingl, de verit. corp. christi in euchar. world last longer, it will be again necessary to receive the decrees of counsels, & to have recourse to them, by reason of diverse interpretations of scripture which now reign. on the contrary side, the translation approved by the roman church, is commended even by our adversaries: and d. covell in particular saith, that it was used in the church, one thousand (t) in his answer unto m. john burges pag. 94. three hundred years ago, and doubteth not to prefer (u) ibid. that translation before others. in so much, that whereas the english translations be many, and among themselves disagreeing, he concludeth, that of all those the approved translation authorized by the church of england, is that which cometh nearest to the vulgar, and is commonly called the bishop's bible. so that the truth of that translation which we use, must be the rule to judge of the goodness of their bibles: and therefore they are obliged to maintain our translation if it were but for their own sake. 17. but doth indeed the source of their manifold uncertainties stop here? no! the chiefest difficulty remains, concerning the true meaning of scripture: for attaining whereof, if protestants had any certainty, they could not disagree so hugely as they do. hence m. hooker saith: we are (w) in his preface to his books of ecclesiastical policy. sect. 6. 26. right sure of this, that nature, scripture, and experience have all taught the world to seek for the ending of contentions, by submitting itself unto some judicial, and definitive sentence, whereunto neither part that contendeth may, under any pretence, refuse to stand. d. fields words are remarkable to this purpose: seeing (saith he) the controversies (x) in his treatise of the church in his epistle dedicatory to the l. archbishop. of religion in our times are grown in number so many, and in nature so intricate, that few have time and leisure, fewer strength of under standing to examine them; what remaineth for men desirous of satisfaction in things of such consequence, but diligently to search out which among all the societyes in the world, is that blessed company of holy ones, that hou●●●ould of faith, that spouse of christ, and church of the living god, which is the pillar and ground of truth, that so they may embrace her communion, follow her directions, and rest in her judgement. 18. and now that the true interpretation of scripture, aught to be received from the church, it is also proved by what we have already demonstrated, that she it is, who must declare what books be true scripture; wherein if she be assisted by the holy ghost, why should we not believe her, to be infallibly directed concerning the true meaning of them. let protestants therefore either bring some proof out of scripture that the church is guided by the holy ghost in discerning true scripture, and not in delivering the true sense thereof; or else give us leave to apply against them, the argument, which s. augustine opposed to the manicheans, in these words: i would not (y) cont. ep. fund. cap. 5. believe the gospel, unless the authority of the church did move me. them therefore whom i obeyed saying, believe the gospel, why should i not obey saying to me, do not believe manichaeus (luther, caluin, etc.) choose what thou pleasest. if thou shalt say, believe the catholics; they warn me not to give any credit to you. if therefore i believe them, i cannot believe thee. if thou say, do not believe the catholics, thou shalt not do well in forcing me to the faith of manichaeus, because by the preaching of catholics i believed the gospel itself. if thou say, you did well to believe them (catholics) commending the gospel, but you did not well to believe them, discommending manichaeus; dost thou think me so very foolish, that without any reason at all, i should believe what thou wilts, & not believe what thou wilts not? and do not protestant's perfectly resemble these men, to whom s. augustine spoke, when they will have men to believe the roman church delivering scripture, but not to believe her condemning luther, and the rest? against whom, when they first opposed themselves to the roman church, s. augustine may seem to have spoken no less prophetically, then doctrinally, when he said: why should i not most (z) lib. de util. cre. cap. 14. diligenily inquire what christ commanded of them before all others, by whose authority i was moved to believe, that christ commanded any good thing? canst thou better declare to me what he said, whom i would not have thought to have been, or to be, if the belief thereof had been recommended by thee to me? this therefore i believed by fame, strengthened with celebrity, consent, antiquity. but every one may see that you, so few, so turbulent, so new, can produce nothing deserving authority. what madness is this? believe them (catholics) that wrought to believe christ; but learn of us what christ said. why i beseech thee? surely if they (catholics) were not at all, and could not teach me any thing, i would more easily persuade myself, that i were not to believe christ, then that i should learn any thing concerning him from any other than them by whom i believed him. if therefore we receive the knowledge of christ, and scriptures from the church, from her also must we take his doctrine, and the interpretation thereof. 19 but besides all this, the scriptures cannot be judge of controversies, who ought to be such, as that to him not only the learned, or veterans, but also the unlearned, and novices, may have recourse; for these being capable of salvation, and endued with faith of the same nature with that of the learned, there must be some universal judge, which the ignorant may understand, and to whom the greatest clerks must submit. such is the church: and the scripture is not such. 20. now, the inconveniences which follow by referring all controversies to scripture alone, are very clear. for by this principle, all is finally in very deed and truth reduced to the internal private spirit, because there is really no middle way betwixt a public external, and a private internal voice; & whosoever refuseth the one, must of necessity adhere to the other. 21. this tenet also of protestants, by taking the office of judicature from the church, comes to confer it upon every particular man, who being driven from submission to the church, cannot be blamed if he trust himself as fare as any other, his conscience dictating, that wittingly he means not to cousin himself, as others maliciously may do. which inference is so manifest, that it hath extorted from diverse protestants the open confession of so vast an absurdity. hear luther: the governors (a) tom. 2. wittenberg. fol. 375. of churches and pastors of christ's sheep have indeed power to teach, but the sheep ought to give judgement whether they propound the voice of christ, or of aliens. lubbertus saith: as we have (b) in lib. de principi●s christian. dogm. lib. 6. cap. 13. demonstrated that all public judges may be deceived in interpreting; so we affirm, that they may err in judging. all faithful men are private judges, and they also have power to judge of doctrines and interpretations. whitaker, even of the unlearned, saith: they (c) de sacra scriptura pag. 529. ought to have recourse unto the more learned, but in the mean time we must be careful not to attribute to them overmuch, but so, that still we retain our own freedom. bilson also affirmeth; that, the people (d) in his true difference part. 2. must be discerners, and judges of that which is taught. this same pernicious doctrine is delivered by brentius, zanchius, cartwright, and others exactly cited by (e) tract. 2. cap. 1. sect. 1. brereley; & nothing is more common in every protestants mouth, then that he admits of fathers, counsels, church etc. as far as they agree with scripture; which upon the matter is himself. thus heresy ever falls upon extremes: it pretends to have scripture alone for judge of controversies, and in the mean time sets up as many judges, as there are men, and women in the christian world. what good statesmen would they be, who should idëate, or fancy such a common wealth, as these men have framed to themselves a church? they verify what s. augustine objecteth against certain heretics. you sces (f) lib 32. cont. faust. that you go about to overthrew all authority of scripture, and that every man's mind may be to himself a rule, what he is to allow, or disallow in every scripture. 22. moreover what confusion to the church, what danger to the common wealth, this denial of the authority of the church, may bring, i leave to the consideration of any judicious, indifferent man. i will only set down some words of d. potter, who speaking of the proposition of revealed truths, sufficient to prove him that gain saith them to be an heretic, saith thus: this proposition (g) pag. 247 of revealed truths, is not by the infallible determination of pope, or church; (pope, and church being excluded, let us hear what more secure rule he will prescribe) but by whatsoever means a man may be convinced in conscience of divine revelation. if a preacher do clear any point of faith to his hearers; if a private christian do make it appear to his neighbour, that any conclusion, or point of faith is delivered by divine revelation of god's word; if a man himself (without any teacher) by reading the scriptures, or hearing them read, be convinced of the truth of any such coclusion: this is a sufficient proposition to prove him that gain saith any such proof, to be an heretic, and obstinate opposer of the faith. behold what goodly safe propounders of faith arise in place of god's universal visible church, which must yield to a single preacher, a neighbour, a man himself if he can read, or at least have ears to hear scripture read. verily i do not see, but that every well— governed civil commonwealth, aught to concur towards the exterminating of this doctrine, whereby the interpretation of scripture is taken from the church, and conferred upon every man, who, whatsoever is pretended to the contrary, may be a passionate seditions creature. 23. moreover, there was no scripture, or written word for about two thousand years from adam to moses, whom all acknowledge to have been the first author of canonical scripture: and again for about two thousand years more, from moses to christ our lord, holy scripture was only among the people of israel; and yet there were gentiles endued in those days with divine faith, as appeareth in job, and his friends. wherefore during so many ages, the church alone was the decider of controversies, and instructor of the faithful. neither did the word written by moses, deprive that church of her former infallibility, or other qualities requisite for a judge: yea d. potter acknowledgeth, that besides the law, there was a living judge in the jewish church, endued with an absolutely infallible direction in cases of moment; as all points belonging to divine faith are. now, the church of christ our lord, was before the scriptures of the new testament, which were not written instantly, nor all at one time, but successively upon several occasions; and some after the decease of most of the apostles: & after they were written, they were not presently known to all churches: and of some there was doubt in the church for some ages after our saviour. shall we then say, that according as the church by little and little received holy scripture, she was by the like degrees devested of her possessed infallibility, and power to decide controversies in religion? that some churches had one judge of controversies, and others another? that with months, or years, as new canonical scripture grew to be published, the church altered her whole rule of faith, or judge of controversies? after the apostles time, and after the writing of scriptures, heresies would be sure to rise, requiring in god's church for their discovery and condemnation, infallibility, either to write new canonical scripture as was done in the apostles time by occasion of emergent heresies; or infallibility to interpret scriptures, already written, or, without scripture, by divine vn written traditions, and affistance of the holy ghost to determine all controversies, as tertullian saith: the soul is (h) de test. antm. cap. 5. before the letter; and speech before books; and sense before style. certainly such addition of scripture, with derogation, or subtraction from the former power and infallibility of the church, would have brought to the world division in matters of faith, and the church had rather lost, then gained by holy scripture (which ought to be far from our tongues and thoughts,) it being manifest, that for decision of controversies, infallibility settled in a living judge, is incomparably more useful and fit, then if it were conceived, as inherent in some inanimate writing. is there such repugnance betwixt infallibility in the church, and existence of scripture, that the production of the one, must be the destruction of the other? must the church wax dry, by giving to her children the milk of sacred writ? no, no. her infallibility was, and is derived from an inexhausted fountain. if protestants will have the scripture alone for their judge, let them first produce some scripture affirming, that by the entering thereof, infallibility went out of the church. d. potter may remember what himself teacheth; that the church is still endued with infallibility in points fundamental, and consequently, that infallibility in the church doth well agree with the truth, the sanctity, yea with the sufficiency of scripture, for all matters necessary to salvation. i would therefore gladly know, out of what text he imagineth that the church by the coming of scripture, was deprived of infallibility in some points, & not in others? he affirmeth that the jewish synagogue retained infallibility in herself, notwithstanding the writing of the old testament; and will he so unworthily and unjustly deprive the church of christ of infallibility by reason of the new testament? especially of we consider, that in the old testament, laws, ceremonies, rites punishments, judgements, sacraments, sacrifices etc. were more particularly, and minutely delivered to the jews, then in the new testament is done; our saviour leaving the determination, or declaration of particulars to his spouse the church, which therefore stands in need of infallibility more than the jewish synagogue. d. potter, (i) pag. 24. against this argument drawn from the power and infallibility of the synagogue, objects; that we might as well infer, that christians must have one sovereign prince over all, because the jews had one chief judge. but the disparity is very clear. the synagogue was a type, and figure of the church of christ, not so their civil government of christian commonwealths, or kingdoms. the church succeeded to the synagogue, but not christian princes to jewish magistrates: and the church is compared to a house, or (k) heb. 13. family; to an (l) cant. 2. army, to a (m) 1. cor. 10. ephes. 4. body; to a (n) matt. 12 kingdom etc. all which require one master, one general, one head, one magistrate, one spiritual king; as our blessed saviour with fiet vnum ovile, (o) joan. c. 10. joined vnus pastor: one sheepfold, one pastor. but all distinct kingdoms, or commonwealths, are not one army, family, etc. and finally, it is necessary to salvation, that all have recourse to one church; but for temporal weal, there is no need that all submit, or depend upon one temporal prince, kingdom, or commonwealth: and therefore our samour hath left to his whole church, as being one, one law, one scripture, the same sacraments etc. whereas kingdoms have their several laws, disterent governments, diversity of powers, magistracy etc. and so this objection returneth upon d. potter. for as in the one community of the jews, there was one power and judge, to end debates, and resolve difficulties: so in the church of christ, which is one, there must be some one authority to decide all controversies in religion. 24. this discourse is excellently proved by ancient s. irenaeus (p) lib. 3. c. 4 in these words: what if the apostles had not left scriptures, ought we not to have followed the order of tradition which they delivered to those to whom they committed the churches? to which order many nations yield assent, who believe in christ, having salvation written in their hearts by the spirit of god, without letters or ink, and diligently keeping ancient tradition. it is easy to receive the truth from god's church, seeing the apostles have most fully deposited in her, as in a rich storehouse, all things belonging to truth. for what? if there should arise any contention of some small question, ought we not to have recourse to the most ancient churches, and from them to receive what is certain and clear concerning the present question? 25 besides all this, the doctrine of protestants is destructive of itself. for either they have certain, and infallible means not to err in interpreting scripture; or they have not. if not; then the scripture (to them) cannot be a sufficient ground for infallible faith, nor a meet judge of controversies. if they have certain infallible means, and so cannot err in their interpretations of scriptures; then they are able with infallibility to hear, examine, and determine all controversies of faith, and so they may be, and are judges of controversies, although they use the scripture as a rule. and thus, against their own doctrine, they constitute an other judge of controversies, besides scripture alone. 26. lastly, i ask d. potter, whether this assertion, (scripture alone is judge of all controversies in faith,) be a fundamental point of faith, or no? he must be well advised, before he say, that it is a fundamental point. for he will have against him, as many protestants as teach that by scripture alone, it is impossible to know what books be scripture, which yet to protestants is the most necessary and chief point of all other. d. covell expressly saith: doubtless (q) in his defence of m. hokers' books art. 4. p. 31. it is a tolerable opinion in the church of rome, if they go no further, as some of them do not (he should have said as none of them do) to affirm, that the scriptures are holy and divine in themselves, but so esteemed by us, for the authority of the church. he will likewise oppose himself to those his brethren, who grant that controversies cannot be ended, without some external living authority, as we noted before. besides, how can it be in us a fundamental error to say, the scripture alone is not judge of controversies, seeing (notwithstanding this our belief) we use for interpreting of scripture, all the means which they prescribe, as prayer, conferring of places, consulting the originals &c. and to these add the instruction, and authority of god's church, which even by his confession cannot err damnably, and may afford us more help, then can be expected from the industry, learning, or wit of any private person: & finally d potter grants, that the church of rome doth not maintain any fundamental error against faith; and consequently, he cannot affirm that our doctrine in this present controversy is damnable. if he answer, that their tenet, about the scriptures being the only judge of controversies, is not a fundamental point of faith: then, as he teacheth that the universal church may err in points not fundamental; so i hope he will not deny, but particular churches, and private men, are much more obnoxious to error in such points; and in particular in this, that scripture alone is judge of controversies: and so, the very principle upon which their whole faith is grounded, remains to them uncertain; and on the other side, for the self same reason, they are not certain, but that the church is judge of controversies, which if she be, than their case is lamentable, who in general deny her this authority, & in particular controversies oppose her definitions. besides among public conclusions defended in oxford the year 1633. to the questions, whether the church have authority to determent controversies in faith; and, to interpret holy scripture? the answer to both is affirmative. 27. since then, the visible church of christ our lord is that infallible means whereby the reucaled truths of almighty god are conveyed to our understanding; it followeth that to oppose her definitions is to resist god himself; which blessed s. augustine plainly affirmeth, when speaking of the controversy about rebaptisation of such as were baptised by heretics, he saith. this (r) deunit. eccles. c. 22. is neither openly, nor evidently read, neither by you nor by me; yet if there were any wise man of whom our saviour had given testimony, and that he should be consulted in this question, we should make no doubt to perform what he should say, lest we might seem to gainsay not him so much as christ, by whose testimony he was recommended. now christ beareth witness to his church. and a little after: whosoever refuseth to follow the practice of the church, doth resist our saviour himself, who by his testimony recommends the church. i conclude therefore with this argument. whosoever resisteth that means which infallibly proposeth to us god's word or revelation, commits a sin, which, unrepented, excluds salvation: but whosoever resisteth christ's visible church, doth resist that means, which infallibly proposeth god's word or revelation to us: therefore whosoever resisteth christ's visible church, commits a sin, which, unrepented, excluds salvation. now, what visible church was extant, when luther began his pretended reformation, whether it were the roman, or protestant church; & whether he, and other protestants do not oppose that visible church, which was spread over the world, before, and in luther's time, is easy to be determined, and importeth every one most seriously to ponder, as a thing whereon eternal salvation dependeth. and because our adversaries do here most insist upon the distinction of points fundamental, and not fundamental, and in particular teach, that the church may err in points not fundamental, it will be necessary to examine the truth, and weight of this evasion, which shall be done in the next chapter. chap. iii. that the distinction of points fundamental and not fundamental, is neither pertinent, nor true in our present controversy. and that the catholic visible church cannot err, in either kind of the said points. this distinction is abused by protestants to many purposes of theirs, and therefore if it be either untrue or impertinent (as they understand, & apply it) the whole edifice built thereon, must be ruinous and false. for if you object their bitter and continued discords in matters of faith, without any means of agreement; they instantly tell you (as charity mistaken plainly shows) that they differ only in points not fundamental. if you convince them, even by their own confessions, that the ancient fathers taught diverse points held by the roman church against protestants; they reply, that those fathers may nevertheless be saved, because those errors were not fundamental. if you will them to remember, that christ must always have a visible church on earth, with administration of sacraments, and succession of pastors, and that when luther appeared there was no church distinct from the roman, whose communion and doctrine, luther then forsook, and for that cause must be guilty of schism and heresy; they have an answer (such as it is) that the catholic church cannot perish, yet may err in points not fundamental, and therefore luther and other protestants were obliged to forsake her for such errors, under pain of damnation; as if (forsooth) it were damnable, to hold an error not fundamental, nor damnable. if you wonder how they can teach, that both catholics, and protestants may be saved in their several professions; they salve this contradiction, by saying, that we both agree in all fundamental points of faith, which is enough for salvation. and yet, which is prodigiously strange, they could never be induced to give a catalogue what points in particular be fundamental, but only by some general description, or by referring us to the apostles creed, without determining, what points therein be fundamental, or not fundamental for the matter; and in what sense, they be, or be not such: and yet concerning the meaning of diverse points contained, or reduced to the creed, they differ both from us, and among themselves. and indeed, it being impossible for them to exhibit any such catalogue, the said distinction of points, although it were pertinent, and true, cannot serve them to any purpose, but still they must remain uncertain, whether or not they disagree from one another; from the ancient fathers; and from the catholic church, in points fundamental: which is to say, they have no certainty, whether they enjoy the substance of christian faith, without which they cannot hope to be saved. but of this more hereafter. 2. and to the end, that what shall be said concerning this distinction, may be better understood, we are to observe; that there be two precepts, which concern the virtue of faith, or our obligation to believe divine truths. the one is by divines called affirmative, whereby we are obliged to have a positive, explicit belief of some chief articles of christian faith. the other is termed negative, which strictly binds us not to disbelieve, that is, not to believe the contrary of any one point sufficiently represented to our understancing, as revealed, or spoken by almighty god the said affirmative precept (according to the nature of such commands) injoines some act to be performed, but not at all times, nor doth it equally bind all sorts of persons, in respect of all objects to be believed. for objects; we grant that some are more necessary to be explicitly, and several believed then other: either because they are in themselves more great, and weighty; or else in regard they instruct us in some necessary christian duty towards god, ourselves, or our neighbour. for persons; no doubt but some are obliged to know distinctly more than others, by reason of their office, vocation, capacity or the like. for times; we are not obliged to be still in act of exercising acts of faith, but according as several occasions permit, or require the second kind of precept called negative, doth (according to the nature of all such commands) oblige universally, all persons, in respect of all objects; & at all times; semper & pro semper, as divines speak. this general doctrine will be more clear by examples. i am not obliged to be always helping my neighbour, because the affirmative precept of charity, bindeth only in some particular cases: but i am always bound by a negative precept, never to do him any hurt, or wrong. i am not always bound to utter what i know to be true: yet i am obliged, never to speak any one lest untruth, against my knowledge. and (to come to our present purpose) there is no affirmative precept, commanding us to be at all times actually believing any one, or all articles of faith: but we are obliged, never to exercise any act against any one truth, known to be revealed. all sorts of persons are not bound explicitly, and distinctly to know all things testified by god either in scripture, or otherwise: but every one is obliged, not to believe the contrary of any one point, known to be testified by god. for that were in fact to affirm, that god could be deceived, or would deceive; which were to over throw the whole certainty of our faith, wherein the thing most principal, is not the point which we believe, which divines call the material object, but the chiefest is the motive for which we believe, to wit, almighty god's infallible revelation, or authority which they term the formal object of our faith. in two senses therefore, and with a double relation, points of faith may be called fundamental, and necessary to salvation. the one is taken with reference to the affirmative precept, when the points are of such quality that there is obligation to know and believe them explicitly and severally. in this sense we grant that there is difference betwixt points of faith, which d: potter (a) pag. 209 to no purpose laboureth to prove against his adversary, who in express words doth grant and explicate (b) charity mistaken c. 8. pag. 75. it. but the doctor thought good to dissemble the matter, & not say one pertinent word in defence of his distinction, as it was impugned by charity mistaken, and as it is wont to be applied by protestants. the other sense, according to which, points of faith may be called fundamental, and necessary to salvation, with reference to the negative precept of faith, is such, that we cannot not without grievous sin, and forfeiture of salvation, disbelieve any one point, sufficiently propounded, as revealed by almighty god. and in this sense we avouch, that there is no distinction in points of faith, as if to reject some must be damnable, and to reject others, equally proposed as god's word, might stand with salvation. yea the obligation of the negative precept is far more strict, then is that of the affirmative, which god freely imposed, & may freely release. but it is impossible, that he can dispense, or give leave to disbelieve, or deny what he affirmeth: and in this sense, sin & damnation are more inseparable from error in points not fundamental, then from ignorance in articles fundamental. all this i show by an example, which i wish to be particularly noted for the present, and for diverse other occasions hereafter. the creed of the apostles contains diverse fundamental points of faith, as the deity, trinity of persons, incarnation, passion, and resurrection of our saviour christ etc. it contains also some points, for their matter, and narure in themselves not fundamental, as under what judge our saviour suffered, that he was buried, the circumstance of the time of his resurrection the third day etc. but yet nevertheless, whosoever once knows that these points are contained in the apostles creed, the denial of them is damnable, and is in that sense a fundamental error: & this is the precise point of the present question. 3. and all that hitherto hath been said, is so manifestly true, that no protestant or christian, if he do but understand the terms, and state of the question, can possibly deny it: in so much as i am amazed, that men who otherwise are endued with excellent wits, should so enslave themselves to their predecessors in protestantisme, as still to harp on this distinction, & never regard how impertinently, and untruly it was applied by them at first, to make all protestants seem to be of one faith, because forsooth they agree in fundamental points. for the difference among protestants, consists not in that some believe some points, of which others are ignorant, or not bound expressly to know (as the distinction ought to be applied;) but that some of them disbelieve, and directly, wittingly, and willingly oppose what others do believe to be testified by the word of god, wherein there is no difference between points fundamental, and not fundamental; because till points fundamental be sufficiently proposed as revealed by god, it is not against faith to reject them, or rather without sufficient proposition it is not possible prudently to believe them; and the like is of points not fundamental, which as soon as they come to be sufficiently propounded as divine truths, they can no more be denied, then points fundamental propounded after the same manner. neither will it avail them to their other end, that for preservation of the church in being, it is sufficient that she do not err in poins fundamental. for if in the mean time she maintain any one error against god's revelation, be the thing in itself never so small, her error is damnable, and destructive of salvation. 4. but d. potter forgetting to what purpose protestants make use of their distinction, doth finally over throw it, & yields to as much as we can desire. for, speaking of that measure (c) pag. 211. and quantity of faith without which none can be saved, he saith: it is enough to believe some things by a virtual faith, or by a general, and as it were, a negative faith, whereby they are not denied or contradicted. now our question is in case that divine truths, although not fundamental, be denied and contradicted; and therefore, even according to him, all such denial excludes salvation. after, he speaks more plainly. it is true (saith he) whatsoever (d) pag. 212. is revealed in scripture, or prepounded by the church out of scripture, is in some sense fundamental, in regard of the divine authority of god, and his word, by which it is recommended: that is, such as may not be denied, or contradicted without infidelity: such as every christian is bound with himility, and reverence to believe, whensoever the knowledge thereof is offered to him. and further: where (e) pag. 250. the revealed will or word of god is sufficiently propounded; there he that opposeth, is convinced of error, and he who is thus convinced is an heretic, and heresy is a work of the flesh which excludeth from heaven. (gal. 5.20.21.) and hence it followeth, that it is fundamental to a christians faith, and necessary for his salvation, that he believe all revealed truths of god, whereof he may be convinced that they are from god. can any thing be spoken more crearely or directly for us, that it is a fundamental error to deny any one point, though never so small, if once it be sufficiently propounded, as a divine truth, and that there is, in this sense, no distinction betwixt points fundamental, and not fundamental? and if any should chance to imagine, that it is against the foundation of faith, not to believe points fundamental, although they be not sufficiently propounded, d. potter doth not admit of this (f) pag. 246. difference betwixt points fundamental, and not fundamental. for he teacheth, that sufficient proposition of revealed truth is required before a man can be convinced, and for want of sufficient conviction he excuseth the disciples from heresy, although they believed not our saviour's resurrection, (g) pag. 246. which is a very fundamental point of faith. thus than i argue out of d. potter's own confesson: no error is damnable unless the contrary truth be sufficiently propounded as revealed by god: every error is damnable, if the contrary truth be sufficiently propounded as revealed by god: therefore all errors are alike for the general effect of damnation, if the difference arise not from the manner of being propounded. and what now is become of their distinction? 5. i will therefore conclude with this argument. according to all philosophy and divinity, the unity, and distinction of every thing followeth the nature & essence thereof, and therefore if the nature and being of faith, be not taken from the matter which a man believes, but from the motive for which he believes, (which is god's word or revelation) we must likewise affirm that the unity, and diversity of faith, must be measured by god's revelation (which is alike for all objects) and not by the smallness, or greatness of the matter which we believe. now, that the nature of faith is not taken from the greatness, or smallness of the things believed, is manifest; because otherwise one who believes only fundamental points, and another who together with them, doth also believe points not fundamental, should have faith of different natures, yea there should be as many differences of faith, as there are different points which men believe, according to different capacities, or instruction etc. all which consequences are absurd, & therefore we must say, that unity in faith doth not depend upon points fundamental, or not fundamental, but upon god's revelation equally or unequally proposed: and protestants pretending an unity only by reason of their agreement in fundamental points, do indeed induce as great a multiplicity of faith as there is multitude of different objects which are believed by them, & since they disagree in things equally revealed by almighty god, it is evident that they forsake the very formal motive of faith, which is god's revelation and consequently lose all faith, and unity therein. 6. the first part of the title of this chapter (that the distinction of points fundamental & not fundamental in the sense of protestants, is both impertinent and untrue) being demonstrated; let us now come to the second: that the church is infallible in all her definitions, whether they concern points fundamental, or not fundamental. and this i prove by these reasons. 7. it hath been showed in the prcedent chapter, that the church is judge of controversies in religion; which she could not be, if she could err in any one point, as doctor potter would not deny, if he were once persuaded that she is judge. because if she could err in some points, we could not rely upon her authority and judgement in any one thing. 8. this same is proved by the reason we alleged before, that seeing the church was infallible in all her definitions ere scripture was written (unless we will take away all certainty of faith for that time) we cannot with any show of reason affirm, that she hath been deprived thereof by the adjoined comfort, & help of sacred writ. 9 moreover to say, that the catholic church may propose any false doctrine, maketh her liable to damnable sin and error; & yet d. potter teacheth that the church cannot err damnably. for if in that kind of oath, which divines call assertorium, wherein god is called to witness, every falsehood is a deadly sin in any private person whatsoever, although the thing be of itself neither material, nor prejudicial to any; because the quantity, or greatness of that sin is not measured so much by the thing which is affirmed, as by the manner, & authority whereby it is avouched, and by the injury that is offered to almighty god in applying his testimony to a falsehood: in which respect it is the unanimous consent of all divines, that in such kind of oaths, no levitas materiae, that is, smallness of matter, can excuse from a mortal sacrilege, against the moral virtue of religion which respects worship due to god: if, i say, every least falsehood be deadly sin in the foresaid kind of oath; much more pernicious a sin must it be in the public person of the catholic church to propound untrue articles of faith, thereby fastening gods prime verity to falsehood, and inducing and obliging the world to do the same. besides, according to the doctrine of all divines, it is not only injurious to god's eternal verity, to disbelieve things by him revealed, but also to propose as revealed truths, things not revealed: as in commonwealths it is a heinous offence to coin either by counterfeiting the mettle or the stamp, or to apply the king's seal to a writing counterfeit, although the contents were supposed to be true. and whereas, to show the detestable sin of such pernicious fictions, the church doth most exemplarly punish all broachers of feigned revelations, visions, miracles, prophecies &c. as in particular appeareth in the council of (h) sub leon. 10. sess. 11. lateran, excommunicating such persons; if the church herself could propose false revelations, she herself should have been the first, and chiefest deserver to have been censured, and as it were excommunicated by herself. for (as they holy ghost saith in (i) cap. 13. v. 7. job) doth god need your lie, that for him you may speak deceypts? and that of the apocalyps is most truly verified in fictitious revelations: if any (k) cap. vlt. v. 18. shals add to these things, god will add unto him the plagues which are written in this book: & d. potter saith, to add (l) pag. 222. to it (speaking of the creed) is high presumption, almost as great as to detract from it. and therefore to say the church may add false revelations, is to accuse her of high presumption, and of pernicious error excluding salvation. 10. perhaps some will here reply that although the church may err, yet it is not imputed to her for sin, by reason she doth not err upon malice, or wittingly, but by ignorance, or mistake. 11. but it is easily demonstrated that this excuse cannot serve. for if the church be assisted only for points fundamental, she cannot but know, that she may err in points not fundamental, at least she cannot be certain that she cannot err, & therefore cannot be excused from headlong & pernicious temerity, in proposing points not fundamental, to be believed by christians, as matters of faith, wherein she can have no certainty, yea which always imply a falsehood. for although the thing might chance to be true, and perhaps also revealed; yet for the matter she, for her part, doth always expose herself to danger of falsehood & error; and in fact doth always err in the manner in which she doth propound any matter not fundamental; because she proposeth it as a point of faith certainly true, which yet is always uncertain, if she in such things may be deceived. 12. besides, if the church may err in points not fundamental, she may err in proposing some scripture for canonical, which is not such: or else err in keeping and conserving from corruptions such scriptures as are already believed to be canonical. for i will suppose, that in such apocryphal scripture as she delivers, there is no fundamental error against faith, or that there is no falsehood at all but only want of divine testification in which case d. potter must either grant, that it is a fundamental error, to apply divine revelation to any point not revealed, or else must yield, that the church may err in her proposition, or custody of the canon of scripture: and so we cannot be sure whether she have not been deceived already, in books recommended by her, and accepted by christians. and thus we shall have no certainty of scripture, if the church want certainty in all her definitions. and it is worthy to be observed, that some books of scripture which were not always known to be canonical, have been afterward received for such; but never any one book, or syllable defined by the church to be canonical, was afterward questioned, or rejected for apocryphal. a sign, that god's church is infallibly assisted by the holy ghost, never to propose as divine truth, any thing not revealed by god: & that, omission to define points not sufficiently discussed is laudable, but commission in propounding things not revealed, inexcusable; into which precipitation our saviour christ never hath, nor never will permit his church to fall. 13. nay, to limit the general promises of our saviour christ made to his church to points only fundamental, namely, that the gates (m) matt. 16.18. of hell shall not prevail against her: and that, the holy ghost (n) joan. 16.13. shall lead her into all truth etc. is to destroy all faith. for we may by that doctrine, and manner of interpreting the scripture, limit the infallibility of the apostles words, & preaching, only to points fundamental: and whatsoever general texts of scripture shall be alleged for their infallibility, they may, by d. potter's example be explicated, & restrained to points fundamental. by the same reason it may be further affirmed, that the apostles, and other writers of canonical scripture, were endued with infallibility, only in setting down points fundamental. for if it be urged, that all scripture is divinely inspired; that it is the word of god etc. d. potter hath afforded you a ready answer to say, that scripture is inspired &c. only in those parts, or parcels, wherein it delivereth fundamental points. in this manner d. fotherbie saith: the apostle (o) in his sermonsserm: 2. pag. 50. twice in one chapter professed, that this he speaketh, & not the lord; he is very well content that where he lacks the warrant of the express word of god, that part of his writings should be esteemed as the word of man. d. potter also speaks very dangerously towards this purpose, sect. 5. where he endeavoureth to prove, that the infallibility of the church is limited to points fundamental, because as nature, so god is neither defective in (p) pag. 150. necessaries, nor lavish in superfluities. which reason doth likewise prove that the infallibility of scripture, and of the apostles must be restrained to points necessary to salvation, that so god be not accused, as defective in necessaries, or lavish in superfluities. in the same place he hath a discourse much tending to this purpose, where speaking of these words: the spirit shall lead you into all truth, and shall abide with (q) joan. c. 16.13. etc. 14.16. you for ever, he saith: though that promise was (r) pag. 151.152. directly, and primarily made to the apostles (who had the spirits guidance in a more high and absolute manner, than any since them) yet it was made to them for the behoof of the church, and is verified in the church universal. but all truth is not simply all, but all of some kind. to be led into all truths, is to know, and believe them. and who is so simple as to be ignorant, that there are many millions of truths (in nature, history, divinity) whereof the church is simply ignorant. how many truths lie unrovealed in the infinite treasury of god's wisdom, wherewith the church is not acquainted etc. so then, the truth itself enforceth us to understand by (all truths) not simply all, not all which god can possibly reveal, but all pertaining to the substance of faith, all truth absolutely necessary to salvation. mark what he saith. that promise (the spirit shall lead you into all truth,) was made directly to the apostles, & is verified in the universal church, but by all truth is not understood simply all, but all appertaining to the substance of faith, and absolutely necessary to salvation. doth it not hence follow, that the promise made to the apostles of being led into all truth, is to be understood only of all truth absolutely necessary to salvation? & consequently their preaching, and writing, were not infallible in points not fundamental? or if the apostles were infallible in all things which they proposed as divine truth, the like must be affirmed of the church, because d. potter teacheth, the said promise to be verified in the church. and as he limits the aforesaid words to points fundamental; so may he restrain what other text soever that can be brought for the universal infallibility of the apostles or seriptures. so he may; and so he must, lest otherwise he receive this answer of his own from himseife, how many truths lie unrevealed in the infinite treasury of god's wisdom, wherewith the church is not acquainted? and therefore to verify such general sayings, they must be understood of truths absolutely necessary to salvation. are not these fearful consequences? and yet d. potter will never be able to avoid them, till he come to acknowledge the infallibility of the church in all points by her proposed as divine truths; & thus it is universally true that she is lead into all truth, in regard that our saviour never permits her to define, or teach any falsehood. 14. all, that with any colour may be replied to this argument is; that if once we call any one book, or parcel of scripture in question; although for the matter it contain no fundamental error, yet it is of great importance and fundamental, by reason of the consequence; because if once we doubt of one book received for canonical, the whole canon is made doubtful and uncertain, and therefore the infallibility of scripture must be universal, and not confined within compass of points fundamental. 15. i answer: for the thing itself it is very true, that if i doubt of any one parcel of scripture received for such, i may doubt of all: and thence by the same parity i infer, that if we did doubt of the church's infallibility in some points, we could not believe her in any one, and consequently not in propounding canonical books, or any other points fundamental, or not fundamental; which thing being most absurd, and withal most impious, we must take away the ground thereof, & believe that she cannot err in any point great or small: and so this reply doth much more strengthen what we intended to prove. yet i add, that protestants cannot make use of this reply, with any good coherence to this their distinction, and some other doctrines which they defend. for if d. potter can tell what points in particular be fundamental (as in his 7. sect. he pretendeth) than he may be sure, that whensoever he meets with such points in scripture, in them it is infallibly true, although it might err in others: & not only true, but clear, because protestants teach, that in matters necessary to salvation, the scripture is so clear, that all such necessary truths are either manifestly contained therein, or may be clearly deduced from it. which doctrines being put together, to wit: that scriptures cannot err in points fundamental; that they clearly contain all such points; and that they can tell what points in particular be such, i mean fundamental; it is manifest, that it is sussicient for salvation, that scripture be infallible only in points fundamental. for supposing these doctrines of theirs to be true, they may be sure to find in scripture all points necessary to salvation, although it were fallible in other points of less moment. neither will they be able to avoid this impiety against holy scripture, till they renounce their other doctrines: and in particular, till they believe that christ's promises to his church, are not limited to points fundamental. 16. besides, from the fallibility of christ's catholic church in some points, it followeth, that no true protestant learned, or unlearned, doth or can with assurance believe the universal church in any one point of doctrine. not in points of lesser moment, which they call not fundamental; because they believe that in such points she may err. not in fundamentals; because they must know what points be fundamental, before they go to learn of her, lest other wise they be rather deluded, then instructed; in regard that her certain, and infallible direction extends only to points fundamental. now, if before they address themselves to the church, they must know what points are fundamental, they learn not of her, but will be be as fit to teach, as to be taught by her: how then are all christians so often, so seriously, upon so dreadful menaces, by fathers, scriptures, and our blessed saviour himself, counselled and commanded to seek, to hear, to obey the church? s. augustine was of a very different mind from protestants: if (saith he) the (s) epist. 118. church through the whole world practise any of these things, to dispute whether that aught to be so done, is a most insolent madness. and in another place he saith. that which (t) lib. 4. de bapt. c. 24. the whole church holds, and is not ordained by counsels, but hath always been kept, is most rightly believed to be delivered by apostolical authority. the same holy father teacheth, that the custom of baptising children cannot be proved by scripture alone, and yet that it is to be believed, as derived from the apostles. the custom of our mother the (u) lib. 10. de genesi ad litter. cap. 23. church (saith he) in baptising infants is in no wise to be contemned, nor to be accounted superfluous, nor is it at all to be believed, unless it were an apostolical tradition. and elsewhere. christ (w) serm. 54. de verbis apost. c. 18. is of profit to children baptised; is he therefore of profit to persons not believing? but god forbidden, that i should say infants do not believe. i have already said, he believes in another, who sinned in another. it is said, he believes, & it is of force, and he is reckoned among the faithful that are baptised. this the authority of our mother the church hath; against this strength, against this invincible wall whosoever rusheth shallbe crushed in pieces. to this argument the protestants in the conference at ratisbon, gave this round answer: nos ab augustino (x) see protocol. monac. edit. 2. pag. 367. hac in parte liberè dissentimus. in this we plainly disagree from augustine. now if this doctrine of baptising infants be not fundamental in d. potter's sense, then according to s. augustine, the infallibility of the church extends to points not fundamental. but if on the other side it be a fundamental point; then according to the same holy doctor, we must rely on the authority of the church, for some fundamental point, not contained in scripture, but delivered by tradition. the like argument i frame out of the same father about the not rebaptising of those who were baptised by heretics, whereof he excellently to our present purpose speaketh in this manner. we follow (y) lib. 1. cont. crescon. cap. 32. & 33. indeed in this matter even the most certain authority of canonical scriptures. but how? consider his words: although verily there be brought no example for this point out of the canonical scriptures, yet even in this point the truth of the same scriptures is held by us, while we do that, which the authority of scriptures doth recommend, that so, because the holy scripture cannot deceive us, whosoever is afraid to be deceived by the obscurity of this question, must have recourse to the same church concerning it, which without any ambiguity the holy scripture doth demonstrate to us. among many other points in the aforesaid words, we are to observe, that according to this holy father, when we prove some points not particularly contained in scripture, by the authority of the church, even in that case we ought not to be said to believe such points without scripture, because scripture itself recommends the church; and therefore relying on her we rely on scripture, without danger of being deceived by the obscurity of any question defined by the church. and else where he saith: this is (z) de unit. eccles. c. 19 written in no scripture, we must believe the testimony of the church, which christ declareth to speak the truth. but it seems d. potter is of opinion that this doctrine about not rebaptising such as were baptised by heretics, is no necessary point of faith, nor the contrary an heresy: wherein he contradicteth s. augustine, from whom we have now heard, that what the church teacheth, is truly said to be taught by scripture; and consequently to deny this particular point, delivered by the church, is to oppose scripture itself. yet if he will needs hold, that this point is not fundamental, we must conclude out of s. augustine, (as we did concerning the baptising of children) that the infallibility of the church reacheth to points not fundamental. the same father in another place, concerning this very question of the validity of baptism conferred by heretics, saith: the (a) de bapt. cont. donat. lib. 5. cap. 23. apostles indeed have prescribed nothing of this, but this custom ought to be believed to be originally taken from their tradition, as there are many things that the universal church observeth which are therefore with good reason believed to have been commanded by the apostles, although they be not written. no less clear is s. chrysostome for the infallibility of the traditions of the church. for treating these words (2. thess. 2. stand, and hold the traditions which you have learned whether by speech or by our epistle) saith: hence it is (b) hom. 4. manifest that they delivered not all things by letter, but many things also without writing, & these also are worthy of belief. let us therefore account the tradition of the church to be worthy of belief. it is a tradition: seek no more. which words are so plain against protestants, that whitaker is as plain with s. chrysostome, saying: i answer (c) de sacra script. pag. 678. that this is an inconsiderate speech, and unworthy so great a father. but let us conclude with s. augustine, that the church cannot approve any error against faith, or good manners. the church (saith he) being (d) ep. 119. placed betwixt much chaffe & cockle, doth tolerate many things; but yet she doth not approve, nor dissemble, nor do those things which are against faith, or good life. 17. and as i have proved that protestants, according to their grounds, cannot yield infallible assent to the church in any one point: so by the same reason i prove, that they cannot rely upon scripture itself in any one point of saith. not in points of lesser moment (or not fundamental,) because in such points the catholic church, (according to d. potter) and much more any protestant may err, & think it is contained in scripture, when it is not. not in points fundamental, because they must first know what points be fundamental, before they can be assured, that they cannot err in understanding the scripture, and consequently independantly of scripture, they must foreknow all fundamental points of faith: and therefore they do not indeed rely upon scripture, either for fundamental, or not fundamental points. 18. besides, i mainly urge d. potter, and other protestants, that they tell us of certain points which they call fundamental, and we cannot wrest from them a list in particular of such points, without which no man can tell whether or no he err in points fundamental, and be capable of salvation. and which is most lamentable, instead of giving us such a catalogue, they fall to wrangle among themselves about the making of it. 19 caluin holds the (e) instit. l. 4. çap. 2. pope's primacy. invocation of saints, freewill, and such like, to be fundamental errors overthrowing the gospel. others are not of his mind, as melancthon who saith, in (f) cent. ep. theolog. cp. 74. the opinion of himself, and other his brethren, that the monarchy of the bishop of rome is of use, or profit to this end, that consent of doctrine may be retained. an agreement therefore may easily be established in this article of the pope's primacy, if other articles could be agreed upon. if the pope's primacy be a means, that consent of doctrine may be retained, first submit to it, and other articles willbe easily agreed upon. luther also saith of the pope's primacy, it may be borne (g) in assertionibus art. 36. with●●. and why then, o luther, did you not bear with it? and how can you, and your followers be excused from damnable schism, who chose rather to divide god's church, then to bear with that, which you confess may be borne withal? but let us go forward. that the doctrine of freewill, prayer for the dead, worshipping of images, worship and invocation of saints, real presence, transubstantiation, receiving under one kind, satisfaction, and merit of works, and the mass, be not fundamental errors, is taught (respectiuè) by diverse protestants, carefully alleged in the protestants (h) tract 2. cap. 2. sect. 14. after f. apology &c. as namely by perkins, cartwright, frith, fulke, henry spark, goad, luther, reynolds, whitaker, tindal, francis fohnson, with others. contrary to these, is the confession of the christian faith, so called by protestant's, which i mentioned (i) cap. 1. n. 4. heretofore, wherein we are damned unto unquenchable fire, for the doctrine of mass, prayer to saints, and for the dead, freewill, presence at idol-service, man's merit, with such like. justification by saith alone is by some protestants affirmed to be the soul of the (k) chark. in the tower disputation the 4. days conference. church: the only principal origen of (l) fox act. monn. pag. 402. salvation: of all other points of (m) the confession of bohemia in the harmony of confessions pag. 253. doctrine the chiefest and weightiest. which yet, as we have seen, is contrary to other protestants, who teach that merit of good works is not a fundamental error; yea, diverse protestants defend merit of good works, as may be seen in (n) tract. 3. sect. 7. under nt. n. 15. brereley. one would think that the king's supremacy, for which some blessed men lost their lives was once among protestants held for a capital point; but now d. andrew's late of winchester in his book against bellarmine tells us, that it is sufficient to reckon it among true doctrines. and wotton denies that protestants (o) in his answer to a popish pamphlet. p. 68 hold the king's supremacy to be an essential point of faith. o freedom of the new gospel? hold with catholics, the pope; or with protestants, the king; or with puritans, neither pope, nor king, to be head of the church, all is one, you may be saved. some, as castalio, (p) vid. gul. reginald. caln. turcism. lib. 2. çap. 6. and the whole sect of the academical protestants, hold, that doctrines about the supper, baptism, the state and office of christ, how he is one with his father, the trinity, predestination, and diverse other such questions are not necessary to salvation. and (that you may observe how ungrounded, and partial their assertions be) perkins teacheth, that the real presence of our saviour's body in the sacrament as it is believed by catholics, is a fundamental error; and yet affirmeth the consubstantiation of lutherans not to be such, notwithstanding that diverse chief lutherans, to their consubstantiation join the prodigious heresy of vbiquitation. d. vshher in his sermon of the unity of the catholic faith, grants salvation to the aethiopians, who yet with christian baptism join circuncision d. potter (q) pag. 113.114. cities the doctrine of some whom he termeth men of great learning and judgement: that, all who profess to love and honour jesus-christ are in the visible christian church, and by catholics to be reputed brethren. one of these men of great learning and judgement, is thomas morton by d. potter cited in his margin, whose love & honour to jesus-christ, you may perceive, by his saying, that the churches of arians (who denied our saviour christ to be god) are to be accounted the church of god, because they do hold the foundation of the gospel, morton in his treatise of the king doom of israel. pag. 94. which is faith in jesus-christ the son of god, and saviour of the world. and, which is more, it seemeth by these charitable men, that for being a member of the church it is not necessary to believe one only god. for d. potter (r) pag. 121. among the arguments to prove hooker's, & mortons' opinion, brings this: the people of the ten tribes after their defection, notwithstanding their gross corruptions, and idolatry, remained still a true church. we may also, as it seemeth by these men's reasoning, deny the resurrection, and yet be members of the true church. for a learned man (saith d. potter (s) pag. 122. in behalf of hooker's, and mortons' opinion) was anciently made a bishop of the catholic church, though he did professedly doubt of the last resurrection of our bodies. dear sautour! what times do we behold? if one may be a member of the true church, and yet deny the trinity of persons, the god head of our saviour, the necessity of baptism, if we may use circumcision, and with the worship of god join idolatry, wherein do we differ from turks, and jews? or rather are we not worse, then either of them? if they who deny our saviour's divinity might be accounted the church of god, how will they deny that favour to those ancient heretics, who denied our saviour's true humanity? and so the total deny all of christ will not exclude one from being a member of the true church. s. huary (t) comment. in matt. c. 16. maketh it of equal necessity for salvation, that we believe our saviour to be true god, and true man, saying: this manner of confession we are to hold, that we remember him to be the son of god, and the son of man, because the one without the other, can give no hope of salvation. and yet d. potter saith of the aforesaid doctrine of hooker and morton: the (u) pag. 123. reader may be pleased to approve, or reject it, as he shall find cause. and in another place (w) pag. 253. he showeth so much good liking of this doctrine, that he explicateth and proveth the church's perpetual visibility by it. and in the second edition of his book, he is careful to declare, and illustrate it more at large then he had done before: howsoever, this sufficiently showeth, that they have no certainty, what points be fundamental. as for the arians in particular, the author whom d. potter cities for a moderate catholic, but is indeed a plain heretic, or rather atheist, lucianlike resting at all religion, placeth arianisme among fundamental errors: but (x) a moderate examination etc. ç. 1. paulo post initiu●●. contrarily an english protestant divine masked under the name of irenaeus philalethes, in a little book in latin entitled, dissertatio de pace & concordiae ecclesiae, endeavoureth to prove, that even the denial of the blessed trinity may stand with salvation. divers protestants have taught, that the roman church, erreth in fundamental points: but d. potter, and others teach the contrary, which could not happen if they could agree what be fundamental points. you brand the donatists with the note of an error, in the matter (y) pag. 126 and nature of it properly heretical; because they taught that the church remained only with them, in the part of donatus: and yet many protestants are so far from holding that doctrine to be a fundamental error, that themselves go further, and say; that for diverse ages before luther there was no true visible church at all. it is then too too apparent, that you have no agreement in specifying, what be fundamental points; neither have you any means to determine what they be; for if you have any such means, why do you not agree? you tell us, the creed contains all points fundamental, which although it were true, yet you see it serves not to bring you to a particular knowledge, and agreement in such points. and no wonder. for (besides what i have said already in the beginning of this chapter, & am to deliver more at large in the next) after so much labour and paperspent to prove that the creed contains all fundamental points, you conclude: it remains (a) pag. 241. very probable, that the creed is the perfect summary of those fundament all truths, whereof consists the unity of faith, and of the catholic church. very probable? then, according to all good logic, the contrary may remain very probable, and so all remain as full of uncertainty, as before. the whole rule, say you, & the fol judge of your faith, must be scripture. scripture doth indeed deliver divine truths, but feldome doth qualify them, or declare whether they be, or be not, absolutely necessary to salvation. you fall (b) pag. 215 heavy upon charity mistaken, because he demands a particular catalogue of fundamental points, which yet you are obliged in conscience to do, if you be able. for without such a catalogue, no man can be assured whether or no, he have faith sufficient to salvation. and therefore take it not in ill part, if we again and again demand such a catalogue. and that you may see we proceed fairly, i will perform, on our behalf, what we request of you, & do here deliver a catalogue, wherein are comprised all points by us taught to be necessary to salvation, in these words: we are obliged, under pain of damnation, to believe whatsoever the catholic visible church of christ proposeth, as renealed by almighty god. if any be of another mind, all catholics denounce him to be no catholic. but enough of this. and i go forward with the infallibility of the church in all points. 20. for, even out of your own doctrine that the church cannot err in points necessary to salvation, any wise man will infer, that it behoves all, who have care of their souls, not to forsake her in any one point. 1. because they are assured, that although her doctrine proved not to be true in some point, yet even according to d. potter, the error cannot be fundamental, nor destructive of faith, and salvation: neither can they be accused of any least imprudence in erring (if it were possible) with the universal church. secondly, since she is, under pain of eternal damnation, to be believed, and obeyed in some things, wherein confessedly she is endued with infallibility; i cannot in wisdom suspect her credit in matters of less moment. for who would trust another in matters of highest consequence, and be afraid to rely on him in things of less moment? thirdly, since (as i said) we are undoubtedly obliged not to forsake her in the chiefest, or fundamental points, and that there is no rule to know precisely what, and how many those fundamental points be; i cannot without hazard of my soul, leave her in any one point, lest perhaps that point or points wherein i forsake her, prove indeed to be fundamental, and necessary to salvation. fourthly, that visible church which can not err in points fundamental, doth without distinction, propound all her definitions concerning matters of faith to be believed under anathemas or curses, esteeming all those who resist, to be deservedly cast out of her communion, and holding it as a point necessary to salvation, that we believe she cannot err: wherein if she speak true, then to deny any one point in particular, which she defineth, or to affirm in general, that she may err, puts a man into state of damnation. whereas to believe her in such points as are not necessary to salvation, can not endanger salvation; as likewise to remain in her communion, can bring no great harm, because she cannot maintain any damnable error, or practise: but to be divided from her (she being christ's catholic church) is most certainly damnable. fifthly, the true church, being in lawful, and certain possession of superiority and power, to command & require obedience, from all christians in some things; i cannot without grievous sin withdraw my obedience in any one, unless i evidently know, that the thing commanded comes not within the compass of those things to which her power extendeth. and who can better inform me, how far god's church can proceed, than god's church herself? or to what doctor can the children, and schoollers, with greater reason, and more security, fly for direction, then to the mother, and appointed teacher of all christians? in following her, i shall sooner be excused, then in cleaving to any particular sect, or person, teaching, or applying scriptures against her doctrine, or interpretation. sixtly, the fearful examples of innumerable persons who forsaking the church upon pretence of her errors, have failed, even in fundamental points, and suffered ship wrack of their salvation ought to deter all christians, from opposing her in any one doctrine, or practise: as (to omit other, both ancient and modern heresies) we see that diverse chief protestants, pretending to reform the corruptions of the church, are come to affirm, that for many ages, she erred to death, and wholly perished; which d. potter, cannot deny to be a fundamental error against that article of our creed, i believe the catholic church, as he affirmeth it of the donatists, because they confined the universal church within afirica, or some other small tract of soil. lest therefore i may fall into some fundamental error, it is most safe for me to believe all the decrees of that church, which cannot err fundamentally: especially if we add; that according to the doctrine of catholic divines, one error in faith, whether it be for the matter if self, great or small, destroys faith, as is hewed in charity mistaken; and consequently to accuse the church of any one error, is to affirm, that the lost all faith, and erred damnably: which very saying is damnable, because at leaves christ no visible church on earth. 21. to all these arguments i add this demonstration: d. potter teacheth, that there neither was (c) pag. 75. nor can be any just cause to departed from the church of christ, no more then from christ himself. but if the church of christ can err in some points of faith, men not only may, but must forsake her in those, (unless d. potter will have them to believe one thing, and profess another:) and if such errors, and corruptions should fall out to be about the church's liturgy, public service, administration of sacraments, & the like; they who perceive such errors, must of necessity leave her external communion. and therefore if once we grant the church may err, it followeth that men may, and aught to forsake her (which is against d. potter's own words,) or else they are inexcusable who left the communion of the roman church, under pretence of errors, which they grant, not to be fundamental. and if d. potter think good to answer this argument, he must remember his own doctrine to be, that even the catholic church may err in points not fundamental. 22. an other argument for the universal infallibility of the church, i take out of d. potter's own words. if (saith he) we (d) pag. 97. did not descent in some opinions from the present roman church, we could not agree with the church truly catholic. these words cannot be true, unless he presuppose that the church truly catholic, cannot err in points not fundamental. for if she may err in such points, the roman church which he affirmeth to err only in points not fundamental, may agree with the church truly catholic, if she likewise may err in points not fundamental. therefore either he must acknowledge a plain contradiction in his own words, or else must grant, that the church truly catholic cannot err in points not fundamental, which is what we intended to prove. 23. if words cannot persuade you, that in all controversies you must rely upon the infallibility of the church; at least yield your assent to deeds. hither to i have produced arguments drawn, as it were, ex naturâ rei, from the wisdom, and goodness of god, who cannot fail to have left some infallible means to determine controversies, which, as we have proved, can be no other, except a visible church, infallible in all her definitions. but because both catholics and protestants, receive holy scripture, we may thence also prove the infallibility of the church in all matters which concern faith and religion. our saviour speaketh clearly: the gates of hell (e) matt. 16. shall not prevail against her. and, i will ask my (f) joan. 14. father, and he will give you another paraclete, that he may abide with you for ever, the spirit of truth. and, but when he, the spirit of (g) joan. 16. truth cometh, he shall teach you all truth. the apostle saith, that the church is, the pillar, and ground (h) 1. tim. cap. 3. of truth. and, he gave, some apostles, and some prophets, and other some evangelists, and other some pastors and doctors, to the consummation of the saints, unto the work of the ministry, unto the edifying of the body of christ: until we meet all into the unity of faith, and knowledge of the son of god, into a perfect man, into the measure of the age of the fullness of christ: that now we be not children wavering, and carried about with every wind of doctrine in the wiekednes of men, in craftiness, to the circumvention (i) ephes. 4. of error. all which words seem clearly enough to prove, that the church is universally infallible, without which, unity of faith could not be conserved against every wind of doctrine: and yet doctor potter (k) pag. 151.153. limits these promises & privileges to fundamental points, in which he grants the church cannot err. i urge the words of scripture, which are universal, and do not mention any such restraint. i allege that most reasonable, and received rule, that scripture is to be understood literally, as it soundeth, unless some manifest absurdity force us to the contrary. but all will not serve, to accord our different interpretations. in the mean time diverse of doctor potter's brethren step in, and reject his limitation, as over large, and some what tasting of papistry: and therefore they restrain the mentioned texts, either to the infallibility which the apostles, and other sacred writers had in penning of scripture: or else to the invisible church of the elect; and to them, not absolutely, but with a double restriction, that they shall not fall damnably, & finally; and other men have as much right as these, to interpose their opinion, & interpretation. behold we are three at debate about the self same words of scripture: we confer diverse places and text: we consult the originals: we examine translations: we endeavour to pray heartily: we profess to speak sincerely; to seek nothing but truth and salvation of our own souls, & that of our neighbours; and finally we use all those means, which by protestants themselves are prescribed for finding out the true meaning of scripture: nevertheless we neither do, or have any possible means to agree, as long as we are left to ourselves; and when we should chance to be agreed, the doubt would still remain whether the thing itself be a fundamental point or no: and yet it were great impiety to imagine that god, the lover of souls, hath left no certain infallible means, to decide both this, and all other differences arising about the interpretation of scripture, or upon any other occasion. our remedy therefore in these contentions must be, to consult, and hear god's visible church, with submissive acknowledgement of her power, and infallibility in whatsoever she proposeth as a revealed truth: according to that divine advice of s. augustine in these words. if at length (l) de util. pred. oap. 8. thou seem to be sufficiently tossed, and hast a desire to put an end to thy pains, follow the way of the catholic discipline, which from christ himself by the apostles hath come down even to us, and from us shall descend to all posterity. and though i conceive that the distinction of points fundamental, and not fundamental hath now been sufficiently confuted; yet that no shadow of difficulty may remain, i will particularly refel a common saying of protestants, that it is sufficient for salvation, to believe the apostles creed, which they hold to be a summary of all fundamental points of faith. chap. four to say, that the creed contains all points necessarily to be believed, is neither pertinent to the question in hand, nor in itself true. isay, neither pertinent, nor true. not pertinent: because our question is not, what points are necessary to be explicitly believed; but what points may be lawfully disbelieved, or rejected after sufficient proposition that they are divine truths. you say, the creed contains all points necessary to be believed. be it so. but doth it likewise contain all points not to be disbelieved? certainly it doth nor. for how many truths are there in holy scripture not contained in the creed, which we are not obliged distinctly, and particularly to know & believe, but are bound under pain of damnation not to reject, as soon as we come to know that they are found in holy scripture? and we having already showed, that whatsoever is proposed by god's church as a point of faith, is infallibly a truth revealed by god; it followeth that whosoever denyeth any such point, opposeth gods sacred testimony, whether that point be contained in the creed, or no. in vain then was your care employed to prove that all points of faith necessary to be explicitly believed, are contained in the creed. neither was that the catalogue which charity mistaken demanded. his demand was (and it was most reasonable) that you would once give us a list of all fundamentals, the denial whereof destroys salvation; whereas the denial of other points not fundamental, may stand with salvation, although both these kinds of points be equally proposed as revealed by god. for if they be not equally proposed, the difference will arise from diversity of the proposal, and not of the matter fundamentull, or not fundamental. this catalogue only, can show how fare protestants may disagree without breach of unity in faith; and upon this many other matters depend, according to the ground of protestants. but you will never adventure to publish such a catalogue. i say more: you cannot assign any one point so great, or fundamental, that the denial thereof will make a man an heretic, if it be not sufficiently propounded, as a divine truth: nor can you assign any one point so small, that it can without heresy be rejected, if once it be sufficiently represented as revealed by god. 2. nay, this your instance in the creed, is not only impertinent but directly against you. for, all points in the creed are not of their own nature fundamental, as i shown (a) chap. 3. n. 3. before: and yet it is damnable to deny any one point contained in the creed. so that it is clear, that to make an error damnable, it is not necessary that the matter be of itself fundamental. 3. moreover you cannot ground any certainty upon the creed itself, unless first you presuppose that the authority of the church is universally infallible, and consequently that it is damnable to oppose her declarations, whether they concern matters great, or small, contained, or not contained in the creed. this is clear. because we must receive the creed itself upon the credit of the church, without which we could not know that there was any such thing as that which we call the apostles creed: and yet the arguments whereby you endeavour to prove, that the creed contains all fundamental points, are grounded upon supposition, that the creed was made either by the apostles themselves, or by the (b) pag. 216 church of their times from them: which thing we could not certainly know, if the succeeding and still continued church, may err in her traditions: neither can we be assured, whether all fundamental articles which you say were out of the scriptures, summed, and contracted into the apostles creed, were faithfully summed and contracted, and not one pretermitted, altered, or mistaken, unless we undoubtedly know that the apostles composed the creed; and that they intended to contract all fundamental points of faith into it; or at least that the church of their times (for it seemeth you doubt whether indeed it were composed by the apostles themselves) did understand the apostles aright; & that the church of their times, did intent that the creed should contain all fundamental points. for if the church may err in points not fundamental, may she not also err in the particulars which i have specified? can you show it to be a fundamental point of faith, that the apostles intended to comprise all points of faith necessary to salvation in the creed? yourself say no more than that it is very (d) pag. 241. probable; which is fare from reaching to a fundamental point of faith. your probability is grounded upon the judgement of antiquity, and even of the roman doctors, as you say in the same place. but if the catholic church may err, what certainty can you expect from antiquity, or doctors? scripture is your total rule of faith. cite therefore some text of scripture, to prove that the apostles, or the church of their times composed the creed, and composed it with a purpose that it should contain all fundamental points of faith. which being impossible to be done, you must for the creed itself rely upon the infallibility of the church. 4. moreover, the creed consisteth not so much in the words, as in their sense and meaning. all such as pretend to the name of christians, recite the creed, & yet many have erred fundamentally, as well against the articles of the creed as other points of faith. it is then very frivolous to say, the creed contains all fundamental points, without specifying, both in what sense the articles of the creed be true, and also in what true sense, they be fundamental. for, both these tasks, you are to perform, who teach that all truth is not fundamental: & you do but delude the ignorant, when you say, that the creed, taken in a catholic (e) pag. 216. sense, comprehendeth all points fundamental; because with you, all catholic sense is not fundamental: for so it were necessary to salvation that all christians should know the whole scripture, wherein every least point hath a catholic sense. or if by catholic sense, you understand that sense which is so universally to be known, and believed by all, that whosoever fails therein cannot be saved, you trifle and say no more than this: all points of the creed in a sense necessary to salvation, are necessary to salvation. or: all points fundamental, are fundamental. after this manner it were an easy thing to make many true prognostications, by saying it will certainly rain, when it raineth. you say the creed (f) pag. 216. was opened and explained, in some parts in the creeds of nice etc. but how shall we understand the other parts, not explained in those creeds? 5. for what article in the creed is more fundamental, or may seem more clear, then that, wherein we believe jesus-christ to be the mediator, redeemer, and saviour of mankind, and the founder, and foundation of a catholic church expressed in the creed? and yet about this article, how many different doctrines are there, not only of old heretics, as arius, nestorius, eutiches etc. but also of protestants, partly against catholics, and partly against one another? for the said main article of christ's being the only saviour of the world etc. according to different senses of disagreeing sects, doth involve these, and many other such questions; that faith in jesus-christ doth justify alone; that sacraments have no efficiency in justification; that baptism doth not avail infants for salvation; unless they have an act of faith; that there is no sacerdotal absolution from sins; that good works proceeding from god's grace are not meritorious; that there can be no satisfaction for the temporal punishment due to sin after the guilt, or offence is pardoned; no, purgatory; no prayers for the dead; no sacrifice of the mass; no invocation; no mediation, or intercession of saints; no inherent justice: no supreme pastor, yea no bishop by divine ordinance; no real presence, no transubstantiation, with diverse others. and why? because (forsooth) these doctrines derogate from the titles of mediator, redeemer, advocate, foundation etc. yea and are against the truth of our saviour's humane nature, if we believe diverse protestants, writing against transubstantiation. let then any judicious man consider, whether doctor potter, or others do really satisfy, when they send men to the creed for a perfect catalogue, to distinguish points fundamental, from those which they say are not fundamental. if he will speak indeed to some purpose, let him say: this article is understood in this sense: and in this sense it is fundamental. that other is to be under stood in such a meaning; yet according to that meaning, it is not so fundamental, but that men may disagree, and deny it without damnation. but it were no policy for any protestant to deal so plainly. 6. but to what end should we use many arguments? even yourself are forced to limit your own doctrine, and come to say, that the creed is a perfect catalogue of fundamental points, taken as it was further opened and explained in some parts (by occasion of emergent horisies) in the other catholic creeds of nice, constantinople, (g) pag. 216. ephesus, chalcedon, and athanasius. but this explication, or restriction overthroweth your assertion. for as the apostles creed was not to us a sufficient catalogue, till it was explained by the first council, nor then till it was declared by another etc. so now also, as new heresies may arise, it will need particular explanation against such emergent errors; and so it is not yet, nor ever will be of itself alone, a particular catalogue, sufficient to distinguish betwixt fundamental, and not fundamental points. 7. i come to the second part: that the creed doth not contain all main and principal points of faith. and to the end we may not strive about things either granted by us both, or nothing concerning the point in question, i must premise these observations. 8. first: that it cannot be denied, but that the creed is most full and complete, to that purpose for which the holy apostles, inspired by god, meant that it should serve, and in that manner as they did intent it, which was, not to comprehend all particular points of faith, but such general heads, as were most befitting, and requisite for preaching the faith of christ to jews, and gentiles, and might be briefly, and compendiously set down, and easily learned, and remembered. and therefore, in respect of gentiles, the creed doth mention god, as creator of all things; and for both jews and gentiles, the trinity, the messiah, and saviour, his birth, life, death, resurrection, and glory, from whom they were to hope remission of sins, & life everlasting, and by whose sacred name they were to be distinguished from all other professions, by being called christians. according to which purpose s. thomas of aquine (h) 2.2. g. 1. art. 8. doth distinguish all the articles of the creed into these general heads: that some belong to the majesty of the godhead; others to the mystery of our saviour christ's humane nature: which two general objects of faith, the holy ghost doth express, and conjoin joan. 17. haec est vita aterna etc. this is life everlasting, that they know thee true god, and whom thou hast sent jesus christ. but it was not their meaning to give us as it were a course of divinity, or a catechism, or a particular expression of all points of faith, leaving those things to be performed, as occasion should require, by their own word or writing, for their time, and afterwards by their successors in the catholic church. our question then is not, whether the creed be perfect, as far as the end for which it was composed, did require; for we believe & are ready to give our lives for this: but only we deny, that the apostles did intent to comprise therein all particular points of belief, necessary to salvation, as even by d. potter's own (i) pag. 235.215. confession, it doth not comprehend agenda, or things belonging to practise, as sacraments, commandments, the acts of hope, and duties of charity, which we are obliged not only to practise, but also to beliene by divine infallible faith. will he therefore infer that the creed is not perfect, because it contains not all those necessary, and fundamental objects of faith? he will answer. no: because the apostles intended only to express credenda, things to be believed, not practised. let him therefore give us leave to say, that the creed is perfect, because it wanteth none of those objects of belief which were intended to be set down, as we explicated before. 9 the second observation is, that to satisfy our question what points in particular been fundamental, it will not be sufficient to allege the creed, unless it contain all such points either expressly & immediately; or else in such manner, that by evident, and necessary consequence they may be deduced from articles both clearly, and particularly contained therein. for if the deduction be doubtful, we shall not be sure, that such conclusions be fundamental: or if the articles themselves which are said to be fundamental, be not distinctly, and particularly expressed, they will not serve us to know, and distinguish all points fundamental, from those which they call, not fundamental. we do not deny, but that all points of faith, both fundamental, and not fundamental, may be said to be contained in the creed in some sense; as for example, implicitly, generally, or in some such involved manner. for when we explicitly believe the catholic church, we do implicitly believe whatsoever she proposeth as belonging to faith. or else by way of reduction, that is, when we are once instructed in the belief of particular points of faith, not expressed, nor by necessary consequence deducible from the creed; we may afterward, by some analogy, or proportion, and resemblance, reduce it to one, or more of those articles which are explicitly contained in the symbol. thus s. thomas the cherubin among divines teacheth (l) 2. 23 q. ●● art. 8. ad 6. that the miraculous existence of our blessed saviour's body in the eucharist, as likewise all his other miracles, are reduced to god's omnipotency, expressed in the creed. and doctor potter saith: the eucharist (m) pag. 2●●. being a seal of that holy union which we have with christ our head, by his spirit and faith, and with the saints his members by charity, is evidently included in the communion of saints. but this reductive way, is fare from being sufficient to infer out of the articles of god's omnipotency, or of the communion of saints, that our saviour's body is in the eucharist, and much less whether it be only in figure, or else in reality; by transubstantiation, or consubstantiation etc. and least of all, whether or no these points be fundamental. and you hyperbolise, in saying, the eucharist is evidently included in the communion of saints, as if there could not have been, or was not a communion of saints, before the blessed sacrament was instituted. yet it is true, that after we know, and believe, there is such a sacrament, we may refer it to some of those heads expressed in the creed, and yet so, as s. thomas refers it to one article, and d. potter to another; and in respect of different analogies or effects, it may be referred to several articles. the like i say of other points of faith, which may in some sort be reduced to the creed, but nothing to d. potter's purpose: but contrarily it showeth, that your affirming such and such points to be fundamental or not fundamental, is merely arbitrary, to serve your turn, as necessity, and your occasions may require. which was an old custom amongst heretics, as we read in (n) de peccat. orig. count. pelag. l. 2. cap. 22. s. augustine. pelagius and celestius, desiring fraudulently to avoid the hateful name of heresies, affirmed that the question of original sin may be disputed without danger of faith. but this holy father affirms that it belongs to the foundation of faith. we may (saith he) endure a disputant who errs in other questions not yet diligently examined, not yet diligently established by the whole authority of the church, their error may be borne with: but it must not pass so far as to attempt to shake the foundation of the church. we see s. augustine places the being of a point fundamental or not fundamental, in that it hath been examined, and established by the church, although the point of which he speaketh, namely original sin, be not contained in the creed. 10. out of that which hath been said, i infer, that doctor potter's pains in alleging catholic doctors, the ancient fathers, and the council of trent, to prove that the creed contains all points of faith, was needless, since we grant it in manner aforesaid. but doctor potter, can not in his conscience believe, that catholic divines, or the council of trent, and the holy fathers did intent, that all points in particular which we are obliged to believe, are contained explicitly in the creed; he knowing well enough, that all catholics hold themselves obliged, to believe all those points which the said council defines to be believed under an anathema, and that all christians believe the commandments, sacraments etc. which are not expressed in the creed. 11. neither must this seem strange. for who is ignorant, that summaries, epitom'es, & the like brief abstracts, are not intended to specify all particulars of that science, or subject to which they belong. for as the creed is said to contain all points of faith; so the decalogue comprehends all articles, (as i may term them) which concern charity, and good life: and yet this cannot be so understood, as if we were disobliged from performance of any duty, or the eschewing of any vice, unless it be expressed in the ten commandments. for, (to omit the precepts of receiving sacraments, which belong to practise, or manners, and yet are not contained in the decalogue) there are many sins, even against the law of nature, and light of reason, which are not contained in the ten commandments, except only by similitude, analogy, reduction, or some such way. for example, we find not expressed in the decalogue, either diverse sins, as gluttony, drunkenness, pride, sloth, covetousness in desiring either things superfluous, or with too much greediness; or diverse of our chief obligations, as obedience to princes, and all superiors, not only ecclesiastical but also civil, whose laws luther, melancthon, caluin, and some other protestants do dangerously affirm not to oblige in conscience, and yet these men think they know the ten commandments: as likewise diverse protestants defend usury, to be lawful; and the many treatises of civilians, canonists, and casuists, are witnesses, that diverse sins against the light of reason, and law of nature are not distinctly expressed in the ten commandments; although when by other diligences they are found to be unlawful, they may be reduced to some of the commandments, and yet not so evidently, and particularly, but that diverse do it in diverse manners. 12. my third observation is: that our present question being, whether or no the creed contain so fully all fundamental points of faith, that whosoever do not agree in all, and every one of those fundamental articles, cannot have the same substance of faith, nor hope of salvation; if i can produce one, or more points, not contained in the creed, in which if too do not agree, both of them cannot expect to be saved, i shall have performed as much as i intent; and d. potter must seek out some other catalogue for points fundamental, than the creed. neither is it material to the said purpose, whether such fundamental points rest only in knowledge, and speculation or belief, or else be further referred to work and practise. for the habit, or virtue of faith, which inclineth and enableth us to believe both speculative, and practical verities, is of one and the self same nature, and essence. for example, by the same faith, whereby i speculatively believe there is a god, i likewise believe, that he is to be adored, served, and loved, which belong to practise. the reason is, because the formal object, or motive, for which i yield assent to those different sorts of material objects, is the same in both, to wit, the revelation, or word of god. where by the way i note, that if the unity, or distinction, and nature of faith, were to be taken from the diversity of things revealed, by one faith i should believe speculative verities, and by another such as tend to practise, which i doubt whether d. potter himself will admit. 13. hence it followeth, that whosoever denieth any one main practical revealed truth, is no less an heretic, then if he should deny a point resting in belief alone. so that when d. potter, (to avoid our argument, that all fundamental points are not contained in the creed, because in it there is no mention of the sacraments, which yet are points of so main importance, that protestants make the due administration of them to be necessary & essential to constitute a church) answereth, that the sacraments are to be (p) pag. 235. reckoned, rather among the agenda of the church, than the credenda; they are rather divine rites & ceremonies, than doctrines, he either grants what we affirm, or in effect says; of two kinds of revealed truths, which are necessary to be believed, the creed contains one sort only, ergo, it contains all kind of revealed truths necessary to be believed. our question is not, de nomine but re; not what be called points of faith, or of practice, but what points indeed be necessarily to be believed, whether they be termed agenda, or credenda: especially the chiefest part of christian perfection consisting more in action, then in barren speculation; in good works, then bare belief; in doing, then knowing. and there are no less contentions concerning practical, then speculative truths: as sacraments, obtaining remission of sin, invocation of saints, prayers for dead, adoration of christ in the sacrament, & many other: all which do so much the more import, as on them, beside right belief, doth also depend our practice, and the ordering of our life. though d. potter could therefore give us (as he will never be able to do) a minute, and exact catalogue of all truths to be believed; that would not make me able enough to know, whether or no i have faith sufficient for salvation; till he also did bring in a particular list, of all believed truths, which tend to practise, declaring which of them be fundamental, which not, that so every man might know whether he be not in some damnable error, for some article of faith, which further might give influence into damnable works. 14. these observations being premised, i come to prove, that the creed doth not contain all points of faith necessary to be known, & believed. and, to omit that in general it doth not tell us, what points be fundamental, or not fundamental, which in the way of protestants, is most necessary to be known; in particular, there is no mention of the greatest evils, from which man's calamity proceeded, i mean, the sin of the angels, of auam, and of original sin in us: not of the greatest good from which we expect all good, to wit, the necessity of grace for all works tending to piety. nay, there is no mention of angels, good, or bad. the meaning of that most general head (oportet accedentem etc. it behoves (q) heb. 11.6. him that comes to god, to believe that he is, and is a remunerator,) is questioned, by the denial of merit, which makes god, a giver, but not a rewarder. it is not expressed whether the article of remission of sins be understood by faith alone, or else may admit the efficiency of sacraments. there is no mention of ecclesiastical, apostolical, divine traditions, one way or other; or of holy scriptures in general, and much less of every book in particular; nor of the name, nature, number, effects, matter, form, minister, intention, necessity of sacraments, and yet the due administration of sacraments, is with protestants an essential note of the church. there is nothing for baptism of children, nor against rebaptisation. there is no mention in favour, or against the sacrifice of the mass, of power in the church to institute rites, holy days etc. and to inflict excommunication, or other censures: of priesthood, bishops, and the whole ecclesiastical hierarchy, which are very fundamental points; of s. peter's primacy, which to caluin seemeth a fundamental error; nor of the possibility, or impossibility to keep god's commandments; of the procession of the holy ghost from the father and the son; of purgatory, or prayer for the dead, in any sense: and yet d. potter doth not deny, but that aerius was esteemed an heretic, for denying (r) pag. 35. all sort of commemoration for the dead. nothing of the church's visibility or inuisibility, fallibility or infallibility; nor of other points controverted betwixt protestants themselves, and between protestants and catholics, which to d. potter seem so heinous corruptions, that they cannot without damnation join with us in profession thereof. there is no mention of the cessation of the old law, which yet is a very main point of faith. and many other might be also added. 15. but what need we labour to specify particulars? there are as many important points of faith not expressed in the creed, as since the world's beginning now, & for all future times, there have been, are, and may be innumerable, gross, damnable, heresies, whose contrary truths are not contained in the creed. for, every fundamental error must have a contrary fundamental truth; because of two contradictory propositions, in the same degree, the one is false, the other must be true. as for example, if it be a damnable error to deny the bl. trinity, or the godhead of our saviour, the belief of them must be a truth necessary to salvation; or rather, if we will speak properly, the error is damnable, because the opposite truth is necessary, as death is frightful, because life is sweet; and according to philosophy, the privation is measured by the form to which it is repugnant. if therefore the creed contain in particular all fundamental points of faith, it must explicitly, or by clear consequence, comprehend all truths opposite to innumerable heresies of all ages past, present, and to come, which no man in his wits will affirm it to do. 16. and here i cannot omit to signify how you (s) pag. 255. applaud the saying of d. usher. that in those propositions which without all controversy are universally received in the whole christian world, so much truth is contained, as being joined with holy obedience may be sufficient to bring a man to everlasting salvation; neither have we cause to doubt, but that as many as walk according to this rule (neither overthrowing that which they have builded, by superinducing any damnable heresies thereupon, nor otherwise vitiating their holy faith with a lewd and wicked conversation) peace shall be upon them, and upon the israel of god. now, d. potter knows, that the mystery of the b. trinity is not universally received in the whole christian world, as appears in very many heretics, in polony, hungary, and transiluania, and therefore according to this rule of d. usher, approved by d. potter, the denial of the b. trinity, shall not exclude salvation. 17. let me note by the way, that you might easily have espied a foul contradiction in the said words of d. usher, by you recited, and so much applauded. for he supposeth, that a man agrees with other churches in belief, which joined with holy obedience may bring him to everlasting salvation, and yet, that he may superinduce damnable heresies. for how can he superinduce damnable heresies, who is supposed to believe all truth's necessary to salvation? can there be any damnable heresy, unless it contradict some necessary truth, which cannot happen in one who is supposed to believe all necessary truths? besides if one believing all fundamental articles in the creed, may superinduce damnable heresies; it followeth that the fundamental truths contrary to those damnable heresies, are not contained in the creed. 18. according to this model of d. potter's foundation, consisting in the agreement of scarcely one point of faith; what a strange church would he make of men concurring in some one of few articles of belief, who yet for the rest should be holding conceits plainly contradictory: so patching up a religion of men who agree only in the article, that christ is our saviour, but for the rest, are like to the parts of a chimaera, having the head of a man, the neck of a horse, the shoulders of an ox, the foot of a lion etc. i wrong them not herein. for in good philosophy there is greater repugnancy between assent and descent, affirmation and negation, est est, non non (especially when all these contrradictories pretend to rely upon one and the self same motive, the ininfallible truth of almighty god) then between the integral parts, as head, neck, etc. of a man, horse, lion, etc. and thus protestant's are fare more bold to disagree even in matters of faith, than catholic divines in questions merely philosophical, or not determined by the church. and while thus they stand only upon fundamental articles, they do by their own confession destroy the church, which is the house of god. for the foundation alone of a house, is not a house, nor can they in such an imaginary church any more expect salvation, than the foundation alone of a house is fit to afford a man habitation. 19 moreover, it is most evident that protestants by this chaos rather than church, do give unavoidable occasion of desperation to poor souls. let some one who is desirous to save his soul repair to d. potter, who maintains these grounds, to know upon whom he may rely, in a matter of so great consequence; i suppose the doctors answer will be: upon the truly catholic church. she cannot err danably. what understand you by the catholic church? cannot general counsels, which are the church representative, err? yes, they may weakly, or (t) pag. 167. wilfully misapply, or misunderstand, or neglect scripture, and so err damnably. to whom then shall i go for my particular instruction? i cannot confer with the united body of the whole church about my particular difficulties, as yourself affirms, that the catholic church cannot be told (u) pag. 27. of private injuries. must i then consult with every particular person of the catholic church? so it seems, by what you writ in these words: the whole (w) pag. 150.151. militant church (that is all the members of it) cannot possibly err, either in the whole faith, or any necessary article of it. you say, m. doctor, i cannot for my instruction acquaint the universal church with my particular scruples: you say, the prelates of god's church meeting in a lawful general council may err damnably: it remains then, that for my necessary instruction, i must repair to every particular member of the universal church spread over the face of the earth: & yet you teach that the promises (x) pag. 151. which our lord hath made unto his church for his assistance, are intended not to any particular persons or churches, but only to the church catholic, with which (as i said) it is impossible for me to confer. alas, o most uncomfortable ghostly father, you drive me to desperation. how shall i confer with every christian soul, man and woman, by sea and by land, close prisoner, or at liberty & c.? yet upon supposal of this miraculous pilgrimage for faith, before i have the faith of miracles, how shall i proceed at our meeting? or how shall i know the man on whom i may securely rely? procure (will you say) to know whether he believe all fundamental points of faith. for if he do, his faith, for point of belief, is sufficient for salvation, though he err in a hundred things of less moment. but how shall i know whether he hold all fundamental points or no? for till you tell me this, i cannot know whether or no his belief be sound in all fundamental points. can you say the creed? yes. and so can many damnable heretics. but why do you ask me this question? because the creed contains all fundamental points of faith. are you sure of that? not sure: i hold it very probable (y) pag. 241. . shall i hazard my soul on probabilities, or even wagers? this yields a new cause of despair. but what? doth the creed contain all points necessary to be believed, whether they rest in the understanding, or else do further extend to practise? no. it was composed to deliver credenda, not agenda to us; faith, not practice. how then shall i know what points of belief, which direct my practice, be necessary to salvation? still you chalk out new paths for desperation. well, are all articles of the creed, for their nature and matter, fundamental? i cannot say so. how then, shall i know which in particular be, and which be not fundamental? read my answer to a late popish pamphlet entitled charity mistaken etc. there you shall find, that fundamental doctrines are such catholic verities, as principally, and essentially pertain (z) pag. 211.213.214. to the faith, such as properly constitute a church, and are necessary (in ordinary course) to be distinctly believed by every christian that will be saved. they are those grand, and capital doctrines which make up our faith in christ; that is, that common faith which is alike precious in all, being one & the same in the highest apostle, & the meanest believer, which the apostle elsewhere calls the first principles of the oracles of god, and the form of sound words. but how shall i apply these general definitions, or descriptions, or (to say the truth) these only varied words, and phrases (for i understand the word, fundamental, as well as the words, principal, essential, grand, and capital doctrines &c.) to the particular articles of the creed, in such sort, as that i may be able precisely, exactly, particularly to distinguish fundamental articles, from points of less moment? you labour to tell us what fundamental points be, but not which they be: and yet unless you do this, your doctrine serves only, either to make men despair, or else to have recourse to those whom you call papists, and who give one certain rule, that all points defined by christ's visible church belong to the foundation of faith, in such sense, as that to deny any one cannot stand with salvation. and seeing yourself acknowledges that these men do not err in points fundamental, i cannot but hold it most safe for me to loin with them, for the securing of my soul, and the avoiding of desperation, into which this your doctrine must cast all them who understand, and believe it. for the whole discourse, and inferences which here i have made, are either your own direct assertions, or evident consequences clearly deduced from them. 20. but now let us answer some few objections of d. potter's, against that which we have said before, to avoid our argument, that the scripture is not so much as mentioned in the creed, he saith: the creed is an abstract of such (a) pag. 234. necessary doctrines as are delivered in scripture, or collected out of it; and therefore needs not express the authority of that which it supposes. 21. this answer makes for us. for by giving a reason why it was needles that scripture should be expressed in the creed, you grant as much as we desire, namely that the apostles judged it needles to express all necessary points of faith in their creed. neither doth the creed suppose, or depend on scripture, in such sort as that we can by any probable consequence, infer from the articles of the creed, that there is any canonical scripture at all; and much less that such books in particular be canonical: yea the creed might have been the same although holy scripture had never been written; and, which is more, the creed even in priority of time, was before all the scripture of the new testament, except the gospel of s. matthew. and so according to this reason of his the scripture should not mention articles contained in the creed and i note in a word, how little connexion d. potter's arguments have, while he tells us, that the creed (b) pag. 234. is an abstract of such necessary doctrines as are delivered in scripture, or collected out of it, and therefore needs not express the authority of that which it supposes; it doth not follow: the articles of the creed are delivered in scripture: therefore the creed supposeth scripture. for two distinct writings may well deliver the same truths, and yet one of them not suppose the other, unless d. potter be of opinion that two doctors cannot, at one time, speak the same truth. 22. and notwithstanding, that d. potter hath now told us, it was needles that the creed should express scripture, whose authority it supposes, he comes at length to say, that the nicene fathers in their creed confessing that the holy ghost spoke by the prophets, doth thereby sufficiently avow the divine authority of all canonical scripture. but i would ask him, whether the nicene creed be not also an abstract of doctrines delivered in scripture, as he said of the apostles creed, and thence did infer, that it was needles to express scripture, whose authority it supposes? besides we do not only believe in general, that canonical scripture is of divine authority, but we are also bound under pain of damnation to believe, that such and such particular books, not mentioned in the nicene creed, are canonical. and lastly d. potter in this answer grants as much as we desire, which is that all points of faith are not contained in the apostles creed, even as it is explained by other creeds. for these words (who spoke by the prophets) are no ways contained in the apostles creed, and therefore contain an addition, not an explanation thereof 23. but, how can it be necessary (saith d. potter) for any christian, to have more in his creed then the (c) pag. 221. apostles had, and the church of their times? i answer; you trifle, not distinguish between the apostles belief, and that abridgement of some articles of faith, which we call the apostles creed; and withal you beg the question, by supposing that the apostles believed no more, then is contained in their creed, which every unlearned person knows and believes: and i hope you will not deny but the apostles were endued with greater knowledge then ordinary persons. 24. your pretended proof out of the acts, that the apostles revealed to the church the whole counsel of god, keeping (d) act. 20.27. back nothing, with your gloss (needful for our salvation) is no proof unless you still beg the question, and do suppose, that whatsoever the apostles revealed to the church, is contained in the creed. and i wonder you do not reflect that those words were by s. paul particularly directed to pastors, and governors of the church, as is clear by the other words; he called the ancients of the church. and afterward: take heed to yourselves, and to the whole flock wherein the holy ghost hath placed you bishops, to rule the church. and yourself say, that more knowledge is (e) pag. 244 necessary in bishops, and priests, to whom is committed the government of the church, and the care of souls, then in vulgar laickes. do you think that the apostles taught christians nothing but their creed? said they nothing of the sacraments, commandments, duties of hope, charity & c? 25. upon the same affected ambiguity is grounded your other objection: to say the whole faith of those times (f) pag. 222.223. is not contained in the apoles' creed, is all one, as if a man should say, this is not the apostles creed, but a part of it. for the faith of the apostles is not all one with that which we commonly call their creed. did not, i pray you, s. matthew, and s. john believe their writings to be canonical scripture? and yet their writings are not mentioned in the creed. it is therefore more than clear, that the faith of the apostles is of a larger extent, than the apostles creed. 26. to your demand, why amongst many things of equal necessity to be believed, the apostles should (g) pag. 225. so distinctly set down some, and be altogether silent of others? i answer: that you must answer your own demand. for in the creed there be diverse points in their nature, not fundamental, or necessary to be explicitly and distinctly believed, as above we shown; why are these points which are not fundamental expressed, rather than other of the same quality? why our saviour's descent to hell, & burial expressed, and not his circumcision, his manifestation to the three kings, working of miracles & c? why did they not express scriptures, sacraments, and all fundamental points of faith tending to practise, as well as those which rest in belief? their intention was, particularly to deliver such articles as were fittest for those times, concerning the deity, trinity, and messiah (as heretofore i have declared) leaving many things to be taught by the catholic church, which in the creed we all profess to believe. neither doth it follow, as you infer, that as well, nay better, they might have given no article, but that (of the church) and sent us to the church for all the rest. for in setting down others besides that, and not all, they make us believe we have all, when (h) pag. 223. we have not all. for by this kind of arguing, what may not be deduced? one might, quite contrary to your inference, say: if the apostles creed contain all points necessary to salvation, what need we any church to teach us? and consequently what need of the article concerning the church? what need we the creeds of nice, constantinople etc. superfluous are your catechisms, wherein beside the articles of the creed, you add diverse other particulars. these would be poor consequences, and so is yours. but shall i tell you news? for so you are pleased to esteem it. we grant your inference, thus far: that our saviour christ referred us to his church, by her to be taught, & by her alone. for, she was before the creed, and scriptures; and she to discharge this imposed office of instructing us, hath delivered us the creed, but not it alone, as if nothing else were to be believed. we have besides it, holy scripture; we have unwritten, divine, apostolical ecclesiastical traditions. it were a childish argument: the creed contains not all things which are necessary to be believed: ergo, it is not profitable. or; the church alone is sufficient to teach us by some convenient means: ergo, she must teach us without all means, without creeds, without counsels, without scripture etc. if the apostles had expressed no article, but that of the catholic church, she must have taught us the other articles in particular, by creeds, or other means, as in fact we have even the apostles creed from the tradition of the church. if you will believe you have all in the creed, when you have not all, it is not the apostles, or the church, that makes you so believe, but it is your own error, whereby you will needs believe, that the creed must contain all. for neither the apostles, nor the church, nor the creed itself tell you any such matter; and what necessity is there, that one means of instruction, must involve whatsoever is contained in all the rest? we are not to recite the creed with anticipated persuasion, that it must contain what we imagine it ought, for better maintaining some opinions of our own; but we ought to say, and believe that it contains what we find in it; of which one article is to believe the catholic church, surely to be taught by her, which presupposeth that we need other instruction beside the creed: and in particular we may learn of her, what points be contained in the creed, what otherwise; and so we shall not be deceived, by believing we have all in the creed, when we have not all: and you may in the same manner say: as well, nay better, the apostles might have given us no articles at all, as have left out articles tending to practise. for in setting down one sort of articles, & not the other, they make us believe we have all, when we have not all. 27 to our argument, that baptism is not contained in the creed; d. potter, besides his answer, that sacraments belong rather to practise then faith, (which i have already confuted, and which indeed maketh against himself, and serveth only to show that the apostles intended not to comprise all points in the creed which we are bound to believe) adds, that the creed of (i) pag. 237. nice expressed baptism by name; confess one baptism for the remission of sin which answer is directly against himself, and manifestly proves that baptism is an article of faith, and yet is not contained in the apostles creed, neither explicitly, nor by any necessary consequence from other articles expressed therein. if to make it an article of faith be sufficient that it is contained in in the nicene council; he will find that protestants maintain many errors against faith, as being repugnant to definitions of general counsels: as in particular, that the very council of nice (which saith m. whitgift, (k) in his defence pag. 330. is of all wise and learned men reverenced, esteemed & embraced, next unto the scriptures themselves) decreed that, to those who were chosen to the ministry unmarried, it was not lawful to take any wife afterward, is affirmed by protestants. and your grand reformer luther (lib. de concilijs part. prima) saith, that he understands not the holy ghost in that council. for in one canon it saith that those who have gelded themselves are not fit to be made priests; in another it forbids them to have wives. hath (saith he) the holy ghost nothing to do in counsels, but to bind, and load his ministers which impossblie, dangerous, and unnecessary laws? i forbear to show that this very article i confess one baptism for the remission of sins, willbe understood by protestants in a fare different sense from catholics, yea protestants among themselves do not agree, how baptism forgives sins, nor what grace it confers. only concerning the unity of baptism against rebaptisation of such as were once baptised (which i noted as a point not contained in the apostles creed) i cannot omit an excellent place of s. augustine, where speaking of the donatists he hath these words. they are so bold as (m) lib. de haeres. in 69. to rebaptize catholics, wherein they show themselves to be the greater heretics, since it hath pleased the universal catholic church not to make baptism void even in the very heretics themselues. in which few words this holy father delivereth against the donatists these points which do also make against protestants; that to make an heresy, or an heretic, known for such, it is sufficient, to oppose the definition of god's church; that a proposition may be heretical though it be not repugnant to any texts of scripture. for s. augustine teacheth that the doctrine of rebaptisation, is heretical, and yet acknowledgeth it cannot be convinced for such out of scripture. and that neither the heresy of rebaptisation of those who were baptised by heretics, nor the contrary catholic truth being expressed in the apostles creed, it followeth that it doth not contain all points of faith necessary to salvation. and so we must conclude that to believe the creed is not sufficient for unity of faith, and spirit in the same church, unless there be also a total agreement both in belief of other points of faith, and in external profession, and communion also (whereof we are to speak in the next chapter) according to the saying of s. augustine: you are (n) aug. ep. 48. with us in baptism, and in the creed; but in the spirit of unity, and bond of peace, and lastly in the catholic church you are not with us. chap. v that luther, caluin, their associates, and all who began, or continue the separation from the external communion of the roman church, are guilty of the proper, and formal sin of schism. the searcher of all hearts, is witness with how unwilling minds, we catholics are drawn to fasten the denomination of schismatics, or heretics, on them, for whoses souls, if they employed their best blood, they would judge that it could not be better spent if we rejoice, that they are contristated at such titles, our joy riseth not from their trouble or grief, but, as that of the apostles did, from the fountain of charity, because they are contristated to repentance; that so after unpartial examination, they finding themselves to be what we say, may by god's holy grace, begin to dislike, what themselves are. for our part, we must remember that our obligation is, to keep within the mean, betwixt uncharitable bitterness, & pernicious flattery; not yielding to worldly respects, nor offending christian modesty, but uttering the substance of truth in so caritable manner, that not so much we, as truth, and charity may seem to speak, according to the wholesome advice of s. gregory nazianzen in these divine words: we do not affect peace with (a) orat. 32. prejudice of the true doctrine, that so we may get a name of being gentle, and mild: & yet we seek to conserve peace, fight in a lawful manner, and containing ourselves within our compass, and the rule of spirit. and of these things my judgement is, and for my part i prescribe the same law to all that deal with souls, and treat of true doctrine, that neither they exasperated men's minds by harshness, nor make them haughty or insolent, by submission; but that in the cause of faith they behave themselves prudently, and advisedly, and do not in either of these things exceed the mean. with whom agreeth s. leo saying: it be hoveth us in such causes to be (b) epist. 8. most careful, that without noise of contentions, both charity be conserved, and truth maintained. 2. for better method, we will handle these points in order. first we will set down the nature, and essence, or as i may call it, the quality of schism. in the second place, the greatness & grievousness, or (so to term it) the quantity thereof. for the nature, or quality will tell us, who may without injury be judged schismatics: and by the greatness, or quantity, such as find themselves guilty thereof, will remain acquainted with the true state of their soul, and whether they may conceive any hope of salvation or no. and because schism will be found to be a division from the church, which could not happen, unless there were always a visible church; we will, thirdly prove, or rather take it as a point to be granted by all christians, that in all ages there hath been such a visible congregation of faithful people. fourthly, we will demonstrate, that luther, caluin, and the rest, did separate themselves from the communion of that always visible church of christ, and therefore were guilty of schism. and fifthly we will make it evident, that the visible true church of christ, out of which luther and his followers departed, was no other but the roman church, & consequently that both they, and all others who persist in the same division, are schismatics by reason of their separation from the church of rome. 3. for the first point touching the nature, 1. point. or quality of schism: as the natural perfection of man consists in his being the image of god his creator, by the powers of his soul; so his supernatural perfection is placed in similitude with god, as his last end and felicity; the nature of schism. and by having the said spiritual faculties, his understanding and will linked to him. his understanding is united to god by faith; his will, by charity. the former relies upon his infallible truth: the latter carrieth us to his infinite goodness. faith hath a deadly opposite, heresy. contrary to the union, or unity of charity, is separation and division. charity is twofold. as it respects god, his opposite vice is hatred against god: as it uniteth us to our neighbour, his contrary is separation or division of affections, and will from our neighbour. our neighbour may be considered, either as one private person hath a single relation to another, or as all concur to make one company or congregation, which we call the church; and this is the most principal reference and union of one man with another: because the chiefest unity is that of the whole, to which the particular unity of parts is subordinate. this unity, or oneness (if so i may call it) is effected by charity uniting all the members of the church in one mystical body; contrrary to which, is schism, from the greek word signifying scissure, or division. wherefore upon the whole matter, we find that schism, as the angelical doctor s. thomas defines it, is; a voluntary separation (c) 2. 2. q. 39 art. in corp. & add 3. from the unity of that charity, whereby all the members of the church are united. from hence he deduceth, that schism is a special and particular vice, distinct from heresy, because they are opposite to two different virtues: heresy, to faith: schism, to charity. to which purpose he fitly allegeth s. hierome upon these words, (tit. 3.) a man that is an heretic after the first and second admonition avoid, saying: i conceive that there is this difference betwixt schism and heresy, that heresy iavolues some perverse assertion: schism for episcopal dissension doth separate men from the church. the same doctrine is delivered by s. augustine in these words: heretics (d) lib. 1. de fid. & symb. cap. 10. and schismatics call their congregations, churches: but heretics corrupt the faith by believing of god false things: but schismatics by wicked divisions break from fraternal charity, although they believe what we believe. therefore the heretic belongs not to the church, because she love's god: nor the schismatic, because she love's her neighbour. and in another place he saith it is wont to be demanded (e) quest. euangel ex matt. q. 11. how schismatics be distinguished from he retiques: and this difference is found, that not a diverse faith, but the divided society of communion doth make schismatics. it is then evident that schism is different from heresy. nevertheless (saith saint thomas (f) ubi supra as he who is deprived of faith must needs want charity: so every heretic is a schismatic, but not conversively every schismatique is an heretic; though because want of charity disposes and makes way to the destruction of faith (according to those words of the apostle, which (a good conscience) some casting off, have suffered shipwreck in their faith) schism speedily degenerates to heresy, as s. hierome after the rehearsed words teacheth, saying: though schism in the beginning may in some sort be understood different from heresy; yet there is no schism which doth not feign some heresy to itself, that so it may seem to have departed from the church upon good reason. nevertheless when schism proceeds originally from heresy, heresy as being in that case the predominant quality in these two peccant humours, giveth the denomination of an heretic; as on the other side we are wont, especially in the beginning, or for a while, to call schismatics, those men who first began with only schism, though in process of time they fell into some heresy, and by that means are indeed both schismatics and heretics. 4. the reason why both heresy and schism are repugnant to the being of a good catholic, is: because the catholic, or universal church signifies one congregation, or company of faithful people, and therefore implies not only faith, to make them faithful believers, but also communion, or common union, to make them one in charity, which excludes separation, and division: and therefore in the apostles creed, communion of saints is immediately joined to the catholic church. 5. from this definition of schism may be inferred, that the guilt thereof is contracted, not only by division from the universal church; but also, by a separation from a particular church or diocese which agrees with the universal. in this manner meletius was a schismatic, but not an heretic, because as we read in s. epiphanus, (h) haeres. 68 he was of the right faith: for his faith was not altered at any time from the holy catholic church etc. he made a sect, but departed not from faith. yet because he made to himself a particular congregation against s. peter archbishop of alexandria his lawful superior, and by that means brought in a division in that particular church, we was a schismatique. and it is well worth the noting, that the meletians building new churches put this title upon them, the church of martyrs: and upon the ancient churches of those who succeeded peter, was inscribed, the catholic church. for so it is. a new sect must have a new name which though it be never so gay and specious, as the church of martyrs: the reformed church etc. yet the novelty showeth that it is not the catholic, nor a true church. and that schism may be committed by division from a particular church, we read in optatus milevitanus (i) lib. 1. cont. parmen. these remarkable words, (which do well declare who be schismatics) brought by him to prove that not caecilianus but parmenianus was a schismatic: for caecilianus went not out from maiorinus thy grandfather (he means his next predecessor but one, in the bishopric,) but maiorinus from caecilianus: neither did caecilianus departed from the chair of peter, or of cyprian (who was but a particular bishop,) but maiorinus, in whose chair thou sittest which had no beginning before maiorinus himself. it is manifestly known, that these things were so done, it evidently appeareth, that you are heirs both of traditors (that is, of those who delivered up the holy bible to be burned) and of schismatics. and it seemeth that this kind of schism must principally be admitted by protestants, who acknowledge no one visible head of the whole church, but hold that every particular diocese, church, or country is governed by itself independantly of any one person, or general council, to which all christians have obligation to submit their judgements, and wills. 6. 2. point. as for the grievousness or quantity of schism (which was the second point proposed) s. thomas teacheth, that amongst sins against our neighbour, the grievousness of schism. schism (l) supra art. 2. ad 3. is the most grievous; because it is against the spiritual good of the multitude, or community. and therefore as in a kingdom or commonwealth, there is as great difference between the crime of rebellion or sedition, and debates among private men, as there is inequality betwixt one man, & a whole kingdom; so in the church, schism is as much more grievous than sedition in a kingdom, as the spiritual good of souls surpasseth the civil and political weal. and s. thomas adds further, that they lose the spiritual power of jurisdiction; and if they go about to absolve from sins, or to excommunicate, their actions are invalid; which he proves out of the canon novatianus. causa 7. quaest. 1. which saith: he that keepeth neither the unity of spirit, nor the peace of agreement, and separates himself from the bond of the church, and the college of priests, can neither have the power, nor dignity of a bishop. the power also of order (for example to consecrate the eucharist, to ordain priests &c.) they cannot lawfully exercise. 7. in the judgement of the holy fathers, schism is a most grievous offence. s. chrysostome (m) hom. 11. in ep. ad ephes. compares these schismatical deviders of christ's mystical body, to those who sacrilegiously pierced his natural body, saying: nothing doth so much incense god, as that the church should be divided. although we should do innumerable good works, if we divide the full ecclesiastical congregation, we shall be punished no less than they who tore his (natural) body. for that was done to the gain of the whole world, although not with that intention: but this hath no profit at all, but there ariseth from it most great harm. these things are spoken, not only to those who bear office, but also to those who are governed by them. behold how neither a moral good life (which conceit deceiveth many) nor authority of magistrates, nor any necessity of obeying superiors can excuse schism from being a most heinous offence. optatus milevitanus (o) lib. count. parmen. calls schism, ingens flagitium: a huge crime. and speaking to the donatists, saith; that schism is evil in the highest degree, even you are not able to deny. no less pathetical is s. augustine upon this subject. he reckons schismatics among pagans, heretics, and jews, saying: religion is to be sought, neither in the confusion of pagans, nor (p) lib. de vera relig. cap. 6. in the filth of heretics, nor in the languishing of schismatics, nor in the age of the jews; but among those alone who are called christian catholics, or orthodox, that is, lovers of unity in the whole body, and followers of truth. nay he esteems them worse than infidels and idolaters, saying: those whom the donatists (q) cont. donatist. l. 1. cap. 8. heal from the wound of infidelity and idolatry, they hurt more grieously with the wound of schism. let here those men who are pleased untruly to call us idolaters, reflect upon themselves, and consider, that this holy father judgeth schismatics (as they are) to be worse than idolaters, which they absurdly call us: and this he proveth by the example of core, dathan, and abiron and other rebellious schismatics of the old testament, who were conveyed alive down into hell, and punished more openly than idolaters. no doubt (saith this holy father) but (r) ibid. lib. 2. cap. 6. that was committed most wickedly, which was punished most severely. in another place he yoaketh schism with heresy, saying upon the eight beatitude: many (s) de serm. dom. in moute ●. 5. heretics, under the name of christians, deceiving men's souls, do suffer many such things; but therefore they are excluded from this reward, because it is not only said, happy are they who suffer persecution, but there is added, for justice. but where there is not sound faith, there cannot be justice. neither can schismatics promise to themselves any part of this reward, because likewise where there is no charity, there cannot be justice. and in another place, yet more effectually he saith: being out of (t) epist. 204 the church, and divided from the heap of unity, and the bond of charity, thou shouldest be punished with eternal death, though thou shouldest be burned alive for the name of christ. and in another place, he hath these words: if he hear not the church let him be to (v) count. adverse. leg. & prophet lib, 2. cap. 17. thee, as an heathen or publican; which is more grievous than if he were smitten with the sword, consumed with flames, or cast to wild beasts. and else where: out of the catholic church (saith he) one (w) de gest. cum emerit. may have faith, sacraments, orders, and in sum, all things except salvation. with s. augustine, his country man and second self in sympathy of spirit, s. fulgentius agreeth, saying: believe this (x) de fide ad pet. steadfastly without doubting, that every heretic, or schismatic, baptised in the name of the father, the son, and the holy ghost, if before the end of his life, he be not reconciled to the catholic church, what alms soever he give, yea though he should shed his blood for the name of christ, he cannot obtain salvation. mark again how no moral honesty of life, no good deeds, no martyrdom, can without repentance avail any schismatique for salvation. let us also add that d. potter saith, schism is no less (y) pag. 42. damnable, than heresy. 8. but o you holy, learned, zealous fathers, and doctors of god's church; out of these premises, of the grievousness of schism, & of the certain damnation which it bringeth (if unrepented) what conclusion draw you for the instruction of christians? s. augustine maketh this wholesome inference. there is (z) cont. parm. lib. 2. cap. ●2. no just necessity to divide unity. s. ireneus concludeth: they cannot (a) count. haeres. lib. 4. c. 62. make any so important reformation, as the evil of the schism is pernicious. s. denis of alexandria saith: certainly (b) apud euseb. hist. eccles. lib. 6. all things should rather be endured, then to consent to the division of the church of god: these martyrs being no less glorious, that expose themselves to hinder the dismembering of the church: then those that suffer rather than they will effer sacrifice to idols would to god all those who divided themselves from that visible church of christ, which was upon earth when luther appeared, would rightly consider of these things! and thus much of the second point. 9 1. point. we have just and necessary occasion, eternally to bless almighty god, who hath vouchsafed to make us members of the catholic roman church, perpetual visibility of the church from which while men fall, they precipitate themselves into so vast absurdities, or rather sacrilegious blasphemies, as is employed in the doctrine of the total deficiency of the visible church, which yet is maintained by diverse chief protestants, as may at large be seen in brereley, and others; out of whom i will here name jewel saying: the truth was unknown (c) apolog. part. 4. cap. 4. diuis. 2 and in his defence printed ann. 1571. pag● 426. at that time, and unheard of, when martin luther, and vlderick zuinglius first came unto the knowledge and preaching of the gospel. perkins saith: we say, that (d) in his exposition upon the creed pag. 400. before the days of luther for the space of many hundred years an universal apostasy overspread the whole face of the earth, and that our (protestant) church was not then visible, to the world. napier upon the revelations teacheth, that from the year of (e) propost 37. pag. 68 christ three hundred and sixteen, the antichristian and papistical reign hath begun, reigning universally, and without any debatable contradiction one thousand two hundred sixty years (that is, till luther's time:) and that, from the year of (f) ibid. in cap. 12. pag. 161. col. 3. christ three bundred and sixteen, god hath withdrawn his visible church from open assemblies, to the hearts of particular godly men etc. during the space of one thousand two hundred threescore years: and that, the (g) ibid. in cap. 11. pag 145. pope and clergy have possessed the outward visible church of christians, even one thousand two hundred threescore years. and that, the (h) ibid. pag. 191. true church abode latent, and invisible. and brocard (i) fol. 110. & 123. upon the revelations, professeth to join in opinion with napier. fulke affirmeth, that in the (k) answer to a counterfeit cath. pag. 16. time of boniface the third, which was the year 607. the church was invisible, and fled into the wilernes, there to remain a long season. luther saith: primò solus eram: at the first (l) in praefat. operum suorum. i was alone. jacob hailbronerus one of the disputants for the protestant party in the conference at ratisbone, affirmeth (m) in suo acacatholico volume. a. 15. cap. 9 p. 479. that the true church was interrupted by apostasy from the true faith. caluin saith: it is absurd in the very (n) ep. 141. beginning to break one from another, after we have been forced to make a separation from the whole world. it were overlong to allege the words of joannes regius, daniel chamierus, beza, ochimus, castalio, and others to the same purpose. the reason which cast them upon this wicked doctrine, was a desperate voluntary necessity: because they being resolved not to acknowledge the roman church to be christ's true church, & yet being convinced by all manner of evidence, for that diverse ages before luther there was no other congregation of christians, which could be the church of christ; there was no remedy but to affirm, that upon earth christ had no visible church: which they would never have avouched, if they had known how to avoid the foresaid inconvenience (as they apprehended it) of submitting themselves to the roman church. 10. against these exterminating spirits, d. potter, and other more moderate protestants, profess, that christ always had, and always will have upon earth a visible church: othertherwise (saith he) our lords (o) pag. 154 promise of her stable (p) matt. 16 1st edification should be of no value. and in another place, having affirmed that protestants have not left the church of rome, but her corruptions, and acknowledging her still to be a member of christ's body, he seeketh to clear himself and others from schism, because (saith he) the property (q) pag. 76. of schism is (witness the donatists and luciferians) to cut off from the body of christ, & the hope of salvation, the church from which it separates. and if any zelotes amongst us have proceeded to he avier censures, their zeal may be excused, but their charity and wisdom cannot be justified. and elsewhere he acknowledgeth, that the roman church hath those main, and (r) pag. 83. essential truths, which give her the name and essence of a church. 11. it being therefore granted by d. potter, and the chiefest and best learned english protestants, that christ's visible church cannot perish, it will be needles for me in this occasion to prove it. s. augustine doubted not to say: the prophets (s) in psalm. 30. com. 2. spoke more obscurely of christ, then of the church: because, as i think, they did foresee in spirit, that men were to make parties against the church, and that they were not to have so great strife concerning christ: therefore that was more plainly foretold & more openly prophesied about which greater contentions were to rise, that it might turn to the condemnation of them, who have seen it, and yet gone forth. and in another place he saith: how do we confide (t) epist. 48. to have received manifestly christ himself from holy scriptures, if we have also manifestly received the church from them? and indeed to what congregation shall a man have recourse for the affairs of his soul, if upon earth there be no visible church of christ? besides, to imagine a company of men believing one thing in their hart, and with their mouth professing the contrary, (as they must be supposed to do; for if they had professed what they believed, they would have become visible) is to dream of a damned crew of dissembling sycophants, but not to conceive a right notion of the church of christ our lord. and therefore s. augustine saith: we cannot be saved, unless labouring also for the (u) s. aug. de fide & symbolo c. 1. salvation of others, we profess with our mouths, the same faith which we bear in our hearts. and if any man hold it lawful to dissemble, & deny matters of faith, we cannot be assured, but that they actually dissemble, and hide anabaptisme, arianisme, yea turkism, & even atheism, or any other false belief, under the outward profession of caluinisme. do not protestants teach that, preaching of the word, and administration of sacraments (which cannot but make a church visible) are inseparable notes of the true church? and therefore they must either grant a visible church, or none at all. no wonder then if s. augustine account this heresy so gross, that he saith against those who in his time defended the like error: but this church which (w) in psal. 101. hath been of all nations is no more, she hath perished; so say they that are not in her. o impudent speech! and afterward. this voice so abominable, so detestable, so full of presumption and falsehood, which is sustained with no truth, enlightened with no wisdom, seasoned with no salt, vain, rash, heady, pernicious, the holy ghost fore saw etc. and, peradventure some (x) de ovib. cap. 1. one may say, there are other sheep i know not where, with which i am not acquainted, yet god hath care of them. but he is too absurd in humane sense, that can imagine such things. and these men do not consider, that while they deny the perpetuity of a visible church, they destroy their own present church, according to the argument which s. augustine urged against the donatists in these words: (y) de bapt. cont. donat. if the church were lost in cyprians (we may say in gregory's) time, from whence did donatus (luther) appear? from what earth did he spring? from what sea is he come? from what heaven did he drop? and in another place: how can they vaunt (z) lib. 3. cont. parm. to have any church. if she have ceased ever since those times? and all divines by defining schism to be a division from the true church, suppose, that there must be a known church, from which it is possible for men departed. but enough of this in these few words. 12. let us now come to the fourth, 4. point. and chiefest point, which was, to examine whether luther, caluin, luther and all that follow him are schismatics. and the rest did not departed from the external communion of christ's visible church, and by that separation became guilty of schism. and that they are properly schismatics clearly followeth from the grounds which we have laid, concerning the nature of schism, which consists in leaving the external cummunion of the visible church of christ our lord: and it is clear by evidence of fact, that luther and his followers forsook the communion of that ancient church. for they did not so much as pretend to join with any congregation which had a being before their time; for they would needs conceive that no visible company was free from errors in doctrine, and corruption in practice: and therefore they opposed the doctrine; they withdrew their obedience from the prelates; they left participation in sacraments; they changed the liturgy of public service of whatsoever church then extant. and these things they pretended to do out of a persuasion, that they were bound (forsooth) in conscience so to do, unless they would participate with errors, corruptions, & superstitions. we dare not (saith d. potter) communicate (a) pag. 68 with rome either in her public liturgy, which is manifestly polluted with gross superstition etc. or in those corrupt and ungrounded opinions, which she hath added to the faith of catholics. but now let d. potter tell me with what visible church extant before luther, he would have adventured to communicate in her public liturgy and doctrine, since he durst not communicate with rome? he will not be able to assign any, even with any little colour of common sense. if then they departed from all visible communities professing christ, it followeth that they also left the communion of the true visible church, which soever it was, whether that of rome, or any other; of which point i do not for the present dispute. yea this the lutherans do not only acknowledge, but prove, and brag of if (saith a learned lutheran) there had been right (b) georgius minus in augustan. confess. art. 7. de eccles. pag. 137. believers which went before luther in his office, there had then been no need of a lutheran reformation. another affirmeth it to be ridiculous, to think that in the time (c) benedict. morgenstern. tract de eccles. pag. 145. before luther, any had the purity of doctrine; and that luther should receive it from them, and not they from luther. another speaketh roundly, and saith it is impudence to say, that many learned men (d) conrade. schlusselb. in theolog. caluinist. lib. 2. jol. 130. in gormany before luther, did hold the doctrine of the gospel. and i add: that far greater impudence, it were to affirm that germany did not agree with the rest of europe, and other christian catholic nations, and consequently, that it is the greatest impudence to deny, that he departed from the communion of the visible catholic church, spread over the whole world. we have heard caluin saying of protestants in general; we were, even, forced (e) ep. 141. to make a separation from the whole world. and, luther of himself in particular: in the beginning (f) in praefar. operum suorum. i was alone. ergo (say i, by your good leave) you were at least a schismatic, divided from the ancient church, and a member of no new church. for no sole man can constitute a church; & though he could, yet such a church could not be that glorious company, of whose number, greatness, and amplitude, so much hath been spoken both in the old testament, & in the new. 13. d. potter endeavours to avoid this evident argument by diverse evasions; but by the confutation thereof i will (with god's holy assistance) take occasion, even out of his own answers and grounds, to bring unanswerable reasons to convince them of schism. 14. his chief answer is: that they have not left the church, but her corruptions. 15. i reply. this answer may be given either by those furious people, who teach that those abuses, and corruptions in the church were so enormous, that they could not stand with the nature, or being of a true church of christ: or else by those other more calm protestants, who affirm that those errors did not destroy the being, but only deform the beauty of the church. against both these sorts of men, i may fitly use that unanswerable dilemma, which s. augustine brings against the donatists in these concluding words: tell me whether the (g) lib. 2. cont. epist. gaudent. c. ●. church at that time when you say she entertained those who were guilty of all crimes, by the contagion of those sinful persons, perished, or perished not? answer; whether the church perished, or perished not? make choice of what you think. if then she perished, what church brought forth donatus? (we may say luther.) but if she could not perish, because so many were incorporated into her (without baptism (that is, without a second baptism, or rebaptisation, & i may say, without luther's reformation) answer me i pray you, what madness did move the sect of donatus to separate themselves from her upon pretence to avoid the communion of bad men? i beseech the reader to ponder every one of s. augustine words: & to consider whether anything could have been spoken more directly against luther, & his followers of what sort soever. 16. and now to answer more in particular; i say to those who teach, that the visible church of christ perished for many ages, that i can easily afford them the courtesy, to free them from mere schism: but all men touched with any spark of zeal to vindicate the wisdom, and goodness of our saviour from blasphemous injury, cannot choose but believe and proclaim them to be superlative arch-heretiques. nevertheless, if they will needs have the honour of singularity, and desire to be both formal heretics, & properly schismatics, i will tell them, that while they dream of an invisible church of men, which agreed with them in faith, they will upon due reflection find themselves to be schismatics, from those corporeal angels, or invisible men, because they held external communion with the visible church of those times, the outward communion of which visible church these modern hotspurs forsaking, were thereby divided from the outward communion of their hidden brethren, & so are separatists from the external communion of them, with whom they agree in faith, which is schism in the most formal, and proper signification thereof. moreover according to d. potter, these boisterous creatures are properly schismatics for, the reason why he thinks himself, and such as he is, to be cleared from schism, notwithstanding their division from the roman church, is because (according to his divinity) the property of (h) pag. 76. schism, is (witness the donatists and luciferians) to cut off from the body of christ, and the hope of salvation, the church from which it separats: but those protestants of whom we now speak, cut of from the body of christ, and the hope of salvation, the church from which they separated themselves; and they do it directly as the donatists (in whom you exemplify) did by affirming that the true church had perished: and therefore they cannot be cleared from schism, if you may be their judge consider, i pray you, how many prime protestants both domestical and foreign, you have at one blow struck off from hope of salvation, and condemned to the lowest pit, for the grievous sin of schism. and withal it imports you to consider, that you also involve yourself, and other moderate protestants in the self same crime and punishment, while you communicate with those, who, according to your own principles, are properly, and formally schismatics. for if you held yourself obliged under pain of damnation to forsake the communion of the roman church, by reason of her errors and corruptions, which yet you confess were not fundamental; shall it not be much more damnable for you, to live in communion and confraternity, with those who defend an error of the failing of the church, which in the donatists you confess (i) pag. 12●. to have been properly heretical against the article of our creed; i believe the church? and i desire the reader, here to apply an authority of s. cyprian (ep. 76.) which he shall find alleged in the next number. and this may suffice for confutation of the aforesaid answer, as it might have relation to the rigid caluinists. 17. for confutation of those protestants, who hold that the church of christ had always a being, and cannot err in points fundamental, and yet teach, that she may err in matters of less moment, wherein if they forsake her, they would be accounted not to leave the church, but only her corruptions; i must say, that they change the state of our present question, not distinguishing between internal faith, and external communion, nor between schism, and heresy. this i demonstrate out of d. potter himself, who in express words teacheth, that the promises which our lord hath made (k) pa. 151. unto his church for his assistance, are intended, not to any particular persons or churches, but only to the church catholic: and they are to be extended not to every parcel, or particularity of truth, but only to points of faith, or fundamental. and afterwards speaking of the universal church, he saith: it's comfort (l) pag. 155. enough for the church, that the lord in mercy will secure her from all capital dangers, and conserve her on earth against all enemies; but she may not hope to triumph over all sin and error, till she be in heau●n. out of which words i observe, that, according to d. potter, the self same church, which is the universal church, remaining the universal true church of christ, may fall into errors and corruptions: from whence it clearly followeth that it is impossible to leave the externall communion of the church so corrupted, and retain external communion with the catholic church; since the church catholic, and the church so corrupted is the self same one church, or company of men. and the contrary imagination talks in a dream, as if the errors and infections of the catholic church were not inherent in her, but were separate from her, like to accidents without any subject, or rather indeed, as if they were not accidents, but hypostases, or persons subsisting by themselves. for men cannot be said to live, in, or out of the communion of any dead creature, but with persons, endued with life and reason; and much less can men be said to live in the communion of accidents, as errors and corruptions are, and therefore it is an absurd thing to affirm, that protestants divided themselues from the corruptions of the church, but not from the church herself, seeing the corruptions of the church were inherent in the church. all this is made more clear, if we consider, that when luther appeared, there were not two distinct visible true catholic churches, holding contrary doctrines, and divided in external communion; one of the which two churches did triumph over all error, and corruption in doctrine and practice; but the other was stained with both. for to feign this diversity of two churches cannot stand with record of histories, which are silent of any such matter. it is against d. potter's own grounds, that the church may err in points not fundamental, which were not true, if you will imagine a certain visible catholic church free from error even in points not fundamental. it contradicteth the words in which he said, the church may not hope to triumph over all error, till she be in heaven. it evacuateth the brag of protestants, that luther reform the whole church: and lastly it maketh luther a schismatic, for leaving the communion of all visible churches, seeing (upon this supposition) there was a visible church of christ free from all corruption, which therefore could not be forsaken without just imputation of schism. we must therefore truly affirm, that since there was but one visible church of christ, which was truly catholic, and yet was (according to protestants) stained with corruption; when luther left the external communion of that corrupted church, he could not remain in the communion of the catholic church, no more than it is possible to keep company with christopher potter, and not keep company with the provost of queen's college in oxford, if d. potter and the provost be one, and the self same man: for so one should be, and not be with him at the same time. this very argument drawn from the unity of god's church, s. cyprian v rgeth to convince, that novatianus was cut off from the church in these words: the church is (m) epist. 16. ad mag. one, which being one cannot be both within and without. if she be with novatianus, she was not with cornelius. but if she were with cornelius, who succeeded fabianus, by lawful ordination, novatianus is not in the church. i purposely here speak only of external communion with the catholic church. for in this point there is great difference between internal acts of our understanding, and will; and of external deeds. our understanding and will are faculties (as philosophers speak) abstractive, and able to distinguish, and as it were, to part things, though in themselves they be really conjoined. but real external deeds do take things in gross as they find them, not separating things which in reality are joined together. thus, one may consider and love a sinner as he is a man, friend, benefactor, or the like; and at the same time not consider him, nor love him as he is a sinner; because these are acts of our understanding and will, which may respect their objects under some one formality, or consideration, without reference to other things contained in the self same objects. but if one should strike, or kill a sinful man, he will not be excused, by alleging, that he killed him, not as a man, but as a sinner; because the self same person being a man, and the sinner, the external act of murder fell jointly upon the man, & the sinner. and for the same reason one cannot avoid the company of a sinner, and at the same time be really present with that man who is a sinner. and this is our case: and in this our adversaries are egregiously, and many of them affectedly, mistaken. for one may in some points believe as the church believeth, and disagree from her in other. one may love the truth which she holds, and detest her (pretended) corruptions. but it is impossible that a man should really separate himself from her external communion, as she is corrupted, and be really within the same external communion as she is sound; because she is the self same church which is supposed to be sound in some things, and to err in others. now, our question for the present doth concern only this point of external communion: because schism, as it is distinguished from heresy is committed when one divides himself from the externall communion of that church with which he agrees in faith; whereas heresy doth necessarily imply a difference in matter of faith, and belief: and therefore to say, that they left not the visible church, but her errors, can only excuse them from heresy (which shall be tried in the next chapter) but not from schism, as long as they are really druided from the externall communion of the self same visible church; which, notwithstanding those errors wherein they do in judgement descent from her, doth still remain the true catholic church of christ; and therefore while they forsake the corrupted church, they forsake the catholic church. thus than it remaineth clear, that their chiefest answer changeth the very state of the question; confoundeth internal acts of the understanding with external deeds; doth not distinguish between schism and heresy; and leaves this demonstrated against them: that they divided themselves from the communion of the visible catholic church, because they conceived that she needed reformation. but whether this pretence of reformation will acquit them of schism, i refer to the unpartial judges, heretofore (n) num. 8. alleged; as to s. irenaeus who plainly saith: they cannot make any so important reformation, as the evil of the schism is pernicious. to s. denis of alexandria, saying: certainly all things should be endured rather than to consent to the division of the church of god: those martyrs being no less glorious that expose themselves to hinder the dismembering of the church, than those that suffer rather than they will offer sacrifice to idols. to s. augustine, who tells us: that not to hear the church, is a more grievous thing then if he were stricken with the sword, consumed with flames, exposed to wild beasts. and to conclude all in few words, he giveth this general prescription: there is no just necessity, to divide unity. and d. potter may remember his own words: there neither was (s) pag. 75. nor can be any just cause to departed from the church of christ; no more than from christ himself. but i have showed that luther, and the rest departed from the church of christ (if christ had any church upon earth:) therefore there could be no just cause (of reformation, or what else soever) to do as they did; and therefore they must be contented to be held for schismatics. 18 moreover; i demand whether those corruptions which moved them to forsake the communion of the visible church, were in manners, or doctrine? corruption in manners yields no sufficient cause to leave the church, otherwise men must go not only out of the church, but out of the world, as the apostle (t) 1. cor. 5.10. saith. our blessed saviour foretold that there would be in the church tares with choice corn, & sinners with just men. if then protestants wax zealous, with the servants to pluck up the weeds, let them first hearken to the wisdom of the master: let both grow up. and they ought to imitate them, who as s. augustine saith: tolerate for the (u) ep. 162. good of unity, that which they detest for the good of equity. and to whom the more frequent, and foul such scandals are; by so much the more is the merit of their perseverance in the communion of the church, and the martyrdom of their patience, as the same saint calls it. if they were offended with the life of some ecclesiastical persons, must they therefore deny obedience to their pastors, and finally break with god's church? the pastor of pastors, teacheth us another lesson: upon the chair of moses (w) mat. 33. have sitten the scribes & pharises. all things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe ye, & do ye: but according to their works do ye not. must people except against laws, and revolt from magistrates, because some are negligent, or corrupt in the execution of the same laws, and performance of their office? if they intended reformation of manners, they used a strange means for the achieving of such an end, by denying the necessity of confession, laughing at austerity of penance, condemning the vows of chastity, poverty, obedience, breaking fasts, etc. and no less unfit were the men, than the means. i love not recrimination. but it is well known to how great crimes, luther, caluin, zwinglius, beza., and other of the prime reformers were notorioussy obnoxious; as might be easily demonstrated by the only transcribing of what others have delivered upon that subject; whereby it would appear, that they were very fare from being any such apostolical men as god is wont to use in so great a work. and whereas they were wont, especially in the beginning of their revolt, maliciously to exaggerate the faults of some clergy men, erasmus said well (epist ad fratres inferioris germaniae,) let the riot, lust, ambition, avarice of priests, and whatsoever other crimes be gathered together, heresy alone doth exceed all this filthy lake of vices. besides, nothing at all was omitted by the sacred council of trent which might tend to reformation of manners. and finally the vices of others are not hurtful to any but such as imitate, and consent to them; according to the saying of s. augustine: we conserve (y) de unit, eccles. c. 2● innocency, not by knowing the ill deeds of men, but by not yielding consent to such as we know, and by not judging rashly of such faults as we know not. if you answer; that, not corruption in manners, but the approbation of them, doth yield sufficient cause to leave the church; i reply with s. augustine; that the church doth (as the pretended reformers ought to have done) tolerate or bear with scandals and corruptions, but neither doth, nor can approve them. the church (saith he) being placed (z) ep. 116. betwixt much chaff and cockle, doth bear with many things; but doth not approve, nor dissemble, nor act those things which are against faith, and good life. but because to approve corruption in manners as lawful, were an error against faith, it belongs to corruption in doctrine, which was the second part of my demand. 19 now then, that corruptions in doctrine (i still speak upon the untrue supposition of our adversaries) could not afford any sufficient cause, or colourable necessity to departed from that visible church, which was extant when luther rose, i demonstrate out of d. potter's own confession; that the catholic church neither hath, nor can err in points fundamental, as we shown out of his own express words, which he also of set purpose delivereth in diverse other places; and all they are obliged to maintain the same who teach that christ had always a visible church upon earth: because any one fundamental error overthrows the being of a true church. now (as schoolmen speak) it is, implicatio in terminis (a contradiction so plain, that one word destroyeth the other, as if one should say, a living dead man) to affirm that the church doth not err in points necessary to salvation, or damnably; & yet that it is damnable to remain in her communion because she teacheth errors which are confessed not to be damnable. for if the error be not damnable, nor against any fundamental article of faith, the belief thereof cannot be damnable. but d. potter teacheth, that the catholic church cannot, and that the roman church hath not erred against any fundamental article of faith therefore, it cannot be damnable to remain in her communion; and so the pretended corruptions in her doctrine could not induce any obligation to departed from her communion, nor could excuse them from schism, who upon pretence of necessity in point of conscience, forsook her. and d. potter will never be able to salve a manifest contradiction in these his words: to departed from the church (a) pag. 75. of rome in some doctrine, and practices, there might be necessary cause, though she wanted nothing necessary to salvation. for if, notwithstanding these doctrines and practices, she wanted nothing necessary to salvation; how could it be necessary to salvation to forsake her? and therefore we must still con clude that to forsake her, was properly an act of schism. 20. from the self same ground of the infallibility of the church in all fundamental points, i argue after this manner. the visible church cannot be forsaken, without damnation, upon pretence that it is damnable to remain in her communion, by reason of corruption in doctrine; as long as, for the truth of her faith and belief, she performeth the duty which she oweth to god, and her neighbour: as long as she performeth what our saviour exacts at her hands: as long as she doth, as much as lies in her power to do. but (even according to d potters assertions) the church performeth all these things, as long as she erreth not in points fundamental, although she were supposed to err in other points not fundamental. therefore, the communion of the visible church cannot be forsaken without damnation, upon pretence that it is damnable to remain in her communion, by reason of corruption in doctrine. the mayor, or first proposition of itself is evident. the minor, or second proposition doth necessarily fellow out of d. potter's own doctrine above rehearsed, that, the promises of our lord made to his church for his assistance, are to be (b) pag. 151. extended only to points of faith, or fundamental: (let me note here by the way that by his (or,) he seems to exclude from faith all points which are not fundamental, & so we may deny innumerable texts of scripture:) that, it is (c) pag. 155. comfort enough for the church, that the lord in mercy will secure her from all capital dangers etc. but she may not hope to triumph over all sin and error, till she be in heaven. for it is evident, that the church (for as much as concerns the truth of her doctrines and belief) owes no more duty to god and her neighbour; neither doth our saviour exact more at her hands, nor is it in her power to do more than god doth assist her to do; which assistance is promised only for points fundamental; and consequently as long as she teacheth no fundamental error, her communion cannot without damnation be forsaken: and we may fitly apply against d. potter a concionatory declamation which he makes against us, where he saith: (d) pag. 221. may the church of after. ages make the narrow way to heaven, narrowier then our saviour left it & c? since he himself obligeth men under pain of damnation to forsake the church, by reason of errors against which our saviour thought it needles to promise his assistance, and for which he neither denieth his grace in this life, or glory in the next. will d. potter oblige the church to do more than she may even hope for? or to perform on earth that which is proper to heaven alone? 21. and as from your own doctrine concerning the infallibility of the church in fundamental points, we have proved that it was a grievous sin to forsake her: so do we take a strong argument from the fallibility of any who dare pretend to reform the church, which any man in his wits will believe to be endued with at last as much infallibility as private men can challenge: and d. potter expressly affirmeth that christ's promises of his assistance are not intended (e) pag. 1●1. to any particular persons or churches: and therefore to leave the church by reason of errors, was at the best hand but to flit from one erring company to another, without any new hope of triumphing over errors, and without necessity, or utility to forsake that communion of which s. augustine saith, there is (f) ep. con●. parmen. lth. 2. çap. 11. no just necessity to divide unity. which will appear to be much more evident if we consider that though the church had maintained some false doctrines, yet to leave her communion to remedy the old, were but to add a new increase of errors, arising from the innumerable disagreements of sectaries, which must needs bring with it a mighty mass of falsehoods, because the truth is but one, & indivisible. and this reason is yet stronger, if we still remember that even according to d. potter the visible church hath a blessing not to err in points fundamental, in which any private reformer may fail: and therefore they could not pretend any necessity to forsake that church, out of whose communion they were exposed to danger of falling into many more, and even into damnable errors. remember i pray you, what yourself affirms (pag. 69.) where speaking of our church and yours, you say: all the difference is from the weeds, which remain there, and beer are taken away; yet neither here perfectly, nor every where alike. behold a fair confession of corruptions, still remaining in your church, which you can only excuse by saying they are not fundamental, as like wise those in the roman church are confessed to be not fundamental. what man of judgement willbe a protestant, since that church is confessedly a corrupt one? 22. i still proceed to impugn you expressly upon your grounds. you say: that it is comfort enough for the church, that the lord in merey will secure her from all capital dangers: but she may not hope to triumph over all sin, and error till she be in heaven. now if it be comfort enough to be secured from all capital dangers, which can arise only from error in fundamental points: why were not your first reformers content with enough, but would needs dismember the church, out of a pernicious greediness of more then enough? for, this enough, which according to you is attained by not erring in points not fundamental, was enjoyed before luther's reformation, unless you will now against yourself affirm, that long before luther there was no church free from error in fundamental points. moreover if (as you say) no church may hope to triumph over all error till she be in heau●n; you must either grant that errors not fundamental cannot yield sufficient cause to forsake the church, or else you must affirm that all communities may, & aught to be forsaken, & so there willbe no end of schisms: or rather indeed there can be no such thing as schism, because according to you, all communities are subject to errors not fundamental, for which if they may be lawfully forsaken, it followeth clearly that it is not schism to forsake them. lastly, since it is not lawful to leave the communion of the church for abuses in life and manners, because such miseries cannot be avoided in this world of temptation: and since according to your assertion no church may hope to triumph oner all sin and error; you must grant, that as she ought not to be left by reason of sin; so neither by reason of errors not fundamental, because both sin, & error are (according to you) impossible to be avoided till she be in heaven. 23. furthermore, i ask whether it be the quantity or number; or quality, and greatness of doctrinal errors that may yield sufficient cause to relinquish the church's communion? i prove that neither. not the quality, which is supposed to be beneath the degree of points fundamental, or necessary to salvation. not the quantity or number: for the foundation is strong enough to support all such unnecessary additions, as you term them. and if they once weighed so heavy as to overthrew the foundation, they should grow to fundamental errors, into which yourself teach the church cannot fall. hay and stubble (say you) and such (g) pag. 153. unprofitable stuff, laid on the roof, destroys not the house, whilst the main pillars are standing on the foundation. and tell us, i pray you, the precise number of errors which cannot be tolerated? i know you cannot do it; and therefore being uncertain, whether or no you have cause to leave the church, you are certainly obliged not to forsake her. our blessed saviour hath declared his will, that we forgive a private offender seaventy seven times, that is, without limitation of quantity of time, or quality of trespasses; and why then dare you allege his command, that you must not pardon his church for errors, acknowledged to be not fundamental? what excuse can you feign to yourselves, who for points not necessary to salvation, have been occasions, causes, and authors of so many mischiefs, as could not but unaucydably accompany so huge a breach in kingdoms, in common wealths, in private persons, in public magistrates, in body, in soul, in goods, in lise, in church, in the state, by schisms, by rebellions, by war, by famine, by plague, by bloodshed, by all sorts of imaginable calamities upon the whole face of the earth, wherein as in a map of desolation, the heaviness of your crime appears, under which the world doth pant? 24. to say for your excuse, that you left not the church, but her errors, doth not extenuate, but aggravate your sin. for by this devise you sow seeds of endless schisms, & put into the mouth of all separatists, a ready answer how to avoid the note of schism from your protestant church of england, or from any other church whatsoever. they will, i say, answer, as you do prompt, that your church may be forsaken, if she fall into errors, though they be not fundamental: and further that no church must hope to be free from such errors; which two grounds being once laid, it will not be hard to infer the consequence, that she may be forsaken. 25. from some other words of d. potter i like wise prove, that for errors not fundamental, the church ought not to be forsaken. there neither was (saith he) nor can be (h) pag. 5. any just cause to departed from the church of christ, no more then from christ himself. to departed from a particular church, & namely from the church of rome, in some doctrines and practices, there might be just and necessary cause, though the church of rome wanted nothing necessary to salvation. mark his doctrine, that there can be no just cause to departed from the church of christ: and yet he teacheth that the church of christ may err in points not fundamental; therefore (say i) we cannot forsake the roman church for points not fundamental, for than we might also forsake the church of christ, which yourself deny: and i pray you consider whether you do not plainly contradict yourself, while in the words above recited, you say there can be no just cause to forsake the catholic church; and yet that there may be necessary cause to departed from the church of rome, since you grant that the church of christ may err in points not fundamental; & that the roman church hath erred only in such points; as by and by we shall see more in particular. and thus much be said to disprove their chiefest answer, that they left not the church, but her corruptions. 26. another evasion d. potter bringeth, to avoid the imputation of schism, and it is because they still acknowledge the church of rome to be a member of the body of christ, and not cut off from the hope of salvation. and this (saith he) clears us from (i) pag. 76. the imputation of schism, whose property it is, to cut of from the body of christ, and the hope of salvation, the church from which it separates. 27. this is an answer which perhaps you may get some one to approve, if first you can put him out of his wits. for what prodigious doctrines are these? those protestants who believe that the church erred in points necessary to salvation, and for that cause left her, cannot be excused from damnable schism: but others who believed that she had no damnable errors, did very well, yea were obliged to forsake her: and (which is more miraculous, or rather monstrous) they did well to forsake her formally and precisely, because they judged, that she retained all means necessary to salvation. i say, because they so judged. for the very reason for which he acquitteth himself, and condemneth those others as schismatics, is because he holdeth that the church which both of them forsook, is not cut of from the body of christ, and the hope of salvation; whereas those other zealots deny her to be a member of christ's body, or capable of salvation, wherein alone they disagree from d. potter: for in the effect of separation they agree, only they do it upon a different motive or reason. were it not a strange excuse if a man would think to cloak his rebellion, by alleging that he held the person against whom he rebelled to be his lawful soveraygne? and d. potter thinks himself free from schism, because he forsook the church of rome, but yet so, as that still he held her to be the true church, and to have all necessary means to salvation. but i will no further urge this most solemn foppery, and do much more willingly put all catholics in mind, what an unspeakable comfort it is, that out adversaries are forced to confess, that they cannot clear themselves from schism, otherwise then by acknowledging that they do not, nor cannot cut off from the hope of salvation our church. which is as much as if they should in plain terms say: they must be damned, unless we may be saved. moreover this evasion doth indeed condemn your zealous brethren of heresy, for denying the church's perpetuity, but doth not clear yourself from schism, which consists in being divided from that true church, with which a man agreeth in all points of faith, as you must profess yourself to agree with the church of rome in all fundamental articles. for other wise you should cut her off from the hope of salvation, and so condemn yourself of schism. and lastly even according to the your own definition of schism, you cannot clear yourself from that crime, unless you be content to acknowledge a manifest contradiction in your own assertions. for if you do not cut us off from the body of christ, and the hope of salvation; how come you to say in another place that you judge a reconciliation with us to be (k) pag. 20. damnable? that to departed from the church of rome, there might be just and necessary (l) pag. 75. cause? that, they that have the understanding and means to discover their error, and neglect to use them (m) pag. 79. we dare not flatter them (say you) with so easy a censure, of hope of salvation? if then it be (as you say) a property of schism, to cut off from the hope of salvation the church from which it separates: how will you clear yourself from schism, who dare not flatter us with so easy a censure? and who affirm that a reconciliation with us is damnable? but the truth is, there is no constancy in your assertions, by reason of difficulties which press you on all sides. for, you are loath to affirm clearly that we may be saved, lest such a grant might be occasion (as in all reason it ought to be) of the conversion of protestants to the roman church: and on the other side, if you affirm that our church erred in points fundamental, or necessary to salvation, you know not how, nor where, nor among what company of men, to find a perpetual visible church of christ before luther: and the fore your best shift is to say, and unsay as your occasions command. i do not examine your assertion that it is the property of schism to cut of from the body of christ, and the hope of salvation, the church from which it separates; wherein you are mightily mistaken, as appears by your own example of the donatists, who were most formal and proper heretics, and not schismatics, as schism is a vice distinct from heresy. besides, although the donatists, & luciferians (whom you also allege) had been mere schismatics, yet it were against all good logic, from a particular to infer a general rule, to determine what is the property of schism. 28. a third devise i find in d. potier to clear his brethren from schism. there is (saith he) great difference between (n) pag. 75. a schism from them, and a reformation of ourselves. 29. this i confess is a acquaint subtlety, by which all schism, and sin may be as well excused. for what devil incarnate could merely pretend a separation, and not rather some other motive of virtue, truth, profit, or pleasure? but now since their pretended reformation consisted, as they gave out, in forsaking the corruptions of the church, the reformation of themselues, and their division from us, falls out to be one, and the self same thing. nay, we see that although they infinitely disagree in the particulars of their reformation, yet they symbolise, and consent in the general point of forsaking our pretended corruptions: an evident sign, that the thing, upon which their thoughts first pitched, was not any particular model, or idea of religion, but a settled resolution to forsake the church of rome. wherefore this metaphysical speculation, that they intended only to reform themselves, cannot possibly excuse them from schism, unless first they be able to prove, that they were obliged to departed from us. yet for as much as concerns the fact itself; it is clear, that luther's revolt did not proceed from any zeal of reformation: the motives which put him upon so wretched, and unfortunate a work, were covetousness, ambition, lust, pride, envy, and grudging that the promulgation of indulgences was not committed to himself, or such as he desired. he himself taketh god to witness, that he fell into these troubles casually, and (o) casu non voluntate in has turbas incidi deum ipsum testor. against his will (not upon any intention of reformation) not so much as dreaming or suspecting any change which might (p) act. ex mon. p. 404. happen. and he began to preach (against indulgences) when he knew not what (q) steidan lib. 16. fol. 232. the matter meant. for (saith he) i scarcely understood (r) sleid. lib. 13. fol. 177. then what the name of indulgences meant. in so much as afterwards luther did much mislike of his own undertaken course, oftentimes (saith he) wishing (s) luth. in colloq. mensal. that i had never begun that business. and fox saith: it is apparent that (t) act. mon. pag. 404. luther promised cardinal caietan to keep silence, provided also his adversaries would do the like. m. cowper reporteth further, that luther by his letter submitted (u) cowp. in his chronicle. himself to the pope, so that he might not be compelled to recant. with much more, which may be seen in (w) tract. 2. cap. 2. sect. 11. subd. 2. brereley. but this is sufficient to show, that luther was far enough from intending any reformation. and if he judged a reformation to be necessary, what a huge wickedness was it in him, to promise silence if his adversaries would do the like? or to submit himself to the pope, so that he might not be compelled to recant? or if the reformation were not indeed intended by him, nor judged to be necessary, how can he be excused from damnable. schism? and this is the true manner of luther's revolt, taken from his own acknowledgements, and the words of the more ancient protestants themselves, whereby d. potter's faltering, & mincing the matter is clearly discovered, and confuted. upon what motives our country was divided from the roman church by king henry the eight, and how the schism was continued by queen elizabeth, i have no hart to rip up. the world knoweth, it was not upon any zeal of reformation. 30. but you will prove your former evasion by a couple of similitudes: if a monastery (x) pag. 81.80. should reform itself, and should reduce into practice, ancient good discipline, when others would not; in this case could it in reason be charged with schism from others, or with apostasy from its rule and order? or as in a society of men universally infected with some disease, they that should free themselves from the common disease, could not be therefore said to separate from the society: so neither can the reformed churches be truly accused for making a schism from the church, seeing all they did was to reform themselves. 31. i was very glad to find you in a monastery, but sorry when i perceived that you were inventing ways how to forsake your vocation, and to maintain the lawfulness of schism from the church, and apostasy from a religious order. yet before you make your final resolution hear a word of advice. put case; that a monastery did confessedly observe their substantial vows, and all principal statutes, or constitutions of the order, though with some neglect of lesser monastical observances: and that a reformation were undertaken, not by authority of lawful superiors, but by some one, or very few in comparison of the rest: and those few known to be led, not with any spirit of reformation, but by some other sinister intention: and that the statutes of the house were even by those busy-fellowes confessed, to have been time out of mind understood, and practised as now they were: and further that the pretended reformers acknowledged that themselves as soon as they were gone out of their monastery, must not hope to be free from those or the like errors and corruptions, for which they left their brethren: and (which is more) that they might fall into more enormous crimes than they did, or could do in their monastery, which we suppose to be secured from all substantial corruptions, for the avoiding of which they have an infallible assistance. put (i say) together all these my and's, and then come with your if's, if a monastery should reform itself etc. and tell me, if you could excuse such reformers from schism, sedition, rebellion, apostasy, & c? what would you say of such reformers in your college? or tumultuous persons in a kingdom? remember now your own tenets, and then reflect how fit a similitude you have picked out, to prove yourself a schismatique. you teach that the church may err in points not fundamental, but that for all fundamental points she is secured from error: you teach that no particular person, or church hath any promise of assistance in points fundamental: you, and the whole world can witness that when luther began, he being but only one, opposed himself to all, as well subjects as superiors; and that even then, when he himself confessed that he had no intention of reformation: you cannot be ignorant but that many chief learned protestants are forced to confess the antiquity of our doctrine and practice, and do in several, and many controversies, acknowledge that the ancient fathers stood on our side: consider i say these points, and see whether your similitude do not condemn your progenitors of schism from god's visible church, yea and of apostasy also from their religious orders, if they were vowed regulars, as luther, and diverse of them were. 32. from the monastery you are fled into an hospital of persons universally infected with some disease, where you find to be true what i supposed, that after your departure from your brethren you might fall into greater inconveniences, and more infectious diseases, than those for which you left them. but you are also upon the point to abandon these miserable needy persons, in whose behalf for charity's sake, let me set before you these considerations. if the disease neither were, nor could be mortal, because in that company of men god had placed a tree of life: if going thence, the sick man might by curious tasting the tree of knowledge eat poison under pretence of bettering his health: if he could not hope thereby to avoid other diseases like those for which he had quitted the company of the first infected men: if by his departure innumerable mischiefs were to ensue; could such a man without sencelenesse be excused by saying, that he sought to free himself from the common disease, but not forsooth to separate from the society? now yourself compare the church to a man deformed with (y) pag. 155. superfluous fingers and toes, but yet who hath not lost any vital part: you acknowledge that out of her society no man is secured from damnable error, and the world can bear witness what unspeakable mischiefs and calamities ensued luther's revolt from the church. pronounce then concerning them, the same sentence which even now i have showed them to deserve who in the manner aforesaid should separate from persons universally infected with some disease. 33. but alas, to what pass hath heresy brought men, who term themselues christians, & yet blush not to compare the beloved spouse of our lord, the one dove, the purchase of our saviour's most precious blood, the holy catholic church, i mean that visible church of christ which luther found spread over the whole world; to a monastery so disordered that it must be forsaken; to the giant in gath much deformed with superfluous singers and toes; to a society of men universally infected with some disease? and yet all these comparisons, & much worse, are neither injurious, nor undeserved, if once it be granted, or can be proved, that the visible church of christ may err in any one point of faith, although not fundamental. 34. before i part from these similitudes, one thing i must observe against the evasion of d. potter, that they left not the church, but her corruptions. for as those reformers of the monastery, or those other who left the company of men universally infected with some disease, would deny themselves to be schismatics, or any way blame-worthy, but could not deny, but that they left the said communities: so luther and the rest cannot so much as pretend, not to have left the visible church, which according to them was infected with many diseases, but can only pretend that they did not sin in leaving her. and you speak very strangely when you say: in a society of men universally infected with some disease, they that should free themselues from the common disease, could not be therefore said to separate from the society. for if they do not separate themselves from the society of the infected persons; how do they free themselves & departed from the common disease? do they at the same time remain in the company, and yet departed from those infected creatures? we must then say, that they separate themselves from the persons, though it be by occasion of the disease: or if you say, they free their own persons from the common disease, yet so, that they remain still in the company infected, subject to the superiors and governors thereof, eating & drinking & keeping public assemblies with them; you cannot but know, that luther and your reformers the first pretended free persons from the supposed common infection of the roman church, did not so: for they endeavoured to force the society whereof they were parts, to be healed and reform as they were: and if it refused, they did, when they had forces, drive them away, even their superiors both spiritual and temporal, as is notorious. or if they had not power to expel that supposed infected community, or church of that place, they departed from them corporally, whom mentally they had forsaken before. so that you cannot deny, but luther forsook the external communion, and company of the catholic church, for which as yourself (z) pag. 75. confess, there neither was nor can be any just cause, no more then to departed from christ himself. we do therefore infer, that luther and the rest who forsook that visible church which they found upon earth, were truly, and properly schismatics. 35. moreover, it is evident that there was a division between luther and that church which was visible when he arose: but that church cannot be said to have divided herself from him, before whose time she was, & in comparison of whom she was a whole, and he but a part: therefore we must say, that he divided himself & went out of her; which is to be a schismatic, or heretic, or both. by this argument, optatus melivitanus proveth, that not caecilianus, but parmenianus was a schismatic, saying: for, caecilianus went (a) lib. 1. cont. parm. not out of maiorinus thy grandfather, but maiorinus from caecilianus: neither did caecilianus departed from the chair of peter, or cyprian, but maiorinus, in whose chair thou sittest, which had no beginning before maiorinus. since it manifestly appeareth that these things were acted in this manuer, it is clear that you are heirs both of the deliverers up (of the holy bible to be burned) and also of schismatics. the whole argument of this holy father makes directly both against luther, and all those who continue the division which he begun; and proves: that, going out, convinceth those who go out to be schismatic; but not those from whom they depart: that to forsake the chair of peter is schism; yea, that it is schism to erect a chair which had no origen, or as it were predecessor, before itself: that to continue in a division begun by others, is to be heirs of schismatics: and lastly; that to departed from the communion of a particular church (as that of s. cyprian was) is sufficient to make a man incur the guilt of schism, and consequently, that although protestants, who deny the pope to be supreme head of the church, do think by that heresy to clear luther from schism, in disobeying the pope: yet that will not serve to free him from schism, as it importeth a division from the obedience, or communion of the particular bishop, diocese, church, & country, where he lived. 36. but it is not the heresy of protestants, or any other sectaries, that can deprive s. peter, and his successors, of the authority which christ our lord conferred upon them over his whole militant church: which is a point confessed by learned protestants to be of great antiquity, and for which the judgement of diverse most ancient holy fathers is reproved by them, as may be seen at large in brereley (b) tract. 1. sect. 3. subd. 10. exactly citing the places of such chief protestants. and we must say with s. cyprian: heresies (c) epist. 55. have sprung, and schisms been bred from no other cause then for that the priest of god is not obeyed, nor one priest and judge is considered to be for the time in the church of god. which words do plainly condemn luther, whether he will understand them as spoken of the universal, or of every particular church. for he withdrew himself both from the obedience of the pope, and of all particular bishops, and churches. and no less clear is the said optatus melivitanus, saying: thou caused not deny (d) lib 2. cont. parm. but that thou knowest, that in the city of rome, there was first an episcopal chair placed for peter, wherein peter the head of all the apost es sat, whereof also he was called cephas; in which one chair, unity was to be kept by all, lest the other apostles might attribute to themselves, each one his particular chair; and that he should be a schismatic and sinner, who against that one single chair should erect another. many other authorities of fathers might be alleged to this purpose, which i omit, my intention being not to handle particular controversies. 37. now, the arguments which hitherto i have brought, prove that luther, and his followers were schismatics, without examining (for as much as belongs to this point) whether or no the church can err in any one thing great or small, because it is universally true, that there can be no just cause to forsake the communion of the visible church of christ, according to s. augustine, saying: it is not possible (e) ep. 48. that any may have just cause to separate their communion, from the communion of the whole world, and call themselves the church of christ, as if they had separated themselves from the communion of all nations upon just cause. but since indeed the church cannot err in any one point of doctrine, nor can approve any corruption in manners; they cannot with any colour avoid the just imputation of eminent schism, according to the verdict of the same holy father in these words: the most manifest (f) de bapt. lib. 5. ç. 1. sacrilege of schism is eminent, when there was no cause of separation. 38. lastly, i prove that protestants cannot avoid the note of schism, at least by reason of their mutual separation from one another for most certain it is that there is very great difference, for the outward face of a church, and profession of a different faith, between the lutherans, the rigid caluinists, and the protestants of england so that if luther were in the right, those other protestants who invented doctrines far different from his, and divided themselves from him, must be reputed schismatics: & the like argument may proportionably be applied to their further divisions, and subdivisions. which reason i yet urge more strongly out of d potter, (g) pag. 20. who affirms, that to him & to such as are convicted in conscience of the errors of the roman church, a reconciliation is impossible, and damnable: and yet he teacheth, that their difference from the roman church, is not in fundamental points. now, since among protestants there is such diversity of belief, that one denieth what the other affirmeth, they must be convicted in conscience that one part is in error (at least not fundamental.) and, if d. potter will speak consequently, that a reconciliation between them is impossible: and what greater division, or schism can there be, then when one part must judge a reconciliation with the other to be impossible, and damnable? 39 out of all which premises, this conclusion follows: that, luther & his followers were schismatics; from the universal visible church; from the pope christ's vicar on earth, and successor to s. peter; from the particular diocese in which they received baptism; from the country or nation to which they belonged; from the bishop under whom they lived; many of them from the religious order in which they were professed; from one another; and lastly from a man's self (as much as is possible) because the self same protestant to day is convicted in conscience, that his yesterday opinion was an error (as d. potter knows a man in the world who from a puritan was turned to a moderate protestant) with whom therefore a reconciliation, according to d. potter's grounds, is both impossible, and damnable. 40. it seems d. potters last refuge to excuse himself and his brethren from schism, is because they proceeded according to their conscience, dictating an obligation under damnation to forsake the errors maintained by the church of rome. his words are: although we confess the (h) pag. 81. church of rome to be (in some sense) a true church, and her errors to some men not damnable: yet for us who are convinced in conscience, that she errs in many things, a necessity lies upon us, even under pain of damnation, to forsake her in those errors. 41. i answer: it is very strange, that you judge us extremely uncharitable, in saying, protestant's cannot be saved; while yourself avouch the same of all learned catholics, whom ignorance cannot excuse. if this your pretence of conscience may serve, what schismatique in the church, what popular seditious brain in a kingdom, may not allege the dictamen of conscience to free themselves from schism, or sedition? no man wishes them to do any thing against their conscience, but we say, that they may, and aught to rectify, and depose such a conscience, which is easy for them to do, even according to your own affirmation; that we catholics want no means necessary to salvation. easy to do? nay not to do so, to any man in his right wits must seem impossible. for how can these two apprehensions stand together: in the roman church i enjoy all means necessary to salvation, and yet i cannot hope to besaved in that church? or, who can conjoin in one brain (not cracked) these assertions. after due examination i judge the roman errors not to be in themselves fundamental, or damnable; and yet i judge that according to true reason, it is damnable to hold them? i say according to true reason. for if you grant your conscience to be erroneous, in judging that you cannot be saved in the roman church, by reason of her errors; there is no other remedy, but that you must rectify your erring conscience, by your other judgement, that her errors are not fundamental, nor damnable. and this is no more charity, than you daily afford to such other protestants as you term brethren, whom you cannot deny to be in some errors, (unless you will hold, that of contradictory propositions both may be true) & yet you do not judge it damnable to live in their communion, because you hold their errors not to be fundamental. you ought to know, that according to the doctrine of all divines, there is great difference betwixt a speculative persuasion, and a practical dictamen of conscience; and therefore although they had in speculation conceived the visible church to err in some doctrines, of themselves not damnable; yet with that speculative judgement they might, & aught to have entertained this practical dictamen, that for points not substantial to faith, they neither were bound, nor lawfully could break the bond of charity, by breaking unity in god's church. you say that, hay & stubble (i) pag. 155. and such unprofitable stuff (as are corruptions in points not fundamental) laid on the roof, destroys not the house, whilst the main pillars are standing on the foundation. and you would think him a madman who to be rid of such stuff, would set his house on fire, that so he might walk in the light, as you teach that luther was obliged to forsake the house of god, for an unnecessary light, not without a combustion formidable to the whole christian world; rather than bear with some errors, which did not destroy the foundation of faith. and as for others who entered in at the breach first made by luther, they might, & aught to have guided their consciences by that most reasonable rule of vincentius lyrinensis, delivered in these words. indeed it is a matter of great (k) adverse. hares. c. 27. moment, and both most profitable to be learned, & necessary to be remembered, & which we ought again and again to illustrate, and inculcate with weighty heaps of examples, that almost all catholics may know, that they ought to receive the doctors with the church, and not forsake the faith of the church with the doctors: and much less should they forsake the faith of the church to follow luther, caluin, and such other novelists. moreover though your first reformers had conceived their own opinions to be true; yet they might, and aught to have doubted, whether they were certain: because yourself affirm, that infallibility was not promised to any particular persons, or churches. and since in cases of uncertainties, we are not to leave our superior, nor cast off his obedience, or publicly oppose his decrees; your reformers might easily have found a safe way to satisfy their zealous conscience, without a public breach: especially if with this their uncertainty, we call to mind the peaceable possession, and prescription which by the confession of your own brethren, the church, & pope of rome did for many ages enjoy. i wish you would examine the works of your brethren, by the words yourself sets down to free s. cyprian from schism: every syllable of which words convinceth luther, and his compartners to be guilty of that crime, and showeth in what manner they might with great ease, & quietness have rectified their conscience about the pretended errors of the church s. cyprian (say you) was a peaceable (l) pag. 124. and modest man; dissented from others in his judgement, but without any breach of charity; condemned no man (much less any church) for the contrary opinion. he believed his own opinion to be true, but believed not, that it was necessary, and therefore did not proceed rashly and peremptorily to censure others, but left them to their liberty. did your reformers imitate this manner of proceeding? did they censure no man, much less any church? s. cyprian believed his own opinion to be true, but believed not that it was necessary, and therefore did not proceed rashly, and peremptorily to censure others. you believe the points wherein luther differs from us not to be fundamental, or necessary; and why do you not thence infer the like therefore, he should not have proceeded to censure others? in a word, since their disagreement from us concerned only points which were not fundamental, they should have believed that they might have been deceived, as well as the whole visible church, which you say may err in such points; and therefore their doctrines being not certainly true, and certainly not necessary, they could not give sufficient cause to departed from the communion of the church. 42. in other places you writ so much, as may serve us to prove that luther, and his followers ought to have deposed, and rectified their consciences: as for example, when you say. when the church (m) pag. 103. hath declared herself in any matter of opinion, or of rites, her declaration obliges all her children to peace, and external obedience. nor is it fit, or lawful for any private man to oppose his judgement to the public; (as luther and his fellows did) he may offer his opinion to be considered of, so he do it with evidence, or great probability of scripture, or reason, and very modestly, still containing himself within the dutiful respect which he oweth: but if he will factiously advance his own conceits (his own conceits? and yet grounded upon evidence of scripture) & despise the church so fare as to cut of her communion; he may be justly branded and condemned for a schismatic, yea and an heretic also in some degree, & in foro exteriori, though his opinion were true, and much more if it be false. can any man, even for a fee, have spoken more home to condemn your predecessors of schism, or heresy? can they have stronger motives to oppose the doctrine of the church, and leave her communion, than evidence of scripture? and yet, according to your own words, they should have answered, and rectified their conscience, by your doctrine, that though their opinion were true, and grounded upon evidence of scripture, or reason; yet it was not lawful for any private man to oppose his judgement to the public, which obligeth all christians to peace and external obedience: and if they cast of the communion of the church for maintaining their own conceits, they may be branded for schismatics, and heretics in some degree, and in foro exteriori, that is; all other christians ought so to esteem of them, (and why then are we accounted uncharitable for judging so of you?) and they also are obliged to behave themselves in the face of all christian churches, as if indeed they were not reformers, but schismatics, and heretics, or as pagans, and publicans. i thank you for your ingenuous confession, in recompense whereof i will do a deed of charity by putting you in mind, into what labyrinths you are brought, by teaching that the church may err in some points of faith, and yet that it is not lawful for any man to oppose his judgement, or leave her communion, though he have evidence of scripture against her. will you have such a man dissemble against his conscience, or externally deny a truth known to be contained in holy scripture? how much more coherently do catholics proceed, who believe the universal infallibility of the church, and from thence are assured that there can be no evidence of scripture, or reason against her definitions, nor any just cause to forsake her communion? m. hooker esteemed by many protestants an incomparable man, yields as much as we have alleged out of you. the will of god is (saith he) to have (n) in his preface to his books of ecclesiastical policy. sect. 6. pag. 28. them do whatsoever the sentence of judicial and final docision shall determine, yea though it seem in their private opinion, to swerve utterly from that which is right. doth not this man tell luther what the will of god was, which he transgressing must of necessity be guilty of schism? and must not m. hooker either acknowledge the universal infallibility of the church, or else drive men into the perplexities and labyrinths of distembling against their conscience, whereof now i spoke? not unlike to this, is your doctrine delivered elsewhere. before the nicene council (say you) many (o) pag. 131. good catholic bishops were of the same opinion with the donatists, that the baptism of heretics was ineffectual; and with the novatians, that the church ought not to absolve some grievous sinners. these errors therefore (if they had gone no further) were not in themselves heretical, especially in the proper, and most heavy, or bitter sense of that word; neither was it in the church's intention (or in her power) to make them such by her declaration. her intention was to silence all disputes, and to settle peace and unity in her government: to which all wise and peaceable men submitted, whatsoever their opinion was. and those factious people, for their unreasonable and uncharitable opposition, were very justly branded for schismatics. for us, the mistaker will never prove that we oppose any declaration of the catholic church etc. and therefore he doth unjustly charge us either with schism, or heresy. these words manifestly condemn your reformers who opposed the visible church in many of her declarations, doctrines, and commands imposed upon them, for silencing all disputes, and settling peace and unity in the government, and therefore they still remaining obstinately disobedient, are justly charged with schism, and heresy. and it is to be observed that you grant the donatists to have been very justly branded for schismatics, although their opposition against the church did concern (as you hold) a point not fundamental to the faith, and which according to s. augustine cannot be proved out of scripture alone; and therefore either doth evidently convince that the church is universally infallible, even in points not fundamental, or else that it is schism to oppose her declarations in those very things wherein she may err; and consequently that luther, and his fellows were schismatics, by opposing the visible church for points not fundamental, though it were (untruly) supposed that she erred in such points. but by the way, how come you on the sudden to hold the determination of a general council (of nice) to be the declaration of the catholic church, seeing you teach, that general counsels may err even fundamentally? and do you now say, with us, that to oppose the declaration of the church is sufficient that one may be branded with heresy, which is a point so often impugned by you? 43. it is therefore most evident, that no pretended scruple of conscience could excuse luther, which he might, and aught to have rectified by means enough, if pride, ambition, obstinacy etc. had given him leave. i grant he was touched with scruple of conscience, but it was because he had forsaken the visible church of christ; and i beseech all protestants for the love they bear to that sacred ransom of their souls, the blood of our blessed saviour, attentively to ponder, and unpartially to apply to their own conscience, what this man spoke concerning the feelings, and remorse of his. how often (saith he) did my trembling heart (p) tom. 2. germ jen. fol. 9 & tom 2. witt. of anno 1562 de abrong. miss. prnat. fol. 244. beat within me, and reprehending me, object against me that most strong argument; art thou only wise? do so many worlds err? were so many ages ignorant? what if thou errest, and drawest so many into hell to be damned eternally with thee? and in another place he saith: dost thou who art but one, and of no (q) tom. 5. annot. breniss. account, take upon thee so great matters? what, if thou, being but one, offendest? if god permit such, so many, and all to err, why may he not permit thee to err? to this belong those arguments, the church, the church, the fathers, the fathers, the counsels, the customs, the multitudes and greatness of wise men: whom do not these mountains of arguments, these clouds, yea these seas of examples overthrew? and these thoughts wrought so deep in his soul, that he often wished and desired that he had (r) colloq. menfal. fol. 158. never begun this business: wishing yet further that his writings were burned, and buried (s) praefat. in tom. german. jen. in eternal oblivion. behold what remorse luther felt, and how he wanted no strength of malice to cross his own conscience: and therefore it was no scruple, or conceived obligation of conscience, but some other motives which induced him to oppose the church. and if yet you doubt of his courage to encounter, and strength to master all reluctations of conscience, hear an example or two for that purpose. of communion under both kinds, thus he saith: if the council (t) de formula inissae. should in any case decree this, least of all would we then use both kinds, yea rather in despite of the council, and that decree, we would use either but one kind only, or neither, and in no case both. was not luther persuaded in conscience, that to use neither kind was against our saviour's command? is this only to offer his opinion to be considered of, as you said all men ought to do? and that you may be sure that he spoke from his heart, and if occasion had been offered, would have been as good as his word; mark what he saith of the elevation of the sacrament: i did know (u) in parna confess. the elevation of the sacrament to be idolatricall; yet nevertheless i did retain it in the church at wittemberge, to the end i might vex the devil carolostadius. was not this a conscience large and capacious enough, that could swallow idolatry? why would he not toleate idolatry in the church of rome (as these men are wont to blaspheme) if he could retain it in his own church at wittemberge? if carolostadius, luther's of spring, was the devil, who but himself must be his dam? is almighty god wont to send such furies to preach the gospel? and yet further (which makes most directly to the point in hand) luther in his book of abrogaing the private mass, exhorts the augustine's friars of wittenberg, who first abrogated the mass, that even against their conscience accusing them, they should persist in what they had begun, acknowledging that in some things he himself had done the like. vid. tan. tom. 2. disput. 1. q. 2. dub. 4. n. 108. and joannes mathefias a luther an preacher saith antonius musa the parish priest (w) in orat. germ. 12. as lath. of rocklitz, recounted to me that on a time he heartily moaned himself to the doctor (he means luther) that he himself could not believe what he preached to others: and that d. luther answered; praise and thankes be to god, that this happens also to others, for i had thought it had happened only to me. are not these conscionable, and fit reformers? and can they be excused from schism under pretence that they held themselves obliged to forsake the roman church? if then it be damnable to proceed against ones conscience, what will become of luther, who against his conscience persisted in his division from the roman church? 44. some are said to flatter themselves with another pernicious conceit, that they (forsooth) are not guilty of sin; because they were not the first authors, but only are the continuers of the schism, which was already begun. 45. but it is hard to believe, that any man of judgement, can think this excuse will subsist, when he shall come to give up his final account. for according to this reason, no schism will be damnable, but only to the beginners: whereas contrarily, the longer it continues, the worse it grows to be, and at length degenerates to heresy as wine by long keeping grows to be vinegar, but not by continuance returns again to his former nature of wine. thus s. augustine saith, that heresy is (x) lib. 2. cont. crese. c. 7. schism inveterate. and in another place: we object to you only the (y) ep. 164. crime of schism, which you have also made to become h. resy by evil persevering therein. and s. hierom saith: though schism (z) upon these words ad pit. 3. haereticum hominem etc. in the beginning may be in some sort understood to be different from heresy; yet there is no schism which doth not feign to itself some heresy, that it may seem to have departed from the church upon just cause. and so indeed it falleth out. for men may begin upon passion, but afterward by instinct of corrupt nature seeking to maintain their schism as lawful, they fall into some heresy, without which their separation could not be justified with any colour, as in our present case the very affirming that it is lawful to continue a schism unlawfully begun, is an error against the main principle of christianity, that it is not lawful for any christian to live our of god's church, within which alone salvation can be had; or, that it is not damnable to disobey her decrees, according to the words of our saviour: if he shall not sear (a) matt. 18. the church, let him be to thee as a pagan or publican. and, he (b) iue, 10.16. that despiseth you, despiseth me. we heard above optatus milevitanus saying to parmenianus, that both he, and all those other who continued in the schism begun by maiorinus, did inherit their forefathers schism; and yet parmenianus was the third bishop after maiorinus in his sea, and did not begin, but only continue the schism. for (saith this holy father) caecilianus (c) lib. 2. cont. parm. went not out of maiorinus thy grandfather, but maiorinus from caecilianus: neither did caecilianus departed from the chair of peter, or cyprian, but maiorinus, in whose chair thou sittest, which before maiorinus (luther) had no beginning. it is evident that these things passed in this manner (that, for example, luther departed from the church, and not the church from luther) it is clear that you be heirs both of the givers up of the bible to be burned, and of schismatiqves. and the regal power, or example of henry the eight could not excuse his subjects from schism according to what we have heard out of s. chrysostome saying: nothing doth so much provoke (d) home 11. in ep st. ad ep●●s. the wrath of almighty god, as that the church should be divided. although we should do innumerable good deeds, if we divide the full ecclesiastical congregation, we shall be punished no less, than they who did rend his (natural) body; for that was done to the gain of the whole world, though not with that intention: but this hath no good in it at all, but that the greatest hurt riseth from it. these things are spoken not only to those who be are office, but to such also as are governed by them. behold therefore, how liable both subjects, and superiors are to the sin of schism, if they break the unity of god's church. the words of s. paul can in no occasion be verified more than in this of which we speak. they who do such things (e) rom. 1.32. are worthy of death: and not only they that do them, but they also that consent with the doers. in things which are indifferent of their own nature, custom may be occasion, that some act not well begun, may in time come to be lawfully continued. but no length of time, no quality of persons, no circumstance of necessity can legitimate actions which are of their own mature unlawful: and therefore division from christ's my sticall body, being of the number of those actions, which divines teach to be intrinsece malas, evil of their own nature and essence, no difference of persons or time can ever make it lawful. d. potter saith: there neither was, nor can be any cause to departed from the church of christ, no more then from christ himself. and who dares say, that it is not damnable to continue a separation from christ? prescription cannot in conscience run, when the first beginner, and his successors are conscious that the thing to be prescribed, for example goods or lands, were unjustly possessed at the first. christians are not like strays, that after a certain time of wand'ring from their right home, fall from their owner to the lord of the soil; but as long as they retain the indelible character of baptism, and live upon earth, they are obliged to acknowledge subjection to god's church. human laws may come to nothing by discontinuance of time, but the law of god, commanding us to conserve unity in his church, doth still remain. the continued disobedience of children cannot deprive parents of their paternal right, nor can the grandchild be undutiful to his grand father, because his father was unnatural to his own parent. the longer god's church is disobeyed; the profession of her doctrine denied her sacraments neglected; her liturgy condemned; her unity violated; the more grievous the fault grows to be: as the longer a man withholds a due debt, or retains his neighbour's goods, the greater injustice he commits. constancy in evil doth not extenuate, but aggravate the same, which by extension of time, receiveth increase of strength, & addition of greater malice. if these men's conceits were true, the church might come to be wholly divided by wicked schisms, and yet after some space of time, none could be accused of schism, nor be obliged to return to the visible church of christ: and so there should remain no one true visible church. let therefore these men who pretend to honour, reverence, & believe the doctrine, and practise of the visible church, and to condemn their forefathers who fosooke her, and say they would not have done so, if they had lived in the days of their fathers, and yet follow their example in remaining divided from her communion; consider, how truly these words of our saviour fall upon them. woe be to you, because you build (f) matt. 23. ●. 29. etc. the prophet's sepulchres, and garnish the monuments of just men, and say: if we had been in our father's days, we had not been their fellows in the blood of the prophets. therefore you are a testimony to your own selves, that you are the sons of them that killed the prophets; and fill up the measure of your fathers. 46. and thus having demonstrated that luther, his associates, and all that continue in the schism by them begun, are guilty of schism, by departing from the visible true church of christ; it remaineth that we examine what in particular was that visible true church, from which they departed, that so they may know to what church in particular they ought to return: and then we shall have performed what was proposed to be handled in the fifth point. 47. that the roman church (i speak not for the present, of the particular diocese of rome, 5 point. but of all visible churches dispersed throughout the whole world, agreeing in faith with the chair of peter, luther & the rest departed from the roman church. whether that sea were supposed to be in the city of rome or in any other place:) that (i say) the church of rome, in this sense, was the visible catholic church out of which luther departed, is proved by your own confession, who assign for notes of the church, the true preaching of god's church, and due administration of sacraments, both which for the substance you cannot deny to the roman church, since you confess that she wanted nothing fundamental, or necessary to salvation; and for that very cause you think to clear yourself from schism, whose property, as you say, is to cut off from the (g) pag. 78. body of christ and the hope of salvation, the church from which it separates. now that luther and his fellows were borne and baptised in the roman church, and that she was the church out of which they departed, is notoriously known: and therefore you cannot cut her off from the body of christ, & hope of salvation, unless you will acknowledge yourself to deserve the just imputation of schism. neither can you deny her to be truly catholic by reason of (pretended) corruptions, not fundamental. for yourself avouch, and endeavour to prove, that the true catholic church may err in such points. moreover, i hope you will not so much as go about to prove, that when luther rose, there was any other true visible church, disagreeing from the roman, & agreeing with protestants in their particular doctrines: and you cannot deny but that england in those days agreed with rome, and other nations with england: and therefore either christ had no visible church upon earth, or else you must grant that it was the church of rome. a truth so manifest, that those protestant's who affirm the roman church to have lost the nature & being of a true church, do by inevitable consequence grant, that for diverse ages christ had no visible church on earth: from which error, because d. potter, disclaimeth, he must of necessity maintain, that the roman church is free from fundamental, and damnable error, and that she is not cut of from the body of christ, and the hope of salvation: and if (saith he) any zelots' amongst us have proceeded (h) jhid. to heavier censures, their zeal may be excused, but their charity and wisdom cannot be justified. 48. and to touch particulars which perhaps some may object. no man is ignorant that the grecians, even the schismatical grecians, do in most points agree with roman catholics, & disagree from the protestant reformation. they teach transubstantiation (which point d. potter also (i) pag. 229. confesseth;) invocation of saints, and angels; veneration of relics, and images; auricular confession; enjoined satisfaction; confirmation with chrism; extremeunction; all the seven sacraments; prayer, sacrifice, alms for the dead; monachisme; that priests may not marry after their ordination. in which points that the grecians agree with the roman church appeareth by a treatise published by the protestant deusnes of wittenberg, entitled, acta theologorum wittembergensium, & icremiae patriarchae constantinop. de augustana confesaone etc. wittembergae anno 1584. by the protestant (k) de statu eccles. pag. 233. crispinus, & by sir edwin sands in the relation of the state of religion of the west. and i wonder with what colour of truth (to say no worse) d. potter could affirm that the doctrines debated between the protestats (l) pag. 22●. & rome, are only the partial & particular fancies of the roman church; unless happily the opinion of transubstantiation may be excepted, wherein the latter grecians seen to agree with the romanists. beside the protestant authors already cited, petrus arcudius a grecian and a learned catholic writer, hath published a large volume, the argument and title whereof is: of the agreement of the roman, and greek church in the seven sacraments. as for the heresy of the grecians, that the holy ghost proceeds not from the son, i suppose that protestants disavow them in that error, as we do. 49. d. potter will not (i think) so much wrong his reputation, as to tell us, that the waldenses, wicctiffe, husse, or the like were protestants, because in some things they disagreed from catholics. for he well knows that the example of such men is subject to these manifest exceptions. they were not of all ages, nor in all countries, but confined to certain places, and were interrupted in time, against the notion and nature of the word catholic. they had no ecclesiastical hierarchy, nor succession of bishops, priests, and pastors. they differed among themselves, and from protestants also. they agreed in diverse things with us against protestants. they held doctrines manifestly absurd and damnable heresies. 50. the waldenses begun not before the year 1218. so far were they from universality of all ages. for their doctrine: first, they denied all judgements which extended to the drawing of blood, and the sabbaoth, for which cause they were called in-sabbatists. secondly, they taught that lay men, and women might consecrate the sacrament, and preach (no doubt but by this means to make their master, waldo, a mere lay man, capable of such functions.) thirdly, that clergy men ought to have no possessions, or proprieties. fourthly, that there should be no division of parishes, nor churches, for a walled church they reputed as a barn. fiftly, that men ought not to take an oath in any case. sixtly, that those persons sinned mortally, who accompanied without hope of issue. seaventhly, they held all things done above the girdle, by kissing, touching, words, compression of the breasts, etc. to be done in charity, and not against continency. eightly, that neither priest, nor civil magistrate, being guilty of mortal sin did enjoy their dignity, or were to be obeyed. ninthly, they condemned princes, and judges. tenthly, they affirmed singing in the church to be an hellish clamour. eleaventhly, they taught that men might dissemble their religion, and so accordingly they went to catholic churches, dissembling their faith, and made offertories, confessions, and communions after a dissembling manner. waldo was so unlearned, that (saith (m) act. mon. pag. 628. fox) he gave rewards to certain learned men to translate the holy scripture for him, and being thus helped did (as the same fox there reporteth) confer the form of religion in his time to the infallible word of god. a godly example, for such as must needs have the scripture in english, to be read by every simple body, with such fruit of godly doctrine, as we have seen in the foresaid gross heresies of waldo. the followers of waldo, were like their master, so unlearned, that some of them (saith (n) ibid. fox) expounded the words, joan. 1. suieum non receperunt: swine did not receive him. and to conclude, they agreed in diverse things with catholics against protestants, as may be seen in (o) tract. 2. cap. 2. sect. subd. 3. brereley. 51. neither can it be pretended, that these are slanders, forged by catholics. for, beside that the same things are testified by protestant writers, as illyr●cus, cowper, & others, our authors cannot be suspected of partiality in disfavour of protestants, unless you will say perhaps, that they were prophets and some hundred years ago, did both foresee that there were to be protestants in the world, and that such protestants were to be like the waldenses. besides, from whence, but from our histories are protestants come to know, that there were any such men as the waldenses? and that in some points they agreed with the protestants, and disagreed from them in others? and upon what ground can they believe our authors for that part wherein the waldenses were like to protestants, and imagine they lied in the rest? 52. neither could wicliffe continue a church never interrupted from the time of the waldenses, after whom he lived more than one hundred and fifty years to wit, the year 1371. he agreed with catholics about the worshipping of relics, and images. and about the intercession of our blessed lady, the ever immaculate mother of god, he went so far as to say, it seems to me (p) in serm. de assump. marte. impossible, that we should be rewarded without the intercession of the virgin mary. he held seven saciaments, purgatory, and other points. and against both catholics and protestants he maintained sundry damnable doctrines, as diverse protestant writers relate. as first: if a bishop or priest be in deadly sin, he doth not indeed either give orders, consecrate, or baptise. secondly, that ecclesiastical ministers ought not to have any temporal possessions, nor propriety in any thing, but should beg; and yet he himself broke into heresy because he had been deprived by the archbishop of canterbury of a certain benefice; as all schisms, & heresies begin upon passion, which they seek to cover with the cloak of reformation. thirdly he condemned lawful oaths, like the anabaptists. fourthly, he taught that all things came to pass by absolute necessity. fiftly, he defended human merits as the wicked pelagians did, namely, as proceeding from natural forces, without the necessary help of god's grace. sixtly, that no man is a civil magistrate, while he is in mortal sin; and that the people may at their pleasure correcnt princes, when they offend: by which doctrine he proves himself both an heretic, and a traitor. 53. as for hus, his chiefest doctrines were: that lay people must receive in both kinds; and that civil lords prelates, and bishops lose all right, and authority, while they are in mortal sin for other things he wholly agreed with catholics against protestants; and the bohemians his followers being demanded, in what points they disagreed from the church of rome, propounded only these: the necessity of communion under both kinds; that all civil dominion was forbidden to the clergy; that preaching of the word, was free for all men, and in all places; that open crimes were in nowise to be permitted for avoiding of greater evil. by these particulars, it is apparent, that husse agreed with protestants against us, in one only point of both kind's, which according to luther is a thing indifferent; because he teacheth that christ in this matter (q) in epist. ad bohemos. commanded nothing as necessary. and he saith further: if thou come to a place (r) de utr a●● que specie sacram. where one only kind is administered, use one kind only, as others do. melancthon likewise holds it a thing (s) in cent. epist. theol. pag. 225. indifferent: and the same is the opinion of some other protestants. all which considered, it is clear that protestants cannot challenge the waldenses, wicclifse, and hus for members of their church: & although they could, yet that would advantage them little towards the finding out a perpetual visible church of theirs, for the reasons above (t) num. 49. specified. 54. if d. potter, would go so fare off, as to fetch the muscovites, armenians, georgians, aethiopians, or abyssines into his church, they would prove over dear bought: for they either hold the damnable heresy of eutiches, or use circumcision, or agree with the greek, or roman church. and it is most certain that they have nothing to do with the doctrine of protestants. 55. it being therefore granted that christ had a visible church in all ages, and that there can be none assigned but the church of rome; it follows that she is the true cath. church; and that those pretended corruptions for which they forsook her, are indeed divine truths, delivered by the visible catholic church of christ: and, that luther and his followers departed from her, and consequently are guilty of schism, by dividing themselves from the communion of the roman church. which is clearly convinced out of d. potter himself, although the roman church were but a particular church. for he saith: whosever professes (u) pag. 70. himself to forsake the communion of any one member of the body of christ, must confess himself consequently to forsake the whole. since therefore in the same place he expressly acknowledges the church of rome to be a member of the body of christ, and that it is clear they have forsaken her; it evidently follows, that they have forsaken the whole, and therefore are most properly schismatics. 56. and lastly, since the crime of schism is so grievous, that according to the doctrine of holy fathers rehearsed above, no multitude of good works, no moral honesty of life, no cruel death endured even for the profession of some article of faith can excuse any one who is guilty of that sin from damnation; i leave it to be considered, whether it be not true charity to speak as we believe, and to believe as all antiquity hath taught us, that whosoever either begins,, or continues a division for the roman church, which we have proved to be christ's true militant church on earth, cannot without effectual repentance hope to be a member of his triumphant church in heaven. and so i conclude with these words of blessed saint augustine: it is common (w) cont. parm. lib. 2. ●ap. 3. to all heretics to be unable to see that thing which in the world is the most manifest, and placed in the light of all nations; out of whose unity whatsoever they work, though they seem to do it with great care and diligence, can no more avail them against the wrath of god, than the spider's web against the extremity of cold. but now it is high time that we treat of the other sort of division from the church, which is by heresy. chap. vi that luther, and the rest of protestants, have added heresy unto schism. because vice is best known by the contrary virtue, we cannot well determine what heresy is, nor who be heretics, but by the opposite virtue of faith, whose nature being once understood as fare as belongs to our present purpose, we shall pass on with ease to the definition of heresy, and so be able to discern who be heretics. and this i●ntend to do, not by entering into such particular questions as are controverted between catholics and protestants, but only by applying some general grounds, either already proved, or else yielded to, on all sides. 2. almighty god having ordained man to a supernatural end of beatitude by supernatural means; it was requisite that his understanding should be enabled to apprehend that end, and means by a supernatural knowledge. and because if such a knowledge were no more than probable, it could not be able sufficiently to overbear our will, & encounter with human probabilities, being backed with the strength of flesh and blood; it was further necessary, that this supernatural knowledge should be most certain and infallible; and that faith should believe nothing more certainly than that itself is a most certain belief, and so be able to beat down all gay probabilities of humane opinion. and because the aforesaid means and end of beatifical vision, do fare exceed the reach of natural wit, the certainty of faith could not always be joined with such evidence of reason, as is wont to be found in the principles, or conclusions of humane natural sciences; that so all flesh might not glory in the arm of flesh, but that he, who glories, should glory (a) 2. cor. 10 in our lord. moreover, it was expedient that our belief, or assent to divine truths, should not only be unknown, or inevident by any humane discourse, but that absolutely also it should be obscure in itself, and (ordinarily speaking) be void even of supernatural evidence; that so we might have occasion to actuate, and testify the obedience which we own to our god, not only by submitting our will to his will and commands, but by subiecting also our understanding to his wisdom & words, captivating (as the apostle speaks) the same understanding (b) 2. cor. 10 ● to the obedience of faith: which occasion had been wanting, if almighty god had made clear to us, the truths which now are certainly, but not evidently presented to our minds. for where truth doth manifestly open itself; not obedience, but necessity commands our assent. for this reason, divines teach, that the objects of faith being not evident to humane reason, it is in man's power not only to abstain from believing, by sufpending our judgement, or exercising no act one way or other; but also to disbelieve, that is, to believe the contrary of that which faith proposeth; as the examples of innumerable arch-heretiques can bear witness. this obscurity of faith we learn from holy scripture, according to those words of the apostle. faith is the (c) heb. 11. substance of things to be hoped for, the argument of things not appearing. and, we see by a glass (d) 1. cor. 13. v. 12. in a dark manner: but then face to face. and, accordingly s. peter saith: which you do well attending unto, as to (e) 2 pet. 1. v. 19 a candle shining in a dark place. 3. faith being then obscure (whereby it differeth from natural sciences) and yet being most certain and infallible (wherein it surpasseth humane opinion) it must rely upon some motive and ground, which may be able to give it certainty, and yet not release it from obscurity. for if this motive, ground, or formal object of faith, were any thing evidently presented to our understanding; and if also we did evidently know, that it had a necessary connection with the articles which we believe, our assent to such articles could not be obscure, but evident; which, as we said, is against the nature of our faith. if likewise the motive or ground of our faith were obscurely propounded to us, but were not in itself infallible, it would leave our assent in obscurity, but could not endue it with certainty. we must therefore for the ground of our faith find out a motive obscure to us, but most certain in itself, that the act of faith may remain both obscure, and certain. such a motive as this, can be no other but the divine authority of almighty god, revealing, or speaking those truths which our faith believes. for it is manifest, that god's infallible testimony may transfuse certainty to our faith, and yet not draw it out of obscurity; because no humane discourse, or demonstration can evince, that god revealeth any supernatural truth, since god had been no less perfect than he is, although he had never revealed any of those objects which we now believe. 4. nevertheless, because almighty god out of his infinite wisdom and sweetness, doth concur with his creatures in such sort as may befit the temper, and exigence of their natures; and because man is a creature endured with reason, god doth not exact of his will or understanding any other then, as the apostle saith, rationabile (f) kom. 12. &. 1. obsequium, an obedience, sweetened with good reason; which could not so appear, if our understanding were summoved to believe with certainty, things no way represented as infallible and certain. and therefore almighty god obliging us under pain of eternal damnation to believe with greatest certainty diverse verities, not known by the light of natural reason, cannot fail to furnish our understanding, with such inducements, motives, and arguments as may sufficiently persuade any mind which is not partial or passionate, that the objects which we believe, proceed from an authority so wise, that it cannot be deceived, and so good that it cannot deceive; according to the words of david: thy testimonies are made (g) psal. 92. credible exceedingly. these inducements are by divines, called argumenta credibilitatis, arguments of credibility, which though they cannot make us evidently see what we believe, yet they cuidently convince that in true wisdom, and prudence, the objects of faith deserve credit, and aught to be accepted as things revealed by god. for without such reasons & inducements our judgement of faith could not be conceived prudent, holy scripture telling us, that, he who soon (h) eccles. 19 believes, is light of hart. by these arguments and inducements our understanding is both satisfied with evidence of credibility, and the objects of faith retain their obscurity: because it is a different thing to be evidently credible, and evidently true; as those who were present at the miracles wrought by our blessed saviour, & his apostles, did not evidently see their doctrine to be true (for then it had not been faith but science, and all had been necessitated to believe, which we see fell out otherwise) but they were evidently convinced, that the things confirmed by such miracles, were most credible, and worthy to be embraced as truths revealed by god. 5. these evident arguments of credibility are in great abundance found in the visible church of christ, perpetualy existing on earth. for, that there hath been a company of men professing such and such doctrines, we have from our next predecessors, and these from theirs upward, till we come to the apostles, & our blessed saviour, which gradiation is known by evidence of sense, by reading books, or hearing what one man delivers to another. and it is evident that there was neither cause, nor possibility, that men so distant in place, so different in temper, so repugnant in private ends, did, or could agree to tell one and the self same thing, if it had been but a fiction invented by themselves, as ancient tertullian well saith: how is it likely that so many (i) prescript. ●ap. 28. & so great churches should err in one faith? among many events there is not one issue, the error of the churches must needs have varied. but that which amongmany is found to be one, is not mistaken, but delievered. dare then any body say, that they erred who delivered it? with this never interrupted existence of the church are joined the many and great miracles wrought by men of that congregation or church; the sanctity of the persons; the renowned victories over so many persecutions, both of all sorts of men, and of the infernal spirits; and lastly, the perpetual existence of so holy a church, being brought up to the apostles themselves, she comes to partake of the same assurance of truth, which they by so many powerful ways, did communicate to their doctrine, and to the church of their times, together with the divine certainty which they received from our blessed saviour himself, revealing to mankind what he heard from his father; and so we conclude with tertullian: we receive it from the churches, the churches (k) praesc. c. 21. & 37. from the apostles, the apostles from christ, christ from his father. and if we once interrupt this line of succession, most certainly made known by means of holy tradition, we cannot conjoin the present church, & doctrine, with the church, and doctrine of the apostles, but must invent some new means, and arguments sufficient of themselves to find out, and prove a true church, and faith independently of the preaching, and writing of the apostles; neither of which can be known but by tradition, as is truly observed by tertullian saying: i will prescribe, that (l) praesc. 5.21. there is no means to prove what the apostles preached, but by the same churches which they founded. 6. thus than we are to proceed: by evidence of manifest and incorrupt tradition, i know that there hath always been a never interrupted succession of men from the apostles time, believing, professing, and practising such and such doctrines: by evident arguments of credibility, as miracles, sanctity, unity etc. and by all those ways whereby the apostles, and our blesseed saviour himself confirmed their doctrine, we are assured that what the said never interrupted church proposeth, doth deserve to be accepted & aknowledged as a divine truth: by evidence of sense, we see that the same church proposeth such and such doctrines as divine truths, that is, as revealed and testified by almighty god. by this divine testimony we are infallibly assured of what we believe: and so the last period, ground, motive, and formal object of our faith, is the infallible testimony of that supreme verity, which neither can deceive, nor be deceived. 7. by this orderly deduction our faith cometh to be endued with these qualities which we said were requisite thereto; namely certainly, obscurity, and pruderce. certaimy proceeds from the infallible testimony of god propounded & conveied to our understanding by such a mean, as is infallible in itself, and to us is evidently known that it proposeth this point or that, and which can manifestly declare in what sense it proposeth them; which means we have proved to be only the visible church of christ. obscurity from the manner in which god speaks to mankind, which ordinarily is such, that it doth not manifestly show the person who speaks, nor the truth of the thing spoken. prudence is not wanting, because our faith is accompanied with so many arguments of credibility, that every well disposed understanding, may & aught to judge, that the doctrines so confirmed deserve to be believed, as proceeding from authority. 8. and thus from what hath been said, we may easily gather the particular nature, or definition of faith. for, it is a voluntary, or free, infallible obscure assent to some truth, because it is testified by god, & is sufficiently propounded to us for such: which proposal is ordinarily made by the visible church of christ. i say, sufficiently proposed by the church; not that i purpose to dispute whether the proposal of the church enter into the formal object, or motive of faith: or whether an error be any heresy, formally and precisely, because it is against the proposition of the church, as if such proposal were the formal object of faith, which d. potter to no purpose at all, labours so very hard to disprove: but i only affirm, that when the church propounds any truth, as revealed by god, we are assured that it is such indeed; & so it instantly grows, to be a fit object for christian faith, which onclines and enables us, to believe whatsoever is duly presented, as a thing revealed by almighty god. and in the same manner we are sure that whosoever opposeth any doctrine proposed by the church, doth thereby contradict a truth, which is testified by god: as when any lawful superior, notifies his will, by the means, and as it were proposal of some faithful messenger, the subject of such a superior in performing, or neglecting what is delivered by the messenger, is said to obey, or disobey his own lawful superior. and therefore because the testimony of god is notified by the church, we may, and we do most truly say, that not to believe what the church proposeth, is to deny god's holy word or testimony, signified to us by the church, according to that saying of s. irenaeus. we need not go (m) lib. 3. cont. heres. cap. 4. to any other to seek the truth, which we may easily receive from the church. 9 from this definition of faith we may also know what heresy is, by taking the contrary terms, as heresy is contrary to faith, and saying: heresy is a voluntary error against that which god hath reucaled, and the church hath proposed for such. neither doth it import, whether the error concern points in themselves great or small, fundamental or not fundamental. for more being required to an act of virtue, then of vice, if any truth though never so small may be believed by faith as soon as we know it to be testified by divine rovelation; much more will it be a formal heresy to deny any least point sufficiently propounded as a thing witnessed by god. 10. this divine faith is divided into actual, and habitual. actual faith, or faith actuated is when we are in act of consideration, and belief of some mystery of faith; for example, that our saviour christ, is true god, and man, etc. habitual faith, is that from which we are denominated faithful, or believers, as by actual faith they are styled, believing. this habit of faith is a quality, enabling us most firmly to believe objects above human discourse, and it remaineth permanently in our soul, even when we are sleeping, or not thinking of any mystery of faith. this is the first among the three theological virtues. for charity unites us to god, as he is infinitely good in himself; hope ties us to him, as he is unspeakably good to us. faith joins us to him, as he is the supreme immoveable verity. charity relies on his goodness; hope on his power; faith on his divine wisdom. from hence it followeth, that faith being one of the virtues which divines term infused (that is, which cannot be acquired by human wit, or industry, but are in their nature & essence, supernatural) it hath this property; that it is not destroyed by little and little, (contrarily to the habits, called acquisiti, that is, gotten by human endeavour, which as they are successively produced, so also are they lost successively, or by little and little) but it must either be conserved entire, or wholly destroyed: and since it cannot stand entire with any one act which is directly contrary, it must be totally overthrown, and as it were demolished, and razed by every such act. wherefore, as charity or the love of god is expelled from our soul by any one act of hatred, or any other mortal sin against his divine majesty: and as hope is destroyed by any one act of voluntary desperation: so faith must perish by any one act of heresy; because every such act is directly, and formally opposite thereunto. i know that some sins which (as divines speak) are ex genere suo, in in their kind, grievous and mortal, may be much lessened, and fall to be venial, ob levit atem materiae, because they may happen to be exercised in a matter of small consideration; as for example, to steal a penny, is venial, although theft in his kind be a deadly sin. but it is likewise true, that this rule is not general for all sorts of sins; there being some so inexcusably wicked of their own nature, that no smallness of matter, nor paucity in number, can defend them from being deadly sins. for, to give an instance, what blasphemy against god, or voluntary false oath is not a deadly sin? certainly, none at all, although the salvation of the whole world should depend upon swearing such a falsehood. the like happeneth in our present case of heresy, the iniquity whereof redoundin to the injury of god's supreme wisdom & goodness, is always great, & enormous. they were no precious stones which danid (n) 1. reg. 17. picked out of the water, to encounter goliath; and yet if a man take from the number but one, and say they were but four, against the scripture affirming them to have been five; he is instantly guilty of a damnable sin. why? because by this subtraction of one, he doth deprive god's word and testimony of all credit and infallibility. for if either he could deceive, or be deceived in any one thing, it were but wisdom to suspect him in all. and seeing every heresy opposeth some truth revealed by god; it is no wonder that no one can be excused from deadly, and damnable sin. for if voluntary blasphemy, and perjury, which are opposite only to the infused moral virtue of religion, can never be excused from mortal sin: much less can heresy be excused, which opposeth the theological virtue of faith. 11. if any object, that schism may seem to be a greater sin than heresy; because the virtue of charity (to which schism is opposite) is greater than faith, according to the apostle, saying: now there remain (o) 1. cor. 13.13. faith, hope, charity; but the greater of these is charity. s. thomas answers in these words: charity hath two objects: one principal, to wit, the divine (p) 2.2. q. 39 ar. 2. in corp. & add 3. goodness; & another secondary, namely the good of our neighbour; but schism and other sins which are committed against our neighbour, are opposite to charity in respect of this secondary good, which is less, than the object of faith, which is god, as he is the prime verity, on which faith doth rely; and therefore these sins are less than infidelity. he takes infidelity after a general manner, as it comprehends heresy, and other vices against faith. 12. having therefore sufficiently declared, wherein heresy consists; let us come to prove that which we proposed in this chapter. where i desire, it be still remembered: that the visible catholic church cannot err damnably, as d. potter confesseth: and, that when luther appeared, there was no other visible true church of christ disagreeing from the roman, as we have demonstrated in the next precedent chapter. 13. now, that luther & his followers cannot be excused from formal heresy, i prove by these reasons. to oppose any truth propounded by the visible true church as revealed by god, is formal heresy, as we have showed out of the definition of heresy: but luther, caluin, and the rest did oppose diverse truths propounded by the visible church as revealed by god; yea they did therefore oppose her, because she propounded as divine revealed truths, things which they judged either to be false, or human inventions: therefore they committed formal heresy. 14. moreover, every error against any doctrine revealed by god, is damnable heresy, whether the matter in itself be great or small, as i proved before: and therefore either the protestants, or the roman church must be guilty of form all heresy, because one of them must err against the word & testimony of god: but you grant (perforce) that the roman church doth not err damnably; & i add that she cannot err damnably, because she is the truly catholic church, which you confess cannot err damnably: therefore protestants must be guilty of formal heresy. 15. besides, we have showed that the visible church, is judge of controversies & therefore must be infallible in all her proposals; which being once supposed, it manifestly followeth, that to oppose what she delivereth as revealed by god, is not so much to oppose her, as god himself; and therefore cannot be excused from grievous heresy. 16. again, if luther were an heretic for those points wherein he disagreed from the roman church; all they who agree with him in those very points, must likewise be heretics. now, that luther was a formal heretic i demonstrate in this manner. to say, that god's visible true church is not universal, but confined to one only place or corner of the world, is according to your own express words (q) tag. 126. properly heresy, against that article of the creed, wherein we orofesse to believe the holy catholic church: and you brand donatus with heresy, because he limited the universal church to africa. but it is manifest, and acknowledged by luther himself, and other chief protestants that luther's reformation when it first began (and much more for diverse ages before) was not universal. nor spread over the world, but was confined to that compass of ground which did contain luther's body. therefore his reformation cannot be excused from formal heresy. if s. augustine in those times said to the donatists, there are innumerable testimonies (r) epist. 50. of holy scripture in which it appeareth that the church of christ is not only in africa, as these men with most impudent vanity do rave, but that she is spread over the whole earth: much more may it be said; it appeareth by innumerable testimonies of holy scripture that the church of christ can. not be confined to the city of wittenberg, or to the place where luther's feet stood, but must be spread over the whole world. it is therefore must impudent vanity, and dotage to limit her to luther's reformation. in another place also this holy father writes no less effectually against luther then against the donatists. for having out of those words, in thy seed all nations shall be blessed, proved that god's church must be universal, he saith: why (s) de vnit. eccles. cap. 6. do you superadd, by saying that christ remains heir in no part of the earth, except where he may have donatus for his coheyre. give me this (universal) church if it be among you: show yourselves to all nations, which we already show to be blessed in this seed: give us this (church) or else laying aside all fury, receive her from us. but it is evident, that luther could not, when he he said, at the beginning i was alone, give us an universal church: therefore happy had he been, if he had then, and his followers would now, receive her from us. and therefore we must conclude with the same holy father, saying in another place of the universal church: she hath this (t) cont. lit. petil. lib. 1. cap. 104. most certain mark, that she cannot be hidden: she is then known to all nations. the sect of donatus is unknown to many nations; therefore that cannot be she. the sect of luther (at least when he began, and much more before his beginning) was unknown to many nations, therefore that cannot be she. 17. and that it may yet further appear how perfectly luther agreed with the donatists: it is to be noted, that they never taught, that the catholic church ought not to extend itself further than that part of africa, where their faction reigned, but only that in fact it was so confined, because all the rest of the church was profaned, by communicating with caecilianus, whom they falsely affirmed to have been ordained bishop by those who were traditours, or givers up of the bible to the persecutors to be burned: yea at that very time they had some of their sect residing in rome, and sent thither one victor, a bishop, under colour to take care of their brethren in that city, but indeed as baronius (u) anno 321. nu. 2. spond. observeth, that the world might account them catholics, by communicating with the bishop of rome, to communicate with whom was even taken by the ancient fathers as an assured sign of being a true catholic. they had also, as s. augustine witnesseth, a pretended (w) de vni. eccles. c. 3. church in the house and territory of a spanish lady called lucilla, who went flying out of the catholic church, because she had been justly checked by caectlianus. and the same saint speaking of the conference he had with fortunius the donatist, saith: hear did he first (x) ep. 163. attempt to affirm that his communion was spread over the whole earth etc. but because the thing was evidently false, they got out of this discourse by confusion of language: whereby nevertheless they sufficiently declared, that they did not hold, that the true church ought necessarily to be confined to one place, but only by mere necessity were forced to yield that it was so in fact, because their sect which they held to be the only true church was not spread over the world: in which point fortunius, and the rest were more modest, than he who should affirm that luther's reformation in the very beginning was speed over the whole earth; being at that time by many degrees not so far diffused as the sect of the donatists. i have no desire to prosecute the similitude of protestants with donatists, by remembering that the sect of these men was began and promoted by the passion of lucilla; and who is ignorant what influence two women, the mother and daughter, ministered to protestancy in england? nor will i stand to observe their very likeness of phrase with the donatists, who called the chair of rome, the chair of pestilence, and the roman church an harlot, which is d. potter's own phrase, wherein he is less excusable than they, because he maintaineth her to be a true church of christ: & therefore let him duly ponder these words of s. augustine against the donatists. if i persecute him justly who detracts (y) conc. super gest. cust emeri● from his neighbour, why should i not persecute him who detracts from the church of christ, and saith, this is not she, but this is an harlot? and least of all, will i consider, whether you may not be well compared to one ticonius a donatist, who wrote against parmenianus likewise a donatist, who blasphemed, that the church of christ had perished (as you do even in this your book write against some of your protestant brethren, or as you call them zelots' among you, who hold the very same or rather a worse heresy) and yet remained among them, even after parmenianus had excommunicated him, (as those your zealous brethren would proceed against you if it were in their power) and yet like ticonius you remain in their communion, and come not into that church which is, hath been, and shall ever be universal: for which very cause s. augustin complains of ticonius, that although he wrote against the donatists, yet he was of an hart (z) de doctr. christ. lib. 3. cap. 30. so extremely absurd, as not to forsake them alto gether. and speaking of the same thing in another place he observes, that although ticonius did manifestly confute them who affirmed that the church had perished; yet, he saw not (saith this holy father) that which in good consequence (a) cont. parm. l. 1. cap. 1. he should have seen, that those christians of africa belonged to the church spread over the whole world, who remained united, not with them who were divided from the communion and unity of the same world, but with such as did communicate with the whole world. but parmenianus, and the rest of the donatists saw that consequence, and resolved rather to settle their mind in obstinacy against the most manifest truth which ticonius maintained, then by yielding thereto, to be overcome by those churches in africa, which enjoyed the communion of that unity which ticonius defended, from which they had divided themselves. how fitly these words agree to catholics in england in respect of the protestants, i desire the reader to consider. but these and the like resemblances of protestants to the donatists, i willingly let pass, and only urge the main point: that since luther's reformed church was not in being for diverse centuries before luther, and yet was (because so forsooth they will needs have it) in the apostles time, they must of necessity affirm heretically with the donatists, that the true and unspotted church of christ perished; & that she which remained on earth was (o blasphemy!) an harlot. moreover the same heresy follows out of the doctrine of d. potter, and other protestants, that the church may err in points not fundamental; because we have showed that every error against any one revealed truth, is heresy and damnable, whether the matter be otherwise of itself, great or small. and how can the church more truly be said to perish, then when she is permitted to maintain a damnable heresy? besides, we will hereafter prove, that by any act of heresy all divine faith is lost; & to imagine a true church of faithful persons without any faith, is as much as to fancy a living man without life. it is therefore clear, that donatist-like they hold that the church of christ perished: yea they are worse than the donatists, who said, that the church remained at least in africa; whereas protestants must of necessity be forced to grant, that for a long space before luther, she was no where at all. but let us go forward to other reasons. 18. the holy scripture, and ancient fathers do assign separation from the visible church as a mark of heresy; according to that of s. john: they went out (b) 2. joan, 19 from us. and, some who (c) act. 15.24. went out from us. and, our of you shall (d) act. 203.30. arise men speaking perverse things. and accordingly vincentius lyrinensis saith: who ever (e) lib. ad. versus haer, cap. 34. began heresies, who did not first separate himself from the universality, antiquity, and consent of the catholic church? but it is manifest, that when luther appeared, there was no visible church distinct from the roman, out of which she could departed, as it is likewise well known that luther, & his followers departed out of her: therefore she is no way liable to this mark of heresy, but protestants cannot possibly avoid it. to this purpose s. prosper hath these pithy words: a christian communicating (f) dimid. temp. cap. 5. with the universal church is a catholic, and he who is divided from her, is an heretic, and antichrist. but luther in his first reformation could not communicate with the visible catholic church of those times, because he began his reformation by opposing the supposed errors of the then visible church: we must therefore say with s. prosper, that he was an heretic etc. which likewise is no less clearly proved out of s. cyprian, saying: not we (g) lib. de vnit. ecles. departed from them, but they from us, and since heresies and schisms are bred afterwards, while they make to themselves diverse conventicles, they have forsaken the head and origen of truth. 19, and that we might not remain doubtful what separation it is, which is the mark of heresy, the ancient fathers tell us more in particular, that it is from the church of rome, as it is the sea of peter. and therefore d. potter need not to be so hot with us, because we say & writ that the church of rome, in that sense as she is the mother church of all others, and with which all the rest agree, is truly called the catholic church. s. hierome writing to pope damasus saith: i am in the communion (h) ep. 57 add damas'. of the chair of peter; i know that the church is built upon that rock. whosever shall eat the lamb out of this house he is profane. if any shall not be in the ark of no, he shall perish in the time of the deluge: whosoever doth not gather with thee, doth scatter, that is, he that is not of christ is of antichrist. and else where's which doth he (i) lib. 1. apolog. call his faith? that of the roman church? or that which is contained in the books of origen; if he answer, the roman, than we are catholics, who have translated nothing of the error of origen. and yet further: know thou, that the (k) ibid. lib. 3. roman faith commended by the voice of the apostle doth not receive these delusions, though an angel should denounce otherwise, than it hath once been preached. s. ambrose recounting how his brother satyrus enquiring for a church wherein to give thanks for his delivery from shipwreck, saith: he called unto him (l) de obitu satyris fratri. the bishop, neither did he esteem any favour to be true, except that of the true faith, and he asked of him whether he agreed with the catholic bishops; that is, with the roman church. and having understood that he was a schismatic, that is, separated from the roman church, he abstained from communicating with him. where we see the privilege of the roman church confirmed both by word and deed, by doctrine and practice. and the same saint saith of the roman church: from thence the rights (m) lib. 1. ep. 4. ad jmperatores. of venerable communion do flow to all. s. cyprian saith: they are bold (n) epist. 55. ad cornel. to sail to the chair of peter, and to the principal church, from whence priestly unity hath sprung. neither do they consider, that they are romans, whose faith was commended by the preaching of the apostle, to whom falsehood cannot have access. where we see this holy father joins together the principal church, and the chair of peter; and affirmeth that falsehood not only hath not had, but cannot have access to that sea. and else where: thou wrotest that i should send (o) epist. 52. a copy of the same letters to cornelius our colleague, that laying aside all solicitude, he might now be assured that thou didst communicate with him, that is, with the catholic church. what think you m. doctor of these words? is it so strange a thing to take for one and the same thing, to communicate with the church & pope of rome, and to communicate with the catholic church? s. irenaeus saith: because it were long to number the successions of all churches, (p) lib. 3. çont. haer. c. 3. we declaring the tradition (and faith preached to men, and coming to us by tradition) of the most great, most ancient, and most known church, founded by the two most glorious apostles peter and paul; which tradition it hath from the apostles, coming to us by succession of bishops; we confound all those who any way either by evil complacence of themselves, or vain glory, or by blindness, or ill opinion do gather otherwise then they ought. for to this church for a more powerful principality, it is necessary that all church's resort, that is, all faithful people of what place soever: in which (roman church) the tradition which is from the apostles hath always been conserved from those who are every where. s. augustin saith: it gri●●ues us (q) in psal. count. part●●n donati. to see you so to lie cut off. number the priest even from the sea of peter; and consider in that order of fathers who succeeded to whom. she is the rook which the proud gates of hell do not overcome. and in another place, speaking of cacilianu he saith: he might contemn the conspiring (r) ep. 162. multitude of his enemies, because he knew himself to be united, by communicatory letters both to the roman church in which the principality of the sea apostolic did always flourish; and to other countries from whence the gospel came first into africa. ancient tertullian saith: if thou be near italy, thou hast rome whose (s) praeser. cap. 36. authority is near at hand to us: a happy church, into which the apostles have poured all doctrine, together with their blood. s. basill in a letter to the bishop of rome saith. in very deed that which was given (t) epist. ad pont. rom. by our lord to thy piety, is worthy of that most excellent voice which proclaimed thee blessed, to wit, that thou mayst discern betwixt that which is counterfeit, and that which is lawful and pure, and without any diminution mayest preach the faith of our ancestors. maximianus bishop of constantinople about twelve hundred years ago, said: all the bounds of the earth who have sincerely acknowledged our lord, and catholics through the whole world professing the true faith, look upon the power of the bishop of rome, as upon the sun etc. for the creator of the world, amongst all men of the world elected him, (he speaks of s. peter) to whom he granted the chair of doctor to be principally possessed by a perpetual right of privilege; that whosoever is desirous to know any divine and profound thing, may have recourse to the oracle, and doctrine of this instruction. john patriarch of constantinople, more than eleven hundred years ago in an epistle to pope hormisda, writeth thus: because (u) epist. ad hormis. pp. the beginning of salvation is to conserve the rule of right faith, & in no wise to swerve from the tradition of our forefathers'; because the words of our lord cannot fail, saying: thou art peter, and upon this rock i will build my church; the proofs of deeds have made good those words, because in the sea apostolical the catholic religion is always conserved inviolable. and again: we promise hereafter not to recite in the sacred mysteries the names of them who are excluded from the communion of the catholic church, that is to say, who consent not fully with the sea apostolic. many other authorities of the ancient fathers might be produced to this purpose, but these may serve to show, that both the latin. & greek fathers held for a note of being a catholic, or an heretic, to have been united, or divided from the sea of rome. and i have purposely alleged only such authorities of fathers, as speak of the privileges of the sea of rome, as of things permament, and depending on our saviour's promise to s. peter, from which a general rule, and ground ought to be taken for all ages, because heaven and earth shall (w) matt. 24.35. pass, but the word of our lord shall remain for ever. so that i here conclude, that seeing it is manifest that luther and his followers divided themselves from the sea of rome, they bear the inseparable mark of heresy. 20. and though my meaning be not to treat the point of ordination, or succession in the protestants church, because the father's alleged in the last reason, assign succession as one mark of the true church; i must not omit to say, that according to the grounds of protestants themselves, they can neither pretend personal succession of bishops, nor succession of doctrine. for whereas succession of bishops signifies a never-interrupted line of persons, endued with an indelible quality, which divines call a character, which cannot be taken away by deposition, degradation or other means whatsoever; and endued also with jurisdiction and authority to teach, to preach, to govern the church by laws, precepts, censures, etc. protestant's cannot pretend succession in either of these. for (besides that there was never protestant bishop before luther, and that there can be no continuance of succession, where there was no beginning to succeed) they commonly acknowledge no character, & consequently must affirm that when their pretended bishops or priests are deprived of jurisdiction, or degraded, they remain mere lay persons as before their ordination; fulfilling what tert●●●lian objects as a mark of heresy: to day a priest, to morrow (x) praeser. çap. 41. a layman. for if there be no immoveable character, their power of order must consist only in jurisdiction, and authority, or in a kind of moral deputation to some function, which therefore may be taken away by the same power, by which it was given. neither can they pretend succession in authority, or jurisdiction. for all the authority, or jurisdiction which they had, was conferred by the church of rome, that is, by the pope: because the whole church collectively doth not meet to ordain bishops or priests, or to give them authority. but according to their own doctrine, they believe that the pope neither hath, or aught to have any jurisdiction, power, superiority, pre-eminence, or authority ecclesiastical, or spiritual within this realm, which they swear even when they are ordained bishops, priests, and deacons: how then can the pope give jurisdiction where they swear he neither hath, nor aught to have any? or if yet he had, how could they without schism withdraw themselves from his obedience? besides, the roman church never gave them authority, to oppose her, by whom it was given. but grant, their first bishops had such authority from the church of rome: after the decease of those men, who gave authority to their pretended successors? the primate of england? but from whom had he such authority? and after his decease, who shall confer authority upon his successors? the temporal magistrate? king henry, neither a catholic, nor a protestant? king edward, a child? queen elizabeth, a woman? an infant of one hours' age, is true king in case of his predecessors decease: but shall your church lie fallow till that infant-king, and green head of the church come to years of discretion? do your bishops, your hierarchy, your succession, your sacraments, your being or not being heretics for want of succession, depend on this newfound supremacy-doctrine brought in by such a man merely upon base occasions, and for shameful ends; impugned by caluin, and his followers; derided by the christian world; & even by chief protestants as d. andrew's, wotton etc. not held for any necessary point of faith? and from whom i pray you, had bishops their authority, when there were no christian kings? must the greek patriarches receive spiritual jurisdiction from the greek turk. did the pope, by the baptism of princes, lose the spiritual power he formerly had of conferring spiritual jurisdiction upon bishops? hath the temporal magistrate authority to preach, to assoil from sins, to inflict excommunications, and other censures? why hath he not power to excommunicate, as well as to dispense in irregularity, as our late sovereign lord king james, either dispensed with the late archbishop of canterbury, or else gave commission to some bishops to do ●t? and since they were subject to their primate, and not he to them, it is clear, that they had no power to dispense with him, but that power must proceed from the prince, as superior to them all, and head of the protestants church in england. if he have no such authority, how can he give to others what himself hath not? your ordination, or consecration of bishops and priests imprinting no character, can only consist in giving a power, authority, jurisdiction, or (as i said before) some kind of deputation to exercise episcopal, or priestly functions: if then, the temporal magistrate confers this power etc. he can, nay he cannot choose but ordain, and consecrate bishops, and priests, as often as he confers authority or jurisdiction: and your bishops as soon as they are designed and confirmed by the king, must ipso faclo be ordained and consecrated by him without intervention of bishops, or matter and form of ordination: which absurdities you will be more unwilling to grant, than well able to avoid, if you will be true to your own doctrines. the pope from whom originally you must beg your succession of bishops, never received, nor will, nor can acknowledge to receive any spiritual jurisdiction from any temporal prince, and therefore if jurisdiction must be derived from princes, he hath none at all: and yet either you must acknowledge, that he hath true spiritual jurisdiction, or that yourselves can receive none from him. 21. moreover, this new reformation, or reformed church of protestants, will by them be pretended to be catholic, or universal, and not confined to england alone, as the sect of the donatists was to africa: and therefore it must comprehend all the reformed churches in germany, holland, scotland, france etc. in which number, they of germany, holland, and france, are not governed by bishops, nor regard any personal succession, unless of such fat-beneficed bishops as nicolaus amsfordius, who was consecrated by luther, (though luther himself was never bishop) as witnesseth (y) in millenario sexto pag. 187. dresserus. and though scotland hath of late admitted some bishops, i much doubt whether they hold them to be necessary, or of divine institution; and so their enforced admitting of them, doth not so much furnish that kingdom with personal succession of bishops, as it doth convince them to want succession of doctrine; since in this their neglect of bishops they disagree both from the milder protestant's of england, and the true catholic church: and by this want of a continued personal succession of bishops, they retain the note of schism, & heresy. so that the church of protestants, must either not be universal, as being confined to england; or if you will needs comprehend all those churches which want succession, you must confess, that your church doth not only communicate with schismatical and heretical churches, but is also compounded of such churches; & yourselves cannot avoid the note of schismatics, or heretics, if it were but for participating with such heretical churches. for it is impossible to retain communion with the true catholic church, and yet agree with them who are divided from her by schism, or heresy; because that were to affirm, that for the self same time, they could be within, and without the catholic church, as proportionably i discoursed in the next precedent chapter, concerning the communicating of moderate protestants with those who maintain that heresy of the latency and inuisibility of god's church, where i brought a place of s. cyprian to this purpose, which the reader may be pleased to review in the fifth chapter, and 17. number. 22. but besides this defect in the personal succession of protestant bishops, there is another of great moment; which is, that they want the right form of ordaining bishops, and priests, because the manner which they use is so much different from that of the roman church (at least according to the common opinion of divines) that it cannot be sufficient for the essence of ordination; as i could demonstrate if this were the proper place of such a treatise, and will not fail to do if d. potter give me occasion. in the mean time the reader may be pleased to read the author (z) see adamum tamnerum tom. 4. disp. 7. quaest. 2. dub. 3. & 4. cited here in the margin, & then compare the form of our ordination with that of protestants; and to remember that if the form which they use either in consecrating bishops, or in ordaining priests be at least doubtful, they can neither have undoubted priests, nor bishops. for priests cannot be ordained but by true bishops, nor can any be a true bishop, unless he first be priest. i say, their ordination is at least doubtful; because that sufficeth for my present purpose. for bishops and priests, whose ordination is notoriously known to be but doubtful, are not to be esteemed bishops, or priests: and no man without sacrilege can receive sacraments from them; all which they administer unlawfully: and (if we except baptism, with manifest danger of invalidity, and with obligation to be at least conditionally repeated) so protestant's must remain doubtful of remission of sins, of their ecclesiastical hierarchy, and may not pretend to be a true church, which cannot subsist without undoubted true bishops, and priests, nor without due administration of sacraments, which (according to protestants) is an essential note of the true church. and it is a world to observe the proceeding of english protestants in this point of their ordinations. for first, ann. 3. edw. 6. cap. 2. when he was a child about twelve years of age, it was enacted, that such (a) dyer fol, 234. term. mich. 6. & 7. eliz. form of making, and consecrating of bishops and priests, as by six prelates, and six other to be appointed by the king, should be devised (mark this word, devised) and set forth under the great seal; should be used, and none other. but after, this act was repealed 1. mar. sess. 2. in so much as that when afterward an. 6. & 7. reg. eliz. bishop bonner being indicted upon a certifitate made by d. horn a protestant bishop of winchester, for his refusal of the oath of supremacy; and he excepting against the endictment because d. horn was no bishop; all the judges resolved that his exception was good, if indeed d. horn was not bishop; and they were all at a stand, till an. 8. eliz. cap. 1. the act of edw. 6. was renewed and confirmed, with a particular proviso, that no man should be impeached or molested by means of any certificate by any bishop or archbishop made before this last act. whereby it is clear, that they made some doubt of their own ordination; and that there is nothing but uncertainty in the whole business of their ordination, which (forsooth) must depend upon six prelates, the great seal, acts of parliaments being contrary one to another, and the like. 23. but though they want personal succession; yet at least they have succession of doctrine as they say, & pretend to prove, because they believe as the apostles believed. this is to beg the question, and to take what they may be sure, will never be granted. for if they want personal succession, and slight ecclesiastical tradition, how will they persuade any man, that they agree with the doctrine of the apostles? we have heard tertullian saying: i will prescribe (b) sup. 〈…〉 against all heretics) that there is no means to prove what the apostles preached, but by the same churches which they founded. and s. irenaeus tells us that, we may (c) l. 3. 〈…〉 behold the tradition of the apostles in every church, if men be desirous to bear the truth; and we can number them who were made bishops by the apostles in churches, and their successors, even to us. and the same father in another place saith: we ought to obey (d) l. 4. 〈◊〉 43. those priests who are in the church, who have succession from the apostles, and who together with succession in their bishoprickes have received the certain gift of truth. s. augustin saith: i am kept in the church (e) contr. epist. fundam. cap. 4. by the succession of priests from the very sea of peter the apostle, to whom our saviour after his resurrection committed his sheep to be fed, even to the present bishop. origen to this purpose giveth us a good and wholesome rule (happy, if himself had followed the same) in these excellent words: since there be many who think (f) praef. ad lib. peri●●●chon. they believe the things which are of christ, and some are of different opinion from those who went before them; let the preaching of the church be kept, which is delivered by the apostles by order of succession, and remains in the church to this very day; that only is to be believed for truth, which in nothing disagrees from the tradition of the church. in vain then do these men brag of the doctrine of the apostles, unless first they can demonstrate that they enjoy a continued succession of bishops from the apostles, and can show us a church which according to s. augustin is deduced by undoubted succession from the sea (g) cont. faust. cap. 2, of the apostles, even to the present bishops. 23. but yet nevertheless, suppose it were granted, that they agreed with the doctrine of the apostles; this were not sufficient to prove a succession in doctrine. for succession, besides agreement or similitude, doth also require a never-interrupted conveying of such doctrine, from the time of the apostles, till the days of those persons who challenge such a succession. and so s. augustine saith: we are to believe that gospel which from the time of the apostles, the (h) lib. 28. cout. faust. ●. 2. church hath brought down to our days by a never-interrupted course of times, and by undoubted succession of connection. now, that the reformation begun by luther, was interrupted for diverse ages before him, is manifest out of history, and by his endeavouring a reformation which must presuppose abuses. he cannot therefore pretend a continued succession of that doctrine which he sought to revive, and reduce to the knowledge, and practise of men. and they ought not to prove that they have succession of doctrine, because they agree with the doctrine of the apostles; but contrarily we must infer, that they agree not with the apostles, because they cannot pretend a never-interrupted succession of doctrine from the times of the apostles, till luther. and here it is not amiss to note, that although the waldenses, wicliffe etc. had agreed with protestants in all points of doctrine; yet they could not brag of succession from them, because their doctrine hath not been free from interruption, which necessarily crosseth succession. 24. and as want of succession of persons and doctrine, cannot stand with that universality of time, which is inseparable from the catholic church; so likewise the disagreeing sects which are dispersed throughout diverse countries, and nations, cannot help towards that vniacrsality of place, wherewith the true church must be endued: but rather such local multiplication, doth more and more lay open their division, and want of succession in doctrine. for the excellent observation of s. augustine doth punctually agree with all modern heretics; wherein this holy father having cited these words out of the prophet ezechiel, (i) cap. 24. my flocks are dispersed upon the whole face of the earth; he adds this remarkable sentence: not all heretics (k) lib. de pastorib. c. 8. are spread over the face of the earth, and yet there are heretics spread over the whole face of the earth, some here some there, yet they are wanting in no place, they know not one another. one sect for example in africa, another heresy in the east, another in egypt, another in mesopotamia. in diverse places they are diverse: one mother pride hath begot them all, as our one mother the catholic church hath brought forth all faithful people dispersed throughout the whole world. no wonder then, if pride breed dissension, and charity union. and in another place, applying to heretics those words of the canticles: if thou know not (l) cant. 1. thyself, go forth, and follow after the steps of the flocks, and feed thy kids, he saith: if thou know not thyself, go (m) ep. 48. thou forth, i do not cast thee out, but go thou out, that it may be said of thee: they went from us, but they were not of us. go thou out in the steps of the flocks; not in my steps, but in the steps of the flocks, nor of one flock, but of diverse and wand'ring flocks; and feed thy kids, not as peter, to whom is said, feed my sheep: but feed thy kids in the tabernacles of the pastors, not in the tabernacle of the pastor, where there is one flock, and one pastor. in which words this holy father doth set down the marks of heresy to wit, going out from the church, and want of unity among themselves, which proceed from not acknowledging one supreme visible pastor and head under christ. and so it being proved that protestants having neither succession of persons, nor doctrine, nor universality of time, or place, cannot avoid the just note of heresy. 25. hitherto we have brought arguments to prove, that luther, and all protestants are guilty of heresy against the negative precept of faith, which obligeth us under pain of damnation, not to embrace any one error, contrary to any truth sufficiently propounded, as testified or revealed by almighty god. which were enough to make good, that among persons who disagree in any one point of faith, one part only can be saved: yet we will now prove that whosoever erreth in any one point, doth also break the affirmative precept of faith, whereby we are obliged positively, to believe some revealed truth with an infallible, and supernatural faith, which is necessary to salvation, even necessitate finis, or medij, as divines speak; that is, so necessary that not any, after he is come to the use of reason, was or can be saved without it, according to the words of the apostle: without faith (n) hebr. 11.6. it is impossible to please god. 26. in the beginning of this chapter i shown, that to christian catholic faith are required certainty, obscurity, prudence, and supernaturality: all which conditions we will prove to be wanting in the belief of protestants, even in those points which are true in themselves, and to which they yield assent, as happeneth in all those particulars, wherein they agree with us; from whence it will follow, that they wanting true divine faith, want means absolutely necessary to salvation. 27. and first, the faith of protestants wanteth certainty. that their belief wanteth certainty, i prove, because they denying the universal infallibility of the church, can have no certain ground to know what objects are revealed, or testified by god. holy scripture is in itself most true and infallible, but-without the direction & declaration of the church, we can neither have certain means to know what scripture is canonical; nor what translations be faithful; nor what is the true meaning of scripture. every protestant, as i suppose, is persuaded that his own opinions, be true, and that he hath used such means as are wont to be prescribed for understanding the scripture, as prayer, conferring of diverse texts etc. and yet their disagreements show that some of them are deceived: and therefore it is clear that they have no one certain ground whereon to rely for understanding of scripture. and seeing they hold all the articles of faith, even concerning fundamental points, upon the self same ground of scripture, interpreted, not by the church's authority, but according to some other rules, which as experience of their contradictions teach, do sometimes fail; it is clear that the ground of their faith is infallible in no point at all. and albeit sometime it chance to hit on the truth, yet it is likewise apt to lead them to error: as all arch-heretiques believing some truths, and withal diverse errors upon the same ground and motive, have indeed no true divine infallible faith, but only a fallible humane opinion, and persuasion. for if the ground upon which they rely were certain, it could never produce any error. 28. another cause of uncertainty in the faith of protestants, must rise from their distinction of points fundamental, and not fundamental. for since they acknowledge, that every error in fundamental points destroyeth the substance of faith and yet cannot determine what points be fundamental: it followeth that they must remain uncertain whether or no they be not in some fundamental error, & so want the substance of faith, without which there can be no hope of salvation. 24. and that he who erreth against any one revealed truth (as certainly some protestants must do, because contradictory propositions cannot both be true) doth lose all divine faith; is a very true doctrine delivered by catholic divines, with so general a consent, that the contrary is wont to be censured as temerarious. the angelical doctor s. thomas proposeth this question: whether (o) 2.2. q. 3. ar. 3. in ●orp. he who denyeth one article of faith, may retain faith of other articles? and resolveth that he cannot: which he proveth, (argumenta sed contra) because; as deadly sin is opposite to charity; so to deny one article of faith is opposite to faith: but charity doth not remain with any one deadly sin; therefore faith doth not remain after the denial of any one article of faith. whereof he gives this further reason: because (saith he) the nature of every habit doth depend upon the formal motive & object thereof, which motive being taken away the nature of the habit cannot remain. but the formal object of faith is the supreme truth as it is manifested in scriptures, and in the doctrine of the church, which proceeds from the same supreme verity. whosoever therefore doth not rely upon the doctrine of the church (which proceeds from the supreme verity manifested in scriptures) as upon an infallible rule, he hath not the habit of faith, but believes those things which belong to faith, by some other means then by faith: as if one ●hould remember some conclusion, and not know the reason of that demonstration, it is clear that he hath not certain knowledge, but only opinion. now it is manifest, that he who relies on the doctrine of the church, as upon an infallible rule, will yield his assent to all, that the church teacheth. for if among those things, which she teacheth, he hold what he will, and doth not hold what he will not, he doth not rely upon the doctrine of the church, as upon an infallible rule, but only upon his own will. and so it is clear that an heretic, who with pertinacity denieth one article of faith, is not ready to follow the doctrine of the church in all things: and therefore it is manifest, that whosoever is an heretic in any one article of faith, concerning other articles, hath not faith, but a kind of opinion, or his own will. thus far s. thomas. and afterward: a man doth believe (q) ad 2. all the articles of faith for one and the self same reason, to wit, for the prime verity proposed to us in the scripture, understood aright according to the doctrine of the church: and therefore whosoever falls from this reason or motive, is totally deprived of faith. from this true doctrine we are to infer, that to retain, or want the substance of faith, doth not consist in the matter, or multitude of the articles, but in the opposition against god's divine testimony, which is involved in every least error against faith. and since some protestants must needs err, and that they have no certain rule to know, why rather one then another; it manifestly follows that none of them have any certainty for the substance of their faith in any one point. moreover d. potter, being forced to confess that the roman church wants not the substance of faith; it follows that she doth not err in any one point against faith, because as we have seen out of s. thomas, every such error destroys the substance of faith. now if the roman church did not err in any one point of faith, it is manifest that protestants err in all those points wherein they are contrary to her. and this may suffice to prove that the faith of protestants wants infallibility. 30. and now for the second condition of faith, i say: if protestants have certainty, they want the second condition of faith, obscurity. they want obscurity, and so have not that faith which, as the apostle saith, is of things not appearing, or not necessitating our understanding to an assent. for the whole edifice of the faith of protestants, is settled on these two principles: these particular books are canonical scripture: and, the sense and meaning of these canonical scriptures, is clear and evident, at least in all points necessary to salvation. now, these principles being once supposed, it clearly followeth, that what protestants believe as necessary to salvation, is evidently known by them to be true, by this argument: it is certain and evident, that whatsoever is contained in the word of god, is true. but it is certain and evident, that these books in particular are the word of god: therefore it is certain and evident, that whatsoever is contained in these books is true. which conclusion i take for a mayor in a second argument, and say thus: it is certain and evident that whatsoever is contained in these books is true: but it is certain and evident, that such particular articles (for example, the trinity, incarnation, original sin etc.) are contained in these books: therefore it is certain and evident, that these particular objects are true. neither will it avail you to say, that the said principles are not evident by natural discourse, but only to the eye of reason cleared by grace, as you speak. for supernatural evidence, no less (yea rather more) draws and excludes obscurity, then natural evidence doth: neither can the party so enlightened be said voluntarily to captivated his understanding to that light, but rather his understanding is by a necessity made captive, and forced not to disbelieved, what is presented by so clear a light: and therefore your imaginary faith is not the true faith defined by the apostle, but an invention of your own. 31. that the faith of protestants wanteth the third condition which was prudence, their faith wants prudence. is deduced from all that hitherto hath been said. what wisdom was it, to forsake a church confessedly very ancient, and besides which, there could be demonstrated no other visible church of christ upon earth? a church acknowledged to want nothing necessary to salvation; endued with succession of bishops, with visibility and universality of time and place; a church which if it be not the true church, her enemies cannot pretend to have any church, ordination, scriptures, succession, etc. and are forced for their own sake, to maintain her perpetual existence, and being? to leave, i say, such a church, & frame a community, without either unity, or means to procure it; a church which at luther's first revolt had no larger extent than where his body was; a church without universality of place or time; a church which can pretend no visibility, or being, except only in that former church which it opposeth; a church void of succession of persons or doctrine? what wisdom was it to follow such men as luther, in an opposition against the visible church of christ, begun upon mere passion? what wisdom is it to receive from us, a church, ordination, scriptures, personal succession, and not succession of doctrine? is not this to verify the name of heresy, which signifieth election or choice? whereby they cannot avoid that note of imprudency, (or as s. augustine calls it) foolishness, set down by him against the manichees, and by me recited before. i would not (saith he) believe (r) cont. ep. fund. ç. 5. the gospel, unless the authority of the church did move me. those therefore whom i obeyed, saying, believe the gospel, why should i not obey the same men saying to me, do not believe manichaeus (luther, caluin, etc.) choose what thou pleasest: if thou say, believe the catholics; they warn me, not to believe thee. wherefore if i believe them, i cannot believe thee. if thou say, do not believe the catholics; thou shalt not do well, in forcing me to the faith of manichaeus, because by the preaching of catholics, i believed the gospel itself. if thou say; you did well to believe them (catholics) commending the gospel, but you did not well to believe them, discommending manichaeus; dost thou think me so very foolish, that without any reason at all, i should believe what thou wilt, and not believe, what thou wilt not? nay this holy father is not content to call it foolishness, but mere madness, in these words: why should i not most diligently inquire (s) lib. de util. cred. ç. 14. what christ commanded of those before all others, by whose authority i was moved to believe, that christ commanded any good thing? canst thou better declare to me, what he said, whom i would not have thought to have been, or to be, if the belief thereof had been recommended by thee to me? this therefore i believed by fame, strengthened with celebrity, consent, antiquity. but every one may see that you, so few, so turbulent, so new, can produce nothing which deserves authority. what madness is this? believe them (catholics) that we ought to believe christ; but learn of us, what christ said. why i beseech thee? surely if they (catholics) were not at all, and could not teach me any thing, i would more easily persuade myself, that i were not to believe christ, than i should learn any thing concerning him from any other than those, by whom i believed him. lastly, i ask what wisdom it could be to leave all visible churches, and consequently the true catholic church of christ, which you confess cannot err in points necessary to salvation, and the roman church which you grant doth not err in fundamentals, and follow private men who may err even in points necessary to salvation? especially if we add, that when luther rose there was no visible true catholic church besides that of rome, and them who agreed with her; in which sense, she was, & is, the only true church of christ, and not capable of any error in faith. nay, even luther, who first opposed the roman church yet coming to dispute against other heretics, he is forced to give the lie both to his own words and deeds, in saying: we freely confess (t) in epist. count. anab. ad duos paerochos. to. 2, germ. witt. fol. 229. & 230. that in the papacy there are many good things, worthy the name of christian, which have come from them to us. namely, we confess, that in the papacy there is true scripture, true baptism, the true sacrament of the altar, the true keys for remission of sins, the true office of preaching, true catechism, as our lord's prayer, ten commandments, articles of faith etc. and afterward: i avouch, that under the papacy there is true christianity, yea the kernel and marrow of christianity, and many pious and great saints. and again he affirmeth, that the church of rome hath the true spirit, gospels, faith, baptism, sacraments, the keys, the office of preaching, prayer, holy scripture, and whatsoever christianity ought to have. and a little before: i hear and see that they bring in anabaptisme only to this end, that they may spite the pope, as men that will receive nothing from antichrist; no otherwise then the sacramentaries do, who therefore believe only bread and wine to be in the sacrament, merely in hatred against the bishop of rome; and they think that by this means they shall overcome the papacy. verily these men rely upon a weak ground, for by this means they must deny the whole scripture, and the office of preaching. for we have all these things from the pope; otherwise we must go make a new scripture. o truth, more forcible (as s. augustine says) to wring out (x) contra donat. post collat. cap. 24. confession, then is any rack, or torment! and so we may truly say with moses: inimici nostri sunt judices: our very enemies give (y) deut. c. 32. 31. sentence for us. 32. lastly, since your faith wanteth certainty, and prudence, it is easy to infer that it wants the fourth condition, supernaturality. their faith wants supernaturality. for being but an humane persuasion, or opinion, it is not in nature, or essence supernatural. and being imprudent, and rash, it cannot proceed from divine motion and grace; and therefore it is neither supernatural in itself, or in the cause from which it proceedeth. 33. since therefore we have proved, that whosoever errs against any one point of faith, looseth all divine faith, even concerning those other articles wherein he doth not err; and that although he could still retain true faith for some points, yet any one error in whatsoever other matter concerning faith, is a grievous sin; it clearly follows, that when two or more hold different doctrines concerning faith and religion, there can be but one part saved. for declaring of which truth, if catholics be charged with want of charity, and modesty, and be accused of rashness, ambition, and fury, as d. potter is very free in this kind; i desire every one to ponder the words of s. chrysostome, who teacheth, that every least error overthrows all faith, and whosoever is guilty thereof, is in the church, like one, who in the commonwealth forgeth false coin: let them hear (saith this holy father) what s. paul saith: namely, that they who brought in some small error (z) galat. ●. 7. had overthrown the gospel. for, to show how a small thing ill mingled doth corrupt the whole, he said, that the gospel was subveried. for as he who eclipse a little of the stamp from the king's money, makes the whole piece of no value: so whosoever takes away the least particle of sound faith, is wholly corrupted, always going from that beginning to worse things. where then are they, who condemn us as contentious persons, because we cannot agree with heretics, and do often say, that there is no difference betwixt us and them, but that our disagreement proceeds from ambition to domineer? and thus having showed that protestants want true faith, it remaineth that, according to my first design, i examine whether they do not also want charity, as it respects a man's self. chap. vii. in regard of the precept of charity towards ones self, protestants are in state of sin, as long as they remain separated from the roman church. that, due order is to be observed in the theological virtue of charity, whereby we are directed to prefer some objects before others; is a truth taught by all divines, and declared in these words of holy scripture: he hath ordered (a) cant. 2. ● charity in me. the reason whereof is: because the infinite goodness of god, which is the formal object, or motive of charity, & for which all other things are loved, is differently participated by different objects; and therefore the love we bear to them for god's sake, must accordingly be unequal. in the virtue of faith, the case is fare otherwise; because all the objects, or points which we believe, do equally participate the divine testimony, or revelation, for which we believe a like all things propounded for such. for it is as impossible for god, to speak an untruth, in a small, as in a great matter. and this is the ground for which we have so often affirmed, that any least error against faith, is injurious to god, and destructive of salvation. 2. this order in charity may be considered; towards god; our own soul; the soul of our neighbour; our own life, or goods; and the life or goods of our neighbour. god is to be beloved above all things, both obiective (as the divines speak) that is, we must wish or desire to god, a good more great, perfect, and noble then to any, or all other things: namely, all that indeed he is, a nature infinite, independent, immense etc. and also appretiatiuè, that is, we must sooner lose what good soever, then leave, and abandon him. in the other objects of charity, of which i spoke, this order is to be kept. we may, but are not bound, to prefer the life and goods of our neighbour before our own: we are bound to prefer the soul of our neighbour before our own temporal goods or life, if he happen to be in extreme spiritual necessity, and that we by our assistance can secure him, according to the saying of s. john: in this we have known (b) 1. joan. 3. v. 16. the charity of god, because he hath yielded his life for us: and we ought to yield our life for our brethren. and s. augustine likewise saith: a christian will not doubt (c) de meudac. cap. 6. to lose his own temporal life, for the eternal life of his neighbour. lastly we are to prefer the spiritual good of our own soul, before both the spiritual and temporal good of our neighbour; because as charity doth of its own nature, chief incline the person in whom it resides, to love god, and to be united with him: so of itself it inclines him, to procure those things whereby the said union with god is effected, rather to himself then to others. and from hence it follows, that in things necessary to salvation, no man ought in any case, or in any respect whatsoever, to prefer the spiritual good, either of any particular person, or of the whole world before his own soul; according to those words of our blessed saviour: what doth it (d) matt. 6. avail a man, if he gain the whole world, and sustain the damage of his own soul? and therefore (to come to our present purpose) it is directly against the order of charity, or against charity as it hath a reference to ourselves, which divines call charitas propria, to adventure either the omitting of any means necessary to salvation, or the committing of any thing repugnant to it, for whatsoever respect; & consequently, if by living out of the roman church we put ourselves in hazard, either to want some thing necessarily required to salvation, or else to perform some act against it, we commit a most grievous sin, against the virtue of charity, as it respects our selves, and so cannot hope for salvation, without repentance. 3. now, of things necessary to salvation, there are two sorrs, according to the doctrine of all divines. some things (say they) are necessary to salvation, necessitate praecepti, necessary only because they are commanded; for: if thou wilt (e) matt. ●●. 17. enter into life, keep the commandments. in which kind of things, as probable ignorance of the law, or of the commandment doth excuse the party from all faulty breach thereof; so likewise doth it not exclude salvation in case of ignorance. some other things are said to be necessary to salvation necessitate medij, finis, or salutis; because they are means appointed by god to attain our end of eternal salvation, in so strict a manner, that it were presumption to hope for salvation without them. and as the former means are said to be necessary, because they are commanded; so the later are commonly said to be commanded, because they are necessary, that is: although there were no other special precept concerning them; yet supposing they be once appointed as means absolutely necessary to salvation, there cannot but rise an obligation of procuring to have them, in virtue of that universal precept of charity, which obligeth every man to procure the salvation of his own soul. in this sort divine infallible faith is necessary to salvation; as likewise repentance of every deadly sin, and in the doctrine of catholics, baptism in re, that is, in act to children, and for those who are come to the use of reason, in voto, or hearty desire, when they cannot have it in act. and as baptism is necessary for remission of original, and actual sin committed before it: so the sacrament of confession, or penance is necessary in re, or in vote, in act, or desire, for the remission of mortal sins, committed after baptism. the minister of which sacrament of penance being necessarily a true priest, true ordination is necessary in the church of god for remission of sins by this sacrament, as also for other ends not belonging to our present purpose. from hence it riseth, that no ignorance, or impossibility can supply the want of those means which are absolutely necessary to salvation: as if, for example, a sinner departed this world without repenting himself of all deadly sins, although he die suddenly, or unexpectedly fall out of his wits, and so commit no new sin by omission of repentance; yet he shall be eternally punished for his former sins committed, and never repent. if an infant dye without baptism, he cannot be saved, not by reason of any actual sin committed by him in omitting baptism, but for original sin, not forgiven by the means which god hath ordained to that purpose. which doctrine, all, or most protestant's will (for aught i know) grant to be true, in the children of infidels, yea not only lutherans, but also some other protestants as m. bilson late of winchester (f) in his true difference etc. part. 4 pag. 368. & 369. and others hold it to be true, even in the children of the faithful. and if protestants in general disagree from catholics in this point, it cannot be denied but that our disagreement is in a point very fundamental. and the like i say of the sacrament of penance, which they deny to be necessary to salvation, either in act, or in desire; which error is likewise fundamental, because it concerns (as i said) a thing necessary to salvation: and for the same reason, if their priesthood and ordination be doubtful, as certainly it is, they are in danger to want a means without which they cannot be saved. neither ought this rigour to seem strange, or unjust: for almighty god having of his own goodness, without our merit, first ordained man to a supernatural end of eternal felicity; and then, after our fall in adam vouchsafed to reduce us to the attaining of that end, if his blessed will be pleased to limit the attaining of that end, to some means which in his infinite wisdom he thinks most fit; who can say, why dost thou so? or who can hope for that end, without such means? blessed be his divine majesty, for vouchsafing to ordain us, base creatures, to so sublime an end, by any means at all. 4 out of the foresaid difference followeth another, that (generally speaking) in things necessary only, because they are commanded, it is sufficient for avoydnng sin, that we proceed prudently, and by the conduct of some probable opinion, maturely weighed and approved by men of virtue, learning, & wisdom. neither are we always obliged to follow the most strict, and severe, or secure part, as long as the doctrine which we embrace, proceeds upon such reasons, as may warrant it to be truly probable, and prudent, though the contrary part want not also probable grounds. for in humane affairs, and discourse, evidence and certainty cannot be always expected. but when we treat not precisely of avoiding sin, but moreover of procuring some thing without which i can not be saved; i am obliged by the law, & order of charity to procure as great certainty as morally i am able; and am not to follow every probable opinion, or dictamen, but tutiorem partem, the safer part, because if my probability prove false, i shall not probably, but certainly come short of salvation. nay in such case, i shall incur a new sin against the virtue of charity towards myself, which obligeth every one not to expose his soul to the hazard of eternal perdition, when it is in his power, with the assistance of god's grace, to make the matter sure. from this very ground it is, that although some divines be of opinion, that it is not a sin to use some matter, or form of sacraments, only probable, if we respect precisely the reverence or respect which is due to sacraments, as they belong to the moral infused virtue of religion; yet when they are such sacraments, as the invalidity thereof may endanger the salvation of souls, all do with one consent agree, that it is a grievous offence to use a doubtful, or only probable matter or form, when it is in our power to procure certainty. if therefore it may appear, that though it were not certain that protestancy unrepented destroys salvation (as we have proved to be very certain) yet at least that is probable, & with all, that there is a way more safe; it will follow out of the grounds already laid, that they are obliged by the law of charity to embrace that safe way. 5. now, that protestants have reason at least to doubt in what case they stand, is deduced from what we have said, and proved about the universal infallibility of the church, and of her being judge of controversies, to whom all christians ought to submit their judgement (as even some protestants grant,) and whom to oppose in any one of her definitions, is a grievous sin: as also from what we have said of the unity, universality, and visibility of the church, and of succession of persons, and doctrine; of the conditions of divine faith, certainty, obscurity, prudence, and supernaturality, which are wanting in the faith of protestants; of the frivolous distinction of points fundamental and not fundamental, (the cofutation whereof proveth that heretics disagreeing among themselves in any least point, cannot have the same faith, nor be of the same church:) of schism; of heresy; of the persons who first revolted from rome, and of their motives; of the nature of faith, which is destroyed by any least error, & it is certain that some of them must be in error, and want the substance of true faith; and since all pretend the like certainty, it is clear that none of them have any certainty at all, but that they want true faith, which is a means most absolutely necessary to salvation. moreover, as i said heretofore, since it is granted that every error in fundamental points is damnable, & that they cannot tell in particular, what points be fundamental; it follows that none of them knows whether he, or his brethren do not err damnably, it being certain that amongst so many disagreeing persons some must err. upon the same ground of not being able to assign what points be fundamental, i say, they cannot be sure whether the difference among them be fundamental or no, and consequently whether they agree in the substance of faith and hope of salvation. i omit to add that you want the sacrament of penance, instituted for remission of sins, or at least you must confess that you hold it not necessary; and yet your own brethren, for example, the century writers do (g) cent. 3. cap. 6. col. 127. acknowledge, that in the times of cyprian, and tertulian, private confession even of thoughts was used; and that, it was then commanded, and thought necessary. the like, i say, concerning your ordination, which at least is very doubtful, & consequently all that depends thereon. 6. on the other side, that the roman church is the safer way to heaven (not to repeat what hath been already said upon diverse occasions) i will again put you in mind, that unless the roman church was the true church, there was no visible true church upon earth. a thing so manifest, that protestants themselves confess that more than one thousand years the roman church possessed the whole world, as we have showed heretofore, out of their own (h) chap. 5. num. 9 words: from whence it follows, that unless ours be the true church, you cannot pretend to any perpetual visible church of your own; but ours doth not depend on yours, before which it was. and here i wish you to consider with fear and trembling; how all roman catholics, not one excepted; that is, those very men whom you must hold not to err damnably in their belief, unless you will destroy your own church, and salvation, do with unanimous consent believe, and profess that protestancy unrepented, destroys salvation; and then tell me, as you will answer at the last day, whether it be not more safe, to live & die in that church, which even yourselves are forced to acknowledge not to be cut off from hope of salvation (which are your own words) then to live in a church, which the said confessedly true church doth firmly believe, and constantly profess not to be capable of salvation. and therefore i conclude that by the most strict obligation of charity towards your own soul, you are bound to place it in safety, by returning to that church, from which your progenitors schismatically departed; lest too late you find that saying of the holy ghost verified in yourselves: he that love's (i) eccles. ●. 27. the danger, shall perish therein. 7. against this last argument of the greater security of the roman church drawn from your own confession, you bring an objection; which in the end will be found to make for us, against yourself. it is taken from the words of the donatists, speaking to catholics in this manner: yourselves confess (k) pag. 112. our baptism, sacraments, and faith (here you put an explication of your own, and faith, for the most part, as if any small error in faith did not destroy all faith) to be good, and available. we deny yours to be so, and say there is no church, no salvation amongst you. therefore it is safest for all to join with us. 8. by your leave our argument is not (as you say) for simple people alone, but for all them who have care to save their souls. neither is it grounded upon your charitable judgement (as you (l) pag. 81. speak) but upon an inevitable necessity for you, either to grant salvation to our church, or to entail certain damnation upon your own: because yours can have no being till luther, unless ours be supposed to have been the true church of christ. and since you term this argument a charm, take heed you be none of those, who according to the prophet david, do not hear the voice of him (m) psal. v. 6. who charmeth wisely. but to come to the purpose: catholics never granted that the donatists had a true church, or might be saved: and therefore you having cited out of s. augustin, the words of the catholics, that the donatists had true baptism, when you come to the contrary words of the donatists, you add, no church, no salvation; making the argument to have quinque terminos; without which addition you did see, it made nothing against us: for, as i said, the catholics never yielded, that among the donatists there was a true church, or hope of salvation. and yourself a few leaves after acknowledge that the donatists maintained an error, which, was in the matter and nature of it properly heretical, against that article of the creed, wherein we profess to believe the holy (n) pag. 125. catholic church: and consequently, you cannot allow salvation to them, as you do, and must do to us. and thenrfore the donatists could not make the like argument against catholics, as catholics make against you, who grant us salvation, which we deny to you. but at least (you will say) this argument for the certainty of their baptism, was like to ours touching the security and certainty of our salvation; & therefore that catholics should have esteemed the baptism of the donatists, more certain than their own, and so have allowed rebaptisation of such as were baptised by heretics, or sinners, as the donatists esteemed all catholics to be. i answer, no. because it being a matter of faith, that baptism administered by heretics, observing due matter, form etc. is valide; to rebaptize any so baptised, had been both a sacrilege in reitering a sacrament not reiterable, and a profession also of a damnable heresy, and therefore had not been more safe, but certainly damnable. but you confess that in the doctrine or practice of the roman church, there is no belief, or profession of any damnable error, which if there were, even your church should certainly be no church. to believe therefore and profess as we do, cannot exclude salvation, as rebaptisation must have done. but if the donatists could have affirmed with truth, that in the opinion both of catholics and themselves their baptism was good, yea and good in such sort as that unless theirs was good, that of the catholics could not be such: but the●●s might be good, though that of the catholics were not and further that it was no damnable error to believe, that baptism administered by the catholics was not good, nor that it was any sacrilege to reiterate the same baptism of catholics: if, i say, they could have truly affirmed these things, they had said somewhat, which at least had seemed to the purpose. but these things they could not say with any colour of truth, and therefore their argument was fond, and impious. but we with truth say to protestants: you cannot but confess that our doctrine contains no damnable error, and that our church is so certainly a true church, that unless ours be true you cannot pretend any; yea you grant, that you should be guilty of schism, if you did cut off our church from the body of christ, and the hope of salvation: but we neither do, nor can grant that yours is a true church, or that within it there is hope of salvation: therefore it is safest for you, to join with us. and now against whom hath your objection greatest force? 9 but i wonder not a little, and so i think will every body else, what the reason may be, that you do not so much as go about to answer the argument of the donatists, which you say is all one with ours, but refer us to s. augustin there to read it; as if every one carried with him a library, or were able to examine the places in s. augustine: and yet you might be sure your reader would be greedy to see some solid answer to an argument so often urged by us, and which indeed, unless you can confute it, ought alone to move every one who hath care of his soul, to take the safest way, by incorporating himself in our church. but we may easily imagine the true reason of your silence. for the answer which s. augustine gives to the donatists, is directly against yourself, and the same which i have given: namely, that catholics (o) ad lit. petil. lib. 2. cap. 108. approve the baptism of donatists, but abhor their heresy of rebaptization. and that as gold is good (which is the similitude used by (p) contrae cresc lib. 1. cap. 21. s. augustin) yet not to be sought in company of thiefs; so though baptism be good, yet it must not be sought for in the conventicle of donatists. but you free us from damnable heresy, and yield us salvation, which i hope is to be embraced in whatsoever company it is found, or rather that company is to be embraced before all other, in which all sides agree, that salvation may be found. we therefore must infer, that it is safest for you to seek salvation among us. you had good reason to conceal s. augustins answer to the donatists. 10. you frame another argument in our behalf, & make us speak thus: if protestants believe the (q) pag. 79. religion of catholics, to be a safe way to heaven, why do they not follow it? which wise argument of your own, you answer at large, and confirm your answer by this instance: the jesuits and dominicans hold different opinions touching predetermination, and the immaculate conception of the blessed virgin: yet so, that the jesuits hold the dominicans way safe, that is, his error not damnable, and the dominicans hold the same of the jesuits. yet neither of them with good consequence can press the other to believe his opinion, because by his own confession it is no damnable error. 11. but what catholic maketh such a wise demand, as you put into our mouths? if our religion be a safe way to heaven, that is, not damnable; why do you not follow it? as if every thing that is good, must be of necessity embraced by every body but what think you of the argument framed thus? our religion is safe, even by your confession, therefore you ought to grant that all may embrace it. and yet further, thus: among different religions and contrary ways to heaven, one only can be safe: but ours, by your own confession, is safe, whereas we hold that in yours there is no hope of salvation: therefore you may, and aught to embrace ours. this is our argument. and if the dominicans and jesuits did say one to another as we say to you; then one of them might with good consequence press the other to believe his opinion. you have still the hard fortune to be beaten with your own weapon. 12. it remaineth then that both in regard of faith, and charity, protestants are obliged to unite themselves with the church of rome. and i may add also, in regard of the theological virtue of hope, without which none can hope to be saved, and which you want, either by excess of confidence, or defect by despair, not unlike to your faith, which i shown to be either deficient in certainty, or excessive in evidence; as likewise according to the rigid caluinists, it is either so strong, that once had, it can never be lost; or so more than weak, and so much nothing; that it can never be gotten. for the true theological hope of christians, is a hope which keeps a mean between presumption, and desperation; which moves us to work our salvation with fear, and trembling; which conducts us to make sure our salvation by good works, as holy scripture adviseth but contrarily, protestants do either exclude hope by despair, with the doctrine that our saviour died not for all, and that such want grace sufficient to salvation; or else by vain presumption grounded upon a fantastical persuasion, that they are predestinate, which faith must exclude all fear, and trembling. neither can they make their calling certain by good works, who do certainly believe that before any good works they are justified, and justified even by faith alone, and by that faith whereby they certainly believe that they are justified. which points some protestants do expressly affirm to be the soul of the church; the principal origen of salvation; of all other points of doctrine the chiefest and weightiest; as already i have noted chap. 3. n. 19 and if some protestants do now relent from the rigour of the aforesaid doctrine, we must affirm, that at least some of them want the theological virtue of hope; yea that none of them can have true hope, while they hope to be saved in the communion of those, who defend such doctrines, as do directly overthrew all true christian hope. and for as much as concerns faith, we must also infer, that they want unity therein (and consequently have none at all) by their disagreement about the soul of the church; the principal origen of salvation; of all other points of doctrine the chiefest and weightiest. and if you want true faith, you must by consequence want hope; or if you hold that this point is not to be so indivisible on either side, but that it hath latitude sufficient to embrace all parties, without prejudice to their salvation; notwithstanding that your brethren hold it to be the soul of the church etc. i must repeat what i have said heretofore, that, even by this example, it is clear, you cannot agree what points be fundamental: and so (to whatsoever answer you fly) i press you in the same manner, and say, that you have no certainty whether you agree in fundamental points, or unity and substance of faith, which cannot stand with difference in fundamental. and so upon the whole matter, i leave it to be considered, whether, want of charity can be justly charged on us, because we affirm, that they cannot (without repentance) be saved, who want of all other the most necessary means to salvation, which are, the three theological virtues, faith, hope, and charity. 13. and now i end this first part, having as i conceive, complied with my first design (in that measure, which time, commodity, scarcity of books, and my own small abilities could afford) which was to show, that amongst men of different religions, one side only can be saved. for since there must be some infallible means to decide all controversies concerning religion, and to propound truth revealed by almighty god; and this means can be no other, but the visible church of christ, which at the time of luther's appearance was only the church of rome, and such as agreed with her: we must conclude, that whosoever opposeth himself to her definitions, or forsaketh her communion, doth resist god himself, whose spouse she is, and whose divine truth she propounds; and therefore becomes guilty of schism, and heresy, which since luther, his associates, and protestants, have done, and still continue to do; it is not want of charity, but abundance of evident cause, that forceth us to declare this necessary truth, protestancy unrepented destroys salvation. the end of the first part. the second part. the preamble. since i have handled the substance of our present controversy, & answered the chief grounds of d. potter in the first part; i may well in this second be more brief, referring the reader to those several places, wherein his reasons are confuted, and his objections answered. and because in every section, he handleth so many different points, that they cannot be ranged under one title, or argument; my chapters must accordingly have no particular title as they had in the first part; but the reader may be pleased to conceive, and yet do me no more than justice therein, that the argument of every one of my seven chapters, is an answer to his seven sections, as they lie in order. but let us now address our speech to d. potter. chap. i. you pretend, and profess in your preface to the reader, that you have not omitted without answer any one thing of moment in all the discourse of charity mistaken: and yet you omit that, which very much imported to the question in hand, namely the moderate explication of our doctrine, that protestancy unrepented destroys salvation; and that you must say the same of us, if you believe your own religion to be true, and ours to be false: which points are prudently delivered by charity mistaken in his second chapter; which together with his first, you undertake to answer in this your first section. and whereas he shown by diverse arguments that it is improbable that the church should want charity, your answer to that point is superficial, and untrue in some things, and none at all in others, as will easily appear to any that shall read charity mistaken in his first chapter. 2. you tell us in very confident manner, that hardly (a) pag. 33. any age in former times may compare with this of ours (since this church was happily purged from popery) for public expressions of charity; but you do it in so general terms, as if you were afraid of being confuted. for i beseech you, d. potter, are the churches which protestants have built, any thing comparable to them which have been erected by catholics? do your hospitals so much deserve as to be named? have you any thing of that kind in effect of particular note, saving the fow mean nurseries of idle beggars and debauched people, except perhaps suitons' hospital, which (as i have been informed) was to take no profit at all till he was dead? he who (as i have also understood) died so without any children, or brothers, or sisters, or known kindred, as that peradventure it might have eschetead to the king? he who lived a wretched and penurious life, and drew that mass of wealth together by usury, in which case according to good conscience, his estate without ask him leave, was by the law of god obnoxious to restitution, and aught to have been applied to pious uses? whereas both anciently in this country, and at all times, and specially in this last age, men see abundance of heroical actions of this kind performed in foreign parts. and if it were not for fear of noting many other great cities, as if there were any want of most munificent hospitals in them, wherein they abound; i could tell you of one called the annunciata in the city of naples, which spends three hundred thousand crowns per annum, which comes to about fourscore thousand pounds sterling by the year, which ever feeds, and cures a thousand sick persons, and pays for the nursing and entertaining of three thousand sucking children of poor people, and hath fourteen other distinct hospitals under it, where the persons of those poor creatures are kept, and where they are defrayed of all their necessary charges every week. i could also tell you of an hospital in rome called s. spirito of huge revenues, but it is not my meaning to enter into particulars, which would prove endless. in the mean time it is pretty entertainment for you to believe no more than you see, which is not much, and to talk in general terms, by comparing that which comes in your way, with those which are in other countries, whereof you seem to know very little. and where i pray you can you verify that which charity mistaken saith of our church in these words. (pag. 7.) persons sick of all diseases are served and attended (after the example of christ our lord) by the own hands of great princes and prelates, and of choice and delicate ladies and queens, in the communion of the holy catholic church? would to god the first head of your church had not destroyed those innumerable glorious monuments of charity which he found! but because our present question about the saveablenes of protestants belongeth rather to faith then charity, out of your own hyperbolical affirmation. i will infer: that seeing the monuments of charitable works performed by catholics, do incomparably exceed those of yours; and yet, that time for time your charity (as you affirm) surpasseth ours; it follows very clearly, that our faith and church is far more ancient than yours, and consequently that yours cannot be catholic for all ages. so that by exaggeration of your charity, you have overthrown your faith and charity also, which cannot subsist without true catholic faith. 3. but yet you are so ingenuous, that you do not so much as pretend to compare your charity in converting souls, to that of the catholics: nor do you so much as once venture to insinuate that the protestant ministers leave their country and commodities, and the houses of rich and loving friends, to transport themselves into barbarous nations, with the sufferance of all cruel inconveniences, and very many times of death itself, for the conversion of souls to christ our lord. for of this you were expressly told, and consequently how improbable it was, that catholics should sear the dangerous state of protestants, through mere want of charity; whereas yet for the only exercise of that virtue, they were content with so much courage and joy to cast away their lives, & that therefore when we made that judgement of you, it was rather through our zeal and cordial desire of your good, and fear of your loss, then for want of charity, or compassion. but of this, as i was saying, you were so wise as not to speak a word. for that glorious mark of the dilatation and amplitude of god's church, by the conversion of nations, kings, and kingdoms, so manifestly foretold by the holy prophets, and ordained in the gospel, when our saviour bid the apostles preach to all nations, and yet never performed by protestants, by evidence of fact, and by the confession of our adversaries, doth shine most bright in the church of rome. 4. but i cannot say, that you omitted to rail against the jesuites, whom i will not dishonour so much, as to defend them against that which you offer so impertinently, vulgarly, and meanly against them, and particularly because in defence of a common cause i will not be diverted by the consideration of particular persons, though by reason of the eminency of the person of cardinal d●ossat, i cannot for bear to tell you, that you falsify him, when you make him say in his eight epistle, that he collected from their wicked doctrine and practices, that they believe neither in jesus christ, nor the pope. for the cardinal speaks not those words of any doctrine or practices of the jesuites: and in the funeral oration which was pronounced at the exequyes of the said cardinal, and is prefixed before the book which you allege, it is affirmed, that he of his own accord, and without being dealt with to that purpose, did negociate the read mission of the jesuites into france. so far was he from collecting from their doctrine & practices, that they believe neither in jesus christ, nor in the pope. and as for our doctrine, which concerns the incompatibility of protestancy with salvation, as proper to the jesuites, it is an idle speech, void of all colour of truth. for it is so far from being proper to them, that it is common to all roman catholics in the world, and you shall never be able to show me any one of an entire fame, who holds the contrary. 5. and whereas you ask: why may not a protestant be saved since he believes entirely the scriptures, the catholic creeds, and whatsoever the catholic church in all ages hath believed as necessary to salvation? you may take the answer out of my first part, where i have showed, that he neither keeps the commaundments, nor believes all things necessary to salvation, yea and believes not any one point with divine and supernatural faith, who disobeyes, and disagrees from the visible church of christ, in any one thing, propounded by her as a divine truth. 6. you tell us, that you are no further departed from the present roman church, than she is departed from herself. but no wise man will believe this, till you can inform him, what visible church at, or before luther's appearance remained pure, out of which the roman church had formerly departed; or else you must confess that the whole church of christ was corrupted. which because you will never be able to do, with truth you must be forced to confess, that she still kept her integrity, without any spot of erroneous doctrine, and therefore that your departure out of her, cannot be excused from schism, and heresy. 7. you say truly, that it is merely impossible (b) pag. 10. the catholic church should want charity, because the good spirit of truth and love ever assists and animates that great body. but you speak not consequently to your own assertion, that the catholic church may err in points of faith not fundamental. for if the good spirit of truth, may fail to assist her faith: why may not the good spirit of love, fail to direct her charity? nay if we observe it well, the want of charity which you impute to us, is resolved into this doctrinal point, protestancy unrepented destroys salvation: which doctrine and assertion, if you hold to be a fundamental error, you deprive us, of salvation, and become as uncharitable to us as you say we are to you. if it be not a fundamental point, than (according to your principles) the church may err therein, and so want charity, by judging that protestants cannot be saved. 8. what we understand by the roman catholic church, i have explained heretofore, to wit, all christians united with the church of rome, as it is the sea of peter. in which sense it is not a part, but comprehendeth all the catholic church (which heretofore i proved out of the fathers;) as, in some proportion, we do not understand the tribe of juoa alone by the jewish church, though the other tribes were called by the name of the jewish people and church, from that principal tribe of juda. so that your marginal quotations to prove that the church of rome is a particular church, are emplored to prove that which no man denies, if we speak of the particular diocese of rome, and not as it is the sea of peter, to which all christian catholics dispersed throughout the whole world are united: which sea of peter settled in rome, being the root, the centre, the fountain, the idea of all ecclesiastical union in all christian churches, giveth them the denomination of roman catholics; which doth no more limit the whole catholic church, than the name of jewish church, did limit the whole synagogue to the tribe of juda alone. and therefore your threadbare objection, that catholic roman (c) pag. 11. are terms repugnant, signifying universal particular, vanisheth utterly away by this different acception of the roman church, and serves only to convince by your own objection, that d. potter, or the church of england cannot style themselves catholic, because catholic signifieth universal, and d. potter and the church of england, are things particular. and i would gladly know what your brethren mean, when they affirm the roman church, for diverse ages to have possessed the whole world? do they think that the particular diocese of rome was lifted over the alps? or when your prelate's demand, whether we be roman catholics, do they demand whether we dwell in the city, or diocese of rome? and here i note in a word, what now cometh to my mind, that i wonder d. andrew's, a man so highly esteemed among protestants, would tell us that the roman church is individuum (d) in rest. ad apolog. card. bollar. ad ca 5. as the logicians call it, and that catholic is genus, or a general kind. for to omit that the thing itself is ridiculous, it maketh directly for us; because every individuum contains in itself the genus, as peter (for example) is a substance, a sensible creature etc. and so if the roman church be individuum, it must contain catholic in itself; and so the roman church must of necessity be affirmed to be a catholic church. before i leave this point i must tell you, that you corrupt innocentius tertius. to prove (e) pag. 12. that the roman church was anciently esteemed a topical, or particular church distinct from others, and in, & under the universal, in these words: it is called the universal church which consists of all churches: where you put an etc. and then add, ecclesia romana sic non est vo●uersalis ecclesia, sed pars universalis ecclesiae: the roman church is not thus the universal church, but part of the universal church, where you break off. but innocentius his words are these: the universal church is said to be that which consists of all churches, which of the greek word is called catholic: and according to this acception of the word, the roman church is not the universal church, but part of the universal church: yet the first and chief part, as the head in the body; because in her, fullness of power doth exist, but only a part of fullness is derived to others. and that one church, which contains under itself all churches, is said to be the universal church. and according to this signification of the word, only the roman church is called the universal church, because she alone is preferred before the rest by privilege of singular dignity. as god is called the universal lord, not because he is divided into species etc. but because all things are contained under his dominion: for there is one general church of which truth itself said to peter; thou art peter and upon this rock etc. and the many particular churches, of which the apostle saith, instantia mea etc. one doth consist of all, as the general of particulars, & one hath the preeminence before all, because seeing there is one body of the church, of which the apostle saith; we are all one body in christ: she excels the rest, as the head excels the other members of the body. thus far innocentius; who as you see teacheth that the roman church is the head of all others: that although the roman church in one sense be a particular church, yet in another sense it both is, and aught to be called the universal church; and finally that your objection about the repugnance betwixt the term universal and particular is frivolous, as he explicates very well by the example of almighty god, who is said to be an universal cause, and yet had neither genus, nor species, and besides whom there are other particular causes. is this to affirm, as you say, that the roman church is a topycall, or particular church in, and under the universal? or that she is only topical, or particular, as you would make the reader believe? 9 your preaching, rather than proving the charity of your church, administration of sacraments etc. must rely upon a voluntary begging of the question, that your religion is true; otherwise the good deeds you mention are not expressions of charity, but professions of heresy; the learned cardinal hosius saying: whosoever believes (f) hosiu: in confess petricon. çap. 14. the article of the catholic church, believes all things necessary to salvation, says no more than you will say, that whosoever believes the whole canon of scripture, believes all things necessary to salvation. and you cannot but speak against your own conscience, when you say of the roman church, (pag. 16.) she tells them it is creed enough for them to believe only in the catholic church: for yourself (pag. 198.) affirm, that the best advised of catholic divines yield there are some points necessary to be known of all sorts, necessitate medi●, in which points implicit faith doth not suffice, & you cite some of our authors to this purpose (chap. 71. & 241.) and refer us to a great many more. what conscionable dealing is this? i will not stand to note, that hosius even as he is cited by you in latin, doth not say, that we believe in the church, as you make him speak in your text, but that, we believe the church. but enough of this. 10. in your first edition, i find these words: never did (g) pag. 13. any church afford more plentifully the means of grace, nor more abound with all helps and advantages of piety, than this of ours. but in your second edition you say: no church of this age doth afford etc. whereby you acknowledge that at first you did overlash, & so do you now. but it comes to you by kind. beza makes bold to say: when i compare, even the times which were next to the apostles (h) in epist. theol. epist. 1. pag. 5. with ours, i am wont to say, and in my opinion not without cause, that they had more conscience and less knowledge; and contrarily we have more knowledge and less conscience. and m. whitgift, your once archbishop of canterbury saith: the doctrine taught and professed (i) in his defence of the answer etc. pag. 472. & 473. by our bishops at this day, is more perfect and sounder then commonly was in any age after the apostles etc. how greatly were almost all the bishops and learned writers of the greek church, and latins also for the most part, spotted with doctrines of free will, of merits, of invocation of saints, and such like. surely you are not able to reckon in any age, since the apostles times, any company of bishops, that taught and held so sound and perfect doctrine in all points, as the bishops of england do at this day. and will not the puritans say, that they are more pure than protestants, and anabaptists account themselves more unspotted then puritans & c? in the mean time your own archbishop grants that, almost all the bishops & learned writers of the greek church, and latins also, were for the most part spotted with doctrines, which now you call popish superstitions. 11. the rest of this section contains nothing but railing, and untruths, continually uttered by every minister, and often answered by our writers. in catholic countries there may be good reason for not mentioning the needle's praises of condemned heretics, lest the estimation of their moral parts, which they abuse against god's church, breed a liking, and add authority to their pestiferous errors. if d. stapleton, or any other speaking of heretics in general, compare them to magicians &c. (as tertullian also doth) what is that to you, unless you be resolved to proclaim yourself an heretic? such sayings are not directed to their persons, which we love; but fall upon their sin: which considered in itself, cannot, i hope, be overwronged by ill language. s. policarpe called an heretic the first begotten of the devil. s. paul gives them the name of (k) philip. 3.2. dogs. s. john * ep. 2.7. terms them antichrists, as your ministers are wont to call the pope. charity mistaken compares you not with jews, or turks for impossibility to be saved. every deadly sin excludes salvation; yet some are more grievous, and further from pardon than others. 12. i hope the mistaker (l) pag. 19 would not wish us converted from our creed. no: but we wish you converted, from erroneous interpretations thereof, to the catholic church, which we profess in our creed. in the mean time these are learned arguments which may serve both sides. protestants believe the creed, ergo, they need not be cowerted. catholics believe the creed, ergo they need not be converted. you tell us of a censure of the creed, written by some catholic. and in your first edition you put, censura symboli apostolici, ad instar censurae parisiensis. but in your second edition, being as it seems, sorry for your former sincerity, you say absolutely, censura symboli apostolici, with an etc. which helps you in diverse occasions, both to deceive the reader, and yet to save yourself when you shall be told of corrupting the sentence by leaving out words, as in this particular the reader will conceive, that it was an absolute censure of the apostles creed; whereas contrarily, it supposeth that the creed, as a thing most sacred, cannot be censured, and out of that supposition, taxeth a certain censure framed, as he thinks, in such manner that the creed it self could not be free from men's censure, if such a form of censure might pass for currant. this i say, is the drift of that censure, and not to censure the creed: which thing i touch, but to answer you, who infer that some catholics seem very meanly to esteem the creed. but my intention is not to meddle any way with that censure of the creed, (whose author in very deed is unknown to me) or with any books, or censures in that kind, wholly leaving those affairs to the vicar of christ, the successor of s. peter; which is a great happiness proper to catholics, who though they may disagree as men, yet as catholics, they have means to end all controversies, by recourse and submission to one supreme authority. chap. ii. your second section treats principally of two points: the unity of the church, wherein it consists; and; the communion of the church, how fare necessary. both these points have been handled in the first part; where i proved that difference in any one point of faith destroyeth the being and unity of faith, and of the church. and; that, communion with the true visible church is so far necessary, that all voluntary error against her definitions, as heresy is, and all division from her outward society, which is schism, excludes salvation. by these rules, we can certainly know what is damnable schism, and heresy; whereas you, placing the unity of faith, and truth of a church in the belief of points, which you call fundamental, although it be joined with difference in a thousand other points, and yet not knowing what articles in particular be fundamental, must give this final resolution: the unity of faith, and of the church consists in, we know not what. moreover, if you measure the nature, and unity of faith, not by the formal motive, for which we believe, to wit, the word, or revelation of god, but by the weight of the particular objects which are believed, you will not be able to show, that he who erreth in some one, or more fundamental points, doth lose divine infallible faith in respect of those other truths which he believes: and by this means, persons disagreeing, even in fundamental points, may retain the same substance or essence of faith, and be of the self same true church; which is most absurd, & makes a fair way to affirm, that jews, and turks are of the same church with christians, because they all agree in the belief of one god. and thus we have answered the substance of your section. yet because you interpose many other unnecessary points we must follow your wander, lest else you may be thought to have said somewhat to us which is unanswerable. 2. after an unprofitable ostentation of erudition (which yet required no deeper learning, then to read some of our catholic interpreters) about the place deut. 17. you come in the end to grant, that the high priest in cases of moment had an absolutely infallible direction etc. and will you give greater privilege of infallibility to the type, then to the thing signified, to wit, the true church of christ, of which the synagogue was but a figure? you cite some catholic authors, as affirming that by the judge is meant the civil magistrate, and by the priest, not the high priest alone. of which catholic authors, i have at the present only the dowists (as you are pleased to call them) in their marginal note on the 2. chro. 19 vers. 1. whom i find you to falsify. for their words are only these: a most plaien distinction of spiritual and temporal authority and offices, not instituied by josaphat, nor any other king, but by god himself. and upon the words of deut. 17. vers. 9 thou shalt come to the priest of the leviticall stock, and to the judge that shall be at that time; they say: in the council of priests one supreme judge, which was the high priest. verse. 12. and further they say: there were not many precedents at once, but in succession, one after another. is this to affirm, that by the priest, is meant not the high priest alone? do they not say the quite contrary? and as for your objections against our argument drawn from the synagogue, to prove the infallibility of the church, i have answered them (m) 1. part. chap. 2. n. 23. heretofore. 3. that core, dathan, and abiron, with all their company descended alive into the pit of hell; you say, is rashly, and (n) pag. 29. uncharitably said by charity mistaken. but you falsify his words which are: the ground (o) pag. 16. opened itself and swallowed them alive, with all their goods into the profound pit of hell. are (goods) and (company) two words of one signification? and yet in your second edition, you cite (with all their company etc.) in a different letter, as the words of your adversary. but suppose he had said, as you allege him (with all their company etc.) what great crime had he committed? the holy scripture saith of them, and their complices, without limitation or distinction: the earth (p) num. 16. ●. 31.32.33. broke in sunder under their feet; and opening her mouth, devoured them with their tabernacles, and all their substance, and they went down into hell quick, covered with the ground, and perished out of the midst of the multitude. you see the scripture speaks indefinitely, and so doth charity mistaken, without adding any universal particle, as all, every one, or the like, except when he saith, with all their goods, which are the very words of scripture. nay since the scripture saith: they went down into hell quick, and perished out of the midst of the multitude; by what authority will you affirm, that all perished out of the midst of the multitude, but not all went down into hell quick? 4. though it were granted that those words math. 18.17. if thy brother offend thee, tell the church, are meant of private wrongs: yet it is clear, that from thence is inferred à fortiori, that all christians are obliged to obey the catholic church in her decrees. and no man is so ignorant as not to know, that the holy fathers do every where apply those words against schismatics and heretics, as appeareth by s. augustine whom heretofore (p) 1. part. cap. 5. num. 7. i cited, and s. cyprian (q) lib. 1. epist. 3. & ibid. ep. 6. and others. and i pray you, if one utter some heresy, in presence of his brother; doth he not in a very high degree offend his brother? and consequently, is he not comprehended in those words of our saviour, if thy brother offend thee & c.? now, if the church were fallible, how could we be obliged under pain of being reckoned pagans and publicans, to obey her decrees and declarations concerning matters of faith, which is a virtue, that necessarily involues infallibility? but when did you ever hear any catholic say what you impose upon charity mistaken, that absolute obedience is due unto the church, no appeal being allowed, no not (r) pag. 28. to scriptures though expounded in a catholic sense, and consonantly to the judgement of the most ancient and famous members of the church? with what face can you utter such stuff? you know we believe, that the church cannot oppose scripture. 5. as for those corruptions of the text of s. cyprian in his book de unitate ecclesiae, which you charge pamelius to have committed in favour of s. peter's primacy; it is but an old objection borrowed of others, and purposely answered by pamelius in his notes upon that book: where, for his justification he cities diverse ancient copies, and one more than nine hundred years old. and as for the phrase & main point itself, that christ built the church upon peter, it is expressly affirmed by s. cyprian in many other places, which i quote in the (s) de exhort. mart. c. 11. ep. 55.69.73. which last is cited by s. augustin de bapt. lib. 3. c. 17. as he cities the like words out of epist. 71. ad quint. margin: whereby it manifestly appeareth what s. cyprian believed about the authority of saint peter: and how much his book de vnitate ecclesiae maketh for the roman church: neither can you in all s. cyprians works, or in this place in particular, show any thing to the contrary, as you are pleased to (t) pag. 30. affirm. to prove that our unworthy fashion is, to alter & raze many records and monuments of antiquity, you cite a modern english writer, & sixtus senensis. but both of them are alleged after your fashion: for the first speaks only of books written in favour of the pope's power in temporal things, wherein nevertheless we can in no wise allow of his saying, nor is he in this point a competent witness; and the second directly falsifyed. for you say, he highly commends (u) epist. dedie. ad pium 5. pope pius the fifth for the care which he had to extinguish all dangerous books; and, to purge the writings of all catholic authors, especially of the ancient fathers, from the silth and poison of heresy; & there you end the sentence. but sixtus senensis hath faecibus haereticorum aetatis nostrae: from the dregs of the heretics of our times, understanding nothing else, but that the said holy pope cause the false annotations glosses, marginal notes etc. of erasmus, and modern heretics to be blotted, or taken out of the books of the holy fathers. is not this plain falsification? and so much less excusable, because it could not be done but wittingly, and willingly; for that in the margin you cite the latin, & when you come to those words, especially of the ancient fathers, you break off with an etc. leaving out that which did directly overthrew the purpose for which you alleged those words. for want of better matter, you tell us of an edition of isidorus pelusiotes his greek epistles approved, because they contained nothing contrary to the catholic roman religion: wherein what great harm is there? if the approbator had left out roman, would you have made this objection? to us, catholic and roman are all one, as heretofore i explicated. but it seems (say you) that they had not passed, but upon that condition. this is but a poor consequence in logic: for, one effect may be produced by some cause, yet in such manner, as that the effect would follow, though that cause were taken away; & accordingly you grant that the aforesaid clause of approbation is left out in another edition. neither can you be ignorant that catholics do print, and reprint the writings of ancient authors, although they contain heresies; as the works of tertullian, origen &c and therefore you are less excusable both for making this objection in general, and also for falsifying sixtus senensis in particular. 6. the places alleged by you out of s. augustin against the donatists, come far short of proving, that (u) pag. 32. scripture alone is the judge, or rather (as you correct yourself) rule of controversies: & your bringing them to that purpose is directly against s. augustins words & meaning, as will appear by what now i am about to say. two questions were debated between the catholics, & donatists: the one concerning the church, whether or no she were confined to that corner of the world, where the faction of donatus did reside: the other, whether such as were baptised by heretics ought to be rebaptised. we grant that s. augustine in the former question, pressed the donatists with manifest scripture to prove the exeternall apparent notes, or marks of the church, as visibility, perpetuity, amplitude, universality etc. and no wonder that he appealed to scripture. for that very question being, whether the catholics, or donatists, were the true church; to suppose the catholics to be the true church, and upon that supposition to allege their authority against the donatists, had been but to beg the question: as if there were controversy, whether some particular book were canonical scripture, or no, it were an idle thing to allege that very writing in question, to prove itself canonical: and on the other side, both the catholics and donatists did acknowledge & believe the same scriptures, which as s. augustine is wont to say, speak more clearly of the church, then of christ himself: and therefore he had good reason to try that question concerning the church by clear, & not doubtful testimonies of holy writ; whereas the donatists had recourse either to obscure texts, as that of the canticles, show me where thou feedest, where thou liest in the mid day, to prove that the church was confined to africa; or else to humane testimonies as acts of notaries or scriveners, to prove that the catholics had been traditores, that is had given up the holy bible to be burned; or that they had sacrificed to idols; or had been cause of persecution against christians; and that either for these crimes, or for communicating with such as had committed them, the church had perished from among catholics: or else they produced their own bare affirmation, or mock-miracles, & false counsels of their own: all which proofs being very partial, insufficient, and impertinent, s. augustin had reason to say: let these fictions (w) de unïe. eccles. cap. 19 of lying men, or fantastical wonders of deceitful spirits, be removed. and: let us (x) cap. 3. not hear; these things i say; these things thou sayest; but let us hear; these things our lord saith. and: what are our words (y) cap. 2. wherein we must not seek her etc. all that we object one against another of the giving up of the holy books, of the sacrificing to idols, and of the persecution, are our words. (these words you fraudulently conceal, although you cite other in the self same chapter, because they plainly show what s. augustin understands by humane testimonies, & they answer all your objections:) and: the question between us (z) cap. 2. is, where the body of christ, that is, the church is? what then are we to do? shall we seek her in our words, or in the words of our lord jesus-chrisnt her head? surely we ought rather to seek her in his words who is truth, and best knows his own body. and: let this head (a) cap. 4. of which we agree, show us his body, of which we disagree, that our dissensions may by his words be ended. which words plainly declare the reason why he appealed to scriptures, because both parts agreed about them, but disagreed concerning the church. and: that we are in the (b) cap. 19 true church of christ, and that this church is universally spread over the earth, we prove not by our doctors, or counsels, or miracles, but by the divine scriptures. the scriptures are the only (this word only put by you in a different letter, as if it were s. augustine's, is your own addition:) document, and foundation of our cause. these are the places by you alleged so unfaithfully. and will you in good earnest infer from them, that we must reject all counsels, never so lawful; all doctors, never so orthodox; all miracles, never so authentical, even those which were wrought in the primitive church, & particularly in s. augustine's time, which he himself published (c) de civet. det lib. 22. çap. 8. approved, and admired? and above all, will you infer, that after we have found out the true church by marks set down in scripture, her voice for other particular points of doctrine is not to be heard, but to be esteemed a mere humane testimony of notaries etc. as s. augustine understood humane testimony when he writ against the donatists? or will you infer that we must learn from scripture all that which we are obliged to believe? this you pretend, but with such success as you are wont; that is, to plead for your adversary against yourself. which is manifestly proved by the other question of rebaptisation, controverted with the donatists, for which they were properly and formally heretics: and yet s. augustine confesseth that for this point of belief, he could not produce scripture, as appears by his words, which i cited in the first (d) chap. ●. num. 16. part, and desire the reader to save me the labour of repeating them here: and then he will easily see, that there is great difference betwixt the general question of the church, and questions concerning particular doctrines delivered by the church; in which this holy father saith not we must have recourse to scripture alone, but that we ought to believe the church, which is recommended to us by scripture and this he teacheth in that very book de unitate ecclesiae, out of which you brought the aforesaid places, to prove that all controversies must be decided by scripture. with what modesty then do you say, the mistaker was ill advised to send us to this (e) pag. 33. treatise, which both in the general aim, and in the quality of the arguments and proofs is so contrary to his pretensions? 7. you leave (f) pag. 33. a passage taken out of s. augustine to charity mistaken to ruminate upon: whosoever (g) s. aug. de unit. eççles. çap. 4. will believe aright in christ the head, but yet doth so descent from his body the church, that their communion is not with the whole wheresoever diffused, but with themselves several in some part; it is manifest that such are not in the catholic church. well; suppose all were done as you desire; what other thing could be concluded, than this? but when luther appeared, protestantisme was not with the whole wheresoever diffused, but with himself alone: what will follow from hence, you have so much logic that you cannot mistake. wherefore at this day, and for ever, we must say of the catholic church, as saint augustine said: every one of those (he speaks of heretics) is not (g) de vnit eççles. ç. 3. to be found where she is to be found; but she who is over all, is to be found in the self same places, where the others are. 8. you made an ill choice of s. epiphanius, to prove by his example that the fathers were wont to confute heresies by the only evidence of scripture. for he not only approves traditions as necessary, but also proves them out of scripture. we ought (saith he) to use also (h) haeres. 61. tradition, for all things cannot be taken from the holy scripture: the holy apostles therefore delivered some things in writing, and some things by tradition, as the holy apostle saith: as i delivered to you. and in another place: so i teach, and so i delivered in the churches. and the same father, as we shall see anon, doth most clearly approve traditions, yea and confutes aenrius by tradition alone without any scripture. it is then no wonder, if you corrupt s. epiphanius to make men believe that he speaks of heresies in general, whereas his words concern some few in particular, as the samosatenians, arians &c. his words as you translate them are these: the divine (k) haeres. 65. goodness hath forewarned us against heresies by his truth, for god foreseeing the madness, impiety, & fraud of the samosatenians, arians, manichees, and other heretics, hath secured us by his divine word against all their subtleties. but the true translation of s. epiphanius is this: therefore the holy scripture doth make us secure of every word: that is hath secured us how we are to speak, or what words to use against the deceits of the samosatenians, arians, and of other heresies concerning the blessed trinity, as it is clear by these words immediately following (which you thought fittest to conceal:) for he doth not say the father is the only-begotten. for how can he be the only begotten, who is not begotten? but he calls the son the only begotten, that the son may not be thought to be the father etc. where you see he speaks of words, or manner of speaking, and concerning particular heresies, which yet is made more clear by the words immediately precedent to the sentence by you cited, which words you also thought good to leave out. for he first proves out of scripture that the word is begotten of the father, but that the father is not begotten, and therefore the only-begotten is the son. and then he comes to the words by you cited, and teacheth, that holy scripture hath warned us, what words and manner of speech, or phrase we ought to use in speaking of the person, of the blessed trinity, which school divines call proprietates personarum. yet that your corruption might not be void of art (or rather a double fraud) in your margin you put in greek s. epiphanius his words, that so to such as understood not greek, nor perceive your mistranssation, your fraud might pass for honest dealing, and deceive your reader; and to others, you might answer, if need were, that in your margin, s. epiphanius was rightly alleged. 9 these words of charity mistaken (i must needs observe, that (m) he (that is, s. augustin) recounts diverse heresies, which are held by the protestant church at this day, and particularly that of denying prayers, and sacrifices for the dead) you corruptly compendiate when you say: the mistake● must needs observe, that the protestants hold diverse ancient heresies, and particularly (n) pag. 3●. that of denying prayers for the dead. where you omit the words (saint augustine recounts diverse heresies, and in particular, that &c. (to make men believe that it was but a bare affirmation of charity mistaken, and not collected out of s. augustine: as likewise you conceal) sacrifices) lest the world might believe s. augustine was a papist; who nevertheless both in this treatise de haeresibus ad quod-vult-deum, haer. 35. cited by charity mistaken, and elsewhere, teacheth that the dead are helped by the holy (o) de ver●● apost. serm. 34. sacrifice. after this you say: he is very much (p) pag. 35. mistaken in his observation. the commemoration of the deceased in the ancient church, which aenrius without reason disallowed, was a thing much differing from those prayers for the dead, which are now in use in the church of rome. thus having substituted commemoration of the deceased, instead of prayers and sacrifices for the dead, you add, with your wont sincerity: our roman catholics believe (at least they say so) that some souls of the faithful after their departure hence, are detained in a certain fire bordering upon hell till they be throughly purged: and their prayers for them are, that they may be released, or eased of those torments. but you are still like yourself. you may read in (q) de purg. lib. 2. cap. 6. bellarmine, that concerning the question, vbisit purgatorium, where purgatory is, the church hath defined nothing. and to the other point: whether in purgatory there be true corporeal sire, he answers; (r) ib. c. 11. that it is the common opinion of divines that properly there is true fire, & of the same nature with our fire. which doctrine is not indeed a matter of faith, because it is no where defined by the church, yea in the council of florence the grecians openly professed, that they did not hold there was fire in purgatory; nevertheless in the definition which was made in the last sess. it was defined that there is a purgatory, without making any mention of fire: nevertheless it is a most probable opinion, by reason of the agreement of the schoole-devines, which cannot be rejected without rashness. thus bellarmine. 10. now for the main point: that aërius was put in the list of heretics, for denying prayers for the dead, which are offered to release, or ease them of their pain, i prove out of aërius his own words; out of s. epiphanius whom you seem to allege in your behalf; out of the ancient fathers, greek, and latin; & out of protestants themselves; both in regard that they confess the doctrine of purgatory and prayer for the dead, even as catholics believe them, to have been believed by the ancient fathers; and also in regard, they directly acknowledge, that aërius was condemned by the fathers for denying prayer for the dead, as we believe, and practise it. 11. hear then your progenitor aërius testifying with his own mouth the practice of catholics in those ancient days. how (saith he to catholics) do you (*) apud epiph. haeres. 75. after death name, the names of the dead? for if the living pray etc. what will it profit the dead? or if the prayers of them who are here, be for those who are there, then let no man be virtuous, nor let him do any good work, but let him get friends by what means he will, either by money, or leaving that charge to his friends at his death, & let them pray for him that he may not suffer any thing there: and that, irremediable sins committed by him may not be laid to his charge. is it not clear enough by these words, that this heretic taxeth prayers offered for the dead, to release or lessen their pains after this life, & not only for a bare commemoration, or thanksgiving, or the like? and that any man may yet further consider, especially if he continue to be of as puritanical a spirit, as he was who most resembles the spirit of this aërius; let us, by the way, add these words of his: neither ought (s) ibid. there to be any appointed fast, for these things are judaical, and under the yoke of servitude. for there is no law appointed for the just man, but for murderers of their fathers and mothers, and such like. but if i be resolved to fast, i will choose myself any day, and i will fast with freedom. 12. let us now see what s. epiphanius in the same place saith for your commemoration of the deceased: as for pronouncing the names of the dead (saith he) what can be more profitable, good, and admirable? because the living believe that the deceased live, and are not extinct, but have a being, and live with our lord: and, that i may utter a most pious doctrine, that there is hope in those who pray for their brethren, as for those who are travailed to another country. these words you recite out of s. epiphanius, but leave out those words which immediately follow, and are directly against the doctrine which you will prove out of him in that very place. for thus he saith: but the prayers which are made for them do profit them, although they do not release the whole sin; in regard as long as we are in this world, we fail, and err both voluntarily and against our will, to the end that, that also may be mentioned which is more perfect, we remember both the lust, & sinners: for sinners, imploring the mercy of god: but for the just, fathers, patriarchs, prophets, apostles, evangelists, martyrs, confessors, bishops, and anchorites etc. that we may put a difference betwixt our lord jesus christ, and all orders of men, by that honour which we give to him, and that to him we may give adoration. you see that s. epiphanius speaks of forgiveness of sins, & that he makes a difference between prayers offered for deceased sinners, and the commemoration of saints, who by way of thanksgiving, are remembered as holy men; whereas to our saviour christ highest adoration is exhibited as to god; or (as bellarmine (t) de purg. lib. 1. cap. 9 saith,) we distinguish saints from christ, because we offer sacrifice of thanksgiving for saints, but we do not offer sacrifice for christ, but to him, together with the father, and the holy ghost. you likewise falsify s. epiphanius, while you say out of him; that the living have hope for the deceased, as for those which be from home in another country, and that, at length they shall attain the state which is more perfect. which last words are not in s. epiphanius, who never taught, that we offer prayers for saints, that they may attain a state which is more perfect. and when s. epiphanius saith, that those who pray for their brethren have hope of them as of those who are in another country; you leave out praying, and only put in hope. and that you may be assured how contrary s. epiphanius is to you; not only in the doctrine of prayer for the dead, but also in the ground and reason, for which he bel●●ues it, namely tradition; mark his words. the church (saith he in the same place) doth necessarily practise this by tradition received from our ancestors. and who can break the ordination of his mother, and the law of his father? as salomo● saith: hear o son the words of thy father, and retect not the ordination of thy mother: showing by this, that god the father, the son, and the holy ghost have taught both by writing, and without writing, (behold divine traditions) and our mother the church, hath also in herself ordinances inviolable which cannot be broken: (behold ecclesiastical traditions.) since therefore there be ordinances set down in the church, and that all be right, and admirable, this seducer (aërius) remains confuted. and together with him all those that follow his heresy and let us yet hear s. epiphanius speaking a little before of another point, thus: but who knows most of these things? whether this deluded fellow (aërius) who is yet aliu●● etc. or those who before us have yielded testimony and have had the tradition of the church, which also was delivered from their forefathers; as they likewise learned of those who were before them, in which manner the church doth still conserve the true faith received from their forefathers, and also traditions? consider now with what reason you alleged s. epiphanius, as one who saith that all heresy is to be confuted by evidence of scripture; whereas he doth clearly avouch tradition in general, and doth in particular confute the heresy of aerius, without alleging so much as one text of scripture. 13. and though s. epiphanius alone, might suffice both to assure us what was the heresy of aërius in whose time he lived; and also to witness for all the rest of the greek fathers, yea & for the whole church, (because he avouched prayer for the dead to come from the tradition of god's church) yet i will add some more of the greek church, as s. dionysius areopagita, who saith: then the venerable (u) eccles. hierarch, cap. 1. bishop doth pray over the dead party, that the divine goodness would pardon all his sins committed by humane frailty, and transfer him to light, and the country of the living. i wonder then how in your text your could tell us, that (w) pag. 37. conformably to your opinion; the ancient church in her liturgy remembered all those that slept in hope of the resurrection of everlasting life, and particularly the patriarches, prophets, apostles, martyrs &c. beseeching god to give them rest, and to bring them (you put in a parenthesis at the resurrection) to the place where the light of his countenance should shine upon them for evermore. and in your margin, you cite s. dionysius as favouring you, who nevertheless in the very chapter which you cite for your opinion, is directly against you in the words even now alleged. the like fincerity you show in the very same margin in citing s. cyril, who doth clearly affirm, that in the sacrifice we remember some that they would pray for us, and others that they may be relieved by our prayers and sacrifices, in these words: when we offer this sacrifice (x) catech. 5. we make mention of those who are deceased, of patriarches etc. that god would receive our prayers by their intercession. and: we pray for all who are deceased, believing that it is a most great help to those for whom the obsecration of that holy and dreadful sacrifice is offered, s. gregory nyssen saith: he cannot after his departure (y) in orat. pro mortuis. from the body be made partaker of the divinity, unless the purging fire shall cleanse the stains of his soul. 14. among the latin fathers, protestants pretend to esteem none more than s. augustine, and yet none can speak more plainly against them in this point than he doth, who besides that he ranks aenrius among the heretics, in another place, he saith: purge me (z) in psal. 37. in this life, in such sort, as that i may not need the correcting, or amending fire. and afterward: it is said he shall be saved as if it were by fire, and because it is said, he shall be saved, that fire grows to be contemned. but so it is; though he shall be saved, yet the pain of that fire is more grievous, than whatsoever a man can suffer in this life. and elsw where; some suffer (a) de civet. lib. 21. c. 13. temporal punishments, only in this life, others after death, others both now and then. of which place, fulke is enforced to say: augustine concludes very clearly, (b) consut. of purg. pag. 110. that some suffer temporal pains after this life, this may not be denied. and in another place, s. augustine saith: we ought not (c) de verbis apost. serm. 34. to doubt, but that the dead are helped by the prayers of the holy church, and by the wholesome sacrifice, and by ailrnes given for their souls, that our lord would avale with them more mercifully than their sins have deserved. for the whole church observes this, as delivered from our fathers. neither can you avoid these authorities by flying to the requests of god's mercy that they may have their (d) pag. 39 serfect consummation in body and soul, in the kingdom of god at the last judgement, as you speak. for (besides that all they who depart this life in god's favour are most assured of a perfect consummation independantly of our almsdeeds, prayers &c.) s. augustine as you have heard speaks of a purging fire, of temporal punlishments, after this life etc. and doth elsewhere write as if he had purposely intended to prevent this your evasion, saying: at the altar (e) tract. 84. in joan. we do not remember martyrs, as we do other deceased who rest in peace, by praying for them; but rather that they would pray for us. which difference between martyrs and other deceased, cannot stand with your mere commemoration of thanksgiving, or your request for a perfect consummation, both which according to your doctrine concern martyrs, no less than others. the same difference is expressed by s. cyprian, saying: it is one thing to be purged, (f) lib. 4. ep. 2. alias epist. 52. after long torment for ones sins, and to be long cleansed with the fire, and another thing to have wiped away all the sins by suffering. s. hierome saith: if origen affirm that (g) lib. 1. cont. pelagianos. all creatures endued with reason, are not to be lost, and granteth repentance to the devil; what belongs that to us, who affirm that the devil, and all his officers, and all sinful and wicked men do eternally perish; and that christians, if they be taken away in sin, are to be saved after punishments? more fathers may be seen in bellarmine and other catholic writers. these may suffice to show, what was that belief & practice of the church, which aërius opposed in his time, as you do at this day. 15. lastly, your own brethren bear witness thus against you. caluin saith: more than a thousand three hundred (h) instit. l. 3. c. 5. sect. ●●. years ago, it was a custom to pray for the dead: but i confess they were all driven into error. bucer his words are: because (i) in his enarrat. in sacra quatuor euang. printed basil. 1536. in matt. ●. 12. almost from the beginning of the church, prayers and almsdeeds were offered for the dead, that opinion which s. augustine sets down in his enchiridio cap. 110. crept in by little & little: neither ought we to deny, that souls are released by the piety of their living friends, when the sacrifice of our mediator is offered for them etc. therefore i doubt not, but that from hence arose that duty of praying, and offering sacrifice for them. fulke speaketh plainly: aërius taught, that prayer for the dead (k) in his answer to a counterfeit cath. pag. 44. was unprofitable, as witnesseth both epiphanius, and augustine, which they count for an error. he likewise acknowledgeth, that ambrose, chrysostome, & augustine allowed prayer for the dead: that, tertullian, augustine, cyprian, hierome, and a great many more do witness, that prayer for the dead is the tradition of the apostles. and that fulke understands these fathers in the sense of satisfying for temporal pains after this life, i hope you will not deny. for it is clear by what we said out of him above; nay, even in the communion book allowed, and established by act of parliament in the second year of edward the sixth. and printed in london by edward whitchurch anno ●549. there is prayer for the dead: and in the year 1547. the first year of edward the sixth his reign, stow recounts, that on the 19 of june a dirige was sung in every parish church in london for the french king late deceased; and a dirige was also sung in the church of s. paul in the same city, & on the next morrow the archbishop of canterbury, assisted of eight bishops, all in rich mitres, & other their pontificals, did sing a mass of requiem. and (to say this by the way) there is in the same communion book offering up of our prayers by angels: as likewise in the first year of that king's reign, communion in one kind, in time of necessity, is approved, as also in the collection in english of statutes etc. the reason hereof is added, because at that time the opinion of the real presence (as the collector saith) was not removed from us. which ingenuous confession supposes that communion in one kind cannot be disallowed, if we believe the real presence, because indeed the body and blood of our saviour christ is both under the species of bread, and under the species of wine. 16. you say, the ancient church (n) pag. 37. in her liturgies remembered all those that slept in hope of the resurrection of ever lasting life, and particularly the patriarches, prophets, apostles etc. beseeching god to give unto them rest, and to bring them, (at the resurrection, as you add) to the place where the light of his countenance should shine upon them for evermore. 17. but read (o) de purg. lib. 1. cap. 9 bellarmine, and you shall find a fare different thing in the greek liturgy, of which s. epiphanius makes mention, whom you also cite in your margin: we offer sacrifice to thee, o lord, for all the patriarches, apostles, martyrs, and especially for the most blessed mother of god. and that the sacrifice was offered for those saints only in thanksgiving, the words following do show: by whose prayers o god, look upon us. but for other faithful deceased, the speech is altered, thus: and be mindful of all the faithful deceased who have slept in hope of the resurrection, and grant them to rest where the light of thy countenance is seen. which last words you untruly applied to patriarchs etc. and added at the resurrection; whereas they are referred only to other faithful people, for whom sacrifice is offered, that they may come to see the light of god's countenance, even before the resurrection; that is, as soon as they have satisfied for their sins. and now how many ways is the greek liturgy repugnant to you? it speaks of sacrifice, which you turn to remembrance; it speaks of some persons whom we entreat to pray for us, & others for whom we pray: it teacheth prayers to saints: it teacheth that saints do already enjoy the beatifical vision, and therefore that sacrifice only of thanksgiving is offered for them and as for the latter schismatical, and heretical crecians, although their authority weigh not much; yet even they professed in the council of florence, that they believed a purgatory, & only denied that the souls were there tormented by fire; teaching nevertheless that it was a dark place, and full of pain. and your own (q) vid. apol. prot. tract. 1. sect. 7. subd. 12. at 11. brethren spark, osiander, and crispinus affirm; that about prayer for the dead they conformed themselves to rome. and sr. edwin (r) in his relation etc. sands saith; that the greek church doth concur with rome in the opinion of transubstantiation, in praying to saints, in offering sacrifices, and prayer for the dead, purgatory, etc. and a treatise published by the protestant divines of wittemberge anno 1584. entitled acta theologorum wittembergensium etc. affirmeth that the greek church at this day believes invocation of saints, and prayer for the dead, as heretofore i noted. all which considered, with what modesty can you say: the general opinion of (t) pag. 36. the ancient doctors greeke and latin, down almost to these last ages, was (and is the opinion of the greek church at this day) that all the spirits of the righteous deceased, are in abraham's bosom, or in some outward court of heaven etc. and to mend the matter you allege in your margin, for what you say about the greek church at this day, the council of (u) graeeï in conc. flor. ante sess. 1. in quaest. de purgat. florence; whereas indeed it is affirmed in the council, that declaratum fuit etc. it was at length declared, that the saints have both attained, and not attained perfect beatitude; that is, that the souls as souls have attained perfect beatitude, yet that they shall receive some perfection with their bodies, when they shall shine as the sun. and it is to be noted that before this declaration was made, the greek emperor came into the council, and so it was done with the common consent of the grecians. 18. and here let me put you in mind, that if the heresy of aërius, (whether you take it in our, or your own sense) were not fundamental, than you may learn that to make an heresy, or heretic it is sufficient that the error consist in any point, though the same be not fundamental. if you hold it to be fundamental; than it follows, that tradition, and custom of the church extends itself even to fundamental points in such sort, as to oppose such tradition is a fundamental error. for as we have seen before, s. epiphanius, and s. augustine prove prayer for the dead by tradition, though i grant we want not scripture for it: but you who both deny the maccabees, and also turn prayer for the dead, into a bare commemoration etc. will find no scripture, whereby to refute aërius. moreover whereas you are wont to impugn a third place distinct from heaven and hell, by those words of scripture: if the tree shall fall to the south (w) ecclesiast. cap. 11.3. or the north, in what place soever it shall fall, there shall it be: and such like arguments; how come you now to admit a third temporary place, and so be forced to solve your own objections? 19 now, i wish you to consider, that either the grecians did believe that the saints enjoy the beatifical vision, & are not (as you teach) in some outward court; or else they thought that invocation of saints may well be defended, though they do not see the face of god; which two points you (x) pag. 36. deny, can stand together. for you have heard both out of the greek liturgy, and your protestant writers, that the grecians believe invocation of saints. true it is, if saints do not enjoy the beatifical vision, they cannot hear, or see our prayers in verbo, or in the divine essence, but yet they may behold us and our prayers by particular revelation, as some catholic divines teach de facto, of the blessed souls, and angels. 20. yet if you will needs suppose that invocation of saints cannot be defended, unless they enjoy the beatifical vision; you should not in true reason deny invocation because they are not blessed; but contrarily you ought to believe that they are in bliss, because it hath always been the practice of the ancient church to invocate them. nor ought protestant's in general, to deny prayers to saints, because they cannot hear us; but they ought on the other side to believe that they can hear us, because the church both greek, and latin hath always practised, and allowed prayers to them. m. whitgift, as i said already, confesseth; that almost all the bishops and writers (y) in his defence of the answer. pag. 473. of the greek church and latin also, for the most part, were spotted with the doctrines of freewill, of merit, of invocation of saints, and such like. in particular, the saints, ambrose, augustine, hierome, nazianzen, basill, nyssen, chrysostome, are taxed by your brethren for holding invocation of saints. and your conturists not only charge ancient origen for praying for himself to holy job: but they also say, that there are manifest steps of invocation of saints in the doctors of that ancient (z) vid. apol prot. tract. 1. sect. 3. subd. 7 age. and d. covel affirmeth that diverse both of the greek (a) in his examination etc. pag. 120. and latin church, were spotted with errors about freewill, merits, invocation of saints etc. that vigilantius was condemned as an heretic for denying prayers to saints, may be seen in (b) cont. vigilant. c. 2. & 3. s. hierome, and is confessed by (c) in his answer to a counterfeit cath. pag. 46. fulke. thus than we see what the ancient church held concerning innocation of saints, & consequently they believed that they hear our prayers. 21. your saying, that we invocate saints as commissioners (d) pag. 36. under god, to whom he hath delegated the power of conferring sundry benefias, deposited in their hands, & to be bestowed at their pleasure; i let pass as a very vulgar slander, unworthy of a particular answer. for (as the sacred council of trent speaketh) we implore (e) sess. 22. cap. 3. their assistance, that they would vouchsafe to pray for us in heaven, whose memory we keep on earth. which words are also in the mass. 22. but how solidly bellarmine (f) de sanctorum beatitud lib. 1. cap. 2.3.4. ●. 6. proves that the saints enjoy the sight of god, may be seen by weighing his arguments drawn from scriptures, counsels, fathers, both greek and latin, and reasons grounded on scripture: and your affirming, that, it may be (g) pag. 35. thought he spoke against his knowledge, & conscience, comes very unseasonably, besides the gross untruth, and great folly of it, in a treatise wherein you tax others for want of charity. but i remember that s. thomas among the causes of suspicion, putteth the first of them to proceed from this: that a man is (h) 2.2. q. 60. art. 3. in corp ill himself, and therefore being conscious of his own sin, he easily conceives ill of others; according to that eccle s. 10. the foolish man walking by the way, he himself being foolish, doth account all to be fools. did your prime brethren speak against their conscience, who affirm so many ancient fathers to have been spotted with the invocation of saints, which you say cannot stand with their want of beatitude? 23. you say; the roman writers utterly condemn the (i) pag. 3● former doctrine, and practise of antiquity. one of them fears not to censure it as absurd and impious: for which last words you cite in your (k) azor. instit. moral. tom. 1. cap. 20. lib. 8. § neque vero. margin, azor. but it is an egregious untruth, and falsification. for we do both admitland practise thanksgiving for the happiness of saints. and your further requests of god's mercy that they may have their perfect consummation both in body and soul in the kingdom of god at the last judgement, are wholly needles at , because without any dependence, or reference to our prayers, they are most assured thereof by the immutable decree of god. and you might in the same manner make requests, that they may not lose their happiness in body & soul, when they shall once have attained it, after the general resurrection, which were a request savouring of infidelity, as if the saints could be deprived of beatitude once enjoyed. now as for azor, he proves in the place cited by you, that the grecians do not altogether take away some kind of purging fire, but only seem to deny a certain determinate punishment of corporal fire, because (saith he) they do truly offer sacrifice and prayers to god for the dead, surely not for the blessed, nor for those which be damned in hell, which were plainly absurd and impious: it must therefore be for them, who are deceased with faith and piety, but have not fully satisfied for the temporal punishment due to their sins. is this to condemn the doctrine of antiquity as absurd, and impious? did antiquity offer sacrifice, and prayers for the damned ghosts, or for the saints to satisfy for the pain due to their sins, as azor means & speaks, and therefore doth truly say, it were absurd and impious? is not this to corrupt authors? 24. wherefore upon the whole matter we must conclude, that aërius was condemned by the church, and was reckoned among heretics, and particularly by s. epiphanius, and s. augustine, for the self same error which you maintain. to which mayor proposition, if we add this minor, (which charity mistaken expressly notes (m) pag. 27. and you conceal:) but s. augustine saith, whosoever should hold any one of the heresies by him recounted, (whereof this of aërius is one) were not a christian catholic; the conclusion will follow of itself. 25. would to god, yourself, and all protestants did seriously consider, what account will be exacted at the last day, of those who by their erroneous doctrine, and opposition to the visible church of christ, deprive the souls of faithful people deceased, of the many prayers, sacrifices, and other good deeds, which in all rigour of justice are due to them by title of founding colleges. chanonryes', chantries, hospitals &c. less cruelty had it been to rob them of their temporal goods, or to bereave them of their corporal lives, then to have abandoned them to the torment of a fire, which although as s. augustine saith (n) in psal. 37. is slighted by worldly men, yet indeed is more grievous than whatsoever can be endured in this world. consider i say, whether this manifest injustice, though it did not proceed (as it doth) from heretical persuasion, were not alone sufficient to exclude salvation. and so much of this point concerning prayer for the dead. 26. the words of s. thomas, whom you cite (pag. 40.) to strengthen your distinction of points fundamental and not fundamental, do directly overthrew that sense, and purpose for which you make use of them. for as much (saith he) as belongs to the prime (o) 2.2. q. 2. art. 5. in corpor. objects of belief, which are the articles of faith, a man bound explicitly to believe them, as he is bound to have faith. but as for other objects of faith, a man is not bound to believe them explicitly, but only implicitly, or in readiness of mind, for as much as he is ready to believe whatsoever the holy scripture contains: but he is bound to believe them explicitly, only when it appears to him that it is contained in the doctrine of faith. now our question is not about nescience, or ignorance of some points of faith, but of disagreeing concerning them, one denying what another affirms: in which case, according to the aforesaid doctrine of s. thomas, there is neither explicit, nor implicit belief of such points, but positive & direct error in them: and therefore such disagreement cannot stand with unity of faith. it is strange divinity, to confound, as you do, points secundary or not fundamental, with probable points. for how many millions of truths are there contained in scripture, which are not of their own nature prime articles? will you therefore infer that they are but probable? primary, and secundary respect the matter which we believe: probable, and certain are derived from the formal reason, or motive for which we believe. let two disagree in some points even fundamental, yet not sufficiently propounded as revealed truths, they still retain the same faith; and contrarily, put case that two agree in all fundamental points, if they disagree in any secundary point sufficiently applied to their understanding as a revealed truth, than the one must be an heretic, and differ from the other, in the very nature, and substance of faith. for as in a musical consort (say you) a discord (p) pag. 40. now and then (so it be in the descant, and depart not from the ground) sweetens the harmony: so say i (retorting your own sweet similitude) because every least error opposing a revealed truth is not in the descant, but departs from the ground of faith, which is the attestation of god, it doth not sweeten the harmony, but destroys the substance of faith. and hereafter it shallbe showed, that you wrong stapleton, no less (q) infra chap. 5. num. 17. than you do s. thomas. 27. that, variety of opinions or rites in parts of the church doth rather commend then prejudice the unity of the whole, you pretend to prove out of (s) epist. 75. apud cypr. farmilianus in an epistle to s. cyprian; which doctrine though it be true in some sense, yet according to your application, it is pernicious: as if it were sufficient to unity of faith, that men agree in certain fundamental points, though they vary in other matters concerning faith. and you should have observed, that firmilianus (who wrote that epistle in favour of s. cyprians error about rebaptisation) speaks in that place of the custom of keeping easter: which point after it was once defined, remained no more indifferent, but grew to be a necessary object of belief, in so much that the heretics called quartadecimani were for that point condemned, and anathematised by the universal church in the counsels of nice, constantinople, and ephesus. whereby it is evident that though some point be not in itself fundamental; yet if it be once defined by the church, the error degenerates into heresy. your charity is always mistaken, advantaging your adversary by your own arguments. 28. i said already that to be separate from the church for heresy, or schism destroys salvation, because persons liable to those crimes are in the church neither in re, nor in voto; neither in fact, nor in effectual desire; as cathecumen are, and as excommunicate persons may be, if repenting their former obstinacy, they cannot by reason of some extrinsecall impediment, obtain absolution from the censure. 29. you extend your charity so far to infidels, as to forget fidelity in relating what catholic divines teach concerning them, not telling whether they require some supernatural faith at jest, for some object; and quoting authors with so great affected confusion, that a man would think them to maintain the opinion which they expressly condemn as erroneous, or in the next degree to heresy. but because it were a vanity to muster a number of writers in a question impertinent to our present design, which is only against heresy or schism, both which exclude invincible ignorance; i hold it best to pass them over in silence. 30. your saying, that a man may be a true visible membër (t) pag. 47. of the holy catholic church, who is not actually (otherwise then in vow) a member of any true visible church; destroys itself. for in the same manner and degree, neither more nor less, a man is a visible member in act, or in desire of the visible church, as he is a member of the true catholic church, which is visible. and bellarmine, whom you cite for yourself, is directly against you. for he teacheth that a man may (u) de eccles. milit. cap. 6. respondeo. be in the church in desire, which is sufficient for salvation (when he is involuntarily hindered from being actually of the church) and yet not in the church by external comunion, which properly maketh him to be of the visible church; which is directly to deny what you affirmed. i might reflect what a pretty connection you make in saying: who is not actually otherwise then in vow etc. you might as well have said, who is not actually, otherwise than not in act etc. but such small matters as these i willingly dissemble. the poor man in the gospel was cast out of the synagogue by notorious injustice, and therefore still remained a member of the jewish church, not only in desire, but also in act. you say, athanasius stood single in defence of divine truth, all his brethren the other patriarches (not he of rome excepted) having subscribed to arianisme, and cast him out of their communion. and you refer us to baronius cited in your margin, to what purpose i know not, except to display your own bad proceeding. for baronius in the place by you alleged (w) anno 357. num. 44. apud spond. doth (not incidently, or only by the way, but) industriously, and of set purpose clear pope libertu● from having ever subscribed to arianisme. he subscribed indeed to the condemnation of s. athanasius, which was not for matter of faith but of fact, to wit, for certain crimes objected against him, as bellarmine (x) de rom. port lib. 4. cap. 9 affirmeth, which being false, s. athanasius did not therefore cease to be a member of the catholic church. if the errors of tertullian were in themselves so small, as you would make them, it may serve for an example, that not so much the matter, as the manner, and obstinacy is that which makes an heretic; which overthrows your distinction of points fundamental etc. 31. the proofs which you bring from the africans, and others, that communion with the roman church was not always held necessary to salvation, have been a thousand times answered by catholic writers; and they are such as you could not have chosen any more disaduantagious to your cause. heretofore i shown, that communion with the roman church, was by antiquity judged to be the mark of a true believer. and indeed seeing you speak of those times wherein rome stood in her purity (as you say) how could any be divided from her faith, and yet believe aright? do not yourself say: whosoever professeth himself to forsake (y) pag. 76. the communion of any one member of the body of christ, must confess himself consequently to forsake the whole? how then could any divide themselves from the roman church while she was in her purity? even s. cyprian, whose example you allege, faith: they (z) ad cornel. ep. 33. presume to sail to the roman church, which is the chair of peter, and to the principal chair, from whence priestly unity hath sprung. neither do they consider that they are romans, whose faith was commended by the preaching of the apostle, to whom falsehood cannot have access. optatus milevitanus, also an african, saith: at rome hath been constituted to peter (a) 〈◊〉 parm. lib. 2. the episcopal chair, that in this only chair, the unity of all might be preserved. and s. augustine, like wise an african, affirmeth, that cacilianus might despise (b) epist. 62 the conspiring multitude of his enemies, (that is, of seaventy bishops of africa assembled in numidia) because he saw himself united by letters communicatory with the roman church, in which the principality of the sea apostolic had always flourished. and after pelagius had been judged in the east by the bishops of palestine, and celestius his disciple had been excommunicated for the same cause in asrica by the african bishops; the milevitan council referred them finally to the pope, saying: we hope by the (c) ep. conc. mileu. ad innocent. inter epist. aug. epist. 92 mercy of our lord jesus-christ, who vouchsafe to govern thee consulting with him, and to hear thee praying to him, that those who hold these doctrines so perverse and pernicious, will more easily yield to the authority of thy holiness, drawn out of the holy scriptures. behold the pope's prerogative drawn out of the holy scriptures. and it is very strange that you will allege the authority of s. cyprian, and other bishops of africa, against pope stephen, who opposed himself to them in the question of rebaptisation, wherein they agreed with the heresy of the donatists, which was condemned not only by the pope, but by the whole church, yea by those very bishops who once adhered to s. cyprian, as s. hierome witnesseth, saying: finally they who had been (d) coutra luçifer. of the same opinion, set forth a new decree, saying: what shall we do? so hath it been delivered to them by their ancestors and ours. and vincentius lyrinensis speaking of stephen his opposing s. cyprian, saith: then (e) in com. part. 1. the blessed stephen resisted, together with, but yet before his colleagues; judging it as i conceive to be a thing worthy of him, to excel them as much in faith, as he did in the authority of his place. 32. neither are you more fortunate in the example of pope victor, then in the other of stephen. for although eusebius (whom s. hierome (f) contra ruff. apol. 1. styles the ensign-bearer of the arian sect, and who was a professed enemy of the roman church) doth relate that s. irenaeus (g) hist. eccles. lib. 5. c. 24. reprehended victor, for having excommunicated the churches of asia, for the question about keeping easter: yet even he dare not say, that irenaeus blamed the pope for want of power, but for misapplying it; which supposeth a power to do it, if the cause had been sufficient. and the success shown, that even in the use of his power, pope victor was in the right. for after his death, the counsels of nice, constantinople, and ephesus (which you receive as lawful general counsels) excommunicated those who held the same custom with the provinces which victor had excommunicated: and so they came to be ranked among heretics under the name of quartadecimam. you may know what opinion s. irenaeus had of popes by these words: every church ought to have recourse (h) adverse. haeres. lib. 3. cap. 3. to rome, by reason of her more powerful principality. and even in this your instance, eusebius doth only say, that irenaeus did fitly exhort pope victor, that he should not cut off all the churches of god, which held this ancient tradition. which exhortation doth necessarily imply, that pope victor had power to do it, as i said already. and now i pray you, reflect upon your precipitation in saying of vactor and stephen. their censures (i) pag. 50. were much slighted, and their pride and schism in troubling the peace of the church much condemned. for they did nothing which was not approved by the universal church of god; and the doctrines which they condemned were no less than heretical. and therefore (to answer also to what you object pag. 52.) if the british and scotish bishops did adhere to the churches of asta in their celebration of easter, after the matter was known to be defined by the church, their example can only be approved by such, as yourself; nor can it either impeach the authority, or darken the proceeding of the pope. you cite baronius (l) aun. 604. in the margin, who directly against you relates out of bede; that when our apostle s. augustine, could neither by arguments, nor by miracles wrought in their presence, bow their stiffness, he prophefied that they should perish by the english, as afterwards it happened. but you are a fit champion for such men, and they no less fit examples to be alleged against the authority of the roman church. 33. your other example, that s. augustine and diverse other bishops of africa, and their successors for one hundred years together were senered from the roman communion. is manifestly untrue in s. augustine, and some other chief bishops. for when king thrasimundus had banished into sardinia almost all the bishops, to wit, two hundred and twenty, pope symmachus maintained them at his own charges, as persons belonging to his communion. to the epistle of boniface the second to eulalius bishop of alexandria, and the epistle of eulalius to the same boniface, recited by you, out of which it is gathered, that after the sixth council of carthage for the space of one hundred years, the bishops of carthage were separated from the communion of the roman church, & that in the end they were reconciled to her, eulalius submitting himself to the apostolic sea, and anathematising his predecessors; bellarmine (m) de rom. pont. l. 2. c. 25. answereth, that these epistles may justly be suspected to be apocryphal for diverse reasons which he allegeth, and it seemeth also by your own words that you do doubt of them: for you say, if their own records (n) pag. 50: be true. yet if they be authentical, their meaning cannot be, that all the predecessors of eulalius were for so long space divided from the roman church; the contrary being most manifest not only in s. augustine, who kept most strict amity with zozimus, innocentius, and celestinus popes, but also in s. fulgentius and others: but it must be understood only of some bishops of carthage, and in particular of eulalius, himself, till he being informed of the truth, submitted himself to the roman church. and you ought rather to have alleged his submission, and condemnation of his predecessors to prove the pope's authority over the african church; then to object against it the example of some of his predecessors, & of himself who afterward repent, and condemned his own fact. you do well, only to mention the protensions and forgeries of the sea of rome in the matter of appeals. for you may know that bellarmine (o) vbisup. doth so fully answer that point, as nothing can be more effectual to prove the pope's supremacy in africa, than the right of appeals from africa to rome, in causes of greater moment. 34. your last instance about three chapters of the council of chalcedon, condemned by the fifth general council, the bishop of rome at length consenting, for which diverse bishops of italy, and also the bishops of ireland did jointly departed from the church of rome, is like to your former objections. for baronius whom you cite in your margin hath these words as contrary to your purpose as may be. hence was it, that the (q) ann. 553. num. 14. apud spond. bishops of venice & the adicyning regions did gath●● together a council at aquileia against the fifth synod; and the divisions at length went as fare as ●reland: for all these relying on the decree of vigilius pope, persuaded themselves that they might do it. is this to departed from the pope, or the roman church; to oppose that which he is thought to oppose, & formally, because he is thought to oppose it? now, as for the thing itself, when vigilius had afterward condemned the three chapters, which at the first he refused to do, and had confirmed the fifth council which had condemned them, whosoever opposed that condemnation, were accounted schismatics by the whole catholic church: which plainly shows the pope's authority, and therefore whatsoever bishops had opposed vigilius, their example could prove no more, than the faction of rebellious persons can prejudice the right of a lawful king. and in fine, all this controversy did nothing concern any matter of faith, but only in fact; and not doctrine, but persons, as may be seen at large in baronius: neither was it betwixt catholics and heretics, but among catholics themselves. the rest of your section needs no answer at all: only whereas you say; whosoever wilfully opposeth (r) pag. 57 any catholic verity maintained by the catholic visible church, as do heretics; or perversely divides himself from the catholic communion, as do schismatics; the condition of both them is damnable: what understand you by catholic verities of the catholic church? are not all verityes maintained by the catholic church, catholic verities? or how do you now distinguish heresy, and schism from the catholic communion? you tells us, (pag. 76.) that it is the property of schism to cut off from the body of christ, and the hope of salvation, the church from which it separats: and is it not an heresy to cut off from the body of christ & hope of salvation, the catholic church? how then can one (according to your principles) be a schismatic from the catholic church, & not be jointly an heretic? chap. iii. the protestants (a) pag. 59 never intended to erect a new church, but to purge the old; the reformation did not change the substance of religion, but only cleansed it from corrupt, and impure qualities. therefore (say we) the visible church extant before those your cleansing days, had & still hath the substance of religion; and so according to your own ground we are safe, if you can possibly be saved. but we have no such dependence upon you. nay, the same confession which acquits us, condemns yourselves. for while you confess a reformation of the old church, and neither do, nor can specify any visible church, which in your opinion needed no reformation; you must affirm, that the church which you intended to reform, was indeed the visible catholic church; if so, than you cannot deny but that you departed from the catholic church, & are guilty of schism, yea and of heresy. for if the catholic church was infected with erroneous doctrine which needed reformation; it follows, that the errors were universal, and that the reformation conming after those errors, must want universality of place and time, and therefore be branded with the mark of heresy. for in true divinity a new, and no church are all one. moreover, the very nature, & essence of the church requiring true faith, it is impossible to alter any point of faith, without changing the substance of the church, and religion; and therefore to reform the church in matters of faith, is as if you should reform a man by depriving him of a reasonable soul, whereby he is a man; and a reformed catholic are terms no less repugnant, than a reasonable unreasonable creature, or a destroyed existing thing. wherefore to say, the reformation did not change the substance of religion, but only cleansed it from corrupt and impure qualities, are mere words to deceive simple souls. and it is a lamentable case, that you can never be brought from such ridiculous similitudes, as here you bring of naaman, who was still the same man before and after he was cured of his leprosy; of a field overgrown with weeds, thistles &c. (and your brethren are full of twenty such childish pretended illustrations:) whereas every body knows that leprosy is accidental to a man, and weeds to a field, but faith is essential to the church; and that affirmation, or negation of any one revealed truth whatsoever, are differences no less essential in faith, then reasonable and unreasonable in living creatures. and faith itself being an accident and quality consisting in affirmation, or negation; to cleanse it from the corrupt and impure quality of affirming, or denying; is to cleanse it from its own nature, and essence; which is not to reform, but to destroy it. lastly, from this your forced confession, not to erect a new church, but to purge the old, we must infer that the roman church, which you sought to purge, was the old church, and the catholic church of christ. for if you found any other old visible catholic church, which needed no reformation, than you neither intended to erect a new church, nor to purge the old. 2. you say, the things which protestants (b) pag. 61. believe on their part, and wherein they judge the life and substance of religion to be comprised, are most, if not all of them, so evidently and indisputably true, that their adversaries themselves do avow, and receive them as well as they. if this be true, and that the said verities make up the faith of protestants (as you speak) than what needed you a reformation to teach men the faith of protestants, which they believed before protestants appeared? or how can you be excused from schism, who divided yourselves from that visible church, which believed those verities which make up your faith? you say, if all other christians could be content (c) pag. 61.62. to keep within these general bounds, the woeful schisms and ruptures of christendom might be more easily healed. o words most powerful to condemn yourselves, who were not content to keep within those general bounds, which you confess we believed, but would attempt new reformations, although with so woeful schisms and ruptures of christendom, as you hold worthy to be lamented with tears of blood! if our errors were not fundamental, your reformation could not be necessary to salvation; as when the wound or disease is known not to be deadly, the cure cannot be necessary to the conservation of life. 3. the reformation which zealous catholics did desire, and with whose words you vainly load your margin, were not in faith but manners. for which if it be lawful to forsake a church, no church shall remain unforsaken. but of this i have spoken in the first part. luther was justly cut of by excommunication, as a pernicious member: which yet was not done, till the pope had used all means to reclaim him. provincial or nationall synods may seek to reform abuses in manners, and endeavour that the faith already established be conserved: but if they go about to reform the catholic church in any one point, they deserve the name of conventicles, and not of counsels. 4. what mean you when you say; that you left the (e) pag. 67. church of rome in nothing she holds of christ, or of apostolic tradition? do you admit traditions? are they fallible or infallible? for if they be infallible, then may they be part of the rule of faith. if fallible, they are not apostolic. 5. you go then about to prove, that our doctrines are, first, doubtful and perplexed opinions. 2. doctrines unnecessary, and foreign to the faith: and 3. novelties unknown to antiquity. 6. you pretend they are doubtful, and say: the roman doctors do not fully and absolutely agree in any one point among themselves, but only in such points wherein they agree with us. if a manifest untruth be a good proof, your argument convinceth. if you think, that disagreement in matters not defined by the church, argues difference in matters of faith, you show small reading in our divines, who even in all those articles wherein you agree with us, have many different, and contrary opinions concerning points not defined: as about some speculative questions concerning the deity, the blessed trinity, incarnation; yea there are more disputes about those high mysteries wherein you agree with us, then in others wherein we disagree: and yet you grant, that such disputes do not argue those main points to be doubtful. and so you must answer your own instance, by which you might as well prove, that philosophers do not agree whether there be such things as time, motion, quantity, heavens, elements, etc. because in many particulars concerning those things, they cannot agree. 7. in the second place you affirm our doctrines to be unnecessary and superfluous: because a very small measure of explicit knowledge is of absolute necessity. but this is very clearly nothing at all to the purpose. for our question is not what every one is obliged explicitly to believe, but whether every one be not obliged, not to disbelieve, or deny any one point sufficiently propounded by the church, as a divine truth. neither do we treat of ignorance of some points, but of plain opposition, and contradiction both between you and us, and also among your selves. you cite bellarmine, saying: the apostles never used (g) de verb. dei lib. 4. cap. 11. to preach openly to the people, other things, than the articles of the apostles creed, the ten commaundments, and some of the sacraments, because these are simply necessary, and profitable for all men: the rest beside, such as a man may be saved without them. hear you stop, leaving out the words immediately following, which are directly against you. so that (saith bellarmine) he have (h) ibid. a will ready to embrace and believe them, whensoever they shall be sufficiently propounded to him by the church. besides, you falsify bellarmine when you make him say, that the apostles never used to preach to the people other things than the articles of the apostles creed, the commandments, and some of the sacraments, because these are simply necessary, and profitable for all men; but he saith directly the contrary, namely; that the apostles preached to all, some things which were not necessary, but only profitable to all (and therefore not superfluous as you say;) whereas yet he expressly affirms the knowledge of the creed, commandments, and some sacraments to be necessary to all. i wonder what pleasure you can take in corrupting authors, to your own discredit? now since we must have, as bellarmine rightly teacheth, a will ready to embrace whatsoever is propounded by the church; it followeth, that notwithstanding your confidence to the contrary, we cannot but except against your public service, or liturgy. i have neither will nor leisure to examine particulars: but exceptions enough offer themselves to any man's first consideration. the very occasion and end for which it was framed, proceeded out of an heretical spirit, to oppose the true visible church: it was turned into english upon an heretical persuasion, and a popular insinuation, and a crafty affectation to inveigle the humour of the people, that public prayers were unlawful in an unknown tongue. it leaveth out prayers both for deceased sinners, and to glorious saints, blotting diverse of them out of their calendar; and hath abrogated their festival days: and the like they have done concerning fasts, except those few which they vouchsafe to like: it abolisheth all memory of s. peter's successor: it treateth only of two sacraments, excluding the rest; and in the one it omitteth most of our ceremonies, as superstitious: in the other it professeth not to give any thing but the substance of bread and wine. it administereth to lay people both kinds, as necessary by the institution of christ our lord: mass, or sacrifice it hath none: it reads and believes scripture heretically translated: it mentioneth no relics of saints: and in a word, it is both in the whole body, and design, and in every point a profession of a church, and faith contrary to catholics, and implies a condemnation of our liturgy as superstitious, & yourself boldly say: we cannot, we (i) pag. 68 dare not communicate with rome in her public liturgy, which is manifestly polluted with gross superstitions; and therefore wee catholics also can no more approve your practice and liturgy, than we can embrace your doctrine, and faith. i said that i had no desire to examine the particulars of your liturgy, neither is it needful. for we may judge of the rest, by the very first words, or introite of your service, beginning with a text, for which you cite ezech. 18. at what time soever a sinner doth repent him of his sins from the bottom of his heart, i will put all his wickedness out of my remembrance, saith the lord. but there is no such sentence in ezechiel, whose words are these, even in the bible of the protestants: but if the wicked will turn from all his sins which he hath committed, and keep all my statutes, and do that which is lawful and right, he shall surely live, he shall not die: all his transgressions which he hath committed, they shall not be mentioned unto him: in the righteousness which he hath done, he shall live. your first reformers, the soul of whose church was solifidian justification, were loath to hear of possibility to keep all the commandments, of working righteousness, or living in the righteousness which he hath wrought; as also they were unwilling to particularise with the prophet, what is required to true repentance, knowing full well, the different opinions of their first progenitors about this point of repentance, and therefore they thought best to corrupt this text. and which is more strange, in your service-book translated into latin, and printed in london, per assignationem francisci florae, the sentence is cited at large as it is in the prophet, and therefore the corruption still remaining in the english to deceive the unlearned, is more inexcusable. neither (in the same introite) is the allegation of joel. 2. much more truly made: rend your hearts, & not your garments, and turn to the lord your god etc. out of which place, you know men are wont to declaim against our corporal penance of fasting, watching, haircloth, disciplines etc. but, even according to your own translation, the words are: turn you even to me with all your heart, and with fasting, and with weeping, and with mourning; and rend your hearts, and not your garments etc. where i believe you will confess that your omission was not used to no purpose. 8. you speak among other things of images, & we grant that god may be worshipped without an image. but we say, that he cannot be truly worshipped by any one, who denieth worship of images, because true worship of god cannot stand with any one heresy. it is highly good, & lawful, and a most holy thing to pray to god; but yet if one should believe, that we may not also pray to living men, yourself would i think condemn him for an heretic, because all christians entreat their brethren to pray for them: by which example all your instances (pag. 72.) may be answered. your saying out of bellarminine that the worship, and invocation of saints was brought into the church, rather by custom then any precept, is answered hereafter n. 12. and i would gladly know by what authority your church can enjoin secret confession in some case, as (here pag. 72.) you say she doth, if christ have left it free? can a humane law oblige men to reveal their secret sins, in confession? especially since they know not whether your ministers will not think themselves obliged to acquaint some officer therewith, in case the penitent disclose any crime punishable by the laws of the realm. to which propose i could tell you strange and true stories: as contrarily because catholics believe the sacrament of confession to have been instituted by our saviour christ, as necessary to salvation, they consequently teach, that the seal and secret thereof is so sacred and inviolable, that the pope himself cannot dispense therein, though it were to save his own life. and now, to follow your wanderings, you may know that we do not hinder, but give free leave to unlearned persons to say their prayers in a known language: but the church doth celebrate public service in one of the learned tongues, for weighty reasons, which have been learnedly set down by our catholic writers. and if nothing must be read but what the people, yea learned men understand, you must give over reading in public, even in english, diverse psalms of david, the prophets, the apocalyps, and other parts of scriptures, the sense and meaning whereof the people understand no more, then if they were read in hebrew. nay, to understand the words, and not the sense, is not free from danger, because they may by them conceive some error, as we daily see by the example of sectaries, & in that ungracious creature, who lately out of scripture, as he thought, murdered his mother, and brother, for being cause of his idolatry in kneeling at the communion. happy had it been both for him, and a thousand more, if the sacred scriptures in english were not so common among them, but were read with due circumspection, and not without approbation of such as can judge better of them, than themselves. and in very truth it seems strange, & not only not safe but even shameful, that, for example, the books of leviticus, and the canticles, besides many passages in other books, should he promiscuously made subject to the vulgar eyes of sensual, and unmortifyed people, who morally will be sure to make no other use thereof, then to hurt themselves, together with the abusing & profaning so holy a thing, as every word of holy scripture is in itself. 9 now, to come to your other particulars; we acknowledge and profess all merits to be the gift of god, and therefore they cannot withdraw us from relying on him. you cite bellarmine, saying: it is safest, not to trust (m) pag. 73. to a man's own merits, but wholly and solely to cast himself on the mercy of jesus-christ. but doth bellarmine say, that it is safest to rely on god's mercy alone, and to deny all merits, as protestants do? this indeed were to your purpose. but let us hear bellarmine rightly cited: it is (saith he) most safe to place (n) de justificat. lib. 5. c. 7. § sittertia propositio. all our trust in the sole mercy & benignity of god. hear you stay. but bellarmine goes on, and saith: i explicate my said proposition: for it is not to be so understood as if a man with all his forces ought not to attend to good works: or that we ought not to confide in them, as if they were not true justice, or could not undergo the judgement of god (for no wonder if gods own gifts, as all our merits are, may endure his examination.) but we only say, that it is more safe, as it were to forget our former merits, and to look only upon the mercy of god; both because no man can without a revelation certainly know that he hath true merits, or that he is to persevere in them to the end: and also, because in this place of temptation nothing is more easy then to conceive pride by the consideration of our good works. i leave it therefore to any man's consideration, what sincerity you have used in alleging bellarmine. 10 in the last place you affirm, that our doctrines are confessed (o) pag. 13. novelties, and you go about to prove it by a few instances; all which being either nothing to the purpose, or plainly mistaken, or manifestly untrue, do excellently prove against yourself, how ancient our religion is. your instance about the pope's infallibility, is not to the purpose of proving that the roman church teacheth any novelty. for bellarmine, out of whom you cite a few authors who teach that the pope's decrees without a council are not infallible, saith: that, that doctrine (p) de rom. pont. l. 4. ç. 1. is yet tolerated by the church, though he affirm it to be erroneous, and the next degree to heresy. the same answer serves for your other example concerning the pope's authority above that of a general council, of which bellarmine saith: they are not properly heretics who hold the contrary; but (q) de concil. l. 2. cap. 17. denique lateranense. they cannot be excused from great temerity. and you are not ignorant, but that even those who defend these doctrines do unanimously consent against you, that the pope is head of the church. but i pray you, what consequence is it? some authors deny, or doubt of the pope's infallibility, or his authority over a general council: ergo, these doctrines are novelties? may not private men be mikaken, even in doctrines which of themselves are most ancient; as is known by experience in many truths, which both you and we maintain? for how many books of scripture were once doubted of by some, which now yourselves receive as canonical? are you therefore novelists? you overlash then, when you say: above a thousand (r) pag. 72. edit. 1. years after christ, the pope's judgement was not esteemed infallible, nor his authority above that of a general council: and especially when you cite bellarmine to make good your sayings. and your affirming out of bellarmine (the indulg. l. 2. c. 17.) that eugenius the 3. (who began his papacy 1145.) was (s) pag. 72. edit. 1. the first that granted indulgences, is a huge untruth, and falsification of bellarmine, who in that very place, directly, expressly, purposely, proves that other popes before eugenius granted indulgences, & names them in particular. whereas you say that the counsels of constance and basil, decreed the council to be above the pope; you might have seen the answer in bellarmine in the same book which you (t) de concil. l 2. ç. 19 cite; that these two counsels at that time were not lawful counsels, or sufficient to define any matters of faith. 11. you say, many of them (meaning catholic doctors) yield also, that papal indulgences are things unknown to all antiquity. and to prove this, you allege bellarmine, (u) de indulg. l. 2. ç. 27. who cities durand, s. antoninus, and roffensis. neither do these three, which you by i know not what figure call many, say as you do, that indulgences are things unknown to all antiquity; but only for the first five hundred years, as bellarmine saith in the place by you cited, & therefore you take to yourself a strange privilege to multiply persons, and enlarge times: and yet these authors do not deny indulgences. and as bellarmine answers: we ought not to say that indulgences are not indeed ancient, because two or three catholics have not read of them in ancient authors. and you may, with greater show, deny diverse books of scripture, which more than three writers did not only say, they were not received by antiquity; but did expressly reject them. as for the thing itself, bellarmine showeth, that indulgences are no less ancient than the (y) vbi supra. ç. 3. beginning of the church of christ: & that your own protestants confess, that it is hard to know when they began, which is a sign of antiquity, not of novelty. but we can tell you, when, and who, first began to oppose indulgences, namely the waldenses, who appeared about the year 1170. and therefore the mark of novelty, & heresy must fall not upon the defenders, but the impugners of indulgences. 12. you say out of bellarmine, that leo the third was the first that ever canonised any saint, as before (pag. 72.) you alleged out of him, that the worship of saints, was brought into the church rather by custom then by any precept; and in your margin you cite him in latin saying: saints began to be (z) de saitctorum beat, lib. 1. cap. 8. § v●●. worshipped in the universal church rather by custom then by precept. but bellarmine doth not there treat in general of worship of saints, but only handling the question, cuius sit etc. to whom doth it belong to canonize saints, and proving that it belongs to the pope to canonize them for the whole church, and not for some particular diocese alone; in answer to an objection, that there are many worshipped for saints, who were not canonised by the pope, he hath these words: i answer, that the ancient saints began to be worshipped in the universal church, not so much by any law, as by custom: where you break off. but bellarmine goeth forward, and saith: but as other customs have the force of a law by the consent of the prince, without which they are of no force etc. so the worship of any saint generally introduced by the custom of the churches, hath force from the , or express approbation of the pope. first then, you conceal the question of which bellarmine treated. secondly, you leave out (veteres) ancient saints, and say only saints, and yet (ancient) showeth he spoke not of all saints, but of some who were not expressly canonised, or commanded to be held for saints, whereas diverse others have been canonised by direct command to believe that they are happy. thirdly, in your translation, you leave out universal, & only put church; whereas bellarmine § primo modo, expressly teacheth: that in ancient time every bishop might canonize saints for his particular diocese, and de facto, they did command some feasts to be kept, as bellarmine proves; which shows, that the worship of saints was held both to be lawful, and was to some particular persons commanded. fourthly, you leave out bellarmine's words; that the worship of some saint generally introduced by the custom of the churches, grows to have the force of a law, or precept, by the , or express approbation of the pope; which is contrary to that, which you cited out of bellarmine; the worship and invocation of saints was brought into the church, rather by custom, than any precpt. and now to come to your former objection out of bellarmine, what is it to your purpose if he affirm that leo the third was the first that ever canonised any saint? doth he affirm that leo was the first that taught worship, and invocation of saints? or that such worship was not practised by custom, yea & by precept before his time, as we have seem out of his words it was? bellarmine speaks only of such form and solemnity of canonization as afterwards was used: which makes nothing for your purpose, to prove that our doctrine of worship, or invocation of saints, is a novelty. if one should affirm that the solemnity of crowning kings, was not used in all places, or times alike; should he therefore deny the antiquity of kings, or that obedience is due to them? you may see not only the error, but the danger also of such discourse. 13. when one reads in your book these words in a different letter; not any one ancient writer (b) pag. 78. reckons precisely seven sacraments; the first author that mentions that number is peter lombard, and the first council, that of florence: and in your margin, the names of valentia, and bellarmine; who would not think that in the opinion of these authors no ancient writer before lombard believed that there were seven sacraments, neither more nor fewer? which is most untrue, and against their formal words, & express intentions. for thus saith valentia in the very same place which you (c) tom. 4. disp 3. q. 6. p. 2. § tertie probatur. cite: the same assertion, (that there are seven sacraments) is proved by the authority of fathers. for although the more ancient writers do not number seven sacraments, all together in one place: yet it may be easily showed, especially by the testimony of s. augustine that they did acknowledge every one of these ceremonies to be a sacrament. thus valentia in general, and then he proves every one of the seven sacraments, out of particular places of s. augustine, s. cyprian, s. ambrose, innocentius the first, chrysostome, bode, and dionysius areopagita. now tell me, whether valentia say: not any one ancient writer reckons precisely seven sacraments? doth he not prove out of s. augustine every one of the seven sacraments in particular, as you could not but see in the very place cited by you? is it all one to say: not any one ancient writer reckons precisely seven sacraments, as you corrupt these authors, and to say; the ancient writers do not number seven sacraments all together in one place? neither is your falsifying of bellarmine less remarkable, who having said that the number of seven sacraments is proved out of scriptures, and ancient fathers, premiseth this observation: that, our adversaries ought not to require of us, that (d) bellarm. de sacram. lib. 2. ç. 25. we show in scriptures and fathers the name of seven sacraments: for neither can they show the name of two, or three, or four: for the scriptures and fathers did not write a catechism, as now we do, by reason of the multitude of heresies, but only delivered the things themselves in diverse places: neither is this proper to sacraments, but common to many other things. for the scripture reckons the miracles of our saviour, but never reckons how many there be: it delivers the articles of faith, but never saith how many they be: the apostles afterward published the creed of twelve articles for some particular causes. in like manner they cannot know out of scripture, how many canonical break there be: but counsels afterward set down the canon, and the particular number, which they had learned by tradition. and afterward he notes: that it is sufficient if we can show out of fathers and scriptures, that the definition of a sacrament doth agree neither to more nor fewer rites, than seven. by which words it is clear, that when bellarmine saith, lombard was the first that named the number of seven sacraments, he only meaneth, as he explicates himself, of the name of seven; as protestants will not find in all antiquity the name of two sacraments. so that from the words of valentia and bellarmine, as they are indeed, nothing can be gathered, except your very unconscionable dealing. 14. what you cite out of bellarmine, that (e) de enchar. lib. 3. çap. 23. scotus teacheth transubstantiation to have been neither named, nor made an article of faith before the council of lateran, doth not prove it to be a novelty, but only that scotus did think it was not so expressly declared before that council; which (saith bellarmine) he affirmed because he had not read the council of rome under gregory the seaventh, nor had observed the consent of fathers. it is a fond thing to say, that every truth is a novelty, which the church as occasion serveth doth declare more expressly than before. and if all truths must be declared alike at all times, under pain of being accounted novelties; what will become of luther's reformation, whereby he pretended to teach the world so many things which he falsely, & impiously blasphemed to have been for solong time buried in oblivion, and overwhelmed with corruption? 15. you cite peter lombard and s. thomas, as if they affirmed sacrifice in the (f) pag. 74. eucharist to be no other, but the image or commemoration of our saviour's sacrifice upon the cross. but your conscience cannot but tell you, that these authors never doubted whether the mass be a true sacrifice or no, and therefore the question which they propounded is, whether christ in the mass be immolated, or (g) s. thom. 3. p. q. 83 a. 1. in corp. killed? and according to this sense they answer, that he is immolated in figure, because the unbloody oblation of the eucharist, is a representation of our saviour's bloody oblation, or immolation on the cross. and that this is so, you might have seen in s. thomas in that very place which you (h) ad 3. cite, where he teacheth that in this manner of being killed, or immolated in figure, christ might have been said to have been immolated in the figures of the old testament, which did prefigure his death; and yet you will not acknowledge yourself so perfectly zwinglianized, that you will from hence infer, that there is no more in the eucharist then in the empty figures of the old law: and though you did, yet it would not serve your turn, for even diverse of those figures were truly & properly sacrifices; and therefore though the eucharist were but a commemoration, yet it might be a true sacrifice withal. 16. you allege lindanus, that (i) panopl. lib. 4. part. 2. çap. 56. § hunc igitur. in former ages, for 1200. years, the holy cup was administered to the laity. but you deceive your reader; for lindanus plainly saith; that both kinds were given to the laity almost every where, but yet not every where. which is sufficient against you, who say, it is against the institution of christ not to give both kinds to the laity. and i shown before, that in the reign of king edward the sixth, communion in one kind was permitted; and that melancthon & luther held it as a thing indifferent. 17. that divine sacrifice was celebrated for diverse ages in a known & vulgar tongue, you would prove out of (k) in 1. corp. çap. 14. lyra. but what is this to prove our doctrine to be a novelty? do we teach, that there is any divine law, either forbidding, or commanding public service in a vulgar tongue? and lyra in that place teacheth that in these times it is more convenient that it be not celebrated in a known language. 18. that the fathers generally condemned the worship of images for fear of idolatry, and allowed, yea exhorted the people with diligence, to read the scriptures; you seek (l) pag. 74. to prove the former part out of polydore virgil, and the latter out of azor; but still with your wont sincerity. for how often have you been told that polydore (m) de innent. lib. 6. çap. 13. speaks not of the ancient fathers of the new testament, but of those of the old, naming moses, david, and ezechias, and he proveth at large, that in the new law, images are worthily placed in churches, and worshipped; and concludes, demanding what man is so dissolute, and so brazen faced, that will, or can doubt, or dream of the contrary? azor grants, that in the (n) moral. instit. lib. 8. çap. 26. part. 1. §. respondeo. times of s. chrysostome, laymen were conversant in scripture, because than they understood greek or latin, in which language the scriptures were written; whereas now the common people for the most part understand not the latin tongue; but such lay people as understand greek or latin, do with good reason read the scripture. who would ever imagine, that in so short a compass you could have corrupted so many authors? 19 what you say in this your section, to excuse your brethren from schism, we have answered in the first part, and have confuted all your evasions & similitudes. and whereas you say, that (o) pag. 77. although our errors be not damnable to him, who in simplicity of heart believeth and professeth them; yet that he, that against faith and conscience shall go along with the stream, to profess and practise them, because they are but little ones; his case is dangerous, and without repentance desperate. i answer, that if our errors be not fundamental, how can they be damnable: and if they be but little ones, that is, not fundamental or damnable, how is it damnable to embrace them, because they are little ones, that is, because they are, as indeed they are? if they were indeed little ones, & yet by an erroneous conscience were esteemed great ones, to such a man they should indeed be damnable; but to one that knows them to be little ones, and with such a knowledge, or conscience, for some humane respect, of itself not damnable, doth yet embrace them, they are not damnable. for still we suppose that he would not embrace them, if his conscience told him, that they were great ones. and who can without smiling read these your words: it is the (p) pag. 77. doctrine of the roman school, that venial sins to him that commits them, not of subreption, or of a sudden motion, but of presumption that the matter is not of moment, change their kind and become mortal? i pray you what school man teacheth that to commit a venial sin, knowing it to be such, makes it become mortal? for in this sense you must allege this doctrine, if it be to your purpose: and in this sense it being a false doctrine, doth indeed overthrew that for which you allege it; and proves that to embrace errors not fundamental, knowing them to be such, cannot be damnable; as it is not a mortal sin, to do that which one knows to be but venial in the mean time you do not reflect, that if your doctrine might pass for true, it would be impossible for both catholics, and protestants, lutherans, and caluinists to be saved. for all these differ at lest in points not fundamental, and so you grant unawares that which chief we intent, that of two differing in religion, both cannot be saved, whether their differences be great, or small. 20. i have told you already, that the author of the moderate examination etc. is no catholic. that other treatise entitled, syllabus aliquot synodorum etc. i have not seen, but if the author pretend, as you say, that both huguenots, and catholics may be saved, he can be no catholic. 21. you would fain avoid the note of heretics, which is to be named by modern names, derived for the most part from their first sect-maisters. you renounce the names of lutherans, zwinglians, or caluinists, and to that purpose you make half a sermon; but words will not serve your turn. for they are no injurious nicknames as you say, but names imposed by mere necessity, to distinguish you from those from whom you really differ, and to express the variety of your late reformation. if we speak of christians, or catholics without some addition, no man will dream of you, but will think of us, who had that name before luther appeared, and therefore it cannot express the latter reformation. if you willbe called the reformed church; still the doubt remains, whether you mean those who follow luther, or caluin, or zwinglius etc. neither will the reformed church (if she be in her wits) make herself liable to all errors of lutherans, caluinists, anabaptists, puritans etc. and in this, your prime man d. field is more ingenious, while he acknowledgeth a necessity of the name of lutherans, in these words: neither was it possible (q) of the church lib. 2. cap. 9 p. 59 that so great an alteration should be effected, and not carry some remembrance of them, by whom it was procured. and whitaker saith: for distinctions sake we are enforced to use the (r) in his answer to reynolds preface. pag. 44. name of protestants. and graverus giveth a reason why those of the same sect with him be called lutherans, saying: the only reason (s) in his absurda absurdorun etc. in praefat. of it is, that we may be distinguished from caluinists & papists, from whom we cannot be distinguished by the general name either of christians, or of orthed ox, or of catholics. and hospinianus likewise saith: i abhor the schismatical names (t) in his prologomena. of lutherans, zwinglians, and caluinist; (mark, the shismatical names) yet for distinction sake i will use these names in this history. the vulgar objection which you bring, that amongst us also there are franciscans, dominicans, scotistes loyalists etc. is pertinent only to convince you of manifest novelty: for those names are not imposed to signify difference in faith, as the names of lutherans, caluinists, are; but either diverse institutes of religion, as dominicans, franciscans etc. or else diversity of opinions concerning some points not defined by the church, as thomists, scotists etc. and for as much as these names be arguments of new and particular institutes, and are derived from particular men, they likewise prove that the names of lutherans, caluinists &c. being given upon diversity in faith, must argue a new beginning, & a new sect, and sect-maisters concerning faith. d. field is full to our purpose, saying: we must observe that they who profess the faith of christ (u) vbi sup. pag. 58. have been sometimes in these latter ages of the church called after the special names of such men as were the authors, beginners, and devisers of such courses of monastical profession, as they made choice to follow, as benedictins, and such like. and in his other words following, he answers your objection of the scotists, and thomists, affirming their differences to have been in the controversies of religion, not yet determined by consent of the universal church. what can be more clear, that our differences concern not matters of faith, and that the names which you mention of franciscans, dominicans etc. signify a means of that for which they are imposed, and which they are appointed to signify, and therefore prove that the names of lutherans &c. must signify a nouclty in faith? 22. but you say, that the jars and divisions between (w) pag. 87. the lntherans, and caluinists do little concern the church of england, which followeth none but christ. and do not lutherans and caluinists pretend to follow christ as well as you? who shall be judge among you? but you may easily be well assured, that as long as you follow him by contrary ways, you can never come where he is. and yet indeed, do these ●arres little concern the church of england? have you in your church none of those who are commonly called lutherans, zwinglians, caluinists, puritans etc. doth it not behoove you to consider, whether your congregation can be one true church of christ, while you are in communion with so many disagreeing sects? doth it little concern you, whether your first reformers lutherans, caluinists, zwinglians, puritans be heretics, or no? how can it be, but that the divisions of lutherans, and caluinists must concern the church of england? for, your church cannot agree with them all; & if you side with one part, you must jar with the other. or if you agree with none of them, you disagree with all, & so make a greater division. 23. and therefore, being really distrustful of this answer, you come at length to your main refuge, namely; that their dissensions (x) pag. 87. are neither many, nor so material, as to shake, or touch the foundation. but till you can once tell us what points will shake the foundation, you cannot be sure whether their dissensions be not such. you say, their (y) pag. 90. difference about consubstantiation, and ubiquity is not fundamental, because both agree, that christ is really, and truly exhibited to each faithful communicant, and that in his whole person he is every where. in this manner you may reconcile all heresies, and say, the arians or nestorians believed christ to be truly god; that is, by real, and true affection of charity, as many among you say, christ is really in the sacrament, that is, by a real figure, or by a real act of faith, as the nestorians said of a real act of charity: that even according to them who deny the trinity, there is truly a father, son, and holy ghost, as in god there is truly power, understanding, and will; but whether those persons be really distinct or no, that is (as you say of consubstantiation and ubiquity) a nicecity inscrutable to the wit of man: and so a man may go discoursing of all other heresies, which have been condemned by the church. is there not a main difference of receiving our saviour's body in real substance, and in figure alone? or betwixt the immensity of our saviour's deity, and the ubiquity of his humanity, which destroys the mysteries of his nativity ascension, &c for who can ascend to the place where he is already? you specify only the said difference betwixt lutherans, and caluinists, whereas you know there are many more, as about the canon of scripture etc. as also between protestants and puritans etc. and i could put you in mind of your brethren, who teach that for diverse ages the visible church perished; and yet s. augustine teacheth, that there is nothing more evident in scripture, than the universality of the church: as also who deny that bishops are by divine institution; who oppose your whole hierarchy as antichristian; who differ from you in the form of ordination of ministers; all which are fundamental points. but i will refer the reader to the most exact brereley, who (z) tract. 3. sect. 7. under ●. reckons no fewer than seaventy seven differences among you, punctually citing the books, and pages where you may find them. and yet for the present i will set down some words of doctor willet, testifying your differences. from this fountain (saith he) have sprung (a) in his meditation upon the 122. psa. pag. 91. forth these and such like whirlepoints, and bubbles of new doctrine: as for example, that the scriptures are not means concerning god of all that profitably we know: that, they are not alone complete to everlasting felicity: that, the word of god cannot possibly assure us what is the word of god: that, there are works of supererogation: that, the church of rome, as it now standeth, is the family of christ: that, idolaters and wicked heretics are members of the visible church: (let d. potter here remember what himself saith of the roman church, and what he relateth about the opinion of m. hooker and m. morton, that among heretics there may be a true church:) that, there is in ordination given a indelible character: that, they have power to make christ's body: that, sacraments are necessary in their place, and no less required than belief itself: that, the souls of infants dying without baptism are damned etc. do you think, that the necessity of baptism, and other sacraments, the sufficiency of sole scripture, which your english clergy professeth at their ordination, and those other points are but small matters? but besides these, and many more, there are two other main, general, & transcendent differences among you. the one, whether you do not differ in main points, which though you deny, yet others affirm: the other, what be main or fundamental points. upon which two differences, i● will necessarily follow, that you cannot know, whether you have the same substance of faith, and hope of salvation, or no. but though your differences were all reduced to one, and that how small soever; that one were sufficient to exclude unity of faith among you, as i have often said, and proved. i have no mind to spend time in telling you how unschollerlike you say: two brothers (b) pag. 87. in their choler may renounce each other, and disclaim their amity; yet that heat cannot dissolve their inward, and essential relation. for when a man's brother dies, doth he lose any essential relation? i always thought that essential relations were inseparable from the essence to which they belong, and the essence from them; and a man who still remains a man, may yet cease to be a brother: it is therefore no essential relation. 24. i grant that differences in ceremonies, or discipline, do not always infer diversity of faith; yet when one part condemns the rites and discipline of the other as antichristian, or repugnant to god's word (as it happeneth among protestants,) than differences in ceremontes redound to a diversity in faith. 25. luther tempered by (c) pag. 93. mild melancthon (that honour of germany) did much relent and remit of his rigour against zwinglius, and began to approve the good counsels of peace. if inconstancy concerning matters of faith be mildness, melancton was, i grant, extremely mild, in which respect he was noted even by protestant's, & was disliked by luther. how much luther relented of his rigour against zwinglius, let himself declare in these words, which you could not but read in charity-mistaken. i having now one of my feet (d) pag. 53. in the grave, will carry this testimony and glory to the tribunal of god; that i will with all my heart condemn, and eschew carolostadius, zwinglius, oecolampadius, and their disciples; nor will i have familiarity with any of them either by letter, writing, words, nor deeds, accordingly as the lord hath commanded. if in polonia the followers of luther, and caluin have long lived together in concord, as you would have us believe, the thing being really not true; they must thank the good catholic king under whom they live, who is able, and apt to punish when there is great excess. but if they had the raynes in their own hand, what greater concord could be hoped for amongst them in that kingdom, then is found in other places, where they have more power? in polonia there are many arians, and trinitarians, who live in outward concord with the rest; but will you acknowledge them for brethren to lutherans, caluinists, and yourself? the answer will be hardly made, if you stick to your own grounds, and i may well pass on to the rest. chap. four your very beginning promiseth small sincerity in that which follows. for you make charity-mistaken say, that protestants be heretics at the jest, if not infidels; whereas he only saith, & substantially proveth, that whosoever doth disbelieve any one article of faith, doth not assent to all the rest, by divine infallible faith, but by an humane persuasion; which is a point of great consideration, and of which it seems you are very loath to speak. 2. you take much pains to prove what we do not deny. for it maketh nothing to the purpose, whether or no the proposition of the church belong to the formal object of faith, as heretofore i have told you. nor do we deny scripture to contain all mats of faith, if it be rightly understood; because scripture, among other verities, doth also recommend unto us the church & divine traditions, though they be unwritten. and you egregiously falsify (a) pag. 99 edit. 1. bellarmine, as if he excluded the authority of the church, whereas in the place by you cited (de verb. dei lib. 1. c. 2.) he only speaks against the private spirit, and even there proves out of s. augustine, that god will have us learn of other men. we likewise teach that though church doth not make any new articles of faith, but only propounds, and declares to us the old. only i would have you here consider that whether or no scripture be the sole rule of faith: or whether faith be resolved into divine revelation alone, or else partly into the proposition of the church; all is one, for the main question, whether persons of diverse religions can be saved. for this remaineth undoubted, that it cannot be but damnable to oppose any truth, sufficiently declared to be contained in scripture, or revealed by god. 3. no less impertinent is your other discourse concerning the difficulty to know what is heresy. for we grant, that it is not always easy to determine in particular occasions, whether this or that doctrine be such: because it may be doubtful, whether it be against any scripture, or divine tradition, or definition of the church; and much more, whether the person be an heretic, which requireth certain conditions (as capacity, pertinacy, sufficient proposition etc.) which are not always so easily explicated, and discerned: and for these respects s. augustine in the place cited (b) pag. 102. by you, had good reason to say: that it is hard to know what makes an heretic. but it is strange that you should hold it to be so hard a matter, to give a general definition of heresy or heretic, since in this very section you dispatch it quickly, saying: he is justly (c) pag. 98. esteemed an heretic, who yields not to scripture sufficiently propounded. or (as you say else where,) it is fundamental (d) pag. 250. to a christians faith, and necessary for his salvation, that he believe all revealed truths of god, whereof he may be convinced that they are from god. nay, if you will speak with coherence to your own grounds; it is easy for you to define in all particular cases what is damnable heresy: for you (i say) who measure all heresy by opposition to scripture; and further affirm, that scripture is clear in all fundamental points. for by this means it will be easy for you to discern what error opposeth those fundamental truths, which are clearly contained in scripture. 4. in your discourse concerning the controversy between pope stephen, and s. cyprian, you show a great deal of passion against the roman church, which you impugn out of an epistle of firmilianus, who at that time was a party against the pope, and who in particular did afterward recant together with the other bishops who once joined with s. cyprian, as we have already showed out of s. hierome, & may be also seen in an epistle of dionysius alexandrinus apud eusch. hist. l. 6. c. 7. wherein firmilianus in particular is named (& therefore you are inexcusable, who say they persisted in their opinion;) whereas the proceeding of s. stephen was necessary to prevent a pernicious error of rebaptising of such as had been baptised by heretics, which afterward was condemned by the whole church. and as for s. cyprians mild proceeding, which you so much commend out of your ill will to s. stephen, because he was pope; s. augustine saith: the things which (e) de bapt. cont. donat. lib. 5. cap. 25. cyprian in anger hath spread against stephen, i will not suffer to pass under my pen. wherefore you could not have picked out an example more in favour of popes than this. and you must give us leave not to credit what you say, that both stephen and cyprian erred in some sense. for stephen only affirmed, that baptism was not invalide precisely because it is given by heretics, as s. cyprian affirmed it to be; but yet if the heretics erred either in the matter or form of baptism, stephen never affirmed such baptism to be valid, which had been more than he granted, even to the baptism of catholics. 5. your argument to prove, that (f) pag. 112. concerning our greater safety, we dispute against you as the donatists did against catholics, i have answered (g) cap. 7. num. 7. in the first part. you would make men believe that we are like the donatists, who washed church wall, and vestments of catholics, broke their chalices, scraped their altars etc. but i pray you consider, whether chalices, vestments, palls, or corporals, and altars do express the protestant church of england, scotland, geneva, holland etc. or the church of rome? 6. you spend diverse pages in propounding arguments for the opinion of m. hooker, and m. morton: that wheresoever a company of men (h) pag. 113. do jointly profess the substance of christian religion, which is faith in jesus christ the son of god and saviour of the world, with submission to his doctrine in mind and will; there is a church wherein salvation may be had, notwithstanding any corruption in ludgment or practice: yea although it be of that nature that it seem to fight with the very foundation, and so heinous as that in respect thereof the people stained with this corruption, are worthy to be abhorred of all men, and unworthy to be called the church of god. but because these and such monstruous assertions proceed from other errors which i have already both clearly, and at large confuted; to wit, the fallibility of the church, the distinction of points fundamental and not fundamental etc. i refer you to those places: and here only observe into what precipices they fall, who deny the universal infallibility of the church. and it is strange that you yourself did not see the manifest contradictions involved in this wicked doctrine. for how can it be a church wherein salvation may be had, and yet be unworthy to be called the church of god? how can that man have faith in jesus christ, with submission to his doctrine in mind and will, who is supposed to join with his belief in jesus christ, other errors sufficiently propounded to be repugnant against god's word, or revelation? can submission in mind or will, or observation of his commandments stand with actual voluntary error against his word? is it not a prime commandment to believe god's word? do not yourself affirm, that it is infidelity to deny whatsoever is revealed in scripture? how then can a church be said to have means for salvation and life, wherein is wanting faith the first ground of salvation? the fathers sometimes called the donatists, brethren, by reason of their true baptism, not for their possibility to be saved, according as s. augustine said to them: the sacraments of christ (i) epist. 48. do not make thee an heretic, but thy wicked disagreement. and optatus saith: you cannot (k) lib. 4● but be our brethren, whom the same mother the church hath begotten in the same bowels of sacraments, whom god our father hath in the same manner received as adopted children; namely, on his behalf, and for as much as concerns the virtue of baptism. the conclusion of your discourse may well beseem the doctrine for which you bring it: a learned man (l) pag. 122. anciently was made a bishop of the catholic church, although he did professedly doubt of the last resurrection of our bodies. you might have added, that he would not believe that the world should ever have an end; and further absolutely refused to be baptised: and that he would not, as the history recounteth, live a single life as other priests, but that he would live with a wife. for synesius, who is the man you mean, publicly protested all these things; and you are wise enough to take only what might seem to serve your turn, as this, concerning the single lives of priests did not, because it showeth that in those ancient times, priests could not live with wives. and now i ask, whether in good earnest you believe, that one may be made a bishop, who will not believe the resurrection, nor willbe baptised, or whether he may be baptised against his will? the answer therefore may be seen in baronius, who (m) anno 410. n. 6. spond. demonstrates out of the epistles of synesius himself, that he did these things, not to be made a bishop, wishing (as he affirmeth) rather to dye, then to endure so great a burden; wherein saith baronius he seems only to have done in words, that which s. ambrose pretended in deeds, which was to be esteemed incontinent, and unmerciful, so to hinder his being made bishop. but these extraordinary proceed may be admired, but ought not to be imitated. to say, that the ten tribes, notwithstanding their idolatries, remained still a true church; cannot but make any christian soul tremble, to consider to what damnable absurdities, and impieties they fall who leave the roman church. you falfify magallanus (n) in tit. 3.11. as if he with m. hooker affirmed, that, if an infidel (o) pag. 117. should pursue to death an heretic, only for christian professions sake, the honour of martyrdom could not be denied to him: which is contrary to the words and meaning of magallanus. for he expressly teacheth, that they do not participate of the grace of the church, but are dead parts, and consequently not capable of salvation: only he saith, that they may be called members of the church, because the church can judge and punish them. it is impossible that any catholic author should teach, that an heretic, remaining an heretic, (that is, actually and voluntarily, denying a revealed truth sufficiently propounded for such) can be a martyr. but such as you are may affirm what you please. the words of saluianus (p) de gnbern. lib. ●. which you cite, and say, that they are very remarkable, do only signify by way of doubt, whether some of the heretics of whom he spoke, and who in simplicity followed their teachers (as he expressly saith) may not be excused by ignorance. and since you affirm, that he speaks of arians, i would know, whether you do not think arianisme to be a damnable heresy, unless accidentally ignorance excuse some particular persons. 7. you say, that (q) pag. 131. the errors of the donatists concerning the invalidity of the baptism given by heretics, and of the novatians, that the church ought not to absolve some grievous sinners, were not in themselves heretical etc. neither was it in the church's intention (or in her power) to make them such by her declaration. if these errors neither in themselves, nor by the declaration of the church be heretical, i pray you, how are they heretical? may a man in these times hold them without note of heresy? so you must say, unless you grant the definitions of god's church to be infallible. for s. augustine professeth, that this point concerning rebaptisation cannot be determined out of scripture alone, as hath been said before. or if you say, this error may be confuted out of scripture, than you must grant that it is in itself heretical, which you deny. but no wonder if by denying the infallibility of the church, you be brought to such straits. i go on now to the next. chap. v. in this section, you handle three points. first, that the church is infallible only in fundamental points. secondly, that the general counsels; and, thirdly, that the pope may err in points fundamental. concerning the first, i have spoken in the first part; the second and third, are particular disputes, from which you ought to have abstained, if you had meant to have touched indeed the point of our controversy. but since you will needs fill you book with such particulars, i must also go out of the way, to answer your objections. 2. if i took pleasure, as you do, to fill my margin with quotations of authors, i could easily show how you mistake and wrong our schoolmen; as if they held that something which in itself is not infinite, but really distinct from the divine authority, were the chief motive of faith, the first and furthest principle into which it resolves: whereas their difference is only in explicating under what precise and formal consideration, god is the formal object of faith: some assigning the divinity itself; others, the authority of god commanding; others, which is the common opinion, teaching, that it is resolved into the divine, or prime verity: and lastly even those whom it seems you call unwise, and unwarry writers against luther, do not teach that the authority of the church is the chiefest, first, and furthest principle into which faith resolves; but at the most, that her proposition is necessary to an act of divine faith; either because they conceive that matter of faith ought to concern the common good of religion, and so require a public authority or propounder; or else because they hold that her proposition in some sort enters into the formal object of faith in respect of us; neither are the authors of this opinion only writers against luther, as you say, but diverse other schoole-devines. 3. whereas you say, that there is no question but that faith is supernatural, in regard of the efsicient cause, and of the object, both which ought to be supernatural; it seems you are willing to dissemble the doctrine of your great reformer zwinglius, who (a) tom. 2. exposit. fidei christianae fol. 159. out of his excessive charity, placed in heaven, hercules, theseus, socrates, aristides &c. (who had no supernatural faith, nor belief of god) as also the children of the heathens dying without (b) tom. 2. fol. 540. baptism. were not such charitable men, very fit to reform the church? 4. you fall again upon the sufficiency of scripture, which point i have already answered, & shown in what sense all points of faith may be contained in scripture; to wit, in as much as the scripture doth recommend to us the church, and divine unwritten traditions. neither can you allege any one catholic author, ancient or modern, who speaking of the sufficiency of scripture, excludes tradition, by which even scripture itself is delivered to us. and as for s. augustine, and s. basill whom you allege for the sufficiency of scripture, they be so clearly for tradition, that they have been taxed by some protestants for that cause; as likewise for the same reason some chief protestants have blamed clemens alexandrinus, origen, epiphanius, ambrose, hierome, maximus, theophilus, damascene, chrysostome, tertullian, cyprian, leo, eusebius, and others, as may be seen in (c) tract. 1. sect. 3. subd. 22. brereley. but though scripture alone did particularly contain all points necessary to saluarion; doth it follow, think you, from thence, that the church is not infallible? may not both scripture, and church be infallible in what they deliver? doth not yourself grant, that the church is infallible for points fundamental; and for the same points the scripture is also sufficient, and clear? which cuidently showeth, that you cannot deny, but that the infallibility of the church, may well stand with the sufficiency of scripture, & consequently to oppose either the scripture or church, is sufficient to make one an heretic: and this is sufficient for our purpose. yea, since you cannot deny, but that it is heresy, to oppose the scripture, and that you also grant that the scripture affirms the church to be infallible in fundamental points, it follows, that even according to you, every one who opposeth the church in such points is an heretic, even because he opposeth the church; although the further reason hereof be, because he opposeth the scripture, which recommends the church. so that all which you have said about the sufficiency of scripture alone, is in diverse respects nothing to the purpose. 5. you affirm, that (d) pag. 136 eckius, pighius, hosius, turrianus, costerus, do every where in their writings speak wickedly, and contumeliously of the holy scriptures. and because this is a common slander of protestants against catholic writers; i do here challenge you to produce but one, i say, but one only place, either out of any one of these whom you name, or any other catholic doctor, who speaks wickedly or contumeliously against holy scriptures. but be sure you do not confound speaking against scripture itself, with speaking against the abuse thereof, or against the letter of scripture wrested to some heretical sense; against which our authors speak, and cannot speak too much. and s. hierome with other father do the same. 6. you proceed, and say: the testimony (e) pag. 139. of the present church works very powerfully & probably, first upon infidels to win them to a reverend opinion of faith and scriptures etc. secondly, upon novices, weaklings, and doubters in the faith, to instruct & confirm them, till they may acquaint themselves with, and understand the. scriptures, which the church delivers as the word of god. thirdly, upon all within the church, to prepare, induce, and persuade the mind as an outward means to embrace the faith, to read, and believe the scriptures. but the faith of a christian finds not in all this, any sure ground whereon finally to rest, or settle itself: because, divine faith requires a testimony absolutely divine, and yet, our adversaries yield that the testimony of the present church is not absolutely divine, (to which purpose you cite in your margin some of our authors) and therefore it cannot rely upon the church. 7. this your discourse is neither pertinent, nor true. for the question is not, as i have often told you, whether or no, our faith be resolved into the authority of the church: but whether we may not truly infer, that whosoever resisteth the church in those points which she doth infallibly propose as revealed by god (which infallibility you yield to her for all fundamental points) be not an heretic, because at lest by resisting the church, he consequently comes to oppose the testimony or reuclation of god, which is the formal object of faith. besides, if the testimony of the church work but probably upon infidels, and novices, who by you are taught to believe that she may err (unless you will circumvent them, by dissembling her fallibility) they will have wit enough to tell themselves, that since she may err, and speaks but probably, she cannot work so powerfully upon them, but that they may still doubt whether she do not actually err, and deceive them. and how can the church work upon all within her, to prepare, induce, and persuade the mind to embrace the faith, to read and believe scriptures? are they within the church before they have embraced the faith? or must they want faith till they read, and believe the scriptures? or rather (since according to your principles all faith depends on scripture) must they not believe the scripture, before they embrace the faith, and consequently before they be in the church? how then doth the church prepare, induce, and persuade them that are within her, to embrace the faith, and to read, and believe the scriptures? if our faith must rest and settle only upon the written word of god, how doth s. irenaeus (f) lib. 3. cap. 4. affirm, that many nations have been converted to christ without scriptures? were they converted only to an humane faith? 8. and whereas you say, that the authority of the church is not absolutely divine, and therefore cannot be the last, and formal object of faith, it is but an equivocation, and you infer that which we do not deny. coninck whom you cite in your margin, and translated by halves, answers your objection in the very words which you allege. although (saith he) the church (g) disp. 9 dub. 5. conel. 2. be directed by the infallible assistance of the holy ghost, and in that sense her testimony do in some sort rely upon the divine authority, and receive from it strength (all which words you do not translate) yet it is not truly, or properly the testimony or word, and revelation of god, but properly it is a humane testimony. you see then, that the testimony of the church in some sense is divine, that is, infallibly directed by the holy ghost; which is enough for our purpose, although it be not divine in another sense, that is, her words are not the immediate voice of god, as scriptures are, because she doth not propose any new revelations, made immediately to her, but only infallibly declares what revelations have been made to prophets, apostles, etc. yourself affirm, that the church is infallible in fundamental points, and consequently her testimony is not merely humane and fallible, and yet it is not absolutely divine; and so you must answer your own argument: and you must grant that the church being infallible in some points, may be to us a ground sufficient for our infallible assent, or belief for such articles. and if you will tell us that faith must be resolved into some authority which is absolutely divine, as divine signifies that which is distinct from all things created, you will find yourself gone too far. for scripture itself, being a thing created, and not a god, is not divine in that sense. and the apostles, who received immediate revelations from god, when afterwards they did preach, and declare them to others; those declarations, (which supposed the revelations already made) were not in the opinion of many divines, the testimony or word of god, but of men infallibly assisted by god: and yet i hope you will not hence infer, that it had not been heresy to oppose the declarations of the apostles, although they did not preach new revelations, but only declare, and propound such as had been already made to them. 9 your words (which are indeed but words) that scripture (h) pag. 141. is of divine authority, the believer sees by that glorious beam of divine light which shines in scripture, i confuted heretofore. and what greater confutation can there be then by your own words, the believer sees. for if he see, how doth he believe? or if he believes, how doth he see? especially since you say he believes, and sees, upon the same formal object, or motive. yet that scripture is known by itself, you prove out of bellarmine, who saych: that the scriptures (i) de verb. deilib. 1. çap. 2. which are contained in the prophetical and apostolical writings be most certain and divine, scripture itself witnesseth. but these words will prove to be against yourself. for bellarmine in that place disputing against the swenckfeldian heretics, who denied all scriptures, saith: that, he doth not allege (k) ibid. testimonies of scripture as if he thought that his adversaries made any great account of them, but lest the scriptures, the authority whereof his adversaries did sometimes abuse against us who reverence them, may be thought to favour their doctrine. is this to affirm that scripture is certainly, and evidently known by scripture? or rather contrarily to say, that it must first be believed, before it be powerful to persuade? and therefore immediately after the words by you cited which are, the scripture self witnesseth; he adds these (which you as you are wont, leave out) whose predictions of things to come if they were true, as the event afterward did manifest, why should not the testimonies of things present be true? where you see, that he proves not the scripture by that beam of light which evidenly shines in scripture, but by predictions, which we grant to be a good inducement, or, as divines speak, an argument of credibility, and yet no infallible ground of faith to believe that scriptures are divine; and much less a beam of light clearly convincing us, that scripture is scripture. for one may be inspired to prophecy, or speak truth in some point, and for others be left to humane discourse, or error, as it happened in balam, and the friends of job. and therefore bellarmine in that very place, brings other extrinsecall arguments, as miracles, exemplar, and visible strange punishments of such as presumed to abuse holy scripture etc. which evidently shows, that he intended to bring arguments of credibility, and not infallible grounds of faith, whereby we believe that scripture is scripture, which we must take from the infallible testimony of the church by means of tradition, whereof bellarmine saith: this so necessary a point, to wit, that (m) deverb. dei nonseripro lib. 4. c. 4. there is some divine scripture, cannot be had from scripture itself. whereby it is manifest that you plainly corrupt bellarmine's meaning, when you go about to prove out of him, that scripture can be proved by scripture alone, the contrary whereof he affirms, and proves at large against the heretics of these times. the place which you cite of origen, only proves that those who already believe the canonical books of scripture may prove out of them, that scripture is divinely inspired, as s. peter (n) epist. 2. vers. 21. saith. neither doth the authority of saluianus prove any thing else. 10. your saying, that we yield to the church, an absolute (o) pag. 144.145. unlimited authority to propound what she pleaseth, and an unlimited power to supply the defects of scripture; i let pass as mere slanders. as also, that the authority of the church is absolute, not (p) pag. 144. depending on scripture, but on which the scripture itself depends. and you cannot be ignorant of that, which hath been so often inculcated by catholic writers, that the scriptures in themselves do not depend on the church, but only in respect of us, who learno from her what books be canonical scripture, which is to say, not the scriptures, but our weak understanding, and knowledge of scripture relies on the church, which our saviour christ commands us to hear. and yourself grant, that the church (q) pag. 142.143. is the ordinary outward means to present, and propound divine verities to our faith. you will not deny that your knowledge of the trinity, incarnation etc. depends on scripture, will you thence in far that the blessed trinity, incarnation etc. in themselves depend on scripture? as if god had not been god, unless scripture had been written. besides, to such as believe scripture we may prove the church herself by scripture, and she in all her definitions doth consult, examine, and submit herself to scripture, against which she never did, nor ever can define any thing; & in this sense also she depends on scripture. but to make good your slander, you (r) pag. 144. cite bellarmine, after your wont fashion. if we take away (s) de effect. sacram. lib. 2. cap. 25. § tertium testimonium the authority of the present church of rome, (this of rome is your addition) and of the trent-councell, the decrees of all other ancient counsels, and the whole christian faith may be questioned as doubtful, for the strength of all doctrines, and of all counsels depends upon the authority of the present church. would not one think by these words that the strength of all doctrines depends on the church? whereas bellarmine only saith, that we could not infallibly know, that there were such general counsels, and that they were law full counsels, and that they defined this or that; but because the present church which cannot err doth so believe, and teach us. which words demonstrate, that bellarmine doth not speak of faith, or doctrines in themselves, but in respect of us. and do not you yourself teach that it is the church, which directs us to scripture, and that she likewise is the ordinary outward means to present, and propound divine verities, without which propesition no object can be conveyed to our (t) pag. 142.143. faith? and what is this, but to acknowledge, that in the ordinary way, without the guidance, direction, and proposition of the church we have no faith at all. 11. you likewise cite these words out of (u) de eccles. mil. lib. 3. cap. 10 §. ad haec necesse est. bellarmine: the scriptures, traditions, and all doctrines whatsoever depend on the testimony of the church (he means say you, that of rome) without which all are wholly uncertain. but bellarmine's words are these: since the scriptures, traditions, and all doctrines whatsoever depend upon the testimony of the church, all things willbe uncertaync, unless we be most assured which is the true church. you see bellarmine speaks not of the particular church of rome, as you in your parenthesis would make him seem to speak. and as for the universal true church, what principle of atheis. me is it, (as you very exorbitantly (w) pag. 145 affirm) to say, that if we did not know which were the true church, we could have no certainty of scriptures, traditions, or any thing else? do you think that it were safe to take the scriptures upon the credit of a false church? as well might you take them upon the credit of turks, or infidels. and therefore, not the assertion of bellarmine, but the contrary to it, is a plain principle of atheism. do not you prove the necessity of a perpetual visible true church, because other wise men should want that ordinary means which god hath appointed for our instruction, direction, & salvation? now, if we might have scriptures, and true faith from a false church, your more zealous brethren, who deny a perpetual visible true church, might easily answer all your arguments, and tell you, that a true church is not necessery for faith, and salvation. and beside, is it not in effect all one to say (for as much as concerns our instruction) christ hath no visible church; & to say, that we cannot know which is the true visible church of christ? all the infallibility which we ascribe to the church, is acknowledged to proceed from the assistance of god; how can he be said not to believe a god, who believes the church, because she is assisted by god? remember that even now i told you, that according to your own affirmation, the church is the ordinary means whereby divine truth is conveyed to the understanding: and yet you think yourself free from atheism. the apostles of themselves, were but mortal, frail, & subject to error, and yet i hope, you will not think it a principle of atheism to say, that all our faith depends on them. 12. you tax us for teaching, that much of the matter, or object of faith is not contained in scripture any way. but i have already more than once said, that we believe nothing but what is contained in scripture in some sort, either in itself, or from some principle from which it may be certainly deduced, or in those places of scripture which recommend the church, & unwritten traditions to us; as if one should in his last testament express diverse particulars, and should in the same testament refer the rest to some third person, whom be had fully instructed concerning his further will, & meaning; whatsoever things were performed according to the direction of that third person, might truly be said to be contained in the testament; although they might also be say not to be contained therein, because they are not mentioned in particular. and according to this explication, canus, and stapleton whom you cite, and other catholics are to be understood, when they teach, that we believe diverse things not comprehended in scripture. 13. but you ask, with what ingenuity (y) pag. 146. or conscience do they pretend scripture in each controversy against us, since by their own confession many of their assertions are mere unwritten traditions, leaning only on the authority of their church? i answer, that some points of faith are expressly contained in scripture, yet not so enforcingly as they might not be colourably eluded, if we took away the declaration of the church. some others, are not contained in scripture, any other way then in the general principles of the church's authority, and divine traditions; as, for example, that such books in particular are canonical writings. some others ar● comprehended in scripture, only probably. others are contained so clearly, that they may seem sufficiently evident to a man not perverse; and according to these diversities we do more or less allege scripture. if one were disposed to use such arguments as you bring, i might ask on the other side, to what purpose do you allege counsels, fathers, & reasons, if out of scripture alone you can convince all errors against your doctrine? may not divers arguments be rightly alleged to prove the self same conclusion? 14. once again, you return to the sufficiency of only scripture (that is, you return to speak nothing which concerns the question in hand) which you prove out of bellarmine, though herein (say you) as not seldom (z) 〈◊〉 14. contradicting both himseife, and his fellows. how consonant the writings of bellarmine are, both to themselves, and to the common doctrine of other catholic authors, this may serve for a sufficient proof, that all his adversaries could never show yet in all his works any one contradiction, but such as themselves had first forged, and then objected. and although in this general cause i do not willingly meddle with personal things: yet that you may learn hereafter to speak with more circumspection, but chief for the merit of a person, so eminent in learning and dignity, and yet more eminent in sanctity, i will not forbear to assure the world and you, that when some years since, a perion of high authority in the world, had made himself beneve that he had discovered many contradictions in bellarmine, d. dunne in a conference that he had with a person of honour & worth, from whom i received it, though i hold it not fit here to give his name, declared that there was no ground for this, but that all his works were so consonant and coherent to one another, as if he had been able to write them all in one hours' space. and if you, d. potter, be of another opinion, you shall do well to produce some instance to the contrary, which may show a real contradiction between some passage, and some other of his works, wherein it is odds that you will be answered, and he be defended. let us see also for the present what you bring to make good your asseveration. the cardinal (say you) grants (a) bellarm. deverb. dei interpret. cap. 10. ad arg. 1●. that a proposition is not the fide, unless it be concluded in this syllogism: whatsoever god (b) pag. 145. revealed in the scripture is true: but this or that, god hath revealed in scripture: ergo, it is true. if matters of faith must be revealed in scripture, as this reason supposes, than the proposal of the church cannot make any unwritten verity to become matter of faith: yet to salve the sovereign power of his church, he makes all the strength, and truth in this syllogism to depend on the testimony of the church, and by consequence the truth of the conclusion, which ever resembles the weaker premisse. so as if this be true, there is no truth in the scriptures, or in our religion, without the attestation of the church. but now how many corruptions, sleights, and untruths are couched in these lines? let us examine them a little. bellarmine having taught, and proved at large, that the interpretation of holy scripture belongs not to private persons, but to the church of god, which, in respect of us, is to judge of scripture, and of all other controversies in religion: and having made this objection against himself; if our faith depend (c) vbi supra upon the judgement of the church, than it depends upon the word of men, and therefore doth rely upon a most weak foundation; he gives this answer: the word of the church, that is, of the council or pope, when he teacheth as out of his chair, is not merely the word of man; that is, a word subject to error, but in some sort the word of god; that is, uttered by the assistance, and direction of the holy ghost: nay i say, that the heretics are those who indeed lean on a rotten staff: and then he comes to the words which you cited: for we must know that a proposition of faith is concluded in this syllogism: whatsoever god hath revealed in scripture is true: god hath revealed this in scripture: ergo it is true. of the premises in this syllogism, the first is most certain among all; the second is most firm, or certain among catholics, for it relies on the testimony of the church, council, or pope (here you break off, but bellarmine adds) of which we have in holy scripture manifest promises that they cannot err. act. 15. it hath seemed to the holy ghost, & to us: and luke 22. i have prayed for thee, that thy faith may not fail. but amongst heretics it doth rely only upon conjectures, or the judgement of ones own spirit, which for the most part seemeth good, and is ill; and since the conclusion follows the weaker part, it necessarily follows, that the whole faith of heretics, is but conjectural, and uncertain. thus fare bellarmine. and now wherein i pray you consists his contradicting both himself, and his fellows? perhaps you mean, because here he teacheth that every proposition of faith must be revealed in scripture; and therefore contradicts his other doctrine, that besides scripture there are unwritten traditions. but the vanity of this objection will by and by appear among your other corruptions, which now i set down. first, you see bellarmine's speaks not of faith in general, but only of matters of faith contained in scripture, his whole question being about the interpretation thereof, that is. whether we are to rely on the private spirit, or humane industry of conferring places etc. or else upon the church. and therefore; secondly, he saith not, as you cite him in a different letter, by way of an universal negation, that a proposition is not de fide, or not belonging to faith, unless it be concluded in this syllogism: whatsoever god hath revealed in the scripture is true: but this, or that god hath revealed in scripture &c. (from whence it would follow that nothing at all could be believed which is not contained in scripture) but he only saith that a proposition of faith is concluded in this syllogism; which includes no universal negation, but is meant only of those propositions of faith which depend on the interpretation of scripture, which was the subject of his discourse. and therefore i wonder why you should say in general; this reason supposes that matters of faith must be revealed in scripture. for, to teach that some matters of faith are in scripture, doth not suppose that all matters of faith must be contained in scripture, and yet all the contradiction that here you find in bellarmine must be this: such propositions of faith as are contained in scripture, are concluded in this syllogism: whatsoever god hath revealed in the scripture etc. ergo all propositions of faith must be concluded in this syllogism; ergo there are no unwritten traditions. a goodly contradiction! thirdly, where did bellarmine ever teach that the proposal of the church can make any unwritten verity to become matter of faith, as you speak? the church doth not make verities to be matter of faith, but only declares them to be such. fourthly, you leave out the words which clearly explicate in what sense the testimony of the church may be said to be humane, or divine; by which your argument to prove that the declaration of the church cannot be a sufficient ground of faith, had been answered, and your fallacy discovered. fifihly, bellarmine never affirmed, as you say he did, that the strength and truth of the minor in the said syllogism depends on the testimony of the church, but only that it is most certain among catholics by the testimony of the church, because, as i have often said, the church cannot make any one article to be true, but only by her declaration can make it certain to all catholics, as bellarmine said. sixtly, you leave out bellarmine's words, whereby he proves the infallibility of church and pope out of scripture; and accordingly in the scaventh place, that which he expressly saith of the uncertain conjectural ground of heretics, which can produce only a conjectural and uncertain faith, because the conclusion follows the weaker part you make him apply to the testimony of the church as if it were uncertain, which contrarily in the words by you omitted he proves to be most certain & infallible; and therefore the conclusion which relies upon a proposition delivered by her, is not subject to error. eighthly, you return to the slander, that if bellarmine's doctrine be true, there is no truth in the scriptures, or in our religion, without the attestation of the church: as if bellarmine had taught, that the truth of scripture, and of all christian religion depends on the attestation of the church which could not in you proceed from ignorance, but from a purpose to deceive your reader. for bellarmine in that very place which you cite, declares himself so fully and clearly that you cannot be excused from wilful slander. i will put down the place at large, that hereafter you, and your brethren may either cease to make the same objection, or else endeavour to confute the cardinal's answer. bellarmine then, makes this objection against himself: if the pope judge of scriptures, it follows that the pope or council is above the scripture: and if the meaning of scripture without the pope or council be not authentical, it follows that the word of god takes his force and strength from the word of men: and then he gives this answer: i answer, that this argument of which heretics make greatest account, consists in a mere equivocation. for it may be understood two manner of ways that the church doth judge of scriptures: the one, that she should judge whether that which the scripture teaches be true, or false: the other, that putting for a most certain ground, that the words of scripture are most true, she should judge what is the true interpretation of them. now, if the church did judge according to the former way, she should indeed be above the scripture, but this we do not say, though we be calumniated by the heretics as if we did, who every where cry out, that we put the scripture under the pope's feet. but that the church or pope doth judge of scriptures in the latter sense, which we affirm, is not to say, that the church is above scripture, but above the sudgment of private persons. for the church doth not judge of the truth of scripture, but of the understanding of thee, and me, and others. neither doth the word of god receive strength thereby, but only my understanding receives it. for the scripture is not more true or certain, because it is so expounded by the church; but my opinion is truer, when it is confirmed by the church. what say you now? doth bellarmine teach, that the truth, or certainty of scripture, or of the minor in the foresaid syllogism, depends on the church? but in the mean time how many corruptions have you committed in this one citation? 15. you cite (g) pag. 149. wald●●si to prove that the (h) walden. lib. 2. doct. fid. art. 2. cap. 19 §. 1. infallibility of the church is planted only in the church universal or the catholic body of christ on earth, comprehending all his members. but though we cannot allow of waldensis his doctrine in some points, wherein he contradicts the consent of other catholics; yet he doth not teach what you affirm, but only that the infallibility of the church consists in the succession of doctors in the church, which is against your assertion (pag. 150.) that the whole militant church (that is, all the members of it) cannot possibly err etc. and therefore the doctrine of waldensis is sufficient for our main question against you, that whosoever erreth in any one point delivered by doctors and pastors succeeding one another in the visible church, is an heretic, and without repentance cannot be saved, whether the point be of itself fundamental, or not fundamental. for waldensis maketh no such distinction, as you do: nay, which is directly against your present assertion here, and your doctrine else where, this author (doctrinal. fidei tom. 1. art. 2. cap. 47.) having prefixed this title before that chapter; that the pope hath infringible power to determine verities of faith, and to overcome and cancel all heretical falsities; doth in the whole chapter itself prosecute and prove the said title out of the fathers. and to the next chapter 48. having also given this title: of the prerogative of the perpetual immunity, and purity of the roman church from all contagion of heresy; he proves it in like manner through the whole chapter. you must therefore be well advised how you cite authors out of one place, without considering, or enquiring what they say in another. 16. together with waldensis, you cite sylvester, saying: the church which is (i) summa verb. ecclesia çap. 1. §. 4. affirmed not to be capable of error, is not the pope, but the congregation of the faithful. but this is a plain falsification. for in that very place he teacheth; that the pope using the council of cardinals, or his members, cannot err, but may err as he is a particular person. and then adds: in this manner is to be understood the gloss, caus. 24. q. 1. can. à recta. which saith the church which cannot err is not the pope, but the congregation of the faithful. so as you see that these are not the words of sylvester, as you affirm, but of another, which yet he interprets plainly against you. and that you may be wholly inexcusable, he doth here refer himself to another place, namely, verb. concilium. §. 3. where he expressly proves, that a council cannot err, no more than the church, because if the council could err, the whole church might err. for the church doth not meet together, but only the council, or the pope. adding further, that the doctrine of the church upon which s. thomas saith we are to rely as upon an infallible rule, is no other than that of the council. and as for the pope, he saith, that we must not stand to the pope's declaration, because he hath better reasons than can be alleged to the contrary; but because he is head of the church, whose office is to determine doubts in faith. and a little after he expressy saith: that the pope cannot err when recourse is made to him in doubtful matters as to the head of the church, because (saith he) this error would redound to the error of the whole church. and likewise in this very place of sylvester which you cite, he also refers himself too verb. fides. §. 2. where at large he proves the pope's infallibility, saying: that it belongeth to faith, that we rely upon the pope's determination in things belonging to faith or manners, because the church cannot err in such things, and consequently he, as head of the church, that is, as he is pope cannot err, although he determined without advice of the cardinals. with what conscience then, do you cite this author against his words, meaning, and design and ascribe to him words which he citeth out of another, and, as i said, explicates against you? and with the like fidelity, after sylvester, you do strangely allege the gloss caus. 24 can. à recta with an, et, as if the words which you cited out of sylvester (the church which cannot err is not the pope etc.) had been different from that gloss, whereas they are nothing but that gloss, and not the words of sylvester. 17. they (you mean catholic doctors) grant, that the infallibility of the church reacheth not (k) pag. 14●. to all questions and points in religion that may arise, but only to such articles as may belong to the substance of faith, such as are matters essential and fundamental, simply necessary for the church to know and believe. to omit others d. stapleton is full (l) princip. doctr. lib 8. contr. 4. çap. 15. and punctual to this purpose. he distinguisheth controversies of religion into two sorts. some, saith he, are about those doctrines of faith which necessarily pertain to the public faith of the church; others about such matters as do not necessarily belong to the faith, but may be variously held, & disputed without hurt or prejudice of faith. here is such a chaos of words, and corruptions, as i scarce know where to begin to unfold them. stapleton in the place by you alleged hath this assertion. the infallibility of teaching in matters of faith, granted to the church, hath place only in defining infallibly, and proposing faithfully those doctrines of faith, which either are called in question, or otherwise belong necessarily to the public faith of the church. and afterward he affirmeth, that those things belong necessarily to faith, and public doctrine of the church which all men are bound explicitly to believe, or else are publicly practised by the church, or else which the pastors are bound to believe explicitly, and the people implicitly in the faith of their pastors. by which words it is clear that stapleton saith not, that the infallibility of the church reacheth only to such articles as are matters essential, and fundamental, and simply necessary for the church, to know and believe, as you affirm; but to all points which are called in question, or which are publicly practised by the church, whether they be fundamental, or not fundamental: and therefore you do misalledge him when you say, that, he distinguisheth controversies of religion into two sorts: some are about those doctrines of faith, which necessarily pertain to the public faith of the church etc. for stapleton explicates himself, as you have heard, that whatsoever is called in question, or practised by the church, is the object of her infallibility, which is the thing we intent to prove against protestants; that to oppose, or question any one doctrine, or practise of the church is to resist an infallible authority, and consequently to be an heretic. and that stapleton never dreamt of your imaginary restraining the infallibility of the church to points fundamental, is clear by another place which you (m) pag. 40 cite as out of s. thomas and him, in this manner: some are primitive articles, of the substance of religion, essential in the object of faith. others are secundary, probable, accidental, or obscure points. for stapleton in that place saith, that certain doctrines (n) staplet. rel. controu. 1. q. 3. art. 6. are either primary principles of faith, or else, though not primary, yet defined by the church, and so, as if they were primary. others are conclusions deduced from those principles, but yet not defined. of the first kind are the articles of faith, and whatsoever is defined in counsels against heretics etc. of the second, are questions, which either belong to the hidden works of god, or to certain most obscure places of scripture, which are beside the faith, and of which we may be ignorant without loss of faith, yet they may be modestly, and fruitfully disputed of. and afterward he teaches, that whatsoever the church doth universally hold, either in doctrine or manners, belongs to the foundation of faith: and proves it out of s. augustine (o) serm. 14. de verbis domini. ep. 28.89.96. who calls the custom of the church, ecclesiae morem fundatissimum & sidem fundatissimam, consu●●udinem ecclesiae fundatissiman, authoritatem sta bilissimā fundatissimae ecclesiae. can any thing be more clear to show, that according to stapleton, the infallibility of the church reacheth further than to those points which you call fundamental, and that it belongs to the very foundation of faith, that we believe whatsoever the church holds? and that it is not lawful for any to dispute against such determinations of the church? which doth overthrew your distinction of points fundamental & not fundamental; though you allege the authority of s. thomas and stapleton in favour thereof. for s. thomas (o) 2.2. q. 2. are. 5. in the very place by you cited, after he had said, that there are some objects of faith which we are bound explicitly to believe; addeth; that we are bound to believe all other points, when they are sufficiently propounded to us, as belonging to faith. you might gain more reputation to yourself, and allow your adversary more ease, if you would once resolve to cite your authors with more sincerity. 18. to prove, that the infallibility of the church extends only to fundamental points, you also allege maldonatus, who saith: that he will not repugn (p) in joan. 24.26. if one will affirm, that those words 10.14. vers. 16. he shall teach you all things; be referred to those other words; whatsoever i have spoken to you: as if our saviour did say, that the holy ghost was to teach them nothing, but that which he himself had taught them. but do you in good earnest believe, that our saviour taught the aposlles fundamental points alone, which all christians are bound explicitly to believe? or will you say, the apostles were infallibly assisted only when they delivered fundamental points of faith? so you must say, if christ did teach them only points fundamental, and the holy ghost taught them only those things which christ had taught them, unless you will say, they were infallible without the assistance of the holy ghost. you see he had good reason to say, that (q) first part. cap. 2. num. 13. by denying the universal infallibility of the church, & limiting the promises of christ made to her, you opened a gap for men to say that the a postles in their preaching and writing were not universally infallible. and here i ask, whether it be not a fundamental error against faith, and salvation, to deny the truth of any one point sufficiently propounded as revealed by god? and since without question it is so, you must either grant, that the church can err fundamentally and damnably against faith, which yet yourself deny; or else you must yield that her infallibility reaches to all points sufficiently propounded as divine truths, whether they be in themselves fundamental, or not fundamental, which is as much as we desire. 19 against the infallibility of the church you bring a long argument, (pag. 157.158.) the force whereof is this: nothing according to us can be believed by divine faith which hath not been defined by the church: but the church hath not defined that she is infallible in all her decrees: therefore we cannot believe by divine faith that she is infallible in all her decrees. 20. before i answer your argument, i must reflect that you do not sincerely allege these words out of bellarmine; until (r) lïb. 4. de roman. pont. cap. 14 §. respondeo inprimis. a doctrine be declared or defined by the church, so long it might be either doubted of, or denied without danger. for bellarmine makes no such general rule, but only speaking of the opinion of pope john the two and twentith; that the saints do not see god before the resurrection (which is your own error) he excuseth him from heresy, because at that time the church had not defined the matter. where you see bellarmine speaks only of a particular point; which that pope not conceiving to be contained in scripture, and the thing having not been expressly defined by the church nor evidently known to have been the universal sense thereof; it was not at that time a matter of faith. and he himself before his death retracted his error. but to come to your argument, i wish you would be careful not to object against us, what yourself must answer. for do not you teach, that the church works upon all (s) pag. 139. within her, to prepare, induce, and persuade the mind to embrace the faith, to read and believe the scriptures? and that the ordinary means (t) pag. 142.143. appointed by god to present, and propound divine verities, is the church? and therefore we cannot in the ordinary course believe scriptures, or any other divine verity, but by the proposal of the church. but this doctrine (that the church is the first inducer to embrace the faith, and the ordinary means without which we cannot believe) is not proposed by the church, and therefore it is not a thing which we can believe. you likewise grant that the church is infallible in all fundamental points. and i ask in what decree, definition, or declaration hath the church proposed to us, that herself cannot err in fundamental points, especially with your addition, that she may err in points not fundamental? now, to your argument i an were: first; that it is not necessary, that the church should by any particular decree testify her own infallibility, because it being evident that she is the self same church which was founded by our saviour christ, and continued from the apostles to this age, by a never interrupted succession of pastors, and faithful people; it follows that she is the church of christ: which being once granted, it is further inferred, that all are obliged to have recourse to her, and to rest in her judgement for all other particular points which concern faith, or religion; which we could not be obliged to do, if we were persuaded, that she were subject to error. which yet is more evident, if we add, that there can be no rule given in what points, we should believe her, and in what not: and therefore we are obliged to believe her in all. moreover, since the true church must be judge of controversies in faith, as we have proved, it clearly follows that she must be infallible in all points. which umuersall infallibility being supposed out of the general ground of god's providence, which is not defective in things necessary, we may afterward believe the same infallibility, even by the church herself, when she testifies that particular point of her own infallibility: as the scripture cannot give testimony to itself, till first it be believed to be god's word, yet this being once presupposed, it may afterward give testimony to itself, as s. paul affirmeth, that, all scripture is divinely (u) 2. tim. 3.16. inspired etc. secondly i answer, that the church hath many ways declared her own infallibility. which she professeth even in the apostles creed, i believe the holy catholic church. for she could not be holy, if she were subject to error in matters of faith, which is the first foundation of all sanctity; she could not be catholic, or universal for all ages, if at any time she could err, and be author that the whole world should err in points revealed by god; she could not be one, or apostolical, (as she professeth in another creed) if she were divided in points of faith, or could swerve from the doctrine of the apostles; she could not be always existent and visible, because every error in faith destroys all faith, & the church. so that while the church, and every faithful person, believes & professes the sanctity, universality, unity, and perpetual visibility of the church; she, and they believe & proclaim her infallibility in all matters of faith: which she doth also avouch by accursing all such as believe not her definitions; and while in all occasions of emergent controversies, she gathers counsels to determine them, without examining whether they concern points fundamental, or not fundamental; while in all such holy assemblies, she saith with the first council; it hath (w) act. 15. seemed to the holy ghost and us, while she proposeth diverse points to be believed, which are not contained in scripture; as that those who are baptised by heretics, cannot without sacrilege be rebaptised; that baptism of infants is lawful; that easter is to be kept at a certain time against the heretics called quartadecimani; that the blessed virgin, the most immaculate mother of god, was eternally a most pure virgin; that such particular matter and form is necessary for the validity of sacraments; that such particular books, chapters, and lines are the word of god, with diverse such other points; of all which we may say, that which s. augustine said about rebaptisation of heretics: the obscurity of this question (x) lib. 1. cont. donat, cap. 7. before the schism of donatus did so move mon of great note, and fathers and bishops endued with great charity, to debate and doubt without breach of peace: that for a long time in several regions there were diverse and doubtful decrees, till that which was truly believed was undoubtedly established by a full council of the whole world. and yet the point declared in that council was neither fundamental, in your sense, nor contained in scripture. and to the same effect are the words of s. ambrose, who speaking of the heretics, condemned in the council of nice, saith that, they were not condemned by humane (y) lib. 1. defid. ad gratian. cap. 5. industry, but by the authority of those fathers: as likewise the last general council of trent defines; that it belongs to the church (z) 1. sess. 4. to judge of the true sense, and interpretation of scripture, which must needs suppose her infallibility. and lastly, the thirst that every one, who desires to save his soul, feels in his soul to find out the true church; and the quiet which every one conceives he shall enjoy, if once he find her, shows that the very sense, and feeling of all christians is, that the church is infallible. for otherwise what great comfort could any wiseman conceive to be incorporated in a church, which is conceived to be subject to error in matters of faith? 21. for want of better arguments you also allege (a) pag. 161. some authors within the roman church of great learning (as you say) who have declared their opinion, that any particular churches, (and by consequence the roman) any counsels though general, may err. but though that which you affirm were true, it would fall short of proving that the catholic church is not infallible in all points. for, besides particular churches, or general counsels, there is the common consent of all catholics, known by perpetual sacred tradition; and there is likewise the continued succession of bishops and pastors, in which if one should place an universal infallibility, it were sufficient to overthrew your assertion of the fallibility of the church. and even yourself teach, that the church is infallible in all fundamentals, and yet you affirm that any particular, or general council may err, even to heresy, or fundamental, and damnable errors: and therefore you must grant, that according to your principles, it is one thing to say, general counsels may err, and another, that the catholic church may err. but yet for the thing itself, it is a matter of faith, that true general counsels, confirmed by the pope, cannot err. and if any hold the contrary, he cannot be excused, except by ignorance, or inaduertence. and as for the roman authors which you cite, occam is no competent witness; both because that work of his dialogues which you cite is condemned, and because he himself was a known enemy, and rebellious against the sea apostolic. besides the words which you cite out of him against the authority of counsels are not his opinion, but alleged for arguments sake, for so he professeth expressly in the very preface of that work, and often repeats it, that he doth not intent to deliver any opinion of his own. thirdly, whereas he allegeth reasons for, and against counsels, he allegeth but fine against them, and seven for them. lastly before he comes to dispute against counsels he doth in two several (b) dialog. lib. 5.1. part. cap. 25. etc. 28. places, & in the very beginning of those chapters of which the one is by you cited, deliver his opinion in the person of his disciple to be directly for the infallible authority of counsels. so as here is a double corruption, the one, the citing words for his opinion which are not so: the other, the concealing those which are his, and directly to the contrary clemangis his works are forbidden. that work of cusanus which you (c) concord. cathol. cite, he afterward retracted. panormitanus in the place (d) in cap. significasti. extra. de electione. cited by you, may seem to speak of counsels, disagreeing from the pope: and though he say, that if the council erred, it did not follow that the whole church should err, because the faith might remain in others; yet that doth not convince that he held a general council together with the pope might err: for canus hath the very same objection and answer, and yet, as we shall see anon, he holds it to be a matter of faith, that general counsels confirmed by the pope cannot err. nevertheless if panormitanus did hold that general counsels with the pope might err, he can only be excused, because he did not affirm it with pertinacity. petrus de aliaco hath indeed (e) quaest. in vesper. art. 3. the words which you cite: but they are not spoken by him as his opinion, but as the opinion of some others: & so he hath also the clean contrary proposition, viz. that a general council cannot err, nor even the remane church; which you might as well have alleged for his opinion as the other: but the truth is, that neither are alleged by him as his own doctrine but as the opinion of others, as i said, which he expreslly saith that he doth forbear to discuss for the present, contenting himself only with these three conclusions which express his own opinion. first, that always there is some church which is ruled by the law of christ (which according to his former explication is as much as to say, that there is always some church which cannot err.) the second, that it is not convinced out of scripture, that any particular church is in such manner conformed to the rule of christ's law. the third is, that it is convinced out of scripture, that always there is some universal church which never swerves from the rule of christ. neither will it advantage you, that he teacheth that any particular church may err; for as i have often told you, the roman church in the sense which i have heretofore declared, is all one with the universal church, and so his doctrine that the universal church cannot err directly proves, that the roman cannot err. and when he teacheth, that the universal church cannot err, he doth not distinguish betwixt points fundamental, and not fundamental, as you do. you cite out of canus these words: i confess (f) canus loc. lib. 5. c. 5. §. at contrà. that every cenerall council doth represent the whole church. but when you urge, that the church cannot err; it is true in that sense in which faithful people understand it; which is, that the whole church together, that is, all faithful people do not err: but this doth not hinder, but that the greater part of the church may err. i should scarcely have believed it to be possible for any man alive who pretends to have credit & common fame to pervert the sense of this author, as you do, unless i did see with mine own eyes both what you writ, and indeed what canus affirms. for in the chapter next precedent (g) cap. 4. §. tertia cō●lusio. to that which you cite, he having affirmed, that a general council confirmed by the pope makes a thing certain, and belonging to faith (in respect of us) áddeth, that this conclusion is so certain that the contrary is heretical, which he proves by diverse good convincing reasons, and among the rest, that if such a council could err, there were no way certain to decide controversies of faith. and in the place which you cite afterward, he impugns their opinion who affirm that a general council is infallible before it be confirmed by the pope, which they endeavoured to prove because the council represents the whole church, and therefore can err no more than the universal church itself. to which argument he answers in the words which i set down, and which you allege to prove that canus held a general council might err, namely: (but when you urge that the church cannot err, it is true in that sense in which faithful people understand it, which is, that the whole church together, that is, all faithful people do not err:) and therefore it is evident that you bring them directly against his words and meaning, & bring the objection for his answer. and besides what we have already related out of him, within five lines after the words cited by you, he saith, the council would be infallible if it were confirmed by the pope. i leave it to your own consideration, what judgement even you would frame of any other beside yourself, if he should cite authors in this manner. 22. you have no reason to be so much offended, that we equal divine unwritten traditions, with the written word of god. for we have so reverend an opinion of god's word, as that wheresoever we find it, our faith believes it to be most infallible: nor can we believe that pen, ink, and paper can add any certainty to the truth thereof. without cause also you accuse the roman church of supine negligence, because she hath not as yet given a catalogue of unwritten traditions, as well as of all the books of scripture. for you might also condemn the ancient church, which did not for diverse ages deliver any catalogue of canonical books, which yet afterward, she did as occasion required. and as the council of trent by reason of your heresies, whereby you denied diverse canonical books of scripture, set down a perfect canon of scripture: so, as just & necessary occasion may require, the holy ghost by which she is directed, will not fail to assist her in making a catalogue of unwritten traditions. i cannot find but that your modern brethren will gladly admit of some apostolical traditions against the puritans; and why then do you not make a catalogue of them, as you have done of the books of scripture? your famous archbishop of canterbury saith: for so much as the original (i) m. witgift in his his defence etc. pag. 351 & beginning of these names, metropolitan, archbishop etc. such is their antiquity, cannot be found, so fare as i have read, it is to he supposed, they have their original from the apostles themselves: for as i remember s. augustine hath this rule in his 118. epistle. and in proof of this rule of s. augustine he adds: it is of credit (k) vbi sugra pag. 352. with the writers of our time, namely with m. zwinglius, m. caluin, m. gualther; and surely i think no learned man doth descent from them. are not i pray you these, and the like traditions, upon which your hierarchy depends, of some consequence, and worth your labour to put them in a catalogue? or do you not hold the traditions of the apostles to be infallible true? 23. it is but a calumny to affirm, that (l) pag. 163. we receive the definitions of the church, with no less devotion than the holy scriptures. for you cite (m) pag. 169. that very place of bellarmine, where he (n) de cont. l. 2. cap. 12. setteth down at large five singular prerogatives of the holy scriptures above the definitions of the church, in which respect your fault is less excusable. it is your own doctrine that the church is infallible in all fundamentals, and yet you will not even in respect of such points, equal her authority with that of holy scripture. 24. at length you come to teach that general counsels may err even damnably, and yet you also teach, that their authority is immediately (o) pag. 162 derived from christ: and that their decrees (p) ibid. bind all persons to external obedience. but will you have men in matters of faith externally believe themselves, & dissemble against their conscience? and think that they do so by authority from christ? the truth is, that you might as well say, the church is invisible, as to say, that her infallibility consists not in general counsels, but in this, that every member of the church cannot err damnably: for, towards the effect of instructing men in doubts concerning faith, all comes to one effect. and with what colour of truth, do you say (pag. 164.165.) that you give general counsels much more respect, then do most of our adversaries, since catholics believe them to be infallible, which you deny? 25. but you would gladly prove, that counsels are fallible, because they are discursive in their deliberations, and (r) pag. 167. use the weights & moments of reason, for the drawing out of conclusions from their principles, wherein it is confessed they may mistake. 26. it is true, we grant that the church coins no new revelations, but only declares such to us, as have been already delivered in the written, or unwritten word of god; to find which out she useth means, by searching out true records of antiquity, by discussing the writings of fathers, by consulting the holy scriptures, traditions &c. because it is the will of god that she use such means. but the thing upon which she finally relies in her definitions, ex parte obiecti, is the revelation, or attestation of god, which is the formal and last motine of faith; and exparte subiecti, in behalf of herself, she relies upon the infallible assistance of the holy ghost, directing her not to propound any falsehood instead of a revealed truth. thus we read in the first council act. 15. cùm magna disquisitio sieret: after great search, & examination of the case, by citing scriptures, relating miracles, and the blessing of god, declared by the good success, and conversion of so many gentiles; the final determination did not rely upon these industries, but, visum est spiritui sancto, & nobis. it hath seemed to the holy ghost, and us: which words express both the formal motive, and chief efficient cause of faith, as also the free, and voluntary concurring of the apostles, assisted by the holy ghost. and yet i hope you will not out of these diligences, & discourses of the apostles infer, that this council was fallible: or that there was no more certainty in the conclusion, then in the arguments themselves, of which some, abstracting from the assistance of the holy ghost, and the authority of the apostles, were but, as the divines speak, arguments of credibility, and dispositions to faith, as miracles etc. or will you perhaps with your first patriarch luther, reprehend even this council of the apostles, and say with him: that james, whose (s) in assert art. 29. opinion the whole council followed, changed the verdict of peter, whose judgement, that the gentiles should not be constrained to observe the jewish ceremonics, was most true, & consequently the opinion of james and the council could not be true? you grant (as i must often put you in mind) that the church is infallible in fundamental points, must she therefore use no industry, to attain to the knowledge of such points? and protestants, who hold scripture to be the only rule of faith, use means of conferring text, consulting the originals, prayer, etc. for attaining the true meaning of scripture; and yet you will not grant, that your faith is fallible; because you will say, it doth not rely upon those said fallible means, but finally (as you apprehend) it rests in the word of god. and if any catholic author equal the definitions of the church with the holy scripture, his meaning is, that both the one, and the other, are so infallible, that they cannot deliver any untruth. for in other respects we grant many singular prerogatives to the holy scripture, more than to the definitions of counsels, as may partly beseen in (t) de conc. lib. 2. cap. 12. bellarmine. 27. your objection that the great council (u) pag. 170. of chalcedon corrected the second of ephesus, and that s. augustine saith, provincial counsels (w) de bapt. cont. donat. lib. 2. cap. 3. may be corrected by plenary, and plenary counsels, the former, by the latter, hath been answered a hundred times; and i doubt not but that you have read bellarmine who (x) de couc. lib. 1. cap. 6. shows that the second council of ephesus proceeded unlawfully, wherein s. flavianus bishop of constantinople was murdered by the faction of dioscorus, and the pope's legates were driven away, and finally the eutichian heresy was confirmed: for which causes that council was annulled by pope leo. you have picked out a pretty example to prove that lawful counsels, confirmed by the pope may err. to the words of s. augustine, bellarmine answers, that (y) de consul. lib. 2. c. 7. §. respondeo primò. either they are understood of unlawful counsels, such as was the second of ephesus; or else, they are to be understood of questions concerning matter of fact, as whether caecilianus had delivered up the bible; or finally, that latter counsels may be said to correct the former, because some decrees which concern manners may by change of circumstances prove inconvenient, although in the beginning, they were very holy and fit. which interpretation is gathered out of s. augustine himself, who saith: that counsels may be corrected, when experience doth manifest something which before did not appear. now, experience hath no place in universal doctrines, but in particular facts, or laws, which respect particular circumstances of time, and place etc. your second citation in your margin out of s. augustine, (a) lib. 3. count. maxim. whose words you did not recite, bellarmine answers in the place which i have cited now. and heretofore i have declared at large in what sense, and upon what occasion, and reason, s. augustine against the donatists made recourse to scripture alone. 26. you begin to impugn the pope's infallibility, by saying, that charity-mistaken means by his infallible church, only the pope. which saying of yours doth well declare how fallible your affirmations are. and that if the pope define that to be white, which the eye judges to be black, it must be so admitted by us, you pretend to prove, out of i know not what papers of the jesuites found in milan, in witness whereof you allege paulus soarpius, a seditious, scandalous, and condemned author: & we must by no means believe you without better proof. you cite also out of bellarmine, these words: if he (the pope) should (b) de rom ●. pont. lib. 4. c. 5. §§. quodantens. err, and command the practice of vice, or forbidden the exercise of virtue, the church were bound in conscience to believe vices to be good, and virtues to be bad. who would not think by these words of bellarmine, as you corrupt him, that indeed we might believe vice to be good, and vertueil? the direct contrary whereof he affirms; and from thence infers that the pope, whom the church is obliged to obey as her head, and supreme pastor, cannot err in decrees of manners prescribed by him, to the whole church. these be his words. if the pope did err in commanding vices, or forbidding virtue, the church were bound to believe that vice is good and virtue ill, unless she would sinne against her conscience. for in doubtful things, the church is bound to subject herself to the judgement of the pope, and to do what he commands, and not to do what he forbids: and lest she should sinne against her conscience, she is bound to believe, that what he commands is good, & that what he forbids is ill for the avoiding of which inconvenience he concludes, that the pope cannot err in decrees concerning manners, by forbidding virtue, or commanding vice. if one should prove that scripture cannot err in things concerning manners, because otherwise christians, who are bound to believe whatsoever the scripture saith, should be obliged to believe virtue to be ill, and vice to be good; would you infer that indeed we are to believe, virtue to be ill, and vice to be good? or rather that indeed scripture could not propose or command any such thing? this is that which bellarmine saith. but yourself is he, according to whose principles we might be obliged to embrace vice etc. for since you affirm, that the authority (d) pag. 1st. of general counsels is immediately derived from christ, and that, their decrees bind all persons to external obedience; and seeing you hold that they may err perniciously both in faith, and manners; what remains but that we must be obliged, even by authority immediately derived from christ himself, to err with the council, and at lest externally embrace vice. 29. you come afterward to discourse thus: these men (e) pag. 17●. deal not plainly with us, when they pretend often in their disputations against us, scriptures, fathers, counsels and the church; since in the issue their final and infallible argument for their faith, is only the pope's authority. it were indeed a happy thing, and a most effectual way to end all controversies if people would submit themselves to some visible living judge, by whom they might be instructed, & by whom it might be declared who allege scriptures, and father's right or wrong. which since you, and your brethren refuse to do, no wonder, if we be constrained to allege scriptures, and fathers, as you likewise do, though you say, that scripture is infallible, and that all controversies must be decided by it alone. besides, though the pope be infallible, yet he is not so alone, as if he did exclude all other infallible means: for scriptures, general counsels, and the consent of the whole catholic church are also infallible. and therefore (as i was saying) it is no wonder that we allege other arguments besides the decrees of pope's alone. for since in our disputes with you, we abound with all kind of arguments, why should we not make use thereof? and if you will know the reason why counsels be gathered to the great good of the church, notwithstanding the pope's infallibility, you may read bellarmine, who gives (f) de rom. pontif lib. 4. cap. 7. §. respondeo id. the reason thereof. i hope you will grant that s. peter was infallible, and yet he thought good to gather a council, act. 15. for greater satisfaction of the faithful, and to take away all occasions of temptation in the weaker christians. what estimation antiquity made of the pope's authority i have showed heretofore. and if some who have written pleas, or prescriptions against heretics, do not without more ado, appeal (g) pag. 173. all heretics to the pope's tribunal, you have no cause to wonder; since commonly the first error of all heretics, is to oppose the pope, and the church of rome, and therefore they must be convinced by other arguments. tertullian in his prescriptions against heretics doth particularly advice, and direct that heretics are not to be admitted to dispute out of scripture, and that it is but in vain to seek to convince them by that means: and yet you hold that the scripture is not only infallible, but the sole rule also of faith: how then do you infer against us, that if the pope be infallible, tertullian should have appealed all heretics to his tribunal; since he doth not appeal them to scripture, which yet he believed to be infallible. and nevertheless the two authors whom you cite, tertullian, and vincentius lyrinensis speak, as much in advantage of the pope and church of rome, as can be imagined. if (saith tertullian) thou live (h) prescript. cap. 36. near italy, thou hast the city of rome, from thence authority is near at hand, even to us (africans.) a happy church, into which the apostles have poured their whole doctrine together with their blood. and vincentius lyrinensis calls the (i) in sus com. pope, and church of rome, the head, and other bishops as s. cyprian from the south, s. ambrose from the north etc. and others from other places, the sides of the world. and i cited these words out of him before, who speaking of rebaptisation, saith: then (k) in com. part. 1. the blessed stephen resisted, together with, but before his colleagues, judging it as i conceive, a thing worthy of him, that he should surmount them as much in faith, as he did in the authority of his place. of the opposition of some particular men to the pope we have spoken already, and in your saying that his authority hath been opposed by general counsels we will not believe you, till you bring better proof. that the divisions of the eastern from the latin church proceeded from the ambition, & pretensions of the bishop of rome, you prove by the authority of nilus, a schismatic, an heretic, and a professed enemy of the church of rome, and of protestants also, unless they have a mind to believe that the holy ghost proceeds not from the son. and how can nilus affirm as he doth, that the pope refuseth to have the grounds of that dissension fairly heard and discussed in a general council? for under vrbanus the second a council was held at barium in apulia, where the grecian bishops being present, were convicted of error, in denying god the holy ghost to proceed from god the son, s. anselme (l) anselm. lib. de protes. spirit. sanct. our primate of canterbury being the chief disputant in the behalf of the latins. whereupon the grecian emperor that then ruled alexius comnenus became catholic, and caused the grecian bishops to hold communion with the roman church so long as he lived, baronîus tom. 12. an. 1118. as baronius showeth. and greater cause i have to wonder, that you would now revive this cavil of nilus. for to say nothing of the council of lions in france under gregory the tenth, baron. ad an. 1274. where the patriarch of constantinople was present, and other hierarches of greece to the number of 40. besides innumerable bishops and prelates of the latins, being more than a thousand in all, some kings being there in person, and all by their ambassadors, namely michael paleologus, and andronicus his son emperors of the east, in whose name their ambassadors recanted & abjured all errors against the roman church, namely that about the holy ghost: to pretermit (i say) this instance, who doth not know, that in the general council at florence, the matter was debated under eugenius the fourth, where the grecians with their emperor, and their patriarch, and the legates of three other patriarchs, and the armenians, and the deputyes of the ethiopians were present, and a perfect concord was then made: from which the greeks' departing afterward, were subdued and made slaves to the turk. and that they might see the cause of their destruction to be pertinacity in their error about the holy ghost, upon the very feast of pentecost (as bellarmine proveth) the city of constantinople was taken, their emperor killed, lib. 2. de christo. cap. 30. and their empire extinguished. and it is well known that the true cause of their dissension, whereupon a separation at last ensued, was the controversy between ignatius lawful patriarch of constantinople, whom the pope still kept in his communion, and photius an ambitious intruder into the patriarchate, by strength of the imperial power. which schism hath enlarged itself, by addition of the heresy, about the procession of the holy ghost. for want of better matter, you bring here that old objection about the counsels of constance and basil, defining that the council is above the pope. the answer whereof you may read in bellarmine, that (m) de c●. lib. 2. c. ●●. the popes who were deposed, were in time of schism, when it was not known who was the true pope; in which case the church hath power to provide herself of an undoubted pastor: to say nothing that two of those popes voluntarily renounced their pretence. as for the decree of the council of constance, that all aught to obey a general council; he answers, that either it is meant for time of schism, or if it be universal, that the council could not make any such definition of faith, because it was never confirmed by the pope, for as much as concerns that point. and the council of basill was in that particular expressly repealed by diverse popes; and the whole church received eugenius as true pope, who yet was deposed by that council. to disprove the pope's infallibility, you cite victoria saying: give me (n) relect. 4. de potest. papae & conc. prop. 12. add fin. clements, linus, silvesters, and i will leave all to their pleasure. but to speak no worse of latter popes, they are much inferior to those ancient ones. but you allege this author according to your wont manner, that is, very unfaithfully. for he in that place speaks only of dispensations in laws, the facility and frequency whereof victoria dislikes in these latter times; which being wholly matter of fact, doth nothing prejudice the pope's infallibility for points of faith. 30. to prove that there is nothing but uncertainty in proving the pope's infallibility, (o) pag. 176. you allege some place out of bellarmine, but with so great confusion and fraud, that they serve only to prove the certainty of your ill dealing. bellarmine distinguishes two questions: the one, whether s. peter had any successor in being head of the church, and this he saith is most certain, and de iure divino, or by divine institution. the other: whether it be de iure divino, or of divine institution, that s. peter's successor must be the particular bishop of rome, and this he saith is not so certain (though it be true) because if s. peter had placed his sea in some other city, or else had chosen no particular city at all; yet his successor had been, iure divino, head of the church; howbeit in that case, he had not been the particular bishop of rome. nevertheless, because s. peter did in fact, choose rome, it is upon that supposal a matter of faith, that the bishop of rome, & s. peter's successor is all one. as for example by the law of god all lawful superiors are to be obeyed, and therefore though it be not of divine institution, that this or that man should be superior; yet supposing that in fact he be superior, the general divine law pitches, & fastens upon him, & obligeth us to obey him in particular. this being presupposed, let us now hear what you allege out of (q) de rom. pont. lib. 2. cap. 4. §. restant. bellarmine. s. peter sat many year's bishop of rome, & there he died you change the very question. bellarmine's words in the title of the chapter are: petrum romae usque admortem episcopum fuisse. that s. peter was bishop of rome till his death. and he explains his meaning to be, that s. peter was bishop of rome, and that he kept that bishopric till his death: which is a different thing from what you say; that s. peter sat many year's bishop of rome, and there he died. for he might have been many year's bishop of rome, and also died at rome, and yet not died bishop of rome; as one may be bishop of london for some years, and die at london, & yet not dye bishop of london. now bellarmine saith, that s. peter died bishop of rome, which indeed was the main point; and proves, that the bishop of rome is s. peter's successor; whereas to dye at rome is accidental to his being bishop of rome, and in fact diverse bishops of rome died in france, and else where. but let us go on. you say that the first reason by which bellarmine proves that s. peter died bishop of rome, is so weak, that himself saith only suadere videtur, it seems to persuade. this bellarmine saith only of one reason, besides which he bringeth diverse other demonstrations: neither is it necessary for the certainty of any truth, that every reason for it, be evident. and it is the doctrine of philosophers, that the best method is, to begin with probable arguments, and then to ascend to demonstrations. moreover in this very subject vdalricus velenus, a lutheran, wrote a book to prove that s. peter was never at rome, and to that purpose he brings eighteen reasons, which he calls persuasions, & yet he holds them for evident demonstrations. if then bellarmine, out of his great modesty say, that his first reason seems to persuade, must you thence infer, that it doth not demonstrate? and indeed it is a very good, and solid argument. after this you go forward, and cite bellarmine saying: there god commanded him to fix his chair, & to leave his full power to his heirs and successors, the popes. and then you add: but what certainty of this? indeed (saith bellarmine) it is no where (r) de rom. pont. lib. 2. cap. 12. §. ob seruandum est tertiò. expressed in scripture, that the pope (you should add of rome, as bellarmine hath it) succeeds peter, & therefore happily it is not of divine right that he succeeds him; yet, it is not improbable, that (s) ibid. § et quontam. god commanded him to fasten his seat at rome, and it may be devoutly so believed. and it may be truly believed, that you corrupt bellarmine. first, when you speak of popes, you leave out, of rome, in which word consisteth the main point. for bellarmine teaches, that it is most certain, and de iure divino, that s. peter should have popes to succeed him, but he holdeth it not so certain, whether it be of divine institution, that his successor should be pope of rome; that is, have his seat fixed at rome, although the facto it be there. bellarmine's words are: it is not all one, that a thing be a point of faith, and that it be of divine institution. for it was not a divine law that s. paul should have a cloak, yet it is a point of faith that s. paul had a cloak. though then it be not exprsly contained in scripture, that the bishop of rome should succeed s. peter (thus far you go, and leave out the words immediately following, which explicate the whole matter:) yet it is evidently deduced out of scripture that some must succeed s. peter: but that he who succeeds him is the bishop of rome, we know by the apostolical tradition of s. peter; which tradition, general counsels, decrees of popes, and consent of fathers, have declared, as hereafter shall be demonstrated. and according to this clear explication he said a little before: because s. marcellus pope in his epistle ad antiochenos, writes that s. peter came to rome by the commandment of our lord; and s. ambrose (t) in orat. cont. auxentium. and s. athanasius (u) in apolog. pro fuga sua. affirm, that s. peter suffered martyrdom at rome by the commandment of christ; it is not improbable, that our lord did also expressly command that s. peter should so settle his seat at rome, that the bishop of rome should absolutely succeed him. but howsoever this be, at lest this manner of succession proceeds not from the first institution of the popedom, which is delivered in scripture. do you not see what bellarmine delivers for certain, & what for less certain? it is certain that s. peter must have successors; it is certain that in fact his successor is the bishop of rome: but it is not so certain, that by divine institution, his successor is the bishop of rome, but that might proceed from the act of s. peter, who actually lived and died bishop of rome, though he might have chosen some other particular diocese. these things bellarmine delivers very clearly; but you do so involve his words, as one would believe, that he held it for uncertain, whether actually the pope of rome be s. peter's successor, or whether it be certain, and of divine institution, that s. peter left any successor at all: both which are plainly against his meaning, and express words. 31. your other objections are so old and trivial, that they deserve no answer: i said already, that in time of schism the church hath power to declare, or elect a true and undoubted pope; and in the mean time god in his providence can govern his church without new definitions of popes, of which there is not always so precise necessity, as that the church may not subsist without them for a time; as for three hundred years from the apostles times, she was without any one general council; and as the jews for two thousand years were without scripture. if any should enter symonically, & be accepted by the church as pope, god will either not permit him to define any matter of faith, or else will assist him not to err perniciously, not for his own sake but in respect of the church which cannot be led into error, as she might, if that reputed pope could define a falsehood, because the members are obliged to conform themselves to one whom they esteem their head. and you yourself must say the same. for since all the spiritual power, and jurisdiction of your first prelates, was derived from rome, you must affirm, that a pope accepted for such by the church, is sufficiently enabled for all necessary acts and functions, notwithstanding that secret impediment: for otherwise you might endanger the authority of your own prelates. and the same you must in proportion say, of all public magistrates. the same answer serves to your other objection, that we are not sure whether he that is elected pope be baptised. for it belongs to god's providence, not to permit any whom the church hath elected for her head, to err perniciously, though indeed your suppositions are never to be admitted; but we are to believe that whosoever in a time free from schism, is accepted by the church for true pope, is such indeed. and i wonder you do not reflect, that these objections are also against your own bishops. or if you say, that your spiritual jurisdiction comes from the temporal prince, the same difficulty will remain concerning him. for i suppose you will not say that one who is not baptised, and consequently not a christian, can merely by virtue of his temporal power give spiritual jurisdiction. and though you say that it is not want of intention in the minister which can make void the sacrament of baptism; yet you will not deny, but that there may be other essential defects, hindering the validity thereof: as for example, if by error the water be so mingled, that it be not elemental water; or if the form of the words in baptism be not pronounced entirely etc. for in your form of public baptism it is said: that water, and; in the name of the father, of the son, and of the holy ghost, are essential parts of baptism: and this you have gained by your objections. and finally if your doctrine be true that intention in the minister is not necessary, the pope cannot (according to your doctrine) want baptism for want of due intention in the minister. you proceed. 32. no papist (x) pag. 180. in europe (excepting only those few, that stand by, and hear his holiness when he gives out his oracles) can be infallibly sure what it is which he hath defined. a goodly objection! as if there were no means to know what one saith, unless he hear him speak. for aught i know you neither have seen the pope, nor rome, will you therefore think, you are not sure that there is a pope, and rome? have you all this while spoken against a thing in the air, while you impugned the pope? can no body know what the apostles spoke, or wrote, except them who were present at their preaching, or writing? or can no body be sure that the bible is truly printed unless he himself correct the print? i grant that you who deny the certainty of traditions, have cause to believe nothing beside what you see, or hear. but we acknowledge traditions, and so must you, unless you will question both the preaching, and writing of the apostles. and beside hearing or seeing, there are other meaning, as history, letters, true relations of many, and the like. and thus we have answered all your objections against the fallibility of the church, counsels, and pope, without descending to particular controversies, which are disputed off among catholics without breach of faith, or unity. but here i must put you in mind, that you have left out many things in the sixth chapter of charity mistaken against your promise, notwithstanding that to answer it alone, you have employed your third, fourth, and fifth section. you have omitted (pag. 44) what it is that maketh men to be of the same religion: & (pag. 46.) diverse differences betwixt you, & us; as about the canon of scripture; five sacraments; necessity of baptism, and real presence; unwritten traditions; primacy of s. peter; judge of controversies; prayer to saints, and for the souls in purgatory: and so, that we are on both sides resolved to persist in these differences etc. why did you not say one word to all these particulars? why did you not answer to his example of the quartadecimani, who were ranked for heretics, although their error was not fundamental in your acception? as also to his example of rebaptising heretics, for which the donatists were accounted heretics, although the error be not of itself fundamental? the same i say of his example, drawn from the novatian heretics: and of his reason, that if disobedience to the church were not the rule whereby heresies, & schisms must be known, it were impossible to conclude what were an heresy, or schism: as also to his assertion proved out of s. thomas, that error against any one revealed truth destroyeth all faith etc. but necessity hath no law, you were forced to dissemble what you knew not how to answer. chap. vi this section is chief employed in relating some debates between catholics; and is soon answered, by distinguishing between a potential and actual unity; that is, we deny not, but that controversies may arise amongst catholic doctors, as well for matters concerning practice, as speculation: but still we have a judge to whose known determinations, we hold ourselves obliged to submit our understanding, and will: whereas your debates must of necessity be endless, because you acknowledge no subjection to any visible living judge, whom you hold to be infallible in his determinations. all the instances which you allege against us, prove this, and no more. for some of them concern points not expressly defined by the church: others touch upon matters of fact, and as it were suits of law in the catholic clergy of england, wherein you ought rather to be edified, then to object them as any way prejudicial to the unity of faith, because pope clement the 8. in his time, and our holy father vrban the viii. could, and did, by their decrees end those controversies, & forbidden writing books on all sides. 2. i wonder you will, like some of the country ministers, tell us that we have enlarged the creed of christians one moiety. and to prove it, you cite the bull of pius quintus, which is properly no creed, but a profession of our faith. and if this be to enlarge the creed, your church in her 39 articles, hath enlarged the twelve articles of the apostles creed, more than one moiety thrice told. for the church makes no new articles of faith, as you must likewise say in defence of your church-articles. was the creed of nice, or of s. athanasius etc. new creeds, because they explicate old truths by a new word of homoousion, or consubstantial? it is pretty that you bring pappus and flaccus, flat heretics, to prove our many contradictions. your comparing the decrees of the sacred council of trent, which you say, that both the dominicans and jesuites pretend to favour their contrary opinions, to the devil in the old oracles, is by your leave wicked; & which you might upon the same pretence as blasphemously apply to the holy scriptures, which all heretics, though never so contrary in themselves, do allege as favouring them: which is a sufficient argument to show against protestants, that no writing, though never so perfect, can be a sufficient judge to decide controversies. and you were ill advised, to make this objection against the council of trent, since in his majesty's declaration before the 39 articles, printed 1631. it is said: we take comfort in this, that even in those curious points in which the present differences lie, men of all sorts, take the articles of the church of england to be for them. and it is worthy the observation, that the difference betwixt the dominicans and jesuits, (who as you say do both pretend to have the council of trent on their sides) is concerning a question, which you conceive to be the same with that which is disputed among protestants, and in which protestants of all sorts take the articles of the church of england to be for them. your demand, why the pope determines not that controversy betwixt the dominicans and jesuits, might as well be made against the whole ancient church, which did not determine all controversies at once, nor on a sudden, but after long, and mature deliberation, sooner, or latter, as occasion did require in the mean time, the pope hath commanded, that neither part censure the other; and his command is most religiously observed by them, with a readiness to submit their judgement, when the holy ghost shall inspire him to decree it, one way or other. and who assured you, that the point wherein these learned men differ, is a revealed truth, or capable of definition, or is not rather (as you speak) by plain (b) pag. 112. scripture indeterminable, or by any other rule of faith. 3. it is worthy to be observed, that after you had told us that the dissentious of the church of rome are of greater importance, than any among the reformed; you can name only two, which may have any colour of difficulty, the rest being mere scholastical disputations in obscure points for the better explanations of the mysteries of our faith against infidels, and heretics. the one concerns the pope's authority: and in particular his superiority above counsels; to which we have answered more than once: & all catholics agree that he is the vicar of christ, the successor of s. peter, & the visible head of the church, to whom all particular persons, and churches are subject. the other, is touching a contrariety between sixtus 5. and clement the 8. about the edition of the bible: which objection, adamus tannerus answers (c) adam. tanner. tom. 3. disp. 1. q. 4. dub. 6. ●. 264. so fully, that i have thought good to set down his words, wherein he affirms, that this question having been disputed in the university of ingolstad, for being satisfied concerning the truth, he wrote to f. ferdinandus alberus, (who afterward was vicar general of the society of jesus,) and he by letters dated 28. aug. 1610. answered in these words, which i have thought best to set down in latin, as they lie (the sum of them being this, that the decree of sixtus was never sufficiently promulgated;) that such as have not the book itself, may read them here. circa biblia sixtina, post diligentem inquisitionem & discussionem, hanc denique responsionem dederunt ij, qui huic rei incumbebant, qua omnis tollitur difficultas, & cui omnes meritò acquiescent. responsio sic habet. certum est, bullam de ijs biblijs non fuisse promulgatam; cuius rei certissimum indicium est, in registro huiusmodi promulgationem non reperiri: & illustrissimus cardinalis bellarminus testatur, se cùm ex gallia romam redijsset, à pluribus cardinalibus audivisse, bullam illam non fuisse promulgatam, & id quidem illi se certissimè scire aff●rmabant. and the same f. alberus addeth: sciat praetereà r. v haec eadem ex s. d. n. (pope paul the 5.) habita fuisse, ut tutò his adhaerere liceat, & oporteat. and in his letters dated the 4. of september in the same year 1610. for confirmation of the same matter, he adjoineth these words: item p. azor, ●o ipso tempore, quo caeperunt (typis) publicari illa biblia, cùm instarent aliqui, papam posse errare, quia videbatur iam errasse de facto in biblijs; respondit publicè p. azar. bullam illam non fuisse publicatam, quamuis in impressione legeretur subscriptio cursorum; nam hoc factum fuisse per anticipationem typographi, ita iubente pontifice, ne impressio tardaretur. huius rei testis est p. andraeas eudaemon-ioannes, qui tunc aderat disputationi. thus he. and besides all this, po. sixtus himself marking that diverse things had crept in which needed a second review, had declared that the whole work should be reexamined, though he could not do it by reason he was prevented by death, as is affirmed in the preface before the bible set forth by pope clement the 8. 4. if any catholic writers teach absolutely, that it is sufficient to believe with an implicit faith alone, you know and acknowledge (pag. 198. and 71. and 241.) they are rejected by the rest. and yet that doctrine is neither so absurd, nor dangerous as the opinion of m. hooker, and d. morton as you relate, with much show of favouring them; who yet not only grant, that one may be ignorant of some fundamental articles, but also may deny them, without ceasing to be a member of the church: no, nor so hurtful, as your own doctrine, who must (if your distinction of points be to any purpose) teach that an error against a revealed truth in points not fundamental, is not damnable. yea after you have set down the creed, as a perfect summary (d) pag. 241. of those fundamental truths, wherein consists the unity of faith, and all men are bound actually to know necessitate praecepti; you add, but happily not so, necessitate medij, vel finis; so that upon the matter (speaking of things to be believed necessitate medij, it will not be easy for you to free yourself, even from that for which you impugn the authors who do at least say, that we must believe all articles implicitly, in the explicit belief of the article of the catholic church: and yet that article you do not believe as you ought, while you deny her universal infallibility in propounding divine truths. 5. i will end with a notorious falsification which i find almost in the end of this your section. for, in your first edition (pag. 65. marg.) you cite tanner saying (in colloquio ratisbon. sess. 9) if the prelates of the church did err in defining any doubt, christian people by virtue of such a government, might, yea ought to err. and these words you bring to prove, that whatsoever the pope, assisted with some few of his cardinals and prelates, shall define, that must be received though it be false and erroneous; wherein you discover either intolerable ignorance, or supine negligence, or wilful malice. for tannerus in that place proves the infallibility of the church, that is, of the prelates of the church, because the people are obliged to believe their pastors; and since it is absurd to say, that they can be obliged to believe that which is erroneous, it follows that the prelates of god's church cannot define any error: yea, in express terms he saith; (f) fol. 100l. i say not, that the pope is to be obeyed, when he errs; but say only, that if the superior might err, & yet were endued with public authority, the people might be led to error. and in this very same manner, you falsify bellarmine in your second edition (pag. 172) speaking to the same purpose, as i shown in this second (g) cap. 5. num. 28. part. lastly, i must put you in mind that you leave out the discourse of charity mistaken (pag. 64.) wherein he answers the vulgar objection, that we have differences among us of thomists, scotists, benedictins &c. and yet (pag. 84.) you bring this very same objection as freshly as if it bade never been answered. chap. vii. the main points treated in your seaventh section are: the distinction of points fundamental, and that the creed is a perfect summary of all fundamental points of faith. in answer whereof i employed the third, and fourth chapter of the first part. 2. you say, that the rule of faith, (a) pag. 216. being clearly, but diffusedly set down in the scriptures, hath been afterward summed up in the apostles creed: and in the margin you cite s. thomas, as if he did affirm that the rule of faith is clearly contained in scripture: whereas he rather saith the contrary in these words: the verities of faith (b) 2.2. 〈◊〉 art. 9 ad 1. are contained in scripture diffusedly, & in some things obscurely etc. so that to draw the verity of faith out of scripture, there is required long study and exercise. is this to say the scripture is clear, even for fundamental points? 3. i see not how you can prove that the creed contains all fundamentals, out of those letters called formatae, form; the manner whereof is set down by (c) ann. 325. num. 44. & 407. num. 3. apud spond. baronius. among other things one was, to write the first letter in greek of the father, the son, and the holy ghost; & of s. peter: the one, saith baronius, being to profess their faith against the arrian heretics of those times; the other, to show their communion with the catholic church; because he was esteemed truly catholic, who was joined in communion with the successor of s. peter. and this baronius proves out of optatus. whereby it appears that the intention of those form letters was not to express all fundamental points of faith, but particularly aimed at the arrians: & besides the articles of our creed, they contained the primacy of s. peter, teaching us that it is necessary for every true catholic to be united with the sea of peter. you cite the circular letters of sophronius, tarasius, pelagius patriarch of rome, and photius of constantinople & for those of pelagius you cite baronius (ann. 556. n. 33.) but the letters of pelagius which baronius sets down at large, do not so much as mention the apostles creed: and besides the four six general counsels, he professes to receive the canons which the sea apostolic (that is, the roman sea) hath received, the epistles of the popes, celestine, sixtus, leo, hilarius, simplicius, felix, gelasius (the first) anastasius, hormisda, john, felix, boniface, john, agapetus; and then adds: this is my faith. i wonder by what logic you will infer out of these letters, that the creed alone, explained by the first counsels, contains all articles of faith, since pelagius professes to receive diverse other things not contained in the creed. sophronius also (sext. synod. act. 11.) in his letters recites, and condemns by name a very great number of particular heresies, and hetetiques which are not mentioned in any of the creeds, and adds a full condemnation of all heretics. neither are you more fortunate or faithful in tarasius, who in his confession of faith doth expressly teach invocation of our blessed lady, angels, apostles, prophets, martyrs, confessors &c. as also worship of images, of which he was a most zealous defender against the iconomacht, and was the chief in the seaventh synod, who condemned those heretics. and since he was a man famous both for sanctity and miracles, we may note by the way, what persons they were who in ancient times opposed protestants in those iconomachis. photius likewise is by you misalledged. for he in his letter to pope nicholas set down by baronius (ad ann. 859.) wherein he maketh a profession of his faith, faith: i receive the seven holy general counsels. and having mentioned the six counsels, and what heretics were condemned by them, he adds: i also receive that holy, and great council, which was the second held at nice, which cast out, and overcame, as filth, the iconomachis, that is, the oppugners of images, who therefore were christomachis, that is, oppugners of christ, as also the impugners of saints. tell me now, i pray you, by what art can you extract out of photius his letter, an argument to prove, that the apostles creed as it was explained in the creeds of nice, constantinople, ephesus, chalcedon, and athanasius, comprehends a perfect catalogue of fundamental truths, and implies a full rejection of fundamental heresies (as you affirm pag. 217) since he expressly professes to receive also the seven general counsels, and that in particular, which condemned the impugners of images, that is, such as yourself and other protestants are? will you grant that the creed implies a rejection of the error of the iconomachis, or opposers of images, as of a fundamental heresy? who will not wonder at your ill fortune in mis-alledging authors? yet i grant that fraud can never be employed better, then to the disadvantage of him, who useth it. 4. you say, (d) pag. 226. to little purpose, that; the learned cardinal peron thinks (e) replique çap. 1. it probable, that the article of the catholic church, and the communion of saints is all one, the latter being only an explication of the other. but what is this for your purpose, which was to prove that articles not expressed in the creed, cannot be reduced to the catholic church; because no learned romanist will say that the new doctrines of the roman church are contained in the communion of saints? for cardinal peron only means, what he saith in express words; that the catholic church consists not in the simple number of the faithful, every one considered a part; but in the joint communion also of the whole body of the faithful: from whence it doth not follow, that the church is not she, who ought to deliver, and propound divine verities to us as she is the mother and teacher of all christians. doth not charity and communion in the spirit of love include faith; and consequently some infallible propounder of the articles thereof? the explication of azor, concerning the article of the catholic church which you bring, maketh nothing in the world to your purpose. i have told you already, that while we believe the unity, universality, perpetuity, sanctity of the church, we jointly believe her infallibility, and freedom from all error in faith. but it is a mere slander to talk, as if we held that she had sovereign and infallible power to prescribe, or define what she pleases. you say, that the creed is a sufficient rule of faith, to which nothing essential can be added, or may be detracted: as if the addition of material objects, added any thing to the essence of faith, which is taken, not from the material object, or the things which we believe, but from the formal object, and motive, which is the testimony of almighty god. 5. though it were granted, that the creed being rightly understood, contains all fundamentals, yet doth it not follow that protestants agree in them, both because they may disagree in the meaning of some of those articles; as also, because disagreement in any one point of faith, though not fundamental, cannot stand with the unity, and substance of faith, even in such points as both of them believe. as for the author of the examen pacifique, i have told you already, that he is no catholic. 6. you set down your own opinion about the necessity of good works, which you know is contrary to many of your prime brethren; yet, this i will not urge for the present, but only say, that you forget that charity mistaken, among other instances, alleges this to prove that all points of faith are not contained in the creed; to which you give no answer at all, but only tell us what your own opinion is. and that it may appear how you comply with your promise, not to omit without answer any one thing of moment; hear what charity mistaken saith to this purpose, in these words. s. peter saith, that s. paul in his epistles had written certain things, which were hard to be understood, and which the unlearned, and unstable, did pervert to their own destructions. s. austen declares upon this place, that the places misunderstood concerned the doctrine of justification, which some misconceived to be by faith alone. and of purpose to countermine that error, he saith, that s. james wrote his epistle, and proved therein that good works were absolutely necessary to the act of justification. hereupon we may observe two things; the one, that an error in this point alone, is by the judgement of s. peter, to work their destruction, who embrace it: and the other, that the apostles creed which speaks no one word thereof, is no good rule, to let us know all the fundamental points of faith. did not all this discourse deserve some answer from one, who professes to omit nothing? 7. but now you come to a new business, and say: if the (f) pag. 239. roman church be not guilty of manicheisme; why is single life called chastity, and commended as an eminent degree of sanctimony? as if (forsooth) marriage must be ill, because a single life is better. why do you not lay the same aspersion upon our saviour christ, who proposed chastity as one of the evangelicall counsels; upon s. paul, who saith that (h) 1. cor. 7. he who doth not marry, melius facit, doth better; & upon the ancient fathers, who so highly extol a single life? you cannot be ignorant but that among diverse degrees of chastity, catholic divines do also place conjugal chastity, which they hold to be good, and meritorious, though yet inferior to the other. 8. you go on, and ask, why marriage is said to be incompatible with (i) innocent. papa dist. 82. can. proposuisti. holiness, or with (k) idem. god's favour; nay counted a (l) bell. de clericis cap. 19 §. i am verò pollution worse than (m) coster. enchirid c. de caelib. whoredom? with better reason we may say, why do you pervert and corrupt authors against your own conscience? innocentius, whom you cite saith only: it is not lawful that they should be admitted to sacred functions (that is, holy orders) who live with their wives, because it is written: be holy, because i am holy, saith our lord. is this to say absolutely, that marriage is incompatible with holiness because it is incompatible with that holiness which by the church's ordination is required in priests? s. paul saith, that an unmarried woman (n) i. cor. 7. and a virgin thinks of things belonging to god, that she may be holy in body and soul. will you hence infer, that the apostle affirms, marriage to be incompatible with holiness, because it is incompatible with that peculiar holiness, which virginity is apt to breed? those words, be holy, because i am holy, are taken out of levit. chap. 11. vers. 44. where the jews are forbidden to touch certain beasts: and yet i hope you will not accuse god of manicheisme, as if the eating of such beasts were incompatible with holiness? the other words alleged by innocentius, those who are in flesh cannot please god, are understood, as i said, of that particular holiness and pleasing of god, which is required in those that take holy orders. to prove that bellarmine accounts marriage a pollution, you allege out of him these words: (o) de clericis cap. 19 §. jamverò. not only the marriage of priests, which is sacrilege & not marriage; but even the marriage of holy persons is not exercised without a certain pollution & turpitude. but why do you take pleasure in alleging authors against their own meaning? bellarmine to prove how congruous & convenient it is, that priests should lead a single life, after many authorities of scriptures, counsels, & fathers proves it also by reason itself, in regard that marriage is a great impediment to ecclesiastical functions; and beginning with the action of sacrificing, he saith: matrimony, as saint hierome saith lib. 1. in jovinian. hinders the office of sacrificing, because there is required most great purity and sanctity therein, as s. chrysostome in his sixth book of priesthood doth declare; and it cannot be denied, but that in the act of marriage there is mingled a certain impurity and pollution, not which is sin, but which arose from sin. for though caluin exclaim against pope siricius, who is so ancient that he sat an. 385. because he called the marriage of priests, pollution; yet that not only the marriage of priests, which is not marriage but sacrilege; but also the martrimony of holy persons is not exercised without a certain pollution and turpitude, appears by the rebellion of nature, and the shamefastness of men in that act, who always seek to be hidden, as s. augustine hath observed, lib. 14. de civitate dei. cap. 17. thus bellarmine: and indeed s. augustine in the next chap. expressly speaks de pudore concubitus non solum vulgari, sed etiam coniugali. and now what but malice can reprehend any one tittle in this doctrine of bellarmine? or rather in the doctrine of the fathers by him cited, which contains against you, sacrifice, & single life of priests? moreover you falsify both innocentius and bellarmine, who speak not of marriage in itself, of which you make them speak in your text, but of the act thereof; and therefore innocentius saith: qui exercent cum uxore carnale consortium; and bellarmine saith: non exercetur sine pollutione quadam etc. which is not even so much as to say, the act itself is pollution, but only, non exercetur sine pollutione etc. and this also not absolutely, but with a limitation, non sine pollutione quadam etc. for matrimony of itself, may stand with most perfect chastity, yea with virginity, as appeareth in the most immaculate mother of god. and at this day, a married man may be made priest, if his wife consent, and other conditions prescribed in the holy canons be observed. and whereas you say, it seems by s. augustine, they (the manichees) did not forbid meats, or marriage as absolutely impure, or to all: only their choice elect ones must obstaine; the other vulgar, their auditors, were left at their liberty: this objection taken out of peter martyr, is answered by bellarmine in the chapter next to that which you cited, that s. augustine lib. 30. contra faustum cap. 6. writes, that the manichees did absolutely forbid marriage, because though they did permit it to their auditors, yet it was only for that they could not do otherwise. you cannot (saith s. augustine) say that you do not forbid (marriage) because without breach of friendship you tolerate many of your auditors, being either not willing, or not able to obey you in this. thus s. augustine. but we do not only permit, or tolerate the marriage of christians, but do also commend them. and besides the manichees did so permit marriage to their auditors for satisfying their lust, that they jointly warned them to avoid procreation of children, which is manifestly to detest marriage. but catholics do therefore chief commend marriage, because it is known to have been instituted by god for the procreation of children. thus bellarmine. and now i hope you see how free he is from manicheisme, & that the places which in your margin you allege out of s. aug. to prove that some of the manichees might marry, are brought by you very contrary to his express words, in the place which now we have heard bellarmine cite out of him. the doctrine of costerus (a) enchiriae, cap. de caelib. that, though a priest be guilty of a grievous sacrilege if he commit fornication; yet he sins more grievously, if he contract matrimony, is very true, because matrimony in a priest is no matrimony at all by reason of his solemn vow of chastity, & the church's prohibition, as bellarmine (o) de matrim. sacr. l. 1. c 21. proves at large out of counsels & fathers: and so i say to you, with s. john chrysostome, though you call (p) in epïst. 6. ad theodorum. such a contract marriage, yet i esteemee it worse than adultery. what say you to s. chrysostome, who saith, that marriage after a solemn vow of chastity, is not only worse than fornication, as costerus said, but even then adultery? as s. ambrose also calls (q) in lib. ad virginem lapsam. c. 5. the marriage of a vowed virgin, adultery. now supposing this doctrine of catholics, that the matrimony of priests is no matrimony; it follows that by attempting to contract matrimony, besides the sins of fornication and sacrilege, he commits a grievous disobedience to the church, a sacrilegious irreverence against the sacrament of matrimony, which he celebrates invalidly; and may be presumed also to add a profession of heresy, as if the church could not forbid, or make void the marriage of clergy men; as in fact, luther, & such apostatas sinned not only against continency, against their vow, against the sacrament of marriage, against the precept of the church; but also against faith: & lastly both they and all priests that marry, do to the uttermost of their power, add a greater immobility in sin, then if they did commit fornication, without attempting to marry. but i beseech you doth he, who teaches that a double sin is committed by abusing marriage, teach thereby that marriage is ill, & unlawful; or rather doth he not show that in itself it is holy and must not be abused? if one should not only commit incest within the forbidden degrees, but also attempt to marry, should not he commit a greater sin by the abuse of marriage joined with in 〈◊〉, then by incest alone? or is it not a greater sin both to commit adultery, and attempt marriage with the adultress, while his lawful wife life's, then only to commit adultery? the one by the laws of the kingdom is punished with death, but not the other. so as it is clear that the doctrine of costerus cannot be blamed, but by such as oppose the church, and all antiquity, about marriage after a solemn vow of chastity. but if costerus deserve blame, what say you to your patriarch luther, who teaches, that (r) tom. 2 ger. fol. 214. if the council should grant churchmen liberty to marry, he would think that man more in god's grace, who during his life kept three harlots, than he who married according to the decree of the council: and that he would command under pain of damnation, that no man should marry by the permission of such a council, but either live chaste, or if that were impossible, than not to despair, though he kept a harlot. o holy reformer of the roman church! what can please these men? if the church permit them not to marry, they will apostatate under pretence of reforming her corruptions; if they be permitted to marry, they will rather choose to be infamously wicked, then to marry. in your first edition, you say, that marriage is (by us) counted a crime; and you prove it out of pelagius dist. 61. can. catinensis, where it is said: advise, that one may be chosen, who neither hath a wife, nor children, nor any crime repugnant to the canons. but with what conscience can you deceive your unlearned reader, since the latin, even as you allege it, hath the quite contrary to your english as is evident by the words which i have now set down, in which, marriage is distinguished from a crime? but what if after all this your objecting manicheisme to us, either yourself, or at least many chief protestants be found more liable to that heresy, if they will speak with coherence to their other grounds? for as the manichees in your opinion did not forbid marriage to all, but only to their elect: so do protestants say, that those who have the gift of chastity not only may, but aught to abstain from marriage, because they teach that there are no works of supererogation, but that men are bound to perform whatsoever god doth inspire them to; & consequently such elect persons should sinne against the law of god if they married, which is more than catholics affirm, who do not teach that the prohibition of priests to marry, proceeds immediately from the law of god. 9 you go from marriage to meat, and say: and for meats; (s) pag. 239. why is abstinence from flesh accounted a perfect christian fast, yea holy and meritorious? and why is he that eats flesh in lent, punished with a more grievous penance, than he that commonly blasphemes the name of god, or defiles his neighbour's bed, or abuses himself by drunkenness, or others by railing, slandering, etc. but these arguments might better beseem some illiterate railing lecturer, than a man of your place; especially in a treatise tending to pacification. for how do you think we can be saved, if we were indeed guilty of manicheisme, and such absurd impieties, as those whereof you talk. abstinence from flesh, is meritorious, not because flesh of its own nature is evil, as neither was the forbidden apple; but because obedience to lawful superiors is good: and if fasting to subdue the flesh, and overcome temptations were not holy, why did not the ancient fathers commend feasting, as highly as fasting? for i will not think you to be so great a stranger to the fathers, that you can be ignorant how frequently they extol fasting. and i desire to know, whether you do not think, that his majesty's laws, and in particular his proclamations about keeping lent, do not bind in conscience? and if you answer me at all, i beseech you forget not this demand; and whether the observation of them be not holy, and forasmuch as belongs to that particular object, a perfect cbristian fast, and meritorious in that sense, and degree, according to which you grant that other works are meritorious, or deserving a reward? for the other part of your objection, that he that eats flesh in lent is punished with a more grievous penance than he that blasphemes etc. you show how modest a man you are, and with all, that you are little seen either in the canon, or civil law. for the civil law commands, that (t) in authentiea, us non luxurientur homines. novel. 77. blasphemers should be punished with death, because, saith the law, hunger and earthquakes, and plagues, come by reason of such crimes. in the (u) cap. statuimus de matediçi●● canon law, blasphemers, beside other punishments, are to stand as penitents at the church door for the space of some sundays, and for some fridays to fast in bread & water etc. and by other decrees of popes the same sin is grievously punished, as in particular the council of lateran under leo the 10. commands, that none be absolved from blasphemy without a grievous penance: and to the same purpose julius iii. and pius v have made very severe decrees. nevertheless it is also true, that greater punishment may in foro externo, be appointed for some sins which are less than other, as s. thomas doth (w) 1.2. q. 105. ar. 2. ad 9 and, 2.2. q. 39 art. 2. ad 1. truly affirm. do not yourselves more usually punish such, as without licence eat flesh in lent, then them who take the name of god in vain, or abuse themselves by drunkenness, or wrong their neighbours by detraction? and beside, to eat flesh in lent may be an act of heresy, which how grievous a sin it is, hath been explicated heretofore. 10. by occasion of mentioning the manichees, you charge your margin, as your fashion is, with a deep piece of erudition, that the name (forsooth) of their founder manes, is conform to the greek word, which signifies madness. but if we delighted is take hold of such goodly occasions of vanity, we could say, that he was a persian, and his name was first cubricus, which he changed into names, which in the babylonian tongue signifies (x) epiph. haeres. 66. a vessel. but let us leave these toys to grammar scholars. 11. it seems you are willing of set purpose to mistake the point in question, which was; whether the creed contain all fundamental points of faith or no? about which charity mistaken, having instanced in some points of faith not contained in the creed, as the scriptures, and sacraments; he adds these words: besides that, there are (y) pag. 86.87. some great differences between them (meaning protestant's) and us about the understanding of the article of the descent of christ our lord into hell, and that other of the holy catholic church, and that also of the communion of saints, which we believe, and they deny to involve both prayers for the dead, and prayers to saints, as that we should not be much better, either for our knowing, or confessing that the creed contains all fundamental points of faith, unless withal there were some certain way how to understand them aright, and especially unless under the article which concerns the holy catholic church, they would understand it to be endued with so perfect infallibility, and great authority, as that it might teach us all the rest. this solid discourse you mangle as you please, still forgetting the promise you made in your preface to the reader not to omit any one thing of moment. for you answer not a word to his particular instances of prayer for the dead; or to saints; nor to his general exception, that we should not be much better for knowing that the creed contains all fundamental points of faith, unless withal there were some way of understanding them aright. if you answer, that prayers for the dead, or to saints, are not fundamental points, whether they be denied, or affirmed; then you must grant that you forsook the church of rome for things indifferent, and not fundamental one way or other. for these two points, and such as these, were the pretended errors, wherewith you seek to cloak your schism. to the other you answer; the church of england (z) pag. 240. questioneth not the sense of those articles; she takes them in the old catholic sense: and the words are so plain, they bear their meaning before them. why do you answer to these two points of the catholic church, and our saviour's descent into hell, rather than to the other which charity-mistaken doth mention? and in these two of which you take notice, why do you use so much tergiversation? why do you not plainly, and honestly acquaint us with the meaning of them. if you say, that by the catholic church is understood a church always visible, & not capable of error in fundamental points, many of your chief brethren will contradict that which you judge to be plain: and your church of england speaks so generally, art. 19 of the church, that, as it is affirmed in the preface, men of all sorts may take that article to be for them. and as for the other article of our saviour's descent, if it beso plain as it bears the sense before it, how comes caluin to understand it one way, brentius another, beza another, and other protestants in another, differently from catholics, with whom nevertheless some other protestants agree, who teach a lymbus patrum, as lascitius, oecolampadius, zwinglius, peter martyr, bullinger, and (a) vide brereley tract. 3. sect. 7. under m. num. 26. bilson, and we may add d. pott●er as one different from all the rest, who saith, the sense is plain, and yet he keeps it to himself. 12. but, the roman doctors (b) pag. 2●●. cannot agree among themselves about this article. is there any catholic that denies lymbus patrum, or that christ descended to hell as it signifies lymbus? yes; because, say you, (c) contr. 3 q. 5. art. 1. stapleton affirms the scripture is silent that christ descended into hell, & that there is a catholic, & an apostolic church. bellarmine (d) 4. d● christo. cap. 6. & 12. on the contrary is resolute, that the article of the descent is every where in scripture: and thomas grants (e) 2.2. q. 2. art. 9 ad 1. as much for the whole creed. what is all this to the purpose? it is one thing to disagree in the doctrine of chists descent, & another, whether that doctrine which they believe be proved out of scripture, or delivered by the church out of unwritten traditions. among protestant's who hold scripture only to be the rule of faith, it is all one not to be contained in scripture & not to be a point of faith; but not so with catholics, who besides scripture, believe infallible unwritten traditions. and whereas you say; bellarmine is resolute, that the article of the descent is every where in scripture, and in latin scripturae passim hoc docent: bellarmine's words are; all men agree that christ descended into hell aliquo modo, in some manner or sense, because scripture every where teaches so much. why did you leave out aliquo modo, which words might well have showed that there was no contrariety between bellarmine & stapleton. s. thomas doth not purposely dispute, whether all articles of the creed be contained in scripture, but only upon an other occasion teaches, that the creed is not an addition to scripture, out of which it is taken, & that the truths believed by faith are contained in scripture diverse ways, and in some obscurely; which doth in no wise exclude the authority of the church to declare the meaning of the creed. for if some be contained in scripture but obscurely, who shall declare them to us, but the church? 13. as, for the sense of that (f) pag. 240. article, some hold that christ descended really into hell. others, virtually, and by effect: this virtual descent is taught by one only, namely durand, and therefore your others is but an exaggeration; and even he doth not deny lymbus patrum, or that the fathers were there, nor that christ descended thither in some sort, but only differeth from others, whether he descended secundum substantiam: which doctrine, or rather doubt of his (for he leaveth the thing doubtful) is rejected by all other divines, as erroneous. 14. by hell some (g) pag. 240. understand the lowest pit, or the place of the damned, as bellarmine at first others the lymbus patrum, as bellarmine at last. would not one conceive by your words, that in the opinion of bellarmine, christ descended only into the place of the dammned? and yet your conscience cannot but tell you, that bellarmine never doubted, but that christ descended into lymbus patrum, and only proposed it as doubtful whether or no he descended into the hell of the damned, and resolved probabile est: it is probable that the soul of christ descended to all the infernal places, or hells. but afterward in his recognitions he retracted his opinions for as much as concerned the place of the damned; whereby it is clear, that he never doubted of our saviour's descent to lymbus; and that you affirming the contrary, do without doubt, desire to deceive your reader. 15. you say, that it is the most important (h) pag. 242. and most fundamental of all articles in the church to believe, that jesus christ the son of god, & the son of mary, is the only saviour of the world: wherein you give a deadly blow to d. morton, who teaches that the arians denying our saviour to be god, do notwithstanding make a true church: and if the opinion of m. hooker for which you bring diverse arguments, be true, you cannot exclude the arians, or trinitarians from being members of a true church. 16. to clear the confusedness of your church in her 39 articles, you lay the fault upon us. but by your leave, if you read, either catholic divines, or the council of trent, you will find, that they speak most clearly and distinctly. but charity mistaken doth truly say, that you are very careful not to be too clearly understood; and therefore in many controversies whereof that book (of the 39 articles) speaks, it comes not at all to the main question between them and us etc. which affirmation of his, is most true, both in the points by him specified, & in diverse others; as for example: the third of our saviour's descent into hell. the 26. of the nature and effect of sacraments. the 27. will have the baptism of children to be retained, but doth not specify whether or no it be necessary. the 28. about the lords supper, is so general, and of so large a size, that it may reach to zwinglians, caluinists, & lutherans, who yet in this article are known to be as fare asunder from each other, as east from west. i omit other articles, and only urge that which charity mistaken presseth, and you wholly dissemble, that: those articles do not so much as say, that the articles of doctrine which they deliver are fundamental, either all, or half, or any one thereof, or that they are necessarily to be believed by them, or the contrary damnable if it be believed by us. is this to keep your promise, not to omit without answer any thing of moment in all his discourse? certainly this which charity mistaken doth urge here, is according to your principles, the very quintessence of all other points. i will not stand to examine how truly you affirm, that our will is essentially free from all necessity. such motions of our will as prevent the deliberation of reason, are they not necessary? the will in good philosophy cannot suffer coaction, but it may be necessitated, without changing the essence thereof. 17. to the demand of charity mistaken; (why do they not particularly enumerate all the books which they acknowledge to be of the new testament, as they had done them of the old; but only because they must so have named those books of s. james, and others for canonical, which the lutherans have cast out of their canon?) you answer that the lutherans do now admit the epistle of s. james, and the rest, as canonical: which you prove by d. gerhard a lutheran. but if this be so, you do not answer his question, what the reason is, why your church doth not particularly enumerate all the books which they acknowledge to be of the new testament, as she had done them of the old? besides, what authority had d. gerhard to speak for all the lutherans, of which there be diverse sorts, condemning one another? if once you deny the infallibility of the church, what infallible ground hath d. gerhard this day to admit of those books, which yesterday other lutherans rejected? in the bibles of luther to this day, the epistle to the hebrews, the epistle of s. james, and s. jude, and the apocalyps of s. john, are excluded from the canon. 18. now that none of those books which we hold for canonical, be apocryphal, as you teach, bellarmine (m) de verbo dei l. 1. per multa çapita proves at large, and answers all your objections. and if any heretofore doubted of some of them, the authority of the visible catholic church of christ ought to preponderate all doubts of particular persons. and it is strange that you cite s. augustine against the maccabees, who in that very place which you cite, saith: the scripture (n) cont. ep. gaudent. lib. 2. ç. 23. of the maccabees is received by the church not unprofitably, if it be read and heard soberly: which latter words are understood only against desperate inferences of the donatists, who upon the example of razias in the history of the maccabees did kill and precipitate themselves; as is clear by his other ensuing words in the same place. we ought not then to approve by our consent, all things which we read in the scriptures to have been done by men, even adorned with praises by the testimony of god himself, but to mingle our consideration with discretion, bringing discretion with us, not grounded upon our own authority, but upon the authority of the holy and divine scriptures, which permit not us to praise or imitate all the actions even of those, of whom the scripture gives good, and glorious testimony, if they have done any thing, that hath not been well done, or that agreeth not with the consent of the present time. in which words we see s. augustine calls the books of the maccabees, scriptures, even as afterward he calls canonical books in general, divine, and holy scriptures; and that the sobriety of circumspection, which he adviseth to be observed, in reading them, is not, how far they be true or false, but whether the example of razias recounted by them, is to be imitated more or less. what you allege out of s. gregory (o) moral. lib. 19 ç. 17. is easily answered: for he doth not call the maccabees, not canonical, as if he would exclude them from the number of true, and divine scriptures, but because they were not in the canon of the jews, or in that which he had at hand when he wrote his first draught of his commentaries upon job, for he was at that time the pope's nuntius, or legate at constantinople, and the greek rhapsody of african canons had untruly put out of the canon the two books of the maccabees, though they were received in africa as canonical, by the decree of the african council. and therefore you were ill advised, under colour of commending pope gregory, (but indeed the more to impugn us by his authority) to write greg: m. or magnus, the great, whereas he was not pope, but only deacon, when he first wrote those commentaries upon job. 19 you cite s. hierome praefat. in lib. salom. the church reads the books of judith, tobias, and the maccabees, but she doth not receive them among canonical writings. but s. hieromes words are these: as the church reads tobias, judith, and the maccabees, but receives them not among the canonical books; so may she read wisdom, and ecclesiasticus, for the edification of the people, but not for the confirmation of ecclesiastical doctrines. thus s. hierome. and you had reason to cite his words by halves: for he afterward retracted what he said of the books of judith, and tobias (with which the maccabees are yet joined in the words cited by you) saying in his preface upon the history of judith: the book of judith is read by the hebrews among the hagiographs, whose authority is esteemed less sufficient to decide controversies: but for as much as the council of nice hath reckoned it among the holy scriptures, i have obeyed your request. where you see that s. hierome affirms, that the most ancient, and grave council of nice, received the book of judith in that sense, in which the jews did not receive it; & consequently as a book esteemed sufficient to decide controversies, which the jews denied. and in another place the same father saith: ruth, hester, and judith have been (q) ep. 140. so glorious, as they have given their names into the sacred volumes. where you see that s. hierome placeth judith with ruth and hester, the former whereof you admit for canonical, and part of the latter. in his preface upon the book of tobias, he saith: the hebrews (r) ep. 100 cut off the book of tobias from the catalogue of the divine scriptures. and again: the jealousy of the jews, doth accuse us, that against their canon we translate the book of tobias into latin: but i judge it better to displease the judgement of the pharisees, and to obey the commandment of the bishops. and elsewhere he placeth (t) in jsa. c. 23. the maccabees among canonical books, saying: the scripture reports that alexander king of the macedonians came out of the land of cethim. and wonder not if s. hierome spoke not always in the same manner of the canon of the old testament, since upon experience, examination, and knowledge of the sense of the church he might alter his opinion; as once he said of the epistle to the hebrews, that it (u) ad panlinum. was put out of the number by the greatest part of men: and yet elsewhere he receives it (w) ep. ad dardanum. as the epistle of s. paul. and if you will have a general explication of s. hierome concerning his rejecting of books, not admitted by the hebrews, hear it in his own words: whereas i have reported (x) ad●. russ. apolog. 2. what the hebrews used to object against the history of susanna, and the hymn of the three children, and the story of the dragon bell, which are in the hebrew; i have not declared what i thought, but what the jews were wont to say against us. and he calls ruffinus a foolish sycophant for charging him with the opinion of the hebrews about these parts of daniel. and s. hierome explaining himself in this manner, is acknowledged by (y) answer to burges. pag. 87. covell, and (z) conference before his majesty. bankeroft. how then will you excuse your church, which in her sixth article saith in general of all the books which you esteem apocryphal, among which are the history of susanna, the hymn of the three children, and that of the dragon: (the other books (as hierome saith) the church doth read for example of life, and instruction of manners: but yet it doth not apply them to establish any doctrine?) how can she (i say) be excused, since s. hierome, even according to the confession of your own brethren, doth explain himself, that he uttered only what the jews were wont to say against us; and calls ruffinus a foolish sycophant for saying the contrary? so as, instead of s. hierome, and the church of god, you put on the person of ruffinus against s. hierome, and of the synagogue against the church of christ our lord; & so your whole canon of the old testament relies upon the authority of the jews. and finally, d. potter while he grants that catholics and protestants disagree about the very canon of scripture, forgets to answer what charity-mistaken (pag. 43. & 46.) doth thence infer, to wit, that they cannot be accounted of one and the same religion, faith, and church. 20. the chymericall church of your (b) pag. 234. master, d. usher, consisting of men agreeing only in fundamental points, is indeed a chimaera, or non ens. for it is impossible that there can be a visible church, which professing fundamental points, doth not in other points either agree with us, or you, or else disagrees from us both. for either they must hold, for example, the real presence, transubstantiati, prayer for the dead, and to saints, worship of images, supremacy of the pope, sufficiency of one kind for the laity etc. and then they agree with us: or else they deny all these points, and so agree with you against us. and this is that pernicious fallacy, whereby you deceive yourself, and others; as if there were a visible catholic church, or company of men, holding all fundamental points, and being neither roman catholics, nor lutherans, nor caluinists &c. nor any other church in particular; which is a mere impossible fiction. for faith is not faith unless it extend to all points sufficiently propounded as divine truths, the least whereof if any one deny, he gives his faith a deadly wound, and his seeming belief of other articles avails him nothing. to which purpose this saying of s. augustine is remarkable: if a man grievously wounded (c) de baptism. count. donatist. l. 1. c. 8. in some necessary part of his body, be brought to a physician, and the physician say, if he be not dressed he will dye, i think they who brought him, will not be so senseless, as to answer the physician, after they have considered and viewed his other parts which are sound; what, shall not so many sound parts have power to preserve him alive? and shall one wounded part have power to bring him to his death? in vain then do you flatter your selves with a seeming sound belief of the articles of the creed, if in the mean time you receive a deadly wound, by opposing any one truth revealed by god, and propounded by the true catholic church. for as all the living members of a man's body, are so united in one life, that a deadly blow received immediately but in one, doth necessarily redound to the destruction of all: so all the objects of faith, being united in the same formal motive of god's testimony sufficiently propounded to us, the denial or wounding of any one truth, which is vested with that formal motive, and life of faith, doth inevitably redound to the death, and destruction of all the rest. when by this occasion you cite our late sovereign lord king james affirming, that (d) epïst. casauboni ad card. per. ad obseruat. 3. the things which are simply necessary to be believed, are but few in number; and yet that all things are simply necessary, which the word of god commands us to believe; it had been your duty to explain the contrariety which appears betwixt those two sayings. for since the word of god commands us to believe every proposition contained in holy scripture, which are many thousands, how are the things necessary to be believed, but few in number? 21. but now i must put you in mind of not performing your promise, not to omit any one thing of moment. for besides other, you omit to set down what charity mistaken writes (e) pag. 73. about the true sense of the distinction of points fundamental and not fundamental, which if you had set down as he delivers it, it had clearly appeared, how through your whole book you had still avoided the true state, and point of the question. to which purpose you conceal in particular, what he allegeth out of d. dunne, late deane of s. paul's, who having put great strength in the distinction of fundamental and not fundamental points, he wipes out with a wet finger the whole substance of his discourse by saying, that (f) pag. 96. difference in points which are not important is not to prejudice a man's salvation, unless by not believing them he commits a disobedience withal (as certainly every one doth, who denies any least point sufficiently propounded to him, as revealed by god, whosoever that propounder be:) for (saith he) obedience indeed (g) pag. 97. is of the essence of religion. the conclusion. and thus having in this second part answered the particulars in d. potter's book, and having proved in the first part, that this truth, amongst men of different religions, one only side can be saved, is so evidently true, as no christian that understands the terms, can call it in question; in so much as if any will go about to persuade the contrary, we must say with s. augustine; he doth err (a) de cinit. dei. l. 21. cap. 17. so much the more absurdly, and against the true word of god more perversely, by how much he seemeth to himself to judge more charitably: it cannot but appear, how much it importeth every soul, to seek out that one saving truth, which can be found only in the true visible catholic church of christ. wherefore our greatest care must be to find out that one true church; which we shall be sure not to miss, if our endeavour be not wanting to his grace, who desires that (b) 1. tim. 2.4. all men should be saved, and come to the knowledge of the truth. for, the words of the sacred council of trent are most true: god commands not (c) sest. 6. cap. 11. impossible things, but by commanding warns thee both to do what thou art able, & to ask what thou art not able, and helps thee, that thou mayst be able. let not men therefore flatter, and deceive themselves, that ignorance will excuse them. for if they want any one thing absolutely necessary to salvation, ignorance cannot excuse. and there are so many, and so easy, and yet withal so powerful means to find the true church, that it is a most dangerous, and pernicious error, to rely upon the excuse of invincible ignorance. and i wish them to consider, that he can least hope for relief by ignorance, who once confides therein: because his very alleging of ignorance, showeth that god hath put some thoughts into his mind of seeking the safest way; which if he, relying on god's grace, do carefully and constantly endeavour to examine, discuss, and perfect, he shall not fail to find what he seeks, and to obtain what he asks. neither will the search prove so hard and intricate, as men imagine. for, as god hath confined salvation within the communion of his visible church; so hath he endued her with so conspicuous marks of unity, and agreement in doctrine; universality for time, and place; a never interrupted succession of pastors; a perpetual visibility from the apostles, to us &c. far beyond any probable pretence that can be made by any other congregations; that whosoever doth seriously and unpartially weigh these notes, may easily discern to what church they belong. but all this diligence must be used with perfect indifferency, and constant resolution to proceed in this affair, which is the most important of all other, as at the hour of their death, and the day of their final account, they would wish to have done: for nothing can counterpoise an eternity of felicity, or misery. their prayer will be much helped with almsdeeds, offered to this intention of obtaining light of almighty god, according to that saying of the prophet esay: break thy bread (d) cap. 58. v 7. ●. to the hungry, and needy, and harbourless; when thou shalt see the naked cover him, & despise not thy flesh. then shall thy light break forth as the morning, and thy health shall soon arise, and thy justice shall go before thy face, and the glory of our lord shall embrace thee. then shalt thou call, & our lord will hear: thou shalt cry, and he will say; lo, here i am. and so he will not fail to show thee where he is: namely, in his own catholic visible church. fasting likewise gives strength and wings to our prayer: for prayer is good (e) tob. 12. ●. with fasting. but nothing is more necessary, then that they root out of their souls, prejudice of opinion, fear, hope, avarice, interest, humane respects, and such either corruptions of nature, or temptations of our enemy; to which men will the more easily be led to yield, by the desire which they have naturally to lead a life in liberty, and not to adventure the loss of such conveniences & delights, as they are wont to like so well; as also not to incur those disadvantages and afflictions to which a contrary course might make them subject. some of these things, are excellently pointed at by s. augustine, when he writes against the donatist heretics of his time, which every man ought seriously to consider how fare they may perhaps concern himself. how many (saith he) being (f) epist. 48● convinced by evidence of truth, did desire to be catholics, but did defer it from day to day, for fear of offending their friends or kinsfolks? how many were tied, not by truth, wherein they never much confided, but by the heavy chain of obdurate custom? how many did believe the faction of donatus to be the true church, because too much assuredness made them drowsy, disdainful, and slothful? to how many did the reports of ill tongues shut up the way to enter, who said, that we put, i know not what, upon the altar? how many thinking that it was no matter on what side one were a christian, did therefore remain among the donatists, because there they were borne? and afterward: we were frighted to enter, by reason of false reports, which we should not have known to be false unless we had entered, into the catholic church (as daily we hear from the mouth of protestants converted to catholic religion.) others say: we did indeed believe, that it imported nothing, in what company, we did hold the faith of christ. but thankes be to our lord, who hath gathered us from division, and hath showed to us, that it agreeth to one god, that he be worshipped in unity. finis. faults escaped in the print. good reader, whereas through the absence of the author of this work, and by reason of an uncorrected written copy sent unto the press, many errors & mistake have happened in the printing, especially having been constrained, through the difficulties of these times, to use the help of strangers, and such as are ignorant in our tongue; it is in all humble manner desired, that (these said circunstances duly considered) thou wouldst in no wise herein condemn the said author as accessary heerto, but favourably affoarding thy censure hereof, and in reading over the book, to correct them with thy pen, they being here exactly gathered by himself, and set down as followeth. epistle dedicatory. pag. 7. lin. 3. catholics corrige catholic in the preface. pag. 2. lin. 26. indifferent corrige in different pag. 7. lin. 26. transfered corrige transferred in the first part. pag. 38. lin. 26. one, the other corrïge one, and the other pag. 44. lin. 6. contentions corrige contentious pag. 45. lin. 29. as there is corrige as in job is pag. 51. lin. 15. affirm knowledge corrige affirm that our first knowledge pag. 54. lin. 8. it corrige is ibid. lin. 24. then corrige them pag. 56. lin. 25. languages. corrige languages? pag. 57 lin. 25. hospinians corrige hospinianus pag. 59 lin. 1. caerlile corrige carlisle pag. 61. lin. 11. no! corrige no. pag. 67. lin. 7. seditions corrige seditious pag. 78. lin. 6. not corrige no pag. 79. lin. 1. several corrige severally pag. 89. lin. 16. they holy corrige the holy pag. 95. lin. 30. deleatur be pag. 99 lin. 4. saith corrige he saith pag. 102. lin. 8. hold corrige hold pag. 103. lin. 1. circumcision d. potter corrige circumcision d. potter pag. 105. lin. 3. errors: but (x) corrige errors (x): but &c. for the letter (x) is not referred to philaletes, but to the moderate examination etc. pag. 111. lin. 2. at corrige it pag. 113. lin. 9 text corrige texts ibid. lin. 17. or corrige nor pag. 115. lin. 16. nor. corrige not. pag. 119. in the title chap. 111. corringe chap. 1111. pag. 124. lin. 2. beliene corrige believe pag. 126. lin. 25. their corrige there (for in latin it is (ibi) not (illorum.) pag. 135. lin. 17. of few corrige or few pag. 136. lin. 22. danably corrige damnably ibid. lin. 26. damnably corrige damnably. i mean, it ought not to be in a different or curciffe letter, because it is not d. potters word, though it follow out of his doctrine. pag. 140. lin. 5. before, to avoid corrige before. to avoid pag. 141. lin. 4. supposes; it doth corrige supposes. it doth pag. 146. lin. 25. name; confess corrige name; i confess pag. 147. lin. 19 which corrige with pag. 149. lin. 10. deleatur we pag. 155. lin. 11. we was corrige he was pag. 161. lin. 10. & 26. napier corrige napper ibid. lin. 19 goodly corrige godly ibid. lin. 29. wilernes corrige wilderness ibid. lin. 31. hailbronerus corrige hailbronnerus pag. 162. lin. 15. for that corrige that for pag. lin. 17. conld corrige could pag. 163. lin. 29. have also corrige have not also pag. 165. lin. 22. men departed. corrige men to departed. pag. 174. lin. 5. christopher potter, corrige d. christop. potter, pag. 183. lin. 20. at last corrige at lest pag. 184. lin. 29. your grounds corrige your own grounds ibid. lin. 30. enough corrige enough the like also pag. 185. lin. 2. 6. 7. 8. enough corrige enough pag. 185. lin. 9 deleatur not pag. 187. lin. 6. breach in corrige breach, in pag. 190. lin. 1. & 2. and d. potter corr. and yet d. potter pag. 193. lin. 7. reformation: corrige reformation. pag. 197. lin. 18. sencelenesse corrige senselessness pag. 200. lin. 25. manuer corrige manner pag. 204. lin. 6. after impossible, add, and damnable: pag. 209. lin. 26. correct the parenthesis this: (what? do you mean that they are his own conceits, and yet grounded upon evidence of scripture?) pag. 212. lin. 16. the government corrige her government pag. 215. lin. 18. augustine's corrige augustine pag. 218. lin. 14. deleatur that pag. 221. lin. 16. god's church, corrige god's word, pag. 225. lin. 24. a godly corrige a goodly pag. 230. lin. 5. for corrige from pag. 233. lin. 18. see by a corrige see now by a pag. 235. lin. 2. summoved corrige summoned pag. 238. lin. 22. these corrige those ibid. lin. 24. certainly corrige certainty pag. 239. lin. 9 from authority. corrige from divine authority. ibid. lin. 20. any heresy corrige an heresy pag. 246. lin. 18. must impudent corrige most impudent pag. 248. lin. 1. even corrige ever ibid. lin. 28. began corrige begun pag. 251. lin. 25. our of corrige out of pag. 252. lin. 27. writ corrige write pag. 257. lin. 8. church, because corrige church: yet because pag. 259. lin. 23. greek turk corrige great turk pag. 263. lin. 17. the parenthesis should end after the word baptism) ibid. lin. 19 repeated) so corrige repeated: and so pag. 264. lin. 8. certifitate corrige certificate pag. 271. lin. 23. argumenta corrige argument pag. 272. lin. 11. ●hould corrige should pag. 274. lin. 26. draws corrige drowns ibid. lin. 31. disbelieved corrige disbelieve pag. 276. lin. 4. (or as corrige or (as pag. 279. lin. 7. or corrige nor pag. 293. lin. 12. reitering corrige reiterating in the title of pag. 294. by error, is put 264. pag. 298. lin. 25. fundamental corrige fundamentals pag. 299. lin. 10. truth corrige truths. in the second part. pag. 2. in the tittle part. 1. corrige part. 2. pag. 9 lin. 6. do, with truth you corrige do with truth, you pag. 12. lin. 22. the many corrige there are many pag. 14. lin. 3. chap. corrige pag pag. 19 lin. 27. priest corrige priests pag. 23. lin. 1. & 2. second directly corrige second is directly pag. 28. lin. 19 deleatur will ibid. lin. 20. doth corrige do pag. 33. lin. 26. spirit, as he was who corrige spirit as he was, who pag. 37. lin. 8. your text your corrige your text you pag. 45. lin. 24. general corrige general pag. 50. lin. 5. man bound corrige man is bound pag. 61. lin. 5. in fact corrige of fact pag. 78. lin. 28. seem corrige seen pag. 86. lin. 29. ingenious corrige ingenuous pag. 88 lin. 14. means corrige newness pag. 94. lin. 19 martes corrige matters pag. 97. lin. 18. it is given deleatur it is ibid lin. 29. church wall corrige church walls pag. 103. lin. 5. the general deleatur the ibid. lin. 13. you book corrige your book pag. 141. lin. 7. unwarry corrige unwary ibid. lin. 17. after us; corrige after us. and blot out all the words following. neither are the authors etc. unto the next, and 3. paragraph, as put in by error. pag. 105. lin. 26. doth not corrige do not ibid. lin. 28. and for corrige and that for pag. 109. lin. 3. translated corrige translate ibid. lin. 30. if you corrige if still you pag. 111. lin. 14. self corrige itself pag. 127. lin. 20. deleatur may pag. 131. lin. 8. he had corrige i had pag. 143. lin. 16. believe corrige belie pag. 145. lin. 13. & 14. these words only [james changed the verdict of peter] should be put in a different letter, as the direct affirmation of luther. pag. 162. lin. 2. meaning corrige means ibid. lin. 5. fallibility corrige infallibility pag. 168. lin. 19 d. morton corrige m. morton pag. 169. lin. 3. medij, corrige medij) pag. 171. lin. 4. fundamental, and that corrige fundamental, and not fundamental, and that pag. 177. lin. 16. counsels corrige counsels pag. 186. lin. 28. names corrige manes pag. 191. lin. 23. d. morton corrige m. morton pag. 197. lin. 20. are in corrige are not in ibid. lin. 25. s. hierome corrige s. hieromes in the margin. 1. part. pag. 12. rejoinders corrige rejoinder. pag. 61. sect. 6. 26. corrige sect. 6. pag. 26. pag. 157. lib. count. parmen. corrige lib. 1. cont. parmen. in the margin. 2. part. pag. 13. petricon. corrige petricor. pag. 92. (c) pag. 93. corrige (c) pag. 92. finis. a defence and continuation of the ecclesiastical polity: by way of letter to a friend in london. together with a letter from the author of the friendly debate. london: printed by a. clark for i. martin, at the bell in st. paul's churchyard, and without temple-bar, mdclxxi. the preface to the reader. reader, to be ingenuous, i can give thee no encouragement to spend either thy time or thy money upon this ensuing treatise. though could i devise any account of its usefulness to the public, i am not guilty of so much counterfeit and hypocritical humility, as seemingly to disparage what i really value. but the truth is, i know no other use of these controversial rencounters and rejoinders, than to raise his majesty's customs and imposts upon paper, or (what is somewhat less important: to gratify the humour of talking people. neither can i satisfy to whom i write; if to sober and peaceable men, they neither need nor desire farther satisfaction; if to the dissenting herd, that were to spend ammunition upon mud-walls: they either want ears to hear, or brains to understand. beside, if the original discourse be rational, it needs no defence; if not, it deserves none. reason will defend itself against all the clamours and dispute of talkative men; it easily surmounts the weak attempts of prejudice and ignorance, and scatters all their little mists by its own native light and energy. if men will outface the sun, the sun itself must convince them. and 'tis to as much purpose to suppress every mote that flies in the air, as to attend to the cavils and impertinencies of every wrangling pretender to disputation. 'tis hugely worth the while to let the world know, that there is a certain confident man in it, that has neither so much wit as himself presumes, nor so much sincerity as his friends imagine. so strange and so important a discovery must no doubt lay an unrequitable obligation upon the public; and my friends can never thank me enough for putting them to the penance of reading five or six hundred pages, to no other purpose then to inform themselves that one j. o. is none of the greatest clerks, or the wisest men. had it been my fate to have fallen into the hands of an adversary, that had either ability or patience to write reason, it might have afforded good occasions for useful and material remarks, and i should not have blushed either at his or my own victory. but this man is not at leisure to write sense, nor takes time to weigh whether what he dictates be pertinent either to his own or to my purpose. his whole book is nothing but cavil and vulgar talk. and therefore if this reply be not altogether so useful and full of edification as i could wish, and the reader may expect, let him only consider, that i am not altogether at liberty to pursue and improve the results of my own thoughts, but am confined to trace my adversaries wander, and break his bubbles, and 'tis none of my fault if they are so silly and senseless, that they are not capable of a more significant and substantial confutation. for seriously, he has managed the whole dispute with so much weakness and so much perverseness, that 'tis hard to determine whether he has betrayed more of his insufficiency or insincerity: if he be in good earnest, he has a strange understanding; if he be not, he has a much stranger conscience: though he has contrived the whole performance so ill, that 'tis neither suited to persuade the wise, nor to deceive the simple; 'tis so far from reasoning, that 'tis not sophistry; and i can find in it neither snares nor colours, nothing but wrath and darkness. his falsifications are so open and bare-faced, that had an enemy designed to expose the folly of their pretences, and the feebleness of their dispute, he could not have fathered upon them more unlucky instances of boldness and disingenuity. never did i dream, that any man could be so extravagant, as to bear me down, that the only scope and design of my whole discourse is to assert, pag. 3. (as he speaks) that the law of the magistrate is the sole rule of obedience in religious worship. it is impossible any man should venture upon such enormous and palpable calumnies, that were not utterly forsaken of all sense both of modesty and integrity, and given up to the dishonour of a shameless brow and steeled conscience. my humour is neither fierce nor abusive; i love not to treat an adversary with rough language and unkind words, and know how to discover his ignorance without upbraiding it: but no expressions can be too sharp to reprove inveterate malice and insolence. and when men are grown old in this implacable spirit, when they study all the black arts of calumny, and persist in hardness and impenitence after so many severe and shameful rebukes, and encounter all the authors, they are pleased to assault with dirt and slander; what milder correction can you suppose them to deserve, than that scorn and dishonour that is due to bold and shameless scribblers? what reward shall be given or done unto thee, thou false tongue? even mighty and sharp arrows with hot burning coals. it is an hard case to deal with men that afford neither materials for charity, nor opportunities for civility; and such has been the provocation, the malice, the rashness, and the disingenuity of this man, that barely to represent him in his own colours is enough to hazard the reputation of a man's good humour and good nature; and so unhappily has he mixed his vices with his follies, that it is impossible to discover one without exposing both. we have indeed to do with other adversaries unreasonable enough, but yet however among them we sometimes meet with parts and learning, though nothing else: whereas this cause is upheld by nothing but boldness and ignorance, and driven on by no other interest, and defended with no other weapons then popular zeal in the body, and something worse in the heads of the party. this may suffice to prevent or mitigate the readers censure, but that will not satisfy my bookseller, unless i bribe and bespeak his favour too. and therefore not to injure him by discouraging his customers, though i cannot commend my book, yet this i can say in its behalf without blushing, that i have all along endeavoured so to contrive my answer, that it might be as useful to the reader, as if i had not been confined to the pursuit of another man's impertinencies. and therefore i have for his sake as well as my own, neglected innumerable instances of his more silly mistakes and less important infirmities, because they were of no other concernment to our present controversy, then barely to discover his own personal follies. and had i displayed and prosecuted all the little enormities, of which this man of confidence stands guilty in this bold adventure, this volume would have swollen to that monstrous bulk, as must for ever have scared and discouraged all readers from venturing upon its perusal: for this man never stands guilty of single errors, every period he dictates is pregnant with absurdities, he defiles every truth he handles, and though it be not in his power to make it false, yet he will be sure to manage it in such an awkerd and uncouth way, as shall make it appear absurd and ridiculous; but i have studiously overlookt his little indecencies, and have been careful not to nauseate the reader with too tedious a pursuit of his mere impertinencies; and though i have not altogether spared to expose the triflingness of his cavils, yet i have not so severely tied myself to their examination, as not to take frequent occasion to cast in some more useful discourses, than the matter of such starved pretences would afford. i understand by the information of my friends and acquaintance, that this rejoinder was sooner expected; but to spare excuses, the plain and undisguised truth is, it is finished, (excepting only some little disappointment of the press) as soon as it was designed, and designed, i think, as soon as it was seasonable. and methinks once a year, supposing a man has leisure, is often enough, if people will be reasonable, to find public talk; but if be has not, it is too often for one that is willing to enjoy the innocent comforts as well as to endure the common drudgeries of humane life. however i am not able (as my adversary is) to write books at idle hours and spare minutes, and though i were, i have them not. and had i as many talents of dispatch, as he thinks himself master of, i should think it my wisdom, if not my duty (that i may borrow a phrase of j. o.) to napkin them for some season. for i have not observed any thing that has so much spoiled and debauched the style of our english writers, as this hasty and preposterous way of writing, and had i not exceeded the number of my pages, and should i not involve some authors, that deserve as much admiration for writing well on the sudden, as most do correction for writing ill, i should be tempted to digress into satirical remarks upon this vanity; because from that alone have issued those prodigious swarms of dull books of fanatic and bombast divinity. beside all which, i might represent under what mighty disadvantages and distractions this discourse was written; but that smells somewhat of my adversaries bragging humour, and therefore i had rather confess the downright troth, that though i believe i could have dispatched it somewhat sooner, yet i was easily inclined to allow myself as large a compass of time for its publication, as i thought i could reasonably excuse; partly because i was not much enamoured either of the glory or the pleasure of my undertaking, and took all occasions to truant from such an irksome task; partly because i stand in no little awe of my adversary; for though i have given him rebuke enough, to satisfy any modest man, yet one may as soon put a statue of brass out of countenance as convince or silence people of some complexions: and some men have the face to brag and insult most where they are most foiled, and to erect their trophies where their misadventures are most remarkable; so that nothing more inclines me to suspect this man's readiness to reply, than the notorious badness of his cause and shamefulness of his baffle. but if he should be so ill-advised, what will become of me? for he is gifted with such a fluent impertinency, that nothing can ever stop the career of his pen, but the want of ink and paper, and confidence in the world: and i doubt not but he is able to pour forth more pages of empty words in six days, than i can hope to compose of coherent sense in so many weeks. beside, that he has the advantage both of practice and inclination: wrangling is the humour and genius of the man, and he has been all his days up to the elbows in controversial adventures: and as much reluctancy as he counterfeits to this heroic trade, it had be●n as easy to cure the knight of the m●ncha of his errantry, as 'tis him of his scribbling folly; and he cannot encounter counter 〈◊〉 honest man upon the high way, but his 〈…〉 transforms him into a 〈…〉; though for no other reason than that he may have some show of pretence to excuse or justify the rudeness and incivility of his pragmatical assaults; and therefore se●ing he is so incurably quarrelsome, no man can justly blame me, if i am so very desirous to rid my hands of him. but to conclude, if this be the penance i must undergo for the wantonness of my pen, to answer the impertinent and slender exceptions of every peevish, and disingenuous caviller; reader, i am reform from my incontinency of scribbling, and do here heartily bid thee an eternal farewell. chap. i. the contents. an account of the fanatique stubbornness. spiritual pride an impregnable humour. a description of its nature and properties. 'tis the refuge of dull people. no vice so incident to humane nature as pride; nor any pride as that of religion. men discern not its most obvious symptoms in themselves, and why. 'tis the greatest hindrance of reformation. till 'tis mortified all reproofs do but exasperate men's passions. a character of the fanatique deportment towards all adversaries. their first reply to all books is, to slander and revile their authors. a description of their way of breeding and propagating stories. an account of the baseness of this humour. 'tis the most spiteful sort of persecution. the malignity of the fanatique spirit. it drives away all good humour and good manners. a character of the fanatique behaviour towards clergymen, particularly of the pride and insolence of professing gossips. a difference made between modest dissenters and pragmatical zealots. 'tis this proud and petulant humour that is the only cause of all our divisions, and humility that must be the only cure. this would make them ashamed of their brawling and contentious humour. their second reply to all books is, to pervert and falsify their meaning. the horrid rudeness and disingenuity of their wilful falsifications. a notorious instance of it from that advantage they have taken to abuse my discourse of trade. by which no trade is endangered but that of conventicles. an account of the design of my discourse upon that subject. it's true intent vindicated against the bold and shameless cavils of our author. the factious partiality of the n. c. in behalf of their own writers. our author's careless way of writing. at his very entrance, he defeats the design of his whole performance. he confesseth that all who plead for liberty of conscience dissemble. the most effectual argument in the world against toleration, is the fundamental principle of the non-conformists. how their language altars when they speak out. the mystery of the independents being for indulgence. a further account of our authors rude and hasty way of scribbling. he every where leaves the main drift of my discourse to pursue occasional remarks. the impertinency and tediousness of his complaints against the tartness of my expressions. hypocrisy is to be treated more roughly then naked vice. the non-conformists have two names for all things, a black one for us, and a white one for themselves. they are not to be suffered to debauch christianity with their own follies. their way of loading adversaries with odious consequences. an instance of this in the writings of j. o. our author's shreds of latin and superannuated pedantry. another little stratagem he makes use of to abuse the common people. sir, § 1. what you foretold, and i expected, is come to pass; our zealous brethren are angry at me. a sad disappointment this! when 'tis so obvious, i designed to court and flatter their holiness. but it seems 'tis no less difficult to oblige than to convince them: they are proof against soft and friendly counsels, as well as rough and impartial satyrs. they are (like the great fabricius) neither to be caressed, nor to be vanquished: their resolutions are invincible. nor force nor flattery can make impression upon such constant and unyielding tempers. they are all anvil and adamant. their minds are not so sheepish as to be wheedled, or so fickle as to be argued out of their eternal principles. attempt fugitive and unsettled spirits; but their constancy is impregnable. 'tis not an humane enterprise to shake the vigour of their minds. their hearts are of a true roman composition, neither to be broke, nor to be softened. so stubborn a thing is holy zeal when blended with spiritual pride, it quickly eats out all sense of common modesty and ingenuity, it hardens every prejudice into flat presumption, and steels the understanding against all the force and power of conviction; so that you can neither soften it into any pliable temper by gentle reproofs, or hammer it to an ingenuous attention by hard arguments. 'tis shameless and impudent, and can outface all the confidence of truth, and all the evidence of demonstration. it was this that seared the consciences of the scribes and pharisees of old, against the force of miracles, and the feats of omnipotence, and made their errors incurable, and their reformation desperate; they would rather choose to defy and blaspheme the most undeniable effects of almighty power, than be prevailed upon so much as to suspect their own hypocrisy. and this is the bloated complexion of our modern pharisees, they are puffed up with windy conceits of their own dear sanctity, their fancies are enamoured of themselves, and ravished with gay reflections upon their own beauty and bravery, and saintship; and are satisfied with a fair opinion of their own way and party, and admire them as the most splendid and gorgeous sect of professors, and appropriate to them all the titles of a more choice and illustrious godliness. and whilst they stroke and applaud themselves as the peculiar darlings of heaven, and keep their habitation in the clouds; with what contempt do they look down upon the residue of mankind, and disdain all out of their own herd as carnal gospelers, and formal professors? and if they will allow us the titles of civil and moral men, they will not endure that any but themselves should pretend acquaintance with the great and spiritual mysteries of the gospel. this affords them that pleasing satisfaction of saucy and illnatured comparisons; this raises them to some advantage and pre-eminence above their betters; every mean fellow may be enabled, through mercy, to fancy himself a better man than his governors; and a beggar that has grace, may think within, that he ought to take the wall of a gentleman that is unregenerate; and how luscious is it to clowns and rude mechanics to look upon their superiors with pity and disdain? for no passion is either so natural or so pleasing to mankind, as pride and self-conceitedness; and every man would have something to swell himself up in his own opinion, and to enable him to scorn and trample upon his neighbours. and therefore those people that can never pretend to any other abilities to ●eed this humour, can easily support it by singularities and affectations in religion: and he that neither is nor can be honourable, nor beautiful, nor witty, nor learned, can easily be religious; and when he pretends to be so, with what confidence may he despise all those other accomplishments that he can never have? with what a scornful state shall some supercilious saints trample upon all the great and all the learned men in the world? and with what disdain shall they look down from aloft (as they conceit, like lazarus from abraham's bosom) upon these reprobate and unregenerate wretches? §. 2. and now when haughty men are thus bravely perched and plumed in their own conceits, is it (think you) an easy task to strip them of so fair a disguise, and to take them down to the pitch of ordinary mortals? for suppose it your own case, that you sat at ease in a fair opinion of your own high attainments in the ways of godliness, and had long lulled yourself up in a pleasant security of your special interest in the love and favour of god: would you take it well to be rudely awakened out of this transporting dream? would it much edify with you to be roundly told, that you befool yourself? how would you stomach a smart reproof? how would it sting and enrage, and grate upon your soul? and with what impatience would you swagger at the man that should dare to impeach you of hypocrisy? you would infinitely disdain his presumption, and hardly ever after vouchsafe him good look or kind thought. what greater displeasure can you possibly do a man, then to rob him of his self-complacency? or what complacency so delightful as that which springs from spiritual pride? no sensual delight so charming as its gratifications, 'tis the strongest and the most impetuous appetite of humane nature: so that to be defeated of such an infinite satisfaction, is a disappointment neither to be pardoned nor to be endured. and therefore wonder not to see some men so tender and impatient of reproof, because there is no reproach so upbraiding to pride as correction, nor any pride so incorrigible as that of religion. this vice has been the bane and dishonour of all institutions in the world, and is the only essential ingredient of the hypocrisy of all ages. and the truth is, if we consider how incident and delightful this vanity is to humane nature, how difficult for a wise man to escape its smooth and pleasant temptations, how secret and undiscernible its workings, how incurious most men are of the inward thoughts of their minds, and how unacquainted with the first springs and motives of their actions: if, i say, we consider all this, 'tis no wonder they should be so easily intoxicated with this sweet and luscious poison; and when it has conveyed itself into all the recesses of their souls, seized on all their powers, infected their best and purest thoughts, and swollen up even their zeal into vanity and ostentation, 'tis a less wonder they should be so insensible of their distemper; when this vice works like other poisons, it stupifies whilst it infects; and what in nature so difficult, as to convince a man of this inward leprosy? 'tis not like common diseases that discover themselves by outward spots and blemishes, but 'tis a plague that lodges in the heart and vital powers, and sooner destroys than it appears. the proudest man on earth is insensible of this illusion, and though he is ready to burst with his own inward swellings, yet he defies and disclaims this hated vice with as much confidence as the meekest saint in heaven; and all the world knows his folly, except himself. but above all pride, spiritual pride is the most dangerous and incurable, 'tis an apoplexy that dazzles the judgement, infatuates the mind, and intercepts all the passages of light and conviction, and confounds all pure and impartial reasonings, and disables men from making any ingenuous reflections upon their own actions; it makes them confident in their own impostures and self-illusions, and bears them up against all reproofs by zeal, and conscience, and religion. their faith, their zeal, their prayers, their fast, their constant communion with god, their diligent attendance upon ordinances, their love of the lord jesus, their hatred of antichrist, or their spleen against the pope, are impregnable fences against all assaults, and answers to all arguments. they are so dotingly enamoured of themselves for these signs of grace, and characters of god's people, that you may more easily induce them to suspect the truth of all things, than their own godliness. and nothing in nature so impossible, as that such strict and serious professors, such humble melting and brokenhearted christians should in the issue prove no better than proud and pharisaic hypocrites. and though their pride discover itself in their opinionative confidence, in their bitter censoriousness, in their impatience of affronts and reproofs, in their rage and revenge against all that undervalue them, in their haughty and disdainful comparisons, and in their inflexible waywardness, especially to the will of superiors, and commands of authority. and though these are the most natural results, and most obvious symptoms of this inward plague; yet are they not able to discern such certain appearances of them in themselves, because they are aforehand from other accounts so abundantly satisfied in their own humility and broken-heartedness; and the strength of this conceit so blinds their minds, that they cannot see the clearest and most palpable indications of this vice. but they are all adorned with soft and gentle titles; and those excesses and irregularities that in an unregenerate man must have been accounted eruptions of pride and passion, are now to be ascribed to the warmness and vehemence of holy zeal. § 3. in brief, sad is the condition of those men that abuse themselves with this naughty godliness; 'tis this, and not moral goodness, that is the greatest let to conversion; not only because it seals men up in impenitence by false prejudices, and bars up their minds against all thoughts of reformation, by persuading them they are good enough already: but besides that it prevents the efficacy of the means of grace, it does withal (what is more mischievous) directly oppose and contradict them. it rots and putrifies the soul in its whole constitution, it gangrenes all its faculties, it breeds a base and caitive temper of mind, it introduces a direct contrariety to all worthy and ingenuous inclinations, and delivers the man over to the power and possession of the blackest and most accursed sins; 'tis detraction, 'tis spite, 'tis rancour, 'tis a malicious contempt to all wise and honest counsels, 'tis a wilful frowardness to all sober and rational convictions, and in a word, 'tis all spiritual wickedness. and for this reason it was that i professed to despair of any success upon this sort of men; i was assured that as long as pride overruled their consciences, all reproofs would certainly exasperate, but could never correct the fanatique humour; and therefore what hopes could i conceive to make any breach upon their prejudices, whilst they were guarded by such a sturdy and unyielding principle? for if it be so difficult either to convince men of this vice, or whilst this remains, of any other; it were a vain thing to expect that all the reasonings and attempts of conviction in the world should ever make any impressions upon such unapproachable minds. and as long as professors will continue regardless and insensible of this leading sin, i shall never hope to see them reform to a more calm and more governable temper. but if instead of amusing themselves with experiences and fantastic observations about the unaccountable workings of the spirit of grace; about the difference between the convictions of the spirit, and those of natural conscience; about the degrees and due measures of humiliation, with innumerable other wise conceits of their modern theology; if, i say, instead of attending to these dreams and crazy fancies, they would be at leisure to observe the risings and workings of this deceitful vice, to study its symptoms and indications, and to keep a constant and habitual restraint upon its motions and attempts; we should quickly see the lovely fruits and effects of true religion in the world, instead of the unruly blusters and juggle of enthusiasm. but till men will be induced in good earnest to set themselves with a parcicular concern against the inclinations of this lust, and till they will be careful to lay humility at the bottom of all their goodness; instead of their yielding to the power of truth, conviction shall only enrage their malice; and all the requital they shall give you for disabusing them, shall be to abuse you with incivility and foul language. and here, sir, give me leave to present you with a short account of their deportment towards myself and all that ever yet opposed or endeavoured to undeceive them, which you may peruse, as a further character of their modesty and good humour. § 4. (i.) reproach and contumely is their first reply to all arguments; and to revile the author, the first confutation of his book; whoever dares to despise or discover their wretched delusions, is immediately answered with volleys of slanders and calumnies, and utterly oppressed with multitude of lies and detracting stories. their dissolute and unruly tongues are let loose to tear in pieces his good name; what abusive tales, and legends do they invent? with what bold and audacious slanders do they assail his innocence, and with what crafty and oblique ways of detraction do they undermine his reputation? with what eagerness do they listen to any spiteful and mischievous report? with what zeal do they spread and propagate and improve it? with what partiality will they add or detract circumstances, as shall be most conducive to enhanse the ugliness of the slander? they attend to nothing with a more transporting satisfaction then to defaming stories; 'tis their choicest luxury, and what so luscious in their esteem as a smooth and specious lie? ah! 'tis marrow and fatness. there is not any affair so trifling upon which these people cannot erect a stately lie; nor any authority so slight, by which they cannot warrant its truth and credibility; 'tis but foisting in two or three ugly circumstances, and they can improve a facetious story to a private friend into a public calumny, and aggravate a pleasant passage in familiar conversation into a blasting and dishonourable scandal: every report they touch, they immediately turn into slander, they make but an easy havoc of the good name of us philistines, heaps upon heaps with the jawbone of every ass. they have their spies and emissaries in all corners to fetch in informations; they have their agents in all parts to communicate reports; they have their factors in all places to traffic for news, and to carry on the important trade of tales between city and country; and they have amongst them a peddling sort of idle people that are always ranging up and down streets in quest of fresh intelligence, and, as beggars do, importune every man they meet to contribute something to their stock, and compose their countenance into serious posture to beg news: if you are empty of intelligence, they shake hands, and will not waste time in such barren and unprofitable company, but hasten to ply the next comer. every man makes good his post, and every man picks up something to contribute to the common stock. and if they chance to meet any of their associates upon the frontiers of their respective walks, they frankly impart what they have gained to each other, as beggars do their fragments. however, they have some common place of rendezvous, where every particular member partakes of the joint collections of the whole society; and that is the staple of news▪ and then 'tis no wonder if all reports fly abroad with such winged speed, when it is every man's business to blazon them into all quarters. and if they get a story by the end, that is not in itself full enough of remark and wonder, they will vamp it with new circumstances of their own, alter, improve, and refine it till they have made it plausible and big enough for the public view: they will vouch it with grave nod, and solemn face; they will look earnestly, talk shrewdly, and descant upon it with a thousand pretty conjectures: they will whisper in your ear some subtle and notable observation of circumstances; and with wise and politic forehead, will suspect impossible plots, foresee unthought-of designs, and foretell strange and prodigious events; and by these and the like arts, they will spread and divulge any tale, till it grows up into a vulgar report, (and it is but whispering it in an authentic coffee-house, or at a meeting of the gossips, and that makes it so) and then it shall maintain itself upon its own credit and reputation, and the public voice shall justify the story. how can you doubt or suspect its truth, when 'tis the talk of all the town? every one knows it, and every one believes it; all parties agree in the report, and none so strangely diffident as to dispute, much less to deny its certainty: no, no, assure yourself, sir, 'tis too true, and out of all possibility of falsehood; you must not, nay for shame you cannot be so uncivil to the judgement and discretion of mankind, as to demur upon the credibility of such an universal and acknowledged report. and thus do lies first beget public reports, and then do public reports maintain lies. and from hence issue all those numberless swarms of tales, that are perpetually flying and buzzing about this city: their beginning is unknown and unobserved; they breed in corners and obscure places, but if they once get wing, all places are immediately filled with their noise and murmur, and all men annoyed with their importunate buzz and tumult. §. 5. in brief, 'tis not unpleasant to observe the spring and the progress of these vulgar tales: for as you have seen small streams raised into large and beautiful rivers, by the accession of brooks, and showers, and land-floods; so does it happen in these reports, which, though they arise from weak and inconsiderable beginnings, yet quickly swell into mighty torrents, from those additional descants they receive as they roll along through the mouths of the holy brotherhood, (for they are the common-sewer of all unclean reports) and by this means they in a little time grow so formidable, and rise into such an irresistible confidence, as to bear down all before them. and yet would you trace this stream to its fountain, you do but seek the head of the river nile; which though it falls into egypt with such a vehement and impetuous flood, and overruns the country with its swelling streams; yet if you would seek for the rise of all these mighty waters, after you had tired yourself in the discovery of infinite brooks and rivulets, and little additions, at last you would be forced to derive the main stream (as some of the ancients did) from the mountains in the moon. and thus (as the bishop of derry speaks concerning the fable of the nagshead ordination) if a man should search for the author of these fabulous relations, he shall be sure to have them fathered upon some very credible persons without names, who had them from john-an-oaks, who had them from john-a-stiles, who had them from nobody. and if you will but observe and examine all reports that bear the fanatique stamp, (as chrysippus did the oracular lies of apollo) you will find, as chrysippus did, not one in five hundred that is not apparently forged and counterfeit; and yet to search out their first spreaders, is the same difficulty as to discover the coiners of false money. in the mean time you may observe what tender and upright consciences those men have, that mint such bold and shameless lies; and what honest and good natured people those are, that are willing to take them for current coin, and to pass them to others for authentic truths, only because they gratify their own malice, and blast their neighbour's innocence. this is the spite of witches, who, so they may vent their revenge, care not though they do it upon harmless infants. this is the character of the worst of reprobates, without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, rev. 22.5. and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lye. and lastly, this is the trade and employment of fiends, that are always busied in spiteful offices, and in making or spreading lies and false accusations. and now (sir) must not these meek-natured men, that are so thoroughly possessed by the spirit of slander, needs be out of all danger of the spirit of persecution? they that are so impatient of an adversary, and pursue him with all the rage and malice of a revengeful tongue, would no doubt, were their power proportioned to their fury, indulge this dissenting person in his endeavours to obstruct the glorious attempts and purposes of a more thorough reformation. they that rail and persecute with foul slanders, and false aspersions, when they can no more, would not persecute with fire, and sword, and sequestration when they can. is there not as much malice in the false accusations of a virulent tongue, as in the proscriptions of an outrageous tyrant? they arise from the same temper of mind, agree in the same purposes, and differ only in their abilities. when malice wants strength and interest, and is not able to oppress innocence with real injuries, than its only refuge is to load it with false and infamous aspersions. calumny is the sanctuary and support of weak revenge. and when this cannot wreak its fury in rude and churlish actions, it is forced to vent itself in spiteful and malicious reports; and never spits its poison, but when it wants teeth to bite. men slander only for want of opportunity of doing worse; and if ever they gain the advantage, they will strike to more effectual purposes. they will change their weapons with the change of affairs, and their adversaries shall quickly feel sharper strokes than those of a malicious tongue. §. 6. and here (that i may dispatch this unpleasant theme at once) we may observe the venom of pharisaic principles, and what a mighty force and efficacy they have to embitter and enrage the minds of men. so fatal and irresistible is their poison, that there is nothing in nature of force enough to damp or defeat their malignity. it strikes them with pride, malice and envy, and all manner of dark and corroding passions: it eats out all sense of honour and civility, and lays waste all principles of good nature and good manners. and for this, what more convictive evidence can i give you, than the experience of our own conversation? there is no city in europe can boast such a number of worthy and generous inhabitants, as that you live in: you may know a citizen of london, if he have had the good fortune to escape the fanatique infection, by the obligingness and decency of his deportment, by the sobriety and discretion of his behaviour, by the calmness and modesty of his discourse, and by the ingenuity and pleasantness of his humour. all his conversation bears the characters of honour and integrity. his conscience is tender of a rude and uncivil action; he avoids all appearances of an ungentile humour, and dreads an affront as bad as scandal. this is the humour and genius of your city; 'tis the seat of gallantry, and place of education: there may we learn philosophy, and the science of conversation, as well as merchandise, and the arts of traffic. your shops and your warehouses are schools of wit and good manners. you are not a race of raw citizens, and illiterate mechanics; your designs are not confined to your profit and your trade; your humour is pleasant, and your conversation graceful; and you may vie with athens and old rome for ingenuity and politeness of manners. these are your virtues, and this your character. but though the air you breathe be so sweet and wholesome, yet 'tis not able either to vanquish or correct the influences of the fanatique spirit: 'tis too powerful for the genius of the place, its poison is too strong for the soundest complexions; and into whomsoever it enters, it is portentous if it drive not away his good humour, and distemper his mind with a savage and phrenetick zeal. the man immediately loses all sense of the gracefulness of courtesy and good manners, withdraws himself from his neighbourly conversation, affects a stern passionate and untutored humour, becomes churlish to his own domestics, and pragmatical to his neighbours. he vents his sullen fits in malapert censures of the innocent mirth and cheerfulness of his former acquaintance, and in unneighbourly inquisitions (according to the geneva discipline) into the disorders of private families. 'tis strange how he delights in spiteful and malicious stories, and what secret pleasure he takes in the mischiefs of the world. he feeds upon other men's misfortunes, and is inwardly satisfied with their disgraces and disasters. he is ever sighing and complaining for the badness and degeneracy of the present age; and perhaps believes himself a person of extraordinary goodwill and tenderness to mankind, because he is so very apt to be concerned in their evils and calamities: though his querulous humour arise from nothing else but an odd baseness and churlishness of spirit, that naturally delights in malicious censures and reports; and takes a supreme content in displaying other men's deformities, and making illnatured and unhandsome reflections. and hence their breath, like infection, never spares to taint and traduce the soundest reputations: they live, and are supported by slanders and ill accidents; and with them the badness of a report is the strongest evidence of its truth; and a sad story, especially if it reflect upon the wisdom and sufficiency of their superiors, needs no proof, for 'tis its own; and every seditious report is as heartily embraced, as if it were a first principle of reason, or a fundamental article of faith. §. 7. but the greatest vent of their spite and rancour, is to belch out filthy slanders and reproaches against the conforming clergy; they are set up by them as the common mark for the hatred and malice of all parties to shoot at. to censure and reform them, is the most plausible vent of peevishness and ill-nature; and to abuse them, is the only evidence of some men's godliness, as it is of other men's wit. with what transport of attention will these godly people listen to a foul story of an ungodly parson? and with what indefatigable industry will they spread and improve the tale? you cannot endear them more than by supplying them with scandalous reports; and a zealous brother will even abate you something of the price of his commodities for your good news. it puts him into a pleasant and jolly humour, and the demure man grows witty and satirical, and glosses upon the story with notable essays of sanctified wit and raillery. though if you take these meek christians in their more serious moods, and preciser humours, than their mirth degenerates into railing, and downright contumely; baal's priests, and the locusts of the bottomless pit, are the civilest titles of honour they can bestow upon clergymen, and nothing more vulgar then to affront and revile them as they walk the streets; a rudeness never yet known in any civilised, no nor barbarous nation in the world: and some of their children are not so soon instructed in their catechism, as they are taught to revile a cassock. but the tongues of these dovelike innocents' are never so virulent as when they are inveighing against the church-revenues; they are strangely fluent upon this theme, and 'tis their everlasting argument. for here their envy settles upon its proper object; nothing dazzles them more than riches, because they value nothing more: and they can endure any thing in a clergyman with some patience, rather than a fair revenue; and they scarce account any true ministers of the gospel but lecturers, and such other mercenary preachers, as subsist entirely upon the benevolence and arbitrary pensions of the good people. with them 'tis the most glorious piece of reformation to make the priesthood vile and sordid; and to disrobe them of all secular privileges and dignities, is to bring them to the pattern of christ and his apostles. and 'tis the duty of christian princes to keep the clergy in as mean and despised a condition, as they were reduced to by the persecution of heathen emperors; and to suffer themselves to be abused, is the indispensable duty of the ministers of the gospel; and contempt and poverty are the peculiar ornaments of a ministerial spirit. all ecclesiastical grandeur is popish and antichristian; but in all protestant churches their godly ministers are content with a poor and beggarly competence. in brief, they deem contempt and penury as good qualifications for the priestly office, as some not long since thought ignorance and ill-manners; and to allow them a just and honourable maintenance, is to make them hirelings and loiterers. but though this be their hard reckoning with the whole profession, yet their own minister (poor man!) is sure to pay the shot, and they seldom fail to wreak their zeal and indignation upon him: 'tis a shame to observe how industrious some of them are to thwart and affront him upon all occasions, and how studious of all opportunities to provoke him with open insolences and indignities. with what malapertness will they censure his sermons, carp at his expressions, and condemn his doctrines? with what insolence will they pity his ignorance and insufficiency? and when they vouchsafe him their company, 'tis not so much to be instructed in their duty, as to pick quarrels, and make exceptions to his discourses. though, the truth is, in this piece of modesty they are outstripped by the she-professours. every conceited dame that drives a trade of gossipping from house to house, to tattle of religion, though for no other design then to gratify her itch of talking; and to this purpose has always at her tongue's end (and her religion seldom lies deeper) melancholy complaints of the hypocrisy of her heart, her deadness in duties, her wander in prayer, and her unprofitableness under the means of grace, and other sad stories that she has learned by rote: yet after all this puling and seeming humility, 'tis neither unusual nor altogether unpleasant to observe with what arrogance this supercilious gossip shall shake her head at the ignorance of her spiritual guide, and pity his unacquaintedness with the workings of the spirit of god in the hearts of believers; and caution her family, and her unbelieving husband, (for so he must be, if not listed into her own gang) against his dangerous errors, and lamentable mistakes; which, poor man! he often preaches, though not out of any bad design, but out of mere ignorance. the poor wretch (she tells them) i think is an honest man, and i believe means well; but it is a weak and a shallow divine, and an utter stranger to the more inward mysteries of the covenant of grace. and now under the appearance of this christian tenderness and compassion to the poor soul, how insolently will she despise his person? how magisterially will she censure his sermons? how confidently will she cavil at his doctrines? and how indecently will she laugh at his uncouth and ridiculous mistakes? §. 8. do not think (sir) i fancy things imaginary, and merely possible, and create to myself artificial men to suit them to my own extravagant characters. i speak mine and your own familiar experience, and you meet with these things and these persons in every days conversation. neither mistake me, as if i charged this churlish humour upon every individual professor; 'tis enough if it be the character of the generality, and 'tis all i intent. for i know there are some that descent from us, of a more modest and submissive temper; that are not so restive and inflexible to authority, so headstrong and confident in their own folly, nor so abusive and pragmatical in their demands. but then the dissent of these men is silent and peaceable, they make no noise and tumult in the church; they are not hasty to censure, slander and backbite their neighbours, but study to win their love by courtesy and fair deportment. these good men are as sensible of the zealous insolences of their brethren as i can be: but then they neither lead the faction, nor contribute much to support it, and follow purely the blind guidance of prejudice and education: and as for such, i pity their weakness, and love and honour their integrity. and others there are, whose veins are filled with such brisk and generous blood, that there is no leaven sour enough utterly to pervert the natural sweetness of their humours, but they will in the intercourses of humane life, keep up in spite of the most malignant principles, the urbanity of common conversation; and yet in the affairs and discourses of religion, you cannot descent from their opinions without inflaming their passions; and if you persist to contradict them, you blow up their heat and anger to an open impatience; their zeal cannot be civil to a friend of a different persuasion: they will silence all your arguments with rude and reviling language; oppress you with noise and clamour, and impertinent talk, and force you to yield to their intolerable folly. and you know (sir) some of our acquaintance, that (and 'tis a sober truth) have no fault but their religion; and who, were it not for that, might have proved good men and good christians: but so powerful is this sour humour, as to vanquish that candour and ingenuity that is natural to the people of the english nation; and so contagious, as to poison the purest and most untainted constitutions, and to pervert the soundest minds, and the sweetest dispositions. it is leaven in both its properties, as well in that it sours, as in that it swells the minds of men. in brief, setting aside those three excellent graces, of spiritual pride, ill-nature and ill-manners, i can perceive no great matter these saints and gracious people have to brag of, above us moral men, and graceless professors. §. 9 and 'tis this sullen humour lies at the bottom of all our disturbances: they quarrel the constitutions of our church, not so much because they cannot be satisfied, as because they affect dissatisfaction. the common people have no understanding of the grounds of their exceptions, and they talk their scruples by rote. the most zealous and the most clamorous of the herd, are not able to give the least tolerable account of their zeal and displeasure, but run away with any pitiful and unintelligible pretences, and resolve to make good the cause at all adventure by heat, and noise, and passion. how do they dread the superstition of a symbolical ceremony? though they as little understand the true signification of that word, as they do the orthodox notion of a procatarctick cause. and therefore 'tis not this hard word that scares them from the church's communion, but 'tis their own conceited and pragmatical humour, that affects and triumphs in contradiction. they think it a gallant thing to make a noise in the world, and to correct the wisdom and discretion of public authority; and that is a fine thing indeed! this extravagant pride is strangely agreeable to the original itch and vanity of humane nature, and is more natural to mankind then the follies of lust and wantonness; and there is no inclination that is so difficult either to govern or to vanquish, as this petulancy of spirit. and men had need to be very watchful and very serious to get the mastery of so fierce and impetuous an instinct. and therefore if we consider how insensible the people are of the enticements of this spiritual lewdness, and how unconcerned to resist the importunity of its desires, or to subdue the force and vigour of its inclinations; 'tis no wonder if so vehement a passion gain without their own express allowance, so entire and absolute a power over all their thoughts and actions: so easy (you see) it is for well-meaning men to mistake humour for conscience, though not out of deliberate malice, yet through ignorance and inadvertency. and therefore think not (sir) that 'tis the scope of my design to scoff at their faults, and upbraid their follies; 'tis nothing but a cordial love to virtue and themselves that put me upon these free, open and ingenuous reprehensions. for could we but affect the minds of men with a serious sense of their spiritual wickednesses, and prevail with them to make use of all the ordinary methods of reason and christian prudence for the mortification of their original pride and sullenness; and could we but reduce them to the softness and gentleness of a christian temper, how ashamed would they be of this brawling and contentious humour? and they would then scarce think it decent to be bold and malapert to their superiors for any cause of religion: nor would they think it worth the while to sacrifice the indispensable duties of the gospel for every scruple and weak proposition, nor disturb the public peace, nor affront the public laws for impertinencies and trifling opinions. they would then live quietly in their own families and neighbourhoods, and pursue the interest and employment of their callings, instead of carrying tales, and sowing dissensions. and the precious time they now wast in quarrelling for opinions, and in arguings and dispute for trifles and impotent fancies, they would then improve in offices of love and charity among their neighbours, in relieving the necessitous, in reconciling differences, in stifling slanders, and in clearing injured reputations. to conclude, so far would tenderness of conscience be from pleading scruple and nicety in opposition to the commands of public authority, that it would not be more tender and curious of any duty than obedience and humility. the serious sense of its own weakness, its reverence to the persons and authority of superiors, its love of modesty, meekness, humility, peace and ingenuity, would easily prevail with it to offer up all its private conceits and uncertain opinions, to so many advantages of peace, and so many virtues of obedience. §. 10. (ii.) they are not content to run down the author with lies and calumnies, but to make sure work, they will slander his reasonings, and raise false witness against his arguments. they will alter and pervert his smartest and most convictive proofs, till they have made them as weak and trifling as their own pretences. with whatsoever plainness and perspicuity he express his thoughts, 'tis all one for that, they are a people of an undaunted and shameless brow, they will look truth and reason out of countenance, they will insult over his modesty, will triumph in their own insolence, and silence all the reason in the world with affronts and rude behaviour. they are resolved to join throats to vote him down; and if they do, to what purpose is it to complain or remonstrate? all he shall gain by it, is to be laughed at for the vanity of his attempt. they blush not to commit a public rape upon the understandings of mankind; and will impose upon us with that boisterous rudeness, as if they conspired to force all the world out of their common senses. no author must challenge the liberty of being his own interpreter; the power of expounding assertions, is the privilege of the subject, and the prerogative of the multitude; and if they please, they can enforce any writer to accept a sense that contradicts his words. and if they do, there is neither remedy nor appeal; their judgement is final and arbitrary, and what they will have, they will have. no caution is sufficient to prevent their clamours; their leaders can easily descry a foul design under the fairest disguise; and 'tis but setting themselves to contrive some dull and malicious mistakes, and obtruding them upon their blind and sturdy proselytes, and then they are confident and impatient against his whole discourse, and the poor man without any more ado is knocked down with grievous and dead-doing objections. if master john do but whisper some ugly and ill-contrived suggestion, away 'tis carried with clamour and tragical declamation, the noise propagates like thunder, and spreads like lightning, and the whole city is filled with tumult and uproar. and now after all this, 'tis no less impossible to persuade them not to rail at my book, than it is to read it: no! 'tis profane, 'tis stuffed with wicked and ungodly opinions, it strikes at the whole power of godliness, and the very foundations of religion; and then let me affirm and deny, say and prove what i can, the people must and will persist in their anger and their clamour; they will refuse to be satisfied, affront their own consciences, and turn recusants to their own convictions, only that they may not want pretences and opportunities to rail at me. now what shall a man do in this case? you will say there is no remedy but patience; that is the only antidote against the venom of malicious tongues, and let your own innocence be your defence and apology. but, alas! this morality is too high a cordial for my present exigence; my spirits are not so fainting as to stand in need of philosophy to relieve and support them. i am too proud (you know) to be affected with all the assaults of noise and clamour; nothing but reason can ever move or humble me; and what am i concerned if impertinent people fret and rail? or why should it offend me if clowns want breeding and good manners? would you not think it a fine piece of pedantry, should you see a philosopher comfort himself with grave maxims, and stoical paradoxes, against the affronts of those creatures, whose nature it is to grin and snarl. however, it is in vain to reason with boisterous and illbred people, and to discourse the multitude to patience and calm enquiry; and when they are resolved to be rude and uncivil, better give way to their folly, then contend with their madness: and as they snuff in their prejudices like wild asses, so 'tis but natural they should bray and be impatient at all opposition. §. 11. but yet one pleasant scene of their ingenuity in this kind, i cannot forbear to represent, and that is the advantage they have taken from my discourse of trade, to expose me to popular hatred, and to raise an uproar among the people: for though the plain meaning and design of that discourse is neither more nor less, then to intimate that the improvement of trade is not of equal importance to the commonwealth, with the security of public peace and setlement. and yet upon this innocent suggestion, how have they bestirred themselves to inflame and enrage the multitude, by representing to them, as if under pretence of writing against liberty of conscience, my main design had been to write against liberty of trade: how (say they) does this young rabshakeh blaspheme, beyond the precedent and example of all former ages? he pours forth his blasphemies both against your gain and your godliness too; he would raise a persecution upon your purses as well as your consciences, and bring trade and grace to the stake together. what can the prelatists' design by such discourses as these, but to persuade his majesty to reduce you to beggary, that he may the better reduce you to obedience? to sack the city, to burn your houses, nay to blow up the thames, would not bring upon you such a fatal and irreparable desolation, survey. pag. 80. as that which the pursuit of this counsel must inevitably produce. such is the talk of these craftsmen, to expose me to the rage and violence of the rascality, that are always most forward in zeal, and mutiny, and reformation, as if i had preached expressly against their great goddess diana. and they have so bestirred themselves to keep up this outcry, as if they had seriously designed to draw down their myrmidons to the palace-gates, (according to the pattern of modern reformers) to make uproars, and tear their throats in crying, great is diana of the ephesians. and yet after all this noise, there is no t●●de endangered but that of conventicles, by which craft, demetrius and his accomplices get their wealth. i have indeed told the people, that the image they worship never fell down from jupiter, but that the shrine-men abuse them with a puppet of their own framing, and then call it the image of diana. that 'tis not the cause of god, (as is pretended) but the interest of a few seditious men that first raised, and still keeps up the tumults in the church; and that the doctrines, on whose behalf they have made so many uproars, are no gospel-truths', but their own fond and novel inventions; by all which, there is no trade or occupation jeoparded, but theirs who live by making schisms and factions. but where their interest lies at stake, all asia shall be concerned, and their cause shall be made the quarrel of mankind. otherwise, how could every young apprentice be taught to rail at me, as an enemy to his preferment? for what can be more apparent than that i have affirmed nothing positively, either for or against it, but have flatly waved it as an impertinent enquiry to my present design? let them discover one syllable that may tend to persuade its discouragement, and i will be content (and i think it is but a just penance) to pay a double price for all the commodities i buy. but though malice and popular rage will not be tied to the strictness of reason and logical discourse, and may be allowed its privilege to find any conclusions in any premises; yet methinks writers of books should be more severe and cautious, because their integrity may be exposed, if they prevaricate, though the multitude cannot. and in this instance of ingenuity, i find my great surveyor as faulty as the rudest he of them all; and he rails as lavishly at me, as if i had fired the city, or the ships at chatham. pag. 80. but what is it that has moved so much zeal and choler? nothing but that i have been so presumptuous as to affirm in print, that the setlement of public peace in the nation, is a more comfortable thing then the improvement of trade. profane counsel this! and if pursued, must prove more fatal to the city of london, than the late horrid conflagration. but to be brief and serious, the scope and plain design of all that discourse, was to represent, that liberty of conscience could not be supposed to be conducive to the improvement of trade, because it was destructive of peace and public security; it being a certain and a granted truth, that peaceable times are doubtless the best seasons of traffic; and that it cannot be expected honest and peaceable industry should thrive so well in the dangers and confusions of a civil war, when no trade goes forward but that of the saints, plunder and sacrilege; and therefore men that design to enrich themselves only by employments of peace, will not seek their gain in any ways that tend to its dissolution: so that if this supposition be true, that liberty of conscience is one of the most fatal hindrances of the security of government, and setlement of society, the consequence is infallible, that for that reason only it was not to be endured in the commonwealth, though it were supposed otherwise never so much serviceable to the advancement of trade. and therefore had our author designed to reply at all to the purpose, he must have made out either the vanity of my supposal, viz. that liberty of conscience naturally tends to the subversion of the public peace; or the absurdity of my inference, that though it were really serviceable to the interest of trade, yet it was not to be endured, if it were as really destructive of the interests of government. but this logical severity concerns not him, 'tis his custom to balk premises, and fall foul upon conclusions; and therefore without regard either to the truth of my supposition, or my inference, he in his crude way of declaiming, inveighs against me as an enemy to trade and industry, though the next time he writes he may with as great a show of reason impeach me of sorcery and witchcraft. pag. 80. §. 12. for is this to discountenance trade, to say, that liberty of conscience is but an ill way to improve it? pag 79. is this to persuade the king to draw out the vital spirits and blood of his kingdom, to say, 'tis but an impolitic trick to sacrifice the security of his crown to the wealth of a few fanatic and ungovernable subjects? is this to suspend all thoughts of the encouragement of trade, pag. 81. till all men are brought to an uniformity of religion, to say, it more imports governors to stifle fanatic factions and animosities, then to enrich tradesmen? and may they not at the same time project the improvement of trade, and the establishment of uniformity, and enact laws to suppress schisms, whilst they establish privileges to encourage manufactures? is this to discourage industrious men in a peaceful way of improving their own interests, pag. 77. to prevent and restrain them from doing it in unpeaceable ways? the persons i discoursed of, were not tradesmen, but fanatics, that are greater enemies to peace, than friends to industry; people of such peevish and restless dispositions, that no government can satisfy them; of such furious and ungovernable spirits, that no indulgence can appease them; of such proud and arrogant tempers, that no courtesy can oblige them: 'tis these fantastic and supercilious mushrooms to whom i would not have liberty granted, because as it is pregnant with many other mischiefs, so if it improve their interest, it does but pamper their insolence, embolden their presumption, and tempt them to raise rebellions out of pride and wantonness. and the time is well known when this capricious humour involved a flourishing kingdom in woeful wars and desolations, for no other reason, then because it was blessed with more peace and plenty than it ever before or since enjoyed. but as for men of peaceable spirits, and sober principles, they neither need nor desire liberty of conscience for the advancement of trade; nay, nothing can more discourage their industry then factions of zeal, and animosities of religion, that keep the minds of men in a perpetual posture of war and mutual hatred, and that break out upon every occasion into open ruptures and embroilments; and if a few factious priests will but sound an alarm to reformation, the multitude are immediately all in arms; and whenever the rabble take a toy against antichrist and superstition, (i. e. any thing against which their preachers are wont to inveigh) the whole kingdom must be embroiled for an idle word, and an extravagant humour. now what wise man will care to appear abroad in such broken and uncertain times? or to launch forth among such fanatic herricano's? no, he will rather choose not to improve, then to endanger his fortune; and thinks it better husbandry to bury, then to drown his wealth. and therefore you may observe, that none are more zealous than the more gentile and intelligent sort of merchants for the setlement of uniformity in order to the security of trade; for their experience of the horrid mischiefs and desolations brought to pass in other parts and other religions of the world, by the follies and frenzies of fanatic spirits, makes them sadly apprehensive of the danger of this hot and giddy humour, and fearful of venturing too far among such wild and unconstant cannibals. and as for wise and peaceable persons, that sit warm in their own fortunes, they are as little enamoured of factions in the church, as of disturbances in the state; and therefore if our author speak only concerning such issachar's as these, he speaks neither to my purpose, nor to their approbation. but to dispatch this head, to what purpose does he catechise me, pag. 78. whether i have really considered what the meaning of that word [trade] is, unless he could prove it signifies more than that word [peace?] to what purpose does he represent, that if trade decay, pag. 79. noblemen and gentlemen must be content to eat their own beef and mutton at home, unless he could prove it more comfortable to be forced to beg their beef and mutton abroad, as they were not long since by the scrupulous and holy brethren, whilst themselves kept house for them at home, and made merry with songs upon * this hard word will be explained in the sequel of this discourse. sigionoth? with what honesty does he upbraid me for professing to smile at those who labour with mighty projects for the improvement of trade, when 'tis so notorious i only smiled at the pedantry of those men, that are so wonderfully eager upon petty designs, without any regard to the great concerns of a nation? such as is the erecting little manufactures in villages and burroughs, when compared with the advantages of public peace and setlement; and at such half-witted people all the world will laugh as well as i. with what ingenuity does he represent, as if i had scoffed at his majesty's council appointed for the improvement of trade, unless it must be taken for granted, that the commissioners have no more wit then to oppose or neglect the public peace and setlement, for the interest of that project? and if he will be so rude as to suppose it, i will be so bold as to make a wry mouth at such preposterous follies. with what conscience does he tell the people, that i have represented all tradesmen as seditious, when 'tis so notorious i only suppose that some of them may be tainted with seditious principles? and upon that supposition i have concluded seditious tradesmen to be more dangerous than seditious farmers. and is it the same thing to affirm all tradesmen to be seditious, as to say, that when they are so, they have more advantage of doing mischief then countrey-folk? if i should affirm, that when the nobility or clergy are possessed with principles that incline to rebellion, and disloyal practices, they are of all rebels the most dangerous, should i be thought to impeach them of treason and disloyalty? in brief, it is not the rich citizen, but the wealthy fanatic that i have branded for an ungovernable beast; and that not as wealthy, but as fanatic: remove the fanatic, and neither the man nor his wealth will do any harm. and now if after all this, men will still be clamorous, and say i have persuaded the discouragement of trade, there is no remedy for me, and no cure for them; i cannot vanquish their rudeness, and by strength of reason force them to be ingenuous; and if they are resolved to abuse their own understandings, that they may abuse me, let them take their course, and enjoy their humour. but yet let them not please themselves with the conceit of their having spited and disappointed my design, by their being boisterous and uncivil, when it was no more than what i expected, and what (as they know) i foretold: i was not unacquainted with those base and mean artifices, wherewith the ringleaders are wont to inveigle their credulous and besotted drove. i knew beforehand with whatsoever clearness and caution i expressed my thoughts, they could fasten what sense they pleased upon my words; and that all their followers would passionately embrace their violent and distorted interpretations; and when they have imposed upon themselves, they grow zealous and impatient, they are deaf to all remonstrances, incurious of all rational pleas and defences, and you cannot prevail with them, no not to attend to the persuasions of their own understandings; and in defiance to all syntax and propriety of speech, this shall be your meaning, and be it enacted and decreed, that all the godly party embrace this and no other: and then 'tis a law of the medes and persians, and your sentence is as irreversible, as the decree of absolute and irrespective reprobation. but to conclude, you already see what work i am like to have with this man, not so much to vindicate the honest truth, as the sense and grammar of my assertions. they have sufficiently upbraided my presumption for the boldness of my conclusion, viz. what i have written, i have written; and now i am convinced i was too confident, for i see that is the only thing in all my book i shall be put to prove. but my resentments of his shameless rudeness and dis-ingenuity, have carried me beyond my design, and beside my method, into this particular skirmish, to let you see his weapons, his wiles, and his way of fight, before i closed and engaged with the main battle: to which i now proceed, as it follows under the next head. §. 13. (iii.) the multitude having by the forementioned ways of incivility and foul language performed their part, and discharged their duty, their last method of defence is to engage particular champions, that are known to be mighty in dispute, to enter the lists against all adversaries: and then they are secure of triumph, though not of victory. every reply shall be voted unanswerable, obscure words shall pass for depth of reason, and huge confidence for strength of demonstration; popular noise shall make good the performance, and the vogue of the party shall justify all their arguments, and baffle all our answers. the cattle they star are hoodwinked, and as long as they drive, will never boggle at any thing. and therefore they never stand upon regular proofs and reasonings, but their weapon is their confidence, and bold affirmations are self-evident, because their boldness is their only proof. they presume upon the understandings, and are secure of the suffrages of their own herd: to them all their empty talk is infallible as oracle and inspiration; every slight presumption is a mighty proof, and every shadow of proof bright and forcible as demonstration. and to this purpose have i been assaulted by three puissant aggressours; the first whereof i conjecture by his latin, his wit and his manners, to have been either pupil or apprentice to the renowned cobbler of gloucester. and the truth is, from the days of newman down to our own, the men of that trade and profession have been the greatest instruments and the best workmen at a through godly reformation. my second adversary seems more modest, and better bred; and is, i am confident, an upright and well-meaning man: but how desirous soever he has been of a reply, i shall not vouchsafe to do him so much right, or rather so much wrong, not only because he has scarce ventured to attaque any thing in my book beside the contents, but chiefly because i shall have occasion to examine all his more material impertinencies in my third assailant. and therefore i shall dismiss these two yelping pamphleteers, as hurried on to this enterprise by nothing but their own hot heads and busy humours; and address myself entirely to my sage surveyor, as being not only a man of known puissance and experience in dispute, and of mighty bruit and renown in controversial encounters; but also as a champion sent forth, if not by the choice, yet at least by the approbation of the whole party, that have testified their esteem of his courage, and their assurance of his success, by a general shout and applause: and nothing less is expected from this man of gath, then that he should give the flesh of his adversary unto the fowls of the air, and to the beasts of the field. but as he stalks about to view his helpless prey, v. pag 84, ●78. his bowels begin to melt into tenderness and compassion, and he looks down upon the unfortunate youth with equal pity and disdain. it is a pretty and an hopeful stripling, and 'tis pity to nip him in his youthful bloom; and therefore in stead of crushing him to death and nothing, as men kill snails, he will only chastise the rash and forward boy, and by the smartness of his correction, make him repent the folly and unadvisedness of his undertaking. and i doubt not but the people insult over the severity of my rebuke, and think i have done sufficient penance for my presumption. they turn over the leaves, and tell the number of his pages, and that is enough to justify their flattest and most peremptory censures; 'tis no matter for an attentive and deliberate perusal, they always pass their definitive sentence, not according to the evidence of reason, but according to the inclinations of prejudice, an● the interests of a party: so that the book, be it what it will, is secure of their applauses and acclamations. never did man write a more coherent and unanswerable piece of reason; never were arguments more smartly urged, nor objections more dexterously assoiled: verily it is a wonderful precious man! and yet bating a few cavils foreign to the main matters in debate, they understand not either what he drives at, or what he opposes, and are not able to give the least tolerable account by what engines and particular reasonings he has undermined (as he words it) the principal parts and seeming pillars of my whole fabric: and excepting that 'tis known by vulgar hear-say, that he writes for liberty of conscience, and i against it, they know nothing of the grounds and principles of our difference. but he braves it confidently in general terms, insults over this argument, despises that; tells of lamentable misadventures in one place, and palpable inconsistencies in another; accuses this proposition as a new and unheard-of heresy, slights that as an old and cashiered error: vaunts every where of his own feats and performances, and upon every occasion drops censures and challenges, and bears up through the whole against all that either has been, or ever shall be objected with gallantry of mind, and assurance of success: and this is at once both triumph and victory. their confidence is the most effectual and persuasive argument with their followers, that have no ground for their dislike but the warrant and prescription of their example; they have bored their ears to their dictates, and subjected their reasons and consciences to their authority; and therefore the assent of the one is ever proportioned to the confidence of the other; and if these will be peremptory in their assertions, they will be inflexible in their belief; 'tis in vain to attempt their constancy, they are (as a poet speaks of the old romans) immovable as the capitol; and you may sooner remove mountains, then shake their confidence. but is it not prodigious to see people so jocundly satisfied with a book, written with so much looseness, as if its author had either utterly forgot what i had uttered, or cared not what himself was to prove: a book wherein 'tis hard to find a passage that is not coarsely false or impertinent, and very few that are not apparently both: a book in which you shall meet with nothing singular and remarkable, but horrid untruths and falsifications. §. 14. but however, a book he resolved to write, without regard to truth or falsehood; and though he were not so lamentably costive as a late brother of the scribbling humour, that was so far to seek for an exordium, that he was forced to take his rise at the day of the month, and the year of our lord; yet he was much more unhappy to make his entrance with such an awkerd acknowledgement, as must for ever defeat and discredit the design of his whole performance, by confessing, that all his pleas, how solemn and serious soever he may appear, are but dissembled and hypocritical pretences: when he tells us, that 'tis none of the least disadvantages of his cause, pag. 1. that he is enforced to admit a supposition, that those whom he pleads for are indeed really mistaken in their apprehensions. but though this may seem a rash and unadvised concession, yet if you examine it, you will find it a notable wily and cunning device. for unless he will give place to such a supposition, or if he will rigidly contend, that what he pleads in the behalf of, is absolutely the truth, and that obedience thereunto is the direct will and command of god, there remains no proper field for the debate about indulgence to be managed in: for things acknowledged to be such, are not capable of an indulgence properly so called, because the utmost liberty that is necessary unto them, is their right and due in strict justice and law. and yet the whole scope of his apology, and the only fundamental principle upon which he builds, is that they are obliged to do what they do out of obedience to the will and command of god; and by consequence the things they contend for, are not capable of any indulgence, but are matters of indispensable duty and divine right: so that were the government of church-affairs at their disposal, they must establish the things that they desire to be indulged in, as duties of strict justice and law, and restrain all other different forms and practices out of regard to the divine command; and then to tolerate ours, or any other way of worship distinct from their own, would be to permit men to live in open defiance to the direct will and command of god, that has precisely enjoined a different form of worship. so that it seems all pretences for liberty of conscience, are but artificial disguises for the advantage of farther designs; and when they gain it, than the mask falls off, and the scene is shifted, and petitions for indulgence immediately swell up into demands of reformation. so unfortunate is this man in his whole performance, that by all the principles he has made use of to plead for indulgence, he is obliged to plead against it. and there is not a more effectual argument against toleration of different forms of worship, than their fundamental conceit, that nothing ought to be practised or established in the worship of god, but what is precisely warranted and authorized in the word of god: for this restrains and disavows all forms but one, and ties all the christian world to a nice and exact conformity to that complete and adequate rule of worship. but suppose he were to speak to the nature of the things themselves, and not to the apprehensions of them with whom he has to do: then farewell all soft and gentle language, and you shall hear nothing but thundrings against superstition, will-worship, episcopal tyranny, popish corruptions, rags of the whore, and the dregs of the romish beast. sermon before parl. octob 24. 1651. pag. 12. by j. o. then what is prelacy but a mere antichristian encroachment upon the inheritance of christ? and he that thinks babylon is confined to rome, and its open idolatry, knows nothing of babylon, nor of the new jerusalem: the depth of a subtle mystery does not lie in gross visible folly; it has been insinuating itself into all the nations for 1600 years, and to most of them is now become as the marrow in their bones; before it be wholly shaken out, these heavens must be dissolved, and the earth shaken, (i. e. as he expounds both himself and the text, the settled and established government of the west must be subverted:) their tall trees (i. e. kings and princes) hewed down and set a howling, and the residue of them transplanted from one end of the earth to the other. or as the same author expresses himself upon another occasion, sermon before parl. april 19 1649. pag. 25. the heavens and the earth of the nations must be shaken, because in their present constitution they are directly framed to the interest of antichrist, which by notable advantages at their first moulding, and continued insinuations ever since, hath so riveted itself into the very fundamentals of them, that no digging or mining with an earthquake will cast up the foundation-stones thereof. and therefore the lord jesus having promised the service of the nations to his church, will so far open their whole frame to the roots, as to pluck out all the cursed seeds of the mystery of iniquity, which by the craft of satan, and exigences of state, or methods of advancing the pride and power of some sons of blood, have been sown amongst them. and then abundance of scripture and dark prophecy is poured forth, to make good these mild and peaceable doctrines: it is the great day of the wrath of the lamb. the land shall be soaked with blood, and the dust made fat with fatness; for it is the day of the lords vengeance, and the year of recompense for the controversy of zion. ibid. pag. 21. all the kings of the earth have given their power to antichrist, endeavouring to the utmost to keep the kingdom of christ out of the world. what i pray has been their main business for 700 years and upward, even almost ever since the man of sin was enthroned? how have they earned the titles, eldest son of the church, the catholic and most christian king, defender of the faith? hath it not been by the blood of the saints? and now will not the lord avenge his elect that cry unto him day and night? will he not do it speedily? will he not call the fowls of heaven to eat the flesh of kings, and captains, and great men of the earth? rev. 19.18. all this must be done, sermon of octob. 24. 1651. pag. 27. to cast down all opposition to the kingdom of the lord christ, and to advance it to its glory and power. that consists mainly of these three things, that he there reckons. 1. purity and beauty of ordinances and gospel-worship. 2. the full casting out and rejecting of all will-worship, and their attendant abominations. 3. a most glorious and dreadful breaking of all that rise in opposition unto him: never such desolations. so that we see nothing will ever satisfy their desires and demands, sermon april 19 1641. p. ●. unless all gospel-ordinances be reform to their primitive power and purity, according to the appointment, and unto the acceptation of the lord jesus. or as the same author expresses himself more fully in his sermon of april 29. 1646. p. 29. the darling errors of late years (of the bishops) were all of them stones of the old babel, closing and coupling with that tremendous fabric, which the man of sin had erected to dethrone jesus christ; came out of the belly of that trojan horse, that fatal engine, which was framed to betray the city of god. they were popish errors, such as whereof that apostasy did consist, which only is to be looked upon as the great adverse state to the kingdom of the lord christ. heedless and headless errors may breed disturbance enough unto the people of god; but such as tend to a peace and association ●um ecclesiâ malignantium, tending to a total subversion of the sacred state, are far more dangerous. now such were the innovations of the late hierarchists; in worship, their paintings, cross, crucifixes, bowing, cringing, altars, tapers, wafers, organs, anthems, litany, rails, images, copes, vestments; what were they but roman varnish, an italian dress for our devotion, to draw on conformity with that enemy of the lord jesus? in doctrine, the divinity of episcopacy, (a notable piece of popery that) auricular confession, freewill, predestination on faith, yea works foreseen, (what antichristian doctrine is that too?) limbus patrum, justification by works, falling from grace, authority of a church, which none knew what it was, canonical obedience, holiness of churches, and the like innumerable, what were they but helps to sancta clara, to make all our articles of religion speak good roman-catholique? how did their old father of rome refresh his spirit, to see such chariots as those provided to bring england again unto him? this closing with popery was the sting in the errors of those days, which caused pining, if not death in the episcopal pot. §. 15. here is no shuffling, nor any shifting pretences, 'tis plain dealing, and plain english. antichrist and all its adherents must be destroyed by wars and horrid desolations: this is the way that the lord christ has chalked out to his people, both by his promises and his providences, to introduce the purity and beauty of his ordinances. the prelatists are members of the whore and the beast, and imitate the antichristian apostasy both from the worship and the doctrine of the gospel; ibid. pag. 3●▪ nay, the vial of popery is poured out upon the very throne itself, as it was when charles the first sat in it. and now what is the result of all this gibberish, but that the saints, whenever providence alarms, or (as he manageth the business) opportunity invites them to the great and glorious work of a more through godly reformation, may and aught to shake and subvert the established government of the nation, that is combined with the interest of antichrist, to set up their way of gospel-worship, or the purity and beauty of christ's ordinances? which is the only thing urged and pleaded for by our author. you see, sir, (to bate him some worse inferences) what stout patrons these men are of the indulgence they plead for, when every opinion that they judge erroneous, must be branded for a popish and antichristian error; when every slight difference shall be resolved into atheism and blasphemy; when a scholastic nicety about the unaccountable workings of eternal providence, shall be made an eminent instance of antichristian apostasy; and when to descent from him in a thing of no greater importance than a metaphysical speculation, shall amount to no less charge than of betraying the gospel of christ, and hewing at the very root of christianity, as he speaks of some systematick niceties, that he is pleased to call arminian heterodoxes, display of armin. ep. dedic. and whose abettors he denounces with the confidence of an apostolical authority, uncapable of our church-communion. nay, the duties of pastors and people distinguished, pag. 52. his zeal against them did not confine itself to his own native country, but extended its fervours (as himself informs us) to a foreign commonwealth, and vented its heats against their indulgence, and plea for toleration, and a liberty of prophesying beyond the seas. to what party of dissenters is it that this tenderhearted man would extend the favour of his indulgence, that resolves every petty dissent into an inexpiable apostasy from the gospel; and has branded all parties with such foul names as render them unworthy the compassion of the state, and uncapable of the communion of the church? 'tis true, many pamphlets he has published in behalf of toleration and liberty of conscience; but yet he still so order the matter, as to exclude all men whatsoever from claiming any benefit or advantage from that pretence, excepting only the savage and the frantic sectaries of the army: and that is the whole mystery of his good-nature. the independents had vanquished the royalists, and supplanted the presbyterians, and were perkt up into a supremacy of power and interest: but being unable either to secure or to support their tyranny, unless by the assistance of those religious miscreants, who were the only faithful adherents to their godly interest, they must soothe and treat them with all brotherly love and tenderness; and all their fanatic frekes and horrid blasphemies must be winked at as pitiable mistakes and miscarriages of weak brethren. for if we exasperated them by giving check to their exorbitances, we lose our friends and confederates, abate our power, and endanger our interest; and 'tis more eligible for humble and selfdenying men to bear with all the wild and fanatic enormities in the world, rather than part with the delicious sweets of government and sovereign authority. what other imaginable account can be given of this man's zeal for toleration, when he has so peremptorily stripped all parties of their right to it, excepting only those sons of anarchy and confusion? for not only the papists, the prelatists, and the arminians, but even their dear brethren of the presbytery were transformed into limbs of the antichristian l●viathan: so that (not to pursue this advantage too far) you see the naked and undisguised truth of these men's persuasions, maugre all their demure concessions and juggling pretensions. all the world are fallen short of the truth of god but themselves; and out of the churches of their pale, there is none orthodox, no not one. we have all revolted from the kingdom of the lord christ, to the corruptions and superstitious idolatries of antichrist; and therefore we are all to be accounted and treated as members of that whore, whom the saints hate, and shall make desolate and naked, and shall eat her flesh, and suck her blood. this is the true state of the controversy between us. but affairs, it seems, are not yet ripe enough for the discovery of such bold and dangerous truths; and therefore our author, as the present posture of things stands, thinks it more prudence to stifle and dissemble such thoughts. the new lights and doctrines of 49. are not seasonable in 69. then i. o. in a sermon preached before his masters of the rump, (the scope whereof is to prove that the lord jesus christ is resolved to embroil all the ancient kingdoms, and subvert all the settled governments of the west, to restore the purity of his gospel-worship: i.e. in plainer and less canting english, to carry on the great work of a through reformation by civil wars and rebellions) among many other rare notions, wonderfully tending to the peace of christendom, he informs the world, pag. 35. every age has its peculiar work, has its peculiar light; now what is the light which god manifestly gives in in our days? plainly, the peculiar light of this generation, is that discovery which the lord has made to his people of the mystery of civil and ecclesiastical tyranny. this light was fit to be hanged out to the people, when they had murdered their sovereign prince, banished the undoubted heir to the crown, and proclaimed him a traitor to his own subjects. but, alas! those happy days are gone, and those attempts of liberty defeated, and the nation is once more relapsed into its civil and ecclesiastical slavery; and that is no proper season for the revelation of his mysteries. and therefore he is not unwilling to forego the mighty advantages of these new lights, and is content his party should pretend to grant this false supposition, that by so much seeming modesty they might win upon their superiors to requite them with a real indulgence: though methinks 'tis neither wisely nor kindly done of him, in this public manner to betray their secret thoughts and purposes to their most implacable adversaries. however, i am sure 'tis far from being artificially contrived, that when he designed to act in a disguise, he should at the first entrance upon the stage unmask himself to all the spectators, only that they might know him not to be in good earnest, nor the person he appears to be. §. 16. but however, from these thoughts he starts his discourse; and though he stumble into his career, that is no hindrance to the swiftness of his course, but away he flies like lightning, and is not able to curb his pen, till it comes to the end of 410 pages. for by heating his brains with this introduction, he quickly fills his fancy with an innumerable swarm of vagrant fortuitous and heedless imaginations, that come fluttering forth in such a preposterous and impetuous stream of words, that he could scarce gain leisure to range them into grammatical syntax. every conceit that thrusts its self into his thoughts, he pours out into his book: his work must be finished in a few hasty minutes, and at idle hours, how then can you reasonably expect he should have time to weigh the strength and pertinency of his arguments, or digest his notions into method or propriety of speech? and had i either so much patience, or so little employment as to represent to your view the short contents of his whole book, how would you bless yourself at such an undigested heap of rubbish, and such an immethodical rhapsody of words? take a short taste, and supply the rest with your own observation. pag. 2. those who plead for liberty of conscience, are forced to dissemble in their pretences. pag. 3. the design of the ecclesiastical polity is to prove that the law of the civil magistrate, is the sole rule of religious worship. pag. 4. the principles of that book are new and uncouth. pag. 5, 6. neither church nor state is concerned in them. pag. 7. there is no love lost between us, as being no acquaintance. pag. 8, 9 young men are confident, old men cautious. pag. 10. i am more a philosopher then a christian. pag. 11. rails at me for railing at them. pag. 12. engages to be civil; and for a taste of his civility, pag. 13. charges me with the height of pride and boasting. pag. 14. many are displeased with my scoffings and revile. pag. 15. the nonconformists will not be jeered out of the profession of the gospel. pag. 16. challenges all our learned men to a disputation. pag. 17. demands a personal conference between w. b. and the author of the friendly debate. pag. 18. cites my description of the nonconformists preaching. pag. 19, 20. what if i am deceived. pag. 21. another challenge to all men of learning. pag. 22. there are fools of all parties. should i proceed after this manner to show you by what tautologies, from what topics, and with what materials he has made up his full tale of 400 pages, you would (so endless, and yet withal so trifling are its follies) pity that man that is condemned to squander away his time and parts in winnowing such an heap of chaff, and such a mass of impertinencies. in short, in stead of spending a few hours to examine the principal parts and seeming pillars of my whole fabric, he has only hid and buried them under loads of rubbish; and to clear that, will be the work and drudgery of my reply, rather than to strengthen my own foundations. and to that purpose i will give you a general account of the way of his writing, and main heads of his arguing: which being dispatched, there will remain but a very small pittance of pertinent matter for my review. §. 17. 1. in stead of following the plain and evident drift of my discourses, he starts some collateral reflection, that was occasionally intimated upon supposition of the truth and evidence of my main principles and direct assertions; and this chase he pursues with noise and deepmouthed cries through two or three pages, till he chance to stumble upon some fresh proposition of the same nature, and then that is his game, and that he follows with the same empty noise and clamour, till some new theme divert him to a new pursuit; and if he can run it down with a few idle descants, impertinent queries, insipid exclamations, abused texts, and threadbare apophthegms, the day is his own; if not, it escapes his fury; he must not lose his variety of sport, by wasting too much of his time and spirits in the over-eager pursuit of a single prey. and when he flies out into these unruly digressions, his fancy is pregnant, his pen is brisk and sprightly, and he is lavish of his ink and paper: but when he returns towards the track of my discourse, his career checks, his confidence abates, it is not altogether so pert and dogmatical; its censures are not so full of scorn and neglect, nor his determinations so magisterial and presumptuous, but the man condescends sometimes to the modesty of a perhaps, and a may-be, i fear, and it seems. and he usually stops his course before he comes to the main issue of the business; and like a discreet and reserved man, seems to keep back the main thing that he could say; the whole secret is not to be unriddled at once. no! the reader must content himself with a transient taste at first, and then feed his expectation with the gracious promise of future discoveries and revelations never to be revealed. but he has his magazine of unanswerable arguments and objections, that i am confident we shall never answer, though for no other reason then because we shall never hear them. you have read the memoirs of tom coriat, whose custom it is to enlarge upon toys and trifles; he is circumstantial in his remarks upon his hosts beard, and in his description of his signpost, but scarce takes notice of any thing great and glorious, and passes by prince's palaces, forts and citadels, and all the greatest strengths and ornaments of kingdoms. and to the same purpose has this man spent his travels through my book; where he lights upon any passage that is less important in itself, and more remote from my main design, he dwells and expatiates upon it with double diligence. and so industrious is he to collect the smallest and least considerable passages, as if he were resolved nothing in my book should escape his correction. and how bravely does he amplify upon words and little trifles! as if he had determined not to spare the nicest error to expose my ignorance, but had engaged to sift me with such an exact and merciless disquisition, that rather than any thing should escape him, he would measure atoms, and weigh grains. but when he approaches my main design, how slightly does he balk the weightiest reasonings? how nimbly does he frisk over the greatest difficulties? and how dexterously does he beat beside the main questions? and if he now and then stay to glance at any more enforcing proof, 'tis extraordinary: but some arguments he winks at, and some he outfaces; those he confutes with a pish, and these with a vapour, and heaps up every where i know not what general censures and exceptions, but nothing is either proved or specified; and he is so admirably accomplished in all the arts of tediousness and impertinency, that he can waste a whole page of words to no other purpose, vide pag. 19, 20, 72, 73, 74, 75, 83, 84. and with no more sense then to deny a proposition, or slight an argument, and yet not allow a line to confute it. he is fluent, and runs over in expressions where there is no need; but where there is, he immediately becomes dry in his discourse, and thrifty of his words; and has consumed more pages in loose and precarious censures, than he has in making premises and conclusions: and if such talk may pass for pertinent replies, he may undertake the defence of any cause, and 'tis indifferent which side he abets; his answers will serve equally at all turns, and to all purposes; he may turn the same declamations upon his own castles in the air, and then they are all beaten down about his ears: but if he would have allotted all that time, and all those pages to confute my arguments, that he has spent to rail and declaim against them, his book would not have been so much less, as it must have been better. instances of this sort are innumerable, and therefore i shall not here be so tedious as to accumulate particulars, because it would be endless; only let me request you to reflect upon this suggestion as you travel through his dry and barren pages, and then your own observation will too pregnantly confirm and justify mine: and therefore quitting this more general consideration, that is only forcible upon impartial and ingenuous minds, i shall address myself to some more particular and convictive remarks. §. 18. 2. one of his choicest helps to swell up the bulk of his answer, is to break out at every turn into tragical complaints against the tartness of my invectives and satirical expressions: and this topick he seems to keep for a reserve upon all occasions; and whenever he runs himself out of breath, and out of argument, here he recovers his wind, and recruits his forces; at this post his pen always both starts and stops his career. and he sallies forth so often into this complaint, that by computation i judge it fills up above the fifth part of his reply. but all this is no more than rubbish, and serves to no nobler use then to fill up void spaces, and amounts to no higher purpose then impertinent talk. for whether i have incurred this censure, is not to be determined by any smartness of expressions, but by the truth and evidence of things: for some tempers and principles there are, that can never be exposed with too much sharpness and severity of stile; and therefore if the tender man, in stead of declaiming against the unmerciful carriage of my pen, had been at leisure to write pertinently, he should have proved it was undeserved: but if evidence of proof, and notoriety of fact, do justify my utmost charge, my expression must have come short of my theme, had i arraigned such hateful crimes in softer language. a man may without offence represent vice in its blackest colours, and expose the ugliness of pride and insolence with the roughest and most satirical characters; and for this no stile can be too churlish and vehement; and 'tis no cruelty to lash a naked crime with scorpions and whips of steel: yet when it puts on the mask of religion, and gains its opportunities under the protection of a tender conscience, than we must court it with gentle and respectful language; to discover the imposture, is to expose religion; to inveigh against the foulness of the abuse, is to rail at the power of godliness; to uncase the hypocrite, and to wash off his varnish and false colours, is to lay open the nakedness of piety to the scorn of atheists and worldlings: and therefore we must be tame and patient, and suffer them to debauch religion and disturb government, to affront authority and trample upon laws, to spread their infection, and broach their seditious doctrines, to raise violent schisms and factions in the church, and misled the people into a rebellious reformation: and lastly, toss us up and down in eternal dissetlements, because they pray and fast often, and enjoy communion with god, and attend upon his ordinances, and love the lord jesus, and hate antichrist. so that though a man may declaim against naked villainy with the severest invectives, yet it seems we must flatter hypocrisy, though it enhanse the foulness of the crime, by the falsehood of its pretences. and because 'tis bold and shameless, we must suffer it to look truth out of countenance. 'tis an holy and a precise man, and it looks demurely, and then what if he be saucy to his superiors? what if he scorn and trample upon his betters? what if he be peevish and impatient of contradiction? what if every affront transport him into all the disorders of passion and revenge? and what if he shroud pride and insolence under the covering of a sheepish humility? we must not presume to discern the clearest symptoms and most palpable indications of these vices in such an eminent professor, but must wipe off all his blemishes with a few soft and gentle words: alas, good man! they are but the infirmities and indiscretions of his zeal, and the spots of the best of god's people. nay, what if we should observe melting, humble, brokenhearted christians to affect a demure and sanctimonious niceness, thereby to gain advantage and reputation to their black designs? what if they have abused the most sacred oaths and protestations, to cheat the simple, and betray the innocent? what if they pretend the instigation of the spirit of god, to authorise the foulness of their erterprises? what if they make show of higher attainments of mortification, to gain the handsomer opportunities of wallowing in the most beastly and dishonourable impurities? what if in their practices they bid open defiance to all the principles of justice and conscience; and under pretences of holy zeal, dare to act those villainies at which a wicked man would startle and recoil? we must needs suppose these infirmities to be easily incident to good men; and when they break oaths, rob temples, and murder kings, 'tis but an oversight of zeal; and what sweet and precious communion may they enjoy with god in the midst of murders, treasons and massacres? and to describe their wickedness, and to call them villainies, is reviling and intemperate language. and thus can they do their business, as they please, by an ugly word. their followers understand nothing of the truth and nature of things, but are acted purely by the power of words; and judge of the good or evil of actions by the titles that their masters give them. and if they will but call a true accusation a foul slander, 'tis no matter for clearing their own innocence, that is enough to wash off any aspersions whatsoever; and all the evidence and demonstration of proof, is too little to bear out the truth of the indictment against the authority of their not guilty. §. 19 the truth is, all things have two names as well as two handles, a black one that they always fasten upon us, and a white one that they ever appropriate to themselves; and thus what in them is godly zeal, is in us malice and persecution; what in them is sanctified wit, is in us profaneness and scurrility; and what in them is tenderness of conscience, is in us superstition. when they are peevish and censorious, they are only offended and scandalised; and when they are cruel and unmerciful to dissenting brethren, they are then zealous for god and his truth. but do we expose the follies of their divinity with any briskness of reason? that is arrogance. do we upbraid the impostures of their superstition with any sharpness of wit? that is profaneness. do we demonstrate any of their notions of practical godliness to be giddy and unwarrantable conceits? that is to blaspheme the influences of the divine spirit. do we but press people to an imitation of the life of christ? that is enough to brand us for socinians. do we urge the absolute necessity of good works, or an holy life, (for that is the same thing) as an indispensable condition of our acceptance with god? what can we be but papists? and do we assert the practice of morality to be the great and most essential design of religion? we are heathen philosophers, and preach plato and seneca, and ourselves, but not jesus christ. and thus can they with ease countermine all our endeavours, to disabuse the people by a few odious names, and blast and deform the most rational discourses, only by crying out rail, revile, scoffing, despightful reproaches, sarcasms, scornful contemptuous expressions, false criminations. but if to rail be to assault with foul language and reproachful nicknames, in stead of true wit and reason, what think they of themselves, who when they are demanded to give a rational account of their outrage against the government, and discipline of our church, only inveigh against it in rude and unmannerly phrases, and manage the quarrel by calling names? and in stead of propounding modest exceptions, stuff their pamphlets with boisterous words and unclean invectives, and familiarly salute us with the cleanly titles of locusts of the bottomless pit, the limbs of antichrist, baal's priests, romish wolves and foxes, belzebub of canterbury, antichristian beasts, bishops of the devil; with innumerable others of the same generous strain. in this sort of eloquence our adversaries have ever been the most able and most accomplished orators in the world. how infinitely have they excelled all the wits of former ages in this noble, but neglected art? and with what success have they improved and cultivated this field from the good days of queen elizabeth down to our own? no age nor nation in the world can vie with ours for these beauties of style and embellishments of speech. and i could name a friend of his and mine that abounds as much with these flowers as the bravest orator of the party: but i suppose i need not recall to his memory some sermons as plentifully adorned with these foulmouthed flourishes, as any pamphlets of the rudest zealot in the pack. let them discover any such uncleannesses in my book, and then let them impose any penance, and i will promise to undergo it, though it were to write a panegyric in praise of the good nature of the presbyterians, and the sincerity of the independents. but, alas! they will never descry any thing there like foul language, unless cleanly words may be defiled by expressing foul things. 'tis not any bitterness of expression that afflicts them, but the sharpness of truth, and that is a biting thing indeed. they are gauled with the evidence of conviction, and whilst i rub their sore (and therefore tender) consciences, that and only that makes them fret with such impatience at the liberty of my reproof. but to dispatch: you (sir) are privy to the secrets of my soul, and can bear testimony to the integrity of my intentions: how oft have i discoursed to you, that as deeply as i adore our blessed saviour upon the score both of his being the son of god, and the redeemer of the world, yet methinks my devotion is never more passionate and transporting, then when it muses upon the goodness of his laws: laws so excellent, that their own goodness might be their own eternal obligation: laws becoming the wisdom of god, and agreeable to the reason of man: that purify our minds, refine our natures, and perfect our understandings: laws that bind us to the heavenly pleasures of love, innocence and charity; that restrain every thing that disturbs the quiet of the world, and the peace of society, and that command nothing but what is useful and rational, and conducive to the happiness of mankind: laws of meekness and justice, mercy and patience, contentedness and pity, kindness, obedience and humility. and now if the gospel be an institution so pregnant with virtue, and wisdom and holiness, how can any man that is tender of his saviour's reputation, tamely suffer these brainsick people to debauch the divine wisdom of his religion with childish and trifling follies? and to represent the design of christianity in so odd a guise, as to suit it chiefly to the conceptions of children, and inclinations of old women, and make it most agreeable to weak reasons, soft spirits, and little understandings? and how can any man that is enamoured of the beauty of real goodness, think any satyrs too rough for such bold impostors, as make it a mask for pharisaic hypocrisy, and stave off their proselytes from the practice of real righteousness, by amusing their little understandings with trifling and unprofitable gaieties? that employ a seeming godliness to supplant all that is real, and oppose all the great ends and designs of religion, under more gorgeous pretences to advance them; and are not only content to exchange the reality and substance of true goodness for its varnish and colours, but have been so untoward as to contrive a seeming and hypocritical sanctity, that does not more counterfeit than oppose true holiness: in brief, choking all the most beautiful graces of christianity, by overrunning them with rank and noisome impostures. now if these things are so, who can charge the utmost severity of expression with intemperance of speech? and that they are so, if i have not sufficiently proved it already, i shall have occasion to enforce its evidence by some too clear and convictive proofs in the sequel of this discourse. and therefore 'tis but a vain thing to make loud and tragical complaints of railing and intemperate speeches, unless they had first discovered that there is not truth enough in my accusations to warrant the sharpest and most vehement expressions. i have not thrown out hard words at all adventure, nor confuted the cause by giving bad language, (as 'tis some men's custom to stick an odious name upon an adversary, and then he is baffled:) no, i first endeavoured to convict them by evidence of reason, and after that to reprove their error; and if they resolved to continue obstinate, to upbraid their peevishness with some sharpness of expression. and if men will not distinguish between railing and sharp reproofs, there is no remedy but the best and wisest persons of all ages must pass for the greatest railers. and so far am i from recanting my severity towards them, that i am rather tempted to applaud it by the glorious examples of the greatest wits of our nation, king james, archbishop whitgift, archbishop bancroft, bishop andrews, bishop bilson, bishop mountagne, bishop bramhall, sir walter raleigh, lord bacon, etc. and what can you imagine more hateful to such wise men as these, then to see mean people borrow the face of religion to make them bold and impudent against government? in short, i could name some persons so vile and abominable, that 'tis not in the power of slander to abuse them; and there is a faction of saints in the world, whose villainies and falsehoods and perjuries are so utterly destitute of excuse or palliation, that no history of any age or nation can afford us the like impudent and execrable examples of baseness and hypocrisy. and therefore let not the living man complain, etc. §. 20. 3. another pregnant and serviceable topick of argumentation, is to load his adversary with consequences of atheism, popery, and mahumetanism; though, for any reason i have given him, he might as plausibly have charged me of magic or necromancy, or (what perhaps may seem more monstrous) of fanaticism. but this is one of the most elegant idiotisms of their language, and most powerful figures of their logic; whatsoever they touch is immediately turned into atheism; they can wring this conclusion out of all premises, as they can draw some doctrines out of all texts. 'tis an odious inference, and then 'tis no matter for its truth and coherence; a wide mouth and a bold face shall make good the charge; and what they want of rational deduction, is easily supplied by noise and confidence. their followers (they know) never examine things by the rules of reason and discourse; put but an ugly consequence into their mouths, and they swallow it with a glibber satisfaction then the purest and most refined reasonings, and peremptorily conclude you guilty of all the horrid tenets and assertions that their leaders will throw upon you. and there lies all their strength, in the ignorance and credulity of the multitude: instances of this nature are innumerable, their great anak of disputation i. o. (to mention no more) never commenced a dispute against any persuasion, but he immediately brought the controversy to this issue. he cannot arraign the lord's prayer itself, but atheism and blasphemy must into the indictment, the asserting that form of words (says he) confirms many in their atheistical blaspheming of the holy spirit of god, and his grace, in the prayers of his people. and when some learned men of the church of england published the biblia polyglotta, the chief contriver of that noble work writes some prolegomena suitable to the nature and design of the undertaking; especially to defend and assert the certainty, integrity and divine authority of the original texts: but among other discourses, (he happens to assert the novelty of the hebrew punctation, (an opinion owned by the concurrent suffrage of almost all the best skilled in the hebrew and oriental learning) and to acknowledge various readins in the original text; and lastly, to prove that to be no way prejudicial to their purity and integrity. now with what outrageous declamations does i. o. set upon these harmless assertions? and with what foulmouthed cries and consequences does he pursue them? and what an horrid noise do we hear of atheism, atheism, atheism? we are told of a new plot or design amongst protestants after they are come out of rome, v. doctor walton 's considerator conoid. pag. 1. a design which they dare not publicly own, p. 329. the leprosy of papists crying down the original texts, is broken forth among protestants, with what design, to what end or purpose, he knows not, god knows, and the day will manifest, epist. p. 14. that this design is owned in the prolegomena to the bible, and in the appendix; that they print the original and defame it, gathering up translations of all sorts, and setting them up in competition with it, epist. p. 9 that they take away all certainty in and about sacred truth, epist. p. 25. that there is nothing left unto men, but to choose whether they will turn papists or atheists, epist. p. 9 that there are gross corruptions befallen the originals, which by the help of old translations, and by conjectures, may be found out and corrected, p. 205. as pernicious a principle as ever was fixed upon since the foundation of the church of christ, epist. p. 21. that it is the foundation of mahumetanism, the chiefest and principal prop of popery, the only pretence of fanatical antiscripturists, and the root of much hidden atheism in the world, p. 147. that he fears, the pretended infallible judge, or the depth of atheism lies at the door of these considerations, p. 161. that they are enough to frighten unstable souls into the arms of an infallible guide, p. 169. that (setting aside two theses) there is no opinion ventilated among christians, tending to the depression of the worth, and impairing the esteem of the hebrew copies, which is not directly, or by just consequence owned in these prolegomena, p. 205. all these black charges must be set off with shrieks and tragical exclamations of dreadful distemper which may well prove mortal to the truth of the scripture, p. 314. of horrible and outrageous violence offered to the sacred verity, p. 315. that men take upon them to correct the scripture, p. 344. to correct the word of god, p. 180. and all these prodigious and unparallelled reproaches he is not ashamed to pour forth with a profession of all christian candour and moderation of spirit, p. 151. 'tis a wide and frightful gulf that lies between his adversaries premises and his own conclusions; but yet, so well is his confidence mounted, that cannot scare him from often leaping it: 'tis the way and spirit of the man, and he does it by custom and by instinct: nothing more frequent and more familiar in all his writings, than these horrid consequences in behalf of papists, atheists, antiscripturists and mahumetans. and i could produce out of a certain author, (that may be guessed at) a large catalogue of the same odious inferences charged upon any man that can be so blind or so profane as but to doubt whether the success of the rump parliament, the murder of the late king, the defeat of his present majesty at worcester, were not special and extraordinary projects of divine providence for carrying on the kingdom of the lord christ. but i will not be too unmerciful, though such dirty and dishonest arts can never be exposed with too much severity. however, provided for the future they will take warning to forbear such black practices, from me they shall hear no more of them: but if they will not, let them thank themselves for what may follow; for we must not suffer them to abuse the people with such coarse and wretched juggle. §. 21. 4. another way of trifling, is upon every occasion to drop in some learned shreds of latin, and scholarlike sayings of ancient poets and philosophers. and had they been collected out of their original authors, what a notable proof had he given the world of his encyclopediacal reading? however, methinks 'tis pretty to observe with what neatness of fancy he sets off his own confused and indigested rubbish, by besprinkling it with these little fragments of wit and poetry, as in some places you have seen them adorn their mud-walls with bits of any thing that shines and glisters. but though this trifling artifice might have passed for wit and learning in the days of queen elizabeth, and may now perhaps dazzle and amuse unlearned people; yet to men of learning, reading and ingenuity, (to whom our author writes) their vulgar use has sullied their lustre, and abated their value: so common are they in modern controversies to the same or the like purposes of wit; and so few do i meet with in our author, that are not scattered up and down in the polemic rencounters of i. o. (and indeed he seems wonderfully conversant in the writings of that learned man, not only by his see-saws, but his style, his phrases, and his arguments:) so that whatsoever show of learning these pedantic impertinences may make among the dames and the prentices, yet (i say) to his men of reading that can trace him, they will bring him under suspicion of filching other men's wit; so little will they add to the reputation of his own. nay, such a magazine is there of these weapons in the polyanthea, that they will not so much as tempt the wonder of schoolboys, that are familiarly furnished with choice and variety of them out of the original and classical books themselves; and therefore to them and to our author i shall leave these learned trifles, and yield the victory at these childish follies. and whereas pag. 8, 9 he bobs my confidence with a trite and reverend apophthegm out of old aristotle, that bearded men are cautious, but beardless boys are confident, should i neck him with a repartee of as grave a saying out of as grave an author, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, thucydid. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ignorance is bold and peremptory, whilst knowledge is modest and distrustful; and then gloss and expatiate upon my theme as solemnly as he has done upon his, would not this (think you) wonderfully edify the reader, and determine the controversy? and to conclude, can you forbear to smile when you hear a grave divine, and one that writes himself d. d. defy all men of learning, reading and ingenuity, to cap verses? for in truth this pelting sentences is scarce a more manly or a more scholastic exercise, than that olympic sport of country-schools. §. 25. another little stratagem he often suggests to defeat arguments and delude the people, is to ascribe all the appearances of reason that seem to sparkle in my discourse, to the elegance of its style and its composure: for he is willing to allow it all the perfections of beauty, so it may but want strength and sinews, and let it be any thing, if it be not rational; and then how smoothly does this censure pass among the people, who make the same judgement of reason as they do of gospel-preaching, and value it by its dullness and want of fancy? so that if we set off the severest reasonings with any gloss and ornament of speech, they are taught to call it juvenile rhetoric and declamation; and we can never make them understand or (what is more difficult) acknowledge the reasonableness of any discourse, if we set down our thoughts in any other scheme of expression beside syllogisms in barbara; otherwise if we write with all the power and demonstration of reason, 'tis but calling it a rhetorical declamation, and then 'tis cashiered and slighted. but as for my own way of writing, i confess men of greater fancies would have discoursed of my subject with more quickness of wit, and men of better judgements with more closeness of reason: but i have followed the humour of my own genius; and have so endeavoured to be rational, as not to be flat; and so to be fanciful, as not to be impertinent; not leaving the coherence of my matter to run after a witty conceit, nor so stubbornly avoiding all ornament of speech, as not to clothe my matter in some elegancy of expression: and as i have not used resemblances in stead of arguments, (though i know who has) so neither have i refused to set off arguments with allusions; but have ventured sometimes to express them by borrowed and allusive terms, where it might be done without hazarding the strength or the perspicuity of the discourse. i have no where played with phrases, nor argued from metaphors and similitudes; and if any of my words may happen to be fine, they are none of them empty; and the most pompous and lofty expressions contain under them notion, and thing enough to fill out their sense, and warrant their truth. a multitude of evil touches, and less important intimations, i must both forgive and omit, as well to avoid the suspicion of being too unmerciful, as the inconvenience of being too tedious: nay, to what a voluminous bulk must i swell, should i specify all the more weighty and unexcusable miscarriages, and reckon up all his palpable untruths, affected calumnies, laboured falsifications, studied misunderstandings, shameless impertinencies, ridiculous evasions, numberless tautologies, and infinite repetitions? together with his frequent challenges, appeals to heaven and the day of judgement, denouncing woes, and letting fly threatenings of the divine wrath and vengeance, with innumerable other tricks of shuffling and bold impertinency. in short, when i first perused this reply, (if i may give it so fair a name) i ran it over with equal wonder and satisfaction; with wonder at the boldness of the man, that blushed not to impose upon the public, as well as upon myself, with such an heap of foul and notorious falsifications: with satisfaction, when i considered whoever undertakes to contradict the evidence of that truth i had pleaded for, must first do violence both to his reason and to his conscience, (for you will meet with some forgeries so palpable, that inadvertency can never excuse them:) and it confirmed me in the reasonableness of my opinion, when i saw men were forced to pervert and falsify its plain meaning, before they could pretend its confutation. prodigious instances of this kind you will meet with in the sequel of this discourse, when i proceed to more particular remarks; to which work 'tis high time to address myself. and i shall first begin with his review of my preface. chap. ii. the contents. the vanity of our author's pretence of the reluctancy of his writing. the arrogance of his boast of making books at idle hours. the vanity of their way of preaching. our author challenged to justify the sermons of j. o. his seditious way of preaching. a character of the peddling theologues and preachers among the nonconformists. their main artifice lies in tampering with the female sex. the learning of the episcopal clergy vindicated from the insolent censure of j. o. the silliness of his own solid and profound divinity. the divines of the church of england vindicated from our author's malicious suggestions. the unjust grounds of his and his brethren's slanders and calumnies discovered. their way of blasting their adversaries with oblique and ugly insinuations. our author's disingenuity in attempting to defame me upon occasion of my satire against atheism. my remark upon our saviour's behaviour in the temple, vindicated against his charge of irreverence. and proved, that it was out of the court of the gentiles, not of the jews, that he whipped the buyers and sellers. our author's shift to discharge themselves of the friendly debate. his confident way of trifling in answering arguments with maybe's. what mischief those men do to religion, by feeding people with their nonsense and empty phrases. the cowardice of their demands of personal conferences. the insolence and impertinency of our author's suggestion against the immorality of our clergy. the only crimes we charge them with, are such as they esteem gospel-mysteries. the vanity of our author's comparison between the friendly debate, and the comedies of aristophanes. socrates no independent. the pride and hypocrisy of the nonconformists confessions in their prayers. this discovered by their appropriating to themselves all the titles of godliness, upon the score of this counterfeit humility. their arrogance particularly proved out of the writings of j. o. i reproach them not with the deep sense of their sins, but with their irksome dissimulation. our author's excuse, that their confessions have chiefly a respect to the pravity of their natures, exploded. the precedents of st. paul, ezra, daniel and david, unduly alleged by our author. the utter unacquaintance with the deceitfulness of my own heart, confessed. 'tis presumption for an habitual sinner to expect the pardon of his sins. the pretence of ministers being the mouths of the congregation, cashiered. the sad influence that their prodigal confessions have upon the lives of their followers. §. 1. the first considerable passage we meet with, after his first unfortunate sally, (of which you have heard already) is the account he gives us of his humour and his undertaking, how he prevailed with himself, pag. 4. much against his inclinations, to spend a few hours in the examination of the principal parts and seeming pillars of my whole fabric. i shall not mind him of the uncouthness of his language, (though if it were considered, it will be found that to examine a pillar, is scarce more proper english then to explicate a post) but shall only observe, that some men are so accustomed to hypocrisy, that they dissemble when they least design it; and this trifling pretence is now grown so familiar with this trifling man, that it thrusts its self in of course, and challenges a place in all his writings by the right and title of prescription; and though he has served himself so often of it in all his former squabbles, yet he can no more forbear to mention this apology, than he can to need it. but methinks 'tis strange this cold and watery elf should survive thus long out of its proper element; and had it been a salamander born, it could not have better endured the heats of contention: and yet methinks 'tis more prodigious still, that a man should do perpetual violence to the most puissant bent of his own inclinations, and for ever doom himself to irksome and unpleasant employments. had he been possessed by the spirit of scribbling and contention, he could not have been more pragmatical in his meddlings with other men's writings, than he has ever been, without any other provocation then that of his own petulant humour. and is it not pleasant to see him excuse himself of unkindness to his own temper, by forcing it to such unagreeable undertake, when he is the known and common barreter of the age he lives in? he falls foul upon every book he meets with; and there is scarce an author that can escape the disgrace of his public censure and correction; and what motto could have better suited him, then that wherewith he has flourished and adorned his title page, sed sumpsimus arma? 'tis pity he should have borrowed a bush so proper to his purpose from another man's door. but had this mighty hero sought opportunities of chivalry abroad, and ranged the world in quest of adventures, (though all places were still as full of giants and enchantments as they were in the age of barbarism and romances) he could not have encountered more difficulties and exploits than he has engaged upon at home. and if he have forced himself upon this trouble with reluctancy and violence to his humour, what havoc had he made, had his stars destined him to this heroic employment? how might he have scoured the world, as once theseus did? how might his immortal pen have cleared the age of the pest of writers, as herc' les club did greece of thiefs and robbers? he might ere this time have ransacked and confuted all the libraries in europe, and outdone the goths and vandals in the destruction of books. but length of time and continual use have worn this counterfeit pretence so lamentably thin, that in stead of shrouding his vanity, it only serves to betray and discover it; and therefore hereafter i would advise him, either to write less, or to write with less regret, and not to imagine the world so silly, as to be persuaded that a man, that has such an antipathy to writing as he pretends, should be so prodigal of his ink as he is. but the truth is, men that have the itch, as they are ashamed to own it, so they cannot forbear upon all occasions to discover it. but however, this book, as he informs us, was finished and dictated at a few idle hours. i beseech you, good sir, will this man's bashfulness never leave him? will he suffer his youthful shamefacedness to overwhelm him in his old age? did you ever read a greater strain of modesty and humility? what a mean opinion has this weak nothing of his parts and learning, that can think the rash and immature products of his idle hours, fit to present, if not to oblige the public? with what want of confidence does he presume upon the world, to expect its acceptance of all his crude and undigested thoughts? and 'tis no boldness in him to thrust upon the public view every rash and precipitate conceit that thrusts itself upon his wand'ring fancy. but this man does not always consider what he says; he has contracted acquaintance with certain schemes of speech, that stand always ready at his service, and he brags and dissembles by rote; and this vaunt of the vigour and pregnancy of his wit, is as familiar with him in all his writings, as the excuse of his reluctancy; and he scarce ever penned or published any thing, but with mighty speed and mighty remorse. but this information he might well enough have spared; his imperfect and unlicked notions are themselves evidence enough of their own overhasty birth and conception; and all he gains by this pedantic boast, is to give in clear proof of his pride, but none at all of his sufficiency: for no man that is not fooled with a darling opinion of his own abilities, could ever have abused himself with so dear and fond a conceit of his own hasty and fortuitous thoughts. and perhaps his bold attempt upon the biblia polyglottae, was scarce a stronger essay of confidence, when he takes upon him to chastise persons that had given such a public and unparallelled proof of a thorough insight into that kind of learning, pag. 150. with a brisk confession of his own superficial skill and knowledge. tell me a more becoming instance of modesty, then for a smattering sciolist to censure and provoke even rabbis of the greatest fame and deepest skill. and therefore you have no reason hereafter to wonder at such fulsome intimations of self-conceitedness; especially if you consider, that when confidence grows old, it is changed into something more monstrous, and the serpent becomes a dragon. §. 2. but to leave him to his own darling self, and proceed to his book, where you shall find my account of their way of preaching to be the first object of his indignation. pag. 18, 19, 20, 21, 22. upon this they principally value themselves, and for this he is desirous they should be principally maligned by others; though it must needs be a pitiful low and creeping envy that fastens upon an object so mean and despicable: and for my own part, i could name some popular orators, that are as often as the most eloquent clack of the party, surrounded with crowding and numerous congregations, the dexterity of whose talk would sooner tempt my envy, than their loose and ranging preachments; the main knackishness whereof, as far as i could ever observe in their printed sermons, consists in their surprising extravagance and impertinency: a thousand instances of this nature might be produced out of a treatise published by i. o. concerning the saints distinct communion with the father, and the son, and the holy ghost: i. e. as he accurately explains himself, chap. 2. sect. 1. distinctly with the father, distinctly with the son, and distinctly with the holy ghost: though by the way, this doughty explication can do no great service towards the unfolding of this great mystery: for to enjoy communion distinctly with each person of the blessed trinity, is not much more intelligible then to enjoy distinct communion with them; and (by reason of its resemblance to it) calls to my mind a direction prescribed elsewhere by the same author for carrying on the work of watching, viz. to be always awake; it being a certain and undoubted truth, of tempt. p. 134. that no man can watch whilst he is asleep: but little absurdities start up so thick in my way, that they divert me from my main quest; and therefore let me only desire you to consult the forementioned treatise, and then tell me whether some of them have not acquired a notable knack at spoiling the scriptures, and fooling with the divine oracles. and what else can be expected from the design and nature of the discourse itself, that endeavours to make out such a nice and metaphysical devotion? but here his zeal burns and kindles, and vents its self in an unusual heat and vehemence of declamation, though all the noise of three or four pages amounts to no more, then barely to tell the reader that i am not able to prove the charge, and to challenge me and all my associates to make it good before any equal, competent, and impartial tribunal under heaven. but the passage he inveighs against, is transposed out of the second chapter of my book, and therefore shall in its proper place be justified to purpose: for there you shall meet with all the same stuff again, according to his method, though (as himself professes) contrary to his design, pag. 117. in haste oftentimes speaking the same things over and over. but in the mean while to give some check to this boldness, i accept his challenge, and defy him to a defence of the printed sermons of i. o. which if he dares undertake, i will engage to give in such an evidence against them, as shall infinitely make out and exceed the particulars of my charge. and though he think not himself obliged to justify every individual person, yet perhaps by reason of his relation to, and concernment for that author, this challenge may bring him under an absolute engagement to that performance. is it not strange to see men that are so obnoxious, to be so confident? but if by their importunity they will force and provoke us to expose their shame and folly, they have reason to charge the blame upon nothing but their own rashness and presumption. and yet so far is this or any of his other brags from being any real transports of courage and resolution, that nothing could more palpably have betrayed his vanity and his cowardice. 'tis, you know, the humour and the true character of a coward, when there is no danger or enemy near, than he insults, he threatens, he defies, he triumphs, he is all rage and fierceness, he breathes nothing but slaughter and destruction, and talks not under the rate of his thousands and his ten thousands: but if an enemy approach, and an engagement be offered, 'tis not then so utterly impossible to persuade the man, you need not use violence to make him attend to calm and sober counsel, he is not deaf to all advice, but can hear reason and his friends; and than if you press upon him, and upbraid him with his own vaunts, his rage immediately begins to cool and vanish, his heart melts and dissolves, his spirits retire, his colour altars, and all the coward can do, is to look pale and tremble. and such is the defiance of our author; he looks big, & he threatens high; he will not endure our affronts and insolences, but is resolved to redress those wrongs, and avenge those indignities we have offered to the nonconformists, and nothing will appease his rage, but blood and destruction: come forth you and all your associates, and if you dare be so hardy, prove your force against me before any tribunal under heaven; for i am resolved to chastise your insolences, and make you see the folly and the danger of your undertake. now who (think you) can withstand all this rage and fury? we must fly and disperse as the defenceless flock of sheep did before the zeal and the sword of the phrenetick knight: for who dares to resist so steeled a courage? and that so whet with provocation, and so eager upon revenge? and yet if you will bear up a little bravely to him, and with a brisk and undaunted look accept his challenge, and dare him to stand to his own defiance, the man will quickly begin to treat and consider, he will bridle his rage, and appease his fierceness; for his part he means no harm, he is a good-natured man, and is willing to live peaceably; pag. 178. he neither desires nor designs serram reciprocare, (as our author classically expresses himself) or to engage in any controversial discourse with you: and do but press and pursue him to stand to his own challenge, he slinks out of the field, and is vanquished without danger and expense of blood. this, assure yourself, will be the undoubted event of my closing in with his own motion; and though i once more upbraid him with his own summons, and dare him to his own defence, be confident you shall never hear more of him: for as stout as he is, he will never be so rash as to expose himself at so great a disadvantage. i say no more, he knows my meaning. pag. 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60. §. 3. and whereas, that he may for ever dash this reproach of mine out of countenance, he gives in a large catalogue of harmless and useful arguments, upon which they are wont to treat in their sermons, that concerns not our charge; though as they order their theology, we tax them for defeating the efficacy of their own doctrines, by their own unwarrantable additions, and mixing such propositions with the precepts of the gospel, as sadly enervate, or utterly evacuate all their obligation to a holy and a virtuous life. but this controversy is not to be managed in prefaces, and as well requires as it deserves a volume: and therefore in answer to all that lurry of words, i shall at present only mind him, that his systeme of preaching divinity, is vastly more lame and imperfect than my scheme of religion, and that he has suppressed at least one entire table of their decalogue: for easy it were to recount as long a roll of matters, that they insist on with as much zeal and lowdness, as upon any theme that he has reckoned in his catalogue, that are as little countenanced in holy writ, as they are by supreme authority. let our author only reflect upon some discourses (that he knows of) concerning divine providence, and that will satisfy his curiosity. what thinks he of songs upon sigionoth? what thinks he of a vision (seen by himself) of god's unchangeable free mercy, and uncontrollable eternal purpose in sending and continuing the gospel unto this nation, maugre all the opposition of king and bishops? what thinks he of accounting for the equity of god's judgements, in recompensing the sins of the king upon the people, because they that set him up may justly be called to answer for his miscarriages, if by virtue of their retained sovereignty, they do not restrain him in his provoking ways? what thinks he of the lord christ's shaking and translating the political heights and governments of the western nations, in order to the bringing in of his own peaceable kingdom? what thinks he of ensuring success to cromwel's army against their sovereign, by dark passages out of the old prophets? what thinks he of good principles becoming wicked and abominable, when taken up against the providence of god? what thinks he of monarchic governments being a jewish ceremony, a part of their pedagogy and bondage, and abolished by the coming of the messiah? what thinks he of the kings being a son of tabeal, i. e. one that would have usurped the crown without right or title? what thinks he of gods hardening the late king's heart, to carry on the mighty work of a through reformation; and of laying stubbornness and obdurateness upon his spirit, to preserve us from ruin and final destruction? in brief, what thinks he of the advantage of the kingdom of christ, in the shaking of the kingdoms of the world? or providential alterations in their subserviency to christ's exaltation, applied to his majesty's defeat at worcester? if such harmless propositions as these were searched into, and displayed to the view of the world, it would soon be satisfied whether we have not just reason to complain of their doctrine. and yet so civil was i as to wink at such black discourses; and it was upon the account of less odious miscarriages that i taxed their sermons, for corrupting and embasing divinity, not for infecting his majesty's subjects with doctrines of treason, and principles of rebellion: but if they will grow sullen under mild and more gentle chastisements, they do but force us to take down their stomaches and their stubbornness by severer and more smarting corrections. §. 4. but as deeply as he resents my contemptuous account of their preachings, yet he stomaches nothing more than that scorn i have reflected upon their preachers. and this is a warm provocation indeed, touch the mountains and they will smoke. thus whereas pag. 253. i charged the gild of all our schismatical ruptures upon the perverseness of about an hundred proud, ignorant, and seditious preachers: he snaps me up with an hasty inference, as if i had affirmed there were not above an hundred preaching ministers among the nonconformists. but by his leave, are there not in this, as in all other factions, some busy and pragmatical incendiaries, that animate their companions to seditious attempts and practices, that widen our differences by their frantic and outrageous zeal, that make separation an indispensable duty, and lead the people into an open defection from the church, and make all our distractions incurable, by their sturdy and insolent humour? the number of these hot spirits is not great, and 'tis these only to whom i ascribe the continuance of our schisms and subdivisions, and 'tis these only against whom i would have the laws particularly leveled; severity upon them would quickly make the rest more cool and tractable; and 'tis well known how by the punishment of a few ringleaders under the reign of queen elizabeth, the whole faction was awed into a milder and more peaceable deportment. the very face of discipline is enough to dash those that are not so utterly frantic, out of their confidence; and but to shake the public rods over them, will quickly scare them into better obedience. and what i have spoken contemptuously of their preachers, as to their ignorance and their duncery, is applicable only to these pert and busy promoters of the schism: men of more learning are more modest and peaceable; and though their consciences and misapprehensions of things divest them of their public employment, they do not immediately run themselves into open separation, but submit to that conformity that is requisite in private christians; there being nothing required by our church of such persons, that can drive people of any wit and sobriety from our public congregations; and therefore these men quietly submit to their own fate and the laws, and are not such wretches as to fire an house to roast their own eggs, and embroil a kingdom for their own petty ends and envies; and as for these, i love and honour their integrity, and pity their unhappy fate, in that they have brought themselves into such a strait, as makes their private interest inconsistent with public peace. but besides these, there is a sort of peddling theologues, whose ignorance only makes them able divines, who might have wanted grace as well as their contemporaries, had they not wanted parts and learning. it was duncery and defect of wit that qualified them with ministerial abilities; the pulpit was their refuge from the university, and they flee to the altar only to take sanctuary against scorn and contempt. and 'tis pleasant to observe upon what shifts and artifices these empty puffs are put to uphold the credit of their sufficiency; and they never discover any thing of wit and ingenuity, but in their slights and stratagems to cover their ignorance. none better skilled in the management of looks, or more dexterous in the command of solemn face and judicious forehead: they can so improve their defect of knowledge, as to make it pass for depth of judgement; and whatsoever part of learning they understand not, they either despise as notional and unprofitable, or seem grave and reserved; and with learned shrug intimate something they can, but will not communicate; or give a sturdy and peremptory determination of the matter in debate, and then the decree is past, 'tis not to be disputed; they will carry the ball away by clamour and confidence, and stand amazed if you will not admit what they know not how to prove. but if neither these, nor any of their other tricks will relieve them, but that they are pursued so close, that they cannot escape your discovery, the last refuge of their folly is scripture and religion; they put on serious brow, and fall into a fit of preaching; and what text so suitable to be abused to their purpose, as st. paul's, i desire to know nothing but jesus christ, and him crucified? like the fox in the fable, who having no tail of his own, preached against all tails as deformed and burdensome excrescencies. and thus do these men become acquainted with the workings of the spirit, because they are not capable of understanding the methods of reason, and laws of argumentation; and they scorn to defend their doctrine by humane learning; and but to oppose their fables and ridiculous falsities about the mechanical process of regeneration, is to blaspheme the spirit of grace. and they will rebuke all your rational arguments and demonstrations with saucy and pragmatical reproofs; and in stead of replying to your objections, will shake their heads, and pity your ignorance in the mysteries of the gospel; and then malapertly exhort you to beware of pride and carnal reason, and preach the great danger of leaning too much on your own understanding. and thus these bold fellows, when they cannot out-argue, will outface you: a thwacking contradiction shall neither stagger nor astonish them; they will firmly stand their ground against all the dint of argument; and by the assistance of the spirit of god, maintain conclusions in defiance to their premises: say what you will, prove what you can, demonstrate the incoherence of their notions, and the wildness of their conceits, they will foil all your wit and carnal reason with a caution against vain philosophy and humane learning, and a disdainful reflection upon the natural man's ignorance in the things of the spirit. and thus shall the spirit of god be forced to vouch and patronise their folly, the divine oracles shall be heaped together to cover their ignorance, and they will guard their fantastic impertinencies with abundance of chapter and verse; and if you offer to assault their truth, they will beat you off with volleys of texts, and pour them so thick upon you, that you shall never be able to storm their ignorance. but if you will not be out-pelted at scripture, the next specimen of their learning is to refer you to some of their own authors, (that have written to as wise purpose as themselves talk) and if at that weapon you prove too hard for them, their last refuge is still reverend dullness, they look demurely, turn up the white, and shake the head at your profaneness and blasphemy. and then if you have any grace or modesty, you are obliged to blush and be silent. and if there be any female proselyte in company, (for such are the usual associates of their zeal and conversation) she must outwardly pity, and inwardly scorn you: alas, poor man! this 'tis to be a stranger to the workings of the spirit of god, and to be ignorant of the mysteries of the covenant of grace. what a vain thing is this humane learning without grace, and the teachings of the spirit? how is this man puffed up with a conceit of his own knowledge? and yet what a silly wretch is it in the mysteries of religion? what strange conceptions has the poor soul of regeneration, of the spirit of bondage, and the method of conversion? alas, poor thing! he understands it no more than i do his arabic or algebra. what a comfortable light have i, that am but an unlearned idiot, in the most inward and experimental parts of the mysteries of godliness, by the teachings of the spirit, and precious mr.— whilst a veil of darkness hides these gracious comforts and privileges from the eyes of this natural man. and thus they prostitute the dignity of religion to the impertinencies of every gossip, and uphold the noise and seeming interest of the party, by the zeal and clamour of that sex. nothing so resolute as they at holding fast conclusions; they will die martyrs to their truth, before they know their premises; and if they once chance to fasten upon a proposition, they will never quit their hold while they have either teeth or tongue. §. 5. and therefore it has in all ages been the peculiar artifice of such creeping impostors, to tamper with the warmth and the weakness of that sex. woe unto you, ye scribes and pharisees, hypocrites; for ye devour widows houses, and for a pretence make long prayers. why widows houses more than any others? why! because they had the management of their estates at their own disposal, and so were more liable and likely to be cheated: but chiefly, because their sorrowful spirits were more prone to superstition and melancholy devotions, and so more apt to give good entertainment to these demure and white-eyed comforters. and st. paul giving a personal character of some religious jugglers in his days, describes them to be such as creep into houses, and lead captive silly women, i. e. such as under great shows and pretences of holiness, insinuate themselves into wealthy families; and by their plausible arts and demure pretensions, seduce the weaker sex, that by reason of the feebleness of their minds, and timorousness of their consciences, are most apt to credit their sad and sorrowful stories, and suffer themselves to be abused and led any way by these precise and saintlike pretenders, and (which is the main) to reward their pains with good fees and good meals. neither are the foolish women so easily taken by these holy cheats, modest, sober and virtuous, but they are wicked as well as silly, laden with many lusts and vices, such as are willing to reconcile their passions and lustful desires with a state of religion, and under its vizor to maintain their pride, their peevishness and their wantonness. and the more handsomely to delude such silly wretches, these gospel-pharisees are ever canting to them in empty and senseless forms of speech, and stuff their memories with a set of insignificant and unintelligible phrases, that they may know how to prate perpetually of religion, without knowing any thing of its true nature and efficacy; and all the fruit of their much hearing, is much talking; and (as i once heard it observed in the pulpit) 'tis their highest improvement to be able to gossip in the language of st. paul. by these and such like little arts, they decoy in female proselytes to their party; and 'tis their only masterpiece to inveigle their hot and eager spirits: an artifice that any sot may manage, that can but whine and flatter. 'tis such mountebanks as these, that are the great apostles of the cause, and whom i branded with the marks of pride, ignorance and sedition. how my character suits with their humour, i must leave to your own experience and observation; though i could give you in a sufficient catalogue of some of their most famous preachers, and choicest wits, that you would deem better qualified to plant tobacco, then to propagate the gospel. the greatest idols of the people would have a mighty resemblance to that hated one of bell, that as the story tells us, was brass without, and led within, were it not that they want no assistance to devour their own sacrifices. and now who can endure not only to hear such idiots to talk, as if they were infallible, but to set up their standard, and display their colours in defiance to all the wisdom of government, and the authority of laws? you see i never upbraided them with their mere ignorance, it was their pride and their insolence that i laid open to public severity; would they learn to be humble and submissive, and be sensible of their own folly and ignorance, and would not every master john set up for a patriarch, we would never expose them for their weakness and simplicity: but when they will combat government, affront the decrees of princes, trample upon all public constitutions, and oppose their own singular conceits to the prescription of ages, and the consent of people; when they will not yield up so much as a metaphysical speculation to the will of their prince, and peace of their country; and when all the laws and fundamental rules of government must be subverted, rather than the least of their sentiments shall be reversed: in brief, when their folly must prescribe to the wisdom of mankind, is it not time, think you, to take down their stomaches, and to expose their ignorance to the public scorn, and their insolence to the public rods? §. 6. but suppose my censure of their ignorance and defect of learning, had aimed at their chiefest rabbis, and their deepest clerks, i could have justified myself by some great examples of his own fraternity, (where a man can scarce ever want authentic precedents for any sort of rudeness and ill-manners.) particularly what thinks he of his friend i. o. who giving a character of the episcopal clergy, beside tyranny, persecution, and a rank hatred of all godliness, adds, sermon to the parl. april 29. 1646. pag. 30. a false repute of learning, i say, a false repute for the greater part, especially of the greatest; and yet taking advantages of vulgar esteem, they bear out as though they had engrossed a monopoly of it; though i presume the world was never deceived by more empty pretenders, especially in respect of any solid knowledge in divinity or antiquity? goodly! how does this modest censure of the greatest prelates that ever flourished in the church of england, become the state and grandeur of the vicar of coggeshal? what empty and shallow pretenders to knowledge were archbishop laud, and all his favourites, if compared to this unfledged curate? and to what an height of confidence was the young sizer perked with the success of his rumford-performances? but who so presumptuous as those smatterers, that have only learning enough to prefer them to the pillory? and what less disgrace can that caitiff deserve, that shall dare to arraign the ghosts, and invade the reputations of the greatest worthies and ornaments of the english nation? whitgift, and bancroft, and laud, empty pretenders! know, wretch, their works shall live to remote and distant ages, monuments of their own glories and the church's triumphs: when thy spiritual bombast shall never survive to be devoured by famine, or the teeth of time, but shall in a few days be reduced to the shameful and dishonourable condition of waste-paper; and when thy wretched pamphlets shall be expelled libraries, and banished the company of learned authors, and be entertained no where but in the corners of old women's closets, and cooks shops. but the rashness of this bold and busy man has since been justly, and (i think) sufficiently chastised by some of these empty pretenders; whom he would continue to affront and challenge, till he forced them to expose him to the scorn and pity of all learned men: for certainly there is not a more baffled person upon record then the considerator upon the biblia polyglotta. sir, you may think this blunt work; but what other way have we to check and take down the confidence of such bold and abusive scribblers, then to discover them to themselves and to the world? however, such insolences against the most reverend fathers of the church, are not to be endured from every pert and conceited fellow; and proud men must not be suffered to raise their own petty names upon the ruins of the greatest reputations. indeed, as for the ignorance of the bishops, and the episcopal clergy in ecclesiastical antiquities, 'tis so notorious to all the christian world, that i confess i should think him a very strange man that should undertake their defence. and how piteously have they in their treatises against the church of rome, exposed both their cause and themselves to the scorn of papists, and (what is more shameful) to the grief of puritans? 'tis evident, no doubt, by archbishop laud's book against fisher, he had never so much as looked into any of the fathers, or primitive writers; yet however, methinks it is not manners for every vicar in his province to upbraid his grace with ignorance and want of letters. but suppose this dishonourable brand should have been clapped upon the memory of that great and immortal prelate, by one that was then so far from having any thorough insight into church-antiquities, that after that he was forced to put himself upon no small pains in the first rudiments of literature, to enable him to deal with the boys at westminster-school; would you not have set up this man for a pillar of modesty and bashfulness to all future ages? but whatever sort of learning we may pretend to, yet as for skill in solid divinity, they are the only able men. and in this lies the difference between your empty pretender, and your true substantial divine. but what is this dainty thing they value at so dear a rate? why! 'tis a sort of opinionative knowledge, or rather learned ignorance that makes men confident and talkative; 'tis a skill in schemes and systemes of new opinions, and a power in talk and disputation. and to wrangle for a scholastic hypothesis, is to contend for the faith once delivered to the saints; and to rend their throats in scolding for the calvinian rigours, is to spend themselves for the lord jesus christ. they are a sort of men, that first submit their understandings to the opinions of some haughty and imperious dictator, and stuff themselves with uncertain and vulgar prejudices, before they attain the very first rudiments of knowledge, and so never arrive at freedom of judgement enough to examine the folly of their proleptick absurdities; and but to question their undoubted truth, is an injection of satan, and a temptation to infidelity. and therefore ever after this, they expound all articles of faith by analogy to their own prejudices and fond persuasions; and they either wrack or suborn the holy scriptures, till they force them, in spite of their plainest and most unquestionable intendment, to give in their suffrage to their own wild and unwarrantable tenets; and here they set bounds to their zeal and to their knowledge, and all their after-industry is swallowed up in vain endeavours to make out the reasonableness and divine authority of their own dreams and subtleties. and what indefatigable pains will they take to distinguish rank blasphemy into orthodox divinity? with what zeal will they justify the equity and good-nature of a fatal and irrespective decree of reprobation? with what assurance will they excuse its seeming horror and cruelty, with a more horrid injustice, when they plead in behalf of the almighty, that at the same time he devoted so many myriad of his creatures to eternal anguish, he also resolved to take care they should commit those sins that might deserve it, that so he might not want a fair and plausible pretence to wreak his indignation upon them? with what evidence of demonstration will they make out from the tenor of the covenant of grace, the believers title to heaven and everlasting happiness, by a naked faith in god's absolute promises, without any conditional obligations to an holy life? this is the employment of their wit, and these the objects of their studies: and now when such gross errors lie at the bottom of all their endeavours, i leave it to you to judge, whether all that knowledge that is built upon such principles, be not a more laborious and improved duncery, i. e. a greater confidence and ability to talk nonsense. this is that profound theology, in which these gospelers so much excel the regular clergy; and they never make their people more gaze and admire, then when they discourse to them of the order of god's eternal decrees, of the conditional obligation of absolute promises, and of the fatal determination of freewill. these are their abilities in the schools; but in the pulpit their subtlety improves into downright impertinency. and it were not unpleasant (did not the cause of religion suffer by their folly) to observe in their practical discourses what mysteries they will descry, and what oracles they will extract out of every obscure text. with what curiosity will they strain for knackish and extravagant applications of holy writ? with what labour will they beat about into the most secret corners of the old prophets, for articles of faith, and find them out among their rods, and pots, and trees, and wheels, and lamps, and axes, and vessels, and rams, and goats? and with what dexterity will they fetch about a prophetic parable, and draw the fundamentals of christianity out of ezekiel's wheels? so that if the sense of scripture were as clancular and mystical, as 'tis made by their uncouth way of applying it, the spirit of god has left us rather hieroglyphics than articles of religion, and our faith is locked up in cabalistick schemes, and no man is able to unriddle the secret, but by the helps and rules of mythology; and the scripture is written with the same design, as (they say) aristotle writ some of his books, only to be understood by the sons of art and mystery. however, by this artifice they inveigle the silly and unwary people both to follow and admire them; for when they are persuaded the outward element of the text is but the cabinet to the jewel, and the precious mystery, they so manage the business, as to possess them with an apprehension, that no key can open it, but what is made at their own forges. and if any of us attempt to explain a text by the coherence of the discourse, by the propriety of the phrase, and by the idiom of the language, we are moral men, and dull literalists, and utter strangers to the inwardness of the spirit: but 'tis they that are the practical & experimental preachers, and that see into the depths of the mystery of the covenant of grace. and by this means do they gain the advantage to obtrude upon the people, whatever can neither be proved nor understood, as profound divinity. §. 7. but whatsoever truth, candour and ingenuity, there is in my character of these men of the flock, he knows how to revenge their wrongs by bold and confident recriminations: if reproaches be the weapon, he understands his advantage; and when controversies come to be managed by mutual accusations, there they never want for ammunition, their magazine is inexhaustible. thus our author stands amazed that heresy should complain of schism, pag. 34. quis tulerit gracchoes, etc. shall the pot call the pan burnt—? and is it not strange, that whilst one writes against original sin, another preaches up justification by works, and scoffs at the imputation of the righteousness of christ to them that believe? yea, whilst some can openly dispute against the doctrine of the trinity, the deity of christ, and the holy ghost? whilst instances may be collected of some men's impeaching all the articles almost throughout, there should be no reflection in the least on these things? some men's guilt in this nature might rather mind them of pulling out the beam out of their own eyes, then to act with such fury to pull out the eyes of others, for the motes which they think they espy in them, etc. what a strain of flattery is here? there is questionless no poison nor calumny in these leering suggestions; it is an harmless character, and strikes at no man's reputation: no doubt he never intended to relieve himself and his party from my foul reproaches, by false or fierce recriminations, pag. 37. nor to write any thing that might disadvantage me in my reputation or esteem. pag. 12. but some men's tongues traduce by instinct, and are so venomous, that they cannot touch but they will poison your reputation: their throats are open sepulchers, and the poison of asps is under their lips, and they cannot open their mouths but out fly stings and blasting vapours. so that i am now forced to confess myself a dull and trifling satirist, that have charged them with nothing but their own avowed principles and notorious practices, and never use tart language but to express vile things; and go far about to convict them of their gild, before i dare venture to lash and chastise them for their folly; and all my satirical reflections are the natural results and inferences of some foregoing reasonings. but this man strikes with more sure and deadly blows, he can stab with a doubtful intimation, and dispatch with an oblique look: 'tis no matter for evidence of argument, and certainty of fact; this fending and proving is a tedious course; 'tis but dropping a train of sly and malicious suspicions, and that is enough to blow up your reputation. he knows all men have a touch of ill-nature, and are apt enough to make the hardest surmises upon these ugly suggestions. nothing sets an handsomer gloss upon a lie, then to show it by these dark lights; and indirect insinuations, are the most artificial schemes of slandering; they heighten and enrage men's curiosity, and then leave it to their ill humour to finish the story, and then it shall never be spoiled for want of spiteful and ill contrived suspicions. and every man has wit enough to pick out the categorical meaning of these oblique reproaches; and had he in direct terms charged me for impeaching the most fundamental articles of christianity, it had not been more familiar and intelligible english. but as for my own part, i am no more moved with the charge, than i am concerned in the crime: i know none in the church of england that publish any such false and heretical doctrines; or if there be any that vent them in corners and conventicles, i can only say, as one did that was treated as i am, let him be anathema. but the ingenuity of these men can dispose of other men's faith and religion at their pleasure, and they can with as much ease make heretics, as they once could witches and malignants: if a neighbour incur their displeasure, that is enough to make the indictment; and to be charged, is enough to make it good. thus, you know, they dealt with the ghost of the great hugo grotius, one would needs have him a rank socinian, and another a thorough papist; though how he could be both, can never be unriddled, unless hugo were one, and grotius the other; though the evident reason why he might be either, is no other than that he was no calvinian, and then he might be any thing what they pleased. this way of aspersing has ever been the offensive weapon of peevish and angry disputers, though never did any man wield it with more dexterity than our author: he never encountered adversary, that he did not transform either into atheist, or papist, or socinian. but it seems the charge of socinianism is become the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of our age, and many men suffer under its imputation, though (as it always happens in cases of slander) i know none more clear from the infection than those that have been most suspected and avoided for it. of which injustice i can conceive no other imaginable account then some men's proud & imperious confidence, that have adopted their own unlearned wranglings into the articles of religion, and put as great a weight upon their own novel doctrines, as upon the plain and easy propositions of scripture. now if a sober man discard their wild and unwarrantable additions, 'tis all one as if he renounced the article itself. they will not endure a contradiction, nor suffer you to suspect the infallible certainty of their resolutions; and if you doubt or dispute the ius divinum of a systematick subtlety, you make them impatient, and they make you an heretic. if we are not confident that our blessed saviour suffered the extremity of hell-torments at the hour of his passion, even to the horrors of despair, 'tis with some positive people the same thing as if we called in question the merits of his death and sufferings. if we smile at the vanity of his attempt, who would demonstrate out of the canticles, that the saints enjoy distinct communion with the three persons of the trinity; it exasperates some bold and confident men, that are fond of their own thin and crazy conceits, as much as if we should pervert the first chapter of st. john's gospel. and we scoff at justification by faith, if we despise a thousand vain and empty speculations wherewith they have involved that article. as whether faith justifies from any peculiar excellency of its own nature, or barely from the divine appointment; whether it be an instrumental cause of justification, or only a procatarctick cause; if instrumental, whether an active or a passive instrument; if procatarctick, whether procatarctick formal, or procatarctick objective; with a multitude more of the like wise and important inquiries, that could never have entered into the most curious and whimsical understanding, had not some idle people loved to amuse themselves with inventing profound and curious nothings; and had not one keckerman, and some other dull fellows, been at leisure to write foolish books of logic and metaphysics; whose theorems must be blended with the doctrines and propositions of st. paul, and then men's little quarrels about this motley-divinity, must make new sects and opinions in religion, and they must measure the orthodoxy of their faith by their subtlety in wrangling, and their power in disputing, by their skill and dexterity in terms of art, and by their being able to understand the precise and orthodox notion of a procatarctick cause. these are the useful and wonderful profundities to which the disputing men of this age are such zealous votaries: they value their learning by their skill in these dry and sapless inquiries, and their agility in the combats of disputation; and a disputant with them signifies the same thing as a great scholar. to this purpose they furnish their memories with abundance of notional quirks and subtleties, to keep up their pert and talkative humour, and spend all their time in learning distinctions that may maintain and reconcile palpable contradictions. with what fetches of wit will they distinguish themselves round about, till they come at last to affirm what at first they denied? and with what severity of judgement will they spin out a long train of wary aphorisms, and subtle propositions, to prove that 'tis faith alone that justifies? and yet so explain the notion of justifying faith, as to make it imply and include in it all other parts of the condition of the new covenant, i. e. good works; and those that are able divines, can write whole volumes of problems and disputations to make out this important mystery, that faith alone justifies, i. e. as 'tis not alone. and now if you compare the vanity of the opinions with the talkative humour of the opiniators, you will cease to wonder at their rude carriage toward persons that profess to pursue more useful and less difficult studies: they are brimful of talk; and no man that pretends to learning can come in their way, but they immediately engage him in disputation; and if he with some raillery expose their learned and studied ignorance, and confute the silliness of their systematick notions, 'tis a bold affront to the orthodox faith, and he drolls upon the most fundamental articles of divinity: for they lay no less weight upon their own subtleties and singular conceits, then on the plain and practical precepts of the gospel; so that you cannot sweep away their cobwebs, but down drops the whole fabric of religion. neither does this pragmatical humour run only among the pretenders to learning, but the infection spreads among the people; every sage tradesman sets up for a deep and an able divine, and talks as confidently of predestination, as if he had served his apprenticeship to a dutch professor: every zealous shopkeeper understands the management of ecclesiastical discipline as well as the nicene fathers; and a jury of button-sellers shall determine a controversy of faith with more assurance than a general council. these of all others are the fiercest and most implacable assertors, because their zeal is proportioned to their ignorance; and therefore you cannot make yourself pleasant with their pert and conceited pedantry, (and 'tis a piece of raillery that is hardly to be forborn) but you draw upon yourself whole volleys of anathemas and hard names, they can endure any indignity rather than an affront to their clerkship; and you may with more safety play with a spaniard's beard, than sport with their grave ignorance. that is an insolence that can never pass unrevenged, but your reputation is immediately stabbed with some ugly word, or poisoned with some malicious report; and it becomes the great business of their zeal, to brand you with foul imputations; and in all places, and upon all occasions to blazon abroad your gross errors, and your horrid blasphemies. this short character of their humour, may serve for a satisfactory account of their dirty and disingenuous demeanour towards such persons as pretend to so much knowledge as to despise the ignorance of their learning. i design it not for an apology, either for myself or any of my friends: i know none so poor-spirited as to stand in awe of such petty arts: the most pertinent reply to such a poor and beggarly malice, is neglect and disdain; though in truth such wretches as stick not upon every slight occasion to sacrifice not only our good-names, but our livelyhoods (for that is our case) to their own childish picks, deserve to be answered by the pillory and the whipping-post. §. 8. many other ugly insinuations he has, as if i were prompted to this undertaking by lewd and naughty intentions; or as if he knew some stories that he can, but out of tenderness and civility to my reputation, will not vent. i will not so much assist his malice, as to transcribe all his white-livered suggestions to this purpose; but whether in this way of proceeding he has discovered more boldness, or more imprudence, is hard to determine, when he knows himself to lie under such vast disadvantages at this weapon, by lying open to so many stabbing and inevitable hits: but this is one of their topics, and comes in by the rules of their method and ingenuity; and all the defenders and champions of the church of england, have ever been thus accosted by their civil and unpassionate adversaries. and never did any man give them a smart and severe blow, but immediately they threatened to tell tales. and where men have not the advantage of truth, calumny is their best and surest weapon: for though its wounds do not always fester, yet they usually leave a scar behind them: at least he gains the advantage of his enemy, that gives him the diversion to wipe off reproaches; and all apologies in defence of a mans own innocence, leave behind them (through the common ill-nature of mankind) some ill-contrived suspicion of gild in the minds of men. and therefore i will not so far submit myself to the power of his malice, as to make protestations to the world, or appeals to heaven, as some tender constitutions would have done. but i defy all the weak attempts of malevolent tongues: false slanders as they spread, so they vanish like lightning; and to men wise and honest, the flash appears and disappears at once; and he that is concerned for the good opinion of such as are neither, puts himself upon an harder game than i am willing to play, or able to manage. and though in three lines i could not only answer, but shame his base and proofless surmises of the unworthiness of my aims, by making it appear that so far i was from having any ill design, that i was not in a capacity of having any at all: yet i will rather choose utterly to neglect this, and all his other mean and unworthy arts of malice, as being satisfied, that when men would discredit their adversaries by such unhandsome reflections upon their persons and private affairs, as are altogether impertinent to the matters in debate, they prove nothing but the strength of their malice, and weakness of their cause. nay, so outrageous is our author, pag. 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70. that when he comes to reflect upon my satire against atheism, he blows upon it with as much scorn and rancour, as upon the sharpest and most pointed invectives against themselves. as if no man could write against their party, but he must immediately be stricken with a spirit of infatuation, and forfeit all use of his reason and his understanding, and were not able to discourse pertinently upon the most pregnant and most noble argument in the world. but so it is, though you speak with the tongues of men and angels, and though you understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; yet if you have not charity for them, you are no better than sounding brass, and a tinkling cymbal. and yet had he only slighted and scorned my weak essay upon this theme, it would have been none of the most remarkable instances of his incivility; but to spit his rankest venom at it, is unexemplified candour and ingenuity. and among all the ugly suggestions he has darted at me, he has not aimed any with more malice and bitterness of spirit, than those he has bolted upon this occasion: but whatsoever foul language i may deserve upon other accounts, i appeal to the hottest zealot of his own dispensation, whether it were discreetly or civilly done to cast reproaches at me, whilst i was exposing profaneness and irreligion to public shame. a man that had not been utterly transported with rage and envy, would have had the discretion to have vented his choler upon more seasonable opportunities: for now, alas, he effectually defeats his own malice, by treating me with the same rudeness when i deserve well, as when i deserve ill: from which way of procedure, what else can the world conclude, but that the man raves, and cares not what he says, so he may abuse and defame me? but upon this occasion he has intimated a considerable truth, viz. that there is less danger in this kind of atheism that vents its self in little efforts of wit and drollery, then in those attempts, that under pretences of sober reason, propagate such opinions and principles as have a direct tendency to the subversion of the grounds of religion. it is well advised, and they would do well to consider it, that invalidate the rational accounts of the christian faith, and destroy all sober grounds of the divine authority of the holy scriptures, that undermine the evidence of miracles, and universal tradition, and resolve the motives of its credibility into vain and frivolous pretences. what greater advantage can any man give to the enemies of religion, o●ig of the script. pag. 105. then to inform them, that the alcoran may vie miracles and traditions with the scripture? and then in their stead produce no other proof of its divine authority, than what the alcoran may as well plead, without their concurrence; and such is the testimony of the spirit, if it convince not in a rational way, and by the use of motives and arguments: for remove their evidence, and then all pretences to inspiration become uncertain and unaccountable, and there remains no 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to distinguish between a true and a false testimony. and what greater disservice can any man do to the interest of religion, then to draw bold and horrid consequences in behalf of atheists, papists, and antiscripturists, from every petty controversy? does not he effectually invite men to a neglect of the holy scriptures, that tells them, they can have neither truth nor certainty, if there be various readins in the original texts? and yet confesseth, that ocular inspection makes it manifest, ●. consid. consid. p. 13. that there are various readins both in the old testament and the new; and it's confessed there have been failings in the transcribers, who have often mistaken; and that it is impossible it should be otherwise. i must acknowledge myself a little surprised to hear our author question whether there be such a thing as speculative atheism in the world, and yet himself can discover a wide door to it in every proposition, even in the lord's prayer itself: it is somewhat prodigious, that when so many men in all ages have made so many attempts to enter at this door, they should never be able to light upon such an easy and such an open passage. pag. 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43. §. 9 another passage that he chides and cavils at, is the account i gave, why i instilled so much tartness and severity into some expressions, from the example of our saviour's behaviour in the temple; where i observed, that there was but one single instance, in which zeal or an high indignation might be just and warrantable; and that is, when it vents its self against the arrogance of haughty, peevish, and sullen religionists. the rashness of this assertion he checks and controls with authentic precedents and examples out of the old testament, though every illiterate peasant could have informed him of the vast difference between the jewish and the christian oeconomy: theirs was a more harsh and severe institution, the temper of their zeal was more fierce and warlike; and in some cases to kill a brother out of hatred to idolatry, was a commendable action; and at some times swords and daggers were the means of grace, as they lately were of reformation. their zealots were privileged to execute any more notorious offender without the forms and solemnities of legal process. but their examples are no warrantable precedents for our practice; and our author might as pertinently have prescribed to my imitation the act of elias for a blameless and a justifiable instance of zeal, as that of phinehas. and as for the example of our blessed saviour, pag. 38. he pretends grievous resentments for the irreverence of my expressions towards him, such as hot fit of zeal, seeming fury, and transport of passion: though i know not how i could have expressed myself in more abating words: for if it were but a seeming transport, that directly implies it was no real or criminal excess; and this word seeming has such a soft and qualified signification, that it evacuates the malignity of the hardest expressions: for it is properly of a negative import, and serves only to supplant and remove the affirmation to which it is prefixed; so that a seeming fury is in propriety of speech no fury at all: and therefore i cannot see how i could have described this action in more tender and cautious words, for i think a kind of fury (as doctor hammond phraseth it, that is not wont to speak irreverently of his saviour) is not near so soft language as seeming fury. but the true reason why i used these expressions, was, because our blessed saviour did in that action take upon him the person and the privilege of the jewish zealots; a sort of men that professed to be transported by some extraordinary impulse, beyond the ordinary rules of law and decency, and by consequence must be acted with a greater heat and vehemence of spirit; and therefore when our saviour imitated their way of proceeding, it must needs carry in it a great appearance of their passionate and extatick zeal. and i think the reflection of the disciples themselves upon this fact, has more seeming harshness in it then my remark; for upon this occasion they call to mind that passage in the psalms, the zeal of thy house hath eaten me up, or has fed and gnawed upon me, and that is an angry and fretting thing. pag. 41. but (says our author) this attempt could not be performed with a seeming transport of passion, because it was a miracle, and done with the evidence of the divine presence upon him; as if he could not exert an act of omnipotence with an appearance of passion, when 'tis inseparable from all actions of justice and severity. you see how upon all turns i am forced to invalidate weak and slender cavils, because they are urged for mighty and vehement informations: 'tis their method to astonish the people with frightful words, and every objection must be pursued as high as atheism and blasphemy. their wide mouths scorn to indict for petty crimes, and therefore they are resolved to charge every misprision and little miscarriage of high treason. but the main design of his assault upon this passage, is not so much to beat down my fences, as to let us see his deep stores of ammunition in jewish learning: for some men are mighty rabbis at the second hand, and can furnish great volumes with a power of hebrew, as brokers do their shops with old clothes. and i have read a famous writer (though he shall be nameless) that abounds with rabbinical quotations, all which if you would trace them, are trivial in modern authors. but though men by such borrowed gays may make the vulgar gaze and admire them, yet they do but expose their ignorance and vainglory to the learned world. and what a flourish does our author make here with his description of the temple, and its several courts and apartments, though 'tis known to every schoolboy that has read godwin's antiquities? and therefore he might have supposed (as i did) the known difference between the inward court of the jews, and the outward court of the gentiles, as distinct from the court of the priests and levites; and not have lavished away two whole pages to describe them, before he made his approach towards the purpose, viz. to prove that it was not the gentiles court out of which our saviour whipped the buyers and sellers, (as i affirmed) but the other that is proper and peculiar to the jews. and here what a gaudy show of learning might i make? what shoals of hebrew, greek, and latin quotations might i heap up, in my own defence? there being so great a multitude of late writers, that have collected variety of proofs out of the ancients in defence of my opinion. but i shall rather choose to leave this superannuated pedantry to those who more affect it, and perhaps more need it; and shall content myself with the reasons of one plain english author, more than in the bare authority of twenty latin ones; and that is mr. mede, in his first book and second discourse, where the reader may peruse an excellent account of the truth and reasonableness of my opinion. i shall only transcribe two passages that are most material to my purpose; the first to prove it could not be the court of the jews; and the second, that it must of necessity be that of the gentiles. 1. those who were so chary that no uncircumcised or unclean person should come into their place of worship, who trod the pavement thereof with so much religious observance and curiosity, antiq. l. 20. c. 7. who would not suffer (as josephus relates) any other building, no not the palace of agrippa their king, to have any prospect into it, lest it should be polluted by a profane look; how unlikely is it they would endure it to be made a place of buying, selling, and bartering, yea, a market for sheep and oxen, as john 2.14. it is expressly said to have been? neither will it serve the turn to excuse it, by saying, it was to furnish such as came thither with offerings; for the sheep and oxen whilst they were yet to be bought to that purpose, were not sacred, but profane, and so not to come within the sacred limits. 2. the place alleged to avow the fact, speaks expressly of gentile-worshippers; not in the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 only, but in the whole body of the context. hear the prophet speak, esay chap. 56. vers. 6, 7. and then judge: the sons of the stranger, that join themselves to the lord to serve him, and to love the name of the lord, to be his servants, every one that keepeth the sabbath from polluting it, and taketh hold of my covenant, (namely, that i alone shall be his god) even them will i bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer; their burnt offerings and sacrifices accepted upon mine altar. then follow the words of my text, for my house shall be called (i. e. shall be; it is an hebraism) a house of prayer for all people. what is this but a description of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or gentile-worshippers? and this place alone makes good all that i have said before, viz. that this vindication was of the gentiles court: otherwise the allegation of this scripture had been impertinent; for the gentiles (of whom the prophet speaks) worshipped in no place but this. you see the prodigious trifling of this man, that runs after such wild and straggling impertinencies to so little purpose. one would have thought that when he insisted so severely on a matter so remote from my main design, he would have been secure of mighty advantages on his own side, and not have blundered so horribly in such far-fetched digressions. §. 10. pag. 16. his next great assault (and 'tis a furious one too) is upon the author of the friendly debate. and here he flings down his glove, bids defiance to the stoutest he of us all, and sends a bold challenge to all men of learning, reading, and ingenuity. to what purpose does this author press his wit and parts to write dialogues, and endeavour to make the nonconformists ridiculous by his comical representations? let him come forth, if he be a man of skill and confidence: leave off his dramatic raillery, and encounter me in scholastic and logical disputation. what a flower of chivalry is this? is there nothing to take down his stomach, and assuage his courage? still courting dangers, and still swaggering after so many foils and disgraces? will not age slake the heats of his flaming blood? 'tis time to enjoy his glories and his laurels, and not to hazard his renown with future adventures. this fortune is a fickle thing, and the world full of tartars. and yet methinks after all this bravery, this challenge savours not a little of cowardice, and betrays some qualms and frosty apprehensions. 'tis a mere shift to discharge themselves of their engagements, to do reason to the friendly debate, by beginning his controversy afresh upon other grounds and in other methods; and 'tis a certain sign of a baffled person, when he challenges at a new weapon, that is sufficient confession of his being mastered at the old. and thus because they are not able to stand against the wit and reason of that author, they except against his way of procedure, and refuse to hear any thing we can urge against them, unless we will fling up all we have gained by his smart discourses, and yield to treat and dispute with them in the language of the budge doctors of the schools. as if we could not discourse as coherently in dialogues, as in syllogisms: reason is equally certain, with what dress soever it be clothed, and in what method soever it is deduced: if the train of consequences be aptly connected to premises, 'tis pertinent, and according to the arts of logic, and the laws of reasoning: but if there be any flaw or incoherence between principles and conclusions, the chain of the discourse ceases, and 'tis easy to discover where the break begins. and therefore if there be any non-consequences and impertinences in the friendly debate, let them specify the particulars; but till then, 'tis ridiculous to tell the people 'tis no rational discourse, because composed in a dramatic, not a logical method: for if it is true and pertinent, 'tis logical; if not, it is not dramatic; the rules of reasoning are the same in both: so much do they shuffle by these general exceptions, till they can discover particular defects and impertinences; and to so little purpose does our author challenge that gentleman to argue according to rules of method and art: for if that be to state the matters in difference between them, to confirm his own judgement, and to confute theirs with substantial reasons and arguments, that is it he has undertaken; and if he have not performed, they are able to show it; if he has, there wants nothing of the exactness of logical and scholastic procedure, but the dull formality of ob. and sol. and videtur quod non. but 'tis unmanly to carp at phrases, pag. 16, 17. expressions, manners of the declaration of men's conceptions collected from, or falsely fathered upon particular persons, the greatest guilt of some whereof it may be, is only their too near approach to the expressions used in the scripture to the same purpose. behold the confident arts of these men! when an author has collected so many pregnant instances of their folly, and has warranted the truth of his testimonies by particular references to the original authors, they can defeat a thousand authorities with a may-be, and a perhaps: 'tis but saying those absurd passages he produceth out of the writings of the nonconformists, may be falsely fathered upon them, and then all is well. what a strange man is this author of the friendly debate, to amass together so many quotations out of w. b? may they not be falsely fathered upon him? and what though he has justified the faithfulness of his collections, by the most exact and scrupulous references? let him not think i am bound to examine the sincerity of his relations. if a man of my confidence tell him at all adventure that perhaps he has abused them and the world too by his own forgeries, that is enough for ever to abate their certainty, and evacuate their authority. nay farther, the greatest guilt of some of the phrases carped at, it may be, is only their too near approach to the expressions used in scripture to the same purpose. and it may be their guilt is, that they abuse the words of scripture to set off their own wild and unwarrantable fancies; and it may be the sky will fall to morrow; and it may be saint paul's steeple, as soon as it is rebuilt, will remove itself to the east-indies. to what purpose is it for us to write books, if they can invalidate all our evidences, and arrest all our demonstrations with these pitiful maybe's? or rather, what a confident man is this, to expect his groundless supposals should have credit enough in the world to put a baffle upon clear and undeniable proofs? but 'tis time, for shame, to leave off this intolerable trifling; they have been sufficiently teased for it already by the author of the friendly debate, and yet they cannot support their desperate cause but by words that may salve any thing. but is it not a mean design for a man to press his wits and parts to carp at other men's expressions? no: for if men place mystery and spirituality in uncouth and affected phrases; if they trifle away the most weighty arguments in religion with childish fancies, and feed the people with nothing but empty words, and insignificant phrases; they may deserve to be exposed, though not to be confuted, because they have not sense enough to be capable either of truth or falsehood; and therefore though they can never be proved false, yet they may and aught to bemade ridiculous. and what other course can be taken with such triflers as t. w. and r. v. that have laboured to burlesque the gospel, and to turn the holy scriptures into clinch and quibble? would it become a serious man to confute jingles with grave and scholastic arguments? to encounter a wretched fancy with a rational discourse? and baffle a schoolboys phrase out of the word of god? and when the poor people are ravished with the chiming of empty words, and hug such fantastic trifling for gospel-mysteries, what other way is there to undeceive them, then by letting them see, that they are not suited to the spiritual condition of any professors, that are not still under the dispensation of rattles. but though to expose the silliness of their expressions, be a part of his design, and that an useful one too, yet so far is it from being the main drift (much less the only one, as our author intimates) of those composures, that 'tis least of any thing pursued: and the bulk of those treatises is taken up with discovering (as i before observed) the feebleness of their beloved notions, the wildness of their practices, the unwarrantableness of their schism, the prevarication of their pretences, and the inconsistency of their principles. this was his theme; and had it been his title, his performance would not only have justified, but exceeded his undertaking. but all this is obstinately overlooked, and the whole business is every where represented by our author, as if all that ink and paper had been wasted only to carp at uncouth phrases and expressions. with such confidence and dexterity can these men slight what they cannot answer. but upon this occasion you may observe the reasonableness of a motion i made, that preachers might be obliged to speak sense as well as truth: because these men cajole and amaze the simple multitude with palpable nonsense; and when they pour forth a senseless jargon of kitchen-metaphors, and rascal similitudes, the people admire the preciousness of the mystery, and they talk like men encircled with glories, and dictate their cant with the raptures of an angel, and the authority of an apostle; and 'tis they only that understand the secrets of the gospel, and the spirituality of the covenant of grace; and this betrays them unavoidably into a fanatic enthusiasm, fills their little heads with wild frenzies, and infatuating conceits, and the whole business of religion is transacted in their imaginations. and they take it for a special work of conversion to be affected with precious mr. such-an-one's doctrine, and to profit under his ministry, i. e. to sigh at his sermons, and look demurely half an hour after. and what can be more obvious to any man's observation, then that all the change that appears in most of their converts, is, that their tongues-ends are tipped with a new set of phrases, that they talk by rote and by chance; and under this demureness of language they shelter their old vices of envy, peevishness, arrogance, spite, hatred, malice and covetousness? these infirmities are not any where so gross and visible as among professors, they are the surest marks, and most distinctive characters of the godly party; and 'tis hugely rare to meet with any of these new-fangled saints that does not discover the clearest and most irksome appearances of some or all these vices. their natural sense of religion is not only appeased, but abundantly satisfied with this fantastic godliness; and this staves them off from all farther thoughts of a through and effectual reformation. and now upon this account it is that i proposed to have preachers obliged to speak sense as well as truth: but is not this an uncouth motion? (says our author) seeing hitherto it has been supposed that every proposition that is either true or false, pag. 21. has a proper determinate sense; and if sense it have not, it can be neither. and is not this eristically spoken, and as becomes a man puissant in polemic squabble? who could have nicked me with such a subtlety, but one that knows all his advantages, and is thoroughly experienced in all the shifts of cavil? but yet by his leave, because every proposition, that is either true or false, must have a determinate sense, is it therefore necessary, that what has no determinate sense, must be either true or false? if it be not, than men may speak nonsense, and yet speak neither, and then what becomes of this pert and doughty exception? and when these men do as much dis-service to religion by nonsense as by false doctrine, what can be more seasonably proposed, then that they should be as well obliged to speak sense, as they are to speak truth; and as well punished for canting, as for heresy? seeing (as they manage it) 'tis as pernicious to the peace of the church, and the interest of religion. pag. 17. §. 11. but our author proceeds: some of the things reflected on, and carped at, are such as those, who have used or asserted them, dare modestly challenge him in their defence, to make good his charge in a personal conference. this is somewhat pitiful, and methinks his high spirit stoops below itself: for there is no such submissive confession of a public overthrow, as to demand private conferences; 'tis the refuge of all baffled people, and all the triflers in the world may shelter themselves in this sanctuary, though they can never recover it unless by flight. and i doubt not but philagathus himself can brag among his neighbours and acquaintance, that the author of the friendly debate dares not accept this challenge; and that if he could but talk with him, he could easily revenge himself to purpose, aye that he could. and though never was poor man more piteously bruised and havocked, yet by this lamentable cordial he makes shift to assuage the pain of his disaster, and to support the spruntness of his humour. but, alas! this is plain crossing the cudgels, when they perceive themselves overmatched: they are ashamed to confess a baffle, and yet not able to bear up against the briskness of their assailant; and therefore to abate the publickness of the disgrace, they desire to finish the combat in a private corner; and than though they are beaten, they can boast the victory, and can crow and strut and triumph when they fly the pit. but men that can speak reason, can certainly pen what they speak; and therefore if they cannot defend themselves by writing, they can never be able to do it by talking. and if w. b. can prove by word of mouth his hoops, and his wall●ps, and his vermin, to be gospel-mysteries, 'tis no great pains to dictate the same words to a brachygrapher. but our author tells us, pag. 51. that the wisest man living, when he is gagged with a quill is not able to speak; and yet he may write for all that, for gaggs tie not men's hands; and therefore i see not how 'tis possible w. b. should better clear himself by word of mouth, then by ink and paper. there is no way imaginable, but by eating his gag, and recanting what he has written. however, the author of the debate is not at leisure to attend to the impertinencies of every talking man. his design was to discover their lamentable follies and impostures to the world; let them clear themselves to the public, and he is satisfied: but upon his own account he neither needs nor desires satisfaction. so that in short, these demands of personal conferences, are but a more cleanly way of yielding the cause: for no men will ever sit down under a public baffle, that know how to help themselves. pag. 17, 52. but if nothing will stop our mouths, our author thinks he can easily threaten us into better manners. for if they would retort upon us, and give in a charge against the cursed oaths, debaucheries, profaneness, various immoralities, and sottish ignorance, that are openly and notoriously among those whom we countenance and secure, what havoc might an ordinary ingenuity make among the conforming clergy? but he is merciful. how does this man both vanquish and oblige us by his civility? and though he proclaim us to the world a pack of sots, dunces, drunkards, atheists, yet he is resolved to spare our reputation: if this be his kindness when he forgives, what would it be when he retaliates? what enraged malice could have struck with a more angry sting? white's centuries, and the cobbler of glocester's tales, are civil and cleanly stories, if compared to the baseness and insolence of this suggestion. but suppose it carried with it as much truth as it does rancour, yet it would be but an impertinent calumny, and no material recrimination to our charge. we pry not into their conversations, nor set spies upon their secret practices; nor do we upbraid them with any wickedness, from which they may be recovered by their own convictions. but the follies we endeavour to expose, are such as they esteem gospel-mysteries; and the vices we correct, are such as they adopt among their choicest virtues, and by which they rate and value themselves. if they can discover any such pestilent and destructive impostures among us, let them reprove them with the roughness of satyrs, and the severity of zealots. but as for these miscarriages he pretends to load us withal, they are such as no man will justify; and if any be obnoxious to his charge, who will plead their innocence? and they stand condemned not only in the opinion of the world, but their own judgements too. whereas the only things we lay to their charge, are such pretences whereby they not only elude, but satisfy their consciences. and we discover the sottishness of such delusions, not out of any design to expose their persons to contempt, but barely to disabuse the deluded multitude. 'tis not the personal faults of w. b. the friendly debate aims at, but those of his schismatical way and spirit. he has by his ridiculous abuse of the holy scriptures, perverted the whole design of the gospel, and adulterated almost all the articles of the christian religion. and if so, 'tis great charity in us to deliver the people from the danger of such pernicious impostures; whereas it can be nothing but malice in them, should they attempt to revenge themselves by personal disgraces and reflections. §. 12. but our author's apology is not yet at an end, pag. 47. he proceeds: though learned men, such as plato and cicero, may argue candidly and perspicuously in dialogues; yet it cannot be denied that advantages may be taken from this way of writing, to represent both persons, opinions and practices, invidiously and contemptuously, above any other way: so that by this means brave and worthy personages may be rendered ridiculous, as socrates was by aristophanes. by which his enemies gained the advantage of exposing him to public contempt, and thereby prepared a way for the management of an open accusation against him, and his charge was nonconformity to the established superstition of the church of athens. did ever any man make such wretched apologies? 'tis a sad symptom when such positive people are driven to such sceptical and doubtful pretences, and are still forced to take sanctuary in a naked may-be. socrates was abused, and so may any good man; what then? what is this to the friendly debate, and the nonconformists? must they be acquitted, because socrates was not guilty? because some honest men are maliciously traduced, shall that discharge all others of just accusations? they may be justly charged by the friendly debate, though the honest philosopher was foully and dirtily slandered by aristophanes. verily, sir, this is no better (to say no worse) then popular stuff, and shop-logick. but 'tis his great weapon of defence, and thus he tells us elsewhere, pag. 15. st. paul was accused of canting as well as w. b. and the nonconformists: he was so, and that very unjustly; but what necessity is there that they should be as wise or as honest as that great apostle? there is no imaginable connexion that i know of between his and their actions; to what purpose then is it to defend themselves with his innocence? st. paul was able to account for the truth and reasonableness of that doctrine, which they called canting: if they are able to do as much for their phrases, let them do it, and that will silence all our clamours and cavils, and we will no more endeavour to shame them out of the profession of the gospel, by crying out canting, phrases, silly, nonsense, metaphors. but otherwise we will pursue the cry till we shame them out of their folly and confidence; and assure yourself, we will not suffer them to obtrude their own affected nonsense upon the people, as the choicest and most important mysteries of religion. but to return to the case of socrates; his virtue is abundantly cleared to all posterity by his apology; and when they have given as satisfactory an answer to the friendly debate, as socrates did to his accusers, they shall not be treated as socrates was; but till then, they are never the wiser for his philosophy, nor the better for his innocence. but however, no man will affirm that aristophanes' dialogues were absurd and inartificial, and yet they are sufficiently abusive; and therefore in that way of writing, a witty man may, if he have no regard to truth or falsehood, make any thing look uncouth, and any person appear ridiculous. if our author had instanced in ben johnson's alchemist, or his bartholomew-fair, in stead of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of aristophanes, the people would have been able to discover the wide impertinency of this exception, (though it is in my opinion one of the most plausible hits in his whole book:) for they might then have known, there is no analogy between the friendly debate, and those waggish comedies: he does not represent w. b. as the poet did ananias; nor confute him in a disputation with a silly puppet, as he did brother buisy. he does not personate him with antic postures and actions, nor fasten upon him roguish and unlucky stories, nor put into his mouth ridiculous words of his own unhappy invention. that way indeed a witty man may expose the best and the wisest to public scorn; but then the artificial contrivance of such dialogues consists not in any regard to truth and reason, but in the unhappiness of the abuse. whereas the genius of the friendly debate is as remote from this comical waggery, as the dialogues of plato and cicero, that are sometimes facetious, but never abusive and disingenuous. the body of his discourse is rational and argumentative; and though it may be sometimes set off with pleasantness of humour, and picquancy of wit, yet he never seeks advantage by counterfeit follies, and comical abuses: and if they can charge him with any thing of this nature, i will undertake in his behalf he shall make them public satisfaction. but when aristophanes is exemplified to make good the surmise, that is plausible and taking with the common people; for they imagine all who write greek and latin to be grave and serious men; and therefore if aristophanes could by the smartness of his drolling and satirical wit, cast contempt upon the brightest example of virtue, that ever appeared in the heathen world; why may not the author of the friendly debate by the same arts and advantages expose nonconformists and the profession of the gospel, (for they are always ventured in the same bottom) to the same popular scorn and abuse? but any one that is acquainted with the genius of the grecian comedy in general, and with the humour of aristophanes in particular, will be ashamed to compare such wild satyrs and extravagant farces with the friendly debate. that poet never defigned any appearance of truth; he represents not socrates his opinions, nor confutes them by sober and philosophic reasonings; he intended nothing but only to abuse him by buffonery and apish tricks; and the most taking piece of wit in the whole farce, was to bring the grave philosopher upon the stage, dancing in a sieve. but as for the friendly debate, if it has represented any of them ridiculous, it has only painted them in their own real colours: there is no poetic invention, nor comical extravagance; and it takes no advantage but from truth and reason: so that if he make any of their opinions appear ridiculous, he does it not by the unluckiness of his wit, as aristophanes did, but by the strength of his arguments. our author adds indeed, to strengthen this faint exception, pag. 51. that 'tis a facile thing to take the wisest man living, after he is lime-twigged with ink and paper, and gagged with a quill, so that he can neither move nor speak, to clap a fool's coat on his back, and turn him out to be laughed at in the streets. this is lofty and comical, but yet neither true nor witty. for the wisest men will never be lime-twigged with ink and paper, nor gag themselves with quills; or if they should be so rash and unadvised, yet i see not how the strong metaphor can restrain them either from opening their mouths, or moving their hands. for the plain english of all this lofty rumbling of lime-twigs and gaggs, is no more than to be in print; and how can that hinder any man from justifying his own writings? for if men publish sense, all the world can never make them ridiculous; if nonsense, they make themselves so. and no gaggs nor lime-twigs can disable them from defending their books against any adversary, but either a bad cause, or an ill management, or (what is their case) both: so that if they are lime-twigged with ink and paper, 'tis with rods of their own laying; and if they are exposed in a fool's coat, 'tis with one of their own making. §. 13. his last remark upon the case of socrates is extraordinary; when he insinuates as if the crime for which he suffered was nonconformity to, and separation from the national church of athens; as if he were the proto-martyr of independency. and the people are wonderfully taken with these sly and oblique strokes; and as woefully impertinent as this is, they admire it for a notable essay of wit. and yet if this trifling were of any importance, the advantage would run vastly on our side: so easy is it to make it appear, that socrates suffered not so much as a nonconformist, as an enemy to fanatics; and that his offence was no other than an endeavour to persuade the men of athens that grace and virtue were the same thing. the story is briefly this: all the former ages of greece were led rather by a giddy and ignorant enthusiasm, than the sober dictates of a wary and well-advised reason. and though some of the more ancient vertuosis, seemed to have made some handsome use of their intellectual faculties in physiological inquiries, yet as for matters of religion, they either altogether neglected their speculations, or treated of them with as much wildness and vanity as their poets, who pretended to derive their theological theories from enthusiasm and prophetic frenzies; imagining reason and devotion to be things incompetent, and that religion consisted barely in enthusiastic raptures, and prophetic heats; and therefore they depended more upon the information of their dreams and fancies, than their consistent and waking faculties; and the best visionist was the ablest divine. their most celebrated professors of divinity, who pretended to the more inward, practical and experimental mysteries of religion, were a sort of silly fanatic and illiterate poets, who being men of giddy and overheated imaginations, pretended to derive all their knowledge (as others do their ignorance) from inspirations and divine illapses; and thereby so entirely engrossed the profession of divinity, that they gained an absolute sovereignty over the faith, not only of the rude and vulgar sort of mankind, but also of the sages and professors of wisdom; the philosophers themselves, howsoever otherwise men of eminent parts and ingenuity, resigning up their own reasons to the authority of these fellows whimsies and inspirations. then comes socrates and preaches down all their pretended mysteries, for raw and lamentable impostures, and endeavours to draw them off from the pageantry of their superstition, to the habitual practice of virtuous actions: and to this purpose he teaches his fellow-citizens, that they must gain an interest in the favour of the gods, not by their diligent attendance upon the eleusinian ordinances, but by a life of virtue and goodness; and that love, humility, meekness, obedience, chastity and temperance, are more acceptable to the eternal deity, than all their mysterious solemnities in honour of the mother of the gods. this alarms the zealots and hot spirits of the city, and the good man is immediately cited before the consistory of the areopagitical elders, and is by them condemned as an heretic to their orthodox faith, for setting up carnal reason against the spirit of god, and for presuming to fathom the sacred depths of their eleusinian mysteries, with the line of his short and shallow understanding: for how exorbitant soever they might appear to his fleshly reasonings, they were derived from the offspring of the gods, and owned by the most practical and spiritual preachers of their religion. and though his private and depraved reason might judge them the brutishest and most licentious practices in the world, (for so they really were) yet in spite of all their seeming beastliness, they were the highest strains of godliness and spiritual devotion. this was represented to the zealous and giddy multitude, and then the cry is, crucify him, crucify him. and thus fell this great man a sacrifice to the zeal and fury of a fanatic rabble. you see with what vain and successless attempts they fasten upon those discourses; and the truth is, in so foul and thick a cause, the more they struggle, the faster they stick; and therefore they would be well advised not to dally too much with that author: for though i know him to be far from an angry or a cynical humour, yet i am able to discern such an hatred and antipathy to hypocrisy from the genius of his writings, that if they will tempt him to unrip all their folly and knavery, he is apt enough to discover such thick blasphemies against divine providence, and such unparallelled abuses of religion in their most sumptuous pretences, and most plausible practices, as shall represent the men of greatest reputation amongst them for wisdom and learning, in as ridiculous a guise as t. w. and the men of greatest vogue for conscience and integrity, under as seditious a character as w. b. and no man more obnoxious upon both accounts, than i. o. and who can endure to see men, that are so horribly bemired, bear up with so much state and confidence? §. 14. but the great nuissance of my preface, is some unkind and unhappy reflections, that i chanced, i know not by what misfortune, to cast out upon their gift of prayer: this is the dear palladium of their pulpits, and they will as soon fling up the whole cause, as forego this privilege of talking: 'tis the ephod and the teraphim of the house of micah, and nothing shall ever wrest it from them but fine, force, and invincible resolution; and therefore where this is endangered or invaded, our author (you may be sure) will lay about him with all the power of words and vehemence of zeal; so that here i must struggle to purpose to carry off this darling of the cause. in the first place then the man is wonderstrucken, pag. 23. that i should design all along to charge my adversaries with pharisaism, and yet should instance in their confession of sin, when it is the characteristical note of the pharisees, that they made no confession of sin at all. but to awaken him out of his amazement, he may know that the pharisaic hypocrisy consists neither in long prayers, nor short confessions, no more than it does in long robes, or short cloaks: spiritual pride is its only essential character, and it is of no concernment which way, and in what expressions it vents and discovers its self. there is a creeping as well as a vaunting arrogance, and this vice is never so confident as when it appears in the garbs and postures of humility. and thus when men dissemble with the almighty, when they know that they belie themselves with false accusations; when they mourn for sins, of which they think they stand clear and innocent; and pretend to be humbled for those offences, of which they are not seriously convinced; tell me a greater instance of pride and insolence in the world, than this juggling and counterfeit humility: for what else can these men think within, but that they oblige and compliment the almighty, by being content to be thought viler wretches than they think themselves, only to advance the interest of god's glory, and set off the greatness of his free grace? and what an obliging favour is this, when they will sacrifice their own reputation to the glory and renown of his attributes? so that 'tis apparently a coarser piece of vanity to confess those sins of which we are not guilty, than not to acknowledge those of which we are. and that there is something of this leven lurking at the bottom of all this humiliation, is notoriously evident; for as much as howsoever humble and complimental they are in their talk to god, yet in their conversation with men, the scene immediately altars; then they return to the old pharisaic vomit; and then, publicans, keep your distance; and then they censure and despise their neighbours as carnal gospelers, and applaud themselves that they are not as the men of the world. then we bless the lord for humbling our proud hearts, and for emptying us of all our self-righteousness; thereby to bring us effectually to an experimental sense of the deep and more spiritual mysteries of the gospel; to an heavenly taste and relish of the sweetness and preciousness of the lord jesus, and of that soul-ravishing delight wherewith his people are affected in their spiritual closing with him; and lastly, to an inward feeling of the glorious discoveries, manifestations and comings in of his spirit upon the hearts of believers in all his ordinances. this is the inward, practical and experimental part of the mystery of godliness; whereas your formalists and mere moral professors make a great noise about their dry devotions, and self-wroughts-out-mortification. but, alas, poor deluded wretches! they never viewed the ugliness of their nature in the glass of the law; they never lay under the horrors of the spirit of bondage; they never had a humbling sight and through sense of their sins, and were never perfectly emptied of their own self-righteousness; and though they can do good actions, yet they cannot deny them, and make woeful complaints to almighty god, that all the duties they perform, though they know them to be agreeable to his laws, are wicked and abominable. ah! this corrupt nature is a proud thing, and hardly driven out of its trust and confidence in its own righteousness; nothing but an absolute and thorough conviction of its own self-emptiness, self-abhorrency, and self-despair, can ever bring it to a full and absolute close with the lord christ. this is the block at which millions of poor souls stumble everlastingly; and 'tis the lord's distinguishing mercy that has taken the veil from off our eyes, and enabled us to see the danger of a self-righteousness. so that this pageantry is the main ground of all their spiritual pride and arrogance; upon this they build the lofty conceits of their own peculiar godliness, and their insolent contempt of all others, that have more wit or less vanity then to be as fond and fantastic as themselves; and in the result of all, this formal and counterfeit humility, is made the specific difference between the people of god, and the men of the world. but here his pen takes occasion to fly out (for 'tis very unruly) upon a censure of mine, against an insolence of theirs; for confining the elect and the godly to their own party, and esteeming of us as no better than the wicked and the reprobate of the earth. pag. 24. wherein (says he) i am satisfied, that he unduly chargeth those, whom he intends to reflect upon: however, i am none of them; i confine not holiness to a party, not to the church of england, or to those that descent from it. this his confidence dares affirm, though 'tis so notorious that never any party of men in the world (no not the jews) did with greater assurance appropriate to themselves all the titles and characters of the people of god: for what else mean their accounts and descriptions of the power of godliness, by the singularities of their own superstition? what mean those flatteries and congratulations wherewith they besprinkle their followers, as if they were the only people that are acquainted with the mysteries and spiritualities of the gospel? what means their confinement of the preaching of the covenant of grace to their own doctrines, and their own congregations? what means their boasting of themselves as the only powerful, soul-searching, experimental and spiritual preachers? in brief, what means their bestowing nothing but fair words upon themselves, and nothing but foul language upon us? sure he cannot forget the words of their own party, and who they were, that were the godly, professors, zion, god's jacob's, the israel of god, god's inheritance; when we were egypt and babylon, enemies of the power of godliness, scoffing edomites, men of the world, antichristian apostates, idolaters, and followers of the whore. he certainly must needs be a very young professor that is unacquainted with this language. but however, what is all this to our author? he (you may take his word) is none of them. but what is that to me? did i ever accuse him? my design was to describe the genius of the party, and not the humour of every individual professor. but 'tis the misfortune of indiscreet people to betray themselves by their own unnecessary apologies, and to cry not guilty, before they are indicted, when their own consciences arraign and convict them. for our author (i perceive by sundry passages and notions in his book) is a brother of the independent communion; and therefore let him (seeing he has put himself upon it) produce me but one writer of that fraternity, that is not notoriously guilty of this piece of pride and partiality. i confess i am not very conversant in their writings, yet i have by chance read one (of whom i am confident he has no very small opinion) that exceeds all the scribblers i ever had the fortune to meet with, or the leisure to peruse, in these foul and malapert censures; and that is i. o. one of the great patriarches of the congregational churches: all whose pamphlets are little better than so many libels against the church of england; and had we been downright miscreants, or the most wretched apostates in the world, he could scarce have given us more unfriendly language: 'tis hard to dip into a page of his writings, that is not embellished with some or other of these decent and beautiful expressions. it was the peculiar way of his sermons and discourses to magnify the parliament-reformation for a wonderful and providential recovery of the departed gospel to these nations; and to represent the design of that holy war as begun and carried on by the power and procurement of the lord christ, in order to the final overthrow of the episcopal antichrist, and the restauration and establishment of his own kingdom. he has published many excellent sermons to this purpose; such is that entitled, a vision of unchangeable free mercy, in sending the means of grace to undeserving sinners: wherein gods uncontrollable eternal purpose, in sending and continuing the gospel (by which they all along intent nothing else but their sweaty way of preaching) unto this nation, in the midst of oppositions and contingencies, is discovered, etc. preached before the honourable house of commons, april 29. 1646. where, beside the apparent scope of the sermon itself, he reckons up three departures of the gospel from england: pag. 27. that by the saxon conquest, that by the roman harlot, and that in our days by an almost universal treacherous apostasy from the purity of worship, from which the free grace and good pleasure of god has made a great progress again towards a recovery. so that the episcopal way of worship is a perfect apostasy from the purity of the gospel; and had it been universal, it had been total. and again, such is his sermon of the branch of the lord, or the beauty of zion, preached at edinburgh 1650. where compiling a catalogue of the enemies of the house of god in all ages, he reckons up pharaoh, pag. 10, 11. nabuchadnezzar, dioclesian, julian, and the late prelates, whose rochets (he adds) were for that reason, together with other garments of their adherents, and the imperial robes of the forementioned emperors, rolled up in blood by the divine vengeance, and hung up in god's house, as the spoils of god's enemies; and 'tis, no doubt, no unpleasant reflection to his people, to consider how willing and prodigal their gracious father is to sacrifice crowns and mitres, kingdoms and churches to the interest and plunder of his secret ones: preface to cromwell. for so our author styles them; i suppose because no body knows or suspects them to be god's people beside themselves. and in his dedication to the supreme authority of the nation, the commons assembled in parliament, prefixed to his sermon preached octob. 24. 1651. being a solemn day of thanksgiving for the destruction of the scots army at worcester, with sundry other mercies, he tells his patrons, that as whatever there has been of beauty, glory, or advantage unto the people of god in the late transactions, (at worcester) hath been eminently of undeserved grace; so the dreadful vengeance, which the lord hath executed against the men of his enmity and warfare, hath been most righteously procured by their clothing cursed designs of revenge, persecution, bondage in soul and body, spoil and rapine, with the most glorious pretences of zeal, covenant and reformation, and such like things, which never came into their hearts. here the dear brethren of the presbytery, as well as the reprobate cavaliers, were listed among the enemies of the cause, and of the church of god; and now all people and all parties in the three kingdoms, except only the army-saints and their adherents, were become perfect egyptians: and so they were upon this account, that the people of god had gained a certain right to rob and plunder them by divine commission. and here also you may observe, that i.o. (bold man!) and god almighty were always of the same side and the same communion; and whatever he was for, was doubtless the cause of god. they were for presbytery, and independency, and democracy together, and never parted counsels and designs, till the lord grew weary of these right godly men, and so was at length pleased to turn cavalier. and that upon good grounds, for by this time his old friends were become as bad or worse than his old enemies. for so the same author informs us, (to mention but one place more, though i omit as many as would make a volume) in a little treatise of temptation, pag. 65, 66. where, giving an account of the temptations, which in those days had even cast down the people of god from their excellency, and had cut their locks, and made them become like other men, he reckons in the first place the specious pretence of christian liberty and freedom from a bondage-frame, at which door sundry had gone out into sensuality and apostasy, into a neglect of sabbaths, public and private duties, dissoluteness and profaneness. in the next place he adds, the pretence of leaving public things to providence, under which professors had disputed themselves into wretched carnal compliances, and the utter ruin of all zeal for god, the interest of christ, or his people in the world. he subjoins in the last place, these and the like considerations, joined with the ease and plenty, the greatness and promotion of professors, have so brought things about, that whereas we have by providence shifted places with the men of the world, we have by sin shifted spirits with them also. we are like a plantation of men carried into a foreign country; in a short space they degenerate from the manners of the people from whence they came, and fall into that of the country, whereinto they are brought; as if there were something in the soil and air that transformed them. give me leave a little to follow my similitude; he that should see the prevailing party of these nations, many of those in rule, power, favour, with all their adherents, and remember that they were a colony of puritans, whose habitation was in a low place, as the prophet speaks of the city of god, translated by an high hand to the mountains they now possess, cannot but wonder how soon they have forgot the customs, manners, ways of their own old people, and are cast into the m●uld of them that went before them, in the places whereunto they are translated— what were those before us that we are not? what did they we do not? here is pregnant doctrine for many excellent inferences, but time will not permit; and therefore from hence i shall only observe, that though they were grown as lewd and wicked to all intents and purposes, as in their great charity they could ever suppose us to have been, yet notwithstanding that they still were the people of god, and we the men of the world, which you remember is somewhat more than i undertook to prove against them. you may from hence see how this man's rashness provokes us even in our own defence to lay open his friends follies, and perhaps you (that are a suspicious man) will be apt to make this farther conclusion, that lying as well as some other little sins may put in for a place among the infirmities of god's people. so little conscience do some men make of what they say, that they will not stick to say contradictions for their present turn; & yet so obnoxious are they, that contradictions cannot relieve them: however 'tis hugely unadvised for men notoriously guilty to boast their own innocence, before they are challenged, for that is to upbraid us to an impeachment. and whatever shame and disgrace may follow, 'tis purely extorted by their own confidence. but i must return. §. 15. and therefore in the next place, our author might have spared his flat and tedious invective against me for reproaching of poor sinners with the deepest acknowledgement of their sin before the holy god. pag. 23. for there is not any virtue that i value at an higher rate than true humility, 'tis the beauty and the ornament of all goodness and all religion: but i hate these sneaking and beggarly tricks of hypocrisy, and nothing irks me more than to see such a bloated pride creep up and down in the garbs and postures of humility. i cannot endure to hear men pretend so loudly to loathe themselves in the presence of almighty god, and yet to favour nothing but themselves; to make such vehement invectives against their own baseness, and yet at the same time to brave and plume it with inward conceits of their own singular godliness; and under the deepest shows of self-abhorrency, commit wantonness with their own thoughts, by the most arrogant and vainglorious reflections. there is not in the world a more shameless and a more irksome instance of hypocrisy, than for men under the demurest looks, and most prostrate behaviour, to shroud and cherish the rankest and most hateful insolence, soothing themselves with proud and flattering comparisons, entertaining their thoughts with admiration of their own worth, and contempt of other men's, and making their own fancies the stages where they display their own virtues and perfections. and to prove that this is the mythology of all their deep and prostrate humbling, what more pregnant evidence can we have, than that they will not endure to be charged and upbraided with their own confessions? in other men's mouths they immediately turn into slanders and impious reproaches; and whoever should dare to represent them half so vile to their own faces, as they represent themselves to the almighty, would be thought to have a mouth as black as rabshakeh or lucian; and but to suggest a suspicion of their pride and vanity, is an unpardonable affront, and raises all their zeal and choler: though there is not a more infallible symptom of a man's being proud, than to be angry for being rounded in the ear that he is so. now how is it possible men should be serious in these black indictments of themselves, when they think them no better then foul aspersions, and unjust reproaches to their innocence; and shall be so highly displeased with any man, that shall be so credulous as to take them at their word? and you need not question but they would take it with wonderful kindness and patience if we should turn their own familiar confessions into serious accusations. if they would accept the charge, they are lewd people still; if they would not, they are proud hypocrites, and there is my old dilemma, and it will return upon them, though they drive it away with a fork: so transparent is this vanity through all its demure and grave disguises! many other evident proofs there are of this folly, as that they are most sparing in the confession of those sins, of which they stand most guilty; and that the crimes they bemoan most largely, are such as they suppose peculiar to god's people: but what i have already remarked, is more than enough to lay open the palpable coarseness of this delusion. pag. 27. but in these confessions, (he tells us) they have more respect to the pravity of their natures, than the outward perpetrations of sin. but this is an idle pretence, and is so far from justifying, that it will not blanche the matter. for in the method of their prayers, original and actual sin are enumerated as distinct heads of confession. they first expatiate at large upon all the parts and branches of original corruption, as it diffuses and spreads itself over all the faculties both of the inward and the outward man; and after that, they proceed to the distinct enumeration and aggravation of their actual sins, where they reproach themselves with a long catalogue of the blackest impieties, and then exaggerate their impieties with the lewdest and most emphatical circumstances; so that all that baseness they stand indicted of by their own confessions, cannot relate to the pravity of their natures, but only to the wickedness of their lives. beside, 'tis a loud mistake to fasten any guilt at all upon the depraved tendency of nature, for there are but two parts of original sin, viz. either the imputation of adam's particular offence, of which we stand guilty as parties of the covenant; and this is all the guilt we are chargeable with upon the account of the first transgression: for 'tis certain, adam could derive no more guilt to his posterity, than what himself contracted; and therefore no other instance of disobedience can be imputed to us, than that in which he prevaricated: or real communication of a decayed and ill-addicted nature; and this is not a crime, but an infelicity that was inflicted by god himself upon mankind, as a punishment of adam's sin; and what is an act of his will, can be no fault of ours. we may indeed thank our first father's apostasy for this disaster, because it was justly inflicted upon himself and his posterity for that offence: but what was intended merely as a punishment, to impute to ourselves as a crime, is, i think, new, i am sure crude divinity. but however, suppose all the unhappy inclinations of our natures may be charged with actual guilt; yet what is that to outward transgressions? can any man be so oddly absurd, as to affirm that the bare tendency of his nature to sin, has prevaricated such and such particular commandments in thought, word and deed? and yet it was only these, and the like circumstantiated confessions, that are not capable of being applied to any thing but actual sin, that were the matters of my reproof. §. 16. pag 28. but this cursed dilemma has not such short horns, but that it will gore st. paul as well as the nonconformists, that acknowledges the former sins of his life, when he was injurious, a blasphemer and a persecutor, (which sins i pray god deliver others from.) as for the uncivil censure suggested in this parenthesis, i accept it as an eminent issue of his charity and good nature. but as for st. paul's acknowledgement, that stands far enough out of harms way from the reach of my dilemma; for there is no possible way to acquit that blessed apostle of the guilt of those enormous impieties, unless he would be so bold as to give the lie to st. luke as well as to himself. ibid. but (he adds) when an apostle, he professes himself the chiefest of sinners. but 'tis apparent that this confession refers not to his present condition, but to the time of his being injurious, a blasphemer and a persecutor; when no man reviled the son of god with fiercer zeal and confidence, or persecuted the church of christ with more barbarous outrage and inhumanity: which being so great a crime in its own nature, and so bold an affront to the divine will, had he not reason (think you) to mark himself for one of the greatest sinners that ever obtained pardon? for as for such as had affronted the holy ghost, and blasphemed the name of christ against the convictions of their own conscience, they came not into this account of pardonable offenders, as being fatally consigned up to a state of impenitence and unbelief: but among all sinners that were within a capacity of mercy, he knew not a greater wretch than himself. though this confession relates to the malignity of the crime, not to the malice of the criminal: for he is so far from affecting to make a sad story worse, that he abates the guilt of his sin by the most excusing and allaying circumstances, in that he did it in ignorance and unbelief; and it was this that so greatly assuaged the horror of the crime, and (as himself reports) so greatly disposed him for pardon and repentance. but how will this plain dealing justify such professors, as pour forth daily confessions of the blackest and most presumptuous sins? of despising the riches of god's goodness, and forbearance, and long-suffering; of treasuring up wrath against the day of wrath, and revelation of the righteous judgement of god; of treading under foot the son of god, and counting the blood of the covenant wherewith they are sanctified, an unholy thing, and doing despite unto the spirit of grace. all this and much more, set off with all the circumstances of aggravation; not only in the days of darkness and unregeneracy, but since the glorious gospel has shined into their hearts; since they have rested in it, and made their boast of christ, and known his will, and approved the things that are more excellent. is not this wild work for choice believers to talk such extravagant contradictions, when the former passages, and innumerable others common in their mouths, do apparently signify nothing less than either an incorrigible infidelity, or a total apostasy from the gospel? but what do i think of the confessions of ezra, ibid. of daniel, and others, in the name of the whole people of god? i think they were as full of truth as horror; and the people of god he here speaks of, were such goodly saints as had revolted from the worship of the true god, to all manner of idolatry and moral wickedness. if the congregations of the nonconformists are such redoubted people of god as these, i have nothing to oppose to the largest and blackest confessions of their sins. if they worship idols, as they did, let them with their wont familiarity make bold with the expression of the prophet jeremy to that purpose: we have committed two evils, we have forsaken thee the fountain of living waters, and hewn out cisterns, broken cisterns that can hold no water. and if they can vie lewdness and hypocrisy with that holy nation, let them continue to foist into their prayers those dark characters wherewith the prophets described the unparallelled wickedness of that people: nay, far be it from me to abridge them the liberty of helping out their stiff fancies, by purloining lofty expressions out of the prophetic writings. if the israel of god be not endued with more grace at present than it was twenty years since, as i. o. describes them before the supreme authority of the nation, the commons assembled in parliament, april 19 1649. pag. 39 we have called world christ, and lust christ, and self christ, working indeed for them, when we pretended all for christ. now this doctrine was either true or false; if false, what a bold and ungodly slander was this to brand these darlings of providence, these precious servants of the lord christ, these patriots of their country, these fathers of the public liberty, (our author may remember who flattered them with these special titles) with such a a monstrous and profligate hypocrisy? if true, than what anointed saints were those, who under colour of setting up the kingdom of the lord jesus, and rescuing the people of england from the dismal oppressions both of civil and ecclesiastical tyranny, (he may understand this language too) had embroiled the nation in a bloody war, had sacrificed so many thousand lives, and had butchered the best of kings, only to carry on the puny concernments of their own narrow and accursed interest? but we must proceed, ibid. and in the last place i am catechised to give an account of my thoughts of david's self-abasements, that far exceed any thing that nonconformists are able to express. truly i think the passionateness of his repentance was but proportioned to the horror of his sin; he lay under the fresh convictions of the most horrid villainies of murder, adultery and drunkenness, and his guilt was enhansed with the most shameful and dishonourable circumstances; and whilst he continued in this dismal condition, what cries and accents could be too doleful to express the bitterness of his grief and horror? if they are in the same plight and condemnation, i will not then upbraid them for clothing their acknowledgements with the blackest of his expressions; for they will then have sad occasion to sing their penitential psalm elsewhere: if they are not, then to use such mournful ditties in their familiar addresses to heaven, falls under my former censure of trifling and fooling with the almighty. pag. 25. but to despise men for the deepest humblings of their souls before god, can arise from no other principle but an utter unacquaintance with the holiness of god, the accuracy of the law, and the deceitfulness of my own heart. as for the deceitfulness of my own heart, i confess myself a stranger to it, and am not at all desirous of its acquaintance, for i hate nothing more than a false bosom-friend: but however, my heart and myself are of the same church, and the same religion; there is no schism between us, that i know of, nor do i remember when we parted communion: and i think we ever had the same thoughts, designs and resolutions; and therefore as long as i am careful to preserve my own integrity, let my heart prove false and treacherous if it can: the hearts indeed of all hypocrites and wicked men are deceitful, because they themselves are so; but we shall never understand how an upright man should keep an hypocritical heart, unless we can divide himself from himself. so that when the people of god make frequent and piteous moans of the hypocrisy of their own hearts, unless still they fool and trifle, there is no remedy but the people of god must pass by their own confessions for rank and self-convicted hypocrites: for it was never known that any man was better than his own heart, or that a perfidious heart was found in the breast of an honest man. as for the purity and holiness of god, i am affected with such reverential apprehensions of it, that i would have men approach his presence with an awful and religious distance, and not always present themselves before him in such a foul and unclean pickle, and so full of vermin; i know not a bolder affront to his purity, than to presume he will vouchsafe communion with such polluted souls. 'tis high presumption for an habitual sinner, continuing such, to expect the forgiveness of his sins; nothing can reconcile us to the favour of god, but an effectual and a persevering repentance; this is an absolute and indispensable condition of every acceptable prayer: and therefore men that acknowledge any habitual disobedience to the laws of christ, put in a bar against their own petitions; and do not only stave off the divine pity by being unfit objects for it, but provoke the divine displeasure by presuming of his favour to such unworthy wretches. and when men tell the almighty in good earnest, (for otherwise they do but trifle with him still) lord, we offend daily against all thy commandments in thought, word and deed, sinning against thee with an high hand, and a bold forehead, against knowledge, and against conviction; all the thoughts of our hearts are evil, only evil, and that continually; working all uncleanness with greediness; drawing iniquity with cords of vanity, and sin as it were with cart-ropes, etc. what other answer to their prayers can such debauched wretches expect, but the utmost severity of wrath and indignation, and the doom of the worst of hypocrites and unbelievers? §. 17. but ministers, pag. 27. who are the mouths of the congregation to god, may and aught to acknowledge not only the sins whereof themselves are personally guilty, but those also which they judge may be upon any of the congregation. i shall not urge him with the rash examples of some of their godly ministers of greatest fame and reputation for piety, that have proclaimed themselves not only to the present age, but to all posterity, proud, and selfish, and hypocritical, and desperately and mortally wicked. certainly these must of necessity be either very naughty saints, or most horrible dissemblers: however, i am sure such rattling confessions cannot but have a sad and woeful influence upon the lives of their popular admirers. for what can they more naturally conclude from thence, that if precious mr.— that eminent servant of jesus christ in the work of the gospel, be so full of sin and wickedness; in how many more and greater infirmities may i be indulged, that am but a private and an ordinary professor? but to let this pass. what unclean congregations are those that have such foul mouths? methinks it becomes not such pure people to have their mouths always full of such uncleanly confessions. and whether it be true or false what i. o. informs us, sermon at margaret's westm. feb. 28. 1649. pag. 10. that 'tis the duty and privilege of sincere believers to unlade their unbelief in the bosom of their god, i know not; but this i know, that 'tis an unmannerly and horrid profaneness, whenever they make their addresses to the almighty, to disgorge themselves of the most filthy and abominable loads of sin in his presence. the prayers of wicked men, or habitual sinners, (as i told you before) are an abomination to the lord, and he loathes nothing more than the boldness and presumption of their addresses: and therefore if they can suppose any in their congregations guilty of those heinous enormities, they are wont so familiarly to confess, yet they ought not to suppose them to have any share in the public worship: for when men meet together to join in the duties of devotion, none ought to be supposed members of the society, but what are qualified for the performance of the duty; because all that others can contribute, is not to be reckoned a part of divine worship; and therefore ministers ought only to represent such persons as are supposed capable of the duty; and all that are not so, to disclaim their company, and refuse their assistance, as much as if they stood excommunicate from the congregation; for so they are as to all the real designs and purposes of religious worship. however, public offices ought to be so contrived as to suit public ends, and to serve the needs of the whole body; and therefore is the confession of our public liturgy expressed in such general terms, as may comprehend the concerns and consent of all members of the assembly: for the peculiar end and usefulness of this part of religion, is no other than that men should agree and join together in the worship of god; so that it is not so properly the office of particular persons, as of the whole communion; and therefore ought so to be managed, as to take in the joint devotion of the whole society. and when it descends to the particular regards of private persons, it is then no office of public worship, but private prayer; a duty that is not proper for open congregations, but for closets, and private retirements; where, if any person have any blacker and more enormous crimes in his calendar, he may be more particular in his confessions without shame and scandal. but it is an odd and preposterous course, when men associate themselves together to join in an office of devotion, that they should divide into so many separate and distinct parties or congregations, and every individual member should pick and cull his share of the duty, and lie at catch for some particular passage to which he may be able to bob in his amen. but without this sleight, they could never be able to keep up their affected singularity of pharisaic length and lowdness. to conclude: this is a new light newly discovered by this man of revelations: for i am confident it was never before heard of in the christian world, that when men assemble together for the joint performance of public worship, every individual person has his oratory apart, and joins not with the community, but casts in a distinct symbol of his own, in which the residue are not more concerned then in the private devotions of his own closet. however, this faint evasion (were it to any purpose, as i have shown it is to none) is a secret to the common people; they are not wont to weigh and examine every confession before they assent and seal to its truth, but swallow all that the minister pours out with an implicit confidence: they will confess any thing that he puts into their mouths; and those that are serious and most in good earnest, make the rufullest faces at the ugliest crimes, and groan most powerfully at the loudest and most thwacking confessions. now when the people are accustomed to such large and foul catalogues of sin, and when they hear such sad stories from their own mouths, and when it is confessed in their name, that they have broken every commandment of both tables, to which are reduced all the kinds and instances of wickedness; and when this vast heap of vile things is exaggerated with the heinousest and most emphatical circumstances of baseness; in brief, when they are grown familiar with the confessions of such lewd offences, as are not fit to be named any where but in an indictment; what will they more probably conclude with themselves, but that 'tis common for god's people to fall into these foul miscarriages, and yet never fall from grace? especially when these confessions are generally clogged with some unlucky words that appropriate their guilt to the best and most holy professors; and when it is the most vulgar scheme of their eloquence to enhanse the heinousness of the offences, in that they were committed in the days of regeneracy and profession. and if the lives of the regenerate be stained with so many faults, and such foul blemishes, what is the conclusion, but that the difference is not so wide between them and the wicked as is imagined? alas! the righteousness of the holiest men is as filthy rags; 'tis not for the sons of adam to think of performing a good action, and we deserve eternal wrath for the most virtuous work we were ever guilty of attempting. what is man, that he should be clean? or he that is born of a woman, that he should be righteous? and now what remarkable difference remains there between the infirmities of the children of god, and the impieties of the wicked and unregenerate? when it is the unavoidable fate of humane nature, to be enslaved to a necessity as well as to a body of sin: and after we are brought into a state of grace, there remains a law in our members rebelling against the law of our minds, bringing us into captivity to the law of sin: so that even the children of god are slaves to their lusts and passions; and by reason of the invincible power of indwelling sin, are as vehemently inclined, and as frequently betrayed into actual and outward transgressions, as lewd and graceless persons, only with this difference, that they enter upon the commission of their sins with more regret and reluctancy, in that they do what they would not: i. e. they act more boisterously against the light of reason, and do greater violence to the convictions of their own conscience. and now upon this principle, what plausible reason and title have men to pretend to grace and saintship, though they sin habitually, frequently, and easily, upon every opportunity, and every temptation? 'tis but crying out against the weakness of nature, the body of death, and the invincibleness of indwelling sin, and to be sensible of that, is the character of saints and true believers. chap. iii. the contents. various instances of our authors pitiful and disingenuous way of cavilling. his arts of darkening and perplexing the plain design of my discourse, in sundry notorious particulars. a brief and plain account of the parts, coherence and design of the former treatise, to prevent all future mistakes and perverting. my state of the controversy provides against the inconveniences of both extremes, an unlimited power on one hand, and an unbounded licence on the other. the bounds it sets to the power of the civil magistrate, are easy to be observed, and unnecessary to be transgressed, viz. that governors take care not to impose things apparently evil, and that subjects be not allowed to plead conscience for disobedience in any other case. the duty of obedience surmounts the obligation of doubts and scruples, and in doubtful cases obliges to action. 'tis impossible to prevent all manner of inconveniences that may follow upon any hypothesis of government. my middle way liable to the fewest, and therefore most eligible. the bare pretence of a tender conscience against the commands of authority, is an impregnable principle of sedition. a cluster of our author's shameless falsifications. his forgery of my ascribing to the civil magistrate an universal and immediate power over conscience. his impudent shuffling in applying what was affirmed of a doubtful conscience in particular, to conscience in general. another instance of this in applying what was affirmed of the rituals and external circumstances of worship, to the principles of faith, and fundamentals of religion. his change of the state of the question, viz. not whether magistrates have any power over conscience, but whether i have asserted it to be absolute and immediate. some short glances upon some lesser impertinencies. §. 1. here his first attempt is, to spit his gloom, and cast darkness and ambiguity over the design of my discourse: how has he bestirred himself to raise mists upon my clearest and most perspicuous expressions? and what clouds of words has he poured forth to involve the evidence of my arguments, and the plainness of my method? how dexterously does he cull out a single proposition to oppose to the scope and plain meaning of the coherent discourse? and when he has got the poor, naked and defenceless thing alone, how unmercifully does he turn and tease it into a thousand postures? and how wantonly does he tyre himself with insulting over the feebleness of its supposed escapes and subterfuges? but to give you some particular instances of this woeful way of trifling. in the first place, he quarrels my first paragraph as obscure and ambiguous. pag. 88 why! because it gives not any definition of the nature of conscience, nor any account of the bounds of its liberty, nor determines divers other great and weighty difficulties relating to the present enquiry. what a monstrous fault is this! not to couch the sense of three hundred pages in one single section; and what a fatal misadventure, not to decide a perplexed controversy before 'tis fairly proposed? pray, sir, by what rules of art am i bound to determine the right of the cause, when i only undertake to represent the pleas and pretences of the different parties? if i have not accurately enough described the competition between the liberties of conscience, and the prerogatives of princes, (which is the only thing i pretended to attempt in that paragraph) let him cavil at that: but if i have, it seems but an untoward humour to quarrel me for not crowding the discourse of my whole book into the compass of the contents of one chapter. but men, resolved to be peevish, are never to seek for grounds of contention. of the same nature, and to as wise purpose is his cavil at my first proposition, viz. that 'tis absolutely necessary to the peace and government of the world, that the supreme magistrate of every commonwealth should be vested with a power to govern and conduct the consciences of subjects in affairs of religion. and though i have at large proved this assertion from that powerful influence that religion has upon the peace of kingdoms, and the interests of government; yet as for proofs, he always scorns them, as neither pertinent to his purpose, nor worthy his cognizance: 'tis below his state to answer arguments, he can bear them down with scorn and confidence; 'tis the work of his generation to establish final determinations of controversies, and he was born to put an everlasting period to all disputes and scholastic brawls. and therefore having first poured forth above two pages full of positive and rambling talk upon this occasion, pag. 92, 93 with what severity does he afterward school me for so crude and unlearned an assertion? pag 9●. for who (says he) understands what are the affairs of religion here intended, all or some? what are the consciences of men? what it is to govern and conduct them? etc. what a strangely nice and delicate confessor have i, that will not allow me the liberty to use any known and vulgar word, till i have first defined it with solid and scholastic exactness? methinks 'tis somewhat too severe this, a man had better hold his peace than be put to this penance for every word he speaks. but the plain truth is, i thought (simple as i am) every swain that understands but country english, could not be ignorant of the literal meaning of those terms, affairs of religion, conscience, government, etc. and therefore i did not dream it was necessary for avoiding ambiguity, to guard every common expression with rigorous and logical definitions. but yet what if after all this, i have distinctly accounted for these things, and set restraints upon their signification, as far as it might concern the matters of my enquiry? what if i have expressly declared what affairs of religion they are that are subject to the government of the supreme magistrate, viz. not all, but some, i. e. matters of outward worship, and that are not in themselves apparently or essentially evil? what then can be the importance of this mighty cavil? nothing but this, that i am a crude and unskilful writer, because i have not been so happy as to couch the whole state of an intricate controversy, nor to clear off all difficulties and objections relating to it, in the compass of five lines. and if this be a miscarrriage, yet my adversary has not stuffed his words so full with sense and notion, that he should object it as a defect to any man for not being able to reduce the sense of an ordinary volume into one single proposition: other men have more cry then wool, as well as myself. and yet he is so unmerciful and unreasonable as to expose my title page for not expressing my particular determinations of the whole matter in debate; pag. 85. and often produces that as a shameful instance of my loose way of stating controversies. but this man would snarl at the title of the new testament, because it contains not every particular story recorded in the four gospels; i am sure he might do it with as just reason, as urge the title of my book for proof that i have not distinctly enough represented my particular thoughts and conceptions of the whole matter under debate. did ever man burden the press with such slender stuff, or present the world with such pitiful entertainment? and yet he has vast stores of this ammunition; and he never charges upon me with more fierceness than when he shoots these paper-pellets. §. 2. thus you find him in the same page rattling my carelessness for calling conscience sometimes every man's opinion, sometimes an imperious faculty, which surely are not the same. though i might with warrant from good authorities have styled it a domestic god, a guardian angel, the mirror of the divinity, the law of the mind, the practical understanding, the repository of moral principles, a book and a table, with innumerable other appellations, given to it as it bears analogy and resemblance to other being's; all which names may agree to conscience as vastly as they disagree among themselves; and it is a very little proportion of likeness that you will find between a god and a book, and yet conscience is both. but however, i discoursed not of this important matter in such fanciful and allusive expressions, and kept myself close to the rigour and propriety of scholastic terms; and so i might warrantably call it both an opinion and a faculty, upon the account of its several acceptations: for every novice (that has seen but a dutch systeme of divinity) knows, that 'tis sometime taken for the faculty of the practical understanding, sometime for an habitual recourse to its practical principles, and sometime for a single action and exercise of conscience; from which variety of apprehension, it is not only capable, but necessary to be clothed with as great variety of expression; and though a faculty and an opinion are not the same thing, yet conscience is both: and therefore i doubt not but i may often have promiscuously signed it with these and other different titles, without any uncertainty of signification, according as the design of my discourse might demand, and its coherence may justify; though where i have, as i am not able to remember, so neither is our author pleased to direct us. but his custom is to except against any thing, upon what account soever it is spoken, as if it were intended for a scrupulous and exact definition. whereas there are innumerable other reasons and occasions of speech, that must be expressed in as different schemes and contextures of language; though had i undertaken to define the signification of conscience, i might safely have called it either an act or an habit, or a faculty; and yet he will never discover any such uncertain expressions in any thing that pretends to the office of a definition. and i remember when i call conscience an imperious faculty, 'tis by way of irony, when subjects make bold to infringe the rights of sovereign princes under its pretence and protection. the next following words are not so near in their neighbourhood to these, as in their kindred; 'tis a cavil of the same breed and family, pag. 85. viz. that i sometimes plead for the uncontrollable power of magistrates over religion and the consciences of men, sometimes assert their ecclesiastical jurisdiction as the same thing; whereas (he supposes) no man ever yet defined ecclesiastical jurisdiction to be an uncontrollable power over religion and the consciences of men. neither yet do i: what! can i not use the terms of ecclesiastical jurisdiction and uncontrollable power, but one must immediately be thought a definition of the other? though ecclesiastical jurisdiction may be an uncontrollable power, yet it may not so properly be defined by it, because it may have more necessary and more material attributes, whereby its nature may be more distinctly understood. our author often tells us, that my way of discourse agrees not with that way of logic in which he has been instructed: i would advise him therefore to acquaint himself with the philosophy of the five predicables, that will quickly inform him, that all the ways of predication are not primary and essential, and consequently that 'tis not impossible but that one thing may (as they word it) be affirmed of another, without being an inseparable ingredient of its specific constitution. did i ever dream (dull beast as i am) that when i asserted and proved the power of the supreme magistrate over affairs of religion to be uncontrollable, as exclusive of an ecclesiastical jurisdiction, distinct from the civil, (for those words were spoken particularly upon that occasion, vid. c. 1. s●ct. 10. and to that purpose) that i should be called to so hard an account for crude and ill-contrived definitions? i presumed a man might assert an orthodox proposition without being thought to define the precise notion of the thing asserted. alas! i did but vindicate his majesty's supremacy against the encroachments of the pope and the presbytery, that would usurp a dominion over princes, by instating themselves in an ecclesiastical sovereignty. if i have not made good my argument, let him not spare it; if i have, i hope it is no disparagement to a good argument that 'tis no good definition. i have sometimes at idle hours (the time when this man writes books) recreated myself with observing the impertinencies of trifling scribblers, but cannot remember that ever i met with such slight and horrid stuff as this. and seriously these exceptions are so frivolous and unconceivably thin, that i cannot fancy any thing either in art or nature that more approaches the notion of superficies disjoined from body. and yet we are not arrived at the end of these poor and beggarly stratagems, we have divers others as miserable & slender shifts to impose upon the ignorance and credulity of the multitude. and to this purpose are distant and remote propositions huddled together, and represented as if they related to the same matter, and had been spoken upon the same occasion. nay, he spares not to accuse me of contradictory assertions, because some of my answers deny what was affirmed in some of my objections. thus out of my first section he picks this sentence, pag. 89. conscience is subject and accountable to god alone, and it owns no superior but the lord of consciences. and then this he matches with another, culled out of my second section, that those who make it accountable to none but god alone, do in effect usurp their prince's crown, defy his authority, and acknowledge no governor but themselves. this last assertion i there made good by clear and undeniable evidence: but arguments are too hot for our author's fingers, and therefore in stead of handling them, he only blows upon assertions; and in lieu of discrediting the truth of this proposition, by defeating the evidence of its proof, he only attempts to expose its silliness, by representing its gross inconsistency with the words immediately foregoing. and is it not a shameful incongruity, that my reply should contradict my objection? and yet that is the plain state of the case: for if you look no farther than the bare contents of the chapter, you will find that the scope of the first paragraph is to represent the competition between the power of princes, and the consciences of subjects; where i more particularly aimed to set off its pleas and pretences for its exemption from sovereign authority; and then in the next paragraph, i endeavoured in answer to the former plea, to display the horrid mischiefs that must unavoidably follow upon the admittance of these pretences for the absolute exemption of conscience from the jurisdiction of the supreme power. and now what a prodigious inconsistency is this, that my answers should grapple with my objections, and that ob. and sol. should run a tilt at one another? and when i had shown the danger of what had been urged in the exception, by its direct tendency to the dissolution of government, what a strange affront must it be to my own teeth, to retort upon my supposed adversary with an inference contradictory to his objection? certainly never was any man before me upbraided with this sort of contradictions. and if this be to speak daggers, how heavy will the charge fall upon all the professors of controversial skill? §. 3. another impeachment near akin to this, you may meet with pag. 86. where 'tis charged upon me as a notorious barbarism, that i should affirm the supreme magistrate may oblige his subjects consciences under penalties, and yet punisheth none for their crime, but for the example of others. a grave and profound nothing this! for where lies the inconsistency between these two propositions? are not all penalties both threatened and inflicted purely as inducements to obedience? and are they not indifferently serviceable to that end, whether they are designed to deter the person himself by his own experience, or any other by his example from the like practices? temporal inflictions are but accessional strengths to the obligations of conscience, that men may be concerned to avoid the punishment as well as the crime; and therefore though it be punishable to affright others from the same enormities, what hinders but that men may be obliged in conscience to forbear them under the sanction of an higher penalty? the pure reason of all humane punishments, is nothing but the public interest; and therefore their measure is ever proportioned to the influence that the crimes have upon the concerns of the community: and malefactors are executed, not to revenge their injuries, but to prevent those mischiefs the public would sustain by their impunity. and if this be any reason why humane laws should not pass any obligation upon the conscience, because their penalties are inflicted for▪ the sake of others, than no capital laws can ever bind the conscience, because all capital inflictions neither have nor can have any other end but what relates to others. what else can this man design by such crude and blundring cavils, but merely to amuse, or (what is the same with them) satisfy the people? they run over these lines; and because they cannot find where the crisis of the exception lies, they pass it by for a deep and scholastic subtlety: though all the mystery lies in the palpable folly; and the only difficulty that amazes the common reader, is its having none at all. this was an essay of his skill, but his next attempt is a proof of his courage: for it is no doubt an heroic act of boldness, to dare to impose upon the public with mere and ungrounded forgeries; and such is that assertion he would fasten upon me, as a further proof of the inconsistency of my thoughts, viz. pag. 85 that i confine the whole work and duty of conscience to the inward thoughts and persuasions of the mind. this in downright english is a shameless lye. sir, you must pardon my rudeness; for i will assure you, after long meditation, i could not devise a more pertinent answer to so bold an one as this: i confess 'tis no extraordinary conceit, but 'tis the best repartee my barren fancy was able to suggest to me upon so rude an occasion. suppose it were your own case, that you could be so ill-advised as to print books, should any person be so bold and disingenuous as not only to pervert your meaning, and disturb your method, but (what is base without allay) fasten upon you assertions equally false and wicked, without any reference to page or section, and without any imaginable foundation of his mistake; what other return would you vouchsafe to make to such an unmannerly attempt, than what i have made? mere calumny as it deserves no more serious resentment than utter neglect, so it is capable of no more civil confutation than flat denial. i could take occasion from this falsehood to add some reflections of another nature; but it is so utterly groundless that it needs, and so grossly disingenuous that it deserves, no other baffle but pure disdain. perhaps a scotchman would only have told him, (as the bishop of derry tells a man of as lavish a pen as my author) that he is very good company; but i am a blunt englishman, and hate a lie as i do idolatry or witchcraft; and therefore you must pardon my plainness if i call a fable a fable. now beside this argument drawn from a topick so vile, that you see i am almost ashamed to name it, the sum of all the other exceptions amounts to this; that i do not define when i argue, nor distinctly state my own determinations when i remonstrate to other men's: that i do not propound and solve difficulties in the same words, and that my answers contradict my objections: that every paragraph does not discharge the undertaking of my whole book: that the reasonings of each chapter are not fully and distinctly expressed in its short and general contents; and that all the particular notions and determinations of the discourse, are not comprised in the title-page: in brief, that i have failed of the glory to dispatch all difficulties and decide all controversies in one breath. woeful misadventures these! it were easy to present you with vast heaps of instances to the same purpose; but i have neither leisure nor patience to reckon up more particularities (to spare harder expressions) of his folly. 'tis enough that his whole book is nothing but a treasury of cavils; and that he draws his arguments not from any principles of sincere reason, but from the topics of prating and vulgar talk. you cannot dip into a page, but you will light upon some such lank and windy exceptions, as i have above recited; and yet i must not stay to glance at them, they are so innumerable: these that i have already represented, lay first in my way, and in the very entrance, and upon the very threshold of his book, and they may suffice for a short specimen of that singular logic he pretends to. and if the reader will be at the pains (as i fear he will not) to compare his cavils with my replies, that will infinitely satisfy him of the impertinency of this man's way of scribbling: but if he will not, i shall be ashamed of entertaining him so long with such poor and unedifying remarks. and therefore i shall not waste more time in pursuing such slender trifles, but shall rather, to prevent him hereafter from abusing the people with these and the like mean artifices, set down a short model of the parts, the coherence & the design of my former treatise: for few vulgar readers (i perceive) have either patience or ability to carry along with them the method and connexion of a large discourse. §. 4. in the first place then, i begun with a more general account of the absolute necessity of investing sovereign princes with an ecclesiastical power and jurisdiction over the consciences of men in matters of religion; and this i proved at large, by representing what mighty and powerful influence it casts upon all the most important ends and interests of government; so that to exempt its due conduct and management from the authority of the supreme civil power, is apparently to strip it of its greatest security, to disable it from a right discharge of its office and jurisdiction, and to expose the public setlement to the whimsies and exorbitances of every crazy zealot. and having laid this large foundation upon the firmest principles of reason, and the most undeniable experience of mankind; i proceeded in the next place to erect a more particular hypothesis of the nature and extent of ecclesiastical jurisdiction: where i run a parallel between the affairs immediately relating to religious worship, and the duties and offices of morality; proving moral virtues to be more material parts of religion than any outward expressions of worship whatsoever. and from hence i thought it but a very modest and reasonable demand, that men would but yield to allow to supreme power the same authority and dominion over the means and subordinate instruments of religion, as they are ready enough to ascribe to it over its more important ends and designs; and so agree to set the same bounds and measures to both jurisdictions. and now having reduced them to this equality of power, i advanced to a more particular state of the whole controversy, by showing to what affairs in both kinds the exercise of all humane authority is extended, where it is limited, and in what cases it is restrained. and here i first exempted all the inward actions of the mind, from the cognizance and jurisdiction of all humane authority; and withal, showed how the substantial part of religious worship is performed within, and so is in its own nature beyond the reach of the civil magistrate; and how all expressions of external worship, as such, are no essential parts of religion, and therefore that he is not in any capacity of doing direct and immediate violence to religion itself. the controversy being thus stated, as to the inward actions of the mind, the next enquiry is concerning outward practices; and they are of two sorts, either such as are apparently and antecedently evil, and these are above the reach, and beyond the obligation of all humane laws; their morality is already so determined, that no humane power can alter their nature, or rescind their obligation; but every thing forbidden becomes an intrinsecal and unalterable sin, and every thing commanded an eternal and unchangeable duty. or else they are such as still remain in the state of indifferency, and are left undetermined as to their morality, either by any certain law of nature, or any clear positive law of god; and these are liable to the commands and determinations of supreme authority, and are the proper objects of humane laws, in that there is no other restraint set to the extent of their jurisdiction, but the countermand of a superior power; and therefore whatsoever matters are left at liberty by the divine law, must be supposed determinable either way by the commands of sovereign authority. these are the most distinct rules of conscience in this enquiry, in reference to the nature of the actions themselves: but besides these, there are other accessional reasons of good and evil, that arise from the apprehensions of the minds of men concerning them; and they also are of two sorts; either such as relate to the conceptions of other men, which may in some cases lay a restraint upon our practices, as in cases of mere scandal, and this by some is pretended to excuse their disobedience to the church's constitutions; and therefore i have distinctly examined the nature and the reasonableness of this pretence, and shown how the commands of authority abolish all the pretences, and supersede all the obligations of scandal. or else they are such as relate to a mans own apprehensions, and this takes in the pretence of a doubtful and unsatisfied conscience, which is so zealously pleaded by most of our separatists in justification of their schism; and therefore because i deemed it was of more close and immediate concernment to our present affairs, i have with greater exactness examined and stated the obligatory power of a weak and a tender conscience, and have largely proved the manifest absurdity of pleading doubts and scruples in opposition to the commands of authority; and shown that nothing can or aught to check with our obligations to obedience, unless it cross with matters of certain and apparent duty; and that all cases capable of doubt and uncertainty, cannot be supposed of importance enough to weigh against the great sin and mischief of disobedience: so that the result of my whole discourse will at last run itself into this plain and easy proposition, that obedience is indispensably due to all the commands of supreme authority that are not certainly and apparently sinful. and now tell me how i could have drawn up the state of this controversy in a plainer or more familiar method? for the propositions, you see, are distinct and comprehensive, they take in all the particular actions and affairs of humane life; and i cannot think of any imaginable difficulty or objection relating to the present matter in debate, that does not apparently fall in under one of the forementioned heads of action. or how i could better have avoided the inconveniences of both extremes, and which way else i might have determined the matter by such easy and moderate principles, as may fairly satisfy all men's consciences that are ingenuous, and condemn all that are not. §. 5. for (1.) to vest the supreme magistrate in an unlimited and unaccountable power, is clearly to defeat the efficacy and obligatory force of all his laws, that cannot possibly have any binding virtue upon the minds of men, when they have no other inducement to obedience than barely to avoid the penalty. but if the supreme power be absolute and unlimited, it does for that very reason remove and evacuate all other obligations; for otherwise it is restrained and conditional; and if men lie under no other impulsive than that of the law itself, they lie under no obligation than that of prudence and self-interest; and it remains entirely at the choice of their own discretion, whether they shall or shall not obey, and then there is neither government nor obligation to obedience; and the principle of men's compliance with the mind of superiors, is not the declaration of their will and pleasure, but purely the determination of their own judgements. and therefore 'tis necessary for the security of government, (though for nothing else) to set bounds to its jurisdiction; otherwise like the roman empire it sinks and dissolves by its own weight, no humane power is able to support itself, and the thrones of princes are established upon the dominion of god; remove his authority, and the force derived upon their laws by virtue of his commands, and you untie all the bands of government, and set men at liberty from all obligations to the duty of obedience. or else (2.) to grant subjects a lawless and uncontrollable liberty in all matters and pretences of religion, is to dissolve one half of the government into to perfect anarchy, and yield up the constitution of all public affairs to the humour and the insolence of every wild enthusiast; and every pert fellow that can abuse either himself or others with fanatic whimsies, has it always in his own power to expose the settled frame of government to the zealous folly of the multitude. if he have but a warm brain and a bold face, with what ease may he fire the rabble into tumults and godly seditions? 'tis but pouring forth dark prophecies, and scripture-allegories, and declaiming against the oppression of earthly powers, and then with what eagerness will the capricious people flow into cabals of zeal, and musters of reformation? what maxim in policy is so fully ratified by the histories of all nations, as that there is nothing equally dangerous to the public tranquillity with the zeal of the multitude? and 'tis not easy to determine, whether mankind have smarted more deeply by the ambition of tyrants, or the impostures of religion. however, 'tis sufficiently verified by the experience of ages, that there is not any passion so incident to humane nature as popular zeal, nor any madness so ungovernable as that of religion; and therefore what can more become or import the wisdom of governors, than to keep a watchful eye upon all its designs and pretences. but these things i have already represented in smarter and more elaborate periods, and therefore i will forbear to abate their evidence by these crude and hasty suggestions. but only supposing it is not impossible (what our author has not gainsaid, nor indeed can, without outfacing the experience of mankind) but that the factions and hypocrisies of religion may create public disturbances, the deduction is easy and natural, that to grant it a total exemption from the sovereign authority, is at all times to expose the commonwealth to great disorders, and oftentimes to unavoidable dissolution. and therefore seeing an unbounded licence on one hand, and an unlimited power on the other, are so pregnant with mischiefs and intolerable inconveniences, the only proper determination that this enquiry is capable of, is to assign the just extent of a limited jurisdiction, and to state as distinctly as the nature of the thing debated will admit, how far, in what cases, and over what matters it may be safely exercised, and within what limits it ought to be restrained; and he that prescribes the most useful and practicable measures, makes the fairest essay at the decision and atonement of this controversy. this was the attempt, whatever was the success of my discourse: and to say nothing of some more particular rules and directions, the two great lines wherein i have enclosed all matters of humane laws, are of such a wide and comprehensive extent, that in the midst of all the variety and intricacy of humane affairs, 'tis both easy to discern their lawful bounds, and unnecessary to transgress them. for (1.) let authority beware of imposing things certainly and apparently evil, and then there is no danger of their doing any violence to the consciences of peaceable and sober men, or of their suffering any disturbance from them: for the proper office of humane power, is to consult the peace and interest of humane society; and the only immediate use of public laws, is to secure and provide for the public good. 'tis no part of their concernment to institute rules of moral good and evil; that is the care and the prerogative of a superior lawgiver; and therefore provided they do not cross with the express declaration of his indispensable will and pleasure, all other matters fall within the verge of their legislative power: for as nothing that carries with it an antecedent irregularity, can ever be supposed either necessary or advantageous to the public good, and therefore may without any danger of impairing the strength of its power be lopped off from the rights of sovereign jurisdiction; so also many things left altogether indifferent and uncommanded by the law of god, may in all the various postures and turns and circumstances of humane affairs, prove sometimes beneficial, and sometimes pernicious to the commonwealth; and therefore the supreme magistrate being appointed the supreme judge of the public good, there is no remedy but they must fall under the guidance of his laws, and conduct of his government. now 'tis very easy for christian princes to move within so fair a compass; and if any go beyond it, as it is not for their advantage, so it is not of our concernment: for that man must talk after a wild rate, that should pretend to discover an evident opposition in any of the laws of our kingdom, to the plain and indispensable duties of the gospel: or if they will be so precipitate as to pretend this, we are very well content to devolve the issue of the controversy upon that undertaking; and then are they brought under an engagement to prove a certain and undeniable repugnancy between the laws of our church, and the laws of god; and to suspend their disobedience to them, till they can warrant its necessity by some plain and express text of scripture: and if they will but persevere in conformity, till they are indeed able thoroughly and satisfactorily to convince themselves of its evident unlawfulness, that would for ever prevent all thoughts and attempts of separation. and this crosses me over to the opposite bound of this enquiry, from the power of the magistrate to the duty of the subject, viz. that they would not scruple or deny obedience to the commands of lawful superiors, till they are sincerely (not in pretence only) convinced of the certain and apparent unlawfulness of the command. §. 6. and if we stop not the subjects liberty to remonstrate to the commands of authority at this principle, we shall be for ever at an utter loss to set any certain bounds to the just and allowable pretensions of conscience: for if they will not consent to have their pleas of exemption confined within the certain and evident measures of good and evil, but desire to be excused as to all other pretexts and persuasions of conscience, howsoever doubtful and uncertain; then must every conceit that may either be mistaken or pretended for a conviction of conscience, be permitted to overrule all the power, and baffle all the wisdom of government: for be it never so wild or so extravagant, if they are strongly or seriously possessed with the phantasm, that and only that shall ever exercise any authority over their thoughts and actions; and if magistrates shall in any case think good to curb its heats and exorbitances, they offer violence to the sacred and indispensable obligations of conscience; and this avoidable exposes the peace of kingdoms to all the follies of zeal, and impostures of enthusiasm, and prostitutes the power of princes to the stubbornness and insolence of popular folly. every one that is timorous or melancholy, that has an indisposed body, or a troubled mind; that wants sleep, or wants company; that has an hard spleen, or a soft head; that has a strong fancy, or a weak judgement; a bold ignorance, or a conceited knowledge; an impertinent opinion, or a restless humour; a whimsy in the crown, or a vapour in the hypocondria, may upon that account exempt himself from all the authority of the laws, and all the obligations of obedience: for you know what a vulgar phaenomenon it is for these and the like effects of folly and weakness, to abuse the consciences of well-meaning men into scruple and irresolution; and therefore if every man that has or (what is the same thing in reference to government) can pretend to tenderness and want of satisfaction, shall be allowed to plead exemption from the duty of obedience to the will of his lawful superiors, there will be no avoiding the consequence, at least as to the practice of the world, but that all the power and wisdom of authority must submit to the follies, passions and extravagances of the multitude; and howsoever men may wind themselves up and down in mazes of endless niceties and distinctions, they will never clear themselves from the unavoidable event of anarchy and confusion, as long as they promiscuously admit the pretensions of an unsatisfied conscience; and yet that they will be forced to do, if they stop not at the plain, the easy and the discernible measures of duty; and therefore men must not be allowed to excuse themselves from the authority of humane laws upon slender grounds and weak surmises, nor conclude the matter of the law to be antecedently unlawful, unless it be certainly and apparently so. and this will farther appear highly reasonable from the nature of god's laws, that are always plain and easy; and the nature of the matters about which they are employed, that are always of a great and evident necessity: so that things really liable to doubt and disputation, are not of importance enough to be reckoned in the number of indispensable duties; and unless they are clearly and apparently evil, that is an unquestionable evidence that they are not intrinsically so: the perspicuity of the law, and the importance of the duty, are to an ingenuous mind uncapable of doubt and uncertainty; and therefore where there appears no certain and express repugnancy to the law of god, that is presumption enough to satisfy any sober and peaceable man in their lawfulness. §. 7. but that which is most material to the determination of conscience in this enquiry, is this, that there is no rule of life and manners more express and unavoidable, nor any duty in the gospel enjoined in more positive terms, and under more severe penalties, than this of obedience to the commands of supreme authority; and god has tied all their just laws upon our consciences, by virtue of his own authority, and under pain of his own displeasure; and as men would acquit themselves in their obedience to his laws, they are bound under the same sanctions to acquit themselves in their obedience to theirs. and now upon this principle no truly upright and conscientious man will ever go about to riggle himself out of his duty to his lawful superiors, out of any regard to any law of god, when he is not as clearly and abundantly satisfied of the certainty and necessity of its obligation: nay, he cannot with safety and without violence to his own conscience remonstrate to the commands of lawful authority, unless upon reasons more bright and forcible than the express words of st. paul, it is necessary that ye be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. and if men would (as they ought) suspend their scruples and exceptions till they can make it out to themselves that they are as certain, as necessary, and as universal duties of religion as obedience to the commands of lawful superiors, we could not desire a more effectual bar to all our schisms and distractions: for none of the matters of our difference can either pretend to, or are indeed capable of equal evidence with this express proposition of the blessed apostle; and therefore if they would stand firm and loyal to this doctrine, till they can produce more clear and convincing scriptures to vouch their own singular conceits, that must for ever stifle all former quarrels, and prevent all farther dissensions. u.g. whereas our author is required by his lawful superiors to use the sign of the cross in the sacrament of baptism, he puts in his exception against the lawfulness of the command, in that it enjoins a symbolical ceremony; and every symbolical ceremony is of the nature of a sacrament; and no sacrament can or aught to be instituted but by divine authority; and therefore for any humane power to establish new symbolical ceremonies, is to invade gods own peculiar royalty and jurisdiction. in which cavil are involved a great number of dark, uncertain, and perhaps indeterminable inquiries: yet however, to keep to the main pretence, let him but conform to this injunction, till he can allege any text of scripture that affirms in as clear and dogmatical words, that every symbolical ceremony is of the nature of a sacrament, as are those of st. peter, be ye subject to every ordinance of man for the lords sake. and then we shall neither need nor desire any farther security to prevent his defection from the established discipline of the church in that affair: so that if men would learn to be peaceable and ingenuous, this plain and obvious principle would either forestall or supersede all their scruples. and in truth the commands of authority so much surmount their obligation, and anticipate their pretence, that the very plea of a tender and unsatisfied conscience in opposition to public laws, is in itself a direct principle of sedition, and an open affront to government; and therefore whoever they are that vouch and pretend its prohibition to the proceedings of lawful authority, deserve for that reason alone the shame and correction of sturdy and irreclaimable schismatics. and here 'tis a woeful impertinence for men to oppose (as our author has done) the authority of god and of conscience to that of men, pag 107, 144. for that is to plead god and conscience against themselves, in that humane laws are as much tied upon us by his own immediate command as his own immediate institutions; and whatsoever lawful superiors impose upon our practice, that he binds upon our conscience; and though their decrees pass no direct obligation upon the consciences of men, yet the laws of god directly and immediately bind their consciences to obedience; and he has threatened the same eternal penalties to our contempt of, and disobedience to their laws, as he has annexed to his own commands: 'tis enough therefore that the conscience is bound by the laws of men, though that obligation be tied upon it by the laws of god. so that it is not the different obligations of humane and divine laws, that are to be considered in this enquiry; for the authority of god is equally concerned in both, and all the contest lies entirely between the matters of the command, viz. whether god have by as certain, as absolute and as indispensable a law restrained us from the practice of what our superiors enjoin, as he has enjoined us to yield all ready and cheerful obedience to their commands. and when the state of the controversy is shifted to this enquiry, 'tis another woeful impertinence to plead the rule of st. paul, [he that doubteth is damned if he eat,] to countenance and warrant their suspension of obedience: for where the doubt has but one handle, there it concerns us to hold that fast; but where it has more, 'tis the safest way to hold by the strongest: my meaning is, where the danger of sin lies but upon one side of the action, 'tis no doubt a man's wisdom to determine his choice on the other that is undoubtedly safe and innocent: but when there lies danger on both sides of the enquiry, than the doubt ceases to bind from action, and only binds to enquiry, and 'tis his duty to resolve with the weightiest and most important reasons; and the strongest obligation always cancels the doubt, and determines the judgement. and this is the palpable difference of our case from that of st. paul. there all the jealousy lay on the side of the action, and there was no ground or pretence for any suspicion of sin in the forbearance; and therefore it was a safe and easy determination of the scruple, to resolve that way where there is neither doubt nor danger; and in that case a total suspension of action is our proper duty. but this is widely remote from the posture of our present affairs, where there lies some hazard of miscarriage on all sides; and therefore the doubt is no warranty for the suspension of obedience, because if the matter of the command be not certainly unlawful, 'tis certain that is so; and therefore it can have no more power to suspend, than it has to bind to action; and there remains no other way to appease and satisfy the conscience, but to apply itself to depose the doubt, and resolve to discard its unreasonable and trifling suspicions, and confidently follow the guidance of its most probable judgement and determination. and here the safest course as to the case under our present enquiry, is to follow my former advice of joining in with the commands of authority, that are not certainly and apparently sinful; for nothing can outbalance their obligation, unless evident and unquestionable disobedience to god himself: so that where this is not either plainly apparent, or very forcibly proved, there 'tis but reasonable to sink the scale, and determine the balance on the side of authority; and 'tis a safe and an useful rule of life, that in all disputable cases the commands of authority abrogate the irresolution, and oblige to action: but if after they have determined the case, the conscience will still remain stubborn or timorous, so that it will not, or dare not venture upon a determination, 'tis either such a troublesome infirmity as must be corrected, or such an headstrong humour as must be broken, otherwise there is no conceivable way of governing men that are either proud, or peevish, or ignorant. this is plain and downright sense, and (if i mistake not) reason too. and i know but one exception that seems to carry in it any colour or appearance of difficulty against this way of stating the government of humane affairs, and 'tis this. §. 8. when we come to apply particular actions to these general rules of life and government, who shall judge of their agreement with the limits and measures assigned, if this must be left to the different judgements of the prince and the subject, this fabric falls to pieces again, and men are still left at liberty to judge of the lawfulness of their superiors command, by the best light god has given them, and they may be absolved from their obligation by the countermand of their private judgement, and so we are just as before, pag. 150. and this great engine for public tranquillity vanisheth into air and smoak. but this cavil (if it be of any strength or value) concerns not in particular my state of the controversy, and lies indifferently against all setlement of humane affairs, and strikes equally at all hypotheses of government: for upon what principles soever men shall settle and determine this enquiry, it will return upon them with as much, if not more force than upon my determinations: for whatever bounds and limits they assign to the extent of humane power, all its commands must still be liable to the different judgements of the person that enjoins, and the person that obeys: about which 'tis as possible and as likely they may disagree, as about those that i have prescribed; and therefore i never designed to prevent such inconveniences as are unavoidable to humane affairs, but only to settle their management upon the best and safest principles that the nature of things is capable of. for either religion is entirely exempted from the cognizance of humane powers, and the obligation of humane laws, or else 'tis in some cases obnoxious to their jurisdiction. the former is an opinion so wild and intolerable, as that it was never heretofore owned by any but such perverse people as renounced all subjection to earthly princes, nor indeed can it be admitted without dissolving the whole fabric of humane government: for that prince must needs be vested with an absolute and uncontrollable power, whose subjects can challenge an exemption from his authority as to all matters and pretences of religion, i. e. as to all things, in that it extends its influence to all the affairs of humane life; and therefore its exemption is no less than flat anarchy, a dissolution of all laws, and subversion of all societies. the truth whereof is so infinitely certain from the reason of things, and so universally confessed by the experience of mankind, that it could never enter the minds of any men, unless a few savage and inhuman wretches, that would have voted to break up humane society, that they might betake themselves to the woods and deserts, and there live after the manners and customs of unsociable creatures, and wild vermin. but of this i have treated largely enough, and it is not contradicted by our author: he grants, as all men do that are not utterly revolted from the first principles and fundamental laws of humane nature, that in some cases and upon some occasions 'tis necessary for the supreme magistrate to interpose his power to settle and govern the things of religion. thus far we are agreed, and only differ in marking out the distinct bounds, and stating the particular cases of his jurisdiction: and here, whatsoever determinations he may propose, they must fall under the different opinions of the prince and the subject. v. g. whereas he conceits he has sufficiently stated the controversy in the general words of our blessed saviour, spoken to another purpose, and upon a different occasion, give unto caesar the things that are caesar's, and to god the things that are gods: i demand who shall determine the particular rights of god and of caesar? who shall assign the just limits of their respective dominions? and who shall judge when caesar passes beyond the bounds of his imperial jurisdiction, and when he intrenches upon god's authority, by taking upon him a dominion in such matters as god has reserved for his own proper cognizance, and immediate royalty? so that in this, and all other determinations, there is no possible way to avoid making the last appeal to different judgements, because that is absolutely unavoidable in the natural constitution of humane affairs. and therefore i never attempted (as some men have done) to devolve the entire power of judging upon the judgement of one party; but only supposing our different respects and obligations to these different judgements, to propound the safest and most moderate principles upon which to settle and accommodate the government of humane affairs; and to adjust all matters capable of debate between them, by such fair proposals, and upon such reasonable principles, that, if the parties concerned will be ingenuous in their respective capacities, will effectually enough secure the common peace and happiness of mankind: if they will not, the public miseries and calamities that ensue upon the default of either party, will be proportioned to the degrees of their respective transgressions; and against them 'tis not in my power to provide, unless i could divest the minds of men of all liberty of judgement, and freedom of will: for whilst they remain, 'tis at their own choice whether they will follow the best and wisest advice in the world. §. 9 thus if magistrates fail on their part, and enact any laws in defiance of the certain and apparent laws of god, from thence arise the calamities of tyranny and persecution, and against this evil there is no remedy but patience and prayers: divine providence is superior to the power of sovereign princes, and superintends their government of the world; and therefore to god alone must we address our complaints for relief against cruelty and oppression; and if he judge it convenient for the interests of his church, and the purposes of religion, he will so order the circumstances of things, and the management of affairs, as to rescue them out of their straits and exigences. the hearts and the sceptres of kings are subject to his almighty wisdom; and he so disposes them, as to make them comply with the decrees of his uncontrollable will; and therefore whatever inconveniences may befall good men through the folly or the wickedness of governors, they must be patiently endured, as certain issues, and unsearchable designs of divine providence; and we have no recourse for succour or deliverance, but to his infinite mercy and goodness: this is our only support and sanctuary, and who can desire greater safety than to be under his immediate care and protection? and therefore there is nothing more unbecoming the faith and the profession of a christian, than to betake himself to violent and irregular courses against the inconveniences of government: 'tis a direct and open affront to the superintendency of providence, that has reserved this prerogative to itself: 'tis our duty to obey cheerfully, or to suffer patiently; and to leave all other events of things to his all-comprehensive wisdom. mankind must be subject to government; no government can be effectual unless it be supreme and absolute; and therefore god has been pleased to enjoin us a full and entire subjection to our lawful superiors; and as for what may ensue thereon, we must leave to his wise and unerring disposal, and then certainly we may rest secure of a good issue of things. so that if the magistrate err in his judgement of the extent of his authority, and act beyond the bounds of his lawful jurisdiction, 'tis not in the power of subjects to redress or to remove the mischiefs that must ensue upon his government: they must discharge their duty, and submit to their fate; and as for the reformation of any public miscarriages, they must leave it entirely to the will and the wisdom of the sovereign power. so that the material thing of which princes ought to be careful, is that their laws cross not with the express laws of god; and this they may easily avoid, if they will be upright and ingenuous; and this if they will do, they may as easily avoid all the mischiefs and inconveniences that may befall men of peaceable spirits through their default. but as 'tis their duty not to transgress their own bounds; so on the other side, 'tis as much their interest to restrain their subjects from transgressing theirs; and not suffer them to remonstrate to the equity of their laws, unless when they can plead a clear & undoubted pre-engagement to an higher authority; and they must not prostitute the interests of the republic, and the reverence of government, to the niceties of every curious imagination, or the cavils of every peevish humour. there is no end of trifling and unreasonable pretences, if once the common people are permitted to put in their exceptions against the public laws; and what a weak and impertinent thing were the power of princes, if it might be overruled by the folly of the multitude? and how bravely would the world be governed, if the authority and obligation of laws must be left arbitrary to the opinion of every vain and foolish fellow? and therefore in such cases the allegation of a tender conscience confutes itself, and 'tis but a soft and plausible word to qualify a stubborn and contentious humour; and did not something else bear men up against the force of authority, a weak conscience has not boldness enough to oppose its own power and judgement against the will of superiors, and the wisdom of public laws: 'tis not so imperious and impatient in its pretensions, but 'tis (if it really is what it pretends to be) of a yielding, a modest and a governable temper, apt and easy to receive any competent satisfaction, willing to comply with the necessities of government, and the interests of public order; and therefore when men are zealous and confident in their disobedience to authority, and are forward upon all occasions to take offence at the public laws, whatever they fancy to themselves, or pretend to others, 'tis a proud, a malapert, and an insolent humour, that affects to affront authority, and to raise trophies to its zeal and courage, by controlling the decrees of princes, and trampling upon the laws of discipline. and therefore nothing more imports the public peace, than to take down such bold and daring spirits; and their high stomaches must be broken, before they can be made fit subjects of civil societies, and fit members of bodies politic. disorder and disturbance is the natural result of their complexion, and they cannot forbear to fret and annoy authority with every peevish and unreasonable conceit. so that the bare pretence of tenderness of conscience in defiance to the commands of authority, is at once a bold attempt, and an impregnable principle of sedition: for unless men have lost their due sense of reverence and submission to government, they will not pretend it; and when they do, if their pretence be admitted, they are but encouraged to continue refractory in their disobedience, and to make all the laws of discipline and public order yield up their authority to a proud and an insolent humour. this is the plain and real account of my state of the controversy; and if any man can determine it upon more reasonable, more moderate, and more discernible principles, i am not so fond of my own conceptions, as to be unwilling to subscribe to wiser proposals. but these things i have accounted for more at large, in the last chapter of my former treatise; where i have in many particulars shown the horrible vanity of pretending dissatisfaction of conscience against the commands of lawful authority. and had not our author rather designed to prolong, than to determine this dispute, in stead of his wild rambling up and down without drift or method, he would with a more particular regard have fallen upon that part of my discourse; but its examination would have been of immediate concern to his own pretences, and would have brought the controversy to too speedy an issue, and perhaps too satisfactory a decision; and therefore he baulks that as too hazardous an enterprise, and is unwilling to venture the whole cause upon one engagement, but keeps this back as a reserve for a second onset, and for matter of new cavil: at present it suffices for his purpose (which is not to satisfy, but to shuffle with his readers) to load my more general assertions with such loose and uncertain cavils, as are already prevented in my more particular determinations of the enquiry. §. 10. but though this way of abuse be (one would think) bold enough, yet in the next attempt his confidence improves, (and it were hard fortune if he should prove bankrupt upon so fair a stock:) before he did but overlook my plain meaning, but now he proceeds to pervert and slander it, and his peevishness becomes malice. he is not content to abuse the people with dull mistakes, and to defeat the efficacy of my discourse upon the minds of men, by disturbing its method, and representing its whole design in such an awkard and disorderly manner, as may utterly confound and perplex their thoughts as to my drift and meaning. this, alas! is mean revenge, and is not full enough of mischief to appease his wrath; it only calls my understanding into question, and exposes my wit to the cavils and impertinencies of talking people; and therefore he roundly charges me with the blackest and most horrid tenets; he aggravates and sets off their horror with infinite repetitions, (for that is the most lofty strain of their eloquence, and the figure that moves the passions of their multitude) and employs all the forces of slander and peevishness to raise popular rage and indignation. the result of his indictment is, that i assert such opinions, pag. 97. from whence it follows, that whatever the magistrate commands in religion, his authority does so immediately affect the consciences of men, that they are bound to observe it on pain of the greatest sin and punishment; or, as he expresses the same thing elsewhere, pag. 105. that no man must do or practise any thing in the worship of god, but what is prescribed, appointed and commanded by the magistrate, upon pain of sin, schism, rebellion, and all that follows thereon. these are big words indeed: but if it shall appear that this charge is not so loud and black, as 'tis false and disingenuous, i will give him the liberty of an appeal to all mankind for the clearing of his integrity: and when i have represented upon what slight grounds he raises this great and heinous accusation, i doubt not but his disingenuity will appear so palpable and notorious, that it will expose him at least to the pity of the most zealous she of his own congregation. and therefore let us see by what mighty topics and testimonies he makes good so high a charge. in the first place my title page rises up in judgement against me, (and never was poor man so all-be-confuted with a title page as i have been) viz. pag. 95. that the magistrate has power over the consciences of his subjects in religion: and to strengthen this testimony, two other propositions are joined with it, viz. that the magistrate has power to govern and conduct their consciences in religious affairs; and that, religion is subject to his dominion, as well as all other affairs of state. and now, though these are none of my primary and fundamental assertions, (which an ingenuous adversary would chiefly have pursued) but honest and well-meaning sayings, that the context would abundantly warrant and justify; yet will i for ever yield myself a baffled fellow, if from thence any female or independent logic can infer either that the magistrate has an unlimited power over, or passes an immediate obligation upon the consciences of men; or, in our authors own words, that whatever the magistrate commands in religion, his authority does so immediately affect the consciences of men, that they are bound to observe it on the pain of the greatest sin and punishment. this trash neither needs nor deserves any further severity; and therefore i will only leave it to the readers thoughts to consider by what art, and in what method of reasoning this conclusion may be created out of these premises: an almighty confidence may attempt much, and perhaps do it too; but yet some things there are beyond the reach and power of omnipotence itself, and i know nothing more absolutely impossible than to produce sense out of nonsense, or (what is the same thing) to make good the reasonableness of false and unreasonable inferences. but from this great head of impertinency, he proceeds to his more serviceable topick of forgery; and if he cannot bring the mountain to mahomet, 'tis no great difficulty to carry mahomet to the mountain; and if his conclusions will not suit with my assertions, he knows how to make my assertions suit with his conclusions; and when he has charged me with a false inference, 'tis an admirable way to justify the logic of his calumny by forged premises. and thus to make good his former inference of my ascribing to the civil magistrate an immediate and universal power over the consciences of men, he tells his believing reader i have affirmed, ibid. pag. 27. that 'tis a sovereignty over men's consciences in matters of religion, and this universal, absolute, and uncontrollable. though this calumny were true, yet (so injudicious is our author's invention) 'tis monstrously impertinent; for there is no imaginable ground to conclude from hence, that the supreme authority immediately affects the consciences of men: for suppose the civil magistrate instated in an absolute and uncontrollable power, what necessity is there that their commands should tie themselves upon our consciences by virtue of their own immediate authority? nay, 'tis impossible any thing should immediately affect the conscience but the authority of god; and 'tis by virtue of his command that any other commands can pass an obligation upon it; and therefore though the commands of the civil magistrate should pass an universal obligation upon the consciences of men, yet 'tis an inference like the rest of our authors, from thence to conclude that they therefore affect them by their own direct and immediate sanction. but this is not all, 'tis as false as foolish: i have indeed asserted the absolute power of the civil magistrate over affairs of religion, in opposition to the pretences of a distinct ecclesiastical jurisdiction: for having first asserted the necessity of a sovereign power over these matters, from their concernment in the peace and government of the world, i thence proceeded to inquire where and in whom it ought to reside; and having shown the inconsistency of erecting two supreme powers, one over civil, the other over ecclesiastical affairs, i concluded that the supreme government of every commonwealth must of necessity be universal, absolute and uncontrollable, in that it extends its jurisdiction as well to affairs of religion, as to affairs of state, because they are so strongly influential upon the interests of mankind, & the ends of government. and now is this to make the ecclesiastical authority of the civil magistrate absolutely paramount, without regard to any other jurisdiction of what nature soever, when i only maintain it in defiance to the claims of any other humane power? this was the subject of that enquiry. and when i asserted the sovereign power to be absolute and uncontrollable, 'tis apparent nothing else could be intended than that it ought not to be controlled by any distinct power, whether of the pope or the presbytery; and when i asserted it to be universal and unlimited, it could be understood in no other sense than that it was not confined to matters purely civil, but extended its jurisdiction to matters of an ecclesiastical importance; upon which account alone i determined it to be absolute, universal and uncontrollable. this is the main and the fundamental article of the reformation, and that which distinguishes the truly orthodox and catholic protestant both from popish and presbyterian recusants; and is the only fence to secure the thrones of princes against the dangerous encroachments of those bold and daring sects; and therefore from so avowed a truth, to charge me for ascribing in general terms an absolute, universal & uncontrollable power to the civil magistrate over the consciences of men in matters of religion, argues more boldness than wit and discretion, and gives us ground to suspect that these men are not less forsaken of shame and modesty, than they are of providence: for it must needs be a very bold face, and a very hard forehead, that could ever venture to obtrude such palpable and disingenuous abuses upon the world. §. 11. but our author proceeds in his method, and his charge and his confidence advance together; and before you fin● him at the end of this paragraph, you will find him bravely attempting the highest degree of boldness. the next proof he singles out for his purpose, is a passage of the twelfth section of my first chapter: pag 96. he [the magistrate] may if he please reserve the exercise of the priesthood to himself: from whence it clearly follows (as he dreams) that queen elizabeth might, if she pleased, have exercised the priestly function in her own person. and he takes frequent occasion to insult over the weakness of this assertion, vide pag. 114, 136, 137, 159 and triumph in the wit of this inference. but i shall not insist upon its woeful impertinency to the conclusion, wherewith he confidently winds up this heap of calumnies, viz. that from hence it follows, that whatever the magistrate commands in religion, his authority does so immediately affect the consciences of men, that they are bound to observe it on the pain of the greatest sin and punishment. for how is it possible for any man to infer from his right to the priestly office, an unlimited and immediate power over religion, unless it could be proved that this absolute sovereignty is unalienable from the priesthood? and when that is pretended or performed, we will farther consider the validity of this inference. nor shall i mind him what an ill piece of policy it is for him to disavow the authority of the female sex in the conduct of religion; when the chief and most important affairs of the separate churches are transacted and governed by their zeal; and when the apron-strings are the strongest bond of the congregational union; and when (as they manage the business) st. peter's keys are hanged at their girdles, and every conceited sister assumes to herself, if not the infallibility of pope joan, yet at least the power and authority of donna olympia. nor last, shall i present the salic law of the christian church, that devests that sex of all right and pretence of succession to the priesthood; by which they are restrained from intermeddling with any offices of the sacred function, though it should descend by right of inheritance to the heirs male of the blood royal. such a trifling objection is not worth so much pains; 'tis sufficient to inform you, that in the paragraph aforesaid i undertook to give an account of the true original of all civil and ecclesiastical government: where i showed how in the first ages of the world they were vested in the same person, and founded upon the same right of paternal authority: and in this state of things antecedent to all superinduced restraints, and positive institutions, i asserted the supreme magistrate might, if he pleased, reserve the exercise of the priesthood to himself, though afterwards the priestly office was in the jewish commonwealth expressly derogated from the kingly power, by being settled upon the tribe of levi, and the line of aaron; and so likewise in the christian church, by being appropriated to the apostles and their successors, that derive their ministerial office (for that of priesthood our author will not admit of under the gospel) from our blessed saviour's express and immediate commission. now what i affirmed of things in the bare state of nature, without the guidance of revelation, for our author to represent it, as if i had applied it indifferently to all ages and periods of the church, by whatsoever positive laws and different institutions they may be governed, is wonderfully suitable to the genius of his own wit and ingenuity, and sufficiently discovers who he is, though we had no other evidence of the man and his humour, 'tis his way and method, and betrays him as much as the word entanglement, that is the shibboleth of all his writings. but i must not think to escape thus, he is resolved to bear me down for an illiterate dunce with face and downright confidence; and to this purpose he tells the reader, that the young man, as pert and peremptory as he is, pag. 159. seems not much acquainted with the rise of the office of the priesthood amongst men, as shall be demonstrated if farther occasion be given thereunto. this he affirms boldly, and when it is proved, it shall be granted: but till then, let me beg the reader to suspend his censure of my ignorance; and i hope by this time he is satisfied 'tis not absolutely impossible but that our author may boldly affirm what he knows not how to prove, and confidently undertake what he is not able to perform. however, a modest man would either not have mentioned this exception, or would have made it good, and not have presumed that the world should take his brags for arguments; and take it for a reasonable confutation of my assertion, because he says he can confute it, aye that he can. this is the most it amounts to; and whether it be his intention or no, he might have said nothing to as much purpose as to say so much and no more. but other men would stand still as fast as this man gallops; and when he comes to the end of his career, he is just where he was at the beginning. §. 12. and yet the next proof is just as wise and as wonderful as this, viz. pag. 96. that this power i have ascribed to the civil magistrate, is not derived from christ, or any grant of his, but is antecedent to his coming, or any power given unto him, or granted by him. but what is all this to his inference of the magistrates absolute and immediate power over conscience? that power in which god vested princes, must be such as is compatible with his own supremacy, and that consists in his absolute and immediate sovereignty over the minds of his reasonable creatures; and therefore was in its own nature uncapable of being granted away to any subordinate authority. pag 159. but however, you will conclude with him from this principle, that magistrates owe no allegiance and subjection to the sceptre of christ, seeing they derive not their authority from his commission, but were instated in its actual possession before ever he was advanced to the government of the universe. i say, no: for though they were vested in an ancient and original right, yet its continuance, ever since he commenced his empire, depends merely upon his confirmation, in that whoever does not reverse a former grant, confirms it. and therefore though they were impowered to govern the church of god antecedent to our saviour's supremacy, yet that they are still entrusted with the same authority they owe entirely to his sovereign will and pleasure, because 'tis now in his power to divest them of this, or any other of their ancient prerogatives: so that seeing he has thought good to continue the government of the world in the same state and posture he found it in, princes are not now less indebted to him for the grant of their imperial power, than if they had been at first instated in it by his immediate and and positive commission. and to this purpose did i discourse in that paragraph out of which he has singled this proposition, viz. to show how unreasonable it is for men to demand an express grant from our saviour to civil magistrates for the government of his church, when they were already established in the full exercise of this jurisdiction by the right of nature, and the consent of nations: so that in stead of requiring this of us, they are rather obliged to show where he has expressly disrobed and aliened the ecclesiastical jurisdiction from the royal prerogative: for if he have not, there is no pretence or exception but that it still continues as inseparable a right of the supreme magistrate in every nation, as if he had settled it upon him by his own positive and immediate institution. his next exception is downright juggling, viz. that i assert, ibid. that magistrates have a power to make that a particular of the divine law, which god had not made so, and to introduce new duties in the most important parts of religion. he knows these words have no relation in the place where they stand to matters of mere religion and immediate worship, but are spoken only of the duties and offices of morality, which i had before proved to be the main designs and most essential parts of religion, and likewise shown that the civil magistrate was impower'd to introduce upon the divine law new duties and instances of moral virtue, from whence i thought it but reasonable to conclude his power over the outward expressions of religious worship, that are but circumstances, or at highest but subordinate and less material duties, if compared to the great and important virtues of morality. whether my proposition or my inference be reasonable or no, concerns not our present enquiry; our author in this place puts in no exception against them: but whether this quotation be either honestly or pertinently alleged against me, do you judge; when he could not but know that these words, whether true or false, could have no imaginable reference to matters of religious worship properly so called, but were expressly limited to the instances of moral goodness, that yet he should produce them in this feat shuffling and uncertain manner of expression, only that the common people might not understand them, as they relate to my account and notion of religion, i. e. as it takes in duties of morality; but in the vulgar sense of the word, as it signifies religious worship. this you see is wretched troth; but that which follows is glorious and undaunted slander; when he immediately subjoins to the former words, so that there is a public conscience, which men are in things of a public concern (relating to the worship of god) to attend unto, and not to their own. and if there be any sin in the command, he that imposed it, shall answer for it, and not i, whose whole duty it is to obey. this inference being so immediately tacked to the former proposition, its unavoidable result must be this at least, that as to the most important parts of religion, there is a public conscience, to which men are to attend, and not to their own. this is somewhat rank doctrine, and favours not a little of the leviathan. but yet how can i avoid it? are not these my own words? though that i might deny, yet am i content to confess that i have said something not much unlike them, in the sixth section of my last chapter; where, in answer to the pretence of a tender, a scrupulous, and an unsatisfied conscience, among many other things, i have shown that in doubtful and disputable cases of a public concernment, private men are not properly sui juris, and are not to be directed by their own judgements, nor determined by their own wills, but by the commands and determinations of the public conscience. now does it not admirably become our author's modesty to take this assertion concerning such nice and petty things as are liable to doubt, scruple, and disputation, and couple it with another sentence above two hundred pages distance, that speaks of the most important parts of religion? as if they had been spoken upon the same occasion, and related to the same matter; thereby to abuse his vulgar and unwary reader into a round belief, as if what i had asserted concerning the subjection of a doubtful conscience in less important matters to the commands of public authority, were to be understood of all the obligations of conscience in the most important duties of religion. did i not forewarn you of what heights and depths of ingenuity we should meet with, before we arrived at the conclusion of this paragraph? and now do you tell me whether you ever observed in any writer more generous strains of candour and civility? did ever man treat adversary with fairer and more ingenuous usage than i have met with from this candid author? disputants of a more sullen humour would have thrown more knotty objections in my way, that would have cost some pains and sweat to assoil their difficulty: but he deals tenderly with me as a young beginner, and will not dishearten my industry by setting too hard a task to my raw and unimproved abilities; that by my conquest and triumph over such weak opposition, i might be encouraged to greater undertake. §. 13. and therefore he proceeds to tempt my weak and juvenile essays upon so great a master of skill, by seeming serious and eager in the farther pursuit of these vain and trifling advantages, and raising more vehement slanders upon more unreasonable grounds; and the next article of his charge to this purpose is, pag. 97. that i maintain that the supreme magistrate in every nation hath power to order and appoint what religion his subjects shall profess and observe, provided he enjoineth nothing that countenanceth vice, or disgraceth the deity, etc. our author is old excellent at cavil and calumny, but here he excels himself: he gives in a brisk and rattling indictment, without any shadow of proof to justify the allegation: 'tis drawn up in his own terms and forms of expression, and only one poor line of mine bobbed in to give countenance to such an horrid and shameless falsification, viz. provided that he injoineth nothing that either countenanceth vice, or disgraceth the deity. this i have, and still do affirm concerning rituals, ceremonies and postures of outward worship, that they ought not to be censured as unlawful, unless they tend to debauch men either in their practices or their conceptions of the deity: and therefore if they are not chargeable with one or both of these, nothing can hinder their being capable of being adopted into the ministries of divine service, or exempt them from being subject to the determinations of humane power. this is, i think, a chaste and a modest truth: but for our author to apply this power that i have ascribed to the supreme magistrate, only over the outward forms and ceremonial expressions of religious worship, to the appointment and institution of religion itself, so as to leave it entirely at his disposal to order and appoint what religion his subjects shall profess and observe, is (and i can say no worse) but like himself, and agreeable to that character i have often suggested to you of his way of writing and ingenuity: and 'tis a falsehood so coarsely lewd and barbarous, that nothing but an incorrigible brow could have ventured to obtrude it upon the world, much less to persist in it so long, and repeat it so often as he has done, as if he were resolved to bear down the common sense and reason of mankind, by the unyielding gallantry and vigour of his confidence. but there is not any one passage in my whole discourse, that has been so serviceable to his purpose as this lame and imperfect allegation; it vouches every clamour, and every impertinency, and every slander and false report shrowds itself under its protection; and if he have a mind to forge and fasten any extravagant conceit upon me, 'tis but devising some wild proposition, and twisting it with these words, and then he may expatiate against the wickedness of so dangerous an error with a grave and solemn invective; and i am as confidently concluded guilty, as if it had been my own express and positive assertion. thus this passage is produced against me; pag. 125. that whilst men reserve to themselves the freedom and liberty of judging what they please, or what seems good unto them in matters of religion, and the worship of god, they ought to esteem it their duty to practise in all things according to the prescription of their rulers, though every way contrary unto, and inconsistent with their own judgements and persuasions, unless it be in things that countenance vice, and disgrace the deity. these words are set down in a distinct character, and the reader (if he be courteous) is not to doubt but they were faithfully transcribed out of my book, though you cannot find a syllable of it there, except only the last words of restriction. but however, 'tis a lewd and ungodly assertion, and therefore away he flies with it; what? it defeats all effectual obligations of conscience, it enervates all real sense of religion, and it casts off all serious regard to the divine authority; and upon this principle men may profess what religion they please, and turn mahumetans, papists, and apostates, for their own convenience. these indeed are sad and woeful inferences; but let him look to that; for the premises are his as well as the conclusions; though in my opinion it is a prodigious piece of boldness that he should so rashly, so confidently and so groundlessly charge me with such knavish and dishonest principles, as are not fit for any men to pretend to, unless such crafty artists as know how to sing their songs upon sigionoth, and believe that god abets and owns every interest that thrives and prospers in the world: and when they dance to the tune of the times, have the face to look demurely, and to profess they only follow the pipe of providential dispensations. but now if we take this mangled and dismembered sentence, and restore it to its proper place, there is neither harm nor heresy: i. e. if we affirm that no rites and ceremonies are in themselves unlawful (for i here speak only of things as considered in their own nature) in the worship of god, unless they tend to countenance vice, or disgrace the deity: here is no danger of encouraging or making apostates; for the material and dividing differences of the established religions in the world, consist not in rituals and ceremonials, but in articles of belief, and objects of worship. we condemn neither turks nor papists for their forms and postures of adoration, (unless they fall under one or both of the obliquities aforesaid) but for giving divine worship to a lewd impostor, and to a senseless piece of matter: let them but address the same worship to its due and proper object, and we will never stand stiffly with them about the outward rites and ceremonies of its expression; but will freely allow them to conform to the significant customs of their own country, as we do to those of ours. now 'tis these things that are, or at least are pretended to be, the only matters of our present schisms and differences; and 'tis these things only that i assert to be determinable by supreme authority, provided they neither encourage vice, nor dishonour god: under which restrictions whatsoever rites and usages they may enjoin, can never be concluded unlawful in themselves; and if they are so upon any other account, that is to be discoursed elsewhere, but it concerns not our present enquiry, that only undertook to account for the comparison between the matters of religious worship, and the duties of morality, in reference to the power of the civil magistrate, as considered in their own respective natures. i might give you in many more proofs and instances of his abuse of these words: but what i have already represented, is, i hope, a sufficient taste of his ingenuity. and yet as gross and shameless as this slander is, 'tis infinitely outdone by the next, viz. pag. 103. that i have given as absolute a sovereignty to the civil magistrate over the church of god, as to the lord christ himself. and this he endeavours to prove after his way, by amassing together all the former calumnies that i have already washed off: but to complete and accomplish the whole design, he adds one of his own pure wit and contrivance: pag. 104. is the authority of christ the formal reason, making obedience necessary to his commands and precepts? so is the authority of the magistrate in reference to what he requires. do men therefore sin, if they neglect the observance of the commands of christ in the worship of god, because of his immediate authority so to command them binding their consciences? so do men sin if they omit or neglect to do what the magistrate requires in the worship of god because of his authority, without any farther respect. in the former passages there are at least some sprinklings of my own words, but this is mere and abstracted slander, and has nor colour nor foundation in my discourse; and therefore i can give it no other reply, than sincerely to profess, that were there any thing in my book that should but seem to ascribe to the civil magistrate as immediate a sovereignty over the consciences of men, as our blessed saviour both claims and exercises, i myself would be the first man that should cast a stone at such bold and ridiculous assertions. and here one would think is enough of slander and calumny, and yet he has not done with so pleasant an argument, pag. 113. but gives it you all over again in a proclamation framed out of the supposed principles and directions of my book; which being nothing but a mere repetition of the same trash, that i have already cashiered, i deem it neither needful nor pertinent to return him any other answer, than that as 'tis not the first proclamation that this author has drawn up, so i pray god it may be the last. §. 14. and now, sir, tell me what i shall conclude of this man's conscience? must i impute such laboured and affected mistakes to an excusable ignorance, and set the most shameless falsifications upon the score of inadvertency? i know the power of prejudice and passion to seal up the minds of men against the evidence of truth; yet such is the evidence of truth in our present case, that no prejudice can be thick enough to withstand, or passion blind enough to defeat its efficacy. nothing but an hard forehead and a lewd conscience could ever embolden him so rudely to spoil and discompose the apparent aim & method of my discourse, and so impudently to abuse and impose upon the world by such groundless and enormous pervertings. a multitude of his weaker cavils and less miscarriages i am inclined to ascribe to his rash and precipitate humour: for i know he is wont to write or dictate books as fast as other men can read them; and a wise man would take more time to weigh the matter of a discourse, than he does to confute it; and so may possibly pour out gross and palpable mistakes through haste and inadvertency. but those instances i have represented to you of his way of shuffling and falsifying, are so many, so laboured, and so unreasonable, that they could proceed from no other fountain but wilful and affected malice: for 'tis absolutely impossible that mere chance and heedlessness should blunder upon so many impostures so full of design and contrivance. but however, you see how by this means not only the state of the question, but the whole matter of the enquiry is quite altered: 'tis not now contended whether the supreme magistrate of every commonwealth be vested with an ecclesiastical power and sovereignty over matters of religion. tush, that is granted without demur or dispute, and our author (though his acquaintance are none of the most loyal and peaceable) knows no man that pretends exemption from the obligation of humane laws, pag. 139. but only on this plea, that god by his law requires them to do otherwise. so that in what matters soever the law of god does not require them to do otherwise, there humane laws must pass a certain obligation upon conscience: for if they do not oblige that, they oblige nothing. now this is an ample grant of all that i designed and pretended to prove in my first chapter, viz. that magistrates are vested with some authority over conscience in matters of religion: so that in this it seems we are fully agreed, and our author after all his heat and talk freely confesses 'tis indispensably necessary to the public peace and tranquillity, which you know is the main consideration that i urged and pursued in behalf of my opinion. but, says our author, this is not all, for i have so described and discoursed of the power of the civil magistrate over conscience and religion, as to make it of an absolute jurisdiction, an unlimited extent, and an immediate obligation: 'tis this he all along represents, and upon this that he mainly insists. if i am guilty of this charge, i must shift as i can: but if i am not, what hinders but we may shake hands and be friends? and therefore having so fully discovered the horrid and unconceivable vanity of the proofs alleged against me to this purpose, and so fairly cleared the innocence and honesty of my intentions, i may, i hope, hereafter reasonably expect, and justly challenge a complete discharge from all such sinister and idle suspicions. is not this blessed work, that i should be forced to write so much to so little purpose; not at all to prove the truth of what i have written, but to disprove the falsehood of what i have not written? §. 15. and now though i am provided with remarks upon the remaining passages of this chapter, yet i know not to what purpose i should trouble myself or the reader with them, after the considerations that i have already represented, that are (i presume) competent enough to justify the innocence of my design, and to shame the disingenuity of his cavils; and that is all that is needful in answer to his way of proceeding, which, you see, was not to confute, but to pervert my discourse. and if i should pursue all advantages, examine all miscarriages, and lay open all follies and impertinencies, i should presume too much upon the public patience, and swell my reply to too unreasonable a bulk; so many, so vain, and so impertinent are his topics of cavil. however, the remainder of his talk is built upon the supposition of the truth and reality of these falsifications; and therefore by what i have already discoursed in answer to their forgery, i have made it altogether needless to take any farther notice of his wild and rambling harangues: for if they are pertinent to their premises, they are impertinent to my discourse; if they are not, they are impertinent to his own. though the truth is, should i grant him the privilege he is resolved to take, of falsifying, yet he deduced things so loosely and incoherently, that i might easily make good my cause against him, if i should undertake the defence of those untruths and monstrous absurdities he fastens on me. i might demand of him to what purpose he here acquaints us with that solemn and systematick distinction of the declaration of god's will, either by the light of nature, or by the light of revelation, unless it be to inform the world of this new and important mystery, pag. 101. that a positive command of god may, as to any particular instance, suspend the obligation of the greatest command of the law of nature; and so it actually did in the precept given to abraham for sacrificing his son. for whatever any schoolmen may determine in this case, 'tis apparent here neither was nor could be any suspension of the law of nature, (whose obligation is so eternal and unchangeable, that nothing can suspend it for one moment without doing violence to the antecedent reasons of good and evil) but only a positive command to execute a divine decree by virtue of a divine commission, i. e. to put his son to death by his authority that is absolute lord of life; a matter against which the law of nature never had or could have any prohibition: for though possibly it restrained abraham from attempting his son's life by virtue of his own dominion, yet when he was warranted to it by a special command of god himself, to have refused its execution, had been to remonstrate to the justice of one of the most fundamental laws of nature: so that there was no suspension of the law, but an alteration of the case, and a command to do something, which that neither did nor could forbid. to what purpose does he twit me for asserting magistratical omnipotency, pag. 108. rather than the divine right of episcopacy? i am at age and liberty (as young as he would make me) to choose my own theme; and perhaps the next book i publish, that shall be the argument of my discourse; and then i doubt not but he will as much correct me for leaving the pursuit of my former subject, as he does now for pursuing it. to what purpose does he preach to sovereign princes not to take upon themselves that absolute power, pag. 109, 10. i have for my own advantage ascribed to them, unless he had also proved it is not for theirs? 'tis a strong motive, no doubt, to encourage his majesty to listen to his advice, by informing him, ibid. it was not the acclamation of the multitude unto herod, the voice of god and not of man; but his own arrogant satisfaction in that blasphemous assignation of divine glory to him, that exposed him to the judgements and vengeance of god. for certainly princes will require more forcible reasons to part with the absoluteness of their sovereign power, than such preaching impertinencies. to what purpose does he add, that never any magistrate, unless nabuchadnezzar, caligula, domitian, pag. 111. and persons like to them, ever pretended to exercise the power here assigned unto them? i will not be so froward as to tell him, that now he is as much too free in his concessions, as he is at other times too stingy: for should i put him upon the proof, he would want records to make it good, that all these princes ever claimed such a bold and unlimited jurisdiction; though perhaps others have: for what thinks he of artaxerxes' commission to ezra? whosoever will not do the law of thy god, and the law of the king, let judgement be executed speedily upon him, whether it be unto death, or to banishment, or to confiscation of goods, or to imprisonment. i know not how any prince can challenge or assume a more severe, absolute, and uncontrollable power, than this granted in this commission; and yet ezra reflects upon it as a special and immediate issue of divine providence. to what purpose does he tell us, the power i ascribe to magistrates is none other but that which is claimed by the pope of rome? pag. 116. that may be his usurpation upon the rights of princes, but 'tis no proof that they may not challenge the supremacy over the consciences of their own subjects, because he usurps it. to what purpose does he tell us, pag. 157. that the mormo here made use of, is the same in substance that has been set up by the papists ever since the reformation? when nothing can be justly pleaded in behalf of lawful government, but what may be unjustly pretended to by tyrants and usurpers: and in the happy days of oliver cromwell, the same arguments and texts of scripture were pressed for obedience and subjection to the rebel, as were only designed to secure loyalty to rightful sovereigns. let the romanists make out the justice of their title of supremacy over the kingdom of england, and the equity of their cause in the due management of their power, and then we will listen to their pretences: but in the mean while, from the necessity of an ecclesiastical jurisdiction, to plead the right of a papal sovereignty, is an impertinency only wild enough to serve our author's turn, and signifies no more than because there is tyranny practised in the world under fair and plausible pretences, that therefore there must be no just grounds and principles for lawful government. to what purpose does he waste so many pages, to inquire wherefore the power of the magistrate should not be extended to the inward thoughts and apprehensions of men about the worship of god, from pag. 117, to p. 125. as well as to expressions of them in pure spiritual acts of that worship? for not to catch at the ridiculous, canting and mysterious nonsense of the expression of our inward thoughts in pure spiritual acts, when all expression of them is outward and corporal: 'tis sufficient that god has not been pleased to vest them with any power over our thoughts; but for what cause, himself best knows; and therefore though i could give no account for his so doing, that would not cast the least shadow of an objection upon the truth and reality of my persuasion. to what purpose does he tell us in the close of this enquiry, that we can give no other imaginable answer to it, than that men who plead for indulgence and liberty of conscience in the worship of god, according to his word, and the light which he has given them therein, have indeed no conscience at all? when this answer is so infinitely silly, that we can scarce suppose any man in his wits so extravagant as to pretend it, and when there are other very pertinent replies, so easy and so obvious, viz. that they may possibly have no conscience at all, whatever they pretend, or at least such an one as is abused with foolish, or debauched with wicked principles, and so may plot or practise sedition against the state under pretence or mistake of conscience, and for that reason ought not to be allowed to plead its authority against the commands of lawful superiors. in fine, to what purpose does he so briskly taunt me for thwarting my own principles, pag. 133, 134, 135. because i have censured the impertinency of a needless provision in an act of parliament? i may obey the law, though i may be of a different persuasion from the lawgivers in an opinion remote and impertinent to the matter of the law itself: nay, i may condemn the wisdom of enacting it, and yet at the same time think myself to lie under an indispensable obligation to obey it: for the formal reason of its obligatory power (as any casuist will inform him) is not the judgement and opinion of the lawgiver, but the declaration of his will and pleasure. there is abundance more of this slender stuff, wherewith (as himself brags) he has loaded this principle; though, alas! were its foundations never so weak and trembling, it might securely enough support so light a burden; and though it were really bottomed upon the sands, there is but little danger that such a shallow stream of talk should overturn it: so that though i stand upon such advantageous ground, if i should descend to a strict and particular examination of all the flaws and follies of his tattle, yet they are so apparently false or impertinent, or both, and afford so little occasion for useful and material discourse, that i had rather choose to forego my own advantage, than spoil my book, and tyre my reader by insisting too tediously upon such empty trifles and dreams of shadows. to conclude, this author is so accustomed to popular impertinency, that he seems to hate severe discourse as much as carnal reason, and both as much as idolatry: so that he only prates when he should argue, and inveighs when he should confute: give him what advantage you will, he regards it not, but jogs on in his road of talking, and 'tis no matter whether you take the right or wrong handle of the question, it may be either for any thing material that he has to except against it. nay, you may suffer him to lime-twig you with ink and paper, and gag you with a quill, and put what words he pleases into your mouth, and yet easily defend yourself against all his faint assaults, and impertinent objections. in so much that i durst undertake the defence of the thickest and most defenceless impostures in the world, against his weak and miserable way of confutation. and i doubt not but i could produce as strong and enforcing evidence for the divine original and authority of the alcoran, as some body has for the self-evidencing light and power of the holy scriptures. chap. iu. the contents. no difference among the ancients between moral virtue and evangelical grace. the vanity and novelty of our late spiritual divinity. our author's fond tittle-tattle against my scheme of religion. religion is now the same for design and substance as it was in the state of innocence. the gospel is chiefly designed as a restitution of the law of nature. our duty to god best described by gratitude. repentance, conversion, humiliation, self-denial, mortification, faith, and other duties of the gospel, proved to be moral virtues. our author after his rate of cavilling, would have quarrelled our saviour for his short account of the duty of man. his intolerable slander in charging me of confining the influence of the spirit of god to the first ages of the church. his prodigious impudence in ascribing all his own follies to the spirit of god. the extraordinary concurrence of the spirit, proved itself by some evident miracle, the ordinary works in the same manner, as if it were performed purely by the strength of our own reason. our author himself is not able to assign any real difference between grace and virtue. their mere distinguishing between them, is destructive of the practice of all real goodness. an account of the mechanical enthusiasm of their spiritual divinity. our authors own account of their spiritual godliness, is a clear instance of its folly. moral virtue is so far from being any hindrance, that 'tis the best preparative to conversion. it was not moral goodness, but immoral godliness that kept off the pharisees from closing with the terms of the gospel. the argument from the magistrates power over moral duties, to his power over religious worship, cleared and vindicated. the difference assigned for this purpose between the laws of nature and revelation, false and impertinent. their vain resolution to find out particular rules of instituted worship in the word of god, is the original of all their folly. religious worship is subject to the authority of earthly powers, for the same reason as moral virtue is. a short account of some of our authors fainter essays. §. 1. having in the former chapter given an account large enough of our author's way of confutation, by shuffling cavils and bold calumnies, i shall hereafter forbear to cloy the reader, or tyre myself with any farther regard to such trifling exceptions, as are not capable of more useful and edifying discourse; and shall only insist upon such particulars as may be considerable enough to recompense the pains of our enquiry. my design then in the next chapter, which our wise objector excepts against, was to draw a parallel between matters of religious worship and duties of morality, and to remonstrate to the world how they were equally subject to the jurisdiction of the civil magistrate. and for a more ample confirmation of this argument, i gave such an intelligible account of the nature and design of religion, as reduced all its parts and branches either to the virtues or the instruments of moral goodness. from whence i concluded, as i thought, fairly enough, that seeing princes are allowed by the avowed principles of all mankind, a sovereign power in reference to moral virtues, that are the most material duties of religion, 'tis but reasonable they should be allowed at least the same authority over the outward matters of religious worship, that are but circumstances of religion, or instruments of morality. but our author startles at the strangeness and novelty of this doctrine, that grants no essential difference between grace and virtue, and boldly charges me with falling rudely upon christianity itself, seeing the professors of it have in all ages, pag. 180. according to its avowed principles never before contradicted, made a distinction between moral virtues and evangelical graces. this affirmation he supposeth bold and sturdy enough to maintain its own ground; and if it cannot defend itself by its own confidence, it may perish for any proof or relief that he will afford it. and therefore i will not be so unmerciful as to fall foul or fiercely upon a naked and deserted assertion, but shall only challenge him to produce one ancient author that makes any difference between the nature of moral virtue and evangelical grace; evangelical grace being nothing else in their account but moral virtue, heightened by the motives of the gospel, and the assistances of the spirit; both which are external considerations to the essence of the thing itself: so that the christian institution does not introduce any new duties distinct from the eternal rules of morality, but strengthens them by new obligations, and improves them upon new principles: for though the promises of the gospel encourage us, and the aids of the spirit enable us to discharge our respective duties; yet that does not at all change their nature, because it eases their performance: so that evangelical graces are the same thing for substance with evangelical virtues, and evangelical virtues the same with moral ones; that are styled evangelical, for no other regard than because of that peculiar influence the gospel has upon the minds of men, to procure their effectual practice in their lives and conversations. and this is the peculiar end and usefulness of the christian religion, to establish real righteousness in the world; and in the primitive ages of christianity, the virtues of charity, meekness, patience and humility, were esteemed the distinguishing graces of the gospel; and then professors measured their godliness by the purity of their lives, and not of their ordinances: in those days they made no difference between the morality and the spirituality of the gospel; nor did they despise the plain, the humble, and the downright christian as a mere moralist, and a carnal gospeler. the fathers and first preachers of the christian faith, did not teach their proselytes the trick how to spirit themselves into heaven, and presume themselves into salvation by a stout belief; but to purchase their future hopes by living up to the severest and most exalted doctrines of the gospel: then the righteousness of faith was not opposed to real and inherent righteousness, but only implied a higher pitch and improvement of moral goodness: then they gave a plain and intelligible account of the mystery of godliness, and only thought it a discovery of such principles as would more effectually oblige & enable mankind to an holy life, than any other institution could effect, or philosophy pretend. nor did they prescribe long and tedious trains of conversion, nor set down nice and subtle processes of regeneration, nor fill people's heads with innumerable swarms of superstitious fears and scruples about the due degrees of godly sorrow, and the certain symptoms of a thorough humiliation; but in their days, and in their divinity to be reform, was without any more ado to be regenerate. nor did they amuse silly and well-meaning people with fond stories of unaccountable horrors and desertions of soul, but turned them over to the testimony of their own consciences, and suspended the quietness of their minds upon the sense of their own integrity, and always confined the ordinary workings of the spirit of god, to the methods of reason and discourse: they never dreamt there could be any disagreement between its impressions and the results of our own thoughts, or that it would ever bereave an upright soul of that unspeakable joy and cheerfulness that springs from the reflections of an exact conscience. these and infinite more are the tricks and frenzies of a new-fangled divinity, that i may confidently aver was scarcely heard of fifty years ago, and may as confidently presume will be forgot fifty years hence. for so it happened that some preaching men among us, whose superficial fancies were more tickled with metaphors and gay resemblances, than with sober and substantial sense, began according to the genius of their own little wit, to clothe and express the most weighty arguments in divinity with little allusions. and this taking with the rude and undiscerning multitude, others that wanted better accomplishments to recommend themselves to wiser men, studied this way of trifling, laboured to imitate their pretty phrases, and to improve their wit by more childish fancies, beating about upon all occasions for metaphors and allegories, using them to all purposes, wrapping up the clearest notions in cloudy words, casting darkness and mystery about the plainest truths, and confounding men's apprehensions of things by the wildness and uncertainty of their expressions. and then the ignorant people fancy there is mystery and secret sense in every phrase they understand not, and frame some confused and enthusiastic conceit of religion in their own fancies, to which they suit and accommodate all their after-conceptions. and by this means they have at length made such an uncouth representation of the doctrine of the gospel, as would, not many years ago, have been thought a new and distinct religion from that established by the blessed jesus. it being scarce an age since this inward, and practical, and experimental part of the mystery of godliness (as they call it) was first heard of in the christian world. and it would puzzle any man that compares the accounts given by the ancients of christianity with some of our modern descriptions of it, how it was ever possible to derive such unrelated notions and principles from the same original. and if their new account of divinity were true and orthodox, the mystery of godliness first began to be preached somewhere else, and not at jerusalem; and it has been so far from being propagated (according to our saviour's promise) over all the nations of the world, that it was scarce ever heard of out of our own. these men are the first that ever attempted to divorce grace from virtue, and to distinguish the spiritual christian from the moral man. they examine the truth and reality of men's conversion, not by the outward and visible reformation of their lives, for so far (say they) formal professors and common grace may go, but by their orderly passage through all the stages of conviction. and unless a man be able to give an account of having observed and experienced in himself all their imaginary rules and methods of regeneration, they immediately call into question his being a child of god, and affright him with sad stories of having miscarried of grace and the new-creature; & he is lost & undone for ever unless he begin all the work of conversion anew, and he must as it were re-enter into the womb, and again pass through all the scenes and workings of conviction; in which state of formation all new converts must continue their appointed time, and when the days are accomplished, they may then proceed to the next operation of the spirit, i. e. to get a longing, panting, and breathing frame of soul, upon which follows the proper season of delivery, and they may then break loose from the enclosures of the spirit of bondage, and creep out from those dark retirements, wherein the law detained them, into the light of the gospel, and the liberty of the spirit of adoption. but of this perhaps our author may understand more, before he and i part, in the mean time let us follow our present chase, and we shall have pleasant sport enough; for never did wily reynard show greater variety of shifts, windings, and doublings than this subtle disputant. §. 2. the antichristian errors of this chapter he has reduced to four general heads, the first whereof he confesseth to be a great and important truth, viz. that moral virtue consists in the observance of the laws of nature, and the dictates of right reason; and therefore he only transcribes my proof and account of the reasonableness of the assertion, pag. 195. and repeats it again in his own obscure words and flat expressions, and so immediately proceeds to the second, viz that the substance, yea, pag. 196. the whole of religion consists in moral virtues, and to prove it, he repeats that short scheme, that i have drawn up of the most material parts and branches of religion; and in answer to it, he first talks, and then objects. pag. 199. he wishes i would give him a summary of the credenda of my religion, as i have done of its agenda. and so i will, when i shall think myself obliged to write impertinently for his humour; but should i be so civil as to gratify him in this request, though perhaps the positive articles of my belief are not altogether so numerous as his systematick orthodoxes, nor my creed so bulky as his gross bodies of dutch-divinity: yet i could give him in such a large negative confession of faith as would both satisfy, and make him repent his curiosity. ibid. in the next place he tells us, the ten commandments would have done twice as well on this occasion. but 'tis no disparagement to my account of religion, if it be but half as good as the ten commandments; though i am apt to believe the decalogue was never intended for a perfect systeme of the moral law: i cannot imagine, that by thou shalt not make to thyself any graven image, is meant, thou shalt not institute symbolical ceremonies; or that by thou shalt not murder, alms and fraternal correption are enjoined; nor can i fancy, that when only one particular is expressed, twenty more are intended that may any way be reduced to it by strained and far-fetched analogies. ibid. but if we add the explication of the church-catechism (for which our author has, no doubt, a mighty fondness) it would make up a much more perfect scheme of religion, than what i have represented; i confess 'tis contrived with a great deal of wisdom and judgement; and its exposition is easy, natural, and useful, and not made out by forced and uncertain deductions; and therefore has admirably attained the end it aimed at, which is chiefly a plain and intelligible account of the main scope and intent of the decalogue, and not an entire institution of christian theology. but upon this he takes a civil and seasonable occasion to remark that he fears the very catechism itself may ere long be esteemed fanatical, though if it should meet with such ill usage, it would not be much worse treated than it was ere long when it was esteemed popish. however his fears are of no more force than his arguments, they are equally wise and reasonable, and prove nothing but his ill-nature, or something worse. and now to all this he subjoins a tedious story of a foolish and half-witted fellow, that from this opinion, that all religion consists in morality, ibid. proceeded to a full renunciation of the gospel. if either the man himself had made good this consequence, or our author for him, this tale might have been of more use than all his arguments, that is, it might have been to the purpose, but otherwise 'tis as mere tittle-tattle as when he tells us the papists make use of our pleas for government in behalf of their tyranny and usurpation, i can no more prevent some men from streining absurd conclusions from the wisest and most reasonable premises, than i can hinder others from preaching treason or blasphemy from the divine oracles. but all this is no more than skirmish, the main battle follows, and he draws up all his forces in three objections, i. e. in repeating the same objection three times: (1.) my representation of religion is suited to the state of innocence. pag. 203, 204, 205. (2.) it carries in it neither supposition nor assertion of sin. (3.) it omits some of the most important duties of the christian religion, repentance, humiliation, godly sorrow, etc. whereas its being suited to the state of innocence, it's not implying a supposition of sin, and its omitting the duty of repentance is apparently one and the same thing. for 'tis nothing but merely a supposition of sin that makes our present condition differ from the state of innocence, and that infers the necessity of repentance; and therefore in answer to this great objection in its united strength, i humbly crave leave to remonstrate, that religion for the substance and main design of it (which is the only thing i designed to represent) is the same now as it was in the state of innocence. for as then the whole duty of man consisted in the practice of all those moral virtues that arose from his natural relation to god and man, so all that is super-induced upon us since the fall, is nothing but helps and contrivances to supply our natural defects, and recover our decayed powers, and restore us to a better ability to discharge those duties we stand engaged to by the law of our nature, and the design of our creation. so that the christian institution is not for the substance of it any new religion, but only a more perfect digest of the eternal rules of nature and right reason. for it commands nothing but what is some way suitable to and perfective of rational being's, and all its duties are either instances or instruments of moral goodness; it prescribes no new rules and proportions of morality, and all its additions to the eternal and unchangeable laws of nature are but only means and instruments to discover their obligation, and improve their practice in the world. all men (i think) are agreed that the real end of religion is the happiness and perfection of mankind; and this end is obtained by living up to the dictates of reason, and according to the laws of nature, which the gospel has framed into positive precepts, because they are in themselves so essentially serviceable to the design of our creation. and therefore our saviour came not into the world to give any new precepts of moral goodness, but only to retrieve the old rules of nature from the evil customs of the world, and to reinforce their obligation by endearing our duty with better promises, and urging our obedience upon severer penalties. and as the gospel is nothing but a restitution of the religion of nature, so are all its positive commands and instituted duties either mediately or immediately subservient to that end. thus the sacraments, though they are matters of pure institution, yet are they of a subordinate usefulness, and designed only for the greater advantage and improvement of moral righteousness: for as the gospel is the restitution of the law of nature, so are these outward rites and solemnities a great security of the gospel; they are solemn engagements and stipulations of obedience to all its commands, and are appointed to express and signify our grateful sense of god's goodness in the redemption of the world; and our serious resolutions of performing the conditions of this new contract and intercourse with mankind. so that though they are duties of a prime importance in the christian religion, 'tis not because they are in themselves matters of any essential goodness, but because of that peculiar relation they have to the very being, and the whole design of its institution. forasmuch as he that established this covenant, requires of all, that are willing to own and submit to its conditions, to profess and avow their assent to it by these rites and instruments of stipulation; so that to refuse their use is interpreted the same thing as to reject the whole religion. but if the entire usefulness of these and any other instituted mysteries consists in their great subserviency to the designs of the gospel; and if the great design of the gospel consists in the restitution of the law of nature, and the advancement of all kinds of moral goodness; then does it naturally resolve itself into that short analysis i have given of religion; and whether we suppose the apostasy of mankind, or suppose it not, every thing that appertains to it will in the last issue of things prove either a part or an instrument of moral virtue. pag. 203, 204. §. 3. but we must proceed to particulars. in the first place, gratitude is a very imperfect description of natural religion, for (says he) it has respect only to god's benefits, and not to his nature, and therefore omits all those duties that are eternally necessary upon the consideration of himself, such as fear, love, trust, affiance. perhaps this word may not in its rigorous acceptation express all the distinct parts and duties of religion; yet the definition, that i immediately subjoined to explain its meaning, might abundantly have prevented this cavil, were not our author resolved to draw his saw upon words, viz. a thankful and humble temper of mind, arising from a sense of god's greatness in himself, and his goodness to us. and the truth is, i know not any one term that so fully expresses that duty and homage we owe to god, as this of gratitude: for by what other name soever we may call it, this will be its main and most fundamental ingredient; and therefore 'tis more pertinent to describe its nature by that, than by any other property that is more remote, and less material. because the divine bounty is the first reason of our obligation to divine worship, in that natural justice obliges every man to a grateful and ingenuous sense of favours and benefits; and therefore god being the sole author of our being's and our happiness, that aught without any farther regard to affect our minds with worthy resentments of his love and kindness; and this is all that which is properly expressed by the word piety, which in its genuine acceptation denotes a grateful and observant temper and behaviour towards benefactors; and for that cause it was made use of as the most proper expression of that duty that is owing from children to parents: but because god by reason of the eminency of his bounty, more peculiarly deserves our respect and observation, 'tis in a more signal and remarkable sense appropriated to him: so that gratitude is the first property and radical ingredient of religion, and all its other acts and offices are but secondary and consequential; and that veneration we give the divine majesty for the excellency of his nature and attributes, follows that gratitude we owe him for the communication of his bounty and goodness. 'tis this that brings us to a knowledge of all his other endowments; 'tis this that endears his nature to us; and from this result all those duties we owe him upon the account of his own perfections; and by that experience we have of his bounty, and by that knowledge we have of his other attributes, into which we are led by this experience, come we to be obliged to trust and affiance in him: so that gratitude expressly implies all the acts and offices of religion; and though it chiefly denotes its prime and most essential duty, yet in that it fully expresses the reason and original obligation of all other parts of religious worship. pag. 205. but in the next place he reckons up repentance, conversion, conviction of sin, humiliation, godly sorrow, as deficient graces in my scheme, and duties peculiar to the gospel. though as for repentance, what is it but an exchange of vicious customs of life, for an habitual course of virtue? i will allow it to be a new species of duty in the christian religion, when he can inform me what men repent of beside their vices, and what they reform in their repentance beside their moral iniquities: it has neither end nor object but moral virtue, and is only another word peculiarly appropriated to signify its first beginnings. and as for conversion, (the next deficient) 'tis co-incident with repentance, and he will find it no less difficult to discover any difference between them, than between grace and virtue. and as for the other remaining graces of the gospel, conviction, humiliation, godly sorrow, (and he might as well have added compunction, self-abhorrency, self-despair, and threescore words more that are frequent in their mouths) they are all but different expressions of the same thing, and are either parts or concomitant circumstances of repentance. after so crude and careless a rate does this man of words pour forth his talk. pag. 206, in the next rank comes in self-denial, a readiness to bear the cross, and mortification, as new laws of religion. but as for self-denial, 'tis nothing else than to restrain our appetites within the limits of nature, and to sacrifice our brutish pleasures to the interests of virtue. as for a readiness to bear the cross, 'tis nothing but a constant and generous loyalty to the doctrine of the gospel, and a resolution to suffer any thing rather than betray or forsake so excellent an institution; and therefore its peculiar excellency consisting in the goodness of its moral precepts, to continue faithful to that, is the same thing as to be constant and upright to the best principles of virtue. and lastly, as for mortification, 'tis an exercise of moral philosophy, and the very formality of moral virtue; and 'tis nothing else but to subdue our sensual appetites and affections to our superior faculties in the methods of reason and prudent discipline. but the main instance of defect is that dear and darling article of the religion of sinners, pag. 208. (as our author words it) faith in our lord jesus christ. and here i must confess, as they have mistaken the nature and notion of this grace, 'tis neither virtue nor virtue's friend, though in its plain and primitive account, 'tis evidently both. for i know but two acceptations of it in the scripture: (1.) either as it signifies a serious and an hearty assent to the divine authority of the doctrine of the gospel, and so it has a mighty force to engage as serious and hearty obedience to all its precepts. for what more effectual and irresistible inducements can men have to an holy life, than a firm belief of the promises and threatenings of the gospel? this then is the peculiar excellency of the christian faith, viz. it's mighty influence upon a christian life. (2.) or else as it signifies a trust and reliance upon the goodness of god, and the merits of christ for the expiation of our sins, and the acceptance of our persons upon the performance of the conditions of the new covenant. and thus it is an act of that moral worship of god, of which we have already discoursed. for though the object of it be particular, and relates to our saviour's death and passion; yet the reason of it is natural, and relates to the essential truth and goodness of god: upon his declaration and engagement, to accept the sufferings of his son as an atonement and satisfaction for the sins of the world. and therefore into this we must resolve the virtue and morality of the grace of faith, viz. it's worthy opinion of, and strong confidence in gods essential truth and goodness. and our author himself (though upon what grounds i know not) esteems it a part of the natural and moral worship of god; pag. ●68. and so (i remember) does 1 o. in that notable treatise of distinct communion with each person of the trinity distinctly. and now, i hope, pag. 8. from all these premises you are sufficiently satisfied that the supposition of sin does not bring in any new religion, but only makes new circumstances and names of old things, and requires new helps and advantages to improve our powers, and to encourage our endeavours: and thus is the law of grace nothing but the restitution of the law of nature; all the prime duties it prescribes, are but results and pursuances of our natural obligations; and all its additional institutions, are but helps and assistances to encourage and secure their performance. to conclude, had this man been a pharisee in our saviour's time, how pertly would he have taunted him for reducing the whole duty of man to two heads, love the lord with all thy heart, and love thy neighbour as thyself? what, sir! have we not six hundred and thirteen precepts in our law? are there not twelve houses of affirmative, and as many of negative commandments? and are there not large catalogues of particular laws ranged under each of these general heads? and must all, saving only two, be reversed for your pleasure? if this be all, to what purpose are our phylacteries? once (i remember) you reproved us for making them so large, now you had best quarrel us for making them at all. is this to fill up the law of moses, (as you pretend) to abridge his whole volume into a single text? i must needs say, pag. 194. that i look upon this as the rudest, most imperfect, and weakest scheme of the jewish religion that ever yet i saw; so far from comprising an induction of all particulars belonging to it, that there is nothing in it that is constitutive of the jewish religion as such at all, etc. now if we could suppose our saviour would have vouchsafed to reply to such a prating and impertinent rabbi, what other answer can we suppose he would have returned, than that all the other commandments, how numerous soever, are but so many instances of these under various denominations, arising from emergent respects and circumstances of things? and how infinite soever the particular laws of life may be, they are but prosecutions of these general laws of nature, and result from those obligations we lie under from our natural relation to god and to man; and 'tis for this reason that i define love to be the fulfilling of the whole law, because all other commands are but several instruments or expressions of this duty; and love to your neighbour signifies every thing whereby you may be useful and beneficial to mankind. pag. 208, 9, 10, 11, 12. but having in his own fancy (for there he does wondrous feats) demolished my frame of religion, he proceeds to erect a new model of his own; but whether coherent or not, concerns not my enquiry; my business is to defend my own discourse, and not to run after every bubble of his blowing. only you may observe, that whereas i designed to represent the shortest and most comprehensive scheme of the practical duties of religion that i could contrive, the greatest part of his hypothesis is made up of articles of mere belief, which i purposely omitted, as wholly impertinent to the matter and design of my enquiry; and the other materials that he has cast in, relating to practice, are so crudely and confusedly huddled together, that they rather make a heap of rubbish than any consistent fabric of things; insomuch that one single branch of his analysis comprehends all the rest, viz. an universal observance of the whole will, and all the commands of god. pag 212. it would be an admirable way, no doubt, to represent an exact anatomy of all the parts of an humane body; to lay the body itself before you, and only tell you that is it. no man doubts whether religion consists in an universal obedience to all the commands of god (and yet should i assert it, i know who would contradict it, and object its being impossible) but what these particular commands are, and what the manner of their dependence upon, and connexion to each other. some men you see cannot avoid running into absurdities, when it does them no service. §. 4. my third heresy is no less than that there is no actual concurrence of present grace enabling men to perform the duties, pag. 213. or to exercise the virtues of moral goodness. and now he returns to his old vomit of calumny and falsification; here he is upon his own dunghill, and therefore here he crows and insults, and i am catechised like any schoolboy. what, are these things so indeed? come, come, pag. 215. young man these are not things to be trifled with; you may vent your wit upon other occasions, and not make sport with sacred and serious truths, tell me then, are you in good earnest? do you think or believe that there are not now any real gracious operations of the spirit of god upon the hearts and minds of men in the world, or do you not? pag 217. if you do, sirrah, 'tis the most pernicious heresy that ever infested the church of god. pag 218. if you do not, speak plainly, and clear yourself of those tales that are told abroad of you, and some of your truantly companions, that you may not have occasion to complain that you are misrepresented. pag. 217. indeed, sir, i have nothing to plead in my own defence, but openly to declare, that as i never believed, so did i never affirm, that the assistance of the spirit was confined to the first ages of the church. i have expressly taught the contrary, and our author is able, pag. 216. and (i thank him for it) not unwilling to bear witness that 'tis a flat contradiction to some of my other assertions. and the only ground of so big an information is his impertinent way of forcing deductions; for thus he infers: pag. 214 if this be the only reason, why any thing in believers is called grace, why virtues are graces, namely, because god was pleased in the first ages of christianity miraculously to inspire its converts with all sorts of virtue, then there is no communication of grace unto any, no work of grace in and upon any in an ordinary way, through the ministry of the gospel in these latter ages. if this man can argue thus and not blush, he is a match for the boldest man living, his confidence is impregnable, and though 'tis possible he may want a good conscience, yet he can never want a brazen-wall. you know (sir) my plain design was to represent that grace and virtue were the same thing; in order to which i gave a short account how virtues came to be styled graces, viz. because in the first ages of christianity they were in a visible and miraculous manner derived purely from god's free grace and goodness; and now is it not brave concluding from hence, that because the original reason of the peculiarity of the name is not now in being, that therefore the thing itself is perished out of the world too; and because the remarkableness of those miraculous influences of heaven upon the first believers, that was the only ground that gave occasion to this new stile is ceased, that therefore the ordinary influences of the spirit are not continued to believers in all ages and periods of the church. they were then called graces or free-gifts, because they were the effects of mere favour, whereas now they are the joint issues of our own industry, and the spirit of god co-operating with our honest endeavours; and therefore they cannot now with so much propriety of speech be styled graces, because they are not matters of pure infusion, though they may be allowed the title still in some proportion, because they are still in some proportion produced by the special energy and co-operation of the holy ghost. in the same manner as those abilities bestowed upon the apostles without the concurrence of their own industry were called gifts, though now they might be more properly expressed by other names, notwithstanding that we owe them to the blessing of god upon our studies and endeavours. and what was then the gift of tongues, is now vulgarly called skill in languages; and what was then the gift of utterance, is now the art of eloquence and rhetoric. for in our days men preach not from pure infusion, but either from study, or from boldness. and i. o. overlashes according to his custom, when he tells the parliament of the commonwealth of england, etc. that when he came to print his sermon, sundry passages in it were gone beyond his recovery, intituted gods presence with a people, preached octob. 30. 1656. having had their rise from the present assistance, which god was pleased to afford in the management of the work itself. this is to fasten his own raw effusions upon the wisdom of the spirit of god, and to stamp a divine authority upon the extravagances of his own roving fancy. 'tis another horrible effect of their spiritual pride, and arises from a vain opinion of their great intimacy and familiarity with god himself. but if you look into the sermon, you will scarce find any thing of immediate and infallible inspiration, but some things false, and many ridiculous. and i dare say god never put it into his mind to tell the parliament that it was a great hindrance to the advancement and progress of the gospel in wales, pag. 37. because they were still zealous of the traditions of their fathers. by which he means their kind entertainment to the episcopal clergy, whom he immediately adorns with the honourable title of beggarly readers. but such was the prodigious impudence of these men, that when they vented any thing of a more bold and daring nature, they always vouched a strong and unaccountable impulse of the spirit of god upon their minds; and when ever they attempted any blacker and more enormous villainy, it was god that put it into their hearts, all their greater wickednesses were the peculiar issues of his spirit; when ever they had a mind to any new villainous undertaking, it was but seeking the lord in prayer, and then if they found themselves somewhat strongly inclined to pursue their own designs, that was a sufficient discovery of his will and pleasure to his secret ones. never was the spirit of god more boldly or more familiarly blasphemed than by these precious wretches, and though they have at present no such lewd practices to fasten on it, yet nothing more vulgar with them at this time than to ascribe their follies to its special direction; give them the best advice in any affair that your prudence can suggest, and they will do as the lord shall direct them. nay, this is their reply to the commands and the counsels of their superiors, and they will give obedience to their laws as shall seem good to themselves and to the holy ghost. nothing more concerns magistrates than to chastise such shameless and incorrigible enthusiasts, as the boldest and most dangerous enemies to the public peace; they cancel all the laws of government, and there is no disturbance or rebellion that they may not justify by the warrant, and pursue under the protection of the spirit of god. whether this be intemperate language i know not, but if it be, 'tis excess of truth that makes it so. but to return, though the names of things, that were proper in the apostolical age are not so proper now, that is not so much as the ghost of an argument for the cessation of the things themselves; because the reason of the name was not taken from the nature of the things, but was appropriate to some extraordinary circumstances, wherewith they were attended. so that in answer to his severe interrogatory, seeing my reputation, and something else lies at stake, i must profess, that though i believe the visible and miraculous immissions of the holy ghost to have been peculiar to the first ages of christianity, yet am i as far, and perhaps farther than himself from denying that its ordinary assistances are equally bestowed upon, and continued to all successive periods of the church. for not to mention that the conditions upon which the promise of the spirit is entailed agree equally to christians of all times and places; i know not to what purpose men should address their devotions to heaven either for grace or virtue (i care not which) when there is no possible way of effecting them but by the impressions of the spirit of god upon the spirits of men. and did i not believe its influence upon the minds of men, i would list myself among the followers of i. o. and explode the lords prayer itself as a foolish and insignificant form; seeing the greatest part of its petitions are things of that nature, as that they cannot be accomplished any other way than by the efficacy of the divine spirit upon ours. in short, the whole state of this question is plainly this: that in the days of the apostles, the divine spirit proved itself by some clear and unquestionable miracle, and that was the rational evidence of its truth and divine authority; but in our days it proceeds in an humane and a rational way, and does neither drive nor second us with unaccountable raptures and inspirations; but joins in with our understandings, and leads us forward by the rules of reason and sobriety, by threatenings and by promises, by instructing our faculties in the right perception of things, and by discovering a fuller evidence and stronger connexion of truths. so that whatever assistances the spirit of god may now afford us, they work in the same way, and after the same manner, as if all were performed by the strength of our own reason; and therefore men are not to be allowed to pretend to its guidance, unless they can prove it by some evident miracle, or at least justify it either by some clear text of scripture, or some rational argument, and then it is that which warrants the action, and not the pretence of the spirit. but as for those that talk of its immediate and unaccountable workings, and confine them not to the ordinary rules of reason, and methods of prudence, they unavoidably fall into all the mischiefs and frenzies of enthusiasm; and there is nothing so absurd, that they may not believe; or so wicked, that they may not practise by the instigation of the spirit of god. and now after all this noise and cavil, i and my adversary are fully agreed in the main matter of the quarrel, viz. that grace and virtue are the same thing: for all the difference he assigns between them, relates not to the nature of the things themselves, but to the principles from whence they issue, viz. that the same instances and duties of moral goodness, that are called virtues when they proceed from the strength and improvement of our own natural abilities, are called graces when they proceed from the assistances and impressions of the spirit of god: so that even in his account grace is nothing but infused virtue, and infused virtue is virtue still; and this is the only difference that i assigned between them; and thus my challenge, that is the cause and object of all this zeal and indignation, stands firm and unattempted, viz. that when they have set aside all manner of virtue, they would tell me what remains to be called grace, and give me any notion of it distinct from all morality. he that can do this, shall be greater than apollo and all his muses. and whereas for a farther proof that the graces or the fruits of the spirit were nothing but moral or (to speak in the homespun language of our forefathers) ghostly virtues, i alleged two evident texts of scripture to that purpose: pag. 220. with the first, he quarrels in the first place, that i have not (either through my own or the printers neglect) expressed the words in a different character, though i have quoted both chapter and verse; and if this be a fault, i must beg his pardon; and seeing it is the first he has been able to discover, i hope i may easily obtain it. in the next place, he excepts that in rendering the words, i use peaceableness in stead of peace, and cheerfulness as equivalent with joy.. the cavil is but a little one, and the fortunes of caesar and the roman empire depend not upon it; and therefore i will not trouble the reader with a critical account of the reason of my translation, 'tis enough that these words may, and often are used promiscuously, and differ no more than reason and reasoning. the other text was tit. 2.11. in which i affirm that the apostle makes the grace of god to consist in gratitude towards god, temperance towards ourselves, and justice towards our neighbours. no, says he, pag. 221; the apostle says not that grace consists in these things, but that it teaches these things. i must confess, i was not so subtle and scholastical as to distinguish between subjective grace (as he there speaks) and effective grace, because they are but different terms of logic for the same thing, and that grace that teacheth us these things consists in doing them; they differ only as the principle and effect of the same virtue, and whatever the apostle might there intend by grace, nothing can be more pat to my purpose, than that he places its whole design in teaching and promoting the practice of those moral virtues. this is obvious to every vulgar eye, but our author is forced, for want of better employment, to saw the air. §. 5. my last crime is, that i slander them with the truth, and charge them of making virtue and grace inconsistent, whilst they teach, that though a man may be exact in the duties of moral goodness, yet if he be a graceless person (i. e. void of i know not what imaginary godliness) he is but in a cleaner way to hell, and the morally righteous man is at a greater distance from grace than the profane. though were i destitute of all other proof, their very distinguishing between grace and virtue, or the spiritual and the moral duties of the gospel, is in itself directly destructive of all true and real goodness; for if they are the same thing under different appellations, then whilst this doctrine presses men to a pursuit and acquisition of excellencies of grace and spiritual holiness over and above the common virtues of morality, it engages their main industry and their biggest endeavours in the pursuit of dreams and shadows, because there is nothing beyond the bounds of moral virtue but chimeras and flying dragons, illusions of fancy, and impostures of enthusiasm: and by this means are men at length betrayed to neglect the plain and practical principles of reason and moral honesty, whilst they befool and entertain themselves with the wild frekes of humour and melancholy; and instead of guiding their actions by the common laws of nature and right reason, they are merely acted by giddy and enthusiastic whimsies, and derive all their religious motions and phantasms from the present state and constitution of their bodies, and move only upon the stage of fancy, and according as sanguine or melancholy are predominant, so the scene altars. sometimes their blood runs low, their spirits are weak and languid, melancholy reeks and vapours cloud and overwhelm their fancies, and then the scene is all tragedy, and they are immediately under spiritual desertions and troubles of conscience, their fancies are full of fears, and their mouths of moan, they spend their time with puling and whining in corners, and annoy their friends with the eternal complaints of their deadness in duties, and unprofitableness under the means of grace. but when the tide returns, and the spirits rise, and the natural heat breaks out from under the oppression of melancholy humours, boils up into the brain, and refreshes the drooping fancy with brisk and active spirits, and fills it with warm and sprightly imaginations: this they presently conceit to be the spirit of god spreading its wings over the poor disconsolate soul, and darting in its rays of spiritual peace and comfort upon the child of light sitting in darkness: and this inflames them with raptures and ecstasies of joy; their hearts overflow with content, and their mouths with exultation; they feel themselves strangely enlarged in duty, their affections warm, and expressions fluent; they admire their own freedom and eloquence of speech, and delight to be streaming forth in torrents of prayer and devotion. and withal they usually grow amorous, and vent their swelling spirits in affections of love and fondness, are passionately enamoured of the person of the lord jesus; oh! what so dear to them as their sweet redeemer? his very name melts them down into love and fondness; and they bedeck him with all the glittering gems in the revelations, and caress him with all the gilded expressions in the canticles, & embrace him with unspeakable transport and rapture. now they cannot imagine but that such great and unexpected showers of delight must be poured down from heaven, and by reason of that forlorn condition in which they stuck, till this sudden flood of joy buoyed them up out of the dregs of melancholy, their joy seems almost too big for mortality to bear, much more to give. and so looking upon them as streaming from an heavenly and divine original, they labour to swell and heighten the torrent to the utmost brink of their capacities; insomuch that they are sometimes stifled and overwhelmed with a deluge of delight and satisfaction: and 'tis usual for them, especially after high fevers, the main seasons of their spiritual refreshments (as you may observe by perusing any of their famous histories) to heat and tickle their imaginations into real trances and deliriums. 'tis sad to consider how they have abused simple and well-meaning people with these and a thousand other wild and crazy imaginations, especially those of the weaker sex, who being of strong and vehement affections, of quick and operative imaginations, and having withal some odd diseases peculiar to the structure of their bodies, have often by poring upon the mysterious, the spiritual, and the superstitious writings of these illiterate men, moped their tender fancies into perfect madness and alienation of mind. in brief, all this sort of religion floats in the blood, and rises and falls with the ebbs and tides of their humours: and all the mysteries of this new and spiritual divinity are the mere results of a natural and mechanical enthusiasm. and it were an easy task for any man, that understands the anatomy of the brain, the structure of the spleen and hypocondria, the divarications of the nerves, their twist about the veins and arteries, and the sympathy of parts, to give as certain and mechanical an account of all its fanatic frekes and frenzies, as of any vital or animal function in the body. the philosophy of a fanatic being as intelligible by the laws of mechanism, as the motion of the heart, and the circulation of the blood: and there are some treatises that give a more exact and consistent hypothesis of enthusiasm than any des cartes has given of the natural results of matter and motion. and this, i say, is that imaginary godliness, of which they suppose graceless and mere moral men to be destitute: but our author says, no, no, it is to be void of the spirit of god, of the grace of christ, pag. 226. not to be born again, not to have a new spiritual life in christ, not to be united to him, not to be engrafted in him, not to be accepted and made an heir of god, and enabled to a due spiritual evangelical performance of all duties of obedience according to the tenor of the covenant, these are the things intended. ay, i, so they are; he has nicked my full meaning, had he demanded a definition of their imaginary godliness, i could not have described it more luckily than by their rolling up and down in such ambiguous phrases, as implying something distinct from moral virtue; 'tis this fantastic jargon, i mean, this canting in general expressions of scripture without any concern for their true sense and meaning. thus the spirit of god, and the grace of christ, which he reckons up as distinct parts of godliness, signify one & the same thing, and when used as distinct from moral abilities & performances, they signify nothing. and what is it to be born again, and to have a new spiritual life in christ, but to become sincere proselytes to the gospel, to renounce all vicious customs and practices, and to give an upright and uniform obedience to all the laws of christ; and therefore if they are all but precepts of moral virtue, to be born again, and to have a new spiritual life in christ, is only to become a new moral man. but their account of this article is so wild and fantastic, that had i nothing else to make good my charge against them, that alone would be more than enough to expose the prodigious folly of their spiritual divinity. again, to be united to christ, and to be grafted in him, are still more tautologies for the same thing, though they indeed use them to express some secret and mysterious intercourse between the lord christ and a believing soul; and from hence spring the doctrines of withdrawing and desertions, of discoveries and manifestations, of spiritual closing and refreshments, and all the other innumerable tricks of melancholy and enthusiasm. to be accepted and made an heir of god, is neither grace nor virtue; but, if we must distinguish them, a reward of both; and therefore to mention this as a distinct branch of godliness, and duty of religion, signifies as much as all the rest, that is, nothing at all. as for spiritual evangelical obedience, 'tis but a canting phrase, if by it he intent any thing more than a sincere and habitual conformity to the moral precepts of the gospel: moral obedience to the gospel, and spiritual evangelical obedience, are but coincident expressions of the same thing. and lastly, as for the tenor of the covenant, as they are wont to discourse of it, it requires nothing but a bold confidence setting up with god's irrespective decrees, and trading in his absolute promises. for i. o. as well as w. b. informs us, sermon to the parl. at margaret's, feb. 28. 1649. pag. 28. that the promises comprehensive of the covenant of grace, are absolute, which as to all those that belong to that covenant, do hold out thus much of the mind of god, that they shall be certainly accomplished in and towards them all. but who are they that belong to this covenant? he answers, every poor soul that will venture to trust itself on these absosolute promises. faith in the promises, ibid. and the accomplishment of the promises, are inseparable: he that believeth shall enjoy, and this wholly shuts up the spirit from any occasion of staggering. o ye of little faith! wherefore do ye doubt? ah! lest our share be not in this promise. poor creatures, there is but one way of keeping you off from it, i. e. disputing it in yourselves by unbelief. so that the only condition he requires to vest men in a right to these absolute promises, is nothing but mere confidence. though there cannot be more horrid nonsense in the world, than that faith or boldness should be required as the condition of absolute promises; yet it were as well if they were altogether absolute, as demand no better qualification for their accomplishment than a bold face. pag. 47. and suitable to this, it follows some pages after, that there neither is nor can be any other ground or reason of doubtings but unbelief. it is not the greatness of sin, nor continuance in sin, nor backsliding into sin, that is the true cause of thy staggering, whatever thou pretendest, but solely from thy unbelief. so that though a man persevere in an habitual course of the greatest wickednesses; yet for all that, he has an undeniable claim to all the promises of the gospel, if he will at all-adventure resolve to be stomachful in his conceit, that they were particularly made and designed to himself. now if this be one (as 'tis the choicest one) of the mysteries of their new godliness, i leave it to you to judge whether it be possible to invent any doctrine more apparently destructive of an holy life, or repugnant to the tenor of the new covenant, which is plainly nor more nor less than god's stipulation of eternal life upon no other condition than of an habitual and uniform obedience to the gospel. so that all these spiritual graces, resolving themselves so easily either into duties, or helps, or hindrances of morality, he has given us an abundant proof of their canting and imaginary godliness, when he produces these instances as things of a more precious and spiritual nature than moral virtues; and yet unless they signify them, they signify nothing. §. 6. but this is not all, the main ground of my charge against them, for making an inconsistency between grace and virtue, is, that they make moral goodness the greatest let to conversion: insomuch that in their case-divinity the conversion of a morally righteous man is judged more hopeless than that of the vilest and most notorious sinners. than which (our author affirms) there is nothing more openly taught in the gospel. pag 227. than which i affirm, there is no blasphemy more grossly false and wicked. for what viler and more dishonourable representation can men make of the doctrine of the gospel, than to make virtue the greatest prejudice to its entertainment? is that institution worthy the divine contrivance, that is more befriended by debauchery and profaneness, than by sincere obedience to the best and most essential laws of goodness? nothing can be more suitable to the design and the doctrine of the gospel, than the practice of moral virtues; and is it not strange that it should be destructive of its own ends and purposes? and that men should indispose themselves for the discipline of christianity, by being adorned with its best and choicest qualifications? we never read of any man that was hindered from embracing the christian faith by any of his good qualities. cornelius' integrity in fearing god and working righteousness, was the only thing that prepared and disposed him to conversion; and the young gentleman in the gospel wanted but one moral virtue to make him an entire christian; he was upon the borders of the kingdom of heaven, one step more would have placed him in it. the only thing that kept him out, was covetousness; which though it may in some persons escape for an infirmity, was never yet ranked in the catalogue of moral virtues. the usefulness, the purity, the excellency of the doctrine of the gospel, cannot but endear it to a mind that is inclined to goodness; and to a virtuous soul, the beauty and perfection of its laws, is its strongest and most effectual obligation. it was this that ravished some of the first father's out of their state of heathenism, into the bosom of the church: their minds were prepared to embrace true goodness by the study of wisdom and philosophy; they were only at a loss where to find it; and therefore when they met with such a divine religion, and that established upon such firm and undeniable principles, 'tis scarce to be conceived with what transports of joy and zeal they run into its profession. in brief, the gospel is all that tends to the glory of god, to the perfection of humane nature, to the relief of my neighbour, and to the security and happiness of societies; and all this it enforces under the severest penalties, and endears by the noblest promises: and now let any man tell me which way 'tis possible for virtue to tempt aside from such an admirable and godlike institution. how? pag. 127. (says our author) were not the pharisees a people morally righteous? and yet were they not at a farther distance from the kingdom of god, than publicans and harlots, the vilest and most notorious sinners, because they trusted in their own righteousness? yes, yes, they were right-worthy moral men; bright and shining examples of the great virtues of pride, peevishness, malice, revenge, injustice, covetousness, rapine, cruelty and unmercifulness. these were the graces and the ornaments of those precious and holy ones. go thy way for a woeful guesser; no man living beside thyself could ever have had the ill fortune to pitch upon the scribes and pharisees for moral philosophers. and, sir, were any of them now alive, they would tell him to his teeth they are no more moralists than himself. their parts and virtues lay another way. they were a fasting and a praying people, zealous for the lord and his sabbaths: they were for the power of godliness, and spent the greatest part of their time in communion with god, and in attendance upon his ordinances: but as for the heathen virtues of morality, they scorned to trouble themselves about such low and beggarly duties, but left their practice to the common and profane herd of mankind. this was the way and spirit of the men; and the ingredients of the pharisaic leven, were false godliness, and spiritual pride. they were highly conceited of their own extraordinary attainments, and this made them turn so deaf an ear to all our saviour's doctrines and reproofs; and this was their selfrighteousness selfrighteousness as opposed to the righteousness of the gospel. they had spun to themselves a motley-religion, partly out of the corruptions of the law of moses, and partly out of their own fantastic traditions: and upon its observance, they valued themselves above other men, and challenged their acceptance with god; so that it consisted not at all in trusting in their own real, but in their own imaginary righteousness: neither is the righteousness of faith, that was set up by our saviour and his apostles in its defiance, opposed to true and inherent goodness, but to a false and imaginary godliness. and 'tis so far from being any criminal arrogance either in them, or in us to trust in our own righteousness, that (if men would suffer themselves to understand common sense) in the last issue of things we have nothing else to trust to: for we have no other ground to expect the divine acceptance, but by performing the conditions of the evangelical covenant, i. e. a sincere and hearty obedience to all the laws of the gospel; and without this to rely upon our saviour's merits, is intolerable folly and presumption. a good conscience is the only ground of a fiducial recumbency, (for that is the word) upon the merits and mercies of christ for salvation. for though our saviour died to expiate our sins, yet (god knows) he never intended to supply our duties; and 'tis certain as the gospel is true, that all the privileges of his death and sufferings are conditional, and entailed upon some peculiar qualifications in the persons to whom they belong; otherwise wicked men and infidels might lay as fair a claim to the benefit, as the holiest man living; and therefore 'tis in vain for the boldest faith to offer to lay hold upon them, unless its confidence be built upon a sincere obedience: so that our right to god's promise, and christ's satisfaction for the pardon and forgiveness of our sins, is the purchase of an holy life, and imputative righteousness is part of the reward promised to inherent righteousness. and therefore 'tis not moral goodness, and a well-grounded trust in it; but immoral godliness, and a proud presumption upon it, that keeps men off from closing with the terms and doctrines of the gospel. 'tis the conceited and mistaken professor, or the vicious and immoral saint, that is of all men the most desperate and incurable sinner. spiritual pride is the carnal confidence that hardens him into a final impenitency. he thinks himself so full of grace and godliness that he needs no virtue; he is already a child of god, and in a state of grace, and then what need of any other conversion? and this was the case of the scribes and pharisees; and for this reason were those supercilious and self-confident professors at a farther distance from the kingdom of heaven, than the publicans and harlots. these our saviour could convince of their lewdness and debauchery, from the notorious wickedness of their lives and conversations; and could by his civil and gentle reproofs soften them into a relenting and pliable temper: but as for those, their false and mistaken piety only made them more obdurate and obstinate in sin, feared their consciences against the force of his sharpest reproofs and convictions, and consigned them up to an unyielding and inflexible peevishness. §. 7. as for his animadversions upon the following pages of this chapter, they are so lamentably feeble and impertinent, that as there is not any necessity to encounter, so there is no glory to vanquish them; and withal, the reason of that part of my discourse is in itself so clearly firm and impregnable, that methinks it seems to disdain any other fence and protection against his weak and womanish talk. and therefore i had once determined to think of no other reply than barely to request of the reader, what i may justly challenge, viz. that he would compare and consider us together; and if upon an attentive perusal my arguments do not discover themselves to be vastly above the reach and the danger of his vain attempts, i will for ever scorn and renounce such faint and defenceless reasonings. for, alas! there is nothing of any consequence objected, that was not clearly foreseen, and abundantly prevented; insomuch that the discourse itself is its own best guard, and strongest defence. and 'tis not a little difficult to contrive arguments more apposite to baffle his answers, than those very reasonings against which they are levelled. 'tis not in my power to keep off the attempts of noise and clamour; 'tis enough if i can fend and secure myself against reasonable exceptions; as for impertinencies, they do but discover their own folly and weakness; and the more bold and boisterous their assault, the greater is the repulse they put upon themselves: not unlike to a rock which you have seen unconcerned in the midst of storms and tempests, it slights and regards not the fury of the waves, and only suffers them to dash in pieces their rage and themselves together. and thus has this man no where more shamefully exposed the wretchedness of his folly and presumption, than by the pertness and french-confidence of this attaque: for as i know not where his censures are more peremptory, so neither do i remember where their vanity is more transparent. but this is a vulgar stratagem of some men, to make the greatest show where they have the least strength, and to set off what they want of reason with big looks and emphatical confidence. but to be short, the strength of my present argument was couched in this method. having first shown moral duties to be the choicest & most important matters of religion, so as to reduce all its branches either to the virtues or to the instruments of morality: i proceeded in the next place, that seeing the civil magistrate was by the unanimous suffrage and a vowed principles of mankind, vested in a sovereign power over the main ends and designs of religion, to demand what imaginable reason the wit of man could assign, why matters of external worship, that cannot challenge any other use, or any higher office in the scale of religion, than of ministeries or circumstances, should be exempt from the conduct and government of the same authority. and this i farther both improved and exemplified by a particular comparison of the conveniences and inconveniences that would probably ensue upon the exercise of these respective jurisdictions; showing how in every instance the advantage was still on the side of morality, as to the plea of exemption; and that there was vastly less danger in yielding to its pretences for liberty, from the determinations of humane laws, than in granting the same measure of indulgence as to the concerns of outward religion, (most of which our author has gently slipped over, according to his prudent and laudable custom of overlooking what he cannot answer.) and then, lastly, to improve the evidence of this discourse beyond the attempts of cavil and exception, i explained as well as argued its reasonableness, by running a general parallel between the nature of divine worship, and of moral virtue: where i have more at large represented their agreement in reference to the power of the civil magistrate, and shown how the exercise of his dominion over both is extended to, and restrained within the same bounds and limits, viz. that in both there are some instances of goodness of an universal necessity, and unchangeable usefulness; and these god himself has bound upon our consciences by his own immediate laws of nature and revelation: and that there are others, whose goodness is or may be alterable according to the various accidents, changes and emergencies of humane life; and therefore the government of these he has entrusted with his deputies and lieutenants here on earth, to settle and determine as the circumstances of affairs shall require, and the dictates of their own discretion shall direct; by which means he has admirably provided both for the peaceable government of mankind, and for the inviolable security of virtue and religion in the world. this is the scope and contexture of my argument; to all which, what is replied by our author? pag. ●30. why! in the first place he represents its sum and substance in his own words, and then complains of the ambiguity of the terms; and this fills above half a page full of triumph to insult over the absurdity of his own expressions. in the next place he excepts against the validity of the consequence; pag. 231. that because the magistrate has power over the consciences of his subjects in morals, that therefore he has so also in matters of instituted worship: though this objection was so pregnantly answered to his hand: for did i not in that very paragraph demand of him or any man else to assign any tolerable reason, that should restrain the authority of the civil magistrate from meddling with one, that should not much more restrain it from meddling with both? did i not inquire, whether the right practice of moral duties were as necessary a piece of religion, as any part of outward or instituted worship in the world? whether wrong notions of the divine worship are not as destructive of the peace and setlement of commonwealths, as the most vicious and licentious debaucheries? whether the rude multitude are not more inclined to disturb government by superstition, than by licentiousness? and whether there is not vastly greater danger of the magistrates erring in matters of morality, than in forms and ceremonies of worship, in that those are the main, essential, and ultimate duties of religion; whereas these are at highest but their means and instruments, and can challenge no other place in religion than as they are subservient to the purposes of morality? what then should the reason be, that god should be so much more tender of things of mere positive institution, than of the matters of natural and essential goodness? that whilst he trusts these great and indispensable duties to the disposal and discretion of the civil power, in order to the peace and security of the commonwealth; why should he not for the same regard commit the management of the less weighty affairs of external worship to the wisdom and jurisdiction of the same authority? to all which, is it not, think you, a wise and satisfactory answer to tell us, there is, or at least there may be a difference between matters of moral and positive obligation, without attempting to assign any particular reason of it in reference to the power of the civil magistrate? for suppose it granted, that there is some difference between the nature of the things themselves, yet what is that to our purpose, unless it carries in it a special relation to the matters in controversy between us, which is not of the natures of the things themselves, but of their subjection to the royal supremacy? so that supposing the difference of their natures, the demand of the argument is, what 'tis in the nature of instituted worship that should exempt it from the jurisdiction of the civil magistrate, that is not as much or more discernible in the nature of moral virtue? and till this be assigned, the argument stands firm as the foundations of the earth, whatever other difference metaphysic wit may be able to descry between them. but our author adds in answer to one of the forementioned inquiries, pag. 232, 3, 4. viz. whether there is not more danger of the magistrates erring or mistakes about moral virtue than about rites of worship, that there is an especial and formal difference between them, in that one depends as to their being and discovery on the light of nature, which is certain and common to all; the other on pure revelation, which may be and is variously apprehended. but, §. 8.1. 'tis certain that by what way soever god has revealed his will to mankind, the revelation is sufficiently clear and evident, so that the rules of instituted worship are after their institution no less certain than the laws of nature. 'tis the wisdom and the glory of a lawgiver to express his laws with as much fullness and as little ambiguity as is possible, and therefore 'tis but an unmannerly reflection upon the divine wisdom to conceive he has not declared any of his commands with all the plainness imaginable; so that all the laws of god, by what way soever discovered, are after their discovery equally bright and evident as to the purposes of life and practice, and the precepts of the gospel are as fully declared to the consciences of men as the laws of nature. and therefore the force and sense of this answer (if it have any at all) resolves itself into that popish tenet of the darkness and obscurity of the holy scriptures: for this forsooth is the only reason why duties instituted in the gospel should be exempt from the power of the civil magistrate rather than those of a moral and natural obligation, because one is perspicuous, and the other is not: and if this be not his intention, he talks he knows not what, and that is not impossible. but grant all this, that the laws of revelation are not so discernible as the laws of nature, i understand not where the force of the reason lies, that therefore men's persuasions about them should not be equally subject to the decisions and determinations of the civil power. i should rather have concluded, and so i am sure any wise governor, that seeing the laws of nature are so bravely vouched by the common consent and suffrage of mankind; and seeing 'tis impossible men should mistake in them, pag 234. unless they will do it wilfully, let them (in god's name) please their fancies and themselves in a liberty of practice and persuasion concerning them, because here there is little or no hazard of any dangerous mistake: but seeing, ibid. as to what concerns the worship of god, they are all at variance, and seeing there is no such evidence in these things, no such common suffrage about them, as to free any absolutely from failings and mistakes, so that in respect of them, and not of the other, lies the principal danger of miscarrying. i will be sure to have a more watchful and vigilant eye to their due order and setlement; here is danger of schisms and dissensions, and men will run into parties and differences about uncertain and ambiguous things, and above all things i must be careful to prevent religious factions; these, of all others, are incomparably the most dangerous, and therefore here i will not fail to interpose the utmost of my care and power, wherever i neglect it, and if any man will be so bold and foolhardy as to affront my judgement and determination of things so uncertain with his own private and doubtful persuasions, let him take what follows. and so i have brought our disputer to my old advantage, with which he dares no more venture to close than with a cornish hug, viz. that 'tis but reasonable, and necessary too, for modest and peaceable subjects to submit in all matters, capable of doubt and uncertainty, to the determinations of their lawful superiors: and therefore if this be the case of the rules of instituted worship, as is pretended, this is so far from abridging the jurisdiction of the civil power over their disposal, that 'tis the very reason why they should be entirely subject to, and determinable by, the judgement and discretion of supreme authority. 2. there is as great a variety and uncertainty of opinion concerning the laws of nature, as there is concerning those of institution; and about them the errors of public government have always been as many, and much more pernicious; and there is scarce one instance of nature's laws that has not been some where or other reversed by national constitutions. has not our author read of laws (for he is sans doubt a man of reading, though i dare not vouch for his learning and ingenuity) that reward thiefs and pirates; that prostitute virgin brides to the public lust; that bind children to murder their decrepit parents; that permit sons to commit incest with, nay that enjoin them to marry, their own mothers? numberless are the stories of the debauched and accursed laws, of the horrible and unnatural customs of the barbarous nations in the world. so that however moral virtues may be established among mankind by the light of nature: yet, alas! that is infinitely too weak and dim to preserve men from the numberless mistakes of error and ignorance. and 'tis not a little strange to me that our author, when he has so strong an opinion of the woeful decay and utter dissolution of all that was good in humane nature by the fall of adam, should yet apprehend the dictates of so debauched and corrupted a principle to make a clearer discovery of the duty of mankind than the express revelation of god himself; especially when this was chiefly intended to supply and repair the defects of the light of nature. for in the last and real issue of things, the best discovery and the strongest obligation of all nature's laws will be found to depend on their positive institution: the gospel is the only perfect and accurate systeme of the laws of nature, it has not omitted any the least part of our duty, and what it has not enjoined, is no part either of the law of revelation, or of the law of nature. and in truth were it not for the collected body of the laws of christianity, at what a woeful loss should we be for an exact catalogue of the laws of nature? and it would be an infinitely vain attempt to find out their set and certain number; for alas that must vary, according to the unconceivable difference of men's capacities and apprehensions: persons of greater sagacity and more improved reasons would be able to perceive many moral notices of things, that would never have occurred to the thoughts of ruder and more illiterate people; and therefore our safest as well as our shortest way to discover their nature and obligation, is without any more ado to search the records of all god's revelations to mankind, upon which their greatest certainty, and by consequence their chiefest obligation depends. so little does this this man consider what he talks, when he ascribes so much evidence to the rules of moral goodness beyond the duty of institution, when institution is incomparably their greatest and most pregnant evidence. nay, what is worse than all the rest, after all this noise of instituted worship, nothing will ever be found concerned in it save only the two sacraments; they are the only matters of outward worship prescribed in the gospel; and thus has he run himself into his old praemunire, and so is brought under an obligation to assign any other particular rituals and ceremonies of external religion enjoined and determined in the word of god: a thing of which they much and often talk, but never offer to prove or specify. and the truth is, here lies the main mystery of all their impertinencies in disputes of this nature, that they are resolved to find some things in the holy scriptures, which 'tis impossible for the wit of man to discover there; and hence all this clamour concerning the particular rules of instituted worship in the word of god: though when they come to consult it, there is nothing more determined than barely the two sacraments. but this will not serve their turn, they must and will have a ius divinum for their own singular fancies and fashions; and therefore away they fling, and about they beat, and no passage of holy writ shall be left unransackt for proofs and texts to their purpose. and to this end they find out some words and expressions that may possibly seem to carry some resemblance to their prejudices and ungrounded conceits; and then by what violent and strained analogies will they force them to countenance their dreams? and by what odd and impertinent methods will they pack and huddle scriptures together, till they seem to chime to the tune of their own foolish imaginations? and you would bless yourself to consider what spiritual ways of arguing they have of late invented in opposition to common sense and natural reason, to justify their own fantastic and unwarrantable hypotheses of things; but more especially to abet this wild and unaccountable principle, that the word of god is the only adequate rule of instituted worship, which they lay down in their positive divinity, (at which they are incomparably the greatest doctors in the world) as the only unquestionable postulatum of all their discourses; yet when they are urged to make it out by rational arguments, and particular instances, they talk it, and talk it, but as for proof and evidence, they never could, nor ever will be brought to produce any other beside the proleptick certainty of the maxim itself: and therefore i will for ever bar their general pleas and pretences drawn from this principle, that the new testament is the adequate rule of instituted worship to the church of christ, unless in case of the two sacraments (though, as to them too, all the outward circumstances and postures of celebration are wholly undetermined in the scripture) till they shall specify some particular instances there directed and prescribed under a standing obligation; however it is not to be attended to in our present controversy, when it is (as i have proved) as certain and complete a rule of moral virtue, as they can suppose it to be of instituted worship: and therefore that cannot be any ground of exception, that whilst the former is subject to, the latter should be exempt from, the disposal of the civil jurisdiction. so lamentably absurd are the main and darling principles of these men, that 'tis not in the power of logic or sophistry to do them any kindness; and the more they stir in their defence, the more they expose their folly. §. 9 and now having so woefully hurt and prejudiced his own cause by this rash and indiscreet attempt upon my inference, in the next place he rushes with a fierce and angry dilemma upon my assertion, viz. that the magistrate has power over the consciences of men in reference to moral duties, which are the principal parts of religion. pag. 235. 6, 7, 8, 9 this power (says he) is either over moral virtue as virtue, and as a part of religion, or on some other account, as it relates to humane society. the former he gores through and through, and that horn of the dilemma is above two pages long, and here he has exactly observed the rules and customs of scholastic dispute, that is always prodigal of confutation where there is no need, and niggardly where there is. for when he proceeds to the latter (which he knows is the only thing i all along asserted) he freely grants all i can desire or demand; pag. 239. for moral virtues, notwithstanding their peculiar tendency unto god and religion, are appointed to be instruments and ligaments of humane society also; now the power of the magistrate, in respect of moral virtues, is in their latter use. very good! and the case is absolutely the same as to all reasons and circumstances of things in matters of religion; for though they, as well as moral virtue, chiefly relate to our future concerns, yet have they also a powerful influence upon our present welfare, and if rightly managed, are the best and most effectual instruments of public happiness; and there lies the very strength and sinew of my argument, that if magistrates are vested with so much power over moral virtues; that are the most weighty and essential parts of religion, as they shall judge it needful to the peace of societies, and the security of government, how much more reasonable is it, that they should be entrusted with the same power over matters of external worship, that are but its subordinate instruments, and outward circumstances, whenever they are serviceable to the same ends and purposes? and if there be any advantage and disparity of reason, 'tis apparently on this side; for it were an easy task to prove, that moral virtue is much more necessary to procure the divine acceptance, and religion much more likely to create public disturbance; but that is not the subject matter of our present enquiry; 'tis enough that both have in some measure a relation to these different ends, and therefore that both must, in some measure, be subject to these different powers. you see how shamefully this man is repulsed by his own attempts, and that there is nothing needful to beat back his answers, but the arguments themselves against which they are directed. and now having spent his main strength in this successless shock, 'tis piteous to observe how he faints in his following assays. he inquires whether this power of the civil magistrate over moral virtue be such as to make that virtue which was not virtue before, pag. 239. or which was vice. 'tis of the same extent with his authority over affairs of religion, as i have already stated it. but however to this impertinent enquiry he need not have sought far for a pertinent answer, it lay before his eyes when he objected it (if he did not write blindfold) viz. eccles. pol. that in matters both of moral virtue and divine worship, there are some rules of good and evil, that are of an eternal and unchangeable obligation, and these can be never prejudiced or altered by any humane power: but then there are other rules that are alterable according to the various accidents, changes, and conditions of humane life; and in things of this nature i asserted that the magistrate has power to make that a particular of the divine law, which god has not made so. pag. 240. in answer to which, he wishes i had declared myself how and wherein. so i have, viz. in all the peculiar and positive laws of nations, and gave him instances, in no less matters than of murder, theft, and incest, and produced several particular cases, in which the civil power superinduced new obligations upon the divine law. which 'tis in vain to repeat to one that winks against the light, you know where to find them if you think it needful: but is not this a bold man to challenge me with such a scornful assurance to do, what he could not but see i had already performed? some men are confident enough to put out the day in spite of the sun. he adds; the divine law is divine, ibid. and so is every particular of it, and therefore 'tis impossible for a man to make new particulars, and yet in the same breath grants my assertion as an ordinary and familiar truth, if i only intent by making a thing a particular of the divine law no more than to make the divine law require that in particular of a man, which it did not require of him before. though that man must have a wild understanding, that can mean any thing more or less. there is a vast difference (is there not?) between making a new particular of the divine law; and making the divine law require that in particular which it did not require before. but (says he) these new particulars refer only to the acting and occasion of these things in particular. ibid. 'tis no matter for that; whatever they refer to, they are new acts, and distinct duties or crimes of their respective species of virtue or vice. thus though to slay a deprehended adulteress (which is murder in england, though it be justice in spain) relates to the manner of execution, yet 'tis a new and distinct instance of that sin, made by a civil constitution, and not determined by the divine law. but then here is no more ascribed to the magistrate than is common with him to every man in the world. ibid. so much the firmer my argument; for 'tis not reasonable to deny so much power to public authority, as every private man may claim and exercise; nor just to forbid magistrates to command that to their subjects, which their subjects may lawfully command to themselves. but after all this trifling, he leaps to a fresh enquiry (for he is old excellent at ask questions, when he should be making answers) viz. if magistrates are impower'd to declare new instances of virtue and vice, he demands, whether they are new as virtues and vices, or as instances. pag. 241. this is a captious question, and though i suspect some subtle plot, yet i have not sagacity enough to find out either its design, or its sophistry, and therefore i shall only answer like a plain and cautious man, that they are new neither as instances, nor as virtues and vices, but as instances of virtue and vice; and than what becomes of this metaphysical dilemma? but however it follows, if they are new as virtues, ibid. would he could see a new practice of old virtues; but alas! this neither proves, nor confutes, and yet because 'tis said it must be answered, therefore i will only demand of him, what are the old virtues he intends, whether those that were in fashion in the days of king arthur, or those that were so in the days of king oliver? but to tell you the truth, he cares not for any of the new virtues that he has lately observed in the world, likely enough, ibid. for loyalty is one of the chiefest, but they were fine days when rebellion and sacrilege were signs of grace, and men could keep up a dear and intimate communion with god in ways of plunder and perjury; ah! those were precious and gospel-times. you see i must either trifle with this man, or altogether hold my peace, his objections are not capable of solid answers. but he concludes, if it be the instances that are new, they are but actual and occasional exercises of old duties. this is trifling too, and neither objects nor proves, however 'tis already answered, and though i have been so idly employed, as to follow him in his trifles, yet i will not in his tautologies. chap. v. the contents. our author's wretched perverting and falsifying even the contents of the chapter. another notorious forgery, that i have confined the power of conscience purely to inward thoughts. christian liberty proved to be a branch of the natural freedom of our minds. the discourses of the apostles concerning christian liberty, are only disputes against the eternal obligation of the law of moses. so that nothing can restrain it but gods own immediate and explicit commands. this proved from the practice and precepts of st. paul. our adversaries are the most guilty of any men in the world of entrenching upon our christian liberty. it is as much infringed by the common law, as by ecclesiastical canons. their notion of christian liberty cannot but be a perpetual nursery of schisms and divisions. this mystery of libertinism began first to work among the gnostics, and was checked by the apostles. a ridiculous calumny, that from my notion of christian liberty, charges me of asserting the indifferency of all religions. a farther account of the original of sacrifices: they that derive them from the law of nature, rely purely upon the testimony of some ancient grecians. the ground of their mistake, who refer them to divine institution, is their not attending to the difference between eucharistical oblations, and expiatory sacrifices. an account how the religion of sacrifices might acquire a catholic practice, without any obligation of nature, or warranty of divine institution. how abel's sacrifice might be offered in faith, without any revealed command to require it. a shameful instance of our author's way of begging the question. and another of his tergiversation. a farther account of the prodigious impertinency of their clamours against significant ceremonies. the blockishness of their excepting against them upon the score of their being sacraments. the impossibility of making this good out of scripture, and the folly of attempting its proof any other way. the vanity of distinguishing between customary and instituted symbols. our author's ridiculous state and determination of this debate. the impertinency of that difference he endeavours to assign between the signification of words and ceremonies. §. 1. now our author's invention begins to grow dry, and his fancy to run low, he is forced to fly to his old magazines for arms and ammunition, and to muster up his former cavils for fresh arguments, and his former calumnies for fresh objections, and to stuff up his following pages with mere tautologies and repetitions of his former shifts and juggle: he cannot forbear to argue from his own topics, and in his own method, but still he pretends, first, to be at a loss for my meaning, and then he perverts it, and then he confutes it. and 'tis observable how careful he is always to usher in his falsifications with complaints of my obscurity; that so if he should fail to justify them, he may at least be able to excuse them; and when he is beaten out of his cause, he may under this reserve secure his honour, and discharge the perverseness and disingenuity of his own laboured mistakes, upon the perplexity of my style, and the looseness of my expressions. the first thing he takes to task and to correction, is the contents of the chapter, (for he has now done with confuting my title-page) where i represented the scope and short design of my first paragraph in these words: mankind have a liberty of conscience over all their actions, whether moral or strictly religious, as far as it concerns their judgements, but not their practices. and here i could have been content, had he dealt no worse with me than they are wont to deal with the holy scriptures; when they interpret the chapter by the english contents, and so expound the sense of the word of god, as if that were only the gloss, but these the canon. otherwise i am sure i. o. could never have made good his deep conceit of the saints distinct communion with each person of the blessed trinity, out of the parable of the canticles. but this author has (as well he may) made more bold with me, and has mangled my single assertion into two distinct propositions, viz. that mankind has a liberty of conscience over all their actions, pag. 249. whether moral or strictly religious. and this he closes up with a full period, as if it were an entire problem of itself: and when he has thus ridiculously distorted the sense of the words, by separating them from the other half of the proposition, he gravely scorns and confutes them; and certainly 'tis no difficult task to baffle so wild an assertion. and then he adds (and does not blush neither) the remaining words, [as far as it concerns their judgements, but not their practices,] as a distinct caution to set bounds and limits to the former concession, though they are part of the same proposition, setting restraints and confinements upon itself; and then after all these little slights of perverting, he laughs (as becomes him) at the absurdity of the limitation: that is (says he) they have liberty of conscience over their actions, ibid. but not their practices; or over their practices, but not over their practices: for upon trial their actions and practices will prove to be the same. profoundly intricate! and yet had these things been expressed as he absurdly represents them, they might for all that have been honest and grammatical sense: for action, you know, is a general word, and comprehensive of all our inward and our outward acts; whereas practice is a term of a more limited signification, and peculiar only to external actions; and therefore may very well restrain the more universal import of the former word. but take the words as they lie couched together within the same period, and then the cavil is so strangely nice and subtle, that 'tis unintelligible to metaphysic wit; for so to oppose practices to the actions of the mind or judgement, is no more than to oppose them to our thoughts and opinions; which, you know, is infinitely warranted both by the propriety and the vulgar use of the word. but this man is so unreasonably curious, that though i should write indentures, and heap together an hundred different words to express the same thing, i see it would be impossible to escape his cavils, and little exceptions. sir, i am afraid you will scarce believe (to spare more intemperate language) that any man should be so wretchedly foolish and disingenuous to so little purpose; and some stories are so prodigious, that a modest man has not confidence enough to vouch their truth, though he is able to swear it; and therefore i beseech you not to trust the credibility of this report upon my bare information, but be pleased to consult pag. 249, 250. of his book, and there you may satisfy yourself of this man's wit and integrity by ocular inspection; and it is an equal argument of both, when a man shall confute books by such trifling and manifest abuses. having thus routed my contents, in the next place he rallies up an old cavil against the paragraph itself, and complains that i sometimes call conscience the mind, sometimes the understanding, pag. 251. sometimes opinion, sometimes liberty of thinking, and sometimes an imperious faculty. but this i have already answered, and so faint an objection is not worth a double confutation. from hence he drops into a ridiculous dispute about freewill, and this you cannot but imagine to be of a close concernment to that liberty of which we discourse, viz. an exemption from the commands and determinations of the civil power; so that this thick impertinency is as bad as his abuse of my contents; and yet the next passage is worse than both, viz. pag. 252. that the thing by me here asserted, is, that a man may think, judge, or conceive such or such a thing to be his duty, and yet have thereby no obligation put upon him to perform it: for conscience we are informed has nothing to do beyond the inward thoughts of men's minds. but who gives in this information? the informer (whoever he is) would in some courts of justice have jeoparded something that he would be loath to lose, for so lewd and bold a forgery. fie! fie! for shame give over this pitiful legerdemain; such open and visible falsifications serve only to expose the lewdness of his cause and his conscience; and if he delight in such wretched practices, they will in process of time betray him to more pernicious courses: for what should hinder a man that can pervert and falsify at this rate, from forging wills, and setting counterfeit hands to deeds? neither fear nor modesty can ever restrain him, that dares venture upon abuses so palpable, that it was absolutely impossible he should hope to escape the shame and rebuke of discovery. the assertion itself is one of the chiefest and most fundamental maxims of knavery; and yet 'tis boldly charged upon me without the least shadow or syllable of pretence, either to justify his accusation, or to excuse his mistake. all that i attempted in that paragraph, was to exempt all the inward acts of the minds of men from the jurisdiction of humane power, and so to confine their government to the empire of mere conscience: now from this assertion that our secret thoughts are subject to conscience only, to infer that conscience has no power but only over our secret thoughts, is a conclusion too ridiculous for our author to make either in good earnest, or through mere mistake. in the mean time, what an unhappy man am i, that when i would study to entertain my reader with useful and edifying discourse, i can meet with nothing to encounter in this author but falsehood and forgery. but having set up this calumny as the mark of his displeasure, he confutes it through and thorough with big words and ugly inferences: but whether he takes his aim aright or no, it concerns not me to inquire; when the premises are proved to be mine, then, and not till then, i will take care to avoid the conclusions. so that in the mean time we may proceed. having therefore confined the entire government and jurisdiction of our thoughts to the territory of conscience, i added that yet notwithstanding, as for all matters that come forth into outward actions, and appear in the societies of men, there is no remedy but they must be subject to the cognizance of humane laws, and come within the verge of humane power; because by these, societies subsist, and humane affairs are transacted. to this he replies with his wont modesty, pag 254. that i ought to have proved, that notwithstanding the judgement of conscience concerning any duty, by the interposition of the authority of the magistrate to the contrary, there is no obligation ensues for the performance of that duty. but, good sir, have you any patent for the monopoly of making conclusions, that you can force your neighbours to accept what beware you please? if you have not, i know no other obligation i lie under to assert so wild and so wicked a paradox, unless perhaps mere civility may engage me to say something, that you may be able to confute. otherwise i know nothing that i stand bound to prove in this place, but what the man himself is zealous enough to acknowledge, viz. that all outward actions are obnoxious to the civil power, as far as they concern the ends and interests of public tranquillity: though how far that may reach, as it was here asserted, so it was in the following chapters more largely proved and stated. however, 'tis apparent from the manifest scope, and the last issue of my whole discourse, that i stand not obliged to ascribe any more absolute power to the civil magistrate, than what is necessary to warrant that authority they exercise in prescribing those rites and ceremonies of worship, that are enjoined and practised in the church of england; that is all i contend for at present, and will, as for what concerns this dispute, be content to lop off any other branches of their jurisdiction, that relate not to this enquiry. and if this cannot be justified, unless it be granted that the commands of sovereign power must always overrule all obligations of conscience; then, i confess, i must submit to this disadvantage that this man would impose upon me: but if it can, 'tis no part either of my duty or my interest to assert any thing that is neither true in itself, or pertinent to my purpose. but whether it can or cannot, i have already sufficiently accounted for both in that treatise, and in this rejoinder. for what our author would here charge upon me as my duty, is no more than what he has heretofore charged upon me as my doctrine, viz. pag. 97. that the magistrate has power to bind the consciences of his subjects to observe what is by him appointed to be professed and observed in religion, (and nothing else are they to observe) making it their duty in conscience so to do; and the highest crime or sin to do any thing to the contrary; and whatever the precise truth in these matters be, or whatever be the apprehensions of their own consciences concerning them. the falsehood of which horrid calumny i have there baffled with so much evidence, and reproved with so much severity, that after that, it were an affront to the readers understanding to warn him against every repetition of so foul and groundless a slander, though it is the burden of every page. §. 2. in the next paragraph i proceeded to account for the nature and extent of christian liberty; where i both founded our right to it upon this natural and inward freedom of our minds, and also proved it to be sometimes coincident with it. but says our nicodemus, (for he is very thick of understanding when he pleases) how can these things be? pag. 259. when christian liberty, as i have stated it, is a privilege, whereas liberty of conscience is common unto all mankind. this liberty is necessary unto humane nature, and cannot be divested of it, and so it is not a privilege that includes a specialty in it. to this i answer, that natural liberty is a freedom of the mind and judgement from all humane laws in general, and christian liberty is the same freedom from the mosaic law in particular; which because it was bound upon the jews by virtue of a divine authority, it was a restraint not only upon their practices, but upon their minds and consciences; and prescribed to their inward thoughts and opinions, as well as their outward actions: they had no liberty to judge of their goodness, but were bound to submit their understandings to the wisdom of god. and this is the main difference between the obligation of divine and humane laws, that these reach only to our wills, and those affect our judgements, and determine our apprehensions to whatsoever they command our obedience; and we are bound to acquiesce in the counsels of god, though we understand not their reasons; and therefore whatever law comes with the impress of divine authority, it bears down all before it, and supersedes all the weak disputes and reasonings of our little understandings; and as long as we are assured it proceeds from god, that alone, without any farther enquiry, gives our minds infinite satisfaction of its wisdom and goodness. so that during the whole period of the mosaic institution, all freedom of judgement in reference to the particular commands of his law, was retrenched by the authority of god; but when their obligation was repealed, and the impress of his authority was taken off, then did the things themselves return of their own accord to the indifferency of their own natures, and so were restored to the judgement of the minds of men; and therefore though christian liberty be a privilege with a specialty, yet 'tis a branch of that liberty that is natural to mankind, in that 'tis nothing but a restauration of the mind of man from the restraints of the law of moses, to its native freedom; which though it cannot be devested by any humane power, yet it may, than was, and always is abridged by divine commands, in that they pass an equal obligation upon the judgements and the practices of men: upon which account alone all matters of the law of god are absolutely exempt both from our natural and our christian liberty; but when he is pleased to reverse his own obligation, and to leave things to their original indifferency, that is a restitution to our natural liberty, and that is our christian liberty. but for a more full and exact account of the nature and true signification of this pretence, 'tis necessary to examine how 'tis stated in the word of god; and as it is there discoursed of, it is certain it relates merely to those privileges that are granted or restored to the minds of men by the repeal and abrogation of the law of moses: the whole case whereof is plainly this. this law was established in the jewish commonwealth by divine authority; and was the only covenant and revelation of god to mankind, that was at first consigned with mighty miracles, and ratified to after-ages with their great sacrament of circumcision, upon which accounts the jews concluded it to be of an eternal and immutable obligation. but god sends his son into the world to take down this whole frame and fabric of the mosaic religion, and in its stead to set up a better and more manly institution of things, to repeal the laws and obligations of the old covenant, and to govern his church by new measures of duty and new conditions of obedience. and this is properly the privilege of christian liberty, and it comprehends all the peculiar advantages and exemptions granted to mankind by virtue of the christian institution. it is a deliverance from the dominion of sin, from the curse of the law, from the severity of a covenant of works, and from the yoke of ceremonial observances. these are the matters of our christian liberty, and those doctrines that tend to bring us under any of these old fetters and hard services are attempts of jewish bondage. and this was the plain state of the question in the apostolical age, and the whole dispute of christian liberty was only a controversy between the jews and the christians concerning the repeal or the perpetuity of moses law. and all the discourses we meet with in the writings of the apostles upon this subject relate purely to the abrogation of the mosaic institution. and all their exhortations to the primitive christians to stand stiffly upon their privileges, were to persuade them not to suffer themselves to be abused into a slavish opinion of the eternity and unalterable obligation of the law of moses, but to rest assured that the gospel had rescinded all the positive and ceremonial commands of the jews, that the things themselves were returned to their native indifferency, and by consequence that they were at liberty from their observance, any former law or precept to the contrary notwithstanding. well then, the precise notion of christian liberty consists in the rescue of the consciences of men from the divine imposition of the yoke of moses, and therefore 'tis not to be pretended against any restraints whatsoever, that do not challenge an absolute and indispensable obligation over the consciences of men by virtue of a divine authority. so that subjects are not to be permitted to put in this pretence in bar of any impositions of our lawful superiors, because it relates purely to our immediate duty and intercourse with god, and is not in the least concerned in our engagements and relations to men. and upon this account is it that st. paul so smartly encourageth the galatians to stand fast in the liberty, wherewith christ hath made them free, and not to be entangled again with the yoke of bondage, because if they are circumcised christ shall profit them nothing, in that they are debtors to keep the whole law. for if the seal of circumcision be still in force, then is not the law disannulled, of which this is the sacrament and the sanction, but if the law be not disannulled, then are you still under an obligation to the same obedience as was required by the conditions of the old covenant, and so by consequence forfeit all the favours and benefits of the new. but setting aside the necessity of circumcision by virtue of a divine command, than its use was no entrenchment upon christian liberty; and therefore though this blessed apostle declaimed with so much zeal and vehemence against its use and continuance out of respect to the obligatory power of the law of moses, yet upon other grounds, and for different purposes, he was content to condescend to its practice and observation, as is notorious in the circumcision of timothy. so that (you see) 'tis apparent his christian liberty consisted not in an indispensable forbearance of circumcision (for so to have used it in any case had been a manifest forfeiture of his privilege and violation of his duty) but only in not doing it with an opinion of its necessity by reason of the perpetual obligation of the law of moses. this is the plain and the only account of christian liberty in the holy scriptures, and therefore these men do but prate their own obstinate presumptions, whilst they persist in this vulgar clamour, till they can either prove that we pretend to any divine authority for our ecclesiastical institutions, or that christian liberty is of any concernment in any cases that pretend not to divine authority. these things if they will undertake to make good, they may talk to our purpose, but otherwise they will but talk to their own, and that is to none at all. §. 3. and this discovers the impertinency of our authors next demand, what i mean by the restauration of the mind to its natural privilege: pag. 261. if the privilege of the mind in its condition of natural purity, it is false: if any privilege of the mind in its corrupt condition, it is no less untrue. why so? because in things of this nature the mind is in bondage, and not capable of liberty. i cannot divine what things he here intends, nor of what concernment the purity and corruption of humane nature is to this enquiry, the only liberty i treated of was an exemption from the obligatory power of the ceremonial institutions of moses, so that the restauration of the mind to its natural privilege can signify nothing else than its being rescued from the yoke & bondage of positive & arbitrary laws, to be governed by the laws and dictates of its own nature. and what relation this has to our natural purity or corruption is passed my skill to understand. and so is the reason he subjoins to confirm his assertion no better than a grave and profound piece of nonsense. for it is a thing ridiculous to confound the mere natural liberty of our wills, ibid. which is an affection inseparable from that faculty with a moral or spiritual liberty of mind relating unto god and his worship. it is so, but what in the name of sphinx is this to our enquiry, what has liberty from the law of moses to do with liberty of will? 'tis perfect riddle to me where either the force or the sense of the argument lies: but freewill is an old word of contention, and the bare mention of it is enough to amuse his unlearned readers, and to make them suspect some depth of learning or reason, that their shallow capacities are not able to fathom. and if the argument have any subtlety, there it lies. but his bravest and most serviceable artifice is still behind, when an argument is neither to be withstood nor avoided, he can slur its force and evidence by perverting it, and entertain his reader by imposing a false sense upon it, when he is not able to confute the true one. thus he tells us, that this whole paragraph runs upon no small mistake, namely, pag. 262. that the yoke of mosaical institutions consisted in their imposition on the minds and judgements of men, with an opinion of the antecedent necessity of them. this indeed is somewhat strange divinity, and not altogether uncapable of confutation, especially as to my particular case, it being such a square contradiction to that account i have given of the matters of the ceremonial law, viz. that they were things indifferent in their own natures; that the necessity of their use and exercise was superinduced upon them purely by virtue of a divine positive command; that this being rescinded, their necessity immediately ceased, and they return to the state of their original indifferency, to be governed as circumstances should require and prudence direct; so that it is evident i have denied the matters of the ceremonial law to have been at all necessary to be observed from their own intrinsic nature antecedent to their positive institution, and therefore if any where else i have affirmed it, i have no way to avoid the charge of speaking daggers and contradictions. but (says he) that this is my sense intended is evident from the conclusion of this paragraph, ibid. viz. that whatever, and in what matters soever our superiors impose upon us, it is no entrenchment upon our christian liberty, provided it be not imposed with an opinion of the antecedent necessity of the thing itself. now from hence how natural is it to conclude, that the yoke of the mosaical institutions consisted in their imposition on the minds of men, with an opinion of their necessity antecedent to that imposition! when heaven and earth stand not at a wider distance than these propositions: no train of consequences, nothing but jacob's ladder (unless our author be able to fly) can ever convey him from one to the other. and if he shall undertake to make good the logic of his conclusion, i will cross myself at his confidence; but if he shall perform it, i will fall down and worship: for to me it would be prodigy and miracle, and that man need not, in my opinion, despair of removing mountains, who thinks he can prove that, because humane authority cannot impair the liberty of our minds, but by pretence of an antecedent obligation to its commands; that therefore when god himself abridges it, he must do it by virtue of some authoritative obligation antecedent to his own impositions, when his authority is the first fountain and original reason of all obligations, and therefore 'tis an infinite contradiction to the nature of things to talk of any authority antecedent or superior to the divine law. and this is the evident reason of my conclusion, that the nature of our internal liberty relates to the power of god over the minds of men, and so is in its self uncapable of being restrained or imposed upon by any other jurisdiction; and therefore whatever restraints our superiors may lay upon our practices, provided they do not bind us with an opinion of some necessity stamped upon the things themselves antecedent to their commands, that is no abatement to the inward liberty of our minds, which nothing can abridge but the authority of god himself; and therefore unless they pretend an antecedent and authoritative obligation tied upon the consciences of men by his own immediate and explicit command, whatever they may bind upon them by virtue of their own authority, though it may be unblamable upon other accounts, yet it cannot be charged of offering violence to the rights of christian liberty. so that though their laws cannot of themselves restrain it, unless by pretence of an antecedent necessity imprinted upon the things themselves by virtue of a divine command; yet the laws of god may, because they are the formal reason of their restraint, and the ground of their necessity. but he adds, pag. 264. that when st. peter disputes against the mosaic rites, and calls them a yoke which neither they nor their fathers-were able to bear; and st. paul chargeth believers to stand fast in the liberty wherewith christ hath made them free; they respect only men's practice, with regard unto an authoritative obligation thereunto, which they pleaded to be now expired and removed. whereby however he intends to shuffle with his vulgar reader, he apparently grants all that is desired or demanded, viz. that all the apostolical discourses upon this subject, respect not the bare practice of these things, but their practice upon the account of the authoritative obligation of the law of moses, (for nothing less was pretended by the jews) so that the only thing that made them prejudicial to the claims of christian liberty, was an opinion of their necessity by virtue of that antecedent obligation; which being repealed, their practice, upon other grounds and reasons, was not thought to infringe or check with the rights and privileges of the gospel. and for this we have the unquestionable warrant of their own examples, when they not only submitted to restraints in the exercise of their own liberty, but prescribed it in some cases and circumstances as a duty to other christians, 1 cor. 8. ●▪ that they would take heed lest their liberty should become a stumblingblock to them that are weak. though they were entirely free from any obligation tied upon them by virtue of the law of moses, yet did st. paul se● fresh restraints upon them by virtue of his apostolical authority. and now were it not strange that men should be bound to yield more to the humour of a peevish jew, than to the commands of a christian magistrate? for the first ground and reason of his imposing their obligation, was then nothing but mere prudence and condescension to their folly: but in our case, 'tis matter of duty and obedience. for in the days of the apostles, nothing less was pleaded by the jewish christians for the necessity of their ceremonies, than the unchangeable obligation of the law of moses; and yet for the sake of peace, they would submit so far to their strong prejudices, as outwardly to comply with their weak demands, though it were with some hazard of forfeiting their christian liberty: for it was not impossible but that their compliance might have confirmed the jews in their obstinacy, and have drawn in the gentiles to an imitation of their example, and so have begun a prescription for the necessary observance of the law of moses to all ages of the church of christ. whereas in our case the danger of that pretence is as much abolished as circumcision itself; it being a granted and established truth among all the dissenting parties of christendom, (unless we may except the judaising sabbatarians, who do somewhat more than squint toward moses) that the ceremonial law is for ever rescinded to all intents and purposes; and no magistrate pretends a power of imposing things indifferent by virtue of a divine and perpetual obligation, but only by force of a transient and temporary institution of humane authority for the ends of discipline, the uniformity of worship, and the security of government. §. 4. and therefore our authors next inference is either a woeful impertinence to our present enquiry, or a bold affront and calumny to the public declarations of our church, when he concludes, pag 264▪ that if christian liberty be of force enough to free us from the necessary practice of indifferent things instituted by god, it is at least of equal efficacy to exempt us from the necessary practice of things imposed on us in the worship of god by men. this implies as if the church of england imposed the same necessity upon its own determinations, as upon the positive laws of god, notwithstanding it so industriously disclaims all divine impositions, either for legal or evangelical ceremonies; and so expressly declares all its own institutions to bind only with an humane, temporary, and changeable obligation. whereas they (for so it still happens, that their dearest pretences are always the strongest and most unhappy objections against themselves) would needs obtrude upon us their own fancies and singular conceits, as our saviour's own commands and institutions; and call their separation from the church of england, their departure from antichristian idolatries and whoredoms, to the chastity of worship, and the purity of gospel-ordinances. and (as we are informed by i. o.) they who hold communion with christ, book of communion, p. 171. are careful to admit and practise nothing in the worship of god, unless it comes in his name, and with thus saith the lord jesus— you know how many in this nation in the days not long since passed, yea, how many thousands left their native soils, and went into a vast and howling wilderness, (because they made it so) in the utmost parts of the world, to keep their souls undefiled and chaste to their dear lord jesus, as to this of his worship and institutions. so that they scorn to pretend any less authority than our saviour's own express warrant for any thing wherein they differ and divide from the church of england. and this is a ruder and more insolent affront to our christian liberty, than the most confident jew could ever have been guilty of: for though he might endeavour to enslave us to his own customs and prejudices, yet they are such as once bore the impression of divine authority; whereas these men would stamp the authority of god upon their own dreams and fantastic conceits, and vouch their humour and their ignorance with a thus saith the lord jesus; and so would boar the ears and enslave the understandings of all christendom to their own folly and confidence. and certainly there never were greater tyrants and usurpers in the church of christ than these exact and curious judges of divine rights: with what confidence will they prescribe truth to mankind, and adopt their own uncertain problems and scholastic fooleries into the fundamentals of religion? with what assurance of authority will they restrain all men's faith to the standard of their own apprehensions? how briskly will they warrant this opinion, and explode that? and how dogmatically will they assign the precise bounds of orthodoxy? all their sentiments are the decrees of the medes and persians; all their rules of worship are obligatory as apostolical canons; all their opinions are oracles; and had they sat in the infallible chairs of rome or geneva, they could not have been more confident and peremptory in their determinations. but thus is the church of england requited for her modesty; and because she does not abuse the consciences of men to a rigid observance of her institutions, under a false pretence of divine authority, the gentle and moderate exercise of her own lawful jurisdiction, is by these men branded with tyranny and usurpation, whilst themselves in the mean while are not ashamed to obtrude their own fancies and little conceits upon their credulous proselytes with the counterfeit seal of heaven; and enslave their consciences to their own imperious dictates, by exhibiting forged commissions from god himself; and then the people dare not murmur against their unreasonable impositions, for that reverence they bear to that authority, which (as they are told) is imprinted on them. but this has ever been the subtlety of these men, as it is of all malefactors, to rail most at their own crimes, and to avoid the suspicion of their own gild, by deriving its imputation upon some of their innocent neighbours. but once more to return to our author's inference. if then he means that the church of england imposes her ceremonial institutions with an opinion of their antecedent necessity, (and so it is apparent he is willing enough to be understood) 'tis a bold calumny: if he means that they become consequentially necessary only by virtue of their institution, 'tis a woeful impertinence, and is no other infringement of our liberty than what is inseparable from the nature of humane laws. and so all the civil laws of commonwealths are apparently as chargeable with this sort of usurpation, as any of our ecclesiastical constitutions. and therefore, by the way, i would willingly be satisfied, that seeing the judicial as well as the ceremonial law of moses was annulled and abrogated by the establishment of the christian faith; and seeing by consequence it was part of their christian liberty to be freed from its obligatory power; what imaginable reason can be assigned, why authority should more invade the rights of our christian liberty by establishing new ecclesiastical canons, than by enacting new civil constitutions? or why the common law of england should not as much infringe that part of our gospel-priviledges, whereby we are exempt from the judicial law, as the canons and determinations of the church do that other part, whereby we are rescued from the ceremonial? to this enquiry they will never be able to return any tolerable answer, but by shifting the matter of their plea, and then they forsake their hold of christian liberty, and shelter themselves in a new pretence. perhaps they may plead that god has reserved the appointment of the way, manner, and circumstances of his own worship to his own immediate jurisdiction, but has vested civil magistrates with a power to govern the secular affairs of commonwealths. but then this is an open flight from our present engagement, and now the thing pleaded in behalf of their disobedience, is not their christian liberty or their exemption from the law of moses, but their christian duty, or their subjection to the law of christ. though when this refuge comes to be attaqued, it will be found more weak and defenceless than this that is already demolished; and you may well expect wise work, when they are urged to produce testimonies of scripture that restrain the civil magistrate from enacting ecclesiastical laws and constitutions for the due government and performance of external worship. here their pleas are so horridly vain and ridiculous, that in comparison of them, the celebrated text of the romanists super hanc petram, in behalf of the infallibility of the papal chair, is (as impertinent as it is) reason and demonstration. but after this i suppose we may have occasion to inquire elsewhere: in the mean time 'tis enough that we have beaten down this paper fort of christian liberty; in which if mwn may be allowed to take sanctuary for their disobedience to the church's constitutions, it will not only be a plausible refuge for all schismatics and malcontents, but an eternal annoyance to the church's peace, and a perpetual nursery of incurable schisms and divisions. for all parts of outward worship, save only the two sacraments, being left undetermined in the word of god; and some particular determinations being absolutely necessary to prevent disorder and confusion; and these being not capable of any force or obligatory power, and by consequence, of any usefulness to their proper end, but by virtue of the authority of the civil magistrate: it follows avoidable, that if laying restraints and injunctions upon men in the outward exercise of public worship be a violation of their christian liberty, that 'tis absolutely impossible to make any effectual provisions for the orderly and regular performance of the worship of god, or to provide any security against eternal tumults and seditions in the church of god: and whenever fanatic spirits have a mind to be peevish and humoursom, they have here a sacred and inviolable refuge to protect themselves and their rebellions. and therefore 'tis observable, that in the late ruptures of christendom, this pretence was not pleaded by any sects of men to this purpose, but the english puritans, and the germane anabaptists, two sorts of people that never knew what they would have beyond the subversion of the present setlement of things. in which as they have been opposed by all other parties, so by none with greater vehemence and warmer zeal than the school of calvin; who quickly perceived by clear and sad experience, that there was no possibility of settling churches in the world, but by setting bounds and restraints by particular laws and determinations to giddy and enthusiastic tempers. insomuch that the church of rome itself has scarce been more severe in making or executing penal laws against seditious libertines than the church of geneva. §. 5. neither is it altogether unworthy remark, that this mystery of libertinism began to work in the days of the apostles among the gnostick fanatics. who forsooth, under colour of their christian liberty, must needs be free from all laws and government; they knew no superior but the lord christ, to him they owed allegiance and subjection, and to him, and to him alone they would pay it. but as for the secular powers of the world, they were (as they behaved themselves) mere encroachments upon the liberties of his church. this pretence they made their warrant for disobedience, and their cover for sedition, and whenever the freak possessed them to revile or resist the present government, still the word was christian liberty. what, shall we suffer these heathen princes to usurp upon our spiritual privileges? shall we tamely part with that that was purchased by our saviour's blood? we have not so mean an opinion of his favours, as to throw them up at so cheap a rate; no, we will maintain the price and purchase of his blood with the last drop of our own: we will sacrifice our lives and fortunes to the cause of god, and the service of his church, and not betray its dearest privileges to the tyranny of infidels and painims by our own dull and sheepish cowardice. now was not this peaceable doctrine (think you) likely enough to make wild work in the roman empire, and had it prevailed in the world, what an inundation of mischiefs and confusions would it have let in upon mankind? it must have born down all settled governments, and buried all states and commonwealths in anarchy and eternal war. and therefore 'tis observable with what caution and industry the apostles bestirred themselves to make up this dangerous breach, by setting bounds and measures to this wild pretence; and whenever they had occasion to discourse more largely concerning the doctrine of christian liberty, they never forget (as may be observed in all their writings) to state and confine it within its proper limits; but as they exhorted them to maintain it in opposition to the peevishness of the jews, so they always charged them not to abuse it in defiance to the rules of government, and the power of lawful superiors. no, this whole affair is transacted between god and your own consciences; he has been pleased to take off those fetters and obligations that were tied upon you by the law of moses, that is your liberty, and be content with that. extend it not to the prejudice of your governors, 'tis purely spiritual, and has no relation to your secular regards, or to the power of princes: and how ill soever they may behave themselves in the management of their authority, it may be an encroachment upon your civil, but not upon your christian liberty. if indeed the proconsul of judea should publish an edict that all christians shall submit to circumcision out of regard to the eternal obligation of the law of moses, that were a manifest violence to the freedom of the gospel, but whatever else he may command you, so he pretend not any warrant of immediate divine authority, whatever abuse it may be of his own power, it is no abuse of your liberty. and therefore be advised to submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the lords sake, for so is the will of god, 1 pet. 2.13, ●5. that with well-doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men. that you may not give occasion to authority to look upon your religion as troublesome to government, and that you may clear its reputation from those unjust aspersions that have been cast upon it by the folly and hypocrisy of some pretenders: so that your governors observing your peaceable deportment, they may be disabused of their vulgar mistakes, and hereafter learn to distinguish true christians from jews and heretics. you are free indeed, but use not your liberty for a cloak of maliciousness: do not shelter your peevishness and disobedience to lawful superiors, under colour of your christian liberty; that is but a knavish trick, and a palpable piece of craft, because this thing neither has nor can have any relation to matters of that nature. 'tis a liberty of spirit between god and your own souls; and you may secure this benefit of his favour by the testimony of your own consciences: but turn not his indulgence into wantonness, by being peevish and froward to the will of your superiors under its pretence and protection. and yet so strangely wayward and humorous are some men, that nothing can appease their consciences in this demand, but a full liberty of contradiction; and they scarce think it worth the having or the contending for, unless it may warrant and abet their opposition to authority; and therefore whatever that imposes upon their practice, though but an harmless and indifferent ceremony, 'tis intolerable as the yoke of moses, and grievous as an egyptian bondage: they groan and die under the burden of a straw; and a feather laid cross their wills, breaks their bones and their hearts, and lies like a mountain of lead upon their consciences; and what horrible skreams and out-cries do we hear of antichristian tyranny and persecution? like some creatures (you may wots of) that if they may not have their will in every trifle, will roar and bellow like a stuck ox. men must be broke of this stomachful spirit, as children are of their sullenness, by fasting and correction; and if this truantly humour be not lashed and kept under with a severe hand, there will be no keeping the multitude in order and under discipline: for what pride so delicious to illnatured and illbred people, as to thwart and affront the will of superiors? or what insolence so intolerable, as that that bears up upon mistakes of conscience and religion? and therefore nothing more imports government, than to rid itself of the annoyance of this precise and sanctified peevishness; especially when 'tis so notorious from the experience of all ages, that those enthusiasts that are so squeamish as to keck at indifferent things, have always had ostrich consciences for the boldest treasons and villainies. and now our author, for want of new invention, falls to chewing the cud upon an old slander: for from my account of christian liberty, i concluded that all internal acts of the mind of man, are exempt from the empire of humane laws, that the substance of religious worship is transacted by them, and that its exterior significations are not absolutely necessary to its performance; and therefore whatever restraints the civil magistrate might lay upon their outward actions in reference to divine worship, yet notwithstanding that, they might perform all that is necessary to the discharge and the acceptance of the duty. how! (says our author) this is an open door to atheism: pag. 266. (for he is still knocking at that upon every slight occasion:) for who would not think this to be his intention, let men keep their minds and inward thoughts and apprehensions right for god, and then they may practise outwardly in religion what they please; one thing one day, another another; be papists and protestants, arians and homousians, yea, mahometans and christians? i see this man is resolved never to lose any advantage for want of confidence; and if ill-natured inferences can do his business, who can withstand the power of his logic? who would not think this to be my intention? say you. i say, who would, unless one that thinks himself able to face me out of my plain meaning, and bear me down out of countenance and common sense? does the difference between papists and protestants, arians and homousians, mahometans and christians, consist in rites and ceremonies of external worship? who then, beside your confidence, from the indifferency of the outward forms and fashions of worship, would conclude the indifferency of all religions? their real differences arise from something else, and lie not in rites and ceremonies, but in principles of faith, and rules of life. bate these, and we will never quarrel turks or papists for any of their outward signs and expressions of divine worship, according to the laws and customs of their own country; provided they are not faulty upon one or both of the forementioned accounts, that they tend to debauch men either in their practices or their conceptions of the deity; and therefore to apply what was affirmed only of ceremonies of worship, to articles of belief, is such a way of dealing with arguments as only becomes our author's logic and ingenuity. but upon this occasion let me mind him, that public and visible worship is no such necessary and indispensable duty, but that it may in some circumstances be lawfully omitted: for suppose this man were in the dominions of the grand signior, he would not, i presume, think himself absolutely obliged in conscience to set up open meetings and conventicles, without leave of the government; but would for the security of his life be content to enjoy his religion to himself, without climbing up to the top of a mosque to proclaim their prophet a lewd juggler, unless he were actually required to renounce the christian faith, and turn apostate to the mahometan imposture: and therefore i would willingly know why the same liberty will not satisfy them here, as to the obligations of conscience, that they would be content with there: there is no other reason assignable than that they will do more for fear than for obedience; and this is undeniable evidence, that 'tis something else, and not conscience, (as is pretended) that lies at the bottom of all their present schisms and disturbances. §. 6. but now having given this brief account of the use of external worship, from the nature and properties of the thing itself; i proceeded, for a farther confirmation of my former assertions, to an historical report, to show that god had in all ages of the world left its management to the discretion of men, unless when to determine some particular forms happened to be useful to some other purposes. where, in the first place, i instanced in the religion of the old world, and attempted to prove that sacrifices, which were the most ancient, if not the only expressions of divine worship, were purely of humane institution. now the first murmur our author raises against this, is, pag 271. that i should for the most part set off my assertions at so high a rate, and yet found them not only upon uncertain principles, but upon such paradoxes as are generally decried by learned men; such is this of the original of sacrifices here insisted on. certainly it would be present death for this man to speak to the purpose; he avoids and dreads all pertinency, as he would poison or ratsbane: for where do i lay any such mighty stress upon this assertion? in what great strains do i urge the necessity of its admittance? to what purpose then does he upon this occasion upbraid me with the briskness and vehemence of any expressions, that were spoken upon other subjects, and to other purposes? i have indeed loaded some other principles with their proper mischiefs and inconveniences: i have shown that the pleas of the nonconformists from the natural right of mankind, from the obligations of scandal, and from the pretences of a tender and unsatisfied conscience, for exemption from the commands of lawful authority, tend to a direct and inevitable dissolution of all governments, and all societies. there the weightiness of the matter and the argument required some suitable eagerness of expression; but why should i be minded of those warm passages in this place? the matter of this enquiry is neither of that evidence nor that importance as to need or deserve any grandeur and vehemence of stile. 'tis indeed pertinent, but not at all necessary to the drift of my discourse: for without its assistance i am able to prove the power of christian magistrates over the outward concerns of religious worship in christian commonwealths. neither do i at all bottom my discourse upon its admission; but only use it as an accessional reflection to my main argument, and cast it in as a particular instance to give check to the adversaries confidence; thereby to show 'tis not absolutely necessary (as is pretended) to the acceptableness of religious worship, that it should be warranted by divine institution; when 'tis so contrary to experience, (for any thing that appears upon record) as to the religion of the old world. but seeing 'tis a pretty subject, let us a little farther examine, whether the assertion be not evident enough to bear all the weight i have laid upon it. many learned men have indeed stretched their parts to make out wise accounts of the nature and original of sacrifices; and because they were in the first ages of the world the most remarkable, perhaps the only visible signs and expressions of religious worship, nothing will satisfy their curiosity, unless they may derive them either from the obligation of the law of nature, or some express institution of god himself. but when we come to weigh the grounds and principles of their discourse, we find so little proof, and so much confusion, as will at least tempt any impartial enquirer to suspect the probable truth and reasonableness of both their different accounts. those who would fetch their obligation from natural light, seem at last to resolve the reason of their assertion into the naked testimonies and opinions of some of the ancient greeks, who were willing enough to deduce the authority of their practice from so creditable a fountain, in favour of the rites and customs of their own country, they being almost the only symbols of divine worship among the grecians: and all the outward appearances of religion among them, consisting in the solemnities of their public and private sacrifices, their writers (as all learned men are partial enough for the honour of their native soil) thought themselves concerned to persuade the world that their national usages were tied upon mankind upon the same natural reason, and with the same natural necessity as religion itself. and therefore as they were wont to derive the municipal ceremonies of their own city from some divine institution; for so plato in his timaeus pleads in the person of an orthodox athenian, that the particular rites and customs of athens were first delivered by the offspring of the gods, and from them conveyed down to that present age by an uninterrupted and unquestionable tradition: so for the same reason did they refer the more catholic customs of the whole nation, to the obligations of nature; especially if confirmed by the concurrent suffrage of their asiatic neighbours; for that to them was of the same import with the consent of mankind. now some critical men that rather read than use authors, if they happened to meet with any passage in any of the grecian writers to this purpose, because it served for an ostentation of their reading, they immediately subscribed to their opinion out of respect to their bare authority; and if they could allege an assertion for it out of strabo, plutarch, and aristotle, (whom it was once a brave thing to quote) they passed it without any more ado for sufficient proof and demonstration; though in matters of such remote antiquity, their naked testimonies (unless they had withal given us some higher proofs and rational motives to engage our assent) are of little more validity than the conjectures and opinions of modern writers. and therefore when our author alleges the school-doctors for this persuasion, pag. 272. he falls as much short of its first original as t.w. did when he quoted peter martyr for the story of the judges in hell. §. 7. but now they on the other side, who deduce the religion of sacrifices from divine institution, prove it thus: because that the light of nature (1.) could not dictate that god would accept the destruction of other creatures as the sign and token of man's obedience, nor (2.) that the blood of beasts should expiate the sins of men, or appease the wrath of god; for the pardon and remission of sin being matter of mere grace and arbitrary favour, it must of necessity depend upon divine appointment to determine by what means we may procure it, and upon what conditions he will grant it. but the first of these reasons proceeds upon a supposition that all outward significations of religious worship must needs be warranted either by the law of nature, or some positive law of god, which being a direct contradiction to my principle, i shall desire to see it better proved before i shall be willing to yield it for a granted truth: especially when in my conception of things, the formal nature of divine worship consists not so properly in acts of obedience, as in offices of love and gratitude. the former indeed suppose an express and positive institution, and 'tis their conformity to the command that gives them the formality of their goodness; but i cannot understand why the latter may not be warrantable in themselves, and acceptable to god without the express authority of his own appointment, provided they are suitable to the nature of the thing which they signify, and worthy of the person to whom they are addressed. and it cannot be supposed, either from the reason of the thing itself, or the nature of the divine goodness, that god should be offended with his creatures for making him any decent returns of the grateful resentments of their minds for the obligations of his infinite love and bounty. and therefore 'tis not necessary, from the nature of religious worship itself, that it should be demanded as matter of positive duty and obligation, and if it be required for any other regard, then have i gained a fresh advantage of my adversary, and it is incumbent upon him, not only to produce a positive command for the institution of eucharistical sacrifices, but an express prohibition to the patriarches to perform divine worship by any other outward expressions of honour, than what god himself had particularly determined and appointed. this perhaps our author may out of the abundance of his reading attempt to prove from the fond traditions of the jews and easterlings, (by which he may prove all the fables in the world) but i am secure he shall never be able to discover the least shadow of an argument in the sacred records to countenance so vain a fancy. nay, so far is the duty of obedience from being the original reason, and taking in the adequate notion of natural religion, that 'tis only consequential upon, and deducible from the obligations of gratitude: for from hence result our engagements of subjection to gods will, and submission to his government. and as from his bounty and goodness arises the duty of gratitude, so from gratitude follows the necessity of obedience; cheerful compliance with the will of a benefactor being one of its most eminent instances and indispensable duties. as for the second reason in behalf of this opinion, it proceeds upon no less mistake than the first, for want of attending to the obvious difference between eucharistical oblations and expiatory sacrifices; the latter whereof must indeed of necessity owe their original to divine institution, because it was an act of god's free-goodness, that he would accept the substitution of a sacrifice in place of the offender by way of expiation for the offence; and therefore the use and nature of expiatory oblations having their absolute dependence on the voluntary acceptance of gods it was necessary he should signify this result and resolution of his good pleasure to mankind, before they had any reasonable ground to suppose he would accept the substituted expiation in lieu of the real forfeiture. now as for this sort of sacrifices, i had already acknowledged, and proved, that they must depend upon divine institution; for all that religion that resolves itself into the will of god, must suppose revelation, in that nothing else can discover its obligation to mankind: but as for all that flows from the nature and the attributes of god, it requires no other discovery than the light, and no other determination than the choice of natural reason: so that though it be necessary to instituted worship that it should be appointed, yet 'tis not necessary to divine worship that it should be instituted. and now though attendance to this distinction would have avoided all ambiguity and confusion in this enquiry, yet our author stiffly overlooks it, and solemnly confutes my assertion concerning eucharistical offerings by instances of expiatory sacrifices, which i had before proved to his hand, must rely upon positive appointment, from their peculiar use and nature, and not because this was necessary to the being and design of religion itself. but if we will confine our talk to the subject matter of my assertion, viz. eucharistical oblations, or any other outward significations of the natural worship of god in the first ages of the world, i before affirmed and do still maintain, that they who say they were enjoined and warranted by divine command, take the liberty of saying any thing without proof or evidence. §. 8. pag. 273. but if they are arbitrary inventions of men, our author desires to have a rational account of their catholicism in the world, and one instance more of any thing not natural or divine, that ever prevailed to such an absolute universal acceptance amongst mankind. as for the latter part of his demand, i think festival solemnities may challenge as great antiquity and universality as sacrifices: there being no nation in the world that ever was known to be altogether destitute of set and public festivals in honour of their gods; and (as i before observed) the anniversary sacrifices of their first-fruits was the most ancient and most universal solemnity of worship in the world. and some learned men conjecture, with as much probability, as the nature of the thing will bear, that such were the sacrifices of cain and abel, and that from the propriety of the words, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 at the end of days, which, say they, implies some set and solemn season of the year; and there is no idiom more frequent in the holy scriptures than to express set and anniversary seasons by days: to omit innumerable other texts, 1 sam. 2.9. the yearly sacrifice is called sacrificium dierum; so that the end of days implies the revolution of the year, when abel offered the firstborn of his flocks, and cain the first-fruits of his fields. but however this may be, 'tis attested by all the best records of ancient times, that harvest sacrifices and festivals of first-fruits were the most ancient, most catholic, and perhaps only public solemnities of religion. and yet it will be as impossible to discover any obligation from nature, or any warranty from divine institution for their practice, as for the original of idolatry, which yet had universally prevailed over the religion of mankind, and for aught i know might have done so still, had not divine providence been pleased to disabuse the wretched world by so many revelations and miraculous discoveries of himself; so that it is possible some things may acquire to themselves a catholic credit and reputation, that never had it bestowed upon them by god or by nature, especially if they chance to have any near relation or connexion with universal and unabolishable truths. but seeing our author desires a particular account of the catholicism of sacrifices, thus it happened. the first ages of mankind having a full and certain knowledge of the being of god, and a strong sense of the necessity of his worship, in that they had the same assurance then of the first cause of their being's, as we have now of our forefathers and progenitors. from hence they became obliged from the instinct of nature, and the dictates of right reason, to acknowledge and celebrate their creator's bounty, and to return some expressions of gratitude to him for his favours and benefits. divine worship then being so clear a dictate of humane nature, it was but agreeable to the reason of mankind to express their sense of this duty by outward rites and significations. now what symbol could be more natural and obvious to the minds of men, whereby to signify their homage and thankfulness to the author of all their happiness, than by presenting him with some of the choicest portions of his own gifts, (for they had nothing else to present) in acknowledgement of that bounty and providence that had bestowed them? and this was so far from arguing any pregnancy of invention, that to have miss it, would, in my conceit, have been flat stupidity. for though all sensible signs derive their significancy from positive institution, yet the ground and reason of their institution is usually (unless they are inept and irregular) some natural suitableness they have in them to denote the thing signified. now i will challenge our author's wit to pitch upon any thing in nature, that could be so easy and proper to express by way of outward action their thankfulness to god, as these eucharistical oblations; so easy a thing is it to fetch their beginning from humane agreement, without recourse to the authority of nature, or divine prescription. the religion of sacrifices then being the most conspicuous symbol and signification of the worship of god among the first fathers of mankind, it descended to their posterity, together with their natural sense of religion, of which these were the only visible signs and indications; and therefore without them, it could have had no outward and sensible appearance in the world, because these were its only practical way of conveyance; and by continuing to observe the rites and customs of their ancestors, they kept up their dictates of religion. and thus the idea of god, and the use of sacrifices, were propagated together into all societies of mankind, by their observance of the customs and traditions of their progenitors. now so easy and unforced is the probability of this account of their catholicism, though they owe their original purely to the choice and institution of men, that as long as their offspring kept up any belief of the notion of a deity, or any reverence for the wisdom of their forefathers, it was morally impossible in the ordinary course of humane affairs, the tradition of sacrifices should ever be lost in the world. and this may suffice to show how it came to pass, that they found such a catholic entertainment in all societies of mankind; and it was all one as to that, whether they had their first beginning from humane invention, or divine institution; for when once they had acquired the esteem and reverence of religion, use and custom would ever after keep up their practice and reputation in the world: so that though it was impossible they should ever obtain such an universal use and credit by their own strength, and upon their own account, yet when they had once obtained such an inseparable connexion with men's natural & indelible sense of religion, it was then as impossible without such an extraordinary change of things as was brought upon the world by the institution of christianity, that they should ever lose it. §. 9 the last thing pleaded by our author for the divine institution of sacrifices is the words of st. paul, pag. ●74. by faith abel offered sacrifice. and faith hath respect unto the testimony of god; revealing, commanding, and promising to accept our duty. and therefore this was not done by his own choice, but by warrant of a divine command. this argument indeed is often insisted upon by some sort of writers, out of whom our author (whose custom it is to pour forth his crude dictate rather from his memory than his reason) transcribes it in haste without weighing its force and validity; but it bottoms upon such a short and narrow account of the nature of faith, as would make wild work with the phaenomena of providence in the world. and therefore to be brief, the proper and last resolution of this virtue (as i have already intimated) is into the goodness, and not the bare testimony of god, and we therefore trust the truth of divine revelation, because we believe him so essentially good, that he nor can nor will deceive his creatures: so that our belief of the testimony of god is not the full and adequate notion of faith, but 'tis one particular instance of our confidence in his essential goodness, and therefore there may be acts of this duty without any supposal of divine revelation, and such was the faith of abel, as the apostle there describes it: for he that cometh to god must believe that he is, heb. 11.6. and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him. this upright man therefore being so amply satisfied of the existence and goodness of his heavenly father, and conscious of his own integrity in the offering of his sacrifice, rested secure from the testimony of his own conscience, of god's gracious acceptance. however, might not the faith ascribed to abel relate to the discharge of his duty, and not to the manner of its performance? and though he worshipped god in obedience to his command, which was an act of faith, yet that is no more proof that he had any more divine warrant for the manner of his worship than for the kind of his sacrifice; & yet it was indifferent as to divine acceptance, whether he had offered the fruits of his tillage, or the products of his flock; for the sacrifice of cain was not rejected because not of the same kind with that of abel, but had it been presented with the same qualifications, it had been rewarded with the same acceptance. and thus does our author's way of arguing multiply difficulties upon himself; for if it be of any force, it will infer a necessity of a divine command to determine the kind of sacrifice as well as the manner of worship, and then is he obliged not only to produce a law for sacrifices, but one to cain to offer the fruits of the field, and another to abel to offer living creatures; and this is competent evidence that god never prescribed their particular mode of worship, but left it to the choice of their own convenience and discretion, and therefore they both chose that which was most proper & suitable to their respective conditions of life; & god entailed his acceptance, not upon the outward expressions of their worship, but the inward qualifications of their minds. to conclude, this argument is utterly impertinent, unless upon supposition of this principle, that men have not any rational ground to expect that god should accept the faithful discharge of their duty, unless himself have prescribed all particular ways and circumstances of the manner of its performance; but this is to betake themselves to the lazy trade of begging, and this man is bold enough for this shameless employment. and though he is not so confident as to take up his bush so near home, yet when he gets aloof off into my sixth chapter, he grows as bold and sturdy as the gentlemen cripples of southwark are in lincolns-inn fields. for there to secure the fundamental mystery of puritanism against all opposition, viz. that nothing ought to be practised in the worship of god, but what is warranted in the word of god, he lays down certain proleptick and self-evident principles, the first whereof is, that wherever in the scripture we meet with any religious duty, pag 321. that had a preceding institution, although we find not expressly a consequent approbation, we take it for granted, that it was approved; and so on the contrary, where an approbation appears, and institution is concealed. and in another theorem in the same chapter to the same purpose (for people of that trade and way of life are much given to repetitions) he gives in this very instance of sacrifices for proof, viz. whatever they (the patriarches) did, pag. 314. they had especial warranty from god for; which is the case of the great institution of sacrifices itself. it is a sufficient argument that they were divinely instituted, because they were graciously accepted. what figure this is called in his peddling logic, i know not; but in ours 'tis cleped begging the question. a singular way of dispute this, is it not? first, to take the conclusion for granted, and then challenge it for a principle to prove itself; and to lay down the main matter in debate for a truth so certain, that a man is obliged by the laws of reasoning to grant it, before he is capable of any right to dispute it. who would ever contradict this author in these inquiries, that would admit those postulata for self-evident propositions? but this man is so bold and obnoxious a beggar, that if he will continue to follow this trade, 'tis impossible he should long escape the beadles watchful eye, but more cruel hand. i know no refuge he has to protect his back against this severe executioner, unless by listing himself into some society of gypsies, for whom he is admirably qualified as to the two great offices of canting and begging; and wants not above one accomplishment more to complete him at all points for that employment; and 'tis more noble and generous than to beg after this straggling rate. after this discourse of the original of sacrifices, and after another to give an account of the reason of gods prescribing every particular rite and ceremony of his worship under the mosaic pedagogy; i proceeded to show, that the main design of the christian institution was to establish the great duties of virtue and real righteousness, and not to determine rites and ceremonies of external worship; in so much that we find none prescribed in the new testament, save only the two sacraments: and upon this i challenged the unpeaceableness of these men, that upon their principle must be rebels and schismatics to all churches in christendom as well as the church of england. but to this, hush, not one syllable of reply; 'tis close and immediate to my purpose, and therefore of no concern to his; he cares not for coming so near home, and loves to keep aloof off from present transactions. a man may talk confident conjectures of things that happened so many thousand years ago, and tell fine stories of men that begot sons and daughters before the flood: but 'tis dangerous to talk of the history and constitution of affairs in the present world; a man may possibly contradict known and undeniable experience; and every novice that is never so little acquainted with the present state of foreign churches, will be able to check and shame our confidence. and there are two unhappy books of mr. durel, that plainly demonstrate that we are a new race of men in the world, that are not yet sufficiently polished and civilised for humane society; and such as, whilst we continue fond of our wild and barbarous principles, must be banished all established churches and commonwealths in europe. §. 10. in the close of this chapter i gave an account of the nature and use of significant ceremonies, that are the same thing with external worship under a different name; outward worship consisting in nothing else but signifying our inward thoughts and sentiments of religion, either by words or actions: where i showed, that it might be indifferently expressed and performed by either; and that gestures of reverence were of the same use in the worship of god, as solemn praises and acknowledgements; and that to bow the body at the mentioning the name of jesus, was the same kind of honour to his person, as to celebrate his name with hymns and thanksgivings; and therefore that the magistrates prerogative of instituting significant ceremonies, amounted to nothing more than a power of defining the import of words; and by consequence that 'tis no other usurpation upon his subjects consciences, than if he should take upon him to refine their language, and determine the proper signification of all phrases employed in divine worship, as well as in trades, arts and sciences: and therefore i could not but profess my admiration at the prodigious confidence and impertinence of those men, that could raise such hideous noises and out-cries against the laws of a settled church and state upon such slender grounds and pretences. but here our author quickly requites me with a counter-wonder, pag. 276. that i cannot express my dissent from others in controverted points of the meanest and lowest concernment, but with crying out, prodigies, clamours, impertinencies, and the like expressions of astonishment in myself, and contempt of others. i might reserve some of these great words for more important occasions. and the truth is, these are not any matters of the greatest importance; and were our dispute merely concerned in their speculation, i could discourse as coolly and carelessly about them, as about a mechanical hypothesis, or a metaphysical notion; and should not be more eagerly concerned to resolve the truth of the question, than i am to determine the principle of individuation. but when the established government of a nation shall be subverted by such nice and new-invented subtleties; when never any church in the world was more rudely treated by her own children, than the church of england by the puritan schismatics; when men shall cry out, antichrist, popery and superstition, and all for the idolatry of a significant ceremony; and when this clamorous exception is so vain, so groundless and impertinent; is it not infinitely prodigious to see men so confident and troublesome upon such slight and vanishing appearances? what scurrilous language do they continually pour forth against the church of england? what ignominious titles do they fasten upon her friends and followers? and with what disdain and insolence do they spit at her way of worship and devotion? into what woeful and endless schisms do they drive their proselytes from her communion? what disturbances do they create in the state? and what ruptures in the church? and how do they imbroil and discompose the peaceable setlement of a flourishing kingdom? and all this merely out of hatred to the popery and paganism of a symbolical rite. for ever since the sceptre of jesus christ (as they styled their presbyterial consistory) has been wrested from them by force of argument; and ever since the divine right of the holy discipline has been so shamefully exploded, and that time and experience have put a baffle upon the confidence of their old pleas and pretences, all the outcry has been against the unwarrantableness of instituted ceremonies; which after innumerable trains of distinctions and limitations about natural, and customary, and topical signs, still spends itself against the superstition of mystical and significant rites: so that the substance of this whole contest is now at length resolved into this single enquiry; and upon this, all their deeper and more subtle men of controversy spend all their choler and metaphysics. 'tis true, they defend themselves with the pleas of scandal, tenderness of conscience, etc. but when they use their offensive weapons, they scarce annoy us with any other objections, than what are levelled against the church's usurpation, in taking upon her to appoint new ceremonies and institutions of worship. and therefore if ever i had reason to cry out, prodigies, clamours and impertinencies, it was upon this subject and this occasion, when my thoughts were warm with reflecting upon those mighty troubles and inconveniences, under which these men have brought the best established church in the world by their unreasonable folly and curiosity. for tell me, sir, is it nothing to shake the foundations, and hazard the overthrow of a settled church? is it nothing to discompose the public peace and tranquillity of a settled state? is it nothing for subjects to withdraw their assistance from their prince and their country? is it nothing to violate the fundamental laws of love, and peace, and charity? is it nothing to rend the body of a church into numberless schisms and contentions? is it nothing to keep up implacable feuds and animosities among members of the same commonwealths? is it nothing to harden debauched and ungodly men against religion itself, by giving them too much reason to suspect it, as a thing that is troublesome and mischievous to government? is it nothing to encourage the designs of sacrilegious wretches, by giving them advantage under the disguise of zeal and purity, to pray upon the churches antichristian patrimony? in a word, is it nothing to gore the bowels of a kingdom with everlasting changes and reformations; and all this upon pretences as thin as sope-bubbles, and as brittle as glassdrops? §. 11. but let us take a brief survey of their particular reasonings and exceptions; and then our wonder at these men's confidence will be so far from abating, that it will swell into ecstasy and downright astonishment. for first, (says our author) to say that the magistrate has power to institute visible signs of god's honour, pag. 277. to be observed in the outward worship of god, is upon the matter to say that he has power to institute new sacraments; for so such things would be. but, i say, so such things would not be; and so there is an end of our dispute: and at this lock have we stood gazing at one another at least this hundred years: here cartwright begun the objection, and here he was immediately checked in his career by whitgift, who told him plainly, defence of the answer, p. 618. he could not be ignorant, that to the making of a sacrament, besides the external element, there is required a commandment of god in his word that it should be done, and a promise annexed unto it, whereof the sacrament is a seal. here they stopped, and his adversary never proceeded in his argument; but some that came after him, resolved not to part so easily with so big an exception, though perhaps for no other reason than because cartwright had started it: and the truth is, all his followers have done little more than licked up the vomit and choler of that proud schismatic; and therefore they never pursued this new-fangled cavil beyond his first syllogism, where himself was repulsed and rebuked; and ever since this has been their post, and they are resolved to keep it with unyielding and invincible confidence; and their foreheads are so hardened, that you may sooner beat out their brains than shame or convince them out of their folly; and though they have been so frequently and vehemently urged to a proof and prosecution of their argument, they could never be made to stir one foot backward or forward, but here they stand like men enchanted, and whatever demands or questions you propose to them, they return you not one syllable of reply, but sacraments, sacraments. and in this posture do they continue to this day, to haunt us with the stubbornness of unlaid ghosts; and 'tis the only voice this head of modesty is able to utter upon this subject. he is resolved upon it, that all significant rites, instituted in the worship of god, are real sacraments, and that so they shall be. and that is stubborn and indisputable proof, and 'tis not modest to bear up against so much brass and boldness; and yet i am resolved for once to rub my forehead, and not to be browbeaten, but to look him in the face with the confidence of a basilisk, and upbraid him either to make good, or to renounce his argument; and if he will neither yield, nor proceed, to scorn, and affront, and point him out of his intolerable confidence. here than i fix my foot, and dare him to his teeth to prove that any thing can be capable of the nature or office of sacraments, that is not established by divine institution, and upon promise of divine acceptance. these are inseparable conditions of all sacramental mysteries, and whatsoever other properties and qualifications they may have beside, these are always necessary and indispensable ingredients of their office, so that without them nothing can lay claim to their name or dignity, however any thing may happen to symbolise with them upon other accounts, and by other circumstances. for the christian sacraments are the inseparable pledges and symbols of the christian faith, and are established to that intent by the author of the christian institution, and they are such outward rites and ceremonies whereby we openly own the covenant, and pass mutual engagements to stand to its terms and conditions; and therefore he alone that appointed the religion, is able to appoint by what outward signs or acts of stipulation we shall signify and express our acknowledgement of, and submission to his institutions. so that the meaning and intention of it, is to assign some particular act of worship, whereby we may express our engagements and resolutions of obedience to the whole religion; and who then can declare and specify what rite he will accept as a full acknowledgement of our duty of universal obedience, but he alone that requires it? and therefore unless it pretend to his institution, there is no imaginable ground why it should be thought to pretend to the office and dignity of a sacrament. and certainly they have a very mean opinion of these sacred mysteries, that require nothing more to their nature and function but bare significancy, and make every external sign capable of that holy and mysterious office; and what can more derogate from the credit of those great pledges of our faith and instruments of our salvation? as if they carried in them nothing of a more useful or spiritual efficacy, than what every common rite and ceremony may acquire or pretend to by custom and humane institution. §. 12. but 'tis still more pleasant and more prodigious to see men, that are so stiff and dogmatical in their talk, have so little regard to their own pretences; thus whereas they will admit no other umpirage of our present disputes about divine worship, but what may be fetched from immediate divine authority, yet in this grand exception, they take no notice of its decrees and determinations; and though our author will have every significant circumstance of devotion to partake of the nature and mystery of a divine sacrament, yet he makes no attempt to prove it out of the word of god. no: there is not a text in the four gospels that may be abused to that purpose. and paul (for to allow him the title of saint is popish and idolatrous, and our author is as shy in all his writings of bestowing it upon an apostle as upon cain or judas, though he will vouchsafe the title of holy, that is coincident with it, to every zealot of his own brotherhood) but by what name or title soever dignified or distinguished, the apostle paul is utterly silent in the case, and now we have no higher authority to vouch our cause but the schoolmen and austin. pag. 180. as for the former (not to dispute the impertinency of the quotation) whenever they speak sense, we are ready to subscribe to their reason; but their bare authority is of no more force in the church of england than the decrees and oracles of mr. calvin; their writings are no part of the canon of scripture, or the four first general councils; and 'tis well known what wise accounts they are forced to give of the nature of sacraments, to justify the unwarrantable determinations of their own church, that had rashly and needlessly enough defined some things to be so, that are in themselves infinitely uncapable of that sacred name and office. and i know nothing for which any part of their coarse and frieze discourses is more ridiculous in itself, or more unanimously condemned by protestant writers of all communions, than their loose and groundless descriptions of the nature and office of sacramental pledges. but this is one of their old ways of trifling, when the pursuit of their principles forces them upon an absurdity, to father it upon the schoolmen, as if because these men sometimes talk absurdly, that shall justify their impertinencies. and as for his citation out of st. austin, viz. signa cum ad res divinas pertinent sunt sacramenta; unless he would have vouchsafed a particular reference, that might direct us to the sense of the father, and the integrity of his own quotation, we have no engagement to examine its truth, or regard its authority: for our author has given me as little reason to trust his word, as he has the public to trust his oath. however 'tis neither civil, nor ingenuous to trouble me with such objections, that i cannot answer without reading over eight or ten large volumes in folio. though i am prettily well satisfied aforehand from that good father's sense of things, that were we in a capacity to consult him about this passage, we should find he as little favours this notion of sacraments, as i do the magistrates unlimited and immediate power over conscience and religion. nay, i should have odds and advantage on my side, should i lay a wager with him (though that is no creditable way of arguing, and if it were, i should quickly grow rich by disputing with this man) that there is no such passage in all the volumes of st. austin. for alas he never read it in the father himself, and if it was not the product of his own pregnant invention, it was transcribed out of ames, or bradshaw, or some other of the puritan fathers. he is an admirable second-hand man, and seems somewhat akin to a certain late author, that by the help and perusal of a few of our modern spicilegious men, could compose a book of 500 pages in quarto to prove independency to have always been the only orthodox religion of mankind, and then (after the dutch fashion of bragging and ostentation) add a swelling catalogue of 500 old authors, that were pressed for journeymen to bring in materials to his work, though there is scarce a quotation in the whole book that five new ones would not have furnished him with, nay, that has not been lately transcribed five times over. so unhappy a thing it is when confident men are vainglorious, they openly betray their ambition by too bold and foolish attempts, and melt their wings by venturing at too high a flight. but i begin to preach apophthegms, and therefore to conclude, we will not be concerned to inquire st. augustine's opinion in this case, till we are better satisfied of the truth and pertinency of this citation; and thus have i shifted off the task, he would have imposed on me, upon his own shoulders, for i believe he is as much to seek for this passage in st. austin, as myself. in the mean time you may observe this man's wretched way of talk and shuffle, when he makes such continual and importunate demands of appeal to the law, and to the gospel, and yet in this present argument, that is now almost their only surviving pretence, have no respect to neither. and therefore i shall for ever hereafter put in a demur to this plea, till they shall attempt to prove out of the word of god all significant ceremonies to be of the same use and nature with divine sacraments; and if we can but prevail with them to undertake this argument, it will give us no less pleasant divertisement, than that learned dispute managed so hotly between two of their leading rabbis, ainsworth and broughton, whether the colour of aaron's linen ephod were of blue, or a sea-water-green: a controversy of that mighty importance to the salvation of souls, that (beside that it occasioned some bloody noses) it created new schisms, and founded new churches; and what became of the blue separation, i cannot at present call to mind, but as for the brethren of the sea-water-green communion, they crumbled into as many schisms and churches as there are colours in the rainbow. and there is not any speculation in nature so frivolous or metaphysical, for which these people will not bandy into parties, yes, and raise armies too; as they once sacrificed to the great moloch of public faith their wedding-rings, the symbols and pledges of their matrimonial engagements, to abolish their expensive use and custom; and tied themselves by solemn oath, and three new significant ceremonies; to venture lives and fortunes to cashier three old ones: and the angels that (they say) can wage war, and fight pitched battles upon the point of a needle, are not at a less distance from each other in their engagements, than these men are in their disputes and controversial dissensions. and into this in the last issue of things, does all their tenderness of conscience resolve itself: a boldness and confidence in their own little conceits, in opposition to the commands of authority, and the great duties of obedience. §. 13. pag. 178, 279. in the next place our author distinguishes between customary signs that have prevailed by custom and usage, to signify such things as they have no absolute natural coherence with, or relation unto; such are putting off the hat in sign of reverence, with others innumerable. and these sorts of signs may have some use about the service and worship of god, as might be manifested in instances. but the signs we inquire after are voluntary, arbitrary, and instituted; such as neither naturally nor merely by custom and usage come to be significant, but only by virtue of their institution. and 'tis these that are dreaded by the nonconformists for such illegal and unwarrantable additions to the worship of god. and why! what is the matter? where has the word of god prescribed this distinction? and where has it allowed the use of the former, and disavowed the lawfulness of the latter sort of ceremonies? or can they assign any natural immorality in instituted, more than in customary significations? or is the authority of chance and custom (for all prescriptions that are not instituted, are purely casual) more sacred and obligatory than the commands of princes, and councils of senates? or why should the appointment of the public laws make unallowable sacraments, rather than the prevalency of custom, or (what is the same) the institution of usage? i cannot fathom the depth of this mystery, unless it lies in this, that the consciences of the people of god need not be so very tender and curious in any case, but only in matters of duty and obedience to lawful authority. 'tis strange that things that are so harmless upon all other accounts, should become so horridly criminal for no other reason than because they please our governors. for example, let us take our author's instance of uncovering the head in sign of reverence in these european parts of the world, whereas the eastern nations express the same thing by the contrary custom, and yet both in our author's opinion are lawful in the worship of god, because warranted by topical usages. now suppose his majesty should enjoin their custom upon us; and on the contrary, a christian prince in asia should impose ours upon his subjects, would that alter their nature and morality? and make those things that were antecedently to the command decent and innocent expressions of reverence in divine service, immediately become sinful and offensive to the almighty? but if that would not alter their nature, than the case of symbols that depend upon institution, is as to their lawfulness and divine acceptance the same with those that are founded upon prescription. and now, what think you? are not churches likely to be bravely governed, and order and decency in the worship of god admirably provided for, when all their solemn laws and injunctions shall be controlled by such precarious fancies and fooleries? can you imagine any thing judged more scandalous in these men's case-divinity, than the horrid crimes of peace and obedience? and so i leave it to you to judge, whether the farther these men proceed in the pursuance of their principles and pretences, they do not all the way increase our amazement at the prodigiousness of their impertinency. but having assigned this vast distance between customary and instituted symbols of reverence, he adds this final determination of the whole case: pag. ●79. now concerning these last, one rule may be observed, namely, that they cannot be of one kind, and signify things of another, by virtue of any command and consent of men, unless they have an absolute authority both over the sign and thing signified, and can change their natures, or create a new relation between them. now, sir, our author grows wanton, and resolves in a jolly humour to maintain against myself and all my associates, that averia capta in withernamio non sunt replegibilia. for 'tis all perfect waggery and gibberish, and a mere design to puzzle and confound us with unintelligible subtleties; and these are the eisotericks of the sect, that ought not to be understood by any but the sons of mystery; and i doubt not but you understand the sense and reason of this rule, as much as you do those prescribed by the rosie-crucian professors, in order to the discovery of the great secret. but whatever the meaning of the oracle may be, why must it be limited to instituted rather than customary symbols? for what cause should usage, where there is no natural relation between the sign and the thing signified, be allowed to create one, rather than the commands of lawful authority? for my part i am not able to imagine any reason, unless it be his great democratical principles, that ascribes less power to the sovereign prince, than to the common people, that are always the chief authors and abettors of custom? or why may we suppose that may apply things of one kind, to signify things of another, by virtue of popular consent, without having an absolute authority over the sign and thing signified, and yet not suppose the same thing of the edicts of princes, and the votes of convocations; especially when in this weighty rule, he has been pleased (for there is no other ground for it but his own good pleasure) to exclude the consent of men as well as the commands of governors? nay, why may not they, or any thing else have power to appropriate new names and signs to things, without having any absolute authority over the things themselves? and lastly, why must a power of creating new relations between them, infer a power to change their natures? for so are they here represented by our author as things coincident. but such manifest and palpable trifles are not worth so many objections. and therefore (to conclude) whereas i declared the signification of ceremonies to be of the same nature and original with that of words, equally arbitrary, and equally depending either upon custom or institution; this (says he) will not relieve me in this matter, pag. 280. for words are signs of things, and those of a mixed nature; partly natural, partly by consent: but they are not of one kind, and signify things of another; for say the schoolmen, where words are signs of sacred things, they are signs of them as things, but not as sacred. but do you, or any of his own lay-proselytes understand this scholastic subtlety? does he not leave you (as himself speaks) in the briers of unscriptural distinctions? however, pag. 310. why may we not affirm the same thing of ceremonies, that he is here pleased to appropriate to words? and then, i hope, there is no harm done; and once, for peace and quiet sake, we will so far gratify the tenderness of their consciences, and curiosity of their fancies, as to promise never to ascribe any other significancy to things, than what himself is here content to bestow upon words; and then, i hope, that will appease all their doubts, and satisfy all their scruples. and yet after all, these metaphysical abstractions will not relieve us in this affair. for i know no words, whose signification can be pretended to be natural, (as he talks) unless tintinnabulum, and some few others that happen to strike our organs with the same kind of noise, as the things themselves do of which they are significative. and none of these that i know of are concerned in the worship of god, unless the clinking of the saint's bell; so that by this casual concession we have regained back the grant of its lawful use and custom. though in their strict reformation it was abolished for the more orthodox way of chiming: which yet carried in it as much symbolical-resemblance to the ensuing sermon, as any of our ceremonies do to the matters of their signification. but to be ingenuous, and confess the plain and undisguised truth to a friend: i am at an utter loss for a reply to this profound subtlety of the schoolmen, because i understand neither its sense nor its pertinency: unless you will accept of this, that sacred things have words to signify them not only as things, but as sacred, otherwise there are no words to express divine worship as such, for that as such is sacred: and therefore in spite of scotus and all his myrmidons, i dare positively aver, that words used in religious worship, do not only signify things as things, but things as sacred; because if they should not, they were no signs of religious worship. so that you see notwithstanding this unscriptural distinction, (which yet you know by our author's principles is not to be attended to in our present enquiry) my comparison between the signification of words and ceremonies stands firm as the pillars of the earth, and the foundations of our faith. but are not tender consciences come to a fine pass, when they shall remonstrate to the decrees of princes, and the laws of commonwealths, upon such shadows of scruple, and shall run people into such woeful divisions and disorders for a senseless word? they cannot but have a mighty reverence for government, and a deep sense of duty to superiors, that can wriggle themselves out of their obedience by such little shifts, and satisfy their consciences with such lamentable excuses. in a word, is it not a sad reflection to consider how many of the people of this nation have been scared out of their natural candour and civility, and wits too, by a few idle words, and a few idle men? chap. vi the contents. our author's perseverance in cavil and calumny. his disingenuous way of shifting the proof and pursuit of their own arguments. all their writers have ever begun and ended with cartwright, and either wrangle themselves into conformity, as he did, or run themselves into perfect enthusiasm and fanatic madness. their impertinent way of defending their own objections, when they should prove them. nothing can be charged of being a part of divine worship, unless it pretends to divine institution. this man's stubbornness and invincible resolution in schism. a speech to the non-conformists to encourage them in their separation, in the language, and out of the writings of j. o. their bold way of abusing the people, and the word of god, by laying the same stress upon their own fancies as upon the fundamentals of the gospel. our author's plea in their own behalf from the prescription of one way of worship in the word of god, the most effectual argument against toleration. this plea, as managed by this author, is as directly leveled against all other parties, excepting only the independents, as against the church of england. 'tis the only pretence of all impostures, and 'tis serviceable to no other end. the silliness and palpable disingenuity of our author's quotations out of the fathers. their fundamental principle equally overthrows all manner of church-setlement. by his principles and goodwill nothing is to be tolerated but independency. the precedents alleged, both out of the old and new testament, in the former treatise for the warrantableness of uncommanded ceremonies, cleared and vindicated. our adversaries way of affrighting the rabble with hard and senseless words. the vanity of attending to these men's proposals of mutual condescension. a farther prosecution of my challenge to the whole party of non-conformists to answer mr. hooker. a notorious and intolerable instance of our author's disingenuity in falsifying the design of my discourse. §. 1. thus far have i made good my ground against all this man's talk and confidence (for there, and there alone, lies all his strength) and should now proceed to an examination of his censures against the fifth chapter of my former discourse; for against the fourth he only drops his old calumny, viz. that what i have there discoursed against the absolute and uncontrollable power of the civil magistrate, as 'tis stated in mr. hobs' hypothesis of government, is destructive of my own pretensions in the foregoing part of my discourse, where, as he is resolved to bear me down, i have made humane laws the sole and supreme rule of religious worship, insomuch that the magistrate of every nation hath power to order and appoint what religion his subjects shall profess and observe, pag. 97. and thereby binds their consciences to profess and observe that which is by him so appointed (and nothing else are they to observe) making it their duty in conscience so to do; and the highest crime or sin to do any thing to the contrary; and that whatever the precise truth in these matters be, etc. the horror of which bold calumny i have already, i hope, competently enough discovered and detested. but 'tis the choicest topick of this man's logic to falsify arguments, and represent his own inferences as his adversaries opinions, and then load them with loud and lusty conclusions: and then they are oracles and demonstrations to the people that understand neither the truth nor consequences of things; and therefore does he repeat this fundamental forgery in all places, and upon all occasions, and 'tis the only thing that gives strength and colour to all his other trifles and impertinencies, upon this he at first found'st all his reasonings, and into this he at last resolves them, insomuch that his whole book is but one huge lie 400 pages long. and this confidence takes so successfully with the believing disciples, that they will at all adventure lay wagers, that all those prodigious untruths he has obtruded on me are my own positive and direct assertions. but having manfully quit himself in this performance, he baulks the whole discourse of this chapter, as being of no concern to himself and his dear brotherhood; and so advances to the next, where we might trace him through all his former methods of truth and ingenuity; but at present we will wave that province, and rather choose first to discharge ourselves of those froward exceptions, wherewith he labours to entangle and perplex the design of my sixth chapter, because the matters there debated are of a more close and immediate affinity to the nature of those things, that fell under our last consideration; and therefore (seeing he has been pleased to break the coherence of my method) i conceive it will be a more perspicuous and useful way of proceeding to dispatch them both together; especially when what remains to be there examined, is either mere impertinence to the drift of my discourse, or relies merely upon the principles here already confuted. for what he dictates in defence of their darling principle, that nothing ought to be practised in the worship of god, but what is prescribed in the word of god, is either such loose and general tattle, as whether it be true or false, it does neither service nor disservice to our present enquiry: or if there be any thing more close and direct to the purpose, it resolves itself entirely into the dispute of the last chapter; in that he restrains the universality of this maxim to instituted and significant ceremonies, which being exempted upon this score, he seems not unwilling to allow the governors of the church a power of determining natural circumstances for the ends of order and decency; so that in the last result of things all this cluster of trifles and impertinencies grows upon the stock of the former principle, and therefore that being cut down root and branch, this that depends so entirely upon it, must by consequence fall and perish with it. for which reason i had once resolved with myself wholly to omit its distinct examination, and only to put them upon the proof of this principle, as 'tis here stated by our author, out of the written word of god. but because he here counterfeits more assurance, and pretends more accuracy; and (to speak in his own stile) by the longsomness of his discourse, and the number of his propositions, seems more elaborate than in all the former parts of his survey; and withal to avoid their clamour, and other men's suspicion of dealing with him as he has dealt with me, in wholly baulking the last chapter of my discourse, that was most pertinent and material to his pretences; i have at last resolved to undergo the penance of a reply: and thus it follows. §. 2. in the first place than he flings down the ball, viz. that nothing ought to be established in the worship of god, but what is authorized by some precept or example in the word of god; and then tells us, if men would lay aside their prejudices, pag. 303. corrupt interests, and passions, they would see at first view that this principle is not foreign unto what is in an hundred places declared and taught in the scripture. but, sir, big words break no shins, nor will brags and threatenings pass for current demonstrations: this is the only thing to be proved, and the principle itself refuses to accept of any other evidence, but what is expressly approved and warranted by holy writ; yet when he comes to vouch its sacred authority, he only gives in his own affidavit. and if you will take his word, you may rest assured there are hundred of texts in the sacred volume that have adopted the patronage of his cause; though at present he is not at leisure to check and rebuke our confidence with one single testimony. and therefore is it not strange, that when the issue of the whole controversy depends so absolutely upon this performance, yet whenever they are forced upon its attempt, they still adjourn the dispute, and respite the only proof that we demand, and they ought to produce, to a fairer and more seasonable opportunity. and this has ever been one of their most serviceable arts of trifling; in matters of a more remote concernment, and secondary evidence, they are confident, and abound with noise and reasoning, but when they come to approach the vitals of the question, their fury immediately abates, and they are struck with a sudden speechlessness, and you must wait for the farther prosecution of their argument, till they are restored to the power of speech and use of tongue, and then do they entertain you with all the old tale over again, till they come just to the former difficulty, and then are they seized upon by the former astonishment. and by this artifice have they so long kept up this controversy in spite of so many public and dishonourable baffles. they have always been brisk and talkative in the beginning of the dispute till they are run up into the main difficulty, and driven into the straits of the enquiry, and there they fling down their arms, sometimes cry quater, and sometimes escape by flight, and so at present the war ends, and peace ensues; till some other pert fellow chance to take up the cudgels, and he uses the same play till he is brought to the same foil, and there is an end of him, and so on from generation to generation. and hence it is not unobservable, that all their writers have ever begun and ended with cartwright, and as he wrangled himself into obedience and conformity, so have they all at length either disputed themselves out of their former folly, or into a farther madness: and the zeal of their warmest bigots has ever ended either in a peaceable reduction to the church, or in some wilder and more extravagant separation. by continual wrangling they contract a sour and froward humour. every thing annoys their fretful and exulcerated minds: they are peevish and displeased with their own friends, and their own fraternity; and this transports them into some new-fangled pranks and projects. hence coppingers raptures, and visions, and familiar conferences with almighty god; hence hackets ecstasies, and revelations, and blasphemous prophecies; and hence the mad frekes and treasons of penry, that precious martyr of jesus christ. an habitual discontent and restlessness of mind heated their choler and melancholy blood into perfect frenzy and outrage. but the most remarkable instance of this capricious humour is the story of robert brown, who (you know) left cartwright and the disciplinarians in babylon as well as the church of england, and could find no church in the world pure enough for his own communion, till he had established one of his own draught and projectment, and then nothing was or could be agreeable to the word of god but what was contained in his pamphlets of reformation. but having run his followers into such an obstinate and unfortunate schism, the man himself becomes unsettled in his own mind, and unconstant to his own principles, and consumes the remainder of his days in discontent and restlessness of thoughts. sometimes in his lucid intervals he would suffer himself to be reclaimed to some sobriety of behaviour; by and by in a sullen and peevish humour he falls into his old fits of raving, and then every thing dislikes him, and he falls out with his own draughts of reformation: anon in a pensive and melancholy mood he breaks all into tears and invectives against cartwright and the disciplinarian brethren; the natural pursuance of whose principles had run him into all those miseries and calamities of life; and thus by reason of his frequent relent and perpetual relapses, the miserable wretch was continually tossed from gaol to gaol, till having tried his fortune in two and thirty prisons, and being tired with grief and poverty, he at last settles in conformity for a good benefice, where he lived to a great age without making any more disturbances and defections in the church, till he died frekish in northampton gaol, whither he had been committed for breach of peace, and disorderly behaviour, and so (as it was meet) perished this great prophet in that little jerusalem. and 'tis nothing but this mixture of pride and peevishness that bewitches men into a love of schisms and divisions; they are so highly conceited of themselves, and so willing to censure and despise others, that nothing shall either suit or satisfy their humour, unless it be of their own ordering and contrivance. and then must these fantastic sots attempt to reform the world; they must be sure to condemn and vilify the wisdom of superiors, and fancy themselves as men appointed by special providence to give check to the errors and follies of mankind. and what so delicious to people of this complexion, as to be the first founders of changes and innovations? and the most famous impostors and enthusiasts of all ages have ever bewrayed rank symptoms of this spiteful humour both in their principles and practices. and i know some men, in whose haughty and contracted looks schism and singularity are as legible as if they carried the mark of a through godly reformation in their foreheads: and what will not such persons attempt or endure for the glory and satisfaction of leading a party? §. 3. in the next place (to skip over his old complaint of the vehemence of my stile) he adds a caution of his own to limit and explain this general position, viz. pag. 305. that nothing aught to be established in the worship of god as a part of that worship, or made constantly necessary in its observance, without the warranty before mentioned; for this is expressly contended for by them who maintain it, and who reject nothing upon the authority of it, but what they can prove to be a pretended part of religious worship as such. this is another eminent instance of their shuffling way of talk: for whereas this principle was first framed and managed by themselves as the most forcible objection to beat down the established institutions of the church; it was immediately replied, that 'tis neither true nor certain; and they have always been pressed and demanded from its first starting, to prove its evidence, and make good its certainty out of the word of god: but in stead of harkening to so hard a task, they have only studied to defend and guard it with a multitude of precarious distinctions, and unwarrantable limitations; all which amounts to nothing higher than a proofless and impertinent circle of talk. for 'tis nothing to us whether they are able to defend it from being apparently false, unless they are able to prove it apparently true; because there are swarms of opinions in the world that are certainly neither; and therefore unless they will undertake to make good its undoubted truth, 'tis of no force to condemn and confute the lawfulness of any established practice and prescription in the church of god, which nothing can make criminal but some inconsistency with some certain duty: so that till it is competently demonstrated that this aphorism is prescribed as a rule to all christians, they shoot shamefully both short and beside the mark, whilst they only endeavour to guard and secure its probability with their own arbitrary limitations. thus whereas it was first urged by the authors of the admonition, it was immediately answered, it is most true, pag. 21. that nothing ought to be tolerated in the church, as necessary unto salvation, or as an article of faith, except it be expressly contained in the word of god.— but that no ceremony, order, discipline, or kind of polity, may be in the church, except the same be expressed in the word of god, is a great and intolerable absurdity. the church being trusted with an authority to make orders and ceremonies, as shall from time to time be thought most expedient and profitable for the same, so that nothing be done contrary to the word, or repugnant to the same. to which t. c. replies, defence of the admonit. p. 2●. sect. 3. it is true indeed, if they be not against the word of god, and profitable for the church, they are to be received as those things, which god by his church does command; but there is the question. but there is not the question; and it is so far from attempting to prove or justify the argument, that it utterly relinquisheth it to the mercy of the adversary. for the question is, whether the institutions of the church ought to be repealed by virtue of this principle, that they are not expressly prescribed and authorized in the word of god? but this he forsakes by this answer, and flies to a new argument, that they ought to be removed, not because they are uncommanded in the word of god, but purely because they are unprofitable to the church of god. so that the old untenable pretence was immediately yielded up at the first summons; and a new one taken up that was never before pretended, nor ever after proved. and in this shifting way of arguing, is that man exactly followed by this author, (who is admirably accomplished in his choicest abilities, viz. a bold face, and a loose tongue:) for by the limitation here by him assigned, he shifts the old enquiry, whether any thing may be practised in the worship of god, that is not authorized in the word of god? no, he is willing to allow it, provided it be not extended to such things as are parts of divine worship; and he will reject nothing upon its authority, but what he is able (but never willing) to prove to be a pretended part of religious worship as such: so that the state of the controversy is now shifted to this dispute, whether the ceremonies enjoined and established in the church of england, are pretended parts of religious worship? and if they are not, he, good man! for his part has nothing to except against them upon the score of this proposition; and yet that they are so, it therefore concerns not him to prove, because 'tis the only thing pleaded. and barely to affirm it is (it seems) enough to his purpose, only to tempt us to a new trouble of proving that the ceremonies prescribed in the church of england do not pretend to the dignity of being parts of divine worship: and when that is done, these squirrels can as easily frisk to a fresh pretence and a new limitation; and thus by this dancing and capering humour, 'tis an easy matter to perpetuate all the controversies in the world, how plainly soever determinable, to the coming of elias: and after this rate shall the barber's basin remain mambrino's helmet, and the ass' panel a furniture for the great horse till the day of judgement. however, this advantage i have gained, that this principle is yielded up as to the general and unlimited import of the words; and therefore i hope hereafter i may justly challenge them not to impose it upon the credulity of the people without the allay of the former caution: for at present i am sure that their followers understand it in the broad and literal sense of the words, and that themselves are wont to discourse of it without any regard to these new restraints and limitations. and if hereafter they will forbear these loose and general expressions, they will lay upon us some obligation to acknowledge their ingenuity, and may possibly contribute somewhat towards disabusing the people; who though they have so easily swallowed this proposition in its unlimited meaning, are yet unacquainted with the antidote of this restriction; and therefore when they have cast up their old prejudice, perhaps they will not so easily take in this new notion. in the mean time, i have nothing more to press upon our author, than that he would be persuaded to slake his zeal in this controversy, till he has at least attempted to prove the institutions of the church of england to be pretended parts of divine worship; though this he can never hope to perform, but either by outfacing her public declarations, she having so expressly protested against it in the account of her ceremonies, that she has for that purpose prefixed to the book of common prayer: or else by proving that how innocently soever she may intend, they of their own accord commence parts of religious worship by virtue of their institution. and if this he will undertake, 'tis easy to foretell (without being prophet or prophet's son) that his whole attempt will spend itself merely upon significant ceremonies; and there, i hope, i have already prevented all their weak and little arts. however, to make all secure, let me only add, that no power whatsoever can adopt any thing into the worship of god under any less pretence than of divine authority: so that whatsoever ceremonies the church may deem expedient to prescribe for order and comeliness, unless she go about to warrant her injunctions by pretending divine institution, circumstances of worship they may be, but parts they never can. and of this i thought i had already given a passable proof, and so satisfactory, that our author has nothing to except against it, pag. 352, but by pretending its inconsistency with some other parts of my discourse: but for the present, that is no objection against the positive truth and direct reason of the argument itself; and, in short, 'tis this: all rituals, and ceremonies, and postures, and manners of performing the outward expressions of devotion, are not from their own nature capable of being parts of religion; and therefore unless we used and imposed them as such, 'tis lamentably precarious to charge their determination with will-worship, because that consists in making those things parts of religion, that god has not made so: so that when the church expressly declares against this use of them, and professeth to enjoin them only as mere circumstances of religious worship, 'tis apparent that it cannot by imposing them make any additions to the worship of god; but only provides, that what god has required be performed in a decent and orderly manner. and this is the real difference between the christian and mosaic ceremonies, in that theirs were made lasting and necessary parts of their religion, by being established with the same impress of divine authority as the duties of the moral law; whereas ours are not any integral parts of divine worship, but purely accidental and alterable circumstances of religious services; and so are not of the same standing necessity and obligation as were the mosaic rites, but as they were first established by our superiors according to the common rules of decency and discretion, so may they be reversed by the same authority. in a word, they are of the same nature and obligation with all other matters of humane laws, that are only disposed of by the public wisdom, as it shall by the common notices of things judge them most convenient to public ends. §. 4. and now upon this bottom we might fairly wind up this controversy, for i am secure this ever has been, and ever will be its real issue: but our author cries no, no. for if this principle should fail us, pag. 306, there are yet other general maxims, which non-conformists adhere unto, and suppose not justly questionable, which they can firmly stand and build upon in the management of their plea, as to all differences between me and them, i. e. he is a resolved and incorrigible schismatic, and the plain design of these words is only to encourage the people to stand firm to their principles; what though we may be stormed out of our old elsibeth-pretensions, let us not immediately resign up our colours, and march out of our cause, we have, when all is lost, unknown retreats and fastnesses (as all banditi and moss-troopers have) to secure ourselves from perfect discovery and destruction. this man is a demetrius, a ringleader in sedition, and therefore it more peculiarly concerns him to bestir himself, and keep the mutineers together, and raise and animate their fainting spirits against discouragements and despondencies. the people may murmur among themselves, is this poor pretence the only ground of all our schisms and disturbances? have our leaders no greater grievance against the public laws than this lank and pitiful story, which themselves (it seems) dare not own without mincing and disguising it with their own shuffling, and (to us) unintelligible reservations? is this all the popery and idolatry of the church of england, against which they are still inveighing with so much zeal and bitterness at the meetings? must all this noise and stir be made, and the king and parliament thus disturbed for this? neighbours, let us be advised, and not create all this needless trouble to ourselves and others, only to countenance their pride and peevishness. the plain troth is, their zeal was so flushed with success in the late tumults, as transported them to too much outrage and cruelty against the church; and now because (forsooth) they are ashamed to acknowledge their fault and folly (for what disgrace so grievous to proud and self-opinionated men, as to confess an error) we (fools as we are) must be inveigled and drawn in to bear out their extravagances. come, come, this is the true mystery of separation: for you may see they themselves (whatever they pretend) are not so fond as seriously to believe the public worship popish and idolatrous. do we not know that the chiefs of the presbyterians came constantly to church, and to common prayer till of late, and those that are more modest and peaceable do so still, which 'tis apparent they could never have done, had they really deemed it idolatry. how then shall we justify ourselves in running thus giddily into these wild and unwarrantable schisms? does not common sense tell us (though perhaps we understand nor their school subtleties) that 'tis a base and unworthy thing thus insolently to affront the king's laws, when we may avoid it without breaking gods? and therefore seeing, whatever reasons they may have for their own nonconformity, we are satisfied, by their own example, they have none big enough to warrant our separation. let us then resolve with one consent to be peaceable and ingenuous, and return every man to his own home, and his own parish-church. but bear back, this great chieftain appears, for he is still upon all occasions the most bold and forward orator to hearten his back-sliding brethren against doubts and despondencies, witness january 31. in the year 48. when those wretched miscreants wanted some spiritual comfort and cordial against the horror of their yesterday villainy. and thus he appears in this present straight, and thus you may suppose him, after preface of solemn wink, to bespeak the mutinous churches. * the reader may conjecture with who●● 〈◊〉 i plow f●r ●his eloquence. m●●t of th●se pasages b●●ng collected ou● of two sermons o● j.o. one preached on jan 31. 1648. and the other on a day of thanksgiving for the king's defeat at worcester. my friends, do you consider what you attempt? do you know what dreadful and horrible things are still behind? alas! false worship, superstition, tyranny, and cruelty lie at the bottom, and when these have possessed the governors of a nation, and wrapped in the consent of the greatest part of the people, who have been acquainted with the mind of god, that people and nation (assure yourselves) without unpresidented mercy is obnoxious to remediless ruin. if you think babylon is confined to rome and its open idolatry; you know nothing of babylon or the new jerusalem: no, no, their darling errors are stones of the old babel, closing and coupling with that tremendous fabric: which the man of sin has erected to dethrone jesus christ. you may venture to taste if you please, but remember who forewarned you, there is death in the episcopal pot. but as for your own parts, let all the world know, and let the house of england know this day, that you lie unthankfully under as full a dispensation of mercy and grace, as ever nation in the world enjoyed; well, you will one day know what it is to undervalue the glorious gospel of the lord jesus christ (i e. the seditious preachings of i.o.) good lord! what would helpless macedonians give for one of your enjoyments? o that wales, o that ireland, o that france, where shall i stop? i would offend none, but give me leave to say, o that every, i had almost said, o that any part of the world had such unparallelled helps & means of grace as you, who yet are so unworthy as scarce to acknowledge the mercy: the lord break the pride of your hearts, before it break the staff of your bread, and the help of your salvation. but as for us poor nothings, the ministers of the lord christ in the work of the gospel, we can spend our sweat and our lungs upon the barren and the parched corners of the land, upon those poor gospelless creatures, that as yet sit in darkness and the shadow of death, and have none to hold out the bread of life to their fainting souls. does not wales cry, and the north cry, yea, and the west cry, come and help us? but this it is; though the sound of the gospel pass through all your streets, though your villages enjoy them, who preach peace, and bring glad tidings of good things, so that neither you, nor your fathers, nor your father's fathers, (and this god knows is a serious truth) ever saw the like before us: though manna fall round about your tents every day, yet manna is loathed as light bread; no, the presence of christ it seems is not recompense for the loss of your swine; yes, you had rather be again in egypt, than hazard a pilgrimage in the wilderness. you forsooth boggle at tumults and disorders, poor ignorant souls, how unacquainted are you with the methods and workings of providence? for why! these are the only signs and symptoms of reformation, great works for god will cause great troubles among men: and for the carrying on of the interest of christ and the gospel, god is resolved to work wonderful providential alterations in the governments of the earth; what replied brave martin luther, when it was objected to him, that that could not be the cause of god, that was the cause of so much desolation, ego nisi tumultus istos viderem, christum in mundo esse non crederem. i tell you, he who is the only potentate, will sooner or later shake all the monarchies of the western world: all the kings of the earth have sucked in invented (and what it seems with him is coincident) idolatrous worship from the cup of fornication, held out to them by the roman whore: show me seven of them that ever yet laboured sincerely to advance the kingdom of the lord jesus, and i dare boldly say, octavus quis fuerit nondum constat. the whole constitution of the governments of the nations is cemented from top to bottom with the interest of antichrist, and nothing but a thorough shaking can ever cleanse them. and to this end has the lord been pleased in his good providence to hold forth a new light to his people of this generation, whereby they might discover the mystery of civil and ecclesiastical tyranny. and you are called forth to punish tyrants, break the jaws of oppressors, and disappoint the designs of bloody and revengeful persecutors, and to roll up the heavens of the nations like a scroll, and to serve him in your several capacities in the high places of armageddon. does not the lord, think you, require that in the great things which he has to accomplish in this generation, all his should close with him? and what that is i have often and long since informed you out of his own word, and would you have greater assurance? read the prophet isaiah 23.9. verily the lord of hosts hath purposed to pollute the pride of all glory, and to bring into contempt all the honourable of the earth. now does god call forth his saints to execute vengeance upon the heathen, and punishments upon the people, to bind their kings with chains, and their nobles with fetters of iron? does he bring you forth to burn the whore, to fight with the beast, and overcome him, with his followers? and will he not give glorious assistances to your undertake? i tell you, you shall be assisted, protected, carried on, though it cost him the making his bow quite naked. what though some prove false and treacherous, some base and cowardly? what though men every where combine and associate themselves against you? what though whole kingdoms and mighty armies appear for your ruin, help you need, and help you shall have, (or i tell you once again) god will make his bow quite naked. he will put on the garments of vengeance for clothing, and cover himself with zeal as a cloak: and according to their deeds, accordingly he will repay them, fury to his adversaries, recompense to his enemies, to the island he will repay recompense, isa. 59.18. and though all other means should fail of success, 'tis in your power to pray and believe the beast into destruction, antichrist into the pit, and magog to ruin. do but believe that the enemies of jesus christ shall be made his footstool, that the nations shall be his inheritance, that he shall reign gloriously in beauty, that he shall smite in pieces the heads over divers nations, and live in the faith of these things, and as it will give you the sweetness of them, before they come, so it will hasten their coming beyond the endeavours of thousands, yea, millions of armed men. but, my brethren, if there be any of you here, that do not only refuse to come forth to help the lord against the mighty, but that entertain thoughts to give up the worship of god to superstition, his churches to tyranny, and the doctrine of the gospel to episcopal corruptions: let him give glory to god, and repent speedily, and passionately, otherwise it will be bitterness in the end; it will; it will. and therefore as you tender the salvation of your poor souls, and the continuance of the gospel to your families and posterity, not one syllable more of this tumultuatingness of spirit against the prophets of the lord, and so every man to his tents, o israel. §. 5. sir, have you not read how that when discontent had shattered the roman legions into mutiny and sedition, and that the excesses of outrage and insolence, like the violence of a resistless torrent, had broken down all the banks of government and discipline amongst them; yet at the presence of a scipio or fabricius they did immediately retire into place and order? his look charmed them into obedience, and with a nod he awed away confusion; they that never dreaded kings, trembled at his voice: that was more affrightful than assured death. his authority with three syllables stifled sedition, disarmed and confounded the guilty, and they could endure any thing rather than his frown and his displeasure. and thus is all the noise and tumult of the discontented churches hushed into peace and order; this great commander looks the murmur of the people into silence and obedience, and the winds and seas obey his voice. he can raise or allay storms and seditions with the breath of his mouth; 'tis but crying out, the cause of god, and popular zeal is immediately in arms, and mutiny; do but tell them, the gospel lies at stake, and the rabble will die martyrs to their own credulity. this sacred imposture will as much secure their obedience as the roman discipline, and the roman legions could never be more forward for the glory of the commonwealth, than the congregational churches will be for the beauty and purity of christ's ordinances. and such has ever been the boldness of this man, he scorns to vouch any less warrantable commission for his own dreams and fancies than the express and immediate commands of divine authority; all his singularities must be gospellized, and all his seditious doctrines broached out of st. paul. the wisdom of god must be prostituted to his folly and boldness, the word of god profaned to authorise his pride and zealous madness; all his fanatic pranks must be charged upon the scriptures, and he has a text for every extravagant attempt; and whatever the principles of reason and common honesty cannot account for, the old prophets shall not only foretell, but sanctify. and perhaps never did all the profane wits in the world make more bold with the word of god than this daring man, there is scarce any more remarkable text in the whole bible, that he has not turned into ridicule; he can guard every thing he says and does with files of chapter and verse, as it were with pikes and protestations, and can draw up remonstrances and declarations, as well as primers out of the word of god; in brief, with him every thing is scripture, & scripture is every thing. and this is the true mystery of all our schisms and divisions; it is not their contest about ceremonies and things indifferent, but it is their pulpit-talk about the cause of god and the gospel that transports the people's zeal, and there still things are so represented as if they alone were the people of god, and we the professed enemies of the lord christ; and the least thing they will say, when they are most cool and moderate, is, that we are revolted from the purity of the gospel to superstition and will-worship, and that there is no beauty and purity of ordinances but in their meetings and conventicles. sermon to parliam. april 29. 1646. pag. 42. the fox in the fable (says i. o.) had a thousand wiles to save himself from the hunters: but the cat knew unum magnum, one great thing that would surely do it. earthly supports and contentments are but a thousand failing wiles, which will all vanish in the time of need: the gospel, and christ in the gospel, is that unum magnum, that unum necessarium, which alone will stand us in any stea●. our adversaries may discourse like politicians, and make a thousand pretences for the necessity of uniformity, in order to the peace and security of government: but we will trust to one great pretence, the command of god, and the cause of the gospel; and that with the people will do our business more effectually than all their stratagems of policy. §. 6. and thus is it our author's present design to enlarge and prolong the controversy, and to set up new mormo's in our churches, to fray away the people from our communion, though they all run themselves into the same principle, that the word of god is the adequate rule of the worship of god; yet the very appearance of number is no little security to the cause, and satisfaction to the proselytes; and though they are but so many several repetitions of the same thing, yet that makes a show that they have a great deal to say for themselves, and that is enough. and thus were our author put upon the proof of these general maxims here by him laid down, he would and must wholly settle himself upon this bottom. let us briefly examine them: the two first are, pag. 306. (1.) whatever the scripture has indeed prescribed and appointed to be done and observed in the worship of god, and the government of the church, that is indeed to be done and observed. (2.) that nothing in conjunction with, or addition unto what is so appointed, aught to be admitted, if it be contrary to the general rules, or particular preceptive instructions of the scripture. where you may observe, ibid. that these maxims are such as they will adhere unto, and stand upon, in the management of the plea as to the differences between us. so that their plain meaning, as applied to their present contest with the church of england, is, that the nonconformists way of worship is prescribed and appointed in the word of god; whereas our additions to it are contrary either to the general rules; or particular instructions of scripture: and if this be not the design of these propositions, they are no other way pertinent to the management of this plea. and now are not these admirable principles to be pleaded in an apology for liberty of conscience? the governors of the nation are bound to indulge us in our different practices and persuasions about the worship of god, because there is but one particular form allowable, only that which is prescribed and enjoined in the word of god, and that is ours; and therefore are they, and all the princes of christendom, tied up to an exact conformity to that rule, and not to endure any other forms that deviate from its prescription, unless they will tolerate men in an open and avowed violation of the law of god. so unhappy is this man, as still to turn his own weapons upon himself; and stab his cause in its own defence, as desperate men choose to die by their own hands, that they may escape their enemy's swords. he could not have invented a principle more expressly destructive of his own pretences; for if nothing be lawful in the worship of god, but what is prescribed in the word of god; and if nothing that is unlawful may be tolerated by the civil magistrate; and if there be but one particular form appointed in the word of god, it cannot avoid to be concluded that all others are unlawful, and by consequence intolerable. and thus are the tables turned, and now the state of the controversy is not, whether both parties may be safely and innocently tolerated: no, but whether they or we: only they, (says he) because their way of worship is indispensably prescribed and appointed by god himself: not we, because ours is contrary to his own rules and prescriptions; and therefore the case is plain, it ought to be abolished without mercy or delay, unless men may be permitted by connivance of public authority, to contradict the express will of god under pretence of his own worship. but if this be our case, there is no remedy but we must hereafter play a new game in our own defence. they that declare they will give no quarter, have no reason to expect any. and this is a mighty aggravation of these men's former miscarriages and present impenitence, that they can be so bold and confident in their demands from those, that they have so lately treated so barbarously; and yet are so far from giving any tokens of their repentance, that they publicly suggest, that if ever it comes to their turn in the course of providential alterations, they shall again expect the same usage. but is it not a pleasant topick of persuasion, to move us to treat them with all tenderness and civility, because they never did show us any mercy, and if it lie in their power, never will? (a thing in which we have reason enough to be satisfied, without any of these public declarations.) like the country swain that resolved upon his deathbed, if he died, to forgive his enemy; but swore the utmost revenge if he ever recovered. thus will these men, when their reformation is in danger of breathing its last, pretend to tolerate us only because they cannot help it; but when they can, any thing is tolerate but popery and episcopacy. and this man, this tender man, that will not endure any of his disciples to be so much as present at our antichristian way of worship, is, no doubt, a fit agent (not to mention some other excellent qualifications) to treat with us for indulgence and mutual forbearance; and he that declares by his most avowed principles, he will not allow us permission when he is out of power; would, no doubt, be so generous as to grant us all civil liberty, were he in it. go thy way, for a wretched apologist! thy persuasions are just as wise as thy arguments. §. 7. but farther, is this the plea of all nonconformists, or but of one party? if of all, then have we them at old burleighs lock, that engaged to grant their demands, when they had agreed among themselves what to demand: 'tis well known into how many different rendezvouses the whole body of the nonconformists are subdivided, and withal that their pretences and persuasions stand at as wide a distance and open defiance to each other, as to the church of england; and therefore the whole body can neither reasonably pretend this plea, nor possibly be allowed it: for howsoever the different factions may at present seem to piece together for the common interest; yet when this comes to be put in practice, they immediately fall all in pieces again, every party has its different meaning, and appropriates the claim of divine right to its own way, and every faction bandies against every faction for its own ius divinum. they are all zealous for erecting the throne of jesus christ, but the only contention is, which of them shall sit at his right and his left hand, or rather in it. and whenever they are mounted, they lord it with the insolence of young usurpers. and certainly the sceptre of jesus christ was never such an iron rod (no not in the kirk itself) as when it was in the hands of the triers, the tenderhearted triers. and this is our authors particular design and intention, that the independent way of worship is the only way that is prescribed and appointed in the word of god; and therefore that that, and none other, is lawful and warrantable: so that ('tis plain) this pretence, as he manages it, is not the plea of the nonconformists in their combined strength, but purely of the independents in their separated interest; and that as much in opposition to the presbyterians on one hand, and the lower swarms of sectaries on the other, as to the doctrine and discipline of the church of england: so that here every clan of the fanatics is engaged as much as we to stand upon their guard, and 'tis made our common interest to join forces against his usurping pretensions. but this has ever been the crafty method of the independents, first to preach general doctrines, but still to make the particular applications to themselves, i. e. to decoy men into their snares by their text and hidden meaning, and then devour them in the opening of the plot, that was always reserved for use and application. thus, are the people of england enraged against them for murdering their sovereign? the doctrine is, instruments of god's greatest works and glory, v. sermon before the parliam. jan. 31. 1648. are oftentimes the chiefest objects of a professing people's curses and revenges. and, men that under god deliver a kingdom, may have the kingdoms curses for their pains. are the people transported into rage against them, for running our confusions beyond all visible hopes of setlement and recovery, by that horrid act upon the person of their prince? the doctrine is, men every way blameless, and to be embraced in their own ways, are oftentimes abhorred and laden with curses for following the lord in his ways. what precious men should many be, would they let go the work of god in this generation? do any of those wretched miscreants begin to think of hell, and halters, and, with judas, stand aghast at the horror of their crime? the doctrine is, in dark and difficult dispensations of providence, god's choicest servants are oftentimes ready to faint under the burden of them. do some of the old soldiers and officers begin to whisper cavalierism and loyalty? the doctrine is, plausible compliances of men in authority with those, against whom they are employed, are treacherous contrivances against the god of heaven, by whom they are employed. do the presbyterians and royalists begin to make head against those bold and bloody usurpers? the doctrine is, god oftentimes gives up a sinful people to a fruitless contention and fight with their only supporters and means of deliverance. and thus the doctrine of this book is, 'tis the duty of king and parliament to tolerate tender consciences, i. e. says this application, independents. and the text wherewith he vouches this doctrine, is matth. 28.20. where our saviour binds his disciples to observe his commands and institutions to the end of the world; but only the independents observe that form of worship and discipline that he has prescribed and appointed to the practice of his church in all ages. ergo. so that the most moderate inference that can be extracted from these premises, is, that no form of public worship or ecclesiastical government ought to be established in this nation, till his majesty is in good earnest convinced that i. o.'s independent catechism (as shamefully as 'tis baffled) is faithfully collected out of the word of god. these are hard sayings, and yet methinks the two following propositions seem to be somewhat more unreasonable, viz. (1.) that nothing aught to be added to what is enjoined in scripture, pag. 307. without some cogent reason. or, pag. 308. (2.) if any things be found necessary, only those must be prescribed that are most consonant to its general rules and institutions. now the only pertinent result of these pleas as to the difference between us, is, that they apprehend not any such cogent reason for our prescriptions, nor any such exact suitableness in them to the rules of scripture, as in their own models of worship and discipline: and this difference of judgement about the expediency of things, shall abundantly warrant their disobedience to the king, and their separation from the church: and every man that has folly or confidence enough to insist upon this pretence, may claim the privilege of his conscience to make new schisms and divisions in pursuance of the best light god has given him. is not this an admirable contrivance to keep us for ever wand'ring in the endless mazes and labyrinths of reformation, when every pert and hotheaded preacher that dreams the laws of the church are not altogether so agreeable in every point and nicety to the word of god, as his own phantasms and singular hypothesis, shall be permitted the liberty to withdraw his obedience and conformity to the church, to set up new schisms of his own projectment, and to demand of public authority a more through godly reformation. it is not possible for any church in the world, upon the allowance of such delicate principles, to avoid the mischief of everlasting schisms and confusions. but these pretences are so infinitely pettish and unreasonable, that i will not insist any farther upon their confutation; especially because what i have already discoursed both of our obligations to obedience in all things that are not certainly and apparently evil; and also of the deep silence of scripture as to forms and institutions of outward worship, does so visibly both anticipate and surmount all appearance of difficulty in such slender exceptions. §. 8. but our author having, it seems, provided himself of these retreats, (that will give as fair shelter and protection to all the peevish and troublesome men in the world, as to himself) he thinks he may now proceed with more safety and confidence to a particular state and defence of the present controversy, whether nothing may be warrantably established in the worship of god, but what is expressly authorized in the word of god? but here (for what reason himself best knows, and you may shrewdly conjecture) he chooses to engage in a wood, rather than in open champaign; and in stead of a frank and pertinent account of his own thoughts, (if he have any) he bewilders himself and his readers in a wilderness of propositions, and at last leaves them (as himself speaks) in the briers of his own unscriptural distinctions. he lays down a confused heap of positive and uncertain assertions, without any concern in, or reduction to the particular matter in debate: to which they have so little relation, that whether true or false, the cause is not likely to gain any mighty advantage, or suffer any considerable damage by them. in the first place, pag. 311, 312, 313. he repeats his old trite story, and systematick distinction of innate and revealed light; where, after some positions, partly true, partly false, but all impertinent, he tells us, (and 'tis great news) that the enquiry in our present contest is only about the latter; pag. 313. and then here he distinguisheth between occasional and stated revelation; under the former, he reduces the institution of sacrifices before the law, according to the liberty he takes of founding principles, which is to suppose any thing that he ought to prove: and thus because there remains no public record for the stated institution of sacrifices, it ought to be presumed they were warranted by private commission; though for that presumption there is as little ground as for their public appointment. but of this we have discoursed already, and 'tis the latter that he contends to be the sole rule of religious worship. and this principle he tells you has ever been so universally owned in the world, pag. 315. that the postmisnical jews were forced to refer their oral traditions to a divine original, and that the papists dare not resolve their present church-determinations into a less authority. though in those very pretences lies the very imposture of those men, in that they ascribe their own inventions to the wisdom of god, and impose upon the consciences of mankind by virtue of a divine command, and with a false pretence of divine authority; and in the very same abuses lies the presumption of these men, in that nothing will satisfy them but they must have a divine right for all their own fancies and practices. so that, as far as i am able to discern, the only use this principle serves to, is to justify men's tyranny and usurpation; and under its protection to obtrude their own conceits and unreasonable fancies upon the minds of men. and 'tis seldom pretended but where men's impositions are so wild and exorbitant, that nothing less can bear them out than the authority of god himself. all cheats in all ages have ever shrouded themselves under this pretence; and the truth is, it does not only encourage, but makes them too: for when the word of god has really prescribed no particular forms of outward worship; and when all churches have and must have their own peculiar customs and usages; then, if men are resolved to own and stand to this principle, they bring themselves under an inextricable necessity, of ascribing something to the command of god, which god never commanded. but would other churches lay on their impositions (as the church of england does hers) with the obligations of humane power, that which now may be a bold imposture, would then (unless it were faulty upon some other score) have been an exercise of lawful jurisdiction. but thus is our church requited for her frankness and ingenuity. the succeslesness of such an honest and well-ordered discipline upon these men, would almost incline one to suspect that the generality of mankind will not be governed but by imposture and superstition. pag. 318, 319, 320. after this follows another train of propositions, to except natural circumstances, and limit the sense of the proposition to significant and instituted ceremonies: all which we have already routed in our former engagement, and he does not rally up with that metal and briskness as to put us upon the necessity of a second conquest. here are no fresh forces and succours, nothing but some straggling repetitions out of the former chapter; and 'tis not worth while to pursue them, after i have defeated the whole body. but he having thus scholastically finished the state of the question, because he fears all these forces will not stand the shock of an assault, he doubles his files, backs them with new subtleties and scholastic pikes, and states all over again in ten additional propositions; though they are all apparently either coincident with the former, or new impertinencies, or old beggaries, such as that of which i gave you an account in the former chapter, pag 321. viz. wherever we find in the scripture any religious duty approved, though we find no preceding institution, we must take it for granted that it was instituted. i have already begged his pardon to excuse me this civility of granting up a principle so contradictory to my pretences, as an avowed and common notion between us: and if he will but give me leave to except this single one, i will in requital freely grant him all his other nine, if that will do him any service; though for what use he intends them in our present enquiry, i confess i am not able to divine: however, i am not at all concerned in them; and therefore if he can make any advantage of their service, much good may they do him. and now having driven the nail thus home with hard notions out of the schoolmen, he clincheth it with testimonies out of the fathers; and if i will not be born down by strength of reason, no nor confidence, he resolves to sweep me away with the torrent of authority. but though he argues very ill, yet he quotes much worse. for you know it has been an old and beaten controversy between us and the church of rome; whether the written word of god be the adequate rule of faith; and in this both sides have hotly engaged with all sorts of weapons, viz. reason, scripture, and the opinion of the ancients: to which last purpose many protestant writers have collected a vast variety of express assertions out of their write in behalf of the protestant opinion: now some of these our author gravely transcribes for my confutation; and what they plainly affirmed of necessary articles of faith, he confidently applies to ceremonies of outward worship. out of what particular author he made bold to borrow them, they are so common and trivial, it is impossible to determine; you may meet them all together with some other company, (out of which he has cunningly drawn these to escape discovery) in chamier, tom. 1. lib. 10. where he maintains the perfection and sufficiency of the canon of scripture for a rule of faith. and the passages themselves do so plainly limit their own sense to this subject, that they are utterly uncapable of any other application; and if you can prevail with yourself barely to run them over, that without any farther trouble will satisfy you of their wretched and palpable impertinency; for my own part i have neither leisure nor patience to waste precious time and good paper upon such woeful trash. let him take his liberty in his own wild ranging, whilst he roves aloof off from my concerns; and therefore i am resolved, without regard to his unnecessary digressions, to confine my discourse only to those things that pretend a direct and immediate attempt upon my former treatise. §. 9 in the prosecution of this argument, i showed this principle to be so perpetually pregnant with mischiefs and disturbances, that 'tis impossible any church should establish any rules of decency, or laws of discipline, or any settled frame of things appertaining to the offices of external religion, that it will not of necessity contradict and abrogate; in that there never was, nor ever can be any form of worship, as to all circumstances prescribed in the word of god, because that has actually determined no exterior parts of religion beyond the two sacraments; and therefore as long as men lie under the power of a principle so equally false and troublesome, they can never want what themselves may apprehend a just pretence to warrant disturbance and disobedience. so that we found by experience, that when once it was let loose upon the institutions of the church of england, it worried every thing that stood in its way, and turned its fury alike upon every party, that pretended to peace and setlement; it was merciless, as some body's rage and lust, and spared nothing that sacrilege could devour. and as by this the puritans assaulted and ruined the church of england; so when they subdivided among themselves, and mouldered into new churches and factions, it was still the offensive weapon of every aspiring party; with it the independents vanquished the presbyterians; with it the anabaptists attempted the independents; and with it all the little under-sects set up against the anabaptists; and with it, as soon as they were born, like the dragon's teeth, they fell foul upon each other, and had they crumbled into a thousand farther divisions and subdivisions (for nothing so endless as fanatic innovations) it would equally have served both for and against all, because whatever particular customs and rules of decency they should have agreed upon in the worship of god, it was apparently enough impossible they should ever vouch and warrant their prescription out of the word of god; the reason is evident, because that has prescribed and determined none at all. and therefore after the liturgy it sent the directory, with church music it silenced sternholds rhimes, with the cross it cashiered sprinkling in baptism, and when it had (at least in design) plucked down cathedral churches, it fell upon steeple-houses. and what could ever stop the fury of so endless and so unreasonable a principle? for when it had wandered as far as tom of odcomb through a numberless variety of changes and reformations, it would ever have been at as great a distance from its intended end, as the foolish traveller, when he had compassed the top of olympus, was from touching the sun. for how should men with all their search and travel be ever able to discover that in the word of god, which the word of god has no where discovered in itself. but 'tis no matter for that, our author appeals to all mankind, pag. 333. whether an issue and settled stability be not likelier to be effected by all men's consenting unto one common rule, whereby these differences may be tried and examined, than that every party should be left at liberty to indulge to their own affections and imaginations about them. in plain troth, sir, i must take some severer course with this man, if nothing else will reclaim him from this lazy trade of begging. i had taken pains to prove, both from the nature of the thing, and the experience of the world, that this principle carries disquiet and disturbance in its bare supposition, because it stands upon demands impossible to be satisfied. but this man, without taking any notice of my arguments, replies like himself, i. e. boldly and impertinently, to my assertion, and gravely supposes there is, or aught to be, a common rule established in the world, whereby differences concerning outward worship may be tried and examined, which is the very thing in question between us, and all my proofs, to which this is intended for a satisfactory answer, are directly levelled against the very supposition itself; in that it invites and engages men to remonstrate to any settled form of worship upon such unreasonable grounds of exception, as it is impossible for any church in the world either to avoid, or to redress. if indeed there were any such common rule prescribed in the gospel, it would no doubt be a certain and admirable way to determine controversies; but in the mean while to suppose it against flat experience, because we apprehend it convenient for our own ends and interests, is just such another way of arguing as the romanists insist upon to prove the infallibility of the papal chair, because to appeal thither, would quickly reconcile all the squabbles and contentions of christendom; and so it would, were there any competent evidence that his holiness is really vested in any such absolute and uncontrollable sovereignty over christian princes: but the mischief is, there no where appears any warrant or commission to authorise any such mighty judicature; so that by agreeing to devolve the determination of all our disputes upon their final decrees, we should only bring ourselves under this desperate inconvenience, to embrace and submit to any thing that is, or may be, for the advantage of the see or the court of rome; and be bound in conscience to believe all the absurdities in the world by virtue of a counterfeit infallibility, and so be unavoidably obliged to swallow the grossest errors and impostures as articles of faith and rules of religion. and this is the natural and necessary result of this pretence; if indeed it were true, it would do wonderful feats towards appeasing all our quarrels and divisions; but if it be false, it will only serve to create and propagate them for ever, and as long as men persist in its demand, there can be no end of eternal changes and dissetlements. and it does not only leave men to the liberty of their own fancies and imaginations (though 'tis chiefly intended by our author for the prevention of that inconvenience) but withal brings us under an unhappy necessity of yielding to them as impositions of the divine law, and with respect to a divine authority. for if the scripture have left us no such determinations, than all those, that they pretend to discover there, are merely creatures of their own brain, before which we must fall down and worship with as much devotion as before the divine oracles. and now what else can be the issue of these conceits, but that the established laws and discipline of every church must be unravelled to gratify every faction, and advance every fancy. and therefore unless these men are resolved we shall accept their confidence for reason, they should first make good this principle by undeniable proofs of scripture, before they venture to lay so much weight upon its admission, pag 303. and not tell us (as our author has done) that he is able to prove it by an hundred texts (and yet never allege one;) for till he has performed this, he only demonstrates his assertion by often repeating it: but beggars are a bold sort of people, and will extort what they cannot challenge by clamour and importunity. and thus whereas i added, that all the pious villainies that ever disturbed the christian world have ever sheltered themselves in this grand maxim, he solemnly replies, the maxim itself here traduced is as true as any part of the gospel. pag. 334. this is downright hardiness, and (i confess) resistless demonstration: it must be a desperate wight that dares cope with such a giantlike confidence, that when it is not able to answer, is able to browbeat arguments. to what purpose does this young man here tell us stories of the gnostics of old, and the anabaptists of late, how they either have, or would have embroiled kingdoms in pursuance of this principle? to what purpose does he tell us 'tis an impregnable sanctuary of disturbance and sedition? to what purpose does he admonish us, that if this pretence be allowed as sufficient to warrant remonstrances to the public laws, 'tis such an unhappy ground of quarrel and exception, that it is not in the power of government to provide against its disorders and enormities, because the matter of its demands is a thing utterly impossible? i say pish! to what purpose all this, when i tell him that this maxim, whatever he may pretend or prove, is as certainly true as any part of the gospel. and thus do i argue against a woolsack, no reasonings can make impression upon his mind, but fall and perish unregarded, and when you have spent so much ammunition to beat down this principle, it is all defeated with this goodly answer, 'tis true as the gospel. when against this very answer lies the very emphasis of all my objections, that they require such an impracticable condition to the setlement of the church, under such a peremptory and indispensable obligation. and the greater their confidence, the more it aggravates the mischief and strengthens the argument: in that they make this impossible fancy as necessary to church-communion as the apostles creed; so that if this pretence shall pass for a warrantable ground of separation, schism will become the greatest duty, and confusion the most certain character of a true church, because it will indifferently rise up against all setlements, and implead all forms of discipline. what think you, would not this man's resolute blockishness even tempt a stoic to beat syllogisms into his head, for you see nothing else will ever make him attend to the hardest arguments? but as for our authors own private and reserved meaning, as to the sense of this principle, 'tis plainly this; there cannot possibly be any true church without the beauty and purity of christian ordinances; this consists purely in the congregational way of worship and discipline, so that wherever that is not legally established, there can be no true church; for all others have deviated from the platform of the gospel, and therefore there can be no right setlement and due reformation of things, till that is once more re-enthroned in the christian world. and 'tis this our author means when he instructs us that, the worship of god is or aught to be the same at all times, pag. 336. in all places, and amongst all people, in all nations; and the order of it is fixed and determined in all particulars that belong unto it. so that by his principles and goodwill, no other form of worship ought to be allowed in the church of god, but what himself apprehends particularly prescribed to all ages and nations of the world in the word of god. and this is excellent doctrine for one that is pleading for toleration, and suitable to that of i. o. who tells us in his romance of the distinct communion, treatise of communion. pag. 170. i shall take leave to say what is upon my heart, and what (the lord assisting) i shall willingly endeavour to make good against all the world; namely, that that principle that the church hath power to institute and appoint any thing or ceremony belonging to the worship of god, either as to matter or to manner, beyond the orderly observance of such circumstances, as necessarily attend such ordinances as christ himself has instituted, (which condition none but the independents observe) lies at the bottom of all the horrible superstition and idolatry, of all the confusion, blood, persecution, and wars, that have for so long a season spread themselves over the face of the christian world; and that it is the design of a great part of the revelation to make a discovery of this truth. so that, to be brief, all the dreadful prophecies of st. john are not to be appeased till the princes of christendom shall be pleased to agree in the ius divinum of independency. in the next following section i demand, why, forsooth, this proposition must be limited to matters of religion only? and why the scripture ought not to be esteemed as perfect a rule of civil as of ecclesiastical polity, and why not as complete a system of ethics as a canon of worship? so that if i should require any other reason of this limitation, beside their own humour, it is not in its own nature capable of any other account but what is given by the scriptures themselves; and therefore unless they can show us where they expressly limit this doctrine to matters of worship, the very pretence disproves and condemns itself. but our author instead of standing to this appeal, and satisfying my demands by determinations out of the word of god, endeavours to account for this difference by the mere reason of things themselves, which though it were true, is yet coarsely impertinent; seeing the principle itself disclaims any other proof or confirmation but what relies upon express testimony of scripture. and yet 'tis as false as 'tis impertinent, for 'tis in many words to this purpose: pag. 335. that matters of civil government relate to the conveniences of this life, and so are capable of being varied according to the circumstances of things and rules of prudence; whereas the things that appertain to the worship of god, have another reference to the pleasing of god, and the purchase of eternity, and therefore are stated by him in all particulars, and not at all left to prudential accommodations. this little subterfuge, you know, i have already stopped; and though i had not, it is obvious at the first glance of a reflecting thought, that all matters civil, moral, and religious, have a common relation to the concerns both of our present and future state. the affairs of religion may (as they are managed) be either useful or hurtful to the conveniences of this life; and on the contrary, our civil and political interests have an unavoidable reference to the accounts of the life to come, and therefore (to spare more words) this can make no difference between them as to the jurisdiction of earthly powers. §. 10. in the next paragraph i endeavoured to represent how this delicacy and coyness of conscience must engage men to remonstrate to the institutions of all churches that either were, are, or shall be in the world. and here i instanced in some customs both of the jewish and the primitive christian churches of old, and of late in those of the lutheran and calvinian communion, and more particularly in some of the rites and usages of the long-parliament reformation. but here he wisely winks at all the instances i produced of things now in being; for their notoreity of fact is so certain and unquestionable, that 'tis impossible any face should be varnished with confidence enough to deny it with eyes open. and then as for the precedents i alleged out of the records of ancient times, he turns them all off with one short and scornful glance. what tell you me (says he) of the feast of purim, pag. 342. was it not a civil observance? though 'tis so infinitely certain it was a solemn day of thanksgiving instituted by mordecai for so eminent and unexpected a deliverance of the jewish nation from that general massacre that was so bloodily plotted, and so fiercely prosecuted by haman and his accomplices: est●r 9.21 and for this reason was it attended, as all their other festivals of joy ever were, (and ours ought to be) with bounty and charity to the poor. but if he will not allow the fourteenth and fifteenth days of the month adar to have been religious feasts, 'tis to be feared he will in time proceed to deny that the twenty fourth of october, in the year 1651. was observed with holiday respect and religion, though it be marked out in some body's calendar, as a solemn day of thanksgiving for the destruction of the scots army at worcester, and the providential deliverance of these nations from their civil and ecclesiastical bondage, and from a tyrant full of revenge, and a discipline full of persecution, with sundry other mercies. in the next place, what do i twit him with the feasts of the dedication, and the fasts of the captivity, when i have no proof of their being approved? ibid. but, gentle sir, had they been such bold and unwarrantable encroachments upon the divine prerogative, as you pretend, it can scarce be imagined but that god would sometime or other have protested against them, as he often did against all their other obliquities and misdemeanours; so that their not being expressly scorned and rejected, is of itself a just and safe presumption of their acceptance. and yet however, as for the first feast of the dedication of the altar, instituted and observed by solomon, there is the same evidence of its being accepted, as there is of the whole solemnity of consecrating the temple; for immediately after the end of this ceremony, which was the last part of this princely and magnificent performance, 2 chron. 7.12. god himself is pleased to declare to solomon his full and entire approbation of the whole duty. and then as for the latter feast of dedication for rebuilding the altar by judas and the maccabees, 1 mac. 4.59. it was performed with extraordinary gravity and devotion, and is represented by the author of that history as a remarkable instance of their zeal and piety. and that is sufficient proof that the jews themselves (as strictly as they were tied up by the mosaic canon to prescript forms) had no such terrible conceptions of the sacrilegious boldness of new occasional solemnities and ceremonial additions. but those were apocryphal times, and therefore not capable of the evidence of divine testimony, unless it were that our saviour afterward sufficiently intimated he did not dislike the institution, jo●. 10.22. by vouchsafing his presence at the solemnity, which had it been such an unlawful observance, he would never have done, unless that he might take occasion to reprove it, as he did all their other unwarrantable traditions. and as for the other parallel instance of the fasts of the captivity, i see not how we can expect or desire a more express allowance and approbation, than what the almighty himself has been pleased to give us by his own immediate inspiration. thus saith the lord of hosts; zach. 8.19. the fast of the fourth month, and the fast of the fifth, and the fast of the seventh, and the fast of the tenth shall be to the house of judah joy, and gladness, and cheerful feasts, therefore love the truth and peace. where are reckoned up, without any mark of difference, three fasts instituted upon emergent and occasional reasons, together with * leu. 24.27. one ordained and appointed by god himself; and where also 'tis promised, if they would reform their immoralities according to the doctrines and sermons of his prophets, he would so alter their condition, as to give them reason to institute even upon those days of deepest sadness, the most memorable festivals and solemnities of rejoicing. and then as for the last instance alleged out of the old testament, viz. wearing sackcloth in token of humiliation, that (says he) was only a customary sign suited to the nature of the thing: ibid. i. e. it had a natural aptness to represent the thing it signified; and therefore might perchance have been made use of to that purpose in ancient time. but how came it first to gain the authority of prescription? if by chance and accidental usage, why may not the civil magistrate be allowed as much power to warrant their lawful significancy, as popular custom? for if it be antecedently unlawful to create this relation between them, nothing can do it; if it be not, where lies the ground of exception, rather against the commands of governors, than the casual consent of the people? but if on the contrary, sackcloth was made choice of to this purpose by design and institution, than its case is the same to all intents and purposes with our symbolical rites and usages, against which yet they except for that only reason: however, it would be a notable subtlety to discover any such remarkable difference as to the concerns of morality, between the institutions of law and of custom, so as to make one (though for no other reason) apparently unlawful, and the other just and warrantable. these men's consciences are so strangely nice and subtle, that nothing will satisfy the exactness of their curiosity, unless they may divide an hair into all points of the compass. but besides, as for what is here pretended as to the natural suitableness of sackcloth, to the nature of grief and sorrow; if the symbolical use of a surplice be not so curiously adapted to express what it is designed to signify, as is that emblem of humiliation; that at worst is no defect of morality, but merely of fancy and dexterous invention, in fixing upon less proper resemblances, than possibly a more curious wit might have pitched upon: so that though perhaps the representation be not altogether so neat and pretty, as some fanciful men might have contrived; yet to make that any ground of exception, is but a contest of wit, and not of conscience. and yet after all this, i know not any symbol in the nature of things more obvious or more catholic, than the significancy of a white vestment; in so much that it has in all nations ever been accepted and used as a proper sign of purity and innocence; unless among the blacks, where they paint the devil white. and therefore (if that be their grievance) its signification was not first stamped upon it by the mere arbitrary institution of authority, but was first ratified by custom and prescription; and for that reason was it afterward appointed to be used as a customary sign suited to the nature of the thing, in the same manner as was wearing sackcloth among the jews in token of humiliation. §. 11. these, among many others, were the precedents i pitched upon in the jewish church; and then, as for those of the primitive christians, the first instance i specified, was the lordsday sabbath. to this our author is so confident as to tell us, ibid. it had a perpetual binding institution from the authority of christ himself; though he is so wise too as not to tell us where. perhaps 'tis possible he may discover some such thing described in the canticles, or foretold by the old prophets: but if he will appeal to the four evangelists, they are as silent as to any record or account of our saviour's translating the sabbath from the last to the first day of the week, as they are of the anniversary observation of the fifth of november; and it was as much unknown, and as little observed during his conversation in the world. but this man is bold enough to bear down the truth of story, and the evidence of fact, and by downright affirmation to vouch his own dreams and fancies into certain and undoubted realities. but perhaps by this gay and careless way of talking, our author may affect the humour and conversation of gentlemen, when they are disposed to be pleasant, and satisfy themselves with any repartee that strikes the present fancy, without regard to its truth, or concern for its proof. and he may be waggish and complaisant if he please; but as for my part, i am now resolved to be serious, sullen, and scholastic; and therefore tell him plainly to his beard, that there is not one tittle or jota concerning saint sabbath among all the twelve apostles: and if he think himself able to discover the new institution of this festival among our saviour's precepts, he may hope after the same rate to find out a particular appointment of all the margaret fasts and thanksgivings in the revelations. my two next instances were the love-feasts, and the kiss of charity: ibid. but in these, (he replies) there was only a direction to use civil customs and observances in an holy and sanctified manner. dictum factum, they were purely civil customs, and had no relation to religious worship; and therefore (sir) this is an impertinent allegation. this is short; but yet however, i have learned by long conversation with this man, at length to look confidence in the face, and not to be put off with slight and positive assertions. and therefore in the first place, what if i should gall him with the precariousness of this distinction, and still challenge him to show where the word of god empowers or permits the church or the civil magistrate to institute new civil rites, and where it retrenches the exercise of the same jurisdiction as to ecclesiastical customs? this single querie is such a choak-pear as he will never be able either to chew or to swallow. beside, there is no such mighty difference between civil and religious ceremonies, but that they may be frequently coincident: outward solemnities of religion may be sometime used for ornament of state; and some of the more grave and serious ornaments of state, may be sometime borrowed to set off the more pompous solemnities of religion. and to what purpose soever they may be intended, they are still no more than ceremonies of grandeur or decency; and their nature (unless perchance it be appropriated by some particular limitation) always is of such a common and indifferent use, that they are of themselves equally capable of being applied either to the services of religion, or to the actions of civil life, and are denominated either this or that, according to their present office and employment. but yet farther, to direct civil usages to be observed in an holy and sanctified manner, is to adopt them into acts and exercises of religion: for so they are, as far as they are observed in an holy and sanctified manner; for so far they have an holy and sanctified use; and all things whose use is holy and sanctified, are (i think) of a religious importance: and therefore if humane power may warrantably institute such civil observances as these, that alone is sufficient to my purpose, for they, as such, are religious rites and customs. however, by this man's principles, what authority has any person to direct civil observances to religious ends and uses, unless (as he argues against the institution of symbolical ceremonies) he could change their natures, pag. 279. or create a new relation between them? if he can, his grand scruple (for all his atoms are as big as mountains) of applying things of one kind to signify things of another, is of no force against instituted symbols: for the only thing that seems to grieve and offend him, is the arrogance of attempting to create new relations. 'tis presumption for any finite being to assume to itself such an infinite power; works of creation are proper to omnipotence; so that it can be no less than blasphemy, and presuming ourselves equal to the almighty, to pretend to his power of creating relations. thus 'tis read in his philosophy; and yet according to the more modern and reformed metaphysics, this is judged so common and feasible an exploit, that some doctors are of opinion that any child is able, with the allowance of a truss of straw, to create him fifty thousand in a day. what then think you of the force and truth of that argument, that supposes this so great and so known an absurdity, that to reduce you to it, is to drive you into contradictions, and run you up against first principles? well! were duns alive, he would break a lance, or pluck a crow with our author about this subtlety; and would maintain to his teeth, that the power of creating relations is competent to finite being's. but to be short and serious, were you ever in all your life entertained with such fairy tales and mere romances in matters of this importance? consider with yourself after what rate this man has behaved himself towards the church of england; and then consider how all his implacable zeal and indignation against her laws and customs, resolves itself entirely into an antipathy against significant ceremonies; and then consider how the only ground of his hatred and aversation to them, is the giantlike impiety of assaying to create relations between signs and things signified; and then in the last place consider the infinite vanity and triflingness of this pretence; and when you have considered all these things, i leave it to your own natural logic to draw out one farther conclusion. but i have entertained you too long with the music of this man's rattles, and therefore to be short after all this sport and dalliance with these childish notions and gay nothings, 'tis beyond all peradventure certain that the love-feasts and kiss of charity were mere religious rites and customs, and pecuculiar appendages to some public offices and solemnities of religion: and this is so vulgarly known, that no man living but our author, could ever with such a slight and easy confidence have turned them over for civil observances, when they were never used upon any occasion but in their religious assemblies. and what stronger evidence can we desire to prove them religious rites, than their being appropriate to religious duties? who almost is ignorant, that in the primitive church they always concluded their public prayers in form of benediction, wishing peace and unity? and this being finished, they always sealed their mutual affections with the holy kiss; for so it is called by st. paul, rom. 16.16. and what quotation out of the fathers more trite and vulgar than that of justin martyr, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; when prayers are ended, we salute each other with a kiss? and therefore 'tis by tertullian styled signaculum orationis; their public prayers being ever concluded with this friendly ceremony. and then as for the agapae and feasts of charity, they were certain sacred meetings, where christians of all conditions were wont to eat promiscuously together, without making any difference between the rich and poor, the mean and honourable, in token both of their friendship and equality. and they were so merely intended for the ends of piety and devotion, that they were inseparable from the holy communion, and indeed made up part of the solemnity. §. 12. and now upon the review of these things, such shadows and vanishing appearances are these men's excuses and exceptions, that i cannot imagine they are serious and in good earnest in their pretences, but they are fitted to puzzle and amuse the common people, and that is sufficient to their purpose to keep up the party, and perpetuate the faction. and if they do but bolt out upon them with an hard or (what to them is the same) an insignificant word, a child is not more afraid of a church-porch at midnight, than they of our churches at noonday; and they dread the appearance of a surplice, as they would a ghost or a spectre. though they as little understand the principles and pretensions of their ringleaders, as they do aristotle's metaphysics; and are not so subtle as to discern the iniquity of a symbolical rite; and if any of them have by converse with their deeper rabbis picked up a pittance of this learned gibberish, (as peasants and country swains do shreds of latin, as well as our author) they talk it by rote with impertinent zeal, and clamour, and passion. but if you demand of them, where lies the real exception against symbolical wickednesses? they can give you as wise an account as if their preachers had railed at them under the horrid names of tohu and bohu. so that the tenderness of vulgar conscience, is nothing else but the stubbornness of popular folly. they have been abused into absurd principles, and seditious practices, and then to be at all adventure tenacious of their casual prejudices, against the convictions of reason, and the commands of authority, shall be gloried in as the pure result of a nicer integrity, and more precise godliness. and this reminds me of a suggestion that i before intimated upon this occasion, what a vain thing it is to have any regard to these men's proposals of condescensions and accommodations, when nothing but schism lies at the bottom of all their designs and principles, and when their demands and their resolutions are so unreasonable, that 'tis as impossible to satisfy as convince them; and they scarce agree in any one common principle, unless this, by all ways to keep up the faction: and therefore though they are resolved never to be quiet, till they have brought authority to bend to their will and humour; yet whenever the notorious folly of their principles is unravelled, and the palpable unreasonableness of their schism exposed, and by consequence the cause endangered, than all their outcry is mutual forbearance and condescension. though we can never learn either the nature of their grievances, or the end of their demands, how far and to what we must yield. for must we discard any or all of our ceremonial constitutions? to what purpose? if out of compliance with their scruples, they are eternally destructive of peace and setlement: for whether it be because they are not expressly prescribed in the word of god, or because they are offensive to weak and tender brethren, or because their own consciences remain doubtful, and not fully satisfied of their lawfulness, or for any the like regards; if these are granted, there can never be any end of unreasonable demands; and there is no rule of decency that can ever be enjoined, that is not as obnoxious to the same trifling exceptions. and if we shall submit the laws of the church to such slender pretences, we do but betray it and ourselves into a fatal necessity of endless schisms and distractions: for no man, that has a mind to be peevish, can want plausible pretensions to put a baffle upon public authority, if these principles are sufficient to warrant remonstrances, and protect dissenters. and therefore in stead of indulging men their liberty upon the account of such persuasions, as we ever hope to see peace and setlement in the church, we must root them up as seeds of eternal sedition, and brand and punish all persons that publicly profess them, as men resolved to be turbulent and unpeaceable in the commonwealth. but if they shall be content publicly to disclaim these and the like pretensions, and after that continue their cry for condescension, than all the sense of their proposal is, that we, forsooth, must cancel the established laws of the church, only to gratify their wayward and capricious humour: for when the aforesaid principles are discharged, there remains no other ground of scruple or separation, but their own unyielding wilfulness. and the interpretation is, that they are resolved to persist in their demands, because they are resolved not to confess their error; and will rather ruin the peace of the church, than hazard the reputation of their own understandings; and having once engaged themselves in an unjust and defenceless cause, will rather embroil the church for ever, than retire with a little dishonour. and now, are not these brave, humble, melting, and brokenhearted christians, that dare under pretence of scruple and tenderness, thus resolutely affront the convictions of their own conscience: they are satisfied both that peace and unity ought not to be violated, where it may be innocently preserved; and that so it may be in the communion of the church of england; and yet in spite of these premises, the conclusion of their practice is, that they are resolved to keep up this schism that they confess to be unnecessary, and by consequence unlawful. and now as for the remaining part of this chapter, our author runs perfect dregs; his fancy tires, and his pen falters; and nothing holds out but brave confidence, and that trusty virtue will never fail him: however, methinks 'tis time for me to take up, and not waste my own pains and your patience in resisting old repetitions: for 'tis a small pittance of matter behind that is worth our search and enquiry; and i am not so greedy of confutation, as to improve every grain of advantage. thus what he replies to what i have discoursed concerning popery, will-worship, superstition, adding to the law of god, etc. resolves itself entirely into the unwarrantableness of mystical rites: so that the force of this faint exception being already so thoroughly broken, the reasonableness of those discourses must be supposed to stand firm and unattempted; and the arguments i retorted upon them from these vulgar topics of their own, unanswered. and therefore seeing all his answers (whatever they are) rely upon the supposition of the truth of that principle, and seeing i have so sufficiently demonstrated their vanity and falsehood, 'tis to no purpose to continue our contention about those other matters, till we have brought the former controversy to some issue, because whatever i can urge from their consideration, shall be shuffled off by him upon the mere determination of that debate; and therefore as many and as great advantages as i have against this part of his survey, i shall rather choose to wave them all, (for i must not expose all forgeries, and pursue all impertinencies) and devolve the whole dispute upon the argument of significant ceremonies: seeing in that (as they manage it) lies the only strength and all the sinews of their objections. and i confess i am not at all averse from reducing the whole contest to that single head, not only because it would shorten it, in that 'tis the bottom of all their other pretences, but because i am so fully assured what woeful work they must make, if we could once bring them to allege prohibitions out of the word of god against the institution of mystical and symbolical rites. by which means, though i am forced with some regret to pass by a vast heap of rebukes that i had remarked, (and after the rate and genius of this man's writing, whatever his cause is, it is impossible to want matter of confutation) only that my reply might not swell beyond the bulk of a just volume, yet that may in some measure be recompensed by the fairer advantage the reader may have to see more particularly, and search more narrowly into their dearest and most fundamental trifles; and i had much rather confute the cause than the man. but beside these heads, there are two or three passages altogether foreign to the enquiry of significant ceremonies, them i shall briefly consider, and so put an end to this chapter. §. 13. first then, whereas i had upbraided them with a challenge to vouchsafe so much honour to mr. hooker in particular, among many other learned and worthy men, as but to take notice of his book of ecclesiastical polity, in that as long as that remained unanswered it would stand for a lasting and eternal trophy over their baffled cause, and therefore i advised them (and i thought it was a friendly office) instead of continually pelting us with their three-half-peny pamphlets, if they would consult their own and their causes reputation, to bend their forces upon his single performance, seeing upon that we were content to cast the issue of the whole controversy: so that how ably and successfully soever they might discourse and argue about these things, it was all in vain, whilst this great champion stood unattempted; in that when they had done their poor utmost (as it is apparent they have) this cross objection would still remain in every adversaries mouth, why do you not answer mr. hooker? and therefore whatever they shall do, 'tis all but labour lost till that is done; and his books being unanswered amounts to a stronger proof against them, than all their pamphlets against myself and all other adversaries are able to assoil; seeing then they want not for zeal or goodwill for the credit of their cause, he should never have escaped thus long unattempted, had they not wanted courage and ability to undertake him. but to all this our author returns me a counter-challenge, to mind them of any one argument in mr. hooker's longsom discourse, pag. 356. not already frequently answered, and that in print, long ago, and it shall have its due consideration. but thou trifler, what is this to my defiance? my challenge was to answer mr. hooker entirely, and not his arguments by retail, for whether they are so easily answerable, will, i hope, competently enough appear by the last issue and result of our present controversy; in that our author has the advantage to use and improve what has been so frequently, and so long ago published. and therefore it was no part of my demand that they would produce their answers to mr. hooker's arguments, as they lie scattered amongst other godly discourse (for that would be an endless and indeterminable controversy) but that they would of purpose undertake to confute his book in gross; for though his whole discourse were replied to by piece-meal, yet that can be no satisfaction to people so zealous in the cause, unless the glory and reputation of the discourse itself were particularly defeated, in that as long as that shall stand unassaulted, that alone will be sufficient to discredit and prevent the success of all other endeavours. so that the plain meaning of my challenge was only, that if the substance of his discourse be so clearly answered, as they pretend, that they would but convince the world of it by a particular and methodical confutation of the discourse it self; for till that be performed, or at least attempted, they cannot expect but that all adversaries as well as i should upbraid them with its unanswerableness. but alas! what do we talk of that, that is a burden too heavy for their weak shoulders? they answer mr. hooker! fond men! they will as soon undermine the pillars of the earth as shake one paragraph of his writings. remove mountains, repent of your sins, and then answer mr. hooker. 'tis not for men of your pigmy strength and skill to attaque such a giant of sense and reason; you do but run a tilt upon a rock with straws and bulrushes. 'tis infinite rashness and presumption for the stoutest he of you all to venture upon a man of his invincible abilities; in a word, 'tis not for whifflers and pamphleteers to cope with mr. hooker. our author might better have told us as i. o. once told the world, that this great man was unhappily engaged in the defence of such errors, the duty of pastors and people distinguished p. 18. as he could not but see, and did often confess. this is another peerless wight too; for where did that good man ever confess he did violence to the convictions of his conscience in his public discourses, for so he must have done, had he engaged in the defence of known errors? was there ever such a brazen head of slander as this, that dares thus groundlessly, and thus foully asperse such a spotless integrity? i confess, i could not but resent our author's disingenuity, when he frequently intimates, i have written for my private interest against my secret persuasions; but what is that to this man's candour and civility, who dares proclaim to the world, that that upright soul prevaricated with god and his own conscience in the main work and design of his whole life? well! hereafter i will set my heart at ease, for what adversary can ever hope to escape these men's slanders, that dare attempt to blast hooker's reputation? but however, is it not a pleasant humour for this man seririously to appeal from a single author, to all the puritan scribblers since the reign of queen elizabeth? i am content to devolve the issue of the controversy upon mr. hooker's performance; no, says he, all that longsom discourse has been shamefully baffled over and over. but how shall we satisfy and inform ourselves of that? why, no other way but by perusing all the pamphlets that they have ever published since the ecclesiastical polity. but this is as safe a demur as his appeals to the day of judgement, for who (think you) will ever have so much time, or so little employment as to examine all their flat and empty pamphlets. and when that is done, it will be worth the while to raise a new controversy, whether they amount to a just reply to mr. hooker. but be that as it will, the plain consequence of my challenge is, that seeing so many men have laboured with so much zeal in this contest, 'tis strange that no man, either for the public interest of his cause, or his own private renown, ever ventured to turn his forces particularly upon that discourse; and therefore seeing 'tis not done, that alone is sufficient presumption (considering their zeal and behaviour) to conclude that 'tis too much for their courage to attempt, and much more for their ability to perform: and withal, that all their faint endeavours since are nothing more than an obstinate persisting in the repetition of old and baffled clamours. and the truth is, i know not one masculine writer that has appeared in defence of the cause since the conversion of cartwright; and i must ingenuously confess, i have not had the good fortune to meet with any thing like a new argument in their later authors, nothing but his old trash vouched with effeminate and uncleanly rail. and therefore instead of standing to the confidence of my former challenge, i will now only request them not to annoy us with any of their little exceptions, till they have first examined whether and how they are answered in whitgifts reply to that troublesome man; for it was his pen that first laid the cause a gasping, and the puritan reformation breathed its last in that engagement, and never spoke word since, but as a poor echo does, by a faint repetition of cartwrights paltry cavils, who, poor man was beaten by downright blows out of his zeal & peevishness, and driven by mere force of arms and arguments into order and conformity. §. 14. the next cavil (and so i have done) is so miserably impertinent, that i am loath to mention it, and yet so dismally disingenuous, that i am as loath to omit it. and therefore to be brief, in the close of this chapter i undertook to answer the biggest and most plausible exception, i could think of, against the ecclesiastical sovereignty of the civil magistrate, viz. what if he should impose things sinful and superstitious, what inconveniences would this bring upon the government of the world? the consequence of such an awkard state of things would be, that men must either suffer for the sedition of their disobedience from their prince, or for the sinfulness of their obedience from god. this i had always observed to be the gloss of all their arguments, and the retreat of all their discourses; when all their other little pretences are defeated, 'tis still the refuge of all their talk, to represent what mischiefs and inconveniences may possibly ensue upon the exercise of this jurisdiction. in answer to which objection, omitting what i had before discoursed, that the matters of our present debate were only external forms and expressions of religious worship, where it was not easy for the magistrate to err, or if he should, errors in these things are seldom dangerous; which though it is a full and competent reply, yet i waved it, and only showed how the objection dashed as impetuously against all manner of government; where i weighed its conveniences against its inconveniences, and represented that how enormous soever the mischiefs and calamities of an abused power might chance to be, they were still out-ballanced by the comforts and advantages of government; and therefore that this was no reasonable exception, seeing our enquiry is not after such a perfect way of settling things, as is altogether free from all abuses, but after such an one as is liable to the fewest: so that seeing an ecclesiastical jurisdiction is absolutely necessary to prevent all those confusions, that would unavoidably spring from an unrestrained liberty, though it may, and often is ill managed, yet 'tis better mankind should be sometimes exposed to the miseries of tyranny and persecution, than always groan under the intolerable disorders of anarchy. and to this end did our blessed saviour arm his followers against the storms of persecution, because he saw the power of the world in such men's hands, whose principles would oblige them to oppose, and (if they were able) to destroy that oeconomy of things that he came to establish in it. and therefore that they might not create disturbances in the state by affronting and controlling the edicts of princes against their religion, he teaches them to guard themselves with patience and contentedness, that if it happened that the secular powers should raise persecutions against them for propagating that religion, that was so necessary to the eternal interests of mankind, they should not oppose them in any tumultuary and unhandsome ways, but patiently submit to their unhappy fate, and be content to lay down their lives, rather than forgo their consciences, or disturb commonwealths; and by this way of meekness and humility he assured them divine providence would make their cause triumph over all the established and superstitious worships in the world, and so make christianity prevail in all kingdoms without disturbing them. and therefore 'tis a vain suggestion, when they tell us this doctrine would have fallen heavy upon the primitive christians; it might, and by ill mistake it did so; but our saviour had rather his church should be persecuted, than that the world should not be governed; and as the circumstances of affairs stood at that juncture of time, one of them was unavoidable, and therefore of these two evils he chose the more eligible, and went not about to abrogate or abate any part of the imperial power, to keep his church out of harms-way from their persecution, but rather chose to expose it to all the tortures and reproaches of martyrdom, than to weaken the power and interest of government, of which he was so careful, that he has made new provisions against resistance, and made it highly criminal to all the proselytes of his religion upon whatsoever pretences or provocations; and therefore our duty is so settled, that when the matter of their commands is lawful, we must obey cheerfully; when unlawful, we must suffer cheerfully; this is the fortune of mankind, and the best state of affairs humane life is capable of. but these things i have proved more at large elsewhere, and they are in themselves so plain and reasonable, that they could not fail of convincing any man, that is not resolved to be peevish and inflexible, but if he be, 'tis no bending men's humours, or breaking their wills by force of argument. and of this methinks our authors perverting this part of my discourse is a pleasant and competent instance. for he gravely represents the forementioned objection, as if i had been such a sot as to propose it for a case of conscience, pag. 367. whether when the worship established be sinful or superstitious, it be lawful to obey, or not. this difficulty (says he) every child of ten years old is able to resolve, and away he runs with it, and falls unmercifully upon all the considerations that i have returned in answer to the objection, as if they were determinations of the case, and then proceeds to state it himself with the authority of a pope in cathedrâ, pag. 369 that 'tis not lawful to obey. most profound and judicious casuist! had he been confessor to st. anthony, he is subtle enough to have cleared up all his scruples. who beside a man of new lights and notions could ever have hit upon such a notable decision of this enquiry, that 'tis not lawful to obey the civil magistrate in case of idolatry. go thy way for the flower of school-divinity, thou hast subtlety enough to put scotus his nose out of joint for ever; 'tis impossible but that such an extraordinary wit should prove master of a new sect of schoolmen. but to be serious, pride and passion are blind things, how else could this man have run so boldly upon such a blunt and silly mistake, when 'tis so apparent, that the enquiry was not at all concerned whether obedience in such cases be lawful, but whether those inconveniences, that follow upon their supposal, be a competent ground to abrogate all ecclesiastical jurisdictions. or whether this be a reasonable exception against the usefulness of putting it in practice, that it may be managed to evil purposes, and when it is so, honest men must suffer for their integrity. i say no, and he that says i, must for the same reason abolish all civil government, because all civil government is as likely to be abused. but having amused his vulgar reader with this strange case of conscience; and having intimated, that i sometimes speak as though it were the duty of subjects to comply with the establishment of idolatry supposed; pag. 36●. only because i have determined it better to submit to tyrants than to hazard the dissolution of the state by civil wars and rebellions; having, i say, once made his way into these prodigious mistakes, he is resolved to swell their horror with a strong infusion of slander and infamy. and to this purpose he transcribes a passage out of my last chapter, concerning the obligations of a scrupulous and tender conscience, viz. that in cases doubtful and disputable, of a public concern, men were to resign up their own judgements to the determinations of authority. and this he brings in here as my real solution of the present difficulty, viz. that they ought to comply with the public establishment of idolatry, because by virtue of this principle they are always to give obedience to all the commands of lawful superiors. and now having improved his falsifications to this monstrous bulk, and withal swollen his fancy with admiring at the boldness of such lewd assertions; he at last bursts forth into an impetuous fit of preaching against them. but seeing he has so lamentably mistaken his text, he may talk his lungs and his heart out, and never talk to the purpose, and therefore let him take his full career of impertinency, it concerns not me either to stop or follow him, only this let me tell him for his comfort, that i have there proved, and here defy him and all the world to disprove it, that whoever shall contradict that proposition as i have laid it down, viz. that in all doubtful and disputable cases of a public concernment, subjects are not to attend to the results of their own private judgement, but to acquiesce entirely in the determinations of public authority; whoever, i say, shall contradict this, is an enemy to the peace of mankind, and a traitor to all societies in the world. for government is a word that signifies nothing, if it be not a power to determine and appoint what it judges most useful and expedient for the concerns and interests of the commonwealth; and if you will cancel this authority of the public judgement, whatever you may call it, 'tis really nothing but anarchy. and this is the last and unavoidable issue of all their pretences. for as to their general pleas for indulgence, they still press for an entire and absolute exemption of conscience from all the commands of authority, and in effect vest it in a power paramount to the supremacy of princes; so that in case of competition, its dictates must overrule all their laws, and therefore no government shall ever be able to pass an obligation upon it but by its own consent, and this (if any thing) is perfect anarchy; every man is entirely left to the guidance of his own discretion, and is as much at liberty, whether he will or will not obey, as if he were absolutely free from all superiority and jurisdiction. and then, as to their particular exceptions, their scruples are so nice and delicate, so peevish and splenetic, so giddy and fantastic, so impossible to be prevented of redressed, that no form of setlement can ever be contrived, upon which they will not beat with equal fury; for they are indifferently applicable to all cases, and their strength depends not at all upon the reasons of things, but the humours of men. and if the offence of a weak brother, or the scruple of a tender conscience are sufficient exceptions against the power and efficacy of laws, then farewell all the reverence and authority of government; for settle things with never so much exactness, it will be impossible upon these principles to avoid these cavils as long as there are either fools or knaves in the world. and do but observe the untenable weakness of all their pretences apart, and how they shuffle from their general demands to their particular exceptions, and then when they are pursued to their defence, how they roll back to their general demands, and so dance perpetually in a manifest circle of shifting and disingenuous cavil, and you need no farther proof to satisfy you of the intolerable impertinency of their clamours, and unexemplified peevishness of the men. chap. vii. the contents. that some men from a belief of the imposture of all religions, argue for the liberty of all, farther cleared and justified. that some sects of men are strongly inclined to sedition, proved by their practices and principles. our author's intolerable confidence in denying his own principles; especially that, that to pursue success though in villainy and rebellion, is to follow providence. this proved by various instances out of the writings of j. o. the arguments whereby they drew in providence and the rabble, were, (1.) by applying old prophecies to present transactions. (2.) by believing god is obliged to do the same things for his people now, that he ever did for his people in all former ages. (3.) by believing providence is in good earnest for them, though it is in all appearance against them. (4.) by flat presumption, and downright enthusiasm. that the interest of religion was pretended as a cause of our late civil wars, proved at large against our author from the declarations of lords and commons, and the sermons of j. o. the nonconformists are bound to give us assurance of their repentance, before they may presume to offer us any security of their allegiance. their plea for toleration, because protestants, invalid. an account of the reformation of the church of england, both as to doctrine and discipline. the manifest apostasy of the nonconformists from both. the reformation in most places overrun and destroyed by calvinism. our adversaries notion of protestancy is nothing else than a zeal for the calvinian rigours. religion is not only the best, but a necessary disguise for rebellion. men cannot gain an opportunity of committing any more enormous wickednesses, but under shows and pretences of piety. the danger and vanity of balancing different parties of religion. the civil wars of france an eminent instance of this. an account of the original of all peevish and illnatured religion. the nonconformists loose way of discoursing of conscience, as if it were a principle of action distinct from the man himself. conscience is nothing but the soul or mind of man. nothing in humane nature beside conscience is capable of subjection to humane laws. conscience is not its own rule, nor of itself any plea of exemption from obedience. if it be abused by evil principles, nothing more mischievous. vulgar conscience the most mistaken guide in the world. in the common people 'tis for the most part either ignorance, or pride, or superstition, or peevishness, or enthusiasm. the conclusion. §. 1. our author's adventures in this chapter are such ordinary and possible things, that now to rehearse erterprises so lank of prodigy after all these wonders, were to darken the lustre, and abate the admiration of his former performances. many faint essays we may observe of his ancient courage and confidence: but, alas! deeds of a greater strain, and more stupendious prowess, are kept for holiday achievements. now and then we may meet with a loud and rapping falsification; but every page does not entertain our wonder with forgeries of a garagantuan bulk and boldness. once indeed we are informed how i discourse, that the use and exercise of conscience will certainly overthrow all government, pag. 285. and fill the world with confusion: yet however, the old calumnies are not continually rattling in our ears; as, that the civil magistrate is vested in an absolute and immediate sovereignty over conscience in all affairs of religion; in so much that whatever the precise truth of the thing may be, he has power to order and appoint what religion his subjects shall profess and observe: that conscience has nothing to do beyond the inward thoughts of men's minds: and, that as to all their outward actions, the commands of authority overrule all its obligations, etc. these slanders that he has so often and so familiarly hurled at me upon all occasions, are as big as steeples; and had they fallen where they were aimed, had for ever quashed me to death and nothing. but the censures he now spits, are not discharged with that impetuous fury, but that they may be received without danger of being killed and buried at once. and the mistakes he invents are so vulgar and ordinary, that they might have been contrived by sancho his scribe. but thus it happens, that the greatest flowers of chivalry have in their declining age flagged and withered; and their last performances have fallen so much short of the miracles of their first achievements, that their new conquests have not so much increased the number, as eclipsed the glory of the old. and that matchless wight, that in his youthful days scorned to accept of any adventures unless upon windmills, painim giants, and infernal necromancers; yet when age had slaked the rage of his blood and folly, was content to spend his last exploits upon goat-herds, lackeys, and ploughmen of his own parish. and such pitiful attempts are our author's remarks upon the passages of this chapter; so pitiful, that they would sooner raise an adversaries compassion than choler; and are so far from the appearance of a just reply, that they will not amount to a competent denial. the whole drift of my discourse is neglected; my four fundamental assertions, of which, and their proofs, the main body of the chapter consists, are slipped over; only a few subordinate and dependant propositions glanced at, with slight mistakes and positive censures, without so much as attempting to defeat any of my arguments, or, in their stead, to suggest any of his own. 'tis such lank and slender talk, and so apparently unequal to the small reason of the discourse it would oppose, that i should never have deigned it a rejoinder in my own defence, but that it gives occasion to gratify the reader with some farther proofs of our author's candour and ingenuity, and some more not unuseful considerations upon the matters of our present debate: though what i have already remarked, has evidence more than enough without the help of new lights, to scatter all his thin and vanishing exceptions. and should i represent to the reader what material things he has gently passed over, i must transcribe almost the whole chapter. and our author himself seems so conscious of the meanness of his exploits in this part of his adventures, that he concludes the whole performance with a new challenge, and turns me over (coward as he is) to a new champion, that has already (poor man!) been rebuked to purpose: but let him take his fortune, pag. 302. i am resolved to keep my man. pag. 284. in the first place than he informs us, this chapter is inconsistent with itself, and other parts of the treatise, but that is none of his concernment. no doubt of it, he is only concerned to defame and disparage other men's writings, and not at all to make good his slanders and incivilities. no man that had not laid waste all sense of modesty and ingenuity, would so easily sputter abroad his rude and abusive censures, without thinking himself somewhat concerned to justify the matters of his charge, though it were only to clear the reputation of his good manners. for all men are apt enough to suspect ill-nature in detracting suggestions; and therefore no discreet or civil man would venture to dart them without apparent proof, and would not accept the favour of being credited, till he has produced evidence at least equal to the indictment. so that our author would more consult the credit of his discretion, if he would not be so free of his censures, but when he is at leisure to warrant their truth. there are vast multitudes of them scattered up and down in all parts of his survey, that i have purposely waved because they are so wretchedly insignificant. this one friendly check upon this particular occasion, may serve for a sufficient correction to all the rest. that is the first impertinence, the second (for here they are very thick sown) is this. in the beginning of this chapter i represented how a belief of the indifferency, or rather imposture of all religion, is of late become among some persons the most effectual and most fashionable argument for liberty of conscience. away, says our author, it is impossible this pretence could ever be made use of to that purpose. pag. 285. it is suited directly to oppose and overthrow it: for if there be no such thing as religion in the world, it is certainly a very foolish thing to have differences perpetuated amongst men upon account of conscience. this he says, because he is resolved to say something, no matter whether to or beside the purpose: for what is this to a man that defies and laughs at the silliness of an upright conscience, and looks upon all stories of religion as the tales and tricks of covetous priests, contrived to awe the people, and to enrich themselves? he will say that 'tis indeed a very foolish thing to perpetuate differences in the world about conscience and religion; but seeing it is so full of softly and conscientious fops, that will be impatient for their own follies and impostures, what in this case is the best method to govern such zealous sots? not by severity; for 'tis pity to punish silly people for their ignorance and credulity, and 'tis more generous to humour them in their several frenzies and fairy-imaginations; and as long as they are willing to be abused with the belief of invisible powers, and the dread of infernal goblins, that shall after death torment wicked and disloyal subjects in burning vaults below; 'tis unbecoming the wisdom of a prince, that understands the juggle, to vex or punish such weak and deluded people for any of their other fond and little conceits; but rather to allow them the liberty of gratifying their childish fancies with what phantasms shall most please & affect their folly. now what discourse can be more suited to the principles of these young cubs of the leviathan, than not to punish credulous and unreflecting people for being cheated and abused? and therefore though they believe all the different religions in the world to be in reality but so many different impostures; yet they may judge it the wisest course for government to permit such differences as fools are resolved to perpetuate, rather than to exasperate their zealous madness, by attempting to restrain their fantastic mistakes with violence and force of penalties▪ so that supposing these men's persuasions, nothing could be more agreeable to their small politics than this principle of the indifferency of all religions in behalf of liberty of conscience. and of this our author could not be ignorant, both by what i had discoursed in that paragraph, and in several others: but he was resolved to cavil, and 'tis his way (as i have often told you) to overlook arguments, and then he never wants for confidence to deny or slight assertions; and when their guard is removed, 'tis an easy matter to fall foul upon naked truths. §. 2. as for what i have asserted and proved in the next paragraph, he readily subscribes it, viz. that conscience and religion are the strongest bands of laws, and the best security of government; and therefore that they are its greatest enemies, that endeavour to weaken or evacuate their obligations; a wise attempt of some little and pedantic pretenders to policy! but this little ingenuity in granting 'tis once possible that i can speak truth, is forced, and against the grain of nature; and therefore it immediately returns with the greater violence, and the words next ensuing are as lewd and shameless a calumny as any in the whole cluster of his falsified stories, viz. that what i have here discoursed in one section, (though which, he is so wise as to leave his reader to conjecture) is, to prove that the use and exercise of conscience will certainly overthrow all government, ibid. and fill the world with confusion. but here, methinks, i smell brimstone; and had i the father of untruths for my adversary, i could not have engaged at greater disadvantage: for what reply should a man make to such a rank and essential falsehood? after this rate there is no commencing a dispute with this man but in courts of justice, and no confuting his arguments but by actions of slander. i confess this is the only rapper i have observed in this chapter; but 'tis like the last clap of thunder, that breaks with a more hideous thump, and strikes with downright astonishment. however, innocence (they say) is as safe a protection against its blasting strokes, as an old oak; and therefore i can defy his bolts with as much assurance as cyniscus in lucian did jupiter, when he was secure his hands were tied by fate: so that our author has my free consent to use these wretched weapons as long as he pleases, for there is no danger such bold falsifications should ever hurt any thing but himself and his cause. in the two following paragraphs (to omit some slight and straggling cavils) i showed that the dread of invisible powers is not of itself sufficient to awe the common people into subjection, but tends more probably to work tumults and seditions; and this was largely and (i presume) competently proved by the ungovernableness of the principles and tempers of some sects of religion. but he knows whom i reflect upon. pag. 286. like enough, for guilt and a galled horse are very quick of apprehension: though here methinks he is too skittish, and starts too soon under the lash of my general reproof by his own particular applications. i confess i afterwards proceeded to the known concernments of some parties of men among us; but in this section 'tis apparent i aimed only at the mischiefs of superstition and enthusiasm from the tendency of their own nature; in that as they were more incident to the common people, than any other vice or folly: so when they had once seized their passions, they were so far from laying restraints upon their exorbitant heats, that they were the strongest and most irresistible obligations to tumult and sedition. but seeing our author through the quickness of his sense, flinches at the smart of my reproof before the blow is given, let him satisfy me in this inquiry, if there be no particular inclinations in some sects of men to insolence and presumption against princes; whence it comes to pass, that wherever they have been entertained, subjects have been immediately inflamed and exasperated against their princes, and princes have been forced upon stern and ungentle courses against their subjects; that the times have been broken with rebellious defections, subversions of churches, and combustions of religion; that the history of the age has been made up of nothing but wars, conspiracies, insurrections, spoils, ravages, desolations of states, confusions of governments, and all the other mischiefs and miseries of humane life? whence it comes to pass, that no sects of men have been more prodigal of ugly language, irreverent expressions, and lewd titles to the princes of christendom? who was it that honoured the royal family of france with the title of a bitch-wolf and her whelps? eusebius philadelphus. who was it that styled mary queen of england proserpina? no body but mr. calvin. who gave mary queen of scots, the title of jezabel? honest john knox. who that of medea? orthodox mr. beza. to pass by innumerable other titles of honour and civility, bestowed by these meek and humble men upon sovereign princes, 'tis enough that our author may remember who it was that branded his present majesty as a tyrant full of revenge, a man of blood, a son of tabeal, absalon, and sheba the son of bichri. and lastly, whence it comes to pass, that this party of men have been the authors of more mischievous and seditious libels against princes, than all parties in europe beside, such as buchanan's book de jure regni apud scotos, vindiciae contra tyrannos, de jure magistratus in subditos, eusebius philadelphus; not to mention that numberless swarm of shameless pamphlets, that were produced in our late debauched and corrupted times. 'tis enough that they have broached more seditious aphorisms in an hundred years, than had been before discovered from the beginning of days. and there is a larger collection of treason in archbishop bancroft's dangerous positions, the evangelium armatum, and the late discourse of toleration discussed, than can be gathered out of the histories and records of all former ages. but from practices we proceeded to such principles as are not by any means to be endured in any commonwealth, because they carry in them an apparent tendency to the destruction of all government, and the dissolution of all society. the first is the fundamental pretence of all godly sedition, and is a direct and immediate affront to the power of princes, viz. that if they refuse to reform religion themselves, 'tis lawful for their godly subjects to do it, and that by violence and force of arms. this has been the great nuissance of reformed christendom, it overrun the foreign reformation with popular tumults and outrages, and put the boors and rascal multitude every where in arms against the edicts of state. all preachers and leaders of sedition have combined their faction by virtue of this principle; and all the subdivided sects, that at present annoy the public peace, have unanimously agreed both in its belief and practice. and all the other aphorisms of disturbance that have been peculiar to each party, are but so many ways of reducing and applying this general maxim to particular interests. but though our author has with great care and curiosity transcribed all the other assertions, that i impleaded of sedition; yet this (though it was the first and the greatest principle in the catalogue) he industriously stifles, and lops it off from the following articles of my charge. he cares not to have it observed, because he neither dares justify it, nor will renounce it. it has, and may again by providential alterations, do brave service for the separate churches; but 'tis so apparently inconsistent with the established setlement of things, that it can never safely be owned but when it may safely be used; and therefore 'tis more politic to let it lie dormant and unregarded, till opportunity shall call it forth to action. and let us upbraid them never so much with its mischievous and noisome consequences, 'tis their wisest course still to counterfeit an artificial deafness, and not to understand its meaning till they may own it to some more effectual purpose. what other probable reason can you imagine, why he should so carefully pass it over in silence, whilst he so faithfully relates all the other particulars of my impeachments? he cannot have forgotten how oft some body has proclaimed it from the pulpit in a thousand dresses and varieties of canting; 'tis the result of all his preachments in behalf of the proceedings in the late rebellion; and (what is more unhappy) it has been all along publicly owned and pleaded by the chiefs both of the presbyterian and independent factions, and never yet (that i could hear or read of) once disavowed by any; and therefore though i charged it not upon any party, but only branded the principle itself, this advantage this man has gained to his brethren by his rashness and presumption, that it shall lie at their doors, till they shall remonstrate to it by some public protestation. §. 3. the other articles that i chose to specify, among many other, were these three, that princes, in case of disobedience to the presbytery, may be excommunicated, and by consequence deposed: that dominion is founded in grace; and that to pursue success, though in villainy and rebellion, is to follow providence. but all the world (says modesty) knows what it is, pag. 187. that hath given him the advantage of providing a covering for these monstrous fictions; and an account thereof hath been given elsewhere. and what now if those intended do not believe these things, nor any one of them? what if they do openly disavow every one of them, as for aught i ever heard or know they do, and as i do myself? these monstrous fictions! so are all the histories and records in the world. were there never any sects of men that placed a power in the presbytery to excommunicate princes; or that challenged an exemption from the commands of authority upon the score of their saintship; or that taught success to be a certain argument of divine approbation? did you never hear of such creatures as presbyterians, anabaptists, and independents? were there never any such men in the world as john knox, john of leyden, and i. o? or are all the stories that are recorded of them fairy-tales and romances? if they are not, these things are as far from being monstrous fictions, as any thing upon record in the four gospels. but an account of these things has been given elsewhere. perhaps so, among the antiquities of china, or in lucian's true history. and a wise and true account it is no doubt, that shall undertake to prove there never were any people in the world that have abetted these principles. and 'tis hugely suitable to his following apology, that if any may heretofore have owned them, yet for aught he knows they have openly disavowed them. but this is pure and burnished confidence to bear down certain and undeniable matters of fact, with a flat denial, & a peremptory perhaps. did i ever imagine i should be put to prove there have been men in the world, that have owned and acted these principles, or to disprove the reality of a public repentance never heard of? this man's insufferable perverseness would vanquish the patience of an archangel; he cares not what he says, so the cause go forward, and he would deny that abraham begot isaac if it stood in his way. and if he should, it would not be a greater violence to truth, or affront to modesty, than this attempt to clear some men from the guilt of these persuasions. but still, what if those intended do not believe these things? then (good sir pertinent) they are not intended. i named no body, but only enquired, upon this supposition, that if heretofore there has been, or hereafter there should arise, such a race of men in the world, whether the belief of a deity, and the dread of invisible powers, blended with such innocent propositions, were likely to secure their due obedience and respect to authority, or rather to drive them to attempts of disturbance and sedition, when they thought themselves obliged under the most dreadful penalties to act suitably to their principles. and therefore i intended none but those that either actually have been, or possibly may be guilty, without naming or specifying any particular criminals: though indeed the matters of fact are so notorious, that upon bare intimation every man has knowledge and sagacity enough to discover the offenders; and they themselves are so conscious of the notoreity of the crime, that (as it happens in the excuses of all enormous malefactors) they cannot avoid to bewray their own guilt by their own apologies: unless this be sufficient to clear their innocence, and their reputation, that for aught any body knows they have publicly repent, which if they had, every body must certainly have known it. whatsoever disorders they have run into in pursuit of these principles, yet if the boldest and most scandalous offender in the whole mutiny shall come forth, and with a bare-faced confidence tell his governors, that perhaps, and for aught he knows, they have forsaken them, they immediately become loyal and peaceable subjects, and must be supposed as white as snow, and as harmless as doves. but to particulars. the first article than falls directly upon the men of the holy discipline, who challenge to themselves an original and independent jurisdiction over all persons, and in all matters of ecclesiastical concernment; so that though they acknowledge themselves subject to the power of kings in civil and secular affairs, yet in the government of the church and conduct of religion, the temporal power is subject to the spiritual, and princes must submit to the sovereign decrees of the presbytery: and therefore in case of disobedience to their authority, they are as obnoxious as any of their subjects to the censure of the church, and the sentence of excommunication. this in brief is the true platform of the discipline, publicly owned by all its patrons and assertors; and whoever does not vest the classical meetings with a supremacy over kings in ecclesiastical government, is no true disciplinarian, when 'tis the only design of the discipline to put the sceptre of jesus christ into the hands of the presbytery, ay, e. to strip the secular authority of all spiritual jurisdiction, and to settle it entirely upon spiritual persons. and all this was accordingly put in practice by the kirk, and all the world knows how bold they made both with the persons and prerogatives of princes, upon all occasions studying to cross with royal authority, daring to repeal and annul acts of parliament, protesting against edicts and proclamations, summoning the lords of his majesty's privy council before their assemblies for giving the king evil counsel, and vexing and affronting the king himself upon every trifle, even to the indicting of strict and solemn fasts upon those days in particular, upon which the king had appointed any greater and extraordinary feast. but the characters of these men's principles and practices are sufficiently upon record; and there is not an aphorism of treason or disloyalty, that they have not justified in their writings, and owned in their actions; all which are so well known that i will not insist any farther upon their proof, especially seeing our author himself has (when time was) branded them for a pack of perfidious knaves and hypocrites; though it was then, when they happened to fall into the scandalous crime of loyalty. thanksgiving serm. for the success at worcest. p. 21. calling their ambition to rule and have all under their own power, their zeal to the church of christ; and their endeavours to re-enthrone tyranny, loyalty; and all according to the covenant. this miscarriage it seems is so unpardonable, that they must for ever become traitors to the cause of god, because they were but once guilty of being loyal to their prince. time was when they were better friends, i. e. when the presbyterian was the only visible head of the rebellion; than who more forward for that church-government, duty of pastors and people distinguished p. 42. which is commonly called presbyterial or synodical, in opposition to prelatical or diocesan on the one side; and that which is commonly called independent or congregational on the other. but farewel presbytery, if it can be so false to its own principles as to revolt to its duty and its allegiance. then with what deceivableness of unrighteousness, and lies in hypocrisy, thanksgiving serm. for success at worc. ep. ded. the late grand attempt of those in scotland, with their adherents, was carried on, is in some measure made naked to the loathing of its abominations. in digging deep to lay a foundation for blood and revenge, in covering private and sordid ends with a pretence of things public and glorious; in limning a face of religion upon a worldly stock; in concealing distant aims and bloody animosities to compass one common end; that a theatre might be provided to act several parts upon, in pleading a necessity from an oath of god, unto most desperate undertake against god, and such like things as these, perhaps it gives not place to any, which former ages have been acquainted withal. as he speaks of the covenanting brethren of the kirk, when they joined in with the royal interest in opposition to the designs of the republican and independent party. this man was never constant to any principles but those of disloyalty, and it was his perpetual custom to preach up that most for god's cause, that was most contrary to the kings. and the work of the lord, in which he spent so much pulpit-sweat, was nothing but the subversion of monarchy in the death of one king, and the banishment of another. and now is not this a modest man, to boast of the faithful adherence of himself and his confidents to the present government? pag. 295, ●96. but so much, and (i hope) enough, if not too much, of the first principle. and as for the second, that of the anabaptists, that claimed an exemption from the power of the civil magistrate upon the score of their saintship, 'tis so notorious beyond all contradiction, and the blessed pranks that john of leyden, muncer, knipperdolling, and the boors of germany played under its protection, are so vulgarly known, that i need not stand upon its proof; any man may soon satisfy himself out of bullinger, sleidan, osiander, gualther, alsted, and divers others, out of whom i am not now at liberty to transcribe collections, having already well-nigh exceeded the number of pages allowed me by the master of the press: and those that remain i must reserve for matter more pertinent to our present debate and present affairs. §. 4. and therefore as for the third and last principle, that of the independents, that to pursue success in villainy and rebellion, is to follow providence: let us a little consider and examine their serious thoughts concerning it, seeing to deny it is such a frontless contradiction, not only to their former practices, but to their present behaviour, in ascribing every common accident of humane life, to some extraordinary design of providence, and interpreting all mischances that befall their neighbours, as visible judgements upon them for particular actions; insomuch that if ever i die before the day of judgement (and by constitution i am like to be none of the longest livers) i here foretell that it shall be voted the hand of god, and the stroke of divine vengeance upon me for my severity and unkindness to his secret ones. but 'tis in vain to convince them by experience and notoreity of fact; and 'tis no forcing them to stand to any thing, unless when they are lime-twigged with ink and paper, and gagged with quills, and therefore that is my comfort, that most of them are choked with their own gaggs, and for ever entangled with their own lime-twigs: for 'tis notorious to all the world how the parliament sermons (those edifying homilies) were continually beating upon this string; and crying up all transactions of the war (and false reports too) as tokens of god's favour to the cause; and making the diurnal a comment upon the revelations, and the secrets of providence. what our authors private practice has been, it were (would he be modest) neither pertinent nor civil to pry into. 'tis enough that those of his communion have not been behind any party of saints in this kind of presumption. but 'tis not possible when there is such plenty of game, i should be able to set every covey, and therefore (to keep to my man, and my resolution) i shall confine myself to the writings of i o. (the cock of the congregation.) i am sure it was his custom to account for all the various contingencies of the war by the secret counsels of providence, only known to himself, and some other secret ones, and to discover its particular design in every particular event. and should i insist upon all proofs and instances to this purpose, i should exceed the eleventh chapter of the epistle to the hebrews in the number of examples and precedents. to be short then. by providence was general fairfax personally called forth to the siege of colchester. eben ezec ep. ded. by providence was i o. pitched upon to attend his excellency in that fortunate expedition. ep. ded. to the committee. by providence were sir henry mildmay and the committee delivered from their imprisonment by the enemy. ibid. by providence were they reserved from a sinful compliance with the royal party, and from a treacherous spirit, or the malignant sin of loyalty. pag. 4. by providence were god's people called to sing their songs upon sigionoth for the interchangeable dispensations of the imprisonment and delivery of the committee. pag. 21. by providence were the hands of the cavaliers, that had itching fingers and an hankering mind after the inheritance of god's people, knocked off an hundred times, and sent away with bloody fingers. by providence did the parliament-army trace out their way from kent to essex, pag. 24. and from wales to the north. pag. 31. by providence were the zealous parishioners of coggeshal stirred up to make an opposition to the enemy gathering at chelmsford. pag. 45. by providence was there a perverse spirit of folly and error mixed in all their counsels. by providence were they drawn into a party, pag. 44. to force the people of god (that were before fallen together by the ears) to piece together against the common enemy. pag. 51. by providence was peter delivered out of prison, the three children out of the fiery furnace, daniel out of the lion's den, and the essex-committee from the jaws of the starved cavaliers. by providence was the great dispensation of the 30. of jan. 1648. carried on in order to the unravelling of the whole web of iniquity, sermon before the parliam. jan. 31. 1648. ep. ded. interwoven of civil and ecclesiastical tyranny, in opposition to the kingdom of the lord jesus. by providence did moses deliver israel from their egyptian bondage; pag. 23. and by providence did the rump deliver england from tyrannous pride and oppression. by providence were the people of this nation given up to fight against their deliverers, pag. 30. by that opposition to make its workings more clear and conspicuous. by providence was it, sermon to the parl. april 19 1649. pag. 36. that in the year 1649. there was not a potentate upon the earth that had a peaceable molehill to build himself an habitation upon; and that there were so many controversies disputing in letters of blood among the nations, and that for the interest of the many. pag 41. by providence were the church-stars (the bishops) that were merely fixed to all men's view, and by their own confession, in the political heavens, utterly shaken to the ground. serm. before the parl. feb. 28. 1649. by providence was cromwell forced to make such havoc in ireland, because the lord had sworn to have war with such amalekites, and to avenge his people from generation to generation. serm. of the branch of the lo●d a● berwick, ep. ded. by providence (and cromwel's choice) was i o. called forth to attend his excellency in his scottish expedition, that he might be instructed by him in the art of discovering gods deep and hidden dispensations toward his secret ones. by providence (the mercy whereof was composed of as many branches of wisdom, serm. before the parl. oct. 24. 1651. ep. ded. power, goodness, and faithfulness, as any outward dispensation has brought forth since the name of christian was known) did the rump by the defeat of his majesty at worcester continue to sit in council, and the residue of the nation in peace. pag. 7. by providence a mighty monarchy, a triumphing prelacy, a thriving conformity were all brought down to recover the people of the lord christ from antichristian idolatry and oppression. the labouring saints dismiss. p. 9 by providence was ireton, (that rare example of righteousness, faith, holiness, zeal, courage, and self-denial) disposed to close with the mind of god, with full purpose of heart to serve the will of the lord in his generation, so that he staggered not at the greatest difficulties through unbelief, but being steadfast in faith, he gave glory to god, and davidically prepared the way of the lord in paths of blood. the time would fail me to speak of isaac, eben-ezer. pag. 52. and joseph, gideon, noah, daniel, and job; do but consider the providential circumstances of all transactions in our late rebellion, thanksgiving serm. for the victory at worcest. p. 15. and that will discover where dwells that spirit, which actuated all the great alterations, that happened in these nations. for (believe him) such things have been brought to pass as have filled the world with amazement, (and well they might.) a monarchy of some hundred years continuance, always affecting, and at length wholly degenerated into tyranny, destroyed, pulled down, swallowed up, a great and mighty potentate, that had caused terror in the land of the living, and laid his sword under his head, brought to punishment for blood; hypocrites and selfish men abundantly discovered, wise men made fools, and the strong as water; a nation (that of scotland) engaging for and against the same cause, backward and forward, twice or thrice, always seeking where to find their own gain and interest in it, at length totally broken in opposition to that cause wherewith at first they closed: multitudes of professors one year praying, fasting, mightily rejoicing upon the least success, bearing it out as a sign of the presence of god; another year whilst the same work is carried on, cursing, repining, slighting the marvellous appearance of god in answer unto prayers and most solemn appeals, being very angry at the deliverances of zion. on the other side, all the mighty successes that god hath followed poor despised ones withal, being with them as with those in days of old; who through faith subdued kingdoms, wrought righteousness, obtained promises, stopped the mouths of lions, quenched the violence of fire, escaped the edge of the sword, out of weakness were made strong, waxed valiant in fight, turnned to flight the armies of the aliens. he, i say, that shall consider all this, may well inquire after that principle which being regularly carried on, yet meeting with the corruption and lusts of men, should so wheel them about, and work so many mighty alterations: now what is this, but the most effectual design of the lord to carry on the interest of christ and the gospel, whatever stands in the way? this bears down all before it, wraps up some in blood, some in hardness, and is most eminently strait and holy in all these transactions, isa. 14.32. what shall one then answer the messengers of the nation? that the lord hath founded zion, and the poor● of his people shall trust in it. §. 5. thus you see how providence and o. cromwell still headed the independent faction, though perhaps you may wonder how it could continue faithful so long to such a bloody and accursed interest. but alas! for that you must know, it neither had power at first to refuse the cause, nor being once engaged to retreat, for by the power of faith they can at their pleasure press it to the service; and by the strength of imagination they can bind the thoughts of the almighty, and engage all his attributes to join in with their designs, and in their way of arguing they never want for inducements to draw in providence and the rabble to their assistance, and that chiefly among many other by these four topics. 1. by applying old prophecies to present transactions; it concerns not to what particular affair they might relate; if they can be strained by faith or fancy to suit any present exigence, the honour of providence lies at stake not to suffer such choice believers to stick in the mire; and therefore god is bound to protect and deliver them, though it cost him the making his bow quite naked. thus were all the promises in the bible engaged in the parliament service; and not a text left to attend his majesty beside threatenings and judgements: and there is not a remarkable prophecy relating to the jewish nation, or the adjacent kingdoms, that they have not accommodated by faith and boldness (for both together can do much) to the posture of affairs in our late troubles. thus were the essex committee delivered from the cavaliers at colchester? it was foretold (i. e. after their deliverance) hab. 3.3, 7. eben ezer, p. 1. god came from teman, and the holy one from mount paran, selah: i. e. from naseby and marston-moor. i saw the tents of cushan in affliction, and the curtains of the land of midian did tremble, i. e. the enemy gathered at chelmsford, upon the coming of fairfax his army, abated their confidence. were the parishioners of coggeshal once in great danger of the enemy? the snares of death compassed us, pag 13. and the floods of ungodly men made us afraid: but the lord thundered from heaven, the highest gave his voice, hailstones, and coals of fire: yea, he sent out his arrows and scattered them, and he shot out lightning and discomfited them: he sent from above, he took us, he drew us out of many waters; he delivered us from our strong enemy, and from them which hated us, for they were too strong for us. do any professors doubt the event of the war? fear not thou worm jacob, pag 52. and ye few men of israel, behold i will make thee a new sharp instrument having teeth, thou shalt thresh the mountains, and beat them small, and shalt make the hills as chaff, thou shalt fan them, etc. isa. 41.14, 15. are the officers of the king's forces divided, or irresolved in their counsels? pag, 46, the princes of zoan are become fools, the princes of noph are deceived, they have seduced the people, even they that are the stay of their tribes, the lord hath mingled a perverse spirit in the midst of them, they have caused the people to err in every work as a drunken man staggereth in his vomit, isa. 19.13, 14. were the rump to be encouraged in their design of altering the government after the murder of the late king, against the apostasy of the presbyterians, and the attempts of the royalists; the text was pat to the purpose. let them return to thee, this was the text before the part. jan, 31. 1648, but return not thou to them. and i will make thee unto this people a fenced brazen wall, and they shall fight against thee, but they shall not prevail against thee: for i am with thee to save thee and deliver thee, saith the lord, jer. 15.19, 20. is monarchy to be for ever abolished, and the new commonwealth established? behold i create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into my mind, isa. 65.17. but the kingdom, and dominion, and greatness of the kingdom under the whole heaven shall be given to the people of the saints of the most high: whose kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and all dominions shall serve and obey him. hitherto is the end of the matter, dan. 7.27. steadfast. of the promise. feb. 28. 1649. p. 37. do the protestants, covenanted protestants, that had sworn in the presence of the great god to extirpate popery and prelacy? do others, that counted themselves under no less sacred bond, for the maintenance of prelates, service-book, and the like, as the whole party of ormonds' adherents (it is a favour, or rather a chance, it was not plain butler) join with a mighty number, that had for eight years together sealed their vows to the romish religion with our blood and their own? if all these combine together against zion, shall they prosper? no, saith the lord jehovah, and i. o. if rezin and the son of remalia, syria and ephraim, old adversaries, combine together for a new enmity against judah; if covenant and prelacy, popery and treachery, blood and (as to that) innocency join hand in hand to stand in the way of the promise, yet i will not in this join with them, says the lord. is the royal family, together with the ancient nobility, to be for ever cashiered upon his majesty's defeat at worcester, and are the brewers and cobblers of the army to commence new lords? all the trees of the field shall know, that i the lord have brought down the high tree, and have exalted the low tree, have dried up the green tree (drawn out its sap by sequestrations) and have made the dry tree to flourish: (by plunder and sacrilege) i the lord have spoken it, and have done it, ezek. 17.24. this was the text to the thanksgiving sermon before the parliament for their victory at worcester. and now is it possible for these men to be at a loss for scripture to countenance their proceedings, after this rate of imposing upon the word of god? if such loose and profane accommodations of prophetic passages to present affairs be sufficient to support faith in its expectations of success, i leave it to you to judge whether it can ever want grounds and encouragements for rebellion; as long as the prophecies against gog and magog, the whore and the beast, the pope and the man of sin are not blotted out of the bible. but this is not all, faith has other topics to bottom its confidence upon. and therefore, 2. it has right to all god's mercies, and deliverances of his people in all past and present ages. eben. ●zer, p. 27. it makes all joshuahs' victories present to every true believer: so that if o. cromwell had but boldness, or enthusiasm enough to presume that the almighty had as great favour for his highness, as he had for joshuah; he was bound to enable him and his army to dispatch kings and canaanites with as great expedition as joshuah and the children of israel did. for the goodwill, free grace, and loving kindness of god is the same towards all his people. ibid. and the infinite fountains of the deity can never be sunk one hairs breadth by everlastingly flowing blessings. pag. 13. so that past blessings and deliverances of god's people are store mercies laid up for believers against a rainy day; and when we want present refreshments, what a comfort is it to chew the cud upon the blessings of former ages? pag. 2●. and thus they use the records of sacred story, just as don quixot used his books of chivalry, in accommodating the exploits of the knights of yore to his own ridiculous adventures: and here lay the folly of his errantry, in chewing the cud upon the prodigies of old romances. and i am sure he had as wise and reasonable a ground for his folly, when he besotted himself with a conceit of vying adventures with the famous knight valdovinos, as they had for their faith when they expected to equal the successes of joshuah. but however by this means it was easy to befool and inveigle the common-people: and if they represented to them any act of blood and cruelty with allusion to scripture language and story, that alone was enough to pass it for the work of the lord, and the rabble imagined they were acting over again all the wars and battles of the old testament, and pouring out all the vials, and fulfilling all the prophecies of the new. beside, faith supports itself, and engages providence by chewing the cud upon its own blessings as well as those of former ages. pag. 26, 27. david esteemed it very good logic to argue from the victory god gave him over the lion, and bear, to a confidence of victory over goliath. make use then of your past mercies, deliverances, blessings, pag. 29. with promised incomings; carry them about you by faith; use them or they'll grow rusty; where is the god of elijah? awake, awake, oh arm of the lord. let former mercies be an anchor of hope in time of present distresses. pag. 13. where is the god of marstone-moor, and the god of naseby, is an acceptable expostulation in a gloomy day. o, what a catalogue of mercies has this nation to plead by in time of trouble? god came from naseby, and the holy one from the west, selah: his glory covered the heavens, and the earth was full of his praise. he went forth in the north, and in the east he did not withhold his hand. so that in this gloomy day of their persecution they are forced to support themselves and their hopes by chewing the cud upon their naseby-mercies, and their marston-moore mercies; till god shall be pleased to give them in some stores of fresh providences. for however he may at present counterfeit a total departure to punish their apostasy, and their want of zeal in his work, yet he will not, he cannot utterly forsake them. because he is engaged in point of honour, sermon of jan. 31. 1648. p 25. what shall he do for his great name? yea so tender is the lord herein of his glory, that when he hath been exceedingly provoked to remove men out of his presence, yet because they have been called by his name, and have visibly held forth a following after him, he would not suffer them to be trodden down, lest the enemy should exalt themselves, and say, where is now their god? they shall not take from him the honour of former deliverances and protections: in such a nation as this, if the lord now upon manifold provocations should give up parliament, people, army to calamity and ruin, would not the glory of former counsels, successes, deliverances be utterly lost? would not men say it was not the lord, but chance that happened to them? and thus when providence was once drawn in, it was bound to go through, unless it would either lose the glory of all its former exploits, or (what was more dishonourable) confess it was overreached (as the presbyterians were) by the independent hypocrisy. by this artifice they drew on each other to the height and perfection of villainy, because they were so far engaged, that they could not possibly retreat either with honour or safety; and therefore resolved to secure themselves in the death of the king, suspecting, lest if he should ever be restored to his crown and royal authority, they might be called to an after-reckoning: according to that maxim so much taught and practised in the school of rebellion, that when men have run themselves into unpardonable disorders, there remains no way of doing better but by doing worse. and in this lesson they must needs instruct providence, now you are engaged, there is no way for you to retire with honour, and if you do not justify your own actings in our former wickednesses by proceeding with us to greater impieties, you do not only condemn them and yourself, but lose the honour of all the margaret's fasts and thanksgivings. what a mean opinion must these profane enthusiasts have of the divine understanding, that imagined they could impose upon the almighty by such thin and shallow fetches! §. 6.3. the third maxim of faith is to believe that providence is really and in good earnest for them, though it is seemingly and in outward appearance against them. thus whilst themselves sat at the helm, it befriended them from all points of the compass; and into whatsoever corner it shifted itself, it still favoured their designs, and filled their sails with success and victory. when affairs succeeded to their wishes, than providence drove them on with a full gale; but when there happened any cross or changeable dispensation, so far was it from hindering their progress, that it gave them the greater advantage of a side wind. eben-ezer, p. 4. for (as the same author informs us) i have heard that a full wind behind the ship drives her not so fast forward as a side wind, that seems almost as much against her as with her: and the reason, they say, is, because a full wind fills but some of her sails, which keep it from the rest that they are empty, when a side wind fills all her sails, and sets her speedily forward. so if the lord should give us a full wind and continual gale of mercies, it would fill but some of our sails, but when he comes with a side wind, a dispensation that seems almost as much against us as for us, than he fills all our sails, takes up all our affections, making his works wide and broad enough to entertain them every one, then are we carried freely and fully towards the haven where we would be. and thus (for that is the application) the imprisonment of the committee of essex was but a side wind of providence, that drove them on with the greater speed to the taking of colchester. so that while their faith was resolute in the belief of this principle, it was not possible for providence to shake them off by any affronts or indignities, but they served it just as horace was served by the importunate fellow, he describes serm. lib. 1. sat. 9 from whose irksome impertinency he could neither by art nor violence redeem himself. did he divert to salute a friend? it was his acquaintance. did he pretend a visit? he was at leisure to wait upon him. did he counterfeit any business? he had interest to assist him. and thus did they tease and persecute providence; which way soever it turned, they still would follow, no rebukes could dash their boldfaced faith out of countenance; though it beat them off with open affronts, they would still insinuate and fawn upon it; and though it knocked off their hands an hundred times, and sent them away with bloody fingers, they would not let go their hold, but they would cling about him by faith, do what he can, they will not be shifted off. and let him vary his dispensations as oft as he will, they are resolved to follow him with their songs upon sigionoth. songs upon sigionoth! what are they? i remember, i am under the obligation of a promise to unriddle their meaning; and therefore to be short, they are a sort of pindaric psalms, not tied to the same rhyme or measure, but to be sung with variety of notes, and interchangeable tunes. now i. o. once meeting with this word in his text, hab. 3.1. he thus reasons upon it, (and he is able to raise edification out of a pair of bagpipes) are not gods variable dispensations towards his held out under these variable tunes, eben ezer, p. 3, 4. not all fitted to one string: not all alike pleasant and easy? are not the several tunes of mercy and judgement in these songs? is not here affliction and deliverance, desertion and recovery, darkness and light in this variously? * a form of speech familiar with that author, when he has n●●ther proof for what he says beside pure confidence. doubtless it is so. god often calls his people to songs upon sigionoth. this is the doctrine on which he descants, and so applies it to the present case: we may rejoice at the conquest of our enemies, and mourn at the loss of our harvest; that was their song upon sigionoth, that though they had missed their harvest, they had mowed down the cavaliers; from whom god's people were sure to reap a plentiful crop of plunder and sequestration. and that is as delicious music to the saints below, as the harmony of the spheres, or a consort of angels to the saints above; and 'tis wonderful how exactly the hearts (yea, and fingers too) of god's people were set to such a sweet and comfortable tune. 4. but if believers should ever fail of all these supports, they are able to build their confidence upon flat presumption, and downright enthusiasm; and when they trample upon all the obligations of oaths, and all the laws of nature, government and religion, they can easily justify the wickedness of their proceedings by bold pretences of immediate impulse and revelation from heaven. for when god is doing great things, eben-ezer. p. 14. he gives glorious manifestations of his excellencies to his secret ones. pag. 15. so that he that is called to serve providence in high things, without some especial discovery of god, works in the dark, and knows not whither he goes, and what he does, such an one travels in the wilderness without a directing cloud. clear shining from god must be at the bottom of deep labouring with god. what is the reason that so many in our days set their hands to the blow, and look back again? begin to serve providence in great things, but cannot finish? give over in the heat of the day! they never had any such revelation of the mind of god upon their spirits, such a discovery of his excellencies as might serve for a bottom of such undertake. men must know, that if god hath not appeared to them in brightness, and shown them the horns in his hand, hid from others, though they think highly of themselves, they'll deny god twice and thrice before the close of the work of this age. hence is the suiting of great light, pag. 16. and great work in our days. let new light be derided whilst men please, he will (and 'tis too true) never serve the will of god in this generation, who sees not beyond the line of foregoing ages. now what was this new and this great light, that god held forth as the horns in his hand to the believers of that generation? to this enquiry we have a plain and positive answer: serm. to the parl. april 19 1649. p. 35. plainly the peculiar light of this generation, is that discovery which the lord hath made to his people, of the mystery of civil and ecclesiastical tyranny. now this new light, joined with this new doctrine, that good principles become abominable when taken up or pursued against the providence of god, is such a rank and desperate piece of enthusiasm, as must of necessity cancel all the laws of society, and overthrow all the governments in the world; but i must not stay to descant upon its intolerable mischiefs, neither indeed need i, seeing it is apparently the utmost improvement of all fanatic folly and madness. and now the people of god being armed with such principles, and inflamed by such preachers, with what briskness did they march under the conduct of providence, till at length it led the warmest and most forward heads of them to the top of westminster hall, london bridge, and the city gates, or (in the language of i. o.) to the high places of armageddon: and there fixed them for monuments of their own hypocrisy, and sad examples of rebellion. but thence astrea took her flight to heaven, and now public affairs are transacted by a providential permissive commission (as our author i remember somewhere words it, and 'tis but what they allow to all the wickednesses in the world.) so that whilst the eye of providence shined upon them, they were flowers of the sun, and which way soever they addressed themselves, it was to court providence. when they complied with every rising interest, it was to close with the mind of the lord in the work of this generation. when they played fast and loose with all parties, as the complexion of affairs suggested to them, that was the lords glorious discoveries and manifestations of his mind to his secret ones. and then to boggle at the wickedness of any design that prospered, was to flinch from the work of the lord. as i. o. encourages the rumpers the day immediately after the king's death. jacta est alea, the providence of god must be served, according to the discovery made of his own unchangeable will, and not the mutable interests and passions of the sons of men (i. e. the presbyterians, whose apostasy he is there upbraiding.) for verily the lord of hosts hath purposed to pollute the pride of all glory, and to bring into contempt all the honourable of the earth, isa. 23.9. and then to renounce their old principles, and falsify their old engagements, was to knock off with providence; for be your principles never so good in themselves, they become wicked and abominable, when taken up against the providence of god. and this was the sad apostasy of the presbyterians from the work of the lord; they, fools as they were, fix on principles, worcester thanksgiving, p. 22. (though they were tied to them by oaths and covenants) old bounds must not be broken up, order must not be disturbed; let god appear never so eminently, so mightily, they will keep to their principle, (and their oaths and covenants too) what is this but judicial hardness? what think you sir, is it not a mighty security, that these men are able to give of their faith and allegiance, when providence or the turn of affairs shall untie all the bands of oaths, and success overrule all the obligations of conscience. so that as long as loyalty is forced to be in fashion, they are peaceable and obedient subjects; but if rebellion prosper, it is not for them to oppose providence. when god has a controversy with the royal family he absolves subjects of all their oaths and obligations to allegiance, and though the presbyterians had loaded themselves with chains, and multiplied engagements to his late majesty, and his lawful successors, yet not to join with the independents in the subversion of the government by the murder of one prince, and the banishment of another, was judicial hardness. did you ever read of such a mixture of blasphemy and rebellion; when men shall commit such horrid and emphatical villainies, and then shall with so steeled a confidence warrant not only their lawfulness, but their necessity by virtue of a divine commission; and shall break all the laws of nature, society, and religion, by the counsel, under the conduct, and with the approbation of the almighty? in short, there is scarce a principle of blasphemy or rebellion in the alcoran that this wretch has not vouched upon divine authority. he is a person of such a rank complexion, that he would have vied with mahomet himself both for boldness and imposture. the divine majesty never had a dearer and more familiar achitophel than he, they were always through the whole course of the war privy to each others counsels, were always of the same side, and drove on always the same designs; and had this man been of the cabinet council of heaven he could not have pretended a greater and more intimate acquaintance with the intrigues of providence. and now i leave it to the world to judge whether it be not becoming our author's modesty to charge it upon me as a monstrous fiction, for saying, there have been men, who have taught, that to pursue success in rebellion is to follow the guidance of providential dispensations. §. 7. our author's imprudence and unadvisedness in forcing me upon the proof of my last charge in defence of my own integrity, recals to my mind another resembling instance of his discretion, in provoking me to an unnecessary dispute, where 'tis impossible for him to escape a manifest and dishonourable baffle, viz. that the pretence of religion had no concernment in our late rebellion or civil war. and though i do not remember where i ever affirmed it was, yet is he upon every occasion upbraiding and challenging me to prove it; and whereas in my first chapter i chanced to observe that it has frequently been made use of as a covering for unruly and seditious practices, without descending to particular instances (for they are too many to be specified in a small volume) he will needs have me to aim in particular at our late wars and tumults, and appeals to the public writings, pag. 147. declarations, and treaties, whereby those tumults and wars were begun and carried on: and then we shall find that authority, laws, and privileges, and i know not what things, wherein private men have no pretence of interest, were pleaded in those affairs. pag. 301. and upon this string he is again rubbing to as little purpose in this chapter. neither is he singular in this conceit and confidence; there are others, that have as well as himself sounded their alarms from the pulpit against antichristian idolatry and oppression; and have chafed popular zeal and rage to fight for the purity and beauty of gospel ordinances, who yet blush not to declare in public (with such a competent measure of confidence are they gifted) that the cause of religion was not pretended or engaged in the quarrel, but that it was a mere contest about civil rights and privileges. now though this concerns not me in my own defence, yet will i a little concern myself in the enquiry, to discover the honesty and ingenuity of these men, that will blow hot and cold out of the same mouth, affirm and deny the same thing, as it suits with their present occasion, and present interest. and are they not arrived to an heroic pitch of confidence, that dare protest so boldly and so publicly in defiance of so many public acts, ordinances, protestations, covenants, engagements, declarations, remonstrances, treaties of peace, and overtures of accommodation, in all which preservation of religion, and demands of reformation still lead the van; and the sense and substance of all the numberless papers of lords and commons amounts to no more than this, that they were resolved to expose their lives and fortunes for the defence and maintenance of the true religion, his majesty's person and honour, the power and privileges of parliament, and the just rights and liberties of the subject. all these pretences came in of course, but still religion was the first and dearest grievance, and its preservation more tender to them than their lives and liberties. as in the observation upon the lord digbys letters, the lords and commons declare, that they had never done any thing against the personal honour of the queen, only we have desired to be secured from such plots and mischievous designs, that they might not have the favour of the court, and such a powerful influence upon his majesty's counsels, as they have had to the extreme hazard not only of civil liberty and peace of the kingdom, but of that we hold much dearer than these, yea, than the very being of this nation, that is, our religion, whereupon depends the honour of almighty god, and the salvation of our souls. and this was their perpetual answer to all his majesty's propositions, that his counsels were overruled by a malignant party of papists, and other illaffected persons, that carried on their own wicked designs of rooting up the protestant religion, to plant popery and superstition. innumerable are the proofs to this purpose, but we will content ourselves (because it will be sufficient) with these few particulars. first then, 'tis notorious the scottish broils and tumults were raised purely upon a pretence of religion, being begun about the reading the common-prayer, 〈◊〉. p●g. 〈◊〉 and not a little promoted by that senseless pamphlet, a dispute against the english popish ceremonies obtruded upon the church of scotland. and the only conditions of quieting these troubles, were, (1.) that the provost and city-council should join in opposition to the service-book. (2.) that ramsey and rollock, two silenced ministers, and henderson a silenced reader, should be restored to their places. and not long after there came a petition of noblemen, barons, ministers, burgesses and commons, and about what, do we think, but against the liturgy and canons? and the next news we hear from thence, was, that the king having adjourned the term to sterling by proclamation, the earl of hume and lord lindsey protest against it, and erect four tables of the nobility, gentry, burroughs, and ministers; the first act of which, pag 155. is to enter a general covenant in defence of religion, (and for fashion's sake, the king's person.) this business of scotland is an affair not unworthy the mentioning, not only because it was well known what invitation they had from their party to enter england, but also because the parliament here owned their cause, took it unkindly of the king for calling them rebels, voted them a great supply under the name of a friendly assistance, and called them their dear brethren of scotland. and withal, did particularly own the scotch tumults as raised upon a religious account: exact coll. pag. 494. this we have themselves confessing in a declaration to satisfy the world of the justice of raising arms; wherein they declare religion the principal thing, and all others subservient to it: and as to this particular business of the scots, pag. 492. they speak thus: when they (i. e. papists, clergy, and other enemies of religion) conceived the way sufficiently prepared, they at last resolved to put on their masterpiece in scotland, (where the same method had been followed) and more boldly unmask themselves in imposing upon them a popish service-book: for well they knew the same fate attended both kingdoms, and religion could not be altered in one without the other: god raised the spirits in that nation to oppose it with so much zeal and indignation, that it kindled such a flame as no expedient could be found but a parliament here to quench it. i e. by hiring and tempting them to a new rebellion at the price of one hundred thousand pound, beside the reward of pay and plunder for the common soldiers, the promise of church-revenues for the chief promoters of the service, the sacrifice of the archbishop of canterbury to their malice and revenge, and (what was most likely to endear the cause) the reformation of the discipline and worship of the church of england by the model of the kirk of scotland, that absolute pattern of a through godly rebellion. again, ex. coll. p. 96, 97. the declaration of lords and commons, march 2. orders this kingdom to be put in a posture of defence by sea and land, because there was a design by those in greatest authority about the king for the altering of religion: that the scottish war was fomented, and the irish rebellion framed for that purpose: that they had advertisements from venice, and paris, and rome, that the king was to have four thousand men out of france and spain, pag. 100 which could be to no other end than to change his own profession, and the public religion of the kingdom. in the 19 propositions sent june 2. 1642. the eighth is this, ex coll. p. 309. that your majesty will be pleased to consent that such a reformation be made of the church-government and liturgy, as both houses of parliament shall advise, etc. and the 17th, that the king should enter into a more strict alliance with the protestant princes and states, for the defence of the protestant religion, against the attempts of the pope and his adherents. and the propositions made by lords and commons, pag. 304. june 10. 1642. for bringing in money and plate to maintain horse and arms, runs upon this ground, first, that religion else will be destroyed; and this is particularly recommended to all those that tender their religion. and when the king countermanded the propositions, they reinforce them by the endearments of religion. and tuesday 12 july, 1642. resolve it upon the question, pag 376. pag. 457. that an army be forthwith raised for its defence and preservation. their declaration of aug. 8. 1642. grounds its self upon this, pag. 491. that the king's army was raised for the oppression of the true religion. and therefore they give this account to the world, for a satisfaction to all men of the justice of their proceedings, and a warning to those who are involved in the same danger with them, to let them see the necessity and duty which lies upon them to save themselves, their religion and country. where they tell us at large, and in great passion, that papists, ambitious and discontented clergymen, delinquents, and illaffected persons of the nobility and gentry, have conspired together, and often attempted the alteration of religion, etc. that all was subject to will and power, that so men's minds being made poor and base, and their liberties lost and gone, they might be ready to let go their religion whensoever it should be resolved to alter it; which was, and still is the great design, and all else made use of but as instrumentary and subservient to it. and then after an horrible harangue about the king and queens going away, the lord digbies letter, the members going to york, etc. they (the papists, prelates, pag. 494. etc.) come to crown their work, and put that in execution, which was first in their intention, that is, the changing of religion into popery and superstition. the scots in answer to a declaration sent them by their commissioners at london from the two houses, pag. 598. did aug. 3. 1642. return another, wherein they give god thanks for their former and present desires of a reformation especially of religion, which is the glory and strength of a kingdom, etc. protest that their hearts were heavy and made sad, that what is more dear and precious to them than what is dearest to them in the whole world, the reformation of religion has moved so slowly. to which they add, that 'tis indeed a work full of difficulties, but god is greater than the world, and when the supreme providence giveth opportunity of the accepted time, and the day of salvation, no other work can prosper in the hands of his servants, if it be not apprehended, and with all faithfulness improved: this kirk and nation, when the lord gave them the calling, considered not their own deadness, nor staggered at the promise (of an hundred thousand pound) through unbelief, but gave glory to god; and who knoweth but the lord hath now some controversy with england, which will not be removed, till first and before all the worship of his name, and the government of his house be settled according to his own will? when this desire shall come, it shall be to england, after so long desired hopes, a tree of life. and therefore they proceed to press earnestly for an uniformity in both kingdoms, but it must be after their own model. what hopes (say they) can there be of unity in religion, in one confession of faith, one form of worship, one catechism, till there be first one form of ecclesiastical government; yea, what hope can the kingdom and kirk of scotland have of a durable peace, till prelacy be plucked up root and branch, as a plant which god hath not planted, and from which no better fruits can be expected than such sour grapes, as this day set on edge the kingdom of england? in answer to this goodly declaration the lords and commons desire it may be considered, pag. 603. that that party which has now incensed and armed his majesty against us is the very same, which not long since upon the very same design of rooting out the reformed religion did endeavour to begin the tragedy in scotland, etc. and having thanked the assembly of the church of scotland for proposing those things which may unite the two churches and nations against popery and all superstitious sects and innovations whatsoever, do assure that they have thereupon resumed into their consideration the matters concerning the reformation of church-government and discipline, which (say they) we have often had in consultation and debate since the beginning of this parliament, and ever made it our chiefest aim, though we have been powerfully opposed in the prosecution and accomplishment of it. and in another declaration to the convention of estates, they remonstrate that the honourable houses have fully declared by what they have done, and what they are desirous to do, that the true state of the cause and quarrel, is religion: in reformation whereof, they are so forward and zealous, that there is nothing expressed in the scots declarations former or later, which they have not seriously taken to heart, and endeavoured to effect, etc. of this the commissioners of scotland in th●ir third paper remember the two houses, p. 42, 43. and in a letter from the assembly of divines to them, by order of the house of commons, they call it twice the cause of religion. and the assembly in answer to the parliament, desire it may be more and more cleared, religion to be the true state of the differences in england; and to be uncessantly prosecuted first above all things, giving no sleep to their eyes, or slumber to their eyelids, until it be settled. ex col. p. 666. in their declaration and protestation to the whole world, octob. 22. 1642. they are fully convinced that the king's resolutions are so engaged to the popish party, for the suppression and extirpation of the true religion, that all hopes of peace and protection are excluded, that it is fully intended to give satisfaction to the papists by alteration of religion, etc. that great means are made to take up the differences betwixt some princes of the roman religion, that so they might unite their strength to the extirpation of the protestant cause, wherein principally this kingdom and the kingdom of scotland are concerned, as making the greatest body of the reformed religion in christendom, etc. for all which reasons we are resolved to enter into a solemn oath and covenant with god, to give up ourselves, our lives and fortunes into his hands; and that we will to the utmost of our power and judgement maintain his truth, and conform ourselves to his will. and in the declaration upon the votes of no further address to be made to the king by themselves or any one else, feb. 17. 1647. the lords and commons make religion one of the great motives upon which they proceeded: for (say they) the torture of our bodies by most cruel whip, slitting of noses, etc. might be the sooner forgotten, had not our souls been lorded over, led captive into superstition and idolatry, triumphed over by oaths ex officio, excommunications, ceremonious articles, new canons, canon-oaths, etc. p. 19 and in the last paper to the scotch commissioners, feb. 24. 1648. they declare, that the army of the houses of parliament were raised for maintenance of the true religion, and that they invited them to come to their assistance, and declared the true state of the quarrel to be religion; and they earnestly desire the general assembly to further and expedite the assistance desired from the kingdom of scotland upon this ground and motive, that thereby they shall do great service to god, and great honour may redound to themselves, by becoming instruments of a glorious reformation, etc. this was the stile of all their papers, from 42 to 48, till some of the grandees of the independent faction had by their hypocritical prayers, malicious preachings, counterfeit tears, unmanly whinings, false protestations, and execrable perjuries, screwed themselves up into a supremacy of power and interest, and then they altered the stile of their pretences with the change of their affairs, and suited their remonstrances to their fortunes, and so stopped not at their old demands of reformation and purity of ordinances; these pretexts were too low for the greatness of their attempts and resolutions, and were not sufficient to warrant the murder of their lawful sovereign; and therefore it was necessary for them to take up with new pleas suitable to the wickedness of their new purposes; and then nothing was big enough to arreign or condemn their prince, but the charge of treason and tyranny, and the sentence of death was passed and executed upon him as a public enemy to the commonwealth: so that though pretences of secular and political interest were necessary to cut off his head, yet it was purely zeal and reformation that brought him to the block. to these declarations from the press, i might add their declarations from the pulpit, their preachers incessantly encouraging the people to fight against the king, as the most acceptable service to god; and the people accordingly fought against him, because they were persuaded that he was a papist, and would bring in popery; that the common-prayer was the mass in english, organs were idolatry, and episcopacy antichristian. it was nothing but the purity of the gospel, to which they so cheerfully sacrificed their thimbles and bodkins. and though here it were easy to collect vast volumes, there being scarce a parliament-exercise, for which the preacher had the thanks of the house, in which some sands and sweat were not wasted in crying up the piety of their intentions for the reformation of gospel-ordinances. but because this would prove a work too voluminous, i will therefore put off my reader, (and satisfy my adversary too) with two or three passages out of the inspired homilies of i. o. in his several dispensations. in his sermon preached before the parliament, pag. 34, 35. april 29. 1646. he thus bespeaks them: from the beginning of these troubles, right honourable, you have held forth religion and the gospel, as whose preservation and restauration was principally in your aims; and i presume malice itself is not able to discover any insincerity in this; the fruits we behold, proclaim to all the conformity of your words and hearts. now the god of heaven grant that the same mind be in you still, in every particular member of this honourable assembly, in the whole nation, especially in the magistracy and ministry of it, that we be not like the boat-men, look one way, and row another; cry, gospel, and mean the other thing; lord, lord, and advance our own ends, that the lord may not stir up the staff of his anger, and the rod of his indignation against us, as an hypocritical people. pag 4● and feb. 28. 1649. he tells them again, gods work whereunto ye are engaged, is the propagating of the kingdom of christ, and the setting up of the standard of the gospel. and octob. 13. 1652. pag. 27. from the beginning of the contests in this nation, when god had caused your spirits to resolve, that the liberties, privileges, and rights of this nation wherewith you were entrusted, should not (by his assistance) be wrested out of your hands by violence, oppression and injustice; this he also put upon your hearts, to vindicate and assert the gospel of jesus christ, his ways, and his ordinances, against all opposition, though you were but enquiring the way to zion, (for then they were little better than presbyterians) with your faces thitherwards god secretly entwining the interest of christ with yours, wrapped up with you the whole generation of them that seek his face, and prospered your affairs on that account. and lastly, feb. 4. 1658. pag. 1●. give me leave to remember you, as one that had opportunity to make observations of the passages of providence in those days, in all the three nations, in the times of our greatest hazards; give me leave, i say, to remember you, that the public declarations of those employed in the affairs of this nation, in the face of the enemies, their addresses unto god among themselves, their prayers night and day, their private discourses one with another, were, that the preservation of the interest of christ in and with his people, was the great thing that lay in their eyes, etc. i must not detain you with observations upon these passages; and they are so plain, i need not: this is enough to send him to school to his own dumb-speaking egyptian hieroglyphic, eben●ezer, epist. ded with which he once thought he could stop the mouths of the malignant infidels, that would not be brought to believe the success at celchester, an ample testimony of the continuance of god's presence with the army. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, men of all sorts know that god hateth impudence. §. 8. but how ill soever the people of god may have behaved themselves in time of yore, they are now resolved to learn better manners: for, says our author, (and who will not take his word?) do they profess 'tis their duty, pag 296, 297. their principle, their faith and doctrine, to be obedient to their rulers and governors? do they offer all the security of their adherence to such declared principles, as mankind is necessitated to be satisfied with in things of their highest concernment? etc. all is one, every different opinion is press-money, and every sect is an army, although they be all and every one of them protestants, of whom alone we do discourse. you offer security for your allegiance! you that have violated all the obligations of oaths, covenants, and protestations! shall bankrupts of all faith and honesty expect to be trusted upon their bare words, that have so often proved perfidious to their oaths? men, whose coy and crazy consciences have sworn and swallowed naked and undisguised contradictions, are capable no doubt of giving wonderful assurance and satisfaction for their future fidelity. first give us some competent tokens of your repentance, before you presume to tender us any security of your allegiance. men that own the peculiar and distinguishing principle of your party, are not fit to be trusted or endured in any commonwealth, viz. that sovereign princes may forfeit their title to their crowns, and that 'tis in the power of subjects to depose them for the ill administration of government. by this pretence you justified all your late disloyal practices; by it you adjudged his late majesty to death; by it you banished the undoubted heir of the crown; by it you proceeded to subvert the old, and erect a new form of government; and by it you all along confirmed yourselves in your zeal and opposition to the royal interest. now what signs have you given us of your having renounced this principle of rebellion? and till you have, what assurance can you give us of your return to loyalty; seeing 'tis not possible for any oaths to bind you to your duty, whenever you have a mind to pick quarrels against the management of public affairs? come, come, (sir) shuffle no longer with us, nor with your own consciences: either your proceedings in the late confusions were great and enormous crimes, or they were not; if they were not, nothing can restrain you, whenever you gain the advantage of power and opportunity, from acting such things over again, as you seriously believe to be just and innocent: if they were, why have you not all this while given us some competent and reasonable assurance of your conversion? your crimes (if crimes at all) were heinous and public, and enhansed with all the aggravations of guilt and wickedness; a flourishing kingdom was embroiled in wars and desolations; a pious and virtuous prince was villainously murdered; his children banished to preserve their lives; his friends undone with rapine and sequestration, and adjudged to death for their zeal and fidelity to his service; thousands of his subjects lost and sacrificed in the quarrel, with innumerable other mischiefs and enormities; and all this carried on with mighty shows, and confident brags of zeal and piety. these are sins with a witness, and so full of horror and amazement, that they are not to be repent of with an ordinary contrition; and 'tis not possible that any man should be seriously convinced of his own guilt in such prodigious crimes, without the deepest accents and agonies of remorse; or that he should appease his conscience with any less satisfaction than public acknowledgement; much less that he should expect other men should trust the sincerity of his repentance, without some visible indications of his amendment. but, alas! so far are you from affording us any tolerable grounds to expect your change, that you give us nothing but symptoms of reprobate hardness; and instead of open and ingenuous confessions, either wholly blanche the matter, or extenuate the crime, or (which is unpardonable insolence) discharge the guilt of all your practices upon our heads: hereafter therefore forbear to think us such sots, (unless you imagine our skulls are stuffed with wet straw) as to accept of any security you can offer, till you have first satisfied us of your hearty and unfeigned return to principles of loyalty and allegiance: and till then, it were a shameful forfeiture of common discretion, if we do not still suppose you the same men we have ever found you. wolves (they say) may change their hairs, but not their hearts; and 'tis an easy matter for men so exercised in the arts of hypocrisy, to cast their outward pretences, without ever altering their thoughts and inward designs. and yet they avoid the very appearances of alteration, insomuch that nothing is more cried up among themselves than an undaunted adherence to their old principles and their old cause; and if any of the party chance to be so ingenuous, as to confess the error and crime of his rebellion, he is sure to be loaded with all the reproaches of apostasy, and branded with all the dishonour of a renegado. and 'tis well known into what deep arrears of their anger and displeasure one has lately run himself by a few gentle and friendly reproofs of their schismatical behaviour. what if he had exhorted them to repent of the sins of disloyalty and rebellion, and had charged it upon their ingenuity to give some remarkable evidences and engagements of their better resolutions, as a worthy requital of his majesty's favour and indempnifying the outrage of all their former proceedings? if he had, he would have been pelted with more dirty language than the pope of rome, or the apocalyptick beast. they are stubborn and implacable in their old principles, their minds are still possessed with the same accursed rage and bitterness of spirit, as ran them upon their late rebellions; and they are so little affected with any sense or sorrow for their disloyalty, that like men given up to a reprobate sense, they are enraged by the convictions of their own gild, and labour to stifle the overruling reflections of their own consciences. rub up their memories with their former crimes, and you do but inflame their choler; invite them to repentance, and that they call (with our author) an impertinent calling over of things past and bygone. page 60. nay, their faces and their consciences are so hardened, that they will threaten every little reflection upon their late enormities with the act of oblivion. and when any of them are so shameless as publicly to appeal to the innocence of their own practices; if you shall rebuke their confidence by representing the base and perfidious arts of their hypocrisy and ambition, they (forsooth) will stop your mouth with a suit at law. indemnity will not satisfy their proud stomaches, unless they may pass for pure and unspotted innocents'. we are bound to erase out of our memories all records of their frauds, their perjuries, their pride, and their cruelty; and in spite of our dear-bought experience ever suppose them as harmless in their designs as they are demure in their pretences. and (what is more and more intolerable) they are so little touched with any serious regret for their former actings, that they still proceed as far as they dare venture in the same blessed paths of reformation. for though as yet they dare not set forth public declarations of designs to introduce popery; of his majesty's being seduced by evil counsellors; of the corruptions of ministers of state; and of the ill management of all public affairs, and such other old stories as served for prologues to the old tumults: yet 'tis become a customary and familiar thing with them to make leering and unmannerly reflections upon the wisdom of the present government, to dispute and condemn the equity of public proceedings, to possess one another upon every slight occasion with jealousies of plots upon their liberties and privileges, to upbraid public misfortunes with the successes of the reign of oliver cromwell; and in brief, to alienate the affections, and impair the good opinions of the people as to the present setlement of things, by any arts and devices that may not bring them under the lash of justice, and within the cognizance of the laws. 'tis notorious how they work their followers to a dislike of monarchy, and a disrespect to sovereign princes; though it is no wonder, if we consider that the present chiefs and ringleaders of the party are such as were the most vehement patriots and assertors of the republican faction. §. 9 for a farther proof of their impenitence, i cannot but observe that these men, that are as free as publicans in their other confessions, yet in these matters become like the man without the wedding garment, dumb and speechless; not for any deep sense of their gild, but because they disdain to own it. here they cover their transgressions as adam, and stand upon the protestation of their integrity as job. bring them to the enumeration of sins against the fifth commandment, and they are immediately taken with a pharisaic costiveness, and after all their straining and winking, nothing comes but a few general and careless confessions. the good old cause sticks as close to them as original sin, no soap or nitre can purge away their principles; their complexions are unchangeable as the skin of an aethiopian, and their tempers incurable as the fretting leprosy. and therefore to return to our author, before you presume to offer us any more security of your good behaviour: first, learn the ingenuity of men, show yourselves humble, melting, and brokenhearted christians; give us some symptoms of your repentance and contrition: rely not upon the justification of your own works; cast off the rags of your own self-righteousness, and self-loyalty, and confess but once to his majesty, as you often do to god almighty, our throats have been as open sepulchers, with our tongues we have used deceit, the poison of asps has been under our lips; our mouths have been full of cursing and bitterness, our feet have been swift to shed blood; destruction and misery have been in all our ways, and the way of peace have we not known. we are seriously convinced of the error and wickedness of our doings: it was the great men of our party (we cannot deny it) that were the fiercest and most implacable enemies against your majesty's crown and person, that by their perfidious oaths and protestations enticed your royal father into their nets, and then murdered him with equal modesty and conscience. it was we (with shame and horror we confess it) that pursued your own life with the thirst and industry of bloodhounds; and had your majesty been the most hated wretch, traitor, and rebel in the world, we could not have hunted you with a keener rage. and it was our preachers that cried up all this as the cause of god, and the work of providence, in order to the recovery and preservation of the gospel. but now (sir) we are from the bottom of our hearts convinced of the unparallelled wickedness of all these our practices and opinions; and we desire with shame and confusion of face to acknowledge and disclaim them in the presence of god, and before all the world; we now see, and cannot but declare we have grievously rebelled against him, in fight for him against his vicegerent; as we did against you when we fought for your authority against your person. sir, our behaviour has been so unworthy, and our hypocrisy so notorious, that we have not confidence to desire your majesty should ever trust us, till we have made some reasonable atonement for all our miscarriages, by some public and ingenuous satisfaction, and given some unquestionable proofs of our repentance by some signal and extraordinary acts of loyalty. and though our brethren of the kirk were once so tenderhearted as to excuse a sister that had fallen (as they phrased it) in holy fornication, from the shame of her public penance, lest the gospel should be scandalised: yet if there be any among us that bewray any signs and symptoms of the old spirit of rebellion, we will be so far from sheltering or conniving at such unpardonable offenders, that we will with all possible care drive them from our communion, and deliver them up to the justice of the laws. if they would offer us such security as this for their peaceableness and obedience, they might make some impression upon our good natures, and gain some ground upon our good opinions. but if they will not, all their other promises and engagements are but so many assurances that they are not in good earnest. for if they were, that alone would indispensably oblige them to frank and open retractions. nothing can expiate a public crime but a public repentance. but alas! these conditions are too rough for humble and selfdenying men to swallow, their stomaches cannot down with such sharp and unpleasant physic; and they will rather continue for ever in a state of impenitence, then repent at the rate of a public satisfaction. and hence it is that though i. o. has made the door to atheism so wide, yet that to loyalty is (as to them) like that to the kingdom of heaven, strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, and few (if any) there be that find it. so that for them to pretend to loyalty is a ruder and more unhandsome insolence, than all their open crimes and execrable practices; 'tis an affront to our understandings, when persons so stained with perfidious and disloyal actions, shall go about to persuade us of their innocence and integrity, and cry up themselves for brave subjects, though they have nothing to show for it but their zeal in treason and rebellion. this is boldfaced wickedness, when men that have done such base and dishonourable things, shall look confidently, and scorn to accept all your acts of indemnity, unless they may challenge one of justification. to conclude, plutarch, i remember, somewhere commends the wisdom of those birds that conspired to beat the cuckoo, lest in process of time it should grow up to an hawk: but what if the cuckoo had been an hawk already, and they or any of their flock had been gripped in its talons, what sort of birds would you have judged them, had they been so silly as to suffer it to become an hawk again; only because it sung the old cuckoo tune? the mythology is plain; that prince that has felt the pounces of these ravening vultures, if after that he shall be persuaded to regard their fair speeches, at such times as they want power, without other evident and unquestionable tokens of their conversion, deserves to be king of the night. §. 10. but here our author adds, and 'tis suggested a thousand times over; are not we both protestants, and shall we persecute our brethren of the same church and communion with ourselves? no, no, we are papists and idolaters; have you so often branded us with the charge of popery, and so confidently involved us in the grand antichristian apostasy; and can you now think it a seasonable argument to work upon our compassion and good nature by declaring yourselves protestants? this is an admirable motive to prevail upon the affections of rank papists; 'tis just as if our author should hope to win us to the grant of an indulgence, by pleading (as he often does) that they are right godly men, when he has made an implacable hatred of all godliness, the characteristic note of the episcopal clergy. but he does, ever did, and ever will pour out his words at random; and they are any thing, and we are any thing, and every thing is any thing, truth to day, and heresy to morrow, as it shall happen to conduce to their present interest. and therefore to be short and plain with them, and to abate the confidence of this popular pretence; the name of protestant (as they use it) is but a term of faction, and the word of a party, a title to which every man may pretend, that is no friend to the pope of rome; and if he be fallen out with the papacy upon what account soever, that is enough to list him a member of the protestant communion. and if any man through the licentiousness of his life or principles be forced even for his own security to turn renegado to the church of rome, he shall be immediately admitted into the fellowship of the reformed churches: and thus shall the reformation be made the sanctuary of romulus, a refuge for enthusiasts and heretics, a device to draw together all the lewd and wicked people in the world, to unite themselves into one body in defiance to the roman interest. this is a wild and boundless thing, and signifies nothing but popular tumults and confusions, and shelters all the sacrileges and enormities in the world, provided they that commit them rail at his holiness. and thus i confess was the reformation of some places the mere effect of the tumults and outrages of boors, the factions and seditions of mechanics, the crafts and artifices of statesmen, and the ambitions of peevish and pragmatical priests. and all that some men (who think themselves some of the most refined protestants) contributed to the carrying on of this great work, was by breaking church-windows, demolishing altars, defacing shrines, beating down images, doing despite to pictures, burning libraries, stealing consecrated plate, plundering churches of their sacred ornaments, and adorning their own houses with the spoils and relics of popish trumpery. and therefore we must distinguish (and 'tis mr. chillingworths' distinction) between protestants and protestants; those that protest against imperial edicts, and those that protest against the corruptions of the church of rome. between those who only remonstrate to the papal apostasy, and endeavour to retrieve the true ancient and catholic christianity; and those who under this pretence shelter state factions, and paint reformation upon their banners, and purge the church of idolatry by civil wars, and desolations of states, and cast off allegiance to their prince, together with their subjection to the pope: enter into leagues and associations, raise armies, and run into all the disorders of treason and disloyalty against their lawful sovereign, to extort by force of arms the free exercise of their religion. and it would grieve a man to observe how the sober and moderate reformers were in many places run down by seditious and hotheaded preachers: and (to mention no more) how melancthon with his disciples were supplanted by flaccus illyricus and his confidents: the flaccinians, (because he would allow of no seditious counsels to carry on the work) immediately impeach him of apostasy to the papal cause, and send their complaints abroad to calvin, and other patriarches of the reformed churches, and the good man was put to the expense of much time and paper to prove himself no jesuit. now the church of england disclaims the communion as well as the principles of these blustering religionists; she abhors rebellion as much as idolatry, and looks upon defection from loyalty and allegiance as an apostasy from the christian faith; and therefore men of disloyal principles or practices do but abuse her and themselves too, when they pretend to her communion; because forsooth they have a mighty spleen against the pope and cardinals; whereas the rankest and most jesuitical piece of popery is the doctrine of treason and rebellion. and what agreement there is between the jesuit and the puritan concerning the civil magistrate, you may see paralleled in divers material points of doctrine and practice, to take down the too absolute and unrestrained power of the monarches of christendom, by lysimachus nicanor of the society of jesus, in his epistle to the covenanters of scotland. and therefore what persuasions soever they may have in other matters contrary to the church of rome, unless they are orthodox in this fundamental article of the royal supremacy, if they are not guelphs, they are (and that is as bad) gibellines, another party of professed enemies to the church of england. but to take down the confidence of these forward pretenders, and to give a more distinct and satisfactory account of this affair, you may know that our reformation consists of two parts, doctrine and discipline; the design of the former was to abolish the corruptions and innovations of the church of rome, and to retrieve the pure and primitive christianity; and the design of the latter was to abrogate the jurisdiction of the bishop of rome, and to annex all superiority and pre-eminence over the ecclesiastical state to the imperial crown: in both which attempts, the non-conformists or puritan-recusants have absolutely forsaken our communion. 1. as to discipline, the design of those great men that first arose to that great work was to redeem the christian world from the shameless and exorbitant usurpations of the bishop of rome, that had invaded the thrones of princes, and made their sceptres do homage to st. peter's keys, and enslaved the royal dignity to the interests and insolences of a proud vicar. and this was the schism of the church of england, its defection to its lawful prince; and its first departure from the church of rome was nothing but its revolt to its due allegiance, and at this day its greatest heresy is the uncatholick doctrine of obedience to sovereign authority. whereas the great project of the men of the separation was never to abrogate, but only to exchange the papal usurpation, and to settle that power and supremacy of which they stripped his holiness of rome upon the presbyterial consistory. the holy discipline is but another name for the papal power, it equally disrobes princes of their ecclesiastical supremacy, and entirely settles its jurisdiction upon the presbytery, and vests them with an authority to control their commands, restrain their civil power, and punish their persons: in that by the principles of the * huic disciplinae omn●s orbis princip●s & monarchas ●●sces 〈◊〉 sabmi te●● & 〈◊〉 necesse est. ●●ave●s de disc. eccl. p. 142. holy discipline kings must be subject to the decrees of the presbytery in all matters of religion; neither small nor great may be exempted from subjection to the sceptre of jesus christ; by which they mean the same thing that the papists do by the keys of st. peter, viz. an original power in themselves of exercising a temporal jurisdiction over the kings of the earth under pretence of their spiritual sovereignty: so that in this part of the work we have not been encountered with more disturbance and opposition from the jesuits than from the presbyterians, that are as to the doctrine of regal supremacy as arrant recusants; and therefore it as much imports princes for security of their own rights and prerogatives to have an eye to the factors of geneva, as to the emissaries of rome. they are both men of bold and fiery spirits; and all the late combustions of europe have either been procured or occasioned by the seditious and aspiring attempts of these two daring sects. but the tumults and disorders of the jesuits concern not our present enquiry; nor may i enter upon the history of all the leagues, conspiracies, seditions, spoils, ravages, and insurrections, of the puritan brethren. it has been lately performed by an elegant pen to purpose, that has thereby done that right to the cause of reformation, as to absolve the true protestant from the charge of seditious doctrines and practices, and to score all the embroilments of the kingdoms and estates of christendom, on the account of the calvinists, who thrust themselves into all places and designs; and if any where they were suffered to grow into any considerable strength and interest, were upon all occasions drawing in the zealous rabble into holy leagues and confederacies against their governors. and if you will but compare the first practices and proceedings of the hugonots in the kingdom of france, of the gheuses in the belgic provinces, of the kirk-faction in the realm of scotland, with the actings, treasons and disloyalties of the english puritans, as you will discover a strange agreement in the issues of their principles and proceedings, so you will find their disorders to exceed the common mischiefs and exorbitancies of mankind. but i must not pursue particular stories, the history of their tumults, outrages, and desolations, would require a larger volume than the book of martyrs. it was these hot and fiery spirits, that in most places spoiled this gallant enterprise; and by their seditious zeal and madness, drove up the reformation into downright rebellion; and were so outrageous against the church of rome, that they had not patience to wait the lazy temper of authority for the reformation of abuses. it's wisdom and moderation was carnal policy; and if governors would not set upon it in regular and peaceable ways at their first alarm, than the only doctrine they thundered from the pulpit, was, that if princes refuse to reform religion themselves, 'tis lawful for their godly subjects to do it, though by violence and force of arms. these are the men that are so forward to thrust themselves into the reformed communion, and whom we are so resolved to disclaim as shameful apostates from the reformed cause, and judge just such protestants as the gnostics were christians, the scandal and dishonour of their profession; and whom the true sons of the church were forced to avoid as much, if not more, than heathens and infidels, though it were only to secure their own reputation, that their tumults and disorders might not be scored upon their reckoning. this is plain matter of fact, though how it will relish with our author, 'tis easy to foretell; and it is not to be doubted but he may have the confidence to remonstrate to the most credible evidence of history, that has the boldness in defiance to so many public ordinances and declarations, to deny that the pretences of reformation had any concern in our late confusions. but however, he would be well-advised not to dare to apologise for other men, unless he could first clear his own innocence: for if a man shall undertake to plead the cause of a notorious offender, that stands himself chargeable of the deeper guilt, he does not defend, but betray and upbraid his client; his very apology becomes a strong accusation, and all the world will suspect that man's innocence, when they shall see a person so scandalous, so forward in his defence. he is but an ill apologist for the peaceableness or loyalty of any party, that has himself been a famous trumpeter (not to say, a great commander) in rebellion; and when our late thirsty tyrants had gorged themselves with royal blood, was the first chaplain that proffered his service to say a long margaret's grace to the entertainment. §. 11. this short account may suffice to let you see that the nonconformists, as to this particular, (however they may glory in the name of protestant) are but another sort of papists, that plucked down one popery to set up another; and justled his holiness out of the chair, only to seat themselves in it. and as for the under-sects, and farther improved schismatics, that have since sprung out of the corruptions of presbytery, our controversy with them is not between protestants and protestants, but between protestants and anabaptists; a sort of people (as to this particular worse than papists) whom nothing will satisfy but absolute anarchy and confusion in the church, and by consequence in the state: for in a christian commonwealth they are but one and the same society, which, as i have proved over and over, and our author sometimes confesses, nothing can avoid but an ecclesiastical supremacy, or coercive jurisdiction in matters of religion. the hearty and serious acknowledgement whereof, is the true shibboleth, and distinguishing mark of the right english protestant. this is the pride and the glory of the church of england, that she was never tainted with sedition and disloyalty; and in the management of her reformation, never out run the laws, but always moved under the conduct of sovereign authority. it grieved our prelates to behold the dignity of the throne prostituted to a foreign tyranny; and when, chiefly by their counsel and assistance, our princes had disengaged themselves of their ancient fetters, they proceeded to engage and encourage them in the reformation of the christian faith to its ancient purity; and with the advice of their ecclesiastical senate, to establish rites and ceremonies of worship by their own authority. so that there is not a monarchy in the world that might be so well guarded as the crown of england, by its orthodox clergy, were they allowed that power and reputation that is due to the interest and dignity of their function; not only because they hold so entirely from his majesty, and are so immediately dependant upon his favour for their preferment; but chiefly because there is not any sort of men in the world possessed with so deep a sense of loyalty: 'tis become their nature and their genius; 'tis the only thing that creates them so many enemies, exposes them to so much opposition, and divides them from all other parties and professions. what is it that so much enrages the roman clergy, but that we will not suffer his holiness to usurp upon the rights of princes? and when these janissaries invade and assault their thrones, and attempt to seat their great master in the imperial primacy, 'tis we, and only we that have ever stepped in and beat back all their approaches with shame and dishonour. and whatever provisions might have been made against the encroachments of rome upon the crown of england, they would have been lamentably weak without the aids and assistances of religion, because 'tis that alone that is pretended in their opposition; and its very pretences, where they prevail, are so strong and powerful, that they easily bear down all the arts of civil policy and government. nothing but religion can encounter religion. and how easy had it been for rome, considering its power, interest, cunning and activity, to have either enslaved our princes to their tyranny, or annoyed them with eternal broils and seditions, had not the english clergy bestirred themselves to counterwork all their mines, and to possess the people's minds with an impregnable sense of loyalty? and this, whatever is pretended, is the real ground of the breach between us, viz. the interest and grandeur of the court of rome. and would we but grant them back that sovereignty they once exercised over the kings and kingdom of england, they would never stand so much upon any controversies about doctrinal articles, and would willingly permit us to enjoy all our other fancies and persuasions; knowing, that if they can but regain their absolute dominion over us, they shall soon be able to model our opinions to their interest. and what was it that so exasperated the disciplinarians, but when these pert gentlemen would have been perking up into their spiritual throne, and (in imitation of their kirk-brethrens) nosing the power of kings both in and out of the pulpit, they plucked down such pitiful pretenders with scorn and dishonour, exposed their folly and ignorance to the public correction, and let the world see they were more worthy of a pillory than a throne? but these bold youths have at length in pursuance of their designs, run themselves beyond their pretensions, and lost their cause among the disorders and confusions of their own procuring; out of which have sprung new swarms of sects and schisms, that were born and bred in rebellion, and were never known to the world by any other visible marks than their opposition to the royal interest. yet have these men the face to challenge their right of liberty and indulgence, and to rail at us for not granting it, though the things, for which they demand it, are nothing but principles of sedition and disloyalty. the world knows what pranks and practices they have committed with the confidence, and under the protection of religion; and they have never given us the least signs and tokens of repentance, and that alone is an infallible symptom of their impenitence: for were they sincere converts, the world should be sure to know their resentments; so that we have all the reason in the world to believe them no changelings; and then would it not be admirable policy to trust men of such implacable spirits and principles to the present setlement of things? for if we have no ground but to suppose them enemies to the public peace, we certainly have no motive or obligation to treat them as friends, but rather to use them as people that thirst after a change, and aim at nothing more than our ruin. tenderness and indulgence to such men, were to nourish vipers in our own bowels, and the most sottish neglect of our own quiet and security, and we should deserve to perish with the dishonour of sardanapalus. and howsoever their ringleaders may whine and cant to the people grievous complaints of our present oppressions and persecutions, yet would they inwardly scorn us as weak and silly men, that understand not the height of our interest, if we should be prevailed with to bestow any milder usage upon such irreconcilable enemies. and 'tis not impossible but that the mercy of the government may have been a great temptation to their insolence; and perhaps had some of them been more roughly handled, they had been less disobliged. they think lenity and compassion to an implacable enemy, an effect of weakness; and would never forgive themselves, should they not use all means to suppress all known and resolved opposition to their own interest. and therefore as many of these men as have been objects of royal mercy, if they expect to obtain any farther favour to their party, they would do well to give us some public and competent assurance of their renouncing their former principles of sedition, as to civil government. though not a man, continuing in their communion, has ever as yet given the world any satisfaction of this kind; and certainly they can never take it ill in good earnest, if we only deny them the liberty and free exercise of their religion, till they are willing to give us some security of their being governable. §. 12. the second part of protestancy, is the reformation of doctrine; and here the design was to abolish the corruptions and unwarrantable innovations of the church of rome, and to retrieve the pure and primitive christianity. it was not their aim to exchange thomas aquinas his sums for calvin's institutions, or bodies of school-divinity for dutch systems; but to reduce christianity to the prescript of the word of god, and the practice of the first and uncorrupted ages of the church, to clear the foundations of our faith from all false and groundless superstructures, and once more recover into the christian world a pure and apostolical religion. and therefore the only rule of our church's reformation were the scriptures, and four first general councils: she admits not of any upstart doctrines, and new models of orthodoxy; but all the articles of her belief are ancient and apostolical; and if she herself should teach any other propositions, she protests against their being matters of faith, and of necessity to salvation. and for this reason she imposes not her own articles as articles of faith, but of peace and communion: nor does she censure other churches for their different confessions, but allows them the liberty she takes, to establish more or less conditions of communion, as the governors of the church shall deem most expedient for peace and unity. and she only requires of such as are admitted to any office & employment in the church, subscription to them as certain theological verities, not repugnant to the word of god, which she has particularly selected from among many other to be publicly taught and maintained within her communion, as necessary or highly conducive to the preservation of truth, and prevention of schism: and for this reason she passes no other censure upon the impugners of her articles, than what she has provided against the impugners of the public liturgy, episcopal government, and the rites & ceremonies of worship, because they are all intended to the same end, the avoiding disorders and confusions. these than are the conditional articles of the communion of the church of england, and they are necessary and excellent provisions for peace and unity. for among all the disputes and divisions of christendom, it is but reasonable she should take security of those men's doctrines and opinions whom she entrusts in public employments, to prevent her being embroiled in perpetual quarrels and controversies. so that subscriptions to the articles is required chiefly upon the same account as the oath of supremacy, whose penalty is, that such who refuse it, shall be excluded such places of honour and profit as they hold in the church or commonwealth. and 'tis very reasonable that princes should be particularly secured of the fidelity of those subjects that they entrust with their public offices. and thus all the punishment that the church of england is willing to have inflicted upon dissenters from her articles, is to deprive them of their ecclesiastical preferments, as being unfit for ecclesiastical employments: for though she is not so careless of her own peace, as to empower men in the exercise of her public offices at all adventure; so neither is she so rigorous as to make inquisition into their private thoughts. and therefore we are not so harsh and unmerciful as somebody, (you wot of) who would be thought a warm bigot for toleration; and yet has sometime professed he would give his vote to banish any man the kingdom that should refuse their subscription. but as for the absolute articles of the faith of the church of england, they are of a more ancient date; they were not of her own contriving, but such as she found established in the purest and most uncorrupted ages of the church, and in the times nearest to the primitive and apostolical simplicity. that is the measure of her faith, and the standard of her reformation: here she fixes the bounds of her belief, and seals up the symbol of her creed, to prevent the danger of endless additions and innovations. but as for all other matters, i say, (with the late learned archbishop, as he discourses against fisher) if any error, which might fall into this (as any other reformation) can be found, then, i say, and 'tis most true, reformation, especially in cases of religion, is so difficult a work, and subject to so many pretensions, that 'tis almost impossible but the reformers should step too far, or fall too short in some smaller things or other, which in regard of the far greater benefit coming by the reformation itself, may well be passed over and born withal. and withal by virtue of this fundamental maxim, may in due time and manner be redressed. by the wisdom and moderation of this principle, the church secures herself against the prescription of error: so that if she should at any time hereafter discover any defect in any particular instance of her laws and constitutions, (and in a work so great, so various, and so difficult, 'tis not impossible, as the archbishop observes, for the greatest caution and prudence to be overseen in some smaller things) she has reserved a just power in herself to reform and amend it. this, in brief, is a true and honest account of the protestancy of the church of england. but so it happened, that beyond the seas there arose another generation of pert and forward men, the vehemence of whose zeal and passion transported them from extreme to extreme; so that they immediately began to measure truth, not by its agreement with the scriptures, and the purest ages of the church; but by its distance from the see of rome, and the apostasy of latter times; whereby it so came to pass, that they did but barter errors in stead of reforming corruptions; and in lieu of the old popish tenets, only set up some of their own new-fangled conceits. but above all the rest, there sprung up a mighty bramble on the south-bank of the lake lemane, that (such is the rankness of the soil) spread and flourished with such a sudden growth, that in a few days, partly by the industry of its agents abroad, and partly by its own indefatigable pains and pragmaticalness, it quite over run the whole reformation, and in a short time the right protestant cause was almost irrecoverably lost, under the more prevailing power and interest of calvinism. that proud and busy man had erected a new chair of infallibility, and enthroned himself in it; and had he been acknowledged their supreme pastor, he could not have obtruded his decrees in a more peremptory and definitive way upon the reformed churches. nothing can be rightly done in any foreign church or state, but by his counsels and directions: he must thrust himself in for the master-workman, wherever they were hammering reformation: he must be privy to all the counsels, and govern all the designs of the princes of christendom: and his mandates and decretal epistles must ever be flying about into all parts and provinces; and when any doubt or difficulty arose, away to geneva to consult the oracle, that always returned his answers with the confidence and authority of an apostle. and thus did this hot and eager man bear down all before him by the boldness of his nature to attempt, and indefatigable vehemence of his spirit to prosecute what he had once attempted, till he made himself at once both pope and emperor of the greatest part of the reformed world. all his dictates were articles of faith, and all his censures anathemas; and every dissent from his least important and most unwarrantable principles, was heresy; and every heresy, capital and damnable. all schemes and models of truth were coined in his name, and warranted by his authority; it was his decree that stamped them orthodox, and no opinion that did not bear his image and superscription, might pass for current divinity. and whoever was so hardy or so unhappy as to oppose himself to this bold and insolent usurpation, or but to demur upon the infallibility of his determinations, he was immediately assaulted with volleys of anathemas, and they poured upon him showers of invectives, and hated names; and he was shunned like infection, and dreaded as the pest and plague of the reformed communion; and if they wanted power to persecute him with fire and faggot, they would kill him with noises and anathemas. and thus has this man and his followers intricated the way to heaven with their own new labyrinths, and wild turnings, trifling questions, and uncertain talk: they have smothered and buried the truths of god under the superstructures of their own foolish inventions; they have blended their own dreams and visions with the divine oracles, and then require the same assent to their ill-spun systems and hypotheses as to the inspired writings of st. paul, and obtrude pure nonsense and contradictious blasphemies upon our belief with as much rigour and boisterous zeal as the most indispensable truths of the gospel: requiring as confident an assent to the black doctrine of irrespective reprobation, as to our saviour's death and resurrection; and making it as necessary a point of faith to believe that the almighty thrust innumerable myriads of souls into being, only to sport himself in their endless and unspeakable tortures, as that he sent his own son into the world to die for the redemption of mankind: nay, this they stick not to discard and disavow for its inconsistency with the hypothesis of absolute decrees: this is the fundamental article of their creed, and all other points of divinity must be so modelled, as to suit and accommodate themselves to this foundation of their faith. and thus in most places did the design of reformation degenerate into a furious zeal for the calvinian rigours; the seeds of which doctrine have produced nothing but thorns and briers of contention, that have eaten out the life and power of true religion, and make men barren in every thing but discords and disputations. the woeful effects whereof are visible in most foreign churches, where piety is exchanged for orthodoxy, and devotion for speculation, where their religion is a zeal for a scheme of opinions, and their learning an ability to maintain them. §. 13. but in the settling or modelling of our reformation, by the providence of god and our governors, this man's assistance was refused, and his advice rejected: they understood him too well to admit him into their counsels, and resolved to keep up close to their first design of reforming the church to the apostolical simplicity: though afterward this doctrine took root here by the industry of some zealous youths, that had been trained up at the feet of that great gamaliel, and returned home seminary priests of the calvinian theology. this was the only errand and design of whittingham, travers, cartwright, and others; and the only original of all the schisms and disturbances that have ever since infested the church of england, was the unseasonable zeal of these men to reduce its doctrine and discipline to the platform of geneva. and though they were immediately checked in their attempt upon the discipline, that they thought good to assault with fierce and open violence; yet as for the leaven of their doctrine, they insensibly spread and conveyed it into the minds of their disciples; and it grew and prospered mightily in all places; because as it was cultivated with much zeal, and watered with much preaching, so was it not encountered with any public opposition: the church not having declared itself positively in any thing but against the errors and corruptions of the church of rome: and as for all the other disputes of christendom, she contrived the articles of her communion with that prudence and moderation, as to take in all men of whatsoever different persuasions in other matters into her bosom and protection. she embraced trojans and tyrians with equal favour, and would not wed herself to the narrow interests of a party, nor determine all the quarrels and differences of disputing men: no, she left them to the liberty of their own opinions, only reserving to herself a power to quash and silence their disputes for the ends of peace and government. but this moderation was too cool for these warm and hotheaded men; they thought it not enough for the honour of mr. calvin, and therefore resolved to declare themselves expressly for him in defiance to all other doctors and heads of parties. but the pulpits must make good this, and they are resolved to make good the pulpits; and therefore they make them and the people to groan with nothing but the continual noise of decrees; and the depths of election and reprobation were always rattling and thundering in their ears. the whole circle of their preaching and practical divinity was reduced to calvin's interpretation of the ninth chapter of the epistle to the romans. and when they had scared and astonished the people into an admiration of these gloomy mysteries, nothing will satisfy their restless heads, unless they may be voted the doctrine of the church, and the cause of the reformation. and all the men of the first moderation must be branded for apostates, and the people let loose to rail at them as papists, or under some other hated name, that they abhorred, but did not understand. and this is the interpretation of our authors malicious suggestion of his being aggrieved to observe such evident declerisions from the first established reformation, towards the old, pag. 395. or a new, and it may be worse apostasy; such an apparent weariness of the principal doctrines and practices, which enlivened the reformation, i. e. a wicked schismatical relapse to popish arminian errors, an apostasy from the doctrine of the reformed churches to worship the old pelagian idol freewill with the new goddess contingency, or an halting between jehovah and baal, christ and antichrist, admitting the belgic semipelagians into the communion of our church, and joining with a spanish plot, by opposing the calvinists to reduce the people again to popery; all which are the methods of satan, and the designs of some who sit aloft in the temple of god, to hew at the very roots of christianity. as i. o. expresses himself in the preface to his display of arminianism. yes, no doubt, it was the great design of our first reformers to state (as he has done) the order and succession of eternal decrees; to reconcile a fatal and irresistible determination of our actions with the liberty of our wills, to account for the consistency of the decree of irrespective reprobation of the greatest part of mankind with the truth and the goodness of god, when he so plainly protests he would not any should perish, but that all should come to repentance; and to set up a secret and reserved will in god in defiance to his revealed will, and then make it consistent with the honour of his attributes to profess one thing, and at the same time resolve another. it was no doubt their zeal for these weighty and fundamental truths that was the avowed cause of their protestations against the church of rome; and those great prelates that first arose to that great attempt, chose to fall martyrs to the cause, only to justify their own absolute election, and to prove the impossibility of their relapse from grace. and among mr. foxes wooden cuts we find many pictures of martyrs for the supralapsarian way, and the chain that tied them to the stake was no doubt the noose of election, and the label that hangs out at their mouths, the decretal sentence. so that they that will not burn and broil for these fundamental articles of the geneva zeal, are the julian's and apostates from the protestant faith, the popes or the devil's instruments (as our author speaks) to betray us, to the old, or a new, and it may be a worse apostasy. men may mince the matter, and pretend only a dislike of the doctrine of reprobation; but alas! who knows not this to be the serpent's subtlety, ibid. wherever she gets in her head, she will wriggle in her whole body, sting and all: give but the least admission to these heterodoxies, and the whole poison must be swallowed. this apostasy from the single article of reprobation unavoidably brings in the whole body of popish-arminian errors. and therefore whoever offends but in this particular, is absolutely fallen from the catholic faith, and the orthodox doctrine of the church of england; and then he has pronounced his doom, and pronounced him uncapable of our church-communion. admirable doctrine this for a patron of indulgence, not to endure a poor man that dares not dogmatise in the mysteries of reprobation, but to deliver him up without mercy, or any sense of compassion, to the exterminating censures and anathemas of the church, and (what was then more dreadful) the parliament too. thus you see what are the articles of these men's zeal and orthodoxy, and by what doctrines and principles they take their measure of reformation, making a rigour in the calvinian tenets, the only estimate of the purity of churches. so that because we are willing to clear our church from the encumbrance and encroachment of these innovations, and are resolved not to trouble ourselves with abetting the modern controversies, and mushroom sects of christendom, but to stick fast to the wisdom and moderation of the first design of returning to the ancient and unblended doctrines of christianity: and are therefore careful in our discourses and representations of religion to avoid all new and unwarrantable mixtures, and to represent the truths of the gospel with the same simplicity, as we should have done before these novelties were started in the world. for this are we taxed by these imperious dogmatists of perfidious designs to betray the protestant cause, and to return back to the errors and corruptions of the church of rome; and the people must be alarmed and confounded with hideous outcries against popery and babylon, spanish plots and jesuitical designs; and then must they stand upon their guard, and nothing must assuage their choler but an humble submission to their sturdy humour. they must not attend to any articles of agreement, or overtures of pacification and mutual forbearance; and unless we will declare our assent and consent to all the curious and perplexed opinions of their sect, they will hear of no other conditions of peace, and there is no remedy but we must part communion. they must (as i. o. ibid. speaks) proclaim 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an holy war to such enemies of god's providence. this is hard measure, but yet such as was strictly meted out without a grain of allowance, not only by the rigid presbyterians, but the indulgent tryers, those patriots of our christian liberty, those renowned subverters of ecclesiastical tyranny. now there can be nothing more mischievous, or intolerable in any church or commonwealth then these peremptory dictator's of truth, and professed masters of polemic skill; they are so exact and curious in their own speculations, and impose them with that severity upon the consent of mankind, and by consequence require such hard and impracticable conditions of agreement and church-communion, as must unavoidably break any society of men into factions and parties: for what so vain as to expect an unity of judgement in such a multitude of uncertain and undeterminable opinions? and therefore those men that stand with such an unyielding and inflexible stiffness upon the admittance of their own conceits, make all reconcilements impossible, and all ruptures incurable. every little opinion must make a great schism, and the bounds of churches must be as nicely determined as the points of a dutch-compass. their bodies of orthodoxy are as vast and voluminous as aquinas sums, and they have drawn infinite numbers of wanton and peevish questions into the articles of their belief; and now when they have swollen up their faith to such a mighty bulk, and refined it to such a delicate subtlety, 'tis unavoidable but that this must perpetuate disputes and divisions to all eternity. and for this reason it is, that these perverse and imperious asserters are the most insufferable sort of men in any christian commonwealth, in that they are such incorrigible enemies to peace, and are so good for nothing else but to raise disturbances and contentions in the church. so that though we should suppose liberty of religion to be the common and natural right of mankind, yet these persons apparently forfeit all their claims and pretences to it, not only because their principles are directly repugnant to the quiet of states and kingdoms, but because they invade other men's rights, and offer violence to their neighbours just liberties. and so cast themselves into the condition of outlaws and banditi; that once indeed had a natural right of protection from the government, under which they were born; but if they will not submit to the conditions of society, and will be preying upon the lives and liberties of their fellow subjects, they become public enemies to the common good, forfeit all right of protection, and put themselves out of the benefit of the laws▪ such is the outrage of these haughty men, they are not content with their own just privileges, but assault those of their neighbours, and will not endure others to live in society with them, unless they will yield up the liberty of their understandings to their imperious folly, and no man shall be suffered to live in peace and quiet, unless they may be allowed to usurp and exercise a supremacy of power over the whole communion, and this is a direct subversion of the authority of government, and a manifest violence to the fundamental laws and conditions of society, and by consequence a forfeiture of all claims to its rights and privileges. and yet notwithstanding this savage and insociable humour, they suffer not for that, but only for their incorrigible stubbornness against the laws of government and rules of discipline. and if they would learn to be modest, and yield to be governed by any thing but their own intolerable peevishness, they would seldom feel the severity of the church's discipline for the unmannerly rigour of their own doctrines: these are matters of our mutual forbearance, and whatever may be the opinions of private men, our church does not dogmatise in scholastic speculations: and we must never expect to see peace re-enthroned in the christian world, till other churches shall suffer themselves to be brought to the moderation of the church of england, to have as little faith, and as much charity as the primitive christians. but to contend for the same ease and indulgence (as these men do) in the laws of discipline, as in the broils of disputation, is to cut the nerves of all ecclesiastical government, and remonstrate to all the conditions of church-communion. for it leaves every man at liberty to except himself from the laws of the society: and therefore (to conclude) hereafter let them not tell us of their being protestants, unless they will satisfy us of their being governable. and when that is done, they may be secure to find from us more tenderness and moderation in case of their dissent as to matters of controversy and opinion, than we ever have found, or ever expect to find from their waspish and choleric humour. as for what remains of my discourse, pag 299. it is (says the bold objecter) all resolved into a supposition, that they who in any place or part of the world, desire liberty of conscience for the worship of god, have indeed no conscience at all. for it is thereon supposed without further evidence, that they will thence fall into all wicked and unconscientious practices. this is downright forgery too, but yet 'tis weak and modest if compared to the boldness of his former calumnies: for 'tis a small thing for him to pervert my sense by an ill-collected supposition, that has wittingly falsified my express words, and laid to my charge lewd assertions of his own pure contrivance. however 'tis a popular surmise, and suited to the folly of the common people, and that is enough to his purpose; though the wise surveyor himself can never be so unbiased as not to see that the only supposition, upon which i all along proceed, was founded upon the clearest and most unquestionable experience of mankind, viz. that all men are either not so wise as they would seem, or not so honest as they would pretend; that 'tis a familiar thing even for well-meaning persons to mistake humour and passion for conscience; that fanaticism is as incident to the common people as folly and ignorance, and yet more mischievous to government then vice and debauchery, with divers other common and easy observations of humane life, from whence it is an obvious and natural deduction to conclude, that men may easily run into tumults and seditions under mistakes of conscience, though they do not wittingly, and out of design abuse its pretences to wicked and mischievous practices, but purely for want of knowledge and understanding in the nature of good and evil, and the moral reasons of things; whence it comes to pass that there are so few, who do not, or at least may not mistake their vices for their religion, and mix their passions with their zeal. but because this suggestion is one of the great burdens of our author's complaint, and is so pertly glanced at almost in every paragraph, and so industriously pursued upon every occasion, i think myself obliged, before i conclude, to entertain the reader with some farther account, how conscience and religion are the aptest and most suitable instruments to be employed for creating public disturbances. 1. first then, they are the most usual mask, and most plausible pretence to cover the basest and most unworthy ends; sacrilege and rebellion ever shroud themselves under the hatred of superstition and idolatry, bare-faced villainy has but an ugly look, and has not confidence to show itself to the world, but in the disguise of reformation. the blackest erterprises could never have been attempted, had they not put on the fairest pretences; for men cannot (as the world now goes) gain the opportunity of attempting any more enormous wickedness, but under popular shows and affectations of sanctity; and all the more exorbitant crimes of disloyalty that were ever committed in the world have sheltered themselves under glorious appearances of godly zeal. the cause of god is the best spur and stirrup too to the advancement of ambitious men; and there is no such easy way for them to exalt themselves above their superiors, and to trample upon their equals, as when they do it for the glory of god. nothing else could have so long supported the credit of his late highness through so many murders, perjuries, and manifest villainies, but his great dexterity in praying and preaching, his counterfeit way of whining, his dreadful appeals and protestations to heaven, and his great and extraordinary communion with god. and therefore this specious piece of hypocrisy being so absolutely necessary to give reputation to the basest and most disloyal actions, princes are thereby sufficiently warned to be jealous of those designs that are ushered in under this popular and plausible pretence of reformation, and to be more watchful to suppress their attempts than open outrages; because it does not only disguise, but gives countenance to any mischief, and makes the ugliest projects appear fair and plausible to vulgar eyes. it naturally dazzles and lures in the wild multitude to any design, and there is no way so easy to infuse into their heads an ill opinion of the present state, as to inveigle them with conceits and jealousies of miscarriages in, or designs upon their religion. no, however they may out of a sense of the great duty of obedience suffer princes to waste and subvert their civil liberties, yet they must not endure them to encroach upon the rights of religion: so that there is no other effectual artifice to decoy christian subjects into mutiny and rebellion, but the taking pretences of godliness and reformation. they are all agreed in the belief of the necessity of subjection to their lawful superiors in all things that concern their civil rights; but where the glory of god and purity of his worship lie at stake, there they must whet and sharpen their zeal in his cause, and not betray the true religion by their neglect and stupidity. and let but a few crafty men whisper abroad their suspicions of popery or any other hated name, and the rabble are immediately alarmed, and they will raise a war and embroil the nation against an heretical word. and to this purpose their leaders are ever provided with such juggling and seditious maxims, as effectually overrule all oaths of allegiance, and all obligations to obedience, as that all good subjects may with just arms at least defend themselves if questioned or assaulted for the cause of religion, though when they send their armies into the field, they are as well armed with offensive weapons as their enemies, and are furnished with swords and muskets to annoy them, as well as shields and bucklers to defend themselves. that the maintenance of pure religion passes an obligation upon their consciences, of force enough to evacuate all oaths and contracts whatsoever, that may stand in the way of its advancement; and then how naturally does this not only warrant, but enforce their resistance to their lawful prince in defence of the cause of god, and to extort the free exercise of religion by force of arms? which if they should lay down at his command, that were to betray the gospel to the power of its professed and implacable enemies by their own neglect and cowardice. not that they fight against the king himself, god forbid, their intention is nothing else then to rescue him out of the power and possession of evil counsellors: you must not believe them such disloyal wretches as to rebel against his sacred majesty, alas, they design nothing but the discharge of their duty and allegiance; and though they take up arms against his person, yet 'tis in defence of his crown, and they fight against him in his personal capacity only to serve him in his political. that in the management and reformation of religion, there is no respect to be had to carnal and worldly wisdom; and therefore when the propagation of the gospel lies at stake, 'tis but a vain thing for men to tie themselves to the laws of policy and discretion. civil affairs are to be conducted by secular artifices, but matters of the church are to be directed purely by the will of god, the warrant of scripture, and the guidance of providence. now what exorbitances will not this wild principle excuse and qualify? in all their disorderly and irregular proceedings, they do but neglect the rules of carnal policy for the better carrying on of the work of the lord, where there is no place for moderation and compliance; and nothing must satisfy or appease their zeal, but a full ratification of all their demands. though these and infinite other as vulgar artifices are as old as rebellion itself; and though wise men can easily wash off their false colours, yet the common people will suffer themselves to be abused by them to the end of the world; partly because they are rash and heady, and apt to favour all changes and innovations; partly because they are foolish and credulous, and apt to believe all fair and plausible stories; but mainly because they are proud and envious, and apt to suspect the actions of their superiors. so easy a thing is it for your crafty achitophel's to arm faction with zeal, and to draw the multitude into tumults and seditions under colour of religion, whilst themselves have their designs and projects apart, and influence the great turns of affairs for their own private ends, and so manage the zealous fools, as to make them work journeywork to their ambition, and employ seditious preachers to gospellize their conspiracies, and sanctify their rapines and sacrileges to display the piety of their intentions, and cry up the interest of a state-faction for the cause of god, and sound an alarm to rebellion with the trumpet of the sanctuary. §. 15. thus (to omit the known arts of the grandees and junto-men in our late confusions) were the confederate lords of france, that involved their native country in such a long and bloody war, during the reign of four or five kings, at first to seek for a plausible pretence to secure and justify their resolution of taking up arms against their lawful sovereign, till the admiral coligny hit upon that unhappy counsel, to make themselves heads of the huguenot faction; and then they had not only a strong party to assert, but a fair pretence to warrant the rebellion: and the war that was first set on foot by the envy and ambition of some malcontents in the state, was prosecuted with greater rage and fury by zeal for the true religion. in all their manifests and declarations, they protested for nothing with so much seeming resolution, as their demands of liberty and indulgence for tender consciences. and when either party fortuned to be worsted, they reinforced themselves and their cause by religious leagues and covenants, and then the heady multitude flowed into the assistance of the different factions, according to their different inclinations. d'avila, lib. 2. so that by degrees, (to use the words of the historian) the discords of great men were confounded with the dissensions of religion; and the factions were no more called the discontented princes and the guisarts, but more truly, and by more significant names, one the catholic, and the other the huguenot party. factions, which under colour of piety, administered such pernicious matter to all the following mischiefs and distractions. which how sad and how tedious they were, i need not inform you; only this, both parties being balanced, and successively encouraged by the inconstancy of government, the change of interests of state, and the windings of an ambitious woman, the public broils and disorders were kept up through so many king's reigns, and might have been perpetuated till this day, had not the equality quality of the factions been broken, and the power and interest of the huguenot party absolutely vanquished. so that though these two opposite parties might, if let alone to themselves, have lived peaceably together in the same commonwealth; yet when headed and encouraged by great men in the state, they immediately became two fight armies: and when they were once enraged against each other by zeal and religion, it was not possible for all the arts of policy to allay the storm, but by the utter ruin and overthrow of one of the contending factions. dissembled pacifications and plastered reconcilements, proved more bloody and mischievous in the event, than the prosecution of an open war. this would have put a certain period to the public miseries by the conquest of a party; but in the other, the times were broken by various changes and turns of fortune, the state miserably involved and entangled in perpetual revolutions, and the short intervals of peace, were but preparations to war. accommodations were only offered and procured by the weaker faction, thereby to gain advantages of mustering stronger forces; and when they had power enough to look the enemy in the face, the counterfeit peace dissolved of its own accord, and upon the first occasion they broke out into wider and more obstinate ruptures. so natural is it for dissensions of religion to heighten themselves into implacable hatreds and animosities; and 'tis as natural for them, when drawn to an head by any unlucky conjuncture of affairs, to break out into open wars and rebellions. popular zeal is always heady and presumptuous; and when let loose from the restraints of government, and the dread of punishment, it knows not how to contain itself within the limits of reason and modesty. connivance does but encourage its peevishness and presumption, and it strengthens and supports itself upon the slightest and most ungrounded encouragements. not to check the tumultuous proceedings of the multitude by laws and penalties, is to make them insolent; and if the state be not concerned to suppress them with rigour and severity, they immediately conclude themselves its greatest friends and favourites; and the inconsiderate rabble are easily persuaded, that they are secretly countenanced by authority; and that as soon as the circumstances of affairs will permit, that will openly declare for the interest of their faction. and then they cannot rest satisfied in the enjoyment of their own liberty, but grow insolent toward the predominant party; and by all the acts of a saucy and unpleasing deportment, exasperated their rage and indignation. who on the other side looking on them as a mean and despicable people, are apt to trample upon them, especially when provoked by their insolence, with the greater scorn and disdain; whereas nothing so inflames and so embitters proud minds, as to be despised: and therefore this again puts them upon all endeavours to rescue themselves from so unpleasing a condition; and whenever they grow to any confidence of their strength and their numbers, they are presently grappling with the power that oppresses them: and thus by counterpoising of parties, their differences swell and increase (like angry biles) till they break out into open dissensions. so easily are public tumults and factions kindled, and kingdoms set all on fire with fanatic wars and combustions. 'tis but for one of the parties to enter into covenants and combinations under pretence of public good, and this without any more ado alarms the other to provide for its own security, and then do all things immediately dissolve into confusion and disorder: for confederacies are but the openings and declarations of wars, and entering into leagues is no less in effect than listing of armies, all the confederates being under a sacred obligation to assert the cause against all opposition by force of arms. and this shows the vain policy of the counter-balance, a project too nice and subtle for the vehement and boisterous passions of humane nature: and however it might strike the fancy of a capricious woman, no trick of policy has ever proved itself more unsuccessful than this, whilst practised in the same kingdom; and the issue has ever been, that the commonwealth has struggled with mutual opposition, and tottered with civil wars, till it has either recovered itself by an absolute suppression of one of the factions, or sunk into utter ruin and confusion. as indeed the popes of rome have managed this artifice to balance the princes of christendom, it was neither unuseful nor unpracticable, because the equality was kept up between two different and independent states, that could not suddenly work each others destruction; or if they should attempt it, he could easily overrule the contest by the intervention of a third power. but when mutual dissensions are kept up under the same government, it is always in hazard of being torn in pieces by its own intestine quarrels. and whenever there happens an open eruption, the prince is not provided with a third power to give check to the growth and exorbitances of the predominant faction, and can now no longer juggle and dissemble between both, but must of necessity declare for one party, and cast himself and his crown upon their fortune; and if he chance to hit upon the wrong faction, he is lost, and remains a prey to the conqueror. whether this speculation of the balancing project be profound and political, (as our author reflects upon it) 'tis no great matter; i am sure 'tis founded upon the plainest and most obvious experience of humane nature and humane affairs. and when he can make differences in religion, without making distinct parties and interests in the commonwealth; then, and not till then, may he be able to prove toleration consistent with public peace and tranquillity; i. e. when he is able to abolish all the follies and passions of mankind. but for that, we must stay to the coming of the fifth-monarchy; though when those golden days shall come, it will then be our turn, as some of our adversaries have cast up our reckoning, to beg and to be denied indulgence: for that, as they cast up their own accounts too, shall be the time of their revenge; and then, you may be sure, they will not fail to be even with us for all our hard measure; and king jesus shall make us feel what it is to persecute his favourites, and will not neglect his friends to reward his enemies. but then the saints (as i. o. speaks) shall take vengeance of the whore for all her former rage and cruelty; and the rochets of the prelates, together with the robes of persecuting kings and princes, shall be rolled up in blood. §. 16. this may suffice to discover the danger of knavish and political hypocrisy, but this is founded upon atheism and irreligion; and 'tis such a lewd affront to the almighty, and such a desperate attempt of impiety, that 'tis not every one can arrive to boldness or wickedness enough to put it in practice. and therefore the more dangerous, because more frequent sort of hypocrisy, is that which is more serious, more confident, and more incurable. when men put a cheat upon themselves as well as upon the world, in that having no right understanding of the nature and properties of true religion, they embrace something else, that looks like it, for its substance and reality; and by this fond mistake, flatter and abuse themselves into a strong and serious conceit of their own saintship. this is the pharisaic leven, that (as i have often suggested to you) has in all ages of the world been the most fatal and epidemical miscarriage of religion. because when well-meaning men have once satisfied their consciences in a false and mistaken godliness, this becomes not only a strong prejudice upon their minds, against the admission of all true and real goodness, but a fatal snare to betray them into all those vices that are most destructive of the peace and government of the world. in that notwithstanding this, they may continue proud, peevish, insolent, passionate, self-willed, and malicious; and yet be highly satisfied and conceited of their own integrity: so that these vices (that are the strongest and most ungovernable passions of humane nature) escaping unregarded and unmortified under the protection of this self-chosen godliness, 'tis unavoidable but that they will mix with their religious zeal, as well as any other concernments whatsoever. for there being nothing to discover or restrain their irregularities, what should hinder but that they will as much vent themselves in the cause of religion, as in any other affair of humane life? and because they are there more passionately concerned, their excesses cannot but be proportionably more vehement; insomuch that he that is spiteful, will be more so for the glory of god; he that is factious, will be more so for the godly party; he that is peevish, will be more so for his orthodox, or (what is the same to him) his own opinion; and he that is malicious, will be more so against the enemies of the power of godliness. so that when men's passions are (as you easily see they may be) infused into their religion, that does but make them more eager and turbulent; and 'tis so far from abating their rage, that it heightens and imbitters their malice. and therefore to me 'tis no wonder to observe how some men will pray with the ardours of an angel, love god with raptures of joy and delight, be transported with deep and pathetic devotions, talk of nothing but the unspeakable pleasures of communion with the lord jesus, be ravished with devout and seraphic meditations of heaven; and, like the blessed spirits there, seem to relish nothing but spiritual delights and entertainments: who yet when they return from their transfiguration, to their ordinary converse with men, are churlish as a cynic, passionate as an angry wasp, envious as a studious dunce, and insolent as a female tyrant; proud and haughty in their deportment; peevish, petulant, and self-willed; impatient of contradiction, implacable in their anger, rude and imperious in all their conversation, and made up of nothing but pride, malice and peevishness. the reason is obvious, because whilst they are so mighty warm and zealous in the duties of godliness, and so exceedingly busy in the instruments and ministeries of religion, and their consciences so fairly satisfied by this wonderful strictness in the performances of devotion, they hug themselves in a dear opinion of their own saintship; and resting content in the formalities of religion, they are never concerned to proceed to the habitual mortification of their passions and depraved dispositions; which being neglected, will of their own accord grow upon them, and overrun the whole habit of their minds; and if men are not careful to correct and subdue the petulancy of their natures, it thrives and increases under their neglect, because 'tis natural: so that where it is not opposed with a constant and resolute industry, men will by instinct and natural tendency be untoward and intractable; but much more in concerns of religion, because this superinduces an obligation of conscience upon the malignity of nature, and consecrates all their scurvy and unkind offices into duties of zeal. and this is the true original of all that peevish and illnatured religion that is so common in the world. and now are not kingdoms likely to be bravely governed, if authority must indulge men such exorbitant and pernicious vices, as directly tend to the disturbance of all society, because their well-meaning ignorance may imagine them to be symptoms and results of godly zeal? and therefore supposing all that pretend to conscience to be serious and upright in their pretensions; yet that is so far from being any argument for indulgence, that 'tis the most powerful dissuasive against it, it being such great odds that it engages them to be troublesome to government. and this is the plain reason of my assertion, (over which our author has so frequently and so ridiculously insulted) viz. eccl. pol. p. 150. that princes may with less hazard to their government, give liberty to men's vices and debaucheries, than to fanatic consciences; because though they are both justly punishable, yet they are not equally mischievous, in that the sins of debauchery make men useless in a commonwealth, but those of religion make them dangerous; because when their passions are warranted by their religion, that obliges them by their greatest hopes and fears to act them to the highest; and than it is easy to imagine what calm and peaceable things those men must be, who think it their duty to enforce and enrage their passions with the obligations of conscience. §. 17. but for a more accurate and satisfactory proof of this sober truth, we will a little consider and explain what is the true and real meaning of conscience; and that will abundantly evince, that there is nothing in nature more uncertain or ungovernable than vulgar conscience. first then, these men are wont to discourse of it, as if it were a principle of action distinct from the man himself, according to their loose way of talking, to discharge the guilt and imputation of their crimes upon any thing but themselves. thus, does a child of god fall into any scandalous miscarriage? the mortified man is only foiled by the strength and subtlety of indwelling sin. is he perfidious to his engagements? and does he violate all the obligations of his faith and honesty? the upright man is imposed upon by the deceitfulness of his heart. and after the same rate do they discourse of conscience, as if it were some infallible thing within, that presides over all a man's thoughts, and directs all his actions: so that whatever they attempt to do, if they shall pretend the warranty of conscience, that shall excuse and justify their action; and how unaccountable soever it may prove, let conscience look to that, they are innocent. and though they themselves (good men) do not desire to be excused their obedience from the commands of lawful authority, yet 'tis neither he nor they that can force conscience to subjection. and when the magistrate drives, if they grow resty and skittish, 'tis because conscience stands in their way, (like the angel before balaams' ass) and then 'tis nor in their power to move one step forward. but this is downright juggling; for in plain english, a man and his conscience are but one and the same thing; and such as the man is, such is his conscience. so subtle are these men, when they declare themselves his majesty's most humble servants, and only beg he would spare their consciences; and if he will grant them but that one reasonable demand, ah! how will that endear them to his government, and oblige them to their duty? i. e. if he will set them at perfect liberty from all subjection, and absolve them from all obligations to allegiance, they will promise to be his most loyal subjects. for, if you consider it, you will find nothing in humane nature capable of the obligation of laws beside conscience. for obligation is but a tie to duty, and all duty is tied upon the conscience, i. e. the mind of man, as 'tis capable of moral actions, or of being governed by the rules of good and evil. conscience then (to omit the equally nice and useless definitions of the schools) is nothing but the soul or mind of man, that undergoes various denominations from its various powers and abilities; as when it conceives of things, 'tis called understanding; when it discourses, reason; when it determines, judgement; when it chooses, will; and when it reflects upon itself and its own actions, conscience. every man's mind is his judgement; his reason, his will and his conscience; that are but several names of the same being, according to its several functions and ways of acting. now though conscience in the grammatical sense of the word may indifferently signify all reflex knowledge; yet 'tis by common use appropriated to the mind, as it is employed about good or evil, and capable of being guided and governed in reference to its moral actions. i say, of being guided and governed; because though it is its own judge, yet it is not its own rule; but all the laws, whereby it is conducted, are derived from other principles. first, there are the natural reasons and proportions of good and evil, that arise from the unalterable respects and relations of things to things, in acting suitably to which, consists the natural morality of all prime and essential goodness. thus from the relation between god and his creatures, springs the natural duty of divine worship and religion, i. e. of making grateful returns and acknowledgements to him for all the communications of his bounty and goodness to us; in which there is a natural decency and agreeableness that obliges every rational creature to its performance, antecedently to all superinduced obligations of laws: it being therefore commanded, because 'tis good; and not therefore good, because 'tis commanded. and from the like reasons and correspondencies of nature, arise all the duties in reference to our neighbours and ourselves, whereby we are to conduct all our moral actions, and are obliged to every thing that is either perfective of our own natures, or conducive to the happiness of others. now these essential reasons of good and evil, are either the subject matter, or the end of all laws, that are enacted only to prescribe and enforce either the practice of these natural duties themselves, or of something else subservient to them. but as these are the only rule of laws, so are laws the only rule of conscience; 'tis not left at liberty to follow its own inclinations, but 'tis bound to guide itself and all its actions by the rules prescribed to it by its superiors, i. e. by divine and humane laws. though indeed, without these, an upright conscience left to itself, would be an excellent guide of all our actions; and if rightly observed and attended to, sufficient to secure the peace and welfare of mankind. for an honest mind that prudently and impartially attends to the natural reasons of good and evil, and endeavours to make them the rules and measures of its actions, can never fail of some competent performance of its main duties in all its relations. and if all men's consciences might have been trusted with their own wisdom and integrity, all other government would have been useless and superfluous, in that every man would have governed himself by the laws of essential justice and equity, i. e. if all men might be supposed wise and good, they would stand in need of no governors but themselves; and what they now do in obedience to the laws of the commonwealth, they would then do out of choice, and in obedience to the obligations of conscience. but because this supposition is become impossible (and proved so by experience) through the universal depravation of humane nature; and because few persons have either leisure or ability to search out the original reasons of good and evil, that are discoverable no other way then mathematical problems and propositions are, by serious and attentive meditation, and laborious trains and deductions of reason; mankind are not left to the workings and discoveries of their own minds for the rule of their actions. but our whole duty is digested to our hands in bodies and digests of laws, and nothing is required of us but what is prescribed by express and particular constitutions. and therefore men consider not what they would have in their general demands of liberty and exemption of conscience, because conscience itself is an indefinite principle, and undetermined to good or evil, and becomes so respectively according to its agreement or disagreement with its rule: if it act conformably to that, its action is good; if it do not, its evil, how bold and confident soever it may be in its persuasions: so that 'tis no competent justification of any action to plead that it agrees with the persuasions of my conscience, unless i can first prove that the persuasions of my conscience agree with the rules of my duty; and therefore conscience alone is no sufficient warrant of its lawfulness; because a man may act according to his conscience, and yet do very ill by acting contrary to his rule. but conscience when it is rightly instructed, and well acquainted with the rule of its duty, then 'tis a true guide of men's actions; but this takes in all the dictates of right reason, as they lie couched under divine and humane laws: both which in their several proportions make up the adequate rule of conscience, that without them signifies nothing else then an unaccountable will, humour, or inclination: and therefore 'tis ridiculous to oppose the pretences of conscience to the prescriptions of lawful superiors, unless by virtue of some express command of an higher and overruling authority: because 'tis the law itself that directs and warrants our actions. and therefore in any case to plead restraints of conscience, without producing some particular law, is in effect to plead nothing at all, or at best nothing but humour and peevishness; for by what name soever men may call it, 'tis nothing else when it lies not under the direction of law: and therefore their claim of liberty from the nature of conscience (which they lay down in all their discourses, as the fundamental principle, and first postulatum of this controversy) is too exorbitant for their purpose, and abates the whole plea by the intolerable unreasonableness of the pretence. for they challenge this prerogative upon this account, that 'tis such a judgement of a man's actions, as carries in it a relation to the future judgement of god: and therefore seeing it is so immediately subject to his authority, it must of necessity be privileged from all the power of all other laws and jurisdictions. but if this be a fair and logical deduction, there is no avoiding to conclude, that every man's conscience is in all its actions exempt from all humane authority, and ought not to be subject or accountable to any other power, but the divine majesty; seeing in all the other affairs of humane life, 'tis as much obliged to regard the future judgement of god, as in matters of divine worship: and therefore if its reference to its future accounts be sufficient in any one case to give it protection against the power of princes, 'tis so in all. §. 18. but further, what if it so happen that conscience is abused by false and evil persuasions, than it unavoidably leads into all manner of lewd and vicious practices; and there is nothing so mischievous or so exorbitant to which an erroneous conscience will not betray us: for when it has once entertained wicked and seditious principles, there mischief becomes irresistible. rogues and outlaws are under some possibility of reformation, because they never think themselves obliged in duty to their villainies, and are convinced in their own thoughts of the baseness of their practices, and stand in some awe of the penalties of the laws. whereas debauched consciences are bold and confident in their wickedness; and their gild is (in their own opinion) their innocence, and their crime their duty. and if authority ever punish their disobedience and rebellion, they suffer with the confidence of martyrs, and they die for preserving a good conscience, and following the best light god has given them. if they rebel, 'tis their zeal for the lord of hosts: god and religion are ever concerned in their quarrels; and when they fight against their lawful superiors, they only oppose the enemies of the gospel; and when they embroil kingdoms in wars and confusions, they only wage war against babylon and antichrist; and whatever they attempt, be it never so vile and wicked, 'tis still in the cause of god. and now considering how few they are, that pursue the right methods of knowledge, and upon what innumerable accounts the minds of men may be abused and misguided, vulgar conscience will be found the most mistaken, most mischievous, and most unreasonable guide in the world. for as a right conscience is acquired only by a sincere, regular, and impartial use of our faculties, so is a wrong one by all the possible ways and causes of error, viz. ignorance, fancy, prejudice, partiality, self-love, envy, ambition, pride, passion, and superstition: any of which (though they are the greatest principles of disturbance in the world) may corrupt and debauch the minds of men, and then challenge to themselves the sacredness and authority of conscience. for every man's error in matters of religion becomes his duty; and pride, and folly, and ignorance, and malice, and any thing else, if it were a religious dress, immediately becomes sacred and inviolable. and now when the principles of natural reason are debauched with absurd and seditious prejudices, the contradictories of moral truth and goodness, become the only rule of conscience; and men think themselves directly obliged to what directly opposes the highest interests of mankind, and the main obligations of religion. and from hence it is so vulgar a phaenomenon in the world, that sacrilege is transformed into reformation, inhumanity into zeal, perjury into religion, faction into humility, and rebellion itself into loyalty. so that 'tis no unusual thing for the persuasions of conscience to cancel the very laws of nature, and pervert all the differences of good and evil; and then are men brought under all the obligations, that conscience can lay upon them, to the practice of wickedness and villainy. and then to leave them to their own liberty, is not only to allow them to be wicked, but in effect to oblige them to be so; because this delivers them up to the guidance and authority of a profligate conscience, that effectually binds them to follow its own wretched and unreasonable dictates. so that the result of all is, that there is no folly or wickedness, how lewd or extravagant soever, that may not patronise itself under mistakes of conscience. sometimes (and always, unless by a mighty chance) 'tis ignorance and popular folly; for 'tis natural to the multitude to be ignorant and foolish, or to use false and incompetent methods of knowledge, and to determine their notions of things upon unreasonable grounds and motives. their judgements are disposed of by chance and accidental principles, and their fancies and fond persuasions are the measures of their consciences; and they pursue things for their agreeableness with weak and vulgar prejudices, without ever proceeding to an impartial deliberation of their truth and goodness. opinion (they say) is the guide of fools, and such is the vulgar and ignorant sort of mankind, that generally judge of things by trifling and impertinent conceits, and then force their reasons to follow, as chance and folly shall command them. and then all this is their conscience, that must in spite of all its exorbitances be suffered to do as it please. folly (especially in divine matters) is always in conjunction with confidence, and there is nothing in the world more obstinate and inflexible then religious ignorance. and men never play the fool with greater assurance and satisfaction then in sacred matters; insomuch that some who are always telling tragical stories of the ruins and desperate corruptions of humane nature, as if it had irrecoverably lost all power of discerning between truth and falsehood; and are so far from having any pretence to infallibility, that, if they would understand the necessary and unavoidable consequences of their own principles, they cannot pretend to any such thing as certainty, yet are as confident in all their persuasions, as if all their thoughts were oracles; and a person, that knows himself to be acted by an unerring spirit, could not be more peremptory in his sentiments of things, than they are in their rash and ungrounded prejudices. now 'tis the consciences of the vulgar rout, or the drove of ignorance and prejudice, that are wont to be so troublesome and wayward to government; they are zealous and confident because they are ignorant, and they are therefore impatient of all contradiction in their mistakes, because they have fastened upon them at all adventure. are not commonwealths then likely to be admirably governed, when their peace and setlement must lie at the mercy of every cross-grained and insolent fool? sometimes 'tis superstition, and nothing more vulgar than for men to abuse their consciences with this unquiet and impotent passion. for when their minds are possessed (and 'tis an epidemical malady) with wrong notions of god, and hard jealousies and suspicions of his government of the world, this cannot but make them apprehend her laws over-severe and rigorous; and this cannot but make them fearful and irresolved in all their thoughts, and this cannot but fill their heads with foolish and silly scruples, and this cannot but make them afraid of every action, lest whatever they do should offend their stern and angry deity. so that whilst this restless passion reigns in their minds, it cannot but make them as troublesome to the commonwealth as to themselves: and their governors can command them nothing so innocent and harmless, against which their nice and troubled fancies cannot raise multitudes of scruples and little exceptions. so that every trifling imagination of their own shall be able to countermand the wisest and most useful laws; and the public order and setlement of the society, in which they live, shall be eternally disturbed by their stubbornness and invincible folly. for though superstition springs from pusillanimity and irresolution of soul, yet if it fixes and settles, it soon hardens itself into downright confidence; and there is nothing so impudent and inflexible as a mind confirmed in superstition. no laws or penalties can work it off from its resolutions; but it grows resty, peevish, and impatient; and whatever troubles or contradicts it, stirs up its fury: and hence it is that princes have always found religious cowardice the boldest and most warlike temper in the world, because 'tis armed and insured by conscience. according to that vulgar and obvious saying of cicero's, superstitione qui imbutus est, quietus esse non potest. the leaven of superstition is a restless thing, and minds tinctured with it, naturally work and ferment themselves into an unquiet and seditious temper. sometimes 'tis pride and insolence; and 'tis a mighty gratification of this vice in some men to control their governors: for when they swell with conceits of their own extraordinary godliness, and dote upon themselves as the special darlings and favourites of heaven, 'tis natural for them to grow saucy and presumptuous, and to think themselves too precious to be governed after the rate of ordinary men. the privilege (forsooth) of being the children of god, tempts them to conceit themselves better and wiser than their governors, who alas! unless they are (which rarely happens but in usurpers) of their own faction, are natural and unregenerate men, that understand not the things that appertain to the kingdom of heaven, and can promote nothing but their own carnal ends and interests. and this cannot but possess them with wild and ungovernable conceits, and make them turbulent and seditious, and willing to pick quarrels with the wisdom and discretion of their superiors. with what other spirit can those men be acted, who plead niceness and tenderness of conscience to exempt themselves from the force of laws, and the duty of obedience; and yet are of all men the most positive and confident in their own persuasions, think themselves the only sons of knowledge, and fit to instruct and reform the world; and wherever they have any power, enjoin their own fond conceits with the fiercest and most decretory severity. and if any man be so sturdy, or so unfortunate as but to question their imperious and peremptory decrees, he is sure to be censured and treated as an heretic or worse, and he cannot possibly err out of weakness, but obstinacy. what else i say can be the humour of these men's consciences, but a proud impatience of all control, and a restlessness against all authority, till themselves may have it at their own disposal. sometimes 'tis clownishness, and ill-manners: there is a passionate, untutored, and impetuous conscience, that becomes rude and insolent from the sense of its own integrity, and because 'tis confident in the goodness of its intentions, it is furious and ungovernable in the prosecution of its ends. the very honesty of such men is in effect nothing but rashness and violence, they are transported by the outrage of zeal, and regard not the peace of government, but pursue their own persuasions, to which they are determined by chance, or folly, or passion, without reason or abatement, they must not give up a metaphysical notion for the removal of a civil war, or the preservation of the state; and in stead of submitting to the common and necessary methods of government, they will force crowns and sceptres to yield to their imperious folly, or involve a kingdom in all the miseries and desolations of war. their particular opinions are of more force than the edicts and declarations of kings; and who but themselves are fit judges of their duty and obedience? the bare authority of their own persuasions, is supreme and uncontrollable; and they will prove themselves his majesty's best subjects, by disobeying his commands, and fight against his person. now though these boisterous men may have no formed and malicious designs against the state, yet this savage and extravagant probity is more troublesome and mischievous in a commonwealth, than open and premeditated villainy; it will ruin a kingdom for the public good. and men of this humour are bound to that rigour and niceness of conscience, as makes them uncapable of peaceable obedience and subjection: for unless the public laws suit exactly with their own private sentiments, that unavoidably exasperates them against the government, and they must be making remonstrances, and entering into confederacies for redress of public grievances; and yet so nice and narrow are those rules they prescribe to themselves and their governors, that 'tis impossible to fit laws that are made for the community, to their pettish curiosity. 'tis natural for these men to be displeased with the grandeur and prosperity of the court. the height of a prince's felicity frets their proud and envious minds; and they are never so apt to complain of the badness of the times, as when the government is most flourishing. they are incurable malcontents; and to prevent arbitrary power, are upon all occasions making encroachments upon the royal authority, and lying at catch for all advantages, and husbanding all opportunities to abate the sovereign prerogative, and the monarchy must be kept low, to secure the liberty of the subject. it was such hot spirits as these that were the late patriots of their country, and fathers of the public liberty, that involved the nation in a bloody war upon no other motive than of the goodness of their prince, and the happiness of his reign. and when they were once engaged, they resolved to have their wills, or the kingdom should be ruined. nothing but the utmost rigour to be found in all their treaties and transactions; and not an jota to be abated in any of their edicts of pacification; but they were all along craving and importunate in their demands, imperious and inexorable in their impositions: when it was their turn to make petitions, they would extort their desires by clamour and importunity; but when to grant, all their favours were clogged with such stern and rigid conditions, that an open affront would scarce have been more grievous. they never returned an answer to any of his majesty's proposals, that was not more rude and uncivil than flat denial. nothing to be done for him out of respect to his person or his interest, till all their demands, how horrid and unreasonable soever, shall first be fully satisfied: not an article of peace and accommodation to be attended to, unless he would give up his crown, his friends and his conscience to the mercy of their insolence. insomuch that i remember when the king was in the hands of the independent army, and in such apparent danger of speedy ruin, the general assembly of the kirk (those savage clowns) even then, though it was so utterly needless and unseasonable, resolve it upon the question, that it is not lawful for the scots to assist the king for the recovery of his government, till he has first granted all the propositions made to him by both kingdoms. sometimes 'tis enthusiasm and fanatic madness, when men are carried out of all use of their rational faculties by the strength and vigour of their imaginations; and are possessed with a strong conceit that all the wild and extravagant phantasms, that arise from the steams of their own melancholy, are the immediate impressions of the spirit of god. nothing more dangerous than this imposture; 'tis confident in its folly, and eager in the pursuit of its extravagances. it is a direct subversion of all government, because 'tis constant to no certain principles and rules of action; its very oaths are vain as the faith of pirates; the spirit of god shall cancel and dispense with all its obligations; and there is no attempt so wicked or so exorbitant, in which these men may not warrant their proceedings by an unaccountable impulse. and whatever they do, or whatever they have a mind to do, is prosecuted with the utmost violence, because they act with a full and unabated assurance of the goodness of their cause, and they shall contradict their own pretensions by virttue of a divine commission. as the anabaptists were commanded by the holy ghost to take up arms to beat the princes of christendom into the belief of this article, that it is not lawful for them so much as to make use of defensive arms. this sort of fanaticism is an incurable and a dog-day madness; and those that are tainted with it, are not only bereft of all use of reason themselves, but convey and propagate the frenzy to others: for 'tis a disease strangely incident to the common people; and wherever it breaks forth, the rage spreads and prevails like infection; it is enough to scare or juggle whole nations out of their wits; and is, like the possession of wicked spirits, raving and ungovernable. and where it enters, if the men possessed are not kept bound in chains and fetters, they will not only fall foul upon each other, but worry their keepers, and foam out their rage against their governors; nothing can appease or satisfy their fury, but, like the legion in the gospel, they will rail against the son of the most high god; and it would make one tremble to consider what horrid blasphemies some of these rampant and begodded wretches have belched forth against their redeemer. this in short discovers the mystery of that grand imposture, when the same men cry down the use of reason, and cry up the liberty of conscience, and so leave people under a necessity of being governed by nothing but their own unreasonable and enthusiastic follies: for when conscience is opposed to reason, it can be nothing else. whereas they are all along the same thing: natural reason is the same with natural conscience, i. e. the mind of man acting and guiding itself by those principles, that it is able to discover by its own experience and reflection; and illuminated reason is the same with illuminated conscience, i. e. the mind of man acting and guiding itself by those principles that are discovered to it by divine revelation: so that still whatsoever illumination men pretend to, it must be in a rational method▪ and if it be not managed in a way of reason, it is but fancy and enthusiasm, or an imaginary conceit of being directed by a divine inspiration, when they are really befooled by humour and melancholy. and now (sir) let me only desire you to consider, first, the natural and probable effects of pride, superstition, ignorant zeal, peevishness and enthusiasm; and then how sturdy and exorbitant they will grow, when authorized by conscience and religion; and lastly, how incident and almost unavoidable they are to the common people; and then i will leave it to you and all wise men to judge, whether liberty of conscience will prove any better than a licence for anarchy and confusion. though i might proceed to exemplify out of the histories and records of all ages what mischiefs these errors (and i might add all the other passions of the minds of men) have created to mankind, under disguises and mistakes of religion: but i have proceeded too far already, and am quite ashamed of the length of my reply: but if i have been too tedious, i may for once demand your pardon, because i resolved to answer and confute this scribbling man once for all. i might indeed have shaken off the viper with less pains, but i was willing to dissect the beast, and discover the seat and symptoms of its poison. perhaps some may apprehend, i have taken too much personal advantage of my adversary, and i doubt not but this will be pleaded in his behalf by his own party. but beside that they were most of them extorted by his own unprovoked and impertinent challenges, you and all impartial men will easily discern, that setting aside all collateral reflections, i have abundantly baffled all his little pretences, and satisfied all his poor objections; and what i have added over and above, is by way of accessional proof to my main argument, to let the world see what sort of men they are, that are the great zealots of the party; and withal to discover them to their followers, that if they are of the same kidney and persuasion with their leaders, they may be convinced what little reason they have to murmur at their governors for their severest proceedings against them: if they are not, to discover to them into what inconveniences some men have drawn them for the ends of their own pride and ambition. however, 'tis fit to let them see how dangerous it is for men so obnoxious to be meddling; and then that is enough to gag and lime-twig the chiefs of the faction. i will not detain you with reflections upon the malice and profaneness of his conclusion, though it is no better (and it can scarce be worse) than a bold abuse of our saviour's words, to suggest a spiteful and uncivil slander: but 'tis the way and spirit of his ingenuity, and much good may it do him; and therefore for my own part, i am resolved to keep to my own conclusion: for having once dropped a rash challenge, i am now in honour bound to keep up the humour; and to let them know that i am so far from abating of my courage, that i fear not to heighten the defiance: so that you have my free leave to publish this discourse (if you will) in latin, greek, and hebrew; and to proclaim to all nations, kindred's and languages, that what i have written, i have written, and justified, the end. sir, you have been pleased to interess yourself so obligingly in my concerns, that though i have been thinking of it near half a year, i could never tell in what terms to give you thanks for the excess of your civility to me. i was forced to be silent, because i knew not what to say: and i think you had not now heard of me, were it not for the vexation, i have conceived, at the trouble you have drawn upon yourself, by your kindness to him, that cannot yet deserve the title of your friend. not that i think it will cost you much pains to blow away the trivial exceptions which a rash head hath taken at what you said about the friendly debate; but you are like to consume so many precious hours in raking into that indigested heap of stuff which he hath huddled together against your own book, that i ought not to presume you have any spare moments to throw away in the vindication of mine. your good nature indeed, i know, will be apt to prompt you not to leave it without some defence; and in your hands it will be safer then in my own: yet pardon me, i beseech you, if i be not wholly an idle spectator in the contest; and let not your zeal to serve me so exceed all bounds, as not to leave room for me to appear with an offer of that help, of which you have no need. the most of his declamation every body sees is spent against the manner and way of my writing; which he would have his easy disciples believe (notwithstanding all that hath been said) is peculiarly accommodated to render the sentiments and expressions of our adversaries ridiculous, and expose their persons to contempt and scorn (a) p. 47.48. . insomuch that in points of faith, opinion and judgement, this way of dealing hath been hitherto esteemed fitter for the stage, than a serious disquisition after truth, or confutation of error (b) p. 50. . thus this high and mighty dictator is pleased to pass his censure; and he seems to pronounce it standing on his tiptoes, imagining he hath spoken bravely, and blasted the credit of all dialogues for ever. but when his head is a little cooler, so that he can distinguish between the results of a sound judgement, and the flashes of a distempered fancy, i persuade myself he will be ready to eat his words, and wish they had never been spoken: especially if he consider these things following. first, from whence it is that he dates the time, in which to the day of his writing this way hath been in so low esteem. i doubt he will find it is but a little while ago, no longer then since the printing of the friendly debate. before that, the most excellent persons have chosen this way as exceeding fit and accommodate (if not the aptest of all other) both to teach the weightiest truths, and to baffle popular errors. minutius felix, for instance, a famous advocate, thought good to plead the most sacred cause on earth in a dialogue between two disputants, a christian and an heathen (c) dialogue scripsit christiani & etha●●i dispu●an●●um, hi●ro. in ca●al. scrip. eccl . which that great lawyer and antiquary, franciscus baldvinus, calls antiquum cruditumque scribendi morem, an ancient and learned manner of writing. for in this, i observe, tully himself handled a great and grave argument, [rem ma●nam complexus sum & gravem, as he speaks] viz. that concerning a commonwealth: and tells us withal, that a great many of the books were joculatoria disputa●io, a pleasant and jesting disputation, as his words are in one of his letters to atticus (d) l. 4. epist. 16 and in another place tells us, atticus himself composed mirisicos cum publi● dia●ogos, l. 2. ep. 10. . and so were erasmus his colloquies in the beginning of the reformation: which were received notwithstanding by the wisest and best men with great applause, read in the schools with much greediness, and commended for this among other things, that by an admirable dexterity and most sweet manner of speaking they delivered to youth the precepts of piety and good manners (e) melch. adam, in vita jac. heerbrand p. 669. . since which time several matters of no small moment have been handled in this way by the approbation of the highest persons. mr. alexander cook i remember wrote a dialogue between a protestant and a papist, to prove there was a woman pope; which was entertained even by strangers with so much respect, that it was translated into the french language by i de la montagne (f) printed at sedan, 1633. . and he hath heard i suppose of one before that, called deus & rex, god and the king (g) printed, 1615. between philalethes and theodidactus; wherein is proved that the king justly challenges whatsoever is required by the oath of allegiance. is this, must we think, no point of faith, opinion, or judgement? or, was his majesty mistaken in recommending to all his subjects the perusal of this book, which handled the matter in such sort (according to this rabbi) as made it fit only for the theatre? so the oracle hath in effect pronounced; and we must all lay aside our doubts and acquiesce in its word. kings themselves must not scruple submission to so inspired a supremacy. now they hear the voice of this more sovereign judge, they ought to revoke their own decrees, and teach their people obedience according to his sentence. the only comfort is that he may contradict himself, and so give us leave to decline his authority. and truly i have some hope to convince him of his error, though he should loftily overlook all this as unworthy his notice, if he will but vouchsafe to stoop so low as to cast his eye upon what he hath writ himself. for i find, that he who taxes others so boldly for not clearly stating the question in hand, is doubtful and staggering in this easy business. after he hath told us that dialogues are peculiarly accommodated to the ends mentioned, p. 48. and that they are absolutely most accommodated of all sorts of writing to such a design, p. 50. he sinks extremely in his confidence, and only tells us, the advantages mentioned are somewhat peculiar unto dialogues, p. 61. his heart at last began to fail him, when he had a little evapourated his ungovernable heat; and i have great cause to think it checked him often in the very midst of it, and bade him not be so presumptuous. for (good man) he dare not stand to this neither, but acknowledges unawares before he hath done, that there is no peculiarity at all, in this way of writing, to make things or persons ridiculous. for first he is forced to acknowledge that it may be used to very serious purposes; as it was by tully and plato who employed this method (as he confesses, p. 47.) to make their designs of instruction more easy and perspicuous. and whatsoever he is pleased to say falsely and scornfully concerning my boasting of the skilful contrivance of my dialogues (ib.) this is all that i alleged as my reason for that way of writing (h) contrived the discourse into the form of a dialogue to make it more easily apprehended, pref. to the first part. . which he is so far from disapproving when he is in a good humour, that he citys bishop bilson's dialogue in answer to the jesuits apology and defence, with due respect, p. 174. but when he hath done this, than (secondly) he cannot deny that orations and declamations, that is, his own way of writing, are capable to be employed to the contrary purposes (which he makes peculiar to dialogues) as well as any other way of speaking or writing whatsoever. cato, for instance, was made the people's sport, no less by cicero's oration, than socrates by aristophane's dialogue (so he calls his comedy.) for he represented, he acknowledges, the opinions of that sect to which cato was addicted, in such a fashion, that he put the whole assembly into a fit of laughter, p. 51. and he might have known and remembered (if he be such a scholar as he makes a show of, by pouring out so much greek and latin) that the best masters of rhetoric have given precepts about ways of facetious speaking and moving laughter, in the making of orations. cicero himself hath treated at large of this argument in his second book, de oratore: and touches it again in his orator ad brutum. and whosoever he was that wrote the books ad herennium, he shows (lib. 1.) how to refresh the judge when he is weary of hearing a long speech, by jests and pleasant reflections. so doth quintilian likewise; who treating of the way to move affections, spends a whole chapter (and one of the longest in all the twelve books) in a discourse concerning laughter (i) l. 6. iust. orat. c. 3. de risu. , the exciting of which he acknowledges may be useful and to good purpose. now what plainer instance can we have than this, of the childish forwardness, negligence, or ill nature of this haughty writer, that after so peremptory a censure as that beforementioned, he should himself grant, that serious things may be advantageously delilivered in my way of writing, and ridiculous things in his own? he seems to me to have a tang of the spirit of those divines whom martin dorpius described (above 150 years ago) (k) prologue. in mil. gloriosum. and forbade to meddle with that dialogue, which hath furnished this writer with some swaggering language (p. 13.46.) who in this angry, envious, and impatient humour carp and bawl at every thing indifferently, which is not in their way of learning. siquidem stomachabundi, oblatratores, facere pergant etiamdum, qd. nunquam non factitant; clamoribus ampullosis infremere, & venena livoris effunditare sui, et obloqui, & ogganire, & dentibus omnia arrodere carnivoracibus; & sicut canes solent, quibuslibet allatrare sibi obviis. which a friend of yours and mine hath thus englished. and let the choleric testy sirs bawl on, peevish and moody, fret & chafe their fill; they act in all this but their nature still. the secret poison in their entrails penned, by full-mouthed clamours seeks itself a vent: nothing from their envenomed tooth is free, but like to village-currs they snarl at all they see. if he would have done like a man, he should not have stood quarrelling with the way, but plainly shown that their opinions or sayings were falsely represented by me. and if he had withal done this in the same form of writing that i used, it had, in my poor judgement, been more for his reputation: and he might have found a great example for it. gregory nazianzen, i mean, who observing the books of apollinarius (a person of great wit and learning) his new psalters (though jarring with that of david) his elegant poems on divers subjects, take so much with the people, that they were esteemed as if they had been 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a third testament; thought of a way how he might disenchant those poor souls, and instil some better principles into their minds. and what course did he pitch upon? to declaim, as our new doctor doth against this way of dealing? to say that poetry was always employed to cheat and gull the easy multitude? peculiarly fitted to charm and bewitch their affection without, nay, against all reason? no such matter. he knew very well that this was an ancient way of instructing the world; that laws were sometime writ, though not in rhyme, yet in measure; and as st. hierome (l) praef. in lib. job. his scholar observes, the most ancient book (as it is esteemed) of all the scripture, is for the greatest part composed in the same manner. that great divine therefore resolved to encounter him with his own weapon, and tells cledonius, (m) greg. n●z. ep. 1. ad cied. seu crat. 51. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. we will compose psalms too, we will write many books, and make verses as well as apollinarius. and so he did: some in his old age, when he might seem to be most unfit for such inventions. but this was the occasion (as elias cretensis notes) of his writing such a volume of poems, which still remain, and were then in so great esteem, that they made those of apollinarius be quite forgotten. now what if apollinarius had decried the verses of this father because they were not all heroics, or all iambics, or such as he most fancied? nay, what if he had taken occasion to reproach those composures, because he used 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the style both of tragedies and comedies? (as gregorius the presbyter tells he did, that he might represent divine things in all shapes and fashions to the church of christ) would he not have been thought a ridiculous caviller? and justly passed for a pitiful coward, who when he durst not assail the body of his adversary, fell a fight with his shadow? it is no less ridiculous in this innovator, to reproach this ancient and profitable way of writing which i have used, as if it were fit only or principally for abuse, sport or laughter. let me tell him, he that asserts this, forgets that he condemns in effect the holy scripture itself: for the song of songs, as a learned person of our own long ago expressed it, (n) dr. featly rehearsal sermon at paul's cross, 1618. is a kind of divine pastoral, or marriage-play, consisting of divers acts and scenes; or a sacred dialogue with many interlocutory passages: first, the bride comes in, and saith, let him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth: then the bridegroom, i have compared thee, o my love, to a troop of horses, etc. after which, he withdraws himself, and sits at his repast, v. 12. leaving the bride with her companions as it were alone upon the stage, who thus speak to her, we will make thee borders of gold, and studs of silver, v. 11. nor is this any novel conceit of his, but i can justify it out of the father before named: who persuading virgins of both sexes to be carried with the whole force of their affections unto god, and to think that only fair and amiable which is eternal; so, saith he, mayst thou be wounded in such sort by the chosen dart, (o) greg. nazian. orat. 31. p. 503. edit. paris and learn the beauty of the bridegroom, that thou mayst be able to say, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. out of the nuptial play and song, sweet art thou, and altogether desirable. i could produce more to the same purpose, but that i begin to be a little ashamed that i am fallen into this strain of quoting greek and latin. all that i have to say for myself, is, that our antagonist makes such a noise with them, that i was willing to make a small show of learning, merely to be even with him: especially when it would serve not for flourish or vapour, but offered itself for a substantial proof. it is likely indeed that he will smile among his clients, and say i have proved nothing; nay, crow over me, like a cock of the game, when his head bleeds, as if he had got the victory. but whatsoever he may say in private, he will be better advised, i believe, than hastily to renew the quarrel in public again: and not be tempted by their importunities to make such another vain babble as this book, for them to sport themselves a while withal. if he be wise, he will take more time, and consider what he saith, before he make his second survey. and if he think he is able solidly to answer what i have now writ, i hope he will take this one thing more into his thoughts. that let this way be as peculiar as it is possible to the ends he mentions, yet it is not peculiar to us; but (as hath been shown already in the second part of the friendly debate) hath been often employed by themselves. he ought therefore in justice either to have acquitted me, or condemned us altogether. for even aristophanes his way of dialogue by comedy, hath not been balked by these solemn men, and that in serious, if not holy arguments, when it would serve their turn; witness a book called tyrannical government anatomised: licenced by a committee, and subscribed by mr. john white in this manner: die martis 30 jan. 1642. it is ordered by a committee of the house of commons concerning printing, that this book be forthwith printed and published. in which the coll●cutors and complainants (as the author speaks) are malchus, gamaliel, john the baptist, chorus, or company of jews, king herod, the queen herodias, her daughter and messengers. what should be the reason that these men are so coy and nice now, that they cannot away with a simple dialogue, who could digest a comedy, and that a sacred one, heretofore? is not their stomach to it, think you, as good as ever? i can make no question of it: but the matter is not now for their tooth, and that makes them spit it out of their mouth. they would dissemble the distaste they have taken at just reproofs, by making faces at the manner in which they are delivered. and like the cuttlefish, which hides itself in its own ink, they shuffle up and down, and endeavour to blot my dialogues, that none may read their faults which are there discovered. were it not for this, dialogues should have their good word as well as any other form of writing. they are inwardly convinced there is no harm in them; nor is a pleasant way of conveying our thoughts into other men's minds, condemned by unbiased and impartial judges. only, as erasmus speaks in his preface to tully's offices, aliter scurrajocatur, aliter vir probus & integer: a scurrilous companion jests after one fashion, an honest man after another. the distinction between them is so easy, (p) as tully observes, l. 1. offic. facilis est distinctio, etc. that i shall not mention it: but only remember, that an honest man may write after such a fashion as i have done, beza thought was without all dispute; what, saith he, if i have answered one that deserved no better, quasi per ludum, etc. in a spo●ting manner, as the times would then bear? solomon sure doth not simply forbid us to answer a fool; and what hinders but that a man may laugh and speak the truth? the spirit of the lord sometimes doth not abstain from holy ironies: and nazianzens orations against julian, even after he was dead, are in every body's hands; which though they be biting enough, thou hast not the face to blame. they are his words in his defence of himself against the accusations of genebrard (q) an. 1585. pag. 61, 62 , who dealt with him just as this gentleman hath done with me. he found fault with him not only for writing a wanton paraphrase, (as he would have had it believed) upon the canticles, but for writin it in trochaick verses, whereas jaywick best pleased his bitter humour. b●t what was this to the business, as beza truly answered, (and i may reply to this accuser) for one may flatter in iambics, and be angry in trochaicks? and who gave him this authority, to impose silence on us, or else to prescribe a certain sort of verse to which we must be confined (r) i●. pag. 1●. ? if such reasoning be sufficient to blast a work, s●●rates and his friends were very weak people to suffer aristophanes his comedy to go away with applause. they might have only said, good mr. poet, you are exceeding witty, but it is only by a knack you have at one kind of verse, which ought not to be used; and then his clouds had vanished with a breath. for this you know was the thing that gave him so much reputation, not his mere dialogue-way, (as this author would have it believed, else the story is nothing to his purpose) but his smooth and pleasant verses, as aelian, whom this writer follows, expressly tells us. and indeed he had a singular faculty in such composures, there being one sort of measure which bore his name, and was called the anapaestus of aristophanes (s) mentioned by tully, in his ora●. ad bru●. , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, because he used it so frequently, as the (t) in act. 1. sc. 3. & scholar in plu●. act. 2. sc. 5. scholiast tells us upon that very comedy called the clouds: which play he needed not be hired to make, having conceived a displeasure at socrates because he despised the comedians, though he would come to see euripides his tragedies. this aelian himself confesses was the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and not merely the instigation of anytus and melitus; and it appears from the comedy, that this stuck in his stomach, for in the latter end of it (r) nub. act. 5. sc. 2 he jeers at euripides his poetry. nor is it supposed by any ancient writer that i can meet withal, that aristophanes was hired to abuse the philosopher, as he stands accused by our author; who justifies the old saying, that it is easy to make the tale run which way it pleaseth the teller. aelian himself doth not suppose it, but only saith, perhaps he was; and that it would be no wonder if he did take money; concluding at last (as men do now that have little ground for their suspicions) but aristophanes himself knows whether it were so or no. it seems none of his acquaintance did; and since the poet was not alive to tell the very truth, both he and this gentleman ought to have left out that. nor is there any cause that he should make this comedy strike such a stroke to the taking away of socrates' life. alas! it abated so little of his reputation, that by his brave contempt and scorn of those abuses which he expressed even in the open theatre, as aelian confesses (x) and diog. laert. observes that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. , in the midst of the action, he did himself a world of credit, which he preserved and maintained a long time after. it is confessed by learned men, that he lived sixteen years after the acting of this play: but palmerius hath demonstrated that he lived no less than four if not five and twenty years after. for it is plain from several places in the play, that it was acted before cleon's death, which happened the tenth year of the peloponesian war; at which time aminias was the chief magistrate at athens, an. 2. olymp. 89. but socrates was accused when lachetes governed, an. 1. olymp. 95. three and twenty years after the death of cleon. which is sufficient to show that the comedy did him little hurt, and that our author was rash, ignorant, or ill advised to say (y) p. 49● , that when his adversaries had got this advantage of exposing him to public contempt, they began openly to manage their accusation against him. this is to invent, not to write a story: a pure fiction of his own or some other confident brain: like that of the late commentator upon a. gellius (z) ant. th●sius in l. 1. c. 17. 1●66. who borrowed it i have cause to think from oliverius in ●. 7. val. maxim. , who saith that aristophanes having lacerated socrates in his comedy called the frogs (so he mistakes) the very next day he was accused and condemned to death. for it is neither so, nor so: he neither became hereby the public scorn; nor did they now begin to manage their accusation. he flourished a long time after in no small esteem both for his wisdom, and for his wit. which was so excellent and smart, that i do not see but socrates was as great a wit in his way, as aristophanes in his. and that was the dialogue-way, in which no man could do better. nor was any man more skilled in ironies, or could manage that which is now wont to be called, ingenious raillery, with greater dexterity (a) vid. cicero, l. 2. de oratore. . cicero in the first book of his offices, saith, that he was wondrously facetious and pleasant in his discourse, atque in omni ratione dissimulator. plato himself could not otherwise represent him, then as one that was perfect in the art of jesting: which he used so much, even in his most serious discourses, that such morose men (as i fancy him we have to deal withal) commonly called him the scoffer (b) cicero mentions one this called him atticum sc●rr●●, l. 1. de natura a●orum; see seneca, .5. de benef. c. 6. . their sullen gravities did not, or would not understand that this was a very subtle and ancient way of teaching morality: and that the shortest way to persuade, is to please those whom we treat withal. he was persecuted i imagine, as much by their sour wisdoms, as by aristophanes. they were afraid he should grow too popular, and therefore called him the mocker, that they might engross the name of philosophers. this i am told by a good author (diog. laertius) was the reason that anytus, one of his accusers, took such a pique at him. socrates made little account of his worship, and had given him a nip, for which he resolved to be revenged. and the envy of others (as the same author tells us) began upon this occasion. the oracle told chaerephon (one whom aristophanes also abuses) that socrates was the wisest man living: and he was wont to represent the selfconceited wise men, as very fools and idiots. they resolved therefore to have him out of the way, if it were possible: but did not lay to his charge his nonconformity in religion (as this writer is pleased to tell the tale). (c) pag 49 a● the principal crime he was guilty of. there was not one word of that matter in the first libel exhibited against him, as any one may see in plato's apology (d) pag. 19 edit. ser●an. , where it is recorded. xenophon indeed, laertius and others tell us, he was accused of bringing in new daemons, etc. but this, learned men agree, was the crime which his latter accusers objected to him (with far less probability than the other) to make him the more odious. no man was more conformable in his practice to the laws about religion than himself, if we may believe some of those very authors which this person quotes. xenophon for instance, assures us, that as he allowed divinations, so he sacrificed openly, ofttimes in his own house, and often upon the common altars of the city (e) l. 1. memorabil. pag. 708. . and moreover, that he regulated himself both in sacrifices, and in the service of their ancestors, and in all other things, according to the direction of the oracle; which said, that those did godlily who performed them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to the law of the city. so socrates himself did; so he exhorted others to do: and those that did otherwise, he held to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (f) ibid. pag. 72●● , impertinent and vain persons. all which considered, i hope this worthy author (to return him that epithet which he bestows on one of my books) (g) p. 47. will be persuaded that he had better have let this story alone; though it make the most plausible show of any thing he hath writ. and since socrates was no nonconformist, methinks hereafter he should be none of his followers: nor study that knack, which aristophanes so often twits him withal, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to make a bad cause appear as if it were good. i confess he hath a pretty gift this way, and hath learned one lesson very well which the great orator teaches his scholar, viz. to slide over those arguments which are hard, and take no notice of them. nay, he goes beyond the ablest masters in this point. he contemns the difficulties that are objected to them, and pretends they are so slight and frivolous, that they merit not an answer. but methinks, there is some conscience to be made, when a man uses this trick; and i expected a little more honesty in him, then that he should say; there is but one thing in all my discourse that seems to him of any consideration, p. 54. he cannot be so blind, i persuade myself, if ever he cast his eyes on them, as not to see a multitude of things there, that deserve not only their serious thoughts, but call for their ingenuous confession, and hearty repentance. he knows those books are not mostly filled (as he calumniates, p. 60.) with exceptions against expressions, sayings, occasional reflections on texts of scripture. these make the least part of them, and are not their main design, but alleged to show either that they who despise our ministers, are not such powerful men as they persuade the people, nor so full of the spirit as they pretend, or that they can bear with worse things in them of their own party, than those they accuse us of, or for some such like considerable purpose. but as for invectives there are none, unless they be such as those of nazianzen against the apostate emperor, which (as his scholiast (h) in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. interprets the word) were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a reprehension of those things which had been done by julian. for this, though it was very smart, beza thought genebrard himself durst not accuse the holy father: but behold a man here, that hath the face to talk of impertinent calling over of things past and bygone: which is such a piece of confidence, that it deserves the name of impudence; for nothing can be more pertinent, than to remember how they have deceived the poor people, and how they contradict themselves. and if they were such friends to morality (as he would have us believe) they would save us the labour of remembering these things, by doing it themselves: nay, they would call to mind, bewail, and openly renounce all and every those disloyal, unmerciful, and irreligious actions, which they have been either guilty of themselves, or countenanced and connived at in others. but we must not hope i see for such ingenuity and condescension, from men of this lofty spirit; who are not so much for the good old way, which calls men to repentance, as for the good old cause, which could justify all things, and hollow the blackest crimes. these they must by no means hear of, because they will not condemn, and dare not defend them. it is an unpardonable fault, if we do but make mention of their evil deeds. they will never have a good opinion of us more, if we do but tell them how bad they are. this i know hath stirred up such anger at me; that i have put them in mind of but a little of their folly; and told them of some sins, which i cannot learn they rebuke as they ought, and some duties which they do not press, and that if they be pressed by our ministers, they run away, and say they will hear them no more. from this we may conclude (notwithstanding his fine talk of their principles concerning sin, duty, and holiness, etc. p. 55.) that they are very sore, who cry out if we do but touch them, and cannot endure to be meddled withal. his advice to me, to surcease my proceeding, (p. 52.) sounds no otherwise in my ears, than the words of that ulcerous fellow in sophocles, mentioned by tully (i) 2. tusc. q. : who not being able to abide so much as the surgeon's hand, cried out, — abscedite, dimittite; nam attractatu & quassu saevum amplificatis dolorem. be gone, let me alone, for by this handling and shaking, you increase the cruel pain. he would fain affright me indeed with the danger of retaliation; but alas! that is a mere bugbear, and will not hurt my cause at all. nothing that they can do in that kind, will be to the purpose, or give any answer to my writings, as i have told them often enough. and therefore notwithstanding that, i shall not fear to go on, if there shall be any need. and let him threaten what other danger he pleases, i hold the resolution of the great captain in homer most noble, which the same roman (k) l. 2. epist. add attic. 3. ex iliad. ●. elsewhere mentions: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. englished thus by one of our own writers: whatsoever the chanting of the birds foretell, it is best to defend a man's country valiantly. in that employment, i believe, this letter will find you, and therefore it shall not trouble you further. but i shall beseech god to prosper your labours, and to give us all grace to submit to truth wheresoever we meet it, and in whatsoever shape it appears to us: and likewise shall watch all opportunities to serve you, and approve myself your affectionate friend. finis. an apology for the ministers who subscribed only unto the stating of the truths and errors in mr. william's book. showing, that the gospel which they preach, is the old everlasting gospel of christ. and, vindicating them from the calumnies, wherewith they (especially the younger sort of them) have been unjustly aspersed by the letter from a minister in the city, to a minister in the country. nos quidem neque expavescimus, neque pertimescimus ea quae ab ignorantibus patimur, cùm ad hanc sectam utique susceptâ conditione ejus pacti venerimus, ut etiam animas nostraas auctorati in has pugnas accedamus, ea quae deus repromittit consequi optantes, & ea quae diversae vitae comminatur, pati timentes. tertullianus ad scapulam in ipso libri principio. london, printed for john laurence, at the angel in the poultry, mdcxciv. the preface to the reader. if a professed enemy, or a common and known i yer had fallen foul upon us with his tongue or pen, and called us heretics, arminian, pelagian heretics, corrupters of the old, and preachers of a new gospel; we should have held our peace, and in silence despised his lies and revile. but since a brother who professeth seriousness in religion, and hath some credit amongst good people that fear god, and love the truth and purity of christ's gospel, has publicly in print proclaimed us to be heretics, and preachers of a new gospel; our consciences would not suffer us any longer to keep silence: because it might have been justly interpreted to be an argument and evidence of our guilt, and good people might have thought that we could say nothing in our own defence; and therefore that they had good reason upon the uncontrolled testimony of a serious brother, to believe that we are heretics indeed, pelagian, arminian heretics, corrupters of the old, and preachers of a new gospel. wherefore to remedy this, and to undeceive the lords people, and maintain the truth and purity of his gospel, with the credit of his ministry, we judged ourselves obliged in conscience to write and publish this apology; wherein our design is to do wrong to no man, no not to him who hath wronged us: but to do right unto the truth, to clear up our own innocency as to the things we are falsely charged with, and to let good people see that the testimony of our accuser is not true; and therefore can be no proof that we are heretical preachers of a new gospel, or corrupters of the old. if we had still kept silence and suppressed this apology, all the world that should have heard how we were accused, might have either suspected us of heresy, or have blamed us (if guiltless,) for keeping silence, and suffering our ministry to remain aspersed with such a public charge of heresy, unanswered: but we are sure none can have just cause to be offended with us for our now publishing it. since if men would suppose our case to be their own, and that a reputed serious good man had in a printed lybel accused them of damnable heresy, they cannot but see, that they should judge it their duty to defend themselves, and to clear up their own innocency as to that matter. now if men would judge thus, if it were their own case; right reason will assure them that they should pass the like judgement in our case, upon supposition that we know ourselves not to be guilty of the crime, which we are charged with. and the supposition is most certainly true, for we know as certainly that we are not guilty of that crime, as we know any other thing in the world; we know as certainly that we do not preach a new gospel, as we know that there is an old gospel in the church or world. so then, if we are to be blamed for any thing, it is for not doing this work sooner; but for that we could allege more reasons, than we need here to mention: it is enough to tell the world, that there being more than one concerned in this cause, it was fit that we should know one another's mind, and proceed in it with one joint consent, which it required some time to do. whereunto we add, that the collecting and transcribing so many and large testimonies out of the writings of ancient and modern divines required yet more time; moreover we profess ourselves not to be of the number of those who make boast of their quick and hasty births, and boldly venture to publish unto the world any thing as it comes into their heads, without taking time to consider whether it be such as will endure a strict trial by the rule of truth and righteousness. if our accuser had taken more time to consider of the several particulars of his letter of information, before he had printed it, we are apt to think that (if he be a good man, as we would hope he is) he would have seen cause to have altered much of it, or to have suppressed it altogether, as well for his own particular good, as for the common good of christ's church. but it seems, that since all the world almost is engaged in war at this day, he had an ambitious desire to be a warrior likewise; and that desire (if he was not put on by others) would not let him be quiet, but he must sound the trumpet, and both, proclaim an ecclesiastical war, and also himself make the first attack. but f●r us, we are not of such a spirit; so far from it, that we have a real aversion to such ecclesiastical war, and are not easily brought to it: indeed it is purely defensive on our side, and we were necessitated to it. in the managing of it we have endeavoured no farther to offend the first aggressour, than was necessary to defend ourselves. we are not conscious to ourselves of having given him just cause of offence, unless our refuting his errors, vindicating ourselves from his calumnies, and exposing the weakness, and sometimes the ridiculousness of his reasonings, be matter of offence to him. and if that be all, it is offence taken, not given, for which he may blame himself. for he having attacked us in such hostile, rude, unbrotherly and unchristian manner, we could not repel his attack, so as to secure the truth of god, the honour of religion, and our own good names, without answering him, as we have done. but if it shall be made appear to us, that in any thing we have passed the limits of a just self-defence; and have done him any real injury (which is more than we know,) we shall be sorry for it, and willing to do him right. for we do really wish him well, and should be ready to do him any office of love and kindness that lies in our power. but we have no moral lawful power to suffer any brother to throw dirt on us, the vile dirt of pelagian heresy, and to hold our hands, and not endeavour to wipe it off again. certainly pelagianism is one of the things in the whole world which we do most abhor. jerome: (who was contemporary with pelagius, writing against the pelagians saith, hierom. epist. ad ctesiphontèm propè medium. asserunt se per arbitrii libertatem nequaquàm ultrà necessarium habere deum, etc.— quid rursum te ingeris, ut nihil pòssim facere, nisi tu in me tua dona compleveris? that they assert, by reason of the free will which god hath once given them, they stand no more in need of god. for, (saith the pelagian unto god) thou hast once given me free will, that i may do what i will: wherefore dost thou intrude thyself again, so that i can do nothing, unless thou perfect thy gifts in me? which jerome thus confutes, [they are ignorant of what is written, 1 cor. 4.7. what hast thou, that thou hast not received, and if thou hast received it, why dost thou glory, as if thou hadst not received it? and, it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of god that showeth mercy, rom. 9.16. it is my part to will and to run, velle & currere meum est, sed ipjum meum, sine dei semper auxilio, non crit meum. but without the continual help of god, that very thing which is mine, will not be mine. (that is, it will never be done by me, but will come to nothing.) for the same apostle saith, it is god who worketh in us, both to will and to do, phil. 2.13. god is always bestowing, always giving. that which god hath once given me, non sufficit nihi, quod semel donavit, nisi semper donaverit, etc. is not sufficient for me, unless he shall still continually give me. i ask that i may receive, and when i have received, i ask again. i am covetous to receive the gifts of god; neither is he wanting in giving, nor am i satiated in receiving: by how much the more i drink in the grace of god, by so much the more do i thirst after it. this which jerome wrote twelve hundred years ago against the pelagians with his pen, we subscribe to it with heart and hand. in like manner we subscribe to that of coelestin in his epistle to the gauls in behalf of prosper and hilary. coelestini de gratiâ dei epist. cap. 9 ita deus in cordibus hominum, etc. god so works in the hearts of men, and on free will itself, that a holy thought, pious counsel, and every good motion of the will is from god, for it is by him, that we can do any good, without whom we can do no good. and to the seventh canon of the second council of orange. if any shall affirm that man by the strength of nature, si quis dixerit per naturae vigorem, etc. without the illumination and inspiration of the holy spirit, can think or choose aright any good that pertains to the happiness of eternal life, or that he can savingly consent to the evangelical preaching, he is deceived by an heretical spirit, not understanding the voice of god, saying, in the gospel, john 15.5. without me, ye can do nothing. and that of the apostle, 2 cor. 3.5. not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think any thing as of ourselves, but our sufficiency is of god. all this we firmly believe and hearty embrace. and therefore whosoever saith that we are pelagians or semipelagians, either he knows us not, and ignorantly defames us; or if he know us and our principles, he knowingly belies us, which we hope our accuser would not do. and as we ourselves are not pelagians, no nor semipelagians, so we do not plead for any that are such; but are ready to plead for the truth against them, as the lord shall call us, and enable us thereunto. as for the brethren that are accused, a number of them hath approved our apology; and we plead only for them who do or shall approve it. but if there should be any of the subscribers, whom we have not consulted with, who unknown to us, are of a judgement different from us in these matters; we leave them to plead for themselves. yet though we thus write, we doubt not, but they will all agree to the sum and substance of what we have said and proved in this our apology. as (1.) that the gospel is a new law of grace in the sense we have affirmed and proved it so to be, by the word of god, and by the testimonies of ancient fathers and modern divines. (2.) that this law of grace, or gospel-covenant is conditional, as we have stated the conditionality of it, that is, it is conditional with respect to the subsequent blessings and benefits of it, such as justification and glorification. (3.) that evangelical repentance is a condition dispositive of the subject (man), necessary in order to his being justified, as we have proved by scripture and reason, and by many testimonies of ancient fathers and modern divines; and that a lively effectual faith is the condition receptive and applicative of the object (christ and his righteousness), by and for which only, man is justified. finally, that sincere evangelical obedience proceeding from a principle of true faith, is a condition necessary on man's part, unto his obtaining possession of eternal salvation in heaven, for the alone merits of christ. (4.) that in effectual calling by the word and spirit of christ, there is a real change and holy qualifications wrought in the soul of man, in order of nature before he be justified and pardoned. (5.) that the common distinction is true, as we have explained it, and calvin and the synod of dort approved it, that christ died for all men sufficiently; but for the elect only, efficaciously. this is the sum of what we believe and here contend for, and we doubt not, but all the subscribers (even those of them, whom we never saw) do and will agree to these things, which are the commonly received doctrines of the reformed churches. and it is for such persons that we make an apology, and for no others. in pleading for these things aforesaid, we are persuaded in our own conscience, (and we think upon good and solid grounds) that we plead for the truth and purity of the gospel; the defence whereof to the glory of god, is the principal thing that we propose to ourselves in this present apology: and next to god's glory in the defence of his truth, we design the edification and common good of christ's church, and the defence of ourselves only in subserviency to those higher ends. that the father of lights, the god of truth and love, and peace, would pour out upon us all, of all persuasions, a spirit of light and love, purity and peace, that we may all see the truth with our minds, believe and love it with our hearts, and profess and practise it purely and peaceably in our lives, to the glory of god in christ, to the honour of religion, and to the spiritual and eternal good of our own and others souls, is and through grace shall be our fervent and frequent prayer unto him that is able to do for us exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think; ephes. 3.20, 21. unto whom be glory in the church by christ jesus throughout all ages, world without end. amen. the index. the introduction. no just cause appears for raising such a clamour against the subscribers. the test proposed by our accuser, out of the assemblies confession of faith and catechism, accepted by us, who are ready to subscribe to it in the assemblies own sense, page 1. to 8. chap. i. concerning the occasion and design of the letter. some remarks on it. page. 8. to 18. chap. ii. of the authors errors in doctrine against the purity of our christian faith. sect. i. of his first error, that there is no new law of grace. the controversy stated, p. 20, 21. the affirmative proved by scripture, and by testimonies of ancient fathers and modern divines. p. 22, to 33. sect. ii. of his second error, that the covenant of grace is absolute and not conditional. (1.) it is showed in what sense we hold it not to be, and in what sense to be conditional. p. 34, to 49. (2.) with respect to justification and glorification, it is proved to be conditional; that faith and repentance, with respect to justification and sincere obedience with respect to glorification, are conditions in the sense there declared, proved (1.) by scripture, (2.) by reason agreeable to scripture. (3.) by testimonies of ancient fathers, and many modern divines. p. 49, to 120. sect. iii. of his third error, that there is no real change, no holy disposition or qualification, no good or holy thing wrought in or done by man, in order to, and before justification, etc. the question stated, p. 120. the contrary truth proved by scripture and reason agreeable to scripture, and by the testimony of protestant divines, especially of the synod of dort, and objections an, sweared, p. 120, to 145. an appendix of the third section concerning dispositions, previous to regeneration and conversion. shown what they ordinarily are, p. 146. what our opinion is concerning them. p. 146, 147. that our opinion is neither new nor singular, proved by testimonies of famous protestant divines. p. 148, to 156. objections answered, p. 156, to 162. bradwardin for justification by inherent righteousness and humane satisfaction, some further account of his principles and practices, p. 163, to 165. more testimonies of mr. dickson, claude, charnock, turretin, etc. for previous dispositions, p. 165, to 168. chap. iii. of his ridiculous way of converting an unbeliever, p. 168, to 183. chap. iu. of the calumnies wherewith he asperses christ's ministers, and particularly of the middle way. shown that we are neither pelagians nor arminians, in whole, or in part, p. 184, to 190. that called the middle way stated, and shown not to be a new gospel, but the opinion of calvin and others of our reformers, p. 191, 192. the calumny relating to justification refuted, p. 193, to 195. as also, p. 37, to 40, and 42, to 45. other calumnies refuted, p. 195, to 204. chap. v people are advised to try before they trust, and not suffer themselves to be imposed upon, and led into error by the bold unproved assertions and dictates of any preachers or writers whatsoever, p. 204, to the end. the errata of the press thus to be corrected. title page, for nostraas read nostras. preface, page 3, line 2, read rule. book: p. 1. l. 2. f. flesh r. flesh. p. 1. l. 10. after battle add? p. 14. l. 1. for the that r. that the. p. 23, l. 36, f. perfect of, r. perfect or. l. 8. r. virtual. p. 25, l. 2, r. pius. p. 51, l. 31, r. it is a condition. p. 52, l. 47, r. goeth on. p. 55, l. 33, f. of them r. on them. p. 63, l. 43, f. or, r. of. p. 67, l. 10. f. atr. r. act. p. 80. l. 24, f. inward, applicative, r. inward applicative without a comma. p. 85. lin. 40. f. he an, r. he is an. l. 41. blot out is. p. 88, at the end, blot out the last word, this. p. 105. l. 34. r. receive it. p. 110. l. 3. after emendationem, for a point, put a comma. in the same line after life put a (;) p. 115. l. 48. r. prove that no man; without a (;) p. 128. l. 32, f. he r. it. and l. 33, r. penitent. p. 138, l. 6, f. make r. made. p. 147, l. 30. f. discourse r. discourse. p. 149. l. 17, f. ecclesiastical r. scholastical. p. 162, l. 54, f. they who, r. those which. p. 163, l. 20, r. reformationem, and f. predictis r. praedictis. l. 23, r. punishment. p. 183. l. 40, f. oar, r. our. p. 186. l. 30. f. in all ages, might r. in all ages might, without a comma. p. 186, l. 18, 19, f. chap. 28, r. chap. 30. and l. 24. f. infer for what, r. infer what. p. 189, l. 46, f. and efficaciously r. but efficaciously. p. 194. l. 40, and 41, r. justification. p. 198, l. 38, f. doath, r. death. p. 201, l. 42. r. merits of. p. 202. l. 50, f. relation r. revelation. what other faults the reader may find, he is desired to correct, or excuse them. advertisement. a brief review of mr. davis' vindication: by giles firmin, one of the united brethren: printed by john laurence, at the angel in the poultry, 1693. the introduction. holy david, the man after gods own heart, said of old, my flesh trembleth for fear of thee, ps. 119.120. and i am afraid of thy judgements. we would it were thus with all that pretend to any seriousness in the profession of the protestant religion, at this day. but alas! where are such to be found? where are they that are affected with the fear of god, as david was, and that are duly apprehensive of the judgements of god, which are actually upon, and seem to be yet further coming upon the reformed churches? is it not visible, that all sorts of men turn to their several courses of sin, as the horse rusheth into the battle. they run on in the ways of their own hearts, blindly and boldly without considering or fearing the issue. and who can wonder, that those who have hardened their hearts from god's fear, should boldly venture upon sin, especially if they have got a strong, but false persuasion, that they are the temple of the lord, the true, the best, and purest church upon earth, most highly in favour with god, and that their sins are the spots of god's children, which do not hurt them, and are well consistent with his highest love and favour. the scriptures of truth assure us, that when once professors of religion have brought themselves to this, than they can securely lean upon the lord, and say, is not the lord amongst us? none evil can come upon us. though at the same time, the lord saith, that zion for your sakes shall be ploughed as a field, and jerusalem shall become heaps. mic. 3.11, 12. we wish it be not so with us at this day. but when we look abroad into the world, and into the present state of the reformed churches at home and abroad, and see, or hear, what lives men generally lead, how they fight against god, and against one another; against god by transgressing all his holy, just, and good laws, and by turning his grace into lasciviousness: and against one another, by injustice and uncharitableness, by malice and envy, by lying and slandering, etc. we cannot but fear, that god is against us, and will fight against us, as we are against him, levit. 26.23, 24. and fight against him. and it greatly increases our fear, to see that those, who pretend to greatest seriousness in religion, have lately fallen out, and have been quarrelling together about such a practical point of religion as that is, whether true repentance is necessary before we can obtain from god the pardon of our sins, through the alone satisfaction, and merits of christ. when god is loudly calling us to repentance, for obtaining the pardon of our sins, and we should all be found in the practice of repentance, in order to that end; we are like madmen fallen to disputing, whether our repentance be necessary, before we are pardoned, when we are pardoned, or after we are pardoned. and there are those amongst us, who have raised a great clamour against such honest, and faithful ministers of christ, as dare tell, and dare not but tell the people, that they must truly repent of their sins, before they can obtain the pardon of them; although at the same time they assure the people, from the lord, that god, for christ's sake, will most certainly pardon them, immediately after they have repent. this is cried out against, as dangerous doctrine, by a sort of religious people amongst us, who will have it, that repentance is only necessary after god hath pardoned us, but not before. and though to please these people, some ministers have openly granted, that repentance, and pardon of sin, are simultaneous in time, that is, they are not one before another for any space of time, but are both together; only repentance is first in order of nature, by the grace thereof to dispose, and prepare us for receiving our pardon by faith in christ's blood: yet this will not give them content, but they will have their pardon before repentance; and the ministers who preach, or write otherwise, shall be proclaimed to be antichristian, arminian, or any thing that passion suggests. this, we say, greatly increaseth our fears; for to us it seems evident, that the hand of joab is in this matter, that is plainly, that satan has a wicked design, by this means, to keep the people from repentance; and so from obtaining the pardon of their sins, that the desolating judgements of god may come upon the nation, and that we may be all destroyed together. and that satan may not be discovered, he hath artificially disguised himself, and appears on the stage, transformed into an angel of light, pleading for the exaltation of the glorious riches of free grace, in the justification of sinners by the blood of christ, without all works of any law whatsoever; and with great appearance of zeal asserting. that the freeness of god's grace in the justification of sinners by faith in the blood, merits, and satisfaction of christ, cannot possibly be maintained, unless it be denied, that true repentance is antecedently necessary to our obtaining the pardon of our sins. it seems to us, that this is satan's plot against us, and that he hath thus disguised himself, the better to carry it on, and the more effectually to compass his design upon us: and this is the more probable; because we find, that at the beginning of the reformation satan played the same game, when he perceived, that by our first reformers preaching up justification by faith only, and not by works, many people were induced to separate from the church of rome, and embrace the reformation; he endeavoured to make them believe, that since sinners are justified, and pardoned by faith only, and not by works; then there was no necessity, that they should repent of their sins, in order to their obtaining the pardon of them: and thus he thought, that though they had got their feet loosed out of one of his snares, yet he should still keep them fast in another, and lead them captive at his will. that this is so indeed, and no fiction of ours, is manifest from the testimony of bishop hooper, that blessed, faithful, and valiant martyr of christ; who, in the reign of queen mary, was burnt alive, for the protestant religion, in a slow fire, about the space of three quarters of an hour; and sealed the truth of the gospel with his blood. this man of god, in a book of his entitled, a declaration of christ and his office, printed at zurich, in the year 1547. chap. vii th'. handling the point of justification, saith, this is certain. and too true, let the whole gospel be preached unto the world; as it ought to be, repentance and a virtuous life with faith, as god preached the gospel unto adam in paradise, noah, abraham, moses, isaiah, saying, vae genti peccatrici, etc. (isa. 1.4, &c) john the baptist, repent ye, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand: as christ did, repent and believe the gospel, mark 1. and then of an hundred that come to the gospel, there would not come one. when they hear sole (or only) faith, and the mercy of god to justify, and that they may eat all ments, at all times, with thanksgiving; they embrace that gospel with all joy, and willing heart. and what is he that would not receive this gospel? the flesh itself, were there no immortal soul in it, would receive this gospel, because it promiseth aid, help, and consolation, without works. but now speak of the other part of the gospel, as paul teacheth, rom. 8.13. if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die; and as he prescribeth the life of a justified man, in the same epistle, chap. 12, 13, 14, 15, 16. and christ, mat. 10. and peter in the 2 epistle and 1 chap. this part of the gospel is not so pleasant; therefore men take the first liberty, etc. thus that blessed saint, who feared neither man nor devil, but in the true faith, and fear of god, set himself with a divine courage and holy boldness, to oppose the devil and all his instruments, to destroy his kingdom in the world; and on the contrary, to exalt the name, and glory of god, and to set up christ's spiritual kingdom in the hearts and lives of men. would to god that we had many hoopers amongst us at this day; who saith again, in the same chapter, not far from the beginning, nothing maketh the cause wherefore this mercy (to wit of justification) should be given, saving, only the death of christ, which is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the only sufficient price, and gage for sin. and although it be necessary, and requisite, that in the justification of a sinner, contrition be present, and that necessarily charity, and virtuous life, must follow; yet doth the scripture attribute only remission of sin unto the mercy of god, which is given only for the merits of christ, and received solely by faith. paul doth not exclude those virtues to be present, but he excludeth the merits of those virtues, and deriveth the cause of our acceptation into the grace of god only for christ. if we could all be so wise and humble, as to learn of that holy man, and to follow him, as he learned of, and followed christ and his apostles; we might yet defeat satan, as to the foresaid plot that he is carrying on to ruin us. but alas! it grieves us to the heart, that some ministers, by not watching against that most subtle malicious enemy of god and man, have suffered themselves to be imposed upon so far as to turn (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) accusers of the brethren; who stand up for god and man, in opposition to satan, and faithfully tell the people, that they must, through grace, truly repent of their sins, in order to obtain the pardon of them. and particularly, we are truly sorry, that the author of the letter from a minister in the city, etc. should have meddled in this matter, and that he should become accuser of the brethren, especially of those pious young men, who gave themselves up to the work of the ministry in difficult and dangerous times, without any visible encouragement thereunto from any thing in this world; and also against groat visible discouragements, both from the world, and the devil. what have those younger brethren done to provoke this brother (who is himself also one of the younger sort) to become their accuser? some of us, who are older than they, have known several of them these many years; and yet never knew any evil by them, nor heard any evil of them. since we first knew them, it hath to us looked like a token for good to his people in this nation, that the lord hath raised up so many young men, and hath spirited, and to such a degree gifted them for the ministry under such discouraging circumstances. but now after all that god hath done for, and by those brethren, notwithstanding the presence of god with them, and the blessing of god upon their labours; up starts one, who calls himself a minister in the city, and accuses them of being corrupters of the pure gospel of christ, of new vamping a arminian gospel, and obtruding it on the people, let. pag. 10. to the certain peril of their souls that believe it. yea, he raiseth the charge higher in pag. 13. and saith, that judicious observers cannot but already perceive a coincidency between their cause, and that of those two pests of the church, pelagius and arminius; and do fear more, when, &c▪ here is an high charge indeed; but where is there any evidence for all this? one would think, that no man, who pretends such relation unto christ, and such seriousness in christian religion, as this man doth, should dare thus to accuse his brethren, and fellow-ministers, of such horrid crimes, without clear, and certain evidence, whereby he can prove them guilty. for if men be suffered to accuse one another of atrocious crimes, without being obliged to prove their accusation, no man will be able to preserve his good name, nor will it be possible for men to live peaceably together in any society, civil or religious. this brother therefore ought to have been made to prove his accusation, that the churches might have been delivered from those young heretics, if he had proved them to be such: or, if he had failed in his proof, that the churches might know what spirit he is of, who hath kindled a fire in the church, by traducing the ministers of christ, and falsely accusing them of heresy. but some may possibly say, hath he not by his printed letter proved them guilty of arminian and pelagian heresy? to which we answer, that no man of judgement, who reads it, can see any such proof in it; nor indeed see just cause to harbour any such thought of them, if he but know the men accused, have heard their doctrine, and seen their manner of life; and if withal he understand what pelagianism and arminianism are. it is true, he boldly accuses them of arminianism and pelagianism, and of preaching a new gospel; and to make the simple people believe that his accusation is well grounded, he says, that judicious observers perceive their cause to be coincident with that of pelagius, etc. that they are reserved, and do not yet speak out upon such and such points, and that they hold such things, as are utterly inconsistent with the freeness of god's grace in justifying sinners, by the satisfaction, and merits of christ's blood. these things are often affirmed, or insinuated, throughout the letter; but none of them proved. a monster, or a man of straw, of his own making, is set up to represent the brethren; and then he calls upon the people to come, and see with what a spirit of zeal he hews it all in pieces. this is a way of writing, that is taking with weak, well-meaning people; let. p. 14, 15, 30. and his holding repentance not to be necessary in order to the obtaining pardon of sin, may be pleasing to satan, and very taking with hypocrites; but no body of judgement, and understanding, can ever think, that this is the way to prove the foresaid accusation in matter of fact. for our parts we have diligently considered every paragraph of his letter, and, in it all, cannot find one proof of the said accusation: and after all, we believe in our consciences, that the brethren accused are innocent of the crime he lays to their charge. indeed, we know assuredly, that several of them are innocent thereof; and till the contrary be proved, and appear, we must think so of them all: we would have all men to do so by us, in case we were falsely accused, and it is but just and reasonable, that we do as we would be done by. if we should happen to be mistaken, as to any of the brethren, whose cause we plead, we err on the safer side; 1 cor. 13.5. for charity thinketh no evil. true love will not suffer a christian heart to entertain a deliberate thought of his brother, that he is an ill man, or an heretic, without sufficient evidence that he is so. we have met with no such evidence, either in the aforesaid letter, or any where else; and therefore we must still think, that the accused brethren are innocent of the crime they are charged with: and that the accuser of them (if he be a good man yet) hath done a very ill thing in standering the lords ministers; and we hearty pray god to give him repentance, and forgiveness for christ's sake. and that the world may see, and that this brother himself may see, how rash, and unchristian a thing, he hath done, in accusing the brethren, as aforesaid. we, 1. here declare in general (before we come to examine the several particulars in his letter, which relate to this matter) that we never were, and that we now are not, and that (we trust in god) we never shall be arminians or pelagians: this we freely, and unfeignedly declare, as in the presence of the lord, to whom we must give an account of all our actions. 2. and yet further, to remove all ground of suspicion (if it be possible) of our corrupting the gospel in the point of justification, we accept of the test, proposed to us by the author of the letter, pag. 29. and declare, that we will subscribe, all those articles of the confession of faith, which he hath there transcribed; together with the passage out of the larger catechism: we say, we will subscribe them in the assemblies own sense. we add this limitation, because the author of the letter hath not taken into his test, that part of the larger catechism, * question, how is the grace of god manifested in the● second covenant. which declares, that god in the second covenant, requires faith as the condition to interest sinners in christ: nay, he denies faith to be either condition or qualification, and will have it to be only the instrument of justification. but by comparing the confession of faith with the catechism, we find, that the assembly held faith to be both an instrument, and a condition: and therefore every honest man that will subscribe in the assemblies own sense, must so hold faith to be an instrument, as to be a condition also. now the question is, how faith can be both an instrument, and a condition? to which we answer, that in our judgement it is thus. distinguish between a mere physical instrument, and a moral federal instrument. faith is not a mere physical instrument; but it is a moral federal instrument. now a moral federal instrument is the same thing with a federal condition. instrument and condition, in this sense, are but two words to signify the same thing. if this do not satisfy our brother, but he will still say, that the notion of an instrument, and the notion of a condition, are two distinct notions, and cannot both agree to the same thing, to the same faith. we answer, 1. if he will say so, we desire the world to take notice, that it is he himself, who opposes the assembly, and not we. 2. in behalf of the assembly, we answer, that the notion of a moral federal instrument, and the notion of a federal condition, are not two distinct, but one and the same notion. 3. suppose they were two distinct notions, yet the same thing, the same faith, in different respects, is capable of two distinct notions: but so it is, that faith may be considered under two different respects. (1.) faith is considered with respect to christ himself, and his righteousness; and so it hath the notion of an instrument, whereby we receive him and his righteousness, and apply them to our own souls. (2.) faith is considered with respect to justification itself, or the act whereby god justifies us for the sake of christ, and his righteousness; and so it hath the notion of a condition, upon which god justifies us, for the sake of christ, and his righteousness. in this respect, faith cannot have the notion of a phisical instrument; for a physical instrument, as such, hath a physical causality; but our faith cannot have a physical causality upon god's act, whereby he justifies. let it be considered, that both our catechisms, larger and lesser, affirm justification to be an act of god. now how an act of ours, such as justifying faith is, can have a phisical causality, and influence, upon the producing of an act of god, is above our comprehension. sure we are, that if any man will maintain such an opinion, he ascribes more to faith in the point of justification, than we dare do. we should rather think, that the instrument, which god uses in producing his own justifying act, is his own gospel-promise of pardon and justification to the penitent believer, for the sake of christ, in whom he believes, acts 10.43. object. but doth not the second article of the two chap. of the confession of faith, say expressly, that faith is the alone instrument of justification? answ. 1. and so say we too: it is the alone instrument, the alone moral federal instrument, or the alone receptive, applicative condition. 2. distinguish between an instrument immediate, and mediate. now faith is not said to be the alone immediate instrument of justification, nor do we conceive how it can so be in a physical sense; because it hath no immediate physical influence upon the producing of gods justifying act. but faith may be said to be the mediate instrument of justification, because it is the immediate instrument whereby we receive christ, and his righteousness; & hoc posito, this being done, this instrumental means being used, and this condition being performed, christ and his righteousness being received by faith, as the instrumental means of that reception, god himself, for christ's sake, justifies us by his law of faith. this seems plainly to be the sense of the assembly, as appears by their saying in the passage of the larger catechism, quoted by the letter, that faith justifies a sinner, only as it is an instrument, by which the sinner receiveth, and applieth christ and his righteousness. mark the expression, they do not say, that faith justifies only, as an instrument whereby god justifies the sinner; but only, as an instrument whereby the sinner receives, and applies, christ and his righteousness. if the author of the letter have any other notions of faith's being a physical instrument, much good may they do him; but let him not think to impose them upon us, or upon the words of the assembly: we take their words in the sense they are capable of, without self contradiction. for we have more respect for that reverend, and learned synod, than to put a sense upon their words, they are not fairly capable of, or that shall make them speak contradictions. therefore as they hold faith to be both an instrument, and a condition, so do we: we hold it so to be an instrument, as that its being an instrument, shall not hinder it from being a condition: and so to be a condition, as that its being a condition, shall not hinder it from being an instrument. this we take to be the plain and native sense of the assembly; and in this sense we hearty assent to their words. but so doth not our author; for in the 9th. and 25th. pages of his letter, he saith, that faith is neither condition, nor qualification; but a mere instrument: whereas the assembly saith expressly, both that faith is a condition, and also, that it is an instrument. therefore he contradicts the assembly: and doth not take their words in their plain and native sense: for had he so taken them, as we do, and always did, what reason had he to make such a clamour; and with what conscience did he tell the world that his brethren, the non conformists (especially the younger sort of them) were dangerously erroneous in the fundamental point of justification? is it a light matter with him to traduce the faithful ministers of christ? for our parts, we durst not have done so by him, or any of his consorts, without as clear evidence as a matter of fact, of that nature, is capable of, and without producing our evidence too; which he hath not done in his letter, nor is it possible to be done; for the matter of fact is most certainly, and evidently false. and we would yet hope, that he will have a better opinion of his brethren, and be sorry for the wrong he hath done them, when he shall understand that they are far from being the men he affirmed them to be; and that they willingly accept of the test, which he himself offers, in order to an agreement; not as if they had changed their judgements, upon the reading of his letter (which is more likely to make proselytes of weak well meaning women, than of men of understanding) but because they were of the same judgement before, and now declare it, that the world, and he, may see how injurious he hath been to his brethren. but though we are willing to agree with him, in the foresaid articles of the assemblies confession of faith; yet it is upon condition, that he will assent to the assemblies words, in their plain, and genuine sense aforesaid, as we also do: and that this shall not be accounted an agreement with him in all the rest of his letter. for we hope, by the help of our god and saviour, never to agree unto many things in his letter; because they are neither consistent with the purity of faith, nor with the sincerity of love. we are indeed willing that it should be known, to the real and right antinomians, that he is none of them; if he will stand to several passages in his letter; particularly, to what he writes in the end of the 4th, and in the 5th. pages, again in the end of the 23d., and beginning of the 24th. pages; as also in page 40. line 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28. and for our parts, if he would be consistent with himself, and not contradict what he there owns for truth; we should be willing and ready, as we have occasion, to vindicate him from being an antinomian in principle; but we cannot acquit him from being an antinomian in practice, so long as it is written in our bibles, [thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour:] and so long as he approves of those passages in his letter, whereby he has falsely accused, and traduced his brethren, and represented them to the world, as arminians, and pelagians, and preachers of a new gospel. it is none of our business to persuade any body to believe, that he is a real antinomian in principle; but it is to vindicate our own innocency, by wiping off those most false, and soul aspersions, he hath cast upon the lords ministers; and to correct some of those gross mistakes, that occur up and down in his letter; and to let people see, that some have been too forward to receive for truth many things which he hath presented them with in his letter. this is that, which we design in animadverting upon his letter, and our method in doing it, shall be, first, in the first chapter to consider of the occasion, and design of his letter. secondly, in the second chapter, divided into several sections, to refute some of his doctrinal errors against the purity of faith. thirdly, in the third chapter, to show that we cannot approve his ridiculous way of converting unbelievers, and bringing them to faith in christ. fourthly, in the fourth chapter, to refute his calumnies, and false accusations of christ's ministers, against the sincerity of love. lastly, in the fifth chapter, to advise christian people to try before they trust, and not to suffer themselves to be imposed upon, and lead into error by the bold, unproved assertions and dictates of any preachers, or writers whatsoever. chap. i. concerning the occasion and design of the letter. first of all, we will consider the occasion and design of his letter. and for the occasion of his writing it, he saith, it was a country ministers earnest desire of information about some difference amongst non-conformists in london, which was the cause of it: we suppose, he means the occasional cause. and if this be true, we allow it for a lawful occasion of writing a letter of information to his friend and brother in the country, provided his information had been true; but nothing can ever make it lawful to give false information to any, either in city or country. whether he hath done so, or not, by his letter will appear by what follows in this answer. next, for his design in writing, he saith, in page 35. that, all his design in publishing that letter, was plainly and briefly to give some information to ordinary plain people, who either want time, or judgement, to peruse large and learned tractates, about the point of justification, wherein every one is equally concerned. we do not believe this to be true, yea we think it is not true: for surely it was part of his design to give a fuller information to his brother in the country, who being, as he saith, a minister, we presume he is none of the plain ordinary people, who want time, and judgement, to peruse large, and learned tractates, etc. we do not think, that he first sent the whole manuscript in a private letter, into the country, to inform a minister; and afterwards printed it, to inform the people, that want time and judgement: but that if he did really write a letter into the country, it was but a small part, it may be some of the heads of it; see lett. p. 27. and then published the whole with a design to inform, and to alarm too, both ministers and people in city and country. and whether this be so, or not, yet we cannot believe that all his design in publishing his letter, was plainly, and briefly to give some information to the people about the point of justification. for he plainly manifests, throughout his letter, that a part of his design in writing, was to vindicate himself, and some of his party, from the suspicion of antinomianism, and to load other ministers, who differ from him in some things, with the odious charge of arminianism and pelagianism; and to warn the people, upon their peril, to have a care of such ministers (as preach the necessity of repentance in order to pardon of sin,) that they be not corrupted by them, in most fundamental points of religion. let any body, of common understanding, but read pages 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 9, 10, 13, 15, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 30. of the letter, and he cannot but see, that the main design of the writer was to clear himself, and his party, of the suspicion of antinomianism, and to bring the other ministers, who are not of their mind in all things, under the suspicion of arminianism and pelagianism. this seems plainly to have been his principal design; and therefore he knows well enough, that it is not true, that all his design in publishing his letter, was to inform ordinary plain people, about the point of justification. if he will yet say that it was all his design in publishing his letter to inform the people that want judgement to peruse learned tractates, we hope no body, that do not love to be deceived, will believe him. but, if any should believe him, we would ask them; was not he then a wise informer of the injudicious people, see let. p. 6. to tell them of the matter and form of justification; and that it is the believing christ's righteousness to be the matter, and not only the meritorious cause; and the imputation of it to be the form of justification, which differenceth us from the papists, who own the rest of our doctrine in the point of justification, (as the simple people must be made to believe,) but err in their notions about the matter and form of it? further, we ask, was he not a wise informer of the ignorant people, to tell them, page 13, that god blessed england with a bradwardine, since a popish priest can demonstrate before any indifferent persons of understanding in those matters, that bradwardine was of the popish opinion, both as to matter and form, of justification, and that he was a downright papist in that point; and held justification, not by christ's imputed righteousness, but, by infused grace and inherent holiness; as shall be hereafter manifested from his own express words. a wise informer indeed of the injudicious people, to tell them of a bradwardine, who was so subtle, so metaphysical, and mathematical in his way of writing, that he was commonly called the profound doctor; and to tell them too, that he was a blessing to england, who held justification by inherent righteousness: and yet at the same time to tell them, that it is a most dangerous, damnable error, inconsistent with the glory of god's free grace in justification, and destructive to the souls of men, to believe that which bradwardine believed, and professed; or to differ from him, owen of justification, pag. 291, 292. and his party, in a matter far less than that, even about the form of justification, which dr. owen confesseth hath no formal cause at all; but something in stead of it. but, it may be, some will say, that he had no design at all, in publishing those parts of his letter, but that they dropped from his pen by mere accident. if any should thus apologise for him; there needs no more to confure them, but to turn to, and read pag. 6. lin. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. of his letter, and pag. 13. throughout: for there it is, as clear as the light at noonday, that his design in publishing those parts of his letter was to bring us under the suspicion of popery, arminianism, and pelagianism, that we agree with the papists, and they with us, in the point of justification; and that both in that, and other points, we are arminians, and pelagians; and that in all we are corrupters of the gospel in the main points of it, in the points of necessary saving faith; and that we have twiss and ames against us, and not them only, but we have doctorem profundum, the prosound doctor bradwardine for our adversary, even that doctor, who prayed to god in these words, exurge, domine, judiea causam tuam, & sustinentem te sustine, etc. arise, o lord, judge thine own cause, and uphold me, who uphold thee, etc. you may see, who we are told, is against us, not an ordinary doctor, but a doctor that upheld and sustained the lord himself; or else he put up a very proud, blasphemous prayer to god. yet, he saith, praesationis thom●● de bradwardina, chancellarii lond. etc. p. 2, 3. it was so far accepted, that thereupon he fell asleep, and in a dream was carried up into the air, where he met with pelagius, fought him, threw him down to the earth, and broke his neck. we need say no more, to prove that it was part of the writer of the letters design, to inform his friend, the country minister, and other ministers likewise, that we are leavened with popery, that we are arminians and pelagians; and that as we have twiss and ames, so we have the profound bradwardine against us: and therefore it must be an untruth, that all his design, in publishing his letter, was to give some information unto the injudicious people, about the point of justification. that it was a part of his design to inform the injudicious people, we do not deny, and how judiciously he hath done it, let them that can, judge; but that that was all his design, we have showed reason why we cannot believe. we doubt not but he designed, populo ut placerent, quas fecisset fabulas, to gratify those people, who are disaffected to us, with his stories of our being arminians▪ pelagians, and corrupters of the pure gospel of christ and of the doctrine of god's free grace in the justification of sinners by faith in christ's blood. now whether this was an honest design or not, we shall refer to the judgement and conscience of all , unprejudiced persons after they have heard and considered what we have said for ourselves. we think it is self-evident also from his letter, that it was a part of his design to clear himself, and his party, from the suspicion of antinomianism and libertinism. see pag. 3, 4, 5. of the letter, where at the end of the 4●● page, in the name of his party, he confidently protests before god, angels, and men, that they espouse no new doctrine about the grace of god and justification, and the other coincident points, but what the reformers, at home and abroad; did reach, and all the reformed churches do own. and in pag. 5. gives in, a brief sum of their doctrine; after which, at the end of the page, he asks these questions, what is there in all this to be offended with? is not this enough to vindicate our doctrine from any tendency to licentiousness? and pag 39 these are his own express words, but how unjustly this hateful name (antinomian) is charged upon the orthodox, preachers, and sincere believers of the protestant doctrine of justification by faith only— is the design of this paper to discover. now that solemn protestation aforesaid, that sum of their doctrine, those expostulatory demands thereupon, together with his own confession in formal express words, do manifestly show, that a part of his design was to clear himself and his party, from the suspicion of antinomianism and libertinism. and we hearty wish, that he had no worse design than this: for we freely acknowledge, that any person, or party, who find themselves unjustly suspected of, and charged with horrid crimes, whereof they know themselves not to be guilty, may, and aught to clear themselves the best way they can; and if they cannot do it by word, they may very honestly do it by writing: provided that in clearing themselves, they do not falsely accuse others, and so fall into the same fault, which they blame others for, which if they do, assuredly they take wrong measures; for all considering men will be apt to suspect them more than ever of libertinism, when they plainly see that they run themselves into libertine practices, in order to clear themselves of libertine principles. but after all he hath said of his party, their being falsely accused of antinomianism, and that they could no longer be silent, let. pag. 10. but must speak and write in their own defence, and in defence of the gospel; we are at a loss to know, who they are that so accused them. we can find no such thing in mr. william's book, nay we find that in it, which clears the chief of them of the charge of antinomianism. at the beginning of the digression, concerning the necessity of repentance to forgiveness of sin, pag. 113. these are mr. william's words [my business in this digression is with men of more orthodox principles,] to wit, than the antinomians. there is one whom we know, as well as any man in the world, to whom mr. williams said, before his book was all printed off, this is said with respect to mr. cole, him i mean, and here i endeavour to state, and make up the difference between him and dr. bates. hereupon that minister looked into the digression, and read some part of it, which he liked so well, as thinking it might be very useful both to confirm truth, and also to maintain peace and love among. brethren, that it was to him one motive (amongst others) which induced him to subscribe unto the stating of the truths and errors in mr. william's book. this we know to be true, we know it as certainly, as any other thing in the world; and we mention it to show, that we did not suspect that party, (as our author hath been pleased to distinguish them) much less did we accuse them of real antinomianism. so far were we from it, that we were hearty glad to find that our reverend brother had expressly owned them to be men of more orthodox principles than the antinomians: against whom, and no other, that book was written. how comes it then to be so often asserted, or insinuated, throughout the letter, that we falsely accuse them, see p. 26. and charge them with antinomianism, and put them upon a necessary self-defence? we think we are wronged in this matter, and must think so, till we see better, proof than the bare word of this author. or if any of us had really been so unjust and uncharitable, as to accuse their whole party of antinomianism, did that warrant this brother falsely to recriminate as he hath done, and to charge us, especially our younger brethren with arminianism and pelagianism? where did he learn such morals? sure we are, not in the school of christ: for christ hath taught us all, not to render evil for evil. this we say upon supposition that some of us had, sometime or other, done him wrong in this matter; which is unknown to us. but if there was no such provocation given, than this author was the more to blame, to fancy, or feign, that we had accused his party of antinomianism, that from thence he might take an occasion, to accuse us of arminianism and pelagianism. as for what any of us have, at any time, spoken or written against the antinomian tenants in dr. crisps, or such books, we thought it did not at all concern them, as being men of more orthodox principles. tho' we could not be ignorant, that there was some little difference of judgement between some of them, and us in some things, yet we did not think, nor say, that that difference amounted to antinomianism on their side; nor could we have ever thought (till the letter informed us) they would have said, that it amounted to arminianism and pelagianism on our side. but now we find we are mistaken, for they have made us know that they had not so good an opinion of us, as we had of them. yet we had rather be mistaken in this, than in the other, that is, we had rather they should, without cause, think us to be arminians and pelagians; than that ever we should have just cause to conclude any of them to be indeed antinomians. they tell the world, by the author of the letter, that they have been suspected. and we are afraid the late writings of some of them, will increase the suspicion: but what ever suspicious thoughts may be thereby raised in the minds of many; we will endeavour to hinder such thoughts from settling in our own minds, and still have the best opinion we can of our brethren, till we see further what the issue will be. we do not then now account that party to be really antinomian (whatever men's thoughts may be of some particular persons amongst them,) and we hope, and wish we may never have cause so to do. the author of the letter, in their name, hath most solemnly protested, that they are not antinomians, and we do believe it, not so much because he says it, as because we have other evidence to ground our belief upon. for we have known very worthy men of those who were formerly called congregational, that have been, as much against antinomian errors, as we ourselves are. such there are at this day, and such we doubt not there will be, when we are dead, and gathered to our fathers. if then, by his party, our author mean the reverend brethren of that persuasion aforesaid, we neither did, nor do suspect them as such. but, for all that, we are sorry, that some, who have made themselves of a party, should have also made themselves to be suspected at least of favouring antinomianism. this is the case of the author of the letter, who raised such a suspicion in the minds of some that truly loved him, by recommending dr. crisps book (as mr. williams says in his late preface, and we know it to be true) and by lending it to one, without giving the least caution against any of the errors in it. his own conscience knows this to be true. and this might very probably raise a suspicion of him in particular. and we think lie was concerned to have cleared himself, and expected that in his letter he would have done it, by disowning some of the doctrinal errors in the said book. but we are disappointed, for there we do not find that he hath so clearly disowned any of the doctrinal errors in that book, as that the people who want judgement (as his expression is) can discern, that he hath done it. this we shall endeavour to make out from several passages in the letter itself. as, 1. in page 10. all that he saith against that book is this. there are many expressions in it that we generally dislike. now this he might safely say, and yet not disown any, but in his heart believe every doctrinal point in it. there are many precious truths ill expressed by some very orthodox divines; and in such a case, we may well say that we dislike the way of expression, tho' we dearly love the truth so expressed. we find that the reverend and pious mr. rutherford in a fast sermon, preached before the house of commons in the year 1643. on dan. 6.26. saith, page 32. that the antinomian is the golden white devil, a spirit of hell clothed with all heaven, and the notions of free grace. it seems the devil of antinomianism did not appear white enough to our author in dr. crisps book; but what if he had appeared in a better and whiter dress, what if the antinomianism had been better expressed, how would the author of the letter have liked it then? truly for any thing he hath here said to the contrary, he might have liked it well enough. it is true, in the end of that paragraph he says, that error is often, and unhappily, opposed by error under truth's name. and we confess he may possibly apply one part of that passage unto dr. crisps book, and we would hope that he thereby meant, that indeed there are errors in dr. crisps book; but withal we must say, that such an acknowledgement of error to be in that book, is too obscure to be discerned by the ordinary people that want judgement, and for whose use (he saith) he wrote his book; and that because it is a general expression, which is true enough in itself, without respect to dr. crisps book, and whether it be applied thereunto or not. 2. in page 26. he says, we justly complain that in their opposing of true antinomian errors, and particularly the alleged tenants of dr. crisp, they hint that there is a party of, etc. now, pray mark how warily he expresseth himself, and how tender he seems to be of the credit of that book. he doth not say, (true antinomian errors, and particularly the tenants of dr. crisp;) for then indeed he had plainly confessed, that there are true antinomian errors in the book; but he only saith, [the alleged tenants of that doctor] by which word [alleged] he may make some people believe, that he never meant there were any true antinomian errors in that drs. book; but that true antinomian errors are alleged out of it by mr. williams and others, and that very wrongfully, as mr. chancey pretends. 3. in page 24. he says, it is not yet called in question by any, but that there is a decreed justification from eternity. here may be another juggle, for these words (there is a decreed justification from eternity) are capable of the antinomian sense, nay more, they are not fairly capable of any other sense, to understand them properly: for a decreed justification, is not the decree itself, but the object or effect of the decree. the decree itself, is from eternity, but the object and effect of the decree is in time, as dr. twiss tells us; and even common sense and reason may assure us of it. for the decree being from eternity, and the object and effect of the decree being after the decree, it cannot be from eternity too, and if it be not from eternity, it must be in time. and yet the letter saith, that a decreed justification (though it be the object or effect of the decree) is from eternity; which is the very error of the antinomians, who ignorantly confound the object and effect of the decree with the decree itself. we are sure the words of the letter, bear this sense; yet we will not positively affirm that he meant them in this sense, because we would hope, though he hath said expressly that there is a decreed justification from eternity; that yet he only meant, and would have said that there is a decree of justification from eternity. if any now should object on his behalf, and say, the that foresaid words not only may, but must be understood of the eternity of the decree itself, and cannot be understood of the eternity of the decreed justification, which is the effect of the decree; because of the distinction which follows, of a virtual and actual justification: we can easily answer that if we ourselves were true antinomians, and durst so far dissemble, as sometimes to seem not to be antinomians, we could make the opinion of justifications actual existence from eternity, consist well enough with the distinction of virtual and actual justification, mentioned in the letter. for we would understand it with respect to manifestation thus, 1. justification, which actually existed from eternity, was virtually manifested in, and by the death, and resurrection of christ. 2. it is actually manifested, and is actual in manifestation, when we lay hold on, and plead redemption in christ's blood by faith. and thus by a different use of words, a man void of the fear of god, might juggle, and at different times, and upon different occasions might please two contrary parties, and make them both believe that he were of their judgement. we do not say, that our author doth so, only we wish, that he had not expressed himself so ambiguously, but that with more plainness, and simplicity, he had declared himself against those antinomian errors. thus he had effectually removed all grounds of suspecting him any more, whereas, as he hath carried the matter in general doubtful expressions (it may be to avoid the displeasure of some of his good friends,) instead of fully clearing himself, he hath left ground to suspect him still, that if he be not a real antinomian, he is at least a favourer of them, and one that would keep up his interest amongst them; and therefore in speaking of dr. crisps book, all that he says is, that he likes not his way of expressing himself, and that there are true antinomian errors alleged out of it, but not that there are any really in it; as also he grants to the antinomians, that there is a decreed justification from eternity, which is as much as they desire: for decreed justification is distinct from, and is the object and effect of the decree: and so if justification, as it is the object and effect of the decree, be from eternity; then the antinomians and he are agreed in that matter, and both of them hold that not only the decree of justification (as of all other things) is from eternity, but that justification itself is from eternity. we do not see how men of their principles, can gather any other sense from his words: but whether he used such words on purpose to make them conceive good hopes of him, we shall neither affirm nor deny, but leave it to his own conscience. and as the antinomians may hope well of him, so will we too, but not in their way; we will hope, that he is not for the antinomians, but for the truth, and for us, notwithstanding his ambiguous expressions. now we have seen how well he hath cleared himself of the suspicion of antinomianism, which he brought upon himself by his own act and deed. let us next see how he hath cleared his party. we have declared already that we did not suspect them, much less accuse them of real antinomianism, and so they needed no clearing with respect to us: yet since the author of the letter hath told the world, that they were both suspected and accused, and since he hath undertaken to vindicate them, and to clear up their innocency, let us see how well he hath behaved himself in this matter. and for this let us look into the third page of the letter, where he thus writes, as to the party suspected of antinomianism and libertinism (in this city,) it is plain that the churches wherein they are concerned, are more strict and exact in trying of them that offer themselves to their communion, as to their faith and holiness before their admitting them; in the engagements laid on them to a gospel-walking at their admission, and in their inspection over them afterwards. as to their conversations, they are generally of the more regular and exact frame. is it not unaccountable to charge a people with licentionsness, when the chargers cannot deny, and some cannot well bear the strictness of their walk? then to confirm the argument from the more than ordinary holiness of their lives, he says that they sincerely profess that their godliness begun with, and is promoted by the faith of their principles: here we have him pleading for his party, that he hath lately associated himself unto, by an argument that reflects on his old friends, and casts dirt on all the presbyterians throughout the world. for the plain english of it is this, we and our party are more godly than you, our churches are better constituted than yours, we are also more holy in our lives than you, and this our godliness and holiness begun with the faith of our principles; therefore it is an unaccountable thing to charge any of us with antinomianism. now though we do not charge them, yet since they are by some body charged with it, or else this author tells a great untruth; we should be glad to see them better cleared than they are by this argument: for that upon which the strength of this argument depends is begged, and not proved. 1. it is taken for granted, yea it is plainly enough asserted, that their churches are better constituted, than ours, or than all the presbyterian churches throughout the world. and yet he knows that this is a thing in question, and that the controversy about it, is not yet decided; yea that most (we think) of both persuasions in england, have agreed to leave it undecided, as it was; and have agreed unto an union without the decision of it. we wish therefore that this had not been mentioned, but since he hath mentioned it, and laid stress upon it; we must refer him unto one, of whom he hath heard, and for whom, we hope, he hath yet some honourable esteem, and that is the reverend mr. wood against mr. lockyer. let him weigh well his arguments from page 127. to page 168. and look forward into the appendix, if he please. let him consider also what the ●ise and peaceable mr. durham saith of mr. wood, with respect to those very arguments, in his treatise of scandal, london edition, 1659. page 92. the reverend and most convincing writer mr. wood, etc. if those arguments do not convince our author, we leave him to please himself a while with his new chosen opinion; but we cannot allow it to be a good medium whereby to vindicate him, and his party, from the supposed charge of antinomianism. 2. he takes it for granted, nay he positively affirms, that his party are generally more holy in their lives. this is a very friendly testimony; our author may possibly think, that he hath deserved well of them by this: but we should think them to be wiser men, than to esteem him ever the better man for such a flattering like commendation of them. if an enemy had done it, or if one less concerned had said so, it would have carried in it a better grace, and would have looked upon them with a better aspect. for our parts, we know who it was that said, god i thank thee, that i am not as other men are, etc. and we desire not, to imitate such; but choose rather to say with the despised publican, god be merciful to us sinners, luke 18.13. 3. he takes it for granted, that men's appearing for a time more holy than others, is sufficient to secure them from falling under the just suspicion, or real guilt of gross and dangerous errors. we cannot be of his mind in this; 1. because we read in history and ancient writers, that tertullian and origen in the primitive church were men of extraordinary parts, see vincentius lyrinensis against heresies, from chap. 23 10.25. edit. oxon. 1631. and exemplary piety, (as appeared both by their labours, and their lives, in times of great persecution,) yet they both fell into some gross and dangerous errors. 2. because in the preface to mr. weldes book of the rise, etc. of antinomians in new england, pag. 3, 4, 5. we read, that at first they would appear very humble, holy, and spiritual christians, and full of christ; they would deny themselves far, speak excellently, pray with such soul-ravishing expressions and affections, that a stranger who loved goodness, could not but love and admire them, and so be the more easily drawn after them, looking upon them as men and women as likely to know the seerets of christ, and bosom counsels of his spirit, as any other. and this opinion of them was the more lifted up through the simplicity and weakness of their followers, who would in admiration of them, tell others, that since the apostles times, they were persuaded, none ever received so much light from god, as such and such had done, naming their leaders. 4. as they would lift up themselves, so also their opinions by gilding them over with specious terms of free grace, glorious light, gospel-truths', as holding forth naked christ: and this took much with simple honest hearts, that loved christ, especially with new converts, who were lately in bondage under sin and weath, and had new tasted the sweetness of free grace; being now in their first love to christ, they were exceeding glad to embrace any thing that might further advance christ and free grace; and so drank them in (that is their errors) readily. 5. see there their 5th. slight to spread their opinions. and, 6. mr. welde says, they commonly laboured to work first upon women— if once they could wind them in, they hoped by them, as by an eve, to catch their husbands also. whether our author designed to imitate them when he lent dr. crisps book to, etc. he knows best himself; we know nothing of his secret designs, but if he had any such design, we are hearty glad he miss his mark, and desire to bless god, that that worthy person was so well established in the principles of pure christianity, as not to be moved, unless it were to an holy indignation at some things in the foresaid book. 7. mr. weld says, that assoon as they had thus wrought in themselves, and a good conceit of their opinions, by all these ways of subtlety, into the hearts of people; nextly they strongly endeavoured with all the craft they could, to undermine the good opinion of their ministers, and their doctrine, and to work them clean out of their affections, telling them they were sorry that their teachers had so misled them, and trained them up under a covenant of works, and that themselves never having been taught of god, it is no wonder they did no better teach them the truth, and how they might sit till dooms day under their legal sermons, and never see light. our author seems to have outdone those seducers in this black art; for in the 32d. page of his letter, he says that the divines, who differ from him, do plead that same cause, which the devil pleads daily in the hearts of all natural men. we are weary of transcribing, let any, who would see further into this mystery of iniquity, consult the book itself, which is lately reprinted: but we have made use of the first edition. here our author may see the force of his argument, taken from the appearing holiness of his party. for our parts, we do not presume to censure his party, we judge well of all men, till we see good reason to alter our judgement; and had much rather be severe in our judgements upon ourselves, than upon others: nor do we more fear that the congregational churches in old england will turn antinomian, than they did in new england. there they opposed antinomianism, and testified against it, and we hope they will do the like here. but we cannot but think, that what hath been once, may possibly be again, and as some, that were of our brethren's persuasion there, fell foully into gross antinomianism, after they had for a time made an high profession, and great show of more than ordinary holiness; so may they do here: and therefore our authors argument from his parties being (as he says) more holy than ours, is not (we judge) sufficient to clear them of all suspicion of inclining that way. if any, in favour to us, should take the same argument, (for it is a leaden dagger, and may be bended which way men will,) and apply it to our party, (as our author is pleased to distinguish us,) and go about to prove thereby that we can be in no danger of falling into antinomianism, or pelagianism, or any other heresy, nor can there be any ground to suspect us, because we are holier than our brethren on the other side, or than any other people in england; we should never thank him for his pains, but rather rebuke him for his flattery; and advise him to forbear putting fallacies and tricks upon the people in favour of us. we think there is none of us all, on one side or other, how holy soever; but might fall for a time into as gross errors, as antinomianism, if the lord (to try us) should leave us to ourselves, and the tentations of satan, transforming himself into an angel of light; wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth, take heed lest he fall. 1 cor. 10.12. rom. 11.20. and thou standest by faith, be not highminded, but fear. we receive this advice from the lord, and apply it to ourselves; and we would hope that our author, and his party, will do the like. and we think they have one reason so to do, that is proper and peculiar to themselves, if they duly lay to heart how mr. d. who went out from them, is turned aside from the truth, and is drawing disciples after him into antinomianism. we need say no more to show that this part of the vindication of his consorts is insufficient to attain its end, if his end really was to vindicate them, and not rather to commend himself to them by commending them to the world, as the holiest people in england. if in other parts of his vindication, he hath had better success, and hath done them better service, we are glad of it; for we would really have them well vindicated, if they be (as he saith they are) suspected and accused. we verily believe, there are good serious people amongst them, that sincerely fear god, such we honour and love: and wish that theirs and ours were all such. and where the churches are said to be so holy, we should be glad to find that all the ministers were as holy, and that the holiness of some of them did more appear than it doth in our authors letter, or in the late writings of some others. if we should follow the example they have given us, in our way of writing, we think we should have no great cause to tell the world of our holiness. the god of all grace, through christ jesus, grant that the great and precious promises of the gospel may have a better effect upon us all, and make us more careful, and studious to cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of god, 2 cor. 7.1. we have but one thing more to say on this part of our authors vindication, and that is, whereas he says pag. 3. that his party profess sincerely that their godliness begun with the faith of their principles: we demand what principles he means whether the principles of christian religion which are common to them and us, with the other reformed churches, or certain principles proper and peculiar to them, as a party distinct from the rest? if the first, we have nothing to gainsay to it; for we ourselves do, with all our hearts, acknowledge that all the godliness wherewith the lord hath blessed us, did partly begin in, and partly proceed from the lively effectual faith of the same common principles of christian religion. but if our author mean the second, to wit, that the godliness of his party begun with the faith of certain principles proper and peculiar to them, as a party distinct from all other societies of christians; we can by no means approve of their profession in that matter. indeed we have a better opinion of our brethren, than to believe that they ever made any such profession; and we cannot think, that our author would ever sincerely, and hearty join with them in it, and so proclaim himself to have been an hypocrite till of late, that he joined himself, in full communion, with them. for we read in nethenus his preface to mr. rutherford's examen arminianismi, that he was accounted a pious, godly young man, in the year 1668. when he assisted the said nethenus in the publishing of that book of rutherford. and though he hath lately gone off from his principles, and we think from some principles contained in that book, both as to doctrine and discipline; yet we do not believe that he will even acknowledge that he hath changed his godliness with his principles, and that as he hath got new principles, so he hath a new godliness, and that he never had any before. if we should be mistaken in this our charitable opinion of him, we should be sorry for him, and could not but fear that he is in as bad a case, as he fancies the middle-way men to be in, who usually have a greater kindness (he says) for that extreme they go half way to, let. pag. 2. than for that they go half way from. for if he should be found to have made such a profession, that his godliness begun with the faith of his new principles; he is not only gone the half, but (we think) the whole way to the extreme. and that (if it should be so) will help us to account for his being so unmerciful in his censures, and accusations of us, who had rather stop in the midway than to run with him into such extremes. this puts us in mind of a passage in mr. patrick hamilton's little treatise, in the book of martyrs, vol. ii. pag. 188. col. 2. to which the letter refers us, pag. 4. and which we have read, upon our authors recommendation. the passage is this, [evil works make not a man evil] we hope our author would not have us to understand these words just as they sound, without interpretation, or distinction. we honour the memory of that blessed martyr of christ, and are willing to understand his words just as he meant them, and as they are consistent with the truth of god; and that is thus. evil works do not make a man first evil, because we are all evil by participation of the sin of our first parents from our conception and birth, psal. 51.5. john 3.6. eph. 2.3. but for all that, we know very well, that in another sense, evil works do really make a man evil, they make him gradually evil, that is, they make him worse than he was. if our author do not see the truth of this at a distance, let him bring it home to himself, and then we dare say, he will see the truth of what we affirm, that evil works will make a man evil, that is, worse than he was. for if not, then (1.) it must be either because he is so very bad already, that he cannot possibly be worse, and this, we hope, our author will confess not to be true of himself; or else (2) it must be, because he is already so very good, that let him do never so many evil works, they cannot make him evil, that is, they cannot make him worse than he was before he did them. now we cannot think that he hath such an opinion of himself: if we knew that he had, we should look upon him as a very dangerous man to have any thing to do with; for he might do us all the mischief he could by lying and slandering, or otherwise, and yet be persuaded in his own mind, that he was never a whit the worse for so doing. he and we both profess to believe that all gods regenerate, justified people are kept by the power of god through faith unto salvation, so as that they do not fall from grace, either totally, or finally. but we must profess for ourselves, that it is none of our faith, that the saints on earth are already so confirmed in goodness, that they cannot sin at all, or if they do sin, (as alas too sadly they have done, and frequently do!) that their sins do not make them evil in any degree, nor in the least, worse than they were, before they sinned. and we hope our author is not so far gone, but that he will yet join with us in this profession. for by this time (we think) he may see (if he did not before) the certain and evident truth of what we affirm, that evil works will make a man evil; that is, if he be evil already, they will make him more evil, and if he be good already, they will make him less good, and to be less good than he should be, is to be in some degree evil. see the xvith article of the church of england, which our author, and we have all subscribed; as also the iith. article of the ausburg confession of faith, and by both it will manifestly appear, that our first reformers, even the lutherans (by whom mr. hamilton, through the grace of god, was fully converted from popery, and from whom he had that passage, that evil works do not make a man evil) never thought that a good man cannot do any evil works, or that if any man, good or evil, do evil works, they will not make him evil, that is, worse than he was before he did them. in all this we do not in the least contradict the true sense of the blessed martyr mr. hamilton, but explain his words, and give the true sense of them, as will appear to any man of judgement, that will be at the pains to read attentively what he says before, and after the words we are upon. we should not have mentioned this, but that we are afraid lest ignorant, injudicious people (unto whom our author recommends that little treatise of mr. hamiltons') should wrest the words of a holy martyr, to countenance and encourage libertinism; 2 pet. 3.16. as they do wrest the sacred words of the most holy god himself, unto their own destruction. we do not by this reflect in the least upon the said martyr of blessed memory, but rather endeavour (as we are bound) to secure his good name from any reproach, which the enemies of our religion might possibly cast upon it, from a wrong, and wrested sense of his words, as they are always ready to do. this we have here provided against, by giving the true sense of his words, which being rightly understood have nothing harsh in them at all; but otherwise taken, just according to the sound of the letter, they carry a very scandalous meaning, which we dare say the holy martyr never thought of. we do not doubt therefore, but our author will confess, that we have done right to the martyr, and have rightly interpreted his saying, which he learned of luther. but if we happen to be mistaken as to our author, and he will not admit this sense we have given of the foresaid words, than he cannot be justly offended; if this be given as his character, the author of the letter, is one who holds, that no man can make himself evil by doing evil, that is, he holds that no man by doing all the evil, and mischief, that he is able to do, can make himself, in the least degree, worse than he was. and then let the world judge, how well he hath cleared himself of the suspicion of antinomianism, which he had brought upon himself. but we are really persuaded better things of our author, though we thus write upon a supposition, which we hope he will never admit, but rather than admit such a supposition with its necessary consequence, he will join with us, and say, that luther and mr. hamilton meant no more, but that evil works do not first make a man evil, because ever since the first sin of adam and eve, all mere men, besides them two, are evil by original sin, before they commit any actual sin. thus much shall suffice to have said of the occasion and design of the letter. chap. ii. of the authors errors in doctrine against the purity of our christian faith. section i. of his first error, that there is no new law of grace. the first error against our christian faith, which we find in the letter, is that there is no new law of grace, according to which the lord dispenseth unto his people the benefits and blessings of justification and eternal saulation. that we do not wrong him in charging him with this erroneous opinion, is evident from his letter, pag. 9, 18, 29. and pag. 30, 31. where he saith, that justification, upon the terms of the new law of grace, doth not agree with the sound words of the reverend assembly of divines at westminster; and that the new law of grace is a new word, but of an old and ill meaning. thus he. and this the people must believe, upon his bare word, without any proof. now to refute this, we need do no more, but refer them, that desire to know who is in the right, as to this matter, unto mr. william's defence of gospel truth, from pag. 18, to 34. where it is sufficiently proved by scripture, by reason grounded on scripture, and by the testimony of divines of the reformed churches, that there is a new law of grace, that the gospel is that law of grace, and that it is a new law of grace in the same sense that the covenant of the gospel is a new covenant of grace. this error then (that there is no new law of grace) being refuted to our hand, we might well pass it, and proceed to another. yet because the author discovers so much ignorance and boldness in what he says to the people, upon this point, we judge it expedient to insist a little upon it, both to instruct: and also to rebuke him. and because he would make the people believe (whether he believe it of us, himself; god and his own conscience know) that we consider god only as a rector, ruling by a prescribed law, in all his purposes concerning and deal with the children of men, that he may not go on deceiving and being deceived; we declare to the world, that we never thought, spoke, or wrote any such thing, as he would fasten upon us, that he may the better misrepresent us to the people, pag. 9 at the beginning, to wit, that god is only to be considered under the notion of a rector and judge, as aforesaid. where by the way, we cannot but take notice, how honestly he deals by our reverend brother mr. williams, in drawing this inference from a pretended scheme of his doctrine, [thus (saith our author) they antedate the last day, and hold forth christ as a judge, rather than a saviour.] here the world sees what doctrine he fixes upon mr. williams. next, let them turn to pag. 56. of gospel truth stated, etc. and there they will find these express words of mr. williams, [he (christ) treats with men as his subjects, whom he will now rule, and hereafter judge:] now cannot christ be our saviour, but by ceasing to be our ruler, and cannot we be saved by him, but by ceasing to be subject to him? where is that man's brains, who cannot see, if he will, that these two things do very well consist, that christ is both our saviour and ruler, at the same time? but this only on the by. we declare therefore again, that we never thought, spoke, or wrote, that god is to be considered only under the notion of a rector, or judge in all his purposes concerning and deal with the race of mankind. on the contrary we believe, that, first, god, as an absolute sovereign lord, of his own most free and gracious will and pleasure, purposed to give, and accordingly gave his only begotten son to be the redeemer, and saviour of sinful men, but not of fallen angels. secondly, that god as an absolute sovereign lord, of his own good pleasure, and according to the counsel of his own will, did before the foundation of the world, choose some, and not others, of the lapsed, and lost race of mankind, unto the participation of special, effectual, victorious grace, and eternal glory, through christ jesus. thirdly, that in the first making of the covenant, and enacting of the law of grace with us, through christ jesus, god did not act as a governor ruling us according to an external law, which he had before made for us, but as a sovereign, and gracious lord, who had freely purposed to save us in such a way by jesus christ. fourthly, that in giving the foresaid special, effectual, victorious grace to the elect, rather than to others, god doth not act as a rector, or governor, according to a stated law prescribed to us, and known by us; but according to the counsel of his own. will, and his hidden purposes and transactions with christ concerning us. fifthly, but yet, in good consistency with what we have said, we do firmly believe, that god hath enacted; and constituted a law of grace, for bestowing upon us the subsequent blessings and benefits of the covenant, such as justification and glorification. this law god hath revealed to us in the scriptures of truth, by this law he both obliges, and encourages us; to certain duties; and also, by the promises of it, obliges himself to justify and glorify us for christ's sake, if we perform the duties prescribed, and comply with the terms enjoined. it is with respect to those subsequent blessings and benefits of the covenant, that we say, the lord deals with us as a rector, and governor, ruling us by a law of grace. this law is expressed in holy scripture, in several forms of words, as that, see also ps 103.17, 18. pr. 28.13. isa. 1.16, 17, 18. & 55.7. jer. 36.3. acts 2.38. & ●. 19. & 16.31. & 26.18. heb. 5.9. & 12.14. revel. 2.10. & 3.21. & 22.14. john 8.51. ho who believeth, and is baptised, shall be saved, but he that believeth not, shall be damned, mark 16.16. and, if thou shalt confess with thy mouth, the lord jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart, that god hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved, rom. 10.9. whosoever believeth in christ, shall receive remission of sins, acts 10.43. except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish, luke 13.5. this is that which we mean by the law of grace, and our meaning is so plain, that any man endued with common sense, and reason, may understand it. but our brethren do not like the thing itself. and why, we pray, do not they like it? 1. is it because it is called a law? why the scriptures of truth call it so expressly, rom. 3.27. the law of faith. gal. 6.2. the law of christ. the messiah's law; the isles shall wait for his law, isa. 42.4. or, 2. is it because it obligeth to duty with a promise of blessing to the performers, and with a threatening of misery and punishment to the neglecters, refusers and despisers? if this be the reason wherefore they like it not, then let them receive an answer from the lords own mouth; luke 19.27. those mine enemies, which would not that i should reign over them, bring them hither, and slay them before me. but we have better hopes of our brethren. or, 3. is it because we call it a law of grace? why we call it a law of grace, because it really is so, it is a gracious law: for it is a federal, or covenant-law, that makes rich offers of grace, of justifying and glorifying grace; and it is a means also whereby the lord conveys unto his people regenerating and sanctifying grace, it is a means which the lord hath ordained to bring his people to faith, repentance, and gospel-obedience: therefore it may well be called a law of grace. and we think none should, and especially our angry brethren, should not like it the worse, because we call it, and it really is a law of grace: they do not like the covenant of the gospel the worse, because it is called the covenant of grace; and why then should they like this law of christ, the worse, because we call it the law of grace? especially when we tell them, that this law of grace is the conditional part of the covenant of grace, it is that part of the covenant of grace, which respects the way of god's dispensing to us the subsequent blessings and benefits of the covenant, such as pardon of sin; and eternal salvation. and doth not the apostle, rom. 4.16. say expressly, that it is of faith, that it might be by grace. or, 4. and lastly, is it because we call it a new law? if that be it that displeaseth, why should our brethren be displeased on that account, since they know (if it be not their own fault) that we call it the new law in no other sense, than as we call the covenant of grace, the new covenant? this law of grace we speak of, is both new and old in different respects; it is new in respect of the covenant of works made with man in his state of innocency: for that covenant of works was before this law of grace which came after, and therefore is comparatively new. again, as we christians have it, it is called new, because we have the newest, and clearest and last edition of it. and as in these respects it is new, so in other respects it is old; it is old as the substance of it hath had an existence in the church of god, ever since the first promise of grace made to our first parents after the fall. it is the everlasting gospel, rev. 14.7. heb. 12.26, 27, 28, 29. which hath been in the church under various forms of administration, and will continue, in us newest and excellentest form unto the end of the world. we hear it is said by some, that the command to believe and repent, with the promise of pardon to the penitent believer; and the threatening of punishment to the impenitent unbeliever, cannot be an evangelical law, because god doth not give unto all, special grace to enable them to believe and repent in obedience to that command. we answer, 1. if that be it that hinders it from being a law, then notwithstanding that reason, it is a law to all god's elect, for to them he gives, through christ, the said special grace. 2. we deny the consequence, god gives not special grace to the non-elect therefore the command to believe and repent, with the annexed conditional promise of pardon, and threatening of punishment, cannot be a law to them. it may be, and is a law to them, though the said special grace is not given them. and whereas it is objected, that without such special grace the non-elect cannot obey that law. we answer, 1. that their cannot, their impotence is not physical, but moral, they cannot be cause they will not. 2. the non-elect, to whom the evangelical law is promulgated together with it receive more commongrace, more light and power from the lord, in order to their obeying his revealed will, than they make a good use of. hence the professors of leyden, in their synopsis of purer divinity, writ thus concerning this matter, diligenter notandum est, etc. disp. 24. thes. 54, 55. p. 290, 291. it is diligently to be noted, that this nonelection doth not take away, or deny; all grace in the non-elect, but only that grace which is peculiar to the elect. but that grace which in various measures, is dispensed unto ●on by the administration of common providence, whether under the law of nature, or under the evangelical grace, is not taken away by this act of preterition, or nonelection; but is rather presupposed: because the non elect are left under that common government of divine providence, and the exercise of their own freewill. but this administration of common providence, always hath conjoined with it that communication of benefits external and internal; which in perfect of innocent nature was indeed sufficient to salvation, as it is manifest in the reprobate angels, and in all mankind, considered in our first parents before the fall; but in corrupt nature so much remains, or is superadded to nature under the gospel, that they are bereft and deprived of all pretence of excuse before the divine judgement, as the apostle testifies, acts 14.17. rom. 1.20. & 2.1. john 15.22.— and elsewhere. thus the professors of leyden. and dr. owen in his discourse concerning the holy spirit, page 198. says, that where special grace and real conversion is not attained (to wit by means of common grace, of which he is there writing,) it is always from the interposition of an act of wilfulness, and stubbornness, in those enlightened and convicted. they do not sincerely improve what they have received, and faint not mierly for want of strength to proceed, but by a free act of their own wills, they refuse the grace which is further tendered unto them in the gospel. so much briefly, in answer to the foresaid objection; which was cast into our way; and it being removed, we go on with our author, who in pag. 30. saith, that [new law of grace is a new word, but of an old and ill meaning:] very well! here is a pretty jingle of words, and it may be he, or some that he knows, are much pleased with such trifles; and if so, here they are fitted. for our parts, we cannot see what should move him to say, that the new law of grace is a new word, of an old and ill meaning, but that either he himself was much pleased with the jingle, or else (which we rather think) he intended to please some of his consorts, and to make them remember the thing for the sake of the little wit he had showed in expressing it. and if that was his intended end, it is pity he should fail of obtaining it, and that people should not remember it for ever, for that reason (which will for ever hold true) that there was little wit in it. but you will say, how doth that appear? why very plainly thus, there is little wit, and less grace, in boldly asserting a notorious falsehood, in matter of fact, in the face of a learned age. but this the author of the letter hath done, in asserting, that new law of grace is a new word of an old, but ill meaning. to prove this, it being matter of fact, there needs no more, but to show from the testimony of credible witnesses, who lived many hundred years ago, that the words are not new, but were used in the christian church in a good sense and meaning long before we were born. without doubt we might bring multitudes of witnesses, from among the ancient writers of the church, to prove this matter of fact, if it were needful; but we shall content ourselves with a few, whereof some are such as our author cannot in reason except against, because he himself hath suborned them to bear witness (and that false witness too) for him, against us. we have showed already that the apostle paul expressly calls it, the law of faith, rom. 3.27. and says that it is of faith, that it might be by grace, rom. 4.16. and that is as much as if he had said, both together in one place, that it is the law of grace. we will pass the testimony of ignatius, though in his epistle to the magnesians he expressly mentions the law of christ; because it is disputed that his epistles, even those of best credit, have been much interpolated and corrupted: and our cause needs not the testimony of suspected witnesses. therefore after blessed paul, paris edit. an. 1636. p. 228. we begin with justin the martyr, as our first witness. that blessed martyr, in his dialogue with trypho the jew, writes thus, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. but now,— for i have read, o trypho, that there shall be a latter or after-law, and a testament, or covenant, of the greatest, or most excellent authority of all, which testament, or covenant, now all men must keep, whosoever they be, that would obtain possession of the inheritance of god. for the law that was given in horeb, is now old, and concerns you jews only; but this after law concerns all men, absolutely and universally. and when one law is set against another law, the latter disannuls the former. again, in the same page, justin saith, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. by the works, (or gracious effects) and the power which follows, or accompanies it, all may understand, pag. 231. pag. 251. that this is the new law. afterwards he calls christ the new law giver. and he says, ye jews deceive yourselves by equivocal words or speeches, for where the law of the lord is said, to be faultless, ye expound it not, of that law which was to come after, but of the law given by moses, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. god loudly saying, that he would make a new law, and a new covenant. thus did justin assert a new law above fifteen hundred years ago, for he wrote his apology for the christians, and christian religion, to antoninus p●● the emperor, in the year 150, and about the year 163, he sealed the truth of the gospel with his blood. our next witness is cyprian, operum cypriani tomo 1. e●ist 11 ma. edit. pamel. anno 1617. who also sealed the truth with his blood, about the middle of the third century, that is above fourteen hundred years ago. this holy martyr, in his 11th. epistle to the martyrs and confessors, several times calls it, evangelii lex, the law of the gospel. again, in the first of his three books of testimonies against the jews, to quirinus. his 10th. chapter is, quod lex nova dari haberet, that a new law was to be given; ibid. tom. 2. pag. 201.202. which he proves by these testimonies of holy scripture, mic. 4.2. isa. 2.3. matth. 17.5. his 11th. chapter is, quod dispositio alia & testamentum novum dari haberet; that another administration, and a new testament, or covenant, was to be given; which he proves from jer. 31.31, 32, 33, 34. his 13th. chapter is, quod jugum vetus evacuaretur, & jugum novum daretur, that the old yoke should be made null and void, and that a new yoke should be given; which he proves from psal. 2.1, 2, 3. matth. 11.28, 29, 30, etc. these passages, cited out of cyprian's works, manifestly show, that as he expressly called the gospel a law, and a new law, so he held it to be a law of grace: for he says, that though it be a new yoke laid upon us, yet it is a light yoke, and an easy burden. after cyprian, his countryman augustin, that famous light of the christian church in africa, shall appear to give in his testimony to the foresaid matter of fact. thus than he writes in the 18th. chapter of his book, concerning grace and , haec praecepta charitatis inaniter darentur hominibus, lib. de grat. & lib. arbit. cap. 18. non habentibus liberum arbitrium: sed quia per legem dantur & veterem & novam, etc. these commandments of love (saith augustin) would be given in vain to men, if they had not free will: but because they are given both by the old and new law, (although the grace is come in the new, which was promised in the old, but the law without grace is a kill letter, whereas in (or with) grace, it is a quickening spirit) whence is in men the love of god and our neighbour, but from god himself? this passage out of augustin we have faithfully transcribed, and truly translated. now it is well known, that augustin lived, and died, above twelve hundred years ago; and he saith expressly, that the law of christ, which we are under, is the new law, and he proves this new law to be a law of grace. so that new law of grace, is so far from being a new word of an old, but ill meaning, that it is a considerable time above 1200 hundred years ago, since the learned and holy augustin used the word in a very good sense, and meaning. again, the same father, in his book to marcellinus, de spiritu & litera, cap. 14. saith, de spiritu & lit. cap. 14. the letter of the law forbidding sin, doth not justify any man, but rather kills him by increasing concupiscence, and accumulating iniquity through prevarication: (nisi liberet gratia per legem fidei, quae est in christo jesus) vnlest grace deliver him, or set him free by the law of faith, which is in christ jesus. here again. augustin saith, that we are freed from death by a law, that that law is the law of faith; that that law of faith is a law of grace, for by that law, grace frees us from death: and he likewise gives us plainly to understand; that that gracious law, is a new law, for he says it is the law of faith, which is in christ jesus. now it is clear, that the law of faith in christ already exhibited in the flesh, crucified, dead and buried, raised from the dead; glorified, and appointed to be lord of all, and judge of quick and dead; made perfect, and become the author of eternal salvation to all them that obey him: must needs be a new law, if we compare it with any law that went before it. for before the coming of christ, no man was or could be, obliged to believe in him, as already incarnate, crucified and glorified; otherwise men had been obliged to believe a falsehood. in the same fifth century salvian of marseilles wrote his eight books of the government of god, where he calls the gospel the christian law: book 4th pag. 140. edit. ox. 1633. in nobis christus p●●itur opprobrium, in ●nobis patitur, lex christiana maledictum: saith he, christ suffers reproach, by reason of us wicked christians, the christian law is evil spoken of by reason of us. we might bring others of the fathers for witnesses in this cause, but for the present we will content, ourselves with these, especially the first three, justin the martyr, cyprian end augustin, who all call the gospel a new law. our next witness is bradwardin, who though he be none of the fathers, yet he lived above three hundred years ago, and our author cannot in reason except against him, because he says in the 13th. page of the letter, that he was a blessing to england; and he would make the world believe, that he is for him against us. let us hear what he says in this cause. deus dedit hominibus talem legem, de causâ dei contra pelagiam, cap. 1. pag. 29. & quam legem, si non legem sanctissimam christianam? god gave unto men such a law, and what law, but the most holy christian law? again, he thus argues, si sola lex naturae sufficeret homini, etc. if the law of nature alone were sufficient for a man unto all things whatsoever, ibid p. 63, 64. wherefore hath god, who doth nothing in vain, even by your own confession, given another law, yea other laws, the old and the new, as what w●● said: before, doth testify, especially since both these laws, (to wit old and new, of moses, and of christ,) are more difficult to know, and hard to keep (than the law of nature?) for who that is wise doth any thing by more means, which may be sufficiently done by fewer, as natural reason, and all philosophers unanimously testify? unless perhaps it may be done more decently or neatly, more profitably, and better by many means, than by few; which if it be true of positive laws, and especially of the christian law, why do you not receive it, and hold it? here bradwardin expressly calls our christian law, a positive new law, as distinct both from the law of nature and moses. and in the same page 64. he maintains that it is a law with a sanction of the greatest reward, and punishment imaginable. sic & deus summus oeconomus in maxima domo sua, etc. so also god is the highest ruler in his most great house, the highest prince in his most great principality, and the highest king of kings in his most great kingdom; wherefore than cannot he enact or ordain, that whosoever shall keep the christian law, shall receive eternal glory, and that they who shall not keep, but contemn it, shall be deprived of glory, and shall inour eternal damnation; surely he could do it, and he hath done it, as is manifest by what hath been said before. by this passage it is as clear as the light, that bradwardin held, that the gospel of christ is a law, with a sanction of reward and punishment; and yet notwithstanding its sanction of punishment, as well as reward, he held it to be a law of grace; as augustin did before him, and as manifestly appears from the main scope of his book of the cause of god against the pelagians; and therefore we forbear to quote any more out of it at present. from the premises it is clear, that above 300 years ago, the profound doctor bradwardin expressly affirmed the law of christ to be a positive new law, with a sanction of reward and punishment; and the scope of his book is to prove it to be a law of grace. and by all this, we think the world may now see, that the author of the letter told a great untruth, when he affirmed, that the new law of grace, is a new word, but of an old, and ill meaning; and hence also people may learn what credit to give unto the word of that man. from fathers, and ancient writers, we will come lower down, and see what some of our modern divines, since the reformation, have said in this cause; and first, when we look abroad, we find that the professors of leyden, in their synopsis of purer divinity, say expressly, disp. 22. thesi. 32. that evangelium aliquando legis titulo insignitur, etc. the gospel is sometimes called a law, because it also hath its own commandments, and its own promises and threaten. we find also, that the learned gomarus, not only allows the gospel to be called the law of grace, but likewise gives the reason why it is so called, in these words,— beneficii ratione, evangelium, gomari operum par. 3. disp. 14. thesi. 30. etc.— with respect unto, and because of the benefit promised in it, the gospel in holy scripture is called the word of the lords grace, (acts. 14.3.) the gospel of the grace of god, (acts 20.24.) the gospel of peace, (eph. 6.15. isa. 52.7. rom. 10.15.) and the testament or covenant, (2 cor. 3.6.) and from the prescription, evang. est lex dei 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. or appointment of the condition, and duty contained in it, it is called the law of faith, (rom. 3.27.) and the law of god by way of eminency, or excellency. isa. 2.3. and truly this was excellently said by gomatus: no man (we think) can give a better account, why the gospel is called the law of grace. and next when we look homewards again, and cast our eyes upon our own british divines, we find the greatest of them clearly of the same mind, that the gospel is a law, in the sense before explained, it is the new law of grace. we will instance in two only at present. the first is bishop andrews, no popish bishop, (such as bradwardin was, whom our author quotes with such an elogium, against us) but a protestant bishop, and a zealous protestant, who held rome to be mystical babylon, and the pope to be antichrist, as appears from what he wrote in tortura torti. pag. 183, 184, 185, 186, 187. now this zealous protestant, in his 17th. sermon of the nativity, on psal. 2.7. writes thus, [we had well hoped christ would have preached no law; all gospel, he. bp. andrews volume of sermons. pag. 161. that he would have preached down the old law, but not have preached up any new. we see it is otherwise. a law he hath to preach, and preach it he will: he saith himself, praedicabo legem. so if we will be his auditors, he tells us plainly we must receive a law from his mouth. if we love not to hear of a law; we must go to some other church: for in christ's church (there) a law is preached. christ began, we must follow, and say, every one of us, (as he saith,) praedicabo legem. christ will preach a law, and they that are not for the law, are not for christ. it was their quarrel above, (at the 3d. verse) they would none of christ, for this very cause, that christ comes preaching a law, and they would live lawless: they would endure no yoke, that were the sons of belial. belial (that is) no yoke. but what agreement hath christ with belial? 2 cor. 6.15.— the very gospel hath her law. a law evangelical there is, which christ preached: and as he did, we to do the like.— look but into the grand commission (by which we all preach.) which christ gave at his going out of the world. go (saith he, mar. 28.19.) preach the gospel to all nations, teaching them, what? to observe the things that i have commanded you. lo, here is commanding, and here is observing. page 162. so the gospel consists not only of certain articles to be believed, but of certain commandments, and they to be observed. now (i know not how) but we are fallen clean from the term (law;) nay we are even fallen out with it: nothing but gospel now. the name of law we look strangely at: we eat it in our common talk. to this it is come, while men seek to live as they list. preach them gospel as much as ye will: but (hear ye) no law to be preached, to hold or keep them in. and we have gospelled it so long, that the christian law is clean gone with us.— i speak it to this end, to have the one term retained as well as the other, to have neither term abolished; but with equal regard both kept on foot. they are not so well advised, that seek to suppress either name. if the name once be lost, the thing itself will not long stay, but go after it, and be lost too.— the christian religion, in the very best times of it, was called christiana lex, the christian law;— and all the ancient fathers liked the term well; and took it upon them. to conclude, gospel it how you will, if the gospel have not the legalia of it acknowledged, allowed, and preserved to it; if once it lose the force and vigour of a law: it is a sign it declines, it grows weak and unprofitable, and that is a sign it will not long last. and page 165. he saith, (1.) there is the benefit of this law, what he doth for us. (2.) and than what we are to do for him, our duty out of this law. the benefit is the gospel of this law, the duty is the law of this gospel. and page 166, they speak of laws of grace; this is indeed a law of grace; nay it is the law of grace: not only as it is opposite to the law of nature, but even because it offereth grace, the greatest grace that ever was. this was printed and published in the year 1624. and that was before most of us were born. and yet even then the gospel was expressly called, the new law of grace, by bishop andrews; and therefore it is no new word, which we have lately invented. and not only bishop andrews, who was every whit as expert as our author can be, in making a jingling noise with words, which was more in fashion then, than it is now; but the famous dr. twiss, who was used to a scholastic close way of reasoning, both says, and proves that the gospel is a law. therefore he shall be our last witness in this cause. now in his answer to an arminian book called the synod of dort and arles reduced to practice, he plainly asserts, as we do, that god deals with men not merely as an absolute sovereign arbitrary lord, but as a ruler and governor, according to a known law in giving unto them, or withholding from them, the subsequent blessings and benefits, of the new covenant. his words are these [now like as the act of god's decree, pag. 40.41, 42. is of the mere pleasure of god, no temporal thing being fit to be the cause of the eternal decree of god; in like sort the giving of faith and repentance proceeds merely of the good pleasure of god. according to that, god hath mercy on whom he will, rom. 9.18. and to obtain mercy at the hand of god, is to obtain faith, rom. 11.30. but as for glory and salvation, we do not say that god in conferring it, proceeds according to the mere pleasure of his will; but according to a law, which is this (whosoever believeth shall be saved;) which law, we willingly profess, he made according to the mere pleasure of his will, but having made such a law, he proceeds according to it. no such law hath he made, according whereunto to proceed in the dispensation of the grace of faith and repentance. in like manner the dr. there distinguishes between the denial of special grace, of faith, and repentance, and the denial of glory. as for the first, the denial of special grace to some, when god gives it to others, the doctor says, that god proceeds therein according to the mere pleasure of his will; but as to the second, his own words are these, [as touching the denial of glory, and inflicting damnation, god doth not proceed according to the mere pleasure of his will, but according to a law, which is this, (whosoever believeth not; shall be damned.) and albeit god made that law, according to the mere pleasure of his will; yet no wise man will say, that he denies glory, and inflicts damnation on men according to the mere pleasure of his will: the case being clear, that god denies the one, and inflicts the other, merely for their sins, who are thus dealt withal.— and in the next page [like as god inflicts not damnation, but by way of punishment, so he doth not bestow salvation, on any of ripe years, but by way of reward. yet here also is a difference, for damnation is inflicted by way of punishment for the evil works sake which are committed, but salvation is not conferred by way of reward, for the good works sake, which are performed, but merely for christ's sake. thus the doctor in that book. and that you may see, that this passage did not drop inconsiderately from his pen, we will show from another book, which he wrote afterwards, that this was his settled judgement, and that he was firmly, and fully persuaded of this great gospel-truth. it is dr. twiss his answer to mr. hoard's book, called god's love to mankind. pag. 37.38. [as touching the conferring of glory, god doth not bestow this on whom he will, finding men equal without any moving cause thereunto, even in man; for though there be no moving cause thereunto in man, of its own nature; yet there is to be found a moving cause in man, by constitution divine, whereby god is, as it were, moved to bestow salvation on some, and not on others. for god hath made a gracious promise, that whosoever believeth and repenteth, and continueth in faith and repentance unto death; shall be saved; and whosoever believeth not, and repenteth not, shall be damned. so then, though men are equal in original sin, and in natural corruption, and god bestows faith and repentance on whom of them he will, curing their corruption in whom he will; yet when he comes to the conferring of glory, men are not found equal in moral condition; and accordingly god cannot be said in like manner, to bestow glory and salvation on whom he will. for he hath tied himself by his own constitution to bestow salvation on none, but such as die in the state of grace. yet i confess, some say that god bestows salvation on whom he will, inasmuch as he is the author of their faith and repentance, and bestows these graces on whom he will: yet certainly there is a different manner in the use of this phrase of bestowing this, or that, on whom he will. for when god bestows faith and repentance, he finds them on whom he will bestow it, no better than others: but when he comes to the bestowing of glory, he finds them, on whom he bestows that, far better than others.— and a little after, [albeit (saith he) god hardeneth whom he will, by denying unto them, the grace of faith and repentance; yet notwithstanding, like as it is just with god, to inflict damnasion upon them, for that sin, whether original or actual, wherein he finds them when the ministry of the word is offered them: so likewise it cannot be denied to be just with god, to leave their infidelity and impenitence wherein he finds them, uncured. but yet because god hath not made any such constitution, namely, that whosoever is found in infidelity and impenitence, shall be so left and abandoned by him: therefore he is properly said, as to cure it in whom he will, so to leave it unoured in whom he will, finding them all equal in original sin, and consequently lying equally in this their natural infidelity and impenitence. so we may justly say, there is no cause at all, in man of this difference, to wit, why god cures infidelity and impenitency in one, and not in another, but it is the mere pleasure of god, that is the cause of this difference.— but (2.) as touching the denial of glory, and inflicting of damnation, which is the second thing decreed in reprobation, there is always found a cause motive, yea and meritorious hereof, to wit, both of the denial of the one, and inflicting of the other: and god doth not proceed herein according to the mere pleasure of his will, and that by reason of his own constitution, having ordained that whosoever continueth finally in infidelity, in profane courses, and impenitency, shall be damned. and albeit on the other side it may be said, in some sense, (as i formerly showed) that god saves whom he will, in as much as he is the author of faith, which he bestows on whom he will; yet in no congruous sense can he be said to damn whom he will, for as much as he is not the author of sin, as he is the author of faith. for every good thing he works, but sin and the evil thereof, he only permits, not causeth. and lastly, as god doth not damn whom he will, but those only whom he finds finally to have persevered in sin without repentance: so neither did he decree to damn, or reprobate to damnation whom he will, but only those who should be found finally to persevere in sin without repentance. again in the same book, pag. 106. but i (saith twiss) shall tell you the chief flourish whereupon this author (and usually the arminians) doth insist in this his lose argumentation, i conceive it to be this; they hope their credulous readers, unexpert in distinguishing between god's eternal decree, and the temporal execution thereof, will be apt hereupon to conceit, that we maintain that god doth not only of mere pleasure decree whatsoever he decreeth; but also that he doth decree, of mere pleasure to damn men: which yet is utterly contrary (if i be not deceived) to the tenet of all our divines: all concurring in this, that god in the execution of the decree of damnation proceeds according to a law, and not in the execution of reprobation only, but also in the execution of election; and the law is this, whosoever believes shall be saved, whosoever believes not shall be damned; and like as he inflicteth not damnation, but by way of punishment, so he confers not salvation but by way of reward. again, pag. 184. [god hath not wished, but ordained, and made it a positive law; that whosoever believeth shall be saved, and here hence it followeth that if all, and every man, from the beginning of the world to the end, shall believe in christ, all and every one of them, shall be saved] and pag. 229. [as for salvation, that is appointed to be bestowed, only by way of reward of foregoing faith, repentance, and good works.— and a little after in the same page, [indeed our profession is, that god's purpose is to bestow salvation by way of reward of faith, repentance and good works: and accordingly there is no other assurance of election, than by faith and holiness, ● thess. 1.3, 4 remembering the work of your faith, the labour of your love, and the patience of your hope, knowing, beloved brethren, that ye are elect of god. and st. peter exhorts christians to make their election and vocation sure, by joining virtue with their faith, and with virtue knowledge, and with knowledge temperance, and with temperance patience, and with patience godliness, and with godliness brotherly kindness, and with brotherly kindness love, 2 p●t. 1.5, 6, 7, 10.] thus dr. twiss speaks our sense according to our hearts desire; and maintains the gospel to be a law, as much as we do. but now, it may be, our author will object that in all this, dr. twiss speaks only of a law according to which god proceeds in bestowing, or not bestowing eternal life and glory upon men, but not of a law, according to which he justifies and pardons men. we answer, 1. the reason of that was, because the doctor's adversaries gave him occasion to speak there of god's law, according to which he glorifies, or damns men eternally, and not of the gospel-law, according to which he either justifies, or not justifies men. but, 2. we say, that the doctor's judgement was the same as to both, to wit, as to justification, as well as to glorification, and that, 1. because in his answer to the foresaid arminian book, called the synod of dort and arles reduced to practice, pag. 16. these are his express words, [we say that pardon of sin, and salvation, of souls, are benefits purchased by the death of christ, to be enjoyed by men, but how? not absolutely, but conditionally, to wit, in case, and only in case, they believe.] and pag. 28. [men are called upon to believe, and promised that upon their faith, they shall obtain the grace of remission of sins and salvation; and these graces may be said to be offered unto all upon condition of faith.] and pag. 189. the promises assured by baptism, according to the rule of god's word, i find to be of two sorts: some are of benefits procured unto us by christ, which are to be conferred on us conditionally;— they of this first sort are justification and salvation. and pag. 190. justification and salvation is promised in the word, and assured in the sacraments upon performance of a condition on man's part. now the condition of justification and salvation, we all acknowledge to be faith. and in his other book against hoard, [some benefits (saith the doctor) are bestowed upon man only conditionally (though for christ's sake,) and they are the pardon of sin, and salvation of the soul, twiss against hoard. p. 154. and these god doth confer only upon the condition of faith and repentance.] all these are the doctor's own express words, by which it plainly appears, that his judgement was the same, with respect both to justification, and glorification; and that he held, that god dispenseth to us both these benefits for christ's sake, according to a law. 2. we say, that the doctor's judgement was the same as to both, because there is the like reason for both, and the doctor's own argument holds for the law of justification, as strongly as for the law of glorification; since god hath as much constituted, and ordained, that all penitent believers, and none (of ripe years) but penitent. believers shall be justified, as that all penitent, persevering believers, and no others, shall be glorified. as it is written, john 3.18. he that believeth on christ the son of god, is not condemned; but he that believeth not, is condemned already, acts 3.19. & 26.18. because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten son of god. luke 13.3, 5. except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish. acts 2.38. repent and be baptised every one of you in the name of jesus christ, for the remission of sins. acts 10.43. to him give all the prophet's witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins. acts 13.39. by him all that believe are justified, etc. rom. 3.25. god hath set him forth to be a propitation through faith in his blood. rom. 4.24. it shall be imputed to us, if we believe. these testimonies of holy writ do as certainly, and evidently show, that god proceeds according to a stated rule, and standing law of his own making, in justifying, or not justifying men: as any other testimonies do show, that he proceeds according to a stated rule, and standing law, in glorifying, or not glorifying men. 3. we answer, that our wise accuser, in the end of the 18th. and beginning of the 19th. pages of his letter, seems plainly to be as much against god's proceeding according to a law, in glorifying men, or not glorifying them at death; as he is against god's proceeding according to a law, in justifying them, or not justifying them before death: otherwise we would fain know what he means by saying, [that the doctrine of conditions, qualifications, and rectoral government, and the distribution of rewards and punishments, according to the new law of grace, will make but an uneasy bed to a dying man's conscience, and will leave him in a very bad condition at present, and in dread of worse, when he is feeling in his last agonies, that the wages of sin is death, if he cannot by faith add, the gift of god is eternal life, through jesus christ our lord.] we profess we cannot see what our author should design by this passage; but to reflect upon us as subverters of the true grounds of christian comfort, and as driving people to despair by our doctrine of god's being a governor and judge, who distributes eternal rewards and punishments unto men, see rev. 11.18. who live in the visible church, according to the rule of the evangelical law, and as he finds them to be qualified through grace, or not qualified; to have performed the condition, or not to have performed the condition; to have complied with the terms of the evangelical law, or not to have complied with them: we say, we cannot see what other design he should have therein, but thus to reflect upon us. and if this was really his design, than he denies that god proceeds according to a law, as well in glorifying, or not glorifying; as in justifying, or not justifying men: and therein he opposes dr. twiss, and all our other divines that he known of, as well as us. and further upon that principle, that there is no such stated rule, and known standing law, according to which, god hath assured us, that he will either give eternal life through jesus christ our lord; or inflict eternal death: we challenge our author to show us, how in an ordinary way, without a miracle, the dying disconsolate man can be assured by faith that god, for christ's sake, will give eternal life to him in particular, and not inflict upon him eternal death for his sins. for if god have not revealed in his written word, to men, that through christ he will give eternal life unto all penitent believers, and consequently to that dying man in particular, if he be really a true penitent believer: we say, if god hath not revealed this in his written word, but kept it secret within himself, as a thing which he will give arbitrarily as he pleaseth, without regard to any stated rule, or known law; how is it possible for the poor dying man, without an immediate extraordinary revelation, to know but that eternal death, which he knows he hath deserved, and not eternal life, which he cannot possibly deserve, shall be his everlasting portion? what depends upon the mere arbitrary will and pleasure of god, can never be known by man, unless god reveal it, either by his written word alone, or by his word and spirit conjunct, or by his spirit immediately without the word. but the poor disconsolate man can have no hopes that god will reveal it to him by his written word alone, or by his written word and spirit together; because according to the principle aforesaid, the written word is supposed to say nothing at all of that matter: therefore if ever it be revealed to the man, (and so if ever he be comforted) in this world, it must be by the spirit without the word: and then all the poor disconsolate man's ground of comfort must be reduced to this, that god will reveal it to him by his spirit immediately without the written word. but then we demand how our author will be able to assure the poor disconsolate dying man, that god will really do so, that god will reveal it to him by his spirit immediately without the written word. for that immediate extraordinary revelation being a thing that depends also upon god's arbitrary free will, he may do it or not do it as he pleaseth; and if god may freely not do it, how can our author ever assure the man, that he will do it? that is, that he will by his spirit immediately and extraordinarily reveal to him without the written word, that he shall have eternal life and not eternal death for his portion? but now if our author should say that god hath given unto man a promise in his written word to ground his faith upon, though he hath not given a stated rule, and standing positive law according to which he will proceed with man at death and judgement. we would readily reply thus, either the promise in the written word, made to the dying disconsolate man, is an absolute promise, that god for christ's sake will give him eternal life, however it be with him, whether he be converted or unconverted, penitent or impenitent, believer, or unbeliever? and we are sure there is no such promise in the bible, and to tell him of such a promise, would be at once to belie god, and to delude the poor man. or, (2.) it is a conditional promise, that god for christ's sake will give him eternal life; if through grace he unfeignedly repent of all his sins, and believe on christ with a lively effectual faith, a faith working by love; which he is bound to do under the pain of eternal death? if this be the promise that the poor dying man must ground his faith upon, that god for christ's sake will give him eternal life, than this is the very thing which dr. twisse, and we after him, call the law according to which god proceeds in dispensing to his people the subsequent blessings of the covenant, such as justification and glorification are: and so our author comes over into our camp, which he must do at last, and confess, if not to us, at least to god, that he hath grossly misrepresented and falsely accused christ's faithful ministers, and hath endeavoured to delude the people, and to render the ministers odious to the people, and thereby to hinder the success of their ministry: and he must sincerely repent of having done so. but if he will yet go on in the way of his own heart, we shall be sorry for him, and not cease to pray the lord (if it be his will) to have mercy on him, and to give him repentance for the scandalous sin which he hath committed in publicly slandering christ's ministers, and in boldly asserting a notorious falsehood in matter of fact, saying, that the new law of grace, is a new word, of an old, but ill meaning. and that he hath really done so, we have not only said, but proved by the plain testimonies of credible witnesses, whereof two sealed the truth of the gospel with their blood, above fourteen hundred years ago. sect. ii. of his second error that the covenant of grace is absolute and not conditional. secondly the author of the letter asserts that the covenant of grace is absolute and not conditional, as appears from page 18. at the end, and page 24. and particularly he denies that faith in christ is the condition of justification, page 8. [some say that faith justifies as it is a fulfilling of the condition of the new covenant, if thou believest thou shalt be saved.] this he finds fault with, and opposes to it, the old protestant doctrine (as he calls it) that the place of faith in justification, is only that of a hand or instrument, etc. where we observe, (1.) that he makes faith its being a condition, and its being a hand or instrument, to be two opposite things, the one whereof is inconsistent with and destructive of the other; and so in this he not only fights against us, but likewise against the assembly of divines at westminster, who held faith to be both an instrument and a condition in the matter of justification, as was showed before. (2.) he makes it to be new doctrine, and contrary to the old protestant doctrine, to hold that faith is a condition of the covenant of grace, and that we are justified by faith, as a condition of the covenant; wherein he makes the assembly as well as us, to be preachers of a new doctrine, and corrupters of the gospel; since they likewise held faith to be a condition of the covenant, as aforesaid. and again in page 9 [we say that faith in christ is neither work nor condition, nor qualification in justification, but is a mere instrument] and he affirms that their saying so, is that by which the fire is kindled. so that (saith he in page 10.) [it is come to that as mr. christopher fowler said, that he that will not be antichristian, must be called an antinomian.] here it is very remarkable, that he not only denies faith to be either work, condition, or qualification in the matter of justification, but he also in effect affirms, that it is antichristian to assert that faith is either work, condition, or qualification, and that he will therefore rather choose to be called an antinomian for denying, than to be an antichristian for affirming it. this is and must be his meaning, or else he was dreaming, and knew not what he did, when he cited mr. fowler, and brought in his judicious saying, with a (so that it is come to that as mr. fowler said, etc.) finally in page 25, at the beginning, he says, that faith in the office of justification is neither condition nor qualification, but in its very act is a renouncing of all such pretences. from all which it is plain, that we do not wrest his words, nor charge him with an opinion which he doth not hold; for he so firmly holds the covenant of grace to be absolute and not conditional, and particularly that faith is neither the condition of obtaining justification, nor a qualification of the person then justified when he believes, that he glories to be accounted an antinomian, rather than renounce that opinion, page 24. and he holds it to be new and antichristian doctrine to maintain that faith is either a condition of obtaining justification, or a qualification of the person justified or to be justified in that instant of time wherein he believes. before we refute this opinion, we will briefly declare to the world what our faith is in this matter. and, first, we do not hold that there is any antecedent condition of the covenant of grace: our meaning is plainly this, that there is nothing required to be necessarily performed by us as a condition before the lord will make us partakers of any grace, even of the first grace of the covenant. for we believe that the first grace is given absolutely, and the lords giving of it, is not suspended on our performing of some antecedent condition by our mere natural strength; this indeed would be pelagianism, or rather semipelagianism condemned by the ancient church, and we condemn it as much as the ancients did. we hold that there are absolute promises, promises of regenerating grace, of the new heart, the heart of flesh, of special grace through which the elect believe and repent. this is the grace whereby we perform the conditions required of us in the covenant, and therefore it must be promised and given antecedently to our performing those conditions, forasmuch as it is the cause of the performance of those conditions, and the cause must always be in order of nature and causality before the effect. there hath been, and is some difference of opinion amongst orthodox ministers about the person or persons to whom god hath made those absolute promises; some think they are made only to christ for the church according to these scriptures, isai. 49.6. compared with acts 13.47, 48. and isai. 53.11. psal. 22.30. and 110.3. others think they are made through christ, only to the catholic church, that god for christ's sake would show special mercy unto his select people in all ages, and add them to the church mystical by saving illumination, regeneration and conversion: and so that god through christ hath promised unto the catholic church, that she should be a fruitful mother, that should still bring forth children unto god, which should continue the succession unto the end of the world; as in isa. 54.1. sing o barren, etc. ver. 5. for thy maker is thy husband, etc. see also ver. 8, 10. and then consider the promise, ver. 13. that all her children should be taught of the lord. and compare that place with gal. 4.26, 27, 28, 29. we humbly conceive that the absolute promises of the first saving grace, are not made immediately to individual persons, but to the body of the church, to the mother in behalf of her children: such are the promises recorded, isa. 44.3, 4, 5. isa. 59.21. ezek. 36.22. compared with ver. 26, 27. and with heb. 8.10. these and all absolute promises of the first saving grace seem not to be made immediately unto, nor to be immediately pleadable in faith by any individual persons before their first conversion; but to be made unto the house of israel, (as the text expresseth it) that is, unto the true church which is the mystical living body of christ, in behalf of all the children which she as a spiritual mother is to bring forth unto god: or, 3ly. to reconcile these two opinions, and to reduce them into one, it may be, some judge it best to say, that the aforesaid absolute promises are made both to christ and his church, as one mystical body consisting of head and members, which is to be filled up from time to time by adding new members to it; and that continual addition of new members is made by the fulfilling of the foresaid absolute promises; and for this may be alleged, gal. 3.16. and this way we oppose not. thus it is confessed that there is some difference of opinion about the persons to whom the absolute promises of the first saving grace, are made; and we cannot help it; for it is not in our power to make all good men to be of one mind in lesser matters, and we think we are bound in conscience to bear with one another in love, notwithstanding such little differences. but we thank god that we are all agreed that the promises of the first grace are absolute, so as to exclude the necessity of our performing any antecedent condition to make us capable of that first grace. and we desire it may be well remembered, that we say those promises are absolute, so as to exclude any antecedent condition, but not so as to exclude the use of gods appointed means for the obtaining of that promised grace. we plainly distinguish between an antecedent condition, which is always and in all cases necessary to obtain the promised grace; and the use of god's means appointed for the obtaining of the promised grace; which use of means is indeed ordinarily necessary unto men, so that they have no ground to expect that ever god should give them the aforesaid grace, without their attending upon him in the use of those means; yet is not the use of them so absolutely necessary as that grace at no time and in no case can be had without them: for though god hath tied us to the means, he hath not tied himself to them by any law or constitution, so that he can never give the first saving grace to any without the use of them. we know god hath been found of them that sought him not, so he was found of paul and others, and so he may be again in these latter days if he please. god may give faith and repentance to a man absolutely in what way he pleaseth, he may do it in the use of means, or out of the use of means, (which is his ordinary way) because he hath not made the use of means, the condition upon the performance of which he hath declared that he will always give it; and never in any case without the performance of it. thus indeed it is in the matter of justification and glorification. it is not consistent with the truth of god's word, and perfection of his nature to justify or glorify an impenitent unbeliever remaining such, because he hath declared that he will not, and it is not consistent with his own honour that he should do it, but upon the performance of the duty and condition of faith and repentance. but in the matter of regeneration and giving faith and repentance in the use of means, god hath not so tied up himself by any declaration of his will that we know of, but that he hath left himself at free liberty as a gracious lord and merciful benefactor to give the grace of regeneration, faith and repentance when and how he pleaseth, ordinarily in the use of means, and extraordinarily without the antecedent use of means. this we learn of doctor twisse who as he affirms frequently that the first grace, and particularly the new heart, faith, and repentance are promised and given absolutely, and not upon the performance of any antecedent condition, so he positively asserts that the said new heart, faith, and repentance, are usually given in the use of means, and not otherwise ordinarily. you shall have it in his own words. thus than he writes in his answer to the foresaid book called the synod of dort and arles reduced to practice, page 195, 196. as god did ordain us to everlasting life by way of reward of our faith, repentance, and good works; so likewise he did ordain us to the obtaining of faith, repentance, and good works, to be wrought in us, partly by the ministry of his word, therein speaking unto us, and partly by our prayers, seeking unto him to bless his word unto us, and fulfil the good pleasure of his goodness towards us, and the work of faith in power. for god doth expect, that we should seek unto him by prayer for this, as we read, ezek. 36.37. thus saith the lord, i will yet for this be sought of the house of israel to perform it unto them. neither do we maintain that god doth ordain any man of ripe years unto eternal lise in any moment of nature, before he ordains him to faith, repentance, and good works, and that to be wrought in him by the ministry of the word, with god's blessing thereupon according to the prayers in common, both of the pastor and the people. by this passage we see that though dr. twisse denies that gods giving us grace to convert, believe and repent, doth depend upon any proper condition to be antecedently performed by us before we can ever in any case receive that grace; yet he confesses and maintains that ordinarily gods giving that first special saving grace depends upon the use of his appointed means, and that it is gods will it should so depend. and truly if it were not so, ministers should give over preaching and praying, and people give over hearing them, and joining in prayer with them, in order to conversion; for it would all serve to no end or purpose, but would be a taking of god's name in vain. thus it may appear to all, that we do not believe nor teach, that there is any condition required to be necessarily performed by us antecedently to our partaking of the first grace promised in the covenant; so that if we perform that condition, we shall infallibly have that first grace, and if we perform it not, we shall infallibly not have it at all. (2.) from hence it follows, that in consistence with our foresaid principle we cannot hold, and we solemnly declare that we do not hold that there is any natural condition of the covenant of grace; for we know assuredly that there is no such promise in the covenant of grace as this, facienti quod in se est viribus naturae, dabit deus primam gratiam. god will give the first supernatural grace to every man who doth what he can by his natural powers. it was the opinion of the semipelagians, that we believe in christ by our own natural strength without supernatural grace, and upon condition that we do so, god promiseth to give, and accordingly he gives us the first internal supernatural grace. augustin himself was once of this opinion, as he confesseth; lib. de praedestin. sanctorum, cap. 3. where he tells us that he was convinced of his error by that of the apostle, 1 cor. 4.7. what hast thou that thou hast not received, and if thou hast received it, why dost thou glory as if thou hadst not received it. we bless god for that by his grace he hath preserved us from that semipelagian error, and we declare our abhorrence of it: and therefore it must needs be a great wickedness in the author of the letter to belly us as he hath done, in charging us not only with semipelagianism, but even with pelagianism itself, which are errors that our souls abhor, as god who searcheth the hearts of all men knoweth, and to whom we appeal; yet praying him again not to enter into judgement with that brother for the wrong he hath done us, but rather to give him repentance, and then to pardon him. (3.) from hence also it follows that we neither do hold nor can hold that there is any meritorious condition of the covenant of grace. for we do firmly and unanimously believe that christ by his elood hath purchased for us, and by his spirit freely gives unto us the grace whereby we perform the condition of the covenant, the grace whereby we sincerely believe, repent, and obey the gospel. now we are persuaded that it is utterly impossible for any man to merit of god the benefits of justification and glorification by performing the condition of faith, repentance, and evangelical obedience, because we are infinitely beholding to god in christ for giving us freely the grace, whereby we perform the condition, and without which we could never perform it. we know very well, that the papists argue the quite contrary way that our faith, repentance, and obedience are properly meritorious, because they are the effects of god's grace in us, but this we know also to be a very ridiculous way of arguing, because the argument really proves that they are not, and that they cannot be properly meritorious, because they are the effects of god's free grace. god by giving us the grace whereby we believe, repent, and obey the gospel, properly merits of us our most humble and hearty thanks for thereby causing us to believe, repent and obey, and therefore our so believing, repenting, and obeying cannot properly merit any thing of god. but we need not insist on this, it being so evident in itself, and confessed by all protestants that it is impossible for a mere creature and that a sinful creature too, properly to merit and deserve any thing from god but death and damnation. and this being so, we do assert (as much as our author doth, page 24. or can possibly do) such an absolute freedom of the grace of god as excludeth all merit. but what our author means by excluding not only merit itself, but every thing like merit, we do not well understand. as for the merit of a sinful creature, we know it to be a chimaera, that it neither hath nor can have a real being, that it is impossible and implies a contradiction. now what it is that is like a chimaera, we leave to our profound author to determine. but if by every thing that is like merit, he means every false conceit of merit that is or may be in the foolish imaginations of erroneous men; we understand him and agree with him; for we do (as much as he) exclude out of our own imaginations all false conceits of merit, and if we could we would exclude them out of the imaginations of all other men, that so we and all other men might ascribe unto god through christ the glory of all the good we do, and of all the good we receive or hope to receive. if our author by every thing that is like merit, mean any other thing, we are to seek what it may be, and truly we cannot well imagine what it is he excludes under the notion of its being like merit, unless it be repentance in order to pardon of sin, and prayer for pardon of sin; and if that be really his meaning, and he be of that mind that he will neither repent of his sins in order to obtain the pardon of them, nor pray for the pardon of them, for fear lest he should seem to merit the pardon of them; we cannot but think him to be a very weak man, and that he fears where no ground of fear is: for assuredly if he do but exclude out of his own mind the proud conceit and opinion of meriting by his repentance and prayer, he needs not forbear repenting and praying for the pardon of his sins, for fear of thereby meriting pardon, or for fear of doing that which looks like meriting pardon. his own common sense and reason may teach him that by the very acts of repenting and praying for pardon, he doth renounce all pretence to merit as well as by the act of believing in christ for pardon, he doth renounce all pretence to the meriting of his pardon. (4.) we do not believe that faith, repentance, and sincere obedience are the legal but evangelical condition of the covenant of grace: which that our meaning may be understood by all, we explain thus, we do not believe that our faith, repentance and sincere obedience which are the conditions of justification and glorification according to the tenor of the covenant of grace, have the same place and office in this new covenant and law of grace, which most perfect sinless obedience had and was to have had in the first old covenant and law of works; for in that first old covenant, personal, perfect sinless obedience was to have been man's righteousness by which alone he was to have been secured from death, and to have had still a title and right to life; but in the new covenant and law of grace, neither our faith, repentance, nor sincere obedience are or can be that righteousness which secures us from eternal death and purchases for us a right and title to eternal life; when god first made the new covenant with us in christ, we had all lost our right and title to life, and were become guilty of death; in which state we could never by any act or acts of ours, by any righteousness in us or done by us, secure ourselves from death, and recover our right and title to life: it was the satisfactory meritorious righteousness of our lord redeemer, christ jesus, that could do, and did do this for us. it was christ's righteousness alone that satisfied for our sins, and redeemed us from death; and that merited and purchased for us a right and title to life. christ's righteousness alone procures us the pardon of our sins and a right and title to life, so that it is christ's satisfactory meritorious righteousness alone that comes in the place of that perfect sinless righteousness which was the condition of the first covenant and law of works. it is christ's righteousness that stands us in stead of that perfect sinless righteousness which we should have had, but have not. it is christ's righteousness alone that procureth to us the restauration of all the good we had lost, and more and better. our faith, repentance, and sincere obedience have nothing to do at all in this matter. this was christ's work alone, and we give him all the glory of it with all our hearts and souls. and as it was christ's righteousness alone that merited our pardon of sin, and deliverance from death; and that purchased our acceptance with god, as righteous in his sight, and our right and title to life, so it is by his promise and law of grace that the lord gives us that which he had merited and purchased for us, that he gives us the pardon of our sins and right or title to life upon our repenting and believing; so that our repenting of our sins and believing in christ, are but the immediate nearest means which god hath ordained to be used on our part that we may be fit to receive, and accordingly may receive those blessings and benefits which christ hath purchased, and which by the promise are given unto us. the use of this means, the performance of those duties of faith and repentance, is that which our orthodox divines call the condition of the covenant of grace. for upon condition that through grace we do those duties we shall have those blessings and benefits: the lord will graciously give us them according to his promise, on condition that we by grace do such and such duties according to his command. our faith and repentance are not our legal righteousness, nor instead of it, (that is the place and office of christ's righteousness only) but they are the condition which the lord in the gospel hath required of us, that according to his promise we may be blessed with the pardon of sin, be accepted at righteous in his sight, and have a right and title to eternal life. from the premises it is manifest, that according to our principles faith and repentance are not a legal but an evangelical condition of the covenant of grace; and that they do not in the least detract from the grace of it. and we desire it may be remembered that though speaking of faith and repentance jointly, we call them sometimes the condition of the covenant, or the condition of justification, yet we make a difference between them, and because repentance includes an hearty sorrow for sin, and purpose to for sake it and to return unto the lord, we call it the disposing condition; but finding by holy soripture and the nature of the thing that faith above other graces hath a peculiar respect unto christ and his righteousness, we call it the receiving condition, so doth our reverend brother mr. williams call it in gospel truth stated, etc. page 114. and we approve the distinction. he was not the first inventor of it; for it was used by others before either he or we were born. now if this be true as the lord who searcheth all hearts knows it to be, then let the world judge how false and injurious that author is unto us, when in page 6. he giveth the people an account of our principles as to this matter, in these following words, [they will not allow this personal righteousness of christ to be imputed to us any otherwise than in the merit of it, as purchasing for us a far more easy law of grace; in the observation whereof, they place all our justifying righteousness: understanding hereby our own personal inherent holiness, and nothing else. they hold that christ died to merit this of the father, viz. that we might be justified upon easier terms under the gospel, than those of the law of innocency; in stead of justification by perfect obedience, we are now to be justified by our own evangelical righteousness, made up of faith. repentance, and sincere obedience.] and page 28. [many manage the ministry, as if they had taken up a contrary determination, even to know any thing, save jesus christ and him crucified. we are amazed to see so many ashamed of the cross of christ, and to behave, as if they accounted the tidings of salvation, by the slain son of god, an old antiquated story, and unfit to be daily preached. and what comes in the room thereof, is not unknown, nor is it worth the mentioning: for all things that come in christ's room, and justle him out, either of hearts or pulpits, are alike abominable to a christian.] again, in page 33. by an innuendo, he gives the people to understand that we teach, that sincere obedience unto the law is the righteousness we must be found, and stand in, in our pleading for justification, and that in so doing we neither understand what we say, nor whereof we affirm, 1 tim. 1.7.] lastly, in his appendix, page 39 by another of his innuendoes, he gives the people to understand, that [we bring our own pitiful holiness into justification, and thereby make it sit on the throne of judgement with the precious blood of the lamb of god.] by these passages, that we have transcribed, word for word, out of his letter, it appears, that he hath told the people a very tragical story of some ministers; and if he mean it of us, we know ourselves to be so clear of those horrid crimes, he charges us with; that we can declare with a good conscience in the sight of god, who will judge us all, that it is as false with respect to us, as any story that ever came out of the mouth of the father of lie. for it hath been our chief desire, and endeavour, to preach christ to the people, to preach christ both as humbled and exalted, as crucified and glorified. to convince them of their need of christ, of their being utterly undone without him; that there is no help nor hope for them from any thing in themselves, and of themselves, or from any mere creature, either in heaven or earth; that christ is the way, the truth and the life, and that there is no coming to the father, but by him; that there is no salvation in any other but in jesus christ, because there is no other name under heaven given unto men whereby we must be saved: that there needs no other, because christ being not only man but god also, being god-man, he is an all-sufficient saviour, able and willing to save, able to save to the uttermost, to save perfectly, to save evermore all that come unto god by him. it hath been our care and endeavour to teach the people, that christ hath not only procured for us the new covenant, or law of grace, according to which we may be justified, and saved, if we comply with the terms, and conditions of it, but that he hath by his humiliation and obedience, his obedience unto death, even the death of the cross, fully satisfied the justice of god for our sins, merited for us the pardon of them, with the acceptation of us as righteous in the sight of god, and a right, or title to eternal life, if we sincerely believe and repent: and moreover that he hath merited for us by his blood, and gives unto us by his spirit all that grace whereby we do both sincerely believe, and repent, and obey the gospel. we tell the people, that god made with us the new covenant, or law of grace, in and through christ the mediator, and surety of it, that it is founded upon, and ratified, and confirmed to us by his bloodshedding and death; and that he hath purchased for us all the grace, blessings and benefits of it. we tell them, and prove to them, that christ hath fulfilled all righteousness; that he most perfectly kept every law of god that he was under the obligation of; that he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death; even the death of the cross: that it was for us men, and for our salvation, that he came down from heaven, and was humbled, and became obedient unto death: that his obedience, active and passive, was equivalent, fully equivalent to all that we ought to do, and to all that we deserve to suffer for not doing what we ought, for not doing what is commanded us, and for doing what is forbidden us: that by his obedience, and sufferings, he hath paid the full price of our redemption, and by paying that price hath made full satisfaction to the justice of god for our sins, and hath merited for us the full pardon of our sins, and eternal salvation of our souls, if we sincerely believe, repent, and obey the gospel, by that grace which he hath also purchased for us by his blood, promised to us in his word, and gives unto us by his spirit. so that we are complete in him, we have all in, and from him, who is the head, the living, and life-giving head, the ever blessed, and glorious head of the whole church, in whom dwells all the fullness of the godhead bodily, and in whom it pleased the father that all fullness should dwell, that out of his fullness we might receive, and grace for grace. moreover we call people, we command them, we exhort and beseech them, in god's name, to believe in christ the son of god, and saviour of men, to repent of their sins, and to be subject and obedient unto him: the more effectually to encourage and persuade them so to do, we assure them in god's name, that if they do indeed, through grace, believe, repent, and obey, they shall be first justified, and afterwards glorified, and that not for their faith, repentance, and sincere obedience, but only for the satisfactory meritorious righteousness of christ imputed to them. so that we teach people to plead christ's righteousness only as that which satisfies god's justice for them, and as that which procures, and purchases to them the pardon of their sins, the acceptation of their persons as righteous in god's sight, with their right and title, first to eternal life, and at last the actual donation of eternal life for their everlasting portion and inheritance. on the other hand, we faithfully declare to them, that they ought, by no means, to ascribe unto their faith, repentance, or obedience, any of these things that belong to christ's satisfactory, meritorious righteousness: that the place and office of faith, in reference to justification, is to be the consenting, receiving, trusting condition of it, or the instrumental means of receiving christ as offered in the gospel, and with him his righteousness, for which alone we are justified: that the place and office of repentance is to be the disposing condition of justification, or rather (if you will) of the person to be justified, it not being consistent with the truth of god's word, nor with the perfection of his nature, to pardon a sinner whilst he continues his full obstinate resolution to go on in his enmity and rebellion against the divine majesty: and lastly, that the place and office of sincere obedience (in the notion under which we now consider it) is to be a condition of obtaining eternal life and glory; we do not say that it is the cause, (though calvin, twiss, ames, rutherford, etc. have not spared to say, and write, that it is, in some sense, a cause, an inferior disposing cause, etc.) but a duty and condition until the performing whereof, god hath suspended the gift of eternal life and glory; and to the performers of which duty and condition he hath freely promised, and according to his promise he graciously giveth eternal life and glory, for the sake of christ's meritorious righteousness only. and we desire it may be always remembered that from this condition of sincere obedience, we do by no means exclude, but include the continued exercise of faith in christ, as that which is the spring of it, and which runs through all the parts of it; as also we hold that it comprehends the continued practice of repentance, and love to god and man. such sincere obedience we hold to be a condition to be performed on our part, ezek. 18.24, 25. heb. 10.38. for the obtaining of eternal life and glory. for we learn from the scriptures of truth, that if any of god's people should apostatise from faith in christ, fall from the profession and practice of christ's true religion, and give themselves up to the wilful commission of all manner of abominations, and die in that state without repentance, they would lose their right to eternal life, be shut out of heaven, and cast down to hell, there to suffer the vengeance of eternal fire: whereas on the contrary, all that continue to the end in the exercise of faith in christ, and in the practice of repentance and evangelical obedience, they have their right to life and glory still continued to them, and shall, through god's grace and mercy, and christ's righteousness and merits be put into the full and eternal possession of it. if our author should object, and say, that we suppose an impossibility, from whence there is no right arguing for, or against any thing. we desire him to consider what dr. twiss says in the 29 page of his answer to the book called the synod of dort and arles reduced to practice: his words are, [when we say, the elect saints cannot fall from grace, this is spoken not in respect of any absolute impossibility, but merely upon supposition of god's upholding them: and accordingly they are said to be kept by the power of god, through faith unto salvation, 1 pet. 1.5. now this impossibility of falling away from grace, in scholastical account, is but an impossibility secundum quid; like as we say, it is impossible that antichrist should fall, or the jews be called till the time, which god hath appointed, is come, for bringing forth these great and wonderful works of his; but the contrary is simply possible on either part.] thus twiss. our answer then is, that the apostasy of a saint is not simply and absolutely impossible: alas! it is but too possible with respect to us, considered in ourselves; but it is only impossible in some respects, to wit, in respect of god's purpose and promise, and christ's intercession, etc. and notwithstanding its being impossible, in this sense, yet we find it supposed, and granted also, to be possible in another sense. and further we find, that the spirit of god, in holy scripture, supposes greater impossibilities than that seems to be, and rationally argues from them too: witness john 8.55. gal. 1.8. if any should further object, and say, that hereby we destroy the saints assurance of eternal life and glory, by holding that their obtaining of it, is suspended on a condition. we answer, the consequence is false, because those who are assured, upon good grounds, that they are truly converted, and justified by faith in christ's blood, see 1 joh. 2.19. may from holy scripture be assured of the condition of perseverance through grace, in faith, repentance, and whatever god hath made necessary to their obtaining eternal life and glory. indeed if our glorification depended upon a condition of which we could not be sure, then neither could we be sure of glorification itself. but we believe, and maintain, that through grace we may, and aught to be sure of the condition, to wit, of perseverance, and consequently that we may, and aught to be sure of our future glorification, which is infallibly promised to perseverance in faith and holiness. we know the followers of luther, whom our author so much magnifies, as if he were for him, and his party, deny that a saint can be absolutely sure ordinarily in this world, that he shall be saved in the world to come. it is true, they maintain that a saint may, and aught to be absolutely sure, that he is in a state of grace and salvation for the present, but they deny, and on their principles must deny, that he can have an absolute, but only a conditional assurance of his eternal salvation and glorification, because they say, he cannot be absolutely sure, that he shall not fall totally, and finally from the state of grace that he is now in. if we should follow luther, or the lutherans, in this, what a clamour would our author raise against us, how would he proclaim us to the world to be arminians or papists, yet luther was a blessed man, and most orthodox divine, because in his commentary on the galathians, he seems to hold with our author in some things, though in other things, of greater importance, he be against him, and us too. but holy scripture is the rule, and measure of our faith, in these, and all other religious matters, and according to the prescript thereof, we believe, profess, and preach to the people, that as christ purchased all grace for us by his blood, so he gives it unto us by his spirit in the use of his appointed means, and what saving grace he once gives unto his people, he never wholly takes away from them again, and that if at any time they fall into sin, against knowledge and conscience, he raises them up again, by causing them to renew their faith and repentance, and never wholly leaves them, nor forsakes them, but gives them still more grace, according to their need, and by grace prepares them for, and at last brings them unto glory. thus we desire, and endeavour to preach christ, and now we appeal to all, who have any conscience of truth and honesty, whether we neglect to preach christ, or whether in the preaching of christ we set up any thing in co-ordination with him, yea whether we be not so far from it, that on the contrary we make all subordinate to him, and derive all grace from him, not only the grace of justification, and glorification, which are promised on condition of faith, repentance, and sincere obedience, but also the grace of effectual vocation, faith and repentance, in a word, all the grace whereby we perform the whole condition of the covenant from first to last. from the premises it may manifestly appear to any, that are not stark blind, that we do not hold faith, repentance, and uncere obedience, to be a legal, but an evangelical condition of the covenant of grace, and consequently, that in our judgement, they do not hold the same place and office in the new covenant of grace, which personal, perfect, sinless obedience had, and were to have had in the first covenant of innocency, and of works. object. but saith our author, in his appendix, pag. 39 it is the achillaean argument of the new divinity, that faith, repentance, and sincere obedience is our evangelical righteousness, and that righteousness is our defence against the charge of unbelief, impenitence, etc. and what then? why in the following pages he so shapes it as might best serve his design, which was to make the people believe, that we set up our own righteousness in the place of christ's, and maintain, that men must be justified by their own righteousness, and not only by christ's. and so he trips up achilles' heels by the fallacy of many interrogations. but it will be no very difficult task to scatter this mist, which he hath cast before the people's eyes. in order thereunto, let it be considered, 1. that the substance of this argument was not invented by any amongst us, dead or alive, that we know of; but some in this nation having read it in some very eminently learned foreign divines, particularly ludovicus de dieu at large, and the holy, humble, learned, and most acute placeus, they received it, and improved it as useful to clear some seeming difficulties in scripture, objected to us by our adversaries the papists. 2. consider, that this way of reconciling james with paul in the matter of justification, for the substance of it was taken up also by the learned turretin. 3. that it doth not appear, that all of us ever expressed ourselves in those words for the clearing up of the seeming difference between james and paul. 4. that those who do take that way, do not impose it upon others. we know there have been many ways taken by reformed divines to expound james, so as not to contradict paul: and some considerable difference there may seem to be among divines in the methodizing, and expressing of their notious of those matters: but yet there appears to be very little difference amongst them, as to the things themselves. indeed upon the matter all seems to come almost to the same thing. and particularly, let it be considered, 5. that this way of interpreting james his justification by works, and reconciling it with paul's justification by faith, seems to differ from the more common, modern opinion, mostly in the manner of expression, which some of us think most agreeable to the scripture phrase. but we leave every man to express his notions, as best pleaseth him, provided, that if he do not use scripture words, yet he do not contradict scripture sense. and therefore, 6. we desire it may be considered, that this way of expounding james, which we are now speaking of, doth not in the least contradict the holy scripture, but rather serves to explain it, if it be understood (as it ought to be) in the true genuine sense of its authors. for, (1.) though they say, that our faith, repentance, and sincere obedience is an evangelical righteousness, (as indeed it is) yet at the same time they declare that this evangelical righteousness is no other thing but the condition of the new covenant on our part, whereby we are interested first and still keep our interest in the satisfactory, meritorious righteousness of christ, by and for which alone we are justified from first to last. they do not say that this evangelical righteousness, which is the condition of the covenant, doth satisfy god's justice for the least sin either against law or gospel; or that it doth properly merit to us the least good, so much as a cup of cold water. they give unto christ alone the whole glory of having by his righteousness satisfied justice for all our sins, and merited to us all our mercies. so that our author was (we think) a little impertinent in putting his question, page 41. what is that righteousness which justifies a man from the sin of unbelief? for he knows well enough that the worthy divines (as he deservedly calls them) with whom he has to do in that argument, have published it to all the world under their hands, that assoon as a man who was before an unbeliever gins through grace sincerely to believe in christ, and to repent of his unbelief, and of all his other sins, immediately thereupon, christ's satisfactory meritorious righteousness justifies him from his sin of unbelief, and from all his other former sins, both original and actual; that is, god by and for christ's righteousness justifies him from them upon his believing and repenting. and as our author knows this to be true, so he hath honestly confessed it in the end of the same paragraph, will any man (says he) dare to tell a person who is troubled in conscience about his sin of unbelief, that christ's righteousness is his legal righteousness against the charge of sins against the law; but for gospel-charges he must answer them in his own name? i know our hottest opposers would abhor such an answer, and would freely tell such a man, that the blood of jesus christ cleanseth from all sin, and that his justification from his unbelief, must be only in that righteousness which he so sinfully had rejected while in unbelief, and now lays hold on by faith. here the truth comes out at last, and in effect he gives the lie to his own false accusations of the lord's ministers, and acquits the accused: for if his hottest opposers freely tell people that the blood of jesus christ cleanseth from all sin, and that their justification from the sin of unbelief must be only by the righteousness of christ, then how can those things be true whereof (as was observed before) he had accused us in page 6, 28, 33, and page 39 that we bring our own pitiful holiness into justification, and make it sit on the throne of judgement, with the precious blood of the lamb of god? ex ore tuo, etc. but, (2.) the authors of the argument we are upon, never said, wrote, or so much as thought (that can be known) that our sincere faith and repentance is a defence or justification against a charge of unbelief or impenitence given in against us by god, for they knew full well without being taught it by this author, that the god of truth cannot be the author of a lie, which he would certainly and evidently be, if he should charge us with being unbelievers and impenitent at that very time when he knows that by his own spirit and grace we sincerely believe and repent; but that which the aforesaid excellent divines said, is yet to be seen in their writings, and it is this, that our sincere faith and repentance is a defence and justification against any false charge of unbelief and impenitence that is or possibly may be given in against us by the devil and the world, or by our own mistaken consciences. and who dare deny the truth of this? may not the devil and the world falsely accuse, do not they too often falsely accuse us, and say that we are hypocrites, and have neither true faith nor repentance? when this brother accuseth us so falsely as he doth in his letter, we need not think it strange that the devil and the world do falsely accuse us: yea we have that within our own breasts that may sometimes through the temptations of satan, or the remainders of sinful darkness and unbelief, falsely accuse us of predominant hypocrisy, unbelief, and impenitency. now if at the same time we are really true converts, and through grace sincerely believe and repent, what man that is endued with common sense and reason can reasonably deny that our sincere faith and repentance is a sufficient defence and justification of us, against all such false accusations. sure we are that our infinitely gracious god and saviour allows our plea, and (we most hearty bless his name for it) hath sometimes by his spirit and grace sensibly helped us to make our defence by clearing up to us the sincerity of our faith and repentance, and by enabling us to take unto ourselves the comfort, and to give him all the glory of our being sincere penitent believers, notwithstanding all that the devil, world, or flesh, say falsely to the contrary. but as for those who are impenitent unbelievers indeed, all the world knows that the faith and repentance which they have not, can never justify them from the unbelief and impenitency which they really have deeply rooted in their hearts. in short, we maintain that christ's meritorious and satisfactory righteousness only justifies us at god's bar from all our sins against any law of god whatsoever, as soon as we through grace perform the gospel-condition of sincere faith and repentance: and then that sincere faith and repentance is our defence and justification before our most gracious god, and before all honest men against all false accusations of our not having performed the gospel-condition of sincere faith and repentance. but as for those who continue still in unbelief and impenitence, they have nothing to defend and justify them; but if they live and die in that stare, their unbelief and impenitence will bind upon them to eternity the curse and condemnation of the law, and moreover will bring upon them the sorer vengeance of the despised gospel, john 3.18, 19, 20. and heb. 2.2, 3. and 12.25. thus achilles is on his legs again without receiving the least hurt from the weak efforts of that assailant; who hath nothing to say to him without misrepresenting him, but that he doth not like his language, pretending that it is unscriptural, let. p. 41, 42. dangerous, and tends to the dishonouring of christ's righteousness, etc. but that pretence is utterly false: for, (1.) that our sincere faith, repentance, and gospel-obedience is a righteousness, is evident from the nature of the thing, for (1.) they are duties which we own unto the lord our god, and it is self-evident that it is a righteous thing to give unto god the things that are gods. (2.) it is confessed by our divines in their disputes against the papists, that our faith, repentance, sincere obedience and holiness is a righteousness: for they generally grant that we have a twofold righteousness. (1.) the righteousness of christ imputed to us. (2.) a righteousness inherent in us, and adherent to us, which we receive from christ by his spirit and grace. this is expressly confessed by that same bishop downham in his book of justification, which our author, page 12. of his letter, commends as an orthodox book. there that reverend and learned divine affirms that we are righteous both by the righteousness of christ imputed to us, which is our principal righteousness; and likewise by another righteousness wrought in us and performed by us, which is our secondary subordinate righteousness. if our author should have the confidence to deny this, it will be proved against him by authority both divine and humane. (2.) this our subordinate righteousness is rightly termed evangelical, because it is required by the word of the gospel, wrought by the spirit of the gospel, and is a complying with the terms, and a performing of the condition of the gospel. (3.) that our sincere faith, repentance, and obedience, is a subordinate righteousness by which we are defended and justified against the false charge of hypocrisy, unbelief, and impenitence, is so far from being unscriptural, that it agrees exactly with the very letter, scope and sense of the scripture in the second chapter of james, if that epistle be scripture, as i hope we all believe that it is; for there a man is expressly in formal terms said to be justified by works, james 2.21, 24, 25. which words can signify no less than this, that the good works and sincere obedience of a good man do justify him against the false accusation of being an hypocrite or profane libertine. as to what our author says in page 41. that works of righteousness are only a justification of faith, and not of the person of the believer, it is a notorious falsehood, and expressly contradicts the spirit of god, who faith that a man is justified by works, and particularly that abraham and rahab were justified by works, and not that their faith only was justified by works. we do not deny but that good, works do justify faith, but we also affirm with james, that they do likewise justify the person of the believer. but how is that? why they justify his person in tantum, in so far as they are his defence and justification against the false charge of his being a hypocrite or libertine, and not a true penitent obedient believer. in all this neither doth james, nor we after him dishonour the righteousness of christ in the least; for our inherent and adherent righteousness is entirely subordinate to christ's imputed righteousness, it hath also quite another use and office than christ's imputed righteousness, and it proceeds from it as the only meritorious cause thereof; we abhor all opinions and practices that have the least real tendency to dishonour christ or his righteousness. we ascribe this to christ as his peculiar incommunicable glory that (as was said before) his righteousness alone comes in the place of that personal perfect sinless righteousness which was the condition of the first covenant of innocency and law of works. and as for that personal, imperfect, yet sincere righteousness, which through the grace of christ we attain unto, by believing, repenting, and obeying the gospel, it is nothing but the condition of the new covenant, by performing whereof we get and keep an interest in christ's imputed righteousness by and for which alone we are justified from all our sins of what kind soever, and have a right unto, and at last get possession of eternal life and glory in god's heavenly kingdom. we have insisted long upon this, that all may see how sound and orthodox our principles are in the point of justification; and how we have been abused and misrepresented to the people by the author of the letter. whether he did it ignorantly or maliciously he knows best himself: but which way soever he did it, it was certainly very ill done. 5thly, and lastly, we believe that as the faith of god's elect is a condition of the covenant of grace, so that it is not an uncertain but a most certain condition; our meaning is, that before the elect believe, it is not uncertain whether ever they will believe or not; it is indeed uncertain to the persons themselves; but it is not objectively uncertain, the thing is not uncertain in itself, nor is it uncertain unto god whether ever his elect shall believe. no, it is most certain in itself and unto god that all the elect shall believe; for god hath chosen them through christ unto faith; christ hath merited special grace for them whereby they shall believe, god through christ hath promised that special grace, and god by his spirit for christ's sake gives them that special grace, whereby they do all certainly and infallibly believe. the contrary opinion to this, is by our divines generally charged upon the arminians. it is said that the arminians hold that it is so far left to men's wills assisted by universal sufficient grace, whether they will make that grace effectual, and so whether they will believe or not, that it may come to pass that not one man in the whole world shall ever eventually believe, and consequently that christ's blood might have been shed in vain, and not one soul have been effectually redeemed and saved by it. this opinion whoever they be that hold it, we utterly detest and abhor; and declare to the world, that as we are infallibly sure that many of the elect have believed already, and do at present believe, so all and every one of them in their several times shall by the special and effectual grace of god believe to the saving of their souls. we also believe that this certainty of the faith of god's elect, doth not at all hinder their faith from being a condition, but rather that it makes it to be a certain condition. the arminians pretend they cannot understand how faith can be a duty required of us, and a condition to be freely performed by us, and that yet at the same time we are so excited to it, and assisted by the grace of god in the doing of it, that it is done with an infallible certainty. and therefore they say that if we did believe by such a special effectual grace as that we could not but believe at the time we are influenced by that grace, than our believing would neither be a duty nor condition of the gospel. thus the arminians argue against special effectual grace. but what say our antinomians to this argument? why truly they say it is a very good argument, that the arminians have reason on their side, and that they do effectually prove that faith cannot be a condition of the gospel-covenant. now we desire the world to take notice that the antinomians join with the arminians against us, and take up their very argument to prove that faith neither is nor can be a condition of the gospel-covenant. and since they account this their chief argument, we desire they would be so just and honest as to take the whole argument and not only a part of it; and consider that the whole argument proves that upon supposition of special effectual grace, faith can neither be a duty nor a condition, and it proves as strongly that faith cannot be a duty of the gospel, as that it cannot be a condition of the gospel. either then our antinomians must say that faith is no duty because of this argument, or if it may be still a duty, so may it also be still a condition, notwithstanding the force of this argument. for aught we know, the right antinomians may be willing enough to grant the consequence of the argument to be good as to both parts of it; for we are afraid they care as little for duties as they do for conditions; and some of them have plainly renounced faiths being their duty, and have put it over upon christ as his duty and not theirs. but we hope the author of thy ●etter is not yet so far gone, and that he still retains some respect for rutherfond's examen arminianismi, which he had a hand in publishing, and where he will find these words following, page 270. quaeritur an fides non potest esse conditio, etc. the question is whether faith cannot be a condition required of the elect by way of duty and free obedience, and at the same time be a thing promised by god, and unavoidably wrought by god in us. the remonstrants deny it, we affirm it: we likewise are for the affirmative against the remonstrants who hold the negative of the question. but how to reconcile the efficacy of god's grace with our free will in doing the duties incumbent upon us, is no easy matter. s. augustin lib. de●praedest. sanct. cap. 14. says that it is, difficilis ad solvendum quaestio: a question difficult to be resolved. erkstra blasphemas & ignorantium auribus ingeris, nos lib. arb. condemnare, damnetur ille qui damnat. hieron. epist. ad ●tisi hontem. and epist. 46. ad valentinum, he says it is difficillima quaestio & paucis intelligibilis, a most difficult question, and such as few can understand. and again, lib. de gratiâ christi contra pelagium & caelestium, cap. 47. ista quaestio, ubi de arbitrio voluntatis & dei gratiâ disputatur, ita est ad discernendum difficilis, ut quando, etc. that question where men dispute about free will, and god's grace, is so hard to discern or understand, that when men defend free will, they seem to deny god's grace, and when they assert god's grace, they seem to take away, or destroy free will. what must we do then in this case, must we deny altogether? no, not altogether, for as augustin saith, epist. 47. ad valentinum, fides catholica neque liberum arbitrium negat, sive in vitam malam, sive in bonam; neque tantum ei tribuit, ut sine gratiâ dei valeat aliquid, etc. the catholic faith neither denies , whether in order to a bad life, or a good; neither doth it ascribe so much to , as that without god's grave it can do any good, etc. we must not then altogether deny , the catholic faith will not allow us so to do, nor will the inward sense and experience that we have of our own soul, and its actings suffer us to do it. for as augustin saith, lib. 83. quaest. 98. moveri per se animam sentit, qui sentit in se esse voluntatem: he feels his soul to be moved by itself, who feels that he hath a will in himself. and if we must not altogether deny all against faith and experience, much less must we deny the grace of god. for as augustin saith in the foresaid 46 epist. ad valent. si non est gratia dei, quomodo deus falvat mundum? & si non est liberum arbitrium, quomodo judicat mundum: if there be no grace of god, how doth god save the world? and if there be no. , how doth god judge the world? the occasion of augustin's writing thus is observable. two young men, cresconius and felix, came to augustin from another congregation, and told him that there was a controversy amongst them, in the managing whereof some had so preached the grace of god, as to deny that man hath any , and which is worse, they said that in the day of judgement god will not render unto every one according to their works. this was the occasion of augustin's writing both that 46. and the following 47. epistle to valentinus. and towards the end of the 46. epistle, he gave this prudent, and wholesome advice, vbi sentitis vos non intelligere, etc. that is, where you perceive that you do not understand, (how grace and consist,) in the mean time believe the divine oracles, for there both is a in man, and also the grace of god, without whose help, can neither be converted unto god, nor yet grow up in god. and what you piously believe, pray that you may also wisely understand. this was the advice which st. augustin gave unto the disputers of his time. and it was very good advice, for certainly where two things are both clearly revealed in scripture, and yet we find it very difficult to understand, and explain the way and manner how they do consist, and agree with one another, we ought firmly to believe them both upon the authority, and veracity of god revealing, though the mode and manner of their consistence in the same subject, we do not understand. yet what we do believe, we may, and aught, humbly and reverently to pray, that if it be god's will, we may also more throughly understand. so in the present case before us, we ought firmly to believe, that god's elect, when they are effectually called, and converted, have actually to believe in jesus christ, and also that it is by the special, effectual grace of god that they do actually believe; though we do not throughly understand how these two hang together, how man's , and god's effectual grace consist and agree with respect to the act of believing. for both are clearly revealed in scripture, as it were easy to demonstrate. see joh. 8.36. but the mode and manner of their consistence and agreement is not clearly revealed, and therefore not so necessary to be explicitly believed. yet may we humbly pray, and endeavour (if the lord will) so far to understand their consistence and concord, as to be able, in some measure, to answer the objections of those who deny either one or other of them, upon pretence that they cannot both be matter of faith, because they contradict and destroy each other, and so if one be true, the other must be false. now we humbly conceive, that the great difficulty about the concord of the freedom of man's will, and of the efficacy of god's grace in the act of believing, ariseth from the false notion of , which the remonstrants have learned from the schoolmen, and from some of the greek fathers, to wit, that the formal nature and essence of the liberty of the will of man, consists in an absolute indifferency to act this, or that, or not to act at all, as a man pleaseth, and that even when all things are put together which are pre-required to his acting. we must ingenuously confess, that we do not see how it is possible to reconcile this notion of with the powerful efficacy of special grace. but we take this to be a false notion of liberty, and that therefore we are no ways concerned to trouble ourselves about the reconciling of such a false notion of liberty with the efficacy of god's grace; but rather we are concerned to find out the true notion of liberty of will, and to show its consistency with the efficacy of grace. and we take this to be the formal nature of the liberty of man's will, that it is a power with which god hath endued the soul of man, whereby he is enabled to consider of, and weigh the several things proposed to him, and upon the reasons and motives that do, or may appear to him from the consideration of things, willingly to choose, or not choose, or refuse one thing, and to choose, or embrace another. now this notion of is well enough consistent with the efficacy of grace. for the effectual grace of god is so far from hindering a man from using this sort of , that on the contrary it mightily helps him to use it aright; for, 1. the grace of god's spirit enlightens man's mind, and enables him to understand the things proposed by the word unto his choice, and to see the great reason he hath to choose them. 2. grace inclines the will of man to follow the conduct of his enlightened understanding, and willingly to choose the best things upon the best reasons and motives. thus god deals with man as a rational creature, capable of moral government by laws and exhortations, promises and threaten; god offers no violence to his faculties, but influences him in a way suitable to his reasonable nature, and helps him to bring his judging, and choosing powers into act, so as not at all to hinder but rather further and promote his true liberty. according to that of our saviour, (john 8.36.) often used by holy augustin in this controversy, if the son shall make you free, you shall be free indeed. and that of the apostle, 2 cor. 3.17. where the spirit of the lord is, there is liberty. there is liberty and freedom, both from the doing of evil and to the doing of good. this was visible in our blessed lord himself, when he was here upon earth, in his state of humiliation. undoubtedly he was a true man, and had all the essentials of humane nature, in the highest degree of possible perfection; consequently he had , so far as it is an essential property, and perfection of humane nature; but he had not, nay he could not possibly have any indifferency or undeterminedness of will to good or evil: his mind did not hang in aequilibrio, in an even balance between good and evil, so as to have a power to determine and incline himself to choose either. therefore it is demonstratively evident, that the formal, essential nature of man's doth not, cannot consist in the foresaid indifferency to good or evil. but on the other hand, the most noble soul of our blessed lord was certainly endued with power to consider, and judge of the several things proposed to him, and upon the best reasons and motives that appeared to him from the consideration of things, willingly to choose, or refuse them, and to act, or not to act, to act thus, or otherwise, as he saw cause. whence we may confidently conclude, that the formal, essential nature of man's consists in this power of acting willingly according to the judgement of right reason; and not in the former undeterminedness, or indifferency of the will to do, or not to do, to do good or evil, even when all things pre-requisite to its doing and acting do meet together, and concur to cause it to do and act. upon this occasion we cannot but mention, with approbation, a passage of a very reverend, and dignified divine of the church of england, in a discourse of christian liberty, chap. 11. sect. 3. pag. 139, 140, 141. as for those that contend that it is more praiseworthy to do good and forbear evil, having a power to do otherwise, than to be under a necessity of so doing; supposing they mean by necessity, such as is not from without, or from an inward blind instinct, but from an understanding principle and perfection of nature, i must needs tell them there is no proposition in the world more false or absurd— i will not therefore stick to say, that to have the will necessarily determined to all good, and from all evil, from an overpowering sense of the becomingness, and excellency of the one, and the vileness, and odiousness of the other, is the very perfection of liberty. and this is so far from being impossible to be obtained by creatures, or by ourselves, that by the help of god's grace, it is in a large measure even in this life attainable. i mean such a sense of good and evil, as shall certainly determine us to good, and against evil in most of the instances of each. there are some immoralities and wicked actions, that they who have attained to but very mean and ordinary degrees of goodness, cannot persuade themselves so much as to endeavour to reconcile their minds to. nay, there are some that no man can easily be supposed able to consent to, but an extraordinarily depraved and wicked wretch, let the motives that are used to persuade him be what they will. such as blaspheming of god, contriving the murder of our parents, of a most obliging friend: torturing of innocent babes, and the like horrid villainies. surely then, a man is capable of such a vivid sense of the hatefulness of sin in gneral, as will (whilst it lasts) render it impossible for him to will deliberately to commit any known sin whatsoever. it is confessed, that we cannot hope to get past all danger of sudden surprisals, so long as we inhabit these bodies, and remain in our present unhappy circumstances; but i say, so powerful a sense of the infinite unrighteousness, disingenuity, unreasonableness, folly and madness of opposing the holy will of our great creator, and blessed redeemer, may by the divine assistance, be acquired, even on this side heaven, as shall determine us effectually against all deliberate, and wilful violations of the divine laws. for this we have the authority of a great apostle: st. john saith in his 1 epist. 3.9. whosoever is born of god, doth not commit sin, for his seed remaineth in him, neither can he sin, because he is born of god, etc. this excellent passage of bishop fowler's, may help to clear up the foresaid difficulty, and to show us how the act of believing, may be a duty and condition of the gospel, and yet be produced by the effectual grace of god assisting our faculties in that production; for the efficacy of grace doth not hinder, but rather further the free exercise of our liberty of will in producing the act of faith. so that our believing in christ being an act of free obedience, (notwithstanding that the regenerating principle of spiritual life, and seed of faith, inclines and byasses us to act, and the actual influence of the spirit causeth us to reduce the principle into act,) we can see no reason at all why the actual believing in christ, may not be both our duty, and likewise the condition upon the free performance of which god promiseth to justify us, to pardon our sins, and give us a right and title to eternal life through jesus christ our lord. our author confesseth that the covenant of redemption was strictly conditional, lett. p. 24. mat. 26.39. joh. 10.18. and that christ's offering up the humane nature in sacrifice to god, was (in part at least) the strict condition of it; and yet christ performed that condition as necessarily, and unavoidably as we perform the condition of actual believing when we are influenced thereunto by the special, and effectual grace of god. this we take to be a demonstration that the mere infallible certainty and necessity of the elect's believing in christ, cannot hinder their faith from being a proper evangelical condition of the new covenant. and having thus at large declared in what sense we hold the covenant of grace not to be conditional, and in what sense to be conditional; we shall next prove against our author that it really is conditional, and that it is not without ground that we believe it so to be. in order hereunto we premise these two things. 1. that it is with respect to the subsequent blessings and benefits of the covenant that we hold it to be conditional, that is, it is with respect to justification and glorification. for as the professors of leyden say in their synopsis of purer divinity, disp. 22. pag. 259. promissiones evangelii sunt potissimum duae. (1.) de justificatione coram deo per fidem. (2.) de haereditate vitae eternae, rom. 1.17. 1 johan. 2.25. the promises of the gospel are principally two. the first is the promise of justification in the sight of god by faith: and the second is, the promise of inheriting eternal life. it is these promises, and the covenant of grace in respect of these promises, which we hold to be conditional. ii. that by a condition, we understand a duty which god requires of us, for obtaining the promised benefit, so as to suspend his giving us the promised benefit upon our performing the duty required: assuring us that if we perform the duty required, we shall have the promised benefit, but if we do not perform the duty required, we shall not have the benefit promised. these two things premised, we come to prove that the covenant of grace is really conditional, as aforesaid, with respect to its subsequent blessings and benefits. and this we shall do, (1.) by scripture, (2.) by reason consonant to scripture, (3.) by testimonies of orthodox divines, even of those very divines whom our author affirms to be against us. and, 1. we prove by scripture that the covenant of grace is conditional in the sense before explained. and we begin with rom. 10. v. 9 where though the word condition be not expressed, yet we have the thing meant by condition, as really as if it were expressed. for, saith the apostle, if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the lord jesus, and shalt believe in thy h●●rt, that god hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. this evangelical pronsise and proposition is as conditional, as is that legal one, rom. 10.5. the man that doth those things, shall live by them. but that legal promise and proposition is conditional, and confessed so to be, therefore is this conditional also. if it be said, that the condition is not the same, nor doth it serve to the same end and purpose, we grant that: for we never said, nor thought, that the conditions are the same, and for the same ends and purposes; for the one is a legal condition, the other is evangelical, and so they differ specisically and in kind: but what then? therefore they are not both conditions. we deny the consequence: for though they differ in the specisical, yet they agree in the generical nature of conditions: and faith is as properly a condition in genere conditionis evangelicae, as personal, perfect, sinless obedience is a condition in genere conditionis legalis, that is, faith is as properly an evangelical condition, as perfect, sinless obedience is properly a legal condition. we remember that the pelagians of old objected against the orthodox, that either our faith is not wrought in us by the special grace of god, or else it cannot be a duty, and so it cannot be a condition. but we know also how st. augustin answered their objection, lib. de praedestin. sanct. cap. 11. their objection was this, cum dicitur, si credideris, salvus eris, etc. when it is said, if thou believest, thou shalt be saved. the one of these, to wit faith, is required of us by a command, the other, to wit salvation, is offered us by promise, then that which is required is in man's power, as that which is promised is in god's power. to this pelagian objection augustin answers thus, sic dicitur, si credideris, salvus eris: quemadmodum dicitur, si spiritu, etc. that is, so it is said, if thou believest, thou shalt be saved, as it is said, if you through the spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, you shall live, (rom. 8.13.) for here also the one of these two is required, and the other is promised.— as than although it be the gist of god, to mortify the deeds of the flesh, yet it is required of us, with an offer of the reward of life, for our encour agement thereunto: just so faith is also the gift of god, although it be required of us, with an offer of the reward of salvation for our encouragement to believe, when it is said, if thou believest thou shalt be saved. for those things are therefore both commanded us, and also shown to be the gists of god; that it may be known that both we do them, and also that god causeth us to do them. thus augustin. we find the like objection, with the like answer to it, in bradwardin, de causâ dei, lib. 2. cap. 28. p. 567, 569. the objection, si deus necessario requiratur ad agendum, etc. if it be necessary that god concur to the proper production of every act of the creatures will; since god's concurring or acting is not in the power of the creature, than no act of the creature would be in its own power. the answer is, in rerum temporalium & spiritualium administratione videmus, etc. in the administration both of temporal, and spiritual things, we see that there are more powers and dominions over the same thing, subordinate to one another as inferior and superior.— wherefore not man ought to doubt, but that though the will of the creature have power and dominion over its own act, yet thereby is not excluded a superior power and lord, to wit, god himself, from a superior power, dominion, and efficiency in respect of the same act. and a little after, he says out of thomas aquinas, the will is said to have dominion over its own act, not by excluding the first cause, but the first cause doth not so act on the will, as to determine it necessarily to one thing, as he determines nature or natural agents; and therefore the determination of the act, is lest in the power of the understanding and will. we mention both these objections, with answers to them, out of st. augustin and bradwardin, to show, that though we cannot believe without, but do believe by the grace of god, yet that no ways hinders our faith from being a duty required of us, and also a condition of the covenant to be performed by us, and we know our author cannot bring any appearance of an argument against this, but that which was brought by the pelagians in the time of st. augustin, and which he answered. as for the place of scripture we are arguing from, we have calvin on our side acknowledging that it contains a conditional promise of the gospel-covenant, a promise of righteousness and salvation to all that sincerely believe in christ with their hearts, and confess him with their mouths. for thus he writes instit. lib. 2. cap. 5. sect. 12. speaking of this very place of scripture, to wit, rom. 10.5, 8, 9 id reputans paulus, etc. i. e. paul considering this, that salvation is offered in the gospel, not upon that hard, difficult impossible condition which the law requires of us (to wit, that they only shall obtain salvation who have fully kept all the commandments,) but upon a condition that is easy, ready, and soon attained unto, (to wit the condition of faith) he confirms it with this testimony: to wit the testimony of moses, which paul quotes out of deuteronomy, chap. 30. ver. 11, 12, 13, 14. and interprets it of the doctrine of faith in the gospel. let any read and compare rom. 10.6, 7, 8. with deut. 30.11, 12, 13, 14. and they will see that calvin did rightly conclude from those places, that in the judgement of st. paul salvation is promised us here in the gospel upon a much easier condition than it was in and by the law. this conditionality of the covenant of grace is clearly proved also by all those places of scripture which assure us, (1.) that all who believe shall be justified and saved, john 3.16, 18, 36. john 6.40. john 20.31. mark 16.16. acts 10.43. and 13.39. rom. 4.24. gal. 2.16. and 3.9, 11. (2.) that they who believe not whilst they continue in unbelief shall not be justified and saved. john 3.18.36. and 8.24. mark 16.16. revel. 21.8. these scriptures plainly show that faith is a condition of the covenant; because the definition and nature of a condition agrees to it. for (1.) faith is a duty which god requires of us for obtaining the promised benefit of justification and salvation, 1 john 3.23. rom. 10.9. (2.) god hath suspended his giving us the promised benefit of justification and salvation upon our performing the required duty of faith, so as to assure us, that if we perform the required duty, we shall have the promised benefit; if we believe, we shall be justified and saved, but if we do not perform it, if we do not believe, we shall not be justified and saved. nothing more is any way necessary to make faith a condition, but thesetwo things; and we see by plain scripture that both these things agree to a sincere faith, therefore 'tis condition of the covenant, and so the covenant is conditional. (2.) but now we must have a care that we do not deceive ourselves and others, in thinking and saying that faith singly and separately considered by itself is the whole entire condition of the gospel-covenant, so as to exclude all others; for though it be the only condition in some respect, yet it is not the only condition in all respects; it is the only receiving, consenting, trusting condition; but the scripture gives us plainly to understand that besides this receptive condition, there is a dispositive condition; besides faith, the condition of receiving christ and remission of sins through his name, (john 1.12. col. 2.5. acts 10.43.) there is repentance which is the condition, the performance whereof disposes and prepares us for the receiving of remission of sins, exod. 33.5. the lord said unto the people by moses, ye are a stiffnecked people, i will come up into the midst of thee in a moment, and consume thee: therefore now put off thy ornaments from thee, that i may know what to do unto thee. the call to put off their ornaments, was a call to humiliation and repentance. till they had answered that call, they were not fit that god should show them any favour; and god speaks of himself (after the manner of men) as if he knew not what to do with them, till they had given some evidence of their repentance. he was not willing to destroy them all; and yet it was not fit that he should pardon them, and show favour to them till they had first repent of their sins. jerem. 36.3. it may be that the house of judah will hear all the evil which i purpose to do unto them, that they may return every man from his evil way, that i may forgive their iniquity and their sin. here the lord intimates that it was not fit they should be forgiven, till they had repent; and therefore he ordered that jeremiah should tell them from him all the evil which he threatened to bring upon them if they did not repent; to see if that would bring them to repentance, that they might be fit for pardon, and that he might pardon them without dishonouring himself by so doing. we read also that john the baptist was sent to preach repentance unto the jews, matth. 3.1, 2. that by bringing them to repentance, he might prepare them to receive the lord christ, (luke 1.17.) and to receive through him the remission of their sins. mark 1.4. and it is for this reason, that we call repentance the disposing condition in order to pardon of sin, because it fits and prepares us for the receiving of it through faith in christ jesus. it may be our author will not like this, but we little value that, if we have god's word for our warrant; as we are sure we have for the thing we are upon: we will not differ with any about the naming of a thing, if we can come to an agreement about the thing itself. the thing than we stand for, and are resolved (through the lord's assistance) to stand for unto death, is, that repentance is a condition of the new covenant in order to forgiveness of sins, that is, it is a duty required of us for obtaining the forgiveness of our sins, so as that the forgiving us our sins, is suspended till we repent, and we are assured that if we repent we shall be forgiven, but if we do not repent, we shall not be forgiven. this is all that we mean by saying that repentance is a condition of the covenant: and need we prove this to christians? we thought there had been no jew, turk, or papist that had denied this; but if any protestants that own the divine authority of holy scripture do deny it, it will be no difficult matter to prove it: for, (1.) that god hath required of us repentance for obtaining the forgiveness of our sius, and hath suspended the forgiveness of our sins till we repent. this is evident from the words of the evangelical prophet, isa. 1.16, 17, 18. wash ye, make ye clean, put away the evil of your do from before mine eyes— come now and let us reason together saith the lord, though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow, though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool. and from the words of jeremiah in the forecited place, jerem. 36.3. that they may return every man from his evil way, that i may forgive their iniquity and their sin: and acts 26.18. to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of satan unto god, that they may receive forgiveness of sin. these scriptures show that repentance is so required of us in order to obtain the forgiveness of our sins, as that the forgiveness of our sins is suspended till we repent of them. repentance is required of us as a means to the end we may receive forgiveness; and it is self-evident that the means must be used, before the end can be obtained. though the end be first in intention, yet the means must be first in execution, (2.) god hath assured us of two things: (1.) that if we sincerely repent, we shall be forgiven. witness isa. 55.7. let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts, and let him return unto the lord, and he will have mercy upon him, and to our god, for he will abundantly pardon, ezek. 18.21, 22. but if the wicked will turn from all his sins,— all his transgressious that he hath committed they shall not be mentioned unto him. see ver. 30. prov. 28.13. whoso confesseth and forsaketh his sins shall have mercy. acts 3.19. repent and be converted that your sins may be blotted out. (2.) that if we do not sincerely repent, we shall not be forgiven, psal. 68.21. god shall wound the head of his enemies, and the hairy scalp of such a one as goeth still in his trespasses. luke 13.3, 5. except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish. from all this it appears very evident, that repentance is a condition of obtaining the pardon of our sins, and the condition must be performed in order of nature before the benefit promised upon condition be obtained; as we can prove (if common sense be denied) from the testimonies of dr. twisse, dr. owen, etc. but some object, justification includes forgiveness of sin, in its essential notion and nature, and then if repentance be before forgiveness of sin, it will be before justification stification also? answer, we admit the whole argument, for it is a great truth that repentance is before justification at least in order of nature. they object further if repentance be before justification, than it is either before or after faith; but it cannot be before faith, for it is impossible that a man should sincerely repent, before he believe: nor can it be after faith, if it be before justification, for a man is justified by faith, and that assoon as he believes. we answer, that men needed not to be deluded by such a silly sophism, if they would distinguish, (1.) between the abiding seed and principle, and the transient act of faith. (2.) between the assenting act of faith, and it's fiducially consenting act: for though faith in the principle of it be but one single grace, yet in the exercise of it, it hath several acts successively following one another, and yet not so closely neither but that the act of repentance may come between them. now to apply these distinctions, we say that from repentance's being before justification, it doth by no means follow that it is altogether and in all respects before faith, for, (1.) the seed and principle of faith is before the act of repentance. (2.) the assenting act of faith is also before the act of repentance. and thus from a principle of faith, and by the help of an act of faith the soul sincerely reputes in order to justification and pardon of sin; then after the said act of repentance, there comes another act of faith, to wit the act of fiducial consent to receive christ as he is offered in the gospel, whereupon the penitent believing soul is immediately justified and pardoned. this we learn of calvin, who in his institutions, lib. 3. cap. 3. sect. 19 writes thus, sic & christus suas conciones auspicatus est, etc. so also christ began his sermons, mark 1.15. the kingdom of god is at hand, repent ye and believe the gospel. first he declares that the treasures of god's mercy were opened in him. then (2.) he requires repentance. and (3.) and last, he requires a trust or reliance on the promises of god. here we have the lords order of things judiciously set forth. (1.) he declares that the treasures of god's mercy are opened in him. this declaration of god's infinite mercy in christ held forth to lost sinners of mankind, is the object of our faith of assent, and we are bound to assent to it, as an infallible truth, and to be firmly persuaded of it. (2.) he requires our repentance, he requires that assenting to the truth of the gospel, and being firmly persuaded that god is upon terms of mercy with us through him, we should repent and be hearty sorry that by our sins we have offended so merciful a god, and resolve in god's strength to do so no more. (3.) and lastly, that supposing we so repent from a principle of faith assenting to the revelation of god's great mercy in christ to lost sinners indefinitely, he requires that we trust and rely on god's promises, and on christ as held forth to us in the promises; that according to his promises he will for christ's sake be merciful to us in pardoning us all our sins. when we are through grace arrived at this act of faith, whereby we trust and rely on god's promises, and on christ as held forth to us in the promises, than we are instantly pardoned, accepted as righteous, and get a right to life for the alone satisfactory meritorious righteousness of our lord redeemer. but we could never attain to this act of faith, and thereby to pardon of sin for christ's sake, if we did not first believe with the faith of assent; that god through christ is upon terms of mercy and peace with us. that is the first act of faith, and when it is of the right kind, and proceeds from the right principle, the supernatural seed of faith put into the heart, it is through the influence of the holy spirit of mighty force and efficacy. (1.) to make us repent, to make us through grace hearty sorry for having displeased and dishonoured so good and merciful a god by our sins, and to make us resolve through grace to do so no more. (2.) it is of as great force and efficacy to make us trust and rely on god's promises, and on christ revealed in the promises, that god according to his promises will for christ's sake justify and pardon us. thus we have answered that frivolous objection, and clearly showed how true repentance is in order before justification and pardon of sin, and yet not altogether and in all respects before faith, but partly after, and partly before faith; after the principle and assenting act of faith, but before the fiducially consenting and trusting act of faith. and what though no man could give a clear account of the exact order observed by our souls in the acting of their several graces, yet that should hinder no christian from believing that true repentance is in order before pardon of sin, because god who cannot he hath plainly told us in the scripture of truth that it is in order before pardon, as hath been proved: if then we have any faith in god and his word, we should say, let god be true, who ever proves a lyar. certainly it is very unreasonable, foolish, and dangerous too; to deny, or doubt of that which is clear, because we cannot throughly understand that which is obscure, to wit, the precise order of the souls acting its graces. this may suffice at present to prove that the gospel-promise of justification and pardon of sin, is conditional, and that faith and repentance are the condition of it. (2.) in the second and last place, we shall briefly prove by scripture, that the gospel-promise of glorification and eternal salvation is conditional, and that sincere obedience is the condition of it. for the better understanding of our meaning in this matter, we premise a few things, as (1.) that this is to be understood upon supposition that a man lives some considerable time after that he is effectually called and justified and pardoned upon his first believing and repenting, and that he hath space and opportunity to perform his covenant engagement unto the lord, and to bring forth fruits meet for repentance. if the man die presently after his justification and pardon, there is no more required on his part; the spirit perfects his begun sanctification, and god through christ consummates his salvation, without requiring any more of him, than what he is enabled to do as he is a dying. but if god give him time and opportunity, and he live, it is required that proportionably to his talents and time he serve the lord in faith and holy obedience, that he renew his faith and repentance for pardon, as often as he finds that he has fallen into sin, and that he return to his duty again, serving the lord all his days in faith, hope, love, fear, patience, meekness, humility, and heavenly-mindedness, etc. (2.) the obedience that is required, as aforesaid, must be sincere, consisting in a real, true, hearty desire and endeavour to be faithful unto the lord, and through grace to stand perfect and complete in all the will of god, col. 4.12. (3.) this sincere obedience doth not satisfy the justice of god for the least sin, nor doth it purchase or merit the least mercy, not so much as a cup of cold water, much less the unconceivably great blessing of eternal life and glory. (4.) as this obedience doth not purchase or merit eternal life and glory itself, so neither doth it purchase or merit our right to it; and god's actual donation of it. for it was christ alone that purchased our right to it by his obediential sufferings unto death for us, and in our justification god by his promise for christ's sake gives us our right to it; and at the end of our days, when we leave this world, god will actually give eternal life and glory to us for the sake of christ, and by the hand and power of christ, john 17.2. rom. 6.23. so that (5ly.) since our sincere obedience neither merits, nor gives us right unto, nor yet actually gives us possession of eternal life and glory, it remains that it must be the means to be used, and condition to be performed on our part, that god for christ's sake according to his promise may continue our right to, and may give us possession of eternal life and glory. now this we prove first by plain scripture, first argument from scripture. for we find in holy scripture that god requires our obedience, as aforesaid, for obtaining the promised benefit of eternal life and glory, so as to suspend our obtaining of eternal glory in his heavenly kingdom, on our performing of sincere obedience unto him, and continuing therein to the end. 1. here is to be proved, first, that sincere obedience is required of us, and for that see, mat. 11.29, 30. take my yoke upon you, and learn of me— for my yoke is easy, and my burden is light. mat. 12.50. whosoever shall do the will of my father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother. mat. 28.20. teach them to observe all things whatsoever i have commanded you, and lo, i am with you always, even unto the end of the world. luke 6.46. why call ye me, lord, lord, and do not the thing which i say? see also, john 13.34. and 14. v. 15, 21, 23, 24. and 15. v. 10, 14. rom. 6.12, 13. and 8. v. 12, 13. and 12. v. 1, 2. 1 cor. 15.58. eph. 5. v. 1, 2, 3, 4, 15, 16. 1. thess. 4. v. 1, 2, 3, 4, etc. tit. 2.12. heb. 6.11, 12. and 12. v. 1. and 13. v. 1, 5. jam. 1. v. 4, 5, 19, 20, 21, 22, 27. and 2. v. 12. and 3.13, 1 pet. 13, 14, 15, 16, 17. and 2. v. 1, 2, 11, 12. and 3. v. 8, 9, 10, 11, 12. and 5. v. 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 2 pet. 3.11.17, 18. 1 john 2.4, 5, 6. and 3.18. and 2 john v. 8, 9 judas v. 20, 21. rev. 2.5. rev. 14.6, 7, 12. secondly, it is to be proved that god hath suspended our obtaining of eternal glory in his heavenly kingdom, on our performing of sincere obedience unto him, and continuing therein to the end. and to prove this, there needs no more but to demonstrate from scripture, that if we be obedient unto the lord, as is said, we shall obtain the possession of eternal glory in heaven, but if we be not so obedient, we shall not obtain it. now both these are so infallibly certain and evident, that really it is a shame that we should be put to prove them unto men, that own themselves to be christians. for, 1. that none shall obtain the possession of eternal glory in heaven, but penitent, obedient, persevering believers, is it not as clear as the sun, from these passages of holy writ? not every one that saith unto me, lord, matth. 7.21. lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doth the will of my father which is in heaven. 26, 27. compare this with the following verses, and you will see that our saviour himself hath declared that man to be a fool, that doth not do his commandments, and yet hopes that so living and dying, he shall be saved by him from the flood of god's wrath and vengeance. of all such disobedient rebels, the lord christ will say, those mine enemies who would not that i should reign over them, luke 19.27. bring hither and slay them before me. and blessed paul assures us, that when the lord jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, 2 thess. 1.7, 8. he himself will in flaming fire take vengeance on them that know not god, and obey not the gospel. st. peter asks the question, 1 pet. 4.17. what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel? and st. paul answers it in the place now cited, that christ himself will take vengeance of them in flaming fire, and they shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the lord, and from the glory of his power. the same apostle says again in another place, the just shall live by faith, but if any man draw back, heb. 10.38. my soul shall have no pleasure in him, the words [any man] are not in the original, and therefore they are printed in a different character. it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. if he draw back, if the just man that lives by faith, if he draw back, if he apostatise; the lords soul will have no pleasure in him, that is, the lord will abhor him unto perdition: as appears by the context. this passage is parallel to that of ezekiel, when, (or, chap. 18.26. if) a righteous man turneth away from his righteousness and committeth iniquity, and dieth in them, for his iniquity that he hath done shall he die. and if any man should go about to persuade people to believe that they may be saved, though they die in such sins without repentance, blessed and holy paul by the spirit of the lord hath cautioned us all against such as deceivers, saying as it is written, ephes. 5.6. let no man deceive you with vain words; for because of these things cometh the wrath of god upon the children of disobedience. heb. 12.14. and assures us that without holiness no man shall see the lord. and, 2. on the other hand is it not as clear that all persevering, penitent, obedient believers shall certainly obtain the possession of eternal glory in heaven, through the infinite mercy of god, and merits of christ? for doth not our lord himself say, verily, verily, if a man keep my saying, joh. 8.51. he shall never see death: that is, the second and eternal death. and as for bodily death, he shall at the last day be saved and delivered from that also. for as it is written, john 5.28, 29. then they that have done good shall come forth of their graves unto the resurrection of life. and therefore as he saith again, john 13.17. rom. 6.23. if ye know these things, happy are ye, if ye do them. and his apostle paul saith that god gives eternal life through jesus christ our lord. but to whom doth he give it? why, that is visible from the 22. verse immediately before. it is to them who being made free from sin, and become servants to god, have their fruit unto holiness. it is, we say, to them, that god through christ, gives eternal life, as a reward of their holy obedience and well-doing. god in christ is most certainly a rector or ruler who according to his law of grace, will distribute at last glorious rewards to all that fear his name, revel. 11.18. 2 cor. 5.10. james 1.25. rom. 2.6, 7. small and great. and as st. james saith, then shall the obedient believer, the doer of the lord's work, be blessed in his deed. then as holy paul says, to them who by patiented continuance in well-doing, have sought for glory and honour, and immortality, god will render eternal life. this god will do at the last day to all that have so continued in well-doing to the end. for so the spirit of truth hath plainly said by paul; and it is infallibly true, and will continue to be for ever true; 1 cor. 7.19. with gal. 5.6. let who will contradict it, and say it is false. blessed paul assures again, that circumcision is nothing, and vncircumeision is nothing but the keeping of the commandments of god. heb. 5.9. and that christ is become the author of eternal salvation to all them that obey him. yea, our lord christ himself saith, be thou faithful unto death, rev. 2.10. and 3.21. rev. 22.14. and i will give thee a crown of life; and that he who overcomes, shall sit with him on his throne. to all which agrees that we read in the last of the revelations, blessed are they that do his (christ's) commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city. here we see the lord himself hath declared them blessed that sincerely keep his commandments, because thereby, 1. they have a right to the tree of life, whilst they live. and, 2. when they die, they enter upon the full possession of that which before they had a right unto. they enter in through the gates into the city. but you will say, how have we right unto and entrance upon full possession of eternal life and glory by keeping christ's commandments? we answer, the keeping christ's commandments doth not merit, or give us either one or the other of them; but it is the way and means which we use, and the condition which through grace we perform for the having our right to the tree of life continued to us, or not taken from us whilst we live: and for our having full possession of life and happiness given us when we die. so that 'tis god who first for christ's sake gave, that still continues our right to us; and at last will for the same cause, that is, for christ's sake, give us full possession: but he will do all this for us in the way of continued faith, and obedience; and on condition that we sincerely believe in christ, and keep his commandments unto the end. thus we have proved from scripture, that sincere obedience to the law of christ, is a condition of glorification, as our first believing and repenting is the condition on our part of our justification, and of the pardon of our sins. for as the definition of a gospel-condition agrees to faith, and repentance, with respect to our justification and pardon of sin; so it agrees to sincere obedience with respect to our glorification, and eternal salvation. and to whatsoever the definition of a gospel-condition agrees, to that the nature and essence of a gospel-condition must agree also. from all which we conclude that the covenant of grace is conditional with respect to the subsequent blessings and benefits of it. the two principal promises, to wit of justification and glorification are certainly conditional; which was the thing to be proved, and having first demonstrated it by scripture, second head of arguments. we, secondly, prove it by reason agreeable to scripture: and, reason 1. first, if the covenant of grace be not conditional with respect to its subsequent blessings and benefits, particularly, if the promise of justification and pardon of sin be not conditional, we do not see how it is possible for a minister to be faithful to god, to his own conscience, and to the souls of the people in preaching the gospel to them. it is true, it is easily conceivable how a minister may be faithful in laying before people the commandments of the lord, and in telling them that those commandments oblige them to believe and repent; and that if they do not believe and repent, they will grievously sin against the lord, and draw down his wrath upon their own souls. but now wh●n he proceeds to encourage them to believe and repent, by setting forth to them god's promise of justification and pardon of sin, we do not conceive how he can do it honestly and faithfully, if the promise of justification and pardon of sin be not conditional. for when a minister is preaching to a promiscuous, mixed multitude of people, and for their encouragement to believe and repent, is declaring to them god's gospel-promise of justification and pardon of sin, either he must declare and preach this promise to them conditionally or absolutely? if conditionally assuring them from the lord, that they shall be justified and pardoned, through christ's righteousness imputed to them, if they sincerely believe and repent, than the promise itself is conditional, and the covenant also is in that respect conditional: for if there be no condition in the gospel-promise and covenant, how can the minister preach it conditionally to the people? doth he not take god's name in vain, and abuse the people also, by telling them from the lord, that all they who perform the condition of the gospel-promise, by believing and repenting, shall have the promised benefit, to wit, justification and pardon of sin; if there be no condition in the promise, necessary to be performed by them for obtaining the promised benefit? either then a minister must not preach the promise conditionally to the people, or there is, and must be a condition in the promise: and if there be a condition in the promise, than we have what we aim at, for we desire no more to prove the covenant of grace to be conditional. but, 2. if our author will say, that the minister must preach the promise of justification and pardon, absolutely, to all the people; assuring them from the lord, that they are, or shall be justified and pardoned through christ, absolutely, whether they perform any condition or not, whether they do any duty or not; whether they believe and repent or not: then we answer, that the minister, who shall preach to a mixed multitude, or indeed to any at such a rate, is such a preacher as all people, who would not be deluded to their souls ruin and destruction, should have a care of, and avoid as an impostor and deceiver. for assuredly, it is most false and delusive for a minister to tell a multitude of sinful people, that they shall all be justified and pardoned absolutely, without complying with any terms, or performing any condition in order to the obtaining of the promised benefit of justification and pardon. if the promise of justification and pardon be said to be made unto sinners as sinners, and that nothing is required of men, in order to their being justified and pardoned, but that they be sinners; if our author, or any for him, could prove that; it is confessed, that he might preach, and offer justification and pardon of sin, absolutely, to all the people that hear him, and the consequence of it would be, that all men, even the greatest rogues that come at any time into our congregations, should therefore believe that they are justified and pardoned, because they are sinners; for that is all that is required of them, to wit, that they be sinners; and they are infallibly sure of that. but before he, or any, be allowed that liberty to preach and offer justification and pardon of sin absolutely to all, he must prove, that god hath made an absolute promise of justification and pardon of sin unto sinners as sinners, and hath given him commission to preach and offer justification and pardon absolutely to sinners, as such. which we are sure, neither he, nor any man else, can ever do. for our parts, we declare to the world, that we cannot preach to the people, so as to tell them from the lord, that the promise of justification, and pardon of sin, is made to them as they are sinners absolutely without any condition to be performed on their part, for qualifying them to obtain the promised benefit; because this would be in effect, to tell them, that god will justify and pardon all the men in the world, and that he will save and glorify every man of them, since they are all sinners, and no other condition, no nor qualification neither, but that, is required of them in order to their being justified and pardoned. whatever promise god hath made to men as sinners, he hath certainly made to all men, because all men are sinners. we remember the rule of reasoning, which many years ago we learned in the schools, that the consequence holds good, and never fails à quatenus ad omne. if then god hath made an absolute promise to sinners as such, that he will justify and pardon them, it follows necessarily, that all men, without exception, being sinners, they shall certainly be all justified and pardoned; (yea, and glorified too, for whom god justisies, he will glorify.) the reason of this is, because god will certainly make good all his absolute promises. but it is an abominable falsehood that all men in the world, without exception, shall be certainly justified and pardoned, therefore it must needs be a great falschood also, that god hath made an absolute promise to sinners as such, that he will justify and pardon them. and since god hath made no such absolute promise, we that are ministers, and speak to the people in god's name, cannot absolutely preach such a promise to the people, without deceiving and deluding them, which our consciences will not suffer us to do. if this do not satisfy our author, and those of his way, but they will still deny the conditionality of the covenant, and think to put by both the horns of our dilemma, because there may be a third way of preaching the promise of justification to the people, that is, they can preach it neither absolutely, nor conditionally, but some other way; we would entreat them not to conceal that other way from us, who are willing to learn of them, or of any that will be so kind as to inform us aright, where we are mistaken. in order to this, we desire our author (who takes upon him to be the informer of the ministers,) to assign us a medium, or mean between a conditional and absolute promise, and consequently between preaching to the people, a gospel-promise absolutely or conditionally, upon supposition that we preach it at all. hitherto we have thought that all promises are either absolute or conditional, and we know none of a neutral nature that are neither absolute, nor conditional; and consequently, we have believed, that if we preach the gospel-promise of justification to the people, we must of necessity preach it either absolutely, or conditionally; and the like we say of any other gospel-promise, we must preach it either absolutely, or conditionally, according to the nature of the promise itself, as it may be absolute, or conditional. if our author will show us a promise that is of a middle nature, and is neither absolute nor conditional, he will indeed do something to purpose, something towards the rectifying our method of preaching the promises. but we judge it impossible for him to show us a promise of a middle nature, that is neither absolute, nor conditional; and that because absolute promise, and conditional promise are, in effect, contradictories, and there neither is, nor can be any medium, or mean between contradictories. and that they are contradictories, we thus prove, to suspend the thing promised, on a condition annexed to the promise; and not to suspend the thing promised, on a condition annexed to the promise are plainly contradictories. this proposition is self-evident if the terms of it be understood. but it is essential unto a conditional promise to suspend the thing promised on a condition annexed to the promise; and on the other side, it is essential unto an absolute promise not to suspend the thing promised on a condition annexed to the promise. this proposition is also clear from the very nature of these two sorts of promises. the conclusion than follows necessarily that therefore a conditional promise, and an absolute promise are contradictories, and there can be no middle promise between them, no promise, that is, neither absolute, nor conditional. for every promise possible must either suspend, or not suspend the thing promised on a condition annexed, and so every promise possible must be either conditional or absolute: which was the thing to be demonstrated. we have understood that there are some who leave no stone unturned to avoid the force of the arguments, which prove the covenant of grace to be conditional as aforesaid; and they think to do it by saying, that there is an order of grace which god observes in promising, and in dispensing according to promise his blessings and benefits unto his people, so as not to make one thing to be the condition of another, but so as to make one thing to go in order before another. to this we answer, we freely grant that god doth both promise blessings and benefits unto his people in a certain order; and also that he doth orderly dispense them unto his people, according to his promise●; but we utterly deny that god's order of grace doth hinder one thing in that order from being the condition of another; and on the contrary we affirm, that it rather makes one thing to be the condition of another: and that for this renson, because the order of grace, which the brethren speak of, either (1.) it is an order in the promise of justification and pardon, (of which alone our question now is,) to wit, in the promise [if you sinceroly believe with a faith working by love, you shall be justified and pardoned through christ.] or (2.) it is an order out of the promise, but in god's will, with respect to the promise. if the first, that is, if it be an order of grac● in the promise, than it is plainly a conditional order of grace; for the promise is conditional (as we have proved) and the gracious order of it is this, that whoever performs the condition of it, that is, believes sincerely with a faith working by love, shall have the blessing and benefit of it, shall be justified and pardoned. thus the order of grace in the conditional promise being plainly a conditional order, we are but just where we were; for the order of grace in the promise, being but conditional, it doth not help us one jot to avoid the conditionality of the promise and covenant. (2.) but if they choose to say, that it is the second, to wit, that it is an order of grace out of the promise, but in god's will with respect to the promise, and so it is an absolute order of god's will, that if people sincerely believe they shall be justified and pardoned; we hearty grant that it is so, there is such a gracious order, or ordination in and of god's will, and it is plainly revealed also in his written gospel. but what then? this really makes against our brethren and for us: and that because this absolute order of grace in god's will concerning the promise, is so far from overthrowing, that on the contrary, it most strongly establisheth and confirmeth the conditionality of the promise. for is not this a good, strong, unavoidable consequence, god of his free grace hath absolutely ordained (that faith shall be a condition of the covenant, and) that this shall be a true conditional gospel-promise [if people sincerely believe in christ, they shall be justified and pardoned.] therefore it is a true conditional gospel-promise, and cannot be otherwise. all this is to us very certain and evident, and therefore must conclude that we have proved by reason agreeable to scripture, that the covenant of grace is conditional, as aforesaid. and without going upon this ground and principle, we do not conceive how ministers can preach the gospel honestly and faithfully to all sorts of men they meet with, as by our commission we are obliged to do. mark 16.15, 16. rom. 10.8, 9 reason 2. the covenant promise of eternal life and glory is conditional, therefore the covenant of grace is conditional with respect to its subsequent blessings and benefits. the consequence is self-evident, because eternal life and glory is one of the principal subsequent blessings of the covenant of grace: we prove the antecedent against mr. marshals book; and against our author who highly approves and commends it. if sincere obedience to the lord, be the condition of the covenant promise of eternal life and glory, than the covenant promise of eternal life and glory is really conditional. but so it is that sincere obedience to the lord, is the condition of the covenant-promise of eternal life and glory. therefore that covenant-promise is conditional. the consequence of the first proposition is self-evident. we prove the second proposition, to wit that sincere obedience to the lord, is the condition of the covenant-promise of eternal life and glory; because, whatsoever is so required of us as a duty in order to the obtaining of the eternal life and glory promised, that our obtaining thereof is by the promise suspended on our performing that duty; and we are assured by the lord that if we perform that duty, we shall obtain, but if we perform not that duty, we shall not obtain the eternal life and glory promised: that is, the condition of the covenant promise of eternal life and glory (it being the very definition and essential nature of a gospel-condition, that it be a duty required as aforesaid:) but sincere obedience to the lord is a duty so required in order to the obtaining of the eternal life and glory promised; as most evidently appears by the many plain testimonies of god's word, whereby we have already proved sincere obedience to be a duty so required. therefore sincere obedience to the lord is and must be the condition of the covenant promise of eternal life and glory. if our author (or any for him) should say, that it is true, sincere obedience to the lord's command of believing, is required as aforesaid; but sincere obedience to any other command of the lord is not necessarily required as aforesaid, in order to the obtaining of the promised blessing of eternal life and glory. we reply, (1.) that if sincere obedience to the lord's command of believing, be required as necessary (in the way aforesaid) to the obtaining of the promised blessing of eternal life and glory, than even according to that answer, the covenant-promise of eternal life and glory, is still conditional; and faith continued and persevered in to the end, (which is that sincere obedience to the lord's command of believing) is the condition of it: for the definition and essential nature of a gospel-condition agrees to faith under that consideration. (2.) we reply, that the sincere obedience, which consists in the formal elicit act, or acts of believing, is not all the sincere obedience which is required as aforesaid, and we thus prove it, if it be false that no sincere obedience is required as aforesaid, but the act of faith, than it is true that some obedience is required as aforesaid, besides the act of faith. this proposition is self-evident, because no obedience but the act of faith, and some obedience besides the act of faith, are manifest contradictories; and two contradictories cannot possibly be both true, nor both false; but one of them must always be true, and the other false; and it cannot possibly be otherwise. this being clear and undeniable, we proceed to the next proposition and subsume. but it is false, that no sincere obedience is required as aforesaid, but the act of faith. for if no sincere obedience but the act of faith, be required as aforesaid, that is, be required as indispensably necessary to obtain the promised blessing of eternal life and glory; than it follows by necessary consequence that a christian (our author may instance in and apply it to himself or any other as he pleaseth,) we say it necessarily follows that a christian (if he doth but keep faith, and now and then put it forth into act, in obedience to the single command of believing) is safe and runs no hazard of losing eternal life and glory, although he live in the habitual constant omission of all other duties, and in the habitual constant commission of all other sins, except the sin of formal unbelief, that is, he is safe and runs no hazard of losing eternal life and glory, though he never love nor fear god and christ, nor exercise any other grace, or perform any other duty; though he never love his neighbours, nor deal justly and honestly by them; yea upon this supposed principle he is safe, and runs no hazard of his salvation, though he habitually and constantly do the quite contrary, and live in all other the most abominable sins against god and man, except the sin of formal unbelief. for though these be sins, great, abominable sins of omission and commission against the law of god; yet to him who is supposed to be a sincere believer, and to keep his faith under all these sins of omission and commission, the said duties are not commanded, nor the sins forbidden under the penalty of losing his salvation; or if the law strictly considered as a covenant of works command those duties, and forbidden those sins under that penalty: yet from him being a believer, the gospel takes off the penalty, as fast as the law lays it on; or rather (according to the principle we are now speaking of) the gospel binds the laws hands, so that though it would, yet it cannot lay its penalty upon the man (he being a believer) although he never so much deserves it by the foresaid abominations against god and man: and consequently he may omit all duties (except the duty of believing,) and commit all sins imaginable (except the sin of formal unbelief,) and yet remain safe, and run no hazard of losing the promised blessing of eternal life and glory. far be it from us to charge our author or any of his way, with such abominable practices; we abhor to charge any man with holding the absurd consequences of his opinion, which he doth not own. we design no such thing, nor indeed any reflection at all by this argument; no, but our real and whole design is to show the natural necessary consequence (and danger) of holding the opinion that no sincere obedience, but faith, is required of christians by the covenant and law of christ as indispensably necessary to the obtaining of eternal life and glory, and thereby to evince that (as was said;) it is false that no sincere obedience, but the act of believing is required as indispensably necessary to obtain eternal life and glory. and this, we think, we have effectually done; for if no sincere obedience, but the act of believing, be required of christians by the law of christ, as indispensably necessary to obtain eternal life and glory; than it is self-evident that they are safe, and may obtain eternal life and glory, if they have the act of faith, and the obedience which by it they yield to the command of believing: though they want all other sincere obedience, and that is, though they live in the love and practice of all manner of sins, except the sin of unbelief. obj. 1. if our author object, (1.) that though sincere obedience distinct from faith be not required of christians as indispensably necessary to obtain eternal life and glory, yet it is required as necessary to signify and evidence to a christian the sincerity of his faith, which he cannot be sure of, unless it be evidenced to him by sincere obedience distinct from itself. answ. we answer, (1.) we suppose he knows well enough that there are some who hold the quite contrary, to wit, that it is faith only which is indispensably necessary to evidence the sincerity of a man's obedience, and not sincere obedience to evidence the sincerity of his faith. (2.) be it so, that sincere obedience is indispensably necessary to assure a christian of the sincerity of his faith, yet if it be not likewise indispensably necessary to his obtaining eternal life and glory, he may be really safe and in no danger of losing eternal life and glory, if he have a sincere faith, which is the only thing indispensably necessary, though he want all sincere obedience (distinct from faith,) which is pretended not to be indispensably necessary to the obtaining of eternal life and glory. it is true the man cannot know that he is safe, he cannot be sure and full of spiritual comfort, without the evidence of his faith, that is, without sincere obedience: but for all that, if he really have faith, he is safe with respect to another world, though he want sincere obedience as the evidence of his safety by faith, and that is, though he live in the love and practice of all manner of sins, both of omission and commission, except the sin of formal unbelief; which we think is a very great absurdity following upon the foresaid opinion. obj. 2. if our author object, (2.) that here we suppose an impossibility, to wit, that a sincere faith may be without any other sincere obedience, whereas though sincere obedience be not required as indispensably necessary to obtain eternal life and glory, yet there always is and will be sincere obedience where there is a sincere faith, and can never be separated from it. we answer, (1.) that we do not argue from an impossibility as such, but wholly abstracting from its being possible or impossible for a sincere faith to be without sincere obedience to the lord in other things required of christians, we prove it to be false that no sincere obedience, but the act of faith is under the gospel-covenant required of christians, as indispensably necessary to obtain the promised blessing of eternal life and glory; because if that were not false, than this would be necessarily true, that though a christian should live in the love and practice of all other abominations, yet if (per possibile vel impossibile) he retain but the act of faith, he is safe and secure with respect to his eternal salvation, and runs no hazard of losing eternal life and glory. it is only this consequence which we are concerned to make good, and that we have done. but though the consequence and inference be good, yet the consequent or thing inferred, we justly account to be a very great absurdity, and from that absurdity we prove the falsehood of the antecedent and principle from whence it follows by necessary consequence, that is, the falsehood of the principle, which saith that no sincere obedience but the act of faith is indispensably necessary to salvation. (2.) we answer, that though we suppose and grant it impossible for a sincere faith to be without sincere obedience, yet we may very well say, that it is a great falsehood that no other obedience but that of the formal elicit act of faith, is required of christians as indispensably necessary to salvation, and may prove it by this argument. suppose per impossibile that a christian have a sincere faith separated from sincere obedience, if nothing but a sincere act of faith be required of him as indispensably necessary to salvation, he is safe and runs no hazard of losing eternal salvation, though he lead a wicked life as aforesaid. but this is false and absurd, therefore that principle from whence this follows is false and absurd also, that is, it is false and absurd that nothing but an act of faith is required as indispensably necessary to salvation. and not only logic allows us to argue thus sometimes from a supposed impossibility, john 8.55. but even our blessed saviour who is truth itself hath done it before us. if i should say, (quoth our saviour) i know not the father, i should be a liar like unto you; but i know him, etc. in like manner s. paul argues ab impossibili, saying, though we or an angel from heaven, gal. 1.8. preach another gospel to you, than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. (3.) we answer, that when it is said, that sincere faith cannot be without sincere obedience, the meaning is, that sincere faith is of an obediential nature, and is of itself apt to put us upon the several acts of sincere obedience, and will certainly do it, if it be rightly used, and put forth into strong vigorous acts, if the spirit of the lord concur with it, if it be not hindered by the flesh, and by the prevalency of tentations: but the meaning is not that sincere faith, always actually and infallibly produceth the imperat acts of sincere obedience, as necessarily as the sun produces light, and as the fire produceth heat. for the principle of sincere faith doth not so necessarily produce its own formal elicit acts, much less doth it so necessarily produce the acts of other gracious principles and habits, whose acts are not the formal elicit, but the imperat acts of faith. and it is but too well known, by sad experience, that the principle of sincere faith, (or even the languid, weak act of that principle,) doth not necessarily, and infallibly always produce all those acts of sincere obedience to the lord, which are necessary towards the obtaining of eternal life and glory. for had not david and solomon a principle of sincere faith, (and who can say and prove that they had not then some weak, languid acts of faith?) and yet that faith in them, for some considerable time, was separated from that sincere repentance and obedience, which is required as indispensably necessary to the obtaining possession of eternal life and glory. this is too evident to be denied. and surely what hath been, is possible to be, though we hearty wish that it may never actually be any more; and that none of god's people may ever fall so foully, nor lie so long in sin, as david and solomon did. but we think our author (or any for him) will find it a hard task to prove, that sincere faith (both as to the habit, and some weak act) cannot be, for some time, actually separated from such imperat acts of repentance and sincere obedience as are indispensably necessary to the obtaining possession of eternal life and glory in heaven; and further he may find it a task no less hard to determine precisely how long time they may be actually separated, but not one minute longer. if he think, that he can do either, or both of these, we do intrent him to do it, for in truth it will be a kindness to us, who do really find the difficulty so great, that we are not able to master it without help. (4.) we answer, that though it were well proved that sincere faith can in no case be separated for one minute from the imperate acts of that sincere repentance and obedience which is indispensably necessary to the obtaining possession of eternal life and glory in heaven; yet it doth by no means follow that faith only, and not sincere obedience distinct from faith, is required of us, as indispensably necessary to the obtaining possession of eternal life and glory in heaven; for faith and obedience may both be required, and we have already proved by plain scripture that they are both required as indispensably necessary to the obtaining of eternal life and glory, and without our having both as the lord hath required, we cannot be out of danger of coming short of eternal life and glory. the clear evidence of this truth, hath made our ablest, and most judicious divines acknowledge that upon supposition, that the saints fallen into gross sins against knowledge and conscience, like those of david and solomon, should die in them before they had, through grace, returned unto their obedience to the lord, renewed both their faith, and their repentance, and got both the gild and filth of those sins washed and purged away by the most precious blood, and holy spirit of christ, they would be damned, and lost for ever. this mr. rutherford in his examen arminianismi, p. 620. acknowledges to be a truth in these words, [nisi renati (in atrecia peccata lapsi) resipiscerent, in aeternum ipsis pereundum esset, juxta comminationes evangelicas'.] unless the regenerate (after they have fallen into atrocious sins) did repent, they must perish everlastingly, according to the threaten of the gospel. of this persuasion were our excellent divines in the synod of dort, so was mr. perkins, bishop abbot, downham, mr. burgess, pareus, turretin, etc. as shall be showed hereafter by the express words of most of them. this same truth hath also been acknowledged and maintained by the french divines, who answered that pestilent book of the jansenians, called the renversement (and corruption) of the morals of jesus christ by the errors of the calvinists in the point of justification. jurieu and others in answer to that most virulent book, go upon our principle aforesaid, and thereby vindicate the reformed churches from the blasphemous reproaches which the jansenians cast upon us all, upon pretence that we all hold the abominable opinion aforesaid, that we are safe as to our eternal state, if we have but a true faith, though we live in the love and practice of all manner of villainies, except unbelief. (5.) one great reason, (we do not say the only, but one great reason) on our part, why a sincere faith is of its own nature obediential, that is, it inclines to obedience, and is of itself naturally apt to produce in us sincere obedience, and will not fail to do it, if it be rightly used, and be not hindered; it is this; a sincere faith firmly assents to the truth of the foresaid commands, promises, and threaten of the gospel, whereby we have proved that sincere obedience is by the lord made indispensably necessary unto, and the condition of obtaining eternal salvation; and from the infallible truth of god's word it assures us that there is no obtaining of eternal salvation, unless we be sincerely obedient unto the lord; that if through grace we be sincerely obedient we shall be saved; but if not, we shall be damned. now this faith acting upon the several parts of god's word, according to their respective natures, is of great force and efficacy to determine us unto the practice of sincere obedience; (1.) the faith of god's word commanding sincere obedience, as indispensably necessary to salvation, makes our consciences how down to god's authority in the command, and makes us endeavour to yield obedience to it. (2.) the faith of god's word of threatening against the disobedient rebel, works upon our fears, 2 cor. 5.10, 11. heb. 4.1. and fear restrains us from disobedience, lest thereby we should bring upon ourselves the everlasting punishment threatened. (3.) the faith of god's word of promise to obedient believers, works upon our hope, and hope quickens us unto obedience, as the necessary means to obtain the eternal reward promised; it makes us follow after holiness in expectation of happiness, 1 john 3.2, 3. it is essential to saving faith to act thus differently on the several parts of the word according to their respective natures, making us tremble at the threaten, embrace the promises, and by that means obey the commands of god. as our confession of faith intimates in chap. 14. art. 2. now our faith its being thus naturally fitted to make us sincerely obedient unto the lord in all his commands and institutions, ariseth partly from hence, that the indispensable necessity of sincere obedience, in order to the obtaining of eternal salvation, is one of the objects of a sound faith, which it firmly assents to, and is strongly persuaded of: for this firm assent, and strong persuasion, that sincere obedience is so necessary to salvation, will not let us rest, but will be still putting us on to yield sincere obedience unto the law of christ, as that which must be done or we shall be undone for ever. but if a man be once firmly persuaded in his own mind, that no sincere obedience, but only the act of faith in way of obedience, is indispensably necessary to salvation; his faith will not have so much power over him to make him sincerely obedient unto the lord, in order to salvation. indeed it is much to be doubted whether that man hath a sincere faith at all, who is under the power of this erroneous opinion, that no sincere obedience distinct from the act of faith, is indispensably necessary to salvation; for a sincere, sound faith amongst other of its objects, it believes this for one, that as, first, faith, so next sincere obedience is indispensably necessary to salvation. thus we have proved our second proposition, to wit, it is false, that no sincere obedience (but the act of faith) is required as indispensably necessary to the obtaining the promised blessing of eternal life and glory. now both the premises being certainly and evidently true, the conclusion follows avoidable, which is this, that it is true, that some obedience (besides the act of faith) is required as indispensably necessary to the obtaining of the promised blessing of eternal life and glory. for who is so stark blind as not to see that if it be false that no obedience, but faith is indispensably necessary to salvation, (as we have proved it to be false;) then its contradictory is true, that some obedience, besides faith, is indispensably necessary to salvation. we proceed then, and thus argue, if some obedience, besides faith, be indispensably necessary to salvation, then that some obedience, besides faith, must be either a most perfect, personal, sinless obedience, or an imperfect, personal, sincere obedience. there can be no other personal obedience, but one of these two, thought indispensably necessary to salvation. but it is not, it cannot be a most perfect, personal, sinless obedience; for if such an obedience were required, as indispensably necessary to salvation; then no man could be saved, because no mere man ever performed such obedience to the law of god in this life, no man ever lived so holily as never to sin in thought, word or deed, after his conversion and 〈…〉: and so if such sinless, personal obedience were required of all as indispensably ●●●●●sary to salvation, no flesh could be saved, but all would be damned; notwithstanding all that christ hath done and suffered to purchase salvation for his people. christ's blood would have been so far shed in vain, that not one soul would be saved by it, which were blasphemy to affirm; and therefore it cannot be that now under the gospel-covenant, a most perfect, personal, sinless obedience is required of us, as indispensably necessary to salvation. since therefore some personal obedience, besides faith, is indispensably necessary to salvation, and it is not a most perfect, personal, sinless obedience, that is so necessary, we must of necessity conclude, that it is an imperfect, personal sincere obedience, which besides faith, is indispensably necessary to salvation. the other most perfect, personal, sinless obedience is not attainable in this life by the ordinary assistance of god's grace, but this personal, imperfect, yet sincere obedience, is attainable in this life, by the ordinary helps of god's spirit and grace. for christ's yoke is easy, and his burden is light, mat. 11.30. and god's commandments are not grievous, 1 john 5.3. the spirit helpeth our infirmities, rom. 8.26. through the spirit we mortify the deeds of the body, rom. 8.13. we purify our souls in obeying the truth through the spirit, etc. 1 pet. 1.22. in short though without christ we can do nothing, john 15.5. yet through christ strengthening us we can do all things, phil. 4.13. that is, we can do all things which christ requires of us as indispensably necessary to our obtaining the promised blessing of eternal life and salvation. if any should object against this, and say, that a man may be saved although he do not perform that obedience which is indispensably necessary to salvation, because though he fall into very great sins, yet he may repent of them, and so be saved through christ upon his repentance. we answer, (1.) that it is contradictious nonsense to say a man may be saved without that sincere obedience, which god hath made indispensably necessary to his salvation. (2.) we answer with rutherford and others, as aforesaid, that when a regenerate justified man fulls into gross sins against knowledge and conscience; he cannot be saved whilst he continues in those sins without repentance, for than he doth not walk after the spirit, but rather after the flesh; then he is going astray from the way that leads to life and salvation, and is walking in the broad way that leads to destruction: and therefore if he do not turn back, and return again into the narrow way that leads to life and salvation, he will certainly be undone, he will perish everlastingly; rom. 8.13. if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die. but when a justified man, that had fallen, as is said, rises again by repentance, he returns to his obedience: and we desire it may be observed and remembered, that when we say sincere obedience is indispensably necessary to salvation, we do not mean that it is required as absolutely and indispensably necessary to our salvation, that our sincere obedience be never at all interrupted by any acts of disobedience, but that if it happen that our obedience be at any time notably interrupted by acts of wilful, presumptuous sin; it is indispensably necessary to our salvation, that we renew our faith and repentance, and return to our obedience again, and that we die in faith and obedience to the revealed will of god. as for them who are called at the last hour, who are first converted and justified a little before their death; actual faith and repentance is required of them in their own persons, and as much more sincere obedience as they have time and strength to perform. as we see in the penitent thief, he performed a great deal of obedience in a little time, he not only believed in christ with his heart, but confessed him with his mouth, pleaded for him, and vindicated him from the blasphemous aspersions that were cast upon him. he likewise took shame to himself, and gave glory to god by confessing his own sins; and withal he expressed his love to his fellow-thief by rebuking and admonishing him. lastly, he trusted in, and prayed unto christ, as a lord and king, who had a kingdom in another world, and who could help and save him after this life, luke 22.40, 41, 42. this that penitent malefactor did at his death, and truly this was a great deal for him to do at such a time, and when christ, his lord and saviour, was before his face in so low and miserable a condition to the eye of sense and reason. the obedience which that poor penitent believer, yielded to the lord in such circumstances, may well be esteemed equivalent to all that sincere obedience which in the space of many years, others in better circumstances perform unto the lord. thus we have at large prosecuted and cleared this argument for the indispensable necessity of sincere obedience to the obtaining of eternal life and salvation, and consequently for the conditionality of the covenant-promise of eternal life and salvation. and the argument seems to us so clear and cogent, that we do not see any thing of weight that can be objected against it. if any should say, that sincere, evangelical obedience, is not only necessary to salvation, as the condition to be performed on our parts; but upon other accounts also: we hearty acknowledge that it is so; it is necessary to express our love and thankfulness to god and christ for their wonderful goodness and grace, mercy and love to us: as also it is necessary in order to the pleasing, and glorifying our god, creator, redeemer, and sanctifier; and that thereby we may profit and edify our neighbours: but this doth by no means hinder its being likewise indispensably necessary to our own salvation, nay all this is a part of that obedience which is so necessary to our salvation. if yet any should further object, and say, that besides faith, sincere obedience may be indispensably necessary to salvation, and yet not be a condition of obtaining salvation. we answer, that we do not love to contend with any about the use of the word condition, if they will grant us the thing signified by the word. now by the word condition in this matter of obedience, we mean no more, but that sincere obedience is so necessary to salvation, that god by his promise hath suspended our obtaining of salvation, (consummate salvation in heavenly glory,) till we have performed sincere obedience unto him, assuring us that if through grace we perform sincere obedience unto him, we shall certainly be saved, but if not, we shall not be saved. this is all we mean by sincere obedience its being the condition of the covenant-promise of salvation. if our brethren agree to this, they yield us the thing that we contend for; and there remains no more difference as to this matter, but about the use of the word condition; and if they do not think fit to use that word, we leave them to their liberty, not to use it, as we desire they would leave us to our liberty to use it, as we have occasion. for though the word be not in scripture, yet the thing signified by the word, is manifestly there, as we have proved. it is also a word of ancient usage in the christian church, even in the best reformed churches, before ever we were born; why then should we forbear the use of the word [condition,] or why should any be offended at our using of it? indeed we cannot forbear the using of it, for the reason given us by some well-meaning men, because it is not a scriptural-word: for if that reason prove any thing it will prove too much, to wit, that we should not use the words, trinity, incarnation, satisfaction, merit of christ, sacrament, infant-baptism, etc. and which is more, that we should wholly give over preaching the gospel, and hereafter only read the holy scripture, without expounding it, for we are sure, that no man doth, or can, preach one sermon without using some word, or words, that are not expressly in the scripture. and as our sincere obedience may be, and really is a condition of obtaining eternal salvation, though it be not expressly called by that name in scripture; so may it be, and really it is a condition, though it be performed by the help of god's grace. we know this is the main reason why our brethren think that neither our faith, nor obedience, can be a condition of the covenant, because they are wrought in us by the special, and effectual grace of god; but we know also that this is a very weak reason. for, (1.) we do not say that that is the condition of the covenant which is the work and effect of god's grace alone. such is effectual calling on god's part, and the infusion of the seminal abiding principle of supernatural spiritual life. it is god only who calls us effectually, and who infuses the said principle of grace and life into our souls, and we are merely passive in the reception of it. we never said nor thought that it is required of us by way of duty or condition that we should effectually call ourselves, and infuse a supernatural principle of grace and life into ourselves. this indeed would be very absurd; therefore we hold that our being effectually called, and our having an abiding principle of grace and life given in unto us, is, quid praerequisitum, something pre-required to our right performing the condition, but not the condition itself; that which is required of us by way of duty and condition on which god promiseth us the subsequent blessings of the covenant, it is that we do not resist his spirit, and that by the grace of his spirit we do actually believe and obey, and persevere to the end. now the grace of god whereby we believe and obey, is so far from hindering our actual faith, and obedience from being the condition, that on the contrary it conduceth very much to make them the condition, the gracious evangelical condition of the covenant, and without it they could not be such a condition. as to what they say that special grace necessarily causeth our faith and obedience, we answered before that special grace doth not cause our actual faith and obedience with any such kind of necessity as is inconsistent with, or destructive of the true liberty of our souls in believing and obeying. augustin the great asserter of the necessity and efficacy of supernatural grace against the pelagians and semipelagians, says in his 46 epist. to valentinus, obedientiam nostram (deus) requirit, quae nulla potest esse sine libero arbitrio. god requires our obedience, which without the liberty of our minds can be no obedience. and our own westminster confession of faith in chap, 19 atr. 7. says that the spirit of christ subdues and enables the will of man to do that freely, and cheerfully, which the will of god revealed in the law requireth to be done. dr. twisse also saith frequently that the effectual will and grace of god doth not destroy, but establisheth the freedom of our actions, particularly in his answer to hoard, his god's love to mankind. book 2. page 103. he writes thus against mr. mason, when once god hath planted in us a principle of new life, of the life of grace, by the spirit of regeneration, see 127 page of his defence of the synod of dort, etc. though all the powers thereof do incline only to that which is good, like as the powers of natural corruption, incline only unto evil; yet the particular use and exercise of those is always free: like as the particular use and exercise of the powers of our corruption is always free to the committing of this or that sin according unto the emergent occasions standing in congruity to every man's particular disposition. and pag. 104. should he (mr. mason) have laid to our charge that we maintain that god necessitates the will to any good act, and to overrule the will therein, we should utterly deny it without distinction. it is true, he overrules the will of the flesh, but not the will of the spirit, the regenerate part, but moves it agreeably to its nature, and to work not only voluntarily, but freely whatsoever it worketh. for albeit the regenerate part is like a moral virtue (though as much transcendent to it, as a thing supernatural transcends a thing natural) inclining only to that which is good, yet is it always moved to this particular good rather than to another most freely: like as a man's natural corruption inclines a man only to evil; yet to this kind of evil, or to this particular evil, rather than to that, man is moved most freely: so that if we maintain not that god works a man to every good act, otherwise than freely; let the very conscience of our enemy's judge, whether we can maintain that god necessitates the will either of men or devils unto sin. and in the next page 105, he brings for confirmation of what he had said, the 11th. article of the church in ireland, where this position is first laid down, that god from all eternity did by his unchangeable counsel ordain whatsoever in time should come to pass; and than it is forthwith added, that hereby no violence is offered to the wills of the reasonable creatures, and neither the liberty nor the contingency of second causes is taken away, but established rather. then again in page 108. this is clearly our doctrine (to wit that when god never so effectually works any creature to the producing of an act connatural to it, yet he works the creature thereunto agreeably to its nature, that is, if it be a necessary agent, moves it to work necessarily; if it be a contingent agent, moves it to work contingently, and if it be a free agent, moves it to work freely) and in effect it is the doctrine of all them who say that god determines the will, as the dominicans; or that god necessitates the will as bradwardin. for they acknowledge hereby that god moves the creatures to work freely, in such sort, that in the very act of working they might do otherwise, if they would. they confess this providence of god is a great mystery, and not sufficiently comprehensible by humane reason. cajetan professeth thus much as before alleged, and alvarez maintaineth it in a set disputation. thus far twiss, whereby we see that he held all the good we do, to be acts of free obedience, notwithstanding that we produce them by the assistance of god's effectual grace, yea, that they are so free that though secundum quid in some respect it is necessary for them to be produced; yet simpliciter & absolutè, see page 116, 117, 118, 119, 120. simply and absolutely it is possible for them not to be produced. and if our actual faith and obedience be free acts of ours (notwithstanding that they are also effects of god's grace,) than they may be our duties also: and indeed they are duties so necessarily required of us, as that the obtaining of justification and glorification is suspended by the promises till the performance of them as was proved before: and then it follows by necessary consequence that they are evangelical conditions of the promises; because they have the essential nature of an evangelical condition. here we take notice by the way that there are some who distinguish between the covenant of grace, and the administration of it, and they say themselves, and would make all others say with them, that the covenant itself is absolute to the elect, but that the administration of it, is conditional in the preaching of the gospel. * a brief account of the state of the differences now depending and agitated about justification, page 4. now we must declare that we cannot say without distinction (as some would have us to do) that the covenant of grace is absolute to the elect. we have already said and proved that the covenant of grace made with the church through christ, is a complex of many promises, whereof some are indeed absolute (yet not so absolute neither as to exclude all use of means,) such are the promises of the first grace, of saving faith and repentance, etc. but others of them are conditional even to the elect, such are the promises of the subsequent blessings of the covenant, as of justification, pardon of sin, and eternal life: we do not find that those subsequent blessings of the covenant are ever promised to any of adam's posterity, but upon some condition expressed or employed; and most frequently the conditions are expressed with a plain declaration that as many as perform the conditions, shall have the promised blessings, but they who never perform the conditions, shall never have the promised blessings. this shows plainly that the covenant itself is conditional in respect of the said subsequent blessings, because it promiseth them conditionally and not otherwise: and that which we see, is granted to us, that the administration of the covenant of grace is conditional, because it is preached to all, (elect and non-elect) conditionally; affords us an irrefragable argument to prove that it hath conditions, and is conditional. for if the covenant had no condition at all with respect to the elect, how could we administer and preach it conditionally with respect to them? if the covenant which we administer and preach to the elect were absolute to them, so as to have no condition; and if yet notwithstanding that, we should preach and administer the covenant to them conditionally; our administration and preaching would not agree with the nature of the object and thing which we administer and preach, and so it would be fallacious and deceitful. the covenant hath no condition but is absolute to the elect, and yet must we tell them from the lord that they must perform the condition of the covenant-promise by believing and repenting, and then they shall have the promised benefit of justification and pardon of sin, but not otherwise? would not this be to dishonour god and abuse his people both at once? to dishonour god by taking his name in vain, and preaching falsehood in his name, and to abuse his people by making them believe that the covenant hath a condition, and that they must perform it; otherwise they cannot be justified and saved, when at the same time we do not believe this ourselves which we tell the people, but are persuaded in our own minds that the covenant is wholly absolute to the elect, and hath no condition at all. either then as was said before, we must not administer and preach any part of the covenant conditionally to the elect, or there is and must be a condition in the covenant; and if there be a condition in the covenant, than we have what we aim at, for we desire no more to prove the covenant of grace to be conditional, and that it is not wholly absolute to the elect. the truth is here so clearly on our side that we think our brethren should give glory to god, and receive his truth, without any farther wrangling opposition. as for the author with whom we have to do, though he several times expressly denies faith to be the condition of justification, as page 8, 9, 25. yet in page 24, where he affirms the covenant to be absolute, he grants that the offer of christ, and of all his fullness hath a condition annexed to it, that the condition is acceptance of the offer, and that acceptance is a native condition. here we have, 1. an offer of christ, and of all his fullness, which must of necessity include justification, for that is a part of christ's fullness, eph. 1.7. col. 1.14. rom. 5.19. 1 cor. 1.30. 2. this offer of christ is an absolute offer, which yet hath the condition of acceptance annexed to it. his meaning must be, that the offer of christ, and his fullness, is so absolute as to have no other condition, but yet not so absolute as not to have this one condition of acceptance; for if this be not his meaning it is contradictious nonsense. for an offer that is absolute, without any condition at all, and an offer that hath a certain condition, implies a manifest contradiction. and indeed his words are that it is an absolute offer that hath no condition in it but one. well then, it is granted that the gospel-offer of christ, and of all his fullness hath one condition, but so it is that that gospel-offer includes an offer of justification, and therefore the gospel-offer of justification hath a condition; and since the offer of justification can be nothing but the promise of justification, held forth to the soul by the ministry of the word, it follows necessarily, that the promise of justification hath a condition. and consequently, that the covenant of grace is partly conditional, it is conditional as it doth promise justification upon a condition. 3. the condition is acceptance, that is, it is faith, for we cannot imagine, what else but faith, he can mean by acceptance: for surely he doth not mean any mere natural act of the soul, but rather some gracious, supernatural act, and what that should be but faith, we cannot devise. we must therefore take it for certain, that by acceptance he means faith, and our faith in christ is our acceptance of him and his fullness. so then faith being our acceptance of christ, and of all his fullness, which includes our justification, and our acceptance (by his own confession) being the condition of the offer, it follows by necessary consequence, that faith is the condition of the offer, but the offer is the covenant-promise of christ, and justification through him, therefore the covenant-promise of christ and justification is conditional, and an accepting, or receiving faith is the condition of it. thus he contradicts himself by affirming what he had denied before, and doth immediately deny, again in the very next 25th. page. 4. this acceptance, or faith, this accepting faith is (he says) the native condition of the offer of christ, and of all his fullness, and so of justification. what he means by native condition needs an explication, for it is capable of a double meaning: (1.) it may signify that an accepting faith hath a natural aptitude and fitness to be the condition of the offer, or promise, of christ and his fullness. or, (2.) that of its own nature, it necessarily is the condition, and could not possibly be otherwise; so that its being the condition ariseth wholly and necessarily from its own nature, and not at all from the will of god, constituting and ordaining it to that office of being the condition of the offer or promise. now if he mean, that it is a native condition in the first sense, we agree with him, for we know and acknowledge, that faith hath a natural aptitude and fitness to be the condition of the offer or promise of christ, because faith, in the very nature of it, is an acceptance of christ as he is offered in the gospel; and we conceive this might be a reason wherefore god made choice of faith to be the condition of the offer and promise of christ, and justification through him. but if our author moan, that faith is the native condition of the offer or promise, in the second sauce, we must descent from him. for though the natural aptitude, and fitness of faith, might be a reason why god ordained it to be the condition of the promise, yet it was not a necessitating reason, which so obliged god to make it the condition of the promise, that he could not possibly do otherwise. this we thus demonstrate, 1. whatsoever dependeth upon the , and sovereign pleasure of almighty god, he might have done, or not have done, he might have done this way, or another way, if it had pleased him. this proposition is self-evident, for it is of the very essence of in god, the first and freest agent, that in all external temporal things, which fall under his , he might have done them, or not have done them, he might have done them thus as he doth them, or he might have done them otherwise than he hath done, if he had pleased. but antecedently to his free purpose and decree, the whole ordering of the covenant of grace, and of its terms, and receptive condition, depended upon god's , and sovereign pleasure. hence the gospel is called the mystery of god's will, and the revelation of the gospel unto us, is said to be the making known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself, eph. 1.9. now if the whole mystery of the covenant of grace depended on god's , than the ordaining of this, or that, to be the receptive condition of the covenant, depended on his will also, and so antecedently to the free purpose of his will, there was no natural necessity that faith alone, and no other thing, should be the receptive condition of the covenant. 2. it is not yet past dispute amongst divines, whether antecedently to god's free purpose, and decree to save us, by the satisfaction and merits of christ alone, he might not have freely purposed and decreed to have pardoned and saved us some other way. amongst our reformed divines, calvin, twiss, and rutherford, and others, were of this opinion, yea even dr. owen himself was once of this opinion, (though afterwards he changed his mind in that, as he did in other things,) witness what he wrote in his book called, the death of death in the death of christ: or, a treatise of redemption, etc. book ii. chap. ii. page 57 the foundation of this whole assertion seems to me to be false and erroneous, viz, that god could not have mercy on mankind, unless satisfaction were made by his son: it is true indeed, supposing the decree, purpose, and constitution of god, that so it should be, that so he would manifest his glory by the way of vindicative justice, it was impossible that it should otherwise be, for with the lord, there is neither change, nor shadow of turning, lam. 1.18. 1 sam. 15.29. but to assert positively, that absolutely and antecedently to his constitution, he could not have done it, is to me an unwritten tradition, the scripture affirming no such thing, neither can it be gathered from thence in any good consequence, if any one shall deny this, we will try what the lord will enable us to say unto it, and in the mean time rest contented in that of augustin, though other ways of saving us were not wanting to his infinite wisdom, yet certainly the way which he did proceed in, was the most convenient, because we find he proceeded therein. thus dr. owen in that book; and though he unsaid this again, and embraced that opinion, which he then called an unwritten tradition; yet there are other learned divines of that same opinion at this day. mistake us not, for we do not say, that we are of it, but that some are, and that the matter is not yet past dispute. and the consequence which we infer is undeniable, that if god antecedently to his constitution and degree could have pardoned and saved us some other way, without the satisfaction and merits of christ, then surely he could have offered and promised us pardon and salwation, without the condition of faith in christ, and upon what other condition he pleased. 3. though we grant, that upon supposition, that god would pardon our sins, and save our souls, it did not consist with the glory of his justice, and honour of his law, and government to do it, without satisfaction for the offence we had given, and the dishonour we had done him by our sins; and therefore it was necessary not only from the free purpose of god's will, but also from the nature of his vindictive governing justice, that christ, by suffering in our stead, should satisfy his justice for our sins, yet doth it not follow at all, by any natural necessity arising immediately from the essential nature of faith without any appointment and constitution of god's will, that faith, because it is of a receptive nature, and nothing else, shall be the condition upon the performance whereof, christ with his satisfaction and merits shall be not only offered, but given unto us. for as dr. owen saith very well, in his little book of the trinity and satisfaction of christ, pag. 208. the satisfaction made for sin, being not made by the sinner himself, there must of necessity be a rule, order, and law-constitution, how the sinner may come to be interested in it, and made partaker of it; for the consequent of the freedom of one by the suffering of another, is not matural, or necessary, but must proceed, and arise from a law-constitution, compact, and agreement. now the way constituted and appointed, is that of faith, or believing, as explained in the scripture. thus dr. owen. to which we add, that the scripture explains it thus, gal. 5.6. that in christ jesus neither circumcision, nor uncircumcision availeth any thing, but faith which worketh by love. from this passage of dr. owen, and the argument contained in it, it is most evident that it doth not arise immediately and necessarily from the receptive nature of faith, that it is the condition of the offer and promise, but from the will of god, constituting and appointing it to be the condition. faith's receptive apprehensive nature is but a remote reason of its conditionality, and doth but make it fit to be the condition, if god please to make it so: and it is god's will and law-constitution only, which is the nearest and formal reason of its conditionality, and which doth immediately and formally make it to be the condition of the covenant, joh. 6.40. this is no new notion of ours, we find it long ago before many of us were born, walaeus, doctor and professor of divinity in leyden, in his enchiridion religionis reformatae, pag. 112. said that fides nos justificat, sed relatiuè considerata, quia haec est voluntas dei: ut qui credit in christum, ejus meriti fiat particeps: faith justifies us, but relatively considered, because this is the will of god, that he who believes in christ shall be made partaker of his merit. and not only mr. baxter, but cartwright also, pag. 179. of his book against baxter, agrees with him in acknowledging this truth; his words are these, [the reason why christ's righteousness cannot justify, except it be apprehended by faith, is this, that god doth require faith of us; faith, i say, apprehending christ, and his righteousness, (believe in the lord jesus christ) that so we may be justified. god's will is properly the cause, yet there is a congruity in the thing itself, an aptitude (you grant) in the nature of faith: it is of an apprehensive nature, and its apprehending christ's righteousness (the will of god still presupposed) doth make this righteousness ours, even as a gift becomes ours by our receiving of it. these worthy divines, we see, were of our opinion, that it is not the nature of faith itself, nor its relation unto christ, which is essential to it, that doth formally make it to be the instrumental means, or condition of our justification, but it is the will of god ordaining it to that office. it is true, they held, and we with them hold, that there is a congruity and fitness in faith to be the receptive, and applicative condition of the promise, and of christ and his righteousness therein, because it is of a receptive applicative nature, yet that doth not formally make it the condition: for notwithstanding its fitness to be the condition, yet it would never have actually and formally been the condition of justification, nor would it ever have availed us to justification, if god by an act of his , had not made it the condition of justification. is not justification a great blessing and benefit, which is in the power, and at the disposal of god and christ; and may not god do what he will with his own; may not he give his blessing and benefit upon what terms and conditions he and his son shall think fit to agree upon? this surely is so evident, that no reasonable man can have reason to deny it. and then the consequence is as evident, that it is not any thing to faith, and so not its relation to christ, which is intrinsecal to it, that can nextly and formally make it the instrumental means, or condition of justification, but it is, and must be the will of god, and his son christ jesus, agreeing that faith shall be, and ordaining faith to be the instrumental means, terms, and condition of our justification. for these reasons we descent, and all men that love the truth should descent from our author, if by saying that an accepting faith is the native condition of the offer of christ, and of all his fullness, he mean, that faith of its own nature necessarily, is the condition of the promise, and could not possibly 〈◊〉 otherwise, so that 〈◊〉 being the condition doth necessarily and wholly arise from its own nature, and not at all from the will of god and christ constituting and ordaining it do that office of being the condition of the promise. we dare not uscribe so much virtue and efficacy to the nature of faith in the matter of our justification. but if by saying, that an accepting faith is the native condition of the offer of christ and his fullness, our author means no more but this, that faith being of a receptive nature, it hath a natural aptitude and fitness to be made the condition of the promise of justification; and that that was a reason why it pleased god and christ to make and constitute faith to be the receptive condition of justification, we shall not oppose; but join with him in this sense of his words. but though we grant him for the reason aforesaid, that faith is the one native receptive condition of justification; yet we can never grant that faith taken in his sense for the one single grace, (or it may be) for one single act of the one single grace of faith, is the only condition of justification, and much less that it is the only condition of glorification: for as faith is the one, yea and only receptive condition, so true repentance it the dispositive condition of justification, or of the person to be justified in order to his justification. and moreover repontance is as native a condition in its kind as faith in its kind; it is us native a dispositive condition, as faith is a native receptive condition. for sincere repentance being a godly sorrow for having displeased and dishonoured god, and a firm resolution through grace to do so no more, it doth from the very nature of the thing dispose and prepare the soul for pardon, and then god hath likewise for that reason willed, ordained and constituted repentance to be the dispositive condition of pardon of sin and justification. as we proved before by plain testimonies of god's holy word. and though faith and repentance be equally necessary from the will, ordination, and constitution of god and christ; yet of the two, repentance seems to be the most necessary with that kind of necessity which ariseth precisely from the nature of the thing: for it seems to be absolutely impossible because repugnant to the perfection of god's holy nature to justify, pardon, and love with a love of complacency, a rebellious sinner, whilst he is impenitent and continues his full resolution to go on in his rebellion, and enmity against heaven. the sense of this truth seems to have been much upon the very reverend and learned mr. clarkson's spirit, and therefore it made him say in his discourse of free grace, page 129, 130, 131. if the terms or conditions be such, as it is not possible in the nature of the thing, that the mercy offered should be effected without them; then the offers of saving mercies are as free and gracious as can be, as there is any possibility they should be; and no more can be desired. then he takes repentance for his instance; we do not say that he altogether excludes the other terms; but that repentance is that which he jingles out to instance in, and which he much insists upon as taken in its latitude. and thus he goes on let me clear this in one of those terms, which is comprehensive of all the rest. it is required of those who will partake of saving mercies, that they leave sin, forsake their evil ways. prov. 28.13. isa. 55.7. 2 tim. 2.19. this is the sum of all conditions; and whatever is required in other terms, is included in this, or may be resolved into it. now it is not possible that saving mercies should otherwise be had, that they should be received or enjoyed, but upon these terms; not only because the lord would have it so, but because the nature of the thing doth so require it, that it is not otherwise feasible, for sin is our impotency: now can we possibly have strength in the inner man, if we will not part with our weakness? sin is our deformity, that which renders our souls loathsome and ugly in the eye of god. now can our souls be made lovely, if we will not part with that which is our defilement and ugliness? can we be made clean, if we will not part with our leprosy? sin is our enmity against god, therein it consists; now can we possibly be reconciled, if we will not lay aside our enmity?— sin is the wound, the mortal disease of the soul, and can you be healed, if you will not part with your disease? sin is your misery; and can you be happy, if not part with your misery? happiness consists in the enjoyment of god; but adhering to sin, and the enjoyment of a holy god are utterly inconsistent: and can you be happy without happiness, or by retaining that which is inconsistent with it? so that you see there is an utter impossibility that salvation should be had but upon these terms: there is an inconsistency, a plain contradiction, in any other supposition. it is an impossibility not only to us, but to the almighty; and therefore the terms are as free and gracious, as possibly could be; ommpotent grace itself could not make them more gracious; thus mr. clarkson. now let any body of common understanding and honesty read and consider this passage, and they will plainly see that he speaks here of repentance, and of repentance not only as it denotes a holy fruitful life, and is the condition of consummate salvation and glorification; but also as it denotes the souls first turning from sin and returning to god, and is the disposing, preparing condition of our first obtaining the pardon of our sins, and justification and reconciliation of our persons. and in both respects he holds repentance to be a condition indispensably necessary not only from the free constitution and ordination of god, but also from the very nature of the thing, so that god himself cannot dispense with it. now if this doctrine of mr. clarkson's be true and good, then let the world judge whether that doctrine be not false and pernicious, which our author delivers in the 30 page of his letter, that a real change and repentance is not antecedently necessary to justification and pardon of sin. this indeed we affirm to be necessary, and he finds fault with us for it, and makes it to be a part of our new scheme of divinity, into which he foists sincere obedience, as if that also were a part of our new scheme, that sincere obedience is antecedently necessary to justification. but this is his calumny that we hold sincere obedience distinct from faith and repentance, to be antecedently necessary to justification; all that know us and our doctrine, know this to be false, and the contrary to be true, that in our judgement sincere obedience is not necessary before, but after our justification, and before our glorisication. as for a real change, and repentance we do indeed believe and preach that they are necessary, indispensably necessary in order of nature at least before our justification and pardon of sin; for a real change is wrought in us by effectual calling, and that is certainly before justification, rom. 8.30. and repentance is the dispositive condition of justification and the means to be used by us for obtaining the pardon of our sins, which is an essential part of justification. but so it is that the condition is in order of nature before the thing conditionate, or the thing promised upon condition, as also the means is in execution before the end, therefore repentance which is the condition and means is in order of nature before justification, which is the thing conditionate and the end. this we proved before both by scripture and reason; and so doth mr. clarkson prove it in the passage we have now quoted, by two pertinent scriptures, prov. 28.13. he that covereth his sins shall not prosper, but whoso confesseth and forsaketh them shall have mercy; and isa. 55.7. let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts, and let him return unto the lord, and he will have mercy upon him, and unto our god, for he will abundantly pardon. surely one would guests by this, that mr. clarkson in his time was one of the masters in our israel, with whom our author finds fault, page 15, of his letter, for saying to a man who asks them, what he must do to be saved, that he must repent and mourn for his known sins, and leave and loathe them, and god will have mercy on him; and most certainly if ever there were any such masters in our israel, mr. clarkson was one of them, for according to his principles he must in that case have given a man that answer, for he strongly asserts that god almighty cannot have mercy upon, and pardon a wicked man, unless he repent, mourn for his known sins, leave and loathe them. but it would seem our author is such a crafts-master, that he can teach a wicked. man how to obtain the mercy of god in the pardon of his sins before, and without repenting of, mourning for, leaving and loathing of them; for he blames us for telling a wicked man who comes to us for advice what he must do to be saved, that he must repent, mourn for, and turn from his sins, and god will have mercy on him, and pardon him; now if this be bad advice, than it plainly follows, that if the same wicked man go to our author, and if he can give him better advice, he must show him a way to obtain god's mercy in pardoning his sins and saving his soul; before and without his repenting of, mourning for, and turning from his sins. but how can our author effect this, how can he teach a wicked man to be saved from sin and wrath without repentance? why he pretends this is easily done by giving the man that same advice, which paul and silas in acts 16.30, 31. gave unto the gaoler, when he asked them what he should do to be saved? and they said to him, believe on the lord jesus christ, and thou shalt be saved and thy house. this he says is an old answer, so old, that with many it seems to be out of date, page 14, and it is the right answer. for says he, page 15, why should not the right answer be given, believe on the lord jesus christ, and you shall be saved. by this it is evident that he sets these two answers in opposition the one to the other, as inconsistent, and makes, (repent, and god will have mercy on you) to be the wrong answer: and, (believe in the lord jesus christ, and you shall be saved) to be the right answer. and now is not he a wise master in our israel who talks thus! if he had only talked thus to his silly proselytes in a private corner, though we had been credibly informed of it, we should not have easily believed it, or if the evidence had been such, as we could not choose but believe it, yet we should not have wondered so much at the matter; but that he should appear in print with such stuff, that he should appear on the theatre of the world in the face of the sun, and tell a knowing wise people that a wicked man who asks ministers what he must do to be saved, must not be taught to repent of his sins, but to believe in christ that he may be saved, (as if these two things were inconsistent, the one being right, and the other wrong), it cannot but move us to admiration of his strange confidence, to an indignation at his gross ignorance, or vile hypocrisy; and to a tender compassion towards those poor souls whose lot it is to be led into the ditch by such blind guides. but good sir, how doth it appear that our answer is wrong and yours only is right? why may not both be right, and why must not both be right, and both concur to make up one entire answer, and full advice to a wicked man who under conviction comes and asks ministers, what he must do to be saved? if you had behaved yourself in this matter like a fair adversary or an honest. man, you had given in our answer fully without curtailing it; for you know in your conscience that in such a case our full answer and advice to a man is, that he must do both, he must both believe in the lord jesus christ, and repent of, mourn for and turn from his sins. the conscience of truth extorted this confession from you in your appendix, page 41. as we observed before, that your hottest opposers would freely tell such a man that the blood of jesus christ cleanseth from all sin. why did not you then (if you be an honest man) give in our full answer, and refute it, if you thought it was wrong? if you say that paul did not give such a full answer and advice to the gaoler, acts 16.30, 31. but bid him believe only in the lord jesus christ, and thereupon promised him salvation, without advising him to repent and turn from his sins. we answer, it is true, paul bid the gaoler believe in the lord jesus christ, but it is utterly false that he bid him only believe, there is no such exclusive particle in the text, and though the sacred historian luke mention not expressly that paul bid the gaoler repent, yet it doth by no means follow that, because luke doth not say expressly that paul bid the gaoler repent, therefore he did not bid him, for it was never luke's intention to set down in his history every word or sentence which paul at any time spoke to the people. nay in the very next verse, acts 16.32. luke says that paul and silas spoke unto the gaoler the word of the lord, and to all that were in his house; but he doth not tell us particularly what that word was: nor doth our author know, nor can he with a good conscience say that it was not an advice and exhortation to repent, to mourn for his known sins, and to leave and loathe them, assuring him that thereupon god would have mercy on him, and pardon his sins, and save his soul for the lord jesus christ's sake. if our author say that as he cannot be sure of the negative that he did not, so we cannot be sure of the affirmative that he did preach the necessity of repentance to the gaoler. we answer that we can prove, and do thus prove the affirmative. (1.) because it was a part of the apostles commission to preach repentance unto all people, as well as faith in christ; for which see mark 16.15, 16. compared with luke. 24.47, 48. but paul was an apostle, therefore he acted according to the apostolical commission. (2.) because paul baptised or caused the gaoler to be baptised, and it was necessary that repentance should be preached to him, and professed by him, before such an one as he, were admitted to baptism. (3.) because paul himself tells us (as his words are recorded by the sacred historian luke) that it was his common practice to preach repentance, as well as faith unto all those whom he converted, or intended and endeavoured to convert unto the christian religion. thus did he at lystra, acts 14.15. he exhorted the people to turn from their vanities unto the living god which made heaven and earth, etc. thus also at athens, acts 17.30, 31. he commanded them all from the lord to repent, and persuaded them so to do, by a most powerful motive and argument taken from god's being rector and judge of the world, and from his having appointed a day, in which he will judge the world in righteousness by jesus christ, and will then justify or condemn, reward, or punish every man according to their works, and this he assured them of by an argument taken from christ's resurrection from the dead. again in acts 20.21. he tells us, that repentance towards god and faith towards our lord jesus, were the sum and substance of his sermons; these were the two subjects that he ●ordinarily preached upon both to jews and gentiles. and lastly in acts 26.20, 22, 23. we read that he declared openly to ring agrippa, that from the first time he was miraculously called to be an apostle, his business had been to preach repentance and faith. from all which we conclude that we have good reason to believe and assert the affirmative that paul did not preach, faith only, but that he preached repentance also to the gaoler; and withal we challenge and defy our author to prove the negative that paul preached not the necessity of repentance, but of faith only in order to his salvation. but saith our author, page 15. no wit or art of man will ever find a crack or flaw in, or devise another, or a better answer than paul's to the gaoler, believe in the lord jesus, and thou shalt be saved. we reply, it is far from the thoughts of any of us, or of any good christian to find fault with, or to go about to mend paul's answer to the gaolers' question, all that we say is that his whole answer is not set down expressly by the historian luke, and we have proved it. a truer answer cannot indeed be given than it was, but a fuller may be given, and we have proved it was given by paul, though not particularly expressed by luke. this may satisfy any reasonable man, for we are sure it cannot be confuted. yet for the farther satisfaction of all men (if possible), we will here transeribe and set down a passage of mr. venning, a famous congregational minister once in this city; it is in his sermon called the way to true happiness preached before the lord mayor and aldermans january 28. 1654/5, on matth. 7.21. page 10, 11, 12. i ground it further (saith he) on this rule which is an undeniable one, and for not attending whereunto, we have had so many needless, groundless, and unprofitable disputes in the world. the rule is this, that the scripture doth often, yea, very usually put particular duties for all religion, and therefore annexeth salvation to distinct graces. sometimes it is, he that believeth, shall be saved; elsewhere he that calleth upon the name of the lord shall be saved: here it is, he that doth the will of god. now all these and the like are complex and comprehensive propositions, and contain more in them than they make show of (for god speaks much in a little,) acts and duties of religion being (as moralists speak of their virtues, inter se connexae) linked together in a golden chain. religion is not this or that piece, but the whole, which is usually expressed in a word, or sometimes two, as in acts 20.20, 21, 27. compared, the apostle comprehends the whole counsel of god under repentance and faith; also in that of solomon, fear god and keep his commandments, for this is the whole of man, eccles. 12.13. so that if you could suppose a man to be a believer, and to be a believer alone, it would not save him, as the apostle james saith, chap. 2.14. what doth it profit my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works, can faith save him? no, no more than saying, be ye warmed, will warm any; or be ye filled, will fill any; for faith without works is dead. and what is said of this, may be said of the rest, so that when the scripture speaks of salvation, as annexed to any one thing, it supposeth that to contain the rest: the reason is evident, for the graces of god, as saving, are not parted. there is no believing to salvation without repentance, nor no repentance to salvation without believing; there is no calling upon the name of the lord will save, without departing from iniquity; nor can they savingly departed from iniquity, that call not on the name of the lord. it is not any one thing, but things that pertain to the kingdom of god, acts 1.3. it is not thing but things that accompany, (or as it may be better read, contain) salvation, heb. 6.9. and he that takes one for all without all, (as our wise author doth,) will find nothing at all. a part is no portion. the great fallacy with which satan deludes many men, is that which logicians call à benè compositis ad malè divisa; when he gets them to take religion into pieces, and then take one piece for religion. one cries up god, another cries up christ, another faith, another love, another good works; but what is god without christ, or christ without faith, or faith without love, or love without works? but now take god in christ, by faith which worketh by love to the keeping of the commandments of god, and this is pure religion. it is the whole, that is the whole of man. yet again, though i have spoken thus much to it, let me make it clearer than a demonstration, that one is put for all, and as containing all, by comparing these places of scripture; in 1 cor. 7.19. you read that circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but keeping the commandments of god? what's that? why that is all in all. in gal. 5.6. it is neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but faith which worketh by love: that's that which availeth, or is all in all. yet in gal. 6.15. he saith, neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature: that's all in all. and yet for all this, as if all this were nothing, he tells us, in col. 3.11. that christ is all and in all, cashiering both circumcision and uncircumcision, as formerly. now, my beloved, if you should take any one of these, though each be said to be availing, i say if you should take any one, and lay the stress of your salvation upon it; you were undone. (let our author and his proselytes look to themselves.) it is not keeping the commandments of god, nor faith working by love, nor the new creature, no nor christ himself considered alone and apart that availeth any thing, but these in conjunction. he names one only, because where one is, it is not only one, there is more than one; wherever one is savingly, there are all in their respective places, as far as they are to be in relation to salvation. thus you see, that faith as well as works, and works as well as faith (every one in their own order) are to be taken in, or we shall not be taken into the kingdom of heaven. this rule of interpreting scripture is one of venning's things that are well worth the thinking on, and therefore we have set it down at large. if it be duly attended to, it will give light sufficient to discover the darkness of our authors ignorance or hypocrisy. but he objects further, that no answer but this alone, can rightly heal the wound of an awakened conscience, pag. 15. we reply, that what he says is false and delusive in his sense, taking faith for one single act of one grace and duty exclusive of repentance, and all other graces and duties: but take it according to god's usual way of speaking much in a little, and in a complex comprehensive sense, as taking in, or not excluding, but rather supposing repentance, and it is most true: for the virtue and efficacy of christ's blood applied by the spirit and faith to the soul prepared by repentance, is indeed the only remedy that can heal it. but if our author will say that faith in christ alone and without repentance will heal the wounds of awakened consciences in wicked men at their first conversion; we cannot choose but rank him amongst those covetous, deceitful prophets and priests, who heal the hurt of the people slightly, saying, peace, peace, when there is no peace. jerem. 6.13, 14. we are infallibly sure from the scriptures of truth, that the apostles commission was to preach repentance as well as faith in order to men's justification and salvation; and that they were obedient to the commands of their great and glorious lord, and preached according to their commission. for we read in god's holy word, that when the consciences of a multitude of unbelieving jews (who had been accessary to the most barbarous murder of christ the son of god and saviour of men) were throughly awakened, and their spirits were deeply wounded by the arrows of conviction which almighty god by his word and spirit had shot into their souls, they feeling themselves pricked in their hearts, said unto peter, and to the rest of the apostles, men and brethren what shall we do? acts 2.37. then as follows, vers. 38. peter said unto them, repent and be baptised every one of you in the name of jesus christ, for the remission of sins, etc. here we have a company of people in great distress of conscience, as the gaoler was; and in this their spiritual distress, they do as the gaoler did. as the gaoler sought advice of paul and silas, and asked them, what he should do to be saved; just so the awakened convinced jews sought advice of peter, and the rest of the apostles, and asked them, what they should do: to whom peter answered, repent and be baptised, etc. whereupon we demand of our author, was this answer of peter, a right answer or not? (1.) we hope he will not, he dare not say it was not a right answer; for peter was an apostle as well as paul, and at that very time he was full of the holy ghost, and spoke as he was inspired by the holy ghost: if then he should be so bold as to say that peter did not give them a right answer, because he did not say to them, as paul said to the gaoler, believe in the lord jesus christ, and you shall be saved: he would not only give peter, but the holy ghost the lie, and might justly expect that the lord would confound him. therefore we do not think that he will be so impious as to say, that peter did not give the men a right answer. (2.) if he say that it was a right answer, which peter gave them, then in effect he gives himself the lie, he condemns himself, and justifies us. for it is the same answer upon the matter which we give unto the sinner that comes to us for advice, which peter gave unto the convinced jews. peter bid them repent and be baptised, etc. we bid him, repent of, mourn for, and turn from his sins, and god will have mercy on him for christ's sake, and if the man be unbaptised as the jews were; we bid him be baptised for the remission of sins, as peter did by those jews. whatever therefore our author hath said against us in this matter, he hath said against peter, and which is more, against the holy spirit himself. if our answer be wrong, than peter's was wrong before us, and he it was that deceived us, for we have ours from him, and from god by him. if peter's answer was right, then ours is right likewise, for ours is the same with his exactly, if the person be unbaptised, excepting that upon his repentance, and baptism for the remission of sius, we do not promise him the miraculous, extraordinary gift of the holy ghost, as peter promised those jews, but only the ordinary gift which is common to all true penitent believers, in all ages. if our author say, that implicitly peter bid them believe in christ, as well as repent, by bidding them to be baptised in his name. most true, and so do we; nay which is more, whether the person be baptised, or unbaptised, when we exhort him to repent, we never fail to exhort him also, and that explicitly, and in formal express terms, to believe in the lord jesus christ, us paul did by the jaisour. where is the fault then of our answer taken fully and fairly as we give it? certainly no where, unless peter and paul's answers were both faulty, for our answer comprehends both theirs, and is exactly the same, so far as the different circumstances of the persons and times will admit. let our author then look to it, that by his writing thus against us he be not found fight against god, and the holy apostles of christ our saviour. by what hath been said we have made it sufficiently evident, that the covenant of grace is not absolute, but conditional, with respect to its subsequent blessing and benefits; for we have proved it, both by clear scripture and reason. we have showed also, that our author's own conscience could not altogether deny it, and therefore he grants, that an accepting faith is the native condition of it: how far, and in what sense this is true, we have showed at large, and withal, we have proved, that though faith be the one native, receptive, applicative condition of justification, yet is it not the only condition absolutely, but the only receptive condition, with which it is very well consistent, that repentance be the dispositive condition, which it really is, and that as natively, and necessarily, in its kind and order, as faith can be in its kind and order. it remains now, that having proved the covenants conditionality by scripture and reason, we show in the third and last place, by testimonies of divines, ancient and modern, even of those very divines whom our author affirms to be against us, that they believed the covenant to be conditional in the same sense as we do, and consequently, that our author has foully belied us in telling the people, that we have invented a new divinity, corrupt the old, and preach a new gospel. and, 1. we shall begin with the ancient doctors of the christian church, and give a few testimonies of theirs relating to the matter in hand, even as many as can well consist with our designed brevity. 2. we shall come to the testimony of orthodox divines since the reformation. 1. we begin with the fathers, and among them, blessed clement deserves the first place, because he was the ancientest of them, he was contemporary with the apostles, testimonies of fathers. st. paul speaking of him in phil. 4.3. gave him this honourable testimony, that his name was in the book of life. of this blessed pastor of christ's church, we have the first epistle to the church of corinth, which is by all acknowledged to be genuine, and which was so much esteemed in the primitive church, that it was read publicly in their congregations. now in the oxford edition, 1677. pag. 17. he writes thus, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. let us with fixed eyes behold the blood of christ, and consider how precious his blood is unto god, which being shed for our salvation, hath offered the grace of repentance to the whole world. let us earnestly take a view of all generations, and learn that in every generation the lord hath given place of repentance to such as were willing to turn unto him. this testimony of clement, with what follows there, shows plainly, that god hath made repentance necessary, antecedently in order of nature unto pardon of sin, and that upon condition of repentance he hath promised pardon of sin unto all, in consideration of the blood of christ, shed for the remission of sin. this seems plainly to be the meaning of the foresaid words, that the precious blood of christ being shed for our salvation, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, hath offered the grace of repentance to the whole world. for either 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the grace of repentance, signifies here the gracious principle of repentance, wrought in men, and the gracious influences of the spirit, whereby men are effectually enabled to exert, and put forth that principle into act; and such grace is not common to all the world, nor is it said to be barely offered unto men, but rather to be effectually given to some, and wrought in them, and by them: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 apud scapulam significat benesicium, praemium. or else it must signify here the grace and favour of god in now admitting all men to repentance, and the gracious benefit which he hath promised them if they do repent. and this we take to be the true meaning of clement's words. for, (1.) this is a grace and favour common unto all men by the law of christ, that they are admitted to repentance, as a means of obtaining pardon through his blood; which the law of works and innocency did not admit, but required a most perfect, personal, never-sinning obedience, as absolutely and indispensably necessary to life and salvation. (2.) this is a grace and favour which is really offered unto all the world, that hear the joyful sound of the gospel; that if they sincerely repent of their sins, they shall be pardoned and saved for the sake of christ, who shed his most precious blood for the remission of sins. (3.) the very same words, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, are used in this same sense by origen, in his third book against celsus, cambridge edition, pag. 154. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, god grants the grace of repentance, i. e. the gracious blessing and privilege which is obtained by repentance, to wit, pardon of sin. this is, and must be, the sense of origen's words there, and they can have no other. for origen affirms there, in opposition to the calumny of celsus, (as shall be showed by and by) that men must first be truly penitent, they must be inwardly changed, and converted from evil to good, before god be merciful to them, so as to pardon their sins: and when they are so wrought upon, as to be really changed, converted, and become truly penitent, than 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, god grants them the grace of repentance, that is, the pardon of their sins, which is the gracious benefit annexed to repentance, and promised to all, upon condition, that they truly repent. to put another sense on origen's words, would be to make nonsense of them, and to make him say, that if men be first truly penitent, god will afterwards give them grace, whereby they may be (or are) made truly penitent. origen was not such a man, as to write thus foolishly for the christian religion against a learned and malicious heathen. (4.) clement and origen's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, grace of repentance, is the same thing with tertullian's fructus paenitentiae, fruit of repentance; but tertullian's fruit of repentance, is pardon of sin; for so he writes lib. de pudicitiâ, cap. 10. ita cessatio delicti radiae est veniae, ut venia sit paenitentiae fructus; ceasing from sin is so the root of pardon, that pardon is the fruit of repentance. (5.) and lastly, the words-which immediately follow in clement, show this to be his meaning, for he adds, let us take a diligent view of all generations, and learn, that in every generation, the lord hath given place of repentance to such as were willing to turn unto him. noah preached repentance, and they that obeyed, were saved; jonah preached destruction to the ninivites, but they repenting them of their sins, appeased god by their humble supplications, and were preserved. these words plainly show, that by saying, that through the blood of christ, shed for our salvation, god hath offered the grace of repentance to the whole world, clement meant, that god hath admitted all men to repentance, as the way and means to obtain pardon, and hath promised, and according to his promise doth give them pardon, for christ's sake, upon their repentance. but it may be, some will object, that yet the same clement, in the same first epistle to the corinthians saith, pag. 67. they (the holy men before, and under the law) were all glorified and made great, not by themselves, or by their own works; or by the just actions which they did, but by his will. so we (christians) then, being called in christ jesus by his will, are not justified by ourselves, nor by our own wisdom, or knowledge, or piety, or by the works which we have done in holiness of heart; but by faith, whereby the almighty god hath justified all men from the beginning of the world, to whom he glory for ever and ever, amen. we answer, that this makes nothing against us, for we have believed we do, and through grace, will always believe, that god justisies us by faith, and not by any works distinct from faith, in the sense before explained; that is, that god, of his own gracious will and pleasure, hath ordained faith to be the only receptive, applicative condition, means, or federal, moral instrument of justification, upon our performing of which condition, or using of which means and instrument, god doth freely justify us for the sake of christ's satissactory, meritorious righteousness only. we do indeed with clement, and with the holy prophets and apostles believe, that sincere repentance is pre-required, as a dispositive condition to our obtaining of justification; yet we do not say any more than they did, that we are justified by repentance; but together with them we say, that we are justified by faith only, because god hath appointed faith only to that office of being the receptive condition, and inward, applicative means of justifiaation through christ's blood: clemeut's saying, that god justifies us by faith, and not by works, must undoubtedly be understood in this sense, as appears by what we have quoted, and shall now further quote out of him. pag. 102. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. let us speedily remove this evil from among us, and let us fall down before the lord, humbly beseeching him with tears, that being become favourable, he would be reconciled unto us. by this passage we see, that clement held, as we do, that repenting of, mourning for, and turning from our known sins, and humble earnest prayer to god, through christ, is a means indispensably necessary to be used by us, before we can have ground to hope that god will have mercy on us, in pardoning our sins. and as he held faith and repentance together to be indispensably necessary to the obtaining of justification, and pardon of sin, so he held sincere obedience, in a course of holy living, to be indispensably necessary to the obtaining of glorification and eternal salvation. for thus he writes, pag. 61, 62. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. since therefore all things are both seen, and heard, by him, let us fear him, and forsake all foul desires of evil actions, that so we may be protected, by his mercy, from those judgements which are to come. for whither can any one of us flee from his powerful hand? and what world will entertain any of them, who fall off from him, or turn renegadoes?— let us come unto him therefore in the holiness of our souls, lifting up unto him pure and undefiled hands, loving this our gentle and merciful father, who hath made us unto himself, the portion of his election. and pag. 73. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. let us therefore earnestly strive to be sound in the number of them that wait on him, that so we may be made partakers of those gifts which are promised. but, beloved, how shall this be done? if our thoughts be steadfastly fixed upon god by faith; if we inquire after those things which are wellpleasing, and acceptable unto him; if we do those things which are agreeable to his pure, and irreproveable will; and follow the way of truth: casting away from us all injustice and iniquity, covetousness, contentions, malignities and deceits, whisper and backbitings, hatred of god, pride and boasting, vainglory and ambition, for they that do these things are abominable unto god, and not only the doers thereof, but they also which consent thereunto. for the scripture saith, etc. as in psalm 50. which clement quotes from v. 16. to the end. and then he proceeds, saying, (this is the way, beloved, wherein we find jesus christ, our saving health, the high priest of our offerings, the guardian and helper of our weakness.) lastly, in page 102, 105, 106. he that hath love in christ, let him keep the commandments of christ, etc.— blessed are we, beloved, if we have done the commandments of god, in the concord of love; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that through love our sins may be forgiven us. for it is written, blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. blessed is the man unto whom the lord imputeth not sin, neither is there guile in his mouth. this blessedness hath been unto those who were chosen by god through jesus christ our lord, to whom be glory for ever and ever. amen. thus clement; who was paul's fellow-labourer, (phil. 4.3.) and who may well be presumed to know his mind, as to these matters; and we see evidently by his words, that he held (as we do) that faith and repentance are both antecedently necessary to justification and pardon of sin, and further, that sincere obedience to christ's commandments; in a course of holy living, is indispensably necessary to the obtaining of eternal life and glory in the everlasting kingdom of our most glorious god and saviour. but some may possibly say, what did clement mean by writing as he doth, that our sins are forgiven us through love? is that an orthodox expression? we answer, what did our saviour mean by saying, mat. 6.14, 15. if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly father will also forgive you; but if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your father forgive your trespasses. and again, what did our saviour mean by saying, mark 11.25. when ye stand praying, forgive, if ye have aught against any: that your father also which is in heaven, may forgive you your trespasses. were these orthodox expressions? if they were orthodox, as doubtless they were, and it were blasphemy to think otherwise; then so is the expression of clement orthodox, for the expressions are alike upon the matter, and the meaning is the same. clement by saying, that our sins are forgiven through love, meant no more, but that our forgiving our neighbour his trespasses against us, (which is an act of love;) is a means of god's appointment, whereby we obtain the forgiveness of our sins from god through christ. we do not doubt, but this was clement's meaning; and we are sure it was our saviour's: when he said, mark 11.25. if ye have aught against any forgive, that your father also, which is in heaven, may forgive you. our blessed lord, who is the faithful witness, makes god's forgiving us to be the end, and our forgiving our neighbour to be a means indispensably necessary to be used by us for obtaining that end. so that we obtain the forgiveness of our sins through love, in a very sound and orthodox sense; even as sound and orthodox as christ's gospel is. in the second place we bring the foresaid testimony of origen to prove, that the real change which is wrought in the soul by a sincere repentance, is antecedently necessary to dispose and prepare us for obtaining the promised blessing of pardon of sin, which is an essential part of justification. it is in his third book against celsus, of the cambridge edition, pag. 154. the passage in origen gins thus, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. which we will give the sense of, in english, for the use of our author. after these things (viz. which had been objected and answered before) he (celsus) takes upon him to charge us with that which is not granted by the more rational, judicious believers, though perhaps it may be thought so, by some foolish, or ignorant christians, that as some men are overcome by, and under the dominion of a tender, compassionate, natural frame and temper of mind, so god being overcome by, and under the power of a merciful, compassionate nature towards them that are in misery, he relieves and pardons miserable men, though they be wicked, if withal they be of a pitiful merciful nature● but though they be otherwise good men, yet god rejects them if they be not of such a pitiful, compassionate nature: which is most unjust. for according to our faith god doth not relieve, so as to pardon and receive into his favour any wicked man, unless he be first turned unto virtue, (that is, converted;) like as he doth not reject any, that is now become a good man. but neither doth he relieve, or show mercy unto any man of a merciful nature, merely because he is of a merciful nature, taking the word (mercy) in the sense that the vulgar, or common people, use it in; but those that greatly condemn themselves for their sins, so as thereupon to mourn and bewail themselves as lost and undone by reason of the evil they have done; and withal give evidence of a signal change, such as becomes true penitents, god grants to them (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) the grace of repentance, (that is, the gracious fruit, and benefit promised to repentance,) even to them who have changed their most wicked course. for unto such is given (as by act of oblivion) a pardon of their past sins, through the virtue that comes to dwell in their souls, and casts out the vice and corruption that possessed them before. or if at first they attain not unto a confirmed habit of virtue, yet there is a notable change in the soul, which proceeds so far, as that it is sufficient, according to the proportion of it, to purge out, and take away the great abundance of wickedness that was in it before, so as it can hardly ever get into the soul again. thus far origen. in which testimony of his there are several things worthy of our observation. 1. origen did not write this merely as a private christian, or teacher of the church, declaring what was his own private opinion, but as the great, and famous apologist in his time for christ, the christian church, and for the truth of the christian religion, against the heatheus, particularly against celsus, a very learned heathen, who had written learnedly and spitefully against christ, and against christians, and the christian religion. 2. whereas celsus had charged christians with an absurd, impious opinion, as that they believed, that god pardoneth wicked men's sins, and receives them into his favour, if they be of a good nature, of a soft, pitiful, compassionate temper, before there pass a real change upon them, before they repent, before they turn from sin, and return unto god in heart and affection; origen devyed the charge, and affirmed, that no rational, intelligent, judicious christian believed any such thing; that if any christian did at all believe, that god justified and pardoned a wicked man before he had repent of his sins, and returned unto the lord, they must be some foolish, simple, ignorant people; and yet he would not absolutely grant to his adversary, that there were then any such foolish, ignorant christians in the world; but in regard he was not acquainted with every individual christian, he did not absolutely deny it, only he said, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, perhaps there might be some such christians in the world: and if there were (as there might be, or not be some, for aught he knew,) they were none of the right breed of christians, they were but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, foolish, ignorant christians. 3. origen acknowledges that that senseless opinion did impute unto the holy god, a thing that is (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) most unjust. 4. therefore in the name of the christian church he declares to celsus, that christians believed, that god pardons, and receives into favour no unconverted, impenitent man, and that he rejects no good man, no penitent believer. 5. he declares, that according to the faith of christians, a man must always (repent before god pardon him, and receive him into his favour. 6. that the repentance, which goes before pardon, and to which pardon is promised, must be such as makes a real change in a man's heart and soul, and that the change is so great, as that the man greatly condemns himself on the account of his sins, he mourns for them, and turns from them unto the lord in heart and affection, yea it is so great, as that the reigning power of sin is in a good measure broken, and it is cast down from its throne in the heart. 7. that upon this, (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) god immediately grants unto the man, thus changed, the graci●● benett, and feui● of his repontance, that is, the pardon of his sins, which in the very next sentence origen calls an amnesty, or an act of oblivion. and here by the way, those who are intelligent may see that we were in the right before, when we said, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the grace of repentance in clement, doth signify pardon of sin, as the gracious fruit of repentance, for here the selfsame words are used by origen, where they are capable (we think) of no other meaning. 7. origen declares, that if the gracious principle that comes to take possession of the penitent believer's soul, be not at first a confirmed habit of christian virtue; yet it is such as at that present time, doth in a good measure purge out sin, and for the time to come makes it well nigh impossible for sin ever to recover its power in, and over the soul again. this book of origen against celsus is acknowledged by all learned men to be genuine and uncorrupted, and, so far as we know, he was never yet taxed with error by any man, for asserting (●● here he doth) that repentance is antecedently necessary to justification and pardon of sin, if our author have the confidence to affirm, that he ever was, by any mortal man, taxed with error for this, let him prove his assertion, if he would be believed. the same doctrine was taught by justin the martyr, writing in defence of the christian religion, against a learned jew. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, justin mart. dialog. cum trypho. pag. 370. edit. paris●, anno 1636. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. so then (saith ●ustin) if they repent, all that are willing to receive mercy from god, they may, and the word hath before declared them to be blessed, saying, blessed is he to whom the lord imputeth not sin. and that is thus, that whoso repenteth of his sins, shall receive from god remission of sins; but not so as ye deceive yourselves, and some others also that are like you in this matter, who say, that though they are sinners, yet if they know god, (i. e. believe,) the lord will not impute sin unto them. we have a testimony and evidence of this in one of david 's sins, which he fell into by his pride and vainglory, which was then forgiven, when he had so wept and lamented, as is written of him. and now if pardon was not granted to so great a man (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) before he had repent, but when that great king, and anointed one, and prophet, ●had wept, and done such things; (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) how cau filthy, and foolish, witless men, or men quite out of their right mind, unless they lament, mourn, and repent, have hope, that the lord will not impute sin unto them. here it is observable, that justin, christ's blessed martyr, fifteen hundred years ago, positively denies, that god pardons sinners before they repent; and declares, that they deceive themselves, that they are desperate, or witless creatures, quite out of their right mind, who persuade themselves, that if they know god, he will pardon their sins, before they repent, mourn for, and turn from their sins about the beginning of the third century, tertullian, in his book of repentance, chap. 4. writes thus, omnibus delictis, etc. that is, the same god, who by his righteous judgement hath ordained punishment for all sins that are committed, either in the flesh or spirit, either in the outward deed, or inward will and desire, hath also promised pardon by repentance, saying to the people, repent, and i will save thee. and again, as i live, saith the lord, i had rather repentance, than death. therefore repentance is life, (that is, it is the way and means to life,) since it is preferred before, or more desired than death. and a little after, poenitentia quae per dei gratiam ostensa & indicta nobis, in gratiam nos domino revocat: repentance (saith he) which by the grace of god is revealed to us, and commanded, brings us into favour again with the lord, that is, repentance is a means and condition of god's own appointing upon the use and performance whereof, we are received again into favour with the lord. and after the middle of the same book, desertam dilectionem ephesiis imputat, etc. the lord imputes unto the ephesians, that they had left their first love, he upbraids them of thyatira with fornication, and eating of things sacrificed to idols; he accuses them of sardis, that their works were not perfect before god; he reproves them of pergamus for teaching perverse doctrine; he rebukes the laodiceans for trusting that they were rich and needed nothing: and yet he admonishes them all to repent with threaten indeed; but he would not threaten to punish the impenitent, if he were not willing to pardon the penitent; (and saith, if any doubt of this, for the removing of such doubts) illum etiam mitissimum patrem non tacebo, qui prodigum filium revocat, etc. i will not forbear to mention that most meek father (in the parable) who calls back his prodigal son, and after his poverty and distress, gladly receives him upon his repentance, kills the fatted calf, adorns his joy with a feast, and why not? for he had found his son, whom he had lost, and he had felt his love to be the greater towards him, because he had regained him. now whom must we understand by this father? why even god; for none is so much a father as he, none so affectionate as he. thorefore he shall receive thee his son, although thou hast prodigally spent, that which thou hadst received from him, although thou returnest naked, yet he will receive thee, because thou art returned: and he will rejoice more in thy return, than in another man's sobriety: sed si poeniteat ex animo, but it is on condition that thou repent from thy heart, that thou compare thy hungerstarved condition with the plenty of thy father's hired servants; that thou forsake the swine, those unclean beasts, that thou come back to thy father, though he be offended with thee, saying, father, i have sinned, nor am i worthy to be now called thine. by this we plainly see, that tertullian preached the necessity of sincere repentance antecedently to the obtaining pardon of sin. next to tertullian we allege blessed cyprian for a witness of the same truth. thus than he writes, dominus loquitur, etc. operum cypr. tom. 1. epist. 18. edit. colon. agrip. an. 1617. the lord speaketh and saith, to whom shall i look, but to him that is humble and still, and trembleth at my words: seeing we ought to be all such, they then much more ought to be such whose duty it is to endeavour that after a grievous fall they may obtain god's favour and mercy by true repentance and great humility. in his 52 epistle to antonianus, page 59 dominus in evangelio, etc. the lord in the gospel setting forth the goodness and kind affection of god the father, saith, what man is there of you, who if his son ask of him bread, will give him a stone? or if he ask a fish will give him a serpent? if ye then who are evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your heavenly father give good things to them that ask him? the lord here makes a comparison between a carnal father, or a father of the flesh, and the eternal and large goodness and kindness of god the father: now if it be so that this evil sinful father upon earth, who hath been grievously offended by his sinful and wicked son, yet if afterwards he see him reform, and having forsaken the sins of his former life, and being by the sorrow of repentance amended and changed to sober and good manners, and to the discipline of innocency (or to a holy course of life,) he both rejoiceth and is glad, and having received him whom he formerly had cast off, he embraces him with the desire of a fatherly joy: how much-more doth that one and true father, who is good, merciful, and kind, yea goodness, mercy, and kindness itself, rejoice in the repentance of his children, neither doth he threaten wrath to the penitent, nor punishment to them that mourn and lament; but he rather promiseth them pardon and favour? whence the lord in the gospel, saith, they are blessed who mourn, for he that mourns moves compassion; whereas he that is stubborn and proud, heaps up to himself the wrath and punishment of the judgement to come. and in the same epistle, page 60. scim●s juxtd divinar●m scripturdrum fidem ductore & hortatore ipso deo, & ad agendum poenitentiam peccatores redigi & veniam atque indulgentiam poenitentibus non denegari. we know according to the faith of the holy scriptures, god himself being both the author and exhorter, that sinners are brought to repentance, and also that forgiveness and favour is not denied them when they do repent. and in his eighth epistle to the clergy and people, after he had told them that according as it had been revealed and foretold by prophecy, the enemy had got power over them, and had raised a terrible persecution against them, because of their divisions and contentions, their breaking the lords commandments, and sleepy way of prayer; and after he had most passionately exhorted them to give themselves much to watching and prayer, to earnest, frequent, fervent prayer night and day, and had pressed them thereunto both by precept and example of christ and his apostles, who spent days and nights in prayer, and had likewise encouraged them thereunto by telling them that christ prayed not for himself and his own sins, but for them and for their sins, he added as it is in pag. 16. of that book. quod si pro nobis, etc. i. e. which if it be so, that he (the lord jesus) labours, and watches, and prays for us and for the pardon of our sins, how much the more should we continue in prayer and supplication? we have jesus christ our lord and god, to be advocate and intercessor for our sins, if so be, (or on condition) that we repent of our sins past, and confessing and being sensible of our faults, whereby we now at this present time offend the lord, we promise that for time to come we will walk in his ways, and fear his commandments. by this that we have cited, and by much more that we could cite out of cyprian, it may evidently appear that that blessed martyr of jesus, was far from being of opinion that god pardons the sins of his people before they repent. indeed to tell people that god pardons their sins before they repent, it is falsa misericordia, false or deceitful mercy, it is not (curare, sed si dicere verum volumus, occidere,) the way to cure but (if we will speak the truth) to kill souls, in the judgement of those ancient elders and deacons, who wrote the 31. epistle to cyprian, page 37. and cyprians himself was of the same. judgement, for thus he writes in the same book, pag. 143. qui peccantem, etc. that is, de lapsis tom. 2. he who flatters a sinner with sweet and pleasant words, gives him occasionto sin, and doth not restrain but nourish: his sinful lusts. whereas he who at once both reproves● and instructs his brother by giving him more solid and firm counsel, he helps him forward in the way to salvation. whom i love (saith the lord) i rebuke and chasten. so the minister of god ought not to deceive the people by cunning and cozening compliances, but to provide sound and saving remedies for their souls. he an ignorant, unskilful chirurgeon who is afraid to feel with his hand the swelling is hollowness of wounds, and whilst he keeps the corrupt humour close shut up in the secret recesses of the bowels, he increases it, and makes the wound more dangerous. the wound must be opened, and incisions must be made, and the malady must be cured with a stronger, and sharper remedy, even by cutting off, and taking away the flesh that is corrupted and putrified. let the sick person cry out and complain as he will, by reason of the pain which he hath not patience to endure, yet afterwards he will thank the chirurgeon, when he finds that he is cured. thus cyprian, and sure this is sufficient to show that he would never have said that it is bad counsel to tell an awakened sinner that he must repent of his known sins, mourn for them, leave and loathe them. cyprian was more loving and faithful to the souls of men than so to betray them to the enemy of their salvation; he would have lost his life before he would have done it. and indeed he did at last lose his life for his faithfulness to christ, and to the souls of his people. he laid down his life for the brethren, he sealed the truth of christ's gospel with his blood, about the year of our lord 250, and that is above fourteen hundred years ago. these five fathers flourished within the first three hundred years after christ, when the church was in its greatest purity, and three of them, to wit, clement, justin, and cyprian were martyrs; we need say no more to vindicate our doctrine from the aspersion of novelty, which is fulsty cast upon it, yet we think fit to add further two or three testimonies of those fathers who afterwards were great asserters of the necessity and efficacy of god's grace against the pe●ugians; of which the chief was the famous augustin, who, they say, was born in africa, the father day that pelagius was born in britain; the lord intimating by that providence that he had raised up augustin to be an instrument in his hand to mantain and defend the necessity and efficacy of his grace against pelagius, who devyed it. now in his 105 epistle to sixtus, this great champion of the church in his time, saith, that no man is delivered and justified from any sin, original or actual, of omission or commission, [nisi gratiâ dei per jesu●● christ●●● dominum nostrum, 〈◊〉 solùm remissione peccatorum, sed priùs ipsius inspiratione. fidei & timoris dei, imparti●o salubriter orationis affectu & effectu.] but by the grace of god, through jesus christ our lord, not only by forgiving him his sins, but first by inspiring into him faith and the fear of god, the affection and effect of prayer being savingly impairted unto him, in this passuge of augustins we observe, that (1.) he affirms that non liberatur & justificatur quisquam nisi gratiâ dei, etc. that no man is freed and justified from any sin, but by the grace of god through jesus christ our lord. (2.) that god's grace in our justificution appeals not only in his forgiving as our sins for the sake of christ, but also in this that (prins) f●st, before he justifies us in forgiving our sins, he inspires into us faith in christ and fear of god, and in that he gives us an inclination and ability to pray, and excites us to actual prayer. for that is the thing that he means by affectus & effectus erationis salubriter imparti●us. the affection of prayer, is the fitness and disposition of the mind for the duty, and we conceive that the effect of prayer in this place signi 〈…〉 p●aying of the soul, its actual breathing after god for tho pardon of its sins. these three things, faith, fear, and prayer, in augustins' judgement go before remission of sins, and so before justification, of which according to our confessions and catechisms remission of sin is an essential part at least. and the consequence of this is, that according to austin there is some spiritual good wrought in us, and done by us, before our sins be pardoned, and we be justified: and so we are qualified at least for pardon, and that by the grace of god in christ. the same author in another book saith, homines non intolligentes quod ait ipse apostolus, lib. de great. & lib. urb. cap. 7. 〈…〉 hominem per ●idem sine operibus legis, putarverunt eum dicere sufficere homini fidem etianise malè vivat, & bona opera non habeat: quod absit ut sentiret vas electionis, etc. men not understanding that which the apostle bimself saith, we judge that a man is justified by faith without the works of the law. they have thought that he said faith is sufficient to a man, although he live a wicked life, and have not good works. which god forbidden that that chosen. vessel shield have thought or believed▪ who when he had said in a certain, place; in christ cyesus, neither circumcision, nor uncircumcision availeth any thing, immediately he idea, but ●aith which worketh by love: this is that faith which distinguisheth ●●d separateth god's faithful people from the unclean devils; for even they, as the apostle james saith, believe and tremble, but they do no good works, therefore they have no● that faith by which the just doth live, that is, which works by love, that god may render unto him eternal life according to his works. but because we have even good works themselves from that god, from whom we have faith and love, therefore the same teacher of the gentiles, hath called eternal life itself, grace or gist, and in the next and 8th: chapter he saith, that paul in ephes. 2.8, 9 having written that we are saved by grace through faith, and that not of ourselves, it is the gift of god; not of works, lest any man should host; he saw that men might think that this: was so spoken, as if good works were not necessary to believers, but that faith alone was sufficient to them: and again that men may be proud of their good works, as if they, were able of themselves to do them, therefore he immediately added, for we are his workmanship created in christ jesus unto good works, which he hath prepared that we should walk in them. audi & intellige, non ex operibus dictum, tanquam tuis ex teipso tibi existentibus. hear and understand (saith austin) it is said not of works, as if they were thine own, which thou hadst of and from thyself; for thou art created in christ jesus unto them. we have also a large confession of faith of fifteen pastors of the church of christ in africa, fulgent. de incarn. & gra. j. chr. concerning the incarnation and grace of our lord jesus christ, it was indeed written by one of them, to wit, the famous fulgentius, but all their naines are prefixed to it, and it is by them directed to petrus diaconus. in the 17th. chapter of that book they writ thus, ipse salvator noster, etc. our saviour himself with the commanding power of his own voice speaks unto the will of man, saying, repent and believe the gospel; yet it is clear a man receives from god repentance unto life, that he may begin to believe in god; so that he cannot believe in god at all, unless he, receive repentance by the gift of god who showeth mercy. but what is a man's repentance, but the change of his will 〈◊〉 theresore god who gives a man repentance, doth himself change man's will, now observe here, (1.) that in the judgement of the foresaid fifteen fathers, the lord both commands and gives repentance unto life. (2.) that the lord gives repentance before we believe in god, because he gives us repentance that we may begin to believe in god. (3.) that we cannot believe in god, at all, unless god first give us repentance; which must be understood in this sense, that we cannot believe at all with the faith of fiducial consent and recumbency unless it be first given us to repent, for it is self-evident that we can and do believe with the faith of assent, before we do repent, and indeed we neither do, nor can repent till we first believe with the faith of assent; as was showed before; and it is clear from their own words that they meant not, that we cannot believe with the faith of assent, but that we cannot believe with the faith of consent and fiducial recumbency, unless it be first given us to repent. their words are, a man receives from god repentance unto life, (ut in deum credere incipiat) that he may begin to believe in god. now by believing in god undoubtedly, they meant believing in him, so as to consent to have him for our god, and so as to trust him as our god: and could not mean only believing so far as to assent that there is a god, and that his word is true: for they were the disciples of holy austin, and had learned of him to distinguish between (credere deum, credere deo, & credere in deum) believing a god, and believing that all god saith is true; and believing in god, so as to love him and take him for our god, and trust him as our god. it is this believing in god which they say cannot be begun till we have first repent through grace, and this is a great truth, as we shown before out of calvin: and since this believing with fiducial consent and recumbency is justifying faith, it follows evidently that those fifteen fathers held repentance to be before remission of sins, and before justification, as it consists in remission of sins; because they held it to be before justifying faith, whereby we receive remission of sins, act. 10.43. (4.) we observe they say that repentance is a change of our will, and god himself by giving us repentance, changes our wills. therefore in the judgement of those fifteen fathers there is and must be a real change in us, before we be justified and pardoned. and we must let our author know that these fathers which are for us against him, were burning and shining lights in their day. most of them (if not all) suffered banishment for the true faith of christ, under the persecution of the arian vandals in africa. for we have a synodical epistle of theirs concerning the grace of god, and the will of man which was written by them in their exile in sardinia, to which, twelve of their names are prefixed, the selfsame names which are prefixed to the foresaid confession of faith concerning the incarnation and grace of our lord jesus directed to petrus diaconus and his brethren who were come from the eastern churches, to receive information concerning the faith of the westorn churches. we will here cite one short passage out of the synodical epistle of those twelve banished pastors of christ's church. it is in the 10th. chapter. quod autem vos dicitis, etc. as to what ye (who wrote to us) say that man is saved by the alone mercy of god; but they say unless a man run and labour with his own will, he cannot be saved, we answer that both are fitly held, if the right order be kept between the mercy of god, and will of man; that mercy go before, and the will follow; that god's mercy alone confer the beginning of salvation; with which afterwards the will of man may cooperate towards its own salvation; that god's mercy preventing or going before, may direct the course of man's will, and that man's will obeying, through the same mercy or grace following it, may according to its intention run towards the (heavenly) prize. here we see that it was the judgement of those twelve confessors, that we are saved by the alone mercy and grace of god, if through grace preventing and assisting us, we yield obedience to the lord, and run and labour to obtain the prize of eternal life and glory. and that if we do not this, we cannot be saved. this is what we say that sincere obedience is so indispensably necessary that without it we cannot be saved. it shall suffice at present to have demonstrated by the testimonies aforesaid that we are no innovators, no preachers of a new gospel, and divinity in this matter, since we have christ and his apostles, and the fathers of the best and purest ages on our side, all giving in testimony for us, and against our author. it will not consist with our designed brevity to allege more testimonies of the doctors of the primitive church, and therefore we pass from them to the modern divines, the doctors and pastors of the reformed churches. we begin with the augustan confession of faith, and the edition we make use of, is that which was printed at wittenbergh in the year 1540 in the 20th. testimonies of modern divines. article concerning faith, these are its words. primum igitur de fide & justificatione sic docent, christus apte complexus est summam evangelii, etc. first therefore they (the protestant ministers and churches) thus teach concerning faith and justification; christ hath fitly comprehended the sum of the gospel, when in the last chapter of luke he commands repentance and remission of sins to be preached in his name. for the gospel reproves sin, and requires repentance, and at the same time offers remission of sins freely for christ's sake, and not for our own worthiness. and as the preaching of repentance is universal, so also the promise of grace is universal, and commands all to believe and receive the benefit of christ, as christ says, come unto me all ye that are heavy laden. and paul says, he is rich unto all that call upon him. therefore though some contrition and repentance is necessary, yet we must believe that remission of sins is given unto us, and that of unjust we are made just, that is, reconciled or accepted, and made the children of god, freely for christ's sake, and not for the worth or merit of contrition, or of other works that go before, or follow after: but this benefit is to be received by faith, etc.— therefore when we say that we are justified by faith, we do not understand this, that we are just for the dignity, worth, or merit of the virtue of faith itself. but this is the meaning, that we obtain the remission of sins and the imputation of righteousness through mercy for christ's sake; but this mercy cannot be received but by faith; and here faith signifies not merely the knowledge of the history, but it signifies to believe the promise of mercy, which we obtain for christ the mediator:— for what can be more acceptable to an afflicted, trembling conscience, in its true sorrows and pains, than to hear, that this is the command of god, this is the voice of christ the bridegroom, that they be surely persuaded that remission of sins, or reconciliation is given not for our worthiness, but freely through mercy for christ's sake, that the benefit may be certain. as for the word justification in those passages of paul, it signifies the remission of sins, or reconciliation, or imputation of righteousness, that is, the acceptation of the person. and in the same article, the paragraph concerning good works. [this new life then, should be obedience towards god. and the gospel preaches repentance, nor can there be faith, but in those who repent, because faith comforts men's hearts in contrition, and fears of sin, etc. moreover we also teach concerning this obedience, that they who commit mortal sins, (that is, wilful presumptuous sins against knowledge and conscience,) are not just, because god requires this obedience, that we resist our corrupt lusts and affections. but those who do not resist, but obey them against the command of god, and do actions against their conscience, they are unjust, and they neither retain the holy spirit nor faith, that is, confidence of mercy. for in those who delight in sin, and do not repent, there cannot indeed be that trust or confidence, which may seek for remission of sins. this passage of the augustan confession we thus understand, that habitual reigning, wilful sin against conscience, and without repentance is inconsistent with a state of grace, and reconciliation. and we think that all protestants (except antinomians) are agreed in this. one passage more, and we have done with this confession of faith. it is in the same 20th. article of faith, a little before the passage last quoted. there is no need here of disstations about predestination, and the like. for the promise is universal, and it takes nothing from works, yea it stirs up to faith and to works that are truly good. for remission of sins is transferred or removed from our works (unto god's) mercy, not that we may do nothing, but much rather, that we may know how our obedience pleaseth god, in our so great infirmity. this was the first protestant confession of faith, written by melancthon, received by the protestant churches, subscribed by their ministers, and that not only by luther, and those of his party, but even by calvin also. it was likewise subscribed by seven princes and dukes in germany, and by the magistrates of cities, and presented unto the emperor charles v in the year 1530. we hope then, it will not be denied, but that this augustan confession contains the true doctrine of the gospel in the points of justification by faith, and of the necessity of repentance unto the obtaining pardon of sin; and of sincere obedience unto the obtaining of eternal salvation. and if so, than our doctrine in those points, is likewise the true doctrine of the gospel, for it is the same with that of the augustan confession, as to those matters of which we treat. from the augustan confession, and the testimony of many princes, pastors, cities, and churches, who subscribed, and received it, we come to the articles of the church of england, which we have all subscribed, the 11th. article concerning justification we most hearty embrace, and acknowledge that it is a most wholesome doctrine, and full of comfort, that we are justified by faith only, in that sense which is more largely explained in the homily of justification, to which the article expressly refers us, and which by consequence we have subscribed, by subscribing the article. it is called a sermon of the salvation of mankind by christ only; and a very good sermon it is, worth a thousand of our author's letter, which deserves not to be mentioned the same day with it. for understanding then the true and full meaning of the article of justification, we must have recourse to the homily, or sermon of salvation. in which excellent sermon, pag. 13. we read as followeth, london edit. 1673. [that though according to the apostle, we are justified by a true and lively faith only, and that that faith is the gist of god. [yet that faith doth not shut out repentance, hope, love, dread, and the fear of god, to be joined with faith in every man that is justified, but it shutteth them out from the office of justifying. so that although they be all present together (mark that, they do not only necessarily follow, and flow from faith in time, but when we are first justified, they are present together with it,) in him that is justified, yet they justify not altogether, nor the faith also doth not shut out the justice of our good works, as necessary to be done afterwards, of duty towards god (for we are most bounden to serve god, in doing good deeds commanded by him, in his holy scripture, all the days of our life,) but it excludeth them, so that we may not do them to this intent, to be made good by doing them. for all the good works that we can do, be imperfect, and therefore not able to deserve our justification, etc.— again in the second part of that sermon, pag. 15. nevertheless this sentence, that we be justified by faith only, is not so meant of them, that the said justifying faith is alone in man, without true repentance, hope, charity, dread and fear of god at any time and season. nor when they say, that we be justified freely, they mean not, that we should, or might afterwards be idle, and that nothing should be required on our parts afterwards: neither they mean not, so to be justified without good works, that we should do no good works at all.— but this saying, that we be justified by faith only, freely, and without works, is spoken for to take away clearly all merit of our works, as being unable to deserve our justification at god's hand, and thereby most plainly to express the weakness of man, and the goodness of god, the great infirmity of ourselves, and the might and power of god, the imperfectness of our own works, and the most abundant grace of our saviour christ, and therefore wholly to ascribe the merit and deserving of our justification unto christ only, and his most precious bloodshedding. this faith the holy scripture teacheth us, this is the strong rock and foundation of christian religion, this doctrine all old and ancient authors of christ's church do approve, this doctrine advanceth, and setteth forth the true glory of christ, and beateth down the vainglory of man, this whosoever denieth is not be accounted for a christian man, nor for a setter forth of christ's glory, but for an adversary to christ, and his gospel, and for a setter forth of men's vainglory. again, pag. 16. the true meaning, and understanding of this doctrine, we be justified freely by faith without works, or we be justified by faith in christ only, is not, that this our own act to believe in christ, or this our faith in christ, which is within us, doth justify us, and deserve our justification unto us, (for that were to count ourselves to be justified by some act or virtue, that is within ourselves,) but the true understanding and meaning thereof is that, although we hear god's word, and believe it, although we have faith, hope, charity, repentance, dread and fear of god within us, and do never so many works thereunto: yet we must renounce the merit of all our said virtues, of faith, hope, charity, and all other virtues and good deeds, which we either have done, shall do, or can do, as things that be far too weak and insufficient, and imperfect, to deserve remission of our sins, and our justification; and therefore we must trust only in god's mercy, and that sacrifice which our high priest and saviour christ jesus the son of god, once offered for us upon the cross, to obtain thereby god's grace, and remission, as well of our original sin in baptism, as of all actual sin committed by us after our baptism, if we truly repent, and turn unfeignedly to him again. and at the end of the same 16. and beginning of 17. page, you see, that the very true meaning of this proposition, or saying, we be justified by faith in christ only (according to the meaning of the old, ancient authors, i) is this: we put our faith in christ, that we be justified by him only, that we be justified by god's free mercy, and the merits of our saviour christ only, and by no virtue or good works of our own, that is in us, or that we can be able to have, or to do, for to deserve the same: christ himself only being the cause meritorious thereof.] all this, we most hearty approve of: but we doubt, whether our author will join with us in it, because he says, the papists own this, that christ only is the meritorious cause of our justification. and if it be so, lett. pag. 6. then according to his reckoning the church of england and we, may be both papists, in the point of justification, notwithstanding that the said homily was written purposely against the papists, and we have all subscribed to it. it may be our author has so accustomed himself to call men papists, when ever he is angry with them, that he cannot forbear it; and therefore as he used to call the church of england men papists, so now being angry with us, his passion may have excited him to bring his habit into act, and to rank us also among papists, in the point of justification. but we leave this, and proceed to what is more material; and that is, that if we be not justified by works, because they do not, nor cannot merit justification, than it will follow that for the same reason, we are not justified by faith, because faith can no more merit justification, than works. this objection the author, or authors, of the homily foresaw, and answered it, by confessing that faith doth not justify us on the account of its meritorious nature, but on another account. their words are these, [as great and as godly a virtue, as the lively faith is, yet it putteth us from itself, and remitteth or appointeth us unto christ, for to have only by him remission of our sins or justification. so that our faith in christ (as it were) saith unto us thus, it is not i that take away your sins, but it is christ only, and to him only i send you for that purpose, forsaking therein all your good virtues, words, thoughts and works, and only putting your trust in christ. and in the third part, pag. 17. nevertheless, because faith doth directly send us to christ for remission of our sins, and that by faith given us of god, we embrace the promise of god's mercy, and of the remission of our sins, (which thing none other of our virtues or works properly doth,) therefore scripture useth to say, that faith without works doth justify.] thus far that excellent sermon. and this is the same thing which we maintain, that god hath chosen faith above all other graces and virtues, to be the receptive, applicative condition, or moral instrument and means of justification, because it hath a proper and peculiar aptitude and fitness for that use, being both of an illuminative and receptive nature; and as it is of an illuminative nature, it assures us, that we can be justified by no satisfaction and merit, but that of christ, and so it sends us to him alone for justification: then as it is of a receptive nature, it embraceth the promise, and takes hold of him, and his righteousness, as held forth to us in the promise, that thereby, and for the satisfaction and merits thereof alone, and for no other thing, we may be justified. in this sense we hold, that we are justified by faith only, and that faith is the only receptive, applicative condition of justification. yet this hinders not, but that repentance is the dispositive condition of justification. the homily saith expressly, that faith doth not shut out repentance, but that they are present together, and that by faith we trust only in god's mercy, and christ's sacrifice, to obtain thereby remission of all sins, original and actual, if we truly repent, and turn unfeignedly to him again, part 2. pag. 16. which words manifestly show, that they held repentance to be a condition of justification; but it cannot be according to the authors of the homily, either a meritorious condition, for there is none such at all possible; nor a receptive, applicative condition, for that is the office of faith only. therefore it must be a dispositive condition. and then after one is justified, it is evident, that they held sincere obedience to be indispensably necessary to his continuing in a justified state, and obtaining eternal salvation. for they say in part 3. pag. 17. that if after we are justified, and made members of christ, we care not how we live, whether we do good, or avoid evil works, we make ourselves members of the devil, and surely that is inconsistent with a justified state: therefore to prevent our becoming members of the devil again, sincere obedience from a principle of faith and love is indispensably necessary. and that this was their true meaning is further evident from the sermon of good works, part i. pag. 29. where they quote and approve the saying of chrysostom, concerning the penitent thief. the words are, [this i will surely affirm, that faith only saved him. if he had lived, and not regarded faith, and the works thereof, he should have lost his salvation again.] indeed this is but a supposition, and we have no reason to think, that if he had lived longer he would not have been careful to lead a life of faith and holy obedience; yet if the antecedent be supposed, the consequent necessarily follows, that he would have lost his salvation again. for as it is in the sermon of faith, [to them that have evil works, second part p. 24. and lead their life in disobedience, and transgression, or breaking of god's commandments, without repentance, pertaineth not everlasting life, but everlasting death, as christ himself saith, they that do evil shall go into everlasting fire, mat. 25.] these passages do manifestly show, that in the judgement of the church of england, as sincere repentance is indispensably necessary to obtain forgiveness of sin, so sincere obedience, from a principle of faith and love, and bringing forth fruits meet for repentance, is indispensably necessary to the escaping of eternal damnation, and obtaining of eternal salvation. let any man read, and consider the sermon of repentance in the same book, tom. 2. pag. 324. and he will see this to be as clear as the light at noonday. we will quote one short passage out of it, in page 339. they say, [the filihiness of sin is such, that as long as we do abide in it, god cannot but detest and abhor us, neither can there be any hope, that we shall enter into the heavenly jerusalem, except we be first made clean, and purged from it. but this will never be, unless forsaking our former life, we do with our whole heart return unto the lord our god, and with a full purpose of amendment of life, flee unto his mercy, taking sure hold thereupon, through faith in the blood of his son jesus christ.] this excellent passage shows clearly, that as faith is the receptive, applicative condition, so true repentance is the dispositive condition of the covenant of pardon and life, and that the one is as necessary in its kind, as the other is; and that unless through grace we do both, we are undone for ever. thus we have showed at large what was the old gospel doctrine of the church of england at the reformation, and that our doctrine is exactly the same. therefore it must needs be a most horrid (we will not say lie, but) falsehood, that we preach a new gospel, and that we are to be blamed for telling people that they must repent, and mourn for their known sins, leave and loathe them, and god will have mercy upon them for christ's sake. from whole societies of protestants, we pass to the testimonies of individual pastors of the reformed churches. and we begin with calvin, who in his commentary on ezek. 18.23. says, (deus ergo non ita vult omnes salvos fieri, ut discrimen omne tollat boni & mali; sed praecedit veniam poenitentia, quemadmodum hîc dicitur:) therefore god doth not so will all men to be saved, as to take away all difference between good and evil; but repentance goes before pardon, as it is here said. and again on the same text, we hold therefore, that god doth not will now the death of a sinner, because he calls all to repentance, without making a difference, and promises that he shall be ready to receive them (modo seriò resipiscant) if they (or on condition that they) earnestly repent. and in his institutions he writes thus, lib. 3. cap. 3. sect. 20. quare ubi remissionem peccatorum offered deus, etc. for which reason, where god offers remission of sins, he likewise useth to require: on our part repentance, signifying thereby that his mercy offered, aught to cause men to repent. do (saith he) judgement and justice, because salvation is come near at band, (isa. 56.1.) likewise, the redeemer shall come to zion, and to them who turn from transgression in jacob, (isa. 59.20.) again, seek the lord, while he may be found, call upon him, while he is near; let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteousness of his thoughts, and let him return unto the lord, and he will have mercy upon him, (isa. 55.6, 7.) again, be converted and repent, that your sins may be blotted out, (acts 3.19.) where yet it is to be noted, that this condition, (to wit of repentance) is not so annexed (to those promises,) as if our repentance were the ground of meriting our pardon; but rather (because the lord hath determined to show mercy unto men for this end, that they might repent,) he shows them whither they are to go, (to wit unto god by repentance,) if they will obtain favour. in these passages we observe, (1.) that calvin says expressly, that repentance is a condition annexed to the promise of pardon. (2.) that the performance of that condition goes before pardon; and, (3.) that therefore we are to repent, and so perform the condition, that we may obtain the grace of pardon. (4.) that in calvin's judgement repentance is a condition of justification, and that because calvin believed justification and pardon of sin to be the same thing, as is most evident from what he writes against osiander, instit. 3d. book, cap. 11. sect. 4.11, 21, 22. (5.) that in calvin's judgement repentance is the dispositive condition of justification. for it must be either the receptive or dispositive condition; but it cannot be the receptive condition, for in calvin's judgement faith is the only receptive condition, therefore it must be the dispositive condition. and indeed calvin so held it to be, for in his third book of institutions, chap. 3. sect. 18. he says, privatim deo confiteri, pars est verae poenitentiae quae omitti non potest. nihil enim minus consentaneum quam ut peccata ignoscat deus, in quibus nobis ipsi blandimur, etc. to confess our sins in secret to god, is a part of true repentance, which cannot be omitted: for nothing is less becoming or suitable, than that god should forgive us those sins, in which we flatter or please ourselves. on the contrary, calvin writing against pighius, says, contra pigh. de lib. arb. lib. 5. sect. adducit tamen. (sanè humiles deus respicit, sicut illi acceptum cordis contriti & afflicti sacrificium david canit) indeed god hath regard unto the humble, as david sings in his psalm, that the sacrifice of a contrite and afflicted heart is acceptable and pleasing unto him. these passages show, that in calvin's judgement an impenitent sinner is by reason of his impenitence unfit for pardon; but that the true penitent by his humiliation and brokenness of heart is disposed and fitted for pardon, so that it is agreeable to the perfections of god's nature to accept such a person in christ, and to pardon his sins for christ's sake: and as calvin held faith and repentance to be the conditions of our justification, so did he hold sincere obedience from a principle of faith and love, to be the condition of our not falling from a justified state, and of our obtaining the possession of eternal life and glory. for thus he writes in his institutions, quoties ergo audimus, etc. therefore as often as we hear, lib. 3. cap. 17. sect. 6. that god bestows his benefits on them who keep his law, we are to remember that god's children are there designed or described by the duty, which they ought to be continually exercised in; that we are for this reason adopted that we should reverence and honour him for our father. (ne ergo ipsi adoptionis jure nos abdicemus, hàc semper enitendunt, quo tendit nostra vocatio:) therefore lest we should abdicate, disinherit; or deprive ourselves of the right of adoption, we must evermore be endeavouring to attain the end of our (christian and heavenly) calling. by this passage we see that calvin held sincere filial obedience to be a condition necessary on our part to our continuing in a state of sonship, and to our obtaining the heavenly inheritance of children. it is confessed, that he did not think, that the performance of such obedience, and perseverance therein to the end, depends principally on man's will; nor do we think any such thing, nay we declare, that it depends principally on god's special grace and favour through jesus christ. he also did not think the said obedience to be meritorious; nor do we, nay we utterly abhor any such thought: so that in this matter calvin and we do exactly agree against our author: inst. l. 3. c. 14. sect. 18. calvin says, (dum operum fiduciam excludimus, hoc volumus duntaxat, ne mens christiana ad operum meritum, velut ad salutis subsidium, reflectatur: sed penitùs resideat in gratuitâ justitiae promissione:) whilst we exclude all trust or confidence in works, we mean this only, that the mind of a christian should not look on the merit of good works, as unto an help towards the obtaining salvation, but that it should wholly rest in the free promise of righteousness.) here calvin himself gives us a key to open the true meaning of any expressions of his, that may incline any body to think, that he slighted good works of holy obedience. and he would have us to know, that all such persons, that think so of him, quite mistake his sense, for his true meaning is only, that good works are not in the least meritorious, that under that false notion they are to be slighted indeed; and that true christians should have no regard unto them, as if by their merit they could help us to obtain salvation. now under this false notion we reject them utterly, as much as our author or any other man can do. yet can we never allow that good works which are really such should be cried down as unnecessary to salvation in that way that the lord hath made them necessary; much less can we agree to the horrid opinion of the amsdorsian lutherans, that good works are pernicious to salvation. so much for calvin. next to him it is fit that beza should appear to give in his testimony. and he gives it clearly on our side. for thus he writes in his 20th. epistle, conjunctas autem esse poenitentiam, & remissionem peccatorum, etc. that repentance and remission of sins are joined together; and so indeed that repentance goes before remission of sins, partly the express word of god teaches it, partly also reason itself and common sense, how corrupt soever, shows it. john (says mark in his 1. chapter) preached the baptism of repentance for remission of sins. and luke 13. except (says christ) ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish. and luke 24.47. repentance (saith luke) and remission of sins must be preached in his name. moreover nothing doth occur more frequently in the scriptures than such testimonies: for neither doth the lord vouchsafe the grace and favour of remission of sins unto others but them that are penitent. from this passage we observe, (1.) that it is a truth so bright and clear, that repentance goes before pardon of sin, that in beza's judgement the common sense and reason of mankind doth or may discern it. (2.) that this testimony can not be eluded and put off, by saying that it is a legal and not an evangelical repentance that goes before pardon of sin. for the proofs which beza brings from scripture, will by no means admit of this evasion. for, (1.) the repentance that (beza saith) goes before pardon of sin, is the repentance which christ exhorted the jews unto, luke 13.3, 5. and which he ordered his apostles to preach unto all nations in his name, beginning at jerusalem. luke 24.47. but certainly that was an evangelical, and not a mere legal repentance. (2.) the repentance which in beza's judgement goes before pardon of sin, is a repentance to which is made the promise of pardon of sin, so that whosoever doth not thus repent shall perish, but whosoever doth thus repent shall not perish. therefore it is and must be an evangelical, and cannot be a mere legal repentance, for pardon of sin is not promised to a mere legal repentance: and it cannot be truly said, that a man who reputes with a mere legal repentance shall not perish. thousands have perished everlastingly, who yet repent with a mere legal repentance: and judas was one who so repent, matth. 27.3, 4. and when he had done it, he went and hanged himself. it is most evident than that beza did not bring those texts to prove that a mere legal repentance goes before pardon of sin, for those texts do not speak of a mere legal repentance, but of one that is truly evangelical, to which pardon of sin is so infallibly assured, that whosoever doth not so repent, shall perish, and whosoever doth so repent, shall not perish. but some may say, yet beza affirms in the same epistle, that contrition of heart doth not properly proceed from the gospel. we answer, it is true, he doth say so, but it is plain, he was mistaken in that, and contradicts calvin, who says expressly, inst. l. 3. c. 3. sect. 19 that (cum totam evangelii summam breviter complecti voluit, dixit, etc.) when the lord christ would comprehend the whole sum of the gospel in few words, he said that it behoved him to suffer, to rise again from the dead, and that repentance and remission of sins must be preached in his name, and this the apostles after his resurrection preached, that he was raised up by god to give repentance unto israel, and remission of sins.) it may be, beza had some peculiar conceit, that all repentance, of what kind soever, is properly from the law, and but improperly from the gospel. it would seem so by his saying, that a contrite heart is not properly from the gospel; and yet a contrite heart is the sacrifice which god will not despise, which he is certainly well-pleased with through christ, psal. 51.17. but though beza was mistaken in saying, that a contrite heart is not properly from the gospel, yet he plainly saw the main truth which we plead for, and confessed it, and proved it by clear scripture, that sincere repentance goes before pardon of sin. the same beza, in his confession of faith, cap. 4. art. 5. says, pater caelestis nobis annunciat, etc. the heavenly father declares to us, that he hath so loved the world, that he hath given his only begotten son for it, ea conditione, on that condition, that whosoever believes in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. and art. 6. he says, that faith embraces, and appropriates to one's self, christ and all that is in him; for since be is offered us to be possessed by us, with this condition, if we believe in him; one of the two th●n, must necessarily be, to wit, either that all is not in christ, which is necessary to our salvation: or if all be in him, than he possesseth all things, who possesseth christ by faith. and in his short confession, art. 10. itaque meritò concludere possumus, in uno jesu christo contra omnia mala quae conscièntias nostras terrere possunt— praesentissima remedia reperiri: sed addenda est conditio, si ista remedia nobis applicemus. therefore we may justly conclude, that in one jesus christ there are found sovereign, infallible remedies against all the evils that can terrify our consciences: but this condition must be added, if we apply those remedies to ourselves. we see beza put it into his confession of faith, as an article of his belief, that the gospel covenant hath a condition, and is conditional. the same author in his little book of questions and answers, the first part, to the question, you say then that good works are necessary to salvation? he answers, that if faith be necessary to salvation, then good works are likewise necessary to it, (non tamen ut salatis causam,) yet not as the cause of salvation, (for we are justified, and therefore live only by faith in christ,) but as something that is necessarily joined with faith, as paul saith, they are the children of god, who are led by the spirit of god, rom. 8.14. and john, that he is righteous who doth righteousness, 1 john 4.7.— so that it plainly appears they are contentious men, who condemn the necessity of good works, as a false doctrine. thus beza. and we do no more say, that good works are necessary, as the cause of salvation, than he doth; nor do we, any more than he, say that good works without faith are the necessary condition of obtaining salvation. on the contrary we say, that faith is the spring of all our good motions, and runs through them all, and that it is good works done from a principle of faith and love, which are the necessary condition of obtaining salvation. lastly, to the question, what then if faith be first given to a man at the point of death? for this seems to have been the case of the penitent thief, who was crucified (with christ.) what good works can such a man do? beza answers, yea the faith of that thief in a most short time, was unspeakably energetical, or effectual and operative, for he reproved the other thief for his blasphemies and wickedness, he abhorred his own crimes; with a firm and most wonderful faith, he acknowledged christ to be an eternal king, and prayed unto him as a saviour, under the very ignominy and shame of the cross, when all his own disciples were silent, and spoke not one word for him; he did also openly rebuke the jews for their cruelty and impious expressions. but so it is that confession of sin, prayer to god the father through christ, and thanksgiving, are the most excellent works of the first table, which in no man can be wholly separated from faith. and although some may be so prevented by death, as not to have power to show forth any works of the second table; yet in such a man faith is not therefore to be esteemed idle and unfruitful, because it hath love conjoined, though not in energy and act, yet in power and principle.] thus far beza. to which we agree, as we said before, in such extraordinary cases, god requires no more of men, as absolutely necessary to their salvation, than they have time and strength to perform; but accepts the will for the deed through jesus christ, 2 cor. 8.12. our next witness is mr. fox, the author of the book of martyrs. the world hath been told already, in the defence of gospel-truth, pag. 35. that holy mr. fox in his latin book, of christ freely justifying, maintains that faith is the proper, receptive, applicative condition of justification, and that repentance is the dispositive condition, it is that which prepares us for receiving justification. but some who read that discourse of his in the book of martyrs, which our author directs them unto, may possibly object, that in the second volume of the book of martyrs, pag. 192. he saith, the promise of life and salvation is offered unto us freely without any condition. we answer, it is true, he doth say so, but he means, that it is without any meritorious, legal condition, and all such conditions we reject as much as he did, or any man can do, as appears by what we have said at large, in giving account of our judgement concerning the conditionality of the covenant. that this was mr. fox's true meaning, appears from his own words in the same page, a few lines after, [the voice of the gospel (saith he) differeth from the voice of the law in this, that it hath no condition adjoined of our meriting, but only respecteth the merits of christ the son of god.] if our author will not admit of this explication of fox's words, that he only rejected all meritorious and legal conditions; but will needs have it, that he absolutely rejects all conditions of the covenant of grace, both legal and evangelical; then we must say, that he hath little respect to the memory and credit of mr. fox, since he makes him most shamefully to contradict himself: and was he fit then to write a book of martyrs, or to be himself a witness for the truth against the papists! can he be justly admitted to bear witness against others, who by self-contradiction is a false witness against himself. truly we should be loath so to expose that good man to the scorn of the papists; and therefore we positively affirm, that he doth not contradict himself at all, because the conditions are of different kinds which he denies and affirms. he denies that there are any properly, meritorious, legal conditions of the new covenant; and so do we: he affirms, that there is a proper evangelical condition, to wit faith and constant confession: (they are his own words in his latin book aforesaid.) and we join with him in affirming the same. and now we do further make it known to the people, that mr. fox in the said book concerning christ freely justifying, doth grant, that after we are freely justified by faith in christ, sincere obedience to christ's commandments is necessary to retain, or not to lose our justification. these are his own words, [quod autem dici solet per obedientiam retineri justificationis gratiam, page 369, 370. ut hoc concedatur aliquo modo, non tamen hinc, etc. as for that which useth to be said, that the grace of justification is retained by obedience; though that be granted in some sense, yet it doth not follow from hence that justification is by obedience. moreover when we say, that justification is retained by works, that is not so to be taken, as if it were done for the dignity or merit of our actions, but only for the redeemer's sake; for whose sake the person is first accepted, and then the actions also please god, which otherwise of themselves would be impure, and of no account. but say they, the perseverance or continuance of justification is lost by wicked works. but we say, evil works are two ways to be considered in us; either as they cleave to us, or remain in us, as in all the saints through infirmity of the flesh, and we by and by rise again, by repentance and faith; and such sin, as the apostle saith, shall not have dominion over us. or again, they may be considered, as against our conscience we willingly give up ourselves to sin, that we may serve it with evil delight: but this sort of sin can no wise consist with this faith of which paul speaks, which hath place in none, but in those who being turned from sin, are converted unto god.— and in the same book, pag. 374. love is necessary, and it pleaseth god, to wit, in those who are reconciled, and for the sake of christ. for god naturally rejoiceth in the obedience of those that are his; which though it be imperfect, yet endeavours such as they are, he approves in those whom he hath reconciled to himself in christ. so then faith, that is, christ apprehended by faith, justifies us freely. but we again ought by no means to receive that grace in vain: but he receives it in vain, whosoever he be, that doth not yield himself obedient to the commands and example of christ. thus far mr. fox, where we see he plainly grants, that sincere obedience after we are justified, is necessary that we may not lose the grace of justification; and this is no more, but that it is necessary to prevent our falling wilfully under the guilt of new sins of omission and commission, which without renewing our faith and repentance, and returning to god, and our obedience to him again, would certainly damn us, and sink us into hell. we mean no more by it, and we believe, that god for christ's sake will keep all his justified one's from so falling away, but withal we hold, that god keeps us in a justified state, partly by fear of falling into sin, and partly by the faith of the indispensable necessity of obedience and repentance, as means to be used on our part to keep us from falling away. the lord puts his fear in our hearts, that we may not departed from him; and he keeps us by his power through faith unto salvation. from fox we pass to rollock, another good man, unto whom a famous and learned episcopal divine, dr. robert baron, hath given this testimony, that he was (sanctissimus & doctissimus, etc.) a most holy and learned man, and that the character of moses, might be truly attributed to him, that he was very meek above all the men which were upon the face of the earth. this meek saint wrote a book of effectual calling at edinburgh, in the year 1597. just about an hundred years ago. in which he affirms positively, that the covenant of grace is conditional, and that both faith and repentance go before justification. in the first page of his book, he says, vocati, eâdem dei gratiâ respondent, creduntque in deum per jesunt christum. responsio haec sides est, quae reipsâ est conditio promissionis, tract de vocat. efficaci edit. herborn. 1618. etc. they who are called (effectually) by the same grace whereby they are called, answer the call, and believe in god through jesus christ. this answer is the act of faith, which is the very condition of the promise that is in the covenant of grace. wherefore effectual calling consists in the promise of the covenant, which is made on condition of faith, and in faith, (quae nihil aliud est, quàm impletio conditionis,) which is no other thing, but the fulfilling of the condition. and in the 24th chapter, pap. 258. he says, (resipiscontia justificationem antecedit, etc.) repentance goes before justification, after the manner that faith and hope go before it: for it is said of the baptist, that he preached the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins, mark 1.4. and luke 3.3. and if any would know, what he means by that repentance which, he says, goes before justification; after he had fully and clearly explained the nature of it in all its parts, and shown it to be an evangelical repentance, and distinguished it from that which is called legal; he tells us in page 257. what he meant, by giving a short, but comprehensive definition of it, thus, (resipiscentia est post functum & malum jam perpetratum, dolour propter offensum dèum, & ex dolwe mutatio quaedam totius animi à malo in bonum:) repentance is a grief or sorrow (after the fact is done, and the sin is committed,) for having thereby offended god, and a change of the whole soul from evil to good, arising from that grief or sorrow. this is the repentance which rollock says, goes before justification; and it is remarkable, that he makes a change of the whole soul, from evil to good, to be essential unto this repentance, and consequently, that in order of nature before justification, there is a real change of the whole soul from evil to good. this doctrine was preached, and written at edinburgh an hundred years ago, and then it was accounted good divinity, and old gospel, and the preacher of it was esteemed, and that deservedly, a great saint, and a man of learning and judgement, both at home and abroad. how it should come to be new divinity, and a new gospel, or part of a new gospel now, is to us a mystery, for sure it is an hundred years older now, than it was then. any body therefore might think, in all reason, that our author came too late to give it a new name. there must be some mystery in this business, whatever it be; we with it be not a mystery of iniquity. from rollock we pass to zanchy, because he lived in those times, and is one of those divines whom our author would make the people believe to be for him, and against us, and that because he is against us, therefore we are against him, lett. p. 27. and generally neglect and despise him. but what if after all this, zanchy be clearly for us in this matter, than it is to be hoped that people, nor our author himself, will not easily believe, that we not only neglect, but despise our good friend. and that he is such, we are content that his own words should judge between us, credimus ad veram justitiae christi participationem, zanch. de relig. cap. 18. thes. 1. coque ad 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cum christo necessariam esse poenitentiam, etc. we believe that repentance is necessary, in order to a true participation of the righteousness of christ, and therefore to communion with christ; mark 1.4, 15. lake 13.3, 5. whereby being turned from sin, and the world, through the change of our mind and will, we may be converted unto christ, and close united unto him; and to the end we may obtain remission of sins in him, and from him, and may be clothed with his righteousness and holiness. 1. here we see, that zanchy held repentance to be antecedently necessary in order of nature, to the obtaining of remission of sins, through the righteousness of christ. 2. that by repentance we are turned from sin and the world, and changed in our mind and will. from which premises this conclusion necessarily follows, that before we be justified, and our sins forgiven; there must be a real change in us, and our minds and wills must be turned from sin and the world. this is a hard saying to those who would have their justification and pardon, and likewise their sin and the world altogether. but though it be hard, it is true and good, and that not merely because zanchy says so, but because he proves it by the plain word of god, who can neither deceive, nor be deceived, mark 1.4, 15. luke 13.3, 5. and if we may believe the same zanchy, this is not only true and good law, but it is likewise true and good gospel. for says he, (the evangelio juxta significationem in ecclesiâ receptam usitatamque credimus nihil aliud esse quàm, etc. concerning the gospel according to the signification received and commonly used in the church, zanch. de relig. christ. vol. 3. p. 509. we believe that it is nothing but an heavenly doctrine concerning christ, etc. to wit, that mankind is redeemed by the death of christ, so that free remission of all sins is prepared for, or is ready for all men (modo resipiscant, etc.) so that, or on condition that they repent and believe in jesus christ. these words of zanchy are so plain, they need no commentary to make them plainer. we wish our author do not himself despise zanchy for their sake, since in those few words, he hath comprehended the whole sum of the new gospel (so called,) which is a good deal above sixteen hundred years old. zanchy in the same place says, tria sunt evangelii capita, quae a nobis exiguntur ut praestemus, poenitentia in deum, etc. there are three heads, or principal parts of the gospel, which we are required to do, repentance towards god, faith in jesus christ, and a studious care to observe whatsoever christ hath commanded. and again, the gospel (saith he) requires only these three things, that being touched with a serious grief for all the sins of our whole life, we desire from the heart that our mind and all our affections may be changed and renewed by god unto an obedient compliance with his divine will. and that this may be done, that we ask it of god by prayer, and use our own endeavours in order to the effecting of it. then that embracing christ with a true faith, etc. in all this it is evident, that zanchy requires something else besides faith, to be done by us in order to our obtaining justification and pardon of sin; as also declares that after we are justified we must endeavour to do all things whatsoever christ hath commanded. yea he saith that not only the law of god, but the gospel of christ requireth all these things: and elsewhere in his miscellanies he says, that if after justification the saints fall into wilful sins against knowledge and conscience, they must renew their faith and repentance, and return unto the lord, and to their obedience, or else they cannot be saved, but are undone for ever. to zanchy we may add the testimony of musculus, that holy and learned divine, in whom god's special care of his faithful servants appeared in an extraordinary manner; but because it is so notorious that musculus is for us, that we cannot think our author is so ignorant of matters of fact, as not to know it, we shall quote but one short passage out of him. musc. loc. commun. de remiss. peccat. sect. 6. discernendum est inter eam gratiam dei, quae nullas habet adjectas conditiones,— & eam quae conditionaliter confertur, ad quem modum peccatorum nobis remissio contingit. we must distinguish between that grace of god, which hath no conditions annexed to it,— and that which is given conditionally, after which manner we obtain the remission of sins. sharpius also gives in his testimony for us in the matter we are treating of; see his book of justification written in the year 1609. where page 98, he says, (in foedere gratiae duo sunt. (1.) substantia, etc.) sharpii tract. de justif. edit. genev. 1618. there are two things in the covenant of grace. (1.) the substance of the covenant, which is that righteousness and salvation is given unto the church, through christ. the (2d.) is the condition annexed to the covenant, if the members of the church believe: and 172, the promise of eternal life is otherwise conditional, than by the perfect fulfilling of the law; for it is said, he that believeth, shall be saved, acts 16.31. mark 16.16. and page 174. licet ista sint conditio sine qua non, non tamen salutem efficiunt. although these things (to wit love and holiness, and continuance therein) are a condition without which we are not saved, yet they are not the efficient cause of salvation. and page 177, 178, we grant it follows from rom. 10.10. that confession of christ with the mouth is necessary to salvation, because by this way and means we must go to salvation, or to heaven.— page 207. good works are necessary that we may escape temporal and eternal punishments, which god threatens to inflict upon the transgressor's of his law. rom. 8.13. 1 thess. 4.5, 6.— page 69. the conditions of the promises, are faith, repentance, patience, etc. finally page iii. god doth not forgive sins but to the penitent, though not for their repentance, but for the merit of christ.— and a little after, spiritualis vita, etc. as spiritual life is given us freely in christ by faith only, so it is preserved and cherished by prayer, repentance, and other spiritual exercises. the professors of leyden in their synopsis of purer divinity first published in the year 1624., taught the same doctrine. witness what they writ in the said book, synops. purior. theol. edit. 3. lugduni batav. 1642. p. 271. thes. 29. non omnem conditionem negamus in evangelto & n. test. requiri ad salutem: requiritur enim conditio fidei & novae obedientiae, quae ubique urgetur, etc. we do not deny that any condition is required unto salvation in the gospel, and new testament: for there is required the condition of faith and new obedience, which is every where urged. but these conditions are freely given by god, neither if they be sincere, do they by their imperfection hinder our salvation, which proceeds from another cause. here we see those four learned doctors, polyander, rivet, waleus and thysius held that not only faith, but new and sincere obedience is the condition of obtaining salvation, so that both together make up the one entire condition of the gospel. gomarus' another learned professor of divinity in the netherlands, a member of the synod of dort, saith, that the gospel is called god's covenant (quia mutuam dei & hominum obligationem, oper. gomari par. 3. disp. 14. thes. 29. page 52. de vitâ aeternâ, ipsis certâ conditione dandâ promulgat) because it promulgates the mutual obligation of god and men, concerning the giving them eternal life upon their performing a certain condition: and it is called the covenant of god, (de salute per christum gratuitâ) concerning free salvation by christ, because god in the gospel of mere grace publisheth and offereth unto all men whatsoever, on condition of true faith, not only christ and perfect righteousness in him for reconciliation and eternal life; but also he promiseth unto his elect, and perfecteth in them, the prescribed condition of faith and repentance. here we see gomarus holds repentance to be part of the entire condition of the gospel covenant. whereunto agrees the testimony of pemble, pemble of justifying faith, sect. 2. chap. 1. page 22. who saith, [the condition of the covenant of grace, (required in them that shall be justified) is faith.— believe this and live, is a compact of the freest and purest mercy; wherein the reward of eternal life is given us in favour to that, which bears not the least proportion of worth with it: so that he that performs the condition, cannot yet demand the wages, as due unto him in severity of justice, but only by the grace of a free promise, the fulfilling of which he may humbly sue for. ibid. page 24. — and again, although (saith he) the act of justification of a sinner be properly the only work of god, for the only merit of christ: yet is it rightly ascribed unto faith, and it alone, forasmuch as faith is the main condition of the new covenant, which, as we must perform, if we will be justified; so by the performance whereof, we are said to obtain justification and life. here it is observable that pemble saith, that faith is the main condition of the covenant of grace, which implies there is some condition besides, but subordinate to faith. and this we do firmly hold that faith is the main condition, because it is the only receptive, applicative condition, to which repentance the dispositive condition and all our after-obedience is subordinate. perkins another of those divines, whom we are said to despise, gives his. vote also for the conditionality of the covenant of grace. witness what he writes in his reformed catholic [in the covenant of grace, two things must be considered: reformed. cathole point 4. of justif. the manner, differ. 2. reason 1. the substance thereof, and the condition. the substance of the covenant is, that righteousness and life everlasting is given to god's church and people by christ. the condition is, that we for our parts are by faith to receive the foresaid benefits. and this condition is by grace as well as the substance.] and in his little latin tract of predestination, and the grace of god, (which dr. twiss defended against arminius, perkins. de praedest. & gratiâ edit. cant. an. 1598. pag. 130. in his book called vindiciae gratiae) he says, [gratia secunda est vel imputata vel inhaerens. imputata est in justificatione, cujus pars remissio peccatorum, etc. the second grace is either imputed or inherent. imputed grace is in justification, whereof a part is remission of sins, and this justification and remission with respect to sins past, remains firm, and will so remain for ever. that saying of the schoolmen is most true: sins once remitted never return. but when any true believer hath fallen into some grievous, heinous sin, the pardon of that defection or backsliding is indeed purposed and decreed by god; yet it hath no actual existence at all on god's part, nor is it received at all on man's part, till he repent: yea, if he should never repent, (which yet is impossible,) for that one sin he would be damned as guilty of eternal death. for there is no new pardon of any new sin, without a new act of faith and repentance. this passage of mr. perkins implies to the full, all that we have said concerning the necessity of repentance, as the dispositive condition of obtaining the pardon of our sins, and concerning the necessity of sincere obedience continued from a principle of faith and love, or (after any notable backsliding,) renewed by new acts of faith and repentance, as the condition of getting possession of the heavenly inheritance. of the same judgement was pareus, for thus he writes in his commentary on the epistle to the romans, fidem inserit, ut doceat fidem esse conditionem, sub quâ christus nobis datus est propitiatorium. pareus in rom. 3.25. the apostle inserts faith in the 25th verse to teach us that faith is the condition, under which christ is given us for a propitiation. and again in the writing against the five arminian articles, which he sent to the synod of dort, (not being able to go himself by reason of age) and which was read in, highly approved by, act. synod. dord. part. 1. p. 264. and recorded in the acts of the synod, he says that [conditio certaminis, precum & vigilantiae, omnino est necessaria ad perseverantiam.] the condition of fight and praying, and watching is altogether necessary unto perseverance. but then he adds in opposition to the arminians, that the said condition is wrought in the faithful by the spirit of god; which he proves from deut. 30.6. jer. 32.40. ezek. 36.27. 1 pet. 1.5, etc. and to what the arminians said that the condition is commanded and not promised, he answers, [promissiones de ipsa conditione fidei, precum, perseverantiae, in fidelibus per spiritum dei efficiendâ, disertè loquuntur, etc. the promises plainly speak of the condition of faith, prayer, perseverance, as that which is to be effected in believers by the spirit of god. nor doth it follow that the effecting of the condition is not promised, because it is commanded and required of the faithful. for it is also commanded that they fear god and walk in his commandments, and yet god promiseth: i will put my fear in their hearts, etc. i will cause them towalk in my statutes, etc. but it is commanded not that they can (of themselves,) but that they ought to perform it, that so being sensible of their own weakness, they may know what they ought to ask of god; neither yet do these promises (wholly) exclude the great or small lapses and sins of the saints, but they raise up the fallen again that they be not ruined. for the promises also are expressly extended unto the righteous sometimes fallen into sin. psal. 37.24. and 89.30, 31, 32, 33, 34. the same author writing against the papist; upon the same subject, saith, [fides tune dicitur justificare, cum actum proprium, etc. faith is then said to justify when it can exercise, pareus lib. 1. de amissione gratiae cap. 7. prope finem. and doth exercise its proper act of receiving remission of sins, but a faith that is sick, wounded, oppressed with the filth of the flesh, and as it were bound with the fetters of sin, doth not exercise, nor can it exercise this act— and a little after. but god doth not impute sin to the just that are fallen, to wit, when they repent; but before they repent, he doth indeed impute sin to them by inflicting temporal punishments, and unless they repent he would impute sin to them by inflicting also eternal punishments. [and he thus concludes,] tune igitur fides in lapsis, habitualiter tantion manens, propriè justificans dici, aut eos justificare non potest. therefore faith then remaining habitually only in the lapsed, it cannot properly be said to be justifying, or to justify them. thus far pareus: whereby we plainly see that he held the covenant of grace to be conditional, as we do; that faith and repentance are conditions of it, especially faith, is the main condition, by the acts whereof we are justified, and receive remission of sin, not by the habit, because it is the act and not the habit that receives christ and remission of sins through him. (2.) he held that after justification, sincere obedience to the lord in the avoiding of wilful presumptuous sins of omission and commission, is a condition so necessary to the obtaining of eternal salvation that without such obedience (either continued without intermission, or (after some notable intermission of its acts, and weakening of its habit) renewed again by new acts of faith and repentance,) salvation cannot be obtained, nor damnation avoided. (3.) that though there be such conditions required of the elect in order to justification, and of the justified in order to salvation, yet they are not uncertain as to the event, but shall, through special, effectual grace, be infallibly performed, and the elect and justified shall be eternally saved. this was the gospel that pareus preached, and the synod of dort approved: and it is that, and no other, which we preach also. therefore it must needs be a great falsehood and slander, that we preach a new arminian gospel. we find likewise that the divines of geneva, deodat and tronchin in the synod of do●t were for the conditionality of the covenant of grace in the sense before explained, for thus they writ in their suffrage concerning the second article. fides est revera conditio novi foederis, respectu ordinis inviolabilis a deo instituti, act. synod. dondrect. part. 2. page 132. etc. faith is indeed the condition of the new covenant, in respect of the inviolable order instituted by god, but it is also a promised gift of the new covenant, and an effect of our engrafting into christ. in these words (1.) we observe, that in the judgement of those divines approved by the synod of dort, god by his absolute will hath instituted a conditional order between the antecedent and subsequent blessings of the new covenant. (2.) that faith is the condition ordained by god for obtaining the subsequent blessings of the covenant, such as justification, pardon of sin, etc. (3.) that it is not habitual faith, or the first habitual, seminal permanent principle of faith, but it is actual faith, because they say that it is the effect of our engrafting into christ; but the first seminal permanent principle of faith is not the effect of our engrafting into christ, otherwise we should be engrafted into christ before we have so much as the least seminal principle of faith, since the cause must be before the effect. therefore to avoid that absurdity, we think they meant that our engrafting into christ gins in the spirits working in us the seminal principle of faith, which concurs to the producing of the act of faith, which being our formal vital act, though produced by the virtue of the seminal principle, and the effectual influence of the spirit, is the condition of the covenant performed by us, and withal, is the effect of our initial engrafting into christ. the same doctrine is believed and professed at geneva at this day, witness what was lately taught and published by turretin professor of divinity there. in page 196. of that book he saith, that christ requires faith in god's promises, and obedience to his commandments, turrotin. institut. theologiae. ele●ct. part. 2. edit. genev. 1688. as the duties and conditions of the covenant. and in the same page he saith, that the form of words wherein the new covenant is expressed (i will? be your god, and you shall be my people) comprehends both the benefits promised on god's part, and the duties required on our part. and first he explains at large what promised benefits on god's part are implied. in the words (i will be your god.) secondly, he shows what duties required on our parts are implied in the words (you shall be my people.) after he had in general opened the meaning of the foresaid form of the covenant; he comes to particulars, and in the 29. paragraph he says, the principal duties required of us are faith and repentance: faith, which embraces the promises, and repentance, which fulfils the commandments: faith answers to the promise of grace, believe, and thou shalt be saved; repentance is commanded (lege evangelicâ) by the evangelical law, walk before me, and be thou perfect, gon. 17.1. for as on god's part, there are two principal benefits of the covenant, remission of sins, and the writing of the law in the heart; so on man's part, two duties ought to answer unto them, to wit, faith which applies unto us the remission of sins; and repentance, or the study and endeavour of sanctification, which reduces into practice the law written in the heart, by walking in god's statutes; which christ meant when he said, mark 1.25. repent, and believe the gospel. in page 202. he puts the question, whether the covenant of grace be conditional, and what are the conditions of it? and in answer to it, he distinguishes between several sorts of conditions, and as we have done, shows that in some sense it is not conditional; and then he concludes, that in another sense it it conditional; and page 203. he proves it by three arguments: (1.) because it is proposed with a condition expressed, john 3.16, 36. bom. 10.9. acts 8.37. mark 16.16. and frequently in other places. (2.) because if it were not conditional, there would be no place for threaten in the gospel, which cannot be denounced, but against those who neglect to perform the condition prescribed: for the neglect of faith and obedience cannot be culpable, if they be not required. (3.) because otherwise it would follow, that in this covenant god is bound to man, but man is not bound to god, which is most absurd, and contrary to the nature of all covenants, wherein there is a mutual agreement, and reciprocal obligation, whereby the parties covenanting are bound to one another. afterwards in page 204. he comes to answer the second branch of the question, to wit, which are the conditions of the new covenant? and says, that as for faith, there is no question but it is the condition of the covenant, because the scripture so clearly affirms it so to be, joh. 3.16. rom. 1.16, 17. and 10.9. and he says, that faith is the condition of the covenant, as it hath respect unto, and is the instrumental means of our union with christ. yea he maintains (as we do) that in this sense faith is the only condition, because there is no other condition, that is of a receptive, applicative nature, as faith is; no other, that receives christ, and applies his righteousness, as faith doth. but in another sense, there are other conditions of the covenant besides faith, that is, if the word conditions be taken for all those things which a man by the covenant of grace is bound to do, than nothing hinders, but repentance and new obedience may be called a condition, because they are comprehended among the duties of the covenant, john 13.17. 2 cor. 5.17. rom. 8.13. moreover he holds, that though new obedience be not the primary antecedent, yet it is the secondary subsequent condition of the covenant, because being by faith the primary condition actually brought into covenant, now obedience is [medium & via per quam tendimus ad plenam possessionem bonorum foederis.] the means and way by which we come to the full possession of the good things of the covenant. he saith, we should distinguish between the condition of justification, and the condition of the covenant, the promise of justification is not the whole of the covenant, and therefore that which is the condition of the promise of justification, is not the whole condition of the covenant, which adequately considered, is of larger extent than the promise of justification. he tells us lastly, that we should distinguish between the first accepting of the covenant, and the after-keeping of the covenant. faith accepts the covenant by receiving the promises; obedience keeps the covenant by fulfilling the commands. be ye holy, for i am holy. and yet this obedience is not legal, but evangelical, because it is not meritorious, it is the fruit and effect of an antecedent principle of spiritual life wrought in us, and of the actual influence of the spirit of grace upon us; and it is not rigorously exacted in the highest degree of perfection, as indispensably necessary to salvation; but though it be imperfect, yet it is admitted and accepted through christ, if it be sincere. we have here given a true and faithful account of the judgement of the learned and judicious turretin, concerning the conditionality of the covenant of grace, with whom we agree in this matter, which contains the sum of the gospel, as to man's duty especially; and therefore, if turretin was no legal preacher, no more are we, and if he preached no new gospel, no more do we; for we preach the same gospel, and in the same manner, as he did. there is one thing more wherein this worthy divine and we do perfectly agree, and that is concerning true believers fallen into wilful sin against knowledge and conscience. we say they cannot be saved till they have first recovered themselves, through grace, by renewing their faith and repentance, and returning to their obedience again. now he says the same thing, witness what he writes in the same book, pag. 671, 672. where he says, that if a believer fallen into gross sin against his conscience, be considered in himself, and as guilty of such sin not repent of, (verum est reum esse mortis, & si in eo statu moreretur certo damnandum,) it is true, that he is guilty of death, and if he died in that state, he would be certainly damned; but if he be considered with respect to god's decree of election, he is rightly said to be one, who is to be absolved, or pardoned and saved; god so ordering the matter, by his immense love and wisdom, that he never dies in that state, but by a renewed act of faith and repentance, he is first restored, and returns into the way, before he come to the end. whence it is, that according to a twofold respect, these two propositions, although they seem to be contrary, may be both together true. it is impossible that david, a person elected, and a man according to god's own heart, should perish: it is impossible that david, an adulterer and murderer, if death seize on him before he have repent, should be saved. the first of these propositions is true, in respect of god's decree of election. the second is true also, in respect of the heinousness and demerit of david 's sin. but god's providence and grace looseth this knot, by taking care, that neither david, nor any of the elect, die in that state, in which for his impenitence, he should be excluded from salvation. this passage shows, that turretin believed, as we do, that after justification sincere obedience is so indispensably necessary to salvation, that unless a believer continue in the practice of sincere obedience, or if there happen to be any signal intermistion by gross wilful sin for a time, unless he renew his faith and repentance, and thereby return to his obedience, he cannot be saved. and turretin a little before, in page 669. says very judiciously, that though god hath promised perseverance to believers, yet hath he not promised it to be given absolutely, and without means, but by means to be used by man himself, so that whilst god keeps man, he is bound also to keep himself by the grace of the spirit, 1 john 5.18. whence believers are sure of their perseverance through the faith of the promises, not by any external force, which retains them in the way of salvation, will they, will they, yea even whilst they are living in their sins, but in the use of means, and practice of piety, whilst working out their own salvation with fear and trembling, they are confident that it is god who works in them, both to will and to do, and who graciously perfects the good work which he hath begun. so that an occasion of licentiousness and impiety is wrongfully inferred from this doctrine, since to indulge wickedness, and to have the grace, which causeth perseverance, are utterly inconsistent. yea, he that hath this hope purifieth himself, 1 john 3.3. and he ought to be certainly persuaded in himself, that without holiness no man shall see god, and that there is no other way to life, but the way of piety and godliness. a most excellent passage this is, which fully expresses our sense, and to which we hearty subscribe. agreeable to this is that which we find in mr. rutherford's examination of arminianism, chap. 13. pag. 594. that a promise, that we shall persevere in faith, and obtain eternal salvation, though we walk after the flesh, and lead a wicked life, may be called a dissolute promise, but that we do not maintain an absolute promise of perseverance in that dissolute sense; for though the promise of perseverance in faith be absolute; yet it is always joined with an absolute promise of perseverance in holiness and obedience; and as it is necessary to salvation, that elect believers continue in faith, so it is necessary that they continue in holiness and obedience. and if for some time there happen to be an intermission of faith and obedience, there must be a renewing of them again, that we may obtain salvation, and this renovation of our faith and obedience is the effect of the absolute promise; but not the obtaining of salvation, without and before the renewing of our faith and repentance, and returning to our obedience. this is plainly rutherford's sense. and indeed he goes further than we have done, in that he ascribes an inferior kind of causality to obedience and good works in order to the obtaining of eternal salvation; for which he quotes calvin, bucer, examen armin. cap. 12. zanchy, and voetius, yea he quotes the apostle paul, 2 cor. 4.17. saying, that our light afflictions, which are but for a moment, work for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory. in the pages 531, 532, 533. of that book. again, he says expressly, that the hope of eternal life (ex eo vana esse colligitur, si non innitatur sincerae obedientiae tanquam fulcro secundario, 1 johan. 3.3.) is hence proved to be vain and groundless, if it be not upheld by sincere obedience, as a secondary slay or prop. pag. 592. of the same book. and in another book he saith, that it is a new heresy of antinomians to deny a conditional gospel; it is all one, survey of antin. part ii. p. 63. as to belie the holy ghost, who saith, he that believeth shall be saved, and he that believeth not is condemned already. spanhemius likewise, a very learned divine, and zealous against the arminians, in his disputation at leyden, concerning the five controverted articles, saith in the 34th. thesis or position, (omnibus equidem externè vocatis annunciatur promissio evangelii, non tamen absolutè sed conditionatè, si resipiscant & credant.) the promise of the gospel is indeed preached to all that are outwardly called, yet not absolutely, but conditionally, if they believe and repent. and thes. 36. for as it is in vain, that a great good is ready at hand to us, unless we either take and receive, or fulfil the condition which is required in the covenant and promise of it; so that infinite benefit of redemption, is in vain purchased for us by christ, except we embrace it with a sure confidence, and perform faith and repentance unto god requiring them as the terms of the covenant, john 3.16. acts 2.38. and to draw towards a close, with the testimonies of some of our own english divines, we find that dr. robert abbot writing against thompson, saith, abbot. contra thomsoni diatrib. de intercis. justif. p. 212. (credi non debet remissio peccatorum ante poenitentiam, & poenitere aliquem de peccato non potest, quod nondum est, etc.) it ought not to be believed, that remission of sins is before repentance; and a man cannot repent of a sin, that is not yet committed, etc. again, remission of sins is never decreed for any (of ripe years) without repentance, nor is it ever granted upon another condition, (that is, another dispositive condition;) the faith therefore of remission should not anticipate repentance, etc. neither let us think, that without repentance we ought ever to say, forgive us our trespasses, etc. and because our author saith, that god hath blessed england with an aims and twiss against the arminians, let. p. 13. p. 27. and that we neglect and despise them; we will allege some testimonies out of their writings, by which the world may judge, whether those two great divines be for him, or for us, in this cause. and first for dr. ames, in his answer to grevinchovius, page 138. he says, (quòd fides haec non sit volitionis ipsius divinae conditio, sed salutis assequendae tantùm, hanc ego sententiam meam esse fateor, veramque cum deo praestiturum me confido.) that this faith of ours, is not the condition of gods will itself, but that it is only, the condition of our obtaining salvation; i confess this to be my opinion, and i trust, with god's help, that i shall prove it to be true. we observe here, that ames distinguisheth between god's will of our salvation, and our salvation itself, which is the object of his will. as for the first, to wit god's will, faith is not, cannot be the condition of god's will, because it is eternal and absolute, and cannot possibly depend upon any condition whatsoever; but the second, to wit our salvation, the object of god's will, it may have, and hath a condition; and god hath absolutely willed, that it should have, and depend upon a condition, and that faith should be the condition on which our obtaining of it doth depend. this is his meaning, and we agree with him in it. the same author in another book, his marrow of divinity, saith, that the promises of the gospel are without any discrimination proposed unto all, together with a command to believe; medul. theologiae, lib. 1. cap. 26. pag. 112. but they are not performed unto all, because men themselves fail in performing the condition: but unto the elect the condition is given, that the promises may be performed to them. which he proves by three scriptures (eph. 2.8. acts 5.31. and chap. 11. ver. 18.) whereof one proves faith, and the other two prove repentance to be the gift of god. whence it is most evident that he thought repentance as well as faith, to be the condition of the gospel-promises. again in the same book, and next chapter, he says, this justification is for christ considered not absolutely, ibid. cap. 27. pag. 118. in which sense christ is also the cause of effectual vocation, but for christ apprehended by faith, which faith follows effectual calling as its effect, and goes before justification, as the instrumental cause apprehending that righteousness of christ, upon which righteousness so apprehended, justification follows. in this passage we highly approve the order in which he placeth things, as putting effectual calling in order of nature before faith, and faith before justification: but where he saith, that faith is the instrumental cause apprehending the righteousness of christ, for which we are justified, some possibly may think, that he ascribes too much unto faith, yet we think, that the difference between him and those who do not love to say, that faith is an instrumental cause, is more verbal than real; for he doth not say, that faith is the instrumental cause of our justification, (that indeed had been to ascribe too much unto faith;) but the instrumental cause receiving christ and his righteousness, upon which follows justification; now we all acknowledge faith to be of an apprehensive, receptive nature, and that it is the instrumental means whereby we apprehend and receive christ, and his righteousness, that we may be justified; and our using that instrumental means, as the lord hath appointed, is the receptive condition to which the promise of justification is made. here then seems to be a mere difference in words, when we mean the same thing. lastly, for sincere obedience, he holds it to be, in some sense, a cause of obtaining eternal life; which is more than we have ascribed to it, in calling it a condition, for a condition as such hath no causal influence. ibid. lib. 2. cap. 1. pag. 199. his own words in the said book are these, our obedience indeed is not the principal, or meritorious cause of eternal life. for we receive the right of this life, and the life also itself from the grace and gift of god, for the sake of christ apprehended by faith: rom 6.23. the gift of god is eternal life, through jesus christ our lord. but yet it is a cause some way administering, helping and moving forward towards the possession of this life, whereof we had the right before; for which reason it is called the way, in which we walk to heaven, eph. 2.10. and it promotes our life, both of its own nature; because it is some degree of life itself, still tending to perfection; and also by virtue of god's promise, who hath promised eternal life to those who walk in his commandments: gal. 6.8. he that soweth to the spirit, shall of the spirit reap life everlasting. for though all our obedience, while we live here, is imperfect, and contaminated with some mixture of sin: gal. 5.17. the flesh lusts against the spirit, yet through christ it is so acceptable unto god, that it is crowned with a most great reward. the promises therefore made to the obedience of the faithful, are not legal but evangelical, although by some they are said to be of a mixed nature. in all this, ames ascribes as much to sincere obedience, and makes it as necessary to salvation, as we do. if we say it is a condition, he says it is in some sort a cause of obtaining the poffession of eternal salvation: and sure to be so a cause, is as much at least, as to be a condition. next let us see what dr. twiss faith to these things: indeed he is so clearly on our side, that if the author of the letter had been acquainted with his writings, he would have been wiser than to have mentioned his name in this cause. for thus he writes, [we say that pardon of sin and salvation of souls are benefits purchased by the death of christ, to be enjoyed by men, but how? answer to a book called, the synod of dort and arles reduced to practice, pag. 16. not absolutely but conditionally, to wit, in case, and only in case they believe. for like as god doth not confer these on any of ripe years, unless they believe, so christ hath not merited that they should be conferred on any, but such as believe, and accordingly profess, that christ died for all, that is, to obtain pardon of sin, and salvation of soul for all, but how? not absolutely, whether they believe or no, but only conditionally, to wit, provided they do believe in christ. again, men are called upon to believe, and promised, ibid. pag. 28. that upon their faith, they shall obtain the grace of remission of sins, and salvation; and these graces may be said to be offered unto all upon condition of faith. again, as touching the benefits of pardon of sin, ibid. page 152. and salvation procured by christ's death, we say, that christ died to procure these for all, and every one, but how? not absolutely, for then all, and every one, should be saved; but conditionally, to wit, upon condition of faith; so that if all, and every one, should believe in christ, all and every one should be saved. again, it is untrue, that we must have a sufficient assurance, ibid. pag. 154. that christ died to procure pardon of sin, and salvation of soul absolutely for him, whom we go about to comfort; it is enough, that christ died to procure these benefits for him conditionally, to wit, in case he believe and repent, and of this we have a most sufficient assurance. again, we say not here, that any thing becomes true, ibid. pag. 163. by the faith of him that believes it; but only this, that the benefit which is procured for all, and every one, upon a condition, becomes his, and peculiarly his alone, who performeth the condition. again, now eternal life, we know, ibid. pag. 171. is ordained by god to be the portion of men, not whether they believe or not; whether they persevere in faith, holiness, and repentance, or no; but only of such as believe, repent, and are studious of good works; for it is ordained to be bestowed on men by way of reward of their faith, repentance, and good works. again, the promises assured by baptism, ibid. pag. 189. according to the rule of god's word, i find to be of two sorts: some are of benefits procured unto us by christ, which are to be conferred on us conditionally;— they of this first sort are justification and salvation; for abraham received circumcision, as a seal of the righteousness of faith; circumcision therefore was an assurance of justification to be had by faith; if such were circumcision to the jews; we have good reason to conceive, that such is baptism unto us christians; for as that was unto them, so this is the sacrament of regeneration unto us; and good reason, the sacraments, which are seals of the covenant, should assure that unto us, which the word of the covenant doth make promise of. now, the word of the covenant of grace doth promise unto us both remission of sin, and salvation; upon faith in christ. this by our doctrine we promise unto all, and assure unto all, as well as they do by theirs. if all, and every one should believe, we nothing doubt, but they should be justified and saved. on the other side, if not one of ripe years, should believe, i presume our adversaries will confess, that not one of them should be saved. again, justification and salvation is promised in the word, ibid. pag. 190. and assured in the sacraments, upon performance of a condition on man's part. now the condition of justification and salvation, we all acknowledge to be faith. thus dr. twiss frequently in the foresaid book. and that this was his settled judgement will appear by what he wrote afterwards in the year 1634. in answer to mr. hoards book, called god's love to mankind, which answer was printed after his death by mr. jeanes, a very learned and zealous calvinist, in the year 1653. at oxford. the ministers of the new testament, twiss against hoard, pag. 194, 195. are called ministers not of the letter, but of the spirit; that is, not of the law, the ministry whereof, is not the ministry of the spirit, but yet this is rightly to be understood, to wit, of the spirit of adoption; for undoubtedly even the ministry of the law, is the ministry of the spirit also, but of the spirit of bondage, to hold men under fear: it is called the ministry of condemnation, and the reason hereof i conceive to be, because god doth not concur with the ministry of the law, by the holy spirit, to work any man to the performance of the condition of the law, which is exact and perfect obedience: but thus he doth concur with the ministry of the gospel, namely, by his spirit, to work men to the performance of the condition thereof, which is faith in christ and true repentance, therefore the letter, to wit, of the law, is called a kill letter; but the gospel is joined with a quickening spirit, and therefore piscator conceives, that the gospel in this place is called by the name of the spirit. so then the gospel giveth life by the spirit, which accompanieth the ministry thereof, etc. and in the same book, he saith, [some benefits are bestowed upon man only conditionally (though for christ's sake,) and they are the pardon of sin, and salvation of the soul, page 154. and these god doth confer only upon the condition of faith and repentance. now i am ready to profess, and that, i suppose, as out of the mouth of all our divines, that every one who hears the gospel (without distinction between elect and reprobate) is bound to believe that christ died for him, so far as to procure both the pardon of his sins, and the salvation of his soul, in case he believe and repent. but there are other benefits which christ by his obedience hath merited for us, namely, the benefit of faith and repentance; for it pleased the father, that in him should all fullness dwell, col. 1.19. and he hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in christ, that is, for christ's sake, eph. 1.3. and god works in us that which is wellpleasing in his sight through jesus christ, heb. 13.21. and therefore seeing nothing is more pleasing in god's sight on our part, than faith and repentance, even these also, i should think, god works in us through jesus christ: and the apostle prays in the behalf of the ephesians (eph. 6.23.) for peace, and faith, and love, from god the father, and the lord jesus christ, that is, us ●●interpret it, from god the father, son, and holy ghost, as an efficient cause, and from the lord jesus christ, god and man, as a meritorious cause thereof. now i demand, whether this author can say truly, that it is the constant opinion of our divines, that all who hear the gospel, whether elect or reprobate, are bound to believe, that christ died to procure them faith and repentance. nay, doth any arminian, at this day, believe this, or can he name 〈◊〉 a●minian that doth avouch this? again, glory and salvation god doth not will that it shall be the portion of any one of ripe years, absolutely but conditionally, to wit, if he repent and believe. and in case all, 〈◊〉. page 174. and every one, of the world should believe and repent, all, and every one, (how notorious sinners soever they be found) shall be saved, such is the sufficiency of christ's merits. i say, this is true, not of them only, who are invited to the wedding, mat 22. nor of them only to whom st. peter speaketh, acts 3.26. or of them only, of whom our saviour speaketh, mat. 23.37. but of all, and every ●ne, throughout the world: and it is as true, that none of them shall be saved, if they die in infidelity and impenitency. this god himself signifieth to be his will by his promise, acts 2.38, 39 on the one part; and on both parts, mark 16.16. and as god signifieth this to be his will, so indeed it is his will according to our doctrine, and there is no colour of imposture or simulation in all this. in like sort, as touching the grace of pardon of sin, this also god offers unto all that hear the gospel, but how? not absolutely but conditionally, in case they believe and repent; and it is god's will, that every one who believeth, shall have his sin pardoned; none that i know, either thinketh or teacheth otherwise, whether he falleth out, either to be elect or reprobate; though how to distinguish men according unto this difference, 〈◊〉 know not, i leave that unto god.— now like as we say, god doth signify his meaning to 〈◊〉 that as many as believe and repent shall have their sins pardoned, and their souls saved: so if it can be proved, that there is no such meaning in god, then in my poor judgement it cannot be avoided; but that god must be found halting in his offers. but for my part, i acknowledge such a meaning in god, neither have i to this hour, found any one of our divines, either by word or writing, to have denied this to be the meaning of god. again, [whereas he (hoard) fashioneth our doctrine, so as if we said, that god hath decreed at no hand to save them, to whom he promiseth salvation upon condition of faith, this is a notorious untruth, ibid. pag. 177. and such as implieth manifest contradiction. for to say, he hath resolved at no hand to save them, is as much as to say, that he hath resolved to save them on no condition. but if he hath promised to save them in case they believe, undoubtedly he hath resolved to save them upon condition of faith: only god's resolution to save them, is not held in suspense, considering that from everlasting, he well knew who would believe, and who would not; etc. again, it is true, baptism is ordained, that those which do receive it, may have the remission of their sins, but not absolutely, but conditionally, to wit, in case they believe and repent, as appears both in that place, acts 2.38. ibid. pag. 201. and rom. 4.11. and baptism as a seal doth assure hereof, only in case they believe and repent, and therefore none of ripe years were admitted unto baptism, until they made profession of their faith, and as for infants, they were also anciently said to be baptised in fide parentum. by all these passages, quoted word for word out of dr. twiss, it is as clear, as the light at noonday, that he held the covenant of grace to be conditional, and particularly, that the promise of justification, and pardon of sin, is conditional, and that faith and repentance, not faith alone, nor repentance alone, but faith and repentance together are the condition of it. it is clear also, that he held, as we do, that god by his special grace purchased for us by christ, and given to us for christ's sake, enables us, and all the elect, to perform the condition of faith and repentance, and that effectually and infallibly. as for the non-elect, who do not perform the condition, he says the reason, the culpable reason of that is, because they will not: and though it be true also that they cannot, yet that is not a mere physical, but a moral cannot, which ariseth from the evil disposition of their minds and affections, whereby they will not. that this was dr. twiss his judgement is evident by these following testimonies of his quoted out of the same book. observe we farther how this author confounds impotency moral, ibid. p. 155, 156. which consisteth in the corruption of man's powers natural, and impotency natural, which, consisteth in bereaving him of power natural. the lord tells us by his prophet jeremiah, (cap. 13.23.) that like as a blackamoor cannot change his skin, nor a leopard his spots, no more can they do good that are accustomed unto evil. now if a man taken in stealth shall plead thus before a judge; my lord, i beseech you have compassion upon me, for i have so long time enured my hands to pilfering, that now i cannot forbear it, will this be accepted as a good plea to save him from the gallows.— as for faith, it is well known that divines distinguish between fides acquisita, and sides infusa (acquired and infused faith:) that we may call a faith naturally acquired, which is found in carnal persons, whether profane or hypocritical. and this (to wit the infused) is a faith inspired by god's spirit. the object of each is all one, and a man may suffer martyrdom for the one as well as for the other, which manifesseth the pertinacious adherence thereunto: and it appears that all professions have had their martyrs. albeit it be not in the power of nature to believe side infusa, (with an inspired faith) yet it is in the power of nature to believe the gospel side acquisitâ (with an acquired faith) which depends partly upon a man's education, and partly upon reason, considering the credibility of the christian way; by light of natural observations, above all other ways in the world. and when men refuse to embrace the gospel, not so much because of the incredibility of it, but because it is not congruous to their natural affections, as our saviour tells the jews, light came into the world, and men loved darkness father than light, because their deeds are evil. john 3.19. is there any reason why their condemnation should be any whit the easier for this? neither have i ever read or heard it taught by any, that 〈◊〉 shall be damned for not believing with an infused faith, which is as much as to say, because go●d hath not regenerated them; but either because they have refused to believe, or else if they have embraced the gospel, for not living answerable thereunto, which also is in their power, quoad exteriorem vitae emendationem. as to the outward reformation of their life, though it be not in their power to regenerate their wills, and change their hearts, any more than it is to illuminate their minds: yet i never read that any man's damnation was any whit the more increased for not performing these acts. again, the man bereft of his eyes hath a will to read, and consequently it is no fault for not reading. for all sin is in the will. but it is not so, in not obeying either law or gospel. ibid. page 170. if a man had a will to obey and believe, but he could not, in such a case it were unreasonable he should be punished. but in the case of disobedience unto god, we speak of, all the fault is in the will, voluntarily and wilfully, they neither will obey the one nor the other: like as they that have accustomed themselves to do evil, cannot do good, as a blackamoor cannot change his skin, yet with this difference, that man is never a whit the more excusable, or less punishable, for not doing that which is good; not so the blackamoor for not changing his skin. but such is the shameful issue of them that confound impotency moral with impotency natural, as if there were no difference, etc. again, to the rule of law objected by mr. hoard, (that contractus sub conditione impraestabili nullus aestimatur) a contract or promise made upon a condition not performable by the party, ibid. p. 185, 186. is esteemed none at all; twiss answers thus, [conditio impraestabilis, a condition not performable, is there such as cannot be performed by reason of impotency natural; but the impotency we speak of, in the case between god and man, is merely impotency moral; to wit, therefore they cannot, because they will not, were it not for the corruption of their will, no power were wanting in man to believe and repent. again, dost thou complain, thou hast no power to believe, but i pray thee, tell me, hast thou any will to believe? if thou neither hast, nor ever hadst any will to believe, ibid. p. 219, 220. what a shamesul and unreasonable thing is it, to complain that thou hast no power to believe? st. paul had a most gracious will, but he sound in himself no power to do what he would, but what is the issue of this complaint? to sly in the face of god? nothing less! but to confess his own wretchedness, and flee unto god in this manner, who shall deliver me from the body of this death? and receiving a gracious answer concerning this, concludes with thanks, i thank god through my lord jesus christ: if i have a will to believe, to repent, i have no cause to complain, but to run rather unto god with thanks for this, and pray him to give that power, which i find wanting in me. and indeed this impotency of believing and infidelity, the fruit of natural corruption common to all, is merely a moral impotency, and the very ground of it is the corruption of the will: therefore men cannot believe, cannot repent, cannot do any thing pleasing unto god, because they will not, they have no delight therein; but all their delight is carnal, sensual, and because they are in the flesh, they cannot please god; and because of the hardness of their hearts, they cannot repent. sin is unto them, as a sweet mirsel unto an epicure, which he rolleth under his tongue. this and much more to this purpose hath twiss in his book against hoard. and that this was his settled judgement is evident by what he writes in his defence of the doctrine of the synod of dort. it is true, that it is not in the power of man to add unto the word the efficacy of god's spirit, page 122, 123. and it is as true that a carnal man hath no desire that god would add the efficacy of his spirit thereunto. the discipline of christ's kingdom is as cords and bonds unto them, they desire to break them, and to cast off the yoke of obedience unto him. and again it is as true that 〈◊〉 man is damned for not adding the efficacy of god's spirit unto his word. they are damned for contemning god●s word, and not harkening to his gracious admonitions; but they could do no other, as this arminian author intimates; but what impotency is this? is it any where else than in their wills? which this author considers not, nor distinguisheth between impotency natural, and impotency moral; were they willing to hearken hereunto, but could not, then in●●gd their impotency were excusabl●; but they please themselves in their obstinate courses; and if they would do otherwise, i make no question, but that they should have no more cause to complain of their impotency to do that good which they would do, than the servants of god have, yea and holy paul himself had. how can you believe (saith our saviour, john 5.44.) here is a certain impotency of believing, which our saviour takes notice of; but what manner of impotency is it? observe by that which followeth, (who receive honour one of another, and regard not the honour which cometh of god only.) therefore you hear not my words, because ye are not of god: john 8.47. this is as true, as the word of the son of god is true, although this author sets himself to impugn this kind of doctrine all along. but withal consider, do they deplore this impotency? doth the consideration hereof humble them? nay rather they delight in it, as the prophet noteth, jerem. 6.10. their ears are uncircumcised, and they cannot hearken; behold the word of god is as a reproach unto them, they have no delight in it. by these testimonies of dr. twiss and more which might be quoted to this purpose, we plainly see that though he doth every where maintain that god by his special discriminating effectual grace enables the elect, (but not the non-elect) to believe, repent, and obey the gospel, and so to perform the condition of the covenant; yet at the same time he declares that the inability of the non-elect to believe, repent, and obey, is a mere moral impotency, arising from the ill disposition of their own minds and affections; that therefore they cannot, because they will not, and that if they would they should be able to believe and repent and obey the gospel. now though we hearty agree with the doctor, that it is by the special discriminating effectual grace of god in christ jesus, that the elect believe, repent and obey the gospel; and also that the inability and impotency which others are under to do these things, is a moral, and not a mere natural inability and impotence; yet to show that we are far from being pelagians or arminians, we must declare to the world, that dr. twiss seems sometimes to ascribe more to the natural power of an unregenerate man without the grace of god, than we can allow of: this he doth in the foresaid book in defence of the doctrine of the synod of dort, page 48. where after he had discoursed of natural and moral impotency; and shown, (1.) that the wicked are punished for refusing to believe; that this refusal is the free act of their wills; and by their natural power they might abstain from this refusal, and might believe with an acquired faith, as many unregenerate men have done. and, (2.) after he had likewise showed out of augustin, that the reason why the wicked do not believe, is because they will not, and that if they would, they might believe, and that since they might believe if they would, it is just with god to punish them sore not believing. and, (3.) after he had showed out of the same augustin, that the reason why they will not believe, is either because they do not see the truth and goodness of that which they should believe, or else because it doth not delight them. (4.) in the fourth place he adventures to go one step further, and of his own head to say, that except the supernatural acts of the three theological virtues, faith, hope, and love, all acts and duties inward or outward are natural, and may be performed by a natural man, though not in an acceptable manner, for want of faith, hope and love supernatural. now (saith he, they are his own very words) suppose that a man were so exact both in natural morality, and in an outward conformity to the means of grace, as not to fail in any particular, as he hath power to perform any particular hereof naturally; in this case, i say, if there were any such, he should be in the same case with those that are guilty of no sin, but sin original, etc. upon this passage we observe that the doctor supposeth it possible for a natural man by the mere power of nature, without any supernatural grace to be so exact in doing all the duties which god requires of him, as not to fail in any particular, and so to keep himself free from all actual sin. he doth not indeed say that there is, or ever was, or ever will be such a man; but he plainly enough says that it is naturally possible, and supposes it so to be, he supposes it possible for a natural man by the power of nature, so to live as to be without all actual sin. this we are so far from agreeing to, that on the contrary we hold it to be naturally impossible for any natural man by natural power so to live, as to be without all actual sin. for surely original sin in such a man would so vigorously put itself forth into act upon the presentation of outward objects to his senses, or the formation of notions and ideas of things in his mind, that by his mere natural power he could not possibly hinder all the sallies and eruptions of it. this is the catholic faith, and the contrary is pure pelagianism, which we wonder how it should ever fall from the pen of dr. twiss, who was really a hater of pelagianisme. we should never have mentioned this, but to let men know how far we are from pelagianism, even farther than dr. twiss was, as to the power of a natural man. indeed we are so far from thinking that a natural man by his mere natural powers can live without all actual sin, that we do not believe that a spiritual regenerate man can live so exactly as to keep himself free from all actual sin, although he be furnished and assisted with such a measure of supernatural grace, as the lord doth ordinarily give out unto his own select people. this is the common doctrine of the reformed churches, which we can demonstrate to be true, and which we firmly believe: surely then it must be a vile slander cast upon us, that we are so far gone off from the truth of the reformed religion, let. p. 13. as that our cause and the pelagians, is coincident, and that more and worse is feared, which what it should be, we cannot imagine, unless it be that they fear we will at last renounce christ and christianity. but to this we will say with david, 2 sam. 16.12. it may be the lord will look upon our case, and requite us good for this reviling. dr. let. p. 12. downame bishop of derry, whom our author also commends in his letter, shall next come in for a witness on our behalf; who in his book of the covenant of grace saith, [the promises of the gospel cannot be applied to any aright, but only to those who have the condition of the promise, page 134, 135. which is the justifying faith: for the gospel doth not promise justification and salvation to all but to those only who have a justifying faith. therefore a man must be endued with justifying faith, before he can or aught to apply the promises of the gospel to himself: for as salvation is promised to them that believe, so damnation is denounced to them that believe not, mark 16.16. john 3.16, 18.— again, no man ought to apply the promise of the gospel to himself, who hath not the condition of the promise, ibid. page 153. unless he will perniciously deceive himself. for as he that believeth, shall be saved, so he that believeth not shall be condemned. page 154. again, as we daily sin, so we must daily ask forgiveness, prayer being the means that god hath ordained to that end object. yea, but saith the papist, ye forsooth have already full assurance of the remission of all your sins, not only passed, but also to come. answ. it is absurd to imagine that sins be remitted before they be committed, and much more, that we be assured they are remitted, before they be either remitted or committed: that indeed were a doctrine to animate and to encourage men to sin. but howsoever the pope sometimes forgiveth sins to come, yet god doth not: when god justifyeth a man, he giveth him remission of sins past, rom. 3.25. as for time to come, we teach that although christ hath merited, and god hath promised remission of sins of all the faithful unto the end of the world; notwithstanding remission of sins is not actually obtained and much less, by special faith believed until men do actually believe and repent, and by humble and faithful prayer renew their faith and repentance. for as god hath promised to the faithful all good things: but how? matt. 7.7, 8. to them that ask, luke 18.13, 14. that seek, that knock. so also remission of sins. neither is it to be doubted, but that remission of sin, though merited by christ, though promised by god, though sealed unto us in the sacrament of baptism, is obtained by the effectual prayer of those who believe and repent, for whom christ hath merited it, and to whom god hath promised it in his word, and sealed it by the sacrament; even as the obtaining of the rain which god had promised, (1 kings 18. ver. 1, 41.) and the prophet elias had foretold; is ascribed to the effectual prayer of elias, james, 5.16, 18. to bishop downames, we add the very learned and pious gatakers testimony. when saltmarsh the antinomian had objected and said either place salvation on a free bottom, or else you make the new covenant, but an old covenant in new terms, do this, and live believe this and live; repent and live; obey and live. gataker replies, this is frivolous, because as hath been showed, gatakers shadows without substance, page. 49. salvations free bottom is no way impeached by such conditions as these required; and scandalous, because therein the apostles doctrine is not covertly, but directly challenged, as overthrowing and razing the foundation of free grace. for what is believe on the lord jesus and thou shalt be saved, but believe and live? or what is repent, that your sins may be done away, but repent and live. or what is, he is the author of salvation to all that obey him, but obey and live. and i demand again, what this amounts unto, whether it be any other than blasphemy, to say, that the apostles by such their doctrine, did not place salvation upon a free bottom, but brought in the old covenant again in new terms? sir, dare you say in your new revealed mystery, believe not, and yet live; repent not, and yet live; obey not, and yet live? again, we may truly say that you and yours are they that either cannot or will not see the wood for trees, ibid. page 57 the conditions on which salvation by christ is propounded, though in the gospel, they do every where occur and offer themselves, will ye, nill ye, to your eyes. with gataker we join mr. ball, who in his treatise of faith (recommended by a preface of dr. sibbes) saith, balls treatise of faith, part. 1. page 86. the promise of remission of sins is conditional, and becometh not absolute, until the condition be fulfilled.— this is the word of grace, believe in the lord jesus, and thou shalt be saved: when doth this conditional proposition become absolute? when we believe, what? that our sins are pardoned? no, but when we believe in christ to obtain pardon, which is the thing promised upon condition of belief. again, the privilege of grace and comfort which comes to the soul by believing, must be distinguished from the condition of the covenant, ibid. page 89. which is required on our parts before we can obtain pardon. again, we can teach no faith to salvation, but according to the rule of christ, repent and believe the gospel; no remission of sin, ibid. page 136. but according to the like rule, (luke 24.47. acts 2.37, 38.) but faith seeketh and receiveth pardon as it is proffered in the word of grace. repentance is necessary to the pardon of sin, as a condition without which it cannot be obtained, not as a cause why it is given. (luke 13.3. 1 john 1.9. acts 11.18.) if mercy should be vouchsafed to all indifferently the grace of god should be a bolster to man's sin, etc. lastly, we conclude this head of our defence with the testimony of the synod of dort. we have already shown that the geneva divines in that synod gave it in under their hands, (and were therein approved by the synod) that the covenant of grace is conditional. we might be large in showing the like of many others, but we will confine ourselves for brevity's sake to the embdan, bremen, and english divines their suffrages recorded in the acts of the synod. first, the embdane divines in the synod said, that god required the same conditions from those that were in covenant with him under the old and new testament, to wit, faith, and the obedience of faith, act. synodi. dord. part. 2. page. 93. gen. 12. abraham believed god, and the apostle ●in rom. 4. teaches that we are saved by the same faith. gen. 17. abraham is commanded to walk before god, and be perfect. the same is every where required of believers under the new testament. here we (1.) see that they affirm the covenant of grace hath conditions in the plural number. (2.) that faith and sincere obedience, walking before god, and being perfect, upright or sincere, were the conditions of it under the old, and now are the conditions of it under the new testament. (3.) that this doctrine was approved by the synod of dort. next martintus one of the bremen divines is so clear for the conditionality of the covenant, that none who understand what his judgement was, can doubt of his being on our side. we need not quote his words, they that please may see them in the acts of the synod. the sum of his opinion approved by the synod is this, that pardon of sin and eternal life are blessings promised to all men through christ: ibid. part. 2. page 136, 137. but how? not absolutely, but conditionally, if they believe; as we heard before from dr. twiss. of the fume mind were his two colleagues, ibid. p. 150, 151. ise●burgius and lud. crocius, and especially crocius most clearly, as is there to be seen. lastly our own british divines are clearly for the conditionality of the covenant of grace, no body could ever doubt of this, that ever read their suffrage either in latin or english. for thus they writ, (for howsoever salvation in the execution thereof, dependeth upon the conditional use of the means, yet the will of god electing unto salvation is not conditional, saffrage of the divines of great britain, art. 1. in english, page 9 incomplete, or mutable; because he hath absolutely purposed to give unto the elect both power and will to perform those very conditions, namely repentance, faith, obedience, perseverance.) by this we see that they taught, not only that faith is a condition, but that repentance, obedience, and perseverance are conditions of the covenant, which is the whole of what we say, and it was received and approved by the whole synod of dort above seventy years ago. again. in opposition to, and refutation of the eighth erroneous opinion of the arminians they writ thus, ibid. p. 28, 29. [we do not deny but that there is such a good pleasure of god laid open (or revealed) in the gospel, by which he hath decreed to choose faith as a condition for conferring salvation, that is, by which he would have the actual obtaining of salvation, (at least in respect of those which are of ripe years,) to depend upon the condition of foregoing faith: and this is that joyful and saving message to be published unto all nations in the name of christ. but this is not the very decree of election properly taken, and so much set forth, or celebrated by the apostle st. paul. for that decree is active or practical, ordaining some particular persons unto salvation, not disposing of things, or the connexion of things in order to salvation, and it is confined unto, or terminated upon humane creatures themselves, and not upon their qualities, ephes. 1.4. he hath chosen us, to wit, men; rom. 8. those whom he hath praedestinated, to wit, men, matth: 20. few are chosen; that is, few men. from this passage we observe, (1.) that according to those learned divines there is an absolute pleasure and purpose of god that faith shall be the condition of salvation in the covenant of grace. (2.) that this absolute pleasure and purpose of god, refers to things, and absolutely constitutes a conditional connexion between them, that is, between pardon of sin and salvation as the benefit or grace promised, and faith as the condition, in whomsoever it shall be found. this good pleasure and absolute purpose of god terminating upon, and constituting the conditional connexion of things, is the foundation of the general conditional promises of the gospel, which we are ordered to preach conditionally to all the world, as we have a call, (mark. 16.15, 16. rom. 10.8, 9) not making any difference between persons and persons, as to that matter. but now the decree of election formally and terminatively considered, is quite another thing as to our conception of it; it is the good pleasure and absolute purpose of god terminating upod particular persons, singling them out from others, and appointing them to obtain salvation in such a way, and by such means: and this good pleasure and purpose of god in his time and way according to his word of promise never fails to have its powerful effect upon those select persons, to make them first gracious, and then glorious for evermore. again, in treating of the second article, their fifth position is this, [in the church, ●●id. art. 2. p. 49, 50. wherein according to the promise of the gospel, salvation is offered to all, there is such an administration of grace, as is sufficient to convince all impenitents and unbelievers, that by their own voluntary de●ault, either through neglect, or contempt of the gospel, they perish and come short of the cene●●t offered unto them.] this position they lay down as a truth, than they proceed to prove it, and thus they begin, [christ by his death hath not only established the evangelical cwenant, but hath moreover obtained of his father, that wheresoever this covenant should be published, there also together with it, ordinarily such a measure of supernatural grace should be dispensed, as may suffice to convince all impenitents and unbelievers of contempt, or at least of neglect, in that the condition (of the covenant) was not fulfilled by them.] these are their own words, than they prove two things. (1.) that some measure of supernatural grace is ordinarily administered in the ministry of the gospel; which they demonstrate by several testimonies of scripture. (2.) that that grace is sufficient to convince all impenitent unbelievers, either of contempt, or at least of neglect, which they demonstrate from john 15.22. john 3.19. heb. 2.3. heb. 4.12. matth. 11.24. heb. 6.4, 5, 6, 7, 8. and before this their second position with respect to the elect, is that [out of the special love of god by and for the merit and intercession of christ, faith and perseverance are given unto the elect, ibid. page 45. yea and all other things by which the condition of the covenant is fulfilled, and the promised benefit, namely, eternal life is infallibly obtained.] this is their position, and they prove it by rom. 8.32, 33, 34. and heb. 8.10. again, in refutation of the third erroneous opinion that christ's death hath obtained for all men, restitution into the state of grace and salvation, they both assert the conditionality of the covenant, ibid. art. 2. p. 61, 62, 63. and also at the same time lay the axe to the root of huberianisme, puccianisme, and antinomianism or crispianisme. their words and arguments are these following: 1. reason. salvation is a thing promised in the new covenant, neither is it promised but upon the condition of faith; (whosoever believeth, shall be saved,) since therefore all men have not faith in christ, under which condition, only salvation is promised, it is certain that the death of christ did not obtain for all, but for the faithful alone, a restoration (absolute) into the state of grace and salvation. this they prove from rom. 5.1. rom. 3. and 4. chap. and gal. 2.16. 2. reason. without faith in christ, man remains in the state of condemnation, john 3.18. john 3.36. but they who are restored into the bosom of grace, every one of them, have remission of sins, which makes men happy, psal. 32.1. neither do they remain in condemnation, neither doth the wrath of god remain upon them. they therefore who want faith, are not restored by the death of christ into the state of grace and salvation; since through the name of christ, no man obtaineth remission of sins, except he who believes in him, acts 10.43. reason 3. if the death of christ hath obtained restitution for all, then are they restored either (1.) when christ from all eternity was destinated unto death, which is false; for so no man should be born a child of wrath, neither should original sin any whit damage mankind, being according to this opinion forgiven them from all eternity.— or, (2.) they were restored in the person of our first parents, when the promise concerning the seed of the woman was proclaimed, which is false. for our first parents themselves were not restored into the state of grace, but by faith in christ, and consequently neither were their posterity restored, but in like manner, that is, by faith. therefore not all, whether believers, or unbelievers are restored. or, (3.) they were restored, when christ himself suffered death upon the cross; but that is false also, and cannot be, for so no man before that moment should have been restored, which none will grant: neither are all restored from that time, because without doubt, even at that moment, and afterward the wrath of god burned hot against some of christ's accusers, condemners, crucifiers and mockers. thus our divines argued in the synod, and their arguments were approved by the synod. now let any man of judgement consider the force of these arguments, and he will plainly see that they do prove that; no man, no, not the elect can be admitted into favour with god, and be justified before he believe, and perform the condition of the covenant; as well as that all men are not, and cannot be so dealt with. the elect themselves, before their conversion are not absolutely and actually in grace and favour with god, they are not in a state of justification and salvation, because they yet want faith the condition of the covenant, upon which condition those subsequent blessings of the covenant are only promised; so that by this we may see the synod hath in effect beforehand judged between us and the antinomians, and hath given sentence according to scripture on our side. lastly, we find that our divines, in the synod, declared and proved, that perseverance in holy faith and obedience, which is the condition of our obtaining eternal salvation, is itself promised absolutely without any proper condition; yet not so as always, and in all elect, justified persons, to exclude and prevent a partial, temporary apostasy and back-sliding. here then are two things held by them; (1.) that the perseverance of the elect, after they are once converted and justified, though it be a condition of obtaining eternal salvation, yet it is promised and given without any other proper condition. therefore writing on the fifth article, they reject the erroneous opinion of the arminians, ibid. art. v pag. 157, 153. that perseverance is a benefit offered equally to all the truly faithful, upon this condition, namely, if they shall not be wanting unto sufficient grace; and give their reasons why they rejected it. (1.) say they, it is not true, that perseverance is a gift only offered, but not given: for the scriptures witness, that god doth not only offer unto his, the grace of perseverance, but also, that he gives it them, and puts it into their hearts: jer. 32.40. i will put my fear into their hearts, that they shall not departed from me, and john 4.14. 1 cor. 10.13.— again, it is false, (say they,) that perseverance is a grace offered, upon condition, for it is a gift promised absolutely by god, without any respect to a condition. the reason is this, some promises of god are touching the end, others touching the means which conduce to the end. the promises concerning the end, that is to say salvation, are conditional. believe and thou shalt be saved. be faithful unto death, (that, is persevere,) and i will give thee the crown of life. but forasmuch as no man is able to perform the conditions, god also hath made most free and absolute promises to give the very conditions, which he works in us, that so by them, as by means, we may attain the end: deut. 30.6. and the lord thy god will circumcise thy heart, to love the lord thy god with all thy heart and with all thy soul, that thou mayest live. the end here promised, is life, which the israelites could never attain, without the performance of the condition, namely, their love of god. but here god promiseth absolutely, that he will give unto them this very condition. since therefore the promises of faith, and perseverance in faith, are promises concerning the means, they are wholly to be reckoned among those absolute gifts, by which god (considering man's disability, both to attain the end without the means, and also to perform (or effect) the means, or conditions of himself,) doth promise that he will make them able to perform the conditions. god promiseth life to those that constantly fear him. the promise of life is conditional, but of constant fear is absolute: i will put my fear in their hearts that they may not departed from me. and lastly, be it so, that this gift were conditional, yet it is not offered upon this condition, if men will not be wanting to themselves in the entertainment and use of sufficient grace.— f●● (1.) it will from this condition follow, that we do in vain pray to god in the behalf of any man, that he would give unto them the gift of perseverance, because of course he offers them universal and sufficient grace, to which, if they themselves will not be wanting, they shall persevere. (2.) t●is is an idle condition, for it makes perseverance to be the condition of perseverance. for to persevere, is nothing else, but not to be wanting unto this sufficient grace. if therefore god offers perseverance upon this condition, he offers the same upon condition of itself. thus they shown, that perseverance is absolutely promised, and given, without any other proper condition. yet for all this, (2.) they do not say, that perseverance is so promised and given, as to exclude and prevent always a partial, temporary apostasy and back-sliding. for we find that discoursing of perseverance, as it concerns the elect, their third position is, [these very same (persons) thus regenerated, ibid. art. v pag. 121, 122, 123, 124, 125. and justified, do sometimes, through their own default, fall into heinous sins, and thereby they do incur the fatherly anger of god, they draw upon themselves a damnable guiltiness, and lose their present ●tness to the kingdom of heaven. thon they prove their position, it is manifest (say they) by the examples of david and peter, that the regenerate can throw themselves headlong into most grievous sins, god sometimes permitting it, that they may learn with all humility to acknowledge, that, not by their own strength or deserts, but by god's mercy alone they were freed from eternal death, and had life eternal bestowed upon them. whilst they cleave to such sins, and sleep securely therein, god's fatherly anger ariseth against them, psal. 89.31. rom. 2.9. besides, they draw upon themselves damnable gild; so that as long as they continue without repentance, in that state, they neither aught, nor can persuade themselves otherwise, than that they are subject to eternal death: rom. 8.13. if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die. for they are bound in the chain of a capital crime, by the desert whereof, according to god's ordinance, they are subject to death, although they are not as yet given over to death, nor about to be given over, (if we consider the fatherly love of god,) but are first to be rescued from this sin, that they may also be rescued from the guilt of death. lastly, in respect of their present condition, they lose the fitness which they had of ent●ing into the kingdom of heaven, because into that kingdom, there shall in no wise enter any thing that is defiled, rev. 21.27. or that worketh abomination. for the crown of life is not set upon the head of any, but those who have fought a good fight, and have finished their course in faith and holiness. (2 tim. 4.8.) he is therefore unfit to obtain this crown, whosoever as yet cleaves to the works of wickedness. the fourth position is, the unalterable ordinance of god doth require, that the faithful so straying out of the right way, must first return again into the way, by a renewed performance of faith and repentance, before he can be brought to the end of the way, that is, to the kingdom of heaven. by the decree of election, the faithful are so predestinated to the end, that they are (as along the king's highway) to be led to this appointed end, no other ways than by the means ordained by god. nor are these decrees of god, concerning the means, manner, and order of such events, less fixed and sure, than the decrees of the end, and of the events themselves. if any man therefore walk in a way contrary to god's ordinance, namely, that broad way of uncleanness and impenitence, (which leads directly down to hell,) he can never come by this means to the kingdom of heaven, yea, and if death should overtake him, wand'ring in this by-path, he cannot but fall into everlasting death. this is the constant and manifest voice of the holy scripture, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish, luke 13.3. be not deceived: neither fornicatours, nor idolaters, etc. shall inherit the kingdom of god, 1 cor. 6.9. they are deceived therefore, who think that the elect, wallowing in such crimes, and so dying, must, notwithstanding, needs be saved through the force of election. for the salvation of the elect is sure indeed, god so decreeing: but withal (by the decree of the same our god) it is not otherwise sure, than by the way of faith, repentance, and holiness, heb. 12.14. without holiness no man shall see god. the foundation of god standeth sure,— and, let every one that nameth the name of christ depart from iniquity, 2 tim. 2.19. again their fifth position is, that in the mean time, between the gild of a grievous sin, and the renewed act of faith and repentance, such an offender stands by his own desert to be condemned; by christ's merit, ibid. art. v pag. 126, 127. and god's decree to be acquitted; but actually absolved he is not, until he hath obtained pardon by renewed faith and repentance. and for proof of this position, they say in page 128. [the father of mercies hath set down this order, that the act of repentance must go before the benefit of forgiveness, psal. 32.5. ezek. 18.27.] thus those excellent divines, and judicious, faithful ministers of christ. by all which, it is clear as the sun, that the synod of dort, taught the conditionality of the covenant, and held faith, repentance, sincere obedience, and perseverance to the end, to be the indispensably necessary conditions of obtaining eternal salvation, and therefore if there happen to be a partial intermission of sincere evangelical obedience, for a time, by christians falling into heinous wilful sins, there must be a renewing of faith and repentance, and a returning to their obedience again, before they can obtain the pardon of those sins, and the eternal salvation of their souls; which is all that we hold in this matter. and it is alserted, explained, and solidly proved, by the most learned and judicious d●●●●●ant (who was a member of the synod of d●●) in another book of his, in these words, bond opera sunt necessaria ad justificationis statum relinendum, praelect. de justitiâ habit. & act. cap. 31. p. 404, 405. & conservandum, non ut causae, etc. that is, good works are necessary to retain, and preserve the state of justification, not as causes which of themselves, effect, produce, or merit this preservation, but as means or conditions, without which god will not preserve the grace of justification in men. and here may be reckoned up the same works which we mentioned in the foregoing conclusion: for as no man receives that general justification, which froes from the gild of all former sins, unless repentance, faith, a purpose to lead a new life, and other actions of that nature, concur: so no man retains a state free from gild, with respect to following sins, but by means of the same actions, of believing in god, calling upon god, mortifying the flesh, continually repenting and grieving for the sins that are continually committed. the reason why all these things are necessarily required on our part, is this, because these things cannot be always absent, but their contraries will begin to be present, which are repugnant to the nature of a justified man: for if you take away faith in god and prayer, there succeeds unbelief, and contempt of god's name: if you take away the endeavour of mortification, and the exercise of repentance, there breaks in upon the man, predominant lusts, and sins wasting the conscience. therefore because it is not god's will, that men, who are unbelievers, obstinate, carnal, should enjoy the benefit of justification, he requires continual works of faith, repentance, and mortification; by whose presence, are thrust, as it were, out of doors, and driven far away, unbelief, obstinacy, security, and other poisons of justifying grace; and also of particular sins, there is a particular pardon obtained. hence paul saith, (rom. 8.13.) if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: and heb. 3.12. take heed, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the living god. we do not therefore think, that the act itself of believing, repenting, and mortifying the flesh doth effect, or merit the conservation of justifying grace; because all these things are done by us faintly and imperfectly, sometimes also, through the prevalency of some great tentation, they are, as it were, choked and oppressed; but we say, that god himself, of his free mercy, preserves the regenerate in a state of grace and salvation, whilst they walk in these ways. as therefore for the preservation of natural life, it is necessarily required, that a man carefully avoid fire, water, precipices, poisons, and other things which destroy the health of the body; so for the preservation of spiritual life, it is necessarily required, that a man avoid unbelief, impenitency, and other things that are destructive, and contrary to the salvation of souls; which cannot be avoided, unless the opposite and contrary actions be exercised. but these actions do not preserve the life of grace properly and of themselves, by touching (or producing) the very effect itself of preservation, but improperly and by accident, by excluding and removing the cause of destruction. thus we have at large refuted the author of the letter, his second error against the purity of christian faith; and have fully and clearly proved the covenant of grace to be conditional. this we have done, first, by clear scripture: secondly, by certain and evident reason grounded upon scripture: thirdly, by testimonies of orthodox divines, and first, by testimonies of the ancient doctors of the primitive church: secondly, by testimonies of divines of the reformed churches, both at home and abroad; and particularly, by the testimony of the divines of the famous synod of dort. whence it is as clear as the sun, that we preach no new arminian gospel, in this great point of the covenant of grace; and consequently, that the author of the letter is a false witness in matter of fact, who hath proclaimed us to the world, to be preachers of a new arminian gospel, on the account of our doctrine in the point of justification. if after all this, he should say that though we have proved the covenant to be conditional, and faith to be the receptive applicative condition of it; yet we have not proved that faith justifies as a condition; we answer, that look by what place of scripture he shall ever be able to prove that faith justifies as an instrument, and a hand by the same shall we prove that faith justifies as a receptive applicative condition. for (as we said before) we take a receptive applicative condition, and a moral foederal instrument to be one, and the same thing. so did the westminster assembly of divines before us: and in this sense (which alone is justifiable) we hold faith to be both an instrument and a condition with respect to justification. and if that will please our author, we shall grant him that faith is a hand, and not only a hand, but an eye and a mouth too; an eye to look unto christ crucified, john 3.14, 15. john 6.40. isa. 45.22. and a mouth to eat and drink, and feed on his crucified flesh and blood, john 6.35, 50, 51, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58. we shall conclude this answer with the testimony of two learneder and wiser men than our author seems to be. the first is the reverend mr. lukin, a worthy judicious congregational minister in his life of faith, printed above thirty years ago. lukin 's life of faith. p. 24, 25. for the question about the interest of faith in our justification, whether it justify as an instrument, or as a condition. i think (saith he) it deserves not half the words that have been used about it, they are both of them school-terms, and not found in the scripture, and should not therefore disturb the peace of the church, especially seeing both parties at variance, are agreed in the thing, but not in the formal notion, under which they do conceive it; and i think both lides are so far agreed, that faith may be called an instrument; allowing much impropriety of speech, and that it may be called a condition, while we thereby do not suppose any such thing as merit. thus mr. lukin. now we hearty accept of this expedient; for the calming of the tempest which the letter hath raised. we will never desire the author to call faith a meritorious condition, (for we never called it so ourselves,) if he will grant us that it is but improperly an instrument of justification. the other is the learned turretin, that famous calvinist professor of divinity lately at geneva, who writes thus, caeterum non anxiè quaerendum putamus, an fides instrumenti notionem induat in hoc negotio, etc. turretin. instit. part. 2. loc. 16. quaest 7. p. 737. but we do not think that it is curiously to be enquired after, whether faith put on the nation of an instrument in this matter of justification; or likewise of a condition, as it seems to some men. for nothing hinders, but both notions may be ascribed to it; provided, condition be not taken for that, in consideration whereof god justifies man in the covenant of grace; after the manner that works were the condition of justification in the legal covenant: for in this sense, it cannot be called a condition, unless we come over to the socinians and arminians, who will have faith or the act of believing to be accepted by god for perfect righteousness, which we have but now resuted: but taking the word condition in a large sense for all that which is required on our part to obtain that benefit, whether it have the notion of a cause properly so called, or only of an instrumental cause; for as that condition hath the relation of an instrument, so that instrument hath the nature of a condition on our part, without which justification cannot be obtained. thus turretin to which we fully agree, except that we think he gives too much to faith in conceiving it to be an instrumental cause of justification, yet since he says that it is no cause properly so called, it follows necessarily that it is not properly an instrumental cause, and so hath no proper causal influence upon the act of justification; and if so then it is but improperly an instrument, as mr. lukin saith, and so the whole controversy comes to nothing but a strife about the propriety, or impropriety of a word; which turretin plainly saw, and therefore confessed that faith is so an instrument, as to be a condition, and so a condition as to be an instrument of justification: and taking the word instrument in a moral sense, for a means of receiving the benefit of justification for christ's sake only, we do unfeignedly affirm, as turretin doth, that a sincere faith is both the instrument and receptive condition of justification. sect. iii. of his third error, that there is no real change, no holy disposition, or qualification, no good or holy thing wrought in, or done by man in order to, and before justification; that faith is not so much as a qualification of the person to be justified, and that repentance is not in order before pardon of sin. his third error against the purity of our christian faith is, that the lord doth not by preventing grace prepare, dispose, and fit his people for their justification by and for the righteousness of christ imputed to them, but that his first saving work towards them and upon them, is their justification by christ's imputed righteousness. error 3. that this is his opinion, is evident from his own words. for in page 9, 11, 12, 15, 17, 18, 25, 26, 30, 31, 32. he denies, that there can be any qualification in us, that any real change is wrought upon us, that any condition is required of us in order to our justification; he will not so much as admit of repentance as a dispositive condition in order thereunto; and often finds fault with us for holding faith to be a qualification or the condition of justification, though he knew well enough that we hold it to be only the receptive, applicative condition of christ, and his righteousness in order to our being justified thereby. now that this opinion is erroneous, and against the purity of our christian faith we shall prove. (1.) by scripture. (2.) by reason agreeable to scripture. (3.) by the testimony of our most famous orthodox, protestant divines. but before we come to our proofs, we premise a few things to give light unto what shall follow: as, (1.) that we hold the priority of any preparation, disposition, qualification, or condition before justification, no farther than is necessary to verify the expressions of holy scripture concerning them. (2.) we hold that they proceed from the grace of god. (3.) that that grace is from jesus christ by the supernatural influences of his holy spirit. (4.) that some of those things whereby the spirit of christ prepares and disposes souls before they be justified, are such as by the constitution and ordination of god have a necessary infallible connexion with justification, they are dispositions or qualifications (sine quibus nunquam & cum quibus semper justificamur,) without which we are never, and with which we are always justified; of this sort is effectual calling, and what is commonly called regeneration; or that seminal abiding principle of spiritual life, which is communicated unto us in effectual calling, and the new birth together with the first vital actings of that principle in faith and repentance. that seminal principle of spiritual life, with its first vital acts of faith and repentance, doth according to our judgement, so prepare, and dispose, and qualify the soul for justification, that it is always infallibly connected with them according to the word and promise of god, and it is never in any case without them; and let it be always remembered, that in our opinion actual faith qualifies us as a receptive condition of christ and his righteousness. but we think also, that there are other dispositions antecedent to justification which have not such a necessary connexion with justification, and yet they are from god's spirit too. (5.) that the said seminal principle of spiritual life, with its first vital acts of faith and repentance which are in order before justification, and upon which justification always follows; is the first beginning of holiness, and may well be called initial sanctification; for it is the holy thing first begotten in us by god's word and spirit, it is the first forming of christ in us, and it is the holy root, or seed, out of which grows our progressive sanctification, through the influences and operations of the holy spirit, given us after justification, to dwell in us, and to abide with us for ever. these things premised, we shall prove, first by scripture, that it is an error to deny that there is any real change in us, that there can be any qualification, or disposition wrought in us by the grace of christ antecedently, (at least in order of nature,) to our justification by the imputed righteousness of christ. for doth not the scripture expressly put effectual calling before our justification? rom. 8.30. whom god called, them he also justified? now it is confessed, that it is an inward effectual calling that is there spoken of; and that such a calling makes a real change in the persons so called. but so it is that this calling is by the spirit of god put before justification. again, in heb. 10.16, 17. there we have the order of god's bestowing on his select people the blessings of the new covenant. this is the covenant that i will make with them after those days, saith the lord, i will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will i write them; and their sins and their iniquities will i remember no more. here we see, that the lord according to his covenant, first writes his laws in the hearts of his people, (which cannot be without some real change wrought on them, and some holy principle put into them;) secondly, their sins and iniquities he remembers no more; and that is, he justifies them, for pardon of sin is an essential part of justification, and is put for the whole, by a form of speech usual enough in the scriptures of truth. further, our saviour himself gives us plainly to understand, that this is the order of his dispensing his saving grace, mark 4.12. lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them. in which words our lord plainly intimates, that the sins of the unbelieving jews were not forgiven them, that is, they were not justified, because they were not converted; and that whomsoever he pardons and justifies, he first converts them. and sure conversion imports a real change, and a principle of grace and holiness implanted in the souls of the converted. this is yet clearer from the words of our lord to paul, recorded by luke, acts 26.17, 18. i send thee unto the gentiles to open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of satan unto god, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, etc. by forgiveness of sins is meant justification, because forgiveness of sins is an essential part of justification; before the gentiles could attain to this justification, consisting in the forgiveness of their sins, their eyes were to be opened, and they were to be turned from darkness to light, and from the power of satan unto god. is it not then self-evident, that the gentiles were to be really changed from what they had been in former times, and that they must be renewed, and become new creatures, before they could obtain the blessing and benefit of pardon of sin, and justification? it is a wonder to us, that any man should doubt of this matter, who believes the scripture, and considers the form of words used there by the holy writer, which plainly sets forth the justification of the gentiles as an end, and their conversion from darkness to light, and from the power of satan unto god, as a means to attain that end. now the means is always in execution before the end: consequently, conversion is, and must be before justification. and if so, then there is a real change in the soul before justification; the person to be justified is prepared, disposed, and qualified by converting grace, in order of nature, at least before he be justified: and till he be so changed by converting grace, he is not capable of being justified, according to god's order of dispensing saving grace unto his people. this our author saw well enough, lett. pag. 16. when he quoted gal. 2.16. to prove that a man is to believe, that he may be justified. for that plainly shows, that faith is a means to obtain justification, and all the world knows, that the means is always first in execution (as hath been said) before the end be thereby obtained. now we demand, if a man must have faith before he be justified, must there not be a real change in him, must he not be changed from being an unbeliever, to be a believer, and must he not also be initially sanctified? is not true faith a holy virtue, and doth it not denominate the subject of it, to be so far holy, as he is a true believer? peter saith, that sincere faith is a precious thing, 2 pet. 1.1 and judas v. 20. affirms that our faith is a most holy faith, and it is true, both of the object of our faith, the things which we believe; and of our faith itself, the habit and act, whereby we do believe, both are holy: and how can it be but faith must be holy, since it is one of the fruits of the spirit, gal. 5.22.? and surely nothing but what is holy, can be a fruit of the holy spirit. from all which we may confidently conclude, that something which is holy, is wrought in us, and by us, before we be justified, for it is wrought in us, and by us, that we may be justified. thus we learn from scripture, that by preventing, converting grace there is a real change wrought in the soul before we be justified, that that change is from falsehood to truth, from evil to good, and that thereby the person to be justified of an unholy unbeliever becomes an holy believer, and so is a subject capable of being immediately justified by christ's righteousness imputed to him upon his conversion, and penitent believing. and here we might further demonstrate, that there are, through grace, some holy dispositions wrought in the soul before justification, by all those scriptures that put repentance before remission of sins; but this we have done already, when we proved sincere repentance to be a dispositive condition of justification. therefore we pass from this first, to our second head of arguments. secondly, we prove by reason agreeable to scripture, that it is an error to deny that there is any real change, that there can be any holy qualification, or disposition, wrought in us by the grace of god, antecedently to our justification. reason 1. first we reason thus. faith is a condition of justification, as we have proved at large, therefore it may well be a qualification of the person to be justified; and we much wonder, that our author should boldly deny the possibility of any such qualification. for it is less to be a qualification, than to be a condition: if then faith be a condition, it may much more be a qualification. and that for faith to be a qualification is less than to be a condition, is hence evident, because faith, as the gift of god, without any act of ours, may be a qualification; but to make it a proper condition, it must be our own free act receiving christ and his righteousness, though produced by the strength of god's special grace. now it is plainly less for us to be the subjects only passively receiving the gift of faith, than to be the agents freely producing the act, and performing the condition of faith. although then our author might seem to have some reason to doubt, whether faith be the proper condition of the covenant, with respect to justification; yet we cannot imagine why be should deny, that it can possibly be a qualification of the person to be justified; for it is very easily conceivable, that it may be such a qualification, as it is a grace given unto, and wrought in the person to be justified, on purpose that he may be thereby qualified for the great and blessed privilege of justification. what impossibility is there in all this, that god should constitute, and ordain, that none thould ever be justified by christ's righteousness, but those that are so qualified; and that faith shall be the qualification: and then because no man can by his natural power qualify himself with this faith, that god for christ's sake should by his spirit give saving faith unto all his select people, and special favourites, and thereby quali●ie them for justification? we can see no shadow of repugnancy and impossibility, but that god may do this if he please. and when he hath done it, when he hath qualified a man with faith, he most certainly hath a qualification for the benefit of justification. and this is so far from darkening the glory of god's free grace in christ, that on the contrary, it greatly sets it forth, and illustrates it, that god will not only freely promise justification, through christ, unto all that are qualified with true faith; but that for christ's sake he freely gives them that faith, and doth himself qualify them therewith. the like we say of repentance, it is a qualification of god's own ordaining, and of god's own giving. nor doth faith and repentance their being conditions, hinder their being qualifications, for they may be, and are both. all that we have hitherto ascribed to repentance in order to justification, is to be a dispositive condition of the subject, and that is the same thing with a qualifying condition, and a qualifying condition is a qualification. we have indeed given more to faith, for according to the scripture we have owned it to be the only receptive, applicative condition of justification, which is more than to be, either a mere qualification, or a mere condition; for neither is qualification, nor condition, merely as qualification, and as condition, receptive and applicative of christ and his righteousness unto justification. to be so receptive and applicative is not essential to the general notion of a condition; but to the special notion of such a condition. and yet this receptive applicative nature of faith as such a special condition; doth not at all hinder it from being a qualification of the person to be justified. for the same faith in different respects is capable of different notions: or if any should doubt of that, (without just reason we think) to satisfy them we may well say (what is a great truth) that the habitual seminal principle of faith is a qualification of the person to be justified; and that the actual exercise of faith is the receptive applicative condition of justification. this is our first reason. 2. reason. the seminal abiding principle of faith is a holy disposition of the soul whereby it is inclined and fitted to elicit and produce the acts of faith. this is clear, because it is in a special manner the gift of a holy god, and the fruit of his holy spirit, who cannot be the author of any seed, disposition, inclination, or habit in the soul of man, but what is good and holy. but now that seminal abiding principle of faith is before justification. this is clear as the sun, because it is before the act of that faith whereby alone we are said to be justified; and that it is before the justifying act of faith, we thus demonstrate, that which concurs to the producing of the act, is before the act, since it is in part the cause of the act, and the cause as such must always be in order of nature at least, before the effect, and it implies a contradiction that it should be otherwise. but the seminal abiding principle of faith, concurs to the producing of the act of justifying faith, for it is given unto us for that end that it may fit us for, inclines us to, and help us in acting. therefore it is before the act of justifying faith, and consequently before justification itself. here than we have found a holy seed and principle put by god into the soul before justification. and therefore it is utterly false which the letter saith, that there neither is nor can be any good or holy thing in the soul, or any real change wrought on the soul before justification. 3. reason. the act of justifying faith is a good and holy thing, since it is the effect of god's holy spirit, and the first fruit of the foresaid holy seed of faith in the soul. but so it is that even according to our authors own principles the act of faith is before justification. for (as was observed before) he says out of gal. 2.16. we believe that we may be justified; and if so, than it is evident that our believing is in order of nature at least, before we be justified. (2.) he holds that faith is the instrumental cause of justification, and lays great stress upon that notion, as if it were the great fundamental of his religion; he likewise finds great fault with us for not holding with him that faith is the instrumental cause of justification. now according to this opinion of his, he cannot avoid the placing of the act of faith before justification, because it is the act of faith that receives christ and his righteousness, and that is the instrumental cause of justification. but all the world knows that every proper cause (as an instrumental cause is in its kind) is in order of nature before its effect: either then some holy good thing is in us before justification, or actual faith is no holy good thing; and his instrument wherewith he makes such a noise is good for nothing, but to blow the coals of strife and contention. 4. reason, before a man can be justified by faith, there must be a real and holy change in him, because of an unbeliever he must become a believer, and that cannot be without a real change, and a holy one too. now that a man from being an unbeliever must come to be a believer in christ before he can be justified by faith in christ, is self-evident, for how can a man be justified by faith in christ, who yet hath no faith in christ, he must then have faith, before he can be justified by faith. but how shall he get this faith? can he get faith, whilst he still remains in unbelief that is impossible. for unbelief either signifies not believing, or it signifies positive disbelieving; and (1.) if it signify not believing, it stands in a contradictory opposition to believing; and contradictions are utterly inconsistent. can a man believe in christ, and not at all believe in christ at the same time? we hope our author will not be so ridiculous as to go about to reconcile contradictions. (2.) if unbelief signify positive disbelieving, disbelieving in power and prevalency, than it stands in a contrary opposition to believing, and two contraries in power and prevalency are likewise utterly inconsistent in the same subject at the same time. a man that is in the very act of positive disbelief; and under the power and prevalency of it, cannot possibly have an actual faith in christ at that time. therefore that an unbeliever may get actual faith in christ and be justified by that faith, he must of necessity be changed, really and effectually changed; he must be changed from being an unbeliever, to be a believer; he must come off from his sin of not believing, or of disbelieving, unto the practice of his duty of believing in christ that he may be justified by faith; but this cannot possibly be without a real change; nay this coming off from the sin of unbelief, to the duty of believing is a real change, and a holy change too, therefore there is and must be a real holy change in man in order of nature at least before his justification by faith in christ. this is as certain and evident, as that two and two make four. yet our author finds fault with us for making it a part of our new scheme that there must be a real change in a man, let. page 30. that he must be changed from his unbelief, that he may come to christ by faith for justification. and elsewhere he says, that it is the experience of every believer, that every one who believeth on jesus christ, page 11. acts that faith as the chief of sinners: and if so, than it follows by necessary consequence, that every one who believes on christ, acts that faith as an unbeliever, for according to him unbelief is the chiefest sin, so he writes expressly, that unbelief is the most provoking to god, page 15, 16. and the most damning to man, of all sins. unbelief then is the chiefest sin; and if so, certainly the unbeliever must be the chiefest sinner, and the believer who acts his faith as the chief of sinners must act his faith as an unbeliever: and that is a very odd way of acting faith, to believe as an unbeliever. yet no man can help it, for if our author's doctrine be true, it must be so, and cannot be otherwise, because it is that which the experience of all believers witnesseth unto; and as he writes, page 24. the believer or accepter of christ, in the very act of believing or accepting of christ, expressly disclaims all things in himself, but sinfulness and misery: and if he do so, than he disclaims, that is, renounces his faith itself in the very act of believing. he doth not disclaim his unbelief, for that is sin; nor doth he disclaim the conceit of meriting justification by his faith, for that is a sinful conceit: but he disclaims his faith itself, unless his faith be either sinfulness or misery; for he disclaims all things in himself, but sinfulness and misery: these two, to wit, sinfulness and misery, are the only things which he doth not disclaim: whence it follows necessarily, that he disclaims his belief itself in the very act of believing; and so by this means he is enabled to believe as an unbeliever. this is (it may be) one of our authors deep mysteries, for which his proselytes admire him, and hug his letter. and we confess there is no such deep mystery as the mystery of contradictious nonsense. but if every one who believes, doth believe as the chief of sinners, and so believes as an unbeliever, and as one that disclaims all true and saving faith, we would know how it comes to pass that all the unbelievers in the world do not believe; one would think that they might all easily believe with such a faith as is acted by a man (under that reduplicating quatenus) as an unbeliever, and which, in the very act of believing renounceth all saving belief, even every thing but sin and misery. of old no man was received into the christian church, and accounted a christian, unless he first disclaimed and renounced his sins; but now it seems there is a great alteration in the state of christianity; for a man cannot at this day be a christian, unless he disclaim (or which is all one renounce) his christian faith, and that too with an exception of not disclaiming his sins. if this be the only way to be a christian, one would think that all the jews, turks, and heathens in the world might easily be christians, for they can easily believe with a faith, that in the very act of it, renounces and disclaims faith, but not sin. but if our author say that every true christian must believe in christ with a sincere and saving faith, which unbelievers have not, and yet at the same time he must act his faith as an unbeliover, and in the very act of faith, he must disclaim his faith, but not his sin of unbelief; and that there must be no real change in him from unbelief to faith, till he have faith, and have acted his faith as aforesaid, and be justified by such an act of faith; and then a real change passes upon him in order of nature after his justification, but not before. we answer, that this is contradictious nonsense, and at this rate no man can be a christian till he hath made both ends of a contradiction meet, and hath verified both parts of a contradiction in his own person; no man can be a christian that is really changed from being an unbeliever to be a believer; no, he cannot be a christian till he be both an unbeliever and believer in predominant degrees at the same time, without any real change from what he was by nature: the plain english of this is that according to the principles of our author laid down in his letter, no man can ever be a good christian at all, for the thing is impossible, because it implies a manifest contradiction. yet we must be so charitable as to think that our author hath indeed greatly mistaken in the expressing of his mind in his letter; but that really he doth not believe those things himself. we hope he is of a more orthodox faith, and are willing to impute it to some inadvertency and inconsiderateness in the hasty writing of his letter. we think he would or should have said that every one who believes on jesus christ, acts that faith, as one who thinks himself to have been formerly before his conversion and faith, a chief of sinners, or one of the first rank of great sinners. but doth not think himself to be still in the same state of unregeneracy and unbelief; for if he think so of himself after that is converted and is actually believing on christ, most certainly he thinks amiss whatever our author say to the contrary; for he thinks falsely of himself, and sins in so thinking. our author talks confidently of that which he doth not know, to wit, the experience of every believer, for certainly he was never acquainted with the experiences of the thousandth part of believers that are in the christian church at this day. can he then say in faith that it is the experience of every believer that he acts his faith as one who in former times hath been as great a sinner, and hath done as much dishonour to god, and as much mischief to the church and to the world, as the present king of france? but whatever he say or think of believers; we are persuaded that true believers are taught of god, as to be humble, so to be wise in acting their faith; wiser (we are confident) than that every one of them should think himself to be so great a sinner as that he hath done as much dishonour to god, and mischief to the church of christ, as lewis the fourteenth has done, and still continues to do. again when he says, that a believer and accepter of christ in the very act of believing and accepting, expressly disclaims all things in himself, but sin and misery; we think he should have said that he either expressly, or implicitly, formally or virtually in the very act of believing disclaims all things in himself as being of and from himself, but sin and misery, which are indeed of and from himself, and he takes the shame and blame thereof upon himself; but as for his faith, or any good disposition or qualification that is in him, he ascribes it all to the free grace of god, and gives god all the glory of it: and after the same manner in the very act of believing, in order of nature before he be justified, he virtually acknowledges to god's glory, that by his grace he hath wrought a real holy change in his soul, and of a blind, proud unbeliever, hath made him an understanding, humble believer according to that, 1 john 5.20. we know that the son of god is come, and hath given us an understanding that we may know him that is true. reason 5. fifthly and lastly. the seminal vital principle of justifying faith is seated in the heart, and the first vital act of it comes from the heart. rom. 10.10. with the heart man believes unto righteousness. we demand then concerning the first vital act of justifying faith, either it comes from a renewed heart, or an unrenewed heart, a regenerate heart, of an ●●●regenerate heart, a heart of flesh, or an heart of stone; or if it come not from either of these, than it must come from a third, that is from a heart that is neither renewed nor unrenewed, neither regenerate, nor unregenerate, neither of flesh, nor of stone, but now, (1.) the first vital act of justifying faith cannot come from a heart that is neither renewed, nor unrenewed, neither regenerate, nor unregenerate, for there is no such heart in any man, nor indeed can there be any such heart: for renewed, and not at all renewed, regenerate, and not at all regenerate, are contradictions which admit of no medium. every heart of man then in the whole world must be one of these, but cannot be both at once, nor any third thing distinct from both; for there is no middle between the two, betweenrenewed, and not at all renewed, etc. since then, every heart of man in the world cannot be both renewed, and not at all renewed at the same time, nor yet be any third thing, but must be either one or other, (2.) we say in the second place, that the first vital act of justifying faith cannot come from an heart not at all renewed, nor regenerate. for a vital act of justifying faith is too good and precious fruit to grow upon the corrupt tree of a heart wholly unrenewed and unregenerate. our saviour in matth. 7.16, 17, 18. give us to understand, that we may with as much reason expect to gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles, as that a vital act of precious justifying faith should come from a heart that is altogether unregenerate and unrenewed. it remains then in the third place, that since the first vital act of justifying faith cannot come from a heart that is altogether unrenewed and unregenerate, that is all stony, hard, and obstinately bend unto evil; it must of necessity come from a heart that is at least partly renewed and regenerate, partly flesh, or tender and pliable to the will of god? and from this it follows avoidable, that there must be a real, holy change wrought in the heart of man before his justification by faith; for the heart of man cannot possibly be renewed and regenerated either in part, or in whole, without some real holy change wrought in it; but it is renewed and regenerated in part at least in order of nature, before the first vital act of justifying faith, as hath been proved; and that first vital act of faith is in order of nature before justification by faith; therefore there is and must be some real holy change wrought in the heart before justification by faith: from all which it is evident that the opinion of our author is erroneous, and against the purity of our christian faith, to wit, that there is no real change, no holy disposition or qualification before justification by faith: and that on the contrary there is and must be a real change of the heart, there are and must be several holy dispositions and qualifications wrought in the soul by the word and spirit of the lord, before we can be justified by faith, and our sins can be actually and absolutely forgiven us. this we have clearly proved both by scripture and by reason agreeable to scripture. now in the third and last place, we shall prove it by the testimony of famous and orthodox protestant divines: we begin with calvin, who (as was shown before) in his commentary on ezek. 18. v. 23. saith, (praecedit veniam poenitentia, quemadmodum hîc dicitur:) that repentance goes before pardon of sin, as it is said to do, in this place of scripture. whence we observe, (1.) that it is not a mere legal repentance, such as may be in an unconverted man that he speaks of; but it is an evangelical saving repentance; for first, it is a repentance that consists in turning from sin, v. 23. yea from all sin in heart and affection, v. 21. secondly, in doing the whole known will of god, that is, doing it in desire and resolution, v. 21. but a mere legal repentance doth not consist in these things, nor hath it so good an effect upon the soul. thirdly, it is a repentance to which pardon and life is promised through christ. but no such thing is promised to a mere legal repentance: therefore it is not a legal, but an evangelical repentance, that calvin there speaks of. (2.) we observe, that if in calvin's judgement a true evangelical repentance goes before pardon of sin and justification, than a true justifying faith goes before it also. for calvin was clearly of the opinion, that faith goes before a true evangelical repentance, in so much that he says, instit. lib. 3. cap. 3. sect. 1. (quibus videtur fidem potius praecedere poenitentia, quàm ab ipsâ manare vel proferri tanquum fructus ab arbore, nunquam vis ejus fuit cognita:) that they never knew the power of repentance, who think that it is rather before faith, than that it slows, or proceeds from faith as fruit from a tree. these words of calvin manifestly show, that he held faith to be in order of nature before true evangelical repentance; which we must thus understand, (as we said before,) that the seminal principle of faith, with some of its acts, to wit, the assenting act, is before any act of true evangelical repentance, and not that all the acts of justifying faith are before any one act of true evangelical repentance; otherwise we shall make calvin foully to contradict himself. for as was proved before, calvin in the same book, fol. 210. and chapter, sect. 19 lays down the right order of things exactly, saying, that the lord christ first declares, that the treasures of god's mercy are in him set open to us, which declaration of his calls for the faith of assent in us. after that in the second place, the lord requires us to repent, induced thereunto by the faith of the said declaration. and thirdly and lastly, (exigit fiduciam erga dei promissiones;) he requires our trust in the promises of god to us; now truly repenting of our sins. the act of faith then which calvin held to be in order before repentance, and to be the root and spring of it; is the faith of the conditional promise of god, that he hath mercy and pardon for us, if we truly repent. and this seems to be his meaning by what he writes in the second paragraph following, for (saith he) whilst christ and john preach thus, repent for the kingdom of heaven is at hand: do not they derive the cause of repentance from the very grace and promise of salvation? therefore the import of their words is as much, as if they had said, because the kingdom of heaven is at hand, therefore repent. and a little after he adds, (quod etiam demonstrat illa oseae exhortatio, etc.) which thing also that exhortation of hosea demonstrates, come and let us return unto the lord: for he hath torn, hos. 6.1. and he will heal us; he hath smitten, and he will bind us up: (quia spes veniae tanquam stimulus additur, ne in suis peccatis torpeant:) because the hope of pardon is given as a spur (to repentance,) lest they should lie secure in their sins. by this passage we see, that the faith which goes before repentance, in calvin's judgement, is not the faith that our sins are already pardoned, but that they shall be pardoned upon our sincere repentance; which faith puts us upon acting repentance, and having put forth an act of sincere repentance, we immediately act faith upon the promise, and apply it to ourselves, and trust in the lord, according to his gracious promise. if this be not calvin's sense, let them free him from self-contradiction that can, for we cannot otherwise do it. however it be, we have him expressly affirming, that faith (in some sense) is before repentance, and that repentance, (such repentance as that in ezek. 18.23.) is before remission of sins and justification: from whence it follows necessarily, that in his judgement, both sincere faith and repentance are in order before justification, and so that there is a real change and some holy principle and disposition wrought in the soul before justification. the same he affirms again elsewhere, for thus he writes on mark 4.12.— lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them. (caeterùm ex eo minimè colligi debet, poenitentiam esse veniae causam, etc.) but from this it ought by no means to be inferred, that repentance is the cause of pardon, as if god received into favour those who are converted, because they have merited or deserved it: (for even conversion itself is a sign of god's free grace and favour,) but only (ordo & consequentia notatur) the order and consequence of things is marked out, because god doth not forgive any sins but those for which men are displeased with themselves. from which words of calvin we observe, that where there is an order and consequence of things, there is a priority and posteriority, and one of them is before another; but so it is, that in calvin's opinion, between repentance and pardon of sin, there is an order, and the one is consequent upon the other, pardon of sin is consequent upon repentance, therefore repentance is before pardon of sin, but repentance can never be without some real holy change and disposition in the penitent. therefore there is such a change and holy disposition before pardon and justification. again on luke 3. v. 4. the voice of one crying in the wilderness, prepare ye the way of the lord (eadem (inquit) vox auribus nostris quotidie insonat, ut domino paremus viam, hoc est, sublatis vitiis quae regno christi viam praecludunt accessum demus ejus gratiae.) the same voice (saith he) daily sounds in our ears, that we should prepare the way for the lord, that is, that we should give access unto his grace, by putting away our sins, which stop up the way against the reign of christ in us. these words plainly give us to understand, that according to calvin, repentance and turning from sin goes in order before pardon, and that it prepares us for the grace of pardon and justification. there needs no more to show that calvin held true repentance, as to the beginning of it, to be in order before pardon of sin and justification. yet when repentance is taken for a course of holy living, in the actual performance of our first purpose to forsake our sins, and return unto the lord, then in that sense it is confessed, that calvin, and we with him hold repentance to be after the several acts of justifying faith, and after justification itself, and that it runs parallel with our lives, and must be continued unto death. this was that which our first reformers called the best repentance, which so enraged the papists, that in the council of trent they anathematised us for this opinion: si quis dixerit— optimam poenitentiam esse tantùm novam vitam, concil. trid. sess. 14. can. 13. anathema sit. if any shall say, that a new life is only the best repentance, let him be accursed. thus they. but we do not at all fear their curse, for notwithstanding it, or any other thing to the contrary, we firmly believe, and say, that a new life is the only best repentance. and this best repentance, this repentance in its perfection we grant to be not only after justifying faith, but also to be after justification itself, and after the forgiveness of all the sins that we had been guilty of before our regeneration and conversion; yet for all that, we still maintain according to the scriptures of truth, that the beginning of true evangelical repentance is in order before forgiveness of sins, and justification; and we think we have calvin on our side, if we may believe his own words. to calvin succeeds beza giving in his testimony plainly for us, and saying in his large confession of faith, (sed necesse est imprimis ut idem spiritus sanctus nos ad jesum christum recipiendum aptos & idoneos reddat, cap. 4. art. 3. etc.) but it is necessary (saith he) in the first place, that the same holy spirit make us apt or fit and meet to receive jesus christ. and in his short confession of faith, art. 11th. as it was not (saith he) in our power to invent or find out the medicine of salvation, so neither is it possible for us to find out the way to use that medicine rightly: because that falls out in this matter, which useth to be in bodily diseases; for as when one desperately sick is ignorant of his disease, it is necessary that the physician not only find out a medicine for him, but likewise that he so dispose the sick person that he may be both willing and able to use the medicine, and that he may know the way to use it aright, so in the disease of the soul, which is the most dangerous of all, and in which men are not only ignorant of, but also adversaries to their salvation: it is necessary that we understand from the same physician: first, what that medicine is, than which way it is to be used: finally, that by the same physician we be made fit and meet for this that we may be both willing and able to use the remedies proposed. again, art. 19 this remedy (of free salvation through christ) is applied by a double efficacy of the holy spirit: for first, the holy spirit disposes or fits our understanding to perceive the doctrine of the gospel, which otherwise seems mere foolishness to the world. then he persuades our minds that that doctrine of free salvation through christ, is not only true, but also that it pertains to us. and that is it which we call faith so much commended in scripture, to wit, when one persuades himself assuredly that the promises of salvation and eternal life particularly and properly belong to him. by these passages of beza we see that he held as we do, that before a man do, or can actually believe with a justifying faith, he is disposed, fitted and prepared by christ's holy spirit, for the right performing of that great work of believing aright. and in his little book of christian questions and answers, to the question how we can be truly said to have all gifts from christ received by faith, since if christ be apprehended or received by faith, bez. lib. quaest. & resp. p. 1. 149. 49. pag. edit. 1587. than faith itself must go before that apprehension or reception. he answers, if thou consider the order of causes, i confess that the principle or beginning of faith (and that also true faith) goes before the apprehension of christ, and therefore that it is not given to them who are already engrafted, but who are to be engrafted. by this passage we see likewise that beza never thought that all saving grace flows into us, from christ already united to us, but that before union he gives us saving grace by his spirit, whereby we may be united to him. christ by his spirit first apprehends and takes hold of us, and sits us for, and brings us into actual union with himself, and this grace is in the order of causes before the union on our part, and so is before our justification. if our author had understood and considered all this that we have quoted out of beza, he would never have thought it impossible that we can have any true grace, any holy disposition or qualification before we be in christ, and justified by faith in him. for it is plain that we have the grace from christ, whereby we come to be in christ, and christ to be in us. and if it were not so, it would be impossible for us ever to be actually in christ at all, or to be justified by faith in him. our third witness is mr. fox in his book, de christo gratis justificante. although (saith he) it be an undoubted truth, that faith in christ, the most high son of god, page 307. alone without works hath the virtue and power of justifying, as appears from the most clear words of paul, and the examples of saints, but yet it doth not put forth this its justifying virtue and power upon all, (praeterquàm in eos quos idoneos solùm invenit suscipiendae divinae gratiae,) but only upon those whom it finds fitted or qualified for receiving the divine grace or favour of justification:) and that is, the humble and penitent, as he shows in the following section: where towards the end of it, in page 310, he says, (praeparat qui●tem poenitentia inateriam ad suscipiendam justificationem, etc.) repentance indeed prepares the matter for the receiving the grace of justification. (that is, it prepares the soul for receiving justification not as an inherent form in the popish sense, but as a rich privilege and favour bestowed upon those who are disposed and qualified for it by repentance.) and that it is not only a legal, but an evangelical repentance, which he speaks of, is evident from what he saith at large in that section, and especially from the testimonies of scripture, which he brings to prove it: such as psal. 34.18. isa. 57.15. our fourth witness is rollok whom we made use of before, and to whom bodius his scholar in his commentary on the ephes. p. 1081, gives this testimony, that he was a man (quo nemo nostra aetate christum jesum vel penitiùs imbiberat, vel aliorum animis efficacius instillabat) than whom none in our age either had drunk in christ jesus more deeply or thoroughly into his own heart, or more powerfully conveyed him into the hearts and souls of others. this holy and orthodox minister of christ in his book of effectual calling saith, page 3, 4. that in effectual calling considered as it is internal (duplex est dei gratia, sive operatio in cordibus nostris, etc. there is a twofold grace of god, or operation in our hearts. the first grace is, whilst god by his holy spirit creates a new and heavenly light in the mind, before involved in darkness, which neither saw, nor could see the things of the spirit of god, 1 cor. 2.14. in the will wholly perverted and turned away from god, he creates a rectitude, and lastly, a new sanctity in all the affections. out of this creation there exists or ariseth that which is called the new creature, that which is called the new man, which after god is created in righteousness and true holiness, ephes. 4.24. the second grace, or the second operation of the spirit— is the act of faith itself, or an action proceeding from the new creature, page 5. the action of the enlightened mind in knowing god in christ; the action of the sanctified will in embracing or apprehending god in christ, here the principal agent is the spirit of god himself,— the secondary agent is the humane soul itself, or rather the new man, and the new creature itself in the soul, and its faculties. in this second grace, which is the action or work of faith, we are not now merely passive, page 6. but being acted by the holy spirit, we act, being excited to believe, we believe. in one word, with the holy spirit operating, we cooperate, and are workers together with the holy spirit. now he cap. 34. p. 258. tells us afterwards in the same book, that all this, and more than this, even the holy change that is wrought in the soul by a true evangelical repentance, is before justification. for (saith he) repentance belongs to the place concerning effectual calling— repentance goes before justification, as faith and hope go before it. from all which we observe, that in the judgement of rollock there is a real change made in the soul before it be justified, and that it is prepared for justification by god's working in it an holy principle or disposition whereby it is inclined and enabled to produce the act of faith, whereby it receives christ, that for his sake, and through his righteousness it may be justified. we might bring dr. ames and dr. twiss for our fifth and sixth witnesses, for they are of the same opinion with rollock as to this matter, save that rollock took the word regeneration to signify the same thing with sanctification, which comes after effectual calling and justification; whereas they took effectual calling and regeneration to be two words, which signify the same thing, to wit, the first saving change which is wrought in the soul, when a new seminal principle of spiritual life is put into it, and it is brought off from sin and the world, unto christ, and unto god through christ, that it may be justified by faith in his blood. this appears to have been their judgement by what we have already quoted out of them upon the former head. let but any that can read in ames his marrow of divinity, the twenty sixth chapter of the first book, concerning vocation; as likewise the tenth chapter of his reply to grevinchovius concerning the nature of faith, where he proves, that god by his spirit puts a seminal permanent principle of grace into the soul at its first conversion, and that before any act of saving faith, and consequently before justification; we say, let but any man read those two chapters of dr. ames his books now mentioned, and he will see it as clear as the sun, that he was of the same mind with rollock, and held, that an holy change is wrought on us, and a seed or principle of holiness is put into us, and some holy act is produced by us before we be justified, and our sins be forgiven us. and as for dr. twiss, though the antinomians have laid claim to him, and some of ours have almost given him up to them, by reason of some expressions of his which seem to favour them; yet mr. jessop in his preface to mr. grailes book, hath showed that they have no sufficient ground for their so doing; and hath proved (as we have further done) that he is on our side against them: yea and against our author too. we read, that arminius in the preface to his answer unto perkins, complained, that though mr. perkins did not, yet there were some others who did contend that repentance doth not go before, but follow after remission of sins. twiss vind. gratiae resp. ad arminii praefat. pag. 17. edit. amster. 1648. fol. whereunto dr. twiss answered, by confessing ingenuously, that the places of holy scripture, which prove that repentance is before remission of sins, are (& expressiora & frequentiora) both more express and more numerous; than those that seem to favour the other opinion. and indeed the places of scripture, that speak of people's repenting after their sins are pardoned, prove nothing at all, but what we and all sober christians grant, that our repentance is to be continued all the days of our life; and that the repentance which is begun before justification, and is but weak and imperfect, is to be carried on through grace unto greater perfection afterwards, by reducing our purposes into practice, and bringing forth fruits meet for repentance; to the doing whereof the assurance of god's special love to us in having pardoned our sins, and accepted us as righteous unto life through jesus christ, doth not a little animate and excite us. as to what twiss saith there, that it is without controversy, that as remission of sins is an immanent act in god, it is before both faith and repentance; that is, neither more nor less than this, that god himself and his decree to remit sin, is before both faith and repentance; which is indeed very true, for god and his decree was before this world, or any thing in this world: but though it be true, it is nothing to the purpose; for to speak properly as we ought, and as the lord speaks to us in his word, remission of sins, is not an immanent act of god; that is, it is not the decree of god which is eternal, but the consequent and the effect of the decree, which is temporal, and is every where promised in the scripture, as a thing future and to come upon condition of faith, and repentance; as dr. twiss himself expressly affirms most frequently over and over, as we have showed already, and may do it yet farther hereafter. from single witnesses, we pass to a whole assembly of divines, who give in their testimony for us, and it is the synod of dort, the most famous assembly of divines, that ever was in the reformed churches; for it consisted of a great number of learned men, delegated and deputed from all the best reformed churches in europe. in the eleventh and twelfth canons, on the third and fourth articles, their words are, as followeth. act. synodi dord. part. 1. p. 303. but when god executes this his good pleasure in the elect, or works in them true conversion, he not only causeth the gospel to be outwardly preached to them, and by the holy spirit powerfully enlightens their mind, that they may rightly understand, and discern the things of the spirit of god; but also by the efficacy of the same regenerating spirit, he penetrates or pierces into the innermost parts of man, he opens his closed, he softens his hard, and circumcises his uncircumcised heart; he infuses new qualities into his will, and of dead makes it alive, of evil makes it good, of unwilling makes it willing, of disobedient makes it obedient, and so acts and strengthens it, that as a good tree, it may be able to bring forth the fruit of good actions.— and then the will now renewed, is not only acted and moved by god, but being acted by god, it acts itself. wherefore even man himself by that grace received, is rightly said to believe and repent. this was subscribed by the whole synod, now here we have such a testimony of the reformed churches for a real change, for holy qualifications and dispositions in the soul of man before justification; as we are sure our author can never find the like to oppose against us, for no real change, no holy qualifications or dispositions in the soul of man before sustification. and that the synod held this real change, those holy qualifications or dispositions to be in the soul before justification, is manifest, because they affirm all this to be necessary that the will may be able to act, and that the man may produce the saving acts of faith and repentance; but so it is, that the very act itself of faith is before justification as hath been proved, and so it was believed to be by the synodic therefore a fortiori, all that is before the act of faith, is also before justification. this were enough, if we could say no more, to prove that it is we who cleave to the old received protestant doctrine in this matter. yet something more we will add from some of the suffrages of the colleges of divines recorded in the acts of the synod. and first, we find that the embdane divines in their judgement, concerning the first article do very particularly and clearly set down the way and order of gods bringing his elect unto eternal life and glory. their words are, actor. synodi dord. part 2. pag. 77. (via, inter electionis decretum & decreti finem, intermedia, quâ deus ex mera gratiâ peculiariter electos ad salutem provehit, est (1.) christus. (2.) vocatio ad christum efficax. (3.) fides. (4.) justificatio per fidem, etc.) the intermediate way between the decree of election, and the end of the decree, by which god of mere grace brings to salvation those whom he hath peculiarly chosen, is (1.) christ. (2.) effectual vocation unto christ. (3.) faith. (4.) justification, etc. to these they speak particularly one after another. first, they show that christ is deservedly set in the first place, for he is the second adam, through whom all the elect are saved by unspeakable mercy. what they say of christ there, we all agree to, and also that all the other particulars are subordinate to him and through him. then they speak to the second means, which is effectual calling, and that they say is, (quando vox dei per suos ministros, etc. when the voice of god by his ministers so found'st, outwardly in the ears of the body, that together with it the spirit of god inwardly fits or prepares the mind of the hearer, that it may be able to understand, and efficaciously disposes the will to assent (or rather consent). then they proceed to the next (tertium est fides vera, etc. the third is true faith, to wit, when from effectual calling, there arifeth the knowledge of salvation understood, and again assent follows that knowledge, and that such an assent as applies the promise of the gospel to the believers own conscience, etc. lastly, they say that the fourth and fifth means are the effects of true faith in the elect, and they are justification, and after that, sanctification and perseverance to the end. from this testimony of the embdane divines, it is as evident, that in their judgement, there are some holy, saving preparations and dispositions in the souls of god's select people before they be justified, as it is evident that the second is before the fourth; for effectual vocation, whereby those holy dispositions are wrought in the soul, is the second, and justification is the fourth, between which, actual faith comes in as the third. so that if we can but reckon two, three, four, and can understand, that if the second be before the third, it must be also before the fourth, then may we see that there are some holy dispositions and qualifications in the soul arising from effectual calling, before justification. this was read in and approved by the synod, and therefore here we have again the testimony of the whole synod of dort, for holy dispositions and qualifications in the soul before justification. it would be almost endless to run over all the suffrages of the several colleges of divines, and to quote what they have said to this purpose, therefore we shall pass that as superfluous, and conclude with the testimony of our own british divines, which is to be seen in their collegiate suffrage translated into english and printed in the year, 1629. their words are, god doth regenerate, by a certain winward and wonderful operation, the suffrage of the divines of great britain, art. 3.4. pag. 70.80, 81. the souls of the elect being stirred up and prepared by the foresaid acts of his grace, and doth, as it were create them anew, by infusing his quickening spirit, and seasoning all the faculties of the soul with new qualities. here, by regeneration we understand not every act of the holy spirit, which goes before or tends to regeneration, but that act which assoon as it is there, we conclude presently (or as the original hath it, it may presently be rightly affirmed) this man is now born of god. this spiritual birth presupposes a mind moved by the spirit, using the instrument of god's word, whence also we are said to be born again by the incorruptible seed of the word, 1 pet. 1.23. which must be observed, lest any one should idly and slothfully expect an enthusiastical regeneration, that is to say, wrought by a sudden rapture, without any foregoing action either of god, the word, or himself. furthermore we conclude that the spirit regenerating us, doth convey itself into the most inward closet of the heart, and frame the mind anew, by curing the sinful inclinations thereof, and by giving it strength, and a formal principle. (in the original, it is principium formale) or active power to produce spiritual and saving actions, ephes. 2.10. we are his workmanship created in christ jesus unto good works. ezek. 36.26. i will take away the stony heart, and give you an heart of flesh. from this work of god cometh our ability to perform spiritual actions leading to salvation, as the act of believing, 1 john 5.1. whosoever believes that jesus is the christ, is born of god. of loving, 1 john 4.7. every one that loveth, is born of god. lastly, all works of piety, john 15.5. without mere can do nothing.— again, upon the former (habitual) conversion, pag. 83.84. followeth our actual conversion, wherein out of our reformed, or changed will (for the original is ex mutata voluntate) god himself draweth forth the very act of our believing, and converting, and this our will being first moved by god, doth itself also work by turning unto god (convertendo se ad deum;) and believing, that is, by executing (eliciendo, producing) withal, it's own proper lively act.— we say that god doth not only work that habitual conversion or change (for the word in the original is mutationem) whereby a man gets new spiritual ability to believe and convert, but also that god doth by a certain wonderful efficacy of his secret operation, pag. 85. extract out of our regenerated (sanatâ, cured) will, the very act of believing and converting. so the scripture speaketh in divers places, john 6.65. the father giveth us power to come unto the son, that is to believe. phil. 1.29. to you it is given to believe, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the very act of believing. 2 tim. 2.25. god giveth repentance.— this action of god in producing faith doth not hinder, pag. 86. but rather is the cause that the will doth work together with god, and produce its own act; and therefore this act of believing, howsoever it is sent (or given) from god, yet because it is performed by man, is attributed to man himself, rom. 10.10. with the heart man believeth unto righteousness. 2 cor. 4.13. i believed, therefore have i spoken. again. this action of god doth not hurt the freedom of the will, but strengthen it. pag. 87.88. — here we deny that by the divine operation there is any wrong offered to the will (or any hurt done to it, for it is in the original, negamus loesionem voluntatis) for god doth so work in nature, even when he raiseth and advanceth it above its proper sphere, that he doth not destroy the particular nature of any thing, but leaves to every thing it's own way and motion (in actione producenda) in producing its action. when therefore god worketh in the wills of men by his spirit of grace, he makes them move in their own natural way or course, that is, freely; and then they do the work the more freely, by how much they are the more effectually stirred up by the spirit of god, john 8.36. if the son make you free, you shall be free indeed. 2 cor. 3.17. where the spirit of the lord is, there is liberty. verily it seemeth incredible to us, that god who made our wills, and gifted them with liberty, should not be able to work on them, or in them, after such a manner, as that he may produce any good action by them without hurting their nature, that is freely; (ut quamlibet bonam actionem per easdem, illaesâ earum naturâ, hoc est liberé, eliciat). by these passages quoted out of the suffrage of our divines in the synod of dort, it is most evident that both they, and the synod which approved their suffrage, and gave them great thanks for it, did all of them believe that there is and must be a great and holy change wrought on us, and holy dispositions and qualifications bestowed on us, before we are immediately able, (and that we may be able) to believe and repent, and consequently before we are justified.— yea our divines expressly reject it, as the first arminian error against that part of the third and fourth articles, which relates to regeneration and conversion unto god by faith and repentance. [that in regeneration there are no spiritual gifts infused into the wills of men.] pag. 91. this arminian error, they disprove, and amongst other arguments against it, pag. 92. they use this for one. [as the will of a mere natural man, is said to be vicious from a certain inbred and inherent wickedness, which in a wicked man even when he doth nothing, is habitual; so again we must acknowledge that in the will of the regenerate, there is a certain righteousness or goodness (as it is in the original) given and infused by god, which is presupposed unto their religious actions. st. austin in many places setteth forth this habitual righteousness or goodness.— and prosper calls this goodness of the will, prosper de vocat. gentium. lib. 1. c. 6. (superni agricolae primam plantationem) the first planting of the heavenly husbandman. now a plantation notes something engrafted in the soul, not an act or action flowing from the soul.] thus our divines at dort, whereby we see that it is a branch of arminianism to deny that there is any holy habit, seed, root or permanent principle of grace, or any spiritual qualification wrought in the soul before justification. and we find that long ago robinson one of the rigidest separatists from the worship and discipline of the church of england, yet religiously adhered to her doctrine in this point we are upon, for thus he writes in defence of the doctrine of the synod at dort. robinson's defence of the doct. of the synod at dort. p. 109. pag. 132.133. [that a man may have his sins pardoned, who yet wants all brotherly love and goodness, the scriptures every where deny. mat. 6.14, 15. 1 joh. 3.14, 15. mark 11 24, 25. rom. 8.1. psal. 32.1, 2.]. and afterwards in the same book, [by the word and spirit (saith he) god regenerates men, or gives them faith and repentance, which they must have before they can believe or repent; as the child must have life before it can live, or do acts of life, and must be generated or begotten before it have life or being, regeneration therefore goes before faith and repentance.] here we see that old, rigid, zealous nonconformist held that there must be a real, great change made on a man; a holy principle must be put into him, and holy qualifications bestowed upon him before he can believe and repent, and consequently before he can be justified. pag. 56. again, before in the same book, he saith expressly, that rom. 8.29, 30. shows plainly that our predestination or election goes before our calling, and our calling before our justification.— and in the same page, gods choosing a man, (whether in decree from eternity, or by actual and effectual calling, and calling of him out of the state of sin, by giving him the spirit of faith and grace) goes before his believing, for he cannot believe before he have faith, nor have it before god give him it, but his actual saving by justification and glorificaton follows after faith. the same truth is witnessed unto by mr. ball, in his treatise of faith, part 1. p. 1.36. [every one (saith he) is not fit to receive the promise of mercy, the enemies of the gospel of christ, worldlings, hypocrites, and all in whom, sin reigneth, can have no true faith in christ; he is only sit to receive mercy, who knows that he is lost in himself, and unsatiably desires to be eased of the heavy burden of his sins.— faith is a work of grace— of the essicacy of god's spirit, whereby we answer to the effectual call of god, and come unto him, that we might be partakers of life eternal.— and if saving effectual calling be precedent to faith, the subject of living faith is man savingly called according to the purpose of gods will. we can teach no faith to salvation, but according to the rule of christ, (mark 1.15.) repent and believe the gospel; no remission, but according to the like rule, luke, 24.47. acts 2.37, 38. our last witness is mr. gataker, who saith [god doth not actually remit or release sin, until he give grace to repent, gatakers shadows without substance. p. 55. which in the gospel phrase and method goes constantly before pardon, etc.] we might easily bring many more of our reformed divines to witness unto this truth, but these are sufficient to show, that it is the old protestant doctrine, generally received in the reformed churches, that there is and must be a real holy change, a seminal permanent principle of spiritual life, some holy dispositions and qualifications wrought in us by the spirit of christ, before we are justified by faith in the blood of christ. and here by the way, we must tell our author, what it may be, he doth not know, first, that if he will believe bardwardin, let. p. 13. with whom (he saith) god blessed england against the pelagians, than he will find it to be a branch of the pelagian heresy, that there is no gracious principle, no holy disposition or qualification wrought in us before our justification. for bradwardin saith so expressly, bradward. de causâ dei lib. 1. cap. 43. p. 397. [asserunt ambae (parts residuae opinionis pelagii) remissionem peccati & justificationem injusti praecedere gratiam tempore vel naturâ.] that is, both the remaining parts of the opinion of pelagius, assert that remission of sin, and the justification of the unjust, go before grace in time or in nature. thus bradwardin, and then he falls a confuting of this pelagian opinion, by such arguments as most manifestly show, that by the word (grace) there, he meant not the , love, and favour of god, but the effect of it upon the soul, even a gracious gift communicated unto, and a real holy change wrought in the soul; whereby of ungracious it is made inherently gracious, and of unjust and unholy, it is made inwardly just and holy. this grace, this gracious change he maintains to be in order before remission of sin, and the denial of this grace, this gracious change before remission of sin, he declares to be a branch of pelagian heresy. we thought fit to let the world know, that what by some is accounted pure gospel doctrine now, was in former times accounted a part of pelagius his opinion, and that even by bradwardin, whom our author so highly commends. yet at the same time we must declare, that we do by no means approve bradwardins way of confuting that pelagian opinion; for he was himself erroneous in the point of justification, and held that we are justified before god by inherent holiness, and in this very place, endeavours to prove against pelagius that grace is before remission of sin, because sin is a privation, which is no otherwise remitted, than by the habit of grace its coming in, and driving sin out of the soul, just as death is expelled or driven away by life, blindness by sight, darkness by light, ignorance by knowledge. thus he confuted pelagius' error in the point of justification. and now let all protestants judge whether pelagius was not well confuted, and whether. england was not greatly blessed with such a confuter of pelagius in the point of justification! we are confident our author was wholly ignorant of the principles of bradwardin, otherwise he would have been wiser than to have quoted him against us in this controversy: but it is his way to talk confidently of what he doth not understand. yet our god is infinitely wise, and brings light out of his darkness, for by this we come to understand by the testimony of bradwardin (who we hope may be believed in a matter of fact) that it was a piece of pelagianism to hold that we are justified, and our sins pardoned, before there be a real change made in us; and holy dispositions or qualifications wrought in our souls by christ's holy spirit. and if any body should question the truth of bradwardins testimony, concerning pelagius' opinion about justification, we can prove the same matter of fact, by the testimony of a better witness; and that is the famous augustine, who was contemporary with pelagius, and wrote against his opinions at their first appearance in the world. the other secret which we have to tell our author, is, that it is a popish opinion to assert that there is no gracious principle infused, no holy disposition or qualification wrought in us by god's spirit, before the remission of our sins. of this opinion was jacobus almainus a doctor of the sorbon, who lived in the 15th century a little before the reformation, as appears by what he writes in his book of morality. lib. moral. tract. de charitate. (ista rationalis, est vera, quia deus acceptat aliquem ad vitam aeternam, dat illi charitatem, & non è diverso: nam ista est falsa, quia dat charitatem, acceptat ad vitam aeternam, ergo prius naturâ acceptat ad vitam aeternam, quam det charitatem infusam.) this way of reasoning is true, because god accepts a man unto eternal life, therefore he gives him love, or infuses into him a principle of grace; but not on the contrary for this is false, that because god gives him love, or infuses into him a principle of grace, therefore he accepts him unto eternal life, and therefore god doth first in order of nature accept a man unto eternal life, before he give him infused charity. thus almain, whereupon we observe, that he held justification taken in the protestant sense, to be before any real holy change be made in the soul, by infused grace in regeneration and effectual calling. for (1.) by acceptance unto eternal life, he meant that we call by the name of justification. (2.) by god's giving infused love, he meant that which we call regeneration and effectual calling, or the holy change that is thereby begun in the soul. but so it is, that he held acceptance unto eternal life, to be before the gift of infused love, or infused grace, which they call by the name of love; therefore he held justification to be in order before effectual calling, or any holy principle put into, or change wrought in the soul thereby. and the popish bishops of walemburgh are yet more clearly for this, for thus they writ, walemb. de justificat. cap. 11. num. 9 [remission of sins taken for the not imputing of them, in order of nature goes before inherent justice.] that is, in their way of speaking, before the infusion of any principle of grace and holiness, and this they prove by the word of the seventh chapter, of the sixth session of the council of trent, whereunto they add, that remission of sins is not the same thing, with inherent justice, because that according to bellarmine, vasquez, and many other school divines, our sins may be absolutely pardoned and remitted, by the mere non-imputation of them, without the infusion of inward and. inherent justice or holiness, and consequently the remission of sins or justification (as the protestants speak) and inward, inherent justite, which according to them, is sanctification (begun) may be separated, and may be given unto us, the one without the other. these are the very words (truly translated) of monsieur le feure a doctor of the sorbon, in a book written against the famous monsieur arnauld, in the year, 1685. the case was this, monsieur arnauld, in his renversement de la morale, had laboured hard to prove that such calvinists as our author, replique a monsieur arnauld pour la defence du liure des motises invincibles. p. 61, 62. had so corrupted our christian morals by their errors about justification, that they are the vilest of heretics, and can never be good catholics; this was the judgement of the ringleader of the jansenists, (whom our author commends, p. 21. of his letter) that such protestants as he is, are damned heretics by reason of their errors in the matter of justification; but on the contrary monsieur le feure undertakes to prove by invincible arguments, that such calvinists as our author, may be good roman catholics, notwithstanding all that monsieur arnauld hath written to prove them heretics; for tho' they hold that men may be pardoned and justified, before there be any real change made in them, or any holy permanent principle of grace, disposition or qualificatien wrought in their souls by the holy spirit; yet they may be good catholics for all that; because almain, and the bishops of walemburgh were of the same opinion concerning justification; and tho' bellarmine and vasquez do not think that de facto, justification is after that manner, yet they confess it is possible it may be so; and the council of trent is not against, but rather for its being so, de facto: and these were all good roman catholics. therefore such a calvinist as eur author may likewise be a good roman catholic, for in this matter he agrees with the doctrine of the roman church. this to us seems to have been the design of that learned and politic sorbonist, to show that such opinions about justification, as this is, should not hinder a reconciliation with the church of rome, since she holds the same doctrine herself. whether le feure do right to his own church or not, in fastening that opinion upon her, concerns not us to inquire after; but we think he has sufficiently proved, that it is a popish opinion, that is, an opinion that hath been long in the church or rome, and is in it, and held by some of its bishops at this day. and we know the possibility or impossibility of the thing, hath been matter of not disputes amongst their schoolmen. witness vasque● in 1●. 2dae. dispur. 206, 207.— suarez l. 2. degratiâ, cap. 22, 23. becan. in summâ theolog. partis 2dae. part 1. tract. 4. de justificat. cathol. cap. 3. q. 5. §. 26. bezant. duval. & meratius— if our author please to consult those popish schoolmen, he may find some arguments that may be of some use to him, and may help him to persuade the people to believe that god may forgive them their sins before there be any saving change of their hearts; and any holy seed or principle or grace put into them, or any gracious disposition or qualification wrought in them by the spirit of christ. and the people may if they please, go on to drink in that pelagian, popish and arminian doctrine, taking it upon our author's word to be a part of the pure christian religion, and of the doctrine of justification by free grace without good works and holy qualifications, or any thing that looks like them. but for our parts we declare, that we are for the doctrine of the synod of dort, in the point of a real holy change, and holy qualifications before justification, and cannot but prefer it before that pelagian opinion, which some people are so fond of; and they must not expect that ever we will humour them in that matter, unless our author will solidly answen our arguments, and give us better arguments for his opinion, than we have here given for ours. as for what he saith to that purpose in his letter, we can therein find nothing of any weight; as r. in page 9 we say not (quoth he) that there is an actual partaking of christ's fullness of grace, till we be in him by faith, though this faith is also given us on christ's behalf, phil. 1.29. and we believe through grace, acts 18.27. thus he argues to prove, that all the grace we receive from christ, comes from our being united to him by faith, and so that we cannot actually partake of the grace of christ before our union with christ by faith. now if this be so, we demand of him concerning this being in christ by faith, or (which is the same thing) this union with christ by faith, either it is effected by the grace of christ, or without the grace of christ, by the mere power of nature? not the second, to wit, without the grace of christ, by the mere power of nature. for (1.) that is rank pelagianism, or semipelagianism at least. (2.) it is contrary to what he says in the same place, that the faith by which we come to be in christ is given us on christ's behalf, and that we believe through grace. the first than is that, which he doth and must choose to say, to wit, that our union with christ by faith is effected by the grace of christ: and then it is self-evident. that that grace of christ which effects faith in us and the union with christ by faith, is before faith and the union by faith, because the cause always is and must be in order of nature before the effect. and further, if the grace of christ by which we believe first in him and are united to him, be before that faith and union by faith, than we receive that grace from christ before we be in christ by faith, and we receive it to this end, that our faculties may be fitted and prepared, yea and powerfully helped actually to believe, and by believing to be actually united unto christ; thus our author is caught in a net of his own making, he blows hot and cold out of the same mouth, and contradicts himself most foully in saying, that we do not actually partake of christ's fullness till we be in him by faith, and yet that we have that faith, and union by faith, from the grace of christ as the cause thereof; for certainly that grace is a part of christ's fullness, and if he give it us and we receive it from him for the producing of faith and union with him by faith, than we actually partake of his fullness before we be in him by faith. that people therefore may no more be puzzled with such self-confounding and contradictious stuff, we desire them to consider, (1.) that all our supernatural grace is from christ by his spirit, this we are all agreed in. (2.) that yet all supernatural grace is not from christ after the same way and manner, for there is some grace from christ before union, and in order to union, and some grace is from christ united, from christ now in actual union with our souls by faith; of the first sort, is the first preventing grace, the grace by which we are effectually called; the grace by which we are disposed and prepared to believe; and by which we do actually believe, and by so believing answer the call, receive christ into our hearts, and come to be actually united unto him. this grace being the cause of faith, and of the union by faith, is before union with christ, and so cannot possibly be from christ considered as united to us by faith. though then all our grace be from christ, yet it is notoriously false, that it is all from him as ours already by faith; for preventing grace which is before faith, is not drawn from christ by faith; as also faith itself, we mean the first principle and first act of faith, is not drawn from christ as already ours by faith, for then faith would be both before and after itself, which is contradictious nonsense, and impossible. of the second sort, is all subsequent grace, the grace of justification, of progressive sanctification and perseverance, yea all that grace whereby gods select people (being once called according to his purpose) are fitted for, and brought unto glory, is from christ united, from christ in actual union with our souls by faith. augustin writing against the pelagians above 12 hundred years ago, angust. epist. 105. hath cleared up this matter in few words, writing thus to sixtus, [ita sine spiritu sidei, non est rectê quispiam crediturus, nec sine spiritu orationis salubriter oraturus; non quia tot sint spiritus sed omnia haec operatur unus atque idem spiritus, dividens propria unicuique prout vult: quia spiritus ubi vult, spirat. sed quod fatendum est, aliter adjuvat nondum inhabitans, aliter inhabitans,— nam nondum inhabitans adjuvat ut sint fideles; inhabitans adjuvat jam fideles.] that is, so without the spirit of faith, no man will ever believe aright, nor without the spirit of prayer, will any man ever pray in a saving manner; not that there are so many spirits, but one and the same spirit doth all these things, dividing unto every man that which is proper to him, as he will, for the spirit breathes where he will. but it must be confessed that the spirit doth otherwise help before he doth inhabit, and otherwise when he doth inhabit in the soul; for before be come to inhabit in the soul, he helps men that they may be believers; but when he doth inhabit and dwell in the soul, he helps them who are believers. this one distinction of augustine's attended unto, would help people to understand this matter, and to answer all that our author saith against any real change, or holy seed, disposition or qualification wrought in the soul before it be justified. for our blessed lord by his holy spirit, first prepares and qualifies, and makes us meet to be an habitation for himself; and then he comes unto us by the same spirit, and dwells in us and abides with us for ever, ephes. 2.22. and 3.17. and 1 cor. 3.16. now the first of these, is in order before justification. god by his spirit and word, first makes us such as his word requires us to be, that we may be justified; he savingly enlightens our minds, and enlivens our hearts, he gives us a seed of faith, and a holy principle of light, lise and love, and by an influence of actual grace, causes us freely to reduce the said seed and principle into act, and so actually to believe and repent; which when we do through grace, than he justifies us on the account of christ's satisfactory meritorious righteousness imputed to us. and after that we are effectually called, and thereupon are become penitent believers, and are justified and reconciled; the lord gives us his spirit, and by his spirit he comes and dwells in us, he strengthens and increases the grace that he had begun in us, and makes us more and more holy in heart and life. this is that which is commonly called sanctification, and follows after justification, and through christ's dwelling in us by his spirit, is carried on from one decree to another, till it have attained its gradual perfection, and be consummated in glory. let. p. 11. but he objects, (2.) shall we tell men, that unless they be holy, they must not believe on jesus christ; nor venture on him for salvation, till they be qualified, and fit to be received by him. this were to forbear preaching the gospel at all, or to forbid all men to believe on christ; for never was any sinner qualified for christ, nor is it possible that ever any sinner should be qualified for christ. we answer our author had said a little before in the same page, that every one who believes on christ, acts that faith as the chief of sinners, that is, believes as an unbeliever, as was before proved to be his meaning by his own express words, if his words be expressive of his mind. and now by the question, which he puts to us here, he seems plainly to be of opinion, that every man must believe as an unbeliever, or else no man can ever believe at all; and ministers must give over preaching the gospel, for they can never preach it as it should be preached, unless they tell people that they must act their faith as the chief of sinners, that is, they must believe as unbelievers; for either we must tell people that they must believe as unbelievers, or else that they must not believe till they be first holy, and that is, that they must never believe at all, because it is impossible for them to be holy, till after they have believed in christ and be united unto him by faith. this is plainly the sense of our author's words, and the force of his reasoning; which puts us in mind of what calvin says out of augustin (the bono perseverantiae, cap. 22.) calv. instit. lib. 3. cap. 23. § 14. that there are (insulsi doctores gratiae) some foolish preachers of grace, and surely (if any) they are to be accounted such preachers, who in effect tell people that they must believe as unbelievers, or else they must not believe till they be first holy, and that is, they must never believe at all. but is there no way to avoid this foolish senseless way of preaching? our author thinks there is not, we on the contrary are persuaded, that there is a way to avoid it; and in our judgement it may thus be easily done; we tell people that they must believe in christ not as unholy unbelievers, nor yet as holy with that holiness which is the effect of believing and follows after faith in christ; but by ceasing to be unholy unbelievers, and by becoming holy believers; and if they ask us how this can possibly be done? we answer, not by power of nature, but by the power of god's special grace? if they ask further, how they can obtain that special grace before they believe and be in christ by faith, since all grace is derived from christ by faith? we answer, that all grace indeed is derived from christ, but it is a most notorious falsehood, that all grace is derived from christ by faith; for the first special grace which is the cause of faith, and whereby we believe in christ, is not from christ by faith, but it is from christ before faith; and it is given us by the holy spirit of christ to work faith in us, and to bring us into union with christ by faith; if they say that even according to this way, people must still believe before they are holy, and so must believe as not being yet holy. we answer, that is true in one respect and false in another. it is true that people must believe before they are holy with that progressive holiness, which is the effect of justifying faith, and follows after justification; but it is utterly false, that people do believe or can believe savingly before they are initially holy, before they are holy with that first beginning and principle of holiness, which consists in removing the ill disposition of our faculties, and in giving our faculties a right spiritual supernatural disposition and fitness for the act of believing; this holy principle concurs to the producing of the act of faith, and so must be in order before it, and then the act itself of faith, which is an holy act, must be in order before justification: therefore it is utterly false, that there can be no holiness at all, in any kind or degree before faith and justification by faith, since before actual faith, there is the holy seed and principle both of faith and repentance and of other graces too, and in order of nature there is an holy actual faith before justification; and this is a truth so clear that our author himself sometimes could see it, as pag. 21. where he says that no man can do any thing that is good, till gospel grace renew him, and make him first a good man; this is very true, if it be rightly understood, thus, no man can do any thing that is spiritually, supernaturally and savingly good, till gospel grace, that is, internal special grace renew him and make him first a good man, that is, a good man initially, or make him begin to be a good man. but now this makes against our author himself, and clearly proves that no man can believe with a saving justifying faith, till gospel grace renew him and make him first a good man: this consequence from his own words he can never avoid, unless he will say that a saving justifying faith is no good thing; for if it be not an evil but a good thing, no man can do it till gospel grace have renewed him, and make him first a good man. so then we have found by his own confession that a man is first good through grace, and then he believes in christ to justification. and if a man be thus good, initially good before he actually believe with a saving justifying faith, then is he holy also, initially holy before he do so believe, for that initial goodness, and this initial holiness is one and the same thing. and further, if a man may be, and must be thus initially good and holy before he actually believe, than he may be qualified before he actually believe; for he cannot be good and holy as aforesaid, without gods putting some good qualities into him. this the synod of dort, hath determined in their 11. canon on the 3d and 4th articles, as was showed before, and it is hoped our author will not oppose the determination of that synod. now whenever god by his spirit puts good qualities into a man, he thereby qualifies him; for the very formal effect of good qualities, is to qualify the man to whom god gives them. pag. 11. but saith our author, whence should a man have any good qualification before he be in christ by faith, since a sinner out of christ, hath no qualification for christ but sin and misery. we answer, that before a man be in christ by faith, he hath some good qualification from christ by his spirit preparing him for, and bringing him unto union with himself by actual faith. as to what he saith, that a sinner out of christ hath no qualification for christ but sin and misery: we answer, by distinguishing thus, he hath no qualification but sin and misery, of and from himself; it is true. but that he hath no qualification of and from christ by his holy spirit, but sin and misery; it is utterly false, and the contrary is true, to wit, that a man who hath no qualification of and from himself, but the evil qualification of sin and misery, yet of and from christ by his spirit and word, he hath the good qualification of a heart in part changed and renewed, and of a holy seed and prineiple of grace put into his heart. though a man cannot qualify himself for christ; yet nothing hinders but that christ by his spirit and word can qualify a man for union with himself, and for justification by his meritorious righteousness. yes saith our author, something doth hinder, for i boldly assert, that such a man (who were so qualified) would not, let. p. 11. nor could ever believe on christ. we are not willing here to apply the proverb, that none is so bold as blind bayard. but this we must say, that we cannot see that this man hath any probable ground for such confidence. sure we are, it will be a very difficult task to prove that a man cannot possibly believe in christ, because christ by his word and spirit, hath fitted and qualified him for believing. but it seems nothing is difficult to this bold man, and therefore he will prove it by an argument taken from the nature of faith; thus, faith (saith he) is a lost, helpless, condemned sinners casting himself on christ for salvation. but the qualified man is no such person. and then the conclusion, if rightly inferred from the premises, is this, ergo, the qualified man is not faith, etc. a goodly argument indeed, and a foundation fit for this man to ground his confidence upon. if he say that his argument doth not so conclude, but rather thus. faith is a gracious act, whereby a lost helpless condemned sinner, casts himself on christ for salvation; but the qualified man is not a lost helpless condemned sinner, casting himself on christ for salvation, therefore the qualified man is not (what is he not? why he is not?) a lost helpless condemned sinner casting himself on christ for salvation. is this now his argument? and doth it thus conclude, than his argument is as ridiculous as his confidence. let him keep to his premises laid down in his letter, and if he can, let him regularly infer from them another conclusion than one of these. but let what will become of the form of his argument. we answer by distinguishing both propositions. and (1.) for the first, we say, that a person who by true faith casts himself on christ for salvation, is indeed a sinnor, lost and helpless in and of himself, and he is condemned by the law; but though that be true, yet in order of nature before he believes, and in the very act of believing, he is found and helped by the lord, and hath a pardon offered him by the gospel, and by faith he receives it, acts 10.43. then for the second proposition, we distinguish it also thus. the qualified man is not such a person; is not a lost, helpless, condemned sinner; that is, the man that is, (1.) qualified with a satisfactory, meritorious qualification. (2.) that is, so qualified by himself, he is not such a person: it is true, and we grant it. but with all, we say that indeed it is impossible for any man so to qualify himself. yet we maintain, that a man who is qualified by the holy spirit, and free effectual grace of christ, is such a person, and doth by faith ●ast himself on christ for salvation; our being qualified by the holy spirit and free effectual grace of christ, is so far from hindering our believing (as our author boldly, but ignorantly affirms) that in truth it doth very much further our believing; it lets us see, and causes us to feel that we are lost and helpless in and of ourselves, and condemned by the law, and that we are found and helped by the lord, and can be pardoned only by the gospel. whereupon it inclines and moves us, to flee unto christ for refuge, and to cast ourselves on him for justification and salvation. thirdly, in the same page, let. p. 11. we have another of his objections against the truth, we have been proving by scripture, reason, and testimony of protestant divines. [shall we (saith he) warn people that they should not believe on christ too soon?] either this interrogation is altogether impertinent, or there is this argument implied in it, if there be a real change, and a holy gracious principle wrought in people's hearts, before they do or can believe with a saving justifying faith, than it will follow that ministers should warn people not to believe on christ too soon, but so to do is absurd and contrary to scripture. we answer, by denying the consequence of the first proposition as false, for it doth not follow that we should warn people not to believe on christ too soon. and we have nothing offered to prove that such an absurdity follows from our doctrine, but this man's bare word, which we have found to be so often false in matter of fact, that we can give no credit to it in other things. and he is so unhappy here and elsewhere throughout his letter, that he makes his own tongue or pen to fall upon himself; for he confesses that it is no good argument, that if people cannot be truly holy before the tree be changed, matth. 12.33, 34, 35. and before they have a new heart, ezek. 36.26, 27. (as he grants they cannot), than ministers should warn people not to be holy too soon. for to give them any such warning he grants to be absurd. let him then consider, let. p. 11, 12. whether the same or the like answer he can give to this argument, which would prove that ministers should warn people not to be holy too soon, may not be given to the other silly argument, whereby he would prove that upon our principle ministers should warn people not to believe on christ too soon; for it is as certainly true, that people cannot actually believe on christ with a saving justifying faith, before the tree be changed and the heart be in part renewed; as it is that they cannot be truly holy before the tree be changed, and the heart be renewed. when we are to deal with unbelievers, our lord hath given us other work to do, than to warn them not to believe too soon; and let our author try when he pleases, he will find enough to do, to convince them, that their present indisposition and disability to believe, doth not free them from the obligation, which the lord by his word hath laid upon them to believe; and to direct them unto the right means, in the use whereof they may obtain from the lord both the necessary disposition unto faith, and also the principle and act of faith itself. our author we perceive has been at this work, and before we have done with him, we shall see what a rare specimen of his skill this way, he hath given the world. fourthly, but he farther objects, we hold forth that god justifieth the ungodly, pag. 25. rom. 4.5. neither by making him godly before he justify him, nor leaving him ungodly after be hath justified him; but that the same grace that justifies him, doth immediately sanctify him. we answer, this is the text that our antinomians much insist upon, and think it sufficient to make all men antinomians: and we are glad to find, that it hath not that full effect upon him, for though he be one with them, with respect to any holy change in order before justification, and denies it, as they do; yet he separates himself from them with respect to what follows after justification, and saith, that we are sanctified immediately after justification, and so he joins himself to us; now there may be good worldly policy in this to hold with both sides as much as he can. but if he do not agree with himself, what ground can others have to trust him, that ever he will hearty agree with them; and that he doth not agree with himself, we think is apparent from what he writes, pag. 16. a man (saith he) is to believe that he may be justified, gal. 2.16. again, pag. 32. no words or warnings repeated, nor plainest instructions can beat into men's heads and hearts, that the first coming to christ by faith, or believing on him, is not a believing we shall be saved by him, but a believing on him, that we may be saved by him. and again, pag. 7. the direct act is properly justifying saving faith, by which the lost sinner comes to christ, and relies upon him for salvation. yet when we do press sinners to come to christ by a direct act of faith, consisting in an humble reliance on him for mercy and pardon; they will understand us (whether we will or not) of a reflex act of faith, by which a man knows and believes that his sins are pardoned, and that christ is his: when they might easily know that we mean no such thing. these three passages, show clearly that he holds saving faith to be both before justification, and before assurance of justification. we confess that we do very well understand this to be the meaning of these words now quoted ou● of his letter, for we think they are not capable of any other sense; but though we understand the words of the letter, yet we do not understand the author of them, and we much doubt whether he understands himself; and that because he immediately adds, page 7. that mr. marshal in his excellent book lately published, hath largely opened this, and the true controversy of this day. and pag. 35. marshal's book (saith he) is a deep practical well jointed discourse,— and if it be singly used, i look upon it, as one of the most useful books the world hath seen for many years. i fear not, but it will stand firm as a rock against all opposition and will prove good seed, and food, and light, and life to many hereafter. who that reads this can doubt, but that our author has read marshal's book, and that he approves it, and believes every thing at least, that is material in it; and yet there is one thing very material in it, and it is one of the main joints in it, that justifying faith is a believing, that we are now justified and shall be eternally saved; and that the assurance of this, that we are now justified and shall be saved, is essential to the direct act of faith. this marshal with all his might strives to prove, and it seems he hath done it to the conviction of our author, who believes that, that opinion can never be disproved again. yea he seems so confident of the truth of marshal's opinion, that he spares not to reflect on the westminster assembly of divines for denying it, as they do in their confession of faith, chap. 18. art. 3. in these words. this infallible assurance doth not so belong to the essence of faith, but that a true believer may mait long, and conflict with many difficulties, before he be partaker of it: thus the assombly. but doth he reflect on them for this? why, if he doth not, let him tell us what he means by these following words, was not the holiness of the first protestants, eminent and shining? let. p. 22. and yet they generally put assurance in the definition of their faith. we cannot say that gospel holiness has prospered much by the correction or mitigation of that harsh-like definition. if these words of his (whatever might be his intention) do not reflect upon the assembly we do not understand plain english, and moreover we cannot but think also, that they imply his owning of marshal's definition of faith, as not being really harsh, but only harsh-like, though he puts assurance into it, as being essential to faith in its direct act. so that by comparing one passage of his letter with another, we find that he believes with marshal, that true faith in christ is a believing at first, that we are justified: and he believes with us that, that is not true, but that it is a believing only at first, that we may be justified. again, he believes with marshal, that justifying faith in its first direct act, is a believing that we shall be assuredly saved by christ. and he believes with us, that justifying faith in its first direct act, is no such thing, it is not a believing that we shall be saved by christ, but it is a believing, that we may be saved by christ. further, he believes with marshal, that assurance that our sins are forgiven, and that our souls shall be saved, is essential to the first direct act of justifying faith. and he believes with us, that it is quite otherwise, and that we do not get such assurance by the first direct act of faith, but by its reftex acts, which follow after the direct. and then for the antinomians, he believes with them that before justification there is no real change wrought in the soul, from ungodliness to godliness, in any kind or degree, because the apostle paul saith in rom. 4.5. that god justifies the ungodly. and yet he believes with us, that before justification, there is a real change wrought in the soul from unbelief to faith in christ, because the same apostle saith in gal. 2.16. that we believe in christ, that we may be justified. and he cannot deny, but that a real change from unbelief to faith in christ, is a change, and a real change too, from ungodliness to godliness in some kind or degree, because he himself holds unbelief to be the chiefest part of ungodliness, and faith in christ to be the chiefest part of godliness, witness his own words, pag. 15, 16. that believing on the lord jesus for salvation is more pleasing to god, than all obedience to his law, and that unbelief is the most provoking to god, and the most damning to men of all sins. if our author believe this, then by necessary consequence he believes that unbelief is the chiefest part of ungodliness, and that faith is the chiefest part of godliness; and that a real change from unbelief to faith in christ, is a real change from ungodliness to godliness in some kind and degree. the import and issue of this, is, that our author believes both parts of a contradiction. with the antinomians he believes that before justification, there is no real change from ungodliness to godliness in any kind or degree. and with us he believes, that before justification, there is a real change from the ungodliness of unbelief, to the godliness of faith, because the sinner through grace comes off from his ungodly unbelief that he may believe, and he believes that he may be justified, and so in order of nature before he be justified. now since our author is so strong a believer, that he can believe both parts of a contradiction; why may not we think that, as he believes that we preach a new pelagian, arminian gospel, so he may believe at the same time that we do not preach a new pelagian, arminian gospel, but the old everlasting gospel of christ. he believes in his letter, that we do preach a new gospel, and for aught we know to the contrary, he may at the same time believe in his conscience, that we do not preach a new gospel; for his letter and his conscience are two different things, that may not have much communion one with another, yea in this matter they may be at hostile enmity, the letter may be against his conscience, and his conscience against the letter. but will not the apostle paul justify him in believing contradictions, since he says in gal. 2.16. that men believe in christ, that they may be justified, and consequently that faith is before justification. but in rom. 4.5. he says, that god justifies the ungodly, and by that it seems that faith is after justification. we answer, far be it from any that fear the lord, to charge the apostle with contradicting himself, or with giving any ground to believe contradictions; for thus he writes to the corimbians, 2 cor. 1.18. as god is true, our word toward you, was not yea and nay. that is, it did not contradict itself. and as he did not contradict himself in preaching and writing to the corinthians, no more did he do it in preaching and writing to the romans and galatians. we must therefore so understand, rom. 4.5. (of which the question now is) as not to make it contradict, gal. 2.16. and that is no difficult matter to do. for we may easily conceive, that this form of speech (god justifieth the ungodly) is like that of our saviour, mat. 11.5. the deaf hear. now no man is so foolish as to think that the deaf remaining deaf, did first hear, and then immeditely after were cured of their deasness; why then should we be so foolish, as to understand the apostle as if he had said, that god justifies men whilst they remain ungodly without any real change wrought in them; and that immeditely after he hath justified them, he first gins to make them godly and to sanctify them? we are persuaded it is much more rational to understand the apostle the quite contrary way, to wit, that as the deaf were first in order of nature and causality cured of their deafness, and then they did actually hear; so god first works a holy change in the heart of a sinner, and of an ungodly unpenitent unbeliever makes him a godly penitent believer, and then immediately justifies him by faith in christ. so that the sinner whom god justifies, he is ungodly (antecedenter fed none concomitanter) that is, he was ungodly in the time before he was justified, but he is not ungodly either in the instant of nature before, or in the instant of time when he is justified, but on the contrary he is, through grace, godly both before and when he is justified. 2dly. we answer, that the man whom god justifies by faith in christ, is certainly godly evangelically, both in order of nature before he be justified, and at the time when be is justified; and yet at the same time he may be said to be legally ungodly: for understanding this, we are to consider, that the man whom god justifies, may be compared with and judged by the law of works, or the law of faith; if he be compared with and judged by the law of works, he is found to be in himself an ungodly man, because he hath not perfectly kept, but hath frequently transgressed that law, and so can never be justified but is condemned by it. but if he be compared with and judged by the law of faith, the evangelical law, the law of the new covenant, he is found to be a godly man through grace, to be evangelically godly; because he is just such a man, as the lord by the new covenant and evangelical law requires him to be, that he may be first justified by christ's righteousness, imputed to him; that is, he is found to be a man whom god hath blessed with a new heart, and who is a true penitent believer, and that is, a man evangelically godly. now there is no contradiction at all in this, for the same man at the same time, to be legally ungodly, and evangelically godly, because it is with respect to different laws and covenants, that such contrary things are affirmed of him. let our author, if he please, consult turretine, and he will find that, that learned calvinist saith expressly, turret. instit. part 2. loc. 16. pag. 714. that a true believer when he is justified by faith in christ, is, (impius, partim antecedenter, partim respectiuè ad justificationem, non autem concomitanter:) ungodly, partly antecedently (and that is, because he was altogether ungodly in former times), partly with respect to justification, (because he hath nothing in himself that can be the matter and cause of his justification,) but he is not concomitantly ungodly, that is, he doth not remain ungodly, when god is justifying him, and till immediafely after he be justified. if our author upon this should say to us, what he saith to his poor awakened sinner, that it is nonsense, ignorance and pride, let. p. 31.32. to maintain that a man must be in some measure godly in disposition and principle before he be godly in act, and that he must actually believe with a godly faith in order of nature before he he justified, for this is as much as to say, that a man must be pretty well recovered before he make use of the physician, etc. we should reply, (1.) that as for his poor awakened sinner, he makes a poor fool of him, he puts what words he pleases in his mouth, and makes him say in effect, that if he first had faith, before he first had faith, than he would first believe before he had first believed; which we think no man ever thought or said, nor is capable of saying, unless it be some poor creature, that is awakened out of his right wits, or else it be such an one as our author, who hath the art of believing or writing contradictions. (2.) that he had need to take heed that he do not blaspheme our saviour, who hath said that the tree must be good, before the fruit can be good, matth. 7.16, 17, 18. and 12. v. 33. and that is as much as if he had said, what we hold, that there must be some renovation of the inward disposition of the heart, before a man do actually believe with a saving justifying faith. (3.) that if our author will not believe us, let him believe his own beloved self, for he says, pag. 16. that a man is to believe that be may be justified. and that necessarily implies, that he must bring forth some good fruit in order of nature before he be justified, and in pag. 12. he himself quotes, matth. 12.33. to prove that the tree must be good before the fruit be good. (4.) we believe, that our heavenly physician comes first to us (ordinarily in the ministry of the word,) by his preventing grace, and doth indeed recover us in part by curing the deadness and indisposedness of our hearts, before we go to him by an actual saving justifying faith, and thereby employ him for our justification. christ comes first to us by his word and spirit, and gins to cure us of our spiritual deadness to any thing that is savingly good, before we go to him by actual justifying faith, and be by him delivered from our legal death, in justification by faith in his blood. (5.) if our author will yet go on to tell the people, that we teach them not to employ the physician of souls, till they have first pretty well cured themselves; we take heaven and earth to witness, that he belies us, and abuses the simplicity of the people: for we believe in our hearts, and confess with our mouths to the glory of christ the physician of souls, that it is he who by his word, spirit and grace both gins, carries on and perfects the cure of all his select people; and that he doth it in the way and order set forth in his word, of which we have here given the world an account, according to that measure of light, which it hath pleased him of his rich mercy, and free grace to bestow upon us. (6.) and lastly, we desire it may be considered, whether our authors saying, that to tell the people, [they must begin to be godly through grace, by being penitent believers in order to their being justified, is all one as to tell them, that they must be pretty well recovered and must cure themselves before they employ christ the physician of souls]; we say it is our desire, people would consider, whether this be not a piece of antinomian cant, for it is certain that this is the language of saltmarsh, one of the grossest of that sect in england, that the promises belong to sinners as sinners, not as repenting or humbled sinners; as is to be seen in gatakers shadows without substance, pag. 53. and again saith saltmarsh (like our author in this) do you look, that men should be first whole for the physician, or righteous for pardon of sin, or justified for christ, ibid. pag. 54. or rather sinners, unrighteous, ungodly. and gataker there confutes this precious stuff in pag. 54, 55, 56, 57, 58. again, you saltmarsh say, that every one who receives christ, receives him in a sinful condition, and consequently in an impenitent one, ibid. p. 73. and again, saith saltmarsh (as our author doth in pag. 11. of his letter) can any man believe too soon? gatakers shadows without substance. p. 75. to which question, gataker answers, no more than he can repent too soon. thus we have at large answered every thing which we can find in the letter that looks like an objection or argument against the truth which we believe, according to the scriptures. but after all, it may be some will seriously put this question? is it likely that god will give us any grace to sanctify us in any kind or degree, before he so love us as to justify us? to which we answer, that it is not only likely to be, but it certainly is so, that god loves us so far, as to make conditional promises to every one of his people, and so far as to give them for christ's sake grace to begin to perform the condition, before he so far love them, as actually to justify them for christ's sake; and that we say is a giving of grace to sanctify us initially, or to begin a holy change in us before we be actually justified, and our sins be forgiven us. this we have so clearly proved by scripture and reason, and the testimony of the synod of dort, that there can be no just ground to doubt of it. and if it were otherwise, and we were justified before we were sanctified in any kind or degree, that is, before there were any holy change wrought in us, before we did begin to convert and turn to god, before we had any holy inclination to believe, or any holy act of faith and repentance, and any holy purpose to lead a new life; then might we continue to be actually justified and pardoned without being in any kind or degree sanctified; because by the same reason that justification might be begun without any kind or degree of sanctification, without any saving faith and repentance, it might be continued without them. but all true protestants (except antinomians) even our author himself, confess that justification cannot be continued without any sanctification, without any true faith and repentance, therefore justification cannot be begun before and without them. if any should say, that this argument may be retorted upon ourselves, for we confess, that sanctification begun in the seed, principle and disposition, with vital acts of faith and repentance flowing from it, cannot be continued without justification; therefore it follows by our own way of reasoning, that they cannot be begun before justification at first. we answer, by denying the consequence, because god hath expressly promised justification through christ to all, that from a new heart believe and repent, and such faith and repentance are the condition on which justification is promised. but god hath no where promifed either initial or progressive sanctification on condition of justification. this shows that our argument cannot be justly retorted upon us; because there is a peculiar reason to the contrary, a reason from the promise of god that shows sanctification, and faith and repentance cannot possibly be continued without justification; whereas if justification might be begun without any degree of sanctification, or faith and repentance, there can no sufficient reason be given (we think) why it might not be long continued without any degree of sanctification, or any act of faith and repentance. as for the promise of the spirit to sanctify them who are justified, it is made to, and got by faith, by our authors own confession; let. p. 12. and so it presupposes faith, and faith presupposes effectual calling, and a heart renovation and sanctification begun. now this makes for us, and shows that if sanctification begun in the first change of the heart, and first acts of faith and repentance did not go before, there would be no place for the promise of the spirit after justification, to carry on and perfect the begun sanctification; because there would be no such person in the world as that promise is made to, for the promise of the spirit to sanctify us throughly after justification, is made to true believers, which none can be till they be first initially sanctified by the spirit of christ, not yet inhabiting, but fitting up a spiritual house for himself to inhabit; which when he hath done, and god hath thereupon justified us through the righteousness of christ imputed to us, then according to his promise he gives us his sanctifying spirit to dwell in us, and to carry on the work begun unto perfection. thus we have made good what we undertook, and have proved that there is some preparation, some holy disposition and qualification, some holy principle wrought in the soul, and some holy acts of faith and repentance produced by the soul in order to, and before justification, and that thereupon justification follows necessarily and infallibly according to the promise of god, who cannot possibly lie and deceive. but as we said at the beginning, we hold this priority of initial sanctification, and of the first vital acts of faith and repentance, no farther than is necessary to verify the expressions and fence of holy scripture concerning them; and so we conclude this part of our answer with that of the learned turretine, [licet poenitentiae, etc.] although remission of sins be promised to repentance, instit. theol. elenct. part. 2. p. 744. because it ought to accompany faith, and to be in him who is justified as a certain condition required of him, because god cannot pardon sin unto one who is impenitent; it doth not follow, that it can be said to justify with faith, because it contributes nothing either meritoriously or instrumentally unto the act of justification. that is, because as we say, repentance is only a qualifying, but not a receptive, applicative condition of justification. an appendix of the third section, concerning dispositions previous to regeneration, and through conversion. we remember, that in our preliminaries to the foresaid discourse, concerning the preparations and dispositions that are antecedent to justification, we said that as there are some, which have a necessary infallible connection with justification, (of which we have spoken already) so there are others which have not such a necessary infallible connection with it: as to this last sort, we do not say, that they are dispositions and preparations, with which men are always, and without which they are never, nor ever can possibly be justified; yet we think that ordinarily they do precede justification and effectual vocation too, in all that are effectually called and justified. all such dispositions and preparations, our author denies in the 12th page of his letter, and pretends that calvin, the church of england, and westminster assembly of divines, do all concur with him therein. we do not at all wonder, that he denies all preparations and dispositions before effectual calling, and the first saving conversion, since (as we have seen) he denies that there is any good wrought in us, or done by us before justification. and as for preparations and dispositions before conversion, if he would or could assure us, that he denies them in no other sense, than all his authors, calvin, the church of england and assembly of divines do deny them, we should have no controversy with him about that matter; but we think that he is of a different judgement, and either doth not understand in what sense it is that they deny them, or if he understand them aright, he doth not believe them, or if he believe some part that he likes, yet he doth not believe all that they say concerning those dispositions, previous to regeneration and conversion. that it may be clearly known, what our judgement is concerning those preparations that are ordinarily previous to regeneration and conversion; we shall, (1.) name them, and show what they are. (2.) declare what our opinion is concerning them. (3.) show that our opinion concerning them, is neither new nor singular, but what we believe in this matter, we have learned and received from the most eminent pastors of the reformed churches, whereof many lived and died in the true faith, before many of us were born. first then to name them, there is (1.) an illumination of the mind by the word and spirit of god, by means whereof sinners come to know more of god and of his word, particularly of his law, than ever they did before. (2.) there is a conviction of their conscience, that they have frequently and heinously transgressed god's law, in habit and act, in heart and life. and by their sins original and actual are fallen under the curse of the broken law, and the wrath of the offended lawgiver. (3.) there thence ariseth in them a fear of the wrath and vengeanceof an offended god. (4.) thereupon they begin to be sorry, that by their sin and folly, they have brought themselves into such a dangerous condition, and to humble themselves before god; if so be that his wrath may be turned away from them. (5.) the light, whereby the word and spirit had given them a clearer knowledge of god and of themselves, than ever they had before, and of their obnoxiousness to god's everlasting wrath and vengeance, is increased by the gospel, and thereby is given them some discovery and knowledge of jesus christ the only begotten son of god, as one whom god hath ordained to be the saviour of lost sinners of mankind, and to reconcile them unto god by satisfying his offended justice, and by meriting for them his grace and favour. (6.) upon this knowledge of christ, there follows some kind of common faith and hope, that it is possible for them in particular to get their sins pardoned and their souls saved, through the mediation of jesus christ, mark 10.27. (7.) then there ariseth some joy in them, from the foresaid faith and hope of the possibility of their obtaining so great salvation, from the curse of the law and wrath of the lawgiver, mark 6.20. luke 8.13. (8.) this joy and gladness of heart, arising from the hope of the possibility of their obtaining so great salvation, makes them desire that that possibility may be reduced into act, and that they may actually obtain the possible salvation. (9) the desire of actually obtaining it, makes them in some sort willing to use the means appointed by god for obtaining so desirable an end; whereupon they give themselves to consider, what those means are, and how to use them? and from that they proceed to read and hear the word of god more than formerly, to pray unto god themselves, and to desire the prayers of others, for the pardon of their sins, and the salvation of their souls. (10.) and lastly, they endeavour to reform their lives, by abstaining from the outward commission of those sins, which they have been most grossly guilty of, and which do most burden their consciences. these are the dispositions, which are previous to regeneration and a through conversion, for we humbly conceive it possible for sinners to go thus far towards, before they attain unto, a saving conversion. secondly, to declare what our opinion is concerning these dispositions previous to conversion. (1.) we do not think, that they are all absolutely necessary on god's part, as if he could not possibly convert a sinner immediately without such foregoing dispositions. we know nothing to the contrary, but that god can come unto a sinner by the powerful operation of his spirit and grace (if he please,) in the midst of his greatest and deepest unpreparedness, and turn him from his sin and bring him to christ by saving conversion immediately. but yet. (2.) we do not think, that this is god's usual way of drawing sinners to christ, for though such previous dispositions to conversion be not absolutely necessary on god's part; yet they are ordinarily necessary on men's part, especially in countries where god hath planted churches, hath sent ministers to preach the gospel publicly, and hath established a course of outward visible means; we think, that in such places, though god hath not tied himself to means, yet he hath tied men to the use of them, and that they have never so much reason to expect gods special help and effectual assistance for their faving conversion, as when they are using their best endeavours, in the use of the means which god himself has ordained for the communicating of his saving grace to lost sinners of mankind. (3.) the foresaid preparations, which we believe to be ordinarily necessary on man's part, we do not judge to be the product of mere natural light and power in man, but to be the effect of common grace; which grace we call common, because not only the elect, but the non elect also are made partakers of it in the visible church; and we hold it to be of a supernatural order of being's, whereby those who are made partakers of it, are enabled to do things that are above their mere natural capacity, and which they could not possibly do of themselves, without that supernatural help and assistance. (4.) we do not believe, that any thing, or all that man doth by the help of the said supernatural common grace, is meritorious either (ex condigno or ex congruo) of condignity or of congruity, of special saving grace, so as god should be obliged, and could not with honour but give special saving grace to those unto whom he hath first given the foresaid common grace. (5.) yet we think, that god doth not take away the said common grace from any to whom he hath given it, till they have first forfeited it, and provoked god to take it from them by their neglecting to improve it, as they ought and might have done. for we are of dr. owen's opinion in this matter, as he expresseth it in his discourfe concerning the holy spirit, pag. 198. where special grace, and real conversion is not attained (to wit, by means of common grace, and its effects on the soul) it is always from the interposition of an act of wilfulness and stubbornness in those englightned and convicted, they do not sincerely improve what they have received, and faint, not merely for want of strength to proceed, but by a free act of their own wills, they refuse the grace which is further tendered unto them in the gospel. from this passage of dr. owen's, we see that according to him the only culpable reason, why those who have the foresaid common grace, and thereby go so far in the way to conversion, but yet do not attain the end, do not arrive at special grace and saving conversion thereby, is because they were grossly wanting in their duty to god and themselves, of improving common grace as far as it would go. (6.) though we thus show, that men themselves are the only culpable cause of their not obtaining special grace and saving conversion thereby, yet we do not say on the other hand, that the elect are the laudable cause of their infallibly obtaining special grace and saving conversion thereby. no, no, we are no such persons, we hold no such opinions; but are of prospers mind, and say with him, [quantumlibet impiorum malignitas accusetur, prosper de vocat. gentium, lib. 1. cap. 25. resistens gratiae dei, nurquid probabuntur, eam quibus est collata meruisse? aut illa virtus gratiae, quae sibi quos volicit subdidit, convertere eos qui inconvertibiles permansere, non potuit? tales fuerunt qui sunt attracti, quales bi qui in suâ duritiâ sunt relicti, fed illis tribuit gratia stupenda, quod voluit, istis tribuit veritas justa quod debuit, ut judicium dei magis inscrutabile sit in electione gratiae, quam in retributione justitiae. how much soever the malignity of the wicked, which resists the grace of god be accused, can it ever be proved, that they to whom special grace is given, have deserved or merited it? or that powerful efficacy of grace, which hath subdued to itself whom it would; could it not convert those who remained unconverted? they who are drawn to the lord were such as those are who are left in their hardness. but wonderful astonishing grace gave what it would to those that are converted; and just truth, that, is the true and just god rendered what he owed unto the others who are unconverted: so that the judgement of god is more unsearchable in the election of grace, than in the retribution of justice. that is, it is more difficult to give a reason why god gives special effectual converting grace to such and such particular persons, who could never deserve to have it, than why he withholds it from other persons who have really deserved to want it.] this is the true meaning of the last clause of that excellent writer, whereby we see that the father, on the one hand assigns the just demerits of the ungodly resisters of god's grace, for the reason of their not being converted by special and victorious grace; but on the other hand he acknowledges that no reason can be given why the like resistance is overcome and taken away, in the elect, and they are savingly converted, by discriminating grace, but that it is gods good will and pleasure to have it so; of the same judgement are we in this matter, and as we derive the reason on the part of god's select people, why they rather than others are infallibly converted by special grace, from the mere will and pleasure of god, (because we know no other reason of it), so we ascribe unto god all the glory of it, saying with our blessed saviour; we thank thee o father, lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, mat. 11.25, 26. and hast revealed them unto babes. even so father, for so it seemed good in thy sight. thus we have briefly declared what our opinion is, concerning the preparations and dispositions which ordinarily go before saving conversion, in some more, in others less, in some for a longer, in others for a shorter time; but in all so as to enlighten, convince, and humble them. thirdly, now in the third and last place we shall show that our opinion concerning them, is neither new nor singular, but that what we believe in this matter, we have learned and received from the most eminent pastors of the reformed churches, whereof many lived and died in the true faith, before many of us were born. and our first witness is calvin, who writing against pighius, doth plainly confess that sinners are disposed and prepared by the grace of god's holy spirit, before they be savingly converted and justified. his words are these, [neque verò hoc medo praeparari hominem ad recipiendum justitiae donum, negamus; sed spiritus sancti directione, calvin contra pighium, de lib. arbit. lib. 5. §. adducit tamen. non suo ingenio, etc. but neither do we deny that man is thus prepared to receive the gift of righteusness; but it is by the direction of the holy spirit, and not by his own natural understanding and strength. christ doth not call any to come unto him, but such as labour and are heavy laden: but yet it is he himself who makes us to feel our burden, and to groan under it. we confess that the common proverb is most true, that it is the only hopeful beginning of a cure, where the sick person is sensible of his disease. therefore that christ may become thy physician, it behoves thee to acknowledge and be sensible of thy disease. again in his institutions, he expressly confesses that there are some common operations of the spirit, idem instit. lib. 3. cap. 2. §. 11. whereof the non-elect are partakers in the visible church. experientia (inquit) ostendit; reprobos interdum fimili ferè sensu atque electos affici; ut ne suo quidem judicio quicquam ab electis differant, etc. experience (says calvin) shows that the reprobate are sometimes affected with a sense and feeling (to wit of spiritual things), almost like to that which is in the elect; in so much that in their own judgement, they differ not at all from the elect. wherefore there is no absurdity at all in this, that by the apostle, a taste of heavenly gifts; and by christ, a temporary faith is ascribed unto them. thus calvin, who there shows that in the elect after saving conversion and justification, there is always something of a higher nature which differenceth them from the non-elect, and then adds, [sed hoc minimè obstat quin illa inferior spiritus operatio cursum suum habeat etiam in reprobis.] yet this doth no ways hinder, but that that inferior operation of the spirit hath its course even in the reprobate. and more he hath to this purpose; whereby it evidently appears that in his judgement, there is such a thing as we call common grace, which oftentimes makes such a change upon the unregenerate, that it is hard to distinguish them from the truly regenerate. we might also allege to this purpose the testimonies of chemnitius, in his examination of the council of trent; of the divines of wittenberg, in the conference at al●enburg, of pareus writing against bellarmine about justification; of paulus ferrius in his specimen of ecclesiastical orthodox divinity; and of others, acknowledging and maintaining that there are such preparations and dispositions wrought in sinners, by the grace of god's spirit, before their regeneration or conversion and justification; but because we have been longer already than we first intended, we will pass them; and come to the testimony of the synod of dort, which ought to be of more weight with us, than any other testimonies of protestant divines, that can be brought either for or against those previous dispositions we speak of. and from amongst all that might make for our purpose in that famous synod, we will single out, and content ourselves with what our own british divines have said for this opinion, in their collegiate suffrage approved by the synod, and recorded in its acts. and for the sake of our countrymen who cannot have recourse to the original to examine our translation, act. synodi dordr. part. 2. p. 165.6, 7, 8. we will (as we have done before) make use of the old english translation which some of them may have, or may meet with it. thus than they begin. of those things that go before conversion. the first position. there are certain external works ordinarily required of men before they be brought to the state of regeneration or conversion, on the 3d. and 4th. articles, p. 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, etc. which are wont to be performed freely by them, and other whiles freely omitted, as to go to church, to hear the word preached, or the like. this they prove from rom. 10.14. as also, from reason and experience, and other scriptures. mark 6.20. acts 13.46. psal. 58.4, 5. the second position. there are certain inward effects going before conversion, or regeneration, which by the power of the word and spirit, are stirred up in the hearts of men not yet justified; such as are, a knowledge of god's will, a sense of sin, a fear of punshment, a bethinking of freedom, or deliverance, and some hope or pardon. the grace of god is not went to bring men to the state of justification (in which we have peace with god through our lord jesus christ) by a sudden enthusiasm, or rapture, but by divers degrees of foregoing actions taming and preparing them through the ministry of the word. (1st.) this we may see in those, who upon bearing s. peter's sermon, feel the burden of their sin, are stricken with fear and sorrow, desire deliverance and conceive some hope of pardon. all which may be collected of those words, acts 2.37. when they heard this they were pricked in their hearts, and said unto peter and the rest of the apostles, men and brethren what shall we do? (2.) this the very nature of the thing requires, for as in the natural generation of man there are many previous dispositions, which go before the bringing in of the form, so also in the spiritual generation, by many actions of grace, which must go before, do we come to the spiritual nativity. (3) to conclude, this appears by the instruments which god uses for the regenerating of men. for he employeth the ministry of men, and the instrument of the word, 1 cor. 4.15. i have begotten you through the gospel. but if god would regenerate and justify a wicked man immediately, being prepared by no knowledge, no sortow, no desire, no hope of pardon, there would be no need of the ministry of men, nor of the preaching of the word for this purpose: neither would any care lie upon the ministers dividing the word aright, fitly and wisely, first, to wound the conf●iences of their auditors with the terrors of the law, then to raise them up with the promises of the gospel, and to exhort them to beg faith and repentance at god's hand, by prayers and tears. the third position. whom god doth thus prepare by his spirit through the means of the word, those doth he truly and seriously call and invite to faith and conversion. by the nature of the benefit offered, and by the most evident. word of god, we must judge of those helps of grace, which are bestowed upon men, and not by the abuse or the event. therefore when the gospel of its own nature calls men to repentance and salvation, when the incitements of divine grace tend the same way, we must not suppose any thing is done feignedly by god. this is proved by those earnest pathetical entreaties; 2 cor. 5.20. we pray you in christ's stead, be ye● reconciled to god. those exhortations, 2 cor. 6.1. we beseech you that you receive not the grace of god in vain: those expostulations, gal. 1.6. i marvel that you are so soon removed from him that called you to the grace of christ: those promises; revel. 3.20. behold, i stand at the door and knock; if any man hear my voice and open the door i will come in to him. but if god should not seriously invite all, to whom he vouchsafes this gift of his word and spirit, to a serious conversion, surely both god should deceive many, whom he calls in his son's name, and the messengers of the evangelical promises, might be accused of false witness, and those who being called to conversion, do neglect to obey, might be more , for that calling by the word and spirit, cannot be thought to leave men unexcusable, which is only exhibited to this end, to make them unexcusable. the fourth position. those whom god hath thus disposed, he doth not forsake, nor cease to further them in the true way to conversion, before he be forsaken of them by a voluntary neglect, or repulse of this initial or entering grace. the talon of grace given by god, is taken from none, but from him who first buries it by his own fault; mat. 25.28. hence is it that in the scriptures every where we are admonished, that we resist not the spirit, that we quench not the spirit, that we receive not the grace of god in vain, that we depart not from god; heb. 3.12. yea, that is most evidently noted to be the reason of gods forsaking man, because god is first forsal 〈◊〉 by man; prov. 1.24, etc. because i have called, and you refused, i will laugh at your calamity. 2 chron. 24.20. because ye have forsaken the lord, he hath also forsaken you. but never in the scripture, is there the least mention (or intimation) that god is wont, or that he will at any time, without some fault of man going before, take away from any man the aid of his exciting grace, or any help which he hath once conferred towards man's conversion, or (as it is in the original) that is ordained unto man's conversion. thus the orthodox fathers, who had to do with the pelagians ever ●anght. it is the will of god, that we continue in a good will, who before he be forsaken, for sakes no man, aug. vel. prosper a● art. falls. ad. 7. and ost-times converts many that forsake him.— these are the words of prosper in answer to the seventh objection of one vincentius against the doctrine of augustine and prosper. the fifth position. these foregoing effects wrought in the minds of men by the power of the word and spirit, may be stifled and utterly extinguished by the fault of a rebellious will, and in many are; so that some, in whose hearts by the virtue of the word and spirit, some knowledge of divine truth, some sorrow for sin, some desire and care of deliverance have been imprinted, are changed to the quite contrary, they reject and hate the truth, they give themselves up to their lusts, are hardened in their sins, and without all desire or care of freedom from them, rot and putrify in them. matth. 13.19. the wicked one cometh and catcheth away that which is sown in his heart. 2 pet. 2.21. it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment detrvered unto them. but it is happened to them according to the true proverb, the dog i● turned to his own vomit again. heb. 6.4, 5, 6. it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the holy ghost, and have tasted of the good word of god, and the powers of the world to come, if they shall fall away to return them again unto repentance. the sixth position. the very elect in those acts going before regeneration, do not carry themselves so, but that for their negligence and resistance, they may be justly relinquished and forsaken of god, but such is the special mercy of god towards them, that though they do for a while repel and choke the grace of god exciting and enlightening them, yet god doth urge them again and again, nor doth he cease to stir them forward, till he have throughly subdued them to his grace, and set them in the state of regenerate sons. john 6.37. all that the father giveth me, shall come to me, and him that cometh to me, i will in no no wise cast out. jerem. 14.7. o lord, though our iniquities testify against us, do thou it for thy names sake, for our backslidings are many. jerem. 32.39. i will give them one heart and one way, that they may fear me for ever. and phil. 1.6. he that hath begun a good work in you, will perform it, until the day of jesus christ. but if god should not go on thus to follow, even those that hold off and retire from him, no calling would be effectual, there would be no filial adoption, and even election itself, grounded upon the good pleasure of god, would be frustrated. since the fall of man, god would have it ascribed to his grace, that a man doth come unto him, neither will he have it ascribed aug. de bonow persever. to any thing but his grace, that a man doth not go from him. the seventh position. those that are not elected, when they resist the spirit of god and his grace, in these acts foregoing regeneration, and extinguish the initial effects of the same in themselves, by the fault of their own free will, are justly forsaken by god, whensoever it pleaseth him: whom by their own fault so forsaken, we truly pronounce to remain by the same demerit, hardened and unconverted. we think it to be without all doubt, that no mortal man doth so carry himself toward god, but that either by omitting that which he should have done, or committing that which he should not have done, he deserves to have the grace taken from him which be hath. which ground being forelayed, it is clear, that god without all injustice, or cruelty, may take from such men that grace which he hath extended to them, and leave them to the hardness of their own hearts; rom. 9.18. he hath mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth. god also oweth this to no man, that when he resists enlightening and exciting grace, and serves his own lusts, he should then soften and mollify him by that special grace which no hard heart resists; rom. 11.35. who hath first given unto him, and it shall be recompensed unto him again? again he that is thus forsaken, being not converted, perishes through his own fault; john 5.34, 40. i say these things, that ye might be saved, and ye will not come to me, that ye might have life; acts 28.27. the heart of this people is waxed gro●● and their ear are dull of hearing, and their eyes have they closed, lest they should be converted and i should heal them. thus our divines in the synod, and with the approbation of the synod of dort, gave their judgement at large, and the grounds and reasons of it, concerning the dispositions which are ordinarily previous to regeneration and saving conversation; all which we have transcribed word for word, out of their collegiate suffrage, that the world may see that our opinion concerning preparations and dispositions, previous to saving conversation, is neither new nor singular, but is the very same with that of the synod of dort, from whom we learned it according to the scripture. now we will show that this same doctrine of our divines in the synod of dort, is received and approved by those very divines whom our author in his letter would suborn to be witnesses against us in the controversy between him and us; we shall demonstrate this by the testimonies of dr. ames, dr. twiss and dr. owen, who do all three expressy approve of the suffrage of our britain divines in this matter. (1. dr. ames hath an entire disputation against maccovius, concerning the preparation of a sinner to conversion. it and some other dissertations of his, are ordinarily bound up with his short scholastical reply to grevinchovius. in that disputation, after he had in the first position rejected (as we have done) all dispositions any wise meritorious of justification; in the second position he says, that because there are no meritorious dispositions, for that reason so to hate the very name (disposition), as without any distinction to take away and deny all preparatory affections and motions in a sinner, whereby god makes way for his congruous conversion, and in some sort puts him in an order and course of actions, which have a tendency unto regeneration, this is as judiciously and wisely do●e, as if one should absolutely deny that there are any good works at all, because meritorious works are justly condemned. and in his 3d. position, but we doubt not to assert, (says ames,) that in every sinner of ripe years who is to be converted, ordinarily some dispositions tending to conversion, go before it, although in a different degree, according to the wise dispensation of god. and in his 5th. position, de istis (inquit) nihil certius est, quâm quod in syn. dord: ad art. 3. & 4. proposuerunt theologi britanni, sunt quaedam opera, etc. concerning those dispositions (says ames) nothing is more certain than that which the britain divines proposed in the synod of dort, upon the 3d. and 4th. articles, there are some external works ordinarily required of men, before they be brought to the state of regeneration or conversion. and there are some internal effects previous to conversion or regeneration, which by the power of the word and spirit are stirred up in the hearts of those who are not yet justified, such are the knowledge of god's will, sense of sin, fear of punishment, thought of deliverance, some hope of pardon. for as in the natural generation of man, there are many previous dispositions, so also in the spiritual generation, etc. thus ames highly approved what we have quoted before at large out of the suffrage. then he quotes perkins for the same opinion in his cases of conscience; book 1. c. 5. in his 8th, position, so great (says ames) is the evidence of this truth, that he who opposeth it, by one rash sentence seems to blot out the whole first part of the catechism, with a great part of the second; and also to abrogate and make void the whole ministry of the word in order to the conversion of sinners. ☞ for as there is no use of the ministry with respect to the regenerate but that they may be prepared for and brought unto glory, so there is no use of it with respect to the unregenerate, but that they may be prepared for, and brought unto conversion. in his 9th. position, he brings two places of scripture to prove that there are such dispositions previous to conversion; mark 12.34. thou art not far from the kingdom of god; acts 2.37. when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart. upon both these places of scripture he quotes calvin, observing from them that there are preparations and dispositions previous to saving conversion. let scholars consult the author himself, and read the whole disputation if they please. what we have transcribed out of it, is abundantly sufficient to demonstrate that ames is on our side, and approved the said doctrine of our britain divines in the synod of dort. (2. dr. twiss in his answer to mr. hoard, his book called, god's love unto mankind, discoursing there of what our divines at dort, twiss against hoard p. 205. on the fifth article, said concerning the change which by god's word and spirit is wrought in the minds, affections and manners of men, even of the non-elect, before conversion and justification; he says expressly: that the dispositions which god grants unto men before saving conversion, as they are in the elect, they are preparations to further grace; and so in the reprobate they might be preparations to further grace, if it pleased god so to ordain as to bring them on forward to justification, and true sanctification conjunct therewith, and thereby unto salvation. from which words we observe two things, (1) that dr. twiss absolutely asserts, that the previous dispositions which god by his word and spirit works in the elect before conversion and regeneration, are preparations to further grace. (2.) as for the like dispositions wrought by the word and spirit in the reprobate who are never converted and regenerated, he affirms not that they are de facto, but that they might be in them also, preparations, unto further grace, upon supposition that it pleased god to give them the like special effectual saving grace which he gives unto the elect. and afterwards in the same book he approves what our divines say on the 3d. and 4th. articles, concerning previous dispositions, and which we have quoted out of them at large; only he saith, he doth not sufficiently understand the last clause of their argument to prove their third position, which is, [that calling by the word and spirit, cannot be thought to leave men inexcusable, which is only exhibited to this end, to make them unexcusable.] twiss against hoard p. 218. this is the only thing in that discourse of theirs concerning previous dispositions which dr. twiss pretends not to understand. yet at the same time he says, that he thinks (by gods making men unexcusable) they meant gods so taking away all excuse from men, as that thereby they become faulty and culpable before god, for want of a sufficient excuse, which he grants to be the ordinary meaning of the (word unexcusable); and then he adds [in this sense i willingly subscribe unto them, and therewithal show what i take to be their meaning, namely this, that if god, making show that if they believe he will accept them, and that they shall be saved, did not indeed mean that he would in that case, accept and save them, than there were no reason why they should be accounted faulty, and condemned for not believing. thus, (says he) in a desire exactly to conform myself to the judgement of these worthies of our church, made choice of by our sovereign, to be sent in so honourable an ambassage, to countenance that famous synod of the most reformed churches: i have made bold to interpret them, and to show my concurrence with them, etc. by this passage it is evident that he approved all they wrote on that head of dispositions previous to regeneration. for he scrupled only one clause, which he so interpreted as to remove the ground of the scruple, and then declared his concurrence with them in that which he took to be the true sense of their words, and indeed he needed not to have made any such scrupulous objection, as he there doth; for undoubtedly our divines used the word (unexcusable) there, in no other sense, but what he yields to at last and approves of. to wit, that that calling by the word and spirit, cannot be thought to leave men faulty by taking away their excuse, which is only designed and exhibited to make them faulty for want of an excuse. it appears plainly by the whole series and contexture of their discourse, that this was the meaning of our most learned and judicious divines; and consequently that there is no difference between twiss and them in this matter. especially it is most evident that twiss and they exactly agreed, that in the elect the foresaid dispositions before conversion, are preparations to further grace, even to the special grace of saving conversion itself: and this is the main thing that we now inquire after; to wit, whether there be any preparatory dispositions in the elect before conversion? thirdly, dr. owen also in his discourse in folio, concerning the holy spirit, quotes the judgement of our britain divines at the synod of dort, concerning the foresaid dispositions previous to regeneration, dr. owen's discourse concerning the work of the holy spirit; book 3. cap. 2. pag. 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196. and approves it, and goes the same way that they do, in discoursing of them, and showing what they are and how they are wrought. first (says he) in reference unto the work of regeneration itself, positively considered, we may observe, that ordinarily there are certain previous and preparatory works, or workings in and upon the souls of men, that are antecedent and dispositive, unto it: but yet regeneration doth not consist in them, nor can it be educed out of them. this is for the substance of it, the position of the divines of the church of england, at the synod of dort, two whereof died bishops, and others of them were dignified in the hierarchy. i mention it, that those (new divines) by whom these things are despised, may a little consider whose ashes they trample on and scorn. then the dr. tells us (1.) that he speaks not of the regeneration of infants, but of the adult. (2.) that the dispositions previous to their regeneration are not formal but material dispositions. (3.) that some of them are attainable by the power of nature alone, such as are outward attendance on the dispensation of the word, and a diligent intention of mind in attending on the means of grace, to understand and receive the things revealed, and declared as the mind and will of god: and he says, that the omitting or neglecting to use this natural ability, is the principal occasion and cause of the eternal ruin of the souls of the generality of them, to whom, or amongst whom the gospel is preached, john 3.19. (4.) that there are certain internal spiritual effects wrought in and upon the souls of men, whereof the word preached, is the immediate instrumental cause, which ordinarily do precede the work of regeneration, or real conversion unto god: and they are reduceable unto three heads, (1.) illumination. (2.) conviction. (3. reformation. the first of these respects the mind only. the second the mind, conscience and affections. and the third, the life and conversation. these are attained by the inward influence of the holy, spirit upon men's souls, concurring with the word to make it effectual unto those ends. all these things may be wrought in the minds of men by the dispensation of the word, and yet the work of regeneration be never perfected in them. yea, although they are good in themselves, and fruits of the kindness of god towards us; they may not only be lost as unto any spiritual advantage, but also be abused to our great disadvantage. then pag. 196. the doctrine (says he) concerning these things, hath been variously handled, distinguished and applied, by many learned divines, and faithful ministers of the gospel, unto that light which they received into them from the infallible word of god, they soined those experiences which they had observed in their own hearts, and the consciences of others with whom they had to do, which were suitable thereunto. and in the dispensation of this truth, according to the measure of the gift of the grace of christ, which they severally received, they had an useful and fruitful ministry in the world, to the converting of many unto god. ☞ but we have lived to see all these things decried and rejected. thus dr. owen concerning dispositions previous to regeneration, whose sense upon the whole, we have here briefly and faithfully represented unto all into whose hands this may come. and in the first and latter part of this long quotation, we have transcribed his own words. by all which we see that dr. owen received and approved as true, good and useful, the foresaid doctrine of the english divines at the synod of dort, concerning dispositions and preparations before regeneration; and seems to have said it with some grief, that he had lived to see all these things decried and rejected, to wit, by some arminian divines of the church of england: and would it not have grieved him a little more, to have seen all these things decried and rejected also by nonconformists, that pretend to be the only party of protestants who adhere to the old pure doctrine of the best reformed churches; when at the same time and in the same thing they join with the new divines, (as dr. owen expressly calls them) that is, with the arminians, against the synod of dort, and the old doctrine of the church of england. but you may say, doth our author do so? doth he decry and reject those preparations and dispositions before regeneration and conversion, which our divines maintained in the synod of dort, and which dr. owen maintained after them against modern arminians? we answer, if he doth not decry and reject them, what means all that which he writes in the 12 page of his letter against all preparations and dispositions before a saving and justifying faith? surely he took wrong measures if the thought that those dispositions might be admitted before regeneration and conversion, but not before a saving and justifying faith. for it is simply impossible, and implies a contradiction, that they can be before regeneration and first saving conversion, but they must be also before saving and justifying faith. so that either he must contradict himself after his usual manner, if he hold the foresaid dispositions to be before regeneration and conversion, but not before saving justifying faith; or if he affirm that they are neither before regeneration and conversion, nor yet before saving faith, which is necessarily employed in regeneration and conversion; then indeed he doth not contradict himself, but he doth that which is worse, he contradicts the truth, and the synod of dort, with dr. ames, dr. twiss, and dr. owen, who all maintain this truth that the said preparatory dispositions are before regeneration and conversion, and so before a saving justifying faith. if he says that he doth not deny them to be before regeneration and saving justifying faith, nor to be dispositive thereunto, but that he only denies them to be dispositive unto justification. we answer, (1.) that then he yields the cause, and comes over to us; for we do not say that any thing before regeneration and saving justifying faith, is or can be immediately dispositive unto justification; but that the foresaid preparations are dispositive unto regeneration and conversion, which are in order before justification. (2.) then he is as much bound to answer his own argument against their being dispositive unto justification, as we are; for his argument is this, that nothing a man doth before saving justifying faith, can dispose him for justification, because it is all sin, and sin can never dispose a man for justification. now if this be true, if all that a man doth before saving justifying faith, be sin, if it be vain labour, and an acting of sin, and therefore cannot dispose him for justification; then for the same reason, it cannot dispose him for regeneration and saving justifying faith; for it is self-evident, that that which is vain labour, and nothing but sin, can no more dispose a man for regeneration, than for justification. indeed sin can dispose a man for nothing, but for sin and punishment; and if that which is vain labour could dispose a man for regeneration and conversion, it would at once be both vain labour, and not vain labour; it would be vain labour, for so it is said and supposed to be; and it would not be vain labour, because it disposes a man for regeneration and conversion, and that is not vain labour which is useful to so good an end as the regenerating and converting of a man is. but (1.) our author objects the 13th article of the church of england. to which we answer, (1.) that the english divines at the synod of dort, understood the articles of their own church much better than our author doth, and yet they found nothing in the 13th article against dispositions before conversion, wrought in sinners by the word and spirit of christ. (2.) the article speaks only of works done by infidels without any grace of christ at all, and without any inspiration of the spirit. now it is confessed, that such works are not pleasant to god, see the 10th art. nor are they dispositive unto regeneration and conversion. but the works which the synod of dort, ames, twiss and owen affirm to be preparatory and dispofitive unto regeneration and conversion, are not such works, they are not works done by the mere power of nature without any supernatural grace at all; but they are works done by the power of the word and spirit of christ, they are works done by a certain inferior kind of supernatural grace of christ and inspiration of the spirit of christ, which is sufficient to elevate and raise the faculties of a sinner something above its natural capacity, to the producing of such actions, which though they be not savingly good and so not pleasing to god unto justification and salvation; yet they are materially good, and relatively good too in order to the use and end for which god has ordained them, that is, they are dispositively good, they have from god so much goodness as makes them fit to be a material disposition of the sinner to receive from god that which is in a higher order of goodness, even that which is savingly good; and in this respect being good, they are so far pleasing to god, as they are dispositive unto regeneration and conversion. hence it is written, mark 10.21. that jesus beholding an unconverted man, loved him; the man was certainly as yet in an unregenerated unconverted state, as appears by the 22 verse, and by the following discourse of our saviour▪ yet he was something solicitous about his salvation, and had some small weak disposition towards conversion; which our saviour observed in him, and was pleased with it, and loved him under that consideration, as something inclined and disposed towards conversion; now our saviour as man and as mediator was never pleased with any thing, but as it was pleasing to god, and never loved any man further than god loved him. (3.) the article doth not deny but that the foresaid works or actions of unregenerate men, done by the grace of christ and inspiration of his spirit, are by the ordination and free constitution of god, preparatory and dispositive unto the reception of special saving grace in regeneration and conversion; but if it intends them at all, it denies that of their own nature they are meritoriously dispositive either unto the grace of regeneration or justification; for the clearing of this, it is to be well considered that before the reformation there were several numerous sects of schoolmen in the roman church, whereof one, to wit, the scotists, held that a sinner by doing what he can, as far as his natural strength will go, without any supernatural grace from christ, may merit the first supernatural grace, with a merit of congruity; and this same doctrine was taught at rome even after the reformation and council of trent, and published by nider in a book entitled, consolatorium timoratae conscientiae, printed at rome in the year, 1604. as is to be seen in the 9 chap. of the 2d. part, pag. 57 where he maintains that, facienti quod in se est, solis naturae viribus, deus da● gratiam infallibiliter & necessario: that unto a man who doth what he can by the alone power of nature, god gives grace infallibly and necessarily, ●v●n as necessarily as the sun gives light to all that open their eyes to receive it. but others of the schoolmen rejected this opinion of the scotists, as a semipelagian error, yet even they held that god having freely given to an unconverted sinner the first supernatural preventing grace, he may thereby so convert and turn himself to god, as to merit of congruity the grace of the first justification, that is, the infusion of the habit of justifying or sanctifying grace. now the 13th article of the church of england, was leveled against both these opinions of the papists, especially and expressly against the (1st.) works done by the alone power of nature, cannot make men meet to receive grace, or they cannot deserve grace of congruity, because they are done before and without any grace of christ and inspiration of his spirit, and so are not pleasing to god, and what is not pleasing to him cannot possibly merit the grace of regeneration or justification at his hand. (2.) neither the works done without any grace of christ, nor the works done by the help of christ's preventing common grace before regeneration, make men meet to receive, or of congruity deserve the grace of justification, because they do not spring out of faith in jesus christ, but are both of them before it, and therefore are not pleasing to god unto justification and salvation; yet that nothing hinders, but the works which are done by the preventing grace of christ before conversion, may by god's free ordination be preparatory and materially dispositive unto conversion and faith in christ. (4.) we willingly grant what the article saith, that works done before regeneration and conversion have the nature of sin, because they are not done as god hath willed and commanded them to be done, that is, they are not so circumstantiated as god requires good works to be. yet it doth not follow that such of them as are done by the help of preventing grace, are sin and nothing but sin, as our author would make people believe; for it is one thing for a work to have the nature of sin cleaving to it, and it is another thing to be sin and nothing but sin; the works of which we now speak; certainly have the nature of sin cleaving to them, as they proceed from an unregenerate man, whose heart is not yet renewed, and who is not endued with a saving faith, and as they are not directed by him to the glory of god as the best and highest end; and yet it, is so far from being true, that they are sin in the abstrect, and nothing but sin, that on the contrary, they are materially and substantially good, as they are commanded by god, and as they proceed from the preventing, exciting grace of christ's spirit, causing a man to do them in obedience to god's command; and likewise they are relatively and dispositively good, as they are ordered by god to be a means of preparing and disposing man for the saving grace of regeneration and conversion. hence dr. owen in the book aforesaid, pag. 196. saith, that they are good in themselves, and fruits of the kindness of god towards us. and pag. 198. he saith, that in their own nature they have a tendency unto sincere conversion. and pag. 167. he saith, that the spirit of grace ordinarily giveth not out his aids and assistances any where, but where he preparen the soul with diligence in duty. thus dr. owen, whereby it manifestly appears that he was far from thinking, that all a man can do before he have the spirit of god dwelling in him, and in order to a holy change, first in his heart and then in his life, is both vain labour, and an acting of sin. and as far was dr. twiss from any such thought, for thus he writes in the book mentioned before: answer to the doctrine of the synod of dort and arles, reduced to practice. p. 106. [there is a legal repentance, and there is an evangelical repentance. and that legal repentance may be unto desperation, as judas his repentance was: again that legal repentance may be a fruit of the spirit of bondage, which prepares for the hearing of the gospel, and for the receiving of the spirit of adoption by the gospel; then in the preaching the gospel, the tender mercies of god displayed unto us, and how ready be is to pardon sin in general, and that of free grace, may better our repentance; and when we are thus by degrees brought to the spirit of adoption, to cry abba father, than our repentance shall be most perfect, as before i said. and when we look upon him whom we have pierced, and can in assurance of faith, say with the apostle; i live by faith in him who loved me, and gave himself for me, this is of power to prick a master vein, and make us bleed out repentance in the sight of our gracious god (whom we have offended, and who yet in despite of our sins hath loved us) more devoutly and affectionately than ever before. yet is it true, as he (the arminian saith) that repentance is nothing worth without faith? what thinks he of ahabs' repentance, when he put on sackcloth, and wallowed in ashes, upon the word of judgement against his house, brought unto him by the prophet eliah? do we not know, what the lord said hereupon unto eliah, seest thou, how ahab is humbled before me? because he submitteth himself before me, i will not bring that evil in his days. the uttermost of the ninivites faith was but this, that we read of, who can tell if god will turn and repent, and turn from his fierce wrath, that we perish not? yet their repentance was such, that when god saw their works, that they turned from their evil ways, he repent of the evil which he said, that he would do unto them, and he did it not, jon. 3.9. thus dr. twiss, whereby it is evident that he was far from thinking that all which a man can do before he have the spirit of god dwelling in him, and that he may get a holy heart, and a saving faith, and so be fitted to lead a holy life, is nothing but vain labour and an acting of sin. object. 2. secondly, our author objects, the seventh article of the 16. chapter of the westminster confession of faith. and our answer is, that that article of the confession of faith, is the same in effect with the 13th. article of the church of england, and therefore is to be taken in the same sense, to wit, that the works of unregenerate men done before and without any grace of christ's spirit, though they may be materially good, yet they are formally so sinful, that they do not make a man meet to receive any grace from god, either the grace of regeneration or justification; and as for the works of unregenerate men, which are done by the help of supernatural preventing common grace, though they be better than the former, which are done by the alone strength of nature, yet they are sinful too, they are so defiled with sin as they proceed from an unregenerate man, that they cannot please god, so far as to make a man meet to receive the grace of justification from god; nor do they make a man meet to receive the grace of regeneration from god, by way of reward due to them as congruously meritorious thereof. yet in another sound sense they may make a man meet to receive the grace of regeneration and conversion from god, to wit, as they are wrought in men by the spirit, and according to the word, and are ordained by god to be means of removing such things as hinder conversion, and of the helping men forward in the way unto, and of fitting and preparing them for conversion, as a gracious gift which ordinarily god freely gives to those who are so prepared by the word and spirit of christ. in this sound sense (though not in the popish or semipelagian sense) the foresaid works do indeed make men meet to receive grace from god, and the article of the confession of faith, saith nothing to the contrary. yea it is plainly against that absired opinion that all that an unregenerate man can do by any means, in order to the getting of his heart savingly changed and initially sanctified by the special effectual grace of the regenerating spirit of christ, is vain labour and an acting of sin; we say that the foresaid article of the confession of faith is plainly against that absurd opinion, for it says expressly, that works of unregerate men, are things which god commands, and are of good use both to themselves and others; and one of the best uses they can possibly be of unto themselves, is to dispose and prepare them for regeneration and conversion, and to make them (if not meet, yet at least) less unmeet, to receive special saving grace from god through jesus christ. and thus according to the confession of faith, and our principle agreeable thereunto, we can give encouragement to unregenerate men to attend upon god in the diligent use of means for obtaining the free and effectual grace of the regenerating spirit, and so conversion thereby; but our author seems to tell unregenerate men, that all they can do before they be regenerated, and have the holy spirit dwelling in them, which is got only by faith in christ, and therefore is in order of nature after faith in christ; although they do it with a desire that they may be regenerated, and may obtain a precious holy faith in christ, and thereby the holy spirit of christ. it is all vain labour and an acting of sin. now is not this great encouragement for men to wait upon god in the use of his appointed means for the obtaining of converting grace and a new holy heart, to tell them that all they can do in order to that end, is vain labour, and acting of sin? we hope such men will not believe our author; but if they do, there is nothing can be expected from them; but that ●hev should cast off all use of means, and give over all reading hearing, and praying, for why should they trouble themselves with such religious exercises, since all is an acting of sin, and lost labour too. yet if our author should intent to set up for a quietist, the foresaid doctrine may be of good use to bring in disciples to him; for he can tell them holdly (as his manner is) that if they will become quietists, he will show them an infallible way wherein they shall neither act sin, nor yet lose their labour; for if they will become right quietists, they shall neither act nor labour, but wholly rest from action and labour; and shall not act sin, nor lose their labour, because they shall not act nor labour at all, but wholly rest from action and labour; and whilst they are in a state of perfect rest, without any kind of action or labour at all, then the spirit of god shall fall upon them, and regenerate and convert them. 3d. objection. thirdly, he objects the testimony of calvin, who in his institutions writes thus against the papists, institut. lib. 3 cap. 15 § 6. they have found out i know not what moral good works, whereby men are made acceptable to god, before they are engrafted into christ, as if the scripture lied, when it saith, they are all in death who have not the son. 1 john 5.12. if they be in death, how should they beget matter of life? as if it mere of no force, whatsoever is without faith is sin, rom. 14.23. as if an evil tree could have good fruit: but now what place have those most pestilent sophisters left unto christ, where he may put forth and display his virtue? why they say, that be hath merited for us the first grace, that is, he hath given us occasion of meriting; and that now it is our part, not to be wanting in improving the occasion offered. by this passage of calvin quoted here more fully than it is in the letter, we see more clearly what it is that calvin is there disputing against, to wit, the popish doctrine of man's meriting his justification and acceptance with god, as righteous unto eternal life, by moral good works done by him before he be justified, and that is, in their sense before he be initially sanctified in regeneration and conversion; for they perpetually confound these two, justification, and initial sanctification, on the infusion of habitual grace, as signifying the same thing. this is that which calvin there denies and disproves. now this being premised, to give light unto the whole matter, we answer, that this is nothing to our author's purpose, who brings this passage to prove that calvin denied all preparations and dispositions before regeneration and conversion, and consequently before justification; whereas calvin here denies no such thing; the only thing that he here denies against the papists. is that a man by moral good works done before justification, can merit justification; which we deny, as much as he doth; and that for the same reason too, because there neither are nor can be any moral works before regeneration and conversion, that are so good as to merit justification, and render a man acceptable unto god. but elsewhere he is so far from denying, that he expressly affirms and maintains that there are some preparations and dispositions in man previous to his justification, as we have plainly showed before: and particularly in his answer to pighius, he only denies that a man by his mere natural power without any supernatural grace, can prepare and dispose himself for special saving grace, but at the same time he confesses and proves, that by the gracious influences of god's spirit upon a man, he may be and is prepared and disposed for justification; for though the man be spiritually dead, yet he hath a natural life and the use of his reason, and the living and life-giving spirit of god, can use his naturally living, and rational faculties, to produce such actions as by the ordination of god shall prepare and dispose him to receive the first principle of spiritual life from the lord of life, and upon the exercise of that first principle of spiritual life in acts of faith and evangelical repentance, god for christ's sake alone, pardons his sins, and gives him a right to eternal life. this is all that we, with ames, twiss, and owen, after the synod of dort, hold and maintain concerning dispositions previous to regeneration and justification, and calvin in this passage doth not contradict this opinion, but in his other books maintains it himself. if our author should yet object, that at least one of the places of scripture which calvin alleges against the papists, to wit, rom. 14.23. whatsoever is not of faith, is sin, will be of force against us, and against the previous dispositions which we with the synod of dort maintain: we answer, that he will find himself very much mistaken, for it is of no force at all against us and our opinion: and to speak our minds freely, as it becomes all ingenuous men to do, we do not see that in itself, it was of any force against that opinion of the papists which calvin was there confuting. yet to excuse calvin's arguing from it against them, it may be said, that he did not speak his own sense therein, but the sense of augustin, who mistook the true sense of that place of scripture, as if the word (faith) there, did signify a justifying faith, and so urged it frequently against the pelagians. now the popish schoolmen pretended to have a great veneration for the authority and judgement of angustin; therefore calvin knowing this, might argue ad hominem against them, from that place of scripture taken in augustins' sense, and the argument might be of some use to stop their mouths. but otherwise the argument in itself was of no force at all, because it is grounded upon a false interpretation of the word (faith) in that place. and this calvin knew well enough, therefore not only in his commentary on the epistle to the romans, but several times in his institutions, when he speaks his own fence of rom. 14.23. whatsoever is not of faith, is sin; he says, that by the word (faith) there is not meant a justifying faith, but a firm persuasion of mind, in opposition to doubting that a thing is lawful, and that it may be done without sin: so that according to calvin, the true and genuine sense of the place is, that whatsoever a man doth without faith, that is, without a firm persuasion of mind that he may lawfully do it, whatsoever a man doth with a doubting conscience, it is sin to him who, so doth it, though the thing be never so lawful in itself. thus calvin expounds it in the third book of his institutions, chap. 5. § 10. quum nihil operis debeant aggredi fideles, nisi ceriâ conscientiâ, ut paulus praecipit (rom. 14.23.) in oratione potissimum requiritur haec certitudo. since believers should undertake no work, but with a sure conscience, as paul commands in rom. 14.23. this assurance is chief required in prayer; to wit, that we pray to no person, see also instit. lib. 4. cap. 13. §. 17. but with a sure and well grounded persuasion in our conscience, that we may lawfully pray to him. again in the fourth book, chap. 15. §. 22. in rebus etiam minutissimis, ut in cibo & potu, quicquid dubiâ conscientiâ aggredimur, paulus apart clamat esse peccatum. rom. 14.23. even in the most minute little things, as in meat and drink, whatsoever we do with a doubting conscience, paul doth plainly declare it to be sin. rom. 14.23. for whatsoever is not of faith is sin. in these passages calvin speaks both his own sense, and the true sense of the apostle; and therefore in the other passage quoted by our author, he must either speak the sense of augustin, and from it argue ad hominem, against the papists, or else he plays the sophister, and wrists the scripture against his own knowledge and conscience, which we are unwilling to believe of so great and good a man: but we cannot be so confident of the sincerity of our author as we are of calvin's, and therefore we commend to his serious consideration, a passage of the reverend and learned pitcarne in his evangelical harmony of the apostles paul and james in the doctrine of justification, art. 1. pag. 10. tantum addo quod, etc. i only add (says he) that in the scriptures, the word (faith) is also used for the conscience or persuasion of the will of god approving our fact, or that which we are to do. [whatsoever is not of faith, is sin.] that is, it is sin, whatsoever it be that is done with a conscience that is doubting and uncertain of the will of god. i was not a little grieved when i read suarez accusing our divines, that they acted the part of sophisters, when to prove justification by faith alone, they allege without making a right choice, or putting a difference between one and another, any places of scripture where faith is mentioned, although in them there is not the least tittle to be found of faith related to christ, and the promises of the gospel, or that hath respect unto absolution from the guilt of sin. this should teach us all to take great care how we quote and apply scripture to prove our opinions, lest by misapplying texts, we wrist the scripture, grieve god's spirit, and harden our adversaries in their erroneous opinions. 4th. obj. fourthly, he objects against us, the seventh canon of the sixth session of the council of trent, which anathematizeth all those who say that all works done before justification, howsoever they be done are truly sins. we answer, that this objection is impertinent, and makes against himself as well as against us. let. p. 16.32. for (1.) he says that faith is in order of nature before justification, as we have proved from several passages in his letter. (2.) he saith, pag. 11. that faith is a work, that it is a great work, that it is a work of god, yea a work of god which we do, and cannot do too soon. now we hope he will not say that this great work of god, which through grace we do before justification, and cannot do too soon, is an evil work, and is truly sin: and if it be not an evil work, and truly sin, than it must be a good work, and truly gracious: and thus we have himself holding with the council of trent, as well as we do, that before justification there is a good work which is not truly sin, but truly good and gracious. if he say, that faith doth not justify as a work, that is nothing to the purpose, for the question now is not, whether faith justify as a work, or as an instrument, but whether faith really be a work, an internal work of the soul, which it may well be, and yet not justify as a work: and he himself hath expressly confessed that it is a work, and a great work too, and likewise that it is a great work which not only god doth, but which we do through the grace of god enabling us. but after all, if he be so resolved that he will have nothing common with the council of trent, but differ from them in all things true or false, right or wrong; and therefore because they hold that justifying faith is a good work before justification, that is not truly sin, he will hold the contrary that tho justifying faith be before justification, yet it is not a good work, but an evil work, and is truly sin: we can say nothing to it, he hath his free choice, for any thing that we can do to the contrary; yet we should advise him to be wiser, and not to reject any truth of the gospel, because an adversary holds and believes it. and that it is a gospel-truth, that justifying saving faith is a good work, though it be in order before justification, we doubt not but his own conscience knows it and is convinced of it. sure we are that our conscience is fully persuaded of it. and tho' we believe in our hearts and confess with our mouths, that justifying faith in the best of us is too too little and weak, and that the gradual defect of it is truly sin, and deserves the hatred of god; yet are we infallibly sure that the grace and gracious act itself of justifying saving faith, so far as we have any of it, is truly good and cannot be truly evil and sin. this we are sure is a truth, and we believe it, and are resolved through grace so to do, and never to like it the worse because the papists believe it, and curse all those who disbelieve it. we join with them in believing the truth so far as they do believe it; but we utterly abhor their cursing of dissenters. if our author think fit to dissent from us in this matter, we shall be so far from cursing him, that we shall pray god to bless him with a better understanding of this and all other things, wherein he may be mistaken. as for the other passage which our author quotes out of the 11th. canon, and calls the bellowing of the beast, we might pass it over, for it doth not at all concern us, nor the controversy that is between the author of the letter and us. yet this we will say that he seems not to understand the language of that beast of trent, for they confess with us, that the grace whereby we are justified, is the favour of god; as plainly appears from what they say before the canons, in the 7th. chapter, but they curse all those who say that the grace whereby we are justified is only the favour of god: for they hold that we are justified by a twofold grace, the one external without us, and it is the mercy and favour of god, which is that that principally moves him to justify us; the other internal within us, the effect of the first, and it is the habit of grace or charity infused into us by the holy spirit to make us formally just by something inherent in ourselves. now we do not say (any more than they do) that we are justified by the favour of god only, and exclusively of all other things; for we maintain that we are justified by the grace and favour of god, and also by the righteousness of christ imputed to us, according to rom. 3.24. and this is the ground of the quarrel, this is it for which they curse our author and us both, because we both believe that we are justified by christ's righteousness imputed to us, and not by god's grace infused into us, and inherent in us. and yet we believe this too, to wit, that god's grace is infused into us and inherent in us; only we do not call this justification, but give it another name, and call it sanctification. those trent fathers therefore had no reason to be so angry with us, and in their beastly wrath to fall a cursing of us. but after all this anger on both sides, there may be some hope that the children of those fathers and our author may be reconciled in time, if the old axiom be true, that (quae sunt eadem in tertio, sunt eadem inter se); they who agree in a third, agree between themselves or one with another. but so it is that they agree in a third, to wit, in bradwardin. for certain, papists agree with bradwardin in the matter of justification; and they will have good hope that our author will do so too, when they consider that in the 13th. page of his letter, he saith, that god gave bradwardin for a blessing to england. for since he believes that bradwardin was a blessing to england, the papists cannot but hope that he will be of bradwardins mind in the important point of justification, and if the world would know of what mind bradwardin was in that matter, they may see it in his book, pag. 406 consiteor deum meum sicut aeternaliter gratuitô me dilexit, & aeternaliter gratiam justificatricem tempore placito coram eo, mihi gratis confer disposuit; sic tempore placito veniente, gratis insundere gratiam justificatem mihi injusto, justificare me gratis, lavare injustitias meas gratis, suscitare & sanare me gratis, debitum poenae aeternae dimittere mihi gratis, atque in poenam temporalem vertere ipsam gratis, etc. i confess that my god, (as from eternity he freely loved me, and likewise from eternity purposed freely to give me justifying grace in such time as seemed good in his sight, so when the time appointed comes) doth freely infuse justifying grace into me an unjust man, that he doth justify me freely, wash away my unrighteousness freely, raise up and heal me freely, that he doth freely forgive me the debt of eternal punishment, and freely change it into temporal punishment, etc. and pag. 416. nec etiam peccator, peccato dimisso, statim habet reformatione plenariam status sui, sicut evidenter sequitur ex predictis; adhuc enim remanet debitor poenae, & satisfactionis debitae pro peccato. nor when sin is forgiven, hath the sinner immediately a full reformation or change of the state of his soul, as it evidently follows from what hath been said before, for he yet remains a debtor of punistment, or bound to suffer punishment, and to make the satisfaction which he owes for his sin. thus bradwardin, he speaks the true language of the beast, and makes justification to be by inherent righteousness, and the pardon of the eternal punishment of sin, with a reservation of the temporal punishment to be yet suffered, and of satisfaction to be made by ourselves either in this life, or in purgatory after this life. in all which there is a perfect agreement between him and the council of trent. and let no man think that he must needs differ from the council of trent, because he speaks so much of gods freely justifying the unrighteous; for it is the first justification that he so speaks of, and the council of trent speaks the selfsame language, witness their own formal express words in the eight chapter of the sixth session, concil. trident sesse. 6. cap. 8. perpetuus ecclesiae catholicae consensus tenuit, ut, etc. the perpetual consent of the catholic church hath always held, that we are therefore said to be justified freely, because none of those things which go before justification, whether faith or works, do merit the grace of justification; for if it be of grace, than it is not of works, otherwise as the same apostle saith, grace is no more grace, rom. 11.6. thus the council of trent. whereby it is evident that they and bradwardin are agreed as to the freeness of justification, and it is as evident from the canons that they are agreed about the formal nature of justification, wherein it consists. and as the papists that keep close to the council of trent, are agreed with bradwardin in the fundamental point of justification against the pelagians; so they are not without ground of hope that our author will agree also (if he do not already agree) with the profound bradwardin, in that fundamental point of justification against the pelagians, because he hath publicly confessed it in the 13th. page of his letter, that god gave bradwardin to be a blessing unto england; surely then (will they say among themselves) this minister will not differ from bradwardin in so important a point of religion, for fear he should prove a curse unto england. it is not impossible, nor it may be improbable, but papists who consider of the matter, may thus reason themselves into the hopes of a proselyte to their religion. therefore we will endeavour to frustrate their hopes, and to prevent our brothers being drawn over to them, by means of his admired bradwardin, and this we shall do by giving him a further account of the principles and practices of that profound doctor. thus than he writes in 61 page of his book, called, the cause of god. nos imagines christi, dei, trinitatis, angelorum & sanctorum hominum adoramus. we worship the images of christ, of god, of the trinity, of angels, and holy men. again in the same page, nos deum propter se, & sanctos, angelos ejus, & homines, & ipsorum imagines adoramus finaliter propter deum. we worship god for his own sake, and we worship his holy angels and men finally for god's sake. this bradwardin confesseth to have been the principle and practice of himself and his church: and in the same page he very kindly makes an apology for the heathen, and excuses them from the guilt of damnable idolatry upon the same principle, for (says he) it is probable they had some knowledge of the true god, and him they worshipped for his own sake, (sub nomine tamen & idolo dei jovis) yet under the name and idol or image of the god jupiter. et nihilominus praeter ipsum, etc. and yet besides him, they worshipped some other idols, dedicated unto holy angels, unto men and demons, and in them, and by them they finally worshipped god. that is the pagans worshipped god for himself, but they worshipped idols and devils for god's sake, just as the papists worship saints and angels; and that excused them from the guilt of damnable idolatry, as it doth the church of rome; and they therein found acceptance with god: for they knew no better, and did as well as they could, therefore (deus ista piè & discretè respiciens, ignorantiae & simplicitati eorum pepercit, sinceram verô dilectionem, sanctam intentionem, & benevolam voluntatem acceptavit: hoc autem consonum videtur rationi, non enim videtur quod justissimus atque piissimus plus requirat ab homine quam accepit, & quam sit in hominis potestate, imò quod illud acceptet si intentione debitâ offeratur.) god considering these things mercifully and discreetly spared their ignorance and simplicity, but he accepted the sincere love, the holy intention, and kind will of those worshippers of demons. and this seems agreeable to reason that it should be so, for it is not likely that the most just and merciful god doth require more of a man than he hath received, and more than is in a man's power; yea it is rather probable that god accepts of what a man is able do, if it be offered with a due intention. thus the profound doctor, and by this let all calvinists judge, and let the conscience of our author judge, how well that doctor hath confuted the pelagians, and how greatly england is blessed with such a confuter. one touch more, and we have done with him. in the 26th chapter of his first book of the cause of god against pelagius, he maintains with all his might, that nothing is evil of itself, but by accident, no not the wickedest thing that a man doth or can do; and therefore that the most horrid wickedness a man can commit, in other circumstances may cease to be evil, and be no sin to him that commits it: to prove this, he makes several suppositions. as, (1.) in pag. 256. he puts this case (which he says is possible) that a simple man without any foregoing fault of his, is so deluded by the devil (whom he calls behemoth, the most cunning of all sophisters) that he is made to believe that unless he blaspheme or hate god, he shall necessarily and unavoidably commit more sin, than that blasphemy or hatred of god's amounts unto. now says our profound doctor in this case, (iste simplex secundum judicium rectissmae rationis, tenetur blasphemare deum, vel odire, ne alias incidat in majus peccatum, quoniam secundum communem animi conceptionem, de duchus malis, minus malum est eligendum, cujus causa est, quia in bonis est è contrario, scilicet quod majus est magis eligendum.) that simple man according to the judgement of the most right reason, is bound to blaspheme god, or to hate him, lest otherwise, (as satan tells him) he fall into a greater sin, for according to the common notion of man's mind, of two evils the least is to be chosen, the reason whereof is this, that on the contrary, of things that are good, the greatest is to be chosen. from these premises he concludes, that to blaspheme or hate god, is not of itself necessarily and unalterably evil and sinful; because there may happen a case, wherein a simple man, deluded by the devil, is bound to blaspheme or hate god, and that according to the judgement of reason, of right reason, yea of the most right reason, and that is, of the best reason in the world. (2.) in the same page he puts another like case, which he saith, is possible also without any foregoing fault of the person concerned. suppose a simple man swears to be entirely obedient to his prelate or superior in all things; then that prelate, or the devil transformed into him, commands the simple man to hate or blaspheme god. the poor man is certainly caught in a snare, but how shall he get out? why according to bradwardin, it is possible for him to get out safe by blaspheming or hating god in obedience to his superior, and out of conscience of his oath; for that is the least evil of the two, and so comparatively is no evil at all; because to blaspheme or hate god is but one sin, and that against god only, (multumque excusatum per praeceptum praelati) and it is much excused by the command of his superior; whereas he believes, that in this case not to obey, is a greater sin, because (1.) it is against his superior. (2.) it is also against god, whose vicegerent his superior is. (3.) it is a violation and breach of his oath and vow. this is another of his demonstrations, that blasphemy and hatred of god, is not of itself and unalterably evil, because here is a possible case wherein it ceases to be evil, and an honest man outwitted by a knave may do it without sin. in the next page, he hath other arguments of the like nature to prove the same position; but we are unwilling to have any thing more to do with him, for he next supposes satan to be transformed into christ himself, and in that likeness to act his part so dexterously and effectually as to discharge a man from his duty to god, and oblige him in conscience to commit the foresaid wickedness for a time, for fear of being necessitated to do it for ever, and to all eternity. now upon the whole, we refer it to all men of common sense, who have any true fear of god, and love to christ and pure christianity, to judge whether this be blest or cursed doctrine, and whether england be beholding to that man who commends such books to young ministers? but though we think the nation, and young ministers in it are little beholding to him on that account; yet we hope better things of him than that he will ever become a prosylite to the popish religion, or that for the sake of bradwardin, he will ever embrace the foresaid doctrines, which many papists themselves abhor. it may be he will say, that this bradwardin was an english man, that lived long since, and he did not ken him well; but if he had kened him or his book either, he would never have so commended him. and if he be ingenuous to say so, we readlly admit the excuse, for we believe it to be very true, and find that in more things than that one, he writes of what he doth not understand, and that too with an air of confidence that deserves a rebuke. and withal, we advise him for the future to forbear talking of old authors, and commending their books to ministers, for he seems not to be much acquainted with that kind of learning. as he writes in his letter, pag. 2. that a great many young students have contented themselves with studying english authors, so we think it had not been ill for him, if he had contented himself with studying such scots authors, and english too, as never trod in the by-paths of bradwardin, saltmarsh or crisp. we have mentioned some of that sort already, to whom we will now add a few more; and first we commend to our author's consideration, a passage or two of a reverend, learned and modest scots divine, whom he should ken better than the old englishman bradwardin. it is mr. dickson once professor of divinity in the college of edinburgh, who in his therapeutica sacra, writes thus, dickson's therapeutica sacra. book 1. chap. 6. pag. 92. [together with these external means (mentioned before) serving for drawing on the covenant, and going on in it, the common operations of god do concur; common to all the called both elect and reprobate, and gifts common to both are bestowed, such as illumination, moral persuasion, historical, dogmatical and temporary faith, moral change of affections, and some sort of external amendment of their outward conversation, saving grace being the special gift of god to his own, etc. and pag. 95. the lord makes use of this outward and common covenanting with all receivers of the offer, as a mean to draw the confederate in the letter, to be confederate in the spirit; for the faith which he requires as the condition of the covenant, he worketh in the elect, if not before, or with the external covenanting, yet undoubted after, in a time acceptable, and that by the ordinary means, the use whereof is granted to all confederate externally; and so as common illumination is a mean to that special, spiritual and saving illumination; and dogmatical and historical faith, is a mean unto saving faith, and external calling is a mean to effectual calling, so external covenanting in the letter, is a mean most fit and accommodate to make a man a covenanter in the spirit. here are preparations and dispositions before either regeneration or justification plainly asserted by dickson; then pag. 99 he enters upon a large discourse, concerning the condition of the covenant; and he says, that in receiving of grown persons into covenant, there are three conditions to be observed and distinguished one from another. (1.) the condition of the person desiring to be in covenant with god for reconciliation and grace through christ. (2.) the condition upon which he is entered into covenant. (3.) the condition required of him for evidencing of his sincere covenanting. and pag. 100 he says all these three are expressed by christ in matth. 11.28, 29. first, they that labour and are heavy laden, are they whom christ calleth unto a covenant, and fellowship of his grace; this that he calls the condition of the person, is the same thing with that which we call the disposition or qualification of the person. secondly, he propounds the condition of the covenant, to wit, that they believe in christ, or come unto him, that in him they may find full relief from sin and misery, and in him full righteousness and felicity. thirdly, he requires of them who do embrace him by faith, and so have accepted the condition of the covenant, that they give evidence of their faith in him, by taking his yoke upon them. take my yoke upon you, saith he. mr. dickson calls this, the third condition, and says a little before, that it is the covenanters up giving of himself to christ's government and obedience of his commands. this brings to our remembrance, a passage in the catechism, published by the calvinists of marpurgh in the year 1606. fidem sufficere ad apprehendendam salutem, non autem ad cam conservandam: sed amplius requiri vitae emendationem. that faith is sufficient for the first apprehending or receiving of salvation; but not for the conserving or continuing of it; but there is moreover required amendment of life. it reminds us also, of what we read in the fourth tome of monsieur claudes posthumous work, in the very entrance of his treatise of justification, pag. 75. that there are dispositions previous unto justification; and that there are conditions, which god necessarily supposes in man, and which ought to be found actually in him. and then that there are conditions, which god imposes upon a man, when he justifies him, to the end that he may observe them for the time to come. in like manner he distinguishes, in his historical defence of the reformation, part 2. chap. 6. pag. 218. of the english translation, between the condition supposed to justification, which is faith and repentance; and the condition imposed upon us by the lord, when he justifies us, which is, that for the time to come, we live holily according to the laws which he has given us. but this on the by, from dickson we pass to the learned charnock, he saith, that besides the passive capacity, that is, charnock, vol. 2. p. 148. the rational faculties, there are more immediate preparations. the soul must be beaten down by convictions, before it be raised up by regeneration; there must be some apprehensions of the necessity of it. yet sometimes the work of regeneration follows so close upon the heels of these preparations, that both must be acknowledged to be the work of one and the same hand. the preparation of the subject is necessary, but this preparation may be at the same time, with the conveyance of the divine nature. and afterwards for several pages, he saith no more, than what we have said, that there is not any absolute causal connection between such preparations, ibid. p. 148.149. etc. and regeneration, nor any connection that is meritorious.— yet all along he asserts preparations. from charnock we pass to flavel, flavels method of grace, from pag. 347, to pag. 402. who spends two whole sermons to prove, that there is no coming ordinarily to christ without the application of the law to our consciences, in a way of effectual conviction. this our author will grant, as we perceive by his letter. but mr. flavel spends two sermons more to prove, that this cannot be without the teachings of god in the way of spiritual illumination. from flavel we pass to firmin, firm. real christ. p. 6, 7, 8, etc. who shows at large that man naturally is not a subject fit or disposed to receive christ immediately when offered to him, but before he will receive him, there must be some work of the spirit upon him to prepare him, make him willing and glad to receive him. — and if this were not so, but as our author would have it, it would follow unavoidably that mr. hooker and mr. shepherd in their books about the souls preparation for christ, and the several steps of it, viz. conviction, compunction, humiliation, etc. wrote very great impertinencies, and, which is worse, did a great deal of hurt to the souls of men. for our parts, since we are said to be middle-way-men, we think that to answer that character that is given of us, we ought to avoid all extremes as well in this, as in other matters; and therefore we say, that no more of the foresaid preparatory dispositions, is simply and absolutely necessary than what makes the soul, (1.) see its absolute need of christ, and its being utterly lost and undone without him. (2.) what makes it see and believe that there is abundant help and relief for lost sinners in christ, that he is an alsufficient saviour, and the only alsufficient saviour, able and willing to save to the uttermost all that come unto him, and unto god by him, in the way prescribed in the gospel. (3.) what makes them thereupon desirous to have him, and in some sort willing to receive him in all his offices as he is offered, desirous to have him, and willing to receive him, and his benefits with him upon his own terms, the terms held forth in the gospel. of them who by the preventing grace of the holy spirit are thus disposed, there is no more required to be done by them in a way of preparation for christ, but they may and ought immediately to receive him into their hearts by faith, and confidently trust him with their souls and bodies, with their whole person, to be saved by him in the way agreed upon between god and him; and may be firmly and fully persuaded that if they do so through grace, they cannot possibly miscarry under the hand of such a saviour and physician of souls. thus we preach, and we know none can have just cause to say, that this is a new gospel, and we hope none will any more say so. we are sure this used not to be accounted a new gospel heretofore in england, nor is it so accounted at geneva; * turret. instit. theolog. elenct. part 2. loc 15. quest. 5. p. 592. for turretin lately taught there, that in the spiritual generation, no less than in the natural, the soul of man attains unto the spiritual birth, by many precedent operations; and god who will effect that work in man, not by violent raptures, and enthusiastical motions, but in a way agreeable to our nature; and who doth not in one moment, but successively and by degrees carry it on; uses various dispositions whereby man may be prepared by little and little, to receive saving grace, at least he does so, in the ordinary way of calling: so that there are various acts previous to conversion, and as it were degrees or steps towards the thing itself, before man be brought unto the state of regeneration. and they are either external, which may be done by a man, or are in his power, such as to go unto the church, to hear the word, and the like; or they are internal, which are excited by grace, even in the hearts of the unconverted, such as the reception and apprehension of the word preached, knowledge of the divine will, some sense of sin, fear of punishment, and some kind of desire of deliverance. thus turretin in a book printed at geneva, in the year 1688. by all which testimonies we have made it plainly appear, that our opinion concernnig the preparations and dispositions which ordinarily go before regeneration and saving conversion, is neither new nor singular, but that what we believe and preach, as to this matter, we have learned and received from the most eminent pastors of the reformed churches, whereof many have lived and died in the true faith before many of us were born. and this may suffice as enough, and indeed too much, for the confutation of our authors third error against the purity of our christian faith. chap. iii. of his ridiculous way of converting an unbeliever. and first we acknowledge to our author's praise, that he made a good beginning, and from the 17th line of the 15th page to the beginning of the 16th. he discourses well enough, and shows how indispensibly necessary it is that a sinner believe on christ, and what warrant he hath from the command, as also what encouragement from the conditional promise of god in the gospel, to believe on christ for justification and salvation. but we cannot say, that as he made a good beginning, so he continues till he have made a good end; for he gives several miserable answers to the questions, which he makes the unbeliever to put unto the minister, who is persuading him to believe in christ. first, he makes the unbeliever to ask the minister, what it is to believe on jesus christ? whereunto he answers, that be finds no such question in the word of god, but that all, both believers and unbelievers, the disciples, and the enemies of christ, did some way understand the notion of it: and this he endeavours to prove, because it was commonly reported by christ and his apostles, that faith in christ, is a believing that the man jesus christ of nazareth is the son of god, the messiah, and saviour of the world, so as to receive and look for salvation in his name; and this common report was known by all that heard it. this is no satisfactory answer, for the unbeliever may easily reply (1st.) that though in the scriptures, there be no such question in so many express formal words, yet there is sufficient ground in and from the scripture for a man to ask such a question, because the scripture speaks of several sorts of faith, of an historical, temporary, and miraculous faith; and of a saving justifying faith: of a faith, that is common to unconverted wicked men and devils, and of a faith that is proper and peculiar to gods elect. these faiths are of different natures, and therefore one of them must have something that another hath not, and each of them must have that whereby they are constituted in themselves and distinguished from one another. and this being ●o, that the man be not deceived to his ruin, he hath great reason to put the foresaid question, and should be commended for ask (if he do it seriously), what it is to believe on christ? to believe in him so as he ought to do, so as may be to god's glory, and his own spiritual and eternal good? (2.) he may reply, that if there were no ground for such a question, why did the westminster assembly put that same question in the shorter catechism, which they composed for the use of children? had they no warrant from scripture for putting such a question? or doth the scripture only warrant ministers, to put questions to the people; but not warrant the people to put questions to the ministers? again he may say, that if there were no ground for putting such a question, cap. 14. art. 1, 2. why did the same assembly in their confession of faith give such a large description of faith? was it not that they and all who own their confession, might be readily furnished with an answer to such a question, which they knew was expedient to be asked, (since there are several sorts of faith in christ, and so much hypocritical counterfeit faith in the world and in the church), and necessary to be wisely and judiciously answered, that people may understand what kind of faith it is that they are chief to seek after and get; and if they have it, that they may know it to their comfort; and may bless god for it, and give him the glory of it. (3dly.) the unbeliever may reply that it doth not follow that because christ and his apostles commonly reported that faith is a believing that jesus is the son of god, the messiah and saviour of the world, so as to receive and look for salvation in his name: therefore the thing reported was known by all that heard the report, and they did all some way understand the notion of it. for we read in luke 18. v. 31, 32, 33. that christ told his own apostles as plainly as any thing can be expressed in words, that he would go up to jerusalem, and that there he should be most cruelly and shamefully put to death, and rise again the third day: and yet in the very next verse 34. it is said, they understood none of these things: and this saying was hid from them, neither knew they the things which were spoken. if christ's own apostles remained ignorant of those great truth's concerning himself, which he had newly told them with as great plainness as human speech is capable of, we may well suppose that christ's enemies (at least many of them) understood nothing at all of the things that were reported concerning jesus his being the christ and saviour of the world, and concerning believing on him as such. 4. he may reply, that suppose it were true (which can never be proved) that all christ's enemies knew the common report concerning faith in him, so as some way to understand the notion of faith. yet that is wholly impertinent: for there is a wrong way of understanding a thing, as well as a right way, so that they might some way understand it, and yet that some way might be the wrong way. now what is that to the purpose, when one asks you this question, what is it to believe on jesus christ? to tell him that all men do some way understand what it is: for some, to wit, christ's friends understand it the right way, and others, to wit, his enemies understand it the wrong way? if our author should say that he meant not so, that all men did understand it some way, that is, either the right or the wrong way; he would make himself yet more ridiculous: for the unbeliever would in all probability desire him to name and show any one way of understanding a thing which is neither the right way nor the wrong way of understanding it. and all men of sense would laugh at him, if he should in earnest go about to convince an unbeliever, that there is a way of understanding what faith is, which is neither the right way, nor the wrong way. if lastly our author should tell the unbeliever, that in saying, all men did some way understand what faith in christ is; his meaning is that all men understood it the right way: the unbeliever would reply upon him, that if that was his meaning, than his meaning must needs be false, because he himself in the 20th. page of his letter affirmeth that all the ignorant people amongst christians, and amongst christians too of the reformed churches in england, have no knowledge of faith in christ, except by faith you understand a dream of being saved by jesus christ, though they know nothing of him, or of his way of saving men, nor of the way of being saved by him. now if all the ignorant people amongst us know nothing of faith in christ, in the right way, unless the dreaming way be the right way, how can our author prove that all the unbelievers amongst the jews, and heathens (amongst whom christ and his apostles preached) whereof many were grossly ignorant, did understand aright what faith in christ is? do our ignorant people know nothing of christ, nor of his way of saving men? and did not the ignorant jews and heathens know as little? especially if it be considered that the notion which the unbelieving jews in general had of the messiah, was that he should be a great and glorious temporal prince and earthly king, who by the material sword should conquer and destroy the romans, and all their other visible enemies on earth; and should save their nation with a temporal salvation: but as for spiritual and eternal salvation in another world, many of them, to wit, the whole sect of the sadducees, looked upon it as a dream of fanciful men; but for their parts they expected no such thing either from the messiah or from god himself, acts 23.8. no man in his right senses who considers these things, can deliberately and seriously think that all the unbelieving jews who heard the common report concerning jesus of nazareth, had any righter and better understanding concerning faith in him, and salvation by him, than the generality of ignorant people amongst us have. christ and his apostles have put this matter past all doubt and controversy with all that do themselves truly believe in christ. for thus christ prayed for many of them; luke 23.34. father forgive them for they know not what they do. peter also confesseth to themselves that it was through ignorance that they crncified christ; acts 3.17. and paul writing to the corinthians (1 cor. 2.7, 8. saith that had they known the hidden wisdom of god in a mystery, they would not have crucified the lord of glory. whence it is evident that either they had no notion of faith in christ, and of salvation by him, or if they had any at all, it was a wrong and false notion. and to tell a man who asks us, what it is to believe in jesus christ, that even the enemies of christ some way understood what it is, because they had some wrong and false notion of it, is both impertinent and ridiculous; and is such an answer as is more apt to make an unbeliever laugh at christ's ministers, and harden and confirm him in his unbelief, than to move him unto seriousness, and to persuade him to believe. so much for the unbelievers first pertinent question, and our authors impertinent answer to it. we pass on to the other questions and answers, as he hath set them down in the 16 and 17th. pages of his letter. quest. (2.) unbeliever. what is a man to believe, to wit, at first? ministers answer. he is not called to believe that he is in chaste, and that his sins are pardoned, and he a justified man, but he is to believe god's record concerning christ; 1 john 5.10, 11, 12. and this record is, that god giveth, that is, offereth to us eternal life in his son jesus christ, and that all who with the heart, believe this report, and rest their souls on these glad tidings, shall be saved rom. 10.9, 10, 11. and thus he is to believe that he may be justified; gal. 2.16. this answer is in itself true and good, but in and from the mouth of our author it hath no force at all to satisfy the conscience of an unbeliever, who seriously seeks information and satisfaction as to what he is at first to believe; because if he attentively read and consider our author's letter, he will see cause to doubt whether in this matter he really believes himself: because in his appendix pag. 35. he most highly commends and approves mr. marshals late book, and in the 7th. page of his letter, he saith expesly that mr. walter marshal, in his excellent book lately published, hath largely opened this matter, and the true controvery of this day. now it is true mr. marshal throughout his 10th. direction from page 168 to page 193, insists much upon the opening of this matter, but he doth it so, that quite contrary to the answer which our author hath now given to the unbelievers question, he maintians, that assurance that christ is ours, that our sins are now forgiven, and we are now justified men, is essential to the very first act of justifying faith, whereby we first receive christ, and rely on him for justification and salvation. he distinguisheth indeed as our author doth between the direct and reflex act of faith, and two things he hath there concerning the reflex act. (1.) he doubts whether it be properly an act of faith at all, and rather thinks that it is an act of spiritual sense and feeling of what is within ourselves; page 172. (2.) he positively affirms that the assurance we get by the reflex act of faith, or of spiritual sense, comes after justification, and is not of the essence of that faith whereby we are justified and saved, and that many precious saints are without it, and subject to many doubts that are contrary to it, so that they may not know at all that it shall go well with them at the day of judgement; 10th. direction. page 172, 173. then for the direct act of faith, he saith, (and so doth our author after him) that it is twofold. the (1st.) direct act of faith is that whereby we believe the truth of the gospel. the (2d.) is that whereby we believe on christ, as promised freely to us in the gospel for our salvation. by the (1st.) act, faith receiveth the means wherein christ is conveyed to us. by the (2d.) it receiveth christ himself and his salvation in the means.— and both these acts must be performed hearty with an unfeigned love to the truth, and a desire of christ and his salvation above all things: this is our spiritual appetite, which is necessary for our eating and drinking christ, the food of life, as a natural appetitite is for bodily nourishment.— we must receive the love of the truth, by relishing the goodness and excellency of it— and this love must be to every part of christ's salvation, to holiness, as well as to the forgivenness of sins.— the former of these acts doth not immediately unite to christ, because it is terminated only on the means of conveyance, the gospel; yet it is a saving act, if it be rightly performed, because it inclineth and disposeth the soul to the latter act, whereby christ himself is immediately received into the heart. he that believeth the gospel with hearty love and liking, as the most excellent truth, will certainly with the like heartinesses believe on christ for his salvation; psal. 9.10. therefore in the scripture saving faith is sometimes described by the former of these acts, as if it were a mere believing the gospel: sometimes by the latter, as a believing on christ, or in christ; rom. 10.9, 10, 11. 1 john 5.1, 13.— then he saith that this second principal act of faith in christ, includeth believing on god the father, son, and holy ghost, and that it is the same thing with trusting in god. 4th. direction, page 61, 62, 63. and elsewhere, he affirms that the direct acts of faith include love. now touching these direct acts of faith, we acknowledge that there is an assurance essential to the first of them whereby we believe the promises of the gospel; and that assurance is two fold, absolute and conditional. first, by our faith of the gospel we are absolutely sure that god according to his promise doth give christ, and justification and salvation through him unto all true penitent believers. (2.) by our faith of the gospel we are conditionally sure, that if we are true penitent believers, god according to his promise doth give christ; and justification and salvation through him unto us in particular. for the conditional promises of the gospel, being general to all penitent believers, they comprehend all the particulars of the same kind; and therefore if we believe with an absolute assurance that god justifies and saves through christ, all penitent believers, we must by necessary consequence believe at the same time with a conditional assurance that god justifies and will save us through christ, if we be true penitent believers. this conditional assurance with respect to ourselves, upon supposition of our being true penitent believers, is necessarily included in the former absolute assurance, that god for christ's sake, justifies and saves all true penitent believers. then for the second act of justifying faith, whereby we believe on christ himself with fiducial consent, according to the gospel, we freely grant that it also is accompanied with assurance; but (mark it) not with an assurance that is essential to itself, and essentially included in itself, but with the assurance, the double assurance of the first assenting act, which though it go before, yet it continues and accompanies the second act of fiducial consent. and for this reason we approve of that assertion of mr. marshals in the 179 page of his book, that believing on christ for salvation as freely promised to us, must needs include a dependence on christ, with a persuasion that salvation shall be freely given, as it is freely promised to us. thus he. and we subsume, but it is freely promised to us only on condition that we through grace are true penitent believers, as we before proved at large. therefore the persuasion or assurance of it, which accompanies our dependence on christ by the second act of faith, is a conditional persuasion or assurance, as it concerns ourselves and our own salvation, in particular. yet afterwards when by reflex acts of faith and self examination we clearly perceive (through the special assistance of the holy spirit) that we are indeed true penitent believers, than our assurance becomes absolute, and we are absolutely persuaded and assured that christ is ours, and that god is our god in christ, and that through christ we are justified and shall be saved. this is all the assurance that the scriptures hold forth to us as attainable in this life by the ordinary assistance of god's spirit and grace, and if any good men have at any time by extraordinary favour and privilege attained to any other or more assurance; they had best keep it to themselves, and be very humble under it, and thankful to god for it; and they should not affirm it to be absolutely and essentially necessary to the fiducially consenting act of justifying saving faith, and by that means condemn all who have not that sort of assurance, as having yet no justifying saving faith, but as being still in a state of nature, and children of wrath, and of the devil. it were easy to show (if we had time and room for it here) that all the reasons, scriptures and examples which mr. marshal brings to prove, that an absolute assurance (that christ is now ours, that our sins are now pardoned, that we are justified, and shall be eternally saved) is absolutely and essentially necessary to the direct act of justifying faith, whereby we first receive christ and trust on him for justification and salvation; prove no such thing: the utmost that they prove, is that the foresaid assurances which we willingly admit, are partly antecedent to, and concomitant with, and partly consequent upon the direct act of faith, whereby we receive christ with siducial consent, that through him we may be justified and saved. but there is not one of them that proves, that an absolute assurance that christ for the present is ours, and that we are now justified and in the state of salvation; is essentially necessary unto, and included in the direct act of justifying faith. and whereas it is confidently said, that all our reformed divines were for this sort of assurance as essential to the direct act of that faith whereby we are first justified, we answer, that it is indeed said with confidence enough, but it is a vain groundtess confidence, for though some might be of that false opinion, yet it is notoriously false that all were; we shall at present give one considerable instance to the contrary, and our instance shall be in mr. fox, the author of the book of martyrs, de christ gratis justificante, p. 246, 247. who in his book of justification written against the papists, says expressly, [sic mea feri ratio ut existimem, etc.] such is my judgement, that i think this confident persuasion of mercy, and assurance of the promised salvation, is not the thing which properly and absolutely delivers us from sin, and justifies us before god; but that there is some other thing proposed in the gospel, which must some way in order of nature go before this assurance, and justify us before god; for faith in the person of the son necessarily goes before, which faith in the person of the son, first reconciles us to god. afterward a confident or sure persuasion of most certain mercy, follows this faith: concerning which mercy, none of those who believe in christ, can justly doubt. by this and more that mr. fox saith in the same place, it is clear as the light, that he did not believe that an absolute assurance of our being now pardoned, justified and reconciled to god is included in, and essential to the direct act of faith, whereby we are justified in the sight of god; but on the contrary he held that the direct act of faith in the person of the son of god whereby we are justified, goes before the said assurance, and assurance follows after it; which is what we believe, and so doth our author with us; for he tells the unbeliever, that a man is not called to believe that he is in christ. mark the expression, he doth not only say, [a man is not called to believe, that he was in christ before he believed.] for that marshal and all but antinomians do say; but he says, that a man is not called to believe that he is in christ (pro praesenti) for this present, that his sins are now pardoned, and he now a justified man; but he is called to believe the gospel record, and to believe in christ according to the record, that is, he is to believe that he may be justified, and not that he is justified. but now marshal, unto whom our author appeals for the opening of this matter, hath so opened it, that he hath shut it up in darkness, confusion and self-contradiction, as it were no difficult task to demonstrate. he maintains confidently, (1.) that assurance of our being now justified, and of the pardon of our sins, is necessarily and essentially included in the direct act of justifying faith. pag. 169, 170, 171.172, 173, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, etc. (2.) he maintains, that all the reprobate, who live in the visible church, are by god strictly obliged under pain of eternal damnation to believe with the foresaid justifying faith and absolute assurance, which is essential to it, that they are now justified, and that their sins are now pardoned, though it be then and always false that they are justified, and their sins pardoned, pag. 202.204. yet he saith, that this is but the appearance of a great absurdity, pag. 171. whereby he gives us to understand either, (1.) that it is no real absurdity to hold that god obliges men under pain of eternal damnation to believe assuredly, that a falsehood is truth, and that they who are not pardoned, are pardoned. or (2.) that he denies the consequence, to wit, that god obliges the reprobate to believe a falsehood: and the meaning of that is, that though he hath granted both the premises, yet he will stiffly deny the conclusion; whereby men whose eyes are open, may see what a rare gist of reasoning mr. marshal was endowed with. again, though he maintain, that an absolute assurance of our present justification, and future eternal salvation, is essential to the direct act of justifying faith, yet he saith, many precious saints, who have that faith, and that assurance of justification and salvation which is essential to it, may not know at all, that it shall go well with them at the day of judgement, pag. 173. and this for want of the other after-assurance, which comes by the reflex act, and by self-examination. now is not that a strange assurance, which a man hath by faith, of his eternal salvation, whereby he doth not know at all, whether he shall be eternally saved or eternally damned, for want of another kind of assurance by spiritual sense and feeling, whereby he may know, how it shall go with him at the day of judgement, whether he shall be then eternally saved or damned! to what purpose serves the first assurance, when a man can know nothing at all by it, without a second assurance? is not that a plain indication, that the first pretended assurance is nothing but an ens rationis, a creature of a mans own making, which hath no real existence, but in his vain imagination. our author sometimes seems to be wiser than to believe such vain fancies; and yet at other times he appears to be deeply in love with them, as when he most highly commends mr. marshal's book (in which we deny not but there are good things), as the most sovereign antidote against the poison of the new divinity; and says, that he hath largely opened this matter. for our parts, we are willing to impute this to his not having attentively read that book, and so to his not knowing, that mr. marshal did manifestly contradict and dispute against his opinion, as a limb or joint of the new divinity: but we are afraid his unbeliever will be really scandalised at his telling him, that he is not called at the first to believe that he is now in christ, that his sins are pardoned, and he is now a justified man; though in the same letter he sends him to marshal's book for information and direction in this very matter, and it tells him the quite contrary, and confidently maintains that an unbeliever is called and commanded at first upon pain of eternal damnation to believe with absolute assurance by the direct act of faith in christ, that he is now in christ, his sins pardoned and he a justified man. this we are afraid, will tempt his unbeliever to say, either, sir, you believe this of marshal or not; if you do not believe it, why do you commend his book to me, as that which will give me best direction in this matter, and preserve my soul from being poisoned with the new divinity? but if you do believe him, why do you contradict him, he telling me one thing, and you telling me the quite contrary, yea the contradictory thereof? why do you also join with the new divines against him or his book, and go about to poison my soul with the new divinity, in the great point of assurance, it's not being essential to the direct act of justifying faith, whereas the contrary opinion of marshal which you deny, was the great engine wherewith our first reformers battered down the walls of rome. thus our author by his way of writing is more like to hinder men from believing, and to harden them in their unbelief, than to be instrumental in converting them from unbelief to faith in jesus christ. thirdly, unbeliever, this believing is hard? minister, this is a good doubt, but easily resolved. here again, the minister makes himself ridiculous, and exposes himself to the scorn and contempt of the unbeliever; for the unbeliever makes no doubt of the matter, but positively afferts that this believing is hard, as being firmly persuaded in his mind (without the least hesitation or doubt) that this believing is hard indeed, and when the minister has heard him say, yea has put the words in his mouth, and made him to say positively (without doubting) that this believing is hard; then he answers him, and says this is a good doubt and easily resolved, and the plain english of that is, that no doubt but a positive affirmation, is a good doubt. but supposing for once with the minister that no doubt is a doubt, yet how doth he make it appear that it is a good doubt? for there are bad doubts as well as good doubts, and why may not this be a bad doubt, rather than a good doubt? yes saith the minister, i prove it and make it appear thus, that it is not a bad, but a good doubt; because it bespeaks a man deeply humbled. rarely proved! but why may it not as well bespeak a man to be deeply hardened in unbelief, and highly listed up in pride? for were not the capernaites deeply hardened in unbelief, and yet when they heard christ himself with his own blessed mouth preaching to them of the great necessity and usefulness of believing on him, under the figurative expressions of eating his flesh and drinking his blood, they both doubted and dishelieved, and thus expressed their doubts and unbelief. john 6.42. how is it that he saith, i came down from heaven? and v 52. how can this man give us his flesh to eat? and v 60. this is an hard saying, who can hear it? likewise those jews and heathens of whom paul writes, 1 cor. 1.23. that christ crucified was unto the one sort of them, a stumbling block, and unto the other foolishness; could doubt and say, this believing in a crucified christ is hard, and in effect they did say it, and so they doubted, if that be to doubt; for they said it was an unreasonable foolish thing to believe to be saved by a crucified man; and that was in effect to say, that it was hard to believe in christ. for it is certainly hard for a reasonable man to believe, that which in his heart he judges to be unreasonable and foolish. but now did this bespeak those unbelieving jews and heathens to be deeply humbled? no sure it was so far from it, that it bespoke the quite contrary, it bespoke them deeply hardened in unbelief, and highly lifted up in pride and self conceit. our author has another argument to prove it to be a good doubt, because (says he) any body may see his own impotency to obey the law of god fully, but few find the difficulty of believing. well, be it so, that few find the difficulty of believing, and that few doubt whether it be difficult or not; doth that prove that this particular unbeliever doubts, because he finds believing to be so difficult, that he is past all doubt of its being difficult, and thereupon positively affirms that it is difficult and hard to believe? he must have lost his reason that can deliberately think, that a man who is fully convinced of the difficulty of believing, and thereupon affirms that it is hard to believe, hath a good doubt whether it be difficult or not; because the generality of other men seldom think of believing, or endeavour to believe, and so find not the difficulty of it. but (2.) suppose this particular unbeliever do not find it so difficult to believe, as to be past all doubt that it is difficult; only his mind is brought to an (aequilibrium) even balance, and hangs in suspense between these two, whether it be difficult, or whether it be easse to believe: this supposition being true, will prove indeed that the man hath a doubt in his mind concerning the difficulty of believing, but it doth not at all prove that it is a good doubt: the truth is, such a doubt is evil and cannot be good; for the man ought to be fully persuaded in his mind, that to believe in christ crucified with a saving faith, it is really difficult and hard, yea impossible to unregenerate nature and without the grace of god; but that to regenerate nature it is easy through the affistance of god's special grace. and so here can be no room at all for the unbelievers good doubt. next our author falls upon the resolving of the unbelievers pretended good doubt. and in order thereunto, he asks him, what it is which he finds doth make believing difficult to him? (1.) our author asks the unbeliever whether he finds it difficult to believe, because he is unwilling to be justified and saved? and this (saith he) the unbeliever will deny: and he may well deny it, and further tell our author, sir, you are very impertinent to ask me such a question, for you knew well enough without ask, that that could not be the reason wherefore i think it difficult to believe; for no man in his right wits, was ever unwilling to be justified and saved, that is unwilling to be happy; for it is naturally necessary unto all men to desire happinness, and therefore if the justification and salvation which you talk of, be necessary to make me happy, and if my happiness partly consist therein, you know, i cannot be unwilling to be justified and saved, because i cannot be unwilling to be happy. (2.) he asks the unbeliever, whether he finds it difficult to believe, because he is unwilling to be so saved by jesus christ, to the praise of god's grace in him, and to the avoiding of all boasting in himself? and he saith, the unbeliever will surely deny this also. to which the unbeliever may be supposed to answer, sir, i thank you for your good opinion of me, by this i perceive you take me to be deeply humbled indeed, but how you should come to be sure of that, i cannot understand; for i am not sure myself that i am so deeply humbled. it is true, i confess and i am sure of it, that i am willing to be saved, that is, to be happy: but i am not yet sure that i am willing to be so saved in that way of deep humiliation. i find by your letter that those whom you confess to be already true believers, find it diffioult to be throughly willing to be so saved by jesus christ, as to give all the glory of their salvation to god's grace, and to take nothing of it to themselves; how then is it possible for you to be sure that i who am an unbeliever will not confess that i find a great unwillingness in my nature to be saved in such a way of self-denial and deep humiliation, and that that very unwillingness makes it very difficult for me to believe in a crucified christ: you cannot be sure but i may be such an unbeliever as will not deny what i really find to be the natural frame and temper of my heart: and you who are a believer and a minister should not teach me to deny it against my natural conscience, nor blame me for confessing it: and when you have heard my ingenuous confession, if you think my heart is in a very ill frame, and that i am a very wretched creature, you should give me what help you can towards the getting of my nature changed, and my heart deeply humbled; but you think i am deeply humbled already because i said, this believing is hard, whereas for any thing you know to the contrary, the true reason of my so saying, might be because i am not yet deeply humbled. yet however it be, i thank you for your good opinion of me? (3.) he asks the unbeliever, whether he finds it difficult to believe, because he distrusts the truth of the gospel record; and then adds, that he dare not own this. to which again the unbeliever may reasonably enough answer, sir, what mean you by this, do you mean that i dare not own it because of you, or because of mine own natural conscience? if you mean that i dare not own it because of you, than it seems you threaten me, that if i confess myself to you, and tell you what distrust i find in my own heart, you will persecute me, or do me some mischief: this better becomes a minister of the inquisition, than a minister of the reformed church. or if you mean that i dare not own it, because of my natural conscience, as if it were against my natural conscience to distrust the truth of the gospel record; how do you know that? you are indeed a man of confidence enough; but you may be mistaken for all that; and i tell you that in this you are mistaken, for it is an ordinary thing with us unbelievers to distrust the truth of the gospel record, and i find that same distrust often within myself. i cannot conceal it from god who made and governs the world, and knows all things in the world, as natural religion teacheth us, and many of us believe this, though we do not believe your supernatural positive religion; and since i cannot conceal it from god, why should i be afraid to confess it to man, especially to the ministers of supernatural positive religion, a part of whose office it is, to maintain the credibility and truth of the gofpel record against unbelievers, and to do what they can by good and solid arguments to prove the credibility and truth of the gospel, and thereby to convince and convert unbelievers to the faith of it, and to faith in christ to it. sir, if you believe that record yourself, and can give a reason of the faith and hope that is in you, as ye are bound to do; you should not discourage unbelievers from confessing the true grounds of their not believing in christ; but should rather desire and entreat them to tell you their grounds ingenuously what ever they be, that when you know them, you may answer them, and show there is no solidity in them; by this means you may be instrumental to bring men off from their unbelief; and then by laying before them the solid grounds and reasons you have for the credibility and truth of the gospel-record, you may through the blessing of god convince and convert such unbelievers as i am, to the faith of the gospel, and to faith in christ according to the gospel. (4) he asks the unbeliever whether he finds it difficult to believe, because he doubts of christ's ability, or goodwill to save? and then he saith, that this is to contradict the testimony of god in the gospel. to this the unbeliever may readily reply, sir, what do you mean by christ's ability or goodwill to save? whether do you mean it of his ability or to save others, to wit, all the elect in general, or of his ability or goodwill to save me in particular? if you mean it of his ability or tosave others, to wit, all the elect in general, than i tell you that so far as i do historically and dogmatically believe the scripture to be the word of god, i do not at all doubt of christ's ability and goodwill to save all the elect in general, for i find that god hath clearly testified so much in the gospel, and i firmly believe his testimony, and do not in the least contradict it. but if you mean it of his ability or willingness to save me in particular, i desire you to name the chapter and verse in the gospel, where god hath testified, that christ is willing to save me in particular, so that i cannot doubt of his willingness to save me without contradicting that testimony. you cannot positively say that i am one of the elect whom christ is certainly willing to save; because i am yet an unbeliever, and so long as i am an unbeliever, neither you nor i can possibly know without an immediate revelation whether i be one of the elect or not. i may be, or i may not be one of them: but neither you nor i can say determinately that i am certainly the one of them, and not the other. if you shall say, (and you have nothing else to say) that whether i be one of the elect or not, i must believe without doubting that christ is able and willing to save me, otherwise i contradict the testimony of god in the gospel: then indeed you will say something to the purpose. but we have not yet done, for i must now ask you, whether you would have me believe without doubting that whether i be elect or non-elect, christ is willing to save me absolutely or conditionally. and if (1.) christ be willing to save me an unbeliever absolutely, and that whether i be elect or not, than it will follow by necessary consequence that one unbeliever shall be infallibly saved, even though he be a reprobate; and if one why not another, and another? yea, why not all? cum fit eadem ratio unius & omnium, since there is the same reason for one and all. the consequence of this from christ's being willing to save me an unbeliever absolutely, and that whether i be elect or not, is clear and unavoidable; for christ never fails to do that which he is willing absolutely to do, if he be able to do it; but he is certainly as able as he is willing: therefore if christ be both able and willing absolutely to save me an unbeliever whether i be elect or not, than i an unbeliever whether elect or not, shall be infallibly saved. this would be good news and rare gospel to unbelievers and reprobates, if there were any testimony of god for it in the old or new testament. but an unbeliever may doubt of christ's willingness to save in this absolute sense, without fear of contradicting the testimony of god in the gospel. (2.) if to avoid this absurdity, you say that whatever i be, elect or not elect, christ is willing to save me an unbeliever, conditionally, if i sincerely believe and repent; now i understand you very well, and have nothing to say but that you are come off from your principle, and fall in with those you call the new divines, and preached to me the new divinity, that there is a conditional gospel covenant, according to the tenor whereof, christ is willing to save any unbeliever, whatever he be, on condition that he sincerely and effectually believe. if to break through this net in which your are caught, you shall say, that if i be not one of the elect, christ is no wise willing to save me, either absolutely, or conditionally? i reply, why did you then, speaking to me in particular, say, that for me to doubt of christ's goodwill to save, is to contradict the testimony of god in the gospel? the question was not, whether or no christ be willing to save some other men; but whether he be willing to save me or not? and whereas you made a show as if you would resolve my doubt by determining that question in the affirmative, that christ is willing to save me, and that i must not doubt of his willingness to save me, or if i do, than i contradict god's word: now to keep up your separation from those you call the new divines, you would bring yourself off by telling me, that you do not know whether christ be any wise willing absolutely or conditionally to save me. is not this an excellent way to resolve my doubt which you put into my head, whether christ be willing to save me, to tell me that truly you do not know whether he be any wise willing to save me or not, but if i doubt of his willingness to save some other men, i contradict the word of god? thus you resolve my doubt (whether christ be any wise willing to save me or not?) by confirming it. i say, i doubt of christ's willingness to save me an unbeliever; and you say, you doubt of it too, for you do not know whether he be willing or not; and because the thing is thus doubtful both to me and you, therefore i must no more doubt of it. this is the best way that you have to resolve this doubt of mine, which yourself have raised, unless you go over to your brethren, and say, that christ is undoubtedly willing to save me, (whatever i be) upon condition that i sincerely believe and repent. and yet you shall not escape into their camp without one thrust more at you, i mean without objecting one difficulty more which lies in my way to believing. this last objection i have learned of yourself likewise, and therefore i expect a clear answer from you, for it's to be hoped that you are a wiser man than to raise a spirit which you cannot lay again. thus than i argue as you have taught me: unbeliever. i cannot believe on jesus christ, because of the difficulty of the acting this faith, for a divine power is needful to draw it forth, which i find not. let. pag. 17. this is a very powerful argument to prove the difficulty of believing, for if it be impossible for me to believe, than it is difficult, with a witness for me to believe: but it is impossible for me to believe without a divine power, that being needful to draw forth the act of believing, and i do not find that divine power in or with me: therefore it is difficult for me to believe. this is the argument which you have taught me, and it has the appearance of a demonstration; at least it proves invincibly that i had reason to say before, without any doubt, that this believing is hard; though by your logic which draws quidlibet ex quolibet, darkness out of light, etc. ye inferred that i was a good doubter, because i did not doubt at all, but was sure that it was hard for me to believe: and since ye yourself have furnished me with so strong an argument to evince the truth of what i said, that it is hard for me to believe; i do expect from you a clear, solid, satisfactory answer; otherwise i shall be tempted to suspect you to be yourself a secret unbeliever, and that your design in suggesting such arguments to unbelievers, and not giving a solid answer to them, is to confirm such as i am, in unbelief and (as it may happen) to increase the number of unbelievers: or if i should be mistaken in suspecting that you yourself had such a formal design, yet i no wise doubt but am sure that the thing hath a natural tendency to confirm and harden sinners in their unbelief. ministers answer. i desire you unbeliever, not to suspect me as if i were secretly one of your fraternity, nor yet to be afraid of any mischief that may ensue upon my method for converting unbelievers, which i have published for the instruction of the younger ministers. to cure you of your suspicion of me, and to prevent any hurt to yourself or others; i have given an answer to your argument which you had from me, and thus it is word for word. [believing in jesus christ is no work, but a resting on jesus christ: and this pretence (of its being difficult) is as unreasonable, as that if a man wearied with a journey, and who is not able to go one step further, should argue, i am so tired that i am not able to lie down; when indeed he can neither stand nor go. this is my answer, unbeliever, and what do you think of it? is it not a clear solid satisfactory answer? do not you see the light breaking forth from all the parts of it? do not you also see the darkness of your objection flying away before the light of it, as the small dust and dry leaves fly before the wind. unbelievers reply. sir, i will tell you by and by what i see: but first, i must tell you what i think, and to be plain with you, i think this your last answer is much like all the rest that went before, there is hardly a good one amongst them; and the difference is, that this is the worst in the whole pack. and to make this good, i offer these things following to the consideration of all men of common sense and reason, as well as of christian believers. (1.) the objection saith, that faith is a difficult act, and proves it to be difficult, because, impossible, without a divine power, which the unbeliever finds not. to which you answer, that believing is no work, but a resting, and so by changing the terms and putting work for act, you think to impose upon silly women and such like persons, and to make them think that you have said much, when you have said nothing or worse than nothing: and that you have answered the objection, when you have rather confirmed it: the objection says and proves that faith is a difficult act, because, impossible without a divine power: this you do not deny, but only deny that it is a work, and so that it is a difficult work. if then there be an act that is no work, (as you seem to intimate) though faith should not be a difficult work, yet it may be a difficult act, so difficult that a man cannot believe aright without divine assistance, and this was all the objection was designed to prove, for it makes no mention of the word (work), it neither affirms nor denies faith to be a work. (2.) i demand why you change the terms and deny faith to be a work, whereas the objection did not affirm it to be a work, but to be an act, and a difficult act; because impossible to humane nature without the powerful assistance of god? i cannot easily imagine what reason you had to deny faith to be a work, instead of denying it to be an act, and a difficult act; if you intended to answer the objection which only affirms faith to be a difficult act. but whatever reason might move you to deny faith to be a work, which i do not well understand; yet this i know, that your denying faith to be a work, falls out very unluckily for you, and turns to your own shame; let. pag. 11. for you yourself had said before, and proved from scripture, to wit, from john 6.28, 29. that faith is a work, yea that it is the work of god, the great work of god, the great work which we do, and which we cannot do too soon. these are your own words: and yet within the compass of six pages after, you absolutely deny that faith is any work at all. this brings to my mind the old saying, oportet mendacem esse memorem, a liar had need to have a good memory. and by this sign and token i know that you are a weak deceived man yourself, or that you are a deceiver of others. it will no wise relieve you to say, that though faith be a work, yet it doth not justify as a work, but as an insirument. for (1.) here you absolutely deny it to be a work, and that in answer to an objection which did not relate to justification. therefore (2.) i say that here was no occasion to speak of justification at all, and consequently no occasion to affirm that faith justifies as an instrument, and to deny that it justifies as a work; for the question here is not at all, how we are justified by faith, whether by faith as a work, or by faith as an instrument; but all the question is, whether faith be difficult to an unbeliever or not. the objection affirms it to be difficult, because it is impossible to humane nature without the grace of god; you in answer to the objection, deny it to be difficult, because it is no work. so that it is evident this your denying faith to be a work, relates not to the manner of faiths justifying a man; but to the difficulty of a man's getting and using of faith. (3.) it is altogether impertinent here to deny faith to be a work, in the office or act of justification; for though it were granted, that faith is not considered as a work in the act of justifying, yet if it be a work in its own act of existence, the objection remains in its full strength and unanswered; for still it is true which the objection asserts, that its very difficult for an unbeliever to produce the act, or do the work of faith. this you saw, and therefore to cut the sinews, and to take away the main force of the argument, you absolutely deny faith to be a work. this was your intention in saying that faith is no work, otherwise your answer was wholly impertinent to the objection. and indeed it must be confessed, that if your answer were true, if it were true that faith is no work at all in any sense; the objection hath lost all its strength, and falls dead to the ground. but that your answer is not true, i have had it already from yourself under your own hand, affirming and proving that faith is a great work, which we cannot do too soon. and lest you should endeavour to bring yourself off, by saying that faith is no outward bodily work, and that, that was your meaning in saying that faith is no work, i give you a third answer, and therein, thirdly, i demand, what you mean by the word (work) when you say that faith is no work? whether you do mean an outward bodily work, or an inward heart-work? and (1.) i appeal to your own conscience, that you did not mean an outward bodily work; for no body ever said or thought, that faith is an outward bodily work. and why should you in answer to an argument deny, that which no body ever affirmed; yea and lay the main stress too of your answer upon that denial? (2.) you could not give that answer to such an objection, unless you was in a dream, or out of your right mind; for to answer so as to say, that faith is not an outward bodily work, but an inward heart-work, doth not in the least touch the objection; though that be most true that faith is no outward bodily work, yet if faith be an inward heart-work, the objection stands in its full force and strength; for inward heart-work, is the most hard and difficult work, therefore if faith be an inward heart-work, it must needs be still hard and difficult to believe, which is the very thing that the objection was brought to prove; therefore if you intended to answer the objection by denying faith to be a work; you must also intent to deny that it is an inward heart-work, and so that it is any work at all either inward or outward; and if that were true, you had indeed effectually answered the objection: but that is not true, for fourthly, it is notoriously false, that faith is no inward heart-work, for to be an inward work of the heart is nothing, but to be an inward act of the heart, and it is most certain and evident that faith is an inward act of the heart; for believers (as you do confess) find by spiritual sense and feeling that faith is an inward act of the heart; let. p. 7. and the scripture saith expressly that with the heart man believeth unto righteousness, rom. 10.9, 10. and therefore faith is an inward work of the heart, consequently it is manifestly false which you say, that faith is no work. (5.) whereas you say, that faith is no work, but a resting on jesus christ: i reply, (1.) that if faith be no work either outward, or inward, because it is a resting; then faith is no inward act, for an inward act is an inward work, and if faith be an inward act, it is also an inward work; but you yourself, page 7th. of your letter expressly say, that faith is an inward act, and i have proved it by scripture to be an inward act, therefore it is utterly false which you say, that faith is no work at all, no not an inward work, because it is a resting on christ. (2.) faith is both an inward work, and a resting on christ. resting on christ is a figurative expression, and faith is called by that name, it is said to be a resting on christ, because the effect or consequent of the act of faith in christ, is the rest of the soul, the satisfaction and quiet of the mind, the ease of the heart, and the peace of the conscience. (3.) if this sense of the form of speech, (resting on christ), by which the act of faith is expressed, as it is a means of causing, and as it connotes the foresaid effects; if (i say) this do not please you, but you will have resting on christ, to signify a total cessation from any inward act: then i reply, (1.) that you seem to be shifting about from one sect to another, and for a time to have taken up your rest among the quietists, the disciples of molino's at rome, or of madamoiselle de bourignon in france. for it is said to be their principle, that a man should cease from all action, outward and inward; and when the soul is in a state of non-action, and perfect rest from all labour whatsoever, than a man is most religious, and best disposed for converse with and enjoyment of god. (2.) if faith be no inward act, but a resting on christ in such a sense, as that it is a cessation from, and a negation of all act and action; than you need no more to endeavour the conversion of me, or of any other unbeliever; for if that be true faith, than a mere nothing is true faith; and i will assure you, i have that nothing, as much as ever i can have it: you yourself in your letter call me an unbeliever, and that signifies one that wants faith; now if i want the act of faith, i must needs have the negation of the act of faith, (in such a way as a negation can be had), and this negation is a perfect cessation and resting from any act of faith, and further, this negation, cessation and resting is faith itself, (according to you). therefore it follows by clear and necessary consequence that by wanting the act of faith, i have faith, and by being an unbeliever, i am as good a believer as yourself. therefore you need no more labour to convert me, than i need to convert you, but let us both rest together among the new quietists, if you please. (6.) and now, sir, i would be content to rest, if you would let me alone; but are not you like to disturb my rest, by clamouring against me, that i am unreasonable in pretending that it is hard and difficult for an unbeliever to believe in christ without the powerful assistance of god's grace? and to prove that i am unreasonable in this, you boldly affirm it upon your word (as your manner is), and with appearance of much gravity, you illustrate it by a similitude taken from a weary traveller, who is so tired with his journey that he can neither stand still, nor yet go one step further, but must of necessity lie down and rest. now (say you) if this man in these circumstances should say, oh i find it difficult to lie down, for i am so tired that i am not able to lie down, though indeed i can neither stand nor go; would it not be accounted very unreasonable? and just so, it is unreasonable for you an unbeliever to pretend, that it is so difficult for you to believe, that you cannot do it without the powerful grace of god; for believing is resting, it is ceasing from all action, and consequently it is so far from being difficult, that it is one of the easiest things in the world; it is of that nature, that you cannot avoid the doing of it, no more than a weary traveller can avoid lying down, when he is so tired, that indeed he can neither stand nor go. this is the force of your reasoning in the 17th. page of your letter, line 7, 8, 9, 10, 11. whereby you would prove me to be unreasonable, in saying that it is difficult for an unbeliever to believe on christ without the grace of god. i have considered this your profound reasoning, for the easiness of believing on christ without the grace of god, and now that i understand it, my fear of being disturbed by it, is over and gone; yea i am beholding to you for it, and i thank you sir: for this which i was afraid would have been a disturbance to me, is like to be a means of bringing us both to rest. i have told you before, what i thought; now (according to my promise) i will tell you what i see. why, in short, by the light of this your illustration, i see that i (an unbeliever) am as good a believer as you are, and that it must be so and cannot be otherwise; for as the weary traveller that cannot possibly either stand or go, must lie down, and cannot but lie down, unless he be hindered by force or miracle: so you and i cannot but believe, unless we be hindered by miracle. but there is no fear of that, god hath wrought many miracles heretofore to persuade men to believe, but he never did nor will work a miracle to hinder us from believing. i will never more object the difficulty of believing, for want of the powerful grace of god to enable me thereunto, for if this doctrine be true, there needs no grace to enable us to believe, for believing is resting and doing nothing, and that we can do as well without, as with the help of grace; nay we cannot but do it, unless we be hindered from resting and doing nothing, and be irresistibly stirred up to work and act by miracle. but, as i said, there is no fear of that, since working and acting would hinder us from believing: and to hinder us from believing, is contrary to the true use and end of miracles. and sir, as i will never complain more of the difficulty of believing, so in the name of the whole fraternity of unbelievers, i thank you for your great kindness to them, and for this sweet and comfortable doctrine (if it be true) which you have taught us all in your letter, which i hear is much cried up by some women in london, who love rest and ease. now we might have all rested quietly together, were it not for those you call the new and young divines, whom you have charged with pelagianism. this was not wisely done of you, for you have thereby awakened them from their rest, and it is to be feared, that by loud recriminations, they will disturb you and us both, and proclaim the secret to the world, that you yourself are confederate with pelagians, semipelagians and unbelievers. for it is undeniable matter of fact, that it is a branch of pelagianism, and the very root and heart of semipelagianism, that men can believe in christ with a justifying faith, by the power of nature, without the supernatural grace of god. and if your similitude hold good, men not only can believe, but which is more, they cannot possibly choose, but they must of necessity believe without the help of grace, unless they be hindered by a miracle exciting them to act and work, and to cease from rest. sir, how you can come to rest and peace with those brisk young divines, whose age inclines them to action, more than to rest, i do not pretend to know; but this i know, that upon your foresaid principle the unbeliever and you are agreed; and if you will be steadfast and stand to your principle, we shall live together in perfect quietness, and never more differ about believing. thus we have given an account of our author's way and method of converting an unbeliever to faith in christ; (which is more than a resting on christ, for it is a grace whereby we assent to jesus his being the christ, the son of god and only saviour of men; and consent to take him for our prince and saviour, and as such receive him on his own terms, and then rest, rely, and trust on him for justification, etc.) we have showed also, what a weak and ridiculous way and method it is, and how easily an unbeliever may answer all that he hath said in the 16. and 17. pages of his letter mentioned before; except a few at his first setting out, he hath hardly made one right step in the whole course of that advice, which he takes upon him to give unto ministers, how they ought to deal with unbelievers in labouring to convert them unto faith in christ. he hath plainly betrayed our cause to the unbeliever, who hath brought him by his last objection, to take up with a piece of pelagianism, and with the grossest semipelagianism that hath been heard of in the christian church; so weak is he (not wicked we hope) that he could think of no other way to answer that objection, but by denying that faith is any work at all (though therein he shamefully contradicts himself, and the express word of god) and by affirming that it is a resting, in such a sense, as imports that it is neither work nor act, but a mere cessation from working and acting, a doing nothing at all; and from thence he labours to show the unbeliever that it is not difficult to believe, and illustrates it by such a similitude as will make any considering man who reads it and understands the use he makes of it, to think that he must be a semipelagian, who holds that a man can believe unto justification without any subjective supernatural grace of god at all. whereas he ought to have acknowledged the truth of the objection, that it is indeed difficult and impossible too, for a natural man by the power of nature ever to believe, but that it is possible and easy too by the grace of god. and then he should have directed the unbeliever unto the means whereby grace to believe is ordinarily obtained from god through christ, and should have advised him to wait, and continue waiting on god in the use of his appointed means, and particularly to be much in praying, as well as he can, for grace to help in time of need, and desiring the prayers of christ's ministers and people. but not a word of this, nay, instead of advising the unbeliever to use god's means, and seek the grace of faith from god through christ, he gives him to understand that faith is nothing but a resting from all work and action, and that it is no more difficult to believe, than it is for a weary traveller to lie down and rest, when he is so tired that he can neither stand nor go. and after he hath told the ministers that they ought thus to resolve the doubts and answer the arguments of unbelievers, he hath the confidence to conclude that by such reasonings with an unbeliever from the gospel, the lord will (as he hath often done) convey faith to him, and joy and peace by believing. this is like all the rest, the conclusion and the premises are at irreconcilable variance with one another: the conclusion saith that the lord will convey faith to the unbeliever, by the reasonings in the premises, and yet one of those reasonings is that faith is nothing but a resting, and such a resting as signifies a cessation from all actings; and that an unbeliever needs no more help to believe, than a weary traveller needs help to lie down and rest, when he is so tired that he can neither stand nor go. we think it is a sort of blasphemy, to say wittingly and willingly, that such reasonings as some of those we have noted in the 16 and 17 pages of the letter, are either in and from the gospel, or that the lord makes use of such self contradicting, confounding fulshood, as means of conveying faith into the hearts of his people. and because in this part of his letter, he speaks to us that are ministers, and either bids us tell the unbeliever so and so; or else he affirms that we do tell him so and so; we must declare to the world that we will follow his advice no further than we find it agreeable to scripture and reason, (which sometimes we do find, and oftentimes the contrary, as we have proved), but as for what he affirms, that ministers tell the unbeliever, that faith is not difficult, that it is no more difficult to an unbeliever, than lying down is to a man when he is so tired and weary that he can neither stand nor go; we protest we are none of those ministers, we never did, and through grace, never will tell any unbeliver such an abominable falsehood. we know no other ministers but our author that preaches such doctrine, and we have endeavoured to make him ashamed of it, in hopes to bring him off from it. we trust that after we have thus publicly declared against our author's way and method of converting unbelievers to faith in christ, and plainly shown the falsehood and folly of it in several particulars, the world will not be so unjust as to reproach the nonconformist ministers in england with that ridiculous way of preaching the gospel to unbelievers, which we ourselves have confuted and exposed, on purpose to prevent the scandal which might otherwise arise if such things should be suffered to pass current amongst us, without any public disapproving of them. chap. iu. of the calumnies wherewith he asperses christ's ministers; and particularly of the middleway. first calumny. his first great calumny which comprehends all the rest that lie scattered here and there throughout his letter, is that we are corrupters of christ's pure gospel, and differ from him and his party, in the main points of the gospel which they believe, and live by the faith of, and look to be saved in: and by the preaching whereof, they have converted sinners unto god, and have built up saints in holiness and comfort: yea, he carries the accusation so far as to say that we preach a new gospel, an arminian gospel, to the certain peril of their souls that believe it: and that our cause is coincident with the cause both of arminius and also of pelagius. that this is asserted by him, and that we do not calumniate him, in reporting his calumny against us, is evident from the express words of his letter; for pag. 10. he says, we see the pure gospel of christ corrupted, and an arminian gospel new-vampt, and obtruded on people, to the certain peril of the souls of such as believe it. and a little after in the same page, he says, that we are such ministers as creep in, not only to spy out, but to destroy, not so much the gospel-liberty, as the gospel-salvation we have in christ jesus, and to bring us back under the yoke of legal-bondage. and indeed (saith he) the case in that epistle to the galatians and ours have a great affinity. by which words he gives the world to understand that we are such ministers as are like the false-teachers in the churches of galatia, who taught people that they could not be justified and saved unless they became jews, so far as to be circumcised and to keep the law of moses; and therefore that paul's curse recorded, gal. 1.8. falls upon us, [though we or an angel from heaven preach any other gospel unto you, than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. again in pag. 13. he intimates that he and his party cannot be at peace with us unless they be either silent as to the main points of the gospel, or else swallow down arminian schemes of the gospel, contrary to the new testament, and unknown to the reformed churches in their greatest purity.— and in the same page he says, that we might know that the most learned and godly in the christian world, have for some ages maintained and defended the same doctrine, which he and his party stand for. and he names three authors who have done so, to wit, bradwardin, twiss, and ames. and then to drive the nail home, that it may stick to us, he saith, that judicious observers cannot but already perceive a coincidency between our cause, and the cause of those two pests of christ's church, pelagius and arminius, and that they fear more when we shall either be driven out of our lurking holes by force of argument, or shall think fit to discover our secret sentiments. and when that day comes, he threatens us that we shall find enemies and opposers enough both at home and abroad. this is his first great charge which we have faithfully collected from his own express words; and a dreadful charge it is, if it were true, but of the truth of it, we find no proof but his bare word; and what credit his word deserves, we have seen already. indeed what he saith of his judicious observers, their searing that our cause is not only coincident with pelagius his cause, but that we are further gone off from the truth than he; we cannot tell whether it be true or false. it may be true, for we read in psal. 53.5. that some men have been in great fear, where there was no just cause of fear. and it may be false for some men can write lies, and say that they and, their confederates do fear that which they do not fear, but only for their own ends would make simple people believe that they fear. so that for aught we know, it may be either true or false, that he and his party have such fears of us. but the lord himself knows, and we know, that they have no just cause to entertain such fears and jealousies of us; and it is a sure sign that they have but little if any christian love, when without cause, they entertain such jealous fears of their brethren, that they are departed or will departed from the truth of the gospel, more than pelagius. and as to what he says, that our cause is coincident with that of arminius and pelagius, we are as sure that it is false, as we can be that there is any such thing as truth or falsehood in the world. and our author also must needs know it to be false, and must lie against his knowledge and conscience, if he knows what the errors of pelagius were, and that we are (as he affirms us to be) middle-way-men, who steer a middle course between the orthodox and the arminians. for the great fault, that these middle-way-men are charged with is, that they hold universal redemption in such a sense, as neither to agree with the orthodox, that is, the most rigid calvinists, who (contrary to the express mind of calvin) deny that in any sound sense christ can be said to have redeemed all mankind; nor yet with the arminians who affirm that christ hath redeemed all the reprobate world, in the same sense that he hath redeemed his select people, whom he chose in christ before the foundation of the world unto special effectual grace in this life, and unto eternal glory hereafter in the life to come. this is to be a middle-way-man, to hold universal redemption in such a sense as neither pleaseth the arminian, nor the rigid antiarminian. this our author knows well enough, and if he knows as well what were the errors of pelagius, than he cannot choose but know that it is a lie to say that our cause is coincident with the cause of pelagius: for to be coincident is to be the same. but it is not possible, that our cause should be the same with pelagius his cause, if we be middle-way-men, and hold universal redemption as we are said to be and to do; for pelagius did not hold but denied universal redemption from sin, or punishment of sin; and it was accounted one of the pelagian errors above twelve hundred years ago, that he so denied universal redemption. this may be unknown to our author, and he may be apt to think that sure this is a fiction of the middle-way-men; but if he be ignorant of this matter of fact, let not his ignorance make him boldly deny it, before he know what evidence there is for the truth of it. we give him these two arguments to prove the truth of this matter of fact, that pelagius denied universal redemption. (1.) it is known and acknowledged by all who have any understanding of these matters, and our author himself knows it, that pelagius denied original sin; from whence it follows by necessary consequence that he must needs also deny universal redemption of all mankind. for infants that die in their infancy before they commit any actual sin, are a considerable part of mankind: the infants who from the beginning of the world have died, and who daily do die, and hereafter will be dying to the world's end, and that both within and without the church, before they commit any actual sin, will make up a vast number; even many millions of the race of mankind. but pelagius denied that these infants who so die in their infancy, have any sin either original or actual to be redeemed from, and therefore he must needs deny also that they were redeemed, and consequently he must needs deny universal redemption of all mankind. where there is no manner of sin, there is no manner of punishment due for sin, and consequently no room for redemption by the blood and death of christ either from sin or punishment. but pelagius denied that infants who die in their infancy have any manner of sin, or that any manner of punishment is due to them for their sin. therefore pelagius denied that such infants are redeemed by the blood and death of christ either from sin or punishment, and consequently he denied universal redemption. (2.) our second argument to prove the truth of this matter of fact, is from the testimony of augustin, who is a very competent witness, because he lived at the same time with pelagius, and wrote against him, and confuted his errors and heresies. now augustin in his writings against pelagius and his disciples, testifies plainly that they denied universal redemption on the account aforesaid. for thus he writes: contra duas epistolas pelagianorum, lib. 2. ad bonifacium, cap. 2. manichaei dicunt deum bonum non omnium naturarum esse creatorem: pelagiani dicunt, deum non esse omnium aetatum in hominibus mundatorem, salvatorem, liberatorem. catholica utrosque redarguit, etc. the manicheans say, that the good god is not the creator of all natures. the pelagians say, that god is not the purifier, the saviour, the deliverer or redeemer of all ages among men: but the catholic church refutes them both; defending both against the manichaeans the creature of god, lest any nature should be denied to be made by him; and also against the pelagians, that the human nature which is lost in all ages, might be sought out and saved. again the same augustin in several other of his books proves against the pelagians, from 2 cor. 5.14. both that all mankind, even infants who die in their infancy, lib. 20. de civit. dei. cap. 6. & contra julian. lib. 6. cap. 4. are guilty of original sin, and also that in some sense, all are redeemed by the death of christ. in the second book of his imperfect work against julian a pelagian bishop. chap. 28. having alleged 2 cor. 5.14, 15. we thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead: and that he died for all, etc. he adds, unde colligitur quod dicit apostolus, ergo omnes mortui sunt, & pro omnibus mortuus est: dic apertè, mortui parvuli non sunt, qui peccatum nullum habem; morte pro se christi, in quâ baptizentur, non opus habent. jam dic evidenter, quod latenter sentis, quoniam sa●is prodis tuâ disputatione quod sentis. from which words we gather, or infer for what the apostle saith, therefore all are dead, and he (christ) died for them all: say plainly, infan●s are not dead, who have no sin. they have no need of the death of christ for them, into which they should be baptised. now speak out evidently, that which thou thinkest secretly, for thou dost sufficiently discover by thy disputation, what it is that thou thinkest. by this and the foregoing passage of augustin, it is very evident that the pelagians first denied that infants had any original sin. secondly, that christ died for infants to redeem them either from sin, or punishment of sin. for though they declined to speak out, and say plainly that christ died not for infants, yet they really believed, and held it for a truth, that he did not die for infants to redeem them, because they were not guilty of any evil either of sin or punishment, from which they could be redeemed. by these two arguments our author and others may plainly see that the pelagians denied universal redemption by the bloodshedding and death of christ. and this being so, how is it possible that we should be middle-way-men, who hold universal redemption, and yet that our cause should be coincident with that of pelagius who denied universal redemption? surely our author cannot think both these things to be true of us, without supposing us to believe both parts of a contradiction at once. but whatever he himself may be able to do as to believing of contradictions, he is greatly mistaken if he think that we have so strong a faith, or so wide a swallow. for we that know ourselves much better than he doth, declare sincerely that we were never masters of such a faith as can believe known contradictions; and that we could never make both ends of a contradiction meet, so as to be able to swallow them down both at once. either then our author knew that the pelagians deny original sin and universal redemption, or he knew it not; if he knew that they deny both, how can he be excused from lying against his conscience, in telling the world in print such a known untruth and contradictious falsehood, that we are middle-way-men, and that our cause is coincident with that of pelagius, that is, that we are for the middle-way and the extreme way, for the middle-way and not for the middle-way at the same time. but if he knew not what the cause of pelagius was and is, with what faith and conscience could he say that our cause is coincident, or is the same, with the cause of pelagius? is it lawful for him, and his judicious observers to defame the ministers of christ, and to charge them with pelagian heresy, and confederacy with pelagian heretics, when they do not well know what the pelagian heresy was? hath our author a privilege boldly to affirm what he doth not know nor understand? and is he fit to inform the people of that which he is ignorant of, and wherein he needs to be informed himself? we expect the people, for whose information, he pretends to write, will be more just and reasonable than to believe the calumnies wherewith this man either maliciously or ignorantly asperses us; especially when they may clearly see that his calumnies do not hang together, but are inconsistent, and contradict one another; which is a sure mark whereby to know a calumniator and false witness; mark 14.56. we do not positively say that he doth thus calumniate us out of mere malice, but we are sure it is and must be either out of malice or ignorance; and we willingly incline to the more charitable (which is the safer) side, that he doth it rather out of pure ignorance and blind zeal, than out of mere malice, and cain-like hatred of his brethren. but whatever moved him to it, the thing itself is unwarrantable and injurious, for which he must give an account to that god who is an infinitely more judicious observer than he or any of his party; and who, as he observes all our opinions and practices, so he judges always aright according to the true merits of every cause; and in this cause we can with a good conscience lift up our face to the lord our god and say, lord, thou whose understanding is infinite, and from whom nothing can be hid, and who hast infinite power and right to punish us with everlasting destruction, if we now lie to thee, and dissemble with thee, thou knowest that our cause is not coincident with the cause of pelagius; and that this man doth calumniate us in saying that judicious observers cannot but perceive that they are coincident. to thee, o god, we appeal from this false accuser of the brethren, and unto thee we refer our cause, to judge between us and this man, whether it be coincident, or the same with that of pelagius. but it may be our author will object and say, that if our cause be not coincident with that of pelagius, yet it is at least coincident with that of arminius. we answer, that neither is that true. for (1.) our author and those of his way, commonly say, that the cause of arminius and pelagius, is all one, and therefore if they say true in that, and do not calumniate arminius, our cause cannot possibly be coincident with the cause of arminius, unless it be also coincident with that of pelagius, they being both one and the same. (2.) our author saith, that we are for the middle-way, between the arminians and the orthodox, as he calls them: if that be true, our cause must lie in the midway between the two extremes, and then it is impossible to be coincident with the cause of arminius, for that is one of the extremes; and it is evident by ocular demonstration that the middle cannot be the same with either of the sides, and so cannot be coincident with either of the extremes. if our author say, that we are come off from the middle-way, and are come over to arminius, and so are now on the other extreme, and wrong side, in opposition to the orthodox, who are on the extreme right side. we answer (1.) if that be true, and he know it, than he is guilty of a gross lie, in saying that our cause is coincident with that of arminius, and so that we are arminians, and yet that we are for a middle-way between the arminians and the orthodox. if he will have us to be arminians, he must not (if he be a true honest man) say that we are for a middle-way between the arminians and the orthodox. (2.) if we be come over from the middle-way unto the arminian extreme, we desire our author to tell us when it was, and how long it is since, and how he knows that we are come over to the arminian extreme; for we profess sincerely that we know none of these things: we neither know when it was, nor how long it is since, nor do we know that we are yet come over, or ever shall come over to the arminian extreme. indeed we dare not pretend to any certain knowledge of future contingents, that are not revealed to us; yet we trust in our god through jesus christ, that by the grace of his spirit, he will keep us so firm and fixed in the truth of his word, that we shall never go over to the arminian extreme. and since we know certainly what we are for the present as to this matter, we can safely and with a good conscience call heaven and earth to record this day against this standerer, that we are not arminians, and that he doth very sinfully reproach and calumniate us in saying, that we corrupt christ's pure gospel, and obtrude on people a new arminian gospel, to the certain peril of their souls; and that our cause is coincident with that of arminius. but, (3.) though according to the light, which god hath given us by his word and spirit, we believe that the arminians err from the truth in many things, and we do from our hearts descent from their errors, yet we hold ourselves bound in conscience, as we must answer to god at death and judgement, not to calumniate them nor any other erroneous brethren; and therefore we cannot in conscience say, that whilst the arminians keep within the compass of the five articles (wherein they differed from our divines at the synod of dort) their cause is coincident with the cause of pelagius. we do indeed think that something and too much of pelagianism or semipelagianism is implied in, and by consequence follows from their principles; but that doth not make their cause to be coincident with the cause of pelagius. therefore our most judicious and conscientious divines do not scruple to declare pelagianism to be a heresy, against the very foundation of christian religion: but as for arminianism, keeping within the compass of the five articles, their consciences will not suffer them to say, that it is one or more fundamental errors, or heresies: this might be sufficiently proved by many testimonies of our divines, but instead of all that might be alleged, we shall content ourselves at present with the testimony of that famous general assembly of the church of scotland; which in the year 1638. at glasgow deposed all their bishops; though that assembly had accused many of their bishops of arminianism, yet did they not say, that arminianism was as bad as, and coincident with pelagianism, and that it was a fundamental heresy: they were so far from saying so, that in the seventh session, november 28. the moderator mr. henderson, in the face and with the approbation of the assembly, gave this moderate answer unto a politic objection of dr. balcanquel, who appeared there for the bishops, controversias omnes: etc. that all the controversies (especially if they exceed not the limits of the five controverted articles) between the arminians and anti-arminians or calvinists, neither were nor are about fundamental doctrines; that indeed the arminians erred grievously, but that he and the synod were not yet persuaded, that all heterodoxies, that is, that all erroneous doctrines, hist. motuum in regno scotiae, dantisci, an. 1641. p. 100, 101. are heresies. this we find in the full narrative of the proceed of the synod of glasgow, recorded by dr. spang in his history of the commotions and wars in the kingdom of scotland, in the years, 1638, 1639, and 1640. and by this passage we learn, that mr. henderson and the general assembly of glasgow, were of another spirit and temper than our author is; they would not, nor could in conscience say, that arminianism, keeping within the compass of the five articles, was concerning fundamental doctrines; or that the arminian errors were heresies. but he presumes to be now wiser than mr. henderson and a whole general assembly of the scottish church; for he sees and says that arminianism is a new gospel. yea he is so illuminated of late, that he can see and confidently say, that less errors than the arminian, even the pretended errors of the middle-way-men, are a new gospel, or inconsistent with and destructive of the main points of the old and true gospel of christ. here we must warn our author, and those of his way, to beware that from our alleging the testimony of the synod of glasgow concerning the arminian errors, they do not increase their jealousy of us, as if we thereby shown our love to and liking of arminianism; for we sincerely, profess, that though we have a real love and respect for the persons of some arminians whom we know, yet we have none at all for their errors; but we do really hate their errors, and all errors wherever we discern them; and if we could discern any in our selves, there we should hate them most of all, and renounce them with abhorrency. but though we ought to hate, and be zealous against all error, wheresoever and in whomsoever; yet we should do it with judgement and understanding, and our hatred of and zeal against errors, should bear a due proportion to the real greatness or comparative smallness of them; for if we do otherwise, and make no difference between errors and errors, but judge all to be alike fundamental and damnable; the natural consequence thereof will be this, that as soon as ever we apprehend, right or wrong, that any christian brethren are fallen into an error, we shall immediately damn their persons, and separate ourselves from their society; which we take to be against the rules of christianity, and highly prejudicial to the common good of christ's church, and to the particular good of our own souls. wherefore, as we have warned, so we advise our author when at any time he apprehends any brethren to be in an error, that he would not presently cry, these men have got a new gospel, away with them, anathema to them; that is, let the curse of god be upon them; but rather take time to consider, whether it be really an error, and if it be, whether it be a fundamental error, and inconsistent with their glorifying god on earth, and obtaining salvation in heaven: and if after he hath used the best means he can to inform himself, he cannot but think, that it is such a great and damnable heresy; let him think also, whether he had not better endeavour to reclaim them by instructing them in meekness and love, than presently to proclaim them to be cursed and damned heretics. and lastly, if after he hath conversed with them, heard them speak for themselves, and found (it may be) that they have arguments for their opinion from scripture and reason, which he cannot easily and clearly answer, it may not be amiss for him to abate his confidence, and to think soberly with himself, that the errors of these men may not be so great and damnable, as he thought, nor the men themselves so bad as he took them to be; but that for aught he knows to the contrary, they may be good people in the main, and such as christ himself will own (notwithstanding all their involuntary errors) for true living members of that mystical body, whereof he is the head and saviour. as for our authors alleging, that bradwardin, twiss and ames are against us, because they are against pelagius and arminius; it implies the foresaid calumny and false accusation, that we are pelagians and arminians, and is grounded upon it, otherwise it is impertinent; for if we be (as we are) against pelagius and arminius, as well as they, it makes nothing against, but for us, that they are against them likewise. yet we must tell our author what it may be he doth not know, that bradwardin and the arminians agree in several of their errors wherein we differ from and oppose them both; for instance, bradwardin holds, that christ died for and redeemed not only sufficiently and efficaciously also, many of the reprobate, so that in the visible church, many of them are through christ made effectually partakers of regenerating justifying and sanctifying grace for a time, insomuch that (quoad statum praesentis justitiae) in respect of the present state of justification, wherein they are, there is no difference between them and the regenerate justified elect, but they always fall from that state of grace or justification totally, and finally, and are damned eternally: the necessary consequence whereof is, that none of the regenerate, justified elect, can be absolutely sure without a miracle, or extraordinary immediate revelation, that they shall not fall from grace totally and finally, and be damned too: for though they be never so sure that there is a holy change wrought in them, and that they are converted and justified, and in a state of grace for the present, yet they can conclude nothing from that with an absolute certainty, that they are elected and shall persevere to the end and be saved; because all that grace that they have for the present, is of the same common nature with that grace which is in many reprobates, and so the one may be finally lost for aught they can know to the contrary, as well as the other. thus bradwardin by holding the actual justification and sanctification of reprobates, subverts the doctrine of the saints total and final perseverance in grace, and assurance of salvation, as shall be proved from his own words, if our author have the boldness to deny the matter of fact. and now let him go and make his best of bradwardin, and tell the people what an orthodox defender of the grace of god, he hath got for his second against us, whom he hath highly provoked to the combat, and necessitated to take arms for our own defence: for as ruffinus said of old, christianus non est qui notam haereseos dissimulat; he is not (good) christian, who suffers the black mark of heresy to be set upon himself, and does not endeavour to wipe it off, and clear himself of it. but now at last it is like, our author will say, that if we are neither pelagians nor arminians, yet we can never clear ourselves of being middle-way-men, and that here he hath us, and will hold us, and we shall never escape his inquisition. whereunto we answer, that according to the description, which he gives of a middle-way-man, let. p. 2. we may safely and with a good conscience according to the light which god hath given us, deny that we are middle-way-men; for he makes a middle-way-man to be one who espouses, defends and promotes a middle-way betwixt the arminians and the orthodox. but that we are middle-way-men in this sense, we must deny; for we cannot own ourselves to be such men without lying against our consciences, and saying, that we are not orthodox, or but half-orthodox, which we believe to be a great falsehood. if therefore our author would have us to confess that we are middle-way-men, (1.) he must give us a better and truer definition of a middle-way-man, for this will not fit us at all; belike he would have the world believe that we are half-arminians and half-orthodox; but if that be his meaning, in intimating that we steer a middle-course between the arminians and the orthodox, it is an abominable calumny which we have already wiped off, by solemnly and sincerely declaring that we do not participate of the arminian extreme at all, we are no arminians in whole or in part. (2.) he would do well to tell us whom he means by the orthodox, it may be that by the orthodox, he means chief himself and his small party, exclusively of all other protestants. if that be his meaning; we say, (1.) that he must not thus beg, but prove his orthodoxy, before we can own him to be thus very orthodox. (2.) we think that such a notion of orthodoxy is too narrow and schismatical. it is a monopolising of soundness in the faith to a party, and that comparatively a small party of christians too; and a branding of all the rest with the mark of unsound and erroneous in the faith: whereas the real difference between those called middle-way-men on the one side, and the most of those called orthodox on the other, may not be matter of faith, strictly so called, but rather matter of opinion; and so both parties may be orthodox or sound in the faith: that is, notwithstanding some different sentiments in lesser things, they may both firmly and fully agree in believing all the articles of christian faith, which are necessary to church communion on earth, and to the obtaining eternal salvation in heaven, through the mercy of god the father, the merits and satisfaction of the son, and the grace of the holy spirit. (3dly.) if he had showed us in his letter, wherein that middle-way doth particularly consist, according to his opinion; we should have (it may be) either owned or disowned it in part or in whole, according as we had found him to have truly represented or misrepresented it to the world. but since he hath not done that, we cannot know certainly what he means by that middle-way he talks of. (4thly.) yet by some passages in his letter, we guess that he points at the controversy about the extent of christ's death, which hath been amongst protestant divines since the reformation, or since the time that beza and piscator began to write on that head after the reformation. and if that be the thing he points at without naming it, we will, first, give the true state of the controversy. secondly, declare briefly what our opinion is, as to that matter. and for the state of the controversy: first. there are some divines in the world, who are said to hold that christ died equally for all men, elect and non-elect; and that god on the account of christ's death, gives a common sufficient grace to them all, whereby they may all (if they will) apply to themselves the virtue of christ's death, and thereby obtain justification and salvation. but that christ did not die for the elect, out of any special love to them above others; and that god through christ doth not give any special effectual, determining grace to the elect more than to the non-elect. this is the arminian extreme. secondly, there are other divines, who hold that christ died for the elect only and exclusively of all others, and that he died not for any of the non-elect in any proper tolerable true sense; that he no more died for any of those men, who are not elected to eternal life, than he died for the devil; and that such men have no more to do with the satisfaction and meri●s of christ, than the devil hath. this is the other extreme. and we suppose that this is that which our author accounts the orthodex side, and that he is of this side himself. but thirdly, between these two extreme opinions, there is a golden mean, there is a midd●e-way, which hath been many hundred years ago, and still is expressed in this form of words, that christ died only for the elect-sinners of mankind both sufficiently and efficaciously, but that he died for the non-elect only sufficiently but not efficaciously. this is the state of the controversy. 2. if, secondly, it be now demanded whether we be for this middle-way or not? in answer to that demand we say, that there are a great many of us, who are calumniated by our author as corrupters of the gospel, by holding a conditional covenant, and tho' we do not doubt, but we all agree in the foresaid general form of words, and in admitting the distirction of christ's dying for the elect efficaciciously, and for the reprebate only sufficiently; yet it may be, that when we come to explain what we particularly mean by christ's dying sufficiently only for the non-elect, there will be some little difference amongst us in some of our notions and expressions, and possibly some of us may not in effect differ from our author, further than in the manner of our expression, and in the method of our conceptions and notions. but (1.) we are all of one mind and of one faith with respect to christ's dying efficaciously for the elect only, and we hope also that our author himself agrees with us herein: which is the main thing wherein our agreement is necessary. and then, (2.) as to the non-elect, especially those of them to whom the gospel is preached; we hope all of us do and will agree to this, that christ died for them sufficiently in such a sense as he did not die for the fallen angels, so that if they should believe in christ and repent of their sins, as they are bound to do, according to the tenor and terms of the gospel, they should be saved through christ; and not perish as they do by persevering in unbelief and impenitence: and being thus far agreed, we hope we shall keep the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace; and as to any little difference of judgement that may remain, we shall bear with one another in love, after the example of the famous synod of dort, whereof the members differed in the synod upon this very point, and yet they bore with one another, and wisely agreed against the arminian extreme, as most manifestly appears from the acts of that synod. and we would hope also that our author and those of his way, will not be against this mutual forbearance, when they consider that the said middle-way was not only tolerated but even approved by the synod of dort, in that the suffrages which expressly asserted it, were approved; and that long before, it was held by our first reformers both at home and abroad. for instance, the universality of christ's death in the sense before explained, was believed and professed by the blessed martyrs latimer and hooper, in england, as also by the church of england herself; and by luther in germany, and calvin at geneva, as shall be proved by their own words, to be seen in their writings extant at this day, if any have the confidence to deny it. at present we shall only give our brethren to understand, first, that luther on john 3.16. god so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten son, that whosoever, etc. says [jam sanè tibi & omnibus hominibus fatendum est mundum, etc.] now truly, thou and all men must confess, that the whole race of mankind is called the world, comprehending in one, all men in general and every man in particular; dost thou believe therefore that thou art a man? or if thou canst neither believe nor know that, put thy hand in thy bosom, or feel thy nose, make an experiment whether thou hast not all thy members full of flesh and blood, as other men? wherefore then wouldst thou exclude thyself out of this word (world), since christ expressly declares that god did not send his son to the virgin mary only, nor gave him to peter or paul, but to the world, that all might lay claim to him, even as many as are called the sons of man, etc. secondly, that calvin on 1 john 2.2. says, [ego verum esse illud dictum fateor sufficienter pro toto mundo passum esse christum, sed pro electis tantum efficaciter.] i confess that saying to be true, that christ suffered sufficiently for the whole world, but efficaciously for the elect only. and on rom. 5.18. [communem omnium gratiam fecit, quia omnibus exposita est, non quod ad omnes extendatur reipsa, nam etsi passus est christus pro peccatis totius mundi, atque omnibus indifferenter dei benignitate offertur, non tamen omnes apprehendunt.] the apostle (saith calvin) makes grace common to all men, because it is exposed to all men, not that it is really and effectually extended unto all. for though christ suffered for the sins of the whole world, and through the goodness of god, he is indifferently offered unto all; yet all do not apprehend or receive him. here is that which is called the middle-way owned by luther first, afterwards by calvin as plainly as can be expressed in so few words. whereupon we demand, did our first reformers, luther and calvin, by this, corrupt the old, and preach a new gospel, or not? if they did corrupt the old true gospel, and preach a new false gospel, then (1.) we own no great thanks to them, or respect to their memory, for their service in reforming the church. (2.) if we grant this to be true of luther and calvin, we betray the reformation, and yield to the papists that which their hearts do most earnestly desire, that luther and calvin may be accounted two impostors and deceivers, who deluded the people, corrupted the christian religion, and preached a new gospel to the world. for our parts, we dare not thus far betray the protestant cause to the papists; rather than do so, we maintain that luther and calvin by holding universal redemption in the sense explained, did not corrupt the christian religion, nor preach a new gospel. and if they did not, than those amongst us who hold universal redemption as they held it, do no more corrupt religion, nor preach a new gospel than they did; and consequently it is a vile calumny and reproach cast upon us (and through us upon 〈◊〉 first reformers,) that by the middle-way aforesaid we corrupt religion, and preach a new gospel. we have been something long in showing the falsehood of our authors first calumny, and in wiping it off, because it is general, and seems to comprehend or to be the ground of all the rest that abound in his letter. but for the rest of them, since we have removed the grounds of them, by the account we have given of our principles in the points of justification and of the extent of christ's death, they fall of themselves, and light on the head of him that raised them; and therefore we shall not much trouble either ourselves in refuting them, or others in reading a long refutation of them. yet we will take particular notice of some of them, and briefly show how false they are. second calumny. his second is to be seen in the the sixth page of his letter, where he saith, let. pag. 6. the righteousness of christ in his active and passive obedience, hath been asserted by protestant divines, to be not only the procuring and meritorious cause of our justification, for this the papists own; but the matter, as the imputation of it is the form of our justification. here a gross calumny is employed, to wit, that we differ not from the papists in the point of justification, and to make the simple people believe this, he gives them to understand that we hold christ's righteousness to be only the procuring and meritorious cause of justification, and that the papists own this as well as we do; and consequently that there is little or no difference between us and the papists in the fundamental point of justification. but that this is a calumny doth appear by what we have said before, when we shown that christ's righteousness alone comes in the place of that personal perfect sinless righteousness which was the condition of the first covenant in innocency, and of the law of works, and by which personal righteousness, man was to have been justified according to that covenant, if he had perfectly kept it, and had not fallen from his innocency. there we shown that, since no man in his lapsed state hath or can have in himself that personal sinless righteousness; every man is to seek a righteousness in christ that may serve him for his justification, instead of that which he should have had in himself, but hath not; and he that seeks it in christ, as he ought to do, will there find it: for christ by his obedience, unto death, even the death of the cross, hath paid the full price of our redemption, and by paying that price hath made full satisfaction to the justice of god for our sins, and hath merited for us the full pardon of our sins, and eternal salvation of our souls, if we sincerely believe, repent, and obey the gospel, by that grace which he hath also purchased for us by his blood, promised to us in his word, and gives unto us by his spirit. so that we are complete in him who is our head, our living and life-giving head, in whom it pleased the father that all fullness should dwell, that out of his fullness we might receive, and grace for grace. now will any man of conscience, who hath a competent understanding of the controversies between us and the papists, say, that they give as much to christ in the point of the justification of a sinner, as here we do, and ever did? we ascribe all satisfaction for sin both with respect to eternal and temporal punishment, unto christ and his righteousness. we likewise ascribe unto christ and his righteousness all merit of every good thing whatsoever, all merit of pardon of sin, of right to eternal life, and of eternal life itself, and all the degrees of it; all merit of whatsoever grace here, and of eternal glory hereafter. dare any man say that the papists do all this, that they ascribe all satisfaction and all merit unto christ and his righteousness: and that as we, so they deny that men do satisfy god's justice for sin with respect to any punishment, and that they properly merit any the least grace or favour at the hands of god? we think no protestant, especially that is a minister of christ's gospel, will be so impudent or so far imitate the father of lies, as to affirm these things to be true, which all the world know or may know to be notoriously false. there are indeed some papists, for instance bellarmin, lib. 2. damn justif. cap. 7, who in dispute, grant so much to us that they may seem unto some who do not throughly understand their principles, to have yielded the whole cause to us. and therefore some of our famous divines, as dr. downhame, prideaux, rivet, le blanc, & turretin, have not stuck to say, that bellarmin there grants the very thing which protestants plead for, and he had disputed against; and that if he would stand to those few words, and not contradict them again, there might be an end of that dispute about the imputation of christ's righteousness. turret. inst. part. 2. loc. 16. p. 709. after turretin had quoted bellarmin, saying, that [if the protestants would have this only, that christ's merits are imputed to us, because they are given to us by god, and we may offer them to the father for our sins, because christ took upon him the burden of satisfying for us, and reconciling us to god the father, their opinion or judgement would be right.] he adds immediately after this concession and confession of bellarmin: [atqui nihil aliud volumus, nam quod addit, nos velle ita imputari nobis christi justitiam, ut per eam formaliter justi nominemur & simus: hoc gratis & falsò supponit ex praeposterâ suâ bypothesi de justificatione morali.] yea but, or surely, we would have no other thing, (but what bellarmin hath here granted us) for as to that which he adds, that we would have christ's rigteousness so imputed to us, that by it we may be denominated and may be formally righteous, he supposeth it without proof, and falsely, upon their perverse and preposterous hypothesis concerning a moral justification. thus turretin writes of the concession and confession of bellarmin and other papists. then he proceeds to show that notwithstanding those good words of theirs whereby they seem to come over to us, yet they and we are never the nearer, but remain at as great distance as before, because by gods imputing to us christ's merits in order to justification, they mean that for the sake of christ's merits imputed to us, god infuses grace into us, by which infused grace it is that we are justified according to their principles. whereas we hold that christ's merits are so imputed and communicated to us, (ut sint causa meritoria sola nosirae justificationis, nec ulla alia detur justitia propter quam absolvimur in conspectu dei,) that they are the alone meritorious cause of our justification, neither is there any other righteousness for which we are absolved in the sight of god. thus turretin shows that notwithstanding the seeming agreement between protestants and papists in the point of justification, yet the real difference remains still. but how doth he show it? doth he show the difference by denying that christ's righteosness is the meritorious cause of our justification, because the papists affirm it to be so in some sense? no, no, turretin hath left that unto our author to do, if he please; but he shows that there is a great difference in the point of justification between us and them. (1.) in that we hold christ's righteousness to be the meritorious cause of justification, in another sense, than they hold it so to be. (2.) in that we hold christ's righteousness exclusively of all other, to be the only meritorious cause of justification; whereas the papists deny this, and affirm that men are first formally jnstified before god by infused grace and justice, and that by the exercise of that infused grace and inherent justice, they themselves do merit their further justification in this world, and eternal life, and glory in the world to come. and we think this is a very considerable difference. yet this is far from being all the difference, for monsieur claude who was one of those divines whom our author calls middle-way-men, in his defence of the reformation shows, claudes historical defence of the reformation. par. 2. ch. 6. p. 217, 218. etc. that notwithstanding the agreement that there may be in some things between protestants and papists in the point of justification, there still remain no less than twelve differences relating to that point, whereof many are very considerable, we pray all who desire satisfaction in this matter to consult the place in monsieur claudes book which we refer to, especially let those who can, consult the original in which all is clear; whereas some things are obscure, and hardly intelligible in the translation; there a man may see the true reason why our first reformers laid so great stress upon the controversies they had with the church of rome about the article of justification, and that they then had, and we at this day still have great cause so to do; and yet amongst all those controversies which claude observes to be between us and rome upon that article, there is not a word of that dispute about the matter and form of justification, about which our author in his great wisdom thought fit to inform the ordinary plain people, who either want time or judgement to peruse large and learned tractates. letter p. 35. with p. 6. the man it seems would have the people to think that surely he is mighty well acquainted with all the opinions that have been in the church, and that he can inform them of them all, and tell them to a hair which is right and which is wrong; therefore he reckons up so many controversies as have been and are among reformed divines. but cui bono, to what good end and purpose did it serve, to tell simple injudicious people that there are so many differences amongst protestant divines about justification? whatever our author may think of it, others cannot but judge that this course tends rather to confound, distract and unsettle injudicious people, than to edify and establish them in the faith: for it is not probable that there are many so very injudicious as to believe that he can lay the spirits again which he hath raised, we mean, that he can infalliblydecide the controversies which he hath brought upon the stage before the people; and so quiet the minds of those whom he hath perplexed, and discomposed. to us he seems not altogether so well qualified for deciding of controversies, and quieting people's minds, as for throwing dirt on his brethren, and calumniating them to the people, as if they differed not from the papists, in holding christ's righteousness to be the meritorious cause of justification, which if it be not a lie, we are sure it is a swinging falsehood, and a very great mistake. third calumny. his third calumny is to be seen in the 8th and 9th pages of the letter, and it is, that we deny the headship of christ, and not only deny his suretyship, his being the second adam and a public person, but also treat these things with contempt. all which is utterly false: and on the contrary, we declare that with all our hearts we own christ's headship and suretyship, his being the second adam and a public person. for his headship we believe according to the seventh canon of the synod of dort, on the first head of doctrine concerning divine predestination, t●at (deus christum ab reterno mediatorem & omnium electorum caput, salutisque fundamentum constituit); god from eternity ordained christ to be the mediator and head of all the elect, and the foundation of salvation. we believe also according to the suffrage of our britain divines, read in and approved by the same synod, that christ is the head and foundation of the elect, so that all saving graces prepared in the decree of election, are bestowed upon the elect, only for christ, and through christ. english translation of the suffrage, p. 5, 6. this was their position, upon which they say, that [god in the eternal election of particular men, by one and the self same act, doth both assign christ to be a head to them, and also doth appoint them according to his good pleasure, to be the members of christ, to wit, in time when they believed. for his suretyship, doth this man think that he can make the simple people believe that we are so impious as to deny it, and treat it with contempt? when as the apostle saith expressly, that jesus was made a surety of a better testament, heb. 7.22. but it may be our author means that some of us deny the aminomian notion of a surety, and treat their notion with contempt; and indeed that may be, but what then? doth it follow that therefore we deny christ's real and true suretyship, which god hath revealed in his word for our faith and comfort? before that consequence be admitted, our author must prove that the antinomian notion is the real, true, scripture-notion of christ's suretyship; which we do indeed deny, and contemn as a very false unscriptural notion; and challenge him to prove it by scripture. as for christ's being the second adam, it is an abominable falsehood that we deny it, or treat it with contempt; so far are we from so doing, that on the contrary we do most firmly believe it, and openly confess that as the first adam was the cause of sin and death, unto all who in the ordinary way of human generation partake of the natural bitth; so christ as the second adam is the cause of righteousness and life unto all who by divine regeneration partake of the spiritual birth: but as no man suffers any actual prejudice by the first adam before he be naturally begotten and generated; so no man actually receives in himself, any saving benefit from christ as the second adam, before he be spiritually begotten and regenerated; our meaning is, that no man actually receives from christ before the time of his spiritual regeneration, any benefit that hath a necessary and infallible connexion with salvation, by the constitution and ordination of god. lastly, that we deny and contemn christ's being a public person, is false so far are we from that, that on the contrary we sincerely declare to all the world, that we most firmly and steadfastly believe that christ is a public person, that he is the public prophet, priest and king of the whole catholic church, and that it is his proper incommunicable glory to be such a public person. fourth calumny. his fourth calumny is, that we teach such doctrine in the point of justification, as neither we ourselves nor any other sensible man dare stand to at death. this is to be seen in the 18th and 19th pages of his letter. if this were true, we confess it might justly prejudice people against our doctrine; and give them and ourselves too cause enough to suspect it to be false. but this is like the rest, utterly false, and contrary to experience. for our doctrine is (as we have said often) that christ's most perfect, satisfactory, meritorious righteousness, is to us and all that are saved, instead of that perfect sinless righteousness which we ought to have had in ourselves, but since the fall neither have nor can have; and that by and for the said righteousness of christ alone, we are justified from the guilt of all our sins of omission and commission, original and actual, and are accepted as righteous before god, and receive a right and title to eternal life: this is the only righteousness which we crust to as the cause of our justification; this righteousness we hold to be given unto us, if through grace we sincerely believe in christ and repent of our sins; and that on the account of this righteousness we shall obtain eternal life and salvation, if through grace we persevere to the end in faith and repentance, and in leading a holy life, as was before explained: but on the contrary we maintain, that the forsaid righteousness of christ is not given to any for their actual justification before they first through grace sincerely believe and repent; and that none shall obtain eternal life and salvation on the account of christ's righteousness, but those who after they have first believed and repent, do not apostatise either totally or finally, but in opposition to such apostasy, persevere in faith repentance and holy gospel-obedience unto death. this is the sum and substance of our whole doctrine in the point of justification. now why we or any sincere christian should be afraid to stand to this doctrine at the hour of death and in the day of judgement, it is above our capacity to understand; for this is the doctrine which the lord himself hath taught us by his holy spirit in the canonical scriptures: and therefore if the scriptures be true, this doctrine cannot be false, but is and must be true; and it is very strange and wonderful, if all true christians be afraid to die in the faith of the true doctrine of the holy scriptures. we rather think, that if they be not delirious, but have the use of their reason, they are not true christians, but mere hypocrites that renounce the foresaid doctrine of justification, and are afraid to stand to it at death. we are sure that good hezekiah was not afraid to stand to this doctrine, when he justly apprehended himself to be under the sentence of death, since we find it written in isa. 38.3, 4. that he prayed thus unto the lord, remember now, o lord, i beseech thee, how i have walked before thee in truth, and with a perfect heart, and have done that which is good in thy sight, etc. and god was so far from being displeased with this his prayer, that he most graciously accepted it, and shown himself so well pleased with hezekiah, that he gave him a further lease of his life for fifteen years, and sealed the lease with a miracle; a thing we do not find that ever the lord did for any other man before or since. we have also read of many in history, and have heard of others, and have ourselves known some, who have not been afraid to stand to our doctrine aforesaid at death; but have died comfortably in the faith of it: as for ourselves we live in the faith of it, and desire to die also in the faith of it; and as we account it our duty, to stand to it in life and at death; so we trust and hope that (if the lord be pleased to preserve to us the use of our reason, and to continue to us the presence of his spirit and assistance of his grace) we shall be enabled to perform our duty in owning at death; and if he call us to it, in sealing with our blood the said true doctrine of justification, which we have preached to his people in the time of our life. as for our author, we hope he agrees with us, that christ's righteousness is never to be renounced, but always to be trusted to and relied upon, as the cause of our justification and salvation, both in life and at death: what then would he have us to renounce? if it be our own merits, he knows very well, that we admit not the very possibility of any proper merits of our own, and that we renounce all confidence in such a chimaera, as much as he or any man can do. if it be our own good acts or works as the cause of our justification: he may know by what we have said before, that we renounce as much as he doth, and something more too, all causal influence of any good acts or works of ours upon justistification. if it be faiths being the condition of justification, that he would have us to renounce: that we can never do either in life or at death, for the reasons we have given before. besides, he himself ascribes as much, and we think something more to faith in the matter of justification, than we do; for he maintains faith, to be the instrument of justification, and if it be a proper instrument, it must have an instrumental causality upon justification, and so must be an instrumental cause, and to be an instrumental cause, is more than to be a receptive condition of justification: if we may be afraid then to stand to it at death, that faith is the condition of justification, he may have more cause to be afraid to stand to it at death, that faith is the instrument of justification. but we suspect his meaning is, that we will and must be afraid to stand to it at death, that repentance is a condition necessary to justification; and that perseverance in faith, and in the practice of repentance and holiness, is necessary to the obtaining possession of eternal salvation: and if this be it indeed, which he thinks we and all sensible men must be afraid to stand to at death, and therefore must renounce, we cannot but judge the man to be under a strong delusion: for first, the scripture is as full and clear for the truth of these things, as it is for the truth of any other article of the christian faith. secondly, we have the concurrent judgement of divines both ancient and modern, agreeing with us in the same truth, as we have proved at large. thirdly, we have heard of many, and have known some who upon their deathbed have bitterly lamented and bewailed, that they had not repent of their sins in time, that for and through the meritorious righteousness of christ, they might have obtained pardon and justification; but we never heard of or knew any, who upon their deathbed lamented and bewailed that they had repent too soon in order to their obtaining pardon and justification through christ's meritorious righteousness. the like we may say of the necessity of a holy life, in order to the obtaining of eternal salvation through christ; many have most lamentably bewailed on their deathbed their own folly and wickedness in not preparing themselves for happiness by the practice of holiness, without which no man shall see the lord. but we could never hear of any who on their deathbed lamented and bewailed that they had held the erroneous opinion, that the sincere practice of holiness is necessary to the obtaining of salvation and happiness through the merits and mediation of jesus christ. on the contrary, the generality of people that are serious and sensible, they then acknowledge the necessity of sincere repentance in order to the obtaining pardon of sin, and the necessity of holiness, in order to the obtaining of salvation and happiness through jesus christ our lord. so abominably false is it, that no sensible man dare stand to our doctrine at his death, that the quite contrary is true, and no knowing sensible man but will gladly stand to it and own it with all his heart; except such nominal christians as are conscious to themselves, that they are hypocrites and unconverted sinners, and fear that if the gospel be true, they shall certainly be damned: and therefore they may possibly (some of them at least) flatter themselves with the hopes that god for christ's sake will pardon and justify them before and without repentance, and save them without holiness. but we dare not humour such people, nor flatter them, however they may flatter themselves, and therefore we must in faithfulness to people's souls tell them from god, that except they repent they shall perish; and that without holiness they shall never see the lord, so as to be happy in the sight of him: and for the hypocrites hope of being pardoned without repentance, and of being happy without being holy, it shall certainly perish with himself: his hope shall be cut off, and his trust shall be as a spiders web. he shall lean upon it, but it shall not stand, he shall hold it fast, but it shall not endure, job 8.13, 14, 15. our author instanceth in that bloody persecutor stephen gardiner, and in another papist whom he commends as an ingenious balaamite, who confessed that it is best for men at their doath to renounce their own merits, and to trust then to be saved only by the merits of christ: but what is that to the purpose? doth that make any thing against us or our doctrine? for doth not our author know well enough that our doctrine is, that always both in life and at death men should abhor all thoughts of meriting any good at the hands of god by their own works; and that they should trust throughout their whole life to be saved by the alone merits of christ, as much as at their death; was it not then wis●ly done of our author, to object against us and our doctrine, the example of gardiner and such papists, who after they have publicly professed as a main point of their religion to trust to their own merits, and after they have led a wicked life all their days; at last when they come to die, think it best to renounce all confidence in their own merits, and flatter themselves with the hopes of being pardoned without a particular, practical repentance; and of being saved without reformation, by trusting only to the merits of christ; can 〈◊〉 author show from the terms of the new covenant, that such self-condemned hypocrites have any sure ground of obtaining the pardon of their sins, and salvation of their souls, merely because they do presumptuo 〈…〉 that god will pardon and save them for the merits of christ? is there any place in scripture that gives us the least intimation, that ever god ordained that christ's merits should be a sanctuary for rogues and hypocrites, whilst they remain such, and that if they flee into it by a presumptuous confidence, they shall be pardoned before they repent, and be saved from god's sin-revenging justice, before there be any real holy change wrought in them? it seems by some passages in our author's letter, that this is the thing which he drives at, and that this is his way of preaching the gospel. but alas! most people need not ministers to teach them this doctrine, for the devil and their own deceitful wicked hearts will teach them this lesson, and they are but too apt of themselves to learn it. for as mr. book of martyrs. vol. 2. p. 192. col. 1. fox saith, commonly it is seen, that worldly epicures and secure mammonists, to whom the doctrine of the law doth properly appertain, do receive and apply to themselves most principally, the sweet promises of the gospel, whereby it comes to pass, that many do rejoice, where they should mourn. let our author look to it, that he be not found guilty of hardening such people in their presumptuous way of living and dying; by telling the world that men are justified by the merits of christ without any previous condition required of them, and that they are pardoned before they sincerely repent, and are accepted as righteous through the righteousness of christ imputed to them, before any real change, or holy qualification be wrought in them: and if he be wise, let him no more say that we teach people to expect to be justified from their sins by and for their own righteousness; which is a thing that as we will not stand to at death, so we do not stand for it, but against it in our life, and now declare to the world that it is a notorious falsehood, and an abominable calumny. fifth calumny. his fifth calumny is, that there are many ministers who in compliance with natural men, patch up and frame a gospel, that is more suited to, and taking with, and more easily understood by them, than the true gospel of christ is. and again that divines plead that same cause, that we daily find the devil pleading in the hearts of all natural men. this is to be seen in the 20th. and 32. pages of the letter. whom our author means by those many ministers and divines, who do this abominable thing, we do not certainly know; but this we know, that if he means us (as he seems to do almost throughout the whole letter); what he saith is most false and injurious, and deserves no other answer than such as michael the archangel gave the devil, when contending and disputing with him about the body of moses, he said, the lord rebuke thee. yet we do not desire that the lord should rebuke this false accuser, as he rebukes the devil in purely vindictive wrath, but as he rebukes his disobedient children in corrective justice, tempered with fatherly love. sixth calumny. his sixth calumny is, to be seen in page the 23d. of the letter, where it is implied that we say (1.) that the sanction of the holy law of god is repealed, so that no man is now under it, either to be condemned for breaking it, or to be saved by keeping it (2.) th●t it doth not now require perfect holiness. (3.) that we have much kindness for true antinomians in practice. some late writers of our author's way, have expressly charged us with some of these things, but our author is here somewhat more modest and wary, and only implies and insinuates, that we say and do these things. but however wary he be in the manner of expressing his thoughts, yet that will not excuse him from the sin of calumny, if he means us (as he plainly seems to do), and if the things he charges upon us be manifestly false; as they certainly are: and our author might have known it, for a leading man amongst those who are said to be for the middle-way, did many years ago expressly refute the two foresaid opinions, which are now falsely charged upon us; as is to be seen in mr. trumans endeavour to rectify some prevailing opinions contrary to the doctrine of the church of england, pag. 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13. be it known then unto all men, that (1.) we do not say, nor ever did say, that the sanction of the moral law is repealed, so that no man is now under it, either to be condemned for breaking it, or to be saved by keeping it. (2.) we do not say, nor ever did say, that the moral law doth not now require perfect holiness: on the contrary we confess with our mouths, and declare to the world, what we have ever believed, and do still believe with our hearts, (1.) that the moral law doth now require of all men most perfect holiness and sinless obedience. (2.) that all unconverted impenitent unbelievers whilst they continue such, are under the penal sanction of the moral law, they are under its curse and condemnation, john 3.18. he that believeth not is condemned already. he is already condemned in law; though the laws condemnatory sentence is not yet executed upon him. but as many as refuse and neglect to use the remedy provided in the gospel, and so doing, live and die in unbelief and impenitence, they are certainly to be executively condemned for breaking the law; and moreover having heard the gospel preached to them, and having had in the gospel a sovereign remedy offered them against the curse and condemnation of the law, they shall be condemned likewise for refusing or neglecting to use the said remedy; heb. 12.25. heb. 2.3. john 3.18, 19 matth. 11.22.24. so that professed christians who live and die in impenitence and unbelief will be doubly condemned both by law and gospel; rom. 10.14. whereas heathens who never heard nor could hear of the gospel for want of an objective revelation of it, they living and dying without repentance and faith in the true god, under the guilt of sins against the law and light of nature, will be condemned by the law, but not by the gospel, which they could not know; rom. 2.12. (3.) since we believe that all unconverted impenitent unblievers who live and die in that state, are so under the sanction of the moral law, as that they are to be condemned for breaking it, we cannot believe that the same persons are so under the sanction of the moral law, as that they are not to be condemned, but to be saved by keeping it: for that were to believe a contradiction, which we have not faith enough to do. yet, (4.) if the case be put disjunctively, as our author expressly puts it in his letter, we maintain that what he charges upon us is notoriously false; and its contradictory is true, to wit, the sanction of god's moral law is not repealed, so that no man is now under it, either to be condemned for breaking it, or to be saved by keeping it. we firmly believe that this disjunctive is true, some men are now under the sanction of the law, either to be condemned for breaking it, or to be saved by keeping it. but take the latter part of the said disjunctive by itself, and understand it determinately, than we cannot believe it to be true, we cannot believe that some men are under the sanction of the law to be saved by keeping it, because it is notoriously false. and that (1.) because no mere man since the fall of adam hath kept, doth keep, or ever will keep the law so perfectly as never to sin against it, and never to fall under the condemnation of it. (2.) because that holy scripture assures us, that if righteousness come by the law, than christ is dead in vain, gal. 2.21. and that if there had been a law given, which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law: but the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of jesus christ, might be given to them that believe, gal. 3.21, 22. and again that what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, god sending his own son in the likeness of sinful flesh, by a sacrifice for sin, condemned sin in the flesh, etc. rom. 8.3. this is our judgement concerning the law and its sanction, with respect to unconverted impenitent unbelievers, that so live and die, they are under it, to be condemned, but not to be saved by it. then for converted penitent believers, who are in christ jesus by faith, and walk not after the flesh, but after the spirit; we believe that they are under the law and not under the law in different respects. (1.) they are under god's moral law as it is a rule of life, representing to them what is the good and acceptable and perfect will of god; and directing them what to do, and what not to do, that they may please god in doing his will. (2.) they are under it also as it is a law obliging them to most perfect and sinless obedience. (3.) they are under it as a law forbidding all their sins, and likewise condemning all their sins, but they are not under it as a law by its minatory sanction condemning their persons which are in christ by faith, and walk not after the flesh but after the spirit, for there is no condemnation to such, rom. 8.1. gal. 5.22, 23. (4.) they are not under the law as a covenant of works to be justified and saved by it. because none can be justified and saved by the law considered as it was a covenant of works given to man in the state of innocency, but those who perfectly keep it and never once transgress it, either by original or actual sin. but that is impossible for any mere man to do, since the fall of adam, and it is not only morally impossible, but it is physically impossible, yea it is metaphysically impossible, that is, it is so absolutely impossible that it implies a contradiction, and can be done by no power moral, natural, or supernatural, by no power human or divine: for all mere men without exception have already broken god's law, so as that they are guilty of death for the breach of it: and that which hath already been, cannot possibly by any power whatsoever, be made not to have been; as it implies a contradiction and is absolutely impossible that the same thing should be, and not be at the same time, so it implies a contradiction and is absolutely impossible that the same thing should have been and not have been, or should be passed and not be passed at the same time. but it is a thing already past and true, that all converted penitent believers have already broken god's law, and fallen under the condemnation of it, therefore it implies a contradiction and is absolutely impossible now, that they have kept it so as never once to transgress it; and consequently it implies a contradiction and is absolutely impossible that they should be now justified and saved by the law which they have broken, and which for that reason would certainly condemn them, were it not that christ hath redeemed them from its condemnation, and by the law of faith absolves and forgives them. thus we have showed how true penitent believers are under the law and not under the law, and how it hath lost its sanction, with respect to their persons: it hath lost its promissory sanction by reason of their sins, and through their own fault: but its minatory sanction, whereby it bond them over to condemnation for their sins, is taken away from it (with respect to penitent believers who walk not after the flesh but after the spirit) by the rich mercy and free grace of god through the satisfaction and merits christ's obedience unto death, even the death of the cross. now from the premises it is as clear as the light at noonday, that we do not say, as is pretended, that the sanction of the law is repealed, so that no man is now under it, either to be condemned for breaking it, or to be saved by keeping it. so much for wiping off the calumny which respects matter of opinion. the next which respects matter of practice, is that we have much kindness for true antinomians in practice. this being matter of fact, and insinuating into the people that we do not walk according to the rules of the gospel, it should have been proved by sufficient evidence, before it had been thus charged publicly on ministers or people. but that is not our author's way to bring evidence for the proof of his accusations; but boldly to accuse without proof: whether the matter be true or false, it seems, is all one to him; for he is well acquainted with that, calumniare audacter; aliquid adhaerebit, throw abundance of dirt, and in all probability some of it will stick. well, but what is become of conscience in the mean time? it seems little of that is to be expected from some men. as for our having much kindness for true antinomians in practice; if he mean that we have much unlawful kindness for them, it is more than we know of ourselves; and how he should know that of us, which we do not know of ourselves, we cannot understand. but there being many of us who are thus accused, we freely acknowledge that it may be some of us have some acquaintance and hearers who are in some respect antinomians in practice, and that for such sinful persons we have much civil kindness and christian compassion; and by a kind and compassionate behaviour towards them, we desire and endeavour to gain them to christ, and to convert them from their sinful practices; where is the evil of this? what rule of the gospel do we transgress by this? we think we are obliged both by the law of nature, and by the law of god, thus to be kind to them, so long as there is any hope of gaining them. but if our author mean, that we have much kindness for their antinomian and sinful practices, or that we encourage them in such practices, and do not endeavour to turn them from them; it is utterly false: and the lord knows that the contrary is true, and that it is to some of us matter of much grief and sorrow of heart, that they take such courses as are both dispeasing and dishonourable to god, and destructive to their own souls; that we use means to reclaim them, that we most frequently and earnestly seek god for them, and as it were travel in birth until christ be form in them. this is the greatest kindness that we show unto any who are true antinomians in practice. and now let all who fear god, judge, and even let our authors own conscience, judge, whether for this we deserve to be thus reflected upon, and calumniated. seventh calumny. his seventh calumny is to be seen in page 27th. of the letter, where he chages the younger ministers with being for the new rational method of divinity, and with being despisers or neglecters of luther, calvin, zanchy, twiss, ames and perkins. and to make the simple people believe that by this means they subvert the very ground and foundation of the christian religion, he saith two things: (1.) that to be rational is no fit commendation of a minister, but rather it is the commendation of a philosopher. (2.) that to be rational is yet more unfitly applied to divinity, because, first, divinity hath a higher and nobler original, than reason, to wit, divine revelation. secondly, because divinity cannot be rightly learned without an higher principle than reason, to wit, the teaching of the holy ghost. in which our author manifestly insinuates, that (1.) we are for a new sort of divinity, and despise or neglect the old. (2.) that our new divinity is not grounded upon divine revelation, but upon our own reason, or the invention of our own brains. (3.) that we pretend divinity may be rightly learned by our own reason, or natural understanding, without the supernatural teaching and assistance of the holy ghost. of which things not one is true, but they are all abominably false. (1.) it is not true, but false, that the brethren, are for a new sort of divinity, and despise or neglect the old: the falsehood of this hath been already fully and clearly demonstrated. (2.) as it is utterly false, that our divinity is new, so it is as false that it is not grounded upon divine relation, but upan our own reason, or the invention of our own brains. on the contrary, we believe in our hearts, and confess with our mouths, that the whole of our divinity or religion is grounded upon divine revelation. and as divinity or religion is either natural or supernatural; so divine revelation is either natural or supernatural; and then as natural religion, is grounded upon divine revelation natural, so supernatural religion is grounded upon divine revelation supernatural. that there is such a thing as natural religion, and that it is grounded upon that divine revelation which god hath made of it by the law and light of nature within us, and by his works of creation and common providence without us; we hope our author is not so ignorant as not to know, nor so perverse as to deny what in his conscience he knows to be true; and then for supernatural divinity and religion, our christian religion considered as christian, and as contradistinguished from all other religion, is of that kind; it is properly supernatural, and could never have been known, unless it had been supernaturally revealed. therefore our christian religion as such, hath its original from supernatural revelation, and is grounded upon the same supernatural revelation from which it had its original. we do not learn it (per viam humanae inventionis sed duntaxat per viam coelest is disciplinae,) by the way of human invention, but only by the way of heavenly discipline and instruction, for saith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of god, rom. 10.14, 17. the word of god is the means by which god hath supernaturally revealed to us, our christian divinity and religion: and that word of god is fully and clearly contained in the holy scriptures of truth. so that we own no christian divinity and religion but what is revealed by and grounded upon the written word of the old and new testament, which is to us the entire complete rule of faith and holiness. therefore it is false that our divinity or religion is new, and not grounded upon divine revelation. 3dly. it is false, that we pretend divinity may be rightly learned by our own reason or natural understanding, without the supernatural teaching and assistance of the holy spirit. we say the quite contrary, to wit, that divinity can never be rightly learned, that is, it can never be learned in a spiritual and saving manner, without the supernatural teaching and assistance of the holy spirit: for the holy spirit is the efficient cause of all right knowledge, that is, of all spiritual saving knowledge of god and christ, and of the spiritual things of god and christ. yet we must add, that as our christian religion cannot be rightly, that is, spiritually and savingly learned, known and believed, but by the supernatural teaching and assistance of god's holy spirit, so it cannot be rightly learned, known and believed, without our own reason. for (1.) grace doth not destroy, but refine and perfect nature; the holy spirit doth not put out the eye of our reasoning faculty, luke 24.45. out opens it, clears it, elevates and raises it up above its natural ability, and strengthens it to see spiritual objects in such a spiritual way, as it could not see them by its own natural power alone. (2.) the spirit of god teaches us by the word of god, and both the word and spirit suppose us to be rational; for the word and spirit of god are given to none but rational creatures, and if we were not rational creatures, we should not be subjects capable of being taught by the word and spirit, or of teaching others: we do not then make reason to be either the formal object or rule of faith and religion. but we hold it to be a light which god himself hath set up in our souls: whereby (1.) we discern through grace the written word to be indeed the word of god; and the spirit that teaches us by the word, to be indeed the spirit of god; and whereby we discover that every word and spirit which are contrary thereunto, are not the word and spirit of god. (2.) we hold reason, right reason to be a light which god hath given us, wherewith to search into the meaning of his word; and by studious inquisition and observation, to discover and find out the true meaning of the word, and to make it known to others, and by good reason out of the text to convince others of ●he truth of it. these things we can never do unless we be rational divines, and unless we use our reason in studying, speaking or writing of matters of divinity, and doth not our author do the same? if he say that he doth not, because than he should be in danger of being a rational divine; but he is not, nor will be a rational divine. doubting conscience resolved, p. 46. we demand in the words of dr. twiss, doth this author's reason go to bed and sleep, when he comes to read and studiously to consider the word of god? if it doth, he will prove no better than a drowsy student, and we know no reason but such a one may be in love with dreams, as well as anabaptist (saith dr. twiss.) but we rather say, as w●ll as those prophets of w●●om we read in jerem. 23.25. that they prophesied lies in the lords name, saying, i have dreamt, i have dreamt. thus we make an end of what we thought fit to say on the fourth general head: we have laid before the reader, some of his calumnies and aspersions cast upon us, and have wiped them off; and we could do no less, though it thereby appear that he hath been a false accuser of christ's ministers, against the sincerity of christian love. chap. v where people are advised to try before they trust, and not suffer themselves to be imposed upon, and led into error by the bold unproved assertions and dictates of any preachers or writers whatsoever. for our parts we neither have, nor desire to have dominion over people's faith, 2 cor. 1.24. and therefore we do not desire that any man should believe us and be of our judgement, any further than what we say or write is agreeable to holy scripture, and to right reason grounded upon scripture. in those things wherein we affirm that our author hath erred from the truth, we have endeavoured to prove by clear scripture, and plain reason consonant to scripture, that he hath so erred: and before people positively conclude that we are in the right, we entreat them to weigh and consider well what we have written to prove the truth of our assertions; and after due consideration, to judge according to the evidence of our proofs, as they will answer to god and their own consciences. if we have clearly and faithfully declared to people, the mind and will of god, as it is revealed by holy scripture; though we do not desire that they should submit their judgements to us, and believe what we believe, merely because we believe it; yet we do expect that they should submit their judgements unto god, as we have done: and that they should believe what we believe, because god hath revealed the matter of our belief, both to us and them. and whosoever shall either neglect or refuse to submit their judgements unto god, and to believe what they know or may easily know, he hath revealed, will be found guilty before the lord, of unbelief and spiritual pride, for which he will one day call them to an account. but on the other hand, if any think and affirm that we are mistaken in our judgement of the things in controversy, and that therefore they are not bound with us to believe them: to such we say, that if in any of them, we are mistaken, it is more than we know, and our mistake is altogether involuntary; for the lord knows that we have diligently searched for the truth, as to all the matters in controversy, with an earnest desire to find it, and with frequent and fervent prayers to the god of truth, that he would teach us the truth; that by his spirit of truth, according to his word of truth, he would lead us into the truth of those matters. and we are fully persuaded in our own minds, that god hath heard our prayers, blessed our endeavours, and caused us to find the truth, which we have diligently sought and searched for. we have also given the world an account of the grounds and reasons of this our persuasion, which we submit to the impartial examination of all that fear the lord, and are sincere lovers of truth; not doubting but that persons so well disposed will find upon impartial examination of the matters in controversy, that our grounds are solid, and our reasons cogent and conclusive. yet if in any one thing, we should happen to be mistaken, (which we believe we are not), we declare, that we are so far from desiring any to follow us in that mistake, and to believe any thing in matters of doctrine, which god hath not revealed; that on the contrary, we shall through grace be really thankful, first to god, and next to such men as shall convince us of our mistake by evidence of scripture, or by right reason, without railing and scolding. as for those who have accustomed themselves unto that way of writing, let them not think that ever they shall be able to move us from our persuasion, by railing at us and calling us heretics; if any attack us with such carnal weapons, they will bu● discover their own weakness and folly, and we hope, it shall have no other effect upon us, but to move us to pity them, and to pray the lord to make them better christians. it is not any man's bare thinking, or bold saying that we are mistaken and preach a new gospel, that can make it to be true, or prove that it is so. the nature of things are not so soon changed; no, things will still remain to be what they are though weak passionate men should never so often think and boldly say that they are not what they are; that which is once true, will still remain true, though men think and say ten thousand times over, that it is false. as on the contrary, that which is once false (as it is most false that we preach a new gospel), will still remain false, though our author and his whole party, should ten thousand times over both think and say, and swear too, that it is true. we therefore beseech all christian people, neither to believe our author nor us upon our bare words; he confidently affirms, that we preach a new gospel: we deny it, he brings no proof, but his own reproachful word for what he says against us: we bring scripture, reason, and the testimonies of ancient fathers, and modern divines for what we say against him, in vindication of our own innocency, and for proof, that the gospel which we preach, is no other than the everlasting gospel of christ, which always hath been, now is, and ever will be preserved in the christian church to the end of the world. now we advise people not to trust either him or us without trial, but to examine what is said on both sides; and then to trust those whom they find upon trial to be most trusty, and to have given the best reasons, why they should be trusted in these matters. consider christians! what our most blessed lord and saviour saith, matth. 15.14. that if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch. it will not excuse people before god, that they followed their leaders; for they are rational creatures, and they ought to see with their own eyes, and not to follow their ministers blindly, without considering and knowing whether they lead them right or wrong, whether they lead them in the way of error, or in the way of truth. therefore our saviour saith again, matth. 24.4. take heed that no man deceive you. the like advice our lords great apostle gave unto the churches to whom he wrote his epistles. let no man (said he) deceive you with vain words, (1 cor. 6.9, 10. ephes. 5.6.) this advice he gave with respect to some of the things, that are controverted amongst us at this day. and again, let no man deceive you by any means. (2 thes. 2.3.) and as a preservative and antidote against being deceived, he exhorted them to prove all things, and to hold fast that which is good, (1 thes. 5.21.) moreover, though he was extraordinarily assisted by an infallible spirit, yet he commended the bereans as people of a noble generous mind, for trying his own doctrine by the touchstone of holy scripture before they believed it, acts 17.11. it was not any slowness in them to believe, which made them examine his doctrine, but it was wisdom and prudence; for the scripture saith, they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so; they received readily, and yet searched diligently, making no more haste than good speed; and by searching they found all that paul preached to them to be according to the scripture, therefore they believed his doctrine, and believed in christ according to his doctrine, ver. 12. and this was it which paul commended them for, that though he was an apostle, inspired with a spirit of infallibility, and could, and did work miracles to confirm the truth of his doctrine, yet they searched the scriptures daily, to see whether his doctrine was according to the scriptures, before they believed it: and when by searching they found it to be all according to the scriptures, they immediately believed and readily received it, for that very reason, because it was according to the scriptures of truth. and paul was of such an excellent spirit, that if the bereans or any other people had by diligent search found any part of his doctrine to be really contrary unto the scriptures of truth (which was impossible for them to do), he would have commended them also for not believing it, acts 26.22, 23. 1 cor. 15.1, 2, 3, 4. 1 cor. 7.25, 40. gal. 1.8. yea our blessed lord himself when he was on earth in his state of humiliation as a man, and minister of the circumcision for the truth of god, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers, (rom. 15.8.) he did not desire that his hearers should believe him upon his bare word, john 5.31. if i bear witness of myself, my witness is not true: that is, though it be never so true in itself, yet it is not true with respect to you, or it doth not appear true and convincing to you; therefore, as we read in that chapter and elsewhere, our lord (over and besides his own verbal testimony) used to prove the truth of his doctrine by scripture, and to confirm it by such miraculous works, as could not be done but by the infinite power of god, who neither would nor could give his seal to ratify and confirm a lie. and thereupon he said unto the unbelieving jews, john 10.37, 38. if i do not the works of my father, believe me not, but if i do, though ye believe not me, believe the works; that ye may know and believe, that the father is in me, and i in him. and when convinced by the notorlety of the matters of fact, that he did wonderful works above the power of man; they were forced by the evidence of common sense and reason to confess it; yet being unwilling to believe in him on that account, they found out a way to elude the force of his argument deduced from his miracles, by raising a dispute about the invisible secret cause of them; and by blasphemously ascribing them to the devil and not to god, (matth. 12.24. mark 3.22.): he did not in answer to that blasphemous cavil, tell them, that they must believe on his bare word, that his miracles were wrought by the power of god and not of the devil: but by plain reason and strong argument taken from the circumstances of his miracles; he proved against them that they could not possibly be from the devil, and therefore they must be from god, mark 3.23, 24, 25, 26, 27. with matth. 12.25, 26, 28, 29. he said unto them— how can satan cast out satan? and if a kingdom be divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand, etc. the sum of our saviour's argument was this, that his miracles were wrought to confirm a doctrine that is directly contrary to, and destructive of every thing that is devilish; and wherever it is received in faith and love, there always the devil's interest decays, and himself is despised and abhorred; yea many of christ's miracles were done immediately upon the devil himself, and he was thereby cast out of that power and possession, which he had got by usurpation over the bodies and souls of men; and the ultimate end of them all, was to set up god's kingdom among men, and to destroy satan's kingdom. therefore the devil could not possibly be the author of christ's miracles, since they were directly contrary to his nature, and destructive of his kingdom and interest in the world. the consequence is evident, because if the devil be supposed to do such miracles so circumstantiated, he is and must be ipso facto supposed to be a silly weak prince, that for want of a politic head and ambitious heart acts quite contrary unto his own nature, and doth what he can to destroy his own kingdom and interest in the world. but the devil cannot be supposed to be a silly weak prince, who so acts for want of policy and pride: such a supposition is evidently false and self-contradictious; for the devil is a most politic, proud spirit, that is his very nature as he is a devil; and his politic, proud nature always acts like itself, and ever prompts him to defend, maintain and propagate his kingdom and interest among men. therefore it's impossible that the devil should be the author of such miracles as are so contrary to his nature, and destructive of his kingdom and interest among men; since it cannot be, that such a politic ambitious spirit as the devil is, should be so as to make war upon his own subjects, pull down his own kingdom, and take the crown from his own and set it on another's head. this was our lord's argument, whereby he proved his miracles to be from god and not from satan. and this reason with others he hath given us, why we should believe both his doctrine and miracles to be from heaven; and doth no where require us to believe it without any reason. now if neither christ nor his apostles desired men to believe them upon their bare word without good proof, who are we, and who is our author, that either we or he should desire people to believe either the one or the other of us upon our bare words without good proof? especially when the matter in controversy, is of the highest nature and greatest importance, to wit, whether we preach a new gospel, which he affirms, and we deny; and without any reason, but with a great many falsehoods and calumnies he affirms it; but with good and solid reason we deny it, and have disproved his falsehoods, and wiped off his calumnies. amongst other things our author reproaches us (as hath been showed) with the name of rational divines, by which it plainly appears, that he himself would not be accounted a rational preacher or writer of matters of divinity; and then belike, he would not have the people to be rational hearers and readers, but to believe all that he either preaches or writes, without knowing any good reason why or wherefore. but that which he casts upon us as a reproach, we take it as a crown, being rightly understood, as we have showed it ought to be. and if we be indeed rational divines, we bless god who hath made us such, and pray him so to continue us, whilst he hath any service for us here; and still to make us more rational, that we may be the better able to open unto his people the true grounds and reasons of the christian faith. and as we desire to be rational divines in the sense before explained, so we desire that the people may be rational hearers, readers and believers, so rational as not to receive every doctrine they hear from the pulpit, and read from the press, without knowing by scripture and scriptural reason, why and wherefore they receive it: therefore we exhort and beseech them to try before they trust. believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of god: 1 joh. 4.1. 1 thes. 5.21. prove all things, and hold fast that which is good. consider what we have said, to clear up god's truth, and to vindicate our own innocency from the aspersions and calumnies of the accuser of the brethren; and according to the evidence we offer you, judge impartially, as you will answer to god and your own consciences. finis. some books printed for john laurence at the angel in the poultry. several discourses, 1. of purity. 2. of repentance. 3. of seeking first the kingdom of god. by hezekiah burton, d. d. late rector of barns near london, and published by the archbishop of canterbury, dr. tillotson, in 8vo. bishop wilkins h●s gift of prayer and preaching, newly reprinted with the addition of near a thousand authors to the preaching, in 8vo. mr. slaters thanksgiving sermon, october 27th. 1692. 4to — his sermon at the funeral of mr. john reynolds, minister of the gospel, jan. 8. 1692. 4to. — his sermon at the funeral of mr. richard fincher, minister of the gospel, feb. 19 1692. 4to. mr. daniel burgess, his man's whole duty, and gods wonderful entreaty of him thereunto, from 2 cor. 5.20. in twelves. — his advice to parents and children, the sum of a few sermons contracted, in 12o. — the death and rest, resurrection, and blessed portion of the saints in a discourse on dan. 12.13. being preached on the occasion of the death of dr. daniel rolls minister of the gospel. together with the work of the redeemer and the redeemed, in 12o. a good minister of jesus christ, a funeral sermon for the reverend, mr. richard steel, a faithful and useful minister of the gospel, nou. 27. 1692. by george hammond, m. a. and minister of the gospel. neonomianism unmasked: or, the ancient gospel pleaded, against the other, called a new law or gospel. in a theological debate, occasioned by a book lately wrote by mr. dan. williams, entitled, gospel-truth stated and vindicated: unwarily commended and subscribed by some divines. applauded and defended by the late athenian club. as many as are of the works of the law are under a curse, gal. 3.10. and the law is not of faith, ver. 12. christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth, rom. 10.4. by isaac chauncy, m. a. london, printed for j. harris at the harrow in the poultry, 1692. to all true lovers of the lord jesus, both ministers & christians of any persuasions whatever. the apostle paul doth declaim against nothing more than another gospel, which is not another gospel, (as he saith) because no gospel: quod nusquam est cum unum fit evangelium non plura, saith beza on the gal. 1. it is not where, seeing there is but one gospel, and not more. this pretended other gospel was a doctrine that taught the conjunction of the works of a law with the grace of god, and the righteousness of christ in the juctification of a sinner before god, which some false teachers did zealously press upon the galatians, in opposition to the apostles doctrine: these he calls, troublers of the churches, and perverters or subverters of the gospel of christ, viz. the doctrine of justification by free grace. such as teach justification by a law, of merits, not of christ, but our own, [see beza on the pl.]" although we say they were wrought in us by christ, as if christ could be said to justify, by giving us a way or means to justify ourselves; you may as well reconcile light and darkness as these two. as to the introducers and teachers of such doctrine, the apostle denounceth a bitter curse against them, whatever they were, (pretending to never so much holiness) apostles, or angels: yea, he puts himself under this anathema, if at any time he should be guilty in this kind: and to show that he speaks not rashly or passionately, but by the spirit of god, and to awe men's minds the more, and deter them from such attempts, he redoubles the imprecation. but you'll say, may we not a little make bold with the gospel of christ? how far may we venture to go, and not fall under this anathema? the apostle answers, v. 9 if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that you have received, let him be accursed. and the doctrines which they had received was justification by faith without the works of a law: and that a law is not of faith in the point of justification, ch. 3.12. mr. beza justifies our translation in rendering 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 besides, rather than against. for (saith he) the apostle said not, if they preach contrary things, and subvert the whole gospel, (as chrysostom hath it.) but, if they pervert it a little, if they preach any thing besides that gospel which they had received, etc. if they, as the apostle saith many did, 2 cor. 2.17. * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. caupanariam exercentes. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, caupones, infames semper & sordidi sunt babiti, quod merces corrumpunt & adulterant. jun. beza. corrupt the word of god, as fraudulent vintners, (who dash their wines with water, or any base liquors.) but, saith the apostle, we are of those who preach the word of god, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in sincerity, in the truth of our hearts, as we will answer unto god, without any thing of craft or double dealing, or mixing our omn schemes or fantasies therewith, that speak the very truth, as we have dealt plainly and truly, not shunning to declare unto you all the counsel of god, acts 20.27. not shuffling and hiding some great truths, that we think are not fit for the people to know; and therefore, saith he, we have abdicated * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. abrenunciavimus pudendis latebris, non calliditaté ambutantes, neque falsantes sermonem dei. 2 cor. 4.2. this shameful hiding the word of god, not demeaning ourselves craftily, nor handling it deceitfully. and to such as receive this other gospel, who have professed to the receiving the true gospel, he saith, i marvel you should be so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of christ unto another gospel: calls them fools, gal. 3.1. saith, they were fascinated, bewitched, the devil had got a great hand over them; tells them they were apostates, had begun in a spiritual gospel, but ended in a carnal: nay, he testifies, that whoever is justified by a law, [it's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] are fallen from grace; and that all their former sufferings, how great soever they have been, would prove in vain. oh! that professors of our days would seriously consider these things, who are so ready to run after this other gospel! lastly, it is also needful to observe how the apostle paul compliments peter that great apostle, and one of the pillars in the churches, for his double dealing in these matters, in so much as countenancing this false gospel, or the imposing teachers of it: he withstood him to the face, and publicly; he rebuked him sharply, because he was exceedingly culpable; and in that he not only committed a great sin himself, but carried away barnabas, and many professing jews with his dissimulation; insomuch that they all played the hypocrites * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. with him, to please the neonomians. he aggravates their fault, in telling them they countenanced a doctrine, which they were convinced was false, ch. 2.16. that they made christ a minister of sin, that they condemned themselves in their practice, by building the things which they had destroyed. he takes off also all apologies that they might make from the seeming smallness of the fault, as to refuse to eat with the gentiles. come, come, saith he, the mischief lies in its tendency, viz. to encourage the preachers and receivers of the doctrine of justification by the works of the law, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: for, saith he, we have believed on christ, that we might be justified by the faith of christ, and not by the works of a law; for by the works of a law no flesh living shall be justified. i hope they whom these things do nearly concern at this time, will duly weigh and consider them: tho' i doubt not but they know them, yet it may not be amiss to stir up knowing men, by putting them in remembrance, 2 pet. 1.12, 13. verbum sat sapientibus. as to the present grand assertor of a new law, and of the doctrine of justification by the works of the said law, i thought it due to the grandeur of his appearance in the head of a new sect, to treat him by the name thereof, viz. a neonomian * one that asserts the old law is abolished, and therein is a superlative antinomian, but pleads for a new law, and justification by the works of it, and therein is a neonomian. , and the rather, because by that rectoral rule of government which he hath usurped to himself, and the rule of sin, he hath judicially sentenced all his opposers to the name of antinomians, or abetters of them: insomuch that all our first protestant reformers, and any known by the name of calvinists, fall under his severe censure, as ignorant setters up of the name of christ and his grace against his government. i thought it meet to call in the long-ago deceased doctor also, under what name or title soever he is pleased to call him, (whom he carries about to scare children with, and as a trophy of his pretended triumph) that he might be made speak, and the world may hear what he hath to say for himself, and be acquainted how he is abused, and that he may be hereafter permitted to rest quietly in his grave, and not used as wickliff was, i. e. burnt for an heretic so many years after be hath been dead. in a word, shall we stand still with our fingers in our months in such a day of peace and liberty, while we are browbeaten, or wheadled out of the great fundamental points of eternal life and salvation, which in all ages of antichristian tyranny have triumphed over the smartest persecutions, through the blood of the lamb, and the word of his testimony, in the faith and patience of the saints, who have not loved their lives unto death in the heroic defence of them, against the very same sort of opposition? and who, i pray, will harm us now, if we as strenuously defend the truth as it is audaciously attacked? have any of us suffered to the spoiling of our goods in the defence of truth, of a subordinate and subservient nature to these? and shall we suffer all this in vain, and cast ourselves tamely at the feet of such a confident invader of our most choice and precious things in the world? yea, our very life in christ? what is it that affrightens us? doth the scripture, law or learning terrify us? if so little a footman can run us out of breath, how do we think to contend with horses, dragooners i mean, if they should come? and if in the land of peace we are wearied, what shall we do in the swelling of jordan? if popery should ever overrun us again (which god forbidden) and we should be called to bear testimony to these truths at fire and paggot, as the famous martyrs have done? it's to be feared now, that many protestants would provide for their safety, by flying to the neonomian asylum. but to conclude, however we shrink from the despised truths of christ, shuffle and cut with him, and sometimes huff and bounce at him, or some truth of his, i am fully assured the god of glory and all grace, who hath hitherto preserved the pure doctrine of his gospel, not only from the impure mixtures of pretenders to holiness, the crafty methodists of satan as an angel of light, but also from his open rage as a roaring lion, will continue yet to maintain it against all the b●ting winds of false doctrine: that christ hath his fan in his hand, and will thoroughly purge his floor; and that if any man lay any other foundation than what is laid, which is jesus christ, and continues so to do, his root shall be rottenness, and his blossom go up as dust. i. c. some of the paradoxes contained in the neonomian scheme. 1. sins of the elect are not forgiven immediately upon, nor merely by christ's enduring sufferings, but there were by divine appointment to interpose a gospel promise, of pardon, the work of the spirit, for a conformity to the rule of the promise in the person to be pardoned, and a judicial act of pardon by that promise on the person thus conformed to the rule thereof. 2. the gospel hath another sanction to the preceptive part of the law, than the covenant of works had: though nothing be abated in the rule of sin and duty, yet blessings are promised to lower degrees of duty, and a continuance in a state of death with a bar to the blessing, are not threatened against every degree of sin as the covenant of works did. 3. this change of the sanction supposeth the death of christ, and his honouring the law by his perfect obedience, wherein god hath provided for his own glory, while he promiseth life by forgiveness to imperfect man, and yet insists on some degrees of obedience, to which of his mere grace he enableth us. 4. the [degrees of obedience] the covenant of redemption secures to the elect, tho' the grant therein is pleadable only by christ as the stipulating party for us; and our personal claim depends upon the gospel covenant, whereof christ is mediator. 5. the gospel-sanction determins as certain a rule of happiness and misery as the law of works did, tho' it be not the same; for while it promiseth a pardon to all believing repenting sinners, and declares a bar to pardon to the impenitent rejecters of christ and gospel-grace, it fixeth true repentance and faith unfeigned to be the terms of pardon. 6. when it promiseth heaven to the sincerely holy persevering believer, it fixeth sincere holiness and perseverance in faith as the terms of possessing heaven. 7. hence the use of faith and holiness as to those benefits is not from the conformity to the precept, but their conformity to the rule of the promise. 8. our applying christ's righteousness, and relying on it, would no more justify us, than our holiness would save us, were it not for the gospel-promise, god will justify for christ's sake all such as believe. 9 god in dispensing gospel-promised blessings, doth judicially determine a conformity to this rule of the promise. when he forgives, he judicially declares a man hath true faith; when he admits to heoven, he judicially declares a man sincerely holy and persevering. 10. the wedding-garment, matth. 22.11. is true uniting faith. 11. forgiving, adopting, glorifying, and conveyance of every gospel-benefit given on god's terms, are judicial acts of god as a rector; if not, he doth blindly and promiscuously dispense them, without any regard to our being believers. 12. with respect to what is declared, the gospel is a law of faith, and it especially insists on that sincerity of grace and holiness, which the rule of the promise makes necessary in its description of the person whom it makes partaker of its included benefits. 13. the merits of christ are the cause of this gospel-ordination, his righteousness imputed is the cause for which we are justified and saved, when we do answer the rule of the gospel. 14. the righteousness of god, phil. 3.9. principally intends the gospel holiness of a person justified by christ's righteousness, both which by faith in christ all his members shall be perfect in. 15. the grace of god is hereby stated as free as is consistent with his government and judicial rectoral distribution of rewards and punishments. the ancient gospel defended: and the new gospel unmasked. two gentlemen, who had for their recreation walked forth into the fields in utopia, happened to fall into company together, and after mutual salutation, and general discourses of news, (having not as yet a particular acquaintance, or knowledge one of another) one of them among many things mentioned by him that were great ground of sadness to a considering and gracious mind, said, he was most affected with and grieved at the great eclipse fallen of late upon the doctrine of the gospel, insomuch that for the doctrine of justification especially we are in a manner returned again into egypt, that of justification by works being brought into the room of justification by faith, and only varnished over with the profession of the protestant religion, and the change of a few terms which are used to the same purpose that the former were. the other gentleman looked hard upon him while he thus spoke, and said, have you seen a book lately come forth, called, gospel-truth stated and vindicated? it's a book much talked of, and commended. yes, sir, said the other, i have seen the book and read most of it, but i will assure you i was much grieved at the reading of it. i pray your reasons. he replied, pray sir, excuse me there. the other returned, i begin to have some apprehensions what your principles are; i find you are an antinomian: i pray what is your name? i crave your excuse, sir, you have given me a name, you may call me by that, or what you please; for by this i do as well ken you: for i know of what principles those men are of, that are so ready to asperse the asserters of the doctrine of freegrace with the reproachful name of antinomians, the true account of which sect, and most ancient, is from the apostle paul's time, that they took occasion from the doctrine of freegrace, to plead for and practise all manner of licentiousness. hoc anno prodiit secta eorum qui dicuntur antinomi. sleid. come. l. 12. fol. 199. and in sleiden we have an account of a sect of libertines, or carnal gospelers, which broke out in germany after the reformation, circ. an. 1538. the ringleader whereof was islebius agricola, the compiler of the interim. they merited this name of antinomians by the lose opinions, and loser practices, against whom luther wrote several books, and calvin also, with great invectives in his instr. advers. libertin. which were learned and eminent witnesses to the doctrine of free grace, as it ought to be held forth in all its gospel-splendor and lustre. the other gentleman replied: as for luther, he was an antinomian himself, and calvin but a little better, according to the opinion of our modern divines. we say they are antinomians that deny justification to be by faith as a conditional receiving act, and by repentance as a qualifying act; and that the continuation of our justification is by works: these men which you name, and their followers indeed pretend to holiness, but they ascribe not that to it which they ought, for the honour of god's rectoral rule of government. antinomian. if these be the men you call antinomians, they are falsely so called. i think they that come nearest to the doctrine of our lord jesus christ and his apostles are the most orthodox; and i know no such doctrine that they have taught, but contrary to what you call orthodox; you seem to be of the sect-truly called neonomians, because they assert, that the gospel is a new law, the condition whereof is imperfect, sincere, persevering obedience, which i take to be no other than a covenant of works. neonom. i am indeed of that opinion, and my scheme is according thereunto. i say, the covenant of grace is a conditional covenant, and the condition of it is sincere obedience in faith, and other graces and duties persevered in: but i say not that we are justified by the covenant of works, the law of innocency that is abrogated, transiit in sentontiam, but that christ hath in satisfying that law merited another with milder terms and conditions, viz. of imperfect obedience. antinom. i perceive then that you are the antinomian indeed, for you set aside the old law as obsolete and abrogated, and of no use to us at all: for the apostle paul saith, the promise is not against the law, but it doth establish it. neonom. i e. it doth establish the new law, not the old; we are for a law, and justification by it, tho' not for the old: for paul still opposeth the law, of faith and the works of that law to the old law, i. e. the law of perfect obedience. you must not confound one with another: that was a law of perfection, this of imperfection. i have stated the difference between truth and error in these matters. antinom. now you say you have stated the difference, i begin to suspect you to be the author of that book lately come forth, called, gospel-truth stated and vindicated. for that gentleman pretends to a singular dexterity in stating questions, and superlative nicety, even to the splitting a hair between truth and error; and i perceive divers divines do esteem him a cuminopristes that way, by the commendation they have given him, and the recommendation of his treatise. neonom. truly it is no more than what it deserves, not to say any thing of the author, who i know, how unworthy soever he thinks himself to be, yet hath no greater ambition than to remove mistakes from men's minds about gospel-truths', of which there are many, even among honest wellmeaning divines, (as well as others) who are too much unstudied in these matters, and therefore frequently utter their crude and undigested conceptions in the pulpit and press too, and as he would reach forth light to them, so he would be malleus hereticorum. antinom. my thinks i am the more confirmed by this that you yourself were the author. are you mr. d. w? neonom. i was either the author, or will personate him so far as to defend the book, if any one hath any thing to say against it. i must confess, d. w. pref. p. 1. a dislike of contention hath long restrained my engaging in this work. antinom. i doubt too much of the contrary appears in that book, or else the author would never have raked up the ashes of an holy man, that hath been so long at rest, to contend with and spurn them about with his foot in so much scorn and contempt. neonom. i have been oft solicited to this work by many able ministers. antinom. because they looked upon you as the ablest, (as you seem willing to be thought) i perceive now i be not mistaken. neonom. but finding what principles you are of, i know you are mistaken in many things, which i shall rectify you in, if you have patience and will to hearken to me. do but read my book, and consider it well; peace is the blessing which i cheerfully pursue, and it with the truth what i propose in this very endeavour. antinom. it's well if it be so, but (as they say) the proof of the pudding is in the eating. it's no new thing for men to pretend well, let their undertaking be what it will: but non videtur id manticae quod in tergo est. apollinarius the heretic had a school cum titulo orthodoxi. and nestorius the heretic shrouded himself under 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, error sibi ex principiis fidem perstruit ut cum magna mercede fallet: it's observed that error will always shelter itself under a plausible pretext of truth, that it may do it with the greatest advantage. neonom. i am convinced after many prayers, and serious thoughts, that the revival of those errors must not only exclude that ministry as legal, which is most apt in its nature, and by christ's ordination to convert souls, and secure the practical power of religion; but also renders unity among christians a thing impossible. antinom. you know also another old proverb, in nomine domini, etc. livy reports of scipio africanus, before he set upon any business, he entered the capitol alone, pretending thereby a consultation with the gods, whereupon apud multitudinem plerumque velut ment divinitus monitâ agebat; thereby he had a great vogue among the people, of the justness of his cause. i can't persuade myself that the composure of that piece of work that hath so much moral evil in it, and bitter opposition to gospel-truth, is an answer of prayers; neither can i pray as those gentlemen, whose names stand over your porch, but think it my duty to pray quite contrary; and as for what you speak of revival of errors, i judge that your dictates are no rule to judge of faith and error by, how magisterially soever you impose them: and i think we are come to a sad pass, if a man of your declared principles must be set up as a reformer of error, and former of articles of faith, and such as are in fundamental points directly contrary to the doctrinal part of the 39 articles; yea, such as our first protestant reformers decried by scripture and the best arguments, as highly antichristian, and destructive to the souls of men; which witness of theirs many of them sealed with their blood. you say, the danger of such things as you call error, will be in excluding the teaching of your doctrine and ministry as legal. would to god such ministry as the spirit of god calls legal preaching, were excluded by the brighter shining of the grace of god into the hearts both of ministers and people; from which light some, and too many this day have swerved, having turned aside unto vain jangling, desiring to be teachers of the law; understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affium, 1 tim. 1.6. but you call that evangelical, which we call legal: we can't help your calling light darkness, and darkness light; law, gospel; and gospel, law; and you say it's most apt in its own nature to secure the power of religion: whereas experience hath showed to the contrary, how well the doctrine of justification by works hath secured it among the romanists: and the apostle paul testifies by the spirit, that whosoever is justified by a law [it's not the law] is fallen from grace, gal. 5.4. and therefore its false that such doctrine is christ's ordination. it hath not fitness in it to convert souls, for the law brings none to god: no man is justified in or by a law in the sight of god, gal. 3.11. those places, and divers others, should be read a law, and not the law, because the spirit by them excludes all laws, even your law: its 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; the emphatical particle is not put in, and therefore there's no ground to say this or that law only is excluded from justification, but every law; and where there's no true justification taught, there can be no true practical obedience. but the last prejudice is, that such doctrines as are opposite to yours, renders unity among christians a thing impossible. good reason there is for it, because they can't unite in their head christ jesus, and therefore can't unite as members. there lies the impossible: for what communion between christ and belial? by this it appears you strike at the union. neonom. every sermon will be matter of debate, and mutual censures of the severest kind will be unavodable, while one side justly press the terms of the gospel under its promises and threats, for which they are accused as enemies to christ and his grace, etc. antinom. reason good, that every sermon that makes the gospel a law, i. e. that press duty under a law-sanction, should not only be matter of debate, but earnestly contended against; for the performance of duty as terms enforced by a law-sanction, is a covenant of works. so that such men are preachers of a law, it's no matter what law. works performed under a law-sanction are legal works, and do make the covenant enjoining them a covenant of works. censures are here justly made of such a ministry; and they that preach such doctrine, are certainly enemies to the grace of god, under whatsoever vizards of pretended holiness they veil themselves. neonom. and the other side ignorantly set up the name of christ and free grace against the government of christ and the rule of judgement. antinom. i think the stomach of every good man may justly rise not only against your insolent, but profane expression. all men besides neonomians are ignorant men. what saith the poet, — 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. — o miserimos mortalium qui spiritus tumidos gerunt. arrogancy is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a tough itch not easily cured. how far doth this spirit come short of the imitation of christ in meekness and lowliness? yea, how far from his rule, [which you would seem to be so zealous for] to do nothing out of strife and vainglory, [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] but in lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves, phil. 2.3. but with you all that adore free grace, and set up justification by faith without the works of a law, do ignorantly set up the name of christ. is this a piece of ignorance to set up the name of christ as a saviour of sinners, and as that name whereby we are justified from all things from which we could not be justified by the law of moses, or any other law. beware lest that come upon you which is spoken of in the prophets, behold ye despisers, etc. acts 13.39, 40. and what do these men so ignorantly do? they set christ against himself: set up his name and free grace against his government. and why? because they say we are saved not by our works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy; and that it was the mere kindness and love of god our saviour that appeared to us in the gospel-salvation, tit. 3.4, 5. therefore they set up the name of christ against his government. is his name jehovah our righteousness, against his government? see whether paul is one of those ignorant advancers of christ, gal. 2.8, 9 neonom. i believe many abettors of these mistakes are honestly zealous for the honour of free grace, but have not sufficient light to see how god hath provided for this in his rectoral distribution of benefits by a gospel rule. antinom. we are beholding to you, sir, for a drop of charity mingled with your supercilious contempt of holy protestant reformers, who in my poor judgement were knowing and learned men, (that asserted both the grace and government of christ against your new law) you esteem them but ignorant honest men that meant well, but ignorantly zealous for the grace of god, carried on only by a blind devotion, and did not understand the mystery of god's rectoral distribution. the apostle tells us who are ignorant, rom. 10.3. they that are ignorant of god's righteousness, and go about to establish their own. what do you think of the mythologists of the late athenian society? i hope you esteem them learned and knowing as well as honest. neonom. indeed i am bound to give them a high character, because they have given so ample a testimony to my scheme. after their learned defence (that somebody took care of, that it should be well done) they give me and my book this character: the book is worth perusal of all sorts of persons for the antidote which is annexed to each argument, and we must deliver our opinions, that mr. williams hath without passion, plainly, learnedly and solidly established the truth with incomparable brevity and criticism, upon many texts. antinom. but i suppose they have wronged you in one thing, viz. branding you for a critic upon texts of scripture. i would do you right, i believe you were never guilty of that. as to what they say besides of you and your book, i leave others to judge when the matters are impartially tried. neonom. you may say what you please; you see it passed the judgement of those wise, learned, and judicious men, divines and others, that were eyes to the nation in all points of difficulty, both in policy, law, divinity, matrimony, and something else. antinom. as to the politics, or the economics, or what else you will call it, their skill failed, though to their fatal ruin. but i meddle not with those points, i am most concerned at the inscription upon their altar. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to the unknown god, which they ignorantly worship. neonom. what do you mean by that? antinom. i mean they are ignorant of god according to the articles of the church of england. neonom. it's impossible, i am sure they give no such ground of suspicion by the credit they have given my scheme. antinom. that may be, bona ingenia jumpunt, i doubt not but they are of your opinion in doctrinals. neonom. but you say they know not god according to the church of england: prove that charge, we will both fall together; sure if you make not that good, i can't but take you for a wicked slanderer and backbiter of a worthy, solid, learned society of men. antinom. if i do not prove my charge let me be accounted so: sc. as to the doctrine of election, in answer to this q. does the scripture any where affirm an election of a determinate number of men to eternal life and happiness? vol. 7. athen. merc. num. 26. july 26. 1692. they make this answer, (i must confess as men to be pitied for their ignorance:) it's an easy thing to be mistaken in matters of this nature; howsoever if we are so, we'll profess ourselves ready to change our opinion (this is modest and ingenuous,) on the producing better reason, and in the mean time not to have angry and uncharitable thoughts of those who are of a different judgement. now thus far they set you a pattern, for you (forsooth) must dogmatise and anathematise all men that are not of your opinion. but to the question: we cannot be satisfied by any of those scriptures which are brought for that purpose, that there is any such an election of a determinate number as either puts a force to their natures, and irresistibly saves them, or absolutely excludes all the rest of mankind from salvation. not to stand upon the fotching in some words improperly brought (as forcing men's natures, which is so much like your way of canons and articles, that i have a great suspicion that they drew up this answer by your direction) i shall for all your shifting and shuffling, that i see you are prepared for, and i am as ready to answer, for brevity sake say thus much, that these gentlemen do in this opinion of theirs deny absolute election, which you will also be found to do at the long run, and that this assertion in denial of absolute election, is contrary to the doctrine of the church of england, art. 17. predestination to life is the everlasting purpose of god, whereby (before the foundations of the world were laid) he hath constantly decreed by his counsel, secret to us, to deliver from curse and damnation, those whom he hath chosen in christ out of mankind, and to bring them to everlasting salvation, as vessels made to honour. now your servant sir, i think i have proved what i promised: i am sure this article intends an absolute and unconditional election of some, and such an election as excludes all others eventually, which i am ready to make good: but this is not all yet, there is another question, concerning the salvation of the heathens, you advance in order to that text, there is a qu. vol. 7. no. 29. there's no other name under heaven given: that if we believe in god, we believe virtually in christ; i desire to know what's meant by a virtual belief? a. the jews were under the dispensation of believing our father, having faith in the messiah, and whereas the heathens were under the dispensation of the law of nature, the divine light written in man, which is the ordinary voice of the spirit in every man to restrain him from murder, idolatry, etc. if they kept to that law, they should receive the virtue of the lamb of god slain before the foundation of the world by the father's decree for the sins of all men; contrary to the article 18. of the c. of e. they also are to be had accursed, that presume to say, that every man shall be saved by the law or sect which he professeth, so that he be diligent to frame his life according to that law and the light of nature: for holy scripture hath set out to us only the name of jesus christ whereby men may be saved. neonom. you are under many mistakes, you neither understand those learned mythologists, nor the articles; for the articles speak old english, and the mythologist the new divinity, but they both mean the same thing; for i have subscribed the doctrinal articles, as very tolerable divinity for those former wellmeaning times; but you know the opinion of our modern divines about subscriptions, how far a man may go in those cases with a safe conscience. but to proceed to what i was saying, that by the pretence to the honour of free grace, antinomianism so corrupted germany, and in n. e. etc. antinom. it was the pretence of those that abused free grace to licentiousness, in st. paul's time: therefore you might have gone further back than the antinomians in germany or new england. and do we not know that a pretence to holiness, and the exaltation of that in opposition to the doctrine of free grace, is that which hath brooded all the doctrine of popery, arminianism, quakerism, etc. and is it not this that you shelter all your errors and false accusations under, whereby you endeavour to murder the name of one who was an holy man and a gospel divine, and hereby would deceive the reader into the belief of a gross and notorious falsehood in the entrance into your book, which is this: you say, i have in nothing misrepresented dr. crisp 's opinion, nor mistaken his sense. this assertion i shall prove to be as i said. neonom. it bid fair to overthrow church and state in new england; and by its stroke at the vitals of religion, it alarmed most pulpits in england. pr. p. 1. antinom. it was by reason of some such as you are, that beat the cushion and kettledrums, as they do sometimes against the truth, it may be oftener than for it. the pulpit and press are like the rest of london roads, you'll meet both truth and error upon the tantivy there, and the fewest in number must break the way: so he that can make the greatest cry of error, and magisterially cry down truth for error, he is the man. neonom. many of our ablest pens were engaged against those errors, as mr. gataker, rutherford, burgess, provincial synod, etc. antinom. sir, these persons were worthy divines, but dead and gone. i will not rake in their ashes, as you have done in this good man's; and whatever errors you pretend they were against, it may be we shall find their opinions were no more, as you represent them in your book, than dr. crisps was, as you represent him. neonom. to the grief of such as perceive the tendency of those principles, we are engaged in a new opposition. antinom. after a certain zealous neonomian had taken his leave of us, there was a great deal of probability this controversy would have fell to the ground: but since that you have been the only bellweather that hath set it on foot, thinking to make yourself the head of a party; but do not believe that so many do admire you as you think, nor persuade yourself you can wind all the divines in london about your finger, as you think you have done some here, and all at dublin. neonom. i believe many abettors of those notions have grace to preserve their minds and practices from their influence: but they ought to consider the generality of mankind have no such antidote; and themselves need not to fortify their own temptations, nor lose the defence which the wisdom of god hath provided against remissness in duty, and sinful back sliding. antinom. the great advantage the world is easily persuaded of, that the opposers of the doctrine of free grace in the salvation of sinners, ●●ve had against the assertors thereof in all ages, is a suggestion, that the said doctrine tends to the countenance and encouragement of sin. and this accusation the apostle paul doth industriously set himself to the wiping off, tit. 1.10, 11, 12. and divers other places: and to affirm that the grace of god is the o●● root and foundation of true holiness in the freest and fullest despensation; the truth of which doth not only abundantly appear in the word, but by manifest experience, that your self-justiciaries, free-willers, neonomians, that seek justification by a law, they are least observant o● any rules of strict obedience or conscientious regards to the commands of god. i will go no further now for an instance than yourself, who now come forth into the world in a vizard of holiness, to the deluding of such as can discern but skindeep, when your treatise itself is sufficient evidence to contradict what you pretend to, being stuffed with so many immoralities. immoralities i say; for such are false accusations, malice, envy, evil speaking, and all shot from the quiver as it were of a persecutor, at the good name of one that was upright in heart, psal. 11.1, 2, 3, 4. if not at the name of christ, and other his faithful servants. and as for the danger of those truths to the generality of mankind which you call error, it is an high impeachment of the grace and wisdom of god; because a wicked, carnal, corrupt world, for such is the generality of mankind, do abuse the grace of god as well as refuse, count it folly, yea, and stumble at it; therefore it is to be blamed and shunned as an error, and such a doctrine of life and salvation is to be set up as may be of better influence upon the generality of mankind, and more suitable to their nature, i. e. their carnal reason and corrupt affections. and therefore you would have antidotes to take off the poison that mankind is apt to suck in from the doctrine of free pardoning grace, and this must be the doctrine of neonomianism, and likewise a cure of that which believers have sucked in already, and are apt to perish under, by reason of temptation: therefore as it may be supposed you have given it the name of a remedial law, to cure the distempers that arise from the doctrine of freegrace. neonom. who can wonder at the security of sinners, the mistaking the motions of sensible passion for conversion, and the general abatement of exact and humble walking, when so many affirm sins are not to be feared as doing any hurt, even when the most flagirious are committed; graces and holiness can't do us the least good: god hath no more to lay to the charge of the wickedest man if he be elected, than he hath to lay to the charge of a saint in glory. the elect are not governed by hope or fear; for the laws of christ have no promises nor threats to rule them by, nor are they under the impressions of rewards or punishments as motives to duty, or preservatives against sin. antinom. as for this great flourish, it's but like don quixot 's brandishing his sword against a windmill. it's not only a rule that calumniators go by, and known to be their practice, fortiter calumniari aliquid adhaerebit: but calumnies go no further than the ears with wise men; according to a proverbial saying apud aeschium, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. at the first light of a black tongue, it's easy to judge of the foulness of the stomach, and that the whole mass of blood is infected with ill humours, or the morbid constitution of some parts. out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh, saith our saviour our great physician. is it not sad when there is a poisonsome juice under the lips, and a mouth full of bitterness? rom. 3. you first charge the ministry of some (and most hereabout know what sort of men you mean) with being the cause of men's security in sin: and why? because they preach the doctrine of the gospel, in a free justification of a sinner by faith without the works of a law, according to the apostle paul, and preach down your doctrine of justification by works. but you express the effects of this dangerous doctrine to lie in these things: 1. security in sin: a doctrine that quickens men that are dead in trespasses and sins, (one part of which death is security in sin,) doth not cause security in sin: but the doctrine of free grace in justification of a sinner, without works of any law, doth so, eph. 2. i shall not now enlarge upon you. 2. another ill effect is, you say, that it causes the mistaking the motions of sensible passions for conversion. this is rather the effect of your own doctrine, wherein you lay the whole stress of justifying and saving grace upon sensible passions, and set men wholly to judge of their state thereby. it's marvellously to be wondered at, that any man should have the impudence to charge those effects upon an opposite doctrine to his, which are the natural and palpable effects of his own, and he sees so to be. 3. you charge upon it the general abatement of an exact and humble walking. this charge is likewise of the same nature: whereas the spirit of god hath disclaimed any true cause of exact walking, beside the grace of god that brings salvation, and then teacheth it, as hath been proved. as for humble walking, what is a greater inducement thereto than the doctrine of faith, which ascribes all to the gift of grace, empties us of every high imagination and thought? it exalts christ, and makes him all and in all. whereas yours is the contrary: no doctrine tends more to the lifting up of the creature than that of neonomianism, next to that of the papists. and no wonder, say you, when so many affirm such and such things. where are the many or the any that you can charge with saying these things in the same sense you put upon them? many expressions, that taken together with their connexion in the explained sense of him that speaks, are not only true, but safe and sound; but abstracted and wrested, may be made to look as black as hell. you may say david saith, that there is not an honest man upon the face of the earth, psal. 12. that he saith, there is no god, psal. 14. that moses affirms god to be a man, exod. 15.3. and in a thousand places in your way and manner it's easy to charge blasphemy upon the very scriptures. and how often lying, if hyperboles be not allowed to be used without wrong to the truth? as to the particular charges, i shall speak to each in its proper place, and lay open your prevarications, errors, and false imputations to the world. neonom. in this present testimony to the truth of the gospel, i have studied plainness; pref. d. w. p. 3. and to that end oft repeated the same things in my concessions, to prevent the mistakes of the less intelligent, tho' i could not think it fit to insist anew upon all. antinom. your testimony is against the truth, as shall be made appear, and is not to be accounted a testimony. for a testimony is a credible witness or evidence: as the apostle paul saith, our testimony among you was believed, 2 thes. 1.10. and this testimony is with a good conscience, 2 cor. 1.12. and paul testified the gospel of the grace of god, acts 2.24. 1. your testimony is not to the gospel of the grace of god, but against it, and therefore not materially true. 2. your testimony is formally naught, it being not accompanied with a good conscience, but with a purpose and design to deceive. you pretend to do good, but you manifestly design evil; to blast the honour of god's free grace, as if it were a sin-teaching doctrine, and blacken a holy servant of christ (who is now in glory) for preaching the gospel: your testimony can't be believed, because of your manifold prevarications, equivocations, and false teachings in this treatise of yours. and whereas you say you have studied plainness; if you mean that, in some places is no better than plain falsehood, in others plain error, it's true enough: or if you mean plainness in respect of style, it's homely enough, and hardly plain sense: but if you mean plainness of simplicity, without double-tonguedness, i utterly deny it: for when you speak of things, that one would think at first glance you intent truth by, it's nothing so: no jesuit in the world can outdo you at equivocation, and there lies your natural excellency: you have impertinent repetition enough, your concessions every where fall about your own ears in your glozing oppositions to the truth you deny: you design the rectifying the mistakes of the non-intelligent. this is false, it's manifest you design the blinding of them more; else why do you quote dr. owen and the assembly for countenancing those errors which you know they directly oppose? let but the mistakes of the less intelligent be removed, their stomaches will rise sufficiently against you and your book too. neonom. i have in nothing misrepresented dr. crisp 's opinion, nor mistaken his sense. antinom. this must be true or false, and here is the turning point of the whole book; either dr. crisp was, or you must be.— if you have not misrepresented him, then according to your representation he was so: if you have misrepresented him, and unjustly blackened him, what are you? but that which we have in hand is falshood and lying. as to this assertion of yours, we shall prove you guilty of falsehood throughout the book, that though you have repeated some of dr. crisp's words from time to time, yet you have only repeated such part of his words as might render him odious, not those that give a true and can did sense of what he intended; and herein you misrepresented him, and that on purpose. now the spirit of god lays the formal nature of a lie upon an intention to deceive, or to deal injuriously with others, as in the case of doeg. though i do not design now to come to particulars, i will give one instance wherein you in your book, and your party, do frequently expose dr. crisp and his abettors, such as you call divers, as also crispians and antinomians, that he and they do assert, sin can do no hurt; and you would have men understand that he means, that no person in christ need fear to commit sin, and that sin in its abstract nature is good: that dr. crisp renders sin innocent, that is your expression, pag. 198. now you charge him for saying, that the grossest sin that a believer can commit can't do him the least harm, neither ought they to fear the least hurt by their own sins, pag. 181. by this you would give us to understand, that he means sin is in its self innocent, and that sin bears no evil fruits of its self; that it may be boldly committed without fear. whereas dr. crisp declares plainly, and with much endeavour to prevent mistakes, that the hurt he means is only the penal effects of sin; and declares again and again he speaks this not to encourage sin: he speaks of the sins of a believer in christ, they that are under the dominion of grace: he speaks not of sins to be committed, but that these aught to be looked upon as the most odious and hateful things in the world, and that which here he doth speak is only upon the account of some poor distressed consciences, whose sins lay so much upon them, as thereby their souls were driven from the grace of god in christ. for to prove this, take only a few of his words, (you shall hear many more hereafter,) dr. c. p. 513. thus i speak of sin, not as it smiles upon a man with a promising countenance before it be committed: for it is most dreadful and odious to the faithful, as that which crucified the sweetest lord, but as already committed and lying upon the conscience of a believer, endeavouring to drive him to deny the freegrace and love of god, and the all-sufficiency of christ: in this regard it is crucified by christ, and so a believer need not be afraid of sin, the handwriting of ordinances is taken away. his whole discourse is to evince, that the condemning nature of sin is taken away; the fear he speaks of is only in respect of sins that a believer hath fallen into, and to prevent their falling into unbelieving despair. now let any intelligent person judge whether you have not misrepresented dr. crisp, and basely traduced him. you yourself say, pag. 11. the obliquity of the fact against the precept shall not hurt, where the sanction of the law is answered. i think this being duly weighed, is worse than any thing dr. crisp sayeth. i'll instance in one misrepresentation more: for you charge him for holding the uselessness and unprofitableness of holiness, in saying, graces and holiness do us not the least good. dr. crisp, p. 41. preaching upon christ the way, sheweth christ to be the way to justification, and saith, you that are believers are in a near way to salvation. believe in the lord jesus, and thou shalt be saved. such a near way christ is, yet still people will be cavilling. where are good works all this while? what justified by faith alone? saved by christ alone? i tell you, if christ be the way to eternal life, than works are not the way, except they be christ. but must we not work? yea, but for other purposes: [i. e. than for justification and obtaining eternal life by them] the lord hath propounded other ends for which you are to work. ye are bought with a price: that's done, therefore glorify god in your bodies, being delivered out of the hands of your enemies, wear to serve him in holiness and righteousness. he saith much to this purpose, often speaks in the high commendation of holiness, but speaks against putting it in the place of christ. by these things we may see what credit is to be given to you, when you make it so much of your business in pulpit and public places, to charge men and books with saying those things which they never spoke, and meaning such things as they never intended. and let all men judge whether you have not misrepresented this good man, (whom in the end of this preface you own to have been a holy man: and could that be true, if you have not misrepresented him as to what he said of sin and good works?) and spoken here a very great falsehood. these two proofs may serve to evince for the present, which also shall be made good that it is so in most, if not all the chapters of your book more or less. the great quarrel you have with him is, that he makes it so much his business to vindicate the honour of free grace, and of the lord jesus, in our whole salvation, and in justification to exclude works altogether. you talk of works necessary to salvation, but how? you mean as a working condition, whereby you put works in the place of christ, and mean as your oracle plainly speaks: for you are not so honest as he, but play the juggler more. he saith, quoniam & christus mediator & fides in christum, method. theolog. p. 394. § 36. par. 2. sunt tantum media ad hominem deo per sanctitatem & amorem restituendum: ideo sine hesitatione dicendum est, ex natura rei, fidem sanctitatem & amorem dei ad salutem magis esse necessaria, quàm aut fides in christum, aut christi ipsius sacrificium. i will not construe it, for the reputation of him that wrote it; but theirs a bone for you to pick: and i think to all learned men it gives your whole meaning in making such a noise as you do, (which you think in very allowable terms that none dare oppose you in) that works are necessary to salvation. neonom. his scheme is this, that by god's mere electing decree, all saving blessings are by divine obligation made ours. antinom. he never erected his scheme, and cast theological figures as you have done, to find out a new gospel. he took his measures of truth from the word of god; but bernardus non videt omnia, some things he might be mistaken in as well as others. but you say that he said, by god's electing decree all saving blessings are by divine obligation made ours. but where's the expression? i remember it not. he might say, that from god's electing grace it proceeds, that all divine blessings are made ours by obligation; in the terms that you have put it, its improper, because it seems to confound election and the covenant of grace. i can say nothing further to that, till i see his words, being not willing to believe your reporting of them: for it's manifest you make to conscience to misrepresent any man, to put your meanings, and draw your consequences upon him. neonom. but he saith, there's nothing more needful to our title to these blessings. antinom. is not this spirare 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, one of the first rate? doth not dr. c. assert christ to be needful to salvation, and as our title? doth he not assert the covenant of grace to be needful, the free gift of grace? sure christ and the covenant of grace are both distinguished from election; and these he affirms needful to our title to blessings. but blessings in your sense are odd things. sanctification is no blessing with you, but only a condition of getting blessings. neonom. he saith, that on the cross all the sins of the elect were transferred to christ, and ceased ever to be theirs. antinom. then there was something more needful to our title to blessings than the electing decree, viz. the transferring our sins to christ on the cross. it is a truth, that our sins were laid upon christ, and that but once, and after the manner of imputation in foro justitiae divinae, they shall never be laid upon us. this i will prove against you when you please, and indeed it's this doctrine, viz. of imputation, that you are still bantering; it's that you have the greatest pique at. neonom. that at the first moment of conception, a title to all those decreed blessings is personally applied to the elect, and they invested actually therein. antinom. if that be his particular judgement in that point, he saith something for it, and i know not that you can disprove him. if god doth secretly and invisibly apply his distinguishing fruits of electing and redeeming love upon the elect, as is manifest in jeremiah, john the baptist, yea, paul; and without dispute in the instance of jacob that he gives; is any man the worse for it? must he therefore come under your anathema for an heretic? yea, is not the blessing thus applied to all the elect dying in infancy? neonom. hence he saith, the elect have nothing to do in order to an interest in any of those blessings, nor ought they to intent the least good to themselves by what they do. sin can do them no harm, because it is none of theirs, nor can god afflict them for any sin. antinom. you may erect such a scheme upon paul's epistles, after this manner, and take the apostle james to prove it in your way. he saith, the elect can do nothing in order to an interest in eternal blessings; nor when they have eternal life bestowed upon them, and the grace of sanctification as an undoubted part of it, ought they to put their graces and duties in the place of christ, or design the procuring or deserving so much as de congruo, in what they do, and that sin can't harm them as to it's penal and vindicative effects: he saith therefore, it can do them no real harm, and so he explains himself. and therefore gods afflicting them proceeds not from vindicative justice; he doth not afflict them so as to execute justice upon them for sin, but to reform them. his term is, from sin, i. e. to purge sin out of them, and make them partakers of his holiness: as the apostle saith, heb. 12. neonom. and all the rest of his opinions follow in a chain, to the dethroning of christ, enervating his laws and plead, obstructing the great designs of redemption, opposing the very scope of the gospel, and the ministry of christ, and his prophets, and apostles. antinom. it's strange, a holy man, (as you own he was) should do christ so much mischief. here's a swinging bill of costs; but that's not fair before we have a hearing and trial: your word is a law. ego ipse dixi is enough; if you pass the sentence, there's nothing but death and the cobbler. but you say all his doctrine is linked together as in a chain: that's like the analogy of faith, not like a scheme that must be erected a new every minute, or else it will not agree with the heavens. nowmenians or neonomians must be often erecting new schemes. your opinions are so far from consistency and linking together, that they hang together like a rope of sand, and like particles of various shapes, that are always justling one another till they break each others shins. doth this doctrine incur all this damage? by what law? nay, all this damage is excluded by the law of faith: and your boasting too of works. doth the apostle paul's doctrine preached eph. 1. & 2. ch. and rom. 4. and gal. 5. (where he testifies, that christ is become of none effect to whomsoever is justified by a law,) dethrone christ, and enervate his laws and intercession? doth he plead your works? doth it obstruct the great designs of redemption in advancing him in all his offices, and the glory of god's free grace? your bill of costs will never be allowed you, till you have confuted paul's epistles, or by your canons made them no canonical scriptures. neonom. the dr. had not entertained these opinions, if he had considered; that god's electing decree is no legal grant, nor a formal promise to us. the decree includes the means and the end in order to the last: and as it puts nothing in present being, so it bars not god as a governor, to fix a connexion between benefits and duties by his revealed will. antinom. here i see i must have a care of my crown. the dr. seraphicus holds up his fist. well dr. cr. you should go to school to learn new principles in divinity, if you lived in our times. you did not consider that god did not legally elect you. but sir, is not this a very insolent thing of you to say, that the purpose of god in election was not a legal grant. was it a grant or no? or was it an election without a grant? is not god's designation of good a grant so far as designed? is not a choosing in christ before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love; a granting that we should be holy and without blame before him in love, and predestinating us to the adoption of children by jesus christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will: a granting that we should have the adoption of children. but you say, this was not legal. what! was it not lawful for god to do this according to the good pleasure of his will? that we usually mean, when we say a thing is not legal. or do you mean, god did not elect by a law? if he had been bound by a law to elect, he had not elected freely: for a free choice implies a person under no obligation external or previous to his own intention and purpose. 2. you say, nor a formal promise, i. e. explicit, you mean. it's enough that its an unchangeable purpose to make a formal promise; and as there was an eternal election, so there was an eternal promise, the covenant of grace between the father and the son being eternal: and it's expressly said, that god's purpose and grace was given us in christ before the world began, 2 tim. 1.9. tit. 1.3. we were no sooner effected, but the purpose and grace of it was given us in promise. election eternal, the promise eternal, both equally eternal in puncto eternitatis; though in nature election is before the promise, and the cause of it. 3. you say, the decree includes the means and the end. do you think dr. crisp did not know that? yes, how to express it better than you do. he would have said, the decree was of the means and the end; and he would not have said willing the first, i. e. the means in order to a will of the end, but willing the end to be brought about by the means. quod primum est in intention uttimum in executione, as to our conception. 4. you say, it puts nothing in present being. i say, it puts the promise in an eternal being. and if you mean as to created being's, and the manner of them, it puts them into a determinate futurition. 5. you say, it bars not god of his government. no, it's not fit nor possible his own pleasure should bar him of it, neither is it possible it should bar him of what he would have; neither is he the more barred, because you are pleased to find fault; and it was his pleasure to govern as he willed to govern, and all the connexion of events, so as they come to pass in a way of necessity and contingency. but he determined absolutely, and nothing that falls out is contingent to him; for he judgeth not of events as probable by opinion, but as certain to his knowledge; and therefore knows them, because he willeth them to come to pass, according to his counsel and purpose in himself. neonom. so if the dr. had animadverted, that christ's sufferings were the foundation of our pardon, but not formally our pardon: for them our sins are forgiven whenever they be forgiven: without them sin can't be forgiven; and they were endured, that the sins of all the elect, when believers, should be forgiven. antinom. there's no doubt but the dr. was so learned and wise, that he animadverted as much as you can tell him, and undoubtedly what was the main of his judgement that he insisted upon, was not from inanimad version, ignorance or mistake. but you have found out, it seems, some subtle distinction that he thought not of. you say he should have said, that christ's sufferings were the foundation of pardon. all that he saith and means, is, that our sins were fundamentally pardoned in christ. but your fundamentally is only a remote causality, as election is to creation and redemption; for that's the foundation of both. if you had not intended so, why had you not said the material cause, seeing you deny them to be the formal; but you'll have them to be neither; and you say, for them our sins are forgiven. take heed how you touch there. be careful you come not too near christ. it's a tender point; for them our sins are forgiven. how! for them? for them as an end? or how for them? as a satisfying reason to the law and offended justice of god? or only as a benefit procured? for them remotely, or for them immediately? for them alone, or for them in conjunction with other things? all that we have at present of your meaning of for them, is, that without them sin cannot be forgiven. a poor causa sine qua non. as a judge gives sentence upon a malefactor, or acquits him: why doth he sentence or acquit him? for his coming to the judgment-hall? for, say i, unless the judge had come to court, the prisoner could not have been condemned or acquitted. christ is beholding to you for what you give to his sufferings. but we shall see more of this hereafter. neonom. but yet they are not forgiven immediately upon, nor merely by his enduring those sufferings. antinom. but you mean by something else besides them; not by an immediate application of them, but mediate and remote a causa fine qua non, but not causa solibitaria suo genere. neonom. but there was by divine appointment to interpose a gospel-promise of pardon. antinom. now we come to the nicety of the point. we shall split a hair here with a beetle and wedges: there's the curiosity of it. what! the promise come after christ's sufferings, to interpose between us and christ's sufferings? was not the promise the cause of christ's suffering, in the hidden state and mystery of it, before the world was? tit. 1. was not the promise declared and promulgated before christ's sufferings, to adam, abraham, & c.? and was not christ in all his sufferings and triumphs the great gift of the promise, as well as the condition of the covenant? but you'll have christ to be provided as an indefinite good medicine, to stand in the apothecary's shop for some body or other when the physician prescribes it. nay, it's not an absolute sick patient neither, that must have this medicine; it's one that the apothecary hath in a manner cured before: but there's some ugly chronical symptom or other remains, which the physician must be sent to, for. before the person be pardoned, he must be in a very sound and safe condition, i suppose you mean. neonom. there must be a work of the spirit for conformity to the rule of the promise in the person to be pardoned, and a judicial act of pardon by that promise on the person thus conformed to the promise. antinom. the plain english of this position is, that there must be an inherent righteousness in the person to be pardoned, upon the condition whereof he is to be pardoned; and that the use of christ's sufferings are, to compound with god, for sinners upon the account of the old law, and put a bar upon his proceed according to that, and procure another law, by the righteousness whereof we are justified, which righteousness is our own inherent righteousness, and not christ's. this i affirm, hath two things in it. first, the abrogation of the old law. that we have nothing to do with it at all, it's altogether out a-doors: this is antinomianism, higher than ever dr. crisp affirmed, or any of his abettors, as you call them. secondly, here is erection of a new law of works for our justification, which is neonomianism. neonom. to clear this point, consider, 1. the law is sometimes taken for the perceptive part of god's will, with the sanction of the covenant of works. antinom. the preceptive will of god with the sanction of rewards promised upon performance of the things required, and threats of punishment upon the non-performance, is always a law or covenant of works. neonom. in this covenant life was promised to sinless obedience; and death was threatened against every sin, without admitting repenance to forgiveness. antinom. to talk of any other obedience to a law besides sinless, in respect of that law in its preceptive part, is nonsense: for sinful obedience, which you are going to plead for, is disobedience; and whereas you say, life was promised in that law to adam's sinless obedience: that's a supposition; but there was no explicit promise in the sanction, neither was there any need there should: for a sovereign may command a duty, or make a thing a duty to a subject upon a penalty, without promising a reward. and whereas you say, death was threatened without admitting repentance to forgiveness: it was not expressed, no more was the admittance of a surety. but if god had intended the salvation of man by a law of works, this might have been admitted. when once a transgressor is sentenced by the law, he falls into the hands of prerogative, and the prince may do with him what he pleaseth. god also might have put repentance into the conditions of the law of works at first, and said, if thou dost not eat, or repent of thy eating, thou shalt have thy reward. but god never intended to accept repentance as a foederal condition of any covenant whatever, nor no other imperfect obedience. there was never but one law of works, and to fulfilling it, he always stood upon perfect sinless obedience. neonom. upon the fall life is impossible by the law with this sanction. antinom. yea, or by any law whatsoever with this sanction. neonom. and hence to preach it to sinners as a way to blessedness, is sinful and vain, and no saving benefit, is dispensed to any of us by this rule. antinom. to preach any law to sinners, as a way to blessedness in this forementioned sense of a law, is sinful and vain, and no saving benefit is dispensed to any of us by such a rule: therefore the preaching a new law is as sinful and vain. neonom. the gospel includes the moral preceptive part of the first law, with some additional precepts, which suppose our apostate state: as faith in an atoning saviour, and repentance for sin; these could not be enjoined as duties upon innocent man by a rule of happiness and misery: nor could they be necessary to his right to life, because they would suppose him a sinner. antinom. 1. i deny that the gospel takes in or includes any moral preceptive part of the law, as a rule of happiness and misery, with sanction as a foederal condition, nor any additional precepts, which suppose our apostate state, as faith and repentance. for it were vain to set up such a law, seeing a law of works proved fruitless to man in his perfect state, it's much more likely to be of none effect, we being now a thousand times more unable to perform the old law, or a new one with additional precepts: and it becomes not the wisdom of god to make a law to enjoin new obedience to dead men, unless he makes them alive first. moreover, all the preceptive will of god then or afterward to be revealed, was enjoined to man as his duty to observe, in the law of nature imprinted on his heart. as for faith, it was an eminent part of his perfection, and that which the serpent first wounded him in by temptation. repentance also is an included duty, required in every command of god upon a supposal of a transgression; but that repentance, or any duties, are enjoined as a rule of happiness and misery, (if i understand your rule aright, viz. a foederal condition giving right as such) since the fall, i utterly deny; and the rather, because any such duties suppose him a sinner, as will be very easily made appear when need requires. neonom. the gospel is taken in a large sense, when i say, it includes all the moral precepts: but yet the gospel doth so, and they are the commands of christ as redeemer (to whom all judgement is committed) as well as the law of the creator. antinom. in your sense it's taken in so large a sense, as to make it gospel, is nonsense. if it takes in all moral precepts as foederal conditions, (that's your sense) than it sets up the old law again, only new vamps it with some additional precepts: you have the old law you say, and a great deal more, the precepts of faith and repentance, which are a thousand times more hard to perform by man in his apostate state, than ever a hundred laws would have been to adam in his innocency. now here is in your new law brought in not only all the precepts of the old law for condition, but the difficult task of a blackamore's changing his skin, and a leopard his spots, before the sinner hath the benefit of the promise, so much as in any taste of pardoning mercy, which you make (when he hath it) the foederal reward (for so it must be) of his conformity to the rule. 2. christ our redeemer gives commands, and exerts a kingly power in government of his church, and hath judgement committed to him; but these are not of the gospel conditions of life unto sinners propounded in the gospel. god doth not require obedience to the laws of christ in his church as foediral conditions of eternal life. such obedience is part of the life promised. there is the essence of the gospel, and the effects of the gospel. the essence of the gospel is altogether promise and free gift, the effects of the gospel is every privilege and blessing, and the production of all good fruits in service and obedience to our lord jesus christ. 3. it's true, all judgement is committed to christ as his reward, but all that judgement is not the gospel. viz. whenever christ is found in a way of judgement, to destroy, not to save: so the word preached, where it proves a savour unto death, it's not gospel to such in the event. 4. you say, they are the laws of a redeemer, as well as the laws of a creator. it's true, christ is creator: but is the gospel a revival of his law as creator, in a way of redemption? if you mean so, than the ministry of the new testament is the same to us with the ministry of death and condemnation, contrary to 2 cor. 3.7, 9 neonom. 3. the gospel hath another sanction to the preceptive part of the law, than the covenant of works had. antinom. this is a strange assertion: for there was never any law of god with sanction, but it was always the same. suppose that your new law were a reality, (and not a fiction of men's brains as it is) can there be any other sanction than what was annexed to the old? is it not a promise of life upon the condition of performing obedience, and a denunciation of death to the non-performers? what other sanction have you, or can you pretend to besides this? neonom. though nothing be abated in the rule of sin and duty, yet blessings are promised to lower degrees of duty. antinom. the change you pretend to therefore is not in the sanction, but in the condition; the preceptive part, or the obedience to it required, your sanction still remains of life or death, as in the first covenant of works. but see how well your scheme hangs together. you say there's nothing abated in the rule of sin and duty. 1. i never thought god gave a rule of sin; therefore that's mighty improper; but let it be a rule to judge of sin by. 2. you say, there's nothing abated of the rule of sin and duty, therefore nothing abated in the conditionary preceptive part of the law: and there can be nothing abated in the sanction, it must be life or death, ergo, there's the same law still, and we must be saved by the covenant of works, or not at all. but, 3. the reason you give of changing the sanction, is, because the blessings are promised to lower degrees of duty. this, as i said, is no change in the promise, but in the condition; and then see how you contradict yourself in the same breath. you say, there's nothing abated in the rule, and yet lower degrees of duty admitted. how can these lower degrees be admitted, but by the rule of the preceptive part? for the degrees of duty required are according to god's commands; and he requires in a law duty answering the perfection of the precept. neonom. and a continuance in a state of death, with a bar to the blessing, are not threatened against every degree of sin, as the covenant of works did. antinom. this is not sense as expressed: but i take your meaning: 1. death was threatened in the covenant of works, but it spoke not of a continuance in that state, with any such bar to a blessing, as should hinder god from the saving of sinners: but you own that bar might be removed, and was; but your covenant puts as great a bar as that, that if men perform not the condition, they must continue in the state of death notwithstanding all that christ hath done to remove the bar from the old covenant. for their concernment (in your sense) is not now for a righteousness to answer that, but to answer the new law, which lays them under life or death. 2. is the condition the same, and more? and the sanction the same? how is it possible it should not threaten death to every degree of sin? 3. it seems our salvation is according to the degree of sin. we must know what sins are of such a degree, as that they are pardonable; what venial, and what mortal; and if law and gospel are distinguished by the degrees of sin, gospel lies in sin, not grace it seems; for if it be from the degree of sin that we are saved, than not from the blood of christ which taketh away all sin. 4. doth god's law admit of sin in any degree, than i say as the apostle saith, is the law sin? to admit of sin into law is sin. no; the law is holy, just and good, and the promise doth not make void the law, by abating one jot or tittle of it, but establisheth the law: therefore the law cannot admit of sin. neonom. can any doubt this to be the grace of the gospel-promise? antinom. yea, i do, not only doubt it, but know and do testify to the world, according to the grace of god given to me, that it is not the grace of the gospel-promise. neonom. doth it promise life to all men, however vile and impenitent they be? antinom. it promiseth and giveth life to the vilest and most impenitent sinners. where grace gives life, it supposeth men dead, and not alive. for, repentance is part of the life given; and to talk of giving life to penitent sinners, is to suppose them alive before life is given; but it doth not suppose that where christ gives life, the vilest sinners shall remain so, or impenitent. neonom. or doth it threaten damnation, or a continuance of it unto any true, penitent, believing, godly man, because he is imperfect. antinom. let a man pretend himself, or be looked upon to be never so penitent, believing and godly, and seek to be justified and saved by his works; i mean such as you mention, moral obedience, acts of faith, penitency, etc. i affirm thereby he is fallen from grace, gal. 5.4. being fallen short of the righteousness of god, rom. 10. and as he puts himself under a law for justification, so a law condemns for imperfect obedience. for i roundly assert, that no law of god, with a sanction of life and death upon performance, or non-performance of obedience, doth admit of the least imperfection in the said obedience: therefore such are under the curse for their imperfections. cursed is every one that continueth not in all things. and i say, if your gospel be a law, it doth denounce damnation to the holiest and most godly man upon earth. neonom. this change of the sanction supposeth the death of christ, and his honouring his law by his perfect obedience; wherein god hath provided for his own glory, while he promiseth forgiveness to imperfect man. antinom. i have proved the sanction is not changed: but in your law it seems the condition is changed. it was in the old law perfect obedience, in the new its imperfect. verily it is changed for the worse; for imperfect is worse than perfect. but how comes this to pass? god hath provided for his own glory in christ, that saving of men is upon the conditions of imperfect obedience, i. e. by a worse law, an unholy and unjust law might not turn to his dishonour. god hath provided for himself, you mean, seeing he rashly made such a law as he finds will not answer his ends, justice shall have its due in his son, and then he shall be at liberty to make a law with such easy, imperfect and sinful conditions, that sinners may be saved. is not this admirable stuff for gospel? neonom. and yet he insists upon some degrees of obedience, unto which of his mere grace he enables us. antinom. he could by his grace as well enable us to perfect obedience, if it were for his honour that obedience should be the condition: but doth it make it make it ever the less a covenant of works? doth what you say, make it of grace. for, 1. forgiveness, that's but the reward of life. but you'll say, it's for the sake of christ; well, that's but in respect of the old law, that it may not condemn you, whereby you are come into a capacity to stand again for life upon new conditions. 2. you say, it's to imperfect man. but is it not the same thing to save by perfect or imperfect works, so works be the condition? 3. what if grace enables them? this altars not the case. did not god give adam his holiness before the fall, and enable him to do what he did? neonom. this the covenant of redemption secures to the elect, tho' the grant therein is pleadable only by christ as the stipulating party for us. antinom. as for your notion, that your covenant of redemption is distinct from the covenant of grace, i deny it, and shall hereafter make it appear, that the covenant of grace and redemption is one and the same covenant. and for the present, i tax you for saying, that the covenant of redemption is pleadable by none but christ. do we never plead redemption, nor the promise made in christ, nor christ himself? what, is all in the covenant of redemption? do we not plead it daily? and what christ stipulated in this covenant for us; may we not plead it? is not the promise of life in christ pleadable? 2 tim. 1.1, 9 neonom. and our personal claim depends on the gospel-covenant, whereof christ is the mediator. antinom. so the covenant of redemption is not the gospel-covenant; but neither is there any claim to be made by it, but another that interposeth between the second covenant and us. we are not entitled at all to this new covenant-blessing by christ, but by our own obediance (you mean) in performance of the conditions of this covenant, you say. how? to defend from the old law prosecution, that there may be no interruption: but our new law may have quiet in allowance of our imperfect obedience. christ mediator with you is but as the angel that defended paradise; so christ stands and defends the new law, that no exception may be taken at its proceeding in justification by imperfect obedience. this is to make the lord jesus christ the minister of sin, to offer up himself a sacrifice to procure an imperfect righteousness for a covenant condition: for in all imperfections of obedience there's a mixture of sin. and is not this to make sin good in its own nature? and implicitly to assert, it can do us no hurt in the lower degree, it coming in as an alloy to the strictness of the covenant of works: there's a necessity of it as to the very formal nature of it in the condition: for otherwise it would be a perfect condition, and then exclude us from all blessedness, as you say. neonom. 4. this gospel sanction determines as certain a rule of happiness and misery as the law of works did, though it be not the same. antinom. to determine rules of sin and misery, as your frequent expression is, is to make the gospel to approve of sin and misery, and it's great design and business to send men to hell. take your way of expression in what sense you please, it's so unscholar-like, that a schoolboy should be whipped for it. 2. i tell you, the gospel hath no law sanction at all of its own, but it only establisheth the sanction of the law, by way of promise to all saved one's; christ is the end of the law to them; and as to those that are not saved, the law takes its course upon them; they come not under the efficacy of the gospel at all. 3. in the whole you have said, you have affirmed the gospel to be a covenant of works, as it's your usual manner. neonom. while it promiseth pardon to all believing repenting sinners, and declares a bar to pardon to the impenitent rejecters of christ and gospel grace; it fixeth true repentance and faith unfeigned to be the terms of pardon: so when it promiseth heaven to the sincerely holy persevering believer; it fixeth sincere holiness and perseverance in faith at the terms of possessing heaven. antinom. 1. i would fain know whether the gospel offers not pardon unto unbelieving and impenitent sinners? not that they should continue unbelieving and impenitent, but that they should believe and repent. for the promise of the gospel is an offer and tender of forgiveness unto sinners; and it's preached to them as such, to persuade and encourage them to believe; and whether this promise be not before faith, to work it? if not, the sinner hath no ground to believe: for where there's no promise, there's no ground to believe. 2. if it declare a bar to all present impenitent ones and rejecters of christ, it is preached in vain; for all are so till they receive christ by faith. 3. whether faith and repentance be not included in the promise of the gospel? i say, they are: all gifts of grace belong to the promise of grace; but faith and repentance are gifts of grace: t●e scripture is express in it. now than i argue, first, that faith and repentance belong to the promise, to the same promise that gives forth pardon, and therefore are no conditions; they are benefits, they are life in christ, and there's none can have them but such as are in christ: and therefore pardon is not promised to faith and repentance, as things distinct from the promise; but pardon is promised together with faith and repentance to the sinner. the spirit of god only gives us to understand that they are to go together. pardon is rather the conndition of faith and repentance, and much more, having a causal influence thereunto, then faith and repentance of pardon. 2. the gospel doth not fix faith and repentantance as conditions of pardon in your sense, i. e. working conditions to entitle us to christ; for we are pardoned and justified freely; and though there be faith and repentance upon giving forth of pardon, yet faith, repentance and remission of sins are given in the same promise to the ungodly, to persons that were even till now impenitent rejecters of christ. 3. but you go on with your mystery. first, the sinner must be qualified with faith and repentance, before he is reconciled to god in a way of pardon; and when he hath that, he is to come on upon another covenant for possessing of heaven. now there must be sincere holiness and perseverance to qualify him for heaven: the promise of heaven, it's upon other conditions. what a sad case is a poor sinner in, if he make a shift to scramble by his imperfect conditions into covenant! he is like every day to be turned out again: and when he hath done the best he can; yet he must never believe that he shall go to heaven till he lies a dying. it were happy for him to be knocked on the head when he is in a good frame, lest he should lose all again, and put to begin to go through all his imperfect, sincere, persevering, moral righteousness, believing he knows not what. for if he falls into sin, he must conclude his perseverance is at an end; you must inform us what degrees of sin in our imperfect obedience may be admitted before we conclude that our perseverance is at an end; and then, though you say happiness will come upon perseverance, in imperfect holiness, i suppose, then perfect holiness is that which qualifies us for perfect happiness, and is the condition of it: therefore we must arrive at it in this life, that so we may have the condition before the promise. are not these miserable chimeras for protestants? neonom. hence the use of faith and holiness to those benefits, is not from their conformity to the precept, but their conformity to the rule of the promise. antinom. now we come to the whirligig, that is the mystery of the scheme. 1. we would know whether there be any difference between conformity to a rule and precept in a law? and, 2. what is the rule of the promise? is it not with you the precept? if it be not, how is conformity to it obedience? 3. the promise is not properly a precept as such, tho' the gospel-promise is the ground and reason of all gospel-precepts; but not precepts of promises: and how can any man conform to the precept in your sense, and not expect and have from thence the use of the benefits? yea, and not look upon it as federally following therefrom. 4. i would fain know what gave the use of the benefit in the covenant of works? for you say, this determines the rules of happiness and misery in the same manner. was not the use of adam's faederal holiness as to happiness from conformity to the precept? where was the rule of the promise there? either it must be in the precept, or the promise itself, or in the connexion of promise and precept. have i hit it now? it's sure, the connexion is the rule of the promise. now how is that a rule of the promise, but in conformity to the precept? and then it's conformity to the rule of precept and not of promise: or is it possible to come with a conformity to the connexion between the precept and promise? now all the intricate harangue is only to tell us in the clouds, that faith applying the lord jesus christ will not justify us, but as it is a working condition to which the promise is annexed. neonom. yes, it follows, our applying christ's righteousness, and relying on it, would no more justify us, than our sincere holiness would save us, were it not for this gospel-promise, that god will justify for christ's sake all those that believe. antinom. the business here that is the kernel of this nut, is, that faith doth not justify us by applying christ's righteousness in the promise, by virtue of christ's righteousness itself imputed, but by its own virtue, as being a righteousness itself, whereby it answers the promise as a condition upon which it is made. as for faith's receiving christ and his righteousness, it serves thereby to bar the old law: but christ's righteousness hath nothing to do here; it's our own faith and repentance is the righteousness in their conformity to the rule of the promise; and that's latin for the new law. here are great mysteries more than paul understood, and all the apostles, any other than to reckon them another gospel, and vain talking. and truly, as for your comparing christ and holiness in the matter of justification under the umbrage of your invented rule of promise, is perfect stuff: it amounts but to this at best, that if god had not promised justification, there had been none at all, neither by christ's righteousness, nor by ours. but how came this promise? do you not say, christ purchased it as an conditional grant? neonom. hence by gospel grace there's a great difference between imperfect faith and utter unbelief; between sincere holiness, and formal profaneness or wickedness; true love to god and prevailing enmity, etc. by the law of works nothing was holy but what was perfectly so, etc. but read the bible, if thou doubtest whether there is not a true faith, holiness, love, etc. which be short of perfection. antinom. i thought we should have had a greater instance of the grace of god, than in giving us a worse condition of the covenant than adam had. you should have told us what perfection here you mean; i suppose it must be only of parts, that it may be a gospel foederal condition, which must be imperfect; and it must be mingled with sin, or else it will not answer the rule of the promise. now you will not allow it must answer the rule of the precept, for there's nothing abated of it; but it must chop in between the precept and promise as the gospel condition in a way of imperfection: so that without sin our holiness is nothing federally: we must take heed it become not perfect holiness; for if once it comes to that, we fall under the law of works: this were to begin in the spirit of imperfection, and end in the flesh of perfect holiness. and this is the sad condition of the saints in heaven, that they are fallen under the covenant of works. again, you do here not a little insinuate what i know lies in your breast, that there is no specific difference between grace and mere moral endowments; and it appears so upon all your hypotheses. for you declare, there ought to be such and such qualifications to entitle a man to the promise of grace, or grace in the promise, before he hath the promise. and as to your exhortation to the reading of the bible, etc. i must tell you, i have read the bible several times, and hope to read it, and meditate on the word of grace contained therein, as long as i live. but if that be the true doctrine of the gospel which you have delivered in this book, i am utterly at a loss for my salvation, which i would be loath to be now at last, after so many years satisfaction: and let the world take notice, that i do believe your gospel to be another gospel, such as paul speaks of, and accurseth, gal. 1.8, 9 neonom. god in dispensing of gospel-promised blessings, doth judicially determine a conformity to this rule of the promise. when he forgives, he judicially declares a man hath true faith. when he admits into heaven, he judicially declares a man sincerely holy and persevering. antinom. this is plainly as much as to say, god dispenseth the gospel-promise judicially in the same way as a law of works. he looks whether or no we have fully performed the conditions; and upon finding of them, he judicially gives the promise, i. e. in a way of reward to the works performed: whether they be perfect or imperfect, it's no matter, the reward is of debt, and not of grace: and in this way pardon is given upon imperfect faith and repentance: and thus heaven is given judicially for persevering holiness. here's not a bit of enquiry whether they have christ or no, he is a cipher in the matter of our salvation. no papist can utter more gross divinity. but this is a strange way of dispensation of gospel-benefits: first to determine a conformity to the rule of the benefit. as for example, in dispensing faith, for that's a promise; god determins judicially, a man hath a conformity to the rule before faith. again, is forgiveness a judicial declaring a man hath true faith? or doth this judicial declaration go before pardon and justification? if so, a man hath always true faith before he is justified and pardoned, what absurd consequences will follow thereupon? and what can this be but a declared judgement that he is de congruo, deserving pardon? and i think, ex condigno too before he is pardoned; and upon the same terms are the persevering saints at last admitted to glory. neonom. as upon a view of his guests he cast out him that had not the wedding-garment, viz. true uniting faith; so by keeping out the foolish virgins, etc. can any think that forgiving, adopting, glorifying, or the conveyance of every other promised benefit given upon god's terms, are not judicial acts of god as rector. antinom. if you understand judicial in respect of the justice of god, answered by the righteousness of christ, purchasing all good gifts and blessings for sinners that deserve nothing but wrath, it may be said of justification. but if you understand judicial in respect of any duty, grace or qualification that is found in us, tho' wrought by the spirit, i abhor it as an abominable position: and your saying, the wedding garment was faith, and not the righteousness of christ apprehended by faith, is a wretched wresting and abuse of scripture, turning the sweet and precious doctrine of our lord and saviour against himself. i shall meet with you again upon these points more largely, therefore i pass them over briefly now: but in the mean time take notice, that all our protestants, and particularly the assemblies catechism, define justification and adoption always acts of free grace. neonom. if so, doth he despense these blindly and promiscuously, without any regard to our being believers, etc. or no? whether our faith be true or no, any one would blush to affirm. antinom. i would know whether, if god distribute his free grace to poor, wretched, and worthless creatures, according to his election and distinguishing mercy, doth he do it blindly, because he finds no reason in them? and i pray, doth god dispense the grace of faith blindly, if he doth it without respect to men's being believers first? so if they believe before, they shall have the gift of faith; and their faith must be true too, before they have faith given. i can ' but think you are fricatae frontis, or you would blush at the delivery of these things. neonom. with respect to what is above declared, the gospel is a law of faith, a law of liberty, etc. and it especially insists on that sincerity of grace and holiness which the rule of the promise makes necessary in its description of the person whom it makes partaker of its included benefits. antinom. you do here begin to make conclusions on your premises; but your premises not holding water, your conclusions will no way follow; you conclude the gospel is a law of faith. we have briefly showed, as you have given occasion, that the gospel as such, is no law, and hath not a sanctio, it's wholly a promise of life, and the performance of the promise doth not depend upon any thing a sinner can do as a foederal condition. i shall show fully hereafter, that there is no ground from that place, rom. 3. nor that of james 1. to conclude the gospel to be a law, i. e. a command of duty for a condition with a sanction of threats upon the non-performance, or promises as rewards upon the performance, whether the condition be perfect of imperfect obedience. you make the sincerity of grace and holiness to be this condition, and you call it the rule of the promise, (which you say is not the precept neither) neither is it the promise, but a rule that is neither precept or promise. so what your rule is, he is wise that knows. and you say this rule makes sincerity necessary in the description of the person: so the rule of the promise describes a person only, and therefore makes him not, but tells us he must be sincere before he hath any thing to do with the promise. from whence hath he this sincerity described? from law or gospel? from god or himself? if from god, then by way of grace and gift, and so through the promise. if of ourselves, it's dross: they that are in the flesh cannot please god, and therefore much less perform such a duty, for which god will give the promised benefits. neonom. and the main of our ministry consisteth in pressing men to answer the rule of gospel promises. antinom. what this means is very strange, when you say the use of faith, and holiness, as to benefits, is not from their conformity to the precept. therefore what do you press them unto, when you press them to answer the rule of the gospel? when the conformity to the precept doth no good, i suppose in the same sense as you say obliquity in regard of the precept will do no hurt. but the main of our ministry consists in preaching christ, and bringing sinners unto him, and building them up in him. neonom. and dissuading men from those things which the gospel threatens shall hinder their interest in all, or any of their benefits, with an aggravation of their misery if they be final rejecters of grace. antinom. whatever befalls sinners retaining their sinful state, and rejecting grace, is from the law, and not from the gospel. to talk of a gospel-threat, is a catechresis at best, and nothing else can save it from being a bull. but what are those that will hinder a sinner from the benefit of being turned from darkness to light? this i can suppose is the non-improvement of the grace (which you take every one to have) which either hinders or makes that they are not converted. neonom. we call men to be reconciled to god, upon which we know god will be at peace with them. antinom. but you tell them not, according to 2 cor. 5.18. that all things are of god, who hath reconciled us to himself by jesus christ. and this is the ground of the ministry of reconciliation, and the ground of persuasion to sinners to be reconciled unto god. but this portion of scripture to the end of the chapter you take to be hardly canonical. neonom. these things will help thy conceptions, still remembering that the merits of christ are the cause of this ordination. antinom. the council of god is the cause of the ordination of salvation, means and order. but you mean, they will help to blunder and confound poor men's conceptions. per nebulam, per caliginem, per somnium. non lectore tuis opus est sed apolline libris. but you would have us not to forget the causa sine qua non of this rare gospel scheme. you should have told us that your own corrupt imagination was the procatarctick cause of this new law ordination. neonom. his righteousness imputed is the cause for which we are justified and saved when we answer the gospel rule. antinom. it's ad graecas calendas, when a poor wretched sinner must be saved, than christ is the cause of setting up this new law, and that we should be justified thereby, when we perform the imperfect conditions thereof; and that's your answering the gospel rule. since christ hath put a bar upon the old law, now we must set up for a righteousness of our own to answer the gospel-rule by, and that's not conformity to the precept neither; but answering the gospel-rule by imperfection. is not this sad divinity? neonom. and i exclude not this righteousness, when i affirm, that the righteousness of god, phil. 3.9. principally intended the gospel-holiness of a person justified by christ's righteousness: both which by faith in christ all his members shall be perfect in. antinom. it seems the righteousness of christ there spoken of, is a mixture of christ's righteousness and evangelical obedience; but the principal par tis evangelical obedience; christ's is but a compliment of ours. the reverend dr. beverly hath abundantly evinced, that christ's righteousness alone is there understood according to the hest interpreters. we shall have further occasions to deal with you upon this point, and your crude and false interpretation of that excellent portion of scripture shall be laid open in our progress. you should have told us, whether you mean we are perfect in christ's righteousness for justification, without our own righteousness, or evangelical obedience joined with it; and whether our perfection in holiness be in the same manner as in righteousness? and whether it be in this life, that we are made perfect in holiness by faith in christ. neonom. the grace of god is hereby stated as free as is consistent with his government, and judicial rectoral distribution of rewards and punishments. antinom. that is, you have set bounds to the grace of god, and told god and us how far he may lawfully exercise his grace: he must take heed that no unqualified sinners have any thing to do with it; and that he be sure, notwithstanding the righteousness of christ, that he dispense grace in the way of a law, that it may be consistent with his government; and all grace must be distributed judicially, by rewards and punishments. let all the world see now whether you have not stated the grace of god very fairly out of doors, and gone about to establish a law of works, as shall more manifestly appear afterwards. neonom. and there's none have need of the grace of god more than i? antinom. the truest word you have spoken at all. but according your own principles its a question whether you have not put a bar upon the grace of god, by making so audacious and daring an opposition to it, as you have done in this book: i am sure, if this be part of your gospel. obedience that you intent for your justification, it will not do, if you persevere in it. but the lord in his mere free grace look in mercy upon you, pardon you, and turn you from darkness to light! neonom. note, that in this book i still speak of the adult, and not infants. antinom. i find you see you are like to run your head against a post; but for all your foresight, you are certain of a knock in the pate; for hereby i find you see god justifies some without works. god hath not one righteousness of one kind to justify infants by, and another of another kind to justify the adult by adult persons are no more justified by works than infants. neonom. forget not, tho' the doctor in his book speaks to men as believers; yet in every thing true of the elect. antinom. every thing that is true of the elect, is so of them when believers; but every thing that is true of an elect believer, is not so of him before he's a believer: and to prove you charge the doctor falsely, i'll bring but your acknowledged sense of the doctor in your next words. it's true of a believer, that he knows the saving blessings he is entitled to; but it's not true of a person in unbelief, that he knows the saving benefits he is to be partaker of. neonom. they have as much a title to all saving blessings, only they know it not, this was his judgement. antinom. his judgement was, that nothing entitleth us to the blessings of the covenant, but the promise. deed of gift is that which entitleth us, whereby we claim when we take possession of it when we believe, whereby we know our title more or less by believing. neonom. i have carefully avoided to make any reflection on reverend dr. crisp, whom i believe a holy man, and abstained the exposing things according to the advantage offered. antinom. these things are but ad populum phalerae. whether here you be not as false as in other things, a little time will discover. we call such an one phaleratum, who is as horace describes, introrsum turpis speciosus pelle decorous. neonom. look who is that that is coming towards us? it's sure mr. a. b. antinom: it's so indeed: meditatus venit. he's a perfect calvinist. i'll warrant you you will find him of my opinion concerning your book. neonom. your servant, mr. calvinist. i have a question to ask you in the first place, before we talk of news or any thing. i pray, what do you say of my book? calvin. i cannot like it by any means; i was sorry to see it, knowing something of your principles before; but when i read it, it raised variety of passions in me. neonom. i must confess i am willing to hear what most men think of this piece of mine; tho' i think i need not regard what many men say, seeing it hath so large and ample an encomium by several very grave divines and others, especially the learned mythologists of the late athenian club, the dessolution whereof is greatly bewailed by me: they might have proved of great use to me in these matters. but i pray, mr. calvinist, tell me the reason of your dislike of my book,; i thought it might have pleased calvinists, though antinomians (whose opinions are not much to be valued) are so angry at it; and i have showed that what i have asserted is the sense of the assembly 's confession, the savoy 's, dr. owen, mr. norton, and many learned calvinists. calvin. i shall deal ingenuously and plainly with you, and tell you why i cannot approve of your book. my reasons are these: 1. i except against your magisterial way of writing, by canons, as it were anathemas, in the manner of a council, national or provincial assembly, whereby you would have all men to believe that our faith in all matters of salvation is to be measured by your scheme, and pinned upon your sleeve: so arrogant a way of imposing upon others in doctrines, hath not been as i know practised by the conformists, whereby you endeavour to make humane authority the standard of our faith, prescribe new articles contrary to those of the 39 and all our english confessions, and give an example unto others so to do: for if 20 men of one persuasion may recommend their opinion in doctrinals by a concurrent subscription, by the same reason others may do the like; so that hereby is laid a foundation of incurable factions and division about the main points of our salvation; whereas, whatever of differences hath been in lesser matters, and men's private opinions in greater, yet hitherto there's no sett of men as i know, hath publicly in the like manner invaded our confessions, wherein those of the conformists and nonconformists hath harmoniously agreed in matters of faith in the sense of the scriptures and first reformers. 2. that you have plainly drawn in, or rather tricked some divines (under a pretence of bearing witness against error) into these practices of subscribing to your book, merely to put a countenance upon the gross errors that you would vend among the people, and that you might the better slur and brand some faithful ministers of christ in this city with the odious name of antinomians, and the preaching the doctrine of free gra●●●s our lord jesus christ and his apostles have done, with antinomianism; and have in your pulpit at public lectures, and at public houses, made it your business to blow up a flame of contention in this town, as if no man was to be esteemed sound and orthodox in gospel-truths' but yourself, and such as will dance after your pipe, and think all others ignorant setters up of the name of christ, etc. 3. that in your writing, in decrying of what you would charge upon such that you call antinomians, you take dr. crisp and set him up as a pretended butt (a man dead many years since, an holy man, as you own,) falsely representing unto the world as to his sense and meaning, almost in every thing, that through his sides you might wound the doctrine of free grace. i assert, your way is very unreasonable to ground a polemical opposition, and fasten a charge of error upon, to excerpt expressions here and there from popular sermons not printed by himself, but from the notes of sermon writers. how liable the true words and expressions of the exactest men are to mistake and abuse, dr. crisp printed nothing, all the sermons reprinted were printed from sermon-notes taken after him in preaching. i need not to insist on to evince, common experience is evidence enough. moreover, considering that this is the way the worst of men have always taken to expose religion, to encourage and seed atheism and profaneness in the world; not to name edward's gangrena, our present time gives an ample example in that late pamphlet, called the scotch presbyterian eloquence, or the foolishness of their teaching. you may see how the sentences taken out of the sermons of the reverend mr. rule, and of divers other presbyterians, doth look, when separated from the main sense intended by them: i say, i do highly disapprove of this sermon-hunting trade, as a most disingenuous way, unless a sermon be preached and printed by the author to establish a manifest error, and the whole sermon or sense of the said author be impartially represented and argued. 4. that the more to insinuate yourself and doctrines for truth into the minds of christians sound in their principles, that they might think you mean nothing by your uncouth and equivocating expressions; and to deceive the less intelligent (as you call most divines that are not of your persuasion) you grossly abuse the two reverend assemblies, with dr. owen and mr. norton, quoting them for asserters of your errors, in places where they speak or dispute directly against the principles that you assert. now what is this but to ape a deceiver at least? 5. that you that have subscribed solemnly the doctrinal part of the 39 articles, should so palpably and openly go about to overthrow some foundation-principles therein contained, as imputed righteousness, and justification only for the merit of our lord and saviour jesus christ by faith, and not for our own works and deservings, and that we are justified by faith only. article 11. and that principle asserted in the 13th, that works done before the grace of christ, and the inspiration of his spirit, are not pleasing to god, forasmuch as they spring not from faith in jesus christ, neither do they make men meet to receive grace, etc. the contrary doctrine to both these articles (under whatever evasions and prevarications you seem to abscond yourself) you make the great business of your book not only to insinuate, but manifestly enough to assert and endeavour to prove, viz. 1. in that it appears to be your design to blast the whole doctrine of imputation, (whatever you pretend,) both of imputation of our sins to christ, and of the imputation of his righteousness unto us. 2. that you make it your great business to set up and establish a covenant of works, boldly asserting the gospel to be a law with sanction of rewards and punishments, and that the conditional part thereof are imperfect works, and that we are justified by those works as a subordinate righteousness to the righteousness of christ, and that faith itself is concerned therein but as an act, in the same manner as repentance and other parts of imperfect sincere obedience, though in a little kind of precedency. your book also is full of many other errors, that have dependence on these capital ones, which for brevity sake i will not now rehearse; besides your many inconsistencies, contradictions, equivocations, false insinuations, illiterate, absurd and unsound expressions, that render your book very offensive to sound and solid minds. antinom. these things which you speak of i have already found, and have made a little inspection into, and discovery of unto him in discourse even now, wherein i took the boldness to open the lower venture of his morbid body of divinity, in order (if we can agree upon it) to a thorough dissection. neonom. you both of you go upon great mistakes, and are led to censure my book from prejudice, especially mr. antinomian, because the principal scope of it is to lay open his errors: and as for those things which you call inconsistencies, contradictions, absurd expressions, etc. they are terms of art which the learned understand, such as, the rule of promise, the rule of sin, and, the rule of happiness and misery, etc. if you once come to see how fully and rightly i have stated the truths and errors mentioned, you will be of another mind. calvin. nay, it's very just and meet to give your book an impartial examination, that we may have a full and clear understanding of your scheme, how you state and defend the points therein contained; and if you will consent thereto, we will appoint some place where we may meet from day to day at a certain hour, where we will dictinctly debate the material points that you assert, as either truths or errors. neonom. i highly approve of it. but where shall, this be with most conveniency upon all accounts? antinom. why, may it not be, mr. calvenist, at your calvinian society? i suppose you debate theological questions there most of all, and there are many worthy and learned gentlemen attend there frequently to very much purpose. calvin. i like your motion, mr. antinomian, and will undertake that both of you will have a very candid and welcome reception there. neonom. i have but one objection, and that is, seeing mr. antinomian moves for this place, i fear it smells too much of antinomianism. is there liberty to take a pipe of tobacco now and then to clear an ill scent out of the throat. antinom. yes, yes; else how do you think we could be able to endure the scent of so many morbid theological bodies, which we make our great business to dissect; though this hot wether we are fain to clear them off-hand as fast as we can. calvin. never trouble yourself with such weak objections as these: you know strong smells are good to repel fumes arising from the spleen, by i know not what kind of occult quality, of antipathy, antiperistasis, or militation of abstruse particles one with another. neonom. well, i agree: i pray how shall i find the place? calvin. i will give you such directions that you cannot miss: the calvinian society is in gracious street, at the sign of the geneva arms, just opposite to the sign of cardinal bellarmine 's head, at the foot of the bridge that crosseth reformation-river, that divides between the protestant and popish cantons. gentlemen, now far you well till to morrow five a clock, where i expect to meet you according to our agreement, and i pray have a care you mistake not the sign. finis. neonomianism unmasked: or, the ancient gospel pleaded, against the other, called, the new law. the second part of the theological debate, occasioned by mr. dan. william's book, wherein the following points are discussed. i. what the state of the elect is before effectual calling? ii. whether god laid our sins on christ? iii. whether the elect were discharged from sin upon christ's bearing them? iv whether the elect cease to be sinners from the time their sins were laid on christ? v what was the time when our sins were laid on christ? vi whether god was separated from christ while our sins lay upon him? by isaac chauncy, m. a. london, printed for h. barnard at the bible in the poultry, 1693. an animadvertisement. reader, observe the following debate is by may of dialogue, the rule of which is, that each interlocutor is to be allowed to speak his own sentiments, and of such as he represents, and therewith to produce what light and evidence may be had to evince the truth of what is offered, and defend it from the charge of error, under whatever denomination he stands, thereby truly or falsely called. here is no attempt to pole, or vouch for truth, or against error, to impose upon the faith of the reader, but he is left to take or leave as he finds sufficient ground to be persuaded in his own mind from what is offered by either of the dialogists. if any one would know (among any variety of apprehensions that he may sometimes find concerning matters in debate) what the author's opinion is, he would not have it weigh with any one, so as to carry a bias in his judgement, and therefore doth rather choose modestly and impartially to argue than to determine, allowing each dialogist his full scope: but for satisfaction to the more earnest enquirer, he doth declare, that he doth acknowledge the scriptures to be the word of god, the perfect and only rule of faith and practice, and acceunts him sound who owns the doctrinal part of those, commonly called, the articles of the church of england, the confessions and catechisms, shorter and larger, compiled by the assembly at westminister, and the confession agreed on in the savoy, to be agreenble to the said rule, according to their genuine sense and meaning. and as to his design, it was not what the comeedian saith his was, quum primum animum ad scribendum appulit, id sibi negotii credidit solum dari, populo ut placerent quas fecisset fabulas. which he saith fell out much otherwise than he expected, verum alitèr evinire multò intelligit. how little cause hath he then to be surprised, whom the doctrine of christianity hath taught better things; viz. that if he please men, or seek so to do, he should not be the servant of christ; and that he is not judged at man's day, but he that judgeth him is the lord: his comfort is that the cause is good, whatever infirmity may accompany the management. progreditur incepta quam fecisset fabulâ. the calvinian society being sat, there came in an old fashioned black gentleman, with short hair, moustaches, a beard brought to a point, pallidus, & mortis imago, whom mr. calvinist (being in the chair) remembering (since he found him discoursing with mr. neonomian in the eutopian fields) saluted and welcomed in the name of the society, and caused to sit down by him, saying, my brethren, this is that gentleman that mr. neonomian hath so egregiously exposed in his book, as fundamentally erroneous in the doctrine of the gospel, and called antinomian. i found them both together lately in the fields, earnestly debating the principles maintained in the said book, and the circumstances that attended the publishing of the same, which i thought not to be a convenient place for such discourse, because of so many that passed and repassed, and therefore invited them to this our calvinian society, which they very readily and thankfully embraced. whereupon there was much whispering in the company upon the appearance of this new old face, one saying one thing of him, and another another; but in the mean time mr. neonomian being not yet come, mr. calvinist takes mr. antinomian into a withdrawing room, and thus he gins with him. calvin. i pray how was your discourse with your antagonist modified t'other day before i came to you. he saith, quaedam dicta in se inclemetiùs existimavit: you were too sharp upon him. antinom. i remember a little school-boy's latin too, ne sis tam cessator ut calcaribus indigeas: what a drone then and dull animal should i be, if i were not sensible of the severest stimulations! quaeso quis lasit priùs, & quantùm? you declared enough of your reasons why you had so ill a resentment of this his so pernicious an undertaking, so grossly circumstantiated; and i think i have reason to be much more concerned than you; for he makes me to have laid the seed-plot of the worst of heresies, denying a possibility of union with me as a christian, rendering me no better than a mahometan. he saith, i set up the grace of christ against his government, and so he makes me a traitor to him. he renders me very lewd, in charging me for making sin innocent, and holiness sin: he makes me a monstrum horrendum, without principles, learning or common sense, in the representation he gives of me to the world. moreover, how many nauseous circumstances have attended these abusive projects and practice o● especially that of obtaining hands that are prefixed to his book, which he did subdolously, clandestinely and precariously, because it could not nare sine cortice: and this aggregation of hands must go throughout the nation for an act of the united brethren; and some ancient brethren must be by some art drawn in under specious pretences, who have in print refuted his whole scheme keenly and strenuously, and their labours are extant to witness against their own hands. others also who have preached contrary doctrine several years, both which must come under the rebuke of building what they have destroyed i'll and many of these never read the book before they recommended it. among the others, there are near a dozen young candidates to the ministry proselyted to this corrupt scheme, who are neither pastors, nor ordained in any sense, or so much as ever came under any due pro●●tion of their fitness for the ministerial work; are but sitting at the feet of their gamaliel as yet. lastly, it is not easy to foresee the dangerous consequences that will ensue these things. a promising union must be broken, a new one set up, ministers and christians alienated in judgement and affection, flames of contention kindled, the gospel and ways of god reproached; bellum theologicum begun, (what could the devil have done more?) for if the truth be so publicly attacked, god will have (among all the wise and prudential men) some of those the world calls fools to defend it, such as he will enable to run the risque of reproach and censure, and through grace shall not be ashamed of the truth of the gospel of christ; and rather than there should be no other than the reputed wise and prudent professors among men, that commonly betray truth instead of defending it; god will raise up some fools from the dead to do it, such as i am; and as for my antagonist, i say to him with the comedian, with whose words you began, de hinc ne fraudetur ipse se, aut sic cogitet defunctus jam sum, nihil est quod dicat mihi is nè erret moneo, & desinct lacessere habeo alia multa, nunc quae condonabuntur, qua proferentur post, si pergat laedere ita ut facere instituit. calvin. what you have spoken calls for consideration, and will be considered by all good men. but mr. neonomian is come, let us not therefore lose time. errata. page 5. line 41. read our jus. p. 16. l. 35. r. charging. p. 17. l. 33. r. that distinction. p. 18. l. 13. r. men being under. p. 21. marg. l. 17. r. supplicia pro maleficiis. p. 27. l. 2. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. 28. l. 9 r. affirmantia. p. 30. l. 20. r. cleansing. p. 31. l. 6. for date r. doctrine. p. 38. r. fideles. p. 58. l. 8. r. ipsius. ibid. l. 9 r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. 64. l. 27. r. elect. debate i. of the state of the elect before effectual calling. calvin. gentlemen, it's well you are come, pray what case will you propound first to be spoken to? neon. i have this error to charge mr. antinom. with, viz. that he saith the elect are at no time of their lives under the wrath of god, nor are they subject to condemnation, if they should die before they should believe; yea, when they are under the dominion of sin, and in the practice of the greatest villainies, they are as much the sons of god, and justified, as the saints in glory. d. w. p. 1. this i prove from dr. crisp, p. 363, 364. antinom. he saith, it's thought by some, that in case such a person should die before god call him to grace, and give to him to believe, that person had been damned. but that is a vain supposition, for it were to suppose a man elected and not elected; a man elected to the end and not to the means, or that the sins of the elect are laid upon christ, and the elect not secured thereby from condemnation. and he saith therefore, that the lord hath no more to lay to the charge of an elect person [considered as such] than to the saints in glory; his reason is, because his sins are laid on christ; and tho' the person remain yet unregenerate, and in the height of iniquity, yet god hath no more to lay to his charge than to a believer, or to a saint in glory. by this he means there is so full security and prousion made for all the elect, that as to christ's bearing their sins, and satisfaction to divine justice, there is as much already done by christ as ever shall in respect of satisfaction; for he was once offered to bear the sins of many, heb. 9.28. and if the sins of the elect were born by christ, they were satisfied for, and in respect of divine essential justice there can be nothing laid to their charge, so as to affect them with a stroke of vindicative justice; those that are elected are redeemed by christ, eph. 1.5, 6. and when the spirit of god speaks of an elect person, it always speaks of him as secure in his person from wrath and condemnation, as to the real execution of the sentence of the law upon him, rom. 8. it's one thing to say an elect person is free from condemnation as such, and another thing to say a sinner is thus freed from it. he saith not, that if a man die under the dominion of sin, or the practice of the greatest villainies, he shall be saved; that's a false charge. paul as an elect vessel, was by virtue of election and redemption secured from condemnation in execution of the law sentence upon him, all the time of his unregeneracy; neither could a charge be laid against him that could cut off his person from the benefits designed for him in election, or prepared and purchased in redemption. see what dr. cr. saith to this charge, p. 637. neonom. he saith the elect are at no time of their lives under the wrath of god or under condemnation. antinom. that men are not under the sense of the law, and by the state of nature under wrath, he doth not say, and in foro conscientiae, when the law speaks to him as under it, for he saith, p. 359, 360. there's a laying sin on christ, 1. by way of obligation, so he bore the sins of the elect [before he suffered actually] from all eternity, and by virtue thereof the elect were justified before christ came [as the lamb slain from the foundation of the world.] 2. by way of execution, and this was his real bearing, the other was virtual; but there's a third, which is the lords laying iniquity on christ by way of application. i e. when it is that the lord doth single out this or that particular person, and lay his iniquities on christ. concerning the elect in general, they were in the eye of god before they had a real existence. so all their iniquities were laid on christ from eternity, but it must needs be granted that a particular application of this grace to persons must be in time, before a person is in being there cannot be a personal application of the grace of god; god cannot apply his grace to nothing. p. 361. know also that this application is double, there's god's application and man's; gods application is when he himself doth say, he loves such a person. man's application is, when god gives to men to believe, and by this act of believing to be persuaded and resolved that god hath done it. he distinguisheth likewise, and saith, god lays the iniquity of every elect person two ways, in respect of the application of this grace. 1. secretly. 2 manifestly. as to secret applying, he instances in god's declaration of his love to jacob, rom. 9 and saith, we have here, (p. 362.) the lord's declaring himself personally and judicially unto the one whom he loved, jacob; there was a love to him from eternity in the election of grace; but till there was a single individual person, as jacob, the lord did not say, jacob have i loved, etc. now he concludes, that this secret application of the grace of laying sins on christ, is at the very instant of such a persons having a being in the world, than god doth appropriate this grace to an elect person; and therefore in the unregenerate estate of such a person, in the excess of riot, [he is secured from the judicial charge of sin, from vindicative justice.] there's great diversity of judgement about the time of applying this grace, (saith he.) some say it's at baptism, some say at first conversion, etc. pag. 364. it's true, an elect person not called, is never able to know individually of himself, that he is such an one that god hath nothing to charge upon him, because till calling god gives not unto persons to believe: and it's only believing is the evidence of things not seen; and this he calls the application of pardoning grace by way of manifestation. thus i have given you the sum of dr. crisp's opinion in this matter. calvin. i perceive then his opinion is, that, 1. in general, that by electing and redeeming love the elect are secured from the stroke of vindicative justice, and god hath nothing to lay to their charge, having accepted the satisfaction of christ on their behalf. 2. that the application of this love to a particular person is in time, as to god's sentence concerning him, and as to some fruits of this love from his first having a being; as suppose, distinguishing of him as a chosen vessel, as he did jacob from esau: as he separated paul to the designs of electing love, as to preventing grace, yea, and providential grace, to bring such a person, it may be, under the secret effects of the promise, and the means of grace. 3. he saith, the manifest application is, when god gives to believe: so that notwithstanding all the security he hath by election, redemption, and secret application, he is before faith, but in a state of death, and under the law-sentence in foro conscientiae, and by nature born a child of wrath, and so in foro mundi. hence, that he knows nothing of all this, spoken of an elect person, any more than a reprobate doth, till he doth believe: i think this is dr. crisps full sense, and therefore i think, mr. neonomian, you are too partial in your representation of the doctor; you take those expressions only that may render him odious, and leave out the grounds and reasons thereof. as to that opinion of his concerning god's secret passing over his love to the elect persons so long before they believe. what if he be singular therein, yet there may be more in it than you or i can tell, seeing it is manifest that it hath been so in several that have lived to be adult; and i doubt not but it is so daily as to elect infants that die in infancy. and i must tell you, if you deny this covenant of grace to belong to the infants of believing parents, as it is claimed by virtue of a gospel-promise, you can have little ground to plead for infant-baptism, which is a sign and seal of forgiveness of sins in some gospel-sence or other. but i leave that point now; and i must tell you, that there is no doubt but that there is a secret passing over of the grace of god in christ to every elect person, before he can put forth anyone vital act. neonom. he saith, the elect of god are heirs of god; so that their first being puts them into a right of inheritance, etc. antinom. he gathers this from gal. 4.1, 2, 3. see page 367. though god doth secretly give over his right and title of his own grace to a person in the womb, yet he doth not make it known to him that he hath that right and title, till such time as he doth call him; during which time, being under the law, he is under a schoolmaster, tutors and governors. and here he saith, the heir, so long as a child, differs nothing from a servant, though he be lord of all. from which i observe from hence, 1. that there is an heirship during childhood itself. 2. that there is this heirship when there is no difference between being a child and a servant. 3. a child is an heir as soon as born; yea, when first conceived. if a man of estate leaves his wife but a month gone with child, he leaves an heir, etc. calvin. mr. neonomian, though you grant not the secret application of grace he speaks of at conception, yet you can't deny a secret and sure relation by virtue of election and redemption. relata affectio in deo ponit objectum correlatum: a right must be in the object whenever it hath a being: jus adrem, if not in re. all that are redeemed by christ, are called the sheep of christ before calling, john 10. show me a person that is an elect and redeemed one, i can tell you god's justice is satisfied on his behalf, and eternal life procured for him, though he be yet an unbeliever, be not in possession, nor can make any claim as yet. i pray, was not paul in his unregenerate state an elect vessel, and secured from the hands of vindicative justice by christ's satisfaction, and heaven secured by christ's impetration? impetratio dat jus ad beneficium. i pray, mr. neonomian, what would you say of paul a persecutor in the height of his villainy, had you known then that he was an elect vessel? neonom. i would say thus, that paul when a wicked persecuting saul, while breathing forth cruelty against the churches, should not die under the dominion of sin; and being an elect person, and christ having born his sins on the cross, was the object of god's love and good will even while he was so wicked and vile, and that god continues his gracious purpose of doing him good, notwithstanding all his wickedness and abomination; that christ hath made full atonement for his sins, and merited eternal life for him, and that he shall certainly be justified, adopted and glorified in god's appointed way and time; and that christ hath left nothing to be done by us in a way of atonement and merit; yea, i affirm, [that distinguishing grace] doth make a very great difference between an elect sinner, and others. d.w. p. 1. p. 3. calvin. i pray now what is it more that dr. crisp hath said? neonom. he saith, the elect are at no time of their lives under the wrath of god. calvin. so must you too, if you understand wrath in the same sense that he doth: for christ cannot bear their sins, and the wrath of god for their sins, and yet they bear it themselves too. shall not the judge of all the world deal righteously? and you say, they continue objects of his gracious good will, and full atonement made. god cannot be wroth with a person with whom full atonement is made. neonom. but what if they should die before they should believe? calvin. he doth not say, they shall be saved if they die before they believe; or under the dominion of sin, etc. you fasten that charge without ground; and never fear that, for you say their justification and adoption is certain, there's no doubt then but they shall certainly believe. neonom. but they are actually unpardoned, and not adopted to life, which the dr. saith they are. calvin. the doctor speaks not here of the elect's actual pardon or adoption: he saith indeed, their sins are laid on christ, and therefore god hath nothing to lay to their charge. and you say, christ hath made full atonement for them. i pray what difference is here? he saith, they have a secret hidden right to life: you say, by virtue of election, and christ's merits, they shall certainly have justification, adoption, glorification. so that you own your jus ad rem. he doth not say an unregenerate man is adopted, or hath received the spirit of adoption, any where as i know. neonom. but the elect, while dead in sin and unbelief, are children of wrath, condemned by the law, not justified by the promise. this i affirm, and the doctor denies. calvin. the doctor in this point, for aught i know, affirms and denies but as you do. he saith, a sinner in respect of his visible estate is under the law-sentence, and dead in sin and unbelief. he will not deny this, but that an elect person as such, hath a hidden relation, standing and right, not only in respect of election, satisfaction and procurement, but a secret passing over of grace. so that to be a child of wrath in regard of the law-sentence, and a child of mercy, are not contradicentia; they may be predicated of the same subject in divers respects: a man may be a child of wrath in one respect, and of mercy in another. a man may be poor in one respect, and rich in another, as the church of smyrna condemned in one respect, and secured from it in another. wrath is understood two ways in scripture. 1. for the sentence of the law, that all the world is under, as having sinned, and come short of the righteousness of god. 2. for the real execution of the sentence of the law by essential vindicative justice: this the elect are abundantly freed from, and the wrath of god shall never fall upon them as such. neonom. but he saith, the elect have right to the inheritance. calvin. yes, a secret and hidden right, but true and certain, though not possession or claim, till grace embraceth them, and this grace manifested to them. a child that hath a good right to an inheritance may be taken captive in infancy, and remain in algiers a slave many years, and never know of any estate belonging to him: but upon his return to his native country, finds by writings and court-rolls that he hath had right all this while, though kept out of possession, and knew no ground of a claim. a man may be heir to a crown, and yet during the king's life be no king; yea, it may be, out in rebellion against his father many years, and yet come to possess the crown upon his previous right. a man may have a good right to an estate in one court where it is enroled, whenas another court knows nothing of it. every elect person is enroled by name in god's book of election, and the lamb's book of redemption, while there's nothing of this to be sound in foro conscientiae, nor in foro mundi. and your own assertion at first cuts you off from all pleas to the contrary. for you say, ch. 1. p. 1. it's certain from god's decree of election, that the elect shall in time be justified, adopted and saved in the way god hath appointed, [than they are heirs of justification, adoption and salvation, upon some ground of right or other] and the whole meritorious cause and price of justification; adoption and eternal life were perfect when christ finished the work of satisfaction. so now it appears here is a complete right adjusted for them, the estate is bought, and the money all paid, and the title is enroled in their name, what hinders them from being heirs in law, and having a right of inheritance belonging to them? neonom. i will prove the elect before they are effectually called, to be children of wrath, eph. 2.2, 3. col. 1.21. calvin. as elect persons the scripture no where faith; but as sinners, and as dead in trespasses, we acknowledge they are under the law sentence, imprisoned in their natural estate, in a state of bondage and darkness: but this hinders not the foundation of god in election and redemption, they have a hidden safety and security from wrath by your own confession. neonom. the gospel bars all unbelievers and dead sinners from pardon and adoption, and denounceth a continuance of condemnation against them, limiting its benefits to such as believe, john 3.18. ver. 36. 1 cor. 16.22. 1 cor. 6.11. d. w. p. 4. calvin. if the gospel bars all unbelievers, and those that are dead in sin, from gospel benefits, who shall be saved? it must bar them from life; for life is the first and greatest benefit a dead man can receive; nay, you say, it declares continuance of condemnation against them: it's certainly therefore impossible they should ever be saved. and are not regeneration and faith gospel-benefits? and are unbelievers for ever barred from them? this puts a bar upon their possibility of salvation, and keeps them from ever being believers. the places you quote are nothing to prove your assertion; for the most they say, is, that whilst a person is in a state of unbelief, he is in a state of condemnation, under the law; but the gospel doth not put a bar to his salvation, but rather take off the barrs, opens the prison-doors, gives him life, gives him a door of hope, brings him to christ, who is the resurrection and life. neonom. if it were not so, neither the spirit nor the word of god would have any influence in the saving of sinners. calvin. non sequitur. can't the state of the elect be secured by election, and yet redemption have its place? why notwithstanding both, may not the spirit have its place and influence? neonom. gospel-benefits imply, that there is a time when we are actually guilty and miserable, rom. 7.4. col. 2.12. calvin. grant it, there is such a time, when we are so in ourselves; but yet quoad deum, election and redemption is not in vain; they have their force: the changes that pass upon us doth not make a change as to electing love, nor as to the satisfaction and merits of christ. neonom. the dr. may well infer, that we are sanctified and possessed of heaven in the womb; for god hath elected us to those, as well as to pardon; and christ merited these also. calvin. no, but he might not: one imports a relation, the other a real subjective change. a child may be a son, and yet a very wicked one: there is also a great difference between a right and a possession. neonom. do you not find that god justifies none but what are called, rom. 8.30? calvin. 1. he justifies infants dying in infancy, that were never called by the word. 2. what you would prove by that place, that effectual calling is before justification, is not manifest; for, its whom be called, them he also justified. it might be before calling as well as after, for any thing appears in that text. 3. but you go from the terms of the question all along; for that which the doctor saith, is, that the sins of the elect being all laid upon christ, who shall lay any thing to the charge of god's elect? it's christ hath died and risen again, for them: now god hath no charge against the elect considered as such; if justice remain unsatisfied, christ died in vain. neonom. there is joy in heaven for one sinner that reputes, luke 15.7, 10. and would there be such, if they were pardoned and safe before. calvin. yes, why not? for i question whether the angels be acquainted with the secrets of election and redemption as to the persons concerned, till it be made manifest by their actual faith and repentance. and as for the safe estate of the elect before believing, you have said enough, i. e. as to their security from wrath, and certainty of eternal life: therefore it's strange you should deny it now, say and unsay the same thing. neonom. how much is our ministry and concern for souls debased, if all we can prevail with are actually pardoned. calvin. you should have said, if all you prevail with have had their sins laid on christ, whereby god was in christ reconciling the world to himself. paul might have said, how then is our ministry debased, to be only ambassadors for christ to beseech sinners to be reconciled to god, when their sins are already laid on christ, and to preach, that all things are of god, who hath reconciled us to himself by jesus christ, who hath slain the enmity, and made peace on the cross, etc. there's great difference between god's being reconciled to us, and our being reconciled to god. neonom. who can reconcile this notion to the plead of god with sinners, ezek. 33.11. calvin. every one. the plead of god in his word with sinners, is in order to change their hearts by his word and spirit, in the embassy of reconciliation, which god hath sent unto sinners: therefore the apostle saith, we beseech you for christ's sake to be reconciled unto god; and all arguments used in the word are to that end and purpose, viz. to work faith and repentance, and to bring them unto god: one great end why christ bore their sins. neonom. i have the assembly and dr. owen on my side. antinom. we deny not what the assembly and dr. owen saith, according to their true meaning and intention: for they all say no otherwise than what i have showed the doctor sincerely means, and your own assertions will bear out as well as his: as to his particular opinion, that the grace of laying sins on christ is secretly applied as soon as we have a being, as to some effects wherein we are merely passive, and it's unknown to us till effectual calling; you see he grounds it upon matter of fact, in the instance of jacob, which undoubtedly deserves consideration. though i say not, that it's so with every one, but apprehend the spirit of god hath these things to instruct us thereby, that justification of a sinner before god is not for the act of faith, or gospel-obedience, because jacob was justified before either. 2. that the children of believing parents dying in infancy may be justified and saved. 3. that a believing parent hath promise ground to baptise his child, and exercise faith, that his child is embraced in the arms of free grace, to work upon it how, and when, and in what manner he pleaseth; and though he can't be active therein, yet he may be passive. this we pray for, and in praying believe: god saying, i will be thy god, and the god of thy seed. i am not for baptismal regeneration, nor baptismal justification: though there is something analogous to it, and therefore a kind of justification in foro ecclesiae, it being a significant seal of it, as circumcision was called the covenant: and therefore if there be any secret application of the grace of election and redemption accompanying that institution of christ, or coming before or after, neither we nor our children shall be ever the worse for it. and therefore let us not banter and condemn such as have higher apprehensions of the secret workings of grace before we are ware of of it. i am sure many divines that you would not call antinomians, have defended infant baptism upon this notion, that infants are capable of the habit of saving faith. and if so, i am sure according to your notion, they must be justified, because they have the qualifying condition: for a habit is a quality, and a conformity to the rule of the promise, (as you phrase it) and therefore must justify as such. neonom. the dr. mistakes the nature of god's decree, because a decree ascertains a thing shall be in time; therefore he thinks a decree gives a thing a present subjective being. antinom. the decree of god gives an objective being to the thing decreed; for the will willing, and the thing willed, are relata; all things in time are present with god, looking upon them in one eternal act; there's neither time past or to come, or succession, that his decrees are measured by; his decree is himself. but if we consider the objects of the decree in execution, they are in time, and measured by succession; but yet things thus standing, are the objects of the decree, they have their first cause in his divine idea, and have their unchangeable fixation, as to their nature and order in the present or future being and working, either as necessary or contingent agents. neonom. because jacob was an elect person, or the object of electing love in the womb, therefore he was then actually a pardoned and adopted person. antinom. nay, there was more in it than that: for mark the text, ver. 11, 12. r. it doth not only tell us jacob was elected, but that it was published and declared unto rebecka, jacob have i loved. if god should tell my wife when with child, i have elected, and do love this child that is in thy womb, i should look upon this as a justification of this child, it being a declared sentence of god concerning its standing in his favour and unchangeable love. 2. the text is particular in the reason of this declaration to rebecka, ver. 11. that we may see that god accomplished his purpose of election in the applying of the grace thereof without works, not so much as upon the account of faith as a work, because the children were not capable of doing good or evil, the application of his distinguishing love could not be upon that account, viz. of any condition found in them; nor could the foresight of any such thing in them be the cause of god's purpose in election, and shows its one and the same righteousness that an infant and adult person is justified by. neonom. because an eldest son is an heir in the womb, therefore an elect person who is in time to he adopted, is an heir in the womb. calvin. there's a difference between an heir and adoption. if you know there is an elect person in the womb, as rebecka did, he is a more sure heir to heaven than ever any great man's son was to an outward estate. and as to adoption, that may not be till some time after: for that is the grace of sonship. it's one thing to be a son, and another to have the grace of sonship. and is the calling them the sons of god, manifestly taking them into the number, and endowing them with the privileges of the sons of god? the relation of an heir, and the state of adoption, admit of different considerations. the state of adoption, is the grown state of an elect person; he is put into possession of the estate, and all privileges, sit together with christ in heavenly places as a coheir. and thus we are the children of god by faith, gal. 3.26. the spirit bearing witness with our spirit that we are the children of god, and so heirs ex abundanti, joint-heirs with christ, rom. 8.17. let us now hear what our approved calvinists say in this point, that speak most particularly and distinctly to it. speak dr. amesius. dr. ames. the transaction between god and christ was a certain previous application of our redemption and discharge to our surety, and to us in him, which hath the nature of a certain efficacious pattern to that secondary manner of application which is completed in us; so that this is the representation of that, this is produced by virtue of that. now it's inferred hence, that our freedom from sin and death was not only determined in god's decree, but also granted and communicated to us in christ before it is perceived by us, chap. 24. § 3. mr. rutherford, pray speak, you wrote against antinomianism. sane priusque electus credit, etc. certainly before an elect person doth believe, the wrath of god, and all the effects of his wrath, are removed from the persons by virtue of christ's satisfaction. exercit. apologet. per gratiâ, p. 45. mr. pemble. that god doth actually love the elect before they are regenerate, or can actually believe, may appear further by these reasons. 1. where god is actually reconciled, there he actually loveth; for love and reconciliation are inseparable; but with the elect before they are converted and believe, god is actually reconciled, ergo, he loves them before faith and conversion: the minor is evident, because before they are born a full atonement and satisfaction is made for their sins by christ, and accepted on god's part, whereupon all actual reconciliation must needs follow. 2. god did actually love the elect before christ's time, when actual reconciliation was not yet made, much more therefore after the atonement made. 3. justification, effectual vocation and faith, are fruits of god's actual love, etc. de gratiâ & fide, p. 22. chamier. persuasissimum est, etc. we are most fully persuaded that our sins are forgiven before we believe; for certainly we deny infants to act faith, and yet their sins are forgiven them. and although it be true, that our sins be forgiven before we believe, i. e. before we know it as actual believers, we do believe the remission of our sins, because this is proposed to us, yea promised to us in the same words which we rely upon by faith, and it's sealed by the same spirit, whereby that word is truth. panstr. tom. 3. lib. 13. c. 10. antinom. i think i see mr. baxter appear in this cause, though i suppose he is seldom in this society. calvin. i pray let us hear sir what you say to this point. mr. baxter. the anabaptists bring eph. 2.3. against baptism of infants, and say, because they are by nature children of wrath, the promise belongs not to them. ans. what though we are by nature children of wrath, doth it follow that we may not be otherwise by grace; the state of wrath goes first in order of nature, and whether in order of time also is not worth our disputing; but may not a state of grace immediately succeed? jeremy was sanctified in the womb, and john baptist; and the infants that christ blessed were all by nature children of wrath, and yet by grace were in a better state. as they come from old adam they are children of wrath, but as they receive of the grace procured by the second adam, so they are not children of wrath. if a prince should entail some honours upon all your children; you might well say by nature, or as they were your children, they were not honourable or noble, and yet by the favour of the prince they might be all honourable from the womb. the godly at age may say that they are still by nature children of wrath, even when they are sure they are children of god by grace; and they use in their confessions to say, that we by nature are enemies to god, firebrands of hell. r. baxter of inf. bapt. p. 110, 111. calvin. i would willingly hear what the learned and judicious mr. j. cotton saith. mr. j. cotton, in answer to that objection made by the anabaptist against infant baptism. faith comes by hearing, ergo, infants have not faith. ans. it is no extraordinary thing which christ speaks concerning infants, when he saith, except you receive the kingdom of god as little children, etc. and they cannot receive it without christ, nor without faith in christ, and yet received not christ nor faith by their own immediate hearing of the word; and for the second thing which you make essential to union with christ, (viz. a heart fitly disposed to apprehend and receive christ,) be not unwilling to understand that which is truth. the heart is fitly disposed by faith to apprehend or apply christ, when faith is begotten in the heart; for by this gift of faith begotten in us, christ apprehends us, and by the same gift of faith the heart is fitly disposed to apprehend christ even in infants; for when faith is wrought in infants, the heart is quickened with spiritual life, and made a sanctified vessel to receive christ, which reception of christ though it be passive, yet it is all one with regeneration, (as dr. ames. medul. c. 26. § 21.) wherein not infants only but all men are passive, which gave the lord jesus christ occasion to say, that whosoever receiveth the kingdom of god as a little child, [i. e. in respect of the passive reception,] luke 18.17. debate ii. of god's laying sin on christ. neonôm. you know at last conference our subject we discoursed upon was the state of the elect before effectual calling. if you please let us discourse the point of laying sins on christ, i shall here charge considerable errors on mr. antinomian. calvinist. i pray sir proceed, i perceive mr. antinomian is very willing to hear you with patience. neonom. i charge him with this error, that he saith, d. w. p. 8, 9 that god did not only impute the gild, and lay the punishment of the sins of the elect upon christ, but he laid all the very sins of the elect upon christ, and that as to their real filth and loathsomeness; yea so that christ was really the blasphemer, murderer, and sinner, and so accounted by the father. calvin. mr. antinom. did you lay down this position? antinom. sir it's bad enough if it be as he saith, and in his sense and meaning: i find his way is to put first a wild beasts skin upon me, and then fall a hunting of me. i pray mr. neonom. how do you prove this charge? neonom. you tell us, it's iniquity itself that the lord laid upon christ; d. cr. p. 312. not only our punishment but our very sin, etc. the transaction of our sins to christ is a real act; our sins so became christ's that he stood the sinner in our stead, and we discharged, d. cr. p. 270. [and he is not contented to mean only the punishment, but saith its iniquity itself] i mean, saith he, the fault of the transgression itself, etc. to speak more plainly, hast thou been an idolater? hast thou been a blasphemer, murderer, drunkard, & c? if thou hast part in the lord, all these transgressions of thine become actually the transgressions of christ: d. cr. p. 26. nor are we so completely sinful, but christ being made sin, was as completely sinful as we, etc. and god himself did account him among the number of transgressor's. calvin. you should first have told us, mr. neonomian, what you mean by gild and punishment of sin, how you distinguish reatus from culpa, and how you understand the filth of sin; and should have alleged some expression of his whereby it might have been evinced that he held christ to be the very perpetrator of the sins of the elect; that he had said, christ was actually drunk when noah was; that christ killed vriah and lay with his wife, and made the golden calf in the wilderness, that he denied himself when peter did, yea that he slew and murdered himself. you should have told us what you mean by imputation, etc. antinom. i shall show you by comparing his charge and proof together, how fallaciously he deals with you, and invidiously with dr. c. he saith, i said god laid all the very sins of the elect upon christ, he should have added, by imputation, for his proof runs thus, our sins so became christ's, that he stood the sinner in our stead, and we discharged: now i pray is it to become the very person and actor, when i stand in the stead of another person that did it. the proof makes his charge false, the very evidence he brings is enough for my defence against his charge; and when he brings these words of mine [to prove, that i hold christ became the real murderer, etc.] if thou be'st a thief, murderer, liar, etc. all these transgressions (if thou hast part in the lord) become actually the transgressions of christ, he should have told you how i explained myself; and he knows i mean no otherwise than what can be christ's by actual imputation. here's a great sputter of real and actual, and very sins, etc. he might as well if he had dealt candidly, told you all my meaning, and not perverted it to serve his own reproachful tongue. i say thus in handling this text, isa. 53.6. this iniquity was really laid upon christ; christ was as really the bearer of the sins of god's people, d. c. p. 373. as a surety is really the debtor when he willingly puts himself into the room of the principal debtor. insomuch that god cannot expect the debt any where but of christ. christ gives the bond, and by giving the bond makes himself the debtor. god accepts of this, and upon it dischargeth the poor sinners themselves, and if he will have payment he must have it where himself hath laid the debt. god was in christ reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses to them, 2 cor. 5.3. verse. now sir you have the great prodigious error that mr. neonomian chargeth me to be guilty of. as the surety gives bond for the very debt of the principal to a farthing, the very debt of this or that party by name, living in such a place, of such a calling, for a debt contracted at such a time. so that it's that debt, not another that he contracted at another time, or the debt of another man, but the debt so and so circumstantiated, described and subscribed by the debtors own hand. a surety enters into the same bond, changing only the names. d. c. p. 330. sin is called our debts by christ himself who is our surety. did he not bear our very debts? he that bore our very debts, bore our very sins; but christ bore our very debts; and now for me to pay the very debts of a debtor that is become bankrupt, and spent his estate upon luxury, is it to become the luxurious contracter of the debt. neonom. you may think, gentlemen, that this man means only punishment that was laid on christ. antinom. no, no, i do not mean only punishment, as you mean; i know, whatever you say, you mean not punishment in a right sense, but only suffering. but you must blot out, for sin, then it's not punishment; for if the law inflict suffering it's for sin; and if for sin, it's punishment; and if a punishment, sin was in some sense or other sound upon him, or else the law wronged him in inflicting sufferings on him. now when i say it is iniquity itself that the lord hath laid on christ, d. c. p. 270. i mean as the prophet doth, it is the fault of the transgression itself; and to speak more fully, that erring and straying like sheep, that very erring, straying and transgressing, is passed off from them, and is laid upon christ, [viz. by imputation.] to speak it more plainly, hast thou been an idolater, blasphemer, murderer, etc. if thou hast a part in christ, they become actually the transgressions of christ, d. c. p. 268. [by imputation,] and so cease to be thine,— for he was numbered with transgressor's. god himself did account him among the number of transgressor's, for he himself made him a transgressor at that time; bear with the expression, for the apostle hath a higher than this, though it may seem harsh to you, 2 cor. 5. c. he was made sin for us; there's a great deal of difference between being made sin and a sinner, the expression in the abstract going beyond the concrete. i know the word may be spoke hyperbolically; not that christ simply could be made sin, not that his essence could be turned into sin, but the apostles meaning was, that no transgressor in the world was such a transgressor as christ was. but still he was a transgressor, as our transgressions were laid upon him; not that he was the actor of any transgressions. now sir you hearing me say this, that christ was a transgressor by way of suretyship only; not as the actor of any sin in his own person, do not you traduce me slanderously, charge me with saying, that christ was really the blasphemer and murderer, and idolater? and that because i say, if thou be a thief, murderer or drunkard, if thou hast part in the lord, all these transgressions of thine become actually the transgressions of christ, i. e. by actual imputation, as the debts of a bankrupt becomes a surety, that undertakes them. was not noah's drunkenness, david's murder and adultery, rachel's theft and idolatry imputed to christ? how would you have these great foul sins forgiven? i suppose you are not for the taking away so great sins by the blood of christ; with you it would redound to the disparagement of christ. neonom. yes, if he should bear the filthiness and loathsomeness of sin, as you say, d. c. p. 436. he bears the loathsomeness, abominableness, and hatefulness of rebellion, which is laid on christ's back; he bears the sin as well as the shame and blame. antinom. i was opening, psal. 68.18. thou hast received gifts from men, yea, for the rebellious also; an eminent prophecy of christ. the text saith also that thou mightest dwell among them; who is that them? the rebellious: beloved, you must know that no evil dwells with god; the lord stands fully off and separated from all iniquity.— therefore seeing god can't dwell with iniquity, there must be a taking away of iniquity, before there be a receiving graciously, hos. 14.2, 3. as long as there is iniquity to be charged upon any person, there's no receiving graciously; therefore seeing god cannot dwell with men where iniquity is, christ he received gifts for men that the lord might dwell among the rebellious, and enlarging here i spoke what he rehearseth by way of reproach unto me. it is easy to misrepresent any man's words, and make them look very odiously, if you hang, draw and quarter them, pluck a sentence limb from limb. but the thing in dispute between us is, whether christ did not bear the very sins of the elect in some sense or other? neonom. yes, it is so, for you say its sin opposed to gild, and to say that god laid the gild of sin, d. w. p. 9 and not sin itself upon christ is contrary to scripture. antinom. for the objection about gild, that the lord lays the gild and punishment, d. cr. p. 271. but not simply the sin itself; for aught that i see it is a simple objection. for first, you shall never find there is distinction in all the scriptures, that god laid the gild of sin upon christ, and not sin itself; dr. c. 272. nay to affirm that god laid the gild of sin upon christ, and not sin itself, is contrary to scripture. [i. e. to deny that god laid sin itself, by saying he laid gild and not sin, must needs be so, because the scriptures affirm positively god laid sin, yea iniquity upon him, and that he bore our sins etc.] what presumption then is it for man to say, god laid the gild and not the sin, [i. e. to assert the laying of gild on christ, with a denial of laying sin.] 2. that you may have a little light concerning the word gild, for i know many spirits are troubled at it, for my part i do not think as some do, that gild differs from sin, as that which is an obligation or binding over to the punishment of sin, rather than sin itself being past and gone, [for when sin is committed it leaves behind the conscience of sin committed, which is the sin lying upon us.] but that you may have the true nature of gild, gen. 42.21, when joseph's brethren were accused for spies, there it is said they spoke one to another, we are guilty concerning our brother. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. buxtorf renders it delinquentes, and it's applied to, being under levitical uncleanness actually, levit. 5.2. the chald. renders it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 debitores, we are debtors to the law in breaking of it. we have contracted the debt of sin, an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. and it's not a little remarkable how the lxxii. lxx. isa. 53.6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. interpret the forementioned word, gen. 42.21. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. we are in our sins, or the sins are upon us, which we committed about our brother.] what is the meaning of guilty here? d. c. ibid. reuben expounds that ver. 22. did not i say to you, sin not against the lad, but you would not hearken unto me, and therefore behold we are guilty: what is that? we did sin against the child: to be guilty then, and to commit sin, is all one; they are but two words expressing the same thing; for further understanding: a malefactor is asked guilty or not guilty? he answers not guilty; he means he hath not done that fact which was laid to his chage; when the jury say guilty, what do they mean? do they mean any thing of the punishment, [no, they inquire only of the justness of the charge concerning matter of fact,] the jury have nothing to do with the punishment, but only matter of fact, whether done or not done, so that gild and sin are all one: and to say gild is laid upon christ, but sin is not laid upon christ is a contradiction; and whereas some say the punishment of sin, and not the sin: i say, that scripture that warrants the laying punishment on christ, he was wounded for our transgressions, warrants the laying sin upon christ, in speaking it thrice plainly in the same chapter. p. 383. 281, 288, 290.— i say here is a real act, and not supposed only, god doth really pass over sin upon him, still keeping this fast, that christ acted no sin; so that in respect of the act, not one sin of the believers is christ's: but in respect of transgression, [i. e. the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the relation that sin hath to the law as a fault,] in respect of conveyance, as to passing accounts from one head to another, in respect of that, there is a reality of making christ to be sin; when one man becomes a debtor in another man's room, legally and by consent, this surety that doth become the debtor, is not barely supposed to be the debtor, but by undertaking it, and legally having it passed upon him, he is as really and truly the debtor, [yea hath the same debt upon him] as he was who was the principal before; i say as really and truly the debtor: so that there is an absolute truth and reality in god's act of passing over sins to christ, and laying sins upon him.— there must be [in criminal cases] of necessity a present desert upon a person on whom he inflicts punishment; he must not inflict punishment upon a mere supposition. mr. calvin. i do not see but that he hath given a very clear and distinct account of his notion, but i find you will condemn whatever mr. antinom. saith, right or wrong. neonom. no, no, i will lay open his mistakes more plainly before you, i will assure you he knows not what he saith, i will convince you both immediately. the ground of his mistakes are these. 1. he seems to speak of sin as a positive material thing, and doth not distinguish between god's laying our sins on christ as a physical act, and as a moral act, and thinks god took our sins as a material burden, and laid them upon christ. d. w. p. 13. calvin. sir, i must tell you then, that you mistake him, i doubt wilfully, for he not where speaks of sin as a physical act, but as a moral transgression; doth he not say as plainly as may be the contrary to what you suggest, viz. here is a real act of god, god doth really pass over sin upon him, still keeping this fast, that christ acted no sin. [doth he not plainly here deny the physical act to christ?] and doth he speak of sin as a material burden, when he saith christ bore it as a fault, debt, law-breach, etc. d. c. p. 283. he speaks of it as a moral and judicial burden, and so doth the spirit of god speak of it, psal. 38.4. mine iniqui-quities are gone over mine head, as an heavy burden they are too heavy for me. and christ bore them as a burden in his body on the tree; it was not sweet and pleasant naturally to him. neonom. he seems not to apprehend what the true notion is of imputing a thing to another in law in criminal cases. calvin. nor do you understand that of mr. antinomian, i suppose he means you were never used to the crown bar, you only have been exercised at the nisi prius side. antinom. i am no lawyer, but yet am fain to use some law terms (that the scripture useth, and most men are acquainted with) in this matter, and most divines hold necessary to explain these mysteries by; though mr. neonomian will not understand them, nor allow them any otherwise than in his own sense, contrary to all received meanings of them. do not i talk of sin as a criminal case, when i say david's murder and adultery was imputed to christ, and the sin of those and such like actions? imputation is of the same nature, whether the default be debt, or criminal nature, both debts of money and felonies are moral transgressions; nay, both are the breach of one law, theft; and not paying another's, or his own money due upon bond, or rent-charge, or the like, is breaking the eighth commandment, thou shalt not steal, and is not theft a criminal case? see dr. cr. p. 288, 289. neonom. god's laying sin on christ is a moral act of god as a rector, i. e. he agreed and appointed that christ should in his person stand obliged to bear the punishment of our sins, that we might obtain pardon, and that punishment was actually laid upon him, and suffered by him. antinom. what do you mean by a rector? do you mean as a rector under a law for the rule of his moral obedience? or was god bound by his moral law to appoint christ to bear sin? what do we with this diminutive word rector; methinks you might entitle god, our great king, sovereign lawgiver, who is king of kings, and lord of lords, and doth whatever he pleaseth in heaven and earth, and you make him little moral rector, and as such he covenanted with his son to bear sin: did god act in a way of government and dominion over his son as his rector, when he said, if thou shalt make thy soul an offering for sin, & c? isa. 53. or as with one that counted it no robbery to be equal with god, phil. 2.6. was it not when he was with him, one brought up with him, his delight, his delight, his fellow? and was agreeing with christ to bear sin, and actually laying it upon him, the same act? whereas one was immanent, and the other transient; god in laying sin or charging sin upon christ, or executing the punishment upon him, freely submitting himself to be dealt with in a way of justice, did act as a great judge, the judge of all the world, in foro justitiae divinae. why must we have this mean title for god, rector? god did not covenant with his son in a way of judicial proceeding, though that covenant was executed in a way of vindictive and remunerative justice. and you say the punishment of sin was laid on christ, but not sin itself. what justice is it in a judge, or as a rector, as you call him, to punish him for sin, that is not justly charged with sin, its transgression charged is the only meritorious cause of punishment; where there is no law, there's no transgression; and where there's no transgression, there can be no punishment, though there may be sufferings they cannot be penal. sin and punishment are relata in logic as well as law. and you say he was obliged to bear the punishment, that we might obtain pardon, cunningly worded indeed; this is an answer to a bill, saving all advantages that hereafter may be taken: you mean christ hath boar the punishment of our sins, that we may hereafter by the righteousness of another law obtain pardon. neonom. again, also because a man that is bound in a bond of money becomes a debtor; therefore he thinks because christ suffered to save the idolater or blasphemer, therefore christ must be the idolater and blasphemer. d. w. p. 14. antinom. but pray sir show first, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies propter, rom. 4.25. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for these things comes the wrath, etc. eph. 56. and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath the same force, 1 cor. 15 3. pro peccatis nostris, gal. 1.9. et 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for sins, 1 pet. 3.18. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 use to signify no less the impulsive cause than the final cause. see rom. 15.9. 2 cor. 1.11. eph. 1.16. 2 cor. 5.21. grot. de satisfact. vlciscipio injuriis. sceleris poenas persolveré suppliciis & maleficiis metuere. cicero. castigare pro commerita noxia. plaut. pro dictis & factis ulscisci. terrent. pro peccatis passus aut mortuus. grot. de sat. that he thinks christ became the very idolater and blasphemer; you heard him again and again deny that he thought so, but he said that christ was charged with, and bore the sins of the idolater and blasphemer; and i stand to it, and i must tell you, if a man bound for money becomes a debtor, it's for that debt which is owing. and if idolatry be a sin whereby a sinner is a debtor to the law, christ becomes a debtor in the same sense for idolatry. and i told you, a debtor is a moral transgressor, if he make not due payment as well as a thief, both sinners against one command. neonom. christ paying our debts was a satisfaction for criminals, not a payment of money. antinom. not silver and gold, but a better sort of money. 1 pet. 1.18, 19 you know the spirit of god alludes to that metaphor; he calls our redemption, our being bought with a price, or a ransom, etc. 1 cor. 6.20. therefore i think you should not pretend to be wiser than the spirit of god; and christ's paying our debts was making satisfaction for criminals, and he was a reputed criminal, he was numbered among transgressor's not only by man [as you say] but by god. neonom. and yet it is plain, that if i were bound for money for one, that by drunkenness wastes his estate, my being bound to pay the money, doth not argue that i was, or must by the creditors be so accounted when i make payment. antinom. it is very true, mr. moderator, i think its time for us to break up our club at this time, for if the constable should happen to look in, and hear such highflown reasoning as this is, i do not know but we may be in danger of being laid by the heels, the best of it is, that we shall not be reckoned constables for being laid by the heels. neonom. once more, to clinch the last conviction a little closer, because christ was made sin, i. e. an offering or sacrifice for sin; therefore he thinks our very sins was laid upon him, and he made filthy. antinom. because he was made a sacrifice for sin, therefore i say he was made sin, the sacrifices were made sin, and bore the sins of the people typically as shadows, christ really, and as the substance; and as the sacrifices became levitically unclean by the bearing of sin, so christ the true sacrifice was judicially unclean when he bore our sins in his body on the tree. neonom. to add no more, because men wickedly arraigned him as a blasphemer, therefore ●he doctor thinks he was so indeed, and in god's account. calvin. what blundering doctor is this to have so many gross mistakes in such a plain point of divinity, and of so great concern; that ever any man's skull should be so thick, as to think that christ actually blasphemed god, because he bore the sins upon the cross of those that reproached him for a blasphemer, and arraigned him as such. antinom. i pray sir let me ask him one question for information, now he talks of blasphemers, and he is so good at rectifying mistakes: tell me the meaning of that place, psal. 69.3. applied to christ, rom. 15.3. some take it to mean that the blasphemies of blasphemers were charged upon and imputed to christ; and i think the apostle paul quotes the place in that sense, but it may be the apostle paul and i may be both mistaken; i pray sir make it so, and add it to the other mistakes. calvin. you have been a great while showing what laying of sin upon christ is not, and convincing this dr. of antinomianism, and want of brains; i pray sir now let us be the better for yours, and let us know the truth in this great matter, and that we may not be liable to be led aside by such dark larthorn doctors as you make this to be. neonom. i came on purpose to be a guide to you, i know you are all at a loss in these points. truth. though our sins were imputed to christ with respect to the gild thereof, so that he by the father's appointment, and his own consent, became obliged, as a mediator, to bear the punishment of our iniquities; and he did bear those punishments to the full satisfaction of justice, and to our actual remission when we believe; nevertheless the filth of our sins was not laid on christ; nor can he be called the transgressor, or was he in god's account the blasphemer, murderer, etc. d. w. p. 7. that you may not be mistaken, i will tell you in several particulars what i hold. 1. christ bore the punishment of our sins. d. w. p. 9 antinom. sir, i desire to remark upon your concessions as you name them. neonom. i pray take your liberty as to that. antinom. punishment is such no otherwise than as the wages of sin, and where sin is not charged there's no wages due, and therefore if punishment be taken only as suffering for sin, it's no punishment but bare sufferings. an innocent person may suffer, but none can be punished by justice but a nocent person, that is so in the eye of the law that inflicts the suffering. neonom. 2. christ bore the gild of our sins, which is that respect of sin to the threatening of the law, whereby there is an obligation to bear the punishment. antinom. we have told you the scripture every where says christ bore our sin. you say before, that our sins were imputed to christ with respect to gild, as if they were not laid on the guilty. 2. we find god's people for whom christ bore sin, do often labour under gild of sin. 3. gild of sin is a result of sin, belongs to the committer, and all the world is found guilty before god; or else it is the judicial charge, or accusation by the law, whereby the sinner is made to deserve punishment; thus it is with thousands that have no sense of gild in conscience. 4. gild in conscience is taken off at the application of the satisfaction of christ to the soul, by the sense of his bearing sin. 5. gild in judgement is upon proof of the charge or confession of it, either from conscience of the fact in the person that committed it, or from a submitting to the charge in the place and stead of another, whereupon the person becomes guilty, i. e. blame-worthy, and faulty in the eye of the law. 6. you mistake in saying gild is that respect of sin to the threaten of the law, whereby there is an obligation to bear punishment. gild is the just charge of sin, which is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a transgression of the preceptive part; it's extrinsic to sin, to suffer punishment for sin, and though they are relata by god's constitution that wherever there is sin there must be punishment, yet it's not so by necessity of nature. 7. hence obligation to punishment is from the will of the lawgiver, and the nature of the law; not from the sinner; the law hath tied sin and punishment together, and it's not sin to be obliged to punishment, but it is for sin; obligation to punishment is part of the wages of sin, and not sin in itself, nor the guilt of sin; a murderer that is cast, he is guilty before sentence or execution, not because the law will sentence him, but because he hath committed the fact which the law hath forbid, and therefore hath annexed a penalty to it. there's a privative nature in sin, which is a contrariety to the goodness of the law, which is the fault, therefore the law to avenge itself makes it worthy, or deserving such a punishment, and upon trial binds over the sinner to it; there's hardly to be found a difference between reatus culpae & poenae, as dr. o. saith; but sin committed or justly charged upon some account or other, is in itself by virtue of the constitution of the law an obligation to punishment, being the meritorious cause thereof. neonom. i own christ was esteemed by men a transgressor, and arraigned as such. antinom. if it were only so, he bore sin no otherwise than the saints and martyrs, who also were accounted transgressor's by men, arraigned and condemned as such, but it seems you will not own him accounted a transgressor by god, and therefore no sin was laid upon him, nor any punishment, and here you fall in roundly with the socinians. neonom. we grant also that christ's sufferings were as effectual to put away sin, as if our very sins had been transacted on him. antinom. i doubt not but you will ascribe as much to your gospel, as paul did to his; there was never any coiners of new doctrine, (papist, quaker, socinian or arminian, all wellwishers to your divinity, in some part or other of it) but will still each of them cry up your doctrine, and decry the truth for error; and this truth of laying sin on christ, as vehemently as you, especially in the sense that you do. neonom. but i say he became obliged as mediator to bear the punishment of our iniquities. antinom. if as mediator, then to take up the difference between god and us, for its sin makes the difference and not punishment; this is but the effect of the difference, the highpriest, the typical mediator, was to bear the iniquities of the people, and offer a sacrifice on which they were charged. neonom. he did bear those punishments to the full satisfaction of justice. antinom. unless sin be taken away in a law sense, justice is not satisfied, bearing punishment only doth not satisfy for sin, the law will have the sinner, or the sin taken away; therefore the damned must suffer to eternity because they cannot take away sin by suffering, but christ did more than suffer, he put an end to sin by the sacrifice of himself. neonom. yea, and to our actual remission when we believe. antinom. it seems there's fundamental potential remission before; and i doubt you will not suffer this remission to take place without a new law and the righteousness thereof. neonom. the real difference lies in these things. 1. whether sin itself as to its filth and fault was transacted on christ? this you affirm, and i deny. 2. whether christ was made and accounted by the father the very transgressor, the adulterer, the blasphemer? this you affirm, and i deny. d. w. p. 10. antinom. you might have put the questions into one, and stated it as it lies between the apostle paul and you. whether god imputed sin to christ at all? neonom. i go on to confirm my positions. 1. to transact our sins on christ as opposed to gild, is impossible, for it would argue either a mistake in the divine mind to account him the committer of our sins, or a propagater of our corrupt qualities to him, which is impossible; and any other way besides imputing the guilt there is none. antinom. this argument, i judge, is to prove both positions. as to the first, it runs thus: that which is impossible cannot be done; but to transact sin as to its fault, is impossible, ergo. as to the major, i judge the impossibility is meant in respect of the nature of god, or the constitution of god, otherwise i know not why a fault may not be taken away, as well as obligation to punishment; when as fault is that for which a man is obliged to bear punishment: for if the fault remain, the punishment is still due. the minor you prove thus: it would argue a mistake in god, or suppose him a propagator of sin. 1. it doth argue a mistake in you to say, that's transferred from us which was never in us. for the obligation to punishment in its active consideration is subjectively in the law, and that cannot be taken from it; it's the debt which the law owes to the sinner, by reason of its sanction, and the punishment is the payment; 1 joh. 3.3, 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. the wages of sin is death. for punishment is not the sinners debt, but the law's debt, and the sinner's due. the sinner's debt is, doing the duty the law requires. his disobedience is an offence to the law, a fault blamed by the preceptive part of the law; and this is gild, reatus culpae, to which meritum poenae doth by virtue of the constitution belong. there's two respects in sin. 1. to the preceptive part of the law, and that is fault. 2. to the penal part, and that is meritum. now these by reason of the justice of the law, and the connexion made by its institution between the accusing and condemning part, are inseparable before god; and being but two different respects of the same individual act, it is a fault and a merit, and a merit because it is a fault; the merit is a result from the fault, and are such relata, that they cannot be parted in judgement. now then, will not your argument rebound upon yourself? would it not argue a mistake in god, to lay the merit of punishment upon a person that hath not any meritorious cause of it in no respect? if the fault be not imputed, how can the merit? there can be no merit without a meritorious cause, and this is our sins, and not christ's, by way of perpretation. in laying sin on christ, there are these things. 1. the spirit of god says its sin, and doth not confound sin and punishment: and it's absurd if it should, for punishment is not sin. 2. it saith, it's our sins, not christ's. 3. that these sins are juridically imputed and accounted to christ: the payments by christ's sufferings is his own money, not ours; the debt is imputed, not the payment: a surety is charged with, and takes upon him the principal debt, but doth not take money from him to pay it; the money is his own; the debt is the principal's transferred to him, but the payment is the surety's subjectively and properly: therefore to say the payment is imputed to the surety is nonsense. the spirit of god speaks expressly, that our sins were laid on christ, no less than three times in isa. 53. and expressed by three different words, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, ver. 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, ver. 11. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, ver. 12. it's express, 1 pet. 2.24. the apostle plainly there speaking after the prophet, says, he bore it as a sin-offering, heb. 9.28. was made sin, 1 cor. 5.21. therefore we need not fear to say, christ bore our sins, let the sense be what it will which the spirit means; it was certainly so, as to take away the charge of sin, which is fault and blame, from before god, 1 john 3.3, 4. to take it away as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which is so to take it away, as to set a man right in the eye of justice. your next branch of proof to the minor, is, that to impute sin to christ, would argue him a propagator of corrupt qualities. what could be done or said more by a socinian, to load the great truths of the gospel with reproachful consequences. 1. sin is no positive quality as such, but only privative. 2. all qualities of a pernicious nature to the sinner, consisting of natural causes, are subjecta peccati, not peccatum itself, and they are separable from sin in its moral consideration: there were in christ himself effects of our sins, in infirmity, sorrow, reproach, etc. they were very uneasy qualities, though not corrupt. 3. god himself tells us. he laid iniquity upon him, and made him sin, and yet saith positively, he was no committer of sin. and you charge the spirit of god with nonsense and contradiction. for you say, it's impossible to impute sin to christ any other way than punishing of him, it's to mistake, and make christ the committer, which punishment is not sin; therefore what the spirit saith is false, sin was not laid on christ at all, and yet the spirit speaks it expressly. 4. you will infer these absurdities. 1. that sin cannot be laid on christ but by transfusion, wherein you deny imputation. 2. that christ must be corrupted thereby: whereas the spirit of god tells us, he bears sin as a lamb without spot: you will have it, that he had the macula fixed on him by bearing it. 3. you will have god, by laying sin on christ, to become a propagator of sin. the spirit of god says, he appeared to take away our sins, and in him is no sin, 1 john 3.5. how audacious is our carnal reason, to set upon divine mysteries. neonom. it was needless to the ends for which our sins were laid on christ. antinom. you should have said, what's needless. your argument should have run thus, laying sins on christ is needless to the ends for which they were laid on christ; and therefore those scriptures that say so, are needless. neonom. sins were laid on christ, that he might make atonement by suffering for them; and so release us who had transgressed. antinom. now, sir, you say something, you speak like a divine, if you can hold there. now you own something laid on christ besides punishment; for the atonement was made by being punished, and say well now, that sin was laid on him, that he might make atonement for them, viz. by being punished. for bearing sin is one thing, and making atonement is another, but are inseparable relata, and therein contraria affirmantiae. neonom. now christ, by submitting to the gild as an obligation to punishment, according to the terms of the covenant of redemption, was sufficient to this end, and all that was needful. antinom. that christ bore the desert or demerit of our sin, which is done only by a judicial charge and accusation in our stead, is sufficient. what is sin after the fact is committed, but reatus culpae? gild is the fault declared and applied somewhere in a way of judicial proceeding: and this is often the conscience of sin, and is not removed but by faith on christ crucified, who bore our sins before god. neonom. all that endangered us, was the threatening of the law, and the punishment included in the threat. antinom. where there is true godly sorrow, it's more upon this account, that he hath sinned against a holy god, and broke his holy, just and good law, than for fear of the threats of wrath. i thought i had better understood the nature of sorrow for sin, that it had been the nature of sin in contrariety to god, had more grieved than the fear of punishment. neonom. the obliquity of the fact, as against the precept, shall not hurt, where the sanction of the law is answered. antinom. i think this is that you call antinomianism with a witness; you shall hear of it again e'er long; only observe, that this is as much a doctrine of licentiousness, as any you charge on me: secure but yourself from hell, and you need not regard the preceptive part of the law, you may live as you list. see how you'll clear yourself, when you charge it for a great crime upon me, in saying, sin will do no hurt in some sense, etc. neonom. and he that suffers as sponsor for another, need not sustain in himself the filthiness of the crime, to make him capable of giving satisfaction, gen. 44.13. phil. 18. antinom. no, that's true upon your hypothesis, there's no need of a sponsor; for the filthiness of sin is too foul for christ to bear, the sinner must be his own expiator, and carry away his filth himself; or if he keep it, it will not hurt. see 1 john 7.9. neonom. this transacting of the filthiness of our sins on christ is blasphemous. antinom. friend, that's a cruel bomb to shoot at a good man, to charge him with blasphemy. but where's the blasphemy, to say, christ bore the filth of sin in a sense. is not sin filthy under all considerations? doth not the spirit of god call it filthy and abominable in all respects? 1. is not the gild of sin filth and abominable in god's sight? and is it not so, when it lies upon the conscience? i think the spirit of god represents it always as the greatest foulness and uncleanness. i say, a conscience polluted with sin, to those that are defiled and unbelieving, and can't by faith fetch and derive cleansing virtue from the blood of christ into their consciences, to such nothing is clean, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, tit. 1.15. now this is the very rooot and foundation of a defilement: and what is it that takes it off, but faith in the sin-cleansing virtue of jesus christ? the great contrariety of sin to the holy law, is the filthiness of sin. and the apostle tells, heb. 9.14. how our consciences come to be purged from dead works; it's no other way, than by the offering of christ without spot to god. this spotless sacrifice, whereon he bore sin, and was not defiled: and hereby the conscience of sin, i. e. the gild of sin, (which is no other than sin charged upon the conscience) is taken away; and thence the levitical services could not make any perfect, as pertaining to conscience, but it's the blood of christ that sprinkles from an evil conscience, heb. 10.22. 2. a condemning conscience, without which we stand but loathsomely before god; yea, while for want of faith we apprehend god deals with us out of christ, we are very loathsome, and all our works and services dead, god loathes and abhors them. is not the virtue of christ's blood compared to a fountain to wash us in, and intended especially of justification and pardon, and the saints to betake themselves to it under the notion of its cleansing virtue in that sense? 1 john 1.7. rev. 1.5. gild of sin than is as great a pollution as belongs to sin: it's no other than sin lying upon the conscience with an accusation, 1 john 3.20, 21. greg. nysson saith, he bore 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the filth of our sin. dr. o. p. 42. again, wherever sin is to be purged out by sanctification, it is to be rid away by justification, but all filth is to be rid by sanctification, that indwells. now it is manifest, that the cleansing virtue of the blood of christ applied by faith, is the first gospel-effectual means of sanctification; and it must be the great cause of mortification; wherein we are planted together in the likeness of his death, rom. 6. and what did christ in his death, but destroy the body of sin by carrying it away? 2 tim. 1.10. he hath by carrying away sin, abolished sin and death, slain the enmity that lay in hatred of god, pravity and dominion of sin. whence was it that david was cleansed from bloodguiltiness? was it not from its being laid on christ? was it not that very filthiness of his sin? psal. 51.14. doth he not pray to god to be washed throughly from his sin, and to be cleansed from it? was not that by the application of the blood of christ? doth he not mention all his pravity, original as well as actual, from which he would be purged as with hyssop, and made whiter than snow? and wherein lies this washing? is it not in respect of sin? (not in respect of punishment, he mentioneth not) he explains what he means, it is that radical washing, ver. 9 hid thy face from my sins, and blot out mine iniquity, i. e. from the face of god's justice. then follows the creation of a clean heart; he gave himself for us to redeem us from all iniquity, tit. 2.14. there is no pravity, defilement, pollution of sin , that is so but because of its contrariety to the preceptive part of the law, must first have its foundation of cleansing from christ's bearing of it away, and this faith applying purifies the heart from the indwelling macula in us. whence that promise, ezek. 36.25. the clean water there is the spirit working in application of the blood of christ; and therefore gospel-cleansing lies chief in application of promises, 2 cor. 7.1. neonom. he took care his body should not see corruption, acts 2.3. he would much more abhor to take in our pollution: he was holy, harmless, undefiled, etc. antinom. all this we say over and over, that he bare sin, but was not defiled with sin, nor corrupted in his nature; but the spirit of god is not to be believed. see christ's taking away of sin by atonement, is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, heb. 1.3. neonom. it was condescension enough, that he agreed to be treated as a sinner: but how odious is it to load him with sin it ! to spit that in his face that the worst of men abused him with; and it would justify his persecutors who punished him, if he was really the person your principles renders him to be. antinom. the spirit of god renders him to be the person that my principles renders him to be. it saith he bore our sins in his body on the tree, the lord laid iniquities on him, he was made sin for us, and yet how dare you reproach the spirit of god in such a manner! to say, that it's an odious thing: to say, be boar the load and weight of all the sins of the elect; that it is spitting in the face of christ, doing that which the worst of men did to him, and justifying his murderers: i am surprised with great horror to hear such things out of the mouth of a man that is called a gospel minister. i pray god give you repentance, and lay not these things to your charge. but sir, you have here declared your defiance of the date of the imputation of our sins to christ, and yet would pretend you hold that doctrine by saying god laid the punishment of sin only upon christ. the mere punishment of christ (i must tell you) was not the bearing our sin; for the bearing the punishment was the payment of the debt, and was his righteousness which is imputed unto us: if imputation of our sins to christ lay in nothing else, they were not imputed at all to him; punishment was laid upon him, and he bore it by way of suffering in his humane nature, and was that righteousness that is imputed to us in justification, the argument against you is this: that which is imputed to us was not imputed to christ, but punishment of christ to satisfaction for our sins, is his righteousness imputed to us. ergo, not the imputation of our sins unto him. if your rooted prejudices will suffer you to consider, i pray weigh well that argument, you will have more by and by. but you still say if christ bore sin he must be polluted with sin. ans. it argues not that sin was his by perpetration or infusion, but only by imputation, they were our sins by perpetration and inhesion, which he bore by imputation: the spirit of god tells us he was a sinner in one respect, and no sinner in another; as the church of smyrna was poor in one respect, and rich in another. omnia diversa natura sua abstractâ sunt opposita; as poverty and riches, sin and no sin; tamen eidem attributa ratione tantum dissentiunt; as a man may be rich and poor, wise and foolish in divers respects. and as to the filthiness of sin it could not slain him, he remained untouched in his holy nature, but yet i must tell you, as bearing sin by the sacrifices caused a typical uncleanness, insomuch as the bodies were burnt without the camp, and they that burnt them and gathered up the ashes became unclean; such a judicial uncleanness was jesus christ our sacrifice under, wherein he answered those great types, and we are not without ample proof of it, especially from heb. 13.11. neonom. arg. 2. had he been esteemed the very transgressor, his atonement had been unavailable, for he could not atone for himself. d. w. p. 11. antinom. you should have said, had he been the very transgressor; he was a reputed transgressor, and stood instead of the actual transgressor; he therefore was a becoming highpriest, because he needed not to offer for his own sins, but did at once offer for us when he offered up himself, heb. 7.25, 27. all the places you mention are against you, that especially, 1 pet. 3.18. and that of heb. 9.14. above all as we have showed before. neonom. christ then suffered for his own sins. antinom. so far as they became his own by imputation. to conclude, because you will have it, that in pleading for the imputation of our sins to christ, i must hold that christ was the very transgressor. see what i said: there is a certain transacting of sin on christ, so real, that indeed a believer though an actual transgressor is as absolutely and truly discharged of his sins as if he himself had not committed them. as a debtor when a surety hath taken the debt on him, and the debtor receives an acquittance and discharge, he is as free of the debt now as if he never run into the debt: so i say it is with a believer, christ being made a surety of a better testament, and thereby becoming really and truly the debtor, instead of the believer, he so bears all the debts himself, that they are altogether released and discharged, as if they had never been in debt. still i say, this hinders not, but there is an acting of sin, and committing of sin every day by a believer, but still the virtue of christ's suretyship takes off the sin as soon as it is committed; nay he hath a proviso, or stock in bank to satisfy it as soon as it is committed. dr. cr. p. 289. calvinist. if this be mr. antinomians judgement, i see not but it is sound, and according to the scriptures; and you have little reason to make such a noise as you have done, and load him so invidiously with your loathsome consequences, and misrepresent him so hideously to the world, as if he were a person of no divinity, logic, religion, brains, or common sense; i must confess, i think you have given a great deal of ground of just offence, in wresting the words and sense of so good a man; besides your taking advantage to insinuate to us errors; for i apprehend your spleen is most especially vented at the doctrine of imputation, it's that which you principally aim at to wound and cast to the ground. laying sin on christ no other than that whereby christ becomes accountable to god for our sins, and there is in it these things very easy and plain to be understood. 1. christ's offering himself freely to be accountable to god for our sins; because none can be forced to be accountable for the defaults of another. 2. his answering the will and pleasure of the lawgiver, the judge of all therein, being called thereunto and accepted in so doing, in the room and stead of the delinquents. 3. hence it is for our sins and not his own, that he is accountable. 4. our sins are the material and meritorious cause of his sufferings, which he takes upon him; our very faults in nonconformity to the law; our sins in the delinquency, our very sins in opposition to punishment, our sins in their greatest foulness, under the greatest aggravations, they are the very offending, meritorious causes; and whereas when we are without christ they are accounted the offending and the meritorious cause of suffering to us; so christ being substituted in our room, they are the very offending meritorious causes of suffering to him; sin hath a double respect as a fault and demerit, but as a fault is a demerit. to be accountable is to stand under the demerits of sin; and indeed that is gild; or reatus culpae, which the orthodox mean when they say christ bore the guilt of sin, and it's no other than the charge of delinquency. dignitas poenae & obligatio ad poenam is the same thing, and there's little weight in the distinction between reatus culpae and reatus poenae; for reatus culpae is nothing else but dignitas poenae propter culpam. d. o. 280. and hence they say there's no difference between gild and the sin itself; for sin is no positive thing but privative, and that which is remaining besides the physical act of that which is a moral gild, or just charge of aberration from the rectitude and duty required in the law, for which men must be accountable to god, and according to the sanction of the law give satisfaction; and that is in this case by receiving the wages of sin, and in so doing the payment is made. and i shall now prove by many arguments that it's our sins, and our sins in the highest degrees and aggravations that christ was accountable to god for, and that he bore them in this sense, by way of imputation, though none of the macula or slain by way of inherent pollution or defilement fell upon him, nor could cleave unto him. and we defend the position as the spirit of god every where states. it. that it was sin as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that christ bore, and in bearing took away from before god, it's said to be laid on christ as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 1. that which is the radical cause of god's displeasure against a sinner was laid upon christ to take away, but sin was the radical cause of god's displeasure, ergo, sin in the radical nature of it as it's a fault, and blamed of god as such. now obligation to punishment is not the cause of god's displeasure, but the effect of it; that which renders a person abominable in the sight of god is sin, as it's against the preceptive part of the law: as to the major it's plain, unless the radical cause of god's manifesting displeasure be taken away, god cannot be reconciled to us; it's called the enmity, eph. 2. even on god's part, which is upon the default of sin, and its enmity on ours. 2. that which christ bore in his body on the tree, was sin itself, our blame as well as demerit; for there's no demerit where there's no blame: he that suffers for a fault bears the fault; the fault stands and claims the meritoriousness of sufferings. the apostle is express in it, that he bore our sins on the cross, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 1 pet. 2.24. this is the punishment only you will say; but the holy ghost will tell you he bore 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the nature of it; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not the punishment of sin, but sin itself, 1 john 3.4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and mark what follows, ver. 5. and ye know that he was manifest, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that he might bare away sin in bearing it; and notwithstanding this, (saith he) there was no sin in him; this doth plainly evince that the anomy of sin was accounted to him. 3. that the fault of sin is separable from the person of the sinner, but can never be separated from the demerit without payment. david's person is freed from the fault of murder, but his murder cannot be freed from the desert of death: now that which christ did especially, was to make the elect without fault before god, to take off that relation which they had to the law, lying as to the blame of it. god's reconciliation to the persons of sinners is by taking away the fault of sin before god, and this is done by the person of christ bearing sin. 4. that in a sinner which is to be pardoned whenever he receives christ, was ●aid on christ; but the fault of sin is to be pardoned whenever he receives christ; there's the least part of pardon that frees only from punishment, but forgives not the fault or offence; just as a king's reprieving a felon, but not pardoning him. to save him from the gallows, but charge him never to see his face. 5. that without the taking away of which the conscience of a sinner can never be purified from gild, was certainly laid upon, and taken away by jesus christ, heb. 9, 14. but the fault of sin is such without the taking away of which before god, the conscience can never be purified from gild; ergo, the fault of sin was laid upon jesus christ to take it away: let a man be sure he should never see death, yet if the fault lie upon him, there will still be gild; his conscience will accuse, he cannot have peace towards god. 6. if the wages of sin be in the very nature of sin, viz. spiritual death and it be inseparable from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or sin itself; then that death cannot be removed without taking away the sin before god; but the wages of sin, which is death, is inseparable from the nature of sin in the fault before god; etc. ergo, he that by death slays our death, slays and carries away the sin which is this death. the apostle to the rom. 7. calls the body of sin the body of death, 2 tim. 1.10. 7. that which essentially belongs unto christ's office as mediator, must be performed by christ, but bearing our sins so as to take them away before god, is essentially belonging to christ's office as mediator. it's not the essential part of a mediator to bear the punishment of the wronged party, but to reconcile the parties at variance; he may save one party from utter ruin by bearing punishment, yet cannot reconcile them without taking away all matter of offence; but it is the fault of sin that is the cause of variance; god hates it, and the sinner loves it. god is not offended at the creature because he must be punished, but because it's he who hath broke his law, therefore he punisheth him. 8. if the creature will never be reconciled to god till it hath some prospect of god's being reconciled first, by christ taking away the fault of sin before god, than christ bore it away; but the creature will never be reconciled to god without this prospect; ergo: for the ministry of reconciliation as to its efficacy is founded upon this, 2 cor. 5. and it's there described to be god being in christ first reconciling the world to himself; and how is he said to be so, but by making christ sin for us who knew not sin. 9 all the sin-offerings of the law hold forth christ's bearing sin; if you consider their names, the proper sin-offering was called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, levit. 4.3. it was called a sin because made sin for us typically, as christ really, by imputation, the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the trespass or guilt-offering was for sin, that for the whole congregation was such, leu. 4.15. so the burnt-offering was designed to the taking away of sin by bearing it, that called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and the peace-offering, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, was in order to the making peace and reconciliation for the sinner; therefore in the consecration of all these, there was the charging them with sin by the laying on of the hands of them that brought them, to be offered up for them, levit. 1.3. the hebrew doctors say, all oblations of beasts which particular persons offer of debt, or voluntarily, they lay hands on them, and so it was on the daily sacrifice, as mr. a. on numb. 28.2. saith, signifying that it was constituted instead of the sinner, and the sacrifice placed in the sinners room, thus charged with his sins, the priest was to offer to make atonement by, to expiate and make reconciliation in regard of man's sin, and god's wrath for the same. that these sacrifices were types of christ, our sacrifice in beating sin, appears abundantly, heb. 9.28. neither do we say, that this bearing of sin by christ doth free a person from being formally a sinner, but because we are formally sinners, therefore our sins are thus born to bring us to god, 1 pet. 3.18. the physical substratum of sin remains, and in us; yea, the moral macula in pravity and obliquity to be gradually removed in the application of christ's blood, by the spirit of holiness; but yet the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 before god must be taken away, which is the fault blamed by the law, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. dr. o. of justification, p. 287. proves sin was laid on christ as to the gild, which we have showed, and is either the sin itself, or is so conjoined with it, that it cannot be separated; where there is a demerit there is a fault; if christ had a demerit to sufferings it was for sin, though ours, and subjective in us, which his bearing sin by imputation always supposeth. his arguments are these. 1. if gild of sin was not imputed to christ, sin was not imputed to him in any sense, for the punishment is not sin. 2. there can be no punishment but with respect of the gild of sin, personally contracted or imputed; gild alone gives what's materially evil and afflictive, the formal nature of punishment; and what is gild but sin manifest by conviction, whereof the sinner is charged in foro dei, or in foro conscientiae. the first kind christ took off by bearing it, immediately the other is removed by application in believing. 3. christ was made a curse for us, gal. 3.13, 14. but the curse of the law respects the gild of sin only, [i. e. a person manifestly faulty, and a delinquent to the law.] 4. the express testimonies of scripture unto this purpose cannot be avoided, isa. 53.6. psal. 32.5, etc. 5. this was represented in all the sacrifices of old, especially in the great aniversary expiation with the ordinance of the scape-goat. 6. without supposition of this, it cannot be understood how christ should be our 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or suffer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. he likewise vindicates the imputation of sin to christ in the sense of gild opposed to punishment; from all these odious consequences that you would lay upon it; such as this: that if our sins be imputed to christ, than christ is a sinner and child of the devil. a. that which the scripture affirms is, that he was made sin for us; this the greek expositors, chrisostom, theophyl, oecumen. and many others take for a sinner, but all affirm that denomination to be taken from imputation only, he had sin imputed to him, and underwent the punishment. 2. this imputation did not carry with it any thing of pollution and filth of sin to be communicated by transfusion. 3. the denomination of an idolater, drunkard belongs not to him upon this account, etc. in sin there are three things. 1. the offence of god, which is the fault. 2. obligation unto eternal punishment, which is the gild. 3. the stain or pollution of the soul, the inherent vicious inclination of the soul. sin doth not remain in those that are justified in the two first respects, of fault and gild, both which are taken away by the death of christ. but sin doth remain in the regenerate according to the third respect; viz. the vicious quality and corruption thereof, inherent in the soul. pemble of just. p. 183. fol. pinch. saith, 2 cor. 5.21. the meaning of these words, is not that he was made sin for us but as a sacrifice for sin, etc. norton against pinch. p. 53. answ. he was made sin for us, as we are made righteousness, i. e. by judicial imputation, without the violation, yea, with the establishing of justice; he was made sin as he was made a curse, gal. 3.13. the greek word used here and there are the same: but he was made a curse by judicial imputation, because he was the sin-offering in truth; therefore he was made sin by real imputation, as the legal sin-offering was made sin by typical imputation. likewise in vindication of isa. 53.6. from pinchon's false glosses, who used this argument against imputation; christ's sacrifice was effectual to procure atonement, therefore sin was not imputed to him. p. 4. § 46. here is a mere nonsequitur; nay the contrary consequence is true christ appeared to put away sin, heb. 9.26, 28. was once offered to bear the sins of many, ver. 28. the greek word used here by paul, and elsewhere by peter, 1 pet. 2.24. signifieth to take, carry, bear up on high, and that so as to bear away; and in allusion to the whole burnt-offering,— the person that brought the sacrifice was to put his hand upon the head thereof— the apostle whilst he was speaking of the antitype, chooseth out such a word to express christ's bearing of sin, to teach us thereby that christ did both carry up and bear the load of our sins, imputed to him on the cross, and also bear them clear away: and thus isaiah, paul and peter sweetly agree together, and interpret one another, as concerning christ's bearing the imputation of gild and punishment of sin. see more in his refutation of that socinian. i do not see how he could be said to bear the punishment of sin, (that being strictly taken) if first he should not take its gild: we all grant christ's sufferings to be penal, but how could they have been so without gild? therefore having no gild of his own, he must be looked upon as assuming ours, upon which he might be said properly to undergo punishment: and he also vindicates, 2 cor. 5.21. showing that his being made sin, is his voluntary susception of the sinner's gild. dr. jacomb on rom. 8. p. 490. etsi peccatum interdum vocatur victima ex hebreor. idiotissimo, etc. yet the reason of the antithesis here requires that christ should rather be said to be made sin for us, i e. the sinner, not in himself, but from the gild of all our sins imputed to him, of which thing that pair of goats was a figure, levit. 16. beza on 2 cor. 5.21. quemadmodum christus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, coram deo peccatum nostrum & execrationem sustinuit, non fictè sed reverà; ita fidelis fiunt justitia dei, i. e. justi in conspectu dei, etc. i. e. as christ being righteousness and holiness himself, bore our sin and curse before god, not feignedly but really; so the faithful are made the righteousness of god. camerar. upon the same place. it is of singular consolation so to cloth christ with our sins, and to wrap him in my sins, thy sins, and the sins of the whole world. and so to behold him bearing our iniquities; for the beholding him after this manner, shall easily vanquish all the fantastical opinions of the papists concerning justification by works; for they do imagine by a certain faith form and adorned with charity, sins are taken away, and men are justified before god; and what is this but to unwrap christ, and strip him quite out of our sins, to make him innocent, and to charge and overwhelm ourselves with our own sins, and to look upon them not in christ but in ourselves? yea, what is this but to take christ clean away, and to make him unprofitable to us? luth. on gal. 3.13. — let us receive this most sweet doctrine, and full of comfort, with thanksgiving and assured faith, which teacheth, that christ being made a curse for us, (i. e. a sinner subject to the wrath of god,) did put upon him our person, and laid our sins upon his own shoulders, saying, i have committed the sins which all men have committed; therefore he was made a curse indeed according to the law, not for himself, but for us; for unless he had taken upon himself my sins, and thine, and of the whole world, the law had had no right over him; which condemneth none but sinners only, and holdeth them under the curse; but because he had taken upon him our sins, not by constraint, but of his own good will, it behoveth him to bear the punishment and wrath of god; not for his own person, which was just, but for our person. fol. 140. spanhem. saith, culpam & poenam esse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, adeoque se mutuo ponere & tollere, nec illam dari sine abnoxitate ad istam, nec istam sine retentione illius, absurdum est esse hominum culpae omnis & propriae & imputatae expertem poenae ulli addici. the sum whereof is, it is absurd to say, that a man can be void of his own sin, or the sin of another, and yet condemned to any punishment. spanhem. dub. evang. pars tert. p. 117. debate iii. of the discharge of the elect from sins upon their being laid on christ. neonom. gentlemen, you may remember what point was discoursed the last time we met in this conference: now mr. antinomian is come, i pray let us proceed in order and method, and if you please, i will propound the subject of our discourse, because i would have it to be such as may lead to discover the errors of the antinomians, and if it be possible to convince this gentleman whom i take to be so deeply immersed in them. calvin. i remember you have charged him with some already, how far he is guilty, we leave every man to his own judgement, to think as matters of proof doth evince: it's not a practice to subscribe our names to commend truth, or condemn error. have you any more errors to charge him with. neonom. yes sir, very foul ones, i will name you one, and it is this, he holds, that the very act of god's laying sin on christ upon the cross, is the very actual discharge of all the elect from all their sins. mr. antinom. are you sure, 1. that this is my opinion? and, 2. that if it be, it is an error? it may be there may be such an ambiguity in the terms of the question, that you may understand them in one sense and i in another, the greatest, i judge, lieth in actual discharge. but i pray make proof of your charge first, and then we will endeavour to find out the true matter in debate, and discuss the things in difference; it may be you mistake me. neonom. this is your declared opinion, that runs as a line thorough all your discourses, and is the foundation you build most upon. i say all the weight, and all the burden, and all that very sin itself is long ago laid upon christ; and that laying of it upon him, is a full discharge, and a general release and acquittance unto thee, that there is not any one sin now to be charged on thee. did not you speak these words in a sermon you preached, you know where, upon isa. 53.6. d. c. p. 298. antinom. yes, i did speak these words; but you deal with me as you always have been wont to do, you rehearse only part of my words, and conceal or take no notice of such expressions as may make my true meaning manifest. i was speaking to that place, rom. 8. it is god that justifies, who is he that condemns? i said the same god that justifies, will not eat his own words, and pass sentence of condemnation upon a person that hath received the sentence of absolution already: no, you will say, god doth not condemn, but he will let sin be charged upon the spirit of a man; doth not he then sentence him to be unjust? answ. there be divers condemnations: condemnation in sentence, and condemnation in execution. condemnation in sentence is the pronouncing such a person guilty. the other is the execution of punishment deserved for this guilt, and it's but an effect of condemnation, rather than condemnation itself; so far as god charges fault upon a person, so far he condemns that person; so that if god should charge a person as faulty, how can you believe still that this person is manifested and pronounced just by god? i beseech you stop your ears against the quirks of satan, and of your hearts deceived by him, clamouring still to you, that sin lies upon your own spirits. it is but the voice of a lying spirit in your own hearts, that saith, that you that are believers have yet sin wasting your consciences, and lying as a burden too heavy for you to bear, [now comes in the words which you rehearsed] i say all the weight, and all the burden, and all the very sin itself, etc. dr. cr. p. 292. now i pray judge whether this gentleman hath dealt fairly with me. calvin. no indeed, i must needs say he hath not; for you see he speaks not of the elect indefinitely; but of believers, and is it not of the devil that any true believer lies under conscience-wasting sins? and was not all the sins of the elect laid long ago upon christ, in full discharge of every believer? and is not every believer bound in duty to believe it so? mr. neonom. you teach that the elect are justified before they do believe; otherwise till such believing, the person of the elect doth bear his own transgression, and is chargeable for them. d. cr. p. 616, 617. antinom. sir, i was preaching from 1 john 2.1, 2. and was showing faith is the fruit of our union with christ, and proved it from, john 15. i am the vine, and ye are the branches; and i shown that there must be a union to christ before the branch could bring forth fruit; and that fruit is faith, and proceeds from our radical union with christ. i also alleged, col. 3. your life is hid with christ in god, etc. and inferred that the life of every elect person hath a being in christ before he doth believe; believing therefore doth not produce a new life that was not before, [i. e. fundamentally and efficaciously to the producing of faith,] but it makes that life that was before an active life, or is an instrument by which that life which was hid in christ, doth now after believing become an active, and appearing life in this person. so that all that can be made of this, is that till believing there is no life and activity in the person that is elected, his life is in christ, and was in christ, and reserved in christ for him till the time of believing; and then doth he, the elect person become active in life when christ doth give him to believe actually. d. c. 615. calvin. and do you mr. neonom. reckon this false doctrine, i wonder what kind of gospel you preach; i am much deceived, if this be not true gospel doctrine, and so strongly built that no sophistry, or all the gates of hell will never shake. i see every thing is not false doctrine which you are pleased to call so. neonom. truly now it plainly appears that i am not mistaken in charging calvinists with antinomianism, if all be of this gentleman's opinion. antinom. but sir, if you be pleased to give me leave, i will proceed in the further account of my discourse. i showed the dangerous consequences that must follow this principle, that there is no justification, [i. e. fundamentally] and union at all belonging unto elect persons, till they do actually believe in christ. i say if persons are not united unto christ, and do not partake of justification before they do believe, but that believing is the instrument by which they are first united. 1. that this in some respect would be bringing to life a covenant of works, do this and live; whereas the covenant of grace runs upon contrary terms, live and do this: god in the covenant of grace gives life first, and doing comes from life. 2. if there must be our act of believing before our participating of christ, than those sins that were laid upon christ, and taken away from the elect, [i. e. in foro dei] are returned back again— i say, if there must be believing before there be union with, or interest in christ, it must necessarily follow the person doth bear his own transgression, is chargeable for them, and imputed to him— hence, 3. if they bear their own sins, till they actually believe, there must be an hatred of god to such persons till they believe actually, [which is death,] and a person may perform a vital act in a state wherein he is actually dead, and at the same time. 4. this must follow, that there's believing before union with christ, and then there must be some other root from which this fruit of faith doth spring; and it's said heb. 12. expressly, christ is the author of our faith. i have received this principle merely for the vindication of the glorious privileges which are proper and peculiar to christ alone, and therefore refer the being of faith itself to christ; to this end i deliver, that elect persons have a participation and share in christ himself, even before they do believe; neither would i thereby diminish the prerogative of believing; for there are glorious things done by faith in believers: god hath honoured it above all mere creatures in the world; he hath made it the conduit-pipe for the conveyance of all peace and comfort; nay of all that strength which believers have all their lives; no faith, no comfort, no faith no peace of conscience, no faith no pleasure to walk with god— the soul lies in darkness while in unbelief. but still that which is proper and peculiar to christ alone, is not to be ascribed to believing. d. cr. p. 616, 617, 618. calvin. mr. neonom. we shall be the better able to take our measures, if you will be pleased to state this point aright, and tell us what we may receive for undoubted truth, and what is to be anathematised for error in your judgement. neonom. i'll tell you then first what is truth. truth. the atonement made by christ by the appointment of god, is that for which alone the elect are pardoned, when it is applied to them. d. w. c. 3. p. 15. antinom. pray sir give me leave to make my remarks as you dictate, because my memory is but short. 1. you grant then that there is a complete atonement wrought, finished and accepted by god; if so, there is a fundamental life of justification laid up and reserved for them in christ. 2. that this precedes their actual justification by faith. 3. that this influenceth to justification by faith and is objective to faith, and meritorious of faith, and of the work of the spirit working faith. neonom. but the elect are not immediately pardoned, upon christ's being appointed to suffer for them, nor as soon as the atonement was made. antinom. the question is, whether there is not upon christ's atonement pardon with god that he may be feared? or whether there be not a life laid up for them in christ which needs no addition to it? there is a difference between pardon and pardoned; one is the abstract, and the other the concrete. we say where there is atonement for any, there is pardon; but it follows not that because there is pardon for any, that therefore they are pardoned; there may be a pardon sealed for a traitor by the king, and yet he not pardoned, but the law proceeds against him, till the pardon is sent down and read in court. so the pardon is certain and finished for all the elect, but they have not the particular pardons taken out, nor pardoned till they believe. neonom. nor is that act of laying sins on christ, god's forgiving act by which we are personally discharged. antinom. i doubt you are too presumptuous, to prescribe to god which shall be his forgiving acts, and which not; if god's laying sin on christ be not of a pardoning and forgiving nature to us, i know not what it was, did he not do it as a god pardoning iniquity, transgression and sin? was it not his casting our iniquities behind his back? and is it not this act of god which reacheth every elect person unto actual pardon and forgiveness? yea, are we not justified by this act of god apprehended and applied by faith? for is not an act of god removing sin from us, and laying them on a surety, a pardoning act. calvin. i pray sir deliver yourself more distinctly, for you do darken and confound things extremely. neonom. i will tell you what is not in dispute between us in divers particulars, that you may not take up a wrong sense. 1. the question is not, whether christ made a full atonement for sin. antinom. give me but the right scent of you (which is hard to keep, you make so many banks and turns) and i will follow you as close at the heels as i can. you grant christ made full atonement for sin; there's pardon in that atonement without question for all god's elect. atonement always carries pardon in it as its formal nature, or else it's no atonement. neonom. 2. nor whether that shall in time be applied to the elect for their actual remission as the effect of it? d. w. p. 16. antinom. then there is atonement wherein is pardon eventually certain; i. e. shall certainly be applied, and being applied is actual remission as the effect; therefore this atonement is the remission, as the cause and as the object to be applied. neonom. 3. nor whether we be so far released thereupon, as that god can demand no atonement from any who shall submit to the gospel way of application of it. antinom. it seems then if they will not submit to the gospel way of application, god can demand some other atonement from them. i never understood before that the suffering of the damned was atonement; for where there's atonement god is at last appeased, but he will never be appeased toward the damned. 2. you said but now that the application of the atonement to the elect in time should be (i understood you) certain, but now you make it only conditional, in case of their submission to the gospel way of application. neonom. nor 4thly, whether the law be answered, and god's honour so vindicated thereby, that the sins of men cannot hinder an offer and promise of forgiveness and life. antinom. there's a great theological intriegue here, we must endeavour to unravel it. what do you mean by answering the law, is it by active or passive obedience, or both? and for whom? for some absolutely or conditionally? you tell us of a conditional atonement, and such an atonement the scripture is a stranger to. 2. you would have us to understand the end and use of atonement is to fence and secure god against his law, that so he might be at liberty to save men; this is to make an atonement to sin, and not for sin; your suggestion is, that god cannot in honour offer life and salvation till his law be vindicated, i. e. i suppose he took out of the way, and abolished that law, so another law more practicable might be set up in the room of it; this is a fine way of vindicating a law, to abrogate it. neonom. nor whether, when we are pardoned, the whole meritorious cause of pardon be that atonement, and what is required of sinners is only a meetness to receive the effects of it. antinom. what do you mean by the whole meritorious cause? do you exclude christ's active obedience from the meritorious causes? and do you mean the merit of satisfaction or procurement? there's a great deal of difference in the case before us; and what is the meetness? whether it be not a meetness of congruity, if not of condignity? and whether this meetness be not of the effects of christ's merits, and if not from what other cause it ariseth? neonom. nor whether this atonement is the only way of forgiveness which we can apprehend? antinom. i had thought a meetness to be forgiven, had been with you one way to be forgiven, which you make to be distinct from atonement, and the meritorious cause of forgiveness. now sir, you say these things are not the question, but they are questionable to me; you might have told us of a thousand more questions which are not ours; for there is no one thing but in genere disparatorum is separate from all other things in the world. but after, sir, you have freed our brains from the mixture of all impertinent questions, i pray put your finger upon the very spot. neonom. the real difference, lies in two things. 1. whether the elect were actually discharged of all their sins at the time that christ made atonement? d. w. p. 16. antinom. the question is, whether a believer is not to look upon the laying of his sins on christ his full release; for i speak of an elect believer; i say not that any other can, whether elect or no; for all the burden and load of sin was long ago laid on christ, it is not now to do. neonom. having spoken to the question before, i insist now only upon this, whether the very act of laying sin upon christ on the cross, be the discharge of the elect from all sin? antinom. you state your questions still with great ambiguity; for what mean you by the act of laying sin on christ? the laying sin on christ must suppose and imply all things that conduced to the making him a complete sacrifice for sin, god's acts and his own: on god's part it's to be supposed there was not only a charge of christ, but a discharge on christ's part; not only a subjection to the charge, but a suffering by way of satisfaction; not only an undertaking of the debt, but a payment; i suppose you mean, whether the atonement that christ made was in any sense a discharge unto the elect; for no wise person will give a discharge to a debtor till the money be paid, or suretyship accepted; now than we distinguish of pardon, it was perfect and complete by way of impetration for all the elect, but it hath not an actual application till the persons are in being to whom it is to be applied; and that application in regard of the time of their lives, is according to the dispensation of grace. now all this you seem to grant, and need not put to any further question; you say christ made full atonement for sin, and it shall be certainly applied; you say only that a sinner is not discharged till application: we distinguish of discharge. 1. there's that which is virtual and fundamental, and real in christ; or else he could not have rose; for the charge upon him was our sins, and he must have a discharge as a surety; and it was the elects discharge in the mind of god and of christ, and really transacted. but 2ly, there's a personal sensible discharge, which is at or by application. now then in the same sense that christ bore our sins by imputation, as a representative, in that sense we were discharged; for the discharge must be as large and full as the charge, to the very person of christ, and all he undertook for, or else he is bearing sin still, and the sins of some of the elect must be still upon him. and 3ly, if christ obtained what he bore our sins for, than he had a discharge not only for his own person, but for all he undertook for and represented; and christ having made good and full payment, cannot remain undischarged, for he finished the work which his father appointed him to do. neonom. but we can claim no interest in his atonement till we believe. antinom. a sinner's first ground of claim is the promise and free offer of christ in the gospel, and faith is a laying hold upon him, and receiving of him in whom is full atonement and pardon. it is one thing to have jus ad rem, and another to have jus in re; a child new born, or to be born heir of an estate, hath a good right to the inheritance, else he could not be heir, which is previous and lies dormant until the time of claim and possession, and therefore the apostle seems to speak in this way of allusion, eph. 1.11. he saith, in whom we have obtained an inheritance, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and it's grounded upon what he said, ver. 7. in whom we have redemption. and dr. goodwin saith, that the apostle speaks not there of the redemption that we have here, [i. e. the fruits of redemption] but of the work of redemption which christ himself hath wrought, which is the cause of all the redemption we receive. and 2dly, we have redemption in christ as in a common person; and we have it not only when it is applied to us, but we have it in him as we had condemnation in adam before we were born into the world; so we had redemption in christ when he died. so dr. goodwin on eph. 1. neonom. it was not that will or purpose of god, or christ, that the laying our sins on christ should be the immediate discharge of the elect, john 6.40. 1 pet. 1.2. d. w. p. 17. antinom. it was the will and purpose of god and christ, that upon christ's satisfaction for sin he should have an immediate discharge, and all the elect virtually and really in him, a general discharge, but not manifested, and personally applied to particular persons, and in this sense the elect are discharged at and by application; and the places mentioned hold forth no more than this; and this is all the dr. saith, that the church had a general discharge in christ, not a particular application till being. neonom. this overthrows the whole scheme so wisely contrived for the distribution of the effects of his death. antinom. it may overthrow your scheme, but it overthrows no true scheme of the gospel mystery. antinom. things are so adjusted, that forgiving the elect should be the effect of christ's kingly office as well as his priestly office, acts 5.31. 1 cor. 6.11. acts 26.18. antinom. christ wrought out our forgiveness by way of atonement as a priest, and god was atoned and appeased thereby; and therein he also gloriously triumphed in his kingly office, spoiling principalities and powers, triumphing over them on the cross, col. 2.14. and through death he destroyed him that hath the power of death, even the devil, heb. 2.14. in that place, christ is meant in all his offices; first as a priest entered into the holiest of all, heb. 4.14. application is by virtue of his intercession to obtain the ends of his death; likewise as a prophet he teacheth by his spirit and gospel, the promise of eternal life, and the whole mystery of his incarnation, and sufferings, and exaltation; he as a king conquers and subdues the hearts of sinners to himself, and gives forth the promise of the father, and hence there comes the application of pardon, and that life laid up and hid in himself, colos. 3.1, 2, 3. and all the places mentioned by you, speak but of our receiving forgiveness, so all the offices of christ have the honour due unto them, when we were enemies we were reconciled by the death of his son, rom. 5.10. reconciliation was by his atonement; and therefore the apostle saith, ver. 11. not only so, but through jesus christ we have now received the atonement; viz. through all christ, in all his offices; it's one thing to make atonement, and for god to be reconciled to us; that is the accomplishment of the reconciliation of god to the elect, considered as sinners: and another thing to reconcile us, which is done by the gospel ministry, whereby also we receive the atonement. dr. davenant having showed many ways of redemption, saith, vltima & unica ratio nos redimendi, est ea quae fit per modum justitiae, etc. the last and only way of redemption, is that which was by way of justice all our debts being paid by our surety jesus christ; which price being paid, the great debt is discharged, 1 pet. 1.18. christ averts the wrath of god from us, by undergoing the punishment undue to him, to free us from our debt, gal. 3.13.— and here it is to be observed, that although the devil do detain us captives, yet the price of our redemption, viz. the blood of christ, was offered in satisfaction to god, not to the devil, etc. deo satisfactum & expiata sunt peccata nostra. dr. davenant on colos. 1.14. neonom. arg. 3. by the opposite error the elect would have been discharged if christ had never risen again. antinom. we excepted against this quirk before, as if any man understood not by laying sin on christ, all things that concern the satisfaction to be made; speaking of things by synechdoches and metonimy's as the scripture doth, mentioning sometimes the blood of christ, sometimes his body, for all the satisfaction of christ by sufferings, and by metonymies the cross of christ for his sufferings on the cross. secondly, christ's satisfaction had never been completed if he had never risen from the dead, and then we had been still in our sins, 1 cor. 15. and 1 pet. 1.3. but let your supposition go, (though no such thing is to be supposed) make what you can of it; and observe, i pray, was not the sins of believers under the law actually taken away before christ either died or rose again? i say if a creditor do accept of an insolvent person for paymaster, and cancel the debtor's bond, the said creditor cannot recover his debt of the principal, though it may affright him, fearing it is not canceled; there's nothing truer than that the handwriting of the law that was against us, which was contrary to us, was taken away and nailed to the cross, col. 2.14. dr. davenant after a long explanation of the text, saith, in all these words this one thing is showed, that by virtue of the passion of christ dying upon the cross, the damning power of the moral law was taken away, and all the rites of the ceremonial law were at once abrogated. the handwriting of the law bond us to obedience, and bound us over to punishment for non-performance thereof; christ therefore our surety, by performing that exact obedience which the law required, and undergoing the punishment which the law exacted of the violators thereof, did that which we were bound unto by this handwriting; and so blotted out the handwriting, for the blood of him being shed who was without spot, the handwriting of all faults are blotted out, as augustine saith, christ was made in subjection to the law, that he might redeem them that are subject to the law, gal. 4.4, 5. dr. davenant on the place. he adds, but that is to be observed, this handwriting may be said to be blotted out two ways. 1. quoad deum, as to god, vniversaliter & sufficienter, universally and sufficiently, because there is such satisfaction given to god by the blood of christ; because that handwriting of the law cannot be exacted of any as debtors, when they fly by faith to this redeemer, but he must absolve them. 2. particulariter & efficaciter, particularly and efficaciously, when it is actually blotted out from the consciences of individual faithful ones who do apprehend christ by faith, [and he follows the true spiritual sense of this scripture most evangelically, i choose to give the sum of it, because it decides the whole point in controversy most excellently,] according to that of the apostle, rom. 5.1. a man in debt cannot have peace so long as he sees he owes more money than he can pay, and sees he is bound in a bond under his hand to the payment thereof; but as soon as any person apprehends christ by faith; immediately the handwriting is canceled [in his view] and he enjoys blessed peace of conscience. here paul excellently resolveth the case of doubting consciences by an admirable kind of gradation; not content with what he had said in the former verse, all your sins are forgiven; but he adds, the very handwriting is canceled; but it may be said, happily not so blotted out but a new suit may arise, he subjoins therefore è medio sublatum, it is taken out of the way; but it may be said again, it may be it's kept and hid, and hereafter may be produced; yea, saith the apostle it's nailed to the cross, cruci affixum, it is canceled, torn in pieces and nailed to the cross; this he saith, we ought to believe; not only that christ hath deserved the blotting out of this handwriting, but that it is even actually blotted out as to ourselves in particular. i think sir, now i need say no more of this debate, seeing i have given you the opinion of the learned dr. and of whose opinion i know you are in the point of universal redemption; and i believe your other arguments are here answered. neonom. i will allege them for all that. arg. 4. if taking sins of the elect, and laying them on christ was their discharge, they would be discharged before the sufferings and death of christ, etc. d. w. p. 18. antinom. this argument is as it were the same with the former, and admits the same answer. and would it be so absurd to say a believer may be discharged before the death of christ, were not the faithful under the old testament discharged before the death of christ? we say, when the charge of sin is taken off from one and laid upon another, there is a discharge real in one sense or another. generaliter; but not particulariter; here is a blotting out of sin, quoad deum, though not quoad conscientiam. christ took away sin by way of suretyship before he did it actually, and so the faithful before his coming were saved. neonom. if this error hold, the gospel notion of forgiveness by the blood of christ is destroyed. d. w. p. 19 antinom. you mean i suppose if this be truth; no, it confirms gospel forgiveness by the blood of christ; but prove that it destroys it. neonom. forgiveness denotes a person guilty; it is a judicial act of god as rector acting by a gospel rule. antinom. the apostle saith, he justifies by free grace through the redemption of christ, that he may appear just also, in so doing, because his justice is satisfied. he shows god justifies sitting on a throne of grace; grace is the impulsive cause so far as it consists in the pardon of a sinner; but it is through the righteousness of christ to show forth his righteousness, and in forgiving in and through the righteousness of christ; he hath the high concurrence of justice therein, that as he is a gracious justifier, so he is justified as righteous by doing it in this way; and whereas you say, it's a judicial act of god, acting by a gospel rule; i think you should rather say, it is a gracious act of god acting according to the rules of justice therein; for so the apostle clearly describes it, rom. 3.24, 25. and methinks you turn my stomach to hear you give so pitiful, a low and mean title to god as a rector, (as if he were but a mayor of a corporation, or some little earthly prince.) neonom. and this supposeth the full and perfect atonement made by christ, and the grant made in virtue thereof. antinom. what have we been disputing about all this while? i am glad to see mr. neonomian's ingenuity, that now he grants all we dispute about, only differs in naming a thing; you say the atonement of the wrath of god by christ for sinners (which is in my sense fundamentally and really pardon quoad deum) is full, complete and perfect; and that forgiveness supposeth it, and the grant made in the virtue thereof; if you had said, it had been the grant made in the virtue thereof, i take it you had spoken your own sense fuller, than to say it supposeth the grant made in the virtue thereof; unless you mean the grant made to christ as our representative, which comes more to our sense; but let these mistakes in expression pass. you seem to distinguish between a discharge and a discharge, so do we; you distinguish between an accepted atonement for us, and giving out the grant and patent to us, and so do we; between impetration and application, and so do we; between forgiveness in foro dei, and forgiveness in foro conscientiae, or evangelii; but as to that first i find you do not love to call it forgiveness, though you think it carries the nature of forgiveness in it; why should you represent me as such an heretic, to scare people from my ministry upon the mere naming a thing, by a word which by your own terms contain the nature and substance. neonom. but forgiveness supposeth a person guilty. antinom. christ's bearing sin supposeth all the world is become guilty before god, and the elect as well as others; and therefore he became a propitiation for sin to god, that we who are by nature under the law, and thereby condemned as children of adam, and in our own consciences, and thereby guilty, might receive forgiveness of sins, or an atonement (both signifying the same thing) by believing. a man is reus quoad deum, & reus quoad ministrationem legis in conscientiâ; and in this sense shut up under the law till faith comes, and then is his personal and particular discharge through the blood of christ; and this last i apprehend to be the justification by faith, which the apostle paul speaks so frequently of; neither do i say that this or that man hath any part in christ or pardon, any more than in election and redemption, till he doth believe. neonom. but you are of opinion a person is never guilty. antinom. i never had any such opinion, if you distinguish right concerning gild. neonom. you say man, that sins were laid on christ before we were born, and therefore never upon us. antinom. how old are you? was not christ's death and suffering almost 1700 years ago? and do you not say sins were laid then on christ; and if they were then laid on christ, they cannot return to us in the sense as they were taken off from us; and therefore they are never upon us in the same manner as they are on those that are not elect, and this must be in respect of gild quodamodo, some kind of guilt; distinguish then of guilt, there is guilt in respect of the righteous judgement of god in foro dei; and guilt that accompanies the letter of the law setting in with our consciences, and in that sense the law worketh wrath. sins were laid upon christ, and they lie upon us, but not both in the same manner, nor for the same end. neonom. a judicial act by a rule there is none. antinom. what your new terms of art mean, i will not trouble myself, my scheme, as you term it, of justification, imports that god graciously pardons in a way of manifestation of his justice, and all god's acts are according to the rule of his good pleasure, and will, and that's enough. neonom. for the gospel grant of pardon is not to the elect as elect; but as penitent believers, neither is the atonement of christ supposed to our forgiveness. antinom. pardon as to the nature of it belongs to sinners, as such, & eo nomine; faith and penitency is given together with remission of sins; and how can you have the face to say, i do not suppose atonement in forgiveness, or belonging to it, when it's upon that account that you have fell so foully upon me, because you think i lay too great a stress on atonement, and give too much to it in forgiveness. neonom. you own the laying of our sins on christ before the making of atonement; and without our sins lay on christ, he could not justly be punished. antinom. and do not you own that its first in nature to making atonement, and how could christ be justly punished without he had the merit upon him either by his own sins, or by the sins of others; but i find you own a man may be justly punished that deserves it in no sense whatever. neonom. so that our discharge being a transferring of sin from us to christ, and this being done before christ made atonement, we are discharged not for the atonement of christ, nor by any act of forgiveness for the sake of this atonement; i need not add, that by this notion heathens may be in a pardoned state, and there's no need of the gospel or knowledge of christ to bring them out of a state of wrath. antinom. i hope by this time you have pretty well spent your powder and ball. i told you before, when we spoke of laying sins on christ, we understand his offer to bear them, the charge and imputation laid on him, and the payment he made of our debt, all which is the atonement; for bearing of our sins was an essential part of it, as shedding his blood was of the payment; this payment and bearing sin was in the eye of god from eternity as if already done; hence the patriarches were actually and personally justified by it; and doth it follow that they were justified without christ's atonement? and whereas you talk of god's acts of forgiveness, you should tell us what you mean; if immanent, there's but one act of forgiveness, there's no new acts arise in god, and it was the promise of eternal life before the world began, tit. 1. if you mean a transient act, it's but one, viz. the performance of that promise to christ our surety and head, and to us in him, virtually and fundamentally, 1 john 5.11. this is the record that he hath given us eternal life, and this life is in his son; and from him derived to us, terminates in and upon us by the same effectual grace of god in christ towards us; so that the same forgiving act of god terminates in christ and in us, and therefore you must allow our life of forgiveness first in christ, and then bestowed upon us in and through him, whereby we are as sinners brought in to him, and receive of his fullness both for justifying and sanctifying grace. whereas you say, heathens by this notion may be in a pardoned state; you foist in another term to impose upon us, as if we had said, that immediately upon laying sins on christ, all the elect were in a pardoned state; there's none can be in a pardoned state before a being natural, nor before a being spiritual at least beginning; but what hinders but that the eternal life which is given me, should be in christ before i was born, and infers not that therefore when i come into the world there will be no need of gospel or knowledge of christ to bring me out of my natural estate into christ? see colos. 1.25, 26, 27. ephes. 3.3, 4, 5, 6. and are not gentiles as well as jews pardoned through christ? neonom. the assemblies at westminster and the savoy are both against you. antinom. they say in a manner but as we do, if you distinguish between a forgiveness in christ and forgiveness bestowed, between impetration and application, justification and justified. neonom. i will show you your mistake, mr. antinomian; because it was god's act to appoint christ to suffer for our sins, that we might in his way and time be discharged, therefore you think we are immediately discharged by that act. antinom. you take greatly upon you, to tell what i think, and makes me think contrary to what i have expressed; you take upon you to make me speak what you please, and to think what you please; i take you to be a fit man to be a guide; was there nothing but god's appointing christ to suffer for our sins? was there not god's accepting of his sufferings for us? was not christ justified from the sins of the elect? for when he risen, was there not a radical justification of all the elect in christ? if there had not been so, they could never have been personally justified: but you would have christ only purchase our justification by something else; but i must believe and say that he wrought out our justification, which being in him, is the same that we do partake of; and that our discharge is begun and carried on in christ, and is completed in him, and received by faith in his blood. neonom. because christ's atonement is the sole meritorious cause of forgiveness; therefore he thinks god suspends not forgiveness till he works any thing else in the soul, which he made requisite to our being forgiven, though not as a meritorious cause. antinom. no, you mean christ shall have the honour of being the meritorious cause, but it is that way of justification intended that christ hath merited, that though we have broken the law, and cannot be justified by it; that a new way of justification should be set up, not through his blood, but by something else a peculiar qualification that shall make us meet to be forgiven, that there may be some reason found in the sinner why he should be forgiven; this is now the new divinity to shame off the satisfaction of christ from the justification of a sinner; and you think you have been very kind to christ, to say, this new qualifications are not meritorious causes, but christ's suffering was, though they must stand afar off and look on upon a justification by something else. calvinist. i think, as you said, mr. antinomian's ambiguity lies in the word discharge, concerning which you must distinguish, there's liberatio in christo, & liberatio à christo; though mr. antinomian hath abundantly cleared himself, as to his intention and meaning; but you mr. neonomian are so harsh in your censures, that nothing but the worst interpretation of his words can be admitted by you. my opinion is, that as christ bore our sins by imputation; so he made full payment of our debt, and had a discharge so far as concerned himself and us, represented by him and in him; and hence through this discharge, and the perfection of the new nature in freedom from all original and actual sin, and perfection of all righteousness, our eternal life which god hash given us, is fully and completely in him both for grace and glory. i say fully, fundamentally, originally, and as in a fountain or root, and of this fullness we do receive, even faith the first vital act, and by faith all discharge in justification, and all conformity to him in sanctification through the operation of the spirit of holiness; so that it was impossible but christ must be discharged bearing our common nature, and standing in our stead; and that we were in our measure discharged in him; but it is also as impossible that we should be discharged personally, and in ours, till we had our personal being's, and were first in that state, and under that wrath in some regard, from which we were to be delivered, and brought into the new nature by reconciliation and actual union on our part, and till than we are prisoners of the law, without god, without hope, aliens to the covenant of promise. this account i trust may give both satisfaction, and i think it's that which is generally received as the truth of the gospel by the orthodox. i think those testimonies, mr. neonomian, brought for your extreme, do all in a manner say as i have said, they do not so deny the discharge of the elect before believing, as to deny christ's discharge, and the elects in him, so far as they were capable, nor do they assert our discharge in christ so as to affirm our personal discharge before faith. the assembly saith thus, the lord jesus christ by his perfect obedience and sacrifice of himself, which he through the eternal spirit once offered up to god, hath fully satisfied the justice of his father, and purchased not only reconciliation, but an everlasting inheritance in the kingdom of heaven, for all those which the father hath given to him. assembls. confess. c. 8. 5. [hear are two things that christ hath done, satisfied for our sins, and over above purchased a great estate, he could not have done the latter had he not done the former; and he hath the grant or covenant deeds in his hands; the lamb's book of life wherein the names of all that are given him are recorded and enrolled; and this is life which he now hath the dispensation of in his due time through the gospel; and therefore they further say, § viii. to all those to whom christ hath purchased redemption, he doth certainly and effectually apply and communicate the same, etc.] the catechism and savoy confession say the same in effect in every thing; and so doth dr. owen. when the lord christ died for us, and offered himself a propitiatory sacrifice, god laid all our sins on him, isa. 53.6. 1 pet. 2.24. then he suffered in our stead, and made full satisfaction for all our sins, as appears, heb. 9.26. c. 10.14. he whose sins were not actually and absolutely satisfied for in that one offering of christ, shall never have them expiated unto eternity;— notwithstanding this plenary satisfaction, yet all men continue equally to be born by nature children of wrath— dr. owen of justification, 305 [this old nature christ never purchased and redeemed, but intended always to pull down and destroy, for the whole nature is under wrath; and we cannot be in a state of life till we be in the new nature, and be created in christ jesus.] what the lord jesus christ paid for us, is as truly paid as if we had paid it ourselves;— and what he underwent and suffered, he underwent and suffered in our stead; but yet the act of god in laying our sins on christ, conveyed no actual right and title to us, [i. e. immediately, for all our actual right is founded on it, and flows from it,] therefore he adds,] they are not immediately thereon, nor by virtue thereof ours, or esteemed ours, [personally and in possession] because god hath appointed something, not only antecedent thereunto, but the means thereof; viz. imputation of christ's righteousness to us. i shall add the state of the question how the learned dr. prid. states the question de satisfact. d. prid. praelect. 19 p. 297. the satisfact. christi. vtrum christus filius dei & b. virgins justitiae divinae [non commutativae sed distributivae & judiciali, tam premiativae quam vindicativae] verè h. e. non praecariò, impetratiuè, tantum aut metaphoricè, sed, reipsâ, meritoriè & integrè, non omittendo aliquid qui stricto jure fieri debuit, satisfecerit tam agendo quam patiendo quicquid saluti nostri erat requisitum. hic affirmamus orthodoxi cum nostris art. 31. obliquè negant papiculae, & subdolè labefactant remonstrantes. sed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quasi 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 apertè, & toto impetu oppugnant anabaptistae, familistae, & hisce omnibus acutiores & astutiores sociniani, hanc positionem confirmat variis argumentis irrefrigabilibus, & adversariorum objectionibus responsa dedit. christ satisfied the justice of god, not commutative but distributive, and judicial, as well remunerative as vindicative, not precariously, or by way of impetration only, or metaphorically, but really, meritoriously, and fully, not omitting any thing that in strict justice ought to be done, whatever was requisite to our salvation. christ by his obedience and death did fully discharge the debt of all those, that are thus justified, and did make a proper, real and full satisfaction to his father's justice, [i. e. for all them that should believe.] assemb. confess. c. 11. §. 3. and mr. neonomian, i must not forget to tell you that there is nothing more frequent than for mistaken men to tell others how much they are mistaken, as you do tell mr. antinomian about the scape-goat. neonom. i say he mistakes the type of the scape-goat, because the scape-goats carried their sins into the wilderness, who expressed faith and repentance by laying hands on it, and confessing sin, therefore the sins of men are taken away by christ while they continue impenitent and unbelieving. calvinist. you may see how in this matter you speak after the socinian, for they give this interpretation of this type; for though the confession of sin over the head of the scape-goat or sacrifice, did hold forth faith and repentance, yet there's a difference between an act typifying god's imputation of sin unto christ, and an act testifying our faith concerning god's imputation of sin to christ. norton against pinch, p. 49. so ainsworth, there's nothing more plainly holds forth christ's bearing away our sins to be remembered no more. so dr. prid. quemadmodum etiam hircus iste azazel sive emisso●is, habuit imposita super caput ipsis populi peccata, levit. 16.21, 22. haud alitèr christo contigit, quem proposuit deus, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, ipsius, rom. 3.25. prid. de satisf. as that azazel or scape-goat had the sins of the people laid on his head, and so was sent into the wilderness, leu. 16.21, 22. so christ was dealt with, whom god set forth for a propitiation through faith in his blood, to show forth his righteousness, rom. 3.25. which those sacrifices did manifestly point out (however they fell short in themselves) yet in relation to the antitype they were not only expiatory but also satisfactory, whence the satisfaction wrought by the antitype is the more strongly argued. praelect. de satisf. mr. norton. we may distinguish between the being of justification, and being justified, between justification in the abstract, and justified the concrete; that being without the receiving subject; this considered, together with the receiving subject, viz. the believer's justification considered in the abstract sense, and in itself (in which sense it signifies remission of sins and righteousness to acceptation prepared, though not yet conferred on the elect) hath before faith a being, not only in the purpose of god, but also in the covenant between the father and the son, and the mediator, and in the purchase of christ; this truth held forth in the gospel makes the object of faith, and thus the object is before the act. orthod. evan. p. 214, 215. mr. perkin's speaks, christ is first justified, acquit of our sins, and we justified in him. on gal. 3.16. dr. ames. our freedom or discharge [liberatio nostra] from sin and death was not only determined in the decree, but also granted and communicated to us in christ before it's perceived by us, rom. 5.10, 11. medul. c. 24. the sentence of justification was conceived in the mind of god by the decree of justifying, gal. 3.8. 2. it was pronounced in christ our head when risen from the dead, 2 cor. 5.19. 3. it's virtually pronounced from the first relation, which results from faith wrought in the heart, rom. 8.1.14. 4. this sentence is expressly pronounced by the spirits witnessing with our spirits our reconciliation to god, rom. 5.5. c. 1. c. 27. §. 9 mr. rutherford. there is a justification in the mind of god eternal, and a justification in time terminated in the conscience of a believer, exercit. apologet. per gratia, p. 45. he wrote against the antinomian; and therefore this testimony you have no pretence to refuse. dr. twiss speaks, and saith, the righteousness of christ was ours before we did believe, ours i say in respect of right; because in the intention both of the father and the son it was performed for us, though not in respect of possession and enjoyment. vind. grat. l. 1. p. 2. § 25. n. 5. p. 197. debate iv of the elects ceasing to be sinners from the time their sins were laid on christ. neonom. gentlemen, now we are come together again as we are wont, to make discovery of truth and error: i am willing we should be very clear in this point of imputation: for i will assure you, as it's usually understood, i cannot digest it: it's the foundation of this antinomian error; therefore i would propound this following question to be discussed at this time. q. whether the elect cease to be sinners from the time their sins were laid upon christ? calvin. this question is the same with the last, and it's resolved in the resolution of that, viz. so far as the elect are discharged by the satisfaction of christ, so far they cease to be sinners. neonom. you are mistaken, it is not the same question; there is difference between being discharged of sin in a way of justification, and ceasing to be sinners in respect of sanctification. calvin. ay, if that be your meaning: do you charge mr. antinomian with that error, that the elect never sinned since sin was laid on christ? neonom. ay, that i do, and will make good my charge too. calvin. say you so; then i have no more to say. mr. antinomian, answer for yourself. antinom. he saith what he pleaseth of me; for he hath a● inveterate spirit against me: however, i am willing to hear ●●at he saith. i pray, sir, declare your charge in express terms, that you will not start from, and then prove it. neonom. i must premise some things first, and then tell you, what's truth, that you may the better know the error, and judge of it. antinom. i had rather you would fall downright upon the error; for your way is to make long speeches and explications of things, that others know as well as you.— calvin. pray let him take his own way; sometimes the furthest way about is the nearest way home, they usually say. neonom. i premise two things. the first, that men are sinners, or not sinners in divers respects. 2. as to the filth or obliquity of sin, with respect to this they are more or less sinners, according to the degree of their innocence and holiness d. w. p. 22. antinom. there is nothing in sin but is filth and obliquity; god looks upon it all as so, as it stands in opposition both to justification and sanctification, and it consists in its contrariety to the moral rectitude of the law, and the duty required by it; where there's no law there's no sin: those actions that are gross sins in men, are no sins in bruits, because they are not under a moral law. and for degrees of innocency i know none, though there be of holiness. neonom. 2. with some as to the gild of sin, which refers to the sanction of the law against offenders; with respect to this, the offenders are more or less sinners, as they are forgiven or not forgiven. antinom. with some! what mean you by that some? i judge they are neonomians by the glimpse you give of them. you say the gild of sin is no more than this, that a man is bound over to be punished whether right or wrong; and a poor creature that is tried for murder is guilty, because he is to be hanged. i thought always that he was obliged to be hanged because he was guilty; and if the law finds not the fault upon him, he is never guilty. is it sense to say, a man is guilty? being whipped, burnt in the hand, or being hanged, never: unless he hang himself. obligation to punishment, or the punishment itself, is no sin, it's but an effect of it founded in the law. i do not understand more or less sinners in respect of gild, as forgiven or not forgiven; for in the sense of gild, whether the fault be more or less, forgiveness takes all off, and all sinners stand equally upon that account before god. a believer here on earth is as fully forgiven as a saint in heaven. justification admits not of degrees. but it may be you distinguish sinners in respect of gild, into forgiven and not forgiven, as men are more eminently sinners before justification than after. neonom. as to the charge of the fact, which was sinful, neither after-sanctification nor pardon will deliver a transgressor from having been a sinner; the fact was his. antinom. i told you already the charge of any one with sinful fact, which the party had done, makes him guilty, it is a fault; and though it be true, that the physical act clothed with its moral pravity was done by him, yet god forbidden that pardon and imputed righteousness should not deliver him from being a transgressor. i pray, is david now a murderer, and noah a drunkard? you would seem to speak some great thing, but you thought safest to change the tense, and say, from having been. neonom. the first and last denominate a man a sinner most properly. antinom. i.e. the filth of sin, and the charge of a sinful fact; and they are near a kin; for a sinful fact is filth, and the filth of sin is a sinful fact; and that's a fault, and a fault charged and proved, or confessed, is gild; so that its fault or gild (for they are reciprocal) denominates a sinner. neonom. the second denominates a man punishable, but not a sinner formally. antinom. this 2d is gild of sin, which, say some, is a relation to the sanction of the law: we say gild refers to the preceptive also, and is fault. you say, to the sanction only; and therefore i say, no sin. you say, the guilty person is no sinner formally. what then, a punishable creature? do you mean a creature capable of suffering; so is a dog, or a cat, or a horse: or do you mean a man under a law? if under a law, he is not punishable but as a sinner. sin is subjectiuè formalis ratio poenae, sin is subjectively the formal reason of punishment: so that a man must be denominated a sinner formally, or else he is not punishable in any way of justice. neonom. in the whole scheme of your principles, it's elect as elect who cease to be sinners. when you speak of believers, you do not mean that he was a sinner before he believed; for you state the time when christ had his sins laid upon him. d. w. p. 23. antinom. believers of great antiquity, older than methuselah. but methinks a man that would be taken for a great divine, and one that in tenderness to holiness will rather withhold the truths of the gospel, and abscond them, lest men should take too much liberty thereby to sin: i say, one would think such a man should for his reputation s●ke make conscience of speaking truth, and much more tremble at the temptation to bantering, and exposing the great truths of the gospel to scorn and reproach. how can you dare to toss, tumble, reproach and load this great truth of the gospel in the very words of the holy ghost, with all the odious consequences imaginable? you may value yourself as you please, or other men may judge of you and your words as they please; i shall only desire you to read job 19.27, 28, 29. neonom. now i will tell you what is the truth. antinom. no, no; i hope we know the truth. tell us the eror you charge me with, and if there be time, we will hear the truth afterward. neonom. if you are in such haste for it, you shall have it then. error. the elect upon the death of christ ceased to be sinners; and ever since their sins are none of their sins, but are the sins of christ; and this i prove to be your error from your own words. you put this objection, must he not be reckoned a sinner while he doth sin? a. i answer, no: tho he doth sin, yet he is not to be reckoned a sinner; but his sins are reckoned to be taken away from him, etc. a man doth sin against god; god reckons not his sin to be his, he reckons it christ's, therefore he cannot reckon it his. dr. cr. p. 8. antinom. gentlemen, i would have you observe the things that are asserted by mr. neonom. (for i beseech you do me justice) that it appears that i speak always of the elect as elect, and not believers; and when i mention believers, that i do not mean he was a sinner before he believed. i will read my discourse to you taken from me as i delivered it. preaching from john 14.6. i was showing christ was the way from a state of sinfulness— there is a twofold consideration of sinfulness, from which christ is our way in a special manner. 1. that which is called the gild of sin, which is indeed the fault, or a persons being faulty as he is a transgressor. is, 2ly. the power and over-masterfulness of sin in persons: christ is the way from both these. 1. from the gild of sin. christ is the way from the gild of sin: it is briefly no more but this, to be ●●d of the gild of sin, viz. upon trial to be quitted and discharged from the charge of sin that is laid, or may be laid to him, and to be freed from it: this is for a person in judgement to be pronounced actually innocent, and a just person, as having no sin to be charged on him: this is to be free from the gild of sin. a man is not free from a fault, as long as the fault is laid to his charge; and he is then free, when he is not charged with it— he is only the way by which a poor sinner may be pronounced innocent; and having proved, that christ is the way to take away the gild of sin, which, i say, is the charge of fault, by many plain places of scripture, and by the type of the escape goat: i came to answer this objection, but do not those that receive christ actually, commit sin? i answer, yea, they do commit sin; and the truth is, themselves can do nothing but commit sin. if a person that is a believer hath any thing in the world, he hath received that; if he doth any thing that is good, it is the spirit of god that doth it, not he: therefore he himself doth nothing but sin, his soul is a mint of sin. dr. cr. p. 3. & 8. now therefore judge, gentlemen, whether here i say, the elect ceased to be sinners ever since the death of christ: if sinners after believing, much more before, in respect of the indwelling of sin and corruption; and do not in this sense cease to be sinners after believing. i went on, then you will say, if he doth sin, must not god charge it where it is? [all this while speaking of a believer] must he not be reckoned to be a sinner while he doth sin? a. i answer, no; though he doth sin, yet he is not to be reckoned a sinner, [i. e. being a pardoned believer, god doth not reckon him so, and he ought by faith to behold all his sins taken away in christ] but his sins are to be reckoned to be taken away from him. a man borrows 100 l. some man will pay it for him: doth he not owe this 100 l. seeing he borrowed it? i say no, in case another hath paid it for him. a man doth sin against god, god reckons not his sin to be his, he reckons it christ's, therefore he cannot reckon it his, god hath laid it upon christ.— ' thou hast sinned, christ takes it off; supposing, i say, thou hast received christ. is this any other doctrine than what john teaches? 1 john 1.7, 8. chap. 2.1, 2. i say, in one respect they are not sinners, in another they are sinners. and is this any other doctrine than what the scripture and all our best divines teach: therefore judge ye how justly now i am charged with this error. neonom. but you said, if thou hast part in the lord christ [which he thinks all unbelieving elect have.] all those transgressions of thine become actually the transgressions of christ, and so cease to be thine. dr. c. p. 270. antinom. is it not very unfair dealing for you to impose a wrong meaning upon my words, when i express myself so plainly. if thou hast received christ, if thou hast a part in the lord christ, who will understand these expressions, but of our active receiving and partaking of christ? though i do speak elsewhere of our having benefit by christ, and a hidden right in him; and it hath an influence on us, and we are passive therein before we believe, yet it's not that i speak of here. i was showing from isa. 53.6. that christ is our great paymaster, and how sad a thing it is to have sin lying upon our spirits: separate sin from the soul, and the spirit hath rest in the worst conditions— you will never have quietness of spirit in respect of sin, till you have received this principle, [viz. by faith] that it is iniquity itself that the lord hath laid on christ. now when i say thus, i mean with the prophet, that it is the fault of the transgression, etc.— reckon up what sins thou canst against thyself; if thou hast part in the lord [i. e. by faith] all these transgressions of thine became christ's, [i. e. thou seest them laid on christ: not that they were just then laid on christ when thou believest: i would think your divinity is not so gross, as to assert that, but that a believer by faith sees that he is one of those elect ones, whose sins were laid on christ.] what the lord beheld christ to be, that he beholds his members to be.— so that if you would speak of a sinner, supposing that person of whom you speak to be a member of christ, [is this speaking of the elect merely as the elect, and no more?] you must not speak of what he manifests, but what christ was, pag. 271. what unsoundness, i beseech you, is in this doctrine? i pray speak, gentlemen. the company generally smiled; but being afraid to displease mr. neonomian, and affrighted at the name of antinomian, which mr. neonomian called every one that contradicted him, were silent: but at last a brisk gentleman, learned and solid, stood up and said, i think you have greatly abused mr. antinomian, and charged him unrighteously, both in your misrepresenting him, and in your charging him with error and false doctrine in the things alleged against him. for, saith he, i am not ashamed of the gospel of christ, though i see some of my brethren here seem to be so, that will not speak for the truth when they hear a man of confidence run it down. i say and affirm, that he that hath a part in christ, is confidently to believe that christ bore his sin in his body o● the tree, tit. 2.14. calvin. i pray mr. neonomian, give us your thoughts clearly what you hold, and what you deny in this point. neonom. i shall tell first what is not in dispute between us. calvin. there's 100 things are not now in question before us, i pray you to cut short, that we may not lose so much time; come to the very point in difference first. neonom. you are not capable of understanding it, till i have told you what is not in dispute: i'm sure you'll mistake the question, if i tell you not what the question is first. the difference is not, 1. whether the pardoned sinner shall be delivered from condemnation. d. w. p. 24. antinom. but it is, whether the pardoned sinner is not delivered from condemnation, and that delivery the ground and reason of his pardon. neonom. 2. nor whether god, for christ's sake, will deal with a pardoned sinner as if he had not been a sinner. antinom. the question is, whether god can deal with any one saluâ justitiâ, as if he were not a sinner, and yet be esteemed by him formaliter, and in the just sentence of the law, a sinner; and whether a pardoned sinner be in the righteous judgement of god a sinner; and can be a sinner and not a sinner at the same time, and in the same respect. neonom. 3. nor whether forgiveness doth take away sin as to its obligation to punishment. antinom. if fault in the judgement of the law be made the obligation to punishment, and the demerit of sin lies in the fault, it is a great question how the obligation to punishment can be taken away, without taking away the meritorious cause; and whether if the obligation to punishment could be taken away, without taking away the sin in the eye of the law, whether it were forgiveness; for forgiveness lies formally in taking off the fault, and but consequentially in remitting the punishment. neonom. nor whether the atonement of christ, when it's applied in its full effects, will perfectly remove all punishment, and purge away all filth and defilement from the elect: each of these i affirm. antinom. but it is a question, whether upon the atonement of christ made and accepted, any of the elect were punishable for sin in a way of vindicative justice, even before faith, much more after? so that the things which are without dispute to you, are questionable to us, especially according to your ambiguous way of expressing them. neonom. i shall now acquaint you with the questions that are in debate betwixt us. 1. whether because christ obliged himself to bear the satisfactory puunishment of our sins, they did therefore become the sins of christ? antinom. you state this question fallaciously. the question all this while between us is this, whether if god laid our sins upon christ, (in the way that he laid them) they did in that way become the sins of christ? if you will have it in the notion of christ's bearing punishment only, it must run thus, if christ was obliged to bear, or did bear satisfactory punishment, whether or no our punishment, or the punishment due to us did thereby become his? both these we affirm. neonom. whether our sins were pardoned when christ suffered on the cross. this you affirm, and i deny. antinom. i affirm it in my own sense, but deny it in your false and imposed senses. neonom. whether even they that are members of christ, yet if they do sin, are they transgressor's and sinners, and are the sins they commit their sins? this you deny, and i affirm. antinom. this question, as you you state it, i both affirm and deny; because in one sense a man must be a transgressor, in another none. but the question, whether the members of christ while sin remains, are sinners, and in the sight of god do stand fully justified from all sin? this i affirm. neonom. one would think this needed no proof, whether he that doth a sinful fact be a doer of it. antinom. it needs no proof, i always own it to be so. i tell you, the saints commit sin, and are therefore the doers of it; and i have told you, 'tis all that they can do of themselves, and that it is my sin, my sinful fact; and yet my debt that i contracted may become another man's, if he engageth for it. neonom. christ teacheth believers to pray for the pardon of sins, luke 11.4. antinom. so they had need, for sins are pardoned when they have it not, and it's to them as if they were not pardoned at all, if they have not the comfort. neonom. it would be vain to object, they pray for manifestation of pardon. antinom. why in vain? is it any more that a true believer can pray for? for he sees and knows all his sins are pardoned, but yet continues to pray for a further manifestation of pardon. did not david tell us what it is, psal. 1.10. restore to me the joy of thy salvation. neonom. for were it so, yet it is for our sins; it would sound strange to pray, forgive us the sins of christ. antinom. yes, we pray for the pardon of our sins that were laid on christ; and though we do not pray to forgive us the sins of christ, yet we pray to god to forgive us for the sake of christ, whose bearing of sin and satisfaction wrought, we always plead believing. but you will banter christ's bearing sins. neonom. the saints in scripture esteemed them their sins, and themselves sinners, when they committed sin, and found its motions, jer. 14.7. isa. 59.12. job 7.21. psal. 25.11. d. w. p. 25. antinom. so do we, though they and we ought to acknowledge sin always in faith of the pardoning mercy of god in christ; we should ask pardon in faith, nothing doubting; but sometimes there may be but weak faith, next to none, in god's children, and great doubtings, and therefore great gild lying upon their consciences, and from thence great darkness in times of temptation. thence did flow those pathetical expressions of many of the faithful from god's hiding of his face, and the weakness of their faith, as if they were reprobated ones, and cast away; and so it is even now sometimes: and though we believe christ hath born our sins, yet this is the greatest ground of true gospel-brokenness of heart, that they were our sins, and are now the product of corrupt flesh, the old man remaining in us, which we labour under, endeavouring to get more and more into christ by a strong faith, that the body of sin, the source of corruption in us, may be destroyed: therefore repentance and godly sorrow is exercised even for our sins laid on christ neonom. 3. god reckons sins to be their own; he reproves them, he forgave them, 1 john 2.12. jer. 33.8. rev. 2.20. rev. 3.19. 2 tim. 4.16. d. w. p. 26. antinom. sins are sins, and our sins, (we have said it again and again) and therefore reprovable in us, and to be forgiven in us by the application of pardon: all this hinders not, but that we be without fault before god, and our sins cast behind his back, we have a perfection and fullness of pardon and all grace in christ jesus, though sin itself was never reconciled to god; and therefore god sets us to the kill of it; christ destroyed sin on the cross, as to the obstructing god's complete love to the persons of the elect; so that it cannot condemn before god; but it is sin yet in the elect, and will accuse and condemn wherever it is, or at least the law will by reason of it, and therefore it hath its influence this way sometimes on the holiest men. it's in the nature of sin to condemn, but god doth not condemn for sin; though he condemns sin daily in the holiest men, and through unbelief they are apt to think their persons condemned of god himself. when god denounceth judgement against a sinful church or nation, they are ordinarily, hypocritical, profane and apostate, and therefore a mixed people, many or most under a covenant of works, and a people in their sins, which god awakens by threaten or judgements themselves; and therefore the places quoted by you affect us not. the force of your arguing lies here. those sins that god calls our sins, and we ought to call our sins, are not laid on christ and taken away; but god calls sins our sins, and we ought to call them so, ergo. the major is utterly false: for all places that we bring to prove, that sin was laid on christ, do call them our sins; and we speak of them as such, and its cause of abasement in ourselves, and thankful admiration of the free grace of god in christ, and so the church acknowledge their sins, jer. 14.7, 8. isa. 59.12, 16, 17. neonom. mark what will follow hence: no elect members of a church are justly censured for offences, and no christian criminal could be punished; for they are not the sinners, the sin is not theirs. antinom. it is a shame to hear a mininister argue in this manner: your argument runs thus; if the sins of the elect were laid on christ by imputation, than no church or court of judicature can proceed to condemn an offender, ergo. baculus stat in angulo, ergo pluit. doth man see and judge as god doth? is there no difference between forum divinum and humanum, ecclesiastic and civil; the law before man, and his administration of it, knows no difference of persons, it proceeds secundum allegata & probata: churches censures is in order to a justification before the church, that by faith and repentance it may appear, that god hath forgiven such an one, that he belongs to electing and redeeming grace, and the sinners sin laid on christ; and when they find that, they are soon reconciled to an offending member. and you say, if sins were laid on christ, no christian criminal can be punished. a very sad case indeed; for then any criminal condemned justly by man's law, can never be saved: for if christ bore not his sins, he can't be pardoned; nay, may not a godly man, through temptation, fall into a crime whereby he may justly suffer in foro humano; and doth this hinder his salvation by christ? and is it an argument his sins were never laid on christ? are not these consistent, a sinner and condemned by man's law, and an absolved sinner by the satisfied law of god? was not the converted thief a sinner justly condemned by man, though absolved by god, because christ bore his sins on the cross; and if he had repent before he had been hanged on the cross, would it have freed him from man's sentence. satisfaction to god's law is not to man's, nor satisfaction to man's is not to god's. men stay not execution of a malefactor because he reputes to salvation; but man's law must take its course upon him. i doubt not but the ordinary of newgate can teach you better divinity than this. a man may be in one respect guilty, and in another not: and so likewise god deals with his children two ways, in case of their eminent falls, in a way of his common providential government of the world, in foro mundi, as he dealt with david, that those evils of affliction (judgements in the apprehension of the men of the world) should befall them; and so in the participation of external, common calamities, there should not be any manifest difference between them and other men. therefore the wise man saith, that love and hatred is not known by these things. but notwithstanding all this, the other and certain way of god's dealing with them, is according to the covenant of grace, which is the secret of the lord: he fully pardons their sins, is reconciled to them in christ, will never leave or forsake them, his loving kindness shall not departed from them, and all things shall work together for their good. neonom. an hundred such consequences naturally proceed from this error, which fully tends to render sin and sinners innocent: not to say what popery is in it, as if justification did remove the filth of sin. antinom. by such consequent drawers as you are, who will charge the greatest truths of the gospel with any absurdities that are forged by carnal reason. as for danger of popery, where is most, in justification by free grace, or works? and when you make it appear that justification doth not take away the gild of sin, than you shall convince me, it taketh not away filth in that respect: for i take no greater filth to be in sin than gild, and that which is the fountain of all other filth that is in it, or produced by it, causeth the inherent macula. and whereas you say, the doctrine of laying sins on christ, tends to make sin and sinners innocent. to make sin innocent is a contradiction; sin is never made no sin, tho' the sinner may be made no sinner in a gospel sense, and your position is dangerous. neonom. i will show the grounds of your mistake: you think, because god removes our sins by pardon, so as to acquit us from punishment, therefore our sins cease to be ours. d. w. p. 27. antinom. that is no pardon to acquit only from punishment, if the fault remain, so that the person is under the charge of it. 2. remitting of punishment only doth not discharge us from sin. 3. sin imputed to christ, is not imputed to us: it's a contradiction to say, that it is in the same respect; and yet we say, it was our sins imputed to christ, and so it's still. we say not, they are not ours imputed to christ, but they are ours by commission, and his by imputation. neonom. because a pardoned sinner is discharged from condemnation, therefore you think that person is not to be denominated a sinner from the violation of the precept. antinom. pardon dischargeth from the fault itself, and forgives it, or else it's no pardon. a man may many ways escape punishment, and not have the fault pardoned. he that is pardoned is no sinner in the eye of the law, but we call him a pardoned sinner; and such an one ought by faith to look upon himself as perfectly righteous before god. neonom. because christ took upon him to make satisfaction for sin, therefore he thinks no filth can cleave to the offender, nor he be a transgressor by the offence. antinom. you know i do not think so; for you know i said, a believer of himself can do nothing but sin. and do not you contend with me for saying, our very righteousness is sin, polluted and unclean: and you know my meaning is, that we are perfect and complete in christ; in ourselves all things are polluted and unclean: and i take this to be very sound divinity. i will tell yau what luther saith. there is no more sin, death or malediction, since christ now reigneth; we daily confess also in the creed of the apostles, which we say: we believe there is an holy church, which is indeed nothing else but as if we should say, i believe there is no sin, no malediction, no death in the church of god. f●r they 〈◊〉 do believe in christ are no sinners, are not guilty of death, but are holy and righteous, lords over sin and death, and living for ever. but faith only seethe this; for we say, i believe there is an holy church. luth. on gal. 3.14. obj. if thou wilt believe reason and thine own eyes, thou wilt judge clean contrary; for thou seest many things in the godly which offend thee, they fall into sin, are weak in faith, subject to wrath, envy, and such other evil affections; therefore the church is not holy. answ. i deny the consequence. if i look upon my own person, or the person of my brother, it shall never be holy: but if i behold christ, who hath sanctified and cleansed his church, than it is altogether holy: for he hath taken the sins of the whole world: therefore where sins are seen and felt, there are they indeed no sins. for according to paul's divinity, there is no sin, no death, no malediction any more in the world, but in christ that is the lamb of god, that hath taken away the sins of the world; who is made a curse, that he might deliver us from the curse. contrariwise, according to philosophy and reason, sin, death, and the curse are not where else but in the world, in the flesh, or in sinners; for as a sophistical divine can speak no otherwise of sin, than doth a heathen philosopher: like as the colour (saith he) cleaveth to the wall, even so doth sin in the world, in the flesh, and in the conscience: therefore it is to be purged by contrary operations. but true divinity teacheth, there is no sin in the world any more; for christ, upon whom the father hath cast the sins of the world, hath vanquished and killed the same in his own body. he once dying for sin, and raised up again, dyeth no more. therefore wherever there's a true faith in christ, there is sin abolished, dead and buried; but where no faith in christ is, there sin doth still remain: and albeit the remnants of sin be still in the saints, because they believe not perfectly, yet are they dead, in that they are not imputed unto them, because of faith in christ debate v of the time when our sins were laid on christ, and continued there. neonom. let us now discourse about the time of god's laying our sins on jesus christ. i take mr. antinomian to be unsound in this point. for he saith, that the time when our sins were laid actually on christ was, when he was nailed to the cross, and god actually forsook him, and they continued on him till the resurrection. d. w. p. 28. antinom. my words were these, now there was a pitched time wherein god did serve execution actually upon him, and that was, when god did forsake this son of his, when he called him forth, and served sin upon him as the desert of transgression, when he said, my god, my god, etc.— now was the time of payment and satisfying god. dr. c. p. 356. i do not say that this was the first time of his bearing sin, he bore them in the garden, and was there sorrowful unto death, and lay under soul-sufferings; but upon the cross he finished his greatest sufferings, made payment in full; and therefore the apostle peter ascribes his bearing of sin mostly to that time when he was upon the cross, and under complaint of the punishment of loss, god's forsaking of him. besides, i distinguish between the charging sin on christ as our debt, and the payment of the debt; and say, this was the time of execution and payment; though i know you confound bearing sin as a debt, and making payment: so that you will have payment made when nothing is due upon any account. d. w. p. 28. neonom. but you say, look upon the execution, or rather the serving the execution, i. e. the actual laying of iniquity on christ: this iniquity was laid upon him at that instant when he was upon the cross, and god nailed the sins of men to the cross of christ, and from that time there was not one sin to be reckoned, etc. dr. cr. p. 357. antinom. you should have rehearsed a little more: you are only for exposing me as much as may be, and therefore will not rehearse my whole sense. i said, from that time there was not one sin to be reckoned to believers, who are the members of christ, or to christ himself, he having then made satisfaction, and upon it given out to the world, it is finished. what was finished? it was the payment of the price so long looked for, the utmost farthing laid down. it is proper to say, payment is made, when it is finished. dr. cr. p. 357. calvin. pray, sir, from what time do you date the laying of sins on christ? neonom. the obligation of sufferings for our sins was upon christ, upon his undertaking the office of a mediator, to the moment wherein he finished his satisfactory atonement; the punishment of our sins lay upon christ, from the first moment to the last of his humiliation. d. w. c. v p. 28. antinom. first than you grant his bearing sin by way of obligation from eternity, d. w. p. 3. it was a little while ago you charged this for an error upon me, that our iniquities were laid upon christ by way of obligation from all eternity, tho' you call it suffering for our sins; but we say, sin charged upon him unto suffering. and you own obligation from the first undertaking his mediator's office, and i take that was from eternity, and that he was indebted from thence to the moment when he finished his satisfactory atonement. i think there's no great difference between us in these things, provided you do but grant this obligation was from the demerit of our sins, which necessarily infers the charging our sins upon him as a fidejussor or sponsor, that takes upon him fewer debt; and you say also, satisfactory atonement; wherefore god was satisfied with the payment made. now why must i be dealt so hardly with, as to be censured for erroneous, for saying, he was under obligation to pay our debt from eternity, and stood obliged till he made full payment by way of execution upon the cross. calvin. as to the last part of your assertion, that the punishment of our sin lay upon christ from the first moment to the last of his humiliation, it is false; for though he was the lamb of god, in our nature yet he bore not sin actually, till he was offered up in sacrifice, than he was made sin as a sacrifice, and not before. debate vi of god's separation and abhorrence of christ while our sins lay upon him. neonom. i shall acquaint you with an error of a gross nature that mr. antinomian is guilty of, and it is this; error. christ was on the account of the filthiness of sin, while they lay upon him, separate from god, odious to him, and even the object of god's abhorrence, and this to the time of his resurrection. d. w. p. 31. antinom. i pray sir let us see how far this great error of your own forging is chargeable upon me. neonom. i will acquaint these gentlemen with what you delivered; you said, nay, for this i affirm, as christ did bear our iniquities, so christ for that iniquity was separated from god, and god was here separated from christ, or else christ spoke untruth. dr. c. p. 294. antinom. take my words as they were. object. iniquity cannot be laid on christ, because it separateth from god; but christ could not be separated from god. a. this objection makes it most manifest that christ did bear iniquity; because in that bearing of sins there was a separation from god, or else christ's words were not true, my god, my god, why hast thou forsaken me? for where iniquity is, there will be a separation from god. and my argument stands thus, where there is a forsaking of god, there is a separation from god in the sense of sins separation from god; but in christ's bearing sin there was a forsaking of god; ergo. object. it may be this forsaking was but for a little moment. a. it was as long as sin was upon him, had not christ breathed out the sins of men that were upon him, he had never seen god again; he having taken sin upon him, he must first unload himself of sin before he could be brought near to god; therefore you find that passage in the psalm 2. thou art my son this day have i begotten thee, expounded by the apostle of the resurrection of christ, acts 13.33. as if the lord at the resurrection of christ did beget his son a new as it were; there was a separation and forsaking when christ died, but at the resurrection there was a meeting again, a kind of renewing of sonship with god; therefore rom. 8. the apostle saith, it is christ that died, yea, rather that is risen again from the dead, and sits at god's right hand; and what doth he infer from thence? who shall lay any thing to the charge of god's elect, i. e. till christ himself came off from men's sins, men were in danger of being charged with sin, but christ hath died and made satisfaction, nay, rather is risen again, and hath his discharge, etc. p. 295. and i pray, gentlemen, wherein is this doctrine contrary to the scriptures, or reason guided by the word of god. neonom. you say, it it a higher expression of love that christ should bear the sins of men, than that he should be given to die for men, etc. d. c. p. 408. antinom. my reason of that assertion was added, for christ to be given to die, comes short of the love he expresseth in bearing sin; affliction is not contrary to the nature of god, etc. but sin is; where god doth charge any sinner he hath an abhorrence there; i. e. so far as god chargeth and seethe sin. i said, god never did do such a wonderful thing to the astonishment of the creature, as laying sin on christ; iniquity is the hatefullest thing in the world to god, [therefore the sin charged is abhorred by god] where iniquity is found, a toad is not so ugly unto man, as that person is in the sight of god, where iniquity is found— sin is the most horrible and abominable, nay, the most abhorred thing in the world to god. that this is so the whole scripture bear me witness; but observe what follows— that god should make christ to be sin, is out of the reach of all the creatures in the world to apprehend how god should do it, and yet that he should retain his own power, by love, and respect to his son, p. 180. now as there was an abhorrence of sin charged on christ, yet, and accordingly a separation or forsaking upon that account, so far as he bore sin in his humane nature; yet god did retain that love and respect to him as his son: neither do i say, that christ in his humane nature was separated from the divine by a dissolution of his hypostatical union: and therefore it's a false charge to say i said, god abhorrtd the person of his son, or that there was a separation between the divine and humane natures of christ. d.w. p. 33. neonom. you say, christ was separated from god, which you affirm and i deny. answ. if you understand me according to the language of the scripture and analogy of faith, i say so. i e. as sin brings inevitably the punishment of loss as the curse, and the greatest part of it, which is a judicial separation of god from the creature; this i affirm, christ suffered this punishment in his soul. but if you will wrest my meaning to be this, that he was separated by a dissolution of the hypostatical union, i deny it. i say, should iniquity be laid on the humane nature, and the divine nature not support it, it would have sunk under sin, as a mere humane creature. d. cr. p. 378. therefore it's apparent i intended no such separation, (as also by my whole discourse it appears) that you would impose upon me. neonom. the question is, whether christ was at any time under god's abhorrency, or odious to him, because under the loathsomeness of sin? this you affirm, and i deny. antinom. that i affirm it in your sense, is false; for you know i said in express terms, that god retained his love and respect to his son: for it's not inconsistent, that god should retain his love to his son in respect of his divine nature, and yet lay him in respect of his humane nature under his manifest displeasure, being now under the charge of all the sins of his elect, and so sin on christ was the object of god's abhorrency. neonom. whether christ was thus on the account of the filthiness of sin, etc. this you affirm, and i deny. antinom. when you can clear sin from being filthiness in the sight of god, upon any account; and that gild of sin, reatus culpae, (i mean, not liableness to punishment, that's not sin, but the effect of it) is not the greatest filth of sin: i shall tell you, i do not think sin as to its filthiness was not laid on christ: but this hath been argued before. you think you have a great claw at me here; but i am sorry you understand the nature of sin no better, as to think it in the law relation to be so clean, as not to be filth in the sight of god. calvin. i pray mr. neonomian, lead us into the truth of this point, that we may not be mistaken: we are willing to receive light in these truths; but we think it of dangerous consequence to part with them, or darken them. neonom. truth. though god testified his threatened indignation against sin in the awful sufferings of christ, soul and body, in his agony, and suspended those delightful communications of the divine nature to the humane nature of christ, as to their wont degrees; yet god was never separated from christ, much less during his body's lying in the grave; neither was the father ever displeased with christ; and far less did he abhor him, because of the filthiness of sin upon him. d. w. p. 31. antinom. this is a marvellous aphorism indeed. 1. did god testify his threatened indignation against sin in the awful sufferings of christ, soul and body? what is this less than what you would condemn for error in me? 2. did god suspend his delightful communications to the humane nature? what was this but the separation i always shown that i intended? 3. that god was never separated from christ in the hypostatick union, i always affirm: no, not during his lying in the grave. 4. but 4ly, i never said, the father was displeased with christ as his son, or in relation to him as son by eternal generation, but in relation to him as our surety, and as a sacrifice to bear sin, he was displeased with him, or else you give yourself the lie in the same paragraph, where you say, he testified his threatened indignation against sin in the sufferings of his body and soul; and how could this be without displeasure. 5. what have we been doing all this while? have you not been arguing against christ's bearing sin? and now you say, god testified his wrath against sin in the sufferings of christ. if sin was not imputed to him, could he bear indignation for it? 6. and was not the father as judge displeased with christ as debtor, and bearing our sins? how could he deal with him else in a way of testifying his indignation, as you say? 7. you say, he did not abhor him; so say we, not his person, nor in such a way of abhorrence that is in man's affections. god is not as man, in natural appetite or aversion; but he exerted such an abhorrence or aversion as was proper to his nature; we desire to term it but as you do, a manifestation of threatened indignation to sin, condemning sin in the flesh of christ, rom. 8.8. as christ was made sin, doth not the spirit of god say he was made a curse? is not sin a cursed thing, that which is odious and abhorred? suppose then we use not those words odious, abhorred, and we say, god testified his threatened indignation against sin in christ, even to the making him a curse for us: what greater and higher expression can be used? and how could god's indignation be showed against sin on a person upon all accounts innocent, no way chargeable? sin can't suffer indignation, but the sinner may: sin in the abstract is not capable of suffering, it must be sin bringing some person under a law-condemnation, so that he have the denomination of a sinner. 9 and whereas you will not have sin filthy, where is it the spirit of god represents it any otherwise, and the efficacy of christ's sacrifice as to the purgation of filth? therefore it's said, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, heb. 1.3. but of this elsewhere. neonom. this separation was impossible, because of the union between the divine and humane nature of christ, etc. d. w. p. 33. antinom. this argument affects us not, for we never thought of of any such separation, as i have told you; and it's your impudence to charge it. neonom. 2. the father hath promised constant supports to christ in the whole of his undertake and sufferings, isa 42.1, 4, 6. isa. 50 7, 8, 9 antinom. shot beside me still. i said, should iniquity been laid on the humane nature, and the divine nature not support it, it would have sunk under sin; and you own that i say so. dr. cr. p. 378. neonom. and is it not strange, gentlemen, that after he had said this, he should affirm a separation? antinom. and is it not strange, that you cannot distinguish between separations: i may separate from a thing in one respect and not in another: i may separate from another as to communion, but not as to relation, let it be son, wife, brother, etc. and it's strange you cannot understand forsaking to be but of a relation. neonom. the lord jesus could not be abhorred or odious to god, for in him god was always well-pleased, isa. 42.1. matth. 17.5. antinom. we say the same: christ's person in his eternal sonship was so. all the indignation that was testified towards him in his humane nature, in which only he was capable of suffering, in that he became a curse as well as sin, god saith it. neonom. mr. calvin, how horrid a sound hath it to the ear, to say, that christ is odious to god, and abhorred by the father? calvin. methinks those new words applied to christ do not sound so well, and some ears are offended at them. i think it's better to use the scripture-expressions, christ made sin, and christ made a curse for us: let us but have the thing, mr. neonomian, we will part with any word that's not scriptural, if you give us another that will express it as well. antinom. doth not this make as horrid a sound in a christian ear, that god manifested his wrathful indignation against sin in the person of christ, in a most awful and dreadful manner? calvin. but that's his way of expressing it, he doth not like yours. antinom. then i will abdicate those words odious and abhorrence, and use his words; i be not fond of mine. neonom. 5. christ could not be separated from god, or abhorred: while his body lay in the grave, his soul went into paradise. antinom. no, his hypostatical union was not dissolved, nor god's fatherly love removed from his person; but yet at the same time he was under the suffering of death, which was penal for sin, he finished his soul-sufferings on the cross, but was under the separation of body and soul, which was part of the threatened indignation against sin; as also the lying of his body in the grave. neonom. i will show you your mistakes. you do not distinguish between the affection of wrath and effects of wrath, because god forsook christ as to the usual degrees of comfort, he thinks christ was separated from god. antinom. sure this is a soul mistake; if he should mistake his logic, as to take the cause to be the effect, and the effect the cause: but i doubt you mistake your divinity, as to ascribe an affection of wrath to god. but i pray, where there's an effect of wrath in the creature, is not wrath the cause of it? he that lies under the effects of wrath, is he not under wrath? if christ suffereth the effects of wrath, he suffereth wrath. i know not how any one should suffer wrath any other way. as to my thoughts about separation from god, they are only your imposition of thoughts and meanings upon me, as i have told you. neonom. because he that is formally a sinner is odious to god, therefore he thinks christ was odious to god, who had on him the punishment of sin, with the gild or obligation to bear punishment by his own consent, neither of which have any thing of the loathsomeness of sin. antinom. i will not use the word odious, because you love not the smell of it: i say therefore, because a formal sinner, or committer of sin unpardoned, is the object of god's threatened indignation bearing the effects of wrath, therefore an imputed sinner is also the object of god's threatened indignation bearing the effects of wrath. you will be at the old socinian notion still, that christ bore but the punishment for sin, and gild is only obligation to punishment; which is absolutely false, unless you mean reatus culpae; for nothing is a demerit of punishment, but reatus culpae. neonom. i know not why you think christ came not near god from the time of his death to his resurrection, unless because of your conceit, for the loathsomeness of sin god could not bear the sight of him. antinom. your frequent banter and scoffs at the scripture-account of the nature of christ's satisfaction, and of sin, i am sure is very odious, and a horrid sound to a christian ear. i shall not think such reasoning worthy of any thing but a note of contempt. calvin. mr. neonomian, you must know we can't part with this article of our faith, that christ was made a curse for us, no more than that, that he was made sin; that christ bore the curse of the law, and was made a curse for us, is such a gospel-truth, that we need no other authority for it, than what is contained in the scripture, being so expressly declared; which all sound protestants always understood of bearing the wrath of god in his soul and body, especially in his soul, undergoing poena damni and sensus, the first whereof i look to be the greatest and cause of the other, and also fully enough expressed by our lord jesus christ upon the cross. take mr. calvin. in his harmony on the evangelists. although there appeared more than humane courage in christ's outcry, yet it's certain it was uttered from extremity of grief. verily, this was his chiefest conflict, and more grievous than all his other torments, because that in his anguishes he was not so refreshed with his father's holy favour, that he did in some respect perceive him alienated from him; for neither did he offer his body only as the price of our reconciliation with god, but in his soul he bore the punishment due to us; and they are men of unsavoury spirits, that slighting this part of redemption, do insist only on the external punishments of the flesh; for as christ satisfied for us, so it was requisite that he should be set as guilty before god's tribunal: for nothing is more horrible than to perceive god as a judge, whose wrath exceeds all death's— neither doth he complain feignedly or theatrically that he was deserted of god, according to the insipid cavils of some: for the inward grief of his soul from the depth of anguish, compelled him to break forth into this outcry. he did perfectly fulfil the law, endured most grievous torments immediately in his soul. conf. assemb. c. 8. § 4. he bore the weight of god's wrath, and laid down his life an offering for sin. large catceh. p. 249. quest. what death did christ suffer when he sacrificed himself? mr. perkin's catech. answ. a death upon the cross, peculiar to himself alone: for besides the separation of body and soul, he felt also the pangs of hell, in that the whole wrath of god due to the sin of man was poured forth upon him. the apostle doth not say that christ was cursed, but a curse, calv. on gal. 3.13. which is more; for it shows that all malediction was included in him: this may seem hard, that it may look like a reproach to the cross of christ in confession, of which we glory: but god was not ignorant of what kind of death his son should die, when he said, cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree. but one may here object, how comes it to pass that the son in whom the father delights, should be accursed? i answer, two things are here to be considered, not only in the person of christ, but also in his humanity: one is, that he was the lamb of god without spot, full of blessing and grace. the other, that he took our person; therefore he was a sinner, and under the curse, not so much in himself as in us, but yet it was necessary he should die in our stead, which he could not do out of the grace of god; and yet he underwent his wrath, else how could he reconcile the father to us, whom he looked upon as incensed against us; therefore the will of the father did always rest satisfied in him. again, how could he free us from the wrath of god, unless he had translated it from us to him; therefore he was wounded for our sins, and experienced god as an angry judge. this is the foolishness of the cross, but admired by angels, and swallows up all the wisdom of the world. we must not imagine christ to be innocent, and as a private person, (as do the schoolmen, luther on gal. 3.14. and almost all the fathers have done) which is holy and righteous for himself only. true it is, that christ is a person most pure and unspotted; but thou must not stay there, for thou hast not yet christ, although thou know him to be god and man: but then thou hast him indeed, when thou believest that this more pure and innocent person is freely given unto thee of the father to be thy priest and saviour; yea, rather thy servant, that he putting off his innocency and holiness, and taking thy sinful person upon him, might bear thy sin, thy death and thy curse, and might be made a sacrifice and curse for thee, that by this means he might deliver thee from the curse of the law. as paul applied unto christ that place of moses, accursed is every one that hangeth on a tree; so may we apply unto christ not only that whole 27th of deut. but also may gather all the curses of moses' law together, and expound the same of christ. for as christ is innocent in this general law touching his own person; so is he also in all the rest. and as he is guilty in this general law, in that he is made a curse for us, and is hanged upon the cross, as a wicked man, a blasphemer, a murderer, a traitor, even so is also guilty in all others. for all the curses of the law are heaped together, and laid upon him; and therefore he did bear and suffer them in his own body for us; he was therefore not only accursed, but made a curse for us. i will tell you what an eminent new england divine, mr. stone. mss. no antinomian, said to this point, it may appear that christ was made a curse for us, because he suffered the perfection of the second death, which he began in the garden; he began to be sorrowful, matth. 26.27. he drank the first draught of the cup of wrath, and afterwards it's said, he was in an agony: there was the second upon the cross: he drank up the bottom and dregs of the cup of vengeance, and said, it is finished, john 19.30. he was cursed of god in an eminent manner, deut. 21, 22, 23. compared with gal. 3 13. if a man be guilty of sin worthy of death, and to be hanged for it, than he is accursed, otherwise not; christ was accursed hanging on the tree, and therefore it's certain he was guilty of our sins charged upon him, being the greatest sinner by imputation; and hence he was really cursed of god, and that in an eminent manner; and not only cursed, but a curse in the abstract; whereby it is most evident that he suffered the immediate impressions of the wrath of god, and the second death, which takes possession of the whole man, and therefore must have suffered while his soul and body were united, or standing together; he was those three hours in the darkness of hell, encountering the powers of darkness, and wrestling with the wrath of an infinite god: man by sin having displeased such an infinite god, must suffer that infinite displeasure which christ suffered in our, room. the perfection of which second death consisted in this, that he was utterly deprived of all the sweetness of his father's love and presence, and filled with the sense of all the bitterness of his wrath, psal. 22.1, 2. isa. 53.4. to 11. matth 27.45, 46. gal. 3.13. in which we may attend, 1. the punishment of loss, a total privation and desertion in respect of sense and feeling of the sweetness of his father's love and presence: this desertion appeared in that the god of glory forsook him, left him destitute and desolate. god the father hide his face from him, god would not send in any comfort, by sun, angels, saints, psal. 16.12. god did not only stand at a distance, but locked up himself in anger from him, would not be entreated by him, psal. 22.1, 2. etc. 2. there was not only dereliction but malediction, gal. 3.13. he was assailed by all the infernal powers of hell, luke 22.53. this is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the authority of darkness; they might do their worst now, they had their full scope; the greatest battle was fought upon the cross, col. 2.15. 2. he wrestled with the fierceness of the wrath of an angry god, consuming fire; he was smitten of god, psal. 69.27. isa. 50. zech. 13.3. he was his executioner. 3. a confluence of plagues and evils fell upon him, and settled themselves on his sacred person, and he was filled with them, he was in the depth of them, psal. 69.1. quest. what did our saviour suffer in soul? dr. usher's diu. p. 172. answ. he drank the full cup of god's wrath filled unto him for our sakes; the whole wrath of god due to the sin of man being poured forth upon him, therefore in soul he did abide unspeakable vexations, horrible griefs, painful troubles, fear of mind, feeling as it were the very pangs of hell; into which both before, and most of all when he hanged upon the cross, he was cast, which caused him before his bodily passion so grievously to complain. the death of christ is the last act of his humiliation, whereby he underwent the most extreme, ames. c. 22. horrible and greatest punishments for man's sins. § 2. it contained the greatest punishments, because it did equalise all that misery which the sins of men did deserve. hence is that plenty of words and phrases whereby that death is expressed in scripture? for it's not called simply death, but cutting off, rejection, treading under foot, a curse, an heaping up of wounds and stripes, isa. 53. psal. 22. and sect. 7. the inchoation of the death of christ in genere damni, in respect of loss, was the loss of joy and delight the enjoyment of god and the fullness of his grace was wont to supply him with, which he lost not as to the principle and habit, but as to the act and sense. the inchoation of the spiritual death in the punishment of sense was his tasting of divine wrath, and a kind of subjection to the power of darkness, which divine wrath was most especially the cup which was given to him to drink, matth. 26.39. christ as sponsor was that object of this wrath absolutely. sect. 9 finis. neonomianism unmasked: or, the ancient gospel pleaded, against the other, called, the new law. being the continuation of the second part of the theological debate, occasioned by mr. dan. william's book, entitled, gospel truth stated and vindicated, etc. by isaac chauncy, m. a. london, printed for h. barnard at the bible in the poultry, 1693. debate vii. of the change of person between christ and the elect, and their being as righteous as he. neonom. having stated, and finished the doctrine of imputation of sin, let us, if you please, in the next place examine the doctrine of imputation of righteousness, i have in this point, as i shall state it, great errors to charge upon mr. antinomian. antinom. i pray sir proceed, i shall be very attentive to your charge. neonom. you hold that every believer (or elect person) is as righteous as christ; and there is a perfect change of person and condition betwixt christ and the elect; he was what we are, and we are what he was, viz. perfectly holy, without spot or blemish. calvin. if i mistake not, this is the 22th error mr. b. chargeth upon the antinomian, but that he stateth it truer than you. error 22. they feign christ to have made such an exchange with the elect, as that having taken all their sins, he hath given them all his righteousness; not only the fruit of it, but the thing itself: so that they are as perfectly righteous as christ himself, and so esteemed of god; and this doctrine subverts all the gospel; viz. that god makes an effectual grant and donation of a true, real and perfect righteousness, even that of christ himself, to all that believe, accounting it as theirs. scripture gospel defended, b. err. descr. p. 11. err. 22. and p. 108. antinom. let the question go in his own terms; i choose to hold him to them, because he reckons no man states a question better than himself; pray sir make proof in matter and form as charged by you. neonom. that i can easily; you say, d. c. p. 270, 271. mark it well, christ himself is not so completely righteous, but we are as righteous as he; nor we so completely sinful, but christ became so, being made sin, as completely sinful as we. nay more, we are the same righteousness, for we are made the righteousness of god; the very sinfulness that we were, christ is made that very sinfulness before god. so that here is a direct change; christ takes our person and condition, and stands in our stead; we take christ's person and condition, and stand in his stead— so that if you reckon well, you must always reckon yourselves in another's person, and that other in your person: god gives christ, i. e. god gives the person of christ to men, as much as to say, god gives christ to stand in the room of men, and men to stand in the room of christ; so that in giving christ it is as it were to make a change, etc. dr. c. p. 180. antinom. when i speak of completely sinful and righteous, you must know that i still understand by way of imputation, that which was not originally in the subject; and so the perfection is a perfection of imputation, which is as real and complete in its kind as any relative perfections. a man may be a weak sickly man but a perfect father; a poor man, but as perfect a son as the son of the richest; a man may be free from debts, and yet make himself as perfect a debtor for the debts of others as any man for his own; and a man may be a poor, wretched, miserable creature, but made as righteous in respect of the law as the richest man on earth, by the money of another man; that which denominates a man perfectly righteous is this, that he oweth nothing to the law; and if a man be worth but forty shillings, and own nothing, he is as righteous in a legal righteousness, as he that hath a thousand pound; therefore it's no hyperbolical expression for one that owes nothing to the law, to say, i am as righteous as the king, meaning such a righteousness which the law requireth of him, respecting the precept or sanction, active and passive obedience; i mean not the righteousness of legislation or execution of justice in a way of distribution, but such a righteousness that i am capable of. so when i say, we are as righteous as christ, i mean not christ's mediatorial righteousness as you suggest; i do not mean justitia mediatoria, sed justitia mediatoris; not mediatorial righteousness, but the righteousness of the mediator. when i say i am as righteous now (after my debt of five pound is paid, and own no more in all the world,) in the eye of the law, as my friend that paid my debt, and fetched me out of prison: i do not thereby say that i have as good an estate as he, or that i have so many thousand pounds as he; or as able to pay the debts of others as he is; and as for the other part of your charge about our commutation of person, i justify myself in it, that as christ bore my sins by imputation, so i have his righteousness, and am righteous in his righteousness, by imputation, 2 cor. 5.21. calvin. what do you, mr. neonomian, reckon to be truth in this point? neonom. the truth is this. d. w. p. 37. the mediatorial righteousness of jesus christ is so imputed to true believers, as that for the sake thereof they are pardoned and accepted unto life eternal; it being reckoned to them, and pleadable by them for these uses, as if they had personally done and suffered what christ did as mediator for them, whereby they are delivered from the curse, and no other atonement or meriting price of saving benefits can be demanded from them? antinom. your doctrine of imputed righteousness necessarily infers the consequents that you would draw upon us; for if the mediatorial righteousness of christ be imputed (as you explain it yourself, diff. 1. to be habitual as well as active and passive;) then we must be reckoned mediators; for we must be reckoned such as christ is, in person, and in office; but we deny that the mediatorial righteousness was imputed, but justitia mediatoris not justitia mediatoria. 2. you say this righteousness is so imputed to a true believer, as for the sake thereof he is pardoned; i am sure by your so, you mean another sense than we mean; that we are only pardoned effective, and that's not more than we are sanctified and glorified for its sake; and this appears by your second difference, p. 39 where you say the difference is not, whether our justification, and all other benefits, when we are partakers of them, be the fruits of this righteousness as the only meritorious cause. so that you have no reason to quarrel with me for saying, that through christ's bearing of sin we appear in perfect holiness, (speaking there of glory;) for you say, justification and all other benefits flow from it; therefore in the same manner as we are justified by the righteousness of christ, in the same manner we are sanctified and glorified, i. e. effective, in your sense. 3. you say also pleadable for these uses, i. e. for all uses in a like manner. 4. as if they had personally done and suffered what christ did as mediator for them; your meaning is, that it's as well done as if they had done it themselves. a man may do a thing as well as another, that he doth not for another in his stead; yea, a man may do a thing for another, and not do it in his stead; as a tailor makes a minister a suit of , but doth not do it in his stead; because it's not his business to make his ; but it's another thing for a man to come and preach for him, that is, to do it in his stead; because it's his proper work, profession and business. 5. and hereby you say they are delivered from the curse. what mean you by the curse? we shall find this curse is not the whole vindicative wrath of god, only eternal curse. and for our comfort you tell us, this is all the attonenement or meriting price of saving benefits that god can demand of us. it's so in our stead, as that god can exact no other atonement, and so a security from god's hurting us. in a word, the description of imputation here that you have given, is but a mere piece of sophistry; that imputed righteousness may be any thing for all this, and we shall see by and by what you will have it be. neonom. nevertheless this mediatorial righteousness is not subjectively in them; nor is there a change of person betwixt them and christ, neither are they as righteous as he, but there remain spots and blemishes in them, until christ by his spirit perfect that holiness begun in all true believers, which he will effect before he bring them to heaven. antinom. now you come to the negative part of your description, which should have been first; and having said nothing of the thing at first, you tell us it's nothing at last. 1. you say this mediatorial righteouscess, sir, is not subjectively in us. i know no judicious divine ever talked so, nor would you, if you understood mediatorial righteousness, as it's apparent you do not. 2. you say there's no change of person betwixt christ and them. you mean, that the believer becomes not christ, nor christ the believer: we mean so too. 3. you say too, that believers are not as righteous as he, you mean such a righteousness mediatorial. 4. you basely insinuate, that their righteousness in justification is imperfect; for the spots and blemishes we speak of is in respect of righteousness. neonom. i question not whether christ by his righteousness merited for all the elect, that they should in his time and way be certainly partakers of its saving effects; and did not only purchase a conditional grant of those effects, viz. that proposition, he that believeth shall be saved. p. 39 antinom. it seems christ then merited a certainty of salvation only of the elect; i thought their salvation was made certain by election; the foundation of god stands sure, 2 tim. 2.19. your meaning is, christ's merits made our salvation certain, which in respect of election was uncertain. 2. and but certain in another way, viz. of a conditional grant that is not yet performed, and belongs to the non-elect as well as to the elect; and there's yet an uncertainty remaining, notwithstanding the certainty purchased. 3. it's very odd to say, christ purchased a proposition, and a conditional one too, the condition whereof must be something not purchased to be performed by us, that we may have the gift promised: for if the certainty depend upon the merit and purchase, than both the condition and promise is purchased, and then the purchase is absolute. i would know whether the certainty of the salvation of the elect be purchased conditionally or absolutely; if purchased conditionally, than this proposition, the elect shall be saved, is yet uncertain in respect of the purchase of christ, and is but a contingent proposition, and not certain, which is a contradiction. if you say christ purchased absolutely the salvation of the elect, all your contingent purchase falls to the ground: but christ purchased persons absolutely, not conditional propositions; and is he that believes shall be saved, a conditional proposition indeed? neonom. nor whether besides these effects being made ours, the very righteousness of christ be imputed to true believers, as what was always undertaken and designed for their salvation, and is now effectual to the actual pardon and acceptance to life; yea, is pleadable by them for their security, and is as useful to their happiness, as if themselves had done and suffered what christ did. antinom. gentlemen, you would think that mr. neonomian had here owned the doctrine of imputation; but it is nothing so, he doth but shame it still. mark, he says, besides the effects of christ's righteousness, the very righteousness of christ is imputed as to effects, or effectualness, i. e. pardon and acceptance is the effects; but he tells you not that it is the proper and immediate righteousness, he will have the righteousness of christ to have some effects, and is imputed as to such: so that sanctification and glorification being effects, are as much the imputation of the very righteousness of christ. it's a strange thing to confound the cause and effects; to tell us the very cause is imputed, and presently to tell us he means the effects: this is to talk daggers; for cause and effect are opposita. but he saith, the righteousness of christ is what was undertaken and designed for their salvation, and is effectual, and in that sense imputed. very good; so that it was a subordinate means to accomplish that end, as was also creation, (which was by christ, col. 1.) preaching the gospel, their calling, sanctification; hence the imputation of christ's righteousness is but to give it a place in the order of means for our salvation, and in that order of means hath its effects. but he saith, there is a privilege by it as well as a proper effect, it's pleadable for their security. i would know how it comes to be pleadable; is it from its own certainty to us, and our salvation by it, or from our performance of the condition of the grant? if a conditional grant he purchased, we cannot plead the certainty of our state from the purchase, but very remotely after another plea first; if the condition of the grant be never so small, we must first plead it, before we can plead the purchase; we must have a plea for the right to the purchase before we can have any plea to the grant by the purchase. lastly, he saith, the righteousness of christ is as useful this way as any, as if christ had suffered in their stead he means; i e. a new gospel will do your business as well as the old and true. neonom. i question not whether christ by his righteousness merited— that believers shall be perfectly holy, even without spot and blemish. antinom. but you say, christ's merits are imputed only as to their effects; and in that sense the merits of christ are imputed for sanctification in the same manner as to justification. neonom. i doubt not but spots and blemishes may consist with his justified state, etc. antinom. nor i, spots as to inherent holiness, but by virtue of christ's righteousness imputed unto justification, he is without spot before god; this righteousness hath no spot in it, but you charge it for error to say they are so righteous that they have no spot in them. neonom. the difference lies in these points. 1. whether there be a change of person between christ and the elect, this you affirm, and i deny. antinom. i affirm there is in the true gospel sense, not in such a forced inviduous sense that you would put upon us. neonom. 2. whether the mediatorial righteousness of christ be subjectively in us? this you affirm, and i deny. antinom. it's false, i affirm it not. neonom. whether we be as righteous as christ, be a proper and safe speech? this you affirm, i deny; though i yield that we are for the sake of his righteousness, delivered from the gild of sin, and entitled to life; yea, accepted with god against all excluding bars. antinom. we deny a believer is as righteous as christ in respect of justitia meditoria; the righteousness imputed is not that righteousness; neither is it communicable by imputation; but it's the justitia mediatoris, that is quasi, the material cause of our justification, materia ex quâ, you make it imputed but in the effect; and in the best sense you make it but a cujus gratia res est; and so we are sanctified and glorified: but we say the righteousness of christ is the material righteousness of our justification, no other righteousness or condition coming in with it in the imputation, and that thereby believers are as free from the condemnation of the law, and in the eye of justice, as christ himself; if his righteousness had not been such, he could not have arose from the dead. you say you yield that for the sake of christ's righteousness we are delivered from gild; how? is it not because he bore the gild, and satisfied for it? it's this bearing gild, and satisfying god's justice, that we by faith stand in, and all our gild covered by, it's this very satisfaction in the full nature of it, is imputed to us.— you say, accepted of god against all excluding bars. this is little better than nonsense; however your meaning lies very fair in it, that our acceptance to god's positive favour and love is not here, but elsewhere; and acceptance as to excluding bars, is only a negative acceptance, an acceptance and no acceptance; the removing the bars and obstacles to acceptance, supposeth there may be an acceptance upon some other terms. it is a miserable thing that christ's righteousness should do no more than remove a bar. the apostle saith, we are accepted in the beloved, eph. 1. he should have said, the bars of acceptance are removed by the beloved: now provide for your acceptance as well as you can. neonom. whether because christ is perfectly holy, can we be said to be perfect in holiness upon the account of any imputation of his holiness to us, or we so esteemed by god? this i affirm, you deny. antinom. you should affirm it upon your principles, allowing no imputation, but as to the effects of his righteousness; and i tell you, in a perfect person, such as adam in innocence, and christ the second adam, there is no difference between personal righteousness and holiness. neonom. the question is, whether the elect believer before he is perfectly holy, is wholly without spot, filth and blemish? this you affirm, and i deny; though i grant that those spots, blemishes, and filth shall not subject them to the curse and wrath of god, nor forfeit saving benefits. antinom. we say in respect of the perfect righteousness of jesus christ, that is imputed unto a believer, he is perfect and without spot in the eye of god's justice, and that in christ this righteousness is perfect holiness, and as such, is theirs as in their head, col. 1.19, 21, 22. chap. 2.10. and in your divinity you say these spots, etc. shall not subject them to curse and wrath: if so, it hath perfectly freed them from the charge of sin in the eye of god's justice, all their iniquities are forgiven, and their sin covered with the righteousness of christ, that they stand 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, before the throne, rev. 14. for if justice charge them with sin, i. e. lay it to their charge, it must condemn them to the curse and wrath due; but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who shall lay any thing to the charge of god's elect? it is god that justifieth, rom. 8.33. and then follows, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, who shall condemn? therefore where there's just accusing before god, there's also condemning; and hence though there be remaining sins and corruptions in the holiest believer, yet god mark● them not so as to lay them to their charge in the way of vindicative justice; they are not (say you) subjected to curse and wrath. neonom. i shall confirm my positions. 1. there is no change of person between christ and the elect. d. w. p. 41. antinom. i pray what do you mean by that position? neonom. christ was the saviour, and never ceased to be so, we are saved; christ was the redeemer, and we the redeemed; christ forgives, we forgiven. antinom. imputation of christ's righteousness in redemption, for justification or forgiveness, doth not denominate us saviour's, or redeemers; relata sunt contraria negantia, and as they stand mutually affected, cannot be converted into each other; you are now upon a sure side. a father cannot be the son in that respect as he is the father, and yet he may be a son too; and therefore, relata sunt contraria, quia referuntur ad idem subjectum attributionis; and though they are contraries, yet do consist ex mutua alterius affectione; and hence, omnis integra relatio constat ex duabus partibus; in respect of one, the relatum is causa, and correlatum the effect. in the respect of the other, the relatum is effectum, and the correlatum causa. redeemer and redeemed are mutual causes and effects, and yet contraries; and the contraries yet do exist by the mutual affection that they have to each others. neonom. what is all this to the purpose? antinom. i would hereby give you to know that i understand the logical difference between redeemer and redeemed and if you knew it yourself, you would be ashamed to use this argument to any men of learning; but such studied divines take themselves to have such puzzling pates, that they can be dictator's to all men. neonom. it's profane arrogance for us to pretend to his prerogatives; and it's blasphemy to debase him among their number, who were enemies, and without strength. antinom. logic failing, it's not amiss to betake yourself to some high strains of rhetoric; some great words may make a man look big, but never affright wise men from the truth. neonom. my sec●nd argument is, the meditorial righteousness of christ is not subjectively in us. antsnom. no, nor by imputation neither, i. e. justitia mediatoria, but justitia mediatoris is both subjectively in christ and us; originalitèr in christ, imputatiuè in or upon us; we are the subjects by your leave of imputed righteousness, and christ of imputed sin; and this very subjectiveness cuts off both your arguments at once, because the very proposition that we are the subjects of imputed righteousness, denies ourselves to be the authors of that righteousness, and affirms another to be so; my very saying that the creditor took fewer bond for my debt, and delivered up my bond to me upon his payment, doth sufficiently acquaint all rational men that i not only ascribe the payment to another man, but do affirm that his money was accepted on my account; and if any should hear me say that i became a surety, because he paid my debt, they would think i were mad; but if i say, that the creditor took such an one as paymaster in stead of me, and his money paid was reckoned to me, no man but would judge it very good sense besides mr. neonomian. neonom. i do not speak of inherent righteousness, of which he is not only the pattern, but also is the cause and worker, phil. 3.9. antinom. we would not mistake you, you would be understood that we are the subjects of inherent righteousness; and i tell you, so are we of imputed righteousness, genere imputationis, christ is not; as christ is the subject of our sins, genere imputationis. that which god imputes to us, and faith applies to us, we are the subjects of it, for subjectum is cui aliquid adjungitur; and here is a note of conjugate arguments, wherein is abstractum, concretum & modus agendi, justus is subjectum justitiae imputatae; and in this pair of relates, the adjunct is also the cause of the subject, which is a logical mystery that every unstudied divine doth not understand. as for phil. 3.9. which you pervert and understand of our inherent righteousness, we shall examine that anon. i see you are very fond of your first argument, and every argument must run into it like a mathematical principle, that must clinch every demonstration; such as this, three angles of a triangle are equal to two square angles; or that any two lines not parallel protracted will at last cut, etc. now say you, if christ's righteousness be imputed to us who was a saviour, than we are saviour's; and it runs thus; if a surety pays my debt, than i am a surety; if my father pays my debt, i am thereby made a father, whether i have children or no. if a rich merchant pay the debt of a poor cobbler, and fetch him out of ludgate, the cobbler hereby becomes a merchant. a justice of peace takes off the penalty from a constable for some fault, whereby he hath forfeited his office, and therefore the constable must become a justice of peace. the absurdity of your inference hence easily appears, imputation of the action of one party to another, no way infers physical change, or individual identity, but signifies a relative change, not of one into another, but of both to the law; the law takes the surety for the debtor, and the original debtor to be a paymaster in the surety. as the sponsor becomes a reputed debtor, and the principal debtor becomes the reputed paymaster; and note, when we speak of the imputation of christ's righteousness, we understand not the imputation of his offices, as you would have us: is not that the commutation here meant by you? neonom. it's inconsistent with the nature of gospel imputation. antinom. it is inconsistent with our doctrine of imputation, but must necessarily follow from your notion of mediatorial righteousness; and all your inferences upon this hypothesis is but fight with your own shadow; and therefore we shall leave you therein, canere tuis musis, your arguing affects us not in the least. calvinist. the doctrine of imputation of christ's righteousness to us to justification, and a sweet permutation of persons in a law sense and relation, we must assent and stand by, notwithstanding all your cavils against it; the scriptures are plain and express for it, and will stand as bulwarks to defend this doctrine against all papists, socinians and neonomians; and because you mr. neonomian quote dr. owen, would have us to believe that he is a patron to your notions, and men that read him not may think so from your authority, i would disabuse them, and show you now naked, how diametrically opposite to you that learned doctor is? he saith, there is in scripture represented to us a commutation between christ and believers, dr. owen of justific. p. 39 as unto sin and righteousness, i. e. in the imputation of their sins unto him, and of his righteousness unto them. in the improvement and application hereof unto our souls, no small part of the life and exercise of faith doth consist. this was taught the church in the offering of the scape-goat, levit. 16.21, 22. this goat was sent away with this burden upon him; and whether he did live, and was a type of the life of christ in his resurrection, or whether he perished in the wilderness, being cast down the precipice of a rock, etc. it's generally acknowledged what was done to him, and with him, was only a representation of what was done really in the person of christ— he did not transfuse sin from one subject to another, but transferred the gild of it; and to evidence this translation of sin from the people unto the sacrifice. aaron in his confession, put and fixed both his hands on his head. thence the jews say, that all israel was made as innocent on the day of expiation as they were in the day of creation; from v. 30. wherein they came short of perfection or consummation, heb. 10. but this is the language of every expiatory sacrifice; quoth in ejus caput sit, let the gild be upon him; hence the sacrifice was called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sin and gild, leu. 4.29.7. 2, 10, 17. and so god laid on christ the iniquities of us all, that by his stripes we might be healed, isa. 53.5, 6. our iniquity was laid on him, and he bear is, v. 11. and through his bearing it we were freed from it. his stripes were our healing, our sin was his, imputed to him; his merit ours, imputed unto us. he was made sin for us, etc. that we might become the righteousness of god in him, 2 cor. 5.21. this is that commutation i mentioned, he was made sin for us; we are made the righteousness of god in him, god not imputing sin to us but righteousness.— the same is expressed by the same apostle, rom. 8.3, 4. the sin was made his, he answered for it, and the righteousness which god requireth by the law is made ours, the righteousness of the law is fulfilled in us, not by our doing it, but by his. this is that blessed change and commutation, wherein alone the soul of a convinced sinner can find rest and peace. so he hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us, that the blessing of abraham might ocme upon us, gal. 3.13, 14. he was made a curse, whereof his hanging on a tree was a sign and token; hence said to bear our sins in his body on a tree, 1 pet. 1.24. compare deut. 21.23. and in the blessing of faithful abraham all righteousness and acceptation with god is included. and to take off impertinent clamours of some against this doctrine, he quotes the original words of justin martyr, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. he gave his son a ransom for us; the holy for transgressor's; the innocent for the nocent, the just for the unjust, the incorruptible for the corrupt, the immortal for mortals. for what else could hid or cover our sins but his righteousness? in whom else could we wicked and ungodly ones be justified or esteemed righteous, but in the son of god alone? o sweet permutation, or change! o unsearchable work!— that the iniquity of many should be hid in one just one, and the righteousness of one should justify many transgressor's. gregory nysson speaks thus, he hath transferred unto himself the filth of my sins, [observe the expression mr. neonom. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉,] and communicated to me his purity. so augustin, he was sin that we might be righteousness, not our own, but the righteousness of god, not in ourselves, but in him, as he was sin, not his own, but ours, not in himself, but in us. and he thus comments on, psal. 22.1. how saith he of my sins, because he prayeth for our sins, he made our sins to be his, (mark mr. neonomian) that he might make his righteousness to be ours; o sweet commutation and change. and he quotes chrysostom on 2 cor. 5. hom. 11. what word, what speech is this? what mind can comprehend or express it? for he saith, he made him who was righteous to be made a sinner, that he might make sinners righteous— and he speaks not of an inclination, but expresseth the quality itself. he faith not, he made him a sinner, but sin; that we might be made not merely righteous but righteousness; and that the righteousness of god; when we are justifified, not by works, (for if we should there must be no spot found in them,) but by grace, whereby all sin is blotted out. and how far is this from your divinity, mr. neonomian? see more, p. 43, 44, etc. calvin. he quotes also bernard and luther, and divers others, which you may read, mr. neonomian, at your leisure, i find you have the book, especially that excellent discourse of albertus pighius. he addeth, nor are we to be moved that men who are unacquainted with these things in reality and power, do reject the whole work of faith herein, as an easy effort of fancy and imagination. for the preaching of the cross is foolishness unto the best of the natural wisdom of men. p. 49. dr. owen gives the original of your argument against imputation of christ's righteousness to us, p. 509. viz. that if the righteousness of christ be imputed to us so as to be made ours, then are we as righteous as christ himself, because we are righteous with his righteousness. dr. owen shows this to be bellarmine's argument against the imputation of christ's righteousness, lib. 2. c. 7. si verè nobis imputatus justitia christi, etc. if the righteousness of christ be imputed to us so as to be made ours thereby, then are we as righteous as christ himself, because we are righteous with his righteousness. a. these things are plainly affirmed in scripture, that as unto ourselves, we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousness is as filthy rags, isa. 64.6. on the one hand, and that in the lord we have righteousness and strength, isa. 45.24, 25. on the other. that if we say we have no sin we deceive ourselves; and yet that we are the righteousness of god in christ; wherefore these things are consistent whatever cavils the will of man makes against them; unless we take socinius' his rule of interpretation, namely, where any thing seems repugnant to our reason though never so express in scripture, not to admit of it, etc. 2. notwithstanding the imputation of the righteousness of christ, and our being made righteous thereby, we are sinners in ourselves, and so cannot be said to be as righteous as christ, but only made righteous in him, who are sinners in ourselves. 3. we must distinguish between the personal righteousness of christ, and our personal righteousness, and between righteousness of inhesion and imputation, being of divers kinds. 4. the righteousness of christ was the righteousness, personally of the son of god, in which respect of infinite perfection, and not to be compared to, etc. and as to that place which you boast of, it's wholly against you; page 242, 243. here you prevaricated with your reader in rehearsing dr. o. for having showed what imputation is, he tells us, that righteousness itself is imputed, and not any of the effects, but the effects of it are made ours by virtue of that imputation. to say the righteousness of christ, i. e. his obedience and sufferings are imputed to us only as unto effects, is to say, we have the benefit of them, and no more, but imputation itself is denied; so say the socinians, but they knew well, and ingeniously grant that they overthrew all true, real imputation thereby, and quotes schlictingius, saying, we concede christ's righteousness is ours, as it redounds to our good and righteousness, etc. and is it not pleasing to see some among ourselves with so great confidence take up the sense and words of these men. neonom. but dr. owen saith, that imputation is not the transmission or transfusion of the righteousness of another into them that are justified, that they should become perfectly and inherently righteous thereby, etc. p. 242. d. w. p. 51. antinom. we say so too; but dr. owen doth not say, we are justified by the imputation of the effects of christ's righteousness, he opposeth that imputation as a socinian notion. neonom. he doth not: for he saith, that the righteousness of christ is imputed to us as to its effects, hath this sound sense, namely, the effects of it are made ours by reason of that imputation. it is imputed, so reckoned unto us of god, as that he really communicates all the effects of it unto us. antinom. but what immediately follows in the next sentence? dr. o. p. 243. why did you not quote all the dr. said? is not this base false dealing? you would only quote as much as should serve your turn. but to say the righteousness of christ is not imputed unto us, only its effects are so, is really to overthrow all imputation: for (as we shall see) the effects of the righteousness of christ can't be said properly to be imputed to us; and if his righteousness itself be not so, imputation hath no place herein: nor can it be understood why the apostle should so frequently assert it as he doth, rom. 4. therefore the socinians, who do expressly oppose the imputation of the righteousness of christ, and plead for a participation of its effects and benefits only, do wisely deny any such kind of righteousness of christ, i. e. of satisfaction and merit, as alone may be imputed to us. here's matter of fact, to show your double-dealing. neonom. but the assembly is of my mind. q. 69. what is the communion in grace which the members of the invisible church have with christ. a. in their partaking of the virtue of his mediation in their justification, adoption, sanctification, and whatever in this life manifests their union with him; so that in their judgement it's the virtue of christ's mediation operates on us, and not the mediatorial righteousness in us. antinom. this is strange language, to talk of imputing the mediation of christ to us; and this is that you now plainly tell us, is the mediatorial righteousness that you mean all along; or that partaking of the virtues of mediation and imputation are convertible terms? those reverend divines do not say, the mediation of christ was imputed to us, no more than his kingship, priestship, prophetical office; yet we are in a sense made kings, priests and prophets, but not by imputation: they tell you only of the effects of his mediation, of which justification is one. if you would have told us what they say of imputed righteousness, you should have rehearsed the next, q. 70. what is justification? a. justification is an act of god's free grace unto sinners, in which he pardoneth all their sins, accepteth and accounteth their persons righteous in his sight; not for any thing wrought in them, or done by them, but only for the perfect obedience and full satisfaction of christ by god imputed to them, and received by faith alone. see the shorter catechism, q. 33. see also the confession, directly condemning all your scheme of divinity at once, c. 9 of justification. those whom god effectually calleth, he also freely justifyeth, not by infusing righteousness into them, but by pardoning their sins, and by accounting and accepting their persons as righteous; not for any thing wrought in them, or done by them, but for christ's sake alone; not by imputing faith itself, the act of believing, nor any other evangelical obedience to them as their rigteousness, but by imputing the obedience and satisfaction of christ unto them, they receiving and resting on him and his righteousness by faith. the savoy conf. ch. 11. is the same verbatim. now, gentlemen, i appeal to all men of sense and honesty, whether mr. neonomian hath dealt fairly, thus to represent the judgement of dr. owen and the reverend divines of the assembly, or thus to impose upon the weak, and such as have not will or leisure to search into the truth of what he saith. neonom. i tell you what the savoy says, which is the same articles with the assemblies. antinom. but you tell us, or would have us to understand, that the meaning of the assembly about imputation, is, that the virtue of christ's mediation (i. e. in your declared sense) the effects only operates upon us; and then after rehearsal of the words of the savoy, you add, thou seest it's christ's righteousness is imputed for pardon, and not infused. you'll oppose imputation to infusion, which none of us plead for: but this imputation is in your sense only as to the effect, which you would have us to believe is the judgement of dr. owen and the two assemblies: and i find you lamely rehearse the article of your confession, as being ashamed to behold your erroneous doctrine so fully condemned by them. do not think such pitiful little sophisms as these, are such as do become a professed minister of the gospel, or that your reverend vouchers have not prejudiced their honour by asserting so publicly to the world, that in all material things you have fully and rightly stated the truths and errors in this treatise; and look upon this as a work of considerable service to the church of christ, etc. when your manifest design is to hid truth by equivocations, false representations, and odious forced consequences; and to impose old palpable decried errors. veritas non querit angulos. now, sir, that you may see we have more than authority for this great doctrine of imputation of christ's very righteousness: 1. i prove, that to say christ's righteousness is imputed only as to effects, is to deny the doctrine of imputation. consider, from the nature of imputation itself. imputation is the reckoning and esteeming that unto one man, which is done by another: as in case of debt or wrong done by one man to another, a third comes and does, or promiseth that thing whereby the offended person becomes satisfied with the offender, previous to which satisfaction in nature is his reckoning the payment made, or to be made, unto the offender; it's not the taking of this or that payment in any kind that is satisfactory for the offender, unless it be by the offended person reckoned to him. paul to philemon, v. 18. gives the clear notion of imputation both as to wrong and righteousness, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, if he hath criminally or unrighteously done thee wrong in filching or stealing, impute this to me, or put it upon my account: take me as paymaster, and put my payment on his account, i. e. in respect of any wrong that he hath done thee, or debt that he owes thee; here's my hand for it, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, i will repay it to thee. now paul stood bound for onesimus to philemon; and unless philemon had accounted paul's payment or obligation to onesimus in respect of any wrong sustained by him, onesimus is still peccant, and an unreconciled offender in the eve of philemon. now the effects of righteousness is the benefits received by imputation, not imputation itself. suppose the nearest effects of christ's righteousness, as satisfaction, reconciliation, justification, adoption, imputation, is cause of those effects. god is satisfied, and reconciled, and justifies the sinner, because he imputes and reckons to him the payment or appeasing act of the surety. i argue then, 1. that which is a benefit received by virtue of imputed righteousness, is not imputed righteousness itself, but god's being satisfied, reconciled, and justifying us, is the benefit only of imputed righteousness, ergo. as to the major, that thing which is received by virtue of something else, is not the same with it; nay, they are contraria affirmantia. now god's giving us the benefit of imputed righteousness, is that which doth in a way of justice result from the said righteousness imputed: the imputation is the gift of grace, therefore christ's righteousness is first imputed, and graciously reckoned ours to all intents and purposes. hence results in a way of justice god's satisfaction, reconciliation, and the sinners justification. hence it will needs follow, if there be no more in imputation than god's being satisfied, reconciled, justifying, i will say, how comes it to pass? you'll say, through christ's righteousness, it's an effect of it. i say so too. but how come we to have these effects, if god never reckoned and accounted christ's righteousness unto us? either we are righteous some way or other before god declares us righteous, or we are not: if not, it's not a true sentence: if we are righteous, we are so by our own righteousness, or another's: if by another's, it must be some way or other ours either by communication of it essentially, or by reckoning and esteeming it unto us as if it were ours; but to reckon the effect only, is not imputing of it at all. arg. 2. to say the imputation of christ's righteousness is only the bestowing of the effects, is to ascribe justification to the righteousness of christ in no other sense than we do sanctification and glorification; for it is to say that justification is but a meritorious benefit, and so is sanctification and glorification; for all those are purchased and procured by him. now there's a vast difference between payment of a debt owing, and making a purchase of a new estate: it's true christ did both, he satisfied and he purchased; as for the purchase money there's no need it should be imputed to us; if the estate being purchased be bestowed freely, it is enough, but as for satisfaction made for our wrong or debt, this must be reckoned and accounted to us before we can come at a legal discharge, or procured riches. arg. 3. to say christ's righteousness is imputed to us only as to effects, is to say, that there is some other righteousness besides this for us to be justified by, for it implies that we are become righteous by another righteousness; the privilege of having whereof is only procured by christ's righteousness; and the plain truth of it, the original rise of this notion is only to open way for another righteousness to come in to our justification, which is another gospel; yea, not only contrary to sound doctrine, but radically destructive to the true grace and gospel of jesus christ. arg. 4. if we cannot have the effects of the righteousness of christ, unless the very righteousness of christ be imputed to us, than the righteousness of christ is imputed otherwise than in effects; but we cannot have the effects of the righteousness of christ, etc. the consequence of the major is so clear it needs no proof. i prove the minor; we cannot have the effects of the righteousness of christ, unless his very righteousness be imputed. the reasons are, 1. because our offences will stand in the eye of justice, and we shall remain unrighteous, having no righteousness of our own, nor any of another reckoned to us. for we can be righteous no other way but by our own, or by another's; and christ's righteousness signifies nothing as to us, if it be not placed to our account; and hence being not made righteous by it, can never be sanctified, etc. 2. we can have none of the effects, because they all proceed from love of reconciliation unto sinners; now the enmity being not taken away by satisfaction, there is no reconciliation, and therefore we cannot possibly partake of the effects of christ's righteousness. arg. 5. to say we have only the effects imputed, is to deny imputation, for the effects are not ours by imputation, but personally and really; as suppose justification, god doth not justify us by imputing justification, but really upon imputed righteousness. 2. if christ's very righteousness be not imputed or accounted to us in justification, some other righteousness must, for god cannot justify a sinner without accounting him righteous by some very righteousness either of his own or of another's. 2. i prove that the very righteousness of christ is imputed. arg. 1. that righteousness that satisfied the justice of god for our offences, is imputed unto us; but the very righteousness of christ satisfied the justice; ergo, the major is very evident; for if a do pay money for b, and d to whom it is due accepts it in discharge of b's debt; then d doth place it to b's account, and gives a receipt accordingly to a, as having paid him so much for the use of b. as for the minor, that the very righteousness of christ satisfied the justice of god for us; it appears, 1. by his intention in giving himself for us, and god's accepting of us in him as his beloved. 2. because if god be satisfied for our breach of the law, it can be no other righteousness that could do it; it must also be the very righteousness, and not the effects; now that which god was satisfied with upon our account, is accounted to us; for if it be not accounted to us, it is not accepted for us, our debt stands still, and the handwriting against us. 3. if the very righteousness of christ do not satisfy, no effects of righteousness can; for nihil dat quod non habet. arg. 2. that righteousness which christ our advocate pleads for us, is imputed to us. but christ our advocate pleads his very righteousness; for he entered in with his own blood, and pleads those very sufferings, and that payment upon our very account, heb. 9.14. c. 10.19, 20. c. 7.25. arg. 3. that righteousness which answers all the demands of the law on behalf of a sinner, is imputed to justification; but it was christ's very righteousness answered all the demands of the law, in active and passive obedience, rom. 10. ergo, minor, there's nothing that the law expects expressly as to active or passive obedience, but christ hath performed it in his very righteousness when he was in his state of humiliation, what was done was done then, the effects were afterwards in his exaltation. arg. 4. that which is pleaded in prayer by us for forgiveness, and aught to be, is imputed to us; but the very righteousness of christ is pleaded by us, this is the sake of christ for which we ask of god pardon of sin, we have nothing to do to plead that righteousness which is not accounted to us. there's none of us pleads our own righteousness, but the very righteousness of christ. arg. 5. that righteousness upon which a sinner hath peace with god, is the righteousness reckoned to us for justification; but christ's very righteousness is that by which we have peace with god, eph. 2.13, 15. and peace of conscience, heb. 9.14. c. 1. beg. rev. 1.5. arg. 6. christ could not be said to be jehovah our righteousness, if his very righteousness were not imputed to us, but only the effects, jer. 23.6. and upon what is it grounded that the church is named as it is in chap. 33.16. but upon christ's imputed righteousness? arg. 7. i might add that argument which others have urged, that as the sin of the first adam was imputed to his seed, so the righteousness of the second to his seed. see rom. 5. but it's easy to prove the sin of adam was imputed to all his posterity, he being a public person, and all we in his loins; if mr. neonomian deny this, we will go upon the proof of it another time. it behoveth him to bear the punishment and wrath of god, not for his own person, but for our persons, and so making a happy change with us, he took upon him our sinful person, and gave unto us his innocent and victorious person, wherewith we being now clothed are freed from the curse of the law. luth. on gal. 3.14. christ's mediation was a redeeming mediation, he must give himself for a ransom or counterprize. 1. the price is a standing price that the law requires, without the least variation or abatement. 2. there must be an exchange betwixt the mediator and us; he must be a counterpane standing in our room or stead, 1 tim. 2.6. 3. there must be an exchange of person for person, which is the surest exchange in war or captivity, when nothing but one person will be taken in the room of another; no gifts or rewards could unbind the infinite justice of god, 1 tim. 2.6. tit. 2.14.4. there must not only be person for person, but like for like. 1. in nature; one of an inferior or superior nature would not do, heb. 2.16. phil. 2.7. 2. there must be an exchange of state for state, phil. 2.7. 2 cor. 8.9. isa. 53. 3, 4. mat. 20.28. gal. 3.13. mr. stone of new eng. neonom. you seem to speak as if christ's holiness were imputed to us, and that we are perfectly holy. antinom. you know i told you, it may follow from your doctrine, viz. imputation of sanctification, as well as justifying righteousness; because sanctification is an effect and virtue of christ's mediation. i shall now speak but a word to this point; viz. that our life of sanctification is in christ, we are sanctified in christ jesus; and he is made of god to us sanctification: as we are created in him, so we live in him as to holiness, and we have a compleatness of sanctification in him; and though that fullness of sanctification is not properly said to be communicated by imputation, as by derivation of grace; yet this infused grace arising into duty, and our duties mingled with much corruption, must be covered by the imputed righteousness of christ, that they may be accepted as well as our persons. dr. horton on rom. 8.3. understands the law of the spirit of life that is in christ, to be all that holiness wherewith the living and quickening spirit of god, hath filled the humane nature of jesus christ, which is the fullness of sanctification in all grace and holiness. neonom. though christ be perfectly holy, yet his holiness is not so imputed to us, as that we are perfectly holy, p. 46. you say we appear before god perfect in holiness, p. 428. antinom. you seem to imply, as if christ's holiness were ours by imputation, so much as it is ours; and therefore you insinuate as if there were such a thing as partial imputation: but we speak not any thing either of christ's holiness, as so sanctification by way of imputation, but of real communication from him to us; of which perfect fullness we do receive, by the new creation in him, and grace received from him, as members from the head, in our measures, by virtue of our mystical union to him. 2. i said, let me tell you, if god had not laid the iniquities of men on christ, dr. cr. p. 428. there's never a soul had entered into heaven: for there's no refuge to fly to, there's no hope of drawing near to the everlasting kingdom of blessedness, till the lord jesus cleanse you thoroughly from all sinfulness and filthiness; and so you appear before god perfect in holiness. it is his white raiment makes us worthy to walk with the lamb in white; he counsel the church of laodicea to buy of him white raiment. now see now we are abused by you. the words you refer your proof to, doth relate to, and is intended of the state of glory, that the saints must be personally and perfectly holy before they can draw near to god in that full fruition of him in the state of blessedness in heaven. if there is any thing understood of the saints perfection in this life, it is not denied but that their graces and duties are imperfect here, as they come from and are acted by them, and are mingled with much sin and pollution; but their acceptation with god must be in a way of perfection. 1. in that christ, of whom we are members, and who is made unto us sanctification, as the head of the body, the ro● and fountain is perfect in sanctification, and we in him, col. 1.19. ch. 2.10. 2. that all the best duties and services as coming from us, and performed by us, being mingled with sin and corruption, must be accepted in and through christ, and covered in his righteousness; so that as they are presented unto god by our advocate, they come before him washed white in the blood of the lamb, and presumed in his incense. neonom. god cannot account a sincere christian perfectly holy: the union in marriage doth not transferr habitual qualifications from husband to wife. is a foolish wife perfectly wise because her husband is so? it's absurd: our restored holiness is through the operations of the spirit, and not by transfusion. if the very holiness of christ's persons be in us, if increated, than we are god's; if created holiness of christ's humane nature be in us, it must departed from him, and cease to be in him. p. 47. antinom. it would take up deservedly some paper to show the error and sophistry of what you have spoken: the sum is, that you deny christ to be a public person, and that all that grace and fullness that is in him by reason of the hypostatical union of both natures, and that unction without measure which he received, was only to qualify him singly and for himself, as an individual person, and not to be conveyed and communicated unto us; and therefore none of his fullness is received by us; that the spirit, not his spirit: neither do we live by virtue of our union to him, as a root, head, fountain; but if we partake of the divine nature, as the apostle peter, eph. 2. ch. 1. saith, we are made gods. if we partake of the virtues of christ, we rob him, and they are no more in him. you abuse the similitude of husband and wife used by the apostle, eph. 5. and would make it run on four feet. you consider not that adam and eve at first was the true type the apostle aims at to represent christ and his church by: eve being taken out of adam, had her nature in him first, and was created out of him, and so was flesh of his flesh, and bone of his bone. you must distinguish between the individual person and qualification of the first adam, and his public capacity, headship and common nature; he had a peculiar distinct person and habits belonging to it as such, but he had also a common nature communicable to his wife and to his posterity by propagation, not only eve's nature, but ours was in him radically. and therefore the prophet malachy saith, that god made but one at first, mal. 2.15. though he had the residue of the spirit, and could have made more, as he did in the creation of angels; but therefore one, that he might seek a seed of god, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. now this seed of god was found in the seed of the woman that was made out of man, and was but one; as adam was made but one common person, so christ, and the church his wife is made out of him, created in him as eve was, and have a nature common in christ. and doth it follow, that because adam had the common nature to eve and his posterity, 1. that his individual qualities were communicated, taken from him, and given to eve? was adam turned into eve? was adam's wisdom, holiness, his natural or moral virtues taken from adam, and given to her or them? the common nature of a genus is communicated and propagated by individuals, without robbing the individual. mankind is propagated daily by individuals, yet those individuals lose nothing of their proper adjuncts. if men were not strangers to logic and natural philosophy, and ordinary terms of law, they would not make so much ado about this common nature of christ, which in him is mystical and transcendent. i shall not here enlarge, but inquire what is the opinion of the protestant divines. calv. dr. davenant, i pray speak in this matter what your sense is. dr. davenant on col. 1.19. 1. there was in christ a fullness of habitual grace; neither take we this to be infinite, seeing it was a created qualitas, and inhered in the mind of christ, which also was a creature, it could not be infinite; but by fullness of grace we understand all those perfections to which the nature of grace doth extend itself. 2. we consider why christ ought to have a fullness of grace: 1. e debito congruitatis, it was due to him in a way of meetness, by reason of his union to the word. 2. it was meet that which was nearest to the influencing cause, should partake most of the influx. 3. there was debitum necessitatis, it was necessarily due, from the supposition of the end, by reason of the habitude [or relation of christ himself to the humane nature; for grace was conferred upon him, not as a private person, but as an universal principle,] from whom it is transfused into other men, [you say it's not by transfusion, p. 47.] all things ought to be full, and in an oneness. the evangelist shows, that grace is diffused to us, eph. 4.7. and on colos. 2.10. (1.) to be complete in christ, 1. is spoken from the effect. christ is not only perfect, in whom dwells all the fullness of the godhead, but he makes us perfect and complete, we having all things in him and his doctrine necessary to salvation. 2. the second reason is taken from his office; christ is the head. as to the first, we have perfect wisdom, right knowledge of the doctrine of the gospel, john 17.13. 1 cor. 2.2. 2. we have complete righteousness, for satisfaction to the law of god, and for our sins. 3. in christ we have sanctification or inherent righteousness: for what is sanctification other than the washing away of our errors and vices, whereby we are set at a distance from god, and the susception of gifts and graces, whereby we may draw nigh to god in his service— and this is done as we stand united to christ by his spirit, rom. 1.4. ch. 8. 9 in eo] non ex eo aut per eum solummodo. in him, not from him, or by him only; but he saith, we are complete in him, to give us to understand, that we have that foresaid wisdom, righteousness and holiness, not as we behold christ as existing far from us, but as we are incorporated in christ, as we have christ abiding and dwelling in us; and we have this grace from christ, not the stream from the head fountain; for it's not needful that he that will drink of a fountain, should go into the fountain— but it's otherwise here; for we cannot receive of christ's fullness, unless we are in him. as the old adam is in us, as the cause of corruption and death, so the new adam dwells in us as the cause of righteousness and salvation. so we are said to be in christ, to dwell in him, to abide in him, john 15.4, 5. whatever therefore men hope or please themselves with of grace, righteousness, sanctification or glorification, it will prove a mere mock and dream, if they be not in christ, and christ in them. and now christ is in us, and we in him, when we are united to our head, and grafted as branches into the vine, by the bond of the spirit, and faith wrought by the spirit in our hearts, rom. 8.9. john 3.36. calv. speak to this point, dr. horton. in that text, rom. 8.2. there are three terms before us; there's life, the spirit of life, there's the law of the spirit of life. 1. by life we are to understand, the grace of holiness and sanctification; not that which is inherent in our nature being regenerate, but the full and perfect holiness which is in the humane nature of christ as the proper subject of it; this is the fountain from which there is a continual flowing of grace to all that are truly united unto christ. 2. by the word spirit we understand the spirit of god, the original from whence it flows, the activity and intention of it. this life; for spirit is a word of emphasis— 3. the law is the prevalency and force of this spirit of life— all holiness wherewith the living and quickening spirit of god hath filled the humane nature of christ, and it hath freed thee and me, and all others that are in christ from the power of the sinful and deadly corruption of our nature; and there is a fullness and sufficiency of all grace and holiness in christ considered as man. col. 1.19.2.3, 9 john. 1.14. psal. 45.7. john 3.34. debate viii. concerning the conditionality of the covenant of grace. calvin. because the question about the conditionality of the covenant of grace hath been greatly controverted, and is one of the most considerable points on which matters in difference doth depend, i am desirous some one or other of us first may truly describe, and impartially unfold the nature and difference of covenants. mr. philalethes, i take you to be an man; and i think i have heard you offer some things of this kind, which may tend much to the clearing up of many points before us of this nature. philal. sir, i shall readily contribute my mite, and submit it to the consideration of your better judgements. 1. the word covenant comes a conveniendo; because when two parties agree in some one thing or more on mutual terms, it's usually called a covenant; and it comprehends and takes in the nature of a contract or bargain. the latin have divers words to express a covenant by; pactum, compactum, conventum, foedus. cicero gives a very plausible account of the etymology of foedus, that is, quasi fidus, quod in foedere interponatur fides; that in a covenant there is a plighting of troth; but it seems the word is most probably derived from an old heathenish custom of ratifying a covenant by the sacrificing of a sow great with pigs, quoth in foedere foeta porca feriretur. i take pactum therefore or compactum to be the better word, and expressing enough of the thing meant, coming from paciscor, quasi pacis actum; and if it carry the significancy of any ceremony in covenanting, it's that of striking of hands, percussio manuum; thence covenanting is called striking a covenant. the greek words some of them vary not from the import of the latin, such as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; but these are hardly used by the n. te. or the lxxii interpreters for a covenant, and therefore we need not stay upon them. the word in most use is, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a testament, such a covenant as is like a last will and testament; for this seems to be the true original meaning of this word; isocrates using it thus, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, fortunas populo ex testamento reliquit; and yet many instances may be given, wherein it appears that all sorts of covenants are expressed by it; but it's observable the spirit of god pitcheth upon this word as most expressive of sacred covenants; because the promulgation of the covenant of grace was always managed in a way of testament, typically with the patriarches, and under the mosaical dispensation, and really by the offering up of christ; and the apostle gives us this account of it, heb. 9.15, 16. hence the promise of life confirmed by the death of christ, declared and promulgated in the gospel of the old and new testament is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. the hebrew word for it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 elegit; because the persons covenanting do it on free choice, and so the conditions or terms are mutually agreed on, or from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 precidit, succidit, quia victimae cedi in foederibus pangendis solebant, in making the covenant, the sacrifice was cut in pieces, and laid so that the covenanters passed between them, gen. 15 10. and by a metonimy, the sacrifice or ceremony used in ratification was called by the name of the covenant itself; and after this manner is circumcision called a covenant, acts 7. 2. a covenant than is a mutual obligation upon certain terms between two parties. poedus non est pactum tantum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 unius lateris, quale illud cum creaturis irrationalibus, hos. 11.18. clopenb. de foed. vet. a covenant differs from a vow, because in a vow there need be but one part; a man may promise to, and resolve with himself to do this or that thing, there need not be two parties in making a vow; though most times it is making a promise to god, and then it carries the nature of a covenant, and to this may belong a sanction by way of imprecation upon non-performance. 3. as there are two parties in a covenant, so in a covenant properly so, there are two parts, a condition and a promise. the condition is the terms offered by the covenanter to the covenantee, foedus ē pactum mutuae fidei. upon the performance of which the promise becomes due unto him; and this supposeth these two things necessarily. 1. the covenanties ability to perform the said tendered condition. 2. his consent and acceptance of the terms; and here there is no other sanction usually than the promise and forfeiture expressed in the obligation upon non-performance, confederatorum mutuòse obligantium. 4. a covenant is either express and complete in parts, there's a covenant express, and a covenant in law; a covenant express, when all terms are expressed; a covenant in law is that which the law intendeth to be made in such a case, though it s not expressed; the first is called also a covenant in fact; there is also a covenant personal and real. olden dorpius, cook. i. e. a covenant perfectè, or modo quodam. a perfect covenant is when two parties of equal liberty and rank do freely, voluntarily, and upon deliberation enter into mutual obligations, with express conditions and promises; and here it's always requisite that there be as it were an equality, i. e. at least a due proportion between the persons covenanting, that each may be capable of standing upon his own terms as well as the other, and not one bound to terms at the mere good will and pleasure of another; as a child cannot in nonage stand upon terms with a parent, but must be concluded in his or her will and pleasure; or a single subject with a sovereign prince, etc. and therefore the condition to be performed aught to be such, which is not precedently due by any former relation or duty; here must be a power in each party, as sui juris, to take or refuse without breach of any former obligation. in this covenant the sanction is agreed upon by way of stipulation and restipulation, exchange of conditions with forfeiture mutually. 5. there are covenants which are not express, explicite or complete in the former manner, i. e. not between parties bearing a proportion to one another; and therefore one bound in duty or relation to be subjected to the will and pleasure of the other antecedently, or fallen under the breach of their duty, and relative obligation, and so lying at his mercy; and such are the covenants that are made between parents and children under age, masters and servants while in service; between sovereign princes in actual dominion, and their subjects. of these covenants there are two sorts. 1. a covenant by way of legislation, or a law covenant. and, 2. a covenant by way of promise, or free obligation, without condition required to entitle to the promise; the spirit of god calls the first of these a law, and it's properly so, and the second a covenant of promise. 6. a law covenant, 1. presupposeth these two things. 1. foedus minimè hic intelligitur reciprocum aut equale jus contrahendi propter partium inaequalitatem cum altera sit deus altera homo, creatura, non est humani sed divini hujus foederis institutio dicitur 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 legislatio. clopenberg. de foed. vet. a sovereign legislative power duly lodged in the lawgiver, or else his law covenant is but usurpation. 2. a power and ability in the subject to perform the conditions his law requireth, or else the said law is unreasonable, and tyrannical. 2dly. it implies, 1. that both the condition and sanction be at the will and pleasure of the said sovereign lawgiver. 2. that the first and natural end of the law is obedience to the preceptive part, which obedience is due first by a relative, politic or natural relation of the subject to the legislator, so antecedaneous to the law, and secondarily to that particular law obligation. 3dly. consequently to this obedience, whether it be little or more, there is an entitling to the remunerative part of the law, if any expressed, or implied; and by virtue of the compact is a reward, and the said obedience, though infinitely disproportionable, is meritorious. but in case of transgression, the sanction by way of penalty takes place, and is called the wages of sin, such a covenant as this was the covenant of works; and it's not to be supposed that this law covenant was grievous to adam, having a concreated perfection both of ability to perform it, and an absolute delight in the whole revealed mind and will of god, from the highest principle of love to god with all his heart and soul; neither could his obedience be without unwavering, steadfast faith, wherein when he began to stagger, his fall began. 7. adam stood under this law covenant as under a covenant of works, wherein he is to be considered, and the law itself. 1. he himself under these considerations. 1. as endowed with a personal perfection, and lying under a particular obligation to obedience, both previous to, and directly by that law with sanction, which the sovereign creator brought him under. 2. god brought not him only as a single private person under this obligation only, but as a public common person, the head of all mankind; and he was not only the covenant representative, but the natural fountain; the whole nature being in his loins, and therefore that first covenant breach of his threw the whole nature out of covenant, the law charging transgression upon the whole humane nature, and laying it under the sentence of death, rom. 5. hence his sin is justly imputed to all his posterity, the whole world becoming guilty before god, besides that a corrupted nature which is propagated to all his posterity. 2dly. the law itself. 1. the particular command, or rather prohibition that adam stood under, had these things in it. 1. it was but a small branch of that moral obedience which god expected from him, and put him upon trial by, but his breaking thereof in one point made him guilty of all, god showing thereby unto him and the world that no condition could be accepted but perfect obedience. 2. he was not required to work out unto himself any further grace than he had freely received, but to persist in that, and therefore the duty incumbent upon him was perseverance in grace. 3. the particular obedience required of him for his probation, was very easy and small, next to nothing; negative, and but withholding his hand from an apple, and bore no proportion as a condition to the promise of eternal life, and therefore could never have merited in respect of the value, but would have been meritorious by reason of law compact. 3. if he had persevered, it must have been by grace, as his ability was of grace, and so it is with the angels that stand; they have nothing but what they have received, and therefore they are saved by grace in a covenant of works. 8. the law by reason of the fall of man, and god's will to restore him by a saviour, is not vacated and abolished, but remains the same still in the commanding part and sanction. it requires moral obedience of man as god's creature, and continues to condemn man for the first sin, and all sins derived from it, both original and actual, in unregenerate and regenerate; the preceptive parts of it are rules of obedience to redeemed ones, and the sanction remains even to them in christ jesus, the law obtaining its complete end as to righteousness active and passive in the second adam. besides this, the law that god governs the world by, and will judge it by at the last day, the works of wicked men will be condemned, and their persons for their works; the saints shall be also justified by their works, because their persons and their works are perfect in christ jesus, they being in him, shall be found perfect before god, and there is no condemnation belonging to them, nor sin to be laid unto their charge. of a covenant of promise. there is a covenant by way of free unconditional obligation, and that is where the principal or supreme covenanter binds himself to the covenantee, absolutely requiring no condition to be performed by the covenantee before his performance of the promise; and in a sense this covenant is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, not as a covenant with the stones of the field, that abide uncapable subjects of restipulation; but it supposeth the covenanters to be such as are by the promise made capable and willing to restipulate and perform all duties for matter and manner, that may answer the design of the covenant consequential to the bestowing of promise, in which their obedience is contained. 2. that god hath covenanted thus with the creature, without requiring previous conditions to the performance of the promise, is not to be questioned; such was that made with noah, gen. 9.11. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 lxxii. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, i will [i. e. alone, and by myself] set up and establish my covenant with you, without calling you forth to restipulate or perform conditions; and the promise was, that all flesh should not be cut off any more by the waters of the flood, nor shall there be a flood to destroy the earth any more. god laid man under the performance of no condition to entitle him to this promise; yea, though he lay under a forfeiture of all good things promised in the first covenant, and a desert of all calamity and destruction, and neither able or willing to enter into covenant with god by the performance of any duties, yet god ties himself that for that this kind of destruction should no more come upon the earth; there was also the covenant concerning the continuance of day and night, and that the seasons of the year should be opportune, regular and constant, gen. 8.22. to both these covenants is the covenant of grace compared in respect of its absoluteness and perpetuity, isa. 54.9. jer. 33.25. the promulgation thereof under the old and new testament, are thence called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the covenants of promise. 3. such a covenant as this is a testament which takes place among the most entitling covenants in the world, the apostle doth more than once speak of the covenant of grace by the nature of a testament, which is the immutable purpose of god, and suspendible upon no condition, but as it were his last will of bestowing eternal life upon the elect, which being built upon the unchangeable counsel of god, and hath its sanction in the death of christ the testator, it can't be subverted by any infidelity of the elect, neither its firmness depend upon any faith of man, seeing in the said covenant god hath provided unchangeably no less for their faith than salvation. wits. de foed. p. 195. whereby a legacy is freely bequeathed, entitling the legatee to the estate bequeathed, without any duties or conditions previous to the said title by bequeathment; but the estate bequeathed by will and testament becomes due upon the death of the testator, according to his free constitution; hence the exhibition of the covenant of grace in the old and new dispensations, are called testaments because of their absoluteness, under whatever vails of conditions they seemed to be clothed; and because it was confirmed and become due by death typically, under the mosaical dispensation by the death of the sacrifices, but really by the death of the testator, accomplished in the gospel-days: and this was its sanction, and the proper sanction of a testament. 4. this covenant is said to be absolute, free and unconditional in respect of us that are saved by it, because there was no capacity, ability or will in man since the fall to perform any covenant-conditions or duties to god as such, but he lay utterly condemned and dead in sin. all salvation must come to him of free gift, even life, whereby he might perform any vital act; for all action is from life, and no action can be before life, but must proceed from it: man in innocency acted from life in innocency; and that he should act before, or without life, is most absurd to think, or that in a state of spiritual death he should act for life: the natural man can do neither; before he can do any thing for god the absolute promise must be performed of giving him resurrection from the dead, the new birth, the new nature, the new heart. so that the covenant of grace is considered as totally free and absolute as to the tenure of, and performance relating unto man in his lost and fallen estate and condition, all the good contained in it relating to us by way of promise, and bestowed upon us by way of free gift, even faith and all holiness, grace and glory. 5. but taking the covenant of grace or promise in the full extent of it, foedus gratiae respectu sponsoris magìs foederis notionem habet significationem pactum mutuae fidei 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 respectu nostri magis testamenti rationem habet quasi 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 esse. witsas, p. 597. de foedere. it is a mixed covenant, a conditional and absolute, a covenant of express compact between two stipulating parties, upon propounded terms; and a covenant of promise, wherein god hath freely given us his son, and in him life eternal. it is therefore to be considered as it respects christ, and as it respects the elect in him. 6. as it respects christ, it carries the nature of an express complete covenant of works, sponsor testamenti christus vocatur heb. 7.11. non eo precipuè nomine qui pro deo & promissis illius nobis spondet, aut quia pro nobis spondet nos obedituros quemadmodum moses exod. 19.3.3. quanto christus major mose tanto prestantiori modo sponsor fuit, sponsio illius in eo consistet, quod in sese recepit prestare conditionem illam, citra quam saluâ justitiâ dei, gratia & promissiones ipsius ad nos non poterat pervenire & quâ prestirâ omninò illae ad filios foederis perventurae erant. nisi ergo christi sponsionem evacuare velimus, & socinianis pessimis scripturae perver soribus gratificari velimus, necesse est foedus aliquod concipiamus cujus conditiones ch●istus in se recepit spondendo apud parrem se eas pro nobis prestiturum, & quibus prestitis spondere nobis pro parre possit de gratiâ gloriâ infallibiliter nobis donandâ. herm. witsus de oeconomia foed. p. 104. and that in respect of the party's covenanting, and the tenure of the said covenant: the party's covenanting was the father and the son; god the father proposing, and god the son accepting the terms: here the parties contrahentes, or confederantes, were equal, phil. 2. and had equal freedom of accepting or refusing the terms; hence the agreement was mutual and reciprocal. the tenure of the covenant was express conditions and promises upon the performance of them by reward in a way of remunerative justice, isa. 53. the conditions were of the highest nature, 1. to satisfy offended justice on the behalf of the elect, looked upon as fallen by the transgression of the law covenant in the first adam, and to be the end of the law for all righteousness both active and passive to all them that should believe. 2. that the condition performed by christ should not only be meritorious, virtute compacti, as therefore adam's should have been, but that they should be adequately so, they bearing an equality to and with the eternal life promised, by reason of the transcendent excellency of the person, and the performances: and herein he became, and stands the middle person or mediator betwixt god and man; and hence as he was the covenanting head and representative of the elect, so he undertook to be, and was the foederal condition in what he was, and what he did; and to him as such was all the promises primarily made, and in him performed, all being yea and amen in him; and hence he became the fundamental promise, the father giving us his son, and eternal life in him; upon which accounts he is fitly called the covenant. 7. this covenant is conditional in respect of the justice of god and the law of works, for grace being to be magnified in a salvation by way of mercy, the subjects of it were such as had broke god's righteous law and offended justice, and such who were never able to fulfil this law by perfect obedience; therefore it was incumbent on the mediator to make reconciliation, by coming between the justice of god and the elect, to stand in their stead, and to fulfil all righteousness on their behalf. 8. again the conditionality of the covenant may be considered to be in christ, as he is the men way of conveyance of all good things from god to us, all blessings come in and through christ to us; all union and communion that god hath with us and we with him, is in and through jesus christ, there is no other name for it given under heaven; and he is become the living and dispensing fountain of all grace and glory, the way, the truth, and life, john 14. 9 upon a due consideration of the federal conditions there will result an appearance of two sorts of promises not differing specifically, but modo quodam, and respectively only; some that refer most immediately and directly to the elect, and others that have their aspect more immediately on jesus christ. as to the first sort they are to the elect as such, and therefore to christ the head of them, and the firstborn among many brethren; and so the promise of eternal life is made unto him and them. as to the second sort which are rewarding unto christ, and the crowning him with glory and honour, though they primarily respect christ, yet fall down from his head to the skirts of his garment, and become a joy, comfort and crown to all the elect, what other can such be? as seeing his seed, and prolonging his days, and the prospering of the good pleasure of the lord in his hand. 10. divines differ about the conditions of the covenant of grace; we are of their opinion, who think that in accurate speaking, that the covenant of grace hath no conditions properly so called in respect of us. a condition properly so called in the matter of a covenant, is such an action, which being performed, gives a man a right unto the reward: such a condition in the covenant of grace cannot he exacted of us, it's very plain, because a right to life cannot come upon any action of ours, but only upon the righteousness of christ; seeing he was for us 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the righteousness of the law; he fulfilled it perfectly, and left nothing at all to be required justly of us to the gaining a right unto ourselves. wits. ad foed. cum elect. p. 195. § 9 the nature of the covenant of grace is absolute, and a covenant of promise, notwithstanding all the conditionality contained in it, and that must be understood in these respects. 1. in respect of the original proposer of this covenant, it came from the free and absolute will, grace and purpose of the father, 1 tim. 1.9. and ver. 1. this covenant was not purchased, no not by jesus christ; the covenant itself, christ in it, and all the glory of it lay in the eternal council of god's will, and became the purpose thereof, and accordingly transacted with jesus christ, and in him with all the elect as their representative. 2. hence it was free and absolute as to the elect personally considered, the whole of the foederal conditions lay upon their head as undertaker for them. 3. the covenant, and grace thereof is free and absolute, and not conditional and suspended upon the unstable will of man— between god the father indeed and christ as the second adam, the transaction of the covenant was wholly conditional— yea, he undertook not only for his own works, but for ours. true indeed it is, that when we believe, it is we only that believe! and when we work, it is we that work but our working is not the cause of his grace, but his grace is of our working. dr. reynolds works, last. edit. p. 923. if the covenant be considered, as it is applied actually unto the elect in time; this is done absolutely in bestowing the gift of the promise to dead creatures, in whom there is an absolute impossibility of performing the least entitling act to the promise; and therefore there can be nothing freer than life to a dead creature; neither doth life given entitle to action; that's very absurd to say, but it's a principle of action; but life, and such a life, and all the effects of it proceeds from the same gift, and this is eternal life. 4. hence all those promises that contain the promulgation of the covenant in its original nature, and as respecting us, express the tenure of it as most free and absolute, as it was revealed to adam, abraham, david, and in the gospel-dispensation since christ. 4. the absoluteness of this covenant appears as to us, in that all the federal entitling conditions contained in it is to be found in another, and not in us, nor wrought in us; for whatever is wrought in us, is from free gift, and of promise, and must have some condition performed by another as federal, before we can partake of it. therefore there's nothing in us before or after conversion that doth belong to the federal condition; all our gospel obedience is to be referred to the promise, and is built upon it; therefore it's absolute, because both christ, the condition, and all the good things promised, are freely bestowed upon us. 11. for the better understanding of the nature of the covenant of grace, medium est vox communioris significationis quam conditio, non omne medium est conditio licet omnis conditio fit medium, sed medium ad aliquid obtinen dum ex contractu vel foedere illud demum est conditio. dr. twiss. we must distinguish well upon the nature of conditions: there are two sorts of conditions; conditions federal, and conditions of connexion or dependence of things one upon another. federal conditions are terms agreed on in covenant-contract between the parties covenanting; whereupon the promises made become due by reward and debt: and this supposeth, that the terms proposed be accepted before it become a covenant. a covenant is not forced; and therefore if the covenant of grace were made upon conditional terms with sinners, it could not be a covenant-agreement consummated, till they had first accepted the terms. 2. it always supposeth there is a power and ability in the party on whom the covenant-condition lies to be performed, previous to the proposal of the said conditions, otherwise they would be vain and absurd. hence to assert faith or obedience to be the federal conditions, doth unavoidably throw men into the arminian doctrine of , and of a natural power in man to provide for his salvation in the performance of the said foederal conditions. but we affirm, neither faith itself; no, not the gift of the spirit that works faith, not our union to christ, no gifts that accompany salvation, are foederal conditions. christ in the exercise of his mediator's office in his humiliation and exaltation, is the only foederal condition wherein all entitling conditions particularly mentioned in the gospel are lodged and treasured up, and are freely by christ bestowed on us. 12. there are also conditions of connexion by way of order and dependence of things one upon another, whereas the scripture often inculcates such expressions as these, without faith none can please god, without holiness none can see god; as if they had called faith and a new life conditions of the covenant; when in accurate speaking, and according to the nature of this covenant, on god's part they are executions of former promises, and an earnest of future good: but if we will call these conditions, they are not so much conditions of the covenant, as of the certainty that we are in the covenant. wits. de foed. 196. which are rationes rerum inter se, and belong to logic; and they arise from all arguments artificial or inartificial, prime and ort, simple or comparate, consentany or dissentany, and they run in a connex axiom, when the said conditionality is expressed. as thus, si animal est homo est rationale; si figura est trigularis est & trilateralis: if a creature be a man, he is a rational creature. if a figure have 3 corners, it hath three sides; all things in the world are capable of coming under this kind of conditionality; yea, the most absolute being's: as if god be the first cause, he is the creator of all things. in this sense creation is a condition of salvation. if a man be saved, he must be created. so election a condition, if a man be saved, he must be elected; but election is not a foederal condition. so if a man believe he shall be saved, believing is a condition of connexion to salvation. if a man have the spirit of christ, he shall believe unto salvation; but neither faith nor union are foederal conditions. a state in grace is a condition to a state in glory by way of connexion in the promise: but one is not a foederal condition of another, but both come in in the gift of grace. in this sense the covenant of promise contains all the conditions of order and dependence in the exhibition and performance: the hearing the word is the condition of faith, but hearing the word is not a foederal condition: so the giving the spirit is the condition of union to christ and faith, faith the condition of receiving pardon and living in holiness. and the giving of pardon the condition of receiving it, holiness the condition of seeing god and eternal happiness: but these kind of conditions are not foederal entitling to the promise, but are contained in the promise, and denote only the connexion and dependence of one promised benefit upon another. 13. hence the ministry of reconciliation runs conditionally. because in it the absolute covenant is preached. 1. indefinitely to elect and non-elect. 2. the covenant is declared in all the promissory and duty-dependances contained in it, and duty required because promised. 3. we must distinguish of the ministry of reconciliation in respect of the letter of it, insertae sunt novisaederis conditiones novae obedientiae, legali quidam schaemate, ad normam probationis nostrae ipsius & gratitudinis debitae— sic tamen & alio quoque schemate ipsa resipiscentia in peccati mortificatione & bonorum operum studio promittitur tanque dei donum quod ipse operaturus sit in nobis ut isthoc signo & argumento fas sit, ex quo verè resipuimus & credimus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sperate in eam quae ad nos defertur gratiam in patefactione jesus christi, 1 pet. 1.13. promissionis formulae expressissimae novum foedus sancientes donatione rescipiscentiae & novae obedientiae extant. jer. 32.40. isa. 52.2. 1 pet. 1.4. 2 pet. 1.3. 1 joh. 3.9. and ver. 18. clopeub. d● fo●d. p. 516. quicquid conditionis locum obtinere concipitur id omne universalitare promissionum includitur si vitam aeternam solum polliceretur deus non de●sset specie aliqua dicendi rescipiscentiam fidem, etc. conditiones hujus foederis esse. verum cum & initium & progression, & non intercisam continuationem & consummationem denique novae vitae odem quasi ●●lur addicat. deus in universalitte hâc promissorum nihil remanet quod totius foederis conditio censeri queat. nos hic de conditione foederis sic agimus, non de aliquâ re in homine quae actuaalem fruitionem consummatae felicitatis precedere debet. witf. p. 195, 196. de foe●ere. and the spirit of it, 1 cor. 3.6. in the letter of it, the mere external dispensation, that kills, because a sinner looks upon all these conditions of dependence to be foederal conditions; but the ministration of the covenant by the spirit in that ministry is absolute, according to the original contract, and the fullest discovery in its highest freedom: and therefore the apostie tells us, this spirit giveth life. and the believing corinthians are said to be the epistle of christ written and transcribed from the original covenant-contract, not with ink, but with the spirit of the living god; not in tables of stone, but in the fleshly tables of the heart, according to that promise of a new heart. hence therefore we must distinguish between the covenant of grace, it's absolute tenure, and the ministry of the grace of the coventnt, which ministry is conditionally dispensed, according to the connexion and dependence of good things contained in the promise, to a mixed people, elect and non-elect. the effect of this ministry is, either to work effectually by the spirit according to the nature of an absolute promise, and then becomes a savour of life; or else it works only in the letter in the conditional nature as a covenant of works, and then it killeth eventually, and is a savour of death and condemnation. 14. the covenant of grace is to be distinguished according to its different revelation and dispensation, under the names of the old and new testament, which is no specific difference, but only secundum adjunctae revelationis. the absoluteness of this covenant was abundantly revealed under the old testament dispensation unto the patriarches and prophets, but not so clearly by the ministry of the worldly sanctuary, but vailed, on which vailedness the faultiness of that dispensation was charged, and did consist, in comparison of what was to ensue. 1. it stood vailed under a figurative, carnal ministry and ordinances. 2. such as were weak and insufficient as to reaching those ends that were designed by the grace of the covenant, heb. 10.1. and that in respect of the main gospel grace in pardon of sin, and purifying the conscience. 3. in that it insisted so much upon the conditionality of works, and wherein it's said they continued not, viz. in the mount sinai covenant which god gave them when he brought them out of egypt, heb. 8.9. 4. in regard of that sort of promises which they stood encouraged by to the performance of this external obedience; they were usually temporal blessings only, and the threats and curses denounced against disobedience was usually in rsepect of outward things; though under all this cloudiness and conditionality the covenant of promise was applied in its absolute nature, as at first revealed to adam and abraham, which was to all the elect living before christ, the ministry of the quickening spirit, and a savour of life. 15. the original contract of this covenant before the world was, is by some called the covenant of redemption, and distinguished from the covenant of grace, but such do greatly mistake, for both the original contract, and the manifestation thereof are one and the same covenant, there's no specific difference, that which is, is but secundum adjuncta ordinis & manifestationis. neonom. next to the doctrine of imputation, which i think i have sufficiently cleared up according to my scheme, and fully and rightly stated truths and errors in those points: let us now debate the conditionality of the covenant of grace. this being a point of great concern, i shall premise an enquiry unto some particulars for the explaining this subject. q. 1. what is the covenant of grace? d. w. c. 8. p. 53. a. 1. it is not the covenant of redemption between the father and spirit as one party, and the eternal word the lord jesus as the other party. antinom. who ever put the father and spirit on one party in the covenant of grace? it's new divinity; and secondly, you are very magisterial in this negative position, quadam confidentia non est virtus ut audacia. methinks the judgement of the reverend divines should have weighed so much with you as not to have blowed it off at one puff. in the larger catechism. q. 30. doth god leave mankind to perish in a state of sin and misery? a. god doth not leave all mankind to perish in the estate of sin and misery into which they fell by the breach of the first covenant, commonly called the covenant of works, but of his mere love and mercy delivereth his elect out of it, and bringeth them into a state of salvation by the second covenant, commonly called a covenant of grace. q. 31. with whom was the covenant of grace made? a. the covenant of grace was made with christ as the second adam, and in him with all the elect as his seed. you say, that the covenant agreement made with christ, was not the covenant of grace. you call it a covenant of redemption as another thing from the covenant of grace. i acknowledge the covenant of grace is a covenant of redemption, and the covenant (you call) the covenant of redemption is the covenant of grace; and therefore shall not encumber our discourse with a debate about names, but shall affirm that there is no such thing as an essential difference between the covenant of grace and redemption, the distinction made between them is but novel, at least that it was but lately so generally received; for it appears by what is here spoken in this answer of the assembly so plainly and positively, that they owned but two covenants, that of works and that of grace. they are only distinguished between the making and manifesting this covenant of grace. a covenant hidden, or secret, and manifest, is but distributio ex adjunctis; therefore after they had told us that this covenant of grace was made with christ the second adam, and with all the elect as his seed. they inquire next; q. 32. how is the grace of god manifest in the second covenant? a. the grace of god is manifested in the second covenant, in that he freely provideth and offereth to sinners a mediator, and life, and salvation by him, etc. so that the covenant of grace contains all grace and mercy, redemption, and the offer and application thereof. neonom. were this covenant understood, i think many well meaning people would be undeceived: in that covenant [i. e. of redemption] all the causes of man's salvation are adjusted and secured; all satisfaction and merit are on christ, as his undertaking, etc. antinom. it seems then this wellmeaning assembly was deceived, and many able divines besides, who have not admitted of this novel distinction between the covenant of redemption, and that of grace. 2. you talk at least very improperly; that the causes of man's salvation are adjusted and secured in the covenant of redemption, which placeth it before election; for i take the grace of election to be the first adjusting and securing cause of men's salvation, and not so only, but of the covenant itself made with christ. i thought all the causes were sufficiently adjusted in the council of god's will, and that by the purpose of grace they were secured to us, and redemption too. christ's undertaking the charge of satisfaction and merit, is a cause of our salvation, not adjusting and securing it, they were adjusted and secured before. neonom. yea, it's provided there that the elect shall obey the terms of life, and certainly possess salvation. antinom. 1. it's manifest that you esteem not redemption one of the terms of life, but some other terms distinct from it, i had thought that christ's righteousness had been the great condition of our life and salvation, but it seems it's but provision for the performing the terms of life. 2. i thought it had been provided in election, that all the elect should certainly believe and obey the gospel, but it seems by what you say here they were only conditionally elected, and provision made in the covenant of redemption, that they should perform the condition, and obey the term, (very improper) its to perform the terms. now what is in such a covenant of grace more than adam's would have had if he had stood; for god must have provided that he should obey or perform the terms of life, which were to him very small and easy, no more than giving a pepper-corn, or not so much; only to forbear plucking and eating an apple when he had enough besides. there's no essential difference in your opinion, for wherever the creature performs a condition of a covenant of god's making, god must provide for that performance, by grace given and confirmed. neonom. yea, as that covenant was not made with the elect, though for the elect; so they have nothing to do as a condition of this covenant. antinom. rare divinity! mens tua sublimis supra genus eminet ipsum. 1. you say that covenant was not made with the elect. the assembly say it was made with the second adam and his seed; but you i suppose deny christ to be a second adam, a public person, and a spiritual or mystical root. 2. i would fain know whether christ in his humane nature was not elect, and the head of all the elect; therefore if we consider him but singly, whether he was not the principal elect one? and i pray, was the covenant made with him or for him? i say it was made with him and for him, and so it was made with the elect in him, both with them and for them; or else how comes god's purpose and grace to be given us in christ jesus before the world began; 2 tim. 2.9. but you tell us that the elect have nothing to do as a condition of this covenant; you reckon, you highly honour christ in giving all the conditionality of this covenant to him; and what's that? it's that he provided for our performing the condition of another covenant, and why might he not have prepared us by that condition for another covenant condition after that? but it seems your covenant of redemption is but a subordinate covenant to that of grace, and its righteousness subordinate to our righteousness, which you make the condition of the covenant of grace. neonom. and to this [covenant of redemption] all absolute promises and prophecies of grace are reducible, they being a transcript hereof. d. w. p. 54. antinom, what is your meaning in this, it's hard to guests, whether absolute promises are made in the covenant of redemption. and, 2. if so, whom in that covenant they are made to, to christ? you must mean so; for you say we are not in it: then the promise of giving a new heart is made to christ, and not to us. or, 3. if you mean they are reducible to it, as being the covenant of promise, and so christ and all his benefits are given absolutely and unconditionally to us in it; this makes us concerned as a party in the covenant; for to whom the promise of the covenant belongs, to them the covenant belongs as a party concerned. neonom. this dr. owen makes to be a distinct covenant from the covenant of grace. p. 268, 269. antinom. it is true, dr. owen and other learned divines have spoken of a covenant of redemption, as in some respect distinct from the covenant of grace, but make not such an ill use of that notion as you do: the dr. says, he doth not call these foederaal transactions the covenant of grace absolutely: nor is it so called in scripture. [and it may well be so, for we find not the term covenant of grace mentioned in scripture] and some will not distinguish between a covenant of a mediator, and the covenant of grace, because the promises of the covenant are absolutely said to be made to christ, gal. 3.16. of which some its plain the assembly at westminster was. and therefore it appears there have been different apprehensions in this matter. i reverence and honour both parties as orthodox and sound in what they intended and meant in this point; but i must adhere to the word of god as the most infallible guide in this and other things, according to what light i receive. all the difference that i find they make, is no more than respectu adjunctorum, that is hiddenness and declaration, or at most to execution. and indeed all i understand by dr. owen is two things: 1. to show us under how many considerations the new covenant comes. and, 2. which of these considerations it is the spirit of god seems mostly to point at, when it speaks of this new covenant, as a promise, covenant of grace or peace. and he saith, it's variously represented, 1. in the designation and preparation of its terms and benefits in the council of god, which although it have the nature of an eternal decree, yet is it not the same with the decree of election, etc. 2. it may be considered with respect of the foederal transactions between the father and the son. 3. in respect of declaration of it by special revelation. (1) by way of absolute promise. (2) by way of additional prescription of the way and means whereby it is the will of god that we should enter into a covenant-state with him, etc. 4. the covenant may be considered as to the actual application of the grace, benefit and privileges unto any persons, etc. now all this while he makes not two covenants, a covenant of redemption, and of grace, but gives divers considerations of the new covenant in its dispensation, and under which consideration it may most usually and properly be termed by us a covenant of grace: and the ground of this discourse is to disprove your notion, that the covenant of redemption or surety ship is the procuring cause of the covenant of grace: and he shows that it is not where said in the scripture, that christ by his death merited, procured, obtained the new covenant, dr. o. p. 266, 267. or that god should enter into a new covenant with mankind; yea, that which is contrary to it, and inconsistent with it, is frequrnrly asserted. now he comes to show what respect the covenant of grace hath unto the death of christ, and what influence it hath thereunto? a. supposing what is spoken of his being a surety thereof, it hath a threefold respect thereunto. 1. in that the covenant, dr. o. p. 271, 272. as to the grace and glory of it, were prepared in the council of god, as the terms of it was fixed in the covenant of the mediator, and as it were declared in the promise, was confirmed, ratified, and made it revocable thereby. this the apostle insists on at large, heb. 9.15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20. 2. he thereby underwent and performed all that which in the righteousness and wisdom of god was required, that the effects, fruits, benefits and grace intended and designed, and prepared in the new covenant might be effectually accomplished and communicated unto sinners. 3. all the benefits were procured by him, etc. now saith he, the sum of these things is, whereas it's affirmed the new covenant was procured by the death of christ, dr. o. p. 273. if it be understood with respect unto the actual communication of all grace and glory prepared in the covenant, and proposed unto us in the promises of it; it is most true, all the grace and glory promised in the covenant was purchased for the church by jesus christ. in this fence by his death he procured the new covenant; but as to the new covenant itself it's not procured. all this is rather a confirmation than a denial of the truth of what the assembly affirms concerning the covenant of grace. neonom. i say, that the covenant of grace is not the covenant of redemption between the father and the son. antinom. you should have told what the covenant of grace is. neonom. the covenant of grace is the way that god hath ordained to apply to sinners that salvation which is prepared by christ, and which he will enable the elect to comply with. antinom. this definition or description i except against. for first, it contains not the genus or common nature of a covenant, viz. to be an agreement wherein two parties do mutually consent; nor the parties wherein the nature of a covenant doth consist, which is a condition and promise; nor is there a covenant in the more improper fence denoted, viz. a promise; for if it be a covenant of grace, it must be at least a covenant of promise. 2. you say, it's a way ordained of god: here's no forma or differentia; for many things are ways and means, which are not covenants; you should have said (according to your sense) its god's agreement with sinners upon terms of faith and repentance. 3. the application of the means effectually is part of the salvation itself. 4. you say this salvation is prepared by christ; you should have said, by the father in his council and purpose for the giving his son, and blessing us with all blessings in him: the life and salvation is christ, and in christ; he is our life; the father hath given us life, and this is in his son. 5. you should have said, which he hath promised to enable the elect to comply with, or else it hath nothing of a covenant in it; it carries only the force of electing will; and if he hath promised, then to some or other, either to christ, and then it brings in your covenant of redemption; if to any other excluding christ, then to the elect out of christ: for the promise to make a person comply, must be made, and must be in nature before he doth comply. neonom. i pray, what do you say is the covenant of grace. antinom. i shall tell you the parties between whom it was made. it was made by god in the person of the father with man in the person of the son. you speak improperly to talk of the father and spirit covenanting with the son; you should rather say, the father, son and spirit covenanted with the son: for by this notion you take in the persons of the trinity; for you must take them all in the covenanting part; and then there's as much reason to take them in all in their stipitulating part, because the son is god, and so the three persons covenanted with themselves under the same distinct consideration in the godhead. but we say, god essentially considered covenanted in the person of the father, with man in the person of the son. his son taking man's part, being his representative, as having his nature in the same person; therefore as the second adam, having all the spiritual seed in his loins, and as a common person federally. neonom. and what is a covenant between these damasks? antinom. it's the promise of eternal life made to christ, and to the elect in him to be performed in and through jesus christ as the great condition to all them that shall be saved by him. covenants are denominated from either part, by a synecdoche here chief from the promise, as the same is sometimes from the condition. the covenant of grace is a great mystery, etc. rom. 16.25. col. 1.26. 1. because it was eternal, tit. 1.2. 2 tim. 1.9. 2. that though between god and man, yet being made with us in christ, it was between equals, phil. 2.6. 3. that though it was a covenant of works, yet a covenant of grace, to christ a covenant of works, and most conditional, isa. 53.10, 11, 12. to us absolute and free, being a promise of the gift of christ, and all blessings in him. 4. it is mysterious in respect of the several states that it hath had. 1. hidden. 2. revealed. hidden in god before the world was; revealed since the world. 1. less manifested in the promulgation before christ's coming. (1) in respect of the few emanations and discoveries of its brightness and lustre in absolute promises to adam, noah, abraham, jacob, david. (2) in regard of its veiled state. first, under the veils, of sacrifices, types, figures. secondly, under a legal, moral and conditional administration. 5. it is mysterious in regard of the various names and titles that it hath had from its different dispensations; that under the law was called old and faulty, because it made but a partial discovery of its glory and lustre. in the new testament it's called the new covenant, in respect of the new and clear dispensation; it's called the promise, because it appears absolutely given forth in a promissory way; it's called the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as well as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, from the nature of it in relation to sinners its good news to them. it's called a testament, because confirmed by christ's death. neonom. but you tell me not how you prove the covenant of grace and redemption are all one. antinom. 1. because i know them not spoken of any where as distinct covenants. the scripture of isa. 53.10, 11, 12. is a place wherein this covenant is so clearly described between the father and the son, it holds forth the covenant of grace fully and clearly, the promise of all grace and benefits that are contained in the said covenant of grace. and the apostle tells us expressly, that this covenant-agreement was the will by which we are sanctified, through the offering of the body of jesus once for all, heb. 10.8, 9, 10. 2. that covenant that contains in it the whole matter and form, in conditions and promises, of the covenant of grace, doth not essentially differ from it: but the covenant of redemption doth. it contains conditions and promises of grace, all things that pertain to life and godliness; and it contains in it all conditions upon which we may be partakers of any promises, christ's person, offices, sacrifice, righteousness active and passive, there's no covenant condition, of atonement, propitiation, satisfaction unto the justice of god, but it is here, christ is the great fulfiller of the law, and satisfier of it; he is the end of the law for righteousness to every believer, rom. 10.4. 3. from the veiled dispensation of the covenant of grace before the coming of christ, their sacrifices, and their ceremonial administration held forth in a figure, that it is made to christ, and confirmed in him as the great offering, and atonement; christ is there exemplified and set forth as the fullness of the covenant of grace, both in respect of promises and conditions. 4. when we plead any thing of the covenant of grace, it's the promises of life made to us in christ, as yea and amen to us in him, in respect of obtaining and performance to us. 5. our justifying acts of faith is fixed on christ as the sum of the covenant of grace, as satisfying for our sins, and as to whom the promises were made, and the great thing promised, as the fountain and meritorious cause of all blessings; he is given us as the covenant. 6. there is all grace to be had in this covenant, frustra fit per plura quod fieri potest per pauciora; there is no grace but is given forth and received by us in this covenant between the father and son; the gift of the spirit, the grace of faith, justification by his blood; by him came all grace; yea all other supposed grace that came not from the father, and through christ, is no grace, and will not profit us. 7. where the covenanters condition and promises are all from grace and love to us, there's a covenant of grace; but in that which you call a distinct covenant of redemption, the covenanters, the conditions and promises are of free grace and love to us; god the father from his free grace and love to us called his son to this undertaking and covenanting with him; god the son in our person from his love and free grace covenanted with his father, he came and freely offered himself to perform the covenant condition. the condition of this covenant in all mediatorial perfections and performances, is freely promised and bestowed upon us. the promise of eternal life, all grace and glory are promised and given, in this covenant. that is a covenant of grace, wherein god is to us a god of all grace. 8. if the covenant of redemption be not the covenant of grace, than there is more covenants than the covenant of works, and the covenant of grace for life and salvation, but there is no more covenants for our life and salvation, but that of works, and that of grace. the minor i think hardly any will deny; but if it be said there was moses mount sinai covenant; that was but a darker and faultier dispensation of the covenant of grace in the moral and ceremonial law; if church covenants be alleged under the law or gospel, they add nothing to this grand covenant, but are accomplishments of the promises thereof to whom it doth belong, it being promised that they shall be god's people; in this covenant christ stipulates, and we in him, as we did in the first adam, then when we believe we stipulate, moved thereto from the grace of the promise, and enter personally into this covenant, embracing that covenant which was made for us in christ, it's called laying hold of it. it is solemnly also owned, professed and restipulated to, when we enter into church fellowship; repeated restipulations, and renewing of the same covenant may be, without changing the covenant; for as we find god often repeats this covenant, and renews it with his people in revelation and establishment, as with adam, noah, abraham, isaac and jacob, yet it was but the same covenant; so are god's children excited and encouraged thereto from the free grace of the said covenant. i shall not here enlarge any further, but refer the reader to that excellent treatise of the reverend mr. petto concerning the covenants; where c. 2. p. 18. he gives us this account of the covenant of grace, viz. the covenant of grace was made and established not only with us, but jointly with jesus christ, and us in him; so that both are within one and the same covenant, for the great transactions with jesus, yea, even the giving and sending of him, and his accepting the office of a redeemer, and undertaking for us, these are all of grace as well as what is promised to us through him; therefore the covenant of grace must take in all that conduceth (otherwise than a mere decree) to our restauration and eternal salvation. 1. there is no scripture evidence for making these two covenants, one of suretyship or redemption with jesus christ, and another of grace and reconciliation made with us; that distinction which some use is improper, for the parts are coincident, seeing that which was with christ was of mere grace also, john 3.16. and it's promised that he should be given for a covenant, isa. 42.6. therefore it's of grace we are redeemed by him, 2 tim. 1.9. there was grace before the world was, and that must be in the covenant as with jesus christ, which was for reconciling the world to the father, 2 cor. 5.18, 19 colos. 1.20, 21. it's true, christ only is our redeemer and surety, not we in our own persons,— and christ hath some peculiar precepts and promises appropriated to him, which are not afforded to us in the same manner and degree, yet this hindereth not the oneness of the covenant with him and us. 2. the covenant of grace was made with jesus christ as a public person, a second adam, and therefore with all his seed in him. 3. all in the covenant as with us, is undertaken for and promised in the covenant as between the father and the son, and so together make but one covenant. 4. all covenant blessings are primarily granted to christ. see more, p. 23, etc. neonom. q. 2. what is intended by a condition? a. i answer in the words of the worthy mr. flavel (discourse of errors, p. 248.) an antecedent condition signifies no more than an act of ours; which though it be neither perfect in every degree, nor in the least meritorious of the benefit conferred, nor performed in our natural strength, yet according to the constitution of the covenant, it is required of us, in order to the blessing consequent thereupon, by virtue of the promise; and consequently the benefits and mercies granted in this order, are and must be suspended by the donor, or disposer of them, till it be performed; such a condition we affirm faith to be. antinom. mr. flavel was a worthy man; but it may be not without some hay and stubble. i wish it do not prove an attempting at another foundation besides christ, 1 cor. 3.10, 11, 12, 13. you tell us, what an antecodent condition is; that it signifies no more than an act of ours, and such is faith. i suppose you and he mean, in distinction from a consequent condition: the antecedent gains the estate; the lawyers reckon it the purchase-mony, the consequent condition keeps it, and it's the quitrent, which if it be not duly paid, the lord can enter and take to the estate: so that faith you'll have to be the antecedent condition money deposited and laid down, before you have any thing of your spiritual estate. and you say, it signifies no more than an act of ours. i pray, whose should it be but ours, if the condition be to be performed by us? and why is this put in, it signifies no more? unless the meaning be, that christ's righteousness should be shut out, and it should be reckoned under the nature of this condition merely as an act of ours, without respect to christ the author of it, and christ the true object of it. and now you tell us it's negative qualifications. 1. it's not perfect in every degree. what's the meaning of that? this insinuates as if it were perfect in some degrees. i had thought no grace were perfect in degrees, tho' as to kind and truth. but you will have it perfect in some degrees, and imperfect in other degrees: pray in what degrees is this condition perfect, and in what imperfect? and whether it be not an imperfect covenant that hath an imperfect condition? 2. it's not in the least meritorious of the benefits conferred, by no means, i. e. by any intrinsic value and worth, either adequate to, or excelling the benefits received. no, your meaning is, what you have for it is well worth your money; it's a good bargain: but by your favour, every foederal condition is ex pacto, meritorious; so that you may challenge your bargain upon performance, if it be but 20 guineas to purchase an 100 l. per annum: so that we have only your word for it, that it's not meritorious, when it's so in reality; the nature of the thing speaks it to the understanding of all men of sense. no, no; do not think to wheedle christ out of his merits, and god out of the honour of his freegrace, and us out of the comfort of both. 3. you say it's not performed in our natural strength. no, and yet a condition of covenant made with man? a most unreasonable thing, to require a condition of a covenant of one, that we know hath no strength to perform it. if a rich man should offer an estate of 1000 l. a year to a poor man that he knew was not worth a groat, provided he fetched him twenty pound of his own money; this act would be reckoned a mocking and ridiculing this poor wretch. god did not require that small condition of adam, but that he actually had natural strength to perform it. you will say, god will give him ability to perform, so he did to adam, previous to the covenant. as the rich man tells the poor, i will give thee 20 l. to pay me for my estate, he'll say, well, sir, when you give it me, i will then bargain with you; and when i have it, though you gave it me, i shall reckon it mine as much as if i had raised it myself, or another had given; and if we bargain, i shall expect to have my bargain upon this condition. though it's a good bargain, yet it's a bargain, and whatever i have of you is debt. i can sue for it as purchased by me, saith the poor man. now see how well qualified this condition is; no, no, believe it, god makes no such lame bargains as these: yet you say, according to the constitution of the covenant, it is required of us in order to the blessings consequent thereupon by virtue of the promise. this i must confess is an orthodox paradox indeed. what mean you by the constitution of the covenant? is it not as other covenants, by the constitution of your scheme? is it not by a condition and promise? and is not this condition performed foederale meritum? and is not, do this and live, ordo foederalis, and the blessings consequent ex pacto, and therefore debt? think not to beat us out of our senses, that the blessings of a covenant are only à consequentia ordinis vel posterioritatis: as one man follows another in a narrow path, or ordine naturae, as a son is after a father: but here it is in ordine ad, virtute pacti, in order to a foederal right and challenge of the benefits as a due debt. but how do you understand that clause, by virtue of the promise? neonom. it's from god's will in the promise, that they are made to be conditions: he connected the benefit and the duty; though he chose those conditions that were fit, yet their fitness would not have availed to our interest in the benefits, unless he had promised that they should avail. a penitent believer had not been saved but for the promise, though it's unlike a god to have saved any that were not such. d. w. p. 55. antinom. wherefore god's will in the promise? are not the promise and the conditions both equally willed by god? is god's will in the promise any thing besides that will of god that is in the condition? the plain truth is, this is a puzzling doctrine, god's will in the promise that makes conditions. but how? you tell us, he connected benefit and duty. but in what manner? for he connected benefit and duty in the covenant of works; and it was as much god's will in the promise as you can pretend to, if i understand the riddle: but you say, he chose fit conditions. it was fit god should choose his conditions, and it became his wisdom and power to make fit conditions: but imperfect, lame, sinful conditions of a covenant do not become a holy and perfect god to choose; to cast away perfect conditions, and take imperfect in their room. but though god chose fit conditions, yet they would not have availed, (sufficient, you reckon, but not efficient) god's choice of persons or things in your sense, makes them not certainly future; yet we find that many things that god hath chosen do avail to attain the end to which he chose them, tho' there be no promise of their availing. but it seems god makes a covenant with man, and is fain to enter into bond for man's performance of the condition, and perform them himself at last in giving the first grace. but what indeed should be the true english, after all this splutter about a condition? it's but a little thing wrapped up in the promise, and is ours by virtue of promise. so that at last our conditional covenant is become absolute; for we have the duty as well as the benefit by promise. the penitent believer hath his faith and repentance as a part of eternal life given to him by promise. neonom. and consequently the benefits and mercies granted in this order, are, and must be suspended by the donor or disposer of them till it be performed, and such a condition we affirm faith to be. antinom. and a fine business you have made of it. and consequently, i. e. federally; for it's no otherwise consequently: there must be a suspension of the granted benefits, not by the donor, that's improper, but by the bargainer: and how long? till he is pleased to give the man money to make the purchase with: and is not this reason, if he be to find the money? and is it any fault in the poor man that he doth not make the purchase, when he that should sell him the estate hath all the purchase-money in his hands? you bid poor sinners come and buy; and you say not with the prophet, without money and price, but you must have such a parcel of money to do it with, which money is in god's hands. they will tell you, when god gives us the money, we will buy, and till then it's not our fault. he is a hard master if he looks to reap where he sowed not. neonom. these conditions are our duty by god's command, and no less so by being made terms of the benefit in the divine grant. d. w. p. 55. antinom. it seems you make more conditions than one; we shall meet with them by and by. 2. you make the covenant of grace a covenant of legislation, and so a new law directly opposed to the covenant of promise, as we do make appear. was not the condition appointed to adam by god's command, and had antecedent power given him to perform? is it not unreasonable to command the performance of a condition, where the commander knows there is no power to perform? is it consistent with the wisdom of god to command an impossibility to his creature, as a covenant-condition? and is it just to deal with him upon his non-performance, according to the sanction of a law? and you say, his duty no less by being made terms, etc. you should have said, legally much more. in stead of terms of the benefit, you should have said, terms of the covenant, if you had spoken properly. and as for the grant you speak of, it's but conditional, and there's no grant at all pleadable till the condition be performed. neonom. the covenant, though conditional, is a disposition of grace: there's grace in giving ability to perform the condition, as well as bestowing the benefits; god's enjoining one in order to the other, makes not the benefit to be the less given. d. w. p. 55. ant●nom. in a conditional covenant (that is a covenant of works in the highest sense) there is always a disposition of grace to the creature, even in that by which the very good angels stand, and was in that made with adam. it's grace that god offers happiness to his creature upon any terms, when he is in a capacity to perform them. it's grace to take his creature into covenant. the angels are saved by grace, and so would man have been, if he had stood; and though he fell, there was that grace you speak of in giving ability to perform the condition, and giving it before he put the condition upon him, which is not here; for you'll have the condition put upon a sinner, before the disposition of grace to give him ability; which makes it a harsh dealing, and unreasonable, and hence far from grace, and therefore this enjoining makes not only less grace, but no grace. neonom. it's a display of god's wisdom, in conferring the benefit, suitably to the nature and state of man in this life, whose eternal condition is not eternally decided, but are in a state of trial; yea, the conditions are but a meetness to receive the blessings. antinom. gross divinity! i had thought christ in the covenant had been the great display of god's wisdom, 1 cor. 1. but you must have a pitiful condition, an imperfect, sinful righteousness instead of him, and a covenant agreeable to the corrupt nature and state of men, and indeed so is yours, for there's nothing suits more with our carnal, corrupt hearts, than to seek salvation in such a way as you pretend to. and is not the state of believers decided in this life? but is it still a contingent axiom that john a true believer shall be saved? what miserable consequences will hence be inferred, the conditions are still performing these federal conditions and subjective qualifications, it may be the man may not perform them all, and then he perisheth eternally; there's no certainty of salvation here, no man can have any more than an opinion of it, shake hands with the papists and arminians. nay hence it seems that all the grace given here is no part of eternal life, but qualifying conditions to make them meet for it federally, and that in true english is to make them merit it. lastly, all the doctrine of election is hereby overthrown, you may tear out, eph. 1. and rom. 9 and several other places of scripture out of your bible. no man's eternal condition is by the eternal god decided. the best man is but upon his trial as adam was, whether he will stand or fall. neonom. i will show you the reason why we use the word condition. 1. because it best suits with man's relation to god, in his presents deal with us as subjects in trial for eternity. d.w. p. 55. antinom. i know not why you should make any apology for using the word, for undoubtedly it best suits with your system of divinity; though it would not have suited with paul's conditions, it will suit our nature that are dead in trespasses, without strength, in the flesh, and cannot please god in the performance of any conditions; and it suits his present deal you say in way of trial for our eternal estate, upon our good behaviour in performance of after conditions as well as first conditions, our calling, election, justification, union with christ, the promises of perseverance, all doth not decide our eternal estate, nothing but our final performance of conditions. lord have mercy upon us and our ministers! where's our gospel? neonom. christ as priest hath merited all. antinom. he ought then to be content, and not except against your scheme, you allow him enough. neonom. but as king or priest upon his throne he dispenseth all, he enjoins the conditions in order to the benefits; and makes the benefits motives to our compliunce with the conditions: he treats with men as his subjects, whom he will now rule, and hereafter judge. antinom. now he comes to his rectoral rule of government, and gives forth his new law. i had thought christ had been a king, and exerted his kingly office upon the cross as well as upon the throne; but now you say he acts as a king or priest upon the throne; and as such, either king or priest, you know not which, he enjoins conditions in order to benefits. you should speak plainly; you mean, he sets up a new law, justifies or condemns men by the works of this law, and treats all the world as redeemed subjects, deals with them according to this new law, bringing them upon their trial for eternity. your meaning is, that christ hath merited a power to himself to exercise dominion in the earth, and bring men under his trial and judicature in performance of conditions; and they that are saved shall be saved by his regal power. it's enough for his priestly office, that it merited what he was to do as king: but not all; for the first grace must not come from his merits; and now there's but a little use for his priesthood; all the rest depend upon our conditions. neonom. now what word is so proper to express the duty as enjoined means of benefits, like this word conditions? antinom. it seems you hug this word condition extremely. neonom. yes, i do. there's few author's of note, even of any persuasion, but make use of this word in my sense. viz. twiss, rutherford, etc. antinom. few of them understood the word as you do, or at least made use of it in your sense: but whether they understood it so or not, it's no great matter. i would wish you to build a condition-school, where all persons might resort to the hearing condition-lectures, to sit them to understand your terms of art in preaching: and let us consider a little the nature of it. condition comes under several considerations. 1. logical; and there it's conditio conditionans, or conditio conditionata. it's more ordinis, aut relationis, respectu ordinis; it ariseth from a priority and posteriority of things: all things can't be at once, but one thing must be before another; and here one thing is the condition of another respectu temporis; there is conditio relativa; and so all arguments are mutual conditions one of another, and consist è mutuâ alterius affectione; and here is not prioritas temporis sed nature pater est conditio filii; or rather, paternitas relata affectio est causa filietatis correlata affectionis. there is conditio axiomatica, which ariseth from a contingent axiom, or necessary; and either connex, because they're mostly expressed conjunctione connexiuâ si. and so there is also conditio in dispositione syllogisticâ, ex dependentia inter conclusiones & premissa. there is also law-conditions. dr. cawel saith, it is a rate, manner, or law annexed to men's acts or grants, staying and suspending the same, and making them uncertain whether they shall take effect or no. and papinian saith, conditio dicitur cum quid in casum incertum, qui potest tendere ad esse aut non esse confertur. this is a general account of a condition, as arising out of a contingency, the effect depending upon an uncertain cause. and a learned lawyer saith, a condition is a restraint or bridle annexed and joined to a promise, by the performance of which it's ratifyed and takes effect, and by the non-performance of it becomes void. such a condition i perceive you and mr. flavel will have faith to be; a condition upon which the promise is made, and the performance suspended by the disposer till the said condition be performed. conditio adimpleri debet priusque sequatur effectus. now this being your condition, i say, it's foederal. it's conditio foederalis; and let it be in value less or more, it makes a covenant of works, and is clothed with all the logical notions of condititions besides. the logical conditions are in all things ex necessitate dependentiae mutuae rerum, and a man can't move a hand or tongue without them. even brutes and all inanimate being's, as well as men, they belong to the whole fabric and constitution of created being's. but a foederal condition belongs only to rational being's; and it's related to the promise ex pacto, in a way of merit, and the promise belongs to it by way of debt. and in this sense the apostle always decries the law, or any law, to have to do with our justification; he affirms, that it's always of grace, and never of debt, upon the least consideration whatever of our performance and qualification. and this is the condition that i contend against, and say, that neither faith, or any other gracious qualifications or graces of the spirit, are foederal conditions, or conditions of the covenant of grace. my arguments, some of them in brief are these. that which is a gift of the promise of eternal life, is no condition of it; but faith is a gift of the promise, ergo. for the major, it's clear; for one thing can't be another eodem respectu & tempore. the condition and promise are opposita; they are foederalia relata, and therefore contraria affirmantia; a father can't be a son in that respect as he is a father. as to the minor, it's out of all doubt by divine testimony. see john 17.3. eph. 2.8. to know christ by faith, is eternal life; and this life of faith is the gift of god. hence faith, that is the benefit promised, is not the condition of it. a promise, or gift of the promise, cannot be the condition of itself. 2. that which would make the promise a debt, and the gift of it a reward of debt, is not to be allowed: but to make faith a foederal condition of the covenant of grace, would make the promise to be debt, and the reward a reward of debt. therefore faith is not to be allowed to be a condition of the covenant. for the major, it will stand with invincible strength from the apostle paul's divinity and logic, rom. 4.4. believing and working are opposed as working and not working, as contradicentia. it's vain and frivolous to shift by evasive interpretations; and all that's said to that purpose, is easily wiped off. for the minor, that putting faith in as a federal condition, would make the promise a debt. the performance of any work, or doing any act as a federal condition, let it be never so small, the promising federator becomes indebted thereby to bestow the benefit promised on the confoederator, ex obligatione foederali, and therefore a debtor. now the apostle will not allow any thing of this in the least measure. in those places where the apostle opposeth faith to works he speaks of such works as contain perfect and perpetual obedience, such as god required of man under the law, but not of those works which comprehend that obedience which god requires of us who believe in christ racou. catech. c. 9 therefore your doctrine of conditions is socin. 3. that doctrine which will make all the graces of sanctification or gracious qualifications, federal conditions, is not to be admitted. but to say, faith is a condition of the covenant in the sense pleaded for, will bring in all other graces as well as its self, ergo this doctrine is not to be admitted; for there is as much reason that all of them be allowed to be conditions, as that faith should; and therefore i see you and your party bring in repentance and other graces together with faith; and say, our eternal life is given unto us at the last, upon conditional meetness for it. but the scripture no where speaks of our justification, for or by repentunce, love, patience, mortification of sin, etc. not so much as once in the sense that it speaks of justicfiation by faith: and therefore faith justifies not in its qualifying nature, which it hath in common with other graces of the spirit. god never intended our strictest holiness and highest degrees of grace should be our justifying righteousness before god, or federal conditions of the covenant of grace. 4. that any act of ours should be a federal condition of the covenant of grace, destroys the very nature of it, rom. 11.6. eph. 2.8, 9 tit. 2.5. rom. 5.17, 18. isa. 55.1, 2. 1 cor. 2.12. rom. 3.24. as it stands in opposition to the covenant of works; it can't be distinguished otherwise from the covenant of works; for the condition of the covenant of works was as small as any thing, imagining the ability was given before the condition was required. he should have had persevering grace in the promise, had he outstood this temptation. now the formal difference between the covenant of works, and grace was in the condition, that in the covenant of works the righteousness which was the condition was in man himself that was to be justified. in the covenant of grace the conditional righteousness is in another: not only the promise, but the condition is freely given, and is in another. if we must provide the condition; nay, if it must be inherent in us, though wrought by god, it makes our covenant-standing no otherwise than the first and old covenant-standing. besides, the design of god in the covenant of grace, is not only to save graciously, so he doth save elect angels, but to save mercifully; to take them into covenant with him, that not only are without good qualifications, but such as are most sinful and miserable, and not to qualify them with meriting or dignifying righteousness first, but to save them so, that neither they themselves, nor god himself, will see any federal conditions of righteousness in them. the design of grace is to save the creature in the highest degree of abasement in himself, and far from boasting, or seeing any reason in himself to do it. 6. the great and evangelical promulgations of this covenant of grace was always in absolute promises, and no mention made of federal conditions in us. jer. 31.33. ezek. 36.25. hos. 2.18, 19, 20. see zanch. upon the place, he doth not say, if thou wilt repent, i will receive thee into favour, and betrothe thee; but absolutely, tom. 5. fol, in hos. p. 4●, & 55. i will betrothe thee. it is therefore a most absolute covenant, wherein god without any condition doth promise that he will receive his people into favour, and save them. the first promise to adam was absolute; and was not those repeated promises of it to abraham and the patriarches absolute? the forenamed author speaking of the covenant made with abraham, gen. 17.7. notes, that this promise is altogether free, absolute, and without condition, because in the words of the covenant we find no condition. 7. that which is a new covenant condition to some saved ones, is to all; for it's not to be supposed that the new covenant hath divers sorts of conditions, but faith or evangelical obedience cannot be a condition to some, ergo, not the condition. minor. it cannot be the condition to saved infants nor idiots, but it is not to be doubted but god saves many of them by the covenant of grace. 8. if jesus christ himself be the sole condition of the new covenant, than faith nor no other grace of the spirit is not the condition. the spirit itself is not the foederal condition of the covenant, but promised to work faith and holiness in us. but christ is the only condition. 1. his righteousness is our condition in satisfaction of the law, both as to active and passive obedience, rom. 10.4. he is the condition in whom it is, through whom eternal life is conveyed to us, 1 john 5.11. he is the condition through whom all the benefits flow, eph. 1.3. redemption, forgiveness, ver. 7. he is the condition of all good, in him, through him, and by him we have, (1 cor. 1.30.) reconciliation; col. 1.21. of him we have our faith, heb. 12. beg. that christ is the only foederal condition of the covenant, is so clear and plain a truth throughout all the scriptures of the old and new testament, that he must deny the sun in the firmament that denies this truth; christ himself is the sole condition of the covenant. 1. it's impossible any thing else should be the condition, etc. (1.) there's nothing else can reconcile sinners to god in bearing sin and curse; he only was our condition for reconciliation. (2.) there's nothing else pleadable with god. 1. christ can plead nothing else in his intercession, but his own righteousness. 2. we can plead nothing else with god, not our faith or obedience, when be come before god in prayer, dan. 9.18. 3. our best holiness cannot have any satisfying virtue for sin committed. ii. christ must be the only condition, that the covenant of grace might be free to us: that grace might be free grace. iii. he that is the condition of bestowing the spirit which works grace, is the condition of all grace that ensues, but christ is the condition of the bestowing the spirit; ergo, he hath purchased this gift; he sends the spirit; it is his spirit, he had it for this end without measure. neonom. i will tell you what is intended by the benefits of the covenant? a. the good things or privileges promised to such as by grace are enabled to comply with the terms of the covenant, especially whatever is essential to our felicity. d. w. p. 56. antinom. i pray to what doth that grace that doth enable a man to comply with the terms belong? is it any privilege or benefit of the covenant? or hath he it out of covenant? and what is that benefit that he hath in changing his heart, in turning him from darkness to light? is not this the performance of the promise of eternal life? what condition have you to premise to this gift of god? you talk of the grace of god enabling a sinner to comply, just as if he were to keep his old state, and the grace of god did only help and assist him by some moral persuasion; i pray tell me: 1. is not the first life of grace a good thing and privilege? what in us is the condition of it? 2. nay, is not the preaching of the gospel a good thing and privilege? and doth not faith come by hearing? you should make hearing a condition of the covenant; for every duty to be performed antecedaneous to another in order thereunto, or as a means for it, is its condition, but not a federal condition; dressing meat is such a condition to the eating of it; making a suit of to the putting it on, etc. neonom. it's needful that i acquaint you, wherein the conditions of the covenant of grace, differ from conditions in the covenant of innocency, or works as vulgarly called; for both lie in doing something, though not the same thing, nor to the same end, p. 56. antinom. we are like to have excellent doctrine now; here's a plain declaration that the covenant of grace is a covenant of works, though it's not the same individual thing, and something else designed, but it lies in doing. neonom. 1. the conditions of the covenant of grace are performed by the grace of christ freely given to sinners. the conditions of the covenant of innocency were performed by a strength due to and inherent in our innocent nature. d. w. p. 57 antinom. to say the conditions of the covenant of grace are performed by the grace of christ freely given to sinners, and that any act of ours is a condition, i affirm to be a contradiction. 1. whatever is freely given to a sinner, is no part of a federal condition as such, but of a promise. 2. that which is to be ascribed wholly as to all its good to grace, is no condition of a covenant in us, or conditionary part, if there be any it's in christ. 3. you do manifestly own that sinners are not capable of a covenant condition, it must be wrought in them, therefore how absurd is it to say a covenant promise was made to them upon condition of their own act, when they do not act, nor have power to act. 4. the conditions of the covenant of innocency (as you would have it improperly enough) were performed by a strength given freely, and that before the condition was imposed; you make the new law harder, because it commands duty as a condition be●ore it gives strength to perform; and how was it due to our innocent nature? no more than a distinct nature from bruits was due to us; it was all of gracious bounty and ex beneplacito; there's nothing due to the creature from the creator, but what he will from his free good will and pleasure make due; well then, hitherto you show us no more grace in your new law than in the old law, and i am mistaken if not less. neonom. 2. the principal conditions of the covenant of grace express the gild and misery of them that perform them. repentance owns our filth and gild, and faith in a redeemer expresseth our sinful and lost estate; neither of these could have place in our legal righteousness, as being utterly inconsistent with an innocent condition: nor can they have much room in heaven, where we shall be perfect, whereas the terms of the covenant of works implied nothing but innocency and happiness. antinom. you tell us of faith and repentance being the principal condition; i pray which are the rest of the conditions, it's fit we should know them all, and when we have performed our part that we make our claim, for we can make none till we have performed all. 2. if our repentance only as a condition express gild and filth, it expresseth our condemnation only, and thereby not a condition of salvation; it worketh wrath, and thereby belongs to the law of works broken, rom. 4.15. if it be a condition of salvation it must take off gild and filth by expiation, which you dare not say repentance doth make; and so faith, it's not enough to express a sinful and lost estate; that's but a sentence of death, but it must as a condition take off this sentence, by its own nature. 3. whereas you say neither of these, i. e. faith or repentance could have place in our legal righteousness; it's false, for faith had place in our legal righteousness. adam's legal righteousness was faith and obedience, and his legal unrighteousness was begun in unbelief, which is manifest from the serpent's temptation, gen. 3.3. which adam complied with; our first parents fell first by unbelief. and why could not repentance have been one of the conditions, if the lawgiver had pleased to put it in? why might not the law run in these terms, in the day thou eatest, and dost not repent thereof, thou shalt die, and so one law should have done all? why could there not have been as many conditions, and the same in the old law as you will have in the new? therefore there's nothing hinders in the nature of the thing that makes it inconsistent, as you say, with an innocent condition; why may not a provision be made in a state of innocency for the cure of nocency, if the legislator pleaseth? for he made not his law by necessity of nature. and know, that repentance ●●th great consistency with the law, and naturally follows in case of transgression, and there was no need of it but upon that supposition, and upon the fall adam naturally fell into repentance, expressing the gild and filth of his sin. 4. nor (you say) can they have much room in heaven; it seems they have a little, at least so much as to retain the nature of a condition, or else the covenant is lost in heaven; for the covenant must always be made up of condition and promises, or performance of things promised, it is an everlasting covenant. but b● your favour, faith hath place in heaven, and that a higher faith than we are capable of here. 5. you say, the terms of the covenant of works implieth nothing but innocency and happiness; there was not a promise of happiness expressed, though employed, and god never intended to give us happiness by that law; for the apostle saith, gal 3.21. if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law: therefore god never intended to give life to us b● that law or any other; if he had, he could have given a law sufficient for it at first; and were there no terms but innocency and happiness? was there not terms of transgression and condemnation? and those were the expressed terms, the other were but supposed or employed. neonom. 3. the conditions of the covenant of grace make us capable of no happiness, except what christ hath bought and prepared for us, his blood is the price of all. but the happiness granted to sinless obedience was immediately from the creator, and knew no atonement or mediator. d. w. p. 57 antinom. doth that make your covenant the better or the worse? is not a perfect entire covenant without any flaws in it, better than a faulty covenant? the apostle condemns a faulty covenant, but you choose to prefer a covenant that is faulty, made up of sinful obedience, and that must have a mediator to provide against it, and to mend the faults of it; and hence this covenant could not be without a mediator, because of its faultiness; and you say your covenant makes us capable of no happiness but what was bought and prepared for us. 1. then this is a covenant that capacitates us first for what christ bought, and then when we are capable we shall be partakers of christ, by a previous covenant where christ hath nothing to do but extrinsecally only; this capability is by congruity or condignity. 2. it's a kindness to christ that you will allow him the honour to buy and prepare happiness for us, and have it ready against we have occasion for it. 3. what other kind of happiness can you suppose? is there any but what comes to us in or by christ? would the life promised to adam have differed in specie, and be of another kind? but is not the gift of the son himself a happiness? (all blessings of the covenant are happiness to sinners,) the father's love was not purchased, nor the gift of the son; god so loved the world that he sent his son, etc. 4. but his blood is the price of all, there's enough for him, he bought your whole new law at a lump, both your inherent foederal righteousness for a condition, and the reward of debt; he capacitated the law, and brought it to so low terms, that you were capable of performing the conditions of it. but hath his blood no capacitating faculty in it, but merely to be a price to free us from the old law, that we may come upon new terms now with god in the second law? 5. and what if the happiness granted to a sinless obedience came immediately from the creator, was it the worse for it, provided it were the same happiness, and knew no atonement? (you say) why? because it needed none. but it might know a mediator, though no atonement; a mediator may be where there's no atonement. what did the tree of life import? lastly, i would fain know whether christ, and all the gospel blessings, come not immediately from god the creator? and whether they that come from christ, come not from a creator? were not all things made by him? col. 1. and is not our state in christ a new creation? neonom. the blessings promised on the conditions of the covenant of grace, are merely of grace; they be for another's sake, and not our own. antinom. you cannot make that merely of grace that requires a previous condition in us to the bestowing of it; you allow this indeed, that christ hath obtained a good bargain for us, and this we have for his sake, but the purchase money must be paid by us, though we borrow it, and get it as we can; and if a friend be so kind as to give us the money, yet the purchase must go in our name, we must be accounted the buyers. neonom. they are given to them that are condemned by the covenant of works, and that are still condemnable by the law for the imperfection of the performed gospel conditions. antinom. therefore their condition of the happiness must be an adequate satisfaction to that covenant, which you dare not say can be found in your conditions; condemnation cannot be taken off upon any other condition. 2. but i pray what a strange law is your law of imperfection, is it an imperfect law? or a law to allow imperfect obedience for a gospel condition, that is a sinful obedience, in distinction from the sinless obedience which was the condition of the first? this law of imperfection little becomes such a perfect lawgiver, to drop a law of perfection, and set up a law of imperfection. 3. it seems this law of imperfection is sound so; for it's not only imperfect in the conditions, but in the happiness; for you say they are still condemnable by this law, truly by the conditions you have brought us into a pretty condition, you have brought us from a law wherein we were condemned, and into another law wherein we continue condemnable, we are condemned by one, and condemnable by the other, when we have performed these conditions; here we perform imperfect gospel conditions, and remain damnable, liable to damnation, not passed from death to life. what miserable divinity is here! neonom. ay, but it's forgiveness which renders these persons blessed, rom. 4.7. antinom. i e. when they can get it; for they are condemned by the law of perfection, and remain condemnable by the law of imperfection. and this is not sure a holy, just and good law; it's not holy, because sinful obedience is the condition, and it becomes not a holy god to command sinful obedience, for the law condition is a command of duty; neither is it just, to give a reward to a person condemnable by the law; neither is it good, for that which is neither holy nor just is not good; and therefore we condemn that law which will do no more than make us condemnable; is this your remedial law? neonom. but the sinless obedience of innocent adam made the reward to be of debt, rom. 4.4. antinom. it seems that god may make his reward to be of grace, he throws away the sinless condition, and blends up a condition with sin; is this the way for grace to abound, to make sin a sharer in the foederal condition, yea, and damnation too, a sinful, imperfect condemnable condition; the covenant of grace is to save from sin and damnation, not by sin and for damnation. and is there not a reward of debt, if a man purchase an estate with brass half crowns, washed and clipped money, if they be accepted, as well as if he paid in good currant money? it seems now god's willing to take your copper money, he shall have the credit of giving you an estate; i tell you, if copper money will pass, it makes as clear debts and purchases as silver and gold. but i must say this is but washed divinity, and clipped too; and there's no part of it but is filthily mixed at best. neonom. the use and interest of gospel conditions, is not from the conformity of them to the preceptive part of the law, (though in a degree there be that) but from the conformity to the rule of the grace of the promise. antinom. it is good now we should know how to use these law ingredients, and mix them well by weight and measure, secundum artem; and then to know the virtues and right way of application, and it's fit we should have good testimony from dr. experience, that this remedial law is a panacaea. let the case be never so deplorable: it seems the great difficulty lies in finding from whence the use and interest of the money (i. e. i suppose the virtue) doth arise. it's not from any conformity to the law precepts, that would make it too good and too strong for a weak stomach, besides it would be too costly. but there is a little of it in a degree, the proportion is not above a grain of conformity to the preceptive part of the law, to a pound of conformity to the law of imperfection, which is your rule of the grace of the promise; but though there is a little touch of conformity to the old law, to season the julep, as a few drops of spirit of vitriol to make it more palatable, yet the virtue lies more absconded than what the patient can presently find; but where do you think? in the imperfection of it. this mixture is contrary to all natural remedies, that the worse the ingredients are, and the more imperfectly prepared, the better it is; if it should be perfect it would spoil all, it would make the happiness debt, as bad as it would have been to adam in innocency, or to the saints in heaven. neonom. the promise of pardon through christ being to the penitent believer, and no other; repentance and faith becomes necessary and useful conditions of this pardon, by the order of god in that gracious promise. antinom. the promise of pardon is not to a sinner as penitent, but as a sinner; neither doth a sinner when he applies pardon rightly, apply it to himself as penitent, but as a sinner. repentance is part of the promise, and is given with remission of sins through faith in the blood of christ; and without justifying faith applying to christ for pardon first, there can be no repentance to life; pardon through faith is first in nature before the exercise of true gospel repentance; repentance is turning from sin to god, and this must be by faith, for none can come to god but by him. repentance and faith do become necessary and useful by virtue of the promise in the way of salvation, but by no means in the nature of foederal conditions, god never constituted them in such a covenant order. neonom. in the covenant of works the mere work gave an interest in the reward, as it was obedience to the precept by a sanction, which had goodness, but no such grace in it. antinom. it's a gross mistake that adam's obedience would have merited from intrinsic value or worth, it was ex pacto; and whatever condition of the creature-performance the legislator puts into the covenant, let it be less or more, perfect or imperfect it's all one, they do ex pacto, make the benefit promised a debt, and this i will maintain against all the neonomians in the world. neonom. upon these accounts i shall never fear that conditionality of the covenant of grace should turn it into a covenant works, till i see it proved that god can promise and apply no benefit purchased by christ to a poor sinner, upon a condition of an action he commands, and freely enableth the sinner to perform: the judgement day is past, and a state of trial is over whenever it is proved. thus much for removal of mistakes. antinom. and poor confident man, i can but pity you to see how miserably mistaken you are. all that you have said is so far from turning your law of imperfection into a covenant of works, that it proves it to be a covenant of works against all the world. what god can do is one thing, and will do is another. i am sure he hath made no other foederal condition of the new covenant, than jesus christ himself and his righteousness; and when the judgement day is come, and it may be through grace before, during the state of trial, as you call it, you will be glad to throw away all your conditions, and hold christ alone as the only foederal condition of life and salvation. and let me tell you again, that you forget it not: that god never promised or applied any benefit to the most perfect and innocent creature, upon the condition of any action he commands, but what he freely enableth the said person so commanded to perform; and hitherto you have given us no specific difference between the covenant of works and grace, it's only in degree that this is worse in condition, and we are all together without strength to perform it. neonom. having premised these things to remove mistakes, i will tell you the truth, which i will express in the words of the assembly. d. w. p. 58. q. 32. how is the grace of god manifested in the second covenant. a. the grace of god is manifested in the second covenant, in that he freely provideth and offereth to sinners a mediator, and life and salvation by him, requiring faith as the condition to interest them in him, promiseth and giveth his holy spirit to all his elect, to work in them that faith with all other saving graces. antinom. in the first place you should have observed that they speak only of the manifestation of the grace of the covenant, and no distinct covenant from that of redemption. 2. they make not faith a condition of the covenant of grace, but only of interest, reception or participation of the said covenant. with them 'tis no more than modus recipiendi, or participandi, which is generally called the instrument, and therefore explain themselves thus: quest. 73. how doth faith justify a sinner in the sight of god? a. not as if works, or any grace of faith, or any act thereof were imputed to him for his justification, but only as it is an instrument whereby he receiveth and applieth christ and his righteousness. 3. i made no question but that it was that fly that you catched at, and watched for. the word condition was then but a very small inconsiderable word, that none made any great matter of, as importing no more than the connexion of the congregrative connex axiom, whose band of connexion is the conjunction si: and this conditional connexion may fall upon any things that have necessary or contingent dependency one upon another, whereby they have a mutual affection or dissatisfactions one to another, and i call it a relative condition, and all things may come under it which way soever they look. the affirmation of this proposition, si sit homo est animal. if the antecedent be true, than the consequence is true. if john be a man, than he is an animal, and the negation is, non si johannes sit homo sit animal; and though both antecedent and consequent may be false, yet the it may be a true proposition by virtue of the connexion. as if a man be a lion, he is a beast. so if judas be saved, he did believe. it's a true proposition; tho' judas never did believe, nor was saved; neither was there any covenant of grace made with him. so that such a proposition as this importeth no covenant-condition, unless it be foederal over and above. if the devils shall be saved, christ died for them. it's true as a connex proposition, because there's no other name given under heaven by which any sinner can be saved. but neither parts of this proposition is true, for christ died not for them, nor shall they be saved. so here, if a sinner partake of christ, it's by believing, because believing is his participation, and giving and receiving are relata, and is no more a condition here, than faith is to holiness. as thus, if i believe i shall bring forth fruits of faith, and it will be a condition the other way, if i bring forth good fruits, than i believe. so that this sort of condition attends the expression of all sorts of relations and dependencies, either logical, mathematical, natural or theological. but when the word condition is carried further, to denote a foederal bond or obligation, it becomes a big-bellied word (as you have phrased it) and is always a distinguishing character of a covenant of works. and that the assembly intended no other than a relative condition, not a federal, i can give you many grounds from themselves. neonom. but i will give my reasons why they must understand a federal condition. for, 1. they judge, that though god provided a mediator for sinners, yet they have no interest in him till they believe. antinom. they by interest mean claim of interest and participation, which we have by faith; and there faith is no more a condition, than my hand is to the receiving a 1000 l. when it's brought, it's only a relative condition: where there's giving there is receiving; but if there be any condition on one side more than another, it's in the giving side, which in nature and causality hath the first place: for it runs thus, if you receive, there's some body gives: so the giving is the condition of receiving. or see it thus, if you be a father, you have a son; they are mutual causes one of another, but the father is first in respect of nature and causality. if receiving lie upon the condition of giving, then receiving is not the condition of giving, but vice versa: but receiving lies under, and depends upon the condition of giving; for if there be no giving, there can be no receiving. neonom. they judge the covenant is conditional; they scruple not to call faith the condition of our interest in christ, and salvation by him. antinom. they do intent, and so do we, that the new covenant is conditional, and hath a great condition, jesus christ: he is the foederal condition satisfactory and procurative; but they mean not, that faith is a condition of the covenant, but a condition relative in the manifestation: for they could not suppose faith to be the condition of what they make the covenant, for it's but in the foregoing answer they say, the covenant of grace was made with the second adam, and in him with all the elect as his seed. they speak not of any condition of the covenant of grace, which they give an account of, quest. 31. but speak only of the way and manner of the manifestation of the grace of god in the second covenant, and that they tell you it's by faith as a correlative receiving condition: they speak not of any condition of the covenant, but of the manifestation of the grace in the covenant, by the participation thereof. neonom. 3. they judge that christ and salvation are offered to all sinners on the same condition, though god effectually enable the elect to obey the condition. antinom. they say he freely provideth and offereth to sinners a mediator and life. is faith the condition of god's providing a mediator? and upon the same terms, that he provideth he also offereth, i. e. freely. if you look for a condition, here it must be of providing and offering: and they say, god requires and works faith as a condition, i. e. no more in their sense, but a means of conveyance the grace of the second covenant unto them. now that this is their meaning, take a full confirmation, their sense fully expressed in their confession. in ch. 11. of justification, speaking of the nature of justification, saith,— it's not for any thing wrought in them, or done by them, but for christ alone, not by imputing faith itself the act of believing, nor any other evangelical obedience to them as their righteousness; but by imputing the obedience and satisfaction of christ unto them, they receiving and resting on him and his righteousness by faith, which faith they have not of themselves. faith, thus receiving and resting on christ and his righteousness, is the alone instrument of justification. thus, gentlemen, you see what a catch he hath got of the word condition made use of by the assembly. when they used the word condition, it was but aaron's rod, it's now turned into a serpent, and every one that savours christ aright will fly from it: it is no better now than a nehushtan, and is to be brokee in pieces in the sense of a foederal condition. neonom. error. the covenant of grace hath no condition to be performed on man's part, though in the strength of christ: neither is faith itself the condition of this covenant, but all the saving benefits of this covenant are actually ours before we are born: neither are we required so much as to believe that we may come to have an interest in the covenant-benefits. d. w. p. 59 antinom. we have told you, and proved to you your error, in saying, that faith is the condition federally of the covenant of grace; and we have showed how far saving benefits are prepared for us and ours in the promise right before we believe; yea, before we are born; and though it's our duty to believe, and do believe, as thereby partaking of christ unto salvation, yet not in your sense as a condition of a covenent of grace, but as a promised gift and benefit bestowed upon us in christ, and wrought in us by him. neonom. you spend more than a sermon to prove this, and say, there is not any condition in this covenant. d. c. p. 81. anntinom. in preaching on isa. 42.6, 7. i shown by way of doctrine, dr. c. p. 81. that the father is pleased to give christ for a covenant to the people; and in opening it i shown, what it is for christ to be a covenant: where i shown, that the lord means not a covenant of works, but the covenant of grace, which covenant is mentioned jer. 31.33. and renewed again, ezek. 36 26. and also heb. 8.6. where you shall find this appropriated to christ, to be his great privilege to have the sole hand and managing of this new covenant. but now saith the apostle, he hath obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant. and what is this better covenant? mark what follows, ver. 8. behold the days come, etc. here see the substance of the covenant, i will be their god, and they shall be my people. now i show the difference between this covenant and others; all others run upon stipulations; the promise runs altogether upon conditions on both sides. the condition on god's part, they shall live. the condition on man's part, that he might live, he must do this. and in the old covenant, in case man failed, the condition was broke: but in this covenant there's no condition on man's part to be performed, because the covenant is everlasting, heb. 8. god saith, i will be merciful to your iniquities, and your sins i will remember no more. now suppose there were conditions for man to perform, and suppose man did fail in those conditions, what were become of the covenant? the covenant is frustrated as soon as the conditions are broken. dr. c. p. 81. obj. 1. there are many conditions mentioned in this covenant, there must be a law put in the mind, writ in the heart, etc. answ. it is true, god saith, i will put my law in your inward parts. but it is not said, this is a condition to be performed on man's part. obj. but conditions or no conditions, a man must have his heart in this manner. answ. i answer, it's true by way of consequence, that after we are in covenant, he will bestow those things upon us as fruits and effects of this covenant; but it's not true by way of antecedence, that god will require those things at our hands before we be partakers of this covenant. answ. 2. you shall see plainly, that man hath no tie upon him to perform any thing whatsoever in this covenant as a condition to be observed on his part— mark how it is in jer. ezek. heb. god saith, i will put it in, i will write it; they shall be my people. [shall] here is a word of power. and it follows, they shall not teach every one his neighbour.— for they shall know me. how? by their own study and industry. no. see john 6.45. the condition of knowing the lord is to be performed by the lord: they shall be all taught of god. observe also the larger expression of the covenant, ezek. 36.25. etc. obj. if all lies on god's part, and man must do nothing, than all his life-time he may live as he list. answ. you must make a difference between doing any thing in reference to the covenant as a condition thereof; and in doing something in reference to duty and service to god, who freely enters into covenant with you. i say only in way of condition of the covenant you must do nothing. calvin. you see, mr. neonom. he doth not deny duties to belong to this covenant, and duties to be performed under the highest obligation of god's free and bountiful acting towards us in this covenant; but he speaks against your principium & modus agendi; that we are not to perform these duties in a mercenary way, as if we were thereby obtainers of the benefits by foederal conditionality, which way of performance brings us under a covenant of works; but we are to do all as such, who receive both to will and to do by virtue of the covenant, and as the effects thereof; and i am very much mistasten, if this be not gospel-truth. neonom. but he saith in answer to an objection, (d.w. p. 60) i must needs tell you directly, that faith is not the condition of the covenant. dr. c. 84. antinom. i did say so, and say so still. obj. but you will say, he that believes shall be saved, he that believes not shall be damned. is not faith therefore the condition of the covenant? answ. there is no person under heaven shall be saved till he hath believed this, i grant; yet this will not make faith a condition of the covenant. faith as an act is our act, and our act of believing is a work; but it doth not depend upon a work. for the apostle saith, to him that justifies the ungodly. thus far to satisfy you from what i discoursed. now i tell you further, that the proposition, he that believes shall be saved, denotes no more than the necessary connexion of faith and salvation by virtue of the promise, viz. of one gift of the promise to another, the lord making many of the gifts or duties from a covenant-principle, not upon terms of foederal conditionality on our part; but that all is to be done by virtue of, and flowing from the promise of eternal life, whereof faith itself, and the lively fruits thereof, are parts, as well as glory itself; and all eternal life is in one promise, though not bestowed together; but the several gifts thereof have conditionem ordinis, i. e. prioritatis & posterioritatis & conditiones relativas inter se. but none of these gifts are foederal conditions one of another, but all alike belong to the promissory part, grace as well as glory. neonom. but you say, that after we are in covenant with god, he will bestow these things upon us as effects; and that the covenant in the actual substance of it is made good to a man before he can do any thing. dr. c. p. 81. & 83. calvin. great truths; for without christ we can do nothing; therefore christ, the substance of the covenant, must be given to us first, or else christ himself hath not spoken truth. neonom. i will show you now how far i agree with you in this point, and then it will the better appear where the difference lies. 1. the question is not, whether god hath promised, and christ engaged in the covenant of redemption, that the elect shall believe and possess christ, etc. this i affirm. antinom. then you own a covenant between the father and the son, and the promise of it was christ and all his benefits. this one assertion lays the covenant of grace higher than it's possible that you or i can reach by our conditions; only you would not have this the covenant of grace, though it contains all grace, but a covenant of redemption, contradistinct to the covenant of grace, which is most absurd: for what is redemption but rich grace? god hath accepted us in the beloved, in whom we have redemption through his blood the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace, wherein he hath abounded toward us in all wisdom and prudence, having made known unto us the mystery of his will, eph. 1.6, 7, 8, 9 this mystery of his will is the covenant of grace, which i can easily also evince, made manifest by the appearing of jesus christ, and working out our redemption, and by the preaching thereof, 1 tim. 1.10, 11. neonom. neither is there any question, whether there be any duty on man's part as a condition of christ's undertaking, or of the certainty of the things undertaken in that covenant. this i deny. antinom. then you deny all conditions of ours as required in the covenant of redemption, as you call it: call it then but the covenant of grace as it is, and the assembly call it, and then you say as we do in that point. neonom. nor whether the conditions of the covenant of grace be performed in our own strength, or be uncertain as to the elect. this i deny. d. w. p. 61. antinom. then this performance by divine strength and certainty is founded on promise; and if so, is the gift of god; and thence it's frivolous to talk of conditions to be performed on our part: god doth not give his gifts to us to make purchase with, and rob his free grace and his son of the honour due to them. neonom. nor whether the performance of the conditions move god to enact, offer or appoint this covenant, whereby the grace of christ is applied. this i deny. antinom. what mean you by enacting or appointing this covenant? if you mean, your law of imperfection, we know no such covenant of god ever enacted or appointed. neonom. yea, i add, that god enacted this covenant before we were born, and offers an interest in it on its proper terms to men when sinners. antinom. then the covenant was an eternal covenant, or at least the completing of it did not depend upon our coming in with our personal foederal conditions: but i do not grant, that your covenant of imperfection was ever so enacted. and, 2. you say, offers an interest in it to men when sinners. now our covenant of redemption and grace come to be all one: all that remains to be done, is to bring sinners to a participating interest in it. undoubtedly, when the covenant was enacted, it was provided that sinners should have a free unconditional participation of it, for the infinite wise god knew sinners would be so poor and wretched that they would have no condition money; and never thought fit to make them purchasers with his money, lest they should boast and claim all as debt, when he had given them forty shillings to begin with. 3. but you will have popish terms come in at the tail of this fair story; your dead fly of conditions must be in every pot of your apothecary's ointment. neonom. nor whether the performance of the conditions of the covenant be a purchasing price, or meritorious of the benefits promised on such conditions. this i deny, for christ alone paid the price, and it's the covenant promises gives the benefits to such as perform the conditions. antinom. what security will you give us that they be not a purchasing price or meritorious? what if christ will say they be such as will rob him, and that he say, if we put in and stand upon our conditions he shall profit us nothing? what if poor creatures that you infuse your notions into, and put your conditions upon, they take them to be purchasing prices of an interest in christ? how will you answer the preaching another gospel than paul preached, and free yourselves from the anathema? but secondly, if a man that hath purchased an estate for me, and left me an hundred pound to pay of the purchase money, i reckon that i pay part as well as he, though he paid a thousand pound, and so will all men judge. 3. it's not enough for you to say, christ only paid the price, when foederal conditions besides lies to be performed by some others; and we do as confidently affirm, and do prove, that where there is a covenant stipulated by conditions and promises, the performance of the conditions, though never so small and disproportionable to the benefit, carries a merit of a reward as of debt, virtute pacti, though it lie not in the intrinsic value of the condition, whether it be mine, or imputed to me by loan or gift, to buy the benefit, or swop for it. and this is such a truth that every child almost that runs about to play in the street knows and daily practiseth. neonom. 6. nor whether the first grace by which we are enabled to perform the condition be absolutely given. this i affirm, though that be dispensed ordinarily in a due use of means, and in a way discountenancing idleness, and fit encouragement given to the use of means. antinom. it seems as to the first grace, it is absolute, than we come at first into an unconditional covenant, but afterward we must pay for what we have; god gives a stock of money, and then we must buy; first begin in the spirit, and then finish in the flesh. i pray what covenant promise doth this first grace belong to, to the covenant of redemption, or the covenant of imperfection? it's plain then that a sinner doth not come under an obligation to the covenant of imperfection till he hath been furnished with conditions some other way. so that he must needs come under two distinct covenants; first an absolute, and then conditional; what a cutting and hacking is here of the covenant of grace, to puzzle and confound poor souls in the great concernment of their salvation. neonom. nor whether all the conditions of the covenant be of the same use, to the same purpose, or a like complete terms of the principal benefits; this i deny, for faith is supposed to all other conditions, etc. antinom. it is not to our business, whether they have other distinct offices, but respectu conditionalitatis foederalis, they are equally conditions; the comparison is not here in quantity but quality. one shilling is as much a condition in the price set upon a horse or cow that is sold, as five pound, though it be not so great in quantity; but it seems here are divers sorts of conditions, some greater than others, and faith hath the pre-eminence. i have a question or two to ask, whether if one of these little conditions be not performed, i do therefore forfeit my bargain? one inconsiderable one that hath ten times more sin and imperfection in it than good? and whether this covenant of imperfection doth not look upon the imperfectest conditions, and most sinful, provided there's a little good in them, to be the best conditions? and whether it be fit that we should have good, sound and perfect commodities for debased coin? neonom. nor whether upon the performance of the conditions, the covenant grant becomes not as absolute, and the right to the benefit no longer suspended. this i affirm, for the promise conveys the title as soon as the terms of the grant are answered. antinom. as absolute as what? it's nonsense. i take it to be an erratum, but it's not among them, and that as should not be there; and therefore it's thus, that upon performance of the conditions the grant should become absolute; this is impossible, for absolute and conditional are adversa, quae inter se velut & regione perpetuò adversantur. as much as if you should say, after i have bought a house of you and paid my money, that you gave the house to me freely. and what do you talk of the promise conveying the title, it's the condition gives me the title, the promise is challenged upon the performance of the condition. neonom. i come now to the real difference betwixt us. d. w. p. 62. 1. whether men have an actual interest in the saving benefits of the covenant of grace, while they live in unbelief; this you affirm, and i deny. antinom. did you not grant a real interest to the elect in the covenant of redemption, which to us is the covenant of grace? that god hath there covenanted that they shall believe; and that christ hath undertaken for the certainty of their faith and holiness; and that christ hath paid actually all the price of redemption for them, and are all those not saving benefits? what if they know not their interest, have they therefore none? doth that follow? a good estate may be bought and made over to me, that i have as good an interest in, and title to as any man in the world to his, and yet i not know it; it may be it's in the barbadoss, bought or given by a friend, and i know not of it a year after, but when i hear of it, or enter possession, is my title any better than before? and when is the first grace given which you said is absolute, but when we are in unbelief? for there's no medium between unbelief and faith. neonom. whether god doth offer the saving benefits of the covenant upon official terms, as believe and thou shalt be saved; this i affirm, and you deny. antinom. you mean by official terms only foederal conditions, do and live, or believe and live in the same sense as do and live. i say the covenant of grace speaks otherwise, it saith live and do; and the command in the gospel becoming effectual to believe, is the performance of the promise, in quickening and raising him from the dead; believing is his very saving, it's his life begun, and not the condition of it. believe and be saved, is a proposition declaring the near and indubitable connexion of all the gifts of grace, as blessed are they that mourn for they shall be comforted; blessed are the merciful, they shall obtain mercy, etc. these propositions of beatitudes do not declare any foederal conditionality lying in the antecedent, but a covenant connexion of good things in the promise of life to be bestowed, that one of these blessings will be where the other is, either first or last; for meekness, godly sorrow, purity of heart, faith, etc. they are all the gifts of grace, and belong to the promissory part of the covenant, and not to the conditional, and yet become duties by virtue of the promise and precepts accompanying. neonom. whether the beneficial privileges of the covenant be not suspended on the terms of duty? as doth not god forbear to pardon us till we believe? this i affirm, and you deny. antinom. it is as much as to say that duty is no beneficial part of the covenant; the change of the heart is no beneficial part of the covenant; but you say these beneficial parts are suspended upon the terms of duty. it's as much as to say he shall have no benefit by the covenant, and all benefits are suspended till he do some duty that is no benefit of the covenant. and as to your enquiry, whether god forbear to pardon us till we believe: i answer, pardon is with god before it is with us, if it were not we should never have it; and the pardoning grace of god is at work with us before we do believe, and doth by the light of it in the glorious gospel work faith in our hearts. as for your phrasing it thus, that god forbears pardoning till we believe, it insinuates thus much according to your scheme of conditions, that god suspends his acts toward the creature till he seethe something in it to encourage him, and that god would have wrought sooner than he did, if it had not been our fault; whereas god works, and none can let, neither doth his working, or not working, depend upon the creatures, but that it is in his own way and time, and when he will pardon he works faith; and it must be so, because the believer is pardoned in application of pardon, therefore the pardoner and pardoned are relata; and though as relata they are simul natura, yet in respect of causality the pardoner is first; and if he should forbear pardoning till the sinner were fit for it by good qualification, it would be long enough before it come unto us. you say the first grace is absolute, and if the second grace or benefit be conditional federally, where lies the condition? and if a man be fallen into a deep well, and have broken an arm or leg, would it not be very odd to say, i forbear the setting of his arm or leg till he comes out of the ditch, whereas it lies upon me to fetch him out of the ditch first. as god pardons who and when he pleaseth, so by the same grace he hath provided for all ways and means of application. neonom. it's enquired, whether god doth engage to bestow the promised benefits of the covenant on all such, who through grace perform the conditions? this you affirm and i deny. antinom. i affirm, that god doth bestow all the benefits of the covenant upon all those unto whom through grace they do belong; and to perform any duty of the covenant required, is a gift of grace: you say, through grace, and therefore a promised benefit, creation in christ jesus, a new heart, union to christ. where are there conditions through grace to be wrought in us before the effectual power of grace? to say any thing is to be performed through grace, that is not the gift of grace, and is not a benefit of the covenant, is something; otherwise your conditions are but in order of working, or at most relative conditions, the connexion of one gift of grace or benefit to another, and then your conditionality is no more than the apostles, rom. 5.1, 2, 3. faith the condition of hope, hope of glorying in tribulation, tribulation of patience, patience of experience, etc. these may all be brought into a connex proposition forward and backward. if i believe i shall hope, if i hope i shall glory in tribulation, if i have patience i shall have experience; but yet all gifts of grace are none of them foederal conditions, but promises bestowed. neonom. all may be reduced to this, whether our believing consent to the covenant of grace be absolutely necessary by god's command, and promised to our interest in the saving benefits of the cevenants. this you deny and i affirm. antinom. it's one thing to be antecedently necessary, another thing to be consequently necessary. whatever is commanded in the covenant of grace (as you will insinuate) is also promised; and being promised, is a benefit: therefore if you make believing antecedently necessary (which is a work and gift of grace) to all the benefits, you contradict yourself and all right reason. and as to the great ado you make about interest, i have told you it comes under a double consideration, of real and known, or manifest. all the elect have a real right and interest in the covenant even before believing, such a right as entitles them to believing: for christ hath undertaken, that all that the father hath given him shall come to him; and it's therefore absolutely necessary they should, as promised in the covenant, not as a condition, as a leading benefit, and no otherwise. and do you not call them saving benefits? show me a condition to be performed before any saving benefits that we do receive, and then you will say something. what's a greater benefit than life itself? neonom. i will confirm the truth by several arguments. antinom. let it be truth first: it's very little truth that hitherto you have affirmed, as i think i have made sufficiently appear. but go on; i am willing to hear what you can say, and to embrace truth. neonom. each of the benefits of the covenant are offered to men on condition, and not absolutely in relation to god as his people is. so levit. 36.3, 12. compared with 2 cor. 6.16. matth. 22.2, 3, 9, 10, 11. rom. 10.9. ch. 4.25. gal. 3.7. antinom. your argument is very confused and rough drawn; for you tell us not what you would conclude of all the previous questions. i take it for grant, that you would conclude your imperfect conditions in whatever question you put about the covenant. 2. then you use very ambiguous terms; you talk of offering the benefits of a covenant: it's one thing to make a covenant, and another thing to offer to make a covenant; for there are conditions to the offer, and the conditions to the making, and what you mean by offering absolutely in relation to god, i know not. doth not god offer absolutely? is he provoked to offer grace from any thing out of himself? sure he offers absolutely and from himself, though he offer upon condition, or makes conditions in his offer: and how that comes in, as his people is, i know not. i take the whole put together not to be sense. but i will extract your argument as well as i can. if each benefit of the covenant is offered to men upon condition, and not absolutely in relation to god, then there are conditions in the covenant of grace to be performed by us before we can have the benefits: but each benefit of the covenant is offered so, etc. ergo. here i deny the consequence of the major first; for there are conditions of offer, and conditions propounded in offer; mean them if you please: god's propounding the grace of the covenant-condition, is no ground of proof, that therefore there are conditions to be performed by us before we receive the benefit: for the duty required, and good thing promised, are but both of them benefits, and the leading duty it may be the greatest, and the greatest exemplification of the grace of the promise. here is connexion then of benefits as to relation and order, and therefore i deny your consequence, that promises conditionally made do infer necessarily foederal conditions distinct from the benefits. minor also denied; for each benefit of the covenant is not offered conditionally; as the making a new heart, the gift of faith, the uniting power and efficacy of the spirit, whereby we are inserted into christ as our root, before we can bring forth the fruit of faith. as to the places mentioned, i say, first, that the covenant of grace as dispensed under the old testament, was vailed and covered two ways. 1. by types and ceremonies. 2. by a legal ministration in denunciations, conditions, promises of temporal blessings, whereby they were carried on to duty; but yet in the sacrifices they had some sight by faith of the absoluteness and freeness of the grace of god in the promise; and it's evident the unconditionality of the promise, tho' it was manifested sometimes to the patriarches and prophets, yet was mostly under a cloud; as in a cloudy day the sun may now and then break out with marvellous brightness and splendour, when for the generality a legal darkness clouded and obscured the grace of god. in other ages the mystery of the covenant was not made known and revealed so as now, eph. 3.5. but as to leu. 26.3, 12 it makes nothing against us; for god doth but by his commands and promises bring them into participation of the covenant of grace. for what is faith and obedience but the gifts of his grace? and it's he who through the blood of the everlasting covenant works in us the things that are wellpleasing in his sight through jesus christ, heb. 13.21. and this was the way of his working with them, being under this tutorage, differing little from servants till the time appointed of his father, gal. 4.1, 2, 4. and accordingly you see, leu. 26.3. the promise of encouragement is, then will i give you rain in due season. and likewise as he promiseth outward blessings, so spiritual privileges, his ordinances and presence among them, in them, ver. 12. not that their walking in his statutes was the condition of his being a god in covenant; for he chose them before they chose him. and god saith, ver. 13. notwithstanding these conditional promises, i am the lord your god that brought you out, etc. likewise as the promises were mostly of outward good things temporal, and the continuance of his ordinances, so performance of these were connected to their external conformity to his instituted worship; they were to be a separate and peculiar people, sequestered from other people unto his pure worship and ordinances; and to that sense doth the apostle apply this place, 2 cor. 6.17. for he presseth purity in church-fellowship in the foregoing verses by divers arguments; and among others, this of leviticus, that god expected such purity of the church of the old testament, much more of them; and hence presseth separation in external church-fellowship and ordinances; and then as they have the blessings of ordinances, they will have the blessing of god's visible presence: whereas i said before, benefits are connected. a duty benefit to a privilege, to be as motives to performance, the spirit working with the word: there may be commands, directions, motives to duty in the word, and none of these make duty antecedently necessary and conditional to our being in covenant, but all consequently necessary, being a series of connected benefits flowing in after we are taken in to covenant. as to matth. 22.2, 3, 9, 10, 11. you say, coming to the wedding supper was a condition of having share in it, you say in your preface to that place, that the garment is uniting faith: you should have said, putting on the garment is the garment. is the coming to christ, or putting him on, the wedding-garment, or christ himself and his righteousness? so is it of pardon of sin and acceptance to life. coming to the wedding-supper was not the condition that gave right, but the invitation. coming is a privilege which the people that are invited to receive the gospel have, whom christ by the power and efficacy of his grace working with the word compels and constrains, overcoming their rebellious hearts. as to that place of rom. 10.9. you have as much reason to infer thence, that confession is a condition, as well as faith; the great antecedent condition there mentioned, is hearing, by which faith comes. as for rom. 4.25. gal. 3.7. they all show but connexion of covenant-benefits, all absolutely given in the promise of eternal life, pardon and faith, faith and holiness, grace and glory, all sounded upon one condition of the covenant, the lord jesus christ. neonom. i pray, by what justice then do you say the first grace is absolute? it's injustice to add new terms to any of those benefits, if they be ours by the covenant as absolute before. antinom. i see you will stand upon terms with god, and will have him stand upon terms with you. but god never made any such terms as you dream of: blessed be his name. neonom. if the covenant be not conditional, as to the disposing of benefits, it would follow, 1. that all to whom the offers are made, have an interest in them, or it is not a serious offer; no, nor a true offer, as not containing a real and natural connexion between the benefit and the duty. d. w. p. 63. antinom. i must take notice of your shifting in your antecedent, what do you put in as to the disposal of benefits; the disposal of benefits is the performance of the promise; your condition ought to lie before the disposal of benefits: if you mean an adjusted order in the disposal of benefits, you multiply conditions to the end of the world, and turn all benefits into conditions. we are to talk of a condition, upon which as such, all others are benefits, and relative conditions are given forth by promise: and we say, jehovah our righteousness is that condition for which we are blessed with all blessings in and through him; in and through him they are bestowed, and all ways and means of bestowing them are blessings provided in him, and bestowed by him; that there is a method of order in bestowing them, and a relative connexion between them there is, as also among the blessings and benefits, and is no hindrance to the absoluteness of the promise. a man gives me an estate to come gradually to me 20 l. per annum this year, and 20 l. next, etc. is my having 20 l. per annum this year the reason, by way of condition, of my having 20 l. per annam more the next. the condition of all this estate is resolved into the of the donor, and his purchasing of it for me with his money. as to your consequence, it follows, you say, that all to whom the offer is made have an interest in them. i deny it utterly in such offers as god makes; for though the tender of grace be indefinite, yet god knows who are his by election and redemption, and to them he gives his son and his spirit, and the first gift of the promise to persuade and enable them to come unto christ. or you say, it's not a serious offer, viz. to offer grace upon such terms and conditions, which the sinner is not able to perform. this inference will rebound back again upon you, for saying, that these conditions are freely wrought of god in us. doth god work these conditions before he offers them the grace of the covenant? if so, you say something, and work them in all too to which they are offered; if not, it's not serious, as you and the arminians will say. therefore to support your hypothesis, you must grant a in man, and power of himself to perform the said condition. now it is true, you say, as not containing a real and natural connexion between the benefit and duty. why so? benefits be relative and truly connected, without there be a foederal condition? having food and raiment, let us therewith be content. contentment is the benefit here, and it's a duty, and the condition ●●od and raiment, a manifest benefit too; and can't these be con●●●ted, without one be a foederal condition of the other? which wanting, the blessing is not looked for. then you may say, not having food and raiment sufficient, i need not be content. know this, the spirit of god makes the promise the condition of the duty. as to abraham, i am god all-sufficient, walk before me; and it's always so, if we rightly understand the language; for it first bids us live before it bids us do. and this is the difference between the covenant of works and that of grace. neonom. 2. faith itself is no more necessary to our first interest in those benefits, than any other grace; nay, than unbelief. let no man object, it's a sign; for so is any other grace; so might be the description of paul by his name, by his abode, yea, sin, a persecutor, etc. d. w. p. 63. antinom. there is an interest antecedaneous to faith, but hidden, yet such as our faith can never come into being without. and as to our interest by faith you speak of, christ by revelation of his grace in the gospel makes us partaker thereof: it's an interest of possession; and yet a man may be thrown out of possession, unless he have this antecedent right and title to it. and the interest by possession of, and communion with christ, is greater by faith than any other way, because it's directed to christ objectively, and receives more eminently christ himself: and though it do so, yet it can't be the condition of receiving christ. that is, the very receiving of christ; for the receiving cannot be the condition of receiving, than an act should be the condition of itself. neonom. let not any one say it's a sign, for so is any other grace, and paul may be known by this name, abode, etc. antinom. faith is for those uses that christ hath appointed, but he never appointed it for a moral foederal condition: for if it be a condition, it's so as an act; and if as an act, a duty; and as a duty, moral, and so makes your covenant only a moral law. believing is more than a sign; but it's most naturally so in your sense; for in its conditionality you make it but the same with other graces and duties. but we say, believing is feeding on christ; seeing of him, receiving of him; and it's not proper for to say, feeding is a condition of feeding, seeing a condition of seeing, yet it carries its evidence with it abundantly, because there is perception of all i see and feed upon. neonom. men are said to enter into covenant with god, deut. 29.12, 13. psal. 50.3. to keep covenant, psal. 103.18. to perform the covenant, 2 chron. 34.31. to take hold of the covenant, isa. 6.6. antinom. in the covenants mentioned betwixt god and the church of the jews, we must always consider the pedagogy that they were under, and that they were under the covenant of grace vailed, and not only with levitical types, but legal dispensations in respect of duty. and the apostle tells us, that this ministry was faulty; and therefore he saith, christ hath obtained a more excellent ministry, far differing, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, by so much, that he was the mediator of a better covenunt, which is established on better promises; heb. 8.6. for if the first covenant had been faultless, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, there had been no place found for the second. this second is not to be understood of the covenant of works, but the mosaical ministry of the covenant of grace, which is fully expressed in the beginning of the chapter. neither doth the apostle mean only the mere ceremonial part of that ministry, but the morally legal and conditional way of dispensation like the covenant of works: and therefore he saith, the new covenant that he would make or promulge by the more excellent ministry of the mediator, it should be published in the true, absolute, and unconditional light of it, not according to the mount-sinai covenant upon their coming out of egypt, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, they abode not in that covenant, by performing the conditional duties; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, saith the lord, ver. 9 i. e. he did not give them those promises of external good things that he made unto them; for the promises were external for the most part, as the conditions of them were morally legal. 2. besides these explicit covenants, there were ecclesiastical covenants, as they were a national congregational church; and in these covenants they promised subjection unto god, and observation of all his appointments in that dispensation, whereby god would have them to be visibly a peculiar and separate people; and what they did in this kind in a right manner, was an effect, and not a cause of their true interest in the covenant of grace; but the covenant itself as externally made, was a national church-covenant, as appears deut. 29.15. and so when it was renewed in joshua's time, ch. 24. and i think any one that readeth that solemn covenant, deut. 29. will see, that it carried with it all the thunder and lightning of mount sinai to enforce it, and also the blessings promised were temporal, and the conditions were the duties of the moral law and ceremonies, ver. 26. now i wonder that any can pretend that this covenant was the new covenant, for so it was not in the sense of the apostle, and that it was a ministry of the covenant of grace any more than in a carnal and legal dispensation after the manner of the covenant of works: and you shall find among the great things promised for the strengthening and encouraging of the faithful, one thing was the reforming the external dispensation of grace in taking off the vails; and therefore always in those places we have it run as a free absolute promise, and god beginning first with them before any condition is performed on their parts, ezek. 26.25. i will sprinkle clean water upon you, and you shall be clean, etc. so exek. 27.26. i will make a covenant of peace with them, and it shall be an everlasting covenant, etc. jer. 31.31, 33. zech. 8.8. hence all external covenant-obligations that the church makes are effects of this new covenant-interest; covenants that they are obliged to, and covenants that in the new covenant are promised absolutely as their blessings and privileges, and in that way commended to gospel-churches, 2 cor. 6.16, 17, 18. i will be their god, and they shall be my people. it's all promise, and upon this account they are commanded to walk as a becoming people under such an obligation of free grace laid upon them. yea, god always in these old testament covenants made his goodness and kindness to them first as a motive and condition unto them to build their obedience upon, whereby he preached freegrace to them, exod. 19.4. ch. 20.1. and innumerable other places. and you mention places yourself, which show our covenant with god is promised by him, jer. 50.4, 5.— they shall go and seek the lord their god— they shall ask the way to zion, saying, come, let us join ourselves to the lord in a perpetual covenant that shall not be forgotten. we grant every believer doth actually and freely enter into covenant, but it's because god hath covenanted with him first: we are not reconciled to god but upon believing god's reconciliation to us: therefore the gospel-ministry is the declaration of god's reconciliation, and from thence an argument to persuade us to be reconciled unto god. so it is ezek. 20.37. neonom. all these expressions are convincing, that there is a restipulation on man's part, and that it is a covenant in respect of that mutual stipulation between god and us. antinom. it's a strange thing, that most of those men that quote the church-covenant of the old testament to make good their notion of the covenant of grace, that it's a moral conditional covenant, are against all explicit church covenants, whereby men that profess godliness should have an external visible tie to walk in the faith and order of the gospel, which was the main intent and design that god had upon his people in the days of the old covenant, and never intended it as a condition of their personal covenant with him, but a fruit and consequent after they were in covenant. it's mightily to derogate from the covenant of grace, to make the promise thereof to depend on a stipulation on our part: for if we stipulate with god, we also promise to him, as well as he to us before performance, and likewise that we do our part before he doth his; for the stipitulation is covenanting; and for any man to talk of any such thing, runs upon multitudes of rocks: our radical stipitulation was in christ, all other stipitulations are effects of it. neonom. to sappose the covenant to be the sole act of god, and an act that's merely absolute, renders all these phrases impertinent and impossible. antinom. the covenant of grace is the act of god in the person of the father, with us in the person of christ, in him we did restipulate; he was the great covenanter on our part, and the condition of this covenant; and when we, by virtue of the promise, take hold of this covenant, we stand upon this condition with god, and god dispenseth all benefits upon this condition to us: and it's a free and absolute covenant to us, a covenant of promise, because not only the promise is bestowed without foederal conditions performed by ourselves, and the great foederal condition the lord christ is freely bestowed on us. neonom. it was his act to appoint a covenant, and enable us to keep it; and it's his act to restipulate on his part, etc. antinom. this frees it not from being a covenant of works; for god appointed adam's covenant, and gave him strength to keep it, which strength he had when god gave him the law; but to talk of god's covenanting with fallen man in that state, and say, man hath restipulated while in a state of enmity, is most absurd. or to say, he shall restipulate when god gives him power so to do, is as much as to say, i have sold to a man my horse for 10 l. and when he brings me that 10 l. he shall have it, but hath not a groat to pay, rags to his back, or bread for his belly, and he refused my horse too, and hates me with a perfect hatred, yet i will make him willing to take the horse, and i will give him the money to pay for't; there's no man can think this man hath any other design than to lose the honour of giving away his horse, that this man and all the world should look upon the horse as purchased; and so it was, and the law will find it so, for all his giving him the purchase-money. and it's no less absurd, that god restipulates to our covenanting, to make us first in covenanting with god, which is contrary to all the account we have of the covenant of grace; and when any place speaks so, it's ad hominem, and in the language of the covenant of works. neonom. consider the seals of the covenant, baptism and the lord's supper; they seal not absolutely, but conditionally. antinom. baptism is for remission of sins, which is an absolute gift, and it supposeth it given where there's no qualification for it; and this is an argument to baptise infants. and if you will have it to seal the performance of conditional duties, you must never baptise infants. i would desire no stronger argument to manage against infant-baptism than your principle of conditionality of the covenant. and as for the lord's supper, it holds forth christ's body freely given, and his blood freely shed for us, and that his blood was a seal and ratification of the new covenant, where-by it becomes a testament. neonom. 1 pet. 3.21. baptism that saves us, is not the putting away the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience towards god, i. e. upright consent of heart to the vow and profession. antinom. the words are thus, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. to what was baptism an antitype? was it not to the waters of noah, that saved persons by bearing up the ark, when the rest of the world were drowned. what condition was there of god's saving those eight persons? and to bring it home, the apostle tells us, the mere element in baptism and external administration 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, not the washing away external or levitical uncleanness, as it was used by the jews, but as it signifies the blood of christ reaching to the purifying of the conscience from gild, heb. 9 & 10. and thence is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, through the resurrection of jesus christ, as it signifies the carrying or washing away our sins by the blood of christ, and our rising again, wherein we were fundamentally justified, and the application of both by faith, whereby our present sense of god's wrath and condemnation is removed. to talk that it signifies a vow or upright consent, is very jejune, against the stream of interpreters. neonom. an elect person known by revelation to be so while unregenerate, is not entitled to the lord's supper. antinom. he that hath that revelation, i suppose, will have something more revealed: but in the mean time i wonder why you that stand upon such strict moral qualifications for an interest in covenant-benefits, and so sparing of gospel grace, stand upon so slight terms for admission to the lord's supper, and are so lavish of covenant-benefits upon such easy terms. i am sure you may know some of them are not regenerate without revelation. neonom. unbelief, and whatever sins are contrary to the terms of the covenant, are the only hindrances to a sinners interest in the benefits of the covenant, and by these we are said to reject and refuse the covenant. the scripture lays men's want of forgiveness on their unbelief as the culpable cause, etc. antinom. then the great business of the covenant of grace is to save sinners, and give them life, being dead in sin and unbelief; and the gift of god is eternal life, begun in remission of sins, and faith in christ's blood, which god gives freely unto those that are altogether uncapable to perform any conditions for it; he gives these gifts to unbelieving rebellious ones: and if unbelief should hinder these gifts of god's grace, there's none could be saved. and as unbelief doth not hinder fundamental covenant right which they have by christ's imputation, so it hinders not god's application when he will work; for than nothing shall hinder. you seem also to hint, as if some sins were more venial than others; and some more consistent with your moral conditions of the covenant of imperfection; and know that no culpable cause shall hinder the forgiveness of those for whom christ died. neonom. the gospel-promise being the way which christ appoints to dispense saving benefits to believers, must have the same rules with the covenant of grace. antinom. yea, for the covenant of promise and the covenant of grace are the same, and saving benefits are dispensed only by way of gift, which is performance of the promise, and no other way. neonom. the gospel is his testament, and a covenant cannot be a disposition contrary to this gospel. antinom. the covenant of grace is a testament, because confirmed by the death of christ; and there's no adding to it, (if it were but a man's testament and last will, as the apostle saith) and therefore there's no bringing in any after-terms or conditions of it: and the gospel is a declaration of this promise and seal, and addeth no further terms. neonom. this promise tells us, 1. that there is a promise of the first grant made to christ for the elect, and by virtue of that promise the elect do consent to the covenant. antinom. promise and grant are in a manner one, and this made to christ for the elect, (its better to the elect in christ, but that will do for the present) and by virtue of that promise the elect do consent: i suppose you mean the first consent, which you will sometimes have the condition of their receiving benefit by the promise. i hope it's this, a great benefit and absolute gift of the promise; and of this then there's no condition but christ by your own confession. neonom. 2. that gospel or covenant is the means whereby that faith is wrought. antinom. very good; then the covenant is the condition of faith, and not faith of the covenant. neonom. this gospel commands, and by the power of the spirit works that faith in order to saving benefits, which benefits it promiseth to such as do believe, and no other. d. w. p. 66. antinom. i thought but now you were got above your covenant of imperfections, but i find you are working down again: these conditions are heavy bulky things, they will weigh a man down do what he can. and is faith wrought only in order to saving benefits? how often shall i tell you, it's one of the principal saving benefits of any grace wrought in us? and faith is promised to unbelievers, else they would never have it. neonom. this gospel invests believers in those saving benefitt. antinom. and it invests unbelievers in the saving benefit of faith; and therefore the gospel is the condition of faith. neonom. it secures the perseverance of believers in the true faith, and the necessary effects, and thereby secures those benefits as unforfeited. antinom. then they are not under an uncertain trial all this life, that it is not determined whether they shall be saved or no, as you suggested. neonom. but christ never bequeathed or promised in the gospel a pardon or salvation to unbelievers. antinom. that's a riddle. was it not in christ's testament to save sinners, to justify the ungodly? did he not pray for them that should believe? doth not the gospel tell us, he came not to save righteous, but to bring sinners to repentance; that he came to seek and to save them that are lost? doth not christ say, he is the resurrection and the life; and that we are quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins? etc. the main tenure of the gospel. if it be as you say, there's none should be saved; for if men are not saved by virtue of the promise, they will never be saved. what a miserable condition are all in, if believing and promising mercy be not bestowed upon unbelieving sinners. neonom. nor the continuance of that pardon or salvation, but upon supposition that this faith perseveres: and if the gospel-promise say no such thing, i am sure the covenant did not, p. 66. antinom. what christ bequeathed he purchased; but it seems all was done but upon condition of perseverance. we must stand upon these uncertain conditions all our days; it would be some comfort, if we could come to some certainty of our pardon and salvation after we are over the first brunt; but we can't be sure we are pardoned, or that we shall be saved till the last gasp; and if we happen to fall in the mean time, our pardon is gone. neonom. the account of the covenant, which seems most for its absoluteness, implies this conditional connexion of the required grace and the promised benefits. antinom. now all our foederal conditions are dwindled away into conditional connexion's only. it is well some places seem to be for the absoluteness of the covenant; if there be but one text that is really for it, i think we are bound to believe it. but you say, they imply a conditional connexion. god forbidden, that conditional connexion's should he turned out of the world; if they should, all things must be returned into the first chaos, and this would be a conditional connexion; and this connection is between the required grace and promised benefit. if you had said, bestowed grace, it had been more proper: or said, required duty: there's no body hath so little sense as to deny cause and effects, subjects and adjuncts, arguments of all sorts in the covenant of grace in that free absolute covenant; and among the gifts of it, there is christ and all his effects, the spirit and its effects, faith and its effects, adjuncts and contraries. this we call relative conditions, or else things must cease to have a being. but that which we deny is, moral foederal conditions to be performed by us: such as these we say there's none: in the covenant of grace there's no required gracious act that is such a moral condition of any promised benefit. neonom. the places that seem to be for an absolute covenant are, jer. 31.31, 32, 33. heb. 8.10, 11, 12. heb. 10.16, 17. jer. 32.40. ezra 11.19, 20. there be others that relate to the restauration of the captivity. antinom. you name ezra 11. for one, and ezra hath not so many chapters. i suppose it's an erratum, but i find it not among the erratas. as for the rest, you insinuate, as if they referred only to the return of the captivity. neonom. yes, i'll pitch upon one, jer. 31.31. etc. this is quoted heb. 8.10, 12. and ch. 10.16, 17. to understand this, we must consider, 1. whom is this covenant made with. 2. what can be inferred from this scheme of the covenant. (1.) it's made with the house of judah and israel, not the men in present being, but men to be hereafter. it's after those days i will make it, so that it was after the mosaic covenant was to expire, ver. 32. d. w. p. 67. antinom. hence than you refute yourself, in saying, that it referred to the restauration of the captivity; for then the mosaic covenant was in its full force. neonom. and it could not be the only covenant of grace, for that had its being from the fall, and the sincere israelites lost not the advantage of it, gal. 3.17. antinom. the covenant of grace had its being before the fall, and from the fall it had its promulgation; then was that first revealed state of it, before it was the mystery that lay hid in god. but observe, that as it was then manifested, it was absolute as to us. the seed of the woman shall break the serpents head. there was no condition mentioned, nor rationally supposed to be implied, but christ. and it's to be observed that this covenant-promise was made before the sentence was pronounced upon our fallen parents, which blessing was the curse of the serpent denounced. now as this promulgated covenant had its being from the fall, so it continued as the covenant of grace and salvation to all the faithful under the old testament. the lamb slain from the foundations of the world, or before them, was looked upon as the only foederal condition, which was exemplifyed by sacrifices, early begun in adam's family, and continued till the messiah came. now indeed this covenant in the epistle to the hebrews is not meant in the essential nature of it, but in the veiled state of it under the mosaic administration, which is called by the apostle, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, graven in stone, 2 cor. 3.6, 7. and opposed to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which is the gospel unvailed ministration, which is said, therefore to be new, because of the full and clear discovery that was made by the revelation of christ in his coming and ministry, which was not before: and in the same sense mount sinai and mount zion is opposed in heb. 12. and what was seen by this last ministration? it was, that christ jesus was the sum and substance of the former ministration. 1. that it was a covenant of freegrace, the promise given upon the condition of redemption by the blood of christ, which appeared to be the true intent of all the sacrifices. 2. that though so much was conditionally required, yet no duties could expiate sin, or reconcile us to god: and the reason of those duties are given us as truly, though then not so fully seen, was the performance of the covenant-condition virtually in redemption typified by redemption out of egypt, exod. 20. in a word, the covenant of grace stood vailed under the mosaic pedagogy, which stood in a conditional command under the sanction of rewards and punishments mostly temporal, and under types and figures. now this ministration of the letter stood under a double faultiness, which clouded the glory and beauty of the promise. first, a typical and shadowy administration in sacrifices, by which the great condition of the covenant was pointed at, as being not yet come, and symbolically only expressed to their faith. the other fault was, the moral mount sinai vail, which called for duty as it were in the way of foederal condition, caused them to perform duty as under a spirit of bondage, and in a mercenary manner, through the encouragement of temporal rewards, and fear of temporary sufferings, and a seeming attribution of demerits to the performances. and therefore the apostle shows, that the faultiness lay here also, heb. 8.9. not according to the covenant i made with their fathers, etc. because they continued not in my covenant, they could not be saved by those legal conditional performances, but by an absolute covenant couched under that conditional ministration, being saved even as we; for the law and legal ministration it was weak through the flesh, rom. 8.3. and you speak very truly, that the true israelites never lost the spiritual advantage of the covenant of grace by reason of this veiled ministration, but looked through the veil by faith; for the law-deliverance at mount sinai did not, or could not disannul it. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the covenant or testament fore-ratifyed by god unto christ. thus far we do in some measure agree. neonom. but the point before us is, to know who this israel and judah be. 1. they are either the natural jews to be alive in those days, which this promise refers to. 2. or to true believers, who are inwardly israel, rom. 9.6. if it terminate in the natural jews, it's a strong text for the conversion of the jews, for the most part by an immediate influence. antinom. those days are the days of the gospel-ministration, and it's plain the spirit of god refers to the jews that then lived. the apostle wrote to the hebrews, and his design was to take them from the mount sinai ministration, which they were most fond of: he tells them, that now the days were come which the prophet spoke of; and therefore this is but shuffling with the texts, as if the time of fulfilling this promise was not yet come, when the spirit of god gives us so clearly to understand when this prophecy was accomplished, ver. 6. having given us an account of the ministry of the old sanctuary, that then the priests did serve the example and shadow of heavenly things. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, they do service, or minister by way of similitude and shadow, whereby they understood that they were not to last but till a better ministry ensued. and ver. 6. he saith, but now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also as he is the mediator of a better covenant. and this is the time, at the appearance of this mediator, and his fulfilling all righteousness, that there should be this clear, unvailed dispensation of the promise. not but god did thus unconditionally save them before; but now they should understand the true ground, principle, and use, of gospel-services and duties. and here's all absolute; god forgives their iniquity, and writes his law in their hearts, where all is absolute and free, without mentioning any condition; though you would fain hook them in any way by head and shoulders, but you labour in vain. neonom. if they be true believers, inward israel, rom. 2.9. then there is faith in such who are the parties with whom god makes this covenant, etc. d. w. p. 68 antinom. we shown you, it's meant first of the professed jews in those days, out of which god would take a true israel by virtue of this promise: and they that were blinded should be converted, and turn to the lord, it should be so; and this way they should come to be believers; for giving the new heart, and writing the law there, is making them believers. how absurdly do you talk of making believers first, and then taking them into covenant? as if making men believers, and giving them new hearts, were not taking them into covenant. this is from your principle, that there's no promise of giving pardon or salvation to mere sinners and unbelievers, which is contrary to the whole gospel. i will show you a promise that declares this absolute covenant expressly to the sinners of the gentiles, (though the same promise belongs to both expressed in either of the places.) rom. 9.23. that god might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared to glory, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. this fore-preparation was in the covenant of grace, even us whom he hath called, not of the jews only, but of the gentiles, ver. 25. as he saith in osce, i will call them my people which were not my people, and her beloved which was not beloved, etc. see the place: and that this calling refers to more than an outward profession appears by 1 pet. 2.9, 10. you will make the writing of god's law in the heart to be the condition, when it's the very promise made. give me the condition of this promise to be found in us before god's law is written, or else you do nothing. neonom. it cannot be inferred from this scheme of the new covenant, that (the dr. would have it) god doth not require any duty as the condition of the benefits which he promised to give. d. w. p. 68 antinom. you say the first grace is freely given, which in the promise is a new heart. now what is a greater benefit than life from the dead? and what duty can be required as a condition to this benefit? here you must fall in with the papists, and directly contrary to article 13. of the church of england. neonom. i talk not of a condition before a new heart, but that the new heart is the condition: for god's law is written in the heart, before our relation to him as his people, or the pardon of sin. antinom. here you plainly say, there's a real state in grace, without a relative: sanctification, without justification or adoption; the law written in the heart, and therefore good works. while we are unreconciled to god, it's before we are his people. now this law must be written, 1. in the heart of the ungodly man and unbeliever; contrary to what you say, that there's no promise made to such because unbelievers: or it must be in the heart of him, who at once is made a believer in the working of a new heart, in which instant he is related to god, and hath the pardon of sin. but it's unaccountable divinity, that the law of god is writ in the heart before our relation to god as his people, or the pardon of sins. neonom. but god requires us to make us new hearts as a condition of life, ezek. 18.31. jer. 7.23. 2 cor. 3.6. antinom. i suppose, sir, you yourself cannot say, that the first quoted places are wrote in the new covenant dialect, but in that of the veiled covenant, especially that of ezek. 18. the place quoted by you. i suppose you will not say it's quite contrary to jer. 31.31. for if so, we may throw away our bibles, but that this place is to be taken in some sense that is not contrary to the very nature and design of that of jeremy. the drift of this chapter, ezek. 18. is to vindicate the just and righteous proceed of god: for they had charged god with injustice and unrighteousness of his deal towards them, that the son suffered for the father's sins, the father eat sour grapes, etc. god visiting the iniquities of the fathers upon the children. the lord tells them, there's no child suffers for his father's sins, any farther than he entails the curse, and as he walketh in his father's sins: and that by personal repentance of the vilest person a man should be saved, and not suffer for his parents sins. and ver. 29. the prophet saith, notwithstanding you have heard the justice of god thus vindicated, you will persist in it, and say, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the way of god is not just or right. o house of israel, (saith the lord) are not my ways just? are not yours unjust? for thus saith the lord, i will judge you; seeing that you stand so upon your own justification, and censure my justice; see now that you repent, and turn you from your iniquities, and so iniquity shall not be your ruin. and if they plead this, we cannot do it without the gift of grace, and thou change our hearts. no, faith god, seeing you stand upon such terms with me, you must do as you have pretended you could. ver. 31. cast away from you all your transgressions— and make you a new heart: get up yourselves such faith as those have, who receive my grace freely, and i give new hearts to, and it shall be well with you: for, saith the lord, my nature is not to delight in the misery of the creature, (as no just judge that passeth sentence delights to afflict or kill the prisoner at the bar) i had according to my nature, rather he should repent and live; but if he doth not, justice requireth that he should die. now that which seems here to be chief aimed at, is, to convince them of their sinful undone state, that they were never able to perform so much as the external commands of the law of moses, or any commands to repentance or obedience in their own strength and power. and seeing you charge me with this, that i accept not your pretended repentance, but have carried you away into captivity, it's for the iniquity of our fathers, they have sinned and we must suffer. no, saith god, do but repent, sin shall not be your ruin; make you new hearts yourselves. seeing you pretend you deserve so much, and have done so and so, let me now see what you can do without me as to help and grace; you shall see i shall deal with you according to your good, as well as according to your wickedness. the current of the old tkstament is to convince them of the faultiness of this conditional covenant, and to confirm what the apostle saith, heb. 8. rom. 10.31, 32. which is the sense of that place, jer. 7.23, 4. this thing i commanded them, but they harkened not, etc. that they continued not in that conditional way of salvation, nor obtained the law of righteousness, neglecting the true spiritual meaning of the sacrifices; but they that were saved, were saved as we, by faith in a free and an unconditional covenant of grace. calvin saith on the place, non frustra hoc dicit deus, facite vobis, etc. god doth not speak this in vain. facite vobis (though they had no power to do it) but for this end, that men being convinced of their sins, should blame none but themselves; and acknowledging their impotency, should betake themselves to the help of the holy spirit as david, psal. 51.22. so as also this external exhortation is as it were the instrument god useth to confer grace upon them. and the apostle acquaints us, 1 cor. 10. and shows us how the israelites failed, and rebelled against this conditional covenant, and so brought themselves under the calamities threatened to their disobedience, and tells us, that all these things happened unto them in a type, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 [or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as another reading hath it] 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, ver. 11. they were types, and were written for our instruction. wherein was that? viz. that we should not think as they, to be saved upon the condition of our performances, which they did, notwithstanding they had christ and the free promise of life given to them in the types of the cloud, and the rock which they made not improvement of, or regarded, but stood mostly on their own strength and righteousness. therefore, saith he, ver. 12. the instruction lies here, which we are taught, he that thinks that he stands, let him take heed lest he falls; i. e. let him depend upon the free grace of the covenant, and not upon his conditional performances. i see not to what purpose you quote 2 cor. 3.6. and ch. 10.11, 12, 21. neonom. i will tell you your mistakes, you think every thing is a price to buy a benefit, which is a compliance with the way god hath ordained to be a way to bestow a gift. d. w. p. 71. antinom. i think god hath a way to bestow grace upon us by price and gift too; the price is paid by christ, i. e. the conditional part of the covenant performed, and christ is freely given to us, and this is all the covenant-way of salvation in him. now if you bring in any other foederal condition between christ and us, you destroy it as a gift of righteousness and life, and make it debt, because that which makes the benefits promised due by remunerative justice, makes them a debitum; but a previous foederal condition performed, makes the benefits promised due by remunerative justice, ergo. make them a debt, and the condition a price; therefore all such conditions are rejected as money and price, isa. 55.1. neonom. you think because god hath promised to christ, that the elect shall believe; therefore god cannot make faith a condition of any other blessing. antinom. i think faith being promised to christ for us, and to all his seed in him, it can never lose the nature of a promise to us, and can't return into the nature of a foederal condition. that the promises are bestowed ordine & relatiuâ connexione, i deny not, nor no body of sense; but no gifts of the promise are foederal conditions, but christ himself. neonom. he thinks because christ is given to be a covenant, i. e. is appointed to be a surety, to serve the great ends of the covenant accomplished and secured, therefore there is nothing required from men as the way of their interest in the benefits of the covenant, though under the influence of christ. antinom. it seems you give two things to christ as surety only. 1. that he is the executor. 2. that he hath given bond and security that we shall perform the conditions of the covenant: but we say, he was so a surety, as not only to undertake, but actually to fulfil all righteousness for us, and was our federal condition, and was the testator of the promise; and it being made unto him, and us in him, all power was put into his hand; he gave it us by will, sealed it with his blood, and now is exalted, and in full power to give out the w●ole covenant-grant himself, and eternal life in him to sinners freely that have no qualification for it, neither are capable of making or performing any foederal conditions. neonom. you think because christ is appointed to work faith in order to union, and other benefits, therefore we must have an actual interest in christ and his benefits before this faith is wrought. antinom. faith is the fruit that grows upon a branch of the vine christ jesus. now tell me how that fruit shall grow without the influence of the root: unless you will say, a branch out of christ can bring forth fruit. i will not undertake to tell how long the union made by the spirit is before faith appear, but i am sure faith cannot so much as arise into the first act, without the sinners union and spiritual communion, so far as to have from the root; but as to his active and apprehended union, it can't be before faith. neonom. you think because all grace after union comes from christ as our actual head, therefore christ by his spirit can work no grace in us as our designed head. antinom. i know not how you put that paradox upon me, or what you mean by it very well; i can but guests at it by your other notions; all that i can say to it is, that christ works grace as our actual head. that christ works grace in us as a designed head is a riddle; for so grace must be wrought in us before we are in christ. neonom. you think because god sovereignly decreed what benefits he would bestow; therefore he hath as our ruler, stated no rectoral method of bestowing those benefits. antinom. i never thought god to be any other than a god of order, and that he is wise in all his ways, and holy in all his works, and always thought that as god hath decreed to us all covenant-blessings, so he hath provided the best method and way for bestowing them, most to the honour and glory of his freegrace. neonom. because the covenant is everlasting, (as to future) therefore you judge there can be no condition on man's part; nor remembering, that the covenant secures our perseverance in performing those conditions. antinom. because the cnvenant is eternal, before the world began, i judge it was complete, and that the condition was as ancient as the covenant, and the security both in condition and promise as ancient. neonom. dr. o. in his treatise of justification, p. 264. saith, that christ undertook that those who were to be taken into this covenant should receive grace, enabling them to comply with the terms of it, fulfil its conditions, and yield obedience, which god required therein. how frequently doth he assert, that our interest in the benefits of the covenant depends on our answering the terms of the gospel.— 270, 30●, 351. and so mr. norton. calvin. dr. owen shows what christ undertook as sponsor, praes. fidejussor. 1. to answer for all the sins of those who are to be, and are made partakers of the benefits of it. 2. that those who are to be taken into covenant, [by their actual embracing it] should receive grace enabling them; and whatever christ undertook, god promised; and this grace of compliance is no other than what christ procured, undertook, and god promised. to say that the promises are conditions one of another, is to say no more than that they stand in an order of application, and i● a constituted relation one to another. and these are all the terms the doctor means; and that he doth mean so, and not in your sense, is manifest, by noting other notions of these things, two of which he rehearseth, wherein i am sure your notion is comprised at length and breadth, he tells us what some say we own to the death of christ, the procuratum of the new covenant, and that he suffered what god appointed he should; not that the justice of god required any such thing, etc. as in their stead, but what by a free constitution of divine wisdom and sovereignty was appointed; and hereon god remitted the terms of the old covenant, and entered into a new covenant, suited unto reason, etc. these are faith and sincere obedience, etc.— others say, the whole righteousness of christ is imputed to us so far, as that we are made partakers of the benefits thereof. and that the way of the communication of them unto us is by the new covenant, which by his death the lord christ procured. for the conditions of the covenant are establisted in the covenant itself, whereon god will bestow all the benefits and effects of it upon us, which are faith and obedience. wherefore, what the lord christ hath done for us, is thus far accepted as our legal righteousdess, as that god upon our faith and obedience with respect thereunto, doth release and pardon all our sins. upon this pardon there is no need of any positive perfect righteousness unto our justification or salvation; but our own personal righteousness is accepted with god in the room of it, by virtue of the new covenant which christ hath procured: so is the doctrine hereof stated by cursellaeus, and those that join with and follow him, as i take it you do. this doctrine he refutes. as for what you quote from mr. norton, orth. evang. p. 172. it's not to the purpose. his design is to prove, the gospel is preached in an indefinite proposition, which is not to our purpose; you quote mr. norton in the wrong place. look ch. 10. p. 227.— the application both of grace and glory, and all the good of the covenant of grace, are free to us, though conditioned unto christ. free grace excludes not christ's merit, but man's merit. obj. faith is a condition, though not of itself, yet of salvation, and that in the elect themselves: therefore the application of salvation seems not to be free in respect of the elect. a. a condition is either a condition properly so called, i. e. an antecedent condition, or a condition improperly so called, i. e. a consequent condition. a condition properly so called is a law or observation, annexed to a business, the performance whereof lieth upon the covenant, and accordingly the business becomes valid or null. such a condition was works in the first covenant. if faith were such a condition, there would soon be an end of the covenant of grace; yea, the covenant of grace were indeed no covenant of grace. a condition improperly so called, or a consequent condition, is such a condition, whose performance by the covenantee is absolutely undertaken for, and irresistibly wrought by the covenanter, and not left in suspense upon the covenantee, to be performed by his own strength. faith is a consequent condition, not an antecedent condition. so as this proposition, i will give eternal life to the elect, if they believe, is equivalent unto this, i will out of my absolute will give unto the elect eternal life, because i will out of my absolute will give unto the elect to believe. particula si, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, si feceris hoc vives. particula si, non est 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in si credideris. buc. loc. 21. q. 3. obj. repentance and new obedience are necessary to salvation, luke 13.3. heb. 3.13. therefore the application of the good of election is not to be free in respect of us. a. good works (which is also true repentance) are necessary, as the way appointed of god unto salvation, but not as the cause; this were to change the covenant of grace into a covenant of works, our good works are the effects of grace, the reward of good works are a reward of grace; good works are necessary to salvation as the way, not as an instrument or cause. faith is necessary to salvation as an instrument. the active and passive obedience of christ is necessary as a meritorious cause. calvin. mr. antisozzo, i pray do you now speak impartially to this point. antisozzo. i think i have met with his scheme before now, and as i take it, it runs thus, and the question that lies before us is this, what influence the sacrifice of christ's death, and the righteousness of his life have upon our acceptance with god? the gentleman that i once disputed with stated the question so, and resolved it as follows. [antisozzo, p. 580.] all that i can find in scripture about this is, that to this we own the covenant of grace; that god being well-pleased with the obedience of christ's life, and the sacrifice of his death, for his sake entered into a new covenant with mankind, wherein he promises pardon of sin and eternal life to those who believe and obey the gospel. i think this is exactly your scheme, mr. neonomian. neonom. yes, and something more, d. w. p. 8. viz. that the gospel bars all unbelievers and dead sinners from pardon and adoption, and denounceth the continuance of condemnation against them, limiting its benefits to such as believe. antisozzo. this scheme contains three things. 1. a description of the covenant of grace. 2. an assertion that this covenant of grace is owing to the sacrifice and righteousness of christ. 3. a supposition that this righteousness and sacrifice of christ hath no other influence upon our acceptance with god, but that for his sake he enrted into such a covenant with mankind. 1. his description is this: a promise of the pardon of sin and eternal life to those who believe and obey the gospel. neonom. you will not, i hope, deny this to be a true description of the covenant of grace. antisozzo. but i will for all your haste: it is a description so liable to exceptions, that it describes neither the whole of the covenant, nor a new covenant, nor (upon the matter) any covenant at all. neonom. if you prove what you say,— eris mihi magnus apollo. i'll strike out your name from my book; and if i can be convinced, i must subscribe yours. antisozzo. you shall see what i can do presently. 1. this description gives us very little of a true covenant of grace. for, 1. tho you think to put us off with a promise of pardon and life to those that believe and obey; the true covenant of grace hath given us a promise of that faith whereby we may believe, and of that new heart, whereby we are enabled to obey the gospel. and first, we have the promise of the right faith in the true covenant, john 6.37. eph. 1.8. and lest it should be said, faith is a common gift, as other things are, the apostle hath his reply ready, eph. 1.19. secondly, we have a direct and express promise too of that new heart from which we give to god new obedience, ezek. 36. ver. 26, 27. etc. 2. this description gives but very little of the true covenant of grace; there's a promise of pardon and life to them who believe and obey, but perseverance in faith and obedience is left to the desultory and lubricous power of free will; whereas in the true covenant of grace there's an undertaking that the covenant shall be immutable both on god's part, jer. 32.38, 4. god hath said, he will not turn away from doing them good. and 2ly. he hath promised, that they shall not departed from him, etc. p. 583. 2. as it describes not the whole of the covenant, so it describes not the nature of a new covenant. 1. it describes no new covenant in opposition to the old covenant of works: the covenant with adam promised life upon condition of obedience, and those commands as easy as those now given to mankind, and much easier too, if we consider adam's natural strength. 2. we are told by you, that christ hath added to the moral law, [i. e. to the moral duties required by the new law, faith and repentance] which is to lay more load on those that were overcharged before. so that as you make covenants, adam's was much the better covenant of the two; but you have wisely shuffled in a promise of the pardon of sin, which may seem to give this covenant a pre-eminence above that of adam: but that will not mend the matter, both because it's better to have no sin in our natures, than such a remedy; better to have no wound than such a plaster; and also because the promise of pardon (as you say) is suspended upon the condition of faith and obedience, which without a supernatural real influx of immediate divine power, reduceth the promise to an impossibility of performance. 2ly. this covenant described is no new covenant in opposition to the old administration of the covenant of grace; there were the same promises then that we have now, the same moral precepts that we have now. though the word gospel come in for a blind, yet the apostle assures us the gospel was preached to abraham. 3. upon the matter it's no covenant of grace at all, p. 584. for, 1. a promise of pardon and life upon condition of believing and obeying, is neither better nor worse than a threatening of condemnation and death, to them who believe not and obey not. it may with equal right be called a threatening of death, as a promise of life: it's no more of grace than a covenant of wrath: and therefore, 2ly. (if it be lawful to consider man as the word of god describes him, dead in sins and trespasses) it's not covenant at all to him. for what is the nice difference betwixt the promise of life to him that obeys, when it's certain beforehand he cannot obey, and no promise at all, etc. neonom. well, sir, pray let us call another cause: do you argue like a voucher to my book. mr. calvinist, he is a sharp man, and he doth this only for argumentation sake; he is of my mind for all this. antisozzo. no, do not you believe that; you wheadled me in to vouch for your book i know not how; but i shall stick the closer upon your skirts for that, i have not done with you yet. calvin. i will then propound one question to mr. antisozzo, whether the covenant of grace be owing to the sacrifice of christ's death, and so be distinct from that he calls the covenant of redemption? because our time now is up, speak only what your judgement is in this point. antisozzo. mr. neonomian, i must tell you i have narrowly pried into this paradox, that the covenant of grace is owing to, procured by, and founded on the obedience of christ's life, and the sacrifice of his death, and yet so unhappy i have been in my search that i cannot find any proof, or any attempt to prove it; and therefore (till i see evidence to the contrary) i shall take for granted that the covenant of grace is owing to, and founded on, and given forth by that free grace of god from whence it's justly denominated a covenant of grace, though the intervention of a mediator, such a mediator was absolutely necessary to put us into actual possession of those rich mercies designed to us by god in that covenant; which mediator himself is owing to, and founded on that covenant of grace; and therefore the covenant of grace is not founded upon him, but indeed for that covenant [which mr. neonomian] is pleased to call a covenant of grace, it's no great matter where it is founded; and therefore let him dispose of his own creature as he pleaseth, etc. see p. 581, 586. etc. neonom. there are precepts and threaten in the covenant of grace; and therefore those duties required are foederal conditions: for to the performance of them are annexed promises, and to the breach of them threats. calvin. i pray, dr. witsius, do you speak in answer to this argument. dr. witsius. the covenant of grace, or gospel strictly so called, as a platform of that covenant, seeing it consists in mere promises, properly prescribes nothing as duty, it requires or commands nothing, not so much as believe, trust and hope in the lord, etc. but it reports, declares and signifies to us what god in christ hath promised, what he will and is about to do. all prescription of duty belongs to the law, even as after others venerable voetius hath pressed again and again. voet. disput. tom. 4. p. 24. & seq. and this we must firmly hold, if we will constantly defend (with all the reformed) the perfection of the law, containing in its compass all virtues, all duties of holiness. but the law fitted to the covenant of grace, and according there to written in the heart of the elect, commands all these things which are propounded in the gospel, to embrace it with faith unfeigned, and to live a life of grace and glory agreeable thereto. de f●●der. p. 197. as to comminations, it cannot be denied but in the doctrine of christ and his apostles, there are many comminations, which have a peculiar respect unto the covenant of grace, as, he that believes not shall be condemned, etc. which comminations do seem to be distinguished from those that are plainly legal: such as this, cursed be he that continues not in all things, etc. yet if we exactly consider them, the covenant of grace hath no peculiar threats, for all the threats are from the law, which law as to all its parts, doth accommodate and suit itself to the covenant of grace; and there are none which cannot be referred to, or deduced from that mere legal commination cursed is every one that continueth not in all things, etc. de foed. p. 199. debate ix. of the nature of saving faith. calvin. at our last meeting we finished our debate about the covenant of grace, and the conditions of it. what have you further, mr. neonomian, to discourse mr. antinomian about. neonom. divers points besides that he is erroneous in. the next i would challenge him upon, is saving faith, and the nature of it: for his error is this: that saving faith is nothing but a persuasion or absolute concluding within ourselves, that our sins are pardoned, and that christ is ours. d. w. p. 73. calvin. but you do not deny faith to be a persuasion, do you? if you do deny that persuasion is the genus of faith, every common porter, or youth in the street, will contradict you; for they will tell you, that they do believe this or that to be true. ask them what they mean by believing, they will tell you, they are persuaded of it. they take faith and persuasion to be equivalent terms, and indeed reciprocal; for that which i am persuaded of i do believe, and that which i believe i am persuaded of. but go on, let us hear what mr. antinomian saith in this point. neonom. sir, he tells us, that the whole essence of faith is nothing else but the echo of the heart answering the foregoing voice of the spirit and word of grace. my sins are forgiven me, saith faith. and the soul that can assume thus from the spirit and word of grace, hath the whole essence of believing. d. c. p. 493. antinom. i doubt not, sir, but to prove that this is a good account of saving faith. i said, that which hath the whole essence of faith, is not a dead but living faith, (i. e. which bringeth forth fruits. d. c. p. 493. but the question was, whether faith gives evidence by itself or no, by its own direct act. now i said, the whole essence of faith is nothing else but the echo of the heart answering the voice of the spirit and word of grace, etc. now i thought i could not give a more lively account of it; for the echo is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the daughter of the voice; it's begotten by the voice. so saith the scripture, rom. 10.16, 17. he quotes isa. 53.1. who hath believed our report? 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: the word signifies the voice heard, or that comes to the hearing. and so doth the hebrew word import, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, who hath believed or heard our voice? i. e. who hath so heard it, as to make an impression thereof upon their hearts believingly? and the apostle saith, when this heard voice takes in a due impression upon the heart through the spirit, it begets faith, and that impress is faith, rom. 10.17. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. faith verily is from hearing, and this hearing by the word of god. hearing, or the voice that is heard, is by the word of god. hence that expression of the apostle, james 1.18. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, of his own (working effectually by his spirit in opening and new framing the heart, as lydia's) he begets us by the word of truth. the truth of the word is received into the heart as it were with an echo, and formation of the heart into it, progenuit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all udit ad nostram adoptionem cujus facti sumus per fidem participes, john 1.12, 13. fides autem est ex auditu verbi, rom. 10.17. ideo etiam dicuntur ministri filios gignere sed quatenus dei instrumenta, ● cor. 4.15. phil. 10. beza. by an assent to it as true, and consent to it as a good truth. and this is indeed the writing the law of god in the heart, the law being taken often for any truth declared in the word. after this manner the apostle speaks, 1 cor. 4.15. in christ jesus i have begotten you by the gospel, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: so that the gospel begets faith, phil. 10. the apostle james, ch. 1.15. useth the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, concerning sin when it is finished or completed, brings forth death, i. e. sin when it appears as it is, it's death and condemnation in the conscience: so the word brought thus by the spirit into the heart, the soul is freed from condemnation; it thereby hath life, he believes, to the saving of the soul. and can this be denied to be good faith, and true faith, and all the essence of our divine faith, it being the believing of the word so as to close with it, and receive it, according to the nature and end of it. the apostle, heb. 11.1. describes faith by two words, marvellous significent in our sense, by * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 illud quo subsistunt. beza. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, persuasio, syr. it notes confidence or presence of mind without fear. so polyb. it's rendered confident, or confident persuasion, 2 cor. 9.4. ch. 11.17. and heb. 3 14. where it signifies, and is rendered confident persuasion. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which is a subsistance: the word is besides used concerning the person of the father, heb. 1.3. where christ is said to be the character of the father's hypostacy, we read it personality. so here faith is said to personate the truth, or to be the image of it, as it were in the heart; or rather things hoped for; it makes them as it were present, echoing them in the heart, the echo speaking the same things the voice doth; and he saith, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the evidence, or rather demonstration of things not seen, it takes up a demonstration from god's authority, not from sense or reason. here argumentum inartific. divine testimony is of greater force than any artificial arguments can be. there is also another word whereby faith is expressed, and its 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, rom. 4.20. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, persuasio, plena certioratio. stev. it's said of abraham, he was strong in faith. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. persuasae intelligentiae. stev. and what was his strength of faith? it was his fullness of persuasion or confidence, ver. 21. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, he was fully persuaded of what god had promised. the word is used for faith; col. 2.2. to all riches of the full assurance of understanding: denoting that faith is primarily an act of the understanding; this word is often used for it, 1 thess. 1.5. heb. 6.11. & 10.22. and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for plenam fidem vel persuasionem habeo, luke 1.1. rom. 14.5. the very greek word for persuasion is used, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, whence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 2 tim. 1.5, 12. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, i am persuaded, i. e. do believe that he is able to keep that which i have committed to him, rom. 8.38. i am persuaded that neither death nor life, etc. i. e. this was his strong faith. rom. 14.14. i am persuaded in the lord jesus, that there's nothing unclean of itself. this was his faith. i will but name one place more, heb. 11.13. it's said of those eminent believers mentioned in that chapter, that they received not the promises in the fulfilling of them by performance, but saw them afar off, and being persuaded of them, saluted them in their own hearts, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. calvin. you must own saving faith to be a saving persuasion you see, or else you must deny the scriptures; and according to the weakness and strength of persuasion we account our faith is weaker or stronger, yet hath its forma & differentia from its proper adjuncts and object. neonom. when he puts a man to examine his faith, he hath these words, (d. w. p. 73.) how do i know i believe in christ? he answers, do i rest my heart upon his truth? do i receive it as a truth that i do believe? or do i reject it, and will not receive it? then i do not believe it. but if thou sit down and rest upon this truth, and receive it, and do in reality believe it, than you may absolutely conclude christ is yours. d. c. p. 107. antinom. i am sorry to see that you should have such an aversion to these things. i was preaching from isa. 42.6, 7. and showing how christ receiveth sinners as sinners, he never shuts out one of those thousands that come upon the tender of the gospel; dr. c. p. 107. and if there be no example of any shut out in the whole scripture, from whence fetch you that bitterness of your own spirit, that you may not, that you dare not close with christ? but you will say, if this taking christ be the best security, how shall i know whether i believe or no? or how shall i know that this my taking is not counterfeit, but solid and real. answ. i answer, by the reality of the thing; do you it indeed? if you do it indeed, it's a real taking. [do you not bid men believe sincerely and indeed?] if a man should ask you, how do you know the sun shines? the light of the sun doth show itself, and by its light we know it shines. how shall i know i believe? there is a light in faith that doth discover itself unto men. the soul that doth really close with christ, may conclude he doth so. if you give 6 d. to a poor man, and you say to him, how do you know i have given you 6 d? he will answer, i have it in my hand, and feel i have it. so ask your hearts this question, how do i know i believe in christ? do i rest my heart upon this truth? do i receive it as a truth, & c? calvin. what, can you, mr. neonomian, with any face except against this doctrine? doth not the apostle say, 1 john 5.10. he that believeth on the son hath a witness in himself? is there any clearer evidence of an action than the doing it? ask a man how he knows he can eat: saith he, i do eat, i do taste and swallow what i eat. so that instance of the sun shining, which he gives, there's no doubt but the first evidence the soul hath is in believing itself; though he tries his faith by its fruits also, and receives evidence therefrom. is not faith illustrated in scripture by all our senses, hearing, tasting, smelling, feeling or touching, seeing? and is there not perception in the exercise of all the senses? and how shall i know better that i do exercise them, than by perceiving their objects, which is a witness, an evidence, a demonstration to myself above all others that it is so. the natural man indeed receiveth not, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the things of the spirit by faith, 1 cor. 2.14. and therefore they are foolishness to him: but the spiritual man doth, i. e. by faith. neonom. he says, if the lord give to any to believe this truth, d. w. p. 74. dr. c. p. 296. that it is his iniquity the lord hath laid on christ, god himself cannot charge one sin on that man: and he makes a difference between a strong believer and a weak, to consist in the degree of his persuasion. dr. c. p. 158. antinom. this was a use that i made upon that point of laying sin on christ, if god have laid our iniquity upon christ, than whosoever thou art to whom the lord will be pleased to give the believing of this truth, that the lord hath laid thine iniquity on christ, that laying thine iniquity upon him is an absolute and full discharge to thee, that there neither is nor can be any iniquity for the present, nor for hereafter, that can be laid to thy charge; and then follows what he hath rehearsed. and if this be not true doctrine, that every believer that by the grace of god sees his sins laid on christ, hath a full pardon of all sins, past, present and to come; so that sin shall never be charged on him for condemnation before god; i am to seek for the doctrine of the gospel. i quote that place, rom. 8.33. to me a very full proof. and i do affirm, that the degrees of our faith doth stand in the degrees of the sight of christ's glory, and the persuasion we have in our hearts of our part in him. and i do not say, that he is no believer that hath not this perfectly; far be it from me to say so; there are that are believers, that are weak in the faith; and there are believers that are strong in the faith; the more the light and glory of the gospel shines in the true intention of god to his people, the more shall they return to their rest, the more shall they have joy and gladness. why may not a believer then say as david did, the lord hath been very bountiful to me, that i may return to my rest. god hath done every thing in christ, and taken away all things that can disturb my peace and comfort. dr. c. p. 158. calvin. i pray, mr. neonom. let us have your description of saving faith. neonom. i shall express it in the assemblies words, ch. 14. a. 2. d. w. p. 72, 73. by this grace a christian believeth to be true whatsoever is revealed in the word; from the authority of god himself speaking therein, and acteth differently upon that which each particular passage thereof containeth, yielding obedience to the commands, trembling at the threaten, and embracing the promises of god for this life, and that which is to come: but the principal acts of saving faith are, accepting, receiving, and resting upon christ alone for justification, sanctification and eternal life, by virtue of the covenant of grace. gentlemen, weigh this account of faith well; which if it were regarded, and no essential part excluded, when faith is considered as a condition of any gospel-benefit.— one would think no man need prove that it is not saving faith when any essential part of it is wanting; and that it must be saving faith, when we mention faith as a condition. antinom. that reverend assembly do here express the essential parts of faith, and something more as the effects of it. i take it not to be intended for a definition, wherein only essentials are put, but a description that takes in subjects, adjuncts, effects, etc. the definition is first given. a. 1. that the grace of faith is whereby the elect are enabled to believe to the saving of their souls. after they proceed to show the causes of it, the word and spirit, and after that its several ways of acting, and its effects. they do in the shorter catechism give a briefer account of it, which may be more properly called a definition. quest. 86. what is faith in jesus christ? answ. faith in jesus christ is a saving grace, whereby we receive and rest upon him alone for salvation, as he is offered to us in the gospel. and if you please to turn to quest. 31. you shall see what they mean by receiving and resting: there they say,— effectual calling is the work of god's spirit, whereby convincing us of our sin and misery, enlightening our minds in the knowledge of christ, and renewing our wills, he doth persuade and enable us to embrace jesus christ freely offered to us in the gospel. and in the larger catechism you have a full description of faith as justifying, quest. 72. wherein there is the genus of it, a saving grace; the principal efficient cause, the spirit; the causa ministrant, the subservient efficient cause, the word: both causae procreantes. the subject in whom it is wrought, a sinful, miserable and lost creature, really so, and in his own eyes. and then you have the material cause, the truth of the promise of the gospel. in the confession (wherein its more largely expressed) its whatever is revealed in the word, this is the objective part of it, and material. the form of saving faith is an impression wrought upon the soul from the proper efficacy of the spirit, by the word, according to the acceptable nature and evidence thereof. the truth must have goodness in it, because we believe many things that we fear and are averse to. the word works objectively upon the understanding, persuading it to assent and set to its seal, that the word is truth, and from the goodness in that truth it persuades the will to embrace, because voluntas sequitur ultimum dictamen intellectus; and the consenting of the will is an effect of the assenting of the understanding; hence then it's not barely believing without ground, but upon some authority. in the confession 'tis said, for the authority of god himself speaking in the word, which is believing on christ, believing in god, from whence follows an awful reverence and regard to his word, as also the resting and depending of the soul thereon: and when it's determined to the grace of justification, (it's as in the larger and shorter catechism) it receiveth christ and his righteousness in the promise, and resteth thereon for pardon of sin. justifying grace through the righteousness of christ is the object, and that which it aims at, is the accepting and accounting of a man's person righteous in the sight of god for salvation, which is fuller expressed in the confession, showing what saving faith in the largest sense designs, viz. accepting, receiving and resting upon christ alone (excluding all other foederal conditions) for justification, sanctification and eternal life, by virtue of the covenant of grace. now you see how clearly they make faith a persuasion, and that it doth all objectively, by taking in the truth and receiving it; for the understanding receiveth and embraceth by being persuaded, it takes in the light of truth, and the will embraceth by being persuaded, and the great procatarctick cause is the covenant of grace. now i see you have a clean contrary notion of making it a condition and moral instrument, i. e. a moral condition of the covenant, and so a work, and as such to reach the end of the covenant, which i utterly deny; for that would destroy its own nature and use, and also the covenant of grace itself. neonom. the question is not, whether assurance be attainable in this life as an effect of faith? d. w. p. 74. antinom. a persuasion of truth, and certainty thereof, is assurance, and so far as i do believe, there is this in the act of faith, though a weak faith hath doubtings attending, but not therefore commendable: and there can be no faith without some degree of persuasion concerning the truth of the object. you speak here of an assurance (which must be reckoned of the highest degree of persuasion) and therefore you deal not fairly to change your terms from persuasion to assurance. there is a twofold assurance, the plerophory of faith, and an assurance that i have true faith, which is spiritual sense and argumentation from its nature and effects; one is by the proper direct act of believing, the other by reflex acts of the soul upon itself. neonom. nor whether a sinner ought to apply, yea, doth personally apply the general offers of christ and life by his own compliance with the terms of the gospel; for upon a true acceptance of a whole christ, he is mine in virtue of the gospel-promise, which god will perform in giving christ and life to all that accept him as he is proposed for our acceptance. antinom. you are very dark and obscure in what you here speak. 1. by personal application i understand particular application, and so it's your sense that a sinner ought to make a particular application of the general offers of christ and life in the very act of believing; and so far i join with you, and that his thus believing is his compliance, the gospel's work being persuading, my compliance is to be persuaded, and there's nothing else expected, (which you call terms; the terms is that we put in no terms) but accepting christ freely offered. and you say he is yours in virtue of the gospel-promise; you must intent in the virtue of the gospel-promise believed, or else you have no right but as you had before, believing an intentional right only; if it be a claimable right, it's in a promise believed; for whatever right is real in the promise, none will plead any but what he believes. and it is in virtue of the promise to give christ and life to many that do not yet accept of him: for it's the virtue of the promise to give life to dead sinners, that they may actively and comfortably receive and accept him. neonom. nor whether a convinced sinner hath a more special regard at first of the priestly offices and sufferings, as what are more sensibly fitted to his guilty state. antinom. i understand not what you mean by priestly offices, as if christ had more priestly offices than one: christ doth exercise his priestly office in the state of humiliation and exaltation; but i have not seen any before that ascribes to christ two priestly offices: and if you mean justifying faith, it's office is to lay hold on and apply the person of christ in his priestly office. neonom. nor whether every thing recorded in scripture must be dwelled on with the same regard, concern and assurance as the essentials of the covenant of life. antinom. you mean here faith as to the general nature of it; you do not distinguish it from faith in the justifying nature all along. neonom. nor whether faith contain in it a reliance on christ as our only saviour, and on his satisfaction and merits, as what alone purchased our pardon and acceptance, as well as it includes the realizing assent to the truth, and unfeigned fiducial consent to acceptance of a whole christ in all his offices. all these i affirm. antinom. you acknowledge then that faith contains in it, 1. a reliance on christ as an only saviour. how can this be without some persuasion? a rational man never rests and leans upon a thing that he hath not some ground of persuasion that it's strong enough to bear him. 2. you own it includes a realizing assent to the truth, and this is a very high persuasion of a truth, with a particular application of it to a man's self as belonging to him. 3. you say there's an unfeigned fiducial consent to, and acceptance of christ and all his offices. this is strong confidence, when the soul is so far persuaded of the reality of the tender of christ made in the promise, that he doth not only take him, but with boldness; questions not but he hath the son, and hath life in this very act of believing. you say we rely on christ's satisfaction and merits, as what alone purchased our pardon and acceptance. this is true in a true sense, but we easily see what you mean by what you speak before. neonom. the real difference is, whether the whole essence of saving faith consists in an inward persuasion or assurance that our sins are pardoned, and christ is ours. this you affirm and i deny: yea, i deny that it is at all of the essence of saving faith. d. w. p. 75. antinom. what i said, and you charge for my error, i stand to it, and have made it appear to be truth. i said the whole essence of faith is the echo of the heart answering the voice of the spirit and word of grace, and thereby it's the obedience of faith: the soul believes and closeth with truth according to the nature of it, and in such a manner as is required. you wrong me to say, i used the words persuasion or assurance: i said, if you receive truth, and in reality believe it, and rely upon it, you may conclude that christ is yours; and this is now a conclusion made upon my believing too. i pray would you not say so to a poor sinner, if thou dost believe on the lord jesus with all thy heart, thou shalt be saved; and you ought to conclude you shall be saved? and this is a persuasion of my state upon believing. calvin. mr. neonom. it's indeed a marvellous thing that you should say and unsay a thing in the same breath; to own faith a reliance on christ, that it carries a realizing assent to the truth, and an unseigned fiducial consent, and now to say persuasion is not at all of the essence of faith. neonom. i said it contained, and it included it; i said not they were of the essence. antinom. this is just like your wont way of dodging? how doth faith contain and include these things? as in a box, which contains and includes things of a specific nature different from itself. well, we will attend your proof. neonom. the second thing in difference is, whether saving faith includes not in its nature that powerful efficacious assent to the word, and fiducial consenting to acceptance of christ as prophet, priest and king, with a reliance on his merits, and obediential regards to god as the truth doth express. this you deny and i affirm. antinom. now we are for filling up the box; and this assent, or persuasion and consent or reliance is put in, but not as the essence of faith; and among the rest there is obediential regards. and why comes in this, but only because he would make up faith into a moral condition? i speak of the essence of faith; you talk of containing, including, and tell us those things that are contained and included. i told you not what was necessarily concomitant to faith; i did not speak of love, sicerity, hope, etc. which are concomitants to faith, and inseparable from it, but yet be not faith in the essential consideration. neonom. i will now confirm the truth. 1. faith is not an assurance or inward persuasion, that christ is ours, and our sins are pardoned. antinom. i say faith is a persuasion of truth propounded unto me upon credible grounds. you should first state the question concerning faith in general, whether it be humane faith or divine; and then divine faith is that which takes all divine things in general for its object, or that which hath some more particular divine truth for its object, as justifying faith. there is also a particular divine faith, which is not saving in its special nature, as faith of miracles, historical, etc. neonom. that which i will prove is, that saving faith is not persuasion. antinom. very well; i. e. that persuasion is not the general nature of faith. we are not to meddle here with the distinguishing specific form of one faith from another. let us join issue there. neonom. yes; but i will have my liberty to dispute of what i please, whether it be the question or no. 1. men may have this faith, tho' they do not savingly believe, matth. 7.22. ch. 25.1, 2. nay, the most profligate sinners grow secure by it. antinom. your argument runs two ways, or should. 1. against persuasion, as not being the genus of faith; and it stands thus: if they that do not savingly believe may have persuasion, than persuasion is not of the essence of faith; but they that do not savingly believe may have persuasion, ergo. negatur consequ. homo est animal, ergo brutum non est animal. there's two species of believers, those that have a faith, not saving, as merely historical, temporary, or faith of miracles, and those that have saving. faith is the genus of both those species, which is persuasion. now you argue, because such as have not a saving faith have persuasion, therefore they that have saving faith, have not persuasion. non sequitur, but rather quite contrary, that they have; for the genus communicates its common nature to both species. neonom. no, no, i don't mean so; i mean that faith is not an inward persuasion that christ is ours. antinom. i thought so, i was going to speak that. no indeed, it's not a distinction of faith, but a particular instance of one thing believed by us. if you should ask me, what faith is? and i should tell you, it's believing peter betrayed christ, or that paul was converted, you would take me to be very ridiculous: or i should say, it is not believing that i am a rich man: so that if you will have the question run in a particular instance: it's easily decided; for all true rules of art must be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, true de omni. therefore i acknowledge, to say, faith is a persuasion that christ is mine, is no more a definition of faith, than to say animal est rationalis creatura, is a definition of animals. but this is true, if you affirm the genus of the species, creatura rationalis est animal, and it holds 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but not reciprocè. this therefore i affirm, that he that believes that christ is his, and his sins are forgiven, doth believe it by a persuasion. you say, those that said lord, lord, and the foolish virgins had a faith of persuasion, and many profligate sinners have a presumptuous persuasion, but not true believers: therefore, say you, faith is not a persuasion that their sins are forgiven: you might as well say, because some have a false faith, therefore none have a true; because one man that trades is persuaded his stock is good, and deceives himself, and breaks; doth it follow that no merchant must persuade himself that his stock is good. these are mighty inconsequences. neonom. many true believers have not this persuasion. antinom. give an instance of a believer that hath not a persuasion of the thing he professeth to believe, and so far as he is not persuaded he doth not believe. doth any one believe the record that god hath given us eternal life, and this life is in his son, 1 john 5.11? if he doth, he is persuaded of it. but you'll say, he doth not believe christ is his: he ought confidently to believe there is pardon and acceptance from him; and to get this witness of faith in his own heart. you'll grant he ought to have the son: how shall he have him, but by receiving him in the promise? believing on him as the faithful witness, depending on the truth of the promise, and the reality of the purpose and intention of christ towards us; and there is not the weakest true believers but have a persuasion, such as their faith is, tho' it may not so properly be called assurance, because that denotes a strong and high degree of faith; but it's a persuasion accompanied with much doubting, a staggering faith; lord, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i i believe, help my unbelief: lord, i am persuaded in some measure, help my doubting. neonom. such as had assurance do (by this doctor's opinion) fall into the sin of damning unbelief, whenever they doubt their interest in christ, and especially if they conclude that they have no interest in him. antinom. vix dignus sum hâc contumeliä, ac tu indignus qui feceris. do you in your conscience judge that i hold falling away from grace? is not unbelief of a damning nature of itself, and so far as it prevails, brings the consciences of the best under gild? and wherein consists the doubts and fears of god's people, but in the prevailing of unbelief, which shakes their faith, and darkens their persuasion? is my doctrine the more condemnable, because i hold, as experience and god's word witnesseth, that faith, as other graces, have their ebb or flow? and do not you hold unbelief to be a damning sin in itself? but is there not a great difference between the degrees of faith, yea, of assurance, as you you self grant elsewhere? and what degrees of unbelief and doubting a child of god may fall into, even to the making very dangerous conclusions concerning himself, and not fall totally from faith; it's beyond us to judge: there are great instances in scripture, and we have seen some. neonom. this persuasion should suppose an interest in christ doth not give it; it is a false conclusion, that christ is mine before he is so; and must the great terms of life be a lie. we are to examine ourselves, whether we are in the faith or not, 2 cor. 13.5. where hath god made this proposition, my sins are laid on christ: unless you are for general redemption; the word of grace promiseth pardon to none but a believer, and the spirit speaks to none but a believer. antinom. in all things we receive of gift there must be a right of donation first; if we take before it's given, it's theft; and unless i am persuaded that the giving hand is reached out, i can't receive. we have our first earnest for blessedness in the persuasion of faith, in the very act of it; and it's non sense to talk any way of partaking of christ, but by the spirit and faith: and he that in an act of believing at first finds christ in the true persuasion of faith, doth not, nor cannot say of christ he is his before he is so. the soul cannot be too nimble for christ; and if he that believeth not, makes god a liar, what are those that persuade to unbelief? that faith in its very act is an evidence, is no hindrance to the trial and examination of ourselves by the fruit of faith besides. and though the proposition in the gospel be an indefinite proposition, yet the application by faith in a sinner, aught to be particular and fiducial, or else the faith of believers will be no more than that of others that believe only that christ came to save sinners; and if the promise of pardon were not to sinners as such, it were not pardon; and if a man upon trial must first find by signs that he doth believe, before he lay claim to pardon, sinners would be in a sad condition: but this is the comfort, that as the promise of pardon is the great encouragement to believing, so believing itself is the receiving and perceiving of it: and the soul saith, or should by faith, he loved me, and gave himself for me. at the sight of christ it saith, my lord, and my god. if the lord speak to a believer, in believing, by his word and spirit, thy sins are forgiven, it's not said so to one that is a believer first: relata are simul naturâ: the promise of paternity is not a promise or gift to one that's a father first, nor sonship to one that is a son first. god promiseth himself to be a father to them that are loammi: and how gross is that assertion, that the spirit speaks it to none but to a believer as a believer. doth not the spirit speak peace, before we receive it by an act of faith? doth not this cause us to believe, it's the light causeth the eye to see? it's the light shining into the dark unbelieving heart, that persuades the heart; it's god that saith to the soul, i am thy salvation, before we can believe it. neonom. the second thing that i will prove is, that saving faith hath the essentials expressed in the truth, as assent, trust, consenting, acceptance of christ, reliance, etc. antinom. you said before, that inward persuasion of the pardon of sin was no part of saving faith. and said in the next, that it contained assent to the word, fiducial consent and acceptance of christ. a man therefore may understand you, that though it contained it, yet it was not of its essence. now you seem to say, these are essentials; if you do not, you hid yourself again in the word include. if you say, these be essentials which you name, we say so too, but allow not yours, etc. and all these essentials are in the word persuasion. assent is the persuasion of the understanding, consent the persuasion of the will to the truths and good things propounded, the promise whereby the soul relies upon christ therein for himself, particularizeth christ and all blessings to himself as his; and now go on, and prove all that you said before to be false. neonom. you are mistaken, i will prove my position true, and then see where your error will be. 1. faith can be no less than the souls answer to the call of god, etc. antinom. we say it is so, and he bids us believe; but it's not faith as such; for all obedience is an answer to the call of god. neonom. the scripture describes saving faith by all these acts; it's the evidence of things not seen, substance of things hoped for, heb. 11.1. receiving of christ, john 1.12. isa. 55.4. acts 13.26. rom. 15.12. isa. 44.5. antinom. this we say it is, evidence and substance of things at a distance, is a full persuasion of them according to the nature of them; such a persuasion as carries the whole soul forth to god to rest and rely upon him, having union with christ thereby, bringing him in all his excellencies into our souls, and taking him for our own. doth a man believe any good thing promised, and doth not he catch at it for himself, if he have any savour of it? if the promise of pardon present itself to us, doth a man believe till he appropriate it to himself, saying, it is mine, though an unworthy sinner? if a condemned prisoner hears a pardon is come out for some, he may believe that; but till he believes he is one, it's no comfort to him, though there may be hopes at least he is in it. neonom. christ can't be received as a saviour without these. antinom. it's very true, he is never received as such till i receive him as my saviour, and believe him to be so in some measure; and this i am bound to do, to receive him by confident persuasion and resting upon him. neonom. a faith without these essentials could never produce those great effects as are ascribed to faith, to purify the heart, acts 15.9. to be a shield against temptations, eph. 6.16. works by love, gal. 5.6. sanctifies us, acts 26.18. by faith we are risen with christ, col. 2.12. antinom. it's certain that no faith can do it, but such as makes a particular application by a persuasion of the love of god, or interest in christ, pardon of sins, and reconciliation to god through him, that can produce the effects spoken of; this will purify the heart from an evil guilty conscience, to serve the living god; this will be a shield against the most mortal darts of satan, that he shoots at our state by bringing in law condemnations. hereby love to god is produced in the soul, and we act towards god and our neighbours in love, hereby we are brought to true obedience, such as the law required at first for the principle, to love the lord our god with all our hearts, soul and strength; and therefore the apostle saith, love is the sum of all obedience, as our saviour said. it's the fulfilling of the law, through this grace of the spirit; for by receiving forgiveness of sin, we have an inheritance among them that are sanctified. pardon believed is the root of sanctification, and this cannot be without it, for by faith we are risen with christ, we are planted in the likeness of his death and resurrection; and faith in this point of christ's resurrection, is that which sets us above the charge of sin and condemnation. by the resurrection of christ preached, we are begotten to this lively believing hope, and we are risen with him through this faith of the operation of god; hence the body of sin is destroyed, death abolished, life and immortality brought to light; christ by his resurrection being discharged and justified from the iniquities of us all, which were laid upon him, and which he bore in his body upon the tree. neonom. an enlightened regenerate soul cannot act towards christ, when he is first presented to its view below these instances. antinom. no, it's the sight of christ, and taste of christ that carries him forth to all duties of sanctification, he having christ in all his fullness; he hath done with all his conditions, all his righteousness is filthy rags. a soul truly instated by a lively faith is far above paddling with his own little poor sinful duties, as conditions between him and christ, he can serve christ, obey him, and his commandments are not grievous to him, neither will he think they have any such virtue in them as to give him right to christ, in any way of foederal conditionality. neonom. his mistakes are, because faith is the evidence of things unseen, (i. e. it assents unto unseen realities) therefore he thinks that our faith is nothing but our assent. antinom. i think i understand the import of those words, as i have told you; but i shown you it's such a work of the spirit and word, whereby the heart echoes to the word by such persuasion of the truth, whereby christ and the truth is as it were form in us; and yourselves can give no account of faith that reacheth the essentials thereof, but what we have done from the word of god. neonom. because the word of grace promiseth justification unto all true believers, therefore an assurance of my being justified is believing, whereas i must first be a believer in order to pardon, before i justly can or aught to believe that i am pardoned. antinom. the word assurance is a word you impose; it was not in the words you allege against me; what is it the gospel would have us believe, if it be not forgiveness of sins? acts 13.38. be it known unto you, that through this man is preached unto you forgiveness of sins, and by him all that believe are justified, etc. what do they believe? it's forgiveness of sins, and in this act of faith is the justification by faith, in that they believe forgiveness of sins, and as they are weakly or strongly persuaded, through the spirit of grace working the promise upon their souls. in justification by faith, faith is not nor cannot be before it, but they are relata quae mutua alterius constant affectione. popish school divines do dream that faith is a quality cleaving in the heart, luth. on gal. c. 3. v. 8. without christ. this is a devilish error. but christ should be so set forth, that thou shouldest see nothing besides him, and shouldest think that nothing can be more near unto thee, or more present within thy heart than he is, for he sitteth not idly in heaven, but is present in us. c. 2. i live, yet not i, but christ liveth in me. and here likewise you have put on christ. faith therefore is a certain steadfast beholding, which looketh upon nothing else but christ the conqueror of sin and death, and the giver of righteousness, salvation and eternal life; this is the cause that paul nameth jesus christ so often in his epistles, almost in every verse; but he setteth him forth by the word: for otherwise he cannot be comprehended but by the word. this was lively and notably set forth by the brazen serpent, for moses commanded them that were stung to do nothing else but steadfastly behold the brazen serpent, they that did so were healed. read with great vehemency this word, me, and, for me, and so inwardly practise with thyself, id. on gal. 2.20. that thou with a sure faith mayst conceive and print this me in thy heart, and apply it unto thyself, not doubting but thou art of the number of those to whom this 〈◊〉 belongeth: also that christ hath not only loved peter and paul, and given himself for them, but that the same grace also which is comprehended in this me, as well appertaineth and cometh unto us as unto them.— when i feel and confess myself a sinner through adam's transgression, why should i not say that i am made righteous through the righteousness of christ, especially when i hear that he loved me, and gave himself for me. this did paul most steadfastly believe, and therefore he speaketh these words with so great vehemency and full assurance, which god grant unto us in some part at the least, who hath loved us, and given himself for us. what is faith? the first part of religion, whereby from knowledge i believe in god. yates divin. the first act of faith is passive in receiving what god gives.— here may we justly say, it is a poorer and meaner act to believe than to love; nay, rather passion than action, for we are first apprehended of god before we apprehend him again, phil. 3.12. this grace is most freely graced, that it might the more frankly reflect all on god again— no doubt faith receives a full discharge, makes it not, we rather by faith receive an acquittance sealed in the blood of christ, than the blood of christ to make our own works meritorious, which we may offer to god in payment for ourselves. here lies the error of papists even in faith i● self, and other graces; if god will ●●t bear half the charges by his co-operation, man shall undertake to merit his own glory, and fulfil the royal law so abundantly, that he shall have something over and above. — works are the effects of sanctification, sanctification is the effect of justification. p. 23. the object of the understanding is truth, of the will goodness. temble of grace and faith. p. 111. faith is an assent to the truth and goodness of divine revelation, wherefore we affirm that this faith is an act of the understanding, and of the will, both together approving and allowing the truth and goodness of divine things. in which assertion you are to note that we do not make the habit of faith to be inherent in two faculties, but we affirm the subject is but one and the same, viz the intellectual nature; for i take it with divers of the lerrned, that these speculations about the real distinction of faculties in spiritual substances of angels and souls of men, are but mere subtleties in the schools, without any true ground in the nature of it. the understanding essentially includes the will, and the will the understanding; wherefore the object of the understanding and will are one and the same, truth and goodness are essentially the same. faith is general or particular. p. 124. general, that which is assent to all divine revelations, as good and true in regard of ourselves. here comes in the common work of the spirit. particular assent of faith, is when all things revealed by god are assented to as most true and excellent in regard of ourselves, when they are particularly applied to our proper occasion, and compared with all desires and provocations whatsoever to the contrary, when we know and believe these things that are generally delivered, p. 131. for ourselves, in application to our own use and practice, (as job was counselled by his friends,) so that we believe in this particular as well as that, at this time as well as another. 1. the root and fountain of this blessed assent, is the grace of sanctification. and, 2. the object is twofold. p. 133. the whole will of god revealed in his word, containing all histories, doctrine, commands, threaten, promises, etc. 2. the particular promise of remission of sin, and everlasting life by the death of christ, which in one word we call the gospel; though both be one and the same infused grace which respects both, yet faith as it respects these objects, the whole will of god, and a particular promise of the gospel, admitteth of divers considerations, names, and use. faith, as it assents to the whole will of god, i call legal, because it is such a virtue as is immediately required by the moral law, in the same manner as duties of the moral law are, and as all other moral duties are required of us in their degrees, as parts of our inward and outward sanctity, necessary to salvation; so is this faith commanded as a principal grace, and prime part of our obedience to the first command; so in this respect it may be saving, namely, as other graces are. faith, as it assents unto the special promise of grace, i call evangelical, because it's such an act as is expressly commanded in the gospel, not revealed by the moral law. it is called properly saving and justifying, in regard of the use of it, through god's gracious appointment, to be the only instrument of our justification and salvation by christ. he defines it thus: it is a grace of sanctification wrought by the holy ghost in every regenerate man, p. 140. whereby for his own particular he trusteth perfectly on the promise of remission of sins, and salvation by christ's righteousness. the proper act of faith as it justifies, it consisteth in trust and reliance for our own particular— to believe the truth of a particular promise, is to trust upon the performance of it to me; and that assent of faith which is given to such a promise, is properly called fiducia, or trust. to assent unto such a promise, is not barely to believe that there is such a thing in the world as remission of sins by christ, to be bestowed upon god knows who; (for this is to believe the promise not as a promise, but a history) but this assent is of the whole heart, in trust, reliance, adherence, etc. that fiducia is the essence of justifying faith, 1. from the phrase of scripture used in this business, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to believe in, upon, into god, christ, etc. 2. from the opposition between faith and distrust, jam. 1.16. rom. 2.20. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 3. from that excellent place, 2 tim. 1.12. i am persuaded he is able to keep, etc. wherefore to believe the promise, is with confidence and trust to rely upon it; p. 140. which assent of faith is wrought in this manner. 1. a man is enlightened to see his sin and misery. 2. the promise of grace is proposed and freely offered unto him. 3. whence the heart touched by the spirit of grace draws near to christ, casts himself into his arms, etc. it bespeaks christ in all terms of confidence and affiance, my lord, my god, my h●pe. this work of faith, as it doth greatly glorify god, in ascribing the whole honour of our salvation only to free grace in christ, so god doth highly honour it above all fellow-graces, by making it the blessed instrument of all the comfort we enjoy in this world, thereby giving us assurance of our justification in his sight by christ's righteousness, and a double comfort. 1. peace of conscience, resting itself secure upon the stability of god's promise, against the severities of justice, the accusations of the law; it hath, wherewithal to answer even an all-sufficient, righteousness in christ— 2. that kind of fiducia which we call assurance of full pardon of our sins: this is the fruit of that fiducia, or trusting unto the promise itself, wherein stands the proper act of justifying faith.— many do steadfastly believe, and rest themselves only upon christ for salvation, who yet would give a world to be assured and fully persuaded that their sins are pardoned— whereupon they will be apt to fall back and say, they do not, nor can't believe at all. a great mistake, and that which casteth many a conscience upon the rack. it's a false argument; for justifying faith is not to be assured of pardon, but to trust wholly upon the promise for pardon. what is essential unto faith is manifest: that which in order of nature seems to have the precedency, dr. o. of justific. p. 135. is the assent of the mind, unto that which the psalmist betakes himself unto in the first place, for relief under a sense of sin and trouble, psal. 130.3, 4.— it's declared in the gospel, that god in his love and grace will pardon and justify guilty sinners, through the blood and mediation of christ, so it's proposed, rom. 3.23.24. the assent of the mind hereunto as proposed in the promise of the gospel, is the root of faith, the foundation of all that the soul doth in believing; nor is there any evangelical faith without it, yet consider it abstractedly, as a mere act of the mind, the essence of justifying faith doth not consist solely therein. 2. this is accompanied in sincere believing, with an approbation of the way of deliverance and salvation proposed, etc. this assent and approbation causing the heart to rest upon divine grace, wisdom and love, and apply itself thereto according to the mind of god, is the faith whereby we are justified; and concludes in it renunciation of all other ways and means of attaining righteousness, the consent of the will, acquiescence of the heart in god, trust and confidence, etc. peter martyr saith, faith is an assent, and that a firm assent unto the words of god; obtained not by reason or natural demonstration, but by the authority of the speaker, and by the power of the holy ghost. com. pl. part. 3. p. 58. we must now declare what is the chiefest thing to which faith is directed, which is the promise of god whereto by believing we assent; and this promise is chief that wherein he promiseth that he will through christ be favourable and merciful to us; and although there be many promises in scripture are offered unto us, yet this one is the chiefest, for whose sake the rest are performed unto us, unto which all other promises are to be referred. the common object of faith is the word of god, but the chiefest object is as is rehearsed, p. 58. he proves it to be a firm assent from acts 10.20. and rom. 4.10. and yet he saith it conflicts with many doubtings. debate x. of the free offer of christ to sinners, and of preparatory qualifications. calvin. we have discoursed several points in our late meetings, i suppose you have had pretty good satisfaction in all material things you have charged mr. antinomian with for error, i hope you cannot charge him with more error. neonom. but i can; i have a whole cargo yet behind; and this is one among the rest that he saith. that christ is offered to blasphemers, murderers, and the worst of sinners; that they remaining ignorant, unconvinced, unhumbled, and resolved in their purpose to continue such, they may be assured they have a full interest in christ, and this by only concluding in their minds upon this offer, that christ is theirs. d. w. p. 81. calvin. i hope he offers christ to them then, in all his salvation as he is revealed in the gospel, that he gave himself for us, to redeem us from all iniquity, and purify to himself a peculiar people zealous of good works, tit. 2.14. and if he doth so, i know not why he may not offer christ as such to the worst of men, i know no other way to make them better. but what were his words? neonom. i need give no proof of it; it is a declared point, which he oft strives to prove, that all the elect are actually united to christ, before they believe. but of this in our next discourse. d. w. p. 81. he saith, is not unbelief a bar to have a part in christ? a. it is a bar to hinder the manifestation of christ in the spirit, but it's not a bar to hinder one from having a part in christ. d. c. p. 110. antinom. he leaves out part of the very sentence i spoke: i said, it is not a bar to hinder the manifestation of christ in the spirit on whom god doth bestow. [a sinner being passive in the work of grace, god breaketh all those bars of brass, when christ manifests himself in the spirit by converting grace; mark how my words refer plainly to god's act, and not to ours.] i proceeded thus, it is true, that you nor i can say by experience that christ is our christ, until we believe, as long as we continue in total unbelief, we cannot conclude to our own spirits that christ is ours: but unbelief [mark my very words] is not simply a bar to the bestowing of christ to such a person; he bestows him without any regard to belief or unbelief, [i. e. as a reason of bestowing him;] if unbelief should be a bar to hinder christ from being bestowed upon persons, where is the person upon whom christ should be bestowed? there's no person under heaven considered simply as ungodly, under the notion of ungodlidess, but he is considered as an unbeliever. calvin. you must needs grant this to be true, that a sinful state is not a bar to the power of god in working grace upon the heart, he speaks altogether in respect of the act of god upon the soul, where he works, and nothing can let or hinder. neonom. but he seems to insist on men's coming to christ, and closing with him. d. w. p. 82. he saith, no consideration in the world can so aggravate a man's condition, would he make his condition as bad as the devils themselves; yet if there be but a coming, there can be no consideration, in the highest pitch of sinfulness for christ to reject him. d. c. p. 206. d. c. 206. antinom. i said, suppose a person be dead in trespasses and sins, eph. 2.2, etc. the lewdest person that can be imagined and continuing so to this very instant, now, before the lord, without any change and alteration until now; by this text, john 6.37. it appears so manifest, that if the lord do but grant, and if the lord hath put a willingness and readiness of spirit into this m●n that christ he would have, if it might appear he might have him: if his heart do but say, i would have him; all that sinfulness, though to this instant continued in, is no bar in the world;— and after follows the words mentioned by him; after which i added, for you must know christ is well acquainted with all the objections the heart of man, nay, the devils can make against the freeness of his grace, and life by him; to save a labour therefore, in this one passage, i will in no wise cast him out: christ at once answers all the objections that could be made, and i dare be bold to maintain in the name and stead of christ; let a person but say and lay down this for granted, come he would, cheist he would have rather than his life, let this be granted for a truth; [mark well these words, i speak not of a lu●●icrous, hypocritical say so,] i will be bold with christ out of this passage to answer a thousand objections, i will in no wise cast him out; i. e. i will upon no consideration that can be imagined or conceived. d. c. p. 207. i know the objections are very many and strong in respect of such a person to whom the lord hath given a willingness and desire of spirit to close with christ, yet dare not do the thing; but let them be what they will— let me tell you, the lord hath sent me at this time to proclaim liberty to the captives, that are in this sad, bitter, and (to your own thinking) desperate condition; liberty god hath given thee, and if thou wilt come freely, nothing in the world shall hinder thee. calvin. i profess, mr. neonomian, i wonder what kind of gospel you would have, that you call this error. neonom. he saith, whatever thou art, suppose a drunkard, a whoremaster, a swearer, a blasphemer, a madman in iniquity; couldst thou but come to christ, i say come, only come, it is no matter if there be no alteration in thee when thou dost come to christ. d. c. p. 202. antinom. these words were in the same sermon, and before i spoke the words above rehearsed, i only in all supposed that a sinner saw no alteration in himself till the time of the call to come to christ; the drift of this discourse was principally to take off objections from such as willingly would come to christ, and dare not: d. c. 203. i showed there are two sorts of people that are given by the father to christ, who yet for the present do not actually come to him. 1. there are some elected indeed, but for the present are like wild asses on the mountains, snuffing up the wind; as desperate in iniquity as the veriest reprobates under heaven; and yet shall there not be rejection for these persons when they come, though for the present they scorn the grace of god. but there are a second sort given by god to christ, that have not received christ, and are not actually come to him, and yet for the present are wrought upon to be a willing people in some sort, i. e. the lord hath dealt thus far with them, fain they would close with christ, fain they would conclude an interest and portion in christ. oh it would be welcome and life to them, etc. but they dare not set up their rest here,— there is something or other must be removed before they can make this certain conclusion, christ is their christ; my principal errand at this time is to this people— neonom. but coming or believing is no other in your judgement than an inward persuasion or concluding that christ is ours; and this is not in order to an interest, but to our knowing; as it appears by those words. antinom. do i speak any otherwise than concluding this upon their coming; how often do i say couldst thou but come to christ, and so i say again, can but a sinner, the vilest, but come to christ, they may conclude that christ will not cast them off? and you say that i intent by this coming nothing but an inward persuasion that christ is mine; my words will not bear that sense, for i say all along, if thou come thou mayst conclude christ is thine; is coming merely persuasion? neonom. that is your meaning, you do not distinguish between coming to christ, and knowing your portion in christ, d. w. p. 82. you say, i must tell you there's no better way to know your portion in christ, than upon the general tender of the gospel to conclude absolutely he is yours; say to yourselves, and let not this be contradicted, seeing christ hath reached out himself to sinners as sinners, my part is as good as any man's: set down thy rest here, question it not, but believe it; venture thy soul upon it, without seeking for further security: but some will say, he doth not belong to me; why not to thee? he belongs to sinners as sinners; and if there be no worse than sinfulness, rebellion, and enmity in thee, he belongs to thee as well as to any in the world. d. c. p. 106. antinom. you may easily see how he puts upon me his own sense and meaning; you must know, gentlemen, that which he rehearseth is in another discourse of mine, which was from isa. 42. where i speak to this enquiry, how shall i come to know that i am amongst the number of those sinners that shall not miscarry? a. d. c. p. 106. observe by the way, now we are speaking of knowing, whether christ be my christ or no, not simply of christ's being ours, [where you have a flat denial of what he asserts to be my meaning,] but of christ's manifestation and knowing him to be ours; and i show the direct way is to make a particular application of the general tender of the gospel by believing: i say, not that all believing and trusting on christ is full assurance, but this i say, that the strongest and best assurance is confidently venturing all in believing on christ, and receiving the salvation offered and tendered to us by the free grace of god in the promise: the best way to be sure of a rich gift offered me, (suppose by the king) which i am amazed at, that so great a person should offer me so great a treasure, and question whether he is rear in it; i say, the best way to know whether he intends it for me or no, is humbly and thankfully to take it, and not to stand still and scruple whether it belongs to me or no, saying, surely he don't mean me, when it's to none but such persons that he offers it to. but i no where say, that murderers, etc. remaining in a purpose to be such, may conclude their interest in christ; this is a false accusation. calvin. let us hear, mr. neonomian, what is the truth in this matter, how you teach this doctrine of the offer of christ. neonom. the truth is this, christ is freely offered to be head and saviour to the vilest sinners, who will knowingly assent to the truth of the gospel, and from a conviction of their sin and misery out of christ, are humbled, and truly renounce all their idols and sins; denying their carnal self, and merits, and accept of christ as offered in the gospel, relying on him alone for justification, sanctification, and eternal life. d. w. p. 80. antinom. and you should add, when they see they can do all these things, than they should come to christ, and not before; you reckon that a sinner is only invited to christ for remission of sins, but not for repentance, and the sensible concomitants thereof, whereas his office is to give repentance too. and how do you mean? that christ is offered to be head and saviour, do you mean mystical head? christ makes himself so to every sinner, he works faith in them. if you mean king, as i suppose you do, that the first notion christ offers himself to sinners under, is as king, and that's the first notion a sinner is to reccive him under; it is not true, the whole current of the gospel and common experience is against it. an earthly king will not offer himself as kings to a rebel, but under the notion of pardon and forgiveness. again, is not a knowing assent to the truth of the gospel a higher degree of persuasion and assurance than i speak of in coming to christ? if you intent truth of the gospel as i do, and then it's offering christ as a saviour to the vilest of sinners that will come to him, and saying to the vilest of sinners, that they should come to christ, and he will in no wise cast them off; but if you look for sinners truly humbled, and truly renouncing their sins and righteousness, and in a readiness to accept christ before you offer him, i know not when you will offer him, and they must cease to be vile sinners, and become holy out of christ before he be offered. neonom. but observe, 1. christ is freely offered to the vilest of sinners, for their acceptance of him according to the gospel. d. w. p. 80. antinom. so say we. neonom. 2. he is not offered so, as if any sinner might have a saving interest in him, till they are willing to deny themselves, renounce all sins and idols, and do accept of, and rely on him as a full saviour according to the terms of the gospel. antinom. and these i suppose are your terms, your moral qualifying conditions, so that the work must be pretty well over for mortification and vivifaction before christ comes in, before a saving interest in christ may be had; a sinner must not touch him, or the preacher so much as offer christ to teach them the doctrine of self-denial, or to enable them through the beauty and excellency of his grace and love to renounce idols: did you ever know any sinner renounce idols till he saw a ground and reason in christ for it, and felt his power in the grace of the gospel? the spirit saith, the blood of christ cleanseth us from all sin; and accordingly the promise of christ is, ezek. 36.25. i will sprinkle clean water upon you, and you shall be clean from all your filthiness, and from all your idols will i cleanse you; and you will have a vile filthy sinner to be washed first, and have his idols removed first, and exercise one of the highest virtues in the christian religion, to deny himself, before he dare to come to christ, or before any one must offer christ to him; and if he be offered, it must be upon the condition of these gigantine performances. neonom. there cannot be an acceptance of christ, without a renouncing sin and idols, and denying carnal self, and our own merits, as opposite to him: and on the other hands, to renounce sin and idols, and deny ourselves, will not avail us, without an acceptance of christ, and reliance on him. antinom. this is an old british way of arguing; because acceptance of christ is accompanied with renouncing idols, etc. therefore he may not accept christ till he hath renounced idols, and denied himself, etc. because a man hath arms and legs, therefore a thing must have arms and legs before it be a man; or because a man is animal risibile, therefore he must be animal risibile before he is a man, and made a man afterwards: there is one and the same cause of renouncing sin and acceptance of christ, and christ is held forth in the gospel to turn men from darkness to light, and the power of satan unto god; and sinners are even the worst to be called and invited to him, to come for all those ends and purposes, for destruction of sin and life of grace; and i tell you, there cannot be one of these sins mortified, or idol renounced, without faith in the blood of christ, i say, before faith and acceptance of christ. neonom. i mention some things as antecedently necessary to our renouncing sin and idols, etc. antinom. this you mean, antecedently necessary to know the true god, and jesus christ whom he hath sent. neonom. i mean knowledge, assent, conviction of sin and misery, etc. these are preparatory qualifications; not that an interest in christ always follows these, but they dispose the soul to a hearty acceptance of christ, in opposition to all rival opposites, and are necessary thereto in some degree. antinom. i cannot understand your meaning, unless this be it, that nature and grace differ only gradually, and that some men do grow up out of a natural condition by these degrees, and some do fall off and not come to it; first, there must be conviction of sin, and humbling, and then follows self-denial, and renouncing idols; and than christ comes in at last when he can be willing, and these previous qualifications must dispose the soul for christ; this is popery. neonom. the declared design of the offers of christ to sinners, is that they be thus willing to accept of christ, and partake of an interest in him. antinom. the declared design of offering christ, is not to tell them they must thus prepare themselves before christ is of use to them; but that they come to christ and receive of his grace, to furnish them with his spirit, and all gracious effects and operations. it is the spirit that convinceth of sin, and all saving convictions and humiliations, and renunciation of idols, are included in repentance and mortification, which are the effects of the true grace of god in the heart, whereby faith is wrought; and that faith in the lord jesus christ for righteousness and life, purifies the heart, and produceth repentance, love, compliance with the commands of christ, and they are not grievous. you propound wrong methods for the curing diseased souls; this way will not do. neonom. you mistake me still, i will tell you where the difference is not. 1. it is not whether there is in christ a sufficiency of merit and grace to save the worst of sinners? antinom. the question is, whether the grace and merit of christ be not efficient in the saving the worst of sinners. neonom. 2. nor whether christ is offered to the worst of sinners, if they will accept him on the terms of the gospel? antinom. but the question is, whether the sinner can accept of christ on such terms, before christ hath wrought in them to will and do, and made them willing in the day of his power? and whether they ought not to be invited to christ, and to receive him in the gospel offers, for the working this willingness by efficacious grace. neonom. 3. nor whether sinners are not often the objects of gods effectual calling, in order to an interest in christ. antinom. god's effectual call is an interest in christ, and there's no effectual call can be before an interest in christ, it's the putting the soul in actual possession of christ, and the uniting it to christ. neonom. nor whether there may not be knowledge, assent, convictions, humbling, and feigned resolves, and yet a soul fail of an interest in christ, for want of true conversion, tho' they are hopeful signs? aninom. but the question is, whether you ought to make common grace the foederal condition of special, and tell souls that they cannot receive christ in a way of special grace, till they have attained common grace out of christ? neonom. nor whether the degrees of convictions and humbling are equal in all? d. w. p. 84. antinom. you should have told us whether you mean saving, or common; if they be saving, they are wrought as an effect of union to christ; if common and out of christ, it's no great matter what degree they are of, for there is nothing in an unregenerate man, though never so plausible, that gives him a disposition to a new heart, no more than one that's stone dead can have in himself a disposition to life; they that are in the graves of sin hear the voice of the son of god and live; he quickens them that are dead. privantia non habent media, there's no medium between death and life. neonom. nor whether preparatory qualifications do merit true grace. antinom. you should have told us what merit, ex congruo, or condigno; if you deny the word, you assert the thing. for a foederal condition is a merit, virtute compacti. neonom. yea, or whether faith or repentance do merit an interest in christ? this i deny, and say, that their whole use depends on god's ordination. antinom. i wonder you'll ground your denial upon such a weak reason; for would not adam's merits have depended on god's ordination? and doth not christ's merits depend on god's ordination? neonom. nor whether a soul may neglect to accept of christ as prophet, priest, and king, because they feel not that degree of these humbling and convictions which they desire and expect. antinom. but being you set them a digging in the rock of their own hearts for the pearl of great price, you should tell them how deep it lies, before they are likely to find it; for all these convictions and humbling are before they come at christ; you put them upon hard service, unless you tell them when they are convinced enough, and humbled enough; and why do you use the word neglect, for as long as they are upon the work you assign them, they wait for you to offer christ to them, and you tell them it's better to stay longer, and there's reason for it, according to your hypothesis; if some degrees of humbling must be had to fit them for christ, then more degrees will make them more fit. neonom. nor whether these preparatory qualifications be the work of the spirit by common grace. this i affirm. antinom. so then they may dig, and not find the mine, and spend all their days in common grace, and never find spiritual grace; now here you fully declare yourself that common grace is the condition of special grace: what a work is here with conditions? neonom. nor whether their immediate influence [i mean of preparatory qualifications] be to prepare the soul for a true consenting▪ acceptance, which it is hereby less averse to, and more disposed for. this i affirm. antinom. i know not what sense to put upon this but the papists congruity; and that common grace is a degree, or a qualifying condition of saving grace, and that common and special differ not specifically, but gradually only, which to me is gross divinity. sancta clara tells us thus, de habitâ prima gratiâ actuali, communis & recepta sententia scholar. est, etc. certainly it is the common and received opinion of the schools, that with the help of the first preventing grace, we may obtain further helps by acting and endeavouring; yea, the first habitual, justifying grace, and in some measure deserve it de congruo, i. e. of meetness, fitness, and aptitude, and it's the common opinion of all the doctors, as to after-helps in respect of the first grace; and he faith, he takes scotus' judgement instead of all as the best, in that he saith, repentance is a mere disposition to habitual grace. and amongst such as he quotes for his opinion, he brings the 13th. article of the church of england, artic. 13. of works before justification. works done before the grace of christ, and the inspiration of his spirit are not pleasant to god, for as much as they spring not of faith in jesus christ, neither do they make men meet to receive grace, (or as the school authors say) deserve grace of congruity; yea, rather for that they are not done as god willeth or commanded them to be done; we doubt not but they have the nature of sin. which he would wrest to his sense; that although works before the faith of christ, or the first actual grace, are excluded as meritum ex congruo by the said article, & exceptio firmat regulam in oppositum; yet he saith, other works (according to the said article) done as fruits of faith, may in some measure dispose, and de congruo deserve promereri gratiam justificationis; which opinion he would make augustin to be of. and whereas it's said in the said article, we doubt not but they have the nature of sin, he would palliate it thus, saying, non dicunt talia simplicitèr esse peccata, sed potius participare, quod sine omni dubio est terminus diminuens; i. e they say not that such are simply sins, but do partake of sin, which without all doubt is a term of diminution, (i. e. the word rather) or else they would have said that they were sins without restriction. you see what jesuitical evasions here are to establish your qualifications, which you and the papists are so fond of; whereas these first reforming protestants say, non disponunt hominem ad receptionem gratiae; but the rather we doubt not but they have the nature of sin; yet you will say, they prepare for true acceptance, and make the soul less averse, and more disposed to it; whereas the quite contrary mostly appears, that those that become merely moral, and leave off the practice of some gross sins, and do some good works, from that principle are usually the most averse, and least disposed to the grace of god of the two. neonom. i shall show you wherein the real difference is, 1. whether coming to christ is an inward persuasion that christ is mine. this you affirm, and i deny. antinom. you abuse me in charging me with speaking what you would fasten upon me, for i spoke distinctly of these two things; first of coming to christ, and then of knowing that christ is mine by my being come to him; but yet i say that this coming to christ ought to be by a particular persuasion that christ is offered to me as a sinner, freely offered to me without any consideration of any qualification, and this persuasion every believer hath less or more. dr. twiss distinguisheth between fides in christum, & fides de christo, faith in christ, and faith concerning christ being ours; the first is this, coming to christ for life, the other, our persuasion and sweet sense of the love of god in christ. neonom. 2. whether christ is offered to sinners, with a design that they may conclude they have a saving interest in him, before they are regenerated by the spirit, and savingly believe. antinom. the design of offering christ to sinners, is that they may receive the offer freely and immediately; and that when they are come to christ, they should know this faith was not of themselves, or did spring out of any natural or moral qualification; but from christ the author of it, and from their union to christ jesus, which i take to be a saving part in him, and that they cannot believe without a saving part in jesus christ before they believe. he having blessed us with all spiritual blessings in christ, of which faith is none of the least. and dr. twiss saith, faith being one proper effect only of a saving interest, though not claimable by them till they believe; justitia christi, sicut christi est, etc. the righteousness of christ as it is christ's, and performed by him, so it's ours as wrought for us, juris ratione, and before faith, as meritorious of efficacious grace for the working of that faith. lib. 1. p. 2. § 25. for if without christ they can do nothing, than they cannot believe without part in him, and the covenant promise gives a part before that receiving him, in giving christ; for the gift of christ must be by nature before we can receive him. neonom. 3. whether the soul of a sinner as to its habitual disposition and purpose, is under the reigning power of enmity, rebellion and filthiness, till after he hath a saving interest in christ. this you affirm, and i deny. antinom. i do affirm that a sinner hath no habitual disposition or true purpose of heart for god, and is under the power of enmity, etc. till he hath a saving faith. here you will have a sinner free from dominion of sin, before he is under the dominion of grace; the heart changed and sin mortified without saving interest in christ, he must be sanctified before christ is justification or sanctification to him. this is strange doctrine! neonom. whether some degrees of conviction, and humiliation of soul be necessary prerequisites to the souls true acceptance of christ for pardon. i affirm this, and you deny it. antinom. we have told you, what protestants long since say, that no antecedent qualities before the grace of christ, and the inspiration of his spirit, are pleasing to god, or make men meet to receive grace; but all such are sins, the rather, because they are not done as god wills: for effectual vocation is by an interest in christ; therefore it's vain and frivolous to talk that those things are prerequisites that are the thing itself. neonom. i shall only prove the truth as contained in the third and fourth question. 1. that the soul of a sinner, as to its habitual disposition and power, is not under the reigning power of enmity, rebellion and filthiness, till after it hath a saving interest in christ. 2. effectual vocation makes this change in the habitual disposition of the heart, and this vocation is necessary to our interest in christ. antinom. what is it that you would prove? that which you are to prove is this, that the habitual disposition of the soul is changed, as to the dominion of sin, and as to the filthiness thereof, before a saving interest in christ; and now you shift the terms, and after you have been speaking all this while of preparatory works, how we must be humbled, have self-denial, and cast off all our idols, before we have an interest in christ; now you shuffle your cards, and say, the soul is not continued under the reigning power of enmity, etc. till after his interest in christ. doth not any man that hath half an eye see this juggle? and forsooth you'll prove that this disposition of habitual and reigning enmity doth not remain till after our interest in christ; why? because it's taken away in our saving interest in christ: is not this shifting and shuffling? that all this while you make such a noise and vapour of what we have before we come to christ; it's nothing else but what we have by virtue of an interest in christ. and your argument should run thus: if effectual calling makes this change in the habitual disposition of the heart, and is necessary antecedaneously to our interest in christ, than this enmity, rebellion and filthiness is taken away before our interest in christ; ergo: we deny the consequence, for this reason, because the reigning power of sin hath its first blow in our effectual calling, and then, and not before, we are beginning to be made holy, and this effectual calling is our interest in christ; sin shall not have dominion over us, because we are under grace; christ is made to us sanctification, and we are sanctified in christ, etc. and now you shift your hands and faith, we do not lie under this enmity till after our saving interest; and good reason, because christ hath slain the enmity upon the cross, and the doctrine of reconciliation being received by faith in our effectual calling, the enmity is slain there also; the new man put on, we are created in christ jesus to good works, and the depraved disposition and habit changed, and now what you go about to conclude; is so far from the question, that it is against you: but you say, p. 85. that this disposition is altered in effectual vocation, and there can be no true coming to christ for pardon, and especially for sanctification, without that purpose; whence it appears, that effectual vocation must be before saving faith in christ, and that therein the reigning power of sin must be slain before justifying faith, or any sanctifying grace, that is the fruit of it. neonom. the confessions are for me, for they both say, that this call lies in enlightening the minds spiritually— taking away the heart of stone, giving a heart of flesh, etc. antinom. i pray take their words together; they say, confess. ch. 10. all those whom god hath predestinated unto life, and those only [mark the words, i know you cannot swallow all this article without kecking,] he is pleased in his appointed and accepted time, effectually to call by his word and spirit, [is not this to give them saving interest in christ?] out of that state of sin and death, [is not this the habitual purpose and disposition of the heart under the reigning power of enmity, rebellion and filthiness?] in which they are by nature, to grace and salvation by jesus christ, enlightening their minds savingly, taking away the heart of stone, giving a heart of flesh, etc. here is terminus à quo and ad quem. and now you would argue, because this habitual disposition, enmity and reigning power of sin is taken away in and by our saving interest in christ; therefore it's done before our saving interest; and because that would look so grossly absurd, you say therefore, it doth not remain till after our interest in christ. i pray gentlemen judge, whether this be not either very foul play, or from gross ignorance of the rules of right reasoning? neonom. 2. how inconsistent with vocation, regeneration and conversion, are hearts of such vile disposition. antinom. death and life, darkness and light are inconsistent; they are privantia; a natural estate and effectual calling are such, because this takes that out of one state into another in an instant, by uniting them to christ, they thereby pass from darkness to light, from death to life; and the passage from death is the passage into life; it's our death unto sin, and life unto god through jesus christ, rom. 6.11. and being made free from sin, you became servants of righteousness, ver. 18, 22. neonom. that cannot he a true faith and acceptance, that consists with such vile dispositions, etc. antinom. true, but are not such vile dispositions changed in the new creation? the taking away the heart of stone, and giving a heart of flesh, is at once; and generatio unius is corruptio alterius, and faith is now in the new heart, yea, the very essence of it. neonom. can he be said to accept of christ, who, as you say, hath a knife in his hand, and thoughts in his heart to murder christ, and yet without so much as laying down his arms? d. w. p. 87. antinom. i wish you have not thoughts in your heart, and a knife in your hand, not only to wound my ministry but the doctrine of freegrace, you show such an inveterate spirit against both. gentlemen, speaking from that text, john 6.37. and endeavouring to remove objections from poor distressed souls that dare not come to christ, because of a high deep sense of their filthiness and loathsomeness, and that are always aggravating their condition under the saddest and most dreadful consideration: you will say, for all this high aggravation of loathsomeness and sinfulness, my case is worse than all this you speak of; dr. c. p. 220. therefore there is something in my condition, that if i come to christ he must cast me off: [mark, gentlemans, these are the bitter complaints of a poor distressed soul against himself, set on by temptation, to keep him from jesus christ.] besides positive filthiness, i am a rebel, a sturdy enemy; i fight against god, i quarrel with god, and take up arms against him. i endeavour to remove this objection thus, imagine your condition is a condition of as great madness and enmity against god as you can devise, [as always it is looked upon to be by one labouring under a wounded conscience, in whom sin is revived by the law: the remedy that i advise, is, to bring this poor creature to christ to be bound up, i go on and say] sure you will say, if i be such an enemy, i must lay down my arms before christ will have to do with me, or admit me to come to him. will a king let a cutthroat traitor, while he hath thoughts in his heart to murder him; will he let him come with a naked knife into his presence, and graciously embrace him in his arms? for answer, still see the close of the text, observe, that if this be true, that in respect of this rebelliousness in thy spirit against god, thou say, if i come to christ, he will cast me off. this word, in no wise, cannot be true— do you think it was out of the thoughts of christ, viz. our enmity and rebellion? and if he thought of it, do you not think he would not have put it in to clear up this truth? look into psal. 68.18. and rom. 5.6, 7, 8. now observe what i say, i do not speak this to the intent that any should conceive, that god leaves persons rebellious, dr. c. p. 211. vile and loathsome as he doth find them when he closeth with them, but i say that time when the lord closeth with them, it's a state of rebellion; and if thou come to christ in this condition, it manifestly shall appear to thee, that he will open his bosom for thy head to rest upon; as well as for the righteousest saint in the world; so christ invites every one that thirsts to come and drink of the water of life freely. calvin. i would fain know, mr. neonomian, what you would say to a distressed soul in such a condition, that would not only liken himself to a murderer or a cutthroat traitor, but will give you an instance that he is so even at this very time; he hath continually horrid blasphemous thoughts of god, yea, atheistical, and such as is a horror to mention. he will tell you what a sink of vileness and hypocrisy he is in upon all respects, what would you tell him? indeed here's the skill of a divine. neonom. tell him, i would tell him he must be humbled for those sins, and he must cast out these filthy thoughts, and that he must pray and hear the word, and watch over his heart, and resist satan; and indeed must get rid of this enmity that is in his heart, and this rebellion, and then he may come to christ for pardon. calvin. ay, but i can do none of these; my proud heart will not be humbled, my filthy thoughts will remain, i cannot love god, nay, i cannot pray, and the word of god is a terror unto me; i fly from the law; and as for the gospel i dare not come at it, god is a terror to me. neonom. i would tell him, such a vile heart, corrupt affections, blasphemous thoughts, are inconsistent with vocation, regeneration, conversion: i would tell him he can't have true faith or acceptance with christ, which consists with such vile dispositions, and is void of a purpose to be otherwise. calvin. and would you not think meet to invite this poor soul to come to jesus christ in this sad condition? neonom. no indeed, that i would not, in that miserable pickle. calvin. what would you do with him? neonom. i would tell him, he hath a proud heart which god is humbling, his lusts must be mortified, he must bear the indignation of the lord; god will shine in upon you in his due time when you are fit for it, and your sins be purged; in the mean time you must wait. calvin. but may not a man speak to such an one of help laid upon one that's mighty to save. neonom. take heed of being too bold there: if christ be mentioned it must but be as king and lawgiver; if you be too busy in talking of christ as priest and sacrifice, and of laying his sins on christ, it may prove such a narcotick to him as may cast him into the contrary extreme of carnal security, and presumption that his condition is better than it is. calvin. do you deal thus always with distressed afflicted souls, when they come to you for advice? neonom. no, not always in private conference, but in the pulpit this way must be taken, or else you'll have a company of vile loathsome sinners grow too saucy upon the doctrine of grace and the promise. calvin. and yet here your ministry is very successful; you receive many members i suppose, you have to deal with great variety of cases. neonom. i do not trouble myself with that way of experiences, i know no rule for that: i ask them whether they have been humbled, and whether they are sincere in taking christ as their lord; and i tell them now, god accepts sincerity and imperfect duties as the condition of the covenant of grace; and i find this way succeeds very well, and i hope to make it take throughout the city, and extirpate those antinomian principles, and congregational too. calvin. indeed mr. neonomian, i must take my liberty to descent altogether from you in your method with, and cure of distressed consciences; it was not the way formerly. i am for bringing such a poor loathsome polluted creature to the fountain set open for sin and uncleanness, etc. and not say he must be washed first. neonom. can we thus mary christ? what a carnal, selfish thing is believing? a mere using christ for our own safety in our abominations, which we resolve shall rule over us without one desire to be rid of them. d. w. p. 88 calvin. do you think there will be any fellowship between christ and belial? one must be gone. when christ comes in unto the heart, he binds the strong man armed, and spoils him of his goods. i am sorry to hear you banter a poor sinner's believing in christ, under the sense of the vileness and sinfulness of his disposition, and the enmity of his heart; or that you should suppose, or suggest to the world, that there is any way under heaven to change the heart and disposition savingly, or heal the conscience, but by bringing a poor creature to jesus christ, and him crucify'd, and saying to him, believe on the lord jesus, and thou shalt be saved. there is pardon, forgiveness, cleansing, in the blood of christ, therefore the course that i take always, is to endeavour to set the lord jesus christ in all his fullness before an awakened sinner; and if he be yet secure, and going on in his evil ways, i bring him as near to christ as i can; i endeavour to convince him that he sins against christ as well as the law, the precicious blood of christ that was shed for sinners; i do what i can to bring him to christ to be taught, to be invited, overcome by the sweetness and amiableness of jesus christ, and let him know the danger if he persist obstinate. neonom. but some degrees of convictions and humiliations of soul are necessary prerequisites to the souls acceptation of christ for pardon, weary and heavy laden that christ invites, mat. 11.28. i came not to call the righteous, [i. e. conceited and secure] but sinners to repentance. luke 5.31, 32. they in acts 2.37. were pricked to the heart; the gaoler felt some humbling concern. acts 16.30. paul knew what this trembling was; so zacheus and the prodigal, luke 15.14, 15. d. w. p. 87. calvin. all his humblings, prickings, weariness, awakenings, were by the power of gospel grace, and by the preaching of jesus christ. christ's ministry is enough with his power to save souls; he needs no prerequisites. the gospel is the power of god unto salvation, therewith he wounds, and therewith he makes whole; christ makes weary, and gives rest; he convinceth sinners, and gives repentance; the preaching christ crucified pricked those converts to the heart, and healed those wounds. it was the same hand of grace that awakened the gaoler, and when he had a knife in his hand even to murder christ in his members; and when he saw that was wrinched out of his hand, took a knife to murder himself; in the height of that desperate villainy, he was commanded to believe on the lord jesus christ, and he should be saved. the case plainly is this, that jesus christ himself, the minister of the true sanctuary, and the preaching of him, is the only and sufficient remedy to change and save the worst of sinners through the effectual working of the spirit; the order and method is various, it's as the spirit listeth, we are not to prescribe any methods or measures of humbling, much less to say such and such moral virtues or duties are necessary prerequisites and qualifications before a sinner comes to christ. the apostle paul said, that he determined to know nothing, i. e. (so as to preach) among them, but jesus christ and him crucified, 1 cor. 2.2. i am for working humiliations by setting christ before the most refractory sinners ' for all salvation; true mourning and humiliation proceeds from looking on him whom a poor sinner hath pierced: i am for the bringing of the most leprous sinner, (i cannot engage he will come,) to wash in this spirtival jordan, though i find you are rather for washing off his leprosy first in the rivers of abana and pharfar rivers of damascus. neonom. i am not for bringing such foul filthy sinners to jesus christ, it sounds very ill in the ear, to say christ saves murderers, adulterers, persecutors, etc. and to invite them to come to christ reaking in their sins, and under the reigning enmity of their hearts; it's fit that they should be civilised first, and this wicked, profligate disposition removed, and that they have new hearts before they come to christ; for i tell you christ will not pardon them else. antinom. you mistake the whole sense of the gospel, or will not understand it, that you may seem to have a plausible pretence to oppose it: when sinners are invited to come to christ, it's not merely under the notion of pardon, but of all salvation; he is offered, and the sinner is invited to come unto him, as having given himself for us, to redeem us from all iniquity, and to purify to himself a peculiar people zealous of good works. a sinner is by the gospel called to christ in all states of his unregeneracy, whether openly profane, or morally virtuous; one is as easily saved by christ as the other; the former ordinarily sooner, easier converted seemingly than the latter; neither is the latter better qualified and fitted for the grace of god than the other. that place quoted by you, 1 cor. 14.24, 25. is a clear proof how the word of god's grace works these true convictions in the saving work, and that your humbling in the state of unregeneracy are no necessary prerequisites to the grace of god. neonom. i will discover your mistakes in these things. because they that truly come to christ shall have an interest in christ, therefore he thinks whosoever can persuade himself that he hath an interest in christ doth come to him. antinom. it would have been well if it had been my happiness to have attained to your degree of learning, and had so great a capacity for it as you, that i might not have fallen under so gross mistakes. i confess its pity a doctor should be so silly a john-an-oaks as you represent me. but what shall i say to it? it's not every man's portion to be learned or wise, only there's one proverb i remember that is some satisfaction to an empty skull, non est datum cuivis corinthum appellere. but methinks you mistake about my thoughts, if i have wit enough to tell my own thoughts. it is strange i should be so stupid, as credere quod habeo & habeo, as to believe that i have when i have not, and to call that persuasion my having: i spoke of having christ by coming to christ, and then of our knowing that we have christ. if you will examine what i think, i will tell you, i think coming to christ is by believing and appropriating christ, and what is generally delivered of him and by him unto myself; if it be by way of promise, offer, or command; and that this believing is such persuasion of the goodness and truth of christ and his gospel salvation, that it carries me forth to rest and stay myself confidently thereon, and that i can persuade myself of the truth of my faith from its act on its proper object, and by the several fruits that it doth produce. neonom. because sometimes the worst of sinners are made subjects of preparatory work, and of effectual calling as god's act on them, therefore he thinks, that these sinners are invited to conclude they have an interest in christ, before they do at all answer that call. d. w. p. 90. antinom. you intimate as if you thought some sinners were more capable subjects of effectual calling as to god's act than others, and that there's a preparatory work distinct from god's act in effectual calling, which i do not think. besides, i think god's act in effectual calling upon a sinner, is more than a bare invitation: and i do not think or say, that any man concludes their personal interest in christ because they are invited, but because being invited they did come; therefore not before they answer the call by coming. neonom. but his greatest cause of mistake is, that he thinks the worst of sinners, if elect, have as much interest in christ as the greatest saint. antinom. est argiva calumnia; when you make it appear that i think so, by what i have spoken, i will answer to it, and your sarcastic inference therefrom. neonom. you may see the large catechise; q. what is justifying faith? they tell us, that a sinner is convinced of sin and misery who receiveth christ. antinom. but they tell us that that conviction which is saving comes by saving faith, their words are, justifying faith is a saving grace wrought in the heart of a sinner by the spirit and word of god, whereby he being convinced of his sin and misery, and of disability in himself and other creatures to recover him out of his lost condition, not only assenteth to the truth of the promise of the gospel, but receiveth and resteth upon christ and his righteousness, etc. and in the shorter catechism you may see a more particular account of saving convictions, that they are wrought in effectual calling, though they be not so properly of the nature of justifying faith; for they say, effectual calling is the work of god's spirit, whereby convincing us of our sin and misery, enlightening our minds, etc. he doth persuade and enable us to embrace jesus christ freely offered to us in the gospel. you see conviction and illumination are both the saving works of the spirit. and in the confession they'll tell you, that saving faith is of a larger extent as to the object it acts upon, than merely justifying, saving faith; it convinceth, it enlightens, it justifies, it sanctifies, and in this sense they tell you the nature of saving faith, chap. 14. whereby they are enabled to believe to the saving of their souls— and by this faith a christian is enabled to believe to be true is revealed in the word, and— from thence comes trembling at the word, and embracing the promises of life, etc. so that this contradicts not, but confirms the doctrine of the 39 articles, that all works before faith, even legal convictions, are no more than sin; it's but the filthy conscience-polluting gild of sin, which thousands have, and which do not dispose the sinner to love god, but to hate him; nor to seek pardon, but to seek out a righteousness of his own. neonom. dr. o. tells us, p. 133. of justif. there is nothing in the whole doctrine that i will more firmly adhere to, than the necessity of convictions previous to true believing. d. w. p. 89. antinom. if he mean saving believing, he must mean previous sine qua non, not as a preparatory virtue, but as sin is previous to pardon, and thereby gild also, whereby sin pollutes the conscience, and is both sin and misery; and this may arise from a mere natural stirring of the law, or by the preaching of it, which is the death of sin, the wrath and curse that attends it; and this may and must arise from a common faith; for a man is not convinced of any thing that he believes not. but if he mean saving convictions, they are good fruits, and wrought in saving faith. this he intends here: for he said just before, let no man think to understand the gospel, who knows nothing of the law; god's constitution, and the nature of things themselves, have given the law the precedency with respect unto sinners; for by the law is the knowledge of sin, and gospel faith is the souls acting according to the mind of god, for deliverance from that state and condition which it is cast under by the law; and he supposeth the state of a man under mere legal conviction to be a state of death and condemnation. neonom. he saith, displicency, sorrow, fear, a desire of deliverance, with other necessary effects of true conviction. p. 102. antinom. true convictions, i. e. saving, have such effects; but observe, he is there distinguishing between common convictions, which before faith are the common condition of sinners more or less, which is the death they lie under. he saith, temporary faith and legal conviction are the principles of all works or duties in religion antecedent unto justification, [observe now what he saith] which therefore we must deny to have in them any causality thereof; and so he proceeds to show what affections and duties in religion may follow thence; not that they are gospel virtues, but rather solendida peccata; and they, i say, are so far from disposing the natural man to justification by grace, that they dispose him rather to seek justification in himself by the works of the law, till the law comes to be preached in true spirituality in the gospel, and received by faith.— and he saith, p. 103. that reformation of life— and these things are where real convictions are; but yet it must be said, that they are neither severally nor jointly, though in the highest degree, either necessary dispositions, preparations previous, congruities in a way of merit, or conditions of our justification. now is not this a marvellous measure of presumption, and palpable design upon your reader to take the imperfect sense of a man's discourse to justify your errors, when you must needs see, the said discourse is point blank against you; i'll hear no more therefore of your allegations in this point out of dr. o. neonom. mr. norton speaks of preparatory works between the carnal rest of the soul in a state of sin and effectual vocation. antinom. i know of no such middle state, for there is but two states, that of death, and that of life; that of light, and that of darkness; but the works done before conversion he tells you are called preparatory by way of mere order, which he saith all the orthodox assert; for that which is plainly first in order and nature must be said to be so; all the sin and wickedness, as well as the common graces and religion, performed by an unregenerate man, are all antecedent to his regenerate state. but saith mr. norton, it's contrary to the scriptures to say they are preparatory, by way of causation, merit and congruity, [i. e. by disposing, fitting, and making men the sitter for effectual grace, as you say] as asserted by the papists and arminians. debate xi. of union with christ before faith. neonom. another error of his is, all the elect are actually united to christ, before they have the spirit of christ, or at all believe in him, even before they are born; yea, and against their will. d. w. p. 90. antinom. your terms are all ambiguous, you seldom use a word of two or three syllables, but you'll have him bifrons like janus; i pray produce your proof, and i shall see which way you look most. neonom. the title of a sermon of yours is, christ ours before gracious qualifications. d. w. p. 91. antinom. i own such a sermon, from isa. 33.6. and the design of it was to answer this query, dr. c. p. 432. how i may be assured my part lies here, that my sins were laid on christ. the apostle speaks of full assurance of faith, and of coming to the throne of grace with boldness— i showed that it may be found out as the lord hath chalked it out— in his grace and grant; not only when the lord is pleased to hold out his grace and grant to a man, but also upon those terms that he holds it out on, such as the terms of god are, or conditions, if you will call them so. sure i am; as the conditions are, by which they may claim interest in christ; those conditions being granted and found, the soul may close with the grace of god; now all the difficulty lies in this, whether the lord propounds to men, that there shall be no part in christ, nor grace by him till they find their spirits, souls and bodies sanctified throughout, or whether the lord holds out the grant of pardon of sin without those previous qualifications. and i say, d. c. p. 433. that the grace of saying iniquity upon christ is applicable by forgiveness of sins to persons before there be ever the least measure of sanctification in works; and being applied by the lords own grant, there may be safety and security in applying the same by faith, without regard to sanctification in any measure. that is, in respect of making trial thereby, i seeing yet no sanctification in works to try by; it's certain such pardon is to be had, and that the grace of forgiveness is applicable before works, or a person capable of doing them, as to elect infants, and to the dying thief, and hath the same place in every elect person that doth believe, forgiveness is applied to him before he can exert any of the working fruits of faith, and being applied to him by god's grant, it may be applied to himself by believing; but because you insist on nothing in this sermon that you particularly express, i say no more of it now. neonom. sure you intent only to exclude works, and not faith. d. w. p. 91. antinom. i do not exclude works from a ground of assurance, for i own when the conditions are granted and found, [i. e. the fruits of the spirit in the heart, the soul may close with the grace of god by way of assurance; but i say also, there may be an assurance of faith without particular respect to the said works; i say not that works evidence not, but that there is an evidence besides. neonom. no, you tell us of dangerous consequences that must follow on it if persons are not united to christ, and partake not of justification before they believe; and addeth, there is not, i say, such a thing as an uniting or knitting power in faith, as that faith doth or should become an instrument to unite a soul to christ. dr. c. p. 616. antinom. my discourse was from 1 john 2. 1, 2. the main design of my discourse there is to prove, that faith is the fruit of our union to christ. i showed that christ himself frames and creates that very faith in persons that come to him, d. c. p. 614. uniting them as members first to him their head. 2. i showed that a branch must have union with the root before it can bring forth fruit. christ is the vine, we the branches, faith part of the fruit. communion is a fruit of union, faith is a grace of communion. suppose that the life spoken of is not in persons till they believe it is, dr. c. p. 615. but this, that there is no activeness of the life of christ in the person that is elected, his life is in christ, and was in christ, and reserved in christ till the time of believing, for him; and then doth the elect person become active in life, when christ doth give him to believe actually. but to say that this believing should give the first being of that life that should be in persons, is to say, there is not that life of the elect persons in christ before they do believe; if this be maintained, that there is no justification at all belonging to elect persons, till they do actually believe in christ, or faith be the instrument by which they are first united, dangerous consequences must needs follow. 1. that in some respect there will be a bringing to life again the covenant of works, do this and live, viz. for persons to do that they may live; but the covenant of grace, gives life first, and from life comes doing, etc. but the words you refer to p. 616. for they are not there, nor do i find them elsewhere. neonom. he denies the presence of faith, to this end he spends much time to prove that christ is ours before we come to him, and that our not coming unto him doth not import a state of disunion with christ. d. w. p. 614. antinom. i said, let us suppose the coming in this place is spoken of believing, ye will not come to me that you might have life; it cannot follow, that although there be no life till believing, therefore there can be no union till believing: i say, if it possibly might be imagined, that there may not be life from christ till believing, yet it follows not that there must be believing before this union; suppose, i say, that there cannot be life before there be believing, yet there must be union before there can be life fetched from christ,— faith being the fruit born, as aforesaid. neonom. he saith, you may as soon conceive, that a man is able to see whilst he hath no head, as think a man can have spiritual eyes; whether the eye of faith to behold christ, or the eye of mourning to lament one's wickedness, before there be actually the presence and conjunction of christ the head to such a body. dr. c. p. 104. antinom. i say so, and will stand to it. calvin. i wonder you should find fault with that divinity, or note down that expression for an error; you cannot suppose that there can be any living act performed without life, as the cause of it, which life must be our union to christ, which according to the most orthodox is, and must be before faith itself at least, naturâ. neonom. he says, we partake of the spirit by virtue of this union. calvin. yes, how should members partake of the spirit and life that is in the head, but by virtue of this union, and yet the spirit unites. a branch engrafted partakes of the spirits of the root by virtue of an union, and the spirits unite and knit it. neonom. he saith, god did not only decree to put such qualifications into them; but i say farther, that god gives actual possession of this christ, and that christ takes possession of that person before there be any qualifications. p. 618. calvin. i doubt not but christ takes actual possession of us saltem naturâ, before we have any holy qualifications, but as to our actual possession of christ, it's better expressed that we have it by faith; although where there is possession there is relatum & correlatum. neonom. the question is not, whether god hath decreed the union of the elect? nor whether this union is agreed in the covenant of redemption? d. w. p. 92. antinom. but it is, whether the elect have not a union of federal relation in the covenant, as you call of redemption, as being a seed in him, and covenanted with in him, and he as a common person representing them, and undoubtedly is that root or head out of which all his elect seed or members do spring. neonom. nor is it any question, whether christ's giving us the spirit of grace do begin this union, and the spirit given in order to saving operations produceth this faith whereby the union is consummated? calvin. well, well, if you own so much, what do you make a controversy of this point; it seems you acknowledge the union is begun with christ giving his spirit in order to saving operations, only you say it's consummated by our active cleaving unto christ by believing, and he doth as good as say as much; he saith, there is no activeness of this life of christ in the elect, till they do believe, and in this sense he will say the elect are not united, viz. by faith till they do believe; as for his notion of the elect being in christ before calling, it hath been discoursed already, and let's not fetch things over again. antinom. there is a passive recipiency, and there is an active recipiency; dr. c. p. 98. there is a passive receiving of christ, and that is, so that christ is received without any hands; but in an active receiving of him, he is not received without hands. this passive receiving of christ, is just such a receiving of him, as when a froward patient takes a purge, or some bitter physic; he shuts his teeth against it, but the physician forceth his mouth open, and pours it in down his throat, and so it works against his will by the overruling power of one over him. neonom. for my part i like not such similitudes, and it insinuates that men are said to receive christ against their wills. d. w. p. 101. dr. c. p. 612. and he said too, that our first coming to christ, is as a coach is said to come to town, when it is drawn to town. calvin. you know his meaning by those similes, and they are not to run on four feet; it's enough they serve to illustrate that part of truth which they are used for. mr. antinomian means as you do as to man's will. there's nothing more contrary to a rebellious carnal man, than the graee of god; their hearts are full of enmity and hatred to god and truth; but yet he shows you often that god gives gifts to the rebellious. and here you see how he gives it, and what he gives; it may be he binds them with the cords of afflictions, and opens their eyes to see their undone condition, pours into their consciences whole potions of the gild of sin, and the laws condemnation, whereby as undone creatures, through grace they become willing and ready to receive christ, and he becomes precious to them by the same hand of his spirit. if you should pick up odd similes out of sermons, which it may be hath done good, and god hath blessed, you may expose many a good man's labours. see holy cranmers, and i think such were were of famous mr. rogers of dedham; and consider the spirit of god allows preaching christ to be foolishness to the world: therefore be very wary how you despise, reproach or redicule in these cases, lest in striking pretendedly at men and their weakness, you happen to give a slant blow at the spirit of god: for he tells you there is such a kind of recipiency of christ, he instanceth in ephraim, jer. 31.18, 19 and in the like dialect elihu speaks to job, chap. 36.8, 9 if they be bound in fetters, and held in the cords of affliction, than he showeth them their works and their transgressions, that they have exceeded. and in the metaphor of a coach or chariot, the spirit of god speaks in the sacred scripture; and the church saith to christ, draw me, and i shall run after thee. neonom. the real difference is, 1. whether the elect are actually united to christ before they are born? 2. whether the elect are united to christ till they are effectually called, and truly believe? antinom. that though there be not an active union on our parts but by faith, so that it can't be said properly to be a conjugal union by mutual consent of parties, yet there is a relative union, such as between father and child, where the child gives not consent to this relation; he is wholly passive in being brought into it. god from eternity constituted and ordained christ and all the elect, to be as it were one body, one lump, wherein christ is the head, and they the members; christ the root, and they the branches: they are given to christ, john 17. to be in christ, eph. 1. being they are called his seed, before they are called, john 10. his seed, isa. 53.11, 12. heb. 2.14. brethren. ver. 11. he that sanctifyeth, and they they that are sanctified, are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, i. e. as some add, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, of body or lump. and by virtue of this union it is that the obedience and satisfaction of christ descends particularly unto them, and not to the rest of mankind. calvin. the learned mr. rutherford, hath as follows, the faith by which as by an instrument we are justified, rutherford of the covenant. p. 208. presupposeth three unions, and maketh a fourth union. it presupposeth a natural, legal, federal union. 1. natural, that christ and we are not only both mankind, for christ, and pharaoh, and judas, are one specie & naturâ, true men, but one in brotherhood, he assuming the nature of man with a special eye to abraham, heb. 2.16. i e. to the elect and believers; for with them he is bone of their bone, and is not ashamed to call them brethren, heb. 2.11, 12. psal. 22.22. 2. it presuppones a legal union between christ and them that god made; the debtor and surety one in law, and the sum one, so far as he laid our debts on christ, isa. 53.6. 2 cor. 6.21. 3. it presuppones an union federal, god making christ our surety; and to assume not only our nature in a personal union, but also our state, condition, and made our cause his cause, our sins his sins; not to defend them— but to suffer punishment for them, and our faith makes the fourth union betwixt christ and us, whether natural, as betwixt head and members, the branches and vine-tree; or mystical, as that of the spouse and beloved wife; or artificial, [as the foundation and building;] or mixed, as that of the imp and tree; or legal between the surety and debtor, advocate and client; or rather a union above all hard to determine, for these are but comparisons, and this christ prays for, john 2.23. i in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one. and something to this purpose mr. norton norton p. 292. speaks, the efficacy of this relation springs from its foundation, which is first by the absolute grace of god in election, and thence flowing down in the promise according to the merit of christ, by the effectual operation of the spirit. needs must the river of life be full, ever overflowing and quickening that ariseth from and is maintained by such fountains. norton p. 287. and he shows the form of this union, 1. in the tertium wherein it is. 2. the bands on christ's part and the believers. 3. the manner as to the tertium's. 1. sameness of spirit, he that's joined to the lord is one spirit, 1 john 4.13. rom. 8.9. 2 pet. 1.4. 2. one mystical body, 1 cor. 12.12, 13. the third, a spiritual married estate, eph. 5.32. isa. 54.5. changed 62.4. 4th. a state of glory, john 17.22, 23. see more. but you will see all along how he makes christ first in this personal union to christ by the spirit and faith. dr. ames. ames. med. lib. 1. c. 26. receptio respectu hominum est vel passiva vel activa, phil. 3.11. the passive is the reception of christ, whereby the spiritual principle of grace is ingenerate in the will of man, ephes. 2.5. this grace is the foundation of that relation, whereby a man is united unto christ, john 3.5, neonom. i'll tell you what i take to be truth in these points, every man is without christ, or not united to christ until he be effectually called; but when by this call the spirit of god inclineth and enableth him willingly to accept of christ as a head and saviour; a man becomes united to him, and partaker of those influences and privileges, which are peculiar to the members of jesus christ. d. w. p. 90. antinom. i except against what you have asserted, in these particulars. 1. you say a man is not united to christ before effectual calling, thereby i understand you, that he is not united to christ in any sense, whereas i affirm he is united to christ before effectual calling in the senses which m●● r●therford doth assert, before mentioned. 2. i understand you mean that in effectual calling a man is not united to christ till he doth actually accept of christ the head by an act of faith, whereas the head unites the members to itself before they can reach up to the head. 3. you make union to be the same with communion, and to consist in a participation of privileges. now as to the second thing, that in effectual calling there is a complete union with christ before the act of faith, i do affirm, upon these reasons. 1. from the utter impotency of the soul without and before union with christ to any good act, for union standeth in indivisibili; it's a conjunction of two in one, an half one is none: if we put forth an act of faith to lay hold on christ before we be completely united to him, we put forth a good act, and bring forth good fruit before we be in him, and before we be good trees; but we cannot bring forth good fruit before we be good trees; and we cannot be good trees before we be in christ, mat. 7.18. john 15.4, 5. therefore we do not put forth an act of faith before we be so completely united to christ, so united to christ as to live by him, john 11.26. whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die, etc. arg. 2. in our regeneration we are merely passive, our faith is not then active, but in our regeneration we are completely united to christ; ergo, we are completely united to christ before the act of faith. the major is proved from eph. 2.1, 2, 3. dead men are passive to regeneration, and dead men we are till we are regenerated. the minor is proved from the joint concurrence of regeneration, conversion and union with christ, which are all wrought together simul & semel. arg. 3. if we be united first to christ by an active faith, than an active faith is the cause of our union with christ, but an active faith is not the cause of our union with christ, therefore by an active faith we are not first united to christ. min. if active faith were not the cause of the union of the humane nature of christ with the divine, than it is not the cause of our union with christ; but active faith is not the cause of the union of the humane nature of christ with the divine: ergo, maj. no other cause can be assigned of our true union with christ, than of the union of our nature with the second person, viz. divine assumption, isa. 42.1, 6. as the divine nature assumed ours, john 1. so the person of christ takes us to mystical union with him. arg. 4. if our union with christ be first by an act of faith, than it is by a work of ours, (though a work of grace) but it is not by a work of ours: ergo, min. if it be by a work of ours, it is not of grace, but it's of grace. ergo, maj. rom. 11.6. these are mr. cotton's arguments. neonom. i'll answer your arguments another time, pray hear mine now to confirm the truth. 1. the scriptures expressly affirm, uncalled, unconverted one's to be ununited to christ; eph. 2.12. rom. 16.7. rom. 11.17. antinom. it's true in respect of the union in effectual calling, but yet not in respect of their hidden, federal, and relative union, which mr. rutherford speaks of. neonom. 2. the spirit of christ, and faith in him, are the things whereby god hath ordained us to be united with christ, 1 cor. 12.12, 13. ephes. 3.17. antinom. we grant it in respect of our union to christ in effectual calling. neonom. i see you will throw off all my arguments by mr. rutherford 's unhappy distinction of unions; therefore i will name no more of them for the present. antinom. the assembly is full on this point, that our union to christ is before the act of faith. shorter catechism. q. 29. how are we made partakers of the redemption purchased by christ? a. by the effectual application of it to us by his holy spirit. q. 30. how doth the spirit apply to us the redemption purchased by christ? a. by working faith in us, and thereby uniting us to christ in our effectual calling. the spirit first comes as a bond of union, and works faith to unite by its act; in the first union by the spirit we are passive, made new creatures, new born, receive spiritual life. in the second we are active, put forth lively acts, and lay hold on jesus christ, and all gospel grace. and if the confessions say we are united to christ by his spirit, and by faith, as you acknowledge, than there is a union by the spirit, which is effective of that which is by faith. you say my mistake is, in thinking all grace is wrought by christ as an actual head; you mean grace comes not at first from christ as our head, but as a designed head; therefore you find fault with my founding our union on christ as our head. where i say, p. 104. christ is the head of his church, i. e. the fountain of all spiritual sense and motion: a man cannot have spiritual eyes of faith, unless he have this spiritual head, etc. i am not alone here, for mr. norton and others make christ as our head, the fountain and spring of all spiritual life and motion. evan. p. 249. the person of christ mediator, is the first saving gift actually applied to any elect person.— the motion of the spirit upon the soul is from christ the head. see p. 250. debate xii. of justification by faith. neonom. we having formerly discussed the doctrine of justifying righteousness, i desire we may now inquire into the nature of justification by faith; for mr. antinomian hath this error among the rest. that the whole use of faith in justification, is only to manifest that we were justified before; and faith is no way necessary to bring a sinner into a justified state, nor at all useful to that end. d. w. p. 103. antinom. i must hear your proof, sir, before i enter upon my defence. neonom. you put this objection, is not believing required unto the justification of the ungodly? answ. an ungodly person after he is justified doth believe; but you will say it is an act of christ by faith. answ. then christ doth not justify alone, etc. nay, i say more, christ doth justify a person before he doth believe, etc. he cannot believe that which is not,— but he is first justified before he believes, than he believes he is justified. dr. c. p. 85. antinom. my words were these, an ungodly person after he is justified doth believe: but you must understand it, it is not the faith of the person that doth simply and properly justify; but it is that christ in whom he doth believe, he believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly. it is he that justifieth, that is christ. it is not believing that justifieth; mark well that phrase, he that justifieth, justification is an act of christ, not an act of faith. how often is it said, it's god that justifieth? justification is an act of god, and not of ours, faith is an act of ours; it's god by his grace efficiently justifies, and imputeth the righteousness of christ; we are materially and objectively justified by the righteousness of christ, and by that alone; and this i say is before a sinner believes efficiently, because the object must be before the act of the recipient organ. a man sees because there is light to see, which illuminates the organ; especially such a light as takes off a privation of sight, and restores the habit, so that justification in regard of application must be before believing; the first application in ordine naturae saltem, is to an ungodly man, eo nomine, that he may believe, who is thereby made to believe that he may be justified, for in justification we are both passive and active; as maccovius saith. calvin. mr. norton norton, p. 214. hath this objection. if we are justified by faith, than faith is in order before justification, and consequently the act is before the object, whereas on the contrary the act depends on the object, and not the object on the act; to this effect bellarmine. answ. 1. we distinguish between the being of justification, and our being justified, i. e. between justification as taken in an abstract sense, viz. without the receiving subject thereof, viz. a believer, and a justification taken in a concrete sense, i. e. together with the believer. justification considered in the actstract sense, taken simply and in itself, which signifieth remission of sins, and righteousness to acceptation prepared for, though not yet conferred upon the elect, hath before faith a being not only in the purpose of god, but also in the covenant between the father and mediator, and in the purchase of christ. this truth held forth in the gospel makes the object of faith, and thus the object is before the act. the grounds of this distinction or distinguishing between justification actually procured, and actually applied.— justification was in god's decree before faith, p. 315, 316. before sin, yea, from all eternity, gal. 3.8. rom 3.25. the actual procuring of justification as considered in itself, gives a being to justifying faith: justification is compared to a garment, our being justified to a garment put on. justification of the elect is absolutely and actually procured for them by christ's satisfaction before faith, col. 2.14. the hand writing of ordinances cannot be limited to the ceremonial law only, because it had respect unto the gentiles then living, to whom the ceremonial law belonged not, god hath declared his acceptation of christ, so calvin on the place. p. 216. whereby he hath actually procured justification for the elect before faith. it is no small part of the ministry of reconciliation, that god imputed unto christ the sins of the world of the elect before they did believe, and will not impute them unto the elect, 2 cor. 5.18, 19 this great gospel truth is of special use to beget justifying faith in the heart of a sinner. the same the apostle confirms concerning their reconciliation, rom. 5.10. that it was wrought for them when they were enemies, i. e. unbelievers. here is a twofold reconciliation mentioned, one at the death of christ before paul, or the romans, some of them at least, were believers, the other at conversion. the first reconciliation, though it was virtually wrought before by the lamb slain (in god's appointment and acceptance, together with his own consent) from the beginning of the world, rev. 13.8. yet it was not actually wrought until the death of christ; for this satisfaction sake god imputes not sin unto the redeemed, (for he cannot impute sin to christ and the elect both) yea, he accepteth us in the beloved, eph. 1.6. loving the persons of the elect, rom 11.28. though hating their sins, and also their state under the curse of the law, rom. 6.14. chap. 7.6. eph. 2.3. the second is wrought at our conversion, when the enmity of nature is slain by the infusion of grace. neonom. you ask, but what doth faith serve for? d. w. p. 103. dr. c. p. 85. you answer, it serves for the manifestation of that justification which christ put upon a person by himself alone. antinom. adding, that he by believing on him may have a declaration and manifestation of his justification.— faith is the evidence of things not seen, heb. 11.1. a man is justified, and that by christ alone, but it is n●t known to him; it is an unseen thing. well how shall he see this? the text saith, faith is the evidence; by faith we apprehend it, and rejoice in it as we apprehend it to be our own. — i tell you in another discourse, whatever the scripture speaks concerning faith justifying, dr. c. p. 596. it must of necessity be understood objectively or declaratively, one of these two ways; either faith is said to be our righteousness in respect of christ only, who is believed on, and so it is not the righteousness of its own act of believing: or else you must understand it declaratively, i. e. whereas all our righteousness, and all our discharge from sin, flowing only from the righteousness of christ alone, is an hidden thing; that which in itself is hid to men, doth become evident by believing; and as faith doth make the righteousness of christ evident to a believer, so it's said to justify by its own act declaratively, and no otherwise. neonom. he saith, we do not believe that we may be justified, but because we are justified. antinom. yes, we do believe that we may be justified declaratively— i say there, tho' faith itself cannot be called our righteousness, dr. c. p. 86. yet in respect of the glory that god ascribes to it, that it seals to men's souls the fullness of righteousness; how can you consider a person, a believing person, and withal an ungodly person? when persons are believers, they cease to be ungodly; but if men be not justified till they do believe, christ doth not justify the ungodly, but rather we must believe on him that justifies the righteous. but as i said, we do not believe that we may be justified; but we do believe, and truly believe when we are, and because we are justified. so that still it stands firm, we are not justified, we are not in covenant, we partake not in the covenant by any condition we perform, till which performance the covenant cannot be made good unto us; but we are in covenant, and christ makes us to be in covenant for his own sake, without any condition in the creature. god will have mercy on whom he will, without anything in the creature to partake first. neonom. he saith, god doth add never a tittle of pardon itself more to him that is a believer, than to that person not yet converted to the faith, etc. d. w. p. 104. antinom. he still gives you but part of my sense, and misrepresents it, my words were these. beloved, dr. c. p. 578. for my own part, i cannot conceive any other considerable difference between the plea of christ for a converted person, and the unconverted elect, but this circumstantial difference, namely, that the value of his blood is of equal force to believers and unbelievers being elected, saving that the believers have this privilege, that the lord christ pleads for the manifestation of this discharge unto this converted person, but pleads not for the present manifestation thereof unto the unconverted elect person, till such time as he shall be called to the faith, and by that faith that thing be made evident which before was hid. now follows what he would blacken me with. i say the pardon of sin by the blood of christ, is as full for the unconverted elect person, as fully passed over in grant, to that person as to the believer himself; god doth add never a title of pardon itself more to him that is a believer, than to that person not yet converted to the faith, in regard of the substance of the pardon itself, and this i clear as a great truth, if any will give themselves the trouble of reading it, which i stand to. neonom. he saith, faith as it takes hold on christ's righteousness, it doth not bring this righteousness of christ to the soul, but doth only declare the presence of that righteousness, that was there even before faith was, and there denies faith to be so much as an instrumental cause of our justification. dr. c. p. 597. antinom. i added, that i did abhor to walk in the clouds in a truth of so high concernment, as you too much do sir, and that i knew i had many very catching ears about me, such as you are: i said, that faith as it lays hold upon the righteousness of christ, etc. as he hath told you; and the reason of that saying, i gave in as plain words, that there is no person under heaven, reconciled unto god, justified by god through the righteousness of christ, but this person is justified and rconciled unto god before he doth believe; and therefore faith is not the instrument radically to unite christ and the soul together, but rather is the fruit which follows and flows from christ the root, being united beforehand to the persons that do believe. show me how any person ununited to christ can believe, and how any one that is unjustified can be actually united to christ, as he must needs be before he can believe. neonom. he tells you that justification is from eternity in several places. antinom. you know that to be a false charge, for i have told you a man cannot be said to be justified before he hath a being. i have often enough told you in what sense i apprehend justification to be before faith; but deny no● the justification by faith spoken of by the apostles, in the true sense of it according to my best understanding, i have told you that justification is first in its provision, is fully procured and provided; and it's first in grant, gift and application, applied unto us before we make application of it by an act of faith, whereby we do not bring it into the heart, but the grace of god doth, which we see, behold, and improve there by faith manifesting and declaring our justified estate, whereby our consciences are freed from gild and condemnation; hence i call it justification in conscience, in foro conscientiae. mr. rutherford rutherford, exc. 1. c. 2. who wrote against the antinomians saith, there is a justification in the mind of god eternal, and a justification in time terminated in the conscience of a believer. norton, p. 315. that justification is actually and absolutely procured for the elect before faith, and shall infallibly be applied to them all in time, seemeth to reach the scope intended by the godly learned, whose spirits have more particularly laboured to hold forth the whole truth in this precious part of soul-reconciling doctrine, and soul-supporting mystery of the gospel. to say, that we are justified by virtue of a singular promise in the court of conscience, and in our own persons, (in which sense the scripture constantly saith, we are justified by faith) is not (that i know of) affirmed by any. and for this he quotes chamier, cham. tom. 3. lib. 12, 13. sect. 18. nobis persuasissinum est remissa esse peccata antequam credidimus. we are verily persuaded that our sins are forgiven before we believe, for we deny that infants do believe. and perkins, perkins on gal. 3.16. who saith, christ is first justified, i. e. acquit of our sins, and we justified in him. and dr. ames. saith, the transaction between god and christ was a certain previous application of redemption, and our discharge unto our surety, ames. medul. lib. 1. c. 24. § 3. and unto us in him, which to that secondary application to be performed in us hath the respect of a kind of efficacious pattern; so that that [the application to him] is the representation of this [application to us] and this is produced by virtue of that. and he saith, § 3. hence our discharge [liberatio nostra] from sin and death, was not only established in god's decree, but also in christ, and granted and communicated to us in him before it could be perceived by us, rom. 5.10, 11. hence the father and the son are said to send the spirit to the performing of this application, john 14.16. and 16.7. and in the chapter of justification, am. med. c. 27. §. 9 he tells us what the sentence of justification is, 1. it was in the mind of god, as it were conceived by him by his decree of justifying, gal. 3.8. 2. it was in the christ our head, pronounced when he risen from the dead, 2 cor. 5.19. 3. virtually pronounced in that first relation which ariseth from faith ingenerated in the heart, rom. 8.1. 4. expressly pronounced by the spirit witnessing with our spirits our reconciliation with god, rom. 5.5. hence it appears that the doctrine of our justification before faith is not an error, but a great and glorious truth, and it is no prejudice to the doctrine of justification by faith, but the foundation, ground and reason of it; neither is it any door opened to licentiousness, an unbeliever having no more confirmation or encouragement to persist in sin thereby, than by the doctrine of election, which gives none; but as mr. norton saith, it's no small part of the ministry of reconciliation, that god imputed to christ the sins of the elect before they did believe, and will never impute them unto the elect. neither is my speaking of faith's taking hold of christ's righteousness, and saying, that it brings not christ's righteousness to us, but presupposeth it given and granted, such an absurdity as you would make it. for dr. ames. saith very distinctly, justifying faith precedes justification itself as a cause of its effect, but faith apprehending justification, necessarily presupposeth and follows justification, as the a●● doth the object about which it is conversant, and this i take to be the true notion of justification. that great man for holiness and learning, chamier, saith, i deny that faith is the cause of our justification, for then our justification would not be of grace, cham. parstrat. tom. 3. l. 13. c. 10. sect. 18. but of ourselves, but faith is said to justify, not because it effecteth justification, but because it is effected in the justified person; and in another place he saith, faith doth neither merit, obtain or begin our justification; lib. 22. c. 12. sect. 5. and sect. 9 for if it did, than faith should go before justification, both in nature and time, which may in no wise be granted; for faith itself is a part of sanctification; now there is no sanctification but after justification, which really, and in its own nature is before it. i think, sir, i have cleared myself sufficiently from the charge of error in this point, viz. that our justification is in being before faith. and now, sir, before we proceed to the other part of your charge concerning the manner of faith's justifying, let us hear your arguments against justification in any sense going before faith. neonom. one real difference between us is, whether we are justified before we believe? which i deny; for, 1. we are justified by faith, is the common language of the holy ghost, rom. 5.1. gal. 2.16. d. w. p. 105. antinom. we own it, and say too that we are justified by faith, and this doth not prejudice, but confirm what we assert. neon. faith is enjoined as an effectual means of justification by christ. antinom. we deny not that faith required in the gospel, and wrought by the spirit, is as an effectual means of application of justification; but therefore it follows not that it's in being before: that which is not in being cannot be applied. neonom. the gospel denounceth and declareth all condemned till they do believe. antinom. the gospel declares only their state of condemnation under the law, the gospel properly condemns not; and we own that every one by nature is a child of wrath, and in the sense of the law is a condemned person; and every one is shut up under the law, as the apostle saith, till faith comes, his new-covenant blessedness belonging to him, is not yet made manifest, nor is his nature and state changed. neonom. unbelief is the cause why men are barred from justification, and remain obnoxious to misery. antinom. it is god that justifies, and no sin can bar god's act of free mercy in pardon of a sinner, in the pardon of unbelief as well as of other sins, when god will justify. it's very absurd to say, sin bars god's act of pardon. it's true, unbelief influenceth a sinner as to his own acts, and will be charged upon him as his fault, and will aggravate that condemnation which he hath under the law, because from his own corrupt will and affection he will not receive pardon and life that is offered in the general and indefinite tender thereof made in the gospel: and therefore christ saith, john 5.40. ye will not come to me that you may have life. heb. 3.18, 19 they could not enter by reason of unbelief. unbelief on our part doth keep us from christ, but hinders not on god's part, that effectually draws all the elect, justifying of them, and working faith in them, rom. 8.29, 30. eph. 1. the whole unregenerate state is a bar, till god break it by regeneration, which is a free work of grace, as justification is an act of grace, and must be found wherever a sinner is justified by faith, and that in order thereunto. neonom. the other question in difference between us is, whether the use of faith in justification be only to manifest our justification, which we personally had before: this you affirm, and i deny. and add, that faith justifies by receiving christ, and therein answers the ordination of god, who hath promised to justify the believer by application of christ's righteousness in this gracious effect of it upon a guilty soul. d. w. p. 105. antinom. you altar the terms of my expression, to make for your own turn. my words were these, quest. what doth faith serve for? dr. c. p. 85. answ. it serves for the manifestation of that justification which christ puts upon a person by himself alone, that you by believing on him may have the declaration and manifestation of your justification. and i say, that it is not the condition without which we receive no benefit from christ, but rather a manifestation thereof. my words are not, that the use of faith is only a manifestation, but i say, rather a manifestation of benefits received, than a condition of receiving benefits. and i say, it is a declaration and manifestation. and what is the promise in the hand of faith, but a declaration of the grace of god in justification of a sinner, and thereby a manifestation of it unto the conscience? whereby justification comes to be in foro conscientiae: for i say, where the condemnation of a sinner is by the law, there the absolution of the sinner is by the gospel, but condemnation of a sinner is in conscience by the law; therefore there his absolution is by the gospel, and that's by a gospel-sentence pronounced and believed, which sentence is god's declaration, and faith sealing to the truth of it, applieth it, and is the echo of the said declaration in the soul. and you say faith justifies as receiving christ, and you say well, christ is received in the believing of the gospel-declaration. the declaration in the gospel is, life by christ. see 1 john 2.25. this is the promise that he hath promised us, eurn eternal life. 1 john 5.11. and this is the record, that god hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his son; and this is the witness of god which he hath testified of his son. ver. 10. he that believeth on the son of god hath the witness in himself: it should be testimony, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: this very believing is a testimony of the truth of the promise, and his part in it, as by the latter part of the 10th verse appears, he that believeth not makes god a liar; and as the truth of the promise concerns himself, ver. 12. he that hath the son hath life; this believing he saith is having the son as declared in the promise and record, that takes in the declaration believingly. and this is apprehending, and applying, and relying on the promise, and christ in it, both as truth and goodness. believing is our modus recipiendi, or manner of receiving, and we do believe that we may receive and apprehend him unto justification. you add, and say first, faith justifies by receiving of christ; but you say, it's application of christ's righteousness as to gracious effects you mean only: you do not deal above-board, you are not for the application of christ's righteousness itself imputed to us, and put on by us in believing: we have noted your error in this kind already; you'll not have christ's righteousness imputed to us for our righteousness, according to all the language of the scripture, but only the effects given us, as effectual calling, sanctification and glorification: so that the righteousness of christ justifies not otherwise than it sanctifies and glorifies; for it doth these as effects. but i pray express yourself more clearly how faith justifies, or what part faith hath in justification according to your sense, without so much ambiguity. neonom. the difference is not, whether faith or any other grace be a jot of the meriting righteousness for which we are justified. d.w. p. 104. antinom. but it is, whether faith, or any other grace be a qualifying condition for justification; if it be so let me alone to prove it a meriting righteousness, whether you call it so or no. neonom. nor whether faith, or any grace, add any thing to the vain of christ's merits. these i deny. d. w. p. 104. antinom. no wonder; for you have rated christ's merits, s. clara dicit, omnes convenire scientium, de causa efficicate & meritorià justificationis efficiens est deus, meritoria christus solum ergo controversitur de formuli. de justif. peccatoris. how much their value shall be; valeant quantum valere possunt: but there are other things quasi merita at least, that must give right to the benefits procured by christ's merits, which you call your subordinate righteousness. neonom. yea, i add, that if christ's righteousness could be applied for pardon to the vilest sinner before he believes, it would justify him; but god hath declared that it shall not be applied to unbelievers. antinom. that's not, for god hath declared the contrary, that he justifies the ungodly; and if justification as god's act be not applied to us first, before we are believers, there would never be any believers; for justification is the cause of sanctification, and not vice versa: but justification by faith, i. e. justification as applied by a sensible gracious act of ours, is after sanctification, and we must distinguish in application of righteousness between god's acts and ours, for god must apply grace before we can partake of it. neonom. nor whether we are justified the same moment as we truly believe in christ, and the blessing is not suspended for any time longer. this i affirm, because god justifies us by the promise as his instrument; and this promise declares that he will justify him that believes. antinom. you'll own then that we shall not stay for the benefit; if we perform the condition, god will pay ready money; but the qualification must be first in us by nature. but why i pray? is it not manners at least to give god the honour of being first in this work, and say, we believe in that moment we are justified? 2. i find now you will not have faith to be the instrument of justification, but have found out another; whereas you find fault with me, that i will not have faith the instrumental cause of justification, in its being no more than a passive receiving instrument; and you'll have the promise to be the instrument declaring justification; and what can faith do, but receive this declaration, and thereby declare to the conscience of the sinner what the gospel-instrument declares. neonom. nor whether an elect person once justified by christ, shall be kept by christ's care in a justified state. antinom. you do not suppose then that justification is certainly durable in its one nature, that it is an everlasting righteousness, but that it is loosable in its own nature, and needs a continued flux of supply as our graces in sanctification. as thus, a traitor pardoned by the king is not unalterably pardoned, but shall be kept by the king's care in a pardoned state. neonom. or whether god hath decreed, that the elect shall certainly believe, and so be justified? antinom. but hath he decreed that the elect shall never be justified in any sense before they believe? or that faith should be wrought as a qualifysng condition for justification? neonom. nor whether true faith be an infallible sign of justification. antinom. but you make it nothing else to us, if it justifies as a condition, if your condition doth not federally merit the promise, it's nothing to god, but an infallible sign whereby he sees when to justify us, and to us that we are justified by him. and what is this better than a manifestation, you making it only a manifesting condition? you're excellent good to multiply whethers to no purpose: you might bring in a 1000 whethers more, and say, it's not the question, whether it be further to the east or west indies, nor whether britain be an island or continent. neonom. i'll come to the point, and tell you the truth tho' faith be no way a meritorious cause of a sinners justification, yet god hath promised to justify all such as truly believe. antinom. that's true; so he hath promised to sanctify and glorify them. neonom. and requires faith as an indispensible qualification in all whom he will justify for christ's merits. antinom. this now is to the purpose; now we see how faith justifies as an indispensible qualification; a greater condition than was laid upon adam a thousand-fold. for a clearer understanding the justification of a sinner by faith, norton. evang. p. 110. let these three acts be considered, (the one looked at to succeed the other in order, not in time.) first, god actually imputes the active and passive mediatory obedience of christ unto a believer, rom. 4.6. therein god is freely given. secondly, the soul having before in order of nature, not in time, received christ as its head and saviour, by the same faith receiveth his obedience as the matter of its righteousness; herein the soul is taking, rom. 1.17. ch. 6.11. gal. 3 13. thirdly, god hereupon (in the court of conscience) judicially declares and pronounceth the sinner to be righteous, and to have right unto eternal life by virtue of the promise, john 5.4. rom. 3.22, 30. by this act of grace the person of a sinner is justified in himself really, yet not inherently, but imputatively, etc. faith acknowledges, 1. that we are justified for the righteousness sake of another, viz. christ god man. 2. acknowledgeth our justification is free. 3. renounceth our own righteousness. you see the justifying nature of faith is metonimically ascribed to it; as the eye is said to be the light of the body, because it lets in the light; so faith as the spiritual eye sees the glory of christ, as the ear lets in the justifying promise declaratory. hence it's said, this is life eternal, to know thee the only true god, and jesus christ whom thou hast sent, which is to acknowledge him by faith as he is revealed. mr. norton tells you, we are justified by faith alone, i. e. faith as it is justifying is not a work, rom: 4.5. nort. evang. p. p. 208. 2 because we are not justified by our own righteousness, i. e. the righteousness whereof we are the subjects. 3. because we are justified by the righteousness of another, sometimes called god's righteousness, whereof god is the ordainer, and whereof he who is god-man is both the worker and subject. 4. because we are justified by a righteousness that's made ours by imputation, not by infusion, but as abraham was justified. 5. because we are justified by a righteousness that is actually procured before we believe; our righteousness is compared to a garment which we put on by believing, rev. 19.8. rom. 13.14. gal. 3.27. yet faith never took stitch in it. calvin. that faith justifies not as a qualifying condition is manifest. 1. faith as a quality is a work of the law. the law commanded faith a leading duty in it: but no man is justified by the works of the law, rom. 3.28. so wolleb. willet. this proposition [we are justified by faith] understood legally with the papists, is not true, but blasphemous; but understood correlatively, is true. vosin. cat. p. 2. q. 63. 2. that which cannot stand with grace in justification, cannot have any influence on justification as such; but for faith to have any causal influence as a work on justification, is inconsistent with grace. the minor is proved, eph. 2.8. ergo. 3. that which gives no more to faith in the business of our justification, than to other works of sanctification, cannot be true; but to make faith to justify as a qualification, gives no more to faith than to other works of sanctification, ergo. the reason is, because the scripture doth peculiarly attribute our justification unto faith, and in a way of opposition to all works of sanctification, rom. 3.28. gal. 2.16. chap. 3.11. 4. if you say, that faith justifies only as an antecedent condition, not at all meritorious, virtute eompacti, then it's no more a condition than our coming into the world, or acts performed by us before faith; and it gives no more to faith than to the works of nature, as worldly carnal sorrow, legal repentance, and such moral acts as carnal and unregenerate men daily perform; such as you call your preparatory disposing conditions, and they are the cause of faith, as much as faith of justification, and consequently the causes of justification, causa causae est etiam causa causati, and are in in eodem genere causarum. 5. whatever justifies as a foederal condition is meritorious, but faith justifying as a qualifying condition, upon which life is promised, justifies as a foederal condition. the major is true, in the account of all; for the condition need not to be adequate to the reward in intrinsic value; tho' it be never so small, yet upon performance of the condition the reward is due debt. and indeed all conditions in contracts and covenants are proper meritorious causes, by virtue of the compact and agreement made between the covenanters. for the minor, if it justifies as a qualifying condition, it must justify as a foederal condition, or mere antecedent condition: and if you say as an antecedent condition, it's at best but causa sine qua non, which we call no cause. 6. the scripture doth sufficiently explain itself in what it says of justification by faith, when it says we are redeemed, saved, justified by christ, by his blood, by his death, etc. that the spirit of god, when it says we are justified by faith, intends not any moral or physical causality in faith as a qualification, but only by virtue of its object. mr. bradford the holy martyr reasoneth thus— as the israeiltes were healed by beholding the brazen serpent, so are we saved by believing in christ, fox, p. 1659. but the looking up, of itself did not procure health to the israelites, but the promise made in the object, which was the brazen serpent, therefore in the same manner are we saved by our faith and spiritual looking upon the body of christ crucified, not that the action in itself of believing, as it is a quality in man doth so deserve, but because it taketh that dignity and virtue from the object jesus christ. augustine compares our souls to lanterns, that hath no light in them of themselves till christ shines there. the latter helvetian confess. saith, c. 11. because faith doth apprehend christ our righteousness, and doth attribute all to the praise of god in christ, in this respect justification is attributed to faith chief, because of christ whom it receiveth, and not because it is a work of ours. belgia, artic. 22. we do justly say with st. paul, we are justified by faith without the works of the law, yet to speak properly, we do not mean that faith by itself, and of itself doth justify us, which is but only as an instrument whereby we apprehend christ who is our justice. [but if we say it justifies conditionally, we must say it justifies of itself.] what was accounted to abraham for righteousness? zanch. on phil. 3. not the action by which, but that which he did believe; or faith, not in respect of itself apprehending, but in respect of the object apprehended. faith taken as a quality doth not justify us, etc. rivet. cathol. orthod. bellarm. l. 1. de justific. c. 17. rhem. in annot. rom. 3. the papists tell us, that faith doth not justify as an instrument in apprehending the righteousness of christ, but as a proper and true cause it actually justifieth, by the dignity, worthiness, and meritorious work thereof, and say these words in scripture, justificari ex fidem, per fide, do betoken an actual force and power in faith to justification; and then saith the jesuit, faith is a work; we are justified by faith, ergo, by a work. to this he adds, that faith is our justice itself, ergo, not the apprehension only of righteousness: this he builds on, rom. 4.5. they tell us, that faith justifies us per modum causae efficientis & meritoriae, as a proper, efficient and meritorious cause. and bellarmine tells us, that if we could be persuaded that faith doth justify, impetrando, promerendo, & suo modo inchoando justificationem, than we would never deny that love, fear, hope, and other virtues did justify as well as faith. now to avoid the absurditities, they are forced upon by the protestant arguments; they have two shifts. 1. that this merit is not from us but from god, because faith is the gift of god's grace, and therefore though we be justified by merit, we are justified by grace too, and that it is of grace that our faith merits. 2. they say, that faith merits justification, non ex condigno, of the worthiness of it, but de congruo, of the fitness of it; and this is that which our neonomians say, that it qualifies and disposeth us to justification, so that the justifying a believer is the doing a thing that is fit and meet to be done, the person being disposed and qualified thereunto. it's sad that protestants should now come to lick up the papists vomit, and re-assert those gross errors in fundamental truths, that all our orthodox and famous opposers of the popish heresy have refuted and decried by one consent. but that this error might the better be swallowed by protestants, the subtle enemy of truth and mankind forgeth it again, gives it a good heat, and brings it upon his anvil, polisheth it, and makes it much more plausible to look upon. the arminians say, faith justifies sensu proprio; the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 credere, the very act of believing is imputed to us for righteousness, being accepted of god, and accounted to us as the whole righteousness of the law. so we are justified by faith in the sight of god, not by its merit, for they ascribe all the merit of justification to christ, but only they ascribe to it a conditional, subordinate righteousness by virtue of the ordination of god. for arminius saith, armin. in declare. sentent. ad ordines holland. & westfris. ipsa fides tanquam actus juxta evangelii mandatum prestitus imputatus coram deo, in, sive ad justitiam, idque in gratia, cumque non sit ipsamet justitia legis. i e. faith itself as an act performed according to the command of the gospel is imputed before god, in or unto righteousness, and that in grace, when it is not the very righteousness of the law. * j. goodw. treatise of justif. p. 22. i shall give the refined and sublimed notion of this arminian doctrine from a man of no small dexterity in pleading for it. he saith, that, that which god precisely requires of men to their justification, instead of the works of the law, is faith; or to believe (in the proper and formal signification) he doth not require of us the righteousness of christ, for our justification; this he required of christ himself for it, that which he requires of us for this purpose, is our faith in christ himself, not in the righteousness of christ, i. e. in the active obedience of christ; if paul had certified and said to men, that the righteousness of christ should be imputed to men for their righteousness, it had been quite beside his scope, which was plainly to make known the counsel and pleasure of god concerning that which was to be performed by themselves (though not by their own strength) for their justification, which he affirms from place to place to be nothing else but faith, or believing. to have said thus unto them, that they must be justified by christ, or by christ's righteousness, and withal not to have plainly signified, what it is that god requires of them to give them part in christ's righteousness, without which they could not be justified, had been to cast a snare upon them, rather than open a door of life and peace; and hence proceeds to prove, that abraham's faith, or believing itself, was imputed unto him for righteousness, and he palliates it thus, that he understands it but as a means of coming at the righteousness, but he defends this proposition, that we are justified by faith, sensu proprib non metonymico. now see what the neonomian says expressly of your indispensible qualification; though you, sir, always will look one way while you row another. the question in one of you is plainly asked and answered by a great leader and guide among you. con. 13. when it is said that faith is imputed to us for righteousness, is it faith indeed that is meant, or christ's righteousness believed on? mr. b. scripture gospel defended, p. 32. contr. 13. answ. a strange and bold question, if it be not faith itself that is meant. the context is so far from relieving our understandings, that it contributeth to our unavoidable deceit and ignorance. read over the texts, and put but [christ's righteousness every where instead of the word [faith] and see what a scandalous paraphrase you will make, the scripture is not so audaciously to be corrected. calvin. now i shall show you how by the orthodox protestants, this doctrine of neonomanism hath been opposed as antichristian and destructive to the grace of god. pemble's treat. of justif. c. 2. p. 164. fol. the learned mr. pemble gives the anatomy of this doctrine, after that he had showed that faustus socinus, michael servetus, christophorus ostodorus, and arminius, were the forgers, next to the jesuits, and propagators of this doctrine. armin. saith he branches out his opinion in three distinct propositions. 1. justitia christi imputata nobis; christ's righteousness is imputed to us. 2. justitia christi non imputata in justitiam; the righteousness of christ is not imputed for righteousness. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 credere imputatur in justitiam; believing itself is imputed for righteousness. we now meddle with the last more roundly expressed, ipsum fidei actum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 credere dito imputari in justitiam, armin. epist. ad hippolitum. idque sensu proprio non metonymecè. the same is the opinion of his fellows the remonstrants, of voetius, peter bertius, episcopius, etc. with whom bellarmine agrees in the interp. of rom. 4. the justific. c. 17. lib. 1. in sum, their opinion runs thus. god in the legal covenant required exact gbedience of his commandment; but now in the covenant of grace he requires faith, which in his gracious estimations stands instead of that obedience to the moral law, which we ought to perform: which comes to pass by the merit of christ, for whose sake god accounts our imperfect faith to be perfect obedience. this assertion [exactly neonomianism] and in place thereof we defend this proposition. god doth not justify a man by faith properly, imputing unto him faith in christ for his perfect obedience to the law, and therefore accounting him just and innocent in his sight, which we prove by these reasons; i'll but name them. 1. we are not justified by any work of our own, [though given by grace] but believing is an act of our own, ergo, not by believing. the major is manifest by scripture, which teach we are saved by grace, eph. 2.5. tit. 3.6. rom. 11.6. the minor is evident, that faith is a work of ours; for though john 6.29. christ saith this is the work of god, etc. yet our adversaries will not conclude thence that faith is god's work within us, and not our work by his help; for they'll say, it's not god believes, and christ reputes, etc. they have two shifts. 1. we are not justified by any work of our own, done by our own strength, but by the aid of grace. a. this distinction of works done without grace, and works done by grace was devised by one that had neither wit nor grace, being a trick to elude the force of such scriptures as exclude them indefinitely to our justification, etc. wherefore, it's without all ground in scripture thus to interpret these propositions: a man is not justified by works, i. e. by works done by the power of nature before and without grace. a man is justified by grace, i. e. by works done by aid of grace. 2. they say, we are not justified by any works of our own, i. e. by any works of the law, but by a work of the gospel such as faith is, we may be justified by, there's no ground in scripture for this distinction; nor in reason, for both tell us that works commanded in the law and in the gospel are one and the same for the substance of them, luke 10.27. deut. 6.5. what sin against the gospel that is not a transgression of the law? is charity one, doth not the law command it? is faith one, doth not the law enjoin the same. obj. but it commands not faith in christ. a. it doth, for that which commands us in general to believe, commands us to believe whatever god shall make known to us. arg. 2. god only accounts that perfect righteousness of the law, which is so in deed and in truth; but faith is not the perfect fulfilling of the law, ergo, here our neonomians will except and say, they differ from the arminians in saying, that christ only hath merited that our imperfect righteousness shall be accepted instead of perfect, which hath worse absurdity in it, as shall appear. arg. 3. we are not justified by two righteousnesses, existing in two divers subjects; but if we are justified by christ's righteousness, and the work of faith, we are justified by two righteousnesses, existing in two subjects, ergo. i shall only leave with you the opinion of the orthodox protestants concerning justification by faith, who have strenuosly opposed the papists, socinians, arminians and neonomians in this point. he is justified by faith who excludes the righteousness of works, calv. instit. lib. 3. c. 111 de justific. fidei. and apprehends the righteousness of christ, wherewith being clothed in the sight of god, he appears not as a sinner but justified, so that we interpret justification simply an acceptance whereby god doth account us for righteous ones who are received into his favour; and we say, that it [i. e. acceptio, acceptance] is placed in the remission of sins, and imputation of the righteousness of christ. justification hath two parts, remission of sins, and imputation of christ's righteousness. mr. perkins in the order and causes of salu. c. 37. p. 81. remission of sins is that part of justification, whereby he that believes is freed from the gild and punishment by the passion of christ, colos. 1.21, 22. 1 pet. 2.24. imputation of righteousness is the other part of justification, whereby such as believe, having the gild of their sins covered, are accounted just in the fight of god through the righteousness of christ, 2 cor. 5.21. psal. 32.1. rom. 4. tot. cap. phil. 3.8, 9 the form of justification is as it were a kind of translation of the believers sins unto christ; and again, christ's righteousness unto the believer, by a reciprocal and mutual imputation. justification is the gracious sentence of god, whereby for the sake of christ apprehended by faith, ames. medul. c. 27. he absolves a believer from sin and death, and counts him righteous, rom. 3.22, 24. § 17, 18. christ is the adequate object of faith as it justifies. faith also upon no other account justifies, but as it apprehends that righteousness for which we are justified; and that righteousness is not in the truth of any axiom to which we give assent, but in christ alone who was made sin for us, that we may be the righteousness of god in him, 2 cor. 5.21. hence those sermons in the new testament are so often repeated, which show justification to be sought only in the person of christ, john 1.12. and 3.15, 16. and 6.40, 47. and 14.1, 54. rom. 4.5. and 3.26. acts 10.43. and 25.18. rom. 3.26. a sinner is justified by faith, not properly as it is a quality or action, pemble of justific. ch. 11. § 2. which by its own dignity and merit deserves at god's hands remission of sins, or is by god's favourable acceptance taken for the whole and perfect righteousness of the law, which is otherwise required of a sinner, but only in relation unto the object of it, the righteousness of christ which it embraceth and resteth upon. justification is a gracious act of god upon a believer, whereby for the righteousness sake of christ imputed by god, nortons' eang. p. 300. and applied by faith, he doth freely discharge him from sin and curse, and accept him as righteous in the righteousness of christ, and acknowledge him to have a right unto eternal life. q. 73. how doth faith justify a sinner in the sight of god? a. faith justifies a sinner in the sight of god, not because of those other graces that do always accompany it, assemb. large catech. or of good works, which are the fruits thereof; nor as if the grace of faith, or any act thereof were imputed to him for justification, only as it is an instrument by which he receiveth and applieth christ and his righteousness. q. 32. what is justification? a. justification is an act of god's free grace, whereby he pardoneth all our sins, shorter catech. and accepteth us as righteous in his sight, only for the righteousness of christ received by faith alone. whom god effectually calleth he freely justifieth, not by infusing righteousness into them, but by pardoning their sins, confess. c. 11. and by accounting and accepting their persons as righteous; not for any thing wrought in them, or done by them, but for christ's sake alone; not by imputing faith itself the act of believing, nor any other evangelical obedience as their righteousness, but by imputing the obedience and satisfaction of christ unto them, they receiving and resting on him and his righteousness by faith, which faith they have not of themselves, it is the gift of god. we are accounted righteous before god only for the merit of our lord and saviour jesus christ by faith, artic. 11. of the church of engl. and not for our own merits and deservings, wherefore that we are justified by faith only, is a most wholesome doctrine, and very full of comfort, etc. the righteousness of christ, as it's christ's, and performed by him, so it is ours, as it's meritorious of grace efficacious of faith itself that is to be wrought in us; it's ours therefore, i say by way of right, because by the decree of the father, and purpose of the son it's wrought for us, tho' not in our possession, as to sense and acknowledgement of so great a benefit bestowed. haec enim agnitio, this acknowledgement ariseth from faith.— the righteousness of christ is said to be imputed to us, and his merits to be applied by faith, not before god, but in our consciences; as there is a sense of it begotten in our hearts by faith, and an acknowledgement of the saving application from the love of god which we taste by faith, and spiritually perceive justifying of us, and adopting us to be his sons; from whence ariseth peace of conscience.— whence the righteousness of christ is said to be imputed to us by faith, because it is not known but by faith that it is imputed to us by god; and then at length we are said to be justified by that kind of justification and absolution from our sins, which begets or produceth peace of conscience. dr. twiss. c. 1. p. 2. de elect. he speaks of justification in a double acceptation— 1. as the righteousness of christ is applied to us before faith and repentance, by reason of which righteousness we obtain efficacious grace to believe in christ and repent. 2. he understands justification to be that notification that is by faith made to our consciences, or in the court of conscience; and this is (saith he) that imputation of christ's righteousness, remission of sin, justification and absolution, which follows faith. there's none of us (saith he) say that wicked vicious person, allowing themselves to live in their sins, are bound to believe christ died for them: for my part i think otherwise, that whilst all are commanded to believe in christ, they are not bid presently to believe that christ died for them, but rather to rest themselves upon christ by faith, to renounce themselves and their own works, and cast themselves down at the feet of mercy; this is only properly called faith on christ, fides in christum, the other is only faith concerning christ. hence mr. norton hath these words. orthod. p. 315. these are both truths, 1. justification hath a being before the elect do believe. 2. that the elect are not justified before they do believe. justification is the object, faith is the act; or being actually justified is an effect; faith is the instrumental cause, the cause is before the effect. maccovius disput. xvi. distinguishes justification into active and passive. active justification signifies god's absolution of a guilty person from gild for the sake of christ's satisfaction, and accounting him righteous for his righteousness imputed. the differences between this and passive justification by faith, are, 1. this is one undivided act of god, absolution by faith is repeated. 2. active precedes faith, passive follows, etc. a digression concerning the necessity of repentance to forgiveness. neonom. gentlemen, if you please, for a diversion after this arduous attempt that i have made to bring in the true doctrine of the catholic church, let us make a little digression for our recreation, and treat upon a point that hath not so much difficulty in it; for having got in faith to justify as a qualifying act, i doubt not now but to pleasure some of its relations, and find them a place in justification too. antinom. stay, not so hasty; i do not find you have yet attained your end about faith, festina lentè; cry not victoria yet, but however, gentlemen, seeing he is for a digression, let him have it, for he hath been in digression from truth all along. i know not how he can digress from the way he hath been in hitherto, but by coming into truth. neonom. you judging we are justified before we do believe; it's no wonder if you tell us, we are forgiven before we confess sin, p. 255. and repent; and therefore i would inquire of the necessity of repentance to forgiveness. d. w. p. 113. antinom. as a qualifying condition, gentlemen, this is no digression, for it's the right line and method that bellarmine and all the papists have taken in handling the doctrine of justification, first to bring in faith to justify as a work, and then to bring in other graces and duties in the like manner, only faith shall have the honour to lead the way. whosoever saith, that a man is justified only by faith, and that nothing else is required to our justification, trident. conc. § 6. chap. 2. let him be accursed. faith is not the only cause of our justification, but there are others also, as hope, charity, alms-deeds, etc. bellarm. de justific. ib. c. 13. c. 16. the apostle excludeth not all works, for then faith itself should be excluded from justification, because it is a work, and if justifying faith do except every law, than the law of faith also should be excepted. looky, you see bellarmine hath got your remedial law by the end, i thought i should find indeed all your doctrine in the original. neonom. but he doth not speak fully to the case in hand. antinom. but he shall speak fully to your mind. for, he adds further, such works therefore only are excluded which go before faith, which are done only by the knowledge of the word, chap. 19 and by the power of without grace, not such works as are of faith, and proceed of grace. but all i fear is, that you may not allow us so much as bellarmine; you will have some qualifying condition before faith to justify us, whereas he doth in a measure exclude all works before faith; and he calls not that a merit in plain english, though it's so in some countries'; i cannot tell how your language expresseth it. neonom. you're a pragmatic, my business in this digression is with men of more orthodox principles, who yet seem too doubtful in this point. i shall state the point between these. calvin. then, sir, i find the province will fall upon me wholly to discuss this point with you, unless the board will be pleased to appoint an abler person. board: no sir, by no means. neonom. i shall state the point then, and show you wherein the difference is not. calvin. i pray, sir, be briefer in stating points, for i find you bring your adversary out of breath in stating of points, and when you have stated them, no body can tell but by conjecture where you are; in this way of stating points, you may run over the enclycopeidia artium, in telling us where the point is not, for it can be but in one place. neonom. but you must look where a thing is not, as well a where it is, before you find it. i'll tell you, it is not, 1. whether faith or repentance be any part of the meriting righteousness for which we are justified. antinom. true, bellarmine will not allow faith and repentance to be any part of christ's righteousness, for which we are justified, but only a meriting righteousness by which we are justified .. neonom. i told you, gentlemans, i would have nothing to do with this heterodox fellow. calvin. it is a strange thing, mr. antinomian, that you cannot leave this business to me. antinom. i am willing to give you ease, that you may keep your lungs till he comes to the question, for he will tyre you before you come at it. neonom. nor is the question, whether the habits of faith and repentance be wrought at the same time in the regenerating principle. d. w. p. 113. antinom. you mean you will not discuss this point, and therefore tell us not whether you affirm it, or deny it; and what you mean by the regenerating principle is very doubtful, whether a principle within us or without us? whether a principle by nature or by grace? it's a new term, to say, we are regenerated by a principle; it must be sure some principle in our nature that regeneration must spring from. neonom. nor whether convictions of a lost estate, and some degree of humbling and sorrow are necessary to drive a soul to christ? antinom. the law is a schoolmaster to bring men to christ, to cast them into a desperate condition, that a saviour may be acceptable to them, that's christ's end; but it's not federal condition of justification by christ, nor the effects of it being the condemnation of a sinner, which condemnation, and sin itself are alike conditions, causae sine quâ non, that's none at all in the sense of logicians. convictions, humbling, sorrow for sin before regeneration and justification, are splendida peccata; you have subscribed the doctrinal articles, and bellarmine excludes such works which are before faith, done by the knowledge of the law and the power of . neonom. nor whether there be an assenting act of faith, before there be an exercise of repentance, under the power of the word, which must be believed in some degree before it operate such effects. antinom. you should have put in this question, and said, nor whether there should be hearing of the word before there is repentance under it? and you should tell what faith you mean, whether historical, or common credulity, or saving faith, etc. and whether you do not mean that natural men do grow up from a regenerating principle under the word, into saving grace by degrees? neonom. nor whether ingenuous sorrow for sin in the sense of actual pardon be after that pardon? antinom. that need not be brought in to prevent our mistaking of the question, for none that hath any brains can blunder so as to think a man can be sorry for sin in the sense of actual pardon, before it is; it must be after that; this whether is next akin to a bull. neonom. nor whether repentance, as it consists in fruits meet for it, as external reformation, a fruitful life, and the like, must follow pardon; it being against the tenor of the promise that forgiveness should be suspended so long after a man believes and reputes in his heart. antinom. you had better have put the whether thus, whether pardon is not to come in between repentance and its fruits? or whether repentance with fruits appearing, or repentance without fruits appearing, be the condition of pardon? and to what degrees of growth repentance ought to arise before a man is qualified for pardon? and how long in an ordinary way a truly repenting sinner must expect to continue unjustified? and what time is limited in the tenor of the promise for suspension of forgiveness after faith and repentance? for there's some time it seems with you that forgiveness is suspended after faith and repentance. neonom. nor whether justification be equally ascribed to faith and repentance? for we are said to be justified by faith, which imports that repentance is but a disposing condition, and faith a receiving condition: repentance without faith is unavailable, as faith without repentance is impossible; faith seems to complete all, and in a manner to comprehend all. these things the orthodox divines are agreed on. antinom. that is orthodox neonomians, of which none are orthodox in these points. but mr. calvinist, now he gins to bear up towards the question, i will leave him to you. calvinist. what do you mean that orthodox divines are agreed of in this question, that justification be equally ascribed to faith and repentance, or not equally? or where is it that orthodox divines do ascribe justification to repentance at all? you say that when we are said to be justified by faith, it imports repentance is a disposing condition, and faith a receiving condition, i. e. both disposing conditions: for receiving if it be merely passive, is a disposing condition; your distinction is without difference, disposing and qualifying is all one; but it seems one cannot do without the other, and they are both qualifying federal conditions of justification. but your meaning is plainly this, that repentance doth previously qualify us as a condition to the receiving justification by faith. neonom. the seeming difference is, whether a sincere purpose of heart to turn from sin and idols to god, be absolutely necessary to forgiveness of sin? d. w. p. 114. calvin. it's not a seeming, it's real: you slip off from the question now, and take to other terms, and ambiguous ones too. 1. why keep you not to the word repentance as you began. 2. why use you the term absolutely necessary? your terms should have been disposing condition to justification. and this is the question, if it be truly stated according to your own sense, whether repentance be a qualifying condition to justification? neonom. the other parts of repentance are excluded out of the question by what you heard before, and this is that part on which the word lays a strict stress: from hence repentance is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, matth. 2.8. and conversion refers to this as a principal part of it. antinom. then you will have the question to be, whether a part of repentance be a qualifying condition to justification, viz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉? but let it be which part you please, the first part or second, an inclination or resolution to repent in full purpose of heart, or repentance itself: repentance in potentia, or in actu. the question is, whether repentance under any consideration of it, as an act of ours, graciously bestowed or not, be a qualifying condition of justification? this question you must hold to, and not start from the terms; and i hold it in the negative: be sure in all your arguments you conclude the question. neonom. i will prove then, as repentance lies in a sincere purpose of heart to turn from sin and idols to god, it is necessary to forgiveness. calvin. is not this base shuffling of the cards? will you never lay aside your double-dealing? now in stead of qualifying condition we must have the word necessary, as equivocal a word as can be used. necessary hath as many acceptations, as the word church hath with some men. a thing may be necessary antecedently, and necessary consequently: it may be necessary antecedently many ways, as remotely and primarily; necessary respectu ordinis only; as necessary if you go to france to cross the sea, but not the cause of my going to france, nor the condition, but as the way. and there is a necessity in respect of causality, as the causa efficiens materialis are necessary antecedents to the effect. and so there are remote necessities a great while before you come to what follows; as a boy must be an apprentice before he be a common-council-man or alderman. and there are consequent necessities, neeessitas dependentiae, relationis, precepti, officii, etc. neonom. i mean, that repentance is a disposing condition, but it's not a condition as faith is; for that is the receiving and completing condition. calvin. the council of trent tells us, that the catholic faith is this, when the apostle saith, trident. sess. 6. c. 8. a man is justified by faith and freely, rom. 5. those words are to be understood in that sense which the catholic church hath always held and expressed, that we are therefore said to be justified by faith, because faith is the beginning of man's salvation, the foundation and root of all justification, without which it is impossible to please god, and come to the fellowship of his children. and so bellarmine, faith doth begin justification, bellarm. de justif. lib. 1. c. 20. and afterwards assumes to itself hope and charity, etc. it doth perfect it. and so you talk after them, and much more, in saying that repentance gins justification, and faith completes it. the first point of justification i grant to be faith alone, but the accomplishment of it is not without the joint procurement of obedience, aphor. p. 302. in a larger sense, baxt. aphor. as promise is an obligation and the thing promised, called a debt; so the performers of the condition are called worthy, and the thing promised is called debt, thes. 26. yea, in this meriting the obligation to reward is god's ordinate justice, and the truth of the promise, and the worthiness lieth in our performance of the condition on our part. aphor. p. 141. neonom. that which god commands in order to forgiveness, can include no less than that which is necessary to forgiveness: but god commands repentance in order to forgiveness; ergo repentance is necessary to forgiveness. minor proved, acts 3.19. chap. 2.38. d. w. p. 114. calvin. i told you necessary is not to be admitted as the term of your question, because it's equivocal. we all allow repentance a necessary concomitant or effect of forgiveness; and it's necessary necessitate subsequenti, necessitate officii virtute precepti, necessitate obligationis & dependentiae: its necessary by a subsequent necessity, it's necessary by virtue of gospel precept, necessary by virtue of the relation and connexion that gospel-promises and precepts have to each other, but not necessary as a qualifying condition unto justification. let me put your syllogism into intelligible terms. that which god commands in order to forgiveness, is a disposing condition to forgiveness; but god commands repentance in order, etc. ergo. and here i deny the major: for god commands sinners to hear the word, in order to faith and repentance; but hearing is not a qualifying condition. peter bids simon magus pray, that the thoughts of his heart may be forgiven, but not as a qualifying condition to pardon. so the anointing the blind man's eyes with clay and spittle was not a qualifying condition for healing antecedently, nor the touching of christ by the woman that had a bloody issue. those things that god doth, or commandeth us to do in order to receive blessings, are means chosen by himself to give us the blessings in, and both the means and blessings are graciously provided in the promise, the fruit whereof is the gift of both, even to will and to do. but repentance is required in order to forgiveness: by this you may mean at least in order thereto by way of meetness to fit a man for pardon before he hath it. to this i answer, you fallaciously change the term justification into forgiveness; for though justification includes forgiveness, yet justification is not always meant by forgiveness; for justification is a single act of god, and a person once justified is always so; but by forgiveness is meant often, especially in the old testament, a renewal of the sense of our justified estate, the shining of god's face upon us after falls and relapses into sin; and thence we pray daily for pardon without a supposition that when we pray for pardon, we are not in a justified estate; neither do think when we have prayed for pardon, we are ever the whit more disposed and fitted in god's sight to receive it, but wait upon god for it with a great sense of our loathsomeness and unworthiness in ourselves, flying to christ and his righteousness to be covered with it in believing, by which imputed righteousness alone we look upon ourselves as disposed for pardon. your places mentioned prove not what you design, viz. that in our first forgiveness, which is our justification, that repentance is required as a disposing condition to the receiving it. acts 3.19. speaks but of the public manifestation of the righteousness of the saints at the last day; not that they stand unjustified till that day, viz. the day of refreshing, and of christ's second appearing, v. 20. and as for that place, acts 2.38. he commands gospel duties but to be performed as effects of the promise, in performance of the mercy promised; the words of the next verse show, for the promise belongeth to you, therefore repent; and repentance is there no more a disposition to forgiveness than baptism; and the end of that ordinance is to show that forgiveness belongs to us already, for it's the seal of the promise; and to be baptised into forgiveness is no more than to be baptised into the seal and confirmation of the covenant of promise or forgiveness, which you believe belongs to you, as the covenant is called the covenant of circumcision, acts 7.8. and a seal is not of a pardon to be wrote, but of that which is wrote and signed already. neonom. repentance is a grace to which pardon is promised; and upon the working of it forgiveness is given, and impenitency continues gild wherever it reigns. d. w. p. 115. calvin. forgiveness is promised to persons, not to graces and qualifications. forgiveness is given to true penitents, and those to whom forgiveness is given are truly penitent, and both repentance and remission of sins are given; it may be we perceive repentance first, but god gives remission first; for so long as there is none of the grace of forgiveness bestowed there will never be true gospel repentance, the grace of the promise must be bestowed first by christ exalted to god's right hand. god saith, he had pardoned david before he repent; and what was it that moved him so kindly to repentance, as is mentioned, psal. 51. but the sense of pardon? the lord had told him by nathan that he had put away his sin. neonom. how much of the bible must i transcribe, if i quote all places to prove these? ezek. 18.30. acts 3.19. mark 1.4. luke 13.3. heb. 6.16. calvin. the papists have quoted as many as you can think on, but could never yet carry the point. as to that place of ezek. 18.30. it hath been spoken to already. it supposeth not that they had any qualification for remission by repentance, for they were to make them a new heart first; a condemned sinner besure can never do that work, nor work at it. god must perform the promise of grace in breaking his heart of stone by the revelation of pardoning mercy, and make him a new heart before he can have a heart to repent. acts 26.18. imports no more than that the gospel is the power of god to salvation, and thereby sinners are raised from darkness to light, i. e. from the darkness of a natural state to the light of grace, thereby in christ's own light they see light; the words are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the infinitive mood is here put for the genitive case, governed by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 foregoing; the light a sinner is brought into, is the light of receiving remission of sins, the gospel promise seen and applied by faith, is that light in the soul wherein it is brought unto god; the first act of the soul in saving conversion is believing; for the soul cannot turn from sin to god by any act of repentance that's saving, but by jesus christ, and faith in his blood; therefore in order of nature forgiveness must be had before there can be coming to god, and therefore ephraim cries for turning: the saints through grace know they cannot come at god but by and through christ, and therefore their complaints were so great, and repenting so heavy, when god hide his face from them. i need not treat upon the other places, they are all of the same strain. acts 5.31. is against you; luke 13.3. will not prove the gospel a law, as i shall have occasion to show. neonom. the sin against the holy ghost is unpardonable, because it's impossible to bring the committer of it to repentance, heb. 6.16. calvin. the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not in respect of the power of god, but in regard of the will and pleasure of god, whom he will he hardeneth. when god hath left them to despise christ, and to crucify him again, as it were, to put him to open scorn and contempt, not sinning ignorantly, but presumptuously; there's no repentance: the reason why there's no repentance, is because there's no forgiveness, neither will they seek after it. neonom. are all these things consistent with pardon before repentance? can i be subject to perish and pardoned at once? calvin. yes, a traitor may be in the cart, and have the halter about his neck just when the pardon comes. neonom. can god command repentance under a promise of pardon, and suppose i must be pardoned before? calvin. yea, he always does so, he performs the promise to enable us to obey the command, and he annexeth the promise to encourage us to the duty: the performance of the promise to us is the true necessary condition of our performing any duty to god acceptably. neonom. and doth god do all before, and nothing after? calvin. yea, he doth abundantly more than we can ask or think, before and after too. neonom. 13. there's no saving faith that includes not this purpose in it, and so saith dr. owen. calvin. whatever you quote out of dr. owen, the world knows he was against you in this point, his whole book witnesseth that he never said that faith justified as a qualifying grace, much less repentance; there may be many things in faith that toucheth not upon that nature of it, whereby it hath more to do in its peculiar office in the justification of a sinner than any other grace. neonom. without this purpose we do not accept of christ as the way to god. calvin. a man doth not walk about without his arms, therefore he goes upon his arms and hands. neonom. arg. 5. we cannot receive christ as king without this repentance of heart. calvin. nô, nor without faith neither, what trifling is here? neonom. without this purpose of heart no man accepts of christ for sanctification. calvin. therefore you'll say, christ justifies us by infusing righteousness, by making us righteous inherently, for which he declares us righteous; an old decried popish error. neonom. a resolved purpose to continue in sin and rebellion against god is damning, let men pretend what they please. calvin. i say more, there's no venial sin, every sin is damning in its own nature, and a sin repent of without forgiveness is damning; and the very repentance of a natural man which you would have conditionate him for grace, is damning. neonom. it's not to be allowed that it should not be necessary to renounce our sins with our hearts, in order to pardon; when it is necessary to renounce our own merits or righteousness. calvin. we reckon it our duty under the highest obligation of preventing grace, and great and precious promises, and from the greatest sense of duty, to renounce our sins with all our hearts, but dare not do it in a way of qualification of ourselves for forgiveness, lest we should make those repenting and humbling our merits, as the papists do, whereby christ profits them nothing; and under pretence of holiness they lose their righteousness, pretend to renounce one idol, and set up another. neonom. i will tell you how the assembly and dr. o. are of my mind. calvin. you may spare yourself the labour, for they are point blank against you, and so are all protestants that are not tainted with the doctrine of the jesuits. neonom. i think there's never a barrel the better herring of you, come let's be gone. debate xiii. of the necessity, and benefit of holiness, obedience, and good works, with perseverance therein. calvin. how do you, mr. neonomian, are you well, methinks you look a little moody. neonom. it would disturb any orthodox man's spirit to see how error prevails; i profess i am almost weary of this club, if this be your calvinian club, i do think i must betake myself to some other, you know, where i shall find more soundness in doctrine. calvin. o pray, mr. neonomian, let not disputants be angry with one another; disputation should be for information of the judgement, not for the gratifying pride and passion; put another question, it may be we may agree in that. neonom. i will try you once more, and if you boggle there, far you well. gentlemen, note that whatever i shall speak now of any act of grace, except penitent believing, refers not to the forgiveness of sins, or the sinners admission into a justified estate. the benefits that i here speak of, are not the forfeiture of pardon, the possession of heaven, and some other particular blessings, as increase of peace, returns of prayer. d. w. antinom. i find now you clapped two conditions into one; why had we not these conditions twisted together before? methinks you incommoded yourself in not doing it yesterday, for vis unita fortior, but you reckon faith and repentance, reach no further than the first justification, i think the catholics are of your mind for that. 2. you talk of forfeiting justification, the meaning in english, is falling away from grace. neonom. some men's brains had need be taken out and washed in vinegar, for there's no making them understand; it were well that you were better studied in terms of art. calvin. prithee, mr. antinomian, sit down and hold thy peace a while, you'll never leave till you have put the gentleman into a fustian fume, and then we shall lose his good company; pray go on, mr. neonomian. antinom. i smell him where he will be. calvin. nay, not yet neither. neonom. i tell you then, if i may be permitted to speak what an error this antinomian holds. he saith, 1. men have nothing to do in order to salvation. 2. nor is sanctification, a way of any person to heaven. 3. nor can the graces or duties of believers; no, nor faith itself do them the least good to prevent the least evil. 4. nor are they of the least use to their peace or comfort. 5. yea, though christ be explicitly owned, and they be done in the strength of the spirit of god. 6. and a believer ought not to think he is the more pleasing to god, by any grace he acteth, or good he doth. 7. nor may men expect any good to a nation by their humiliation, earnest prayer for reformation of a people. calvin. now sir you have a rowland for your oliver, here's a long and strong indictment laid in against you, i wish you a good delivery, mr. antinomian. antinom. as i take it, there's about seven things you charge me with, i pray make your proofs per parts; i shall be abler to give my answer. neonom. you have told us, seeing all things are settled by christ for us of free gift; i say, all we do is for christ himself, and not for ourselves.— christ comes and brings justification, loving kindness and salvation.— what needs then all this travel for life and salvation, seeing it is here already? but seeing we get nothing by it, etc. d. w. from dr. cr. p. 41, 42. antinom. by this you prove, that men have nothing to do in order to salvation. gentlemen, i must crave your patience, to hear that part of my discourse that you may judge of it. it was upon john 14.16. i was saying, d. cr. p. 41. how near hath christ made the way unto the father? thus near that he that believeth shall be saved. let me be bold to tell you, you are in as full a state of justification before god. [now mark, i was speaking of passing from one state to another in justification; and do you not remember what he said? [that whatever he should speak now referring to any act of grace, except believing penitently, refers not to forgiveness of sins,] and now he allegeth what i said upon that account to prove a change about sanctification. you are in a true state of salvation, you that are believers, are as those that are already in heaven, d. cr. p. 41. believe in the lord jesus christ and thou shalt be saved: such a near way christ is, yet still people will be cavilling, where are good works all this while? what justified by faith alone! saved by christ alone! let me tell you, if christ be the way [of justification, and only federal condition of eternal life, i. e. of all salvation in faith and holiness] then works are not the way, except they be christ, but must we not work? yea, but for other purposes, the lord hath propounded other ends, [not meriting your salvation] for which you are to work, ye are bought with a price, that's done; therefore glorify god in our bodies, being delivered out of the hands of your enemies, [our state is secured, our safety passed] we serve in holiness and righteousness, etc. do we serve toward deliverance, then it's not past. 1. we are delivered from wrath before we step a step in duties; we do not the duty to be delivered, but we do duty because we are delivered. [and now follows what he chargeth for such a fault, and take notice that i speak all along of the change of our state in justification by faith, and that works have nothing to do in, neither are we to look upon them as such.] all things are settled by christ for us of free gift, all we do is for christ himself, not for ourselves, [i. e. to put ourselves in christ's room, thereby to rob him of his glory,] if we do it for ourselves, we do but labour in vain; suppose we compass never so much good by doing, [thinking thereby to put ourselves into a justified estate] it is but labour in vain, it was compassed beforehand for us, [in the justifying righteousness of christ.— christ brings salvation, enters into covenant; what needs all that travel for life and salvation? i. e. with a design of purchasing it thereby, for all that is said is spoken to the price that christ bought us with, and i instance in running for money, that a man need not run for a price that he hath freely without; so that he that works for justification works in vain, for saith the apostle, the jews that followed after the law of righteousness obtained it not, but ran in vain; and this the apostle means in that place, have ye indeed suffered so much in vain? why? because you obtained not your end thereby, not likely so to do. neonom. but it's not your intention that nothing we do can merit, but not that they are required as the requisite means and way to obtain these blessings. d. w. p. 122. you intent this, p. 45, 46. you say, i will note one thing before i go on to make clear this thing, etc. antinom. i will give you my own words and sense. the words he refers to are part of an answer to an objection. d. cr. p. 45. obj. will, but this is a way to lead to a licentious life. answ. i say the contrary, it is the only way to lead men into a more enlarged way of holiness than any way in the world, which i will declare to you by and by. we have showed that christ is a safe way, a lightsome way, a near way; we will make good now that the consideration that christ is a free way to all comers, is the only way to build up men to an enlarged course of holiness, more than the greatest self-denial, frequentest prayer, greatest study, bearing down of the body, etc. and this will further appear, if we inquire how christ is such a way, as there is no way wherein there is a quicker, wherein there is a better riddance of businesses and employments believers have, than in christ; [now comes in what he quotes] i will note one thing by the way, to make clear this thing; viz. it is a received conceit of many, that obedience is the way to heaven; and though it be not causa regnandi, yet it is via ad regnum. let me give you a hint or two of another thing, d. cr. p. 45. or two, and lay down this position; there is no believer under heaven, that doth come to heaven before he hath served his generation, there is no person that is a believer and hath received christ, but that after he hath received christ he is created in christ jesus unto good works, that he should walk in them. [here you may see i am for good works in a gospel way and sense,] i say, he that sprinkleth 〈◊〉 with clean water, that they may become clean from all their filthiness, writes his law in their inward parts, etc. so that i say [mark well my words] that sanctification of life is an inseparable companion with the justification of a person by the grace of christ, but withal i must tell, that all this sanctification is not the way of that justified person to heaven. it is the business of a person that he hath to do in his way to christ. dr. cr. p. 46. now i show that christ is the way, and nothing else, [sanctification is part of the salvation wrought in christ; and the apostle, heb. 6. calls the works of sanctification things that accompany salvation,] therefore i say this is no derogation from works, to say they are not the way to heaven, but that they are concomitant to heaven unto persons that shall come thither; [and now comes in what he rehearseth,] the truth is, since redemption is managed by christ, the lord hath pointed out other ends and purposes for our obedience than our salvation, [i. e. than purchasing or procuring, or qualifying conditionally in your sense, for savation,] in this sense, is not the end of any good work we do, [in plain truth good works are a great part of the salvation itself that christ is the way to.] the ends of our good works are, manifestation of our obedience and subjection, the setting forth of the praise of the glory of the grace of god, and as such so actually glorifying him in the world, the doing good to others; to be profitable to men, the meeting of the lord jesus christ in them, where he will be found according to the promise. these are the special ends that obedience is ordained for salvation, being settled firm before, to keep the true prerogative of christ alone, that no righteousness of man entrench upon his privileges. [now judge you whether i detract from works of sanctification, as mr. neonomian would make me to do, because i allow them not that place in justification and salvation, which he would have them have, and that belongs to christ alone.] neonom. he puts this objection, we had as good sit still. he that works all day, and gets no more than he had in the morning, etc. answ. let me tell you, the prevention of evil, if there be reality of evil in it, obtaining of good, if there be reality of good, peace of conscience, joy in the holy ghost, pardon of sin, the infallibility of non-miscarriage, the light of god's countenance, all these you aim at, are abundantly provided for you, and established firmly on you by the mere grace of god in you before you perform any thing whatsoever. d. cr. p. 151. antinom. i intent no more than that we are blessed with all spiritual blessings in christ; and we can have no greater security of all these benefits, than in christ jesus; and that all performances upon account of our security is nothing to faith in christ, who is the yea and amen of the promises;— and therefore i show the vanity of proposing that to ourselves by our works which is done in christ for us, and can be done by none else, if we have faith to see it; and yet i still show how great a thing salvation is, and good works in a due manner of performance, from true principles, and a right end. i shown that our perseverance depends not on our works, and that i am ready to maintain. — i say, god hath settled all things that appertain to life and godliness in his son jesus christ, and upon you for his own sake, and settled everlastingly and vnchangeably upon you;— so that there can be nothing to make them more secure than the grant of god himself hath made them;— i showed, that a good child knowing he is heir, and hath the estate settled on him, doth not obey his parents in order to a better security for the estate than he hath; he serves not now to get his father's land, but to honour and glorify his father, that hath so freely settled the estate upon him.— without respect to good or evil the lord hath everlastingly established all that ever he meant to do, [i. e. good or evil of ours, and in us.] the lord doth nothing upon conditions in his people, d. cr. p. 652. as if he did refer himself still to these conditions, and did suspend what he did intent to do to his people till he did perceive how they carry themselves to him. all that i aim at is this, that it is not a vain thing to yield due obedience to any thing that god requires, though the lord intent not ye shall by your obedience gain life. neonom. he saith, when you fast, pray, mourn, keep the sabbath, etc. your eye should be simply to the glory of god, and not to gain that which is already ours in christ, etc. antinom. all this i say still, if in these duties we think and propose to ourselves to obtain life, we are acted by the righteousness of the law, which is opposed to the righteousness of faith, etc. d. cr. 134. neonom. he saith, let subduing of sin alone for peace. d. cr. p. 13. antinom. it is an easy thing to expose sermons, and any continued discourses to contempt, if men will pick out here and there an expression, and not show the reason and dependence thereof— my words are,— how much filthiness is there in all your wr●stlings? i say, how many defects and infirmities might you see: can you choose but fall foul upon your own spirits for these infirmities and defects of your best performances, seeing the wages of sin is death, what can you run to then? none but christ, none but christ; whilst your acts in respect of filthiness proclaims nothing but war, christ alone and his blood proclaims nothing but peace. therefore i will give you this hint by the way, when i speak of the power of christ subduing sin, because from the power of it in man, they are apt to think their peace depends upon their subduing of their sin: if their sins be subdued than they have peace; let subduing of sin alone for peace, let christ have that which is his due, it is he alone that speaks peace, [he is our peace, i mean not that subduing of sin should be let alone, but doing it for such an end that belongs to christ alone.]— if you fetch your peace from any thing in the world but christ, you will fetch it from where it is not. dr. c. p. 13. neonom. he saith, i must tell you there is not any thing you perform, when you have attained the highest pitch, that hath any prevalency or availableness to produce or bring forth the least good unto yourselves. d. cr. p. 150. antinom. i say there is nothing you can do by which you ought to expect any grace to yourselves in doing it. my meaning was, that our bare duties are not available to good in themselves; paul may plant, etc. but god must give the increase; we may eat, drink and sleep, but not expect good from the things themselves, as in efficacy, so in respect of purchase and procurement; what doth our righteousness profit god; therefore i add the words of the apostle; you are not your own, you are bought with a price; christ hath redeemed us, that we should not henceforth live to ourselves, but unto christ that died for us.— though some look at this as a discouragement, yet there is a spirit of ingenuity in a believer, that he will be as industrious to glorify god, and to do good to men, as if he did it for himself. neonom. he saith, if a soul get under full-sail, filled with a stiff gale of the spirit, when floods of melt flow from it, if they can cry mightily, etc. hereby they think they shall get pardon, settle spiritual, civil and spiritual healings, etc. d. w. from d. cr. p. 235, 236. antinom. i was showing how man's righteousness is exalted above what is meet sometimes when duties are accompanied with christ's assistances by his spirit;— and said, to clear it up, that it's true indeed, whilst a believers heart is overcast with gross vapours, and is more than ordinary dull in hearing, flies low, and slow in praying, and is somewhat stiff and untoward in fasting without measure; such righteousness goes usually for loss and dung. but if a soul get under full-sail, filled with a stiff gale of the spirit, etc. [than follows what he rehearseth;] and then it follows, such courses some think will turn away, and reconcile god to a person of people: but under favour the attributing of such efficacy to this righteousness, though thus assisted by christ's spirit, is more than is mere, though christ be explicitly owned as the author of such assistances. [and this is a failing very ordinary among believers, to ascribe an atoning efficacy to their duties, especially when performed in the best manner, when it is hard to keep their hearts in the right frame; not so duly considered that their persons and services when seemingly best performed have all their acceptation in christ, and they are apt to think that they procure more at the hands of god when they seem to be carried forth, more than when they see as it were a withdrawment of those assistances, and so spoil their best duties for want of due thorough renunciation of their own righteousness, and that of their best duties; whereas god never intended that any of our best graces or duties should be of an atoning nature, to rob christ of the glory of his atonement. it may be, mr. neonomian, you never had any such experience of the working of corruption in your best duties, for the low esteem you have of christ's righteousness, and the high valuation you have of your own, as appears by these discourses. but know, that the more we are carried forth in duty the greater is our temptation to spiritual pride and selfulness. neonom. his common phrase is, we must not work for life, but from life. d. w. p. 124. antinom. yes, and it's a great gospel principle, being rightly understood; we must not work for life as a reward of work, for this was the tenor of the covenant of works, but from life received, being dead in ourselves by nature, and in respect of the law condemned persons; we must work not to obtain eternal life by working, but having received life from it to work. christ saith, he is the life, the resurrection, and the life; where's the man that can work without life to work from? neonom. but he understands this you'll say only of external duties, but not of the actings of grace; no, i could show you how he saith the same of all graces. antinom. you need not have troubled yourselves with that objection, for i do intent all graces and duties; for they must all be performed from a principle of life received, and not for mercenary designs and ends, thinking that thereby we deserve any thing of the lord, for when we have done all we are unprofitable servants. neonom. he saith, that is the proper work that god hath given to belleving, d. w. p. 124. d. cr. p. 326. not to effect any thing to the good of man, but only to be the witness of that good to the spirit of man, and so give light to that which was hidden before. antinom. you know my opinion, and it's with other divines, that there is justification in heaven and justification in a man's conscience and spirit. d. g. ●. 3●● justification in consciences and spirits of men is the manifestation of that act of god to a man's own spirit, by which a man comes to know, and consequently to rejoice in the justification of god; and so you may read the words, rom: 5.1. bring justified by faith, i. e. through faith having the justification of god evidenced and manifested to our spirits, we have peace with god. i contend not with them that say, it justifies virtute objecti, or instrumentaliter— so that i ascribed all the efficacy to christ's righteousness, and not to the act of faith, as a quolifying condition to justify sensu proprio, as you and the arminian's do, and in that sense i spoke against its doing us good, that is in your sense of justification. neonom. he saith, if you have more ability than others in doing, let it not come into your thoughts, d. w. p. 125. d. c. p. 429. as an inducement to think better of yourself, as if you were more accepted of god, or pleasing in his sight. antinom. i believe it is, or should be the spirit of the best of god's children, that they prefer others above themselves, phil. 3. viz. that fear the lord; and think not that there's any thing in them that makes them more accepted than others; but that all that have true faith are equally accepted in the beloved, and that paul's usefulness and apostleship rendered him no more justified than the meanest of the disciples of christ. calvin. you see, mr. antinom. as he is for the exalting christ, so he speaks highly in the commendation, yea, and usefulness of holiness and good works; those diminutive terms that he useth is in respect of purchase, obtaining pardon, or being qualifying conditions for the bestowing of benefits: he holds christ is the great condition both of grace here, and glory hereafter; tho' i confess, i wish mr. antinom. you had spared many expressions, for which i fear the truth suffers, from the ignorant, and more learned of perverse minds, that make it their business to load the doctrine of freegrace with all scorn and contempt, and take all occasions to wound the truth, because of some rash or overzealous expressions used by you and others, which it may be, had you foreseen, you would have prevented by not using them; or had you printed your own sermons, you would not have sent to the press. mr. neonom. i pray let us have this doctrine delivered in your own words and expressions. neonom. the truth is this: that though neither holiness, sincere obedience or good works do make any atonement for sin, or are in the least meritorious righteousness, whereby salvation is caused; or for which this or any blessing becomes due to us by debt; yet as the spirit of god freely worketh all holiness, and enableth to sincere obedience and good works; so the lord jesus hath of his own grace, and for his own merits, promised to bring to heaven, such as are partakers of true holiness, perform his sincere obedience, and do those good works perseveringly. antinom. you allow christ the honour of atonement for sin; but how far i know not, by what follows; his atonement reacheth not the breach of the new law conditions, but only so far as refers to sins against the old law, of which you will not allow, impenitency and unbelief be a breach; so that there must be some way in the new law found out to expiate and appease god for them without christ's atonement: beside, the conditions of it, it being only imperfect obedience, there will need nothing but the performance of the constituted condition, which whether perfect or imperfect, being performed as well as is required, tho' sinfully imperfect, leaves no place for sacrifice or atonement; hence you allow christ's righteousness to have merited blessings with the same reserve, which you are not willing to speak out, viz. that christ hath purchased and merited, that we shall come under new and milder terms with god, or god rather with us: we thank you no more than we do the papists, for saying, christ hath merited all, and is a cause, even as the creation was of the covenant of works. god's the cause of all, for he made all; so christ hath merited all that follows, whatever new laws and conditions follow, and upon which terms benefits become due to us [you should have said to mankind] by debt. we may challenge the privileges of compounding with god upon such terms as we like better than the former; but our failure in performing those terms that christ agreed for, will bring us under new arrearages to god. and for your saying, the holy spirit worketh freely the said conditional holiness, it helps not, which notwithstanding your setting aside the word merit, is truly foe virtute compacti, tho' not valoris intrinseci, as much as adam's would have been. and as to the spirit, you ascribe the free giving and working of it; you give no more to it than adam had in the state of innocency; and not so much; for god had given and wrought in adam that perfection and strength of grace, whereby he might have stood, if he would. you say, there is a promise made by christ of glory, upon condition of their good works and perseverance. your suggestion to us is of two covenants of grace procured by christ for us: one, the promise of the state of grace and justification, provided we fulfil the conditions of faith and repentance, whereby we have the first justification. the second covenant is of a state of glory, upon condition of perseverance in good works; which condition if we fail of, we lose all the blessings of eternal life: so that our glorification stands upon more hazardous terms than eternal life did to adam; for upon one good work he should have entered into full possession of eternal life, and a confirmation therein; whereas we must stand upon the test all our days, and may lose all at last; for the works must be performed perseveringly, or else no penny for all the pater-nosters. neonom. yea, he must perform this sincere obedience, and do these good works perseveringly; and he appoints these as the way and means of a believer's obtaining salvation, and several other blessings, requiring these as indispensable duties and qualifications of all such as he will so save and bless, and excluding all that want or neglect them, or live under the power of what's contrary thereto, viz. as profaneness, rebellion, and utter unfruitfulness. antinom. gentlemen, you see how well truth is stated here. 1. christ hath promised to bring to heaven such as are partakers of holiness, as a condition of his second new law: as if the promise of eternal life were not at once the promise of the life of grace and glory. 2. his way and means is a conditional qualifying means, obtaining the promise federally. 3. his means are two, sincerity and perseverance: sincerity must not be mingled with hypocrisy; for though other qualifications be imperfect, yet sincerity must be perfect, and must give perfection to all the rest federally. but a man is not confirmed in the state of grace, nor is it secured by one, two, or a hundred sincere works. his sincerity is not a condition to be depended upon if he persevere not; if he fall into evil works, or perform not good works sincerely, his heart hath been hypocritical, he's gone for the present, he must begin again to be sincere and persevere, but will lose his condition and his hope upon it so often, that he is persuaded at last to leave tiring himself, to get and keep sincerity, and perform sincere works, that he thinks it the best way to give it over till he is going to die; that he hath no more to do than the thief upon the cross; for he reckons he can be sincere there for a spurt to help him at a dead lift, and hath nothing else to do, and it will be no long work for him. and thus your doctrine comes to be the greatest doctrine of looseness and profaneness: your unperformable foederal conditions, putting men upon an utter despair of ever attaining to any true allowable holiness. and it seems these are undispensible qualifications. the meaning of this can be no other, but a falling away from a state of grace; for if indispensable, than a breach of these conditions is not to be dispensed with. now i say, if sincere obedience and perseverance be indispensible qualifications, after a man hath begun in sincere obedience, and continued some time, and then fall into hypocrisy, or some such sin as david's, which was profaneness; or some such sin as asa's, which was persecution; and peter's, in denial of his master: these are sins of rebellion: what must such an one conclude? and what else can you now say to him, but that he is fallen from the blessing, and promised heaven? he is in a state of damnation: all his former faith and obedience is lost. what shall a minister say to him now under the deepest sense of sin? saith he, i am certainly damned, i have fallen short of an indispensible qualification for heaven. nay, you tell me, christ doth exclude those that have any want of sincerity and perseverance, or such as have neglected it. neonom. say to him! i'll tell you what i would say to him; jesus christ died to save sinners, provided they repent, and believe they shall be justified, and provided they practise sincere obedience, and persevere in it, they shall be saved so as to go to heaven; but all your justification signifies nothing, unless you persevere in sincerity. i would say to him, go, and repent, and believe, and persevere again in sincere obedience, and they you will see how it is; but never be so presumptuous as to believe you shall be saved till you have persevered, and all your comfort of heaven lies upon this. antinom. those that know christ, and have experienced the temptations of satan, and the workings of unbelief in themselves, will tell you, that this is a soul-destroying doctrine, such as drives poor sinners off from god, brings them out of love with christ, carries them back to the yoke of bondage, their own righteousness, and destroys them by security or despair at last. neonom. this antinomian is honestly zealous for the honour of free grace, d. w. pref. d. w. p. 125. but you may see by his discourse, that he hath not light sufficient to see how god hath provided for this in his rectoral distribution of benefits by a gospel rule; come i'll tell you wherein the difference doth not lie between us first. 1. it's not whether god hath decreed that the elect shall be holy and obedient, and so partake of saving blessings. antinom. but yet he hath not so decreed it as to all the certainty, but that their salvation depends on a contingent proposition, i. e. if they believe sincerely, work and persevere, they shall be saved, and they are to conclude nothing as to the goodness and certainty of their estate from the doctrine of election, redemption, and the great and precious promises believed, till they have sincerely and perseveringly obeyed, and then they may when the wruttles are upon them, and death pangs, if they have their senses, but never before. neonom. nor is it a question, whether every work will fail to save a christless unbeliever? antinom. what mean you here? one would think you mean that some works will fail, and some not fail; but because i find after you affirm the question, i take it thus, that though a christless unbeliever can be saved by no works, yet he that believes in christ is saved by some works, which is at the best very roughhewn divinity, hardly protestant. neonom. nor is it the differ whether christ hath paid the price of temporal, spiritual and eater ●ssings. antinom. ay, and to muc● pose if we must pay upon an after bargain, and run the gauntlet in a covenant of works, and have no certainty of our salvation, but according to the payment that we make; and if we fail to pay rend duly whether we have money or no, we must be turned out of doors; indeed friend you sit at a hard rack-rent, and you must account for all dilapidatitions too, and its danger, but that you'll be turned out of all at last. neonom. nor whether the essential blessings of the gospel becomes the inheritance of a believer as soon as he is united to christ? antinom. it seems the circumstantials are not, the apostle mistook, when he said, we are blessed with all spiritual blessings in christ jesus; he should have excepted some and reserved them for good works; but as to those essential, how comes it that a man can have no more than is of a contingent proposition, the judgement whereof is opinion. neonom. nor whether it be the influence of the spirit that we are holy, obedient, and enabled to every good work? d. w. p. 125. antinom. nor would it have been the question, if adam had persevered in the performance of the conditions of the law covenant, he would have done all by the influence of the spirit. neonom. nor whether it is for the sake of christ's merits and incense, and of free grace, that any grace or duty of ours is rewarded, or becomes the means of any benefit; these i affirm. antinom. yes, for it was through these merits and grace that god would suffer us to try for life in another covenant of works, he might have taken the advantage of our breaking of the first covenant, as he did upon the fallen angels; but christ hath merited, and grace hath been so far free as to set up another covenant of works, that we may try for it once more; as for your affirming or denying it signifies not much, men that are used to speak always with mental reservation, will resolve cases of conscience like the oracle of apollo, that you'll come from them as wise as you went. neonom. nor whether any holiness internal or external, any obedience, work or duty, do at all merit the promise, or is the meritorious cause of righteousness, for which any promised mercy is bestowed; this i deny. antinom. it seems you abdicate the word merit, but if it be an honest reward as due debt, it is as good, the catholics will bate you the word if you allow the thing, though you put a fool's coat upon it. neonom. i own that all is of gift, though given in an order suitable to our condition in a state of trial. antinom. so was creation and created holiness in adam, and god's taking him into covenant in an order suitable to his condition in a state of trial, but you see what his trial came to. we are miserable if our state in grace be such a state of trial. neonom. nor whether the law be a rule of duty? this i affirm and you too; though you deny any threatening or promise to back god's law, as to the elect. d. w. p. 126. antinom. we affirm it to be not only a rule of duty, but to stand in full force, as to all its promises and threaten, that it still promiseth life to perfect obedience, and threatens death to the least disobedience in all without distinction, therefore we deny not threaten and promises to back god's law as to the elect. neonom. nor whether the elect aught to be holy, and will be holy, this you own, but you place it wholly on the decree and christ's care. antinom. gentlemen, observe now after all this noise he owns that i say the elect aught to be holy, and will be holy; but saith i place it wrong; can i place it better than on christ's care? i think in all our fears and doubtings we should cast all our care upon him by believing his truth and faithfulness in the promise, because he careth for us, and hath said, he will never leave nor forsake us, i desire to have no better security for holiness and perseverance in it than the love of god, and the care of christ; is this a fault? neonom. you deny that god hath required as it indispensibly necessary to our inheriting any blessing promised to the elect. antinom. in your sense i do, and if you stand so much on those terms, i shall justly call them into question, so far as is necessary in my sense; by works you here chief understand, as i take it, works after faith and repentance, are such works indispensibly necessary to the inheriting any blessing promised to the elect? is not union with christ, faith, etc. blessings promised to the elect? what works was done before, and after the saving union with christ, if they were indispensibly necessary, how could infants be saved? and how do they inherit blessings that repent and believe just before they go out of the world? and how came the thief upon the cross to be saved? neonom. you judge christ hath done all for us, and enjoineth nothing for us to do in order to any good thing. antinom. he hath done all in the way of covenant condition, and doth not admit us to be rivals or partners with him in our best works; and how can i think that he enjoineth us nothing, when i own we ought to be holy, and shall be holy? from what should it be but from christ's commands and care to furnish us with rules, principles, and strength to be holy? doth he not work in us to will and to do? neonom. nor whether a penitent believer shall be saved, if he die before he hath time for further obedience. antinom. then your indispensible necessity falls to the ground; and it seems the first law of grace will save a man, and the second is not indispensibly necessary; nay, it may be a kindness to die upon the fulfilling the condition of the first law by faith and repentance, before he comes to run the risk of fulfilling the condition of the second law by persevering works, lest he lose all again. i am glad i have done with your whethers, let's come next to your neither's; for we are as wise as we were before about our question. neonom. i'll tell you then the real difference, whether faith and repentance be indispensibly required that we may be justified for the sake of christ's righteousness? antinom. gentlemen, do but take notice how fond he is of his first justification by works, which we dispatched t'other day, and do declare we are not justified by faith and repentance in your sense, and that to be justified by faith and repentance as conditionating federal qualifications, though merited by christ, is downright popery, whether you call such conditions merits or no; and therefore in affirming it you assert popish doctrine, and that will stand to, though all the divines in town affirm it with you; and if what's done already will not be enough, we'll have t'other touch upon that point when you please. neonom. it's whether holiness or sincere obedience and perseverance, are the way to heaven, and are required of the elect as the conditions of their obtaining salvation. antinom. you should have told us what you mean by a way, whether the first way or second, remote or next, antecedent or consequent conditions; what salvation you mean, whether the salvation of justification, sanctification, or glorification; there's as much reason good works should qualify us for the salvation of sanctification, as for justification and glorification; how comes it to pass that all salvation is not obtained the same way? if we must obtain salvation by good works, we must do good works before we are saved: do we not obtain all salvation in christ? we are created in christ jesus unto good works; but i find you'll have nothing to be salvation but glorification, and that must be earned at our finger's ends, and we may lose all at last for all christ, if we do not look the better to it, to perform sincere persevering works till the last breath; the first justification though by works, gives no evidence for heaven, you'll be sure to be far enough from the error (as you call it) of faith justifying evidentially. we say, christ is the way, john 14 6. and holiness our business in that way. neonom. or whether heaven is promised to them if they persevere in holiness and sincere obedience, and the loss of heaven threatened, in case they continue wicked and disobedient, or after grace turn apostates. antinom. observe what doctrine here is: 1. here his discourse is limited to the elect. 2. he supposes the elect may lose heaven. 3. that their obedience and perseverance are the conditions of their obtaining salvation, you take him for any salvation, for that of the first justification, which he makes to be by works; and perseverance the obtaining condition of his second justification. but i pray, what's the condition of persevering sanctification, which is salvation too? 4. he doth not only suggest but express falling away from grace, for what is that when he suggests an elect person may fall away from grace, turn apostate, and lose heaven? 5. he suggests that the elect person before faith must perform these works before he can be saved by justification; but this doctrine is nothing with him; this doctrine i deny from the bottom of my heart, notwithstanding his affirming of it: is this right stating of truth and error? neonom. the question is, whether the good works of a believer are rewardable of grace for christ's sake. antinom. the question hath been clearer stated to your purpose long ago between the papists and we, whether christ hath merited that we may merit? whether you'll call your doctrine the doctrine of merit or not: we'll call a spade a spade, and antichrist must not creep in amongst us again with his serpentine tricks to beguile us, as the devil did into paradise to rob us of our first righteousness. neonom. whether by the gospel, as a rule of judgement, whoever is unholy, utterly disobedient, altogether wilfully neglectful of good works, shall be condemned; this i affirm, and you deny. antinom. 1. the gospel is no law as it hath to do with the unbelieving, wicked world. 2. it is no rule of judgement, that's the law only. 3. the gospel did never condemn any elect person to eternal death; neither is any elect person as such under a contingency of salvation, whether he be holy or unholy; though as sinners, unholy and wicked persons they are, for as such they may be saved, and they may not, but it's not so with the elect as such. neonom. whether god hath promised several blessings (distinct from eternal life) to the exercise of several graces, and performances of several duties, as to the improvement of grace, etc. this you deny, and i affirm. antinom. we ask all outward mercies for the sake of christ with submission to his will; we reckon them not due to us because of our duties performed, and the connexion of blessing (as you say) and duty, is but the connexing two blessings in the promise upon the same condition, for duty is a blessing to the saints, and part of that salvation purchased by christ, and promised in the covenant. i divide not what god hath joined together, and call duty not a condition, and outward or spiritual good things the salvation; for i look upon the service of god to be the great thing we are redeemed to, the salvation bestowed on us, and not the condition of it. neonom. whether upon the acting such graces, and upright performing such duties, a christian may not in the virtue of such promises, expect such blessings, and fear the neglect thereof as a bar thereto: this you deny, and i affirm. antinom. and you affirm and teach a low servile spirit, and too bold to set aside christ out of the promise, and challenge any mercy at the hands of god upon the account of duty; i think the best of the saints have always thought themselves less than the least of god's mercies, and all their righteousness, i. e. their sincere obedience and perseverance to be but filthy rags; but that's false doctrine with you, as i suppose we shall hear of e'er long. neonom. yet allowing that god may sometime exert his sovereignty in giving some blessings to a believer not answering these rules, and he may exchange a blessing of a lower nature. antinom. i e. rules of distributive justice in rewarding him according to his works; and if god must do it, he must fly to his sovereignty for permission to go beside this rule, and no more than in exchanging one good thing for another; there's no such dispensation in the covenant of grace. what if god should deny to give the blessing worked for, and give no succedaneum? neonom. whether god is not more pleased with a man in the exercise of grace and holiness, than when he neglects them, and doth the contrary. this i affirm. antinom. let me ask you, do you mean in a way of benevolence or complacency? in respect of his person or his services? and do you mean, he is pleased for the duties sake, or for christ's sake? neonom. now i shall proceed to confirm the truth, and the points are too many to admit enlargement, and many carry that evidence, that the whole scope of the bible must be forgone when they are denied. can two or three wrested texts over-turn the constant language of the scriptures? antinom. you should have first stated the question in clear terms, and let it have been but one, and not reserve to yourself your principal intention, and give us out 20 whethers and neither's, delivered forth in a heap of amphibologies, which having been sufficiently demonstrated to you, it signifies little for the discovery of truth to join issue with you upon such rambling discourses as you make; and it's easier to call scriptures brought against you wrested texts, than to prove them so. neonom. and it is strange, that all religion and humane nature itself in a state of trial should be so fully struck at, from a gross conceit that the infinite god cannot foresee and purpose events, unless it must null his government over reasonable subjects, and prevent his distribution of rewards and punishments by a stated rule. d. w. p. 128. antinom. here is nothing but huff and bounce, to talk at this rate, of wrested texts, overturning the language of scripture and humane nature; gross concel●s of god, etc. now let me tell you, one of the wrested texts, which in its plain literal sense must overthrow your whole scheme of distribution of rewards and punishments in the way that you propose: tit. 3.4, 5, 6, 7. after the kindness and love of god our saviour towards man appeared, not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy hath he saved us, etc. i'll tell you what mr. beza saith upon the place,— certainly not only the works of the ceremonial law, but all works are at once excluded, or else the antithesis of mercy would signify nothing here. but some will say, it's to be understood of works preceding faith, and therefore omnia opera preparatoria, all preparatory works are excluded; and then tell us what it is to save; whether this be nothing else than to ascribe a faculty of deserving to a thing; he that saith this, doth manifestly wrest the word of god? for so the benefit of our salvation is taken away from the righteousness of subsequent works as well as of precedent; which appears from the opposition made between works and grace; as also from our regeneration and justification by grace in the two next verses. but you say, the covenant of grace is a rule of distribution of rewards and punishments according to works, (which you explain doing, performing actions on our parts) which is to make the covenant of grace a covenant of works. and you insinuate, that humane nature stands in a state of trial for salvation, as if something were to be done, and is expected to be done by the natural man, in order to the obtaining of grace. neonom. what reflection is it on divine wisdom, and the glorious platform of the redeemers work and kingdom, that he cannot purchase benefits for sinners, unless he forbear to use them as motives to obedience? yea, the whole of his serious plead with men must be a mockery, rather than he must be allowed to bestow his benefits in a rectoral way. antinom. what a reflection is on the wisdom, grace and power of god, that he cannot bestow his benefits freely, that he can act no way towards poor sinful and miserable creatures, but in a way of justice, in propounding rewards to their works; and these must be the motives to duty, that he will pay them well for their duties! and what reflection on the whole work of redemption, that all that sinners have got by it, is the procurement of an offer of salvation in a covenant of works, by offering them to live upon the condition of doing; to allow him to have purchased benefits, but we must pay for them before we have them, and not be out of debt at the first payment neither. christ indeed, you'll say, gives us the buying, and saith, that he'll get little or nothing by it. he hath set a moderate reasonable price upon them, but we must pay in such money as we have; yea, and all that we have: and because we have not the money to lay down at once, he admits us to pay by parts, (which is a favour;) but if we make a failure, that we persevere not in sincere doing, out of doors we must go: reprobate silver shall we be called, because the lord hath rejected us. your meaning of a rectoral way i take to be nothing else but in a way of distributive justice, dispensing as king and lawgiver in the covenant of grace, making and executing this law, do and live; for you will not have the covenant of grace to run in this tenure, live and do. therefore he must act no otherwise, than in a covenant of works, do and live, and accordingly dispense rewards and punishments. neonom. that you mistake me not, when i speak of holiness, i mean all good works, internal, external, praying, hearing, exact walking, alms-deeds, any act of obedience directed by the word of god: by doing the same actions are intended. believing in christ is doing; it is an action on our part, etc. d. w. p. 129. antinom. we ken your meaning better than you have declared; and then why did you not plainly state your question thus, whether that christ offers to save sinners, and continue them in a state of salvation on the terms or condition of doing? and you might have saved this labour of beating the hedge to start the hare. believing is doing, it seems, and so it saves as a work. neonom. my positions that i will prove then are as follow: 1. sinners have much to do in order to salvation: it's the scope of the bible since the fall. we have nothing to do in a way of atonement and purchase, but in order to our participation, we must repent, believe. all the revelations of god are descriptions of duty and benefits, but an injunction of duty in a connection with benefits, etc. antinom. the whole scope of the scriptures is not a revelation of a covenant of works, or of many covenants of works, but of one law-covenant of works, and of one covenant of grace made by way of promise, and executed by free-gift; the righteousness thereof is the gift of righteousness for the condition; the promise is performed in gift; the gift of god is eternal life, rom. 5. you say nothing is required in a way of purchase and atonement, i. e. in the way of the first purchase: but where works are a prerequisite condition, it makes a second purchase, if but of participation. if i purchase a house for a child or relation, and lay down the price of 100 l. and tell him he shall have this house if he gives me 20 shillings of his own earnings, and this contract brought into covenants, this purchase will put him upon paying this contract-money, and demand his bargain; and his money is purchase money, tho' it be not the first purchase-money. so that you help not the matter at all, by saying in order to participation; and as to atonement, he needs none, if he perform the condition required; no, nor a mediator; for christ in your sense should be only the mediator of the old covenant, but he is ill termed by the scripture the mediator of the new covenant. you say, revelations are descriptions of duties and benefits; i say, discoveries and promise of benefits and duties. you say, an injunction of duty in a connection of benefits; i say, a promise of benefits, rather with connection of duties. but indeed, the covenant of grace is an offer and gift of benefits in service and enjoyments: for duty is one of the great privileges we are brought into by the covenant; and such is the connection of promised salvation unto sinners. there's the salvation of faith and holiness, and all the connex propositions that is made use of, as that rom. 10.9. and others import nothing, but that he that is saved by christ partakes of all his salvation; if in justification, then in sanctification and glorification; but christ never propounds privileges as motives to duty in your sense, by way of payment or reward for the duty done. neonom. 2. there's no one saving benefit granted a sinner, but upon supposition of duty. antinom. what kind of supposition? supposition of duty antecedaneous to it? this is false; faith is a saving benefit, and it's not bestowed with a supposition that any saving duty is precedent to it: so our union to christ, gift of the spirit, justification, yea, the grace of sanctification itself, are all saving benefits of the highest nature. neonom. 3. the influences of the spirit and god's institutions have no causality in our salvation, if men have nothing to do in order to be saved. antinom. that is as much as to say, if we save not ourselves, the spirit cannot save us. we must be our own saviour's first, or the spirit must make us our own saviour's, that we may be saved. i told you adam had been saved by the influences of the spirit, if he had been saved in his innocent state, and it had never the less been a covenant of works. neonom. on what account is it said, that we believe to the saving of our souls, heb. 10.39. and repentance to salvation, 2 cor. 7.10. 1 tim. 4.16? antinom. those expressions are descriptions of true faith and repenrance given, as to that 1 tim. 4.16. we deny not that the covenant of grace hath many exhortations, directions, encouragements to duty, but not antecedent to the promise. the general promise is first participated of, before any duty is or can be performed; and after participation of the promise, consequent to it, and effects of it, particular duties and promises do follow. neonom. the destruction of sinners under the gospel is still laid to not doing, john 5.40. their not coming, not turning and repenting. antinom. yea, their moral inability and perverseness is that which they are under the condemnation for: falling upon them in their apostasy, and so their refusing a remedy, is part of their condemnation under the law. and therefore our saviour saith, such unbelievers are condemned already, they remain under the power and sentence of the first condemnation. neither is the destruction of sinners laid to their not doing, but not believing in christ. believing is opposed to doing, because god will not have us to be saved by doing. and when a sinner comes, he is not saved by his act in coming, but by christ to whom he is come. neither doth he come till he is saved by the father's drawing him; and christ finding every sinner before he comes, shows that he is a lost sinner, and never comes to salvation, till salvation comes to him. neonom. if men have nothing to do for salvation, than christ hath no rule to judge them that live under the gospel.— christ proceeds on the difference of men's carriage and tempers at the last day. consider any description of the last day, you'll find god saves and damns with respect to men's neglect and compliance with the gospel. antinom. your argument seems to run thus: upon the same terms that man shall be judged at the last day, upon the same shall they be saved now: but men shall be judged by their works at the last day, ergo, saved by works now. i deny your major: if that were true, you might have some pretence, that the covenant of grace was a covenant of works. there's a great deal of difference between christ's proceed in the covenant of grace, and the judgement of the last day. 1. christ in covenant of grace comes not as a judge to condemn the world, but to save it. 2. christ first saves his church, and exerts his offices in that salvation, first, as priest, to make atonement; as prophet, to teach by his word and spirit; as king, to conquer and subdue their hearts unto himself, and all this is done before he rules and governs them. 3. christ in the covenant of grace acts not in his regal power, as king of the world, but as king to his church; his mediatorial offices are all exerted towards his redeemed ones, in order to the saving of them. all final unbelievers are judged as such as are under the condemnation of the law; and their sins only judged the more aggravated, because of their refusal of a remedy. the lord jesus christ shall be revealed from heaven in plaming fire, taking vengeance upon them that know not god, and those that obey not the gospel of our lord jesus christ. the slighting and rejecting a remedy offered, is a ground of more severe proceeding in the way of execution of the sentence which the condemned person lay under before. how shall ye escape, that neglect so great salvation. the talents mentioned, matth. 25.21, 24, 28. refer only to the distinction that appears between professors. some act from common grace only, some by special grace: some are carried no further than common grace will carry them, and therefore bring not forth real fruit unto god, and are not in christ jesus, have only common graces and gifts. neonom. i could easily demostrate, that if men have nothing to do in order to salvation, the ministry of christ and his apostles— is all vanity and falsehood, etc. they are cold plead with sinners that are not backed with life and death. antinom. it's easy to demostrate that an unsaved person can do nothing in order to salvation; and if they can, the doctrine of christ and his apostles is false. for christ himself saith, without me ye can do nothing; and we are sanctified in christ jesus, and created in him to good works, and christ worketh in us to will and to do: all this is salvation. the first true motive to a sinner is the salvation wrought by christ already for sinners, in his death and satisfaction: the promise of heaven is a secondary motive; but is not to be brought as a primary motive. the rendering life and death to working or not working is the preaching of the law, and of the letter, and makes the gospel such a law as is the ministration of condemnation. and to conclude my answer to the proof of that position, that sinners have much to do in order to salvation: and to prove it in the negative, i offer this argument: they that can do nothing in order to salvation till they are saved, have not much to do in order to salvation: but sinners can do nothing in order to salvation till they are saved, ergo, a sinner hath not much to do in order to salvation in your sense. i leave you to consider of it, and the evidence of it; for you cannot but apprehend the demonstration that is therein; for doing must be here understood effective: such works you speak of, as appears by what follows. neonom. true holiness, sincere obedience or good works, and perseverance, are the way to heaven, and so necessary to the salvation of a believer, that without them he cannot be saved, and continuing in them he shall be saved. antinom. i find you make holiness or sanctification, and salvation two things, whereas sanctification is a part of salvation. true holiness is the way to heaven, but it's salvation as well as the perfection of heaven. holiness is the way to heaven, as childhood, and then youthful age is to manhood in the full stature. grace, it's a growing unto that perfection we shall have in glory, but it's not part of a conditionating way to heaven federally. heaven is bestowed on sanctified one's upon as free a promise as justification and sanctification; and we say it's our business in christ the way. neonom. i shall give you divers arguments against your position. 1. it's not saving faith that is not operative. d. w. p. 132. antinom. the eye is the most sensible part in the body as to the sense of feeling, yet doth not see conomine. by virtue of feeling, faith brings forth fruits, but it doth not justify by its fruits. faith brings forth fruits, but it doth not justify as fruitful; for that would bring us under a covenant of works. neonom. obedience, good works and perseverance preserve us from contrary evils. paul kept his body under, 1 cor. 9.27. antinom. they have their usefulness in their kind; but we are kept from evils by the grace of god, and not by our works; grace also preserves us in them, and not they preserve us. what paul saith he did, he did for the gospel-sake, 1 cor. 9.23. from a gospel-principle, the love of god, arising from the sight and sense of the grace of god in the gospel; and for this end, the glory of god in the promise: and he said, by the grace of god i am what i am; not ascribing foederal efficacy to inherent graces or duties. neonom. gospel-constitutions show that it contains promises and threaten. 2. it shows persevering holiness, sincere obedience or good works as necessary to salvation. antinom. it is one thing what a thing contains, and another what it is. a house contains tables, libraries, beadsteds, men and women; but a house is not therefore a table, library, bead-stead, a man or a woman. the covenant of grace sets up a government, a glorious king, hath laws, directions, precepts, but it is not either of them. whatever the covenant hath, and is inseparable from it, doth not argue the covenant to be the same. a wise man is inseparable from wisdom as such, yet is not wisdom. a rational man hath reason, yet that man is not reason. neonom. most of the promises and threaten that refer to the state in the bible, are evangelical promises and threats. d. w. p. 133. antinom. christ in the bible speaks two ways, by way of precept, and backing them with threats and promises. 1. as king of nations, and governor of the world: so he deals with men as he will deal with them at last in a way of a covenant of works. christ also governs his church, where he hath his peculiar right of legislation, and his government is double. 2. as to his mystical or visible body, his spiritual rule is according to the tenure of the covenant of grace. his government in respect of the mixed and politic state, must be also mixed, because of hypocrisy. christ's government of his churches as visible polities and societies, is a mixed government, having in his house vessels of honour and of dishonour: many are led to external conformity by his precepts and commands legally submitted to only, having not received evangelical principles. quicquid recipitur recipitur ad modum recipientis. precepts and promises of the gospel work no otherwise with them than by a spirit of bondage, and come to them no otherwise than in the tenure of the covenant of works: and thence the lord jesus christ speaks in that manner to whole societies and churches, both under the old testament, and under the new. as to the seven churches of asia, where there were many formal outside professors, that never received the truth of the gospel in the love of it, he tells them what they must expect in that mercenary and bondage-way of profession without life and love, wherein they did walk; yet he governs them as politic head of his church, they having given themselves to his government, at least in an outward profession, according to which he deals with them. and therefore the apostle tells us, the law is not made for the righteous man, in respect of its threats and denunciations, but for the lawless, disobedient, ungodly, etc. or for any thing contrary to sound doctrine, which is according to the glorious gospel of the blessed god, 1 tim. 1.10, 11. the precepts and commands of christ therefore have a double aspect, evangelical and legal, as they are received by his visible subjects. some receive them from law-principles, some from evangelical. neonom. gospel-constitution contains promises and threaten, which affect all of us as a rule of righteousness and misery, by these god governs; and men's hopes and fears should be directed by these as a rule. you not observing this, have opened a door to all licentiousness— your whole scheme implies, that christ doth not distribute blessings and punishments by any rule that refers to the actings of men. d. w. p. 133. antinom. this is a round assertion, that the gospel-constitution is a covenant of works: that constitution that affects all as a rule of righteousness and misery, is a covenant of works of the severest nature: but you say, the gospel-constitution is such, ergo, a covenant of works: for that which affects as a rule of righteousness and misery, on the penalty of non-attainment to that rule; and god deals with men thus by hopes and fears, that men may be governed by them, as they find their righteousness, or fall into their misery, is such an account of a gospel-constitution, that i question not but to find as good in seneca, and among many of the heathen moralists: and if that be my mistake, that i understand not such a gospel-constitution, i must declare i know no such gospel-constitution as yet. neonom. if that covenant of grace be conditional, and faith and repentance are necessary to forgiveness, the substance of it must be granted. antinom. i e. if the covenant of grace be a moral law, and faith and repentance be the moral conditions to forgiveness, the substance must be granted; and it will be so indeed, you will still be leaping in and out of covenant, from righteousness to misery, and from misery to your miserable righteousness, and between your hopes and fears, falling short of the righteousness of god, you will fall deplorably into eternal misery. but in what body of ethics do you find a rule of misery treated of? i think it is not where treated of but in the neonomian theology, no more than the rule of sin, which is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. neonom. most promises and threaten in the bible that refer to the state of souls, are evangelical promises and threats, and are not the sanction of the law of innocence, but of gospel-grace. antinom. the whole word of god contains but law and gospel, and all matters of duty commanded refer to the one or to the other; and all duties enjoined with a connexion of promises and threats, and so performed as such only, are legal, and must be reckoned as belonging to the law of works; but all evangelical duties are performed from a principle of grace, and not for reword or fear. but let us hear your proof. neonom. who can doubt this, if they consider, 1. the covenant of innocency promised to nothing below sinless and perfect obedience. d. w. p. 104. antinom. it promised to man upon obedience which god required, and so it is in every covenant; the obedience required is perfect in respect of the covenant, let it be more or less that is required. no covenant admits of any abatement or defect in the conditions required. 2. if this be a covenant of innocency, your covenant opposed to it must be a covenant of nocency, because, as you say, it admits of a contrary condition, viz. a sinful obedience. neonom. the threaten of the covenant of innocency admitted no repentance, or after-relief to the guilty: they did fix the curse irrevocable in case of any transgression antinom. who told you the covenant of works would admit of no relief for the guilty; if not, how came any? how came it to pass that relief was given before the sentence was passed upon man? surely if the covenant could not admit of it by virtue of its constitution, it could not have been just with god to have given it. 2. as to repentance, it did naturally belong to the breach of god's law, and man's falling into misery. indeed it did not admit of repentance as an expiation of the sin, and a condition of life, no more doth the gospel; so that law and gospel are agreed in that. 3. and as to the irrevocable fixing of the curse, grant it was so, yet not without admitting a relief, provided it might consist with the irrevocable curse, i. e. that the law might have its full satisfaction, both to sufferings and obedience, as it had in christ, the sentence of the law is not repealed or revoked in the covenant of grace, but confirmed and fulfilled, whereby the guilty have their relief. the law is not against the promise, gal. 3.21. no, god forbidden; it's well pleased with it, because it hath all that it can require. the law is not dispensed with in saving sinners, it hath its ends, christ being the end of the law for righteousness to all that believe. the gospel establisheth the law. neonom. 2. no overture of life, or door of hope, or argument to conversion, with hopes of acceptance, could be framed out of those legal threats and promises; turn ye, turn ye, was not the language. antinom. nor from any other upon terms of the like nature, viz. do and live. and why was it, that no door of hope is open to man fallen, upon those terms? it was because he ●id not do, and now is dead, and he must live now before he can do; till grace give life, it's but a conviction to him that god faith, turn you, turn you; for till god give him life, and turn him, turn you, turn you, is but the triumph of the law; and all the turn of a poor sinner in his natural estate, is no more than the turning of a dead carcase; it's dead still, there's no returning to life by turning, till the effectual voice of christ prevail, who is the resurrection and the life. neonom. see any one of the calls to faith and repentance, or holiness thus backed with promises and threats, be not evangelical. antinom. calls to faith and repentance, as commands to sinners to perform the acts and duties thereof upon threats and promises; and as those works that shall bring us into covenant, are so far from being evangelical, as they are highly legal, yea, super-legal. 1. legal; for it makes a covenant of works. what matter if god require not the same individual act as a condition of life, if he require another? what, if instead of forbearing to eat an apple, the condition be now to forbear the eating of a pear? what if perfect obedience was then required, and imperfect now? both were obedience; only now you'd have a dispensation for sin to come into the condition, which reflects upon the holiness and justice of god, or power of god, that he did not, nor could give us life in a way of perfect obedience and sinless, but must have recourse to sinful. likewise the only obligation that lies upon a mere natural man to obey god, when he commands faith and repentance, is the law; for he is under no other law but that of works. 2. it is also super-legal, (1.) to bring fallen man into covenant upon working conditions, is more than was with adam; he did not work himself into covenant; god took him freely into covenant without conditions; all the condition was perseverance for keeping him in covenant, as yours is. (2.) god here requires works where there's no power. god gave adam the power before he required obedience. calvin. in my approbation, gentlemen, you do but lose time. mr. antinom. argues at a mighty low rate; i will take his position and put it into right terms, and then see, mr. antinom. how you like it. salvation by gospel-grace is so necessary to a sinner, for the working faith, obedience, good works and perseverance in the way to heaven, that without it he cannot perform them, or continue in them. antinom. so i like it well. neonom. that's quite contrary to my sense: for i do not say that salvation by grace is the cause of sincere faith, and obedience, and perseverance; but that sincerity in performance of faith and obedience with perseverance is necessary as a cause of salvation. i spoke before of coming into justification by qualifying faith and repentance, by the government of a rule of righteousness and misery, our minds being thereby affected with hopes and fears. i will now show you that by this gospel-constitution, persevering holiness, sincere obedience or good works are necessary to salvation. d. w. p. 137. antinom. i have told you, that if these be right, i. e. true gospel-holiness, they be a great part of salvation, and they are no more necessary than a part is to the whole. all graces and duties are the necessary parts of a saved sinner. and there are two sorts of necessaries, essentially necessary, and necessary as to well-being; as anima rationalis is essentially necessary to a man: but there are many things as to integrity, ornaments and usefulness. now i say, as these things are in salvation, or belonging to it; for being in their kind, for well-being, usefulness, adorning, etc. so they are necessary: but if you look upon them and salvation as two distinct things, they are not necessary to give you right to any part of salvation. neonom. he that made faith necessary to justification, hath made obedience necessary to salvation. antinom. it seems by you justification and salvation are specifically distinct, which they are not; they differ but as genus and spectes; for salvation is the genus both of justification, sanctification and glory: and in the same kind as you make faith and repentance necessary to justification, so you may make your sincerity and perseverance. you do but tyre out yourselves and us in an ambiguous word, in which you would not have us know your meaning; but he must and cannot be mistaken in it. neonom. he hath as well promised heaven to the godly man, as pardon to the believer. antinom. as if a believer were not a godly man, and heaven were not promised to him. a believer is a godly man, and the promise of all things that appertain to life and godliness through the knowledge of him that hath called him to glory and virtue, glory and virtue are promised to him, 2 pet. 1.3. neonom. and our perseverance in holiness and obedience is as truly our way to glory, as the scriptures can describe. antinom. it's one thing to be a way in the covenant-state, and another thing to be a way to it: salvation hath its ways of degrees in it, sanctification is but a degree of glorification. when we are changed into the image of christ, it's from glory to glory by the spirit of god, 2 cor. 3.6. neonom. nothing of these merit heaven; but he that merited heaven, hath peremptorily appointed these to bring us thither. heb. 6.10, 11, 12. antinom. he that merited the end, hath merited the means; and the means to work in such a way as shall not rob him of the honour of his merits: he hath not merited, that we should deserve, but he must have the honour of all our salvation. the things spoken of, heb. 6.10. are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, comprehended in salvation. he spoke of falsehearted professors before, now he was persuaded better things of them, that to them true salvation did belong, and that through grace that bringeth salvation they had truth of faith, and love to his name, which they shown in their love to his saints; and therefore encourageth them in the stability of the promises, from the truth and justice of god that made them, and that they should not fail of all in god's order; and therefore exhorts them to full assurance of hope; that god who gave grace, will give glory, and will withhold no good thing; and therefore encourageth to persist in faith, and hope, and the true fruits thereof from the grace of god they had received, and the stability thereof, as he exhorts to the practice of christian duties, heb. 13.1, 2, 3, 4, 5. and ver. 5. for he hath said, he will never leave thee nor forsake thee: so that we may boldly say, the lord is my helper. is not this salvation? and that there's rewards in grace, it's not denied, but they are all to christ and his members, not upon the attaining of conditionating qualifications. and we deny not but the lord jesus exhorts to labour, and diligence, and perseverance, and rebukes slothfulness; and all these are benefits, (for so i call all covenant duties that are connext to promises) but all within the covenant: the obtaining a covenant-state, or continuance in it, is not to be ascribed to them, but they are to be assigned to our salvation, and to the fullness, perpetuity and permanency of the covenant. neonom. christ declares in the gospel they shall miss of heaven, and eternally perish who are apostates, , disobedient, and unprofitable. this is not the doom of the law. d. w. p. 138. antinom. that's false; doth not the spirit of god say in the gospel, the law is made for the lawless and disobedient, 1 tim. 1.9. and that it dooms whatever thing is contrary to sound doctrine. denunciations against sin and sinners in the gospel, is but telling the sense and judgement of the law. the gospel, qua talis, cannot doom any to death, it being only the offer of a remedy; those that embrace it not, it leaves them as it found them, it found them dead, and so it leaves them, and their further penalty is from the law, of being more inexcusable for their rejecting the remedy; and saith to them, how will he escape that neglects so great salvation? i. e. how will they escape that condemnation that they are under already? neonom. it's not against every imperfect degree of godliness but ungodliness. it's not every defect of obedience but disobedience, not against every neglect of fruitfulness, but such as argues a dead and barren state. antinom. these are such as are under the law; and whatever the word of god saith to them, it's the law denouncing their doom, and by your own doctrine they are not come into the bounds of a gospel-covenant, having not performed the conditions of sincere obedience. on the other hand you own, that these dooms and threaten do not belong to those in covenant, tho' they have sins, and failings, and falls, yet the gospel doth not doom them, nor the threats belong to them, because the gospel admits imperfect and sinful obedience. but the law condemns the least sin even in god's children, and the gospel admits of no sin, nor approves of it, but is to save us from it. neonom. art thou so unskilful in the word, as not to remember heb. 10.38, 39? if any man draw back? is this a threatening or not? is it not true of all persons? do not say the elect believer will not fall away: i think the same: but yet is it the less true, that even he shall perish if he fall away? antinom. i wish you and i were more skilful in the word than we are. will you have such expressions as these to be part of the covenant of grace, which are sentences of death to hypocrites and unbelievers? christ will send away many such at the last day, with i know you not, depart from me, etc. will you say, that will be preaching the gospel to them, and giving them a law of grace? no, no; when christ judgeth as judge of all the world, he will judge but by one law, under which those will fall who have not obeyed the gospel; though their punishment will be the more higthned, in that they have refused the remedy. there are many things in the scripture, as declarations of truths of one kind or another, description of persons, histories, miracles, etc. discriminations of persons and things, which are not to be reckoned the essentials of the covenant of grace, but for the bene esse of it, the usefulness and advantage of those to whom it doth belong. if we make every work in the scripture spoken of to be a condition of the covenant of grace, we shall not tell where to find it. neonom. salvation is promised to perseverance, rev. 2.10. 2 tim. 4.7. antinom. perseverance is salvation; and in the promise is an assurance of the connexion of all salvation one part to another; for every one that is saved, is saved with all salvation, and it's an encouragement and motive to the saints to hold on their way in growth of grace; not that by every step they gain in holiness, the more they shall be qualified for, and deserving what shall follow; but that still there are greater things behind, and that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory that shall be revealed; that the covenant of promise is full of promises, gifts and rewards. but the question betwixt us is, upon what account they are made and received? some say they describe men whom god doth save by the effects of his grace upon them. neonom. not mere natural signs, but moral institutes. they are qualifications which god appoints as prerequisites to blessings. antinom. prerequisites to blessings and moral qualifications must be such as are not blessings of the covenant; or else all this while you say just nothing, in saying, god gives blessings orderly one after another, and we are encouraged by the promise to go from one covenant gift to another. hence in perseverance and growth in grace, the saints have the clearer prospect of heaven, which they hope e'er long to live in as the crown of glory, and there to perfect and complete happiness and holiness. neonom. they cannot add what's proper to christ, but they signify more than concomitants; they are things without which the gospel-rule will exclude men from heaven, and condemn to hell, let your pretences be what they will. rev. 22.14. d. w. p. 140. antinom. they signify so much more than concomitants, insomach that they are blessings promised, perseverance in obedience. i will write my law in their heart, and they shall not departed from me. when they come under this promise, of doing god's commandments, they are soon come also to what remains. when they are most holy, they are no more fit for the promise by way of moral qualification to entitle them to it, than they were at first conversion. we perform duties, walk in god's way, etc. not as entitling blessings, but as such which christ hath entitled us to; and so we receive the promise, not as entitled to it, but in christ. in this sense is that place to be understood, rev. 22.14. blessed are they that do his commandments, [they have one part of the blessing of the promise in a way of holiness] they shall also have the privilege of the tree of life in a state of glory. i find this word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, used so john 1.12. as many as received him to them was given power or privilege to become the sons of god. so that obedience persevered in, giveth title to glory here, no more than the first believing entitles to adoption, but that it's in the way to it. such do enter by the gates into the city, but christ is the way both of justification, sanctification and glory, both by way of condition to entitle us, and promise to bestow it; and they show such are entered by the door christ jesus, john 19 neonom. consider they have a relation to each other in scripture-phrase, as seed and harvest, work and waget, they are declared rewardable; for they are worthy, rev. 3.4. antinom. no works of the saints are rewardable of god in themselves, but in christ; and as to their order of bestowing succeeding covenant-blessings. they are called seed, because one good work grows up through grace into another, till we be fruitful in every good work, the fruitfulness in more and greater glory is the crop; all which fruitfulness is in christ the vine, the last which are the best, as well as the first: and for the worthiness spoken, rev. 3.4. it's strange that any protestant should pretend that it's any other worthiness than that of imputed righteousness. neonom. the gospel declares no less than a connection between good works and glory. p. 140. antinom. what then? are they therefore to be rewarded as meritorious or deserving? all things connected are not deserving one of another. neonom. god declares good works as rewardable of grace through christ. antinom. that which is rewardable of grace is not of debt; but for the worthiness of another, not for itself: therefore what you add cuts off all that you contend for. you say, through christ is the walking in white, for which the saints are said to be worthy. is the walking christ's righteousness? rev. 3.4. so all rewards spoken of as given to the saints here or hereafter, is for the worthiness of christ: for as all their duties are performed in and through christ, so they are accepted and rewarded in and through christ; and their works are no more rewarded for themselves, than accepted for themselves. neonom. by perseverance we are to work out our salvation. phil. 2.12. antinom. working out our salvation with fear and trembling there, denotes a continual maintaining a holy jealousy of ourselves, lest we should fail of the grace of god by trusting in ourselves; for it's immediately added, for it's god that worketh in you both to will and to do. all other places mentioned by you show this, that in the covenant of grace there is holiness here, and glory hereafter; it's all salvation; yea, there are promises of other things, godliness having the promise of the things of this life, and that which is to come. we deny not a connection of duties and promises in abundance, but both duties and particular blessings come in all by way of promise and free grace: so that works are not the condition of coming into covenant, nor of abiding in covenant with god. neonom. p. 146. i will sum up all, and appeal to thee, 1. whether god doth require any more of any sinners for salvation, than that they believe in christ, repent of sin, persevere in true holiness, sincere obedience or good works internal and external: and if we do so, can we perish? hath not christ provided all else? and doth not the promise secure life upon doing of these? antinom. why do you say, whether god require any more? as if this was so little. i tell you, this is more than he required of adam in innocency by faith and repentance [according to yourself;] he required nothing but perseverance in him, when he had life and ability to act from and by it; but you will have a poor impotent dead sinner do all this for life. 2. you say, if we do so, i. e. if we perform this as part of salvation, we cannot perish, our own works are our security from perishing. and as to other things necessary to salvation, christ hath provided them. so that the work is divided betwixt us, part of it to us, and part to christ: but however, if christ hath not made so certain provision for us, and made any default on his part, we are secured of salvation by doing of ours: for the promise secures life to us upon our doing these. if this is not to make the gospel a more overgrown and swinging covenant of works than ever the old law was, i have lost all my theological measures. and here we have the main difference between the first and last, that christ stands by to see what's wanting: but his great business is to see us saved by our own works from first to last. as for faith, repentance, good works, sincere persevering obedience, internal and external, they are our foederal conditions, upon the performance whereof the promise of all salvation in justification and adoption and glorification is due debt to us; and if christ hath done any thing for us, it's due to us upon these terms, whatever he hath provided besides. neonom. well, i will make you one challenge more, and so leave you. p. 146. if any sinner believe not, and repent not, hath christ ever promised to save him? antinom. indeed those sinners that believe not, nor repent not, he hath not named them by name; but god forbidden that he hath not promised to save thousands that believe not, and repent not; for the promise is to christ first to save his seed, and this is the promise, that christ's office is to seek and save them that are lost. and i think all men are so, till christ finds any, by giving faith and repentance to them, for which end he is exalted: and these are the sheep of his, which he hath promised shall hear his voice, and shall come into his fold; these are among the chiefest of sinners, before they ever have faith and repentance. the lo-ammi, who shall become the children of the living god. ay, but you say, will any decree or merits of christ secure them? so that every poor impenitent unbelieving sinner is in a desperate condition: there's no decree of god, nor merits of christ can save them: so that both decree and merits were all conditional, provided he believe, neither decree or merits can secure salvation to him. and do they not secure faith and repentance as part of their salvation, and so one part as well as another, and upon the same terms? neonom. again, if any penitent believer shall apostatise, prove ungodly and unfruitful, hate god, or neglect to love god and his neighbour wholly, etc. shall this man be saved? hath not christ determined the contrary? will his first faith save him? antinon. i suppose you can mean no other than a true believer by your penitent believer. one that is godly, loves god, and is fruitful; if any such an one should apostatise, etc. wholly, i. e. fall away from grace. here we can understand your meaning no otherwise, but that such a thing may be, and sometimes is, or else why do you not make the like supposition concerning the good angels? and what follows? say you, shall his first faith save him? i. e. shall christ that once saved him, save him again? hath not christ that hath once saved him, determined to save● him no more? these are pretty inquiries, deep school cases: and wherefore is all this but to show, that our security of standing and keeping in covenant with god, and of all our salvation, lies not on electing grace, nor on the merits of christ, but on our own works of faith and obedience. the resolution of these questions, you say, according to the scope of the word, will decide the main of this controversy; and i will tell you how much they concern the matter in hand. as to the first: if a man have a healthy body, and strength of nature to live till fourscore years of age, he shall not die a young man. and whether, if he take the care of his own health and safety, god hath not provided every thing else for him? or thus: if a man get a good estate, and hold it till he dies, whether this man can die a poor man? but our question rightly put, runs thus, seeing god hath provided by his decree or promise, that this or that sinner shall have true grace, and he that hath it, shall never finally lose it; whether his perseverance and security depends upon his works and actings, or upon the decree and promise? the assembly, chap. 17. of the perseverance of the saints, saith,— they that are effectually called shall not finally fall from the state of grace, but certainly persevere; which perseverance depends not upon their own free will, but upon the immutability of the decree of election— the efficacy of the merit and intercession of christ— the abiding of the spirit, the nature of the covenant of grace, from which ariseth the certainty and infallibility thereof. as to your second appeal, it hath as much as this in it; if a man get up to the top of the monument, and throw himself down from thence, he will certainly break his neck. or thus; if a good angel fall into pride and sin as belzebub did, he will be laid in chains of darkness in the same manner as he. if abraham should blaspheme god, he would be tumbled out of heaven. if a man wax on wings to his shoulders, and fly towards the sun like icharus, the wax melts, and down comes he headlong. such propositions as these are the rules of christ's rectoral distribution with you, and the decree comes not in opposition; whereas the decree spoils the hypothesis; for do but assume upon the proposition, and you will find it so, that the decree spoils it as to the event. god's rule of government is not a proposition founded upon an impossibility, posito decreto; neither is his decree as you would make it, subservient to his rule of government, but all his government and rules thereof are founded on, and guided according to his good will and pleasure in his decree. what you quote out of the assembly's confession, is nihil ad rhombum, but all against you; for none denies god's approbation of our obedience, the great uses and ends of it, the acceptation of it, and rewarding it in christ, etc. ut supra. the ends and uses which they mention is not amiss to repeat, because you charge the same assertion on dr. cr. for his great error. assemb. ch. 16. good works done in obedience to god's commands, are the fruits and evidences of a true and lively faith, and by them believers make manifest their thankfulness, strengthen their assurance, edify their brethren, adorn the profession of the gospel, stop the mouths of adversaries, and glorify god, whose workmanship they are, created in christ jesus thereunto; that having their fruit unto holiness, they may have the end, eternal life. and as for dr. o. whom you quote from p. 222. of justification, he is there disputing against these tenants of yours, and grants the like uses and ends of our personal righteousness as the assembly, that it's indispensably required by god, he approves of it and accepts it in christ, it evidenceth faith, it's pleadable against satan and the world. and after some explication of his meaning in these things, he saith,— hence it appears how little force there is in that argument, which some pretend to be of so great weight in this cause, [among them you are one.] as every one, say they, shall be judged of god at the last day, in the same way and manner, and on the same grounds, is he justified of god in this life; but by works, and not by faith alone every one shall be judged at the last day: wherefore by works, and not by faith alone, every one is justified before god in this life. this he answers, and condemns the following proposition, or not far from it. that god pardons men's sins, gives them the adoption of children, with a right to an heavenly inheritance according to their works, which (saith he) is not only foreign to she gospel, but destructive of it. and you say, that forgiving, adopting and glorifying, etc. judicial acts of god as a rector, is in a way of rectoral distribution of rewards. luth. on gal. 3.22. saith, works done without faith are under a curse, though they have never so good a show of holiness: wherefore so far off is it, that the doers thereof deserve grace, righteousness and eternal life, that rather they heap sin upon sin. after this manner the pope works, and all merit-mongers. debate xiv. of intending our souls good by duties we perform. neonom. the next error that i charge upon this antinomian is, that he saith, no man ought to propose to himself any advantage by any religious duty he performeth, nor ought he in the least intent the profit of his own soul by any christian endeavours, it being vain and unlawful to do any thing with an eye to our spiritual or eternal good, though in subordination to god's glory in christ. d. w. p. 152. antinom. i suppose you will not only charge but prove the very things you charge in those words. neonom. i will: you say, there is nothing you can do from whence you ought to expect any gain unto yourselves, etc. christ hath redeemed us that we should not henceforth live to ourselves, but to him that died for us, etc. the scripture is plentiful in this, that no believer for whom christ died, should have the least thought in his heart of promoting or advancing himself, to any end of his own by doing what he doth. dr. c. p. 150. antinom. gentlemen, he deals with me as (you have found upon examination) he hath done formerly— i was preaching upon rom. 10.2, 3, 4. and was showing, that zeal of god proves not a man a child of god, dr. c. p. 144, 148. and i told them, all aim at this, that you build not upon foundations that will fail you, when you come to trial, there is absolutely perfection enough in the righteousness of christ alone for your rest and security, that you shall not need to trust to any thing you do for life and peace. this is that which god calls you to, to go troth from your own righteousness, to rest solely and only upon the righteousness of christ, if ever you mean to have comfort in this world, or in the world to come. i answered this objection; you will say, this is the way to destroy all righteousness and obedience whatsoever: what a man never a jot the better, though never so zealous after god, though his eye and aim be after god in his zeal! a. the world is grown to a miserable pass that obedience, zeal, and seeking after god be of no use at all, except a man himself be a gainer by his obedience; it's now as it was in the time of the psalmist, psal. 4. every one will be ready to cry out, who will show us any good? and if any thing be proposed to men to be done, they answer, but what shall i get by it? every one will be ready to shun such an office or employment that carry about with them a great deal of labour and expense of time, and brings in no profit.— i must tell you freely, there's not one duty you perform, when you have attained the highest pitch, that hath any prevalency and availableness to produce and to bring forth any, though the least good to yourselves. you ought not to think to seek again to yourselves by doing, or bring christ to yourselves by doing; you are not your own, saith the apostle, but you are bought with a price, therefore glorify god in your bodies and spirits. christ hath redeemed us that we should not henceforth live to ourselves, but to christ that died for us. now in this discourse i intent these things. 1. that our duties ought not to rob christ's righteousness of the procuring virtue it hath of all the blessings and good that we have. 2. that we ought not to perform duties from a mercenary principle, thinking thereby to obtain good things of god. 3. that we rest not in the duty done. 4. that duties barely considered in themselves, though of the highest nature, are not available to obtain any thing of god, for what will our righteousness profit him? and when we have done all we are unprofitable servants, and have done less than we ought to do; therefore there's no reason from our best duties why god should bestow any good thing upon us. 5. that we should do duties from a gracious spirit of ingenuity, for the glory of god, and free grace, not from a poor, narrow, and selfish spirit. not but that i am for duty in a right manner, and for a right end. neonom. he intends to forbid our intending our own good, though in subordination to god's glory, and laying no stress of meriting; for (saith he) people may think here's a marvellous discouragement to persons, to do what god calls them to do, when they shall have nothing for it. i answer, when there is a spirit of ingenuity they shall be as industrious to glorify god, to do good to men, as if they did it for themselves. they shall do as much for good already bestowed, as if they were to procure it by their own doing. antinom. is this not to intent my own good, whereas it's not only to intent it, but to attend it, and walk in the highest comfort and enjoyment of it? as when esau and jacob passed mutual compliments; esau saith, i have enough; but jacob saith, i have all. it is as plain as may be made, 1. that we should in all we do mind and aim at the glory of god, and honour of free grace. for i said, except you mind chief, that all the duties you perform are for other ends and purposes than your preferment; viz. the setting forth the praise of the glory of free grace, and the serving the generation in which you live, and the study of good works, because they are profitable to men. i say, except you fall upon the performance of good duties for the common good and benefit, without having any such conceits, as what shall accrue to you thereby; you are not persons yet come to have that common spirit, and dead to the old spirit, as becomes christians. i say here, chief, and therefore am not to be understood, as if i did mean, as mr. neonomian saith, to forbid all intending our own good, but rather act as one that now hath nothing to do in comparison; as to the securing of spiritual good things to myself, christ hath procured and settled all upon me. i have a goodly heritage, goodness and mercy shall follow me all my days; and from the sense of the greatness and fullness of provision made for me in christ; i will glorify him in soul, and body, and spirit, live to him, serve him, and my generation, not thinking that i can add any thing by my duties to what christ hath procured and obtained for me; and in this sense it is, i say, that it is no discouragement because you cannot propound to yourself any possible gain, [i. e. over and above what christ hath procured,] but whatever is the greatest and truest spur, or encouragement to duty, is already provided to your hand freely and graciously. i illustrate my meaning thus. there are some children in the world that are very observant of their parents; dt. c. p. 151. and their aim is, that by reason of such compliance their parents may settle an estate upon them; but when a child knows an estate is already settled upon him, that it cannot be reversed, and he is not able to add to it, will such a child propose to himself in his obedience and observance, the obtaining that good his father hath already passed? he knows it is passed already, and cannot be by any thing he doth, firmer and stronger. he serves not now to get his father's land, but he serves to glorify his father that hath so freely settled his land upon him. [hence you see plainly that i mean in respect of title, not in respect of possession and enjoyment, for] so i say of believers that have the temper of christ's truebred children indeed. they in the gospel of christ find all things that do appertain to life and godliness, they find them all so passed over by god's goodness and free grace to them, dr. c. p. 152. that the lions shall want and suffer hunger, before they shall want any thing that is good. must they now labour to gain these things as if they were in agitation, or as if they were yet referred to their will, or to their good and evil walking, that as they shall walk so they shall speed? this is to argue. that god is yet to determine with himself how to dispose of those good things that he will bestow upon his people, and that he gives good things according to their good or evil carriage; and so the goodness of god to his people must depend upon his people's goodness to him [which is as the morning cloud;] and as men's works prevail with god, so god will pour out his bounty upon them. calvin. mr. antinom. gives us a very good account of his meaning, and i wonder that mr. neonom. you will offer to say he forbids the intending our own good, though in subordination to god's glory, yea, laying no stress of meriting, whereas he is express as to both these. and by procuring and obtaining he plainly intends procuring or obtaining a title to heavenly things. but mr. antinom. did not abraham in his obedience unto god, heb. 11.9, 10. look for a city which hath foundations? and had not moses, v. 26. in his self-denial an eye to the recompense of reward? how is it then that we should not think to gain or procure any thing by our duties and obedience? antinom. the great things that the faithful mentioned in that chapter did by faith in the promise, surely entitling them to those great things they looked for; they did not esteem that their obedience added one grain to their inheritance by promise, any more than that the very service of god itself, and enjoyment of him was of the privileges promised, and they walked therein in expectation of further performances. abraham looked for a city; upon what ground? not of his obedience, but as being heir already of the promise of it. moses had an eye to the recompense of reward, not as procuring it by his self-denial, but as being entitled to it by the promise believed, as already bestowed upon him by the gift and procurement of christ, and thence was carried forth to his duty in love to god, and in honour of his free grace, as i have said; thence it was that no difficulties of affliction could discourage him, nor worldly preferments and riches allure him from his duty. my whole design in the expressions mentioned by mr. neonom. was to caution believers against putting their duties in the place of christ in order to life and salvation. and i have mr. luther for my precedent, speaking in the like case after the same manner. the true christ neither calleth thee to reckoning for thy sins, nor biddeth thee trust to thine own good works, luth. on gal. 5.4. (but the false christ, i. e. the devil in the likeness of christ doth;) and the true knowledge of christ or faith disputeth not whether thou hast done good works to righteousness, or evil works to condemnation, but simply concludeth after this sort: if thou hast done good works, thou art not therefore justified; or if thou hast done evil works, thou art not thereby condemned. and i neither take from good works their praise, nor commend evil works; but in the matter of justification, i say, we must look how we may hold christ, lest while we seek to be justified by the law, we make him unprofitable to us; for it's christ alone that justifieth me, both against my evil deeds, and without my good deeds. if i have this persuasion of christ, i lay hold on the true christ; but if i think that he exacteth the law and works of me to salvation, than he becometh unprofitable to me, and i am utterly separated from him. neonom. he saith, when you labour by prayer or seeking to prevail with god to take away his displeasure, d. w. p. 154. dr. c. p. 425. etc. and to procure such good, you serve not god now, you serve yourselves. antinom. i was speaking against selfishness in our performances, and said, if you suppose you fast, pray, mourn, or do any other religious services; if you apprehend your own turns are not yet served, there will be altogether a selfishness in the performance of these duties; selfish ends and motives will be your loadstones, and they shall draw up your spirits in these services. as for example, when we labour by our fasting and prayer, and seeking the lord, to prevail with god to take away his displeasure, etc. and to procure such good things unto us, do we serve the lord or no? and do we not serve ourselves? nay, you serve no god now, you serve yourselves, when only yourselves put you upon the performance of the duty; but you will say, i must fast and pray to get my sins pardoned. a. it's true, that as long as men think their sins are upon themselves they cannot be attest, but still the consideration of these sins thus upon them must needs draw them out on these services, till some way be sought out to clear themselves of them. where is now that sincerity and singleness of heart that men ought to have in the service of the lord? if he could be but once resolved of this thing, that ail this business of his is already dispatched to his hands, [viz. sin pardoned, and wrath removed,] then all this selfishness would quickly die;— then you would serve god sincerely, the end of your duties would be the glorifying of god; than you would see that your prayers, tears, fast and performances were not appointed to rob god of his service by serving yourselves, and christ of his glory, by putting your services in the place of his blood, which only taketh away sin. calvin. you have now given very good satisfaction of your intention and meaning in those expressions mr. neonomian chargeth upon you as unsound, though some of your expressions barely taken may give some offence, which i think might have been spared, and the truth you intent clothed with more unexceptionable words; and on the other side, mr. neonomian, i think you may expose and banter most sermons of orthodox divines, if you will pick out here and there a sentence, and not give an account of the connexion, upon what account such were spoken. but i pray, mr. neonomian let us have the positive truth from you in this matter, and the state of the question. neonom. you shall, sir. truth. though we ought to intent god's glory as our supreme end in all our duties, and design therein expressing our love and gratitude to god for his benefits, with a great regard to public good: yet we also lawfully may and aught to strive after grace, grow in it, and perform holy duties and services, with an eve to, and concern for our own spiritual and eternal advantage. d. w. p. 152. antinom. you have delivered your opinion: in a discreet proposition, wherein you say the same thing as i do in the first part, but yet the second part doth not run full enough, it should run thus; from this motive of the love of god, the promise of grace, and the procurement made by jesus christ, entitling us to all the blessings of the gospel, we ought to perform holy duties and services, growing in all grace, with an eye to the enjoyment of that full inheritance provided for us in grace and glory, ascribing all to the glory of free grace, and nothing to the procurements of our own works. and therefore i say, none ought to propose advantage to himself in respect of title to the blessings of the covenant by any duty he performs, being heir of the promise by faith in jesus christ, all the promises being in him yea and amen; neither ought he to propound profit from any duty as such only, but in and through christ, and in whom every duty is accepted, and from whom we receive the benefit; for whatever we ask it's in his name, and for his sake alone, (not for our duties sake) we receive it. and that it is vain and unlawful to do any thing with an eye to our spiritual or eternal good, as a proper effect by way of remuneration of our duty performed, for that cannot be in subordination to god's glory in christ, but a robbing of him. neonom. i will tell you then wherein we differ not. 1. it's not whether we should principally aim at god's glory in what we do. antinom. is it not? but i will tell you more; we should not only principally, but altogether aim at god's glory in all we do, 1 cor. 10.31. according to your position many sins will be justified; as he that doth evil that good may come of it. and paul's persecution in his unregeneracy, wherein he principally aimed at the glory of god, thinking that thereby he did god good service. neonom. nor whether we should aim at public good with great concern; nor whether gratitude to god deserves our utmost service, and love to him should influence our aims and labours. antinom. gratitude to god should not only influence, but be the very procatarctick moving cause to us in all. neonom. nor whether we ought to renounce every thought of purchasing from god any benefit for what we do. antinom. therefore not to think to have the benefit for the work sake at all, for if so, it's purchasing in a law sense; to have it upon federal conditionality of the work done, is to have upon bargain, and purchasing terms, either in respect of the first right, or as to continuation of right, therefore we ought not to tertain, but renounce the least thought of this. neonom. nor whether carnal selfishness, or seeking of pleasures, riches, honour, etc. above spiritual and eternal good, be the undoing sin of the world. antinom. nor whether it be not the undoing sin of professors, there's no other to be expected from the world, and there's multitudes of sins more, of a grosser nature, undoing to the world. neonom. the real difference is, 1. whether the spiritual improving and saving our souls, may be a motive with us to our religious endeavours? this you deny, and i affirm. antinom. not upon the grounds . neonom. whether our souls advantage be not so joined with god's glory, that we ought to intent both as the scope of our life and labours. antinom. our soul's advantage is so provided for in the promise of grace, that we intent it as the great thing bestowed on us for the glory of god, and not to be obtained by us, or gained by works and services. the true question betwixt us is, whether we should do works as entitling us to, and gaining of life and salvation in subordination to the glory of god; this you and the papists affirm, but i deny; because they are inconsistent, and can never be truly so according to the gospel, whatever is pretended, or men may think of themselves, as paul did in his unregenerate state. neonom. to confirm the truth, 1. i have proved before, that god hath appointed graces and duties for that end, that we obtain those benefits; and if so, we then despise god's ordination, in not intending our obtaining the benefits, when we act those graces and duties, and we obey his will in doing them for that end. d. w. p. 155. antinom. we have showed that you have not proved it yet in your sense, by way of entitling us to, and continuing us in a covenant state or standing. 2. we have showed, that you make graces and duties nothing but a piece of drudgery and slavery, for a man to work as for his wages, and to be paid as he doth his work, but make them none of the benefits of the covenant of promise, which they are in an eminent manner. and therefore, 3. you despise the ordination of god, and his constitution of the covenant of grace, who never gave them such a place in the covenant, nor ordained them to such an end as you ascribe to them. 4. lastly, you despise therein the lord jesus, in giving that which is his place alone, to your graces and duties. neonom. all promises and threats in the word, directed as motives to obedience are foolish, if we must not intent [obtaining] our own good by our obedience. antinom. are they so? you are not the first that hath reckoned the gospel foolishness, and reproached the grace of god; god hath chosen these foolish things to confound such wise men as you are, that can undertake to teach christ a better gospel, etc. neonom. how are they arguments with the will, if we must not aim at advantage in doing duty? antinom. it is one thing to have advantage by gift, and another thing to have such an eye to it as to look upon ourselves as earners of it by our work. a child that knows his father hath settled an inheritance upon him, and will provide for him till he is of age to take possession; is there no motive to him to be dutiful to his father, but an intending more gain and advantage to himself? must his father pay him for every errand he runs, and job of service he doth? must he look upon himself as earning and deserving his dinner every day, and for every duty and service his father must say, oh! thank thee my son, i will remember this service to give thee advantage for it? or else this child will be sullen and dogged, and say, what profit is there in serving my father? such christians as these you would make. neonom. christ calls with such motives, mat. 11.28. ezek. 18.32. 1 pet. 5.2, 4. antinom. mat. 11. he invites sinners to come to him for rest, he would give it them; he says not, go to your works and duties for rest, i am not against your taking all motives from christ and the riches of his grace, but i am against burning incense to our own drags, as you would have us. tha● place of ezekiel you mention, is nothing to your purpose, for turning and living there is the same thing: and whereas you say, what influence hath such pleas? as 1 pet. 5.2, 4. 1 tim. 2.12. colos. 3.34. peter calls himself a partaker, [i. e. by faith] of the glory to be revealed, and he chargeth other elders to feed the flock, and take the charge, not by constraint, but freely and willingly; and not mercenarily, but as he himself was taught by christ, lovest thou me, feed my sheep; and he saith, when the chief shepherd shall appear, you shall receive a crown of glory which he hath purchased and promised, not which they earned and gained by their working. so paul fought and ran, 2 tim. 4.7, 8. not expecting to receive a crown as due to him for fight and running, but as by faith beholding it purchased for him, and insured to him in the promise; therefore he says, it's a depositum laid up for him even before his running; and so for all other believers as well as he; he expected not to make an additional advantage to what he saw laid up for him already, or thereby to make it surer than the promise had already made it; and as for other places where duties are called for, and ensuing benefits promised; it's but a connexion of the promised grace in the covenant under something different notions of particular commands and promises; whereas duties there are promises, and gifts of grace, and both together grace upon grace from the fullness of christ; not that one hath in it a virtue to gain the other (which the spiritual man understands,) and christ dispenseth grace in the word of his grace in this manner, more humano, which is of use to the weak many times, when he teacheth them to walk as ephraim, by the conduct of a spirit of bondage, whilst they labour under weak and staggering faith, but such a frame and weak understanding of the truth ought not to be commended as a virtue, and such weaklings are to be brought as soon as may be to more solid understanding, and higher principles to act from, and more noble aims and designs to the glory of god in christ. neonom. the spirit of god approveth of holy men's regard to their own advantage. antinom. yes, for the whole gospel is a sinners advantage, or else it were sad, and they must see it, or else they will never embrace it; but they are to see all this advantage is founded in christ, and conveyed by promise and free gift to the praise and glory of god, eph. 1.6, 7, 8, 12, 19, 20. neonom. moses heb. 11.26. had respect to the recompense of reward, and this is given as the very cause why he esteemed the reproach of christ above the treasures of egypt. antinom. i have given an account of that place already; it's said by faith, moses did what he did by faith, refusing the world, choosing and esteeming christ his great treasure, and greater than all riches and honours, even the reproach and cross of christ; for in believing he eyed christ himself, who was his, to be the great recompense of reward; he had enough to carry him through all difficulties, having christ, and god in christ, and this was the reason of his perseverance, for he endured as seeing him that is invisible; he did not see him that is invisible as a reward of his perseverance, but he endured because he saw him. neonom. paul governed himself by these regards, 1 cor. 9.17, 24. 2 cor. 4.16, 17. antinom. paul made it his business in preaching the gospel to obtain the ends of the gospel, but he doth anticipate all that you would gather from his discourse, 1 cor. 9.17. for ver. 16. he saith, for though i preach the gospel i have nothing to glory of; and when he speaks of his reward, ver. 18. truly it is as much as to say, i look for none for my work sake, not so much as from men, my reward is that i make it without charge, that as it comes freely from christ, so also from me; he much less had any mercenary expectations of reward from god, etc. and ver. 23. and all he doth for the gospel sake, that he might be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, his participation of the grace of the gospel was as much as he looked for, therefore he would not run at uncertrinty, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but by faith in the promise, as looking unto jesus the author and finisher of his faith, heb. 12.2. as to that place, 2 cor. 4.16. for which cause we faint not; what is the cause? it's in the verse preceding 14, 15. the spirit of faith was the cause; whereby knowing that he that raised up the lord jesus, shall raise us also by jesus; for all things are for yourselves, that the abundant grace might through the thanksgiving of many redound to the glory of god, for which cause we faint not; viz. from the abundant grace apprehended by the spirit of faith, and looking at things not seen, thence it comes to pass, that the present afflictions are light, and shall be succeeded with an eternal weight of glory; it's an instance of the abundant grace redounding towards him for the inward and outward man, for things temporal and eternal. neonom. were doing for life, and an eye to gain by service such a legal and wicked thing as some represent it, sure the blessed jesus would have admonished his disciples, and not answered them as he doth, mat. 19.28, 29. antinom. this arguing would well enough become a papist, but it is strange at this time a day from the mouth of a protestant, but it's easy to see the devil is at work to betray us again into our spiritual egypt, our mouths hang too generally after the leeks and onions of their corrupt doctrine. now we must go to work upon the terms of the old law, for life, not finalitèr, as aimed at and traveled to as terminus ad quem, taken for glory, but for life as a premium of our works. that this is intended by you clearly appears by the application that you make of this place of scripture, as if it justified the doctrine of merit. the disciples hearing our saviour's discourse concerning a rich man, and how hard it is for him to enter into the kingdom of heaven, they were amazed, and said, who then shall be saved? peter hence concludes then surely poor men may better be saved; we are poor enough, and have lest all for thee; what shall we have? and there is no doubt but something as yet remained in them of that legal spirit as prevailed in and among the jews, expecting or enquiring after some proportionable reward to their sufferings, which spirit was not fully removed from them till after the resurrection of christ, and sending down of the spirit, when they came clearly to see the grace of christ in the gospel, but it was not christ's time yet to remove all clouds and obscurities from the doctrine of the gospel; he did it not in his own ministry, it was to be the work of the comforter, the spirit, as peculiarly belonging to his office after christ's ascension. as yet they had not asked any thing in his name, neither did christ in the platform of prayer teach them so to do; as yet they were strangers to the mystery of the death and resurrection of christ; as yet they looked that the kingdom of christ would immediately be a temporal and external. now the answer of our saviour imports these things. 1. that none shall lose any thing by following him, though in parting with worldly advantages. 2. that those blessings that he bestows upon his true followers, are of another nature than they expected; they were of an eternal nature, ver. 29. and of a spiritual nature, mark 10.30. for their outward enjoyments should be with persecutions, showing how much the cross and reproach of christ (as in the opinion of moses) is to be preferred before the greatest worldly emoluments. 3. he shows them, though he abundantly rewards his followers, yet they ought not to serve him as such that were led by that principle, to serve for life and glory as for wages; but they must do all for his own name sake; they must not act from a principle of intending advantage, but for christ's sake, for the love of his person, and for the sake of the love that he hath showed us, 1 cor. 3.20, 21, 22. the lord knows how vain the thoughts of his best people is apt to be, as if they must by their duties earn something of god; but there must be no glorying in men, and there's no need of it, for all things are yours already, the means of grace, the world, life, death, things present, and to come, ye are christ's, and christ god's. neonom. your argument from the vanity of proposing our own gain by labour and duties, because all is fixed and given already, is to make the decree an effectual means to overthrow the government of christ, and brand all his offers to sinners with weakness and falsehood; should not poor sinners pray as they can apply the word with an eye to conversion? should they not believe and repent with an eye to forgiveness and escaping of wrath? why else should god encourage them with an offer of these upon such terms. d. w. p. 157. antinom. you go upon many mistakes; 1. you talk absurdly of god's decree overthrowing his government, as if the decree succeeded god's government of the creature; that which overthrows a thing comes after the thing overthrown; so god's decree in its proper nature, as a constituting immanent act, must succeed his government. 2. why should not god's acting in a way of free grace be consistent with his most right and just way of proceeding in government, seeing the whole gospel revelation asserts that it is so, and that therein lies a great part of the gospel mystery, which natural men and carnal reason will not receive. 3. is it any way absurd to say its vain to propose our own gain by labour and duties, when the spirit of god hath expunged the efficacy of works as to procurement, out of the covenant of grace; works are our price and money. god saith, we are to buy without price and money, isa. 55.1, 2. and saith, why do you spend money for that which is not bread; i. e. spend your duties and labours, and get nothing by them? because you make money of them, and reckon you make advantage of them, and pay a valuable consideration for the good expected, and will not receive it as of free gift; you will have all for the money of your duties; and hence you labour, and have not that which satisfieth; you ask and labour for things to spend upon your own lusts, as the proud pharisee did. 4. you mistake in judging the offers of the gospel is in a way of government, it's in order to christ's gracious rule and government under which unregenerate sinners are not, till through grace they are translated into the kingdom of christ. 5. you wickedly suggest, that unless god intent that poor sinners in their unregenerate estate should do some duties whereby they might gain life and salvation; god is chargeable with weakness and falsehood; this i take to be an ill inference, all the offers of grace must be upon condition of works, or else god is chargeable with weakness and falsehood. 6. you grossly mistake my discourse, or willingly pervert my sense and meaning; i do not say but poor sinners at their first believing are very apt to lay too great a stress upon their duties, as if thereby they obtained a title to life and salvation, or m●de a considerable addition to what christ hath done and procured for them; this legal spirit i endeavour to take them off from, that they should serve god more under the conduct of the grace of adoption, rom. 8.14, 15. and therefore say, except you fall to the performance of duty without such conceits of what shall accrue to you thereby, dr. cr. p. 149. you are not persons yet come to have that common spirit, and dead to the old spirit, as becomes christians. such believers are acted more by a spirit of bondage than the spirit of adoption. the apostle saith, they that are lead by the spirit are the sons of god; and therefore so far as they are lead by the spirit act not mercenarily. 7. but to let pass your perverting my sense, you will have me to intent works answering the call of god to the unregenerate; and you say to this purpose they must be encouraged by rewards of their works: were it not rather to charge god as you say; when he shall offer them upon the account of their duties, when the spirit of god tells us, they can perform none, being spiritually dead; and that which they suppose they do cannot please god, rom. 8.8. therefore cannot obtain any thing from him. you say, must they not strive to believe and repent with an eye to forgiveness, and escaping of wrath? i say, not with an eye to their works of believing and repentance, but to the receiving of forgiveness and escaping wrath. neonom. by your scheme the elect may be idle, and the non-elect do best when they despair; for there's connection between these benefits and these graces and duties. antinom. i pretend not to the making schemes of the gospel-mysteries, calculated to carnal reason, as you do; i leave that to you that pretend to be so skilful in it. but in answer to what you infer, i say, i preach not to men as elect, or not elect, but unto sinners; and i call them to look for the advantage of life and salvation in christ, and not in their duties. but yet, as i told you, i call them to duty, and to the acting of it from higher and nobler principles than you do, not from such a slavish mercenary servile spirit as you would have them to act from. and i think the doctrine of freegrace is no ground of idleness or despair, but the contrary, the greatest encouragement to service, and preservative against despair in the world, unless it be to such scheme-makers as you be, who charge god with weakness and falsehood, unless he save sinners in a way of a covenant of works. and there's no such connection between graces and benefits as you plead for. neonom. and so the non-elect are in the same case with devils, there being no serious offer to them; nay, their case is worse than devils; for these offers are made to them with no design but to increase their condemnation. nay, every sin of theirs is a sin against the holy ghost, i. e. every sin is alike that unpardonable sin, and not only that blasphemy against the holy ghost. antinom. this is the arminian plea for universal grace, and what is this but the smoke of the bottomless pit? i say, who art thou, o man, that repliest against god? you come now to prove your charge of god for weakness and folly. but if the non-elect be in as bad a case as devils, is god guilty of weakness and falsehood? a wiser man than you did not think so, when he said, god made all things for himself, the wicked for the day of evil, prov. 16.4. neither was the apostle paul of your mind, as plainly appears by rom. 9.18, 19, 20. but let me return upon you, will you say that it was unrighteous with god to leave a part of mankind under nonelection to eternal life and salvation? what, will you charge god with for leaving part of the angelic nature under it? 2. you talk of an offer to the non-elect, and that offer, you say, must be serious, and if it be not offered upon such a condition as they can perform. but i pray, where's any offer of grace in the gospel to the non-elect at all, as such? and show me any graces given, or gospel duties required of the non-elect, or benefits promised to the non-elect upon their performance of graces and duties? it would not be serious indeed to call for graces and duties, or promise life unto them, or saving benefits upon performance of the said duties after the nonelection was declared to them. now you will not own there can be any serious offer made, unless the condition be equally performable by elect and non-elect, and both be alike in the next capacity of salvation, or else they are in the same case with the devils. and what it they be as eventually as unlikely to believe and be saved as the devils, why will you be presumptuous to charge god? may not god have mercy on whom he will, and harden whom he will, without giving an account of any of his matters? and what if the non-elect be in as bad a case as the devils, is god bound to be any better to them than the devils. for, say you, god must offer to the non-elect with the same mind and purpose of saving non-elect as well as of saving the elect, or else god is not serious in his offers. i deny that gospel-offers are made to elect or non-elect, but to sinners as such; and it's made indefinitely, that the election might obtain, and the rest are blinded, rom. 11.5, 6, 7. as it was with the elect and non-elect jews, so it is with the elect and non-elect of all mankind. and see there what god saith, and that seriously: at this present time, saith god, there is a remnant [of jews to be saved,] but according to the election of grace: what will you say but a remnant? how comes it to pass that the offer was made to them that belonged not to the election? you'll say god was not serious in his offer to them, when it was said acts 3.4. unto you first [of the nation of the jews] god having raised up his son jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities. if the non-elect in this nation cannot perform works (say you) upon the condition of which they may have the promise, god deals falsely with them: whereas the spirit of god gives us another account of these things, why notwithstanding this general and indefinite offer, but a remnant was saved, viz. the election had obtained it, ver. 7. for, saith he, if it be by grace, than it is no more of works, [nor of him that willeth or runneth, but of god that showeth mercy] otherwise grace is no more grace; but if it be of works, than it is no more of grace; otherwise work is no more works. 7. what then, israel hath not obtained what he seeketh for, [or applying it to many professors, or others under a gospel-ministry, such and such hath not obtained what they pretended to seek after] but the election hath obtained it. [the grace of god (not works) became efficacious through the election.] and what became of the non-elect? you'll say, god mocked them. no, go you on to mock god with your carnal reason, and hearken to the hallow; i will tell you, yea the spirit tells you, the rest, the non-elect jews were blinded; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, those that were saved, the grace of election obtained for them. but as for the rest, they who were not elected, they were hardened. and when you have done and said all about your serious offers, unless you hold conditional election, you must still continue to lay, these foul charges and consequences upon god: for whatever offers are made, the non-elect will neither believe or be saved, and in respect of nonelection are in the same condition with the devils. now say you, than their case is worse than devils, these offers are made to them for no other design, but to increase their condemnation. but i will tell you, it becomes so to them per accidens; the design of offering salvation to the world is that sinners may believe and be saved, not that elect sinners should be secure, or non-elect despair. but what is in god's mind as his reason in making so indefinite an offer and tender of grace, whose is election? it is for the calling and gathering in of the elect, though an indefinite invitation or command of god makes the answer of it equally the duty of all that hear it by the law; and i will tell you, ex hebreae veritatis collatione appareat 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 respondere vocabulo h●braeo. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nemo mirabitur quod maluerim soporem aut etiam stuporem convertere. ita n. hebraei vocant altissimum veternum quod omnem sensum adimat idque optimè convenit ei quod precessit de callo sive obduratione, & quod subjicitur oculis, de oculis ad videndam, & auribus ad audi●ndum ineptis. beza, chr●sost. theophyl. oecum. interpret. spiritum staporis & pertinacity. i e. animum in malo obstinatum ut neque aut moveri, quasi clavo affixum. lee's crit. the truth of god's word will stand against your carnal weapons and banter, rom. 11.8, 9 the rest besides the remnant that were saved, were not only blinded but hardened judicially, according to the word of the lord by isaiah, chap. 29.10. god hath given them the spirit of slumber, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, eyes that they should not see. the hebrew word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 deep sleep; but the apostle takes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, from the lxii. which primarily signifies compunction, derived of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, compungo, and used acts 2.37. it signifies a mind fixed and pertinacious in evil. god hath sent or given them, saith paul; the hebrew hath it, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, he hath given them to drink down a spirit of stupidity; and see what follows, ver. 9.10. notwithstanding the offer made, the non-elect fall under this judicial proceeding of god, viz. a spirit of slumber given them, eyes given them that they should not see, ears that they should not hear; their table becomes a snare, the offer of grace a stumbling to them. nay, you say then, every sin of theirs is against the holy ghost, i. e. every sin alike the unpardonable sin. there is no sin unpardonable in respect of god, i. e. such that god cannot pardon; but there are sins of the same nature and kind with them that are pardoned in some, that will not be pardoned in others. god's not pardoning a sin or person makes not it or him unpardonable, ab actu ad potentiam non valet consequentiam. the sin against the holy ghost is not therefore unpardonable, because it cannot be pardoned; but from the positive and declared will of christ concerning it, that it shall not be forgiven in this world, nor in the world to come; he hath made an exception upon this species of sin, or individual sin, matth. 12.31, 32. but for this reason no other sort or kind of sin is unpardonable; christ that spoke the one spoke the other; all manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men, ver. 32. is it not a marvellous piece of impudence in you to draw this inference upon christ, because sins in the non-elect are not forgiven eventually, therefore now all manner of sins in them are as unpardonable, as sins against the holy ghost. neonom to say no more, it will follow christ hath no rule of distributive justice, but his own eternal purpose, and men's regards to his promised benefits, are all forbidden, even when our respect to them, is that which subserves his government, and is supposed in all the methods of it. antinom. you need say no more, unless it be to express your repentance for what you have spoken. what mean you by christ's rule of distributive justice? doth christ offer salvation unto sinners, or dispense grace to believers in a way of distributive justice? is not this to make the covenant of grace a law of works with a witness? it's true, christ governs the world as king of kings, and lord of lords; and this rule of distributive justice on the providential throne, and at his second coming, is and shall be the moral law. but is this his rule of saving sinners? doth he administer the covenant of grace in a way of distributive justice, according to men's obedience to commands, and regard to promises made upon such conditions? if it were so, sinners uncalled and called were all in a miserable condition. neonom. and why should we intent the glory of god, the service of christ, or the good of others? are not these as determined as our own good? hath not god fixed and secured his own glory? antinom. he hath so; he hath fixed it, and all our duties and blessings therein; and because christ provided for his own glory, and the glory of god's freegrace in all that he hath done, or is doing for us: therefore we are in a special manner to beware lest we rob him of his glory, by giving that which belongs to him to our own works, even the best we can do. neonom. i could show that we canted sincerely aim at our own good, but we therein aim at the glory of god; nor doth god ever require us to intent his glory, but in a concurrence with an eye to our own salvation. antinom. you should have said, we cannot truly aim at god's glory, but therein we aim at our own good: men must first aim at god's glory. but, 1. men may sincerely aim at god's glory, and yet come short of god's glory and their own good: for so paul did in his unregenerate estate, and so will every unregenerate man, rom. 3.22. 2. how many men sincerely aim at their own good in many things, and yet have not a true aim at the glory of god? do not all men say, who will show us any good, psal. 4. and seek it in corn, wine and oil? and did not the jews aim at their own good in following after the law of righteousness, rom. 9.31? neonom. i will tell you your mistakes. antinom. i pray mend and recant your own gross errors first, before you undertake to be a corrector of others; it's not worth our time to attend your amendments. neonom. let me only tell you what those divines in the preface to mr. flavel 's book against antinomianism, (which they approve of) inform us: that to say salvation is not the end of any good work we can't, and we are to act from life and not for life, were to abandon the humane nature. antinom. i suppose you quote your authority the rather, because that you think the preface was drawn up to expiate for a fault some of them had committed, and was well schooled for. but i pray let us a little examine whether those gentlemen be not mistaken, in denying that position, that we are not to act for life but from life. for the first part, i am mistaken if they will deny, that all gospel-acting is from life. in natural things life is always presupposed to all motion and acting. a dead thing cannot, nor is expected to move and act: as in the natural man, so in the spiritual; and as he must have life, so he must be alive unto god in christ that acts; he must act from him, by virtue of him, through the power and influence of his grace, through the operation of his spirit, from faith in the lord jesus christ, and knows there's no acceptable duties or graces but to be acted from life as the fountain and spring of them; and indeed the first adam acted from life. i pray make a thing act, if you can, that hath not life to act from. 2. as for acting for life, the true meaning ought to be adjusted: that life should be our end and aim is not to be doubted, according to a right understanding of it. christ propounds himself as life unto poor sinners, and saith, i am the resurrection and the life. and so he is the life unto a believer; he that hath the son hath life. now it must be understood when we speak of working for life, we speak of a considerate sedate regular acting and working. not acting and working as one that is scared and affrighted with the danger of life, death lying inevitably to his apprehension before him; not as scrambling to save himself in the water from drowning. now a poor sinner awakened under the law, and seeing a little glimpse of gospel-hope through grace shining into his heart, it may be bestirs himself with all his might, and ascribes much to every duty he doth. but we speak here of what the true spirit and disposition of a christian is, he ought to arrive at by faith; the question is, whether he works for life? a. i say, he doth, and he doth not. 1. he makes life his subordinate aim and end. but, (1.) he that hath christ by faith, doth not work as if he had not christ already: (2.) he doth not work for life, so as to entitle himself unto life; some work for this end, as if he had not life already. he sees by faith that he is christ's, and that all things are his, whether life, or whether things present or to come. (3.) he doth not work for life, so far as to think thereby to keep himself alive, or maintain himself in a covenant-state, so as by his works to continue his justification any more than to get it at first. (4.) he doth not work for life in a way of remunerative justice; no, not for the continuance of life in a way of remuneration: for indeed herein lies only the difference between a legal and gospel-spirit; if the spirit that acted the first adam before the fall, (i speak not of a legal spirit since the fall) and the true spirit of a believer in christ be compared together; for adam then acted from life already given; he acted not as having no life, but acted for the continuance of life, upon the account of the working conditions enjoined, and expected life by way of remuneration, i. e. the continuation of life. now such working for life as this we must reject, and such is intended, we say we must not work for life. it's not to be understood, as if the spiritual man had not a sanctified rational end in all his actings, which we say is for the glory of god in free grace, for christ in whom his life is; he acts from the life that is in christ, and he is carried forth to it, and in it: he is created in christ jesus to good works, that he should walk in them, looking unto jesus, heb. 12. and looking upon all things as his in christ, his business is to live unto christ. 1 cor. 1.30, 31. ch. 3.22, 23. to me (saith paul) to live is christ, and to die is gain, i. e. i shall come to a further enjoyment of christ. theology is defined to be the doctrine of living unto god; so that in living unto god, and to god in christ, a christian hath all things that appertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of god our saviour, 2 pet. 1.3. christ is our alpha and omega, of him, and through him, and to him are all things, to him be glory for ever and eaer, rom. 11.36. now what need all this great ado about working for life, showing the danger of this doctrine, that it teacheth to abandon nature, and supposeth us to do no more than other men, and it makes all motives useless, etc. whereas if men will not have perverse minds, they must own and acknowledge the same things that they oppose, unless they will deny their own reason. but when a spirit of contradiction prevails, there is nothing but quirks, sophisms and equivocations can take place with men. and notwithstanding all your noise and authority, to work for life in the true sense, it is to act as by and under a covenant of works; it's to work for life as wages, and to gain a right and title thereby, and such a principle will abandon the grace of the gospel: it will teach to violate all the precepts and principles of the gospel, it will elude all the promises, and lay a man under the full rigour of the law, and will never be any effective motive to acceptable duty. it is a fault itself that lies under the blackest mark, and of as dangerous consequence as any the gospel cautions us against, and warns to take heed of seeking the establishing our own righteousness. that true gospel discourse of worthy mr. vink at the morning-lecture will tell you better things, on 2 tim. 2.19. wherein he shows, that gospel grace is the best motive to holiness. he saith— our business is to inquire after what we propound in our obedience. if it be to expiate for my past offences, or to merit undeserved favours, it must needs be abominable in the sight of god, being the highest act of pride or presumption that can be imagined, let our works be what they will (though the best are but filthy rags) if they be offered unto god by way of barter or exchange; they become most abominable, as if god stood in need of something that we have— to departed from iniquity, or to labour in holiness, in order to express our thankfulness unto god for his mercies in jesus christ, is most grateful and most forcible. again, love unto god for all his glorious excellencies, especially for his mercy in christ jesus, is the best principle of holiness, and our departing from iniquity, and this love is begun and flows from god's love first. — he that acts according to any of god's commandments out of hope to merit by them, may act out of love indeed, but it must be then self-love, to obtain, as he vainly thinks, by his obedience eternal happiness. our love of god should exceed self-love as far as god himself exceeds, which is infinitely. our love of god is a virtue, and the foundation of the rest. our love of ourselves, thus taken, is a sin, a mother sin, the cause of all the rest of our sins, etc. i am mistaken if i find not this doctrine of working for life according to your sense, exactly in the council of trent, decree xvi. grace proposeth to the just the exercise of good works, by which eternal life is gained, as grace promised by the mercy of god, and a reward due to good works by the divine promise. and it concludeth, this doctrine doth not establish any righteousness of our own, refusing the righteousness of god; but the same is said to be in us, and of god, being infused by him for the merit of christ. calvin. but mr. neonomian saith in his reply, it's vain and false, mr. antinomian, that you say, that you are only against setting graces and holiness in the place of christ. antinom. he that reads my sermons must needs see the truth of that assertion; i have nothing to say to such as only depend upon mr. neonomian's report. neonom. he reckons they are put in christ's place, though they be affirmed but as means and conditions antecedently necessary by divine appointment to obtain any blessing for the sake of christ's merits. antinom. and well i may, if men must be gracious and holy antecedently to any blessing, for the sake of christ's merits, and by virtue of that antecedent grace and holiness do obtain blessings for the sake of christ's merits; i think you outstrip the papists here in the doctrine of merit. neonom. his principles are, that faith is not so much as an instrument whereby we are united to christ or justified. p. 616. antinom. he speaks not there of faith as an instrument, but he doth speak of it as such, p. 597. where he saith— faith is not the instrument radically to unite christ and the soul together, but rather is the fruit that flows from christ the root, being united beforehand [by the spirit] to the persons that do believe. neonom. 2. that christ brings us all good things when we are ungodly, so it's in vain to do any thing to obtain these. p. 41. antinom. he speaks there of justification by faith alone, without works— and we are delivered from wrath before we step a step into duties; and we do not the duty to be delivered, but we do the duty because we are delivered; and seeing all these are settled by christ for us, of free gift; all we do is for christ himself; i say, that we do, we do for christ, and not for ourselves. neonom. he saith, obedience is not the way to heaven, and sanctification is not the way to a justified person. antinom. no, sanctification is not the way of justification; he speaks of the way of justification; we are not according to his divinity justified by inherent holiness or righteousness, though we are according to yours. and he tells you, sanctification is our business in christ the way; for whatever duty is performed acceptably, must be wrought by faith in christ jesus; we are sanctified in christ, christ is the true way of sanctification. neonom. he saith, he should not have the least thought in his heart of promoting or advancing himself, or any end of his own, by doing what he doth. antinom. you know this thing is no new doctrine. it use to be one of the signs and marks of truth of grace, when we act in duty singly for the glory of god, and not for selfish and sinister ends and designs, but this is spoken to sufficiently before. debate xv. of the way to attain assurance. neonom. the next error that i have to charge mr. antinomian with, is his doctrine of assurance. error. assurance is not attained by the evidence of scripture marks or signs of grace; or by the spirits discovering to us that he hath wrought in our hearts any holy qualifications: but assurance comes only by an inward voice of the spirit, saying, thy sins are forgiven thee; and our believing thereupon that our sins are forgiven. d. w. p. 161. antinom. what evidence do you bring of your charge? neonom. you say, if you would know that the lord hath laid your iniquities on christ, you must know it thus. 1. is there a voice behind thee in thyself, thy sins are forgiven thee? dost thou see this voice agree with the word of grace? i. e. dost thou see it held out to most vile and wretched creatures as thou canst be? and upon this revelation of the mind of the lord by his spirit according to that word, doth the lord give to thee to receive that testimony of the spirit, to sit down with it as satisfied, that upon this thou makest full reckoning thou hast propriety in this particularly to thyself? if thou dost receive that testimony according to that word, here is thy evidence, thou hast thy propriety and portion in this. dr. cr. p. 491. calvin. and do you banter this doctrine as erroneous stuff? i would wish you to have a care, it's a tender point. antinom. i will acquaint you with a little of my foregoing discourse— let us see what kind of evidencing believing gives, it is not a revealing evidence, dr. cr. p. 491. nor an effecting evidence, [these the word and spirit are] but it is a receiving evidence; or it is an evidence as it doth receive that testimony which the spirit holds out, applying it to the heart; [as the eyes receive the light, and the ears the sound, and if we ask a man how do you know such a thing, he will say, i saw it with my eyes, and heard it with mine ears:] it is an evidence, as an officer in court that speaks nothing of his own knowledge, but produceth records, and testifieth the authenticness of the records: the life of evidence is materially in the records themselves, but the officer is an evidence, as he doth assert the truth of such records. it is even so with faith, the spirit of the lord makes the records, and speaks the records to the heart: now faith comes in and receives what the spirit of the lord hath written. in brief, faith is an evidence as it doth take possession of that which the spirit of the lord reveals, and manifests, and gives to a person; or as it doth enter upon the deed of gift that the spirit of the lord doth bring to the heart. possession is a good evidence in law, [they say it's an eleven points;] let a man prove he hath lawful possession, and he proves his title good. the spirit indeed makes the title good, but faith makes good the entry and possession, so clears the title to us, though good in itself before: faith is nothing else but the receiving of christ, and that enters upon the possession of him, and thus i proceeded to apply this to our purpose, as he hath mentioned. calvin. i suppose you refer to what is spoken by the apostle john, ep. 1. c. 5. where he tells of god's records, ver. 11. this is the record, that god hath given us eternal life, and this life is in his son. now our assurance that this life is mine or thine in particular is the spirits working by faith, whereby the soul of a particular sinner doth appropriate this record or deed of gift to himself. faith doth two things whereby it arrives at assurance. 1. it is a witness of the truth of god, ver. 10. it attests the truth of this record and deed of gift, 1 john 5.9, 10. 2. it receives and takes possession of it, and saith, i have received the son, and i have life, faith being a receiving act of the soul, as you yourself acknowledge, mr. neonomian. ver. 12. he that hath the son hath life, etc. this is so clear and plain from the word, that he who will deny it must deny the scriptures, john 1.12. neonom. your sermon, p. 15. is to prove that love to the brethren, universal obedience, sincerity, etc. are not signs by which we should judge our state. antinom. i say, they are signs that are not sufficiently satisfactory in themselves to full assurance, without this that proceeds from faith; for if you have never so many signs, 1. they may be true, or they may not, without a witness of the spirit to it, [though you declaim so much against it;] you cannot come to an assurance, but only to a probability, and you have not a certitude of judgement, only an opinion. 2. if they be true, you must believe them to be true, or else you have no assurance. a man hath no assurance of the truth if he believe it not; and then how should you believe the truth of your signs, but by the truth of the word revealed and believed. the word tells you your obedience, love, sincerity, must be so and so; you believe the word, but in comparing your qualifications with the word, and the descriptions given of them there, you will find them fall so short, that unless the spirit assure you there is the truth of grace in your hearts, you will be as much at a loss as to assurance as ever. i propounded this question, how a person may know in particular his own interest in christ? dr. cr. p. 478, 479. first i discovered the litigiousness and dubiousness of the way that many persons go for the satisfying and resolving of this case. i instanced in three marks, universal obedience, sincerity of heart, and love of the brethren; and some have conceived, that in the discourse i have directly struck at the heart of these particulars, as if i did attempt the overthrow of them: but mistake not, i spoke only of their insufficiency, that they are weak through the flesh, to give a satisfactory resolution of the great case depending, they are of excellent use in their own kind, sphere and orb; but when they are set on work to do those things that are beyond their power, men do but entangle themselves instead of getting themselves lose. i shown, as to universal obedience, dr. cr. p. 480, 481. according to propriety of speech, there is none of it in the world; and as it is practised to this end it leaves the case very doubtful; in respect of many imperfections that attend, and in respect of the purposes of the heart, which are many times extremely corrupt, and that there is so much in our obedience common to unbelievers and hypocrites. as for sincerity, which as the apostle describes, is simplicity and singleness of heart towards god, that we find the jews that were enemies to christ's righteousness, had a zeal for god; and you know what paul saith of himself, what designs he had undoubtedly in singleness of heart to do god service. and besides, i show how false and deceitful we find our hearts upon self-examination. i spoke also as to love of the brethren which the apostle john speaks so much of, if we understand how the apostle describes it, 1 cor. 13. and if a man examine his heart by these particulars, i know his heart cannot but tell him he is exceeding faulty in all these— but i do not determine peremptorily, that a man cannot by way of evidence receive any comfort from his sanctification; and i will give you somewhat further for clearing my judgement to you, which i know is according to truth; viz. that the spirit of the lord must first reveal the gracious mind of god to our spirits, and give us faith to receive that testimony of the spirit, and to sit down as satisfied with his testimony, before ever any work of sanctification can possibly give any evidence. but when the testimony of the spirit of the lord is received by faith, and the soul sits down satisfied with that testimony of the lord, than also all the gifts of god's spirit do bear witness, together with the spirit of the lord, and the faith of a believer. so that i do not deny the use of signs and marks in sanctification you see, as you suggest. neonom. sermon 16. he calls it the revealing evidence of the spirit, and endeavours to prove this immediate revelation. antinom. that the spirit is a revealing evidence, and works immediately, as it is the spirit or grace in all god's children, is not to be denied, and yet works immediately by the word and means of grace too, and it works immediately so ordinarily; i do not mean that it works immediately by way of extraordinary revelation and inspiration when it works in this kind. but its way of ordinary working is mediately by the word, and immediately in the word. i put this question, is there any evidences in the world by which persons may comfortably claim their interest in the privileges of christ? dr. cr. p. 465. a. yes, there are two. 1. the revealing evidence. 2. the receiving evidence. the revealing evidence is the voice of the spirit to a man's own spirit, saying, son, be of good cheer, thy sins are forgiven thee.— and this will overcome all objections, and till the spirit of the lord come immediately himself, and speak this to the soul, all the world shall never be able to satisfy and resolve that soul, and till then all signs and marks are mere darkness and riddles. to clear up this, i say, the spirit of the lord is mainly sent into the world by christ for this very purpose, to speak personally and particularly to the hearts of men, to satisfy them of their interest in christ. that this was the main business of the spirit, the scripture shows, and holds out nothing more. 1. it maybe cleared from the very attribute or title which our saviour gives to the spirit of the lord, john 14.16. c. 16.7, 8, 9, 14. the comforter; this is he by way of eminency, and the title imports, that the satisfaction and resolution concerning interest in christ is the work of the spirit.— what is the occasion of all the trouble of spirit in tender hearts? p. 467. god hath forsaken me, saith one, my sins are gone over my head, saith another, etc. what will now cheer up the heart of such a person? it is that god will not lay thy sins to thy charge, etc. if the comfort of a person consists in the assurance of pardon, than the spirit cannot be a comforter, except it satisfy as to clearing up this truth, thy sins are forgiven. 2. besides this bare title, you shall see the spirit hath this particular office, as that, wherefore christ doth testify the spirit doth come. john 14 26. the comforter which is the holy ghost, whom the father will send in my name, and he shall teach you these things. chap. 16.13. when the spirit of truth is come, he shall guide you into all truth. ver. 14. he shall glorify me, he shall receive of mine, and show it unto you. mark those words, you see then wherein the comforting faculty of the holy ghost lieth, in receiving of christ's, and showing those things to persons— which things are the glorious excellency of christ in justification and forgiveness, acts 13.38, 39 and more fully of his office, to convince the world of sin and righteousness, john 16.8, 9— and a person is convinced of righteousness when christ's righteousness in justification is cleared up unto a person. and whereas the spirit may be conceived to comfort only in general: dr. cr. p. 469. there is a difference between the administration of christ, and that of the spirit of christ. christ came into the world to merit salvation, and comfort men in general; for though he merited comfort in particular to be applied by the spirit, yet still in his ministration he did run upon general terms for the most part. but the spirit is sent in christ's room to come to every man's spirit particularly by himself, and speak that within a man's self, that christ by the ministry of the gospel speaks, but in general to men; therefore he saith, if i go not away the comforter cannot come. and now i shall show that the evidencing particularly unto a man's spirit concerning his interest in christ is the proper work of the spirit of god, rom. 8.14, 15. and 1 cor. 2.9, 10, 11, 12, 13. ephes. 1.13, 14. these places i opened, and applied to the matter in hand, clearly proving the evidencing office of the spirit. obj. but suppose i hear such a voice, here is the doubt, how shall i know it's the voice of the spirit? dr. cr. p. 473. if the word did bear witness to this particular voice of the spirit, than i should be satisfied, etc. sol. let me not be mistaken. that it is true the spirit of the lord never speaks to the heart of any believer, but he always applies according to the word of grace revealed, and the voice of the spirit, and if the word of grace be in the soul, (as they go always together in the faithful,) they will agree as face answers face in a glass; but yet beware that you make not the credit of the voice of the spirit depend upon the word barely considered— in brief therefore, as it is the testimony of god's spirit speaking indeed according to the word, dr. cr. p. 475. that must satisfy us that we are the children of god; so it must be the same spirit must assure us, that he is the true spirit of god, and not of delusion. but still i say, this spirit of the lord speaks always to persons concerning their interest in christ, according to the word of grace; and it is most certainly true, that every voice in man speaking peace, being contrary to the word of grace, that voice is not the voice of the spirit of the lord, yet it is only the spirit of the lord can satisfy the spirit of a man in this thing, that it is his own testimony, and not a spirit of delusion: you may understand the word in a double sense, either for the word of the law, or else for the word of grace in the gospel. now mark, when we say it is the spirit of god bearing witness with our spirits, according to the word, that we are the sons of god; it's not the word of the law that agrees in this with the voice of the spirit; the word of the law speaks nothing but curses. — the word in which the spirit of the lord speaks to his people, is the word of grace, and the word of grace is no more but this, [as to the sum and substance of it, in this, or such like expression thereof.] god was in christ reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses. neonom. you see the spirits voice according to the word is no more than according to the general account, that christ came to save sinners: and also if any sinner have this inward voice, that voice is according to the word, whether he be a regenerate person or no. d. w. p. 162. antinom. the gospel declaration is indefinite, we say it's the peculiar work and office of the spirit to bring home the promise in particular; it's not any thing but the spirit can appropriate the general promise particularly to any one. i said also, that the spirit of the lord doth both speak, and likewise give to men to credit and receive what he speaks. dr. cr. p. 477. all the righteousness that ever man did (mere man) since the fall, dr. cr. p. 482. was never able to say upon good grounds, such a person is a child of god. nay, to go higher, the very word of grace is not able to speak peace to a soul till the spirit of the lord will speak.— when the spirit of god will be silent, the word of grace shall not speak any thing; if the spirit blow, the trumpet makes a found, but if it blow not, the trumpet makes no sound at all. as the spirit of the lord will speak in the word of grace, so the melody of the word will ravish the ears and hearts of believers; but if the spirit himself will be silent, there is no music in the word of grace itself.— no man under heaven can say, god is my father with propriety, but by the spirit of adoption. calvin. mr. neonom. i know not any just exception you can have against this divinity, there being so clear evidence for what is here delivered, from the word of god. neonom. he saith, faith is the echo of the heart to the voice of the spirit. calvin. in the continuation of pool 's annotations, one of your vouchers hath this on 1 john 5.10. he that truly believes hath the effectual impress of this testimony upon his soul. what is that but the echo of it, speaking the same thing. neonom. he means that faith doth not evidence our pardon as it is a grace wrought in the soul by the spirit, or a holy qualification, but only as it doth assent to, and rest in this inward voice. d. w. p. 163. antinom. no, he doth not place this evidencing nature of faith, which he speaks of, in it, as an act or qualification; for as such it evidenceth no more than any other grace; but faith hath a peculiar evidencing nature in it, because it is a receiving grace, (he speaks not now of assent) it takes possession of the promise: and would not you have faith to be assenting to and resting on the voice of the spirit in the word? what would you have it be nothing at all? neonom. he seems to own that sanctification is some evidence. antinom. he doth so, as was observed before. calvin. i pray, what is your sense concerning the way of attaining assurance? neonom. truth; the ordinary way whereby a man attaineth a well-grounded assurance, is not by immediate objective revelation, or an inward voice, saying, thy sins are forgiven. d. w. p. 160. antinom. i judge by this negation you set by these things from assurance, as having nothing to do ordinarily in it. 1. that no voice is heard any way by the soul, thy sins are forgiven, that is not to be believed by a direct act of faith. 2. that forgiveness of sin is not revealed to a believer by the word of promise believed. 3. that the spirit of god hath nothing to do in bringing the soul to appropriate and apply the general promise particularly to his own soul. so that here, as to our believing forgiveness of sin, neither the spirit, nor the objective revelation of the gospel, nor indeed faith itself in its receiving nature, hath any thing to do, but only as a sign and mark set upon the soul. neonom. but when a believer is examining his heaert and life by the word, the holy spirit enlightens the mind there to discern faith and love, and such other qualifications, which the gospel declareth to be the infallible signs of regeneration: and he adds such power to the testimony of conscience for the truth and in-being of these graces, as begets in a soul a joyful sense of its comfortable state, and some comfortable freedom from those fears which accompany a doubting christian: and according to the evidence of these graces, assurance is ordinarily strong or weak. antinom. i observe now, though you would let the spirit have no hand in the evidence of faith, yet you need its help to enlighten about signs and qualifications. i pray, how doth the spirit enlighten here? is it by any objective revelation, or by any inward dictate or intimation? and cannot the spirit as well enlighten the mind to behold christ in the promise by an act of faith, as to behold faith and love in ourselves. 2. you will not admit the declaration of the gospel received and embraced by faith to evidence, but that it seems the heart and life must be examined by the word as a rule: so that assurance must be wrought by the word as a law, not as a gospel, so far as you are come up to a conformity to the rule, not a testimony of your interest in the grace of the gospel. 3. you had need have the light of the spirit to find an infallible sign in you too, though they be declared in the gospel. hypocrites pretend to them, and you cannot tell whether you are any better than a hypocrite, without an infallible voice of the spirit, (according to your doctrine;) for you must know that you shall persevere in those qualifications, and it's impossible for a man to be assured till death, or can be assured of his perseverance till then, (all other signs will signify nothing) without an infallible witness. 4. you must have a power added by the spirit to the testimony of conscience, that it may witness the truth and in-being of graces. what's the reason it cannot witness the truth of our in-being in christ, and add a power to our faith to believe even unto assurance? 5. all this examination, illumination of the spirit, gospel-declaration, etc. may at last beget a joyful sense or a reconciled state, you say; but according to you it cannot be assurance, because you cannot yet try by perseverance; the soul is in a little hopes it's in a probable way to salvation, but cannot be assured he is in a sure state, or shall certainly be saved, because he must continue his justified state by his works; and therefore it's impossible for him to try and find so far as to assurance; because he hath not persevered, you'll say, it may be: he must believe his perseverance, and be assured of it by faith; then, i say, there's as much ground to believe and be assured by faith of all our salvation. 6. you speak not of an assurance in all you have said, but of some comfortable freedom from doubtings, i. e. upon some probable grounds: this amounts to more than opinion at last, the only judgement of a contingent axiom; and you tell us elsewhere our state here is but of trial not decided, therefore there can be no assurance at all in this life. 7. you do well to add at last, that according to the evidence of these graces, assurance is ordinarily strong or weak: and may not that assurance be so, which we call the assurance of faith? may it not be strong or weak, according to the evidence that faith gives in being strong or weak faith? but now go on to your whethers and neither's. neonom. i will show you wherein the difference is not. d.w. p. 164. antinom. so you may, and enumerate all things in the world by sea and by land besides. it is not whether the sun be the element of fire, nor how many regions in the air, nor whether spirits are material, nor whether anima be ex traduce? etc. neonom. it is not whether the spirit witnesseth by his miraculous operations to christ, and the gospel, which is a truth, and the meaning of many of the texts which you quote. antinom. i do not know that we were like to stumble there, for we speak only of the spirits witnessing in its ordinary way, and so are all the texts to be understood, so far as they have been applied to our purpose. neonom. nor whether the spirit as a worker of grace in the heart be an earnest of glory, and witness to our state. antinom. very good, then sure if the spirit be an earnest of glory; it's an evidence of glory; for what is a greater evidence of a state than an earnest? yea, you say it's also a witness of our state, if it be a witness it is by a testimony, and if it bear testimony, and such an one as we take to be a witness to our state, it is something to this purpose, christ is thine, thy sins are forgiven; it must witness something that may beget in the soul a joyful sense of its reconciled state; there, contrary to you, assurance must come in the immediate objective revelation of the spirit, by the spirits speaking in the promise believed: god is thy god, christ is thine, thy sins are taken away, or something to this purpose. neither is this absurd, to say the spirit speaks thus ordinarily by a voice, because it is so interpretatively, the lord speaks when he causeth his word to speak effectually unto the heart; and whatever truth of god is made efficacious by the spirit, the spirit speaks by it. if any word of promise become a truly comforting word, the spirit as comforter speaks by it; you have granted us here in a manner as much as we can desire in this point, excepting an equivocating expression, viz. as a worker of grace; and whatever evasion you have there, this i will say, that you make the spirit an evidence in its efficiency itself, as an efficient; whereas signs and marks are but evidences as effects. and is not the spirit received in its first sensible efficiency in and by the promise a great evidence? gal. 3.3. 2 pet. 1.3. neonom. nor whether the spirit witnesseth by and with the conscience, in the manifestation of our graces for assurance. calvin. it is a strange thing that you should make such a loud cry in the world against a man for error, when you in a manner say the same thing; and the word of god asserts it so positively, that the spirit is the comforter, and witnesseth with our spirits that we are his children; and you say as the worker of grace, i. e. of all grace, and therefore of this grace; and if it works, it must be by some word of peace that it speaks and is believed; and you say it witnesses by and with the conscience, the conscience speaking in and by the spirit; and how is the conscience made to speak peace more than by the sprinkling of the blood of christ, whereby an evil condemning conscience is taken away? what manifestation of grace works peace most, the manifestation of the grace of christ, or of our graces? and these must appear to be the graces of christ, and slow from him, or else they are no graces; the witness of the spirit, and the intelligible believed voice of the spirit, particularly applying the declaration of the gospel of peace must be in all, and is the most settled ground of all comfortable assurance. neonom. nor whether the spirit of god may in some extraordinary cases give an immediate testimony by a voice, or some equivalent impressions. d. w. p. 164. antinom. 1. you grant that sometimes the spirit may witness by voice, or equivalent impressions. 2. the extraordinary cases you here speak of must be meant of some, not so usual in an ordinary way. 3. i would know whether then the spirit is to be believed, and how its voice may be distinguished from the voice of a false spirit? 4. whether when you speak of a voice you mean an articulate sound, or such a still voice as the spirit speaks by, which is an impression of gospel truth with a particular application to the soul; this, as you say, is equivalent to a voice, and it is the echo of the word of promise in the heart, and this is not an extraordinary nor unusual way, bringing souls to settled peace and comfort. neonom. but then there was the truth of grace, though it was doubted before; and nothing utterly inconsistent with true grace, either in the heart, nor then appeareth to the conscience. antinom. so that there is first a witness from ourselves, before there's witness from the spirit; but how comes it that this witness from ourselves hath not credit enough with it to be believed? for if it hath, whence comes doubting? here's truth of grace, and nothing appears to the contrary, and yet the person doubts; doth any man doubt of any thing, when he apprehends nothing to the contrary? and you say, there's the truth of grace before the spirit witnesseth who wrought this truth of grace; do you not say, that it witnesseth to our state as a worker of grace? neonom. i will tell you where the true difference lies, 1. whether none attain assurance but by the inward voice of the spirit, pronouncing the actual forgiveness of sins, without manifesting their true grace and sanctification. this you affirm, and i deny. antinom. you should have made the first question, whether any assurance is attainable till death, because perseverance is one of your infallible marks, and all others signify nothing, unless we can take up upon that, and that must run out to the last moment before we can. 2. we affirm, that there can be no assurance without knowledge that our sins are forgiven; assign an assurance without it if you can; and your assurance from marks must come to this if it be assurance. 3. this must be by the spirits pronouncing of it, or no way; when you have found all that you can, it's god must speak peace, or else it will never be; and peace of reconciliation, however you banter god's reconciling the world, and the spirits bringing home the word of reconciliation. 4. who ever spoke of the spirits manifesting forgiveness, without manifestation of the whole grace of god that brings salvation, in sanctification as well as justification? both comes under the witness of the spirit, and therefore you are besides the question, and state it not right. neonom. the next question is, whether the usual way of attaining assurance, is by the conscience upon trial discerning and concluding through the help of the spirit, that a man hath those graces or signs which describe a man blessed and pardoned according to the gospel. this i affirm, and you deny. antinom. 1. that i deny sanctification to be a sign of justification is false, for that which is an undoubted effect is a sign of the cause, and an argument of it to conclude it by. 2. it's not the question, whether it be not the usual way of attaining assurance, de facto; such gospel preachers as you are still putting them upon this way, and telling them there's no other safe way. 3. the question is, whether this be the only way? whether another way ought not to go first? neonom. i will now confirm the truth by some arguments. 1. this is the way that god appoints to attain assurance, 2 cor. 13.5. 2 pet. 1.10. antinom. this is one way, who denies it, and a duty required to examine ourselves? but where lies the critical point? it's in christ being in us, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, try or see by trial whether christ be in you; how? look after the true evidence of it by finding out the thing itself, i. e. christ received by faith, and witnessed by his spirit, for christ is in us these ways. 1. by his spirit. 2. by faith. 3. by our mystical union, i in them, john 17. now this trial is by faith, for it is thus: do we see the things that are invisible? but suppose you say, the trial is by the fruits of faith; we deny it not, but we say, they are not only here, but to be understood; therefore the place concludes not against us, nor that place, 2 pet. 1.10. the apostle there tells us, we have all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue; and if all things, than assurance too, for it's through great and precious promises that we are partakers of the divine nature, and through them, as the spirit is bestowed, so it comforts and ensures life and salvation to us. and as it works many gracious virtues and fruits in us, so it excites and stirs us up to increase and growth in grace, ver. 5, 6, 7. and where these things are not, it is a sign that a man hath no true savour of pardoning grace, lying under senlesness of the great reason of christ's death and satisfaction, (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉,) of christ, purging away of sin, i. e. by sacrifice, of his bearing of sin of old, so long ago; and it's no doubt but the real total absence of the fruits of faith, is a sign there is no faith; if these things be wanting, such an one is purblind, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or false-sighted, thinks he is something when there's nothing; but the difficulty is this, a man saith, he hath upon trial, these virtues, but is ; he looks close to himself, and passeth a wrong judgement, how shall he be convinced that he hath them not? or he saith, he hath them not; how shall he come to be satisfied that he hath them? who must resolve these difficulties? is it not the word and spirit that must resolve it in believing? therefore the rather give all diligence to make your calling and election sure; and how is that done? why not in believing? doth not faith make our calling sure; is election to be known any way but by believing? and how is our calling, i. e. invitation to believe? how is that made good, but by answering the call? for he saith, doing these things 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, i. e. making calling and election sure, by getting a sure footing and standing in christ by faith, you shall not fall or stumble, so as to fall; and an entrance shall be abundantly ministered; the words are so, an entrance into his eternal kingdom shall be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ministered to you. now christ he is the door, and a rich entrance into his kingdom, ministered to every one that believeth; so that the crisis of our state that the spirit of god puts us upon in both places is, especially about our faith in christ, which faith is a witness in ourselves, and the spirit witnessing with it, and all ways and means causing our faith to witness, and giving us light and evidence from the word believed, to see the graces of god and fruits of the spirit in our hearts. neonom. this is the way whereby the scripture saints were assured: they concluding their justication by their sanctification; and a state of peace by the truth of grace, 1 john 3.14. ver. 9 ver. 18. thus david, paul, and other saints, concluded the safety of their state. d. w. p. 165. antinom. this is one way, but not the only or principal way: the apostle john tells often, that love, if it be true, and from a true principle, and root, is an argument of our regenerate state, but that it may be known to be such, it must be traced to the head, (it being but a stream) to see how it flows from the love of christ apprehended by faith, whereby we have our radical hold and standing. and as he saith, ver. 14. hereby we know we are passed from death to life, because we love the brethren. yet lest he should leave us in the dark, and we should take false love for true, he tells us, there is another judgement to pass upon our love before we can argue from it, we must find that it flows from our perception of the love of god, in laying down his life for us; and from thence should proceed our readiness to lay down our life for the brethren; ver. 16. in this we know, or are assured of god's love, in that he laid down his life for us. the love of god believed gives the original ground of assurance, and is the greatest, and the touchstone to an other. a witness from men, from what is found in us, is something, but the witness of god is greater, 1 john 5.9. and the witness that he hath given to us in the gospel concerning his son testified by the spirit, and applied by faith, is that evidence upon which all firm assurance is radically built. and you shall plainly see, that john doth not found our assurance radically upon love, but in justifying faith; he saith, ver. 18. let us be sincere in love; and i will tell you whereby you shall attain to good assurance; ver. 19 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in this, [i. e. in what follows, in this, refers not to the foregoing verse, but to what follows; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is often used as the causal particle, for, for in this we shall know, or be assured, that we are of the truth, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉,] we shall persuade our hearts; it's rendered well, assure our hearts, bring our hearts to assurance, by believing that whereby condemnation is removed; for saith he, if this be not, whatever judgement we have of what is in ourselves, it may deceive us; and god knows enough in us to condemn us, for if our heart's labour under unbelief, and condemn us, whatever we find in ourselves will not give us peace; and god is greater than our hearts, therefore we must assure our hearts that way which will hold good in the eye of god's justice, i. e. by faith in jesus christ, ver. 21. and, saith he, if our heart condemn us not, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, we have cheerfulness and boldness towards god; and how is it possible that the condemnation of our hearts should be taken off but by believing, and thereby persuading our hearts. but you will say, it may be that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is not used for to express our believing? but i will show you it is. see heb. 11.13. they all died in faith, having not received the promises, but saw them afar off, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, were persuaded of them, i. e. believed them, so as to be assured of them. as for the rest of the saints you shall find all along that their triumphant assurances was by faith. abraham, rom. 4.20, 21. see the various phrases to express his full assurance of faith, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, he made no dispute or doubt about the promise; the english well express, he staggered not at the promise, or through unbelief, ver. 19 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, ver. 19 he was not weak in faith, but was strong in faith, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and consulted not with himself, secondary causes, or carnal reason, but was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, carried forth with a full gale of assurance. job 19.25. job's assurance was the assurance of faith, i know my redeemer liveth, etc. david under his greatest trial of banishment by his own son from the house of god, psal. 42.10. when challenged by his enemies at the highest rate, at which he was so disquieted, he calls up his soul to take up comfort in believing, ver. 11. and 45.5. paul, rom. 7. where he tells how low he was brought upon self-examination, as to what he could find in himself, ver. 18. i know that in me, that is in my flesh there dwells no good thing. see how he complains, ver. 24. o wretched man that i am, etc. as much as to say, i am wretched in regard of the evil, sin, and corruption that i find abounding in me; but ver. 25. i thank god through jesus christ our lord; there is the root of his comfort, in the faith that he had in jesus christ, though there was this little small spark of holiness in him, a mind at least to serve the law of god, yet he trusted not to that: and you see, 2 cor. 12.7, 8, 9 when he fell into temptation and buffeting, was it his duties and services to christ and his churches, that supported him? no, it was an objective manifestation to him received by faith, my grace is sufficient for thee; but you will say, his rejoicing was in the testimony of his conscience, 2 cor. 1.12. it's true it was, and the testimony of a good conscience as to our hearts and ways is matter of rejoicing, but this was in paul without confidence in the flesh, or ascribing any thing to it, but by seeing all in christ, and that all flowed down from the free grace and love of god, all his simplicity and sincerity of heart was seen by faith to be gifts of grace; therefore you see whensoever the children of god took any comforts and rejoices from the fruits of the spirit, they made not these as the fundamental ground of their assurance, but a confirming and additional ground, and such as was very uncertain, insomuch that at some times they were at a perfect loss for them, yet was not without their rooted and grounded assurances in the darkest times, and under the obscurest providences. neonom. the conscience is bound to condemn every man in whom the contrary to these graces do appear, yea, where it's evident they are wholly wanting. it's otherwise a seared conscience, 1 tim. 4.2. it's the candle of the lord; now there can be no assurance where the conscience condemns, 1 john 3.19, 20, 21. d. w. p. 166. antinom. there is nothing but the sprinkling of the blood of christ applied by faith that can take off the conscience from condemning, and without this all the works and duties in the world cannot do it; it's the law that obligeth the conscience to condemn; and the sense of our imperfections and weaknesses, and remainder of corruption may be where there is no condemning conscience; but wherefore is it? not because of what they find in themselves, but from what they find in christ; and it's a harsh doctrine that you teach, from 1 tim. 4.2. that all that cannot find works enough in themselves to conclude their state in christ from, and hold it merely by faith in christ, and thereby freed from condemning consciences, have seared, cauterised consciences, such as the apostle prophecies of, that should abound in the antichristian apostasy and seduction; and you subvert the doctrine of the gospel thereby, helping to fulfil that prophecy, by what doctrine the text will tell you. neonom. the spirit witnesseth with our spirits, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, rom. 8.16. it doth not witness before our spirits doth witness: it is not a separate testimony from our spirits, but it concurs with our spirit as its instrument, our spirit witnesseth in the light of the spirit, 1 cor. 9.1. my conscience bearing me witness in the holy ghost. antinom. what is this argument brought for, is this to prove that there's no assurance by the voice of the spirit? and that the only way of assurance is by signs and marks? but you have brought in this place of scripture as many men retain council in their case, they fee some council only that they may not be against them; but the word of god will not be bribed, this place is directly against you. the apostle here tells us the very comforting office of the holy ghost, that it becomes a spirit of adoption, this is the spirit of christ, gal. 4.6. and what is it that it doth? it teacheth us to call god father; and how doth it do this? a. it's by witnessing to us our relation, viz. that we are the sons of god; this is that which doth assure us of our inheritance: if children than heirs. now i argue, that which witnesseth in the children of god, that they are the children of god, insomuch that from thence they can conclude themselves heirs, doth pronounce the actual forgiveness of their si●s, and is the usual way of assurance: but the spirit witnesseth in the children of god, that they are the children of god; ergo, there is a pronunciation of actual forgiveness by the voice of the spirit, etc. for the major it's proved from gal. 3.26. the spirit bestows adoption by faith in christ jesus, ye are all the children of g●d by faith in christ jesus; and ver. 29. if ye be christ's then are you of abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise; you'll allow the spirit to witness, but not before our spirit, so that you'll have our spirits to be before the spirit, the signior evidence. i deny it, for that which causeth our spirits to give evidence, is not the younger evidence, but the spirit causeth our hearts to give evidence, ergo: now for the minor, that the spirit causeth our hearts to give evidence, i prove from yourself; you say the spirit concurs with our spirit as its instrument; now the efficient is before the instrument by which it works, and instrumentum is but causa ministrans at most, and is res motu facta, in that respect is effectum efficientis. now the way of the spirits witnessing is by bringing to our spirit an objective manifestation of grace in the promise, and causing us by faith to make a particular application thereof to ourselves, and so we become by the witness of the spirit to be the children of god by faith, in the same sense we are heirs according to the promise, gal. 3.29. now therefore the spirit must witness first as the worker of this assurance by the promise, that faith may witness; and you yourself said but now, that the spirit witnesseth as a worker of grace, therefore as the worker of the grace of assurance. you say it is not a separate testimony from our spirits, i suppose you mean from our spirits testimony: your meaning i take to be, that they both witness one and the same thing; but that they are two distinct witnesses, is evident from the text; that which witnesseth with another is distinct from that other; and you say it concurs with our spirit, i. e. conveniunt in uno tertio testimonio, ergo inter se. and you say our spirits witness in the light of the spirit, i. e. in the light of its manifestation and evidence, and therefore the spirit must witness first, or else our spirits must witness without evidence, which is impossible. so that all you have been saying in this argument, is against yourself and for us. neonom. a testimony of the spirit giving an evidence of pardon without any evidence of grace, is not according to the word of grace: for the word of grace never declareth any sinners are pardoned but believing penitent sinners; it is not as mere sinners the word pardoneth, but it flatly condemneth and leaves guilt on all impenitent unbelievers, as i have proved. antinom. i marvel a divine should speak at such a rate; as if an evidence of pardon were not an evidence of grace: is not pardon the highest degree of grace? is not the word of grace therefore so, because it is a word of pardon to sinners? and if you mean inherent grace, why may not the spirit give evidence of pardon to a sinners evidence of it in an act of believing, before there can be any fruits of faith? was it not so with the thief upon the cross, and many that god pardons just upon the last moment of their lives? and is it not so with many of god's children that can see no evidences in themselves? the spirit strips them of all grounds in themselves, and that gives a full satisfaction in objective grace, with the full assurance of faith, that the creature may be laid low, and christ may be glorified. i must tell you, that a mere sinner is the object of pardon, and not a sinner considered under any holy qualifications: the whole need not the physician: christ finds and pardons lost sinners, and there's no sinner applies pardon aright but as a mere sinner, though he hath faith: but of this i have spoken before in our eighth conference, and twelfth. neonom. therefore if there be a voice, a true voice of god, carrying its own evidence, saying, thy sins are forgiven, it doth at the same time and by the same voice, witness to the truth of our grace; because he forgives no other according to the word of the gospel. antinom. a true voice witnessing the forgiveness of sins, doth consequently witness to the truth of grace in our hearrs; for the closing with the evidence in a way of comfort, witnessed by the spirit, doth the facto witness to the truth of our faith; there's lord i believe: likewise it witnesseth that christ is ours, and we christ's; and if so, we are new creatures, and this we may be, and must be, before we can bring forth any fruits besides faith itself. but it's not for the reason you allege, which is as much as to say, christ saves none but them that are saved already. neonom. if the spirit should say to an impenitent soul, thou art pardoned, while such, it is no promise in the gospel, etc. antinom. is there no promise in the gospel to take away the heart of stone, to give repentance? and neither of these is found till pardoning mercy make the way, and are never savingly found, till forgiveness is given, and in some measure of believing closed with; but you rove from the point of assurance that we are upon, go on to your next argument. neonom. to have the ordinary way of assurance as it's stated by the opposite error, is of dangerous consequence. d. w. p. 167. antinom. i e. by the witness of the spirit, and by the evidence of faith. i pray let us hear those dangerous consequences what they be. neonom. 1. most saints must quit their hopes and assurances, for they never had this voice, though they have greater stamps of the spirit, than any i ever knew pretend to this. antinom. if any saints have hopes and assurance that is good in some degree, they need not quit them in betaking themselves to better, firmer and more lasting grounds of hope and assurance; the assurance may be the same, though better grounded and built: but they never had this voice, what mean you by this? is there any true believer that never heard what the spirit saith to sinners? is there any that hears not what god saith in his word? do they not hear that are in their spiritual graves the voice of christ, and live? do you so impose as to stretch our meaning to an extraordinary audible voice? then you do but like yourself: but yet you say, they have stamps of the spirit; i pray how doth the spirit make a stamp and impression upon a sinners heart, but by the application of the grace of the gospel in believing? is it not as many as received christ, to them is the privilege of being the sons of god? and you say greater stamps than any you know pretend to this: you speak you know not what, in a scornful manner, as if you knew little yourself what belongs to a rrue gospel spirit; i am sure if you did, you would not run out in this lose manner as you do, in a way of contempt of others. see phil. 2.3, 4. neonom. it makes all examination useless and vain. antinom. it makes examination most useful and necessary, yea hereby becomes more profitable, advantageous and comfortable, when by sounding we find good bottom; we find we have not only life, but have it more abundantly. neonom. it overturneth one of the great 〈◊〉 god hath assigned to the work of all grace on the heart. antinom. what shall i call this assertion, mr. calvin? calvin. for shame, mr. neonom. leave off, what will you say, gods own spirit witnessing in our hearts to the full assurance of faith, overturns his work of grace in our hearts? i am sorry to hear this evil communication come out of your mouth. neonom. it makes assurance impossible without this miraculous voice. antinom. are you again upon the high ropes and tenterhooks? is this intended to be any way a miraculous voice, only the voice of the spirit as comforter in the heart according to the word? is it a miraculous voice for god to say unto the soul, i am thy salvaiion? is it not the ordinary gospel voice under the old testament and new. neonom. it hardly carries its evidence to a soul that hath no grace at all? antinom. you say a miraculous voice can hardly carry its evidence to a soul that hath no grace at all: it is well you put in hardly, for you know it was carried to paul in a miraculous voice; and it's a marvellous audacious expression, to say god can hardly carry grace and evidence of grace to a graceless soul; no not so much as miraculously: and cannot god give grace and evidence in the same moment of time, as to the thief on the cross, and thousands more in the word. neonom. it's a way too far enthusiastic to be allowed in so stated a case. antinom. you had best say the apostle paul in the whole 8th chapter to the romans, and 1 cor. 2. and eph. 1. and in divers other places, was too enthusiastic, and therefore those portions of scripture that speak of the revelation and witness of the spirit, and the assurances of faith, not to be allowed. i'll assure you, you are mighty magisterial to take upon you the decrying the witness of the spirit at this presumptuous rate, openly and before the world: what account can you give of this another day? neonom. it gives the devil a great advantage against sinners, to live in sin; and against honest people, if once they find cause to question this voice: yea it sets up the spirit against itself, if any can boast of assurance by this voice, when their state is justly challengeable by the gospel, as wanting all sight of gospel marks. antinom. if the grace of god that brings salvation unto sinners, is the casting out of the devil out of the heart, and the witnessing spirit a mortifying spirit, teacher of holiness, and the greatest enlarger of the heart therein, as rom. 8.15. by how much the more it works as a comsorter, as the spirit of adoption, bringing us into the liberty of sons of god, and showing to us that christ is ours and we are his, yea by how much the more he makes us to see by faith in christ, and how much the less he makes us to see in ourselves; but still shows us our own vileness and ugliness, corruptions, poorness of duties, even to the loathing and abhorring of ourselves, if then i say god is most glorified and his free grace, christ is most advanced and his precious blood, and his glorious spirit to be loved and admired, and we in the best and most gospel-frame: then all that you have here spoken is burlesque, mingled with the enmity of your heart, vented against the grace of the gospel and the spirit of god. calvin. i must confess i can't tell what to say of that saying, the witness of the spirit by the voice of the gospel, is giving advantage to the devil; i am sure it hath a dangerous aspect. but i pray, mr. antinomian, do you condemn signs and marks as altogether useless towards the gaining of assurance, that he inveighs at so heavy a rate? antinom. no, by no means; i allow the fruits of the spirit to be of a marvellous use, as to confirming and comforting of ourselves, and very satisfactory to others; that our saviour saith, hereby shall all men know that we are his disciples; and, as james saith, we must be convinced of men's faith by their work, or else we can't take them to be believers: yea we expect of every one that we admit church-members, that they should give a reason of the hope that is in them, according to the rule of the gospel: this mr. neonomian is against, he will burlesque upon it, as much as he doth now at the witness of the spirit. calvin. why it is not possible, mr. neonomian. sure when you admit members into your congregation, you are very strict in examining of them upon the fruits of faith, that you and all your congregation may know, so far as the judgement of a rational charity will go, that they are disciples of christ; tho' as those signs may deceive a man's own self, so others may be deceived in those that make profession of them. neonom. i know no ground to stand so strictly upon my admission; i think if men be not grossly ignorant, or openly scandalous, they may be admitted to all ordinances; i can't try them for their perseverance, which is the greatest mark. calvin. but i read that the churches in the primitive times were made up of those that were at least to visible appearance sanctified in christ jesus. neonom. but the times are altered now, they were converted out of heathenism, we are all christians. calvin. ay, such as they be, such as your honest people, which the devil gets a great advantage against, to persuade to live in sin because of the pardoning grace of the gospel, for whose sake you would have the doctrine renounced, and another gospel preached. i see you do not set so much by signs and marks, but only to set them up in opposition to the witness of the spirit. antinom. i will give you my full sense of the doctrine of assurance. the certainty of a thing or proposition can be founded but upon one of these two bottoms, either upon an artificial or inartificial argument (so called in logic:) an argument artificial gives me sensible or rational ground for what i am assured of, and it argues things from causes, effects, subjects, adjuncts, dissentaneities, wherein are diversa & opposita, etc. but an inartificial argument is founded on testimony, and according to the faithfulness of him that brings it, it gives more or less ground of belief: this is reckoned in logic the weakest ground of knowledge, especially being testimonium humanum that is brought; it may be a probable ground of believing, but is not an infallible one, and therefore the judgement upon it usually goes no further than opinion, that which is of a contingency. but in theology, testimonium divinum, divine testimony is the greatest ground of certainty and assurance in the world; because he that speaks is unchangeably true, faithful, just and holy, he cannot lie: now hence it is, that what testimony comes from god himself, it is to be believed, because it is so without reasoning any further, and is the greatest ground of assurance in the world; therefore i affirm, that the witness of god in his word, and the spirit in the heart, firmly believed, is, and produceth the greatest assurance for firmness and durability in the world. this is that which ought to lie in the bottom of all our assurance, this will hold above all in the hour of temptation, when all signs and marks sail; though our faith may be sometimes shaken, and our comforts and assurances eclipsed, so that our faith may hold but as far as a hoping or persuasion of a probability of our state and condition; yet, as mr. neonomian saith, as the evidence is strong or weak, so our assurance is strong or weak. now that faith still carries with it a hypostasis or demonstration of the thing believed, grounded upon the certainty, truth and infallibility of god, i am fully satisfied from that portion of scripture that evinces it undeniably, heb. 11.1. and as now for other grounds of comfort and assurance which arise from the visibility of the grace of god, and the fruits of the spirit in the heart and life, i highly value them, as subordinate grounds of comfort and confirmation in assurance, these are seen by the reflection of the soul upon itself, being able in regenerate man to reason in a spiritual manner from causes, effects, subjects and adjuncts, etc. which he finds in himself, according to the rule of the word of god: this i call experimental assurance; and this is that which is so long attaining to, and when it is had, may be lost again in a great measure, as comfort therefore. and because many believers take this to be all the assurance they must look for, and their teachers tell them so, therefore they go mourning all their days, and are only supported by what degrees of assurance is in their faith, which they take not to be any; and their teachers tell them that faith hath nothing of assurance in it, but, do suggest as if it were but the roving of the mind in uncertainties and probability, and that it is presumption for them to believe to confidence and assurance, though the spirit of god doth command and encourage it again and again, and that doubting is rather their virtue than sin; whereas so much as there is of doubting mingled with their faith, so much there is of sin and unbelief. in true faith there is the promise more or less believed, i. e. the truth and goodness (because a promise reached forth a truth which carries goodness in it to us-ward) is received; the ●eason of which reception is the certain truth and faithfulness of him that promiseth: hence there is believing a word, and believing a person. hence believing hath three things in it, according to the apostle, heb. 11. 1. the object falls not under the measure of sense and reason, therefore called things not seen, and things hoped for. 2. there is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, i. e. an express image, heb. 1. of the things not seen and hoped for, brought to us in the promise. 3. there is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a demonstration or argument of the reality and certainty of those things, and intention of bestowing them, taken from the truth and faithfulness of him that promiseth: faithful is he that hath promised. now that god hath promised in general and indefinitely to save sinners, and that he is able and willing to perform it in his time, and to whom he pleaseth, may be a common faith only, and such as the devils have: but for a sinner to take up with the promise for himself, is the work of the spirit peculiarly: because there is no man spoken to by name in the promise, which advantage abraham had; and the want thereof must be supplied by the spirit's ●aying to the soul more or less plainly, this promise belongeth ●nto thee; whereby the soul is enabled to exert fiducially a believing the promise, and staying on the promiser for himself: and here lies the difficulty of believing, and the usual workings of unbelief. it's a marvellous thing to me, mr. neonomian, that you can have the impudence to quote the assembly for your assertion, confess. ch. 18. viz. that there is no other grounds of assurance but signs and marks: whereas they say so expressly, that a believer may be assured in this life that he is in a state of grace, and this certainty is not a bare conjectural and probable persuasion grounded on a fallible hope, but an infallible assurance of faith, founded on the divine truth of the promises of salvation, the inward evidence of those graces unto which those promises are made, the testimony of the spirit of adoption witnessing with our spirits. so that they make three grounds of assurance: 1. the infallible assurance of faith. 2. the inward evidences of graces. 3. the witness of the spirit of adoption. when you quoted this place, you had either forgot what you had wrote, or you quote it (retaining the assembly first) lest it should be brought against you. there are three great graces spoken of by the apostle, 1 cor. 13.13. faith, hope, love: mr. caryl, on job 13.13. and the scripture holds forth an assurance in reference to every one of these: first, the assurance of faith, heb. 10.22. let us draw near with a true heart, in full assurance of faith. this assurance of faith hath a double respect: 1. to our persons: 2. to our services, that in both we are pleasing to god. secondly, there's an assurance of hope, heb. 6.11. faith hath an eye to the truth of the promise, hope to the good of the promise; and the assurance of hope is that we shall certainly receive that good. thirdly, there's an assurance of love, 1 joh. 4.48. perfect love casts out fear. how is love made perfect, and how doth it cast out fear? v. 17. herein (saith he) is love made perfect, that we may have boldness in the day of judgement, because as he is, so are we in the world: i. e. as his love is sincere to us, so is ours to him (according to our measure) even in this life, and this gives us boldness, our assurance that all shall go well with us in the day of judgement; so this love casteth out all fear of condemnation in that day, which fear where it remains hath torment, than which nothing is more contrary to assurance. in perfect love there is no torment, because there is no fear; and there is no fear, because there is an assurance of the love of god, in this love the soul doth repose, rest and delight itself. there is a fourth thing spoken of, which is a full assurance of understanding: this is clearness of our apprehension about the things which we do believe, and upon which we fasten by faith and love: the light of the understanding shining upon the mysteries of the gospel, and mixing with our other graces, bottoms the soul upon the strongest foundation, and raiseth it up to the highest pinnacle of assurance. we may say of assurance in reference to these four graces, as philosophers do of the heavens, in reference to the four elements, that they are neither of the four elements, but a quintessence of a fisth essence: so we may say of assurance, it is neither faith nor hope, nor love, nor knowledge, but it is a fifth thing, sublimated and raised, either out of, or above all those, i. e. when assurance is raised to the highest pitch, that it is a full assurance, from whence our joy is full; all a christians sails are filled, being under a full gale, and having fair weather. rom. 8.16. the spirit itself beareth witness with our spirits that we are the sons of god: dr. owen, of the spirit, p. 168. sect. 9 the witness which our own spirits do give unto our adoption, is the work and effect of the holy spirit in us; if it were not, it would be false, and not confirmed by the testimony of the spirit himself, who is the spirit of truth; and none knoweth the things of god, but the spirit of god, 1 cor. 2.11. if he declare not our sonship in us and to us, we cannot know it. how doth he then bear witness to our spirits? what is the distinct testimony? it must be some such act of his, as evidenceth itself to be from him immediately, unto them that are concerned in it, i. e. those, unto whom it is given. he that expounds rom. 8.16. in pool's annotations, see the expos. on rom. 8.16. i think one of your vouchers, speaks admirably well to this matter: the spirit of adoption (saith he) doth not only excite us to call upon god as our father, but it doth ascertain and assure us (as before) that we are his children. and this it doth not by an outward voice, as god the father to jesus christ; nor by an angel, as to daniel and the virgin mary; but by an inward and secret suggestion, whereby he raiseth our hearts to this persuasion, that god is our father, and we are his children. this is not the testimony of the graces and operations of the spirit, but of the spirit itself. a man's own spirit doth witness to his adoption, he finds in himself, upon diligent search and examination, some of the manifest signs and tokens thereof. but this testimony of itself is weak, and satan hath many ways and wiles to invalidate it; wherefore, for more assurance it's confirmed by a greater testimony, i. e. the spirit itself, which first works grace, and then witnesseth it; he witnesseth with our spirits, and seals it up to us. this testimony is not in all believers alike, nor in any one at all times, it's better felt than expressed: he witnesseth to our spirits (so some read it) by a distinct and immediate testimony, and he witnesseth with our spirits, (so the word properly signifies) by a conjunctive and concurrent testimony. intelligit paulus, etc. paul means that the spirit of god bears such a testimony to us, mr. calvin, on rom. 8.16. that he being our guide and master, our spirit doth conclude god's adoption of us is sure. for our spirits would not dictate this faith to us of our own accord, unless the testimony of the spirit go before; and he shows us how: for whilst the spirit doth witness to us that we are the children of god; he doth also put this believing confidence into our souls, that we have the boldness to call god father. and this is to be held always as a principle, that we never pray to god in a right manner, unless as we call him father with our lips, so we are certainly persuaded in our minds that he is such. paraeus also speaks the same, and quotes the words of chrysostom, si homo, angelus, archangelus, etc. if a man, an angel, an archangel, promise any thing, happily a man may doubt; but if the spirit of god the supreme being, which causeth us to pray, and makes a promise to them that pray, and gives us a promise, bearing testimony to us within ourselves, what room is there for doubting? faith is called an evidence; hence we learn, that the nature of faith stands not in doubting, mr. perkins on heb. 11.1. but in a certainty and assurance. the romish doubting of the essence of faith, is as contrary to true faith as darkness to light. obj. but it seems doubting is a part or companion of faith, and who doubteth not? ans. we do say so, but what then? we should not, god commands us to believe, and not doubt. again, if faith be the substance of things hoped for, much more is it a substance to a believer; if it give those things a being which are out of him, much more doth it give a permanent being to the believer himself, strengthening him to stand and continue in all assaults. heb. 3.14. erratas of the second part continued, from pag. 83. pag. 90. l. 6. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, p. 93. l. 1. r. nakedly, p. 94. l. 18. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, p. 95. l. 10. r. imputata, ibid. l. 31. r. it is of infinite, p. 98. l. 3. r. our confession, ibid. 29. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, p. 100 l. 24. r. we can never, p. 104. l. 4. r. person, p. 107. l. penult. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. 109. l. 12. r. one as well as the other, p. 110. l. 28. del. only, p. 111. l. 23. r. it's the law, p. 112. l. 14. deal that for, ibid. l. 38. r. became, p. 113. l. 15. r. tenure of it. ibid. l. 17. r. is relating, ibid. marg. r. pacti. p. 117. l. 33. del. in, ib. l. 38. r. to christ by faith, p. 118. l. 6. r. dependences, p. 124. l. 22. r. parts, p. 125. l. 9 r. restipulating, p. 130. l. 6. r. given it to me, p. 135. l. 8. r. prusquàm, p. 162. l. 11. for second r. the first covenant, p. 168. l. 2. r. promised mercy, p. 169. l. 26. r. on the serpent, p. 173. l. 16. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, ib. l. 26. r. get up yourselves to such, p. 190. l. 1. r. sincerity, p. 222. l. ult. r. were some of, p. 223. l. 41. r. the same one, p. 231. l. 6. r. denied, p. 232. l. 27. r. it's not in being, p. 234. marg. l. 5. r. formâ, p. 235. l. 7. r. that's not so, p. 237. l. 19 r. vrsin. catech. p. 239, l. 1. r. ex fide per fidem. p. 249. l. 5. r. causa efficiens & materialis, p. 257. l. 8. r. tell you, p. 259. l. 37. r. considering, p. 275. l. 37. r. tendering, p. 281. l. 16. r. integrality, ib. l. 32. r. but we must not, p. 268. l. 22. r. as he is, p. 293. l. 9 deal was by, p. 296. l. 2. r. retain, p. 303. l. 38. del. as, ib. l. ult. then to the. p. 218. l. 9 r. persevered. you'll say (it may be) he must believe his perseverance, ibid. l. 14. r. to no more, p. 329. l. 23. r. world, p. 330. l. 21. r. inveighs against you, at. neonomianism unmasked. part iii. chap. xvi. of god's seeing sin in believers. neonom. there is a grand error, mr. calvin, which we would now deal with mr. antinomian about, every one talks of it as very gross and notorious, and that is this, that god seethe no sin in believers, tho' he see the fact, neither doth he charge them with sin; nor ought they to charge themselves with any sin, nor be at all sad for it; nor confess, repent, nor do any thing as a means of pardon; no nor in order to assuring themselves of pardon, even when they commit murder, adultery, or the grossest wickedness. d. w. p. 170. antinom. here's many things put together in this charge, and by an undue mixture, and wresting my sense and meaning, he hath made it look as he pleaseth; but we must hear his proof, and then i shall be the better able to make my defence. neonom. note, that he speaks most of this concerning a person as elect, tho' he uses the word believer sometimes, because he alone knows he is elect by believing. d. w. p. 171. antinom. do not you then, in alleging my words, make a confusion in my sense? for your way is to pick up my expressions here and there and put them together to make up that sense which you would put upon them. neonom. you say, tho' such persons do act rebellion, yet the loathsomeness and abominableness and hatefulness of this rebellion is laid on the back of christ, he bears the sin as well as the blame and shame, etc. and that's the only reason why god can dwell with those persons that do act the thing, because all the filthiness of it is transacted from them to the back of christ. obj. how should god know every sin the believer hath committed, and yet god not remember them? ans. tho' he remember the things thou hast done, yet he doth not remember them as thine, for he remembers perfectly they are none of thine; when he passed them over to christ, they ceased to be thine any longer. d. w. p. 436, and dr. c. p. 436. antinom. i have vindicated myself already, as to those expressions in our debate concerning god's laying sin on christ; but, lest you should have forgot what was said, i shall speak a little to it. my design hath been in several discourses, and in that mentioned by you, that we must have christ before we can be holy, as the root of all gracious qualifications, and that christ is bestowed in a way of efficacy before we have him in a way of evidence; and god tells us whose iniquities were laid on christ, even of them that were gone every one away as lost sheep, and turned to their own ways; the same thing that the apostle speaks, rom. 5.8. god recommended his love towards us, in that while we were yet sinners [it must be meant unbeiieving and impenitent sinners] christ died for us; and he saith, ver. 10. if when we were enemies we were reconciled to god by the death of his son; that must be understood of our being in a state of enmity, before we come to a state of grace, this reconciliation is wrought by jesus christ. i shall give you my discourse as briefly as i may, that you may see my meaning. — faith you know is the first of all gifts god bestows upon a soul, dr. c. p. 334. and all other graces they follow that faith that christ doth give to men. so that if there be not a believing, there can be no grace of sanctification at all, but while persons are departing from the living god, there remains in them an evil heart of unbelieving; and yet this is true, that while they are departing from the living god, and straying as lost sheep, their iniquities are laid on christ, and the true meaning of the word [turn to our own ways] is, that men do what they list, and what is good in their own eyes; and yet it is the iniquity of these men, that have thus turned to their own ways, which the lord hath laid upon christ. from whence i lay down this conclusion: that this grace of the lords laying iniquity on christ, is certainly applied unto persons, even while they are departing from the living god, while they are lost sheep, while they are turned every one to their own way, before they have amended their ways. and because this truth is so hardly received, seeming to give so much way to looseness, as some calumniate, i endeavour to clear it, dr. c. p. 435. and that it is a most fearful injury unto a man's self, and a forsaking a man's own mercy, directly for a man to conclude, that there is no grace for me, because i cannot find such and such things in me, as universal obedience, sanctification, etc. and you shall plainly see where grace is applied unto persons, and to what condition of men, psal. 68.18. and then i open that where god is said to give his gifts to the rebellious, and use the said expressions which he rehearseth, which amounts only to thus much in my sense, that when the grace of redemption and the application thereof is first applied, it finds us lost creatures, lost sheep, rebellious ones, turning every one to his own ways; which i also illustrate from ezek. 16.7, 8, 9 — what qualifications can you find in blind-eyed and shackled persons, that are bound up under the bondage of satan, dr. c. p. 439. even dead in trespasses? what renewed qualifications in sanctification can you find in such persons, seeing the first work that god works upon any person, is to open the eyes to see him, and to see themselves. now christ must be present, because he is given to do this thing before it can be done:— if it be the eye of faith, christ is said to be the author and finisher of it; if it be the the eye of god, we must all be taught of god; our saviour speaks plainly, when he pointed out directly to the jews, for whom he died and became sin, i came to save that which was lost; it's by the eye of knowledge, we must be taught all of god. and this is one part of god's covenant, i will remember their sins no more. — what is that covenant? i will be their god, and thy shall be my people; and your sins and iniquities will i remember no more. dr. c. p. 438. this is the substance of the covenant, and christ himself is given over to men; as much as to say, in christ i will become thy god; in christ i will remember thy sins and iniquities no more: this is the substance of the covenant; christ is this covenant, and christ himself is given over to men; quasi dicat, in christ i will become thy god; in christ i will remember thy sins and iniquities no more; this have i given in him to you: but when doth the lord pass over this to persons? when they are first renewed. have persons the knowledge of god and of themselves before the lord makes this deed of gift over to them? mark what follows, you shall see all the qualifications of sanctification must not only follow christ given, but they are the very work of christ himself after he is given; i will give thee for a covenant to open blind eyes. now altho' the end of things be first in the intention, yet it is the last in execution: if a workman be to build an house, the work must be prepared before the house can be builded by him. calv. i think, mr. antinomian, you have said enough to vindicate yourself from his first charge, i doubt not but that our sins were all at once laid on christ; paul's sins were on christ in the height of his rebellion and persecution, and christ came upon him effectually to convert him, as the fruit thereof, even in the midst of his rebellion. he saith the grace of laying sin on christ, is applied to sinners while they are departed from god, and is the cause of the gift of converting-grace; plain instances whereof were saul and the jailor, whom the covenant-grace took hold on in the height of their rebellion. but all this reacheth not the proof of your charge, which you call error here. neonom. but he saith, god hath not one sin to charge upon an elect person, from the first moment of conception to the last moment of life, no nor original sin is not to be laid upon him, the lord hath laid it on christ already. d. w. p. 171. from d. cr. p. 364. antinom. you have been harping on this string already, i shall only repeat my words as spoken: d. cr. p. 364. i said, it is true, an elect person, not called, is never able to know individually of himself, that he is such an one that god hath nothing to charge upon him, because, till calling, god gives not unto persons to believe, and it's only believing which evidences to men of things not seen. things that are not seen, they are hidden and secret and shall not be known; i mean the things of god's love to men shall not be known to particular men till they do believe. but considering their real condition [in foro dei] the lord hath not one sin to charge an elect person with; from the first moment of his life, till the last minute of it, there is not so much as original sin, the ground is, the lord hath said it on christ already. see rom. 8 1 joh. 1.7. heb. 16.14. was there by one act the expiation of sin and all at once that were committed from the beginning of the world to the end thereof, how comes it to pass, that this or that sin should be laid upon elect persons, when they were laid upon christ long before? i deny not, but, according to the sense of the law, and in foro conscientiae, they are charged, and sin is laid to their charge; but i speak of their real standing in the eye of god's justice, their sins were laid on christ, and carried away by him. neonom. he saith, it's a voice of a lying spirit in your hearts, that saith, that you that are believers, have yet sin wasting your consciences and lying as a burden too heavy for you to bear, etc. d. w. p. 171. from dr. c. p. 298. antinom. the voice is not of the true spirit, and therefore must be of the lying spirit. 1. if he lie under conscience wal●ing sin, it seems to be a lying spirit that tells him he is a believer. 2. if he be a real believer, and sin lie so heavily upon his conscience, it's a sign that his faith is very weak, that it hath not reached the blood of christ to the purifying of his conscience, and that he lies under the spirit of bondage, quite contrary to the spirit of adoption. neonom. he saith, was not david a justified person, and did not he bear his own sin? after several things, he answers, i must tell you all that david speaks here, he speaks from himself, and all that david speaks from himself was not truth. antinom. why do you not tell those several things? my answer to the objection, as to the sum of it, was this: i know this objection seems unanswerable, as in several passages asaph speaks to that purpose, and in that particularly, where he saith, hath god forgotten to be gracious? hath he shut up his lovingkindness? and will he be gracious no more? first, i would fain know, whether now, under the times of the gospel, there be not many tender-hearted, religious people, that cry out of their own sins, and the weight and burden of their own sins upon their own spirits, as well as david? i must tell you, all that david said from himself was not truth. [and is it truth, when a sincere-hearted believer, through the power of temptation and infidelity, ●alls into despairing expressions?] did asaph speak well in these passages, to charge god, that he had forsaken him for ever? david might mistake then, that god should charge sin upon him, and it may be he might charge sin upon himself, without any warrant or commission from god to do it. and doth not asaph, upon recollecting himself, in that psal. 77.10. acknowledge, that to be his infirmity, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 my sickness or spiritual disease, that i should think or speak at this rate of god? and are you so offended that i say it was asaph's mistake? [it was by some mistake, that those words were said to be david's, when asaph's.] doth not the spirit of god in asaph say, that it was not only his mistake, but sin of infirmity? calv. i think you have given a sufficient answer to that allegation of his: i pray let's hasten as much as may be. neonom. i must confess i have not much to say against the answer: but he saith, before a believer doth confess his sin, he may be as certain of the pardon of it, as after confession. d. w. p. 172. from dr. c. p. 213. antinom. speaking of christ's free welcome to all comers, this objection, among others, was spoke to; but must not he confess first, dr. c. p 213. and be afflicted in his soul, before he can think he shall be received if he come? for answer, i said, 1. i deny not, but acknowledge, when a believer sins, he must confess his sins; and the greatest end and ground of this confession is that which joshua speaks concerning achan, josh. 7.19. my son, confess thy faults, and give glory to god. a believer, in the confession of sin, gives glory to the great god of heaven and earth, and that must be the glorious end of confession of his sin, that god may be owned as the sole and only saviour. except we do acknowledge sin, we cannot acknowledge salvation; we cannot acknowledge any virtue in the works and sufferings of christ, christ might have saved his labour, and never come into the world; all that christ did cou●d not be acknowledged to be of worth to us if there had not been sin, from which christ should save us. he that doth indeed confess his sin, doth indeed confess he had perished, if christ had not died for him: nay, he confesseth, that nothing in the world but christ could save him. 2. i grant that a believer should be sensible of sin, i e of the nature of sin. [but my main design is to show you, that confession of sin, is not the procuring cause of the pardon of sin.] a believer [i. e. a true believer] may certainly conclude, even before confession of sin, that reconciliation is made between god and him, the interest he hath in christ, and the love of christ embracing him; i say, there is as much ground to be confident of the pardon of sin to a believer, [in respect of the fullness and freeness of pardoning grace in christ] as soon as ever he hath committed it, though he hath not made a solemn act of confession, as to believe it after he hath performed all the humiliation in the world. [not that i say, he ought not to confess sin; i say, he ought, and it is his duty; but speak of the ground and reason of pardon, quoad deum, as to god.] what is the ground of the pardon of sin? i, even i, am he that blotteth out thy transgressions, for mine own namesake. here is pardon, the fountain of it is in god himself. all the pardon in the world that any person shall enjoy, is revealed in his word of grace, and it's the most absurd thing in the world to think a soul should fetch out a pardon any where but from the word of grace. calv. i think you have said enough to vindicate yourself, that you are for confession of sin, and it's every believer's duty, but that we are not to understand it, or look upon it as the ground of god's pardoning our sins. neonom. the sins he speaks of are adultery and murder; he brings in an objection, you'll say this is strange doctrine, suppose a believer commits adultery and murder, must he presently look upon christ? dr. c. p. 212. antinom. you speak not of my answer, which is, i confess the crime is great in this kind, and it may be for the present, the crime may silence the voice of truth itself; but whatever becomes of it, that christ may have the glory of his grace, and the glory of that fullness of redemption wrought all at once, let me tell you, believers cannot commit those sins that may give just occasion of suspicion to them, that if they come to christ he would cast them out. calv. i think herein you have spoken very safely, according to our saviour's own words, directed to actual believers, and unbelievers too, john 6.37. all that the father giveth me, shall come unto me; and him that cometh unto me i will in no wise cast out. neonom. but you will say all the promises of pardon do run with this proviso, in case men humble themselves; in case men do this and that, than pardon is theirs; but otherwise it's none of theirs. ans. take heed of such doctrine. d. w. p. 172. from dr. cr. p. 215. antinom. i answered another objection before this. obj. in all this will you strike at all manner of meeting with god in humiliation and prayer, fasting and confession of sins? i answer, with the apostle, do we herein make void the law? god forbidden; the rather, we establish the law. may not a person come and acknowledge his fault to his prince, after he hath received his pardon under the hand of his prince, when he is brought from the place of execution? nay, may he not acknowledge it with melting and extreme bitterness of spirit, because he knoweth he hath a pardon? it is but a sordid and gross conceit in the heart of persons to think, that there can be no humiliation for sin except persons be in despair. i say, when christ doth reveal himself to your spirits, you shall find your hearts more wrought upon with sweet melt and relent of heart, and breathe of spirit, when you see your sins pardoned, than in the most despairing condition you can be in. many malefactors have been observed to be hard hearted, that they could not shed a tear at the place of execution, yet when they have heard their pardon read, have melted into a flood of tears: and so, i say, that heart that could not relent to see the filthy loathsomeness of sin, before he saw his pardon, after the knowledge of it, doth melt into tears, and hath such relenting, that none in the world hath, but he that knoweth it: i say, the grace of god doth teach men more duty than any thing else in the world, tit. 2.11, 12, 13. we must walk in all ways god hath chalked out to us, but if we think our righteousness and our deep humiliation and large talents of the spirit, and sorrow for sin and our confession thereof, must make our way to the bowels of christ, take heed lest you set up a false christ— then i bring in the objection and answer which you rehearsed, and go on thus: we have heard arminianism exceedingly exploded; but if we conceive, that god in pardoning sin, hath an eye to confession of sin, how is that doing of works for pardon of sin? and how far short this comes of arminianism, let the world judge. calvin i think none that understands the gospel, tho' he takes confession of sin to be a great duty, but thinks as you do, that none is pardoned for the sake of confession, and that if a believer sinneth, he hath an advocate with the father, jesus christ the righteous, who is a propitiation for all sin; and in the faith of this he ought to go to the throne of grace with confession and humiliation, tho' it's not so easy to perform a duty in faith after relapses into sin; yet whatever duty we perform aught to be done in faith, and we ought to go to beg pardon in the faith of it, jam. 1.6, 7. neonom. he saith, there is nothing but joy and gladness, d. w. p. 172. obj. but some will say, believers find it otherwise; there is no such joy and gladness, they are often oppressed with sadness and heaviness of spirit. answ. there is not one fit of sadness in any believer whatsoever, but he is out of the way of christ, etc. i say, the soul is first satisfied of forgiveness of sins, before there is that real kindly mourning in those that are believers. dr. c. p. 52. antinom. i was speaking upon christ being the only way, and, among other commendations of christ as a way, one was, dr. c. p. 52. that he is a pleasant way. to illustrate which, i alleged isa. 35.8. a highway shall be there, viz. in the wilderness and desert, that should rejoice and blossom as a rose; v. 10. and the ransomed of the lord shall return and come to zion with songs, and everlasting joy upon their heads. nothing but pleasure; it is compared to lebanon, the sweetest place in the world; to carmel and sharon, places of great delight: look into the last verse, and see what a way of pleasure christ is unto all those that receive him, and the ransomed of the lord shall return and come to zion with songs, and everlasting joy upon their heads; they shall obtain joy and gladness, and sorrow and sighing shall flee away. [than follows what he chargeth me with.] behold the mirth that is in the way of christ; there is nothing but joy and gladness. object. but some will say, but believers find it otherwise, etc. answ. there is not one fit of sadness in any believer whatsoever, but he is out of the way of christ; (to which i add as follows, which he mentions not) i mean, in his fits of sadness, in respect of his jealousness of his present and future state, he is out of the way of christ; he enjoys not him as he ought, while he is in such fits, therefore the apostle puts believers upon rejoicing always, phil. 4.4. there is matter of nothing but joy in him; while the●e is mournings in believers, there is melt in those mournings, and more joy in mourning of a believer, than in all the mirth of a wicked man.— believers weep for joy, (according to the proverb) and never mourn more kindly, than when they see the joy of the holy ghost, in the freeness and fullness of the lord christ, poured out upon them; there is never any more kindly mourning for sin, than that mourning when the soul is satisfied of forgiveness of sins: i say, the soul is first satisfied with forgiveness of sins, [i. e. it ought to mourn in the faith of forgiveness, if the mourning be kindly and of a gospel-nature] before there is that real, kindly mouring in those that are believers. gentlemen, i crave your pardon, that i give you the trouble of hearing me repeat so much of my former discourses; but i am fain to do it for my vindication, he having so rend and tore my sermons in sunder, on purpose to expose them, and my name; yea, i wish that were all, that it be not the very gospel-grace itself, that he bears such a spleen to, else sure he would never make such a scorn of solemn and serious truths of christ. neonom. i shall not spare you for your whining; you say, god doth no longer stand offended nor displeased, though a believer, after he is a believer sin often. dr. c. p. 15. antinom. i was showing, from john 14.6. that christ is the way, the only and effectual and infallible way, from all the wrath of god to all that do receive him. 1. from the affection of wrath; let me tell you, (would to god you could receive it, according to the manifest evidence of scripture) god doth no longer stand offended with a believer, tho' a believer, after he be a believer, doth sin often, [and where is the believer that doth not sin often?] when he hath once received christ; and unto them god saith, anger is not in me, isa. 47.4. and isa. 53. he shall see of the travel of his soul, and he shall be satisfied; i. e. pacified. the travel of the soul of christ makes god such amends for the sinfulness of all believers, that he can no longer stand offended and displeased with them; if god remain offended with them, there is yet some of their sinfulness to be taken away. except god will be offended where there is no cause to be offended, (which is blasphemy to spe●k) he will not be offended with believers; for, i say, he hath no cause to be offended with a believer, [you must understand always quoad deum, as to god, he being satisfied] because he doth not find the sin of a believer, to be the believer's own sin, but he finds it the sin of christ [i. e. by way of imputation; so i always mean] he was made sin for us; he laid the iniquities of us all upon him; the blood of christ cleanseth us from all sin; he bear our sins in his own body on the tree: but if he bear our sins, he must bear the displeasure for them; nay, he did bear the displeasure, the indignation of the lord; and if he did bear the indignation of the lord, either he did bear all, or but a part; if he did not bear all the indignation of the lord, than he doth not save to the uttermost those that come to god by him, heb. 4. i say, not to the uttermost, because here is some offence, some indignation left behind; and for lack of taking of this indignation upon himself, it lights and falls upon believers; so that you must say, christ is an imperfect saviour, and hath left some scattering wrath behind, that will light on the head of a believer, etc. calvin. i pray, mr. neonomian, what is the truth in this point? it is you must set us right, and show us all our mistakes. neonom. truth: the sins of believers have the loathsomeness of sin adhering to them, which god sees and accounts the committers guilty thereby. d. w. p. 170. antinom. what do you mean by the loathsomeness of sin? is not sin in all its respects loathsome; and is it not loathsome, as it is contrary to the preceptive part of the holy law? is there any fine, sweet, precious part of sin? did not christ bear sin of the deepest die, most loathsome sins? is it any otherwise loathsome, than as a transgression of the law, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. and this was that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which christ took away, 1 joh. 3. but how? not that they were subjectively removed from us, but that the inherency of them in great measure remains in us, and god knows it; but before the eye of justice, all sin of a believer, as he stands under the sanction of the law, is taken away, i. e. as to the condemnation and wrath that belongs unto him, he is freed from it by the blood and satisfaction of christ. neonom. and they ought to charge themselves with it, so as to stir up themselves to repentance, and renew their actings of faith on christ for forgiveness. antinom. they ought to be always sensible of, and humbled for the constant indwelling, and frequent breaking forth of their sins and corruptions, but always beginning in the faith of the blood and satisfaction of christ, and therefrom exercise repentance and humiliation, or else their humiliation and repentance will not be of a right nature, nor attain a right end; and we own such actings of faith and repentance ought often to be renewed by the best of god's children. neonom. nevertheless they ought not thereby to fear their being out of a justified state. antinom. therefore to believe they are in a justified estate, and not to cast off the spirit of adoption, and betake themselves to a spirit of bondage; and if they ought to believe their justified state, than they ought to believe their freedom from condemnation; for a justified state, and a state of condemnation, are the highest in opposition, indeed privantia, the one totally expels the other. neonom. they must not fear their justification further than their faults give them just cause of suspecting that sin hath dominion over them, and that their first believing on christ was not sincere. antinom. as to suspicion of the truth of believing, our way is not to charge sin upon ourselves, as lying under the wrath of god for it; this will work in us the highest despair, or such degrees of unbelief as tend thereto; but in case of such suspicion, upon reflecting on our former acts of faith, we must believe; we are to amend weak faith, or faith suspected not to be true, by believing firmly and confidently on the pardon of god and blood of christ; the way to believe, is not to charge the wrath of god upon ourselves, and to put ourselves under the law, but to flee for refuge to the hope set before us. neonom. but i will show you wherein the difference is not. 1. the question is not whether a believer doth by new sins fall from a justified estate. d. w. p. 173. antinom. therefore a believer ought not upon his new sins, to look upon himself to be under the wrath of god; for a state of justification, is a state of freedom from wrath. neonom. nor whether god doth, upon new crimes, judicially charge the christian with those sins he had pardoned before, tho' he may present to his view some former sins for his further humblings. antinom. you here grant, 1. that a believer, upon falling into relapses or sin, is not bound to disbelieve the pardon of former sins. 2. the reason is, that god doth not judicially charge former sins already pardoned; and if so, he is bound to believe god doth not. and hath he ground to believe god will not charge judicially sins formerly pardoned? hath he not then abundant ground to believe, and the same ground to believe god will pardon this sin also? and is there a foundation in the gospel to believe the pardon of some sins, and not of all? 3. you own, that god may present sins to a believer's view for his humbling, where he doth not judicially charge; and so do i: and you shall see this one concession will cut down all your design in this chapter. neonom. nor whether a believer ought to question his justified estate, upon any sins that do not give just suspicion that sin hath dominion over him or his faith, was not true. antinom. hence then so long as a believer's state of grace holds, he is not to question his justification, upon any sin; and he is no further to question the pardon of his sins, or aught to charge wrath upon himself: and i would ask, whether upon any such just suspicion, he ought not now to believe on the lord jesus christ, and lay hold on the pardoning grace and mercy of god in christ for life and salvation? neonom. nor whether any sins past and sins present at his first believing be unpardoned. antinom. if so, why should he not believe that all sins future are forgiven? for there's the same reason of the forgiving all as one; christ bore all his sins at once; and he can believe on christ for pardon of one sin, but he believes the pardon of all, if the faith be good. 2. if upon the first believing, of all sins past, and present are forgiven, why not upon an after act of faith, after a believer hath sinned, for the pardon he then looks for is of a sin past or present? and do you think any man can truly believe any one sin is forgiven, and not all? neonom. nor whether our renewed acts of faith, humiliation, repentance, fasting, or reformation, do merit pardon. antinom. no; but if it tantamount to it, it's as bad; it's no matter what you call it, if the thing be the same; a federal condition of works upon which the covenant-promise becomes due, is a merit. neonom. nor whether a principle of life given at our first conversion, will finally fail to exert itself in due humblings for repeated enormities and in holy resolves. antinom. but it is a question, whether there may not be repeated humblings for repeated enormities, and such as you call holy resolves, without a principle of life? 2. whether you can make up such an evangelical, imperfect, sincere, persevering obedience, for a condition of the covenant to a man that falls into repeated enormous crimes? 3. whether that principle of life will not produce as well repeated acts of faith, as humblings and resolves? 4. whether those humblings and resolves be worth a rush without faith? 5. what you will call due acts of humblings and resolves? what measure they must reach to produce a pardon? 6. what you mean by a principle of life? neonom. nor whether the same degrees of humblings be necessary for all crimes, and in all persons, and in all times. antinom. then there are pardons at several rates, and it will be difficult to adjust the several degrees of penance, according to those varieties of respect; it will be hard to know how far a believer must go, before he may dare to believe he is pardoned; and it's hard that a believer must pass through so many humblings and resolves before he may believe his pardon, whereas at his conversion on one act of faith all his sins past and present were forgiven. neonom. nor whether any gross miscarriage should cause a saint to condemn all past experience, and conclude his graces to be counterfeit: each of these i deny. antinom. you need not have brought in one gross miscarriage here in question, when you passed before repeated enormities. 2. i would inquire whether a gross miscarriage or an enormity be perseverance; if it be relapse and non-perseverance, he hath reason upon your hypothesis to conclude his grace's counterfeit; for having cut off that sign and distinguishing character of true grace; he must begin again to try for that mark which may hold a while till the next gross miscarriage; and where is his true grace then? must not all precedent experiences be condemned? neonom. nor whether a sense of pardon ought not to effect and melt the heart? d. w. p. 174. antinom. but it is whether a sense of pardon doth not affect and melt the heart, as the natural, gospel, and effectual means? and all other humblings, without faith of pardon, are not merely legal, generating to bondage, and ineffectual to reach the end? neonom. nor whether some true penitents may not sometimes be too much dejected and overwhelmed with sorrow for sin. antinom. but it's a question, whether true godly sorrow, such as is produced by faith in the blood of christ, can be too much, or overwhelm any true believer? 2. whether, if it be too much, it will obtain pardon, and not lose its end, as well as when it is too little? 3. whether, when it is too much, it be not a work of supererogation, and may not have the pardon of some other sin yet to be committed cast into boot? neonom. nor whether a general exercise of faith and repentance do not answer the gospel rule of forgiveness, as to sins of ignorance and surprise? these three last i affirm. antinom. it seems you allow there's a general pardon, that will serve to believers for some sins; those, i suppose, you'll call venial: i would fain know, whether, in the justification of a sinner, there be any sins particularly excepted, that are not pardoned in the first grant? and whether he must have a new justification upon the commitment of some sins, which the first did not reach? 2. whether the general exercise of faith and repentance, so far as to answer the gospel-rule, be a sufficient condition for justification from some sins, and not from all? calvin. well now, gentlemen, we have danced pretty fairly about this point, with your whethers; let us dance back again, or else we shall be giddy, and the world turn round with us. neonom. my brains are more settled than so; i will lead him another dance yet: mr. antinomian, come dance with me again; you know little of my mind yet, i will tell you the real differences. 1. whether an elect sinner be at any time a guilty person in god's esteem? this you deny, and i affirm: i have proved it in our debate, 1, 3, 7, 12. d. w. p. 174. antinom. this is not fair; you have taken a great leap back to begin with, from a believer, to an elect person; which you say you have proved in former debates, we have answered; and therefore need not harp always on one string. neonom. whether the remains of sin defile us: this i affirm, and the doctor denies, against all protestants, who prove it of original sin against the papists. antinom. if you understand defilement, as to our justification, i say, the remains of sin do not defile us; if it be understood in respect of sanctification, you'll see, gentlemen, that i shall assert sin's defilement of the best of our duties so much, that it makes them as dung; and yet this neonomian is so audacious, as to say, this he affirms, and the doctor denies, and that he goes with the protestants, when every ordinary christian may see that he goes with the papists in every thing, and opposeth me in this point of the saints defilement by sin. neonom. whether a justified person, falling into gross enormities, is defiled thereby, and contracts guilt upon himself thereby: this the doctor denies, and i do affirm. antinom. you have not proved one word that was said of the guilt of a justified person; i. e. it's one thing to contract guilt of conscience, and another thing to be judicially condemned: said you not, but just now, that god may present to a christian's view former sins, for further humblings, where he doth not judicially charge sin? a believer may have guilt then upon his conscience, and not be guilty before god. 2. do you not say, a believer ought not to question his justification, but upon such causes as make him question his state and truth of faith? 3. where is it that i say, any sin doth not defile, especially gross enormities? if they need the fresh applications of the blood of christ by faith, they do defile, and defile conscience too; but the blood of christ reaching the conscience in believing, washeth away this guilt and defilement, where your humblings and resolves will not neonom. whether god esteems the repeated abominations of believers not to be their own crimes, and they not to be sinners, but they are christ's sins? this the doctor affirms, and i deny. antinom. your affirmation and negation is not worth troubling ourselves about, were it not to undeceive such as are deluded by you; we have told you our minds already sufficiently about that we do affirm, that all sins and abomination of every elect person was laid on christ by god, and accounted his judicially; and that in justification, the justified person hath not his sins, not one from the first moment of his justification, imputed unto him before god; whatsoever contracted guilt he may have upon his conscience at any time, by reason of relapses, is but god's presenting former or present sins to his view for his humbling, without judicial charging of him in the court of heaven. neonom. whether a justified person, upon new provocations, is charged by god, and aught to charge himself as guilty and defiled, so as in god's appointed way to repent, believe and renew his covenant, and be earnest with god for forgiveness? this the doctor denies, and i affirm. antinom. in part i deny it, and in part i do not. 1. a justified person, upon new provocations, is not charged by god, as under, and liable to the condemnation of the law, under wrath and curse. 2. it's one thing to confess guilty to the fact, and confess a man's self under the sentence; the former aught to be, but the other ought not: a man that's a felon may come to the bar, and confess himself guilty, when he hath the pardon in his pocket. do we not assert, that it's our duty to confess sin, repent, etc. but these things must flow from faith, fixed on the pardoning mercy of god in christ, or else all our humbling and resolves what do they signify? do we not assert faith and repentance? renewing our covenant is exerted in god's way, and not yours. neonom. whether all sins past, present, and to come, are actually pardoned at once? this you affirm, and i deny. antinom. among all these inquiries about the state of the question, i think you are nearest to it now, for now you speak plainest; and i shall speak my mind as plainly, that all a justified persons sins are pardoned at once, as well those that are to be committed, as they that are committed already. neonom. whether god hath required new exercises of faith and repentance for their actual pardon? this you deny, and i affirm. antinom. he requireth not new exercises of faith and repentance as federal conditions of actual pardon, it is always in and through and for the sake of christ at first and afterward; and by faith renewed, this grace is manifested anew unto the soul, and repentance follows thereupon, as a fruit thereof; pardon renewed to justified ones, is but in taking of the present view of their sins (as you say) that god hath set before them, he makes them to hear joy and gladness, psal. 5.8. i e. a repeated manifestation of their pardon in believing. neonom. whether a believer ought to be assured of the forgiveness of his repeated provocations, just when he hath committed them, and before he hath humbled himself, renewed actings of faith on christ, repeated his covenant, prayed for pardon for christ's sake, as after he hath thus done? this you affirm, and i deny. antinom. this that i affirm is, that there is the same ground of believing pardon in christ to a justified one, before his confessions and humbling, as after. 2. that his assurance of pardon after these humbling, is not grounded upon them, but the promise and his free and full justification. 3. that he is to betake himself to these humbling in faith of the promise of pardon, or else all the rest will leave him as they find him. 4. and after you have muddied and confounded the clear gospel as much as you can, you tell us there must be a renewing our actings of faith in christ, and praying for pardon for christ's sake; which is as much as to say, all is in christ, and must come from him, and that a justified one is christ's, and therefore is emboldened to draw nigh to him in full assurance of faith, as a merciful and faithful highpriest; and this faith carries him forth to true sorrow for sin, repentance, humiliation, to exalting freegrace and joy in the holy ghost. neonom. now you shall see the truth confirmed, and i have said so much before to clear this point, that i shall only speak now the substance of it. d. w. p. 175. antinom. all you have said hath tended to darken any truth of the gospel you have taken in hand. neonom. god doth see and charge a believer with his new enormities as his sins, and not christ's, 2 sam. 12.9. david 's sin is an evil; it was in god's sight; it's charged by god on david. antinom. i have always told you, that imputation of sin, in the gospel sense, doth suppose the sin imputed is not his to whom it is imputed by commission; david committed it, tho' christ bore it. 2. the lord so far chargeth the best of his people as to reprove them for sin; this is an act of grace in order to recover them. 3. sin is sin in its true nature still; christ died not to save sin, but the sinner, that sin should not be judicially charged on him: you say, god doth not judicially charge a christian with some sins, tho' he may present them to his view for his humbling; if god should judicially charge any sin, there must be a new sacrifice of atonement before it could be forgiven: when the apostle saith, who shall lay any thing to the charge of god's elect; there's no doubt but there's enough to lay to the charge of the elect, even before and after faith, both by the word of god, and their own consciences, and by satan and wicked men; but there's nothing shall be charged upon them so as to affect them, in a way of judicial proceeding against them; nay, god is in christ reconciled to their persons, notwithstanding all his rebukes in his word and providence: god's seeing is in a way of omnisciency, so he knows and sees all things; his eyes run through the whole earth, beholding the evil and the good: he sees in a way of grace, the eyes of the lord are upon the righteous, psal. 34.15. he sees in a way of justice and judicial proceeding; and in this sense, seeing and charging sin are understood by us, as opposed to not seeing. neonom. psal. 90.8. thou hast set our iniquities before thee: i hope moses was not mistaken. antinom. moses speaks of man in general in that chapter, in respect of his fall, and the effects of it, in god's execution of the sentence of the law upon him, v. 6, 7, 8. (we question not but its that scripture's-sense) wherein all the world is become guilty before god. and that god, in a way of displeasure, doth hid his face, or set men's sins in the light of his countenance, especially in his dealing with a nation or church, or any mixed people. god's management of general government being according to the law, and not according to the gospel. hence all god's rebukes in a way of anger, are vastly different from such as are in a way of love and fatherly affection. but all threats and denunciation of judgement, wrath and indignation, belongs to the law and its sanction, and not to the gospel, tho' it be upon the account of the neglect and despising of it. neonom. a believer ought to charge himself with his own sin; god commands this, when he calls to confession and humiliation. antinom. a man ought so far to charge himself, as to acknowledge his sin and see his misery, or else he will never prise mercy; and so did david, psal. 51.4. but david fled from the judicial charge of sin, from the sight or apprehension of god's displeasure, he got from that charge as soon as he could. god never made despair a way of salvation; confession of sin, and charging a man's self with sin, is marvellously different; for the first may be from the spirit of grace, but the other is from a spirit bound under the law: those despairing fits that job and heman sometimes fell into, i look upon them to be instances of the saints infirmities, the weakness of their faith, and god's dealing with them in a way of trial and humiliation, in withdrawment of the usual light of his countenance and favour from them; besides, that the saints under the old testament, in regard of the darkness and legality of that dispensation, might be said to be charged with sin in a more seeming judicial way than gospel-grace doth admit: god in a sense might be said to remember sin, in regard of the repeated sacrifices, and execution frequently of external and temporal calamities, modo paenarum, of the manner of punishments for sin after the tenor of a law or covenant of works. neonom. new transgressions need renewed pardon; all sins are not pardoned at once: to say nothing how impossible it is: christ would never teach his own people to pray daily for pardon, if it did not need it, and it could not be repeated, mat. 6.12. d. w. p. 176. antinom. if pardon of all sins be not at once, than no man is justified at once; for he that is not pardoned for all sins, is not justified, but lies under condemnation; besides, so often as he sins he is unjustified, and if unjustified, fallen from grace; for where there's no justification there's no sanctification. and as to our saviour's teaching his disciples to pray for pardon daily, it's easily answered, that pardon of sin in scripture-sense, is to be understood of god's manifesting pardon and forgiveness to justified one's; it's of the grace that we receive in christ from day to day, it's the lifting up of the light of god's countenance upon us, and the sun of righteousness shining with healing in his wings or rays of grace: how many other benefits that a believer hath in christ, doth he daily pray for? as for the spirit of adoption, sanctification in christ jesus, who is as surely made to us sanctification as justification: all the blessings that we have in christ, we pray for; and its needful that we have them in christ, or else we can't pray in faith for them. you say, it's impossible god should pardon all sins at once: and god saith, his covenant is heb. 10.16, 17. as for their sins and iniquities i will remember them no more. doth he say that he will remember (against a justified one) only his sins past and present no more? what comfort then is it to a justified one? he may say, according to you, it's true i am justified till to day, but to morrow god will remember my sins against me; i cannot live in the comfort of forgiveness for any sins, but past and present. what you allege of david, lamentations and job, are nothing to the purpose; you have answered it all yourself in your second, whether, viz. that god doth not, upon new crimes, judicially charge the christian with those sins he had pardoned before, tho' he may present to his view some former sins for his further humbling. and so he doth those new crimes you speak of, god presents them to this view, for his further humbling: and i will add, in order to the quickening his addresses to the throne of grace, in the faith of forgiveness, and drawing forth and enlarging his heart in the love of the lord jesus in sense of his love, seeing much is forgiven him. neonom. humiliation, confession, sorrow for sin, new resolutions, and looking to christ for healing, are the duties of saints upon new faults, in order to repeated acts of forgiveness, etc. antinom. that these are our duties at all times, even when we fall not into notorious relapses, we deny not, even when and whilst we live in the faith of our present pardon and forgiveness; and upon our relapses, our recovery is by the same faith which carries us forth to performance of these duties, in order to the mortifying corruption, and giving glory to god in all his attributes, for strengthening power against sin, and joy in the holy ghost; which comfort in believing, in restoring of joy and gladness, in the sense of our justification and salvation by christ, is the forgiveness intended. neonom. if a man were thrice stung; must he not thrice look to the brazen serpent? d. w. p. 176. antinom. no doubt of it; the brazen serpent was a type of christ, and looking to it was the type of a sinner's faith: when a sinner hath christ in justification, his life is in him, and he must live by the faith of the son of god; god renews the expressions and manifestations of his free pardon, unto believers, from time to time; accordingly it's received by faith, to our daily healing and comfort, the virtue of christ remains the same, it's our faith is repeated. neonom. believers ought to be more assured of pardon, and joyful after the renewed acts of repentance and faith, d. w. p. 177. antinom. they ought not to take up their assurance from their own performances, but from the free grace in the promise received by faith, and ought not to suspend faith, till they have repent and humbled themselves; this were to pray and repent in unbelief, which makes it all vain and void. neonom. it's otherwise against that wise order which god hath stated for a due reverence to him, numb. 12.14. antinom. god hath no order of due reverence to him, established in the covenant of grace, but paternal; and that's by a spirit of adoption, as a son honoureth his father; and there's none of this without faith in the fatherly love and compassion of the father; god hath nowhere ordered that his children should put themselves into the hands of his severe justice when they have sinned, and conclude themselves unjustified for a considerable time, before they look to christ for healing; they that were stung in the wilderness, did not go to use a great many medicines first, but were immediately to apply themselves to the brazen serpent for healing: so should believers upon all their falls. miriams' being shut out of the camp seven days, was no argument that god had not forgotten her before the seven days were up. god makes some of his people, in their falls, examples to others, as to outward afflictions, of which they had, in the days of the old testament, a more penal aspect and more judicial, than we ought to make them to have in the days of clearer gospel-grace, as i can make appear divers ways. neonom. the people of god have had those sad fits which you condemn, when sin greatly breaks out, they do well become them; paul calls a contrary frame, under gild, a being puffed up, 1 cor. 5.2. antinom. you basely slander the doctor in making as if he were an enemy to the serious gospel remorse of god's children, from a right principle and due frame, as we have made appear. 2 paul nowhere calls faith, in pardoning mercy, a puffing up; that's from a spirit of security and insensibleness which we have in the acts of sin and after, till the renewing our acts of faith. 3. paul nowhere commends a guilty frame or sadness merely from gild. but 2 cor. 7.10. in the case you mention, absolutely condemns such sadness and sorrow as you commend, as such which is contrary to true godly sorrow; sorrow from gild only is according to the world, and works death. neonom. consider god remits or binds in heaven, according to what his church doth justly on earth; either the pardon of the non-repenting offender is suspended, or censures are vain. d. w. p. 178. antinom. god's remitting or binding in heaven is variously understood; not to enlarge now upon it. i do not apprehend that a justified person, falling into sin and censured justly by a church, is therefore unjustified before god; if so, he is fallen from grace in the highest sense. nor if he be a hypocrite, and in his hypocrisy be reconciled to the church in his hypocrisy, that therefore he is justified in heaven, or in foro dei; no, i distinguish between forum dei, and ecclesia, a man may be righteous before god, and not before the church, & vice versa; but i apprehend, to bind in heaven, what the church doth justly on earth, is to confirm and bless his own ordinances to their designed end and purpose, either to the bringing home a lapsed justified person, or to discover him to be a hypocrite, and therefore they shall not be in vain. neonom. need i give you david 's experience, psal. 32.3, 5. when i keep silence, my bones waxed old. antinom. that place is impertinently quoted; if you read the whole psalm, you will find that it gins with the true gospel-blessedness of a believer, and after tells you what a miserable condition he was in, when he fell under guilt, and acted not faith concerning his justified and pardoned state; the frame he speaks of, as contrary to his sadness, was a frame of faith and prayer; and what was his faith acted upon, but on the forgiveness of his sins, as ver. 1, 2. neonom. the assembly and congregational elders, do both declare god doth continue to forgive the sins of those that are justified. d. w. p. 178. antinom. the assembly saith, christ, by his obedience and death, assemb confess. c. 11. s. 3. did fully discharge the debt of all those that are thus justified, and did make a proper, real and full satisfaction to his father's justice on their behalf. and they say, in answer to that question, larger catech. q. 70. what is justification? a. justification is an act of god's free grace unto sinners, in which he pardoneth all their sins [therefore them that shall be committed, as well as those that are committed already] accepteth their persons righteous in his sight, not for any thing wrought in them, or done by them, [therefore not for their act of faith, or their sincere obedience] but only for the perfect obedience and full satisfaction of christ, etc. therefore he never forgives for the humiliations or sorrow for sin, which they exert; and whereas they say god doth continue to forgive, it's as much as to say, god continues them justified from all their sins; which justification falls in by way of application to their souls and consciences, in manifestation of pardon, as their sins are committed; and in saying, that they never fall from their justified estate, they do as much as say, that there is not a moment of time wherein their persons are not justified before god; and to say any man is in a justified estate, and not in a pardoned estate at the same time, is a contradiction and nonsense; it's one thing to be pardoned and free of condemnation in respect of a man's person, and another thing not to have the sense and comfort of it: and after this manner only any sin of a believer is unpardoned, when his heart is overwhelmed with darkness and unbelief from the deceitfulness of sin; besides, god hides his face and the light of his countenance from him in fatherly displeasure, [i. e. in tender love, it is called displeasure, but by a catechresis, a father corrects his son in great love] and believers may not have the light of his countenance restored unto them [they say not their justification restored] until they humble themselves and confess their sins [in faith, for without faith, i. e. without christ apprehended by faith, their humblings and confessions cannot please god] and renew their faith and repentance. and they say, the justification of believers under the old testament, was in all those respects one and the same with the justification of believers under the new. as for your quoting authority for praying for pardon, i think you might have spared yourself the pains, if you understand pardon in this case as it ought to be understood. neonom. i will tell you your mistakes, d. w. p. 179. antinom. your charge of mistakes are as little to be valued as your charge of error. come, gentlemans, let us adjourn for this time. calv. the scripture is most express in this point, that god sees no sin in justified ones, i. e. so as to set their persons in the eye of his justice, and to deal with them as such who are under his vindicative wrath. 1. the psalmist saith, he is a blessed man whose iniquity is forgiven, whose sin is covered, and to whom the lord imputes not iniquity, psal. 32.1, 2. what can be meant by covering here, but hiding our sins from the eye of god's justice by the impuputed righteousness of christ, in the same sense as david prays, hid thy face from my sins? there's the face of god in his justice, as well as in his mercy; nay, when moses speaks of the wrath of god, against persons or people, psal. 90.8. he calls it, setting their iniquities before him, and their secret sins in the light of his countenance, of such as are consumed by god's anger, and god's wrath troubleth them. what is the meaning of that famous place, mich. 7.18, 19, 20. is it not, that god seethe no sin in justified ones, where the prophet saith, who is a god, like unto thee, that pardoneth iniquity, transgression and sin, and passeth by the transgression of the remnant of his heritage? he retaineth not his anger for every, because he delighteth in mercy. now, when he hath pardoned iniquity, will he charge it again? no, he will cast all the sins [of justified ones, such as he hath pardoned] into the depths of the sea. how shall their sins then be found any more in the deep fathomless ocean? they shall not be found: the iniquity of israel [i. e. the true spiritual israel] shall be sought for, and there shall be none; and the sins of judah, and they shall not be found, for i will pardon whom i reserve, jer. 50.20. and those days are there spoken of when the clear discovery of grace of the new covenant shall be made, which the same prophet foretells, jer. 31.32, 33. and the apostle to the hebrews quotes, ch. 8.12. ch. 10.17. i will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and for their sins and iniquities i will remember them no more. and what means that of good hezekiah, when he speaks of himself, isaiah 38.17. for peace i had great bitterness, [in respect of temptations, darkness and afflictions] but what was his comfort and support, thou hast in love to my soul delivered it from the pit of corruption, [god had added some years to his life] for thou hast cast all my sins behind thy back. and what was the great intention of the living sacrifice of the scape-goat, in the day of atonement, and after the high-priests charging all the sins of the congregation solemnly upon him? he was sent into the land of forgetfulness, leu. 16. was it not to point out god's non-remembrance of the sins of justified ones? that as christ died and answered the type of the slain goat, in satisfying for sin, so he carried away the remembrance of our sins from before the lord; he was delivered for our offences, and risen for our justification; and the apostle lays the stress of carrying away of sin upon his resurrection and life, rom. 8.34, 35. and 1 john 3.5. he was manifested to take away sin, to carry it quite away from before god, into forgetfulness, as the true scape-goat. neither will we part with that famous portion of scripture, as an unmoveable bottom for this truth, if there were no more, notwithstanding all the false glosses that have been put upon it by such as would curse where god will bless, i mean numb. 23.21. he hath not beheld iniquity in jacob, nor seen perverseness in israel. which is plainly to be understood of spiritual jacob and israel, under the old and new testament; such god hath commanded to bless, and they shall not be cursed, but blessed; there is the shout of a king amongst them: therefore as there is no enchantment or divination, so no new-coined divinity can be against them, to bring them under god's wrath and curse. i add what follows: because i hear a certain minister in town hath lately charged this publicly as an error, to say, god sees no sin in his people; he should have first charged the scripture with error, and refuted it; and then he should have charged that divine with error, who commented on the epistle to the romans, in continuation of mr. pool's annotations: see what he saith on rom. 8.1. no condemnation, or no one condemnation; he doth not say, there is no matter of condemnation, or nothing damnable in them that are in christ, there is enough and enough of that; but he saith, there is no actual condemnation: see joh. 3.18. and 5.24. there is a meiosis in the words, more is understood than expressed; he means, that justification and eternal salvation is the portion of such; the positive is included in the negative; it's god's condemnation only, from which such as are in christ are exempted; they are nevertheless condemned and censured by men, and sometimes by their own consciences. and on ver. 33. who shall lay any thing to the charge of god's elect? etc. who can implead such, or put in an accusation against them? there is nothing to accuse them of, they are justified. and there is none to accuse them, it is god that hath justified them; the supreme judge hath absolved them: this seems to be taken out of isai. 50.8, 9 they were christ's words there, and spoken of god's justifying him; and they are every believer's words here, intended of god's justifying them; and seems to be from two reasons; one implied, i. e. god's electing them, the other expressed god's justifying and acquitting them. and on ver. 34. who is he that condemneth? it is christ that died, etc. his death frees them from condemnation; thereby he hath made a sufficient atonement and satisfaction for all their sins; and which hath long ago satisfied in heaven for the sins of all the elect, may very well serve to satisfy the heart and conscience of a believing sinner here on earth; such an one may throw down the gauntlet, as the apostle doth, and challenge all the world; let conscience, carnal reason, law, sin, hell, and devils, let them all bring forth what they can, it will not be sufficient for condemnation, and that because of christ's death and satisfaction. dr. jacomb, on rom. 8.1. saith, we read it [no condemnation] the original will bear it, if we read it [not one condemnation] 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is as much as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; such is the grace of god to believers, and such is their safety in their justified estate, that there is not so much as one condemnation to be passed upon them; suppose a condemnatory sentence for every sin, (i'm sure every sin deserves such a sentence, and in point of merit, 'tis so many sins, so many condemnations) yet the pardon being plenary and full, every way adequate to the sinner's guilt, the exemption of the pardoned person from condemnation must be plenary and full too; so that if there be not one sin unpardoned, there is not one condemnation to be feared, [this now is dreadful antinomianism with some men] jer. 50.20. in those days the iniquity of israel shall be sought for, and there shall be none. 'tis an allusion to a man that turns over all his bonds; searcheth into all the debt-books, to see if he can find any debt due to him from such and such a person; but upon all his searching he cannot find so much as one debt to charge upon him; so 'tis with a pardoned and justified sinner. imagine that god should be inquisitive to find out some guilt as lying upon him, he might indeed find out enough, (as he is in himself,) but as in christ he is pardoned and justified; there's nothing to be found against him, therefore no condemnation. what do you think now, is it an error to say, god sees no iniquity in his people? how can any dare to curse where god blesseth? this is to do worse than balaam. debate. xvii. of the hurt that sin may do to believers. neonom. i call to mind a most dangerous and dicentious position of this antinomian, and that is, that sin can do no hurt to believers. d. w. p. 181. his error is this, error. the grossest sins that believers can commit, cannot do them the least harm, neither ought they to fear the least hurt by their own sins; nor by national sins; yea, tho' themselves have had a hand therein. antinom. it is strange you should charge this is an error upon me, when as it's your own assertion; but you know the old proverb, the thief cries cutpurse first. in the very second conference he had this assertion. he is there showing that there was no need that christ should bear any more than the punishment of sin, saying, all that endangered us was the threatening of the law, and this upon agreement, that upon his atonement we should be released; where is the need of more? the obliquity of the fact, as against the precept, shall not hurt, when the sanction of the law is answered, and therefore he that suffers as a sponsor for another, need not sustain in himself the filthiness of the crime, to make him capable of giving satisfaction, chap. 2. p. 11. but go on to your proof. neonom. he saith, they need not be afraid of their sins; they that have god for their god, there is no sin that ever they commit can possibly do them hurt: therefore as their sins cannot hurt them, so there is no cause of fear in their sins committed, etc. there is not one sin, nor all the sins together, of any believer, that can possibly do that believer any real hurt: this he attempts to prove from rom. 7. d. w. p. 181. from dr. cr. p. 510. antinom. he hath left out my true sense and meaning in these words, on purpose as he useth to do, to render my assertions unsound. having been saying, that a believer's sins cannot hurt them, i raised this objection. some will be ready to say, this is strange, dr. c. p. 510. all the evils in the world that come they grow up from the sinfulness of men. if man be afraid of any thing, he should be afraid of sin, from whence all evils do flow. a. i answered, beloved it is true, sin naturally is a root of all manner of evil fruit, (observe gentlemen,) the wages of sin is death: but yet, (i say) whatever sin in its own nature brings forth, yet the sins of god s peculiar people, they that have god for their own god, their sins can do them no hurt at all, and in that regard, there is no cause of fear of any of their sins that ever they have committed. this may seem harsh to some spirits that misconceive my drift that i aim at, which is not to encourage any one to sin, but to ease the consciences of the distressed,— there's not one sin, nor all their sins, can do them hurt, real hurt, i mean [they may do them supposed hurt.] and— i suppose the apostle, rom. 7. doth personate a scrupulous spirit; dr. c. p. 511. that a believer under the multitude and prevalency of corruption, who was ready to cry out, o wretched man that i am who shall deliver me from the body of this death,— but, saith he, i thank god through jesus christ, q. d. till a man look to christ there is nothing but matter of bitterness to be seen as the certain fruits of sin, and there can be nothing but bitterness in sin, in regard of the evil that is like to follow it, but when persons can once look to christ, the case is altered. what doth he thank god for? he thanks god, tho' naturally a body of death grew up by sin, yet there is no prejudice can come to him through christ, ch. 8. 1. there is no condemnation to them that are in christ, etc. no, you will say, no condemnation in hell, but yet there is the remainder of sin in god's own people; so there will some evil or other fall upon the commission of sin. but mark what the apostle saith, vers. 3, 4. the law of the spirit of life which is in christ jesus, hath freed me from the law of sin and death, etc. here christ stands for the deliverance of his people from condemnation, from eternal wrath, say some: yea, but saith the apostle, we are delivered from the law of sin and death; what is the law of sin, but what the law may do to persons for those sins which are committed by them? now what can sin do when it is condemned, etc. 'tis true indeed, every sin is a great debt, and we commit sins daily and hourly against the lord, dr. c. p. 512. and the torments of hell are the merit of the least sin in the world; for i speak not this to extenuate any sin, but to show the greatness of god's grace, and to ease upon good grounds distressed consciences. therefore such as look upon these sins as uncancelled, and these debts as true debts, it is true, so long the●e sins may work a horror and trembling in persons; but for believers that are members of christ, they may read fairly all the sins that ever they have committed, they may read also the desert of these transgressions which should be executed and inflicted on them, if they were not canceled and blotted out, isa. 43. i even i am he, etc. it is true, our sins themselves do not speak peace, but christ bearing the sin and wrath that these sins do deserve, speaks peace to every believer; dr. c. p. 513. see 1 cor. 15.56, 57 tho' naturally sin hath a sting, yet there is a victory over this sting, christ is the death of it, and he took away the sting of it. it is true, before men come to see the light of the gospel of christ, their sins stare in their faces, seeming to spit fire at them; but as children will put one of their company into a hideous posture, causing every one that knows it not to run from him, so sin is set up by satan with a terrible visage, as it were to spit fire in the faces of the godly and faithful, and seems very threatening and dreadful, but they are to know, there is no fear from the sins of believers, all the terror and fearfulness of sin christ hath drunk it, and in the drinking of it christ himself was crucified, and in that regard, i say, all the terror, and ghastliness, and hideousness, as it is represented by satan, is spent, and sin itself is dead. it is true indeed, a living roaring lion is a terrible creature, but in a dead lion there is no more fear, than there is in a stick or stone, to him that knows he is dead. while sin is alive it is fearful, and terrible, and deadly, but when sin itself is dead, then there is no more terror in it than there is in a dead lion. thus i speak of sin, not as it smiles upon a man with a promising countenance, dr. c. p. 513. before it be committed, for so it is most dreadful and odious to the faithful, as that which crucified their sweetest lord: but as committed, and lying upon the conscience of a believer, endeavouring to drive him to deny the free grace and love of god, and the alsufficiency of christ, for in this regard it is crucified by christ, and so a believer need not be afraid of sin, the handwriting of ordinances is taken away, and they that are christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts. calvin, mr. antinom. hath sufficiently cleared himself in this point, for he hath told us of the odious nature of sin itself, the natural hurt and evil effects of it; he hath abundantly showed the hurt he means and speaks of, is the penal effects of sin in its condemning power, which condemning nature is taken away in the atonement made by christ; he speaks of sins past, that lie upon conscience, so as to drive men from christ, and the free pardoning grace of god; he speaks not of sin, as it comes with alluring smiles to tempt us to the committing of them, for so he saith, they are most dreadful and odious to the faithful, as that which crucified our dearest lord. besides all this, he hath made it appear, that you yourself have made an assertion, which no way falls short, nay, to me it's far more condemnable than any expression that you have charged him with under this head. for he speaks only of the effects of sin, which, he saith, are taken away, (as you do there,) in our sponsor's answering the penal sanction; so far you justify all he saith, but you say, that the obliquity of the fact, as against the precept, which is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, sin itself shall not hurt; so that it must needs follow, that all the hurt of sin is only in the punishment, nay that sin in its proper nature and filthiness hath no hurt in it, and that we need not the blood of christ in justification to take it away: now how comes sin as sin and fault to be pardoned, for there is no more of sin pardoned than christ bore? but you say, there was no need of his bearing it, no more than as to the punishment, and then the obliquity and fault will do no hurt, turpe est doctori, cum culpa redarguit ipsum. i think gentlemen we may dismiss this point; the matter of charge proving so false an accusation, i shall not have patience to hear him any further upon it, and i think, gentlemen, you are ashamed of it as well as i. antinom. pray mr. calvinist have a little patience, and hear what he saith to this point, how and in what sense he understands the hurt of sin. calvin. well, i will do what i can with myself, but you must whip the top with him, he will put me out of breath in answering his impertinences. i pray then go on, and tell us what you call truth in your usual dogmatizing way. neonom. truth; its true of believers, that if sin should have dominion over them, they would thereby come to condemnation, d. w. p. 180. antinom. how can you make a truth upon supposition of that which will never be? i can call that nothing but a rule of falsehood in logic, tho' there's a connexion of antecedent and consequence, si homo sit leo est etiam quadrupes, such propositions are childish, when the sky falls we shall catch larks, throw the p of a quill over the house, and it will be a silver spoon. but it may be you mean, by the dominion of sin, the prevailing of sin; this i deny to be dominion in a justified one. you should have made this proposition, if a true believer be not in christ, he shall come into condemnation: would not this look ridiculous? neonom. and tho' the grace of god will prevent the dominion of sin in every elect believer, and so keep them from eternal death; yet true believers may by sin bring very great hurt to themselves in soul and body, which they ought to fear, and they may expect a share in national judgements, according as they have contributed to the common guilt. antinom. here now you add a preservation from another hurt; and it's certain, that as sin shall not hurt them, as to the wages of sin, and penal effects, answering the sanction of the law, so it shall not have dominion over them, which you say well in, grace hath secured them from, rom. 6. and yet you begin with a bounce in your proposition, made up of impossibilities by your own concession. 2. you say, the grace of god prevents the dominion of sin, and so keeps them from eternal death, as if you thought the grace of god made no use of christ in preserving men from eternal death: hath christ not delivered us from the dominion of sin and eternal death too? but i find you'll have as little to do with christ in the salvation of sinners or believers as you can. 3. notwithstanding sin cannot bring them under condemnation, nor under its dominion, the two great real hurts of sin, yet you would seem to say something contrary to me, and that is it doth do them hurt in soul and body, which they ought to fear; we tell you, 1. it can do them no real hurt, it may do them supposed. 2. it doth them no hurt directly, as to punishment or dominion, it may by accident, i. e. through the weakness of their faith lie upon their consciences, defile them, and drive them to warp from the free love and grace of god, this you would call good, and not hurt, for you would have them put themselves under wrath. 3. we speak of sins passed yet lying upon conscience, and driving the soul from christ; we speak not of sins not committed, those we should fear with a fear of watchfulness, and dependence on grace, for strength against them, and we say they are odious to the faithful. 4. we say true believers shall have a share in national calamities, which shall not be judicial punishments to them, but sanctified afflictions, and therefore no real hurts, tho' seeming ones. neonom. but i will tell you wherein the difference is not. antinom. what then? i must run the gauntlet for my error forward and backward, with whether and neither. neonom. yes, if you will know the truth rightly stated, you must know it when it is not, as well as when it is; as they that look for that which is lost. 1. it is not whether god will preserve elect believers from eternal condemnation, by keeping them from the dominion of sin. antinom. but it is whether keeping men from the dominion of sin is the proper reason of their being kept from condemnation; doth mortification of sin save men from condemnation or the strictest degree of holiness? it's true, that the will of god is our sanctification; but our sanctification did not die for us, and hath no more to do in taking off condemnation, than paul in taking off condemnation from the corinthians; it peculiarly belongs to christ to deliver from the wrath to come, and from all condemnation. neonom. nor whether a justified person be freed from the curse of the law, or the sanction of the law of works. antinom. but it is whether he be free from the sanction of your new law, which is a law of works too. neonom. nor whether a believer should fear his eternal condemnation, no further than his sins bring his sincerity in question, or lead to security or apostasy. antinom. but it is out of question hypocrites and apostates were never believers. 2 whatever a believer doth do, yet you own he ought upon some grounds or other, to be delivered from the fear of condemnation. we say it ought to be grounded on the faith of his full deliverance from condemnation, by the atonement and satisfaction of christ. you say it ought to be founded upon his sincerity and perseverance, that when he is rid of all his hypocrisy, and hath persevered to the end of his life, he may be free from fear of condemnation; but not before. 3. where's the true believer but is daily complaining, and not without cause enough, of his unbelief, hypocrisy, security, backsliding? and if he should have no better assurance of the safety of his state, and freedom from condemnation, than his own sincerity and perseverance, he could not be freed from the fear of condemnation in this life, nor walk comfortably an hour. neonom. nor whether god may, in sovereign mercy, spare to execute those rebukes, national or personal, which a godly man's sins may expose him to. antinom. you love to dance about in ambiguities: there is a great deal of difference between sovereign sparing mercy, and covenant-mercy; god exerciseth sparing mercy and long suffering towards the worst of men, but deals with a true believer always in a way of covenant-mercy; and whether he rebukes him or not, it's all from his fatherly love and wisdom; god cannot deal with him but according to his covenant relation. god indeed deals with nations, and mixed societies of men, according to his sovereignty; but the same visible dispensations are made covenant-mercies to all true believers, within the compass of such providences. neonom. nor whether god may or can overrule the sin of a believer afterward to his benefit; these i affirm. antinom. it's not only out of question that he may or can overrule the sin of a believer, for his benefit, but that he always doth do it, if he is truly belonging to god. neonom. nor whether the afflictions of the godly be the execution of the damnatory curse of the law, or any satisfaction or atonement for sins: this i deny, and add, that christ alone satisfied justice. antinom. but it's a question, what you mean by the damnatory curse of the law? is then one curse damnatory, and another not damnatory? you mean afflictions are an execution of the curse of the law, but are not of eternal damnation. 2. you say, they are not any satisfaction and atonement; but if they be execution of a curse, if but temporary, it cannot be avoided but they must be satisfying and atoning in one kind or another, in whole or in part. 3. you add, that christ alone satisfied justice; if so, than he suffered the whole penal part of sin, and (this is all the doctor saith) that there remains none of it for a true believing member of christ, to bear; and what's the reason you make such a noise, when here you yield all the doctor intends, unless you equivocate, as you are want to do? neonom. you do not understand me, i perceive; i will tell you the real difference. 1. it's whether, according to the gospel-rule, if a believer should yield up himself to the dominion of sin, he should perish? this i affirm, and the doctor denies, against plain texts, directed to believers. antinom. 1. a denunciation of death and damnation is neither a rule nor gospel; it's very absurd to say that is a rule, if you live after the flesh; it's but a condemnation of what's contrary to the rule, and a denunciation upon a supposing of that aberration from the rule: suppositions are not always positions, that the thing supposed is ever in being, and they are used by way of argumentation; because the antecedent can't be, therefore the consequent can't be; or because the consequent can't be, therefore the antecedent can't be, & vice versa. there's in this kind of arguing, a ponere or tollere, in respect of one part of the proposition, to take away or establish the other, as now in the proposition you boast of. if a true believer (for so you should say) yield up himself to the dominion of sin, he shall perish; but a true believer shall not yield up himself to the dominion of sin; therefore, he shall not perish. make but the proposition into a syllogism, that it may argue, and it will prove, that a true believer shall not perish, because he shall not yield up himself to the dominion of sin, rom. 6.12.14. 2. i deny that the apostle there speaks, chap. 8.13. of true believers, but useth an argument to unhinge and lose professors from vain hopes, and to show that they are not in christ. for vers. 8. he saith, they that are in the flesh can't please god; to such as are in the flesh, he opposeth them that are in the spirit, and having the spirit of christ are his: therefore, he saith, all such are debtors to live after the spirit, and not after the flesh; for if ye that are professors to live after the spirit, do really live after the flesh, you are in a perishing state, you are in the flesh. now the apostle's arguing looks two ways, 1. to prove they that are in christ shall not die; they that shall not live after the flesh, shall not die; but a believer in christ, shall not live after the flesh. ergo, he shall not die. 2. by way of discovery, he that lives after the flesh, is in the flesh, and can't please god, and therefore must die in that state, if it continue: but you or i live so; therefore, the apostle speaks it by way of trial of the truth of our state, and in-being in christ. 3. where is it that the doctor speaks so favourably, as you would have him, of the dominion of sin? you have not referred to the place: the nearest is pag. 429. where he hath these words, forget every thing that seems worthy in you or done by you, and let all your triumphing and glorying be in the free grace of god, in christ; and look upon yourself only in that, and nothing else; as the martyr did, none but christ, none but christ. if you have more ability than others, in doing, let it not come into your thoughts, as an inducement to think better of yourself; as if you were more accepted of god, or pleasing in his sight. are you sinful in respect of the prevalency of corruption? are the temptations of satan mighty? let it not come into your thoughts that you are worse or less than others; for iniquity shall not part christ and thee, if thou be once joined to him. where is here the saying, that if sin hath dominion over a believer, he shall not perish? but this is all along your way, to forge the horse-shoe first, and then nail it to what foot you please. neonom. whether a believer falling into such sins, as idolatry, murder, etc. ought not to awe his soul against security, with lively thoughts of damnation; and if he continue long herein; ought not he to suspect the state of his soul, as in danger? this i affirm, and the doctor denies. thereby he renders the gospel-threatning, as urged by the spirit on the hearts of believers, to be all foolish. antinom. where doth the doctor lay down this position, by way of affirming or denying? it's only a chimaera of your own. we leave such believers to your management, till the grace of god change their hearts, and teach them better things. 1. it's very rare to find such true believers that fall into such sins, and live securely in them. 2. if nothing but lively thoughts of damnation will keep him from such sins and security in them, i shall leave him under the sanction of your gospel, till it shall please god to call him into his grace. and surely he ought to suspect his state, if nothing rouseth him but lively thoughts of damnation [i should rather have said, killing thoughts of damnation] for when the law comes, sin revives, and the sinner dies in the thoughts of damnation. but this is one of your new terms of art, the lively thoughts of damnation, it's like your rule of sin, etc. and such stuff is your speaking of the urging of gospel threaten by the spirit, on the hearts of believers; as if threaten were gospel, or the spirit of grace and adoption did work that way upon the hearts of believers, to produce holiness, viz. by urging gospel-threatning. i am sure your positions are exceeding foolish and absurd. neonom. whether christ is at liberty sharply to afflict a justified person for provoking sins, tho' he be secured against soul-destroying judgements. this i affirm, and the doctor denies. antinom. you affirm, that christ satisfied justice; therefore, as your afflictions are not expiatory in whole or part, therefore they are not for sin in that sense that you urge for sin. and who is it that says, christ is not at liberty to afflict them for sin in another sense, sin being the cause and the root of all evil fruits that spring up in the faithful? therefore, there must be mortifying of it, as well as satisfying for it: god doth not afflict his children for sin, by way of satisfaction, but for the mortifying of it; and who saith christ is not at liberty so to do? and thus you go on, imposing upon us what you please. neonom. whether a believer, falling into great sins, aught to fear god's present rebukes for such sins. this i affirm, and the doctor denies. antinom. he ought patiently to bear present rebukes, it's not proper to say he should fear them; yea, he ought always to maintain a filial fear of god and his goodness, not to live in a slavish fear and avoid sin, for fear of the lash; he ought always to have a due gospel fear to preserve him from sin, even when he doth not fall into great sins; and if its only the fear of punishment that keeps men from sin, or reforms them, when fall●n into it, there's no true grace of god in the heart; david saith, god's rod and staff comforted him. neonom. whether great offences be a real hurt to a believer, and brings on him much present harm. this i affirm, and the doctor denies: the case of national sins is concluded in these. antinom. here how you come to fight with a man of clouts; which you yourself have made; for we said not that sin is no hurt; for if so, why should our whole doctrine be to show that it needs healing? it's the hurt of the daughter of zion; why is it said that we are healed by the stripes of christ? and that sin, even remaining in god's people, makes the best of god's people's services and duties as dross and dung, by reason of its mixture with them, which you condemn for an error? we say, pag. 509. let us not be mistaken: we do not say we must not be afraid to sin; but that they that have god for their god, need not be afraid of the sins they have committed, in regard of the penal effects. but that sin naturally is a root, bringing forth all manner of evil fruit; the wages of sin is death. we distinguish of fear, a natural fear, an affection in men by nature, that they cannot be freed from; there's a religious and godly fear, which is an awful reverence of the majesty of god, and keeping a convenient distance, such as the creature ought to keep, it's opposed to sauciness. and there's a turbulent fear, a fear of disquietness, that which the lord endeavours to take off from his people. all such fear, the apostle saith, hath bondage, and perfect love casts it out: and the same apostle saith, as i say. these things i writ unto you, that ye sin not. but if any man sin (i. e. hath committed sin) we have an advocate with the father, jesus christ the righteous, and he is a propitiation for our sins, 1 joh. 2.1, 2. therefore you charge us falsely to say our meaning is, that sin, in itself, is no hurt, and in its nature doth no hurt: but we say as you, that christ satisfied justice for sin, and overrules the hurt of it for our good, so that through grace it doth us no real hurt; christ hath taken away the sting of sin, and the condemnation of sin. the real hurt of sin lies in the dominion of sin, and in the penal effects of it, they that have god for their god can't give up themselves to the dominion of sin; they can't have a love for it, because they are under grace; and as to the penal effects, they are taken away by christ, or else his satisfaction to justice was imperfect. now all other effects of sin, as hiding god's face, his paternal chastisements, in outward afflictions, eclipsing our graces and duties, come under a promise, that tho' they are not joyous, but grievous to a gracious mind, yet they shall, through god's grace disposing them, tend to our good, in making us the more partakers of god's holiness, to mortify sin, to humble us and empty us of ourselves, and to bring us to an higher exaltation of christ and dependence upon him, yea, to more watchfulness, carefulness and circumspection in our ways. hence god's people have their frequent complaints against sin, as to its indwelling and hindering them from doing the good they would, groan under the body of sin, and desire heaven to be altogether rid of it, etc. but when we say, sin cannot do us real hurt, and we should not be afraid of it, we mean only of sins already fallen into, that the disturbing, disquieting guilt of them should not lie upon our consciences to obstruct our comforts, and rejoicing in christ; they should not drive us from christ, to deny the love and free grace of god and the alsufficiency of christ; for if he that hath god for his god lies continually under an embondaging fear of sins past, he would always labour under a servile, slavish frame of spirit, without comfort all his days: we need not repeat what hath been said to vindicate ourselves from this unjust charge. neonom. i'll tell you your mistakes: because there is no eternal condemnation lies against a believer, therefore there is no penal present affliction, d. w. p. 189. antinom. it's all condemnation; christ hath taken away its condemnation that makes hell, and if god's people be under it here, they must have a degree of it; christ died in vain, as to our present state, if it were not to take away condemnation from us here; we cannot be justified before god and lie under condemnation too. is a believer only justified from future condemnation, and not present? and it's no mistake, to say, because a man is freed from eternal condemnation, therefore present afflictions are not penal; but it's a necessary consequence, why did christ bear our sorrows, and carry our griefs, but that our afflictions should not be penal? neonom. whereas there's much hurt below hell, and that it is not hell that follows the sin of a believer, is not from the innocency of sin, but the grace of god that brings him to repentance, and faith in christ for remission. antinom. i thought there had been no hurt lower than hell; i suppose you mean, there's much hurt on this side hell; but improprieties are natural to you; condemnation for sin in this life, is much hurt, and a degree of hell, and is the same in kind; and therefore if god's people be not freed from it here, they cannot expect to be freed from the lower hell. 2. the reason why hell (you say) follows not the sin of a believer, is not the innocency of sin; this is one of the blackmouthed charges you lay upon us, that we make sin innocent, because we say, sin was laid on christ, and he hath born all the penal effects of sin. why say you not the same of the apostle, who saith the strength of sin is taken away, and the sting of death, (whereby it or lesser afflictions can't hurt) is taken away? these abominable reproaches fall not on man, so much as upon the truths of the gospel, which christ hath a controversy with you for. and that hell follows not the sin of a believer, you say, is from the grace god; and why may it not be from the grace of god, that no penal effects follow the sin of a believer? that grace that prevents or delivers from the greater evil will also from the lesser. neonom. because all sufferings for christ work for good, therefore all sins against christ can do no harm. antinom. all sufferings of a believer, from the hand of christ, as well as such as are in a way of persecution for christ, shall work for their good; and therefore whatever befalls them by reason of sin, shall be for their good; and whatever is for our good, according to the wise disposing of god, is not for our harm, tho' it be so for the present in our own apprehension. neonom. because god can and doth overrule these to some good at last, therefore they do no harm in the mean while nor in any degree. antinom. we speak not against the hurt of sin in its nature and natural effects, nor the seeming hurt of sin and the effects of it; but how evil soever it be, through the grace of god overruling it, all the seeming, yea, real hurt that it doth at present, shall be for good, and is good in the wise way and end of god, tho' not apparently so, yet the promise is to be believed. neonom. because a believer is freed from the curse of the law, therefore no gospel threatening of christ can reach him. antinom. where no curse of the law can reach, there nothing you call a gospel threat can do a real hurt; for that is not what we call so, but what the wise god doth make so. neonom. because some good men are sometimes humbled and awakened by sin, as it's an evil, therefore to them it is not evil. antinom. whatever is for humbling and awakening of a sinner, is good to that sinner, and no real hurt; that that is malum simpliciter, either naturale or contristativum may be good, in ordine ad finem, and secundum quid; as to cut off a leg or arm is malum naturale & contristativum, but in order to the saving the whole body, it's bonum necessarium; many causes act not sua facultate, sed externa, and that is when a thing produceth an effect by an external direction and gubernation, that it hath no internal disposition to, nor it may be an immediate agent might not intent or design, phereo jasoni profuit hostis qui gladio vomicam ejus aperuit quam sanare medici non poterant: the enemy did jason a kindness, when, by a thrust of a sword, he opened an imposthumation that the physicians could not cure. so commission of sin, through divine disposal and the promise of grace, serves to lay open some latent corruption or other in the children of god, which becomes of great benefit and advantage to them. neonom. the assembly is of my mind, they say the threaten of the law are of use, etc. antinom. but you leave out what you please; c. 19 they say, although a true believer be not under the law as a covenant of works, to be thereby justified or condemned, yet it is of great use to them to inform them of the will of god,— and the threaten to show what sin deserves— who denies all they say? but observe, they say a believer is not under the law for condemnation. neonom. but they say, c. 17. saints may, through temptation and the prevalency of corruption, fall into grievous sins, and continue therein for a time, and incur god's displeasure, and grieve his spirit, and come to be deprived in some measure of their graces and comforts, have their hearts hardened, their consciences wounded, hurt and scandalise others, and bring temporal judgements upon themselves. antinom. all this is granted, and yet we are not affected by it; in our true sense and meaning, we say sin is hurtful, and bears all manner of evil fruits; but, through the victory that we have in christ, sin shall not bring upon us the curse of the law, nor condemning penal effects; castigations, proceeding from a fatherly hand, are the privileges of his adopted children, whether it be exercised in outward afflictions, or inward withdrawing. and this is the hurt that is all along spoken of; we intent not sin in its own nature, and those effects that naturally proceed from it, nor the aspect it hath upon ourselves or others, in all which it carries odium and mischief with it: the sole reason why it hurteth not in a way of condemnation, is from the propitiation and advocateship of jesus christ, in whom, and by whom, that hurt is taken away which we speak of. calvin, but mr. neonomian saith, he hath not wronged the doctor in this charge, nor misrepresented him, repl. p. 47. neonom. i say, he doth very oft say and frequently attempt to prove, that sin can do no hurt. antinom. in what sense doth he speak it? doth he intent sin in its own nature hath no hurt in it? or that it can do no hurt in its penal effects? hurt must be understood in one of these senses. neonom. i never designed to charge him with it in the first sense, for he saith sin is a lion, there's its nature; and a dead lion, there's its calmness; and, because it's dead, it's not to be feared; it's a traitor, that's its nature; and bound hand and foot, that's its inability to harm. antinom. but you say, he makes sin innocent to the elect; that's to change the nature of it, not to remove the effects; a traitor may be bound and be a traitor still, tho' not to be feared. neonom. he hath said too much to make it harmless to the elect. antinom. it must be harmless to the elect, so far as christ bore sin for them, or else he bore it in vain; but if the doctor had thought sin had no hurt in it, he need not have insisted so much upon christ's bearing sin for us, that sin might not wound us to death. neonom. i tell you, i do not charge him for saying sin, as to its own nature, hath no hurt in it. antinom where lies the fault then? is it in saying sin, as to its penal effects, can do them that are in christ no harm? neonom. he says not so, and yet those are most of the hurts that come for sin. antinom. mark, gentlemans, he denies, that this is his meaning, he saith not those very words and syllables, but what is it that he proves his position by, viz. there's not one sin, or all the sins together, of a believer can do him the least real hurt; he proves it from rom. 7. l. c. 8.1. after complaint against the remaining of corruption in him, he thanks god, through christ, and saith, there's no condemnation to them that are in christ jesus, pag. 511. and from isaiah 43. (p. 512.) i, even i, am he that blotteth out thy transgression, etc. where he saith, what prejudice can that do that is blotted out? every debt of a believer is a canceled debt; so that the lord himself hath nothing to lay to a believer's charge, it is christ was wounded for his people's sins, isaiah 53. it's true, our sins themselves do not speak peace, but christ, bearing sin and the wrath that these sins do deserve— and again," tho' naturally sin hath a sting, yet there is a victory over this sting; christ is the death of it, as he took away the sting of it. now let any impartial person judge, whether this be not the hurt of sin which the doctor intends; and, besides, that you judge it to be his meaning, appears, 1. because you say, he means not this hurt in respect of the nature of sin; and if so, it must be in respect of the real pernicious effects of sin; for a believer sees hurt in sin, and complains of it, but as to its nature, which is odious in itself, or to its effects. 2. it appears, that you judge his meaning is such, because you say, that by his doctrine of christ, bea●ing sin, he makes sin innocent to the elect; whereby, 1. you make the nocency of sin to lie in the punishment of it, and thereby justify dr. crisp's expression, how unproper soever it be or erroneous. 2. you say, totidem verbis, that penal effects of sin are most of the hurt that comes by it, according to what doctrine we have already charged you with supra. the great sign of the truth of grace, that is usually given, is the fear and hatred of sin, from the very nature of it, its contrariety to god and his law; and that its the greatest sign of an hypocrite to abstain from it, only for fear of wrath and hell. and, 3. you tell us upon what principles he goes, 1. that god hath no sin to charge upon an elect person; tho' a man sins, god reckons not his sin to him, etc. whereby you show where your grudge is; it's against the doctrine of imputation more than against the doctor, for any thing he hath said. as for your instance about poisoned wine, you say yourself, he speaks not by way of exhortation, but doctrinally; therefore exhorts none to take poisoned wine, but cautions them against it, again and again; and as for any that have, through weakness and inadvertency, he tells them their antidote, as the apostle john, 1st epist. c. 2. 1. my little children, these things i writ unto you, that you sin not; and if any man sin, we have an advocate with the father, jesus christ the righteous, and he is a propitiation for our sins. debate xviii. of god's displeasure for sin in the afflictions of his people. neonom. the next great antinomian error, is, that none of the afflictions of believers have in them the least of god's displeasure against their persons, for their sins, d. w. p. 190, 191. antinom. we must proceed in our ordinary method, let us know what you ground your charge upon? neonom. he affirmeth, p. 15. except god will be offended, when there is no cause to be offended, he will not be offended with believers, because he doth not find the sin of a believer to be his own sin, but the sin of christ. antinom. but he in the next words quotes places of scripture to prove what he saith, he hath made him sin for us, he hath laid upon him the iniquities of us all; the blood of j●sus christ cleanseth us from all sin; he bore our sins in his body, etc. and from these he argues thus, if he bear our sins, he must bear the displeasure for them; and he did bear the indignation of the lord; and if so, he did bear it all, or but part. if he did not bear all the indignation of the lord, than he doth not save to the uttermost all that come unto god by him, as heb. 4. i say not to the uttermost, because here is some indignation and displeasure left behind, and for lack of taking this indignation upon himself, it lights and falls upon believers. so that either you must say, christ is an imperfect saviour, having left some scattering of wrath behind, that will fall on the head of a believer: or else you will say, he is a perfect saviour, and takes away all god's displeasure; then there remains none of it upon the person of a believer. now why had you not answered his argument for what he said? yea, why had you not brought in the next objection made, to clear up his meaning, but quote only so much as may leave your reader under prejudice? object. yet you will say, is not god displeased and offended at the sins of believers, when they do commit them? hath christ taken away the offence of sin by his death? answ. no, therefore do not mistake yourself, there may be easily a mistake for lack of serious pondering the words i speak; i have not said, god is not offended with the sins a believer doth commit, but that god stands not offended with the persons of believers for the sins committed by them; he hath that everlasting indignation against sin as ever. and as there is the same contrariety in sin against his nature, so there is the same contrariety in god's nature unto sin. all contrarieties have a mutual contrariety against each other, as water and fire, etc. as sin is contrary to the nature of god, so there is an abhorrency of god to that sinfulness, [hear see with what ground you could say, that dr. c. makes sin innocent,] but there is no offence of god to the person that commits that sin, because the offence of god for that sin hath spent itself upon the person of christ, there remains none of it to light upon the person of a believer, christ having born all this offence for sin.— thou in our natures, and in the sinfulness of them, there is matter of displeasure, yet in christ, for all this, god is well pleased with us. and yet there is none of god's indignation against sin lost in all this, for he is satisfied for this his offence in his son, more than in our own persons. neonom. and he saith, p. 18. but are not the afflictions for their sins? antinom. come, i will tell you, he answers that objection. he saith, i answer, no, afflictions are unto believers f●om sin, but not for sin. what is the meaning of that will you say? this, god in afflicting believers doth not intent to punish them, as now laying on them the desert of their sin; for that is laid upon christ, but he doth afflict them in part, to be a help to preserve them from sin. i say, all afflictions to believers are to keep them from sin, rather than punishment unto them for sin. neonom. p. 170. he saith, that at that instant when god brings afflictions upon them, he doth not remember any sins of theirs, they are not in his thoughts. antinom. that which he asserts is from plain texts of scripture, how dare you banter and expose so great a truth as this? it is in that great place, jer. 31.33. declared to be the great promise of the gospel, by the spirit of god, heb. 10.16, 17. god saith, he remembers our sins no more; you say, he doth; who are we to believe, god, or you? neonom. he saith, christ being chastened for our our sins, there's nothing but peace belongs to us, p. 170. antinom. the words were thus, i see the scripture runs wholly in this strain, and is so full in nothing as in this, that he hath generally discharged the sins of believers. oh then take heed of falling into the error of the papists, that say, that god hath taken away the sin, but not the wrath of god due to sin, but that he hath forgiven our sins, but not the punishment of sin; but consider, that as our sins were then upon christ, he was so bruised for our iniquities, as that by his stripes we are healed, and the chastisement of our peace was so upon him, that he being chastised for our sins, there is nothing but peace belongs to us. and can you deny the truth of a plain place of scripture, the chastisement of our peace was upon him? doth it plainly appear that this is true meaning, that our peace was fully made by christ, and accordingly he is called our peace? christ saith, in the world we shall have trouble, yet this full and complete peace of reconciliation is made, and christ promiseth the comforts of it in believing, peace i give unto you, etc. neonom. he saith, if we tell believers, etc. except they perform such and such duties, d. w. p. 191. except they walk thus and thus holily, and do these and these good works, they shall come under wrath, at least god will be angry with them. what do we in this but abuse the scriptures? we undo all that christ hath done, we injure believers, we tell god lies to his face, dr. c. p. 170. antinom. it is not for you to expose a man's words, when they are proved from scripture and sound reason, why had you not taken his argument he brings, to prove that god will not be angry and be wroth with his people that are true believers, isa. 54. god, saith he, hath made such an oath, that the earth shall be drowned with water before it be broken, dr. c. p. 160. that he will not be wroth with his people, nor rebuke them any more; and upon this account, it is he saith, that such as tell believers, except they do this or that, etc. they will come under wrath and condemnation, do abuse the scriptures, and give god the lie; nay, he saith, we do not only, so much as lies in us, to make god a liar, [the scripture saith unbelief doth so, 1 john 5.] but we offer an insufferable affront unto jesus christ, and strike at the very heart of the office of christ's mediatorship. if we say, god is wroth with believers for whom christ died, for what end did christ suffer death? i say, that if this principle be truth, that god will be wroth with his people, than christ died in vain, for god could have been but wroth and angry with his people if christ had not died; to bring the people of god under wrath and vengeance again, is to take away all the virtue of the death of christ, and to make it of none effect. now why do you not answer this argument? this is the childishest thing in the world, to say, he saith so, and he saith so, why do you not tell people why he saith so, and confute his reasons? but you think you have done enough, if you have exposed a doctrine, by saying, this or that man that professeth to hold it, saith so and so; therefore what if a man speak truth never so weakly, and absurdly, must the truth be reckoned error therefore? calv. mr. neonom. you have sixth your anathema upon mr. antinomian's opinion in this point, viz. for holding that the afflictions of believers do not proceed from the judicial or vindictive displeasure of god against their persons, for their sins. you hear he saith, god is displeased with their sins, and doth afflict them, to purge out sin from them, that they may be partakers of his holiness, etc. which seems to me to be very sound and orthodox doctrine, agreeable to the scripture, and the analogy of faith. neonom. truth: tho' god is not so angry with his people for their sins, as to cast them out of his covenant-favour; yet by their sins he is so displeased, as for them to correct his children, tho' he speak instructions by his rebukes, d. w. 190. antinom. you say, tho' he be not so angry, you make degrees of anger in god thereby, as if god were partly pleased, and partly displeased with his children; and if so at one time, then at another (we speak of the persons of believers) there being always sin in them for a reason here; and if so, christ was not our full peace, he did not reconcile god fully to us, therefore made imperfect satisfaction; for if there remains some part of the debt yet unpaid, christ did not pay all. again, to be under the penalty of the law for sin, and the execution thereof, tho' but in part, is so far to be under the curse; but there's no believers in whole or in part, under the curse. again, god, you say, is not so displeased with them as to cast them out of covenant; if not, than they continue in covenant with god; if in covenant, than he hath always a covenant-love towards them, than he always acts in a way of covenant-love towards them, even for their amendment and not destruction, when he afflicts them not in a way of wrathful displeasure for their sins: but if you say, against their sins, we allow it, and god is always angry with sin; sin itself was never pleasing to god, and therefore he purgeth it out in sanctification every day; and hence spends many a rod upon them for their profit, as a good father upon a child that he dearly loves: some earthly fathers may correct for their pleasure, that is, to vent their anger and passion; but god, the apostle saith, corrects for our profit, heb. 12.10. and he saith, whom he loveth he chasteneth, v. 6. i. e. loveth at the very same time. god's divine love to the persons of believers cannot be abated in the least: it's true, god may alter his carriage towards them, and deal so with them, as to make them consider their ways, and to humble them, or to point out some corruption god will have mortified; this is all love in god, and not displeasure: god's seeming displeasure is a fruit of his unchangeable loving kindness towards them; and whatever you say, if i stand secured of god's covenant favour, i am sure god cannot be angry with me, whatever his sensible carriages are. god's people, whatever god's deal are with them, they do not take any thing to be done in displeasure, till through temptation they begin to suspect their covenant-state: do but clear up to an afflicted person god's covenant-favour, and i'll warrant you he will not say god hath afflicted him in his displeasure; and therefore you will say god is displeased with their persons, for their sins, i. e. punisheth them for their sins to satisfy his displeasure thereby, i. e. his justice; if so, it's clear the consequence is unavoidable, as to so much of my punishment for sin that i bear, christ did not bear, besides it must be in its degree expiatory and satisfactory to god. neonom. you mistake my meaning still; i will tell you where the difference is not. 1. it is not whether god ceaseth to love a believer when he sinneth. antinom. that is the thing which we say, that god hath an unchangeable love to the persons of believers, and cannot love and hate at the same time; and to ascribe changeable passions or affections unto god, is a kin to the heresy of anthropomorphites. neonom. nor whether the afflictions that befall a believer proceed from the vindicative justice of god as an enemy. antinom. we agree, with you, in it; why do you condemn us as erroneous? this is the great thing we plead for. neonom. nor whether god can bless the sorest judgements for sins, to the future good of a believer. this i affirm. antinom. i do not only say he can, but that he doth so always, and not only for his future but present good, tho' the believer may not yet know it for the present. neonom. tho' were it not for our sins, god would effect that good a milder way. antinom. this is strange talk; for the good is the taking away, or rooting up of our sins, if you understand by, and for sin, from sin, we differ not; as i weed my garden, why for the weeds, i. e. from the weeds, to pluck them out; were it not for weeds it would not weed it; but if you say its revenge upon the good herbs, it's false, it's for their good. neonom. and i doubt whether every good man may be said to get profit by all sorts of afflictions, for every degree of good is not equivalent to the hurt; and sometimes god punisheth sin with sin. d. w. p. 191. antinom. now instead of a believer, it's a good man; some of your good men that have as much faith as they brought into the world with them; nor by all sorts of afflictions, it seems there's some can't have good in them towards god's children, and every degree of good may not be equivalent in the same kind, as the gaining a greater measure of contentment, weanedness from the world, submission to the will of god, you say it's not equivalent to the losing my house and all my goods, by fire, in an instant. and what if god suffers his people to fall a first, and second time, and third too; how can you dare to say, that the hurt it doth them is greater than the good? it's enough that god's rectoral rule of government of them, is, that all things shall work together for their good; and tho' sin hath no good in itself, yet through god's wise disposal it shall work for good. neonom. nor whether some sensible calamities may fall on a good man, not so much in a way of rebuke for sin, as to try his graces, prevent sin, or bring glory to god, by a testimony of truth. antinom. these are very good reasons you have added; let me add, for his increase and growth in grace. neonom. yet i believe the very martyrs did not so glory in the joyful cause of their sufferings, as always to neglect an humble reflection on what sin of theirs might justify god, as a hidden cause of their hardship. antinom. there's none of god's children, but as they own themselves less than the least of his mercies, so own, that by the last of their sins, they have deserved the greatest calamities; but truly a martyr could never go joyfully to sufferings, if he thought god called him to it to punish him for his sins, to expiate some hidden sins; this would be sad martyrdom. no, the apostles rejoiced that they were counted worthy to suffer for the name of christ; they had no suspicion, it was a punishment of them for their sins. as to a humble reflection upon sin, and what it deserves in itself, yea and we for it, if god should deal with us according to our sinful deserts: i think others of god's professed children, as well as martyrs, have it, or else they have little grace in their hearts, and little acquaintance with the pardoning grace and mercy of god. neonom. i will show you the real difference, whether god be at all displeased with believers for their abominations. this i affirm, and the doctor denies. d. w. p. 192. antinom. you should have told us what you mean by god's being displeased, whether you mean an immanent displeasure of his divine justice, or a providential carriage towards them, which they are apt to call god's displeasure through temptation. 2. when you speak of god's displeasure towards believers, whether you mean their persons, or their sins; we say, god is never displeased with their persons, they being reconciled unto god by the death of his son; and in christ, god is fully and everlastingly well pleased with them. indeed in the way of your scheme, there's something in what you say, the righteousness of the new law being imperfect; and therefore there is room left to expiate our sins and imperfections, in obedience by our sufferings. 3. you make strange kind of believers, such, it seems, as fall ordinarily into great abominations, act and live in, i suppose, sins of the greatest magnitude; the doctor means a better sort of believers. neonom. whether god at any time, or by any afflictions, expresseth his displeasure against his people for their sins. this i affirm, and the doctor denies. antinom. you need have made but one whether of both these, unless you distinguish between god's displeasure, and expressing his displeasure, as between immanent and transient acts; and what signifies your affirming or denying, when there's no consistency in yourself, and all your affirmations and denials are in equivocal expressions? for you grant, god casts not believers out of covenant favour; he ceaseth not to love them when they sin. nor do afflictions proceed from his vindicative justice. that he can make afflictions for their future good. we say he doth do it, and for their present good too. and that they may fall upon a believer to prevent sin and try his graces, we say they do so always more or less. let all this be told a believer in an affliction, and he will say, blessed be god, i find all this that befalleth me is from a gracious god in covenant: god is not displeased, but deals with me as a tender father. neonom. i will confirm the truth: you must know that there is none of all this but dr. c. meaneth it of the unconverted elect, for their sins are off from themselves as much as believers; their sins do them no hurt, nor is god angry with them, tho' god saith, he is angry with the wicked every day. antinom. solomon saith, prov. 14.22. do they not err that devise evil? and that violence covereth the mouth of the wicked, ch. 10.11? and that he that hideth hatred, with lying lips, and he that uttereth a slander, is a fool, vers. 18? you thought by that time all your concessions were put together, that the error you charged the doctor with was dwindled away, and it would not blacken him enough, according to your intention; and therefore now you will accuse him for his meaning, that all that he speaks of believers, refers as well to the unconverted, as the elect. now to show the world how little like a gentleman, scholar or christian you carry yourself, see d. crisp, pag. 15. out of which you take your charge against him, in the very entrance of his discourse, what is said. he shows from john 14.6. that christ is the way from all the wrath of god to all that do receive him. 1. from the affection itself, of wrath; let me tell you, god doth, no longer stand offended or displeased, tho' a believer, after he be a believer, do sin oft; yet, i say, god no longer stands offended or displeased with them, when he hath once received christ; and unto them god saith, anger is not in me, isa. 27.4. and doth he not expressly mention believers in these very places you quote out of him? now i see it's impossible to escape your accusations, for you have so addicted yourself to say one thing and mean another, that whatever any saith, tho' never so plainly, whom you are minded to accuse, you'll say he meant another; and so you run on with your cuckoo's note. he says that sin will do them no hurt, and god is not angry with them, etc. neonom. i affirm god is displeased with believers for their abominations. antinom. some abominable believers out of doubt, some that you will have called believers, when as they themselves know in their consciences that you slander them. neonom. if he be displeased, it must be for their sins; he oft affirms it, and he forceth his people to own it, psal 60.1, 3. isa. 5.25. antinom. there is nothing to be concluded, that god is angry with the persons of true believers, from those expressions that refer to a national church, when there is a mixture of believers and unbelievers; god always when he speaks to such, in a way of anger, hath respect to the generality or prevailing party, according to which he doth in external ways of his providence carry himself towards the whole. neonom. god was angry with moses, exod. 4.14. deut. 4.21. chap. 9.21. antinom. no man of sense would bring that of exod. 4.14. to prove god was angry with moses in your sense; for moses was then in converse with god, who was calling him to a great undertaking, whereat moses was surprised and pleaded his own insufficiency; which plea of his, when it savoured of unbelief, god rebuked; not that there was in god penal anger against his person; but he rebukes his sin that he might not go on in the same sin and unbelief, and it's spoken after the manner of men; and so often in scripture god's rebukes of sin in his children by word or providence, is termed his anger, because it's so against sin, and seems to be so with their persons, by god's carriage to them many times in their apprehensions; and yet for all that, whom he loves he loves to the end. and so god loved the persons of moses and david, even when they sinned, as you say yourself, that god ceaseth not to love a believer when he sinneth; if not, than he is reconciled to their persons, however his sensible dealing may be with them, and all proceeds from that love: and therefore why do you blame dr. cr. for saying, that at that instant, when god brings afflictions on believers, he doth not remember any one of their sins? it must be understood thus, as he explains it, that god remembers not their sins in a way of judicial proceeding; marking iniquity, it is called therefore god's deal in this kind with his children, and are called in the gospel-language, corrections and chastisements; not for destruction or hurt, as all penal evils be, but for reformation and amendments, etc. doth he not speak as plainly and distinctly as may be, that he doth not say, god is not angry with the sins of a believer, but that he is not wroth with their persons? neonom. that place, psal. 81.30, 31, etc. proves what i say. antinom. that place is on the doctor's side, and against you; for it only holds forth thus much, that god corrects his people from sin, not for sin in a way of vindicative wrath; for its a promise to christ, and the seed there spoken of, who are redeemed one's and believers; god saith, in case of sin, he will visit their iniquities with a rod, to kill and destroy sin in them; but as for his lovingkindness, it shall never departed from them: you could not have mentioned a place of scripture more directly against you. neonom. there is that place, 1 cor. 11.30. and rev. 3.19. antinom. the church-members of the corinthians might not be true believers, for ought you know; for they were of those that eat and drunk unworthily, and accordingly, in the apostle's phrase, did eat and drink damnation: but what hinders, but a child of god may die under an affliction, which is laid upon him to cure some corruption or other? it's not too late to partake of god's holiness upon a deathbed in a higher measure than before. and as for those that were sick and weak, but recovered, there's no doubt, if they were true believers, but it tended to the curing their spiritual sickness. it is a strange thing that a chirurgeon must act always as an executioner, have his commission from justice-hall still, when he comes to a patient to open an ulcer, or to cut off a mortified hand or leg; and he cannot do this in love, and all tenderness and compassion to his patient, but in anger and wrath, and to punish and torment the poor creature for his faults. as to what is said by christ to the churches, rev. 2. & 3. christ speaks to body-politicks, to mix congregations that had many corrupt professors among them; and he speaks to them as such as were for the greatest part of many of them overrun with hypocrisy and formality: and what is it he calls them to, but reformation? so is that place, amos 3.2. it's spoken to a professing apostatising people. neonom. the assembly at the savoy assert this; and in the assembly's large catechism. how doth christ execute the office of a king? in rewarding their obedience, and correcting them for their sins? antinom. but what follows? preserving and supporting them under all their temptations and sufferings, is that in a way of wrath and indignation? they say, for their sins; so say we too, in their sense, if for denote the end of the chastisement, causa medendi, for healing; but it's not causa vindicandi, for punishing in a way of vindictive justice; which is your sense, or else you would never make this sputter, whatever pretence to the contrary you make. god's displeasure is with the sins of believers, not with their persons; and this is paternal displeasure, because there is love to their persons, as the cause of dealing with them in the way of any seeming displeasure. neonom. i will tell you the doctor's mistake: because god laid our sins on christ to make atonement for forgiveness of the elect, therefore god cannot be offended with the elect for them, before they repent. antinom. your mistakes are wilful, and foul ones too, or else you would not act so dishonestly. 1. this doctrine, of laying sin on christ, you are always bantering; take heed it prove not of dangerous consequence to you. 2. hath the doctor spoken one word of the unconverted elect in this matter, or of the elect before they repent? but your spleen is moved, because he found'st the security of believers from the wrath of god towards them for sin, upon christ bearing sin, and making full satisfaction for it; you cannot brook it, that christ's righteousness should have this honour. i will tell you one thing, if you have no better security from wrath, than the evangelical righteousness you show in this book, i can say, without a spirit of prophecy, the wrath of god abides on you. neonom. because god doth not hate the believer, as an unreconciled god when he sins, therefore he is not at all displeased with him because of the gospel-sins. antinom. because god manifests displeasure against the sins of his people, therefore, say you, god is displeased with their persons; that's your mistake, it's not in the nature of god to love and hate the same object; neither hath god such affections as we have: if god hate not as an unreconciled god, he can do nothing towards that person, but what are the effects of love; there's few earthly parents can correct a child, but it's in their mind wholly to do them good, and to free them of some ill habit or corruption; the child calls the father's carriage anger, and it looks so to him, in a wise father; but all this while his heart earns toward the child, and longs to be kissing it. neonom. he thinks, because a refiner is not angry with his gold, therefore a holy god is not angry with rational offenders. antinom. the persons of true believers are precious and honourable in the sight of god, 10000 times more than gold can be, and securer from the anger of god than any gold can be from the refiner's anger. i suppose your rational offenders are your abominable believers. neonom. because god will not hate a believer so as to damn him, therefore he cannot be angry with his people so as fatherly to chastise them. antinom. if god cannot hate a believer so as to damn him, than he cannot punish or afflict him in this world with the same affection wherewith he doth damn any one; but all that befalls him in this world proceeds from the same affection of love that saves them from damnation, as to god, there's the same cause of the afflictions and chastisements of believers, as there is of their glorification; they all proceed from his eternal and unchangeable love, from the sure mercies of the covenant of promise, and therefore are all in a way of benefit and advantage towards them; god loves a child of his as much in its infancy and nonage, as in its grown state, tho' his carriage is different, the diversity of state requiring it. and as to fatherly chastisement, if you understand it aright, we deny not but such are those of god's children; but you must know the spirit of god, heb. 12. tells us, the comparison will not hold but as a small illustration of it; for god's thoughts, affections, designs, are not as man's; a father may correct a child in anger and passion, and so for his pleasure, as the apostle saith, but god never doth so; a woman may lay aside natural affections, and forget her sucking babe, yea, murder it; but as god cannot lay aside his innate love, so he cannot forget to exercise it in all things. neonom. because god afflicts from sin, therefore he doth not afflict for sin. antinom. if you mean from sin and for sin in the same sense, that sin is a reason of affliction in some sense or other, we deny it not; but if you mean it be a judicial cause of affliction, as it is in a wicked man, we utterly deny it; for such must be atoning to the law, transgressed in part or in whole; the law designs not the salvation of the sinner in any of its executions, but it's own satisfaction in his destruction, it looks not at his amendment, but ruin: and therefore if you mean, that god, as a father, doth so afflict, we deny it; for to say so, were to make him change, to invalidate the satisfaction of christ, and make him worse than an earthly father. neonom. as if he could not rebuke for what is past, if he resolve not against their amendment for time to god. antinom. god resolves their amendment, and therefore chastiseth; and god rebukes their sins, and shows man that he hath transgressed, that faith be exercised the more lively on the propitiation of jesus christ, who satisfied god for sin, and that they may the more admire the free and pardoning love of god, and that his deal are so favourable, it's the lord's mercy we are not consumed, because his compassions fail not, and that sin may be made more sinful and hateful to them. neonom. the doctor was led into this opinion, by not considering that anger and displeasure be not passions in god, but a will of correcting, and are denominated from the kinds and degrees of correction. antinom. quite contrary; he took up his opinion, because he believed they were not so; and that god's correcting his children, is from his love and ; and that, whatever the degrees are, the specific nature is, toto genere, distinct from punishments in anger. calv. 1. there is no reason why god should exact the debt of sin, in the suffering of believers, because christ hath fully satisfied his father's justice for their sins. 2. their sorrows and afflictions cannot carry a curse in them, and therefore not the wrath and displeasure of god; for he hath born their sorrows, and carried their grief; not that they should not have sorrow, but that their sorrows should have nothing of the sting of sin, the curse of the law in them. 3. they are under the grace of adoption, therefore chastening is the fruit of adopting-love, heb. 12.6. and it's one of the good things god hath allotted to them as children, and that for many great ends: 1. to be partakers more and more of his holiness in general, ver. 10. for their profit and advantage. 2. to be conformed unto christ therein, who learned obedience by suffering, heb. 5.8. 3. to fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of christ in his mystical body, col. 1.24. 4. that we may have fellowship with christ in his sufferings, and therein be conformable to his death, phil. 3.10. 5. that as the sufferings of christ abound in us, so our consolations may abound by christ, 2 cor. 1.5. 6. that we may learn patience, that excellent grace, rom. 5. tribulation worketh patience. 7. that faith may be tried, the trial whereof is better than gold, jam. 1. 8. that we may be weaned from the world, prize and long for heaven more; therefore through many tribulations we must enter into heaven, acts 14.22. these and many more great reasons may be assigned for the afflictions of god's children, and not to be reckoned to be for sin in your sense. mr. calvin, in his institutions, is very large on these things, and saith, l. 3. c. 8. s. 6. in ipsa tribulationum acerbitate patris nostri clementiam erga nos & benignitatem recognoscere convenit, quando ne tum quidem desinit salutem nostram promovere, affligit nos, non ut perdat aut perimat, sed potius ut a mundi damnatione liberet. in the very bitterness of affliction, it is our duty to own and recognize the tenderness and bounty of our father, because than he ceaseth not to promote our salvation; for he afflicts not that he may kill or destroy us, but rather to deliver us from the condemnation of the world. from the doctrine of justification by christ's righteousness, we gather, 1. to condemn the proud papists, dr. usher. theol. p. 195. that seek justification by their own works and righteousness inherent in themselves. 2. there's no comfort to a christian's soul like this. 1. the assurance of the sufficiency of our redemption, rom. 8.33. god having accepted his son's righteousness for us, will not hold us any longer trespassers, but he disables his own justice from making any further demand. 2. hence there is nothing comes upon the saints from god's revenging justice, but all our corrections are medicinal from god's fatherly love, to purge out that sin out of our nature which he hath already pardoned to our person. debate xix. of the beauty of sincere holiness. neonom. i am now come with a charge of a monstrous error upon mr. antimonian; i believe it will stink in your nostrils as soon as i name it; it is this, that the greatest holiness in believers, tho' wrought in them by the holy ghost, is mere dung, rottenness and filthiness, as in them. d. w. p. 196. calv. i pray let us hear his own words, for the apostle paul speaks to that purpose, phil. 3.9. neonom. ay, but the apostle paul doth not mean as he doth, he hath perverted the apostle's words to a wrong sense: he saith, know, that the motions and assistance of the spirit, be pure, holy and without scum in the spring, to wit, itself; yet by that time these motions and assistances have passed the channels of our hearts, and been mixed with manifold corruptions, even the whole work becomes polluted and filthy, and filthiness altars the property of the pure motions of christ's spirit, etc. dr. c. p. 232. calv. do you charge this for error? antinom. if you please, sir, you shall have my whole sense, the sum briefly of what i spoke. i was preaching from phil. 3.8, 9 i opened that text according to the sense of the best interpreters; and i shown, that the apostle, 1. demolisheth all glittering and rotten materials, wherewith he had, and others still do, erect a fortress of security and a place of delight, dr. c. p. 226. 2. he declares his end in so doing, that he might lay a sure foundation, and build upon it with other materials than hay and stubble, p. 227. now i shown, that which he cast away, was all things, not only what he was or could do before he received christ, but even all things whatever also he hath been able to do since he received christ, tho' assisted thereto by the spirit of christ, as beza well observes. as concerning the apostle's end, for stripping himself naked of his most specious works in general, it is to be clothed with white robes, even the garment of salvation; but more especially he declares his end, 1. it's for the excellency of the knowledge of christ, i. e. of christ's excellencies known; to the knowledge of which i could never come, till all i was, and am, plainly appeared loss and dung; my own righteousness was a thick film over my eyes, that i could not see christ's worth. 2. a gaining and winning christ, is a second end, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as long as his own obedience was in request with him, and seemed any thing better than dung in his eye, he could never get christ. 3. that he might be found in him, i. e. at the great day of appearance. that this is the meaning, is plain by the apostles own expounding himself, not having mine own righteousness, and my doctrine. that things, even the most blameless walking according to god's law, not only before, but after conversion, or receiving christ, is truly counted loss and dung, by a paul's eye; and such an one will be willing to suffer the loss thereof as dung. those places were brought in proof, isai. 64.6. luke 17.10. and i showed this determination was not to be of some things only, but of all; not only things directly against the precept, but all civility, morality, the exactest obedience, with the highest assistance of the spirit, and straightest aim at a right end, etc. must be counted and sentenced but as loss and dung. but let me not he mistaken; here i do not say, that the motions themselves of the spirit, as his, nor the ends and enlargements of the heart, as his, or the ends aimed at, as prescribed, must be thus accounted or sentenced; but the whole work as done, and when done by a sanctified person thus assisted and qualified: when such a person looks at the work so done by him, he must see nothing but mere loss▪ and dung. 1. loss, because that he forfeits life and bliss on earth and heaven; there is sin enough in it, if god had nothing else but what he could pick out of the best work to lay to his charge; i mean, in regard of the desert of such a work in itself considered; under the notion of such loss must it be looked on: and as dung also, which comprehends the causality of such loss in these works. all things of ours, even the best, are of this nature; i say, therefore all our righteousness, at best, is such a menstruous cloth in go●'s eye, and so certainly in itself. let us consider what it is to suffer the loss of all things: 1. there is a passive suffering, the loss of all things, when a person is violently bereft of all. 2. there is an active or voluntary suffering, the loss of all, i. e. he was contented to take shame to himself for his best actions, and account himself worthy to be cast out and destroyed, and to be his own judge, to pass not only the sentence of confiscation of all, but of condemnation on his person, saying, o wretched man, that i am, etc. and so to stand stripped stark naked of all things, and all pleas they can afford him, so that not to have a word to speak for himself, that his mouth should be stopped, except it be in impleading all that ever he had done, as making against him far more than for him. and i came to the third thing, to show how all things, even the most blameless works after renovation, are loss and dung: for illustration sake, you must distinguish between that which is the spirits in works after renovation, and the whole work after we have done it; and now followed what he rehearsed, etc. where i shown, that tho' the motions and assistances of the spirit be pure and holy without scum in the spring, yet by that time they are mixed with our manifold corruptions in doing, and have passed through the channels of our corrupt hearts, the whole work becomes polluted and filthy, as pure water passing through a dunghill, etc. and this i evinced from james, who saith, that whosoever fulfils the whole law of god, and yet offends in one point, is guilty of all: and paul saith, rom. 7. when i would do good, evil is present with me; and complains thus, o wretched man, that i am, who shall deliver me from this body of death? and he doth not fly to his good works, but to christ, a refuge against all, i thank god, through jesus christ. object. but ought we to refrain therefore from doing righteousness? answ. it follows not; but therefore we must refrain from glorying in it, or stroking ourselves for our righteous do; rather take shame to ourselves when done, and so glory only in the lord: and tho' good works, as done by us, are but dung in themselves and in god's eye, yet must we be careful to maintain them, tit. 3.6. and david, psal. 16.2, 3. confesseth, that his goodness extendeth not to god, but to the saints. it's no good plea, that because a man cannot be wholly clean, therefore he will be more filthy than needs; because your child will be dirty, do what you can, yet shall be therefore go and ●owl in the gutter like a swine. calv. i perceive the sense of mr. antinomian fully, for he saith, 1. that the graces of the spirit come clean from the fountain. 2. that when they come into the channels of our corrupt hearts, they become mixed with the dirt and filth of them. 3. that thence our best duties and services become polluted. 4. that thereby they are not pleadable for righteousness before god. 5. we have no cause to boast ourselves, after duties to stroke and commend ourselves as if we had done a great matter, but to go off from duty with humiliation and shame. 6. that all or any compared with the holiness and purity of god, in respect of our coming short of what is required, the mixture of sin working in us, makes this duty and work done, as it is in itself considered, to be but dung. now, mr. neonomian, what do you think or say of your duties when they are done? when you have spent a day in fasting and prayer, would you not at the end of the day, desire the lord to pardon the iniquity of your holy things, your wander, vain thoughts stirring of manifold corruptions, would you not say as daniel, ch. 9.18. we do not present our supplications before thee for our righteousness, but for thy great mercies? ought we not to abhor ourselves and duties in dust and ashes, and say, lord, if thou mark the iniquities of our best duties, they are enough to condemn us for ever to eternal wrath? how often is this spoken and thought by the best of god's children? or would you go off the duty like the proud pharisee, commending and stroking yourself for what you had done, saying at last in your heart, i have prayed well this day, preached well; tho' there was some imperfections, yet there was as much as god requires of me to the fulfilling the new law; i have performed the condition, and god must accept it for the sake of my evangelical righteousness? antinom. i answer an objection. some will say, that god often shows his approbation of good works, which he could not do if they were all dung. dr. c. p. 232. sol. i answer, whatsoever is not of faith is sin, but to a believer all things are clean: so through this faith in christ, the whole filth and dung of our works is extracted by christ, and he presenting the same purged by himself alone, they become accepted with god, rev. 3.4. but simply the works themselves as done, tho' never so well, are abhorred of god, and christ never takes them to purge them, till we ourselves wholly renounce them, by counting them loss and dung; and that acceptance procured by christ, imports only a liking that god takes to them, no efficacy in themselves. calvin. you see mr. antinom. saith, that tho' simply and in themselves as works performed by us, they are by reason of imperfection, and mixture of corruption, to be accounted loss and dung; but yet as we are in christ, and perform them in christ by faith, they have acceptance with god through his merits, satisfaction, and intercession; it is in him alone that both our persons and services are accepted with god; our spiritual sacrifices, which are our duties, we be here speaking of, are said to be acceptable to god, but how? by jesus christ, 1 pet. 2.5. and certainly in themselves, and out of christ, they are no better than dung; we are made accepted both to persons and services only in jesus christ. antinom. object. it's granted originally and per se, the best righteousness obtains nothing, but rather charges with a new account, yet instrumentally it obtains what is desired, being well qualified as before mentioned. answ. if it be no more, than i hearty desire that we should hearty say and express as much, that the people may clearly understand and remember so much, and be guided explicitly to the fountain itself christ alone, for certainly whilst christ is suppressed, and these instruments are reached out, without relation to christ, who only fills them with all that runs through them, they are but mere empty pipes, and dry channels, tho' never so curiously cut out. dr. c. p 236. calvin. and is not this great truth, and gospel, mr. neonom? your carping at this doctrine plainly shows, that you set forth for another gospel. i perceive, wherever any thing exalts the grace of god, and the righteousness of christ, you strike at it as standing in your way, and this under a pretence of advancing holiness in the way of legal worthiness. you also deal most unjustly and disingenuously with this good man, in falsely representing him, and in not acquainting us with these things, whereby he fully declares his meaning, and adjusts it agreeable to the analogy of faith. now because you expose the doctor so much for what he saith of the graces of the spirit of god being once mixed with our corruptions in a duty; this duty in itself at best is as dung, ceaseth to be the spirits, and becomes our own, our flesh being like the viper's stomach, that turns the wholsomest food into poison. see what excellent mr. beza saith in his confess. chap. 4. art. 19 it is not to be allowed, that works are a cause of salvation, in the whole, or any part, for if it were so, certainly there would be but a crazy foundation of our salvation. we must of necessity acknowledge; that the water and foundation from which it flows are akin, because the most thick darkness yet remains in our understandings; it would come to pass, if god should in his strict justice inquire into the best works of a man, there could be no other thing determined of them, but that they be the mere pollutions of god's gifts; as it often falls out, that a river, otherwise clear and limpid, is infected with the filth of a jaques through which it runs, rom. 7.15, 23. psal. 142.2. now what think you of this? for my part i verily believe, that doctor c. took his very way of expressing and illustrating these things from this very place of mr. beza. now unless you will condemn this learned and approved divine for error in this point, i see not that you can accuse this antinomian, as you call him. i will show you the opinions of a divine, who i hope you dare not call unstudied and unlearned, it's of the famous doctor tuckney in his sermons upon this text of phil. 3.8. he saith, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, all things, which includes more than all, that was before mentioned. if you ask what i answer, according to our divines, whom i am not ashamed of, or of their judgement, all his own inherent righteousness, and best works, after conversion, his labouring more abundantly than they all, his conversion of many souls, his holy and unblameable conversation, omnia quae & hunc christianus & apostolus ago & habeo, as zanchy upon the text, which he sufficiently makes out to be here included, both from the universal 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as being intended to express more than was before expresses of his morals and zeal before conversion, and from the present tense, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, now that he is converted, he judges so of all that he was and is, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as chrysostom, and by what he saith, vers. 9 etc. and to throw you quite on your back, i will show you a passage in the assembly's confession, which you would not see, chap. xvi. of good works, sect. v. when we have done all we can, we have done but our duty, and are unprofitable servants; and because as they are good, they proceed from the spirit, and as they are wrought by us, they are defiled and mixed with so much weakness and imperfection, that they cannot endure the severity of god's judgement. yet notwithstanding the persons of believers are accepted through christ, and their good works also are accepted in him, etc. now, sir, seeing the doctrine which you so peremptorily call error, is so clearly proved to be truth, let us hear what you have to say, in stating and defending your judgement; and i pray mr. antinom. do you whip the top with him. neonom. truth, tho' the present sincere holiness of believers be not perfect, according to the precepts of the word; nor valuable by the sanction of the law of innocency, nor any atonement for our defects; and ●e still need forgiveness, and the merits of christ, for acceptance thereof, yet as far as it prevails, it's lovely in itself, and pleasing to god, and is not dung or filth. antinom. we shall divide your canon into two parts, the negative and positive; you tell us what it is not, and first note, that you change the terms; for the doctor speaks of works performed by us, when a duty is performed, and becomes a compositum of the pure graces of the spirit mixed with the corrupt indwelling motions of our own hearts; and hence he distinguisheth between grace flowing from the spirit, which is purely holy, and grace acted and performed by us through the assistance of the spirit, therefore we must keep you to the doctor's terms, viz. to our sincere works, or sincere holiness, taken in that sense. this being premised, 1. you tell us these works are imperfect, and not according to the word, therefore so far sinful; for whosoever keeps the whole law, and offendeth in one point, is guilty of all, james 2.10. and so i say of any duty, if it fail in one point, it's chargeable with breach of the whole law, so the duty is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and all 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is dung and filth. 2. you say it's not valuable by the law of innocency; that's said before, for what is not according to god's precept, is condemned by god's law, by every law of god; it's so far from valuableness, it stands under a sentence of condemnation: god never accepted or owned imperfect obedience as su●h, and in itself; neither is it consistent with his pure nature so to do. 3. you say it cannot make atonement; if it stand for acceptable righteouseness and holiness, it must make atonement for its defects and sinful pollutions; the high priest was to make atonement for his own sins before he could be accepted, so in this case, that righteousness that cannot atone for its own sins, if there be any, cannot be acceptable to god; but you say, this righteousness cannot make atonement for its sins, therefore in itself can never be acceptable to god. posit. 1. you say, we still need forgiveness, and the merits of christ, for acceptance of these works. 1. then i say they are sinful, or else would not need forgiveness. 2. they need the merits of christ, and therefore not acceptable righteousness in themselves, they are as dung and stink in the nostrils of god, the best works in themselves are such; whatever is not capable in itself, to make itself acceptable in the sight of god, if it have no relation to another righteousness, it stinks, and is abominable in the nostrils of god. 3. you say, so far as it prevails its lovely, i. e. not at all of itself. observe still what we say, no good work of a believer prevails to acceptation of us; and if not, it prevails not at all, and that which prevails not to acceptation, is not lovely in itself, for nothing is lovely to god but what he accepts; and hence you conclude, it is not dung or filth; but from what you yourself have said, it can be no other than dung; whatever cannot be accepted of god without forgiveness, and the righteousness of christ, to make it acceptable, is in itself and out of christ dung. but i perceive what you aim at, that it is a righteousness that comes in for a share with christ, and in part it prevails to acceptation, tho' not altogether, and here you fall in with the council of trent, as in all your doctrine, that the grace of justification and acceptance is not only the favour of god, and by the merit of christ, but that our works prevail in some degree. neonom. i will tell you wherein the difference lies, 1. it is not whether holiness, or the best acts of a saint, be such, or so perfect, as to atone for his sin, or procure a state of pardon. antinom. this is a strange kind of talking about a saints good works, atoning or procuring a state of pardon, as if there could be a saint before he is in a state of pardon. and as for those works that need atonement, and cannot make atonement for themselves, they are in themselves but pitiful menstruous rags, dross, and dung, for non acceptation with god makes all works such, tho' seemingly never so good. neonom. nor whether our holiness can make us accepted with god without christ. antinom. then it is not worth a pin in itself without christ. neonom. nor whether the holiest action of the holiest saint is such, as not to need forgiveness. antinom. that which needs forgiveness is sin, and therefore filth, but according to you, the holiest action of a holiest saint is such, according to yourself: ergo. neonom. nor whether by the sanction of the law of innocency, sincere holiness could be accounted holiness. all this i deny. antinom. there could be no other holiness counted holiness by the old law, but sincere holiness; but imperfect sincere holiness was not accepted there, nor in and by itself, in any other law, or gospel; as such. neonom. nothing under that law but perfect conformity to the precept was holiness, whereas gospel grace makes a great difference between true holiness, tho' imperfect, and whaed formally wickedness, between sincere love and enmity, sincere faith and utter unbelief. antinom. if perfect conformity was the holiness of the old law required, it's an argument that nothing will serve the grace of the gospel but a holiness answerable to it in perfection; and whatever difference you make to be between imperfect true holiness, and formal wickedness, i tell you, the formal difference between perfect holiness and imperfect, is sin, for this imperfection lieth in sin, a coming short of moral perfection can lie in nothing but in some degree or other of sin. but is it the gospel makes the difference between virtue and vice? sure it's the law doth that. neonom. the real difference lieth here, whether the sincere holiness of a believer's heart and actions be really dung and rotteness? this the doctor affirms, and i deny, d. w. p. 198. antinom. the doctor affirms, that the works, services, or performances of a believer being full of imperfection, and mingled with sin, are not acceptable to god, but through faith in jesus christ, and compared with the pure holiness and justice of god, and the righteousness of christ and his holiness in which he stands, are and aught to be accounted by him as loss and dung. neonom. whether sincere holiness, so far as it prevails in our hearts and actings, be truly lovely in itself, and pleasing to god, according to the grace of the gospel, and is not dung. this i affirm, and the doctor denies. antinom. the question is, whether holy works performed by the best men, be not polluted with sin, and whether they can be truly lovely, and pleasing to god in themselves out of christ, according to any grace of the gospel, and therefore are not as dung? this i deny, tho' you affirm, and a thousand more. neonom. what is spoken of holiness of any mere man on earth since the fall, is spoken of sincere holiness for perfect holiness none had. antinom. what hath been spoken of holiness that god hath accepted, is of true holiness, i. e. sanctification in christ jesus. sincerity may be where there's no true holiness; paul had sincerity in his supposed holiness, he verily thought he did god good service in persecuting the churches; good ends and meanings which a carnal man may have in his mind, are not enough to make an action good. neonom. i have room but to expostulate. antinom. because you cannot find a good argument to bring in; you might have had more room if you would, and it would have been more for your honour, so as you had served truth in it; but go on with your expostulation. neonom. is that dung which is the effect of regeneration in the soul and actings? antinom. you should have said, the effect of the spirit; for regeneration itself is not an efficient, but an effect, and that which is the efficient of regeneration is so also of all the vital acts in a regenerate person; now we have told you before, that the pure graces of the spirit passing through the corrupt channel of man's heart, becomes in a duty like defiled pudled water, and such duty in itself only considered, is as dung in the sight of god, and aught to be accounted so by us. neonom. is that dung which is so often honoured with the name of the spirit itself, and called the spirit of love, prayer, etc. antinom. you should have named the places where our works are called by the name of the holy spirit of god; as for the spirit of love, that is the disposition of love, and as to the spirit of prayer, where it's taken for the spirit's helping our infirmities, it is spoken of as distinct from our prayers themselves. neonom. is not that more lovely which is called the divine nature, 2 pet. 1.4. antinom. the divine nature there, is the spirit of christ received by faith, for it's given in many great and precious promises, and whatever of divine nature we receive, it is of god, and in conformity to and participation of christ, all which is pure, as flowing from the spring, but when it comes to be exerted and put forth by us in our duties, becomes impure, and mixed with the corruptions, so the whole duty in itself is but an unclean thing. neonom. how amiable must that be which is the new man after god's image, eph. 4.24. antinom. take the new man created after god, distinctly considered, as it comes from god, it's a pure creature; but this hinders not, but the regenerate man is made up of the old and new man, and all his actions and duties partake of both, and therefore polluted; for paul said, the old man hindered him from doing good when he would, for then evil was present with him; the same may be said of the new heart, ezek. 18.31. the law in the members is warring against the law of the mind in every part and faculty of soul and body. neonom. are those works dung to which we are created in christ jesus, eph. 2.10. antinom. we are created in christ jesus unto good works, to be performed in christ jesus; so far as we are in christ jesus, and our works in christ jesus, they are not dung; neither doth the doctor say they be, but when performed out of christ in ourselves, and in themselves, they are but as dung: christ is made our sanctification, and all that holiness in us that is accepted, it's not only in and for his righteousness, but it's performed in the life and power of christ our sanctification; therefore he saith, 1 cor. 1.30. that what we are we are in christ jesus, who of god is made unto us wisdom, righteousness, sanctification, etc. neonom. or is that filthiness which renders saints the excellent of the earth, psal. 16 2. antinom. doth not david say, ver. 2. my goodness extendeth not to thee? the original words (if you understood them) is fuller, as to the sense intended, tho' shorter than the translation, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 my goodness is not to thee, or nothing to thee, and the lxx have it, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, thou hast no need of my goodness. do you say, is that filthiness which renders the saints excellent? i had thought it was the grace of god, christ's righteousness, and the inbeing in christ, that had rendered them excellent, not their own works. neonom. the imitators of christ? antinom. scholars that writ after another, may make very sorry work mere scribbling, that the master, tho' he finds reason in himself to accept, would, if he did not, tear it all to pieces. neonom. was not this it for which caleb was said to have another spirit, and upon account whereof we must love the godly, as begotten of god? antinom. was caleb's works his spirit, or his works flow from his singular spirit; his spirit was a spirit of faith, through which he did so great things in christ jesus, and so the works were accepted, heb. 11. the foundation reason of our love to the saints, is christ loving them, and their relation to christ; every one that loveth him that begat, loveth him that is begotten of him, and by this we know we love the children of god, when we love god, 1 john 5.1, 2. neonom. is it not pleasing to god, to which he hath made so many promises, and for which he commends moses, david, etc. antinom. as god is not pleased with any persons, so with no works, out of christ, neither hath made any promises to any such out of christ, all the best works are cast forth as filth, and odious, if done out of christ. neonom. calling them a peculiar people, it's no small thing that christ is so pleased with his spouse. antinom. they are peculiar, because purchased, and have peculiar blessings and privileges, and bring forth peculiar fruits, in christ jesus, john 15.5, 6. without me ye can do nothing, and if a man abide not in me he is cast forth as a branch that is withered, and any work that is done out of christ, is but dung, as 1 cor. 3.12, 13. if a man in christ build hay, stubble, his works will be burnt, and he suffer loss, tho' he may be saved. christ is pleased with his spouse his church, because he hath loved it, and washed it in his own blood, and therefore she is comely; but as for what she is in herself, and as to her works in themselves, and done out of christ, she is but black, as the tents of kedar, etc. sol. 1.5. neonom. can that be dung which is a meetness for glory, an honour to god, and credit to religion? antinom. our meetness for glory is all from grace, there's nothing that flows from ourselves, no work done out of christ, can contribute to any meetness, all our meetness is in christ jesus as made unto us righteousness, and sanctification, and we grow up in him in all things; as for our relation unto men, we say with the apostle, they are profitable to men, and be a means that they glorify god on our behalf, but god hath no direct honour by them, if not performed by faith in christ. neonom. how can that be acceptable to god in christ, if it be filthiness? antinom. good works are good in their kind, but comparatively, and in themselves, because of the mixture of sin and corruption, they are in the sense of the spirit of god but filth; you may as well say, how can paul be acceptable to god through christ, who saith, in me dwelleth no good thing? must persons and actions be free from all adhering corruption, by reason whereof they in themselves are abominable to the pure eye of god, before they be made acceptable to god through jesus christ? this is like your constant doctrines; persons, and actions, must be good first, before they have benefit by jesus christ. neonom. wickedness will never be accepted with god for christ sake, tho' imperfect goodness shall. antinom. no imperfect goodness can be accepted as righteousness with god for christ sake: christ never so much as purchased, that any of our best graces or works should be accepted as our righteousness, and it cannot be accepted unto holiness out of christ; and the doctor never said, our good works wrought by faith in christ are dung, so as not through christ to be accepted unto holiness; but imperfect works are no more our righteousness for acceptation with god, than wickedness, neither in their nature, for christ's sake. neonom. read what is spoken of sincerity and uprightness, will it agree with what's mortal poison? antinom. moral sincerity and uprightness may, and so is all out of christ. neonom. what a reproach is it to christ, to call his life in us, and the beginning of glory by this title? antinom. the life of christ in us, is by the faith of the son of god, and we are crucified with christ to all that's done by us, and therefore account it dung and dross in comparison of all done by us; and works give us not title to glory, tho' grace gins it. neonom. nay, to make his triumphs in us so low, as that all he hath improved his members to, is mere filthiness. antinom. the triumph of christ in us, is the casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of god, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of christ. neonom. it's well if the scriptures can escape clean, if all the works of the spirit are thus debased when they pass through men. antinom. the scriptures are clean in themselves as from the spirit, but the works done by us are not scripture, tho' they be in some measure conformed thereto. neonom. but i less wonder that doctor crisp should speak thus of the righteousness of the saints, as in them, when he saith, the enemies of christ may have sincerity and singleness of heart towards god, p. 450, 451, 452. antinom. doth not he prove that paul in his unregenerate estate was blameless as to the law's righteousness, phil. 3.6. and what paul did against the churches, he verily thought that he ought to do it, acts 26.9. was not this sincerity at least in his apprehension, had he not an eye in what he did to the glory of god? the jews also had a zeal for god, rom. 10. but you wrong him in charging him for saying, that singleness of heart may be in the enemies of christ; for he acquaints us what it is from eph. 5, 6. singleness of heart is a doing what he doth as unto christ, and for the lord's sake. and he saith, the best shall find it difficult to find it in all they do. neonom. i will show you the grounds of the mistake, because our goodness extends not to god for his profit, therefore he regards it not no more than dung and filthiness. antinom. notably hit, you should have said, because he chargeeth his angels with folly, therefore he will admire the righteousness of them that dwell in houses of clay, job 4.18, 19 an holier man than you could say, if i justify myself, mine own mouth shall condemn me, vers. 21. if i were perfect, yet would i not know my soul, i would despise my life, job 9.21. prov. 20.9. who can say, i have made my heart clean, i am pure from my sin? and who can say, this or that duty is or will commend him to god? neonom. object. doth not israel say, isa. 64.6. all our righteousness is as filthy rags? answ. but that is spoken of persons, and not of real holiness; it's the same as micah 7.4. and isa. 1.6. corruption had invaded the very priests, and the generality of the best professors, etc. antinom. but where have you this notion upon the place? i'll tell you where you had it, viz. in the assembly's annotations on the place. the annotator takes notice of variety of opinions about the meaning of this place, and to increase the number, he brings in his singular opinion that hath less ground than all the rest. he tells us, by righteousness some understand legal rites and sacrifices, but so performed by them, that they found no grace or acceptance, but were abominable in god's sight; and the jews extend it further to their good works, which were so ill done out of vainglory, or by corrupt grounds and ends, that they were as filthy rags in god's sight, such were the pharisees, etc. lastly, many of ours draw it in further, and take in all the best works and actions even of the best performed, in the best manner, as not free from some default or defilement. and thus both divers of the ancients, and very many not protestants only, but popish writers also, and not a few, do both expound and apply the place, and these latter, [viz. the popish writers] with those ancients, giving testimony thereby unto the truth herein maintained by us against those of their side, that do herein control and oppose us. is this interpretation so generally received by learned interpreters, ancient and latter, both papists and protestants, by the annotator's own confession, and so eminent a truth which the papists oppose, maintained against them by it? and shall we desert so plain, natural, and useful an interpretation, and one so generally agreed on by learned protestant interpreters, to embrace one single man's opinion that sets by the text as altogether useless to those great purposes for which the protestants have used and refuted the papists by their own authorities, as the annotator himself acknowledgeth? and for what sense and interpretation must we part with it? the received sense. our annotator's design is to wave that received sense upon any terms, tho' he will not flatly deny it, but tells us of a more genuine sense, and what's that? 1. it's that which is not commonly received, and therefore he is single in it. 2. it's a tropical sense, he makes the abstract put for the concrete, and what need of such a sense, when there's no reason to suppose such a trope in the words? and that's against the general rules of interpretation. he saith, that which induced those both ancienter and later writers to bring within compass of this doom, in this place, those defects and defaults adhering to, and alloying the purest practices of the most sincere, seems to have been, because the prophet saith, our righteousnesses, as speaking in his own person, etc. he saith, the words may well be understood, with those jewish doctors, for those semblances of holiness and righteousness that was among them, [so that by our righteousness may well be understood, our hypocrisies,] but he rather recommends his genuine sense, and what's that? the prophet hath a very remote meaning, viz. he speaks of our righteousnesses, and he means righteous men, and not righteous men neither, but wicked and corrupt men, briars and thorns, such as the prophet micah speaks of, mic. 7.4. plain briars and thorns; and now here's a plain text of scripture merely shamed off, and delivered up into the hands of the papists, and so we shall trick off one text after another, till they have got them all. i acknowledge that which the jewish interpreters say, the prophet personates the church in this prayer; but then he personates the very best of them, as well as the very corrupt and degenerate part, for after the church's desire, that god would wonderfully appear for her deliverance and reformation, as formerly he had done, ch. 64.1, 2, 3. she lays the case of two sorts that were among them before the lord; the holy and sincere, and the corrupt and apostate part, the basket of good figs, and of rotten figs; for the best part, (they were not profane, nor hypocrites,) but are characterised, as waiters upon god, partakers of special grace, as appears by the application the apostle makes of vers. 4. 1 cor. 2.9. the prophet insists upon the description of them, that we might not be mistaken; and suppose that he meant the profane or hypocritical part, they are such as work righteousness, and god meets, that rejoice in god's ways; and tho' they are under the national wrathful calamities, yet such as should be saved; which must be understood of spiritual salvation, for they were to take their share with others in the captivity, and external calamities in them were continuance; hence the holiest and best prostrate themselves, and acknowledge their faith of salvation was not built upon any righteousness or worthiness of their own. for the nation had not only sinned, but they had sinned and fallen short of their duty in their best performances, and we are so far from pleading or rejoicing in our own righteousness, or holiness, (for in the old testament dialect, personal holiness is often called righteousness,) that we are all as an unclean thing, we are polluted with so much sin and corruption, and our very righteousness and holiness are as filthy rags, our goodness is as the morning-dew, we fade as a leaf towards autumn, and our iniquities have withered us. we see, the whole nation, under the bliting winds of thy displeasure for its iniquities: and then he proceeds to show how great a scarcity there was of those that were sincere, for there's few that call upon god, there's none, i e. but a very few comparatively, [there was never so an apostate time but there's some, as in elijah's time,] that calleth upon thy name, i. e. sincerely and earnestly, so as to stir up themselves to call upon god; then she proceeds to confess sin, and bemoan herself in regard of desolating calamities, acknowledging god's justice and sovereignty, but appealing to his mercy, and their interest in god as a father, o lord thou art our father. it's most evident than the prophet mostly personates the choicest, tho' the least part of the church, who is set forth here, flying to the throne of grace, and renouncing her own righteousness, even her best duties, accounting them as filthy rags. we are, saith she, all of us, even the holiest among us, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, he doth not say, we are absolutely an unclean thing, as all wicked men and hypocrites are, but that we are, as if it were so, in respect of the prevalency of corruption, and present decay, and thy dealing with us as if thou wouldst cast us off, and all our righteousness as a filthy garment, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all our righteousness, of what sort soever it is, as pannus sedentis, the peraphrasis of the syriac and arabic calls it, panniculus menstruata, and the chaldeac paraphrase, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sicut vestamentum abjectum, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies things removed as unclean and polluted, res inquinatae & abominabiles quae removentur & abjiciuntur; the import is, that god's children see so much corruption and pollution in their best duties, that they dare not plead them for acceptance before the lord. and how many ten thousand times hath this place of scripture been thus applied by the saints and churches of the new testament? what expression is more frequent in their prayers, and more eminently exalting the grace of god, and the righteousness of christ? it's not only the gospel spirit of ministers, but of all true christians, that leads them to the practical improvement of this portion of scripture; and shall the universal spirit and sense of all believers in all ages be condemned by one or two singular men, that are for crying up their own righteousness, and will not have it to be filthy rags, or dung? i apprehend, there's not a little also in putting the plural number, which the seventy two explain universally with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, there's no righteousness of ours, inward, or outward, before regeneration, or after, that hold the test before god in itself for acceptance, much less render us acceptable to god. i'll set against your annotator the dutch annotations, who upon this place say, all our righteousness, all our best works, or whatever good we might have done, are as a cast garment, if they should be examined according to their own nature, according to the rigour of the law, out of christ, phil. 3.8. see on the contrary what we are in christ jesus, rev. 19.8. neonom. object. the apostle saith, phil. 3.8. answ. if this place speaks of gospel righteousness, as his own things which he counted dung, it doth not prove that holiness is dung. antinom. did i not speak of holiness abstractly considered, and of duties and services performed by us, and mingled with sin, are reckoned dung because they cannot render us acceptable to god, for imperfect righteousness cannot. holiness entire without defect and failure is one thing, and holiness mixed with so much sin and corruption, as is in our hearts and duties, is another. neonom. all that it can infer, is, that in comparison with winning christ, it was esteemed as dung. antinom. that is as much as to say, that your own righteousness is but as dung in comparison of what you shall gain by it; your bargain will be so good, your money bears not proportion to the estate that you have bought with your mony. neonom. and who must not own, that compared with gaining christ, the best thing in us is vile, compared with his righteousness, yet it must not be vile in itself? antinom. so far as any thing is sinful its vile, and so far its unprofitable to the end that i employ it; its vile in both those cases; our duties are vile, because its impossible they should be a justifying righteousness, or recommend us to god, therefore a christian looks upon them vile upon this account; we speak not against duties, but for them, but they must not presume to be our righteousness for justification: upon this account they must be reckoned dung, it is not enough to say, compared with christ's righteousness, as if christ's righteousness were better, and had a pre-eminence in justification, and ours next to it, but that our righteousness hath no share at all in that matter, for god never intended that the most eminent graces and virtues of god's people should ever be a righteousness to justify them, because they are upon this account rejectamenta, as bricks are to the making a brass kettle, ex quovis ligno non fit mercurius, a man cannot cut out the wheels of a watch with a broad axe out of a rock. neonom. as rivals with christ we must hate father and mother. antinom. yea, and if they go to set themselves instead of christ, or to claim an inferior degree of share in being a righteousness, or patching up a righteousness for us. neonom. tho' i own the imputed righteousness of christ for our justification, yet i think to ground it on this place, is a damage to the truth, and therefore i add, 2. a gospel holiness, or righteousness, is not here intended by dung. antinom. how you own imputed righteousness, hath been already made manifest, and that you do not own it in other sense than in that which is no owning of it, but denying of it, hath appeared: but it seems you are now such a friend to that doctrine, that you would not have scripture to damage it, and that grounding it here on this place hath been a damage to it. the assembly at westminster hath done damage to the doctrine of imputation, in grounding it on this place, large catechism, quest. 72. shorter catechism, quest. 33. and dr. ames. in his medulla, c. 27. s. 12. and dr. owen you also have done damage to this doctrine of imputation, by grounding it on this text, treat. of justific. p. 526. mr. calvin, mr. beza, mr. zanchy, and all you reformed protestants, you have thought you had a mighty place to ground the doctrine of imputation upon, and now our divines, especially this gentleman, and a great train at his heels, bear witness against you, and say, you have done a great damage to the doctrine of imputation, by making use of this place of scripture to prove it. now i see others are mistaken as well as i. calvin. i observe gentlemen, that you all sit astonished to see that at such a time of day, here should be so bold an assertion made, to overthrow the doctrine of the gospel, and to make this text of scripture no better than dung, because it asserts all our own righteousness to be dung in the point of justification. i think bellarmine, or socinus, could not have made a more gross assertion. there is a gentleman, whose face i think i see among you, whom i would request to undertake mr. neonom. in the opposition that he makes against this portion of scripture; i think i remember where and against whom he once made a strenuous defence of it. gentlemen its mr. antisozzo i speak to, i pray, mr. antisozzo be pleased to appear in this great debate that lies before us. antisozzo. i pray sir excuse me, here are more ancient divines, mr. zuinglius, and mr. musculus, etc. and later dr. owen, whose judgement mr. neonomian ascribes much to. calvin. indeed sir you cannot be excused; at which all cried, mr. antisozzo. antisozzo. gentlemen, i'll assure you, it is not convenient by any means that i should appear in this cause now against mr. neonom. he is my special friend, one whose learning and judgement i will as soon subscribe to, by an implicit faith, as any man i know, besides there's a particular reason that is not convenient to publish. calv. sir, those things are but your modest evasions, the society will not be satisfied, unless you undertake mr. neonom. in this point. antisozzo. if it must be so, it must be so, mr. neonomian look to your hits, for i'll assure you i will not spare you; i will have none of your shifts and tricks, none of your whethers nor neither's; i'll have the question fairly stated; the main question will be, what was that righteousness which the apostle renounces, from having any place in his justification before god? upon this one hinge turns all the controversy betwixt us, antisozzo. p. 547. neonom. i answer, the things which he renounceth were jewish privileges, and that conceited christless righteousness which he once valued as those dogs at present did, but it was not that gospel holiness which by the grace of christ he was now partaker of. there's an objection i know lies against this assertion, and it is this; how doth both these appear? i answer, from the whole scope of the chapter, d. w. p. 203 antisozzo. i suppose than we shall join issue, and your objection which you make was but a question, which you ask yourself and answer. we say and affirm, that the righteousness which the apostle renounces, is whatever inherent righteousness he had attained or could attain, whatever obedience he hath performed or could perform to the commands of god. that which he calls his own righteousness, he tells in the next words, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. neonom. thereby he intends not sinless obedience nor gospel sincerity, but a life not to be blamed by the rule of the jewish pedagogy, that's his righteousness 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. d. w. p. 204. antisozzo. it was that which is from law, from a law, from any law indefinitely; now a righteousness which is from a law, is such an one as the law urgeth, and presses upon and prescribes to the conscience; but that, without question, is an internal conformity of the soul to the holiness of the law; but this the apostle rejects, therefore he rejects internal and inherent righteousness. 2. who doubts but when he saith his own righteousness, it is his own righteousness; and this is not to be fetched from some sorry conjectures which men (when they are in straits) invent to avoid present ruin, but from stable, fixed, constant use in scripture; my own righteousness is as my own or your own works taken for real sincere conformity of heart and life to a law; and this is the fixed use in scripture, gen. 30.33. my righteousness shall answer for me. you mr. neonomian would paraphrase upon it thus, my roguery shall answer for me, job 27.6. my righteousness i hold fast, i. e. you would say, my hypocrisy i hold fast, mat. 5.16. that men may see your good works, i. e. in the new glossary. your compliment, dan. 9.18. we present not our supplications before thee for our righteousness; the church must not mean real righteousness, but the sceleton of obedience. now if the apostle designed only to reject his own hypocrisy, he was not so barren in expression, but he could have fitted it with its proper name. 3. the apostle expressly renounceth whatever he had attained before and after his conversion, v. 7. the things that were gain, these i accounted loss for christ; but is that all? no! yea, doubtless, i do account all things but loss, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, i do now account, i have accounted, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, all things in judaisme loss when i was first convinced; and i do now account all things, even mine own righteousness, loss and dung for christ; and there n. b. the apostle riseth higher in his earnestness, v. 8. yea, doubtless, q. d. did i say that i once looked upon all as loss for christ? i will speak a bolder word than that, i count all but loss, dung and filth, that i may win christ, and be found in him, not having mine own righteousness; and the little value he had for his own righteousness further appears, that it was in reference to the day of judgement, antis. p. 550. neonom. my own righteousness can signify no more than my pharisaical righteousness, or that wherein i placed my righteousness. antisozzo. i beg your pardon, sir, it signifies more than that wherein he placed his righteousness, whilst a pharisee; and a great deal less than that wherein he placed his righteousness after conversion, in order to justification; but if the apostle renounced whatever he placed his righteousness in, then either he placed it in inherent righteousness, or not; if not, how dare you place it where he durst not? if he ever did place his righteousness in it, than he here openly declares to the world that he renounces it. neonom. but there's no necessity to understand this of inherent gospel-holiness, for that is not his own righteousness which is of the law, which is opposed to that which is by the faith of christ; an external righteousness serves most men's turns very well; and this is that whereby the pharisees expected to be justified. antisozzo. the pharisees were generally bad enough, and you need not make them worse: it's a sin, we say, to belie the devil; it doth not appear that the pharisees expected to be justified before god by an external obedience only, without sincerity.— as to paul, whilst he was a pharisee he was no hypocrite, he every where vindicates himself, act. 25.8, 9 1 tim. 1.13. act. 23.1. and others of the pharisees were sober, conscientious men. and the discourse of paul's master gamaliel, act 5. shows, he had a great deal more religion in him, than most of those who carry on a design to rail at them for hypocrisy. neonom. but i'll tell you what his righteousness was, circumcised the eighth day, of the seed of abraham, and it consisted only in some external rites, sacrifices, privileges, etc. antisozzo. this proceeds upon a double false supposition. 1. that the apostle renounceth nothing but what he retained while a pharisee. 2. whatever he renounced did constitute his pharisaical righteousness. 1. i must cut him off from circumcision, that was no part of his own righteousness, unless you have a spice of the doctrine of imputing the righteousness of another person for justification. 2. for sacrifices, the apostle mentions them not, knowing they were the visible gospel of the jewish church, and did lead to christ. as to his being of the stock of israel, of the seed of abraham, etc. they might expect some favours thence; but that any were so far bewitched as to believe, that all the stock of israel and the nation of abraham should be justified, cannot be proved. 4. for civility and blamelesness of conversation, it may be it may go a great way in your account. but i find you take but little notice of it here, but place paul's righteousness, which he renounced, with that of baal's priests, the concision, his rejection of christ, opinion of jewish observation, and abuse of the mosaic frame, a fine parcel of righteousness; he surely misnamed it; he should have called that his wickedness and villainy. but whatever paul was or was not, whilst a pharisee, it makes no great matter to the business in hand, seeing he hath so freely and openly disowned whatever was his own righteousness after conversion, in the matter of justification before god, antisozzo. p. 554. neonom. but righteousness by the faith of christ is internal righteousness, gospel-holiness, this is not dung; and this was not of the law opposed to the faith of christ; nay, this is by the faith of christ, act 15.9. and we are created in christ to this holiness, etc. antisezzo. ay, but proof, proof, is wanting; it's called being born again, rising again with christ, etc. but proof, proof, is wanting; for we think that those expressions do not denote that righteousness whereby we are constituted just in the sight of god, but holiness and sanctification of nature, which the gospel evidently distinguishes from that righteousness whereby we are justified, p. 559. paul who rejects the righteousness of the law in the matter of justification, before god, rejects also inward purity and holiness of mind for that purpose. does the righteousness of the law, signify one thing in the new testament, and another in the old? doth it signify real, substantial, internal righteousness in the old, and external ritual righteousness in the new? sincerity in the one, and hypocrisy and ceremony in the other? this is very unaccountable. neonom. but the apostle tells us, that by his own righteousness, he means the righteousness of the law; and by the righteousness of god, the righteousness of faith. antisozzo. i see you are for finding out antitheses in the words, as some body else was. the apostle's words are very clear, but you find it necessary to obscure them, and deprave the truth.— but thus far we are secure, that the apostle hath repuditated his own righteousness from justification; and that we may not doubt what that was, he tells us, it was that of the law; the righteousness of the law is what it commands and prescribes, viz. an exact conformity to the law of god, in spirit, soul and body, so far as is attainable. he assures us in the next place what he owns and adheres to, viz. the righteousness of christ, which is called the righteousness of god. he further acquaints us how we come to be interested in this righteousness, it is by faith; and that we do not wilfully and ignorantly mistake this faith, for the doctrine of faith he assures us, it is believing, by which we obtain this righteousness, rom. 3.24. see more, 563, 564, 565, etc. neonom. i will set a cross upon you the next time i print my book, mr. antisozzo; and, if you please, let us hear what dr. owen saith; i wish he had undertaken the point in mr. antisozzo 's room, he would have been more favourable to my opinion; for i prove my whole scheme out of him, especially my conceptions about the doctrine of imputation. calvin, i pray dr. owen let us bear your sentiments in this great point, and with as much softness as may be; for mr. neonom. thinks mr. antisozzo. was too hard and sharp upon him. dr. owen, i shall reduce what i have to say to that admirable text, phil. 3.8, 9 to the ensuing heads, which deserves to be wrote in every bible in letters of gold, though mr. neonom. with some others, lay it so low. 1. that which the apostle designs in this chapter is to declare what it is on the account whereof we are accepted with god, and have cause to rejoice; and this he fixeth on in general, viz. an interest in and participation of christ by faith, in opposition to all legal privileges and advantages wherein the jews boasted, vers. 3. 2. he supposeth that unto our acceptance before god, wherein we are to rejoice, there is a righteousness necessary, and whatever it be, is the sole ground of that acceptance. 3. he declares, there is a twofold righteousness that may be pleaded and trusted unto to this purpose. 1. our own righteousness, which is of the law. 2. that which is through the faith of christ, the righteousness which is of god by faith, these he asserts as opposite and inconsistent, as unto the end of our justification before god. 4. placing the instance in himself, he declares which of them it was he adhered unto, and placed his confidence in. and in handling this subject, some things engaged his holy mind into an earnestness of expression in the exaltation of one of these, viz. the righteousness which is of god by faith. 1. this was the turning point whereon he and others had forsaken their judaisme; this therefore was to be secured: see gal. 2.15, 16. 2. hereupon there was a great opposition made to this doctrine in all places by the jews. 3. the weight of the doctrine itself. 5. hence in many other places of his writings, but especially in this he treats of these things with a greater earnestness and vehemency of spirit than ordinary; thus. 1. he speaks of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the excellency of the knowledge of christ. 2. in his expression of all other things that are our own, that are not christ's, whether privileges or duties, however good, useful, excellent, they may be in themselves; yet in comparison of christ and his righteousness, and with respect unto the end of our standing before god and acceptance with him, with the same vehemence of spirit he casts contempt upon them, calling them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, dog's meat. neonom. pray, sir, doth the apostle with vehemency renounce works wrought in faith, evangelical works? dr. o. answ. in the matter of justification, the apostle opposeth evangelical works, not only unto the grace of god, but unto the faith of believers. 2. he makes no distinction that works are of two sorts, some excluded from justification, and not others; but he expressly rejects his own righteousness, i. e. his personal inherent righteousness, whatever it be and however it be wrought. 3. he makes a plain distinction of his twofold estate: 1. that of judaisme before conversion. 2. he proceeds to give an account of himself and estate after conversion. the words of davenant on this passage, in my judgement, are sober and weighty. the apostle here teacheth what that righteousness is whereby we are accepted before god, viz. which is apprehended by faith: he shows the cause why it is ours by right, (i. e. the apostle shows it in this place) because we are inserted into his body, and coalesce with him into one person; therefore his righteousness is reputed ours, de justisic. hab. c. 38. for whereas some begin to interpret our being in christ, and being found in him, so as to intent no more but our profession of the faith of the gospel; the faith of the catholic church in all ages, concerning the mystical union of christ and believers, is not to be blown away with a few empty words and unproved assertions. the answer than is full and clear unto the general exception, viz. that the apostle rejects our legal, but not our evangelical righteousness; for, 1. the apostle rejects neither absolutely, but in comparison of christ, and with respect to the special end of justification before god or a righteousness in his sight. 2. in that sense he rejects all our own righteousness, but our evangelical righteousness, in the sense pleaded for, is our own inherent in us, performed by us. 3. our legal and evangelical, in the sense pleaded for, is the same— 4. the apostle rejects, in this case, all the works of righteousness that we have done, tit. 3.5. but our evangelical righteousness consists in the works of righteousness, which we do. 5. he disclaims all that is our own.— see more in the treatise of justification, 535. here the society was adjourning, but that a worthy divine acquaints mr. calvinist, that he saw the reverend mr. richard vines in a corner, whereupon mr. calvinist returned. there is none here but hath a venerable esteem for that famous divine, unless mr. neonomian, who will however (if he finds he is against him) be so ingenuous as to knock under the table. sir, we beseech you lend us your help here against this confident neonomian, and new divinity, and in defence of the apostle paul, whose doctrine he is making dung of, trampling it down as mire in the streets. mr. rich. vines, phil. 3.7, 8, 9, 10. after the apostle had in the beginning of this church fortified the christian philippians with a caveat against such as did yet stand upon and pretend their circumcision, christ a christian's only gain, by rich. vines, sometime master of pembrook-hall, cambridge. and their jewish prerogatives, in opposition to christ: after this, he gives a threefold account of himself, 1. he sheweth what account he had of himself in respect of those privileges that others did insist upon, etc. v 4. p. 1. 2. he shows what account he had of himself, when christ was discovered to him, etc. 3. he sheweth what account he had of himself, in respect of perfection, v 12, etc. p. 4, 5, 6. v 8. p. 19 you have heard what reckoning the apostle had of his own righteousness in his unregenerate state, and upon the discovery of christ unto him, he came to a loss of all that which before he counted gain: now, in this verse, he goes on to show you what account he had still of christ, and of all things besides christ, after some strength, and experience he had of christ; yea, doubtless, any more than so? yea, and more than that, i account them still; it is a rhetorical speech, wherein the apostle riseth higher in his expression with greater overflow of affection, verifying all things besides christ as loss and dung; he repeats it three times over, (a note of affection) i count all things loss, i have suffered the loss, i account them but dung, and then it is for christ, and that christ who is my lord. suppose the apostle had been thus spoken to; 'tis true, you forsook all your former gains, and you professed all should go for christ; yourself, your wealth, your zeal, your righteousness in the law, you valued all as nothing, while christ was new and fresh in your memory, and before you had tasted of his yoke and cross. but what say you now, paul? now you have been beaten with rods, stoned, shipwrackt, etc. 2 cor. 11.15. what now paul, are you of the same mind still? is not your courage cooled? nay, doubless, (saith paul) i did, and i do, i am not changed, i do account all things, i reserve not one thing to lie between me and christ; not my good works, not any thing within me, nor without me, that i value or esteem; my righteousness, my obedience to the law, my fasting, my scourging, i count them but loss and dung for christ, etc.— p. 19, 20. doct. 4. that gracious duties and performances of a man in the state of grace, are to be disclaimed in the matter of his justification, or his righteousness before god— p. 44.— v. 1. the papists will not hear this doctrine; for tho', with much ado, they will quit their good works, that are done in an unregenerate state without and before faith; yet those works of a regenerate man, that are besprinkled with the blood of christ, [here's your doctrine, mr. neonomian] they will have them come in for their justification: for thus they say christ merits for us, that we may merit for ourselves; that christ is our saviour, by making us our own saviour's; christ is our justifier, by making us justify ourselves; he giveth us money, and we lay it down, what is this? it is to keep up good duties, (say they and you) which otherwise would fall to the ground; whereas the true spring and whetstone of obedience to god, is faith and love, and thankfulness upon the apprehension of the pardon of our sins: let a man have christ for his righteousness, and let a man be ungodly if he can; the love of christ constraineth us, etc.— p. 44, 45, 46. — this phrase of speech, all things loss and but dung; mine own righteousness both before and after grace; i count all to be but dung, that i may win christ— there is the faith of adventure, and the faith of assurance— p. 129. proof of doctrine. 'tis for the gaining of christ, that a christian counteth all things in the world as dung, and suffereth the loss of all things. it's a strange trade, that a man must lose to gain; he must be a beggar and bankrupt, that he may be rich; he must be nothing, that he may have christ— yea, his works after grace received; all that i did know, and all that i do know still, i do count them but as dung, that i may win christ— p. 126. — there is nothing can be done in a man, that proveth him to be out of wrath any farther than it proveth him to be in christ. in this argument lies all the strength that christ is yours, and that you are christ's; what other arguments otherwise you have, that will not prove this point, are all but fallacies, and your hopes are but ropes of sand. dress up yourselves in the best attire you have— virtue, civility, learning, excellent parts, let them paint over the rotten face of corrupt nature never so curiously, will all this prove, that you shall be saved?— the apostle counteth all this but stuff and lumber, trash, loss and dung for christ: can you climb heaven by any ladder of nature's erecting? what ladder reacheth to heaven, but jacob's ladder? which was a type of christ? p. 147. let me come to the graces of god's spirit: they prove, that you are out of the state of wrath, that you shall be saved; but how do they prove it? not as the causes thereof: doth your grace, that is in you, satisfy the justice of god, and redeem you from the curse, and pay the ransom? is it your title for salvation? do you pretend to have him upon the worth of your graces? like a man that's questioned about his land, goes about to prove the worth of the land by the wax with which [his deeds] are sealed,— the seal is more than the wax— therefore the apostle saith, not only we are translated, but hereby we know we are translated. now how doth grace signify to you, that you are out of wrath? as it evidences you to be in christ, and so the sign bringeth you to the cause.— if they prove but unto you the work of grace in your heart, and that you are in christ, you need ask them no more, they have done enough, they have settled you upon a sure ground— the least dram of grace is worth a 1000 tun of such kind of stuff of moral righteousness, which may be in you and not prove you to be in christ: a little seal is worth a cartload of wax, because it sealeth more to me than the wax is worth; so the least dram of grace, wrought in a man that is in jesus christ, is worth a world of moral duties, because it sealeth evidences, pardon of sin, favour with god; therefore examine yourselves that you take not a human-faith for a saving-faith, etc.— p. 148, 149, 150. v 8, 9 that i may be s●und in him, that i may know him. in these two expressions is comprised that which he calls the gaining of christ: to be found in christ, that he referreth to justification, or the making a sinner righteous before god; therefore he saith, not having mine own righteousness, but the righteousness of god, which is the faith of christ. to know christ, referreth to sanctification, as it is expressed in three things; the power of his resurrection, the fellowship of his sufferings, conformity to his death,— p. 151, 152. — that i may be found in him, etc. in this verse you have two great things expressed; union with christ, that i may be found in him; righteousness with god, having the righteousness of god. there is a distribution of righteousness into two sorts, legal, evangelical. these two sorts are first described what they are; legal, mine own righteousness, which is of the law; evangelical, the righteousness of god, which is by the faith of christ. 2. being described, they are opposed the one to the other; the one is of the law, the other is by the faith of christ; they are set contrary, because they cannot be had together. 3. there is a disclaim of the one, not having my own righteousness, which is of the law; and an adherence to the other, the righteousness of god by faith in christ. doct. 1. in the gaining or having of christ, the first thing is union; this word in christ notes union, as 2 pet. 3.14. be diligent, that ye may be found in him, p. 156, 157.— union must be before communion; christ is a great mystery; christ and his people are all like one great tree, he is the stock and root, and they are the twigs, planted in that great stock; and they two live like one great body, as the head and members; they are alike, as man and wife are one flesh, so christ and his people are one spirit; as man and wife are one person in law, so are christ and all that are in him; they cannot be cast into hell, because the sentence must light upon christ, before it falleth upon them. antinom. how doth this agree with your doctrine, that the state of men in this life is not eternally decided, but they are in a state-tryal, as subjects in trial for eternity? p. 55. of your first book. the grossest divinity that ever protestant delivered; before which both the true protestant doctrine of election and redemption and union to christ must fall to the ground, if it be true. r. vines, i come to the 2d thing in the words, the distribution of righteousness into legal and evangelical. doct. there are two sorts of righteousness, legal and evangelical, the one of the law, the other of the gospel; for that which we call righteousness with god, is the same which we call gospel or evangelical righteousness, which is plain, rom. 1.17. now do not stumble at this, do not think i mean (as you do mr. neonom.) that there are two sorts of righteousnesses which a sinner may be justified by, for by one righteousness we are justified with god, rom. 5.18. but when i say there are two sorts, it is to be understood thus; there are but two sorts of righteousnesses by which life at any time hath been attained, there never was a third righteousness whereby a man should be righteous with god, ever propounded to man standing or falling: (where's your subordinate righteousness now?) there are, there have been, there can be no more; the own is his own, the other is that which is called the righteousness of god. now to describe these two sorts of righteousness, see rom. 1.17. rom. 10.10, 11. these two, doing and believing, are the characteristical words that describe these two sorts of righteousnesses, of the law and of the gospel. the righteousness of the law is only for the perfect man that never sinned, because it must be doing. neonom. i could show there's no one saving benefit granted to a sinner, but upon supposition of his doing, d. w. p. 230. mr. r. vines, but i tell you, the righteousness of the gospel is for a sinner, a sinner overwhelmed and overspread with sins. neonom. but i say throughout my divinity, that the gospel excludes sinners; and that the righteousness of christ belongs to none but those that are first meet for it. mr. r. v the righteousness of the law is an exact compliance with the law of god in every tittle; the righteousness of the gospel, is the righteousness of another, the righteousness of god in him; of another, in another, 2 cor. 5. last. now take this for a rule, what righteousness soever it be that justifieth a man with god it must be perfect, whether it be a righteousness of the law or the gospel: again, it must be his own. now that it is our own, it is not meant as if the gospel righteousness was not ours; tho' it be not our own originally, yet it must be ours derivatively from christ; it is not our own, being in us, but it is ours by imputation, imputed or accounted to us; it is not our own by works, but it is ours by faith; it is not our own of ourselves, but it's ours of god. neonom. hold, not too much of that doctrine; you make us to be as righteous as christ: this doctrine of imputing the very righteousness of christ to us, i cannot down with; it's christ's righteousness, but it cannot become ours but in the effect. mr. r. v. but i say the righteousness we stand upon must be perfect, and it must be ours; legal righteousness is perfect, if a man fall by one sin, whether in doing or misdoing the ladder is broken.— on the other side, the righteousness of christ, it is perfect; if it be not perfect, it cannot be righteousness; 'tis made a sinners by imputation, by faith in christ, p. 162, 163. neonom. my whole book is to prove this man's doctrine to be false. mr. r. v come on then mr. reonom. i will come to the demonstration, that there are but two sorts of righteousnesses, and by this point i must drive you and every man up into a corner; for a man must be brought to a choice of one of them, and if he standeth upon one of them, which is by the law he falleth, the point will drive you to a necessity of christ and faith. now that there are but two, will appear thus; the righteousness of the law, and the righteousness of god, are described, named, distinguished, rom. 10.6, 7, 8, 9 and chap. 11.3. now, mark, in scripture you find these phrases and expressions; grace, free grace, christ or redemption of christ, the promise or the gospel, faith, the righteousness of god: you may find all these upon one file ranked together. neonom. ay, but i value one, if joined with a duty and benefit, before all those, according to my logic. mr. r. v on the other side you shall find the law, works, our own righteousness, debt, our wages by debt, boasting and glorying; these make another file. there's no third, all must come under one of these files; if it be one, it's the righteousness of god by faith of christ; if it be the other, it's the righteousness of the law by our own works: by this 'tis plain that there are but two sorts of righteousness. and, consider, the two adam's were certainly but two common roots, and the foundation of two covenants, the covenant of works, and the covenant of grace. neonom. stay there, i deny all that doctrine. mr. r. vines, but i'll go on; the adam's being two, consequently the covenants are two, and consequently the righteousnesses are of two sorts, and no more, p. 164, 165, 166. you confound law and gospel; learn the difference between law and gospel (it is of the greatest consequence) most useful to the conscience of man in the world, to the settlement of an estate in regard of life and salvation to his soul; law promiseth life and salvation to the doer, upon condition of perfect and perpetual obedience.— the gospel freely promiseth justification to every one that believeth in christ. neonom. but this believing is doing. mr. r. v this gospel righteousness excludeth works as any cause in the world, by which you should be justified with god.— many will be looking for good tidings from the law, which is only brought to you, as the olive-leaf in the mouth of the gospel, p. 167, 168. doct. these two sorts of righteousnesses are inconsistent and opposite the one to the other, not having mine own, but having the righteousness of god.— the scripture is full of their oppositions and contrarieties; for if you mark, it's said to be of the obedience of one by which we are made righteous, not the obedience of two, viz. mine own and christ's together, but one directly; see rom. 5.21. and do you see every where a plain opposition between faith and works, the law and faith, works and grace? doth there not come a but, rom. 10.5. gal. 3.12, 16. chap. 5.4. rom. 9.31, 32. see how they are opposed. 1. it is excluded as matter of our righteousness with god; for that which is the matter of our righteousness with god is the obedience of christ: now to bring your own righteousness into this place, as the matter of your righteousness with god, is to mingle your obedience with christ's: so it's not the obedience of one but the obedience of two. 2. it's excluded as the motive to move god; if you bring your own righteousness into this place, you mingle it with free grace, rom. 3.24. if you make it any motive you must bring it into the place of jesus christ. 3. it's excluded as the instrument which should receive the righteousness of god; if you bring it into this, than you bring it into the place of faith; for faith is only the hand that taketh hold of the gospel righteousness; therefore, he saith, the righteousness of god which is by the faith of jesus christ: now if there be no room for these three, it followeth 'tis thrust out a doors, pag. 171, 172. neonom. then you may thrust me and my book both out of doors, for it hath been my design wholly throughout my book to establish this righteousness of our own these three ways. 1. to join it with the righteousness of christ in justification, under the name of subordinate righteousness, and a condition, etc. 2. to foist it into the grace of god as a motive under the name of meetness. 3. to give it the same place and nature in justification, as faith, in that i make faith to justify as its doing, and as a working condition. mr. r. v out of this description we shall take up four points. 1. they that are in christ have righteousness with god; there's an emphasis in the words, they that are in christ have the righteousness, the only righteousness, etc. the papists say, we have righteousness by works; we say we have it by imputation, yet they that have this righteousness by imputation, have it truly, and they are made righteous by it, pag. 176. they have this righteousness with god; mark, they have that which sets them right with god, into a state of favour and acceptation, that which dischargeth all gild and condemnation: they have that which freeth them from every charge, every endictment, every sentence of the law of god; they have that which setteth them into friendship and peace with god, that which entitleth them to eternal life and heaven: they have that, which altho' it doth not take away the being of sin, yet it setteth them as free from hell as adam in innocency, and setteth them upon a sure centre; that faith wherein we stand, outspeaks adam, even adam in his first integrity, p. 176. 2dly, this righteousness which they have in christ is the righteousness of god; this is a phrase frequent with the apostle paul, and is almost peculiar to him. now, mark, that righteousness whereby a poor sinner is made righteous with god is the righteousness of god, i. e. of a person who is god, jer. 33.16. not his essential righteousness, it's only that righteousness which is from god; that which god imputeth to us, that which he hath provided, appointed and approved to be a satisfaction to his justice; that's the righteousness of god which god hath made to be so to us, and that is christ, 1 cor. 1.30. p. 180 3dly, this righteousness of god is by faith; god hath appointed this humble grace of faith to be in the hand of the receiver, which taketh hold of this righteousness of god. but now you must consider this faith not [as mr. neonomian doth] as a habit or quality, but consider it in the office it hath, as it is an instrument taking hold of jesus christ: not, i say, as a habit for the worthiness of faith itself; for tho' it be said, by faith, it is not said, for faith; by it as an instrument of god, for hereby you come to the promises, and to christ; closing with christ by faith you are made the righteousness of god in him. it is a selfdenying faith that casteth out pride, and self, and works, and cometh naked and poor to the rich promises of christ, and there hanged, taketh hold and claspeth fast. 4. this faith by which you have the righteousness of god is the faith of christ, or (which is all one) of the which promises hold forth christ, they are the object of this faith by which you have the righteousness of god; it's true, the object of faith is the whole word of god, and that doth not justify because it works faith: the eye seethe other things besides the brazen serpent, but as it healeth it looketh to the brazen serpent only, etc. p. 185. now i come to the description of the other sort of righteousness. 1. there is a righteousness called our own, which is of the law. 2. our own righteousness which is of the law is to be utterly disclaimed, our own in opposition to the righteousness of god which is by faith in christ: as the righteousness of god is the very same with that which is by the faith of christ, for they are all one; so our own righteousness is that which is of the law. now that there is a righteousness which is called our own, is evident from rom. 10.3. to open the righteousness of the law. 1. the righteousness of the law is nothing else but a conformity to the law. see ezek. 18.5. gal. 3.12. rom. 2.17. the duties which is the matter must be done with all the mind and strength, and all the soul.— 2. what is meant by our own righteousness? it is that whereby we walk in some conformity to the law of god; and if you will have works done from a natural principle or power by the strength of moral virtues, by men out of christ, this is indeed within ourselves, and this is our own righteousness, like that the apostle calleth his gain before he knew christ. but then for holy duties or works that are performed, which flow from a principle of renewing grace, this (say the papists) is not our own righteousness. for the clearing this point: all your works that flow from sanctifying graces, in conformity to the law of god, all these come under the name of our own righteousness, not because it is of ourselves efficiently, but it is ours subjectively inherent in us. as adam's righteousness, his own, though it came from an inward holiness and righteousness given him of god.— are not the fruits of the spirit, as love, joy, temperance, are they not our own? they are our own or gods; if our own, than i have the point; if the righteousness of god, than you are justified by the fruits of the spirit, and not by the righteousness of christ imputed, which is the greatest error in divinity. if the apostle in this text had said, not my own righteousness, but the righteousness of god which is by repentance, love, hope, the fear of god, holy duties, than the apostle had carried it clear against us; but he brings nothing that we have to join in concurrence to the righteousness of god and christ, but only faith; therefore, the apostle leaves all our inherent graces and the works that issued from them in this text, to come under the name of our own righteousness. as the sin of the first adam that was personally in gild was likewise ours, so the righteousness of god is subjectively in christ, and by imputation ours. consider, then, all those works that proceed from sanctifying grace in you in order to conformity to the law of god, they may all come under this name and notion of my own righteousness, p. 190, 191, 192. doct. 2. our own righteousness is utterly to be disclaimed, that we may be justified by the righteousness of god. mark the scripture, rom. 3.21. ch. 4.6. christ pulleth down the righteousness of yourselves, which had the chair before; the servant must not sit in the king's chair: so grace, tho' it be that whereby you may walk serviceable to god, yet you must not set it in the place of jesus christ.— yet the apostle would not be without holiness, sanctification and obedience. one in christ hath virtue, holiness, etc. but how? as serviceable graces to walk with god, not as his righteousness with god; when the sun shineth the moon is put out, not out of her orb or course, but (as i may say) from her rul. so the righteousness of god when you come to be justified by faith, doth not abolish holiness and sanctification (for they are and must be there together) but the setting up obedience in the place of christ's righteousness, as a cipher, is pulled down from the place of pounds. how doth that apostle say, not having mine own righteousness? i answer, not having it as my righteousness with god, than i should put mine own in the place of christ, not having it as concurrent with christ.— that would make my righteousness copartner with him, not having it as a motive to move him, than i should put my righteousness in the place of free grace; not having it as the instrument whereby i take christ; no, for than i should put other graces in the place of faith.— well then, in a word, having holiness or righteousness as a stock to trade with in the way of service to god, not having it as a means to buy my soul out of hell: so you see the difference, that still we have it, and yet we have it not. but why is our own righteousness, that is inherent in us, to be disclaimed? 1. because it is a way impossible for a sinner to go to heaven by, or to be righteous by; that ladder is too short, tho' it seem long enough to you that have some fragments of the law. 2. not having it, why? because there is another righteousness (and not this) which is called the righteousness of god: there is another adam, and that adam hath another righteousness for all to believe in, a gospel righteousness which is not of the law. there is another covenant god hath appointed whereby a sinner must be just; now because there is another, not this. 3. because one of these voids the other; if i have the righteousness of god, than mine own is void; if mine own, than the righteousness of god is void: as the apostle saith of grace, if works, not grace; and if grace, not works p. 192, 193, 194, 195. calvin. reverend sir, we must from the bottom of hearts most sincerely acknowledge, that it is a great piece of service that you have done to christ, his gospel, church, and poor lost sinners, in this ample and distinct testimony which you have born to the truth; not only in plainly discovering mr. neonomian's corrupt and illiterate interpretation of this great portion of scripture, and vindicating of it, but also in that you have subverted his whole scheme, laid open the rottenness of the principles he hath so boldly asserted in his book, and showed the dangerous tendency of them. neonom. this gentleman is much mistaken, and i could show where his mistakes lies. antinom. you show his mistakes! — quid? rectum dignoscere curbo? neonom. i believe him an able man, and that sometimes he was of my judgement, because mr. b. dedicated his aphorisms to him, and acknowledged that he was a fit censor of his doctrine. antinom. it's true, one would think that piece of flattery and many others, had been enough to engage mr. r. vines to subscribe to mr. b.'s opinion; but it was sufficiently known that instead of so doing, mr. vines seldom preached a sermon, wherein he did not make a strict inquisition after the neonomianism that lay in his way, and cracked it as a man will crack a louse. debate xx. of gospel and legal preaching. neonom. i have this error further to charge upon mr. antinom. viz. gospel preaching (he saith) is to teach men that they were as much pardoned and as acceptable to god always, as when they were regenerate; and while they are they had the same interest in god and christ, as when they believe; neither can sin any way hinder their salvation or their peacc; nor have they any thing to do further either of them, christ having done all for them, before any holy qualification or endeavour. d. w. p. 208. antinom. here is a long charge, whether it be true or no, in part or whole, it will appear by the proof. neonom. page 159. he saith, the more light and glory of the gospel shineth in the true intention of god to his people, the more should they have joy and gladness; why may not then a believer say, the lord hath been bountiful to me, god hath done every thing in christ, and taken away all things that can disturb my peace and comfort? antinom. what is this to prove your charge? what is this to prove that i say, a man is as much pardoned and as acceptable to god always as when regenerate, while he is ungodly, & c? there's not any part of your charge here proved; for i speak of a believer, and that god hath done all for him in christ; and dare you say otherwise? but hear what i said, which you hid, lest your charge should appear false, at the first sight; you take only the concluding words of my sermon, on rom. x. 2, 3, 4. just before that p. 158. object. you will say, you know many of the people of the lord jesus, that walk sadly and disconsolately, not having this joy and gladness. i answer, there is nothing hinders the joy of god's people, but their sins: those, as they conceive, stand as a separation betwixt god and them: oh they stand as a cooling card in all their joys and mirth. but when they return to zion, they shall rejoice, in that they see that the blood of jesus christ, the son of god, hath taken away all their sins, the scape-goat having carried them away into the land of forgetfulness, in that they see that all their transgressions are blotted out as a cloud, etc. when they shall come by the sight of the glory of the gospel, and the light thereof, to behold this state, that christ hath brought them into, than all matter of sorrow and sighing shall fly away, and the bitterness of it shall be taken away; and than that which was the occasion of that bitterness shall vanish too. i do not say, that he is no believer, that hath not this perfectly; far be it from me, so to say; there are, that are believers, that are weak in faith, and there are believers strong in faith; the more the light of the glorious gospel shines, etc. calvin. mr. neonomian, i wonder what a gospel you preach, or would have others preach; is not sin the hindering-cause of spiritual joy? is it not god that blots out our sins, and remembers them no more? is not the faith of this, the groundwork of all true joy? have not some believers less, and some more, according as their faith is, and the light of the gospel shines into their hearts? and do they not, by virtue of this joy and peace in believing, return to their rest? and may they not say, the lord hath dealt bountifully with me, as david did? may they not return to their rest, and sit down in the comforts of the holy ghost? the lord hath done all for me in christ; who hath made him wisdom, righteousness, sanctification, and redemption. is there any thing you can rejoice in, but what is done for us, or wrought in us by christ? that sin is taken away in the atonement and satisfaction of christ, the great cause of my disturbance. neonom. he saith, p. 186. here is first deliverance, and then service is the fruit of this deliverance, not deliverance the fruit of service: the tenor of the law runs thus, first do, and then live: the gospel saith, first live, and then do; do not think god gives christ upon condition. antinom. what's all this to the proving of your charge of error? 1. it reacheth not the terms of your charge, if it were error. but, 2dly, where is the error? doth he not clear it from plain scripture, which you take no notice of, viz. zacharias' song, luke 1.74, 75? do we serve god acceptably, before we are delivered from sin and satan, through redemption and application? can we serve god in holiness and righteousness, before we be delivered from our enemies? will you run at all scripture and experience? is it not true, that the law said to man, that had life and power concreated with him, do, and thou shalt live? and can this be the tenor of the gospel, to say to a dead sinner, do, and thou shalt live? can a man, dead in trespasses, do any thing? were it not madness to say to a dead corpse, walk, and thou shalt live? doth not christ first come as the resurrection and life to a sinner, before he can do any thing? do you think, that christ comes to a sinner upon condition of any thing he can do in his natural estate? what is more plain, than that life is the principle and cause of action, and not action of life? christ himself saith, a man must have life before he can believe; it's first in nature. joh. 11.26. whoever liveth and believeth in me, shall never die. now is the giving of christ for life, the condition of our having life? or our doing before we have christ or life, the condition on which we have christ and life? calvin. i think you have gained nothing, nor yet made any proof of your charge, unless you think it be in this, that the doctor saith we must live, before we can do. if you take that for an error, i pray do you try your skill the other way, to make men do before they live; and if you can attain to that art, either in naturals or spirituals, you will be the wonder of the world. neonom. he saith, p. 124. the freeman of christ hath this freedom, christ doth all his work for him, as well as in him, etc. christ doth all for them, that god requires to be done. antinom. you must know it is this i said: a freeman of christ hath this freedom, christ doth all his work for him, as well as in him. he that is in bondage under the law, must do every thing himself, and that he doth, he must do perfectly; that is an unsupportable thing and heavy bondage, for a man to have more laid upon him than he can bear. the freeman of christ, considering that he is weak, poor and unable to work, christ doth all his work for him, isa. 26.12. the holy ghost tells us, he hath done all our works in us; and in the margin it is rendered, for us: see rom. 5.19. their freedom is, that they stand righteous in the sight of god by that which christ hath done for us; that they are as righteous as if they had done it in their own persons, etc. thus i treat concerning the obedience of christ unto a satisfactory righteousness on our behalf. but, obj. doth not this take off men from all manner of obedience, and all manner of holiness? a. it takes them off from those ends that they aim at in their obedience, viz. the end for which christ's obedience served, viz. our standing righteousness; as it concerns us in point of justification, consolation and salvation. we have our peace, we have our salvation only by the righteousness christ hath done for us; but this doth hot take away our obedience nor services in respect of those ends for which such services are required of believers, to glorify god, to evidence our thankfulness, to profit men, as ordinances to meet god in, to make good what he hath promised; so far we are called out to services, and walking uprightly, exactly, strictly, according to the good pleasure of god; and in regard of such ends of services, there is a gracious freedom that the freemen of christ have by christ, i. e. so far forth as services and obedience are expected at a freeman's hands, there is christ by his spirit, present with such persons, to help them in all such kind of services; so that they become strong in the lord, and the power of his might, to do the will of god. mark what the apostle speaks, i am able to do all things through christ strengthening me: of myself i am able to do nothing, but in christ, and through christ, that strengtheneth me, i am able to do all things, etc. there's much more to this purpose. now judge whether here's any ground for his accusation. dr. c. p. 126. he slanders me to the world, as if i taught a doctrine of licentiousness, and were against all duty; but it will appear otherwise plainly enough, if an impartial man reads my sermons, especially that sermon on 1 joh. 2.1, 2. sermon iii. p. 548. neonom. he saith, p. 554. man will be mincing of this truth, and tell you, if you walk close to god, and if you refrain from sin, especially from gross sins, god will love you, and then you may apply these and these promises unto yourself: but god speaks plainly, before they had done good or evil, jacob have i loved; the grace of god is passed over to men, as they are ungodly, etc. this is the grace of god revealed; he hath exhibited it freely to men: hath the lord given us commission to preach this gospel? antinom. in my discourse from 1 john 2.1, 2. this objection is answered, p. 557. viz. there are many admire and adore the doctrine of the freegrace of god; and yet are notoriously known to live in all manner of lewdness and licentiousness, and upon this ground, because their sins are laid on christ. the sum of the answer is, i confess i never knew any such monsters, etc. there are many taxed for such; but i cannot say any thing to the truth of this charge by mine own experience, etc. but it may be there are such, and paul speaks of such in his time, etc. but if there be such, i must tell you they are the greatest monsters upon the face of the earth, etc. and i dare boldly say they are the greatest enemies to freegrace, and that open drunkards, harlots, and murderers, come infinitely short of them in abominations, etc. but admit this, that the grace of god hath been abused; hath not the whole scripture been abused, law and gospel? is not christ set for the fall and rising of many in israel? is he not a rock of offence? but in the mean time shall the children want their bread, because the dogs catch at it, & c? shall not the gospel be preached, because some abuse it? obj. but you will say, it may be done with caution and limitation. a. but let us not be more wary and cautions than god would have us to be, to put mixtures of men's do to the obtaining the grace of god, while the lord himself doth pour out his grace to men simply for his own sake, without consideration of any thing in them— men will be mincing this truth, etc. then follows what you rehearse. and what doth all this amount to, but what the apostle john expressly speaketh, 1 john 4.10. and the apostle paul, phil. 2.13. eph. 2.23. that god's love and grace is the cause of all that which we do to his praise, and not our doing the cause of god's grace and love to us? where grace first prevails, it finds a man a dead sinner, and raiseth him to newness of life; and such an one will not, nor shall abuse the grace of god to licentiousness. now let all men judge how you have proved your charge, by what you have alleged from my sermons: where is it that i say, christ believes for us, or reputes for us? all that i say, is the words of the prophet, he works all our works for us in respect of mediation, and all our works in us in respect of application; he works us to believe and repent, etc. neonom. pag. 223. he talks of justification and union to christ before faith, pag. 616. antinom. you fetch the same things over and over; these doctrines have been spoken to already, under the heads of justification by faith, and union. neonom. but he tells us, ministers ought not to preach damnation, p. 56, 562. he saith this likewise batters to the ground that way of urging men to holiness, which some hold forth; that if men do not these and these good works, and leave these and these sins, than they must come under the wrath of god, etc. the love of god constrains the faithful, and not the fear of wrath. antinom. and is not that good doctrine, that the grace of god only teacheth holiness; and that a believer is not under the law, or the terrors thereof, for the learning of holiness, but under grace; and are not they the words of the apostle, 1 cor. 5.14? and doth he not lay the constraining force of the love of god on our delivery from wrath, and tells us, that this is one great end of christ's dying for us, that men henceforce should not live unto themselves, but unto him that died for them? it's a most grievous thing to see how you fly in the face of plain places of scripture, with no small scorn and contempt. and these are my words concerning such preachers: they ought rather, after the example of the apostle, to excite them to these good works, because they are already freed from wrath. certainly this that i have delivered proves this sufficiently, that the appearing of the grace of god doth teach men to do the will of god effectually; the love of god constrains the faithful, and not the fear of wrath. but to conclude, do not mistake me, in the mean while, i have no thoughts as if wrath and vengeance were not to be preached and made known even to believers; yea, beloved, wrath and vengeance is to be made known to them, and that as the deserts of sin, and as the means to keep men from sin; but not in that way men do ordinarily think, i mean thus, wrath and vengeance are not to be revealed as if believers were to fear them, or as if believers should come under them.— but as believers are secured and freed from them, that so they should fear to commit and fall into sin, and not for fear of coming under wrath, but out of love, because god hath been so gracious to them, as to deliver them from the weight of so heavy wrath and displeasure, etc. calv. have you no greater error remaining to charge mr. antinomian with? methinks it seems as if you had pretty well spent your powder and ball, and we have spent a great deal of time in these debates which you have caused, and it will be time now (as most of the society have told me) to put an end to them. antinom. with all my heart, sir, and i reckon myself obliged to render my thankful acknowledgements, that you have heard us with so much candour and patience. neonom. i can't be vngentele neither, mr. calvin, you know me better than to think so; but i have one only humble request to make to you and this society, that before we finally part, you will hear me instruct mr. antinomian in the right way of preaching, and show him the true difference between gospel and legal preaching. antinom. sir, i doubt not but we shall differ as much about gospel and legal preaching, as we have done about the doctrine to be preached; for if we cannot agree about the doctrine that is to be preached, and that which is most for the exaltation of christ and good of souls, it is not likely we should agree about preaching; therefore for that, as i conceive, it's a needless point (mr. calvin) for us to enter upon, because we must be necessitated to speak over the same things again in handling of it; however, if mr. neonomian be fond of such a discourse, i shall take the pains to give him my sentiments, and show how greatly he is mistaken; but for the present, i think we have proceeded as far as is needful in the foregoing debates; in which truth and error is so fully argued and cleared, that any unprejudiced person, that hath a competent measure of understanding in the things of god, may easily thereby judge and conclude, what is gospel, and what is legal preaching, and what exalts christ most, and what lest. calvin. sir i think you have spoken much reason in what you have said; and i am of your mind that it would be impertinent, and but actum agere, to enter upon a debate about preaching; and i shall add, that it's not so proper for this society as for t'other yonder; and, besides, our amanuensis complain of the dearness of paper. i must tell you, the calvinian society is reduced to a small number, and are at a low ebb in the world at this day. but, i hope, the time is at hand, when the smoke that now fills the temple will be scattered, and the temple of god opened again, and the ark of his testament shall be seen. as for you mr. antinomian, you may now departed in peace, and rest in your grave till the resurrection. antinom. yes, sir, with all my heart, if mr. neonomian gives me no further disturbance; if he doth, i shall soon be raised without conjuring, for i shall not lie very deep in the earth: however, if i do not, christ lives, and shall triumph in his glorious gospel over all opposers; and i find that there are not a few that will appear faithful assertors and defenders of these truths (against the most vigorous adversaries) through the assistance of god's grace, which are awakened thereto by this attempt that hath been made to set up another gospel, and to feed us with the leeks and onions of spiritual egypt. but before i depart, i would do one thing, i. e. i would make my will, if you think i am capable of it, and it is this, that a great grave be dug, and that antinomianism, neonomianism, pelagianism, popery, socianism and arminianism be buried therein, 50 cubits deep. calvin. who would make you executor? antinom. i have such a respect for mr. neonomian, notwithstanding the pick he hath had at me, that i would constitute him my executor, and this society the overseers of my will; with this proviso, that if mr. neonomian do refuse, or do not well and truly execute this my last will and testament, in the agreed judgement of this society, that then the whole trust shall devolve upon the said society, which i doubt not but they will endeavour faithfully to perform. calv. mr. neonom. will you accept of this executorship? neonom. i do not know what power he hath to dispose of the goods of other men; i take it to be great presumption in him, if not dishonesty, to dispose of other men's proprieties, seeing he renounceth them all. antinom. sir, i crave your pardon; i must confess, mr. calvin, he hath given me a just rebuke; for when we met in the eutopian fields, finding me anonymus, he was so courteous as to lend me, or rather impose upon me, the name of mr. antinomian during my short converse here; he having two names himself he could lend me one for a little while, which as you see for conversation sake i have made use of, with an intention to return it; yea, in the mean time did declare, and did plead it against all men, that it was mr. neonomian's propriety, and, therefore, i now return it to him accordingly. neonom. no, no, sir, i gave you that name as your propriety, it best expressing your opinions. antinom. then, sir, you'll grant i have power to bequeath it in my last will, and i bequeath it to you. calv. but by your favour, sir, it's a judged case, and therefore you have not power to bequeath it; if you borrowed it, it's honesty to return it before you depart. neonom. what do you mean by a judged case? calv. i mean that mr. neonomian hath before this society sufficiently given us to understand that his opinion is, that the moral law is vacated, and a new law brought into the room of it. antinom. and more than that, there are certain divines in this city, great friends to this society, that have excepted against his principles as highly antinomian. therefore, take it as your own by law. vale. antinomus exit anonymus. calv. now, sir, your great antagonist is withdrawn, i shall deal plainly with you, and briefly sum up the heads of these things wherein it hath manifestly appeared, by the foregoing debates, that you have given abundant cause of just offence by your late writings. 1. that you have unjustly charged and misrepresented dr. crisp, by yourself, owned to have been a holy man. 2. that you have falsely stated those things which you call truths and errors. 3. that you have vented your own erroneous tenants, and endeavoured to prove them agreeable to the articles, confessions and our orthodox protestant writers, by perverting their sense, or misapplying what they say, when as they are most repugnant to you. 1. as to the said doctor, you charge him unjustly with those things which are directly false; i shall give an instance or two of it. you say, this is one of his errors, chap. 1. that he saith, that if the elect should die before they believe, yea, when they are under the dominion of sin, and in the practice of the grossest villainies, they are as much the sons of god, and justified, as the saints in glory. whereas he expressly denies the truth of this charge in his vindication he makes of himself against some, who in his life-time, had reproached his doctrine and ministry as you do now, p. 637. they say, that i should affirm, that if an elect person should die a whoremonger and adulterer, etc. in all kind of profaneness, he shall be saved.— he appeals to his hearers, whether ever they heard him preach any such doctrine; and declares it a gross, notorious and groundless slander.— and his following words are, i said before, and say again, that there is no elect person, suppose him to be capable and come to years, shall die before he is called, i. e. before the lord give faith to this person to believe, and in some measure frame him to walk by the spirit according to the rule of the gospel. the second false charge is, chap. 2. err. 2. that he should make christ the real blasphemer, murderer, etc. and that he was so accounted of the father. whereas he asserts and vindicates the innocency of christ's person; he saith only that christ was accounted a transgressor from a real transaction or imputation of our sins to him, in which doctrine the scriptures are most full and express. 3. you charge this error upon him, chap. 10. that christ is offered to blasphemers, murderers, and the worst of sinners, that they remaining ignorant, unconvinced and resolved in their purpose to continue such, they may be assured they have a full interest in christ; and this only by concluding in their own minds upon this offer that christ is theirs. that christ ought to be offered to the vilest of sinners, and they invited to come unto him, is sound gospel-truth, tho' you condemn it for an error. and is it possible a man of conscience can slander a man (whom he owneth to be holy) with such a notorious falsehood? that he should assert that christ is offered to men, that they remaining ignorant, unconvinced and resolved in their purpose to continue such, might be assured of their interest in christ, concluding only in their minds that christ is theirs; this we have proved to be a notorious slander. many other falsehoods have been proved. 2. as for misrepresentations they run thorough the whole book. 1. of dr. c. that you may abuse and expose him. 2. of other noted writers and confessions, you have horridly misrepresented them to serve your turn, in asserting error and condemning of truth. in misrepresenting dr. crisp, you have either perverted his meaning, and partially rehearsed his expressions, or else condemned what truth he asserts, and defends as great errors. as to the first, we have sufficiently made it manifest in some instances in the first part, and it hath abundantly been proved in the whole progress of our debates. and here it is not amiss to add a word or two to what is said to your error in the sixth debate, that you make a great cry and noise about, viz. that dr. c. should say, that christ, while he bore sin and was under the punishment thereof, was the object of god's abhorrence. the doctor's words are, p. 180. all that hatefulness and loathsomeness of sin is put upon christ, that he stands as it were the abhorred of the father for a time. 1. you leave out [as it were.] 2. you improve this to a hatred of the person of christ, and a separation of his natures, upon his using the word separation, as exegetick of forsaking, both scripture expressions concerning sin and christ. 3. you hereby manage your design of beating down the doctrine of christ's bearing god's wrath and curse for us, as you do the doctrine of his bearing sin. 4. as to the word abhorred, upon a diligent enquiry we find it to be a scripture expression concerning christ, yea, and of christ, under his sufferings of wrath and curse for sin; for tho' god never hated his person in the highest of his suffering (neither is it necessary any judge passing sentence on the worst criminal should hate his person) yet his father dealing with him in a judicial way by the eye and hand of justice, in this present state, and standing under the charge of sin, and thereby clothed, as it were, with filthy garments, is said to be as it were abhorred of god; and it's not only included in the word forsaken, the syriack word sabactani, and taken from psal. 22. where the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used, signifying dereliquit, deseruit, and so rendered by the lxxii and the evangelist; abhorrere being used by classic authors in the sense of being averse to a state or condition, cic. abborret ab auribus vulgi, it's not agreeable to the people's ear, abhorrere a nuptiis, to be averse to marriage. and from that aversion to turn away from it or a person in it; so god having purer eyes than, in his justice, to behold or endure iniquity, forsaken and turned away, as it were abhorring his son, standing under the charge of sin in that state and condition. and accordingly, as christ considered in this respect and state of gild and condemnation, is brought in prophetically by the prophet, speaking those words, psal. 22. and are actually applied to himself, by himself on the cross, mat. 27.46. so we see in another famous prophecy of this same state of his suffering, this word abhor is used by our interpreters most properly, psal. 89.38. thou hast cast off, thou hast abhorred, thou hast been wrath with thine anointed. the hebrew hath it with thy messiah, and the 72. hath it, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 rendered abhorred, sign sprevit, reprobavit, aspernatus est; and by the 72. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, thou hast contemned or despised: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 dereliquit, absecit, deseruit, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sprevit, res●●nt, reprobavit, aspernatus, aversatus est, abhoruit, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 exconduit furere percitus. and it's observable, that three such highly significant words should he here used in one verse, as expressive of the unspeakable weight of god's wrath and curse that lay upon him; thou hast deserted, thou hast abhorred, thou hast dealt in fury of wrath with thy messiah in dr. abbot's defence of the reformed catholic, p. 428. we have the following passages: the prophet saith, the lord did lay upon him our iniquities; the lord would break him, and make him subject to infirmities, that we may understand that god did not only leave him to the hands of men, but himself counted him with sinners, by the bearing of our sins, and therefore dealt with him himself accordingly. so that he had cause to cry out. thine indignation lieth bor● upon me, and thou hast vexed me with all thy storms. lord, why abhorrest thou my soul, and hidest thy face from me? thy wrathful displeasure goeth over me, and the fear of thee hath undone me. yet as touching the person of christ, we acknowledge, that he was excepted from sin. in the margin, he qoutes psal. 89.38. applied to christ by athenas. interp. psal. by arnob. and hierom. on psal. 87. as to the rest of the mis-representations of the said doctor, (which w●●● take up too much time and paper to rehearse) i refer you to the particular debates. and as to your charging the truths, that he affirms and insists on for error, i shall mention briefly some principal ones under the next head. as to the second thing in which just exceptions lie against your book, we have this to charge, that you have not in all that is material, fully and rightly stated truths and errors: for, 1. you have not rightly divided truth from error, but confounded them one with another. 2. you have condemned truth for error, and asserted error to be truth. 3. you have stuffed your positions with ambiguous words and terms, that instead of stating, you have perplexed them; and so that when you seem to speak one thing, it's most apparent you mean another. let me but give a few instances of many, that are more largely and particularly demonstrated in the debates. 1. according to this threefold falseness, you state truth and error in your 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 chapters, in the doctrines of christ's bearing our sins, and punishment for them. 2. in the doctrine of imputation of christ's righteousness, you plainly deny it to be any other than as to effects; which is no imputation at all. that there was no change of person betwixt christ and us; that he suffered not in our stead; that spots remain in justified ones, as they stand justified before god, and therefore not perfectly justified; and then imputed righteousness must be imperfect, c. 7. 3. you condemn it for an error, to say, the covenant of grace, as to us, is not conditional; and that faith is not a federal condition of it: and to say, the covenant of grace was made between the father and son, as the second adam, and with the elect in him: or that this covenant-transaction is pleadable by us: if all this be error, what truth is there in the scripture and the assembly? c. 8. p. 53, 58. 4. you condemn this for an error, to say, christ is to be offered to the worst of sinners, before they are willing to deny themselves, and renounce all their sins and idols, c. 10. p. 81. 5. you insinuate a condemnation of all union to christ before an act of faith, c. 11. p. 91. 6. you insinuate persuasion not to belong to the nature of faith, c. 9 p. 73. and make faith and repentance to justify, as qualifying conditions, c. 12. p. 102, 114. 7. you insinuate a condemnation of this great truth, asserted by our lord jesus christ himself, that he is the way, truth, and life, in justification, sanctification, and glory, joh. 14.6. c. 13. p. 121. 8. the sum of what you design, in c. 14. is, to condemn this great gospel-truth for error; that a believer is not to work from life, but for life, p. 153. 9 you condemn all ways of assurance, besides by-signs and marks found in us, among which perseverance is the greatest. here you condemn assurance, arising from the direct act of faith and immediate witness of the spirit, by itself, or in and by the word, c. 15 160, 161. 10. you charge that great truth to be an error, that god sees no sin in justified ones, c. 16. p. 170. and to say that sin cannot hurt them in a way of condemnation, c. 17. p. 181. and that the afflictions of god's people are effects of god's vindicative-justice, and his displeasure against their persons, c. 18. p. 150. 11. you condemn the protestant true acceptation and interpretation of phil. 3.8, 9 c. 19 p. 196. 3. to these i shall name these admired principles of yours, famous at rome, as some instances of the third thing. 1. that every sin is not damnable, pref. p. 6. 2. that the moral law is vacated, its sanction being changed, ibid. 3. that the eternal condition of men is not eternally decided in this life, but they are in a state of trial here for eternity, p. 55. see to reconcile these three heads of doctrine to the assembly, and reconcile the first to the larger catechism. q. 152. what doth every sin deserve at god's hands? a. 1. every sin, even the least, being against the sovereignty, goodness and holiness of god, and against his righteous law, deserveth his wrath and curse, both in this life, and that which is to come, and cannot be expiated, but by the blood of christ. 2. reconcile the second to confess. c. 19 5. the moral-law doth for ever bind all [therefore its sanction remains, if you know what sancire is] as well justified persons as others to the obedience thereof, and that not only in regard of the matter contained in it, but also in respect of the authority of god the creator, who gave it; neither doth god in the gospel any way dissolve, but much strengthen this obligation. who is the antinomian now? 3. reconcile the third, rotten, ill-worded principle to the assemb. c. 17. §. 2. the perseverance of the saints depends not upon their own , but upon the immutability of the decree of election, flowing from the free and unchangeable love of god the father, upon the efficacy of the merit and intercession of jesus christ, the abiding of the spirit, the seed of god within them, and the nature of the covenant of grace; from all which, ariseth the certainty and infallibility thereof. with what conscience can a man solemnly subscribe these articles, confessions and catechisms, and yet assert these principles? but you ascertain our estate here, only by doing; you say you can show, that there's no one saving benefit granted a sinner, but upon supposition of doing, (p. 230.) it's not given him to will or do, but upon supposition of doing; nor to be justified or persevere, but upon supposition of doing: so the whole, and the certainty of a believer's state, depends wholly upon doing; he is under a perfect covenant of works, and his state is a state of trial for life, upon his doing, as adam's was; but a worse, and hath more to do, and is less able. lastly, as to the great fundamental principle on which your new scheme is founded, viz. that the gospel is a new law with sanction, tho', i hope, i have spoken enough to convince you of the unsoundness of it, yet because i would not be wanting in any thing wherein i may contribute to your further illumination, i will only present you with one remarkable piece of protestant antiquity in this point: and it is an article in the confession of the holy doctrine, which was proposed to the assembly of the council of trent, in the name of the illustrious prince l. d. christopher duke of wirtenberg, and count montbelgard, jan. 24. anno dom. 1552. concerning the gospel of christ. altho' many precepts of the law of god are contained in the writings of the evangelists and the apostles, and christ himself teacheth, that we are not to render evil for evil, nor to look upon a woman to lust after her; and many other precepts of the like nature. yet we must not think, that the gospel of christ is a new law, whereby, as the fathers of old under the old testament, were saved by an old law, so men, now under the new testament, are saved by a new law. for unless thou understand the word law, generally for doctrine, as the prophet's several times are wont to use the word law; certainly the gospel of christ, properly, is no law, as paul is wont to use the word law, but is good and joyful tidings concerning the son of god, our lord jesus christ, who is the only expiator of our sins and appeaser of the wrath of god, our redeemer and saviour. neither are the precepts of the law, which are contained in the apostolic writings, a new law, but an explication of the old law, according to the mind of the holy ghost, which are not darkly contained before in the writings of the prophets, but are repeated in the ministry of the gospel of christ, that the severity of god's law, and the corruption of our nature, being plainly laid open, we might be excited to inquire after and embrace christ, revealed in his gospel; and that we should be acquainted by what rule our life of faith in christ should be directed. wherefore, if we ought to speak properly concerning the law of god and the gospel of christ, even as we are not to make christ a new lawgiver, seeing he hath not made a new law, nor erected a new politic kingdom on earth; so neither is the gospel to be turned into a new law, which offer eternal salvation to the performers thereof. but we think, that it is most certain, that there is one and the same natural and moral law, both of the old and new testament; and eternal salvation is not to be had by men under the old or new testament for the merits of the works of the law, but only for the sake of the merits of our lord jesus by faith. christ rehearseth out of isaiah, his office, luke 4. for which he was sent into this world, saying, the spirit of the lord is upon me, in that he hath anointed me; he hath sent me to preach the gospel to the poor, etc. here christ teacheth, that it is not his proper office to give a new law which might terrify and slay miserable sinners, but to preach the gospel, that might quicken and comfort them: see gal. 4.4, 5. acts 15.10, 11. [they quote austin] that people who received the old testament, augustinus contra adimantum manichei discipulum, c. 3. was held under certain shadows and figures of things before the coming of our lord, according to that wonderful and most exactly ordered distribution of times: yet in it there was so great a predication and fore-publication of the new testament, that no things may be found in the evangelic or apostolic discipline, altho' lofty and divine precepts and promises, which were wanting to those ancient books. i here conclude, only adding the exceptions of some ministers against your doctrine and principles. the substance of some exceptions made by divers london ministers against mr. dan. williams' book, entitled, gospel truth stated and vindicated. 1. we find truth and error is not rightly stated in several particulars, chap. 2. c. 5. c. 7. c. 8. c. 12. c. 16. c. 18. c. 19 and in other places. 2. under a colour of opposing some old antinomian errors (which we from our hearts abhor) he falls in with them in their main principle of vacating the sanction of the moral law, as appears, pref. p 6, 7. and lib. p. 131, 135. and in other places, contrary to artic. 7. of the church of england, assemb. confess. c. 19 larg. catech. q. 97. 3. that to supply the room of the moral law, vacated by him, he turns the gospel into a new law, in keeping of which we shall be justified for the sake of christ's righteousness, whereby he boldly strikes both at law and gospel, p. 44, 126, 139, 210. making qualifications and acts of ours, a disposing, subordinate righteousness, whereby we become capable of being justified by christ's righteousness, p. 54, 55, 62, 68, 98, 103, 113, 114, 130, 143, 146. pref. p. 5, 6, 7. contrary to artic. of the church of england, 11, 12, 13. to the assemb. confess. c. 11. c. 16. large catech. q. 70, 71. short catech. q. 33. 4. he denies the covenant of grace to be made with christ as the second adam, and in him, with all the elect as his seed, p. 53. contrary to the assemb. large catech. q. 31. short chatech. q. 29. and that the covenant is pleadable by us as it's made with christ, pref. p. 6. 5. he teacheth, that the righteousness of christ is imputed only as to effects, with a purchase of a conditional grant, viz. this proposition, he that believeth shall be saved, p. 39 51. contrary to the doctrine of imputation and redemption, artic. 11, 17. confess. 11. large catech. q. 68, 70, 72. 73. short catech. q. 29. 6. he asserts, that forgiving, adopting, glorifying, and conveyance of every promised benefit, on god's terms are judicial acts, as a rector in a way of distribution of rewards, pref. p. 8, 9 lib. p. 130, 136. contrary to artic. 11, 12. to assemb. large catech. q. 70, 72, 73. short catech. q. 29. 7. he perverts and wrists many eminent portions of scripture from their plain and received sense, which hath been given by the best protestant interpreters, in particular those that follow, phil. 3.8, 9 jer. 31.31, 32, 33. heb. 8.10, 11. isa. 64.6. with divers others. and they further add, these are a few exceptions against the abovesaid book of mr. williams', among many more, of the like nature, which may be made appear. in this undertaking mr. williams doth, as a seeming antagonist to the antinomians, and the many that he doth call so, broach his anti-vangelical principles, endeavouring to hid them as much as may be under ambiguous terms, perverting and undermining the whole protestant doctrine in the main fundamental points of it, as they have been truly stated and hitherto maintained in the 39 articles, westminster and savoy confessions, the assemblies larger and shorter catechism, and by our best divines, ancient and modern, since the reformation hitherto. as if his own name, and the names of some others, obtained by his art and industry, were enough to weigh down all other authorities whatsoever, and to set up his new scheme as the standard and true measure of all protestant doctrine. therefore, we thought ourselves bound in conscience to declare our judgement herein, as a timely caution to all that shall read the aforesaid book of mr. williams', etc. this paper of exceptions, drawn up and subscribed by several divines, was delivered in to a full assembly of ministers, by the hand of doctor isaac chauncy, octob. 17. 1692. a postscript. reader, having finished my dialogue, i am necessitated to add a word or two by way of apology. 1. to clear myself of an imputation of concurring with certain ministers in exerting a synodical jurisdiction, etc. i must acquaint thee, that i have never been accessary to any such proceed, they being utterly contrary to my judgement; what they have done since octob. 17. i am a stranger to, and know not but by hear-say. 2. whereas it hath been reported, that matters were so adjusted, as that an end was to be put to all writing in this controversy; i must say, i know of no such agreement; something there was which might give some ground to such a report, the history whereof i shall for some reasons, forbear now to relate. 3. whereas some have been offended that i have continued to write book after book, etc. all is no more than the answer of one book sent forth and recommended to the world; and therein i challenge the common privilege of all men, to reply to any published book that i think meet, and it's not in the due power of any men, or society of men, to abridge me of it, how much soever they disapprove thereof; and i am so far from loving contention, that if mr. williams hath done, i have done opposing him; but (notwithstanding all subscriptions to orthodox articles, formerly or lately) if he continue to maintain his doctrine, as agreeable to scripture and the articles of the church of england, and the confessions and catechisms, he must expect to meet with opposition, maugre all the premeditated fury and rage that hath been from time to time expressed by the assertors and defenders of the said doctrines, both in pulpit and press, with all the ignominious marks of reproach and contempt, which they have branded their opposers with. 4. i cannot, but in honour to a reverend brother, make a particular remark upon the great pains he hath taken in his sermons, (to expose one upon this account, in the height of bitterness) and to print them for his cognizance. not to say any thing now of his invective reflections on the congregational practice, or the wrong representation which he hath given of the matters at present in debate (as another reverend divine hath also lately) but only to admire that a minister of christ can appear solemnly in the presence of god, to vent so much of his own spirit. i understand one sermon to be wholly taken up in setting all the black characters upon one man, as he could gather together, (who he means, all the town, that hath heard or read the sermon, hath judged) portraiting a person to be an airy, imagined piece of spirituality, drawn over corrupt, rotten, putrid flesh, an angry, tumified piece of proud flesh, with many such characters; which they that are desirous to know more of, may see in the original. this ignominious usage i shall say no more to, but only, that tho' i have a sinful, deceitful heart, and know myself to be worse than any man knows me to be, and shall always, i trust, abhor myself before the lord; yet if this be to be vile in the eyes of men (bad or good) to defend the truth according to my conscience, and the talon god hath or shall give me (as he calls me to it) i shall be yet more vile; but still looking upon what i do to be mixed with so much of human frailty, hypocrisy, and all corruption lurking in my naughty heart, mingling itself with the best of my duties and services, that i count them all but loss and dung for christ, as the apostle, phil. 3. i could give many convincing reasons why, (among many others,) it did least become this reverend person to launch forth into these waters of marah, with a pretence to a sweetening spirit of meekness, from the temper which he hath manifested formerly, as well as now; and why he is a most incompetent judge to pass sentence upon my procedure about matters in controversy (as i do declare all the subscribers to be, and he in a more especial manner) not only because he is of the party engaged in this carnal contention about words only (as he would have the world to understand it to be, since it could not be made an imposition as at first designed) but also because he always, as it were hath asserted, that he ne'er heard one side nor would, saying, that he never read mr. williams' book (tho' he hath subscribed to it) and therefore always refused to hear or argue any allegations against the doctrines contained in it. now is it possible that such an one should give a true verdict concerning matter of fact, or pass a just judgement upon either party, who is declaredly so biased▪ i could say much more of this nature, should i proceed to give a true narrative of behaviours and passages that have attended the carnality of recommending mr. william's his book to the world by subscriptions, which i shall forbear to do, unless i see i am provoked to it. in the mean time i commend this cause, and the weak management of it on my side, to the god of truth, that weighs the spirits and judgeth righteously. and in honour to that reverend divine, i say no more to what he hath so angrily preached and wrote, but am ready, notwithstanding, to ascribe it to that infirmity, wherein (its possible) some men think we are too much alike, and to bear a due reverend respect to him. but if, upon further provocations, i find i am forced to vindicate myself from these abuses, and that in so doing, some men find quoth me non impune lacessunt, let them thank themselves for it, as they may for all that they would make me so blame-worthy in. a brief reply to what mr. daniel williams hath charged mr. j. n. with, in the preface to his reply to dr. c. finding myself traduced by such as seem never to live so pleasantly as in the fire of contention, who are ambitious to expire in the arms of fame, and this wholly owing to what mr. daniel williams hath published in the preface to his late book, called, a defence, etc. it's but needful i give the reader a true and impartial account of my concern in those matters, for which i am quoted and thus treated. the first particular for which i am charged is in reference to dr. crisp's works, viz. mr. nesbit, from credible hands, informs me, the assembly of divines, desired to have them burnt. in answer to this, i shall give the impartial account of this story, with the circumstances that accompany it, and then leave my censors to be judges, how unfairly i am treated in this matter. soon after this reverend author had appeared by the press, in the present controversy, i told him, i had been in some company, where his opposition to dr. c.'s works was occasionally mentioned: to which one (naming to him both place and person) replied, they had been sufficiently answered by the assembly, for they burnt them. the same passage being repeated, where he and several other ministers were present, it was moved, that one should write, to know of dr. w. at oxford, who was able to give a full account of the truth or falsehood of this report; which was accordingly done: and the answer returned and made known to this author before his printing, was in sum thus: tho' many of the assembly did not approve of them, yet there was no such thing as a vote against them, that ever he heard of, or remembered. now why this account (from a person that mr. williams was satisfied knew the whole of the affair,) should be omitted, and the other occasional report printed, is not easily conceivable, except we knew the meaning of the reason i had from him (when expostulating his unkindness in this action) viz. the doctor's answer was not so much to the purpose, therefore omitted. but they that know nothing of this, are prone to conjecture it seemed designed to make my name loathsome to them, by whom, he can't but know, i desire to be approved: however, i hope my soul hath been better dieted, than to improve for just reflection what is here offered by him the next passage is in reference to his own book, viz. mr. n. (tho' i never requested it) in my house declared, if mr. m. and three more had subscribed, he would not have been unwilling to do it; and he desired me to add (congregational) to the divines in and about this city, who forbear to subscribe only for prudential considerations, which i refused. i must acknowledge the freedom and familiarity i had, for some time (through our near neighbourhood) in this author's company, encouraged me often to speak my thoughts without being requested to it, and that without the least jealousy of having what i discoursed with him in private, made public by the press, and i not once acquainted with it; and i see had i come to act the part of a plotter i had been discovered by an unsuspected informer. as to the whole of what passed in this private conference, it was with me of so little moment, that in a few days it was buried in forgetfulness: so that when, by a friend, these passages were queried of me, i remembered neither, but denied both; till some time after, seriously revewing what discourse i had with him about this concern, i remembered, that at my parting from him, i desired the word (congregational) might be added, he having before told me the names of several of that persuasion that were, to his knowledge, cordial for what he had done. as for the other passage, i have not once, or twice, but often solemnly protested to him, i did not remember any particular so much as like it; which answer i thought the most becoming denial to a man of his character, but it seems it was not to the purpose, and therefore omitted: sure i am, gospel-truth, when truly stated, carries more demonstration in it, than to need such undue methods and unmanly weapons for the defence of it. the last passage is, he told mr. hume that if one or two passages were rectified he would subscribe my book. to which report i shall only make this short return, that i may be a stranger to myself, through the deceitfulness of my own heart; but if my heart does not deceive me, i never had such a thought, nor uttered such a word, nor is it easy to conceive the thing so much as probable; for the only time i discoursed with mr. hume of this subject, was before this author's defence, etc. was published: and at that time i did expostulate with him, why he would be a subscriber to the former? to which he replied, what should i do, when followed daily, and pressed to it? but seeing that after all hopeful endeavours, yea articles and subscriptions for truth and peace, our debates, by these methods, are revived and condemned to be continued (nam pro supplicio est non potuisse mori.) i shall conclude, concerning this book of strife (finding my sense must be known of it) and that middle way hypothesis (if any) advanced by it, as the judicious and learned turretine, after long trial of it and the consequences that followed it, hath published. we don't think a a different mode of expression should be cause of litigation with any person, turret. theol. part 1. p. 438, 439. provided the sound doctrine be preserved; but if this matter be a little more seriously weighed, it will easily appear, it's not a controversy about method, but under the pretext of a new method, a new doctrine is introduced.— although this new invented method would appear most accommodated to the ears and humours of them that hear it, etc. yet there are many absurdities in it, and inextricable difficulties, etc. therefore long ago condemned and rejected by the churches; which was not done without weighty reasons, as he there shows: to whose judgement, in this matter, i subscribe john nesbit. the heads of debate contained in the second and third parts of the foregoing treatise. i. of the state of the elect before effectual calling. ii. of god's laying sin on christ. iii. of the discharge of the elect from sins, upon their being laid on christ. iv of the elects ceasing to be sinners, from the time their sins were laid on christ. v of the time when our sins were laid on christ. vi of separation from, and abhorrence of christ, while our sins lay upon him. vii. of the change of person between christ and the elect, and of imputed righteousness. viii. of the conditionality of the covenant of grace. ix. of the nature of saving faith. x. of the free offer of christ to sinners, and of preparatory qualifications. xi. of union with christ before faith. xii. of justification by faith, with a digression about repentance. xiii. of the necessity and benefit of holiness. xiv. of intending our souls good by duties we perform. xv. of the way to attain assurance. xvi. of god's seeing sin in believers, and their gild by it. xvii. of the hurt that sin may do to believers. xviii. of god's displeasure for sin in the afflictions of his people. xix. of the beauty of sincere holiness. xx. of gospel and legal preaching. to these are annexed, the substance of certain minister's exceptions against mr. daniel williams' book. mr. j. nesbit's reply to what mr. dan. williams charged him with, in his preface to his reply to dr. c. n. b. that the first edition only of mr. d. william's his book, was made use of in the foregoing treatise. books written by dr. isaac chauncy, de col. med. lon. 1. the catholic hierarchy, or the divine right of a sacred dominion in church and conscience, truly stated, asserted and pleaded. london, printed for the author, sold by s. crouch at the prince's arms in pope's head-alley in cornhill, and tho. fox at the angel in westminster-hall, a. d. 1681. 2. a theological dialogue, containing the defence and justification of dr. j. owen, from the 42 errors charged upon him by mr. rich. baxter. printed for the author, 1684. 3. the second part of the theological dialogue, being a rejoinder to mr. rich. baxter. printed for edward reyner, 1684. 4. the unreasonableness of compelling men to the holy sacrament of the lord's supper; wherein it's showed, that such compulsion is contrary to the whole tenor of the gospel, the common prayer, articles of the church of england, and the homily concerning the sacrament, in which is answered a pamphlet, entitled, the case of compelling to the holy sacrament of the lord's supper, etc. vindicated by the rules of the gospel. printed for the author. 5. ecclesia enucleatà, the temple opened, or a clear demonstration of the true gospel-church, in its nature and constitution, according to the doctrine and practice of christ and his apostles. printed for the author, 1684. 6. the interest of churches, or a scripture plea for steadfastness in gospel order. printed for the author, 1690. 7. ecclesiasticum, or a plain and familiar christian conference concerning gospel churches and order. sold by w. martial at the bible in newgate-street, 1690. 8. the first, second and third parts of neonomianism unmasked, in answer to mr. williams' gospel-truth stated and vindicated. a rejoinder to mr. williams' reply to this first part. 9 examen confectionis pacificae, or examination of the pacifick paper. the three last sold by h. barnard at the bible in the poultry, 1693. finis. erratas in the third part. page 10. line 29. r. or his faith was not true. p. 13. l. 4. r. you need not. p. 19 l. 13. f. forgotten r. pardoned. p. 24. l. 19 r. as a sin. p. 28. l. 27. r. where it is not as well as where it is. p. 45. l. 38. r. as they are elect. p. 48. l. 4. r. or many of them. p. 57 l. 32. f. posit. 1. r. 4. p. 58. l. 3. f. 3. r. 5. p. 59 l. 5. deal of. p. 73. l. 32. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. 76. l. 15. r. in that he. p. 79. l. 39 deal in and. r. to be the hand. p. 80. l. 4● r. of the promises which. p. 81. l. ult. r. curvo. p. 83. l. 30. r. we can rejoice. p 90. l. 40. r. defends. ●● p. 92. l. 2●. r. insi●●● o●, f. 〈◊〉. p. 93. l. 37. r. and you say, that the 〈◊〉 etc. erratas in the rejoinder. page 6. line 20. read non-elect. p. 7. l. 29. r. their congruity. p. 12. l. 14. r. the letter deny. p. 15. l. 50. r. impurity. p. 16. l. 47. deal comma, and r. of christ imputed. p. 17. l. 32. deal do. p. 30. marg. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. 30. l. 44. r. tribuere. p. 33. marg. r. judicials p. 34. l. 7. r. te●●●e state sine com. p. 35. marg. l. 3. cord elect. p. 36. marg. l. 10. 〈◊〉 natura. ibid. 13. l. r. adjunctis, efficacia. p. 33. l. 3. r. is it reasonable. p. 38. marg. l. 2. r. . p. 39 l. 11. deal now. p. 43. l. 17. r. this name. ibid. l. 35. r. therefore, etc. the. p. 46. l. 31. r. he hath these. p. 47. l. 8. and became and assertor. ibid. l. 22. r. the arminians. the religion of protestants a safe way to salvation. or an answer to a book entitled mercy and truth, or, charity maintained by catholics, which pretends to prove the contrary. by william chillingworth master of arts of the university of oxford. isaac. casaubon. in epist. ad card. perron. regis jacobi nomine scriptâ, rex arbitratur, rerum absolutè necessariarum ad salutem, non magnum esse numerum. quare existimat ejus majest●s, nullam ad ineundam concordiam breviorem viam fore, quam si diligentèr sepatentur necessaria à non necessariis, & ut de necessariis conveniat, omnis opera insumatur: in non necessariis libertati christianae locus detur. simplici●er necessaria rex appellat, quae vel expresse verbum dei praecipit credenda faciendave, vel ex verbo dei necessariâ consequentiâ vetus ecclesia elicuit. — si ad decidendas hodiernas controversias haec distinctio adhiberetur, & jus divinum à positivo sen ecclesiastico candidè separaretur; non videtur de iius quae sunt absolutè necessaria, inter pios & moderatos viros, longa aut acris contentio futura. name & paucailla sunt, ut modò dicebamus, & fere ex aequo omnibus probantur, qui se christianos' dici postulant. atque istam distinctionem sereniss. rex tanti putat esse momenti ad minuendas controversias, quae hodie ecclesiam dei tantopere exercent, ut omnium pacis studiosorum judicet officium esse, diligentissimè hanc explicare, docere, urgere. oxford printed by leonard lichfield, and are to be sold by john clerk under st peter church in cornhill. anno salutis m.dc.xxxviii. to the most high and mighty prince, charles' by the grace of god, king of great britain, france & ireland, defender of the faith etc. may it please your most excellent majesty, i present, with all humility, to your most sacred hands, a defence of that cause which is & aught to be infinitely dearer to you, than all the world: not doubting but upon this dedication i shall be censured for a double boldness; both for undertaking so great a work, so far beyond my weak abilities, and again, for presenting it to such a parton, whose judgement i ought to fear more than any adversary. but for the first, it is a satisfaction to myself, and may be to others, that i was not drawn to it out of any vain opinion of myself, (whose personal defects are the only thing which i presume to know,) but undertook it in obedience to him, who said, tu conversus confirma fratres, not to s. peter only but to all men: being encouraged also to it by the goodness of the cause, which is able to make a weak man strong. to the belief hereof i was not led partially or by chance, as many are, by the prejudice and prepossession of their country, education, and such like inducements, which if they lead to truth in one place, perhaps lead to error in a hundred; but having with the greatest equality and indifferency, made enquiry and search into the grounds on both sides, i was willing to impart to others that satisfaction which was given to myself. for my inscribing to it your majesty's sacred name, i should labour much in my excuse of it from high presumption, had it not some appearance of title to your majesty's patronage & protection as being a defence of that book, which by special order from your ma.tie was written some years since, chiefly for the general good, but peradventure not without some aim at the recovery of one of your meanest subjects from a dangerous deviation, & so due unto your ma.tie, as the fruit of your own high humility and most royal charity. besides, it is in a manner nothing else, but a pursuance of, and a superstruction upon that blessed doctrine, where with i have adorned & armed the frontispiece of my book, which was so earnestly recommended by your royal father of happy memory, to all the lovers of truth & peace, that is to all that were like himself, as the only hopeful means of healing the breaches of christendom, whereof the enemy of souls makes such pestilent advantage. the lustre of this blessed doctrine i have here endeavoured to uncloud and unveil, and to free it from those mists and fumes which have been raised to obscure it, by that order, which envenomes even poison itself, and makes the roman religion much more malignant and trubulent then otherwise it would be: whose very rule and doctrine, obliges them to make all men, as much as lies in them, subjects unto kings, and servants unto christ, no farther than it shall please the pope. so that whether your majesty be considered, either as a pious son towards your royal father k. james, or as a tender hearted & compassionate son towards your distressed mother, the catholic church, or as a king of your subjects, or as a servant unto christ, this work, (to which i can give no other commendation, but that it was intended to do you service in all these capacities,) may pretend not unreasonably to your gracious acceptance. lastly being a defence of that whole church and religion you profess, it could not be so proper to any patron as to the great defender of it; which style your majesty hath ever so exactly made good, both in securing it from all dangers, and in vindicating it (by the well ordering and rectifying this church) from all the foul as persions both of domestic & foreign enemies, of which they can have no ground, but their own malice and want of charity. but it is an argument of a despairing & lost cause to support itself with these impetuous out-cries and clamours, the faint refuges of those that want better arguments; like that stoic in lucian that cried 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉! o damned villain, when he could say nothing else. neither is it credible the wiser sort of them should believe this their own horrid assertion, that a god of goodness should damn to eternal torments, those that love him and love truth, for errors which they fall into through humane frailty! but this they must say, otherwise their only great argument from their damning us, & our not being so peremptory in damning them, because we hope unaffected ignorance may excuse them, would be lost: & therefore they are engaged to act on this tragical part, only to fright the simple and ignorant, as we do little children by telling them that bites, which we would not have them meddle with. and truly that herein they do but act a part, and know themselves to do so, and deal with us here as they do with the king of spain at rome, whom they accurse and excommunicate for fashion sake on maundy-thursday, for detaining part of s. peter's patrimony, and absolve him without satisfaction on good-friday, methinks their faltering and inconstancy herein, makes it very apparent. for though for the most part, they speak nothing but thunder and lightning to us, & damn us all without mercy or exception, yet sometimes to serve other purposes, they can be content to speak to us in a milder strain, & tell us, as my adversary does, more than once, that they allow protestants as much charity as protestants allow them. neither is this the only contradiction which i have discovered in this uncharitable work; but have showed that by forgetting himself, & retracting most of the principal grounds he builds upon, he hath saved me the labour of a confutation: which yet i have not in any place found any such labour or difficulty, but that it was undertakable by a man of very mean, that is, of my abilities. and the reason is, because it is truth i plead for; which is so strong an argument for itself, that it needs only light to discover it: whereas it concerns falsehood & error to use disguises and shadowings and all the fetches of art and sophistry, & therefore it stands in need of abler men, to give that a colour at least, which hath no real body to subsist by. if my endeavours in this kind may contribute any thing to this discovery, and the making plain that truth (which my charity persuades me the most part of them disaffect only, because it has not been well represented to them,) i have the fruit of my labour, and my wish; who desire to live to no other end, then to do service to god's church and your most sacred majesty, in the quality of your majesty's most faithful subject, and most humble and devoted servant william chillingworth. mandetur typis hic liber, cui titulus the religion of protestants a safe way to salvation: in quo nihil occurrit à bonis moribus, à doctrinâ & disciplinâ in ecclesiâ anglicanâ assertis, alienum. rich. bailiff vicecan. oxon. perlegi hunc librum, cui titulus est the religion of protestants a safe way to salvation: in quo nihil reperio doctrinae vel disciplinae ecclesiae anglicanae adversum, sed quamplurima quae fidem orthodoxam egregiè illustrant, & adversantia glossemata acutè, perspicuè, & modestè dissipant. io. prideaux s. t. p. regius oxon. ego samuel fell publicus theol. professor in vniu. oxon. & ordinarius praelector d. marg. comitiss. richmondiae, perlegi librum cui titulus est, the religion of protestants a safe way to salvation: in quo nihil reperio doctrinae vel disciplinae ecclesiae anglicanae, aut bonis moribus adversum: sed multa nervosè & modestè eventilata contra adversarios nostrae ecclesiae & veritatis catholicae, quam felicitèr tuetur. dat. 14● octob. an. 1637 samvel fell. the preface to the author of charity maintained. with an answer to his pamphlet entitled a direction to n. n. sir upon the first news of the publication of your book, i used all diligence with speed to procure it; and came with such a mind to the reading of it, as s. austin before he was a settled catholic, brought to his conference with faustus the manichee. for as he though that if any thing more than ordinary might be said in defence of the manichean doctrine, faustus was the man from whom it was to be expected: so my persuasion concerning you was, — si pergama dextrâ defendi possunt, certè has defensa videbo. for i conceived that among the champions of the roman church, the english in reason must be the best, or equal to the best, as being by most expert masters trained up purposely for this war, and perpetually practised in it. among the english, i saw the jesuits would yield the first place to none; and men so wise in their generation as the jesuits were, if they had any achilles among them, i presumed, would make choice of him for this service. and beside, i had good assurance that in the framing of this building, though you were the only architect, yet you wanted not the assistance of many diligent hands to bring you in choice materials towards it; nor of many careful and watchful eyes to correct the errors of your work, if any should chance to escape you. great reason therefore had i to expect great matters from you, and that your book should have in it the spirit and elixir of all that can be said in defence of your church and doctrine; and to assure myself, that if my resolution not to believe it, were not built upon the rock of evident grounds and reasons, but only upon some sandy and deceitful appearances, now the wind and storm & floods were coming which would undoubtedly overthrow it. 2 neither truly were you more willing to effect such an alteration in me than i was to have it effected. for my desire is to go the right way to eternal happiness. but whether this way lie on the right hand or the left, or straight forwards; whether it be by following a living guide, or by seeking my direction in a book, or by harkening to the secret whisper of some private spirit, to me it is indifferent. and he that is otherwise affected, and has not a travellers indifference, which epictetus requires in all that would find the truth, but much desires in respect of his ease, or pleasure, or profit, or advancement, or satisfaction of friends, or any human consideration, that one way should be true rather than another; it is odds but he will take his desire that it should be so, for an assurance that it is so. but i for my part, unlese i deceive myself, was and still am so affected as i have made profession: not willing i confess to take any thing upon trust, and to believe it without ask myself why; no, nor able to command myself (were i never so willing) to follow, like a sheep, every shepherd that should take upon him to guide me; or every flock that should chance to go before me: but most apt and most willing to be led by reason to any way, or from it; and always submitting all other reasons to this one, god hath said so, therefore it is true. nor yet was i so unreasonable as to expect mathematical demonstrations from you in matters plainly incapable of them, such as are to be believed, and if we speak properly, cannot be known; such therefore i expected not. for as he is an unreasonable master, who requires a stronger assent to his conclusions then his arguments deserve; so i conceive him a froward and undisciplined scholar, who desires stronger arguments for a conclusion then the matter will bear. but had you represented to my understanding such reasons of your doctrine, as being weighed in an even balance, held by an even hand, with those on the other side, would have turned the scale, and have made your religion more credible than the contrary; certainly i should have despised the shame of one more alteration, and with both mine arms and all my heart most readily have embraced it. such was my expectation from you, and such my preparation, which i brought with me to the reading of your book. would you know now what the event was, what effect was wrought in me, by the perusal and consideration of it? to deal truly and ingenuously with you, i fell somewhat in my good opinion both of your sufficiency & sincerity: but was exceedingly confirmed in my ill opinion of the cause maintained by you. i found every where snares that might entrap, and colours that might deceive the simple; but nothing that might persuade, and very little that might move an understanding man, and one that can discern between discourse and sophistry. in short, i was verily persuaded that i plainly saw and could make it appear, to all dis-passionate and unprejudicate judges, 〈◊〉 a vein of sophistry and calumny, did run clean through it from 〈◊〉 beginning to the end. and letting some friends understand so much, 〈◊〉 myself to be persuaded by them, that it would not be either unproper for me, nor un-acceptable to god, nor peradventure altogether unserviceable to his church, nor justly offensive to you (if you indeed were a lover of truth, and not a maintainer of a faction,) if setting aside the second part, which was in a manner wholly employed in particular disputes, repetitions and references, and in wranglings with d. potter about the sense of some super-numerary quotations, and whereon the main question no way depends, i would make a fair and ingenuous answer to the first, wherein the substance of the present controversy is confessedly contained; and which, if it were clearly answered, no man would desire any other answer to the second. this therefore i undertook with a full resolution to be an adversary to your errors, but a friend and servant to your person: and so much the more a friend to your person, by how much the severer and more rigid adversary i was to your errors. 4 in this work my conscience bears me witness that i have according to your advice proceeded always with this consideration, that i am to give a most strict account of every line, and word that passeth under my pen; and therefore have been precisely careful for the matter of my book to defend truth only, and only by truth. and then scrupulously fearful of scandalising you or any man with the manner of handling it. from this rule sure i am, i have not willingly swerved in either part of it, and that i might not do it ignorantly, i have not only myself examined mine own work, perhaps with more severity than i have done yours, (as conceiving it a base and unchristian thing to go about to satisfy others with what i myself am not fully satisfied;) but have also made it pass the fiery trial of the exact censures of many understanding judges, always heartily wishing that you yourself had been of the quorum. but they who did undergo this burden as they wanted not sufficiency to discover any heterodoxe doctrine, so i am sure they have been very careful to let nothing slip dissonant from truth or from the authorized doctrine of the church of england, and therefore whatsoever causeless and groundless jealousy, any man may entertain concerning my person, yet my book, i presume, in reason and common equity should be free from them: wherein i hope that little or nothing hath escaped so many eyes, which being weighed in the balance of the sanctuary will be found too light. and in this hope i am much confirmed, by your strange carriage of yourself in this whole business. for though by some crooked and sinister arts, you have got my answer into your hands, now a year since and upwards, as i have been assured by some that know it, and those of your own party; though you could not want every day fair opportunityes of sending to me, and acquainting me with any exceptions, which, you conceived, might be justly taken to it, or any part of it, than which nothing could have been more welcome to me, yet hitherto you have not been pleased to acquaint me with any one. nay more, though you have been at sundry times, and by several ways entreated and solicited, nay pressed and importuned by me, to join with me in a private discussion of the controversy between us, before the publication of my answer, (because i was extremely unwilling to publish any thing which had not passed all manner of trials,) as desiring not that i, or my side, but that truth might overcome on which side soever it was) though i have protested to you, and set it under my hand, (which protestation by gods help i would have made good) if you, or any other would undertake your cause, would give me a fair meeting, and choose out of your whole book any one argument, whereof you were most confident, and by which you would be content the rest should be judged of, and make it appear that i had not, or could not answer it, that i would desist from the work which i had undertaken, and answer none at all; though by all the arts which possibly i could devise, i have provoked you to such a trial, in particular by assuring you that if you refused it, the world should be informed of your tergiversation, notwithstanding all this you have perpetually, and obstinately declined it; which to my understanding is a very evident sign that there is not any truth in your cause, nor (which is impossible there should be strength in your arguments, especially considering what our saviour hath told us, every one that doth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved; but he that doth truth cometh to the light that his deeds may be made manifest that they are wrought in god. 5 in the mean while though you despaired of compassing your desire this honest way, yet you have not omitted to tempt me by base and unworthy considerations to desert the cause which i had undertaken; letting me understand from you, by an acquaintance common to us both, how that in case my work should come to light, my inconstancy in religion (so you miscall my constancy in following that way to heaven which for the present seems to me the most probable,) should be to my great shame painted to the life; that my own writings should be produced against myself; that i should be urged to answer my own motives against protestantisme, and that such things should be published to the world touching my belief, (for my painter i must expect should have great skill in perspective) of the doctrine of the trinity, the deity of our saviour, and all supernatural verities, as should endanger all my benefices present or future: that this warning was given me, not out of fear of what i could say (for that catholics if they might wish any ill would beg the publication of my book, for respects obvious enough,) but out of a mere charitable desire of my good and reputation: and that all this was said upon a supposition that i was answering, or had a mind to answer charity maintained; if not, no harm was done. to which co●●●●us premonition as i remember, i desired the gentleman, who dealt between us to return this answer, or to this effect, that i believed the doctrine of the trinity, the deity of our saviour, and all other supernatural verities revealed in scripture, as truly and as heartily as yourself, or any man: and therefore herein your charity was very much mistaken; but much more and more uncharitably in conceiving me a man that was to be wrought upon with these terribiles visu formae, those carnal and base fears which you presented to me, which were very proper motives for the devil and his instruments to tempt poor spirited men out of the way of conscience and honesty, but very incongruous, either for teachers of truth to make use of, or for lovers of truth (in which company i had been long ago matriculated) to hearken to with any regard. but if you were indeed desirous that i should not answer charity maintained, one way there was, and but one, whereby you might obtain your desire; and that was by letting me know when and where i might attend you, and by a fair conference, to be written down on both sides, convincing mine understanding (who was resolved not to be a recusant if i were convicted,) that any one part of it, any one argument in it, which was of moment and consequence, and whereon the cause depends, was indeed unanswerable. this was the effect of my answer which i am well assured was delivered: but reply from you i received none but this, that you would have no conference with me but in print; and soon after finding me of proof against all these batteries, and thereby (i fear) very much en●aged, you took up the resolution of the furious goddess in the poet, madded with the unsuccessfulness of her malice, flectere si neque● superos acherontamovebo! 6 for certainly those indigne contumelies, that mass of portentous and execrable calumnies, wherewith in your pamphlet of directions to n. n. you have loaded not only my person in particular, but all the learned and moderate divines of the church of england, and all protestants in general, nay all wise men of all religions but your own, could not proceed from any other fountain. 7 to begin with the last, you stick not in the beginning of your first chapter, to fasten the imputation of atheism & irreligion upon all wise and gallant men, that are not of your own religion. in which uncharitable and unchristian judgement, void of all colour or shadow of probability, i know yet by experience that very many of the bigots of your faction are partakers with you. god forbid i should think the like of you! yet if i should say, that in your religion there want not some temptations unto, and some principles of irreligion and atheism, i am sure i could make my assertion much more probable than you have done, or can make this horrible imputation. 8 for to pass by first, that which experience justifies, that where and when your religion hath most absolutely commanded, there and then atheism hath most abounded; to say nothing secondly, of your notorious and confessed forging of so many false miracles, and so many lying legends, which is not unlikely to make suspicious men to question the truth of all; nor to object to you thirdly, the abundance of your weak and silly ceremonies & ridiculous observances in your religion, which in all probability cannot but beget secret contempt and scorn of it in wise and considering men, and consequently atheism and impiety, if they have this persuasion settled in them (which is too rise among you, and which you account a piece of wisdom and gallantry) that if they be not of your religion, they were as good be of none at all; nor to trouble you fourthly with this, that a great part of your doctrine, especially in the points contested, makes apparently for the temporal ends of the teachers of it; which yet i fear is a great scandal to many bea●x esprits among you: only i should desire you to consider attentively when you conclude so often from the differences of protestants, that they have no certainty of any part of their religion, no not of those points wherein they agree, whether you do not that which so magisterially you direct me not to do, that is, proceed a destructive way, and object arguments against your adversaries, which tend to the overthrow of all religion? and whether as you argue thus, protestants differ in many things, therefore they have no certainty of any thing: so an atheist or a sceptic may not conclude as well, christians and the professors of all religions differ in many things, therefore they have no certainty of any thing? again i should desire you to tell me ingenuously, whether it be not too probable that your portentous doctrine of transubstantiation joined with your forementioned persuasion of, no papists no christians, hath brought a great many others as well as himself to averro his resolution, quandoquiden christiani adorant quod comedunt, sit anima mea cum philosophis? whether your requiring men upon only probable and prudential motives, to yield a most certain assent unto things in humane reason impossible, and telling them, as you do too often, that they were as good not believe at all, as believe with any lower degree of faith, be not a likely way to make considering men scorn your religion, (and consequently all, if they know no other) as requiring things contradictory, and impossible to be performed? lastly, whether your pretence that there is no good ground to believe scripture, but your church's infallibility, joined with your pretending no ground for this but some texts of scripture, be not a fair way to make them that understand themselves, believe neither church nor scripture? 9 your calumnies against protestants in general are set down in these words, chap. 2. §. 2. the very doctrine of protestants if it be followed closely, and with coherence to itself, must of necessity induce socinianism. this i say confidently, and evidently prove, by instancing in one error, which may well be termed the capital, and mother heresy, from which all other must follow at ease; i mean, their heresy in affirming, that the perpetual visible church of christ, descended by a never interrupted succession from our saviour, to this day, is not infallible in all that it proposeth to be believed, as revealed truths. for if the infallibility of such a public authority be once impeached; what remains, but that every man is given over to his own wit, and discourse? and talk not here, of holy scripture. for if the true church may err, in defining what scriptures be canonical; or in delivering the sense and meaning thereof, we are still devolved, either upon the private spirit (a foolery now explo●ed out of england, which finally leaving every man to his own conceits, ends in socinianism) or else upon natural wit, and judgement. for examining and determining, what scriptures contain true or false doctrine, and in that respect, aught to be received, or rejected. and indeed, take away the authority of god's church, no man can be assured, that any one book, or parcel of scripture, was written by divine inspiration; or that all the contents, are infallibly true; which are the direct errors of socinians. if it were but for thi● reason alone, no man, who regards the eternal salvation of his soul, would live or dye in protestancy, from which, so vast absurdities as these of the socinians must inevitably follow. and it ought to be an unspeakable comfort to all us catholics, while we consider, that none can deny the infallible authority of our church, but jointly he must be left to his own wit and ways; and must abandon all infused faith, and true religion, if he do but understand himself aright. in all which discourse, the only true word you speak is, this i say confidently: as for proving evidently, that i believe you reserved for some other opportunity: for the present i am sure you have been very sparing of it. 10 you say indeed confidently enough, that the denial of the church's infallibility is the mother heresy, from which all other must follow at ease: which is so far from being a necessary truth, as you make it, that it is indeed a manifest falsehood. neither is it possible for the wit of man by any good, or so much as probable consequence, from the denial of the church's infallibility to deduce any one of the ancient heresies, or any one error of the socinians, which are the heresies here entreated of. for who would not laugh at him that should argue thus; neither the church of rome, nor any other church is infallible, go, the doctrine of arrius, pelagius, eutyches, nestorius, photinus, manichaeus was true doctrine? on the other side, it may be truly said and justified by very good and effectual reason, that he that affirms with you, the pope's infallibility, puts himself into his hands and power to be led by him at his ease and pleasure into all heresy, and even to hell itself, and cannot with reason say (so long as he is constant to his grounds) domine cur ita facis? but must believe white to be black and black to be white, virtue to be vice and vice to be virtue; nay (which is a horrible but a most certain truth) christ to be antichrist and antichrist to be christ, if it be possible for the pope to say so: which i say and will maintain, howsoever you daub and disguise it, is indeed to make men apostate from christ to his pretended vicar, but real enemy. for that name and no better (if we may speak truth without offence) i presume he deserves, who under pretence of interpreting the law of christ, (which authority without any word of express warrant he hath taken upon himself,) doth in many parts evacuate and dissolve it: so dethroning christ from his dominion over men's consciences, and in stead of christ, setting up himself. in as much as he that requires that his interpretations of any law should be obeyed as true and genuine, seem they to men's understandings never so dissonant and discordant from it, (as the bishop of rome does) requires indeed that his interpretations should be the laws; and he that is firmly prepared in mind to believe and receive all such interpretations without judging of them, and though to his private judgement they seem unreasonable, is indeed congruously disposed to hold adultery a venial sin, and fornication no sin, whensoever the pope and his adherents shall so declare. and whatsoever he may plead, yet either wittingly or ignorantly he makes the law and the lawmaker both stales, and obeys only the interpreter. as if i should pretend that i should submit to the laws of the king of england, but should indeed resolve to obey them in that sense which the king of france should put upon them what soever it were; i presume every understanding man would say that i did indeed obey the king of france and not the king of england. if i should pretend to believe the bible, but that i would understand it according to the sense which the chief mufty should put upon it, who would not say that i were a christian in pretence only, but indeed a mahometan? 11 nor will it be to purpose for you to pretend that the precepts of christ are so plain that it cannot be feared, that any pope should ever go about to dissolve them and pretend to be a christian: for, not to say that you now pretend the contrary, (to wit), that the law of christ is obscure even in things necessary to be believed and done; and by saying so, have made a fair way for any fowle● interpretation of any part of it: certainly that which the church of rome hath already done in this kind is an evident argument, that (if she once had this power unquestioned and made expedite and ready for use, by being contracted to the pope) she may do what she pleaseth with it. who that had lived in the primitive church, would not have thought it as utterly improbable, that ever they should have brought in the worship of images and picturing of god, as now it is that they should legitimate fornication? why may we not think they may in time take away the whole communion from the laity, as well as they have taken away half of it? why may we not think that any text and any sense may not be accorded, aswell as the whole 14. ch. of the ep. of s. paul to the corinth. is reconciled to the latin service? how is it possible any thing should be plainer forbidden, than the worship of angels, in the ep. to the colossians? then the teaching for doctrines men's commands in the gospel of s. mark? and therefore seeing we see these things done which hardly any man would have believed, that had not seen them, why should we not fear that this unlimited power may not be used hereafter with as little moderation? seeing devices have been invented how men may worship images without idolatry, and kill innocent men under pretence of heresy without murder, who knows not that some tricks may not be hereafter devised, by which lying with other men's wives shall be no adultery, taking away other men's goods no theft? i conclude therefore, that if solomon himself were here, and were to determine the difference, which is more likely to be mother of all heresy, the denial of the church's or the affirming of the pope's infallibility, that he would certainly say this is the mother, give her the child. 12 you say again confidently, that if this infallibility be once impeached, every man is given ●ver to his own wit and discourse: which, if you mean, discourse, not guiding itself by scripture, but only by principles of nature, or perhaps by prejudices and popular errors, and drawing consequences not by rule but chance, is by no means true; if you mean by discourse, right reason, grounded on divine revelation and common notions, written by god in the hearts of all men, and deducing, according to the never failing rules of logic, consequent deductions from them, if this be it, which you mean by discourse, it is very meet & reasonable & necessary that men, as in all their actions, so especially in that of greatest importance, the choice of their way to happiness, should be left unto it: and he that follows this in all his opinions and actions, and does not only seem to do so, follows always god; whereas he that followeth a company of men, may oftimes follow a company of beasts. and in saying this, i say no more then s. john to all christians in these words, dear beloved believe not every spirit, but try the spirits, whether they be of god, or no: and the rule he gives them to make this trial by, is to consider whether they confess jesus to be the christ; that is, the guide of their faith, and lord of their actions; no● whether they acknowledge the pope to be his vicar: i say no more then s. paul in exhorting all christians, to try all things and to hold fast that which is good; then s. peter in commanding all christians, to be ready to give a reason of the hope that is in them: then our saviour himself in forewarning all his followers, that if they blindly followed blind guides, both leaders and followers should fall into the ditch; and again in saying even to the people, yea & why of yourselves judge ye not what is right? and though by passion, or precipitation, or prejudice; by want of reason, or not using that they have, men may be and are oftentimes led into error and mischief; yet that they cannot be misguided by discourse truly so called, such as i have described, you yourself have given them security. for what is discourse, but drawing conclusions out of premises by good consequence? now the principles which we have settled, to wit, the scriptures, are on all sides agreed to be infallibly true. and you have told us in the fourth chap. of this pamphlet, that from truth no man can by good consequence infer falsehood; therefore by discourse no man can possibly be led to error: but if he err in his conclusions, he must of necessity either err in his principles, (which here cannot have place,) or commit some error in his discourse; that is indeed, not discourse but seem to do so. 13 you say thirdly with sufficient confidence, that if the true church may err in defining what scriptures be canonical, or in delivering the sense thereof, than we must follow either the private spirit, or else natural wit and judgement, and by them examine what scriptures contain true or false doctrine, and in that respect ought to be received or rejected: all which is apparently untrue, neither can any proof of it be pretended. for though the present church may possibly err in her judgement touching this matter, yet have we other directions in it, besides the private spirit, and the examination of the contents, (which latter way may conclude the negative very strongly, to wit, that such or such a book cannot come from god, because it contains irreconcilable contradictions, but the affirmative it cannot conclude, because the contents of a book may be all true, and yet the book not written by divine inspiration:) other direction therefore i say we have, besides either of these three, & that is, the testimony of the primitive christians. 14 you say fourthly with convenient boldness, that this infallible authority of your church being denied, no man can be assured, that any parcel of scripture was written by divine inspiration: which is an untruth, for which no proof is pretended, and beside, void of modesty and full of impiety. the first, because the experience of innumerable christians is against it, who are sufficiently assured, that the scripture is divinely inspired, and yet deny the infallible authority of your church or any other. the second, because if● i cannot have ground to be assured of the divine authority of scripture, unless i first believe your church infallible, than i can have no ground at all to believe it: because there is no ground, nor can any be pretended why i should believe your church infallible, unless i first believe the scripture divine. 15 fiftly and lastly, you say with confidence in abundance, that none can deny the infallible authority of your church, but he must abandon all infused faith and true religion, if he do but understand himself: which is to say, agreeable to what you had said before, and what out of the abundance of your hearts you speak very often, that all christians besides you, are open fools, or concealed atheists. all this you say with notable confidence (as the manner of sophisters is, to place their confidence of prevailing in their confident manner of speaking,) but then for the evidence you promised to maintain this confidence, that is quite vanished and become invisible. 16 had i a mind to recriminate now, and to charge papists (as you do protestants) that they lead men to socinianism, i could certainly make a much fairer show of evidence than you have done. for i would not tell you, you deny the infallibility of the church of england, ergo you lead to socinianism, which yet is altogether as good an argument as this; protestants deny the infallibility of the roman church, ergo they induce socinianism: nor would i resume my former argument, and urge you, that by holding the pope's infallibility, you submit yourself to that capital and mother heresy, by advantage whereof, he may lead you at ease to believe virtue vice, and vice virtue, to believe antichristianity christianisme, and christianity antichristian; he may lead you to socinianism, to turkism, nay to the devil himself if he have a mind to it: but i would show you that diverse ways the doctors of your church do the principal and proper work of the socinians for the, undermining the doctrine of the trinity, by denying it to be supported by those pillars of the faith, which alone are fit and able to support it, i mean scripture, and the consent of the ancient doctors. 17 for scripture, your men deny very plainly and frequently, that this doctrine can be proved by it. see if you please this plainly taught, and urged very earnestly by cardinal hosius, de author. sac. scrip. l. 3. p. 53. by gordonius huntlaeus, contr. tom. 1. controu. 1. de verbo dei c. 19 by gretserus and tanerus, in colloquio ratesbon: and also by vega, possevin, wiekus, and others. 18 and then for the consent of the ancients, that that also delivers it not, by whom are we taught but by papists only? who is it that makes known to all the world, that eusebius that great searcher and devourer of the christian libraries was an arrian? is it not your great achilles, cardinal perron, in his 3. book 2. chap. of his reply to k. james? who is it that informs us that origen (who never was questioned for any error in this matter, in or near his time) denied the divinity of the son and the holy ghost? is it not the same great cardinal, in his book of the eucharist against m. du plessis. l. 2. c. 7? who is it that pretends that irenaeus hath said those things, which he that should now hold, would be esteemed an arrian? is it not the same perron in his reply to k. james, in the fifth chap. of his fourth observation? and does he not in the same place peach tertullian also, & in a manner give him away to the arrians? and pronounce generally of the fathers before the council of nice, that the arrians would gladly be tried by them? and are not your fellow jesuits also, even the prime men of your order, prevaricators in this point as well as others? doth not your friend m. fisher, or m. flued in his book of the nine questions proposed to him by k. james speak dangerously to the same purpose, in his discourse of the resolution of faith, towards the end? giving us to understand, that the new reformed arrians bring very many testimonies of the ancient fathers to prove that in this point they did contradict themselves and were contrary one to another: which places whosoever shall read will clearly see, that to common people they are unanswerable, yea that common people are not capable of the answers that learned men yield unto such obscure passages. and hath not your great antiquary petavius, in his notes upon epiphanius in haer. 69. been very liberal to the adversaries of the doctrine of the trinity, and in a manner given them for patrons and advocates, first justin martyr, and then almost all the fathers before the council of nice, whose speeches he says, touching this point, cum orthodoxae fidei regula minime consentiunt? hereunto i might add that the dominicans and jesuits between them in another matter of great importance, viz. god's prescience of future contingents, give the socinians the premises, out of which their conclusion doth unavoidably follow. for the domini●ans maintain on the one side, that god can foresee nothing but what he decrees: the jesuits on the other side, that he doth not decree all things: and from hence the socinians conclude (as it is obvious for them to do) that he doth not foresee all things. lastly, i might adjoin this, that you agree with one consent, and settle for a rule unquestionable, that no part of religion can be repugnant to reason, whereunto you in particular subscribe unawares in saying, from truth no man can by good consequence infer falsehood, which is to say in effect, that reason can never lead any man to error: and after you have done so, you proclaim to all the world (as you in this pamphlet do very frequently,) that if men follow their reason and discourse, they will (if they understand themselves) be led to socinianism. and thus you see with what probable matter i might furnish out and justify my accusation, if i should charge you with leading men to socinianism! yet i do not conceive that i have ground enough for this odious imputation. and much less should you have charged protestants with it, whom you confess to abhor and detest it: and who fight against it not with the broken reeds, and out of the paper fortresses of an imaginary infallibility, which were only to make sport for their adversaries; but with the sword of the spirit, the word of god: of which we may say most truly, what david said of goliah's sword, offered him by abilech, non est sicut iste, there is none comparable to it. 19 thus protestants in general, i hope, are sufficiently vindicated from your calumny: i proceed now to do the same service for the divines of england; whom you question first in point of learning and sufficiency, and then in point of conscience and honesty, as prevaricating in the religion which they profess, and inclining to popery. their learning (you say) consists only in some superficial talon of preaching, languages, and elocution, and not in any deep knowledge of philosophy, especially of metaphysics, and much less of that most solid, profitable, subtle, & (o ren ridiculam cato & jocosam!) succinct method of school-divinity. wherein you have discovered in yourself the true genius and spirit of detraction. for taking advantage from that wherein envy itself cannot deny but they are very eminent, and which requires great sufficiency of substantial learning, you disparage them as insufficient in all things else. as if forsooth, because they dispute not eternally, vtrun chimaera bombinans in vacuo, possit comedere, secundas intentiones? whether a million of angels may not sit upon a needle's point? becuase they fill not their brains with notions that signify nothing, to the utter extermination of all reason and common sense, and spend not an age in weaving and un-weaving subtle cobwebs, fitter to catch flies then souls; therefore they have no deep knowledge in the acroamatical part of learning! but i have too much honoured the poorness of this detraction to take notice of it. 20 the other part of your accusation strikes deeper, and is more considerable: and that tells us that, protestantisme waxeth weary of itself; that the professors of it, they especially of greatest worth, learning, and authority, love temper and moderation: and are at this time more unresolved where to fasten, then at the infancy of their church: that their churches begin to look with a new face: their w●lls to speak a new language: their doctrine to be altered in many things for which their progenitors forsook the then visible church of christ: for example, the pope not antichrist: prayer for the dead: limbus patrum: pictures: that the church hath authority in determining controversies of faith, and to interpret scripture; about freewill, predestination, universal grace: that all our works are not sins: merit of good works: inherent justice: faith alone doth not justify: charity to be preferred before knowledge: traditions: commandments possible to be kept: that their thirty nine articles are patient, nay ambitious of some sense wherein they may seem catholic: that to allege the necessity of wife and children in these days is but a weak plea for a married minister to compass a benefice: that calvinisme is at length accounted heresy, and little less than treason: that men in talk and writing use willingly the once fearful names of priests and altars: that they are now put in mind that for exposition of scripture they are by canon bound to follow the fathers: which if they do with sincerity, it is easy to tell what doom will pass against protestants; seeing by the confession of protestants, the fathers are on the papists side, which the answerer to some so clearly demonstrated, that they remained convinced: in fine, as the samaritans saw in the disciples countenances that they meant to go to jerusalem, so you pretend it is even legible in the foreheads of these men, that they are even going, nay making haste to rome. which scurrilous libel void of all truth, discretion and honesty, what effect it may have wrought, what credit it may have gained with credulous papists, (who dream what they desire, and believe their own dreams,) or with ill-affected, jealous, and weak protestants, i can not tell: but one thing i dare boldly say, that you yourself did never believe it. 21 for did you indeed conceive, or had any probable hope, that such men as you describe, men of worth of learning and authority too, were friends and favourers of your religion, & inclinable to your party, can any man imagine that you would proclaim it, and bid the world take heed of them? sic notus ulysses? do we know the lesuites no better than so? what are they turned prevaricators against their own faction? are they likely men to betray and expose their own agents and instruments, and to awaken the eyes of jealousy, and to raise the clamour of the people against them? certainly your zeal to the sea of rome, testified by your fourth vow of special obedience to the pope, proper to your order, and your cunning carriage of all affairs for the greater advantage and advancement of that sea, are clear demonstrations that if you had thought thus, you would never have said so. the truth is, they that run to extremes in opposition against you, they that pull down your infallibility and set up their own, they that declaim against your tyranny, and exercise it themselves over otheres, are the adversaries that give you greatest advantage, and such as you love to deal with: whereas upon men of temper & moderation, such as will oppose nothing because you maintain it, but will draw as near to you, that they may draw you to them, as the truth will suffer them: such as require of christians to believe only in christ, and will damn no man nor doctrine without express and certain warrant from god's word: upon such as these you know not how to fasten; but if you chance to have conference with any such, (which yet as much as possibly you can you avoid and decline,) you are very speedily put to silence, and see the indefensible weakness of your cause laid open to all men. and this i verily believe, is the true reason that you thus rave and rage against them, as foreseeing your time of prevailing, or even of subsisting, would be short, if other adversaries gave you no more advantage than they do. 22 in which persuasion also i am much confirmed by consideration of the silliness and poorness of those suggestions, and partly of the apparent vanity and falsehood of them, which you offer in justification of this wicked calumny. for what if out of devotion towards god; out of a desire that he should be worshipped as in spirit and truth in the first place, so also in the beauty of holiness? what if out of fear that too much simplicity and nakedness in the public service of god may beget in the ordinary sort of men a dull and stupid irreverence, and out of hope that the outward state and glory of it, being well disposed and wisely moderated, may engender, quicken, increase and nourish the inward reverence respect and devotion which is due unto god's sovereign majesty and power? what if out of a persuasion and desire that papists may be won over to us the sooner, by the removing of this scandal out of their way; and out of an holy jealousy, that the weaker sort of protestants might be the easier seduced to them by the magnificence and pomp of their church-service in case it were not removed? i say, what if out of these considerations, the governors of our church, more of late then formerly, have set themselves to adorn and beautify the places where god's honour dwells, and to make them as heavenly as they can with earthly ornaments? is this a sign that they are warping towards popery? is this devotion in the church of england an argument that she is coming over to the church of rome? sir edwin sands, i presume every man will grant, had no inclination that way; yet he forty years since highly commended this part of devotion in papists, and makes no scruple of proposing it to the imitation of protestants: little thinking that they who would follow his counsel, and endeavour to take away this disparagement of protestants, and this glorying of papists, should have been censured for it as making way and inclining to popery. his words to this purpose are excellent words, and because they show plainly, that what is now practised was approved by zealous protestants so long ago, survey of religion. init. i will here set them down. 23 this one thing i cannot but highly commend in that sort and order: they spare nothing which either cost can perform in enriching, or skill in adorning the temple of god, or to set out his service with the greatest pomp and magnificence that can be devised. and although, for the most part, much baseness and childishness is predominant in the masters and contrivers of their ceremonies, yet this outward state and glory being well disposed, doth engender, quicken, increase, and nourish the inward reverence, respect and devotion, which is due unto sovereign majesty and power. and although i am not ignorant that many men well reputed have embraced the thrifty opinion of that disciple who thought all to be wasted that was bestowed upon christ in that sort, and that it were much better bestowed upon him on the poor, (yet with an eye perhaps that themselves would be his quarter almoners,) notwithstanding i must confess, it will never sink into my heart, that in proportion of reason, the allowance for furnishing out of the service of god should be measured by the scant and strict rule of mere necessity, (a proportion so low that nature to other most bountiful in matter of necessity, hath not failed no not the most ignoble creatures of the world,) and that for ourselves no measure of heaping but the most we can get, no rule of expense but to the utmost pomp we list: or that god himself had so enriched the lower parts of the world with such wonderful varieties of beauty and glory, that they might serve only to the pampering of mortal man in his pride; and that in the service of the high creator lord and giver (the outward glory of whose higher palace may appear by the very lamps that we see so far of burning gloriously in it) only the simpler, base, cheaper, less noble, less beautiful, less glorious things should be employed. especially seeing as in prince's courts, so in the service of god also, this outward state and glory, being well disposed, doth (as i have said) engender, quicken, increase and nourish the inward reverence, respect and devotion, which is due to so sovereign majesty and power. which those whom the use there of cannot persuade unto, would easily by the want of it be brought to confess; for which cause i crave leave to be excused by them herein, if in zeal to the common lord of all, i choose rather to commend the virtue of an enemy then to flatter the vice and imbecility of a friend. and so much for this matter. 24 again, what if the names of priests and altars so frequent in the ancient fathers, though not in the now popish sense, be now resumed and more commonly used in england then of late times they were: that so the colourable argument of their conformity, which is but nominal, with the ancient church, and our inconformity, which the governors of the church would not have so much as nominal, may be taken away from them▪ and the church of england may be put in a state, in this regard more justifiable against the roman then formerly it was, being hereby enabled to say to papists (whensoever these names are objected,) we also use the names of priests and altars, and yet believe neither the corporal presence, nor any proper and propitiatory sacrifice? 25 what if protestants be now put in mind, that for exposition of scripture, they are bound by a canon to follow the ancient fathers: which whosoever doth with sincerity, it is utterly impossible he should be a papist? and it is most falsely said by you, that you know that to some protestants, i clearly demonstrated, or ever so much as undertook, or went about to demonstrate the contrary. what if the centurists be censured somewhat roundly by a protestant divine for affrming, that the keeping of the lords day was a thing indifferent for two hundred years? is there in all this or any part of it any kind of proof of this scandalous calumny? certainly if you can make no better arguments than these, and have so little judgement as to think these any, you have great reason to decline conferences, and signior con to prohibit you from writing books any more. 26 as for the points of doctrine wherein you pretend that these divines begin of late to falter, and to comply with the church of rome, upon a due examination of particulars it will presently appear, first, that part of them always have been, and now are held constantly one way by them; as the authority of the church in determining controversies of faith, though not the infallibility of it: that there is inherent justice, though so imperfect that it cannot justify: that there are traditions, though none necessary: that charity is to be preferred before knowledge: that good works are not properly meritorious and lastly, that faith alone justifies, though that faith justifies not which is alone. and secondly, for the remainder that they, every one of them, have been anciently without breach of charity disputed among protestants, such for example were the questions about the pope's being the antichrist, the lawfulness of some kind of prayers for the dead, the estate of the father's souls, before christ's ascension; freewill, predestination, universal grace: the possibility of keeping gods commandments. the use of pictures in the church: wherein that there hath been anciently diversity of opinion amongst protestants, it is justified to my hand by a witness, with you, beyond exception, even your great friend m. brerely, whose care, exactness and fidelity (you say in your preface) is so extraordinary great. consult him therefore: tract. 3. sect. 7. of his apology: and in the 9 10. 11. 14. 24. 26. 27. 37. subdivisions of that section, you shall see as in a mirror, yourself proved an egregious calumniator, for charging protestants with innovation and inclining to popery, under pretence forsooth, that their doctrine begins of late to be altered in these points. whereas, m. brerely will inform you, they have been anciently, and even from the beginning of the reformation, controverted amongst them, though perhaps the stream and current of their doctors run one way, and only some brook or rivulet of them the other. 27 and thus my friends, i suppose are clearly vindicated, from your scandals and calumnies: it remains now that in the last place i bring myself fairly off from your foul aspersions, that so my person may not be (as indeed howsoever it should not be) any disadvantage or disparagement to the cause, nor any scandal to weak christians. 28 your injuries then to me (no way deserved by me, but by differing in opinion from you, wherein yet you surely differ from me as much as i from you,) are especially three. for first upon hearsay, & refusing to give me opportunity of begetting in you a better understanding of me, you charge me with a great number of false and impious doctrines, which i will not name in particular, because i will not assist you so far in the spreading of my own undeserved defamation: but whosoever teaches or holds them let him be anathema! the sum of them all cast up by yourself, in your first chap. is this, nothing ought or can be certainly believed, farther than it may be proved by evidence of natural reason: (where i conceive natural reason is opposed to supernatural revelation) and whosoever holds so let him be anathema! and moreover to clear myself once for all, from all imputations of this nature, which charge me injuriously with denial of supernatural verities, i profess sincerely, that i believe all those books of scripture, which the church of england accounts canonical, to be the infallible word of god: i believe all things evidently contained in them; all things evidently, or even probably deducible from them: i acknowledge all that to be heresy, which by the act of parliament primo of q. eliz. is declared to be so, & only to be so: and though in such points which may he held diversely of diverse men saluâ fidei compage. i would not take any man's liberty from him, and humbly beseech all men, that they would not take mine from me! yet thus much i can say (which i hope will satisfy any man of reason,) that whatsoever hath been held necessary to salvation, either by the catholic church of all ages, or by the consent of fathers, measured by vincentius lyrinensis his rule, or is held necessary either by the catholic church of this age, or by the consent of protestants, or even by the church of england, that, against the socinians, and all others whatsoever, i do verily believe and embrace. 29 another great and manifest injury you have done me, in charging me to have forsaken your religion, because it condused not to my temporal ends, and suited not with my desires and designs: which certainly is a horrible crime, & whereof if you could convince me, by just and strong presumptions, i should then acknowledge myself to deserve that opinion, which you would fain induce your credents unto, that i changed not your religion for any other but for none at all. but of this great fault my conscience acquits me, and god, who only knows the hearts of all men, knows that i am innocent? neither doubt i but all they who know me, and amongst them many persons of place and quality, will say they have reason in this matter to be my compurgators. and for you, though you are very affirmative in your accusation, yet you neither do, nor can produce any proof or presumption for it, but forgetting yourself, (as it is gods will oftimes that slanderers should do) have let fall some passages which being well weighed, will make considering men apt to believe, that you did not believe yourself. for how is it possible, you should believe that i deserted your religion for ends, & against the light of my conscience, out of a desire of preferment, and yet out of scruple of conscience, should refuse (which also you impute to me,) to subscribe the 39 articles, that is, refuse to enter at the only common door, which here in england leads to preferment? again how incredible is it that you should believe, that i forsook the profession of your religion, as not suiting with my desires and designs, which yet reconciles the enjoying of the pleasures and profits of sin here, with the hope of happiness hereafter, and proposes as great hope of great temporal advancements to the capable servants of it, as any, nay more than any religion in the world; and instead of this should choose socinianism, a doctrine, which howsoever erroneous in explicating the mysteries of religion, and allowing greater liberty of opinion in speculative matters, than any other company of christians doth or they should do, yet certainly which you, i am sure, will pretend and maintain to explicate the laws of christ with more rigour, and less indulgence and condescendence to the desires of flesh and blood then your doctrine doth! and beside, such a doctrine by which no man in his right mind, can hope for any honour or preferment either in this church or state or any other! all which clearly demonstrates that this foul and false aspersion, which you have cast upon me, proceeds from no other fountain, but a heart abounding with the gall and bitterness of uncharitableness, and even blinded with malice towards me, or else from a perverse zeal to your superstition, which secretly suggests this persuasion to you, that for the catholic cause nothing is unlawful, but that you may make use of such indirect and crooked arts as these, to blast my reputation, and to possess men's minds with disaffection to my person, lest otherwise peradventure they might with some indifference hear reason from me. god i hope which bringeth light out of darkness, will turn your counsels to foolishness, and give all good men grace to perceive how weak and ruinous that religion must be, which needs supportance from such tricks and devices! so i call them because they deserve no better name: for what are all these personal matters, which hitherto you have spoke of, to the business in hand? if it could be proved, that cardinal bellarmine was indeed a jew, or that cardinal perron was an atheist, yet i presume you would not accept of this for an answer to all their writings in defence of your religion. let then my actions and intentions and opinions be what they will, yet i hope truth is nevertheless truth, nor reason ever the less reason because i speak it. and therefore the christian reader, knowing that his salvation or damnation depends upon his impartial and sincere judgement of these things, will guard himself i hope from these impostures, and regard not the person but the cause and the reasons of it; not who speaks but what is spoken: which is all the favour i desire of him, as knowing that i am desirous not to persuade him, unless it be truth whereunto i persuade him. 30 the third and la●t part of my accusation was, that i answer ou● of principles which protestant's themselves will profess to detest: which indeed were to the purpose if it could be justified. but, besides that it is confuted by my whole book, and made ridiculous by the approbations premised unto it, it is very easy for me out of your own mouth and words to prove it a most injurious calumny. for what one conclusion is there is the whole fabric of my discourse, that is not naturally deducible out of this one principle, that all things necessary to salvation are evidently contained in scripture? or what one conclusion almost of importance is there in your book, which is not by this one clearly confutable? grant this, and it will presently follow in opposition to your first conclusion, and the argument of your first ch: that amongst men of different opinions, touching the obscure and controverted questions of religion, such as may with probability be disputed on both sides (and such as are the disputes of protestants;) good men and lovers of truth of all sides may be saved; because all necessary things being supposed evident, concerning them, with men so qualified, there will be no difference: there being no more certain sign that a point is not evident, than that honest and understanding and indifferent men, and such as give themselves liberty of judgement, after a mature consideration of the matter differ about it. 31 grant this, and it will appear secondly, that the means whereby the revealed truths of god are conveyed to our understanding, and which are to determine all controversies in faith, necessary to be determined, may be, for any thing you have said to the contrary, not a church but the scripture; which contradicts the doctrine of your second chapter. 32 grant this, and the distinction of points fundamental and not fundamental, will appear very good and pertinent. for those truths will be fundamental, which, are evidently delivered in scripture and commanded to be preached to all men; those not fundamental which are obscure. and nothing will hinder but that the catholic church may err in the latter kind of the said points: because truths not necessary to the salvation, cannot be necessary to the being of a church; and because it is not absolutely necessary that god should assist his church any farther than to bring her to salvation; neither will there be any necessity at all of any infallible guide, either to consign unwritten traditions, or to declare the obscurities of the faith. not for the former end, because this principle being granted true, nothing unwritten can be necessary to be consigned. nor for the latter, because nothing that is obcsure can be necessary to be understood, or not mistaken. and so the discourse of your whole third chap: will presently vanish. 33 fourthly, for the creed's containing the fundamentals of simple belief, though i see not how it may be deduced from this principle, yet the granting of this plainly renders the whole dispute touching the creed unnecessary. for if all necessary things of all sorts, whether of simple belief or practice be confessed to be clearly contained in scripture, what imports it whether those of one sort be contained in the creed? 34 fiftly let this be granted, and the immediate corollary in opsition to your fifth ch: will be and must be, that, not protestants for rejecting, but the church of rome for imposing upon the faith of christians, doctrines unwritten and unnecessary, and for disturbing the church's peace and dividing unity for such matters, is in a high degree presumptuous and schismatical. 35 grant this sixthly, and it will follow unavoidably that protestants cannot possibly be heretics, seeing they believe all things evidently contained in scripture, which are supposed to be all that is necessary to be believed: and so your sixth chapter is clearly confuted. 36 grant this lastly, and it will be undoubtedly consequent, in contradiction of your seaventh chapter, that no man can show more charity to himself then by continuing a protestant, seeing protestants are suppos ' to believe, and therefore may accordingly practise, at least by their religion are not hindered from practising and performing all things necessary to salvation. 37 so that the position of this one principle, is the direct overthrow of your whole book, and therefore i needed not, nor indeed have i made use of any other. now this principle, which is not only the corner stone or chief pillar, but even the base, and adequate foundation of my answer; and which while it stands firm and unmoveable, cannot but be the supporter of my book and the certain ruin of yours, is so far from being, according to your pretence, detested by all protestants, that all protestants whatsoever, as you may see in their harmony of confessions, unanimously profess and maintain it. and you yourself, c. 6. § 30. plainly confess as much, in saying, the whole edifice of the faith of protestants is settled on these two principles: these particular books are canonical scripture: and the sense and meaning of them is plain and evident at least in all points necessary to salvation. 38 and thus your venom against me is in a manner spent, saving only that there remain two little impertinencies, whereby you would disable me from being a fit advocate for the cause of protestants. the first, because i refuse to subscribe the artic. of the ch. of england: the second because i have set down in writing motives which sometime induced me to forsake protestantisme, and hitherto have not answered them. 39 by the former of which objections it should seem, that either you conceive the 39 articles the common doctrine of all protestants; and if they be, why have you so often upbraided them with their many and great differences? or else that it is the peculiar defence of the church of england, and not the common cause of all protestants, which is here undertaken by me: which are certainly very gross mistakes. and yet why he who makes scruple of subscribing the truth of one or two propositions may not yet be fit enough to maintain that those who do subscribe them are in a saveable condition, i do not understand. now though i hold not the doctrine of all protestants absoluetly true, (which with reason cannot be required of me while they hold contradictions,) yet i hold it free from all impiety, and from all error destructive of salvation, or in itself damnable: and this i think in reason may sufficiently qualify me, for a maintainer of this assertion, that protestancy destroys not salvation. for the church of england, i am persuaded that the constant doctrine of it is so pure and orthodox, that whosoever believes it and lives according to it, undoubtedly he shall be saved; and that there is no error in it which may necessitate or warrant any man to disturb the peace or renounce the communion of it. this in my opinion is all intended by subscription, and thus much if you conceive me not ready to subscribe, your charity i assure you is much mistaken. 40 your other objection against me is yet more impertinent and frivolous than the former: unless perhaps it be a just exception against a physician, that himself was sometimes in, and recovered himself from that disease which he undertakes to cure; or against a guide in a way, that at first before he had experience himself mistook it, and after, wards, found his error and amended it. that noble writer michael de montai'gne, was surely of a far different mind; for he will hardly allow any physician competent, but only for such diseases as himself had passed through: and a far greater than montai'gne, even he that said, tu conversus confirma fratres, gives us sufficiently to understand that they which have themselves been in such a state as to need conversion, are not thereby made incapable of, but rather engaged and obliged unto, and qualified for this charitable function. 41 neither am i guilty of that strange and preposterous zeal (as you esteem it) which you impute to me; for having been so long careless in removing this scandal against protestants, and answering my own motives, and yet now showing such fervour in writing against others. for neither are they other motives, but the very same for the most part with those which abused me, against which this book which i now publish, is in a manner wholly employed: and beside, though you jesuits take upon you to have such large and universal intelligence of all state affairs and matters of importance, yet i hope such a contemptible matter, as an answer of mine to a little piece of paper, may very probably have been written and escaped your observation. the truth is, i made an answer to them three years since and better, which perhaps might have been published, but for two reasons: one because the motives were never public, until you made them so; the other, because i was loath to proclaim to all the world so much weakness as i showed, in suffering myself to be abused by such silly sophisms; all which proceed upon mistakes and false suppositions, which unadvisedly i took for granted; as when i have set down the motives in order by subsequent answers to them i shall quickly demonstrate, and so make an end. the motives than were these. 1 because perpetual visible profession, which could never be wanting to the religion of christ, nor any part of it, is apparently wanting to protestant religion, so far as concerns the points in contestation. 2 because luther and his followers, separating from the church of rome, separated also from all churches, pure or impure, true or false then being in the world; upon which ground i conclude, that either god's promises did fail of performance, if there were then no church in the world, which held all things necessary, and nothing repugnant to salvation; or else that luther and his sectaries, separating from all churches then in the world, and so from the true, if there were any true, were damnable schismatics. 3 because, if any credit may be given to as creditable records, as any are extant, the doctrine of catholics hath been frequently confirmed; and the opposite doctrine of protestants, confounded with supernatural and divine miracles. 4 because many points of protestant doctrine, are the damned opinions of heretics, condemned by the primitive church. 5 because the prophecies of the old testament, touching the conversion of kings and nations to the true religion of christ, have been accomplished in and by the catholic roman religion, and the professors of it; and not by protestant religion, and the professors of it. 6 because the doctrine of the church of rome is conformable, and the doctrine of protestants contrary, to the doctrine of the fathers of the primitive church, even by the confession of protestants themselves; i mean, those fathers, who lived within the compass of the first 600. years; to whom protestants themselves do very frequently, and very confidently appeal. 7 because the first pretended reformers had neither extraordinary commission from god, nor ordinary mission from the church, to preach protestant doctrine. 8 because luther, to preach against the mass (which contains the most material points now in controversy) was persuaded by reasons suggested to him by the devil himself, disputing with him. so himself professeth in his book de missa privata. that all men might take heed of following him, who professeth himself to follow the devil. 9 because the protestant cause is now, and hath been from the beginning, maintained with gross falsifications, and calumnies; whereof their prime controversy writers, are notoriously, and in high degree guilty. 10 because by denying all humane authority, either of pope, or counsels, or church, to determine controversies of faith, they have abolished all possible means of suppressing heresy, or restoring unity to the church. these are the motives; now my answers to them follow brie●ly and in order. 43 to the first: god hath neither decreed nor foretold, that his true doctrine should the facto be always visibly prfessed, without any mixture of falsehood. to the second: god hath neither decreed nor foretold, that there shall be always a visible company of men free from all error in itself damnable. neither is it always of necessity schismatical to separate from the external communion of a church, though wanting nothing necessary: for if this church supposed to want nothing necessary, require me to profess against my conscience, that i believe some error▪ though never so small and innocent, which i do not believe, and will not allow me her communion but upon this condition, in this case, the church for requiring this condition is schismatical, and not i for separating from the church. to the third: if any credit may be given to records far more creditable than these, the doctrine of protestants, that is the bible hath been confirmed, and the doctrine of papists, which is in many points plainly opposite to it, confounded with supernatural and divine miracles, which for number and glory outshine popish pretended miracles, as much as the sun doth an ignis fatuus, those i mean which were wrought by our saviour christ and his apostles, now this book, by the confession of all sides confirmed by innumerous miracles, foretells me plainly, that in after ages great signs and wonders shall be wrought in confirmation of false doctrine, and that i am not to believe any doctrine which seems to my understanding repugnant to the first, though an angel from heaven should teach it; which were certainly as great a miracle as any that was ever wrought in attestation of any part of the doctrine of the church of rome: but that true doctrine should in all ages have the testimony of miracles, that i am no where taught; so that i have more reason to suspect and be afraid of pretended miracles, as signs of false doctrine, then much to regard them as certain arguments of the truth. besides, setting aside the bible, & the tradition of it, there is as good story for miracles wrought by those who lived and died in opposition to the doctrine of the roman church, (as by s. cyprian, colmannus, columbanus, aidanus and others,) as there is for those that are pretended to be wrought by the members of that church. lastly, it seems to me no strange thing that god in his justice should permit some true miracles to be wrought to delude them, who have forged so many as apparently the professors of the roman doctrine have to abuse the world. to the fourth: all those were not a see this acknowledged by bellar: the script: eccles●in philastri●: by petavius animad in epiph. de inscrip. operis▪ bianca s. austin▪ lib. de haeres. haer. 80▪ heretics which by philastrius, epiphanius, or s. austin were put in the catalogue of heretics. to the fifth: kings and nations have been and may be converted by men of contrary religions. to the sixth: the doctrine of papists, is confessed by papists contrary to the fathers in many points. to the seaventh: the pastors of a church cannot but have authority from it, to preach against the abuses of it whether in doctrine or practice, if there be any in it: neither can any christian want an ordinary commission from god to do a necessary work of charity after a peaceable manner, when there is no body else that can or will do it. in extraordinary cases extraordinary courses are not to be disallowed. if some christian layman should come into a country of infidels, & had ability to persuade them to christianity, who would say he might not use it for want of commission! to the eighth: luther's conference with the devil might be, for aught i know, nothing but a melancholy dream: if it were real, the devil might persuade luther from the mass, hoping by doing so to keep him constant to it: or that others would make his dissuasion from it an argument for it, (as we see papists do) and be afraid of following luther, as confessing himself to have been persuaded by the devil. to the ninth: illiacoes intra muros peccatur & extra. papists are more guilty of this fault then protestants. even this very author in this very pamphlet hath not so many leaves as falsifications and calumnies. to the tenth: let all men believe the scripture and that only, and endeavour to believe it in the true sense, and require no more of others, and they shall find this not only a better, but the only means to suppress heresy, and restore unity. for he that believes the scripture sincerely, and endeavours to believe it in the true sense, cannot possibly be an heretic: and if no more than this were required of any man, to make him capable of the church's communion, than all men so qualified, though they were different in opinion, yet notwithstanding any such difference, must be of necessity one in communion. the preface to the reader. give me leave (good reader) to inform thee by way of preface, of three points. the first concerns d. potter's answer to charity mistaken. the second relates to this reply of mine. and the third contains some premonitions, or prescriptions, in case d. potter, or any in his behalf think fit to rejoin. 2. for the first point concerning d. potter's answer, a general consideration of d. potter's answer. i say in general, reserving particulars to their proper places, that in his whole book he hath not so much as once truly and really fallen upon the point in question, which was, whether both catholics and protestants can be saved in their several professions. and therefore charity mistaken judiciously pressing those particulars, wherein the difficulty doth precisely consist, proves in general, that there is but one true church; that all christians are obliged to hearken to her; that she must be ever visible, and infallible; that to separate one's self from her communion is schism; and to descent from her doctrine is heresy, though it be in points never so few, or never so small in their own nature; and therefore that the distinction of points fundamental, and not fundamental, is wholly vain, as it is applied by protestants. these (i say) and some other general grounds charity mistaken handles, and out of them doth clearly evince, that any least difference in faith cannot stand with salvation on both sides: and therefore since it is apparent, that catholics and protestants disagree in very many points of faith, they both cannot hope to be saved without repentance: and consequently, as we hold, that protestancy unrepented destroys salvation; so must they also believe that we cannot be saved, if they judge their own religion to be true, and ours to be false. and whosoever disguizeth this truth, is an enemy to souls, which he deceives with ungrounded false hopes of salvation, indifferent faiths, and religions. and this, charity mistaken performed exactly, according to that which appears to have been his design, which was not to descend to particular disputes, as d. potter affectedly does, namely, whether or no the roman church be the only true church of christ; and much less whether general counsels be infallible; whether the pope may err in his decrees common to the whole church; whether he be above a general council; whether all points of faith be contained in scripture; whether faith be resolved into the authority of the church, as into his last formal object, and motive; and least of all did he discourse of images, communion under both kinds, public service in an unknown tongue, seven sacraments, sacrifice of the mass, indulgences, and index expurgatorius: all which and diverse other articles d. potter (as i said) draws by violence into his book: and he might as well have brought in pope joan, or antichrist, or the jews who are permitted to live in rome, which are common themes for men that want better matter, as d. potter was forced to fetch in the aforesaid controversies, that so he might dazzle the eyes, and distract the mind of the reader, and hinder him from perceiving that in his whole answer he uttered nothing to the purpose, and point in question: which if he had followed closely, i dare well say, he might have dispatched his whole book in two or three sheets of paper. but the truth is, he was loath to affirm plainly, that generally both catholics and protestants may be saved: and yet seeing it to be most evident that protestants cannot pretend to have any true church before luther, except the roman, and such as agreed with her, and consequently that they cannot hope for salvation▪ if they deny it to us; he thought best to avoid this difficulty by confusion of language, and to fill up his book with points which make nothing to the purpose. wherein he is less excusable, because he must grant, that those very particulars to which he digresseth, are not fundamental errors, though it should be granted that they be errors, which indeed are catholic verities. for since they be not fundamental, not destructive of salvation, what imports it whether we hold them or no, for as much as concerns our possibility to be saved? 3 in one thing only he will perhaps seem to have touched the point in question, to wit, in his distinction of points fundamental, and not fundamental: because some may think, that a difference in points which are not fundamental breaks not the unity of faith, and hinders not the hope of salvation in persons so disagreeing. and yet in this very distinction, he never speaks to the purpose indeed, but only says, that there are some points so fundamental, as that all are obliged to know and believe them explicitly, but never tells us, whether there be any other points of faith, which a man may deny or disbelieve, though they be sufficiently presented to his understanding, as truths revealed, or testified by almighty god; which was the only thing in question. for if it be damnable, as certainly it is, to deny, or disbelieve any one truth witnessed by almighty god, though the thing be not in itself of any great consequence, or moment; and since of two disagreeing in matters of faith, one must necessarily deny some such truth; it clearly follows that amongst men of different faiths, or religions, one only can be saved, though their difference consist of diverse, or but even one point, which is not in his own nature fundamental, as i declare at large in diverse places of my first part. so that it is clear, d. potter even in this his last refuge and distinction, never comes to the point in question, to say nothing that he himself doth quite overthrow it, and plainly contradict his whole design, as i show in the third chapter of my first part. 4 and as for d. potter's manner of handling those very points, which are utterly beside the purpose, it consists only in bringing vulgar mean objections, which have been answered a thousand times, yea, and some of them are clearly answered even in charity mistaken; but he takes no knowledge at all of any such answers, and much less doth he apply himself to confute them. he allegeth also authors with so great corruption and fraud, as i would not have believed, if i had not found it by clear, and frequent experience. in his second edition, he hath indeed left out one or two gross corruptions, amongst many others no less notorious, having as it seems been warned by some friends, that they could not stand with his credit: but even in this his second edition he retracts them not at all, nor declares that he was mistaken in the first, and so his reader of the first edition shall ever be deceived by him, though withal he read the second. for preventing of which inconvenience, i have thought it necessary to take notice of them, and to discover them in my reply. 5. and for conclusion of this point i will only say, that d. potter might well have spared his pains if he had ingeniously acknowledged, where the whole substance, yea and sometime the very words and phrases of his book may be found in far briefer manner, namely, in a sermon of d. ushers preached before our late sovereign lord king james the 20. of june 1624. at wansted, containing a declaration of the universality of the church of christ, and the unity of faith, professed therein, which sermon having been roundly and wittily confuted by a catholic divine, under the name of paulus veridicus, within the compass of about 4. sheets of paper, d. potters answer to charity mistaken was in effect confuted before it appeared. and this may suffice for a general censure of his answer to charity mistaken. 6 for the second, touching my reply: if you wonder at the bulk thereof, compared either with charity mistaken, concerning my reply. or d potters answer, i desire you to consider well of what now i am about to say, and then i hope you will see, that i was cast upon a mere necessity of not being so short, as otherwise might peradventure be desired. charity mistaken is short i grant, and yet very ●ull, and large, for as much as concerned his design, which you see was not to treat of particular controversies in religion, no not so much as to debate, whether or no the roman church be the only true church of christ, which indeed would have required a larger volume, as i have understood there was one then coming forth, if it had not be prevented by the treatise of charity mistaken, which seemed to make the other intended work a little less seasonable at that time. but charity mistaken proves only in general out of some universal principles, well backed and made good by choice & solid authorities, that of two disagreeing in points of faith, one only without repentance can be saved; which aim exacted no great bulk. and as for d. potter's answer, even that also is not so short as it may seem. for if his marginal notes printed in a small letter were transferred into the text, the book would appear to be of some bulk: though indeed it might have been very short, if he had kept himself to the point treated by charity mistaken, as shall be declared anon. but contrarily, because the question debated betwixt charity mistaken and d. potter, is a point of the highest consequence that can be imagined, and in regard that there is not a more pernicious heresy, or rather indeed ground of atheism, than a persuasion that men of different religions may be saved, if otherwise forsooth they lead a kind of civil and moral life: i conceived, that my chief endeavour was not to be employed in answering d potter, but that it was necessary to handle the question itself somewhat at large, and not only to prove in general, that both protestants and catholics cannot be saved; but to show also, that salvation cannot be hoped for out of the catholic roman church; and yet withal, not to omit to answer all the particulars of d. potter's book which may any way import to this end i thought it fit, to divide my reply into two parts; in the formet whereof, the main question is handled by a continued discourse without stepping aside to confute the particulars of d. potter's answer, though yet so, as that even in this first part, i omit not to answer such passages of his, as i find directly in my way, and naturally belong to the points whereof i treat: and in the second part i answer d. potter's treanse, section by section, as they lie in order. i here therefore entreat the reader, that if heartily he desire satisfaction in this so important question, he do not content himself with that which i say to doctor potter in my second part, but that he take the first before him, either all, or at least so much as may serve most to his purpose of being satisfied in those doubts which press him most. for which purpose i have caused a table of the chapters of the first part, together with their titles and arguments, to be prefixed before my reply. 7. this was then a chief reason why i could not be very short. but yet there wanted not also diverse other causes of the same effect. for there are so several kinds of protestants through the difference of tenets which they hold, as that if a man convince but one kind of them, the rest will conceive themselves to be as truly unsatisfied, and even unspoken to, as if nothing had been said therein at all. as for example, some hold a necessity of a perpetual visible church, and some hold no such necessity. some of them hold it necessary to be able to prove it distinct from ours; and others, that their business is dispatched when they have proved ours to have been always visible: for than they will conceive that theirs hath been so: & the like may be truly said of very many other particulars. besides it is d. potter's fashion, (wherein as he is very far from being the first, so i pray god he prove the last of that humour) to touch in a word many trivial old objections, which if they be not all answered, it will, and must serve the turn, to make the more ignorant sort of men believe, and brag, as if some main unanswerable matter had been subtly and purposely omitted; and every body knows that some objection may be very plausibly made in few words, the clear and solid answer whereof will require more leaves of paper the● one. and in particular d. potter doth couch his corruption of authors within the compass of so few lines, and with so great confusedness and fraud, that it requires much time, pains, and paper to open them so distinctly, as that they may appear to every man's eye. it was also necessary to show, what d. potter omits in charity mistaken, and the importance of what is omitted, and sometimes to set down the very words themselves that are omitted, all which could not but add to the quantity of my reply. and as for the quality thereof, i desire thee (good reader) to believe, that whereas nothing is more necessary than books for answering of books: yet i was so ill furnished in this kind, that i was forced to omit the examination of diverse authors cited by d. potter, merely upon necessity; though i did very well perceive by most apparent circumstances, that i must probably have been sure enough to find them plainly misalleadged, and much wronged: and for the few which are examined, there hath not wanted some difficulties to do it. for the times are not for all men alike; and d. potter hath much advantage therein. but truth is truth, and will ever be able to justify itself in the midst of all difficulties which may occur. as for me, when i allege protestant writers as well domestical as foreign, i willingly and thankfully acknowledge myself obliged for diverse of them to the author of the book entitled, the protestants apology for the roman church, who calls himself john brerely, whose care, exactness, and fidelity is so extraordinary great, as that he doth not only cite the books, but the editions also, with the place and time of their printing, yea and often the very page, and line where the words are to be had. and if you happen not to find what he cities, yet suspend your judgement, till you have read the corrections placed at the end of his book; though it be also true, that after all diligence and faithfulness on his behalf, it was not in his power to amend all the faults of the print: in which prints we have difficulty enough for many evident reasons, which must needs occur to any prudent man. 8. and for as much as concerns the manner of my reply, i have procured to do it without all bitterness, or gall of invective words, both for as much as may import either protestants in general, or d. potter's person in particular; unless, for example, he will call it bitterness for me to term a gross impertinency, a sleight, or a corruption, by those very names, without which i do not know how to express the things: and yet therein i can truly affirm that i have studied how to deliver them in the most moderate way, to the end i might give as little offence as possibly i could, without betraying the cause. and if any unfit phrase may peradventure have escaped my pen (as i hope none hath) it was beside, and against my intention, though i must needs profess, that d. potter gives so many and so just occasions of being round with him, as that perhaps some will judge me to have been rather remiss, then moderate. but since in the very title of my reply i profess to maintain charity, i conceive that the excess will be more excusable amongst all kinds of men, if it fall to be in mildness, then if it had appeared in too much zeal. and if d. potter have a mind to charge me with ignorance or any thing of that nature, i can, and will ease him of that labour, by acknowledging in myself as many and more personal defects, than he can heap upon me. rules to be observed if d. potter intent a rejoinder. truth only and sincerity i so much value and profess, as that he shall never be able to prove the contrary in any one lest passage or particle against me. 9 in the third and last place, i have thought fit to express myself thus. if d. potter, or any other resolve to answer my reply▪ i desire that he will observe some things which may tend to his own reputation, the saving of my unnecessary pains, and especially to the greater advantage of truth. i wish then that he would be careful to consider, wherein the point of every difficulty consists, and not impertinently to shoot at rovers, and affectedly mistake one thing for another. as for example, to what purpose (for as much as concerns the question between d. potter and charity mistaken) doth he so often and seriously labour to prove, that faith is not resolved into the authority of the church, as into the formal object and motive thereof? or that all points of faith are contained in scripture? or that the church cannot make new articles of faith? or that the church of rome, as it signifies that particular church or diocese, is not all one with the universal church? or that the pope as a private doctor may err? with many other such points as will easily appear in their proper places. it will also be necessary for him not to put certain doctrines upon us, from which he knows we disclaim as much as himself. 10 i must in like manner entreat him not to recite my reasons and discourses by halves, but to set them down faithfully and entirely, for as much as in very deed concerns the whole substance of the thing in question; because the want sometime of one word, may chance to make void, or lessen the force of the whole argument. and i am the more solicitous about giving this particular caveat, because i find how ill he hath complied with the promise which he made in his preface to the reader, not to omit without answer any one thing of moment in all the discourse of charity mistaken. neither will this course be a cause that his rejoinder grow too large, but it will be occasion of brevity to him, and free me also from the pains of setting down all the words which he omits, and himself of demonstrating that what he omitted was not material. nay i will assure him, that if he keep himself to the point of every difficulty, and not weary the reader, and overcharge his margin, with unnecessary quotations of authors in greek and latin, and sometime also in italian and french, together with proverbs, sentences of poets, and such grammatical stuff, nor affect to cite a multitude of our catholic school divines to no purpose at all; his book will not exceed a competent size, nor will any man in reason be offended with that length which is regulated by necessity. again before he come to set down his answer, or propose his arguments, let him consider very well what may be replied, and whether his own objections may not be retorted against himself, as the reader will perceive to have happened often to his disadvantage in my reply against him. but especially i expect, and truth itself exacts at his hand, that he speak clearly and distinctly, and not seek to walk in darkness, so to delude and deceive his reader, now saying, and then denying, and always speaking with such ambiguity, as that his greatest care may seem to consist in a certain art to find a shift, as his occasions might chance, either now, or hereafter to require, and as he might fall out to be urged by diversity of several arguments. and to the end it may appear, that i deal plainly, as i would have him also do, i desire that he declare himself concerning these points. 11 first, whether our saviour christ have not always had, and be not ever to have a visible true church on earth: and whether the contrary doctrine be not a damnable heresy. 12 secondly, what visible church there was before luther, disagreeing from the roman church, and agreeing with the pretended church of protestants. 13 thirdly, since he will be forced to grant that there can be assigned no visible true church of christ, distinct from the church of rome, and such churches as agreed with her when luther first appeared, whether it do not follow that she hath not erred fundamentally; because every such error destroys the nature and being of the church, and so our saviour christ should have had no visible church on earth. 14 fourthly, if the roman church did not fall into any fundamental error, let him tell us how it can be damnable to live in her communion, or to maintain errors, which are known and confessed, not to be fundamental, to damnable. 15 fiftly, if her errors were not damnable, nor did exclude salvation, how can they be excused from schism, who forsook her communion upon pretence of errors, which were not damnable. 16 sixtly, if d. potter have a mind to say, that her errors are damnable, or fundamental, let him do us so much charity, as to tell us in particular what those fundamental errors be. but he must still remember (and myself must be excused, for repeating it) that if he say the roman church erred fundamentally, he will not be able to show, that christ our lord had any visible church on earth, when luther appeared: and let him tell us how protestants had, or can have any church which was universal, and extended herself to all ages, if once he grant, that the roman church ceased to be the true church of christ; and consequently how they can hope for salvation, if they deny it to us. 17 seaventhly, whether any one error maintained against any one truth, though never so small in itself, yet sufficiently propounded as testified or revealed by almighty god, do not destroy the nature and unity of faith, or at least is not a grievous offence excluding salvation. 18 eightly, if this be so, how can lutherans, calvinists, zuinglions, and all the rest of disagreeing protestants, hope for salvation, since it is manifest that some of them must needs err against some such truth as is testified by almighty god, either fundamental, or at least not fundamental. 19 ninthly, we constantly urge, and require to have a particular catalogue of such points as he calls fundamental▪ a catalogue, i say, in particular, and not only some general definition, or description, wherein protestants may perhaps agree, though we see that they differ when they come to assign what points in particular be fundamental; and yet upon such a particular catalogue much depends: as for example in particular, whether or no a man do not err in some point fundamental or necessary to salvation; and whether or no lutherans, calvinists, and the rest do disagree in fundamentals, which if they do, the same heaven cannot receive them all. 20 tenthly, and lastly, i desire that in answering to these points, ●he would let us know distinctly, what is the doctrine of the protestant english church concerning them, and what he utters only as his own private opinion. 21 these are the questions which for the present i find it fit and necessary for me to ask of d. potter, or any other who will defend his cause, or impugn ours. and it will be in vain to speak vainly, and to tell me, that a fool may ask mere questions in an hour, than a wise man can answer in a year; with such idle proverbs as that. for i ask but such questions as for which he gives occasion in his book, and where he declares not himself but after so ambiguous and confused a manner, as that▪ truth itself can scarce tell how to convince him so, but that with ignorant and ill-judging men he will seem to have somewhat left to say for himself, though papists (as he calls them) and puritan should press him contrary ways at the same time: and these questions concern things also of high importance, as whereupon the knowledge of god's church, and true religion, and consequently sa●●ation of the soul depends. and now because he shall not tax me with being like those men in the gospel, whom our blessed lord and saviour charged with laying heavy burdens upon other men's shoulders, who yet would not touch them with their finger▪ i oblige myself to answer upon any demand of his, both to all these questions, if he find that i have not done it already, and to any other, concerning matter of faith that he shall ask. and i will tell him very plainly, what is catholic doctrine, and what is not, that is, what is defined or what is not defined, and rests but in discussion among divines. 22 and it will be here expected, that he perform these things, as a man who professeth learning should do, not flying from questions which concern things as they are considered in their own nature, to accidental, or rare circumstances of ignorance, incapacity, want of means to be instructed, erroneous conscience, and the like, which being very various and different, cannot be well comprehended under any general rule. but in delivering general doctrines we must consider things as they be ex natura rei, or per. se loquendo (as divines speak) that is, according to their natures, if all circumstances concur proportionable thereunto. as for example some may for a time have invincible ignorance, even of some fundamental article of faith, through want of capacity, instruction, or the like, and so not offend either in such ignorance or error, and yet we must absolutely say, that error in any one fundamental point is damnable, because so it is, if we consider things in themselves, abstracting from accidental circumstances in particular persons: as contrarily if some man judge some act of virtue, or some indifferent action to be a sin, in him it is a sin indeed, by reason of his erroneous conscience; and yet we ought not to say absolutely, that virtuous, or indifferent actions are sins: and in all sciences we must distinguish the general rules from their particular exceptions. and therefore when, for example, he answers to our demand, whether he hold that catholics may be saved, or whether their pretended errors be fundamental and damnable, he is not to change the state of the question, and have recourse to ignorance, and the like, but to answer concerning the errors being considered what they are apt to be in themselves, and as they are neither increased nor diminished, by accidental circumstances. 23 and the like i say of all the other points, to which i once again desire an answer without any of these, or the like ambiguous terms, in some sort, in some sense, in some degree, which may be explicated afterward as strictly or largely as may best serve his turn; but let him tell us roundly and particularly, in what sort, in what sense, in what degree he understands those, & the like obscure mincing phrases. if he proceed solidly after this manner, and not by way of mere words, more like a preacher to a vulgar auditor, then like a learned man with a pen in his hand, thy patience shall be the less abused, and truth will also receive more right. and since we have already laid the grounds of the question, much may be said hereafter in few, words, if (as i said) he keep close to the real point of every difficulty without wand'ring into impertinent disputes, multiplying vulgar and threadbare objections and arguments, or labouring to prove what no man denies, or making a vain ostentation by citing a number of schoolmen, which every ●uny brought up in schools is able to do; and if he cite his authors with such sincerity, as no time need be spent in opening his corruptions, and finally if he set himself a work with this consideration, that we are to give a most strict account to a most just, and unpartial judge, of every period, line, and word that passeth under our pen. for if at the latter day we shall be arraigned for every idle word which is spoken, so much more will that be done for every idle word which is written, as the deliberation wherewith it passeth makes a man guilty of more malice, and as the importance of the matter which is treated of in books concerning true faith and religion, without which no soul can be saved, makes a man's errors more material, than they would be, if question were but of toys. the answer to the preface. to the first, and second. if beginnings be ominous (as they say they are,) d. potter hath cause to look for great store of uningenuous dealing from you; the very first words you speak of him uz. that he hath not so much as once truly and really fallen upon the point in question, being a most unjust and immodest imputation. 2 for first, the point in question, was not, that which you pretend, whether both papists and protestants can be saved in their several professions? but, whether you may without uncharitableness affirm that protestancy unrepented destroys salvation? and that this is the very question is most apparent and unquestionable, both from the title of charity mistaken, and from the arguments of the three first chapters of it, and from the title of your own reply. and therefore if d. potter had joined issue with his adversary only thus far, and not meddling at all with papists, but leaving them to stand or fall to their own master, had proved protestants living and dying so capable of salvation, i cannot see how it could justly be charged upon him, that he had not once truly and really fallen upon the point in question. neither may it be said that your question here and mine, are in effect the same, seeing it is very possible that the true answer to the one might have been affirmative, and to the other negative. for there is no incongruity but it may be true that you and we cannot both be saved: and yet as true, that without uncharitableness you cannot pronounce us damned. for all ungrounded and unwarrantable sentencing mento damnation, is either in a propriety of speech uncharitable, or else (which for my purpose is all one,) it is that which protestants mean, when they say, papists for damning them are uncharitable. and therefore though the author of c. m. had proved as strongly as he hath done weakly, that one heaven could not receive protestants and papists both, yet certainly, it was very hastily and unwarrantably, & therefore uncharitably concluded, that protestants were the part that was to be excluded. as, though jews and christians cannot both be saved, yet a jew cannot justly, and therefore not charitably pronounce a christian damned. 3 but than secondly, to show your dealing with him very injurious; i say he doth speak to this very question very largely, and very effectually; as by confronting his work and charity mist. together, will presently appear. charity m. proves you say in general, that there is but one church. d. potter tells him, his labour is lost in proving the unity of the catholic church, whereof there is no doubt or controversy: & herein i hope you will grant he answers right & to the purpose. c. m. proves (you say) secondly, that all christians are obliged to hearken to the church. d. potter answers, it is true: yet not absolutely in all things, but only when she commands those things which god doth not countermand. and this also i hope is to his purpose, though not to yours. c. m. proves, you say thirdly, that the church must be ever visible and infallible. for her visibility, d. potter denies it not; and as for her infallibility, he grants it in fundamentals but not in superstructures. c. m. proves you say fourthly, that to separate one's self from the church's communion, is schism. d. potter grants it, with this exception, unless there be necessary cause to do so; unless the conditions of her communion be apparently unlawful. c. m. proves, you say lastly, that to descent from her doctrine is heresy, though it be in points never so few, and never so small, and therefore that the distinction of points fundamental and unfundamentall, as it is applied by protestants is wholly vain. this d. potter denies, shows the reasons, brought for it, weak and unconcluding; proves the contrary by reasons unanswerable: and therefore that the distinction of points into fundamental and not fundamental, as it is applied by protestants, is very good. upon these grounds you say, c. m. clearly evinces that any least difference in faith cannot stand with salvation, and therefore seeing catholics and protestants disagree in very many points of faith, they both cannot hope to be saved without repentance, you must mean, without an explicit and particular repentance, and dereliction of their errors; for so c. m. hath declared himself p. 14. where he hath these words, we may safely say that a man who lives in protestancy, and who is so far from repenting it, as that he will not so much as acknowledge it to be a sin, though he be sufficiently informed thereof, etc. from whence it is evident, that in his judgement there can be no repentance of an error, without acknowledging it to be a sin: and to this d. potter justly opposes: that both sides, by the confession of both sides, agree in more points than are simply and indispensably necessary to salvation, and differ only in such as are not precisely necessary: that it is very possible, a man may dye in error, and yet dye with repentance, as for all his sins of ignorance▪ so in that number, for the errors in which he dies: with a repentance though not explicit and particular which is not simply required, yet implicit and general which is sufficient: so that he cannot but hope considering the goodness of god, that the truth's retained on both sides, especially those of the necessity of repentance from dead works and faith in jesus christ, if they be put in practice, may be an antidote against the errors held on either side; to such he means, & says, as being diligent in seeking truth, and desirous to find it, yet miss of it through humane frailty and dye in error. if you will but attentively consider & compare the undertaking of c. m. and d. potter's performance in all these points, i hope you will be so ingenuous as to acknowledge, that you have injured him much in imputing tergiversation to him, and pretending that through his whole book he hath not once truly and really fallen upon the point in question. neither may you or c. m. conclude him from hence (as covertly you do,) an enemy to souls by deceiving them with ungrounded false hopes of salvation; seeing the hope of salvation cannot be ungrounded, which requires and supposes belief and practice of all things absolutely necessary unto salvation, and repentance of those sins and errors which we fall into by humane frailty: nor a friend to indifferency in religions, seeing he gives them only hope of pardon of errors who are desirous, and according to the proportion of their opportunities and abilities industrious to find the truth, or at least truly repentant, that they have not been so. which doctrine is very fit to excite men to a constant and impartial search of truth, and very far from teaching them that it is indifferent what religion they are of, and without all controversy very honourable to the goodness of god, with which how it can consist, not to be satisfied with his servants true endeavours to know his will and do it, without full and exact performance, i leave it to you and all good men to judge. 4 as little justice me thinks you show, in quarrelling with him for descending to the particular disputes here mentioned by you. for to say nothing that many of these questions are immediately and directly pertinent to the business in hand, as the 1. 2. 3. 5. 6. and all of them fall in of themselves into the stream of his discourse, and are not drawn in by him, and beside are touched for the most part, rather than handled; to say nothing of all this, you know right well, if he conclude you erroneous in any one of all these, be it but in the communion in one kind, or the language of your service; the infallibility of your church is evidently overthrown: and this being done, i hope there will be no such necessity of harkening to her in all things: it will be very possible to separate from her communion in some things, without schism, and from her doctrine so far as it is erroneous without heresy: then all that she proposes will not be, eo ipso, fundamental, because she proposes it: and so presently all charity mistaken will vanish into smoke, and clouds and nothing. 5 you say he was loath to affirm plainly, that generally both catholics & protestants may be saved: which yet is manifest he doth affirm plainly, of protestants throughout his book; & of erring papists that have sincerely sought the truth and failed of it, and dye with a general repentance: p. 77. 78. and yet you deceive yourself if you conceive he had any other necessity to do so, but only that he thought it true. for we may and do pretend that before luther there were many true churches, besides the roman, which agreed not with her: in particular, the greek church. so that what you say is evidently true, is indeed evidently false. besides if he had had any necessity to make use of you in this matter, he needed not for this end to say that now in your church salvation may be had; but only that before luther's time it might be: then when your means of knowing the truth were not so great, and when your ignorance might be more invincible, and therefore more excusable. so that you may see if you please, it is not for ends, but for the love of truth, that we are thus charitable to you. 6 neither is it material that these particulars he speaks against, are not fundamental errors; for though they be not destructive of salvation, yet the convincing of them, may be, and is destructive enough of his adversaries assertion: and if you be the man i take you for, you will not deny they are so. for certainly no consequence can be more palpable than this; the church of rome doth err in this or that, therefore it is not infallible. and this perhaps you perceived yourself; & therefore demanded not, since they be not fundamental, what imports it whether we hold them or no, simply: but, for as much as concerns our possibility to be saved. as if we were not bound by the love of god & the love of truth to be zealous in the defence of all truths, that are any way profitable, though not simply necessary to salvation. or as if any good man could satisfy his conscience without being so affected and resolved. our saviour himself having assured us, a mat. 5. 19 that he that shall break one of his least commandments (some whereof you pretend are concerning venial sins, and consequently the keeping of them not necessary to salvation) and shall so teach men, shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven. 7 but than it imports very much, though not for the possibility that you may be saved, yet for the probability that you will be so: because the holding of these errors, though it did not merit, might yet occasion damnation. as the doctrine of indulgences may take away the fear of purgatory, and the doctrine of purgatory the fear of hell; as you well know it does too frequently. so that though a godly man might be saved with these errors, yet by means of them, many are made vicious and so damned. by them i say, though not for them. no godly layman who is verily persuaded that there is neither impiety nor superstition in the use of your latin service, shall be damned, i hope, for being present at it; yet the want of that devotion which the frequent hearing the offices understood, might happily beget in them, the want of that instruction and edification which it might afford them, may very probably hinder the salvation of many which otherwise might have been saved. besides, though the matter of an error may be only something profitable, not necessary, yet the neglect of it may be a damnable sin. as not to regard venial sins is in the doctrine of your schools, mortal. lastly, as venial sins, you say, dispose men to mortal; so the erring from some profitable, though lesser truth, may dispose a man to error in greater matters. as for example: the belief of the pope's infallibility is, i hope, not unpardonably damnable to every one that holds it; yet if it be a falsehood (as most certainly it is) it puts a man into a very congruous disposition to believe antichrist, if he should chance to get into that see. 8 to the third. in his distinctions of points fundamental and not fundamental, he may seem, you say, to have touched the point, but does not so indeed. because though he says there are some points so fundamental, as that all are obliged to believe them explicitly, yet he tells you not, whether a man may disbeleive any other points of faith, which are sufficiently presented to his understanding, as truths revealed by almighty god. touching which matter of sufficient proposal, i beseech you to come out of the clouds, and tell us roundly and plainly, what you mean by points of faith sufficiently propounded to a man's understanding, as truths revealed by god. perhaps you mean such, as the person to whom they are proposed, understands sufficiently to be truths revealed by god. but how then can he possibly choose but believe them? or how is it not an apparent contradiction, that a man should disbelieve what himself understands to be a truth; or any christian what he understands or but believes to be testified by god? dr potter might well think it superfluous to tell you this is damnable; because indeed it is impossible. and yet one may very well think, by your saying, as you do hereafter, that the impiety of heresy consists in calling god's truth in question, that this should be your meaning. or do you esteem all those things sufficiently presented to his understanding as divine truths, which by you, or any other man, or any company of men whatsoever, are declared to him to be so? i hope you will not say so: for this were to oblige a man to believe all the churches, and all the men in the world, whensoever they pretend to propose divine revelations. d. potter, i assure you from him, would never have told you this neither. or do you mean by sufficiently propounded as divine truths, all that your church propounds for such? that you may not neither; for the question between us is this; whether your church's proposition be a sufficient proposition? and therefore to suppose this, is to suppose the question; which you know in reasoning is always a fault. or lastly, do you mean (for i know not else what possibly you can mean,) by sufficiently presented to his understanding as revealed by god; that which all things considered, is so proposed to him, that he might and should and would believe it to be true and revealed by god, were it not for some voluntary and avoidable fault of his own that interposeth itself between his understanding and the truth presented to it? this is the best construction that i can make of your words; and if you speak of truths thus proposed, and rejected, let it be as damnable, as you please, to deny or disbelieve them. but then i cannot but be amazed to hear you say, that d. potter never tells you whether there be any other points of faith, besides those which we are bound to believe explicitly, which a man may deny or disbelieve, though they be sufficiently presented to his understanding as truths revealed or testified by almighty god; seeing the light itself is not more clear than d. potter's declaration of himself for the negative in this question. p. 245. 246. 247. 248. 249. 250. of his book. where he entreats at large of this very argument, beginning his discourse thus. it seems fundamental to the faith, and for the salvation of every member of the church, that he acknowledge and believe all such points of faith, as whereof he may be convinced that they belong to the doctrine of jesus christ. to this conviction he requires three things. clear revelation; sufficient proposition, and capacity & understanding in the hearer. for want of clear revelation, he frees the church before christ & the disciples of christ from any damnable error, though they believed not those things which he that should now deny were no christian. to sufficient proposition, he requires two things. 1. that the points be perspicuously laid open in themselves. 2. so forcibly, as may serve to remove reasonable doubts to the contrary, and to satisfy a teachable mind concerning it, against the principles in which he hath been bred to the contrary. this proposition he says is not limited to the pope or church, but extended to all means whatsoever, by which a man may be convinced in conscience, that the matter proposed is divine revelation; which he professes to be done sufficiently, not only when his conscience doth expressly bear witness to the truth; but when it would do so, if it were not choked, and blinded by some unruly and unmortified lust in the will. the difference being not great between him that is wilfully blind, & him that knowingly gainesaieth the truth. the third thing he requires is capacity and ability to apprehend the proposal, and the reasons of it: the want whereof excuseth fools and madmen, etc. but where there is no such impediment, and the will of god is sufficiently propounded, there (saith he) he that opposeth is convinced of error; and he who is thus convinced is an heretic: and heresy is a work of the flesh which excludeth from salvation, (he means without repentance,) and hence it followeth, that it is fundamental to a christians faith, and necessary for his salvation, that he believe all revealed truths of god, whereof he may be convinced that they are from god. this is the conclusion of dr potters discourse; many passages whereof you take notice of in your subsequent disputations, and make your advantage of them. and therefore i cannot but say again, that it amazeth me to hear you say, that he declines this question and never tells you whether or no there be any other points of faith, which being sufficiently propounded as divine revelations may be denied and disbelieved. he tells you plainly there are none such: and therefore you cannot say, that he tells you not whether there be any such. again, it is almost as strange to me, why you should say, this was the only thing in question, whether a man may deny or disbelieve any point of faith, sufficiently presented to his understanding as a truth revealed by god. for to say that any thing is a thing in question, me thinks at the first hearing of the words, imports, that it is by some affirmed, and denied by others. now you affirm i grant, but what protestant ever denied, that it was a sin to give god the lie? which is the first and most obvious sense of these words. or which of them ever doubted, that to disbelieve is then a fault, when the matter is so proposed to a man, that he might and should, and were it not for his own fault, would believe it? certainly he that questions either of these, justly deserves to have his wits called in question. produce any one protestant that ever did so, and i will give you leave to say it is the only thing in question. but then i must tell you, that your ensuing argument, viz: to deny a truth witnessed by god is damnable, but of two that disagree one must of necessity deny some such truth, therefore one only can be saved; is built upon a ground clean different from this postulate. for though it be always a fault to deny what either i do know, or should know to be testified by god; yet that which by a cleanly conveyance you put in the place hereof, to deny a truth witnessed by god simply, without the circumstance of being known or sufficiently proposed, is so far from being certainly damnable, that it may be many times done without any the least fault at all. as if god should testify something to a man in the indies, i that had no assurance of this testification should not be obliged to believe it. for in such cases the rule of the law has place, idem est non esse & non apparere: not to be at all and not to appear to me, is to me all one. if i had not come and spoken unto you (saith our saviour) you had had no sin? 10 as little necessity is there for that which follows: that of two disagreeing in a matter of faith one must deny some such truth. whether by [such] you understand, testified at all by god; or testified and sufficiently propounded. for it is very possible the matter in controversy may be such a thing wherein god hath not at all declare himself, or not so fully and clearly as to oblige all men to hold one way; and yet be so overvalued by the parties in variance, as to be esteemed a matter of faith, and one of those things of which our saviour says; he that beleiveth not shall be damned. who sees not that it is possible two churches may excommunicate and damn each other for keeping christmas ten days sooner or later; as well as victor excommunicated the churches of asia, for differing from him about easter day? and yet i believe you will confess, that god had not then declared himself about easter; nor hath now about christmas. anciently some good catholic bishops excommunicated and damned others for holding there were antipodes: and in this question i would fain know on which side was the sufficient proposal. the contra-remonstrants differ from the remonstrants about the point of predetermination as a matter of faith: i would know in this thing also, which way god hath declared himself; whether for predetermination or against it. stephen bishop of rome held it as a matter of faith & apostolic tradition, that heretics gave true baptism: others there were, and they as good catholics as he, that held that this was neither matter of faith nor matter of truth. justin martyr and irenaeus held the doctrine of the millenaries as a matter of faith: and though justin martyr deny it, yet you, i hope, will affirm, that some good christians held the contrary. st augustine, i am sure, held the communicating of infants as much apostolic tradition, as the baptising of them: whether the bishop and the church of rome of his time, held so too, or held otherwise, i desire you to determine. but, sure i am, the church of rome at this present holds the contrary. the same s. austin held it no matter of faith that the bishops of rome were judges of appeals from all parts of the church catholic, no not in major causes and major persons: whether the bishop or church of rome did then hold the contrary do you resolve me; but now i am resolved they do so. in all these differences, the point in question is esteemed and proposed by one side at least as a matter of faith, and by the other rejected as not so: and either this is to disagree in matters of faith, or you will have no means to show that we do disagree. now then to show you how weak and sandy the foundation is, on which the whole fabric both of your book and church depends, answer me briefly to this dilemma. either in these oppositions one of the opposite parts erred damnably, and denied god's truth sufficiently propounded, or they did not. if they did, than they which do deny god's truth sufficiently propounded may go to heaven; and than you are rash and uncharitable in excluding us, though we were guilty of this fault. if not, then there is no such necessity, that of two disagreeing about a matter of faith, one should deny god's truth sufficiently propounded. and so the major and minor of your argument, are proved false. yet, though they were as true as gospel, and as evident as mathematical principles, the conclusion (so impertinent is it to the premises) might still be false. for that which naturally issues from these propositions is not. therefore one only can be saved: but, therefore one of them does something that is damnable. but with what logic or what charity you can infer either as the immediate production of the former premises, or as a corollary from this conclusion, therefore one only can be saved, i do not understand; unless you will pretend that this consequence is good, such a one doth something damnable, therefore he shall certainly be damned: which whether it be not to overthrow the article of our faith, which promises remission of sins upon repentance, and consequently to ruin the gospel of christ, i leave it to the pope and the cardinals to determine. for if against this it be alleged, that no man can repent of the sin wherein he dies: this much i have already stopped, by showing that if it be a sin of ignorance, this is no way incongruous. 11 to the fourth. you proceed in slighting and disgracing your adversary, pretending his objections are mean and vulgar, and such as have been answered a thousand times. but if your cause were good, these arts would be needless. for though some of his objections have been often shifted by men * i mean the divines of douai: whose profession we have in your belgic expurgatorius p. 12. in censura bertrami, in these words. seeing in other ancient catholics, we tolerate extenuate & excuse very many errors, and devising some shift often deny them, and put upon them a convenient sense when they are objected to us in disputations and conflicts with our adversaries; we see no reason why bertram may not deserve the same equity. that make a profession of devising shifts and evasions to save themselves and their religion from the pressure of truth, by men that are resolved they will say something, though they can say nothing to purpose; yet i doubt not to make it appear, that neither by others have they been truly and really satisfied; and that the best answer you give them, is to call them mean and vulgar objections. 12 to the fifth. but this pains might have been spared: for the substance of his discourse is in a sermon of d. ushers, and confuted four years ago by paulus veridicus. it seems then the substance of your reply is in paulus veridicus, and so your pains also might well have been spared. but had there been no necessity to help and piece out your confuting his arguments with disgracing his person, (which yet you cannot do) you would have considered, that to them who compare d. potter's book, & the arch-bishops sermon, this aspersion will presently appear a poor detraction, not to be answered but scorned. to say nothing that in d. potter, being to answer a book by express command from royal authority, to leave any thing material unsaid, because it had been said before, especially being spoken at large, and without any relation to the discourse which he was to answer, had been a ridiculous vanity and foul prevarication. 13 to the sixth. in your sixth parag. i let all pass saving only this, that a persuasion that men of different religions (you must mean, or else you speak not to the point, christians of diverse opinions and communions) may be saved, is a most pernicious heresy, and even a ground of atheism. what strange extractions chemistry can make i know not; but sure i am, he that by reason would infer this conclusion, that there is no god; from this ground, that god will save men in different religions, must have a higher strain in logic, than you or i have hitherto made show of. in my apprehension, the other part of the contradiction, that there is a god, should much rather follow from it. and whether contradictions will flow from the same fountain, let the learned judge. perhaps you will say you intended not to deliver here a positive and measured truth, and which you expected to be called to account for; but only a high and tragical expression of your just detestation of the wicked doctrine against which you write. if you mean so, i shall let it pass: only i am to advertise the lesse-wary reader, that passionate expressions, and vehement asseverations are no arguments; unless it be, of the weakness of the cause that is defended by them, or the man that defends it. and to remember you of what boethius says of some such things as these, — nubila mens est haec ubi regnant. for my part i am not now in passion; neither will i speak one word which i think i cannot justify to the full: and i say and will maintain, that to say, that christians of different opinions and communions (such i mean, who hold all those things that are simply necessary to salvation) may 〈◊〉 obtain pardon for the errors wherein they die ignorantly, by a general repentance; is so far from being a ground of atheism, that to say the contrary, is to cross in diameter a main article of our creed, and to overthrow the gospel of christ. 14 to the seaventh and eight. to the two next paragraphes, i have but two words to say. the one is, that i know no protestants that hold it necessary to be able to prove a perpetual visible church distinct from yours. some perhaps undertake to do so, as a matter of courtesy; but i believe you will be much to seek for any one that holds it necessary. for though you say that christ hath promised there shall be a perpetual visible church; yet you yourselves do not pretend that he hath promised there shall be histories and records always extant of the professors of it in all ages: nor that he hath any where enjoined us to read those histories that we may be able to show them. 14 the other is. that breerelie's great exactness, which you magnify so and amplify, is no very certain demonstration of his fidelity. a romance may be told with as much variety of circumstances, as a true story. 16 to the ninth and tenth. your desires that i would in this rejoinder; avoid impertinencies. not impose doctrines upon you which you disclaim: set down the substance of your reasons faithfully and entirely: not weary the reader with unnecessary quotations: object nothing to you which i can answer myself, or which may be returned upon myself: and lastly, (which you repeat again in the end of your preface) speak as clearly and distinctly and univocally as possibly i can, are all very reasonable, and shall be by me most punctually and fully satisfied. only i have reason to complain, that you give us rules only and not good example in keeping them. for in some of these things i shall have frequent occasion to show, that medice curateipsum, may very justly be said unto you; especially for objecting what might very easily have been answered by you, and may be very justly returned upon you. 17 to your ensuing demands, though some of them be very captious and ensnaring; yet i will give you as clear and plain and ingenuous answers as possibly i can. 18 to the eleventh. to the first then, about the perpetuity of the visible church, my answer is: that i believe our saviour, ever since his ascension, hath had in some place or other a visible true church on earth: i mean a company of men, that professed at least so much truth as was absolutely necessary for their salvation. and i believe that there will be somewhere or other such a church to the world's end. but the contrary doctrine i do at no hand believe to be a damnable heresy. 19 to the twelfth. to the second, what visible church there was before luther disagreeing from the roman? i answer, that before luther there were many visible churches in many things disagreeing from the roman: but not that the whole catholic church disagreed from her, because she herself was a part of the whole, though much corrupted. and to undertake to name a catholic church disagreeing from her, is to make her no part of it, which we do not, nor need not pretend. and for men agreeing with protestants in all points, we will then produce them, when you shall either prove it necessary to be done, which you know we absolutely deny; or when you shall produce a perpetual succession of professors, which in all points have agreed with you, and disagreed from you in nothing. but this my promise, to deal plainly with you, i conceive, & so intended it to be very like his, who undertook to drink up the sea, upon condition, that he, to whom the promise was made, should first stop the rivers from running in. for this unreasonable request which you make to us is to yourselves so impossible, that in the very next age after the apostles, you will never be able to name a man, whom you can prove to have agreed with you in all things, nay (if you speak of such, whose works are extant and unquestioned) whom we cannot prove to have disagreed from you in many things. which i am so certain of, that i will venture my credit, and my life upon it. 20 to the thirteenth. to the third, whether, seeing there cannot be assigned any visible true church distinct from the roman, it follows not that she erred not fundamentally. i say in our sense of the word fundamental, it does follow. for if it be true, that there was then no church distinct from the roman, than it must be, either because there was no church at all, which we deny: or because the roman church was the whole church, which we also deny: or because she was a part of the whole, which we grant. and if she were a true part of the church, than she retained those truths which were simply necessary to salvation, and held no errors which were inevitably and unpardonably destructive of it. for this is precisely necessary to constitute any man or any church a member of the church catholic. in our sense therefore of the word fundamental, i hope she erred not fundamentally: but in your sense of the word, i fear she did. that is, she held something to be divine revelation, which was not; something not to be which was. 21 to the fourteenth. to the fourth. how it could be damnable to maintain her errors, if they were not fundamental? i answer. 1. though it were not damnable, yet if it were a fault, it was not to be done. for a venial sin, with you is not damnable; yet you say, it is not to be committed for the procuring any good. non est faciendum malum vel minimum, ut eveniat bonum vel maximum. 2. it is damnable to maintain an error against conscience, though the error in itself, and to him that believes it, be not damnable. nay the profession not only of an error, but even of a truth, if not believed, when you think on it again, i believe you will confess to be a mortal sin; unless you will say, hypocrisy and simulation in religion is not so. 3. though we say the errors of the roman church were not destructive of salvation, but pardonable even to them that died in them, upon a general repentance: yet we deny not but in themselves they were damnable. nay, the very saying they were pardonable, implies they needed pardon, and therefore in themselves were damnable: damnable meritoriously, though not effectually. as a poison may be deadly in itself, and yet not kill him, that together with the poison takes an antidote: or as felony may deserve death and yet not bring it on him that obtains the king's pardon. 22 to the fifteenth. to the fifth. how they can be excused from schism, who forsook her communion upon pretence of errors which were not damnable! i answer. all that we forfake in you, is only the belief, and practice, and profession of your errors. hereupon, you cast us out of your communion. and then with a strange, and contradictious, and ridiculous hypocrisy, complain that we forsake it. as if a man should thrust his friend out of doors, and then be offended at his departure▪ but for us not to forsake the belief of your errors, having discovered them to be errors, was impossible; and therefore to do so could not be damnable, believing them to be errors. not to forsake the practice and profession of them, had been damnable hypocrisy; supposing that (which you vainly run away with, and take for granted) those errors in themselves were not damnable. now to do so, and as matters now stand, not to forsake your communion, is apparently contradictious: seeing the condition of your communion is, that we must profess to believe all your doctrines not only not to be damnable errors (which will not content you,) but also to be certain and necessary and revealed truths. so that to demand why we forsake your communion upon pretence of errors which were not damnable, is in effect to demand why we forsook it upon our forsaking it! for to pretend that there are errors in your church though not damnable, is ipso facto to forsake your communion, and to do that which both in your account, and as you think in god's account, puts him as does so, out of your communion. so that either you must free your church, from requiring the belief of any error whatsoever, damnable and not damnable, or whether you will or no you must free us from schism. for schism there cannot be in leaving your communion, unless we were obliged to continue in it. man cannot be obliged by man, but to what either formally or virtually he is obliged by god, for all just power is from god. god the eternal truth neither can nor will oblige us to believe any the least and the most innocent falsehood to be a divine truth, that is, to err; nor, to profess a known error, which is to lie. so that if you require the belief of any error among the conditions of your communion, our obligation to communicate with you ceaseth, and so the imputation of schism to us, vanisheth into nothing: but lies heavy upon you for making our separation from you just and necessary, by requiring unnecessary and unlawful conditions of your communion. hereafter therefore, i entreat you, let not your demand be, how could we forsake your communion without schism, seeing you erred not damnably? but how we could do so without schism, seeing you erred not at all? which if either you do prove, or we cannot disprove it, we will (i at least will for my part) return to your communion, or subscribe myself schismatic. in the mean time, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 23 yet notwitstanding all your errors we do not renounce your communion totally and absolutely, but only leave communicating with you in the practice and profession of your errors. the trial whereof will be to propose some form of worshipping god, taken wholly out of scripture; and herein if we refuse to join with you, then, and not till then, may you justly say we have utterly and absolutely abandoned your communion. 24 to the sixteenth. your sixth demand i have already satisfied in my answers to the second and the fourth: and in my reply, ad § 2. toward the end. and though you say your repeating must be excused, yet i dare not be so confident, and therefore forbear it. 25 to the seaventeenth. to the seaventh, whether error against any one truth sufficiently propounded as testified by god, destroy not the nature and unity of faith, or at least, is not a grievous offence excluding salvation! i answer, if you suppose, as you seem to do the proposition so sufficient, that the party to whom it is made is convinced that it is from god, so that the denial of it involves also with it the denial of god's veracity; any such error destroys both faith and salvation. but if the proposal be only so sufficient, not, that the party to whom it is made is convinced, but only that he should, and but for his own fault would have been convinced of the divine verity of the doctrine proposed: the crime than is not so great, for the belief of god's veracity may well consist with such an error. yet a fault i confess it is (and without repentance) damnable, if all circumstances considered the proposal be sufficient. but then i must tell you that the proposal of the present roman church is only pretended to be sufficient for this purpose, but is not so: especially all the rays of the divinity, which they pretend to shine so conspicuously in her proposals, being so darkened and even extinguished with a cloud of contradiction, from scripture, reason, and the ancient church. 26 to the eighteenth. to the eight. how of disagreeing protestants, both parts may hope for salvation, seeing some of them must needs err against some truth testified by god? i answer, 1. the most disagreeing protestant's that are, yet thus far agree, that these books of scripture which were never doubted of in the church, are the undoubted word of god, and a perfect rule of faith. 2. that the sense of them, which god intended, whatsoever it is, is certainly true. so that they believe implicitly even those very truths against which they err; and why an implicit faith in christ and his word, should not suffice as well as an implicit faith in your church, i have desired to be resolved by many of your side, but never could. 3. that they are to use their best endeavours to believe the scripture in the true sense and to live according to it. this if they perform (as i hope many on all sides do) truly and sincerely, it is impossible but that they should believe aright in all things necessary to salvation; that is, in all those things which appertain to the covenant between god and man in christ, for so much, is not only plainly but frequently contained in scripture. and believing aright touching the covenant, if they for their parts perform the condition required of them, which is sincere obedience, why should they not expect that god will perform his promise and give them salvation? for, as for other things which lie without the covenant, and are therefore less necessary, if by reason of the seeming conflict which is oftentimes between scripture and reason, and authority on the one side, and scripture, reason, and authority on the other; if by reason of the variety of tempers, abilities, educations, & unavoidable prejudices, whereby men's understandings are variously formed and fashioned, they do embrace several opinions, whereof some must be erroneous; to say that god will damn them for such errors, who are lovers of him, and lovers of truth, is to rob man of his comfort, and god of his goodness; it is to make man desperate and god a tyrant. but they deny truths testified by god, and therefore shall be damned. yes, if they knew them to be thus testified by him, and yet would deny them, that were to give god the lie, and questionless damnable. but if you should deny a truth which god had testified but only to a man in the indies, (as i said before) and this testification you had never heard of, or at least had no sufficient reason to believe that god had so testified, would not you think it a hard case to be damned for such a denial? yet consider i pray a little more attentively the difference between them, and you will presently acknowledge, the question between them is not at any time, or in any thing, whether god says true or no? or whether he says this or no? but supposing he says this, and says true, whether he means this or no? as for example, between lutherans, calvinists, and zwinglians, it is agreed that christ spoke these words, this is my body; and that whatsoever he meant in saying so is true: but what he meant and how he is to be understood, that's the question. so that though some of them deny a truth by god intended, yet you can with no reason or justice accuse them of denying the truth of god's testimony, unless you can plainly show that god hath declared, and that plainly and clearly, what was his meaning in these words. i say plainly and clearly. for he that speaks obscurely and ambiguously, and no where declares himself plainly, sure he hath no reason to be much offended if he be mistaken. when therefore you can show, that in this and all other their controversies, god hath interposed his testimony on one side or other; so that either they do see it, and will not; or were it not for their own voluntary and avoidable fault, might and should see it and do not; let all such errors be as damnable as you please to make them. in the mean while, if they suffer themselves neither to be betrayed into their errors, nor kept in them by any sin of their will; if they do their best endeavour to free themselves from all errors, and yet fail of it through humane frailty; so well am i persuaded of the goodness of god, that if in me alone, should meet a confluence of all such errors of all the protestants in the world, that were thus qualified, i should not be so much afraid of them all, as i should be to ask pardon for them. for, whereas that which you affright us with of calling god's veracity in question, is but a panic fear, a fault that no man thus qualified, is, or can be guilty of; to ask pardon of simple and purely involuntary errors is tacitly to imply that god is angry with us for them, and that were to impute to him the strange tyranny of requiring brick, when he gives no straw; of expecting to gather, where he strewed not; to reap where he sowed not: of being offended with us for not doing what he knows we cannot do. this i say upon a supposition that they do their best endeavours to know gods will and do it; which he that denies to be possible knows not what he says; for he says in effect, that men cannot do, what they can do; for to do what a man can do, is to do his best endeavour. but because this supposition, though certainly possible, is very rare, and admirable, i say secondly, that i am verily persuaded, that god will not impute errors to them, as sins, who use such a measure of industry, in finding truth, as humane prudence and ordinary discretion (their abilities and opportunities, their distractions and hindrances, and all other things considered) shall advise them unto, in a matter of such consequence. but if herein also we fail, than our errors begin to be malignant, and justly imputable, as offences against god, and that love of his truth which he requires in us. you will say then, that for those erring protestants, which are in this case, which evidently are far the greater part, they sin damnably in erring, and therefore there is little hope of their salvation. to which i answer, that the consequence of this reason, is somewhat strong against a protestant; but much weakened by coming out of the mouth of a papist. for all sins with you are not damnable; and therefore protestants errors might be sins, and yet not damnable. but yet out of courtesy to you, we will remove this rub out of your way; and for the present suppose them mortal sins; and is there then no hope of salvation, for him that commits them? not, you will say, if he die in them without repentance; and such protestants you speak of, who without repentance dye in their errors. yea but what if they die in their errors with repentance? then i hope you will have charity enough to think they may be saved. charity mist. takes it indeed for granted, that this supposition is destructive of itself; in the place above quoted. and that it is impossible, and incongruous that a man should repent of those errors wherein he dies; or die in those whereof he reputes. but it was wisely done of him to take it for granted; for most certainly he could not have spoken one word of sense for the confirmation of it. for seeing protestants believe, as well as you, god's infinite and most admirable perfections in himself, more than most worthy of all possible love: seeing they believe, as well as you, his infinite goodness to them, in creating them of nothing; in creating them according to his own image; in creating all things for their use and benefit; in streaming down his favours on them every moment of their lives; in designing them, if they serve him, to infinite and eternal happiness; in redeeming them, not with corruptible things, but the precious blood of his beloved son: seeing they believe, as well as you, his infinite goodness, and patience towards them, in expecting their conversion; in wooing, alluring, leading, and by all means, which his wisdom can suggest unto him, and man's nature is capable of, drawing them to repentance & salvation: seeing they believe these things as well as you, and for ought you know, consider them as much as you, (and if they do not, it is not their religion, but they that are too blame,) what can hinder, but that the consideration of gods most infinite goodness to them, and their own almost infinite wickedness against him, god's spirit cooperating with them, may raise them to a true and sincere and a cordial love of god? and seeing sorrow for having injured or offended the person beloved, or when we fear we may have offended him, is the most natural effect of true love; what can hinder, but that love which hath oftimes constrained them, to lay down their lives for god (which our saviour assures us is the noblest sacrifice we can offer,) may produce in them an universal sorrow for all their sins, both which they know they have committed, and which they fear they may have? in which number, their being negligent, or not dispassionate, or not unprejudicate enough in seeking the truth, and, the effect thereof, their errors, if they be sins, cannot but be comprised. in a word, what should hinder, but that, that prayer — delicta sua quis intelligit? who can understand his faults? lord cleanse thou me from my secret sins, may be heard and accepted by god, as well from a protestant that dies in some errors, as from a papist that dies in some other sins of ignorance, which perhaps he might more easily have discovered to be sins, than a protestant could his errors to be errors? as well from a protestant, that held some error, which (as he conceived) god's word, and his reason, (which is also in some sort god's word) led him unto; as from a dominican, who perhaps took up his opinion upon trust, not because he had reason to believe it true, but because it was the opinion of his order; for the same man if he had light upon another order, would in all probability, have been of the other opinion. for what else is the cause, that generally all the dominicans are of one opinion, and all the jesuits of the other? i say, from a dominican who took up his opinion upon trust; and that such an opinion (if we believe the writers of your order) as if it be granted true, it were not a point matter, what opinions any man held, or what actions any man did, for the best would be as bad as the worst, & the worst as good as the best. and yet such is the partiality of your hypocrisy, that of disagreeing papists, neither shall deny the truth testified by god, but both may hope for salvation: but of disagreeing protestants (though they differ in the same thing,) one side must deny god's testimony and be incapable of salvation. that a dominican through culpable negligence, living and dying in his error, may repent of it, though he knows it not; or be saved though he do not: but if a protestant do the very same thing, in the very same point, and die in his error, his case is desperate. the sum of all that hath been said to this demand is this. 1. that no erring protestant denies any truth testified by god, under this formality, as testified by him; nor which they know or believe to be testified by him. and therefore it is a horrible calumny in you to say, they call god's veracity in question. for god's undoubted and unquestioned veracity, is to them the ground why they hold all they do hold: neither do they hold any opinion so stiffly, but they will forgo it rather than this one, that all which god says is true. 2. god hath not so clearly and plainly declared himself in most of these things which are in controversy between protestants, but that an honest man, whose heart is right to god, and one that is a true lover of god, and of his truth, may by reason of the conflict of contrary reasons on both sides, very easily, and therefore excusably mistake, and embrace error for truth, and reject truth for error. 3, if any protestant or papist be betrayed into, or kept in any error, by any sin of his will (as it is to be feared many millions are) such error is, as the cause of it, sinful and damnable: yet not exclusive of all hope of salvation, but pardonable if discovered, upon a particular explicit repentance; if not discovered, upon a general and implicit repentance for all sins known and unknown: in which number all sinful errors must of necessity be contained. 17 to the 9 to the nineteenth, wherein you are so urgent for a partilar catalogue of fundamentals: i answer almost in your own words, that we also constantly urge and require to have a particular catalogue of your fundamentals, whether they be written verities, or unwritten traditions, or church definitions? all which, you say, integrate the material object of your faith: in a word of all such points as are defined and sufficiently proposed; so that whosoever denies, or doubts of any of them, is certainly in the state of damnation. a catalogue i say in particular of the proposals: and not only some general definition, or description, under which you lurk deceitfully, of what and what only is sufficiently proposed: wherein yet you do not very well agree. this great diversity of opinions among you, touching this matter, if any man doubt of it, let him read franciscus picus mirandula in l. theorem. in exposit. theor. quarti, and t h. waldensis. tom. 3. de sacramentalibus. doct. 3. fol. 5. andhee shall be fully satisfied that i have done you no injury. for many of you hold the pope's proposal ex cathedra, to be sufficient and obliging: some a council without a pope: some, of neither of them severally, but only both together: some not this neither in matter of manners, which bellarmine acknowledges, & tells us it is all one in effect, as if they denied it sufficient in matter of faith: some not in matter of faith, neither think this proposal infallible, without the acceptation of the church universal: some deny the infallibility of the present church, and only make the tradition of all ages the infallible propounder. yet if you were agreed what and what only is the infallible propounder, this would not satisfy us; nor yet to say that all is fundamental which is propounded sufficiently by him. for though agreeing in this, yet you might still disagree whether such or such a doctrine were propounded or not: or if propounded, whether sufficiently, or only unsufficiently. and it is so known a thing, that in many points you do so, that i assure myself you will not deny it. therefore we constantly urge and require a particular and perfect inventory of all these divine revelations, which you say are sufficiently propounded, & that such a one to which all of your church will subscribe as neither redundant, nor deficient; which when you give in with one hand, you shall receive a particular catalogue of such points as i call fundamental, with the other. neither may you think me unreasonable in this demand, seeing upon such a particular catalogue of your sufficient proposals as much depends, as upon a particular catalogue of our fundamentals. as for example. whether or no a man do not err in some point defined and sufficiently proposed: and whether or no those that differ among you, differ in fundamentals; which if they do one heaven (by your own rule) cannot receive them all. perhaps you will here complain, that this is not to satisfy your demand, but to avoid it, and to put you off as the areopagites did hard causes ad diem longissimum, and bid you come again a hundred years hence: to deal truly, i did so intend it should be. nether can you say my dealing with you is injurious, seeing i require nothing of you, but that, what you require of others, you should show it possible to be done, and just and necessary to be required. for, for my part, i have great reason to suspect, it is neither the one nor the other. for whereas the verities which are delivered in scripture, may be very fitly divided into such as were written because they were necessary to be believed, of which rank are those only which constitute and make up the covenant between god and man in christ: and then such as are necessary to be believed not in themselves but only by accident, because they were written. of which rank are many matters of history, of prophecy, of mystery, of policy, of oeconomie, & such like, which are evidently not intrinsical to the covenant. now to sever exactly & punctually these verities one trom the other: what is necessary in itself & antecedently to the writing, from what is but only profitable in itself, and necessary only because written, is a business of extreme great difficulty, and extreme little necessity. for first he that will go about to distinguish especially in the story of our saviour, what was written because it was profitable, from what was written because necessary, shall find an intricate piece of business of it, & almost impossible that he should be certain he hath done it, when he hath done it. and then it is apparently unnecessary to go about it, seeing he that believes all, certainly believes all that is necessary. and he that doth not believe all (i mean all the undoubted parts of the undoubted books of scripture) can hardly believe any, neither have we reason to believe he doth so. so that, that protestants give you not a catalogue of fundamentals, it is not from tergiversation (as you suspect, who for want of charity to them always suspect the worst,) but from wisdom and necessity. for they may very easily err in doing it; because though all which is necessary be plain in scripture, yet all which is plain is not therefore written because it was necessary. for what greater necessity was there that i should know s. paul left his cloak at troas, than those worlds of miracles, which our saviour did, which were never written. and when they had done it, it had been to no purpose; there being, as matters now stand, as great necessity, of believing those truths of scripture, which are not fundamental, as those that are. you see then what reason we have to decline this hard labour, which you a rigid taske-master have here put upon us. yet instead of giving you a catalogue of fundamentals, with which i dare say you are resolved before it come, never to be satisfied, i will say that to you, which if you please may do you as much service; and this it is. that it is sufficient for any man's salvation that he believe the scripture: that he endeavour to believe it in the true sense of it, as far as concerns his duty: and that he conform his life unto it either by obedience or repentance. he that does so (and all protestants according to the dictamen of their religion should do so,) may be secure that he cannot err fundamentally. and they that do so cannot differ in fundamentals. so that notwithstanding their differences, & your presumption, the same heaven may receive them all. 28 to the twentieth. your tenth & last request is, to know distinctly what is the doctrine of the protestant english church, in these points; and what my private opinion. which shall be satisfied when the church of england hath expressed herself in them; or when you have told us what is the doctrine of your church, in the question of predetermination, or the immaculate conception. 29 to the 21 & 22. these answers i hope in the judgement of indifferent men are satisfactory to your questions, though not to you, for i have either answered them, or given you a reason why i have not. neither, for aught i can see, have i flitted from things considered in their own nature, to accidental or rare circumstances, but told you my opinion plainly what i thought of your errors in themselves: and what as they were qualified or malignified with good or bad circumstances. though i must tell you truly, that i see no reason, the question being of the damnableness of error, why you should esteem ignorance, incapacity, want of means to be instructed, accidental and rare circumstances: as if knowledge, capacity, having means of instruction, concerning the truth of your religion or ours, were not as rare & unusual in the adverse part of either, as ignorance, incapacity, and want of means of instruction. especially how erroneous conscience can be a rare thing in those that err, or how unerring conscience is not much more rare, i am not able to apprehend. so that to consider men of different religions (the subject of this controversy) in their own nature and without circumstances, must be to consider them, neither as ignorant, nor as knowing: neither as having, nor as wanting means of instruction: neither as with capacity, nor without it: neither with erroneous, nor yet with unerring conscience. and then what judgement can you pronounce of them, all the goodness and badness of an action depending on the circumstances. ought not a judge being to give sentence of an action, to consider all the circumstances of it, or is it possible he should judge rightly that does not so? neither is it to purpose, that circumstances being various, cannot be well comprehended under any general rule: for though under any general rule they cannot, yet under many general rules they may be comprehended. the question here is, you say, whether men of different religions may be saved? now the subject of this question is an ambiguous term and may be determined and invested with divers and contrary circumstances: and accordingly contrary judgements are to be given of it. and who then can be offended with d. potter for distinguishing before he defines, (the want whereof is the chief thing that makes defining dangerous?) who can find fault with him for saying, if, through want of means of instruction, incapacity, invincible or probable ignorance a man dye in error, he may be saved. but if he be negligent in seeking truth, unwilling to find it, either doth see it and will not, or might see it and will not, that his case is dangerous, & without repentance desperate. this is all that d. potter says: neither rashly damning all that are of a different opinion from him, not securing any that are in matter of religion sinfully, that is, willingly erroneous. the author of this reply (i will abide by it) says the very same thing, neither can i see what adversary he hath in the main question but his own shadow; and yet i know not out of what frowardness finds fault with d. potter, for affirming that which himself affirms: and to cloud the matter, whereas the question is, whether men by ignorance, dying in error may be saved, would have them considered neither as erring, nor ignorant. and when the question is, whether the errors of papists be damnable: to which we answer. that to them that do or might know them to be errors, they are damnable, to them that do not, they are not. he tells us that this is to change the state of the question, whereas indeed it is to state the question, and free it from ambiguity before you answer it: and to have recourse to accidental circumstances; as if ignorance were accidental to error, or as if a man could be considered as in error, and not be considered as in ignorance of the truth from which he errs! certainly error against a truth, must needs presuppose a nescience of it: unless you will say, that a man may at once resolve for a truth and resolve against it, assent to it, and descent from it, know it to be true, and believe it not to be true. whether knowledge & opinion touching the same thing, may stand together, is made a question in the schools: but he that would question, whether knowing a thing and doubting of it, much more, whether knowing it to be true & believing it to be false, may stand together, deserves without question no other answer but laughter. now if error & knowledge cannot consist, than error and ignorance must be inseparable. he than that professeth your errors may well be considered either as knowing or as ignorant. but him that does err indeed, you can no more conceive without ignorance, then long without quantity, virtuous without quality, a man, and not a living creature, to have gone ten miles, and not to have gone five, to speak sense, and not to speak. for as the latter in all these is implied in the former, so is ignorance of a truth, supposed in error against it. yet such a man, though not conceaveable without ignorance simply, may be very well considered either as with, or without voluntary and sinful ignorance. and he that will give a wise answer to this question, whether a papist dying a papist may be saved, according to god's ordinary proceeding; must distinguish him according to these several considerations, and say, he may be saved, if his ignorance were either invincible, or at least unaffected and probable: if otherwise, without repentance he cannot. to the rest of this preface, i have nothing to say; saving what hath been said, but this, that it is no just exception to an argument to call it vulgar and threadbare. truth can neither be too common nor superannuated, nor reason ever worn out. let your answers be solid & pertinent, and we will never find fault with them for being old or common. the first part. the state of the question; with a summary of the reasons for which amongst men of different religions, one side only can be saved. chap. i. never is malice more indiscreet, then when it chargeth others with imputation of that, to which itself becomes more liable, even by that very act of accusing others. for, though guiltiness be the effect of some error, yet usually it begets a kind of moderation, so far forth, as not to let men cast such aspersions upon others, qui● tulerit gracchum etc. as must apparently reflect upon themselves. thus cannot the poet endure, that gracchus, who was a factious and unquiet man, should be inveighing against sedition: and the roman orator rebukes philosophers; who, to wax glorious, superscribed their names upon those very books which they entitled, of the contempt of glory. what then shall we say of d. potter, who in the title, and text of his whole book doth so tragically charge want of charity on all such romanists, as dare affirm, that protestancy destroyeth salvation; while he himself is in act of pronouncing the like heavy doom against roman catholics? for, not satisfied with much uncivil language, in affirming the roman church many a pag. 11. ways to have played the harlot, and in that regard deserved a bill of divorce from christ, and detestation of christians; in styling her, that proud b ibid. and cursed dame of rome, which takes upon her to revel in the house of god; in talking of an idol c pag. 4. edit. 1. to be worshipped at rome; he comes at length to thunder out this fearful sentence against her: for that d pag. 20. mass of errors (saith he) in judgement and practice, which is proper to her, and wherein she differs from us, we judge a reconciliation impossible, and to us (who are convicted in conscience of her corruptions) damnable. and in another place ho saith: for us who e pag. 81. are convinced in conscience, that she errs in many things, a necessity lies upon us, even under pain of damnation, to forsake her in those errors. by the acerbity of which censure, he doth not only make himself guilty of that, which he judgeth to be a heinous offence in others, but freeth us also from all colour of crime by this his unadvised recrimination. for, if roman catholics be likewise convicted in conscience of the errors of protestants; they may, and must, in conformity to the doctor's own rule, judge a reconciliation with them to be also damnable. and thus, all the want of charity so deeply charged on us, dissolves itself into this poor wonder, roman catholics believe in their conscience, that the religion which they profess, is true, and the contrary false. 2. nevertheless, we earnestly desire, and take care, that our doctrine may not be defamed by misinterpretation. far be it from us, by way of insultation, to apply it against protestants, otherwise then as they are comprehended under the generality of those who are divided from the only one true church of christ our lord, within the communion whereof he hath confined salvation. neither do we understand, why our most dear countrymen should be offended if the universality be particularised under the name of protestants, first given g sleidan. l. 6. fol. 84. to certain lutherans, who protesting that they would stand out against the imperial decrees, in defence of the confession exhibited at ausburge, were termed protestants, in regard of such their protesting: which confessio augustana disclaiming from, and being disclaimed by calvinists, and zwinglians, our naming or exemplifying a general doctrine under the particular name of protestantisme, ought not in any particular manner to be odious in england. 3 moreover, our meaning is not, as misinformed persons may conceive, that we give protestants over to reprobation; that we offer no prayers in hope of their salvation; that we hold their case desperate. god forbid! we hope, we pray for their conversion; and sometimes we find happy effects of our charitable desires. neither is our censure immediately directed to particular persons. the tribunal of particular judgement is gods alone. when any man esteemed a protestant, leaveth to live in this world, we do not instantly with precipitation avouch, that he is lodged in hell. for we are not always acquainted with what sufficiency or means he was furnished for instruction; we do not penetrate his capacity to understand his catechist, we have no revelation what light might have cleared his errors, or contrition retracted his sins, in the last moment before his death. in such particular cases, we wish more apparent signs of salvation, but do not give any dogmatic sentence of perdition. how grievous sins, disobedience, schism, and heresy are, is well known. but to discern how far the natural malignity of those great offences might be checked by ignorance, or by some such lessening circumstance, is the office rather of prudence then of faith. 4 thus we allow protestants as much charity, as d. potter spares us, for whom, in the words above mentioned, and else where, he h see pag. 39 makes ignorance the best hope of salvation. much less comfort, can we expect from the fierce doctrine of those chief protestants, who teach that for many ages before luther, christ had no visible church upon earth. not these men alone, or such as they, but even the 39 articles, to which the english protestant clergy subscribes, censure our belief so deeply, that ignorance can scarce, or rather not at all, excuse us from damnation. our doctrine of transubstantiation, is affirmed to be repugnant to the plain words of i art. 28. scripture; our masses to be blasphemous k art. 31. fables, with much more to be seen in the articles themselves. in a certain confession of the christian faith, at the end of their books of psalms collected into meeter, and printed cum privilegio regis regali, they call us idolaters, and limbs of antichrist; and having set down a catalogue of our doctrines, they conclude, that for them we shall after the general resurrection be damned to unquenchable fire. 5 but yet lest any man should flatter himself with our charitable mitigations, and thereby wax careless in search of the true church, we desire him to read the conclusion of the second part, where this matter is more explained. 6 and because we cannot determine, what judgement may be esteemed rash, or prudent, except by weighing the reasons upon which it is grounded, we will here, under one aspect, present a summary of those principles, from which we infer, that protestancy in itself unrepented destroys salvation: intending afterward to prove the truth of every one of the grounds, till, by a concatenation of sequels, we fall upon the conclusion, for which we are charged with wan● of charity. 7 now, this is our gradation of reasons. almighty god, having ordained mankind to a supernatural end of eternal felicity, hath in his holy providence settled competent and convenient means, whereby that end may be attained. the universal grand origen of all such means, is the incarnation and death of our blessed saviour, whereby he merited internal grace for us; and founded an external visible church, provided and stored with all those helps which might be necessary for salvation. from hence it followeth, that in this church amongst other advantages, there must be some effectual means to beget, and conserve faith, to maintain unity, to discover and condemn heresies, to appease and reduce schisms, and to determine all controversies in religion. for without such means, the church should not be furnished with helps sufficient to salvation, nor god afford sufficient means to attain that end, to which himself ordained mankind. this means to decide controversies in faith and religion (whether it should be the holy scripture, or whatsoever else) must be endued with an universal infallibility, in whatsoever it propoundeth for a divine truth, that is, as revealed, spoken, or testified by almighty god, whether the matter of its nature, be great or small. for if it were subject to error in any one thing, we could not in any other yield it infallible assent; because we might with good reason doubt, whether it chanced not to err in that particular. 8 thus far all must agree to what we have said, unless they have a mind to reduce faith to opinion. and even out of these grounds alone, without further proceeding, it undeniably follows, that of two men dissenting in matters of faith, great or small, few or many, the one cannot be saved without repentance, unless ignorance accidentally may in some particular person plead excuse. for in that case of contrary belief, one must of necessity be held to oppose god's word, or revelation sufficiently represented to his understanding by an infallible propounder; which opposition to the testimony of god is undoubtedly a damnable sin, whether otherwise, the thing so testified, be in itself great or small. and thus we have already made good, what was promised in the argument of this chapter, that amongst men of different religions, one is only capable of being saved. 9 nevertheless, to the end that men may know in particular what is the said infallible means upon which we are to rely in all things concerning faith, and accordingly may be able to judge in what safety or danger, more or less they live; and because d. potter descendeth to diverse particulars about scriptures and the church etc. we will go forward, and prove, that although scripture be in itself most sacred, infallible, and divine; yet it alone cannot be to us a rule, or judge, fit an able to end all doubts and debates emergent in matters of religion; but that there must be some external, visible, public, living judge, to whom all sorts of persons both learned and unlearned, may without danger of error, have recourse; and in whose judgement they may rest, for the interpreting and propounding of god's word or revelation. and this living judge, we will most evidently prove to be no other, but that holy, catholic, apostolic, and visible church, which our saviour purchased with the effusion of his most precious blood. 10 if once therefore it be granted, that the church is that means, which god hath left for deciding all controversies in faith, it manifestly will follow, that she must be infallible in all her determinations, whether the matters of themselves be great or small; because as we said above, it must be agreed on all sides, that if that means which god hath left to determine controversies were not infallible in all things proposed by it as truths revealed by almighty god, it could not settle in our minds a firm, and infallible belief of any one. 11 from this universal infallibility of god's church it followeth, that whosoever wittingly denyeth any one point proposed by her, as revealed by god, is injurious to his divine majesty, as if he could either deceive, or be deceived in what he testifieth. the averring whereof, were not a fundamental error, but would overthrow the very foundation of all fundamental points, and therefore without repentance could 〈◊〉 possibly stand with salvation. 12 out of these grounds, we will show, that although the distinction of points fundamental, and not fundamental, be good and useful, as it is delivered and applied by catholic divines, to teach what principal articles of faith, christians are obliged explicitly to believe: yet that it is impertinent to the present purpose of excusing any man from grievous sin, who knowingly disbelieves, that is, believes the contrary of that which gods church proposeth as divine truth. for it is one thing not to know explicitly some thing testified by god, & another positively to oppose what we know he hath restified. the former may often be excused from sin, but never the latter, which only is the case in question. 13 in the same manner shall be demonstrated, that to allege the creed, as containing all articles of faith necessary to be explicitly believed, is not pertinent to free from sin the voluntary denial of any other point known to be defined by god's church. and this were sufficient to overthrow all that d. potter allegeth, concerning the creed: though yet by way of supererogation, we will prove, that there are diverse important matters of faith which are not mentioned at all in the creed. 14 from the aforesaid main principle, that god hath always had, and always will have on earth, a church visible, within whose communion salvation must be hoped, and infallible, whose definitions we ought to believe; we will prove, that luther, calvin and all other, who continue the division in communion, or faith, from that visible church, which at, and before luther's appearance, was spread over the world, cannot be excused from schism and heresy, although they opposed her faith but in one only point; whereas it is manifest, they descent from her, in many and weighty matters, concerning as well belief, as practise. 15 to these reasons drawn from the virtue of faith, we will add one other taken from charitas propria, the virtue of charity, as it obligeth us, not to expose our soul to hazard of perdition, when we can put ourselves in a way much more secure, as we will prove, that of the roman catholics to be. 16 we are then to prove these points. first, that the infallible means to determine controversies in matters of faith, is the visible church of christ. secondly, that the distinction of points fundamental, and not fundamental, maketh nothing to our present question. thirdly, that to say the creed contains all fundamental points of faith, is neither pertinent, nor true. fourthly, that both luther, and all they who after him, persist in division from the communion, and faith of the roman church, cannot be excused from schism. fiftly, nor from heresy. sixtly and lastly, that in regard of the precept of charity towards ones self, protestants be in state of sin, as long as they remain divided from the roman church. and these six points, shall be several arguments for so many ensuing chapters, 17 only i will here observe, that it seemeth very strange, that protestants should charge us so deeply with want of charity, for only teaching, that both they, and we cannot be saved, seeing themselves must affirm the like of whosoever opposeth any least point delivered in scripture, which they hold to be the sole rule of faith. out of which ground they must be enforced to let all our former inferences pass for good. for, is it not a grievous sin, to deny any one truth contained in holy writ? is there in such denial, any distinction betwixt points fundamental, and not fundamental, sufficient to excuse from heresy? is it not impertinent, to allege the creed containing all fundamental points of faith, as if believing it alone, we were at liberty to deny all other points of scripture? in a word: according to protestants; oppose not scripture, there is no error against faith. oppose it in any least point, the error (if scripture be sufficiently proposed, which proposition is also required before a man can be obliged to believe even fundamental points) must be damnable. what is this, but to say with us, of persons contrary in whatsoever point of belief, one party only can be saved? and d. potter must not take it ill, if catholics believe they may be saved in that religion for which they suffer. and if by occasion of this doctrine, men will still be charging us with want of charity, and be resolved to take scandal where none is given; we must comfort ourselves with that grave, and true saying of s. gregory: if scandal l s. greg. hom. 7. in ezec. be taken from declaring a truth, it is better to permit scandal, then forsake the truth. but the solid grounds of our assertion, and the sincerity of our intention in uttering what we think, yield us confidence, that all will hold for most reasonable the saying of pope gelasius to anastasius the emperor; far ●e it from the roman emperor that he should hold it for a wrong to have truth declared to him! let us therefore begin with that point which is the first that can be controverted betwixt protestants and us, for as much as concerns the present question, and is contained in the argument of the next ensuing chapter. the answer to the first chapter. showing, that the adversary grants the former question and proposeth a new one: and that there is no reason, why among men of different opinions and communions, one side only can be saved. 1. to the first §. your first onset is very violent. d. potter is charged with malice and indiscretion, for being uncharitable to you, while he is accusing you of uncharitableness. verily a great fault, and folly, if the accusation be just; if unjust, a great calumny. let us see then how you make good your charge. the effect of your discourse, if i mistake not, is this. d. potter chargeth the roman church with many and great errors; judgeth reconciliation between her doctrine and ours impossible; and that for them who are convicted in conscience of her errors, not to forsake her in them, or to be reconciled unto her, is damnable: therefore if roman catholics be convicted in conscience of the errors of protestants, they may and must judge a reconciliation with them damnable, & consequently, to judge so is no more uncharitable in them, than it is in the doctor to judge as he does. all this i grant; nor would any protestant accuse you of want of charity, if you went no further: if you judged the religion of protestants damnable to them only who profess it being, convicted in conscience that it is erroneous. for, if a man judge some act of virtue to be a sin, in him it is a sin indeed: so you have taught us, p. 19 so if you be convinced, or rather, to speak properly, persuaded in conscience that our religion is erroneous, the profession of it, though in itself most true, to you would be damnable. this therefore i subscribe very willingly, and withal, that if you said no more, d. potter and myself should not be to papists only, but even to protestants, as uncharitable as you are. for i shall always profess and glory in this uncharitableness of judging hypocrisy a damnable sin. let hypocrites then and dissemblers on both sides pass. it is not towards them, but good christians; not to protestant professors but believers that we require your charity. what think you of those that believe so verily the truth of our religion, that they are resolved to die in it, and if occasion were, to die for it? what charity have you for them? what think ye of those that in the days of our fathers, laid down their lives for it? are you content that they shall be saved, or do you hope they may be so? will you grant that notwithstanding their errors, there is good hope they might die with repentance? and if they did so▪ certainly they are saved. if you will do so, this controversy is ended. no man will hereafter charge you with want of charity. this is as much as either we give you, or expect of you, while you remain in your religion. but than you must leave abusing silly people, with telling them (as your fashion is) that protestants confess papists may be saved, but papists confess not so much of protestants; therefore yours is the safer way, and in wisdom and charity to our own souls we are bound to follow it. for granting this, you grant as much hope of salvation to protestants, as protestants do to you. if you will not, but will still affirm, as c. m. does, that protectants, not dissemblers but believers, without a particular repentance of their religion cannot be saved: this i say, is a want of charity, into the society whereof d. potter cannot be drawn but with palpable and transparent sophistry. for i pray sir what dependence is there between these propositions: we that hold protestant religion false should be damned if we should profess it, therefore they also shall be damned, that hold it true? just as if you should conclude, because he that doubts is damned if he eat, therefore he that does not doubt is damned also if he eat. and therefore though your religion to us, or ours to you, if professed against conscience would be damnable; yet may it well be uncharitable to define it shall be so, to them that profess either this or that according to conscience. this recrimination therefore upon d. potter wherewith you begin, is a plain fallacy: and i fear your proceedings will be answerable to these beginnings! 2 ad §. 2. in this paragraph, protestants are thus far comforted, that they are not sent to hell without company; which the poet tells us, is the miserable comfort of miserable men. then we in england are requested not to be offended with the name of protestants. which is a favour i shall easily grant, if by it be understood those that protest, not against imperial edicts, but against the corruptions of the church of rome. 3 ad §. 3. 4, 5▪ 6. that you give us not ●ver to reprobation, that you pray and hope for our salvation, if it be a charity, is such a one as is common to turks and jews and pagans with us: but that which follows is extraordinary; neither do i know any man that requires more of you then there you pretend to. for there you tell us, that when any man, esteemed a protestant, dies, you do not instantly avouch that he is lodged in hell. where the word esteemed is ambiguous: for it may signify, esteemed truly, and esteemed falsely. he may be esteemed a protestant that is so: and he may be esteemed a protestant that is not so. and therefore i should have had just occasion to have laid to your charge the transgression of your own chief prescription, which you say truth exacts at our hands, that is, to speak clearly or distinctly, and not to walk in darkness; but that your following words to my understanding declare sufficiently that you speak of both sorts. for there you tell us that the reasons why you damn not any man that dies with the esteem of a protestant, are. 1. because you are not always acquainted with what sufficiency of means he was furnished for instruction; you must mean touching the falsehood of his own religion, and the truth of yours. which reason is proper to those that are protestants in truth, and not only in estimation. 2. because you do not penetrate his capacity to understand his cateohist; which is also peculiar to those, who for want of capacity (as you conceive) remain protestants indeed, and are not only so accounted. 3. because you have no revelation what light might clear his errors; which belongs to those which were esteemed protestants, but indeed were not so. 4. because you have no revelation what contrition might have retracted his sins: which reason being distinct from the former, and divided from it by the disjunctive particle, or, insinuates unto us, that though no light did clear the errors of a dying protestant, yet contrition might, for ought you know, retract his sins: which appropriates this reason also to protestants truly so esteemed. i wish with all my heart that in obedience to your own prescription, you had expressed yourself in this matter more fully and plainly. yet that which you say, doth plainly enough afford us these corollaries. 1 that whatsoever protestant wanteth capacity, or having it, wanteth sufficient means of instruction to convince his conscience of the falsehood of his own, and the truth of the roman religion, by the confession of his most rigid adversaries, may be saved, notwithstanding any error in his religion. 2 that nothing hinders but that a protestant dying a protestant may dye with contrition for all his sins. 3 that, if he do dye with contrition, he may and shall be saved. 4 all these acknowledgements we have from you, while you are, as you say, stateing, but as i conceive granting the very point in question; which was, as i have already proved out of c. m. whether without uncharitableness you may pronounce, that protestants dying in the belief of their religion, and without particular repentance and dereliction of it cannot possibly be saved. which c. m. affirms universally, and without any of your limitations. but this presumption of his, you thus qualify, by saying, that this sentence cannot be pronounced truly and therefore sure not charitably, neither of those protestants that want means sufficient to instruct and convince them of the truth of your religion and the falsehood of their own: nor of those, who, though they have neglected the means they might have had, died with contrition, that is, with a sorrow for all their sins proceeding from the love of god. so that according to your doctrine it shall remain upon such only, as either were, or but for their own fault, might have been sufficiently convinced of the truth of your religion, and the falsehood of their own, and yet dye in it without contrition. which doctrine if you would stand to, and not pull down, and pull back with one hand, what you give and build with the other, this controversy were ended; and i should willingly acknowledge, that which follows in your fourth paragraph; that you allow protestants as much charity as d. potter allows you. but then i must entreat you to alter the argument of this chapter, and not to go about to give us reasons, why amongst men of different religions, one side only can be saved absolutely, which your reasons drive at: but you must temper the crudenes of your assertion by saying, one side only can be saved, unless want of conviction, or else repentance excuse the other. besides you must not only abstain from damning any protestant in particular, but from affirming in general, that protestants dying in their religion cannot be saved; for you must always remember to add this caution, unless they were excusably ignorant of the falsehood of it, or died with contrition. and then considering that you cannot know, whether or no, all things considered, they were convinced sufficiently of the truth of your religion and the falsehood of their own, you are obliged by charity to judge the best, and hope they are not. considering again, that notwithstanding their errors, they may dye with contrition, & that it is no way improbable that they do so, & the contrary you cannot be certain of, you are bound in charity to judge and hope they do so. considering thirdly and lastly, that if they die not with contrition, yet it is very probable they may dye with attrition, & that this pretence of yours, that contrition will serve without actual confession, but attrition will not, is but a nicety or fancy, or rather, to give it the true name, a device of your own, to serve ends and purposes; (god having no where declared himself, but that wheresoever he will accept of that repentance, which you are pleased to call contrition, he will accept of that which you call attrition; for though he like best the bright flaming holocaust of love, yet he rejects not, he quenches not the smoking flax of that repentance (if it be true and effectual) which proceeds from hope and fear:) these things i say, considered, (unless you will have the charity of your doctrine rise up in judgement against your uncharitable practice) you must not only not be peremptory, in damning protestants, but you must hope well of their salvation: and out of this hope, you must do for them as well as others, those, as you conceive, charitable offices, of praying, giving alms and offering sacrifice, which usually you do, for those of whose salvation you are well and charitably persuaded; (for i believe you will never conceive so well of protestants, as to assure yourselves they go directly to heaven.) these things when you do i shall believe you think as charitably as you speak. but until then, as he said in the comedy, quid verba audiam cum facta videam? so may i say to you, quid verba audiam cum facta non videam? to what purpose should you give us charitable words, which presently you retract again, by denying us your charitable actions. and as these things you must do, if you will stand to and make good this pretended charity, so must i tell you again and again, that one thing you must not do; i mean, you must not affright poor people out of their religion, with telling them, that by the confession of both sides, your way is safe, but in your judgement, ours undoubtedly damnable. seeing neither you deny salvation to protestants dying with repentance, nor we promise it to you, if ye die without it. for to deal plainly with you, i know no protestant that hath any other hope of your salvation, but upon these grounds, that unaffected ignorance may excuse you, or true repentance obtain pardon for you; neither do the heavy censures which protestant's (you say) pass upon your errors, any way hinder but they may hope as well of you, upon repentance, as i do. for the fierce doctrine, which, god knows who, teaches, that christ for many ages before luther had no visible church upon earth; will be mild enough, if you conceive them to mean (as perhaps they do) by no visible church, none pure and free from corruptions, which in your judgement is all one with no church. but the truth is the corruption of the church, and the destruction of it, is not all one. for if a particular man or church may (as you confess they may) hold some particular errors, and yet be a member of the church universal: why may not the church hold some universal error, and yet be still the church? especially, seeing you say, it is nothing but opposing the doctrine of the church, that makes an error damnable, and it is impossible that the church should oppose the church, i mean that the present church should oppose itself. and then for the english protestants, though they censure your errors deeply, yet, by your favour, with their deepest censures it may well consist that invincible ignorance may excuse you from damnation for them. for you yourself confess that ignorance may excuse errors, even in fundamental articles of faith: so that a man so erring shall not offend at all in such his ignorance or error; they are your own words. p. 19 and again which their heaviest censures it may well consist, that your errors though in themselves damnable, yet may prove not damning to you, if you die with true repentance, for all your sins known and unknown. 5 thus much charity therefore, if you stand to what you have said, is interchangeably granted by each side to the other, that neither religion is so fatally destructive, but that by ignorance or repentance salvation may be had on both sides: though with a difference that keeps papists still on the more uncharitable side. for whereas we conceive a lower degree of repentance (that which they call attrition) if it be true, and effectual, and convert the heart of the penitent, will serve in them: they pretend (even this author which is most charitable towards us,) that without contrition there is no hope for us, but though protestants may not obtain this purchase at so easy a rare as papists, yet (even papists being judges) they may obtain it; and though there is no entrance for them but at the only door of contrition, yet they may enter, heaven is not inaccessible to them. their errors are no such impenetrable istmus' between them and salvation, but that contrition may make a way through them. all their schism and heresy is no such fatal poison, but that if a man join with it the antidote of a general repentance, he may dye in it, and live for ever. thus much then being acknowledged, i appeal to any indifferent reader, whether c. m. be not by his hyperaspist forsaken in the plain field, and the point in question granted to d. potter, viz. that protestancy even without a particular repentance, is not destructive of salvation; so that all the controversy remaining now, is, not simply whether protestancy unrepented destroys salvation? as it was at first proposed, but whether protestancy in itself (that is abstracting from ignorance and contrition) destroys salvation? so that as a foolish fellow who gave a knight the lie, desiring withal leave of him to set his knighthood aside, was answered by him, that he would not suffer any thing to be set aside that belonged unto him: so might we justly take it amiss, that conceiving as you do ignorance and repentance such necessary things for us, you are not more willing to consider us with them, then without them. for my part such is my charity to you, that considering what great necessity you have, as much as any christian society in the world, that these sanctuaries of ignorance and repentance should always stand open, i can very hardly persuade myself so much as in my most secret consideration to divest you of these so needful qualifications: but whensoever your errors, superstitions and impieties come into my mind, (and besides the general bonds of humanity and christianity, my own particular obligations to many of you, such and so great, that you cannot perish without a part of myself,) my only comfort is amidst these agonies, that the doctrine and practise too of repentance, is yet remaining in your church: and that though you put on a face of confidence of your innocence in point of doctrine, yet you will be glad to stand in the eye of mercy as well as your fellows, and not be so stout, as to refuse either god's pardon or the kings. 6 but for the present, protestancy is called to the bar, and though not sentenced by you to death without mercy, yet arraigned of so much natural malignity (if not corrected by ignorance or contrition) as to be in itself, destructive of salvation. which controversy i am content to dispute with you, tying myself to follow the rules prescribed by you in your preface. only i am to remember you, that the adding of this limitation (in itself) hath made this a new question; and that this is not the conclusion for which you were charged with want of charity. but that whereas according to the grounds of your own religion, protestants may dye in their supposed errors, either with excusable ignorance, or with contrition, and if they do so may be saved, you still are peremptory in pronouncing them damned. which position supposing your doctrine true, and ours false, as it is far from charity, (whose essential character it is, to judge and hope the best,) so i believe that i shall clearly evince this new, but more moderate assertion of yours to be far from verity, & that it is popery, and not protestancy, which in itself destroys salvation. 7 ad § 7. & 8. in your gradation i shall rise so far with you as to grant, that christ founded a visible church, stored with all helps necessary to salvation, particularly with sufficient means to beget and conserve faith, to maintain unity, and compose schisms, to discover and condemn heresies, and to determine all controversies in religion, which were necessary to be determined. for all these purposes, he gave at the beginning (as we may see in the ep. to the ephesians) apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and doctors: who by word of mouth taught their comtemporaries, and by writings (wrote indeed by some, but approved by all of them) taught their christian posterity to the world's end, how all these ends, and that which is the end of all these ends, salvation, is to be archieved. and these means the providence of god hath still preserved, and so preserved, that they are sufficient for all these intents. i say sufficient, though, through the malice of men, not always effectual, for that the same means may be sufficient for the compassing an end, and not effectual, you must not deny, who hold that god gives to all men sufficient means of salvation, and yet that all are not saved. i said also, sufficient to determine all controversies, which were necessary to be determined. for if some controversies may for many ages be undetermined, and yet in the mean while men be saved; why should, or how can the churches being furnished with effectual means to determine all controversies in religion be necessary to salvation, the end itself, to which these means are ordained being as experience shows not necessary? plain sense will teach every man, that the necessity of the means must always be measured by, and can never exceed the necessity of the end. as if eating be necessary, only that i may live, then certainly if i have no necessity to live, i have no necessity to eat. if i have no need to be at london, i have no need of a horse to carry me thither. if i have no need to fly, i have no need of wings. answer me then i pray directly, and categorically, is it necessary that all controversies in religion should be determined, or is it not? if it be, why is the question of predetermination, of the immaculate conception, of the pope's indirect power in temporalties, so long undetermined? if not, what is it but hypocrisy to pretend such great necessity of such effectual means, for the achieving that end, which is itself not necessary. christians therefore have and shall have means sufficient (though not always effectual) to determine not all controversies but all necessary to be determined. i proceed on farther with you, and grant that this means to decide controversies in faith & religion must be endued with an universal infallibility in whatsoever it propoundeth for a divine truth. for if it may be false in any one thing of this nature, in any thing which god requires men to believe, we can yield unto it but a wavering and fearful assent in any thing. these grounds therefore i grant very readily, and give you free leave to make your best advantage of them. and yet, to deal truly, i do not perceive how from the denial of any of them it would follow that faith is opinion: or from the granting them, that it is not so. but for my part, whatsoever clamour you have raised against me, i think no otherwise of the nature of faith, i mean historical faith, then generally both protestants and papists do; for i conceive it an assent to divine revelations upon the authority of the revealer. which though in many things it differ from opinion, (as commonly the word opinion is understood) yet in some things, i doubt not but you will confess, that it agrees with it. as first, that as opinion is an assent, so is faith also. secondly that as opinion so faith, is always built upon less evidence then that of sense or science. which assertion you not only grant but mainly contend for in your sixth ch. thirdly and lastly, that as opinion, so faith admits degrees; and that as there may be a strong and weak opinion, so there may be a strong and weak faith. these things if you will grant (as sure if you be in your right mind you will not deny any of them) i am well contented that this ill●sounding word, opinion, should be discarded, and that among the intellectual habits you should seek out some other genus for faith. for i will never contend with any man about words, who grants my meaning. 8 but though the essence of faith exclude not all weakness and imperfection, yet may it be enquired, whether any certainty of faith, under the highest degree may be sufficient to please god and attain salvation. whereunto i answer, that though men are unreasonable, god requires not any thing but reason. they will not be pleased without a down weight, but god is contented if the scale be turned. they pretend, that heavenly things cannot be seen to any purpose, but by the midday light: but god will be satisfied, if we receive any degree of light which makes us leave the works of darkness and walk as children of the light. they exact a certainty of faith above that of sense or science, god desires only that we believe the conclusion, as much as the premises deserve, that the strength of our faith be equal or proportionable to the credibility of the motives to it. now though i have and aught to have an absolute certainty of this thesis, all which god reveals for truth is true, being a proposition that may be demonstrated, or rather so evident to any one that understands it that it needs it not; yet of this hypothesis, that all the articles of our faith were revealed by god, we cannot ordinarily have any rational and acquired certainty, more than moral, founded upon these considerations: first that the goodness of the precepts of christianity, and the greatness of the promises of it, shows it, of all other religions, most likely to come from the fountain of goodness. and then that a constant, famous and very general tradition, so credible, that no wise man doubts of any other, which hath but the fortieth part of the credibility of this, such and so credible a tradition, tell us, that god himself hath set his hand and seal to the truth of this doctrine, by doing great, and glorious, and frequent miracles in confirmation of it. now our faith is an assent to this conclusion, that the doctrine of christianity is true, which being deduced from the former thesis, which is metaphysically certain, and from the former hypothesis, whereof we can have but a moral certainty, we cannot possibly by natural means be more certain of it then of the weaker of the premises; as a river will not rise higher than the fountain from which it flows. for the conclusion always follows the worse part, if there be any worse: and must be negative, particular, contingent, or but morally certain, if any of the propositions, from whence it is derived be so: neither can we be certain of it in the highest degree, unless we be thus certain of all the principles whereon it is grounded. as a man cannot go or stand strongly, if either of his legs be weak. or as a building cannot be stable, if any one of the necessary pillars thereof be infirm and instable. or as, if a message be brought me, from a man of absolute credit with me, but by a messenger that is not so, my confidence of the truth of the relation, cannot but be rebated and lessened, by my diffidence in the relatour. 9 yet all this i say not as if i doubted, that the spirit of god, being implored by devout and humble prayer and sincere obedience, may, and will be degrees, advance his servants higher, and give them a certainty of adherence, beyond their certainty of evidence. but what god gives as a reward to believers, is one thing: and what he requires of all men, as their duty, is another: and what he will accept of out of grace and favour, is yet another. to those that believe and live according to their faith, he gives by degrees the spirit of obsignation and confirmation, which makes them know (though how they know not) what they did but believe: and to be as fully and resolutely assured of the gospel of christ, as those which heard it from christ himself with their ears, which saw it with their eyes, which looked upon it, and whose hands handled the word of life. he requires of all, that their faith should be (as i have said) proportionable to the motives and reasons enforcing to it; he will accept of the weakest and lowest degree of faith, if it be living and effectual unto true obedience. for he it is that will not quench the smoking flax, nor break the bruised reed. he did not reject the prayer of that distressed man that cried unto him, lord i believe, lord help my unbelief. he commands us to receive them that are weak in faith, and thereby declares that he receives them. and as nothing avails with him, but faith which worketh by love: so any faith, if it be but as a grain of mustard seed, if it work by love, shall certainly avail with him and be accepted of him. some experience makes me fear, that the faith of considering and discoursing men, is like to be cracked with too much straining: and that being possessed with this false principle, that it is in vain to believe the gospel of christ, with such a kind or degree of assent, as they yield to other matters of tradition: and finding that their faith of it, is to them undiscernible, from the belief they give to the truth of other stories; are in danger either not to believe at all, thinking not at all as good as to no purpose, or else, though indeed they do believe it, yet to think they do not, and to cast themselves into wretched agonies and perplexities, as fearing they have not that, without which it is impossible to pleas god and obtain eternal happiness. consideration of this advantage, which the devil probably may make of this fancy, made me willing to insist somewhat largely upon the refutation of it. 10 i return now thither from whence i have digressed, and assure you, concerning the grounds afore-laid, which were, that there is a rule of faith, whereby controversies may be decided, which are necessary to be decided, and that this rule is universally infallible, that notwithstanding any opinion i hold, touching faith, or any thing else, i may, and do believe them, as firmly as you pretend to do. and therefore you may build on, in god's name, for by god's help, i shall always embrace, whatsoever structure is naturally and rationally laid upon them, whatsoever conclusion may, to my understanding, be evidently deduced from them. you say, out of them it undeniably follows, that of two disagreeing in matter of faith, the one cannot be saved, but by repentance or ignorance. i answer by distinction of those terms, two dissenting in a matter of faith. for it may be either in a thing which is indeed a matter of faith, in the strictest sense, that is, something, the belief whereof god requires under pain of damnation: and so the conclusion is true, though the consequence of it from your former premises either is none at all, or so obscure, that i can hardly discern it. or it may be as it often falls out concerning a thing which being indeed no matter of faith, is yet overvalued by the parties at variance, and esteemed to be so. and in this sense it is neither consequent nor true. the untruth of it i have already declared in my examination of your preface. the inconsequence of it is of itself evident; for who ever heard of a wilder collection than this— god hath provided means sufficient to decide all controversies in religion, necessary to be decided; this means is universally infallible, therefore of two, that differ in anything which they esteem a matter of faith, one cannot be saved. he that can find any connection between these propositions, i believe will be able to find good coherence between the deaf plaintiffe's accusation, in the greek epigram, and the deaf defendants answer, and the deaf judge's sentence; and to contrive them all into a formal categorical syllogism. 11 indeed if the matter in agitation were plainly decided, by this infallible means of deciding controversies, and the parties in variance knew it to be so, and yet would stand out in their dissension; this were in one of them, direct opposition to the testimony of god, and undoubtedly a damnable sin. but if you take the liberty to suppose what you please, you may very easily conclude what you list. for who is so foolish as to grant you these unreasonable postulates, that every emergent controversy of faith is plainly decided by the means of decision which god hath appointed, and that of the parties lititigant, one is always such a convicted recusant as you pretend! certainly, if you say so, having no better warrant than you have, or can have for it, this is more proper and formal uncharitableness, than ever was charged upon you. me thinks, with much more reason, and much more charity, you might suppose, that many of these controversies which are now disputed among christians (all which profess themselves lovers of christ, and truly desirous to know his will and do it (are either not decidable by that means which god hath provided, and so not necessary to be decided: or if they be, yet not so plainly and evidently, as to oblige all men to hold one way: or lastly, if decidable, and evidently decided, yet you may hope that the erring part, by reason of some veil before his eyes, some excusable ignorance or unavoidable prejudice, does not see the question to be decided against him, and so opposes not that which he doth know to be the word of god, but only that which you know to be so, and which he might know, were he void of prejudice. which is a fault i confess, but a fault which is incident even to good and honest men very often: and not of such a gigantique disposition as you make it, to fly directly upon god almighty, and to give him the lie to his face. 12 ad §. 9 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. in all this long discourse you only tell us what you will do, but do nothing. many positions there are, but proofs of them you offer none, but reserve them to the chapters following; and there in their proper places they shall be examined. the sum of all your assumpts collected by yourself, §. 16 is this. that the infallible means of determining controversies, is the visible church. that he distinction of points fundamental, and not fundamental, maketh nothing to the present question. that to say the creed containeth all fundamentals, is neither pertinent nor true. that whosoever persist in division from the communion and faith of the roman church are guilty of schism and heresy. that in regard of the precept of charity towards ones self, protestants are in state of sin, while they remain divided from the roman church. to all these assertions i will content myself for the present to oppose this one, that not one of them all is true. only i may not omit to tell you, that if the first of them were as true as the pope himself desires it should be, yet the corollary which you deduce from it, would be utterly inconsequent, that whosoever denies any point proposed by the church, is injurious to god's divine majesty, as if he could deceive, or be deceived. for though your church were indeed as infallible a propounder of divine truths as it pretends to be, yet if it appeared not to me to be so, i might very well believe god most true, & your church most false. as though the gospel of s. matthew be the word of god, yet if i neither knew it to be so, nor believed it, i might believe in god, and yet think that gospel a fable. hereafter therefore i must entreat you to remember, that our being guilty of this impiety, depends not only upon your being, but upon our knowing that you are so. neither must you argue thus, the church of rome is the infallible propounder of divine verities, therefore he that opposes her calls god's truth in question: but thus rather; the church of rome is so, and protestants know it to be so, therefore in opposing her, they impute to god, that either he deceives them, or is deceived himself. for as i may deny something which you upon your knowledge have affirmed, & yet never disparage your honesty, if i never knew that you affirmed it: so i may be undoubtedly certain of god's omniscience, and veracity, & yet doubt of something which he hath revealed, provided i do not know, nor believe that he hath revealed it. so, that though your church be the appointed witness of god's revelations yet until you know, that we know she is so, you cannot without foul calumny impute to us, that we charge god blasphemously with deceiving, or being deceived. you will say perhaps, that this is directly consequent from our doctrine, that the church may err, which is directed by god in all her proposals. true, if we knew it to be directed by him, otherwise not; much less if we believe, and know the contrary. but then if it were consequent from our opinion, have you so little charity as to say, that men are justly chargeable with all the consequences of their opinions; such consequences, i mean, as they do not own but disclaim, and if there were a necessity of doing either, would much rather forsake their opinion then embrace these consequences? what opinion is there that draws after it such a train of portentous blasphemies, as that of the dominicans, by the judgement of the best writers of your own order? and will you say now that the dominicans are justly chargeable with all these blasphemies? if not, seeing our case (take it at the worst) is but the same, why should not your judgement of us be the same? i appeal to all those protestants that have gone over to your side; whether when they were most averse from it, they did ever deny or doubt of god's omniscience or veracity; whether they did ever believe, or were taught, that god did deceive them or was deceived himself. nay, i provoke to you yourself, & desire you to deal truly, & to tell us whether you do in your heart believe, that we do indeed not believe the eternal veracity of the eternal verity? and if you judge so strangely of us, having no better ground for it, than you have or can have, we shall not need any farther proof of your uncharitableness towards us, this being the extremity of true uncharitableness. if not, than i hope having no other ground but this (which sure is none at all) to pronounce us damnable heretics, you will cease to do so; and hereafter (as, if your ground be true, you may do with more truth and charity) collect thus, they only err damnably, who oppose what they know god hath testified, but protestants sure do not oppose what they know god hath testified, at least we cannot with charity say they do, therefore they either do not err damnably, or with charity we cannot say they do so. 13 ad § 17. protestants (you say) according to their own grounds must hold that of persons contrary in whatsoever point of belief one part only can be saved, therefore it is strangely done of them to charge papists with want of charity for holding the same. the consequence i acknowledge, but wonder much what it should be that lays upon protestants any necessity to do so! you tell us it is their holding scripture the sole rule of faith: for this, you say, obligeth them to pronounce them damned, that oppose any least point delivered in scripture. this i grant, if they oppose it after sufficient declaration, so that either they know it to be contained in scripture, or have no just probable reason, and which may move an honest man to doubt whether or no it be there contained. for to oppose in the first case in a man that believes the scripture to be the word of god, is to give god the lie. to oppose in the second, is to be obstinate against reason, and therefore a sin though not so great as the former. but then this is nothing to the purpose of the necessity of damning all those that are of contrary belief; and that for these reasons. first, because the contrary belief may be touching a point not at all mentioned in scripture; and such points, though indeed they be not matters of faith, yet by men in variance are often overvalued and esteemed to be so. so that, though it were damnable to oppose any point contained in scripture; yet persons of a contrary belief (as victor and polycrates, s. cyprian, and stephen) might both be saved, because their contrary belief was not touching any point contained in scripture. secondly, because the contrary belief may be about the sense of some place of scripture which is ambiguous, and with probability capable of divers senses; and in such cases it is no marvel, and sure no sin, if several men go several ways. thirdly because the contrary belief may be concerning points wherein scripture may with so great probability be alleged on both sides, (which is a sure note of a point not necessary) that men of honest and upright hearts, true lovers of god and of truth, such as desire, above all things, to know gods will and to do it, may, without any fault at all, some go one way, and some another, & some (& those as good men as either of the former) suspend their judgements, and expect some elias to solve doubts, and reconcile repugnancies. now in all such questions one side or other (which soever it is) holds that which indeed is opposite to the sense of the scripture, which god intended; for it is impossible that god should intend contradictions. but then this intended sense is not so fully declared, but that they which oppose it may verily believe that they indeed maintain it, and have great show of reason to induce them to believe so; and therefore are not to be damned, as men opposing that which they either know to be a truth delivered in scripture, or have no probable reason to believe the contrary; but rather in charity to be acquitted and absolved, as men who endeavour to find the truth, but fail of it through humane frailty. this ground being laid, the answer to your ensuing interrogatories, which you conceive impossible, is very obvious & easy. 14 to the first. whether it be not in any man a grievous sin to deny any one truth containded in holy writ? i answer, yes, if he knew it to be so, or have no probable reason to doubt of it: otherwise not. 15 to the second. whether there be in such denial any distinction between fundamental & not fundamental sufficient to excuse from heresy? i answer, yes, there is such a distinction. but the reason is, because these points, either in themselves, or by accident, are fundamental, which are evidently contained in scripture, to him that knows them to be so: those not fundamental which are there-hence deducible but probably only, not evidently. 16 to the third. whether it be not impertinent to allege the creed as containing all fundamental points of faith, as if believing it alone we were at liberty to deny all other points of scripture? i answer, it was never alleged to any such purpose; but only as a sufficient, or rather more than a sufficient summary of those points of faith, which were of necessity to be believed actually and explicitly; and that only of such which were merely and purely credenda, and not agenda. 17 to the fourth, drawn as a corollary from the former, whether this be not to say, that of persons contrary in belief, one part only can be saved? i answer, by no means. for they may differ about points not contained in scripture: they may differ about the sense of some ambiguous texts of scripture: they may differ about some doctrines, for and against which scriptures may be alleged with so great probability, as may justly excuse either part from heresy, and a self condemning obstinacy. and therefore, though d. potter do not take it ill, that you believe yourselves may be saved in your religion; yet notwithstanding all that hath yet been pretended to the contrary, he may justly condemn you, and that out of your own principles, of uncharitable presumption, for affirming as you do, that no man can be saved out of it. chap. ii. what is that means, whereby the revealed truths of god are conveyed to our understanding, and which must determine controversies in faith and religion. of our estimation, respect, and reverence to holy scripture even protestants themselves do in fact give testimony, while they possess it from us, and take it upon the integrity of our custody. no cause imaginable could avert our will from giving the function of supreme and sole judge to holy writ, if both the thing were not impossible in itself, and if both reason and experience did not convince our understanding, that by this assertion contentions are increased, and not ended. we acknowledge holy scripture to be a most perfect rule, for as much as a writing can be a rule: we only deny that it excludes either divine tradition, though it be unwritten, or an external judge to keep, to propose, to interpret in a true, orthodox, and catholic sense. every single book, every chapter, yea every period of holy scripture is infallibly true, and wants no due perfection. but must we therefore infer, that all other books of scripture, are to be excluded, least by addition of them, we may seem to derogate from the perfection of the former? when the first books of the old and new testament were written, they did not exclude unwritten traditions, nor the authority of the church to decide controversies; and who hath then so altered their nature, and filled them with such jealousies, as that now they cannot agree for fear of mutual disparagement? what greater wrong is it for the written word, to be compartner now with the unwritten, then for the unwritten, which was once alone, to be afterward joined with the written? who ever heard, that sto commend the fidelity of a keeper, were to disauthorize the thing committed to his custody? or that, to extol the integrity and knowledge, and to avouch the necessity of a judge in suits of law, were to deny perfection in the law? are there not in common wealths besides the laws written & unwritten, customs, judges appointed to declare both the one, & the other, as several occasions may require? 2 that the scripture alone cannot be judge in controversies of faith, we gather very clearly, from the quality of a writing in general: from the nature of holy writ in particular, which must be beheved as true, and infallible: from the editions, and translations of it: from the difficulty to understand it without hazard of error: from the inconveniences that must follow upon the ascribing of sole judicature to it: and finally from the confessions of our adversaries. and on the other side, all these difficulties ceasing, and all other qualities requisite to a judge concurring in the visible church of christ our lord, we must conclude, that she it is, to whom in doubts concerning faith and religion, all christians ought to have recourse. 3 the name, notion, nature, and properties of a judge cannot in common reason agree to any mere writing, which, be it otherwise in its kind, never so highly qualified with sanctity and infallibility; yet it must ever be, as all writings are, deaf, dumb, and inanimate. by a judge, all wise men understand a person endued with life, and reason, able to hear; to examine, to declare his mind to the disagreeing parties, in such sort as that each one may know whether the sentence be in favour of his cause, or against his pretence, and he must be appliable, and able to do all this, as the diversity of controversies, persons, occasions, and circumstances may require, there is a great and plain distinction betwixt a judge and a rule. for as in a kingdom, the judge hath his rule to follow which are the received laws and customs; so are not they fit or able to declare, or be judges to themselves, but that office must belong to a living judge. the holy scripture may be, and is a rule, but cannot be a judge, because it being always the same, cannot declare itself any one time, or upon any one occasion more particularly then upon any other; and let it be read over an hundred times, it will be still the same, and no more fit alone to terminate controversies in faith, than the law would be to end suits, if it were given over to the fancy, and gloss of every single man. 4 this difference betwixt a judge and a rule, d. potter perceived, when more than once, having styled the scripture a judge, by way of correcting that term, he adds, or rather a rule, because he knew that an inanimate writing could not be a judge. from hence also it was, that though protestants in their beginning affirmed scripture alone to be the judge of controversies; yet upon a more advised reflection, they changed the phrase, and said, that not scripture, but the holy ghost speaking in scripture, is judge in controversies. a difference without a disparity. the holy ghost speaking only in scripture is no more intelligible to us, than the scripture in which he speaks: as a man speaking only latin, can be no better understood, than the tongue wherein he speaketh. and therefore to say, a judge is necessary for deciding controversies, about the meaning of scripture is as much as to say, he is necessary to decide what the holy ghost speaks in scripture. and it were a conceit, equally foolish and pernicious, if one should seek to take away all judges in the kingdom, upon this nicety, that albeit laws cannot be judges, yet the lawmaker speaking in the law, may perform that office; as if the lawmaker speaking in the law, were with more perspicuity understood, than the law whereby he speaketh. 5 but though some writing were granted to have a privilege, to declare itself upon supposition that it were maintained in being, and preserved entire from corruptions; yet it is manifest, that no writing can conserve itself, nor can complain, or denounce the falsifier of it; and therefore it stands in need of some watchful and not erring eye, to guard it, by means of whose assured vigilancy, we may undoubtedly receive it sincere and pure. 6 and suppose it could defend itself from corruption, how could it assure us that itself were canonical, and of infallible verity? by saying so? of this very affirmation, there will remain the same question still; how it can prove itself to be infallibly true? neither can there ever be an end of the like multiplied demands, till we rest in the external authority of some person or persons bearing witness to the world, that such, or such a book is scripture: and yet upon this point according to protestants all other controversies in faith depend. 7 that scripture cannot assure us, that itself is canonical scripture, is acknowledged by some protestants in express words, and by all of them in deeds. m. hooker, whom d. potter ranketh a pag. 131. among men of great learning and judgement, saith: of things b in his first book of eccles. policy sect. 1 ●. p. 68 necessary, the very chiefest is to know what books we are to esteem holy; which point is confessed impossible for the scripture itself to teach. and this he proveth by the same argument, which we lately used, saying thus: it is not c ibid. lib. 2. sect. 4. p. 102. the word of god which doth, or possibly can, assure us, that we do well to think it his word. for if any one book of scripture did give testimony of all, yet still that scripture which giveth testimony to the rest, would require another scripture to give credit ●nto it. neither could we come to any pause whereon to rest, unless besides scripture, there were something which might assure us etc. and this he acknowledgeth to be the d l. 3. sect. 8. pag. 1. 146. et alibi. church. by the way. if, of things necessary the very chiefest cannot possibly be taught by scripture, as this man of so great learning and judgement affirmeth, and demonstratively proveth; how can the protestant clergy of england subscribe to their sixth article? wherein it is said of the scripture: whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation: and concerning their belief and profession of this article, they are particularly examined when they be ordained priests and bishops. with hooker, his defendant covell doth punctually agree. whitaker likewise confesseth, that the question about canonical scriptures, is defined to us, not by testimony of the private spirit, which (faith he) being private and secret, is e advers. stapl. l. 2. c. 6. pag. 270. & pag. 357. unfit to teach and refel others; but (as he acknowledgeth) by the f adversus stapl. l. 2. c. 4. pag. 300. ecclesiastical tradition: an argument (saith he) whereby may be argued, and convinced, what books be canonical, and what be not. luther saith: this g lib. de cap. babyl. tom. 2. wittemb. f. 88 indeed the church hath, that she can discern the word of god, from the word of men: as augustine confesseth, that he believed the gospel, being moved by the authority of the church, which did preach this to be the gospel. fulk teacheth, that the church h in his answer to a counterfeit catholic pag. 5. hath judgement to discern true writings from counterfeit, and the word of god from the writing of men, and that this judgement she hath not of herself, but of the holy ghost. and to the end that you my not be ignorant, from what church you must receive scriptures, hear your first patriarch luther, speaking against them, who (as he saith) brought in anabaptism, that so they might despite the pope. verily (saith he) these i epist. cont. anabap. ad duos parochos tom. 2. germ. wittemb. men build upon a weak foundation. for by this means they ought to deny the whole scripture, and the office of preaching. for, all these we have from the pope: otherwise we must go make a new scripture. 8 but now in deeds, they all make good, that without the church's authority, no certainty can be had what scripture is canonical, while they cannot agree in assigning the canon of holy scripture. of the epistle of s. james, luther hath these words: the k praefat. in epist. lac. in edit. ie●ensi. epistle of james is contentious; swelling, dry, strawy, and unworthy of an apostolical spirit. which censure of luther, illyricus acknowledgeth and maintaineth. kemnitins' teacheth, that the second epistle l in euchirid. pag. 63. of peter, the second and third of john, the epistle to the hebrews, the epistle of james, the epistle of jude, and the apocalypse of john are apocryphal, as not having sufficient testimony m in examine. conc. trid. part. 1. pag. 55. of their authority, and therefore that nothing in controversy can be proved out of these n ibid. books. the same is taught by diverse other lutherans; and if some other amongst them, be of a contrary opinion since luther's time, i wonder what new infallible ground they can allege, why they leave their master, and so many of his prime scholars? i kn●w no better ground, then because they may with as much freedom abandon him, as he was bold to alter that canon of scripture, which he found received in god's church. 9 what books of scripture the protestants of england hold for canonical, is not easy to affirm. in their sixth article they say in the name of the holy scripture, who do understand those canonical books of the old and new testament, of whose authority was never any doubt in the church. what mean they by these words? that by the church's consent they are assured what scriptures be canonical? this were to make the church judge, and not scriptures alone. do they only understand the agreement of the church to be a probable inducement? probability is no sufficient ground for an infallible assent of faith. by this rule (of whose authority was never any doubt in the church) the whole book of esther must quit the canon, because some in the church have excluded it from the canon, as o apud euseb. l. 4. hist. c. 26. melito asianus, p in synop. athanasius, and q in carm. de. genuinis scriptures. gregory nazianzen. and luther (if protestanis will be content that he be in the church) saith: the jews r lib. de servo arbitrio. cont. etas. tom. 2. witt. fol. 471. place the book of esther in the canon, which yet, if i might be judge, doth rather deserve to be put out of the canon. and of ecclesiastes he saith: this s in latinis sermonibus convivialibus francof. in 8. impr. anno 1571. book is not full; there are in it many abrupt things: he wants boots and spurs, that is, he hath no perfect sentence, he rides upon a long reed like me when i was in the monastery. and much more is to be read in him: who t in germanicis colloq. lutheri ab aurifabro editis francosurt. tit. de libris veteris & novi test. fol. 379. saith further, that the said book was not written by solomon, but by syrach in the time of the maccabees, and that it is like to the talmud (the jews bible) out of many books heaped into one work, perhaps out of the library of king ptolomeus. and further he saith, that u ib. tit. de patriarchis & prophet. fol. 282. he doth not believe all to have been done as there is set down. and he reacheth the w tit. de lib. ve●. & nou. test. book of job to be as it were an argument for a fable (or comedy) to set before us an example of patience. and he x fol. 380. delivers this general censure of the prophet's books: the sermons of no prophet, were written whole, and perfect, but their disciples, and auditors snatched, now one sentence, and then another, and so put them all into one book, and by this means the bible was conserved. if this were so, the books of the prophets, being not written by themselves, but promiscuously, and casually, by their disciples, will soon be called in question. are not these errors of luther, fundamental? and yet if protestants deny the infallibility of the church, upon what certain ground can they disprove these lutherian, and luciferian blasphemies? o godly reformer of the roman church! but to return to our english canon of scripture. in the new testament by the above mentioned rule (of whose authority was never any doubt in the church) diverse books of the new testament must be discanonized, to wit, all those of which some ancients have doubted, and those which diverse lutherans have of late denied. it is worth the observation how the beforementioned sixth article, doth specify by name all the books of the old testament which they hold for canonical; but those of the new testament, as they are commonly received, we do receive, and account them canonical. the mystery is easily to be unfolded. if they had descended to particulars, they must have contradicted some of their chiefest brethren. as they are commonly received, etc. i ask: by whom? by the church of rome: then, by the same reason they must receive diverse books of the old testament, which they reject. by lutherans? then with lutherans they may deny some books of the new testament. if it be the greater, or less number of voices, that must cry up, or down, the canon of scripture, our roman canon will prevail: and among protestants the certainty of their faith must be reduced to an uncertain controversy of fact, whether the number of those who reject, or of those others who receive such and such scriptures, be greater. their faith must alter according to years, and days. when luther first appeared, he, and his disciples were the greater number of that new church; and so this claim (of being commonly received) stood for them, till zuinglius and calvin grew to some equal, or greater number than that of the lutherans, and then this rule of (commonly received) will canonize their canon against the lutherans. i would gladly know, why in the former part of their article, they say both of the old and new testament: in the name of the holy scripture, we do understand those canonical books of the old and new testament, of whose authority was never any doubt in the church. and in the latter part, speaking again of the new testament, they give a far different rule, saying: all the books of the new testament, as they are commonly received, we do receive, and account them canonical. this i say is a rule much different from the former (of whose authority was never any doubt in the church.) for some books might be said to be commonly received, although they were sometime doubted of by some. if to be commonly received, pass for a good rule to know the canon of the new testament; why not of the old? above all we desire to know, upon what infallible ground in some books they agree with us against luther, and diverse principal lutherans, and in others jump with luther against us? but seeing they disagree among themselves, it is evident that they have no certain rule to know the canon of scripture, in assigning whereof some of them must of necessity err, because of contradictory propositions both cannot be true. 10 moreover the letters, syllables, words, phrase, or matter contained in holy scripture have no necessary, or natural connection with divine revelation or inspiration: and therefore by seeing, reading, or understanding them, we cannot infer that they proceed from god, or be confirmed by divine authority, as because creatures involve a necessary relation, connection, and dependence on their creator, philosophers may by the light of natural reason, demonstrate the existence of one prime cause of all things. in holy wr●● there are innumerable truths not surpassing the sphere of humane wit, which are, or may be delivered by pagan writers, in the self same words and phrase as they are in scripture. and as for some truths peculiar to christians, (for example, the mystery of the blessed trinity etc.) the only setting them down in writing is not enough to be assured that such a writing is the undoubted word of god: otherwise some sayings of plato, tris●egistus, sibyls, ovid, etc. must be esteemed canonical scripture, because they fall upon some truths proper to christian religion. the internal light, and inspiration which directed and moved the authors of canonical scriptures, is a hidden quality infused into their understanding and will, and hath no such particular sensible influence into the external writing, that in it we can discover, or from it demonstrate any such secret light and inspiration; and therefore to be assured that such a writing is divine we cannot know from itself alone, but by some other extrinsecall authority. 11 and here we appeal to any man of judgement, whether it be not a vain brag of some protestants to tell us, that they wot full well what is scripture, by the light of scripture itself, or (as d. potter words it) by y pag. 141. that glorious beam of divine light which shines therein; even as our eye distinguisheth light from darkness, without any other help then light itself; and as our ear knows a voice, by the voice itself alone. but this vanity is refuted, by what we said even now; that the external scripture hath no apparent or necessary connection with divine inspiration, or revelation. will d. poiter hold all his brethren for blind men, for not seeing that glorious beam of divine light which shines in scripture, about which they cannot agree? corporal light may be discerned by itself alone, as being evident, proportionate, and connatural to our faculty of seeing. that scripture is divine, and inspired by god, is a truth exceeding the natural capacity and compass of man's understanding, to us obscure, and to be believed by divine faith, which according to the apostle is; argumentum z heb. v. 1, non apparentium; an argument, or conviction, of things not evident: and therefore no wonder if scripture do not manifest itself by itself alone, but must require some other means for applying it to our understanding. nevertheless their own similitudes and instances, make against themselves. for suppose a man had never read, or heard of sun, moon, fire, candle, etc. and should be brought to behold a light, yet in such sort as that the agent, or 'cause efficient from which it proceeded, were kept hidden from him; could such a one, by only beholding the light, certainly know, whether it were produced by the sun, or moon & c.? or if one hear a voice, and had never known the speaker, could he know from whom in particular that voice proceeded? they who look upon scripture, may well see, that some one wrote it, but that it was written by divine inspiration, how shall they know? nay, they cannot so much as know who wrote it, unless they first know the writer, and what hand he writes: as likewise i cannot know whose voice it is which i hear, unless i first both know the person who speaks, and with what voice he useth to speak; and yet even all this supposed, i may perhaps be deceived. for there may be voices so like, and hand so counterfeited, that men may be deceived by them, as birds were by the grapes of that skilful painter. now since protestants affirm knowledge concerning god as our supernatural end, must be taken from scripture, they cannot in scripture alone discern that it is his voice, or writing, because they cannot know from whom a writing, or vioce proceeds, unless first they know the person who speake● ', or writeth. nay i say more: by scripture alone, they cannot so much as know, that any person doth in it, or by it, speak any thing at all: because one may write without intent to signify, or affirm any thing, but only to set down, or as it were paint, such characters, syllables, and words, as men are wont to set copies, not caring what the signification of the words imports: or as one transcribes a writing which himself understands not; or when one writes what another dictates, and in other such cases, wherein it is clear, that the writer speaks, or signifies nothing in such his writing; and therefore by it we cannot hear, or understand his voice. with what certainty then can any man affirm, that by scripture itself they can see, that the writers did intend to signify any thing at all; that they were apostles, or other canonical authors; that they wrote their own sense, and not what was dictated by some other man; and finally, and especially, that they wrote by the infallible direction of the holy ghost? 12 but let us be liberal, and for the present suppose (not grant) that scripture is, like to corporal light, by itself alone able to determine, and move our understanding to assent; yet the similitude proves against themselves. for light is not visible, except to such as have eyes, which are not made by the light, but must be presupposed as produced by some other cause. and therefore, to hold the similitude, scripture can be clear only to those who are endued with the eye of faith; or, as d. potter above cited saith, to all that have a pag. 141▪ eyes to discern the shining beams thereof; that is, to the believer, as immediately after he speaketh. faith than must not originally proceed from scripture, but is to be presupposed, before we can see the light thereof; and consequently there must be some other means precedent to scripture to beget faith, which can be no other than the church. 13 others affirm, that they know canonical scriptures to be such, by the title of the books. but how shall we know such inscriptions, or titles to be infallibly true? from this their answer our argument is strengthened, because diverse apocryphal writings have appeared, under the titles, and names of sacred authors, as the gospel of thomas mentioned by b cont. adimantn. c. 17. s. augustine: the gospel of peter, which the nazaraei did use, as c l. 2. heretic. fab. theodoret witnesseth, with which seraphion a catholic bishop, was for some time deceived, as may be read in d lib. 6. cap. 10. eusebius who also speaketh of the apocalypse of e lib. 6. cap. 11. peter. the like may be said of the gospels of barnabas, bartholomew, and other such writings specified by pope f dist. can. sancta rom●na. gelasius. protestants reject likewise some part of esther and daniel, which bear the same titles with the rest of those books, as also both we, and they hold for apocryphal, the third and fourth books which go under the name of esdras, and yet both of us receive his first and second book. wherefore titles are not sufficient assurances what books be canonical: which h in his defence art. 4. pag. 31. d. covell acknowledgeth in these words: it is not the word of god, which doth, or possibly can assure us, that we do well to think it is the word of god: the first outward motion leading men so to esteem of the scripture, is the authority of god's church, which teacheth us to receive marks gospel, who was not an apostle, and to refuse the gospel of thomas who was an apostle: and to retain luke's gospel who saw not christ, and to reject the gospel of nicodemus who saw him. 14 another answer, or rather objection they are wont to bring: that the scripture being a principle needs no proof among christians. so i pag. 234. d. potter. but this is either a plain begging of the question, or manifestly untrue, and is directly against their own doctrine, and practise. if they mean, that scripture is one of those principles, which being the first, and the most known in all sciences, cannot be demonstrated by other principles, they suppose that which is in question, whether there be not some principle (for example, the church) whereby we may come to the knowledge of scripture. if they intent, that scripture is a principle, but not the first, and most known in christianity, than scripture may be proved. for principles, that are not the first, not known of themselves, may, and aught to be proved, before we can yield assent, either to them, or to other verities depending on them. it is repugnant to their own doctrine, and practise, in as much as they are wont to affirm, that one part of scripture may be known to be canonical, and may be interpreted by another. and since every scripture is a principle sufficient, upon which to ground divine faith, they must grant, that one principle may, and sometime must be proved by another. yea this their answer, upon due ponderation, falls out to prove, what we affirm. for since all principles cannot be proved, we must (that our labour may not be endless) come at length to rest in some principle; which may not require any other proof. such is tradition, which involves an evidence of fact, and from hand to hand, and age to age, bringing us up to the times, and persons of the apostles, and our saviour himself cometh to be confirmed by all those miracles, and other arguments, whereby they convinced their doctrine to be true. wherefore the ancient fathers avouch that we must receive the sacred canon upon the credit of god's church. k in synopsi. s. athanasius saith, that only four gospels are to be received, because the canons of the holy, and catholic church have so determined. the third council of l can. 47. carthage having set down the books of holy scripture, gives the reason, because, we have received from our fathers that these are to be read in the church. 8. augustine m cont. ●p. fundam. c. 5. speaking of the acts of the apostles, saith: to which book i must give credit, if i give credit to the gospel, because the catholic church doth a like recommend to me both these books. and in the same place he hath also these words: i would not believe the gospel, unless the authority of the catholic church did move me. a saying so plain, that zuinglius, is forced to cry out: here i n tom. 1. fol. 135. implore your equity to speak freely, whether this saying of augustine seem not overbold, or else unadvisedly to have fallen from him. 15 but suppose they were assured what books were canonical, this will little avail them, unless they be likewise certain in what language they remain uncorrupted, or what translations be true. calvin o instit. c. 6. §. 11. acknowledgeth corruption in the hebrew text; which if it be taken without points, is so ambiguous, that scarcely any one chapter, yes period, can be securely understood without the help of some translation. if with points: these were after s. hieroms' time, invented by the perfidious jews, who either by ignorance might mistake, or upon malice force the text, to favour their impieties. and that the hebrew text still retains much ambiguity, is apparent by the disagreeing translation of novelists; which also proves the greek, for the new testament, not to be void of doubtfulness, as calvin p instit c. 7. §. 12. confesseth it to be corrupted. and although both the hebrew and greek were pure, what doth this help, if only scripture be the rule of faith, and so very few be able to examine the text in these languages. all then must be reduced to the certainty of translations into other tongues, wherein no private man having any premise, or assurance of infallibility, protestants who rely upon scripture alone, will find no certain ground for their faith: as accordingly whitaker q lib. de sancta scriptura p. 52. affirmeth: those who understand not the hebrew and greek do err often, and unavoidably. 16 now concerning the translations of protestants, it will be sufficient to set down what the laborious, exact, and jucicious author of the protestants apology &c. dedicated to our late king james of famous memory, hath to this r tast. 1. sect. 10. subd. 4: joined with tract. 2. cap. 2. sect. 10. subd. 2. purpose. to omit (saith he) particulars, whose recital would be infinite, and to touch this point but generally only, the translation of the new testament by luther is condemned by andreas, o siander keckermannus, and zuinglius, who saith hereof to luther. thou dost corrupt the word of god, thou art seen to be a manifest and common corrupter of the holy scriptures: how much are we ashamed of thee who have hitherto esteemed thee beyond all measure, and now prove thee to be such a man? and in like manner doth luther reject the translation of the zwinglians, terming them in matter of divinity, fools, asses, anuchrists, deceavers, and of asslike understanding. in so much that when froschoverus the zwinglian printer of zurich sent him a bible translated by the divines there, luther would not receive the same, but sending it back rejected it, as the protestant writers hospinianus, and lavatherus witness. the translation set forth by oecolampadius, and the divines of basil, is reproved by beza, who affirmeth that the basil translation is in many places wicked, and altogether differing from the mind of the holy ghost. the translation of castalio is condemned by beza, as being sacrilegious, wicked, and ethnical. as concerning, calvin's translation, that learned protestant writer carolus molineus saith thereof: calvin in his harmony maketh the text of the gospel to leap up and down: he useth violence to the letter of the gospel, and besides this addeth to the text. as touching bezas' translation (to omit the dislike had thereof by selneccerus the german protestant of the university of jena) the foresaid molinaeus saith of him, de facto mutat textum; he actually changeth the text, and giveth farther sundry instances of his corruptions: as also castalio that learned calvinist, and most learned in the tongues, reprehendeth beza in a whole book of this matter, and saith; that to note all his errors in translation, would require a great volume. and m. parkes saith: as for the geneva bibles, it is to be wished that either they may be purged from those manifold errors, which are both in the text, and in the margin; or else utterly prohibited. all which confirmeth your majesty's grave and learned censure, in your thinking the geneva translation to be worst of all; and that in the marginal notes annexed to the geneva translation, some are very partial, untrue, seditious, etc. lastly concerning the english translation, the puritans say: our translation of the psalms comprised in our book of common prayer, doth in addition, subtraction, and alteration, differ from the truth of the hebrew in two hundred places at the least. in so much as they do therefore profess to rest doubtful, whether a man with a safe conscience may subscribe thereunto. and m. carlisle saith of the english translators, that they have depraved the sense, obscured the truth, and deceived the ignorant; that in many places they do detort the scriptures from the right sense. and that, they show themselves to love darkness more than light, falsehood more than truth. and the ministers of lincoln diocese give their public testimony, terming the english translation: a translation that taketh away from the text; that addeth to the text; and that, sometime to the changing, or obscuring of the meaning of the holy ghost. not without cause therefore did your majesty affirm, that you could never yet see a bible well translated into english. thus far the author of the protestants apology etc. and i cannot forbear to mention in particular that famous corruption of luther, who in the text where it is said (rom. 3. v. 28. we account a man to be justified by faith, without the works of the law, in favour of justification by faith alone, translateth (justified by faith alone.) as likewise the falsification of zuinglius is no less notorious, who in the gospels of s. matthew, mark, and luke, and in s. paul, in place of, this is my body, this is my blood, translates, this signifies my body, this signifies my blo●d. and here let prorestants consider duly of these points. salvation cannot be hoped for without true faith: faith according to them relies upon scripture alone: scripture must be delivered to most of them by the translations: translations depend on the skill and honesty of men, in whom nothing is more certain than a most certain possibility to err, and no greater evidence of truth, then that it is evident some of them embrace falsehood, by reason of their contrary translations. what then remaineth, but that truth, faith, salvation, and all, must in them rely upon a fallible, and uncertain ground? how many poor souls are lamentably seduced, while from preaching ministers, they admire a multitude of texts of divine scripture, but are indeed the false translations, and corruptions of erring men? let them therefore, if they will be assured of true scriptures, fly to the always visible catholic church, against which the gates of hell can never so far prevail, as that she shall be permitted to deceive the christian world with false scriptures. and luther himself, by unfortunate experience, was at length forced to confess thus much saying: if the s lib. cont. zwingl. deverit. corp. christiin euchar. world last longer, it will be again necessary to receive the decrees of counsels, and to have recourse to them, by reason of diverse interpretations of scripture which now reign. on the contrary side, the translation approved by the roman church, is commended even by our adversaries: and d. covel in particular saith, that it was used in the church, one thousand t in his answer unto m. john burges pag. 94. three hundred years ago, and doubteth not to prefer u ibid. that translation before others. in so much, that whereas the english translations be many, and among themselves disagreeing, he concludeth, that of all those the approved translation authorized by the church of england, is that which cometh nearest to the vulgar, and is commonly called the bishop's bible. so that the truth of that translation which we use, must be the rule to judge of the goodness of their bibles: and therefore they are obliged to maintain our translation if it were but for their own sake. 17 but doth indeed the source of their manifold uncertainties stop here? no, the chiefest difficulty remains, concerning the true meaning of scripture: for attaining whereof, if protestants had any certainty, they could not disagree so hugely as they do. hence m. hooker saith: we are w in his preface to his books of ecclesiastical policy. sect. 6. 26. right sure of this, that nature, scripture, and experience have all taught the world to seek for the ending of contentions, by submitting itself unto some judicial, and definitive sentence, whereunto neither part that contendeth may, under any pretence, refuse to stand. d. fields words are remarkable, to this purpose: seeing (saith he) the controversies x in his treatise of the church in his epistle dedicatory to the l. archbishop. of religion in our times are grown in number so many, and in nature so intricate, that few have time and leisure, fewer strength of understanding to examine them; what remaineth for men desirous of satisfaction in things of such consequence, but diligently to search out which among all the societies in the world, is that blessed company of holy ones, that household of faith, that spouse of christ, and church of the living god, which is the pillar and ground of truth, that so they may embrace her communion, follow her directions, and rest in her judgement? 18 and now that the true interpretation of scripture, aught to be received from the church, it is also proved by what we have already demonstrated, that she it is, who must declare what books be true scripture; wherein if she be assisted by the holy ghost, why should we not believe her, to be infallibly directed concerning the true meaning of them? let protestants therefore either bring some proof out of scripture, that the church is guided by the holy ghost in discerning true scripture, and not in delivering the true sense thereof; or else give us leave to apply against them, the argument, which s. augustine opposed to the manicheans, in these words; i would not y cont. ep. fund. cap. 5. believe the gospel, unless the authority of the church did move me. them therefore whom i obeye● saying, believe the gospel, why should i not obey saying to me, do not believe manichaeus (luther, calvin, etc.) choose what thou pleasest. if thou shalt say, believe the catholics; they warn me not to give any credit to you. if therefore i believe them, i cannot believe thee. if thou say, do not believe the catholics, thou shalt not do well in forcing me to the faith of manichaeus, because by the preaching of catholics i believed the gospel itself. if thou say, you did well to believe them (catholics) commending the gospel, but you did not well to believe them, discommending manichaeus; dost thou think me so very foolish, that without any reason at all, i should believe what thou wilt, and not believe what thou wilt not? and do not protestants perfectly resemble these men, to whom s. augustine spoke, when they will have men to believe the roman church delivering scripture, but not to believe her condemning luther, and the rest? against whom, when they first opposed themselves to the roman church, s. augustine may seem to have spoken no less prophetically, then doctrinally, when he said: why should i not most z lib. de util. ●●e. cap. 14. diligently in●uire what christ commanded of them before all others, by whose authority i was moved to believe, that christ commanded any good thing? canst thou better declare to me what he said, whom i would not have thought to have been; or to be, if the belief thereof had been recommended by thee to me? this therefore i believed by fame, strengthened with celebrity, consent, antiquity. but every one may see that you, so few, so turbulent, so new, can produce nothing deserving authority. what madness is this? believe them (catholics) that we ought to believe christ; but learn of us what christ said why, i beseech thee? surely if they (catholics) were not at all, and could not teach me any thing, i would more easily persuade myself, that i were not to believe christ, then that i should learn any thing concerning him from any other than them by whom i believed him. if therefore we receive the knowledge of christ, and scriptures from the church, from her also must we take his doctrine, and the interpretation thereof. 19 but besides all this, the scriptures cannot be judge of controversies; who ought to be such, as that to him not only the learned, or veterans, but also the unlearned, and novices, may have recourse: for these being capable of salvation, and endued with faith of the same nature with that of the learned, there must be some universal judge, which the ignorant may understand, and to whom the greatest clerks must submit. such is the church: and the scripture is not such. 20 now, the inconveniences which follow by referring all controversies to scripture alone, are very clear. for by this principle, all is finally in very deed and truth reduced to the internal private spirit, because there is really no middle way betwixt a public external, and a private internal voice; and whosoever refuseth the one, must of necessity adhere to the other. 21 this tenet also of protestants, by taking the office of judicature from the church, comes to confer it upon every particular man, who being driven from submission to the church, cannot be blamed if he trust himself as far as any other, his conscience dictating, that wittingly he means not to cozen himself, as others maliciously may do. which inference is so manifest, that it hath extorted from diverse protestants the open confession of so vast an absurdity. hear luther: the governors a t●m. ●. wittenberg. fol. 375. of churches and pastors of christ's sheep have indeed power to teach, but the sheep ought to give judgement whether they propound the voice of christ, or of aliens. lubertus saith: as we have b in lib. de principiis christian. dogm lib 6●. 13. demonstrated that all public judges may be deceived in interpreting; so we affirm, that they may err in judging. all faithful men are private judges, and they also have power to judge of doctrines and interpretations. whitaker, even of the unlearned, saith: they c de sacra scriptura pag. 529. ought to have recourse unto the more learned; but in the mean time we must be careful not to attribute to them overmuch, but so, that still we retain our own freedom. bilson also affirmeth; that, the people d in his true difference part. 2. must be discerners, and judges of that which is taught. this same pernicious doctrine is delivered by brentius, zanchius, cartwright, and others exactly cited by e tract. 2. cap, 1. sect. 1. brerely; and nothing is more common in every protestants mouth, then that he admits of fathers, counsels, church etc. as far as they agree with scripture; which upon the matter is himself. thus heresy ever falls upon extremes: it pretends to have scripture alone for judge of controversies, and in the mean time sets up as many judges, as there are men and women in the christian world. what good statesmen would they be, who should ideate, or fancy such a common wealth, as these men have framed to themselves a church? they verify what s. augustine objecteth against certain heretics. you see f lib. 32. cont▪ faust. that you go about to overthrow all authority of scripture, and that every man's mind may be to himself a rule, what he is to allow, or disallow in every scripture. 22 moreover what confusion to the church, what danger to the common wealth, this denial of the authority of the church, may bring, i leave to the consideration of any judicious, indifferent man. i will only set down some words of d. potter, who speaking of the proposition of revealed truths, sufficient to prove him that gainsayeth them to be an heretic, saith thus: this proposition g pag. 247▪ of revealed truths, is not by the infallible determination of pope, or church; (pope, & church being excluded, let us hear what more secure rule he will prescribe) but by whatsoever means a man may be convinced in conscience of divine revelation. if a preacher do clear any point of faith to his hearers; if a private christian do make it appear to his neighbour, that any conclusion, or point of faith is delivered by divine revelation of god's word; if a man himself (without any teacher) by reading the scriptures, or hearing them read, be convinced of the truth of any such conclusion: this is a sufficient proposition to prove him that gainsaith any such proof, to be an heretic, and obstinate opposer of the faith. behold what goodly safe propounders of faith arise in place of god's universal visible church, which must yield to a single preacher, a neighbour, a man himself if he can read, or at least have ears to hear scripture read. verily i do not see, but that every well-governed civil commonwealth, aught to concur towards the exterminating of this doctrine, whereby the interpretation of scripture is taken from the church, and conferred upon every man, who, whatsoever is pretended to the contrary, may be a passionate seditious creature. 23 moreover, there was no scripture, or written word for about two thousand years from adam to moses, whom all acknowledge to have been the first author of canonical scripture: and again for about two thousand years more, from moses to christ our lord, holy scripture, was only among the people of israel; and yet there were gentiles endued in those days with divine faith, as appeareth in job, and his friends. wherefore during so many ages, the church alone was the decider of controversies, and instructor of the faithful. neither did the word written by moses, deprive the church of her former infallibility, or other qualities requisite for a judge: yea d. potter acknowledgeth, that besides the law, there was a living judge in the jewish church, endued with an absolutely infallible direction in cases of moment; as all points belonging to divine faith are. now, the church of christ our lord, was before the scriptures of the new testament, which were not written instantly, nor all at one time, but successively upon several occasions; and some after the decease of most of the apostles: and after they were written, they were not presently known to all churches: and of some there was doubt in the church for some ages after our saviour. shall we then say, that according as the church by little and little received holy scripture, she was by the like degrees devested of her possessed infallibility, and power to decide controversies in religion? that some time churches had one judge of controversies, and others another? that with months, or years, as new canonical scripture grew to be published, the church altered her whole rule of faith, or judge of controversies? after the apostles time, and after the writing of scriptures, heresies would be sure to rise, requiring in god's church for their discovery and condemnation, infallibility, either to write new canonical scripture, as was done in the apostles time by occasion of emergent heresies; or infallibility to interpret scriptures, already written, or, without scripture, by divine unwritten traditions, and assistants of the holy ghost to determine all controversies, as tertullian saith: the soul is h de test. anim. cap. 5. before the letter; and speech before books; and sense before style. certainly such addition of scripture, with derogation, or subtraction from the former power and infallibility of the church, would have brought to the world division in matters of faith, and the church had rather lost, then gained by holy scripture (which ought to be far from our tongues and thoughts,) it being manifest, that for decision of controversies, infallibility settled in a living judge, is incomparably more useful and fit, then if it were conceived, as inherent in some inanimate writing. is there such repugnance betwixt infallibility in the church, and existence of scripture, that the production of the one, must be the destruction of the other? must the church wax dry, by giving to her children the milk of sacred writ? no, no. her infallibility was, and is derived from an inexhausted fountain. if protestants will have the scripture alone for their judge, let them first produce some scripture affirming, that by the entering thereof, infallibility went out of the church, d. potter may remember what himself teacheth; that the church is still endued with infallibility in points fundamental, and consequently, that infallibility in the church doth well agree with the truth, the sanctity, yea with the sufficiency of scripture, for all matters necessary to salvation. i would therefore gladly know, out of what text he imagineth that the church by the coming of scripture, was deprived of infallibility in some points, and not in others? he affirmeth that the jewish synagogue retained infallibility in herself, notwithstanding the writing of the old testament; and will he so unworthily and unjustly deprive the church of christ of infallibility by reason of the new testament? especially if we consider, that in the old testament, laws, ceremonies, rites, punishments, judgements, sacraments, sacrifices etc. were more particularly, and minutely delivered to the jews, then in the new testament is done; our saviour leaving the determination, or declaration of particulars to his spouse the church, which therefore stands in need of infallibility more than the jewish synagogue, d. potter, pag. 24. (1) against this argument, drawn from the power and infallibility of the synagogue, objects; that we might as well infer, that christians must have one sovereign prince over all because the jews had one chief judge. but the disparity is very clear. the synagogue was a type, and figure of the church of christ 〈◊〉 so their civil government of christian common wealths, or kingdoms. the church succeeded to the synagogue, but not christian princes to jewish magistrates: and the church is compared to a house, or k heb. 13. family; to an l cant. 2. army, to a m 1. cor. 10. ephes. 4. body; to a n mat. 12. kingdom etc. all which require one master, on● general, one head, one magistrate, one spiritual king; as our blessed saviour with fiet vnm ovile, o joan. c. 10. joined vnus pastor. one sheepfold, one pastor: but all distinct kingdoms, or commonwealths, are not one army, family, etc. and finally, it is necessary to salvation, that all have recourse to one church; but for temporal weal, there is no need that all submit, or depend upon one temporal prince, kingdom, or commonwealth: and therefore our saviour hath left to his whole church, as being one, one law, one scripture, the same sacraments, etc. whereas kingdoms have their several laws, different governments, diversity of powers, magistracy etc. and so this objection returneth upon d. potter. for as in the one community of the jews, there was one power and judge, to end debates, and resolve difficulties▪ so in the church of christ, which is one, there must be some one authority to decide all controversies in religion. 24 this discourse is excellently proved by ancient s. irenaeus p lib. 5. c. 4. in these words. what if the apostles had not left scriptures, ought we not to have followed the order of tradition which they delivered to those to whom they committed the churches? to which order many nations yield ossent, who believe in christ, having salvation written in their hearts by the spirit of god, without letters or juke, and diligently keeping ancient tradition. it is easy to receive the truth from god's church, seeing the apostles have most fully deposited in her, as in a rich storehouse, all things belonging to truth. for what? if there should arise any contention of some small question, ought we not to have recourse to the most ancient churches, and from them to receive what is certain and clear concerning the present question? 25 besides all this, the doctrine of protestants is destructive of itself. for either they have certain, and infallible means not to err in interpreting scripture; or they have not. if not; then the scripture (to them) cannot be a sufficient ground for infallible faith, nor a meet judge of controversies. if they h●ue certain infallible means, and so cannot err in their interpretations of scriptures; then they are able with infallibility to hear, examine, and determine all controversies of faith; and so they may be, and are judges of controversies, although they use the scripture as a rule. and thus, against their own doctrine, they constitute another judge of controversies, besides scripture alone. 26 lastly, 〈◊〉 d. potter, whether this assertion, (scripture alone is judge of all controversies in saith,) be a fundamental point of faith, or no? he must be well advised, before he say, that it is a fundamental point. for he will have against him, as many protestants as teach that by scripture alone, it is impossible to know what books be scripture, which yet to protestants is the most necessary and chief point of all other. d. covell expressly saith: doubtless q in his defence of m. hooker's books art. 4. p. ●1. it is a tolerable opinion in the church of rome, if they go no further, as some of them do not (he should have said as none of them do) to affirm, that the scriptures are holy & divine in themselves, but so esteemed by us, for the authority of the church. he will likewise oppose himself to those his brethren, who grant that controversies cannot be ended, without some external living authority, as we noted before. besides, how can it be in us a fundamental error to say, the scripture alone is not judge of controversies, seeing (notwithstanding this our belief) we use for interpreting of scripture, all the means which they prescribe; as prayer, conferring of places, consulting the originals &c▪ and to these add the instruction, and authority of god's church, which even by has confession cannot err damnably, and may afford us more help, then can be expected from the industry, learning, or wit of any private person: and finally d. potter grants, that the church of rome doth not maintain any fundamental error against faith; and consequently, he cannot affirm that our doctrine in this present controversy is damnable. if he answer, that their tenet, about the scriptures being the only judge of controversies, is not a fundamental point of faith: then, as he reaches that the universal church may err in points not fundamental; so i hope he will n●t deny, but particular churches, and private men, are much more obnoxious to error in such points; and in particular in this, that scripture alone is judge of controversies: and so, the very principle upon which their whole faith is grounded, remains to them uncertain: and on the other side, for the self same reason, they are not certain, but that the church is judge of controversies; which if she be, than their case is lamentable, who in general deny her this authority, & in particular controversies oppose her definitions. besides among public conclusions defended in oxford the year 1633. to the questions, whether the church have authority to determine controversies in faith; and, to interpret holy scripture? the answer to both is affirmative. 27 since then, the visible church of christ our lord is that infallible means whereby the revealed truth of almighty god are conveyed to our understanding; it followeth that to oppose her definitions is to resist god himself; which blessed s. augustine plainly affirmeth, when speaking of the controversy about rebaptisation of such as were baptised by heretics, he saith. t●is r de unit. eccles. c. 22. is neither openly, nor evidently read, neither by you nor by me; yet if there were any wise man of whom our saviour had given testimony, and that he should be consulted in this question, we should make no doubt to perform what he should say, lest we might seem to gainsay not him so much as christ, by whose testimony he was recommended. now christ beareth witness to his church. and a little after: whosoever refuseth to follow the practice of the church, doth resist our saviour himself, who by his testimony recommends the church. i conclude therefore with this argument. whosoever resisteth that means which infallibly proposeth to us god's word or revelation, commits a sin, which, unrepented, excludes salvation: but whosoever resisteth christ's visible church, doth resist that means, which infallibly proposeth god's word or revelation to us: therefore whosoever resisteth christ's visible church, commits a sin; which unrepented, excludes salvation. now what visible church was extant, when luther began his pretended reformation, whethe● it were the roman, or protestant church; and whether he, and other protestants do not oppose that visible church, which was spread over the world, before, and in luther's time, is easy to be determined, and importeth every one most seriously to ponder, as a thing whereon eternal salvation dependeth. and because our adversaries do here most insist upon the distinction of points fundamental, and not fundamental; and in particular teach, that the church may err in points not fundamental, it will be necessary to examine the truth, and weight of this evasion, which shall be done in the next chapter. answer to the second chapter. concerning the means, whereby the revealed truths of god are conveyed to our understanding; and which must determine controversies in faith and religion. ad §. 1. he that would usurp an absolute lordship and tyranny over any people, need not put himself to the trouble and difficulty of abrogating and disannulling the laws, made to maintain the common liberty; for he may frustrate their intent, and compass his own design as well, if he can get the power and authority to interpret them as he pleases, and add to them what he pleases, and to have his interpretations and additions stand for laws; if he can rule his people by his laws, and his laws by his lawyers. so the church of rome, to establish her tyranny over men's consciences, needed not either to abolish or corrupt the holy scriptures, the pillars and supporters of christian liberty (which in regard of the numerous multitude of copies dispersed through all places, translated into almost all languages, guarded with all solicitous care and industry, had been an impossible attempt;) but the more expedite way, and therefore more likely to be successful, was to gain the opinion and esteem of the public and authorised interpreter of them, and the authority of adding to them what doctrine she pleased under the title of traditions or definitions. for by this means, she might both serve herself of all those clauses of scripture, which might be drawn to cast a favourable countenance upon her ambitious pretences, which in case the scripture had been abolished, she could not have done; and yet be secure enough of having either her power limited, or her corruptions and abuses reform by them; this being once settled in the minds of men, that unwritten doctrines, if proposed by her, were to be received with equal reverence to those that were written: and that the sense of scripture was not that which seemed to men's reason and understanding to be so, but that which the church of rome should declare to be so, seemed it never so unreasonable, and incongruous. the matter being once thus ordered, and the holy scriptures being made in effect not your directors and judges (no farther than you please) but your servants and instruments, always pressed and in readiness to advance your designs, and disabled wholly with minds so qualified to prejudice or impeach them; it is safe for you to put a crown on their head, and a reed in their hands, and to bow before them, & cry, hail king of the jews! to pretend a great deal of esteem, and respect, & reverence to them, as here you do. but to little purpose is verbal reverence without entire submission and sincere obedience; and, as our saviour said of some, so the scripture, could it speak, i believe would say to you, why call ye me lord, lord, and do not that which i command you? cast away the vain and arrogant pretence of infallibility, which makes your errors incurable. leave picturing god, and worshipping him by pictures. teach not for doctrine the commandments of men. debar not the laity of the testament of christ's blood. let your public prayers and psalms and hymns be in such language as is for the edification of the assistants. take not from the clergy that liberty of marriage which christ hath left them. do not impose upon men that humility of worshipping angels which s. paul condemns. teach no more proper sacrifices of christ but one. acknowledge them that die in christ to be blessed, and to rest from their labours. acknowledge the sacrament after consecration, to be bread and wine, as well as christ's body and blood. acknowledge the gift of continency without marriage not to be given to all. let not the weapons of your warfare be carnal; such as are massacres, treasons, persecutions, and in a word all means either violent or fraudulent: these and other things, which the scripture commands you, do, and then we shall willingly give you such testimony as you deserve; but till you do so, to talk of estimation, respect, and reverence to the scripture, is nothing else but talk. 2 for neither is that true which you pretend, that we possess the scripture from you, or take it upon the integrity of your custody, but upon universal tradition, of which you are but a little part. neither, if it were true that protestants acknowledged, the integrity of it to have been guarded by your alone custody, were this any argument of your reverence towards them. for first, you might preserve them entire, not for want of will, but of power to corrupt them, as it is a hard thing to poison the sea. and then having prevailed so far with men, as either not to look at all into them, or but only through such spectacles as you should please to make for them, and to see nothing in them, though as clear as the sun, if it any way made against you, you might keep them entire, without any thought or care to conform your doctrine to them, or reform it by them (which were indeed to reverence the scriptures) but out of a persuasion, that you could qualify them well enough with your glosses and interpretations, and make them sufficiently conformable to your present doctrine, at least in their judgement, who were prepossesed with this persuasion, that your church was to judge of the sense of scripture, not to be judged by it. 3. for, whereas you say, no cause imaginable could avert your will, from giving the function of supreme and sole judge to holy writ; but that the thing is impossible; and that by this means controversies are increased and not ended: you mean perhaps. that you can or will imagine no other cause but these. but sure there is little reason you should measure other men's imaginations by your own, who perhaps may be so clouded and veiled with prejudice, that you cannot, or will not see that which is most manifest. for what indifferent and unprejudicate man may not easily conceive another cause which (i do not say does, but certainly) may pervert your wills, and avert your understandings from submitting your religion and church to a trial by scripture. i mean the great and apparent and unavoidable danger which by this means you would fall into, of losing the opinion which men have of your infallibility, and consequently your power and authority over men's consciences, and all that depends upon it; so that though diana of the ephesians be cried up, yet it may be feared that with a great many among you (though i censure or judge no man) the other cause which wrought upon demetrius and the craftsmen, may have with you also the more effectual, though more secret influence: and that is, that by this craft we have our living; by this craft, i mean of keeping your proselytes from an indifferent trial of your religion by scripture, and making them yield up and captivate their judgement unto yours. yet had you only said de facto, that no other cause did avert your own will from this, but only these which you pretend; out of charity i should have believed you: but seeing you speak not of yourself, but of all of your side, whose hearts you cannot know; and profess not only, that there is no other cause, but that no other is imaginable, i could not let this pass without a censure. as for the impossibility of scriptures being the sole judge of controversies, that is, the sole rule for man to judge them by (for we mean nothing else) you only affirm it without proof, as if the thing were evident of itself. and therefore i, conceiving the contrary to be more evident, might well-content myself to deny it without refutation. yet i cannot but desire you to tell me, if scripture cannot be the judge of any controversy, how shall that touching the church and the notes of it be determined? and if it be the sole judge of this one, why may it not of others? why not of all? those only excepted wherein the scripture itself is the subject of the question, which cannot be determined but by natural reason, the only principle, beside scripture, which is common to christians. 4 then for the imputation of increasing contentions and not ending them, scripture is innocent of it; as also this opinion; that controversies are to be decided by scripture. for if men did really and sincerely submit their judgements to scripture, and that only, and would require no more of any man but to do so, it were impossible but that all controversies, touching things necessary and very profitable should be ended: and if others were continued or increased, it were no matter. 5 in the next words we have direct boyes-play; a thing given with one hand and taken away with the other; an acknowledgement made in one line, and retracted in the next. we acknowledge (say you) scripture to be a perfect rule, for as much as a writing can be a rule, only we deny that it excludes unwritten tradition. a si● you should have said, we acknowledge it to be as perfect a rule as a writing can be; only we deny it to be as perfect a rule as a writing may be. either therefore you must revoke your acknowledgement, or retract your retractation of it; for both cannot possibly stand together. for if you will stand to what you have granted, that scripture is as perfect a rule of faith as a writing can be: you must then grant it both so complete, that it needs no addition, and so evident, that it needs no interpretation: for both these properties are requisite to a perfect rule; and a writing is capable of both these properties. 6 that both these properties are requisite to a perfect rule, it is apparent: because that is not perfect in any kind which wants some parts belonging to its integrity: as he is not a perfect man that wants any part appertaining to the integrity of a man; and therefore that which wants any accession to make it a perfect rule, of itself is not a perfect rule. and then, the end of a r●le is to regulate and direct. now every instrument is more or less perfect in its kind, as it is more or less fit to attain the end for which it is ordained: but nothing obscure or unevident while it is so, is fit to regulate and direct them to whom it is so: therefore it is requisite also to a rule (so far as it is a rule) to be evident; otherwise indeed it is no rule, because it cannot serve for direction. i conclude therefore, that both these properties are required to a perfect rule: both to be so complete as to need no addition; and to be so evident as to need no interpretation. 7 now that a writing is capable of both these perfections, it is so plain, that i am even ashamed to prove it. for he that denies it must say, that something may be spoken which cannot be written. for if such a complete and evident rule of faith may be delivered by word of mouth, as you pretend it may, and is; and whatsoever is delivered by word of mouth may also be written; then such a complete and evident rule of faith may also be written. if you will have more light added to the sun, answer me then to these questions. whether your church can set down in writing all these, which she pretends to be divine unwritten traditions, and add them to the verities already written? and whether she can set us down such interpretations of all obscurities in the faith as shall need no farther interpretations? if she cannot, than she hath not that power which you pretend she hath, of being an infallible teacher of all divine verities, and an infallible interpreter of obscurities in the faith: for she cannot teach us all divine verities, if she cannot write them down; neither is that an interpretation which needs again to be interpreted: if she can; let her do it, and then we shall have a writing, not only capable of, but, actually endowed with both these perfections, of being both so complete as to need no addition, and so evident as to need no interpretation. lastly, whatsoever your church can do or not do, no man can without blasphemy deny, that christ jesus, if he had pleased, could have writ us a rule of faith so plain and perfect, as that it should have wanted neither any part to make up its integrity, nor any clearness to make it sufficiently intelligible: and if christ could have done this, than the thing might have been done; a writing there might have been endowed with both these properties. thus therefore i conclude, a writing may be so perfect a rule, as to need neither addition nor interpretation; but the scripture you acknowledge a perfect rule for as much as a writing can be a rule, therefore it needs neither addition nor interpretation. 8 you will say, that though a writing be never so perfect a rule of faith, yet it must be beholding to tradition to give it this testimony, that it is a rule of faith, and the word of god. i answer: first, there is no absolute necessity of this. for god might, if he thought good, give it the attestation of perpetual miracles. secondly, that it is one thing to be a perfect rule of faith, another to be proved so unto us. and thus though a writing could not be proved to us to be a perfect rule of faith, by its own saying so, for nothing is proved true by being said or written in a book, but only by tradition which is a thing credible of itself; yet it may be so in itself, and contain all the material objects, all the particular articles of our faith, without any dependence upon tradition; even this also not excepted, that this writing doth contain the rule of faith. now when protestants affirm against papists, that scripture is a perfect rule of faith, their meaning is not, that by scripture all things absolutely may be proved, which are to be believed: for it can never be proved by scripture to a gainsayer, that there is a god, or that the book called scripture is the word of god; for he that will deny these assertions when they are spoken, will believe them never a whit the more because you can show them written: but their meaning is, that the scripture, to them which presuppose it divine, and a rule of faith, as papists and protestants do, contains all the material objects of faith; is a complete and total, and not only an imperfect and a partial rule. 9 but every book, and chapter, and text of scripture is infallible and wants no due perfection, and yet excludes not the addition of other books of scripture; therefore the perfection of the whole scripture excludes not the addition of unwritten tradition. i answer; every text of scripture though it have the perfection belonging to a text of scripture, yet it hath not the perfection requisite to a perfect rule of faith; and that only is the perfection which is the subject of our discourse. so that this is to abuse your reader with the ambiguity of the word perfect. in effect, as if you should say, a text of scripture may be a perfect text, though there be others beside it; therefore the whole scripture may be a perfect rule of faith, though there be other parts of this rule, besides the scripture, and though the scripture be but a part of it. 10 the next argument to the same purpose is, for sophistry, cousin german to the former. when the first books of scripture were written, they did not exclude unwritten tradition: therefore now also, that all the books of scripture are written, traditions are not excluded. the sense of which argument (if it have any) must be this. when only a part of the scripture was written, than a part of the divine doctrine was unwritten; therefore now when all the scripture is written, yet some part of the divine doctrine is yet unwritten. if you say, your conclusion is not that it is so, but without disparagement to scripture, may be so: without disparagement to the truth of scripture, i grant it; but without disparagement to the scriptures being a perfect rule, i deny it. and now the question is not of the truth, but the perfection of it; which are very different things, though you would fain confound them. for scripture might very well be all true, though it contain not all necessary divine truth. but unless it do so, it cannot be a perfect rule of faith; for that which wants any thing is not perfect. for i hope you do not imagine, that we conceive any antipathy between god's word written and unwritten, but that both might very well stand together. all that we say is this, that we have reason to believe that god de facto, hath ordered the matter so, that all the gospel of christ, the whole covenant between god and man, is now written. whereas if he had pleased, he might so have disposed it, that part might have been written, and part unwritten: but then he would have taken order, to whom we should have had recourse, for that part of it which was not written; which seeing he hath not done (as the progress shall demonstrate) it is evident he hath left no part of it unwritten. we know no man therefore that says, it were any injury to the written word to be joined with the unwritten, if there were any wherewith it might be joined; but that we deny. the fidelity of a keeper may very well consist with the authority of the thing committed to his custody. but we know no one society of christians that is such a faithful keeper as you pretend. the scripture itself was not kept so faithfully by you, but that you suffered infinite variety of readins to creep into it; all which could not possibly be divine, and yet, in several parts of your church, all of them, until the last age, were so esteemed. the interpretations of obscure places of scripture, which without question the apostles taught the primitive christians, are wholly lost; there remains no certainty scarce of any one. those worlds of miracles, which our saviour did, which were not written, for want of writing are vanished out of the memory of men. and many profitable things which the apostles taught and writ not, as that which s. paul glances at, in his second epistle to the thessalon. of the cause of the hindrance of the coming of antichrist, are wholly lost and extinguished. so unfaithful or negligent hath been this keeper of divine verities; whose eyes, like the keepers of israel (you say) have never flumbred nor slept. lastly, we deny not but a judge and a law might well stand together, but we deny that there is any such judge of god's appointment. had he intended any such judge, he would have named him, lest otherwise (as now it is) our judge of controversies should be our greatest controversy. 11 ad § 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. in your second paragraph, you sum up those arguments wherewith you intent to prove, that scripture alone cannot be judge in controversies. wherein i profess unto you before hand, that you will fight without an adversary. for though protestants, being warranted by some of the fathers, have called scripture the judge of controversies; and you in saying here, that scripture alone cannot be judge, imply that it may be called in some sense a judge, though not alone: yet to speak properly (as men should speak when they write of controversies in religion) the scripture is not a judge of controversies, but a rule, only and the only rule for christians to judge them by. every man is to judge for himself with the judgement of discretion, and to choose either his religion first, and then his church, as we say: or as you, his church first, and then his religion. but by the consent of both sides, every man is to judge and choose: and the rule whereby he is to guide his choice, if he be a natural man, is reason, if he be already a christian, scripture, which we say is the rule to judge controversies by. yet not all simply, but all the controversies of christians, of those, that are already agreed upon this first principle that, the scripture is the word of god. but that there is any man, or any company of men appointed to be judge for all men, that we deny, and that i believe you will never prove. the very truth is, we say no more in this matter, than evidence of truth hath made you confess in plain terms in the beginning of this chapter, viz. that scripture is a perfect rule of faith, for as much as a writing can be a rule. so that all your reasons whereby you labour to dethrone the scripture from this office of judgeing, we might let pass as impertinent to the conclusion which we maintain, and you have already granted; yet out of courtesy we will consider them. 12 your first is this; a judge must be a person fit to end controversies, but the scripture is not a person, nor fit to end controversies, no more than the law would be without the judges, therefore though it may be a rule it cannot be a judge. which conclusion i have already granted. only my request is, that you will permit scripture to have the properties of a rule, that is, to be fit to direct every one that will make the best use of it, to that end for which it was ordained. and that is as much as we need desire. for as if i were to go a journey and had a guide which could not err, i needed not to know my way: so on the other side if i know my way or have a plain rule to know it by, i shall need no guide. grant therefore scripture to be such a rule, and it will quickly take away all necessity of having an infallible guide. but without a living judge it will be no fitter (you say) to end controversies, than the law alone to end suits. i answer, if the law were plain and perfect, and men honest and desirous to understand aright, and obey it, he that says it were not fit to end controversies, must either want understanding himself, or think the world wants it. now the scripture, we pretend, in things necessary is plain & perfect, and men, we say, are obliged, under pain of damnation, to seek the true sense of it, and not to wrest it to their preconceived fancies. such a law therefore to such men cannot but be very fit to end all controversies, necessary to be ended. for others that are not so, they will end when the world ends, and that is time enough. 12 your next encounter is with them, who acknowledging the scripture a rule only and not a judge, make the holy ghost, speaking in scripture, the judge of controversies. which you disprove by saying, that the holy ghost speaking only in scripture is no more intelligible to us, than the scripture in which he speaks. but by this reason neither the pope, nor a council can be a judge neither. for first, denying the scriptures, the writings of the holy ghost, to be judges, you will not i hope offer to pretend, that their decrees, the writings of men are more capable of this function: the same exceptions at least, if not more, and greater lying against them as do against scripture. and than what you object against the holy ghost, speaking in scripture, to exclude him from this office, the same i return upon them and their decrees, to debar them from it; that they speaking unto us only in their decrees, are no more intelligible than the decrees in which they speak. and therefore if the holy ghost speaking in scripture may not be a judge for this reason; neither may they, speaking in their decrees, be judges for the same reason. if the pope's decrees (you will say) be obscure, he can explain himself, and so the scripture cannot. but the holy ghost, that speaks in scripture, can do so, if he please, and when he is pleased will do so. in the mean time it will be fit for you to wait his leisure, and to be content, that those things of scripture which are plain should be so, and those which are obscure should remain obscure, until he please to declare them. besides he can (which you cannot warrant me of the pope or a council) speak at first so plainly, that his words shall need no farther explanation; and so in things necessary we believe he has done. and if you say, the decrees of counsels touching controversies, though they be not the judge, yet they are the judge's sentence: so, i say, the scripture, though not the judge, is the sentence of the judge. when therefore you conclude, that to say a judge is necessary for deciding controversies, about the meaning of scripture, is as much as to say, he is necessary to decide what the holy ghost speaks in scripture: this i grant is true, but i may not grant that a judge (such a one as we dispute of) is necessary either to do the one, or the other. for if the scripture (as it is in things necessary) be plain, why should it be more necessary to have a judge to interpret them in plain places, then to have a judge to interpret the meaning of a councel's decrees, and others to interpret their interpretations, and others to interpret theirs, and so on for ever? and where they are not plain, there if we, using diligence to find the truth, do yet miss of it and fall into error, there is no danger in it. they that err, and they that do not err may both be saved. so that those places which contain things necessary, and wherein error were dangerous, need no infallible interpreter because they are plain: and those that are obscure need none because they contain not things necessary, neither is error in them dangerous. 13 the lawmaker speaking in the law, i grant it, is no more easily understood then the law itself, for his speech is nothing else but the law: i grant it very necessary, that besides the lawmaker speaking in the law, there should be other judges to determine civil and criminal controversies, and to give every man that justice which the law allows him. but your argument drawn from hence to show a necessity of a visible judge in controversies of religion, i say is sophistical: and that for many reasons. 14 first, because the variety of civil cases is infinite, and therefore there cannot be possibly laws enough provided for the determination of them: and therefore there must be a judge to supply out of the principles of reason the interpretation of the law, where it is defective. but the scripture (we say) is a perfect rule of faith, and therefore needs no supply of the defects of it. 15 secondly, to execute the letter of the law, according to rigour, would be many times unjust, and therefore there is need of a judge to moderate it; whereof in religion there is no use at all. 16 thirdly, in civil and criminal causes the parties have for the most part so much interest, and very often so little honesty, that they will not submit to a law though never so plain, if it be against them; or will not see it to be against them, though it be so never so plainly: whereas if men were honest, and the law were plain and extended to all cases, there would be little need of judges. now in matters of religion, when the question is, whether every man be a fit judge and chooser for himself, we suppose men honest, and such as understand the difference between a moment and eternity. and such men, we conceive, will think it highly concerns them to be of the true religion, but nothing at all that this or that religion should be the true. and then we suppose that all the necessary points of religion are plain and easy, & consequently every man in this cause to be a competent judge for himself; because it concerns himself to judge right as much as eternal happiness is worth. and if through his own default he judge amiss he alone shall suffer for it. 17 fourthly, in civil controversies we are obliged only to external passive obedience, and not to an internal and active. we are bound to obey the sentence of the judge, or not to resist it, but not always to believe it just. but in matters of religion, such a judge is required whom we should be obliged to believe, to have judged right. so that in civil controversies every honest understanding man is fit to be a judge; but in religion none but he that is infallible. 18 fiftly, in civil causes there is means and power, when the judge has decreed, to compel men to obey his sentence: otherwise, i believe, laws alone, would be to as much purpose, for the ending of differences, as laws and judges both. but all the power in the world is neither fit to convince, nor able to compel a man's conscience to consent to any thing. worldly terror may prevail so far as to make men profess a religion which they believe not, (such men i mean, who know not that there is a heaven provided for martyrs, and a hell for those that dissemble such truths as are necessary to be professed:) but to force, either any man to believe what he believes not, or any honest man to dissemble what he does believe (if god commands him to profess it,) or to profess what he does not believe, all the powers in the world are too weak, with all the powers of hell, to assist them. 19 sixtly, in civil controversies the case cannot be so put, but there may be a judge to end it, who is not a party: in controversies of religion, it is in a manner impossible to be avoided but the judge must be a party. for this must be the first, whether he be a judge or no, and in that he must be a party. sure i am, the pope, in the controversies of our time, is a chief party; for it highly concerns him, even as much as his popedom is worth, not to yield any one point of his religion to be erroneous. and he is a man subject to like passions with other men. and therefore we may justly decline his sentence, for fear temporal respects should either blind his judgement, or make him pronounce against it. 20 seaventhly, in civil controversies, it is impossible titius should hold the land in question and sempronius too: and therefore either the plaintiff must injure the defendant, by disquieting his possession, or the defendant wrong the plaintiff by keeping his right from him. but in controversies of religion the case is otherwise. i may hold my opinion and do you no wrong, and you yours and do me none. nay we may both of us hold our opinion, and yet do ourselves no harm; provided, the difference be not touching any thing necessary to salvation, and that we love truth so well, as to be diligent to inform our conscience, and constant in following it. 21 eightly, for the ending of civil controversies, who does not see it is absolutely necessary, that not only judges should be appointed, but that it should be known and unquestioned who they are? thus all the judges of our land are known men, known to be judges, and no man can doubt or question, but these are the men. otherwise if it were a disputable thing, who were these judges, and they had no certain warrant for their authority, but only some topical congruities, would not any man say such judges, in all likelihood, would rather multiply controversies, then end them? 22 ninthly, and lastly, for the deciding of civil controversies men may appoint themselves a judge. but in matters of religion, this office may be given to none but whom god hath designed for it: who doth not always give us those things which we conceive most expedient for ourselves. 23 so likewise if our saviour, the king of heaven, had intended that all controversies in religion should be by some visible judge finally determined, who can doubt, but in plain terms he would have expressed himself about this matter? he would have said plainly. the bishop of rome i have appointed to decide all emergent controversies. for that our saviour designed the bishop of rome to this office, & yet would not say so, nor cause it to be written — ad rei memoriam— by any of the evangelists or apostles, so much as once; but leave it to be drawn out of uncertain principles, by thirteen or fourteen more uncertain consequences, he that can believe it, let him. all these reasons, i hope, will convince you, that though we have, and have great necessity of, judges in civil and criminal causes: yet you may not conclude from thence, that there is any public authorised judge to determine controversies in religion, nor any necessity there should be any. 24 but the scripture stands in need of some watchful and unerring eye to guard it, by means of whose assured vigilancy, we may undoubtedly receive it sincere and pure. very true, but this is no other than the watchful eye of divine providence: the goodness whereof will never suffer, that the scripture should be depraved and corrupted, but that in them should be always extant a conspicuous and plain way to eternal happiness. neither can any thing be more palpably unconsistent with his goodness, then to suffer scripture to be undiscernably corrupted in any matter of moment, and yet to exact of men the belief of those verities, which without their fault, or knowledge, or possibility of prevention, were defaced out of them. so that god requiring of men to believe scripture in its purity, engages himself to see it preserved in sufficient purity, and you need not fear but he will satisfy his engagement. you say, we can have no assurance of this but your church's vigilancy. but if we had no other we were in a hard case; for who could then assure us that your church has been so vigilant, as to guard scripture from any the least alteration? there being various lections in the ancient copies of your bibles, what security can your new railed office of assurance give us, that, that reading is true which you now receive, and that false which you reject? certainly they that anciently received and made use of these diverse copies, were not all guarded by the church's vigilancy from having their scripture altered from the purity of the original in many places. for of different readings, it is not in nature impossible that all should be false, but more than one cannot possibly be true. yet the want of such a protection was no hindrance to their salvation, and why then shall the having of it be necessary for ours? but then this vigilancy of your church, what means have we to be ascertained of it? first, the thing is not evident of itself; which is evident, because many do not believe it. neither can any thing be pretended to give evidence to it, but only some places of scripture; of whose incorruption more than any other what is it that can secure me? if you say the church's vigilancy, you are in a circle, proving the scriptures uncorrupted by the church's vigilancy, & the church's vigilancy by the incorruption of some places of scripture, and again the incorruption of those places by the church's vigilancy. if you name any other means, than that means which secures me of the scriptures incorruption in those places, will also serve to assure me of the same in other places. for my part, abstracting from divine providence, which will never suffer the way to heaven to be blocked up or made invisible, i know no other means (i mean no other natural and rational means) to be assured hereof, than i have that any other book is uncorrupted. for though i have a greater degree of rational and humane assurance of that then this, in regard of diverse considerations which make it more credible, that the scripture hath been preserved from any material alteration; yet my assurance of both is of the same kind and condition, both moral assurances, and neither physical or mathematical. 25 to the next argument the reply is obvious; that though we do not believe the books of scripture to be canonical because they say so, for other books that are not canonical may say they are, and those that are so may say nothing of it: yet we believe not this upon the authority of your church, but upon the credibility of universal tradition, which is a thing credible of itself, and therefore fit to be rested on; whereas the authority of your church is not so. and therefore your rest thereon is not rational but merely voluntary. i might as well rest upon the judgement of the next man i meet, or upon the chance of a lottery for it. for by this means i only know i might err, but by relying on you i know i should err. but yet (to return you one suppose for another) suppose i should for this and all other things submit to her direction, how could she assure me that i should not be misled by doing so? she pretends indeed infallibility herein, but how can she assure us that she hath it? what, by scripture● that you say cannot assure us of its own infallibility, and therefore not of yours. what then, by reason? that you say may deceive in other things, and why not in this? how then will she assure us hereof, by saying so? of this very affirmation there will remain the same question still, how it can prove itself to be infallibly true. neither can there be an end of the like multiplied demands, till we rest in something evident of itself, which demonstrates to the world that this church is infallible. and seeing there is no such rock for the infallibility of this church to be settled on, it must of necessity, like the island of delos, float up and down for ever. and yet upon this point according to papists all other controversies in faith depend. 26 to they 7. 8. 9 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. §. the sum and substance of the ten next paragraphs is this, that it appears, by the confessions of some protestants, and the contentions of others, that the questions about the canon of scripture, what it is: and about the various reading and translations of it, which is true and which not, are not to be determined by scripture, and therefore that all controversies of religion are not decidable by scripture. 27 to which i have already answered saying, that when scripture is affirmed to be the rule by which all controversies of religion are to be decided, those are to be excepted out of this generality which are concerning the scripture itself. for as that general saying of scripture, he hath put all things under his feet, is most true, though yet s. paul tells us, that when it is said, he hath put all things under him, it is manifest he is excepted who did put all things under him: so when we say that all controversies of religion are decidable by the scripture, it is manifest to all, but cavillers, that we do and must except from this generality, those which are touching the scripture itself. just as a merchant showing a ship of his own, may say, all my substance is in this ship; and yet never intent to deny, that his ship is part of his substance, nor yet to say that his ship is in itself. or as a man may say, that a whole house is supported by the foundation, and yet never mean to exclude the foundation from being a part of the house, or to say that it is supported by itself. or as you yourselves use to say, that the bishop of rome is head of the whole church, and yet would think us but captious sophisters should we infer from hence, that either you made him no part of the whole, or else made him head of himself. your negative conclusion therefore, that these questions touching scripture, are not decidable by scripture, you needed not have cited any authorities, nor urged any reason to prove it; it is evident of itself, and i grant it without more ado. but your corollary from it, which you would insinuate to your unwary reader, that therefore they are to be decided by your, or any visible church, is a mere inconsequence, and very like his collection, who because pamphilus was not to have glycerium for his wife, presently concluded that he must have her; as if there had been no more men in the world but pamphilus and himself. for so you as if there were nothing in the world capable of this office, but the scripture, or the present church, having concluded against scripture, you conceive, but too hastily, that you have concluded for the church. but the truth is, neither the one nor the other have any thing to do with this matter. for first, the question whether such or such a book be canonical scripture, though it may be decided negatively out of scripture, by showing apparent and irreconcilable contradictions between it and some other book confessedly canonical; yet affirmatively it cannot but only by the testimonies of the ancient churches: any book being to be received as undoubtedly canonical, or to be doubted of as uncertain, or rejected as apocryphal, according as it was received, or doubted of, or rejected by them. then for the question, of various readings which is the true, it is in reason evident and confessed by your own pope, that there is no possible determination of it, but only by comparison with ancient copies. and lastly for controversies about different translations of scripture, the learned have the same means to satisfy themselves in it, as in the questions which happen about the translation of any other author, that is, skill in the language of the original, and comparing translations with it. in which way if there be no certainty, i would know what certainty you have, that your douai old, and rhemish new testament are true translations? and then for the unlearned those on your side are subject to as much, nay the very same uncertainty with those on ours. neither is there any reason imaginable, why an ignorant english protestant may not be as secure of the translation of our church, that it is free from error; if not absolutely, yet in matters of moment, as an ignorant english papist can be of his rhemist testament, or douai bible. the best direction i can give them is to compare both together, and where there is no real difference (as in the translation of controverted places i believe there is very little) there to be confident, that they are right; where they differ, there to be prudent in the choice of the guides they follow. which way of proceeding, if it be subject to some possible error, yet is it the best that either we, or you have; and it is not required that we use any better than the best we have. 28 you will say, dependence on your church's infallibility is a better. i answer, it would be so, if we could be infallibly certain, that your church is infallible, that is, if it were either evident of itself, and seen by its own light, or could be reduced unto and settled upon some principle that is so. but seeing you yourselves do not so much as pretend, to enforce us to the belief hereof, by any proofs infallible and convincing, but only to induce us to it, by such as are, by your confession, only probable, and principal motives; certainly it will be to very little purpose, to put off your uncertainty for the first turn, and to fall upon it at the second: to please yourselves in building your house upon an imaginary rock, when you yourselves see and confess, that this very rock stands itself at the best but upon a frame of timber. i answer secondly, that this cannot be a better way, because we are infallibly certain that your church is not infallible, and indeed hath not the real prescription of this privilege, but only pleaseth herself with a false imagination and vain presumption of it: as i shall hereafter demonstrate by many unanswerable arguments. 29 now seeing i make no scruple or difficulty to grant the conclusion of this discourse, that these controversies about scripture, are not decidable by scripture▪ and have showed, that your deduction from it, that therefore they are to be determined by the authority of some present church, is irrational, and inconsequent; i might well forbear to tyre myself with an exact and punctual examination of your premises 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which wether they be true or false, is to the question disputed wholly impertinent. yet because you shall not complain of tergiversation, i will run over them, and let nothing, that is material and considerable, pass without some stricture or animadversion. 30 you pretend that m. hooker acknowledgeth that, that whereon we must rest our assurance that the scripture is god's word, is the church: and for this acknowledgement you refer us to l. 3. sect. 8. let the reader consult the place, and he shall find that he and m. hooker have been much abused, both by you here, and by m. breerly and others before you, and that m. hooker hath not one syllable to your pretended purpose, but very much directly to the contrary. there he tells us indeed, that ordinarily the first introduction and probable motive to the belief of the verity is the authority of the church, but that it is the last foundation whereon our belief hereof is rationally grounded, that in the same place he plainly denies. his words are, scripture teacheth us, that saving truth which god hath discovered unto the world by revelation, and it presumeth us taught otherwise, that itself is divine and sacred. the question then being by what means we are taught this: some answer; that to learn it we have no other way then tradition. ( * some answer so, but he doth not.) as namely that so we believe, because we from our predecessors, and they from theirs have so received. but is this enough? that which all men's experience teacheth them, may not in any wise be denied: and by experience we all know, that a the first outward motive, not the last assurane● whereon we rest. the first outward motive leading men to esteem of the scripture, is the authority of god's church. for when we know b the whole church that he speaks of seems to be that particular church, wherein a man is bred and brought up; and the authority of this he makes an argument which presseth a man's modesty more than his reason. and in saying, it seems impudent to be of a contrary mind without cause, he implies; there may be a just cause to be of a contrary mind, and that then it were no impudence to be so. the whole church of god hath that opinion of the scripture, we judge it at the first an impudent thing for any man, bred and brought up in the church, to be of a contrary mind without cause. afterwards the more we bestow our labour upon reading or hearing the mysteries thereof, c therefore the authority of the church is not the pause whereon we rest: we had need of more assurance, and the intrinsical arguments afford it. the more we find that the thing itself doth answer our received opinion concerning it: so that the former inducement prevailing d somewhat, but not much, until it be backed and enforced by farther reason: itself therefore is not the farthest reason and the last resolution. somewhat with us before, doth now much more prevail, when the very thing hath ministered farther reason. if infidels, or atheists chance at any time to call it in question, this giveth us occasion to sift what reason there is, whereby the testimony of the church, concerning scripture, and our own persuasion, which scripture itself hath settled, may be proved a truth infallible. e observe i pray; our persuasion, and the testimony of the church concerning scripture, may be proved true, therefore neither of them was in his account the farthest proof. in which case the ancient fathers, being often constrained to show what warrant they had so much to rely upon the scriptures, endeavoured still to maintain the authority of the books of god by arguments, such as the unbelievers themselves must needs think reasonable, if they judge thereof as they should. neither is it a thing impossible, or greatly hard, even by such kind of proofs, so to manifest and clear that point, that no man living shall be able to deny it, without denying some apparent principle, such as all men acknowledge to be true. f natural reason then built on principles common to all men, is the last resolution; unto which the church's authority is but the first inducement. by this time i hope the reader sees sufficient proof of what i said in my reply to your preface, that m. breerelies great ostentation of exactness, is no very certain argument of his fidelity. 31 but, seeing the belief of the scripture is a necessary thing, and cannot be proved by scripture, how can the church of england teach, as she doth, art. 6. that all things necessary are contained in scripture? 32 i have answered this already. and here again i say, that all but cavillers will easily understand the meaning of the article to be, that all the divine verities, which christ revealed to his apostles, and the apostles taught the churches, are contained in scripture. that is, all the material objects of our faith; whereof the scripture is none, but only the means of conveying them unto us: which we believe not finally, and for itself, but for the matter contained in it. so that if men did believe the doctrine contained in scripture, it should no way hinder their salvation, not to know whether there were any scripture or no. those barbarous nations irenaeus speaks of were in this case, and yet no doubt but they might be saved. the end that god aims at, is the belief of the gospel, the covenant between god and man; the scripture he hath provided as a means for this end, and this also we are to believe, but not as the last object of our faith, but as the instrument of it. when therefore we subscribe to the 6. art. you must understand that, by articles of faith, they mean the final and ultimate objects of it, and not the means and instrumental objects; and then there will be no repugnance between what they say, and that which hooker, and d. covell, and d. whitaker, and luther here say. 33 but, protestants agree not in assigning the canon of holy scripture. luther and illyricus reject the epistle of s. james. kemnitius, and other luth. the second of peter, the second and third of john. the epist. to the heb. the epist. of james, of jude, and the apocalypse. therefore without the authority of the church, no certainty can be had what scripture is canonical. 34 so also the ancient fathers, and not only fathers, but whole churches differed about the certainty of the authority of the very same books: and by their difference showed, they knew no necessity of conforming themselves herein to the judgement of your or any church. for had they done so, they must have agreed all with that church, and consequently among themselves. now i pray tell me plainly, had they sufficient certainty what scripture was canonical, or had they not? if they had not, it seems there is no such great harm or danger in not having such a certainty whether some books be canonical or no, as you require: if they had, why may not protestants, notwithstanding their differences, have sufficient certainty hereof, as well as the ancient fathers and churches, notwithstanding theirs? 35 you proceed. and whereas the protestants of england in the 6. art. have these words, in the name of the holy scripture we do understand those books, of whose authority was never any doubt in the church; you demand, what they mean by them? whether that by the church's consent they are assured what scriptures be canonical? i answer for them. yes, they are so. and whereas you infer from hence, this is to make the church judge: i have told you already, that of this controversy we make the church the judge; but not the present church, much less the present roman church, but the consent and testimony of the ancient and primitive church. which though it be but a highly probable inducement, and no demonstrative enforcement, yet me thinks you should not deny but it may be a sufficient ground of faith: whose faith, even of the foundation of all your faith, your church's authority, is built lastly and wholly upon prudential motives. 36 but by this rule the whole book of esther must quit the canon; because it was excluded by some in the church: by melito, athanasius, and gregory nazianzen. then for aught i know he that should think he had reason to exclude it now, might be still in the church as well as melito, athanasius, nazianzen were. and while you thus inveigh against luther, and charge him with luciferian heresies; for doing that which you in this very place confess that saints in heaven before him have done, are you not partial and a judge of evil thoughts? 37 luther's censures of ecclesiastes, job, and the prophets, though you make such tragedies with them, i see none of them but is capable of a tolerable construction, and far from having in them any fundamental heresy. he that condemns him for saying, the book of ecclesiastes is not full, that it hath many abrupt things, condemns him, for aught i can see; for speaking truth. and the rest of the censure is but a bold and blunt expression of the same thing. the book of job may be a true history, and yet as many true stories are, and have been an argument of a fable to set before us an example of patience. and though the books of the prophets were not written by themselves, but by their disciples, yet it does not follow that they were written casually: (though i hope you will not damn all for heretics, that say, some books of scripture were written casually.) neither is there any reason they should the sooner be called in question for being written by their disciples, seeing being so written they had attestation from themselves. was the prophecy of jeremy the less canonical, for being written by baruch? or because s. peter the master dictated the gospel, and s. mark the scholar writ it, is it the more likely to be called in question? 38 but leaving luther, you return to our english canon of scripture; and tell us, that in the new testament, by the above mentioned rule, (of whose authority was never any doubt in the church) diverse books must be canonised. not so for i may believe even those questioned books to have been written by the apostles and to be canonical: but i cannot in reason believe this of them so undoubtedly, as of those books which were never questioned. at least i have no warrant to damn any man that shall doubt of them or deny them now: having the example of saints in heaven, either to justify, or excuse such their doubting or denial. 39 you observe in the next place, that our sixth article, specifying by name all the books of the old tstament, shussles over these of the new with this generality— all the books of the new testament, as they are commonly received, we do receive, and account them canonical: and in this you fancy to yourself a mystery of iniquity. but if this be all the shuffling that the church of england is guilty of, i believe the church, as well as the king, may give for her motto, honi soit qui mal ● pense. for all the bibles which since the composing of the articles have been used and allowed by the church of england, do testify and even proclaim to the world, that bycommonly received, they meant, received by the church of rome, and other churches before the reformation. i pray take the pains to look in them, and there you shall find the books which the church of england counts apocryphal marked out and severed from the rest, with this title in the beginning, the books called apocrypha; and with this close or seal in the end, the end of the apocrypha. and having told you by name, and in particular, what books only she esteems apocryphal, i hope you will not put her to the trouble of telling you that the rest are in her judgement canonical. 40 but if by commonly received, she meant, by the church of rome; then by the same reason, must she receive diverse books of the old testament which she rejects. 41 certainly a very good consequence. the church of england receives the books of the new testament, which the church of rome receives; therefore she must receive the books of the old testament which she receives. as if you should say, if you will do as we, in one thing, you must in all things. if you will pray to god with us, ye must pray to saints with us. if you hold with us, when we have reason on our side, you must do so, when we have no reason. 42 the discourse following is but a vain declamation. no man thinks that this controversy is to be tried by most voices, but by the judgement and testimony of the ancient fathers and churches. 43 but, with what coherence can we say in the former part of the article, that by scripture we mean those books that were never doubted of; and in the latter say, we receive all the books of the new testament, as they are commonly received, whereas of them many were doubted? i answer. when they say, of whose authority there was never any doubt in the church, they mean not, those only of whose authority there was simply no doubt at all, by any man in the church; but such as were not at any time doubted of by the whole church, or by all churches, but had attestation, though not universal, yet at least sufficient to make considering men receive them for canonical. in which number they may well reckon those epistles which were sometimes doubted of by some, yet whose number and authority was not so great, as to prevail against the contrary suffrages. 44 but, if to be commonly received, passefor a good rule to know the canon of the new testament by, why not of the old? you conclude many times very well, but still when you do so, it is out of principles which no man grants. for who ever told you, that to be commonly received is a good rule to know the canon of the new testament by? have you been trained up in schools of subtlety, and cannot you see a great difference, between these two, we receive the books of the new testament as they are commonly received, and we receive those that are commonly received, because they are so? to say this, were indeed to make, being commonly received, a rule or reason to know the canon by. but to say the former, doth no more make it a rule, than you should make the church of england the rule of your receiving them, if you should say, as you may, the books of the new testament we receive for canonical, as they are received by the church of england. 45 you demand, upon what infallible ground we agree with luther against you, in some, and with you against luther in others? and i also demand upon what infallible ground you hold your canon, & agree neither with us, nor luther? for sure your differing from us both, is of itself no more apparently reasonable, than our agreeing with you in part, and in part with luther. if you say, your church's infallibility is your ground: i demand again some infallible ground both for the church's infallibility, and for this, that yours is the church; and shall never cease multiplying demands upon demands, until you settle me upon a rock; i mean, give such an answer, whose truth is so evident that it needs no further evidence. if you say, this is universal tradition: i reply, your church's infallibility is not built upon it, and that the canon of scripture, as we receive it, is. for we do not profess ourselves so absolutely, and and undoubtedly certain; neither do we urge others to be so, of those books, which have been doubted, as of those that never have. 46 the conclusion of your tenth § is, that the divinity of a writing cannot be known from itself alone, but by some extrinsecall authority: which you need not prove, for no wise man denies it. but then this authority is that of universal tradition, not of your church. for to me it is altogether as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that the gospel of saint matthew is the word of god, as that all which your church says is true. 47 that believers of the scripture, by considering the divine matter, the excellent precepts, the glorious promises contained in it, may be confirmed in their faith, of the scriptures divine authority; & that among other inducements and enforcements hereunto, internal arguments have their place and force, certainly no man of understanding can deny. for my part i profess, if the doctrine of the scripture were not as good, and as fit to come from the fountain of goodness, as the miracles, by which it was confirmed, were great, i should want one main pillar of my faith, and for want of it, i fear should be much staggered in it. now this and nothing else did the doctor mean in saying, the believer sees, by that glorious beam of divine light which shines in scripture, and by many internal arguments, that the scripture is of divine authority. by this (saith he) he sees it, that is, he is moved to, and strengthened in his belief of it: and by this partly, not wholly; by this, not alone, but with the concurrence of other arguments. he that will quarrel with him for saying so, must find fault with the master of the sentences, and all his scholars; for they all say the same. the rest of this paragraph, i am as willing it should be true●, as you are to have it: and so let it pass, as a discourse wherein we are wholly unconcerned. you might have met with an answerer that would not have suffered you to have said so much truth together, but to me it is sufficient, that it is nothing to the purpose. 48 in the next division, out of your liberality, you will suppose, that scripture, like to a corporal light, is by itself alone able to determine and move our understanding to assent: yet notwithstanding this supposal, faith still (you say) must go before scripture, because as the light is visible only to those that have eyes: so the scripture only to those that have the eye of faith. but to my understanding, if scripture do move and determine our understanding to assent, than the scripture, and its moving must be before this assent, as the cause must be before its own effect; now this very assent is nothing else but faith, and faith nothing else then the understanding's assent. and therefore (upon this supposal) faith doth▪ and must originally proceed from scripture, as the effect from its proper cause: and the influence and efficacy of scripture is to be presupposed before the assent of faith, unto which it moves and determines, and consequently if this supposition of yours were true, there should need no other means precedent to scripture to beget faith, scripture itself being able (as here you suppose) to determine and move the understanding to assent, that is to believe them, and the verities contained in them. neither is this to say, that the eyes with which we see, are made by the light by which we see. for you are mistaken much, if you conceive that in this comparison, faith answers to the eye. but if you will not pervert it, the analogy must stand thuss; scripture must answer to light; the eye of the soul, that is the understanding, or the faculty of assenting, to the bodily eye; and lastly assenting or believing to the act of seeing. as therefore the light, determining the eye to see, though it presupposes the eye which it determines, as every action doth the object on which it is employed, yet itself is presupposed and antecedent to the act of seeing, as the cause is always to its effect: so, if you will suppose that scripture, like light, moves the understanding to assent, the understanding (that's the eye and object on which it works) must be before this influence upon it; but the assent, that is the belief whereto the scripture moves, and the understanding is moved, which answers to the act of seeing, must come after. for if it did assent already, to what purpose should the scripture do that which was done before? nay indeed how were it possible it should be so, any more than a father can beget a son that he hath already? or an architect build an house that is built already? or then this very world can be made again before it be unmade? transubstantiation indeed is fruitful of such monsters. but they that have not sworn themselves to the defence of error, will easily perceive, that i am factum facere, and factum infectum facere, are equally impossible. but i digress. 49 the close of this paragraph, is a fit cover for such a dish. there you tell us, that if there must be some other means precedent to scripture to beget faith, this can be no other than the church. by the church, we know you do, and must understand the roman church: so that in effect you say, no man can have faith, but he must be moved to it by your church's authority. and that is to say, that the king and all other protestants, to whom you write, though they verily think they are christians & believe the gospel, because they assent to the truth of it, and would willingly dye for it, yet indeed are infidels and believe nothing. the scripture tells us, the heart of man knoweth no man, but the spirit of man which is in him. and who are you, to take upon you to make us believe, that we do not believe, what we know we do? but if i may think verily that i believe the scripture, and yet not believe it; how know you that you believe the roman church? i am as verily, and as strongly persuaded that i believe the scripture, as you are that you believe the church. and if i may be deceived, why may not you? again, what more ridiculous, and against sense and experience, then to affirm, that there are not millions amongst you and us that believe, upon no other reason then their education, and the authority of their parents and teachers, and the opinion they have of them? the tenderness of the subject, and aptness to receive impressions, supplying the defect and imperfection of the agent! and will you proscribe from heaven all those believers of your own creed, who do indeed lay the foundation of their faith (for i cannot call it by any other name) no deeper then upon the authority of their father, or master, or parish priest? certainly, if these have no true faith, your church is very full of infidels. suppose xaverius by the holiness of his life had converted some indians to christianity, who could (for so i will suppose) have no knowledge of your church but from him, and therefore must last of all build their faith of the church upon their opinion of xaverius: do these remain as very pagans after their conversion, as they were before? are they brought to assent in their souls, and obey in their lives the gospel of christ, only to be tantalised and not saved, and not benefited but deluded by it, because, forsooth, it is a man and not the church that begets faith in them? what if their motive to believe be not in reason sufficient? do they therefore not believe what they do believe, because they do it upon insufficient motives? they choose the faith imprudently perhaps, but yet they do choose it. unless you will have us believe that, that which is done, is not done, because it is not done upon good reason: which is to say, that never any man living ever did a foolish action. but yet i know not why the authority of one holy man, which apparently has no ends upon me, joined with the goodness of the christian faith, might not be a far greater and more rational motive to me to embrace christianity, than any i can have to continue in paganism. and therefore for shame, if not for love of truth, you must recant this fancy when you write again: and suffer true faith to be many times, where your church's infallibility has no hand in the begetting of it. and be content to tell us hereafter, that we believe not enough, and not go about to persuade us, we believe nothing, for fear with telling us what we know to be manifestly false, you should gain only this, not to be believed when you speak truth. some pretty sophisms you may happily bring us to make us believe, we believe nothing: but wise men know that reason against experience is always sophistical. and therefore as he that could not answer zenoe's subtleties against the existence of motion, could yet confute them by doing that, which he pretended could not be done: so if you should give me a hundred arguments to persuade me, because i do not believe transubstantiation▪ i do not believe in god, and the knots of them i could not untie, yet i should cut them in pieces with doing that, and knowing that i do so, which you pretend i cannot do. 50 in the thirteenth division, we have again much ado about nothing. a great deal of stir you keep in confuting some, that pretend to know canonical scripture to be such, by the titles of the books. but these men you do not name, which makes me suspect you cannot. yet it is possible there may be some such men in the world; for gusman de alfarache hath taught us that the fool's hospital is a large place. 51 in the fourteenth §. we have very artificial juggling. d. potter had said, that the scripture (he desires to be understood of those books wherein all christians agree) is a principle, and needs not be proved among christians. his reason was, because that needs no farther proof which is believed already. now by this (you say) he means either, that the scripture is one of these first principles, and most known in all sciences, which cannot be proved: which is to suppose, it cannot be proved by the church; and that is to suppose the question: or he means, that it is not the most known in christianity, & then it may be proved. where we see plainly, that two most different things, most known in all sciences, & most known in christianity, are captiously confounded. as if the scripture might not be the first and most known principle in christianity, and yet not the most known in all sciences? or as if to be a first principle in christianity, and in all sciences, were all one? that scripture is a principle among christians, that is, so received by all that it need not be proved in any emergent controversy to any christian, but may be taken for granted, i think few will deny. you yourselves are of this a sufficient testimony; for urging against us many texts of scripture, you offer no proof of the truth of them, presuming we will not question it. yet this is not to deny that tradition is a principle more known than scripture; but to say, it is a principle not in christianity but in reason, nor proper to christians, but common to all men. 52 but, it is repugnant to our practice to hold scripture a principle; because we are wont to affirm, that one part of scripture may be known to be canonical, and may be interpreted by another. where the former device is again put in practice. for to be known to be canonical, and to be interpreted is not all one. that scripture may be interpreted by scripture, that protestants grant, and papists do not deny; neither does that any way hinder but that this assertion— scripture is the word of god, may be among christians a common principle. but the first, ●that one part of scripture may prove another part canonical, and need no proof of its own being so; for that, you have produced diverse protestants that deny it; but who they are that affirm it, nondum constat. 53 it is superfluous for you to prove out of s. athanasius, & s. austin that we must receive the sacred canon upon the credit of god's church. understanding by church, as here you explain yourself, the credit of tradition. and that not the tradition of the present church, which we pretend may deviate from the ancient, but such a tradition, which involues an evidence of fact, and from hand to hand, from age to age, bringing us up to the times and persons of the apostles, and our saviour himself, cometh to be confirmed by all these miracles and other arguments, whereby they convinced their doctrine to be true. thus you. now prove the canon of scripture which you receive by such tradition and we will allow it. prove your whole doctrine, or the infallibility of your church by such a tradition, & we will yield to you in all things. take the alleged places of s. athanasius, and s. austin, in this sense, (which is your own,) and they will not press us any thing at all. we will say, with athanasius, that only four gospels are to be received, because the canons of the holy and catholic church (understand of all ages since the perfection of the canon) have so determined. 54 we will subscribe to s. austin, and say, that we also would not believe the gospel, unless the authority of the catholic church did move us, (meaning by the church, the church of all ages, and that succession of christians which takes in christ himself and his apostles.) neither would zwinglius have needed to cry out upon this saying, had he conceived as you now do, that by the catholic church, the church of all ages, since christ, was to be understood. as for the council of carthage, it may speak not of such books only, as were certainly canonical, and for the regulating of faith, but also of those which were only profitable, and lawful to be read in the church. which in england is a very slender argument that the book is canonical, where every body knows that apocryphal books are read as well as canonical. but howsoever, if you understand by fathers, not only their immediate fathers and predecessors in the gospel, but the succession of them from the apostles; they are right in the thesis, that whatsoever is received from these fathers, as canonical, is to be so esteemed; though in the application of it, to this or that particular book they may happily err, and think that book received as canonical, which was only received as profitable to be read; and think that book, received always, and by all, which was rejected by some, and doubted of by many. 55 but we cannot be certain, in what language the scriptures remain uncorrupted. not so certain, i grant, as of that which we can demonstrate: but certain enough, morally certain, as certain as the nature of the thing will bear. so certain we may be, and god requires no more. we may be as certain as s. austin was, who in his second book of baptism, against the donatists, c. 3. plainly implies, the scripture might possibly be corrupted. he means sure in matters of little moment, such as concern not the covenant between god and man. but thus he saith. the same s. austin in his 48. epist. clearly intimates, a neque enim sic pasuit integritas atque notitia literarum quamlibet illustris episcopi, custodiri, quemadmodum scriptura canonica tot linguarum literis & ordine & successione celebrationis ecclesiasticae cus●oditur; contra quam non defuerunt tamen, qui sub non●●ibus apostol●rum multa confingere●t. frustra quidem; quia illa sic commendata, sic celebrata, sic nota est. ferum quid po●sit adversus literas non canonica authoritate funda●as etiam hinc demonstrabit impiae 〈◊〉 audaciae, quod & adversus eos quae tanta notitiae mole firmatae sunt, feeze erigere non praetermisit. aug. ep. 48. ad vincent. contra donat▪ & rogat. that in his judgement, the only preservative of the scriptures integrity, was the translating it into so many languages, and the general and perpetual use and reading of it in the church: for want whereof the works of particular doctors were more exposed to danger in this kind; but the canonical scripture being by this means guarded with universal care and diligence was not obnoxious to such attempts. and this assurance of the scripture's incorruption, is common to us with him; we therefore are as certain hereof as s. austin was, & that i hope was certain enough. yet if this does not satisfy you, i say farther, we are as certain hereof as your own pope sixtus quintus was. he in his preface to his bible tells us: b in hac germani text●s pervestigatione, satis perspicue inter omnes constat, nullum argumentum esse certius ac famius, quam antiquorum probatorum codicum latinorum fidem etc. sic sixtus in praefat. that in the pervestigation of the true and genuine text, it was perspicuously manifest to all men, that there was no argument more ●●rme and certain to be relied upon, than the faith of ancient books. now this ground we have to build upon as well as he had: and therefore our certainty is as great, and stands upon as certain ground as his did. 56 this is not all i have to say in this matter. for i will add moreover, that we are as certain in what language the scripture is uncorrupted, as any man in your church was, until clement the 8th set forth your own approved edition of your vulgar translation. for you do not, nor cannot, without extreme impudence deny, that until then, there was great variety of copies currant in diverse parts of your church, and those very frequent in various lections: all which copies might possibly be false in some things, but more than one sort of them, could not possibly be true in all things. neither were it less impudence to pretend, that any man in your church, could until clement's time have any certainty what that one true copy and reading was (if there were any one perfectly true.) some indeed that had got sixtus his bible, might after the edition of that very likely think themselves cocksure of a perfect true uncorrupted translation, without being beholding to clement; but how foully they were abused and deceived that thought so, the edition of clemens, differing from that of sixtus in a great multitude of places, doth sufficiently demonstrate. 57 this certainty therefore in what language the scripture remains uncorrupted, is it necessary to have it, or is it not? if it be not, i hope we may do well enough without it. if it be necessary, what became of your church for 1500 years together? all which time you must confess she had no such certainty: no one man being able truly and upon good ground to say, this or that copy of the bible is pure, and perfect, and uncorrupted in all things. and now at this present, though some of you are grown to a higher degree of presumption in this point, yet are you as far as ever, from any true and real, and rational assurance of the absolute purity of your authentic translation: which i suppose myself to have proved unanswerably in diverse places. 58 in the sixteenth division, it is objected to protestants in a long discourse transcribed out of the protestants apology, that their translations of the scripture are very different, and by each other mutually condemned▪ luther's translation by zwinglius, and others: that of the zwinglians by luther. the translation of oecolampadius, by the divines of basill: that of castalio by beza: that of beza by castalio. that of calvin, by carolus molinaeus. that of geneva by m. parks, & king james. and lastly one of our translations by the puritans. 59 all which might have been as justly objected against that great variety of translations extant in the primitive church, & m●de use of by the fathers and doctors of it. for which i desire not that my word, but s. austin's may be taken. they which have translated the scriptures out of the hebrew into greek, may be numbered, but the latin interpreters are innumerable. for whensoever any one, in the first times of christianity, met with a greek bible, and seemed to himself to have some ability in both languages, he presently ventured upon an interpretation. so he, in his second book of christian doctrine. cap. 11. of all these, that which was called the italian translation was esteemed best; so we may learn from the same s. austin in the 15. chap. of the same book. amongst all these interpretations (saith he) let the italian be preferred: for it keeps closer to the letter, and is perspicuous in the sense. yet so far was the church of that time from presuming upon the absolute purity and perfection, even of this best translation, that s. hierome thought it necessary to make a new translation of the old testament, out of the hebrew fountain, (which himself testifies in his book de viris illustribus,) and to correct the vulgar version of the new testament, according to the truth of the original greek; amending many errors which had crept into it, whether by the mistake of the author, or the negligence of the transcribers; which work he undertook & performed at the request of damasus, bishop of rome. you constrain me (saith he) to make a new work of an old: that after the copies of the scriptures have been dispersed through the whole world, i should sit as it were an arbitrator amongst them, and because they vary among themselves, should determine what are those things (in them) which consent with the greek verity. and after: therefore this present preface promises the four gospels only corrected by collation with greek copies. but that they might not be very dissonant from the custom of the latin reading, i have so tempered with my style, the translation of the ancients, that, those things amended which did seem to change the sense, other things i have suffered to remain as they were. so that in this matter protestant's must either stand or fall with the primitive church. 60 the corruption that you charge luther with, and the falsification that you impute to zwinglius, what have we to do with them? or why may not we as justly lay to your charge the errors which lyranus, or paulus brugensis, or laurentius valla, or cajetan, or erasmus, or arias montanus, or augustus▪ nebiensis, or pagnine, have committed in their translations. 61 which yet i say not, as if these translations of luther and zwinglius were absolutely indefensible; for what such great difference is there between faith without the works of the law, and faith alone without the works of the law? or why does not, without, alone, signify all one with, alone, without? consider the matter a little better, and observe the use of these phrases of speech in our ordinary talk, and perhaps you will begin to doubt whether you had sufficient ground for this invective. and then for zwinglius, if it be true (as they say it is) that the language our saviour spoke in, had no such word as, to signify, but used always, to be, instead of it, as it is certain the scripture does in a hundred places; then this translation, which you so declaim against, will prove no falsification in zwinglius, but a calumny in you. 62 but the faith of protestants relies upon scripture alone; scripture is delivered to most of them by translations; translations depend upon the skill and honesty of men, who certainly may err because they are men, and certainly do err, at least some of them, because their translations are contrary. it seems then the faith, and consequently the salvation of protestants relies upon fallible and uncertain grounds. 63 this objection, though it may seem to do you great service for the present; yet i fear you will repent the time that ever you urged it against us as a fault, that we make men's salvation depend upon uncertainties. for the objection returns upon you many ways, as first thus; the salvation of many millions of papists (as they suppose and teach) depends upon their having the sacrament of penance truly administered unto them. this again upon the minister's being a true priest. that such or such a man is priest, not himself, much less any other can have any possible certainty: for it depends upon a great many contingent and uncertain supposals. he that will pretend to be certain of it, must undertake to know for a certain all these things that follow. 64 first that he was baptised with due matter. secondly, with the due form of words, (which he cannot know, unless he were both present and attentive.) thirdly, he must know that he was baptised with due intention, and that is, that the minister of his baptism was not a secret jew, nor a moor, nor an atheist, (of all which kinds, i fear experience gives you just cause to fear, that italy and spain have priests not a few,) but a christian in heart, as well as profession; (otherwise believing the sacrament to be nothing, in giving it he could intend to give nothing,) nor a samosatenian, nor an arrian: but one that was capable of having due intention, from which they that believe not the doctrine of the trinity are excluded by you. and lastly, that he was neither drunk nor distracted at the administration of the sacrament, nor out of negligence or malice omitted his intention. 65 fourthly, he must undertake to know, that the bishop which ordained him priest, ordained him completely with due matter, form and intention: and consequently, that he again was neither jew, nor moor, nor atheist, nor liable to any such exception, as is unconsistent with due intention in giving the sacrament of orders. 66 fiftly, he must undertake to know, that the bishop which made him priest, was a priest himself, for your rule is, nihil dat quod non habet: and consequently, that there was again none of the former nullities in his baptism, which might make him incapable of ordination; nor no invalidity in his ordination, but a true priest to ordain him again, the requisite matter and form and due intention all concurring. 67 lastly, he must pretend to know the same of him that made him priest, and him that made him priest, even until he comes to the very fountain of priesthood. for take any one in the whole train & succession of ordainers, & suppose him, by reason of any defect, only a supposed & not a true priest, then according to your doctrine he could not give a true, but only a supposed priesthood; and they that receive it of him, & again, they that derive it from them, can give no better than they received; receiving nothing but a name and shadow, can give nothing but a name and shadow: and so from age to age, from generation to generation being equivocal fathers, beget only equivocal sons; no principle in geometry being more certain than this, that the unsuppliable defect of any necessary antecedent, must needs cause a nullity of all those consequences which depend upon it. in fine, to know this one thing, you must first know ten thousand others, whereof not any one is a thing that can be known; there being no necessity that it should be true, which only can qualify any thing for an object of science, but only, at the best, a high degree of probability that it is so. but then, that often thousand probables, no one should be false; that of ten thousand requisites, whereof any one may fail, not one should be wanting, this to me is extremely improbable, and even cozen german to impossible. so that the assurance hereof is like a machine composed of an innumerable multitude of pieces, of which it is strangely unlikely but some will be out of order; and yet if any one be so, the whole fabric of necessity falls to the ground. and he that shall put together, and maturely consider all the possible ways of lapsing, and nullifying a priesthood in the church of rome, i believe will be very inclinable to think, that it is an hundred to one, that amongst a hundred seeming priests, there is not one true one. nay, that it is not a thing very improbable, that amongst those many millions, which make up the romish hierarchy, there are not twenty true. but be the truth in this what it will be, once this is certain, that they which make men's salvation (as you do) depend upon priestly absolution, and this again (as you do) upon the truth and reality of the priesthood that gives it, and this lastly upon a great multitude of apparent uncertainties, are not the fittest men in the world, to object to others as a horrible crime, that they make men's salvation depend upon fallible and uncertain foundations. and let this be the first retortion of your argument. 68 but suppose this difficulty assoiled, and that an angel from heaven should ascertain you (for other assurances you can have none) that the person, you make use of, is a true priest, and a competent minister of the sacrament of penance; yet still the doubt will remain, whether he will do you that good which he can do, whether he will pronounce the absolving words with intent to absolve you! for perhaps he may bear you some secret malice, and project to himself your damnation, for a complete italian revenge. perhaps (as the tale is of a priest that was lately burnt in france) he may upon some conditions have compacted with the devil to give no sacraments with intention. lastly, he may be (for aught you can possibly know) a secret jew, or moor, or anti-trinitarian, or perhaps such a one as is so far from intending your forgiveness of sins and salvation by this sacrament, that in his heart he laughs at all these things, and thinks sin nothing, and salvation a word. all these doubts you must have clearly resolved (which can hardly be done but by another revelation,) before you can upon good grounds assure yourself, that your true priest gives you true and effectual absolution. so that when you have done as much as god requires for your salvation, yet can you by no means be secure, but that you may have the ill luck to be damned: which is to make salvation a matter of chance, and not of choice, and which a man may fail of, not only by an ill life, but by ill fortune. verily a most comfortable doctrine for a considering man lying upon death bed, who either feels or fears that his repentance is but attrition only, and not contrition, and consequently believes that if he be not absolved really by a true priest, he cannot possibly escape damnation. such a man for his comfort, you tell, first (you that will have men's salvation depend upon no uncertainties,) that though he verily believe that his sorrow for sins is a true sorrow, and his purpose of amendment a true purpose; yet he may deceive himself, perhaps it is not, and if it be not, he must be damned. yet you bid him hope well: but spes est rei incertae nomen. you tell him secondly, that though the party he confesses to, seem to be a true priest, yet for aught he knows, or for aught himself knows, by reason of some secret undiscernible invalidity in his baptism or ordination, he may be none: and if he be none, he can do nothing. this is a hard saying, but this is not the worst. you tell him thirdly, that he may be in such a state that he cannot, or if he can, that he will not give the sacrament with due intention: and if he does not, all's in vain. put case a man by these considerations should be cast into some agonies; what advise, what comfort would you give him? verily i know not what you could say to him, but this; that first for the qualification required on his part, he might know that he desired to have true sorrow, and that that is sufficient. but then if he should ask you, why he might not know his sorrow to be a true sorrow, as well as his desire to be sorrowful, to be a true desire, i believe you would be put to silence. then secondly, to quiet his fears, concerning the priest and his intention you should tell him, by my advice, that god's goodness (which will not suffer him to damn men for not doing better than their best,) will supply all such defects as to humane endeavours were unavoidable. and therefore though his priest were indeed no priest, yet to him he should be as if he were one: and if he gave absolution without intention, yet in doing so he should hurt himself only and not his penitent. this were some comfort indeed, and this were to settle men's salvation upon reasonable certain grounds. but this i fear you will never say; for this were to reverse many doctrines established by your church, and beside to degrade your priesthood from a great part of their honour, by lessening the strict necessity of the laities dependence upon them. for it were to say, that the priest's intention is not necessary to the obtaining of absolution; which is to say, that it is not in the parson's power to damn whom he will in his parish, because by this rule, god should supply the defect which his malice had caused. and besides it were to say, that infants dying without baptism might be saved, god supplying the want of baptism which to them is unavoidable. but beyond all this, it were to put into my mouth a full and satisfying answer to your argument, which i am now returning, so that in answering my objection you should answer your own. for than i should tell you, that it were altogether as abhorrent from the goodness of god, and as repugnant to it, to suffer an ignorant layman's soul to perish, merely for being misled by an undiscernible false translation, which yet was commended to him by the church, which (being of necessity to credit some in this matter) he had reason to rely upon either above all other; or as much as any other, as it is to damn a penitent sinner for a secret defect in that desired absolution, which his ghostly father perhaps was an atheist and could not give him, o● was a villain and would not. this answer therefore, which alone would serve to comfort your penitent in his perplexities, and to assure him that he cannot fail of salvation if he will not, for fear of inconveniences you must forbear. and seeing you must, i hope you will come down from the pulpit, and preach no more against others for making men's salvation depend upon fallible and uncertain grounds, lest by judging others, you make yourselves and your own church inexcusable, who are strongly guilty of this fault, above all the men and churches of the world: whereof i have already given you two very pregnant demonstrations, drawn from your presumptions tying god and salvation to your sacraments; and the efficacy of them to your priests qualifications and intentions. 69 your making the salvation of infants depend on baptism a casual thing, and in the power of man to confer, or not confer, would yield me a third of the same nature. and your suspending the same on the baptizer's intention a fourth. and lastly your making the real presence of christ in the eucharist depend upon the casualties of the consecrators true priesthood and intention, and yet commanding men to believe it for certain that he is present, and to adore the sacrament, which according to your doctrine, for aught they can possibly know, may be nothing else but a piece of bread, so exposing them to the danger of idolatry, and consequently of damnation, doth offer me a fifth demonstration of the same conclusion, if i thought fit to insist upon them. but i have no mind to draw any more out of this fountain; neither do i think it charity to cloy the reader with uniformity, when the subject affords variety. 70 sixtly, therefore i return it thus. the faith of papists relies alone upon their church's infallibility. that there is any church infallible, and that theirs is it, they pretend not to believe, but only upon prudential motives. dependence upon prudential motives they confess to be obnoxious to a possibility of erring. what then remaineth but truth, faith, salvation, and all must in them rely upon a fallible and uncertain ground! 71 seventhly, the faith of papists relies upon the church alone. the doctrine of the church is delivered to most of them by their parish priest, or ghostly father, or at least by a company of priests, who for the most part sure, are men and not angels, in whom nothing is more certain than a most certain possibility to err. what then remaineth but that truth, faith, salvation and all, must in them rely upon a fallible and uncertain ground. 72 eightly thus. it is apparent and undeniable, that many thousands there are, who believe your religion upon no better grounds, than a man may have for the belief almost of any religion. as some believe it, because their forefathers did so, and they were good people. some, because they were christened, and brought up in it. some, because many learned and religious men are of it. some, because it is the religion of their country, where all other religions are persecuted and proscribed▪ some, because protestants cannot show a perpetual succession of professors of all their doctrine. some, because the service of your church is more stately, and pompous, & magnificent. some, because they find comfort in it. some, because your religion is farther spread, and hath more professors of it, than the religion of protestants. some, because your priest's compass sea and land to gain proselytes to it. lastly, an infinite number, by chance, and they know not why, but only because they are sure they are in the right. this which i say is a most certain experimented truth, and if you will deal ingenuously, you will not deny it. and without question he that builds his faith upon our english translation, goes upon a more prudent ground then any of these can, with reason, be pretended to be. what then can you allege but that, with you, rather than with us, truth and faith and salvation and all relies upon fallible and uncertain grounds. 73 ninthly. your rhemish and douai translations are delivered to your proselytes, (such i mean that are dispensed with for the reading of them,) for the direction of their faith and lives. and the same may be said of your translations of the bible into other national languages, in respect of those that are licenced to read them. this i presume you will confess. and moreover, that these translations came not by inspiration, but were the productions of humane industry; and that not angels, but men were the authors of them. men i say, mere men, subject to the same passions and to the same possibility of erring with our translatours. and then how does it not unavoidably follow, that in them which depend upon these translations for their direction, faith, and truth, and salvation, and all relies upon fallible and uncertain grounds? 74 tenthly and lastly (to lay the axe to the root of the tree,) the helena which you so fight for, your vulgar translation, though some of you believe, or pretend to believe, it to be in every part and particle of it, the pure and uncorrupted word of god; yet others among you, and those as good & zealous catholics as you, are not so confident hereof. 75 first, for all those who have made translations of the whole bible or any part of it different many times in sense from the vulgar, as lyranus, cajetan, pagnine, arias, erasmus, valla, steuchus, and others, it is apparent and even palpable, that they never dreamt of any absolute perfection and authentical infallibility of the vulgar translation. for if they had, why did they in many places reject it and differ from it? 76 vega was present at the council of trent, when that decree was made, which made the vulgar edition (than not extant any where in the world) authentical, and not to be rejected upon any pretence whatsoever. at the forming this decree vega i say was present, understood the mind of the council, as well as any man, and professes that he was instructed in it by the precedent of it, the cardinal s. cruse. and yet he hath written that the council in this decree, meant to pronounce this translation free (not simply from all error) but only from such errors, out of which any opinion pernicious to faith and manners might be collected. this, andradius in his defence of that council reports of vega, and assents to it himself. driedo, in his book of the translation of holy scripture, hath these words very pregnant and pertinent to the same purpose; the see apostolic, hath approved or accepted hieroms' edition, not as so wholly consonant to the original, and so entire and pure and restored in all things, that it may not be lawful for any man, either by comparing it with the fountain to examine it, or in some places to doubt, whether or no hierome did understand the true sense of the scripture; but only as an edition to be preferred before all others then extant, and no where deviating from the truth in the rules of faith and good life. mariana, even where he is a most earnest advocate for the vulgar edition, yet acknowledges the imperfection of it in these words, the faults of the vulgar edition are not approved by the decree of the council of trent, pro edit. vulg. c. 21. p. 99 a multitude whereof we did collect from the variety of copies. and again, we maintain that the hebrew and greek, were by no means rejected by the trent fathers: and that the latin edition is indeed approved, yet not so, as if they did deny that some places might be translated more plainly, some more properly; whereof it were easy to produce innumerable examples. and this he there professes to have learned of laines the then general of the society: who was a great part of that council, present at all the actions of it, and of very great authority in it. 77 to this so great authority he adds a reason of his opinion, which with all indifferent men will be of a far greater authority. if the council (saith he) had purposed to approve an edition in all respects, and to make it of equal authority and credit with the fountains, certainly they ought with exact care first to have corrected the errors of the interpreter: which certainly they did not. 78 lastly bellarmine himself, though he will not acknowledge any imperfection in the vulgar edition, bell. deverb● deil. 2. c. 11. p. 120. yet he acknowledges that the case may, and does ofttimes so fall out, that it is impossible to discern which is the true reading of the vulgar edition, but only by recourse unto the originals, and dependence upon them. 79 from all which it may evidently be collected, that though some of you flatter yourselves with a vain imagination of the certain absolute purity and perfection of your vulgar edition; yet the matter is not so certain, and so resolved, but that the best learned men amongst you are often at a stand, and very doubtful sometimes whether your vulgar translation be true, and sometimes whether this or that be your vulgar translation, & sometimes undoubtedly resolved that your vulgar translation is no true translation, nor consonant to the original, as it was at first delivered. and what then can be alleged, but that out of your own grounds it may be inferred & enforced upon you, that not only in your laymen, but your clergy men & scholars, faith & truth and salvation & all depends upon fallible & uncertain grounds? and thus by ten several retortions of this one argument, i have endeavoured to show you, how ill you have complied with your own advice, which was to take heed of urging arguments that might be returned upon you. i should now by a direct answer, show that it presseth not us at all: but i have in passing done it already, in the end of the second retortion of this argument, and thither i refer the reader. 80 whereas therefore, you exhort them that will have assurance of true scriptures, to fly to your church for it: i desire to know (if they should follow your advice) how they should be assured that your church can give them any such assurance; which hath been confessedly so negligent, as to suffer many whole books of scripture to be utterly lost. again, in those that remain, confessedly so negligent, as to suffer the originals of these that remain to be corrupted. and lastly, so careless of preserving the integrity of the copies of her translation, as to suffer infinite variety of readins to come in to them, without keeping any one perfect copy, which might have been as the standard, and polycletus his canon to correct the rest by. so that which was the true reading, and which the false, it was utterly undiscernible, but only by comparing them with the originals, which also she pretends to be corrupted. 81 but luther himself, by unfortunate experience, was at length enforced to confess thus much, saying, if the world last longer, it will be again necessary to receive the decrees of counsels, by reason of diverse interpretations of scripture which now reign. 82 and what if luther, having a pope in his belly, (as he was wont to say that most men had,) and desiring perhaps to have his own interpretations pass without examining, spoke such words in heat of argument? do you think it reasonable that we should subscribe to luther's divinations and angry speeches? will you oblige yourself to answer for all the assertions of your private doctors? if not; why do you trouble us with what luther says, and what calvin says? yet this i say not, as if these words of luther made any thing at all for your present purpose. for what if he feared, or pretended to fear, that, the infallibility of counsels being rejected, some men would fall into greater errors, than were imposed upon them by the counsels? is this to confess that there is any present visible church, upon whose bare authority we may infallibly receive the true scriptures and the true sense of them? let the reader judge. but in my opinion, to fear a greater inconvenience may follow from the avoiding of the less, is not to confess that the less is none at all. 83 for d. covels commending your translation, what is it to the business in hand? or how proves it the perfection of it, which is here contested, any more than s. augustine's commending the italian translation, argues the perfection of that, or that there was no necessity that s. hierome should correct it? d. covell commends your translation, and so does the bishop of chichester, and so does d. james, and so do i. but i commend it for a good translation, not for a perfect. good may be good, and deserve commendations; and yet better may be better. and though he says, that the then approved translation of the church of england, is that which cometh nearest the vulgar, yet he does not say, that it agrees exactly with it. so that whereas you infer, that the truth of your translation must be the rule to judge of the goodness of ours: this is but a vain flourish. for to say of our translations, that is the best which comes nearest the vulgar, (and yet it is but one man that says so,) is not to say, it is therefore the best because it does so. for this may be true by accident, and yet the truth of our translation no way depend upon the truth of yours. for had that been their direction, they would not only have made a translation that should come near to yours, but such a one which should exactly agree with it, and be a translation of your translation. 84 ad 17. §. in this division you charge us with great uncertainty, concerning the true meaning of scripture. which hath been answered already, by saying, that if you speak of plain places, (and in such all things necessary are contained,) we are sufficiently certain of the meaning of them, neither need they any interpreter. if of obscure and difficult places, we confess we are uncertain of the sense of many of them. but then we say there is no necessity we should be certain. for if gods will had been we should have understood him more certainly, he would have spoken more plainly. and we say beside, that as we are uncertain, so are you too; which he that doubts of, let him read your commentators upon the bible, and observe their various and dissonant interpretations, and he shall in this point need no further satisfaction. 85 but seeing there are contentions among us, we are taught by nature and scripture, and experience (so you tell us out of m. hooker) to seek for the ending of them, by submitting unto some judicial sentence, whereunto neither part may refuse to stand. this is very true. neither should you need to persuade us to seek such a means of ending all our controversies, if we could tell where to find it. but this we know, that none is fit to pronounce, for all the world, a judicial definitive obliging sentence in controversies of religion, but only such a man, or such a society of men, as is authorised thereto by god. and beside we are able to demonstrate, that it hath not been the pleasure of god to give to any man, or society of men any such authority. and therefore though we wish heartily that all controversies were ended, as we do that all sin were abolished, yet we have little hope of the one, or the other, till the world be ended. and in the mean while, think it best to content ourselves with, and to persuade others unto an unity of charity and mutual toleration; seeing god hath authorised no man to force all men to unity of opinion. neither do we think it fit to argue thus, to us it seems convenient there should be one judge of all controversies for the whole world, therefore god has appointed one: but more modest and more reasonable to collect thus, god hath appointed no such judge of controversies, therefore, though it seems to us convenient there should be one, yet it is not so: or though it were convenient for us to have one, yet it hath pleased god (for reasons best known to himself) not to allow us this convenience. 86 d. fields words which follow, i confess, are somewhat more pressing: and if he had been infallible, and the words had not slipped unadvisedly from him, they were the best argument in your book. but yet it is evident out of his book, & so acknowledged by some of your own, that he never thought of any one company of christians invested with such authority from god, that all men were bound to receive their decrees without examination, though they seem contrary to scripture and reason, which the church of rome requires. and therefore if he have in his preface strained too high in commendation of the subject he writes of, (as writers very often do in their prefaces and dedicatory epistles) what is that to us? besides, by all the societies of the world, it is not impossible, nor very improbable, he might mean all that are, or have been in the world, and so include even the primitive church: and her communion we shall embrace, her direction we shall follow, her judgement we shall rest in, if we believe the scripture, endeavour to find the true sense of it, and live according to it. 87 ad 18. §. that the true interpretation of the scripture ought to be received from the church, you need not prove, for it is very easily granted by them, who profess themselves very ready to receive all truths, much more the true sense of scripture, not only from the church, but from any society of men, nay from any man whatsoever. 88 that the church's interpretation of scripture is always true, that is it which you would have said: and that in some sense may be also admitted. viz. if your speak of that church (which before you spoke of in the 14. §.) that is, of the church of all ages since the apostles. upon the tradition of which church, you there told us, we were to receive the scripture, and to believe it to be the word of god. for there you teach us, that our faith of scripture depends on a principle which requires no other proof, and that, such is tradition, which from hand to hand, and age to age bringing us up to the times and persons of the apostles and our saviour himself, cometh to be confirmed by all those miracles, and other arguments whereby they convinced their doctrine to be true. wherefore the ancient fathers avouch that we must receive the sacred scripture upon the tradition of this church. the tradition then of this church you say must teach us what is scripture: and we are willing to believe it. and now if you make it good unto us, that the same tradition down from the apostles, hath delivered from age to age, and from hand to hand, any interpretation of any scripture, we are ready to embrace that also. but now, if you will argue thus: the church in one sense, tells us what is scripture, & we believe, therefore if the church taken in another sense, tell us, this or that is the meaning of the scripture, we are to believe that also; this is too transparent sophistry, to take any but those that are willing to be taken. 89 if there be any traditive interpretation of scripture, produce it, and prove it to be so; and we embrace it. but the tradition of all ages is one thing; and the authority of the present church, much more of the roman church, which is but a part, and a corrupted part of the catholic church, is another. and therefore though we are ready to receive both scripture and the sense of scripture upon the authority of original tradition, yet we receive neither the one, nor the other, upon the authority of your church. 90 first for the scripture, how can we receive them upon the authority of your church: who hold now those books to be canonical, which formerly you rejected from the canon? i instance, in the book of macchabees, and the epistle to the hebrews. the first of these you held not to be canonical in s. gregory's time, or else he was no member of your church, for it is apparent a see greg. mor. l. 19 c. 13. he held otherwise. the second you rejected from the canon in s. hieroms' time, as it is evident out of b thus he testifies▪ come in esa. c. 6. in these words. vnde & paulas apost. in epist. ad heb. quam latina consuetudo non recipit and again in c. 8. in these, in ep. qu●e ad heb●aeos scribitur, licet eam latina consu● etudo inter canoincas scripturas no recipiat.) etc. many places of his works. 91 if you say (which is all you can say) that hierom spoke this of the particular roman church, not of the roman catholic church; i answer, there was none such in his time, none that was called so. secondly, what he spoke of the roman church, must be true of all other churches, if your doctrine of the necessity of the conformity of all other churches to that church were then catholic doctrine. now then choose whether you will, either that the particular roman church, was not then believed to be the mistress of all other churches (notwithstanding, ad hanc ecclesiam necesse est omnem convenire ecclesiam, hoc est, omnes qui sunt undique fideles; which card. perron, and his translatresse so often translates false:) or if you say she was, you will run into a greater inconvenience, and be forced to say, that all the churches of that time, rejected from the canon the epistle to the hebrews, together with the roman church. and consequently that the catholic church may err in rejecting from the canon scriptures truly canonical. 92 secondly, how can we receive the scripture upon the authority of the roman church, which hath delivered at several times scriptures in many places, different and repugnant, for authentical & canonical? which is most evident out of the place of malachi, which is so quoted for the sacrifice of the mass, that either all the ancient fathers had false bibles, or yours is false. most evident likewise from the comparing of the story of jacob in genesis, with that which is cited out of it, in the epistle to the hebrews, according to the vulgar edition. but above all, to any one, who shall compare the bibles of sixtus and clement, so evident, that the wit of man cannot disguise it. 93 and thus you see what reason we have to believe your antecedent, that your church it is which must declare, what books be true scripture. now for the consequence, that certainty is as liable to exception as the antecedent. for if it were true, that god had promised to assist you, for the delivering of true scripture, would this oblige him, or would it follow from hence that he had obliged himself, to teach you, not only sufficiently, but effectually and irresistibly the true sense of scripture? god is not defective in things necessary: neither will he leave himself without witness, nor the world without means of knowing his will and doing it. and therefore it was necessary that by his providence he should preserve the scripture from any undiscernible corruption, in those things which he would have known: otherwise it is apparent, it had not been his will, that these things should be known, the only means of continuing the knowledge of them being perished. but now neither is god lavish in superfluities, and therefore having given us means sufficient for our direction, and power sufficient to make use of these means, he will not constrain or necessitate us to make use of these means. for that were to cross the end of our creation, which was to be glorified by our free obedience: whereas necessity and freedom cannot stand together. that were to reverse the law which he hath prescribed to himself in his dealing with men, and that is, to set life and death before him, and to leave him in the hands of his own counsel. god gave the wisemen a star to lead them to christ, but he did not necessitate them to follow the guidance of this star: that was left to their liberty. god gave the children of israel a fire to lead them by night, and a pillar of cloud by day, but he constrained no man to follow them: that was left to their liberty. so he gives the church, the scripture: which in those things which are to be believed or done, are plain and easy to be followed, like the wise men's star. now that which he desires of us on our part, is the obedience of faith, and love of the truth, and desire to find the true sense of it, and industry in searching it, and humility in following, and constancy in professing it: all which if he should work in us by an absolute irresistible necessity, he could no more require of us, as our duty, than he can of the sun to shine, of the sea to ebb & flow, and of all other creatures to do those things which by mere necessity they must do, and cannot choose. besides, what an impudence is it to pretend that your church is infallibly directed concerning the true meaning of the scripture, whereas there are thousands of places of scripture, which you do not pretend certainly to understand, and about the interpretation whereof, your own doctors differ among themselves? if your church be infallibly directed concerning the true meaning of scripture, why do not your doctors follow her infallible direction? and if they do, how comes such difference among them in their interpretations? 94 again, why does your church thus put her candle under a bushel, and keep her talon of interpreting scripture infallibly, thus long wrapped up in napkins? why sets she not forth infallible commentaries or expositions upon all the bible? is it because this would not be profitable for christians, that scripture should be interpreted? it is blasphemous to say so. the scripture itself tells us, all scripture is profitable. and the scripture is not so much the words as the sense. and if it be not profitable, why does she employ particular doctors to interpret scriptures fallibly? unless we must think that fallible interpretations of scripture are profitable, and infallible interpretations would not be so? 95 if you say the holy ghost, which assists the church in interpreting, will move the church to interpret when he shall think fit, and that the church will do it when the holy ghost shall move her to do it: i demand whether the holy ghost's moving of the church to such works as these be resistible by the church, or irresistible. if resistible, than the holy ghost may move, and the church may not be moved. as certainly the holy ghost doth always move to an action, when he shows us plainly that it would be for the good of men, and honour of god. as he that hath any sense will acknowledge that an infallible exposition of scripture could not but be, and there is no conceivable reason, why such a work should be put off a day, but only because you are conscious to yourselves, you cannot do it, and therefore make excuses. but if the moving of the holy ghost be irresistible, and you are not yet so moved to go about this work; then i confess you are excused. but then i would know, whether those popes which so long deferred the calling of a council for the reformation of your church, at length pretended to be effected by the council of trent, whether they may excuse themselves, for that they were not moved by the holy ghost to do it? i would know likewise, as this motion is irresistible when it comes, so whether it be so simply necessary to the moving of your church to any such public action, that it cannot possibly move without it? that is, whether the pope now could not, if he would, seat himself in cathedra, and fall to writing expositions upon the bible for the directions of christians to the true sense of it? if you say he cannot, you will make yourself ridiculous. if he can, than i would know, whether he should be infallibly directed in these expositions, or no? if he should, then what need he to stay for irresistible motion? why does he not go about this noble work presently? if he should not, how shall we know that the calling of the council of trent was not upon his own voluntary motion, or upon humane importunity and suggestion, and not upon the motion of the holy ghost? and consequently how shall we know whether he were assistant to it or no, seeing he assists none but what he himself moves to? and whether he did move the pope to call this council, is a secret thing, which we cannot possibly know, nor perhaps the pope himself. 96 if you say, your meaning is only, that the church shall be infallibly guarded from giving any false sense of any scripture, and not infallibly assisted positively to give the true sense of all scripture: i put to you your own question, why should we believe the holy ghost will stay there? or, why may we not as well think he will stay at the first thing, that is, in teaching the church what books be true scripture? for if the holy ghosts assistance be promised to all things profitable, then will he be with them infallibly, not only to guard them from all errors, but to guide them to all profitable truths, such as the true senses of all scripture would be. neither could he stay there, but defend them irresistibly from all vices; nor there neither, but infuse into them irresistibly all virtues: for all these things would be much for the benefit of christians. if you say, he cannot do this without taking away their free will in living; i say neither can he necessitate men to believe aright, without taking away their freewill in believing and in professing their belief. 97 to the place of s. austin, i answer, that not the authority of the present church, much less of a part of it (as the roman church is) was that which alone moved saint austin to believe the gospel, but the perpetual tradition of the church of all ages. which you yourself have taught us to be the only principle by which the scripture is proved, and which itself needs no proof; and to which you have referred this very saying of s. austin, ego vero evangelio non crederem nisi etc. p. 55. and in the next place which you cite out of his book de vtil. cred. c. 14. he shows, that his motives to believe, were, fame, celebrity, consent, antiquity. and seeing this tradition, this consent, this antiquity did as fully and powerfully move him not to believe manichaeus, as to believe the gospel, (the christian tradition being as full against manichaeus as it was for the gospel) therefore he did well to conclude upon these grounds, that he had as much reason to disbelieve manichaeus, as to believe the gospel. now if you can truly say, that the same fame, celebrity, consent, antiquity, that the same universal and original tradition, lies against luther and calvin, as did against manichaeus, you may do well to apply the argument against them; otherwise it will be to little purpose to substitute their names in stead of manichaeus, unless you can show the thing agrees to them as well as him. 98 if you say, that s. austin speaks here of the authority of the present church, abstracting from consent with the ancient, and therefore you, seeing you have the present church on your side against luther and calvin, as s. austin against manichaeus, may urge the same words against them which s. austin did against him; 99 i answer, first that it is a vain presumption of yours that the catholic church is of your side. secondly, that if s. austin speak here of that present church, which moved him to believe the gospel, without consideration of the antiquity of it, & its both personal and doctrinal succession from the apostles; his argument will be like a buskin that will serve anylegge. it will serve to keep an arrian, or a grecian from being a roman catholic, as well as a catholic from being an arrian, or a grecian? in as much as the arrians and grecians, did pretend to the title of catholics, and the church, as much as the papists now do. if then you should have come to an ancient goth or vandal, whom the arrians converted to christianity, and should have moved him to your religion; might he not say the very same words to you as s. austin to the manichaeans? i would not believe the gospel, unless the authority of the church did move me. them therefore whom i obeyed, saying believe the gospel, why should i not obey saying to me, do not believe the homoousians? choose what thou pleasest: if thou shalt say believe the arrians; they warn me not to give any credit to you. if therefore i believe them, i cannot believe thee. if thou say do not believe the arrians, thou shalt not do well to force me to the faith of the homoousians, because by the preaching of the arrians i believed the gospel itself. if you say, you did well to believe them, commending the gospel, but you did not well to believe them discommending the homoousians: dost thou think me so very foolish, that without any reason at all, i should believe what thou wilt, and not believe what thou wilt not? it were easy to put these words into the mouth of a grecian, abyssine, georgian, or any other of any religion. and i pray bethink yourselves, what you would say to such a one in such a case, and imagine that we say the very same to you. 100 whereas you ask, whether protestants do not perfectly resemble those men to whom s. austin spoke, when they will have men to believe the roman church delivering scripture, but not to believe her condemning luther? i demand again, whether you be well in your wits to say, that protestants would have men believe the roman church delivering scripture, whereas they accuse her to deliver many books for scripture which are not so? and do not bid men to receive any book which she delivers, for that reason, because she delivers it? and if you meant only, protestants will have men to believe some books to be scripture which the roman church delivers for such, may not we then ask, as you do, do not papists perfectly resemble these men, which will have men believe the church of england delivering scripture, but not to believe her condemning the church of rome? 101 and whereas you say s. austin may seem to have spoken prophetically against protestants, when he said, why should i not most diligently inquire, what christ commanded, of them before all others, by whose authority i was moved to believe, that christ commanded any good thing? i answer. until you can show that protestants believe that christ commanded any good thing, that is, that they believe the truth of christian religion upon the authority of the church of rome, this place must be wholly impertinent to your purpose; which is to make protestants believe your church to be the infallible expounder of scriptures and judge of controversies: nay rather is it not directly against your purpose? for why may not a member of the church of england, who received his baptism, education and faith from the ministry of this church, say just so to you as s. austin here to the manichees? why should i not most diligently inquire, what christ commanded, of them (the church of england) before all others, by whose authority i was moved to believe, that christ commanded any good thing, can you, f. or k. or whosoever you are, better declare to me what he said, whom i would not have thought to have been or to be, if the belief thereof had been recommended by you to me? this therefore (that christ jesus did those miracles, and taught that doctrine which is contained evidently in the undoubted books of the new testament) i believed by fame, strengthened with celebrity & consent, (even of those which in other things are at infinite variance one with another,) and last by antiquity (which gives an universal and a constant attestation to them). but every one may see that you, so few (in comparison of all those upon whose consent we ground our belief of scripture,) so turbulent, (that you damn all to the fire, and to hell, that any way differ from you; that you profess it is lawful for you, to use violence and power whensoever you can have it, for the planting of your own doctrine, and the extirpation of the contrary;) last so new in many of your doctrines, (as in the lawfulness, and expedience of debarring the laity the sacramental cup; the lawfulness and expedience of your latin service, transubstantiation, indulgences, purgatory, the pope's infallibility, his authority over kings &c.) so new i say, in comparison of the undoubted books of scripture, which evidently containeth, or rather is our religion, and the sole, and adequate object of our faith: i say every one may see that you, so few, so turbulent, so new, can produce nothing deserving authority (with wise and considerate men). what madness is this? believe them the consent of christians which are now, and have been ever since christ in the world, that we ought to believe christ; but learn of us what christ said, which contradict and damn all other parts of christendom. why i beseech you? surely if they were not at all, and could not teach me any thing, i would more easily persuade myself, that i were not to believe in christ, then that i should learn any thing concerning him, from any other, then them by whom i believed him: at least, then that i should learn what his religion was from you, who have wronged so exceedingly his miracles and his doctrine, by forging so evidently so many false miracles for the confirmation of your new doctrine; which might give us just occasion, had we no other assurance of them but your authority, to suspect the true ones. who with forging so many false stories, and false authors, have taken a fair way to make the faith of all stories questionable; if we had no other ground for our belief of them but your authority: who have brought in doctrines plainly and directly contrary to that which you confess to be the word of christ, and which, for the most, part make either for the honour or profit of the teachers of them: which (if there were no difference between the christian and the roman church) would be very apt to make suspicious men believe that christian religion was a humane invention, taught by some cunning impostors, only to make themselves rich and powerful; who make a profession of corrupting all sorts of authors: a ready course to make it justly questionable whether any remain uncorrupted. for if you take this authority upon you, upon the six ages last passed; how shall we know, that the church of that time, did not usurp the same authority upon the authors of the six last ages before them, and so upwards until we come to christ himself? whose questioned doctrines, none of them came from the fountain of apostolic tradition, but have insinuated themselves into the streams, by little and little, some in one age, and some in another, some more anciently, some more lately, and some yet are embrio's, yet hatching, and in the shell; as the pope's infallibility, the blessed virgins immaculate conception, the pope's power over the temporalties of kings, the doctrine of predetermination, etc. all which yet are, or in time may be imposed upon christians under the title of original and apostolic tradition, and that with that necessity, that they are told, they were as good believe nothing at all, as not believe these things to have come from the apostles, which they know to have been brought in but yesterday: which whether it be not a ready and likely way to make men conclude thus with themselves— i am told, that i were as good believe nothing at all, as believe some points which the church teaches me, and not others: & somethings which she teaches to be ancient and certain, i plainly see to be new & false, therefore i will believe nothing at all. whether i say the foresaid grounds be not a ready and likely way to make men conclude thus, and whether this conclusion be not too often made in italy, & spain, and france, and in england too, i leave it to the judgement of those that have wisdom and experience. seeing therefore the roman church is so far from being a sufficient foundation for our belief in christ, that it is in sundry regards a dangerous temptation against it; why should i not much rather conclude, seeing we receive not the knowledge of christ and scriptures from the church of rome, neither from her must we take his doctrine, or the interpretation of scripture? 102 ad. §. 19 in this number, this argument is contained. the judge of controversies ought to be intelligible to learned and unlearned; the scripture is not so, and the church is so; therefore the church is the judge, and not the scripture. 103 to this i answer: as to be understandible is a condition requisite to a judge, so is not that alone sufficient to make a judge; otherwise you might make yourself judge of controversies, by arguing; the scripture is not intelligible by all, but i am, therefore i am judge of controversies. if you say your intent was to conclude against the scripture, and not for the church: i demand why then, but to delude the simple with sophistry, did you say in the close of this §. such is the church, and the scripture is not such? but that you would leave it to them to infer in the end, (which indeed was more than you undertook in the beginning) therefore the church is judge and the scripture not. i say secondly; that you still run upon a false supposition: that god hath appointed some judge of all controversies that may happen among christians, about the sense of obscure texts of scripture: whereas he has left every one to his liberty herein, in those words of s. paul, quisque abundet in sensu suo etc. i say thirdly. whereas some protestants make the scripture judge of controversies, that they have the authority of fathers of warrant their manner of speaking: as of * contra parm●a. l. 5. in prin. optatus. 104 but speaking truly and properly the scripture is not a judge nor cannot be, but only, a sufficient rule, for those to judge by, that believe it to be the word of god (as the church of england and the church of rome both do,) what they are to believe, and what they are not to believe. i say sufficiently perfect, and sufficiently intelligible in things necessary, to all that have understanding, whether they be learned or unlearned. and my reason hereof is convincing and demonstrative; because nothing is necessary to be believed, but what is plainly revealed. for to say, that when a place of scripture, by reason of ambiguous terms, lies indifferent between diverse senses, whereof one is true, and the other is false, that god obliges men under pain of damnation, not to mistake through error and humane frailty, is to make god a tyrant, and to say that he requires us certainly to attain that end, for the attaining whereof we have no certain means; which is to say, that, like pharaoh, he gives no straw, and requires brick; that he reaps where he sows not; that he gathers where he strews not, that he will not be pleased with our utmost endeavours to please him, without full and exact and never failing performance; that his will is we should do what he knows we cannot do; that he will not accept of us according to that which we have, but requireth of us what we have not. which whether it can consist with his goodness, with his wisdom, & with his word, i leave it to honest men to judge. if i should send a servant to paris, or rome, or lerusalem, and he using his utmost diligence not to mistake his way, yet notwithstanding, meeting often with such places where the road is divided into several ways, whereof every one is as likely to be true, and as likely to be false as any other, should at length mistake and go out of the way; would not any man say that i were an impotent, foolish and unjust master, if i should be offended with him for doing so? and shall we not tremble to impute that to god, which we would take in foul scorn, if it were imputed to ourselves? certainly, i for my part fear i should not love god if i should think so strangely of him. 105 again. when you say, that unlearned, and ignor an't men cannot understand scripture, i would desire you to come out of the clouds, and tell us what you mean: whether, that they cannot understand all scripture, or that they cannot understand any scripture, or that they cannot understand so much as is sufficient for their direction to heaven. if the first; i believe the learned are in the same case. if the second; every man's experience will confute you: for who is there that is not capable of a sufficient understanding of the story, the precepts, the promises, and the threats of the gospel? if the third; that they may understand something, but not enough for their salvations; i ask you, first. why then doth s. paul say to timothy, the scriptures are able to make him wise unto salvation? why does saint austin say, eaquae manifest● posita sunt in sacris scriptures, omnia continent quae pertinent and fidem moresque vivendi? why does every one of the four evangelists entitle their book the gospel, if any necessary and essential part of the gospel were left out of it? can we imagine, that either they omitted something necessary, out of ignorance not knowing it to be necessary? or knowing it to be so, maliciously concealed it? or out of negligence ' did the work they had undertaken by halves? if none of these things can without blasphemy be imputed to them, considering they were assisted by the holy ghost in this work, then certainly it most evidently follows, that every one of them writ the whole gospel of christ; i mean all the essential and necessary parts of it. so that if we had no other book of scripture, but one of them alone, we should not want any thing necessary to salvation. and what one of them has more than another, it is only profitable, and not necessary. necessary indeed to be believed, because revealed; but not therefore revealed, because necessary to be believed. 106 neither did they write only for the learned, but for all men. this being one especial means of the preaching of the gospel, which was commanded to be preached, not only to learned men but to all men. and therefore, unless we will imagine the holy ghost and them to have been wilfully wanting to their own desire and purpose, we must conceive, that they intended to speak plain, even to the capacity of the simplest; at least touching all things necessary to be published by them, and believed by us. 107 and whereas you pretend it is so easy, and obvious both for the learned and the ignorant, both to know which is the church, and what are the decrees of the church, and what is the sense of those decrees: i say, this is a vain pretence. 108 for first; how shall an unlearned man whom you have supposed now ignorant of scripture, how shall he know which of all the societies of christians is indeed the church? you will say perhaps, he must examine them by the notes of the church, which are perpetual visibility, succession, conformity with the ancient church. etc. but how shall he know, first, that these are the notes of the church, unless by scripture, which you say he understands not? you may say perhaps, he may be told so. but seeing men may deceive, and be deceived, and their words are no demonstrations, how shall he be assured that what they say is true? so that at the first he meets with an impregnable difficulty, and cannot know the church but by such notes, which whether they be the notes of the church he cannot possibly know. but let us suppose this isthmus digged through, and that he is assured these are the notes of the true church: how can he possible be a competent judge, which society of christians hath title to these notes, and which hath not? seeing this trial of necessity requires a great sufficiency of knowledge of the monuments of christian antiquity, which no unlearned can have, because he that hath it cannot be unlearned. as for example, how shall he possibly be able to know whether the church of rome hath had a perpetual succession of visible professors, which held always the same doctrine which they now hold, without holding any thing to the contrary; unless he hath first examined, what was the doctrine of the church in the first age, what in the second, and so forth? and whether this be not a more difficult work, then to stay at the first age, and to examine the church by the conformity of her doctrine, with the doctrine of the first age, every man of ordinary understanding may judge. 108 let us imagine him advanced a step farther, and to know which is the church: how shall he know what that church hath decreed, seeing the church hath not been so careful in keeping of her decrees, but that many are lost, and many corrupted? besides, when even the learned among you are not agreed concerning diverse things, whether they be de fide or not; how shall the unlearned do? then for the sense of the decrees, how can he be more capable of the understanding of them, then of plain texts of scripture, which you will not suffer him to understand? especially, seeing the decrees of diverse popes and counsels are conceived so obscurely, that the learned cannot agree about the sense of them. and then they are written all in such languages which the ignorant understand not, and therefore must of necessity rely herein upon the uncertain and fallible authority of some particular men, who inform them that there is such a decree. and if the decrees were translated into vulgar languages, why the translators should not be as fallible as you say the translators of scripture are, who can possibly imagine? 109 lastly, how shall an unlearned man, or indeed any man, be assured of the certainty of that decree, the certainty whereof depends upon suppositions which are impossible to be known whether they be true or no? for it is not the decree of a council, unless it be confirmed by a true pope. now the pope cannot be a true pope if he came in by simony: which whether he did or no, who can answer me? he cannot be true pope unless he were baptised, and baptised he was not, unless the minister had due intention. so likewise he cannot be a true pope, unless he were rightly ordained priest, and that again depends upon the ordainers secret intention, and also upon his having the episcopal character. all which things, as i have formerly proved, depend upon so many uncertain suppositions, that no humane judgement can possibly be resolved in them. i conclude therefore, that not the learnedst man amongst you all, no not the pope himself, can, according to the grounds you go upon, have any certainty, that any decree of any council is good and valid, and consequently, not any assurance that it is indeed the decree of a council. 110 ad §. 20. if by a private spirit, you mean, a particular persuasion that a doctrine is true, which some men pretend, but cannot prove to come from the spirit of god: i say to refer controversies to scripture, is not to refer them to this kind of private spirit. for is there not a manifest difference between saying, the spirit of god tells me that this is the meaning of such a text (which no man can possibly know to be true, it being a secret thing) & between saying, these & these reasons i have to show, that this or that is true doctrine, or that this or that is the meaning of such a scripture? reason being a public and certain thing and exposed to all men's trial and examination. but now if by private spirit you understand every man's particular reason, than your first and second inconvenience will presently be reduced to one, and shortly to none at all. 111 ad §. 20. and does not also giving the office of judicature to the church, come to confer it upon every particular man? for before any man believes the church infallible, must he not have reason to induce him to believe it to be so? and must he not judge of those reasons, whether they be indeed good and firm, or captious and sophistical? or would you have all men believe all your doctrine upon the church's infallibility, and the church's infallibility they know not why? 112 secondly, supposing they are to be guided by the church, they must use their own particular reason to find out which is the church. and to that purpose you yourselves give a great many notes, which you pretend first to be certain notes of the church, and then to be peculiar to your church, and agreeable to none else; but you do not so much as pretend, that either of those pretences is evident of itself, and therefore you go about to prove them both by reasons; and those reasons i hope every particular man is to judge of, whether they do indeed conclude and convince that which they are alleged for: that is, that these marks are indeed certain notes of the church, and then that your church hath them, and no other. 113 one of these notes, indeed the only note of a true and uncorrupted church, is conformity with antiquity; i mean the most ancient church of all, that is the primitive and apostolic. now how is it possible any man should examine your church by this note, but he must by his own particular judgement, find out what was the doctrine of the primitive church, and what is the doctrine of the present church, and be able to answer all these arguments which are brought to prove repugnance between them? otherwise he shall but pretend to make use of this note for the finding the true church, but indeed make no use of it, but receive the church at a venture, as the most of you do; not one in a hundred being able to give any tolerable reason for it. so that in stead of reducing men to particular reason, you reduce them to none at all, but to chance and passion, and prejudice and such other ways, which if they lead one to the truth, they lead hundreds, nay thousands to falsehood. but it is a pretty thing to consider, how these men can blow hot and cold out of the same mouth to serve several purposes. is there hope of gaining a proselyte? then they will tell you, god hath given every man reason to follow; and if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch. that it is no good reason for a man's religion, that he was borne and brought up in it: for then a turk should have as much reason to be a turk; as a christian to be a christian. that every man hath a judgement of discretion; which if they will make use of they shall easily find: that the true church hath always such and such marks, and that their church has them, and no other but theirs. but then if any of theirs be persuaded to a sincere and sufficient trial of their church▪ even by their own notes of it, and to try whether they be indeed so conformable to antiquity as they pretend, than their note is changed: you must not use your own reason nor your judgement, but refer all to the church, and believe her to be conformable to antiquity, though they have no reason for it, nay though they have evident reason to the contrary. for my part, i am certain that god hath given us our reason to discern between truth and falsehood, and he that makes not this use of it, but believes things he knows not why, i say it is by chance that he believes the truth, and not by choice: and that i cannot but fear, that god will not accept of this sacrifice of fools. 114 but you that would not have men follow their reason, what would you have them to follow? their passion? or pluck out their eyes and go blindfold? no, you say you would have them follow authority. on god's name let them; we also would have them follow authority; for it is upon the authority of universal tradition, that we would have them believe scripture. but then as for the authority which you would have them follow, you will let them see reason why they should follow it. and is not this to go a little about? to leave reason for a short turn, and then to come to it again, and to do that which you condemn in others? it being indeed a plain impossibility for any man to submit his reason but to reason: for he that does it to authority, must of necessity think himself to have greater reason to believe that authority. therefore the confession cited by brerely, you need not think to have been extorted from luther and the rest. it came very freely from them, and what they say you practise as much as they. 115 and whereas you say that a protestant admits of fathers, counsels, church, as far as they agree with scripture, which upon the matter is himself: i say you admit neither of them, nor the scripture itself, but only so far as it agrees with your church: and your church you admit because you think you have reason to do so: so that by you as well as by protestants all is finally resolved into your own reason. 116 nor do heretics only but romish catholics also set up as many judges, as there are men and women in the christian world. for do not your men and women judge your religion to be true, before they believe it, as well as the men and women of other religions? oh but you say, they receive it not because they think it agreeable to scripture, but because the church tells them so. but then i hope they believe the church because their own reason tells them they are to do so. so that the difference between a papist and a protestant is this, not that the one judges and the other does not judge, but that the one judges his guide to be infallible, the other his way to be manifest. this same pernicious doctrine is taught by brentius, zanchius, cartwright, and others. it is so in very deed: but it is taught also by some others, whom you little think of. it is taught by s. paul, where he says, try all things, hold fast that which is good. it is taught by s. john, in these words, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they be of god or no. it is taught by s. peter, in these, be ye ready to render a reason of the hope that is in you. lastly, this very pernicious doctrine is taught by our saviour, in these words, if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch. and why of yourselves judge you not what is right? all which speeches, if they do not advise men to make use of their reason for the choice of their religion, i must confess myself to understand nothing. lastly, not to be infinite, it is taught by m. knot himself, not in one page only, or chapter of his book, but all his book over, the very writing and publishing whereof, supposeth this for certain, that the readers are to be judges, whether his reasons which he brings, be strong and convincing; of which sort we have hitherto met with none: or else captious, or impertinences, as indifferent men shall (as i suppose) have cause to judge them. 117 but you demand, what good statesmen would they be, who should ideate, or fancy such a commonwealth, as these men have framed to themselves a church? truly if this be all the fault they have, that they say, every man is to use his own judgement in the choice of his religion, and not to believe this or that sense of scripture, upon the bare authority of any learned man or men, when he conceives he has reasons to the contrary, which are of more weight than their authority: i know no reason but, notwithstanding all this, they might be as good statesmen as any of the society. but what has this to do with commonwealths, where men are bound only to external obedience, unto the laws and judgements of courts, but not to an internal approbation of them, no nor to conceal their judgement of them, if they disapprove them? as if i conceived i had reason to mislike the law of punishing simple theft with death, as st thomas moor did, i might profess lawfully my judgement, and represent my reasons to the king or commonwealth in a parliament, as s ● thomas moor did, without committing any fault, or fearing any punishment. 118 to the place of s. austin, wherewith this paragraph is concluded, i shall need give no other reply, but only to desire you to speak like an honest man, and to say, whether it be all one for a man, to allow and disallow in every scripture what he pleases, which is, either to dash out of scripture such texts or such chapters, because they cross his opinions or to say (which is worse,) though they be scripture they are not true? whether i say for a man thus to allow and disallow in scripture what he pleases, be all one, and no greater fault, then to allow that sense of scripture which he conceives to be true and genuine, and deduced out of the words, and to disallow the contrary? for god's sake, sr, tell me plainly; in those texts of scripture, which you allege for the infallibility of your church, do not you allow what sens● you think true, and disallow the contrary? and do you not this by the direction of your private reason? if you do, why do you condemn it in others? if you do not, i pray you tell me what direction you follow? or whether you follow none at all? if none at all, this is like drawing lots, or throwing the dice for the choice of a religion. if any other: i beseech you tell me what it is. perhaps you will say, the church's authority; and that will be to dance finely in a round, thus, to believe the churches infallible authority, because the scriptures avouch it; & to believe that scriptures say and mean so, because they are so expounded by the church. is not this for a father to beget his son, and the son to beget his father? for a foundation to support the house, and the house to support the foundation? would not campian have cried out at it, ecce quos gyros, quos maeandros? and to what end was this going about, when you might as well at first have concluded the church infallible because she says so; as thus to put in scripture for a mere stale, and to say, the church is infallible because the scripture says so, and the scripture means so because the church says so, which is infallible? is it not most evident therefore to every intelligent man, that you are enforced of necessity to do that yourself, which so tragically you declaim against in others? the church, you say, is infallible; i am very doubtful of it: how shall i know it? the scripture you say affirms it, as in the 59 of esay, my spirit that is in thee, etc. well i confess i find there these words: but i am still doubtful, whether they be spoken of the church of christ: & if they be, whether they mean as you pretend. you say, the church says so, which is infallible. yea but that is the question, and therefore not to be begged but proved. neither is it so evident as to need no proof: otherwise why brought you this text to prove it? nor is it of such a strange quality, above all other propositions, as to be able to prove itself. what then remains but that you say, reason's drawn out of the circumstances of the text, will evince that this is the sense of it. perhaps they will. but reasons cannot convince me, unless i judge of them by my reason; and for every man or woman to rely on that, in the choice of their religion, and in the interpreting of scripture, you say is a horrible absurdity; and therefore must neither make use of your own in this matter, nor desire me to make use of it. 119 but universal tradition (you say, and so do i too,) is of itself credible: and that has in all ages taught the church's infallibility with full consent. if it have, i am ready to believe it. but that it has i hope you would not have me take upon your word: for that were to build myself upon the church, and the church upon you. let then the tradition appear; for a secret tradition is somewhat like a silent thunder. you will perhaps produce, for the confirmation of it, some sayings of some fathers, who in every age taught this doctrine; (as gualterius in his chronologie undertakes to do, but with so ill success, that i heard an able man of your religion profess, that in the first three centuries, there was not one authority pertinent:) but how will you warrant that none of them teach the contrary? again, how shall i be assured that the places have indeed this sense in them? seeing there is not one father for 500 years after christ, that does say in plain terms, the church of rome is infallible. what, shall we believe your church that this is their meaning? but this will be again to go into the circle, which made us giddy before; to prove the church infallible because tradition says so, tradition to say so, because the fathers say so, the fathers to say so, because the church says so, which is infallible. yea, but reason will show this to be the meaning of them. yes, if we may use our reason, and rely upon it. otherwise, as light shows nothing to the blind, or to him that uses not his eyes; so reason cannot prove any thing to him that either has not, or uses not his reason to judge of them. 120 thus you have excluded yourself from all proof of your church's infallibility from scripture or tradition. and if you fly lastly to reason itself for succour, may not it justly say to you, as jephte said to his brethren, ye have cast me out and banished me, and do you now come to me for succour? but if there be no certainty in reason, how shall i be assured of the certainty of those which you allege for this purpose? either i may judge of them, or not: if not, why do you propose them? if i may, why do you say i may not, and make it such a monstrous absurdity, that men in the choice of their religion should make use of their reason? which yet, without all question, none but unreasonable men can deny, to have been the chiefest end why reason was given them. 122 ad § 22. an heretic he is (saith d. potter) who opposeth any truth, which to be a divine revelation he is convinced in conscience by any means whatsoever: be it by a preacher or layman, be it by reading scripture, or hearing them read. and from hence you infer, that he makes all these safe propounders of faith. a most strange and illogicall deduction! for may not a private man by evident reason convince another man, that such or such a doctrine is divine revelation, and yet though he be a true propounder in this point, yet propound another thing falsely, and without proof, and consequently not be a safe propounder in every point? your preachers in their sermons, do they not propose to men divine revelations, and do they not sometimes convince men in conscience, by evident proof from scripture, that the things they speak are divine revelations? and whosoever, being thus convinced, should oppose this divine revelation, should he not be an heretic, according to your own grounds, for calling gods own truth into question? and would you think yourself well dealt with, if i should collect from hence, that you make every preacher a safe, that is, an infallible propounder of faith? be the means of proposal what it will, sufficient or insufficient, worthy of credit, or not worthy, though it were, if it were possible, the barking of a dog, or the chirping of a bird, or were it the discourse of the devil himself, yet if i be, i will not say convinced, but persuaded, though falsely, that it is a divine revelation, and shall deny to believe it, i shall be a formal, though not a material heretic. for he that believes, though falsely any thing to be divine revelation, & yet will not believe it to be true, must of necessity believe god to be false, which according to your own doctrine, is the formality of an heretic. 123 and how it can be any way advantageous to civil government, that men without warrant from god should usurp a tyranny over other men's consciences, and prescribe unto them without reason, and sometimes against reason, what they shall believe, you must show us plainer if you desire we should believe. for to say, verily i do not see but that it must be so, is no good demonstration. for whereas you say, that a man may be a passionate & seditious creature, from whence you would have us infer, that he may make use of his interpretation to satisfy his passion, and raise sedition: there were some colour in this consequence, if we (as you do) made private men infallible interpreters for others; for then indeed they might lead disciples after them, and use them as instruments for their vile purposes: but when we say they can only interpret for themselves, what harm they can do by their passionate or seditious interpretations, but only endanger both their temporal and eternal happiness, i cannot imagine. for though we deny the pope or church of rome to be an infallible judge, yet we do not deny, but that there are judges which may proceed with certainty enough against all seditious persons, such as draw men to disobedience either against church or state, as well as against rebels, and traitors, and thiefs, and murderers. 124 ad § 23. the next § in the beginning argues thus: for many ages there was no scripture in the world: and for many more, there was none in many places of the world: yet men wanted not then and then some certain direction what to believe: therefore there was then an infallible judge. just as if i should say, york is not my way from oxford to london, therefore bristol is: or a dog is not a horse, therefore he is a man. as if god had no other ways of revealing himself to men, but only by scripture and an infallible church. s. chrysostom and isidorus pelusiota conceived he might use other means. and s. paul telleth us that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 might be known by his works; and that they had the law written in their hearts. either of these ways might make some faithful men without either necessity of scripture or church. 125 but d. potter says, you say, in the jewish church there was a living judge, endowed with an absolute infallible direction in cases of moment: as all points belonging to divine faith are. and where was that infallible direction in the jewish church when they should have received christ for their messias, and refused him? or perhaps this was not a case of moment. d. potter indeed might say very well, not that the high priest was infallible, (●or certainly he was not) but that his determination was to be of necessity obeyed, though for the justice of it there was no necessity that it should be believed. besides, it is one thing to say, that the living judge in the jewish church, had an infallible direction: another, that he was necessitated to follow this direction. this is the privilege which you challenge. but it is that, not this, which the doctor attributes to the jews. as a man may truly say, the wise men had an infallible direction to christ, without saying or thinking that they were constrained to follow it, and could not do● otherwise. 126 but either the church retains still her infallibility, or it was devested of it upon the receiving of holy scripture; which is absurd. an argument me thinks like this, either you have horns or you have lost them: but you never lost them, therefore you have them still. if you say you never had horns; so say i, for aught appears by your reasons, the church never had infallibility. 127 but some scriptures were received in some places and not in others: therefore if scriptures were the judge of controversies, some churches had one judge and some another. and what great inconvenience is there in that, that one part of england should have one judge, and another another? especially seeing the books of scripture which were received by those that received fewest, had as much of the doctrine of christianity in them, as they all had which were received by any; all the necessary parts of the gospel being contained in every one of the four gospels, as i have proved: so that they which had all the books of the new testament had nothing superfluous: for it was not superfluous but profitable, that the same thing should be said diverse times, and be testified by diverse witnesses: and they that had but one of the four gospels wanted nothing necessary: and therefore it is vainly inferred by you, that with months and years, as new canonical scriptures grew to be published, the church altered her rule of faith and judge of controversies. 128 heresies you say, would arise after the apostles time and after the writing of scriptures: these cannot be discovered, condemned & avoided, unless the church be infallible; therefore there must be a church infallible. but i pray tell me, why cannot heresies be sufficiently discovered, condemned, & avoided, by them which believe scripture to be the rule of faith? if scripture be sufficient to inform us what is the faith, it must of necessity be also sufficient to teach us what is heresy: seeing heresy is nothing but a manifest deviation from, and an opposition to the faith. that which is straight will plainly teach us what is crooked; and one contrary cannot but manifest the other. if any one should deny, that there is a god: that this god is omnipotent, omniscient, good, just, true, merciful, a rewarder of them that seek him, a punisher of them that obstinately offend him; that jesus christ is the son of god, and the saviour of the world: that it is he by obedience to whom men must look to be saved: if any man should deny either his birth, or passion, or resurrection, or ascension, or sitting at the right hand of god: his having all power given him in heaven and earth▪ that it is he whom god hath appointed to be judge of the quick and the dead: that all men shall rise again at the last day: that they which believe and repent shall be saved: that they which do not believe or repent shall be damned: if a man should hold, that either the keeping of the mosaical law is necessary to salvation: or that good works are not necessary to salvation: in a word, if any man should obstinately contradict the truth of any thing plainly delivered in scripture, who does not see, that every one which believes the scripture, hath a sufficient means to discover, and condemn, and avoid that heresy, without any need of an infallible guide? if you say, that the obscure places of scripture contain matters of faith: i answer, that it is a matter of faith to believe that the sense of them, whatsoever it is, which was intended by god is true; for he that does not do so calls god's truth into question. but to believe this or that to be the true sense of them, or, to believe the true sense of them, and to avoid the false, is not necessary either to faith or salvation. for if god would have had his meaning in these places certainly known, how could it stand with his wisdom, to be so wanting to his own will and end, as to speak obscurely? or how can it consist with his justice, to require of men to know certainly the meaning of those words, which he himself hath not revealed? suppose there were an absolute monarch, that in his own absence from one of his kingdoms, had written laws for the government of it, some very plainly, and some very ambiguously, and obscurely, and his subjects should keep those that were plainly written with all exactness, and for those that were obscure, use their best diligence to find his meaning in them, and obey them according to the sense of them which they conceived; should this king either with justice or wisdom be offended with these subjects, if by reason of the obscurity of them, they mistook the sense of them, and fail of performance, by reason of their error? 128 but, it is more useful & fit, you say, for the deciding of controversies, to have beside an infallible rule to go by, a living infallible judge to determine them: & from hence you conclude, that certainly there is such a judge. but why then may not another say, that it is yet more useful for many excellent purposes, that all the patriarches should be infallible, then that the pope only should? another, that it would be yet more useful, that all the archbishops of every province should be so, then that the patriarches only should be so. another, that it would be yet more useful, if all the bishops of every diocese were so. another, that it would be yet more available, that all the parsons of every parish should be so. another, that it would be yet more excellent, if all the fathers of families were so. and lastly, another, that it were much more to be desired that every man and every woman were so▪ just as much as the prevention of controversies, is better than the decision of them, and the prevention of heresies better than the condemnation of them; and upon this ground conclude, by your own very consequence, that not only a general council, nor only the pope, but all the patriarches, archbishops, bishops, pastors, fathers, nay all the men in the world are infallible. if you say now, as i am sure you will, that this conclusion is most gross, and absurd against sense and experience, then must also the ground be false, from which it evidently and undeniably follows, viz. that, that course of dealing with men seems always more fit to divine providence, which seems most 〈◊〉 to humane reason. 129 and so likewise, that there should men succeed the apostles, which could show the●selues to be their successors, by doing of miracles, by speaking all kind of languages, by delivering men to satan, as s. paul did hymenaeus, and the incestuous corinthian, it is manifest in humane reason it were incomparably more fit and useful for the decision of controversies, then that the successor of the apostles should have none of these gifts, and for want of the signs of apostleship, be justly questionable whether he be his successor or no: and will you now conclude, that the popes have the gift of doing miracles, as well as the apostles had? 130 it were in all reason very useful and requisite, that the pope should, by the assistance of god's spirit, be freed from the vices & passions of men, lest otherwise, the authority given him for the good of the church, he might employ (as diverse popes you well know have done) to the disturbance, and oppression and mischief of it. and will you conclude from hen●e, that popes are not subject to the sins and passions of other men? that there never have been ambitious, covetous, lustful, tyrannous popes. 131 who sees not that for men's direction it were much mor● beneficial for the church, that infallibility should be settled in the pope's person, then in a general council: that so the means of deciding controversies might be speedy, easy and perpetual, whereas that of general counsels is not so. and will you hence infer, that not the church representative, but the pope is indeed the infallible judge of controversies? certainly if you should, the sorbon doctors would not think this a good conclusion. 132 it had been very commodious (one would think) that, seeing either god's pleasure was the scripture should be translated, or else in his providence he knew it would be so, that he had appointed some men for this business, and by his spirit assisted them in it, that so we might have translations as authentical as the original: yet you see god did not think fit to do so. 133 it had been very commodious (one would think) that the scripture should have been, at least for all things necessary, a rule, plain and perfect: and yet you say, it is both imperfect and obscure, even in things necessary. 134 it had been most requisite (one would think) that the copies of the bibles, should have been preserved free from variety of readings, which makes men very uncertain in many places, which is the word of god, and which is the error or presumption of man: and yet we see god hath not thought fit so to provide for us. 135 who can conceive, but that an apostolic interpretation of all the difficult places of scripture, would have been strangely beneficial to the church, especially there being such danger in mistaking the sense of them, as is by you pretended, and god in his providence foreseeing that the greatest part of christians, would not accept of the pope for the judge of controversies? and yet we see god hath not so ordered the matter. 136 who doth not see, that supposing the bishop of rome, had been appointed head of the church, and ●●dge of controversies, that it would have been infinitely beneficial to the church, perhaps as much as all the rest of the bible, that in some book of scripture which was to be undoubtedly received, this one proposition had been set down in terms, the bishops of rome shall be always monarches of the church, & they either alone, or with their adherents, the guides of faith, and the judges of controversies that shall arise amongst christians? this, if you will deal ingenuously, you cannot but acknowledge; for then all true christians would have submitted to him, as willingly as to christ himself, neither needed you and your fellows, have troubled yourself to invent so many sophisms for the proof of it. there would have been no more doubt of it among christians, than there is of the nativity, passion, resurrection or ascension of christ. you were best now rub your forehead hard, and conclude upon us, that because this would have been so useful to have been done, therefore it is done. or if you be (as i know you are) too ingenuous to say so, then must you acknowledge, that the ground of your argument, which is the very ground of all these absurdities, is most absurd; and that it is our duty to be humbly thankful for those sufficient, nay abundant means of salvation, which god hath of his own goonesse granted us: and not conclude, he hath done that which he hath not done, because forsooth, in our vain judgements it seems convenient he should have done so. 137 but you demand what repugnance there is betwixt infallibility in the church, and existence of scripture, that the production of the one must be the destruction of the other? out of which words i can frame no other argument for you than this. there is no repugnance between the scriptures existence, and the church's infallibility, therefore the church is infallible. which consequence will then be good, when you can show, that nothing can be untrue, but that only which is impossible; that whatsoever may be done, that also is done. which, if it were true, would conclude both you and me to be infallible, as well as either your church, or pope: in as much as there is no more repugnance between the scriptures existence and our infallibility, than there is between theirs. 138 but if protestants will have the scripture alone for their judge, let them first produce some scripture, affirming, that by the entering thereof, infallibility went out of the church. this argument put in form runs thus. no scripture affirms that by the entering thereof, infallibility went out of the church: therefore there is an infallible church, & therefore the scripture alone is not judge, that is, the rule to judge by. but as no scripture affirms that by the entering of it, infallibility went out of the church, so neither do we, neither have we any need to do so. but we say, that it continued in the church even together with the scriptures, so long as christ & his apostles were living, and then departed: god in his providence having provided a plain and infallible rule, to supply the defect of living and infallible guides. certainly if your cause were good, so great a wit as yours is, would devise better arguments to maintain it. we can show no scripture affirming infallibility to have gone out of the church, therefore it is infallible. somewhat like his discourse that said, it could not be proved out of scripture, that the king of sweden was dead, therefore he is still living. me thinks in all reason, you that challenge privileges, and exemption from the condition of men, which is to be subject to error; you that by virtue of this privilege usurp authority over men's consciences, should produce your letters-patents from the king of heaven, & show some express warrant for this authority you take upon you, otherwise you know the rule is, vbicontrarium non manifestè probatur praesumitur pro libertate. 139 but d. potter may remember what himself teacheth, that the church is still endued with infallibility in points fundamental, and consequently that infallibility in the church doth well agree with the truth, the sanctity, yea with the sufficiency of scripture, for all matters necessary to salvation. still your discourse is so far from hitting the white, that it roves quite besides the but. you conclude that the infallibility of the church may well agree with the truth, the sanctity, the sufficiency of scripture. but what is this but to abuse your reader with the proof of that which no man denies? the question is not, whether an infallible church might agree with scripture, but whether, there be an infallible church? jam dic posthume de tribus capellis. besides, you must know there is a wide difference between, being infallible in fundamentals, and being an infallible guide even in fundamentals. d. potter says, that the church is the former: that is, there shall be some men in the world, while the world lasts, which err not in fundamentals; for otherwise there should be no church: for to say, the church, while it is the church, may err in fundamentals, implies contradiction, and is all one as to say, the church: while it is the church, may not be the church. so that to say, that the church is infallible in fundamentals, signifies no more but this, there shall be a church in the world for ever. but we utterly deny the church to be the latter; for to say so, were to oblige ourselves to find some certain society of men, of whom we might be certain, that they neither do, nor can err in fundamentals, nor in declaring what is fundamental, what is not fundamental: and consequently to make any church an infallible guide in fundamentals, would be to make it infallible in all things, which she proposes and requires to be believed. this therefore we deny both to your and all other churches of any one denomination, as the greek, the roman, the abyssine: that is indeed, we deny it simply to any church. for no church can possibly be fit to be a guide, but only a church of some certain denomination. for otherwise no man can possibly know which is the true church, but by a pre-examination of the doctrine controverted, and that were not to be guided by the church to the true doctrine, but by the true doctrine to the church. hereafter therefore, when you hear protestants say, the church is infallible in fundamentals, you must not conceive them, as if they meant as you do, that some society of christians, which may be known by adhering to some one head, for example, the pope, or the bishop of constantinople, is infallible in these things: but only thus, that true religion shall never be so far driven out of the world, but that it shall always have some where or other, some that believe and profess it, in all things necessary to salvation. 140 but, you would therefore gladly know out of what text he imagines that the church, by the coming of scripture, was deprived of infallibility in some points, and not in others? and i also would gladly know, why you do thus frame to yourself vain imaginations, & then father them upon others? we yield unto you, that there shall be a church which never erreth in some points because (as we conceive,) god hath promised so much; but not, there shall be such a church which doth or can err in no points, because we find not that god hath promised such a church; and therefore we may not promise such a one to ourselves. but for the churches being deprived by the scripture of infallibility, in some points and not in others, that is a wild notion of your own, which we have nothing to do with. 141 but he affirmeth, that the jewish church retained infallibility in herself; and therefore it is unjustly, and unworthily done of him to deprive the church of christ of it. that the jews had sometimes an infallible miraculous direction from god, in some cases of moment, he doth affirm and had good warrant: but that the synagogue was absolutely infallible, he no where affirms, and therefore it is unjustly & unworthily done of you to obtrude it upon him. and indeed how can the infallibility of the synagogue be conceived, but only by settling it in the high priest, and the company adhering and subordinate unto him? and whether the high priest was infallible, when he believed not christ to be the messias, but condemned and excommunicated them that so professed, and caused him to be crucified for saying so, i leave it to christians to judge. but then suppose god had been so pleased to do as he did not, to appoint the synagogue an infallible guide: could you by your rules of logic constrain him, to appoint such a one to christians also, or say unto him, that, in wisdom he could not do otherwise? vain man that will be thus always tying god to your imaginations! it is well for us that he leaves us not without directions to him, but if he will do this sometime by living guides, sometime by written rules, what is that to you? may not he do what he will with his own? 142 and whereas you say for the further enforcing of this argugument, that there is greater reason to think the church should be infallible, than the synagogue: because to the synagogue all laws and ceremonies etc. were more particularly, and minutely delivered, then in the new testament is done, our saviour leaving particulars to the determination of the church. but i pray walk not thus in generality, but tell us what particulars? if you mean particular rites, & ceremonies, and orders for government, we grant it, and you know we do so. our saviour our only hath left a general injunction by s. paul, let all things be done decently and in order. but what order is fittest, i. e. what time, what place, what manner, etc. is fittest, that he hath left to the discretion of the governors of the church. but if you mean, that he hath only concerning matters of faith, the subject in question, prescribed in general, that we are to hear the church, and left it to the church to determine what particulars we are to believe: the church being nothing else but an aggregation of believers, this in effect is to say, he hath left it to all believers to determine what particulars they are to believe. besides it is so apparently false, that i wonder you could content yourself, or think we should be contented with a bare saying, without any show or pretence of proof. 143 as for d. potter's objection against this argument, that as well you might infer, that christians must have all one king, because the jews had so, for aught i can perceive, notwithstanding any thing answered by you, it may stand still in force, though the truth is, it is urged by him not against the infallibility but the monarchy of the church. for whereas you say, the disparity is very clear: he that should urge this argument for one monarch over the whole world, would say that this is to deny the conclusion, and reply unto you, that there is disparity, as matters are now ordered, but that there should not be so. for that there was no more reason to believe that the ecclesiastical government of the jews was a pattern for the ecclesiastical government of christians, than the civil of the jews, for the civil of the christians. he would tell you, that the church of christ, and all christian commonwealths, and kingdoms, are one and the same thing: and therefore he sees no reason why the synagogue should be a type and figure of the church, and not of the commonwealth. he would tell you, that as the church succeeded the jewish synagogue, so christian princes should succeed to jewish magistrates: that is the temporal governors of the church should be christians. he would tell you, that as the church is compared to a house, a kingdom, an army, a body, so all distinct kingdom's might and should be one army, one family, etc. and that it is not so, is the thing he complains of. and therefore you ought not to think it enough to say it is not so, but you should show why it should not be so; and why this argument will not follow, the jews had one king, therefore all christians ought to have: as well as this, the jews had one high priest over them all, therefore all christians also ought to have. he might tell you moreover, that the church may have one master, one general, one head, one king, and yet he not be the pope, but christ. he might tell you, that you beg the question, in saying without proof, that it is necessary to salvation, that all (whether christians or churches) have recourse to one church, if you mean by one church, one particular church, which is to govern and direct all others: and that unless you mean so, you say nothing to the purpose. and beside, he might tell you, and that very truly, that it may seem altogether as available for the temporal good of christians to be under one temporal prince, or commonwealth, as for their salvation, to be subordinate to one visible head. i say as necessary, both for the prevention of the effusion of the blood of christians by christians, & for the defence of christendom, from the hostile invasions of turks, & pagans. and from all this he might infer, that though now, by the fault of men, there were in several kingdoms, several laws, governments and powers; yet that it were much more expedient, that there were but one. nay, not only expedient, but necessary; if once your ground be settled for a general rule, that what kind of government the jews had, that the christians must have. and if you limit the generality of this proposition, and frame the argument thus: what kind of ecclesiastical government the jews had, that the christians must have, but they were governed by one high priest, therefore these must be so: he will say that the first proposition of this syllogism, is altogether as doubtful as the conclusion; and therefore neither fit nor sufficient to prove it, until itself be proved. and then beside, that there is as great reason to believe this, that what kind of civil government the jews had, that the christians must have. and so d. potter's objection remains still unanswered: that there is as much reason to conclude a necessity of one king over all christian kingdoms, from the jews having one king; as one bishop over all churches, from their being under our high priest. 144 ad §. 24. irenaeus l. 3. c. 3. neither is this discourse confirmed by irenaeus at all. whether by this discourse you mean that immediately foregoing, of the analogy between the church and the synagogue, to which this speech of irenaeus, alleged here by you, is utterly and plainly impertinent; or whether by this discourse, you mean (as i think you do) not your discourse, but your conclusion which you discourse on, that is, that your church is the infallible judge in controversies. for neither has irenaeus one syllable to this purpose; neither can it be deduced out of what he says, with any colour of consequence. for first in saying, what if the apostles had not left scripture, ought we not to have followed the order of tradition? and in saying, that to this order many nations yield assent, who believe in christ, having salvation written in their hearts, by the spirit of god, without letters or ink, and diligently keeping ancient tradition: doth he not plainly show, that the tradition he speaks of, is nothing else, but the very same that is written: nothing but to believe in christ? to which, whether scripture alone, to them that believe it, be not a sufficient guide, i leave it to you to judge. and are not his words just as if a man should say, if god had not given us the light of the sun, we must have made use of candles and torches: if we had had no eyes, we must have felt out our way: if we had no legs, we must have used crutches. and doth not this in effect import, that while we have the sun, we need no candles? while we have our eyes, we need not feel out our way▪ while we enjoy our legs, we need not crutches? and by like reason, irenaeus in saying, if we had had no scripture, we must have followed tradition, and they that have none, do well to do so, doth he not plainly import that to them that have scripture, and believe it, tradition is unnecessary? which could not be, if the scripture did not contain evidently the whole tradition. which whether irenaeus believed or no, these words of his may inform you, non enim per alios etc. we have received the disposition of our salvation from no others, but from them, by whom the gospel came unto us. which gospel truly, the apostles first preached, and after wards by the will of god, delivered in writing to us, to be the pillar and foundation of our faith. bellarm. de ve●bo dei l. 4. c▪ 11. upon which place bellarmine's two observations, and his acknowledgement ensuing upon them, are very considerable, and as i conceive, as home to my purpose as i would wish them. his first notandum is, that in the christian doctrine, some things are simply necessary for the salvation of all men; as the knowledge of the articles of the apostles creed; and beside, the knowledge of the ten commandments, and some of the sacraments. other things not so necessary, but that a man may be saved, without the explicit knowledge, and belief, and profession of them. his second note is, that those things which were simply necessary, the apostles were wont to preach to all men; but of other things not all to all, but somethings to all, to wit, those things which were profitable for all, other things only to prelates and priests. these things premised, he acknowledgeth, that all those things were written by the apostles, which are necessary for all, and which they were wont openly to preach to all; but that other things were not all written: and therefore, when irenaeus says that the apostles wrote what they preach in the world, it is true, saith he, and not against traditions, because they preached not to the people all things, but only those things, which were necessary or profitable for them. 145 so that at the most; you can infer from hence, but only a suppositive necessity of having an infallible guide, and that grounded upon a false supposition, in case we had no scripture, but an absolute necessity hereof, and to them who have and believe the scripture, which is your assumption, cannot with any colour from hence be concluded, but rather the contrary. 146 neither because (as he says) it was then easy to receive the truth from god's church, then, in the age next after the apostles, then, when all the ancient and apostolic churches were at an agreement about the fundamentals of faith: will it therefore follow that now, 1600 years after, when the ancient churches are divided almost into as many religions as they are churches, every one being the church to itself, and heretical to all other, that it is as easy, but extremely difficult or rather impossible, to find the church first independently of the true doctrine, and then to find the truth by the church. 147 as for the last clause of the sentence, it will not any whit advantage, but rather prejudice your assertion. neither will i seek to avoid the pressure of it, by saying, that he speaks of small questions, and therefore not of questions touching things necessary to salvation, which can hardly be called small questions; but i will favour you so far, as to suppose, that saying this of small questions, it is probable, he would have said it much more of the great: but i will answer that which is most certain and evident, and which i am confident, you yourself, were you as impudent as i believe you modest, would not deny; that the ancient apostolic churches are not now, as they were in irenaeus' time: then they were all at unity about matters of faith, which unity was a good assurance that what they so agreed in, came from some one common fountain, and they had no other than of apostolic preaching. and this is the very ground of tertullian's so often mistaken prescription against heretics, variasse debuerat error ecclesiarum, quod autem apud multos unum est, non est erratum sed traditum: if the churches had erred they could not but have varied, but that which is one among so many, came not by error but tradition. but now the case is altered, and the mischief is, that these ancient churches are divided among themselves; and if we have recourse to them, one of them will say this is the way to heaven, another that. so that now in place of receiving from them certain and clear truths, we must expect nothing but certain and clear contradictions. 148 neither will the apostles depositing with the church, all things belonging to truth, be any proof that the church shall certainly keep this depositum, entire, and sincere, without adding to it, or taking from it; for this whole depositum was committed to every particular church, nay, to every particular man, which the apostles converted. and yet no man, i think, will say, that there was any certainty, that it should be kept whole and inviolate by every man, and every church. it is apparent out of scripture, it was committed to timothy, and by him consigned to other faithful men: and yet s. paul thought it not superfluous, earnestly to exhort him to the careful keeping of it: which exhortation you must grant had been vain and superfluous, if the not keeping of it had been impossible. and therefore though irenaeus says, the apostles fully deposited in the church all truth, yet he says not, neither can we infer from what he says, that the church should always infallibly keep this depositum, entire without the loss of any truth, and sincere without the mixture of any falsehood. 149 ad §. 25. but you proceed and tell us, that beside all this, the doctrine of protestants is destructive of itself. for either they have certain and infallible means not to err in interpreting; or no● if not, scripture to them cannot be a sufficient ground for infallible faith: if they have, and so cannot err in interpreting scripture, than they are able with infallibility to hear and determine all controversies of faith; and so they may be, and are judges of controversies, although they use the scripture as a rule. and thus against their own doctrine, they constitute another judge of controversies beside scripture alone. and may not we with as much reason substitute church and papists, instead of scripture and protestants, and say unto you, besides all this, the doctrine of papists is destructive of itself. for either they have certain and infallible means not to err, in the choice of the church, and interpreting her decrees, or they have not: if not, than the church to them cannot be a sufficient (but merely a fantastical) ground for infallible faith, nor a meet judge of controversies: (for unless i be infallibly sure that the church is infallible, how can i be upon her authority infallibly sure, that any thing she says is infallible?) if they have certain▪ infallible means, and so cannot err in the choice of their church, and in interpreting her decrees, than they are able with infallibility to hear, examine, and determine all controversies of faith, although they pretend to make the church their guide. and thus against their own doctrine, they constitute another judge of controversies, besides the church alone. nay every one makes himself a chooser of his own religion, and of his own sense of the church's decrees, which very thing in protestants they so highly condemn: and so in judging others, condemn themselves. 150 neither in saying thus have i only cried quittance with you: but that you may see how much you are in my debt, i will show unto you, that for your sophism against our way, i have given you a demonstration against yours. first, i say, your argument against us, is a transparent fallacy. the first part of it lies thus: protestants have no means to interpret, without error, obscure and ambiguous places of scripture; therefore plain places of scripture cannot be to them a sufficient ground of faith. but though we pretend not to certain means of not erring, in interpreting all scripture, particularly such places as are obscure and ambiguous, yet this me thinks should be no impediment but that we may have certain means of not erring in and about the sense of those places, which are so plain and clear that they need no interpreters; and in such we say our faith is contained. if you ask me how i can be sure that i know the true meaning of these places? i ask you again, can you be sure that you understand what i, or any man else says? they that heard our saviour and the apostles preach, could they have sufficient assurance, that they understood at any time, what they would have them do? if not, to what end did they hear them? if they could, why may we not be as well assured, that we understand sufficiently, what we conceive plain in their writings? 151 again, i pray tell us, whether you do certainly know the sense of these scriptures, with which you pretend you are led to the knowledge of your church? if you do not, how know you that there is any church infallible, and that these are the notes of it, & that this is the, church that hath these notes? if you do, then give us leave to have the same means, and the same abilities to know other plain places, which you have to know these. for if all scripture be obscure, how come you to know the sense of these places? if some places of it be plain, why should we stay here? 152 and now, to come to the other part of your dilemma; in saying, if they have certain means, and so cannot err, me thinks you forget yourself very much, and seem to make no difference, between, having certain means to do a thing, and the actual doing of it. as if you should conclude, because all men have certain means of salvation, therefore all men certainly must be saved, and cannot do otherwise; as if whosoever had a horse must presently get up and ride; whosoever had means to find out a way, could not neglect those means and so mistake it, god be thanked, that we have sufficient means to be certain enough of the truth of our faith. but the privilege of not being in possibility of erring, that we challenge not, because we have as little reason as you to do so: and you have none at all. if you ask, seeing we may possibly err, how can we be assured we do not? i ask you again, seeing your eye-fight may deceive you, how can you be sure you see the sun, when you do see it? perhaps you may be in a dream, and perhaps you, and all the men in the world have been so, when they thought they were awake, and then only awake, when they thought they dreamt. but this i am sure of, as sure as that god is good, that he will require no impossibilities of us: not an infallible, nor a certainly— unerring belief, unless he hath given us certain means to avoid error; and if we use those which we have, will never require of us, that we use that which we have not. 153 now from this mistaken ground, that it is all one to have means of avoiding error, and to be in no danger nor possibility of error; you infer upon us as an absurd conclusion, that we make ourselves able to determine controversies of faith with infallibility, and judges of controversies. for the latter part of this inference, we acknowledge and embrace it. we do make ourselves judges of controversies: that is, we do make use of our own understanding in the choice of our religion. but this, if it be a crime, is common to us with you, (as i have proved above) and the difference is, not that we are choosers, and you not choosers, but that we, as we conceive, choose wisely, but you being wilfully blind choose to follow those that are so too; not remembering what our saviour hath told you, when the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch. but then again i must tell you, you have done ill to confound together, judges, and infallible judges; unless you will say, either that we have no judges in our courts of civil judicature, or that they are all infallible. 154 thus have we cast off your dilemma, and broken both the horns of it. but now my retortion lies heavy upon you, and will not be turned off. for first you content not yourselves with a moral certainty of the things you believe, nor with such a degree of assurance of them, as is sufficient to produce obedience to the condition of the new covenant, which is all that we require. god's spirit, if he please, may work more, a certainty of adherence beyond a certainty of evidence. but neither god doth, nor man may require of us as our duty, to give a greater assent to the conclusion than the premises deserve; to build an infallible faith upon motives that are only highly credible, and not infallible, as it were a great and heavy building upon a foundation that hath not strength proportionable. but though god require not of us such unreasonable things, you do, and tell men they cannot be saved, unless they believe your proposals with an infallible faith. to which end they must believe also your propounder, your church, to be simply infallible. now how is it possible for them to give a rational assent to the church's infallibility, unless they have some infallible means to know that she is infallible? neither can they infallibly know the infallibility of this means, but by some other, and so on for ever: unless they can dig so deep as to come at length to the rock, that is, to settle all upon something evident of itself, which is not so much as pretended. but the last resolution of all is into motives, which indeed upon examination will scarce appear probable, but are not so much as avouched to be any more than very credible. for example, if i ask you why you do believe transubstantiation? what can you answer, but because it is a revelation of the prime verity. i demand again, how can you assure yourself or me of that, being ready to embrace it if it may appear to be so? and what can you say, but that you know it to be so, because the church says so, which is infallible. if i ask, what mean you by your church? you can tell me nothing, but the company of christians which adhere to the pope. i demand then lastly: why should i believe this company to be the infallible propounder of divine revelation? and then you tell me, that there are many motives to induce a man to this belief. but are these motives lastly infallible? no say you, but very credible. well, let them pass for such, because now we have not leisure to examine them. yet me thinks seeing the motives to believe the church's infallibility, are only very credible, it should also be but as credible that your church is infallible, and as credible, and no more, perhaps somewhat less, that her proposals, particularly transubstantiation, are divine revelations. and me thinks you should require only a moral, and modest assent to them, and not a divine as you call it, and infallible faith. but then of these motives to the church's infallibility, i hope you will give us leave to consider, and judge whether they be indeed motives, and sufficient; or whether they be not motives at all, or not sufficient; or whether these motives or inducements to your church be not impeached, and opposed with compulsives, and enforcements from it; or lastly, whether these motives which you use, be not indeed only motives to christianity, and not to popery: give me leave for distinction sake to call your religion so. if we may not judge of these things, how can my judgement be moved with that which comes not within its cognizance? if i may, then at least i am to be a judge of all these controversies. 1. whether every one of these motives be indeed a motive to any church? 2. if to some, whether to yours? 3. if to yours, whether sufficient, or insufficient? 4. whether other societies have not as many, and as great motives to draw me to them? 5. whether i have not greater reason to believe you do err, then that you cannot? and now sir i pray let me trouble you with a few more questions. am i a sufficient judge of these controversies, or no? if of these, why shall i stay here, why not of others? why not of all? nay doth not the true examining of these few, contain and lay upon me the examination of all? what other motives to your church have you, but your notes of it? bellarmine gives some 14. or 15. and one of these fifteen contains in it the examination of all controversies, and not only so, but of all uncontroverted doctrines. for how shall i, or can i know the church of rome's conformity with the ancient church, unless i know first what the ancient church hid hold, and then what the church of rome doth hold; and lastly, whether they be conformable, or if in my judgement they seem not conformable, i am then to think the church of rome not to be the church, for want of the note which she pretends is proper, and perpetual to it. so that for aught i can see, judges we are and must be of all sides, every one for himself, and god for us all. 155 ad § 26. i answer; this assertion, that scripture alone is judge of all controversies in faith, if it be taken properly, is neither a fundamental nor vnfundamentall point of faith, nor no point of faith at all, but a plain falsehood. it is not a judge of controversies but a rule to judge them by; and that not an absolutely perfect rule, but as perfect as a written rule can be; which must always need something else, which is either evidently true, or evidently credible to give attestation to it, and that in this case is universal tradition. so that universal tradition is the rule to judge all controversies by. but then because nothing besides scripture, comes to us with as full a stream of tradition as scripture, scripture alone, and no unwritten doctrine, nor no infallibility of any church, having attestation from tradition truly universal; for this reason we conceive, as the apostles persons while they were living were the only judges of controversies, so their writings, now they are dead, are the only rule for us to judge them by: there being nothing unwritten, which can go in upon half so fair cards, for the title of apostolic tradition, as these things which by the confession of both sides are not so: i mean the doctrine of the millenaries, and of the necessity of the eucharist for infants. 156 yet when we say, the scripture is the only rule to judge all controversies by, me thinks you should easily conceive, that we would be understood of all those that are possible to be judged by scripture, and of those that arise among such as believe the scripture. for if i had a controversy with an atheist whether there were a god or no, i would not say, that the scripture were a rule to judge this by: seeing that doubting whether there be a god or no, he must needs doubt whether the scripture be the word of god: or if he does not, he grants the question, and is not the man we speak of. so likewise, if i had a controversy about the truth of christ with a iew, it would be vainly done of me, should i press him which the authority of the new testament which he believes not, until out of some principles common to us both, i had persuaded him that it is the word of god. the new testament therefore while he remains a jew would not be a fit rule to decide this controversy; in as much as that which is doubted of itself, is not fit to determine other doubts. so likewise if there were any that believed christian religion, and yet believed not the bible to be the word of god, though they believed the matter of it to be true, (which is no impossible supposition, for i may believe a book of s. austin's, to contain nothing but the truth of god, & yet not to have been inspired by god himself,) against such men therefore there were no disputing out of the bible; because nothing in question can be a proof to itself. when therefore we say the scripture is a sufficient means to determine all controversies, we say not this, either to atheists, jews, turks, or such christians (if there be any such) as believe not scripture to be the word of god. but among such men only, as are already agreed upon this, that the scripture is the word of god, we say all controversies that arise about faith, are either not at all decidable & consequently not necessary to be believed one way or other, or they may be determined by scripture. in a word, that all things necessary to be believed are evidently contained in scripture, and what is not there evidently contained, cannot be necessary to be believed. and our reason hereof is convincing; because nothing can challenge our belief, but what hath descended to us from christ by original and universal tradition: now nothing but scripture hath thus descended to us, therefore nothing but scripture can challenge our belief. now then to come up closer to you, and to answer to your question, not as you put it, but as you should have put it: i say, that this position, scripture alone is the rule whereby they which believe it to be god's word are to judge all controversies in faith, is no fundamental point. though not for your reasons: for your first and strongest reason you see is plainly voided and cut off by my stating of the question as i have done, and supposing in it that the parties at variance are agreed about this, that the scripture is the word of god; and consequently that this is none of their controversies. to your second, that controversies cannot be ended without some living authority, we have said already, that necessary controversies may be & are decided. and if they be not ended, this is not through defect of the rule, but through the default of men. and for these that cannot thus be ended, it is not necessary they should be ended. for if god did require the ending of them, he would have provided some certain means for the ending of them. and to your third, i say, that your pretence of using these means is but hypocritical: for you use them with prejudice, and with a settled resolution not to believe any thing which these means happily may suggest into you, if it any way cross your pre-conceaved persuasion of your church's infallibility. you give not yourselves liberty of judgement in the use of them, nor suffer yourselves to be led by them to the truth, to which they would lead you, would you but be as willing to believe this consequence, our church doth oppose scripture, therefore it doth err, therefore it is not infallible, as you are resolute to believe this, the church is infallible, therefore it doth not err, and therefore it doth not oppose scripture, though it seem to do so never so plainly. 157 you pray, but it is not that god would bring you to the true religion, but that he would confirm you in your own. you confer places, but it is that you may confirm, or colour over with plausible disguises your erroneous doctrine, not that you may judge of them & forsake them if there be reason for it. you consult the originals, but you regard them not when they make against your doctrine or translation. 158 you add not only the authority, but the infallibility, not of god's church, but of the roman, a very corrupt and degenerous part of it: whereof d. potter never confessed, that it cannot err damnably. and which being a company made up of particular men, can afford you no help, but the industry, learning, and wit of private men: and that these helps may not help you out of your error, tell you, that you must make use of none of all these to discover any error in the church, but only to maintain her impossibility or erring. and lastly, d. potter assures himself that your doctrine and practices are damnable enough in themselves; only he hopes (and spes est rei incertae nomen) he hopes, i say, that the truths which you retain, especially the necessity of repentance and faith in christ, will be as an antidote to you against the errors which you maintain; and that your superstructions may burn, yet they amongst you, qui sequun tur absalonem in simplicitate cor dis may be saved, yet so as by fire. yet his thinking so is no reason for you or me to think so, unless you suppose him infallible; and if you do, why do you write against him? 159 notwithstanding, though not for these reasons, yet for others, i conceive this doctrine not fundamental: because if a man should believe christian religion wholly, and entirely, and live according to it, such a man, though he should not know or not believe the scripture to be a rule of faith, no nor to be the word of god, my opinion is he may be saved; and my reason is, because he performs the entire condition of the new covenant, which is, that we believe the matter of the gospel, and not that it is contained in these or these books. so that the books of scripture are not so much the objects of our faith, as the instruments of conveying it to our understanding; and not so much of the being of the christian doctrine, as requisite to the well being of it. irenaeus tells us (as m. k. acknowledgeth) of some barbarous nations, that believed the doctrine of christ, and yet believed not the scripture to be the word of god, for they never heard of it, and faith comes by hearing: but these barbarous people might be saved: therefore men might be saved without believing the scripture to be the word of god; much more without believing it to be a rule, and a perfect rule of faith. neither doubt i, but if the books of scripture had been proposed to them by the other parts of the church, where they had been before received, and had been doubted of, or even rejected by those barbarous nations, but still by the bare belief and practice of christianity, they might be saved: god requiring of us under pain of damnation, only to believe the verities therein contained, and not the divine authority of the books wherein they are contained. not but that it were now very strange and unreasonable, if a man should believe the matter of these books, and not the authority of the books: and therefore if a man should profess the not believing of these, i should have reason to fear he did not believe that. but there is not always an equal necessity for the belief of those things, for the belief whereof there is an equal reason. we have i believe as great reason to believe there was such a man as henry the eight k. of england, as that jesus christ suffered under pontius pila●●: yet this is necessary to be believed, and that is not so. so that if any man should doubt of or disbelieve that, it were most unreasonably done of of him, yet it were no mortal sin, nor no sin at all: god having no where commanded men under pain of damnation to believe all which reason induceth them to believe. therefore as an executor, that should perform the whole will of the dead; should fully satisfy the law, though he did not believe that parchment to be his written will, which indeed is so? so i believe, that he who believes all the particular doctrines which integrate christianity, and lives according to them, should be saved, though he neither believed nor knew that the gospels were written by the evangelists, or the epistles by the apostles. 160 this discourse whether it be rational and concluding or no, i submit to better judgement; but sure i am, that the corollary which you draw from this position, that this point is not fundamental, is very inconsequent; that is, that we are uncertain of the truth of it, because we say the whole church, much more particular churches and private men may err in points not fundamental. a pretty sophism, depending upon this principle, that whosoever possibly may err, he cannot be certain that he doth not err. and upon this ground, what shall hinder me from concluding, that seeing you also hold, that neither particular churches, nor private men are infallible even in fundamentals, that even the fundamentals of christianity, remain to you uncertain? a judge may possibly err in judgement, can he therefore never have assurance that he hath judged right? a traveller may possibly mistake his way, must i therefore be doubtful whether i am in the right way from my hall to my chamber? or can our london carrier have no certainty, in the middle of the day, when he is sober and in his wits, that he is in the way to london? these you see are right worthy consequences, and yet they are as like your own, as an egg to an egg, or milk to milk. 161 and for the self same reason (you say) we are not certain, that the church is not judge of controversies: but now this self same appears to be no reason, and therefore, for all this, we may be certain enough that the church is no judge of controversies. the ground of this sophism is very like the former, viz. that we can be certain of the falsehood of no propositions, but these only which are damnable errors. but i pray good sir, give me your opinion of these: the snow is black, the fire is cold, that m. knot is archbishop of toledo, that the whole is not greater than a part of the whole, that twice two make not four: in your opinion, good sir, are these damnable heresies? or because they are not so, have we no certainty of the falsehood of them? i beseech you sir to consider seriously, with what strange captions, you have gone about to delude your king and your country; and if you be convinced, they are so, give glory to god, and let the world know it, by your deserting that religion, which stands upon such deceitful foundations. 162 besides (you say) among public conclusions defended in oxford, the year 1633. to the questions, whether the church have authority to determine controversies of faith? and to interpret holy scripture? the answer to both is affirmative. but what now if i should tell you, that in the year 1632. among public conclusions defended in douai, one was, that god predeterminates men to all their actions good, bad, and indifferent? will you think yourself obliged to be of this opinion? if you will, say so: if not, do as you would be done by. again, me thinks so subtle a man as you are, should easily apprehend a wide difference between authority to do a thing, and infallibility in doing it: & again, between a conditional infallibility & an absolute. the former, the doctor together with the article of the church of england, attributeth to the church, nay to particular churches, and i subscribe to his opinion: that is, an authority of determining controversies of faith, according to plain and evident scripture and universal tradition, and infallibility while they proceed according to this rule. as if there should arise an heretic, that should call in question christ's passion and resurrection, the church had authority to decide this controversy, and infallible direction how to do it, and to excommunicate this man, if he should persist in error. i hope you will not deny but that the judges have authority to determine criminal and civil controversies; and yet i hope you will not say, that they are absolutely infallible in their determinations. infallible while they proceed according to law, and if they do so: but not infallibly certain that they shall ever do so. but that the church should be infallibly assisted by god's spirit to decide rightly all emergent controversies, even such as might be held diversely of diverse men, salva compage fidei, and that we might be absolutely certain that the church should never fail to decree the truth, whether she used means or no, whether she proceed according to her rule or not; or lastly that we might be absolutely certain that she would never fail to proceed according to her rule, this the defender of these conclusions said not: and therefore said no more to your purpose, than you have all this while, that is, just nothing. 163 ad §. 27. to the place of s. austin alleged in this paragraph. i answer. first that in many things you will not be tried by s. augustine's judgement, nor submit to his authority; not concerning appeals to rome, not concerning transubstantiation, not touching the use and worshipping of images, not concerning the state of saints souls before the day of judgement, not touching the virgin maries freedom from actual and original sin, not touching the necessity of the eucharist for infants, not touching the damning infants to hell that die without baptism, not touching the knowledge of saints departed, not touching purgatory, not touching the fallibility of counsels, even general counsels, not touching perfection and perspicuity of scripture in matters necessary to salvation, not touching auricular confession, not touching the half communion, not touching prayers in an unknown tongue; in these things, i say, you will not stand to s. austin's judgement, and therefore can with no reason or equity require us to do so in this matter. 2. to s. augustine in heat of disputation against the donatists, and ransacking all places for arguments against them, we oppose s. austin out of this heat, delivering the doctrine of christianity calmly, and mode rately; where he says, in iis quae apertè posita sunt in sacris scriptures, omnia ea reperiuntur quae continent ●idem, mores'que vivendi. 3 we say, he speaks not of the roman but the catholic church, of far greater extent, and therefore of far greater credit and authority than the roman church. 4 he speaks of a point not expressed, but yet not contradicted by scripture; whereas the errors we charge you with, are contradicted by scripture. 5 he says not that christ has recommended the church to us for an infallible definer of all emergent controversies, but for a credible witness of ancient tradition. whosoever therefore refuseth to follow the practice of the church (understand of all places and ages) though he be thought to resist our saviour, what is that to us, who cast off no practices of the church, but such as are evidently post-nate to the time of the apostles, and plainly contrary to the practice of former and purer times. lastly it is evident, and even to impudence itself undeniable, that upon this ground, of believing all things taught by the present church as taught by christ, error was held, for example, the necessity of the eucharist for infants, and that in s. austin's time, and that by s. austin himself: and therefore without controversy this is no certain ground for truth, which may support falsehood as well as truth. 164 to the argument wherewith you conclude, i answer, that though the visible church shall always without fail propose so much of god's revelation, as is sufficient to bring men to heaven, for otherwise it will not be the visible church, yet it may sometimes add to this revelation things superfluous, nay hurtful, nay in themselves damnable, though not unpardonable; and sometimes take from it things very expedient and profitable, and therefore it is possible, without si●ne, to resist in some things the visible church of christ. but you press us farther, and demand, what visible church was extant, when luther began, whether it were the roman or protestant church? as if it must of necessity either be protestant or roman, or roman of necessity, if it were not protestant! yet this is the most usual fallacy of all your disputers, by some specious arguments to persuade weak men that the church of protestants cannot be the true church; and thence to infer, that without doubt it must be the roman. but why may not the roman be content to be a part of it, and the grecian another? and if one must be the whole, why not the greek church, as well as the roman? there being not one note of your church which agrees not to her as well as to your own; unless it be, that she is poor, and oppressed by the turk, and you are in glory and splendour. 165 neither is it so easy to be determined as you pretend, that luther and other protestants opposed the whole visible church in matters of faith, neither is it so evident that the visible church may not fall into such a state wherein she may be justly opposed. and lastly for calling the distinction of points into fundamental and not fundamental, an evasion, i believe you will find it easier to call it so, then to prove it so. but that shall be the issue of the controversy in the next chapter. chap. iii. that the distinction of points fundamental and not fundamental, is neither pertinent, nor true in our present controversy. and that the catholic visible church cannot err, in either kind of the said points. this distinction is abused by protestants to many purposes of theirs, and therefore if it be either untrue or impertinent (as they understand, and apply it) the whole edifice built thereon, must be ruinous and false. for if you object their bitter and continued discords in matters of faith, without any means of agreement; they instantly tell you (as charity mistaken plainly shows) that they differ only in p●ints not fundamental. if you convince them, even by their own confessions, that the ancient fathers taught diverse points held by the roman church against protestants; they reply, that those fathers may nevertheless be saved, because those errors were not fundamental. if you will them to remember, that christ must always have a visible church on earth, with administration of sacraments, and succession of pa●stors, and that when luther appeared there was no church distinct from the roman, whose communion and doctrine, luther then forsaken, and for that cause must be guilty of schism and herosie; they have an answer (such as it is) that the catholic church cannot perish, yet may err in points not fundamental, and therefore luther and other protestants were obliged to forsake her for such errors, under pain of damnation; as if (forsooth) it were damnable, to hold an error not fundamental, nor damnable. if you wonder how they can teach, that both catholics, and protestants may be saved in their several professions; they salve this contradiction, by saying, that we both agree in all fundamental points of faith, which is enough for salvation. and yet, which is prodigiously strange, they could never be induced to give a catalogue what points in particular be fundamental, but only by some general description, or by referring us to the apostles creed, without determining, what points therein be fundamental, or not fundamental for the matter; and in what sense, they be, or be not such: and yet concerning the meaning of diverse points contained, or reduced to the creed, they differ both from us, and among themselves. and indeed, it being impossible for them to exhibit any such catalogue, the said distinction of points, although it were pertinent, and true, cannot serve them to any purpose, but still they must remain uncertain, whether or not they disagree from one another; from the ancient fathers; and from the catholic church, in points fundamental: which is to say, they have no certainty, whether they enjoy the substance of christian faith, without which they cannot hope to be saved. but of this more hereafter. 2 and to the end, that what shall be said concerning this distinction, may be better understood, we are to observe; that there be two precepts, which concern the virtue of faith, or our obligation to believe divine truths. the one is by divines called affirmative, whereby we are obliged to have a positive explicit belief of some chief articles of christian faith. the other is termed negative, which strictly binds us not not to disbelieve, that is, not to believe the contrary of any one point sufficiently represented to our understanding, as revealed, or spoken by almighty god. the said affirmative precept (according to the nature of such commands) enjoins some act to be performed, but not at all times, nor doth it equally bind all sorts of persons, in respect of all objects to be believed. for objects; we grant that some are more necessary to be explicitly, and several believed then other: either because they are in themselves more great, and weighty; or else in regard they instruct us in some necessary christian duty towards god, ourselves, or our neighbour, for persons; no doubt but some are obliged to know distinctly more than others, by reason of their office, vocation, capacity or the like. for times; we are not obliged to be still in act of exercising acts of faith, but according as several occasions permit, or require. the second kind of precept called negative, doth (according to the nature of all such commands) oblige universally, all persons, in respect of all objects; and at all times; se●per & pro semper, as divines speak. this general doctrine will be more clear by examples▪ i am not obliged to be always helping my neighbour, because the affirmative precept of charity, bindeth only in some particular cases: but i am always bound by a negative precept, never to do him any hurt, or wrong. i am not always bound to utter what i know to be true: yet i am obliged, never to speak any one lest untruth, against my knowledge. and (to come to our present purpose) there is no affirmative precept, commanding us to be at all times actually believing any one, or all articles of faith: but we are obliged, never to exercise any act against any one truth, known to be revealed. all sorts of persons are not bound explicitly, and distinctly to know all things testified by god either in scripture, or otherwise: but every one is obliged, not to believe the contrary of any one point, known to be testified by god. for that were in fact to affirm, that god could be deceived, or would deceive, which were to overthrow the whole certainty of our faith, wherein the thing most principal, is not the point which we believe, which divines call the material object, but the chiefest is the motive for which we believe, to wit, almighty gods infallible revelation, or authority, which they term the formal object of our faith. in two senses therefore, and with a double relation, points of faith may be called fundamental, and necessary to salvation, the one is taken with reference to the affirmative precept, when the points are of such quality that there is obligation to know and believe them explicitly and severally. in this sense we grant that there is difference betwixt points of faith, which d. potter a pag. 209. to no purpose laboureth to prove against his adversary, who in express words doth grant and explicate b charity mistaken cap. 8. pag● 75. it. but the doctor thought good to dissemble the matter, and not to say one pertinent word in defence of his distinction, as it was impugned by charity mistaken, and as it is wont to be applied by protestants. the other sense, according to which, points of faith may be called fundamental, and necessary to salvation, with reference to the negative precept of faith, is such, that we cannot without grievous sin, and forfeiture of salvation, disbelieve any one point, sufficiently propounded, as revealed by almighty god. and in this sense we avouch, that there is no distinction in points of faith, as if to reject some must be damnable, and to reject others, equally proposed as god's word, might stand with salvation. yea the obligation of the negative precept is far more strict, then is that of the affirmative, which god freely imposed, and may freely release. but it is impossible, that he can dispense, or give leave to disbelieve, or deny what he affirmeth: & in this sense, sin & damnation are more inseparable from error in points not fundamental, then from ignorance in articles fundamental. all this i show by an example, which i wish to be particularly noted for the present, and for diverse other occasions hereafter. the creed of the apostles contains diverse fundamental points of faith, as the deity, trinity of persons, incarnation, passion, and resurrection of our saviour christ etc. it contains also some points, for their matter, and nature in themselves not fundamental; as under what judge our saviour suffered, that he was buried, the circumstance of the time of his resurrection the third day etc. but yet nevertheless, whosoever once knows that these points are contained in the apostles creed, the denial of them is damnable, and is in that sense a fundamental error; and this is the precise point of the present question. 3 and all that hitherto hath been said, is so manifestly true, that no protestant or christian, if he do but understand the terms, and state of the question, can possibly deny it: in so much as i am amazed, that men who otherwise are endued with excellent wits, should so enslave themselves to their predecessors in protestantisme●, as still to harp on this distinction, and never regard how impertinently, & untruly it was implied by them at first, to make all protestants seem to be of one faith, because forsooth they agree in fundamental points. for the difference among protestants, consists not in that some believe some points, of which others are ignorant, or not bound expressly to know (as the distinction ought to be applied;) but that some of them disbelieve, and directly, wittingly, and willingly oppose what others do believe to be testified by the word of god, wherein there is no difference between points fundamental, and not fundamental; because till points fundamental be sufficiently proposed as revealed by god, it is not against faith to reject them, or rather without sufficient proposition it is not possible prudently to believe them; and the like is of points not fundamental, which as soon as they come to be sufficiently propounded as divine truths, they can no more be denied, then points fundamental propounded after the same manner. neither will it avail them to their other end, that for preservation of the church in being, it is sufficient that she do not err in points fundamental. fo● if in the mean time she maintain any one error against god's revelation, be the thing in itself never so small, her error is damnable, and destructive of salvation. 4 but d. potter forgetting to what purpose protestants make use of their distinction, doth finally overthrow it, and yields to as much as we can desire. for, speaking of that measure c pag. 211▪ & quantity of faith without which none can be saved, he saith: it is enough to believe some things by a virtual faith, or by a general, and as it were, a negative faith, whereby they are not denied or contradicted. now our question is in case that divine truths, although not fundamental, be denied and contradicted; and therefore, even according to him, all such denial excludes salvation. after, he speaks more plainly. it is true (saith he) whatsoever d pag. 212▪ is revealed in scripture, or propoundid by the church out of scripture, is in some sense fundamental, in regard of the divine authority of god, and his word, by which it is recommended: that is, such as may not be de●ied, or contradicted without infidelity: such as every christian is bound with humility, and reverence to believe, whensoever the knowledge thereof is offered to him. and further: where e pag. 250▪ the revealed will or word of god is sufficiently propounded; there he that opposeth, is convinced of error, and he who is thus convinced is an heretic, and heresy is a work of the flesh which excludeth from heaven (gal. 5. 20. 21.) and hence it followeth, that it is fundamental to a christians faith, and necessary for his salvation, that he believe all revealed truths of god, whereof he may be convinced that they are from god. can any thing be spoken more clearly or directly for us, that it is a fundamental error to deny any one point, though never so small, if once it be sufficiently propounded, as a divine truth, and that there is, in this sense, no distinction betwixt points fundamental, and not fundamental? and if any should chance to imagine, that it is against the foundation of faith, not to believe points fundamental, although they be not sufficiently propounded, d. potter doth not admit of this f pag. 246. difference betwixt points fundamental, and not fundamental. for he teacheth, that sufficient proposition of revealed truth is required before a man can be convinced, and for want of sufficient conviction he excuseth the disciples from heresy, although they believed not our saviour's resurrection, g pag. 246. which is a very fundamental point of faith. thus than i argue out of d. potter's own confession: no error is damnable unless the contrary truth be sufficiently propounded as revealed by god: every error is damnable, if the contrary truth be sufficiently propounded as revealed by god: therefore all errors are alike for the general effect of damnation, if the difference arise not from the manner of being propounded. and what now is become of their distinction? 5 i will therefore conclude with this argument. according to all philosophy and divinity, the unity, and distinction of every thing followeth the nature and essence thereof, and therefore if the nature and being of faith, be not taken from the matter which a man believes, but from the motive for which he believes, (which is god's word or revelation) we must likewise affirm that the unity, and diversity of faith, must be measured by god's revelation (which is alike for all objects) and not by the smallness, or greatness of the matter which we believe. now, that the nature of faith is not taken from the greatness, or smallness of the things believed, is manifest; because otherwise one who believes only fundamental points, and another who together with them, doth also believe points not fundamental, should have faith of different natures, yea there should be as many differences of faith, as there are different points which men believe, according to different capacities, or instruction etc. all which consequences are absurd, and therefore we must say, that unity in faith doth not depend upon points fundamental, or not fundamental, but upon god's revelation equally or unequally proposed: and protestants pretending an unity only by reason of their agreement in fundamental points, do indeed induce as great a multiplicity of faith as there is multitude of different objects which are believed by them, and since they disagree in things equally revealed by almighty god, it is evident that they forsake the very formal motive of faith, which is god's revelanon and consequently lose all faith, and unity therein. 6 the first part of the title of this chapter (that the distinction of points fundamental and not fundamental in the sense of protestants, is both impertinent and untrue) being demonstrated; let us now come to the second: that the church is infallible in all her definitions, whether they concern points fundamental, or not fundamental, and this i prove by these reasons. 7 it hath been showed in the precedent chapter, that the church is judge of controversies; which she could not be, if she could err in any one point, as doctor potter would not deny, if he were once persuaded that she is judge. because if the could err in some points, we could not rely upon her authority and judgement in any one thing. 8 this same is proved by the reason we alleged before, that seeing the church was infallible in all her definitions ere scripture was written (unless we will take away all certainty of faith for that time) we cannot with any show of reason affirm, that she hath been deprived thereof by the adjoined comfort, and help of sacred writ. 9 moreover to say, that the catholic church may propose any false doctrine, maketh her liable to damnable sin and error; and yet d. potter teacheth that the church cannot err damnably. for if in that kind of oath, which divines call assertorium, wherein god is called to witness, every falsehood is a deadly sin in any private person whatsoever, although the thing be of itself neither material, nor prejudicial to any; because the quantity, or greatness of that sin is not measured so much by the thing which is affirmed, as by the manner▪; and authority whereby it is avouched, and by the injury that is offered to almighty god in applying his testimony to a falsehood: in which respect it is the unanimous consent of all divines, that in such kind of oaths, no levitas materiae, that is, smallness of matter, can excuse from a moral sacrilege, against the moral virtue of religion which respects worship due to god: if i say, every least falsehood be deadly sin in the foresaid kind of oath; much more pernicious a sin must it be in the public person of the catholic church to propound untrue articles of faith, thereby fastening gods prime verity to falsehood, and inducing and obliging the world to do the same. besides, according to teh doctrine of all divines, it is not only injurious to god's eternal verity, to disbelieve things by him revealed, but also to propose as revealed truths, things not revealed: as in common wealths it is a heinous offence to coin either by counterfeiting the metal or the stamp, or to apply the king's seal to a writing counterfeit, although the contents were supposed to be true. and whereas, to show the detestable sin of such pernicious fictions, the church doth most exemplarly punish all broachers of feigned revelations, visions; miracles, prophecies &c. as in particular appeareth in the council of h sub. leon. ●0. sess. 11. lateran, excommunicating such persons; if the church herself could propose false revelations, she herself should have been the first, & chiefest deserver to have been censured, and as it were excommunicated by herself. for (as the holy ghost saith in i cap. 13. v. ●. job) doth god need your lie, that for him you may speak deceits? and that of the apocalypse is most truly verified in fictitious revelations: if any k cap. ult. v. 18. shall add to these things, god will add unto him the plagues which are written in this book: and d. potter saith, to add l pag. 122. to it (speaking of the creed) is high presumption, almost as great as to detract from it. and therefore to say the church may addefalse revelations, is to accuse her of high presumption, and of pernicious error excluding salvation. 10 perhaps some will here reply that although the church may err, yet it is not imputed to her for sin, by reason she doth not err upon malice, or wittingly, but by ignorance, or mistake. 11 but it is easily demonstrated that this excuse cannot serve. for if the church be assisted only for points fundamental, she cannot but know, that she may err in points not fundamental, at least she cannot be certain that she cannot err, and therefore cannot be excused from headlong and pernicious temerity, in proposing points not fundamental, to be believed by christians; as matters of faith, wherein she can have no certainty, yea which always imply a falsehood. for although the thing might chance to be true, and perhaps also revealed; yet for the matter, she for her part, doth always expose herself to danger of falsehood and error; and in fact doth always err in the ●anner in which she doth propound any matter not fundamental; because she proposeth it as a point of faith certainly true, which yet is always uncertain, if she in such things may be deceived. 12 besides, if the church may err in points not fundamental, she may err in proposing some scripture for canonical, which is not such: or else not err in keeping and conserving from corruptions such scriptures as are already believed to be canonical. for i will suppose, that in such apocrypha●● scripture as she delivers, there is no fundamental error against faith, or that there is no falsehood at all, but only want of divine testification: in which case d. potter must either grant, that it is a fundamental error, to apply divine revelation to any point not revealed, or else must yield, that the church may err in her proposition, or custody of the canon of scripture. and so we cannot be sure whether she have not been deceived already, in books recommended by her, and accepted by christians. and thus we shall have no certainty of scripture, if the church want certainty in all her definitions. and it is worthy to be observed, that some books of scripture which were not always known to be canonical, have been afterward received for such; but never any one book, or syllable defined by the church to be canonical, was afterward questioned, or rejected for apocryphal. a sign, that god's church is infallibly assisted by the holy ghost, never to propose as divine truth, any thing not revealed by god: and that, omission to define points not sufficiently discussed is laudable, but commission in propounding things not revealed, inexcusable; into which precipitation our saviour christ never hath, nor never will permit his church to fall. 13 nay, to limit the general promises of our saviour christ made to his church to points only fundamental, namely, that the gates m mar. 16. 18. of hell shall not prevail against her: and that, the holy ghost n joan. 16. 13. shall lead her into all truth etc. is to destroy all faith. for we may by that doctrine, and manner of interpreting the scripture, limit the infallibility of the apostles words, & preaching, only to points fundamental: and whatsoever general texts of scripture shall be alleged for their infallibility, they may, by d. potter example be explicated, and restrained to points fundamental. by the same reason it may be farther affirmed, that the apostles, and other writers of canonical scripture, were endued with infallibility, only in setting down points fundamental. for if it be urged, that all scripture is divinely inspired; that it is the word of god etc. d. potter hath afforded you a ready answer, to say, that scripture is inspired &c. only in those parts, or parcels, wherein it delivereth fundamental points. in this manner d. fotherbie saith: the apostle o in his sermons. serm. 2. pag. 50. twice in one chapter professed, that this he speaketh, and not the lord, he is very well content that where he lacks the warrant of the express word of god, that part of his writings should be esteemed as the word of man. d. potter also speaks very dangerously towards this purpose, sect. 5. where he endeavoureth to prove, that the infallibility of the church is limited to points fundamental, because as nature, so god is neither defective in p pag. 150. necessaries, nor lavish in supers●uities. which reason doth likewise prove that the infallibility of scripture, and of the apostles must be restrained to points necessary to salvation, that so god be not accused, as defective in necessaries, or lavish in supers●uities. in the same place he hath a discourse much tending to this purpose, where speaking of these words: the spirit shall lead you into all truth, and shall abide with q joan. c. 16. 13. etc. ●4. 16. you for ever, he saith: though that promise was r pag. 151. 152. directly, and primarily made to the apostles (who had the spirits guidance in a more high and absolute manner, than any since them) yet it was made to themfor the behoof of the church, and is verified in the church universal. but all truth is not simply all, but all of some kind. to be led into all truths, is to know, and believe them. and who is so simple as to be ignorant, that there are many millions of truths (in nature, history, divinity) whereof the church is simply ignorant. how many truths lie unrevealea in the infinite treasury of god's wisdom, wherewith the church is not acquainted etc. so then, the truth itself enforceth us to understand by (all truths) not simply all, not all which god can possibly reveal, but all pertaining to the substance of faith, all truth absolutely necessary to salvation. mark what he saith. that promise (the spirit shall lead you into all truth,) was made directly to the apostles, and is verified in the universal church, but by all truth is not understood simply all, but all apperraining to the substance of faith, and absolutely necessary to salvation. doth it not hence follow, that the promise made to the apostles of being led into all truth, is to be understood only of all truth absolutely necessary to salvation? and consequently their preaching, and writing, were not infallible in points not fundamental? or if the apostles were infallible in all things which they proposed as divine truth, the like must be affirmed of the church, because d. potter teacheth, the said promise to be verified in the church. and as he limits the aforesaid words to points fundamental; so may he restrain, what other text soever that can be brought for the universal infallibility of the apostles or scriptures. so he may; and so he must, lest otherwise he receive this answer of his own from himself, how many truths lie unrevealed in the infinite treasury of god's wisdom, wherewith the church is not acquainted? and therefore to verify such general sayings, they must be understood of truths absolutely necessary to salvation. are not these fearful consequences? and yet d. potter will never be able to avoid them, till he come to acknowledge the infallibility of the church in all points by her proposed as divine truths; and thus it is universally true that she is lead into all truth, in regard that our saviour never permits her to define, or teach any falsehood. 14 all, that with any colour may be replied to this argument is; that if once we call any one book, or parcel of scripture in question; although for the matter it contain no fundamental error, yet it is of great importance and fundamental, by reason of the consequence; because if once we doubt of one book received for canonical, the whole canon is made doubtful and uncertain, and therefore the infallibility of scripture must be universal, and not confined within compass of points fundamental. 15 i answer: for the thing itself it is very true, that if i doubt of any one parcel of scripture received for such, i may doubt of all: and thence by the same parity i infer, that if we did doubt of the church's infallibility in some points, we could not believe her in any one, and consequently not in propounding canonical books, of any other points fundamental, or not fundamental; which thing being most absurd, and withal most impious, we must take away the ground thereof, and believe that she cannot err in any point great or small: and so this reply doth much more strengthen what we intent to prove. yet i add, that protestants cannot make use of this reply with any good coherence to this their distinction, and some other doctrines which they defend. por if d. potter can tell what points in particular be fundamental (as in his 7. sect. he pretendeth) than he may be sure, that whensoever he meets with such points in scripture, in them it is infallibly true, although it might err in others: and not only true but clear, because protestants teach, that in matters necessary to salvation, the scripture is so clear, that all such necessary truths are either manifestly contained therein, or may be clearly deduced from it, which doctrines being put together, to wit: that scriptures cannot err in points fundamental; that they clearly contain all such points; and that they can tell what points in particular be such, i mean fundamental; it is manifest, that it is sufficient for salvation, that scripture be infallible only in points fundamental. for supposing these doctrines of theirs to be true, they may be sure to find in scripture all points necessary to salvation, although it were fallible in other points of less moment. neither will they be able to avoid this impiety against holy scripture, till they renounce their other doctrines. and in particular, till they believe that christ's promise to his church, are not limited to points fundamental. 16 besides, from the fallibility of christ's catholic church in some points, it followeth, that no true protestant earned, or unlearned, doth or can with assurance believe the universal church in any one point of doctrine. not in points of lesser moment, which they call not fundamental; because they believe that in such points she may err. not in fundamentals; because they must know what points be fundamental, before they go to learn of her, lest otherwise they be rather deluded, then instructed; in regard that her certain, and infallible direction extends only to points fundamental. now, if before they address themselves to the church, they must know what points are fundamental, they learn not of her, but will be as fit to teach, as to be taught by her: how then are all christians so often, so seriously, upon so dreadful menaces, by fathers, scriptures, and our blessed saviour himself, counselled and commanded to seek, to hear, to obey the church? s. austin was of a very different mind from protestants: if (saith he) the s epist. 118. church through the whole world practise any of these things, to dispute whether that aught to be so done, is a most insolent madness. and in another place he saith, that which t lib. 4. de. bapt. c. 24. the whole church holds, and is not ordained by counsels, but hath always been kept, is most rightly believed to be delivered by apostolical authority. the same holy father teacheth, that the custom of baptising children cannot be proved by scripture alone, and yet that it is to be believed, as derived from the apostles. the custom of our mother the u lib. 10. de gone ●i ad litter. cap. 23. church (saith he) in baptising infants i● in no wise to be contemned, nor to be accounted superfluous, nor is it at all to be believed. unless it were an apostolical tradition, and elsewhere. christ w serm. 14. de verbis apost. c. 18. is of profit to children baptised; is he therefore of profit to persons not believing? but god forbid, that i should say infants do not believe. i have already said, he believes in another, who finned in another. it is said, be believes, and it is of force, and he is reckoned among the faithful that are baptised. this the authority of our mother the church hath; against this strength, against this invincible wall whosoever rusheth shall be crushed in pieces. to this argument the protestants in the conference at ratishon, gave this round answer: nos ab augustino x see protocol. monarch. edit. 2. p. 307. hac in parte libere dissentimas. in this we plainly disagree from augustine. now if this doctrine of baptising infants be not fundamental in d. potter's sense, then according to s. augustine, the infallibility of the church extends to points not fundamental. but if on the other side it be a fundamental point; then according to the same holy doctor, we must rely on the authority of the church, for some fundamental point, not contained in scripture, but delivered by tradition. the like argument i frame out of the same father about the not rebaptising of those who were baptised by heretics, whereof he excellently to our present purpose speaketh in this manner. we follow y lib. 1. cont. crescon. cap. 32. & 34. indeed in this matter even the most certain authority of canonical all scriptures. but how? consider his words: although verily there be brought no example for this point out of the canonical scriptures, yet even in this point the truth of the same scriptures is held by us, while we do that, which the authority of scriptures doth recommend, that so, because the holy scripture cannot deceive us, whosoever is afraid to be deceived by the obscurity of this question, must have recourse to the same church concerning it, which without any ambiguity the holy scripture doth demonstrate to us. among many other points in the aforesaid words, we are to observe, that according to this holy father, when we prove some points not particularly contained in scripture, by the authority of the church, even in that case we ought not to be said to believe such points without scripture, because scripture itself recommends the church; and therefore relying on her we rely on scripture, without danger of being deceived by the obscurity of any question defined by the church. and elsewhere he faithi seeing this is z de ●nit. eccles. c. 19 written in no scripture, we must believe the testimony of the church, which christ declareth to speak the truth. but it seems d. potter is of opinion that this doctrine about not rebaptising such as were baptised by heretics, is no necessary point of faith, nor the contrary an heresy: wherein he contradicteth s. augustine, from whom we have now heard, that what the church teacheth, is truly said to be taught by scripture; and consequently to deny this particular point, delivered by the church, is to oppose scripture itself. yet if he will needs hold, that this point is not fundamental, we must conclude out of s. augustine, (as we did concerning the baptising of children) that the infallibility of the church reacheth to points not fundamental. the same father in another place, concerning this very question of the validity of baptism conferred by heretics, saith: the a de bapt. cont. donat. lib. 5. cap. 23. apostles indeed have prescribed nothing of this, but this custom ought to be believed to be originally taken from their tradition, as there are many things that the universal church observeth which are therefore with good reason believed to have been commanded by the apostles, although they be not written. no less clear is s. chrysoslome for the infallibility of the traditions of the church. for treating these words (2. thess. 2. stand, & hold the traditions which you have learned whether by speech or by epistle) saith: hence it is b hom. 4. manifest that they delivered not all things by letter, but many things also without writing, and these also are worthy of belief. let us therefore account the tradition of the church to be worthy of belief. it is a tradition: seek no more. which words are so plainly against protestants, that whitaker is as plain with s. chrysostom, saying: i answer c de sacra script. p. 678. that this is an inconsiderate speech, and unworthy so great a father. but let us conclude with s. augustine, that the church cannot approve any error against faith, or good manners. the church (saith he) being d ●p. 119. placed between much chaff and cockle, doth tolerate many things; but yet she doth not approve, nor dissemble, nor do those things which are against faith, or good life. 17 and as i have proved that protestants, according to their grounds, cannot yield infallibls assent to the church in any one point: so by the same reason i prove, that they cannot rely upon scripture itself in any one point of faith. not in points of lesser moment (or not fundamental) because in such points the catholic church, (according to d. potter) and much more any protestant may err, and think it is contained in scripture, when it is not. not in points fundamental, because they must first know what points be fundamental, before they can be assured. that they cannot err in understanding the scripture, and consequently independantly of scripture, they must foreknow all fundamental points of faith: and therefore they do not indeed rely upon scripture, either for fundamental, or not fundamental points. 18 besides, i mainly urge d. potter, and other protestants, that they tell us of certain points which they call fundamental, and we cannot wrest from them a list in particular of such points, without which no man can tell whether or no he err in points fundamental, and be capable of salvation. and which is most lamentable, instead of giving us such a catalogue, they fall to wrangle among themselves about the making of it. 19 calvin holds the e instit. l. 4. cap. 2, pope's primacy, invocation of saints, free will, and such like, to be fundamental errors overthrowing the gospel. others are not of his mind, as melancthou who saith, in f cent. ep. theol. ep. 74. the opinion of himself, and other his brethren, that the monarchy of the bishop of rome is of use, or profit to this end, that consent of doctrine may be retained. an agreement therefore may easily be established in this article of the pope's primacy, if other articles could be agreed upon. if the pope's primacy be a means, that consent of doctrine may be retained, first submit to it, and other articles will be easily agreed upon. luther also saith of the pope's primacy, it may be borne g in assertionib. art. 36, withal. and why then, o luther, did you not bear with it? and how can you, and your followers be excused from damnable schism, who chose rather to divide god's church, then to bear with that, which you confess may be borne withal? but let us go forward. that the doctrine of freewill, prayer for the dead, worshipping of images, worship and invocation of saints, real presence, transubstantiation, receiving under one kind, satisfaction, and meant of works, and the mass, be not fundamental errors, is taught (respective) by diverse protestants carefully alleged in the protestants h tract. 1. c. 2. sect. 14. after f. apology, etc. as namely by perkins, cartwright, frith, fulle, spark, goad, luther, reynolds, whitaker, tindal, franci johnson, with others. contrary to these, is the confession of the christian faith, so called by protestants, which i mentioned i cap. 1. v. 4. heretofore, wherein we are damned unto unquenchable fire, for the doctrine of mass, prayer to saints, and for the dead, freewill, presence at idol-service, man's merit, with such like. justification by faith alone is by some protestants affirmed to be the soul of the k chark in the tower disputation, the 4. day's conference. church: the only principal origen of l fox act. & mon p. 402. salvation: of all other points of m the confession of bohemia in the harmony of concessions pag. 253. doctrine the chiefest and weightiest. which yet, as we have seen, is contrary to other protestants, who teach that me● of good works is not a fundamental error; yea, diverse protestants defend merit of good works, as may be seen in n tract. 3. sect. 7. under m. n. 15. breereley. one would think that the king's supremacy, for which some blessed men lost their lives was once among protestants held for a capital point; but now d. andrew's late of winchester in his book against bellarmime tells us, that it is sufficient to reckon it among true doctrines, and wo●ton denies that protestants o in his answer to a popish pamphlet p. 68 hold the king's supremacy to be an essential point of faith. o freedom of the new gospel! hold with catholics, the pope; or with protestants, the king; or with puritans, neither pope, nor king, to be head of the church, all is one, you may be saved. some, as castalio, p vid. gul. reginald. calv. turcis. lib. ●. c. 6. and the whole sect of the academical protestants, hold, that doctrines about the supper, baptism, the state and office of christ, how he is one with his father, the trinity, predestination, and diverse other such questions are not necessary to salvation. and (that you may observe how ungrounded, and partial their assertions be) perkins teacheth, that the real presence of our saviour's body in the sacrament, as it is believed by catholics, is a fundamental error; and yet affirmeth the consubstantiation of lutherans not to be such, notwithstanding that diverse chief lutherans, to their consubstantiation join the prodigious heresy of vbiquitation. d. usher in his sermon of the unity of the catholic faith, grants salvation to the aethiopians, who yet with christian baptism join circumcision. d. potter q pag. 113. 114. motton in his treatise of the kingdom of israel. p. 94. cities the doctrine of some, whom he termeth men of great learning and judgement: that, all who profess to love and honour iesvs christ are in the visible christian church, and by catholics to be reputed brethren. one of these men of great learning and judgement, is thomas morton, by d. potter cited in his margin, whose love and honour to jesus-christ, you may perceive, by his saying, that the churches of arians (who denied our saviour christ to be god) are to be accounted the church of god, b●cause they do hold the foundation of the gospel, which is faith in jesus-christ the son of god, and saviour of the world. and, which is more, it seemeth by these charitable men, that for being a member of the church it is not necessary to believe one only god. for d. potter r pag. 121. among the arguments to prove hooker's and mortons' opinion, brings this: the people of the ten tribes after their defection, notwithstanding their gross corruptions, & idolatry, remained still a true church. we may also, as it seemeth by these men's reasoning, deny the resurrection, and yet be members of the true church. for a learned man (saith d. potter s pag. 122. in behalf of hooker's, and mortons' opinion) was anciently made a bishop of the catholic church, though he did professedly doubt of the last resurrection of our bodies. dear saviour! what times do we behold? if one may be a member of the true church, and yet deny the trinity of the persons, the godhead of our saviour, the necessity of baptism, if we may use circumcision, and with the worship of god join idolatry, wherein do we differ from turks, and jews? or rather are we not worse, then either of them? if they who deny our saviour's divinity might be accounted the church of god, how will they deny that favour to those ancient heretics, who denied our saviour's true humanity? and so the total denial of christ will not exclude one from being a member of the true church. s. hilary t comment. in mat. c. 16. maketh it of equal necessity for salvation, that we believe our saviour to be true god, and true man, saying: this manner of confession we are to hold, that we remember him to be the son of god, and the son of man, because the one without the other, can give no hope of salvation. and yet d. potter saith of the aforesaid doctrine of hooker and morton: the u pag. 123. reader may be pleased to approve, or reject it, as he shall find cause. and in another place w pag. 253. he showeth so much good liking of this doctrine, that he explicateth and proveth the church's perpetual visibility by it. and in the second edition of his book, he is careful to declare, and illustrate it more at large, than he had done before: howsoever, this sufficiently showeth, that they have no certainty, what points be fundamental. as for the arians in particular, the author whom d. potter cities for a moderate catholic, but ●s indeed a plain heretic, or rather atheist, lucian like jesting at all religion, x a moderate examination etc. c. 1. paulò post initium. placeth arianism among fundamental errors: but contrarily an english protestant divine masked under the name of irenaeus philalethes, in a little book in latin entitled, dissertatio de pace & concordia ecclesiae, endeavoureth to prove, that even the denial of the blessed trinity may stand with salvation. divers protestants have taught, that the roman church, erreth in fundamental points, but d. potter, and others teach the contrary, which could not happen if they could agree what be fundamental points. you brand the donatists with the note of an error, in the matter y pag. 126. and the nature of it properly heretical; because they taught that the church remained only with them, in the part of donat●●, and yet many protestants are so far from holding that doctrine to be a fundamental error, that themselves go further, and say; that for diverse ages before luther there was no ●rue visible church at all. it is then too too apparent, that you have no agreement in specifying, what be fundamental points; neither have you any means to determine what they be; for if you have any such means, why do you not agree? you tell us, the creed contains all points fundamentally which although it were true, yet you see it serves not to bring you to a particular knowledge, & agreement in such points. and no wonder. for (besides what i have said already in the beginning of this chapter, and am to deliver more at large in the next) after so much labour and spent paper to prove that the creed contains all fundamental points, you conclude: it remains a pag. 241. very probable, that the creed is the perfect summary of those fundamental truths, whereof consists the v●●ty of faith, and of the catholic church. very probable? then, according to all good logic, the contrary may remain very probable, and so all remain as full of uncertainty, as before. the whole rule, say you, & the sole judge of your faith, must be scripture. scripture doth indeed deliver divine truths, but seldom doth qualify them, or declare whether they be, or be not, absolutely necessary to salvation. you fall b p. 215. heavy upon charity mistaken, because he demands a particular catalogue of fundamental points, which yet you are obliged in conscience to do, if you be able. for without such a catalogue, no man can be assured whether or no, he have faith sufficient to salvation. and therefore take it not in ill part, if we again and again demand such a catalogue. and that you may see we proceed fairly, i will perform, on our behalf, what we request of you, and do here deliver a catalogue, wherein are comprised all points by us taught to be necessary to salvation, in these words. we are obliged, under pain of damnation, to believe whatsoever the catholic visible church of christ proposeth, as revealed by almighty god. if any be of another mind, all catholics denounce him to be no catholic. but enough of this. and i go forward with the infallibility of the church in all points. 20 for, even out of your own doctrine, that the church cannot err in points necessary to salvation, any wise man will infer, that it behoves all, who have care of their souls, not to forsake her in any one point. 1. because they are assured, that although her doctrine proved not to be true in some point, yet even according to d. potter, the error cannot be fundamental, nor destructive of faith, and salvation: neither can they be accused of any least imprudence in erring (if it were possible) with the universal church. secondly, since she is, under pain of eternal damnation, to be believed, and obeyed in some things, wherein confessedly she is endued with infallibility; i cannot in wisdom suspect her credit in matters of less moment. for who would trust another in matters of highest consequence, and be afraid to rely on him in things of less moment? thirdly, since (as i said) we are undoubtedly obliged not to forsake her in the chiefest, or fundamental points, and that there is no rule to know precisely what, and how many those fundamental points be; i cannot without hazard of my soul, leave her in any one point, lest perhaps that point, or points wherein i forsake her, prove indeed to be fundamental, and necessary to salvation. fourthly, that visible church which cannot err in points fundamental, doth without distinction propound all her definitions concerning matters of faith to be believed under anathemas or curses, esteeming all those who resist, to be deservedly cast out of her communion, and holding it a point necessary to salvation, that we believe she cannot err: wherein if she speak true, then to deny any one point in particular, which she defineth, or to affirm in general, that she may err, puts a man into state of damnation. whereas to believe her in such points as are not necessary to salvation, cannot endanger salvation; and likewise to remain in her communion, can bring no great harm, because she cannot maintain any damnable error, or practise: but to be divided from her (she being christ's catholic church) is most certainly damnable. fifthly, the true church, being in lawful, and certain possession of superiority and power, to command and require obedience, from all christians in some things; i cannot without grievous sin withdraw my obedience in any one, unless i evidently know, that the thing commanded comes not within the compass of those things to which her power extendeth. and who can better inform me, how far god's church can proceed, than god's church herself? or to what doctor can the children and scholars, with greater reason, and more security, fly for direction, then to the mother, and appointed teacher of all christians? in following her, i shall sooner be excused, then incleaving to any particular s●ct, or person, teaching, or applying scriptures against her doctrine, or interpretation. sixtly, the fearful examples of innumerable persons who forsaking the church upon pretence of her errors, have failed, even in fundamental points, and suffered shipwreck of their salvation, aught to deter all christians, from opposing her in any one doctrine, or practices as (to omit other, both ancient and modern heresies) we see that diverse chief protestants, pretending to reform the corruptions of the church, are come to affirm, that for many ages she erred to death, and wholly perished; which d. potter, cannot deny to be a fundamental error against that article of our creed, i believe the catholic church, as he affirmeth it of the donatists, because they confined the universal church within africa, or some other small tract of soil. lest therefore i may fall into some fundamental error, it is most safe for me to believe all the decrees of that church, which cannot err● fundamentally: especially if we add; that according to the doctrine of catholic divines, one error in faith, whether it be for the matter itself, great or small, d●stroies faith, as is showed in charity mistaken; and consequently to accuse the church of any one error, is to affirm, that she lost all faith, and erred damnably: which very saying is damnable, because it leaves christ no visible church on earth. 21 to all these arguments i add this demonstration: d. potter teacheth, that there neither ●as c pag. 75▪ nor can be any just cause to depart from the church of christ, no more then from christ himself, but if the church of christ can err in some points of faith, men not only may, but must forsake her in those, (unless d. potter will have them to believe one thing, and profess another:) and if such errors, and corruptions should fall out to be about the church's liturgy, public service, administration of sacraments, and the like; they who perceive such errors, must of necessity leave her external communion. and therefore if once we grant the church may err, i● followeth that men may, and aught to forsake her (which is against d. potter's own words,) or else they are inexcusable who left the communion of the roman church, under pretence of errors, which they grant, not to be fundumentall. and if d. potter▪ think good to answer this argument, he must remember his own doctrine to be, that even the catholic church may err in points not fundamental. 22 another argument for the universal infallibility of the church, i take out of d. potter's own words. if (saith he) we d pag. 97. did not descent in some opinions from the present roman church, we could not agree with the church truly catholic. these words cannot be true, unless he presuppose that the church truly catholic, cannot err in points not fundamental. for if she may err in such points, the roman church which he affirmeth to err only in points not fundamental, may agree with the church truly catholic, if she likewise may err in points not fundamental. therefore either he must acknowledge a plain contradiction in his own words, or else must grant that the church truly catholic cannot err in points not fundamental, which is what we intended to prove. 23 if words cannot persuade you, that in all controversies you must rely upon the infallibility of the church; at least yield your assent to deeds. hitherto i have produced arguments drawn, as it were, ex naturâ rei, from the wisdom, and goodness of god, who cannot fail to have left some infallible means to determine controversies, which, as we have proved, can be no other, except a visible church, infallible in all her definitions. but because both catholics and protestants, receive holy scripture, we may thence also prove the infallibility of the church in all matters which concern faith and religion. our saviour speaketh clearly: the gates of hell e mat. 16. shall not prevail against her. and; i will ask my f joan. 14. father, and he will give you another paraclete, that he may abide with you for ever, the spirit of truth. and, but when he, the spirit of g joan. 16. truth cometh, he shall teach you all truth. the apostle saith, that the church is the pillar, and ground h 1. tim. c. 3. of truth. and, he gave some apostles, and some prophets, and other some evangelists, and other some pastors and doctors, to the consummation of the saints, unto the work of the ministry, unto the edifying of the body of christ: until we meet all into the unity of faith, and knowledge of the son of god, into a perfect man, into the measure of the age of the fullness of christ: that now we be not children wavering, and carried about with every wind of doctrine in the wickedness of men, in craftiness, to the circumvention i ephes. 4. of error. all which words seem clearly enough to prove, that the church is universally infallible, without which, unity of faith could not be conserved against every wind of doctrine: and yet doctor potter k pag. 151. 153. limits these promises and privileges to fundamental points, in which he grants the church cannot err. i urge the words of scripture, which are universal, and do not mention any such restraint. i allege that most reasonable, and received rule, that scripture is to be understood literally, as it soundeth, unless some manifest absurdity force us to the contrary. but all will not serve, to accord our different interpretations. in the mean time diverse of doctor potter's brethren step in, and reject his limitation, as over large, and somewhat tasting of papistry: and therefore they restrain the mentioned texts, either to the infallibility which the apostles, and other sacred writers had in penning of scripture: or else to the invisible church of the elect; and to them, not absolutely, but with a double restriction, that they shall not fall damnably, and finally; and other men have as much right as these, to interpose their opinion, and interpretation. behold we are three at debate about the self same words of scripture: we confer diverse places and text: we consult the originals: we examine translations. we endeavour to pray heartily: we profess to speak sincerely; to seek nothing but truth and salvation of our own souls, and that of our neighbours; and finally we use all those means, which by protestants themselves are prescribed for finding out the true meaning of scripture: nevertheless we neither do, or have any possible means to agree, as long as we are left to ourselves; and when we should chance to be agreed, the doubt would still remain whether the thing itself be a fundamental point or no: and yet it were great impiety to imagine that god, the lover of souls, hath left no certain infallible means; to decide both this, and all other differences arising about the interpretation of scripture, or upon any other occasion. our remedy therefore in these contentions must be, to consult, and hear god's visible church, with submissive acknowledgement of her power, and infallibility in whatsoever she proposeth as a revealed truth: according to that divine advice of s. augustine in these words. if at length l deutil. cred. cap. 8. thou seem to be sufficiently tossed▪ and hast a desire to put an end to thy pains, follow the way of the catholic discipline, which from christ himself by the apostles hath come down even to us, and from us shall descend to all posterity. and though i conceive that the distinction of points fundamental, and not fundamental hath now been sufficiently confuted; yet that no shadow of difficulty may remain, i will particularly refel a common saying of protestants, that it is sufficient foe salvation, to believe the apostles creed, which they hold to be a summary of all fundamental points of faith. the answer to the third chapter. wherein it is maintained, that the distinction of points fundamental and not fundamental, is in this present controversy good and pertinent: and that the catholic church may err in the latter kind of the said points. this distinction is employed by protestants to many purposes, and therefore if it be pertinent and good, (as they understand and apply it) the whole edifice built thereon, must be either firm and stable, or if it be not, it cannot be for any default in this distinction. 2 if you object to them discords in matter of faith without any means of agreement, they will answer you, that they want not good and solid means of agreement in matters necessary to salvation, viz. their belief of all those things which are plainly and undoubtedly delivered in scripture; which who so believes, must of necessity believe all things necessary to salvation: and their mutual suffering one another, to abound in their several sense, in matters not plainly and undoubtedly there delivered. and for their agreement in all controversies of religion, either they have means to agree about them, or not: if you say they have, why did you before deny it? if they have not means; why do you find fault with them, for not agreeing? 3 you will say, that their fault is, that by remaining protestants they exclude themselves from the means of agreement, which you have, and which by submission to your church they might have also. but if you have means of agreement, the more shame for you that you still disagree. for who, i pray, is more inexcusably guilty, for the omission of any duty; they that either have no means to do it, or else know of none they have, which puts them in the same case as if they had none: or they which profess to have an easy and expedite means to do it, and yet still leave it undone? if you had been blind (saith our saviour to the pharisees) you had had no sin, but now you say you see▪ therefore your sin remaineth. 4 if you say, you do agree in matters of faith, i say this is ridiculous: for you define matters of faith to be those wherein you agree. so that to say, you agree in matters of faith, is to say, you agree in those things wherein you do agree. and do not protestants do so likewise? do not they agree in those things, wherein they do agree? 5 but you are all agreed that only those things wherein you do agree are matters of faith. and protestants if they were wise, would do so too. sure i am they have reason enough to do so: seeing all of them agree with explicit faith in all those things, which are plainly and undoubtedly delivered in scripture, that is, in all which god hath plainly revealed: and with an implicit faith, in that sense of the whole scripture which god intended whatsoever it was. secondly, that which you pretend is false; for else, why do some of you hold it against faith, to take or allow the oath of allegiance, others as learned and honest as they, that it is against faith and unlawful to refuse it and allow the refusing of it? why do some of you hold, that it is de fide, that the pope is head of the church by divine law, others the contrary? some hold it de fide, that the blessed virgin was freefrom actual sin, others that it is not so. some, that the pope's indirect power over princes in temporalties is the fide, others the contrary. some, that it is universal tradition, and consequently de fide, that the virgin mary was conceived in original sin, others the contrary. 6 but what shall we say now, if you be not agreed touching your pretended means of agreement, how then can you pretend to unity either actual or potential more than protestants may? some of you say, the pope alone without a council may determine all controversies: but others deny it. some, that a general council without a pope may do so: others deny this. some, both in conjunction are infallible determiners: others again deny this. lastly, some among you, hold the acceptation of the decrees of counsels by the universal church to be the only way to decide controversies: which others deny, by denying the church to be infallible. and indeed what way of ending controversies can this be, when either part may pretend, that they are part of the church, and they receive not the decree, therefore the whole church hath not received it? 7 again, means of agreeing differences are either rational and well grounded and of god's appointment, or voluntary and taken up at the pleasure of men. means of the former nature, we say, you have as little as we. for where hath god appointed, that the pope, or a council, or a council confirmed by the pope, or that society of christians which adhere to him, shall be the infallible judge of controversies. i desire you to show any one of these assertions plainly set down in scripture, (as in all reason a thing of this nature should be) or at least delivered with a full consent of fathers, or at least taught in plain terms by any one father for four hundred years after christ. and if you cannot do this (as i am sure you cannot) and yet will still be obtruding yourselves upon us for our judges, who will not cry out, — perisse frontem de rebus? 8 but then for means of the other kind, such as yours are, we have great abundance of them. for besides all the ways which you have devised, which we may make use of when we please, we have a great many more, which you yet have never thought of, for which we have as good colour out of scripture as you have for yours. for first, we could if we would, try it by lots, whose doctrine is true, and whose false. and you know it is written, a prov. 16. 33. the lot is cast into the lap, but the whole disposition of it is from the lord. 2. we could refer them to the king, and you know it is written: b prov. 16. 10. a divine sentence is in the lips of the king his mouth transgresseth not in judgement. c prov. 21. 1. the heart of the king is in the hand of the lord. we could refer the matter to any assembly of christians assembled in the the name of christ, seeing it is written, d mat. 18. 20. where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am i in the midst of them. we may refer it to any priest, because it is written, e mat. 2. 7. the priest's lips shall preserve knowledge. f mat. 25. 2. the scribes and pharisees sit in moses chair etc. to any preacher of the gospel, to any pastor, or doctor, for to every one of them christ hath promised g mat. 28. 20. he will be with them always even to the end of the world: & of every one of them it is said, h luk. 10. 16. he that heareth you heareth me: etc. to any bishop or prelate, for it is written, i heb. 13. 17. obey your prelates, and again k ephes. 4. 11. he hath given pastors and doctors, etc. lest we should be carried about with every wind of doctrine. to any particular church of christians, seeing it is a particular church which is called l 1. tim. 3. 15. the house of god, a pillar & ground of truth: and seeing of any particular church it is written m mat. 18. 17. he that heareth not the church let him be unto thee as a heathen or a public●d. we might refer it to any man that prays for god's spirit, for it is written, n mat. 7. 8. every one that asketh receiveth: and again, o ja. 1. 5. if any man want wisdom let him ask of god, who giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not. lastly, we might refer it to the jews, for without all doubt of them it is written, p isay. 59 21. my spirit that is in thee etc. all these means of agreement, whereof not any one but hath as much probability from scripture, as that which you obtrude upon us, offer themselves upon a sudden to me: happily many more might be thought on, if we had time, but these are enough to show, that would we make use of voluntary and devised means to determine differences, we had them in great abundance. and if you say these would fail us, and contradict themselves; so, as we pretend, have yours. there have been popes against popes: counsels against counsels: counsels confirmed by popes, against counsels confirmed by popes: lastly the church of some ages against the church of other ages. 9 lastly, whereas you find fault, that protestants upbraided with their discords, answer that they differ only in points not fundamental, i desire you tell me whether they do so, or do not so; if they do so, i hope you will not find fault with the answer: if you say they do not so, but in points fundamental also; then they are not members of the same church one with another, no more then with you: and therefore why should you object to any of them, their differences from each other, any more than to yourselves, their more and greater differences from you? 10 but they are convinced sometimes even by their own confessions, that the ancient fathers taught diverse points of popery: and then they reply, those fathers may nevertheless be saved, because those errors were not fundamental. and may not you also be convinced by the confessions of your own men, that the fathers taught diverse points held by protestants against the church of rome, and diverse against protestants and the church of rome? do not your purging indices, clip the tongues, and seal up the lips of a great many for such confessions? and is not the above cited confession of your douai divines, plain and full to the same purpose? and do not you also, as freely as we, charge the fathers with errors, & yet say they were saved? now what else do we understand by an unfundamentall error, but such a one with which a man may possibly be saved? so that still you proceed in condemning others for your own faults, and urging arguments against us, which return more strongly upon yourselves. 11 but your will is, we should remember that christ must always have a visible church. ans. your pleasure shall be obeyed, on condition you will not forget, that there is a difference between perpetual visibility, and perpetual purity. as for the answer, which you make for us, true it is, we believe the catholic church cannot perish, yet that she may, and did err in points not fundamental; and that protestants were obliged to forsake these errors of the church, as they did, though not the church for her errors, for that they did not, but continued still members of the church. for it is not all one (though you perpetually confound them) to forsake the errors of the church, and to forsake the church: or to forsake the church in her errors, and simply to forsake the church: no more than it is for me to renounce my brothers or my friends vices or errors, and to renounce my brother or my friend. the former then was done by protestants, the latter was not done. nay not only not from the catholic, but not so much as from the roman, did they separate per omnia, but only in those practices which they conceived superstitious or impious. if you would at this time propose a form of liturgy, which both sides hold lawful, and then they would not join with you in this liturgy, you might have some colour then to say, they renounce your communion absolutely. but as things are now ordered, they cannot join with you in prayers, but they must partake with you in unlawful practices, and for this reason, they (not absolutely, but thus far) separate from your communion. and this, i say, they were obliged to do under pain of damnation. not as if it were damnable to hold an error not damnable, but because it is damnable outwardly to profess & maintain it, and to join with others in the practice of it, when inwardly they did not hold it. now had they continued in your communion, that they must have done, vid. have professed to believe and externally practised your errors, whereof they were convinced that they were errors: which, though the matters of the errors had been not necessary, but only profitable, whether it had not been damnable dissimulation and hypocrisy, i leave it to you to judge. you yourself tell us within two pages after this, that you are obliged never to speak any one lest lie against your knowledge, §. 2. now what is this but to live in a perpetual lie? 12 as for that which in the next place you seem so to wonder at, that both catholics and protestants, according to the opinion of protestants, may be saved in their several professions, because forsooth, we both agree in all fundamental points: i anwere, this proposition so crudely set down, as you have here set it down, i know no protestant will justify. for you seem to make them teach, that it is an indifferent thing, for the attainment of salvation, whether a man believe the truth or the falsehood; and that they care not in whether of these religions a man live or dye, so he die in either of them: whereas all that they say is this, that those amongst you which want means to find the truth and so dye in error, or use the best means they can with industry, and without partiality to find the truth, and yet dye in error, these men, thus qualified, notwithstanding these errors may be saved. secondly for those that have means to find the truth, and will not use them, they conceive, though their case be dangerous, yet if they die with a general repentance for all their sins, known and unknown, their salvation is not desperate. the truths which they hold, of faith in christ, and repentance, being as it were an antidote against their errors, and their negligence in seeking the truth. especially seeing by confession of both sides we agree in much more than is simply, & indispensably necessary to salvation. 13 but seeing we make such various use of this distinction, is it not prodigiously strange that we will never be induced to give in a particular catalogue what points be fundamental? and why i pray is it so prodigiously strange that we give no answer to an unreasonable demand? god himself hath told us, a luk. 12. 48. that where much is given, much shall be required; where little is given, little shall be required. to infants, deafe-men, madmen, nothing for aught we know, is given, and if it be so, of them nothing shall be required. others perhaps may have means only given them to believe, b 6. heb. 11. that god is, and that he is a rewarder of them that seek him; and to whom thus much only is given, to them it shall not be damnable, that they believe but only thus much. which methinks is very manifest from the apostle, in the epist. to the heb: where having first said, that without faith it is impossible to please god, he subjoins as his reason, for whosoever cometh unto god, must believe that god is, and that he is a rewarder of them that seek him. where in my opinion, this is plainly intimated, that this is the minimum quòd sic, the lowest degree of faith, wherewith, in men capable of faith, god will be pleased: and that with this lowest degree he will be pleased, where means of rising higher are deficient. besides, if without this belief, that god is, and that he is a rewarder of them that seek him, god will not be pleased, than his will is that we should believe it. now his will it cannot be, that we should believe a falsehood, it must be therefore true, that he is a rewarder of them that seek him. now it is possible that they which never heard of christ, may seek god, therefore it is true that even they shall please him, and be rewarded by him; i say rewarded, not with bringing them immediately to salvation without christ, but with bringing them according to his good pleasure, first, to faith in christ, and so to salvation. to which belief the story of cornelius in the 10. chap. of the acts of the apostles, and s. peter's words to him, are to me a great inducement. for first it is evident he believed not in christ, but was a mere gentile, & one that knew not but men might be worshipped, and yet we are assured that his prayers and alms (even while he was in that state) came up for a memorial before god; that his prayer was heard, and his alms had in remembrance in the sight of god. v. 4. that upon his, then fearing god and working righteousness, (such as it was) he was accepted with god. but how accepted? not to be brought immediately to salvation, but to be promoted to a higher degree of the knowledge of gods will: for so it is in the 4. & 5. v. call for simon whose surname is peter, he shall tell thee what thou oughtest to do, and at the 33. verse. we are all here present before god, to hear all things that are commanded thee of god. so that though even in his gentilism, he was accepted in his present state, yet if he had continued in it, & refused to believe in christ after the sufficient revelation of the gospel to him, and gods will to have him believe it, he that was accepted before, would not have continued accepted still; for then that condemnation had come upon him, that light was come unto him, and he loved darkness more than light. so that (to proceed a step farther) to whom faith in christ is sufficiently propounded, as necessary to salvation, to them it is simply necessary & fundamental to believe in christ, that is, to expect remission of sins and salvation from him, upon the performance of the conditions he requires; among which conditions one is, that we believe what he has revealed, when it is sufficiently declared, to have been revealed by him: for by doing so, we set to our seal, that god is true, and that christ was sent by him. now that may be sufficiently declared to one (all things considered,) which, (all things considered) to another is not sufficiently declared: and consequently that may be fundamental and necessary to one, which to another is not so. which variety of circumstances, makes it impossible to set down an exact catalogue of fundamentals, and proves your request as reasonable, as if you should desire us (according to the fable) to make a coat to fit the moon in all her changes; or to give you a garment that will fit all statures; or to make you a dial to serve all meridians; or to design particularly, what provision will serve an army for a year: whereas there may be an army of ten thousand, there may be of 100000. and therefore without setting down a catalogue of fundamentals in particular (because none that can be given, can universally serve for all men, god requiring more of them to whom he gives more, and less of them to whom he gives less) we must content ourselves by a general description to tell you what is fundamental. and to warrant us in doing so, we have your own example §. 19 where being engaged to give us a catalogue of fundamentals, in stead thereof you tell us only in general, that all is fundamental, and not to be disbeleeved under pain of damnation, which the church hath defined. as you therefore think it enough to say in general, that all is fundamental which the church has defined, without setting down in particular a compleat-catalogue of all things, which in any age the church has defined (which i believe you will not undertake to do, and if you do, it will be contradicted by your fellows:) so in reason you might think it enough for us also to say in general, that it is sufficient for any man's salvation, to believe that the scripture is true, and contains all things necessary for salvation; and to do his best endeavour to find and believe the true sense of it: without delivering any particular catalogue of the fundamentals of faith. 14 neither doth the want of such a catalogue leave us in such a perplexed uncertainty as you pretend. for though perhaps we cannot exactly distinguish in the scripture, what is revealed because it is necessary, from what is necessary consequently and accidentally, merely because it is revealed: yet we are sure enough, that all that is necessary any way is there, and therefore in believing all that is there, we are sure to believe all that is necessary. and if we err from the true and intended sense of some, nay of many obscure or ambiguous texts of scripture, yet we may be sure enough, that we err not damnably: because, if we do indeed desire and endeavour to find the truth, we may be sure we do so, and as sure that it cannot consist with the revealed goodness of god, to damn him for error, that desires and endeavours to find the truth. 15 ad §. 2. the effect of this paragraph (for as much as concerns us) is this, that for any man to deny belief to any one thing be it great or small known by him, to be revealed by almighty god for a truth, is in effect to charge god with falsehood: for it is to say that god affirms that to be truth, which he either knows to be not a truth, or which he doth not know to be a truth: and therefore without all controversy this is a damnable sin. to this i subscribe with hand and heart: adding withal, that not only he which knows, but he which believes (nay though it be erroneously) any thing to be revealed by god, and yet will not believe it, nor assent unto it, is in the same case, and commits the same sin of derogation from gods most perfect and pure veracity. 16 ad §. 3. i said purposely (known by himself, and believes himself) for as, without any disparagement of a man's honesty, i may believe something to be false, which he affirms, of his certain knowledge to be true, provided i neither know nor believe that he has so affirmed: so without any the least dishonour to god's eternal never-failing veracity, i may doubt of, or deny some truth revealed by him, if i neither know nor believe it to be revealed by him. 17 seeing therefore the crime of calling god's veracity into question, and consequently (according to your grounds) of erring fundamentally, is chargeable upon those only, that believe the contrary of any one point known (not by others but themselves) to be testified by god: i cannot but fear (though i hope otherwise) that your heart condemned you of a great calumny and egregious sophistry, in imputing fundamental, and damnable error to disagreeing protestans; because forsooth, some of them disbelieve, and directly wittingly and willingly oppose, what others do believe to be testified by the word of god. the sophistry of your discourse will be apparent, if it be contrived into a syllogism: thus therefore in effect you argue; whosoever disbelieves any thing known by himself to be revealed by god, imputes falsehood to god, and therefore errs fundamentally. but some protestants disbelieve these things, which others believe to be testified by god; therefore they impute falsehood to god, and err fundamentally. neither can you with any colour pretend, that in these words known to be testified by god, you meant, not by himself, but by any other; seeing he only in fact affirms, that god does deceive or is deceived, who denies some things which himself knows or believes to be revealed by god, as before i have demonstrated. for otherwise if i should deny belief to some which god had revealed secretly to such a man as i had never heard of, i should be guilty of calling god's veracity into question, which is evidently false. besides, how can it be avoided, but the jesuits and dominicans, the dominicans and franciscans must upon this ground differ fundamentally, and one of them err damnably, seeing the one of them disbelieves; and willingly opposes, what the others believe to be the word of god? 18 whereas you say that the difference among protestants consists not in this, that some believe some points of which others are ignorant, or not bound expressly to know: i would gladly know, whether you speak of protestants differing in profession only, or in opinion also. if the first, why do you say presently after, that some disbelieve, what others of them believe? if they differ in opinion, then sure they are ignorant of the truth of each other's opinions: it being impossible and contradictious, that a man should know one thing to be true, and believe the contrary, or know it and not believe it. and if they do not know the truth of each others opinions, then, i hope, you will grant they are ignorant of it. if your meaning were, they were not ignorant, that each other held these opinions, or of the sense of the opinions which they held: i answer, this is nothing to the convincing of their understandings of the truth of them, and these remaining unconvinced of the truth of them, they are excusable if they do not believe. 9 but ignorance of what we are expressly bound to know, is itself a fault, and therefore cannot be an excuse: and therefore if you could show the protestants differ in those points, the truth whereof (which can be but one) they were bound expressly to know, i should easily yield that one side must of necessity be in a mortal crime. but for want of proof of this, you content yourself only to say it; and therefore i also might be contented only to deny it, yet i will not, but give a reason for my denial. and my reason is, because our obligation expressly to know any divine truth, must arise from god's manifest revealing of it, and his revealing unto us that he has revealed it, and that his will is, we should believe it: now in the points controverted among protestants, he hath not so dealt with us, therefore he hath not laid any such obligation upon us. the major of this syllogism is evident, and therefore i will not stand to prove it. the minor also will be evident to him that considers, that in all the controversies of protestants, there is a seeming conflict of scripture with scripture, reason with reason, authority with authority: which how it can consist with the manifest revealing of the truth of either side, i cannot well understand. besides, though we grant that scripture, reason, and authority, were all on one side, and the apparences of the other side all answerable: yet if we consider the strange power that education and prejudices instilled by it, have over even excellent understandings, we may well imagine, that many truths which in themselves are revealed plainly enough, are yet to such or such a man, prepossessed with contrary opinions, not revealed plainly. neither doubt i but god, who knows whereof we are made, and what passions we are subject unto, will compassionate such infirmities, and not enter into judgement with us for those things, which, all things considered, were unavoidable. 20 but till fundamentals (say you) be sufficiently proposed (as revealed by god) it is not against faith to reject them; or rather it is not possible prudently to believe them: and points unfundamentall being thus sufficiently proposed as divine truths, may not be denied; therefore you conclude there is no difference between them: ans. a circumstantial point, may by accident become fundamental, because it may be so proposed that the denial of it, will draw after it the denial of this fundamental truth, that all which god says is true. notwithstanding in themselves there is a main difference between them: points fundamental being those only which are revealed by god, and commanded to be preached to all, and believed by all. points circumstantial being such, as though god hath revealed them, yet the pastors of the church are not bound under pain of damnation particularly to teach them unto all men every where, and the people may be securely ignorant of them. 21 you say, not erring in points fundamental, is not sufficient for the preservation of the church; because any error maintained by it against god's revelation is destructive. i answer. if you mean against god's revelation known by the church to be so, it is true; but impossible that the church should do so, for ipso facto in doing it, it were a church no longer. but if you mean against some revelation, which the church by error thinks to be no revelation, it is false. the church may ignorantly disbelieve such a revelation, and yet continue a church; which thus i prove. that the gospel was to be preached to all nations, was a truth revealed before our saviour's ascension, in these words, go and teach all nations. mat. 29. 19 yet through prejudice or inadvertence, or some other cause, the church disbelieved it; as it is apparent out of the 11. and 12. chap. of the acts, until the conversion of cornelius, and yet was still a church. therefore to disbelieve some divine revelation, not knowing it to be so, is not destructive of salvation, or of the being of the church. again, it is a plain revelation of god, that a 1. cor. 11. 28. the sacrament of the eucharist should be administered in both kinds: and b 1. cor. 14. 15. 16. 26. that the public hymns and prayers of the church should be in such a language as is most for edification; yet these revelations the church of rome not seeing, by reason of the veil before their eyes, their church's supposed infallibility, i hope the denial of them shall not be laid to their charge, no otherwise then as building hay and stubble on the foundations, not overthrowing the foundation itself. 22 ad §. 2. in the beginning of this paragraph, we have this argument against this distinction; it is enough (by d. potter's confession) to believe some things negatively, i. e. not to deny them; therefore all denial of any divine truth excludes salvation. as if you should say: one horse is enough for a man to go a journey: therefore without a horse no man can go a journey. as if some divine truths, vi●. those which are plainly revealed, might not be such, as of necessity were not to be denied: and others for want of sufficient declaration, deniable without danger. indeed if d. potter had said there had been no divine truth, declared sufficiently or not declared, but must upon pain of damnation be believed, or at least not denied, then might you justly have concluded as you do: but now, that some may not be denied, and that some may be denied without damnation why they may not both stand together i do not yet understand. 23 in the remainder you in far out of d. potter's words, that all errors are alike damnable, if the manner of propounding the contrary truths be not different: which for aught i know, all protestants, and all that have sense must grant. yet i deny your illation from hence, that the distinction of points into fundamental and unfundamentall is vain and uneffectuall for the purpose of protestants. for though being alike proposed as divine truths, they are by accident alike necessary, yet the real difference still remains between them, that they are not alike necessary to be proposed. 24 ad §. 5. the next paragraph, if it be brought out of the clouds, will i believe have in it these propositions. 1. things are distinguished by their different natures. 2. the nature of faith is taken, not from the matter believed, for than they that believed different matters should have different faiths, but from the motive to it. 3. this motive is god's revelation. 4. this revelation is alike for all objects. 5. protestants disagree in things equally revealed by god: therefore they forsake the formal motive of faith: and therefore have no faith nor unity therein. which is truly a very proper and convenient argument to close up ● weak discourse, wherein both the propositions are false for matter, confused and disordered for the form, and the conclusion utterly inconsequent. first for the second proposition, who knows not that the essence of all habits (& therefore of faith among the rest) is taken from their act, and their object? if the habit be general, from the act and object in general, if the habit be special, from the act and object in special. then for the motive to a thing, that it cannot be of the essence of the thing to which it moves, who can doubt, that knows that a motive is an efficient cause: and that the efficient is always extrinsecall to the effect? for the fourth, that god's revelation is alike for all objects, it is ambiguous: and if the sense of it be, that his revelation is an equal motive to induce us to believe all objects revealed by him, it is true, but impertinent: if the sense of it be, that all objects revealed by god are alike (that is, alike plainly and undoubtedly) revealed by him, it is pertinent, but most untrue. witness the great diversity of texts of scripture, whereof some are so plain and evident, that no man of ordinary sense can mistake the sense of them. some are so obscure and ambiguous, that to say this or this is the certain sense of them, were high presumption. for the 5. protestants disagree in things equally revealed by god in themselves perhaps, but not equally to them: whose understandings by reason of their different educations are fashioned, and shaped for the entertainment of various opinions, and consequently some of them, more inclined to believe such a sense of scripture, others to believe another; which to say that god will not take into his consideration in judging men's opinions, is to disparage his goodness. but to what purpose is it, that these things are equally revealed to both, (as the light is equally revealed to all blind men,) if they be not fully revealed to either? the sense of this scripture, why are they then baptised for the dead? and this, he shall be saved, yet so as by fire, and a thousand others, is equally revealed to you and to another interpreter, that is certainly to neither. he now conceives one sense of them, and you another; and would it not be an excellent inference, if i should conclude now as you do; that you forsake the formal motive of faith, which is god's revelation, and consequently lose all faith and unity therein? so likewise the jesuits and dominicans, the franciscans and dominicans disagree about things equa●ly revealed by almighty god: and seeing they do so, i beseech you let me understand, why this reason will not exclude them as well as protestants from all faith and unity therein? thus you have failed of your undertaking in your first part of your title, and that is a very ill omen, especially in points of so straight mutual dependence, that we shall have but slender performance in your second assumpt. which is, that the church is infallible in all her definitions, whether concerning points fundamental, or not fundamental. 25 ad § 7. & 8. the reasons in these two paragraphs, as they were alleged before, so they were before answered, and thither i remit the reader. 26 ad §. 9 10. 11. i grant that the church cannot without damnable sin, either deny any thing to be true, which she knows to be god's truth: or propose any thing as his truth, which she knows not to be so. but that she may not do this by ignorance or mistake, and so without damnable sin, that you should have proved, but have not. but, say you this excuse cannot serve: for if the church be assisted only for points fundamental, she cannot but know that she may err in points not fundamental. ans. it does not follow, unless you suppose, that the church knows that she is assisted no farther. but if, being assisted only so far, she yet did conceive by error her assistance absolute and unlimited, or if knowing her assistance restrained to fundamentals, she yet conceived by error, that she should be guarded, from proposing any thing but what was fundamental, than the consequence is apparently false. but at least she cannot be certain that she cannot err, and therefore cannot be excused from headlong and pernicious temerity in proposing points not fundamental, to be believed by christians as matters of faith. ans. neither is this deduction worth any thing; unless it be understood of such unfundamentall points, as she is not warranted to propose by evident text of scripture. indeed if she propose such, as matters of faith certainly true, she may well be questioned, quo warranto? she builds without a foundation, and says thus saith the lord, when the lord doth not say so: which cannot be excused from rashness and high presumption; such a presumption, as an ambassador should commit, who should say in his master's name that for which he hath no commission. of the same nature, i say, but of a higher strain: as much as the king of heaven, is greater than any earthly king. but though she may err in some points not fundamental, yet may she have certainty enough in proposing others; as for example, these, that abraham begat isaac, that s. paul had a cloak, that timothy was sick; because these▪ though not fundamental. i e. no essential parts of christianity, yet are evidently, and undeniably set down in scripture, and consequently, may be without all rashness proposed by the church as certain divine revelations. neither is your argument concluding when you say, if in such things she may be deceived, she must be always uncertain of all such things. for my sense may sometimes possibly deceive me, yet i am certain enough that i see what i see, and feel what i feel. our judges are not infallible in their judgements, yet are they certain enough, that they judge aright, and that they proceed according to the evidence that is given, when they condemn a thief, or a murderer to the gallows. a traveller is not always certain of his way, but often mistaken: and does it therefore follow that he can have no assurance that charing cross is his right way from the temple to white-hall? the ground of your error here, is your not distinguishing, between actual certainty and absolute infallibility. geometricians are not infallible in their own science: yet they are very certain of those things, which they see demonstrated. and carpenters are not infallible, yet certain of the straightness of those things which agree with their rule and square. so though the church be not infallibly certain, that in all her definitions, whereof some are about disputable and ambiguous matters, she shall proceed according to her rule, yet being certain of the infallibility of her rule, and that in this or that thing she doth manifestly proceed according to it, she may be certain of the truth of some particular decrees, and yet not certain that she shall never decree but what is true. 27 ad § 12. but if the church may err in points not fundamental, she may err in proposing scripture, and so we cannot be assured whether she have not been deceived already. the church may err in her proposition or custody of the canon of scripture, if you understand by the church, any present church of one denomination, fo● example, the roman, the greek, or so. yet have we sufficient certainty of scripture, not from the bare testimony of any present church, but from universal tradition, of which the testimony of any present church is but a little part. so that here you fall into the fallacy, à dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter. for in effect this is the sense of your argument: unless the church be infallible, we can have no certainty of scripture from the authority of the church: therefore unless the church be infallible, we can have no certainty here of at all. as if a man should say; if the vintage of france miscarry, we can have no wine from france: therefore if that vintage miscarry we can have no wine at all. and for the incorruption of scripture, i know no other rational assurance we can have of it, than such as we have of the incorruption of other ancient books, that is, the consent of ancient copies: such i mean for the kind, though it be far greater for the degree of it. and if the spirit of god give any man any other assurance hereof, this is not rational and discursive, but supernatural and infused. an assurance it may be to himself, but no argument to another. as for the infallibility of the church, it is so far from being a proof of the scriptures incorruption, that no proof can be pretended for it, but incorrupted places of scripture: which yet are as subject to corruption as any other, and more likely to have been corrupted (if it had been possible) then any other, and made to speak as they do, for the advantage of those men, whose ambition it hath been a long time, to bring all under their authority. now then, if any man should prove the scriptures uncorrupted, because the church says so which is infallible: i would demand again touching this very thing, that there is an infallible church, seeing it is not of itself evident, how shall i be assured of it? and what can he answer, but that the scripture says so in these and these places? hereupon i would ask him, how shall i be assured, that the scriptures are incorrupted in these places? seeing it is possible, and not altogether improbable, that these men, which desire to be thought infallible, when they had the government of all things in their own hands, may have altered them for their purpose. if to this he answer again, that the church is infallible, and therefore cannot do so, i hope it would be apparent, that he runs round in a circle, and proves the scriptures incorruption, by the church's infallibility, and the church's infallibility by the scriptures incorruption, and that is in effect the church's infallibility, by the church's infallibility, and the scriptures incorruption by the scriptures incorruption. 28 now for your observation, that some books, which were not always known to be canonical, have been afterwards received for such. but never any book or syllable defined for canonical, was afterwards questioned or rejected for apocryphal: i demand, touching the first sort, whether they were commended to the church by the apostles as canonical or not? if not, seeing the whole faith was preached by the apostles to the church, and seeing after the apostles, the church pretends to no new revelations, how can it be an article of faith to believe them canonical? and how can you pretend, that your church which makes this an article of faith, is so assisted as not to propose any thing as a divine truth which is not revealed by god? if they were, how then is the church an infallible keeper of the canon of scripture, which hath suffered some books of canonical scripture, to be lost? & others to lose for a long time their being canonical, at least, the necessity of being so esteemed, and afterwards, as it were by the law of post liminium hath restored their authority and canonicalnesse unto them? if this was delivered by the apostles to the church, the point was sufficiently discussed, and therefore your church's omission to teach it for some ages, as an article of faith, nay degrading it from the number of articles of faith, and putting it among disputable problems, was surely not very laudable. if it were not revealed by god to the apostles, and by the apostles to the church, then can it be no revelation, and therefore her presumption in proposing it as such, is inexcusable. 19 and then for the other part of it, that never any book or syllable defined for canonical, was afterwards questioned or rejected for apocryphal: certainly it is a bold asseveration, but extremely false. for i demand; the book of ecclesiasticus and wisdom, the epistle of saint james, and to the heb. were they by the apostles approved for canonical, or no? if not, with what face dare you approve them, and yet pretend that all your doctrine is apostolical? especially seeing it is evident that this point is not deducible by rational discourse from any other defined by them. if they were approved by them, this i hope was a sufficient definition: and therefore you were best rub your forehead hard, and say, that these books were never questioned. but if you do so, than i shall be bold to ask you, what books you meant in saying before, some books which were not always known to be canonical, have been afterwards received? then for the book of macchabees, i hope you will say, it was defined for canonical before s. gregory's time: and yet he, lib. 19 moral, c. 13. citing a testimony out of it, prefaceth to it after this manner, concerning which matter we do not amiss if we produce a testimony out of books although not canonical, yet set forth, for the edification of the church. for eleazar in the book of maccabees. etc. which if it be not to reject it from being canonical, is without question, at least to question it. moreover, because you are so punctual, as to talk of words and syllables, i would know whether before sixtus quint us his time, your church had a defined canon of scripture, or not? if not, then was your church surely a most vigilant keeper of scripture, that for 1500 years had not defined what was scripture, and what was not. if it had, than i demand, was it that, set forth by sixtus, or that, set forth by clement, or a third different from both? if it were that set forth by sixtus, then is it now condemned by clement: if that of clement, it was condemned i say, but sure you will say contradicted and questioned by sixtus; if different from both, then was it questioned and condemned by both, and still lies under the condemnation. but than lastly, suppose it had been true, that both some book not known to be canonical had been received, and that never any after receiving had been questioned: how had this been a sign that the church is infallibly assisted by the holy ghost? in what mood or figure, would this conclusion follow out of these premises? certainly your flying to such poor signs, as these are, is to me a great sign, that you labour with penury of better arguments: and that, thus to catch at shadows and bulrushes, is a shrewd sign of a sinking cause. 30 ad §. 13. we are told here, that the general promises of infallibility to the church, must not be restrained only to points fundamental: because then the apostles words and writings may also be so restrained. the argument put in form, and made complete by supply of the concealed proposition runs thus; the infallibility promised to the present church of any age, is as absolute and unlimited, as that promised to the apostles in their preaching and writings: but the apostles infallibility is not to be limited to fundamentals: therefore neither is the church's infallibility thus to be limited. or thus; the apostles infallibility in their preaching and writing may be limited to fundamentals as well as the infallibility of the present church: but that is not to be done: therefore this also is not to be done. now to this argument, i answer, that if by may be as well, in the major proposition, be understood, may be as possibly: it is true, but impertinent. if by it we understand, may be as justly and rightly, it is very pertinent but very false. so that as d. potter limits the infallibility of the present church unto fundamentals, so another may limit the apostles unto them also. he may do it de facto, but de iure he cannot; that may be done and done lawfully: this also may be done, but not lawfully. that may be done, and if it be done cannot be confuted: this also may be done, but if it be done, may easily be confuted. it is done to our hand in this very paragraph, by five words taken out of scripture, all scripture is divinely inspired. show but as much for the church: show where it is written, that all the decrees of the church are divinely inspired; and the controversy will be at an end. besides, there is not the same reason for the churches absolute infallibility, as for the apostles and scriptures. for if the church fall into error, it may be reform by comparing it with the rule of the apostles doctrine and scripture. but if the apostles have erred in delivering the doctrine of christianity, to whom shall we have recourse, for the discovering and correcting their error? again, there is not so much strength required in the edifice as in the foundation: and if but wisemen have the ordering of the building, they will make it much a surer thing, that the foundation shall not fail the building, then that the building shall not fall from the foundation. and though the building be to be of brick or stone, and perhaps of wood, yet if it may be possibly, they will have a rock for their foundation, whose stability is a much more indubitable thing, than the adherence of the structure to it. now the apostles & prophets, and canonical writers, are the foundation of the church, according to that of s. paul, built upon the foundation of apostles and prophets; therefore their stability, in reason ought to be greater than the churches, which is built upon them. again, a dependent infallibility (especially if the dependence be voluntary) cannot be so certain, as that on which it depends: but the infallibility of the church, depends upon the infallibility of the apostles, as the straightness of the thing regulated, upon the straightness of the rule: and besides this dependence is voluntary, for it is in the power of the church to deviate from this rule; being nothing else but an aggregation of men, of which every one has free will, and is subject to passions and error: therefore the church's infallibility, is not so certain as that of the apostles. 31 lastly, quid verba audiam, cum fact a videam? if you be so infallible as the apostles were, show it as the apostles did; they went forth (saith s. mark) and preached every where, the lord working with them, and confirming their words with signs following. it is impossible that god should lie, and that the eternal truth should set his hand and seal to the confirmation of a falsehood, or of such doctrine as is partly true and partly false. the apostles doctrine was thus confirmed, therefore it was entirely true, and in no part either false or uncertain. i say in no part of that which they delivered constantly, as a certain divine truth, and which had the atte●tation of divine miracles. for that the apostles themselves, even after the sending of the holy ghost, were, and through inadvertence or prejudice, continued for a time in an error, repugnant to a revealed truth, it is as i have already noted unanswerably evident, from the story of the acts of the apostles. for notwithstanding our saviour's express warrant & injunction, to go and preach to all nations, yet until s. peter was better informed by a vision from heaven, and by the conversion of cornelius, both he and the rest of the church, held it unlawful for them, to go or preach the gospel to any but the jews. 32 and for those things which they profess to deliver as the dictates of humane reason and prudence, and not as divine revelations, why we should take them to be divine revelations, i see no reason; nor how we can do so, and not contradict the apostles, and god himself. therefore when s. paul says, in the 1. epist. to the cor. 7. 12. to the rest speak i, not the lord; and again, concerning virgins i have no commandment of the lord, but i deliver my judgement: if we will pretend, that the lord did certainly speak, what s. paul spoke, and that his judgement was god's commandment, shall we not plainly contradict s. paul, and that spirit by which he wrote? which moved him to write, as in other places divine revelations, which he certainly knew to be such, so in this place, his own judgement, touching some things which god had not particularly revealed unto him. and if d. potter did speak to this purpose (that the apostles were infallible only in these things which they spoke of certain knowledge) i cannot see what danger there were in saying so. yet the truth is, you wrong d. potter. it is not he, but d. stapleton in him, that speaks the words you cavil at. d. stapleton▪ saith he, p. 140. is full and punctual to this purpose: then sets down the effect of his discourse l. 8. princ. doct. 4. c. 15. and in that, the words you cavil at, and then, p. 150. he shuts up this paragraph with these words, thus d. stapleton. so that if either the doctrine, or the reason be not good, d. stapleton, not d. potter is to answer for it. 33 neither do d. potter's ensuing words limit the apostles infalbilitie to truths absolutely necessary to salvation, if you read them with any candour: for it is evident, he grants the church infallible in truths absolutely necessary; and as evident, that he ascribes to the apostles, the spirits guidance, and consequently infallibility in a more high and absolute manner than any since them. from whence, thus i argue: he that grants the church infallible in fundamentals, and ascribes to the apostles the infallible guidance of the spirit, in a more high and absolute manner then to any since them, limits not the apostles infallibility to fundamentals; but d. potter grants to the church such a limited infallibility, and ascribes to the apostles, the spirits infallible guidance in a more high and absolute manner; therefore he limits not the apostles infallibility to fundamentals. i once knew a man out of courtesy, help a lame dog over a style, and he for requital bit him by the fingers: just so you serve d. potter. he out of courtesy grants you, that those words, the spirit shall lead you into all truth, and shall abide with you ever, though in their high and most absolute sense, they agree only to the apostles, yet in a conditional, limited, moderate, secundary sense, they may be understood of the church. but says, that if they be understood of the church, all, must not be simply all, no, nor so large an all, as the apostles all, but all necessary to salvation. and you to requite his courtesy, in granting you thus much cavil at him, as if he had prescribed these bounds to the apostles also, as well as the present church. whereas, he hath explained himself to the contrary, both in the clause forementioned, the apostles, who had the spirits guidance in a more high and absolute manner than any since them, and in these words ensuing, whereof the church is simply ignorant, and again, wherewith the church is not acquainted. but most clearly in those which being most incompatible to the apostles, you with an &c, i cannot but fear craftily, have concealed: how many obscure texts of scripture which she understands not? how many school questions which she hath not, happily cannot determine? and for matters of fact it is apparent that the church may err; and then concludes, that we must understand by, all truths, not simply all, but (if you conceive the words as spoken of the church) all truth absolutely necessary to salvation. and yet beyond all this, the negative part of his answer, agrees very well to the apostles themselves, for that all which they were led into, was not simply all, otherwise s. paul erred in saying, we know in part; but such an all, as was requisite to make them the church's foundations. now such they could not be without freedom from error in all those things which they delivered constantly, as certain revealed truths. for if we once suppose they may have erred in some things of this nature, it will be utterly undiscernible what they have erred in, & what they have not. whereas though we suppose the church hath erred in somethings, yet we have means to know, what she hath erred in, and what she hath not. i mean by comparing the doctrine of the present church, with the doctrine of the primitive church delivered in scripture. but than last of all, suppose the doctor had said (which i know he never intended) that this promise in this place made to the apostles, was to be understood only of a truth absolutely necessary to salvation; is it consequent that he makes their preaching and writing not infallible in points not fundamental? do you not blush for shame at this sophistry? the dr says, no more was promised in this place; therefore he says no more was promised! are there not other places besides this? and may not that be promised in other places, which is not promised in this? 34 but if the apostles were infallible, in all things proposed by them as divine truths, the like must be affirmed of the church, because doctor potter teacheth the said promise to be verified in the church. true, he does so, but not in so absolute a manner. now what is opposed to absolute, but limited, or restrained? to the apostles than it was made, & to them only, yet the words are true of the church. and this very promise might have been made to it, though here it is not. they agree to the apostles in a higher, to the church in a lower sense: to the apostles in a more absolute, to the church in a more limited sense. to the apostles absolutely, for the church's direction: to the church conditionally by adherence to that direction, and so far as she doth adhere to it. in a word, the apostles were led into all truths by the spirit, efficaciter: the church is led also into all truth by the apostles writings, sufficienter. so that the apostles and the church, may be fitly compared to the star and the wisemen. the star was directed by the finger of god, and could not but go right to the place where christ was: but the wise men were led by the star to christ; led by it, i say, not efficaciter, or irresistibiliter, but sufficienter, so that if they would they might follow it, if they would not, they might choose. so was it between the apostles writing scriptures, & the church. they in their writing were infallibly assisted to propose nothing as a divine truth, but what was so. the church is also led into all truth, but it is by the intervening of the apostles writings: but it is, as the wisemen were led by the star, or as a traveller is directed by a mercurial statue, or as a pilot by his card and compass▪ led sufficiently, but not irresistibly: led so that she may follow, not so that she must. for seeing the church is a society of men, whereof every one (according to the doctrine of the romish church) hath freewill in believing; it follows, that the whole aggregate has freewill in believing. and if any man say that at least it is morally impossible, that of so many whereof all may believe aright, not any should do so: i answer, it is true, if they did all give themselves any liberty of judgement. but if all (as the case is here) captivate their understandings to one of them, all are as likely to err as that one. and he more likely to err then any other, because he may err and thinks he cannot, & because he conceives the spirit absolutely promised to the succession of bishops, of which many have been notoriously and confessedly wicked men, men of the world: whereas this spirit is the spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because he seeth him not, neither knoweth him. besides, let us suppose, that neither in this nor in any other place, god had promised any more unto them, but to lead them into all truth, necessary for their own & other men's salvation: does it therefore follow that they were de facto, led no farther? god indeed is obliged by his veracity to do all that he has promised, but is there any thing that binds him to do no more? may not he be better than his word, but you will quarrel at him? may not his bounty exceed his promise? and may not we have certainty enough that oftimes it does so? god did not promise to solomon, in his vision at gibeon, any more than what he asked, which was wisdom to govern his people, and that he gave him. but yet i hope you will not deny that we have certainty enough that he gave him something which neither god had promised, nor he had asked. if you do, you contradict god himself: for behold (saith god) because thou hast asked this thing, i have done according to thy word. lo, i have given thee a wise and an understanding heart, so that there was none like thee before thee, neither after thee shall any arise like unto thee. and i have also given thee that which thou hast not asked, both riches and honour, so that there shall not be any among the kings like unto thee in all thy days. god, for aught appears, never obliged himself by promise, to show s. paul those unspeakable mysteries, which in the third heaven he showed unto him: and yet i hope we have certainty enough, that he did so. god promises to those that seek his kingdom and the righteousness thereof, that all things necessary shall be added unto them, and in rigour by his promise he is obliged to do no more, and if he give them necessaries he hath discharged his obligation: shall we therefore be so injurious to his bounty towards us, as to say it is determined by the narrow bounds of mere necessity? so though god had obliged himself by promise, to give his apostles infallibility only in things necessary to salvation; nevertheless it is utterly inconsequent, that he gave them no more, then by the rigour of his promise he was engaged to do; or that we can have no assurance of any farther assistance that he gave them: especially when he himself, both by his word, and by his works hath assured us, that he did assist them farther. you see by this time that your chain of fearful consequences (as you call them) is turned to a rope of sand, and may easily be avoided without any flying to your imaginary infallibility of the church in all her proposals. 35 ad § 14. & 15. doubting of a book received for canonical, may signify, either doubting whether it be canonical; or supposing it to be canonical, whether it be true. if the former sense were yours, i must then again distinguish of the term, received; for it may signify, either received by some particular church, or by the present church universal, or the church of all ages. if you meant the word in either of the former senses, that which you say is not t●●e. a man may justly and reasonably doubt of some texts, or some book received by some particular church, or by the universal church of this present time, whether it be canonical or no: and yet have just reason to believe, & no reason to doubt, but that other books are canonical. as eusebius perhaps, had reason to doubt of the epistle of s. james; the church of rome in hierom's time of the epistle to the hebr. and yet they did not doubt of all the books of the canon, nor had reason to do so. if by received, you meant, received by the church of all ages, i grant he that doubts of any one such book, has as much reason to doubt of all. but yet here again i tell you, that it is possible a man may doubt of one such book, and yet not of all: because it is possible men may do not according to reason. if you meant your words in the latter sense; then i confess he that believes such a book to be canonical, i. e. the word of god, and yet (to make an impossible supposition) believes it not to be true, if he will do according to reason, must doubt of all the rest, and believe none. for there being no greater reason to believe any thing true, then because god hath said it, nor no other reason to believe the scripture to be true, but only because it is god's word; he that doubts of the truth of any thing said by god, hath as much reason to believe nothing that he says: and therefore if he will do according to reason, neither must nor can believe any thing he says. and upon this ground you conclude rightly, that the infallibility of true scripture must be universal, and not confined to points fundamental. 36 and this reason why we should not refuse to believe any part of scripture, upon pretence that the matter of it is not fundamental, you confess to be convincing. but the same reason you say is as convincing for the universal infallibility of the church. for (say you) unless she be infallible in all things, we cannot believe her in any one. but by this reason your proselytes, knowing you are not infallible in all things, must not, nor cannot believe you in any thing. nay you yourself must not believe yourself in any thing, because you know that you are not infallible in all things. indeed if you had said we could not rationally believe her for her own sake, and upon her own word and authority in any thing, i should willingly grant the consequence. for an authority subject to error can be no firm or stable foundation of my belief in any thing: and if it were in any thing, than this authority being one & the same in all proposals, i should have the same reason to believe all, that i have to believe one, and therefore must either do unreasonably, in believing any one thing, upon the sole warrant of this authority, or unreasonably in not believing all things equally warranted by it. let this therefore be granted; and what will come of it? why then, you say, we cannot believe her in propounding canonical books. if you mean still (as you must do unless you play the sophister) not upon her own authority, i grant it: for we believe canonical books not upon the authority of the present church, but upon universal tradition. if you mean, not at all, and that with reason we cannot believe these books to be canonical, which the church proposes, i deny it. there is no more consequence i●●he argument then in this, the devil is not infallible, therefore if he says there is one god, i cannot believe him. no geometritian is infallible in all things, therefore not in these things which the domonstrates. m. knot is not infallible in all things, therefore he may not believe that he wrote a book, entitled charity maintained. 37 but though the reply be good, protestants cannot make use of it, with any good coherence to this distinction, and some other doctrine of theirs: because they pretend to be able to tell, what points are fundamental and what not; and therefore though they should believe scripture erroneous in others, yet they might be sure it erred not in these. to this i answer. that if without dependence on scripture, they did know what were fundamental, and what not, they might possibly believe the scripture true in fundamentals, and erroneous in other things. but seeing they ground their belief, that such and such things only are fundamentals, only upon scripture, and go about to prove their assertion true, only by scripture, then must they suppose the scripture true absolutely and in all things, or else the scripture could not be a sufficient warrant to them, to believe this thing, that these only points are fundamental. for who would not laugh at them if they should argue thus, the scripture is true in something; the scripture says that these points only are fundamental, therefore this is true, that these only are so! for every freshman in logic knows that from mere particulars nothing can be certainly concluded. but on the other side, this reason is firm, and demonstrative, the scripture is true in all things; but the scripture says, that these only points are the fundamentals of christian religion, therefore it is true, that these only are so. so that the knowledge of fundamentals being itself drawn from scripture, is so far from warranting us to believe the scripture is, or may be in part true, and in part false; that itself can have no foundation, but the universal truth of scripture. for to be a fundamental truth, presupposes to be a truth; now i cannot know any doctrine to be a divine and supernatural truth, on a true part of christianity, but only because the scripture says so, which is all true: therefore, much more can i not know it, to be a fundamental truth. 33 ad §. 16. to this parag. i answer. though the church being not infallible, i cannot believe her in every thing she says, yet i can and must believe her in every thing she proves, either by scripture, reason, or universal tradition, be it fundamental, or be it not fundamental. this you say, we cannot, in points not fundamental, because in such we believe she may err. but this i know, we can: because though she may err in some things, yet she does not err in what she proves, though it be not fundamental. again you say, we cannot do it in fundamentals, because we must know what points be fundamental, before we go to learn of her. not so, but i must learn of the church, or of some part of the church, or i cannot know any thing fundamental or not fundamental. for how can i come to know, that there was such a man as christ, that he taught such doctrine, that he and his apostles did such miracles in confirmation of it, that the scripture is god's word, unless i be taught it. so then the church is, though not a certain foundation and proof of my faith, yet a necessary introduction to it. 39 but the churches infallible direction, extending only to fundamentals, unless i know them before i go to learn of her, i may be rather deluded then instructed by her. the reason and connexion of this consequence, i fear neither i nor you do well understand. and beside i must tell you, you are too bold in taking that which no man grants you, that the church is an infallible direction in fundamentals. for if she were so, then must we not only learn fundamentals of her, but also learn of her what is fundamental, and take all for fundamental which she delivers to be such. in the performance whereof, if i knew any one church to be infallible, i would quickly be of that church. but good sir, you must needs do us this favour, to be so acute, as to distinguish between, being infallible in fundamentals, and being an infallible guide in fundamentals. that she shall be always a church infallible in fundamentals, we easily grant; for it comes to no more but this, that there shall be always a church. but that there shall be always such a church, which is an infallible guide in fundamentals, this we deny. for this cannot be without settling a known infallibility in some one known society of christians, (as the greek or the roman, or some other church) by adhering to which guide, men might be guided to believe aright in all fundamentals. a man that were destitute of all means of communicating his thoughts to others, might yet in himself, and to himself be infallible, but he could not be a guide to others. a man or a church that were invisible, so that none could know how to repair to it for direction, could not be an infallible guide, and yet he might be in himself infallible. you see then there is a wide difference between these two, and therefore i must beseech you not to confound them, nor to take the one for the other. 40 but they that know what points are fundamental, otherwise then by the church's authority, learn not of the church: yes, they may learn of the church, that the scripture is the word of god, and from the scripture, that such points are fundamental, others are not so; and consequently learn, even of the church, even of your church, that all is not fundamental, nay all is not true, which the church teacheth to be so. neither do i see what hinders, but a man may learn of a church, how to confure the errors of that church which taught him: as well as of my master in physic, or the mathematics, i may learn those rules and principles, by which i may confute my master's erroneous conclusions. 41 but you ask, if the church be not an infallible teacher, why are we commanded to hear, to seek, to obey the church? i answer. for commands to seek the church, i have not yet met with any, and i believe you, if you were to show them, would be yourself to seek. but yet if you could produce some such, we might seek the church to many good purposes, without supposing her a guide infallible. and then for hearing and obeying the church, i would fain know, whether none may be heard and obeyed, but those that are infallible? whether particular churches, governors, pastors, parents, be not to be heard and obeyed? or whether all these be infallible? i wonder you will thrust upon us so often, these worn out-objections, without taking notice of their answers. 42 your argument from s. austine's first place, is a fallacy, adicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter. if the whole church practise any of these things (matters of order and decency, for such only there he speaks of,) to dispute whether that aught to be done, is insolent madness. and from hence you infer, if the whole church practise any thing, to dispute whether it ought to be done, is insolent madness. as if there were no difference between any thing, and any of these things? or as if i might not esteem it pride and folly, to contradict and disturb the church for matter of order, pertaining to the time and place, and other circumstances of god's worship; and yet account it neither pride nor folly, to go about to reform some errors, which the church hath suffered to come in, and to vitiate the very substance of god's worship. it was a practice of the whole church in s. austin's time, and esteemed an apostolic tradition, even by saint austin himself, that the eucharist should be administered to infants: tell me sir, i beseech you; had it been insolent madness to dispute against this practice, or had it not? if it had, how insolent and mad are yo●, that have not only disputed against it, but utterly abolished it? if it had not, then as i say, you must understand s. austin's words, not simply of all things, but (as indeed he himself restrained them) of these things, of matter of order, decency, and uniformity. 43 in the next place, you tell us out of him, that that which has been always kept, is most rightly esteemed to come from the apostles: very right, and what then? therefore the church cannot err in defining of controversies. sir i beseech you, when you write again, do us the favour to write nothing but syllogisms, for i find it still an extreme trouble, to find out the concealed propositions, which are to connect the parts of your enthymemes. as now for example, i profess unto you, i am at my wit's end, and have done my best endeavour, to find some glue, or sodder, or cement, or chain, or thread, or anything to tie this antecedent and this consequent together, and at length am enforced to give it over, and cannot do it. 44 but the doctrines, that infants are to be baptised, and those that are baptised by heretics, are not to be rebaptized, are neither of them to be proved by scripture: and yet according to s. austin they are true doctrines, and we may be certain of them upon the authority of the church, which we could not be, unless the church were infallible; therefore the church is infallible. i answer, that there is no repugnance but we may be certain enough, of the universal traditions of the ancient church, such as in s. austin's account, these were which here are spoken of, and yet not be certain enough, of the definitions of the present church. unless you can show (which i am sure you can never do) that the infallibility of the present church, was always a tradition of the ancient church. now your main business is to prove the present church infallible, not so much in consigning ancient traditions, as in defining emergent controversies. again, it follows not, because the church's authority, is warrant enough for us to believe some doctrine, touching which the scripture is silent, therefore it is warrant enough to believe these, to which the scripture seems repugnant. now the doctrines which s. austin received upon the church's authority, were of the first sort; the doctrines for which we deny your church's infallibility are of the second. and therefore though the church's authority, might be strong enough, to bear the weight which s. austin laid upon it, yet happily if may not be strong enough, to bear that which you lay upon it. though it may support some doctrines without scripture, yet surely not against it. and last of all, to deal ingeniously with you and the world, i am not such an idolater of s. austin, as to think a thing proved sufficiently because he says it, nor that all his sentences are oracles; and particularly in this thing, that whatsoever was practised or held by the universal church of his time, must needs have come from the apostles. though considering the nearness of his time to the apostles, i think it a good probable way, and therefore am apt enough to follow it, when i see no reason to the contrary. yet i profess i must have better satisfaction, before i can induce myself to hold it certain and infallible. and this, not because popery would come in at this door, as some have vainly feared, but because by the church universal of some time, and the church universal of other times, i see plain contradictions held and practised. both which could not come from the apostles, for then the apostles had been teachers of falsehood. and therefore the belief or practice of the present universal church, can be no infallible proof, that the doctrine so believed, or the custom so practised came from the apostles. i instance in the doctrine of the millenaries, and the eucharists necessity for infants: both which doctrines have been taught by the consent of the eminent fathers of some ages, without any opposition from any of their contemporaries: and were delivered by them, not as doctors, but as witnesses, not as their own opinions, but as apostolic traditions. and therefore measuring the doctrine of the church by all the rules which cardinal perron gives us for that purpose, both these doctrines must be acknowledged to have been the doctrines of the ancient church of some age, or ages; and that the contrary▪ doctrines were catholic at some other time, i believe you will not think it needful for me to prove. so that either i must say, the apostles were fountains of contradictious doctrines, or that being the universal doctrine of the present church, is no sufficient proof that it came originally from the apostles. besides, who can warrant us, that the universal traditions of the church were all apostolical? seeing in that famous place for traditions, in tertullian, a de corona militis c. 3. & 4. where having recounted sundry unwritten traditions then observed by christians, many whereof, by the way, (notwithstanding the council of trents profession, to receive them and the written word with like affection of piety) are now rejected and neglected by the church of rome: for example immersion in baptism; tasting a mixture of milk and honey presently after; abstaining from baths for a week after; accounting it an impiety to ●ray kneeling on the lord's day, or between easter and pentecost: i say, having reckoned up these and other traditions in the 3. chapt. he adds another in the fourth, of the veiling of women; and then adds, since i find no law for this, it follows that tradition must have given this observation to custom, which shall gain in time, apostolic authority by the interpretation of the reason it. by these examples therefore it is declared, that the observing of unwritten tradition, being confirmed by custom, may be defended. the perseverance of the observation being a good testimony of the goodness of the tradition. now custom even in civil affairs where a law is wanting, passes for a law. neither is it material whether it be grounded on scripture, or reason; seeing reason is commendation enough for a law. moreover if law be grounded on reason, all that must be law, which is so grounded— a quocanq productum— whosoever is the producer of it. do ye think it is not lawful, omni fideli, for every faithful man to conceive and constitute? provided he constitute only what is not repugnant to god's will, what is conducible for discipline and available to salvation? seeing the lord says, why even of ourselves, judge ye nor what is right? and a little after, this reason now demand▪ saving the respect of the tradition,— a quocunque traditore ce●se●ur, nec auctorem respiciens sed auctoritatem: from whatsoever tradition it comes; neither regard the author but the authority. quicunque traditor, any author whatsoever is founder good enough for them. and who can secure us, that humane inventions, and such as came à quocunque traditore, might not in a short time, gain the reputation of apostolic! seeing the direction than was, b hier. precepta ma●orum apostolicas traditiones quisque existimat. 45 no less you say is s. chrysost. for the infallible traditions of the church. but you were to prove the church infallible, not in her traditions (which we willingly grant, if they be as universal as the tradition of the undoubted books of scripture is, to be as infallible as the scripture is; for neither does being written make the word of god the more infallible, nor being unwritten make it the less infallible:) not therefore in her universal traditions, were you to prove the church infallible, but in all her decrees and definitions of controversies. to this point when you speak you shall have an answer, but hitherto you do but wander. 46 but let us see what s. chrysostom says, they (the apostles) delivered not all things in writing (who denies it?) but many things also without writing, (who doubts of it?) and these also are worthy of belief. yes, if we knew what they were. but many things are worthy of belief, which are not necessary to be believed: as that julius caesar was emperor of rome is a thing worthy of belief, being so well testified as it is, but yet it is not necessary to be believed; a man may be saved without it. those many works which our saviour did (which s. john supposes, would not have been contained in a world of books) if they had been written, or if god by some other means had preserved the knowledge of them, had been as worthy to be believed, and as necessary as those that are written. but to show you how much a more faith full keeper records are then report, those few that were written are preserved & believed, those infinitely more that were not written, are all lost and vanished out of the memory of men. and seeing god in his providence, hath not thought fit to preserve the memory of them, he hath freed us from the obligation of believing them: for every obligation ceases, when it becomes impossible. who can doubt but the primitive christians, to whom the epistles of the apostles were written, either of themselves understood, or were instructed by the apostles, touching the sense of the obscure places of them? these traditive interpretations, had they been written and dispersed, as the scriptures were, had without question been preserved, as the scriptures are. but to show how excellent a keeper of the tradition, the church of rome hath been, or even the catholic church▪ for want of writing they are all lost, nay were all lost, within a few ages after christ. so that if we consult the ancient interpreters, we shall hardly find any two of them agree about the sense of any one of them. cardinal perron, in his discourse of traditions, having alleged this place for them, hold the traditions etc. tells us we must not answer that s. paul speaks here, only of such traditions, which (though not in this epist. to the thess.) yet were afterwards written, and in other books of scripture: because it is upon occasion of tradition (touching the cause of the hindrance of the coming of antichrist,) which was never written, that he lays this injunction upon them, to hold the traditions. well, let us grant this argument good, and concluding; and that the church of the thessalonians, or the catholic church (for what s. paul writ to one church he writ to all,) were to hold some unwritten traditions, and among the rest, what was the cause of the hindrance of the coming of antichrist. but what if they did not perform their duty in this point, but suffered this tradition to be lost out of the memory of the church? shall we not conclude, that seeing god would not suffer any thing necessary to salvation to be lost, and he has suffered this tradition to be lost, therefore the knowledge or belief of it, though it were a profitable thing, yet it was not necessary? i hope you will not challenge such authority over us, as to oblige us to impossibilities, to do that which you cannot do yourselves. it is therefore requisite that you make this command possible to be obeyed, before you require obedience unto it. are you able then to instruct us so well; as to be fit to say unto us, now ye know what withholdeth? or do you yourselves know that ye may instruct us? can ye, or dare you say, this or this was this hindrance which s. paul here meant, and all men under pain of damnation are to believe it? or if you cannot, (as i am certain you cannot) go then, & vaunt your church, for the only watchful, faithful, infallible keeper of the apostles traditions; when here this very tradition, which here in particular was deposited with the thessalonians and the primitive church, you have utterly lost it, so that there is no footstep or print of it remaining, which with divine faith we may rely upon. blessed therefore be the goodness of god, who seeing that what was not written, was in such danger to be lost, took order, that what was necessary should be written! saint chrysostom's counsel therefore, of accounting the church's traditions worthy of belief, we are willing to obey: and if you can of any thing make it appear, that it is tradition, we will seek no farther. but this we say withal, that we are persuaded you cannot make this appear in any thing, but only the canon of scripture, and that there is nothing now extant, and to be known by us, which can put in so good plea, to be the unwritten word of god, as the unquestioned books of canonical scripture, to be the written word of god. 47 you conclude this parag. with a sentence of s. austin's who says, the church doth not approve, nor dissemble, nor do these things which are against faith or good life: and from hence you conclude, that it never hath done so, nor ever can do so. but though the argum●●● hold in logic à non posse, ad non esse, yet i never heard, that it would hold back again, à no nesse, ad non posse. the church cannot do this, therefore it does it not, follows with good consequence: but the church does not this, therefore it shall never do it, nor can never do it, this i believe will hardly follow. in the epistle next before to the same januarius, writing of the same matter, he hath these words, it remains that the things you inquire of, must be of that third kind of things, which are different in diverse places. let every one therefore do, that which he finds done in the church to which he comes, for none of them is against faith or good manners. and why do you not infer from hence, that no particular church can bring up any custom that is against faith or good manners? certainly this consequence has as good reason for it as the former. if a man say of the church of england, (what s. austin of the church) that she neither approves, nor dissembles, nor does any thing against faith or good manners, would you collect presently, that this man did either make or think the church of england infallible? furthermore, it is observable out of this, and the former epistle, that this church which did not (as s. austin according to you, thought) approve or dissemble, or do any thing against faith or good life, did yet tolerate and dissemble vain superstitions, and humane presumptions, and suffer all places to be full of them, and to be exacted, as, nay more severely than the commandments of god himself. this s. austin himself professeth in this very epistle. this (saith he) i do infinitely grieve at, that many most wholesome precepts of the divine scripture, are little regarded; and in the mean time, all is so full of so many presumptions, that he is more grievously found fault with, who during his octaves, toucheth the earth with his naked foot, than he that shall bury his soul in drunkenness. of these he says, that they were neither contained in scripture, decreed by counsels, nor corroborated by the custom of the universal church. and though not against faith, yet unprofitable burdens of christian liberty; which made the condition of the jews more tolerable than that of christians. and therefore he professes of them, approbare non possum, i cannot approve them. and ubi facult as tribuitur, resecanda existimo, i think they are to be cut off, wheresoever we have power. yet so deeply were they rooted, and spread so far, through the indiscreet devotion of the people, always more prone to superstition then true piety, and through the connivance of the governors, who should have strangled them at their birth, that himself, though he grieved at them, and could not allow them, yet for fear of offence he durst not speak against them, multa hujusmodi propter nonnu●arū vel sanctarum vel turbulentarum personarum scandala devitanda liberius improbare no● audeo. many of these things for fear of scandalising many holy persons, or provoking those that are turbulent, i dare not freely disallow. nay, the catholic church itself, did see and dissemble, and tolerate them; for these are the things of which he presently says after, the church of god (and you will have him speak of the true catholic church) placed between chaff & tares, tolerates many things. which was directly against the command of the holy spirit, given the church by s. paul; to stand fast in that liberty wherewith christ hath made her free, and not to suffer herself to be brought in bondage to these servile burdens. our saviour tells the scribes and pharisees, that in vain they worshipped god, teaching for doctrines men's commandments: for that laying aside the commandments of god, they held the traditions of men, as the washing of pots, and cups, and many other such like things. certainly that which s. austin complains of, as the general fault of christians of his time, was parallel to this: multa (saith he) quae in divinis libris saluberrima praecepta sunt, minus curantur; this i suppose i may very well render in our saviour's words, the commandments of god are laid aside; and then; tam multis presumptionibus sic plena sunt omnia, all things, or all places, are so full of so many presumptions, and those exacted with such severity, nay with tyranny, that he was more severely censured, who in the time of his octaves touched the earth with his naked feet, than he which drowned and buried his soul in drink. certainly, if this be not to teach for doctrines men's commandments, i know not what is. and therefore these superstitious christians might be said, to worship god in vain, as well as scribes and phrases. and yet great variety of superstitions of this kind, were then already spread over the church, being different in diverse places. this is plain from these words of s. austin of them, diversorum locorum diversis moribus innumerabiliter variantur; and apparent, because the stream of them was grown so violent, that he durst not opopose it, liberiùs improbare non aude●, i dare not freely speak against them. so that to say, the catholic church tolerated all this, and for fear of offence, durst not abrogate or condemn it, is to say (if we judge rightly of it) that the church with silence and connivance generally tolerated christians to worship god in vain. now how this tolerating of universal superstition in the church, can consist with the assistance and direction of god's omnipotent spirit to guard it from superstition, & with the accomplishment of that pretended prophecy of the church, i have set watchmen upon thy walls, o jerusalem, which shall never hold their peace day nor night; besides how these superstitions being thus noutished, cherished, and strengthened by the practice of the most, and urged with great violence upon others as the commandments of god, and but fearfully opposed or contradicted by any, might in time take such deep root, and spread their branches so far, as to pass for universal customs of the church, he that does not see, sees nothing. especially, considering the catching and contagious nature of this sin, and how fast ill weeds spread, and how true and experimented that rule is of the historian, exempla non consistunt ubi incipiunt, sed quamlib●t in tenuem recepta tramitem latissimè evagandi sibi faciunt potestatem. nay that some such superstition had not already even in s. augustine's time, prevailed so far, as to be cons●etudine universae ecclesiae roboratum, who can doubt that considers, that the practice of communicating infants, had even then got the credit, and authority, not only of an universal custom, but also of an apostolic tradition. 48 but (you will say) notwithstanding all this, s. austin here warrants us, that the church can never either approve or dissemble or practise any thing against faith or goodlife, and so long you may rest securely upon it. yea, but the same s. austin tells us in the same place, that the church may tolerate humane presumptions, and vain superstitions, and those urged more severely than the commandments of god: and whether superstition be a sin or no, i appeal to our saviour's words before cited, and to the consent of your schoolmen. besides if we consider it rightly, we shall find, that the church is not truly said only to tolerate these things, but rather, that a part and far the lesser, tolerated and dissembled them in silence, and a part, & a far greater publicly vowed and practised them, and urged them upon others with great violence, and that continued still a part of the church. now why the whole church might not continue the church, and yet do so, as well as a part of the church might continue a part of it, and yet do so, i desire you to inform me. 49 but now after all this ado, what if s. austin says not this which is pretended of the church, viz. that she neither approves, nor dissembles, nor practices any thing against faith or good life, but only of good men in the church? certainly, though some copies read as you would have it, yet you should not have dissembled, that others read the place otherwise. viz. ecclesia multa tolerat, & tamen quae sunt contra fidem & bonam vitam, nec bonus approbat, etc. the church tolerates many things; and yet what is against faith or good life, a good man will neither approve, nor dissemble, nor practise. 50 ad § 17. that abraham begat isaac, is a point very far from being fundamental; and yet i hope you will grant, that protestants believing scripture to be the word of god, may be certain enough of the truth and certainty of it. for what if they say that the catholic church, and much more themselves may possibly err in some unfundamentall points, is it therefore consequent, they can be certain of none such? what if a wiser man than i may mistake the sense of some obscure place of aristotle, may i not therefore without any arrogance or inconsequence, conceive myself certain that i understand him in some plain places, which carry their sense before them? and then for points fundamental, to what purpose do you say, that we must first know what they be, before we can be assured that we cannot err in understanding the scripture; when we pretend not at all to any assurance that we cannot err, but only to a sufficient certainty, that we do not err, but rightly understand those things that are plain, whether fundamental or not fundamental? that god is, and is a rewarder of them that seek him: that there is no salvation but by faith in christ: that by repentance and faith in christ remission of sins may be obtained: that there shall be a resurrection of the body: these we conceive both true, because the scripture says so, and truth's fundamental, because they are necessary parts of the gospel, whereof our saviour says, qui non crediderit, damnabitur. all which we either learn from scripture immediately, or learn of those that learn it of scripture, so that neither learned nor unlearned pretend to know these things independently of scripture. and therefore in imputing this to us, you cannot excuse yourself from having done us a palpable injury. 51 ad § 18. and i urge you as mainly as you urge d. potter & other protestants, that you tell us that all the traditions, and all the definitions of the church are fundamental points, & we cannot wrest from you a list in particular of all such traditions and definitions; without which, no man can tell whether or no he err in points fundamental, and be capable of salvation; (for i hope erring in our fundamentals is no more exclusive of salvation than erring in yours.) and which is most lamentable, instead of giving us such a catalogue, you also fall to wrangle among yourselves about the making of it; some of you, as i have said above, holding somethings to be matters of faith, which others deny to be so. 52 ad § 19 i answ. that these differences between protestants, concerning errors damnable and not damnable, truth's fundamental and not fundamental, may be easily reconciled. for either the error they speak of may be purely and simply involuntary, or it may be in respect of the cause of it voluntary. if the cause of it be some voluntary and avoidable fault, the error is itself sinful, and consequently in its own nature damnable; as if by negligence in seeking the truth, by unwillingness to find it, by pride, by obstinacy, by desiring that religion should be true which suits best with my ends, by fear of men's ill opinion, or any other worldly fear, or any other worldly hope, i betray myself to any error contrary to any divine revealed truth, that error may be justly styled a sin, and consequently of itself to such a one damnable. but if i be guilty of none of these faults, but be desirous to know the truth, and diligent in seeking it, and advise not at all with flesh & blood about the choice of my opinions, but only with god, & that reason that he hath given me, if i be thus qualified, and yet through humane infirmity fall into error, that error cannot be damnable. again, the party erring may be conceived either to dye with contrition for all his sins known and unknown, or without it; if he die without it, this error in itself damnable, will be likewise so unto him: if he die with contrition (as his error can be no impediment but he may) his error though in itself damnable, to him according to your doctrine, will not prove so. and therefore some of those authors whom you quote, speaking of errors whereunto men were betrayed, or wherein they were kept by their fault, or vice, or passion (as for the most part men are:) others speaking of them, as errors simply and purely involuntary, and the effects of humane infirmity; some as they were retracted by contrition (to use your own phrase) others, as they were not, no marvel though they have passed upon them, some a heavier, & some a milder, some an absolving, & some a condemning sentence. the best of all these errors, which here you mention, having malice enough too frequently mixed with it, to sink a man deep enough into hell: and the greatest of them all, being according to your principles, either no fault at all, or very venial, where there is no malice of the will conjoined with it. and if it be, yet as the most malignant poison, will not poison him that receives with it a more powerful antidote: so i am confident your own doctrine will force you to confess, that whosoever dies with faith in christ, and contrition for all sins known and unknown (in which heap all his sinful errors must be comprised,) can no more be hurt by any the most malignant and pestilent error, then s. paul by the viper which he shook of into the fire. now touching the necessity of repentance from dead works, and faith in christ jesus the son of god, and saviour of the world, they all agree; and therefore you cannot deny, but they agree about all that is simply necessary. moreover, though, if they should go about to choose out of scripture all these propositions & doctrines which integrate and make up the body of christian religion, peradventure there would not be so exact agreement amongst them, as some say there was between the 70. interpreters, in translating the old testament; yet thus far without controversy they do all agree, that in the bible all these things are contained, and therefore, that whosoever does truly and sincerely believe the scripture, must of necessity either in hypothesi, or at least in thesi, either formally, or at least virtually, either explicitly, or at least implicitly, either in act or at least in preparation of mind, believe all things fundamental: it being not fundamental, nor required of almighty god, to believe the true sense of scripture in all places, but only that we should endeavour to do so, & be prepared in mind to do so, whensoever it shall be sufficiently propounded to us. suppose a man in some disease were prescribed a medicine consisting of twenty ingredients, and he advising with physicians should find them differing in opinion about it, some of them telling him, that all the ingredients were absolutely necessary; some, that only some of them were necessary, the rest only profitable, and requisite ad melius esse, lastly some, that some only were necessary, some profitable, and the rest superfluous, yet not hurtful; yet all with one accord agreeing in this, that the whole receipt had in it all things necessary for the recovery of his health, and that if he made use of it, he should infallibly find it successful: what wise man would not think they agreed sufficiently for his direction to the recovery of his health? lust so, these protestant doctors, with whose discords you make such tragedies, agreeing in thesi thus far, that the scripture evidently contains all things necessary to salvation, both for matter of faith and of practice, and that whosoever believes it, and endeavours to find the true sense of it, and to conform his life unto it, shall certainly perform all things necessary to salvation, and undoubtedly be saved; agreeing i say thus far, what matters it for the direction of men to salvation, though they differ in opinion, touching what points are absolutely necessary, and what not? what errors absolutely repugnant to salvation, and what not? especially considering that although they differ about the question of the necessity of these truths, yet for the most part they agree in this that truths they are, and profitable at least, though not simply necessary. and though they differ in the question, whether the contrary errors be destructive of salvation, or no, yet in this they consent, that errors they are, & hurtful to religion, though not destructive of salvation. now that which god requires of us is this; that we should believe the doctrines of the gospel to be truths, not all, necessary truths, for all are not so, and consequently, the repugnant errors to be falsehoods; yet not all such falsehoods, as unavoidably draw with them damnation upon all that hold them, for all do not so. 53 yea but you say, it is very requisite we should agree upon a particular catalogue of fundamental points, for without such a catalogue, no man can be assured whether or no, he hath faith sufficient to salvation. this i utterly deny as a thing evidently false, and i wonder you should content yourself magisterially to say so, without offering any proof of it. i might much more justly, think it enough barely to deny it, without refutation, but i will not. thus therefore i argue against it. without being able to make a catalogue of fundamentals, i may be assured of the truth of this assertion, if it be true, that the scripture contains all necessary points of faith, and know that i believe explicitly all that is expressed in scripture, and implicitly all that is contained in them: now he that believes all this, must of necessity believe all things necessary; therefore without being able to make a catalogue of fundamentals, i may be assured that i believe all things necessary, and consequently that my faith is sufficient. i said, of the truth of this assertion, if it be true: because i will not here enter into the question of the truth of it, it being sufficient for my present purpose, that it may be true, and may be believed without any dependence upon a catalogue of fundamentals. and therefore if this be all your reason, to demand a particular catalogue of fundamentals, we cannot but think your demand unreasonable. especially having yourself expressed the cause of the difficulty of it, and that is, because scripture doth deliver divine truths, but seldom qualifies them, or declares whether they be or be not absolutely necessary to salvation. yet not so seldom, but that out of it i could give you an abstract of the essential part of christianity, if it were necessary, but i have showed it not so, by confuting your reason, pretended for the necessity of it, & at this time i have no leisure to do you courtesies that are so troublesome to myself. yet thus much i will promise, that when you deliver a particular catalogue of your church proposals with one hand, you shall receive a particular catalogue of what i conceive fundamental, with the other. for as yet, i see no such fair proceeding as you talk of, nor any performance on your own part of that which so clamorously you require on ours. for as for the catalogue which he●e you have given us, in saying. you are obliged under pain of damnation to believe whatsoever the catholic visible church of christ proposeth as revealed by almighty god, it is like a covey of one patridg, or a flock of one sheep, or a fleet composed of one ship, or an army of one man. the author of charity mistaken, demands a particular catalogue of fundamental points; and we (say you) again and again demand such a catalogue. and surely, if this one proposition, which here you think to stop our mouths with, be a catalogue, yet at least such a catalogue it is not, and therefore as yet you have not performed what you require. for if to set down such a proposition, wherein are comprised all points taught by us to be necessary to salvation, will serve you instead of a catalogue, you shall have catalogues enough. as, we are obliged to believe all under pain of damnation which god commands us to believe. there's one catalogue. we are obliged under pain of damnation, to believe all, whereof we may be sufficiently assured, that christ taught it his apostles, his apostles the church. there's another. we are obliged under pain of damnation to believe god's word, & all contained in it to be true. there's a third. if these generalities will not satisfy you, but you will be importuning us to tell you in particular, what they are which christ taught his apostles, and his apostles the church, what points are contained in god's word; then i beseech you do us reason, and give us a particular and exact inventory of all your church proposals, without leaving out, or adding any, such a one which all the doctors of your church will subscribe to, & if you receive not then a catalogue of fundamentals, i for my part will give you leave to proclaim us bankrupts. 54 besides this deceitful generality of your catalogue (as you call it,) another main fault we find with it, that it is extremely ambiguous; and therefore to draw you out of the clouds, give me leave to propose some questions to you concerning it. i would know therefore, whether by believing, you mean explicitly or implicitly? if you mean implicitly, i would know whether your church's infallibility be under pain of damnation to be believed explicitly, or no? whether any other point or points besides this, be under the same penalty, to be believed explicitly, or no? and if any, what they be? i would know what you esteem the proposals of the catholic visible church? in particular, whether the decree of a pope ex cathedra, that is, with an intent to oblige all christians by it, be a sufficient and an obliging proposal? whether men without danger of damnation may examine such a decree, and if they think they have just cause, refuse to obey it? whether the decree of a council, without the pope's confirmation, be such an obliging proposal, or no? whether it be so in case there be no pope, or in case it be doubtful who is pope? whether the decree of a general council confirmed by the pope, be such a proposal, and whether he be an heretic that thinks otherwise? whether the decree of a particular council confirmed by the pope, be such a proposal? whether the general uncondemned practice of the church for some ages be such a sufficient proposition? whether the consent of the most eminent fathers of any age, agreeing in the affirmation of any doctrine, not contradicted by any of their contemporaries, be a sufficient proposition? whether the father's testifying such or such a doctrine or practice to be tradition, or to be the doctrine or practice of the church, be a sufficient assurance that it is so? whether we be bound under pain of damnation, to believe every text of the vulgar bible, now authorised by the roman church, to be the true translation of the originals of the prophets, and evangelists, and apostles, without any the least alteration? whether they that lived when the bible of sixtus was set forth, were bound under pain of damnation to believe the same of that? and if not of that, of what bible they were bound to believe it? whether the catholic visible church be always that society of christians which adheres to the bishop of rome? whether every christian, that hath ability and opportunity, be not bound to endeavour to know explicitly the proposals of the church? whether implicit faith in the church's veracity, will not save him that actually and explicitly disbelieves some doctrine of the church, not knowing it to be so; and actually believes some damnable heresy, as that god has the shape of a man? whether an ignorant man be bound to believe any point to be decreed by the church, when his priest or ghostly father assures him it is so? whether his ghostly father may not err in telling him so, and whether any man can be obliged under pain of damnation, to believe an error? whether he be bound to believe such a thing defined, when a number of priests, perhaps ten or twenty tell him it is so? and what assurance he can have, that they neither err, nor deceive him in this matter? why implicit faith in christ, or the scriptures should not suffice for a man's salvation, as well as implicit faith in the church? whether when you say, whatsoever the church proposeth, you mean all that ever she proposed, or that only which she now proposeth; and whether she now proposeth all that ever she did propose? whether all the books of canonical scripture were sufficiently declared to the church to be so, and proposed as such by the apostles? and if not, from whom the church had this declaration afterwards? if so, whether all men ever since the apostles time, were bound under pain of damnation to believe the epistle of s. james, and the epistle to the hebrews to be canonical; at least, not to disbelieve it, & believe the contrary? lastly, why it is not sufficient for any man's salvation to use the best means he can to inform his conscience, and to follow the direction of it? to all these demands when you have given fair and ingenuous answers, you shall hear further from me. 55 ad § 20. at the first entrance into this parag. from our own doctrine, that the church cannot err in points necessary, it is concluded if we are wise, we must for sake it is nothing, lest we should for sake it in something necessary. to which i answer, first, that the supposition as you understand it, is falsely imposed upon us, and as we understand it will do you no service. for when we say, that there shall be a church always, some where or other, unerring in fundamentals, our meaning is but this, that there shall be always a church, to the very being whereof it is repugnant that it should err in fundamentals; for if it should do so, it would want the very essence of a church, and therefore cease to be a church. but we never annexed this privilege to any one church of any one denomination, as the greek or the roman church: which if we had done, and set up some settled certain society of christians, distinguishable from all others by adhering to such a bishop for our guide in fundamentals, than indeed, and then only might you with some colour, though with no certainty, have concluded that we could not in wisdom, forsake this church in any point, for fear of forsaking it in a necessary point. but now that we say not this of any one determinate church, which alone can perform the office of guide or director, but indefinitely of the church, meaning no more but this, that there shall be always in some place or other, some church that errs not in fundamentals; will you conclude from hence, that we cannot in wisdom forsake this or that, the roman or the greek church, for fear of erring in fundamentals? 56 yea, but you may say (for i will make the best i can of all your arguments,) that this church thus unerring in fundamentals, when luther arose, was by our confession the roman; and therefore we ought not in wisdom to have departed from it in any thing. i answer: first, that we confess no such thing, that the church of rome was then this church, but only a part of it, and that the most corrupted and most incorrigible. secondly, that if by adhering to the church, we could have been thus far secured, this argument had some show of reason. but seeing we are not warranted thus much by any privilege of that church, that she cannot err fundamentally, but only from scripture, which assures us that she doth err very heinous▪ collect our hope, that the truths she retains & the practice of them, may prove an antidote to her, against the errors which she maintains in such persons, as in simplicity of heart follow this absalon; we should then do against the light of our conscience, and so sin damnably if we should not abandon the profession of her errors though not fundamental. neither can we thus conclude, we may safely hold with the church of rome in all her points, for she cannot err damnably; for this is false, she may, though perhaps she does not: but rather thus, these points of christianity, which have in them the nature of antidotes against the poison of all sins and errors, the church of rome, though otherwise much corrupted, still retains; therefore we hope she errs not fundamentally, but still remains a part of the church. but this can be no warrant to us to think with her in all things: seeing the very same scripture, which puts us in hope she errs not fundamentally, assures us that in many things, and those of great moment she errs very grievously. and these errors though to them that believe them, we hope they will not be pernicious, yet the professing of them against conscience, could not but bring to us certain damnation. as for the fear of departing from some fundamental truths withal, while we depart from her errors, happily it might work upon us, if adhering to her might secure us from it, and if nothing else could: but both these are false. for first, adhering to her in all things cannot secure us from erring in fundamentals: because though de facto we hope she does not err, yet we know no privileges she has but she may err in them herself: and therefore we had need have better security hereof then her bare authority. then secondly, without dependence on her at all, we may be secured that we do not err fundamentally; i mean by believing all those things plainly set down in scripture, wherein all things necessary, and most things profitable are plainly delivered. suppose i were travelling to london, and knew two ways thither, the one very safe and convenient, the other very inconvenient, and dangerous, but yet a way to london: and that i overtook a passenger on the way, who himself believed, and would fain persuade me, there was no other way but the worse, and would persuade me to accompany him in it, because i confessed his way, though very inconvenient, yet a way; so that going that way we could not fail of our journey's end, by the consent of both parties: but he believed, my way to be none at all; & therefore i might justly fear, lest out of a desire of leaving the worst way, i left the true, and the only way: if now i should not be more secure upon my own knowledge, then frighted by this fallacy, would you not beg me for a fool? just so might you think of us, if we would be frighted out of our own knowledge by this bugbear. for the only & the main reason why we believe you not to err in fundamentals, is your holding the doctrines of faith in christ and repentance: which knowing we hold as well as you, notwithstanding our departure from you, we must needs know that we do not err in fundamentals, as well as we know that you do not err in some fundamentals, & therefore cannot possibly fear the contrary. yet let us be more liberal to you, and grant that which can never be proved, that god had said in plain terms, the church of rome shall never destroy the foundation, but with all had said, that it might and would lay much hay and stubble upon it; that you should never hold any error destructive of salvation, but yet many that were prejudicial to edification: i demand, might we have dispensed with ourselves in the believing and professing these errors in regard of the smallness of them? or had it not been a damnable sin to do so, though the errors in themselves were not damnable? had we not had as plain direction to depart from you in some things profitable, as to adhere to you in things necessary? in the beginning of your book, when it was for your purpose to have it so, the greatness or smallness of the matter was not considerable, the evidence of the revelation was all in all. but here we must err with you in small things, for fear of losing your direction in greater: and for fear of departing too far from you, not go from you at all, even where we see plainly that you have departed from the truth. 57 beyond all this, i say, that this which you say in wisdom we are to do, is not only unlawful, but, if we will proceed according to reason, impossible. i mean to adhere to you in all things, having no other ground for it, but because you are (as we will now suppose) infallible in some things, that is, in fundamentals. for, whether by skill in architecture a large structure may be supported by a narrow foundation, i know not▪ but sure i am, in reason, no conclusion can be larger than the principles on which it is founded. and therefore if i consider what i do, and be persuaded, that your infallibility, is but limited, and particular, and partial, my adherence upon this ground, cannot possibly be absolute and universal and totall. i am confident, that should i meet with such a man amongst you (as i am well assured there be many) that would grant your church infallible only in fundamentals, which what they are he knows not, and therefore upon this only reason adheres to you in all things: i say that i am confident, that it may be demonstrated, that such a man adheres to you, with a fiducial and certain assent in nothing. to make this clear (because at the first hearing it may seem strange) give me leave, good sir, to suppose you the man, and to propose to you a few questions, and to give for you such answers to them, as upon this ground you must of necessity give, were you present with me. first, supposing you hold your church infallible in fundamentals, obnoxious to error in other things, and that you know not what points are fundamental, i demand, c. why do you believe the doctrine of transubstantiation? k. because the church hath taught it, which is infallible. c. what? infallible in all things, or only in fundamentals? k. in fundamentals only. c. then in other points she may err? k. she may. c. and do you know what points are fundamental, what not? k. no, and therefore i believe her in all things, lest i should disbelieve her in fundamentals. c. how know you then, whether this be a fundamental point or no? k. i know not. c. it may be then (for aught you know) an unfundamentall point? k. yes, it may be so. c. and in these you said the church may err? k. yes i did so. c. then possibly it may err in this? k. it may do so. c. then what certainty have you, that it does not err in it? k. none at all, but upon this supposition, that this is a fundamental. c. and this supposition you are uncertain of? k. yes, i told you so before. c. and therefore, you can have no certainty of that, which depends upon this uncertainty, saving only a suppositive certainty, if it be a fundamental truth, which is in plain english to say, you are certain it is true, if it be both true and neccessary. verily sir, if you have no better faith than this, you are no catholic. k. good words i pray! i am so, and god willing will be so. c. you mean, in outward profession and practice, but in belief you are not, no more than a protestant is a catholic. for every protestant yields such a kind of assent to all the proposals of the church, for surely they believe them true, if they be fundamental truths. and therefore you must either believe the church infallible in all her proposals, be they foundations, or be they superstructions, or else you must believe all fundamental which she proposes, or else you are no catholic. k. but i have been taught, that seeing i believed the church infallible in points necessary, in wisdom i was to believe her in every thing. c. that was a pretty plausible inducement, to bring you hither, but now you are here, you must go farther, and believe her infallible in all things, or else you were as good go back again, which will be a great disparagement to you, and draw upon you both the bitter and implacable hatred of our part, and even with your own, the imputation of rashness and levity. you see, i hope, by this time, that though a man did believe your church infallible in fundamentals, yet he has no reason to do you the courtesy, of believing all her proposals; nay if he be ignorant what these fundamentals are, he has no certain ground to believe her, upon her authority in any thing. and whereas you say, it can be no imprudence to err with the church; i say, it may be very great imprudence, if the question be, whether we should err with the present church, or hold true with god almighty. 58 but we are under pain of damnation to believe and obey her in greater things, and therefore cannot in wisdom suspect her credit in matters of less moment, ans. i have told you already, that this is falsely to suppose, that we grant that in some certain points, some certain church is infallibly assisted, and under pain of damnation to be obeyed: whereas all that we say is this, that in some place or other, some church there shall be, which shall retain all necessary truths. yet if your supposition were true, i would not grant your conclusion, but with this exception, unless the matter were past suspicion, and apparently certain, that in these things, i cannot believe god, and believe the church. for than i hope you will grant, that be the thing of never so little moment, were if, for instance, but that s. paul left his cloak at troas, yet i were not to gratify the church so far, as for her sake to disbelieve what god himself has revealed. 59 whereas you say, since we are undoubtedly obliged to believe her in fundamentals, and cannot know precisely, what those fundamentals be, we cannot without hazard of our souls leave her in any point; i ans. first, that this argument proceeds upon the same false ground with the former. and then, that i have told you formerly, that you fear where no fear is; and though we know not precisely, just how much is fundamental, yet we know, that the scripture contains all fundamentals and more too; and therefore that in believing that, we believe all fundamentals and more too. and consequently in departing from you, can be in no danger of departing from that which may prove a fundamental truth: for we are well assured that certain errors can never prove fundamental truths. 60 whereas you add, that that visible church which cannot err in fundamental, propounds all her definitions without distinction to be believed under anathemas: ans. again you beg the question, supposing untruly, that there is, any that visible church, i mean any visible church of one denomination, which cannot err in points fundamental. secondly, proposing definitions to be believed under anathemas, is no good argument, that the propounders conceive themselves infallible; but only, that they conceive the doctrine they condemn is evidently damnable. a plain proof hereof is this, that particular counsels, nay particular men, have been very liberal of their anathemas, which yet were never conceived infallible, either by others or themselves. if any man should now deny christ to be the saviour of the world, or deny the resurrection, i should make no great scruple of anathematising his doctrine, and yet am very far from dreaming of infallibility. 61 and for the visible churches holding it a point necessary to salvation, that we believe she cannot err, i know no such tenet; unless by the church, you mean the roman church, which you have as much reason to do, as that petty king in afric hath, to think him-himself king of all the world. and therefore your telling us, if she speak true, what danger is it not to believe her? and if false, that it is not dangerous to believe her, is somewhat like your pope's setting your lawyers to dispute whether constantine's donation were valid or no; whereas the matter of fact was the far greater question, whether there were any such donation, or rather when without question there was none such. that you may not seem to delude us in like manner, make it appear, that the visible church doth hold so as you pretend: and then whether it be true or false, we will consider afterwards. but for the present, with this invisible tenet of the visible church, we will trouble ourselves no farther. 62 the effect of the next argument is this, i cannot without grievous sin disobey the church, unless i know she commands those things which are not in her power to command: and how far this power extends, none can better inform me then the church. therefore i am to obey, so far as the church requires my obedience. i answer, first, that neither hath the catholic church, but only a corrupt part of it declared herself, nor required our obedience, in the points contested among us. this therefore is falsely, and vainly supposed here by you, being one of the greatest questions amongst us. then secondly, that god can better inform us, what are the limits of the church's power, than the church herself, that is, than the roman clergy, who being men subject to the same passions with other men, why they should be thought the best judges in their own cause, i do not well understand! but yet we oppose against them, no humane decisive judges, not any sect or person, but only god and his word. and therefore it is in vain to say, that in following her, you shall be sooner excused, then in following any sect or man applying scriptures against her doctrine: in as much as we never went about to arrogate to ourselves that infallibility or absolute authority, which we take away from you. but if you would have spoken to the purpose, you should have said, that in following her you should sooner have been excused, then in cleaving to the scripture, and to god himself. 63 whereas you say, the fearful examples of innumerable persons, who forsaking the church, upon pretence of her errors, have failed even in fundamental points, aught to deter all christians from opposing her in any one doctrine or practice; this is, just as if you should say, diverse men have fallen into scylla, with going too far from charybdis, be sure therefore ye keep close to charybdis: diverse leaving prodigality, have fallen into covetousness, therefore be you constant to prodigality; many have fallen from worshipping god perversely and foolishly, not to worship him at all, from worshipping many gods, to worshipping none; this therefore aught to deter men, from leaving superstition or idolatry, for fear of falling into atheism and impiety. this is your counsel and sophistry: but god says clean contrary; take heed you swerve not, either to the right hand or to the left: you must not do evil that good may come thereon; therefore neither that you may avoid a greater evil, you must not be obstinate in a certain error, for fear of an uncertain. what if some, forsaking the church of rome, have forsaken fundamental truths? was this because they forsook the church of rome? no sure, this is causa pro non causa: for else all that have forsaken that church should have done so, which we say they have not. but because they went too far from her, the golden mean, the narrow way is hard to be found, and hard to be kept; hard, but not impossible: hard, but yet you must not please yourself out of it, though you err on the right hand, though you offend on the milder part, for this is the only way that leads to life, and few there be that find it. it is true if we said, there were no danger in being of the roman church, and there were danger in leaving it, it were madness to persuade any man to leave it. but we protest and proclaim the contrary, and that we have very little hope of their salvation, who either out of negligence in seeking the truth, or unwillingness to find it, live and dye in the errors and impieties of that church: and therefore cannot but conceive those fears to be most foolish, and ridiculous, which persuade men to be constant in one way to hell, least happily if they leave it, they should fall into another. 64 but, not only others, but even protestants themselves, whose example ought most to move us, pretending to reform the church are come to affirm that she perished for many ages: which d. potter cannot deny to be a fundamental error, against the article of the creed, i believe the catholic church, seeing he affirms, the donatists erred fundamentally in confining it to africa. to this i answer, first, that the error of the donatists was not, that they held it possible that some, or many, or most parts of christendom, might fall away from christianity, and that the church may lose much of her amplitude, and be contracted to a narrow compass in comparison of her former extent: which is proved not only possible but certain, by irrefragable experience. for who knows not, that gentilism, and mahumetism, man's wickedness deserving it, and god's providence permitting it, have prevailed, to the utter extirpation of christianity, upon far the greater part of the world? and s. austin when he was out of the heat of disputation, confesses the militant church to be like the moon, sometimes increasing, and sometimes decreasing. this therefore was no error in the donatists, that they held it possible, that the church, from a larger extent, might be contracted to a lesser: nor that they held it possible to be reduced to africa; (for why not to afric then, as well as within these few ages, you pretend it was to europe? but their error was, that they held the facto, this was done when they had no just ground or reason to do so: and so upon a vain pretence which they could not justify, separated themselves from the communion of all other parts of the church: and that they required it as a necessary condition to make a man a member of the church, that he should be of their communion, and divide himself from all other communions from which they were divided: which was a condition both unnecessary and unlawful to be required, and therefore the exacting of it was directly opposite to the church's catholicism▪ in the very same nature with their errors who required circumcision, and the keeping of the law of moses as necessary to salvation. for whosoever requires harder or heavier conditions of men, than god requires of them, he it is that is properly an enemy of the church's universality, by hindering either men or countries from adjoining themselves to it; which, were it not for these unnecessary and therefore unlawful conditions, in probability would have made them members of it. and seeing the present church of rome persuades men they were as good (for any hope of salvation they have) not to be christians as not to be roman catholics, believe nothing at all, as not believe all which they impose upon them: be absolutely out of the church's communion, as be out of their communion, or be in any other, whether they be not guilty of the same crime, with the donatists & those zelots' of the mosaical law, i leave it to the judgement of those that understand reason! this is sufficient to show the vanity of this argument. but i add moreover, that you neither have named those protestants who held the church to have perished for many ages; who perhaps held not the destruction but the corruption of the church; not that the true church, but that the pure church perished: or rather that the church perished not from its life and existence, but from its purity and integrity, or perhaps from its splendour and visibility. neither have you proved by any one reason, but only affirmed it, to be a fundamental error, to hold, that the church militant may possibly be driven out of the world, and abolished for a time from the face of the earth. 65 but to accuse the church of any error in faith, is to say, she lost all faith: for this is the doctrine of catholic divines, that one error in faith destroys faith. to which i answer, that to accuse the church of some error in faith, is not to say she lost all faith: for this is not the doctrine of catholic divines; but that he which is an heretic in one article, may have true faith of other articles. and the contrary is only said and not showed in charity mistaken. 66 ad § 21. d. potter says, we may not depart from the church absolutely, and in all things: and from hence you conclude: therefore we may not depart from it in any thing. and this argument you call a demonstration. but a fallacy, à dicto simpliciter ad dictum secundum quid, was not used heretofore to be called a demonstration. d. potter says not, that you may not depart from any opinion or any practice of the church: for you tell us in this very place, that he says, even the catholic may err: and every man may lawfully depart from error. he only says, you may not cease to be of the church, nor depart from those things which make it so to be; and from hence you infer a necessity of forsaking it in nothing. just as if you should argue thus: you may not leave your friend or brother, therefore you may not leave the vice of your friend, or the error of your brother. what he says of the catholic church, p. 75. the same he extends presently after, to every true, though never so corrupted part of it. and why do you not conclude from hence, that no particular church (according to his judgement) can fall into any error, and call this a demonstration too? for as he says, p. 75. that there can be no just cause to depart from the whole church of christ, no more then from christ himself; so p. 76. he tells you, that whosoever forsakes any one true member of this body, for sakes the whole. so that what he says of the one, he says of the other; and tells you, that neither universal nor particular church, so long as they continue so, may be forsaken, he means, absolutely, no more than christ himself may be forsaken absolutely: for the church is the body of christ, and whosoever forsakes either the body, or his coherence to any one part of it, must forsake his subordination, and relation to the head. therefore whosoever forsakes the church, or any christian, must forsake christ himself. 67 but then he tells you plainly in the same place, that it may be lawful and necessary to depart from a particular church in some doctrines and practices: and this he would have said even of the catholic church, if there had been occasion, but there was none. for there he was to declare and justify our departure, not from the catholic church, but the roman, which we maintain to be a particular church. but in other places, you confess his doctrine to be, that even the catholic church may err in points not fundamental; which you do not pretend that he ever imputed to christ himself. and therefore you cannot with any candour interpret his words, as if he had said, we may not forsake the church in any thing, no more than christ himself: but only thus, we may not cease to be of the church, nor forsake it absolutely and totally, no more than christ himself. and thus we see sometimes a mountain may travail, and the production may be a mouse. 68 ad § 22. but d. potter, either contradicts himself, or else must grant the church infallible; because he says, if we did not differ from the roman, we could not agree with the catholic: which saying supposes the catholic church cannot err. answer, this argument, to give it the right name, is an obscure and intricate nothing. and to make it appear so, let us suppose, in contradiction to your supposition, either that the catholic church may err, but doth not, but that the roman actually doth: or that the catholic church doth err in some few things, but that the roman errs in many more. and is it not apparent in both these cases (which yet both suppose the church's fallibility) a man may truly say, unless i descent in some opinions from the roman church, i cannot agree with the catholic? either therefore you must retract your imputation laid upon d. potter, or do that which you condemn in him, and be driven to say, that the same man may hold some errors with the church of rome, and at the same time with the catholic church not hold but condemn them. for otherwise in neither of these cases is it possible for the same man at the same time, to agree both with the roman and the catholic. 69 in all these texts of scripture, which are here alleged in this last section of this chapter, or in any one of them, or in any other, doth god say clearly and plainly, the bishop of rome and that society of christians which adheres to him shall be ever the infallible guide of faith? you will confess, i presume, he doth not, and will pretend, it was not necessary. yet if the king should tell us the lord keeper should judge such and such causes, but should either not tell us at all, or tell us but doubtfully who should be lord keeper, should we be any thing the nearer for him to an end of contentions? nay rather would not the dissensions about the person who it is, increase contentions, rather than end them? just so it would have been, if god had appointed a church tobe judge of controversies, and had not told us which was that church. seeing therefore god does nothing in vain and seeing it had been in vain, to appoint a judge of controversies, and not to tell us plainly who it is, and seeing lastly, he hath not told us plainly, no not at all who it is, is it not evident he hath appointed none? ob. but (you will say perhaps) if it be granted once, that some church of one denomination, is the infallible guide of faith, it will be no difficult thing to prove, that yours is the church, seeing no other church pretends to be so. ans. yes, the primitive and the apostolic church pretends to be so. that assures us, that the spirit was promised, and given to them, to lead them into all saving truth, that they might lead others. ob. but that church is not now in the world, and how then, can it pretend to be the guide of faith? ans. it is now in the world sufficiently, to be our guide: not by the persons of those men that were members of it, but by their writings which do plainly teach us, what truth they were led into, and so lead us into the same truth. ob. but these writings, were the writings of some particular men, and not of the church of those times: how then doth that church guide us by these writings? now these places show that a church is to be our guide, therefore they cannot be so avoided. ans. if you regard the conception and production of these writings, they were the writings of particular men: but if you regard the reception, and approbation of them, they may be well called the writings of the church, as having the attestation of the church, to have been written by those that were inspired, and directed by god. as a statute, though penned by some one man, yet being ratified by the parliament, is called the act, not of that man, but of the parliament. ob. but the words seem clearly enough to prove, that the church, the present church of every age, is universally infallible. ans. for my part, i know i am as willing and desirous, that the bishop or church of rome should be infallible, (provided i might know it) as they are to be so esteemed. but he that would not be deceived must take heed, that he take not his desire that a thing should be so, for a reason that it is so. for if you look upon scripture, through such spectacles as these, they will appear to you, of what colour pleases your fancies best: and will seem to say, not what they do say, but what you would have them. as some say the manna, wherewith the israelites were fed in the wilderness, had in every man's mouth, that very taste which was most agreeable to his palate. for my part i profess, i have considered them a thousand times, and have looked upon them (as they say,) on both sides, and yet to me they seem to say no such matter. 70 not the first. for the church may err, and yet the gates of hell not prevail against her. it may err, and yet continue still a true church, and bring forth children unto god, and send souls to heaven. and therefore this can do you no service, without the plain begging of the point of question. viz. that every error is one of the gates of hell. which we absolutely deny, and therefore, you are not to suppose, but to prove it. neither is our denial without reason. for seeing you do, and must grant, that a particular church, may hold some error, and yet be still a true member of the church: why may not the universal church, hold the same error, and yet remain the true universal? 71 not the second or third. for the spirit of truth, may be with a man, or a church for ever, and teach him all truth: and yet he may fall into some error, if this, all, be not simply all, but all of some kind: which you confess to be so unquestioned and certain, that you are offended with d. potter, for offering to prove it. secondly, he may fall into some error, even contrary to the truth which is taught him, if it be taught him only sufficiently, and not irresistibly, so that he may learn it if he will, not so that he must and shall, whether he will or no. now who can ascertain me, that the spirits teaching is not of this nature? or how can you possibly reconcile it, with your doctrine of freewill in believing, if it be not of this nature? besides, the word in the original is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which signifies, to be a guide and director only, not to compel or necessitate. who knows not, that a guide may set you in the right way, and you may either negligently mistake, or willingly leave it? and to what purpose doth god complain so often, and so earnestly of some, that had eyes to see and would not see, that stopped their ears, and closed their eyes, lest they should hear and see? of others that would not understand, lest they should do good: that the light shined, and the darkness comprehended it not: that he came unto his own, and his own received him not: that light came into the world, and men loved darkness more than light? to what purpose should he wonder, so few believed his report, and that to so few his arm was revealed: and that when he comes, he should find no faith upon earth; if his outward teaching were not of this nature, that it might be followed, and might be resisted? and if it be, than god may teach, and the church not learn: god may lead, and the church be refractory and not follow. and indeed, who can doubt, that hath not his eyes vailed with prejudice that god hath taught the church of rome plain enough in the ep. to the corinthians, that all things in the church are to be done for edification, and that, in any public prayers, or thanks-givings, or hymns, or lessons of instruction, to use a language, which the assistants generally understand not, is not for edification? though the church of rome will not learn this, for fear of confessing an error, and so overthrowing her authority, yet the time will come, when it shall appear, that not only by scripture, they were taught this sufficiently, and commanded to believe, but by reason and common sense. and so for the communion▪ in both kinds, who can deny but they are taught it by our saviour john 6. in these words, according to most of your own expositions, unless you eat the flesh of the son of man, and drink his blood, you have no life in you. (if our saviour speak there of the sacrament, as to them he does, because they conceive he does so.) though they may pretend, that receiving in one kind, they receive the blood together with the body, yet they can with no face pretend that they drink it: and so obey not our saviour's injunction according to the letter, which yet they profess is literally, always to be obeyed, unless some impiety, or some absurdity force us to the contrary: and they are not yet arrived to that impudence to pretend, that either there is impiety or absurdity in receiving the communion in both kinds. this therefore they if not others, are plainly taught by our saviour in this place. but by s. paul all without exception, when he says, let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of this bread and drink of this chalice. this (a man) that is to examine himself, is every man, that can do it: as is confessed on all hands. and therefore it is all one, as if he had said, let every man examine himself, and so let him eat of this bread, and drink of this cup. they which acknowledge saint paul's epistles, and s. john's gospel to be the word of god, one would think should not deny, but that they are taught these two doctrines plain enough. yet we see they neither do, nor will learn them. i conclude therefore, that the spirit may very well teach the church, and yet the church fall into and continue in error, by not regarding what she is taught by the spirit. 72 but all this i have spoken upon a supposition only, and showed unto you, that though these promises, had been made unto the present church of every age (i might have said though they had been to the church of rome by name,) yet no certainty of her universal infallibility could be built upon them. but the plain truth is, that these promises are vainly arrogated by you, and were never made to you, but to the apostles only. i pray deal ingenuously and tell me, who were they of whom our saviour says, these things have i spoken unto you, being present with you. c. 14. 25. but the comforter, shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever i have told you v. 26? who are they to whom he says, i go away and come again unto you; and i have told you before it come to pass: v. 28. 29. you have been with me from the beginning: c. 15. v. 27? and again, these things i have told you, that when the time shall come, you may remember that i told you of them: and these things i said not to you at the beginning, because i was with you. c. 16. 4. and because i said these things unto you, sorrow hath filled your hearts. v. 6? lastly, who are they of whom he saith v. 12. i have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now? do not all these circumstances appropriate this whole discourse of our saviour to his disciples, that were then with him, and consequently, restrain the promises of the spirit of truth, which was to lead them into all truth, to their persons only? and seeing it is so, is it not an impertinent arrogance and presumption, for you to lay claim unto them, in the behalf of your church? had christ been present with your church? did the comforter bring these things to the remembrance of your church, which christ had before taught and she had forgotten? was christ then departing from your church? and did he tell of his departure before it came to pass? was your church with him from the beginning? was your church filled with sorrow, upon the mentioning of christ's departure? or lastly, did he, or could he have said to your church, which then was not extant, i have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now? as he speaks in the 13. v. immediately before the words by you quoted. and then goes on, howbeit when the spirit of truth is come, he will guide you into all truth. is it not the same you he speaks to, in the 13. v. and that he speaks to in the 14? and is it not apparent to any one that has but half an eye, that in the 13. he speaks only to them that then were with him? besides in the very text by you alleged, there are things promised, which your church cannot with any modesty pretend to. for there it is said, the spirit of truth, not only will guide you into all truth, but also will show you things to come. now your church (for aught i could ever understand) does not so much as pretend to the spirit of prophecy, and knowledge of future events: and therefore hath as little cause to pretend to the former promise, of being led by the spirit into all truth. and this is the reason, why both you in this place, and generally, your writers of controversies, when they entreat of this argument, cite this text perpetually by halves, there being in the latter part of it, a clear, and convincing demonstration, that you have nothing to do with the former. unless you will say, which is most ridiculous, that when our saviour said, he will teach you etc. and he will show you etc. he meant one you in the former clause, and another you in the latter. 73 ob. but this is to confine god's spirit to the apostles only, or to the disciples, that then were present with him: which is directly contrary to many places of scripture. ans. i confess, that to confine the spirit of god to those that were then present with christ is against scripture. but i hope it is easy to conceive a difference, between confining the spirit of god to them: and confining the promises made in this place to them. god may do many things which he does not promise at all: much more, which he does not promise in such or such a place. 74 ob. but it is promised in the 14. chap. that this spirit shall abide with them for ever: now they in their persons were not to abide for ever, and therefore the spirit could not abide with them, in their persons for ever, seeing the coexistence of two things, supposes of necessity; the existence of either. therefore the promise was not made to them only in their persons, but by them to the church, which was to abide for ever. ans. your conclusion is, not to them only, but your reason concludes, either nothing at all, or that this promise of abiding with them for ever, was not made to their persons at all; or if it were, that it was not performed. or if you will not say (as i hope you will not) that it was not performed, nor that it was not made to their persons at all; then must you grant, that the word for ever, is here used in a sense restrained, and accommodated to the subject here entreated of; and that it signifies, not eternally, without end of time, but perpetually without interruption, for the time of their lives. so that the force, and sense of the words is, that they should never want the spirits asstance, in the performance of their function: and that the spirit would not (as christ was to do,) stay with them for a time, and afterwards leave them, but would abide with them, if they kept their station, unto the very end of their lives, which is man's for ever. neither is this use of the word, for ever, any thing strange, either in our ordinary speech, wherein we use to say, this is mine for ever, this shall be yours for ever, without ever dreaming of the eternity, either of the thing or persons. and then in scripture, it not only will bear, but requires this sense very frequently, as exod. 21. 6. deut. 15. 17. his master shall boar his ear through with an awl, and he shall serve him for ever. ps. 52. 9 i will praise thee for ever. ps. 61. 4. i will abide in thy tabernacle for ever. ps. 119. 111. thy testimonies have i taken as mine heritage for ever: and lastly in the epist. to philemon, he therefore departed from thee for a time, that thou shouldest receive him for ever. 75 and thus, i presume, i have showed sufficiently, that this for ever, hinders not, but that the promise may be appropriated to the apostles, as by many other circumstances i have evinced it must be. but what now, if the place produced by you, as a main pillar of your church's infallibility, prove upon trial, an engine to batter and overthrow it, at least, (which is all one to my purpose) to take away all possibility of our assurance of it? this will seem strange news to you at first hearing, & not far from a prodigy. and i confess, as you here in this place, and generally all your writers of controversy, by whom this text is urged, order the matter, it is very much disabled, to do any service against you in this question. for with a bold sacrilege, and horrible impiety, somewhat like procrustes his cruelty, you perpetually cut off the head and foot, the beginning and end of it; and presenting to your confidents, who usually read no more of the bible, then is alleged by you, only these words, i will ask my father, and he shall give you another paraclete, that he may abide with you for ever, even the spirit of truth, conceal in the mean time, the words before, and the words after; that so, the promise of god's spirit, may seem to be absolute, whereas it is indeed most clearly and expressly conditional: being both in the words before, restrained to those only, that love god and keep his commandments: and in the words after, flatly denied to all, whom the scriptures style by the name of the world, that is, as the very atheists give us plainly to understand, to all wicked and worldly men. behold the place entire, as it is set down in your own bible. if ye love me keep my commandments, and i will ask my father, and he shall give you another paraclete, that he may abide with you for ever, even the spirit of the truth, whom the world cannot receive. now from the place there restored and vindicated from your mutilation, thus i argue against your pretence. we can have no certainty of the infallibility of your church, but upon this supposition, that your popes are infallible in confirming with the decrees of general counsels: we can have no certainty hereof, but upon this supposition, that the spirit of truth is promised to him, for his direction in this work. and of this again we can have no certainty, but upon supposal, that he performs the condition, whereunto the promise of the spirit of truth is expressly limited, viz. that he love god and keep his commandments; and of this finally, not knowing the pope's heart, we can have no certainty at all; therefore from the first to the last, we can have no certainty at all of your church's infallibility. this is my first argument: fron this place another follows, which will charge you as home as the former. if many of the roman see, were such men as could not receive the spirit of truth, even men of the world, that is worldly, wicked, carnal, diabolical men, than the spirit of truth, is not here promised, but flatly denied them: and consequently we can have no certainty, neither of the decrees of counsels, which these popes confirm, nor of the church's infallibility, which is guided by these decrees: but many of the roman see, even by the confession of the most zealous defenders of it, were such men: therefore the spirit of truth is not here promised but denied them, and consequently we can have no certainty, neither of the decrees which they confirm, nor of the church's infallibility, which guides herself by these decrees. 76 you may take as much time as you think fit, to answer these arguments. in the mean while i proceed to the consideration of the next text alleged for this purpose by you: out of s. paul 1. ep. to timothy: where he saith, as you say the church is the pillar and ground of truth. but the truth is you are somewhat to bold with s. paul. for he says not in formal terms, what you make him say, the church is the pillar and ground of truth, neither is it certain that he means so: for it is neither impossible nor improbable, that these words the pillar and ground of truth, may have reference not to the church, but to timothy, the sense of the place that thou mayst know how to behave thyself, as a pillar and ground of truth, in the church of god, which is the house of the living god, which exposition offers no violence at all to the words, but only supposes an ellipsis of the particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in the greek very ordinary. neither wants it some likelihood, that s. paul comparing the church to a house, should here exhort timothy, to carry himself, as a pillar in that house should do, according as he had given other principal men in the church, the name of pillars; rather then, having called the church a house, to call it presently a pillar; which may seem somewhat heterogeneous. yet if you will needs have s. paul refer this not to timothy but the church, i will not contend about it any farther, then to say, possibly it may be otherwise. but than secondly, i am to put you in mind, that the church which s. paul here speaks of, was that in which timothy conversed, and that was a particular church, and not the roman; and such you will not have to be universally infallible. 77 thirdly, if we grant you out of courtesy (for nothing can enforce us to it) that he both speaks of the universal church, and says this of it, than i am to remember you, that many attributes in scripture, are not notes of performance, but of duty, and teach us not what the thing or person is of necessity, but what it should be. ye are the salt of the earth, said our saviour to his disciples: not that this quality was inseparable from their persons, but because it was their office to be so. for if they must have been so of necessity, and could not have been otherwise, in vain had he put them in fear of that which follows, if the salt hath lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted? it is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast forth, and to be trodden under foot. so the church may be by duty, the pillar and ground, that is, the teacher of truth, of all truth, not only necessary but profitable to salvation; and yet she may neglect and violate this duty, and be in fact the teacher of some error. 78 fourthly and lastly, if we deal most liberally with you, and grant that the apostle here speaks of the catholic church, calls it the pillar and ground of truth, and that not only because it should, but because it always shall and will be so, yet after all this, you have done nothing; your bridge is too short, to bring you to the bank where you would be, unless you can show that by truth here, is certainly meant, not only all necessary to salvation, but all that is profitable, absolutely and simply all. for that the true church always shall be the maintainer and teacher of all necessary truth, you know we grant and must grant, for it is of the essence of the church to be so, and any company of men were no more a church without it, than any thing can be a man, and not be reasonable. but as a man may be still a man, though he want a hand or an eye, which yet are profitable parts, so the church may be still a church, though it be defective in some profitable truth. and as a man may be a man, that has some biles and botches on his body, so the church may be the church, though it have many corruptions both in doctrine and practice. 79 and thus you see we are at liberty from the former places; having showed that the sense of them, either must or may be such as will do your cause no service. but the last you suppose, will be a gordian knot, and ties us fast enough: the words are, he gave some apostles, and some prophets etc. to the consummation of saints, to the work of the ministry etc. until we all meet into the unity of faith etc. that we be not hereafter children, wavering and carried up and down with every wind of doctrine. out of which words, this is the only argument which you collect, or i can collect for you. there is no means to conserve unity of faith, against every wind of doctrine, unless it be a church universally infallible. but it is impious to say there is no means to conserve unity of faith against every wind of doctrine: therefore there must be a church universally infallible. whereunto i answer, that your major is so far from being confirned, that it is plainly confuted, by the place alleged. for that tells us of another means for this purpose, to wit, the apostles, and prophets, and evangelists, and pastors, and doctors, which christ gave upon his ascension, and that their consummating the saints, doing the work of the ministry, and edifying the body of christ, was the means to bring those (which are there spoken of, be they who they will,) to the unity of faith, and to perfection in christ, that they might not be wavering, and carried about, with every wind of false doctrine. now the apostles, and prophets, and evangelists, and pastors, and doctors, are not the present church; therefore the church is not the only means for this end, nor that which is here spoken of. 80 peradventure by, he gave, you conceive, is to be understood, he promised that he would give unto the world's end. but what reason have you for this conceit? can you show that the word, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, hath this signification in other places, and that it must have it in this place? or will not this interpretation drive you presently to this blasphemous absurdity, that god hath not performed his promise? unless you will say, which for shame i think you will not, that you have now, and in all ages since christ have had apostles, and prophets, and evangelists: for as for pastors, and doctors alone, they will not serve the turn. for if god promised to give all these, than you must say he hath given all, or else that he hath broke his promise. neither may you pretend, that the pastors and doctors were the same with the apostles, and prophets, and evangelists, and therefore having pastors and doctors, you have all. for it is apparent, that by these names, are denoted several orders of men, clearly distinguished and diversified by the original text; but much more plainly by your own translations, for so you read it, some apostles, and some prophets, and other some evangelists, and other some pastors and doctors: and yet more plainly in the parallel place, 1. cor. 12. to which we are referred by your vulgar translation, god hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, therefore this subterfuge is stopped against you. ob. but how can they, which died in the first age, keep us in unity, and guard us from error, that live now, perhaps in the last? this seems to be all one; as if a man should say, that alexander, or julius caesar should quiet a mutiny in the king of spain's army. ans. i hope you will grant, that hypocrates, and galen, and euclid, and aristotle, and sallust, and caesar, and livy, were dead many ages since; and yet that we are now preserved from error by them, in a great part of physic, of geometry, of logic, of the roman story. but what if these men had writ by divine inspiration, and writ complete bodies of the sciences they professed, and writ them plainly and perspicuously? you would then have granted, i believe, that their works had been sufficient to keep us from error, and from dissension in these matters. and why then should it be incongruous to say, that the apostles, and prophets, and evangelists, and pastors, and doctors, which christ gave upon his ascension, by their writings, which some of them writ but all approved, are even now sufficient means, to conserve us in unity of faith, and guard us from error? especially seeing these writings are, by the confession of all parts, true and divine, and as we pretend and are ready to prove, contain a plain and perfect rule of faith; and as the * per●on. chiefest of you acknowledge, contain immediately, all the principal, and fundamental points of christianity, referring us to the church and tradition only for some minute particularities. but tell me i pray, the bishops that composed the decrees of the council of trent, and the pope that confirmed them, are they means to conserve you in unity, and keep you from error, or are they not? peradventure you will say, their decree● are, but not their persons: but you will not deny i hope, that you owe your unity, and freedom from error, to the persons that made these decrees: neither will you deny, that the writings which they have left behind them, are sufficient for this purpose. and why may not then the apostles writings be as fit for such a purpose, as the decrees of your doctors? surely their intent in writing was to conserve us in unity of faith, and to keep us from error, and we are sure god spoke in them; but your doctors from whence they are, we are not so certain. was the holy-ghost then unwilling, or unable to direct them so, that their writings should be fit and sufficient to attain that end they aimed at in writing? for if he were both able and willing to do so, then certainly he did do so. and then their writings may be very sufficient means, if we would use them as we should do, to preserve us in unity, in all necessary points of faith, and to guard us from all pernicious error. 81 if yet you be not satisfied, but will still pretend that, all these words by you cited, seem clearly enough to prove, that the church is universally infallible, without which unity of faith could not be conserved against every wind of doctrine: ay ans. that to you, which will not understand, that there can be any means to conserve the unity of faith, but only that which conserveses your authority over the faithful, it is no marvel that these words seem to prove, that the church, nay that your church is universally infallible. but we that have no such end, no such desires, but are willing to leave all men to their liberty, provided they will not improve it to a tyranny over others, we find it no difficulty to discern between dedit and promisit, he gave at his ascension, and he promised to the world's end. besides, though you whom it concerns, may happily flatter yourselves, that you have not only pastors, and doctors, but prophets, and apostles, and evangelists, and those distinct from the former still in your church; yet we that are disinteressed persons, cannot but smile at these strange imaginations. lastly, though you are apt to think yourselves such necessary instruments for all good purposes, and that nothing can be well done unless you do it; that no unity or constancy in religion can be maintained, but inevitably christendom must fall to ruin, and confusion, unless you support it: yet we that are indifferent and impartial, and well content, that god should give us his own favours, by means of his own appointment, not of our choosing, can easily collect out of these very words, that not the infallibility of your, or of any church, but the apostles, and prophets, and evangelists etc. which christ gave upon his ascension, were designed by him, for the compasing all these excellent purposes, by their preaching while they lived, and by their writings for ever. and if they fail hereof, the reason is not any insufficiency or invalidity in the means, but the voluntary perverseness of the subjects they have to deal with: who, if they would be themselves, and be content that others should be, in the choice of their religion the servants of god and not of men; if they would allow, that the way to heaven is no narrower now, then christ left it, his yoke no heavier than he made it; that the belief of no more difficulties, is required now to salvation, than was in the primitive church; that no error is in itself destructive, and exclusive from salvation now, which was not then; if instead of being zealous papists, earnest calvinists, rigid lutherans, they would become themselves, and be content that others should be plain and honest christians; if all men would believe the scripture, and freeing themselves from prejudice and passion, would sincerely endeavour to find the true sense of it, and live according to it, and require no more of others, but to do so; nor denying their▪ communion to any that do so, would so order their public service of god, that all which do so may without scruple, or hypocrisy, or protestation against any part of it, join with them in it: who does not see that (seeing as we suppose here, and shall prove hereafter,) all necessary truths, are plainly and evidently set down in scripture, there would of necessity be among all men, in all things necessary, unity of opinion? and notwithstanding any other differences that are or could be, unity of communion and charity and mutual toleration? by which means, all schism and heresy, would be banished the world, and those wretched contentions which now rend and tear in pieces, not the coat, but the members and bowels of christ, which mutual pride and tyranny, and cursing, and killing, and damning, would fain make immortal, should speedily receive a most blessed catastrophe. but of this hereafter, when we shall come to the question of schism, wherein i persuade myself, that i shall plainly show, that the most vehement accusers, are the greatest offenders, and that they are indeed at this time, the greatest schismatics, who make the way to heaven narrower, the yoke of christ heavier, the differences of faith greater, the conditions of ecclesiastical government harder, and stricter, than they were made at the beginning by christ and his apostles: they who talk of unity, but aim at tyranny, and will have peace with none, but with their slaves and vassals. in the mean while, though i have showed how unity of faith, & unity of charity too, may be preserved without your church's infallibility, yet seeing you modestly conclude from hence, not that your church is, but only seems to be universally infallible, meaning to yourself, of which you are a better judge than i: therefore i willingly grant your conclusion, and proceed. 82 whereas you say, that d. potter limits those promises and privileges to fundamental points: the truth is, with some of them he meddles not at all, neither doth his adversary give him occasion: not with those out of the epistle to timothy, and to the ephesians. to the rest he gives other answer besides this. 83 but the words of scripture by you alleged are universal, and mention no such restraint to fundamentals, as d. potter applies to them: i answer, that of the five texts which you allege, four are indefinite, and only one universal, and that you confess is to be restrained, and are offended with d. potter for going about to prove it. and whereas you say, they mention no restraint, intimating that therefore they are not to be restrained, i tell you, this is no good consequence; for it may appear out of the matter and circumstances, that they are to be understood in a restrained sense, notwithstanding no restraint be mentioned. that place quoted by s. paul, and applied by him to our saviour, he hath put all things under his feet, mentions no exception; yet s. paul tells us, not only that it is true or certain, but it is manifest, that he is excepted which did put all things under him. 84 but your interpretation is better than d. potters, because it is literal. i answer, his is literal as well as yours: and you are mistaken if you think a restrained sense may not be a literal sense; for to restrained, literal is not opposed but unlimited or absolute, and to literal, is not opposed restrained, but figurative. 85 whereas you say d. potter's brethren rejecting his limitation, restrain the mentioned texts to the apostles, implying hereby a contrariety between them and him: i answer, so does d. potter restrain all of them which he speaks of, in the pages by you quoted, to the apostles, in the direct and primary sense of the words. though he tells you there, the words in a more restrained sense are true, being understood of the church universal. 86 as for your pretence, that to find the meaning of those places, you confer diverse texts, you consult originals, you examine translations, and use all the means by protestants appointed, i have told you before, that all this is vain and hypocritical, if (as your manner & your doctrine is) you give not yourself liberty of judgement in the use of these means; if you make not yourselves judges of▪ but only advocats for the doctrine of your church, refusing to see what these means show you, if it any way make against the doctrine of your church, though it be as clear as the light at noon. remove prejudice, even the balance, and hold it even, make it indifferent to you which way you go to heaven, so you go the true, which religion be true so you be of it, then use the means and pray for god's assistance, and as sure as god is true, you shall be lead into all necessary truth. 87 whereas you say, you neither do, nor have any possible means to agree, as long as you are left to yourselves: the first is very true, that while you differ, you do not agree. but for the second, that you have no possible means of agreement, as long as you are left to yourselves, i. e. to your own reasons and judgement, this sure is very false, neither do you offer any proof of it, unless you intended this, that you do not agree, for a proof that you cannot; which sure is no good consequence, not half so good as this which i oppose against it: d. potter and i by the use of these means by you mentioned do agree concerning the sense of these places, therefore there is a possible means of agreement, and therefore you also if you would use the same means, with the same minds, might agree so far as it is necessary, and it is not necessary that you should agree further. or if there be no possible means to agree about the sense of these texts, whilst we are left to ourselves, then sure it is impossible that we should agree in your sense of them which was: that the church is universally infallible. for if it were possible for us to agree in this sense of them, than it were possible for us to agree. and why then said you of the self same texts but in the page next before, these words seem clearly enough to prove that the church is universally infallible, a strange forgetfulness, that the same man, almost in the same breath should say of the same words, they seem clearly enough to prove such a conclusion true, & yet that three indifferent men, all presumed to be lovers of truth, and industrious searchers of it should have no possible means, while they follow their own reason to agree in the truth of this conclusion! 88 whereas you say, that it were great impiety to imagine that god, the lover of souls, hath left no certain infallible means to decide both this and all other differences arising about the interpretation of scripture, or upon any other occasion: i desire you to take heed, you commit not an impiety in making more impieties than god's commandments make. certainly god is no way obliged either by his promise or his love to give us all things, that we may imagine would be convenient for us, as formerly i have proved at large. it is sufficient that he denies us nothing necessary to salvation. deus non deficit in necessariis, nec redundat in superfluis: so d. stapleton. but that the ending of all controversies, or having a certain means of ending them, is necessary to salvation, that you have often said and supposed, but never proved, though it be the main pillar of your whole discourse. so little care you take how slight your foundations are, so your building make a fair show. and as little care, how you commit those faults yourself, which you condemn in others. for you here charge them with great impiety, who imagine that god the lover of souls hath left no infallible means to determine all differences arising about the interpretation of scripture, or upon any other occasion: and yet afterwards being demanded by d. potter, why the questions between the jesuits & dominicans remain undetermined? you return him this cross interrogatory, who hath assured you that the point wherein these learned men differ, is a revealed truth, or capable of definition, or is not rather by plain scripture indeterminable, or by any rule of faith? so then when you say, it were great impiety to imagine that god hath not left infallible means to decide all differences; i may answer, it seems you do not believe yourself. for in this controversy which is of as high consequence as any can be, you seem to be doubtful whether there be any means to determine it. on the other side, when you ask d. potter, who assured him that there it any means to determine this controversy? i answer for him, that you have, in calling it a great impiety to imagine that there is not some infallible means to decide this and all other differences arising about the interpretation of scripture, or upon any other occasion. for what trick you can devise to show that this difference, between the dominicans and jesuits, which includes a difference about the sense of many texts of scripture, & many other matters of moment, was not included under this and all other differences, i cannot imagine. yet if you can find out any, thus much at least we shall gain by it, that general speeches are not always to be understood generally, but sometimes with exceptions and limitations. 89 but if there be any infallible means to decide all differences, i beseech you name them. you say it is to consult and hear gods visible church with submissive acknowledgement of her infallibility. but suppose the difference be (as here it is) whether your church be infallible, what shall decide that? if you would say (as you should dot) scripture and reason, than you foresee that you should be forced to grant that these are fit means to decide this controversy, and therefore may be as fit to decide others. therefore to avoid this, you run into a most ridiculous absurdity, and tell us that this difference also, whether the church be infallible, as well as others, must be agreed by a submissive acknowledgement of the church's infallibility. as if you should have said, my brethren i perceive this is a great contention amongst you, whether the roman church be infallible? if you will follow my advice, i will show you a ready means to end it; you must first agree that the roman church is infallible, and then your contention whether the roman church be infallible, will quickly be at an end. verily a most excellent advice, and most compendious way of ending all controversies, even without troubling the church to determine them▪ for why may not you say in all other differences, as you have done in this? agree that the pope is supreme head of the church: that the substance of bread and wine in the sacrament is turned into the body, & blood of christ: that the communion is to be given to laymen but in one kind: that pictures may be worshipped: that saints are to be invocated; and so in the rest, and then your differences about the pope's supremacy, transubstantiation, and all the rest will speedily be ended. if you say, the advice is good in this, but not in other cases, i must request you not to expect always, to be believed upon your word, but to show us some reason, why any one thing, namely the church's infallibility, is fit to prove itself; and any other thing, by name the pope's supremacy, or transubstantiation is not as fit? or if for shame you will at length confess, that the church's infallibility is not fit to decide this difference, whether the church be infallible, than you must confess it is not fit to decide all: unless you will say, it may be fit to decide all, and yet not fit to decide this, or pretend that this is not comprehended under all. besides if you grant that your church's infallibility cannot possibly be well grounded upon, or decided by itself, then having professed before, that there is no possible means besides this, for us to agree hereupon, i hope you will give me leave to conclude, that it is impossible upon good ground for us to agree that the roman church is infallible. for certainly light itself, is not more clear than the evidence of this syllogism; if there be no other means to make men agree upon your church's infallibility, but only this, and this be no means, than it is simply impossible for men upon good grounds to agree that your church is infallible: but there is (as you have granted) no other possible means to make men agree hereupon, but only a submissive acknowledgement of her infallibility, and this is apparently no means; therefore it is simply impossible for men upon good grounds to agree that your church is infallible. 90 lastly to the place of s. austin, wherein we are advised to follow the way of catholic discipline, which from christ himself by the apostles hath come down even to us, and from us shall descend to all posterity: i answer, that the way which s. austin spoke of, & the way which you commend, being diverse ways, & in many things clean contrary, we cannot possibly follow them both; and therefore for you to apply the same words to them is a vain equivocation. show us any way, & do not say, but prove it to have come from christ & his apostles down to us; and we are ready to follow it. neither do we expect demonstration hereof, but such reasons as may make this more probable than the contrary. but if you bring in things into your now catholic discipline, which chistians in s. augustine's time held abominable, (as the picturing of god,) & which you must confess to have come into the church seven hundred years after christ: if you will bring in things, as you have done the half communion, with a non obstante, notwithstanding christ's institution, and the practice of the primitive church were to the contrary: if you will do such things as these, and yet would have us believe, that your whole religion came from christ and his apostles, this we conceive a request too unreasonable for modest men to make, or for wise men to grant. chap. four to say, that the creed contains all points necessarily to be believed, is neither pertinent to the question in hand, nor in itself true. i say, neither pertinent, nor true. not pertinent: because our question is not, what points are necessary to be explicitly believed; but what points may be lawfully disbelieved, or rejected after sufficient proposition that they are divine truths. you say, the creed contains all points necessary to be believed. be it so. but doth it likewise contain all points not to be disbelieved? certainly it doth not. for how many truths are there in holy scripture not contained in the creed, which we are not obliged distinctly, and particularly to know and believe, but are bound under pain of damnation not to reject, as soon as we come to know that they are found in holy scripture? and we having already showed, that whatsoever is proposed by god's church as a point of faith, is infallibly a truth revealed by god; it followeth that whosoever denieth any such point, opposeth gods sacred testimony whether that point be contained in the creed, or no. in vain then was your care employed to prove that all points of faith necessary to be explicitly believed, are contained in the creed. neither was that the catalogue which charity mistaken demanded. his demand was (and it was most reasonable) that you would once give us a list of all fundamentals, the denial whereof destroys salvation; whereas the denial of other points not fundamental, may stand with salvation, although both these kinds of points be equally proposed as revealed by god. for if they be not equally proposed, the difference will arise from diversity of the proposal, and not of the matter fundamental, or not fundamental. this catalogue only, can show how far protestants may disagree without breach of unity in faith; and upon this many other matters depend, according to the ground of protestants. but you will never adventure to publish such a catalogue. i say more: you cannot assign any one point so great, or fundamental, that the denial thereof will make a man an heretic, if it be not sufficiently propounded, as a divine truth: nor can you assign any one point so small, that it can without heresy be rejected, if once it be sufficiently represented as revealed by god. 2. nay, this your instance in the creed, is not only impertinent but directly against you. for all points in the creed are not of their own nature fundamental, as i showed a cap. 3. n. 3. before: and yet it is damnable to deny any one point contained in the creed. so that it is clear, that to make an error damnable, it is not necessary that the matter be of itself fundamental. 3 moreover you cannot ground any certainty upon the creed itself, unless first you presuppose that the authority of the church is universally infallible, and consequently that it is damnable to oppose her declarations, whether they concern matters great, or small, contained, or not contained in the creed. this is clear. because we must receive the creed itself upon the credit of the church, without which we could not know that there was any such thing as that which we call the apostles creed: and yet the arguments whereby you endeavour to prove, that the creed contains all fundamental points, are grounded upon supposition, that the creed was made either by the apostles themselves, or by the b pag. 216. church of their times from them: which thing we could not certainly know, if the succeeding and still continued church, may err in her traditions: neither can we be assured, whether all fundamental articles which you say were out of the scriptures, summed, and contracted into the apostles creed, were faithfully summed, and contracted, and not one pretermitted, altered, or mistaken, unless we undoubtedly know that the apostles composed the creed; and that they intended to contract all fundamental points of faith into it; or at least that the church of their times (for it seemeth you doubt whether indeed it were composed by the apostles themselves) did understand the apostles aright; and that the church of their times, did intend that the creed should contain all fundamental points. for if the church may err in points not fundamental, may she not also err in the particulars which i have specified? can you show it to be a fundamental point of faith, that the apostles intended to comprise all points of faith necessary to salvation in the creed? yourself say no more than that it is very c pag▪ 24●. probable; which is far from reaching to a fundamental point of faith. your prohability is grounded upon the judgement of antiquity, and even of the roman doctors, as you say in the same place. but if the catholic church may err, what certainty can you expect from antiquity, or doctors? scripture is your total rule of faith. cite therefore some text of scripture, to prove that the apostles, or the church of their times composed the creed, and composed it with a purpose that it should contain all fundamental points of faith. which being impossible to be done, you must for the creed itself rely upon the infallibility of the church. 4. moreover, the creed consisteth not so much in the words, as in their sense and meaning. all such as pretend to the name of christians, recite the creed, and yet many have erred fundamentally, as well against the articles of the creed, as other points of faith. it is then very frivolous to say, the creed contains all fundamental points, without specifying, both in what sense the articles of the creed be true, and also in what true sense, they be fundamental. for, both these tasks, you are to perform, who teach that all truth is not fundamental: and you do but delude the ignorant, when you say, that the creed, taken in a catholic e pag. 216. sense, comprehendeth all points fundamental; because with you, all catholic sense is not fundamental: for so it were necessary to salvation that all christians should know the whole scripture, wherein every least point hath a catholic sense. or if by catholic sense, you understand that sense which is so universally to be known, and believed by all, that whosoever fails therein cannot be saved, you trifle and say no more than this: all points of the creed in a sense necessary to salvation, are necessary to salvation. or: all points fundamental, are fundamental. after this manner it were an easy thing to make many true prognostications, by saying it will certainly rain, when it raineth. you say the creed f pag. 216. was opened and explained, in some parts in the creeds of nice, etc. but how shall we understand the other parts, not explained in those creeds? 5. for what article in the creed is more fundamental, or may seem more clear, then that, wherein we believe jesus christ to be the mediator, redeemer, and saviour of mankind, and the founder, and foundation of a catholic church expressed in the creed? and yet about this article, how many different doctrines are there, not only of old heretics, as arius, nestorius, eutiches, etc. but also of protestants, partly against catholics, and partly against one another? for the said main article of christ's being the only saviour of the world etc. according to different senses of disagreeing sects, doth involve these, and many other such questions; that faith in jesus christ doth justify alone; that sacraments have no efficency in justification; that baptism doth not avail infants for salvation, unless they have an act of faith; that there is no sacerdotal absolution from sins; that good works proceeding from god's grace are not meritorious; that there can be no satisfaction for the temporal punishment due to sin after the guilt, or offence is pardoned; no purgatory; no prayers for the dead; no sacrifice of the mass; no invocation; no mediation, or intercession of saints; no inherent justice: no supreme pastor, yea no bishop by divine ordinance; no real presence; no transubstantiation, with divers others. and why? because (forsooth) these doctrines derogate from the titles of mediator, redeemer, advocate, foundation, etc. yea, and are against the truth of our saviour's humane nature, if we believe divers protestants, writing against transubstantiation. let then any judicious man consider, whether doctor potter, or others do really satisfy, when they send men to the creed for a perfect catalogue, to distinguish points fundamental, from those which they say are not fundamental. if he will speak indeed to some purpose, let him say: this article is understood in this sense; and in this sense it is fundamental. that other is to be understood in such a meaning; yet according to that meaning, it is not so fundamental, but that men may disagree, and deny it without damnation, but it were no policy for any protestant to deal so plainly. 6. but to what end should we use many arguments? even yourself are forced to limit your own doctrine, and come to say, that the creed is a perfect catalogue of fundamental points, taken as it was further opened and explained in some parts (by occasion of emergent heresies) in the other catholic creeds of nice, constantinople, g pag. 216. ephesus, chalcedon, and athanasius. but this explication, or restriction overthroweth you assertion: for as the apostles creed was not to us a sufficient catalogue, till it was explained by the first council, nor then till it was declared by another, etc. so now also, as new heresies may arise, it will need particular explanation against such emergent errors; and so it is not yet, nor ever will be of itself alone, a particular catalogue, sufficient to distinguish betwixt fundamental, and not fundamental points. 7. i come to the second part: that the creed doth not contain all main and principal points of faith. and to the end we may not strive about things either granted by us both, or no thing concerning the point in question, i must premise these observations. 8. first: that it cannot be denied, but that the creed is most full and complete, to that purpose for which the holy apostles, inspired by god, meant that it should serve, and in that manner as they did intend it, which was, not to comprehend all particular points of faith, but such general heads, as were most befitting, and requisite for preaching the faith of christ to jews, and gentiles, and might be briefly, and compendiously set down, and easily learned, and remembered. and therefore, in respect of gentiles, the creed doth mention god, as creator of all things; and and for both jews and gentiles, the trinity, the messias, and saviour, his birth, life, death, resurrection, and glory, from whom they were to hope remission of sins, and life everlasting, and by whose sacred name they were to be distinguished from all other professions, by being called christians. according to which purpose s. thomas of aquine h 2. 2, q. 1. art. 8. doth distinguish all the articles of the creed into these general heads: that some belong to the majesty of the god head; others to the mystery of our saviour christ's humane nature: which two general objects of faith, the holy ghost doth express, and conjoin, joan. 17. haec est vita aeterna etc. this is life everlasting, that they know thee true god, and whom thou hast sent jesus christ. but it was not their meaning to give us as it were a course of divinity, or a catechism, or a particular expression of all points of faith, leaving those things to be performed, as occasion should require, by their own word or writing, for their time, and afterwards for their successors in the catholic church. our question then is not, whether the creed be perfect, as far as the end for which it was composed, did require; for we believe and are ready to give our lives for this: but only we deny, that the apostles did intend to comprise therein all particular ●oints of belief, necessary to salvation, as even by d. potter's own k pag. 235, 215. confession, it doth not comprehend agenda, or things belonging to practise, as sacraments, commandments, the acts of hope, and duties of charity, which we are obliged not only to practise, but also to believe by divine infallible faith. will he therefore infer that the creed is not perfect, because it contains not all those necessary, and fundamental objects of faith? he will answer, no: because the apostles intended only to express credenda, things to be believed, not practised. let him therefore give us leave to say, that the creed is perfect, because it wanteth none of those objects of belief which were intended to be set down, as we explicated before. 9 the second observation is, that to satisfy our question what points in particular be fundamental, it will not be sufficient to allege the creed, unless it contains all such points either expressly and immediately; or else in such manner, that by evident, and necessary consequence they may be deduced from articles both clearly, and particularly contained therein. for if the deduction be doubtful, we shall not be sure, that such conclusions be fundamental: or if the articles themselves which are said to be fundamental, be not distinctly, and particularly expressed, they will not serve us to know, and distinguish all points fundamental, from those which they call, not fundamental. we do not deny, but that all points of faith, both fundamental & not fundamental, may be said to be contained in the creed, in some sense; as for example, implicitly, generally, or in such involved manner. for when we explicitly believe the catholic church, we do implicitly believe whatsoever she proposeth as belonging to faith: or else by way of reduction, that is, when we are once instructed in the belief of particular points of faith, not expressed, nor by necessary consequence deducible from the creed; we may afterward, by some analogy, or proportion, and resemblance, reduce it to one, or more of those articles which are explicitly contained in the symbol. thus s. thomas the cherubin among divines teacheth l 2, 2. q. 1. art. 8. ad 6: that the miraculous existence of our blessed saviour's body in the eucharist, as likewise all his other miracles, are reduced to god's omnipotency, expressed in the creed. and doctor potter saith: the eucharist, m pag. 231. being a seal of that holy union which we have with christ our head, by his spirit and faith, and with the saints his members by charity, is evidently included in the communion of saints. but this reductive way, is far from being sufficient to infer out of the articles of god's omnipotency, or of the communion of saints, that our saviour's body is in the eucharist, and much less whether it be only in figure, or else in reality; by transubstantiation, or consubstantiation, etc. and least of all, whether or no these points be fundamental. and you hyperbolise, in saying, the eucharist is evidently included in the communion of saints, as if there could not have been, or was not a communion of saints, before the blessed sacrament was instituted. yet it is true, that after we know, and believe, there is such a sacrament, we may refer it to some of those heads expressed in the creed, and yet so, as s. thomas refers it to one article, and d. potter to another; and in respect of different analogies or effects, it may be referred to several articles. the like i say of other points of faith, which may in some sort be reduced to the creed, but nothing to d. potter's purpose: but contrarily it showeth, that your affirming such and such points to be fundamental or not fundamental, is merely arbitrary, to serve your turn, as necessity, and your occasions may require. which was an old custom amongst heretics, as we read in n de pe●cat. orig. lib. 2. c. 22▪ s. augustine; pelagius and celessius, desiring fraudulently to avoid the the hateful name of heresies, affirmed that the question of original sin may be disputed without danger of faith. but this holy father affirms that it belongs to the foundation of faith. we may (saith he) endure a disputant who errs in other questions not yet diligently examined, not yet diligently established by the whole authority of the church; their error may be borne with: but it must not pass so far as to attempt to shake the foundation of the church. we see s. augustine places the being of a point fundamental or not fundamental, in that it hath been examined, and established by the church, although the point of which he speaketh, namely original sin, be not contained in the creed. 10. out of that which hath been said, i infer, that dostor potter's pains in alleging catholic doctors, the ancient fathers, and the council of trent, to prove that the creed contains all points of faith, was needless; since we grant it in manner aforesaid. but doctor potter, cannot in his conscience believe, that catholic divines, or the council of trent and the holy fathers did intend, that all points in particular which we are obliged to believe, are contained explicitly in the creed; he knowing well enough, that all catholics hold themselves obliged, to believe all those points which the said council defines to be believed under an anathema, and that all christians believe the commandments, sacraments etc. which are not expressed in the creed. 11. neither must this seem strange. for who is ignorant, that summaries, epitomes, and the like brief abstracts, are not intended to specify all particulars of that science, or subject to which they belong. for as the creed is said to contain all points of faith; so the decalogue comprehends all articles, (as i may term them) which concern charity, and good life: and yet this cannot be so understood, as if we were disobliged from performance of any duty, or the eschewing. of any vice, unless it be expressed in the ten commandments. for, (to omit the precepts of receiving sacraments, which belong to practise, or manners, and yet are not contained in the decalogue) there are many sins, even against the law of nature, and light of reason, which are not contained in the ten commandments, except only by similitude, analogy, reduction, or some such way. for example, we find not expressed in the decalogue, either diverse sins, as gluttony, drunkenness, pride, sloth, covetousness in desiring either things superfluous, or with too much greediness; or diverse of our chief obligations, as obedience to princes, and all superiors, not only ecclesiastical but also civil, whose laws luther, melancthon, calvin; and some other protestants do dangerously affirm not to oblige ●n conscience, and yet these men think they know the ten commandments: as likewise diverse protestants defend usury, to be lawful; and the many treatises of civilians, canonists, and casuists, are witnesses, that diverse sins against the light of reason, and law of nature, are not distinctly expressed in the ten commandments; although when by other diligences they are found to be unlawful, they may be reduced to some of the commandments, and yet not so evidently, and particularly, but that diverse do it in diverse manners. 12. my third observation is: that our present question being, whether or no the creed contain so fully all fundamental points of faith, that whosoever do not agree in all, and every one of those fundamental articles, cannot have the same substance of faith, nor hope of salvation; if i can produce one, or more points, not contained in the creed, in which if two do not agree, both of them cannot expect to be saved, i shall have performed as much as i intent; and d. potter must seek our some other catalogue for points fundamental, than the creed. neither is it material to the said purpose, whether such fundamental points rest only in knowledge, and speculation, or belief, or else be farther referred to work and practise. for the habit, or virtue of faith, which inclineth, and enableth us to believe both speculative, and practical verities, is of one and the self same nature, and essence. for example, by the same faith, whereby i speculatively believe there is a god, i likewise believe, that he is to be adored, served, and loved; which belong to practise. the reason is, because the formal object, or motive, for which i yield assent to those different sorts of material objects, is the sai●● in both, to wit, the revelation, or word of god. where, by the way i note, that if the unity, or distinction, and nature of faith, were to be taken from the diversity of things revealed, by one faith i should believe speculative verities, and by another such as tend to practise, which i doubt whether d. potter himself will admit. 13 hence it followeth, that whosoever denieth any one main practical revealed truth, is no less an heretic, then if he should deny a point resting in belief alone. so that when d. potter, (to avoid our argument, that all fundamental points are not contained in the creed, because in it there is no mention of the sacraments, which yet are points of so main importance, that protestants make the due administration of them, to be necessary and essential to constitute a church) answereth, that the sacraments are to be p pap. 235. reckoned, rather among the agenda of the church, than the credenda; they are rather divine rites and ceremonies, than doctrines, he either grants what we affirm, or in effect says, of two kinds of revealed truths, which are necessary to be believed, the creed contains one sort only, ergo, it contains all kind of revealed truths necessary to be believed. our question is not, de nomine but re; not what be called points of faith, or of practice, but what points indeed be necessarily to be believed, whether they be termed agenda, or credenda: especially the chiefest part of christian perfection consisting more in action, then in barren speculation; in good works, then bare belief; in doing, then knowing. and there are no less contentions concerning practical; then speculative truths: as sacraments, obtaining remission of sin, invocation of saints, prayers for dead, adoration of christ in the sacrament, and many other: all which do so much the more import, as on them, beside righ● belief, doth also depend our practice, and the ordering of our life. though d. potter could therefore give us (as he will never be able to do) a minute, and exact catalogue of all truths to be believed; that would not make me able enough to know, whether or no i have faith sufficient for salvation; till he also did bring in a particular list, of all believed truths, which tend to practise, declaring which of them be fundamental, which not; that so every man might know, whether he be not in some damnable error, for some article of faith, which farther might give influence into damnable works. 14 these observations being premised, i come to prove, that the creed doth not contain all points of faith necessary to be known and believed. and, to omit that in general it doth no● tell us, what points be fundamental, or not fundamental, which in the way of protestants, is most necessary to be known; in particular, there is no mention of the greatest evils, from which man's calamity proceeded, i mean, the sin of the angels, of adam, and of original sin in us: nor of the greatest good from which we expect all good, to wit, the necessity of grace for all works tending to piety. nay, there is no mention of angels, good, or bad. the meaning of that most general head (oporter accedentem etc. it behoves q heb. 11. 6. him that comes to god, to believe that he is, and is a remunerator,) is questioned, by the denial of merit, which makes god a giver, but not a rewarder. it is not expressed whether the article of remission of sins be understood by faith alone, or else may admit the efficiency of sacraments. there is no mention of ecclesiastical, apostolical, divine traditions, one way or other; or of holy scriptures in general, and much less of every book in particular; nor of the name, nature, number, effects, matter, form, minister, intention, necessity of sacraments, and yet the due administration of sacraments, is with protestants an essential note of the church. there is nothing for baptism of children, nor against rebaptisation. there is no mention in favour, or against the sacrifice of the mass, of power in the church to institute rites, holy days, etc. and to inflict excommunication, or other censures: of priesthood, bishops, and the whole ecclesiastical hierarchy, which are very fundamental points; of s. peter's primacy, which to calvin seemeth a fundamental error; nor of the possibility, or impossibility to keep god's commandments; of the procession of the holy ghost from the father and the son; of purgatory, or prayer for the dead, in any sense: and yet d. potter doth not deny, but that aerius was esteemed an heretic, for denying r pag. 35● all sort of commemoration for the dead. nothing of the church's visibility or invisibility, fallibility or infallibility; nor of other points controverted betwixt protestants themselves, and between protestants and catholics, which to d. potter seem so heinous corruptions, that they cannot without damnation join with us in profession thereof. there is no mention of the cessation of the old law, which yet is a very main point of faith. and many other might be also added. 15. but what need we labour to specify particulars? there are as many important points of faith not expressed in the creed, as since the world's beginning, now, and for all future times, there have been, are and may be innumerable, gross, damnable heresies, whose contrary truths are not contained in the creed. for, every fundamental error must have a contrary fundamental truth; because of two contradictory propositions in the same degree, the one is false, the other must be true. as for example, if it be a damnable error to deny the b●. trinity, or the godhead of our saviour, the belief of them must be a truth necessary to salvation; or rather, if we will speak properly, the error is damnable, because the opposite truth is necessary, as death is frightful, because life is sweet; and according to philosophy, the privation is measured by the form to which it is repugnant. if therefore the creed contain in particular all fundamental points of faith, it must explicitly, or by clear consequence, comprehend all truths opposite to innumerable heresies of all ages past, present, and to come, which no man in his wits will affirm it to do. 16 and here i cannot omit to signify how you s pag. 255. applaud the saying of d. vsher. that in those propositions which without all controversy are universally received in the whole christian world, so much truth is contained, as being joined with holy obedience, may be sufficient to bring a man to everlasting salvation, neither have we cause to doubt, but that as many as walk according to this rule (neither overthrowing that which they have builded, by superinducing any damnable heresies thereupon, nor otherwise vitiating their holy faith, with a lewd and wicked conversation) peace shall be upon them, and upon the israel of god. now d potter knows, that the mystery of the b. trinity is not universally received in the whole christian world, as appears in very many heretics, in polony, hungary, and transilvania, and therefore according to this rule of d. usher, approved by d. potter, the denial of the b. trinity, shall not exclude salvation. 17 let me note by the way, that you might easily have espied a foul contradiction in the said words of d. usher, by you recited, and so much applauded. for he supposeth, that a man agrees with other churches in belief, which joined with holy obedience may bring him to everlasting salvation, and yet, that he may superinduce damnable heresies. for how can he superinduce damnable heresies, who is supposed to believe all truth's necessary to salvation? can there be any damnable heresy, unless it contradict some necessary truth, which cannot happen in one who is supposed to believe all necessary truths? besides if one believing all fundamental articles in the creed, may superinduce damnable heresies; it followeth that the fundamental truths contrary to those damnable heresies, are not contained in the creed. 18 according to this model of d. potter's foundation, consisting in the agreement of scarceone point of faith; what a strange church would he make of men concurring in some one of few articles of belief, who yet for the rest should be holding conceits plainly contradictory: so patching up a religion of men, who agree only in the article, that christ is our saviour, but for the rest, are like to the parts of a chimaera; having the head of a man, the neck of a horse, the shoulders of an ox, the foot of a lion etc. i wrong them not herein. for in good philosophy there is greater repugnancy between assent and descent, affirmation and negation, est est, non non, (especially when all these contradictories pretend to rely upon one and the self same motive, the infallible truth of almighty god) then between the integral parts, as head, neck, etc. of a man, horse, lion, etc. and thus protestants are far more bold to disagree even in matters of faith, than catholic divines in questions merely philosophical, or not determined by the church. and wh●e thus they stand only upon fundamental articles, they do by their own confession destroy the church, which is the house of god. for the foundation alone of a house, is not a house, nor can they in such an imaginary church any more expect salvation, than the foundation alone of a house is fit to afford a man habitation. 19 moreover, it is most evident that protestants by this chaos rather than church, do give unavoidable occasion of desperation to poor souls. let some one who is desirous to save his soul repair to d. potter, who maintains these grounds, to know upon whom he may rely, in a matter of so great consequence; i suppose the doctor's answer will be: upon the truly catholic church. she cannot err damnably. what understand you by the catholic church? cannot general counsels, which are the church representative, err? yes, they may weakly, or t pag. 167. wilfully misaply, or misunderstand, or neglect scripture, and so err damnably. to whom then shall i go for my particular instruction? i cannot confer with the united body of the whole church about my particular difficulties, as yourself affirms, that the catholic church cannot be told u pag. 27. of private injuries. must i then consult with every particular person of the catholic church? so it seems, by what you write in these words: the whole w pag. 150. militant church (that is all the members of it) cannot possibly err, either in the whole faith, or any necessary article of it. you say, m. doctor, i cannot for my instruction acquaint the universal church with my particular scruples: you say, the prelates of god's church meeting in a lawful general council may err damnably: it remains then, that for my necessary instruction, i must repair to every particular member of the universal church spread over the face of the earth: and yet you teach that the promises x pag. 151. which our lord hath made unto his church for his assistance, are intended not to any particular persons or churches, but only to the church catholic, with which (as i said) it is impossible for me to confer. alas! o most uncomfortable ghostly father, you drive me to desperation! how shall i confer with every christian soul, man and woman, by sea and by land, close prisoner, or at liberty? etc. yet upon supposal of this miraculous pilgrimage for faith, before i have the faith of miracles, how shall i proceed at our meeting? or how shall i know the man on whom i may securely rely? procure (will you say) to knew whether he believe all fundamental points of faith. for if he do, his faith, for point of belief, is sufficient for salvation, though he err in a hundred things of less moment. but how shall i know whether he hold all fundamental points or no? for till you tell me this, i cannot know whether or no his belief be sound in all fundamental points. can you say the creed? yes. and so can many damnable heretics. but why do you ask me this question? because the creed contains all fundamental points of faith. are you sure of that? not sure: i hold it very probable. y pag. 241. shall i hazard my soul on probabilities, or even wagers? this yields a new cause of despair. but what? doth the creed contain all points necessary to be believed, whether they rest in the understanding, or else do further extend to practise? no. it was composed to deliver credenda, not agenda to us; faith, not practice. how then shall i know what points of belief, which direct my practice, be necessary to salvation? s●ll you chalk our new paths for desperation. well, are all articles of the creed, for their nature and matter, fundamental? i cannot say so. how then shall i know which in particular be, and which be not fundamental? read my answer to a late popish pamphlet entitled charity mistaken etc. there you shall find, that fundamental doctrines are such catholic verities, as principally and essentially pertain z pag. 211. 213▪ 214. to the faith, such as properly constitute a church, and are necessary (in ordinary course) to be distinctly believed by every christian that will be saved. they are those grand, and capital doctrines which make up our faith in christ; that is, that common faith which is alike precious in all, being one and the same in the highest apostle, and the meanest believer, which the apostle elsewhere calls the first principles of the oracles of god, & the form of sound words. but how shall i apply these general definitions, or descriptions, or (to say the truth) these only varied words, and phrases (for i understand the word, fundamental, as well as the words, principal, essential grand, and capital doctrines, etc.) to the particular articles of the creed, in such sort, as that i may be able precisely, exactly, particularly, to distinguish fundamental articles from points of less moment? you labour to tell us what fundamental points be, but not which they be: and yet unless you do this, your doctrine serves only, either to make men despair, or else to have recourse to those whom you call papists, and which give one certain rule, that all points defined by christ's visible church belong to the foundation of faith, in such sense, as that to deny any one cannot stand with salvation. and seeing yourself acknowledges that these men do not err in points fundamental, i cannot but hold it most safe for me to join with them, for the securing of my soul, and the avoiding of desperation, into which this your doctrine must cast all them who understand, and believe it. for the whole discourse, and inferences which here i have made, are either your own direct assertions, or evident consequences clearly deduced from them. 20 but now let us answer some few objections of d. potter's, against that which we have said before, to avoid our argument. that the scripture is not so much as mentioned in the creed, he saith: the creed is an abstract of such a pag. 234. necessary doctrines as are delivered in scripture, or collected out of it; and therefore needs not express the authority of that which it supposes. 21 this answer makes for us. for by giving a reason why it was needless that scripture should be expressed in the creed, you grant as much as we desire, namely that the apostles judged it needless to express all necessary points of faith in their creed. neither doth the creed suppose, or depend on scripture, in such sort as that we can by any probable consequence, infer from the articles of the creed, that there is any canonical scripture at all; and much less that such books in particular be canonical. yea the creed might have been the same although holy scripture had never been written; and, which is more, the creed even in priority of time, was before all the scripture of the new testament, except the gospel of s. matthew. and so according to this reason of his, the scripture should not mention articles contained in the creed. and i note in a word, how little connexion d. potter's arguments have, while he tells us, that the creed b pag. 234. is an abstract of such necessary doctrines as are delivered in scripture, or collected out of it, & therefore needs not express the authority of that which it supposes; it doth not follow: the articles of the creed are delivered in scripture: therefore the creed supposeth scripture. for two distinct writings may well deliver the same truths, and yet one of them not suppose the other, unless d. potter be of opinion that two doctors cannot, at one time, speak the same truth. 22 and notwithstanding, that d. potter hath now told us, it was needless that the creed should express scripture, whose authority it supposes, he comes at length to say, that the nicene fathers in their creed confessing that the holy ghost spoke by the prophets, doth thereby sufficiently avow the divine authority of all canonical scripture. but i would ask him, whether the nicene creed be not also an abstract of doctrines delivered in scripture, as he said of the apostles creed, and thence did infer, that it was needless to express scripture, whose authority it supposes? besides, we do not only believe in general, that canonical scripture is of divine authority but we are also bound under pain of damnation to believe, that such and such particular books● not mentioned in the nicene creed, are canonical. and lastly d. potter in this answer grants as much as we desire, which is, that all points of faith are not contained in the apostles creed, even as it is explained by other creeds. for these words (who spoke by the prophets) are no ways contained in the apostles creed, and therefore contain an addition, not an explanation thereof. 23 but, how can it be necessary (saith d. potter) for any christian to have more in his creed then the c pag. 221▪ apostles had, and the church of their times? i answer; you trifle, not distinguish between the apostles belief, and that abridgement of some articles of faith, which we call the apostles creed; and withal you beg the question, by supposing that the apostles believed no more, then is contained in their creed, which every unlearned person knows and believes: and i hope you will not deny but the apostles were endued with greater knowledge then ordinary persons. 24 your pretended proof out of the acts, that the apostles revealed to the church the whole counsel of god, keeping d acts 20. 2●▪ back nothing, with your gloss (needful for our salvation) is no proof, unless you still beg the question, and do suppose, that whatsoever the apostles revealed to the church, is contained in the creed. and i wonder you do not reflect that those words were by s, paul particularly directed to pastors, and governors of the church, as is clear by the other words; he called the ancients of the church. and afterward: take heed to yourselves, and to the whole flock wherein the holy ghost hath placed you bishops, to rule the church. and yourself say, that more knowledge is e pag. 244▪ necessary in bishops, and priests, to whom is committed the government of the church, and the care of souls, then in vulgar laics. do you think that the apostles taught christians nothing but their creed? said they nothing of the sacraments, commandments, duties of hope, charity, etc. 25 upon the same affected ambiguity is grounded your other objection: to say the whole faith of those times f pag. 225▪ 223. is not contained in the apostles creed, is all one, as if a man should say, this is not the apostles creed▪ but a part of it: for the faith of the apostles is not all one with that which we commonly call their creed. did not, i pray you, s. matthew, and s. john believe their writings to be canonical scripture? and yet their writings are not mentioned in the creed. it is therefore more than clear, that the faith of the apostles is of larger extent, than the apostles creed. 26 to your demand, why amongst many things of equal necessity to be believed, the apostles should g pag. 223▪ so distinctly set down some, and be altogether silent of others? i answer: that you must answer your own demand. for in the creed there be diverse points in their nature, not fundamental or necessary to be explicitly and distinctly believed, 〈◊〉 above we shewed; why are these points which are not fundamental expressed, rather than other 〈◊〉 the same quality? why our saviour's descent to hell, and burial expressed, and not his circumcision, his manifestation to the three kings, working of miracles, etc. why did they not express scriptures, sacraments, and all fundamental points of faith tending to practise, as well as those which rest in belief? their intention was, particularly to deliver such articles as were fittest for those times, concerning the deity, trinity, and messias (as heretofore i have declared) leaving many things to be taught by the catholic church, which in the creed we all profess to believe. neither doth it follow, as you infer, that as well, nay better, they might have given no article, but that (of the church) & sent us to the church for all the rest. for in setting down others besides that, and not all, they make us believe we have all, when h pag. 223▪ we have not all. for by this kind of arguing, what may not be deduced? one might, quite contrary to your inference, say: if the apostles creed contain all points necessary to salvation, what need we any church to teach us? and consequently what need of the article concerning the church? what need we the creeds of nice, constantinople, etc. superfluous are your catechisms, wherein besides the articles of the creed, you add diverse other particulars. these would be poor consequences, and so is yours. but shall i tell you news? for so you are pleased to esteem it. we grant your inference, thus far: that our saviour christ referred us to his church, by her to be taught, and by her alone. for, she was before the creed, and scriptures; and she to discharge this imposed office of instructing us, hath delivered us the creed, but not it alone, as if nothing else were to be believed. we have besides it, holy scripture, we have unwritten, divine, apostolical, ecclesiastical traditions. it were a childish argument: the creed contains not all things which are necessary to be believed: ergo, it is not profitable. or; the church alone is sufficient to teach us by some convenient means: ergo, she must teach us without all means, without creeds, without counsels, without scripture etc. if the apostles had expressed no article, but that of the catholic church, she must have taught us the other articles in particular, by creeds, or other means, as in fact we have even the apostles creed from the tradition of the church. if you will believe you have all in the creed, when you have not all, it is not the apostles, or the church, that makes you so believe, but it is your own error, whereby you will needs believe, that the creed must contain all. for neither the apostles, nor the church, nor the creed itself tell you any such matter; and what necessity is there, that one means of instruction, must involve whatsoever is contained in all the rest? we are not to recite the creed with anticipated persuasion, that it must contain what we imagine it aught, for better maintaining some opinions of our own; but we ought to say, and believe that it contains what we find in it; of which one article is to believe the catholic church, surely to be taught by her, which presupposeth that we need other instruction beside the creed: and in particular we may learn of her, what points be contained in the creed, what otherwise; and so we shall not be deceived, by believing we have all in the creed, when we have not all: and you may in the same manner say: as well, nay better, the apostles might have given us no articles at all, as have left out articles tending to practise. for in setting down one sort of articles, and not the others, they make us believe we have all, when we have not all. 27 to our argument, that baptism is not contained in the creed, d. potter, besides his answer, that sacraments belong rather to practise then faith, (which i have already confuted, and which indeed maketh against himself, and serveth only to show that the apostles intended not to comprise all points in the creed which we are bound to believe) adds, that the creed of i pag. 237. nice expressed baptism by name, confess one baptism for the remission of sins. which answer is directly against himself, and manifestly proves that baptism is an article of faith, and yet is not contained in the apostles creed, neither explicitly, nor by any necessary consequence from other articles expressed therein. if to make it an article of faith be sufficient that it is contained in the nicene council; he will find that protestants maintain many errors against faith, as being repugnant to definitions of general counsels: as in particular, that the very council of nice (which saith m. whitgift, k in his defence. page 330. is of all wise and learned men reverenced, esteemed and embraced, next unto the scriptures themselves) decreed that, to those who were chosen to the ministry unmarried, it was not lawful to take any wife afterward, is affirmed by protestants. and your grand reformer luther (lib. de conciliis part prima) saith, that he understand not the holy ghost in that council. for in one canon it saith that those who have gelded themselves are not fit to be made priests, in another it forbids them to have wives. hath (saith he) the holy ghost nothing to do in counsels, but to bind, and load his ministers with impossible, dangerous, and unnecessary laws? i forbear to show that this very article i confess one baptism for the remission of sins, will be understood by protestants in a far different sense from catholics, yea protestants among themselves do not agree, how baptism forgives sins, nor what grace it confers. only concerning the unity of baptism against rebaptisation of such as were once baptised (which i noted as a point not contained in the apostles creed) i cannot omit an excellent place of s. augustine, where speaking of the donatists he hath these words. they are so bold as l lib. de heres. in 69. to rebaptize catholics, wherein they show themselves to be the greater heretics, since it hath pleased the universal catholic church not to make baptism void even in the very heretics themselves. in which few words this holy father delivereth against the donatists these points which do also make against protestants: that to make an heresy, or an heretic, known for such, it is sufficient, to oppose the definition of god's church: that a proposition may be heretical though it be not repugnant to any texts of scripture. for s. augustine teacheth that the doctrine of rebaptisation, is heretical▪ and yet acknowledgeth it cannot be convinced for such out of scripture. and that neither the heresy of rebaptisation of those who were baptised by heretics, nor the contrary catholic truth being expressed in the apostles creed, it followeth that it doth not contain all points of faith necessary to salvation. and so we must conclude that to believe the creed is not sufficient for unity of faith, and spirit in the same church, unless there be also a total agreement both in belief of other points of faith, and in external profession, and communion also (whereof we are to speak in the next chapter) according to the saying of s. augustine: you are m aug. ep. ●8. with us in baptism, and in the creed, but in the spirit of unity, and bond of peace, and lastly in the catholic church you are not with us. the answer to the fourth chapter. wherein is showed, that the creed contains all necessary points of mere belief. 1 ad. §. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. concerning the creeds containing the fundamentals of christianity, this is d. potter's assertion, delivered in the 207. p. of his book. the creed of the apostles (as it is explained in the latter creeds of the catholic church) is esteemed a sufficient summary or catalogue of fundamentals, by the best learned romanists and by antiquity. 2 by fundamentals he understands not the fundamental rules of good life and action, (though every one of these is to be believed to come from god, & therefore virtually includes an article of faith;) but the fundamental doctrines of faith; such, as though they have influence upon our lives, as every essential doctrine of christianity hath, yet we are commanded to believe them, and not to do them. the assent of our understandings is required to them, but no obedience from our wills. 3 but these speculative doctrines again he distinguishes out of aquinas, occam, and canus and others, into two kinds: of the first are those which are the objects of faith, in, and for themselves, which by their own nature and gods prime intention, are essential parts of that gospel: such as the teachers in the church, cannot without mortal sin omit to teach the learners: such as are intrinsical to the covenant between god and man; and not only plainly revealed by god, and so certain truths, but also commanded to be preached to all men, and to be believed distinctly by all, and so necessary truths. of the second sort are accidental, circumstantial, occasional objects of faith; million whereof there are in holy scripture; such as are to be believed▪ not for themselves, but because they are joined with others, that are necessary to be believed, and delivered by the same authority which delivered these. such as we are not bound to know to be divine revelations, (for without any fault we may be ignorant hereof, nay believe the contrary;) such as we are not bound to examine, whether or no they be divine revelations: such as pastors are not bound to teach their flock, nor their flock bound to know and remember: no nor the pastors themselves to know them or believe them, or not to disbelieve them absolutely and always; but then only when they do see, and know them to be delivered in scripture, as divine revelations. 4 i say when they do so, and not only when they may do. for to lay an obligation upon us of believing, or not disbelieving any verity, sufficient revelation on god's part, is not sufficient: for then seeing all the express verities of scripture are either to all men, or at least to all learned men sufficiently revealed by god, it should be a damnable sin, in any learned man actually to disbelieve any one particular historical verity contained in scripture, or to believe the contradiction of it, though he knew it not to be there contained. for though he did not, yet he might have known it; it being plainly revealed by god, and this revelation being extant in such a book, wherein he might have found it recorded, if with diligence he had perused it. to make therefore any points necessary to be believed, it is requisite, that either we actually know them to be divine revelations: and these though they be not articles of faith, nor necessary to be believed, in and for themselves, yet indirectly, and by accident, and by consequence, they are so: the necessity of believing them, being enforced upon us, by a necessity of believing this essential, and fundamental article of faith, that all divine revelations are true, which to disbelieve, or not to believe, is for any christian not only impious, but impossible. or else it is requisite that they be, first actually revealed by god. secondly, commanded under pain of damnation, to be particularly known (i mean known to be divine revelations,) and distinctly to be believed. and of this latter sort of speculative divine verities, d. potter affirmed, that the apostles creed was a sufficient summary: yet he affirmed it, not as his own opinion, but as the doctrine of the ancient fathers, and your own doctors. and beside, he affirmed it not as absolutely certain, but very probable. 5 in brief, all that he says is this: it is very probable, that according to the judgement of the roman doctors, and the ancient fathers, the apostles creed is to be esteemed a sufficient summary of all those doctrines which being merely credenda, and not agenda, all men are ordinarily, under pain of damnation, bound particularly to believe. 6 now this assertion (you say) is neither pertinent to the question in hand, nor in itself true. your reasons to prove it impertinent, put into form and divested of impertinencies are these. 1. because the question was not, what points were necessary to be explicitly believed, but what points were necessary not to be disbelieved after sufficient proposal. and therefore to give a catalogue of points, necessary to be explicitly believed is impertinent. 7 secondly, because errors may be damnable, though the contrary truths be not of themselves fundamental; as that pontius pilate was our saviour's judge, is not in itself a fundamental truth, ●et to believe the contrary were a damnable error. and therefore to give a catalogue of truths in themselves fundamental, is no pertinent satisfaction to this demand, what errors are damnable? 8 thirdly, because if the church be not universally infallible, we cannot ground any certainty upon the creed, which we must receive upon the credit of the church: and if the church be universally infallible, it is damnable to oppose her declaration in any thing, though not contained in the creed. 9 fourthly, because not to believe the articles of the creed in the true sense is damnable, therefore it is frivolous to say the creed contains all fundamentals, without specifying in what sense the articles of it are fundamental. 10 fiftly, because the apostles creed (as d. potter himself confesses) was not a sufficient catalogue, till it was explained by the first council; nor then until it was declared in the second etc. by occasion of emergent heresies: therefore now also as new heresies may arise, it will need particular explanation, and so is not yet, nor ever will be a complete catalogue of fundamentals. 11 now to the first of these objections i say: frist, that your distinction between points necessary to be believed, and necessary not to be disbelieved, is more subtle than sound, a distinction without a difference: there being no point necessary to be believed, which is not necessary not to be disbelieved: nor no point to any man, at any time, in any circumstances necessary not to be disbelieved, but it is to the same man, at the same time, in the same circumstances, necessary to be believed. yet that which (i believe) you would have said, i acknowledge true, that many points which are not necessary to be believed absolutely, are yet necessary to be believed upon a supposition, that they are known to be revealed by god: that is, become then necessary to be believed, when they are known to be divine revelations. but then i must needs say, you do very strangely, in saying, that the question was, what points might lawfully be disbelieved, after sufficient proposition that they are divine revelations. you affirm, that none may, and so does d. potter, and with him all protestants, and all christians. and how then is this the question? who ever said or thought, that of divine revelations, known to be so, some might safely and lawfully be rejected, and disbelieved, under pretence that they are not fundamental? which of us ever taught, that it was not damnable, either to deny, or so much as doubt of the truth of any thing, whereof we either know, or believe that god hath revealed it? what protestant ever taught that it was not damnable, either to give god the lie, or to call his veracity into question? yet you say, the demand of charity mistaken was, & it was most reasonable, that a list of fundamentals, should be given, the denial whereof destroys salvation, whereas the denial of other points may stand with salvation, although both kinds be equally proposed, as revealed by god. 12 let the reader peruse charity mistaken, & he shall find that this qualification, although both kinds of points be equally proposed as revealed by god, is your addition, and no part of the demand. and if it had, it had been most unreasonable, seeing he and you know well enough, that (though we do not presently without examination, fall down and worship all your church's proposals, as divine revelations) yet, we make no such distinction of known divine revelations, as if some only of them were necessary to be believed, and the rest might safely be rejected. so that to demand a particular minute catalogue of all points that may not be disbelieved after sufficient proposition, is indeed to demand a catalogue of all points that are or may be, in as much as none may be disbelieved, after sufficient proposition, that it is a divine revelation. at least it is to desire us, first, to transcribe into this catalogue, every text of the whole bible. secondly, to set down distinctly, those innumerous millions of negative and positive consequences, which may be evidently deduced from it: for these we say, god hath revealed. and indeed you are not ashamed in plain terms to require this of us. for having first told us, that the demand was, what points were necessary not to be disbelieved, after sufficient proposition that they are divine truths: you come to say, certainly the creed contains not all these. and this you prove by ask, how many truths are thero in holy scripture, not contained in the creed, which we are not bound to know and believe, but are bound under pain of damnation not to reject, as soon as we come to know that they are found in holy scripture? so that in requiring a particular catalogue of all points, not to be disbelieved, after sufficient proposal, you require us to set you down all points contained in scripture, or evidently deducible from it. and yet this you are pleased to call a reasonable, nay, a most reasonable demand: whereas having engaged yourself to give a catalogue of your fundamentals, you conceive your engagement very well satisfied by saying, all is fundamental which the church proposes, without going about, to give us an endless inventory of her proposals. and therefore from us, in stead of a perfect particular of divine revelations of all sorts, (of which with a less hyperbole then s. john useth, we might say, if they were to be written, the world would not hold the books that must be written;) me thinks you should accept of this general, all divine revelations are true, and to be believed. 13 the very truth is, the main question in this business is not, what divine revelations are necessary to be believed, or not rejected when they are sufficiently proposed: for all without exception, all without question are so; but what revelations are simply and absolutely necessary to be proposed to the belief of christians, so that that society, which does propose, and indeed believe them, hath for matter of faith, the essence of a true church; that which does not, has not. now to this question, though not to yours, d. potter's assertion (if it be true) is apparently very pertinent. and though not a full and total satisfaction to it, yet very effectual, and of great moment towards it. for the main question being, what points are necessary to salvation: and points necessary to salvation, being of two sorts, some of simple belief, some of practice and obedience, he that gives you a sufficient summary, of the first sort of necessary points, hath brought you half way towards your journey's end. and therefore that which he does, is no more to be slighted, as vain and impertinent, than an architects work is to be thought impertinent towards the making of a house, because he does it not all himself. sure i am, if his assertion be true, as i believe it is, a corollary may presently be deduced from it, which if it were embraced, cannot in all reason, but do infinite service, both to the truth of christ, and the peace of christendom. for seeing falsehood and error could not long stand against the power of truth, were they not supported by tyranny and worldly advantages, he that could assert christians to that liberty which christ and his apostles left them, must needs do truth a most heroical service. and seeing the over-valuing of the differences among christians, is one of the greatest maintainers of the schism of christendom, he that could demonstrate that only these points of belief, are simply necessary to salvation, wherein christians generally agree, should he not lay a very fair and firm foundation of the peace of christendom? now the corollary which i conceive would produce these good effects, and which flows naturally from d. potter's assertion, is this, that what man or church soever believes the creed, and all the evident consequences of it sincerely and heartily, cannot possibly (if also he believe the scripture) be in any error of simple belief which is offensive to god; nor therefore deserve for any such error to be deprived of his life, or to be cut off from the church's communion, and the hope of salvation. and the production of this again would be this (which highly concerns the church of rome to think of,) that whatsoever man or church does for any error of simple belief, deprive any man so qualified as above, either of his temporal life, or livelihood or liberty, or of the church's communion, and hope of salvation, is for the first unjust, cruel, and tyrannous: schismatical, presumptuous, and uncharitable for the second. 13 neither yet is this (as you pretend) to take away the necessity of believing those verities of scripture, which are not contained in the creed, when once we come to know that they are written in scripture, but rather to lay a necessity upon men of believing all things written in scripture, when once they know them to be there written. for he that believes not all known divine revelations to be true, how does he believe in god? unless you will say, that the same man, at the same time may not believe god, and yet believe in him. the greater difficulty is, how it will not take away the necessity of believing scripture to be the word of god? but that it will not neither. for though the creed be granted a sufficient summary of articles of mere faith, yet no man pretends that it contains the rules of obedience, but for them, all men are referred to scripture. besides, he that pretends to believe in god, obligeth himself to believe it necessary to obey that which reason assures him to be the will of god. now reason will assure him that believes the creed, that it is the will of god he should believe the scripture: even the very same reason which moves him to believe the creed: universal, and never failing tradition, having given this testimony both to creed and scripture, that they both by the works of god were sealed, & testified to be the words of god. and thus much be spoken in answer to your first argument; the length whereof will be the more excusable, if i oblige myself to say but little to the rest. 14 i come then to your second. and in answer to it, deny flatly, as a thing destructive of itself, that any error can be damnable, unless it be repugnant immediately or mediately, directly or indirectly, of itself or by accident, to some truth for the matter of it fundamental. and to your example of pontius pilat's being judge of christ, i say the denial of it in him that knows it to be revealed by god, is manifestly destructive of this fundamental truth, that all divine revelations are true. neither will you find any error so much as by accident damnable, but the rejecting of it will be necessarily laid upon us, by a real belief of all fundamentals, and simply necessary truths. and i desire you would reconcile with this, that which you have said § 15. every fundamental error must have a contrary fundamental truth, because, of two contradictory propositions, in the same degree, the one is false, the other must be true, etc. 15 to the third i answer; that the certainty i have of the creed, that it was from the apostles, and contains the principles of faith, i ground it not upon scripture, and yet not upon the infallibility of any present, much less of your church, but upon the authority of the ancient church, and written tradition, which (as d. potter hath proved) gave this constant testimony unto it. besides i tell you, it is guilty of the same fault which d. potter's assertion is here accused of: having perhaps some colour toward the proving it false, but none at all to show it impertinent. 16 to the fourth, i answer plainly thus, that you find fault with d. potter for his virtues: you are offended with him for not usurping the authority which he hath not; in a word for not playing the pope. certainly if protestants be faulty in this matter, it is for doing it too much, and not too little. this presumptuous imposing of the senses of men upon the words of god, the special senses of men upon the general words of god, and laying them upon men's consciences together, under the equal penalty of death, and damnation; this vain conceit that we can speak of the things of god, better than in the word of god: this deifying our own interpretations, and tyrannous enforcing them upon others; this restraining of the word of god from that latitude and generality, and the understandings of men from that liberty, wherein christ and apostles left them, a this persuasion is no singularity of mine, but the doctrine which i have learned from divines of great learning and judgement, let the reader be pleased to peruse the seaventh book of acontius de stratag. satanae. and zanchius his last oration delivered by him after the composing of the discord between him and amerbachius, and he shall confess as much. is, and hath been the only fountain of all the schisms of the church, and that which makes them continue the common incendiary of christendom, and that which (as i said before) tears into pieces, not the coat, but the bowels, and members of christ: ridente turcâ nec dolente iudae●. take away these walls of separation, and all will quickly be one. take away this persecuting, burning, cursing, damning of men for not subscribing to the words of men, as the words of god; require of christians only to believe christ, and to call no man master but him only; let those leave claiming infallibility that have no title to it, and let them that in their words disclaim it, disclaim it likewise in their actions; in a word, take away tyranny, which is the devil's instrument to support errors, and superstitions, and impieties, in the several parts of the world, which could not otherwise long withstand the power of truth, i say take away tyranny, and restore christians to their just and full liberty of captivating their understanding to scripture only, and as rivers when they have a free passage, run all to the ocean, so it may well be hoped by god's blessing, that universal liberty thus moderated, may quickly reduce christendom to truth and unity. these thoughts of peace (i am persuaded) may come from the god of peace, and to his blessing i commend them, and proceed. 18 your fifth and last objection stands upon a false and dangerous supposition: that new heresies may arise. for an heresy being in itself nothing else but a doctrine repugnant to some article of the christian faith, to say that new heresies may arise, is to say, that new articles of faith may arise: and so some great ones among you stick not to profess in plain terms, who yet at the same time are not ashamed to pretend that your whole doctrine is catholic and apostolic. so salmeron: non omnibus omnia dedit deus, ut quaelibetaetas suis gaudeat veritatibus, quas prior aetas ignoravit. god hath not given all things to all▪ so that every age hath its proper verities, which the former age was ignorant of: disp. 57 in ep. ad rome and again in the margin: habet vnumquodque saeculum peculiares revelationes divinas, every age hath its peculiar divine revelations. where that he speaks of such revelations as are, or may by the church be made matters of faith, no man can doubt that reads him; an example whereof, he gives us a little before in these words. vnius augustini doctrina assumptionis b. deiparae cultum in ecclesiam introduxit. the doctrine of augustine only, hath brought in to the church the worship of the assumption of the mother of god. etc. others again mince and palliate the matter with this pretence, that your church undertakes not to coin new articles of faith, but only to declare those that want sufficient declaration. but if sufficient declaration be necessary to make any doctrine an article of faith, than this doctrine which before wanted it, was not before an article of faith; and your church by giving it the essential form, and last compliment of an article of faith, makes it, though not a truth, yet certainly an article of faith. but i would fain know, whether christ and his apostles knew this doctrine, which you pretend hath the matter, but wants the form of an article of faith, that is, sufficient declaration, whether they knew it to be a necessary article of the faith, or no! if they knew it not to be so; then either they taught what they knew not, which were very strange; or else they taught it not: and if not, i would gladly be informed, seeing you pretend to no new revelations, from whom you learned it? if they knew it, then either they concealed or declared it. to say they concealed any necessary part of the gospel, is to charge them with far greater sacrilege, than what was punished in ananias and saphira. it is to charge these glorious stewards, and dispensers of the mysteries of christ, with want of the great virtue requisite in a steward, which is fidelity. it is to charge them with presumption for denouncing anathemas, even to angels, in case they should teach any other doctrine, than what they had received from them, which sure could not merit an anathema, if they left any necessary part of the gospel untaught. it is in a word, in plain terms to give them the lie, seeing they profess plainly and frequently, that they taught christians the whole doctrine of christ. if they did know and declare it, than was it a full and formal article of faith; and the contrary a full and formal heresy, without any need of further declaration: and then their successors either continued the declaration of it, or discontinued: if they did the latter, how are they such faithful depositaries of apostolic doctrine as you pretend? or what assurance can you give us, that they might not bring in new and false articles, as well as suffer the old and true ones to be lost? if they did continue the declaration of it, and deliver it to their successors, and they to theirs, and so on perpetually, than continued it still a full and formal article of faith, and the repugnant doctrine a full and formal heresy, without and before the definition or declaration of a council. so that counsels, as they cannot make that a truth or falsehood, which before was not so: so neither can they make or declare that to be an article of faith, or an heresy, which before was not so. the supposition therefore on which this argument stands, being false and runious, whatsoever is built upon it, must together with it fall to the ground. this explication therefore, and restriction of this doctrine, (whereof you make your advantage) was to my understanding unnecessary. the fathers of the church in after times might have just cause to declare their judgement, touching the sense of some general articles of the creed: but to oblige others to receive their declarations under pain of damnation, what warrant they had i know not. he that can show, either that the church of all ages was to have this authority; or that it continued in the church for some ages, and then expired: he that can show either of these things let him: for my part i cannot. yet i willingly confess the judgement of a council, though not infallible, is yet so far directive, and obliging, that without apparent reason to the contrary, it may be sin to reject it, at least not to afford it an outward submission for public peace-sake. 19 ad § 7. 8. 9 were i not peradventure more fearful than i need to be of the imputation of tergiversation, i might very easily rid my hands of the remainder of this chapter: for in the question there discussed, you grant (for aught i see) as much as d. potter desires; and d. potter grants as much as you desire, and therefore that i should disease myself, or my reader with a punctual examination of it, may seem superfluous. first, that which you would have, and which your arguments wholly drive at, is this, that the creed doth not contain all main and principal points of faith of all sorts, whether they be speculacive, or practical, whether they contain matter of simple belief, or whether they contain matter of practice and obedience. this d. potter grants, page 215. 235. and you grant that he grants it, §. 8. where your words are, as even by d. potter's own confession, it (the creed) doth not comprehend agenda, or things belonging to practice, as sacraments, commandments, the acts of hope, and duties charity. and if you will infer from hence, that therefore c. m. hath no reason to rest in the apostles creed, as a perfect catalogue of fundamentals, and a full satisfaction to his demand, i have without any offence of d. potter, granted as much, if that would content you. but seeing you go on, and because his assertion is not (as neither is it pretended to be,) a total satisfaction to the demand, cashier it as impertinent, and nothing towards it, here i have been bold to stop your proceeding, as unjust and unreasonable. for as if you should request a friend to lend you, or demand of a debtor to pay you a hundred pounds, and he could or should let you have but fifty, this were not fully to satisfy your demand, yet sure it were not to do nothing towards it: or as this rejoinder of mine, though it be not an answer to all your books, but only to the first considerable part of it, and so much of the second as is material, and falls into the first, yet i hope you will not deal so unkindly with me, as for this reason, to condemn it of impertinence: so d. potter, being demanded a catalogue of fundamentals of faith, and finding them of two kinds, and those of one kind summed up to his hand in the apostles creed, and this creed▪ consigned unto him for such a summary by very great authority, if upon these considerations he hath entreated his demander to accept of thus much in part of payment, of the apostles creed, as a sufficient summary of these articles of faith, which are merely credenda, me thinks he hath little reason to complain, that he hath not been fairly, and squarely dealt with. especially, seeing for full satisfaction, by d. potter and all protestants he is referred to scripture, which we affirm contains evidently all necessary points of faith and rules of obedience: and seeing d. potter, in the very place hath subjoined, though not a catalogue of fundamentals, which (because to some more is fundamental, to others less, to others nothing at all) had been impossible, yet such a comprehension of them, as may serve every one, that will make a conscionable use of it, in stead of a catalogue. for thus he says, it seems to be fundamental to the faith, and for the salvation of every member of the church, that he acknowledge and believe all such points of faith, whereof he may be sufficiently convinced that they belong to the doctrine of jesus christ. this general rule if i should call a catalogue of fundamentals, i should have a precedent for it with you above exception, i mean yourself; for, ch. 3. §. 19 just such another proposition you have called by this name. yet because it were a strange figure of speech, i forbear it; only i will be bold to say, that this assertion is as good a catalogue of fundamentals, as any you will bring of your church proposals, though you takes as much time to do it, as he that undertook to make an asse●speak. 20 i come now to show that you also have requited d. potter with a mutual courteous acknowledgement of his assertion, that the creed is a sufficient summary of all the necessary articles of faith, which are merely credenda. 21 first then, §. 8. you have these words, that it cannot be denied that the creed is most full and complete to that purpose, for which the holy apostles, inspired by god, meant that it should serve, and in that manner as they did intend it, which was, not to comprehend all particular points of faith, but such general heads as were most befitting and requisite for preaching the faith of christ, to jews and gentiles, and might be briefly, and compendiously set down, and easily learned and remembered. these words i say, being fairly examined, without putting them on the rack, will amount, to a full acknowledgement of d. potter's assertion. but before i put them to the question, i must crave thus much right of you, to grant me this most reasonable postulate, that the doctrine of repentance from dead works, which s. paul saith, was one of the two only things which he preached, and the doctrine of charity, without which (the same s. paul assures us that) the knowledge of all mysteries, and all faith is nothing, were doctrines more necessary and requisite, and therefore more fit to be preached to jews and gentiles, than these, under what judge our saviour suffered, that he was buried, and what time he rose again: which you have taught us cap. 3. §. 2. for their matter and nature in themselves not to be fundamental. 22 and upon this grant, i will ask no leave to conclude, that, whereas you say, the apostles creed was intended for a comprehension, of such heads of faith, as were most befitting and requisite, for preaching the faith of christ, etc. you are now, for fear, of too much debasing those high doctrines of repentance and charity, to restrain your assertion, as d. potter does his, and (though you speak indefinitely) to say you meant it, only of those heads of faith, which are merely credenda. and then the meaning of it, (if it have any,) must be this, that the creed is full for the apostles intent, which was to comprehend all such general heads of faith, which being points of simple belief, were most fit and requisite, to be preached to jews & gentiles, and might be briefly and compendiously set down, and easily learned and remembered. neither i nor you, i believe, can make any other sense of your words then this. and upon this ground thus i subsume. but all the points of belief, which were necessary, under pain of damnation, for the apostles to preach, and for those to whom the gospel was preached, particularly to know and believe, were most fit and requisite, nay more than so, necessary to be preached to all both jews and gentiles, and might be briefly and compendiously set down, and easily learned and remembered: therefore the apostles intent by your confession was in this creed, to comprehend all such points. and you say, the creed is most full and complete, for the purpose which they intended. the major of this syllogism is your own. the minor i should think needs no proof, yet because all men may not be of my mind, i will prove it by its parts; and the first part thus, there is the same necessity, for the doing of these things, which are commanded to be done, by the same authority, under the same penalty: but the same authority viz. divine, under the same penalty, to wit, of damnation, commanded the apostles, to preachall these doctrines which we speak of, and those to whom they were preached, particularly to know and believe them: for we speak of those only, which were so commanded, to be preached and believed: therefore all these points were alike necessary to be preace to all both jews and gentiles. now that all these doctrines we speak of, may be briefly and compendiously set down, and easily learned and remembered, he that remembers, that we spoke only of such doctrines as are necessary to be taught and learned, will require hereof no farther demonstration. for, (not to put you in mind of what the poet says, non sunt longa quibus nibilest quod demere possis,) who sees not, that seeing the greatest part of men are of very mean capacities, that it is necessary that that ●ay be learned easily, which is to be learned of all? what then can hinder me from concluding thus, all the articles of simple belief, which are fit and requisite to be preached, and may easily be remembered, are by your confession comprised in the creed: but all the necessary articles of faith are requisite to be preached, and easy to be remembered; therefore they are all comprised in the creed? secondly, from grounds granted by you, i argue thus, points of belief in themselves fundamental, are more requisite to be preached then those which are not so: (this is evident.) but the apostles have put into their creed some points that are not in themselves fundamental: (so you confess, ubisupra.) therefore if they have put in all, most requisite to be preached, they have put in all, that in themselves are fundamental. thirdly and lastly, from your own words §. 26. thus i conclude my purpose, the apostles intention was, particularly to deliver in the creed such articles as were fittest for those times, concerning the deity, trinity, and messias; (thus you, now i subsume,) but all points simply necessary, by virtue of god's command, to be preached and believed in particular, were as fit for those times as these here mentioned; therefore their intention was, to deliver in it particularly all the necessary points of belief. 23 and certainly, he that considers the matter advisedly, either must say that the apostles were not the authors of it, or that this was their design in composing it, or that they had none at all. for whereas you say, their intent was, to comprehend in it, such general heads as were most befitting and requisite for preaching the faith; and elsewhere, particularly to deliver such articles as were fittest for those times; every wise man may easily see that your desire here was, to escape away in a cloud of inde finiteremes. for otherwise, in stead of such general heads, and such articles, why did not you say plainly, all such, or some such? this had been plain dealing, but i fear, cross to your design: which yet you have failed of. for that which you have spoken (though you are loath to speak out,) either signifies nothing at all; or that which i and d. potter affirm: viz. that the apostles creed contains all those points of belief, which were by god's command, of necessity to be preached to all, and believed by all. neither when i say so, would i be so mistaken; as if i said, that all points in the creed are thus necessary: for punies in logic, know that universal affirmatives, are not simply converted. and therefore it may be true, that all such necessary points, are in the creed; though it be not true, that all points in the creed are thus necessary: which i willingly grant, of the points by you mentioned. but this rather confirms, than any way invalidates my assertion. for how could it stand with the apostles wised●●e, to put in any points circumstantial and not necessary, and at the same time, to leave out any that were essential and necessary for that end, which you say, they proposed to themselves, in making the creed, that is, the preaching of the faith, to jews and gentiles? 24 neither may you hope, to avoid the pressure of these acknowledgements, by pretending as you do §. 10. that you do indeed, acknowledge the creed to contain, all the necessary articles of faith; but yet so, that they are not either there expressed in it, or the ducible from it, by evident consequence, but only by way of implication or reduction. for first, not to tell you, that no proposition, is implied in any other, which is not deducible from it; nor secondly, that the article of the catholic church, wherein you will have all employed, implies nothing to any purpose of yours, unless out of mere favour we will grant the sense of it to be, that the church is infallible, and that yours is the church: to pass by all this, and require no answer to it, this one thing i may not omit; that the apostles intent was (by your own confession) particularly to deliver in the creed, such articles of belief as were fittest for those times (and all necessary articles i have proved were such:) now to deliver particularly, and to deliver only implicitly, to be delivered particularly in the creed, and only to be reducible to it, i suppose are repugnances hardly reconcileable. and therefore though we desire you, not to grant, that the creed contains all points of faith of all sorts, any other way then by implication or reduction, no nor so neither; yet you have granted, and must grant, of the fundamental points of simple belief, those which the apostles were commanded in particular to teach all men, and all men in particular to know and believe, that these are delivered in the creed, after a more particular and punctual manner, than implication or reduction comes to. 25 ad §. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. it is vain for you to hope, that the testimonies of the ancient & modern doctors, alleged to this purpose by d. potter in great abundance, will be turned off, with this general deceitful answer, that the allegation of them was needless to prove, that the creed contains all points of faith, under pretence that you grant it in manner aforesaid. for what if you grant it in manner aforesaid, yet if you grant it not (as indeed you do but inconstantly) in the sense which their testimonies require, then for all this their testimonies may be alleged to very good purpose. now let any man read them, with any tolerable indifference, and he shall find they say plainly, that all points of faith, necessary to be particularly believed, are explicitly contained in the creed; and that your gloss of implication and reduction, had it been confronted with their sentences, would have been much out of countenance, as having no ground nor colour of ground in them. for example. if azorius had thought thus of it, how could he have called it, a a. or. part. 1●. 5. a brief comprehension of the faith, and a sum of all things to be believed, and as it were, a sign, or cognizance whereby christians are to be differenced and distinguished, from the impious and misbelievers, who profess either no faith, or not the right? if huntly had been of this mind, how could he have said of it with any congruity, b cont. 2. ●. 10. n. 10. that the rule of faith is expressly contained in it, and all the prime foundations of faith: and that the apostles were not so forgetful as to omit any prime principal foundation of faith in that creed which they delivered to be believed by all christians. the words of filiucius are pregnant to the same purpose, c moral. quaest. tr. 22. c. 2. n. 34. there cannot be a fitter rule, from whence christians may learn what they are explicitly to believe, then that which is contained in the creed. which words cannot be justified, if all points necessary to be believed explicitly, be not comprised in it. to this end (saith putean) d i● 2. 2. qu. 2. art. 3. dub. vit. was the creed composed by the apostles, that christians might have a form whereby they might profess themselves catholics. but certainly the apostles did this in vain, if a man might profess this, and yet for matter of faith be not a catholic. 26 the words of cardinal richelieu e instruction du chrestien lecon premiere. exact this sense, and refuse your gloss as much as any of the former: the apostles creed is the summary and abridgement of that faith which is necessary for a christian; these holy persons being by the commandment of jesus christ to disperse themselves over the world, and in all parts by preaching the gospel to plant the faith, esteemed it very necessary to reduce into a short sum all that which christians ought to know, to the end that being dispersed into diverse parts of the world, they might preach the same thing in a short for me, that it might be the easier remembered. for this effect they called this abridgement a symbol, which signifies a mark or sign, which might serve to distinguish true christians, which embraced it from infidels which rejected it. now i would fain know how the composition of the creed could serve for this end, and secure the preachers of it, that they should preach the same thing, if there were other necessary articles not comprised in it. or how could it be a sign to distinguish true christians from others, if a man might believe it all, and for want of believing something else, not be a true christian? 27 the words of the f ch. 3. consid. ● §. 5. p. 119. author of the consideration of four heads propounded king james, require the same sense and utterly renounce your qualification. the symbol is a brief yet entire methodical sum of christian doctrine, including all points of faith either to be preached by the apostles, or to be believed by their disciples: delivered both for a direction unto them, what they were to preach and others to believe, as also to discern and put a difference betwixt all faithful christians and misbelieving infidels: 28 lastly, g 2. 2. dis. 1. ●. 2. p. 4. in sin. gregory of valence affirms our assertion even in terms: the articles of faith contained in the creed are as it were the first principles of the christian faith, in which is contained the sum of evangelicall doctrine, which all men are bound explicitly to believe. 29 to these testimonies of your own doctors, i should have added the concurrent suffrages of the ancient fathers, but the full and free acknowledgement of the same valentia in the place above quoted will make this labour unnecessary. so judge (saith he) the holy fathers affirming that his symbol of faith was composed by the apostles, that all might have a short sum of those things which are to be believed, and are dispersedly contained in scripture. 30 neither is there any discord between this assertion of your doctors, and their holding themselves obliged to believe all the points which the council of trent defines. for protestants & papists may both hold, that all points of belief necessary to be known & believed, are summed up in the creed: and yet both the one & the other think themselves bound to believe whatsoever other points, they either know or believe to be revealed by god. for the articles which are necessary to be known that they are revealed by god, may be very few; and yet those which are necessary to be believed, when they are revealed and known to be so, may be very many. 31 but summaries and abstracts are not intended to specify all the particulars of the science or subject to which they belong. yes if they be intended for perfect summaries, they must not omit any necessary doctrine of that science whereof they are summaries; though the illustration and reasons of it they may omit. if this were not so, a man might set down forty or fifty of the principal definitions and divisions, and rules of logic, and call it a summary or abstract of logic. but sure, this were no more a summary, then that were the picture of a man in little, that wanted any of the parts of a man; or that a total sum wherein all the particulars were not cast up. now the apostles creed you here intimate that it was intended for a summary: otherwise why talk you here of summaries, and tell us that they need not contain all the particulars of their science? and of what i pray may it be a summary, but of the fundamentals of christian faith? now you have already told us, that it is most full and complete to that purpose for which it was intended. lay all this together, and i believe the product will be; that the apostles creed is a perfect summary of the fundamentals of the christian faith: and what the duty of a perfect summary is, i have already told you. 32 whereas therefore to disprove this assertion, in diverse particles of this chapter, but especially the fourteenth, you muster up whole armies of doctrines, which you pretend are necessary, and not contained in the creed; i answer very briefly thus: that the doctrines you mention, are either concerning matters of practice, and not simple belief; or else they are such doctrines wherein god has not so plainly revealed himself, but that honest and good men, true lovers of god and of truth, those that desire above all things to know his will and do it, may err, and yet commit no sin at all, or only a sin of infirmity, and not destructive of salvation; or lastly, they are such doctrines which god hath plainly revealed, and so are necessary to be believed when they are known to be divine, but not necessary to be known & believed, not necessary to be known for divine, that they may be believed. now all these sorts of doctrines are impertinent to the present question. for d. potter never affirmed either that the necessary duties of a christian, or that all truths piously credible, but not necessary to be believed, or that all truth's necessary to be believed upon the supposal of divine revelation, were specified in the creed. for this he affirms, only of such speculative divine veriries, which god hath commanded particularly to be preached to all, and believed by all. now let the doctrines objected by you be well considered, and let all those that are reducible to the three former heads be discarded, and then of all these instances against d. potter's assertion, there will not remain so much as one. 33 first the questions touching the conditions to be performed by us to obtain remission of sins; the sacraments; the commandments, and the possibility of keeping them, the necessity of imploring the assistance of god's grace and spirit for the keeping of them: how far obedience is due to the church: prayer for the dead: the cessation of the old law: are all about agenda, and so cut off upon the first consideration. 34 secondly, the question touching fundamentals, is profitable but not fundamental. he that believes all fundamentals, cannot be damned for any error in faith, though he believe more or less to be fundamental then is so. that also of the procession of the holy ghost from the father and the son: of purgatory: of the church's visibility: of the books of the new testament which were doubted of by a considerable part of the primitive church: (until i see better reason for the contrary then the bare authority of men,) i shall esteem of the same condition. 35 thirdly, these doctrines that adam and the angels sinned: that there are angels good and bad: that those books of scripture which were never doubted of by any considerable part of the church, are the word of god: that s. peter had no such primacy as you pretend: that the scripture is a perfect rule of faith, & consequently that no necessary doctrine is unwritten: that there is no one society or succession of christians absolutely infallible: these to my understanding are truths plainly revealed by god, and necessary to be believed by them who know they are so. but not so necessary, that every man & woman is bound under pain of damnation particularly to know them to be divine revelations, and explicitly to believe them. and for this reason, these with innumerable other points, are to be referred to the third sort of doctrines above mentioned, which were never pretended to have place in the creed. there remains one only point of all that army you mustered together, reducible to none of these heads, & that is, that god is, and is a remunerator, which you say is questioned by the denial of merit. but if there were such a necessary indissoluble coherence between this point and the doctrine of merit, me thinks with as much reason, and more charity you might conclude, that we hold merit, because we hold this point; then that we deny this point, because we deny merit. besides, when protestants deny the doctrine of merits, you know right well, for so they have declared themselves a thousand times, that they mean nothing else, but with david, that their well doing extendeth not, is not truly beneficial to god: with our saviour, when they have done all which they are commanded, they have done their duty only, and no courtesy: and lastly, with s. paul, that all which they can suffer for god (and yet suffering is more than doing) is not worthy to be compared to the glory that shall be revealed. so that you must either misunderstand their meaning in denying merit, or you must discharge their doctrine of this odious consequence, or you must charge it upon david and paul and christ himself. nay you must either grant their denial of true merit just & reasonable, or you must say, that our good actions are really profitable to god: that they are not debts already due to him, but voluntary and undeserved favours: and that they are equal unto and well worthy of eternal glory which is prepared for them. as for the inconvenience which you so much fear, that the denial of merit makes god a giver only, & not a rewarder, i tell you, good sir, you fear where no fear is, and that it is both most true on the one side, that you in holding good works meritorious of eternal glory make god a rewarder only & not a giver, contrary to plain scripture, affirming that the gift of god is eternal life; and that it is most false on the other side, that the doctrine of protestants makes god a giver only and not a rewarder: in as much as their doctrine is, that god gives not heaven but to those which do something for it, and so his gift is also a reward; but withal that whatsoever they do is due unto god before hand, and worth nothing to god, and worth nothing in respect of heaven, and so man's work is no merit, and god's reward is still a gift. 36 put the case the pope, for a reward of your service done him in writing this book, had given you the honour and means of a cardinal, would you not, not only in humility but in sincerity have professed, that you had not merited such a reward? and yet the pope is neither your creator nor redeemer, nor preserver, nor perhaps your very great benefactor, sure i am, not so great as god almighty, and therefore hath no such right and title to your service as god hath in respect of precedent obligations. besides, the work you have done him hath been really advantageous to him: and lastly, not altogether unproportionable to the forementioned reward. and therefore if by the same work you will pretend that either you have or hope to have deserved immortal happiness, i beseech you consider well whether this be not to set a higher value upon a cardinal's cap, than a crown of immortal glory, and with that cardinal to prefer a part in paris before a part in paradise. 37 in the next paragraph you beat the air again, and fight manfully with your own shadow. the point you should have spoken to, was this, that there are some points of simple belief necessary to be explicitly believed, which yet are not contained in the creed. instead hereof you trouble yourself in vain to demonstrate, that many important points of faith, are not contained in it, which yet d. potter had freely granted, and you yourself take particular notice of his granting of it. all this pains therefore you have employed to no purpose: saving that to some negligent reader you may seem to have spoken to the very point, because that which you speak to, at the first hearing, sounds somewhat near it. but such a one i must entreat to remember, there be many more points of faith then there be articles of simple belief, necessary to be explicitly believed: and that though all of the former sort are not contained in the creed, yet all of the latter sort may be. as for your distinction, between heresies that have been, and heresies that are, and heresies that may be, i have already proved it vain; and that whatsoever may be an heresy, that is so; and whatsoever is so, that always hath been so, ever since the publication of the gospel of christ. the doctrine of your church may like a snowball increase with rolling, and again if you please melt away and decrease: but as christ jesus, so his gospel, is yesterday and to day, and the same for ever. 38 our saviour sending his apostles to preach, gave them no other commission than this: go teach all nations, baptising them in the name of the father, the son, and the holy-ghost, teaching them to observe all things, whatsoever i have commanded you. these were the bounds of their commission. if your church have any larger, or if she have a commission at large, to teach what she pleases, and call it the gospel of christ, let her produce her letters-patents from heaven for it. but if this be all you have, then must you give me leave to esteem it both great sacrilege in you to forbid any thing, be it never so small or ceremonious, which christ hath commanded: as the receiving of the communion in both kinds: and as high a degree of presumption, to enjoin men to believe, that there are or can be any other fundamental articles of the gospel of christ, than what christ himself commanded his apostles to teach all men; or any damnable heresies, but such as are plainly repugnant to these prime verities. 39 ad §. 16. 17. the saying of the most learned prelate, and excellent man, the archbishop of armach, is only related by d. potter p. 155. and not applauded: though the truth is, both the man deserves as much applause as any man, and his saying as much as any saying; it being as great, and as good a truth, and as necessary for these miserable times, as possibly can be uttered. for this is most certain, and i believe you will easily grant it, that to reduce christians to unity of communion, there are but two ways that may be conceived probable: the one, by taking away diversity of opinions touching matters of religion: the other by showing that the diversity of opinions, which is among the several sects of christians, aught to be no hindrance to their unity in communion. 40 now the former of these is not to be hoped for without a miracle, unless that could be done, which is impossible to be performed, though it be often pretended; that is, unless it could be made evident to all men, that god hath appointed some visible judge of controversies, to whose judgement all men are to submit themselves. what then remains, but that the other way must be taken, and christians must be taught to ser a higher value upon these high points of faith and obedience wherein they agree, then upon these matters of less moment wherein they differ, and understand that agreement in those, aught to be more effectual to join them in one communion, than their difference in other things of less moment to divide them? when i say, in one communion, i mean, in a common profession of those articles of faith, wherein all consent: a joint worship of god, after such a way as all esteem lawful; and a mutual performance of all those works of charity, which christians own one to another. and to such a communion what better inducement could be thought of, then to demonstrate that what was universally believed of all christians, if it were joined with a love of truth, and with holy obedience, was sufficient to bring men to heaven? for why should men be more rigid than god? why should any error exclude any man from the church's communion, which will not deprive him of eternal salvation? now that christians do generally agree in all those points of doctrine, which are necessary to salvation, it is apparent, because they agree with one accord, in believing all those books of the old and new testament, which in the church were never doubted of to be the undoubted word of god. and it is so certain that in all these books, all necessary doctrines are evidently contained, that of all the four evangelists this is very probable, but of s. luke most apparent, that in every one of their books they have comprehended the whole substance of the gospel of christ. for what reason can be imagined, that any of them should leave out any thing which he knew to be necessary, and yet (as apparently all of them have done) put in many things which they knew to be only profitable and not necessary? what wise and honest man that were now to write the gospel of christ, would do so great a work of god after such a negligent ●ashon? suppose xaverius had been to write the gospel of christ for the indians, think you he would have left out any fundamental doctrine of it? if not, i must beseech you to conceive as well of s. matthew, and s. mark, and s. luke, and s. john, as you do of xaverius. besides, if every one of them have not in them all necessary doctrines, how have they complied with their own design, which was, as the titles of their books show, to write the gospel of christ, and not a part of it? or how have thy not deceived us, in giving them such titles? by the whole gospel of christ, i understand not the whole history of christ, but all that makes up the covenant between god and man. now if this be wholly contained in the gospel of s. mark and s. john, i believe every considering man will be inclinable to believe that then without doubt, it is contained, with the advantage of many other very profitable things, in the larger gospels of s. matthew, and s. luke. and that s. marks gospel wants no necessary article of this covenant, i presume you will not deny, if you believe irenaeus when he says, matthew to the hebrews in their tongue published the scripture of the gospel: when peter and paul did preach the gospel, and found the church or a church at rome, or of rome, and after their departure mark the scholar of peter, delivered to us in writing those things which had been preached by peter; and luke, the follwer of paul, compiled in a book the gospel which was preached by him: and afterwards john, residing in asia, in the city of ephesus, did himself also set forth a gospel. 41 in which words of irenaeus, it is remarkable that they are spoken by him against some heretics, that pretended (as you know who do now adays) that some necessary doctrines of the gospel were unwritten, lib. 3. c. ●. and that out of the scriptures, truth (he must mean sufficient truth,) cannot be found by those which know not tradition. against whom to say, that part of the gospel which was preached by peter was written by s. mark, and some other necessary parts of it omitted, had been to speak impertinently, and rather to confirm then confute their error. it is plain therefore, that he must mean, as i pretend, that all the necessary doctrine of the gospel, which was preached by s. peter, was written by s. mark. now you will not deny, i presume, that s. peter preached all, therefore you must not deny that s. mark wrote all. 42 our next inquiry let it be touching s. john's intent in writing his gospel, whether it were to deliver so much truth, as being believed and obeyed would certainly bring men to eternal life, or only part of it, and to leave part unwritten? a great man there is, but much less than the apostle, who saith, that writing last, he purposed to supply the defects of the other evangelists, that had wrote before him: which (if it were true) would sufficiently justify what i have undertaken, that at least all the four evangelists have in them, all the necessary parts of the gospel of christ. neither will i deny, but s. john's secondary intent might be to supply the defects of the former three gospels, in some things very profitable. but he that pretends, that any necessary doctrine is in s. john which is in none of the other evangelists, hath not so well considered them as he should do, before he pronounce sentence of so weighty a matter. and for his prime intent in writing his gospel, what that was, certainly no father in the world understood it better than himself. therefore let us hear him speak: many other signs (saith he) also did jesus in the sight of his disciples, which are not written in this book: but these are written, that you may believe that jesus is christ the son of god, and that believing you may have life in his name. by (these are written) may be understood, either these things are written, or these signs are written. take it which way you will, this conclusion will certainly follow, that either all that which s. john wrote in his gospel, or less than all, and therefore all much more was sufficient to make them believe that which being believed with lively faith, would certainly bring them to eternal life. 43 this which hath been spoken (i hope) is enough to justify my undertaking to the full, that it is very probable that every one of the four evangelists has in his book the whole substance, all the necessary parts of the gospel of christ. but for s. luke, that he hath written such a perfect gospel, in my judgement it ought to be with them that believe him, no manner of question. consider first the introduction to his gospel, where he declares what he intends to write, in these words, for as much as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things, which are most surely believed amongst us, even as they delivered unto us, which from the beginning were eye-witnesses, and ministers of the word, it seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of things from the first, to write to thee in order, most excellent theophilus, that thou mightest know the certainty, of those things wherein thou hast been instructed. add to this place, the entrance to his history of the acts of the apostles: the former treatise have i made, o theophilus, of all that jesus began both to do and teach, until the day in which he was taken up. weigh well these two places, and then answer me freely and ingenuously to these demands. 1. whether s. luke does not undertake the very same thing which he says, many had taken in hand? 2. whether this were not to set forth in order, a declaration of those things which are most surely believed amongst christians? 3. whether the whole gospel of christ, and every necessary doctrine of it, were not surely believed among christians? 4. whether they which were eye-witnesses and ministers of the word from the beginning, delivered not the whole gospel of christ? 5. whether he does not undertake to write in order these things whereof he had perfect understanding from the first? 6. whether he had not perfect understanding of the whole gospel of christ? 7. whether he doth not undertake to write to theophilus of all those things wherein he had been instructed? 8. and whether he had not been instructed in all the necessary parts of the gospel of christ? 9 whether in the other text, all things which jesus began to do and teach, must not at least imply, all the principal and necessary things? 10. whether this be not the very interpretation of your rhemish doctors, in their annotation upon this place? 11. whether all these articles of the christian faith, without the belief whereof, no man can be saved, be not the principal and most necessary things which jesus taught. 12. and lastly, whether many things which s. luke has wrote in his gospel, be not less principal, and less necessary than all and every one of these? when you have well considered these proposals, i believe you will be very apt to think (if s. luke be of credit with you) that all things necessary to salvation, are certainly contained in his writings alone. and from hence you will not choose but conclude, that seeing all the christians in the world, agree in the belief of what s. luke hath written, and not only so, but in all other books of canonical scripture, which were never doubted of in and by the church, the learned archbishop had very just, and certain ground to say, that in these propositions, which without controversy are universally received in the whole christian world, so much truth is contained, as being joined with holy obedience, may be sufficient to bring a man to everlasting salvation; and that we have no cause to doubt, but that as many as walk according to this rule, neither overthrowing that which they have builded, by superinducing any damnable heresy thereupon, nor otherwise vitiating their holy faith, with a lewd and wicked conversation, peace shall be upon them, and upon the israel of god. 44 against this, you object two things. the one, that by this rule, seeing the doctrine of the trinity is not received universally among christians, the denial of it shall not exclude salvation. the other; that the bishop contradicts himself, in supposing a man may believe all necessary truths, and yet superinduce some damnable heresies. 45 to the first i answer, what i conceive he would, whose words i here justify, that he hath declared plainly in this very place, that he meant, not an absolute, but a limited universality, and speaks not of propositions universally believed by all professions of christianity that are, but only, by all those several professions of christiany, that have any large spread in any part of the world. by which words he excludes from the universality here spoken of, the deniers of the doctrine of the trinity, as being but a handful of men, in respect of all, nay in respect of any of these professions which maintain it. and therefore it was a great fault in you, either willingly to conceal these words, which evacuate your objection, or else negligently to oversee them. especially seeing your friend, to whom you are so much beholding, paulus veridicus, in his scurrilous and sophistical pamphlet, against b. usher's sermon, hath so kindly offered to lead you by the hand to the observation of them, in these words: to consider of your coinopista, or communitèr credenda, articles, as you call them, universally believed of all these several professions of cristianity, which have any large spread in the world: these articles for example, may be the unity of the godhead, the trinity of persons, the immortality of the soul, etc. where you see that your friend, whom you so much magnify, hath plainly confessed that, notwithstanding the bishop's words, the denial of the doctrine of the trinity, may exclude salvation; and therefore in approving and applauding his answer to the bishop's sermon, you have unawares allowed this answer of mine to your own greatest objection. 46 now for the foul contradiction, which you say the doctor might easily have espied in the bishops saying, he desires your pardon for his oversight, for paulus veridicus his sake; who though he set himself to find faults with the bishop's sermon, yet it seems this he could not find, or else questionless we should have heard of it from him. and therefore if d. potter, being the bishop's friend, have not been more sharp-sighted than his enemies, this he hopes to indifferent judges, will seem no unpardonable offence. yet this i say, not as if there were any contradiction at all, much less any foul contradiction in the bishop's words; but as antipherons' picture, which he thought he saw in the air before him, was not in the air but in his disturbed phansie● so all the contradiction which here you descant upon, is not indeed in the bishops saying, but in your imagination. for wherein, i pray, lies this foul contradiction? in supposing (say you) a man may believe all truth's necessary to salvation, and yet superinduce a damnable heresy. i answer, it is not certain that his words do suppose this: neither if they do, does he contradict himself. i say it is not certain that his words import any such matter. for ordinarily men use to speak and write so, as here he does, when they intent not to limit or restrain, but only to repeat and press & illustrate what they have said before. and i wonder, why with your eagles eyes you did not espy another foul contradiction in his words as well as this; and say, that he supposes a man may walk according to the rule of holy obedience, and yet vitiate his holy faith with a lewd and wicked conversation? certainly a lewd conversation is altogether as contradictious to holy obedience, as a damnable heresy to necessary truth. what then was the reason that you espied not this foul contradiction in his words, as well as that? was it because, according to the spirit and genius of your church, your zeal is greater to that which you conceive true doctrine, then holy obedience; and think simple error a more capital crime, than sins committed against knowledge and conscience? or was it because your reason told you, that herein he meant only to repeat and not to limit what he said before? and why then had you not so much candour to conceive, that he might have the same meaning in the former part of the disjunction; and intent no more but this, whosoever walks according to this rule of believing all necessary truths and holy obedience, (neither poisoning his faith of those truths which he holds, with the mixture of any damnable heresy, nor vitiating it with a wicked life) peace shall be upon him! in which words what man of any ingenuity will not presently perceive that the words within the parenthesis, are only a repetition of, and no exception from those that are without? s. athanasius in his creed tells us, the catholic faith is this, that we worship one god in trinity, and trinity in unity, neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance; and why now do you not tell him that he contradicts himself, and supposes that we may worship a trinity of persons, and one god in substance, and yet confound the persons, or divide the substance; which yet is impossible, because three remaining three, cannot be confounded, and one remaining one cannot be divided? if a man should say unto you, he that keeps all the commandments of god, committing no sin either against the love of god, or the love of his neighbour, is a perfect man: or thus, he that will live in constant health had need be exact in his diet, neither eating too much, nor too little: or thus, he that will come to london must go on strait forward in such a way, and neither turn to the right hand or to the left; i verily believe you would not find any contradiction in his words, but confess them as coherent and consonant as any in your book. and certainly if you would look upon this saying of the bishop with any indifference, you would easily perceive it to be of the very same kind, & capable of the very same construction. and therefore one of the grounds of your accusation is uncertain. neither can you assure us, that the bishop supposes any such matter as you pretend. neither if he did suppose this (as perhaps he did) were this to contradict himself. for though there can be no damnable heresy, unless it contradict some necessary truth, yet there is no contradiction but the same man may at once believe this heresy and this truth; because there is no contradiction that the same man, at the same time, should believe contradictions. for, first, whatsoever a man believes true, that he may and must believe; but there have been some who have believed and taught that contradictions might be true, against whom aristotle disputes in the third of his metaphysics; therefore it is not impossible that a man may believe contradictions. secondly, they which believe there is no certainty in reason, must believe that contradictions may be true: for otherwise there will be certainty in this reason; this contradicts truth therefore it is false. but there be now diverse in the world who believe there is no certainty in reason, (and whether you be of their mind or no, i desire to be informed;) therefore there be diverse in the world who believe contradictions may be true. thirdly, they which do captivate their understandings to the belief of those things which to their understanding seem irreconcilable contradictions, may as well believe real contradictions: (for the difficulty of believing arises not from their being repugnant, but from their seeming to be so:) but you do captivate your understandings to the belief of those things which seem to your understandings irreconcilable contradictions; therefore it is as possible and easy for you to believe those that indeed are so. fourthly, some men may be confuted in their errors, and persuaded out of them; but no man's error can be confuted, who together with his error doth not believe and grant some true principle that contradicts his error: for nothing can be proved to him who grants nothing, neither can there be (as all men know) any rational discourse but out of grounds agreed upon by both parts. therefore it is not impossible but absolutely certain, that the same man at the same time may believe contradictions. fiftly, it is evident, neither can you without extreme madness and uncharitableness, deny, that we believe the bible, those books i mean which we believe canonical: otherwise why dispute you with us out of them, as out of a common principle? either therefore you must retract your opinion, and acknowledge that the same man at the same time may believe contradictions, or else you will run into a greater inconvenience, and be forced to confess, that no part of our doctrine contradicts the bible. sixtly, i desire you to vindicate from contradiction these following assertions: that there should be length and nothing long: breadth, & nothing broad: thickness, and nothing thick: whiteness, & nothing white: roundness, and nothing round: weight, and nothing heavy: sweetness, and nothing sweet: moisture, and nothing moist: fluidness, and nothing flowing: many actions, and no agent: many passions, and no patient: that is, that there should be a long, broad, thick, white, round, heavy, sweet, moist, flowing, active, passive, nothing! that bread should be turned into the substance of christ, and yet not any thing of the bread become any thing of christ; neither the matter, not the form, not the accidents of bread, be made either the matter or the form, or the accidents of christ. that bread should be turned into nothing, and at the same time with the same action turned into christ, and yet christ should not be nothing. that the same thing at the same time should have its just dimensions, and just distance of its parts, one from another, and at the same time not have it, but all its parts together in one & the self same point. that the body of christ, which is much greater, should be contained wholly and in its full dimensions without any alteration, in that which is lesser, and that not once only, but as many times over as there are several points in the bread and wine. that the same thing at the same time should be wholly above itself, and wholly below itself, within itself, and without itself, on the right hand, and on the left hand, and round about itself. that the same thing at the same time should move to and from itself, and lie still: or that it should be carried from one place to another through the middle space, and yet not move. that it should be brought from heaven to earth, and yet not come out of heaven, nor be at all in any of the middle space between heaven and earth. that to be one, should be to be undivided from itself, and yet that one and the same thing should be divided from itself. that a thing may be, & yet be no where. that a finite thing may be in all places at once. that a body may be in a place, and have there its dimensions, & colour, & all other qualities, and yet that it is not in the power of god to make it visible, and tangible there, nor capable of doing or suffering any thing. that there should be no certainty in our senses, and yet that we should know something certainly, & yet know nothing but by our senses. that that which is, and was long ago, should now begin to be. that that is now to be made of nothing, which is not nothing but something. that the same thing should be before and after itself. that it should be truly and really in a place, and yet without locality. nay, that he which is omnipotent should not be able to give it locality in this place, where it is, as some of you hold: or if he can, as others say he can, that it should be possible, that the same man, for example you or i, may at the sametime, be awake at london, and not awake but asleep at rome: there run or walk, here not run or walk, but stand still, sit, or lie along: there study or write, here do neither, but dine or sup: there speak, here be silent. that he may in one place freeze for cold, in another bourn with heat. that he may be drunk in one place, and sober in another: valiant in one place, and a coward in another: a thief in one place, honest in another. that he may be a papist and go to mass in rome; a protestant and go to church in england. that he may dye in rome, and live in england: or ' dying in both places may go to hell from rome, and to heaven from england. that the body and soul of christ should cease to be where it was, & yet not go to another place, nor be destroyed. all these, and many other of the like nature are the unavoidable, & most of them the acknowledged consequences of your doctrine of transubstantiation, as is explained one wheres or other by your schoolmen. now i beseech you, sir, to try your skill, & if you can compose their repugnance, and make peace between them; certainly, none but you shall be catholic moderator. but if you cannot do it, and that after an intelligible manner, than you must give me leave to believe, that either you do not believe transubstantiation, or else that it is no contradiction, that men should subjugate their understandings to the belief of contradictions. 47 lastly, i pray tell me whether you have not so much charity in store for the bishop of armach, and d. potter, as to think that they themselves believe this saying, which the one preached and printed, the other reprinted, and as you say applauded? if you think they do, then certainly you have done unadvisedly, either in charging it with a foul contradiction, or in saying, it is impossible, that any man should at once believe contradictions. indeed that men should not assent to contradictions, and that it is unreasonable to do so, i willingly grant: but to say it is impossible to be done, is against every man's experience, and almost as unreasonable, as to do the thing which is said to be impossible. for though perhaps it may be very difficult, for a man in his ●ight wits, to believe a contradiction expressed in terms, especially if he believe it to be a contradiction, yet for men being cowed and awed by superstition, to persuade themselves upon slight and trivial grounds, that these or these, though they seem contradictions, yet indeed are not so, and so to believe them: or if the plain repugnance of them, be veiled and disguised a little, with some empty unintelligible nonsense distinction; or if it be not expressed but employed, not direct but by consequence, so that the parties, to whose faith the propositions are offered, are either innocently, or perhaps affectedly ignorant of the contrariety of them: for men in such cases, easily to swallow and digest contradictions, he that denies it possible, must be a mere stranger in the world. 48 ad §. 18. this paragraph consists of two immodest untruths, obtruded upon us without show, or shadow of reason: and an evident sophism, grounded upon an affected mistake of the sense of the word fundamental. 49 the first untruth is, that d. potter makes a church, of men agreeing scarcely in one point of faith: of men concurring in some one or few articles of belief, and in the rest holding conceits plainly contradictory: agreeing only in this one article, that christ is our saviour; but for the rest, like to the parts of a chimaera etc. which i say is a shameless calumny, not only because d. potter in this point delivers not his own judgement, but relates the opinion of others, m. hooker, and m. morton; but especially, because even these men (as they are related by d. potter) to the constituting of the very essence of a church, in the lowest degree, require not only faith in christ jesus the son of god and saviour of the world, but also submission to his doctrine in mind and will. now i beseech you sir, tell me ingenuously, whether the doctrine of christ may be called without blasphemy, scarcely one point of faith? or whether it consists only, of some one or few articles of belief? or whether there be nothing in it, but only this article, that christ is our saviour? is it not manifest to all the world, that christians of all professions do agree with one consent, in the belief of all those books of scripture, which were not doubted of in the ancient church, without danger of damnation? nay is it not apparent, that no man at this time, can without hypocrisy, pretend to believe in christ, but of necessity he must do so? seeing he can have no reason to believe in christ, but he must have the same to believe the scripture. i pray then read over the scripture once more, or if that be too much labour, the new testament only: and then say whether there be nothing there, but scarcely one point of faith? but some one or two articles of belief? nothing but this article only, that christ is our saviour? say whether there be not there an infinite number of divine verities, divine precepts, divine promises, and those so plainly and undoubtedly delivered, that if any sees them not, it cannot be because he cannot, but because he will not! so plainly, that whosoever submits sincerely to the doctrine of christ, in mind and will, cannot possibly but submit to these in act and performance. and in the rest, which it hath pleased god, for reasons best known to himself, to deliver obscurely or ambiguously, yet thus far at least they agree, that the sense of them intended by god, is certainly true, and that they are without passion or prejudice to endeavour to find it out: the difference only is, which is that true sense which god intended. neither would this long continue, if the walls of separation, whereby the devil hopes to make their divisions eternal, were pulled down; and error were not supported against truth, by humane advantages. but for the present, god forbid the matter should be so ill as you make it! for whereas you looking upon their points of difference and agreement, through i know not what strange glasses, have made the first innumerable, and the other scarce a number: the truth is clean contrary; that those divine verities, speculative and practical, wherein they universally agree (which you will have to be but a few, or but one, or scarcely one) amount to many millions, (i● an exact account were taken of them:) and on the other side, the ponts in variance, are in comparison but few, and those not of such a quality, but the error in them may well consist with the belief & obedience of the entire covenant, ratified by christ between god and man. yet i would not be so mistaken, as if i thought the errors even of some protestants unconsiderable things, and matters of no moment. for the truth is, i am very fearful, that some of their opinions, either as they are, or as they are apt to be mistaken, (though not of themselves so damnable, but that good and holy men may be saved with them, yet) are too frequent occasions of our remissness, and slackness, in running the race of christian profession, of our deferring repentance, and conversion to god, of our frequent relapses into sin, & not seldom of security in sinning; & consequently, though not certain causes, yet too frequent occasions of many men's damnation: and such i conceive all these doctrines, which either directly or obliquely, put men in hope of eternal happiness, by any other means saving only the narrow way of sincere and universal obedience, grounded upon a true and lively faith. these errors therefore, i do not elevate or extenuate: and on condition the ruptures made by them might be composed, do heartily wish, that the cement were made of my dearest blood, and only not to be an anathema from christ! only this i say, that neither are their points of agreement so few, nor their differences so many, as you make them; nor so great as to exclude the opposite parties from being members of one church militant, & joint heirs of the glory of the church triumphant. 50 your other palpable untruth is, that protestants are far more bold to disagree even in matters of faith, than catholic divines (you mean your own,) in questions merely philosophical, or not determined by the church. for neither do they differ at all, in matters of faith, if you take the word in the highest sense, and mean by matters of faith, such doctrines as are absolutely necessary to salvation, to be believed or not to be disbelieved. and then in those wherein they do differ, with what colour or shadow of argument, can you make good, that they are more bold to disagree, than you are in questions merely philosophical, or not determined by the church? for is there not as great repugnancy between your assent and descent, your affirmation and negation, your est est, non non, as there is between theirs? you follow your reason, in those things which are not determined by your church; and they theirs, in things not plainly determined in scripture. and wherein then consists their greater, their far greater boldness? and what if they in their contradictory opinions, pretend both to rely upon the truth of god, doth this make their contradictions ever a whit the more repugnant? i had always thought, that all contradictions had been equally contradictions, and equally repugnant; because the least of them are as far asunder, as est and non est can make them, and the greatest are no farther. but than you in your differences, (by name, about predetermination, the immaculate conception, the pope's infallibility,) upon what other motive do you rely? do not you cite scripture, or tradition, or both, on both sides? and do you not pretend, that both these are the infallible truths of almighty god? 51 you close up this section with a fallacy, proving forsooth, that we destroy, by our confession, the church which is the house of god, because we stand only upon fundamental articles, which cannot make up the whole fabric of the faith, no more than the foundation of a house alone can be a house. 52 but i hope, sir, you will not be difficult in granting, that that is a house which hath all the necessary parts belonging to a house: now by fundamental articles, we mean all those which are necesry. and you yourself, in the very leaf after this, take notice that d. potter does so. where to this question: how shall i know in particular which points be, and which be not fundamental? you scurrilously bring him in making this ridiculous answer, read my answer to a late pamphlet entitled charity mistaken etc. there you shall find that fundamental doctrines are such catholic verities, as principally, and essentially pertain to the faith, such as properly constitute a church, and are necessary (in ordinary course) to be distinctly believed by every christian that will be saved. all which words he used, not to tell you what points be fundamental, as you dishonestly impose upon him, but to explain what he meant by the word fundamental. may it please you therefore now at last, to take notice, that by fundamental we mean all and only that which is necessary; and then i hope you will grant, that we may safely expect salvation in a church which hath all things fundamental to salvation! unless you will say, that more is necessary, then that which is necessary. 53 this long discourse, so full of un-ingenious dealing with your adversary, perhaps would have done reasonably in a fair or a comedy, & i doubt not but you have made yourself & your courteous readers good sport with it. but if d. potter or i, had been by when you wrote it, we should have stopped your career at the first starting, & have put you in mind of these old school proverbs, exfalso supposito sequitur quodlibet, and vno absurdo dato, seq●untur mille. for whereas you suppose, first, that to a man desirous to save his soul, and requiring, whose direction he might rely upon? the doctor's answer would be, upon the truly catholic church: i suppose upon better reason, because i know his mind, that he would advise him to call no man master on earth, but according to christ's command, to rely upon the direction of god himself. if he should inquire where he should find this direction? he would answer him; in his word contained in scripture. if he should inquire what assurance he might have, that the scripture is the word of god? he would answer him, that the doctrine itself is very fit and worthy to be thought to come from god, nec vox hominem sonat, and that they which wrote and delivered it, confirmed it to be the word of god, by doing such works as could not be done, but by power from god himself. for assurance of the truth hereof, he would advise him to rely upon that, which all wise men, in all matters of belief rely upon; and that is, the consent of ancient records, and universal tradition. and that he might not instruct him as partial in this advice, he might farther tell him, that a gentleman that would be nameless, that has written a book against him, called charity maintained by catholics, though in many things he differ from him, yet agrees with him in this, that tradition is such a principle as may be rested in, and which requires no other proof. as indeed no wise man doubts but there was such a man as julius caesar, or cicero, that there are such cities as rome or constantinople, though he have no other assurance for the one or the other, but only the speech of people. this tradition therefore he would counsel him to rely upon, and to believe that the book which we call scripture, was confirmed abundantly by the works of god, to be the word of god. believing it the word of god, he must of necessity believe it true: and if he believe it true, he must believe it contains all necessary directions unto eternal happiness, because it affirms itself to do so. nay he might tell him, that so far is the whole book, from wanting any necessary direction to his eternal salvation, that one only author, that hath writ but two little books of it, s. luke by name in the beginning of his gospel, and in the beginning of his story, shows plainly that he alone hath written at least so much as is necessary. and what they wrote, they wrote by god's direction, for the direction of the world, not only for the learned, but for all that would do their true endeavour to know the will of god, and to do it; therefore you cannot but conceive, that writing to all and for all, they wrote so as that in things necessary they might be understood by all. besides that, here he should find, that god himself has engaged himself by promise, that if he would love him, and keep his commandments, and pray earnestly for his spirit, and be willing to be directed by it, he should undoubtedly receive it, even the spirit of truth which shall lead him into all truth; that is certainly, into all necessary truths, and suffer him to fall into no pernicious error. the sum of his whole direction to him briefly would be this, believe the scripture to be the word of god, use your true endeavour to find the true sense of it, and to live according to it, and then you may rest securely that you are in the true way to eternal happiness. this is the substance of that answer which the doctor would make to any man in this case; and this is a way so plain, that fools, unless they will, cannot err from it. because not knowing absolutely all truth, nay not all profitable truth, and not being free from error; but endeavouring to know the truth and obey it, and endeavouring to be free from error, is by this way made the only condition of salvation. as for your supposition, that he would advise such a man to rely upon the catholic church for the finding out the doctrine of christ, he utterly disclaims it, and truly very justly: there being no certain way to know that any company is a true church, but only by their professing the true doctrine of christ. and therefore as it is impossible i should know such a company of philosophers are peripatetics, or stoics, unless i first know what was the doctrine of the peripatetics, and stoics; so is it impossible that i should certainly know any company to be the church of christ, before i know what is the doctrine of christ, the profession whereof constitutes the visible church, the belief and obedience the invisible. and therefore whereas you would have him be directed by the catholic church to the doctrine of christ; the contrary rather is most certain and necessary, that by the foreknowledge of the doctrine of christ, he must be directed to a certain assurance, which is, if he mean not to choose at a venture, but desire to have certain direction to it. this supposition therefore, being the hinge whereon your whole discourse turns, is the minerva of your own brain; and therefore were it but for this, have we not great reason to accuse you of strange immodesty, in saying as you do, that the whole discourse & inferences which here you have made, are either d. potter's own direct assertions, or evident consequences clearly deduced from them? especially seeing your proceeding in it is so consonant to this ill beginning, that it is in a manner wholly made up, not of d. potter's assertions, but your own fictions obtruded on him. 54 ad § 19 to the next question, cannot general counsels err? you pretend he answers § 19 they may err damnably. let the reader see the place, and he shall find, damnably is your addition. to the third demand, must i consult (about my difficulties) with every particular person of the catholic church? you answer for him, (that which is most false) that it seems so by his words; the whole militant church, that is, all the members of it cannot possibly err either in the whole faith, or any necessary article of it. which is very certain, for should it do so, it should be the church no longer. but what sense is there that you should collect out of these words, that every member of the militant church must be consulted with? by like reason, if he had said that all men in the world cannot err; if he had said that god in his own person, or his angels, could not err in these matters, you might have gathered from hence, that he laid a necessity upon men in doubt, to consult with angels, or with god in his own person, or with all men in the world. is it not evident to all sober men, that to make any man or men fit to be consulted with, besides the understanding of the matter, it is absolutely requisite that they may be spoken with? and is it not apparently impossible, that any man should speak with all the members of the militant church?. or if he had spoken with them all, know that he had done so? nay does not d. potter say as much in plain terms? nay more, do not you take notice that he does so in the very next words before these, where you say, he affirms that the catholic church cannot be told of private injuries: unless you will persuade us there is a difference between the catholic church, and the whole militant church. for whereas you make him deny this of the catholic church united, and affirm it of the militant church dispersed into particulars; the truth is, he speaks neither of united nor dispersed, but affirms simply (as appears to your shame by your own quotations) that the catholic church cannot be told of private injuries: and then, that the whole militant church cannot err. but then beside, that the united church cannot be consulted, and the dispersed may, what a wild imagination is it? and what a strange injustice was it in you to father it upon him? i beseech you sir, to consider seriously how far blind zeal to your superstition hath transported you beyond all bounds of honesty and discretion, & made you careless of speaking either truth or sense, so you speak against d. potter! 55 again, you make him say, the prelates of god's church meeting in a lawful council may err damnably: and from this collect, it remains then for your necessary instruction you must repair to every particular member of the universal church, spread over the face of the earth. and this is also pergulapictoris, veri nihil, omnia ficta. the antecedent false, (not for the matter of it, but) that d. potter says it; and the consequence as far from it, as gades from gange; and as coherent as a rope of sand. a general council may err; therefore you must travel all the world over, and consult with every particular christian▪ as if there were nothing else to be consulted with: nay, as if according to the doctrine of protestants, (for so you must say,) there were nothing to be consulted with, but only a general council, or all the world! have you never heard that protestants say, that men for their direction must consult with scripture? nay, doth not d. potter say it often in this very book which you are confuting? nay more, in this very page out of which you take this piece of your cento, a general council may err damnably? are there not these plain words, in searches of truth, the scripture? with what conscience then or modesty can you impose upon him this unreasonable consequence, & yet pretend that your whole discourse, is either his own direct assertion, or evident consequences, clearly deduced from them? you add, that yet he teaches (as if he contradicted himself) that the promises of god made to the church for his assistance, are not intended to particular persons, but only to the catholic church: which sure agrees very well with any thing said by d. potter. if it be repugnant to what you said for him falsely, what is that to him? 56 neither yet is this to drive any man to desperation: unless it be such a one, as hath such a strong affection to this word, church, that he will not go to heaven, unless he hath a church to lead him thither. for what though a council may err, and the whole church cannot be consulted with, yet this is not to send you on the fool's pilgrimage for faith, and bid you go and confer with every christian soul, man and woman, by sea and by land, close prisoner, or at liberty, as you dilate the matter: but to tell you very briefly, that universal tradition directs you to the word of god, and the word of god directs you to heaven. and therefore here is no cause of desperation, no cause for you to be so vain, and tragical, as here you would seem. yet upon supposal (you say) of this miraculous pilgrimage for faith, before i have the faith of miracles, how shall i proceed at our meeting? or how shall i know the man on whom i may securely rely? and hereunto, you frame this answer for the doctor; procure to know whether he believe all fundamental points of faith: whereas in all the doctor's book, there is no such answer to any such question, or any like it. neither do you as your custom is, note any page where it may be found; which makes me suspect, that sure you have some private licence to use heretics (as you call them) at your pleasure, and make them answer any thing to anything. 57 wherein i am yet more confirmed by the answer you put in his mouth to your next demand, how shall i know whether he hold all fundamental points or no? for whereas hereunto d. potter having given one answer fully satisfactory to it, which is, if he truly believe the undoubted books of canonical scripture, he cannot but believe all fundamentals; and another which is but somethings towards a full satisfaction of it, that the creed contains all the fundamentals of simple belief: you take no notice of the former, and pervert the latter, and make him say, the creed contains all fundamentals of faith. whereas you know, and within six or seven lines after this confess, that he never pretended it to contain all simply, but all of one sort, all necessary points of simple belief. which assertion because he modestly delivers as very probable (being willing to conclude rather less than more than his reasons require,) hereupon you take occasion to ask: shall i hazard my soul on probabilities, or even wagers! as if whatsoever is but probable, though in the highest degree of probability, were as likely to be false as true! or because it is but morally, not mathematically certain that there was such a woman as q. elizabeth, such a man as h. the 8. that is in the highest degree probable, therefore it were an even wager there were none such! by this reason, seeing the truth of your whole religion depends finally upon prudential motives, which you do but pretend to be very credible, it will be an even wager that your religion is false. and by the same reason, or rather infinitely greater, seeing it is impossible for any man (according to the grounds of your religion) to know himself, much less another to be a true pope, or a true priest; nay to have a moral certainty of it, because these things are obnoxious to innumerable secret and undiscernible nullities, it will be an even wager, nay (if we proportion things indifferently,) a hundred to one, that every consecration and absolution of yours is void, & that whensoever you adore the host, you and your assistants commit idolatry: that there is a nullity in any decree that a pope shall make, or any decree of a council which he shall confirm: particularly it will be at least an even wager, that all the decrees of the council of trent are void, because it is at most but very probable that the pope which confirmed them was true pope. if you mistake these inferences, then confess you have injured d. potter in this also, that you have confounded and made all one, probabilities, and even wagers. whereas every ordinary gamester can inform you, that though it be a thousand to one that such a thing will happen, yet it is not sure, but very probable. 58 to make the measure of your injustice yet fuller, you demand, if the creed contains only points of simple belief, how shall you know what points of belief are necessary which direct our practice? d. potter would have answered you in our saviour's words, search the scriptures. but you have a great mind it seems to be a despairing, and therefore having proposed your question, will not suffer him to give you answer, but shut your ears and tell him, still he chalks out new paths for desperation. 59 in the rest of your interlude, i cannot but commend one thing in you, that you keep a decorum, and observe very well the rule given you by the great master of your art, — servetur adimum qualis ab incepto processerat & sibi constet: one vein of scurrility and dishonesty runs clean through it, from the beginning to the end. your next demand than is, are all the articles of the creed for their nature and matter fundamental? and the answer, i cannot say so. which answer (though it be true) d. potter no where gives it, neither hath he occasion, but you make it for him, to bring in another question; and that is, how then shall i know, which in particular be, and which be not fundamental? d. potter would have answered, it is a vain question: believe all, and you shall be sure to believe all that is fundamental. 60 but what says now his prevaricating proxy? what does he make him say? this which follows: read my answer to a late popish pamphlet, entitled charity mistaken: there you shall find, that fundamental doctrines, are such catholic verities, as principally and essentially pertain to the faith, such as properly constitute a church, and are necessary in ordinary course, to be distinctly believed by every christian that will be saved. they are those grand and capital doctrines which make up our faith, that is, the common faith, which is alike precious in all; being one and the same, in the highest apostle, and the meanest believer, which the apostle elsewhere calls the first principles of the oracles of god, and the form of sound words. 61 but in earnest, good sir, doth the doctor in these places by you quoted, make to this question this same sottish answer? or do you think that against an heretic nothing is unlawful? certainly if he doth answer thus, i will make bold to say he is a very fool. but if he does not, (as indeed he does not) then:— but i forbear you, and beseech the reader to consult the places of d. potter's book; and there he shall find, that in the former half of these (as you call them) varied words and phrases, he declared only what he meant by the word fundamental, which was needful to prevent mistakes, and cavilling about the meaning of the word, which is metaphorical, and therefore ambiguous; and that the latter half of them, are several places of scripture employed by d. potter, to show that his distinction of fundamental and not fundamental hath express ground in it. nay of these two places, very pertinent unto two very good purposes, you have exceeding fairly patched together a most ridiculous answer, to a question that d. potter never dreamt of. but the words, you will say, are in d. potter's book, though in diverse places, and to other purposes. very true: and so the words of ausonius his obscene fescennine, are taken out of virgil, yet virgil surely was not the author of this poem. besides, in d. potter's book, there are these words, dread sovereign, amongst the many excellent virtues which have made your majesty's person so dear unto god, etc. and why now may you not say as well, that in these he made answer to your former question, what points of the creed were, and what were not fundamentals? 62 but unless this question may be answered, his doctrine you say serves only, either to make men despair, or else to have recourse to these whom we call papists. it seems a little thing will make you despair, if you be so sullen as to do so, because men will not trouble themselves to satisfy your curious questions. and i pray be not offended with me for so esteeming it, because as before i told you, if you will believe all the points of the creed, you cannot choose but believe all the points of it that are fundamental, though you be ignorant which are so, and which are not so. now i believe your desire to know which are fundamentals, proceeds only from a desire to be assured that you do believe them; which seeing you may be assured of, without knowing which they be, what can it be but curiosity to desire to know it? neither may you think to mend yourself herein one whit by having recourse to them whom we call papists; for they are as far to seek as we in this point, which of the articles of the creed are, for their nature and matter, fundamental, and which are not. particularly, you will scarce meet with any amongst their doctors, so adventurous, as to tell you for a certain, whether or no the conception of christ by the holy ghost, his being born of a virgin, his burial, his descent into hell, and the communion of saints, be points of their own nature and matter fundamental. such i mean, as without the distinct and explicit knowledge of them no man can be saved. 63 but you will say, at least they give this certain rule, that all points defined by christ's visible church, belong to the foundation of faith, in such sense, as to deny any such, cannot stand with salvation. so also protestants give you this more certain rule, that whosoever believes heartily those books of scripture, which all the christian churches in the world acknowledge to be canonical, and submits himself indeed to this, as to the rule of his belief, must of necessity believe all things fundamental, and if he live according to his faith, cannot fail of salvation. but beside, what certainty have you, that that rule of papists is so certain? by the visible church it is plain, they mean only their own: and why their own only should be the visible church, i do not understand: and as little, why all points defined by this church should belong to the foundation of faith. these things you had need see well and substantially proved, before you rely upon them, otherwise you expose yourself to danger of embracing damnable errors instead of fundamental truth's. but you will say d. potter himself acknowledges, that we do not err in fundamentals. if he did so, yet me thinks you have no reason to rest upon his acknowledgement with any security, whom you condemn of error in many other matters. perhaps excess of charity to your persons, may make him censure your errors more favourably than he should do. but the truth is, and so i have often told you, though the doctor hope that your errors are not so unpardonably destructive, but that some men, who ignorantly hold them may be saved, yet in themselves, he professes and proclaims them damnable, and such as he fears, will be certainly destructive to such as you are, that is, to all those, who have eyes to see and will not see them. 64 ad §. 20. 21. 22. 23. in the remainder of this chapter, you promise to answer d. potter's arguments, against that which you said before. but presently forgetting yourself, in stead of answering his arguments, you fall a confuting his answers to your own. the arguments objected by you which here you vindicate, were two. 1. the scripture is not so much as mentioned in the creed, therefore the creed contains not all things necessary to be believed. 2. baptism is not contained in the creed, therefore not all things necessary. to both which arguments my answer shortly is this, that they prove something, but it is that which no man here denies. for d. potter (as you have also confessed) never said, not undertaken to show, that the apostles intended to comprise in the creed, all points absolutely, which we are bound to believe, or after sufficient proposal, not to disbelieve; which yet here and every where you are obtruding upon him: but only that they purposed to comprise in it, all such doctrines purely speculative, all such matters of simple belief, as are in ordinary course, necessary to be distinctly and explicitly believed by all men. neither of these objections do any way infringe or impeach the truth of this assertion. not the first, because according to your own doctrine, all men are not bound to know explicitly what books of scripture are canonical. nor the second, because baptism is not a matter of faith, but practice: not so much to be believed, as to be given, and received. and against these answers, whether you have brought any considerable new matter, let the indifferent reader judge. as for the other things, which d. potter rather glanceth at, then buil●s upon, in answering these objections, as the creed's being collected out of scripture, and supposing the authority of it, which gregory of valentia in the place above cited, seems to me to confess, to have been the judgement of the ancient fathers: and the nicene creed's intimating the authority of canonical scripture, and making mention of baptism: these things were said ex abundanti; and therefore i conceive it superfluous to examine your exceptions against them. prove that d. potter did affirm that the creed contains all things necessary to be believed of all sorts, and then these objections will be pertinent, and deserve an answer. or produce some point of simple belief, necessary to be explicitly believed, which is not contained either in terms, or by consequence in the creed, and then i will either answer your reasons, or confess i cannot. but all this while you do but trifle, and are so far from hitting the mark, that you rove quite beside the but. 65 ad §. 23. 24. 25. potter●emands ●emands, how it can be necessary for any christian to have more in his creed then the apostles had, and the church of their times? you answer that he trifles, not distinguishing between the apostles belief, and that abridgement of some articles of faith, which we call the apostles creed. i reply, that it is you which trifle, affectedly confounding (what d. potter hath plainly distinguished) the apostles belief of the whole religion of christ, as it comprehends both what we are to do, and what we are to believe, with their belief of that part of it, which contains not duties of obedience, but only the necessary articles of si●ple ●aith. now though the apostles belief be, in the former sense, a larger thing then that which we call the apostles creed: yet in the latter sense of the word, the creed (i say) is a full comprehension of their belief, which you yourself have formerly confessed, though somewhat fearfully, and inconstantly: and here again unwillingness to speak the truth, makes you speak that which is hardly sense, and call it an abridgement of some articles of faith. for i demand, these some articles which you speak of, which are they? those that are out of the creed, or those that are in it? those that are in it, it comprehends at large, and therefore it is not an abridgement of them: those that are out of it, it comprehends not at all, and therefore it is not an abridgement of them. if you would call it now an abridgement of the faith, this would be sense, and signify thus much, that all the necessary articles of the christian faith are comprised in it. for this is the proper duty of abridgements, to leave out nothing necessary, and to take in nothing unnecessary. 66 moreover, in answer to this demand you tell us, that the doctor begs the question, supposing that the apostles believed no more than is contained in their creed. i answer, he supposes no such matter; but only that they knew no more necessary articles of simple belief, then what are contained in their creed. so that here you abuse d. potter and your reader, by taking sophistically without limitation, that which is delivered with limitation. 67 but this demand of d. potter's, was equivalent to a negation, and intended for one: how can it be necessary for any christian, to have more in his creed, than the apostles had? all one with this, it cannot be necessary etc. and this negation of his, he enforces with many arguments, which he proposes by way of interrogation, thus. may the church of after ages make the narrow way to heaven, narrower than our saviour left it? shall it be a fault to straiten and encumber the king's high way with public nuisances; and is it lawful by adding new articles to the faith, to retrench any thing from the latitude of the king of heavens high way to eternal happiness? the yoke of christ, which he said was easy, may it be justly made heavier by the governors of the church in after ages? the apostles profess they revealed to the church the whole counsel of god, keeping back nothing needful for our salvation. what tyranny then to impose any new unnecessary matters on the faith of christians, especially (as the late popes have done) under the high commanding form, qui non crediderit, damnabitur? if this may be done, why then did our saulour reprehend the pharisees so sharply, for binding heavy burdens, and laying them on men's shoulders? and why did he teach them, that in vain they worshipped god, teaching for doctrines men's traditions? and why did the apostles call it tempting of god, to lay those things upon the necks of christians, that were not necessary? 68 all which interrogations seem to me to contain so many plain and convincing arguments of the premised assertion; to all which (one excepted,) according to the advice of the best masters of rhetoric in such cases, you have answered very discreetly; by saying o. but when you write again, i pray take notice of them: and if you can devise no fair, and satisfying answer to them, then be so ingenuous as to grant the conclusion, that no more can be necessary for christians to believe now, then was in the apostles time. a conclusion of great importance, for the decision of many controversies, & the disburdening of the faith of christ from many encumbrances. 69 as for that one, which you thought you could fasten upon, grounded on the 20. act. 27. let me tell you plainly, that by your answering this, you have showed plainly that it was wisely done of you to decline the rest. you tell d. potter, that needful for salvation is his gloss, which perhaps you intended for a piece of an answer. but good sir, consult the place, and you shall find, that there s. paul himself says that he kept back 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, not any thing that was profitable: and i hope you will make no difficulty to grant, that whatsoever is needful for salvation, is very profitable. 70 but than you say, this is no proof unless he beg the question, and suppose, that whatsoever the apostles revealed to the church is contained in the creed. i answer, it is not d. potter that begs the question, but you that mistake it: which is not here in this particular place, whether all points of simple belief necessary for the salvation of the primitive christians, were contained in the apostles symbol? (for that and the proofs, of it follow after, in the next, §. p. 223. of d. potter's book:) but, whether any thing can be necessary for christians to believe now, which was not so from the beginning? d. potter maintains the negative; and to make good his opinion, thus he argues, s. paul declared to the ephesians the whole counsel of god touching their salvation; therefore that which s. paul did not declare, can be no part of the counsel of god, and therefore not necessary. and again: s. paul kept back nothing from the ephesians that was profitable; therefore he taught them all things necessary to salvation. consider this i pray a little better, and then i hope you will acknowledge, that here was no petitio principij, in d. potter, but rather ignoratio elenchi, in you. 71 neither is it material, that these words were particularly directed by s. paul, to the pastors of the church: for (to say nothing that the point here issuable, is not, whom he taught, whether priests or laymen? but how much he taught, and whether all things necessary?) it appears plainly out of the text, and i wonder you should read it so negligently as not to observe it, that though he speaks now to the pastors, yet he speaks of what he taught not only them, but also the laity as well as them. i have kept back nothing (says s. paul) that was profitable, but have showed, and have taught you publicly, and from house to house; testifying (i pray observe) both to the jews, and also to the greeks, repentance towards god, & faith towards our lord jesus christ. and a little after, i know that ye all, among whom i have gone preaching the kingdom of god, shall see my face no more. wherefore i take you to record this day, that i am innocent from the blood of all men; for i have kept nothing back, but have showed you all the counsel of god. and again, remember that by the space of three years i ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears. certainly though he did all these things to the pastors among the rest, nay above the rest, yet without controversy, they whom he taught publicly, and from house to house: the jews and greeks to whom he testified, (1.) preached faith and repentance▪ those all, amongst whom he went preaching the kingdom of cod: those, every one, whom for three years together he warned, were not bishops and pastors only. 72 neither is this to say, that the apostles taught christians nothing but their creed, nothing of the sacraments, comandements, etc. for that is not here the point to be proved: but only, that they taught them all things necessary, so that nothing can be necessary which they did not teach them. but how much of this they put into their creed, whether all the necessary points of simple belief, as we pretend, or only as you say, i know not what, is another question, and which comes now to be farther examined. d. potter, in confirmation of it, besides the authorities which you formerly shifted of, with so egregious tergiversation, urges five several arguments. 73 the sense of the first is this, if all the necessary points of simple belief be not comprised in the creed, it can no way deserve the name of the apostles creed, as not being their creed in any sense, but only a part of it. to this you answer § 2 5. upon the same affected ambignity, etc. answ. it is very true that their whole faith was of a larger extent, but that was not the question: but whether all the points of simple belief which they taught as necessary to be explicitly believed, be not contained in it? and if thus much at least of christian religion be not comprised in it, i again desire you to inform me how it could be called the apostles creed! 74 four other reasons d. potter urges to the same purpose, grounded upon the practice of the ancient church; the last whereof you answer in the second part of your book. but to the rest, drawn from the ancient churches appointing her infants to be instructed (for matters of simple belief,) only in the creed: from her admitting catechumen unto baptism: and of strangers to her communion upon their only profession of the creed, you have not, for aught i can perceive, thought fit to make any kind of answer. 75 the difficulties of the 27. and last § of this chapter, have been satisfied. so that there remains unexamined only the 26. section, wherein you exceed yourself in sophistry: especially in that trick of cavillers, which is to answer objections by other objections; an excellent way to make controversies endless! d. potter desires to be resolved, why amongst many things of equal necessity to be believed, the apostles should distinctly set down some in the creed, and be altogether silent of others? in stead of resolving him in this difficulty, you put another to him, and that is, why are some points not fundamental expressed in it, rather than other of the same quality? which demand is so far from satisfying the former doubt, that it makes it more intricate. for upon this ground it may be demanded, how was it possible that the apostles should leave out any articles simply necessary, and put in others not necessary, especially if their intention were (as you say it was) to deliver in it such articles as were fittest for those times? unless (which were wondrous strange) unnecessary articles were fitter for those times, then necessary. but now to your question, the answer is obvious: these unnecessary things might be put in, because they were circumstances of the necessary, pontius pilate of christ's passion, the third day of the resurrection; neither doth the adding of them make the creed ever a whit the less portable, the less fit to be understood, and remembered. and for the contrary reasons, other unnecessary things might be left out. besides, who sees not that the addition of some unnecessary circumstances is a thing that can hardly be avoided without affectation! and therefore not so great a fault, nor deserving such a censure, as the omission of any thing essential to the work undertaken, and necessary to the end proposed in it. 76 you demand again (as it is no hard matter to multiply demands,) why our saviour's descent to hell, and burial was expressed, and not his circumcision, his manifestation to the three kings, and working of miracles? i answer: his resurrection, ascension, and sitting at the right hand of god, are very great miracles, and they are expressed. besides, s. john. assures us, that the miracles which christ did, were done and written not for themselves that they might be believed, but for a farther end, that we might believe that jesus was the christ, and believing have eternal life. he therefore that believes this may be saved, though he have no explicit and distinct faith of any miracle that our saviour did. his circumcision & manifestation to the wise men (for i know not upon what grounds you call them kings) are neither things simply necessary to be known, nor have any near relation to those that are so. as for his descent into hell, it may (for aught you know) be put in as a thing necessary of itself to be known. if you ask why more than his circumcision, i refer you to the apostles for an answer, who put that in, and left this out of their creed: and yet sure, were not so forgetful after the receiving of the holy ghost, as to leave out any prime & principal foundation of the faith, which are the very words of your own gordonius huntlaeus, cont. 2. c. 10. num. 10. likewise his burial was put in perhaps as necessary of itself to be known. but though it were not, yet hath it manifestly so near relation to these that are necessary, (his passion & resurrection, being the consequent of the one, and the antecedent of the other,) that it is no marvel if for their sakes it was put in. for though i verily believe that there is no necessary point of this nature, but what is in the creed, yet i do not affirm, because i cannot prove it, that there is nothing in the creed but what is necessary. you demand thirdly, why did they not express scriptures, sacraments, and all fundamental points of faith tending to practise, as well as those which rest in belief? i answer; because their purpose was to comprise in it only those necessary points which rest in belief: which appears, because of practical points there is not in it so much as one. 77 d. potter subjoins to what is said above, that as well, nay better they might have given no article but that of the church, and sent us to the church for all the rest: for in setting down others besides that, and not all, they make us believe we have all, when we have not all. this consequence you deny: and neither give reason against it, nor satisfy his reason for it, which yet in my judgement is good and concluding. the proposition to be proved is this, that if your doctrine were true, this short creed, i believe the roman church to be infallible, would have been better, that is, more effectual to keep the believers of it from heresy, and in the true faith, than this creed which now we have. a proposition so evident, that i cannot see how either you, or any of your religion, or indeed any sensible man can from his heart deny it. yet because you make show of doing so, or else, which i rather hope, do not rightly apprehend the force of the reason, i will endeavour briefly to add some light and strength to it, by comparing the effects of these several supposed creeds. 78 the former creed therefore would certainly produce these effects in the believers of it: an impossibility of being in any formal heresy: a necessity of being prepared in mind to come out of all errourin faith, or material heresy; which certainly you will not deny, or if you do, you pull down the only pillar of your church and religion, and deny that which is in effect the only thing you labour to prove through your whole book. 79 the latter creed which now we have, is so uneffectuall for these good purposes, that you yourself tell us of innumerable, gross, damnable heresies, that have been, are, and may be, whose contrary truths are neither explicitly, nor by consequence comprehended in this creed: so that no man by the belief of this creed without the former, can be possibly guarded from falling into them, and continuing obstinate in them. nay, so far is this creed from guarding them from these mischiefs, that it is more likely to ensnare than into them, by seeming and yet not being a full comprehension of all necessary points of faith: which is apt (as experience shows,) to misguide men into this pernicious error, that believing the creed, they believe all necessary points of faith, whereas indeed they do not so. now upon these grounds i thus conclude: that creed which hath great commodities and no danger, would certainly be better then that which hath great danger, and wants many of these great commodities; but the former short creed proposed by me, i believe the roman church to be infallible, (if your doctrine be true,) is of the former condition, and the latter, that is, the apostles creed, is of the latter, therefore the former (if your doctrine be true) would without controversy be better than the latter. 80 but (say you) by this kind of arguing, one might infer quite contrary. if the apostles creed contain all points necessary to salvation, what need have we of any church to teach us? and consequently what need of the article of the church? to which i answer: that having compared your inference and d. potter together, i cannot discover any shadow of resemblance between them, nor any show of reason, why the perfection of the apostles creed, should exclude a necessity of some body to deliver it. much less why the whole creed's containing all things necessary should make the belief of a part of it unnecessary. as well (for aught i understand) you might avouch this inference to be as good as d. potter's: the apostles creed contains all things necessary, therefore there is no need to believe in god. neither does it follow so well as d. potter's argument follows, that if the apostles creed contains all things necessary, that all other creeds and catechisms, wherein are added diverse other particulars, are superfluous. for these other particulars may be the duties of obedience, they may be profitable points of doctrine, they may be good expositions of the apostles creed, and so not superfluous, and yet for all this the creed may still contain all points of belief that are simply necessary. these therefore are poor consequences, but no more like d. potter's then an apple is like an oyster. 81 but this consequence after you have sufficiently slighted and disgraced it, at length you promise us news, and pretend to grant it. but what is that which you mean to grant? that the apostles did put no article in their creed but only that of the church? or that, if they had done so, they had done better than now they have done? this is d. potter's inference out of your doctrine; and truly if you should grant this, this were news indeed? yes, say you i will grant it, but only thus far, that christ hath referred us only to his church. yea, but this is clean another thing, and no news at all, that you should grant that, which you would fain have granted to you. so that your dealing with us is just as if a man should proffer me a courtesy, and pretend that he would oblige himself by a note under his hand, to give me twenty pound, and in stead of it write, that i owe him forty, and desire me to subscribe to it and be thankful. of such favours as these it is very safe to be liberal. 82 you tell us afterward (but how it comes in i know not) that it were a childish argument, the creed contains not all things necessary; ergo, it is not profitable! or, the church alone is sufficient to teach us by some convenient means: ergo, she must teach us without means. these indeed are childish arguments, but for aught i see, you alone are the father of them: for in d. potter's book, i can neither meet with them, nor any like them. he indeed tells you, that if (by an impossible supposition) your doctrine were true, another and a far shorter creed would have been more expedient: even this alone, i believe the roman church to be infallible. but why you should conclude, he makes this creed unprofitable, because he says another that might be conceived upon this false supposition, would be more profitable: or, that he lays a necessity upon the church, of teaching without means: or, of not teaching this very creed which now is taught; these things are so subtle that i cannot apprehend them. to my understanding, by those words, and sent us to the church for all the rest, he does rather manifestly imply, that the rest might be very well, not only profitable but necessary, and that the church was to teach this by creeds, or catechisms, or counsels, or any other means which she should make choice of, for being infallible she could not choose amiss. 83 whereas therefore you say, if the apostles had expressed no article but that of the catholic church, she must have taught us the other articles in particular by creeds, or other means: this is very true, but no way repugnant to the truth of this which follows, that the apostles (if your doctrine be true) had done better service to the church; though they had never made this creed of theirs which now we have, if instead thereof, they had commanded in plain terms that for men's perpetual direction in the faith, this short creed should be taught all men, i believe the roman church shall be for ever infallible. yet you must not so mistake me, as if i meant, that they had done better not to have taught the church the substance of christian religion; for then the church not having learned it of them, could not have taught it us. this therefore i do not say: but supposing they had written these scriptures as they have written, wherein all the articles of their creed are plainly delivered, and preached that doctrine which they did preach, and done all otherthings as they have done, besides the composing their symbols i say, if your doctrine were true, they had done a work infinitely more beneficial to the church of christ, if they had never composed their symbol, which is but an imperfect comprehension of the necessary points of simple belief, and no distinctive mark (as a symbol should be) between those that are good christians, and those that are not so; but instead thereof, had delivered this one proposition, which would have been certainly effectual for all the aforesaid good intents and purposes, the roman church shall be forever infallible in all things, which she proposes as matters of faith. 84 whereas you say, if we will believe we have all in the creed when we have not all, it is not the apostles fault but our own: i tell you plainly, if it be a fault, i know not whose it should be but theirs. for sure it can be no fault in me to follow such guides whether ●oever they lead me; now i say, they have led me into this persuasion, because they have given me great reason to believe it, and none to the contrary. the reason they have given me to believe it, is, because it is apparent and confessed, they did propose to themselves in composing it, some good end or ends: as that christians might have a form, by which (for matter of faith) they might profess themselves catholics, so putean out of th. aquinas: that the faithful might know, what the christian people is to believe explicitly, so vincent filiucius: that being separated into diverse parts of the world, they might preach the same thing: and that▪ that might serve as a mark to distinguish true christians from infidels, so cardinal richlieu. now for all these and for any other good intent, i say, it will be plainly uneffectuall, unless it contain at least all points of simple belief, which are in ordinary course, necessary to be explicitly known by all men. so that if it be fault in me to believe this, it must be my fault to believe the apostles, wise and good men: which i cannot do if i believe not this. and therefore what richardus de sancto victore says of god himself, i make no scruple at all to apply to the apostles, and to say, si error est quod credo, à vobis deceptus sum: if it be an error which i believe, it is you, and my reverend esteem of you and your actions that hath led me into it. for as for your suspicion, that we are led into this persuasion, out of a hope that we may the better maintain by it some opinions of our own, it is plainly uncharitable. i know no opinion i have, which i would not as willingly forsake as keep, if i could see sufficient reason to induce me to believe, that it is the will of god i should forsake it. neither do i know any opinion i hold against the church of rome, but i have more evident grounds than this whereupon to build it. for let but these truths be granted: that the authority of the scripture is independent on your church, & dependent only in respect of us upon universal tradition; that scripture is the only rule of faith: that all things necessary to salvation are plainly delivered in scripture: let i say these most certain and divine truths be laid for foundations, and let our superstructions be consequent and coherent to them; and i am confident peace would be restored, and truth maintained against you, though the apostles creed were not in the world. chap. v. that luther, calvin, their associates, & all who began, or continue the separation from the external communion of the roman church, are guilty of the proper, and formal sin of schism. the searcher of all hearts, is witness with how unwilling minds, we catholics are drawn to fasten the denomination of schismatics, or heretics, on them, for whose souls, if they employed their best blood, they judge that it could not be better spent! if we rejoice, that they are contistated at such titles, our joy riseth not from their trouble or grief, but, as that of the apostles did, from the fountain of charity, because they are cont●●stated to repentance; that so after unpartial examination, they finding themselves to be what we say, may by god's holy grace, begin to dislike, what themselves are. for our part, we must remember that our obligation is, to keep within the mean, betwixt uncharitable bitterness, and pernicious flattery, not yielding to worldly respects, nor offending christian modesty, but uttering the substance of truth in so charitable manner, that not so much we, as truth, and charity may seem to speak, according to the wholesome advice of s. gregory nazianzen in these divine words: we do not affect peace with a orat. 32. prejudice of the true doctrine, that so we may get a name of being gentle, and mild, and yet we seek to conserve peace, fight in a lawful manner, and containing ourselves within our compass, and the rule of spirit. and of these things my judgement is, and for my part i prescribe the same law to all that deal with souls, and treat of true doctrine, that neither they exasperated me●s minds by harshness, nor make them haughty or insolent, by submission; but that in the cause of faith they behave themselves prudently, and advisedly, and do not in either of these things exceed the mean. with whom angreeth s. leo saying: it behoveth us in such causes to be b epist. 8▪ most careful, that without noise of contentions, both charity be conserved, and truth maintained. 2. for better method, we will handle these points in order. first we will set down the nature, and essence, or as i may call it, the quality of schism. in the second place, the greatness and grievousness, or (so to term it) the quantity thereof. for the nature, or quality will tell us who may without injury be judged schismatics: and by the greatness, or quantity, such as find themselves guilty thereof, will remain acquainted with the true state of their soul, and and whether they may conceive any hope of salvation or no. and because schism will be found to be a division from the church, which could not happen, unless there were always a visible church; we will, thirdly prove, or rather take it as a point to be granted by all christians, that in all ages there hath been such a visible congregation of faithful people. fourthly, we will demonstrate, that luther, calvin, and the rest, did separate themselves from the communion of that always visible church of christ, and therefore were guilty of schism. and fifthly we will make it evident, that the visible true church of christ, out of which luther and his followers departed, was no other but the roman church, and consequently that both they, and all others who persist in the same division, are schismatics by reason of their separation from the church of rome. 3 for the first point touching the nature, 1. point. or quality of schism: as the natural perfection of man consists in his being the image of god his creator, by the powers of his soul; so his supernatural perfection is placed in fimilitude with god, the nature of schism. as his last end and felicity; and by having the said spiritual faculties, his understanding and will linked to him. his understanding is united to god by faith; his will, by charity. the former relies upon his infallible truth: the latter carrieth us to his infinite goodness. faith hath a deadly opposite, heresy. contrary to the union, or unity of charity, is separation and division. charity is twofold. as it respects god, his opposite vice is hatred against god: as it uniteth us to our neighbour, his contrary is separation or division of affections and will, from our neighbour. our neighbour may be considered, either as one private person hath a single relation to another, or as all concur to make one company or congregation, which we call the church; and this is the most principal reference and union of one man with another: because the chiefest unity is that of the whole, to which the particular unity of parts is subordinate. this unity, or oneness (if so i may call it) is effected by charity, uniting all the members of the church in one mystical body; contrary to which, is schism, from the greek word signifying scissure, or division. wherefore upon the whole matter, we find that schism, as the angelical doctor s. thomas defines it, is; a voluntary separation c 2. 2. q. 39 art▪ in corp. & add 3. from the unity of that charity, whereby all the members of the church are united. from hence he deduceth, that schism is a special and particular vice, distinct from heresy, because they are opposite to two different virtues: heresy, to faith: schism, to charity. to which purpose he fitly allegeth s. hierome upon these words, (tit. 3.) a man that is an heretic after the first and second admonition avoid, saying: i conceive that there is this difference betwixt schism and heresy, that heresy involves some perverse assertion: schism for episcopal dissension doth separate men from the church. the same doctrine is delivered by s. austin in these words: heretics d lib. 1. dewid. & symb. cap. 10. and schismatics call their congregations, churches: but heretics corrupt the faith by believing of god false things: but schismatics by wicked divisions break from fraternal charity, although they believe what we believe. therefore the heretic belongs not to the church, because she loves god: nor the schismatic, because she loves her neighbour. and in another place he saith. it is wont to be demanded e quest. evangel. ex mat. q. 11. how schismatics be distinguished from heretics: and this difference is found, that not a diverse faith, but the divided society of communion doth make schismatics. it is then evident that schism is different from heresy. nevertheless (saith s. thomas f vbi supra. as he who is deprived of faith must needs want charity: so every heretic is a schismatic, but not conversively every schismatique is an heretic; though because want of charity disposes and makes way to the destruction of faith (according to those words of the apostle, which (a good conscience) some casting off, have suffered shipwreck in their faith) schism speedily degenerates to heresy, as s. hierome after the rebearsed words teacheth, saying: though schism in the beginning may in some sort be understood different from heresy; yet there is no schism which doth not feign some heresy to itself, that so it may seem to have departed from the church upon good reason. nevertheless when schism proceeds originally from heresy, heresy as being in that case the predominant quality in these two peccant humours, giveth the denomination of an heretic; as on the other side we are wont, especially in the beginning, or for a while, to call schismatics, those men who first began with only schism, though in process of time they fell into some heresy, and by that means are indeed both schismatics and heretics. 4. the reason why both heresy and schism are repugnant to the being of a good catholic, is because the catholic, or universal church signifies one congregation, or company of faithful people, and therefore implies not only faith, to make them faithful believers, but also communion, or common union, to make them one in charity, which excludes separation, and division: and therefore in the apostles creed, communion of saints is immediately joined to the catholic church. 5. from this definition of schism may be inferred, that the guilt thereof is contracted, not only by division from the universal church; but also, by a separation from a particular church or diocese which agrees with the universal. in this manner meletius was a schismatic, but not an heretic, because as we read in s. epiphanius, h heres. 68 he was of the right faith: for his faith was not altered at any time from the holy catholic church etc. he made a sect, but departed not from faith. yet because he made to himself a particular congregation against s. peter archbishop of alexandria his lawful superior, and by that means brought in a division in that particular church, he was a schismatique. and it is well worth the noting, that the meletians building new churches put this title upon them, the church of martyrs: and upon the ancient churches of those who succeeded peter, was inscribed, the catholic church. for so it is. a new sect must have a new name, which though it be never so gay and specious, as the church of martyrs: the reformed church etc. yet the novelty showeth that it is not the catholic, nor a true church. and that schism may be committed by division from a particular church, we read in optatus milevitanus i lib. 1. cont. parmen. these remarkable words, (which do well declare who be schismatics) brought by him to prove that not c●cilianus but parmenianas was a schismatic: for caecilianus went not out from majorinus thy grandfather (he means his next predecessor but one, in the bishopric,) but majorinus from caecilianus: neither did caecilianus depart from the chair of peter, or of cyprian (who was but a particular bishop,) but majorinus, in whose chair thou sittest which had no beginning before majorinus himself. seeing it is manifestly known that these things were so done, it evidently appeareth, that you are heirs both of traditors (that is, of those who delivered up the holy bible to be burned) and of schismatics. and it seemeth that this kind of schism must principally be admitted by protestants, who acknowledge no one visible head of the whole church, but hold that every particular diocese, church, or country is governed by itself independently of any one person, or general council, to which all christians have obligation to submit their judgements, and wills. 6. as for the grievousness or quantity of schism (which was the second point proposed) s. thomas teacheth, that amongst sins against our neighbour, 2. point. the grievousness of schism. schism l supra. art. 2. ad 3. is the most grievous; because it is against the spiritual good of the multitude, or community. and therefore as in a kingdom or commonwealth, there is as great difference between the crime of rebellion or sedition, and debates among private men, as there is inequality betwixt one man, and a whole kingdom; so in the church, schism is as much more grievous than sedition in a kingdom, as the spiritual good of souls surpasseth the civil and political weal. and s. thomas adds further, and they lose the spiritual power of jurisdiction; and if they go about to absolve from sins, or to excommunicate, their actions are invalid; which he proves out of the canon novatianus. causa 7. quest. 1. which saith: he that keepeth neither the unity of spirit, nor the peace of agreement, and separates himself from the bond of the church, and the colleague of priests, can neither have the power, nor dignity of a bishop. the power also of order (for example to consecrate the eucharist, to ordain priests &c.) they cannot lawfully excercise. 7. in the judgement of the holy fathers, schism is a most grievous offence. s. chrisostome m hom. 11. in ep. ad epk. compares these schismatical dividers of christ's mystical body, to those who sacrilegiously pietced his natural body, saying: nothing doth so much incense god, as that the church should be divided. although we should do innumerable good works, if we divide the full ecclesiastical. congregation, we shall be punished no less than they who tore his (natural) body. for that was done to the gain of the whole world, although not with that intention: but this hath no profit at all, but there ariseth from it most great harm. these things are spoken, not only to those who bear office, but also to those who are governed by them. behold how neither a moral good life (which conceit deceiveth many) nor authority of magistrates, nor any necessity of obeying superiors can excuse schism from being a most heinous offence. optatus milevitanus o lib. cent. parmen. calls schism, inge●s stagitium: a huge crime. and speaking to the donatists, saith; that schism is evil in the highest degree, even you are not able to deny. no less pathetical is s. augustine upon this subject. he reckons schismatics amongst pagans, heretics, and jews, saying: religion is to be sought, neither in the con●usion of pagans, nor p lib. de vera relig. cap. 6. in the filth of heretics, nor in the languishing of schismatics, nor in the age of the jews; but amongst those alone who are called christian catholics, or orthodox, that is, lovers of unity in the whole body, and followers of truth. nay he esteems them worse than infidels and idolaters, saying: those whom the donatists q cont. donatist. l. 1. cap. 8. heal from the wound of infidelity and idolatry, they hurt more grievously with the wound of schism. let there those men who are pleased untruly to call us idolaters, reflect upon themselves, and consider, that this holy father judgeth schismatics (as they are) to be worse than idolaters, which they absurdly call us. and this he proveth by the example of core, and dathan, abiron and other rebellious schismatics of the old testament, who were conveyed alive down into hell, and punished more openly than idolaters. no doubt (saith this holy father) but r ibid. lib. 2. cap. 6. that was committed most wickedly, which was punished most severally. in another place he yoaketh schism with heresy, saying upon the eight beatitude: many s de serm. dom. in monte c. 5. heretics, under the name of christians, deceiving men's souls, do suffer many such things; but therefore they are excluded from this reward, because it is not only said, happy are they who suffer persecution, but there is added, for justice.. but where there is not sound faith, there cannot be justice. neither can schismatics promise to themselves any part of this reward, because likewise where there is no charity, there cannot be justice. and in another place, yet more effectually he saith: being out of t epist. 204. the church, and divided from the heap of unity, and the bond of charity, thou shouldest be punished with eternal death, though thou shouldest he burned alive for the name of christ. and in another place, he hath these words: if he hear not the church let him be to u cont. advers. leg. & prophet. l, 2. cap. 17. thee, as an heathen or publican; which is more grievous than if he were smitten with the sword, consumed with flames, or cast to wild beasts. and else where: out of the catholic church (saith he) one w de gest. cum emerit. may have faith, sacraments, orders, and in sum, all things except salvation. with s. augustine, his countryman and second self in sympathy of spirit, s. fulgentius agreeth, saying: believe this x de side ad pet. steadfastly without doubting, that every heretic, or schismatic, baptised in the name of the father, the son, and the holy ghost, if before the end of his life, he be not reconciled to the catholic church, what alms soever he give, yea though he should shed his blood for the name of christ, he cannot obtain salvation. mark again how no moral honesty of life, no good deeds, no martyrdom, can without repentance avail any schismatique for salvation. let us also add that d. potter saith: schism is no less y pag. 42. damnable, than heresy. 8. but o you holy, learned, zealous fathers, and doctors of god's church; out of these premises, of the grievousness of schism, and of the certain damnation which it bringeth (if unrepented) what conclusion draw you for the instruction of christians? s. augustine maketh this wholesome inference. there is z cont. parm. lib. 2. cap. 62.▪ no just necessity to divide unity. s. irenaeus concludeth: they cannot a cont. haeres. lib. 4. cap. 62. make any so important reformation, as the evil of the schism is pernicious. s. denis of alexandria saith: certainly b apud euseb. hist. eccles. lib. 6. all things should rather be endured, then to consent to the division of the church of god: those martyrs being no less glorious, that expose themselves to hinder the dismembering of the church; then those that suffer rather than they will offer sacrifice to idols. would to god all those who divided themselves from that visible church of christ, which was upon earth when luther appeared, would rightly consider of these things! and th●s much of the second point. 9 we have just and necessary occasion, eternally to bless almighty god, who hath vouchsafed to make us members of the catholic roma● church, 3. point. perpetual visibility of the church. from which while men fall, they precipitate themselves into so vast absurdities, or rather sacrilegious blasphemies, as is employed in the doctrine of the total deficiency of the visible church, which yet is maintained by diverse chief protestants, as may at large be seen in brerely, and others; out of whom i will here name jewel saying: the truth was unknown c apolog. part, 4. cap. 4. divis. 2, and in his defence printed ann. 1571. pag. 426. at that time, and unheard of, when martin luther, and vlderick zuinglius first came unto the knowledge and preaching of the gospel. perkins saith: we say, that d in his exposition upon the creed. pag. 400. before the days of luther for the space of many hundred years, an universal apostasy overspread the whole face of the earth, and that our (protestant) church was not then visible to the world. napper upon the revelations teacheth, that from the year of e pro●os. 37. pag. 68 christ three hundred and sixteen, the antichristian and papistical reign hath begun, reigning universally, and without any debatable contradiction, one thousand two hundred sixty years (that is, till luther's time:) and that, from the year of f ibid. in cap. 1●. pag. 161. col. 3. christ three hundred and sixteen, god hath withdrawn his visible church from open assemblies, to the hearts of particular godly men etc. during the space of one thousand two hundred three score years: and that, the g ibid. in. cap. 11. pag. 145. pope and clergy have possessed the outward visible church of christians, even one thousand two hundred three score years. and that, the h ibid. pag. 191. true church abode latent, and invisible. and brocard i fol. 110. & 123. upon the revelations, professeth to join in opinion with napper. fulke affirmeth, that in the k answer to a counterfeit catholic. pag. 16. time of boniface the third, which was the year 607. the church was invisible, and fled into the wilderness, there to remain a long season. luther saith: pri●● solus eram: at the first l in praefat. operum suorum. i was alone. jacob hail●ronerus one of the disputants for the protestant party, in the conference at ratisbone, affirmeth m in suo acacatholico. volume. a. 15. cap. 9 p. 479● that the true church was interrupted by apostasy from the true faith. calvin saith: it is absurd in the very n ep. 141. beginning to break one from another, after we have been forced to make a separation from the whole world. it were overlong to allege the words of joannes regius, daniel chamierus, beza, ochimus, castalio, and others to the same purpose. the reason which cast them upon this wicked doctrine, was a desperate voluntary necessity: because they being resolved not to acknowledge the roman church to be christ's true church, and yet being convinced by all manner of evidence, that for diverse ages before luther there was no other congregation of christians, which could be the church of christ; there was no remedy but to affirm, that upon earth christ had no visible church: which they would never have avouched, if they had known how to avoid the foresaid inconvenience (as they apprehended it) of submitting themselves to the roman church. 10 against these exterminating spirits, d. potter, and other more moderate protestants, profess, that christ always had, and always will have upon earth a visible church: otherwise (saith he) our lords o pag. 154. promise of her stable p mat. 16. 18. edification should be of no value. and in another place, having affirmed that protestants have not left the church of rome, but her corruptions, and acknowledging her still to be a member of christ's body, he seeketh to clear himself and others from schism, because (saith he) the property q pag. ●6. of schism is (witness the donatists and luci●erian●) to cut off from the body of christ, and the hope of salvation, the church from which it separates. and if any zelots' amongst us have proceeded to heavier censures, their zeal may be excused, but their charity and wisdom cannot be justified. and elsewhere he acknowledgeth, that the roman church hath those main, and r pag 83. essential truths, which give her the name and essence of a church. 11 it being therefore granted by d. potter, and the chiefest and best learned english protestants, that christ's visible church cannot perish, it will be needless for me in this occasion to prove it. s. augustine doubted not to say: the prophets s in psal. 30. co●. 2. spoke more obscurely of christ, then of the church: because, as i think, they did foresee in spirit, that men were to make parties against the church, and that they were not to have so great strife concerning christ: therefore that was more plainly foretold, and more openly prophesied about which greater contentions were to rise, that it might turn to the condemnation of them▪ who have see●e it, and yet gone forth. and in another place he saith: how do we confide t epist. 48. to have received manifestly christ himself from holy scriptures, if we have not also manifestly received the church from them? and indeed to what congregation shall a man have recourse for the affairs of his soul, if upon earth there be no visible church of christ? besides, to imagine a company of men believing one thing in their heart, and with their mouth professing the contrary, (as they must be supposed to do; for if they had professed what they believed, they would have become visible) is to dream of a damned crew of dissembling sycophants, but not to conceive a right notion of the church of christ our lord. and therefore s. augustine saith: we cannot be saved, unless labouring also for the u s. aug. de fide & symbolo, c. 1. salvation of others, we profess with our mouths, the same faith which we bear in our hearts. and if any man hold it lawful to dissemble, and deny matters of faith, we cannor be assured, but that they actually dissemble, and hide anabaptism, arianisme, yea turkism, and even atheism, or any other false belief, under the outward profession of calvinisme. do not protestants teach that preaching of the word, and administration of sacraments (which cannot but make a church visible) are inseparable notes of the true church? and therefore they must either grant a visible church, or none at all. no wonder then if s. a●stine account this heresy so gross, that he saith against those who in his time defended the like error: but this church which w in psal. 101. hath been of all nations is no ●ore, she 〈◊〉 perished, so say they that are not in her. o impudent speech! and afterward 〈…〉, so detestable, so full of presumption and falsehood, which is sustained with no truth, enlightened with no wisdom, seasoned with no fault, vain, rash, beady, 〈…〉 etc. and peradventure some x de ovib. cap. 1. one may say, there are other sheep i know not where, with which i am not dequ●inted, yet god hath care of them. but he is too absurd in 〈◊〉 sense, that 〈◊〉 imagine such things. and these men do not consider, that while they deny the perpetuity of a visible church, they destroy their own present church, according to the argument which s. augustine urged against the donatists in these words: y de bapt. cont. donat. if the church were lost in cyprians (we may say in gregory's) time, from whence did donatus (luther) appear? from what earth did he spring? from what sea is he come? from what heaven did he drop? and in another place; how can they ●●unt z lib. 3. cont. parm. to have any church, if he have ceased ever since those times? and all divines by defining schism to be a division from the true church, suppose, that there must be a known church, from which it is possible for men to depart. but enough of this in these few words. 12 let us now come to the fourth, 4. point. luthe● and all that follow him are schismatics. and chiefest point, which was, to examine whether luther, ●●lvin, and the rest did not departed from the external communion of christ's visible church, and by that separation became guilty of schism. and that they are properly schismatics clearly followeth from the grounds which we have laid; concerning the nature of schism, which 〈◊〉 in leaving the external communion of the visible church of christ our lord: and it is clear by evidence of fact, that luther and his followers forsook the communion of that ancient church▪ for they did not so much as pretend to join with any congregation, which had a being before their time▪ for they would needs conceive that no visible company was free from errors in doctrine, and corruption in practice: and therefore they opposed the doctrine; they withdrew their obedience from th● prelate's; they left participation in sacraments; they changed the liturgy of public service of whatsoever church then extant. and these things they pre●●nded to do out of a persuasion, that they were bound (forsooth) in conscience so to do, unless they would participate with errors, corruptions, and superstitions. we dare not (saith d. potter) communicate a pag. 68 with rome either in her public liturgy, which is manifestly polluted with gross superstition etc. or in those corrupt and ungrounded opinions, which she hath added to the faith of catholics. but now 〈◊〉 d. potter tell me with what visible church extant before luther, he would have adventured to communicate in her public liturgy and doctrine, since he durst not communicate with rome▪ he will not be able to assign any, even with any little colour of common sense. if then they departed from all visible communities professing christ, it followeth that they also left the communion of the true visible church, whichsoever it was, whether that of rome, or any other; of which point i do not for the present dispute. yea this the lutherans do not only acknowledge, but prove, and brag of. if (faith a learned lutheran) there had 〈◊〉 right b georgi●● milius in augustan. confess. art. 7. de eccles. pag. 137. ●elievers which went before luther in his office, there had then been no need of a lutheran reformation. another affirmeth it to be ridiculous, to think that in the time c benedict. m●rgenstern. tract. de eccles. pag. 145. before luther; any had the purity of doctrine; and that luther should receive it from them, and not they from luther. another speaketh roundly, and saith it is impudence to say, that many learned men d conrade. schlusselb. in theolog. calvinist. lib. ●, fol. 130▪ in germany before luther, did hold the doctrine of the gospel. and i add: that far greater impudence, it were to affirm, that germany did not agree with the rest of europe, and other christian catholic nations, and consequently, that it is the greatest impudence to deny, that he departed from the communion of the visible catholic church, spread over the whole world, we have heard calvin saying of protestants in general; we were, even, forced e ep. 141. to make a separation from the whole world. and, luther of himself in particular: in the beginning f in praefat. operum suorum. i was alone. ergo (say i, by your good leave) you were at least a schismatic, divided from the ancient, church, and a member of no new church. for no sole man can constitute a church; and though he could; yet such a church could not be, that glorious company, of whose number, greatness, and amplitude, so much hath been spoken both in the old testament, and in the new. 13 d. potter endeavours to avoid this evident argument by diverse evasions; but by the confutation, thereof i will (with god's holy assistance) take occasion, even out of his own answers and grounds, to bring unanswerable reasons to convince them of schism. 14 his chief answer is: that they have not left the church, but her corruption. 15 i reply. this answer may be given either by those furious people, who teach that those abuses, and corruptions in the church were so enormous, that they could not stand with the nature, or being of a true church of christ: or else by those other more calm protestants, who affirm, that those errors did not destroy the being, but only deform the beauty of the church. against both these sorts of men. i may fitly use that unanswerable dilemma, which s. augustine brings against the donatists in these concluding words: tell me whether the g lib. 2. cont. epist. gaudent. c. 7. church at that time when you say she entertained those who were guilty of all crimes, by the contagion of those sinful persons▪ perished, or perished not? answer; whether the church perished, or perished not? make choice of what you think. if then she perished, what church brought forth d●natus? (we may say luther.) but if she could not perish; because so many were incorporated into her (without baptism (that is, without a second baptism, or rebaptisation, and i may say, without luther's reformation) answer me i pray you, what madness did move the sect of don●tus to separate themselves from her upon pretence to avoid the communion of ●ad men. i beseech the reader to ponder every one of s. augustine's words; and to consider whether any thing could ha●e been spoken more directly against luther, and his followers of what sort soever. 16 and now to answer more in particular; i say to those who reach, that the visible church of christ perished for many ages, that i can easily afford them the courtesy, to free them from mere schism: but all men touched with any spark of zeal to vindicate the wisdom, and goodness of our saviour from blasphemous injury, cannot choose but believe and proclaim them to be superlative arch-heretiques. nevertheless, if they will needs have the honour of singularity, and desire to be both formal heretics, and properly schismatics, i will tell them, that while they dream of an invisible church of men, which agree with them in faith, they will upon due reflection find themselves to be schismatics, from those corporeal angels, or invisible men▪ because they held external communion with the visible church of those times, the outward communion of which visible church these modern hot-spurs forsaking, were thereby divided from the outward communion of their hidden brethren, and so are separatists from the external communion of them, with whom they agree in faith, which is schism in the most formal, and proper signification thereof. moreover according to d. potter, these boisterous creatures are properly schismariques. for, the reason why he thinks himself, and such as he is, to be cleared from schism, notwithstanding their division from the roman church, is because (according to his divinity) the property of h pag. 76. schism, is (witness the donatists and luciferians) to cut off from the body of christ, and the hope of salvation, the church from which it separates: but those protestants of whom we now speak, cut off from the body of christ, and the hope of salvation, the church from which they separated themselves; and they do it directly as the donatists (in whom you exemplify) did, by affirming that the true church had perished: and therefore they cannot be cleared from schism, if you may be their judge. consider, i pray you, how many prime protestants both domestical and foreign, you have at one blow struck off from hope of salvation, and condemned to the lowest pit, for the grievous sin of schism. and withal it imports you to consider, tha● you also involve yourself, and other moderate protestants in the self, same crime and punishment, while you communicate with those, who, according to your own principles, are properly, & formally schismatics. for if you held yourself obliged under pain of damnation to forsake the communion of the roman church, by reason of her errors and corr●ptions, which yet you confess were not fundamental; shall it not be much more damnable for you, to live in communion and confraternity, with those who defend an error of the failing of the church, which in the donatists you confess i pag. 126. to have been properly heretical against the article of our creed; i believe the church? and i desire the reader, here to apply an authority of s. cyprian (epist. 76.) which he shall find alleged in the next number. and this may suffice for confutation of the aforesaid answer, as it might have relation to the rigid calvinists. 17 for confutation of these protestants, who hold that the church of christ had always a being, and cannot err in points fundamental, and yet teach, that she may err in matters of less moment, wherein if they forsake her, they would be accounted not to leave the church, but only her corruptions; i must say, that they change the state of our present question, not distinguishing between internal faith, and external communion, nor between schism, and heresy. this i demonstrate out of d. potter himself; who in express words teacheth, that the promises which our lord hath made k pag. 151. unto his church for his assistance, are intended not to any particular persons or churches, but only to the church catholic: and they are to be extended not to every parcel, or particularity of truth, but only to points of faith, or fundamental. and afterwards speaking of the universal church, he s●●th: it's comfort l pag. 155. enough for the church, that the lord in mercy will secure her from all capital dangers, and conserve her on earth against all enemies; but she may not hope to triumph over all sin and error, till she be in heaven. out of which words i observe, that, according to d. potter, the self same church, which is the universal church, remaining the universal true church of christ, may fall into errors and corruptions: from whence it clearly followeth that it is impossible to leave the external communion of the church so corrupted, and retain external communion with the catholic church; since the church catholic, and the church so corrupted is the self same one church, or company of men. and the contrary imagination talks in a dream, as if the errors and infections of the catholic church were not inherent in her, but were separate from her, like to accidents, without any subject, or rather indeed, as if they were not accidents, but hypostases, or persons subsisting by themselves. for men cannot be said to live, in, or out of the communion of any dead creature, but with persons, endued with life and reason; and much less can men be said to live in the communion of accidents, as errors and corruptions are, and therefore it is an absurd thing to affirm, that protestants divided themselves from the corruptions of the church, but not from the church herself, seeing the corruptions of the church were inherent in the church. all this is made more clear, if we consider, that when luther appeared, there were not two distinct visible true catholic churches, holding contrary doctrines, and divided in external communion; one of the which two churches did triumph over all error, and corruption in doctrine and practice; but the other was stained with both. for to feign this diversity of two churches cannot stand with record of histories, which are silent of any such matter. it is against d. potter's own grounds, that the church may err in points not fundamental, which were not true, if you will imagine a certain visible catholic church free from error even in points not fundamental. it contradicteth the words in which he said, the church may not hope to triumph over all error, till she be in heaven, it evacuateth the brag of protestants, that luther reform the whole church: and lastly it maketh luther a schismatic, for leaving the communion of all visible churches, seeing (upon this supposition) there was a visible church of christ free from all corruption, which therefore could not be forsaken without just imputation of schism. we must therefore truly affirm, that since there was but one visible church of christ, which was truly catholic, and yet was (according to protestants) stained with corruption; when luther left the external communion of that corrupted church, he could not remain in the communion of the catholic church, no more than it is possible to keep company with d. christopher potter, and not keep company with the provost of queen's college in oxford, if d. potter and the provost be one, and the self same man: for so one should be, and not be with him at the same time. this very argument drawn from the unity of god's church, s. cyprian urgeth to convince, that novatianus was cut off from the church in these words: the church is m epist. 76▪ ad mag. one, which being one cannot be both within and without. if she ●e with novatianus, she was not with cornelius; but if she were with cornelius, who succeeded fabianus, by lawful ordination, novatianus is not in the church. i purposely here speak only of external communion with the catholic church. for in this point there is great difference between internal acts of our understanding, and will; and of external deeds. our understanding and will, are faculties (as philosophers speak) abstractive, and able to distinguish, and as it were, to part things, though in themselves they be really conjoined. but real external deeds do take things in gross as they find them, not separating things which in reality are joined together. thus, one may consider and love a sinner as he is a man, friend, benefactor, or the like; and at the same time not consider him, nor love him as he is a sinner; because these are acts of our understanding and will, which may respect their objects under some one formality, or consideration, without reference to other things contained in the self same objects. but if one should strike, or kill a sinful man, he will not be excused, by alleging, that he killed him, not as a man, but as a sinner; because the self same person being a man, and the sinner, the external act of murder fell jointly upon the man, and the sinner. and for the same reason one cannot avoid the company of a sinner, and at the same time be really present with that man who is a sinner. and this is our case: and in this our adversaries are egregiously, & many of them affectedly, mistaken. for one may in some points believe as the church believeth, and disagree from her in other. one may love the truth which she holds, and detest her (pretended) corruptions. but it is impossible that a man should really separate himself from her external communion, as she is corrupted, and be really within the same external communion as she is sound; because she is the self same church which is supposed to be sound in some things, and to err in others. now, our question for the present doth concern only this point of external communion: because schism, as it is distinguished from heresy, is committed when one divides himself from the external communion of that church with which he agrees in faith; whereas heresy doth necessarily imply a difference in matter of faith, and belief: and therefore to say, that they left not the visible church, but her errors, can only excuse them from heresy (which sh●ll be tried in the next chapter) but not from schism, as long as they are really divided from the external communion of the self same visible church, which, notwithstanding those errors wherein they do in judgement descent from her, doth still remain the true catholic church of christ; and therefore while they forsake the corrupted church, they forsake the catholic church. thus than it remaineth clear, that their chiefest answer changeth the very state of the question; confoundeth internal acts of the understanding with external deeds; doth not distinguish between schism and heresy; and leaves this demonstrated against them: that they divided themselves from the communion of the visible catholic church, because they conceived that she needed reformation. but whether this pretence of reformation will acquit them of schism, i refer to the unpartial judges, heretofore n numb. 8▪ alleged; as to s. irenaeus who plainly saith: they cannot make any so important reformation, as the evil of the schism is pernicious. to s. denis of alexandria, saying: certainly all things should be endured rather than to consent to the division of the church of god: those martyrs being no less glorious that expose themselves to hinder the dismembering of the church, than those that suffer rather than they will offer sacrifice to idols. to s. augustine, who tells us: that not to hear the church, is a more grievous thing then if he were stricken with the sword, consumed with flames, exposed to wild beasts. and to conclude all in few words, he giveth this general prescription: there is no just necessity to divide unity, and d. potter may remember his own words: there neither was s pag. 7●▪ nor can be any just cause to depart from the church of christ; no more than from christ himself. but i have showed that luther, and the rest departed from the church of christ (if christ had any church upon earth:) therefore there could be no just cause (of reformation, or what else soever) to do as they did; and therefore they must be contented to be held for schismatics. 18 moreover; i demand whether those corruptions which moved them to forsake the communion of the visible church, were in manners, or doctrine? corruption in manners yields no sufficient cause to leave the church, otherwise men must go not only out of the church, but out of the world, as the apostle t 1. cor. 5. 10. saith. our blessed saviour foretold that there would be in the church cares with choice corn, and ●inners with just men. if then protestants wax zealous, with the servants to pluck up the weeds, let them first hearken to the wisdom of the master: let both grow up. and they ought to imitate them, who as s. augustine saith, tolerate for the good of u ep. 162. unity, that which they detest for the good of equity. and to whom the more frequent, & foul such scandals are; by so much the more is the merit of their perseverance in the communion of the church, and the martyrdom of their patience, as the same saint calls it. if they were offended with the life of some ecclesiastical persons, must they therefore deny obedience to their pastors, and finally break with god's church? the pastor of pastors teacheth us another lesson: upon the chair of moses w mat. 33. have sitten the scribes and pharisees. all things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe ye, and do ye: but according to their works do ye not. must people except against laws, and revolt from magistrates, because some are negligent, or corrupt in the execution of the same laws, and performance of their office? if they intended reformation of manners, they used a strange means for the achieving of such an end, by denying the necessity of confession, laughing at aufferity of penance, condemning the vows of chastity, poverty, obedience, breaking fasts, etc. and no less unfit were the men, than the means. i love not recrimination. but it is well known to how great crimes, luther, calvin, zwinglius, beza, and other of the prime reformers were notoriously obnoxious; as might be easily demonstrated by the only transcribing of what others have delivered upon that subject; whereby it would appear, that they were very far from being any such apostolical men as god is wont to use in so great a work. and whereas they were wont, especially in the beginning of their revolt, maliciously to exaggerate the faults of some clergy men, erasmus said well (epist ad fratres inferior is germaniae,) let the riot, lust, ambition, avarice of priests and what soever other crimes be gathered together, heresy a●one doth exceed all this filthy lake of vices. besides, nothing at all was omitted by the sacred council of trent which might tend to reformation of manners. and finally the vices of others are not hurtful to any but such as imitate, and consent to them; according to the saying of s. augustine: we conserve innocency, not by knowing the ill deeds of men, but by not yielding consent to such as we know, and by not judging rashly of such faults as we know not. if you answer; that, not corruption in manners, but the approbation of them, doth yield sufficient cause to leave the church; i reply with s. augustine, that the church doth (as the pretended reformers ought to have done) tolerate or bear with scandals and corruptions, but neither doth, nor can approve them. the church (saith he) being placed z ep. 116. betwixt much chaff and cockle, doth bear with many things; but doth not approve, nor dissemble, nor act those things which are against faith, and good life. but because to approve corruption in manners as lawful, were an error against faith, it belongs to corruption in doctrine, which was the second part of my demand. 19 now then, that corruptions in doctrine (i still speak upon the untrue supposition of our adversaries) could not afford any sufficient cause, or colourable necessity to depart from that visible church, which was extant when luther rose, i demonstrate out of d. potter's own confession; that the catholic church neither hath, nor can err in points fundamental, as we showed out of his own express words, which he also of set purpose delivereth in diverse other places; and all they are obliged to maintain the same, who teach that christ had always a visible church upon earth: because any one fundamental error overthrows the being of a true church. now (as schoolmen speak) it is, implicatio in terminis (a contradiction so plain, that one word destroyeth the other, as if one should say, a living dead man) to affirm, that the church doth not err in points necessary to salvation, or damnably; & yet that it is damnable to remain in her communion because she teacheth errors which are confessed not to be damnable. for if the error be not damnable, nor against any fundamental article of faith, the belief thereof cannot be damnable. but d. potter teacheth, that the catholic church cannot, and that the roman church hath not erred against any fundamental article of faith: therefore, it cannot be damnable to remain in her communion; and so the pretended corruptions in her doctrine could not induce any obligation to depart from her communion, nor could excuse them from schism, who upon pretence of necessity in point of conscience, forsook her. and d. potter will never be able to salve a manifest contradiction in these his words: to depart from the church a pag. 75. of rome in some doctrine, and practices, there might be necessary cause, though she wanted nothing necessary to salvation. for if, notwithstanding these doctrines and practices, she wanted nothing necessary to salvation; how could it be necessary to salvation to forsake her? and therefore we must still conclude that to forsake her, was properly an act of schism. 20 from the self same ground of the infallibility of the church in all fundamental points, i argue after this manner. the visible church cannot be forsaken, without damnation, upon pretence that it is damnable to remain in her communion, by reason of corruption in doctrine; as long as, for the truth of her faith and belief, she performeth the duty which she dweth to god, and her neighbour: as long as she performeth what our saviour exacts at her hands: as long as she doth, as much as lies in her power to do. but (even according to d. potter's assertions) the church performeth all these things, as long as she erreth not in points fundamental, although she were supposed to err in other points not fundamental: therefore, the communion of the visible church cannot be forsaken without damnation, upon pretence that it is damnable to remain in her communion, by reason of corruption in doctrine. the major, or first proposition of itself is evident. the minor, or second proposition do●h necessarily follow out of d. potter's own doctrine above-rehearsed, that, the promises of our lord made to his church for his assistance, are to be b pag▪ 151. extended only to points of faith, or fundamental: (let me note here by the way that by his (or,) he seems to exclude from faith all points which are not fundamental, and so we may deny innumerable texts of scripture:) that it is c pag. 155▪ comfort enough for the church, that the lord in mercy will secure her from all capital dangers etc. but she may not hope to triumph over all sin and error, till she be in heaven. for it is evident, that the church (for as much as concerns the truth of her doctrines and belief) owes no more duty to god and her neighbour; neither doth our saviour exact more at her hands, nor is it in her power to do more than god doth assist her to do; which assistance is promised only for points fundamental; and consequently as long as she teacheth no fundamental error, her communion cannot without damnation be forsaken. and we may fitly apply against d. potter a concionatory declamation which he makes against us, where he saith: d pag. 221. may the church of after ages make the narrow way to heaven, narrower than our saviour left it & c? since he himself obligeth men under pain of damnation to forsake the church, by reason of errors against which our saviour thought it needless to promise his assistance, and for which he neither deemeth his grace in this life, or glory in the next. will d. potter oblige the church to do more than she may even hope for? or to perform on earth that which is proper to heaven alone? 21 and as from your own doctrine concerning the infallibility of the church in fundamental points, we have proved that it was a grievous sin to forsake her: so do we take a strong argument from the fallibility of any who dare pretend to reform the church, which any man in his wits will believe to be endued with at least as much infallibility as private men can challenge; & d. potter expressly affirmeth that christ's promises of his assistance are not intended e pag. 151. to any particular persons or churches: & therefore to leave the church by reason of errors, was at best hand b●t to flit from one erring company to another, without any new hope of triumphing over errors, and without necessity, or utility to forsake that communion of which s. augustine saith, there is f ep. cont. parmen. lib, 2, 2 cap. 11. no just necessity to divide unity. which will appear to be much more evident if we consider that though the church had maintained some false doctrines, yet to leave her communion to remedy the old, were but to add a new increase of errors, arising from the innumerable disagreements of sectaries, which must needs bring with it a mighty mass of falsehoods, because the truth is but one, and indivisible. and this reason is yet stronger▪ if we still remember, that even according to d. potter the visible church hath a blessing not to err in points fundamental, in which any private reformer may fail: and therefore they could not pretend any necessity to forsake that church, out of whose communion they were exposed to danger of falling into many more, and even into damnable errors. remember i pray you, what yourself affirms (pag. 69.) where speaking of our church and yours, you say: all the difference is from the weeds, which remain there, and here are taken away; yet neither here perfectly, nor every where alike. behold a fair confession of corruptions, still remaining in your church, which you can only excuse by saying they are not fundamental, as likewise those in the roman church are confessed to be not fundamental. what man of judgement will be a protestant, since that church is confessedly a corrupt one? 22 i still proceed to impugn you expressly upon your own grounds. you say, that it is comfort enough for the church, that the lord in mercy will secure her from all capital dangers: but she may not hope to triumph over all sin, and error till she be in heaven. now if it be comfort enough to be secured from all capital dangers, which can arise only from error in fundamental points: why were not your first reformers content with enough, but would needs dismember the church, out of a pernicious greediness of more then enough? for, this enough, which according to you is attained by not erring in points fundamental, was enjoyed before luther's reformation, unless you will now against yourself affirm, that long before luther there was no church free from error in fundamental points. moreover if (as you say) no church may hope to triumph over all error till she be in heaven; you must either grant, that errors not fundamental cannot yield sufficient cause to forsake the church, or else you must affirm that all community may, and aught to be forsaken, & so there will be no end of schisms: or rather indeed there can be no such thing as schism because according to you, all communities are subject to errors not fundamental, for which if they may be lawfully forsaken, it followeth clearly that it is not schism to forsake them. lastly, since it is not lawful to leave the communion of the church for abuses in life and manners, because such miseries cannot be avoided in this world of temptation: and since according to your assertion no church may hope to triumph over all sin and error; you must grant that as she ought not to be left by reason of sin; so neither by reason of errors not fundamental; because both sin, and error are (according to you) impossible to be avoided till she be in heaven. 23 furthermore, i ask whether it be the quantity or number; or quality, and greatness of doctrinal errors that may yield sufficient cause to relinquish the church's communion? i prove that neither. not the quality, which is supposed to be beneath the degree of points fundamental, or necessary to salvation. not the quantity or number: for the foundation is strong enough to support all such unnecessary additions, as you term them. and if they once weighed so heavy as to overthrow the foundation, they should grow to fundamental errors, into which yourself teach the church cannot fall. hay and stubble (say you) and such g pag. 15●▪ unprofitable st●ff, laid on the roof, destroys not the house, whilst the main pillars are standing on the foundation. and tell us, i pray you, the precise number of errors which cannot be tolerated? i know you cannot do it; and therefore being uncertain, whether or no you have cause to leave the church, you are certainly obliged not to forsake her. our blessed saviour hath declared his will, that we forgive a private offender seaventy seven times, that is, without limitation of quantity of time, or quality of trespasses; and why then dare you allege his command, that you must not pardon his church for errors, acknowledged to be not fundamental? what excuse can you fain to yourselves; who for points not necessary to salvation, have been occasions, causes, and authors of so many mischiefs, as could not but unavoidably accompany so huge a breach, in kingdoms, in commonwealths, in private persons, in public magistrates, in body, in soul, in goods, in life, in church, in the state, by schisms, by rebellions, by war, by famine, by plague, by bloodshed, by all sorts of imaginable calamities upon the whole face of the earth, wherein as in a map of desolation, the heaviness of your crime appears, under which the world doth pant? 24 to say for your excuse, that you left not the church, but her errors, doth not extenuate, but aggravate your sin. for by this devise, you sow seeds of endless schisms, and put into the mouth of all separatists, a ready answer how to avoid the note of schism from your protestant church of england, or from any other church whatsoever. they will, i say, answer, as you do prompt, that your church may be forsaken, if she fall into errors, though they be not fundamental: and further that no church must hope to be free from such errors; which two grounds being once laid, it will not be hard to infer the consequence, that she may be forsaken. 25 from some other words of d. potter i likewise prove, that for errors not fundamental, the church ought not to be forsaken, there neither was (saith he) nor can be h pag. 75. any just cause to depart from the church of christ, no more then from christ himself. to depart from a particular church, and namely from the church of rome, in some doctrines and practices, there might be just and necessary cause, though the church of rome wanted nothing necessary to salvation. mark his doctrine, that there can be no just cause to depart from the church of christ: and yet he teacheth, that the church of christ, may err in points not fundamental; therefore (say i) we cannot forsake the roman church for points not fundamental, for than we might also forsake the church of christ, which yourself deny: and i pray you consider, whether you do not plainly contradict yourself, while in the words above recited, you say there can be no just cause to forsake the catholic church; and yet that there may be necessary cause to depart from the church of rome, since you grant that the church of christ may err in points not fundamental: and that the roman church hath erred only in such points; as by and by we shall see more in particular. and thus much be said to disprove their chiefest answer, that they left not the church, but her corruptions. 26 another evasion d. potter bringeth, to avoid the imputation of schism, and it is, because they still acknowledge the church of rome to be a member of the body of christ, and not cut off from the hope of salvation. and this (saith he) clears us from i pag. 76. the imputation of schism, whose property it is, to cut off from the body of christ, and the hope of salvation, the church from which it separates. 27 this is an answer which perhaps you may get some one to approve, if first you can put him out of his wits. for what prodigious doctrines are these? those protestants who believe that the church erred in points necessary to salvation, and for that cause left her, cannot be excused from damnable schism: but others who believed that she had no damnable errors, did very well, yea were obliged to forsake her: and (which is more miraculous, or rather monstrous) they did well to forsake her formally and precisely, because they judged. that she retained all means necessary to salvation, i say, because they so judged, for the very reason for which he acquitteth himself, and condemneth those others as schismatics, is because he holdeth that the church which both of them forsook, is not cut off from the body of christ, and the hope of salvations whereas those other zelots' deny her to be a member of christ's body, or capable of salvation, wherein alone they disagree from d. potter: for in the effect of separation they agree, only they do it upon a different motive or reason. were it not a strange excuse, if a man would think to cloak his rebellion, by alleging that he held the person against whom he rebelled to be his lawful sovereign? and yet d. potter thinks himself free from schism, because he forsook the church of rome, but yet so, as that still he held her to be the true church, and to have all necessary means to salvation. but i will no further urge this most solemn foppery, and do much more willingly put all catholics in mind, what an unspeakable comfort it is, that our adversaries are forced to confess, that they cannot clear themselves from schism, otherwise then by acknowledging that they do not, nor cannot cut off from the hope of salvation our church. which is as much as if they should in plain terms say: they must be damned, unless we may be saved. moreover this evasion doth indeed condemn your zealous brethren of heresy, for denying the church's perpetuity, but doth not clear yourself from schism, which consists in being divided from that true church, with which a man agreeth in all points of faith, as you must profess yourself to agree with the church of rome in all fundamental articles. for otherwise you should cut her off from the hope of salvation, and so condemn yourself of schism. and lastly even according to this your own definition of schism, you cannot clear yourself from that crime, unless you be content to acknowledge a manifest contradiction in your own assertions. for if you do not cut us off from the body of christ, and the hope of salvation; how come you to say in another place, that you judge a reconciliation with us to be k pag. ●0. damnable! that to depart from the church of rome, there might be just and necessary l pag. 75. cause? that, they that have the understanding and means to discover their error, and neglect to use them m pag. 79. we dare not flatter them (say you) with so easy a censure, of hope of salvation? if then it be (as you say) a property of schism, to cut off from the hope of salvation, the church from which it separates: how will you clear yourself from schism, who dare not flatter us with so easy a censure? and who affirm that a reconciliation with us is damnable? but the truth is, there is no constancy in your assertions, by reason of difficulties which press you on all sides. for, you are loath to affirm clearly, that we may be saved, lest such a grant might be occasion (as in all reason it ought to be) of the conversion of protestants to the roman church: and on the other side, if your affirm, that our church erred in points fundamental, or necessary to salvation, you knew not how, not where, not among what company of men, to find a perpetual visible church of christ, before luther: and therefore your best shift is to say, and unsay, as your occasion command. i do not examine your assertion, that it is the property of schism, to cut off from the body of christ, and the hope of salvation, the church from which it separates: wherein you are mightily mistaken, as appears by your own example of the donatists, who were most formal and proper heretics, and not schismatics, as schism is a vice distinct from heresy. besides, although the donatists, and luciferians (whom you also allege) had been mere schismatics, yet it were against all good logic, from a particular to infer a general rule, to determine what is the property of schism. 28 a third device i find in d. potter to clear his brethren from schism. there is (saith he) great difference between n pag. 75. a schism from them, and a reformation of ourselves. 29 this i confess is a acquaint subtlety, by which all schism, & sin may be as well excused. for what devil incarnate could merely pretend a separtion, and not rather some other motive of virtue, truth, profit, or pleasure? but now since their pretended reformation consisted, as they ga●e out, in forsaking the corruptions of the church: the reformation of themselves, and their division from us, falls out to be one, and the self same thing. nay we see, that although they infinitely disagree in the particulars of their reformation, yet they symbolise, and consent in the general point of forsaking our pretended corruptions: an evident sign, that the thing, upon which their thoughts first pitched, was not any particular model, or idea of religion, but a settled resolution to forsake the church of rome. wherefore this metaphysical speculation, that they intended only to reform themselves, cannot possible excuse them from schism, unless first they be able to prove, that they were obliged to depart from us. yet for as much as concerns the fact itself; it is clear, that luther's revolt did not proceed from any zeal of reformation. the motives which put him upon so wretched, and unfortunate a work, were covetousness, ambition, lust, pride, envy, and grudging that the promulgation of indulgences, was not committed to himself, or such as he desired. he himself taketh god to witness, that he fell into these troubles casually, and o casu non voluntate in has turbas incidi deum ipsum testor. against his will (not upon any intention of reformation) not so much as dreaming or suspecting any change which might p act. &. mon. pag. 404. happen. and he began to preach (against indulgences) when he knew not what q sleidan. lib. 16. sol. 232. the matter meant. for (saith he) i scarcely understood r sleid. lib. 13. fol. 177. then what the name of indulgences meant. in so much as afterwards luther did much mistake of his own undertaken course, oftentimes (saith he) wishing s luth. in colloq. mensal. that i had never begun that business. and fox saith: it is apparent that t act. mon. pag. 404. luther promised cardinal caietan to keep silence, provided also his adversaries would do the like. m. cowper reporteth further, that luther by his letter submitted u cowp. in his chronicle. himself to the pope, so that he might not be compelled to recant. with much more, which may be seen in w tract 2. cap. 2, sect. 11. subd. 2. brereley. but this is sufficient to show, that luther was far enough, from intending any reformation. and if he judged a reformation to be necessary, what a huge wickedness was it in him, to promise silence if his adversaries would do the like? or to submit himself to the pope, so that he might not be compelled to recant? or if the reformation were not indeed intended by him, nor judged to be necessary, how can he be excused from damnable schism? and this is the true manner of luther's revolt, taken from his own acknowledgements, and the words of the more ancient protestants themselves, whereby d. potter's faltering, and mincing the matter, is clearly discovered, and confuted. upon what motives our country was divided from the roman church by king henry the eight, and how the schism was continued by queen elizabeth, i have no hear to rip up. the world knoweth, it was not upon any zeal of reformation. 30 but you will prove your former evasion by a couple of similitudes: if a monastery x pag. 81. 82▪ should reform itself, and should reduce into practice, ancient good discipline, when others would not; in this case could it is reason be charged with schism from others, or with apostasy from its rule and order? or as in a society of men universally infected with some disease, they that should free themselves from the common disease, could not be therefore said to separate from the society: so neither can the reformed churches be truly accused for making a schism from the church, seeing all they did, was to reform themselves. 31 i was very glad to find you in a monastery, but sorry when i perceived that you were inventing ways how to forsake your vocation, and to maintain the lawfulness of schism from the church, and apostasy from a religious order. yet before you make your final resolution, hear a word of advice. put case; that a monastery did confessedly observe their substantial vows, and all principal statutes, or constitutions of the order, though with some neglect of lesser monastical observances: and that a reformation were undertaken, not by authority of lawful superiors, but by some one, or very few in comparison of the rest: and those few known to be led, not with any spirit of reformation, but by some other sinister intention: and that the statutes of the house were even by those busy fellows confessed, to have been time out of mind understood, and practised as now they were: and further that the pretended reformers acknowledged that themselves as soon as they were gone out of their monastery, must not hope to be free from those or the like errors and corruptions, for which they left their brethren: and (which is more) that they might fall into more enormous crimes than they did, or could do in their monastery, which we suppose to be secured from all substantial corruptions, for the avoiding of which they have an infallible assistance. put (i say) together all these my and's, and then come with your if's, if a monastery should reform itself, etc. and tell me, if you could excuse such reformers from schism, sedition, rebellion, apostasy, & c? what would you say of such reformers in your college? or tumultuous persons in a kingdom? remember now your own tenets, and then reflect how fit a similitude you have picked out, to prove yourself a schismatique. you teach that the church may err in points not fundamental, but that for all fundamental points she is secured from error: you teach that no particular person, or church hath any promise of assistance in points fundamental. you, and the whole world can witness that when luther began, he being but only one, opposed himself to all, as well subjects, as superiors; and that even then, when he himself confessed that he had no intention of reformation: you cannot be ignorant but that many chief learned protestants are forced to confess the antiquity of our doctrine and practice, and do in several, and many controversies, acknowledge that the ancient fathers stood on our side: consider i say these points, and see whether your similitude do not condemn your progenitors of schism from god's visible church, yea and of apostasy also from their religious orders, if they were vowed regulars, as luther, and diverse of them were. 32 from the monastery you are f●ed into an hospital of persons universally infected with some disease, where you find to be true what i supposed, that after your departure from your brethren you might fall into greater inconveniences, and more infectious diseases, than those for which you left them. but you are also upon the point to abandon these miserable needy persons, in whose behalf for charity's sake, let me set before you these considerations. if the disease neither were, nor could be mortal, because in that company of men god had placed a tree of life: if going thence, the sick man might by curious tasting the tree of knowledge eat poison under pretence of bettering his health: if he could not hope thereby to avoid other diseases like those for which he had quitted the company of the first infected men: if by his departure innumerable mischiefs were to ensue; could such a man without senselessness be excused by saying, that he sought to free himself from the common disease, but not forsooth to separate from the society? now yourself compare the church to a man deformed with y pag. 154. superfluous fingers and toes, but yet who hath not lost any vital part: you acknowledge that out of her society no man is secured from damnable error, and the world can bear witness what unspeakable mischiefs and calamities ensued luther's revolt from the church▪ pronounce then concerning them, the same sentence which even now i have showed them to deserve, who in the manner aforesaid should separate from persons universally infected with some disease. 33 but alas, to what pass hath heresy brought men, who term themselves christians, and yet blush not to compare the beloved spouse of our lord, the one dove, the purchase of our saviour's most precious blood, the holy catholic church, i mean that visible church of christ which luther found spread over the whole world; to a monastery so disordered that it must be forsaken; to the giant in gath much deformed with superfluous fingers and toes; to a society of men universally infected with some disease! and yet all these comparisons, and much worse, are neither injurious, nor undeserved, if once it be granted, or can be proved, that the visible church of christ may err in any one point of faith, although not fundamental. 34 before i part from these similitudes, one thing i must observe against the evasion of d. potter, that they left not the church, but her corruptions. for as those reformers of the monastery, or those other who left the company of men universally infected with some disease, would deny themselves to be schismatics, or any way blame-worthy, but could not deny, but that they left the said communities: so luther and the rest cannot so much as pretend, not to have left the visible church, which according to them was infected with many diseases, but can only pretend that they did not sin in leaving her. and you speak very strangely when you say: in a society of men universally infected with some disease, they that should free themselves from the common disease, could not be therefore said to separate from the society. for if they do not separate themselves from the society of the infected persons; how do they free themselves and depart from the common disease? do they at the same time remain in the company, and yet depart from those infected creatures? we must then say, that they separate themselves from the persons, though it be by occasion of the disease: or if you say, they free their own persons from the common disease, yet so, that they remain still in the company infected, subject to the superiors and governors thereof, eating and drinking and keeping public assemblies with them; you cannot but know, that luther and your reformers the first pretended free persons from the supposed common infection of the roman church, did not so: for they endeavoured to force the society whereof they were parts, to be healed and reform as they were: and if it refused, they did, when they had forces, drive them away, even their superiors both spiritual and temporal, as is notorious. or if they had no: power to expel that supposed infected community, or church of that place, they departed from them corporally, whom mentally they had forsaken before. so that you cannot deny, but luther forsook the external communion, and company of the catholic church, for which as yourself z pag. 75. confess, there neither was nor can be any just cause, no more then to depart from christ himself. we do therefore infer, that luther and the rest who forsaken that visible church which they found upon earth, were truly, and properly schismatics. 35 moreover, it is evident that there was a division between luther and that church which was visible when he arose: but that church cannot be said to have divided herself from him, before whose time she was, and in comparison of whom she was a whole, and he but a part: therefore we must say, that he divided himself and went out of her; which is to be a schismatic, or heretic, or both. by this argument, optatus milevitanus proveth, that not caecilianus, but par menianus was a schismatic, saying: for, caecilianus went a lib. 1. cont▪ parm. not out of maiorinu● thy grana●ather, but maiorinus, from caecilianus: neither did caecilianus depart from the chair of peter, or cyprian, but maiorinus, in whose chair thou sittest, which had no beginning be●ore maiorinus. since it manifestly appeareth that these things were acted in this manner, it is clear that you are beyres both of the deliverers up (of the holy bible to be burned) and also of schismatics. the whole argument of this holy father makes directly both against luther, and all those who continue the division which he begun; and proves, that, going out, convinceth those who go out to be schismatics; but not those from whom they depart: that to forsake the chair of peter is schism; yea, that it is schism to erect a chair which had no origen, or as it were predecessor, before itself: that to continue in a division begun by others, is to be heirs of schismatics; and lastly; that to depart from the communion of a particular church (as that of s. cyprian was) is sufficient to make a man incur the guilt of schism, and consequently, that although protestants, who deny the pope to be supreme head of the church, do think by that heresy to clear luther from schism, in disobeying the pope: yet that w●ll not serve to free him from schism, as it importeth a division from the obedience, or communion of the particular bishop, diocese, church, and country, where he lived. 36 but it is not the heresy of protestants, or any other sectaries, that can deprive s. peter, and his successors, of the authority which christ our lord conferred upon them over his whole militant church: which is a point confessed by learned protestants to be of great antiquity, and for which the judgement of diverse most ancient holy fathers is reproved by them, as may be seen at large in brerely b tract. 1. sect. 3. subd. 10. exactly citing the places of such chief protestants. and we must say with s. cyprian: heresies c ep. 55. have sprung, and schisms been bred from no other cause then for that the priest of god is not obeyed, nor one priest and judge is considered to be for the time in the church of god. which words do plainly condemn luther, whether he will understand them as spoken of the universal, or of every particular church. for he withdrew himself both from the obedience of the pope, and of all particular bishops, and churches. and no less clear is the said optatus milevitanus, saying: thou caused not deny d lib. 2, cont▪ parm. but that thou knowest, that in the city of rome, there was first an episcopal chair placed for peter, wherein peter the head of all the apostles sat, whereof also he was called cephas; in which one chair, vn was to be kept by all, lest the other apostles might attribute to themselves, each one his particular chair; and that he should be a schismatic and sinner, who against that one single chair should erect another. many other authorities of fathers might be alleged to this purpose, which i omit; my intention being not to handle particular controversies. 37 now, the arguments which hitherto i have brought, prove that luther, and his followers were schismatics, without examining (for as much as belongs to this point) whether or no the church can err in any one thing great or small, because it is universally true, that there can be no just cause to forsake the communion of the visible church of christ, according to s. augustine, saying: it is not possible e ep. 48. that any may have just cause to separate their communion, from the communion of the whole world, and call themselves the church of christ, as if they had separated themselves from the communion of all nations upon just cause. but since indeed the church cannot err in any one point of doctrine, nor can approve any corruption in manners; they cannot with any colour avoid the just imputation of eminent schism, according to the verdict of the same holy father in these words: the most manifest f de bapt. lib. 5. c▪ 1. sacrilege of schism is eminent when there was no cause of separation. 38 lastly, i prove that protestants cannot avoid the note of schism, at least by reason of their mutual separation from one another. for most certain it is that there is very great difference, for the outward face of a church, and profession of a different faith, between the lutherans, the rigid calvinists, and the protestants of england. so that if luther were in the right, those other protestants who invented doctrines far different from his, and divided themselves from him, must be reputed schismatics: and the like argument may proportionably be applied to their further divisions, & subdivisions. which reason i yet urge more strongly out of d. potter, g pag. 20. who affirms, that to him and to such as are convicted in conscience of the errors of the roman church, a reconciliation is impossible, and damnable: and yet he teacheth, that their difference from the roman church, is not in fundamental points. now, since among protestants there is such diversity of belief, that one denieth what the other affirmeth, they must be convicted in conscience that one part is in error (at least not fundamental,) and, if d. potter will speak consequently, that a reconciliation between them is impossible & damnable: & what greater division, or schism can there be, then when one part must judge a reconciliation with the other to be impossible, & damnable? 39 out of all which premises, this conclusion follows: that, luther & his followers were schismatics; from the universal visible church; from the pope christ's vicar on earth, & successor to s. peter; from the particular diocese in which they received baptism; from the country or nation to which they belonged; from the bishop under whom they lived; many of them from the religious order in which they were professed; from one another; and lastly from a man's self (as much as is possible) because the self same protestant to day is convicted in conscience, that his yesterday opinion was an error (as d. potter knows a man in the world who from a puritan was turned to a moderate protestant) with whom therefore a reconciliation, according to d. potter's grounds, is both impossible, and damnable. 40 it seems d. potters last refuge to excuse himself and his brethren from schism, is because they proceeded according to their conscience, dictating an obligation under damnation to forsake the errors maintained by the church of rome. his words are: although we confess the h pag. 81. church of rome to be (in some sense) a true church, and her errors to some men not damnable● yet for us who are convinced in conscience, that she errs in many things, a necessity lies upon us, even under pain of damnation, to forsake her in those errors. 41 i answer: it is very strange, that you judge us extremely uncharitable, in saying, protestants cannot be saved; while yourself avouch the same of all learned catholics, whom ignorance cannot excuse. if this your pretence of conscience may serve, what schismatique in the church, what popular seditious brain in a kingdom, may not allege the dictamen of conscience to free themselves from schism, or sedition? no man wishes them to do any thing against their conscience, but we say, that they may, and aught to rectify, and depose such a conscience, which is easy for them to do, even according to your own affirmation▪ that we catholics want no means necessary to salvation. easy to do? nay not to do so, to any man in his right wits must seem impossible. for how can these two apprehensions stand together: in the roman church i enjoy all means necessary to salvation, and yet i cannot hope to be saved in that church? or, who can conjoin in one brain (not cracked) these assertions▪ after due examination i judge the roman errors not to be in themselves fundamental, or damnable; and yet i judge that according to true reason, it is damnable to hold them? i say according to true reason. for if you grant your conscience to be erroneous, in judging that you cannot be saved in the roman church, by reason of her errors; there is no other remedy, but that you must rectify your erring conscience, by your other judgement, that her errors are not fundamental, nor damnable. and this is no more charity, than you daily afford to such other protestants as you term brethren, whom you cannot deny to be in some errors, (unless you will hold, that of contradictory propositions both may be true) and yet you do not judge it damnable to live in their communion, because you hold their errors not to be fundamental. you ought to know, that according to the doctrine of all divines, there is great difference between a speculative persuasion, and a practical dictamen of conscience; and therefore although they had in speculation conceived the visible church to err in some doctrines, of themselves not damnable; yet with that speculative judgement they might, and aught to have entertained this practical dictamen, that for points not substantial to faith, they neither were bound, nor lawfully could break the bond of charity, by breaking unity in god's church. you say that▪ hay and stubble i pag. 155. and such unprofitable stuff (as are corruptions in points not fundamental) laid on the roof, destroys not the house, whilst the main pillars are standing on the foundation. and you would think him a mad man who to be rid of such stuff, would set his house on fire, that so he might walk in the light, as you teach that luther was obliged to forsake the house of god, for an unnecessary light, not without a combustion formidable to the whole christian world; rather than bear with some errors, which did not destroy the foundation of faith. and as fo● others who entered in at the breach first made by luther, they might, and aught to have guided their consciences by that most reasonable rule of vincentius lyrinensis, delivered in these words; indeed it is a matter of great k advers. haeres. c. 27. moment, and both most profitable to be learned, and necessary to be remembered, and which we ought again and again to illustrate, and inculcate with weighty heaps of examples, that almost all catholics may know, that they ought to receive the doctors with the church, and not forsake the faith of the church with the doctors: and much less should they forsake the faith of the church to follow luther, calvin, and such other novelists. moreover though your first reformers had conceived their own opinions to be true; yet they might, and aught to have doubted, whether they were certain: because yourself affirm, that infallibility was not promised to any particular persons, or churches. and since in cases of uncertainties, we are not to leave our superior, nor cast off his obedience, or publicly oppose his decrees; your reformers might easily have found a safe way to satisfy their zealous conscience, without a public breach: especially if with this their uncertainty, we call to mind the peaceable possession, & and prescription which by the confession of your own brethren, the church, and pope of rome did for many ages enjoy. i wish you would examine the works of your brethren, by the words yourself sets down to free s. cyprian from schism: every syllable of which words convinceth luther, and his copartners to be guilty of that crime, and showeth in what manner they might with great ease, and quietness have rectified their consciences about the pretended errors of the church. s. cyprian (say you) was a peaceable l pag. 124. and modest man, dissented from others in his judgement, but without any breach of charity; condemned no man (much less any church) for the contrary opinion. he believed his own opinion to be true, but believed not, that it was necessary, and therefore did not proceed rashly and peremptorily to censure others, but left them to their liberty. did your reformers imitate this manner of proceeding? did they censure no man, much less any church? s. cyprian believed his own opinion to be true, but believed not that it was necessary, and therefore did not proceed rashly, and peremptorily to censure others. you believe the points wherein luther differs from us, not to be fundamental, or necessary; and why do you not thence infer the like therefore, he should not have proceeded to censure others? in a word, since their disagreement from us concerned only points which were not fundamental, they should have believed that they might have been deceived, as well as the whole visible church, which you say may err in such points; and therefore their doctrines being not certainly true, and certainly not necessary, they could not give sufficient cause to depart from the communion of the church. 42 in other places you write so much, as may serve us to prove, that luther, and his followers ought to have deposed, and rectified their consciences: as for example, when you say: when the church m pag. 105. hath declared herself in any matter of opinion▪ or of rites, her declaration obliges all her children to peace, and external obedience. nor is it fit, or lawful for any private man to oppose his judgement to the public; (as luther and his fellows did) he may offer his opinion to be considered of, so he do it with evidence, or great probability of scripture, or reason, and very modestly, still containing himself within the dutiful respect which he oweth: but if he will factiously advance his own conceits (his own conceits? & yet grounded upon evidence of scripture) & despise the church so far as to cut of her communion; he may be justly branded & condemned for a schismatic, yea & an heretic also in some degree, & in foro exteriori, though his opinion were true, & much more if it be false. could any man, even for a fee, have spoken more home to condemn your predecessors of schism, or heresy? could they have stronger motives to oppose the doctrine of the church, and leave her communion, than evidence of scripture? and yet, according to your own words, they should have answered, & rectified their conscience, by your doctrine, that though their opinion were true, and grounded upon evidence of scripture, or reason; yet it was not lawful for any private man to oppose his judgement to the public, which obligeth all christians to peace & external obedience: and if they cast off the communion of the church for maintaining their own conceits, they may be branded for schismatics, and heretics in some degree, & in foro exteriori, that is, all other christians ought so to esteem of them, (and why then are we accounted uncharitable for judging so of you?) and they also are obliged to behave themselves in the face of all christian churches, as if indeed they were not reformers, but schismatics, and heretics, or as pagans, & publicans. i thank you for your ingenuous confession, in recompense whereof, i will do a deed of charity, by putting you in mind, into what labyrinths you are brought, by teaching that the church may err in some points of faith, & yet that it is not lawful for any man to oppose his judgement, or leave her communion, though he have evidence of scripture against her. will you have such a man dissemble against his conscience, or externally deny a truth, known to be contained in holy scripture? how much more coherently do catholics proceed, who believe the universal infallibility of the church, and from thence are assured, that there can be no evidence of scripture; or reason, against her definitions, nor any just cause to forsake her communion? m. hooker, esteemed by many protestants an incomparable man, yields as much as we have alleged out of you. the will of god is (saith he) to have n in his preface to his books of ecclesiastical policy. sect. 6. p. 28. them do whatsoever the sentence of judicial and final decision shall determine, yea though it seem in their private opinion, to swarve utterly from that which is right. doth not this man tell luther, what the will of god was, which he transgressing, must of necessity be guilty of schism? and must not m. hooker either acknowledge the universal infallibility of the church, or else drive men into the perplexities and labyrinths of dissembling against their conscience, whereof now i speak? not unlike to this, is your doctrine delivered elsewhere. before the nicene council (say you) many o pag. 131▪ good cotholique bishops, were of the same opinion with the donatists, that the baptism of heretics was ineffectual; and with the novatians, that the church ought not to absolve some grievous sinners. these errors therefore (if they had gone no further) were not in themselves heretical, especially in the proper, and most heavy, or bitter sense of that word; neither was it in the church's intention (or in her power) to make them such by her declaration. her intention was, to silence all disputes, and to settle peace and unity in her government: to which all wise and peaceable men submitted, whatsoever their opinion was. and those factious people, for their unreasonable and uncharitable opposition, were very justly branded for schismatics. for us, the mistaker will never prove that we oppose any declaration of the catholic church etc. and therefore he doth uniustlie charge us either with schism, or heresy. these words manifestly condemn your reformers; who opposed the visible church in many of her declarations, doctrines, and commands imposed upon them, for silencing all disputes, and settling peace and unity in the government, and therefore they still remaining obstinately disobedient, are justly charged with schism, and heresy. and it is to be observed, that you grant the donatists to have been very justly branded for schismatics, although their opposition against the church, did concern (as you hold) a point not fundamental to the faith, and which according to s. augustine, cannot be proved out of scripture alone; and therefore either doth evidently convince that the church is universally infallible, even in points not fundamental; or else that it is schism, to oppose her declarations, in those very things wherein she may err; and consequently that luther, and his fellows were schismatics, by opposing the visible church, for points not fundamental, though it were (untruly) supposed that she erred in such points. but by the way, how come you on the sudden to hold the determination of a general council (of nice) to be the declaration of the catholic church, seeing you teach, that general counsels may err even fundamentally? and do you now say, with us, that to oppose the declaration of the church, is sufficient that one may be branded with heresy, which is a point so often impugned by you? 43 it is therefore most evident, that no pretended scruple of conscience could excuse luther; which he might, and aught to have rectified by means enough; if pride, ambition, obstinacy etc. had given him leave. i grant he was touched with scruple of conscience, but it was because he had forsaken the visible church of christ; and i beseech all protestants for the love they bear to that sacred ransom of their souls, the blood of our blessed saviour, attentively to ponder, and unpartially to apply to their own conscience, what this man spoke concerning the feelings, and remorse of his. how often (saith he) did my trembling heart p tom. 2. germ. jen. fol. 9 & tom. 2. witt. of anno 1562. de abrog. miss. private. fol. 244. beat within me, and reprehending me, object against me that most strong argument; art thou only wise? do so many worlds err? were so many ages ignorant? what if thou errest, and drawest so many into hell to be damned eternally with thee? and in another place he saith: dost thou who art but one, and of no q tom. 5. an●ot. brevis. account, take upon thee so great matters? what, if thou, being but one, offendest? if god permit such, so many, & all to err; why may he not permit thee to err? to this belong those arguments, the church, the church, the fathers, the fathers, the counsels, the customs, the multitudes, and greatness of wise men: whom do not these mountains of arguments, these clouds, yea these seas of examples overthrow? and these thoughts wrought so deep in his soul, that he often wished and desired that he had r colloq. mensal. fol. 158. never begun this business: wishing yet further that his writings were burned and buried s praefat. in tom. german. jen. in eternal oblivion. behold what remorse luther felt, and how he wanted no strength of malice to cross his own conscience: and therefore it was no scruple, or conceived obligation of conscience, but some other motives which induced him to oppose the church. and if yet you doubt of his courage to encounter, and strength to master all reluctations of conscience, hear an example or two for that purpose. of communion under both kinds, thus he saith: if the council t de formula missaes. should in any case decree this, least of all would we then use both kinds, yea rather in despite of the council, and the decree, we would use either but one kind only, or neither, or in no case both. was not luther persuaded in conscience, that to use, neither kind was against our saviour's command? is this only to offer his opinion to be considered of, as you said all men ought to do? and that you may be sure that he spoke from his heart, and if occasion had been offered, would have been as good as his word; mark what he saith of the elevation of the sacrament: i did know u in parva con●ess. the elevation of the sacrament to be idolatricall; yet nevertheless i did retain it in t●e church at wittenberg, to the end i might vex the devil carolostadius. was not this a conscience large and capacious enough, that could swallow idolatry? why would he not tolerate idolatry in the church of rome (as these men are wont to blaspheme) if he could retain it in his own church at wittemberge? if carolostadius, luther's of spring, was the devil, who but himself must be his dam? is almighty god wont to send such furies to preach the gospel? and yet further (which makes most directly to the point in hand) luther in his book of abrogating the private mass, exhorts the augustine friars of wittenberg, who first abrogated the mass, that, even against their conscience accusing them, they should persist in what they had begun, acknowledging that in some things he himself had done the like. and joannes mathesius a lutheran preacher saith: antonius musa the parish priest w in orat. germ. 12. de luth. of rocklitz, vid. tan. tom. 2. disput. 1. q. 2 dub. 4. n. 108. recounted to me that on a time he heartily moaned himself to the doctor (he means luther) that he himself could not believe what he preached to others: and that d. luther answered; praise and thanks be to god, that this happens also to others, for i had thought it had happened only to me. are not these conscionable, and fit reformers? and can they be excused from schism, under pretence that they held themselves obliged to forsake the roman church? if then it be damnable to proceed against ones conscience, what will become of luther who against his conscience, persisted in his division from the roman church? 44 some are said to flatter themselves with another pernicious conceit, that they (forsooth) are not guilty of sin; because they were not the first authors, but only are the continuers of the schism, which was already begun. 45 but it is hard to believe, that any man of judgement, can think this excuse will subsist, when he shall come to give up his final account. for according to this reason, no schism will be damnable, but only to the beginners: whereas contrarily, the longer it continues the worse it grows to be, and at length degenerates to heresy; as wine by long keeping grows to be vinegar, but not by continuance, returns again to his former nature of wine. thus s. augustine saith, that heresy is x lib. 2. cont. cresc. c. 7. schism in veterate. and in another place: we object to you only the y ep. 164. crime of schism, which you have also made to become heresy, by evil persevering therein. and s. hierom saith: though schism z upon these words ad tit. 3. h●ereticum hominem etc. in the beginning may be in some sort understood to be defferent from heresy; yet there is no schism, which doth not feign to itself some heresy, that it may seem to have departed from the church upon just cause, and so indeed it falleth out. for men may begin ●pon passion, but afterward by instinct of corrupt nature seeking to maintain their schism as lawful, they fall into some heresy, without which their separation could not be justified with any colour: as in our present case the very affirming that it is lawful to continue a schism unlawfully begun, is an error against the main principle of christianity, that it is not lawful for any christian, to live out of god's church, within which alone salvation can be had; or, that it is not damnable to disobey her decrees, according to the words of our saviour: if he shall not hear a mat. 18. the church, let him be to thee as a pagan or publican. and, he b luk. 10. 16. that despiseth you, despiseth me. we heard above optatus milevitanus saying to parmenianus, that both he, and all those other who continued in the schism begun by majorinus, did inherit their forefathers schism; and yet parmenianus was the third bishop after majorinus in his sea, and did not begin, but only continue the schism. for (saith this holy father) caecilianus c lib. 1. cont. parm. went not out of majorinus thy grandfather, but majorious from caecilianus: neither did caecilianus depart from the chair of peter, or cyprian, but majorinus, in whose chair thou fittest, which before majorinus (luther) had no beginning. seing it is evident that these things passed in this manner (that, for example, luther departed from the church, and not the church from luther) it is clear that you be heirs both of the givers up of the bible to be burned, and of schismatiqves. and the regal power, or example of he●ry the eight could not excuse his subjects from schism, according to what we have heard out of s. crysostome saying: nothing doth so much provoke d hom. 11. in epist. ad eph. the wrath of almighty god, as that the church should be divided. although we should do innumerable good deeds, if we divide the full ecclesiastical congregation, we shall be punished no less, than they who did rend his (natural) body; for that was done to the gain of the whole world, though not with that intention: but this hath ●o good in it at all, but that the greatest hurt riseth from it. these things are spoken not only to those who bear office, but to such also as are governed by them. behold therefore, how liable both subjects, and superiors are to the sin of schism, if they break the unity of god's church. the words of s. paul can in no occasion be verified more than in this of which we speak. they who do such things e rom. 1. 3● are worthy of death: and not only they that do them, but they also that consent with the doers. in things which are indifferent of their own nature, custom may be occasion, that some act not well begun, may in time come to be lawfully continued. but no length of time, no quality of persons, no circumstance of necessity can legitimate actions which are of their own nature unlawful: and therefore division from christ's mystical body, being of the number of those actions, which divines teach to be intrinsecè malas, evil of their own nature and essence, no difference of persons or time can ever make it lawful. d. potter saith: there neither was, nor can be any cause to depart from the church of christ, no more then from christ himself. and who dares say, that it is not damnable to continue a separation from christ? prescription cannot in conscience run, when the first beginner, and his successors are conscious that the thing to be prescribed, for example goods or lands, were unjustly possessed at the first▪ christians are not like strays, that after a certain time of wand'ring from their right home, fall from their owner to the lord of the soil; but as long as they retain the indelible character of baptism, and live upon earth, they are obliged to acknowledge subjection to god's church. humane▪ laws may come to nothing by discontinuance of time, but the law of god, commanding us to conserve unity in his church, doth still remain. the continued disobedience of children cannot deprive parents of their paternal right, nor can the grandchild be undutiful to his grandfather, because his father was unnatural to his own parent. the longer gods church is disobeyed; the profession of her doctrine denied; her sacraments neglected; her liturgy condemned; her unity violated; the more grievous the fault grows to be: as the longer a man withholds a due debt, or retains his neighbour's goods, the greater injustice he commits. constancy in evil doth not extenuate, but aggravate the same, which by extension of time, receiveth increase of strength, and addition of greater malice. if these men's conceits were true, the church might come to be wholly divided by wicked schisms, and yet after some space of time, none could be accused of schism, nor be obliged to return to the visible church of christ: and so there should remain no one true visible church. let therefore these men who pretend to honour, reverence, and believe the doctrine, and practise of the visible church, and to condemn their forefathers who forsook her, and say they would not have done so, if they had lived in the days of their fathers, and yet follow their example in remaining divided from her communion; consider, how truly these words of our saviour fall upon them. woe be to you, because you build f mat 23. v. 29. etc. the prophet's sepulchres, and garnish the monuments of just men, and say: if we had been in our father's days, we had not been their fellows in the blood of the prophets. therefore you are a testimony to your own selves, that you are the sons of them that killed the prophets; and fill up the measure of your fathers. 46 and thus having demonstrated that luther, his associates, and all that continue in the schism by them begun, are guilty of schism, by departing from the visible true church of christ; it remaineth that we examine what in particular was that visible true church, from which they departed, 5. point. luther and the rest departed from the roman church. that so they may know to what church in particular they ought to return: and then we shall have performed what was proposed to be handled in the fifth point. 47 that the roman church (i speak not for the present, of the particular diocese of rome, but of all visible churches dispersed throughout the whole world, agreeing in faith with the chair of peter, whether that sea were supposed to be in the city of rome or in any other place:) that (i say) the church of rome, in this sense, was the visible catholic church out of which luther departed, is proved by your own confession, who assign for notes of the church, the true preaching of god's word, and due administration of sacraments, both which for the substance you cannot deny to the roman church, since you confess that she wanted nothing fundamental, or necessary to salvation; and for that very cause you think to clear yourself from schism, whose property, as you say, is to cut off from the g pag. 76. body of christ and the hope of salvation, the church from which it separates. now that luther and his fellows were born and baptised in the roman church, and that she was the church out of which they departed, is notoriously known: and therefore you cannot cut her off from the body of christ, and hope of salvation, unless you will acknowledge yourself to deserve the just imputation of schism. neither can you deny her to be truly catholic by reason of (pretended) corruptions, not fundamental. for yourself avouch, and endeavour to prove, that the true catholic church may err in such points. moreover, i hope you will not so much as go about to prove, that when luther rose, there was any other true visible church, disagreeing from the roman, and agreeing with protestants in their particular doctrines: and you cannot deny but that england in those days agreed with rome, and other nations with england: and therefore either christ had no visible church upon earth, or else you must grant that it was the church of rome. a truth so manifest, that those protestants who affirm the roman church to have lost the nature and being of a true church, do by inevitable consequence grant, that for diverse ages christ had no visible church on earth: from which error, because d. potter disclaimeth, he must of necessity maintain, that the roman church is free from fundamental, and damnable error, and that she is not cut off from the body of christ, and the hope of salvation: and if (saith he) any zelots' amongst us have proceeded h ibid. to heavier censures, their zeal may be excused, but their charity and wisdom cannot be justified. 48 and to touch particulars which perhaps some may object. no man is ignorant that the grecians, even the schismatical grecians, do in most points agree with roman catholics, and disagree from the protestant reformation. they teach transubstantiation (which point d. potter also i pag. 225. confesseth;) invocation of saints and angels; veneration of relics, and images; auricular confession; enjoined satisfaction; confirmation with chrism; extreme unction; all the seven sacraments; prayer, sacrifice, alms for the dead; monachisme; that priests may not marry after their ordination. in which points that the grecians agree with the roman church appeareth by a treatise published by the protestant divines of wittenberg, entitled, acta theologorum wittembergensium, & i●remiae patriarchae constantinop. de augustana confession etc. wittembergae anno 1584. by the protestant k de statu eccles. pag. 253. crispinus, and by sir edwin sands in the relation of the state of religion of the west. and i wonder with what colour of truth (to say no worse) d. potter could affirm that the doctrines debated between the protestants l pag. 225. and rome, are only the partial and particular fancies of the roman church; unless happily the opinion of transubstantiation may be excepted, wherein the latter grecians seem to agree with the romanists. beside the protestant authors already cited, petrus arcudi●s a grecian, and a learned catholic writer, hath published a large volume, the argument and title whereof is: of the agreement of the roman, and greek church in the seven sacraments. as for the heresy of the grecians, that the holy ghost proceeds not from the some, i suppose that protestants dissvow them in that error, as we do. 49 d. potter will not (i think) so much wrong his reputation, as to tell us, that the waldenses, wiccliffe, husse, or the like were protestants, because in some things they disagreed from catholics. for he well knows that the example of such men is subject to these manifest exceptions, they were not of all ages, not in all countries, but confined to certain places, and were interrupted in time, against the notion and nature of the word catholic. they had no ecclesiastical hierarchy, nor succession of bishops, priests, and pastors. they differed among themselves, and from protestants also. they agreed in diverse things with us against protestants. they held doctrines manifestly absurd and damnable heresies. 50 the waldenses began not before the year 1218, so far were they from universality of all ages. for their doctrine: first, they denied all judgements which extended to the drawing of blood, and the sabbath, for which cause they were called in-sabbatists. secondly, they taught that lay men, and women might consecrate the sacrament, and preach (no doubt but by this means to make their master, waldo, a mere lay man, capable of such functions.) thirdly, that clergy men ought to have no possessions, or proprieties. fourthly, that there should be no division of parishes, nor churches, for a walled church they reputed as a barn. fiftly, that men ought not to take an oath in any case. sixtly, that those persons sinned mortally, who accompanied without hope of issue. seaventhly, they held all things done above the girdle, by kissing, touching, words, compression of the breasts, etc. to be done in charity, and not against continency. eightly, that neither priest, nor civil magistrate, being guilty of mortal sin did enjoy their dignity, or were to be obeyed. ninthly, they condemned princes, and judges. tenthly, they affirmed singing in the church to be an hellish clamour. eleaventhly, they taught that men might dissemble their religion, & so accordingly they went to catholic churches, dissembling their faith, and made offertories, confessions, and communions after a dissembling manner. waldo was so unlearned, that (saith m act. mon. pag. 628. fox) he gave rewards to certain learned men to translate the holy scripture for him, and being thus holpen did (as the same fox there reporteth) confer the form of religion in his time, to the infallible word of god. a goodly example, for such as must needs have the scripture in english, to be read by every simple body, with such fruit of godly doctrine, as we have seen in the foresaid gross heresies of waldo. the followers of waldo, were like their master, so unlearned, that some of them (●aith n ibid. fox) expounded the words, joan. 1. sui eum non receperunt: swine did not receive him. and to conclude, they agreed in diverse things with catholics against protestants, as may be seen in o tract. ●. cap 2. sect. subd. 3. brerely. 51 neither can it be pretended, that these are slanders, forged by catholics. for, for besides that the same things are testified by protestant writers, as i●●yricus, co●per, and others, our authors cannot be suspected of partiality in disfavour of protestants, unless you will say perhaps, that they were prophets, and some hundred years ago, did both foresee that there were to be protestants in the world, and that such protestants were to be like the waldenses. besides, from whence, but from our histories are protestants come to know; that there were any such men as the waldenses? and that in some points they agreed with the protestants, & disagreed from them in others? and upon what ground can they believe our authors for that part wherein the waldenses were like to protestants, and imagine they lied in the rest? 52 neither could wiccliffe continue a church never interrupted from the time of the waldenses, after whom he lived more than one hundred and fifty years; to wit, the year 1371. he agreed with catholics about the worshipping of relics and images: and about the intercession of our blessed lady, the ever immaculate mother of god, he went so far as to say, it seems to me p in serm. d● assump. mari●. impossible, that we should be rewarded without the intercession of the virgin mary. he held seven sacraments, purgatory, and other points. and against both catholics and protestants he maintained sundry damnable doctrines, as diverse protestant writers relate. as first: if a bishop or priest be in deadly sin, he doth not indeed either give orders, consecrate, or baptise. secondly, that ecclesiastical ministers ought not to have any temporal possessions, nor propriety in any thing, but should beg; and yet he himself broke into heresy because he had been deprived by the archbishop of canterbury of a certain benefice; as all schisms, and heresies begin upon passion, which they seek to cover with the cloak of reformation. thirdly he condemned lawful oaths, like the anabaptists. fourthly, he taught that all things came to pass by absolute necessity. fiftly, he defended human merits as the wicked pelagians did, namely, as proceeding from natural forces, without the necessary help of god's grace. sixtly, that no man is a civil magistrate, while he is in mortal sin; and that the people may at their pleasure correct princes, when they offend: by which doctrine he proves himself both an heretic, and a traitor. 53 as for hus, his chiefest doctrines were: that lay people must receive in both kinders and, that civil lords, prelates and bishops lose all right, and authority, while they are in mortal sin, for other things he wholly agreed with catholics against protestants; and the bohemians his followers being demanded, in what points they disagreed from the church of rome, propounded only these: the necessity of communion under both kinds; that all civil dominion was forbidden to the clergy; that preaching of the word, was free for all men, and in all places; that open crimes were in no wise to be permitted for avoiding of greater evil. by these particulars, it is apparent, that husse agreed with protestants against us, in one only point of both kinds, ●hich according to luther is a thing indifferent; because he teacheth that christ in this matter q in epist. ad bohemos. commanded nothing as necessary. and he saith further: if thou come to a place r de utreque specie sacram, where one only kind is administered, use one kind only, as others do. melancthon likewise holds it a thing s in cent. epist. theol. pag. 225. indifferent: and the same is the opinion of some other protestants. all which considered, it is clear that protestants cannot challenge the waldenses, wickliff, and hus for members of their church: and although they could, yet that would advantage them little towards the finding out a perpetual visible church of theirs; for the reasons above t numb. 49. specified. 54 if d potter would go so far off, as to fetch the muscovites, armenians▪ georgians. aethiopians, or abyssines into his church, they would prove over dear bought: for they either hold the damnable heresy of eu●iches, or use circumcision, or agree with the greek, or roman church. and it is most certain that they have nothing to do with the doctrine of the protestants. 55 it being therefore granted that christ had a visible church in all ages, and that there can be none assigned but the church of rome; it follows that she is the true cath. church; and that those pretended corruptions for which they forsook her, are indeed divine truths, delivered by the visible catholic church of christ: and, that luther and his followers departed from her, and consequently are guilty of schism, by dividing themselves from the communion of the roman church. which is clearly convinced out of d. potter himself, although the roman church were but a particular church. for he saith: whosoever professes u pag 7●. himself to forsake the communion of any one member of the body of christ, must confess himself consequently to forsake the whole. since therefore in the same place he expressly acknowledges the church of rome to be a member of the body of christ, and that it is clear they have forsaken her; it evidently follows, that they have forsaken the whole, and therefore are most properly schismatics. 56 and lastly, since the crime of schism is so grievous, that according to the doctrine of holy fathers rehearsed above, no multitude of good works, no moral honesty of life, no cruel death endured even for the profession of some article of faith can excuse any one who is guilty of that sin from damnation, i leave it to be considered, whether it be not true charity to speak as we believe, and to believe as all antiquity hath taught us, that whosoever either begins, or continues a division for the roman church, which we have proved to be christ's true militant church on earth, cannot without effectual repentance hope to be a member of his triumphant church in heaven. and so i conclude with these words of blessed s. augustine: it is common w co●t. parm. liv. 2. c. 3. to all heretics to be unable to see that thing which in the world is the most manifest, and placed in the light of all nations, out of whose unity whatsoever they work, though they seem to do it with great care and diligence, can no more avail them against the wrath of god, than the spider's web against the extremity of cold but now it is high time that we treat of the other sort of division from the church, which is by heresy. the answer to the fifth chapter. the separation of protestants from the roman church, being upon just and necessary causes, is not any way guilty of schism. 1 ad § 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. in the seven first sections of this chapter, there be many things said and many things supposed by you which are untrue, & deserve a censure. as, 2 first, that schism could not be a division from the church, or that a division from the church could not happen, unless there always had been and should be a visible church. which assertion is a manifest falsehood; for although there never had been any church visible or invisible before this age, nor should be ever after, yet this could not hinder, but that a schism might now be, and be a division from the present visible church. as though in france there never had been until now a lawful monarch, nor after him ever should be, yet this hinders not, but that now there might be a rebellion, and that rebellion might be an insurrection against sovereign authority. 3 that it is a point to be granted by all christians, that in all ages there hath been a visible congregation of faithful people. which proposition howsoever you understand it, is not absolutely certain. but if you mean by faithful, (as it is plain you do) free from all error in faith, than you know all protestants with one consent affirm it to be false; and therefore without proof to take it for granted is to beg the question. 4 that supposing luther and they which did first separate from the roman church were guilty of schism, it is certainly consequent, that all who persist in this division must be so likewise. which is not so certain as you pretend. for they which alter without necessary cause the present government of any state civil or ecclesiastical, do commit a great fault; whereof notwithstanding they may be innocent who continue this alteration, and to the utmost of their power oppose a change though to the former state, when continuance of time hath once settled the present. thus have i known some of your own church, condemn the low-countries men who first revolted from the king of spain, of the sin of rebellion, yet absolve them from it who now being of your religion there, are yet faithful maintainers of the common liberty against the pretences of the k. of spain. 5 fourthly, that all those which a christian is to esteem neighbours do concur to make one company, which is the church. which is false; for a christian is to esteem those his neighbours, who are not members of the true church. 6 fiftly, that all the members of the visible church, are by charity united into one mystical body. which is manifestly untrue; for many of them have no charity. 7 sixtly, that the catholic church, signifies one company of faithful people, which is repugnant to your own grounds. for you require, not true faith, but only the profession of it, to make men members of the visible church. 8 seaventhly, that every heretic is a schismatique. which you must acknowledge false in those, who though they deny, or doubt of some point professed by your church, and so are heretics; yet continue still in the communion of the church. 9 eightly, that all the members of the catholic church, must of necessity be united in external communion. which though it were much to be desired it were so, yet certainly cannot be perpetually true. for a man unjustly excommunicated, is not in the church's communion, yet he is still a member of the church: and diverse times it hath happened, as in the case of chrisostome and epiphanius, that particular men, and particular churches, have upon an overvalued difference, either renounced communion mutually, or one of them separated from the other, and yet both have continued members of the catholic church. these things are in those seven sections, either said or supposed by you untruly, without all show, or pretence of proof. the rest is an impertinent common place, wherein protestants and the cause in hand, are absolutely unconcerned. and therefore i pass to the eighth section. 10 ad §. 8. wherein you obtrude upon us, a double fallacy; one, in supposing and taking for granted, that whatsoever is affirmed by three fathers, must be true; whereas yourselves make no scruple of condemning many things of falsehood, which yet are maintained, by more than thrice three fathers. another, in pretending their words to be spoken absolutely, which by them are limited and restrained to some particular cases. for whereas you say s. austin. c. 62. l. 2. cont. parm. infers out of the former premises, that there is no necessity to divide unity: to let pass your want of diligence, in quoting the 62. chapter of that book, which hath but 23. in it: to pass by also, that these words which are indeed in the 11. chapt. are not inferred out of any such premises as you pretend, this i say is evident, that he says not absolutely, that there never is, or can be any necessity to divide unity (which only were for your purpose,) but only in such a special cale, as he there sets down: that is, when good men tolerate bad men, which can do them no spiritual hurt, to the intent they may not be separated from those, who are spiritually good: then (saith he) there is no necessity to divide unity. which very words do clearly give us to understand, that it may fall out (as it doth in our case,) that we cannot keep unity with bad men, without spiritual hurt, i. e. without partaking with them in their impieties, and that then there is a necessity to divide unity from them: i mean, to break off conjunction with them in their impieties. which that it was s. austin's mind, it is most evident out of the 21. c. of the same book: where to parmenian demanding, how can a man remain pure, being joined with those that are corrupted? he answers, very true, this is not possible, if he be joined with them, that is, if he commit any evil with them, or favour them which do commit it. but if he do neither of these, he is not joined with them. and presently after, these two things retained, will keep such men pure and uncorrupted; that is, neither doing ill, nor approving it. and therefore seeing you impose upon all men of your communion, a necessity of doing or at least approving many things unlawful, certainly there lies upon us an unavoidable necessity of dividing unity, either with you, or with god; and whether of these is rather to be done, be ye judges. 11 irenaeus also says not simply (which only would do you service,) there cannot possibly be any so important reformation, as to justify a separation from them who will not reform: but only, they cannot make any corruption so great, as is the pernitiousnesse of a schism: now, they, here, is a relative, and hath an antecedent expressed in irenaeus, which if you had been pleased to take notice of, you would easily have seen, that what irenaeus says, falls heavy upon the church of rome, but toucheth protestant's nothing at all. for the men he speaks of, are such as propter modicas & quaslibet causas, for trifling or small causes, divide the body of christ; such as speak of peace and make war; such as strain at gnatts, & swallow camels. and these faith he, can make no reformation of any such importance, as to countervail the danger of a division. now seeing the causes of our separation from the church of rome, are (as we pretend, and are ready to justify,) because we will not be partakers with her in superstition, idolatry, impiety, and most cruel tyranny, both upon the bodies and souls of men. who can say, that the causes of our separation, may be justly esteemed modicae & quaelibet causae? on the other side, seeing the bishop of rome, who was contemporary to irenaeus, did as much (as in him lay) cut off from the church's unity, many great churches, for not conforming to him in an indifferent matter, upon a difference, non de catholico dogm●te, sed de ritu, vel ritus potius tempore, not about any catholic doctrine, but only a ceremony, or rather about the time of observing it; so petavius values it: which was just all one, as if the church of france should excommunicate those of their own religion in england, for not keeping christmas upon the same day with them: eusch. hist. l. 5 c. 24. and seeing he was reprehended sharply and bitterly for it, by most of the bishops of the world, as eusebius testifies, and (as cardinal perron though mincing the matter, perron. replic. 3. l. 2. c. yet confesseth) by this very jerenaeus himself in particular admonished, that for so small a cause (propter tam modicam causam,) he should not have cut off so many provinces from the body of the church: and lastly, seeing the ecclesiastical story of those times, mentions no other notable example of any such schismatical presumption, but this of victor: certainly we have great inducement to imagine, that irenaeus in this place by you quoted, had a special aim at the bishop and church of rome. once, this i am sure of, that the place fits him, and many of his successors, as well as if it had been made purposely for them. and this also, that he which finds fault with them who separate upon small causes, implies clearly, that he conceived, there might be such causes as were great and sufficient: and that then a reformation was to be made, notwithstanding any danger of division that might ensue upon it. 12 lastly, s. denis of alexandria, says indeed and very well, that all things should be rather endured, than we should consent to the division of the church: i would add, rather than consent to the continuation of the division, if it might be remedied. but then, i am to tell you, that he says not all things should rather be done, but only, all things should rather be endured or suffered: wherein he speaks not of the evil of sin, but of pain and misery: not of tolerating either error or sin in others (though that may be lawful,) much less of joining with others for quietness sake, (which only were to your purpose) in the profession of error and practice of sin: but of suffering any affliction, nay even martyrdom in our own persons, rather than consent to the division of the church. omnia incommoda, so your own christophorson, enforced by the circumstances of the place, translates dionysius his words, all miseries should rather be endured, than we should consent to the church's division. 13 ad §. 9 in the next paragraph you affirm two things, but prove neither, unless a vehement asseveration, may pass for a weak proof. you tell us first, that the doctrine of the total deficiency of the visible church, which is maintained by diverse chief protestants, implies in it vast absurdity, or rather sacrilegious blasphemy. but neither do the protestants alleged by you, maintain the deficiency of the visible church, but only of the church's visibility, or of the church as it is visible, which so acute a man as you, now that you are minded of it, i hope will easily distinguish: neither do they hold, that the visible church hath failed totally and from its essence, but only from its purity: and that it fell into many corruptions, but yet not to nothing. and yet if they had held, that there was not only no pure visible church, but none at all: surely they had said more than they could justify, but yet you do not show, neither can i discover any such vast absurdity or sacrilegious blasphemy in this assertion. you say secondly, that the reason which cast them upon this wicked doctrine, was a desperate voluntary necessity, because they were resolved not to acknowledge the roman to be the true church, and were convinced by all manner of evidence, that for divers ages before luther there was no other. but this is not to dispute but to divine, and take upon you the property of god which is to know the hearts of men. for why i pray, might not the reason hereof rather be, because they were convinced by all manner of evidence, as scripture, reason, antiquity, that all the visible churches in the world, but above all the roman, had degenerated from the purity of the gospel of christ, and thereupon did conclude there was no visible church, meaning by no church, none free from corruption, and conformable in all things to the doctrine of christ. 14 ad §. 10. neither is there any repugnance (but in words only) between these (as you are pleased to style them) exterminating spirits, and those other, whom out of courtesy you entitle, in your 10. §. more moderate protestants. for these affirming the perpetual visibility of the church, yet neither deny, nor doubt of her being subject to manifold and grievous corruptions, and those of such a nature, as were they not mitigated by invincible, or at least a very probable ignorance, none subject to them could be saved. and they on the other side, denying the church's visibility, yet plainly affirm, that they conceive very good hope of the salvation of many, of their ignorant and honest forefathers. thus declaring plainly, though in words they denied the visibility of the true church, yet their meaning was not to deny the perpetuity, but the perpetual purity and incorruption of the visible church. 15 ad §. 11. let us proceed therefore to your 11. sect. where though d. potter and other protestants granting the churches perpetual visibility, make it needless for you to prove it, yet you will needs be doing that which is needless. but you do it so coldly and negligently, that it is very happy for you, that d. potter did grant it. 16 for what if the prophets spoke more obscurely of christ, then of the church? what if they had foreseen, that greater contentions would arise about the church then christ? which yet, he that is not a mere stranger in the story of the church, must needs know to be untrue, and therefore not to be foreseen by the prophets. what if we have manifestly received the church from the scriptures? does it follow from any, or all these things, that the church of christ must be always visible? 17 besides, what protestant ever granted (that which you presume upon so confidently,) that every man for all the affairs of his soul must have recourse to some congregation? if some one christian lived alone among pagans in some country, remote from christendom, shall we conceive it impossible for this man to be saved, because he cannot have recourse to any congregation, for the affairs of his soul? will it not be sufficient, for such a ones salvation, to know the doctrine of christ, and live according to it? such fancies as these, you do very wisely to take for granted, because you know well, 'tis hard to prove them. 18 let it be as unlawful as you please, to deny and dissemble matters of faith. let them that do so, not be a church, but a damned crew of sycophants: what is this to the visibility of the church? may not the church be invisible, and yet these that are of it profess their faith? no, say you: their profession will make them visible. very true, visible in the places where, and in the times when they live, and to those persons, unto whom they have necessary occasion, to make their profession: but not visible to all, or any great, or considerable part of the world while they live, much less conspicuous to all ages after them. now it is a church thus illustriously and conspicuously visible that you require: by whose splendour, all men may be directed & drawn to repair to her, for the affairs of their souls: neither is it the visibility of the church absolutely, but this degree of it, which the most rigid protestants deny: which is plain enough out of the places of napper, cited by you in your 9 part. of this chapt. where his words are, god hath withdrawn his visible church from open assemblies, to the hearts of particular godly men. and this church which had not open assemblies, he calls the latent and invisible church. now i hope papists in england will be very apt to grant, men may be so far latent and invisible, as not to profess their faith in open assemblies, nor to proclaim it to all the world, & yet not deny, nor dissemble it; nor deserve to be esteemed a damned crew of dissembling sycophants. 19 but preaching of the word, and administration of the sacraments, cannot but make a church visible: and these are inseparable notes of the church. i answer, they are so far inseparable, that wheresoever they are, there a church is: but not so, but that in some cases there may be a church, where these notes are not. again, these notes will make the church visible: but to whom? certainly not to all men, nor to most men: but to them only to whom the word is preached, and the sacraments are administered. they make the church visible to whom themselves are visible, but not to others. as where your sacraments are administered, and your doctrine preached, it is visible, that there is a popish church. but this may perhaps be visible to them only, who are present at these performances, and to others as secret, as if they had never been performed. 20 but s. austin saith, it is an impudent, abominable, detestable speech, and so forth, to say the church hath perished. i answer; 1. all that s. austin says, is not true. 2. though this were true, it were nothing to your purpose, unless you will conceive it all one not to be, & not to be conspicuously visible. 3. this very speech that the church perished, might be false and impudent in the donatists, and yet not so in the protestants. for there is no incongruity, that what hath lived 500 years, may perish in 1600. but s. austin denied not only the actual perishing, but the possibility of it: and not only of its falling to nothing, but of its falling into corruption. i answer: though no such thing appears out of those places, yet i believe hear of disputation against the donatists, and a desire to over-confute them, transported him so far, as to urge against them more than was necessary, and perhaps more than was true. but were he now revived, & did but confront the doctrine of after-ages, with that, his own experience would enforce him to change his opinion. as concerning the last speech of s. austin, i cannot but wonder very much, why he should think it absurd for any man to say, there are sheep which he knows not, but god knows: and no less at you, for obtruding this sentence upon us as pertinent proof of the church's visibility. 21 neither do i see, how the truth of any present church depends the perpetual visibility, nay nor upon the perpetuity of that which is past or future. for what sense is there, that it should not be in the power of god almighty, to restore to a flourishing estate, a church which oppression hath made invisible? to repair that which is ruined; to reform that which was corrupted, or to revive that which was dead? nay what reason is there, but that by ordinary means this may be done, so long as the scriptures by divine providence are preserved in their integrity and authority? as a commonwealth though never so far collapsed and overrun with disorders, is yet in possibility of being reduced unto its original state, so long as the ancient laws, and fundamental constitutions are extant, and remain inviolate, from whence men may be directed how to make such a reformation. but s. austin urges this very argument against the donatists, and therefore it is good. i answer, that i doubt much of the consequence, and my reason is, because you yourselves acknowledge, that even general counsels (and therefore much more particular doctors) though infallible in their determinations▪ are yet in their reasons and arguments, where upon they ground them, subject to like passions and errors with other men. 22 lastly, whereas you say, that all divines define schism a division from the true church, and from thence collect, that there must be a known church from which it is possible for men to depart: i might very justly question your antecedent, and desire you to consider, whether schism be not rather, or at least be not as well a division of the church, as from it? a separation not of a part from the whole, but of some parts from the other. and if you liked not this definition, i might desire you to inform me in those many schisms, which have happened in the church of rome, which of the parts was the church, & which was divided from it. but to let this pass, certainly your consequence is most unreasonable. for though whensoever there is a schism, it must necessarily suppose a church existent there, yet sure we may define a schism, that is, declare what the word signifies (for defining is no more) though at this present there were neither schism nor church in the world. unless you will say, that we cannot tell what a rose is, or what the word rose signifies, but only in the summer when we have roses: or that in the world to come, when men shall not marry, it is impossible to know, what it is to marry: or that the plague is not a disease, but only when some body is infected: or that adultery is not a sin, unless there be adulterers: or that before adam had a child, he knew not, & god could not have told him, what it was to be a father. certainly sr, you have forgot your metaphysics, which you so much glory in, if you know not, that the connexion's of essential predicates with their subjects, are eternal, & depend not at all upon the actual existence of the thing defined. this definition therefore of schism, concludes not the existence of a church, even when it is defined▪ much less the perpetual continuance of it, and least of all the continuance of it in perpetual visibility and purity, which is the only thing that we deny, & you are to prove. by this time, you perceive i hope, that i had reason to say, that it was well for you, that d. potter granted the churches perpetual visibility: for, for aught i can perceive, this concession of his, is the best stake in your hedge, the best pillar upon which this conclusion stands; which yet is the only groundwork of your whole accusation. 23 ad § 12. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. the remainder of this chapter, to convince luther and all that follow him to be schismatics, affords us arguments of two sorts: the first drawn from the nature of the thing: the second from d. potter's words & acknowledgements. so that the former if they be good, must be good against all protestants: the latter only against d. potter. i will examine them all, & doubt not to make i● appear even to yourself, if you have any indifference, that there is not any sound & concluding reason amongst them, but that they are all poor and miserable sophisms. 24 first then to prove us schismatics, you urge from the nature of schism this only argument. whosoever leave the external communion of the visible church, are schismatics: but luther and his followers left the external communion of the visible church of christ: therefore they are schismatics. the major of this syllogism you leave naked without proof; and conceive it, as it should seem, able enough to shift for itself. the minor or second proposition of this argument, you prove by two other. the first is this. they which forsook the external communion of all visible churches, must needs forsake the external communion of the true visible church of christ: but luther and his followers forsook the external communion of all visible churches: therefore they forsook the external communion of the true visible church. the major of this syllogism you take for granted (as you have reason:) the minor you prosecute with great pomp of words, & prove with plenty of reasons, built upon the confessions of d. potter, luther, calvin, and other protestants; and this you do in the 12 § of this chapter. the second argument to prove the assumption of your first syllogism, stands thus. the roman church, when luther and his followers made the separation, was the true visible church of christ: but luther and his followers forsook the external communion of the roman church: therefore they forsook the external communion of the true visible church of christ. the assumption of this syllogism needs no proof: the proposition which needs it very much, you endeavour to confirm by these reasons. 1 the roman church had the notes of the church assigned by protestants, 1. the true preaching of the word, and due administration of the sacraments: therefore she was the true church. the antecedent is proved: because d. potter confesses she wanted nothing fundamental or necessary to salvation: therefore for the substance of the matter she had these notes. 2 either the roman church was the true visible church, or protestants can name and prove some other disagreeing from the roman, and agreeing with protestants, in their particular doctrine: or else they must say, there was no visible church: but they will not say there was no church: they cannot name and prove any other disagreeing from the roman, and agreeing with protestants in their particular doctrines; because this cannot be the greek church, nor that of the waldenses, wicklifites, hussites, nor that of the muscovites, armenians, georgians, aethiopians, which you confirm by several arguments: therefore they must grant, that the roman church was the true visible church. and this is the business of your 47. 48. 49. 50. 51, 52. 53. 54. and 55. sections of this chapter. 25 now to all this, i answer very briefly thus: that you have played the unwise builder, and erected a stately structure upon a false foundation. for whereas you take for granted as an undoubted truth, that whosoever leave the external communion of the visible church, are schismatical, i tell you sir, you presume too much upon us, and would have us grant, that which is the main point in question. for either you suppose the external communion of the church corrupted, and that there was a necessity for them, that would communicate with this church, to communicate in her corruptions: or you suppose her communion uncorrupted. if the former, and yet will take for granted, that all are schismatics, that leave her communion though it be corrupted, you beg the question in your proposition. if the latter, you beg the question in your supposition, for protestants, you know, are peremptory and unanimous in the denial of both these things: both that the communion of the visible church, was then uncorrupted; and that they are truly schismatics, who leave the communion of the visible church, if corrupted; especially, if the case be so (and luther's was so) that they must either leave her communion, or of necessity communicate with her in her corruptions. you will say perhaps, that you have already proved it impossible, that the church, or her communion should be corrupted. and therefore that they are schismatics, who leave the external communion of the visible church, because she cannot be corrupted. and that hereafter you will prove, that corruptions in the church's communion, though the belief and profession of them be made the condition of her communion, cannot justify a separation from it: and therefore that they are schismatics, who leave the church's communion though corrupted. i answer, that i have examined your proofs of the former, & found that a vein of sophistry runs clean through them: and for the latter, it is so plain and palpable a falsehood, that i cannot but be confident, whatsoever you bring in proof of it, will like the apples of sodom, fall to ashes upon the first touch. and this is my first and main exception against your former discourse: that accusing protestants of a very great and horrible crime, you have proved your accusation only with a fallacy. 26 another is, that although it were granted schism, to leave the external communion of the visible church in what state or case so ever it be, and that luther & his followers were schismatics, for leaving the external communion of all visible churches: yet you fail exceedingly of clearing the other necessary point undertaken by you, that the roman church was then the visible church. for neither do protestant's (as you mistake) make the true preaching of the word, and due administration of the sacraments, the notes of the visible church, but only of a visible church: now these you know are very different things, the former signifying the church catholic, or the whole church: the latter a particular church, or a part of the catholic. and therefore suppose out of courtesy, we should grant, what by argument you can never evince, that your church had these notes, yet would it by no means follow, that your church were the visible church, but only a visible church: not the whole catholic, but only a part of it. but then beside, where doth d. potter acknowledge any such matter as you pretend? where doth he say, that you had for the substance the true preaching of the word, or due administration of the sacraments? or where does he say, that (from which you collect this) you wanted nothing fundamental, or necessary to salvation? he says indeed, that though your errors were in themselves damnable, and full of great impiety, yet he hopes, that those amongst you, who were invincibly ignorant of the truth, might by god's great mercy, have their errors pardoned, and their souls saved: and this is all he says, and this you confess to be all he says, see c. 1. §. 3. in divers places of your book: which is no more, than you yourself do, and must affirm of protestants: and yet i believe, you will not suffer us to infer from hence, that you grant protestants too have, for the substance, the true preaching of the word, and due administration of the sacraments, and want nothing fundamental, or necessary to salvation. and if we should draw this consequence from your concession, certainly we should do you injury, in regard many things may in themselves, and in ordinary course be necessary to salvation, to those that have means to attain them, as your church generally hath: which yet, by accident, to these which were by some impregnable impediment, debarred of these means, may by god's mercy be made unnecessary. 27 lastly, whereas you say, that protestants must either grant that your church then was the visible church, or name some other, disagreeing from yours & agreeing with protestants in their particular doctrine, or acknowledge there was no visible church. it is all one as if (to use s. paul's similitude) the head should say to the foot, either you must grant that i am the whole body, or name some other member that is so, or confess that there is no body. to which the foot might answer; i acknowledge there is a body: and yet, that no member beside you is this body: nor yet that you are it, but only a part of it. and in like manner say we. we acknowledge a church there was, corrupted indeed universally, but yet such a one as we hope by god's gracious acceptance, was still a church. we pretend not to name any one society that was this church, and yet we see no reason, that can enforce us to confess that yours was the church, but only a part of it, and that one of the worst then extant in the world. in vain therefore have you troubled yourself in proving, that we cannot pretend, that either the greeks, waldenses, wickliffites, hussites, muscovites, armenians, georgians, abyssines, were then the visible church. for all this discourse proceeds from a false and vain supposition, and begs another point in question between us, which is, that some church of one denomination and one communion (as the roman, the greek &c.) must be always, exclusively to all other communions, the whole visible church. and though perhaps some weak protestant having this false principle settled in him, that there was to be always some visible church of one denomination, pure from all error in doctrine, might be wrought upon, and prevailed with by it, to forsake the church of protestants: yet why it should induce him to go to yours, rather than the greek church, or any other, which pretends to perpetual succession as well as yours, that i do not understand; unless it be for the reason which aeneas silvius gave, why more held the pope above a council, than a council above the pope: which was because popes did give bishoprics, and archbishoprics, but counsels gave none, and therefore suing in forma pauperis, were not like to have their cause very well maintained. for put the case, i should grant of mere favour, that there must be always some church of one denomination and communion, free from all errors in doctrine, and that protestants had not always such a church: it would follow indeed from thence, that i must not be a protestant: but that i must be a papist, certainly it would follow by no better consequence than this; if you will leave england, you must of necessity go to rome. and yet with this wretched fallacy, have i been sometimes abused myself, and known many other poor souls seduced, not only from their own church, and religion, but unto yours. i beseech god to open the eyes of all that love the truth, that they may not always be held captive, under such miserable delusions. 28 we see then, how unsuccessful you have been in making good your accusation, with reasons drawn from the nature of the thing, and which may be urged in common against all protestants. let us come now to the arguments of the other kind, which you build upon d. potter's own words, out of which you promise unanswerable reasons to convince protestants of schism. 29 but let the understanding reader, take with him but three or four short remembrances, and i dare say he shall find them upon examination, not only answerable, but already answered. the memorandums i would commend to him, are these. 30 that not every separation, but only a causeless separation from the external communion of any church, is the sin of schism. 31 that imposing upon men under pain of excommunication a necessity of professing known errors, and practising known corruptions, is a sufficient and necessary cause of separation: and that this is the cause which protestants allege to justify their separation from the church of rome. 32 that to leave the church, and to leave the external communion of a church, at least as d. potter understands the words, is not the same thing: that being done by ceasing to be a member of it, by ceasing to have those requisites which constitute a man a member of it, as faith and obedience: this by refusing to communicate with any church in her liturgies and public worship of god. this little armour if it be rightly placed, i am persuaded, will repel all those batteries which you threaten shall be so furious. 33 ad § 13. 14. 15. the first is a sentence of s. austin against donatus, applied to luther thus. if the church perished, what church brought forth donatus, (you say luther?) if she could not perish, what madness moved the sect of donatus to separate, upon pretence to avoid the communion of bad men? whereunto, one fair answer (to let pass many others) is obvious out of the second observation: that this sentence though it were gospel, as it is not, is impertinently applied to luther and lutherans. whose pretence of separation (be it true or be it false,) was not (as that of the donatists,) only to avoid the communion of bad men: but to free themselves from a necessity (which but by separating was unavoidable,) of joining with bad men in their impieties. and your not substituting luther in stead of donatus in the latter part of the dilemma as well as in the former, would make a suspicious man conjecture that you yourself took notice of this exception of disparity between donatus and luther. 34 ad § 16. your second onset drives only at those protestants, who hold the true church was invisible for many ages. which doctrine (if by the true church be understood, the pure church, as you do understand it) is a certain truth, and it is easier for you to declaim (as you do) then to dispute against it. but these men you say must be heretics because they separated from the communion of the visible church: and therefore also from the communion of that which they say was invisible: in as much as the invisible church communicated with the visible. 35 ans. i might very justly desire some proof of that which so confidently you take for granted: that, there were no persecuted and oppressed maintainers of the truth in the days of our forefathers, but only such as dissembled their opinions, & lived in your communion. and truly if i should say there were many of this condition, i suppose i could make my affirmative much more probable, than you can make your negative. we read in scripture, that elias conceived there was none left besides himself in the whole kingdom of israel, who had not revolted from god: and yet god himself assures us that he was deceived. and if such a man, a prophet, and one of the greatest, erred in his judgement touching his own time, and his own country, why may not you, who are certainly but a man, and subject to the same passions as elias was, mistake in thinking, that in former ages, in some country or other, there were not always some good christians, which did not so much as externally bow their knees to your baal? but this answer i am content you shall take no notice of, and think it sufficient to tell you, that if it be true, that this supposed invisible church did hypocritically communicate with the visible church, in her corruptions, than protestants had cause, nay necessity, to forsake their communion also, for otherwise they must have joined with them in the practice of impieties: and seeing they had such cause to separate, they presume their separation cannot be schismatical. 36 yes, you reply, to forsake the external communion of them with whom they agree in faith, is the most formal & proper sin of schism. ans. very true, but i would fain know wherein. i would gladly be informed, whether i be bound for fear of schism, to communicate with those that believe as i do, only in lawful things, or absolutely in every thing: whether i am to join with them in superstition and idolatry, and not only in a common profession of the faith wherein we agree, but in a common dissimulation or abjuration of it. this is that which you would have them do, or else, forsooth, they must be schismatics. but hereafter i pray remember, that there is no necessity of communicating even with true believers in wicked actions. nay, that there is a necessity herein to separate from them. and then i dare say, even you being their judge, the reasonableness of their cause to separate shall, according to my first observation, justify their separation from being schismatical. 37 arg: but the property of schism according to d. potter is to cut off from the hope of salvation, the church from which it separates: and these protestants have this property, therefore they are schismatics. 38 ans. i deny the syllogism, it is no better than this: one symptom of the plague is a fever, but such a man hath a fever, therefore he hath the plague. the true conclusion which issues out of these premises, should be this. therefore he hath one symptom of the plague. and so likewise in the former, therefore they have one property or one quality of schismatics. and as in the former instance, the man that hath one sign of the plague, may by reason of the absence of other requisites, not have the plague: so these protestants may have something of schismatics, and yet not be schismatics. a tyrant sentencing a man to death for his pleasure, and a just judge that condemns a malefactor, do both sentence a man to death, and so for the matter do both the same thing: yet the one does wickedly, the other justly. what's the reason? because the one hath cause, the other hath not. in like manner schismatics, either always or generally denounce damnation to them from whom they separate. the same do these protestants, & yet are not schismatics. the reason: because schismatics do it, and do it without cause, and protestants have cause for what they do. the impieties of your church, being, generally speaking, damnable, unless where they are excused by ignorance, and expiated at least by a general repentance. in fine, though perhaps it may be true, that all schismatics do so: yet universal affirmatives are not converted, and therefore it follows not by any good logic, that all that do so, when there is just cause for it, must be schismatics. the cause in this matter of separation is all in all, and that for aught i see, you never think of. but if these rigid protestants have just cause to cut off your church from the hope of salvation: how can the milder sort allow hope of salvation to the members of this church? ans. distinguish the quality of the persons censured, and this seeming repugance of their censures will vanish into nothing. for your church may be considered either in regard of those, in whom, either negligence, or pride, or worldly fear, or hopes, or some other voluntary sin, is the cause of their ignorance, which i fear is the case of the generality of men amongst you: or in regard of those who owe their errors from truth, to want of capacity, or default of instruction; either in respect of those that might know the truth and will not, or of those who would know the truth but (all things considered) cannot: in respect of those that have eyes to see, and will not see, or those that would gladly see, but want eyes, or light. consider the former sort of men, (which your more rigid censurers seem especially to reflect upon,) and the heaviest sentence will not be too heavy. consider the latter, and the mildest will not be too mild. so that here is no difference but in words only, neither are you flattered by the one; nor uncharitably censured by the other. 39 your next blow is directed against the milder sort of protestants, who you say involve themselves in the sin of schism by communicating with those (as you call them) exterminating spirits, whom you conceive yourself to have proved schismatics: and now load them further with the crime of heresy. for, say you, if you held yourselves obliged under pain of damnation, to forsake the communion of the roman church by reason of her errors, which yet you confess were not fundamental: shall it not be much more damnable, to live in confraternity with these, who defend an error of the failing of the church, which in the donatists you confess to have been properly heretical? 40 answ: you mistake in thinking that protestants hold themselves obliged not to communicate with you, only or principally by reason of your errors and corruption. for the true reason according to my third observation, is not so much because you maintain errors and corruptions, as because you impose them: and will allow your communion to none but to those that will hold them with you; and have so ordered your communion, that either we must communicate with you in these things, or nothing. and for this very reason, though it were granted, that these protestants held this doctrine which you impute to them; and though this error were as damnable and as much against the creed as you pretend: yet after all this, this disparity between you and them, might make it more lawful for us to communicate with them than you: because what they hold, they hold to themselves, and refuse not (as you do) to communicate with them that hold the contrary. 41 thus we may answer your argument, though both your former suppositions were granted. but then for a second answer, i am to tell you that there is no necessity of granting either of them. for neither do these protestants hold the failing of the church from its being, but only from its visibility: which if you conceive all one, then must you conceive that the stars fail every day, and the sun every night. neither is it certain that the doctrine of the churches failing is repugnant to the creed. for as the truth of the article of the remission of sins, depends not upon the actual remission of any man's sins, but upon god's readiness and resolution to forgive the sins of all that believe and repent; so that, although unbeleef or impenitence should be universal, and the faithful should absolutely fail from the children of men, and the son of man should find no faith on the earth, yet should the article still continue true, that god would forgive the sins of all that repent: in like manner, it is not certain that the truth of the article of the catholic church depends upon the actual existence of a catholic church, but rather upon the right, that the church of christ, or rather (to speak properly) the gospel of christ hath to be universally believed. and therefore the article may be true, though there were no church in the world. in regard, this notwithstanding, it remains still true that there ought to be a church, & this church ought to be catholic. for as, of these two propositions, there is a church in america, and, there should be a church in america, the truth of the latter depends not upon the truth of the former, so neither does it in these two: there is a church diffused all the world over, and, there should be a church diffused all the world over. 42 thirdly, if you understand by errors not fundamental, such as are not damnable, it is not true, as i have often told you, that we confess your errors not fundamental. 43 lastly, for your desire that i should here apply an authority of s. cyprian alleged in your next number, i would have done so very willingly, but indeed i know not how to do it: for in my apprehension it hath no more to do with your present business of proving it unlawful, to communicate with these men, who hold the church was not always visible, then in nova fert animus. besides, i am here again to remember you, that s. cyprians words, were they never so pertinent yet are by neither of the parts litigant esteemed any rule of faith. and therefore the urging of them and such like authorities, serves only to make books great, and controversies endless. 44 ad § 17. the next section in three long leaves delivers us this short sense. that those protestants which say they have not left the churches external communion, but only her corruptions pretend to do that which is impossible. because these corruptions were inherent in the churches external communion: and therefore he that forsakes them cannot but forsake this. 45 ans. but who are they that pretend, they forsook the church's corruptions, and not her external communion? some there be that say, they have not left the church, that is, not ceased to be members of the church, but only left her corruptions: some, that they have not left the communion, but the corruptions of it; meaning the internal communion of it, and conjunction with it by faith and obedience: which disagree from the former only in the manner of speaking: for he that is in the church, is in this kind of communion with it: and he that is not in this internal communion, is not in the church. some perhaps, that they left not your external communion in all things; meaning, that they left it not voluntarily being not fugitivi but fugati, as being willing to join with you in any act of piety; casaubon. i● ep. ad card. perron. but were by you necessitated and constrained to do so, because you would not suffer them to do well with you, unless they would do ill with you. now to do ill that you may do well, is against the will of god, which to every good man is a high degree of necessity. but for such protestants, as pretend that de facto, they forsook your corruptions only and not your external communion, that is, such as pretend to communicate with you in your confessions and liturgies, and participation of sacraments, i cannot but doubt very much, that neither you nor i have ever met with any of this condition. and if perhaps you were led into error, by thinking that to leave the church, and to leave the external communion of it, was all one in sense & signification, i hope by this time you are disabused, and begin to understand, that as a man may leave any fashion or custom of a college, and yet remain still a member of the college; so a man may possibly leave some opinion or practice of a church formerly common to himself & others, and continue still a member of that church: provided that what he forsakes be not one of those things wherein the essence of the church consists. whereas peradventure this practice may be so involved with the external communion of this church, that it may be simply impossible, for him to leave this practice, and not to leave the churches external communion. 46 you will reply perhaps, that the difficulty lies as well against those who pretend to forsake the church's corruptions & not the church: as against those who say, they forsook the church's corruptions, and not her external communion. and that the reason is still the same: because these supposed corruptions, were inherent in the whole church, and therefore by like reason with the former, could not be forsaken, but if the whole church were forsaken. 47 ans. a pretty sophism, and very fit to persuade men that it is impossible for them, to forsake any error they hold, or any vice they are subject to, either peculiar to themselves, or in common with others: because forsooth, they cannot forsake themselves, and vices and errors are things inherent in themselves. the deceit lies, in not distinguishing between a local and a moral forsaking of any thing. for as it were an absurdity, fit for the maintainers of transubstantiation to defend, that a man may locally and properly depart from the accidents of a subject, and not from the subject itself: so is it also against reason to deny, that a man may (by an usual phrase of speech) forsake any custom, or quality, good or bad, either proper to himself, or common to himself with any company, and yet never truly or properly forsake either his company or himself. thus if all the jesuits in the society, were given to write sophistically, yet you might leave this ill custom, and yet not leave your society. if all the citizens of a city, were addicted to any vanity, they might either, all, or some of them forsake it, and yet not forsake the city. if all the parts of a man's body were dirty or filthy, nothing hinders but that all or some of them might cleanse themselves, and yet continue parts of the body. and what reason then in the world is there, if the whole visible church were overcome with tares and weeds of superstitions, and corruptions, but that some members of it might reform themselves, and yet continue still true members of the body of the church, and not be made no members, but the better by their reformation? certainly it is so obvious & sensible a truth, that this thing is possible, that no man in his wits, will be persuaded out of it, with all the quirks and metaphysics in the world. neither is this to say, that a man may keep company with christopher potter, and not keep company with the provost of q. college: nor that a man can avoid the company of a sinner, and at the same time, be really present with the man who is the sinner: which we leave to those protestants of your invention, who are so foolish, as to pretend, that a man, may really separate himself from the churches external communion, as she is corrupted, and yet continue in that church's external communion, which in this external communion is corrupted. but we that say only the whole church being corrupted, some parts of it might and did reform themselves, and yet might and did continue parts of the church, though separated from the external communion of the other parts, which would not reform, need not trouble ourselves to reconcile any such repugnance. for the case put by you, of keeping d. potter's company, and leaving the company of the provost of queen's college; & of leaving a sinner's company, and not the man's: are nothing at all like ours. but if you would speak to the point, you must show, that d. potter cannot leave being provost of q. college, without ceasing to be himself: or, that a sinner cannot leave his sin, without ceasing to be a man: or that he that is part of any society, cannot renounce any vice of that society, but he must relinquish the society. if you would show any of these things, than indeed (i dare promise) you should find us apt enough to believe, that the particular parts of the visible church, could not reform themselves, but they must of necessity become no parts of it. but until we see this done, you must pardon us, if we choose to believe sense rather than sophistry. 48 in this paragraph you bring in the sentence of s. cyprian, whereto you referred us in the former: but why in a controversy of faith, do you cite any thing, which is confessed on all hands, not to be a rule of faith? besides, in my apprehension, this sentence of s. cyprian, is in this place, and to this purpose, merely impertinent. s. cyprians words are, the church (he speaks of the particular church, or diocese of rome) being one, cannot be within and without: if she be with novatianus, she was not with cornelius: but if she were with cornelius who succeeded fabianus by lawful ordination, novatianus is not in the church. and now having related the words, i am only to remember the reader, that your business was to prove it impossible, for a man to forsake the church's corruptions and not the church, and then to request him to tell me whether, as i said, in nova fert animus, had not been as much to the purpose? 49 toward the conclusion of this section, you number up your victories, and tell us, that out of your discourse it remaineth clear, that this our chiefest answer changeth the very state of the question: confoundeth internal acts of the under standing, with externoll deeds: doth not distinguish between schism and heresy, and leaves this demonstrated against us, that they (protestants) divided themselves from the communion of the visible catholic church, because they conceived that she needed reformation. to which triumphs, if any reply be needful, then briefly thus: we do not change the state of the question, but you mistake it. for the question was not whether they might forsake the corruptions of the church, and continue in her external communion, which we confess impossible, because these corruptions were in her communion. but the question was, whether they might forsake the corruptions of the church, and not the church, but continue still the members of it. and to this question, there is not in your whole discourse one pertinent syllable. 50 we do not confound internal acts of understanding with external deeds, but acknowledge (as you would have us) that we cannot (as matters now stand) separate from your corruptions, but we must depart from your external communion. for you have so ordered things, that whosoever will communicate with you at all, must communicate with you, in your corruptions. but it is you that will not perceive the difference, between, being a part of the church, and being in external communion with all the other parts of it: taking for granted, that which is certainly false, that no two men or churches, divided in external communion, can be both true parts of the catholic church. 51 we are not to learn the difference between schism & heresy, for heresy we conceive, an obstinate defence of any error, against any necessary article of the christian faith: and schism, a causeless separation of one part of the church from another. but this we say, that if we convince you of errors and corruptions, professed and practised in your communion, than we cannot be schismatics, for refusing to join with you in the profession of these errors, and the practice of these corruptions. and therefore you must free yourselves from error, or us from schism. 52 lastly, whereas you say, that you have demonstrated against us, that protestants divided themselves from the external communion of the visible church, add, which external communion was corrupted, and we shall confess the accusation, and glory in it. but this is not that quod erat demonstrandum, but that we divided ourselves from the church, that is, made ourselves outlaws from it, and no members of it. and moreover, in the reason of your separation from the external communion of your church you are mistaken: for it was not so much because she, your church, as because your churches external communion was corrupted, and needed reformation. 53 that a pretence of reformation will acquit no man from schism, we grant very willingly, and therefore say, that it concerns every man who separates from any church's communion, even as much as his salvation is worth, to look most carefully to it, that the cause of his separation be just and necessary: for unless it be necessary, it can very hardly be sufficient. but whether a true reformation of ourselves from errors, superstitions and impieties, will not justify our separation in these things; our separation, i say, from them who will not reform themselves, and as much as in them lies, hinder others from doing so: this is the point you should have spoken to, but have not. as for the sentences of the fathers to which you refer us, for the determination of this question, i suppose by what i have said above, the reader understands, by alleging them you have gained little credit to your cause or person. and that, if they were competent judges of this controversy, their sentence is against you much rather than for you. 54 lastly, whereas you desire d. potter to remember his own words: there neither was nor can be any just cause to depart from the church of christ, no more then from christ himself, and pretend that you have showed that luther did so: the doctor remembers his words very well, and hath no reason to be ashamed of them. only he desires you to remember that hereafter you do not confound, as hitherto you have done, departing from the church (i. e. ceasing to be a member of it,) with departing from the churches external communion; and then he is persuaded it will appear to you, that against luther and his followers you have said many things, but showed nothing. 55 but the church universal, remaining the church universal, according to d. potter may fall into error: and from hence it clearly follows, that it is impossible to leave the external communion of the church so corrupted, and retain external communion with the catholic church. ans. the reason of this consequence which you say is so clear, truly i cannot possibly discern; but the conclusion inferred, methinks is evident of itself, and therefore without proof i grant it. i mean, that it is impossible to leave the external communion of the catholic church corrupted, and to retain external communion with the catholic church. but what use you can make of it, i do not understand: unless you will pretend, that to say a man may forsake the church's corruptions, and not the church, is all one as to say, he may forsake the churches external communion and not forsake it. if you mean so, sure you mistake the meaning of protestants when they say, they forsook not the church but her corruptions▪ for in saying so, they neither affirm, nor deny that they forsook the external communion of the church, nor speak at all of it: but they mean only, that they ceased not to be still members of the church, though they ceased to believe and practise some things which the whole church formerly did believe and practise. and as for the external communion of the visible church, we have without scruple formerly granted, that protestants did forsake it, that is, renounce the practice of some observances, in which the whole visible church before them did communicate. but this we say they did without schism, because they had cause to do so, and no man can have cause to be a schismatique. 56 but your argument you conceive, will be more convincing, if we consider that when luther appeared, there were not two distinct visible true churches, one pure, the other corrupted, but one church only. ans. the ground of this is no way certain, nor here sufficiently proved. for, whereas you say, histories are silent of any such matter; i answer, there is no necessity, that you or i should have read all histories, that may be extant of this matter; nor that all should be extant that were written, much less extant uncorrupted: especially considering your church, which had lately all power in her hands, hath been so perniciously industrious, in corrupting the monuments of antiquity that made against her; nor that all records should remain which were written; nor that all should be recorded which was done. neither secondly, to suppose a visible church before luther, which did not err, is it to contradict this ground of d. potter's, that the church may err. unless you will have us believe, that may be, and must be is all one, and that all which may be true, is true: which rule if it were true, then sure all men would be honest, because all men may be so, and you would not make so bad arguments, unless you will pretend you cannot make better. nor thirdly, is it to contradict these words, the church may not hope to triumph over all error, till she be in heaven: for to triumph over error, is to be secure from it, to be out of danger of it, not to be obnoxious to it. now a church may be free from error, and yet not secure from it, and consequently in this sense, not triumph over it. fourthly, whereas you say, it evacuateth the brag of protestants, that luther reform the whole church; perhaps (though i know not who they be that say so;) by a frequent synecdoche, they may mean by the whole, the greatest, and most illustrious part of it, the lustre whereof did much obscure the other, though it were not wholly invisible. besides, if their brag be evacuated, (as you call it) let it be so, i see no harm will come of it. lastly whereas you say, that supposing a visible pure church, luther must be a schismatic, who separated from all visible churches: i tell you, if you will suppose a visible church extant before and when luther arose, conformable to him in all points of doctrine, necessary and profitable, then luther separated not from this church, but adjoined himself to it: not indeed in place, which was not necessary, not in external communion which was impossible, but by the union of faith and charity. upon these grounds i say, that the ground of this argument is no way made certain, yet because it is not manifestly false, i am content to let it pass. and for aught i see, it is very safe for me to do so: for you build nothing upon it, which i may not fairly grant. for what do you conclude from hence, but that seeing there was no visible church but corrupted, luther forsaking the external communion of the corrupted church, could not but forsake the external communion of the catholic church? well, let this also be granted, what will come of it? what, that luther must be a schismatic? by no means: for not every separation, but only a causeless separation from the communion of the church we maintain to be schismatical. hereunto may be added, that though the whole church were corrupted, yet properly speaking, it is not true, that luther & his followers forsook the whole corrupted church, or the external communion of it: but only that he forsook that part of it which was corrupted, and still would be so, and forsook not, but only reform another part, which part they themselves were, and i suppose you will not go about to persuade us, that they forsook themselves or their own communion. and if you urge that they joined themselves to no other part, therefore they separated from the whole: i say it follows not, in as much as themselves were a part of it, and still continued so: and therefore could no more separate from the whole then from themselves. thus though there were no part of the people of rome, to whom the plebeians joined themselves, when they made their secession into the aventine hill, yet they divided themselves from the patricians only, and not from the whole people, because themselves were a part of this people, and they divided not from themselves. 57 ad §. 18. in the 18. §. you prove that which no man denies, that corruption in manners yields no sufficient cause to leave the church: yet sure it yields sufficient cause to cast them out of the church, that are after the churches public admonition obstinate in notorious impieties. neither doth the cutting off such men from the church, lay any necessity upon us, either to go out of the world, or out of the church, but rather puts these men out of the church into the world, where we may converse with them freely, without scandal to the church. our blessed saviour foretold, you say, that there should be in the church tares with choice corn. look again i pray, and you shall see, that the field he speaks of, is not the church, but the world: and therefore neither do you obey our saviour's command, let both grow up till the harvest, who teach it to be lawful to root these tares (such are heretics) out of the world: neither do protestants disobey it, if they eject manifest heresies and notorious sinners out of the church. 58 ad §. 19 in the 19 you are so courteous as to suppose corruptions in your doctrine, and yet undertake to prove that, neither could they afford us any sufficient cause, or colourable necessity to depart from them. your reason is, because damnable errors there were none in your church, by d. potter's confession, neither can it be damnable in respect of error, to remain in any church's communion, whose errors are not damnable. for if the error be not damnable, the belief thereof cannot. ans. d. potter confesseth no such matter: but only that he hopes that your errors, though in themselves sufficiently damnable, yet by accident did not damn all that held them: such he means and says, as were excusably ignorant of the truth, and amongst the number of their unknown sins, repented daily of their unknown errors. the truth is, he thinks as ill of your errors and their desert, as you do of ours: only he is not so peremptory and presumptuous in judging your persons, as you are in judging ours, but leaves them to stand or fall to their own master, who is infinitely merciful, and therefore will not damn them for mere errors, who desire to find the truth and cannot: and withal infinitely just, and therefore (is it to be feared) will not pardon them, who might easily have come to the knowledge of the truth, and either through pride, or obstinacy, or negligence would not. 59 to your minor also, i answer almost in your own words, §. 42. of this chap. i thank you for your courteous supposal, that your church may err, and in recompense thereof, will do you a charity, by putting you in mind, into what labyrinths you cast yourself, by supposing that the church may err in some of her proposals, and yet denying it lawful for any man though he know this, which you suppose, to oppose her judgement, or leave her communion. will you have such a man dissemble against his conscience, or externally deny that which he knows true? no, that you will not, for them that do so, you yourself have pronounced a. damned cr●w of dissembling sycophants. or would you have him continue in your communion, and yet profess your church to err? this you yourselves have made to him impossible. or would you have him believe those things true, which together with him you have supposed to be errors? this in such a one, as is assured or persuaded of that, which you here suppose, that your church doth err, (and such only we say, are obliged to forsake your communion,) is, as schoolmen speak, implicatio in terminis, a contradiction so plain, that one word destroyeth another; as if one should say, a living dead man. for it is to require that they which believe some part of your doctrine false, should withal believe it all true. seeing therefore, for any man to believe your church in error, and profess the contrary, is damnable hypocrisy; to believe it and not believe it, a manifest repugnancy; and thirdly, to profess it and to continue in your communion (as matters now stand) a plain impossibility; what remains, but that whosoever is supposed to have just reason to disbelieve any doctrine of your church, must of necessity forsake her communion? unless you would remit so far from your present rigour, as to allow them your church's communion, who publicly profess that they do not believe every article of her established doctrine. indeed, if you would do so, you might with some coherence suppose your church in error, and yet find fault with men for abandoning her communion, because they might continue in it, and suppose her in error. but to suppose your church in error, and to excommunicate all those that believe your own supposition, and then to complain that they continue not in your communion, is the most ridiculous incongruity that can be imagined. and therefore though your corruptions in doctrine, in themselves (which yet is false) did not, yet your obliging us, to profess your doctrine uncorrupted against knowledge and conscience, may induce an obligation to depart from your communion. as if there were any society of christians, that held there were no antipodes; notwithstanding this error i might communicate with them. but if i could not do so, without professing myself of their belief in this matter, than i suppose i should be excused from schism, if i should forsake their communion, rather than profess myself to believe that which i do not believe. neither is there any contradiction, or shadow of contradiction, that it may be necessary for my salvation to depart from this church's communion: and that this church (though erring in this matter) wants nothing necessary to salvation. and yet this is that manifest contradiction, which d. potter (you say) will never be able to salve, viz. that there might be necessary cause to depart from the church of rome in some doctrines and practices, though she wanted nothing necessary to salvation. 60 and your reason wherewith you prove, that there is in these words such a plain contradiction, is very notable. for (say you) if she wanted nothing necessary to salvation, how could it be necessary to salvation to forsake her? truly sir, if this be a good manner of proving, it is a very ready way to prove any thing; for what is there that may not be proved, if it be proof enough to ask how it can be otherwise? me thinks if you would convince, d. potter's words of manifest contradiction, you should show, that he affirms and denies the same of the same. from which fault me thinks he should be very innocent, who says only, that that may be damnable to one, which is not so to another: and that may be necessary for one, which is not necessary for another. and this is all that d. potter says here: viz. that the profession of a falsehood to him that believes it, may be not damnable: and yet damnable to him that believes the contrary. or that, not to profess a falsehood in him that knows it to be so, is necessary to salvation: and yet not so, in him that by error conceives it to be a truth. the words by you cited, and charged with unsalvable contradiction are in the 75. pag. but in the progress of the same particular discourse, in the next page but one, he gives such evident reason of them, (which can hardly be done to prove implicancy true) that whereas you say, he will never be able to salve them from contradiction, i believe any indifferent reader, having considered the place, will be very apt to think, that you (whatsoever you pretend) were very able to have done this courtesy for him, if your will had been answerable to your ability. i will set down the words, and leave the reader to condemn or absolve them. to forsake the errors of that church, and not to join with her in those practices which we account erroneous, we are enforced by necessity. for though in the issue they are not damnable to them which believe as they profess, yet for us to profess & avow by oath (as the church of rome enjoins) what we believe not, were without question damnable. and they with their errors, by the grace of god might go to heaven, when we for our hypocrisy and dissimulation (he might have added, and perjury) should certainly be condemned to hell. 61 ad § 20. but a church not erring in fundamentals, though erring in other matters, doth what our saviour exacts at her hands, doth as much as lies in her power to do: therefore the communion of such a church is not upon pretence of error to be forsaken. the consequence is manifest. the antecedent is proved, because god, by d. potter's confession, pag. 151. 155. hath promised his assistance no further, nor is it in her power to do more than god doth assist her to do. ans. the promise of divine assistance is two fold: absolute, or conditional. that there shall be by divine providence preserved in the world to the world's end, such a company of christians, who hold all things precisely and indispensably necessary to salvation, and nothing inevitably destructive of it: this and no more the doctor affirms that god hath promised absolutely. yet he neither doubts nor denies, but that a farther assistance is conditionally promised us, even such an assistance as shall lead us, if we be not wanting to it and ourselves, into all not only necessary, but very profitable truth, and guard us from all not only destructive, but also hurtful errors. this, i say, he neither denies nor questions. and should he have done so, he might have been confuted by evident and express text of scripture. when therefore you say, that a church not erring in fundamentals, doth as much as by god's assistance lies in her power to do; this is manifestly untrue. for god's assistance is always ready to promote her farther. it is ready, i say, but on condition the church does implore it: on condition, that when it is offered in the divine directions of scripture and reason, the church be not negligent to follow it. if therefore there be any church, which retaining the foundation, builds hay and stubble upon it: which believing what is precisely necessary, errs shamefully and dangerously in other things very profitable: this by no means argues defect of divine assistance in god, but neglect of this assistance in the church. neither is there any reason, why such a church should please herself too much, for retaining fundamental truths, while she remains so regardless of others. for though the simple defect of some truths profitable only and not simply necessary, may consist with salvation; yet who is there that can give her sufficient assurance, that the neglect of such truths is not damnable? besides, who is there that can put her in sufficient caution, that these errors about profitable matters may not according to the usual fecundity of error, bring forth others of a higher quality, such as are pernicious and pestilent, and undermine by secret consequences the very foundations of religion and piety? lastly, who can say that she hath sufficiently discharged her duty to god and man by avoiding only fundamental heresies, if in the mean time she be negligent of others, which though they do not plainly destroy salvation, yet obscure and hinder, and only not block up the way to it? which though of themselves and immediately they damn no man, yet are causes and occasions that many men run the race of christian piety more remissly than they should, many defer their repentance, many go on securely in their sins, & so at length are damned by means and occasion of these errors, though not for them. such errors as these (though those of the roman church be much worse, even in themselves damnable, and by accident only pardonable) yet i say such errors as these, if any church should tolerate, dissemble and suffer them to reign, and neglect to reform them, and not permit them to be freely, yet peaceably, opposed and impugned; will any wise man say, that she hath sufficiently discharged her duty to god and man? that she hath with due fidelity dispensed the gospel of christ? that she hath done what she could, and what she ought? what shall we say then, if these errors be taught by her, and commanded to be taught? what if she thunder out her curses against those that will not believe them? what if she rave and rage against them, and persecute them with fire & sword, and all kinds of most exquisite torments? truly i do much fear, that from such a church (though it hold no error absolutely unconsistent with salvation,) the candlestick of god, either is already removed, or will be very shortly, and because she is negligent of profitable truths, that she will lose those that are necessary, and because she will not be led into all truths, that in short time she shall be led into none. and although this should not happen, yet what mortal man can secure us, that not only a probable unaffected ignorance, nor only a mere neglect of profitable truths, but also a reckless supine negligence, manifest contempt, dissimulation, opposition, oppression of them, may consist with salvation? i truly for my part, though i hope very well of all such as seeking all truth, find that which is necessary; who endeavouring to free themselves from all errors, any way contrary to the purity of christianity, yet fail of performance & remain in some: yet if i did not find in myself a love and desire of all profitable truth; if i did not put away idleness, and prejudice, and worldly affections, and so examine to the bottom all my opinions of divine matters, being prepared in mind to follow god, and god only which way soever he shall lead me; if i did not hope, that i either do, or endeavour to do these things, certainly i should have little hope of obtaining salvation. 62 but to oblige any man under pain of damnation to forsake a church by reason of such errors, against which christ thought it superfluous to promise his assistance, and for which he neither denies his grace here, nor his glory hereafter, what is it but to make the narrow way to heaven, narrower than christ left it? ans. it is not: for christ himself hath obliged us hereunto: he hath forbade us under pain of damnation to profess what we believe not, & consequently under the same penalty, to leave that communion, in which we cannot remain without this hypocritical profession of those things, which we are convinced to be erroneous. but then beside, it is here falsely supposed, (as hath been showed already) that christ hath not promised assistance to those that seek it, but only in matters simply necessary. neither is there any reason, why any church, even in this world, should despair of victory over all errors pernicious or noxious; provided she humbly and earnestly implore divine assistance, depend wholly upon it, and be not wanting to it. though a triumph over all sin and error, that is, security that she neither doth nor can err, be rather to be desired then hoped for on earth, being a felicity reserved for heaven. 63 ad §. 21. but at least the roman church is as infallible as protestants, and protestants as fallible as the roman church: therefore to forsake the roman church for errors, what is it but to flit from one erring society to another? ans. the inconsequence of this argument is too apparent: protestants may err as well as the church of rome, therefore they did so! boys in the schools know, that a posse ad esse, the argument follows not. he is equally fallible who believes twice two to be four, as he that believes them to be twenty: yet in this, he is not equally deceived, and he may be certain that he is not so. one architect is no more infallible than another, and yet he is more secure that his work is right and straight who hath made it by the level, than he which hath made it by guess and by chance. so he that forsakes the errors of the church of rome, and therefore renounceth her communion, that he may renounce the profession of her errors, though he knows himself fallible, as well as those whom he hath forsaken, yet he may be certain (as certain as the nature of the thing will bear) that he is not herein deceived: because he may see the doctrine forsaken by him repugnant to scripture, and the doctrine embraced by him consonant to it. at least, this he may know, that the doctrine which he hath chosen to him seems true, and the contrary which he hath forsaken, seems false: and therefore without remorse of conscience, he may profess that, but this he cannot. 64 but we are to remember, that according to d. potter the visible church hath a blessing not to err in fundamentals, in which any private reformer may fail, therefore there● was no necessity of forsaking the church, out of whose communion they were exposed to danger of falling into many more, and even into damnable errors. ans. the visible church is free indeed from all errors absolutely destructive and unpardonable, but not from all error which in itself is damnable: not from all which will actually bring damnation upon them, that keep themselves in them, by their own voluntary and avoidable fault. from such errors which are thus damnable d. potter doth no where say, that the visible church hath any privilege or exemption. nay you yourself teach, that he plainly teacheth the contrary, and thereupon will allow him to be no more charitable to papists, than papists are to protestants: and yet upon this affected mistake your discourse is founded in almost forty places of your book. besides, any private man who truly believes the scripture, and seriously endeavours to know the will of god, and to do it, is as secure as the visible church, more secure than your church from the danger of erring in fundamentals: for it is impossible, that any man so qualified should fall into any error which to him will prove damnable. for god requires no more of any man to his salvation, but his true endeavour to be saved. lastly, abiding in your church's communion is so far from securing me or any man from damnable error, that if i should abide in it, i am certain i could not be saved. for abide in it i cannot, without professing to believe your entire doctrine true: profess this i cannot, but i must lie perpetually, and exulcerate my conscience. and though your errors were not in themselves damnable, yet to resist the known truth, and to continue in the profession of known errors and false. hoods, is certainly a capital sin, and of great affinity with the sin which shall never be forgiven. 95 but neither is the church of protestants perfectly free from errors and corruptions: so the doctor confesses p. 69. which he can only excuse, by saying, they are not fundamental, as likewise those in the roman church, are confessed not to be fundamental. and what man of judgement will be a protestant, since that church is confessedly a corrupted one? ans. and yet you yourself make large discourses in this very chapter, to persuade protestants to continue in the church of rome, though supposed to have some corruptions. and why i pray, may not a man of judgement continue in the communion of a church confessedly corrupted, as well as in a church supposed to be corrupted? especially when this church supposed to be corrupted, requires the belief and profession of her supposed corruptions, as the condition of her communion: which this church confessedly corrupted, doth not. what man of judgement will think it any disparagement, to his judgement to prefer the better, though not simply the best, before that which is stark naught? to prefer indifferent good health, before a diseased and corrupted state of body? to prefer a field not perfectly weeded, before a field that is quite overrun with weeds and thorns? and therefore though protestants have some errors, yet seeing they are neither so great as yours, nor imposed with such tyranny, nor maintained with such obstinacy; he that conceives it any disparagement to his judgement, to change your communion for theirs, though confessed to have some corruptions, it may well be presumed that he hath but little judgement. for, as for your pretence that yours are confessed not to be fundamental, it is an affected mistake, as already i have often told you. 66 ad §. 22. but d. potter says it is comfort enough for the church, that the lord in mercy will secure her from all capital dangers: but she may not hope to triumph over all sin and error, till she be in heaven. now if it be comfort enough, to be secured from all capital dangers, which can arise only from error in fundamental points, why were not our first reformers content with enough, but would needs dismember the church, out of apernitious greediness of more then enough? ans. i have already showed sufficiently, how capital danger may arise from errors, though not fundamental. i add now, that what may be enough for men in ignorance, may be to knowing men not enough: according to that of the gospel, to whom much is given, of him much shall be required: that the same error may be not capital to those who want means of finding the truth, and capital to others who have means, and neglect to use them: that to continue in the profession of error discovered to be so, may be damnable, though the error be not so. these i presume are reasons enough, and enough why the first reformers might think; and justly, that not enough for themselves, which yet to some of their predecessors they hope might be enough. this very argument was objected to a s. cyprian: ep. 63. in these words, s●quis de antecessoribus nostris, vel ●gnoranteivel simpliciter non hoc observavit, & tenuit quod nos dominus facere exemplo & magisterio suo docuit potest simplicitati ejus de indulgentia domini, venia concedi: nobis verò non potest ignosci, qui nunc à domino admoniti & instructi sumus. s. cyprian upon another occasion, and also by the b wilfridu●, to abbot colman alleging that he followed the example of his predecessors famous for holiness; and famous for miracles, in these words, de patre vestry columba & sequacibus eius, quorum sanctitatem vos ●mitari & regulam ac praecepta caelestibus signis confirmata sequi perhibetis, possum respondere; quia multis in judicio dicentibus domino quòd in nomine eius prophetaverint & daemonia ejecerint, & virtutes multas fecerint, responsurus sit dominus, quia nunquam eos noverit. sed absit ut de patribas vestris hoc dicam, quia iustius multo est de incognitis bonum credere quam malum. vnde & illos dei famulos & deo dilectos esse non nego, qui simplicitate rusticâ sed intentione piâ deum dilexerunt: neque illis multum obesse paschae talem reor observantiam, quandiù ●ullus advenerat qui ei● instituti perfectioris deoreta quae sequerentur, ostenderet. quos uti credo, fi qui tunc ad eos cathòlicus calculator adveniret, sic eius mo●ita fuisse secuturos, quomodoea quae noverant ac didicerunt dei mandata, probantu● fuisse secuti. tu autem & socij ●ui si audita decreta sedis apostolicae, imo universalis ecclesiae & haec literis sacris confirmata contemnitis, a●sque ulla dubietate peccatis. british quartodecimen, to the maintainers of the doctrine of your church; and c beda: lib. 3. eccl. hist. c. 25. by both this very answer was returned; and therefore i cannot but hope that for their sakes you will approve it. 67 but if (as the doctor says) no church may hope to triumph over all error ti● she be in heaven, than we must either grant, that errors not fundamental cannot yield sufficient cause to forsake the church, or you must affirm that all communities may and aught to be forsaken. answ. the doctor does not say, that no church may hope to be free from all error, either pernicious, or any way noxious: but that no church may hope to be secure from all error simply, for this were indeed truly totriumph over all. but then we say not, that the communion of any church is to be forsaken for errors unfundamentall, unless it exact withal either a dissimulation of the being noxious; or a profession of them against the dictate of conscience, if they be mere errors. this if the church does (as certainly yours doth,) than her communion is to be forsaken, rather than the sin of hypocrisy to be committed. whereas to forsake the churches of protestants for such errors, there is no necessity, because they err to themselves, & do not under pain of excommunication exact the profession of their errors. 68 but the church may not be left by reason of sin, therefore neither by reason of errors not fundamental: in as much as both sin and error are impossible to be avoided till she be in heaven. ans. the reason of the consequence does not appear to me: but i answer to the antecedent: neither for sin nor errors, ought a church to be forsaken, if she does not impose and enjoin them: but if she do, (as the roman does,) than we must forsake men rather than god; leave the church's communion rather than commit sin, or profess known errors, to be divine truths. for the prophet ezechiel hath assured us, that to say, the lord hath said so, when the lord hath not said so, is a great sin, and a high presumption, be the matter never so small. 69 ad §. 23. but neither the quality nor the number of your church's errors, could warrant our forsaking of it. not the quality, because we suppose them not fundamental. not the number, because the foundation is strong enough to support them. ans. here again you vainly suppose, that we conceive your errors in themselves not damnable: though we hope they are not absolutely unpardonable: but to say they are pardonable, is indeed to suppose them damnable. secondly, though the errors of your church did not warrant our departure, yet your tyrannous imposition of them, would be our sufficient justification. for this lays necessity on us, either to forsake your company, or to profess what we know to be false. 70 our blessed saviour hath declared his will, that we forgive a private offender seventy seven times, that is, without limitation of quantity of time, or quality of trespasses; and thou how dare we allege his command, that we must not pardon his church for errors acknowledged to be not fundamental? ans. he that commands us to pardon our brother sinning against us so often, will not allow us for his sake to sin with him, so much as once. he will have us do any thing but sin, rather than offend any man. but his will is also, that we offend all the world, rather than sin in the least matter. and therefore though his will were, and it were in our power (which yet is false) to pardon the errors of an erring church; yet certainly it is not his will, that we should err with the church, or if we do not, that we should against conscience profess the errors of it. 71 ad §. 24. but schismatics from the church of england or any other church, with this very answer, that they forsake not the church but the errors of it, may cast off from themselves the imputation of schism. ans. true, they may make the same answer, and the same defence as we do, as a murderer can cry not guilty, as well as an innocent person, but not so truly nor so justly. the question is, not what may be pretended, but what can be proved by schismatics. they may object errors to other churches, as well as we do to yours, but that they prove their accusation so strongly as we can, that appears not. to the priests and elders of the jews, imposing that sacred silence mentioned in the acts of the apostles, s. peter and s. john answered they must obey god rather than men. the three children to the king of babylon, gave in effect the same answer. give me now any factious hypocrite, who makes religion the pretence and cloak of his rebellion, and who sees not that such a one may answer for himself, in those very formal words, which the holy apostles and martyrs made use of. and yet i presume no christian will deny, but this answer was good, in the mouth of the apostles and martyrs, though it were obnoxious to be abused, by traitors and rebels. certainly therefore, it is no good consequence to say, schismatics may make use of this answer, therefore all that do make use of it are schismatics. but moreover, it is to be observed, that the chief part of our defence, that you deny your communion to all that deny or doubt of any part of your doctrine, cannot with any colour be employed against protestants: who grant their communion to all who hold with them, not all things, but things necessary, that is, such as are in scripture plainly delivered. 72 but the forsaking the roman church opens a way to innumerable sects and schisms, and therefore it must not be forsaken. ans. we must not do evil to avoid evil: neither are all courses presently lawful, by which inconveniences may be avoided. if all men would submit themselves to the chief mufty of the turks, it is apparent, there would be no divisions; yet unity is not to be purchased at so dear a rate. it were a thing much to be desired, that there were no divisions: yet difference of opinions touching points controverted, is rather to be chosen, then unanimous concord in damned errors: as it is better for men to go to heaven by divers ways, or rather by diverse paths of the same way, then in the same path to go on peaceably to hell. amica pax, magis amica veritas! 73 but there can be no just cause to forsake the church, so the doctor grants: who notwithstanding teacheth that the church may err in points not fundamental; therefore neither is the roman church to be forsaken for such errors. ans. there can be no just cause to forsake the church absolutely and simply in all things, that is, to cease being a member of the church: this i grant, if it will do you any service. but that there can be no just cause to forsake the church in some things, or (to speak more properly) to forsake some opinions and practices, which some true church retains and defends; this i deny, and you mistake the doctor if you think he affirms it. 74 ad § 26. 27. what prodigious doctrines (say you) are these? those protestants who believe that your church erred in points necessary to salvation, and for that cause left her, cannot be excused from damnable schism: but others, etc. prodigious doctrines indeed! but who i pray are they that teach them? where does d. potter accuse those protestants of damnable schism, who left your church because they hold it erroneous in necessary points? what protestant is there that holds not that you taught things contrary to the plain precepts of christ; both ceremonial, in mutilating the communion; and moral, in points of superstition & idolatry, and most bloody tyranny? which is without question to err in necessary matters. neither does d. potter accuse any man of schism for holding so: if he should, he should call himself a schismatique. only he says, such (if there be any such) as affirm, that ignorant souls among you, who had no means to know the truth, cannot possibly be saved, that their wisdom and charity cannot be justified. now you yourself have plainly affirmed, that ignorant protestants dying with contrition may be saved; and yet would be unwilling to be thought to say, that protestants err in no points necessary to salvation. for that may be in itself, and in ordinary course, where there are means of knowledge, necessary, which to a man invincibly ignorant, will prove not necessary. again, where doth d. potter suppose (as you make him) that there were other protestants, who believed that your church had no errors? or, where does he say they did well to forsake her, upon this ridiculous reason, because they judged that she retained all means necessary to salvation? do you think us so stupid, as that we cannot distinguish between that which d. potter says, and that which you make him say? he vindicates protestants from schism two ways: the one is, because they had just and great and necessary cause to separate, which schismatics never have; because they that have it are no schismatics: for schism is always a causeless separation. the other is, because they did not join with their separation, an uncharitable damning of all those from whom they did divide themselves, as the manner of schismatics is. now that which he intends for a circumstance of our separation, you make him, make the cause of it, and the motive to it. and whereas he says, though we separate from you in some things, yet we acknowledge your church a member of the body of christ, and therefore are not schismatics: you make him say most absurdly, we did well to forsake you, because we judged you a member of the body of christ. just as if a brother should leave his brother's company in some ill courses, and should say to him, herein i forsake you, yet i leave you not absolutely, for i acknowledge you still to be my brother, and shall use you as a brother: and you perverting his speech, should pretend that he had said, i leave your company in these ill courses, and i do well to do so, because you are my brother: so making that the cause of his leaving him, which indeed is the cause that he left him no farther. 75 but you say, the very reason for which he acquitteth himself from schism, is because he holds that the church which they forsook, is not cut off from the body of christ. ans. this is true: but can you not perceive a difference between justifying his separation from schism by this reason, and making this the reason of his separation? if a man denying obedience in some unlawful matter to his lawful sovereign, should say to him, herein i disobey you, but yet i am no rebel, because i acknowledge you my sovereign lord, and am ready to obey you in all things lawful, should not he be an egregious sycophant, that should accuse him as if he had said, i do well to disobey you, because i acknowledge you my lawful sovereign? certainly he that joins this acknowledgement with his necessitated disobedience, does well; but he that makes this consideration the reason of his disobedience, doth ill. urge therefore this (as you call it) most solemn foppery as far as you please: for every understanding reader will easily perceive that this is no foppery of d. potter's, but a calumny of yours; from which he is as far, as he is from holding yours to be the true church: whereas it is a sign of a great deal of charity in him, that he allows you to be a part of it. 76 and whereas you pretend to find such unspeakable comfort here▪ in, that we cannot clear ourselves from schism, otherwise then by acknowledging that they do not, nor cannot cut off your church from the hope of salvation: i beseech you to take care that this false comfort cost you not too dear. for why this good opinion of god almighty, that he will not damn men for error, who were without their own fault ignorant of the truth, should be any consolation to them, who having the key of knowledge, will neither use it themselves, nor permit others to use it; who have eyes to see and will not see, who have cares to hear and will not hear! this i assure you passeth my capacity to apprehend. neither is this to make our salvation depend on yours, but only ours and yours not desperately inconsistent. nor to say we must be damned unless you may be saved; but that we assure ourselves, if our lives be answerable, we shall be saved by our knowledge. and that we hope (and i tell you again spes est reiincertae nomen,) that some of you may possibly be the rather saved by occasion of their unaffected ignorance. 77 for our brethren whom you say we condemn of heresy for denying the church's perpetuity, we know none that do so: unless you conceive a corrupted church to be none at all; and if you do, then for aught i know, in your account we must be all heretics; for all of us acknowledge that the church might be corrupted even with errors in themselves damnable, and not only might, but hath been. 78 but schism consists in being divided from that true church, with which a man agreeth in all points of faith: now we must profess you agree with the church of rome in all fundamental articles; therefore we are schismatics. ans. either in your major, by all points of faith, you mean all fundamental points only, or all simply and absolutely. if the former, i deny your major: for i may without all schism divide from that church which errs in any point of faith fundamental or otherwise, if she require the profession of this error among the conditions of her communion. now this is our case. if the latter, i deny the syllogism, as having manifestly four terms, and being cousin german to this, he that obeys god in all things, is innocent; titius obeys god in some things; therefore he is innocent. 79 but they who judge a reconciliation with the church of rome to be damnable, they that say there might be just and necessary cause to depart from it, and that they of that church which have understanding & means to discover their error, and neglect to use them, are not to be flattered with hope of salvation; they do cut off that church from the body of christ and the hope of salvation, and so are schismatics: but d. potter doth the former; therefore is a schismatique. ans. no, he doth not: not cut off that whole church from the hope of salvation, not those members of it who were invincibly, or excusably ignorant of the truth; but those only who having understanding and means to discover their error, neglect to use them. now these are not the whole church; & therefore he that, supposing their impenitence, cuts these off from hope of salvation, cannot be justly said to cut off that whole church from the body of christ, and the hope of salvation. 80 ad § 28. 29. whereas d. potter says, there is a great difference between a schism from them, and a reformation of ourselves: this you ●ay is a acquaint subtlety by which all schism and sin may be as well excused. it seems then in your judgement, that thiefs and adulterers, and murderers, and traitors may say with as much probability as protestants, that they did no hurt to others, but only reform themselves. but then me thinks it is very strange, that all protestants should agree with one consent in this defence of themselves from the imputation of schism: and that to this day, never any thief or murderer should have been heard of to make use of this apology! and then for schismatics i would know, whether victor bishop of rome, who excommunicated the churches of asia for not conforming to his church in keeping easter; whether novatian that divided from cornelius, upon pretence that himself was elected bishop of rome, when indeed he was not; whether felicissimus and his crew, that went out of the church of carthage, and set up altar against altar, because having fallen in persecution, they might not be restored to the peace of the church presently, upon the intercession of the confessors; whether the donatists, who divided from, and damned all the world, because all the world would not excommunicate them who were accused only and not convicted to have been traditors of the sacred books; whether they which for the slips & infirmity of others, which they might and ought to tolerate, or upon some difference in matters of order & ceremony, or for some error in doctrine, neither pernicious nor hurtful to faith or piety, separate themselves from others, or others from themselves; or lastly, whether they that put themselves out of the church's unity and obedience, because their opinions are not approved there, but reprehended and confuted, or because being of impious conversation, they are impatient of their church's censure: i would know i say, whether all, or any of these, may with any face or without extreme impudence, put in this plea of protestants, and pretend with as much likelihood as they, that they did not separate from others, but only reform themselves? but suppose they were so impudent as to say so in their own defence falsely, doth it follow by any good logic, that therefore this apology is not to be employed by protestants, who may say so truly? we make (say they) no schism from you, but only a reformation of ourselves: this, you reply, is no good justification, because it may be pretended by any schismatique. very true, any schismatique that can speak may say the same words, (as any rebel that makes conscience the cloak of his impious disobedience, may say with s. peter and s. john, we must obey god rather than men;) but then the question is, whether any schismatic may say so truly? and to this question you say just nothing: but conclude, because this defence may be abused by some, it must be used by none. as if you should have said, s. peter and s. john did ill to make such an answer as they made, because impious hypocrites might make use of the same to palliate their disobedience and rebellion against the lawful commands of lawful authority. 81 but seeing their pretended reformation consisted in forsaking the church's corruptions, their reformation of themselves, and their dividivision from you, falls out to be one and the same thing.) just as if two men having been a long while companions in drunkenness, one of them should turn sober; this reformation of himself, and disertion of his companion, in this ill custom, would be one and the same thing, and yet there is no necessity that he should leave his love to him at all, or his society in other things. so protestants forsaking their own former corruptions, which were common to them with you, could not choose but withal forsake you in the practice of these corruptions: yet this they might, and would have done without breach of charity towards you; and without a renunciation of your company in any act of piety and devotion, confessedly lawful. and therefore though both these were by accident joined together, yet this hinders not but that the end they aimed at, was not a separation from you, but a reformation of themselves. 82 neither doth their disagreement in the particulars of the reformation, (which yet when you measure it without partiality, you will find to be far short of infinite) nor their symbolising in the general of forsaking your corruptions, prove any thing to the contrary, or any way advantage your design or make for your purpose. for it is not any sign at all, much less an evident sign, that they had no settled design, but only to forsake the church of rome: for nothing but malice can deny, that their intent at least was, to reduce religion to that original purity from which it was fallen. the declination from which, some conceiving to have begun (though secretly) in the apostles times, (the mystery of iniquity being then in work;) and after their departure to have showed itself more openly: others again believing, that the church continued pure for some ages after the apostles, & then declined: and consequently some aiming at an exact conformity with the apostolic times: others thinking they should do god and men good service, could they reduce the church to the condition of the fourth & fifth ages: some taking their direction in this work of reformation, only from scripture; others from the writings of fathers, and the decrees of counsels of the first five ages: certainly it is no great marvel, that there was, as you say, disagreement between them, in the particulars of their reformation; nay morally speaking, it was impossible it should be otherwise. yet let me tell you, the difference between them (especially in comparison of your church and religion,) is not the difference between good and bad, but between good and better: and they did best that followed scripture, interpreted by catholic written tradition: which rule the reformers of the church of england, proposed to themselves to follow. 83 ad § 30. 31. 32. to this effect d. potter, p. 81. 82. of his book, speaks thus. if a monastery should reform itself, and should reduce into practice ancient good discipline, when others would not: in this case could it be charged with schism from others, or with apostasy from its rule and order? so in a society of men universally infected with some disease; they that should free themselves from it, could they be therefore said to separate from the society? he presumes they could not, and from hence concludes, that neither can the reformed churches be truly accused for making a schism, (that is separating from the church, and making themselves no members of it) if all they did was (as indeed it was) to reform themselves. which cases i believe any understanding man will plainly see to have in them an exact parity of reason, and that therefore the argument drawn from them is pressing and un-answerable. and it may well be suspected, that you were partly of this mind, otherwise you would not have so presumed upon the simplicity of your reader as, pretending to answer it, to put another of your own making in place of it, and then to answer that. 84 this you do §. 31. 32. of this chapter, in these words, i was very glad to find you in a monastery, etc. where i beseech the reader to observe these things to detect the cunning of your tergiversation: first, that you have no reason to say, that you found d. potter in a monastery: and as little, that you find him inventing ways how to forsake his vocation, and to maintain the lawfulness of schism from the church, and apostasy from a religious order. certainly the innocent case put by the doctor, of a monastery reforming itself, hath not deserved such grievous accusations. unless reformation with you be all one with apostasy: and to forsake sin and disorder, be to forsake one's vocation. and surely if it be so, your vocations are not very lawful, and your religious orders not very religious. secondly, that you quite pervert and change d. potter's cases, and in stead of the case, of a whole monastery reforming itself, when other monasteries of their order would not; and of some men freeing themselves from the common disease of their society, when others would not: you substitute two others, which you think you can better deal with; of some particular monks, upon pretence of the neglect of lesser monastical observances, going out of their monastery, which monastery yet did confessedly observe their substantial vows, and all principal statutes: and of a diseased person, quitting the company of those that were infected with the same disease: though in their company, there was no danger from his disease, it being impossible that should be mortal: and out of it, no hope of escaping others like that for which he forsook the first infected company. i appeal now to any indifferent judge, whether these cases be the same or near the same with d. potters? whether this be fair and ingenuous dealing, in stead of his two instances, which plainly showed it possible in other societies, and consequently in that of the church, to leave the faults of a society, and not leave being of it, to foist in two others, clean cross to the doctor's purpose, of men under colour of faults, abandoning the society wherein they lived? i know not what others may think of this dealing, but to me, this declining d. potter's cases and conveying others into their place, is a great assurance, that as they were put by him, you could say nothing to them. 85 but that no suspicion of tergiversation may be fastened upon me, i am content to deal with you a little, at your own weapons. put the case then, though not just as you would have it, yet with as much ●avour to you, as in reason you can expect, that a monastery did observe her substantial vows, and all principal statutes, but yet did generally practise, and also enjoin the violation of some lesser, yet obliging observances, and had done so time out of mind. and that some inferior monks more conscientious than the rest, discovering this abuse, should first with all earnestness solicit their superiors for a general and orderly reformation of these, though small and venial corruptions, yet corruptions: but finding they hoped and laboured in vain to effect this, should reform these faults in themselves, and refuse to join in the practice of them, with the rest of their confraternity, and persisting resolutely in such a refusal, should by their superiors be cast out of their monastery, and being not to be readmitted without a promise of remitting from their stiffness in these things, and of condescending to others in the practice of their small faults, should choose rather to continue exiles, then to re-enter upon such conditions: i would know whether you would condemn such men of apostasy from the order? without doubt if you should, you would find the stream of your casuists against you, and beside, involve s. paul in the same condemnation, who plainly tells, that we may not do the least evil, that we may do the greatest good. put case again, you should be part of a society universally infected with some disease, and discovering a certain remedy for this disease, should persuade the whole company to make use of it, but find the greatest part of them so far in love with their disease, that they were resolved to keep it and beside, should make a decree, that whosoever would leave it, should leave their company. suppose now that yourself and some few others, should notwithstanding their injunction to the contrary, free yourselves from this disease, and thereupon they should absolutely forsake and reject you: i would know in this case who deserves to be condemned, whether you of uncharitable desertion of your company, or they of a tyrannical peevishness? and if in these cases you will (as i verily believe you will,) acquit the inferiors and condemn the superiors, absolve the minor part and condemn the major, then can you with no reason condemn protestant's, for choosing rather to be ejected from the communion of the roman church, then with her to persist (as of necessity they were to do, if they would continue in her communion) in the profession of errors, though not destructive of salvation, yet hindering edification, and in the practice, or at least approbation of many, (suppose not mortal) but venial corruptions. 86 thirdly, that you censure too partially the corrupt estate of your church, in comparing it to a monastery, which did confessedly observe their substantial vows, and all principal statutes of their order, and moreover was secured by an infallible assistance, for the avoiding of all substantial corruptions: for of your church we confess no such matter, but say plainly, that she not only might fall into substantial corruptions, but did so; that she did not only generally violate, but of all the members of her communion, either in act or approbation, require and exact the violation of many substantial laws of christ, both ceremonial and moral, which though we hope it was pardonable in them, who had not means to know their error, yet of its own nature, and to them who did or might have known their error, was certainly damnable. and that it was not the tithing of mint, and anise, and cummin, the neglect whereof we impute unto you, but the neglect of judgement, justice, and the weightier matters of the law. 87 fourthly, i am to represent unto you, that you use protestants very strangely, in comparing them to a company, who all were known to be led to their pretended reformation, not with an intent of reformation, but with some other sinister intention; which is impossible to be known of you, and therefore to judge so, is against christian charity, and common equity: and to such a company as acknowledge that themselves, as soon as they were gone out from the monastery that deferred to reform, must not hope to be free from those or the like errors, and corruptions for which they left their brethren: seeing this very hope and nothing else, moved them to leave your communion: and this speech of yours, so far as it concerns the same errors, plainly destroys itself. for how can they possibly fall into the same errors by forsaking your communion, which that they may forsake they do forsake your communion? and then for other errors of the like nature and quality, or more enormous than yours, though they deny it not possible, but by their negligence and wickedness they may fall into them, yet they are so far from acknowledging that they have no hope to avoid this mischief, that they proclaim to all the world, that it is most prone and easy to do so, to all those that fear god and love the truth; and hardly possible for them to do otherwise, without supine negligence and extreme impiety. 88 to fit the reddition of your perverted simile, to the proposition of it, you tell us that we teach that for all fundamental points, the church is secured from error. i answer, fundamental errors may signify, either such as are repugnant to god's command, and so in their own nature damnable, though to those which out of invincible ignorance practise them, not unpardonable: or such as are not only meritoriously, but remedilessely pernicious and destructive of salvation. we hope that yours and the greek & other churches before the reformation, had not so far apostated from christ, as to be guilty of errors of the latter sort. we say that not only the catholic church, but every particular true church, so long as it continues a church, is secured from fundamental errors of this kind, but secured not absolutely by any promise of divine assistance, which being not ordinarily irresistible, but tempered to the nature of the receivers, may be neglected, and therefore withdrawn: but by the repugnance of any error in this sense fundamental to the essence and nature of a church. so that to speak properly, not any set known company of men is secured, that, though they neglect the means of avoiding error, yet certainly they shall not err, which were necessary for the constitution of an infallible guide of faith: but rather they which know what is meant by a church, are secured or rather certain that a church remaining a church, cannot fall into fundamental error, because when it does so, it is no longer a church. as they are certain that men cannot become unreasonable creatures, because when they do so, they are no longer men. but for fundamental errors of the former sort, which yet i hope will warrant our departure from any communion infected with them, and requiring the profession of them, from such fundamental errors, we do not teach so much as that the church catholic, much less, (which only were for your purpose,) that your church hath any protection or security, but know for a certain, that many errors of this nature, had prevailed against you; and that a vain presumption of an absolute divine assistance (which yet is promised but upon conditions,) made both your present errors incurable, and exposed you to the imminent danger of more & greater. this therefore is either to abuse what we say, or to impose falsely upon us what we say not. and to this you presently add another manifest falsehood, viz. that we say, that no particular person or church, hath any promise of assistance in points fundamental. whereas cross to this in diameter, there is no protestant but holds, and must hold, that there is no particular church, no nor person, but hath promise of divine assistance to lead them into all necessary truth; if they seek it as they should, by the means which god hath appointed. and should we say otherwise, we should contrary plain scripture, which assures us plainly, that every one that seeketh findeth, and every one that asketh receiveth: and that if we being evil, can give good gifts to our children, much more shall our heavenly father, give his spirit to them that ask it: and that if any man want wisdom (especially spiritual wisdom) he is to ask of god, who giveth to all men, and upbraideth not. 89 you obtrude upon us thirdly, that when luther began, he being but one, opposed himself to all, as well subjects as superiors. ans. if he did so in the cause of god, it was heroically done of him. this had been without hyperbolising, mundus contra athanasium, and athanasius contra mundum: neither is it impossible, that the whole world should so far lie in wickedness (as s. john speaks) that it may be lawful and noble for one man to oppose the world. but yet were we put to our oaths, we should surely not testify any such thing for you; for how can we say properly and without streining, that he opposed himself to all, unless we could say also, that all opposed themselves to him? and how can we say so, seeing the world can witness, that so many thousands, nay millions followed his standard as soon as it was advanced? 90 but, none that lived immediately before him thought or spoke as he did. this is first nothing to the purpose. the church was then corrupted, and sure it was no dishonour to him to begin the reformation. in the christian warfare, every man ought to strive to be foremost. secondly, it is more than you can justify. for though no man before him lifted up his voice like a trumpet, as luther did, yet who can assure us, but that many before him, both thought and spoke in lower voice of petitions and remonstrances, in many points, as he did? 91 fourthly and lastly, whereas you say that many chief learned protestants, are forced to confess the antiquity of your doctrine and practice: i answer, of many doctrines and practices of yours, this is not true, not pretended to be true by those that have dealt in this argument. search your storehouse m. brerely, who hath travailed as far in this northwest discovery, as it was possible for humane industry, and when you have done so, i pray inform me, what confessions of protestants have you, for the antiquity of the doctrine of the communion in one kind: the lawfulness and expedience of the latin service: for the present use of indulgences: for the pope's power in temporalties over princes: for the picturing of the trinity: for the lawfulness of the worship of pictures: for your beads and rosary, and lady's psalter; and in a word, for your whole worship of the b. virgin: for your oblations by way of consumption, & therefore in the quality of sacrifices to the virgin mary & other saints: for your saying of pater-nosters, & creeds to the honour of saints, and of ave-maries' to the honour of other saints besides the blessed virgin: for infallibility of the bishop or church of rome: for your prohibiting the scripture to be read publicly in the church, in such languages as all may understand: for your doctrine of the blessed virgins immunity from actual sin; and for your doctrine and worship of her immaculate conception: for the necessity of auricular confession: for the necessity of the priest's intention to obtain benefit by any of your sacraments: and lastly (not to trouble myself with finding out more) for this very doctrine of licentiousness, that though a man live and dye without the practice of christian virtues, and with the habits of many damnable sins unmortified, yet if he in the last moment of life, have any sorrow for his sins, and join confession with it, certainly he shall be saved? secondly, they that confess some of your doctrines to have been the doctrine of the fathers, may be mistaken, being abused by may words and phrases of the fathers, which have the roman sound, when they are far from the sense. some of them i am sure are so, i will name goulartius, who in his commentaries on s. cyprian's 35. ep. grants that the sentence heresies have sprung, etc. quoted by you §. 36. of this chapter▪ was meant of cornelius: whereas it will be very plain to any attentive reader, that s. cyprian speaks there of himself. thirdly, though some protestants confess some of your doctrine to be ancient, yet this is nothing, so long as it is evident, even by the confession of all sides, that many errors, i instance in that of the millenaries, and the communicating of infants, were more ancient. not any antiquity therefore, unless it be absolute and primitive, is a certain sign of true doctrine. for if the church were obnoxious to corruption (as we pretend it was,) who can possibly warrant us that part of this corruption, might not get in and prevail in the 5. or 4. or 3. or 2. age? especially seeing the a-apostles assure us that the mystery of iniquity was working, though more secretly even in their times. if any man ask how could it become universal in so short a time? let him tell me how the error of the millenaries, and the communicating of infants, became so soon universal, and then he shall acknowledge, what was done in some, was possible in others. lastly, to cry quittance with you: as there are protestant's who confess the antiquity, but always post-na●e to apostolic, of some points of your doctrine: so there want not papists who acknowledge as freely, the novelty of many of them, and the antiquity of ours. a collection of whose testimony, we have (without thanks to you) in your indices expurgatorij: the divine providence, blessedly abusing for the readier manifestation of the truth this engine intended by you for the subversion and suppression of it. here is no place to stand upon particulars: only one general ingenuous confession of that great erasmus, may not be passed over in silence. non de sunt magni theologi, qui non verentur affirmare, nihil esse in luthero, quin per probatos authores defendi possit. erasm. ep. lib. 15. ep. add good schalcum. ros. there want not great divines, which stick not to affirm, that there is nothing in luther, which may not be defended by good and allowed authors. whereas therefore you close up this simile with, consider these points, and see whether your similitude do not condemn your progenitors of schism from god's visible church: i assure you, i have well considered them, and do plainly see that this is not d. potters similitude, but your own; and beside, that it is wholly made up of mistakes and falsehoods, and is at no hand a sufficient proof of this great accusation. 92 let us come now to the second similitude of your making, in the entrance whereunto you tell us, that from the monastery d. potter is fled to an hospital of persons universally infected with some disease, where he finds to be true, what you supposed, that after his departure from his brethren, he might fall into greater inconveniences, and more infectious diseases than those for which he left them. thus you. but to deal truly with you, i find nothing of all this, nor how it is consequent from any thing said by you, or done by d. potter. but this i find, that you have composed this your similitude as you did the former, of a heap of vain suppositions, pretended to be grounded on our confessions. as first, that your diseases which we for sook, neither were nor could be mortal: whereas we assure ourselves, and are ready to justify, that they are and were mortal in themselves, and would have been so to us, if when light came to us we had loved darkness more than light. and d. potter though he hope your church wanted no necessary vital part, that is, that some in your church by ignorance might be saved; yet he nothing doubts but that it is full of ulcers without, and diseases within, and is so far from extenuating your errors as to make them only like the superfluous fingers of the giant of gath. secondly, that we had no hope to avoid other diseases like those for which we forsook your company, nor to be secure out of it from damnable errors: whereas the hope hereof was the only motive our departure; and we assure ourselves that the means to be secured from damnable error, is not to be secure as you are, but carefully to use those means of avoiding it, to which god hath promised, and will never fail to give a blessing. thirdly, that those innumerable mischiefs which followed upon the departure of protestants, were caused by it as by a proper cause: whereas their doctrine was no otherwise the occasion of them, than the gospel of christ of the division of the world. the only fountain of all these mischiefs, being indeed no other than your pouring out a flood of persecutions against protestants, only because they would not sin & be damned with you for company. unless we may add the impatience of some protestants, who not enduring to be torn in pieces like sheep by a company of wolves without resistance, chose rather to dye like soldiers than martyrs. 93 but you proceed, and falling into a fit of admiration, cry out & say thus, to what pass hath heresy brought men, who blush not to compare the beloved spouse of the lord, the only dove, etc. to a monastery that must be forsaken; to the giant in gath with superfluous fingers! but this spouse of christ, this only dove, this purchase of our saviour's blood, this catholic church, which you thus almost deify, what is it but a society of men, whereof every particular, and by consequence, the whole company is or may be guilty of many sins daily committed against knowledge & conscience? now i would fain understand why one error in faith, especially if not fundamental, should not consist with the holiness of this spouse, this dove, this church, as well as many and great sins committed against knowledge and conscience? if this be not to strain at gnats and swallow camels, i would fain understand what it is! and hereby the way i desire you to consider whether as it were with one stroke of a sponge you do not wipe out all that you have said, to prove protestants schismatics for separating from your church, though supposed to be in some errors not fundamental! for if any such error may make her deserve to be compared to a monastery so disordered that it must be forsaken; then if you suppose (as here you do) your church in such errors, your church is so disordered that it must, and therefore without question may be forsaken, i mean in those her disorders and corruptions, and no farther. 94 and yet you have not done with those similitudes, but must observe (you say) one thing, and that is, that as these reformers of the monastery, and others who left the diseased company, could not deny but that they left the said communities: so luther and the rest cannot pretend, not to have left the visible church. and that d. potter speaks very strangely when he says, in a society of men universally infected with some disease, they that should free themselves from the common disease, could not be therefore said to separate from the society. for if they do not separate themselves from the society of the infected persons, how do they free themselves from the common disease? to which i answer: that indeed if you speak of the reformers of a monastery and of the deserors of the diseased company, as you put the cases, that is, of those which left these communities, then is it as true as gospel, that they cannot deny but that they left the said communities. but it appears not to me how it will ensue hereupon: that luther and the rest cannot pretend not to have left the visible church. for to my apprehension this argument is very weak, they which left some communities cannot truly deny but that they left them; therefore luther and his followers cannot deny but that they left the visible church. where me thinks you prove little, but take for granted that which is one of the greatest questions amongst us, that is, that the company which luther left, was the whole visible church: whereas you know we say, it was but a part of it, and that corrupted, and obstinate in her corruptions. indeed that luther and his followers left off the practice of those corruptions wherein the whole visible church did communicate formerly, (which i meant when i acknowledged above that they forsook the external communion of the visible church,) or that they left that part of the visible church in her corruptions which would not be reform: these things, if you desire, i shall be willing to grant; and that by a synecdoche of the whole for the part, he might be said to forsake the visible church, that is, a part of it, and the greater part. but that properly speaking, he forsook the whole visible church, i hope you will excuse me if i grant not this, until you bring better proof of it, than your former similitude. and my reason is his, because he and his followers were a part of this church, and ceased not to be so by their reformation. now he and his followers certainly forsook not themselves, therefore not every part of the church, therefore not the whole church. but then if you speak of d. potter's cases, according as he put them, and answer not your own arguments, when you make show of answering his: me thinks it should not be so unreasonable as you make it, for the persons he speaks of to deny that they left the communities whereof they were members. for example, that the monks of s. benet's order make one body, whereof their several monasteries are several members, i presume it will be easily granted. suppose now that all these monasteries being quite out of order, some 20. or 30. of them should reform themselves, the rest persisting still in their irregular couses: were it such a mon. strous impudence as you make it, for these monasteries, which we suppose reform, to deny that they forsook their order or community whereof they were parts? in my opinion it is no such matter. let the world judge. again, whereas the dr says, that in a society of men universally infected with some disease, they that should free themselves from the common disease, could not therefore be said to separate from the society: it is very strange to me that you should say, he speaks very strangely. truly sr i am extremely deceived if his words be not plain english, and plain sense, and contain such a manifest truth as cannot be denied with modesty, nor gone about to be proved without vanity. for whatsoever is proved must be proved by something more evident: now what can be more evident than this; that if some whole families were taken with agues, if the father of this family should free himself from his, that he should not therefore deservedly be thought to abandon and desert his family? but (say you) if they do not separate themselves from the society of the wicked persons, how do they free themselves from the common disease? do they at the same time remain in the company and yet depart from those infected creatures? me thinks a writer of controversies should not be ignorant how this may be done without any such difficulty! but if you do not know, i'll tell you. there is no necessity they should leave the company of these infected persons at all: much less, that they should at once depart from it and remain with it, which i confess were very difficult. but if they will free themselves from their disease, let them stay where they are, and take physic. or if you would be better informed how this strange thing may be done, learn from yourself, they may free their own persons from the common disease, yet so that they remain still in the company infected, eating and drinking with them, etc. which are your own words within four or five lines after this: plainly showing that your mistaking d. potter's meaning, & your wondering at his words as at some strange monsters, was all this while affected, and that you are conscious to yourself of perverting his argument that you may seem to say something, when indeed you say nothing. whereas therefore you add, we must then say that they separate themselves from the persons, though it be by occasion of the disease, i assure you good sir, you must not do so at any hand; for than you alter & spoil d. potter's case quite, and fight not with his reason but your own shadow. for the instance of a man freeing himself from the disease of his company, and not leaving his company, is very fit to prove, by the parity of reason, that it is very possible, a man may leave the corruptions of a church, and not leave the church, that is, not cease to be a member of it: but yours of a man leaving his company by occasion of their disease, hath no analogy at all with this business. 95 but luther & his followers did not continue in the company of those from whose diseases they pretend to free themselves. very true, neither was it said they did so. there is no necessity that that which is compared to another thing should agree with it in all things: it is sufficient if it agree in that wherein it is compared. a man freeing himself from the common disease of a society, and yet continuing a part of it, is here compared to luther and his followers, freeing themselves from the corruptions of the visible church, & continuing a part of the church. as for accompanying the other parts of it in all things, it was neither necessary, nor, without destroying our supposition of their forsaking the corruptions of the church, possible. not necessary; for they may be parts of the church which do not join with other parts of it in all observances. nor possible, for had he accompanied them in all things, he had not freed himself from the common corruptions. 96 but they endeavoured to force the society whereof they were parts to be healed and reform as they were; and if it refused, they did, when they had power drive them away, even their superiors both spiritual and temporal as is notorious. the proofs hereof are wanting and therefore i might defer my answer until they were produced; yet take this before hand: if they did so, then herein, in my opinion, they did amiss; for i have learned from the ancient fathers of the church, that nothing is more against religion then to force religion, & of s. paul, the weapons of the christian warfare are not carnal. and great reason: for humane violence may make men counterfeit, but cannot make them believe, & is therefore fit for nothing but to breed form without, & atheism within. besides, if this means of bringing men to embrace any religion were generally used (as if it may be justly used in any place by those that have power, and think they have truth, certainly they cannot with reason deny but that it may be used in every place, by those that have power as well as they, and think they have truth as well as they,) what could follow but the maintenance perhaps of truth, but perhaps only of the profession of it in one place, & the oppression of it in a hundred? what will follow from it but the preservation peradventure of unity, but peradventure only of uniformity in particular states & churches; but the immortalising the greater and more lamentable divisions of christendom and the world? and therefore what can follow from it, but perhaps in the judgement of carnal policy, the temporal benefit and tranquillity of temporal states and kingdoms, but the infinite prejudice, if not the desolation of the kingdom of christ? and therefore it well becomes them who have their portions in this life, who serve no higher state than that of england, or spain, or france, nor this neither any further than they may serve themselves by it; who think of no other happiness but the preservation of their own fortunes and tranquillity in this world; who think of no other means to preserve states, but humane power and machiavillian policy; and believe no other creed but this, regi aut civitati imperium habenti nihil iniustum, quod utile! such men as these it may become to maintain by worldly power and violence their state instrument, religion. for if all be vain and false, (as in their judgement it is) the present whatsoever, is better than any, because it is already settled: and alteration of it may draw with it change of states, and the change of state the subversion of their fortune. but they that are indeed servants and lovers of christ, of truth, of the church, and of mankind, aught with all courage to oppose themselves against it, as a common enemy of all these. they that know there is a king of kings and lord of lords, by whose will and pleasure kings and kingdoms stand and fall, they know, that to no king or state any thing can be profitable which is unjust; and that nothing can be more evidently unjust, then to force weak men by the profession of a religion which they believe not, to lose their own eternal happiness, out of a vain and needless fear, lest they may possibly disturb their temporal quietness. there is no danger to any state from any man's opinion; unless it be such an opinion by which disobedience to authority, or impiety is taught or licenced, which sort, i confess may justly be punished as well as other faults; or unless this sanguinary doctrine be joined with it, that it is lawful for him by humane violence to enforce others to it. therefore if protestants did offer violence to other men's consciences and compel them to embrace their reformation, i excuse them not: much less if they did so to the sacred persons of kings, and those that were in authority over them, who ought to be so secured from violence, that even their unjust and tyrannous violence, though it may be avoided (according to that of our saviour, when they persecute you in one city fly into another,) yet may it not be resisted by opposing violence against it. protestants therefore that were guilty of this crime are not to be excused, and blessed had they been had they chosen rather to be martyrs than murderers, and to dye for their religion rather than to fight for it. but of all the men in the world you are the most unfit to accuse them hereof, against whom the souls of the martyrs from under the altar cry much louder than against all their other persecutors together: who for these many ages together have daily sacrificed hecatombs of innocent christians, under the name of heretics, to your blind zeal and furious superstition. who teach plainly, that you may propagate your religion whensoever you have power by deposing of kings and invasion of kingdoms, & think when you kill the adversaries of it, you do god good service. but for their departing corporally from them, whom mentally they had forsaken: for their forsaking the external communion & company of that part of the unreformed part of the church, in their superstitions & impieties: thus much of your accusation we embrace & glory in it; and say though some protestants might offend in the manner or the degree of their separation, yet certainly their separation itself was not schismatical, but innocent, and not only so, but just and necessary. and as for your obtruding upon d. potter that he should say, there neither was nor could be just cause to do so, no more then to depart from christ himself. i have showed diverse times already, that you sdeal very injuriously with him, confounding together, departing from the church, and departing from some general opinions and practices, which did not constitute but vitiate, not make the church but mar it. for though he says, that which is most true, that there can be no just cause to depart from the church, that is, to cease being a member of the church, no more then to depart from christ himself, in as much as these are not diverse but the same thing, yet he no where denies, but there might be just and necessary cause to depart from some opinions and practices of your church, nay of the catholic church. and therefore you do vainly to infer, that luther and his followers for so doing, were schismatics. 97 ad § 35. i answer in a word, that neither are optatus his sayings rules of faith, and therefore not fit to determine controversies of faith: and then that majorinus might well be a schismatic for departing from ca cilianus, and the chair of cyprian & peter without cause, and yet luther and his followers who departed from the communion of the bishop of rome, and the bishop of their own diocese be none, because they had just and necessary cause of their departure. for otherwise they must have continued in the profession of known errors and the practice of manifest corruptions. 98 ad § 36. in the next section you tell us, that christ our lord gave s. peter & his successors authority over his whole militant church. and for proof hereof you first refer us to brerely, citing exactly the places of such chief protestants as have confessed the antiquity of this point. where first you fall into the fallacy which is called ignoratio elenchi, or mistaking the question; for being to prove this point true, you only prove it ancient. which, to what purpose is it, when both the parties litigant are agreed that many errors were held by many of the ancient doctors, much more ancient than any of those who are pretended to be confessed by protestants to have held with you in this matter: and when those whom you have to do with, and whom it is vain to dispute against but out of principles received by them, are all peremptory, that though novelty be a certain note of falsehood, yet no antiquity less than apostolical is a certain note of truth? yet this i say not as if i did acknowledge what you pretend, that protestants did confess the fathers against them in this point. for the point here issuable is not, whether s. peter were head of the church? nor whether the bishop of rome had any priority in the church? nor whether he had authority over it given him by the church? but whether by divine right, and by christ's appointment he were head of the catholic church? now having perused brerely, i cannot find any one protestant confessing any one father to have concurred in opinion with you in this point. and the reader hath reason to suspect, that you also out of all the fathers could not find any one authority pertinent to this purpose: for otherwise you were much to blame, citing so few, to make choice of such as are impertinent. for let the understanding reader peruse the 55. epist. of s. cyprian, with any ordinary attention, out of which you take your first place, and i am confident he shall find that he means nothing else by the words quoted by you, but that in one particular church at one time there ought to be but one bishop, and that he should be obeyed in all things lawful: the non-performance whereof was one of the most ordinary causes of heresies against the faith, and schism from the communion of the church universal. he shall find secondly, and that by many convincing arguments, that though he write to cornelius bishop of rome, yet he speaks not of him, but of himself then bishop of carthage, against whom a faction of schismatics had then set up another. and therefore here your ingenuity is to be commended above many of your side: for whereas they ordinarily abuse this place to prove, that in the whole church there ought to be but one priest and one judge; you seem somewhat diffident hereof, and thereupon say, that these words plainly condemn luther, whether he will understand them as spoken of the universal or of every particular church. but whether they condemn luther is another question. the question here is, whether they plainly prove the pope's supremacy over all other bishops? which certainly they are as far from proving, as from proving the supremacy of any other bishop: seeing it is evident they were intended not of one bishop over the whole catholic church, but of one bishop in one particular church. 99 and no less impertinent is your saying out of optatus, if it be well looked into, though at the first sight it may seem otherwise; because optatus his scene happened to be rome, whereas s. cyprians was carthage. the truth is the donatists had set up at rome a bishop of their faction: not with intent to make him bishop of the whole church but of that church in particular. now optatus going upon s. cyprians above mentioned ground of one bishop in one church, proves them schismatics for so doing, and he proves it by this argument: s. peter was first bishop of rome, neither did the apostles attribute to themselves each one his particular chair, (understand in that city, for in other places others i hope had chairs besides s. peter) and therefore he is a schismatic, who against that one single chair erects another (understand as before, in that place) making another bishop of that diocese besides him who was lawfully elected to it. 100 but yet by the way he styles s. peter head of the apostles, and says that from thence he was called cephas. ans. perhaps he was abused into this opinion, by thinking cephas derived from the greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a head: whereas it is a syriack word and signifies a stone. besides s. peter might be head of the apostles, that is, first in order and honour among them, and not have supreme authority over them. and indeed that s. peter should have authority overall the apostles, and yet exercise no one act of authority over any one of them, and that they should show to him no sign of subjection, me thinks is as strange, as that a king of england for twenty five years should do no act of regality, nor receive any one acknowledgement of it. as strange me thinks it is, that you so many ages after, should know this so certainly, as you pretend to do, and that the apostles (after that those words were spoken in their hearing, by virtue whereof s. peter is pretended to have been made their head,) should still be so ignorant of it, as to question which of them should be the greatest? yet more strange, that our saviour should not bring them out of their error, by telling them s. peter was the man, but rather confirm it by saying, the kings of the gentiles exercise authority over them, but it should not be so among them. no less a wonder was it that s. paul should so far forget s. peter and himself, as that first mentioning him often, he should do it without any title of honour. secondly, speaking of the several degrees of men in the church, he should not give s. peter the highest, but place him in equipage with the rest of the apostles, and say, god hath appointed (not first peter, than the rest of the apostles, but) first apostles, secondly prophets. certainly if the apostles were all first, to me it is very probable, that no one of them was before the rest. for by first, all men understand either that which is before all, or that before which is nothing. now in the former sense, the apostles could not be all first, for then every one of them must have been before every one of the rest. and therefore they must be first in the other sense. and therefore no man, and therefore not s. peter, must be before any of them. thirdly and lastly, that speaking of himself in particular, and perhaps comparing himself with s. peter in particular, rather than any other, he should say in plain terms, i am in nothing inferior to the very chiefest apostles. but besides all this, though we should grant against all these probabilities and many more, that optatus meant that s. peter was head of the apostles, not in our but in your sense, and that s. peter indeed was so; yet still you are very far from showing, that in the judgement of optatus, the bishop of rome, was to be at all, much less by divine right, successor to s. peter in this his headship & authority. for what incongruity is there, if we say, that he might succeed s. peter in that part of his care, the government of that particular church, (as sure he did even while s. peter was living,) and yet that neither he nor any man was to succeed him in his apostleship, nor in his government of the church universal? especially seeing s. peter and the rest of the apostles, by laying the foundations of the church, were to be the foundations of it, and accordingly are so called in scripture. and therefore as in a building it is incongruous that foundations should succeed foundations: so it may be in the church, that any other apostle should succeed the first. 101 ad §. 37. the next paragraph i might well pass over, as having no argument in it. for there is nothing in it but two sayings of s. austin, which i have great reason to esteem no argument, until you will promise me, to grant whatsoever i shall prove by two sayings of s. austin. but moreover, the second of these sentences seems to me, to imply the contradiction of the first. for to say, that the sacrilege of schism is eminent, when there is no cause of separation, implies to my understanding, that there may be a cause of separation. now in the first, he says plainly that this is impossible. neither doth any reconciliation of his words occur to me, but only this, that in the former he speaks upon supposition, that the public service of god, where in men are to communicate is unpolluted, and no unlawful thing practised in their communion, which was so true of their communion, that the donatists who separated did not deny it. and to make this answer no improbable evasion, it is observable out of s. austin and optatus, that though the donatists, at the beginning of their separation, pretended no cause for it, but only that the men from whom they separated, were defiled with the contagion of traditors; yet afterwards, to make the continuance of it more justifiable, they did invent and spread abroad this calumny against catholics, that they set pictures upon their altars: which when s. austin comes to answer, he does not deny the possibility of the thing, for that had been to deny the catholic church to be made up of men, all which had free will to evil, and therefore might possibly agree in doing it, and had he denied this, the action of after ages had been his refutation: neither does he say, (as you would have done,) that it was true, they placed pictures there, and moreover worshipped them, but yet not for their own sakes, but for theirs who were represented by them: neither does he say, (as you do in this chapter) that though this were granted a corruption, yet were they not to separate for it. what then does he? certainly nothing else, but abhor the thing, and deny the imputation: which way of answering, does not i confess plainly show, but yet it somewhat intimates that he had nothing else to answer; and that if he could not have denied this, he could not have denied the donatists' separation from them to have been just. if this answer, to this little argument seem not sufficient, i add moreover, that if it be applied to luther's separation, it hath the common fault of all your allegations out of fathers, impertinence. for it is one thing to separate from the communion of the whole world, another to separate from all the communions in the world: one thing to divide from them who are united among themselves, another to divide from them who are divided among themselves. now the donatists separated from the whole world of christians, united in one communion, professing the same faith, serving god after the same manner, which was a very great argument, that they could not have just cause to leave them: according to that of tertullian, variasse debuerat error ecclesiarum, quod autem apud multos unumest, non est erratum sed traditum. but luther and his followers did not so. the world, i mean of christians and catholics, was divided and subdivided long before he divided from it; and by their divisions had much weakened their own authority, and taken away from you this plea of s. austin, which stands upon no other foundation, but the unity of the whole world's communion. 102 ad §. 38. if luther were in the right, most certain those protestants that differed from him were in the wrong: but that either he or they were schismatics, it follows not. or if it does, then either the jesuits are schismatics from the dominicans, or they from the jesuits; the canonists from the jesuits, or the jesuits from the canonists: the scotists from the thomists, or they from the scotists: the franciscans from the dominicans, or the dominicans from the franciscans. for between all these the world knows; that in point of doctrine, there is plain and irreconcilable contradiction, and therefore one part must be in error, at least not fundamental. thus your argument returns upon yourself, and if it be good, proves the roman church in a manner to be made up of schismatics. but the answer to it is, that it begs this very false and vain supposition; that whosoever errs in any point of doctrine is a schismatique. 103 ad §. 39 in the next place you number up your victories, and tell us, that out of these premises, this conclusion follows, that luther and his followers were schismatics from the visible church, the pope, the diocese wherein they were baptised, from the bishop under whom they lived, from the country to which they belonged, from their religious order, wherein they were professed, from one another, and lastly, from a man's self: because the selfsame protestant is convicted to day, that his yesterday opinion was an error. to which i answer, that luther and his followers separated from many of these, in some opininions and practices▪ but that they did it without cause, which only can make them schismatics, that was the only thing you should have proved, and to that you have not urged one reason of any moment. all of them for weight and strength, were cousin-germans to this pretty device, wherewith you will prove them schismatics from themselves, because the selfsame protestant to day is convicted in conscience, that his yesterday opinion was an error. it seems then that they that hold errors, must hold them fast, and take special care of being convicted in conscience, that they are in error, for fear of being schismatics! protestants must continue protestants, and puritans puritans, and papists papists, nay jews, and turks, and pagans, must remain jews, and turks, and pagans, and go on constantly to the devil, or else forsooth they must be schismatics, and that from themselves. and this perhaps is the cause that makes papists so obstinate, not only in their common superstition, but also in adhering to the proper fancies of their several sects, so that it is a miracle to hear of any jesuit, that hath forsaken the opinion of the jesuits: or any dominican that hath changed his for the jesuits. without question, this gentleman my adversary knows none such, or else methinks he should not have objected it to d. potter (that he knew a man in the world who from a puritan, was turned to a moderate protestant, which is likely to be true. but sure if this be all his fault, he hath no reason to be ashamed of his acquaintance. for possibly it may be a fault to be in error, because many times it proceeds from a fault: but sure the forsaking of error cannot be a sin, unless to be in error be a virtue. and therefore, to do as you do, to damn men for false opinions, and to call them schismatics for leaving them; to make pertinacy in error, that is, an unwillingness to be convicted, or a resolution not to be convicted, the form of heresies, and to find fault with men, for being convicted in conscience that they are in error, is the most incoherent and contradictious injustice that ever was heard of. but sir, if this be a strange matter to you, that which i shall tell you will be much stranger. i know a man that of a moderate protestant turned a papist, and the day that he did so, (as all things that are done are perfected some day or other,) was convicted in conscience, that his yesterday opinion was an error, and yet thinks he was no schismatique for doing soes, and desires to be informed by you, whether or no he was mistaken? the same man afterwards upon better consideration, became a doubting papist, and of a doubting papist, a confirmed protestant. and yet this man thinks himself no more to blame for all these changes, than a traveller, who using all diligence to find the right way to some remote city, where he never had been, (as the party i speak of had never been in heaven,) did yet mistake it, and after find his error, and amend it. nay he stands upon his justification so far, as to maintain that his alterations, not only to you, but also from you by god's mercy, were the most satisfactory actions to himself, that ever he did, and the greatest victories that ever he obtained over himself, and his affections to those things which in this world are most precious; as wherein for god's sake and (as he was verily persuaded,) out of love to the truth, he went upon a certain expectation of those inconveniences, which to ingenuous natures are of all most terrible. so that though there were much weakness in some of these alterations, yet certainly there was no wickedness. neither does he yield his weakness altogether without apology, seeing his deductions were rational, and out of principles commonly received by protestants as well as papists, and which by his education had got possession of his understanding. 104 ad §. 40. 41. d. potter p. 81. of his book, to prove our separation from you, not only lawful but necessary, hath these words, although we confess the church of rome (in some sense) to be a true church, and her error (to some men) not damnable; yet for us who are convinced in conscience, that she errs in many things, a necessity lies upon us, even under pain of damnation, to forsake her in those errors. he means not, in the belief of those errors; for that is presupposed to be done already: for whosoever is convinced in conscience that she errs, hath for matter of belief forsaken, that is, ceased to believe those errors. this therefore he meant not, nor could not mean: but that whosoever is convinced in conscience, that the church of rome errs, cannot with a good conscience but forsake her in the profession and practice of these errors: and the reason hereof is manifest; because otherwise, he must profess what he believes not, and practise what he approves not. which is no more than you self in thesi have divers times affirmed. for in one place you say, it is unlawful to speak any the least untruth: now he that professeth your religion, and believes it not, what else doth he but live in a perpetual lie! again in another, you have called them that profess one thing and believe another, a damned crew of dissembling sycophants: and therefore in inveighing against protestants for forsaking the profession of these errors, the belief whereof they had already forsaken, what do you but rail at them for not being a damned crew of dissembling sycophants? and lastly §. 42. of this chap. within three leaves after this, whereas d. potter grants but only a necessity of peaceable external obedience to the declaration of the church, though perhaps erroneous, (provided it be in matter not of faith, but of opinions or rites,) condemning those men who by occasion of errors of this quality, disturb the church's peace, and cast off her communion: upon this occasion you come upon him with this bitter sarcasme, i thank you for your ingenuous confession, in recompense whereof i will do a deed of charity, by putting you in mind into what labyrinths you are brought, by teaching that the church may err in some points of faith, and yet that it is not lawful for any man to oppose his judgement or leave her communion, though he have evidence of scripture against her! will you have such a man dissemble against his conscience, or externally deny truth known to be contained in holy scripture? i answer for him, no: it is not he but you, that would have men do so: not he, who says plainly, that whosoever is convinced in conscience that any church errs, is bound under pain of damnation to forsake her in her profession and practice of these errors: but you, who find fault with him, and make long discourse against him, for thus affirming. not he who can easily wind himself out of your imaginary labyrinth, by telling you, that he no where denies it lawful for any man to oppose any church, erring in matter of faith, for that he speaks not of matters of faith at all, but only of rites and opinions. and in such matters, he says indeed at first, it is not lawful for any man to oppose his judgement to the public: but he presently explains himself by saying, not only that he may hold an opinion contrary to the public resolution, but besides that he may offer it to be considered of, (so far is he from requiring any sinful dissimulation,) provided, he do it with great probability of reason, very modestly and respectfully, and without separation from the church's communion. it is not therefore in this case, opposing a man's private judgement to the public simply, which the doctor finds fault with: but the degree only and malice of this opposition, opposing it factiously. and not holding a man's own conceit, different from the church absolutely, which here he censures: but a factious advancing it, and despising the church, so far as to cast off her communion, because forsooth she errs in some opinion, or useth some inconvenient, though not impious rites and ceremonies. little reason therefore have you to accuse him there, as if he required that men should dissemble against their conscience, or externally deny a truth known to be contained in holy scripture. but certainly a great deal less, to quarrel with him, for saying (which is all that here he says,) that men under pain of demnation, are not to dissemble, but if they be convinced in conscience, that your, or any other church (for the reason is alike for all,) errs in many things, are of necessity to forsake that church, in the profession and practice of those errors. 105 but to consider your exception to this speech of the doctors, somewhat more particularly: i say your whole discourse against it, is compounded of falsehoods and impertinencies. the first falsehood is, that he in these words avoucheth, that no learned catholics can be saved: unless you will suppose, that all learned catholics are convinced in conscience, that your church errs in many things. it may well be feared that many are so convinced, and yet profess what they believe not. many more have been, and have stifled their consciences, by thinking it an act of humility, to do so. many more would have been, had they with liberty and indifference of judgement, examined the grounds of the religion which they profess. but to think that all the learned of your side, are actually convinced of errors in your church, and yet will not forsake the profession of them, this is so great an uncharitableness, that i verily believe, d. potter abhors it. your next falsehood is, that the doctor affirms, that you catholics want no means to salvation: and that he judges the roman errors not to be in themselves fundamental or damnable. which calumny i have very often confuted: and in this very place it is confuted by d. potter, and confessed by yourself. for in the beginning of this answer you tell us, that the doctor avouches of all catholics whom ignorance cannot excuse, that they cannot be saved. certainly then he must needs esteem them to want something necessary to salvation. and then in the doctors saying, it is remarkable that he confesses your errors to some men not damnable: which clearly imports, that according to his judgement, they were damnable in themselves, though by accident to them who lived and died in invincible ignorance, and with repentance, they might prove not damnable. a third is, that these assertions, the roman errors are in themselves not damnable, and yet it is damnable for me (who know them to be errors,) to hold and confess them, are absolutely inconsistent; which is false; for be the matter what it will, yet for a man to tell a lie, especially in matter of religion, cannot but be damnable. how much more then, to go on in a course of lying by professing to believe these things divine truths, which he verily believes to be falsehoods and fables? a fourth is, that if we erred in thinking that your church holds errors, this error or erroneous conscience might be rectified and deposed, by judging those errors not damnable. for what repugnance is there between these two suppositions, that you do hold some errors, and that they are not damnable? and if there be no repugnance between them, how can the belief of the latter remove or destroy, or if it be erroneous, rectify the belief of the former? nay seeing there is a manifest consent between them, how can it be avoided, but the belief of the latter, will maintain and preserve the belief of the former? for who can conjoin in one brain not cracked, (pardon me, if i speak to you in your own words,) these assertions: in the roman church there are errors not damnable, and, in the roman church there are no errors at all? or what sober understanding would ever think this a good collection, i esteem the errors of the roman church not damnable, therefore i do amiss to think that she errs at all? if therefore you would have us alter our judgements, that your church is erroneous, your only way is to show, your doctrine consonant, at least not evidently repugnant to scripture and reason. for as for this device, this short cut, of persuading ourselves that you hold no errors, because we believe your errors are not damnable, assure yourself it will never hold. 106 a fifth falsehood is, that we daily do this favour for protestants, you must mean (if you speak consequently) to judge they have no errors, because we judge they have none damnable. which the world knows to be most untrue. and for our continuing in their communion notwithstanding their errors, the justification hereof, is not so much, that their errors are not damnable: as that they require not the belief and profession of these errors, among the conditions of their communion. which puts a main difference between them and you: because we may continue in their communion without professing to believe their opinions, but in yours we cannot. a sixth is, that according to the doctrine of all divines, there is any difference between a speculative persuasion of conscience, of the unlawfulness of any thing, and a practical dictamen that the same thing is unlawful. for these are but divers words signifying the same thing, neither is such a persuasion wholly speculative, but tending to practice: nor such a dictamen wholly practical, but grounded upon speculation. a seventh is, that protestants did only conceive in speculation, that the church of rome erred in some doctrines, and had not also a practical dictamen, that it was damnable for them to continue in the profession of these errors. an eighth is, that it is not lawful to separate from any church's communion, for errors not appertaining to the substance of faith: which is not universally true, but with this exception, unless that church requires the belief and profession of them. the ninth is, that d. potter teacheth that luther was bound to forsake the house of god, for an unnecessary light. confuted manifestly by d. potter in this very place, for by the house of god you mean the roman church, and of her the doctor says: that a necessity did lie upon him, even under pain of damnation, to forsake the church of rome in her errors. this sure is not to say, that he was obliged to forsake her, for an unnecessary light. the tenth is covertly vented in your intimation, that luther and his followers were the proper cause of the christian world's combustion: whereas indeed the true cause of this lamentable effect, was your violent persecution of them, for serving god according to their conscience, which if it be done to you, you condemn of horrible impiety, and therefore may not hope to be excused, if you do it to others. 107 the eleaventh is, that our first reformers ought to have doubted whether their opinions were certain. which is to say, that they ought to have doubted of the certainty of scripture: which in formal and express terms, contains many of these opinions. and the reason of this assertion is very vain: for though they had not an absolute infallibility promised unto them, yet may they be of some things infallibly certain. as euclid sure was not infallible, yet was he certain enough, that twice two were four, and that every whole was greater than a part of that whole. and so though calvin & melancthon were not infallible in all things, yet they might and did know well enough, that your latin service was condemned by s. paul, and that the communion in both kinds was taught by our saviour. the twelfth and last is this, that your church was in peaceable possession (you must mean of her doctrine, and the professors of it,) and enjoyed prescription for many ages. for beside, that doctrine is not a thing that may be possessed: and the professors of it were the church itself, and in nature of possessors, (if we may speak improperly,) rather then the thing possessed, with whom no man hath reason to be offended, if they think fit to quit their own possession: i say that the possession, which the governors of your church held for some ages, of the party governed, was not peaceable, but got by fraud, and held by violence. 108 these are the falsehoods which in this answer offer themselves to any attentive reader, and that which remains is mere impertinence. as first, that a pretence of conscience will not serve to justify separation from being schismatical. which is true: but little to the purpose, seeing it was not an erroneous persuasion, much less an hypocritical pretence, but a true and well grounded conviction of conscience, which d. potter alleged to justify protestants from being schismatical. and therefore though seditious men in church and state, may pretend conscience, for a cloak of their rebellion: yet this i hope hinders not, but that an honest man ought to obey his rightly informed conscience, rather than the unjust commands of his tyrannous superiors. otherwise with what colour can you defend either your own refusing the oaths of allegiance and supremacy? or the ancient martyrs, and apostles, and prophets, who oftentimes disobeyed the commands of men in authority, and for their disobedience made no other but this apology, we must obey god rather than men? it is therefore most apparent that this answer must be merely impertinent: seeing it will serve against the martyrs and apostles and prophets, & even against yourselves, as well as against protestants. to as little purpose is your rule out of lyrinensis against them that followed l●ther, seeing they pretend and are ready to justify, that they forsook not, with the doctors, the faith, but only the corruption of the church. as vain altogether is that which follows: that in cases of uncertainty we are not to leave our superior, or cast off his obedience, nor publicly oppose his decrees. from whence it will follow very evidently, that seeing it is not a matter of faith, but a disputed question among you, whether the oath of allegiance be lawful: that either you acknowledge not the king your superior, or do against conscience, in opposing his and the kingdom's decree, requiring the taking of this oath. this good use i say may very fairly be made of it, and is by men of your own religion. but than it is so far from being a confutation, that it is rather a confirmation of d. potter's assertion. for he that useth these words, doth he not plainly import (and such was the case of protestants,) that we are to leave our superiors, to cast off obedience to them, and publicly to oppose their decrees, when we are certain (as protestants were,) that what they command, god doth countermand▪ lastly, s. cyprians example is against protestants impertinently and even ridiculously alleged. for what if s. cyprian holding his opinion true but not necessary, condemned no man (much less any church) for holding the contrary? yet me thinks this should lay no obligation upon luther to do so likewise: seeing he held his own opinions not only true but also necessary, & the doctrine of the roman church not only false but damnable. and therefore seeing the condition and state of the parties censured by s. cyprian and luther was so different, no marvel though their censures also were different according to the supposed merit of the parties delinquent. for as for your obtruding again upon us, that we believe the points of difference not fundamental or necessary, you have been often told that it is a calumny. we hold your errors as damnable in themselves as you do ours, only by accident through invincible ignorance, we hope they are not unpardonable: and you also profess to think the same of ours. 109 ad § 42. the former part of this discourse, grounded on d. potter's words p. 105. i have already in passing examined & confuted: i add in this place. 1. that though the doctor say, it is not fit for any private man to oppose his judgement to the public, that is, his own judgement and bare authority: yet he denies not, but occasions may happen wherein it may be very warrantable, to oppose his reason or the authority of scripture against it. and is not then to be esteemed to oppose his own judgement to the public, but the judgement of god to the judgement of men. which his following words seem to import, he may offer his opinion to be considered of, so he do it with evidence or great probability of scripture or reason. secondly, i am to tell you that you have no ground from him, to interline his words with that interrogatory (his own conceits, and yet grounded upon evidence of scripture?) for these things are in his words opposed, and not confounded, and the latter, not intended for a repetition (as you mistake it) but for an antithesis of the former. he may offer (saith he) his opinion to be considered of, so he do it with evidence of scripture. but if he will factiously advance his own conceits, (that is, say i, clean contrary to your gloss,) such as have not evident nor very probable ground in scripture, (for these conceits are properly his own) he may justly be branded, etc. now that this of the two is the better gloss, it is proved by your own interrogation. for that imputes absurdity to d. potter, for calling them a man's own conceits, which were grounded upon evidence of scripture. and therefore you have showed little candour or equity, in fastening upon them this absurd construction. they not only bearing, but even requiring another more fair and more sensible. every man ought to be presumed to speak sense, rather than nonsense, coherently, rather than contradictiously, if his words be fairly capable of a better construction. for m. hooker, if writing against puritans, he had said something unawares that might give advantage to papists it were not inexcusable: seeing it is a matter of such extreme difficulty, to hold such a temper in opposing one extreme opinion, as not to seem to favour the other. yet if his words be rightly considered, there is nothing in them that will do you any service. for though he says that men are bound to do whatsoever the sentence of final decision shall determine, as it is plain men are bound to yield such an obedience to all courts of civil judicature: yet he says not, they are bound to think that determination lawful, and that sentence just. nay it is plain he says, that they must do according to the judge's sentence, though in their private opinion it seem unjust. as if i be cast wrongfully in a suit at law, and sentenced to pay an hundred pound, i am bound to pay the money, yet i know no law of god or man, that binds me in conscience to acquit the judge of error in his sentence. the question therefore being only what men ought to think, it is vain for you to tell us what m. hooker says at all. for m. hooker, though an excellent man, was but a man. and much more vain, to tell us out of him, what men ought to do, for point of external obedience. when in the very same place, he supposeth and alloweth, that in their private opinion they may think, this sentence to which they yield a passive obedience, to swarve utterly from that which is right. if you will draw his words to such a construction, as if he had said, they must think the sentence of judicial and final decision just and right, though it seem in their private opinion to swerve utterly from what is right; it is manifest you make him contradict himself, & make him say in effect, they must think thus, though at the same time they think the contrary. neither is there any necessity, that he must either acknowledge the universal infallibility of the church, or drive men into dissembling against their conscience, seeing nothing hinders, but i may obey the sentence of a judge, paying the money he awards me to pay, or foregoing the house or land which he hath judged from me, and yet withal plainly profess, that in my conscience i conceive his judgement erroneous. to which purpose they have a saying in france, that whosoever is cast in any cause, hath liberty for ten days after, to rail at his judges. 110 this answer to this place, the words themselves offered me, even as they are alleged by you: but upon perusal of the place in the author himself, i find that here, as elsewhere you and m. brerely wrong him extremely. for mutilating his words, you make him say that absolutely, which he there expressly limits to some certain cases. in litigious and controverted causes of such a quality (saith he) the will of god, is to have them do whatsoever the sentence of judicial and final decision shall determine. observe, i pray, he says not absolutely and in all causes, this is the will of god: but only in litigious causes, of the quality of those whereof he there entreats. in such matters, as have plain scripture or reason, neither for them nor against them, and wherein men are persuaded this or that way, upon their own only probable collection; in such cases, this persuasion (saith he) ought to be fully settled in men's hearts, that the will of god is, that they should not disobey the certain commands of their lawful superiors, upon uncertain grounds: but do that which the sentence of judicial and final decision shall determine. for the purpose, a question there is, whether a surplice may be worn in divine service: the authority of superiors enjoins this ceremony, and neither scripture nor reason plainly forbids it. sempronius notwithstanding, is by some inducements, which he confesses to be only probable, lead to this persuasion that the thing is unlawful. the quaere is, whether he ought for matter of practice follow the injunction of authority, or his own private and only probable persuasion? m. hooker resolves for the former, upon this ground, that the certain commands of the church we live in, are to be obeyed in all things, not certainly unlawful. which rule is your own, and by you extended to the commands of all superiors, in the very next section before this, in these words, in cases of uncertainty we are not to leave our superior, nor cast off his obedience, or publicly oppose his decrees. and yet if a man should conclude upon you, that either you make all superiors universally infallible, or else drive men into perplexities and labyrinths of doing against conscience, i presume you would not think yourself fairly dealt with; but allege, that your words are not extended to all cases, but limited to cases of uncertainty. as little therefore ought you to make this deduction from m. hooker's words, which are apparently also restrained to cases of uncertainty. for as for requiring a blind and an unlimited obedience, to ecclesiastical decisions universally and in all cases, even when plain text or reason seems to control them, m. hooker is as far from making such an idol of ecclesiastical authority, as the puritans whom he writes against. i grant (saith he,) that proof derived from the authority of man's judgement, is not able to work that assurance which doth grow by a stronger proof. and therefore although ten thousand general counsels would set down one and the same definitive sentence, concerning any point of religion whatsoever, yet one demonstrative reason alleged, or one manifest testimony cited from the word of god himself, to the contrary, could not choose, but over-weigh them all: in as much as for them to be deceived it is not impossible, it is that demonstrative reason, or divine testimony should deceive. and again, whereas it is thought, that especially with the church, and those that are called, man's authority ought not to prevail: it must and doth prevail even with them, yea with them especially, as far as equity requireth, and farther we maintain it not. for men to be tied and led by authority, as it were with a kind of captivity of judgement, and though there be reason to the contrary, not to listen to it, but to follow like beasts, the first in the herd, this were brutish. again, that authority, of men should prevail with men either against or above reason, is no part of our belief. companies of learned men, be they never so great and reverend, are to yield unto reason, the weight whereof, is no whit prejudiced by the simplicity of his person which doth allege it, but being found to be sound and good, the bare opinion of men to the contrary, must of necessity stoop and give place. thus m. hooker in his 7. sect. of his second book: which place because it is far distant from that which is alleged by you, the oversight of it might be excusable, did you not impute it to d. potter as a fault, that he cities some clauses of some books, without reading the whole. but beside, in that very section, out of which you take this corrupted sentence, he hath very pregnant words to the same effect. as for the orders established, sith equity and reason favour that which is in being, till orderly judgement of decision be given against it, it is but justice to exact of you, and perverseness in you it should be to deny thereunto your willing obedience. not that i judge it a thing allowable, for men to observe those laws, which in their hearts they are steadfastly persuaded, to be against the law of god: but your persuasion in this case, ye are all bound for the time to suspend, and in otherwise doing, ye offend against god, by troubling his church without just and necessary cause. be it that there are some reasons inducing you to think hardly of our laws: are those reason's demonstrative, are they necessary, or but mere probabilities only? an argument necessary and demonstrative is such, as being proposed to any man and understood, the mind cannot choose but inwardly assent. any one such reason dischargeth, i grant, the conscience, and setteth it at full liberty. for the public approbation given by the body of this whole church, unto those things which are established, doth make it but probable that they are good. and therefore unto a necessary proof that they are not good, it must give place. this plain declaration of his judgement in this matter, this express limitation of his former resolution, he makes in the very same section, which affords your former quotation; and therefore what apology can be made for you, and your store-house m. brerely, for dissembling of it, i cannot possibly imagine. 111 d. potter p. 131. says, that the errors of the donatists and novatians, were not in themselves heresies, nor could be made so by the church's determination. but that the church's intention was only to silence disputes, and to settle peace and unity in her government: which because they factiously opposed, they were justly esteemed schismatics. from hence you conclude, that the same condemnation must pass against the first reformers, seeing they also opposed the commands of the church, imposed on them, for silencing all disputes, and settling peace and unity in government. but this collection is deceitful, and the reason is: because though the first reformers, as well as the donatists and novatians, opposed herein the commands of the visible church, that is, of a great part of it: yet the reformers had reason, nay, necessity to do so, the church being then corrupted with damnable errors: which was not true of the church, when it was opposed by the novatians and donatists. and therefore though they, and the reformers, did the same action, yet doing it upon different grounds, it might in these merit applause, and in them condemnation. 112 ad §. 43. the next §. hath in it some objections against luther's person, but none against his cause, which alone i have undertaken to justify, & therefore i pass it over. yet this i promise, that when you, or any of your side, shall publish a good defence, of all that your popes have said & done, especially of them whom bellarmin believes, in such a long train to have gone to the devil: than you shall receive an ample apology for all the actions and words of luther. in the mean time, i hope all reasonable and equitable judges, will esteem it not unpardonable in the great and heroical spirit of luther, if being opposed, and perpetually baited with a world of furies, he were transported sometimes, and made somewhat furious. as for you, i desire you to be quiet, and to demand no more, whether god be wont to send such furies to preach the gospel? unless you desire to hear of your kill of kings: massacring of peoples; blowing up of parliaments: and have a mind to be asked, whether it be probable, that that should be god's cause, which needs to be maintained by such devilish means? 112 ad §. 44. 45. in the two next particles, which are all of this chapter, that remain unspoken to, you spend a great deal of reading, & wit, & reason, against some men, who pretending to honour & believe the doctrine & practice of the visible church, (you mean your own,) and condemning their forefathers who forsook her, say they would not have done so, yet remain divided from her communion. which men in my judgement cannot be defended. for if they believe the doctrine of your church, then must they believe this doctrine, that they are to return to your communion. and therefore if they do not so, it cannot be avoided but they must be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and so i leave them, only i am to remember you, that these men cannot pretend to be protestants, because they pretend to believe your doctrine, which is opposite in diameter unto the doctrine of protestants; and therefore in a work which you profess to have written merely against protestants, all this might have been spared. chap. vi that luther, and the rest of protestants, have added heresy unto schism. because vice is best known by the contrary virtue, we cannot well determine what heresy is, nor who be heretics, but by the opposite virtue of faith, whose nature being once understood as far as belongs to our present purpose, we shall pass on with ease to the definition of heresy, and so be able to discern who be heretics. and this i intent to do, not by entering into such particular questions as are controverted between catholics and protestants, but only by applying some general grounds, either already proved, or else yielded to, on all sides. 2 almighty god having ordained man to a supernatural end of beatitude by supernatural means, it was requisite that his understanding should be enabled to apprehend that end, and means by a supernatural knowledge. and because if such a knowledge were no more than probable, it could not be able sufficiently to overbeare our will, and encounter with human probabilities, being backed with the strength of flesh and blood; it was further necessary, that this supernatural knowledge should be most certain and infallible; and that faith should believe nothing more certainly than that itself is a most certain belief, and so be able to beat down all g●y probabilities of humane opinion. and because the aforesaid means and end of beatifical vision, do far exceed the reach of natural wit, the certainty of faith could not always be joined with such evidence of reason, as is wont to be found in the principles, or conclusions of humane natural sciences; that so all flesh might not glory in the arm of flesh, but that he, who glories, should glory a 2. cor. 10. in our lord, moreover, it was expedient that our belief, or assent to divine truths should not only be unknown, or inevident by any humane discourse, but that absolutely also it should be obscure in itself, and (ordinarily speaking) be void even of supernatural evidence; that so we might have occasion to actuate, and testify the obedience which we owe to our god, no● only by submitting our will to this will and commands, but by subjecting also our understanding to this wisdom and words, captivating (as the apostle speaks) the same understanding b 2. cor. 10. 5. to the obedience of faith: which occasion had been wanting, if almighty god had made ●●●ere to us, the truths which now are certainly, but not evidently presented to our minds. for where truth doth manifestly open itself; not obedience, but necessity commands our assent. for this reason, divines teach, that the objects of faith being not evident to humane reason, it is in man's power not only to abstain from believing, by suspending our judgements, or exercising no act one way or other; but also to disbelieve, that is, to believe the contrary of that which faith proposeth; as the examples of innumerable arch-heretiques can bear witness. this obscurity of faith we learn from holy scripture, according to those words of the apostle. faith is the c heb. 11. substance of things to be hoped for, the argument of things not appearing. and, we see by a glass d 1. cor. 13. v. 12. in a dark manner: but then face to face. and, accordingly s. peter saith: which you do well attending unto, as to e 2. pet. 1. ●. 19 a candle shining in a dark place. 3 faith being then obscure (whereby it differeth from natural sciences) and yet being most certain and infallible (wherein it surpasseth humane opinion) it must rely upon some motive and ground, which may be able to give it certainty, and yet not release it from obscurity. for if this motive, ground, or formal object of faith, were any thing evidently presented to our understanding: and if also we did evidently know, that it had a necessary connection with the articles which we believe, our assent to such articles could not be obscure, but evident; which, as we said, is against the nature of our faith. if likewise the motive or ground of our faith were obscurely propounded to us, but were not in itself infallible, it would leave our assent in obscurity, but could not endue it with certainty. we must therefore for the ground of our faith, find out a motive obscure to us, but most certain in itself, that the act of faith may remain both obscure, and certain. such a motive as this, can be no other but the divine authority of almighty god, revealing, or speaking those truths which our faith believes. for it is manifest, that god's infallible testimony may transfuse certainty to our faith, and yet not draw it out of obscurity; because no humane discourse, or demonstration can evince, that god revealeth any supernatural truth, since god had been no less perfect than he is, although he had never revealed any of those objects which we now believe. 4 nevertheless, because almighty god out of his infinite wisdom and sweetness, doth concur with his creatures in such sort as may be fit the temper, & exigence of their natures; and because man is a creature endued with reason, god doth not exact of his will or understanding any other then, as the apostle saith, rationabile f rome, 〈…〉 1. obs●●uium, an obedience, sweetened with good reason; which could not so appear, if our understanding were summoned to believe with certainty, things no way represented as infallible and certain. and therefore almighty god obliging us under pain of eternal damnation to believe with greatest certainty diverse verities, not known by the light of natural reason, cannot sail to furnish our understanding, with such inducements, motives, and arguments as may sufficiently persuade any mind which is not partial or passionate, that the objects which we believe, proceed from an authority so wise, that it cannot be deceived, so good that it cannot deceive; according to the words of david: thy testimonies are made g psal. 92. credible exceedingly. these inducements are by divines, called argumenta credibilitatis, arguments of credibility, which though they cannot make us evidently see what we believe, yet they evidently convince that in true wisdom, & prudence, the objects of ●aith deserve credit, & aught to be accepted as things revealed by god. for without such reasons & inducements our judgement of faith could not be conceived prudent, holy scripture telling us, that, he who soon h eccles. 19 4. believes, is light of heart. by these arguments and inducements our understanding is both satisfied with evidence of credibility, and the objects of faith retain their obscurity: because it is a different thing to be evidently credible, and evidently true; as those who were present at the miracles wrought by our blessed saviour, and his apostles, did not evidently see their doctrine to be true (for then it had not been faith but science, and all had been necessitated to believe, which we see fell out otherwise,) but they were evidently convinced, that the things confirmed by such miracles, were most credible, and worthy to be embraced as truths revealed by god. 5. these evident arguments of credibility are in great abundance found in the visible church of christ, perpetually existing on earth. for, that there hath been a company of men professing such and such doctrines, we have from our next predecessors, and these from theirs upward, till we come to the apostles, and our blessed saviour; which gradation is known by evidence of sense, by reading books, or hearing what one man delivers to another. and it is evident that there was neither cause, nor possibility, that men so distant in place, so different in temper, so repugnant in private ends, did, or could agree to tell one and the self same thing, if it had been but a fiction invented by themselves, as ancient tertullian well saith: how is it likely that so many i prescript. cap. 28. and so great churches should err in one faith? among many events there is not one issue, the error of the churches must needs have varied. but that which among many is found to be one, is not mistaken, but delivered. dare then any body say, that they erred who delivered it? with this never interrupted existence of the church are joined the many and great miracles wrought by men of that congregation or church; the sanctity of the persons; the renowned victories over so many persecutions, both of all sorts of men, and of the infernal spirits; and lastly, the perpetual existence of so holy a church, being brought up to the apostles themselves, she comes to partake of the same assurance of truth, which they by so many powerful ways, did communicate to their doctrine, and to the church of their times, together with the divine certainty which they received from our blessed saviour himself, revealing to mankind what he heard from his father; and so we conclude with tertullian: we receive it from the churches, the churches k praesc. c. 21. & 37. from the apostles, the apostles from christ, christ from his father, and if we once interrupt this line of succession, most certainly made known by means of holy tradition, we cannot conjoin the present church, and doctrine, with the church, and doctrine of the apostles, but must invent some new means, and arguments sufficient of themselves to find out, and prove a true church, and faith independently of the preaching, and writing of the apostles; neither of which can be known but by tradition; as is truly observed by tertullian saying: i will prescribe, that l praes. c. 21. there is no means to prove what the apostles preached, but by the same church which they founded. 6 thus then we are to proceed: by evidence of manifest and incorrupt tradition, i know that there hath always been a never-interrupted succession of men from the apostles time, believing, professing, and practising such and such doctrines: by evident arguments of credibility, as miracles, sanctity, unity, etc. and by all those ways whereby the apostles, and our blessed saviour himself confirmed their doctrine, we are assured that what the said never-interrupted church proposeth, doth deserve to be accepted and acknowledged as a divine truth: by evidence of sense, we see that the same church proposeth such and such doctrines as divine truths, that is, as revealed and testified by almighty god. by this divine testimony we are infallibly assured of what we believe: and so the last period, ground, motive, and formal object of our faith, is the infallible testimony of that supreme verity, which neither can deceive, nor be deceived. 7 by this orderly deduction our faith cometh to be endued with these qualities which we said were requisite thereto; namely certainty, obscurity, and prudence. certainty proceeds from the infallible testimony of god propounded and conveyed to our understanding by such a mean as i● infallible in itself, and to us is evidently known that it proposeth this point or that, and which can manifestly declare in what sense it proposeth them; which means we have proved to be only the visible church of christ. obscurity from the manner in which god speaks to mankind, which ordinarily is such, that it doth not manifestly show the person who speaks, nor the truth of the thing spoken. prudence is not wanting, because our faith is accompanied with so many arguments of credibility, that every well disposed understanding, may and aught to judge, that the doctrines so confirmed deserve to be believed, as proceeding from divine authority. 8. and thus from what hath been said, we may easily gather the particular nature, or definition of faith. for, it is a voluntary, or free, infallible, obscure assent to some truth, because it is testifed by god, and is sufficiently propounded to us for such: which proposal is ordinarily made by the visible church of christ. i say, sufficiently proposed by the church; not that i purpose to dispute whether the proposal of the church enter into the formal object, or moti●● of faith: or whether an error be any heresy, formally and precisely, because it is against the proposition of the church, as if such proposal were the formal object of faith, which d. potter to no purpose a● all, labours so very hard to disprove: but i only affirm, that when the church propounds any truth, as revealed by god, we are assured that it is such indeed; and so it instantly grows, to be a fit object for christian faith, which inclines and enables us to believe whatsoever is deely presented, as a thing revealed by almighty god. and in the same manner we are sure, that whosoever opposeth any doctrine proposed by the church, doth thereby contradict a truth, which is testified by god: as when any lawful superior notifies his will, by the means, and as it were proposal of some faithful messenger, the subject of such a superior in performing, or neglecting what is delivered by the messenger, is said to obey, or disobey his own lawful superior. and therefore because the testimony of god is notified by the church, we may, and we do most truly say, that not to believe what the church proposeth, is to deny god's holy word or testimony, signified to us by the church, according to that saying of s. irenae●s. we need not go m lib. 3 〈◊〉 haeres. cap. 〈◊〉 to any other to seek the truth, which we may easily receive from the church. 9 from this definition of faith we may also know what heresy is, by taking the contrary terms, as heresy is contrary to faith, and saying: heresy is a voluntary error against that which god hath revealed, and the church hath proposed for such. neither doth it import, whether the error concern points in themselves great or small, fundamental or not fundamental. for more being required to an act of virtue, then of vice, if any truth though never so small may be believed by faith as soon as we know it to be testified by divine revelation; much more will it be a formal heresy to deny any least point sufficiently propounded as a thing witnessed by god. 10. this divine faith is divided into actual, and habitual. actual faith, or faith actuated is when we are in act of consideration, and belief of some mystery of faith; for example, that our saviour christ, is true god, and man, etc. habitual faith, is that from which we are denominated faithful, or believers, as by actual faith they are styled, believing. this habit of faith is a quality enabling us most firmly to believe objects above humane discourse, and it remaineth permanently in our soul, even when we are sleeping, or not thinking of any mystery of faith, this is the first among the three theological virtues. for charity unites us to god, as he is infinitely good in himself; hope ties us to him, as he is unspeakably good to us. faith joins us to him, as he is the supreme immovable verity. charity relies on his goodness; hope on his power; faith on his divine wisdom. from hence it followeth, that faith being one of the virtues which divines term infused (that is, which cannot be acquired by human wit, or industry, but are in their nature and essence, supernatural,) it hath this property; that it is not destroyed by little and little, (contrarily to the habits, called acquisiti, that is, gotten by human endeavour, which as they are successively produced, so also are they lost successively, or by little and little) but it must either be conserved entire, or wholly destroyed: and since it cannot stand entire with any one act which is directly contrary, it must be totally overthrown, and as it were demolished, and razed by every such act. wherefore, as charity, or the love of god is expelled from our soul by any one act of hatred, or any other mortal sin against his divine majesty: and as hope is destroyed by any one act of voluntary desperation: so faith must perish by any one act of heresy; because every such act is directly, and formally opposite thereunto. i know that some sins which (as divines speak) are exgenere suo, in their kind, grievous and mortal, may be much lessened, and fall to be venial, ob levitatem materiae; because they may happen to be exercised in a matter of small consideration; as for example, to steal a penny, is venial, although theft in his kind be a deadly sin. but it is likewise true, that this rule is not general for all sorts of sins; there being some so inexcusably wicked of their own nature, that no smallness of matter, not paucity in number, can defend them from being deadly sins. for, to give an instance, what blasphemy against god, or voluntary false oath is not a deadly sin? certainly, none at all, although the salvation of the whole world should depend upon swearing such a falsehood. the li●e happeneth in our present case of heresy, the iniquity whereof redounding to the injury of god's supreme wisdom and goodness, is always great, and enormous. they were no precious stones which david n 〈…〉 picket out of the water, to encounter goli●●; & yet if a man take from the number but one, and say they were but four, against the scripture affirming them to have been five; he is instantly guilty of a damnable sin. why? because by this subtraction of one, he doth deprive god's word and testimony of all credit and infallibility. for if either he could deceive, or be deceived in any one thing, it were but wisdom to suspect him in all. and seeing every here●y opposeth some truth revealed by god; it is no wonder that no one can be excused from deadly, and damnable sin. for if voluntary blasphemy, and perjury, which are opposite only to the infused moral virtue of religion, can never be excused from mortal sin: much less can heresy be excused, which opposeth the theological virtue of faith. 11 if any object, that schism may seem to be a greater sin than heresy; because the ver●ue of charity (to which schism is opposite) is greater than faith, according to the apostle, saying: now there remain o 1 cor. 13. 13. faith, hope, charity; but the greater of these is charity. s. thomas answers in these words: charity hath two objects, one principal, to wit, the 〈◊〉 p 2. 2. q. 39 〈…〉 goodness; and another secondary, namely the good of our neighbour; but schism and other sins which are committed against our neighbour, are opposite to charity in respect of this secondary good, which is less, than the object of faith, which is god, as he is the prime verity, on which faith doth rely; and therefore these sins are less than infidelity. he takes infidelity after a general manner, as it comprehends heresy, and other vices against faith. 12. having therefore sufficiently declared, wherein heresy consists; let us come to prove that which we proposed in this chapter. where i desire, it be still remembered: that the visible catholic church cannot err damnably, as d. potter confesseth: and, that when luther appeared, there was no other visible true church of christ disagreeing from the roman, as we have demonstrated in the next precedent chapter. 13 now, that luther and his followers cannot be excused from formal heresy, i prove by these reasons. to oppose any truth propounded by the visible true church as revealed by god, is formal heresy, as we have showed out of the definition of heresy: but luther, calvin, and the rest did oppose diverse truths propounded by the visible church as revealed by god; yea they did therefore oppose her, because she propounded as divine revealed truths, things which they judged either to be falls, or human inventions: therefore they committed formal heresy. 14 moreover, every error against any doctrine revealed by god, is damnable heresy, whether the matter in itself be great or small, as i proved before: and therefore either the protestants, or the roman church must be guilty of formal heresy; because one of them must err against the word & testimony of god: but you grant (perfor●e) that the roman church doth not err damnably, & i add that she cannot err damnably, because she is the truly catholic church, which you confess cannot err damnably: therefore protestants must be guilty of formal heresy. 15 besides, we have showed that the visible church is judge of controversies, and therefore must be infallible in all her proposals; which being once supposed, it manifestly followeth, that to oppose what she delivereth as revealed by god, is not so much to oppose her, as god himself, and therefore cannot be excused from grievous heresy. 16 again, if luther were an heretic, for those points wherein he disagreed from the roman church; all they who agree with him in those very points, must likewise be heretics. now, that luther was a formal heretic i demonstrate in this manner. to say, that god's visible true church is not universal, but confined to one only place or corner of the world, is according to your own express words q ●ag. 1●6. properly heresy, against that article of the creed, wherein we profess to believe the holy catholic church: and you brand donatus with heresy, because he limited the universal church to africa. but it is manifest, and acknowledged by luther himself, and other chief protestants that luther's reformation when it first began (and much more for diverse ages before) was not universal, nor spread over the world, but was confined to that compass of ground which did contain luther's body. therefore his reformation cannot be excused from formal heresy. if s. augustine in those times said to the donatists, there are innumerable testimonies r epist. 50. of holy scripture in which it appeareth that the church of christ is not only in africa, as these men with most impudent vanity do rave, but that she is spread over the whole earth: much more may it be said; it appeareth by innumerable testimonies of holy scripture that the church of christ cannot be confined to the ci●ty of wittenberg, or to the place where luther's feet stood, but must be spread over the whole world. it is therefore most impudent vanity, and dotage to limit her to luther's reformation. in another place also this holy father writes no less effectually against luther then against the donatists. for having out of those words, in thy ●eed all nations shall be blessed, proved that god's church must be universal, he saith: why s de vnit eccles. cap. 6. do you superadd, by saying that christ remains heir in no part of the earth, except where he may have donatus for his coheir. give me this (universal) church if it be among you: show yourselves to all nations, which we already show to be blessed in this seed: give us this (church) or else laying aside all fury, receive her from us. but it is evident, that luther could not, when he said, at the beginning i was alone, give us an universal church: therefore happy had he been, if he had then, and his followers would now, receive her from us. and therefore we must conclude with the same holy father, saying in another place of the universal church: she hath this t cont. lit. peril. lib. 1. cap. 104. most certain mark, that she cannot be bidden: she is then known to all nations. the sect of donatus is unknown to many nations; therefore that cannot be she. the sect of luther (at least when he began, and much more before his beginning) was unknown to many nations, therefore that cannot be she. 17 and that it may yet further appear how perfectly luther agreed with the donatists: it is to be noted, that they never taught, that the catholic church ought not to extend itself further than that part of africa, where their faction reigned, but only that in fact it was so confined, because all the rest of the church was profaned, by communicating with caecili●●us, whom they falsely affirmed to have been ordained bishop by those who were traditours, or gives up of the bible to the persecutors to be burned: yea at that very time they had some of their sect residing in rome, and sent thither one victor, a bishop, under colour to take care of the brethren in that city, but indeed as baronius u anno 3●1. ●u. 2, sp●nd. observeth, that the world might account them catholics by communicating with the bishop of rome, to communicate with whom was ever taken by the ancient fathers as an assured sign of being a true catholic. they had also, as s. augustine 〈◊〉, a pretended w de v●●. eccle●▪ 3. church in the house and territory of a spanish lady called lucilla, who went flying out of the catholic church, because she had been justly checked by caecilianus. and the same saint speaking of the conference he had with fortunius the donatist, saithe here did he first x ep. 163. attempt to affirm that his communion was spread over the whole earth etc. but because the thing was evidently false, they got out of this discourse by confusion of language whereby nevertheless they sufficiently declared, that they did not hold, that the true church ought necessarily to be confined to one place, but only by mere necessity were forced to yield that it was so in fact, because their sect which they held to be the only true church was not spread over the world: in which point fortunius, and the rest were more modest, than he who should affirm that luther's reformation in the very beginning was spread over the whole earth; being at that time by many degrees not so far diffused as the sect of the dou●tists. i have no desire to prosecute the similitude of protestants with donatists, by remembering that the sect of these men was begun and promoted by the passion of lucilla; and who is ignorant what influence two women, the mother, and daughter, ministered to protestancy in england? nor will i stand to observe their very likeness of phrase with the donatists, who called the chair of rome, the chair of pestilence, and the roman church an harlot, which is d. potter's own phrase, wherein he is less excusable than they, because he maintaineth her to be a true church of christ: and therefore let him duly ponder these words of s. augustine against the donatists. if i persecute him justly who detracts y conc. super. gest. cum e●●rit. from his neighbour, why should i not persecute him who detracts from the church of christ, and saith, this is not she, but this is an harlot? and least of all, will i consider, whether you may not be well compared to one ticonius a donatist, who wrote against p●rmenianus likewise a donatist, who blasphemed, that the church of christ had perished (as you do even in this your book writ against some of your protestant brethren, or as you call them zelo●s among you, who hold the very same or rather a worse heresy) and yet remained among them, even after parmenianus had excommunicated him, (as those your zealous brethren would proceed against you if it were in their power,) and yet like ticonius you remain in their communion, and come not into that church which is, hath been, and shall ever be universal: for which very cause s. augustin complains of ticonius, that although he wrote against the donatists, yet he was of an hart z de doct. chri●●. lib. 3. cap. 30. so extremely absurd, as not to forsake them altogether. and speaking of the same thing in another place he observes, that although ti●onius did manifestly confute them who affirmed that the church had perished; yet, he saw not (saith this holy father) that which in good consequence a cont. par●. l. 1. cap. 1. he should have seen, that those christians of africa belonged to the church spread over the whole world, who remained united, not with them who were divided from the communion and unity of the same world, but with such as did communicate with the whole world. but parmenianus, and the rest of the donatists saw that consequence and resolved rather to settle their mind in obstinacy against the most manifest truth which tico●us maintained, then by yielding thereto, to be overcome by those churches in africa, which enjoyed the communion of that unity which ticonius defended, from which they had divided themselves. how fitly these words agree to catholics in england in respect of the protestants, i desire the reader to consider. but these and the like resemblances of protestants to the donatists, i willingly let pass, and only urge the main point: that since luther's reformed church was not in being for diverse centuries before luther, and yet was (because so forsooth they will needs have it) in the apostles time, they must of necessity affirm heretically with the donatists, that the true and unspotted church of christ perished; and that she which remained on earth was (o b●asphemy●) 〈◊〉 harlot. moreover the same heresy follows out of the doctrine of d. potter, and other protestants, that the church may err in points not fundamental; because we have showed that every error against any one revealed truth, is heresy and damnable, whether the matter be otherwise of itself, great or small. and how can the church more truly be said to perish, then when she is permitted to maintain a damnable heresy? besides, we will hereafter prove, that by any act of heresy all divine faith is lost; and to imagine a true church of faithful persons without any faith, is as much as to fancy a living man without life. it is therefore clear, that donatist-like they hold that the church of christ perished: yea they are worse than the donatists, who sa●d, that the church remained at least in africa; whereas protestants must of necessity be forced to grant, that for along space before luther, she was no where at all. but let us go forward to other reasons. 18 the holy scripture, and ancient fathers do assign separation from the visible church as a mark of heresy; according to that of s. ioh●: they went out b 2▪ joan. 19 from us. and, some who c act. 15. 2●▪ went out from us. and, out of you shall d act. 20. 30. arise men speaking perverse things. and accordingly vincentius lyrinensis saith: who ever e lib. adversus haer. c. 3●. began heresies, who did not first separate himself from the universality, antiquity, and consent of the catholic church? but it is manifest, that when luther appeared, there was no visible church distinct from the roman, out of which she could depart, as it is likewise well known that luther, and his followers departed out of her: therefore she is no way liable to this mark of heresy, but protestants cannot possibly avoid it. to this purpose s. prosper hath these pithy words: a christian communicating f dimi●. temp. cap. 5. with the universal church is a catholic, and he who is divided from her, is an heretic; and antichrist. but luther in his first reformation could not communicate with the visible catholic church of those times, because he began his reformation by opposing the supposed errors of the then visible church: we must therefore say with s. prosper, that he was an heretic etc. which like-likewise is no less clearly proved out of s. cypri●n, saying: not we (g) departed from them, but they from us, and since heresies and schisms are bred afterwards, while they make to themselves diverse conventicles, they have forsake● the head and origen of truth. 19 and that we might not remain doubtful what separation it is, which is the mark of heresy, the ancient fathers tell us more in particular, that it is from the church of rome, as it is the sea of peter. and therefore d. potter need not to be so hot with us, because we say and write that the church of rome, in that sense as she is the mother church of all others, and with which all the rest agree, is truly called the catholic church. s. hierome writing to pope damasus saith: i am in the communion h ep. 57 ad damas. of the chair of peter; i know that the church is built upon that rock whosoever shall eat the lamb out of this house, he is profane. if any shall not be in the ark of no, he shall perish in the time of the deluge: whosoever doth not gather with thee, doth scatter, that is, he that is not of christ is of antichrist. and elsewhere, which doth he i lib. 1. apoleg. call his faith? that of the roman church? or that which is contained in the books of origen? if he answer, the roman, than we are catholics, who have translated nothing of the error of origen. and yet farther: know thou, that the k ibid. lib. 3. roman faith commended by the voice of the apostle doth not receive these delusions, though an angel should denounce otherwise, than it hath once been preached. s▪ ambrose recounting how his brother satyrus enquiring for a church wherein to give thanks for his delivery from shipwreck, saith: he called unto him l de obitu satyri fratris. the bishop, neither did he esteem any favour to be true, except that of the true faith, and he asked of him whether he agreed with the catholic bishops; that is, with the roman church? and having understood that he was a schismatic, that is, separated from the roman church, he abstained from communicating with him. where we see the privilege of the roman church confirmed both by word and deed, by doctrine and practice. and the same saint saith of the roman church: from thence the rights m lib. 1 cp. 4. ad i●pera●ores. of venerable communion do flow to all. s. cyprian saith: they are bold n epist. 55. ad cornel. to sail to the chair of peter, and to the principal church, from whence priestly unity hath sprung. neither do they consider, that they are romans, whose faith was commended by the preaching of the apostle, to whom falsehood cannot have access. where we see this holy father joins together the principal church, and the chair of peter; and affirmeth that falsehood not only hath not had, but cannot have access to that sea. and elsewhere: thou wrotest that i should send o epist. 52. a copy of the same letters to cornelius our colleague, that laying aside all solicitude, he might now be assured that thou didst communicate with him, that is, with the catholic church. what think you m. doctor of these words? is it so strange a thing to take for one and the same thing, to communicate with the church and pope of rome, and to communicate with the catholic church! s. ireneus saith: because it were long to number the successions of all churches, p lib. 3. cont. 〈◊〉. ●. 3. we declaring the tradition (and faith preached to men, and coming to us by tradition) of the most great, most ancient, and most known church, founded by the two most glorious apostles peter and paul; which tradition it hath from the apostles, coming to us by succession of bishops; we confound all those who any way either by evil complacence of themselves, or vain glory, or by blindness, or ill opinion do gather otherwise th● they ought. for to this church for a more powerful principality, it is necessary that all church's resort, that is, all faithful people of what place soever: in which (roman. ch.) the tradition which is from the apostles hath always been conserved from those who are every where. s. augustine saith: it grieves us q ja psal. cont. patrem donati. to see you so to lie cut off. number the priests even from the sea of peter; and consider in that order of fathers who succeeded to whom. she is the rock which the proud gates of hell do not overcome. and in another place, speaking of caecilianus, he saith: he might contemn the conspiring r ep. 162. multitude of his enemies, because he knew himself to be united, by communicatory letters both to the roman church in which the principality of the sea apostolic did always flourish; and to other countries from whence the gospel came first into africa. ancient tertullian saith: if thou be near italy, thou hast rome, whose s praeser. cap. 36. authority is near at hand to us: a happy church, into which the apostles have poured all doctrine, together with their blood. s. basill in a letter to the bishop of rome ●aith, in very deed that which was given t epist. ad pont. rome by our lord to thy piety, is worthy of that most excellent voice which proclaimed thee blessed, to wit, that thou mayst discern betwixt that which is counterfeit, and that which is lawful and pure, and without any diminution mayest preach the faith of our ancestors. maximinianus bishop of constantin●ple about twelve hundred years ago, said: all the bounds of the earth who have sincerely acknowledged our lord, and catholics through the whole world professing the true faith, look upon the power of the bishop of rome, as upon the sun etc. for the creator of the world, amongst all men of the world elected him, (he speaks of s. peter) to whom he granted the chair of doctor to be principally possessed by a perpetual right of privilege; that whosoever is desirous to know any divine and profound thing, may hau● recourse to the oracle, and doctrine of this instruction. john patriarch of constantinople, more than eleven hundred years ago in an epistle to pope hormisda, writeth thus: because u epist. ad h●rmis. p. p. the beginning of salvation is to conserve the rule of right faith, and in no wise to swerve from the tradition of our forefather's; because the words of. our lord cannot fail, saying: thou art peter, and upon this rock i will build my church; the proofs of deeds have made good those words, because in the sea apostolical the catholic religion is always conserved inviolable. and again: we promise hereafter not to recite in the sacred mysteries the names of them who are excluded from the communion of the catholic church, that is to say, who consent not fully with the sea apostolic. many other authorities of the ancient fathers might be produced to this purpose; but these may serve to show, that both the latin, and greek fathers held for a note of being a catholic, or an heretic, to have been united, or divided from the sea of rome. and i have purposely alleged only such authorities of fathers, as speak of the privileges of the sea of rome, as of things permanent, and depending on our saviour's promise to s, peter, from which a general rule, and ground ought to be taken for all ages, because heaven and earth shall w mat. 24. 35. pass, but the word of our lord shall remain for ever. so that i here conclude, that seeing it is manifest that luther and his followers divided themselves from the sea of rome, they bear the inseparable mark of heresy. 20 and though my meaning be not to treat the point of ordination, or succession in the protestants church, because the fathers alleged in the last reason, assign succession as one mark of the true church; i must not omit to say, that according to the grounds of protestants themselves, they can neither pretend personal succession of bishops, nor succession of doctrine. for whereas succession of bishops signifies a never-interrupted line of persons, endued with an indelible quality, which divines call a character, which cannot be taken away by deposition, degradation, or other means whatsoever; and endued also with jurisdiction and authority to teach, to preach, to govern the church by laws, precepts, censures, etc. protestants cannot pretend succession in either of these. for (besides that there was never protestant bishop before luther, and that there can be no continuance of succession, where there was no beginning to succeed,) they commonly acknowledge no character, and consequently must affirm that when their pretended bishops or priests are deprived of jurisdiction, or degraded, they remain mere lay persons as before their ordination; fulfilling what tertullian objects as a mark of heresy: to ●ay a priest, to morrow x praes●r. cap. 41. a layman. for if here be no immovable character, their power of order must consist only in jurisdiction, and authority, or in a kind of moral deputation to some function, which therefore may be taken away by the same power, by which it was given. neither can they pretend succession in authority, or jurisdiction. for all the authority, or jurisdiction which they had, was conferred by the church of rome, that is, by the pope: because the whole church collectively doth not meet to ordain bishops or priests, or to give them authority. but according to their own doctrine, they believe that the pope neither hath, or aught to have any jurisdiction, power, superiority, pre-eminence, or authority ecclesiassicall, or spiritual within this realm, which they swear even when they are ordained bishops, priests, and deacons: how then can the pope give jurisdiction where they swear he neither hath, nor aught to have any? or if yet he had, how could they without schism withdraw themselves from his obedience? besides, the roman church never gave them authority to oppose her, by whom it was given. but grant, their first bishops had such authority from the church of rome: after the decease of those men, who gave authority to their pretended successors? the primate of england? but from whom had he such authority? and after his decease, who shall confer authority upon his successors? the temporal magistrate? king henry, neither a catholic, nor a protestant? king edward, a child? queen elizabeth, a woman? an infant of one hours' age, is true king in case of his predecessors decease: but shall your church lie fallow till that infant-king, and green head of the church come to years of discretion? do your bishops, your hierarchy, your succession, your sacraments, your being or not being heretics for want of succession, depend on this newfound supremacy-doctrine brought in by such a man merely upon base occasions, and for shameful ends; impugned by calvin, and his followers; derided by the christian world; and even by chief protestants as d. andrew's, wotton, etc. not held for any necessary point of faith? and from whom i pray you, had bishops their authority, when there were no christian kings? must the greek patriarches receive spiritual jurisdiction from the greek turk? did the pope, by the baptism of princes, lose the spiritual power he formerly had of conferring spiritual jurisdiction upon bishops? hath the temporal magistrate authority to preach, to assoil from sins, to inflict excommunications, and other censures? why hath he not power to excommunicate, as well as to dispense in irregularity, as our late sovereign lord king james, either dispensed with the late archbishop of canterbury, or else gave commission to some bishops to do it? and since they were subject to their primate, and not he to them, it is clear, that they had no power to dispense with him, but that power must proceed from the prince, as superior to them all, and head of the protestants church in england. if he have no such authority, how can he give to others what himself hath not? your ordination, or consecration of bishops and priests imprinting no character, can only consist in giving a power, authority, jurisdiction, or (as i said before) some kind of deputation to exercise episcopal, or priestly functions: if then, the temporal magistrate confers this power etc. he can, nay he cannot choose but ordain, and consecrate bishops, & priests, as often as he confers authority or jurisdiction: and your bishops as soon as they are designed & confirmed by the king, must ip so facto be ordained and consecrated by him without intervention of bishops, or matter and form of ordination: which absurdities you will be more unwilling to grant, than well able to avoid, if you will be true to your own doctrines. the pope from whom originally you must beg your succession of bishops, never received, nor will, nor can acknowledge to receive any spiritual jurisdiction from any temporal prince, and therefore if jurisdiction must be derived from princes, he hath none at all: and yet either you must acknowledge, that he hath true spiritual jurisdiction, or that yourselves can receive none from him. 21 moreover, this new reformation, or reformed church of protestants, will by them be pretended to be catholic, or universal, and not confined to england alone, as the sect of the donatists was to africa: and therefore it must comprehend all the reformed churches in germany, holland, scotland. france etc. in which number, they of germany, holland, and france are not governed by bishops, nor regard any personal succession, unless of such fat-benefi●ed bishops as nicolaus amsfordius, who was consecrated by luther, (though luther himself was never bishop) as witnesseth y in millenario sexto pag. 187. dresserus. and though scotland hath of late admitted some bishops, i much doubt whether they hold them to be necessary, or of divine institution; and so their enforced admitting of them, doth not so much furnish that kingdom with personal succession of bishops, as it doth convince them to want succession of doctrine; since in this their neglect of bishops they disagree both from the milder protestant's of england, and the true catholic church: and by this want of a continued personal succession of bishops, they retain the note of schism, and heresy. so that the church of protestants, must either not be universal, as being confined to england; or if you will needs comprehend all those churches which want succession, you must confess, that your church doth not only communicate with schismatical and heretical churches, but is also compounded of such churches; and yourselves cannot avoid the note of schismatics, or heretics, if it were but for participating with such heretical churches. for it is impossible to retain communion with the true catholic church, and yet agree with them who are divided from her by schism, or heresy; because that were to affirm, that for the self same time, they could be within, and without the catholic church, as proportionably i discoursed in the next precedent chapter, concerning the communicating of moderate protestants with those who maintain that heresy of the latency and invisibility of god's church, where i brought a place of s. cyprian to this purpose, which the reader may be pleased to review in the fifth chapter, and 17. number. 22 but besides this defect in the personal succession of protestant bishops, there is another of great moment; which is, that they want the right form of ordaining bishops, and priests, because the manner which they use is so much different from that of the roman church (at least according to the common opinion of divines) that it cannot be sufficient for the essence of ordination; as i could demonstrate if this were the proper place of such a treatise, and will not fail to do if d. potter give me occasion. in the mean time the reader may be pleased to read the author z see adamum tā●erum tom. 4. disp. 7. quaest. 2. du●. 3. & 4. cited here in the margin, and then compare the form of our ordination with that of protestants; and to remember, that if the form which they use either in consecrating bishops, or in ordaining priests be at least doubtful, they can neither have undoubted priests, nor bishops. for priests cannot be ordained but by true bishops, nor can any be a true bishop, unless he first be priest. i say, their ordination is at least doubtful; because that sufficeth for my present purpose. for bishops and priests, whose ordination is notoriously known to be but doubtful, are not to be esteemed bishops, or priests: and no man without sacrilege can receive sacraments from them; all which they administer unlawfully: and (if we except baptism, with manifest danger of invalidity, and with obligation to be at least conditionally repeated) so protestant's must remain doubtful of remission of sins, of their ecclesiastical hierarchy, and may not pretend to be a true church, which cannot subsist without undoubted true bishops and priests, not without due administration of sacraments, which (according to protestants) is an essential note of the true church. and it is a world to observe the proceeding of english protestants in this point of their ordinations. for first, ann. 3. edw. 6. cap. 2. when he was a child about twelve years of age, it was enacted, that such a dyer. fol. 234. term. mich. 6. & ●. eliz. form of making, and consecrating of bishops and priests, as by six prelates, and six other to be appointed by the king, should be devised (mark this word devised) and set forth under the great seal; should be used, and none other. but after this act was repealed 1. mar. sess. 2. in so much as that when afterward an. 6. & 7 reg. eliz. bishop bonner being indicted upon a certificate made by d. horn a protestant bishop of winchester, for his refusal of the oath of supremacy; and he excepting against the endictment because d, horn was no bishop; all the judges resolved that his exception was good, if indeed d. horn was not bishop, and they were all at a stand, till an. 8. eliz cap. 1. the act of edw. 6. was renewed and confirmed, with a particular proviso, that no man should be impeached or molested by means of any certificate by any bishop or archbishop made before this last act. whereby it is clear, that they made some doubt of their own ordination, and that there is nothing but uncertainty in the whole business of their ordination, which (forsooth) must depend upon six prelates, the great seal, acts of parliaments being contrary one to another, and the like. 23 but though they want personal succession, yet at least they have succession of doctrine as they say, and pretend to prove, because they believe as the apostles believed. this is to beg the question, and to take what they may be sure, will never be granted. for if they want personal succession, and slight ecclesiastical tradition, how will they persuade any man, that they agree with the doctrine of the apostles? we have heard tertullian saying: i will prescribe b sup. c. 5. against all heretics) that there is no means to prove what the apostles preached, but by the same churches which they founded. and s. irenaeus tells us that, we may c l. 3. c. 5. behold the tradition of the apostles in every church, if men be desirous to hear the truth, and we can number them who were made bishops by the apostles in churches, and their successors even to us. and the same father in another place saith: we ought to obey d l. 4. c. 43. those priests who are in the church, who have succession from the apostles, and who together with succession in their bishoprics have received the certain gift of truth. s. austin saith: i am kept in the church e contr. epist. fundam. c. 4. by the succession of priests from the very sea of peter the apostle, to whom our saviour after his resurrection committed his sheep to be fed, even to the present bishop. origen to this purpose giveth us a good and wholesome rule (happy, if himself had followed the same) in these excellent words: since there be many who think f praef. ad lib▪ periarchon. they believe the things which are of c●rist, and some are of different opinion from those who went before them; let the preaching of the church be kept, which is delivered by the apostles by order of succession, and remains in the church to this very day; that only is to be believed for truth, which in nothing disagrees from the tradition of the church. in vain then do these men brag of the doctrine of the apostles, unless first they can demonstrate that they enjoyed a continued succession of bishops from the apostles, and can show us a church which, according to s. austin, is deduced by undoubted succession from the sea g cont. faust▪ cap. 2. of the apostles, even to the present bishops. 23 but yet nevertheless, suppose it were granted, that they agreed with the doctrine of the apostles; this were not sufficient to prove a succession in doctrine. for succession, besides agreement or similitude, doth also require a never-interrupted conveying of such doctrine, from the time of the apostles, till the days of those persons, who challenge such a succession. and so s. augustine saith: we are to believe that▪ gospel which from the time of the apostles, the h lib. 28. cont. eaust, cap. 2. church hath brought down to our days by a never-interrupted course of times, and by undoubted succession of connection. now, that the reformation begun by luther, was interrupted for diverse ages before him, is manifest out of history, and by his endeavouring a reformation, which must presuppose abuses. he cannot therefore pretend a continued succession of that doctrine which he fought to revive, and reduce to the knowledge, and practice of men. and they ought not to prove that they have succession of doctrine, because they agree with the doctrine of the apostles; but contrarily we must infer, that they agree not with the apostles, because they cannot pretend a never-interrupted succession of doctrine from the times of the apostles, till luther. and here it is not amiss to note, that although the waldenses, wicliffe etc. had agreed with protestants in all points of doctrine; yet they could not brag of succession from them, because their doctrine hath not been free from interruption, which necessarily crosseth succession. 24 and as want of succession of persons and doctrine, cannot stand with that universality of time, which is inseparable from the catholic church; so likewise the disagreeing sects which are dispersed throughout diverse countries, and nations, cannot help towards that universality of place, wherewith the true church must be endued: but rather such local multiplication, doth more & more lay open their division, & want of succession in doctrine. for the excellent observation of s. augustine doth punctually agree with all modern heretics; wherein this holy father having cited these words out of the prophet ezechiell, i cap. 24. my flocks▪ are dispersed upon the whole face of the earth; he adds this remarkable sentence: not all heretics k lib. de p●storib. c. 8. are spread over the face of the earth, and yet there are heretics spread over the whole face of the earth, some here, some there, yet they are wanting in no place, they know not one another. one sect for example in africa, another heresy in the east, another in egypt, another in mesopotamia. in diverse places they are diverse: one mother, pride hath begot them all, as our own mother the catholic church hath brought forth all faithful people dispersed throughout the whole world. no wonder then, if pride breed dissension, and charity union. and in another place, applying to heretics those words of the canticles: if thou know not l cant. ●. thyself, go forth, and follow after the steps of the flocks, and feed thy kids, he saith: if thou know not thyself, go m ep. 48. thou forth, i do not cast thee out; but go thou out, that it may be said of thee: they went from us, but they were not of us. go thou out in the steps of the flocks; not in my steps, but in the steps of the flocks, nor of one flock, but of diverse and wand'ring flocks; and feed thy kids, not as peter, to whom is said, feed my sheep: but seed thy kids in the tabernacles of the pastors, not in the tabernacle of the pastor, where there is one flock, and one pastor. in which words this holy father doth set down the marks of heresy, to wit, going out from the church, and want of unity among themselves, which proceed from not acknowledging one supreme visible pastor and head under christ. and so it being proved that protestants having neither succession of persons, nor doctrine, nor universality of time, or place, cannot avoid the just note of heresy. 25 hitherto we have brought arguments to prove, that luther, and all protestants are guilty of heresy against the negative precept of faith, which obligeth us under pain of damnation, not to embrace any one error, contrary to any truth sufficiently propounded, as testified or revealed by almighty god. which were enough to make good, that among persons who disagree many one point of faith, one part only can be saved: yet we will now prove that whosoever erreth in any one point, doth also break the affirmative precept of faith, whereby we are obliged positively, to believe some revealed truth with an infallible, and supernatural faith, which is necessary to salvation, even necessitate finis, or me●ii, as divines speak; that is, so necessary that not any, after he is come to the use of reason, was or can be saved without it, according to the words of the apostle: without faith n heb. 11. 6. it is impossible to please god. 26 in the beginning of this chapter i showed, that to christian catholic faith are required certainty, obscurtty, prudence; and supernaturality; all which conditions we will prove to be wanting in the belief of protestants, even in those points which are true in themselu●s, and to which they yield assent, as hapeneth in all those particulars, wherein they agree with us; from whence it will follow, that they wanting true divine faith, want means absolutely necessary to salvation. 27 and first, the faith of protestants wanteth certainty. that their belief wanteth certainty, i prove, because denying the universal infallibility of the church, can have no certain grounnd to know what objects are revealed, or testified by god. holy scripture is in itself most true and infallible; but without the direction & declaration of the church, we can neither have certain means to know what scripture is canonical; nor what translations be faithful, nor what is the true meaning of scripture: every protestant, as i suppose, is persuaded that his own opinions, be true, and that he hath used such means as are wont to be prescribed for understanding the scripture, as prayer, conferring of diverse texts, etc. and yet their disagreements show tha● some of them are deceived: and therefore it is clear that they have no one certain ground whereon to rely for understanding of scripture. and seeing they hold all the articles of faith, even concerning fundamental points, upon the self same ground of scripture, interpreted, not by the church's authority, but according to some other rules, which as experience of their contradictions teach, do sometimes fail; it is clear that the ground of their faith is infallible in no point at all. and albeit sometime it chance to hit on the truth, yet it is likewise apt to lead them to error: as all arch-heretiques believing some truths, & withal diverse errors upon the same ground and motive, have indeed no true divine infallible faith, b●t only a fallible humane opinion, and persuasion. for if the ground upon which they rely were certain, it could never produce any error. 28 another cause of uncertainty in the faith of protestants, must rise from their distinction of points fundamental, and not fundamental. for since they acknowledge, that every error in fundamental points destroyeth the substance of faith and yet cannot determine what points be fundamental; it followeth that they must remain uncertain whether or no they be not in some fundamental error, and so want the substance of faith, without which there can be no hope of salvation. 29 and that he who erreth against any one revealed truth (as certainly some protestants must do, because contradictory propositions cannot both be true) doth lose all divine faith; is a very true doctrine delivered by catholic divines, with so general a consent, that the contrary is wont to be censured as temerarious. the angelical doctor s. thomas proposeth this question: whether o 2. 2. 4. 5. ar. 3. in corp. he who denieth one article of faith, may retain faith in other articles? and resolveth that he cannot which he proveth, (arguments said contra) because, as deadly sin is opposites to charity; so to deny one article of faith is opposite to faith. but charity doth not remain with any one deadly sin; therefore faith doth not remain after the denial of any one article of faith. whereof he gives this farther reason: because (saith he) the nature of every habit doth depend upon the formal motive and object thereof, which motive being taken away, the nature of the habit cannot remain. but the formal object of faith is the supreme truth as it is manifested in scriptures, and in the doctrine of the church, which proceeds from the same supreme verity. whosoever therefore doth not rely upon the doctrine of the church (which proceeds from the supreme verity, manifested in scripture) as upon an infallible rule, he hath not the habit of faith, but believes those things which belong to faith by some other meanes then by faith: as if one should remember some conclusion, and not know the reason of that demonstration, it is clear that he hath not certain knowledge, but only opinion. now it is manifest, that he who relies on the doctrine of the church, as upon an infallible rule, will yield his assent to all, that the church teacheth. for if among those things, which she teacheth, he hold what he will, and doth not hold what he will not, he doth not rely upon the doctrine of the church, as upon an infallible rule, but only upon his own will. and so it is clear that an heretic, who with pertinacity denieth one article of faith, is not ready to follow the doctrine of the church in all things: and therefore it is manifest, that whosoever is an heretic in any one article of faith, concerning other articles, hath not saith, but a kind of opinion, or his own will. thus far. s. thomas. and afterward: a man doth believe q ad 2. all the articles of faith for one and the self same reason, to wit, for the prime verity proposed to us in the scripture, understood aright according to the doctrine of the church: and therefore whosoever falls from this reason or motive, is totally deprived of faith. from this true doctrine we are to infer, that to retain, or want the substance of faith, doth not consist in the matter, or multitude of the articles, but in the opposition against god's divine testimony, which is involved in every least error against faith. and since some protestants must needs err, and that they have no certain rule to know, why rather one then another; it manifestly follows that none of them have any certainty for the substance of their faith in any one point. moreover d. potter, being forced to confess that the roman church wants not the substance of faith, it follows that she doth not err in any one point against faith, because as we have seen out of s. thomas, every such error destroys the substance of faith. now if the roman church did not err in any one point of faith, it is manifest that protestants err in all those points wherein they are contrary to her. and this may suffice to prove that the faith of protestants wants infallibility. 30 and now for the second condition of faith, i say: if protestants have certainty, they want obscurity, they want the second condition of faith: obscurity. and so have not that faith which, as the apostle saith, is of things not appearing, or not necessitating our understanding to an assent. for the whole edifice of the faith of protestants, is settled on these two principles: these particular books are canonical scripture: and the sense and meaning of these canonical scriptures, is clear and evident, at least in all points necessary to salvation. now, these principles being once supposed, it clearly followeth, that what protestants believe as necessary to salvation, is evidently known by them to be true, by this argument: it is certain and evident, that whatsoever is contained in the word of god, is true. but it is certain and evident, that these books in particular are the word of god: therefore it is certain and evident, that whatsoever is contained in these books is true. which conclusion i take for a mayor in a second argument, and say thus: it is certain and evident that whatsoever is contained in these books is true: but it is certain and evident, that such particular articles (for example, the trinity, incarnation, original sin, etc.) are contained in these books: therefore it is certain and evident, that these particular objects are true. neither will it avail you to say, that the said principles are not evident by natural discourse, but only to the eye of reason cleared by grace, as you speak. for supernatural evidence, no less (yea rather more) draws and excludes obscurity, then natural evidence doth: neither can the party so enlightened be said voluntarily to captivate his understanding to that light, but rather his understanding is by a necessity made captive, and forced not to disbelieve, what is presented by so clear a light: and therefore your imaginary faith is not the true faith defined by the apostle, but an invention of your own. 31 that the faith of protestants wanteth the third condition which was prudence, their faith wants prudence. is deduced from all that hitherto hath been said. what wisdom was it, to forsake a church confessedly very ancient, and besides which, there could be demonstrated no other visible church of christ upon earth? a church acknowledged to want nothing necessary to salvation; endued with succession of bishops, with visibility and universality of time and place; a church which if it be not the true church, her enemies cannot pretend to have any church, ordination, scriptures, succession, etc. and are forced for their own sake, to maintain her perpetual existence, and being! to leave, i say, such a church, and frame a community, without either unity, or means to procure it; a church which at luther's first revolt had no larger extent than where his body was; a church without universality of place or time; a church which can pretend no visibility, or being, except only in that former church which it opposeth▪ a church void of succession of persons o● doctrine? what wisdom was it to follow such men as luther, in an opposition against the visible church of christ, begun upon mere passion? what wisdom is it to receive from us, a church, ordination, scriptures, personal succession, and not succession of doctrine? is not this to verify the name of heresy, which signifieth election or choice? whereby they cannot avoid that note of imprudency, (or as s. augustine calls it) foolishness, set down by him against the manichees; and by me recited before. i would not (saith he) believe r cont. ep. fund. c. 5. the gospel, unless the authority of the church did move me. those therefore whom i obeyed, saying, believe the gospel, why should i not obey the same men saying to me, do not believe manichaeus (luther, calvin, etc.) choose what thou pleasest: if thou say, believe the catholics; they warn me not to believe thee. wherefore if i believe them, i cannot believe thee. if thou say, do not believe the catholics; thou shalt not do well, in forcing me to the faith of manichaeus, because by the preaching of catholics, i believed the gospel itself. if thou say; you did well to believe them (catholics) commending the gospel, but you did not well to believe them, discommending manichaeus; dost thou think me so very foolish, that without any reason at all, i should believe what thou wilt, and not believe, what thou wilt not? nay this holy father is not content to call it foolishness, but mere madness, in these words: why should i not most diligently inquire s lib. de util. cred. c. 14. what christ commanded of those before all others, by whose authority i was moved to believe, that christ commanded any good thing? canst thou better declare to me, what he said, whom i would not have thought to have been, or to be, if the belief thereof had been recommended by thee to me? th● therefore i believed by fame, strengthened with celebrity, consent, antiquity. but every one may see that you, so few, so turbulent, so new: can produce nothing which deserves authority. what madness is this? believe them (catholics) that we ought to believe christ; but learn of us what christ said. why i beseech thee? surely if they (catholics) were not at all, and could not teach me any thing, i would more easily persuade myself, that i were not to believe christ, than i should learn any thing concerning him from other than those, by whom i believed him. lastly, i ask what wisdom it could be to leave all visible churches; and consequently the true catholic church of christ, which you confess cannot err in points necessary to salvation, and the roman church which you grant doth not err in fundamentals, and follow private men who may err even in points necessary to salvation? especially if we add, that when luther rose, there was no visible true catholic church besides that of rome, and them who agreed with her; in which sense, she was, and is, the only true church of christ; and not capable of any error in faith. nay, even luther, who first opposed the roman church, yet coming to dispute against other heretics, he is forced to give the lie both to his own words and deeds, in saying: we freely confess t i● epist. co●t. anah. ad duos parocho●. to. 2. germ. witt. sol. 229. & 230. that in the papacy there are many good things, worthy the name of christian, which have come from them to us. namely, we confess that in the papacy there is true scripture, true baptism; the true sacrament of the altar, the true keys for remission of sins, the true office of preaching, true catechism, as our lord's prayer, ten commandments, articles of faith etc. and afterward: i avouch, that under the papacy there is true christianity, yea the kernel and marrow of christianity, and many pious and great saints. and again he affirmeth, that the church of rome hath the true spirit, gospels, faith, baptism, sacraments, the keys, the office of preaching, prayer, holy scripture, and whatsoever christianity ought to have. and a little before: i hear and see that they bring in anabaptism only to this end, that they may spite the pope, as men that will receive nothing from antichrist; no otherwise then the sacramentaries do, who therefore believe only bread and wine to be in the sacrament, merely in hatred against the bishop of rome; and they think that by this means they shall overcome the papacy. verily these men rely upon a weak ground, for by this means they must deny the whole scripture, and the office of preaching. for we have all these things from the pope; otherwise we must go make a new scripture. o truth, more forcible (as s. austin says) to wring out x contra donar. post collat. cap. 24. confession, then is any rack, or torment! and so we may truly say with moses: inimici nostri sunt judices: our very enemies give y deut. c. 32. 31. their faith wants supernaturality. sentence for us. 32 lastly, since your faith wanteth certainty, and prudence, it is easy to infer that it wants the fourth condition, supernaturality. for being but an humane persuasion, or opinion, it is not in nature, or essence supernatural. and being imprudent, and rash, it cannot proceed from divine motion and grace; and therefore it is neither supernatural in itself, nor in the cause from which it proceedeth. 33 since therefore we have proved, that whosoever errs against any one point of faith, looseth all divine faith, even concerning those other articles wherein he doth not err; and that although he could still retain true faith for some points, yet any one error in whatsoever other matter concerning faith, is a grievous sin; it clearly follows, that when two or more hold different doctrines concerning faith and religion, there can be but one part saved. for declaring of which truth, if catholics be charged with want of charity, and modesty, and be accused of rashness, ambition, and fury, as d. potter is very free in this kind; i desire every one to ponder the words of s. chrysostom, who teacheth, that every least error overthrows all faith, and whosoever is guilty thereof, is in the church, like one, who in the common wealth forgeth false come. let them hear (saith this holy father)▪ what s. paul saith: namely, that they who brought in some small error z galat. 1. 7. had overthrown the gospel. for, to show how a small thing ill mingled doth corrupt the whole, he said, that the gospel was subverted. for as he who eclipse a little of the stamp from the king's money, makes the whole piece of no value: so whosoever takes away the least particle of sound faith, is wholly corrupted, always going from that beginning to worse things. where then are they, who condemn us as contentious persons, because we cannot agree with heretics, and do often say, that there is no difference betwixt us and them, but that our disagreement proceeds from ambition to domineer? and thus having showed that protestants want true faith, it remaineth that, according to my first design, i examine whether they do not also want charity, as it respects a man's self. the answer to the six chapter. that protestants are not heretics. he that will accuse any one man, ad §. 1 much more any great multitude of men of any great and horrible crime, should in all reason and justice take care that the greatness of his evidence do equal, if not exceed the quality of the crime. and such an accusation you would here make show of, by pretending, first, to lay such grounds of it, as are either already proved, or else yielded on all sides: and after to raise a firm and stable structure of convincing arguments upon them. but both these i find to be mere and vain pretences, and having considered this chapter also without prejudice or passion, as i did the former, i am enforced by the light of truth, to pronounce your whole discourse, a painted and ruinous building upon a weak & sandy foundation. 2 ad §. 2. 3. first for your grounds, a great part of them, is falsely said to be either proved or granted. it is true indeed that man by his natural wit or industry could never have attained to the knowledge of gods will to give him a supernatural and eternal happiness, nor of the means by which his pleasure was to bestow this happiness upon him. and therefore your first ground is good, that it was requisite his understanding should be enabled to apprehend that end and means by a knowledge supernatural. i say this is good, if you mean by knowledge, an apprehension or belief. but if you take the word properly and exactly, it is both false, for faith is not knowledge, no more than three is four, but eminently contained in it, so that he that knows, believes, and something more, but he that believes many times do not know, nay if he doth barely and merely believe, he doth never know: and besides it is retracted by yourself presently, where you require, that the object of faith must be both naturally and supernaturally unknown. and again in the next page, where you say, faith differs from science in regard of the objects obscurity. for that science and knowledge properly taken are synonimous terms, and that a knowledge of a thing absolutely unknown is a plain implicancy, i think are things so plain, that you will not require any proof of them. 3 but then whereas you add, that if such a knowledge were no more than probable, it could not be able sufficiently to over bear our will, and encounter with humane probabilities, being backed with the strength of flesh and blood, and therefore conclude, that it was farther necessary, that this supernatural knowledge should be most certain and infallible: to this i answer, that i do heartily acknowledge and believe the articles of our faith be in themselves truths, as certain and infallible as the very common principles of geometry and metaphysics. but that there is required of us a knowledge of them, and an adherence to them, as certain as that of sense or science, that such a certainty is required of us under pain of damnation, so that no man can hope to be in the state of salvation, but he that finds in himself such a degree of faith, such a strength of adherence: this i have already demonstrated to be a great error, and of dangerous and pernicious consequence. and because i am more and more confirmed in my persuasion that the truth which i there delivered, is of great and singular use, i will here confirm it with more reasons. and to satisfy you that this is no singularity of my own, my margin presents you with a a m. hooker in his answer to travers his supplication.— i have taught that the assurance of things which we believe by the word, is not so certain as of that we perceive by sense. and is it as certain? yes i taught, that the things which god doth promise in his word are surer unto us then any thing we touch, handle or see. but are we so sure and certain of them? if we be, why doth god so often prove his promises unto us, as he doth by arguments taken from our sensible experience? we must be surer of the proof than the thing proved, otherwise it is no proof. how is it that if ten men do all look upon the moon, every one of them knows it as certainly to be the moon as another: but many believing one and the same promises all have not one and the same fullness of persuasion? how falleth it out that men being assured of any thing by sense, can be no surer of it than they are? whereas the strongest in faith that liveth upon the earth, had always need to labour, and strive, and pray, that his assurance concerning heavenly and spiritual things may grow, increase, and be augmented. protestant divine of great authority, and no way singular in his opinions, who hath long since preached and justified the same doctrine. 4 i say that every text of scripture which makes mention of any that were weak, or of any that were strong in faith: of any that were of little, or any that were of great faith: of any that abounded, or any that were rich in faith: of increasing, growing, rooting, grounding, establishing, confirming in faith: every such text, is a demonstrative refutation of this vain fancy: proving that faith, even true and saving faith, is not a thing consisting in such an indivisible point of perfection as you make it, but capable of augmentation and diminution. every prayer you make to god to increase your faith (or if you conceive such a prayer derogatory from the perfection of your faith,) the apostles praying to christ to increase their faith, is a convincing argument of the same conclusion. moreover if this doctrine of yours were true, then seeing not any the least doubting can consist with a most infallible certainty, it will follow that every least doubting in any matter of faith, though resisted and involuntary, is a damnable sin, absolutely destructive, so long as it lasts, of all true and saving faith: which you are so far from granting, that you make it no sin at all, but only an occasion of merit: and if you should esteem it a sin, then must you acknowledge, contrary to your own principles, that there are actual sins merely involuntary. the same is furthermore invincibly confirmed by every deliberate sin that any christian commits; by any progress in charity that he makes. for seeing, as s. john assures us, our faith is the victory which overcomes the world, certainly if the faith of all true believers were perfect, (and if true faith be capable of no imperfection, if all faith be a knowledge most certain and infallible, all faith must be perfect, for the most imperfect that is, according to your doctrine, if it be true, must be most certain, and sure the most perfect that is, cannot be more than most certain,) then certainly their victory over the world, and therefore over the flesh, and therefore over sin, must of necessity be perfect, and so it should be impossible for any true believer to commit any deliberate sin, and therefore he that commits any sin, must not think himself a true believer. besides seeing faith worketh by charity, and charity is the effect of faith: certainly if the cause were perfect, the effect would be perfect, and consequently as you make no degrees in faith, so there would be none in charity, and so no man could possibly make any progress in it, but all true believers should be equally in charity, as in faith you make them equal: & from thence it would follow avoidable, that whosoever finds in himself any true faith, must presently persuade himself that he is perfect in charity: and whosoever on the other side, discovers in his charity any imperfection, must not believe that he hath any true faith. these you see are strange and portentous consequences, and yet the deduction of them from your doctrine is clear and apparent; which shows this doctrine of yours, which you would fain have true, that there might be some necessity of your church's infallibility, to be indeed plainly repugnant not only to truth but even to all religion and piety, & fit for nothing but to make men negligent of making any progress in faith or charity. and therefore i must entreat and adjure you either to discover unto me (which i take god to witness i cannot perceive,) some fallacy in my reasons against it, or never hereafter to open your mouth in defence of it. 5 as for that one single reason which you produce to confirm it, it will appear upon examination to be resolved finally into a groundless assertion of your own, contrary to all truth and experience, and that is, that no degree of faith, less than a most certain and infallible knowledge, can be able sufficiently to overbeare our will and encounter with humane probabilities, being backed with the strength of flesh and blood. for who sees not that many millions in the world forgo many times their present ease and pleasure, undergo great and toilsome labours, encounter great difficulties, adventure upon great dangers, and all this not upon any certain expectation, but upon a probable hope of some future gain and commodity, and that not infinite and eternal, but finite and temporal? who sees not that many men abstain from many things they exceedingly desire, not upon any certain assurance, but a probable fear of danger that may come after? what man ever was there so madly in love with a present penny, but that he would willingly spend it upon any little hope that by doing so he might gain an hundred thousand pound? and i would fain know what gay probabilities you could devise to dissuade him from this resolution. and if you can devise none, what reason then, or sense is there, but that a probable hope of infinite and eternal happiness, provided for all those that obey christ jesus, and much more a firm faith, though not so certain, in some sort, as sense or science, may be able to sway our will to obedience, and encounter with all those temptations which flesh and blood can suggest to avert us from it? men may therefore talk their pleasure of an absolute and most infallible certainty, but did they generally believe that obedience to christ were the only way to present and eternal felicity, but as firmly and undoubtedly as that there is such a city as constantinople, nay but as much as caesar's commentaries, or the history of sallust, i believe the lives of most men, both papists and protestants would be better than they are. thus therefore out of your own words i argue against you: he that requires to true faith, an absolute and infallible certainty, for this only reason because any less degree could not be able to overbeare our will, etc. imports, that if a less degree of faith were able to do this, than a less degree of faith may be true and divine and saving faith: but experience shows, and reason confirms, that a firm faith, though not so certain as sense or science, may be able to encounter and overcome our will and affections: and therefore it follows from your own reason, that faith which is not a most certain and infallible knowledge may be true and divine and saving faith. 6 all these reasons i have employed to show that such a most certain and infallible faith as here you talk of, is not so necessary, but that without such a high degree of it, it is possible to please god. and therefore the doctrines delivered by you § 25. are most presumptuous and uncharitable: viz: that such a most certain and infallible faith is necessary to salvation, necessitate finis, or medii, so necessary, that after a man is come to the use of reason, no man ever was or can be saved without it. wherein you boldly intrude into the judgement seat of god, & damn men for breaking laws, not of god's, but your own making. but withal, you clearly contradict yourself, not only where you affirm, p. 1. c. 2. § 14. that your faith depends finally upon the tradition of age to age, of father to son, which cannot be a fit ground, but only for a moral assurance; p. 2. c. 5. §. 32. nor only, where you pretend, that not alone hearing and seeing, but also histories, letters, relations of many (which certainly are things not certain and infallible,) are yet foundations good enough to support your faith; which doctrine, if it were good and allowable, protestants might then hope that their histories and letters and relations might also pass for means sufficient of a sufficient certainty, and that they should not be excluded from salvation for want of such a certainty. but indeed the pressure of the present difficulty compelled you to speak here, what i believe you will not justify, and with a pretty tergiversation to show d. potter your means of moral certainty; whereas the objection was that you had no means or possibility of infallible certainty, for which you are plainly at as great a loss and as far to seek as any of your adversaries. and therefore it concerns you highly not to damn others for want of it, lest you involve yourselves in the same condemnation; according to those terrible words of s. paul, inexcusabilis es, etc. in this therefore you plainly contradict yourself. and lastly most plainly, in saying as you do here, you contradict and retract your pretence of charity to protestants in the beginning of your book: for there you make profession, that you have no assurance but that protestants dying protestants, may possibly dye with contrition, and be saved: and here you are very peremptory, that they cannot but want a means absolutely necessary to salvation, and wanting that cannot but be damned. 7 the third condition you require to faith, is, that our assent to divine truths should not only be unknown and unevident by any humane discourse, but that absolutely also it should be obscure in itself, and ordinarily speaking, be void even of supernatural evidence. which words must have a very favourable construction, or else they will not be sense. for who can make any thing of these words taken properly, that faith must be an unknown unevident assent, or an assent absolutely obscure? i had always thought that known and unknown, obscure and evident had been affections, not of our assent, but the object of it, not of our belief, but the thing believed. for well may we assent to a thing unknown, obscure, or unevident; but that our assent itself should be called therefore unknown or obscure, seems to me as great an impropriety, as if i should say, your sight were green or blue, because you see something that is so. in other places therefore i answer your words, but here i must answer your meaning: which i conceive to be, that it is necessary to faith that the objects of it, the points which we believe should not be so evidently certain, as to necessitate our understandings to an assent, that so there might be some merit in faith, as you love to speak (who will not receive no not from god himself, but a pennyworth for a penny,) but as we, some obedience in it, which can hardly have place where there is no possibility of disobedience, as there is not where the understanding does all, and the will nothing. now seeing the religion of protestants, though it be much more credible than yours, yet is not pretended to have the absolute evidence of sense or demonstration; therefore i might let this doctrine pass without exception, for any prejudice that can redound to us by it. but yet i must not forbear to tell you, that your discourse proves indeed this condition requisite to the merit, but yet not to the essence of faith: without it faith were not an act of obedience, but yet faith may be faith without it; and this you must confess, unless you will say either the apostles believed not the whole gospel which they preached, or that they were not eye-witnesses of a great part of it: unless you will question s. john for saying that which we have seen with our eyes, and which our hands have handled, etc. declare we unto you: nay our saviour himself for saying. thomas because thou seest thou be lievest, blessed are they which have not seen and yet have believed. yet if you will say that in respect of the things which they saw, the apostles assent was not pure & proper and mere faith, but somewhat more; an assent containing faith but superadding to it, i will not contend with you, for it will be a contention about words. but then again i must crave leave to tell you, that the requiring this condition, is in my judgement a plain revocation of the former. for had you made the matter of faith either naturally or supernaturally evident, it might have been a fitly attempered & duly proportioned object for an absolute certainty natural or supernatural: but requiring as you do, that faith should be an absolute knowledge of a thing not absolutely known, an infallible certainty of a thing which though it is in itself, yet is it not made appear to us to be infallibly certain, to my understanding you speak impossibilities. and truly for one of your religion to do so, is but a good decorum. for the matter and object of your faith being so full of contradictions, a contradictictious faith may very well become a contradictious religion. your faith therefore, if you please to have it so, let it be a free, necessitated, certain, uncertain, evident, obscure, prudent and foolish, natural and supernatural unnatural assent. but they which are unwilling to believe nonsense themselves, or to persuade others to do so, it is but reason they should make the faith wherewith they believe, an intelligible, compossible, consistent thing, and not define it by repugnances. now nothing is more repugnant, then that a man should be required to give most certain credit unto that which cannot be made appear most certainly credible: and if it appear to him to be so, then is it not obscure that it is so. for if you speak of an acquired, rational, discursive faith, certainly these reasons which make the object seem credible, must be the cause of it, and consequently the strength and firmity of my assent must rise and fall together with the apparent credibility of the object. if you speak of a supernatural infused faith, than you either suppose it infused by the former means, and then that which was said before must be said again: for whatsoever effect is wrought merely by means, must bear proportion to, and cannot exceed the virtue of the means, by which it is wrought: as nothing by water can be made more cold than water, nor by fire more hot than fire, nor by honey more sweet than honey, nor by gall more bitter than gall: or if you will suppose it infused without means, than that power which infuseth into the understanding assent which bears analogy to sight in the eye, must also infuse evidence, that is, visibility into the object: & look what degree of assent is infused into the understanding, at least the same degree of evidence must be infused into the object. and for you to require a strength of credit beyond the appearance of the objects credibility, is all one as if you should require me to go ten miles an hour upon a horse that will go but five: to discern a man certainly through a mist or cloud that makes him not certainly discernible; to hear a sound more clearly than it is audible; to understand a thing more fully than it is intelligible: and he that doth so, i may well expect that his next injunction will be, that i must see something that is invisible, hear something inaudible, understand something that is wholly unintelligible. for he that demands ten of me, knowing i have but five, does in effect, as if he demanded five, knowing that i have none: and by like reason, you requiring that i should see things farther than they are visible, require i should see something invisible, and in requiring that i believe something more firmly than it is made to me evidently credible, you require in effect that i believe something which appears to me incredible, and while it does so. i deny not but that i am bound to believe the truth of many texts of scripture the sense whereof is to me obscure, & the truth of many articles of faith the manner whereof is obscure, and to humane understandings incomprehensible; but than it is to be observed, that not the sense of such texts, not the manner of these things is that which i am bound to believe, but the truth of them. but that i should believe the truth of any thing, the truth whereof cannot be made evident with an evidence proportionable to the degree of faith required of me, this i say for any man to be bound to, is unjust and unreasonable, because to do it is impossible. 8 ad § 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9 10. 11. & 12. yet though i deny that it is required of us to be certain in the highest degree, infallibly certain of the truth of the things which we believe, for this were to know & not believe, neither is it possible unless our evidence of it, be it natural or supernatural, were of the highest degree; yet i deny not but, that we are to believe the religion of christ, we are and may be infallibly certain. for first, this is most certain, that we are in all things to do according to wisdom and reason rather than against it. secondly, this is as certain, that wisdom and reason require that we should believe these things which are by many degrees more credible and probable than the contrary. thirdly, this is as certain, that to every man who considers impartially what great things may be said for the truth of christianity, and what poor things they are which may be said against it, either for any other religion or for none at all, it cannot but appear by many degrees more credible, that christian religion, is true than the contrary. and from all these premises, this conclusion evidently follows, that it is infallibly certain, that we are firmly to believe the truth of christian religion. 9 your discourse therefore touching the fourth requisite to faith which is prudence, i admit so far as to grant. 1. that if we were required to believe with certainty (i mean a moral certainty,) things no way represented as infallible and certain, (i mean morally,) an unreasonable obedience were required of us. and so likewise were it, were we required to believe as absolutely certain, that which is no way represented to us as absolutely certain. 2. that whom god obligeth to believe any thing, he will not fail to furnish their understandings with such inducements, as are sufficient (if they be not negligent or perverse) to persuade them to believe. 3. that there is an abundance of arguments exceedingly credible, inducing men to believe the truth of christianity: i say so credible, that though they cannot make us evidently see what we believe, yet they evidently convince that in true wisdom and prudence, the articles of it deserve credit, and aught to be accepted as things revealed by god. 4. that without such reasons and inducements, our choice even of the true faith, is not to be commended as prudent, but to be condemned of rashness and levity. 10 but then for your making prudence, not only a commendation of a believer, and a justification of his faith, but also essential to it, and part of the definition of it, in that questionless you were mistaken, and have done as if being to say what a man is, you should define him, a reasonable creature that hath skill in astronomy. for as all astronomers are men, but all men are not astronomers, and therefore astronomy ought not to be put into the definition of men, where nothing should have place, but what agrees to all men: so though all that are truly wise (that is, wise for eternity,) will believe aright, yet many may believe aright which are not wise. i could wish with all my heart as moses did, that all the lords people could prophecy: that all that believe the true religion were able (according to s. peter's injunction) to give a reason of the hope that is in them, a reason why they hope for eternal happiness by this way rather than any other! neither do i think it any great difficulty that men of ordinary capacities, if they would give their mind to it, might quickly be enabled to do so. but should i affirm that all true believers can do so, i suppose it would be as much against experience and modesty, as it is against truth and charity, to say as you do, that they which cannot do so, either are not at all, or to no purpose true believers. and thus we see that the foundations you build upon, are ruinous and deceitful, and so unfit to support your fabric that they destroy one another. i come now to show that your arguments to prove protestants heretics, are all of the same quality with your former grounds: which i will do by opposing clear and satisfying answers in order to them. 11 ad §. 13. to the first then, delivered by you §. 13. that protestants must be heretics, because they opposed diverse truths propounded for divine by the visible church: i answer, it is not heresy to oppose any truth propounded by the church, but only such a truth as is an essential part of the gospel of christ. 2. the doctrines which protestants opposed, were not truths, but plain and impious falsehoods: neither thirdly, were they propounded as truths by the visible church, but only by a part of it, and that a corrupted part. 12 ad §. 14. the next argument, in the next particle tell us, that every error against any doctrine revealed by god is damnable heresy: now either protestants or the roman church must err against the word of god: but the roman church we grant (perforce) doth not err damnably, neither can she, because she is the catholic church, which we (you say) confess cannot err damnably: therefore protestants must err against god's word, and consequently are guilty of formal heresy. whereunto i answer plainly, that there be in this argument almost as many falsehoods as assertions. for neither is every error against any doctrine revealed by god a damnable heresy, unless it be revealed publicly, & plainly with a command that all should believe it. 2. d. potter no where grants, that the errors of the roman church are not in themselves damnable, though he hopes by accident they may not actually damn some men amongst you: and this you yourself confess in diverse places of your book, where you tell us, that he allows no hope of salvation to those amongst you, ch. 5. §. 41. whom ignorance cannot excuse. 3. you beg the question twice in taking for granted, first that the roman church is the truly catholic church; which without much favour can hardly pass for a part of it: and again, that the catholic church cannot fall into any error of itself damnable: for it may do so, and still be the catholic church, if it retain those truths which may be an antidote against the malignity of this error, to those that held it out of a simple un-affected ignorance. lastly, though the thing be true, yet i might well require some proof of it from you, that either protestants or the roman church must err against god's word. for if their contradiction be your only reason, than also you or the dominicans must be heretics, because you contradict one another as much as protestants and papists. 13 ad §. 15. the third argument pretends that you have showed already, that the visible church is judge of controversies, and therefore infalliable; from whence you suppose that it follows, that to oppose her, is to oppose god. to which i answer, that you have said only, and not showed that the visible church is judge of controversies. and indeed how can she be judge of them if she cannot decide them? and how can she decide them, if it be a question whether she be judge of them? that which is questioned itself, cannot with any sense be pretended to be fit to decide other questions; and much less this question, whether it have authority to judge and decide all questions? 2. if she were judge, it would not follow that she were infallible, for we have many judges in our courts of judicature, yet none infallible. nay you cannot with any modesty deny, that every man in the world ought to judge for himself, what religion is truest, and yet you will not say that every man is infallible. 3. if the church were supposed infallible, yet it would not follow at all, much less manifestly, that to oppose her declaration is to oppose god: unless you suppose also that as she is infallible, so by her opposers, she is known or believed to be so. lastly, if all this were true (as it is all most false) yet were it to little purpose, seeing you have omitted to prove that the visible church is the roman. 14 ad §. 16. in stead of a fourth argument this is presented to us, that if luther were an heretic, than they that agreed with him must be so. and that luther was a formal heretic, you endeavour to prove by this most formal syllogism; to say the visible church is not universal, is properly an heresy: but luther's reformation was not universal; therefore it cannot be excused from formal heresy. whereunto i answer, first to the first part, that it is no way impossible that luther, had he been the inventor and first broacher of a false doctrine, (as he was not) might have been a formal heretic, and yet that those who follow him may be only so materially and improperly, and indeed no heretics. your own men out of s. augustine distinguish between haeretici & haereticorum sequaces: and you yourself though you pronounce the leaders among the arrians formal heretics, yet confess that salvian was at least doubtful whether these arrians, who in simplicity followed their teachers, might not be excused by ignorance. and about this suspension of his you also seem suspended, for you neither approve nor condemn it. secondly, to the second part i say, that had you not presumed upon our ignorance in logic as well as metaphysics and school divinity, you would never have obtruded upon us this rope of sand for a formal syllogism. it is even cousin german to this, to deny the resurrection is properly an heresy; but luther's reformation was not universal, therefore it cannot be excused from formal heresy! or to this, to say the visible church is not universal is properly an heresy: but the preaching of the gospel at the beginning was not universal; therefore it cannot be excused from formal heresy. for as he whose reformation is but particular, may yet not deny the resurrection, so may he also not deny the church's universality. and as the apostles who preached the gospel in the beginning, did believe the church universal, though their preaching at the beginning was not so: so luther also might and did believe the church universal, though his reformation were but particular. i say he did believe it universal, even in your own sense, that is, universal de iure, though not defacto. and as for universality in fact, he believed the church much more universal than his reformation: for he did conceive (as appears by your own allegations out of him) that not only the part reform was the true church, but also that they were part of it who needed reformation. neither did he ever pretend to make a new church but to reform the old one. thirdly and lastly, to the first proposition of this unsyllogisticall syllogism, i answer, that to say the true church is not always defacto universal, is so far from being an heresy, that it is a certain truth known to all those that know the world, and what religions possess far the greater part of it. donatus therefore was not to blame, for saying, that the church might possibly be confined to afric; but for saying without ground, that then it was so. and s. austin, as he was in the right, in thinking that the church was then extended farther than afric; so was he in the wrong if he thought that of necessity it always must be so; but most palpably mistaken in conceiving that it was then spread over the whole earth, & known to all nations, which if passion did not trouble you, & make you forget how lately almost half the world was discovered, and in what estate it was then found, you would very easily see and confess. 15 ad §. 17. in the next section you pretend that you have no desire to prosecute the similitude of protestants with the donatists; and yet you do it with as much spite and malice as could well be devised, but in vain: for lucilla might do ill in promoting the sect of the donatists, and yet the mother and the daughter, whom you glance at, might do well in ministering influence (as you phrase it) to protestant's in england. unless you will conclude because one woman did one thing ill, therefore no woman can do any thing well: or because it was ill done to promote one sect, therefore it must be ill done, to maintain any. 16 the donatists might do ill in calling the chair of rome the chair of pestilence, and the roman church an harlot; and yet the state of the church being altered, protestants might do well to do so, and therefore though, s. austin might perhaps have reason to persecute the donatists for detracting from the church, and calling her harlot, when she was not so; yet you may have none to threaten d. potter that you would persecute him (as the application of this place intimates you would,) if it were in your power: plainly showing that you are a cursed cow though your horns be short, seeing the roman church is not now what it was in s. austin's time. and hereof the conclusion of your own book affords us a very pregnant testimony: where you tell us out of saint austin, that one grand-impediment, which among many kept the seduced followers of the faction of donatus from the church's communion, was a vile calumny raised against the catholics, that they did set some strange thing upon their altar. to how many (saith s. austin) did the reports of ill tongues shut up the way to enter, who said, that we put, i know not what upon the altar? our of detestation of the calumny, and just indignation against it, he would not so much as name the impiety wherewith they were charged, and therefore by a rhetorical figure calls it, i know not what. but compare with him optatus, writing of the same matter, and you shall plainly perceive that this (i know not what) pretended to be set upon the altar, was indeed a picture, which the donatists (knowing how detestable a thing it was to all christians at that time, to set up any pictures in a church to worship them, as your new fashion is) bruited abroad to be done in the churches of the catholic church. but what answer do s. austin and optatus make to this accusation? do they confess and maintain it? do they say, as you would now, it is true we do set pictures upon our altar, and that not only for ornament or memory, but for worship also; but we do well to do so, and this ought not to trouble you, or affright you from our communion? what other answer your church could now make to such an objection, is very hard to imagine: and therefore were your doctrine the same with the doctrine of the fathers in this point, they must have answered so likewise. but they to the contrary not only deny the crime, but abhor and detest it. to little purpose therefore do you hunt after these poor shadows of resemblances between us and the donatists: unless you could show an exact resemblance between the present church of rome and the ancient: which seeing by this, and many other particulars it is demonstrated to be impossible; that church which was then a virgin may be now a harlot, and that which was detraction in the donatists, may be in protestants a just accusation. 17 as ill success have you in comparing d. potter with tyconius whom as s. austin finds fault with for continuing in the donatists' separation, having forsaken the ground of it, the doctrine of the churches perishing: so you condemn the doctor, for continuing in their communion, who hold (as you say) the very same heresy. but if this were indeed the doctrine of the donatists how is it that you say presently after, that the protestants who hold the church of christ perished, were worse than donatists, who said that the church remained at least in africa? these things me thinks, hang not well together. but to let this pass; the truth is, this difference, for which you would fain raise such a horrible dissension between d. potter and his brethren, if it be well considered is only in words and the manner of expression: they affirming only, that the church perished from its integrity, and fell into many corruptions which he derlies not: and the doctor denying only that it fell from its essence, and became no church at all, which they affirm not. 18 these therefore are but velitations, and you would seem to make but small account of them. but the main point you say is, that since luther's reformed church was not in being for diverse centuries before luther, and yet was in the apostles time, they must of necessity affirm heretically with the donatists, that the true unspotted church of christ perished, and that she which remained on earth, was (o blasphemy!) anharlot. by which words it seems you are resolute perpetually to confound true and unspotted; and to put no difference between a corrupted church and none at all. but what is this, but to make no difference between a diseased and a dead man? nay what is it but to contradict yourselves, who cannot deny but that sins are as great stains and spots and deformities in the sight of god, as errors; and confess your church to be a congregation of men, whereof every particular, not one excepted, (and consequently the generality which is nothing but a collection of them) is polluted and defiled with sin? you proceed. 19 but, say you, the same heresy follows out of d. potter and other protestants, that the church may err in points not fundamental; because we have showed that every error against any revealed truth is heresy and damnable, whether the matter be great or small: and how can the church more truly be said to perish, then when she is permitted to maintain damnable heresy? besides we will hereafter prove that by every act of heresy all divine faith is lost, & to maintain a true church without any faith, is to fancy a living man without life. ans. what you have said before, hath been answered before, and what you shall say hereafter, shall be confuted hereafter. but if it be such a certain ground, that every error against any one revealed truth is a damnable heresy, then i hope i shall have your leave to subsume, that the dominicans in your account must hold a damnable heresy, who hold an error against the immaculate conception: which you must needs esteem a revealed truth, or otherwise why are you so urgent and importunate to have it defined? seeing your rule is, nothing may be defined unless it be first revealed. but without your leave, i will make bold to conclude, that if either that or the contrary assertion be a revealed truth, you or they, choose you whether, must without contradiction hold a damnable heresy: if this ground be true that every contradiction of a revealed truth is such. and now i dare say, for fear of inconvenience you will begin to temper the crudenesse of your former assertion, and tell us, that neither of you are heretics, because the truth against which you err though revealed, is not sufficiently propounded. and so say i, neither is your doctrine which protestants contradict sufficiently propounded. for though it be plain enough, that your church proposeth it, yet still methinks, it is as plain, that your church's proposition is not sufficient; and i desire you would not say but prove the contrary. lastly, to your question, how can the church more truly be said to perish, then when she is permitted to maintain a damnable heresy? i answer, she may be more truly said to perish, when she is not only permitted to do so, but defacto doth maintain a damnable heresy. again, she may be more truly said to perish, when she falls into an heresy, which is not only damnable in itself, and ex natura rei, as you speak, but such an heresy, the belief of whose contrary truth is necessary, not only necessitate praecepti but medii, and therefore the heresy so absolutely and indispensably destructive of salvation, that no ignorance can excuse it, nor any general repentance, without a dereliction of it, can beg a pardon for it. such an heresy if the church should fall into, it might be more truly said to perish, then if it fell only into some heresy of its own nature damnable. for in that state all the members of it, without exception, all without mercy must needs perish for ever: in this, although those that might see the truth & would not, cannot upon any good ground hope for salvation, yet without question, it might send many souls to heaven, who would gladly have embraced the truth, but that they wanted means to discover it. thirdly and lastly, she may yet more truly be said to perish when she apostates from christ absolutely, or rejects even those truths out of which her heresies may be reform; as if she should directly deny jesus to be the christ, or the scripture to be the word of god. towards which state of perdition it may well be feared that the church of rome doth somewhat incline, by her superinducing upon the rest of her errors the doctrine of her own infallibility, whereby her errors are made incurable; and by her pretending that the scripture is to be interpreted according to her doctrine, and not her doctrine to be judged of by scripture, whereby she makes the scripture uneffectuall for her reformation. 20 ad § 18. i was very glad when i heard you say the holy scripture and ancient fathers do assign separation from the visible church as a mark of heresy: for i was in good hope, that no christian would so belly the scripture, as to say so of it, unless he could have produced some one text at least, wherein this was plainly affirmed, or from whence it might be undoubtedly and undeniably collected. for assure yourself, good sir, it is a very heinous crime to say, thus saith the lord, when the lord doth not say so. i expected therefore some scripture should have been alleged, wherein it should have been said, whosoever separates from the roman church is an heretic: or the roman church is infallible, or the guide of faith: or at least, there shall be always some visible church infallible in matters of faith. some such direction as this i hoped for: and i pray consider whether i had not reason! the evangelists and apostles who wrote the new testament, we all suppose were good men, and very desirous to direct us the surest and plainest way to heaven; we suppose them likewise very sufficiently instructed by the spirit of god in all the necessary points of the christian faith, and therefore certainly not ignorant of this vnum necessarium, this most necessary point of all others, without which as you pretend and teach, all faith is no faith, that is, that the church of rome was designed by god the guide of faith. we suppose them lastly wise men, especially being assisted by the spirit of wisdom, and such as knew that a doubtful & questionable guide was for men's direction as good as none at all. and after all these suppositions, which i presume no good christian will call into question, is it possible that any christian heart can believe, that not one amongst them all should ad rei memoriam write this necessary doctrine plainly so much as once? certainly in all reason they had provided much better for the good of christians if they had wrote this, though they had writ nothing else. me thinks the evangelists undertaking to write the gospel of christ, could not possibly have omitted, any one of them, this most necessary point of faith, had they known it necessary, (s. luke especially, who plainly professeth that his intent was to write all things necessary.) me thinks s. paul writing to the romans could not but have congratulated this their privilege to them! me thinks instead of saying, your faith is spoken of all the world over (which you have no reason to be very proud of, for he says the very same thing to the thessalonians,) he could not have failed to have told them once at least in plain terms, that their faith was the rule for all the world for ever. but then sure he would have forborn to put them in fear of an impossibility, as he doth in his eleventh chap. that they also, nay the whole church of the gentiles, if they did not look to their standing, might fall away to infidelity, as the jews had done. me thinks in all his other epistles, at least in some, at least in one of them, he could not have failed to have given the world this direction, had he known it to be a true one, that all men were to be guided by the church of rome, and none to separate from it under pain of damnation. me thinks writing so often of heretics and antichrist, he should have given the world this (as you pretend) only sure preservative from them. how was it possible that s. peter writing two catholic epistles, mentioning his own departure, writing to preserve christians in the faith, should in neither of them commend them to the guidance of his pretended successors, the bishops of route? how was it possible that s. james, and s. jude in their catholic epistles should not give this catholic direction? me thinks s. john instead of saying, he that believeth that jesus is the christ, is born of god, (the force of which direction, your glosses do quite enervate, and make unavailable to discern who are the sons of god,) should have said, he that adheres to the doctrine of the roman church, and lives according to it, he is a good christian, and by this mark ye shall know him! what man not quite out of his wits, if he consider as he should, the pretended necessity of this doctrine, that without the belief hereof no man ordinarily can be saved, can possibly force himself to conceive that all these good and holy men, so desirous of men's salvation, and so well assured of it (as it is pretended,) should be so deeply and affectedly silent in it, and not one say it plainly so much as once, but leave it to be collected from uncertain principles, by many more uncertain consequences? certainly he that can judge so uncharitably of them, it is no marvel if he censure other inferior servants of christ's atheists, and hypocrites, and what he pleases. plain places therefore i did and had reason to look for, when i heard you say, the holy scripture assigns separation from the visible church as a mark of heresy. but instead hereof what have you brought us, but mere impertinencies? s. john saith of some who pretended to be christians and were not so, and therefore when it was for their advantage forsook their profession, they went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us. of some, who before the decree of the council to the contrary, were persuaded and accordingly taught, that the convert gentiles were to keep the law of moses, it is said in the acts, some who went out from us. and again s. paul in the same book forewarns the ephesians that out of them should arise men speaking perverse things. and from these places which it seems are the plainest you have, you collect that separation from the visible church is assigned by scripture as a mark of heresy. which is certainly a strange and unheard of strain of logic. unless you will say that every text wherein it is said, that some body goes out from some body, affords an argument for this purpose! for the first place there is no certainty that it speaks of heretics; but, no christians, of antichrists, of such as denied jesus to be the christ: see the place and you shall confess as much. the second place, it is certain, you must not say it speaks of heretics, for it speaks only of some who believed and taught an error, while it was yet a question and not evident, and therefore according to your doctrine, no formal heresy. the third says indeed, that of the professors of christianity, some shall arise that shall teach heresy: but not one of them all that says or intimates, that whosoever separates from the visible church; in what state soever, is certainly an heretic. heretics i confess do always do so; but they that do so are not always heretics, for perhaps the state of the church may make it necessary for them to do so; as rebels always disobey the command of their king, yet they which disobey a king's command (which perhaps may be unjust) are not presently rebels. 21 your allegations out of vincentius, prosper, and cyprian are liable to these exceptions. 1. that they are the sayings of men not assisted by the spirit of god, and whose authority yourselves will not submit to in all things. 2. that the first and last are merely impertinent, neither of them affirming or intimating, that separation from the present visible church is a mark of heresy: and the former speaking plainly of separation from universality, consent and antiquity, which if you will presume without proof that we did and you did not, you beg the question. for you know we pretend that we separated only from that present church which had separated from the doctrine of the ancient, and because she had done so, and so far forth as she had done so and no farther. and lastly the latter part of prospers words cannot be generally true, according to your own grounds; for you say a man may be divided from the church upon mere schism without any mixture of heresy: and a man may be justly excommunicated for many other sufficient causes besides heresy. lastly, a man may be divided by an unjust excommunication, and be both before and after a very good catholic; and therefore you cannot maintain it universally true, that he who is divided from the church is an heretic, and antichrist. 22 in the 19 § we have the authority of eight fathers urged to prove that the separation from the church of rome as it is the sea of s. peter (i conceive you mean as it is the particular church) is the mark of heresy. which kind of argument i might well refuse to answer, unless you would first promise me, that whensoever i should produce as plain sentences, of as great a number of fathers, as ancient, for any doctrine whatsoever, that you will subscribe to it, though it fall out to be contrary to the doctrine of the roman church. for i conceive nothing in the world more unequal or unreasonable, then that you should press us with such authorities as these, and think you selves at liberty from them; and that you should account them fathers when they are for you, and children when they are against you. yet i would not you should interpret this as if i had not great assurance, that it is not possible for you ever to gain this cause at the tribunal of the fathers, nay not of the fathers whose sentences are here alleged. let us consider them in order, and i doubt not to make it appear that far the greater part of them, nay all of them that are any way considerable fall short of your purpose. 23 s. hierome (you say) writing to pope damasus, saith, i am in the communion of the chair of peter: etc. but then i pray consider he saith it to pope damasus: and this will much weaken the authority, with them who know how great over-truths men usually write to one another in letters. consider again, that he says only, that he was then in communion with the chair of peter, nott hat he always would, or of necessity must be so: for his resolution to the contrary is too evident out of that which he saith elsewhere which shall be produced hereafter. he says that the church at that present was built upon that rock; but not that only, nor that always. nay his judgement as shall appear is express to the contrary. and so likewise the rest of his expressions (if we mean to reconcile hierome with hierome) must be conceived as intended by him, of that bishop and sea of rome, at that present time, and in the present state, and in respect of that doctrine which he there entreats of. for otherwise had he conceived it necessary for him and all men to conform their judgements in matters of faith, to the judgement of the bishop & church of rome, how came it to pass that he chose rather to believe the epistle to the hebrews canonical, upon the authority of the eastern church, then to reject it from the canon upon the authority of the roman? how comes it to pass that he dissented from the authority of that church, touching the canon of the old testament? for if you say, that the church then consented with s. hierome, i fear you will lose your fort by maintaining your outworks, and by avoiding this, run into a greater danger of being forced to confess the present roman church opposite herein to the ancient. how was it possible, that he should ever believe that liberius bishop of rome either was or could have been wrought over by the solicitation of fortunatianus bishop of aquileia, and brought after two years' banishment to subscribe heresy? hierom de scrip. eccle. tit. fortunatianus. which act of liberius though some fond question, being so vain as to expect we should rather believe them that lived but yesterday, thirteen hundred years almost after the thing is said to be done, and speaking for themselves in their own cause, rather than the disinteressed time-fellowes or immediate successors of liberius himself: yet i hope they will not proceed to such a degree of immodesty, as once to question whether s. hierome thought so. and if this cannot be denied, i demand then if he had lived in liberius his time, could he or would he have written so to liberius as he does to damasus? would he have said to him, i am in the communion of the chair of peter, i know that the church is built upon this rock, whosoever gathereth not with thee scattereth. would he then have said, the roman faith and the catholic were the same: or, that the roman faith received no delusions, no not from an angel? i suppose he could not have said so with any coherence to his own belief; and therefore conceive it undeniable that what he said then to damasus, he said it (though perhaps he strained too high) only of damasus, and never conceived that his words would have been extended to all his predecessors and all his successors. 24 the same answer i make to the first place of s. ambrose, viz. that no more can be certainly concluded from it, but that the catholic bishops and the roman church were then at unity; so that whosoever agreed with the latter could not then but agree with the former. but that this rule was perpetual, and that no man could ever agree with the catholic bishops, but he must agree with the roman church, this he says not, nor gives you any ground to conclude from him. athanasius when he was excommunicated by liberius, agreed very ill with the roman church, and yet you will not gainsay, but he agreed well enough with the catholic bishops. the second, i am uncertain what the sense of it is, and what truth is in it; but most certain that it makes nothing to your present purpose. for it neither affirms nor imports, that separation from the roman church is a certain mark of heresy. for the rights of communion (whatsoever it signifies,) might be said to flow from it, if that church were by ecclesiastical law, the head of all other churches: but unless it were made so by divine authority, and that absolutely, separation from it could not be a mark of heresy. 25 for s. cyprian all the world knows that he b it is confessed by baronius anno. 238. n. 41. by bellarm. l. 4. de r. pont. c. 7. § tertia ratio. resolutely opposed a decree of the roman bishop, and all that adhered to him in the point of re. baptising, which that church at that time delivered as a necessary tradition. so necessary, that by the bishop of rome firmilianus and other bishops of cappadocia, cilicia and galatia, and generally all who persisted in the contrary opinion, c confessed by baronius an. 258. n. 14. & 15. by card. perron. repl. l. 1. c. 25. were therefore deprived of the church's communion, (which excommunication could not but involve s. cyprian, who defended the same opinion as resolutely as firmilianus, though cardinal perron magisterially and without all colour of proof affirm the contrary,) and cyprian in particular so far cast off, as for it to be pronounced by stephen a false christ. again so necessary that the bishops which were sent by cyprian from afric to rome, were not admitted to the communion of ordinary conference: but all men who were subject to the bishop of rome's authority, were commanded by him not only to deny them the church's peace & communion, but even lodging and entertainment: manifestly declaring, that they reckoned them among those whom s. john forbids to receive to house, or to say god speed to them. all these terrors notwithstanding s. cyprian holds still his former opinion, & though out of respect to the church's peace d vide con. cartho apud sur. to. 1. he judged no man, nor cut off any man from the right of communion, for thinking otherwise then he held, yet he conceived stephen & his adherents, e bell. l. 2. de con. c. 5. aug. ep. 48. & lib. 1. de bapt. c. 13, to hold a pernicious error. and s. austin, (though disputing with the donatists he useth some tergiversation in the point,) yet confesseth elsewhere, that it is not found that cyprian did ever change his opinion. and so far was he from conceiving any necessity of doing so, in submitting to the judgement of the bishop and church of rome, that he plainly professeth that no other bishop, but our lord jesus only, had power to judge (with authority) of his judgement, and as plainly intimates that stephen, for usurping such a power, and making himself a judge over bishops, was little better than a tyrant: and as heavily almost he censures him, and peremptorily opposes him as obstinate in error, in that very place where he delivers that famous saying, how can he have god for his father, who hath not the church for his mother? little doubting it seems but a man might have the church for his mother, who stood in opposition to the church of rome, and far from thinking what you fond obtrude upon him, that to be united to the roman church, and to the church was all one, and that separation from s. peter's chair was a mark, i mean a certain mark, either of schism or heresy. if after all this, you will catch at a phrase or a compliment of s. cyprians, and with that hope to persuade protestants, who know this story as well as their own name, that s. cyprian did believe that falsehood could not have access to the roman church, and that opposition to it was the brand of an heretic: may we not well expect, that you will the next time you write vouch luther & calvin also for abettors of this fancy, and make us poor men believe not only (as you say) that we have no metaphysics, bell. l. 2. de con. c 5. § 1. canisius in initio catech. but that we have no sense? and when you have done so, it will be no great difficulty for you, to assure us that we read no such thing in bellarmine, as that cyprian was always accounted in the number of catholics; nor in canisius, that he was a most excellent doctor and a most glorious martyr; sept. die 14. nor in your calendar, that he is a saint and a martyr; but that all these are deceptions of our sight, and that you ever esteemed him a very schismatique and an heretic, as having on him the mark of the beast, opposition to the chair of peter, nay that he (what ever he pretended) knew and believed himself to be so; in as much as he knew (as you pretend,) and esteemed this opposition to be the mark of heresy, and knew himself to stand and stand out in such an opposition. 26 but we need not seek so far for matter to refute the vanity of this pretence. let the reader but peruse this very epistle out of which this sentence is alleged, and he shall need no farther satisfaction against it. for he shall find, first, that you have helped the dice a little with a false, or at least with a very bold and strained translation: for s. cyprian saith not to whom falsehood cannot have access, by which many of your favourable readers i doubt understood, that cyprian had exempted that church from a possibility of error, but to whom perfidiousness cannot have access, meaning by perfidiousness in the abstract, according to a common figure of speech, those perfidious schismatics whom he there complains of: and of these by a rhetorical insinuation, he says that with such good christians as the romans were, it was not possible they should find favourable entertainment. not that he conceived it any way impossible they should do so, for the very writing this epistle, and many passages in it, plainly show the contrary: but because he was confident, or at least would seem to be confident, they never would, and so by his good opinion and confidence in the romans, lay an obligation upon them, to do as he presumed they would do; as also in the end of his epistle, he says even of the people of the church of rome, that being defended by the providence of their bishop, nay by their own vigilance sufficiently guarded, they could not be taken nor deceived with the poisons of heretics. not that indeed he thought either this or the former any way impossible: for to what purpose, but for prevention hereof, did he write this long and accurate and vehement epistle to cornelius? which sure had been most vainly done, to prevent that which he knew or believed impossible! or how can this consist with his taking notice in the beginning of it, that cornelius was somewhat moved and wrought upon by the attempts of his adversaries, with his reprehending him for being so, and with his vehement exhorting him to courage and constancy, or with his request to him, in the conclusion of his epistle, that it should be read publicly to the whole clergy and laity of rome, to the intent, that if any contagion of their poisoned speech and pestiferous semination, had crept in amongst them, it might be wholly taken away from the ears and the hearts of the brethren, and that the entire and sincere charity of good men might be purged from all dross of heretical detraction: or lastly with his vehement persuasions to them to decline for the time to come, and resolutely avoid their word and conference, because their speech crept as a canker, as the apostle saith; because evil communication would corrupt good natures, because wicked men carry perdition in their mouths, and hide fire in their lips? all which had been but vain and ridiculous pageantry, had he verily believed the romans such inaccessible forts, such immovable rocks, as the former sentences would seem to import, if we will expound them rigidly and strictly, according to the exigence of the words, & not allow him who was a professed master of the art, to have used here a little rhetoric, and to say, that could not be, whereof he had no absolute certainty but that it might be, but only had, or would seem to have a great confidence that it never would be, ut fides habita fidem obligaret, that he professing to be confident of the romans, might lay an obligation upon them to do as he promised himself they would do. for as for joining the principal church and the chair of peter, how that will serve for your present purpose, of proving separation from the roman church a mark of heresy, i suppose it is hard to understand! nor indeed how it will advantage you in any other design against us, who do not altogether deny, but that the church of rome might be called the chair of peter, in regard he is said to have preached the gospel there, and the principal church, because the city was the principal and imperial city: which prerogative of the city, if we believe the fathers of the council of chalcedon was the ground and occasion, why the fathers of former time (i pray observe,) conferred upon this church, this prerogative above other churches. 27 and as far am i from understanding, how you can collect from the other sentence, that to communicate with the church and pope of rome, and to communicate with the catholic church, is always (for that is your assumpt) one and the same thing. s. cyprian speaks not of the church of rome at all, but of the bishop only, who when he doth communicate with the catholic church, as cornelius at that time did, than whosoever communicates with him, cannot but communicate with the catholic church: and then by accident one may truly say, such a one communicates with you, that is, with the catholic church, and that to communicate with him is to communicate with the catholic church. as if titius and sompronius be together, he that is in company with titius, cannot but be at that time in company with sempronius. as if a general be marching to some place with an army, he that than is with the general must at that time be with the army: and a man may say without absurdity, such a time i was with the general, that is, with the army, and that to be with the general is to be with the army. or as if a man's hand be joined to his body, the finger which is joined to the hand is joined to the body, and a man may say truly of it, this finger is joined to the hand, that is, to the body, and to be joined to the hand is to be joined to the body; because all these things are by accident true. and yet i hope you would not deny, but the finger might possibly be joined to the hand, and yet not to the body, the hand being cut off from the body; and a man might another time, be with his general and not with his army, he being absent from the army. and therefore by like reason your collection is sophistical, being in effect but this, to communicate with such a bishop of rome, who did communicate with the catholic church, was to communicate with the catholic church, therefore absolutely and always it must be true, that to communicate with him, is by consequent to communicate with the catholic church, and to be divided from his communion, is to be an heretic. 28 in urging the place of irenaeus you have showed much more ingenuity than many of your fellows. for whereas they usually begin at, declaring the tradition of the etc. and conceal what goes before, you have set it down, though not so completely as you should have done, yet sufficiently to show, that what authority in the matter he attributed to the roman church in particular, the same for the kind (though perhaps not in the same degree) he attributed to all other apostolic churches. either therefore you must say that he conceived the testimony of other apostolic churches divine and infallible, (which certainly he did not, neither do you pretend he did, and if he had, the confessed errors and heresies which after they fell into, would demonstrate plainly that he had erred,) or else that he conceived the testimony of the roman church only humane and credible, though perhaps more credible than any one church beside, (as one man's testimony is more credible than another's;) but certainly much more credible, which was enough for his purpose, than that secret tradition, to which those heretics pretended, against whom he wrote, overbearing them with an argument of their own kind, far stronger than their own. now if irenaeus thought the testimony of the roman church in this point only humane and fallible, then surely he could never think, either adhering to it a certain mark of a catholic, or separation from it a certain mark of a heretic. 29 again, whereas your great achilles' cardinal perron in french, as also his noble translatresse misled by him, in english, knowing that men's resorting to rome would do his cause little service, hath made bold with the latin tongue, as he does very often with the greek, and rendered ad hanc ecclesiam necesse est omnem convenire ecclesiam, to this church it is necessary that every church should agree, you have translated it, as it should be, to this church it is necessary that all church's resort: wherein you have showed more sincerity, and have had more regard to make the author speak sense. for if he had said, by showing the tradition of the roman church we confound all heretics, for to this church, all churches must agree, what had this been, but to give for a reason, that which was more questionable than the thing in question: as being neither evident in itself, and plainly denied by his adversaries, and not at all proved nor offered to be proved here or elsewhere by irenaeus. to speak thus therefore had been weak and ridiculous. but on the other side, if we conceive him to say thus, you heretics decline a trial of your doctrine by scripture, as being corrupted and imperfect, and not fit to determine controversies, without recourse to tradition, and instead hereof, you fly for refuge to a secret tradition, which you pretend that you received from your ancestors, and they from the apostles: certainly your calumnies against scripture are most unjust and unreasonable, but yet moreover, assure yourselves, that if you will be tried by tradition, even by that also you will be overthrown. for our tradition is far more famous, more constant, and in all respects more credible, then that which you pretend to. it were easy for me, to muster up against you the uninterrupted successions of all the churches founded by the apostles, all conspiring in their testimonies against you: but because it were too long to number up the successions of all churches, i will content myself with the tradition of the most ancient and most glorious church of rome, which alone is sufficient for the confutation and confusion of your doctrine, as being in credit and authority, as far beyond the tradition you build upon, as the light of the sun, is beyond the light of the glow-worm. for to this church, by reason it is placed in the imperial city, whither all men's affairs do necessarily draw them, or by reason of the powerful principality it hath over all the adjacent churches, there is, and always hath been a necessity of a perpetual recourse of all the faithful round about: who if there had been any alteration in the church of rome, could not in all probability but have observed it. but they to the contrary, have always observed in this church the very tradition which came from the apostles and no other. i say if we conceive his meaning thus, his words will be intelligible and rational: which if in stead of resort we put in agree will be quite lost. herein therefore we have been beholding to your honesty, which makes me think you did not wittingly falsify, but only twice in this sentence mistake vndique for vbique and translate it, every where, and of what place soever, in stead of round about. for that it was necessary for all the faithful of what place soever to resort to rome is not true. that the apostolic tradition hath always been conserved there from those who are every where, is not sense. now instead of conservata read observata, as in all probability it should be, and translate undique truly round about, and then the sense will be both plain and good; for than it must be rendered thus, for to this church, by reason of a more powerful principality, there is a necessity that all the churches, that is, all the faithful round about, should resort, in which the apostolic tradition hath been always observed by those who were round about. if any man say i have been too bold a critic in substituting observata instead of conseruata, i desire him to know, that the conjecture is not mine, and therefore as i expect no praise for it, so i hope i shall be far from censure. but i would entreat him to consider, whether it be not likely that the same greek word signifying observo and conservo, the translater of irenaeus who could hardly speak latin, might not easily mistake, and translate, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 conservata est, instead of observata est; or whether it be not likely, that those men which ancienly wrote books, and understood them nor, might not easily commit such an error; or whether the sense of the place can be salved any other way; if it can in god's name let it, if not, i hope he is not to be condemned, who with such a little alteration hath made that sense which he found non sense. 30 but whether you will have it observata or conservata, the new sumpsimus or the old mumpsimus, possibly it may be something to irenaus but to us or our cause it is no way material. for if the rest be rightly translated, neither will conservata afford you any argument against us, nor observata help us to any evasion. for though at the first hearing the glorious attributes here given, (and that justly) to the church of rome, the confounding heretics with her tradition, and saying it is necessary for all churches to resort to her, may sound like arguments for you: yet he that is attentive i hope will easily discover, that it might be good and rational in irenaeus having to do with heretics, who, somewhat like those who would be the only catholics, declining a trial by scripture as not containing the truth of christ perfectly, and not fit to decide controversies without recourse to tradition: i say he will easily perceive that it might be rational in iraeneus to urge them with any tradition of more credit than their own, especially a tradition consonant to scripture, and even contained in it; and yet that it may be irrational in you to urge us, who do not decline scripture but appeal to it as a perfect rule of faith, with a tradition which we pretend is many ways repugnant to scripture, and repugnant to a tradition far more general than itself, which gives testimony to scripture, and lastly repugnant to itself as giving attestation both to scripture and to doctrines plainly contrary to scripture. secondly that the authority of the roman church was then a far greater argument of the truth of her tradition when it was united with all other apostolic churches, than now when it is divided from them, according to that of tertullian, had the churches erred they would have varied, but that which is the same in all, cannot be error but tradition; and therefore though irenaeus his argument may be very probable, yet yours may be worth nothing. thirdly, that fourteen hundred years may have made a great deal of alteration in the roman church: as rivers, though near the fountain they may retain their native and unmixed sincerity, yet in long progress cannot but take in much mixture that came not from the fountain. and therefore the roman tradition though then pure, may now be corrupt and impure: and so this argument (being one of those things which are the worse for wearing) might in irenaeus his time be strong and vigorous, and after declining and decaying may long since have fallen to nothing. especially considering that irenaeus plays the historian only and not the prophet, and says only, that the apostolic tradition had been always there as in other apostolic churches conserved or observed, choose you whether, but that it should be always so, he says not, neither had he any warrant. he knew well enough that there was foretold a great falling away of the churches of christ to anti-christ: that the roman church in particular was forewarned that she also, rom. 11. nay the whole church of the gentiles, might fall if they look not to their standing: and therefore to secure her that she should stand for ever, he had no reason, nor authority. fourthly, that it appears manifestly out of this book of irenaeus quoted by you, that the doctrine of the chiliasts was in his judgement apostolic tradition, as also it was esteemed (for aught appears to the contrary) by all the doctors, and saints, and martyrs of or about his time, for all that speak of it, or whose judgements in the point are any way recorded, are for it: and justine martyr professeth that all good and orthodox christians of his time believed it, in dial. cunt. tryphon. and those that did not, he reckons amongst heretics. now i demand, was this tradition one of those that was conserved, and observed in the church of rome, or was it not? if not, had irenaeus known so much, he must have retracted this commendation of that church. if it was, than the tradition of the present church of rome contradicts the ancient, and accounts it heretical, and then sure it can be no certain note of heresy to depart from them, who have departed from themselves, and prove themselves subject unto error by holding contradictions. fiftly and lastly, that out of the story of the church it is as manifest as the light at noon, that though irenaeus did esteem the roman tradition, a great argument of the doctrine which he there delivers and defends against the heretics of his time viz: that there was one god, yet he was very far from thinking that church was, and ever should be a safe keeper, and an infallible witness of tradition in general: inasmuch as in his own life, his action proclaimed the contrary. for when victor bishop of rome obtruded the roman tradition touching the time of easter upon the asian bishops under the pain of excommunication, and damnation, irenaeus, and all the other western bishops, though agreeing with him in his observation yet sharply reprehended him for excommunicating the asian bishops for their disagreeing, plainly showing, that they esteemed that not a necessary doctrine and a sufficient ground of excommunication, which the bishop of rome and his adherents did so account of: for otherwise how could they have reprehended him for excommunicating them, had they conceived the cause of his excommunication just and sufficient? and beside evidently declaring that they esteemed not separation from the roman church a certain mark of heresy, seeing they esteemed not them heretics though separated and cut off from the roman church. cardinal perron to avoid the stroke of this convincing argument, raiseth a cloud of eloquent words, lib. 3 cap. 2. or this reply to king james. c. 2. §. 32. which because you borrow them of him in your second part, i will here insert, and with short censures dispel, and let his idolaters see that truth is not afraid of giants: his words are these. the first instance then that calvin allegeth against the pope's censures, is taken from eusebius (a) an arrian author, and from ruffinus (b) enemy to the roman church his translator; who writ, (c) that s. ireneus reprehended pope victor for having excommunicated the churches of asia for the question of the day of pasche, which they observed according to a particular tradition that s. john had introduced (d) for a time in their provinces, because of the neighbourhood of the jews, and to bury the synagogue with honour, and not according to the universal tradition of the apostles. calv. ubi sup●a. irenaeus (saith calvin) reprehended pope victor bitterly, because for a light cause he had moved a great and perilous contention in the church. there is this in the text that calvin produceth, he reprehended him, that he had not done well, to cut off from the body of unity, ruffin. in vers. hist. eccl. eus. l. 5. c. 24. so many and so great churches. but against whom maketh this, but (e) against those that object it? for who sees not, that s. ireneus, doth not there reprehend the pope for the (f) want of power, but for the ill use of his power; and doth not reproach to the pope, that he could not excommunicate the asians, but admonisheth him, that for (g) so small a cause he should not have cut off so many provinces from the body of the church? euseb. hist. eccl. l. 5. c. 24. iraeneus (saith eusebius) did fitly exhort pope victor, kuffin. b. c. 24. that he should not cut off all the churches of god which held this ancient tradition. and ruffinus translating and envenoming eusebius saith. iren. l. 3. c. 3. 1. book▪ 〈◊〉 25 he questioned victor, that he had not done well in cutting off from the body of unity so many and so great churches of god▪ and in truth, how could s. ireneus have reprehended the pope for want of power; he that cries: to the roman church, because of a more powerful principality; (that is to say) as above appeareth, (h) because of a principality more powerful than the temporal: or (as we have expounded other where) because of a more powerful original: (ay) it is necessary that every church should agree? and (k) therefore also s. ireneus allegeth not to pope victor the example of him, and of the other bishops of the gauls assembled in a council holden expressly for this effect who had not excommunicated the asians, euseb. hist. eccl. l. 5. l. 22▪ nor the example of narcissus bishop of jerusalem, and of the bishops of palestina assembled in an other council, holden expressly for the same effect, who had not excommunicated them, nor the example of palmas, and of the other bishops of pontus assembled in the same manner, and for the same cause in the region of pontus, who had not excommunicated them, iren. apud euseb. hist. eccl. l. 5. c. 26. but only alleges to him the example of the popes his predecessors: the prelates (saith he) who have presided before soter in the church where thou presidest, anisius, pius, hyginus, telesphorus, and sixtus, have not observed this custom, etc. and nevertheless none of those that observed it, have been excommunicated. and yet, o admirable providence of god, the (l) success of the after ages showed, that even in the use of his power, the pope's proceeding was just. for after the death of victor, the counsels of nicaea, conc. antioch. c. 1. of constantinople, and of ephesus, excommunicated again those that held the same custom with the provinces, conc. const. c. 7. that the pope had excommunicated, and placed them in the catalogue of heretics, conc. eph. p. 2. act. ●. under the titles of heretics quarto decumans! but to this instance calvin's sect do annex two new observations; the first, that the pope having threatened the bishops of asia to excommunicate them, polycrates the bishop of ephesus and metropolitan of asia, despised the pope's threats, euseb. hist. eccl. l. 5. c. 24. hieron. in script. eccl. in polyer. as it appears by the answer of the same polycrates to pope victor, which is inserted in the writings of eusebius, and of s. jerom, and which s. jerom seemeth to approve, when he saith, he reports it to show the spirit and authority of the man. and the second, that when the pope pronounced anciently his excommunications, he did no other thing but separate himself from the communion of those that he excommunicated, and did not thereby separate them from the universal communion of the church. to the first than we say, that so far is this epistle of polycrates from abating and diminishing the pope's authority, that contrary wise it greatly magnifies and exalts it. for although polycrates blinded with the love of the custom of his nation, which he believed to be grounded upon the word of god, who had assigned the fourteenth of the month of march for the observation of the pasche, and upon the example of s. john's tradition maintains it obstinately; nevertheless, this that he answers, speaking in his own name, exod. 12. and in the name of the council of the bishops of asia, hieronym, ubi supra. to whom he presided; i fear not those that threaten us, for my elders have said, it is better to obey god then man. doth it not show, that had it not been, that he believed the pope's threat, was against the express word of god, there had been cause to fear it, and he had been obliged to obey him; for (m) who knows not, that this answer; it is better to obey god then men, is not to be made but to those, whom we were obliged to obey, if their commandments were not contrary to the commandments of god; and that he adds, that he had called the bishops of asia, to a national council, being (n) summoned to it by the pope; doth it not insinuate, that the other counsels whereof eusebius speaks, that were holden about this matter, euseb. hist. eccl. l. 5. c. 23. through all the provinces of the earth, and particularly that of palestina, which if you believe the act that beda said came to his hands, beda in frag. de aequinoctio. ve●nali. theophilus archbishop of caesarea had called by the authority of victor, were holden at the instance of the pope, and consequently that the pope was the first mover of the universal church? and that the counsels of nicaea, of constantinople of ephesus embraced the censure of victor, and excommunicated those that observed the custom of polycrates: doth it not prove, that it was not the pope but (o) polycrates that was deceived, in believing that the pope's commandment, was against god's commandment? and that s. jerom himself celebrates the paschall homilies of theophilus patriarch of alexandria, which followed the order of nicaea concerning the pasche; doth it not justify, that when s. jerom saith; that he reports the epistle of polycrates, to show the spirit, and authority of the man he intends by authority, not authority of right, but of fact▪ that is to say, the credit that polycrates had amongst the asians and other quarto decimans? these are the cardinal words, the most material and considerable passages whereof to save the trouble of repetition, i have noted with letters of reference: whereunto my answers noted respectively with the same letters follow now in order. (a) if eusebius were an arrian author, it is nothing to the purpose; what he writes there is no arrianisme, nor any thing towards it. never any error was imputed to the arrians for denying the authority or the infallibility of the bishop or church of rome. besides what eusebius says, he says out of irenaeus: neither doth or can the cardinal deny the story to be true & therefore he goes about by indirect arts to foil it & cast a blur upon it. lastly, whensoever eusebius says any thing, which the cardinal thinks for the advantage of his side, he cities him, and then he is no arrian: or at least he would not take that for an answer to the arguments he draws out of him. (b) that ruffinus was enemy to the roman church, is said, but not proved, neither can it be. (c) eusebius says the same also of caeteri omnes episcopi, all the other bishops: that they advised victor to keep those things, that belonged to peace and unity, and that they sharply reprehended victor, for having done otherwise. (d) this is said, but no offer made of any proof of it: the cardinal thinks we must take every thing upon his word. they to whom the tradition was delivered, polyerates and the asian bishops, knew no such matter, nay professed the contrary. and who is more likely to know the truth, they which lived within two ages of the fountain of it, or the cardinal who lived sixteen ages after it? (e) how can it make against those that object it: seeing it is evident from irenaeus his reprehension, that he thought victor and the roman church, no infallible nor sufficient judge, of what was necessary to be believed and done, what not: what was universal tradition, what not: what was a sufficient ground of excommunication and what not: and consequently, that there was no such necessity as is pretended, that all other churches, should in matters of faith, conform themselves to the church of rome? (f) this is to suppose that excommunication, is an act, or argument, or sign of power & authority in the party excommunicating, over the party excommunicated, whereas it is undeniably evident out of the church story, that it was often used by equals upon equals, and by inferiors upon superiors, if the equals or inferiors, thought their equals or superiors did any thing which deserved it. (g) and what is this but to confess, that they thought that a small cause of excommunication and unsufficient, which victor and his adherents thought great and sufficient? and consequently, that victor and his part declared that to be a matter of faith and of necessity, which they thought not so; and where was then their conformity? (h) true, you have so expounded it, but not proved nor offered any proof of your exception. this also we must take upon your authority. irenaeus speaks not one word of any other power, to which he compares or before which he prefers the power of the roman church. and it is evident out of the council of chalcedon, * can. 2●. that all the principality which it had, was given it (not by god, but) by the church, in regard it was seated in the imperial city. whereupon when afterwards constantinople was the imperial city, they decreed that that church should have equal privileges and dignity and pre-eminence with the church of rome. all the fathers agreed in this decree, saving only the legates of the bishop of rome: showing plainly that they never thought of any supremacy given the bishops of rome by god, or grounded upon scripture, but only by the church, and therefore alterable at the church's pleasure. (ay) this is falsely translated. convenire ad romanam ecclesiam, every body knows signifies no more but to resort or come to the roman church: which then there was a necessity that men should do, because that the affairs of the empire were transacted in that place. but yet irenaeus says not so of every church simply, which had not been true, but only of the adjacent churches, for so he expounds himself in saying, to this church it is necessary that every church, that is, all the faithful round about should resort. with much more reason therefore we return the argument thus, had irenaeus thought that all churches must of necessity agree with the roman, how could he & all other bishops have then pronounced, that to be no matter of faith, no sufficient ground of excommunication, which victor and his adherents thought to be so? and how then could they have reprehended victor so much, for the ill use of his power, as cardinal perron confesses they did, seeing if that was true which is pretended, in this also as well as other things, it was necessary for them to agree with the church of rome? some there are that say, but more wittily then truly, that all cardinal bellarmine's works, are so consonant to themselves, as if he had written them in two hours. had cardinal perron wrote his book in two hours, sure he would not have done that here in the middle of the book, which he condemns in the beginning of it. for here he urgeth a consequence, drawn from the mistaken words of irenaeus against his lively and actual practice: which proceeding, there he justly condemns of evident injustice. his words are * in his letter to casaubon towards the end. , for who knows not that it is too great an injustice to allege consequences from passages, and even those ill interpreted and misunderstood, and in whose illation there is always some paralogism hid against the express words, and the lively & actual practice of the same fathers from whom they are collected: and that may be good, to take the fathers for adversaries, and to accuse them for want of sense or memory: but not to take them for judges, and to submit themselves to the observation of what they have believed and practised. (k) this is nothing to the purpose: he might choose these examples, not as of greater force and authority in themselves, but as fitter to be employed against victor, as domestic examples, are fitter and more effectual than foreign: and for his omitting to press him with his own example and others, to what purpose had it been to use them, seeing their letters sent to victor from all parts, wherein they reprehend his presumption, showed him sufficiently, that their example was against him. but beside, he that reads irenaeus his letter shall see, that in the matter of the lent fast, and the great variety about the celebration of it, which he parallels with this of easter, he presseth victor with the example of himself and others, not bishops of rome; both they (saith he speaking of other bishops) notwithstanding this difference, retained peace among themselves, and we also among ourselves retain it; inferring from his example, that victor also aught to do so. (l) if the pope's proceeding was just, than the churches of asia were indeed, and in the sight of god excommunicate, and out of the state of salvation: which irenaeus and all the other ancient bishops never thought. and if they were so, why do you accou●t them saints and martyrs? but the truth is, that these counsels did no way show the pope's proceedings just, but rather the contrary. for though they settled an uniformity in this matter, yet they settled it as a matter formerly indifferent, & not as a matter of faith or necessity, as it is evident out of * in ep. ad. episcopos in african where he clearly shows that this question was not a question of faith by saying, the councillor nice was celebrated, by occasion of the arrian heresy and the difference about easter. in so much 〈◊〉 they in 〈…〉 and m●sopotamia, did ●●ffer herein from us, and kept this feast on the same day with the i●wes: but thanks be to god▪ an agreement was made, as concerning the faith, so 〈◊〉 concerning this holy 〈◊〉. athanasius; & consequently they rather declare victors proceeding unjust, who excommunicated so many churches, for differing from him in an indifferent matter. (m) it seems then polycrates might be a saint and a martyr, and yet think the commands of the roman church enjoined upon pain of damnation, contrary to the commandments of god. besides s. peter himself, the head of the church, the vicar of christ (as you pretend) made this very answer to the high priest, yet i hope you will not say, he was his inferior and obliged to obey him. lastly, who sees not, that when the pope commands us any thing unjust, as to communicate lay men in one kind, to use the latin service, we may very fitly say to him, it is better to obey god then men, and yet never think of any authority he hath over us? (n) between requesting and summoning, methinks there should be some difference, and polycrates says no more, but that he was requested by the church of rome to call them, and did so. here then (as very often) the cardinal is fain to help the dice with a false translation, and his pretence being false, every one must see, that that which he pretends to be insinuated by it, is clearly inconsequent. (o) polycrates was deceived, if he believed it to be against god's commandment, and the pope deceived as much, in thinking it to be god's commandment, for it was neither the one nor the other, but an indifferent matter, wherein god had not interposed his authority. neither did the council of nice embrace the censure of victor, by acknowledging his excommunication to be just and well grounded, for which the cardinal neither doth pretend, nor can produce any proof, any way comparable to the fore-alleaged words of athanasius testifying the contrary; though peradventure, having settled the observation, and reduced it to an uniformity, they might excommunicate those who afterward should trouble the church's peace for an indifferent matter. and thus much for irenaeus. 31 i come now to s. austin, and to the first place out of him, where he seems to say, that the succession in the sea of peter, was the rock which our saviour meant when he said, upon this rock, etc. i answer, first we have no reason to be confident of the truth hereof, because s. austin himself was not, but retracts it as uncertain, & leaves to the reader whether he will think that, or another more probable. retr. l. 1. c. 26. secondly, what he says of the succession in the roman church in this place, he says it else where, of all the successions in all other apostolic churches. thirdly, that as in this place he urgeth the donatists with separation from the roman church, as an argument of their error: so elsewhere he presseth them with their separation from other apostolic churches, nay more from these then from that, because in rome the donatists had a bishop, though not a perpetual succession of them, but in other apostolic churches they wanted both. these scattered men (saith he of the donatists epist. 165.) read in the holy books the churches to which the apostles wrote, and have no bishop in them: but what is more perverse and mad, then to the lectors reading these epistles to say, peace with you, and to separate from the peace of these churches, to which these epistles were written? so optatus having done you (as it might seem) great service, in upbraiding the donatists as schismatics, because they had not communion with the church of rome, overthrows and undoes it all again, and as it were with a sponge wipes out all that he had said for you, by adding after, that they were schismatics, because they had not the fellowship of communion with the seven churches of asia, to which s. john writes: whereof he pronounces confidently, (though i know not upon what ground) 〈◊〉 septem ecclesias quicquid for is est, alienum est. now i pray tell me, do you esteem the authority of these fathers a sufficient assurance, that separation from these other apostolic churches, was a certain mark of heresy, or not? if so, than your church hath been for many ages heretical. if not, how is their authority, a greater argument for the roman, then for the other churches? if you say, they conceived separation from these churches a note of schism, only when they were united to the roman: so also they might conceive of the roman, only when it was united to them. if you say, they urged this only as a probable, and not as a certain argument, so also they might do that. in a word, whatsoever answer you can devise to show, that these fathers made not separation from these other churches a mark of heresy, apply that to your own argument, and it will be satisfied. 32 the other place is evidently impertinent to the present question, nor is there in it any thing but this, that caecilian might contemn the multitude of his adversaries, because those that were united with him were more, and of more account than those that were against him. had he preferred the roman church alone, before caecilians enemies, this had been little, but something; but when other countries from which the gospel came first into africa, are joined in this patent, with the church of rome, how she can build any singular privilege upon it i am yet to learn! neither do i see what can be concluded from it, but that in the roman church was the principality of an a you do ill to translate it, the principality of the sea apostolic, as if there were but one: whereas s. austin presently after speaks of apostolical churches, in the plural number; and makes the bishops of the, joint commisioners for the judging of ecclesiastical causes. apostolic sea, which no man doubts: or that the roman church was not the mother church, because the gospel came first into africa, not from her, but from other churches. 33 thus you see his words make very little, or indeed nothing for you▪ but now his action, which according to cardinal perron's rule, is much more to be regarded then his words, as not being so obnoxious to misinterpretation, i mean his famous opposition of three bishops of rome in succession, touching the great question of appeals, wherein he and the rest of the african bishops proceeded so far in the first or second milevitan council, as to b the words of the decree (which also bellarmine l, 1. de matrim c. 17. assures us to have been termed by s. austin) are these. si qui (africani,) ab epis●●pis provocandum putaverint, non nisi ad african● provocent concilia, vel ad primates provinciarum suarum. ad transmarina autem, qui putaverit appellandum, à nullo intra africa● in communionem suscipiatur. this decree is by gratian most impudently corrupted. for whereas the fathers of that council intended it particularly against the church of rome, he tells us they forbade appeals to all excepting only the church of rome. decree any african excommunicate, that should appeal to any man out of afric, and therein continued resolute unto death: i say this famous action of his, makes clearly and evidently and infinitely against you. for had boniface, and the rest of the african bishops, a great part whereof were saints and martyrs, believed as an article of faith, that union and conformity with the doctrine of the roman church, in all things which she held necessary, was a certain note of a good catholic, and by gods command necessary to salvation, how was it possible they should have opposed it in this? unless you will say they were all so foolish as to believe at once direct contradictions, viz. that conformity to the roman church was necessary in all points, and not necessary in this: or else so horribly impious, as believing this doctrine of the roman church true, and her power to receive appeals derived from divine authority, notwithstanding to oppose and condemn it, and to anathematise all those africans, of what condition soever, that should appeal unto it. i say of what condition soever: for it is evident, that they concluded in their determination, bishops as well as the inferior clergy and laity: and cardinal perron's pretence of the contrary, is a shameless falsehood, 〈…〉 repugnant to the plain words of the remonstrance of the african bishops to celestine bishop of rome. 34 your allegation of tertullian is a manifest conviction of your want of sincerity: for you produce with great ostentation what he says of the church of rome, but you and your fellows always conceal and dissemble, that immediately before these words he attributes as much for point of direction to any other apostolic church, and that as he sends them to rome who lived near italy, so those near achaia he sends to corinth, those about macedonia to philippi, and thessalonica, those of asia to ephesus. his words are, go to now thou that wilt better employ thy curiosity in the business of thy salvation, run over the apostolical churches, wherein the chairs of the apostles are yet sat upon in their places, wherein their authentic epistles are recited, sounding out the voice, and representing the face of of every one! is achaia near thee? there thou hast corinth: if thou art not far from macedonia, thou hast philippi, thou hast thessalonica: if thou canst go into asia, there thou hast ephesus: if thou be adjacent to italy, thou hast rome, whose authority is near at hand to us (in afric;) a happy church, into which the apostles poured forth all their doctrine together with their blood, etc. now i pray sir tell me, if you can for blushing, why this place might not have been urged by a corinthian, or philippian, or thessalonian, or an ephesian, to show that in the judgement of tertullian, separation from any of their churches is a certain mark of heresy, as justly and rationally as you allege it to vindicate this privilege to the roman church only? certainly if you will stand to tertullia's judgement, you must either grant the authority of the roman church (though at that time a good topical argument, and perhaps a better than any the heretics had, especially in conjunction with other apostolic churches:) yet i say you must grant it perforce but a fallible guide as well as that of ephesus, and thessalonica, and philippi, and corinth: or you must maintain the authority of every one of these infallible, as well as the roman. for though he make a panegyric of the roman church in particular, and of the rest only in general, yet as i have said, for point of direction he makes them all equal; and therefore makes them (choose you whether) either all fallible, or all infallible: now you will and must acknowledge that he never intended to attribute infallibility to the churches of ephesus, or corinth, or if he did, that (as experience shows) he erred in doing so; and what can hinder, but then we may say also that he never intended to attribute infallibility to the roman church, or if he did that he erred in doing so? 35 from the saying of s. basil, certainly nothing can be gathered, but only that the bishop of rome may discern between that which is counterfeit, and that which is lawful and pure, and without any diminution may preach the faith of our ancestors. which certainly he might do, if ambition and covetousness did not hinder him, or else i should never condemn him for doing otherwise. but is there no difference between may and must? believe he may do so, and he cannot but do so? or doth it follow, because he may do so, therefore he always shall or will do so? in my opinion rather the contrary should follow! for he that saith you may do thus, implies according to the ordinary sense of words, that if he will he may do otherwise. you certainly may if you please leave abusing the world with such sophistry as this; but whether you will or no, of that i have no assurance. 36 your next witness i would willingly have examined, but it seems you are unwilling he should be found, otherwise you would have given us your direction where we might have him. of that maximianus who succeeded nestorius, i can find no such thing in the counsels: neither can i believe that any patriarch of constantinople twelve hundred years ago was so base a parasite of the sea of rome. 37 your last witness john of constantinople, i confess speaks home and advanceth the roman sea, even to heaven: but i fear it is, that his own may go up with it, which he there professes to be all one sea with the sea of rome; and therefore his testimony, as speaking in his own case is not much to be regarded. but beside, i have little reason to be confident that this epistle is not a forgery, for certainly binius hath obtruded upon us many a hundred such. this though written by a grecian is not extant in greek but in latin only. lastly, it comes out of a suspicious place, an old book of the vatican library: which library the world knows to have been the mint of very many impostures. 38 ad §. 20. 21. 22. 23. the sum of your discourse in the 4. next sections, if it be pertinent to the question in agitation, must be this: want of succession of bishops and pastors holding always the same doctrine, and of the forms of ordaining bishops and priests which are in use in the roman church, is a certain mark of heresy: but protestants want all these things: therefore they are heretics. to which i answer, that nothing but want of truth and holding error, can make or prove any man or church heretical. for if he be a true aristotelian, or platonist, or pyrrhonian, or epicurean, who holds the doctrine of aristotle, or plato, or pirrho, or epicurus, although he cannot assign any that held it before him for many ages together, why should i not be made a true and orthodox christian, by believing all the doctrine of christ, though i cannot derive my descent from a perpetual succession that believed it before me? by this reason you should say as well, that no man can be a good bishop or pastor, or king or magistrate, or father that succeeds a bad one. for if i may conform my will and actions to the commandments of god, why may i not embrace his doctrine with my understanding, although my predecessor do not so? you have above in this chapter defined faith a free infallible, obscure, supernatural assent to divine truths, because they are revealed by god & sufficiently propounded: this definition is very fantastical; but for the present i will let it pass, and desire you to give me some piece or shadow of reason, why i may not do all this without a perpetual succession of bishops and pastors that have done so before me? you may judge as uncharitably, and speak as maliciously of me, as your blind zeal to your superstition shall direct you, but certainly i know, (and with all your sophistry you cannot make me doubt of what i know,) that i do believe the gospel of christ (as it is delivered in the undoubted books of canonical scripture,) as verily as that it is now day, that i see the light, that i am now writing: and i believe it upon this motive, because i conceive it sufficiently, abundantly, superabundantly proved to be divine revelation. and yet in this, i do not depend upon any succession of men that have always believed it without any mixture of error; nay i am fully persuaded, there hath been no such succession, and yet do not find myself any way weakened in my faith by the want of it; but so fully assured of the truth of it, that not only, though your devils at lowden do tricks against it, but though an angel from heaven should gainsay it or any part of it, i persuade myself that i should not be moved. this i say, and this i am sure is true: and if you will be so hyperscepticall as to persuade me, that i am not sure that i do believe all this, i desire you to tell me, how are you sure that you believe the church of rome? for if a man may persuade himself he doth believe what he doth not believe, then may you think you believe the church of rome, and yet not believe it. but if no man can err concerning what he believes, than you must give me leave to assure myself that i do believe, and consequently that any man may believe the foresaid truths upon the foresaid motives, without any dependence upon any succession that hath believed it always. and as from your definition of faith, so from your definition of heresy, this fancy may be refuted. for questionless no man can be an heretic but he that holds an heresy, and an heresy you say is a voluntary error; therefore no man can be necessitated to be an heretic whether he will or no, by want of such a thing that is not in his power to have: but that there should have been a perpetual succession of believers in all points orthodox, is not a thing which is in your power, therefore our being or not being heretics depends not on it. besides, what is more certain, then that he may make a straight line who hath a rule to make it by, though never man in the world had made any before: and why then may not he that believes the scripture to be the word of god, and the rule of faith, regulate his faith by it, and consequently believe aright without much regarding what other men either will do or have done? it is true indeed there is a necessity that if god will have his words believed, he by his providence must take order, that either by succession of men, or by some other means natural or supernatural, it be preserved and delivered, and sufficiently notified to be his word; but that this should be done by a succession of men that holds no error against it, certainly there is no more necessity, then that it should be done by a succession of men that commit no sin against it. for if men may preserve the records of a law, and yet transgress it, certainly they may also preserve directions for their faith, and yet not follow them. i doubt not but lawyers at the bar do find by frequent experience, that many men preserve and produce evidences, which being examined of times make against themselves. this they do ignorantly, it being in their power to suppress, or perhaps to alter them. and why then should any man conceive it strange, that an erroneous and corrupted church should preserve and deliver the scriptures uncorrupted, when indeed for many reasons which i have formerly alleged, it was impossible for them to corrupt them? seeing therefore this is all the necessity that is pretended of a perpetual succession of men orthodox in all points, certainly there is no necessity at all of any such, neither can the want of it prove any man or any church heretical. 39 when therefore you have produced some proof of this, which was your major in your former syllogism, that want of succession is a certain mark of heresy, you shall then receive a full answer to your minor. we shall then consider whether your indelible character be any reality, or whether it be a creature of your own making, a fancy of your own imagination? and if it be a thing, and not only a word, whether our bishops and priests have it not as well as yours; & whether some men's persuasion that there is no such thing, can hinder them from having it, or prove that they have it not if there be any such thing! (any more than a man's persuasion that he has not taken physic or poison, will mark him not to have taken it if he has, or hinder the operation of it?) and whether tertullian in the place quoted by you, speak of a priest made a layman, by just deposition or degradation, and not by a voluntary desertion of his order? and whether in the same place he set not some make upon heretics that will agree to your church? whether all the authority of our bishops in england before the reformation, was conferred on them by the pope? and if it were, whether it were the pope's right, or an usurpation? if it were his right, whether by divine law or ecclesiastical? and if by ecclesiastical only, whether he might possibly so abuse his power, as to deserve to lose it? whether de facto he had done so? whether supposing he had deserved to lose it, those that deprived him of it had power to take it from him? or if not, whether they had power to suspend him from the use of it, until good caution were put in, and good assurance given, that if he had it again, he would not abuse it as he had formerly done? whether in case they had done unlawfully that took his power from him, it may not (things being now settled, and the present government established) be as unlawful to go about to restore it? whether it be not a fallacy to conclude, because we believe the pope hath no power in england, now when the king and state and church hath deprived him upon just grounds of it, therefore we cannot believe that he had any before his deprivation? whether without schism, a man may not withdraw obedience from an usurped authority commanding unlawful things? whether the roman church might not give authority to bishops and priests to oppose her errors, as well as a king gives authority to a judge to judge against him, if his cause be bad; as well as traian gave his sword to his perfect, with this commission, that if he governed well, he should use it for him, if ill against him. whether the roman church gave not authority to her bishops and priests to preach against her corruptions in manners? and if so, why not against her errors in doctrine, if she had any? whether she gave them not authority to preach the whole gospel of christ, and consequently against her doctrine, if it should contradict any part of the gospel of christ? whether it be not acknowledged lawful in the church of rome, for any lay man or woman that has ability to persuade others by word or by writing from error, and unto truth? and why this liberty may not be practised against their religion, if it be false, as well as for it if it be true? whether any man need any other commission or vocation then that of a christian, to do a work of charity? and whether it be not one of the greatest works of charity (if it be done after a peaceable manner, and without an unnecessary disturbance of order,) to persuade men out of a false, unto a true way of eternal happiness? especially the apostle having assured us, that he, (whosoever he is) who converteth a sinner from the error of his way, shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins? whether the first reform bishops died all at once, so that there were not enough to ordain others in the places that were vacant? whether the bishops of england may not consecrate a metropolitan of england, as well as the cardinals do the pope? whether the king or queen of england, or they that have the government in their hands, in the minority of the prince, may not lawfully commend one to them to be consecrated, against whom there is no canonical exception? whether the doctrine, that the king is supreme head of the church of england, (as the kings of judah, & the first christian emperors were of the jewish and christian church,) be any new found doctrine? whether it may not be true, that bishops being made bishops, have their authority immediately from christ, though this or that man be not made bishop without the king's authority; as well as you say, the pope being pope, has authority immediately from christ, and yet this or that man cannot be made pope without the authority of the cardinals? whether you do well to suppose, that christian kings have no more authority in ordering the affairs of the church, than the great turk, or the pagan emperors? whether the king may not give authority to a bishop to exercise his function in some part of his kingdom, and yet not be capable of doing it himself: as well as a bishop may give authority to a physician, to practise physic in his diocese, which the bishop cannot do himself? whether if ner● the emperor would have commanded s. peter or s. paul to preach the gospel of christ, and to exercise the office of a bishop of rome, whether they would have questioned his authority to do so? whether there were any law of god or man, that prohibited k. james to give commission to bishops, nay to lay his injunction upon them, to do any thing that is lawful? whether a casual irregularity may not be lawfully dispensed with? whether the pope's irregularities if he should chance to incur any, be indispensable? and if not who is he or who are they, whom the pope is so subject unto, that they may dispense with him? whether that be certain which you take for granted; that your ordination imprints a character and ours doth not? whether the power of consecrating and ordaining by imposition of hands, may not reside in the bishops, and be derived unto them, not from the king but god; and yet the king have authority to command them to apply this power to such a fit person, whom he shall commend unto them: as well as if some architects only had the faculty of architecture, and had it immediately by infusion from god himself, yet, if they were the king's subjects, he wants not authority to command them to build him a palace for his use, or a fortress for his service: or as the king of france pretends not to have power to make priests himself, yet i hope, you will not deny him power to command any of his subjects that has this power, to ordain any fit person priest, whom he shall desire to be ordained? whether it do not follow, that whensoever the king commands an house to be built, a message to be delivered, or a murderer to be executed, that all these things are presently done without intervention of the architect, messenger, or executioner: as well as, that they are ipsofacto ordained and consecrated, who by the king's authority are commended to the bishops to be ordained and consecrated: especially seeing the king will not deny, but that these bishops may refuse to do what he requires to be done, lawfully if the person be unworthy, if worthy, unlawfully indeed, but yet the facto they may refuse: and in case they should do so, whether justly or unjustly; neither the king himself, nor any body else, would esteem the person bishop upon the king's designation? whether many popes, though they were not consecrated bishops by any temporal prince, yet might not, or did not receive authority from the emperor to exercise their episcopal function in this or that place? and whether the emperors had not authority, upon their desert, to deprive them of their jurisdiction, by imprisonment or banishment? whether protestants do indeed pretend that their reformation is universal? whether in saying, the donatists, sect was confined to africa, you do not forget yourself, and contradict what you said above, in §. 17. of this chapter, where you tell us, they had some of their sect residing in rome? whether it be certain, that none can admit of bishops willingly, but those that hold them of divine institution? whether they may not be willing to have them, conceiving that way of government the best, though not absolutely necessary? whether all those protestants that conceive the distinction between priests and bishops, not to be of divine institution, be schismatical and heretical for thinking so? whether your form of ordaining bishops and priests, be essential to the constitution of a true church? whether the forms of the church of england differ essentially from your forms? whether in saying, that the true church cannot subsist without undoubted true bishops and priests, you have not overthrown the truth of your own church: wherein i have proved it plainly impossible, that any man should be so much as morally certain, either of his own priesthood or any other man's? lastly, whether any one kind of these external forms and orders, and government be so necessary to the being of a church, but that they may not be divers in divers places, and that a good and peaceable christian may and aught to submit himself to the government of the place where he lives whatsoever it be? all these questions will be necessary to be discussed for the clearing of the truth of the minor proposition of your former syllogism, and your proofs of it: and i will promise to debate them fairly with you, if first you will bring some better proof of the mayor, that want of succession is a certain note of heresy, which for the present remains both unproved and unprobable. 40 ad §. 23. the fathers, you say, assign succession as one mark of the true church: i confess they did urge tradition as an argument of the truth of their doctrine and of the falsehood of the contrary; and thus far they agree with you. but now see the difference: they urged it not against all heretics that ever should be, but against them who rejected a great part of the scripture, for no other reason but because it was repugnant to their doctrine, and corrupted other parts with their additions and detractions, and perverted the remainder with diverse absurd interpretations: so tertullian not a leaf before the words by you cited. nay they urged it against them who when they were confuted out of scripture, fell to accuse the scriptures themselves as if they were not right, and came not from good authority, as if they were various one from another, and as if truth could not be found out of them, by those who know not tradition, for that it was not delivered in writing, (they did mean wholly,) but by word of mouth: and that thereupon paul also said, we speak wisdom amongst the perfect. so irenaeus in the very next chapter before that which you allege. against these men being thus necessitated to do so, they did urge tradition, but what or whose tradition was it: certainly no other but the joint tradition of all the apostolic churches, with one mouth and one voice teaching the same doctrine. or if for brevity sake they produce the tradition of any one church, yet is it apparent, that, that one was then in conjunction with all the rest; irenaeus, tertullian, origen, testify as much in the words cited, and s. austin, in the place before alleged by me. this tradition they did urge against these men, and in a time, in comparison of ours, almost contiguous to the apostles: so near, that one of them, irenaeus, was scholar to one who was scholar to s. john the apostle, tertullian and origen were not an age removed from him: and the last of them all, little more than an age from them. yet after all this they urged it not as a demonstration, but only as a very probable argument, far greater than any their adversaries could oppose against it. so tertullian in the place above quoted §. 5. how is it likely that so many and so great churches should err in one faith? (it should be, should have erred into on faith.) and this was the condition of this argument as the fathers urged it. now if you having to deal with us, who question no book of scripture, which was not anciently questioned by some whom you yourselves esteem good catholics; nay who refuse not to be tried by your own canons, your own translations, who in interpreting scriptures are content to allow of all those rules which you propose, only except that we will not allow you to be our judges; if you will come fifteen hundred years after the apostles, a fair time for the purest church to gather much dross and corruption, and for the mystery of iniquity to bring its work to some perfection, which in the apostles time began to work, if (i say) you will come thus long after and urge us with the single tradition of one of these churches, being now catholic to itself alone, and heretical to all the rest: nay not only with her ancient and original traditions, but also with her post-nate and introduced definitions, and these as we pretend, repugnant to scripture, and ancient tradition, and all this to decline an indifferent trial by scripture, under pretence (wherein also you agree with the calumny of the old heretics) that all necessary truth cannot be found in them without recourse to tradition: if, i say, notwithstanding all these differences, you will still be urging us with this argument, as the very same and of the same force with that wherewith the forementioned fathers urged the old heretics, certainly this must needs proceed from a confidence you have, not only that we have no school-divinity, nor metaphysics, but no logic or common sense, that we are but pictures of men, and have the definition of rational creatures given us in vain. 41 but now suppose i should be liberal to you, and grant what you cannot prove, that the fathers make succession a certain and perpetual ma●k of the true church; i beseech you what will come of it? what, that want of succession is a certain sign of an heretical company? truly if you say so, either you want logic, which is a certain sign of an ill disputer; or are not pleased to use it, which is a worse. for speech is a certain sign of a living man, yet want of speech is no sure argument that he is dead, for he may be dumb and yet living still, and we may have other evident tokens that he is so, as eating, drinking, breathing, moving: so, though the constant and universal delivery of any doctrine by the apostolic churches ever since the apostles, be a very great argument of the truth of it, yet there is no certainty, but that truth, even divine truth, may through men's wickedness, be contracted from its universality, and interrupted in its perpetuity, and so loose this argument, and yet not want others to justify and support itself. for it may be one of those principles which god hath written in all men's hearts, or a conclusion evidently arising from them: it may be either contained in scripture in express terms, or deducible from it by apparent consequence. if therefore you intent to prove want of a perpetual succession of professors a certain note of heresy, you must not content yourself to show, that having it is one sign of truth; but you must show it to be the only sign of it and inseparable from it. but this, if you be well advised, you will never undertake. first because it is an impossible attempt: and then because if you do it you will mar all: for by proving this an inseparable sign of catholic doctrine, you will prove your own, which apparently wants it in many points, not to be catholic. for whereas you say this succession requires two things, agreement with the apostles doctrine, and an uninterrupted conveyance of it down to them that challenge it: it will be proved against you that you fail in both points; and that some things wherein you agree with the apostles have not been held always, as your condemning the doctrine of the chiliasts, and holding the eucharist not necessary for infants; and that in many other things you agree not with them nor with the church for many ages after. for example; in mutilation of the communion, in having your service in such a language as the assistants generally understand nor, your offering to saints, your picturing of god, your worshipping of pictures. 42 ad §. 24. as for universality of place, the want whereof you object to protestants as a mark of heresy: you have not set down clearly and univocally what you mean by it, whether universality of fact or of right: and if of fact, whether absolute or comparative: and if comparative, whether of the church in comparison of any other religion, or only of heretical christians: or if in comparison of these, whether in comparison of all other sects conjoined, or in comparison only of any one of them. nor have you proved it by any good argument in any sense to be a certain mark of heresy: for those places of s. austin do not deserve the name. and truly in my judgement you have done advisedly in proving it no better. for as for universality of right, or a right to universality, all religions claim it, but only the true has it, and which has it cannot be determined, unless it first be determined which is the true. an absolute universality, and diffusion through all the world if you should pretend to, all the world would laugh at you. if you should contend for latitude with any one religion, mahumetism would carry the victory from you. if you should oppose yourselves against all other christians besides you, it is certain you would be cast in this suit also. if lastly, being hard driven you should please you selves with being more than any one sect of christians, it would presently be replied, that it is uncertain whether now you are so, but most certain that the time has been when you have not been so. then when the a hierom. cont. lucif●rianos. whole world wondered that it was become arrian: then when athanasius opposed the world, and the world athanasius: then when b in theodoret. hist. 16. c. l. 2. your liberius having the contemptible paucity of his adherents objected to him as a note of error, answered for himself, there was a time when there were but three opposed the decree of the king, and yet those three were in the right, and the rest in the wrong: then when the professors of error surpassed the number of the professors of truth in proportion, as the sands of the sea do the stars of the heaven. (as c in ep. 48. 〈◊〉 vincentium. s. austin acknowledgeth:) then when d conunenitorij. lib. 1. c. 4. vincentius confesseth, that the poison of the arrians had contaminated, not now some certain portion, but almost the whole world: then when the author of nazianzens' life testifies, that e in vita naziauz the heresy of arrius, had possessed in a manner the whole extent of the world; and when nazianzen found cause to cry out, f in orat. arian. & 〈◊〉. where are they who reproach us with our poverty, who define the church by the multitude, and despise the little flock? they have the people, but we the faith. and lastly when athanasius was so overborne with shoals & floods of arrians, that he was enforced to write a treatise on purpose g to. ● against those, who judge of the truth only by plurality of adherents. so that if you had proved want of universality even thus restrained, to be an infallible note of heresy, there would have been no remedy but you must have confessed, that the time was when you were heretics. and beside, i see not how you would have avoided this great inconvenience, of laying grounds and storeing up arguments for antichrist, against he comes, by which he may prove his company the true church. for it is evident out of scripture, and confessed by you, that though his time be not long, his dominion shall be very large; and that the true church shall be then, the woman driven into the wilderness. 43 ad §. 25. & 26. the remainder of this chapter if i would deal strictly with you, i might let pass as impertinent to the question now disputed. for whereas your argument promises that this whole chapter shall be employed in proving luther & the protestants guilty of heresy, here you desert this question, and strike out into another accusation of them, that their faith even of the truth they hold, is not indeed true faith. but put case it were not, does it follow, that the having of this faith makes them heretics, or that they are therefore heretics because they have this faith? aristotle believed there were intelligences which moved the spheres; he believed this with an humane persuasion, and not with a certain, obscure, prudent, supernatural faith: and will you make aristotle an heretic, because he believed so? you believe there was such a man as julius caesar, that there is such a city as constantinople, and your belief here of has not these qualifications which you require: and will you be content that this shall pass for a sufficient proof that you are an heretic? heresy you have defined above to be a voluntary error: but he that believes truth, though his belief be not qualified according to your mind, yet sure in believing truth he believes no error; & from hence according to ordinary logic methinks it should follow, that such a man for doing so, cannot be guilty of heresy. 44 but you will say, though he be not guilty of heresy for believing these truths, yet if his faith be not saving, to what purpose will it be? truly very little to the purpose of salvation, as little as it is to your proving protestant's guilty of heresy. but out of our wont indulgence, let us pardon this fault also, and do you the favour to hear what you can say, to beget this faith in us, that indeed we have no faith, or at least not such a faith, without which it is impossible to please god. your discourse upon this point, you have, i know not upon what policy, disjointed, and given us the grounds of it in the beginning of the chapter, and the superstructure here in the end. them i have already examined, and for a great part of them, proved them vain and deceitful. i have showed by many certain arguments, that though the subject matter of our faith be in itself most certain, yet that absolute certainty of adherence, is not required to the essence of faith, no nor to make it acceptable with god, but that to both these effects it is sufficient, if it be firm enough to produce obedience and charity. i have showed beside, that prudence is rather commendable in faith, then intrinsical and essential to it. so that whatsoever is here said, to prove the faith of protestants no faith, for want of certainty or for want of prudence, is already answered before it is objected: for the foundation being destroyed the building cannot stand. yet for the fuller refutation of all pretences, i will here make good, that to prove our faith destitute of these qualifications, you have produced but vain sophisms, and for the most part, such arguments as return most violently upon yourselves. thus than you say, 45 first that their belief wanteth certainty, i prove, because they denying the universal infallibility of the church, can have no certain ground to know what objects are revealed or testified by god. but if there be no other ground of certainty but your church's infallibility, upon what certain ground do you know that your church is infallible? upon what certain ground do you know all those things which must be known before you can know that your church is infallible? as that there is a god: that god hath promised his assistance to your church in all her decrees: that the scripture wherein this promise is extant is the word of god: that those texts of scripture which you allege for your infallibility are incorrupted: that that which you pretend is the true sense of them? when you have produced certain grounds for all these things, i doubt not but it will appear, that we also may have grounds certain enough to believe our whole religion, which is nothing else but the bible, without dependence on the church's infallibility. suppose you should meet with a man that for the present, believes neither church, nor scripture, nor god, but is ready & willing to believe them all, if you can show some sufficient grounds to build his faith upon; will you tell such a man there are no certain grounds, by which he may be converted; or there are? if you say the first, you make all religion an uncertain thing; if the second, then either you must ridiculously persuade, that your church is infallible, because it is infallible, or else that there are other certain grounds besides your church's infallibility. 46 but you proceed and tell us, that holy scripture is in itself most true and infallible, but without the direction and declaration of the church, we can neither have certain means to know what scripture is canonical, nor what translations be faithful, nor what is the true meaning of scripture. answ. but all these things must be known, before we can know the direction of your church to be infallible, for no other proof of it can be pretended, but only some texts of canonical scripture, truly interpreted: therefore either you are mistaken, in thinking there is no other means to know these things, but your churches infallible direction, or we are excluded from all means of knowing her direction to be infallible. 47 but protestants, though as you suppose, they are persuaded their own oponions are true, and that they have used such means as are wont to be prescribed for understanding the scripture, as prayer, conferring of texts etc. yet by their disagreement show, that some of them are deceived. now they hold all the articles of their faith, upon this only ground of scripture, interpreted by these rules, and therefore it is clear, that the ground of their faith is infallible in no point at all. the first of these suppositions must needs be true, but the second is apparently false: i mean, that every protestant is persuaded that he hath used those means which are prescribed for understanding of scripture. but that which you collect from these suppositions is clearly inconsequent: and by as good logic you might conclude, that logic and geometry stand upon no certain grounds, that the rules of the one, and the principles of the other do sometimes fail, because the disagreement of logicians and geometricians show, that some of them are deceived. might not a jew conclude as well against all christians, that they have no certain ground whereon to rely in their understanding of scripture, because their disagreements show that some are deceived; because some deduce from it the infallibility of a church, and others no such matter? so likewise a turk might use the same argument against both jews and christians, and an atheist against all religions, and a sceptic against all reason. might not the one say, men's disagreement in religion, show that there is no certainty in any; and the other, that experience of their contradictions teacheth, that the rules of reason do sometimes fail? do not you see and feel how void of reason and how full of impiety your sophistry is? and how transported with zeal against protestants, you urge arguments against them, which if they could not be answered, would overthrow not only your own, but all religion? but god be thanked, the answer is easy and obvious! for let men but remember not to impute the faults of men but only to men, and then it will easily appear, that there may be sufficient certainty in reason, in religion, in the rules of interpreting scripture, though men through their faults, take not care to make use of them, and so run into diverse errors and dissensions. 48 but protestant's cannot determine what points be fundamental, and therefore must remain uncertain, whether or no they be not in some fundamental error. ans. by like reason since you acknowledge, that every error in points defined and declared by your church destroys the substance of faith, and yet cannot determine what points be defined, it followeth that you must remain uncertain, whether or no you be not in some fundamental error, and so want the substance of faith, without which there can be no hope of salvation. now that you are uncertain what points are defined, appears from your own words. c. 4. §. 3. of your second part, where say you, no less impertinent is your discourse, concerning the difficulty to know what is heresy: for we grant that it is not always easy to determine in particular occasions, whether this or that doctrine be such, because it may be doubtful, whether it be against any scripture, or divine tradition, or definition of the church. neither were it difficult to extort from you this confession, by naming divers points, which some of you say are defined, others the contrary. and others hang in suspense, and know not what to determine. but this i have done elsewhere: as also i have showed plainly enough, that though we cannot perhaps say in particular, thus much, and no more is fundamental, yet believing all the bible, we are certain enough that we believe all that is fundamental. as he that in a receipt, takes twenty ingredients whereoften only are necessary, though he know not which those ten are, yet taking the whole twenty he is sure enough that he has taken all that are necessary. 49 ad §. 29. but that he who erreth against any one revealed truth looseth all divine faith, is a very true doctrine delivered by catholic divines, (you mean your own) with so general a consent, that the contrary is wont to be censured as temerarious: now certainly some protestants must do so, because they hold contradictions which cannot all be true; therefore some of them at least, have no divine faith. ans. i pass by your weakness, in urging protestants with the authority of your divines, which yet in you might very deservedly be censured. for when d. potter, to show the many actual dissensions between the romish doctors, notwithstanding their brags of potential unity, refers to pappus, who has collected out of bellar▪ their contradictions, and set them down in his own words to the number of 237. & to flacius, de sect is & controversiis religionis papisticae; you making the very same use of m. breerely against protestants; yet jeer and scorn d. potter, as if he offered you for a proof, the bare authority of pappus and flacius, and tell him, which is all the answer you vouchsafe him, it is pretty that he brings pappus and flacius, flat heretics, to prove your many contradictions▪ as if he had proved this with the bare authority, the bare judgement of these men, which sure he does not, but with the formal words of bellarmine faithfully collected by pappus. and why then might not we say to you, is it not pretty that you bring breerly as flat an heretic as pappus or flacius, to prove the contradictions of protestants? yet had he been so vain as to press you with the mere authority of protestant divines in any point, me thinks for your own sake, you should have pardoned him, who here and in many other places, urge us with the judgement of your divines as with weighty arguments. yet, if the authority of your divines were even canonical, certainly nothing could be concluded from it in this matter, there being not one of them, who delivers for true doctrine this position of yours, thus nakedly set down, that any error against any one revealed truth destroys all divine faith. for they all require, (not yourself excepted) that this truth must not only be revealed, but revealed publicly, and (all things considered) sufficiently propounded to the erring party, to be one of those, which god under pain of damnation commands all men to believe. and therefore the contradiction of protestants (though this vain doctrine of your divines were supposed true, is but a weak argument) that any of them have no divine. faith, seeing you neither have, not ever can prove▪ (without begging the question of your church's infallibility,) that the truths about which they differ, are of this quality and condition. but though out of courtesy we may suppose this doctrine true, yet we have no reason to grant it, nor to think it any thing but a vain and groundless fancy: and that this very weak and inartificial argument, from the authority of your divines, is the strongest pillar which it hath to support it. two reasons you allege for it out of thomas aquinas, the first whereof vainly supposeth against reason and experience, that by the commission of any deadly sin, the habit of charity is quite extirpated. and for the second, though you cry it up for an achilles, and think like the gorgon's head it will turn us all into stone, and in confidence of it, insult upon d. potter as if he durst not come near it, yet in very truth having considered it well, i find it a serious, grave, prolix, and profound nothing. i could answer it in a word, by telling you, that it begs without all proof or colour of proof, the main question between us, that the infallibility of your church is either the formal motive, or rule, or a necessary condition of faith: which you know we flatly deny, and therefore all that is built upon it has nothing but wind for a foundation. but to this answer i will add a large confutation of this vain fancy, out of one of the most rational and profound doctors of your own church, i mean estius, who upon the third of the sent. the 23. dist▪ the 13. §. writes thus, it is disputed (saith he) whether in him who believes some of the articles of our faith, and disbelieves others, or perhaps someone, there be faith properly so called in respect of that which he does believe? in which question we must before all, carefully distinguish between those, who retaining a general readiness to believe whatsoever the church believes, yet err by ignorance in some doctrine of faith, because it is not as yet sufficiently declared to them that the church does so believe; and those who after sufficient manifestation of the church's doctrine, do yet choose to descent from it, either by doubting of it, or affirming the contrary. for of the former the answer is easy; but of these, that is, of heretics retaining some part of wholesome doctrine, the question is more difficult, and on both sides by the doctors probably disputed. for that there is in them true faith of the articles wherein they do not err, first experience seems to convince: for many at this day denying, for example sake, purgatory, or invocation of saints, nevertheless firmly hold, as by divine revelation, that god is three and one▪ that the son of god was incarnate and suffered, and other like things. ●as anciently the novatians, excepting their peculiar error, of denying reconciliation to those that fell in persecution, held other things in common with catholics: so that they assisted them very much against the arrians, as socrates relates in his eccl. hist. moreover the same thing is proved by the example of the apostles, who in the time of christ's passion being scandalised, lost their faith in him: as also, christ after his resurrection upbraids them with their incredulity, and calls thomas incredulous, for denying the resurrection, joh. 20. whereupon s. austin also in his preface upon the 96. ps. saith, that after the resurrection of christ, the faith of those that fell was restored again. and yet we must not say, that the apostles then lost the faith of the trinity, of the creation of the world, of eternal life, and such like other articles. besides, the jews before christ's coming, held the faith of one god the creator of heaven and earth: who although they lost the true faith of the messias by not receiving christ, yet we cannot say, that they lost the faith of one god, but still retained this article as firmly as they did before. add hereunto, that neither jews nor heretics seem to lie, in saying they believe either the books of the prophets, or the four gospels: it being apparent enough, that they acknowledge in them divine authority, though they hold not the true sense of them, to which purpose is that in the acts. c. 20. believest thou the prophets? i know that thou believest. lastly it is manifest, that many gifts of god, are found even in bad men, and such as are out of the church; therefore nothing hinders but that jews and heretics, though they err in many things, yet in other things may be so divinely illuminated as to believe aright. so s. austin seems to teach in his book, de vnico baptismo: contra pe●ilianum c. 3. in these words: when a jew comes to us to be made a christian, we destroy not in him god's good things but his own ill. that he believes one god is to be worshipped, that he hopes for eternal life, that he doubts not of the resurrection, we approve and commend him: we acknowledge, that as he did believe these things, so he is still to believe them, and as he did hold, so he is still to hold them. thus he: subjoining more to the same purpose in the next, and again in the 26. chapter, and in his third book, de bapt. contr. donat. cap. ult. and upon psal. 64. but now this reason seems to persuade the contrary: because the formal object of faith seems to be the first verity, as it is manifested by the church's doctrine as the divine and infallible rule, wherefore whosoever adheres not to this rule, although he assent to some matters of faith, yet he embraces them not with faith, but with some other kind of assent: as if a man assent to a conclusion, not knowing the reason by which it is demonstrated, he hath not true knowledge, but an opinion only of the same conclusion. now that an heretic adheres not to the r●le aforesaid, it is manifest: because if he did adhere to it, as divine and infallible, he would receive all without exception, which the church teacheth, and so would not be an heretic. after this manner discourseth s. thom. 2. 2. q. 5. art. 3. from whom yet dur and dissents upon this distinction, thinking there may be in an heretic true faith, in respect of the articles in which he doth not err. others, as scotus and bonaventure, define not the matter plainly, but seem to choose a middle way. to the authority of s. austin and these schoolmen, this may be adjoined, that it is usual with good christians to say, that heretics have not the entire faith. whereby it seems to be intimated, that some part of it they do retain. whereof this may be another reason: that if the truths which a jew or a heretic holds, he should not hold them by faith, but after some other manner, to wit, by his own proper will and judgement, it will follow, that all that excellent knowledge of god and divine things, which is found in them, is to be attributed not to the grace of god, but the strength of free will, which is against s. austin, both elsewhere, and especially in the end of his book de potentia. as for the reason alleged to the contrary, we answer: it is impertinent to faith, by what means we believe the prime verity, that is, by what means god useth to confer upon men the gift of faith. for although now the ordinary means be the testimony and teaching of the church, yet it is certain that by other means, faith hath been given heretofore, and is given still. for many of the ancients, as adam, abraham, melchisedeck, job, received faith by special revelation; the apostles by the miracles and preaching of christ; others again by the preaching and miracles of the apostles; and lastly others, by other means, when as yet they had heard nothing of the infallibility of the church; to little children by baptism, without any other help, faith is infused: and therefore it is possible, that a man not adhering to the church's doctrine as a rule infallible, yet may receive some things for the word of god, which do indeed truly belong to the faith, either because they are now, or heretofore have been confirmed by miracles: or because he manifestly sees that the ancient church taught so, or upon some other inducement. and yet nevertheless we must not say, that heretics and jews do hold the faith, but only some part of the faith. for the faith signifies an entire thing, and complete in all parts; whereupon an heretic is said to be simply an infidel, to have lost the faith, and according to the apostle 1. tim. 1. to have made shipwreck of it, although he holds some things, with the same strength of assent and readiness of will, wherewith by others are held all those points which appertain to the faith. and thus far estius. whose discourse i presume may pass for a sufficient refutation of your argument out of aquinas. and therefore your corollaries drawn from it, that every error against faith, involves opposition against god's testimony, that protestants have no faith, no certainty, and that you have all faith, must together with it fall to the ground. 50 but if protestants have certainty, they want obscurity, and so have not that faith, which as the apostle saith is of things not appearing. this argument you prosecute in the next paragraph; but i can find nothing in it, to convince or persuade me that protestants cannot have as much certainty as is required to faith, of an object not so evident as to beget science. if obscurity will not consist with certainty in the highest degree, than you are to blame for requiring to faith contradicting conditions. if certainty and obscurity will stand together, what reason can be imagined that a protestant may not entertain them both as well as a papist? your bodies & souls, your understandings and wills are, i think, of the same condition with ours: and why then may not we be certain of an obscure thing as well as you? and as you made this long discourse against protestants, why may not we putting church instead of scripture, send it back again to you? and say; if papists have certainty, they want obscurity, and so have not that faith, which as the apostle saith, is of things not appearing, or not necessitating our understanding to an assent? for the whole edifice of the faith of papists is settled on these two principles, these particular propositions are the propositions of the church, and the sense and meaning of them is clear and evident, at least in all points necessary to salvation. now these principles being one supposed, it clearly followeth, that what papists believe as necessary to salvation is evidently known by them to be true, by this argument; it is certain and evident, that whatsoever is the word of god or divine revelation is true; but it is certain and evident that these propositions of the church in particular are the word of god and divine revelations; therefore it is certain and evident, that all propositions of the church are true. which conclusion i take for a major in a second argument, and say thus; it is certain and evident that all propositions of the church are true; but it is certain and evident, that such particulars, for example, the lawfulness of the half communion, the lawfulness and expedience of latin service, the doctrine of transubstantiation, indulgences etc. are the propositions of the church; therefore it is certain and evident that these particular objects are true. neither will it avail you to say, that the said principles are not evident by natural discourse, but only by the eye of reason cleared by grace: for supernatural evidence, no less (yea rather more) drowns and excludes obscurity, then natural evidence doth. neither can the party so enlightened, be said voluntarily to captivate his understanding to that light, but rather his understanding is by necessity made captive and forced not to disbeleeve what is presented by so clear a light. and therefore your imaginary faith is not the true faith defined by the apostle, but an invention of your own. 51 and having thus cried quittance with you, i must entreat you to devise (for truly i cannot) some answer to this argument, which will not serve in proportion to your own. for i hope you will not pretend that i have done you injury, in settling your faith upon principles which you disclaim. and if you allege this disparity, that you are more certain of your principles, than we of ours, and yet you do not pretend that your principles are so evident, as we do that ours are: what is this to say, but that you are more confident than we, but confess you have less reason for it? for the evidence of the thing assented to, be it more or less, is the reason and cause of the assent in the understanding. but then beside, i am to tell you, that you are here, as every where, extremely, if not affectedly mistaken in the doctrine of protestants; who though they acknowledge, that the things which they believe are in themselves as certain as any demonstrable or sensible verities, yet pretend not that their certainty of adherence is most perfect and absolute, but such as may be perfected and increased as long as they walk by faith and not by sight. and consonant hereunto is their doctrine touching the evidence of the objects whereunto they adhere. for you abuse the world & them, if you pretend that they hold the first of your two principles, that these particular books are the word of god, (for so i think you mean) either to be in itself evidently certain, or of itself and being devested of the motives of credibility, evidently credible: for they are not so fond as to be ignorant, nor so vain as to pretend, that all men do assent to it, which they would if it were evidently certain, nor so ridiculous as to imagine, that if an indian that never heard of christ or scripture, should by chance find a bible in his own language, and were able to read it, that upon the reading it he would certainly without a miracle believe it to be the word of god: which he could not choose if it were evidently credible. what then do they affirm of it? certainly no more than this, that whatsoever man that is not of a perverse mind, shall weigh with serious and mature deliberation, those great moments of reason which may incline him to believe the divine authority of scripture, and compare them with the light objections that in prudence can be made against it, he shall not choose but find sufficient nay abundant inducements to yield unto it firm faith and sincere obedience. let that learned man hugo grotius speak for all the rest, in his book of the truth of christian religion; which book whosoever attentively peruses shall find that a man may have great reason to be a christian without dependence upon your church for any part of it: and that your religion is no foundation, but rather a scandal and an objection against christianity. he then in the last chapter of his second book hath these excellent words, if any be not satisfied with these arguments abovesaid, but desires more forcible reasons for confirmation of the excellency of christian religion, let such know that as there are variety of things which be true, so are there diverse ways of proving or manifesting the truth. thus is there one way in mathematics, another in physics, a third in ethics, and lastly another kind when a matter of fact is in question: wherein verily we must rest content with such testimonies as are free from all suspicion of untruth; otherwise down goes all the frame and use of history, and a great part of the art of physic, together with all dutifulness that ought to be between parents and children: for matters of practice can no way else be known but by such testimonies. now it is the pleasure of almighty god that those things which he would have us to believe (so that the very belief thereof may be imputed to us for obedience) should not so evidently appear, as those things which are apprehended by sense and plain demonstration, but only be so far forth revealed as may beget faith, and a persuasion thereof, in the hearts and minds of such as are not obstinate: that so the gospel may be as a touchstone for trial of men's judgements, whether they be sound or unsound. for seeing these arguments, whereof we have spoken, have induced so many honest, godly, and wise men to approve of this religion, it is thereby plain enough that the fault of other men's infidelity is not for want of sufficient testimony, but because they would not have that to be had and embraced for truth which is contrary to their wilful desires; it being a hard matter for them to relinquish their honours, and set at naught other commodities; which thing they know they ought to do, if they admit of christ's doctrine and obey what he hath commanded. and this is the rather to be noted of them, for that many other historical narrations are approved by them to be true, which notwithstanding are only manifest by authority, and not by any such strong proofs, and persuasions, or tokens, as do declare the history of christ to be true: which are evident, partly by the confession of those jews that are yet alive; and partly in those companies and congregations of christians which are any where to be found; whereof doubtless there was some cause. lastly seeing the long duration or continuance of christian religion, and the large extent thereof can be ascribed to no humane power, therefore the same must be attributed to miracles: or if any deny that it came to pass through a miraculous manner; this very getting so great strength and power without a miracle, may be thought to surpass any miracle. 52 and now you see i hope that protestants neither do nor need to pretend to any such evidence in the doctrine they believe, as cannot well consist both with the essence and the obedience of faith. let us come now to the last nullity which you impute to the faith of protestants, and that it is want of prudence. touching which point, as i have already demonstrated, that wisdom is not essential to faith, but that a man may truly believe truth, though upon insufficient motives; so i doubt not but i shall make good, that if prudence were necessary to faith, we have better title to it than you; and that if a wiser than solomon were here, he should have better reason to believe the religion of protestants then papists, the bible rather than the council of trent. but let us hear what you can say! 53 ad §. 31. you demand then first of all, what wisdom was it to forsake a church confessedly very ancient, and besides which there could be demonstrated no other visible church of christ upon earth? i answer: against god and truth there lies no presoription, and therefore certainly it might be great wisdom to forsake ancient errors for more ancient truths. one god is rather to be followed then innumerable worlds of men: and therefore it might be great wisdom either for the whole visible church, nay for all the men in the world, having wandered from the way of truth, to return unto it; or for a part of it, nay for one man to do so, although all the world beside were madly resolute to do the contrary. it might be great wisdom to forsake the errors though of the only visible church, much more the roman, which in conceiving herself the whole visible church, does somewhat like the frog in the fable, which thought the ditch he lived in to be all the world. 54 you demand again, what wisdom was it to forsake a church acknowledged to want nothing necessary to salvation, endued with succession of bishops, &c, usque ad election or choice? i answer: yet might it be great wisdom to forsake a church not acknowledged to want nothing necessary to salvation, but accused and convicted of many damnable errors: certainly damnable to them who were convicted of them, had they still persisted in them after their conviction; though perhaps pardonable (which is all that is acknowledged) to such as ignorantly continued in them. a church vainly arrogating without possibility of proof a perpetual succession of bishops, holding always the same doctrine; and with a ridiculous impudence pretending perpetual possession of all the world: whereas the world knows, that a little before luther's arising, your church was confined to a part of a part of it. lastly a church vainly glorying in the dependence of other churches upon her, which yet she supports no more than those crouching antics which seem in great buildings to labour under the weight they bear, do indeed support the fabric. for a corrupted and false church may give authority to preach the truth, and consequently against her own falsehoods and corruptions. besides, a false church may preserve the scripture true, (as now the old testament is preserved by the jews,) either not being arrived to that height of impiety as to attempt the corruption of it, or not able to effect it, or not perceiving, or not regarding the opposition of it to her corruptions. and so we might receive from you lawful ordination and true scriptures, though you were a false church; and receiving the scriptures from you (though not from you alone,) i hope you cannot hinder us, neither need we ask your leave, to believe and obey them. and this, though you be a false church, is enough to make us a true one. as for a succession of men that held with us in all points of doctrine, it is a thing we need not, and you have as little as we. so that if we acknowledge that your church before luther was a true church, it is not for any ends, for any dependence that we have upon you; but because we conceive that in a charitable construction, you may pass for a true church. such a church (and no better) as you do sometimes acknowledge protestants to be, that is, a company of men, wherein some ignorant souls may be saved. so that in this balancing of religion against religion, and church against church, it seems you have nothing of weight and moment to put into your scale; nothing but smoke and wind, vain shadows and fantastical pretences. yet if protestants on the other side, had nothing to put in their scale but those negative commendations which you are pleased to afford them; nothing but, no unity, nor means to procure it; no farther extent when luther arose then luther's body; no universality of time or place; no visibility or being, except only in your church; no succession of persons or doctrine; no leader but luther, in a quarrel begun upon no ground but passion; no church, no ordination, no scriptures but such as they received from you; if all this were true, and this were all that could be pleaded for protestants, possibly with an allowance of three grains of partiality your scale might seem to turn. but then if it may appear that part of these objections are falsely made against them, the rest vainly; that whatsoever of truth is in these imputations, is impertinent to this trial, and whatsoever is pertinent is untrue; and beside, that plenty of good matter may be alleged for protestants which is here dissembled: then i hope, our cause may be good notwithstanding these pretences. 55 i say then, that want of universality of time & place, the invisibility or not existence of the professors of protestant doctrine before luther, luther's being alone when he first opposed your church, our having our church, ordination, scriptures, personal and yet not doctrinal succession from you, are vain and impertinent allegations, against the truth of our doctrine and church. that the entire truth of christ without any mixture of error should be professed or believed in all places at any time, or in any place at all times, is not a thing evident in reason, neither have we any revelation for it. and therefore in relying so confidently on it, you build your house upon the sand. and what obligation we had either to be so peevish, as to take nothing of yours, or so foolish as to take all, i do not understand. for whereas you say that this is to be choosers and therefore heretics, i tell you that though all heretics are choosers, yet all choosers are not heretics, otherwise they also, which choose your religion must be heretics. as for our wanting unity and means of proving it, luther's opposing your church upon mere passion, our following private men rather than the catholic church; the first and last are mere untruths, for we want not unity, nor means to procure it in things necessary. plain places of scripture, and such as need no interpreter are our means to obtain it. neither do we follow any private men, but only the scripture, the word of god as our rule, and reason, which is also the gift of god given to direct us in all our actions, in the use of this rule. and then for luther's opposing your church upon mere passion, it is a thing i will not deny because i know not his heart, and for the same reason you should not have affirmed it. sure i am, whether he opposed your church upon reason or no, he had reason enough to oppose it. and therefore if he did it upon passion, we will follow him only in his action and not in his passion, in his opposion, not in the manner of it; and then i presume you will have no reason to condemn us, unless you will say that a good action cannot be done with reason, because some body before us hath done it upon passion. you see then how imprudent you have been in the choice of your arguments, to prove protestants unwise in the choice of their religion. 56 it remains now, that i should show that many reasons of moment may be alleged for the justification of protestants, which are dissembled by you, and not put into the balance. know then sir that when i say, the religion of protestants, is in prudence to be preferred before yours: as on the one side i do not understand by your religion, the doctrine of bellarmine or baronius, or any other private man amongst you, nor the doctrine of the sorbon, or of the jesuits, or of the dominicans, or of any other particular company among you, but that wherein you all agree, or profess to agree, the doctrine of the council of trent: so accordingly on the other side, by the religion of protestants, i do not understand the doctrine of luther, or calvin, or melancthon; nor the confession of augusta, or geneva, nor the catechism of heidelberg, nor the articles of the church of england, no nor the harmony of protestant confessions; but that wherein they all agree, and which they all subscribe with a greater harmony, as a perfect rule of their faith and actions, that is, the bible. the bible, i say, the bible only is the religion of protestants! whatsoever else they believe besides it, and the plain, irrefragable, indubitable consequences of it, well may they hold it as a matter of opinion, but as matter of faith and religion, neither can they with coherence to their own grounds believe it themselves, nor require the belief of it of others, without most high and most schismatical presumption. i for my part after a long (and as i verily believe & hope,) impartial search of the true way to eternal happiness, do profess plainly that i cannot find any rest for the sole of my foot, but upon this rock only. i see plainly and with mine own eyes, that there are popes against popes, counsels against counsels, some fathers against others, the same fathers against themselves, a consent of fathers of one age against a consent of fathers of another age, the church of one age against the church of another age. traditive interpretations of scripture are pretended, but there are few or none to be found: no tradition but only of scripture, can derive itself from the fountain, but may be plainly proved, either to have been brought in, in such an age after christ; or that in such an age it was not in. in a word, there is no sufficient certainty but of scripture only, for any considering man to build upon. this therefore, and this only i have reason to believe: this i will profess, according to this i will live, and for this, if there be occasion, i will not only willingly, but even gladly lose my life, though i should be sorry that christians should take it from me. propose me any thing out of this book, and require whether i believe it or no, and seem it never so incomprehensible to humane reason, i will subscribe it with hand and heart, as knowing no demonstration can be stronger than this, god hath said so, therefore it is true. in other things i will take no man's liberty of judgement from him; neither shall any man take mine from me. i will think no man the worse man, nor the worse christian: i will love no man the less, for differing in opinion from me. and what measure i meat to others i expect from them again. i am fully assured that god does not, and therefore that men ought not to require any more of any man then this, to believe the scripture to be god's word, to endeavour to find the true sense of it, and to live according to it. 57 this is the religion which i have chosen after a long deliberation, and i am verily persuaded that i have chosen wisely, much more wisely than if i had guided myself according to your church's authority. for the scripture being all true, i am secured by believing nothing else, that i shall believe no falsehood as matter of faith. and if i mistake the sense of scripture, and so fall into error, yet am i secure from any danger thereby, if but your grounds be true: because endeavouring to find the true sense of scripture, i cannot but hold my error without pertinacy, and be ready to forsake it when a more true and a more probable sense shall appear unto me. and then all necessary truth being as i have proved, plainly set down in scripture, i am certain by believing scripture, to believe all necessary truth: and he that does so, if his life be answerable to his faith, how is it possible he should fail of salvation? 58 besides, whatsoever may be pretended to gain to your church the credit of a guide, all that & much more may be said for the scripture. hath your church been ancient? the scripture is more ancient. is your church a means to keep men at unity? so is the scripture to keep those that believe it and will obey it, in unity of belief, in matters necessary or very profitable, and in unity of charity in points unnecessary. is your church universal for time or place? certainly the scripture is more universal. for all the christians in the world (those i mean that in truth deserve this name,) do now, and always have believed the scripture to be the word of god: whereas only you say that you only are the church of god, & all christians besides you deny it. 59 thirdly, following the scripture, i follow that whereby you prove your church's infallibility, (whereof were it not for scripture what pretence could you have, or what notion could we have?) and by so doing tacitly confess, that yourselves are surer of the truth of the scripture then of your church's authority. for we must be surer of the proof then of the thing proved, otherwise it is no proof. 60 fourthly, following the scripture, i follow that which must be true if your church be true: for your church gives attestation to it. whereas if i follow your church, i must follow that which, though scripture be true, may be false; nay which if scripture be true must be false, because the scripture testifies against it. 61 fiftly, to follow the scripture i have god's express warrant and command, and no colour of any prohibition: but to believe your church infallible, i have no command at all, much less an express command. nay i have reason to fear that i am prohibited to do so in these words: call no man master on earth: they fell by infidelity, thou standest by faith, be not high minded but fear: the spirit of truth the world cannot receive. 62 following your church i must hold many things not only above reason but against it, if any thing be against it: whereas following the scripture i shall believe many mysteries but no impossibilities; many things above reason, but nothing against it; many things which had they not been revealed, reason could never have discovered, but nothing which by true reason may be confuted: many things which reason cannot comprehend how they can be, but nothing which reason can comprehend that it cannot be. nay i shall believe nothing which reason will not convince that i ought to believe it: for reason will convince any man, unless he be of a perverse mind, that the scripture is the word of god: and then no reason can be greater than this, god says so therefore it is true. 63 following your church i must hold many things which to any man's judgement that will give himself the liberty of judgement, will seem much more plainly contradicted by scripture, than the infallibility of your church appears to be confirmed by it; and consequently must be so foolish as to believe your church exempted from error upon less evidence, rather than subject to the common condition of mankind upon greater evidence. now if i take the scripture only for my guide, i shall not need to do any thing so unreasonable. 64 if i will follow your church i must believe impossibilities, and that with an absolute certainty, upon motives which are confessed to be but only prudential and probable: that is, with a weak foundation i must firmly support a heavy, a monstrous heavy building: now following the scripture i shall have no necessity to undergo any such difficulties. 65 following your church i must be servant of christ and a subject of the king, but onlyad placitum papae. i must be prepared in mind to renounce my allegiance to the king, when the pope shall declare him an heretic and command me not to obey him: and i must be prepared in mind to esteem virtue vice, and vice virtue if the pope shall so determine. indeed you say it is impossible he should do the latter; but that you know is a great question, neither is it fit my obedience to god and the king should depend upon a questionable foundation. and howsoever, you must grant that if by an impossible supposition the pope's commands should be contrary to the law of christ, that they of your religion must resolve to obey rather the commands of the pope than the law of christ. whereas if i follow the scripture, i may, nay i must obey my sovereign in lawful things, though an heretic, though a tyrant, and though, i do not say the pope, but the apostles themselves, nay an angel from heaven should teach any thing against the gospel of christ, i may, nay i must denounce anathem● to him. 66 following the scripture i shall believe a religion, which being contrary to flesh and blood, without any assistance from worldly power, wit or policy; nay against all the power and policy of the world prevailed and enlarged itself in a very short time all the world over. whereas it is too too apparent, that your church hath got and still maintains her authority over men's consciences, by counterfeiting false miracles, forging fall stories, by obtruding on the world suppositious writings, by corrupting the monuments of former times, and defacing out of them all which any way makes against you, by wars, by persecutions, by massacres, by treasons, by rebellions; in short, by all manner of carnal means whether violent or fraudulent. 67 following the scripture i shall believe a religion, the first preachers and professors whereof, it is most certain they could have no worldly ends upon the world, that they could not project to themselves by it any of the profits or honours or pleasures of this world, but rather were to expect the contrary, even all the miseries which the world could lay upon them. on the other side, the head of your church, the pretended successor of the apostles, and guide of faith, it is even palpable, that he makes your religion the instrument of his ambition, & by it seeks to entitle himself directly or indirectly to the monarchy of the world. and beside, it is evident to any man that has but half an eye, that most of those doctrines which you add to the scripture do make one way or other, for the honour or temporal profit of the teachers of them. 68 following the scripture only, i shall embrace a religion of admirable simplicity, consisting in a manner wholly in the worship of god in spirit and truth. whereas your church and doctrine is even loaded with an infinity of weak, childish, ridiculous, unsavoury superstitions and ceremonies, and full of that righteousness for which christ shall judge the world. 69 following the scripture, i shall believe that which universal, never-failing tradition assures me, that it was by the admirable supernatural work of god confirmed to be the word of god: whereas never, any miracle was wrought, never so much as a lame horse cured in confirmation of your church's authority and infallibility. and if any strange things have been done, which may seem to give attestation to some parts of your doctrine, yet this proves nothing but the truth of the scripture, which foretold that (god's providence permitting it, and the wickedness of the world deserving it) strange signs and wonders should be wrought to confirm false doctrine, that they which love not the truth, may be given over to strange delusions. neither does it seem to me any strange thing, that god should permit some true wonders to be done to delude them who have forged so many to deceive the world. 70 if i follow the scripture, i must not promise myself salvation without effectual dereliction and mortification of all vices, and the effectual practice of all christian virtues: but your church opens an easier and a broader way to heaven, and though i continue all my life long in a course of sin, and without the practice of any virtue, yet gives me assurance that i may be let in to heaven at a postern gate, even by any act of attrition at the hour of death, if it be joined with confession, or by an act of contrition without confession. 71 admirable are the precepts of piety and humility, of innocence and patience, of liberality, frugality, temperance, sobriety, justice, meekness, fortitude, constancy and gravity, contempt of the world, love of god and the love of man kind; in a word, of all virtues, and against all vice, which the scriptures impose upon us, to be obeyed under pain of damnation: the sum whereof is in manner comprised in our saviour's sermon upon the mount, recorded in the 5. 6. and 7. of s. matthew, which if they were generally obeyed, could not but make the world generally happy, and the goodness of them alone were sufficient to make any wise and good man believe that this religion rather than any other, came from god the fountain of all goodness. and that they may be generally obeyed, our saviour hath ratified them all in the close of his sermon, with these universal sanctions, not every one that sayeth lord lord, shall enter into the kingdom, but he that doth the will of my father which is in heaven: and again, whosoever heareth these sayings of mine and doth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man which built his house upon the sand, and the ruin descended, and the stood came, and the winds blue, and it fell, and great was the fall thereof. now your church, notwithstanding all this, enervates and in a manner dissolves and abrogates many of these precepts, teaching men that they are not laws for all christians, but counsels of perfection and matters of supererrogation: that a man shall do well if he do observe them, but he shall not sin if he observe them not; that they are for them who aim at high places in heaven, who aspire with the two sons of zebede, to the right hand or to the left hand of christ: but if a man will be content barely to go to heaven, and to be a door keeper in the house of god, especially if he will be content to taste of purgatory in the way, he may obtain it at any easier purchase. therefore the religion of your church is not so holy nor so good as the doctrine of christ delivered in scripture, and therefore not so likely to come from the fountain of holiness & goodness. 72 lastly, if i follow your church for my guide, i shall do all one, as if i should follow a company of blind men in a judgement of colours, or in the choice of a way. for every unconsidering man is blind in that which he does not consider. now what is your church but a company of unconsidering men, who comfort themselves because they are a great company together, but all of them, either out of idleness refuse the trouble of a severe trial of their religion, (as if heaven were not worth it,) or out of superstition fear the event of such a trial, that they may be scrupled and staggered and disquieted by it; and therefore, for the most part do it not at all. or if they do it, they do it negligently and hypocritically, and perfunctorily, rather for the satisfaction of others than themselves: but certainly without indifference, without liberty of judgement, without a resolution to doubt of it, if upon examination the grounds of it prove uncertain, or to leave it, if they prove apparently false. my own experience assures me, that in this imputation i do you no injury: but it is very apparent to all men from your ranking, doubting of any part of your doctrine, among mortal sins. for from hence it follows, that seeing every man must resolve that he will never commit mortal sin, that he must never examine the grounds of it at all, for fear he should be moved to doubt: or if he do, he must resolve that no motives, be they never so strong shall move him to doubt, but that with his will and resolution he will uphold himself in a firm belief of your religion, though his reason and his understanding fail him. and seeing this is the condition of all those whom you esteem good catholics, who can deny, but you are a company of men unwilling and afraid to understand, lest you should do good! that have eyes to see and will not see, that have have not the love of truth (which is only to be known by an indifferent trial,) & therefore deserve to be given over to strong delusions; men that love darkness more than light: in a word, that you are the blind leading the blind, and what prudence there can be, in following such guides, our saviour hath taught us in saying, if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch. 73 there remains unspoken to in this section, some places out of s. austin, and some sayings of luther, wherein he confesses that in the papacy are many good things. but the former i have already considered, and returned the argument grounded on them. as for luther's speeches, i told you, not long since, that we follow no private men, and regard not much what he says either against the church of rome, or for it, but what he proves. he was a man of a vehement spirit, and very often what he took in hand, he did not do it but over do it. he that will justify all his speeches, especially such as he wrote in heat of opposition, i believe will have work enough. yet in these sentences, though he overreach in the particulars, yet what he says in general we confess true, and confess with him that in the papacy are many good things, which have come from them to us, but withal we say there are many bad, neither do we think ourselves bound in prudence either to reject the good with the bad, or to retain the bad with the good, but rather conceive it a high point of wisdom, to separate between the precious and the vile, to sever the good from the bad, and to put the good in vessels to be kept, and to cast the bad away; to try all things, and to hold that which is good. 74 ad §. 32. your next and last argument against the faith of protestants is, because wanting certainty and prudence, it must also want the fourth condition, supernaturality. for that being a humane persuasion, it is not in the essence of it supernatural: and being imprudent and rash, it cannot proceed from divine motion, and so is not supernatural in respect of the cause from which it proceedeth. ans. this little discourse stands wholly upon what went before, and therefore must fall together with it. i have proved the faith of protestants as certain, and as prudent as the faith of papists; and therefore if these be certain grounds of supernaturality, our faith may have it as well as yours. i would here furthermore be informed how you can assure us that your faith is not your persuasion or opinion (for you make them all one,) that your church's doctrine is true? or if you grant it your persuasion, why is it not the persuasion of men, and in respect of the subject of it, an humane persuasion? i desire also to know, what sense there is in pretending that your persuasion is, not in regard of the object only and cause of it, but in nature or essence of it supernatural? lastly, whereas you say, that being imprudent it cannot come from divine motion: certainly by this reason all they that believe your own religion, and cannot give a wise and sufficient reason for it, (as millions amongst you cannot) must be condemned to have no supernatural faith: or if not, then without question nothing can hinder, but that the imprudent faith of protestants may proceed from divine motion, as well as the imprudent faith of papists. 75 and thus having weighed your whole discourse, and found it altogether lighter than vanity, why should i not invert your conclusion; and say, seeing you have not proved that whosoever errs against any one point of faith looseth all divine faith: nor that any error whatsoever concerning that which by the parties litigant may be esteemed a matter of faith is a grievous sin, it follows not at all, that when two men hold different doctrines concerning religion, that but one can be saved? not that i deny, but that the sentence of s. chrysost. with which you conclude this chapt. may in a good sense be true: for oftimes by the faith is meant only that doctrine which is necessary to salvation, and to say that salvation may be had without any the least thing which is necessary to salvation, implies a repugnance and destroys itself. besides, not to believe all necessary points, and to believe none at all, is for the purpose of salvation all one; and therefore he that does so, may justly be said to destroy the gospel of christ, seeing he makes it uneffectuall to the end for which it was intended, the salvation of men's souls. but why you should conceive that all differences about religion, are concerning matters of faith, in this high notion of the word, for that i conceive no reason. chap. vii. in regard of the precept of charity towards ones self, protestants are in state of sin, as long as they remain separated from the roman church. that, due order is to be observed in the theological virtue of charity, whereby we are directed to prefer some objects before others, is a truth taught by all divines, and declared in these words of holy scripture: he hath ordered a cant. 2, 4. charity in me. the reason whereof is: because the infinite goodness of god, which is the formal object, or motive of charity, and for which all other things are loved, is differently participated by different objects; and therefore the love we bear to them for god's sake, must accordingly be unequal. in the virtue of faith, the case is far otherwise; because all the objects, or points which we believe, do equally participate the divine testimony or revelation, for which we believe alike all things propounded for such. for it is as impossible for god, to speak an untruth in a small, as in a great matter. and this is the ground for which we have so often affirmed, that any least error against faith, is injurious to god, and destructive of salvation. 2 this order in charity may be considered; towards god; our own soul; the soul of our neighbour; our own life, or goods; and the life or goods of our neighbour. god is to be beloved above all things, both objectiuè (as the divines speak) that is, we must wish or desire to god, a good more great, perfect, and noble then to any; or all other things: namely, all that indeed he is, a nature infinite, independent, immense etc. and also appretiative, that is, we must sooner lose what good soever, then leave, and abandon him. in the other objects of charity, of which i spoke, this order is to be kept. we may, but are not bound, to prefer the life and goods of our neighbour before our own: we are bound to prefer the soul of our neighbour before our own temporal goods or life, if he happen to be in extreme spiritual necessity, and that we by our assistance can succour him, according to the saying of s. john: in this we have known b 1. joan. 3. v. 16. the charity of god, because he hath yielded his life for us: and we ought to yield our life for our brethren. and s. augustine likewise saith: a christian will not doubt c de mendac. cap. 6. to lose his own temporal life, for the eternal life of his neighbour. lastly we are to prefer the spiritual good of our own soul, before both the spiritual and temporal good of our neighbour, because as charity doth of its own nature, chiefly incline the person in whom it resides, to love god, and to be united with him: so of itself it inclines him to procure those things whereby the said union with god is effected, rather to himself then to others. and from hence it follows, that in things necessary to salvation, no man ought in any case, or in any respect whatsoever, to prefer the spiritual good, either of any particular person, or of the whole world before his own soul; according to those words of our blessed saviour: what doth it; d mat. 6 avail a man, if he gain the whole world, and sustain the damage of his own soul? and therefore (to come to our present purpose) it is directly against the order of charity, or against charity as it hath a reference to ourselves, which divines call charitas propria, to adventure either the omitting of any means necessary to salvation, or the committing of any thing repugnant to it, for whatsoever respect, and consequently, if by living out of the roman church we put ourselves in hazard, either to want some thing necessarily required to salvation, or else to perform some act against it, we commit a most grievous sin against the virtue of charity, as it respect ourselves, and so cannot hope for salvation without repentance. 3 now, of things necessary to salvation, there are two sorts, according to the doctrine of all divines. some things (say they) are necessary to salvation, necessitate praecepti, necessary only because they are commanded; for, if thou wilt e math. 10. 17. enter into life, keep the commandments. in which kind of things, as probable ignorance of the law, or of the commandment doth excuse the party from all faulty breach thereof; so likewise doth it not exclude salvation in case of ignorance. some other things are said to be necessary to salvation necessitate medij, finis, or salutis; because they are means appointed by god to attain our end of eternal salvation, in so strict a manner, that it were presumption to hope for salvation without them. and as the former means are said to be necessary, because they are commanded, so the latter are commonly said to be commanded: because they are necessary, that is: although there were no other special precept concerning them; yet supposing they be once appointed as means absolutely necessary to salvation, there cannot but arise an obligation of procuring to have them, in virtue of that universal precept of charity, which obligeth every man to procure the salvation of his own soul. in this sort divine infallible faith is necessary to salvation; as likewise repentance of every deadly sin, and in the doctrine of catholics, baptism in re, that is, in act, to children, and for those who are come to the use of reason, in voto, or hearty desire, when they cannot have it in act. and as baptism is necessary for remission of original and actual sin committed before it: so the sacrament of confession, or penance is necessary in re, or in voto, in act, or desire, for the remission of mortal sins, committed after baptism. the minister of which sacrament of pennance being necessarily a true priest, true ordination is necessary in the church of god for remission of sins by this sacrament, as also for other ends not belonging to our present purpose. from hence it riseth, that no ignorance or impossibility can supply the want of those means which are absolutely necessary to salvation. as if, for example, a sinner depart this world without repenting himself of all deadly sins, although he die suddenly, or unexpectedly fall out of his wits, and so commit no new sin by omission of repentance; yet he shall be eternally punished for his former sins committed, and never repent. if an infant dye without baptism, he cannot be saved, not by reason of any actual sin committed by him in omitting baptism, but for original sin, not forgiven by the means which god hath ordained to that purpose. which doctrine, all, or must protestant's will (for aught i know) grant to be true, in the children of infidels, yea not only lutherans, but also some other protestants, as m. bilson late of winchester f in his true difference etc. part. 4. pag. 168. & 369. & others hold it to be true, even in the children of the faithful. and if protestants in general disagree from catholics in this point, it cannot be denied but that our disagreement is in a point very fundamental. and the like i say of the sacrament of penance, which they deny to be necessary to salvation, either in act, or in desire; which error is likewise fundamental, because it concerns (as i said) a thing necessary to salvation: and for the same reason, if their priesthood and ordination be doubtful, as certainly it is, they are in danger to want a means without which they cannot be saved. neither ought this rigour to seem strange, or unjust: for almighty god having of his own goodness, without our merit, first ordained man to a supernatural end of eternal felicity; and then; after our fall in adam vouchsafed to reduce us to the attaining of that end, if his blessed will be pleased to limit the attaining of that end, to some means which in his infinite wisdom he thinks most fit; who can say, why dost thou so? or who can hope for that end, without such means? blessed be his divine majesty, for vouchsafing to ordain us, base creatures, to so sublime an end, by any means at all! 4 out of the foresaid difference followeth another, that (generally speaking) in things necessary only, because they are commanded, it is sufficient for avoiding sin, that we proceed prudently, and by the conduct of some probable opinion, maturely weighed and approved by men of virtue, learning and wisdom, neither are we always obliged to follow the most strict, and severe, or secure part, as long as the doctrine which we embrace, proceeds upon such reasons, as may warrant it to be truly probable, and prudent, though the contrary part want not also probable grounds. for in humane affairs, and discourse, evidence and certainty cannot be always expected. but when we treat not precisely of avoiding sin, but moreover of procuring some thing without which i cannot be saved; i am obliged by the law, and order of charity to procure as great certainty as morrally i am able; and am not to follow every probable opinion or dictamen, but tutiorem partem, the safer part, because if my probability prove false, i shall not probably, but certainly come short of salvation. nay in such case, i shall incur a new sin against the virtue of charity towards my self, which obligeth every one not to expose his soul to the hazard of eternal perdition, when it is in his power, with the assistance of god's grace, to make the matter sure. from this very ground it is, that although some divines be of opinion, that it is not a sin to use some ma●ter, or form of sacraments, only probable, if we respect precisely the reverence or respect which is due to sacraments, as they belong to the moral infused virtue of religion; yet when they are such sacraments, as the invalidity thereof may endanger the salvation of souls, all do with one consent agree, that it is a grievous offence to use a doubtful, or only probable matter or form, when it is in our power to procure certainty. if therefore it may appear, that though it were not certain that protestancy unrepented destroys salvation (as we have proved to be very certain) yet at least that is probable, and with all, that there is a way more safe; it will follow out of the grounds already said, that they are obliged by the law of charity to embrace that safe way. 5 now, that protestants have reason at least to doubt in what case they stand, is deduced from what we have said, and proved about the universal infallibility of the church, and of her being judge of controversies, to whom all christians ought to submit their judgement (as even some protestants g●ant,) and whom to oppose in any one of her definitions; is a grievous sin: as also from what we have said of the unity, universality, and visibility of the church, and of succession of persons, and doctrine; of the conditions of divine faith, certainty, obscurity, prudence, and supernaturality, which are wanting in the faith of protestants; of the frivolous distinction of points fundamental & not fundamental, (the confutation whereof proveth that heretics disagreeing among themselves in any least point, cannot have the same faith, nor be of the same church:) of schism; of heresy; of the persons who first revolted from rome, and of their motives; of the nature of faith, which is destroyed by any least error, & it is certain that some of them must be in error & want the substance of true faith; & since all pretend the like certainty, it is clear that none of them have any certainty at all, but that they want true faith, which is a means most absolutely necessary to salvation. moreover, as i said heretofore, since it is granted that every error in fundamental points is damnable, and that they cannot tell in particular, what points be fundamental; it follows that none of them knows whether he, or his brethren do not err damnably, it being certain that amongst so many disagreeing persons some must err. upon the same ground of not being able to assign what points be fundamental, i say, they cannot be sure whether the difference among them be fundamental or no, and consequently whether they agree in the substance of faith and hope of salvation. i omit to add that you want the sacrament of penance, instituted for remission of sins, or at least you must confess that you hold it not necessary; and yet your own brethren, for example, the century writers do g cent. 3. cap. 6. col. 1●7. acknowledge that in times of cyprian, and tertullian, private confession even of thoughts was used; and that, it was then commanded, and thought necessary. the like, i say, concerning your ordination, which at least is very doubtful, and consequently all that depends thereon. 6 on the other side, that the roman church is the the safer way to heaven (not to repeat what hath been already said upon diverse occasions) i will again put you in mind, that unless the roman church was the true church there was no visible true church upon earth. a thing so manifest, that protestants themselves confess that more than one thousand years the roman church possessed the whole world, as we have showed heretofore, out of their own h chap. 5. hu●. 9 words: from whence it follows, that unless ours be the true church, you cannot pretend to any perpetual visible church of your own; but ours doth not depend on yours, before which it was. and here i wish you to consider with feat and trembling, how all roman catholics, not one excepted; that is, those very men whom you must hold not to err damnably in their belief, unless you will destroy your own church, and salvation, do with unanimous consent believe, and profess that protestancy unrepented destroys salvation; and then tell me, as you will answer at the last day, whether it be not more safe, to live and die in that church, which even yourselves are forced to acknowledge not to be cut off from hope of salvation, (which are your own words) then ●●live in a church, which the said confessedly true church doth firmly believe, and constantly profess not to be capable of salvation. and therefore i conclude that by the most strict obligation of charity towards your own soul, you are bound to place it in safety, by returning to that church, from which your progenitors schismatically departed; lest too late you find that saying of the holy ghost verified in yourselves: he that loves i eccl. 3. 27. the danger, shall perish therein. 7 against this last argument of the greater security of the roman church drawn from your own confession, you bring an objection; which in the end will be found to make for us, against yourself. it is taken from the words of the donatists, speaking to catholics in this manner: yourselves confess k pag. 112. our baptism, sacraments, and faith (here you put an explication or your own, and say, for the most part, as if any small error in faith did not destroy all faith) to be good, and available. we deny yours to be so, and say there is no church, no salvation amongst you; therefore it is safest for all to join with us. 8 by your leave our argument is not (as you say) for simple people alone, but for all them who have care to save their souls. neither is it grounded upon your charitable judgement (as you l pag. 81. speak) but upon an inevitable necessity for you, either to grant salvation to our church, or to entail certain damnation upon your own: because yours can have no being till luther, unless ours be supposed to have been the true church of christ. and since you term this argument a charm, take heed you be none of those, who according to the prophet david, do not hear the voice of him m ps. 57 6. who charmeth wisely. but to come to the purpose: catholics never granted that the donatists had a true church, or might be saved: and therefore you having cited out of s. augustine, the words of the catholics, that the donatists had true baptism, when you come to the contrary words of the donatists, you add, no church, no salvation; making the argument to have quinque terminos; without which addition you did see it made nothing against us: for, as i said, the catholics never yielded, that among the donatists there was a true church, or hope of salvation. and yourself, a few leaves after, acknowledge that the donatists maintained an error, which was in the matter and nature of it properly haereticall, against that article of the creed, wherein we profess to believe the holy n pag. 126. catholic church: and consequently, you cannot allow salvation to them, as you do, and must do to us. and therefore the donatists could not make the like argument against catholics, as catholics make against you, who grant us salvation, which we deny to you. but at least (you will say) this argument for the certainty of their baptism, was like to ours touching the security and certainty of our salvation; and therefore that catholics should have esteemed the baptism of the donatists more certain than their own, and so have allowed rebaptisation of such as were baptised by heretics, or sinners, as the donatists esteemed all catholics to be. i answer, no. because it being a matter of faith, that baptism administered by heretics, observing due matter, form etc. is valide; to rebaptize any so baptised, had been both a sacrilege in reiterating a sacrament not reiterable, and a profession also of a damnable heresy, and therefore had not been more safe, but certainly damnable. but you confess that in the doctrine or practice of the roman church, there is no belief, or profession of any damnable error, which if there were, even your church should certainly be no church. to believe therefore and profess as we do, cannot exclude salvation, as rebaptisation must have done. but if the donatists could have affirmed with truth, that in the opinion both of catholics and themselves, their baptism was good, yea and good in such sort as that unless theirs was good, that of the catholics could not be such; but theirs might be good, though that of the catholics were not: and further that it was no damnable error to believe, that baptism administered by the catholics was not good, nor that it was any sacrilege to reiterate the same baptism of catholics: if, i say, they could have truly affirmed these things, they had said somewhat, which at least had seemed to the purpose. but these things they could not say with any colour of truth, and therefore their argument was fond, and impious. but we with truth say to protestants: you cannot but confess that our doctrine contains no damnable error; and that our church is so certainly a true church, that unless ours be true you cannot pretend any; yea you grant, that you should be guilty of schism, if you did cut off our church from the body of christ, and the hope of salvation: but we neither do, nor can grant that yours is a true church, or that within it there is hope of salvation: therefore it is safest for you to join with us, and now against whom hath your objection greatest force? 9 but i wonder not a little, and so i think will ever body else, what the reason may be, that you do not so much as go about to answer the argument of the donatists, which you say is all one with ours, but refer us to s. augustine there to read it; as if every one carried with him a library, or were able to examine the places in s. augustine: and yet you might be sure your reader would be greedy to see some solid answer to an argument so often urged by us, and which indeed, unless you can confute it, ought alone to move every one who hath care of his soul, to take the safest way, by incorporating himself in our church. but we may easily imagine the true reason of your silence: for the answer which s. augustine gives to the donatists, is directly against yourself, and the same which i have given. namely, that catholics o ad lit. petil. l. 2. cap. 10●. approve the baptism of donatists, but abhor their heresy of rebaptization. and that as gold is good (which is the similitude used by p contra cresc, lib. 1. cap. 21. s. augustine) yet not to be sought in company of thiefs; so though baptism be good, yet it must not be sought for in the conventicle of donatists. but you free us from damnable heresy, and yield us salvation, which i hope is to be embraced in whatsoever company it is found; or rather that company is to be embraced before all other, in which all sides agree, that salvation may be found. we therefore must infer, that it is safest for you to seek salvation among us. you had good reason to conceal s. augustins' answer to the donatists. 10 you frame another argument in our behalf, and make us speak thus: if protestants believe the q pag. 7●. religion of catholics to be a safe way to heaven, why do they not follow it? which wise argument of your own, you answer at large, and confirm your answer by this instance: the jesuits and dominicans hold different opinions touching predetermination, and the immaculate conception of the blessed virgin: yet so, that the jesuits hold the dominicans way safe, that is, his error not damnable, and the dominicans hold the same of the jesuits; yet neither of them with good consequence can press the other to believe his opinion, because by his own confession it is no damnable error. 11 but what catholic maketh such a wise demand as you put into our mouths? if our religion be a safe way to heaven, that is, not damnable; why do you not follow it? as if every thing that is good, must be of necessity embraced by every body. but what think you of the argument framed thus? our religion is safe even by your confession, therefore you ought to grant that all may embrace it. and yet further, thus: among different religions and contrary ways to heaven, one only can be safe: but ours, by your own confession, is safe, whereas we hold that in yours there is no hope of salvation: therefore you may and aught to embrace ours. this is our argument. and if the dominicans and jesuits did say one to another as we say to you; then one of them might with good consequence press the other to believe his opinion. you have still the hard for tune to be beaten with your own weapon. 12 it remaineth then, that both in regard of faith, and charity, protestants are obliged to unite themselves with the church of rome. and i may add also, in regard of the theological v●●tue of hope, without which none can hope to be saved, and which you want, either by excess of confidence, or defect by despair, not unlike to your faith, which i showed to be either ●●●cient in certainty, or excessive in evidence; as likewise according to the rigid calvinists, it is either so strong, that once had, it can never be lost; or so more than weak, and so much nothing; that it can never be gotten. for the true theological hope of christians, is a hope which keeps a mean between presumption, and desperation; which moves us to work our salvation with fear, and trembling; which conducts us to make sure our salvation by good works, as holy scripture adviseth. but contrarily, protestants do either exclude hope by despair, with the doctrine that our saviour died not for all, and that such want grace sufficient to salvation; or else by vain presumption grounded upon a fantastical persuasion, that they are predestinate; which faith must exclude all fear, and trembling, neither can they make their calling certain by good works, who do certainly believe that before any good works they are justified, and justified even by faith alone, and that by faith whereby they certainly believe that they are justified. which points some protestants do expressly affirm to be the soul of the church, the principal origen of salvation, of all other points of doctrine the chiefest and weightiest; as already i have noted chap. 3. n. 19 and if some protestants do now relent from the rigour of the aforesaid doctrine, we must affirm, that at least some of them want the theological virtue of hope; yea that none of them can have true hope, while they hope to be saved in the communion of those, who defend such doctrines, as do directly overthrow all true christian hope. and for as much as concerns faith, we must also infer, that they want unity therein (and consequently have none at all) by their disagreement about the soul of the church, the principal origen of salvation, of all other points of doctrine the chiefest and weightiest. and if you want true faith, you must by consequence want hope, or if you hold that this point is not to be so indivisible on either side, but that it hath latitude sufficient to embrace all parties, without prejudice to their salvation; notwithstanding that your brethren hold it to be the soul of the church etc. i must repeat what i have said heretofore, that, even by this example, it is clear, you cannot agree what points be fundamental. and so (to whatsoever answer you fly) i press you in the same manner, and say, that have no certainty whether you agree in fundamental points, or unity and substance of faith, which cannot stand with difference in fundamentals. and so upon the whole matter, i leave it to be considered, whether, want of charity can be justly charged on us, because we affirm, that they cannot (without repentance) be saved, who want of all other the most necessary means to salvation, which are, the three theological virtues, faith, hope, and charity. 13 and now i end this first part, having as i conceive, complied with my first design, (in that measure, which time, commodity, scarcity of books, and my own small abilities could afford) which was to show, that amongst men of different religions, one side only can be saved. for since there must be some infallible means to decide all controversies concerning religion, and to propound truth revealed by almighty god; and this means can be no other, but the visible church of christ, which at the time of luther's appearance was only the church of rome. and such as agreed with her: we must conclude, that whosoever opposeth himself to her definitions, or forsaketh her communion, doth resist god himself, whose spouse she is, and whose divine truth she propounds; and therefore becomes guilty of schism, and heresy, which since luther, his associates, and protestants have done, and still continue to do; it is not want of charity, but abundance of evident cause that forceth us to declare this necessary truth, protestancy unrepented destroys salvation. the answer to the seaventh chapter. that protestants are not bound by the charity which they owe to themselves, to reunite themselves to the roman church. the first four paragraphs of this chapter are wholly spent in an un-necessary introduction unto a truth, which i presume, never was, nor will be by any man in his right wits, either denied or questioned; and that is, that every man in wisdom and charity to himself, is to take the safest way to his eternal salvation. 2 the fifth and sixth are nothing in a manner, but references to discourses already answered by me, and confuted in their proper places. 3 the seaventh, eight, ninth, tenth, and eleventh; have no other foundation but this false pretence, that we confess the roman church free from damnable error. 4 in the twelfth there is something that has some probability to persuade some protestants to forsake some of their opinions, or others to leave their communion; but to prove protestants in state of sin while they remain separate from the roman church, there is not one word or syllable: and beside, whatsoever argument there is in it for any purpose, it may be as forcibly returned upon papists, as it is urged against protestants; in as much as all papists, either hold the doctrine of predetermination, and absolute election, or communicate with those that do hold it. now from this doctrine, what is more prone and obvious, then for every natural man (without god's especial preventing grace) to make this practical collection, either i am elected or not elected; if i be, no impiety possible can ever damn me: if not, no possible industry can ever save me? now whether this disiunctive persuasion be not as likely (as any doctrine of any protestants,) to extinguish christian hope, and filial fear, and to lead some men to despair, others to presumption, all to a reckless and impious life, i desire you ingenuously to inform me! and if you deny it, assure yourself you shall be contradicted and confuted by men of your own religion and your own society, and taught at length this charitable doctrine, that though men's opinions may be charged with the absurd consequences which naturally flow from them, yet the men themselves are not; i mean, if they perceive not the consequence of these absurdities, nor do not own and acknowledge, but disclaim and detest them. and this is all the answer which i should make to this discourse, if i should deal rigidly and strictly with you. yet that you may not think yourself contemned, nor have occasion to pretend, that your arguments are evaded, i will entreat leave of my reader to bring to the test every particle of it, and to censure what deserves a censure, and to answer what may any way seem to require an answer: and then i doubt not, but what i have affirmed in general will appear in particular. ad §. 1. to the first than i say. 1. it was needless to prove, that due order is to be observed in any thing; much more in charity, which being one of the best things, may be spoiled by being disordered! yet if it stood in need of proof, i fear this place of the canticles, he hath ordered charity in me, would be no enforcing demonstration of it. 2. the reason alleged by you why we ought to love one object more than another, because one thing participates the divine goodness more than another, is fantastical, and repugnant to what you say presently after. for by this rule no man should love himself more than all the world; unless he were first vainly persuaded that he doth more participate the divine goodness then all the world. but the true reason why one thing ought to be loved more than another is, because one thing is better than another, or because it is better to us, or because god commands us to do so, or because god himself does so, and we are to conform our affections to the will of god. 3. it is not true that all objects which we believe, do equally participate the divine testimony or revelation: for some are testified more evidently, and some more obscurely; and therefore whatsoever you have built upon this ground, must of necessity fall together with it. and thus much for the first number. 6 ad §. 2. in the second many passages deserve a censure. for 1. it is not true that we are to wish or desire to god a nature infinite, independent, immense: for it is impossible i should desire to any person that which he hath already, if i know that he hath it; nor the perpetuity of it, if i know it impossible but he must have it for perpetuity. and therefore, rejoicing only and not well-wishing is here the proper work of love. 2. whereas you say, that in things necessary to salvation, no man ought in any case or in any respect whatsoever, to prefer the spiritual good of the whole world before his own soul: in saying this you seem to me to condemn one of the greatest acts of charity, of one of the greatest saints that ever was, i mean s. paul, who for his brethren desired to be an anathema from christ. and as for the text alleged by you in confirmation of your saying, what doth it avail a man if he gain the whole world, and sustain the damage of his own soul! it is nothing to the purpose: for without all question it is not profitable for a man to do so; but the question is, whether it be not lawful for a man to forgo and part with his own particular profit, to procure the universal, spiritual, and eternal benefit of others? 3. whereas you say, it is directly against charity to ourselves, to adventure the omitting of any means necessary to salvation, this is true: but so is this also, that it is directly against the same charity, to adventure the omitting any thing, that may any way help or conduce to my salvation, that may make the way to it more secure or less dangerous. and therefore if the errors of the roman church do but hinder me in this way, or any way endanger it, i am in charity to myself bound to forsake them, though they be not destructive of it. 4. whereas you conclude, that if by living out of the roman church we put ourselves in hazard to want something necessary to salvation, we commit a grievous sin against the virtue of charity as it respects ourselves: this consequence may be good in those which are thus persuaded of the roman church, and yet live out of it. but the supposition is certainly false. we may live and dye out of the roman church, without putting ourselves in any such hazard: nay to live and dye in it is as dangerous as to shoot a gulf, which though some good ignorant souls may do and escape, yet it may well be feared that not one in a hundred but miscarries. 7 ad §. 3. i proceed now to the third section; & herein first i observe this acknowledgement of yours, that in things necessary only because commanded, a probable ignorance of the commandment excuses the party from all fault, and doth not exclude salvation. from which doctrine it seems to me to follow, that seeing obedience to the roman church cannot be pretended to be necessary, but only because it is commanded, therefore not only an invincible, but even a probable ignorance of this pretended command, must excuse us from all faulty breach of it, and cannot exclude salvation. now seeing this command is not pretended to be expressly delivered, but only to be deduced from the word of god, and that not by the most clear and evident consequences that may be; and seeing an infinity of great objections lies against it, which seem strongly to prove that there is no such command; with what charity can you suppose, that our ignorance of this command, is not at the least probable, if not, all things considered, plainly invincible? sure i am, for my part, that i have done my true endeavour to find it true, and am still willing to do so; but the more i seek, the farther i am from finding, and therefore if it be true, certainly my not finding it is very excusable, and you have reason to be very charitable in your censures of me. 2. whereas you say, that besides these things necessary because commanded, there are other things, which are commanded because necessary: of which number you make divine infallible faith, baptism in act for children, and in desire for those who are come to the use of reason, and the sacrament of confession, for those who have committed mortal sin: in these words you seem to me to deliver a strange paradox viz. that faith, and baptism, and confession are not therefore necessary for us, because god appointed them, but are therefore appointed by god because they were necessary for us, antecedently to his appointment; which if it were true, i wonder what it was beside god that made them necessary, and made it necessary for god to command them! besides, in making faith one of these necessary means, you seem to exclude infants from salvation: fo● faith comes by hearing, and they have not heard. in requiring that this faith should be divine and infallible, you cast your credentes into infinite perplexity, who cannot possibly by any sure mark discern whether their faith be divine or humane, or if you have any certain sign, whereby they may discern, whether they believe your church's infallibility with divine or only with humane faith, i pray produce it, for perhaps it may serve us to show, that our faith is divine as well as yours. moreover in affirming that baptism in act is necessary for infants, and for men only in desire, you seem to me in the latter to destroy the foundation of the former. for if a desire of baptism will serve men instead of baptism, than those words of our saviour, unless a man be borne again of water etc. are not to be understood literally and rigidly of external baptism; for a desire of baptism is not baptism, and so your foundation of the absolute necessity of baptism is destroyed. and if you may gloss the text so far, as that men may be saved by the desire, without baptism itself, because they cannot have it, why should you not gloss it a little farther, that there may be some hope of the salvation of unbaptised infants: to whom it was more impossible to have a desire of baptism, then for the former to have the thing itself? lastly, for your sacrament of confession, we know none such, nor any such absolute necessity of it. they that confess their sins and forsake them shall find mercy, though they confess them to god only and not to men. they that confess them both to god and men, if they do not effectually and in time forsake them, shall not find mercy. 3. whereas you say, that supposing these means once appointed as absolutely necessary to salvation, there cannot but arise an obligation of procuring to have them; you must suppose i hope, that we know them to be so appointed, and that it is in our power to procure them: otherwise though it may be our ill fortune to fail of the end, for want of the means, certainly we cannot be obliged to procure them. for the rule of the law is also the dictate of common reason and equity, that no man can be obliged to what is impossible. we can be obliged to nothing but by virtue of some command: now it is impossible that god should command in earnest anything which he knows to be impossible. for to command in earnest, is to command with an intent to be obeyed; which is not possible he should do, when he knows the thing commanded to be impossible. lastly, whosoever is obliged to do any thing, and does it not, commits a fault; but infants commit no fault in not procuring to have baptism; therefore no obligation lies upon them to procure it. 4. whereas you say, that if protestants descent from you in the point of the necessity of baptism for infants, it cannot be denied but that our disagreement is in a point fundamental; if you mean a point esteemed so by you, this indeed cannot be denied: but if you mean a point that indeed is fundamental, this may certainly be denied, for i deny it, and say, that it doth not appear to me any way necessary to salvation to hold the truth, or not to hold an error, touching the condition of these infants. this is certain, and we must believe that god will not deal unjustly with them, but how in particular he will deal with them concerns not us, and therefore we need not much regard it. 5. whereas you say the like of your sacrament of penance, you only say so, but your proofs are wanting. lastly, whereas you say, this rigour ought not to seem strange or unjust in god, but that we are rather to bless him for ordaining us to salvation by any means: i answer, that it is true, we are not to question the known will of god, of injustice; yet whether that which you pretend to be gods will, be so indeed, or only your presumption, this i hope may be questioned lawfully & without presumption; and if we have occasion we may safely put you in mind of ezekiel's commination, against all those who say, thus saith the lord, when they have no certain warrant or authority from him to do so. 8 ad §. 4. in the fourth paragraph you deliver this false & wicked doctrine, that for the procuring our own salvation we are always bound under pain of mortal sin to take the safest way, but for avoiding sin we are not bound to do so, but may follow the opinion of any probable doctors, though the contrary may be certainly free from sin, and theirs be doubtful. which doctrine in the former part of it is apparently false: for though wisdom and charity to ourselves would persuade us always to do so, yet many times, that way which to ourselves and our salvation is more full of hazard, is notwithstanding not only lawful, but more charitable and more noble. for example, to fly from a persecution and so to avoid the temptation of it, may be the safer way for a man's own salvation; yet i presume no man ought to condemn him of impiety, who should resolve not to use his liberty in this matter, but for god's greater glory, the greater honour of truth, & the greater confirmation of his brethren in the faith, choose to stand out the storm and endure the fiery trial, rather than avoid it; rather to put his own soul to the hazard of a temptation, in hope of god's assistance to go through with it, then to balk the opportunity of doing god and his brethren so great a service. this part therefore of this doctrine is manifestly untrue. the other not only false but impious; for therein you plainly give us to understand, that in your judgement, a resolution to avoid sin, to the uttermost of our power, is no necessary means of salvation, nay that a man may resolve not to do so, without any danger of damnation. therein you teach us, that we are to do more for the love of ourselves, and our own happiness then for the love of god; and in so doing contradict our saviour, who expressly commands us, to love the lord our god withal our heart, withal our soul, and withal our strength; and hath taught us that the love of god consists in avoiding sin and keeping his commandments. therein you directly cross s. paul's doctrine, who though he were a very probable doctor, and had delivered his judgement for the lawfulness of eating meats offered to idols; yet he assures us that he which should make scruple of doing so, and forbear upon his scruple, should not sin, but only be aweak brother; whereas he, who should do it with a doubtful conscience, (though the action were by s. paul warranted lawful, yet) should sin and be condemned for so doing. you pretend indeed to be rigid defenders and stout champions for the necessity of good works; but the truth is, you speak lies in hypocrisy, and when the matter is well examined, will appear to make yourselves and your own functions necessary, but obedience to god unnecessary: which will appear to any man who considers what strict necessity the scripture imposes upon all men, of effectual mortification of the habits of all vices, and effectual conversion to newness of life, and universal obedience, bellar. contr. barcl. c. 7. in 7. c. resutare con●tur bard●verba illa romuli. veteres illos imperotores constantium valentem & caeteros non ideo toleravit ecclesia quod legitimè successissent, sed quod illos sine populi detrimento coercere non po●erat. et miratur hoc idem scripsisse bellarminum. l 5. de pontif. c. 7. sed ut magis miretur, sciat hoc idem sensisse s. th●m●m. 2. 2. 〈◊〉. 12 art. 2. ad 1. ●●bi dicit ecclesiam tolerasse ut sideles obedirent iuliano apostatae, qui●i● suinovitate nondum habebant vires ●ōpescendi principes terrenos. and withal remembers that an act of attrition, which you say with priestly absolution is sufficient to salvation, is not mortification, which being a work of difficulty and time, cannot be performed in an instant. but for the present, it appears sufficiently out of this impious assertion, which makes it absolutely necessary for men, either in act if it be possible, or if not, in desire, to be baptised and absolved by you, and that with intention: and in the mean time warrants them that for avoding of sin, they may safely follow the uncertain guidance of a vain man, who you cannot deny may either be deceived himself, or, out of malice deceive them, & neglect the certain direction of god himself, and their own consciences. what wicked use is made of this doctrine, your own long experience can better inform you, than it is possible for me to do: yet my own little conversation with you affords one memorable example to this purpose. for upon this ground i knew a young scholar in douai, licenced by a great casuist to swear a thing as upon his certain knowledge, whereof he had yet no knowledge but only a great presumption, because (forsooth) it was the opinion of one doctor that he might do so. and upon the same ground, whensoever you shall come to have a prevailing party in this kingdom, and power sufficient to restore your religion, you may do it by deposing or killing the king, by blowing up of parliaments, and by rooting out all others of a different faith from you. nay this you may do, though in your own opinion it be unlawful, because bellarmine, a man with you of approved virtue, learning and judgement, hath declared his opinion for the lawfulness of it, in saying, that want of power to maintain a rebellion, was the only reason that the primitive christians did not rebel against the persecuting emperors. by the same rule, seeing the priests and scribes and pharisees, men of greatest repute among the jews for virtue, learning and wisdom, held it a lawful and a pious work to persecute christ and his apostles, et posi●a, sanctus gregorius decit, nullum adversus iuliani persecutionem fuisse remediu● praeter lachrimas, quoniam non habebat ecclesia vires, quibus illius tyrannidi resistere posset. it was lawful for the people to follow their leaders: for herein, according to your doctrine, they proceeded prudently, and according to the conduct of opinion, maturely weighed and approved by men as it seemed to them of virtue, learning and wisdom; nay by such as sat in moses chair, and of whom it was said, whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do: which universal you pretend is to be understood universally, and without any restriction or limitation. and as lawful was it for the pagans to persecute the primitive christians, because truian & pliny, men of great virtue and wisdom were of this opinion. lastly, that most impious & detestable doctrine, (which by a foul calumny you impute to me, who abhor and detest it,) that men may be saved in any religion, follows from this ground unavoidably. for certainly religion is one of those things which is necessary only because it is commanded: for if none were commanded under pain of damnation, how could it be damnable to be of any? neither can it be damnable to be of a false religion, unless it be a sin to be so. for neither are men saved by good luck, but only by obedience; neither are they damned for their ill fortune but for sin and disobedience. death is the wages of nothing but sin: and s. james sure intended to deliver the adequate cause of sin and death in those words, lust when it hath conceived bringeth forth sin, and sin when it is finished bringeth forth death. seeing therefore in such things, according to your doctrine, it is sufficient for avoiding of sin, that we proceed prudently, & by the conduct of some probable opinion, maturely weighed & approved by men of learning, virtue and wisdom: and seeing neither jews want their gamaliels, nor pagans their antoninus'es', nor any sect of christians such professors and maintainers of their several sects, as are esteemed by the people, which know no better (and that very reasonably) men of virtue, learning, and wisdom, it follows evidently that the embracing their religion proceeds upon such reason as may warrant their action to be prudent, and this is sufficient for avoiding of sin, and therefore certainly for avoiding damnation, for that in humane affairs and discourse, evidence and certainty cannot be always expected. i have stood the longer upon the refutation of this doctrine, not only because it is impious, and because bad use is made of it, and worse may be, but only because the contrary position, that men are bound for avoiding sin always to take the safest way, is a fair and sure foundation, for a clear confutation of the main conclusion, which in this chapter you labour in vain to prove, and a certain proof that in regard of the precept of charity towards ones self, and of obedience to god, papists (unless ignorance excuse them) are in state of sin as long as they remain in subjection to the roman church. 9 for if the safer way for avoiding sin, be also the safer way for avoiding damnation, then certainly whether the way of protestants must be more secure, and the roman way more dangerous, take but into your consideration these ensuing controversies: whether it be lawful to worship pictures? to picture the trinity? to invocate saints and angels? to deny law-men the cup in the sacrament? to adore the sacrament? to prohibit certain orders of men and women to marry? to celebrate the public service of god in a language which the assistants generally understand not? and you will not choose but confess that in all these you are on the more dangerous side for the committing of sin, and we on that which is more secure. for in all these things, if we say true, you do that which is impious: on the other side if you were in the right, yet we might be secure enough, for we should only not do something which you confess not necessary to be done. we pretend, and are ready to justify out of principles agreed upon between us, that in all these things, you violate the manifest commandments of god; and allege such texts of scripture against you, as, if you would weigh them with any indifference, would put the matter out of question, but certainly you cannot with any modesty deny, but that at least they make it questionable. on the other side, you cannot with any face pretend, and if you should, know not how to go about to prove, that there is any necessity of doing any of these things; that it is unlawful not to worship pictures, not to picture the trinity, not to invocate saints & angels, not to give all men the entire sacrament, not to adore the eucharist, not to prohibit marriage, not to celebrate divine service in an unknown tongue: i say you neither do nor can pretend that there is any law of god which enjoins us, no nor so much as an evangelicall counsel that advises us to do any of these things. now where no law is there can be no sin, for sin is the transgression of the law; it remains therefore that our forbearing to do these things, must be free from all danger & suspicion of sin; whereas your acting of them, must be, if not certainly impious, without all contradiction questionable and dangerous. i conclude therefore that which was to be concluded, that if the safer way for avoiding sin, be also (as most certainly it is,) the safer way for avoiding damnation, then certainly the way of protestants must be more safe, and the roman way more dangerous. you will say, i know, that these things being by your church concluded lawful, we are obliged by god, though not to do, yet to approve them; at least in your judgement we are so, and therefore our condition is as questionable as yours. i answer. the authority of your church is no common principle agreed upon between us, and therefore upon that you are not to dispute against us. we might press you with our judgement as well and as justly as you do us with yours. besides, this very thing that your church hath determined these things lawful, and commanded the approbation of them, is that whereof she is accused by us, and we maintain you have done wickedly, or at least very dangerously in so determining; because in these very determinations, you have forsaken that way which was secure from sin, and have chosen that which you cannot but know to be very questionable and doubtful; & consequently have forsaken the safe way to heaven, and taken a way which is full of danger. and therefore, although if your obedience to your church were questioned, you might fly for shelter to your church's determinations, yet when these very determinations are accused, me thinks they should not be alleged in defence of themselves. but you will say, your church is infallible, & therefore her determinations not unlawful. ans. they that accuse your church of error, you may be sure do question her infallibility: show therefore where it is written, that your church is infallible, and the dispute will be ended. but till you do so, give me leave rather to conclude thus, your church in many of her determinations, chooses not that way which is more secure from sin, and therefore not the safest way to salvation; then vainly to imagine her infallible, and there upon to believe, though she teach not the securest way to avoid sin, yet she teaches the certainest way to obtain salvation. 10 in the close of this number, you say as follows, if it may appear though not certain, yet at least probable, that protestancy unrepented destroys salvation, and withal that there is a safer way, it will follow that they are obliged by the law of charity to that safe way. ans. make this appear and i will never persuade any man to continue a protestant, for if i should, i should persuade him to continue a fool. but after all these prolix discourses, still we see you are at, if it may appear: from whence without all ifs and ands that appears sufficiently which i said in the beginning of the chapter, that the four first paragraphs of this chap. are wholly spent in an unnecessary introduction, unto that which never by any man in his right wits was denied, that men in wisdom and charity to themselves are to take the safest way to eternal salvation. 11 ad § 5. in the fifth you begin to make some show of arguing, & tells us, that protestants have reason to doubt in what case they stand from what you have said about the churches universal infallibility, & of her being judge of controversies, etc. ans. from all that which you have said, they have reason only to conclude that you have nothing to say. they have as much reason to doubt, whether there can be any motion, from what zeno says in aristotle's physics, as to doubt from what you have said, whether the roman church may possibly err. for this i dare say, that not the weakest of zeno's arguments but is stronger than the strongest of yours, and that you would be more perplexed in answering any one of them, than i have been in answering all yours. you are pleased to repeat two or three of them in this section, and in all probability so wise a man as you are, if he would repeat any, would repeat the best, and therefore if i desire the reader by these to judge of the rest, i shall desire but ordinary justice. 12 the first of them being put into form stands thus, every least error in faith destroys the nature of faith; it is certain that some protestants do err, and therefore they want the substance of faith. the major of which syllogism i have formerly confuted by unanswerable arguments out of one of your own best authors, who shows plainly that he hath amongst you, as strange as you make it, many other abettors. besides, if it were true, it would conclude that either you or the dominicans have no faith, in as much as you oppose one another as much as arminians and calvinists. 13 the second argument stands thus, since all protestants pretend the like certainty, it is clear that none of them have any certainty at all: which argument if it were good, then what can hinder but this must also be so, since protestants and papists pretend the like certainty; it is clear that none of them have any certainty at all! and this too: since all christians pretend the like certainty it is clear that none of them have any certainty at all! and thirdly this: since men of all religions pretend a like certainty, it is clear that none of them have any at all! and lastly this: since ofttimes they which are abused with a specious paralogism, pretend the like certainty with them which demonstrate, it is clear that none of them have any certainty at all! certainly sir, zeal and the devil did strangely blind you, if you did not see that these horrid impieties were the immediate consequences of your positions, if you did see it, & yet would set them down, you deserve worse censure. yet such as these, are all the arguments wherewith you conceive yourself to have proved undoubtedly, that protestants have reason at least to doubt in what case they stand. neither am i afraid to venture my life upon it, that yourself shall not choose so much as one out of all the pack, which i will not show before indifferent judges, either to be impertinent to the question, inconsequent in the deduction, or grounded upon some false, or at least uncertain foundation. 14 your third and fourth argument may be thus put into one; protestant's cannot tell what points in particular be fundamental; therefore they cannot tell whether they or their brethren do not err fundamentally, and whether their difference be not fundamental. both which deductions i have formerly showed to be most inconsequent; for knowing the scripture to contain all fundamentals, (though many more points beside, which makes it difficult to say precisely what is fundamental and what not,) knowing this i say and believing it, what can hinder but that i may be well assured, that i believe all fundamentals, and that all who believe the scripture sincerely as well as i, do not differ from me in any thing fundamental? 15 in the close of this section, you say, that you omit to add that we want the sacrament of repentance instituted for the remission of sins, or at least we must confess that we hold it not necessary: and yet our own brethren the century writers acknowledge that in the times of cyprian and tertullian, private confession even of thoughts was used, and that it was then commanded and thought necessary; and then our ordination, you say is very doubtful and all that depends upon it. ans. i also omit to answer, 1. that your brother rhenanus, acknowledges the contrary, & assures us that the confession then required and in use, was public, and before the church, and that your auricular confession was not then in the world; for which his mouth is stopped by your index expurgatorius. 2. that your brother arcudius acknowledges, that the eucharist was in cyprians time given to infants, and esteemed necessary, or at least profitable for them, and the giving it shows no less; & now i would know whether you will acknowledge your church bound to give it, and to esteem so of it? 3. that it might be then commanded, and being commanded be thought necessary, and yet be but a church constitution. neither will i deny, if the present church, could, and would so order it, that the abuses of it might be prevented, and conceiving it profitable, should enjoin the use of it, but that being commanded it would be necessary. 4. concerning our ordinations, besides that i have proved it impossible that they should be so doubtful as yours, according to your own principles; i answer, that experience shows them certainly sufficient to bring men to faith and repentance, and consequently to salvation; and that if there were any secret defect of any thing necessary, which we cannot help, god will certainly supply it. 16 ad § 6. in the sixth, you say, you will not repeat, but only put us again in mind that unless the roman church were the true church there was no visible church upon earth, a thing so manifest that protestants themselves confess, etc. ans. neither will i repeat, but only put you in mind that you have not proved that there is any necessity that there should be any visible true. church; nor if there were, that there was no other besides the roman. for as for the confession of protestants which here you insist upon, it is evident out of their own words cited by yourself, that by the whole world, they meant only the greatest part of it, which is an usual figure of speech; and never intended to deny that besides the church then reigning & triumphing in this world, there was another militant church, other christians visible enough though persecuted and oppressed. nor thirdly do you here make good so much as with one fallacy, that if the roman church were then the visible church, it must needs be now the only or the safer way to heaven; and yet the connexion of this consequence was very necessary to be shown. for, for aught i know, it was not impossible that it might then be the only visible church, & yet now a very dangerous way to heaven, or perhaps none at all. 17 afterwards you vainly pretend that all roman catholics, not one excepted, profess, that protestancy unrepented destroys salvation. fron which generality we may except two at least to my knowledge, and those are, yourself, and franciscus de sancta clara, who assures us that ignorance and repentance may excuse a protestant from damnation though dying in his error. * i● problem. 15. & 16. and this is all the charity, which by your own confession also, the most favourable protestants allow to papists; and therefore with strange repugnance to yourself you subjoin, that these are the men whom we must hold not to err damnably, unless we will destroy our own church and salvation. whereas, as i have said before, though you were turks, and pagans, we might be good christians. neither is it necessary for the perpetuating of a church before luther, that your errors even then should not be damnable, but only not actually damning to some ignorant souls among you. in vain therefore do you make such tragedies as here you do! in vain you conjure us with fear and trembling to consider these things! we have considered them again and again, and looked upon them on both sides, & find neither terror nor truth in them. let children and fools be terrified with bugbears, men of understanding will not regard them. 18 ad §. 7. 8. 9 10. 11. your whole discourse in your five next paragraphs, i have in the beginning of this chapter fully confuted, by saying, that it stands altogether upon the false foundation of this affected mistake, that we do and must confess the roman church free from damnable error; which will presently be apparent, to any one who considers, that the seaventh and tenth are nothing but d. potter's words; and that in the other three, you obtrude upon us this cram no fewer than seven times. may you be pleased to look back to your own book, & you shall find it so as i have said: & that at least in a hundred other places you make your advantage of this false imputation: which when you have observed, and withal considered that yourself plainly intimate, that d. potter's discourses which here you censure, would be good and concluding, if we did not (as we do not) free you from damnable error, i hope you will acknowledge that my vouchsafing these sections the honour of any farther answer, is a great supererrogation in point of civility. nevertheless partly that i may the more ingratiate myself with you, but especially, that i may stop their mouths who will be apt to say, that every word of yours which i should omit to speak to, is an unanswerable argument, i will hold my purpose of answering them more punctually and particularly. 19 first then, to your little parenthesis, which you interline among d. potter's words, §. 7. that any small error in faith destroys all faith, (to omit what hath been said before,) i answer here what is proper for this place; that s. austin, whose authority is here stood upon, thought otherwise: he conceived the donatists to hold some error in faith and yet not to have no faith. his words of them to this purpose are most pregnant and evident, you are with us (saith he to the donatists. ep. 48.) in baptism, in the creed, in the other sacraments: and again. super gestis cum emerit: thou hast proved to me that thou hast faith; prove to me likewise that thou hast charity. parallel to which words are these of optatus, lib. 5. prope initium. amongst us and you is one▪ ecclesiastical conversation, common lessons; the same faith, the same sacraments. where by the way we may observe, that in the judgements of these fathers, even the donatists, though heretics and schismatics, gave true ordination, the true sacrament of matrimony, true sacramental absolution, confirmation, the true sacrament of the eucharist, true extreme unction; or else (choose you whether) some of these were not then esteemed sacraments. but for ordination, whether he held it a sacrament or no, certainly he held that it remained with them entire: for so he says in express terms, in his book against parmenianus his epistle. which doctrine if you can reconcile with the present doctrine of the roman church, lib. 2. c. 3. eris mihi magnus apollo. 20 whereas in the beginning of the 8. sect. you deny that your argument drawn from our confessing the possibility of your salvation, is for simple people alone, but for all men: i answer, certainly whosoever is moved with it, must be so simple as to think this a good and a concluding reason; some ignorant men in the roman church may be saved, by the confession of protestants, (which is indeed all that they confess,) therefore it is safe for me to be of the roman church; and he that does think so, what reason is there why he should not think this as good, ignorant protestans may be saved, by the confession of papists, (by name mr k.) therefore it is safe for me to be of the protestant church? whereas you say, that this your argument is grounded upon an inevitable necessity for us, either to grant salvation to your church, or to entail certain damnation upon our own, because ours can have no being till luther, unless yours be supposed to have been the true church. i answer, this cause is no cause: for first, as luther had no being before luther, and yet he was when he was, though he was not before; so there is no repugnance in the terms, but that there might be a true church after luther, though there were none for some ages before; as since columbus his time, there have been christians in america, though before there were none for many ages. for neither do you show, neither does it appear, that the generation of churches is univocal, that nothing but a church can possibly beget a church; nor that the present being of a true church, depends necessarily upon the perpetuity of a church in all ages; any more than the present being of peripatetics or stoics depends upon a perpetual pedigree of them. for though i at no hand deny the church's perpetuity, yet i see nothing in your book to make me understand, that the truth of the present depends upon it, nor any thing that can hinder, but that a false church, (god's providence overwatching and overruling it,) may preserve the means of confuting their own heresies, and reducing men to truth, and so raising a true church, i mean the integrity and the authority of the word of god with men. thus the jews preserve means to make men christians, and papists preserve means to make men protestants, and protestants (which you say are a false church) do, as you pretend, preserve means to make men papists; that is, their own bibles, out of which you pretend to be able to prove that they are to be papists. secondly, you show not, nor does it appear that the perpetuity of the church depends on the truth of yours. for though you talk vainly, as if you were the only men in the world before luther, yet the world knows that this but talk, and that there were other christians besides you, which might have perpetuated the church though you had not been. lastly, you show not, neither doth it appear, that your being acknowledged in some sense a true church, doth necessarily import, that we must grant salvation to it, unless by it you understand the ignorant members of it, which is a very unusual sinechdoche. 21 whereas you say, that catholics never granted that the donatists had a true church or might be saved. i answ. s. austin himself granted that those among them, who sought the truth, being ready when they found it to correct their error were not heretics, and therefore notwithstanding their error might be saved. and this is all the charity that protestants allow to papists. 22 whereas you say, that d. potter having cited out of s. austin the words of the catholics, that the donatists had true baptism, when he comes to the contrary words of the donatist, adds, no church, no salvation! ans. you wrong d. potter, who pretends not to cite s. austin's formal words but only his sense, which in him is complete and full for that purpose whereto it is alleged by d. potter. his words are, petilianus dixit, venite ad ecclesiam populi & aufugite traditores, cont. lit. petil. l. 2. 〈…〉▪ si perire non vultis: petilian saith, come to the church ye people, and fly from the traditours if ye will not be damned, for that ye may know that they being guilty, esteem very well of our faith, behold i baptise these whom they have infected; but they receive those whom we have baptised. where it is plain, that petilian by his words makes the donatists the church, and excludes the catholics from salvation absolutely. and therefore no church, no salvation was not d. potters addition. and whereas you say, the catholics never yielded that among the donatists there was a true church and hope of salvation, i say it appears by what i have alleged out of s. austin, that they yielded both these were among the donatists, as much as we yield them to be among the papists. as for d. potter's acknowledgement; that they maintained an error in the matter & nature of it heretical: this proves them but material heretics, whom you do not exclude from possibility of salvation. so that all things considered, this argument must be much more forcible from the donatists against the catholics, then from papists against protestants, in regard protestant's grant papists no more hope of salvation then papists grant protestants: whereas the donatists excluded absolutely all but their own part from hope of salvation, so far as to account them no christians that were not of it: the catholics mean while accounting them brethren, and freeing those among them, from the imputation of heresy, who being in error quaerebant cautâ sollicitudine veritatem corrigi parati cum invenerint. 23 whereas you say, that the argument for the certainty of their baptism (because it was confessed good by catholics, whereas the baptism of catholics was not confessed by them to be good,) is not so good as yours, touching the certainty of your salvation grounded on the confession of protestants, because we confess there is no damnable error in the doctrine or practice of the roman church: ay ans. no: we confess no such matter, and though you say so a hundred times, no repetition will make it true. we profess plainly, that many damnable errors plainly repugnant to the precepts of christ both ceremonial and moral, more plainly than this of rebaptisation, and therefore more damnable, are believed and professed by you. and therefore seeing this is the only disparity you can devise, and this is vanished, it remains that as good an answer as the catholics made touching the certainty of their baptism, as good may we make, and with much more evidence of reason, touching the security and certainty of our salvation. 24 by the way i desire to be informed, seeing you affirm that rebaptising those whom heretics had baptised was a sacrilege, and a profession of a damnable heresy, when it began to be so? if from the beginning it were so, then was cyprian a sacrilegious professor of a damnable heresy, and yet a saint and a martyr. if it were not so, then did your church excommunicate firmilian and others, and separate from them without sufficient ground of excommunication or separation, which is schismatical. you see what difficulties you run into on both sides; choose whether you will, but certainly both can hardly be avoided. 25 whereas again in this §. you obtrude upon us, that we cannot but confess that your doctrine contains no damnable error, and that yours is so certainly a true church, that unless yours be true we cannot pretend any: i answer, there is in this neither truth nor modesty to outface us, that we cannot but confess what indeed we cannot but deny. for my part, if i were upon the rack, i persuade myself i should not confess the one nor the other. 26 whereas again presently you add, that d. potter grants we should be guilty of schism, if we did cut off your church from the body of christ and the hope of salvation: i have showed above that he grants no such matter. he says indeed, that our not doing so frees us from the imputation of schism, & from hence you sophistically infer, that he must grant, if we did so, we were schismatics, and then make your reader believe; that this is d. potter's confession, it being indeed your own false collection. for as every one that is not a papist, is not a jesuit, and yet not every one that is a papist is a jesuit: as whosoever comes not into england, comes not to london, and yet many may come to england, and not come to london: as whosoever is not a man, is not a king, and yet many are men that are not kings: so likewise it may be certain, that whosoever does not so is free from schism, and yet they that do so (if there be sufficient cause,) may be not guilty of it. 27 whereas you pretend to wonder that the doctor did not answer the argument of the donatists, which he says is all one with yours, but refers you to s. austin there to read it, as if every one carried with him a library, or were able to examine the places in s. austin: i answer, the parity of the arguments was that which the doctor was to declare, whereto it was impertinent what the answer was: but sufficient it was to show that the donatists' argument which you would never grant good, was yet as good 〈◊〉 yours, and therefore yours could not be good. now to this purpose as the concealing the answer was no way advantageous, so to produce it was not necessary; and therefore he did you more service than he was bound to, in referring you to s. austin for an answer to it. whereas you say, he had reason to conceal it because it makes directly against himself: i say it is so far from doing so, that it will serve in proportion to the argument, as fitly as if it had been made for it: for as s. austin says, that catholics approve the doctrine of donatists, but abhor their heresy of rebaptisation: so we say, that we approve those fundamental and simply necessary truths which you retain, by which some good souls among you may be saved, but abhor your many superstitions and heresies. and as he says, that as gold is good, yet ought not to be sought for among a company of thiefs, and baptism good but not to be sought for in the conventicles of donatists: so say we, that the truths you retain are good, and as we hope sufficient to bring good ignorant souls among you to salvation, yet are not to be sought for in the conventicle of papists, who hold with them a mixture of many vanities, and many impieties. for, as for our freeing you from damnable heresy, and yielding you salvation, (which stone here again you stumble at,) neither he nor any other protestant is guilty of it; and therefore you must confess that this very answer will serve protestants against this charm of papists, as well as s. austin against the donatists, and that indeed it was not d. potter but you, that, without a sarcasme, had reason to conceal this answer. 28 the last piece of d. potter's book, which you are pleased to take notice of in this first part of yours, is an argument he makes in your behalf p. 79. of his book, where he makes you speak thus, if protestants believe the religion of papists to be a safe way to heaven, why do they not follow it? this argument you like not, because many things may be good and yet not necessary to be embraced by every body, & therefore scoff at it, and call it an argument of his own, a wise argument, a wise demand: and then ask of him, what he thinks of it being framed thus, our religion is safe, even by your confession, and therefore you ought to grant that all may embrace it. and yet farther thus, among different religions one only can be safe: but yours by our own confession is safe: where as you hold that in ours there is no hope of salvation, therefore we ought to embrace yours. ans. i have advised with him, & am to tell you from him, that he thinks reasonable well of the arguments, but very ill of him that makes them, as affirming so often without shame and conscience, what he cannot but know to be plainly false: and his reason is because he is so far from confessing, or giving you any ground to pretend he does confess, that your religion is safe for all that are of it, from whence only it will follow that all may safely embrace it, that in this very place, from which you take these words, he professeth plainly, that it is extremely dangerous, if not certainly damnable to all such as profess it, when either they do, or if their hearts were upright and not perversely obstinate might believe the contrary, and that for us wh● are convinced in conscience that she (the rom●● church) errs in many things, it lies upon us, even under pain of damnation to forsake her in those errors. and though here you take upon you a show of great rigour, and will seem to hold that in our way there is no hope of salvation; yet formerly you have been more liberal of your charity towards us, and will needs vie and contend with d. potter which of the two shall be more charitable, assuring us that you allow protestants as much charity as d. potter spares you, for whom he makes ignorance the best hope of salvation. chap. 1. §. 4. and now i appeal to any indifferent reader, whether our disavowing to confess you free from damnable error, were not (as i pretend) a full confutation of all that you say in these five foregoing paragraphs: and as for you i wonder, what answer, what evasion, what shift you can devise to clear yourself from dishonesty, for imputing to him almost a hundred times, this acknowledgement which he never makes, but very often, and that so plainly that you take notice of it, professeth the contrary! 29 the best defence that possibly can be made for you, i conceive, is this, that you were led into this error, by mistaking a supposition of a confession, for a confession; a rhetorical concession of the doctors, for a positive assertion. he says indeed of your errors, though of themselves they be not damnable to them which believe as they profess, yet for us to profess what we believe not, were without question damnable. but, to say, though your errors be not damnable, we may not profess them, is not to say, your errors are not damnable, but only though they be not. as if you shoul say, though the church err in points not fundamental, yet you may not separate from it: or, though we do err in believing christ really present, yet our error frees us from idolatry: or, as if a protestant should say, though you do not commit idolatry in adoring the host, yet being uncertain of the priest's intention to consecrate, at least you expose yourself to the danger of it: i presume you would not think it fairly done, if any man should interpret either this last speech as an acknowledgement, that you do not commit idolatry, or the former as confessions, that you do err in points not fundamental, that you do err in believing the real presence. and therefore you ought not so to have mistaken d. potter's words, as if he had confessed the errors of your church not damnable, when he says no more but this, though they be so, or, suppose, or put the case they be so, yet being errors, we that know them may not profess them to be divine truths. yet this mistake might have been pardonable, had not d. potter in many places of his book, by declaring his judgement touching the quality and malignity of your errors, taken away from you all occasion of error. but now that he says plainly, that your church hath many ways played the harlot, and in that regard, deserved a bill of divorce from christ, and the detestation of christians p. 11. that for that mass of errors and abuses in judgement and practice which is proper to her, and wherein she differs from us, we judge a reconciliation impossible, and to us (who are convicted in conscience of her corruptions) damnable. pag. 20. that popery is the contagion or plague of the church. p. 60. that we cannot, we dare not communicate with her in her public liturgy, which is manifestly polluted with dross of superstition. p. 68 that they who in former ages died in the church of rome died in many sinful errors. p. 78. that they that have understanding and means to discover their errors and neglect to use them, he dares not flatter them with so easy a censure, as to give them hope of salvation p. 79. that the way of the roman religion is not safe, but very dangerous, if not certainly damnable, to such as profess it, when they believe (or if their hearts were upright and not perversely obstinate might believe) the contrary, p. 79. that your church is but (in some sense) a true church, and your errors only to some men not damnable, & that we who are convinced in conscience that she errs in many things, are under pain of damnation to forsake her in those errors. seeing i say, he says all this so plainly and so frequently, certainly your charging him falsely with this acknowledgement, and building a great part not only of your discourse in this chapter, but of your whole book upon it, possibly it may be palliated with some excuse, but it can no way be defended with any just apology. especially seeing you yourself more than once or twice, take notice of these his severer censures of your church, and the errors of it, and make your advantage of them. in the first number of your first chapter, you set down three of the former places; and from thence infer, that as you affirm protestancy unrepented destroys salvation, so d. potter pronounces the like heavy doom against roman catholics: and again §. 4. of the same chap. we allow protestants as much charity as d. potter spare● us, for whom he makes ignorance the best hope of salvation. and c. 5. § 41. you have these words: it is very strange that you judge us extremely uncharitable in saying protestants cannot be saved, while yourself avouch the same of all learned catholics, whom ignorance cannot excuse! thus out of the same mouth you blow hot and cold; and one while, when it is for your purpose, you profess d. potter censures your errors as heavily as you do ours; which is very true, for he gives hope of salvation to none among you, but to those whose ignorance was the cause of their error, and no sin cause of their ignorance: and presently after, when another project comes in your head, you make his words softer than oil towards you; you pretend he does and must confess, that your doctrine contains no damnable error, that your church is certainly a true church, that your way to heaven is a safe way, and all these acknowledgements you set down simple and absolute, without any restriction or limitation; whereas in the doctor they are all so qualified, that no knowing papist can promise himself any security or comfort from them. we confess (saith he) the church of rome to be (in some sense) a true church, and her errors (to some men) not damnable: we believe her religion safe, that is, by god's great mercy not damnable, to some such as believe what they profess: but we believe it not safe but very dangerous, if not certainly damnable to such as profess it, when they believe (or if their hearts were upright and not perversely obstinate might believe) the contrary. observe i pray these restraining terms which formerly you have dissembled, a true church in some sense, not damnable to some men, a safe way, that is by god's great mercy not damnable to some: and then seeing you have pretended these confessions to be absolute, which are thus plainly limited, how can you avoid the imputation of an egregious sophister? you quarrel with the doctor, in the end of your preface, for using in his book such ambiguous terms as these, in some sort, in some sense, in some degree: and desire him if he make any reply, either to forbear them, or to tell you roundly in what sort, in what sense, in what degree, he understands these and the like mincing phrases. but the truth is he hath not left them so ambiguous and undetermined as you pretend; but told you plainly, in what sense, your church may pass for a true church, viz. in regard we may hope that she retains those truths which are simply, absolutely, and indispensably necessary to salvation, which may suffice to bring those good souls to heaven, who wanted means of discovering their errors; this is the charitable construction in which you may pass for a church: and to what men your religion may be safe, and your errors not damnable, viz. to such whom ignorance may excuse, and therefore he hath more cause to complain of you, for quoting his words without those qualifications, than you to find fault with him for using of them. 30 that your discourse in the 12. §. presseth you as forcibly as protestants, i have showed above: i add here, 1. whereas you say that faith, according to rigid calvinists, is either so strong, that once had, it can never be lost, or so more than weak, and so much nothing that it can never begotten: that, these are words without sense. never any calvinist affirmed that faith was so weak, and so much nothing that it can never be gotten: but it seems you wanted matter to make up your antithesis, and therefore were resolved to speak empty words rather than lose your figure, crimina rasis librat in antithetis, doct as posuisse figuras laudatur. 2. that there is no calvinist that will deny the truth of this proposition, christ died for all, nor to subscribe to that sense of it, which your dominicans put upon it; neither can you with coherence to the received doctrine of your own society, deny that they as well as the calvinists, take away the distinction of sufficient and effectual grace, and indeed hold none to be sufficient, but only that which is effectual. 3. whereas you say, they cannot make their calling certain by good works, who do certainly believe that before any good works they are justified, and justified by faith alone, and by that faith whereby they certainly believe they are justified: i ans. there is no protestant but believes that faith, repentance, and universal obedience, are necessary to the obtaining of god's favour and eternal happiness. this being granted, the rest is but a speculative controversy, a question about words which would quickly vanish, but that men affect not to understand one another. as if a company of physicians were in consultation, and should all agree, that three medicines and no more were necessary for the recovery of the patient's health, this were sufficient for his direction towards the recovery of his health; though concerning the proper and specifical effects of these three medicines, there should be amongst them as many differences as men: so likewise being generally at accord that these three things, faith, hope, & charity, are necessary to salvation, so that whosoever wants any of them cannot obtain it, and he which hath them all cannot fail of it, it is not very evident that they are sufficiently agreed for men's directions to eternal salvation? and seeing charity is a full comprehension of all good works, they requiring charity as a necessary qualification in him that will be saved, what sense is there in saying, they cannot make their calling certain by good works? they know what salvation is as well as you, and have as much reason to desire it: they believe it as heartily as you, that there is no good work but shall have its proper reward, and that there is no possibility of obtaining the eternal reward without good works: and why then may not this doctrine be a sufficient incitement and provocation unto good works? 31 you say, that they certainly believe that before any good works they are justified: but this is a calumny. there is no protestant but requires to justification, remission of sins, and to remission of sins they all require repentance, and repentance i presume may not be denied the name of a good work, being indeed, if it be rightly understood, and according to the sense of the word in scripture, an effectual conversion from all sin to all holiness. but though it be taken for mere sorrow for sins past, and a bare purpose of amendment, yet even this is a good work, and therefore protestants requiring this to remission of sins, and remission of sins to justification, cannot with candour be pretended to believe, that they are justified before any good work. 32 you say, they believe themselves justified by faith alone, and that by that faith whereby they believe themselves justified: some peradventure do so, but withal they believe that that faith which is alone, and unaccompanied with sincere and universal obedience, is to be esteemed not faith but presumption, and is at no hand sufficient to justification: that though charity be not imputed unto justification, yet is it required as a necessary disposition in the person to be justified, and that though in regard of the imperfection of it, no man can be justified by it, yet that on the other side, no man can be justified without it. so that upon the whole matter, a man may truly and safely say, that the doctrine of these protestants, taken altogether, is not a doctrine of liberty, not a doctrine that turns hope into presumption, and carnal security; though it may justly be feared, that many licentious persons, taking it by halves, have made this wicked use of it. for my part, i do heartily wish, that by public authority it were so ordered, that no man should ever preach or print this doctrine that faith alone justifies, unless he joins this together with it, that universal obedience is necessary to salvation. and besides that those chapters of s. paul which entreat of justification by faith, without the works of the law, were never read in the church, but when the 13. chap. of the 1. epist. to the corinth. concerning the absolute necessity of charity should be, to prevent misprision, read together with them. 33 whereas you say, that some protestants do expressly affirm the former point to be the soul of the church, etc. and that therefore they must want the theological virtue of hope, and that none can have true hope, while they hope to be saved in their communion. i ans. they have great reason to believe the doctrine of justification by faith only, a point of great weight and importance, if it be rightly understood: that is, they have reason to esteem it a principal and necessary duty of a christian, to place his hope of justification and salvation, not in the perfection of his own righteousness (which if it be imperfect will not justify,) but only in the mercies of god through christ's satisfaction: and yet notwithstanding this, nay the rather for this, may preserve themselves in the right temper of good christians, which is a happy mixture and sweet composition of confidence and fear. if this doctrine be otherwise expounded than i have here expounded, i will not undertake the justification of it, only i will say (that which i may do truly) that i never knew any protestant such a soli-fidian, but that he did believe these divine truths; that he must make his calling certain by good works: that he must work out his salvation with fear and trembling, and that while he does not so, he can have no well-grounded hope of salvation: i say i never met with any who did not believe these divine truths, and that with a more firm, and a more unshaken assent, than he does that himself is predestinate, and that he is justified by believing himself justified. i never met with any such, who if he saw there were a necessity 〈◊〉 do either, would not rather forgo his belief of these doctrines than the former: these which he sees disputed and contradicted and opposed with a great multitude of very potent arguments; then those, which being the express words of scripture, whosoever should call into question, could not with any modesty pretend to the title of christian. and therefore there is no reason but we may believe, that their full assurance of the former doctrines doth very well qualify their persuasion of the latter, and that the former (as also the lives of many of them do sufficiently testify) are more effectual to temper their hope, and to keep it at a stay of a filial and modest assurance of god's favour, built upon the conscience of his love and fear, than the latter can be to swell and puff them up into vain confidence and ungrounded presumption. this reason, joined with our experience of the honest and religious conversation of many men of this opinion, is a sufficient ground for charity, to hope well of their hope: and to assure ourselves that it cannot be offensive, but rather most acceptable to god, if notwithstanding this diversity of opinion, we embrace each other with the strict embraces of love & communion. to you and your church we leave it, to separate christians from the church, and to proscribe them from heaven upon trivial and trifling causes: as for ourselves, we conceive a charitable judgement of our brethren and their errors, though untrue, much more pleasing to god than a true judgement, if it be uncharitable; and and therefore shall always choose (if we do err) to err on the milder and more merciful part, and rather to retain those in our communion which deserve to be ejected, then eject those that deserve to be retained. 34 lastly, whereas you say, that seeing protestants differ about the point of justification, you must needs infer that they want unity in faith, and consequently all faith, and then that they cannot agree what points are fundamental; i answer, to the first of these inferences, that as well might you infer it upon victor bishop of rome and poli●rates; upon stephen bishop of rome and s. cyprian: in as much as it is indeniably evident, that what one of those esteemed necessary to salvation the other esteemed not so. but points of doctrine (as all other things) are as they are, and not as they are esteemed: neither can a necessary point be made unnecessary by being so accounted, nor an unnecessary point be made necessary by being overvalued. but as the ancient philosophers, (whose different opinions about the soul of man you may read in aristotle de anima, and cicero's tusculan questions,) notwithstanding their diverse opinions touching the nature of the soul, yet all of them had souls, and souls of the same nature: or as those physicians who dispute whether the brain or heart be the principal part of a man, yet all of them have brains and have hearts, and herein agree sufficiently: so likewise, though some protestants esteem that doctrine the soul of the church, which others do not so highly value, yet this hinders not but that which is indeed the soul of the church may be in both 〈◊〉 of them; and though one account that a necessary truth which 〈◊〉 account neither necessary nor perhaps true, yet this notwithstanding, in those truths which are truly & really necessary they may all agree. for no argument can be more sophistical than this; they differ in some points which they esteem necessary; therefore they differ in some that indeed and in truth are so. ●35 now as concerning the other inference, that they cannot agree what points are fundamental: i have said and proved formerly that there is no such necessity as you imagine or pretend, that men should certainly know what is, and what is not fundamental. they that believe all things plainly delivered in scripture, believe all things fundamental, and are at sufficient unity in matters of faith, though they cannot precisely and exactly distinguish between what is fundamental and what is profitable: nay though by error they mistake some vain, or perhaps hurtful opinions for necessary and fundamental truths. c. 3. §. 53. & ●libi. besides, i have showed above, that as protestants do not agree (for you overreach in saying they cannot) touching what points are fundamental; so neither do you agree what points are defined & so to be accounted, and what are not: nay, nor concerning the subject in which god hath placed this pretended authority of defining: some of you settling it in the pope himself, though alone without a council: others in a council, though divided from the pope: others only in the conjunction of council and pope: others not in this neither, but in the acceptation of the present church universal: lastly, others not attributing it to this neither, but only to the perpetual succession of the church of all ages: of which divided company it is very evident and undeniable, that every former may be and are obliged to hold many things defined and therefore necessary, which the latter, according to their own grounds, have no obligation to do, nay cannot do so upon any firm and sure and infallible foundation. the conclusion. and thus, by god's assistance and the advantage of a good cause, i am at length through a passage rather tireing then difficult, arrived at the end of my undertaken voyage; and have, as i suppose, made appear to all disinteressed and unprejudicate readers what in the beginning i undertook, that a vein of sophistry and calumny runs clean through this first part of your book: wherein though i never thought of the directions you have been pleased to give me in your pamphlet entitled a direction to n. n. yet upon consideration of my answer, i find that i have proceeded as if i had had it always before my eyes, and steered my course by it as by a card and compass. for first, i have not proceeded by a mere destructive way (as you call it,) nor objected such difficulties against your religion, as upon examination tend to the overthrow of all religion, but have showed that the truth of christianity is clearly independent upon the truth of popery: and that on the other side, the arguments you urge, and the courses you take for the maintenance of your religion, do manifestly tend (if they be closely and consequently followed) to the destruction of all religion, and lead men by the hand to atheism and impiety; whereof i have given you ocular demonstrations in diverse places of my book, but especially, in my answer to your direction to n. n. neither can i discover any repugnance between any one part of my answer and any other, though i have used many more judicious and more searching eyes then mine own to make, if it were possible, such a discovery: and therefore am in good hope that, though the music i have made be but dull and flat, and even downright plainsong, yet your curious and critical ears shall discover no discord in it; but on the other side, i have charged you frequently and very justly, with manifest contradiction and retractation of your own assertions, and not seldom of the main grounds you build upon, and the principal conclusions which you endeavour to maintain: which i conceive myself to have made apparent even to the ●ye, c. 2. §. 5. c. 3. §. 88 c. 4. §. .14. & 24. c. 5. §. 93. c. 6. §. 6. 7. 12. 17. c. 7. §. 29. and in many other parts of my answer. and though i did never pretend to defend d. potter absolutely and in all things, but only so far as he defends truth; (neither did d. potter desire me, nor any law of god or man oblige me to defend him any farther,) yet i do not find that i have cause to differ from him in any matter of moment: particularly, not concerning the infallibility of god's church, which i grant with him to be infallible in fundamentals, because if it should err in fundamentals, it were not the church: nor concerning the supernaturality of faith, which i know & believe as well as you to be the gift of god, and that flesh & blood revealed it not unto us, but our father which is in heaven. but now if it were demanded what defence you can make for deserting ch. mistaken in the main question disputed between him and d. potter, whether protestancy, without a particular repentance and dereliction of it, destroy salvation, whereof i have convinced you? i believe your answer would be much like that which ulysses makes in the metamorphosis for his running away from his friend nestor, that is, none at all. for opposing the articles of the church of england, the approbation, i presume, clears my book from this imputation. and whereas you give me a caution, that my grounds destroy not the belief of divers doctrines which all good christians believe, yea and of all verities that cannot be proved by natural reason: i profess sincerely that i do not know nor believe, that any ground laid by me in my whole book, is any way inconsistent with any one such doctrine, or with any verity revealed in the word of god, though never so improbable or incomprehensible to natural reason: and if i thought there were, i would deal with it, as those primitive converts dealt with their curious books in the acts of the apostles for the ep. of s. james, and those other books which were anciently controverted, and are now received by the church of england as canonical; i am so far from relying upon any principles which must (to my apprehension) bring with them the denial of the authority of them, that i myself believe them all to be canonical. for the overthrowing the infallibility of all scripture, my book is so innocent of it, that the infallibility of scripture is the chiefest of all my grounds. and lastly for arguments tending to prove an impossibility of all divine, supernatural, infallible faith and religion, i assure myself that if you were ten times more a spider than you are, you could suck no poison from them. my heart, i am sure, is innocent of any such intention: and the searcher of all hearts knows that i had no other end in writing this book, but to confirm to the uttermost of my ability the truth of the divine and infallible religion of our dearest lord and saviour christ jesus, which i am ready to seal and confirm not with my arguments only, but my blood! now these are directions which you have been pleased to give me, whether out of a fear that i might otherwise deviate from them, or out of a desire to make others think so: but howsoever, i have not, to my understanding, swarved from them in any thing, which puts me in good hope that my answer to this first part of your book will give even to you yourself indifferent good satisfaction. i have also provided, though this were more than i undertook, a just and punctual examination and refutation of your second part: but (if you will give your consent) am resolved to suppress it, and that for diverse sufficient and reasonable considerations. first, because the discussion of the controversies entreated of in the first part (if we shall think fit to proceed in it, as i for my part shall, so long as i have truth to reply,) will, i conceive, be sufficient employment for us, though we cast off the burden of those many lesser dispu●es which remain behind in the second. and perhaps we may do god and his church more service by exactly discussing and fully clearing the truth in these few, then by handling many after a sleight and perfunctory manner. secondly, because the addition of the second part whether for your purpose or mine is clearly unnecessary: there being no understanding man papist or pro●estant, but will confess that (for as much as concerns the main question now in agitation, about the saveablenesse of protestants) if the first part of your book be answered, there needs no reply to the second: as on the other side i shall willingly grant, if i have not answered the first, i cannot answer a great part of the second. thirdly, because the addition of the second not only is unnecessary, but in effect by yourself confessed to be so. for in your preamble to your second part you tell us, that the substance of the present controversy is handled in the first: and therein also you pretend to have answered the chief grounds of d. potter's book: so that in replying to your second part i shall do little else but pursue shadows. fourthly, because your second part (setting aside repetitions and references) is in a manner made up of disputes about particular matters, which you are very importunate to have forborn, as suspecting, at least pretending to suspect, that they were brought in purposely by d. potter to dazzle the reader's eyes and distract his mind, that he might not see the clearness of the reasons brought in defence of the general doctrine delivered in charity mistaken. all which you are likely enough (if there be occasion) to say again to me; and therefore i am resolved for once even to humour you so far as to keep my discourse within those very lists and limits which yourself have prescribed, and to deal with you upon no other arguments, but only those wherein you conceive your chief advantage and principal strength, and, as it were, your sampson's lock to lie: wherein if i gain the cause clearly from you (as i verily hope by gods help i shall do) it cannot but redound much to the honour of the truth maintained by me, which by so weak a champion can overcome such an achilles for error even in his strongest holds. for these reasons, although i have made ready an answer to your second part, and therein have made it sufficiently evident: that for shifting evasions from d. potter's arguments; for impertinent cavils, and frivolous exceptions, and injurious calumnies against him for misalleaging of authors: for proceeding upon false and ungrounded princiciples; for making inconsequent and sophistical deductions, and, in a word, for all the virtues of an ill answer your second part is no way second to the first. yet notwithstanding all this anvantage, i am resolved, if you will give me leave, either wholly to suppress it, or at least to defer the publication of it, until i see what exceptions, upon a twelvemonth's examination (for so long i am well assured you have had it in your hands) you can take at this which is now published, that so if my grounds be discovered false i may give over building on them: or (if it shall be thought fit) build on more securely when it shall appear that nothing material and of moment is or can be objected against them. this i say, upon a supposition that yourself will allow these reasons for satisfying and sufficient, and not repent of the motion which yourself has made, of reducing the controversy between us to this short issue. but in case your mind be altered, upon the least intimation you shall give me, that you do not desire to have it out, your desire shall prevail with me above all other reasons, and you shall not fail to receive it with all convenient speed. only that my answer may be complete, and that i may have all my work together, and not be troubled myself, nor enforced to trouble you with after-reckoning, i would first entreat you to make good your promise of not omitting to answer all the particles of d. potter's book, which may any way import, and now at least to take notice of some (as it seems to me) not unconsiderable passages of it, which between your first and second part, as it were between two stools, have been suffered hitherto to fall to the ground, and not been vouchsafed any answer at all. for after this neglectful fashion you have passed by in silence, first his discourse, wherein he proves briefly but very effectually, that protestants may be saved, and that the roman church, especially the jesuits are very uncharitable. s. 1. p. 6. 7. 8. 9 secondly the authorities whereby he justifies, that the ancient fathers, by the roman understood always a particular, and never the catholic church: to which purpose he allegeth the words of ignatius, ambrose, innocentius, celestine, nicolaus▪ s. 1. p. 10, whereunto you say nothing, neither do you infringe his observation with any one instance to the contrary. thirdly, the greatest and most substantial part of his answers to the arguments of charity mistaken, built upon deut. 17. numb. 16. mat. 28. 20. mat. 18. 17. and in particular many pregnant and convincing texts of scripture, quoted in the margin of his book, p. 25. to prove that the judges of the synagogue (whose infallibility yet you make an argument of yours, and therefore must be more credible than yours) are vainly pretended to have been infallible: but as they were obliged to judge according to the law, so were obnoxious to deviations from it. s. 2. p. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. fourthly his discourse wherein he shows the difference between the prayers for the dead used by the ancients, and those now in use in the roman church. fiftly, the authority of three ancient, and above twenty modern doctors of your own church alleged by him, to show that in their opinion even pagans, and therefore much more erring christians (if their lives were morally honest) by god's extraordinary mercy and christ's merit may be saved. s. 2. p. 45. sixtly, a great part of his discourse whereby he declares that actual and external communion with the church is not of absolute necessity to salvation: nay that those might be saved whom the church utterly refused to admit to her communion. s. 2. p. 46. 47. 48. 49. seaventhly, his discourse concerning the church's latitude, which hath in it a clear determination of the main controversy against you: for therein he proves plainly, that all appertain to the church, who believe that jesus is the christ the son of god and saviour of the world with submission to his doctrine in mind and will: which he irrefragably demonstrates by many evident texts of scripture containing the substance of his assertion even in terms. s. 4. p. 114. 115. 116. 117. eightly, that wherein he shows by many pertinent examples, that gross error and true faith may be lodged together in the same mind: and that men are not chargeable with the damnable consequences of their erroneous opinions. s. 4. p. 122. ninthly, a very great part of his chapter touching the dissensions of the roman church, which he shows (against the pretences of charity mistaken) to be no less than ours for the importance of the matter, and the pursuit of them to be exceedingly uncharitable. s. 6. p. 188. 189. 190. 191. 193. 194. 195. 196. 197. tenthly, his clear refutation and just reprehension of the doctrine of implicit faith as it is delivered by the doctors of your church: which he proves very consonant to the doctrine of heretics and infidels, but evidently repugnant to the word of god. ibid. p. 201. 202. 203. 204. 205. lastly, his discourse wherein he shows that it is unlawful for the church of after ages to add any thing to the faith of the apostles: and many of his arguments whereby he proves that in the judgement of the ancient church the apostles creed was esteemed a sufficient summary of the necessary points of simple belief, and a great number of great authorities, to justify the doctrine of the church of england touching the canon of scripture, especially the old testament. s. 7. p. 221, 223. 228. 229. all these parts of doctor potter's book, for reasons best known to yourself, you have dealt with as the priest and levite in the gospel did with the wounded samaritan, that is, only looked upon them and passed by: but now at least when you are admonished of it, that my reply to your second part (if you desire it,) may be perfect, i would entreat you to take them into your consideration, and to make some show of saying something to them, lest otherwise the world should interpret your obstinate silence a plain confession that you can say nothing. finis. good reader, through the author's necessary absence for some weeks while this book was printing, and by reason of an uncorrected copy sent to the press, some errors have escaped, notwithstanding the printers solicitous and extraordinary care, and the correctors most assiduous diligence: which i would entreat thee to correct according to this following direction. pag. lin. err. corr. 6. 1. to the first and second add §. 21. vlt. to the ninth, to the ninteenth. to the ninteenth, to the ninth, 64. 21. principal prudential. 67. 29. canonised discanonized. 73. in marg. posuit potuit. 108. 21. ou● one. 134. 9 in for. 136. 9 some some thing. 146. 6. a truth truths. 150. 19 she there. 157. 13. vowed avowed. 158. pe●●lt▪ best least. 168. 11, causa pro non caus● non causa pro causa 176. 3. atheists antith●sis. ib. 11. deal with. 180. antepen. government communion. 193. 19 that the. 198. 33. continue the immortal, the 218. 44. profession p●●fection. 220. post 53. scribd ad §. 19 i●▪ 11. fair fa●ce. ib. 33. instruct mistrust. 221. 38. which is which is the church. 225. 27. nay now▪ 293. 43. so far from far from so. 351. 11. exception exposition. 361. vlt. canon's canon. 372. 17. foundation foundation of. 393. 32. deal whether 402 44. of themselves in the issue. mandetur typis hic liber, cui titulus the religion of protestants a safe way to salvation: in quo nihil occurrit à bonis moribus, à doctrinâ & disciplinâ in ecclesiâ anglicanâ assertis, alienum. rich. bailie vicecan. oxon. perlegi hunc librum, cui titulus est the religion of protestants a safe way to salvation: in quo nihil reperio doctrinae vel disciplinae ecclesiae anglicanae adversum, sed quamplurima quae fidem orthodoxam egregiè illustrant, & adversantia glossemata acutè perspicuè, & modestè dissipant. jo. prideaux s.t.p. regius oxon. ego samuel fell publicus theol. professor in uniu. oxon. & ordinarius praelector d. marg. comitiss. richmondiae, perlegi librum cui titulus est, the religion of protestants a safe way to salvation: in quo nihil reperio doctrinae vel disciplinae ecclesiae anglicanae, aut bonis moribus adversum: sed multa nervosè & modestè eventilata contra adversarios nostrae ecclesiae & veritatis catholicae, quam felicitèr tuetur. dat. 14ᵒ octob. 1637. sam. fell. fiat secunda editio juxta hoc exemplar. ex. aedib. london. feb. 6. 1637. sam. baker. perlegi hunc librum, cui tit. the religion of protestants a safe way to salvation; item, novem consciones nuperimè additas: in quibus omnibus nihil reperio doctrinae vel disciplinae ecclesiae anglicanae contrarium, quo minus cum summâ omnium utilitate imprimatur, ex. aed. lambeth. 16. octob. 1663. g. straddling s.t.p. reverendis. in christo pat. d. gilb. archiep. cant. à sac. domest. the religion of protestants a safe way to salvation. or, an answer to a book entitled mercy and truth, or, charity maintained by catholics: which pretends to prove the contrary. to which is added in this third impression the apostolical institution of episcopacy. as also, ix. sermons, the first preached before his majesty king charles the first, the other eight upon special and eminent occasions. by william chillingworth master of arts of the university of oxford. isaac. casaubon. in epist. ad card. perron. regis jacobi nomine scriptâ. rex arbitratur, rerum absolutè necessariarum ad salutem, non magnum esse numerum. quare existimat ejus majestas, nullam ad incundam concordiam breviorem viam fore, quàm si diligentèr, separentur necessaria à non necessariis, & ut de necessariis conveniat, omnis opera insumatur: in non necessariis libertati christianae locus detur. simplicitèr necessaria rex appellat, quae vel expressè verbum dei praecipit credenda faciendave, vel ex verbo dei necessariâ consequentiâ vetus ecclesia elicuit.— si ad decidendas hodiernas controversias haec distinctio adhiberetur, & jus divinum à positivo seu ecclesiastico candidè separaretur; non videtur de iis quae sunt absolutè necessaria, inter pios & moderatos viros, longa aut acris contentio futura. name & pause illa sunt, ut modò dicebamus, & ferè ex aequo omnibus probantur, qui se christianos dici postulant. atque istam distinctionem sereniss. rex tanti putat esse momenti ad minuendas controversias, quae hodiè ecclesiam dei tantopere exercent, ut omnium pacis studiosorum judicet officium esse, diligentissimè hanc explicare, docere, urgere. london: printed by e. cotes, for j. clark, and are to be sold by thomas thornicroft at the sign of the eagle and child in st. paul's churchyard near the little north-door. m.dc.lxiv. to the most high and mighty prince, chales by the grace of god, king of great-britain, france and ireland, defender of the faith, etc. may it please your most excellent majesty, i present with all humility, to your most sacred hands, a defence of that cause which is and aught to be infinitely dearer to you, than all the world: not doubting but upon this dedication i shall be censured for a double boldness; both for undertaking so great a work, so far beyond my weak abilities; and again, for presenting it to such a patron, whose judgement i ought to fear more than any adversary. but for the first, it is a satisfaction to myself, and may be to others, that i was not drawn to it out of any vain opinion of myself, (whose personal defects are the only thing which i presume to know,) but undertook it in obedience in him who said, tu conversus confirma fratres, not to st. peter only, but to all men: being encouraged also to it by the goodness of the cause, which is able to make a weak man strong. to the belief hereof i was not led partially or by chance, as many are, by the prejudice and prepossession of their country, education, and such like inducements; which if they lead to truth in one place, perhaps lead to error in a hundred; but having with the greatest equality and indifferency, made enquiry and grounds on both sides, i was willing to impart to others, that satisfaction which was given to myself. for my inscribing to it your majesty's sacred name, i should labour much in my excuse of it from high presumption, had it not some appearance of title to your majesty's patronage and protection, as being a defence of that book, which by special order from your majesty was written some years since, chief for the general good, but peradventure not without some aim at the recovery of one of your meanest subjects from dangerous deviation; and so due unto your majesty, as the fruit of your own high humility and most royal charity. besides, it is in a manner nothing else, but a pursuance of, and a superstruction upon that blessed doctrine, wherewith i have adorned and armed the frontispiece of my book, which was so earnestly recommended to your royal father of happy memory, to all the lovers of truth and peace; that is, to all that were like himself, as the only hopeful means of healing the breaches of christendom, whereof the enemy of souls makes such pestilent advantage. the lustre of this blessed doctrine i have endeavoured to uncloud and unveil, and to free it from those mists and fumes which have been raised to obscure it, by one of that order, which envenomes even poison itself, and makes the roman religion much more malignant and turbulent than otherwise it would be: whose very rule and doctrine, obliges them to make all men, as much as lies in them, subjects unto kings, and servants unto christ, no farther than it shall please the pope. so that whether your majesty be considered, either as a pious son towards your royal father king james, or as a tender hearted and compassionate son towards your distressed mother, the catholic church, or as a king of your subjects, or as a servant unto christ, this work, (to which i can give no other commendation, but that it was intended to do you service in all these capacities,) may pretend, not unreasonably, to your gracious acceptance. lastly, being a defence of that whole church and religion you profess, it could not be so proper to any patron as to the great defender of it; which style your majesty hath ever so exactly made good, both in securing it from all dangers, and in vindicating it (by the well ordering and rectifying this church) from all the foul aspersions both of domestic and foreign enemies, of which they can have no ground, but their own want of judgement, or want of charity. but it is an argument of a despairing and lost cause to support itself with these impetuous out-cries and clamours, the faint refuges of those that want better arguments; like that stoic in lucian that cried 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 o damned villain! when he could say nothing else. neither is it credible the wiser sort of them should believe this their own horrid assertion, that a god of goodness should damn to eternal torments, those that love him and love truth, for errors which they fall into through humane frailty! but this they must say, otherwise their only great argument from their damning us, and our not being so peremptory in damning them, because we hope unaffected ignorance may excuse them, would be lost: and therefore they are engaged to act on this tragical part, only to fright the simple and ignorant, as we do little children, by telling them that bites, which we would not have them meddle with. and truly that herein they do but act a part, and know themselves to do so, and deal with us here, as they do with the king of spain at rome, whom they accurse and excommunicate for fashion sake on maundy-thursday, for detaining part of st. peter's patrimony, and absolve him without satisfaction on good-friday; methinks their faltering and inconstancy herein, makes it very apparent: for though for the most part, they speak nothing but thunder and lightning to us, and damn us all without mercy or exception; yet sometimes to serve other purposes, they can be content to speak to us in a milder strain, and tell us, as my adversary does more than once, that they allow protestants as much charity as protestants allow them. neither is this the only contradiction which i have discovered in this uncharitable work; but have showed that by forgetting himself, and retracting most of the principal grounds he builds upon, he hath saved me the labour of a confutation: which yet i have not in any place found any such labour or difficulty, but that it was undertakable by a man of very mean, that is, of my abilities. and the reason is, because it is truth i plead for; which is so strong an argument for itself, that it needs only light to discover it; whereas it concerns falsehood and error to use disguises and shadowings, and all the fetches of art and sophistry; and therefore it stands in need of abler men, to give that a colour at least, which hath no real body to subsist by. if my endeavours in this kind may contribute any thing to this discovery, and the making plain that truth (which my charity persuades me the most part of them disaffect, only because it hath not been well represented to them,) i have the fruit of my labour, and my wish, who desire to live to no other end, than to do service to god's church, and your most sacred majesty, in the quality of your majesty's most faithful subject, and most humble and devoted servant william chillingworth. the contents of the chapters, with the answers thereunto. the author of charity maintained, his preface to the reader, page 1. the answer to the preface, page 5. the first part. chap. i. the state of the question; with a summary of the reasons for which, men of different religions, one side only can be saved, page 23. the answer to the first chapter. showing, that the adversary grants the former question, and proposeth a new one: and that there is no reason, why among men of different opinions and communions, one side only can be saved, page 25 chap. ii. what is that means, whereby the revealed truths of god are conveyed to our understanding, and which must determine controversies in faith and religion, page 37 the answer to the second chapter. concerning the means, whereby the revealed truths of god are conveyed to our understanding; and which must determine controversies in faith and religion, page 45 chap. iii. that the distinction of points fundamental and not fundamental, is neither pertinent, nor true in our present controversy: and that the catholic visible church cannot err, in either kind of the said point, page 107 the answer to the third chapter. wherein is maintained, that the distinction of points fundamental and not fundamental, is in this present controversy good and pertinent: and that the catholic church may err in the latter kind of the said points, page 115 chap. iv to say, that the creed contains all points necessary to be believed, is neither pertinent to the question in hand, nor in itself true, page 165 the answer to the fourth chapter. wherein is showed, that the creed contains all necessary points of mere belief, page 172 chap. v that luther, calvin, their associates, and all who began or continue the separation from the external communion of the roman church, are guilty of the proper, and formal sin of schism, page 210 the answer to the fifth chapter. the separation of protestants from the roman church, being upon just and necessary causes, is not any way guilty of schism, page 227 chap. vi that luther and the rest of the protestants have added heresy unto schism, page 279 the answer unto the sixth chapter. that protestants are not heretics, page 289 chap. vii. in regard of the precept of charity towards ones self, protestants are in a state of sin, as long as they remain separate from the roman-church, page 341 the answer to the seventh chapter. that protestants are not bound by the charity which they own to themselves, to reunite themselves to the roman-church, page 345 the conclusion, page 365 the preface to the author of charity maintained: with an answer to his pamphlet, entitled a direction to n. n. sir, upon the first news of the publication of your book, i used all diligence, with speed to procure it; and came with such a mind to the reading of it, as s. austin, before he was a settled catholic, brought to his conference with faustus the manichee. for, as he thought that if any thing more than ordinary might be said in defence of the manichean doctrine, faustus was the man from whom it was to be expected: so my persuasion concerning you was,— si pergama dextrâ defendi possunt, certè hac defensa videbo. for i conceived that among the champions of the roman church, the english in reason must be the best, or equal to the best, as being by most expert masters trained up purposely for this war, and perpetually practised in it. among the english, i saw the jesuits would yield the first place to none; and men so wise in their generation as the jesuits were, if they had any achilles among them, i presumed, would make choice of him for this service. and besides, i had good assurance, that in the framing of this building, though you were the only architect, yet you wanted not the assistance of many diligent hands to bring you in choice materials towards it; nor of many careful and watchful eyes, to correct the errors of your work, if any should chance to escape you. great reason therefore had i to expect great matters from you, and that your book should have in it the spirit and elixir of all that can be said in defence of your church and doctrine; and to assure myself, that if my resolution not to believe it, were not built upon the rock of evident grounds and reasons, but only upon some sandy and deceitful appearances, now the wind and storm and floods were coming, which would undoubtedly overthrow it. 2. neither truly were you more willing to effect such an alteration in me, than i was to have it effected. for my desire is to go the right way to eternal happiness. but whether this way lie on the right hand or the left, or strait forwards; whether it be by following a living guide, or by seeking my direction in a book, or by harkening to the secret whisper of some private spirit, to me it is indifferent. and he that is otherwise affected, and hath not a travellers indifference, which epictetus requires in all that would find the truth, but much desires in respect of his ease, or pleasure, or profit, or advancement, or satisfaction of friends, or any humane consideration, that one way should be true rather than another; it is odds but he will take his desire that it should be so, for an assurance that it is so. but, i for my part, unless i deceive myself, was, and still am so affected, as i have made profession, not willing i confess to take any thing upon trust, and to believe it without ask myself why; no, nor able to command myself (were i never so willing) to follow, like a sheep, every shepherd that should take upon him to guide me; or every flock that should chance to go before me: but most apt and most willing to be led by reason to any way, or from it; and always submitting all other reasons to this one, god hath said so, therefore it is true. nor yet was i so unreasonable as to expect mathematical demonstrations from you in matters plainly incapable of them, such as are to be believed, and, if we speak properly, cannot be known; such therefore i expected not. for, as he is an unreasonable master, who requires a stronger assent to his conclusions then his arguments deserve; so i conceive him a froward and undisciplined scholar, who desires stronger arguments for a conclusion than the matter will bear. but, had you represented to my understanding such reasons of your doctrine, as, being weighed in an even balance, held by an even hand, with those on the other side, would have turned the scale, and have made your religion more credible than the contrary; certainly, i should have despised the shame of one more alteration, and with both mine arms and all my heart most readily have embraced it. such was my expectation from you, and such my preparation, which i brought with me to the reading of your book. 3. would you know now what the event was, what effect was wrought in me, by the perusal and consideration of it? to deal truly and ingenuously with you, i fell somewhat in my good opinion both of your sufficiency and sincerity: but was exceedingly confirmed in my ill opinion of the cause maintained by you. i found every where snares that might entrap, and colours that might deceive the simple; but nothing that might persuade, and very little that might move an understanding man, and one that can discern between discourse and sophistry. in short, i was verily persuaded that i plainly saw and could make it appear, to all dis-passionate and unprejudicate judges, that a vein of sophistry and calumny did run clean thorough it from the beginning to the end. and letting some friends understand so much, i suffered myself to be persuaded by them, that it would not be either unproper for me, nor unacceptable to god, nor peradventure altogether unserviceable to his church, nor justly offensive to you (if you indeed were a lover of truth, and not a maintainer of a faction,) if setting aside the second part, which was in a manner wholly employed in particular disputes, repetitions and references, and in wranglings with d. potter about the sense of some supernumerary quotations, and whereon the main question no way depends, i would make a fair and ingenuous answer to the first, wherein the substance of the present controversy is confessedly contained; and which, if it were clearly answered, no man would desire any other answer to the second. this therefore i undertook with a full resolution to be an adversary to your errors, but a friend and servant to your person: and so much the more a friend to your person, by how much the severer and more rigid adversary i was to your errors. 4. in this work my conscience bears me witness that i have, according to your advice, proceeded always with this consideration, that i am to give a most strict account of every line, and word, that passeth under my pen: and therefore have been precisely careful for the matter of my book to defend truth only, and only by truth. and then, scrupulously fearful of scandalising you or any man with the manner of handling it. from this rule, sure i am, i have not willingly swerved in either part of it; and, that i might not do it ignorantly, i have not only myself examined mine own work, (perhaps with more severity than i have done yours, as conceiving it a base and unchristian thing to go about to satisfy others with what i myself am not fully satisfied;) but have also made it pass the fiery trial of the exact censures of many understanding judges, always hearty wishing that you yourself had been of the quorum. but they who did undergo this burden, as they wanted not sufficiency to discover any heterodox doctrine, so i am sure, they have been very careful to let nothing slip dissonant from truth or from the authorized doctrine of the church of england: and therefore whatsoever causeless or groundless jealousy, any man may entertain concerning my person, yet my book, i presume, in reason and common equity should be free from them; wherein i hope, that little or nothing hath escaped so many eyes, which being weighed in the balance of the sanctuary, will be found too light. and in this hope i am much confirmed, by your strange carriage of yourself in this whole business. for though by some crooked and sinister arts, you have got my answer into your hands, now a year since and upwards, as i have been assured by some that profess to know it, and those of your own party; though you could not want every day fair opportunities of sending to me, and acquainting me with any exceptions, which, you conceived, might be justly taken to it, or any part of it (than which nothing could have been more welcome to me) yet hitherto you have not been pleased to acquaint me with any one. nay more, though you have been at sundry times, and by several ways, entreated and solicited, nay pressed and importuned by me, to join with me in a private discussion of the controversy between us, before the publication of my answer, (because i was extremely unwilling to publish any thing which had not passed all manner of trials, as desiring not that i, or my side, but that truth might overcome on which side soever it was;) though i have protested to you, and sent it under my hand, (which protestation by gods help i would have made good) if you, or any other would undertake your cause, would give me a fair meeting, and choose out of your whole book any one argument, whereof you were most confident, and by which you would be content the rest should be judged of, and make it appear that i had not, or could not answer it, that i would desist from the work which i had undertaken, and answer none at all; though by all the arts which possibly i could devise, i have provoked you to such a trial, in particular by assuring you that if you refused it, the world should be informed of your tergiversation: notwithstanding all this, you have perpetually, and obstinately declined it; which to my understanding is a very evident sign that there is not any truth in your cause, nor (which is impossible there should be) strength in your arguments, especially considering what our saviour hath told us, every one that doth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved; but he that doth truth, cometh to the light that his deeds may be made manifest that they are wrought in god. 5. in the mean while though you despaired of compassing your desire this honest way; yet you have not omitted to tempt me, by base and unworthy considerations, to desert the cause which i had undertaken; letting me understand from you, by an acquaintance common to us both, how that in case my work should come to light, my inconstancy in religion (so you miscall my constancy in following that way to heaven which for the present seems to me the most probable) should be to my great shame painted to the life; that my own writings should be produced against myself; that i should be urged to answer my own motives against protestantism, and that such things should be published to the world touching my belief, (for my painter i must expect should have great skill in perspective) of the doctrine of the trinity, the deity of our saviour, and all supernatural verities, as should endanger all my benefices present or future: that this warning was given me, not out of fear of what i could say (for that catholics if they might wish any ill would beg the publication of my book, for respects obvious enough,) but out of a mere charitable desire of my good and reputation: and that all this was said upon a supposition that i was answering, or had a mind to answer charity maintained; if not, no harm was done. to which courteous premonition, as i remember, i desired the gentleman, who dealt between us, to return this answer, or to this effect; that i believed the doctrine of the trinity, the deity of our saviour, and all other supernatural verities revealed in scripture, as truly and as hearty as yourself, or any man, and therefore herein your charity was very much mistaken; but much more and more uncharitably in conceiving me a man that was to be wrought upon with these terribiles visuformae, those carnal and base fears which you presented to me, which were very proper motives for the devil and his instruments to tempt poor-spirited men out of the way of conscience and honesty, but very incongruous, either for teachers of truth to make use of, or for lovers of truth (in which company i had been long ago matriculated) to hearken to, with any regard. but if you were indeed desirous that i should not answer charity maintained, one way there was, and but one, whereby you might obtain your desire; and that was, by letting me know, when and where i might attend you, and by a fair conference, to be written down on both sides, convincing mine understanding (who was resolved not to be a recusant if i were convicted,) that any one part of it, any one argument in it, which was of moment and consequence, and whereon the cause depends, was indeed unanswerable. this was the effect of my answer, which i am well assured was delivered: but reply from you i received none but this, that you would have no conference with me but in print; and soon after finding me of proof against all these batteries, and thereby (i fear) very much enraged, you took up the resolution of the furious goddess in the poet, madded with the unsuccessfulness of her malice, flectere si nequec superos, acheronta movebo! 6. for certainly, those indigne contumelies, that mass of portentous and execrable calumnies, wherewith in your pamphlet of directions to n. n. you have loaded not only my person in particular, but all the learned and moderate divines of the church of england, and all protestants in general, nay all wise men of all religions but your own, could not proceed from any other fountain. 7. to begin with the last; you stick not in the beginning of your first chapter, to fasten the imputation of atheism and irreligion upon all wise and gallant men, that are not of your own religion. in which uncharitable and unchristian judgement, void of all colour or shadow of probability, i know yet by experience, that very many of the bigots of your faction, are partakers with you. god forbidden i should think the like of you! yet, if i should say, that in your religion there want not some temptations unto, and some principles of, irreligion and atheism; i am sure i could make my assertion much more probable than you have done, or can make this horrible imputation. 8. for to pass by, first, that which experience justifies, that where and when your religion hath most absolutely commanded, there and then atheism hath most abounded: to say nothing, secondly, of your notorious and confessed forging of so many false miracles, and so many lying legends, which is not unlikely to make suspicious men to question the truth of all: nor to object to you, thirdly, the abundance of your weak and silly ceremonies, and ridiculous observances in your religion; which, in all probability, cannot but beget secret contempt and scorn of it, in wise and considering men; and, consequently, atheism and impiety, if they have this persuasion settled in them (which is too rife among you, and which you account a piece of wisdom and gallantry) that if they be not of your religion, they were as good be of none at all: nor to trouble you, fourthly, with this, that a great part of your doctrine, especially in the points contested, makes apparently for the temporal ends of the teachers of it; which yet, i fear, is a great scandal to many beaux esprits among you: only i should desire you to consider attentively, when you conclude so often from the differences of protestants, that they have no certainty of any part of their religion, no not of those points wherein they agree, whether you do not that which so magisterially you direct me not to do, that is, proceed a destructive way, and object arguments against your adversaries, which tend to the overthrow of all religion? and whether, as you argue thus, protestants differ in many things, therefore they have no certainty of any thing: so an atheist or a sceptic may not conclude as well, christians and the professors of all religions differ in many things, therefore they have no certainty in any thing? again, i should desire you to tell me ingenuously, whether it be not too probable that your portentous doctrine of transubstantiation joined with your persuasion of, no papists no christians, hath brought a great many others, as well as himself, to averro his resolution, quandoquidem christiani adorant quod comedunt, sit anima mea cum philosophis? whether your requiring men upon only probable and prudential motives, to yield a most certain assent unto things in humane reason impossible; and telling them, as you do too often, that they were as good not believe at all as believe with any lower degree of faith; be not a likely way to make considering men scorn your religion, (and consequently all, if they know no other) as requiring things contradictory, and impossible to be performed? lastly, whether your pretence that there is no good ground to believe scripture, but your church's infallibility, joined with your pretending no ground for this but some texts of scripture, be not a fair way to make them that understand themselves, believe neither church nor scripture? 9 your calumnies against protestants in general, are set down in these words, chap. 2. §. 2. the very doctrine of protestants if it be followed closely, and with coherence to itself, must of necessity induce socinianism. this i say confidently, and evidently prove, by instancing in one error which may well be termed the capital, and mother-heresie, from which all other must follow at ease; i mean, their heresy in affirming, that the perpetual visible church of christ, descended by a never interrupted succession from our saviour, to this day, is not infallible in all that it proposeth to be believed, as revealed truths. for if the infallibility of such a public authority be once impeached; what remains, but that every man is given over to his own wit, and discourse? and talk not here of holy scripture. for if the true church may err, in defining what scriptures be canonical; or in delivering the sense and meaning thereof; we are still devolved, either upon the private spirit, (a foolery now exploded out of england, which finally leaving every man to his own conceits, ends in socinianism); or else upon natural wit, and judgement, for examining and determining, what scriptures contain true or false doctrine, and in that respect, aught to be received, or rejected. and indeed, take away the authority of god's church, no man can be assured, that any one book, or parcel of scripture, was written by divine inspiration: or that all the contents, are infallibly true; which are the direct errors of socinians. if it were but for this reason alone, no man, who regards the eternal salvation of his soul, would live or die in protestancy, from which so vast absurdities as these of the socinians must inevitably follow. and it ought to be an unspeakable comfort to all us catholics, while we consider, that none can deny the infallible authority of our church, but jointly he must be left to his own wit and ways; and must abandon all infused faith, and true religion, if he do but understand himself aright. in all which discourse, the only true word you speak is, this i say confidently. as for proving evidently, that i believe you reserved for some other opportunity: for the present, i am sure you have been very sparing of it. 10. you say, indeed confidently enough, that the deny all of the church's infallibility is the mother-heresie, from which all other must follow at ease: which is so far from being a necessary truth, as you make it, that it is indeed a manifest falsehood. neither is it possible for the wit of man, by any good, or so much as probable consequence, from the denial of the church's infallibility to deduce any one of the ancient heresies, or any one error of the socinians, which are the heresies here entreated of. for who would not laugh at him that should argue thus; neither the church of rome, nor any other church is infallible, ergo, the doctrine of arrius, pelagius, eutyches, nestorius, photinus, manichaeus, was true doctrine? on the other side, it may be truly said and justified by very good and effectual reason, that he that affirms, with you, the pope's infallibility, puts himself into his hands and power, to be led by him at his ease and pleasure into all heresy, and even to hell itself; and cannot with reason say (so long as he is constant to his grounds) domine, cur ita facis? but must believe white to be black, and black to be white; virtue to be vice, and vice to be virtue; nay (which is a horrible but a most certain truth) christ to be antichrist, and antichrist to be christ, if it be possible for the pope to say so: which, i say, and will maintain, howsoever you daub and disguise it, is indeed to make men apostate from christ to his pretended vicar, but real enemy. for that name and no better (if we may speak truth without offence) i presume he deserves, who under pretence of interpreting the law of christ, (which authority without any word of express warrant he hath taken upon himself,) doth in many parts evacuate and dissolve it: so dethroning christ from his dominion over men's consciences, and instead of christ, setting up himself; inasmuch as he that requires that his interpretations of any law should be obeyed as true and genuine, seem they to men's understandings never so dissonant and discordant from it, (as the bishop of rome does,) requires indeed that his interpretations should. be the laws; and he that is firmly prepared in mind to believe and receive all such interpretations without judging of them, and though to his private judgement they seem unreasonable, is indeed congruously disposed to hold adultery a venial sin, and fornication no sin, whensoever the pope and his adherents shall so declare. and whatsoever he may plead, yet either wittingly or ignorantly, he makes the law and the lawmaker both stales, and obeys only the interpreter. as if i should pretend that i should submit to the laws of the king of england, but should indeed resolve to obey them in that sense which the king of france should put upon them, whatsoever it were; i presume every understanding man would say, that i did indeed obey the king of france, and not the king of england. if i should pretend to believe the bible, but that i would understand it according to the sense which the chief mufty should put upon it, who would not say that i were a christian in pretence only, but indeed a mahometan? 11. nor will it be to purpose for you to pretend that the precepts of christ are so plain that it cannot be feared, that any pope should ever go about to dissolve them, and pretend to be a christian: for, not to say that you now pretend the contrary, (to wit,) that the law of christ is obscure even in things necessary to be believed and done, and by saying so, have made a fair way for any fowl interpretation of any part of it: certainly that which the church of rome hath already done in this kind, is an evident argument, that (if she once had this power unquestioned, and made expedite and ready for use, by being contracted to the pope) she may do what she pleaseth with it. who that had lived in the primitive church, would not have thought it as utterly improbable, that ever they should have brought in the worship of images, and picturing of god as now it is, that they should legitimate fornication? why may we not think, they may in time take away the whole communion from the laity, as well as they have taken away half of it? why may we not think that any text and any sense may not be accorded, as well as the whole 14. ch. of the ep. of s. paul to the corinth. is reconciled to the latine-service? how is it possible any thing should be plainer forbidden, than the worship of angels, in the ep. to the colossians? than the teaching for doctrines men's commands in the gospel of s. mark? and therefore seeing we see these things done, which hardly any man would have believed, that had not seen them, why should we not fear that this unlimited power may not be used hereafter with as little moderation? seeing devices have been invented how men may worship images without idolatry, and kill innocent men under pretence of heresy without murder; who knows that some tricks may not be hereafter devised, by which, lying with other men's wives shall be no adultery, taking away other men's goods no theft? i conclude therefore, that if solomon himself were here, and were to determine the difference, which is more likely to be mother of all heresy, the denial of the churches or the affirming of the pope's infallibility, that he would certainly say, this is the mother, give her the child. 12. you say again confidently, that if this infallibility be once impeached, every man is given over to his own wit and discourse: which, if you mean discourse, not guiding itself by scripture, but only by principles of nature, or perhaps by prejudices and popular errors, and drawing consequences, not by rule, but chance, is by no means true; if you mean by discourse, right reason, grounded on divine revelation and common notions, written by god in the hearts of all men; and deducing, according to the never failing rules of logic, consequent deductions from them: if this be it which you mean by discourse, it is very meet, and reasonable, and necessary that men, as in all their actions, so especially in that of greatest importance, the choice of their way to happiness, should be left unto it: and he that follows this in all his opinions and actions, and does not only seem to do so, follows always god; whereas he that followeth a company of men, may ofttimes follow a company of beasts. and in saying this, i say no more than s. john to all christians in these words, dear beloved, believe not every spirit; but try the spirits, whether they be of god, or no: and the rule he gives them to make this trial by, is, to consider, whether they confess jesus to be christ; that is, the guide of their faith, and lord of their action; not, whether they acknowledge the pope to be his vicar: i say no more than s. paul, in exhorting all christians, to try all things, and hold fast that which is good: then s. peter in commanding all christians, to be ready to give a reason of the hope that is in them: then our saviour himself, in forewarning all his followers, that if they blindly followed blind guides, both leaders and followers should fall into the ditch: and again, in saying even to the people, yea, and why of yourselves judge ye not what is right? and though by passion, or precipitation, or prejudice, by want of reason or not using what they have, men may be, and are oftentimes, led in error and mischief; yet, that they cannot be misguided by discourse, truly so called, such as i have described, you yourself have given them security. for, what is discourse, but drawing conclusions out of premises by good consequence? now, the principles which we have settled, to wit, the scriptures, are on all sides agreed to be infallibly true. and you have told us in the fourth chap. of this pamphlet, that from truth no man can, by good consequence, infer falsehood; therefore, by discourse, no man can possibly be led to error: but if he err in his conclusions, he must of necessity, either err in his principles, (which here cannot have place) or commit some error in his discourse; that is, indeed, not discourse, but seem to do so. 13. you say, thirdly, with sufficient confidence, that if the true church may err in defining what scriptures be canonical, or in delivering the sense thereof, than we must follow either the private spirit, or else natural wit and judgement; and by them examine what scriptures contain true or false doctrine, and in that respect ought to be received or rejected. all which is apparently untrue, neither can any proof of it be pretended. for though the present church may possibly err in her judgement touching this matter, yet have we other directions in it, besides the private spirit, and the examination of the contents, (which latter way may conclude the negative very strongly, to wit, that such or such a book cannot come from god, because it contains irreconcilable contradictions; but the affirmative it cannot conclude, because the contents of a book may be all true, and yet the book not written by divine inspiration:) other direction therefore i say we have, besides either of these three, and that is, the testimony of the primitive christians. 14. you say, fourthly, with convenient boldness, that this infallible authority of your church being denied, no man can be assured, that any parcel of scripture was written by divine inspiration: which is an untruth, for which no proof is pretended; and besides, void of modesty, and full of impiety. the first, because the experience of innumerable christians is against it, who are sufficiently assured, that the scripture is divinely inspired, and yet deny the infallible authority of your church, or any other. the second, because if i have not ground to be assured of the divine authority of scripture, unless i first believe your church infallible, than i can have no ground at all to believe it: because there is no ground, nor can any be pretended, why i should believe your church infallible, unless i first believe the scripture divine. 15. fiftly and lastly, you say, with confidence in abundance, that none can deny the infallible authority of your church, but he must abandon all infused faith and true religion, if he do but understand himself: which is to say, agreeable to what you had said before, and what out of the abundance of your heart you speak very often, that all christians besides you, are open fools, or concealed atheists. all this you say with notable confidence (as the manner of sophisters is, to place their confidence of prevailing in their confident manner of speaking,) but then for the evidence you promised to maintain this confidence, that is quite vanished and become invisible. 16. had i a mind to recriminate now, and to charge papists (as you do protestants) that they lead men to socinianism, i could certainly make a much fairer show of evidence than you have done. for i would not tell you, you deny the infallibility of the church of england; ergo, you lead to socinianism, which yet is altogether as good an argument as this; protestants deny the infallibility of the roman-church; ergo, they induce socinianism: nor would i resume my former argument, and urge you, that by holding the pope's infallibility, you submit yourself to that capital and mother-heresie, by advantage whereof, he may lead you at ease to believe virtue vice, and vice virtue; to believe antichristianity christianism, and christianity antichristian; he may lead you to socinianism, to turcism, nay to be devil himself if he have a mind to it: but i would show you that divers ways the doctors of your church do the principal and proper work of the socinians for them, undermining the doctrine of the trinity, by denying it to be supported by those pillars of the faith, which alone are fit and able to support it, i mean scripture, and the consent of the ancient doctors. 17. for scripture, your men deny very plainly and frequently, that this doctrine can be proved by it. see, if you please, this plainly taught, and urged very earnestly by cardinal hosius, de author. sac. scrip. l. 3. p. 53. by gordonius huntlaeus, contr. tom. 1. controu. 1. de verbo dei c. 19 by gretserus and tannerus, in colloquio ratisbon. and also by vega, possevin, wick us, and others. 18. and then for the consent of the ancients; that that also delivers it not, by whom are we taught but by papists only? who is it that makes known to all the world, that eusebius that great searcher and devourer of the christian libraries was an arrian? is it not your great achilles, cardinal perron, in his 3. book 2. chap. of his reply to k. james? who is it that informs us that origen (who never was questioned for any error in this matter, in or near his time) denied the divinity of the son and the holy ghost? is it not the same great cardinal, in his book of the eucharist against m. du plessis l. 2. c. 7? who is it that pretends that irenaeus hath said those things which he that should now hold, would be esteemed an arrian? is it not the same perron, in his reply to k. james, in the fifth chapter of his fourth observation? and doth he not in the same place peach tertullian also, and in a manner give him away to the arrians? and pronounce generally of the fathers before the council of nice, that the arrians would gladly be tried by them? and are not your fellow-jesuits also, even the prime men of your order, prevaricators in this point as well as others? doth not your friend m. fisher, or m. floyd, in his book of the nine questions proposed to him by k. james, speak dangerously to the same purpose, in his discourse of the resolution of faith, towards the end? giving us to understand, that the new reformed arrians bring very many testimonies of the ancient fathers to prove that in this point they did contradict themselves, and were contrary one to another: which places whosoever shall read, will clearly see, that to common people they are unanswerable, yea that common people are not capable of the answers that learned men yield unto such obscure passages. and hath not your great antiquary petavius, in his notes upon epiphanius in haer. 69. been very liberal to the adversaries of the doctrine of the trinity, and in a manner given them for patrons and advocates? first justin martyr, and then almost all the fathers before the council of nice, whose speeches, he says, touching this point, cum orthodoxae fidei regula minimè consentiunt? hereunto i might add, that the dominicans and jesuits between them in another matter of great importance, viz. god's prescience of future contingents, give the socinians the premises, out of which their conclusion doth unavoidably follow. for the dominicans maintain on the one side, that god can foresee nothing but what he decrees: the jesuits on the other side, that he doth not decree all things: and from hence the socinians conclude (as it is obvious for them to do) that he doth not foresee all things. lastly, i might adjoin this, that you agree with one consent, and settle for a rule unquestionable, that no part of religion can be repugnant to reason, whereunto you in particulr subscribe unawares in saying, from truth no man can by good consequence infer falsehood, which is to say in effect, that reason can never lead any man to error: and after you have done so, you proclaim to all the world (as you in this pamphlet do very frequently,) that if men follow their reason and discourse, they will (if they understand themselves) be lead to socinianism. and thus you see with what probable matter i might furnish out and justify my accusation, if i should charge you with leading men to socinianism! yet i do not conceive that i have ground enough for this odious imputation. and much less should you have charged protestants with it, whom you confess to abhor and detest it: and who fight against it, not with the broken reeds, and out of the paper-fortresses of an imaginary infallibility, which were only to make sport for their adversaries; but with the sword of the spirit, the word of god: of which we may say most truly, what david said of goliah's sword, offered by abimelech, non est sicut iste, there is none comparable to it. 19 thus protestants in general, i hope, are sufficiently vindicated from your calumny. i proceed now to do the same service for the divines of england; whom you question first in point of learning and sufficiency, and then in point of conscience and honesty, as prevaricating in the religion which they profess, and inclining to popery. their learning (you say) consists only in some superficial talon of preaching, languages, and elocution, and not in any deep knowledge of philosophy, especially of metaphysics, and much less of that most solid, profitable, subtle, and (o rem ridiculam, cato, & jocosam!) succinct method of school-divinity. wherein you have discovered in yourself the true genius and spirit of detraction. for taking advantage from that wherein envy itself cannot deny but they are very eminent, and which requires great sufficiency of substantial learning, you disparage them as insufficient in all things else. as if forsooth, because they dispute not eternally, utrum chimaera bombinans in vacuo, possit comedere secundas intentiones? whether a million of angels may not sit upon a needle's point? because they fill not their brains with notions that signify nothing, to the utter extermination of all reason and common sense, and spend not an age in weaving and unweaving subtle cobwebs, fit to catch flies than souls; therefore they have no deep knowledge in the acroamatical part of learning! but i have too much honoured the poorness of this detraction, to take notice of it. 20. the other part of your accusation strikes deeper, and is more considerable: and that tells us, that, protestantism waxeth weary of itself; that the professors of it, they especially of greatest worth learning and authority, love temper and moderation; and are at this time more unresolved where to fasten, than at the infancy of their church: that, their churches begin to look with a new face: their walls to speak a new language: their doctrine to be altered in many things for which their progenitors forsook the then visible church of christ: for example, the pope not antichrist: prayer for the dead: limbus patrum: pictures: that the church hath authority in determining controversies of faith, and to interpret scripture; about freewill, predestination, universal grace: that all our works are not sins: merit of good works: inherent justice: faith alone doth not justify: charity to be preferred before knowledge; traditions: commandments possible to be kept: that their thirty nine articles are patiented, nay ambitious, of some sense wherein they may seem catholic: that to allege the necessity of wife and children in these days, is but a weak plea for a married minister to compass a benefice: that calvinism is at length accounted heresy, and little less than treason: that men in talk and writing use willingly the once fearful names of priests and altars: that they are now put in mind, that for exposition of scripture they are by canon bound to follow the fathers: which if they do with sincerity, it is easy to tell what doom will pass against protestants, seeing, by the confession of protestants, the fathers are on the papists side, which the answerer to some so clearly demonstrated, that they remained convinced: in fine, as the samaritans saw in the disciples countenances that they meant to go to jerusalem, so you pretend it is even legible in the foreheads of these men, that they are even going, nay making haste, to rome. which scurrilous libel void of all truth, discretion and honesty, what effect it may have wrought, what credit it may have gained with credulous papists, (who dream what they desire, and believe their own dreams,) or with ill-affected, jealous, and weak protestants, i cannot tell: but one thing i dare boldly say, that you yourself did never believe it. 21. for did you indeed conceive, or had any probable hope, that such men as you describe, men of worth, of learning and authority too, were friends and favourers of your religion, and inclinable to your party, can any imagine that you would proclaim it, and bid the world take heed of them? sic notus ulysses? do we know the jesuits no better than so? what, are they turned prevaricators against their own faction? are they likely men to betray and expose their own agents and instruments, and to awaken the eyes of jealousy, and to raise the clamour of the people against them? certainly, your zeal to the see of rome, testified by your fourth vow of special obedience to the pope, proper to your order, and your cunning carriage of all affairs for the greater advantage and advancement of that see, are clear demonstrations that, if you had thought thus, you would never have said so. the truth is, they that run to extremes in opposition against you, they that pull down your infallibility and set up their own, they that declaim against your tyranny and exercise it themselves over others, are the adversaries that give you greatest advantage, and such as you love to deal with: whereas upon men of temper and moderation, such as will oppose nothing because you maintain it, but will draw as near to you, that they may draw you to them, as the truth will suffer them; such as require of christians to believe only in christ, and will damn no man nor doctrine without express and certain warrant from god; upon such as these you know not how to fasten: but if you chance to have conference with any such, (which yet as much as possibly you can you avoid and decline,) you are very speedily put to silence, and see the indefensible weakness of your cause laid open to all men and this, i verily believe, is the true reason that you thus rave and rage's against them, as foreseeing your time of prevailing, or even of subsisting, would be short, if other adversaries gave you no more advantage than they do. 22. in which persuasion also i am much confirmed by consideration of the silliness and poorness of those suggestions, and partly of the apparent vanity and falsehood of them, which you offer in justification of this wicked calumny. for what, if out devotion towards god, out of a desire that he should be worshipped as in spirit and truth in the first place, so also in the beauty of holiness? what if out of fear that too much simplicity and nakedness in the public service of god, may beget in the ordinary sort of men a dull and stupid irreverence; and, out of hope that the outward state and glory of it, being well-disposed and wisely moderated, may engender, quicken, increase and nourish, the inward reverence, respect, and devotion which is due unto god's sovereign majesty and power? what if out of a persuasion and desire that papists may be won over to us the sooner, by the removing of this scandal out of their way; and out of an holy jealousy, that the weaker sort of protestants might be the easier seduced to them by the magnificence and pomp of their church-service in case it were not removed? i say, what if out of these considerations, the governors of our church, more of late than formerly, have set themselves to adorn and beautify the places where god's honour dwells, and to make them as heaven-like as they can with earthly ornaments? is this a sign that they are warping towards popery? is this devotion in the church of england, an argument that she is coming over to the church of rome? sir edwin sands, i presume, every man will grant, had no inclination that way; yet he, forty years since, highly commended this part of devotion in papists, and makes no scruple of proposing it to the imitation of protestants: little thinking that they who would follow his counsel, and endeavour to take away this disparagement of protestants, and this glorying of papists, should have been censured for it, as making way and inclining to popery. his words to this purpose are excellent words; and because they show plainly, that what is now practised was approved by zealous protestants so long ago, i will here set them down. 23. this one thing i cannot but highly commend in that sort and order: they spare nothing which either cast can perform in enriching, or skill in adorning the temple of god, or to set out his service with the greatest pomp and magnificence that can be devised. and although, for the most part, much baseness and childishness is predominant in the masters and contrivers of their ceremonies, yet this outward state and glory being well disposed, doth engender, quicken, increase, and nourish the inward reverence, respect, and devotion which is due unto sovereign majesty and power. and although i am not ignorant that many men well reputed have embraced the thrifty opinion of that disciple, who thought all to be wasted that was bestowed upon christ in that sort, and that it were much better bestowed upon him or the poor, (yet with an eye perhaps that themselves would be his quarter-almoners) notwithstanding i must confess, it will never sink into my heart, that in proportion of reason, the allowance for furnishing out of the service of god should be measured by the scant and strict rule of mere necessity, (a proportion so low, that nature to other most bountiful, in matter of necessity hath not failed, no not the most ignoble creatures of the world,) and that for ourselves no measure of heaping but the most we can get, no rule of expense but to the utmost pomp we list: or that god himself had so enriched the lower parts of the world with such wonderful varieties of beauty and glory, that they might serve only to the pampering of mortal man in his pride; and that in the service of the high creator lord and giver (the outward glory of whose higher palace may appear by the very lamps that we see so far off burning gloriously in it) only the simpler, base, cheaper, less noble, less beautiful, less glorious things should be employed. especially seeing, as in prince's courts, so in the service of god also, this outward state and glory, being well disposed, doth (as i have said) engender, quicken, increase and nourish th●●ward reverence, respect, and devotion, which is due to so sovereign majesty and power: which those whom the use thereof cannot persuade unto, would easily, by the want of it, be brought to confess; for which cause i crave leave to be excused by them herein, if in zeal to the common lord of all, i choose rather to commend the virtue of an enemy, than to flatter the vice and imbecility of a friend. and so much for this matter. 24. again, what if the names of priests and altars, so frequent in the ancient fathers, though not in the now popish sense, be now resumed and more commonly used in england than of late times they were: that so the colourable argument of their conformity, which is but nominal, with the ancient church, and our inconformity, which the governors of the church would not have so much as nominal, may be taken away from them; and the church of england may be put in a state, in this regard more justifiable against the roman than formerly it was, being hereby enabled to say to papists (whensoever these names are objected,) we also use the names of priests and altars, and yet believe neither the corporal presence, nor any proper and propitiatory sacrifice? 25. what if protestants be now put in mind, that, for exposition of scripture, they are bound by a canon to follow the ancient fathers: which whosoever doth with sincerity, it is utterly impossible, he should be a papist? and it is most falsely said by you, that you know, that to some protestants i clearly demonstrated, or ever so much as undertook, or went about to demonstrate, the contrary. what if the centurists be censured somewhat roundly by a protestant divine for a●●ming, that the keeping of the lord's day was a thing indifferent for two hundred years? is there in all this or any part of it any kind of proof of this scandalous calumny? 26. as for the points of doctrine wherein you pretend that these divines begin of late to falter, and to comply with the church of rome; upon a due examination of particulars it will presently appear, first, that part of them always have been, and now are, held constantly one way by them; as, the authority of the church in determining controversies of faith, though not the infallibility of it: that there is inherent justice, though so imperfect that it cannot justify: that there are traditions, though none necessary: that charity is to be preferred before knowledge: that good works are not properly meritorious. and lastly, that faith alone justifies, though that faith justifies not which is alone. and secondly, for the remainder, that they, every one of them, have been anciently without breach of charity disputed among protestants: such for example were the questions about the pope's being the antichrist, the lawfulness of some kind of prayers for the dead; the estate of the father's souls, before christ's ascension; freewill, predestination, universal grace: the possibility of keeping god's commandments; the use of pictures in the church: wherein that there hath been anciently diversity of opinion amongst protestants, it is justified to my hand by a witness, with you, beyond exception, even your great friend m. breerly, whose care, exactness, and fidelity (you say in your preface) is so extraordinary great. consult him therefore: tract. 3. sect. 7. of his apology: and in the 9, 10, 11, 14, 24, 26, 27, 37. subdivisions of that section; you shall see as in a mirror, yourself proved an egregious calumniator, for charging protestants with innovation and inclining to popery, under pretence forsooth, that their doctrine gins of late to be altered in these points. whereas, m. breerly will inform you, they have been anciently, and even from the beginning of the reformation, controverted amongst them, though perhaps the stream and current of their doctors run one way, and only some brook or rivulet of them the other. 27. and thus my friends, i suppose, are clearly vindicated from your scandals and calumnies: it remains now that in the last place i bring myself fairly off from your foul aspersions, that so my person may not be (as indeed howsoever it should not be) any disadvantage or disparagement to the cause, nor any scandal to weak christians. 28. your injuries then to me (no way deserved by me, but by differing in opinion from you, (wherein yet you surely differ from me as much as i from you,) are especially three. for first, upon hearsay, and refusing to give me opportunity of begetting in you a better understanding of me, you charge me with a great number of false and impious doctrines, which i will not name in particular, because i will not assist you so far in the spreading of my own undeserved defamation: but whosoever teaches or holds them, let him be anathema! the sum of them all cast up by yourself, in your first chapter, is this, nothing ought or can be certainly believed, farther than it may be proved by evidence of natural reason, (where i conceive, natural reason is opposed to supernatural revelation;) and whosoever holds so, let him be anathema! and moreover to clear myself once for all, from all imputations of this nature, which charge me injuriously with denial of supernatural verities, i profess sincerely, that i believe all those books of scripture, which the church of england accounts canonical, to be the infallible word of god: i believe all things evidently contained in them; all things evidently, or even probably deducible from them: i acknowledge all that to be heresy, which by the act of parliament primo of q. eliz. is declared to be so, and only to be so: and though in such points which may be held diversely of divers men saluâ fidei compage, i would not take any man's liberty from him, and humbly beseech all men, that they would not take mine from me: yet thus much i can say (which i hope, will satisfy any man of reason,) that whatsoever hath been held necessary to salvation, either by the catholic church of all ages, or by the consent of fathers, measured by vincentius lyrinensis his rule, or is held necessary, either by the catholic church of this age, or by the consent of protestants, or even by the church of england, that, against the socinians, and all others whatsoever, i do verily believe and embrace. 29. another great and manifest injury you have done me, in charging me to have forsaken your religion, because it conduced not to my temporal ends, and suited not with my desires and designs: which certainly is an horrible crime, and whereof if you could convince me, by just and strong presumptions, i should then acknowledge myself to deserve that opinion, which you would fain induce your credents unto, that i changed not your religion for any other, but for none at all. but of this great fault my conscience acquits me, and god, who only knows the hearts of all men, knows that i am innocent! neither doubt i but all they who know me, and amongst them many persons of place and quality, will say, they have reason in this matter to be my compurgators. and for you, though you are very affirmative in your accusation, yet you neither do, nor can produce any proof or presumption for it, but forgetting yourself (as it is god's will oft times that slanderers should do), have let fall some passages, which being well weighed, will make considering men apt to believe, that you did not believe yourself. for how is it possible you should believe that i deserted your religion for ends, and against the light of my conscience, out of a desire of preferment; and yet, out of scruple of conscience, should refuse (which also you impute to me,) to subscribe the 39 articles, that is, refuse to enter at the only common door, which herein england leads to preferment? again, how incredible is it that you should believe, that i forsook the profession of your religion, as not suiting with my desires and designs, which yet reconciles the enjoying of the pleasures and profits of sin here, with the hope of happiness hereafter, and proposes as great hope of great temporal advancements to the capable servants of it, as any, nay more than any, religion in the world; and instead of this should choose socinianism, a doctrine, which howsoever erroneous in explicating the mysteries of religion, and allowing greater liberty of opinion in speculative matters, than any other company of christians doth or they should do; yet certainly which you, i am sure, will pretend and maintain to explicate the laws of christ with more rigour, and less indulgence and condescendence to the desires of flesh and blood than your doctrine doth! and besides, such a doctrine by which no man in his right mind, can hope for any honour or preferment, either in this church or state, or any other! all which clearly demonstrates that this foul and false aspersion, which you have cast upon me, proceeds from no other fountain, but a heart abounding with the gall and bitterness of uncharitableness, and even blinded with malice towards me; or else from a perverse zeal to your superstition, which secretly suggests this persuasion to you, that for the catholic cause nothing is unlawful, but that you may make use of such indirect and crooked arts, as these, to blast my reputation, and to possess men's minds with disaffection to my person, lest otherwise peradventure they might with some indifference hear reason from me. god, i hope, which bringeth light out of darkness, will turn your counsels to foolishness, and give all good men grace to perceive how weak and ruinous that religion must be, which needs supportance from such tricks and devices! so i call them, because they deserve no better name. for what are all these personal matters, which hitherto you have spoke of, to the business in hand? if it could be proved that cardinal bellarmine was indeed a jew, or that cardinal perron was an atheist, yet i presume you would not accept of this for an answer to all their writings in defence of your religion. let then my actions, and intentions, and opinions be what they will, yet i hope, truth is nevertheless truth, nor reason ever the less reason, because i speak it. and therefore the christian reader, knowing that his salvation or damnation depends upon his impartial and sincere judgement of these things, will guard himself, i hope, from these impostures, and regard not the person, but the cause and the reasons of it; not who speaks, but what is spoken: which is all the favour i desire of him, as knowing that i am desirous not to persuade him, unless it be truth whereunto i persuade him. 30. the third and last part of my accusation was, that i answer out of principles which protestant's themselves will profess to detest: which indeed were to the purpose, if it could be justified. but, besides that it is confuted by my whole book, and made ridiculous by the approbations premised unto it, it is very easy for me out of your own mouth and words to prove it a most injurious calumny. for what one conclusion is there in the whole fabric of my discourse, that is not naturally deducible out of this one principle, that all things necessary to salvation are evidently contained in scripture? or, what one conclusion almost of importance is there in your book, which is not by this one clearly confutable? 31. grant this, and it will presently follow in opposition to your first conclusion, and the argument of your first chap. that amongst men of different opinions, touching the obscure and controverted questions of religion, such as may with probability be disputed on both sides (and such are the disputes of protestants;) good men and ●●●ers of truth of all sides may be saved; because all necessary things being supposed evident concerning them, with men so qualified, there will be no difference: there being no more certain sign that a point is not evident, than that honest and understanding and indifferent men, and such as give themselves liberty of judgement after a mature consideration of the matter, differ about it. 32. grant this, and it will appear secondly, that the means whereby the revealed truths of god are conveyed to our understanding, and which are to determine all controversies in faith, necessary to be determined, may be, for any thing you have said to the contrary, not a church, but the scripture; which contradicts the doctrine of your second chapter. 33. grant this, and the distinction of points fundamental and not fundamental, will appear very good and pertinent. for those truths will be fundamental, which are evidently delivered in scripture, and commanded to be preached to all men; those not fundamental, which are obscure. and nothing will hinder but that the catholic church may err in the latter kind of the said points: because truths not necessary to the salvation, cannot be necessary to the being of a church; and because it is not absolutely necessary that god should assist his church any farther than to bring her to salvation; neither will there be any necessity at all of any infallible guide, either to consign unwritten traditions, or to declare the obscurities of the faith. not for the former end, because this principle being granted true, nothing unwritten can be necessary to be consigned. nor for the latter, because nothing that is obscure can be necessary to be understood, or not mistaken. and so the discourse of your whole third chap. will presently vanish. 34. fourthly, for the creed's containing the fundamentals of simple belief, though i see not how it may be deduced from this principle, yet the granting of this, plainly renders the whole dispute touching the creed unnecessary. for if all necessary things of all sorts, whether of simple belief or practice, be confessed to be clearly contained in scripture, what imports it whether those of one sort be contained in the creed? 35. fifthly, let this be granted, and the immediate corollary in opposition to your fifth chap. will be and must be, that not protestants for rejecting, but the church of rome for imposing upon the faith of christians, doctrines unwritten and unnecessary, and for disturbing the church's peace, and dividing unity for such matters, is in a high degree presumptuous and schismatical. 36. grant this sixthly, and it will follow unavoidably that protestants cannot possibly be heretics, seeing they believe all things evidently contained in scripture, which are supposed to be all that is necessary to be believed: and so your sixth chapter is clearly confuted. 37. grant this lastly, and it will be undoubtedly consequent, in contradiction of your seventh chapter, that no man can show more charity to himself than by continuing a protestant; seeing protestants are supposed to believe, and therefore may accordingly practise, at least by their religion are not hindered from practising and performing all things necessary to salvation. 38. so that the position of this one principle, is the direct overthrow of your whole book, and therefore i, needed not, nor indeed have i made use of any other. now this principle, which is not only the cornerstone or chief pillar, but even the basis, and adequate foundation of my answer; and which while it stands firm and unmoveable, cannot but be the supporter of my book, and the certain ruin of yours, is so far from being, according to your pretence, detested by all protestants, that all protestants whatsoever, as you may see in their harmony of confessions, unanimously profess and maintain it. and you yourself, chap. 6. §. 30. plainly confess as much, in saying, the whole edifice of the faith of protestants is settled on these two principles: these particular books are canonical scripture: and the sense and meaning of them is plain and evident, at least, in all points necessary to salvation. 39 and thus your venom against me is in a manner spent, saving only that there remain two little impertinencies, whereby you would disable me from being a fit advocate for the cause of protestants. the first, because i refuse to subscribe the articles of the church of england: the second, because i have set down in writing, motives which sometime induced me to forsake protestantism, and hitherto have not answered them. 40. by the former of which objections it should seem, that either you conceive the 39 articles the common doctrine of all protestants; and if they be, why have you so often upbraided them with their many and great differences? or else, that it is the peculiar defence of the church of england, and not the common cause of all protestants, which is here undertaken by me: which are certainly very gross mistakes. and yet why he who makes scruple of subscribing the truth of one or two propositions, may not yet be fit enough to maintain that those who do subscribe them are in a savable condition, i do not understand. now though i hold not the doctrine of all protestants absolutely true, (which with reason cannot be required of me while they hold contradictions,) yet i hold it free from all impiety, and from all error destructive of salvation, or in itself damnable: and this i think in reason may sufficiently qualify me, for a maintainer of this assertion, that protestancy destroys not salvation. for the church of england, i am persuaded, that the constant doctrine of it is so pure and orthodox, that whosoever believes it, and lives according to it, undoubtedly he shall be saved; and that there is no error in it which may necessitate or warrant any man to disturb the peace, or renounce the communion of it. this in my opinion is all intended by subscription; and thus much if you conceive me not ready to subscribe, your charity i assure you is much mistaken. 41. your other objection against me, is yet more impertinent and frivolous than the former: unless perhaps it be a just exception against a physician, that himself was sometimes in, and recovered himself from, that disease which he undertakes to cure; or against a guide in a way, that at first, before he had experience himself, mistook it, and afterwards found his error and amended it. that noble writer michael de montaigne, was surely of a far different mind; for he will hardly allow any physician competent, but only for such diseases as himself had passed through: and a far greater than montaigne, even he that said, tu conversus confirma fratres, gives us sufficiently to understand that they which have themselves been in such a state as to need conversion, are not thereby made incapable of, but rather engaged and obliged unto, and qualified for, this charitable function. 42. neither am i guilty of that strange and preposterous zeal (as you esteem it) which you impute to me; for having been so long careless in removing this scandal against protestants, and answering my own motives, and yet now showing such fervour in writing against others. for neither are they other motives, but the very same for the most part with those which abused me, against which this book which i now publish, is in a manner wholly employed: and besides, though you jesuits take upon you to have such large and universal intelligence of all state-affairs and matters of importance; yet i hope such a contemptible matter, as an answer of mine to a little piece of paper, may very probably have been written and escaped your observation. the truth is, i made an answer to them three years since and better, which perhaps might have been published, but for two reasons: one, because the motives were never public, until you made them so: the other, because i was loath to proclaim to all the world so much weakness as i shown, in suffering myself to be abused by such silly sophisms; all which proceed upon mistakes and false suppositions, which unadvisedly i took for granted; as when i have set down the motives in order, by subsequent answers to them, i shall quickly demonstrate, and so make an end. 43. the motives than were these. 1. because perpetual visible profession, which could never be wanting to the religion of christ, nor any part of it, is apparently wanting to protestant religion, so far as concerns the points in contestation. 2. because luther and his followers, separating from the church of rome, separated also from all churches, pure or impure, true or false then being in the world; upon which ground i conclude, that either god's promises did fail of performance, if there were then no church in the world, which held all things necessary, and nothing repugnant to salvation; or else that luther and his sectaries, separating from all churches then in the world, and so from the true, if there were any true, were damnable schismatics. 3. because, if any credit may be given to as creditable records as any are extant, the doctrine of catholics hath been frequently confirmed; and the opposite doctrine of protestants confounded, with supernatural and divine miracles. 4. because many points of protestant doctrine, are the damned opinions of heretics, condemned by the primitive church. 5. because the prophecies of the old testament, touching the conversion of kings and nations to the true religion of christ, have been accomplished in and by the catholic roman religion, and the professors of it; and not by protestant religion, and the professors of it. 6. because the doctrine of the church of rome is conformable, and the doctrine of protestants contrary to the doctrine of the fathers of the primitive church, even by the confession of protestants themselves; i mean, those fathers, who lived within the compass of the first 600. years; to whom protestants themselves do very frequently and very confidently appeal. 7. because the first pretended reformers had neither extraordinary commission from god, nor ordinary mission from the church, to preach protestant doctrine. 8. because luther, to preach against the mass (which contains the most material points now in controversy) was persuaded by reasons suggested to him by the devil himself, disputing with him. so himself professeth in his bock de missa privata: that all men might take heed of following him, who professeth himself to follow the devil. 9 because the protestant cause is now, and hath been from the beginning, maintained with gross falsifications, and calumnies; whereof their prime controv●rsie-writers, are notoriously and in high degree guilty. 10. because by denying all humane authority, either of pope, or counsels, or church, to determine controversies of faith, they have abolished all possible means of suppressing heresy, or restoring unity to the church. these are the motives; now my answers to them follow briefly and in order. 44. to the first: god hath neither decreed nor foretold, that his true doctrine should the facto be always visibly professed, without any mixture of falsehood. to the second: god hath neither decreed not foretold, that there shall be always a visible company of men free from all error in itself damnable. neither is it always of necessity schismatical to separate from the external communion of a church, though wanting nothing necessary. for if this church supposed to want nothing necessary, require me to profess against my conscience, that i believe some error, though never so small and innocent, which i do not believe, and will not allow me her communion but upon this condition; in this case the church for requiring this condition is schismatical, and not i for separating from the church. to the third: if any credit may be given to records far more creditable than these, the doctrine of protestants, that is, the bible, hath been confirmed, and the doctrine of papists, which is in many points plainly opposite to it, confounded with supernatural and divine miracles, which for number and glory outshine popish pretended miracles, as much as the sun doth an ignis fatuus; those i mean which were wrought by our saviour christ and his apostles: now this book, by the confession of all sides confirmed by innumerous miracles, foretells me plainly, that in after-ages great signs and wonders shall be wrought in confirmation of false doctrine, and that i am not to believe any doctrine which seems to my understanding repugnant to the first, though an angel from heaven should teach it; which were certainly as great a miracle as any that was ever wrought in attestation of any part of the doctrine of the church of rome. but that true doctrine should in all ages have the testimony of miracles, that i am not where taught; so that i have more reason to suspect, and be afraid of pretended miracles, as signs of false doctrine, than much to regard them as certain arguments of the truth. besides, setting aside the bible, and the tradition of it, there is as good story for miracles wrought by those who lived and died in opposition to the doctrine of the roman church, (as by s. cyprian, colmannus, columbanus, aidanus, and others,) as there is for those that are pretended to be wrought by the members of that church. lastly, it seems to me no strange thing that god in his justice should permit some true miracles to be wrought to delude them, who have forged so many as apparently the professors of the roman doctrine have, to abuse the world. to the fourth: all those were not a see this acknowledged by bellar. de script. eccles. in philastrio. by petavius animad. in epiph. de inscrip. operis. by s. austin lib. de haer. haer. 80. heretics which by philastrius, epiphanius, or s. austin were put in the catalogue of heretics. to the fifth: kings and nations have been and may be converted by men of contrary religions. to the sixth: the doctrine of papists, is confessed by papists contrary to the fathers in many points. to the seventh: the pastors of a church cannot but have authority from it, to preach against the abuses of it, whether in doctrine or practice, if there be any in it: neither can any christian want an ordinary commission from god to do a necessary work of charity after a peaceable manner, when there is no body else that can or will do it. in extraordinary cases, extraordinary courses are not to be disallowed. if some christian layman should come into a country of infidels, and had ability to persuade them to christianity, who would say, he might not use it for want of commission! to the eighth: luther's conference with the devil might be, for aught i know, nothing but a melancholy dream. if it were real, the devil might persuade luther from the mass, hoping by doing so to keep him constant to it: or that others would make his dissuasion from it an argument for it, (as we see papists do) and be afraid of following luther, as confessing himself to have been persuaded by the devil. to the ninth: iliacoes intra muros peccatur & extra. papists are more guilty of this fault than protestants. even this very author in this very pamphlet hath not so many leaves as falsifications and calumnies. to the tenth: let all men believe the scripture and that only, and endeavour to believe it in the true sense, and require no more of others, and they shall find this not only a better, but the only means to suppress heresy, and restore unity. for he that believes the scripture sincerely, and endeavours to believe it in the true sense, cannot possibly be an heretic. and if no more than this were required of any man, to make him capable of the church's communion, than all men so qualified, though they were different in opinion, yet notwithstanding any such difference, must be of necessity one in communion. the author of charity maintained, his preface to the reader. give me leave (good reader) to inform thee, by way of preface, of three points. the first concerns d. potter's answer, to charity mistaken. the second relates to this reply of mine. and the third contains some premonitions, or prescriptions, in case d. potter, or any in his behalf, think fit to rejoin. 2. for the first point, concerning d. potter's answer, i say, in general, reserving particulars to their proper places, that in his whole book he hath not so much as once truly and really fallen upon the point in question, which was, whether both catholics and protestants can be saved in their several professions? and therefore charity mistaken judiciously pressing those particulars, wherein the difficulty doth precisely consist, proves in general, that there is but one true church; that all christians are obliged to hearken to her; that she must be ever visible, and infallible; that to separate one's self from her communion is schism; and to descent from her doctrine is heresy, though it be in points never so few, or never so small in their own nature; and therefore that the distinction of points fundamental, and not fundamental, is wholly vain, as it is applied by protestants. these (i say) and some other general grounds, charity mistaken handles, and out of them doth clearly evince, that any least difference in faith cannot stand with salvation on both sides: and therefore since it is apparent, that catholics and protestants disagree in very many points of faith, they both cannot hope to be saved without repentance: and consequently, as we hold, that protestancy unrepented destroys salvation; so must they also believe that we cannot be saved, if they judge their own religion to be true, and ours to be false. and whosoever disguizeth this truth, is an enemy to souls, which he deceives with ungrounded false hopes of salvation, in different faiths, and religions. and this charity mistaken performed exactly, according to that which appears to have been his design, which was not to descend to particular disputes, and d. potter affectedly does, namely, whether or no the roman-church be the only true church of christ; and much less, whether general counsels be infallible; whether the pope may err in his decrees common to the whole church; whether he be above a general council; whether all points of faith be contained in scripture; whether faith be resolved into the authority of the church, as into his last formal object, and motive; and, least of all, did he discourse of images, communion under both kinds, public service in an unknown tongue, seven sacraments, sacrifice of the mass, indulgences, and index expurgatorius: all which, and divers other articles, d. potter (as i said) draws by violence into his book: and he might have brought in pope joan, or antichrist, or the jews who are permitted to live in rome, which are common themes for men that want better matter, as d. potter was fain to fetch in the aforesaid controversies, that so he might dazzle the eyes, and distract the mind of the reader, and hinder him from perceiving, that in his whole answer he uttereth nothing to the purpose and point in question: which, if he had followed closely, i dare well say, he might have dispatched his whole book, in two or three sheets of paper. but the truth is, he was loath to affirm plainly, that generally both catholics and protestants may be saved: and yet seeing it to be most evident that protestants cannot pretend to have any true church before luther, except the roman, and such as agreed with her, and consequently, that they cannot hope for salvation; if they deny it to us: he thought best to avoid this difficulty by confusion of language, and to fill up his book with points which make nothing to the purpose. wherein he is less excusable, because he must grant, that those very particulars to which he digresseth, are not fundamental errors, though it should be granted that they be errors, which indeed are catholic verities. for since they b● not fundamental, not destructive of salvation, what imports it, whether we hold them or no, for as much as concerns our possibility to be saved? 3. in one thing only he will perhaps seem to have touched the point in question, to wit, in his distinction of points fundamental, and not fundamental: because some may think, that a difference in points which are not fundamental, breaks not the unity of faith, and hinders not the hope of salvation in persons so disagreeing. and yet, in this very distinction, he never speaks to the purpose indeed, but only says, that there are some points so fundamental, as that all are obliged to know and believe them explicitly; but never tells us, whether there be any other points of faith, which a man may deny or disbelieve, though they be sufficiently presented to his understanding, as truths revealed, or testified by almighty god; which was the only thing in question. for if it be damnable, as certainly it is, to deny or disbelieve any one truth witnessed by almighty god, though the thing be not in itself of any great consequence, or moment; and since of two disagreeing in matters of faith, one must necessarily deny some such truth; it clearly follows that amongst men of different faiths, or religions, one only can be saved, though their difference consist of divers, or but even one point, which is not in his own nature fundamental, as i declare at large in divers places of my first part. so that it is clear, d. potter even in this his last refuge and distinction, never comes to the point in question; to say nothing that he himself doth quite overthrow it, and plainly contradict his whole design, as i show in the third chapter of my first part. 4. and as for d. potter's manner of handling those very points, which are utterly beside the purpose; it consists only in bringing vulgar mean objections, which have been answered a thousand times, yea, and some of them are clearly answered even in charity mistaken; but he takes no knowledge at all of any such answers, and much less doth he apply himself to confute them. he allegeth also authors with so great corruption and fraud, as i would not have believed, if i had not found it by clear and frequent experience. in his second edition, he hath indeed left out one or two gross corruptions, amongst many others no less notorious, having, as it seems, been warned by some friends, that they could not stand with his credit: but even in this his second edition he retracts them not at all, nor declares that he was mistaken in the first, and so his reader of the first edition shall ever be deceived by him, though withal he read the second. for preventing of which inconvenience, i have thought it necessary to take notice of them, and to discover them in my reply. 5. and for conclusion of this point i will only say, that d. potter might well have spared his pains if he had ingenuously acknowledged, where the whole substance, yea and sometime the very words and phrases of his book may be found in far briefer manner, namely, in a sermon of d. usher's preached before our late sovereign lord king james, the 20. of june 1624. at wansted, containing a declaration of the universality of the church of christ, and the unity of faith professed therein; which sermon having been roundly and wittily confuted by a catholic divine, under the name of paulus veridicus, within the compass of about four sheets of paper, d. potter's answer to charity mistaken was in effect confuted before it appeared. and this may suffice for a general censure of his answer to charity mistaken. concerning my reply. 6. for the second, touching my reply: if you wonder at the bulk thereof, compared either with charity mistaken, or d. potter's answer, i desire you to consider well of what now i am about to say, and then i hope you will see, that i was cast upon a mere necessity of not being so short, as otherwise might peradventure be desired. charity mistaken is short, i grant, and yet very full, and large, for as much as concerned his design, which you see was not to treat of particular controversies in religion, no not so much as to debate whether or no the roman church be the only true church of christ, which indeed would have required a larger volume, as i have understood there was one then coming forth, if it had not been prevented by the treatise of charity mistaken, which seemed to make the other intended work a little less seasonable at that time. but charity mistaken proves only in general out of some universal principles, well backed and made good by choice and solid authorities, that of two disagreeing in points of faith, one only without repentance can be saved; which aim exacted no great bulk. and as for d. potter's answer, even that also is not so short, as it may seem. for if his marginal notes printed in a small letter were transferred into the text, the book would appear to be of some bulk: though indeed it might have been very short, if he had kept himself to the point treated by charity mistaken, as shall be declared anon. but contrarily, because the question debated betwixt charity mistaken and d. potter, is a point of the highest consequence that can be imagined, and in regard that there is not a more pernicious heresy, or rather indeed ground of atheism, than a persuasion that men of different religions may be saved, if otherwise, forsooth, they lead a kind of civil and moral life: i conceive, that my chief endeavour was not to be employed in answering d. potter, but that it was necessary to handle the question itself somewhat at large, and not only to prove in general, that both protestants and catholics cannot be saved; but to show also, that salvation cannot be hoped for out of the catholic roman church; and yet withal, not to omit to answer all the particulars of d. potter's book which may any way import. to this end i thought it fit to divide my reply into two parts; in the former whereof, the main question is handled by a continued discourse without stepping aside to confute the particulars of d. potter's answer, though yet so, as even that in this first part, i omit not to answer such passages of his, as i find directly in my way, and naturally belong to the points whereof i treat: and in the second part i answer d. potter's treatise, section by section, as they lie in order. i here therefore entreat the reader, that if hearty he desire satisfaction in this so important question, he do not content himself with that which i say to d. potter in my second part, but that he take the first before him, either all, ot at least so much as may serve most to his purpose of being satisfied in those doubts which press him most. for which purpose, i have caused a table of the chapters of the first part, together with their titles and arguments, to be prefixed before my reply. 7. this was then a chief reason why i could not be very short. but yet there wanted not also divers other causes of the same effect. for there are so several kinds of protestants through the difference of tenets which they hold, as that if a man convince but one kind of them, the rest will conceive themselves to be as truly unsatisfied, and even unspoken to, as if nothing had been said therein at all. as for example: some hold a necessity of a perpetual visible church, and some hold no such necessity. some of them hold it necessary to be able to prove it distinct from ours; and others, that their business is dispatched when they have proved ours to have been always visible: for than they will conceive that theirs hath been so: and the like may be truly said of very many other particulars. besides it is d. potter's fashion, (wherein as he is very far from being the first, so i pray god he prove the last of that humour) to touch in a word many trivial old objections, which, if they be not all answered, it will and must serve the turn, to make the ignorant sort of men believe and brag, as if some main unanswerable matter had been subtly and purposely omitted; and every body knows that some objection may be very plausibly made in few words, the clear and solid answer whereof will require more leaves of paper than one. and in particular d. potter doth couch his corruption of authors within the compass of so few lines, and with so great confusedness and fraud, that it requires much time, pains, and paper to open them so distinctly, as that they may appear to every man's eye. it was also necessary to show what d. potter omits in charity mistaken, and the importance of what is omitted, and sometimes to set down the very words themselves that are omitted, all words themselves that are omitted, all which could not but add to the quantity of my reply. and as for the quality thereof, i desire thee (good reader) to believe, that whereas nothing is more necessary than books for answering of books: yet i was so ill furnished in this kind, that i was forced to omit the examination of divers authors cited by d. potter, meetly upon necessity; though i did very well perceive by most apparent circumstances, that i must probably have been sure enough so find them plainly misalledged, and much wronged: and for the few which are examined, there hath not wanted some difficulties to do it. for the times are not for all men alike; and d. potter hath much advantage therein. but truth is truth, and will ever be able to justify itself in the midst of all difficulties which may occur. and as for me, when i allege protestant writers as well domestical as foreign, i willingly and thankfully acknowledge myself obliged for divers of them to the author of the book entitled, the protestant's apology for the roman church, who calls himself john breerly, whose care, exactness, and fidelity is so extraordinary great, as that he doth not only cite the books, but the editions also, with the place and time of their printing, yea and often the very page, and line, where the words are to be had. and if you happen not to find what he citys, yet suspend your judgement, till you have read the corrections placed at the end of his book; though it be also true, that after all diligence and faithfulness on his behalf, it was not in his power to amend all the faults of the print: in which prints we have difficulty enough for many evident reasons, which must needs occur to any prudent man. 8. and forasmuch as concerns the manner of my reply, i have procured to do it without all bitterness or gall of invective words, both for as much as may import either protestants in general, or d. potter's person in particular; unless, for example, he will call it bitterness for me to term a gross impertinency, a sleight, or a corruption, by those very names, without which i do not know how to express the things; and yet therein i can truly affirm that i have studied how to deliver them in the most moderate way, to the end i might give as little offence as possibly i could, without betraying the cause. and if any unfit phrase may peradventure have escaped my pen (as i hope none hath) it was beside, and against my intention, though i must needs profess, that d. potter gives so many and so just occasions of being round with him, as that perhaps some will judge me to have been rather remiss, than moderate. but since in the very title of my reply i profess to maintain charity, i conceive that the excess will be more excusable amongst all kinds of men, if it fall to be in mildness, than if it had appeared in too much zeal. and if d. potter have a mind to charge me with ignorance or any thing of that nature, i can, and will ease him of that labour, by acknowledging in myself as many and more personal defects than he can heap upon me. truth only, and sincerity, i so much value and profess, as that he shall never be able to prove the contrary in any one lest passage or particle against me. rules to be observed, if d. potter intent a rejoinder. 9 in the third and last place, i have thought fit to express myself thus. if d. potter, or any other resolve to answer my reply; i desire that he will observe some things which may tend to his own reputation, the saving of my unnecessary pains, and especially to the greater advantage of truth. i wish then that he would be careful to consider, wherein the point of every difficulty consists, and not impertinently to shoot at rovers, and affectedly mistake one thing for another. as for example, to what purpose (for as much as conecrns the question between d. potter and charity mistaken,) doth he so often and seriously labour to prove, that faith is not resolved into the authority of the church, as into the formal object and motive thereof? or that all points of faith are contained in scripture? or that the church cannot make new articles of faith? or that the church of rome, as it signifies that particular church or diocese, is not all one with the universal church? or that the pope as a private doctor may err? with many other such points as will easily appear in their proper places. it will also be necessary for him not to put certain doctrines upon us, from which he knows we disclaim as much as himself. 10. i must in like manner entreat him not to recite my reasons and discourses by halfs, but to set them down faithfully and entirely, for as much as in very deed concerns the whole substance of the thing in question: because the want sometime of one word, may chance to make void, or lessen the force of the whole argument. and i am the more solicitous about giving this particular caveat, because i find how ill he hath complied with the promise which he made in his preface to the reader, not to omit without answer any one thing of moment in all the discourse of charity mistaken. neither will this course be a cause that his rejoinder grow too large, but it will be occasion of brevity to him, and free me also from the pains of setting down all the words which he omits, and himself of demonstrating, that what he omitted was not material. nay, i will assure him, that if he keep himself to the point of every diffficulty, and not weary the reader, and overcharge his margin with unnecessary quotations of authors in greek and latin, and sometime also in italian and french, together with proverbs, sentences of poets, and such grammatical stuff, nor affect to cite a multitude of our catholic school-divines to no purpose at all; his book will not exceed a competent size, nor will any man in reason be offended with that length which is regulated by necessity. again, before he come to set down his answer, or propose his arguments, let him consider very well what may be replied, and whether his own objections may not be retorted against himself, as the reader will perceive to have happened often to his disadvantage in my reply against him. but especially i expect, and truth itself exacts at his hand, that he speak clearly and distinctly, and not seek to walk in darkness, so to delude and deceive his reader, now saying, and then denying, and always speaking with such ambiguity, as that his greatest care may seem to consist in a certain art to find a shift, as his occasions might chance, either now, or hereafter to require, and as he might fall out to be urged by diversity of several arguments. and to the end it may appear that i deal plainly, as i would have him also do, i desire that he declare himself concerning these points. 11. first, whether our saviour christ have not always had, and be not ever to have, a visible true church on earth: and whether the contrary doctrine be not a damnable heresy. 12. secondly, what visible church there was before luther, disagreeing from the roman church, and agreeing with the pretended church of protestants. 13. thirdly, since he will be forced to grant, that there can be assigned no visible true church of christ, distinct from the church of rome, and such churches as agreed with her, when luther first appeared; whether it doth not follow, that she hath not erred fundamentally; because every such error destroys the nature and being of the church, and so our saviour christ should have had no visible church on earth. 14. fourthly, if the roman church did not fall into any fundamental error, let him tell us how it can be damnable to live in her communion, or▪ to maintain errors, which are known and confessed, not to be fundamental, or damnable. 15. fiftly, if her errors were not damnable, nor did exclude salvation, how can they be excused from schism, who forsook her communion upon pretence of errors, which were not damnable. 16. sixthly, if d. potter have a mind to say, that her errors are damnable, or fundamental, let him do us so much charity, as to tell us, in particular, what those fundamental errors be. but he must still remember (and myself must be excused, for repeating it) that if he say, the roman church erred fundamentally, he will not be able to show, that christ our lord had any visible church on earth, when luther appeared: and let him tell us, how protestants had, or can have, any church which was universal, and extended herself to all ages, if once he grant that the roman church ceased to be the true church of christ; and consequently, how they can hope for salvation, if they deny it to us. 17. seventhly, whether any one error maintained against any one truth, though never so small in itself, yet sufficiently propounded as testified or revealed by almighty god, do not destroy the nature and unity of faith, or at least is not a grievous offence excluding salvation. 18. eighthly, if this be so, how can lutherans, calvinists, swinglians, and all the rest of disagreeing protestants, hope for salvation, since it is manifest, that some of them must needs err against some such truth as is testified by almighty god, either fundamental, or at least not fundamental. 19 ninthly, we constantly urge, and require to have a particular catalogue of such points as he calls fundamental: a catalogue, i say, in particular, and not only some general definition, or description, wherein protestants may perhaps agree, though we see that they differ when they come to assign what points in particular be fundamental; and yet upon such a particular catalogue much depends: as for example, in particular, whether or no a man do not err in some point fundamental or necessary to salvation; and whether or no lutherans, calvinists, and the rest, do disagree in fundamentals; which if they do, the same heaven cannot receive them all. 20. tenthly and lastly, i desire that in answering to these points, he would let us know distinctly, what is the doctrine of the protestant english church concerning them, and what he utters only as his own private opinion. 21. these are the questions, which, for the present, i find it fit and necessary for me to ask of d. potter, or any other who will defend his cause, or impugn ours. and it will be in vain to speak vainly, and to tell me, that a fool may ask more questions in an hour, than a wise man can answer in a year; with such idle proverbs as that. for i ask but such questions as for which he gives occasion in his book, and where he declares not himself, but after so ambiguous and confused a manner, as that truth itself can scarce tell how to convince him so, but that with ignorant and ill judging men, he will seem to have somewhat left to say for himself, though papists (as he calls them) and puritan should press him contrary ways at the same time: and these questions concern things also of high importance, as whereupon the knowledge of god's church, and true religion, and consequently, salvation of the soul, depends. and now because he shall not tax me with being like those men in the gospel, whom our blessed lord and saviour charged with laying heavy burdens upon other men's shoulders, who yet would not touch them with their finger: i oblige myself to answer upon any demand of his, both to all these questions, if he find that i have not done it already, and to any other, concerning matter of faith that he shall ask. and i will tell him very plainly, what is catholic doctrine, and what is not, that is, what is defined, or what is not defined, and rests but in discussion among divines. 22. and it will be here expected, that he perform these things, as a man who professeth learning should do, not flying from questions which concern things as they are considered in their own nature, to accidental or rare circumstances, of ignorance, incapacity, want of means to be instructed, erroneous conscience, and the like; which being very various and different, cannot be well comprehended under any general rule. but in delivering general doctrines, we must consider things, as they be ex natura rei, or per se loquendo (as divines speak) that is, according to their natures, if all circumstances concur proportionable thereunto. as for example, some may for a time have invincible ignorance, even of some fundamental article of faith, through want of capacity, instruction, or the like, and so not offend either in such ignorance or error, and yet we must absolutely say, that error in any one fundamental point is damnable; because so it is, if we consider things in themselves, abstracting from accidental circumstances in particular persons: as contrarily, if some man judge some act of virtue, or some indifferent action to be a sin, in him it is a sin indeed, by reason of his erroneous conscience; and yet we ought not to say absolutely, that virtuous or indifferent actions are sins: and in all sciences we must distinguish the general rules from their particular exceptions. and therefore when, for example, he answers to our demand, whether he hold that catholics may be saved, or, whether their pretended errors be fundamental and damnable, he is not to change the state of the question, and have recourse to ignorance, and the like; but to answer concerning the errors being considered what they are apt to be in themselves, and as they are neither increased nor diminished, by accidental circumstances. 23. and the like i say of all the other points, to which i once again desire an answer without any of these or the like ambiguous terms, in some sort, in some sense, in some degree, which may be explicated afterward, as strictly or largely as may best serve his turn; but let him tell us roundly and particularly, in what sort, in what sense, in what degree he understands those, and the like obscure mincing phrases. if he proceed solidly after this manner, and not by way of mere words, more like a preacher to a vulgar auditor, than like a learned man with a pen in his hand, thy patience shall be the less abused, and truth will also receive more right. and since we have already laid the grounds of the question, much may be said hereafter in few words, if (as i said) he keep close to the real point of every difficulty without wand'ring into impertinent disputes, or multiplying vulgar and threadbare objections and arguments, or labouring to prove what no man denies, or making a vain ostentation by citing a number of schoolmen, which every puny brought up in schools is able to do; and if he cite his authors with such sincerity, as no time need be spent in opening his corruptions; and finally, if he set himself a-work with this consideration, that we are to give a most strict account to a most just and impartial judge, of every period, line, and word that passeth under our pen. for if at the latter day we shall be arraigned for every idle word which is spoken, so much more will that be done for every idle word which is written, as the deliberation wherewith it passeth makes a man guilty of more malice, and as the importance of the matter which is treated of in books concerning true faith and religion, without which no soul can be saved, makes a man's errors more material, than they would be, if the question were but of toys. the answer to the preface. ad 1. & 2. §. if beginnings be ominous (as they say they are,) d. potter hath cause to look for great store of uningenuous dealing from you; the very first words you speak of him, viz. that he hath not so much as once truly and really fallen upon the point in question, being a most unjust and immodest imputation. 2. for first; the point in question, was not that which you pretend, whether both papists and protestants can be saved in their several professions? but, whether you may without uncharitableness affirm that protestancy unrepented destroys salvation? and that this is the very question, is most apparent and unquestionable, both from the title of charity mistaken, and from the arguments of the three first chapters of it, and from the title of your own reply. and therefore if d. potter had joined issue with his adversary only thus far; and, not meddling at all with papists, but leaving them to stand or fall to their own master, had proved protestants living and dying so, capable of salvation; i cannot see how it could justly be charged upon him, that he had not once truly and really fallen upon the point in question. neither may it be said that your question here and mine, are in effect the same, seeing it is very possible that the true answer to the one might have been affirmative, and to the other negative. for there is no incongruity, but it may be true that you and we cannot both be saved: and yet as true, that without uncharitableness you cannot pronounce us damned. for, all ungrounded and unwarrantable sentencing men to damnation, is either in a proriety of speech uncharitable, or else (which for my purpose is all one,) it is that which protestants mean, when they say, papists for damning them are uncharitable. and therefore though the author of c. m. had proved as strongly as he hath done weakly, that one heaven could not receive protestants and papists both; yet certainly, it was very hastily and unwarrantably, and therefore uncharitably concluded, that protestants were the part that was to be excluded. as, though jews and christians cannot both be saved, yet a jew cannot justly, and therefore not charitably, pronounce a christian damned. 3. but than secondly, to show your dealing with him very injurious; i say, he doth speak to this very question very largely, and very effectually; as by confronting his work and charity m. together, will presently appear. charity m. proves, you say, in general, that there is but one church. d. potter tells him, his labour is lost in proving the unity of the catholic church, whereof there is no doubt or controversy: and herein, i hope, you will grant he answers right and to the purpose. c. m. proves (you say) secondly, that all christians are obliged to hearken to the church. d. potter answers, it is true: yet not absolutely in all things, but only when she commands those things which god doth not countermand. and this also, i hope, is to his purpose, though not to yours. c.m. proves, you say, thirdly, that the church must be ever visible and infallible. for her visibility, d. potter denies it not; and as for her infallibility, he grants it in fundamentals, but not in superstructures. c.m. proves, you say, fourthly, that to separate one's self from the church's communion, is schism. d. potter grants it, with this exception, unless there be necessary cause to do so; unless the conditions of her communion be apparently unlawful. c.m. proves, you say, lastly, that to descent from her doctrine is heresy, though it be in points never so few, and never so small, and therefore that the distinction of points fundamental and unfundamental, as it is applied by protestants, is wholly vain. this d. p. denies; shows the reasons brought for it, weak and unconcluding; proves the contrary, by reasons unanswerable: and therefore that the distinction of points into fundamental and not-fundamental, as it is applied by protestants, is very good. upon these grounds you say, c.m. clearly evinces, that any least difference in faith cannot stand with salvation, and therefore seeing catholics and protestants disagree in very many points of faith, they both cannot hope to be saved without repentance, you must mean, without an explicit and particular repentance, and dereliction of their errors; for so c.m. hath declared himself p. 14. where he hath these words, we may safely say that a man who lives in protestancy, and who is so far from repenting it, as that he will not so much as acknowledge it to be a sin, though he be sufficiently informed thereof, etc. from whence it is evident, that in his judgement there can be no repentance of an error, without acknowledging it to be a sin. and to this d. potter justly opposes: that both siaes', by the confession of both sides, agree in more points than are simply and indispensably necessary to salvation, and differ only in such as are not precisely necessary: that it is very possible, a man may die in error, and yet die with repentance, as for all his sins of ignorance, so, in that number, for the errors in which he dies; with a repentance though not explicit and particular which is not simply required, yet implicit and general which is sufficient: so that he cannot but hope, considering the goodness of god, that the truth is retained on both sides: especially those, of the necessity of repentance from dead works and faith in jesus christ, if they be put in practice, may be an antidote against the errors held on either side; to such he means, and says, as being diligent in seeking truth, and desirous to find it, yet miss of it through humane frailty, and die in error. if you will but attentively consider and compare the undertaking of c. m. and d. potter's performance in all these points, i hope, you will be so ingenuous as to acknowledge, that you have injured him much, in imputing tergiversation to him, and pretending that through his whole book he hath not once truly and really fallen upon the point in question. neither may you or c. m. conclude him from hence (as covertly you do) an enemy to souls by deceiving them with ungrounded false hopes of salvation; seeing the hope of salvation cannot be ungrounded, which requires and supposes belief and practice of all things absolutely necessary unto salvation, and repentance of those sins and errors which we fall into by humane frailty: nor a friend to indifferency in religions, seeing he gives them only hope of pardon of errors who are desirous, and, according to the proportion of their opportunities and abilities, industrious to find the truth; or at least truly repentant, that they have not been so. which doctrine is very fit to excite men to a constant and im●artial search of truth, and very far from teaching them that it is indifferent what religion they are of; and, without all controversy, very honourable to the goodness of god, with which how it can consist, not to be satisfied with his servant's true endeavours to know his will, and do it, without full and exact performance, i leave it to you and all good men to judge. 4. as little justice methinks you show, in quarrelling with him for descending to the particular disputes here mentioned by you. for to say nothing that many of these questions are immediately and directly pertinent to the business in hand, as the 1, 2, 3, 5, 6. and all of them fall in of themselves into the stream of his discourse, and are not drawn in by him, and besides are touched for the most part, rather than handled; to say nothing of all this, you know right well, if he conclude you erroneous in any one of all these, be it but in the communion in one kind, or the language of your service, the infallibility of your church is evidently overthrown: and this being done, i hope, there will be no such necessity of harkening to her in all things: it will be very possible to separate from her communion in some things, without schism; and from her doctrine, so far as it is erroneous, without heresy: then all that she proposes will not be, eo ipso, fundamental, because she proposes it: and so presently all charity mistaken will vanish into smoke, and clouds, and nothing. 5. you say he was loath to affirm plainly, that generally both catholics and protestants may be saved: which yet is manifest he doth affirm plainly, of protestants throughout his book; and of erring papists that have sincerely sought the truth, and failed of it, and die with a general repentance, p. 77, 78. and yet you deceive yourself if you conceive he had any other necessity to do so, but only that he thought it true. for we may and do pretend that before luther there were many true churches, besides, the roman, which agreed not with her: in particular, the greek church. so that what you say is evidently true, is indeed evidently false. besides, if he had had any necessity to make use of you in this matter, he needed not for this end to say that now in your church salvation may be had, but only that before lurhers' time it might be: then when your means of knowing the truth were not so great, and when your ignorance might be more invincible, and therefore more excusable. so that you may see, if you please, it is not for ends, but for the love of truth, that we are thus charitable to you. 6. neither is it material that these particulars he speaks against, are not fundamental errors; for though they be not destructive of salvation, yet the convincing of them may be, and is, destructive enough of his adversary's assertion: and if you be the man i take you for, you will not deny they are so. for certainly, no consequence can be more palpable than this; the church of rome doth err in this or that, therefore it is not infallible. and this perhaps you perceived yourself, and therefore demanded not, since they be not fundamental, what imports it whether we hold them or no? simply: but, for as much as concerns our possibility to be saved. as if we were not bound by the love of god and the love of truth to be zealous in the defence of all truths, that are any way profitable, though not simply necessary to salvation! or, as if any good man could satisfy his conscience without being so affected and resolved! our saviour himself having assured, us, * mat. 5.19. that he that shall break one of his least commandments (some whereof you pretend are concerning venial sins, and consequently the keeping of them not necessary to salvation) and shall so teach men, shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven. 7. but than it imports very much, though not for the possibility that you may be saved, yet for the probability that you will be so: because the holding of these errors, though it did not merit, might yet occasion damnation. as the doctrine of indulgences may take away the fear of purgatory, and the doctrine of purgatory the fear of hell; as you well know it does too frequently. so that though a godly man might be saved with these errors, yet by means of them, many are made vicious, and so damned. by them i say, though not for them. no godly layman who is verily persuaded that there is neither impiety nor superstition in the use of your latine-service, shall be damned, i hope, for being present at it; yet the want of that devotion which the frequent hearing the offices understood, might happily beget in them, the want of that instruction and edification which it might afford them, may very probably hinder the salvation of many which otherwise might have been saved. besides, though the matter of an error may be only something profitable, not necessary, yet the neglect of it may be a damnable sin; as, not to regard venial sins is in the doctrine of your schools, mortal. lastly, as venial sins, you say, dispose men to mortal; so the erring from some profitable, though lesser truth, may dispose a man to error in greater matters. as for example: the belief of the pope's infallibility is, i hope, not unpardonably damnable to every one that holds it; yet if it be a falsehood (as most certainly it is) it puts a man into a very congruous disposition to believe antichrist, if he should chance to get into that see. 8. ad §. 3. in his distinction of, point fundamental and not fundamental, he may seem, you say, to have touched the point, but does not so indeed. because though he says, there are some points so fundamental, as that all are obliged to believe them explicitly, yet he tells you not, whether a man may disbelieve any other points of faith, which are sufficiently presented to his understanding, as truths revealed by almighty god. touching which matter of sufficient proposal, i beseech you to come out of the clouds, and tell us roundly and plainly, what you mean by points of faith sufficiently propounded to a man's understanding, as truths revealed by god. perhaps you mean such, as the person to whom they are proposed, understands sufficiently to be truths revealed by god. but how then can he possibly choose but believe them? or how is it not an apparent contradiction; that a man should disbelieve what himself understands to be a truth; o● any christian what he understands or but believes to be testified by god? doctor potter might well think it superfluous to tell you this is damnable; because indeed it is impossible. and yet one may very well think, by your saying, as you do hereafter, that the impiety of heresy consists in calling god's truth in question, that this should be your meaning. or do you esteem all those things sufficiently presented to his understanding as divine truths, which by you, or any other man, or any company of men whatsoever, are declared to him to be so? i hope you will not say so: for this were to oblige a man to believe all the churches, and all the men in the world, whensoever they pretend to propose divine revelations. d. potter, i assure you from him, would never have told you this neither. or do you mean by sufficiently propounded as divine truths, all that your church propounds for such? that you may not, neither; for the question between us, is this; whether your church's proposition be a sufficient proposition? and therefore to suppose this, is to suppose the question; which you know in reasoning is always a fault. or lastly, do you mean (for i know not else what possibly you can mean,) by sufficiently presented to his understanding as revealed by god; that which, all things considered, is so proposed to him, that he might and should and would believe it to be true and revealed by god, were it not for some voluntary and avoidable fault of his own that interposeth itself between his understanding and the truth presented to it? this is the best construction that i can make of your words; and if you speak of truths thus proposed and rejected, let it be as damnable, as you please, to deny or disbelieve them. but then i cannot but be amazed to hear you say, that d. potter never tells you whether there be any other points of faith, besides those which we are bound to believe explicitly, which a man may deny or disbelieve, though they be sufficiently presented to his understanding as truths revealed or testified by almighty god; seeing the light itself is not more clear than d. potter's declaration of himself for the negative in this question. p. 245, 246, 247, 249, 250. of his book. where he treats at large of this very argument, beginning his discourse thus. it seems fundamental to the faith, and for the salvation of every member of the church, that he acknowledge and believe all such points of faith, as whereof he may be convinced that they belong to the doctrine of jesus christ. to this conviction he requires three things; clear revelation, sufficient proposition, and capacity and understanding in the hearer. for want of clear revelation, he frees the church before christ and the disciples of christ, from any damnable error, though they believed not those things, which he that should now deny, were no christian. to sufficient proposition, he requires two things: 1. that the points be perspicuously laid open in themselves. 2. so forcibly, as may serve to remove reasonable doubts to the contrary, and to satisfy a teachable mind concerning it, against the principles in which he hath been bred to the contrary. this proposition, he says, is not limited to the pope or church, but extended to all means whatsoever, by which a man may be convinced in conscience, that the matter proposed is divine revelation; which he professes to be done sufficiently, not only when his conscience doth expressly bear witness to the truth; but when it would do so, if it were not choked, and blinded by some unruly and unmortified lust in the will. the difference being not great between him that is wilfully blind, and him that knowingly gainsayeth the truth. the third thing he requires, is capacity and ability to apprehend the proposal, and the reasons of it: the want whereof excuseth fools and madmen, etc. but where there is no such impediment, and the will of god is sufficiently propounded, there (saith he) he that opposeth is convinced of error; and he who is thus convinced, is an heretic; and heresy is a work of the flesh which excludeth from salvation, (he means without repentance). and hence it followeth, that it is fundamental to a christian's faith, and necessary for his salvation, that he believe all revealed truths of god, whereof he may be convinced that they are from god. this is the conclusion of doctor potter's discourse; many passages whereof you take notice of in your subsequent disputations, and make your advantage of them. and therefore i cannot but say again, that it amazeth me to hear you say, that he declines this question, and never tells you whether or no there be any other points of faith, which being sufficiently propounded as divine revelations may be denied and dis-believed. he tells you plainly, there are none such: and therefore you cannot say, that he tells you not whether there be any such. again, it is almost as strange to me, why you should say, this was the only thing in question, whether a man may deny or disbelieve any point of faith, sufficiently presented to his understanding as a truth revealed by god. for to say that any thing is a thing in question, methinks, at the first hearing of the words, imports, that it is by some affirmed, and denied by others. now you affirm, i grant; but, what protestant ever denied, that it was a sin, to give god the lie? which is the first and most obvious sense of these words. or, which of them ever doubted, that to disbelieve is then a fault, when the matter is so proposed to a man, that he might and should, and, were it not for his own fault, would believe it? certainly, he that questions either of these, justly deserves to have his wits called in question. produce any one protestant that ever did so, and i will give you leave to say, it is the only thing in question. but then i must tell you, that your ensuing argument, viz. to deny a truth witnessed by god is damnable, but of two that disagree one must of necessity deny some such truth, therefore one only can be saved; is built upon a ground clean different from this postulate. for though it be always a fault to deny what either i do know, or should know, to be testified by god; yet that which by a cleanly conveyance you put in the place hereof, to deny a truth witnessed by god simply, without the circumstance of being known or sufficiently proposed, is so far from being certainly damnable, that it may be many times done without any the least fault at all. as if god should testify something to a man in the indies, i that had no assurance of this testification should not be obliged to believe it. for in such cases the rule of the law hath place, idem est non esse & non apparere: not to be at all and not to appear to me, is to me all one. if i had not come and spoken unto you (saith our saviour) you had had no sin. 10. as little necessity is there for that which follows: that of two disagreeing in a matter of faith, one must deny some such truth. whether by [such] you understand, testified at all by god; or, testified and sufficiently propounded. for it is very possible the matter in controversy may be such a thing wherein god hath not at all declared himself, or not so fully and clearly, as to oblige all men to hold one way; and yet be so overvalued by the parties in variance, as to be esteemed a matter of faith, and one of those things of which our saviour says, he that believeth not shall be damned. who sees not that it is possible, two churches may excommunicate and damn each other for keeping christmas ten days sooner or later; as well as victor excommunicated the churches of asia, for differing from him about easter day? and yet i believe you will confess, that god had not then declared himself about easter, nor hath now about christmas. anciently some good catholic bishops excommunicated and damned others for holding there were antipodes: and in this question i would fain know on which side was the sufficient proposal. the contra-remonstrants differ from the remonstrants about the point of predetermination as a matter of faith: i would know in this thing also, which way god hath declared himself; whether for predetermination or against it. stephen bishop of rome held it as a matter of faith and apostolic tradition, that heretics gave true baptism: others there were, and they as good catholics as he, that held that this was neither matter of faith, nor matter of truth. justin martyr, and irenaeus, held the doctrine of the millenaries as a matter of faith: and though justin martyr deny it, yet you, i hope, will affirm, that some good christians held the contrary. s. augustine, i am sure, held the communicating of infants as much apostolic tradition, as the baptising of them: whether the bishop and the church of rome of his time, held so too, or held otherwise, i desire you to determine. but, sure i am, the church of rome at this present holds the contrary. the same s. austin, held it no matter of faith that the bishops of rome were judges of appeals from all parts of the church catholic, no not in major causes and major persons: whether the bishop or church of rome did then hold the contrary, do you resolve me; but now i am resolved, they do so. in all these differences, the point in question is esteemed and proposed by one side at least as a matter of faith, and by the other rejected, as not so: and either this is to disagree in matters of faith, or you will have no means to show that we do disagree. now then to show you how weak and sandy the foundation is, on which the whole fabric both of your book and church depends, answer me briefly to this dilemma. either, in these oppositions, one of the opposite parts erred damnably, and denied god's truth sufficiently propounded; or they did not. if they did, than they which do deny god's truth sufficiently propounded, may go to heaven; and than you are rash and uncharitable in excluding us, though we were guilty of this fault. if not, then there is no such necessity that of two disagreeing about a matter of faith, one should deny god's truth sufficiently propounded. and so the major and minor of your argument, are proved false. yet though they were as true as gospel, and as evident as mathematical principles, the conclusion (so impertinent is it to the premises) might still be false. for that which naturally issues from these propositions is not, therefore one only can be saved: but, therefore one of them does something that is damnable. but, with what logic, or what charity you can infer either as the immediate production of the former premises, or as a corollary from this conclusion, therefore one only can be saved, i do not understand; unless you will pretend that this consequence is good, such a one doth something damnable, therefore he shall certainly be damned: which whether it be not to overthrow the article of our faith, which promises remission of sins upon repentance; and consequently, to ruin the gospel of christ, i leave it to the pope and the cardinals to determine. for if against this it be alleged, that no man can repent of the sin wherein he dies: this muce i have already stopped, by showing, that if it be a sin of ignorance, this is no way incongruous. 11. ad §. 4. you proceed in slighting and disgracing your adversary, pretending his objections are mean and vulgar, and such as have been answered a thousand times. but if your cause were good, these arts would be needless. for though some of his objections have been often shifted, by men * i mean the divines of douai: whose profession we have in your belgic expurgatorius p. 12. in censura bertrami, in these words: seeing in other ancient catholics, we tolerate, extenuate, and excuse very many errors, and devising some shift often deny them, and put upon them a convenient sense when they are objected to us in disputations and conflicts with our adversaries; we see no reason why bertram may not deserve the same equity. that make a profession of devising shifts and evasions to save themselves and their religion from the pressure of truth, by men that are resolved they will say something, though they can say nothing to purpose; yet i doubt not to make it appear, that neither by others have they been truly and really satisfied; and that the best answer you give them, is to call them, mean and vulgar objections. 12. ad §. 5. but this pains might have been spared: for the substance of his discourse is in a sermon of d. ushers, and confuted four years ago by paulus veridicus. it seems then, the substance of your reply is in paulus veridicus, and so your pains also might well have deen spared. but had there been no necessity to help and piece out your confuting his arguments with disgracing his person, (which yet you cannot do) you would have considered, that to them who compare d. potter's book, and the arch-bishops sermon, this aspersion will presently appear a poor detraction, not to be answered, but scorned. to say nothing, that in d. potter, being to answer a book by express command from royal authority, to leave any thing material unsaid, because it had been said before, especially being spoken at large, and without any relation to the discourse which he was to answer, had been a ridiculous vanity and foul prevarication. 13. ad §. 6. in your sixth parag. i let all pass saving only this, that a persuasion that men of different religions (you must mean, or else you speak not to the point, christians of divers opinions and communions) may be saved, is a most pernicious heresy, and even a ground of atheism. what strange extractions chemistry can make. i know not; but sure i am, he that by reason would infer this conclusion, that there is no god; from this ground, that god will save men in different religions, must have a higher strain in logic, than you or i have hitherto made show of. in my apprehension, the other part of the contradiction, that there is a god, should much rather follow from it. and whether contradictions will flow from the same fountain, let the learned judge. perhaps you will say, you intended not to deliver here a positive and measured truth, and which you expected to be called to account for; but only a high and tragical expression of your just detestation of the wicked doctrine against which you writ. if you mean so, i shall let it pass: only i am to advertise the lesse-wary reader, that, passionate expressions, and vehement asseverations are no arguments; unless it be, of the weakness of the cause that is defended by them, or the man that defends it. and to remember you of what boethius says of some such things as these,— nubila mens est, haec ubi regnant. for my part, i am not now in passion; neither will i speak one word which i think i cannot justify to the full: and i say, and will maintain, that to say, that christians of different opinions and communions (such i mean, who hold all those things that are simply necessary to salvation) may not obtain pardon for the errors wherein they die ignorantly, by a general repentance; is so far from being a ground of atheism, that to say the contrary, is to cross in diameter a main article of our creed, and to overthrow the gospel of christ. 14. ad §. 7, & 8. to the two next parag. i have but two words to say. the one is, that i know no protestants that hold it necessary to be able to prove a perpetual visible church distinct from yours. some perhaps undertake to do so, as a matter of courtesy; but i believe you will be much to seek for any one that holds it necessary. for though you say, that christ hath promised there shall de a perpetual visible church; yet you yourselves do not pretend that he hath promised, there shall be histories and records always extant of the professors of it in all ages: nor that he hath any where enjoined us to read those histories, that we may be able to show them. 15. the other is, that breerelie's great exactness, which you magnify so, and amplify, is no very certain demonstration of his fidelity. a romance may be told with as much variety of circumstances, as a true story. 16. ad 9, & 10. §. your desires that i would, in this rejoinder, avoid impertinencies: not impose doctrines upon you which you disclaim: set down the substance of your reasons faithfully and entirely: not weary the reader with unnecessary quotations: object nothing to you which i can answer myself, or which may be returned upon myself: and lastly, (which you repeat again in the end of your preface) speak as clearly and distinctly and univocally as possibly i can, are all very reasonable, and shall be by me most punctually and fully satisfied. only i have reason to complain, that you give us rules only, and not good example in keeping them. for in some of these things i shall have frequent occasion to show, that medice, cura teipsum, may very justly be said unto you; especially for objecting what might very easily have been answered by you, and may be very justly returned upon you. 17. to your ensuing demands, though some of them be very captious and ensnaring; yet i will give you as clear and plain ingenuous answers as possibly i can. 18. ad 11. §. to the first then, about the perpetuity of the visible church, my answer is: that i believe our saviour, ever since his ascension, hath had in some place or other a visible true church on earth: i mean a company of men, that professed at least so much truth as was absolutely necessary for their salvation. and i believe that there will be somewhere or other such a church to the world's end. but the contrary doctrine, i do at no hand believe to be a damnable heresy. 19 ad §. 12. to the second, what visible church there was before luther, disagreeing from the roman? i answer, that before luther there were many visible churches, in many things disagreeing from the roman: but not that the whole catholic church disagreed from her, because she herself was a part of the whole, though much corrupted. and to undertake to name a catholic church disagreeing from her, is to make her no part of it, which we do not, nor need not pretend. and for men agreeing with protestants in all points, we will then produce them, when you shall either prove it necessary to be done, which you know we absolutely deny; or when you shall produce a perpetual succession of professors, which in all points have agreed with you, and disagreed from you in nothing. but this my promise, to deal plainly with you, i conceive, and so intended it to be very like his, who undertook to drink up the sea, upon condition, that he to whom the promise was made, should first stop the rivers from running in. for this unreasonable request which you make to us, is to yourselves so impossible, that in the very next age after the apostles, you will never be able to name a man, whom you can prove to have agreed with you in all things, nay (if you speak of such, whose works are extant and unquestioned) whom we cannot prove to have disagreed from you in many things. which i am so certain of, that i will venture my credit, and my life upon it. 20. ad §. 13. to the third, whether, seeing there cannot be assigned any visible true church distinct from the roman, it follows not that she erred not fundamentally? i say, in our sense of the word fundamental, it does follow. for, if it be true, that there was then no church distinct from the roman, than it must be, either because there was no church at all, which we deny: or because the roman church was the whole church, which we also deny: or because she was a part of the whole, which we grant. and if she were a true part of the church, than she retained those truths which were simply necessary to salvation, and held no errors which were inevitably and unpardonably destructive of it. for this is precisely necessary to constitute any man or any church a member of the church catholic. in our sense therefore of the word fundamental, i hope she erred not fundamentally: but in your sense of the word, i fear she did: that is, she held something to be divine revelation, which was not; something not to be, which was. 21. ad §. 14. to the fourth. how it could be damnable to maintain her errors, if they were not fundamental? i answer. 1. though it were not damnable, yet if it were a fault, it was not to be done. for a venial sin with you is not damnable; yet you say, it is not to be committed for the procuring any good. non est faciendum malum vel minimum, ut eveniat bonum vel maximum. 2. it is damnable to maintain an error against conscience, though the error in itself, and to him that believes it, be not damnable. nay the profession not only of an error, but even of a truth, if not believed, when you think on it again, i believe you will confess to be a mortal sin; unless you will say, hypocrisy and simulation in religion is not so. 3. though we say, the errors of the roman church were not destructive of salvation, but pardonable even to them that died in them, upon a general repentance: yet we deny not but in themselves they were damnable. nay, the very saying they were pardonable, implies they needed pardon, and therefore in themselves were damnable: damnable meritoriously, though not effectually. as a poison may be deadly in itself, and yet not kill him, that together with the poison takes an antidote: or as felony may deserve death, and yet not bring it on him that obtains the king's pardon. 22. ad §. 15. to the fifth. how they can be excused from schism, who forsook her communion upon pretence of errors which were not damnable! i answer. all that we forsake in you, is only the belief, and practice, and profession of your errors. hereupon you cast us out of your communion. and then with a strange, and contradictious, and ridiculous hypocrisy, complain that we forsake it. as if a man should thrust his friend out of doors, and then be offended at his departure. but for us not to forsake the belief of your errors, having discovered them to be errors, was impossible; and therefore to do so could not be damnable, believing them to be errors. not to forsake the practice and profession of them, had been damnable hypocrisy; supposing that (which you vainly run away with, and take for granted) those errors in themselves were not damnable. now to do so, and, as matters now stand, not to forsake your communion, is apparently contradictious: seeing the condition of your communion is, that we must profess to believe all your doctrines not only to be damnable errors (which will not content you,) but also to be certain and necessary and revealed truths. so that to demand, why we forsake your communion upon pretence of errors which were not damnable, is, in effect, to demand why we forsook it upon our forsaking it! for to pretend that there are errors in your church though not damnable, is ipso facto, to forsake your communion and to do that which both in your account, and, as you think, in god's account, puts him that does so, out of your communion. so that either you must free your church, from requiring the belief of any error whatsoever, damnable and not damnable; or, whether you will or no you must free us from schism. for schism there cannot be, in leaving your communion, unless we were obliged to continue in it. man cannot be obliged by man, but to what either formally or virtually he is obliged by god; for, all just power is from god. god the eternal truth neither can nor will oblige us to believe any the least and the most innocent falsehood to be a divine truth, that is, to err; nor, to profess a known error, which is to lie. so that if you require the belief of any error among the conditions of your communion, our obligation to communicate with you ceaseth, and so the imputation of schism to us vanisheth into nothing; but lies heavy upon you for, making our separation from you just and necessary, by requiring unnecessary and unlawful conditions of your communion. hereafter therefore, i entreat you, let not your demand be, how could we forsake your communion without schism, seeing you erred not damnably? but, how we could do so without schism, seeing you erred not at all? which if either you do prove, or we cannot disprove it, we will (i at least will for my part) return to your communion, or subscribe myself schismatic. in the mean time, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 23. yet notwithstanding all your errors, we do not renounce your communion totally and absolutely, but only leave communicating with you in the practice and profession of your errors. the trial whereof will be to propose some form of worshipping god, taken wholly out of scripture; and herein if we refuse to join with you, then, and not till then, may you justly say, we have utterly and absolutely abandoned your communion. 24. ad §. 16. your sixth demand i have already satisfied in my answers to the second and the fourth: and in my reply, ad §. 2. toward the end. and though you say, your repeating must be excused, yet i dare not be so confident, and therefore forbear it. 25. ad §. 17. to the seventh, whether error against any one truth sufficiently propounded as testified by god, destroy not the nature and unity of faith, or, at least, is not a grievous offence excluding salvation? i answer; if you suppose, as you seem to do, the proposition so sufficient, that the party to whom it is made is convinced that it is from god, so that the denial of it involves also with it the denial of god's veracity; any such error destroys both faith and salvation. but if the proposal be only so sufficient, not, that the party to whom it is made is convinced, but only that he should, and, but for his own fault, would have been convinced of the divine verity of the doctrine proposed: the crime than is not so great; for, the belief of god's veracity may well consist with such an error. yet a fault i confess it is, and (without repentance) damnable, if, all circumstances considered, the proposal be sufficient. but then i must tell you, that the proposal of the present roman church is only pretended to be sufficient for this purpose, but is not so: especially all the rays of the divinity, which they pretend to shine so conspicuously in her proposals, being so darkened and even extinguished with a cloud of contradiction, from scripture, reason, and the ancient church. 26. ad. §. 18. to the eighth, how of disagreeing protestants, both parts may hope for salvation, seeing some of them must needs err against some truth testified by god? i answer, the most disagreeing protestant's that are, yet thus far agree; 1. that those books of scripture which were never doubted of in the church, are the undoubted word of god, and a perfect rule of faith. 2. that the sense of them, which god intended, whatsoever it is, is certainly true so that they believe implicitly even those very truths against which they err; and, why an implicit faith in christ and his word, should not suffice as well as an implicit faith in your church● i have desired to be resolved by many of your side, but never could. 3. that they are to use their best endeavours to believe the scripture in the true sense, and to live according, to it. this if they perform (as i hope many on all sides do) truly and sincerely, it is impossible but that they should believe aright in all things necessary to salvation; that is, in all those things which appertain to the covenant between god and man in christ; for so much, is not only plainly, but frequently, contained in scripture. and believing aright touching the covenant, if they for their parts perform the condition required of them, which is sincere obedience, why should they not expect that god will perform his promise and give them salvation? for, as for other things which lie without the covenant, and are therefore less necessary, if by reason of the seeming conflict which is oftentimes between scripture and reason, and authority on the one side; and scripture, reason, and authority on the other; if by reason of the variety of tempers, abilities, educations, and unavoidable prejudices, whereby men's understandings are variously form and fashioned, they do embrace several opinions, whereof some must be erroneous; to say that god will damn them for such errors, who are lovers of him, and lovers of truth, is to rob man of his comfort, and god of his goodness; it is to make man desperate, and god a tyrant. but they deny truths testified by god, and therefore shall be damned. yes, if they knew them to be thus testified by him and yet would deny them, that were to give god the lie, and questionless damnable. but if you should deny a truth which god had testified, but only to a man in the indies, (as i said before), and this testification you had never heard of, or at least had no sufficient reason to believe that god had so testified, would not you think it a hard case to be damned for such a denial? yet consider, i pray, a little more attentively the difference between them, and you will presently acknowledge, the question between them is not at any time, or in any thing, whether god says true or no? or, whether he says this or no? but, supposing he says this, and says true, whether he means this or no? as for example: between lutherans, calvinists, and zwinglians, it is agreed that christ spoke these words, this is my body; and that, whatsoever he meant in saying so is true: but what he meant and how he is be understood, that is the question. so that though some of them deny a truth by god intended, yet you can with no reason or justice accuse them of denying the truth of god's testimony, unless you can plainly show that god hath declared, and that plainly and clearly, what was his meaning in these words. i say, plainly and clearly. for he that speaks obscurely and ambiguously, and no where declares himself plainly, sure he hath no reason to be much offended if he be mistaken. when therefore you can show, that in this and all other their controversies, god hath interposed his testimony on one side or other; so that either they do see it, and will not; or, were it not for their own voluntary and avoidable fault, might and should see it and do not; let all such errors be as damnable as you please to make them. in the mean while, if they suffer themselves neither to be betrayed into their errors, nor kept in them by any sin of their will; if they do their best endeavour to free themselves from all errors, and yet fail of it through humane frailty; so well am i persuaded of the goodness of god, that if in me alone, should meet a confluence of all such errors of all the protestants in the world, that were thus qualified, i should not be so much afraid of them all, as i should be to ask pardon for them. for, whereas that which you affright us with, of calling god's veracity in question, is but a panic fear, a fault that no man thus qualified, is, or can be guilty of; to ask pardon of simple and purely involuntary errors is tacitly to imply that god is angry with us for them, and that were to impute to him the strange tyranny of requiring brick, when he gives no straw; of expecting to gather, where he strewed not; to reap where he sowed not: of being offended with us for not doing what he knows we cannot do. this i say upon a supposition, that they do their best endeavours to know gods will and do it; which he that denies to be possible, knows not what he says; for he says in effect, that men cannot do, what they can do; for to do what a man can do, is to do his best endeavour. but because this supposition, though certainly possible, is very rare, and admirable, i say, secondly, that i am verily persuaded, that god will not impute errors to them as sins, who use such a measure of industry, in finding truth, as humane prudence and ordinary discretion (their abilities and opportunities, their distractions and hindrances, and all other things considered) shall advise them unto, in a matter of such consequence. but if herein also we fail, than our errors begin to be malignant, and justly imputable; as offences against god, and that love of his truth which he requires in us. you will say then, that for those erring protestants, which are in this case, which evidently are far the greater patt, they sin damnably in erring, and therefore there is little hope of their salvation. to which i answer, that the consequence of this reason is somewhat strong against a protestant; but much weakened by coming out of the mouth of a papist. for all sins with you are not damnable; and therefore protestants errors might be sins, and yet not damnable. but yet out of courtesy to you, we will remove this rub out of your way; and for the present suppose them mortal sins; and is there then no hope of salvation for him that commits them? not, you will say, if he die in them without repentance; and such protestants you speak of, who without repentance die in their errors. yea but what if they die in their errors with repentance? then i hope you will have charity enough to think they may be saved. charity mistaken takes it indeed for granted, that this supposition is destructive of itself; in the place above quoted. and that it is impossible, and incongruous, that a man should repent of those errors wherein he dies; or die in those whereof he reputes. but it was wisely done of him to take it for granted; for most certainly, he could not have spoken one word of sense for the confirmation of it. for seeing protestants believe, as well as you, god's infinite and most admirable perfections in himself, more than most worthy of all possible love: seeing they believe, as well as you, his infinite goodness to them, in creating them of nothing; in creating them according to his own image; in creating all things for their use and benefit; in streaming down his favours on them every moment of their lives; in designing them, if they serve him, to infinite and eternal happiness; in redeeming them, not with corruptible things, but the precious blood of his beloved son: seeing they believe, as well as you, his infinite goodness, and patience towards them, in expecting their conversion; in wooing, alluring, leading, and by all means which his wisdom can suggest unto him, and man's nature is capable of, drawing them to repentance and salvation: seeing they believe these things as well as you, and, for aught you know, consider them as much as you, (and if they do not, it is not their religion, but they that are too blame) what can hinder, but that the consideration of god's most infinite goodness to them, and their own almost infinite wickedness against him, god's spirit co-operating with them, may raise them to a true and sincere and a cordial love of god? and seeing sorrow for having injured or offended the person beloved, or when we fear we may have offended him, is the most natural effect of true love; what can hinder, but that love which hath ofttimes constrained them to lay down their lives for god, (which, our saviour assures us is the noblest sacrifice we can offer) may produce in them an universal sorrow for all their sins, both which they know they have committed, and which they fear they may have? in which number, their being negligent, or not dispassionate, or not unprejudicate enough in seeking the truth, and the effect thereof, their errors, if they be sins, cannot but be comprised. in a word, what should hinder, but that that prayer— delicta sua quis intelligit? who can understand his faults? lord, cleanse thou me from my secret sins, may be heard and accepted by god, as well from a protestant that dies in some errors, as from a papist that dies in some other sins of ignorance, which perhaps he might more easily have discovered to be sins, than a protestant could his errors to be errors? as well from a protestant, that held some error, which (as he conceived) god's word, and his reason, (which is also in some sort god's word) lead him unto; as from a dominican, who perhaps took up his opinion upon trust, not because he had reason to believe it true, but because it was the opinion of his order; for the same man, if he had light upon another order, would in all probability, have been of the other opinion: for what else is the cause, that generally all the dominicans are of one opinion, and all the jesuits of the other? i say, from a dominican who took up his opinion upon trust; and that such an opinion (if we believe the writers of your order) as, if it be granted true, it were not a point-matter what opinions any man held, or what actions any man did; for the best would be as bad as the worst, and worst the as good as the best. and yet such is the partiality of your hypocrisy, that, of disagreeing papists, neither shall deny the truth testified by god, but both may hope for salvation: but, of disagreeing protestants (though they differ in the same thing,) one side must deny god's testimony, and be incapable of salvation. that a dominican through culpable negligence, living and dying in his error, may repent of it, though he knows it not; or be saved, though he do not: but if a protestant do the very same thing, in the very same point, and die in his error, his case is desperate. the sum of all that hath been said to this demand, is this. 1. that no erring protestant denies any truth testified by god, under this formality, as testified by him; nor which they know or believe to be testified by him. and therefore it is an horrible calumny in you to say, they call god's veracity in question. for god's undoubted and unquestioned veracity, is to them the ground why they hold all they do hold: neither do they hold any opinion so stiffly, but they will forgo it rather than this one, that all which god says is true. 2. god hath not so clearly and plainly declared himself in most of these things which are in controversy between protestants, but that an honest man, whose heart is right to god, and one that is a true lover of god, and of his truth, may, by reason of the conflict of contrary reasons on both sides, very easily, and therefore excusably mistake, and embrace error for truth, and reject truth for error. 3. if any protestant or papist be betrayed into, or kept in any error, by any sin of his will (as it is to be feared many millions are) such error is, as the cause of it, sinful and damnable: yet not exclusive of all hope of salvation, but pardonable, if discovered, upon a particular explicit repentance; if not discovered, upon a general and implicit repentance for all sins known and unknown: in which number all sinful errors must of necessity be contained. 17. ad §. 19 to the 9 wherein you are so urgent for a particular catalogue of fundamentals: i answer almost in your own words, that we also constantly urge and require to have a particular catalogue of your fundamentals, whether they be written verities, or unwritten traditions, or church-definitions, all which, you say, integrate the material object of your faith: in a word, of all such points as are defined and sufficiently proposed; so that whosoever denies, or doubts of any of them, is certainly in the state of damnation. a catalogue i say in particular of the proposals: and not only some general definition, or description, this great diversity of opinions among you, touching this matter, if any man doubt of it, let him read franciscus picus mirandula in l. theorem. in expos. theor. quarti; & th. waldensis tom. 3. de sacramentalibus. doct. 3. fol. 5. and he shall be fully satisfied that i have done you no injury. under which you lurk deceitfully, of what and what only is sufficiently proposed: wherein yet you do not very well agree. for many of you hold the pope's proposal ex cathedra, to be sufficient and obliging: some, a council without a pope: some, of neither of them severally, but only both together: some, not this neither in matter of manners, which bellarmine acknowledges, and tell us, it is all one in effect, as if they denied it sufficient in matter of faith: some not in matter of faith neither think this proposal infallible, without the acceptation of the church universal: some deny the infallibility of the present church: and only make the tradition of all ages the infallible propounder. yet if you were agreed, what, and what only, is the infallible propounder, this would not satisfy us; nor yet to say that all is fundamental which is propounded sufficiently by him. for though agreeing in this, yet you might still disagree whether such or such a doctrine were propounded or not: or, if propounded, whether sufficiently, or only unsufficiently. and it is so known a thing, that in many points you do so, that i assure myself you will not deny it. therefore we constantly urge and require a particular and perfect inventory of all those divine revelations, which, you say, are sufficiently propounded; and that, such an one to which all of your church will subscribe, as neither redundant, nor deficient: which when you give in with one hand, you shall receive a particular catalogue of such points as i call fundamental, with the other. neither may you think me unreasonable in this demand, seeing upon such a particular catalogue of your sufficient proposals as much depends, as upon a particular catalogue of our fundamentals. as for example; whether or no a man do not err in some point defined and sufficiently proposed: and, whether or no those that differ among you, differ in fundamentals; which if they do, one heaven (by your own rule) cannot receive them all. perhaps you will here complain, that this is not to satisfy your demand, but to avoid it, and to put you off, as the areopagites did hard causes, ad diem longissimum, and bid you come again an hundred years hence. to deal truly, i did so intent it should be. neither can you say my dealing with you is injurious, seeing i require nothing of you, but that, what you require of others, you should show it possible to be done, and just and necessary to be required. for, for my part, i have great reason to suspect, it is neither the one nor the other. for whereas the verities which are delivered in scripture, may be very fitly divided into such as were written because they were necessary to be believed; (of which rank are those only, which constitute and make up the covenant between god and man in christ): and then such as are necessary to be believed not in themselves, but only by accident, because they were written; of which rank are many matters of history, of prophecy, of mystery, of policy, of oeconomy, and such like, which are evidently not intrinsecal to the covenant: now, to sever exactly and punctually these verities one from the other, what is necessary in itself and antecedently to the writing, from what is but only profitable in itself, and necessary only because written, is a business of extreme great difficulty, and extreme little necessity. for first, he that will go about to distinguish, especially in the story of our saviour, what was written because it was profitable, from what was written because necessary, shall find an intricate piece of business of it, and almost impossible that he should be certain he hath done it, when he hath done it. and then it is apparently unnecessary to go about it, seeing he that believes all, certainly believes all that is necessary: and he that doth not believe all (i mean all the undoubted parts of the undoubted books of scripture) can hardly believe any, neither have we reason to believe he doth so. so that, that protestants give you not a catalogue of fundamentals, it is not from tergiversation (as you suspect, who for want of charity to them always suspect the worst,) but from wisdom and necessity. for they may very easily err in doing it; because though all which is necessary be plain in scripture, yet all which is plain, is not therefore written because it was necessary. for what greater necessity was there that i should know s. paul left his cloak at troas, than those worlds of miracles, which our saviour did, which were never written. and when they had done it, it had been to no purpose; there being, as matters now stand, as great necessity of believing those truths of scripture which are not fundamental, as those that are. you see then what reason we have to decline this hard labour, which you a rigid taskmaster have here put upon us. yet instead of giving you a catalogue of fundamentals, with which i dare say you are resolved, before it come, never to be satisfied, i will say that to you, which, if you please, may do you as much service; and this it is: that it is sufficient for any man's salvation that he believe the scripture: that he endeavour to believe it in the true sense of it, as far as concerns his duty: and that he conform his life unto it either by obedience or repentance. he that does so (and all protestants according to the dictamin of their religion should do so) may be secure that he cannot err fundamentally. and they that do so, cannot differ in fundamentals. so that, notwithstanding their differences, and your presumption, the same heaven may receive them all. 28. ad §. 20. your tenth and last request is, to know distinctly what is the doctrine of the protestant english church, in these points; and what my private opinion. which shall be satisfied when the church of england hath expressed herself in them; or when you have told us what is the doctrine of your church, in the question of predetermination, or the immaculate conception. 29. ad 21, & 22. § these answers, i hope, in the judgement of indifferent men are satisfactory to your questions, though not to you, for i have either answered them, or given you a reason why i have not. neither, for aught i can see, have i flitted from things considered in their own nature, to accidental or rare circumstances, but told you my opinion plainly what i thought of your errors in themselves: and what as they were qualified or malignified with good or bad circumstances. though i must tell you truly, that i see no reason, the question being of the damnableness of error, why you should esteem ignorance, incapacity, want of means to be instructed, accidental and rare circumstances: as if knowledge, capacity, having means of instruction, concerning the truth of your religion or ours, were not as rare and unusual in the adverse part of either, as ignorance, incapacity, and want of means of instruction. especially how, erroneous conscience can be a rare thing in those that err, or how unerring conscience is not much more rare, i am not able to apprehend. so that to consider men of different religions (the subject of this controversy) in their own nature and without circumstances, must be to consider them, neither as ignorant, nor as knowing: neither as having, nor as wanting means of instruction: neither as with capacity, nor without it: neither with erroneous, nor yet with unerring conscience. and then what judgement can you pronounce of them, all the goodness and badness of an action depending on the circumstances? ought not a judge being to give sentence of an action, to consider all the circumstances of it? or is it possible he should judge rightly that doth not so? neither is it to purpose, that circumstances being various, cannot be well comprehended under any general rule: for though under any general rule they cannot, yet under many general rules they may, be comprehended. the question here is, you say, whether men of different religions may be saved? now the subject of this question is an ambiguous term, and may be determined and invested with divers and contrary circumstances: and accordingly, contrary judgements are to be given of it. and who then can be offended with d. potter for distinguishing before he defines, (the want whereof is the chief thing that makes defining dangerous?) who can find fault with him for saying, if, through want of means of instruction, incapacity, invincible or probable ignorance a man die in error, he may be saved. but if he be negligent in seeking truth, unwilling to find it, either doth see it and will not, or might see it and will not, that his case is dangerous, and without repentance desperate. this is all that d. potter says: neither rashly damning all that are of a different opinion from him, nor securing any that are in matter of religion sinfully, that is, willingly erroneous. the author of this reply (i will abide by it) says the very same thing, neither can i see what adversary he hath in the main question but his own shadow; and yet, i know not out of what frowardness, finds fault with d. potter for affirming that which himself affirms: and to cloud the matter, whereas the question is, whether men by ignorance, dying in error, may be saved, he would have them considered neither as erring, nor ignorant. and when the question is, whether the errors of papists be damnable, to which we answer, that to them that do or might know them to be errors, they are damnable; to them that do not, they are not: he tells us that this is to change the state of the question, whereas indeed it is to state the question, and free it from ambiguity before you answer it: and to have recourse to accidental circumstances; as if ignorance were accidental to error, or as if a man could be considered as in error, and not be considered as in ignorance of the truth from which he errs! certainly, error against a truth, must needs presuppose a nescience of it: unless you will say that a man may at once resolve for a truth and resolve against it; assent to it, and descent from it; know it to be true, and believe it not to be true. whether knowledge and opinion touching the same thing may stand together, is made a question in the schools: but he that would question, whether knowing a thing and doubting of it, much more, whether knowing it to be true, and believing it to be false, may stand together, deserves without question no other answer but laughter. now if error and knowledge cannot consist, than error and ignorance must be inseparable. he than that professeth your errors may well be considered either as knowing or as ignorant. but him that does err indeed, you can no more conceive without ignorance, than long without quantity, virtuous without quality, a man and not a living creature, to have gone ten miles and not to have gone five, to speak sense and not to speak. for as the latter in all these is employed in the former, so is ignorance of a truth, supposed in error against it. yet such a man, though not conceivable without ignorance simply, may be very well considered either as with, or without voluntary and sinful ignorance. and he that will give a wise answer to this question, whether a papist dying a papist may be saved, according to god's ordinary proceeding; must distinguish him according to these several considerations, and say, he may be saved, if his ignorance were either invincible, or at least unaffected and probable: if otherwise, without repentance he cannot. to the rest of this preface, i have nothing to say, saving what hath been said, but this, that it is no just exception to an argument to call it vulgar and threadbare. truth can neither be too common nor super-annuated, nor reason ever worn out. let your answers be solid and pertinent, and we will never find fault with them for being old or common. the first part. chap. i. the state of the question; with a summary of the reasons for which, amongst men of different religions, one side only can be saved. never is malice more indiscreet, than when it chargeth others with imputation of that, to which itself becomes more liable, even by that very act of accusing others. for, though guiltiness be the effect of some error, yet usually it begets a kind of moderation, so far forth, as not to let men cast such aspersions upon others, as must apparently reflect upon themselves. thus cannot the poet endure that gracchus, quis tulerit gracchum, etc. who was a factious and unquiet man, should be inveighing against sedition: and the roman orator rebukes philosophers; who, to wax glorious, superscribed their names upon those very books, which they entitled, of the contempt of glory. what then shall we say of d. potter, who in the title and text of his whole book, doth so tragically charge want of charity on all such romanists as dare affirm, that protestancy destroyeth salvation; while he himself is in act of pronouncing the like heavy doom against roman catholics? for, not satisfied with much uncivil language, in affirming the roman church many (a) pag. 11. ways to have played the harlot, and in that regard deserved a bill of divorce from christ, and detestation of christians; in styling her, that proud (b) ibid. and cursed dame of rome, which takes upon her to revel in the house of god; in talking of an idol (c) pag. 4. edit. 1. to be worshipped at rome; he comes at length to thunder out this fearful sentence against her: for that (d) pag. 20. mass of errors (saith he) in judgement and practice, which is proper to her, and wherein she differs from us, we judge a reconciliation impossible, and to us, (who are convicted in conscience of her corruptions) damnable. and in another place he saith: for us who (e) pag. 81. are convincted in conscience, that she errs in many things, a necessity lies upon us, even under pain of damnation, to forsake her in those errors. by the acerbity of which censure, he doth not only make himself guilty of that which he judgeth to be a heinous offence in others, but freeth us also from all colour of crime by this his unadvised recrimination. for, if roman catholics be likewise convicted in conscience of the errors of protestants, they may, and must, in conformity to the doctor's own rule, judge a reconciliation with them to be also damnable. and thus, all the want of charity, so deeply charged on us, dissolves itself into this poor wonder, roman catholics believe in their conscience, that the religion which they profess, is true, and the contrary false. 2. nevertheless, we earnestly desire, and take care, that our doctrine may not be defamed by misinterpretation. far be it from us, by way of insultation, to apply it against protestants, otherwise than as they are comprehended under the generality of those who are divided from the only one true church of christ our lord, within the communion whereof he hath confined salvation. neither do we understand, why our most dear countrymen should be offended if the universality be particularised under the name of protestants, first given (f) sleidan. l. 6. fol. 84. to certain lutherans, who protesting that they would stand out against the imperial decrees, in defence of the confession exhibited at ausburge, were termed protestants, in regard of such their protesting: which confessio augustana, disclaiming from, and being disclaimed by calvinists and zwinglians, our naming or exemplifying a general doctrine under the particular name of protestantism, ought not in any particular manner to be odious in england. 3. moreover, our meaning is not, as misinformed persons may conceive, that we give protestants over to reprobation; that we offer no prayers in hope of their salvation; that we hold their case desperate. god forbidden! we hope, we pray for, their conversion; and sometimes we find happy effects of our charitable desires. neither is our censure immediately directed to particular persons. the tribunal of particular judgement is god's alone. when any man, esteemed a protestant, leaveth to live in this world, we do not instantly with precipitation avouch, that he is lodged in hell. for we are not always acquainted with what sufficiency of means he was furnished for instruction; we do not penetrate his capacity to understand his catechist; we have no revelation what light might have cleared his errors, or contrition retracted his sins, in the last moment before his death. in such particular cases, we wish more apparent signs of salvation, but do not give any dogmatical sentence of perdition. how grievous sins, disobedience, schism, and heresy are, is well known. but to discern how far the natural malignity of those great offences might be checked by ignorance, or by some such lessening circumstance, is the office rather of prudence than of faith. 4. thus we allow protestants as much charity, as d. potter spares us, for whom in the words above mentioned, and elsewhere, he (g) see p. 39 makes ignorance the best hope of salvation. much less comfort can we expect from the fierce doctrine of those chief protestantsses, who teach that for many ages before luther, christ had no visible church upon earth. not these men alone, or such as they, but even the 39 articles, to which the english protestant clergy subscribes, censure our belief so deeply, that ignorance can scarce, or rather not at all, excuse us from damnation. our doctrine of transubstantiation, is affirmed to be repugnant to the plain words of (h) art. 28. scripture; our masses to be blasphemous (i) art. 31. fabies, with much more to be seen in the articles themselves. in a certain confession of the christian faith, at the end of their books of psalms collected into me●ter, and printed cum priulegio regis regali, they call us idolaters, and limbs of antichrist; and having set down a catalogue of our doctrines, they conclude, that for them we shall after the general resurrection be damned to unquestionable fire. 5. but yet lest any man should flatter himself with our charitable mitigations, and thereby wax careless in search of the true church, we desire him to read the conclusion of the second part, where this matter is more explained. 6. and because we cannot determine what judgement may be esteemed rash, or prudent, except by weighing the reasons upon which it was grounded, we will here, under one aspect, present a summary of those principles, from which we infer, that protestancy in itself unrepented destroys salvation: intending afterward to prove the truth of every one of the grounds, till, by a concatenation of sequels, we fall upon the conclusion, for which we are charged with want of charity. 7. now, this is our gradation of reasons: almighty god, having ordained mankind to a supernatural end of eternal felicity, hath in his holy providence settled competent and convenient means, whereby that end may be attained. the universal grand origen of all such means, is the incarnation and death of our blessed saviour, whereby he merited internal grace for us; and founded an external visible church, provided and stored with all those helps which might be necessary to salvation. from hence it followeth, that in this church, among other advantages, there must be some effectual means to beget and conserve faith, to maintain unity, to discover and condemn heresies, to appease and reduce schisms, and to determine all controversies in religion. for without such means the church should not be furnished with helps sufficient to salvation, nor god afford sufficient means to attain that end, to which himself ordained mankind. this means to decide controversies in faith and religion (whether it should be the holy scripture, or whatsoever else) must be endued with an universal infallibility in whatsoever it propoundeth for a divine truth, that is, as revealed, spoken, or testified by almighty god, whether the matter of its nature be great or small. for if it were subject to error in any one thing, we could not in any other yield it infallible assent; because we might with good reason doubt, whether it chanced not to err in that particular. 8. thus far all must agree to what we have said, unless they have a mind to reduce faith to opinion. and even out of these grounds alone, without further proceeding, it undeniably follows, that of two men dissenting in matters of faith, great or small, few or many, the one cannot be saved without repentance, unless ignorance accidentally may in some particular person plead excuse. for in that case of contrary belief, one must of necessity be held to oppose god's word, or revelation sufficiently represented to his understanding by an infallible propounder; which opposition to the testimony of god is undoubtedly a damnable sin, whether otherwise, the thing so testified, be in itself great or small. and thus we have already made good what was promised in the argument of this chapter, that amongst men of different religions, one is only capable of being saved. 9 nevertheless, to the end that men may know in particular what is the said infallible means upon which we are to rely in all things concerning faith, and accordingly may be able to judge in what safety or danger, more or less they live; and because d. potter descendeth to divers particulars about scriptures and the church, etc. we will go forward, and prove, that although scripture be in itself most sacred, infallible, and divine, yet it alone cannot be to us a rule, or judge, fit and able to end all doubts and debates emergent in matters of religion; but that there must be some external, visible, public, living judge, to whom all sorts of persons, both learned and unlearned, may without danger of error have recourse; and in whose judgement they may rest for the interpreting and propounding of god's word or revelation. and this living judge we will most evidently prove to be no other, but that holy, catholic; apostolic, and visible church, which our saviour purchased with the effusion of his most precious blood. 10. if once therefore it be granted, that the church is that means which god hath left for deciding all controversies in faith, it manifestly will follow, that she must be infallible in all her determinations, whether the matters of themselves be great or small; because, as we said above, it must be agreed on all sides, that if that means which god hath left to determine controversies were not infallible in all things proposed by it, as truths revealed by almighty god, it could not settle in our minds a firm and infallible belief of any one. 11. from this universal infallibility of god's church, it followeth, that whosoever wittingly denyeth any one point proposed by her, as revealed by god, is injurious to his divine majesty, as if he could either deceive, or be deceived in what he testifieth. the averring whereof, were not a fundamental error, but would overthrow the very foundation of all fundamental points, and therefore, without repentance, could not possibly stand with salvation. 12. out of these grounds we will show, that although the distinction of points fundamental, and not fundamental be good and useful, as it is delivered and applied by catholic divines, to teach what principal articles of faith, christians are obliged explicitly to believe: yet that it is impertinent to the present purpose of excusing any man from grievous sin, who knowingly disbelieves, that is, believes the contrary of that which god's church proposeth as divine truth. for it is one thing not to know explicitly something testified by god, and another positively to oppose what we know he hath testified. the former may often be excused from sin, but never the latter, which only is the case in question. 13. in the same manner shall be demonstrated, that to allege the creed, as containing all articles of faith, necessary to be explicitly believed, is not pertinent to free from sin, the voluntary denial of any other point known to be defined by god's church. and this were sufficient to overthrow all that d. potter allegeth concerning the creed: though yet, by way of supererogation, we will prove, that there are divers important matters of faith which are not mentioned at all in the creed. 14. from the aforesaid main principle, that god hath always had, and always will have on earth, a church visible, within whose communion salvation must be hoped; and infallible, whose definitions we ought to believe; we will prove, that luther, calvin, and all other, who continue the division in communion, or faith, from that visible church, which at, and before, luther's appearance was spread over the world, cannot be excused from schism and heresy, although they opposed her faith but in one only point; whereas it is manifest, they descent from her in many and weighty matters, concerning as well belief, as practice. 15. to these reasons drawn from the virtue of faith, we will add one other taken from charitas propria, the virtue of charity, as it obligeth us, not to expose our soul to hazard of perdition, when we can put ourselves in a way much more secure, as we will prove that of the roman catholics to be. 16. we are then to prove these points: first, that the infallible means to determine controversies in matters of faith, is the visible church of christ. secondly, that the distinction of points fundamental, and not-fundamental, maketh nothing to our present question. thirdly, that, to say the creed contains all fundamental points of faith, is neither pertinent nor true. fourthly, that both luther, and all they who, after him, persist in division from the communion and faith of the roman church, cannot be excused from schism. fifthly, nor from heresy. sixthly and lastly, that in regard of the precept of charity towards one's self, protestants be in state of sin, as long as they remain divided from the roman church. and these six points, shall be several arguments for so many ensuing chapters. 17. only i will here observe, that it seemeth very strange that protestants should charge ●s so deeply with want of charity, for only teaching, that both they and we cannot be saved, seeing themselves must affirm the like of whosoever opposeth any least point delivered in scripture, which they hold to be the sole rule of faith. out of which ground they must be enforced to let all our former inferences pass for good. for, is it not a grievous sin, to deny any one truth contained in holy writ? is there in such denial, any distinction between points fundamental, and not-fundamental, sufficient to excuse from heresy? is it not impertinent, to allege the creed containing all fundamental points of faith, as if, believing it alone, we were at liberty to deny all other points of scripture? in a word: according to protestants; oppose not scripture, there is no error against faith; oppose it in any least point, the error (if scripture be sufficiently proposed, which proposition is also required before a man can be obliged to believe even fundamental points) must be damnable. what is this, but to say with us, of persons contrary in whatsoever point of belief, one party only can be saved? and d. potter must not take it ill, if catholics believe they may be saved in that religion for which they suffer. and if by occasion of this doctrine, men will still be charging us with want of charity, and be resolved to take scandal where none is given; we must comfort ourselves with that grave and true saying of s. gregory: if scandal (k) s. greg. hom. 7. in ezek. be taken from declaring a truth, it is better to permit scandal, than forsake the truth. but the solid grounds of our assertion, and the sincerity of our intention in uttering what we think, yields us confidence, that all will hold for most reasonable the saying of pope gelasius to anastasius the emperor: far be it from the roman emperor that he should hold it for a wrong, to have truth declared to him! let us therefore begin with that point which is the first that can be controverted betwixt protestants, and us, for as much as concerns the present question, & is contained in the argument of the next ensuing chap. the answer to the first chapter. showing, that the adversary grants the former question and proposeth a new one: and that there is no reason, why among men of different opinions and communions, one side only can be saved. ad 1. §. your first onset is very violent. d. potter is charged with malice and indiscretion, for being uncharitable to you, while he is accusing you of uncharitableness. verily, a great fault, and folly, if the accusation be just; if unjust, a great calumny. let us see then how you make good your charge. the effect of your discourse, if i mistake not, is this: d. potter chargeth the roman church with many and great errors; judgeth reconciliation between her doctrine and ours, impossible; and that for them who are convicted in conscience of her errors, not to forsake her in them, or to be reconciled unto her, is damnable: therefore, if roman catholics be convicted in conscience of the errors of protestants, they may and must judge a reconciliation with them damnable; and consequently to judge so, is no more uncharitable in them, than it is in the doctor to judge as he doth. all this i grant; nor would any protestant accuse you of want of charity, if you went no further: if you judged the religion of protestants damnable to them only who profess it, being convicted in conscience that it is erroneous. for, if a man judge some act of virtue to be a sin, in him it is a sin indeed: so you have taught us, p. 19 so if you be convinced, or rather, to speak properly, persuaded in conscience, that our religion is erroneous, the profession of it, though itself most true, to you would be damnable. this therefore i subscribe very willingly, and withal, that if you said no more, d. potter and myself should be not to papists only, but even to protestants, as uncharitable as you are. for i shall always profess and glory in this uncharitableness of judging hypocrisy a damnable sin. let hypocrites then and dissemblers on both sides pass. it is not towards them, but good christians; not to protestant professors, but believers, that we require your charity. what think you of those that believe so verily the truth of our religion, that they are resolved to die in it, and, if occasion were, to die for it? what charity have you for them? what think ye of those that, in the days of our fathers, laid down their lives for it? are you content that they shall be saved, or do you hope they may be so? will you grant, that, notwithstanding their errors, there is good hope they might die with repentance? and, if they did so, certainly they are saved? if you will do so, this controversy is ended. no man will hereafter charge you with want of charity. this is as much as either we give you, or expect of you, while you remain in your religion. but than you must leave abusing silly people, with telling them (as your fashion is) that protestants confess, papists may be saved, but papists confess not so much of protestants; therefore yours is the safer way, and in wisdom and charity to our own souls we are bound to follow it. for, granting this, you grant as much hope of salvation to protestants, as protestants do to you. if you will not, but will still affirm, as charity mistaken doth, that protestants, not dissemblers, but believers, without a particular repentance of their religion cannot be saved: this, i say, is a want of charity, into the society whereof d. potter cannot be drawn but with palpable and transparent sophistry. for, i pray sir, what dependence is there between these propositions: we that hold protestant religion false should be damned if we should profess it, therefore they also shall be damned, that hold it true? just as if you should conclude, because he that doubts is damned if he eat, therefore he that doth not doubt, is damned also if he eat. and therefore though your religion to us, and ours to you, if professed against conscience, would be damnable; yet may it well be uncharitable to define it shall be so, to them that profess either this or that according to conscience. this recrimination therefore upon d. potter wherewith you begin, is a plain fallacy: and, i fear, your proceed will be answerable to these beginnings! 2. ad §. 2. in this paragraph, protestants are thus far comforted, that they are not sent to hell without company; which, the poet tells us, is the miserable comfort of miserable men. then we in england are requested not to be offended with the name of protestants. which is a favour i shall easily grant, if by it be understood those that protest, not against imperial edicts, but against the corruptions of the church of rome. 3. ad §. 3, 4, 5, 6. that you give us not over to reprobation, that you pray and hope for our salvation, if it be a charity, it's such an one as is common to turks, and jews, and pagans with us. but that which follows, is extraordinary; neither do i know any man that requires more of you than there you pretend to. for there you tell us, that when any man, esteemed a protestant, dies, you do not instantly avouch that he is lodged in hell. where the word, esteemed, is ambiguous: for it may signify, esteemed truly, or esteemed falsely. he may be esteemed a protestant that is so: and he may be esteemed a protestant that is not so. and therefore i should have had just occasion to have laid to your charge the transgression of your own chief prescription, which you say, truth exacts at our hands, that is, to speak clearly or distinctly, and not to walk in darkness; but that your following words, to my understanding, declare sufficiently, that you speak of both sorts. for there you tell us, that the reasons, why you damn not any man that dies with the esteem of a protestant, are, 1. because you are not always acquainted with what sufficiency of means he was furnished for instruction; you must mean touching the falsehood of his own religion, and the truth of yours. which reason is proper to those that are protestants in truth, and not only in estimation. 2. because you do not penetrate his capacity to understand his catechist; which is also peculiar to those, who for want of capacity (as you conceive) remain protestants indeed, and are not only so accounted. 3. because you have no revelation what light might clear his errors; which belongs to those which were esteemed protestants, but indeed were not so. 4. because you have no revelation what contrition might have retracted his sins: which reason being distinct from the former, and divided from it by the disjunctive particle, or, insinuates unto us, that though no light did clear the errors of a dying protestant; yet contrition might, for ought you know, retract his sins: which appropriates this reason also to protestants truly so esteemed. i wish with all my heart that in obedience to your own prescription, you had expressed yourself in this matter more fully and plainly. yet that which you say, doth plainly enough afford us these corollaries. 1 that whatsoever protestant wanteth capacity, or, having it, wanteth sufficient means of instruction to convince his conscience of the falsehood of his own, and the truth of the roman religion, by the confession of his most rigid adversaries, may be saved, notwithstanding any error in his religion. 2 that nothing hinders, but that a protestant, dying a protestant, may die with contrition for all his sins. 3 that if he do die with contrition, he may and shall be saved. 4. all these acknowledgements we have from you, while you are, as you say, stating, but, as i conceive, granting the very point in question; which was, as i have already proved out of c. m. whether, without uncharitableness, you may pronounce, that protestants dying in the belief of their religion, and without particular repentance and dereliction of it, cannot possibly be saved. which c. m. affirms universally, and without any of your limitations. but this presumption of his, you thus qualify, by saying, that this sentence cannot he pronounced truly, and therefore sure not charitably; neither of those protestants that want means sufficient to instruct and convince them of the truth of your religion, and the falsehood of their own; nor of those, who though they have negected the means they might have had, died with contrittion, that is, with a sorrow for all their sins, proceeding from the love of god. so that, according to your doctrine, it shall remain upon such only as either were, or, but for their own fault, might have been, sufficiently convinced of the truth of your religion, and the falsehood of their own, and yet die in it without contrition. which doctrine if you would stand to; and not pull down, and pull back with one hand, what you give and build with the other, this controversy were ended; and i should willingly acknowledge that which follows in your fourth paragraph, that you allow protestants as much charity as d. potter allows you. but then i must entreat you to alter the argument of this chapter, and not to go about to give us reasons, why, amongst men of different religions, one side only can be saved absolutely, which your reasons drive at: but you must temper the crudeness of your assertion, by saying, one side only can be saved, unless want of conviction, or else repentance, excuse the other. besides, you must not only abstain from damning any protestant in particular, but, from affirming in general, that protestants dying in their religion cannot be saved; for you must always remember to add this caution, unless they were excusably ignorant of the falsehood of it, or died with contrition. and then, considering that you cannot know, whether or no, all things considered, they were convinced sufficiently of the truth of your religion, and the falsehood of their own, you are obliged by charity to judge the best, and hope they are not. considering again, that, notwithstanding their errors; they may die with contrition, and that it is no way improbable that they do so, and the contrary you cannot be certain of, you are bound in charity to judge and hope they do so. considering thirdly and lastly, that if they die not with contrition, yet it is very probable they may die with attrition, and that this pretence of yours, that contrition will serve without actual confession, but attrition will not, is but a nicety or fancy, or rather, to give it the true name, a device of your own, to serve ends and purposes; god having no no where declared himself, but that wheresoever he will accept of that repentance, which you are pleased to call contrition, he will accept of that which you call attrition; for, though he like best the bright flaming holocaust of love, yet he rejects not, he quencheth not, the smoking flax of that repentance (if it be true and effectual) which proceeds from hope and fear: these things, i say, considered (unless you will have the charity of your doctrine rise up in judgement against your uncharitable practice) you must not only not be peremptory, in damning protestants, but you must hope well of their salvation: and, out of this hope, you must do for them as well as others, those, as you conceive, charitable offices, of praying, giving alms, and offering sacrifice, which usually you do, for those of whose salvation you are well and charitably persuaded; (for, i believe, you will never conceive so well of protestants, as to assure yourselves they go directly to heaven.) these things when you do, i shall believe you think as charitably as you speak. but until then, as he said in the comedy, quid verba audiam, cum facta▪ videam? so may i say to you, quid verba audiam, cum facta non videam? to what purpose should you give us charitable words, which presently you retract again, by denying us your charitable actions? and, as these things you must do, if you will stand to and make good this pretended charity, so must i tell you again and again, that one thing you must not do; i mean, you must not affright poor people out of their religion, with telling them, that, by the confession of both sides, your way is safe, but, in your judgement, ours undoubtedly damnable. seeing neither you deny salvation to protestants dying with repentance, nor we promise it to you, if ye die without it. for, to deal plainly with you, i know no protestant that hath any other hope of your salvation, but upon these grounds, that unaffected ignorance may excuse you, or true repentance obtain pardon for you; neither do the heavy censures, which protestants (you say) pass upon your errors, any way hinder, but they may hope as well of you, upon repentance, as i do. for the fierce doctrine, which, god knows who, teacheth, that christ for many ages before luther had no visible church upon earth; will be mild enough, if you conceive them to mean (as perhaps they do) by no visible church, none pure and free from corruptions, which in your judgement is all one with no church. but the truth is, the corruption of the church, and the destruction of it, is not all one. for, if a particular man or church may (as you confess they may) hold some particular errors, and yet be a member of the church universal; why may not the church hold some universal error, and yet be still the church? especially seeing, you say, it is nothing but opposing the doctrine of the church that makes an error damnable, and it is impossible, that the church should oppose the church, i mean, that the present church should oppose itself. and then for the english protestants, though they censure your errors deeply, yet, by your favour, with their deepest censures it may well consist, that invincible ignorance may excuse you from damnation for them. for you yourself confess, that ignorance may excuse errors, even in fundamental articles of faith: so that a man so erring shall not offend at all in such his ignorance or error: they are your own words, pref. §. 22. and again, with their heaviest censures it may well consist, that your errors, though in themselves damnable, yet may prove not-damning to you, if you die with true repentance, for all your sins known and unknown. 5. thus much charity therefore, if you stand to what you have said, is interchangeably granted by each side to the other, that neither religion is so fatally destructive, but that by ignorance or repentance salvation may be had on both sides: though with a difference that keeps papists still on the more uncharitable side. for whereas we conceive a lower degree of repentance (that which they call attrition) if it be true, and effectual, and convert the heart of the penitent, will serve in them: they pretend (even this author which is most charitable towards us) that without contrition there is no hope for us. but, though protestants may not obtain this purchase at so easy a rate as papists; yet (even papists being judges) they may obtain it: and, though there is no entrance for them but at the only door of contrition, yet they may enter; heaven is not inaccessible to them. their errors are no such impenetrable isthmus' between them and salvation, but that contrition may make away through them. all their schism and heresy is no such fatal poison, but that, if a man join with it the antidote of a general repentance, he may die in it, and live for ever. thus much then being acknowledged, i appeal to any indifferent reader, whether c. m. be not by his hyperaspist forsaken in the plain field, and the point in question granted to d. potter, viz. that protestancy, even without a particular repentance, is not destructive of salvation. so that all the controversy remaining now, is, not simply whether protestancy unrepented destroys salvation? as it was at first proposed, but, whether protestancy in itself (that is, abstracted from ignorance and contrition) destroys salvation? so that, as a foolish fellow, who gave a knight the lie, desiring withal leave of him to set his knighthood aside, was answered by him, that he would not suffer any thing to be set aside that belonged unto him: so might we justly take it amiss, that, conceiving as you do, ignorance and repentance such necessary things for us, you are not more willing to consider us with them, than without them. for my part, such is my charity to you, that considering what great necessity you have, as much as any christian society in the world, that these sanctuaries of ignorance and repentance should always stand open, i can very hardly persuade myself so much as in my most secret consideration to divest you of these so needful qualifications: but whensoever your errors, superstitions, and impieties come into my mind, (and, besides the general bonds of humanity and christianity, my own particular obligations to many of you, such and so great, that you cannot perish without a part of myself,) my only comfort is, amidst these agonies, that the doctrine and practice too of repentance, is yet remaining in your church: and that, though you put on a face of confidence of your innocence in point of doctrine, yet you will be glad to stand in the eye of mercy as well as your fellows, and not be so stout, as to refuse either god's pardon or the king's. 6. but for the present, protestancy is called to the bar, and though not sentenced by you to death without mercy, yet arraigned of so much natural malignity, (if not corrected by ignorance or contrition) as to be in itself destructive of salvation. which controversy i am content to dispute with you, tying myself to follow the rules prescribed by you in your preface. only i am to remember you, that the adding of this limitation (in itself) hath made this a new question; and that this is not the conclusion, for which you were charged with want of charity. but that, whereas, according to the grounds of your own religion, protestants may die in their supposed errors, either with excusable ignorance, or with contrition, and if they do so, may be saved, you still are peremptory in pronouncing them damned. which position, supposing your doctrine true, and ours false, as it is far from charity, (whose essential character it is, to judge and hope the best), so i believe that i shall clearly evince this new, but more moderate, assertion of yours to be far from verity, and that it is popery, and not protestancy, which in itself destroys salvation. 7. ad §. 7. & 8. in your gradation i shall rise so far with you as to grant, that christ founded a visible church, stored with all helps necessary to salvation, particularly with sufficient means to beget and conserve faith, to maintain unity, and compose schisms, to discover and condemn heresies, and to determine all controversies in religion, which were necessary to be determined. for all these purposes, he gave at the beginning (as we may see in the epistle to the ephesians) apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and doctors: who by word of mouth taught their contemporaries, and by writings (wrote indeed by some, but approved by all of them) taught their christian posterity to the world's end, how all these ends, and that which is the end of all these ends, salvation, is to be achieved. and these means the providence of god hath still preserved, and so preserved, that they are sufficient for all these intents. i say, sufficient, though, through the malice of men, not always effectual; for, that the same means may be sufficient for the compassing an end, and not effectual, you must not deny, who hold, that god gives to all men sufficient means of salvation, and yet that all are not saved. i said also, sufficient to determine all controversies, which were necessary to be determined. for, if some controversies may for many ages be undetermined, and yet in the meanwhile men be saved; why should, or how can the church's being furnished with effectual means to determine all controversies in religion, be necessary to salvation; the end itself, to which these means are ordained, being, as experience shows, not necessary? plain sense will teach every man, that the necessity of the means must always be measured by, and can never exceed, the necessity of the end. as, if eating be necessary, only that i may live; then certainly if i have no necessity to live, i have no necessity to eat. if i have no need to be at london, i have no need of a horse to carry me thither. if i have no need to fly, i have no need of wings. answer me then i pray directly, and categorically, is it necessary that all controversies in religion should be determined? or, is it not? if it be, why is the the question of predetermination, of the immaculate conception, of the pope's indirect power in temporalties, so long undetermined? if not, what is it but hypocrisy to pretend such great necessity of such effectual means, for the achieving that end, which is itself not necessary? christians therefore have and shall have means sufficient (though not always effectual) to determine, not all controversies, but all necessary to be determined. i proceed on farther with you, and grant that this means to decide controversies in faith and religion, must be endued with an universal infallibility in whatsoever it propoundeth for a divine truth. for, if it may be false in any one thing of this nature, in anything which god requires men to believe, we can yield unto it but a wavering and fearful assent in any thing. these grounds therefore i grant very readily, and give you free leave to make your best advantage of them. and yet, to deal truly, i do not perceive how from the denial of any of them it would follow that faith is opinion: or, from the granting them, that it is not so. but for for my part whatsoever clamour you have raised against me, i think not otherwise of the nature of faith, i mean, historical faith, than generally both protestants and papists do; for, i conceive it an assent to divine revelations upon the authority of the revealer. which though in many things it differ from opinion, (as commonly the word opinion is understood) yet in some things, i doubt not but you will confess, that it agrees with it. as first, that as opinion is an assent, so is faith also. secondly, that as opinion, so faith, is always built upon less evidence than that of sense or science. which assertion you not only grant, but mainly contend for in your sixth chapter. thirdly and lastly, that, as opinion, so faith admit degrees; and that, as there may be a strong and weak opinion, so there may be a strong and weak faith. these things if you will grant (as sure if you be in your right mind you will not deny any of them) i am well contented that this ill-sounding word, opinion, should be discarded, and that among the intellectual habits you should seek out some other genus for faith. for i will never contend with any man about words, who grants my meaning. 8. but though the essence of faith exclude not all weakness and imperfection, yet may it be enquired, whether any certainty of faith, under the highest degree, may be sufficient to please god and attain salvation? whereunto i answer, that though men are unreasonable, god requires not any thing but reason. they will not be pleased without a down-weight, but god is contented if the scale be turned. they pretend, that heavenly things cannot be seen to any purpose, but by the midday light: but god will be satisfied, if we receive any degree of light which makes us leave the works of darkness, and walk as children of the light. they exact a certainty of faith above that of sense or science; god desires only that we believe the conclusion, as much as the premises deserve; that the strength of our faith be equal or proportionable to the credibility of the motives to it. now though i have, and aught to have, an absolute certainty of this thesis, all which god reveals for truth, is true, being a proposition, that may be demonstrated, or rather so evident to any one that understands it, that it needs it not; yet of this hypothesis, that all the articles of our faith were revealed by god, we cannot ordinarily have any rational and acquired certainty, more than moral, founded upon these considerations: first, that the goodness of the precepts of christianity, and the greatness of the promises of it, shows it, of all other religions, most likely to come from the fountain of goodness. and then that a constant, famous, and very general tradition, so credible that no wise man doubts of any other which hath but the fortieth part of the credibility of this; such and so credible a tradition, tells us, that god himself hath set his hand and seal to the truth of this doctrine, by doing great, and glorious, and frequent miracles in confirmation of it. now our faith is an assent to this conclusion, that the doctrine of christianity is true, which being deduced from the former thesis, which is metaphysically certain, and from the former hypothesis, whereof we can have but a moral certainty, we cannot possibly by natural means be more certain of it than of the weaker of the premises; as a river will not rise higher than the fountain from which it flows. for the conclusion always follows the worse part, if there be any worse: and must be negative, particular, contingent, or but morally certain, if any of the propositions, from whence it is derived, be so: neither can we be certain of it in the highest degree, unless we be thus certain of all the principles whereon it is grounded. as a man cannot go or stand strongly, if either of his legs be weak. or as a building cannot be stable, if any one of the necessary pillars thereof be infirm and instable. or as, if a message be brought me, from a man of absolute credit with me, but by a messenger that is not so, my confidence of the truth of the relation, cannot but be rebated and lessened, by my diffidence in the relatour. 9 yet all this i say not, as if i doubted, that the spirit of god, being implored by devout and humble prayer, and sincere obedience, may, and will by degrees, advance his servants higher, and give them a certainty of adherence, beyond their certainty of evidence. but, what god gives as a reward to believers, is one thing; and what he requires of all men, as their duty, is another; and what he will accept of, out of grace and favour, is yet another. to those that believe, and live according to their faith, he gives by degrees the spirit of obsignation and confirmation, which makes them know (though how they know not) what they did but believe: and to be as fully and resolutely assured of the gospel of christ, as those which heard it from christ himself with their ears, which saw it with their eyes, which looked upon it, and whose hands handled the word of life. he requires of all, that their faith should be (as i have said) proportionable to the motives and reasons enforcing to it; he will accept of the weakest and lowest degree of faith, if it be living and effectual unto true obedience. for he it is that will not quench the smoking flax, nor break the bruised reed. he did not reject the prayer of that distressed man that cried unto him, lord, i believe; lord, help mine unbelief. he commands us to receive them that are weak in faith, and thereby declares that he receives them. and as nothing avails with him, but faith which worketh by love: so any faith, if it be but as a grain of mustardseed, if it work by love, shall certainly avail with him, and be accepted of him. some experience makes me fear, that the faith of considering and discoursing men, is like to be cracked with too much straining: and that being possessed with this false principle, that it is in vain to believe the gospel of christ, with such a kind or degree of assent, as they yield to other matters of tradition: and finding that their faith of it, is to them undiscernible, from the belief they give to the truth of other stories; are in danger either not to believe at all, thinking, not at all as good as to no purpose; or else, though indeed they do believe it, yet to think they do not, and to cast themselves into wretched agonies and perplexities, as fearing they have not that, without which it is impossible to please god, and obtain eternal happiness. consideration of this advantage, which the devil probably may make of this fancy, made me willing to insist somewhat largely upon the refutation of it. 10. i return now thither from whence i have digressed, and assure you, concerning the grounds afore-laid, which were, that there is a rule of faith whereby controversies may be decided, which are necessary to be decided; and that this rule is universally infallible, that notwithstanding any opinion i hold, touching faith or any thing else, i may, and do believe them, as firmly as you pretend to do. and therefore you may build on, in god's name; for by god's help, i shall always embrace, whatsoever structure is naturally and rationally laid upon them whatsoever conclusion, may to my understanding be evidently deduced from them. you say, out of them it undeniably follows, that, of two disagreeing in matter of faith, the one cannot be saved, but by repentance or ignorance. i answer, by distinction of those terms, two dissenting in a matter of faith. for it may be either in a thing which is indeed a matter of faith, in the strictest sense; that is, something, the belief whereof god requires under pain of damnation: and so the conclusion is true, though the consequence of it from your former premises either is none at all, or so obscure, that i can hardly discern it. or it may be, as it often falls out concerning a thing which being indeed no matter of faith, is yet overvalued by the parties at variance, and esteemed to be so. and in this sense it is neither consequent, nor true. the untruth of it i have already declared in my examination of your preface. the inconsequence of it, is of itself evident; for, who ever heard of a wilder collection than this— god hath provided means sufficient to decide all controversies in religion, necessary to be decided; this means is universally infallible; therefore of two, that differ in any thing which they esteem a matter of faith, one cannot be saved. he that can find any connection between these propositions, i believe will be able to find good coherence between the deaf plaintiff's accusation, in the greek epigram, and the deaf defendant's answer, and the deaf judge's sentence: and to contrive them all into a formal categorical syllogism. 11. indeed, if the matter in agitation were plainly decided, by this infallible means of deciding controversies, and the parties in variance knew it to be so, and yet would stand out in their dissension: this were, in one of them, direct opposition to the testimony of god, and undoubtedly a damnable sin. but, if you take the liberty to suppose what you please, you may very easily conclude what you list. for, who is so foolish as to grant you these unreasonable postulates, that every emergent controversy of faith is plainly decided by the means of decision which god hath appointed; and that, of the parties litigant, one is always such a convicted recusant as you pretend? certainly, if you say so, having no better warrant than you have, or can have for it, this is more proper and formal uncharitableness, than ever was charged upon you. methinks, with much more reason, and much more charity, you might suppose, that many of these controversies, which are now disputed among christians (all which profess themselves lovers of christ, and truly desirous to know his will and do it) are either not decidable by that means which god hath provided, and so not necessary to be decided: or, if they be, yet not so plainly and evidently, as to oblige all men to hold one way: or lastly, if decidable, and evidently decided, yet you may hope that the erring party, by reason of some veil before his eyes, some excusable ignorance or unavoidable prejudice, doth not see the question to be decided against him, and so opposeth not that which he doth know to be the word of god, but only that which you know to be so, and which he might know, were he void of prejudice. which is a fault i confess, but a fault, which is incident even to good and honest men very often: and not of such a gigantique disposition, as you make it, to fly directly upon god almighty, and to give him the lie to his face. 12. ad. § 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16. in all this long discourse you only tell us what you will do, but do nothing. many positions there are, but proofs of them you offer none, but reserve them to the chapters following; and there, in their proper places, they shall be examined. the sum of all your assumpts collected by yourself, §. 16. is this, that the infallible means of determining controversies, is the visible church. that, the distinction of points fundamental, and not-fundamental, maketh nothing to the present question. that, to say, the creed containeth all fundamentals, is neither pertinent nor true. that, whosoever persist in division from the communion and faith of the roman church, are guilty of schism and heresy. that, in regard of the precept of charity towards one's self, protestants are in state of sin, while they remain divided from the roman church. to all these assertions i will content myself for the present to oppose this one, that not one of them all is true. only i may not omit to tell you, that if the first of them were as true as the pope himself desires it should be, yet the corollary, which you deduce from it, would be utterly inconsequent, that, whosoever denies any point proposed by the church, is injurious to god's divine majesty; as if he could deceive, or be deceived. for though your church were indeed as infallible a propounder of divine truths as it pretends to be, yet, if it appeared not to me to be so, i might very well believe god most true, and your church most false. as, though the gospel of s. matthew be the word of god; yet, if i neither knew it to be so, nor believed it, i might believe in god, and yet think that gospel a fable. hereafter therefore i must entreat you to remember, that our being guilty of this impiety, depends not only upon your being, but upon our knowing that you are so. neither must you argue thus; the church of rome is the infallible propounder of divine verities, therefore he that opposeth her, calls god's truth in question: but thus rather, the church of rome is so, and protestants know it to be so; therefore in opposing her, they impute to god, that either he deceives them, or is deceived himself. for as i may deny something which you upon your knowledge have affirmed, and yet never disparage your honesty, if i never knew that you affirmed it: so i may be undoubtedly certain of god's omniscience, and veracity, and yet doubt of something which he hath revealed; provided, i do not know, nor believe that he hath revealed it. so, that though your church be the appointed witness of god's revelations, yet until you know, that we know she is so, you cannot without foul calumny impute to us, that we charge god blasphemously with deceiving, or being deceived. you will say perhaps, that this is directly consequent from our doctrine, that the church may err, which is directed by god in all her proposals. true, if we knew it to be directed by him, otherwise not; much less if we believe, and know the contrary. but then, if it were consequent from our opinion, have you so little charity, as to say, that men are justly chargeable with all the consequences of their opinions; such consequences, i mean, as they do not own, but disclaim; and, if there were a necessity of doing either, would much rather forsake their opinion, than embrace those consequences? what opinion is there that draws after it such a train of portentous blasphemies, as that of the dominicans, by the judgement of the best writers of your own order? and will you say now, that the dominicans are justly chargeable with all those blasphemies? if not, seeing our case (take it at the worst) is but the same, why should not your judgement of us be the same? i appeal to all those protestants that have gone over to your side; whether when they were most averse from it, they did ever deny or doubt of god's omniscience or veracity; whether they did ever believe, or were taught, that god did deceive them, or was deceived himself. nay, i provoke to you yourself, and desire you to deal truly, and to tell us whether you do in your heart believe, that we do indeed not believe the eternal veracity of the eternal verity? and, if you judge so strangely of us, having no better ground for it, than you have or can have, we shall not need any farther proof of your uncharitableness towards us, this being the extremity of true uncharitableness. if not, then, i hope, having no other ground but this (which sure is none at all) to pronounce us damnable heretics, you will cease to do so; and hereafter (as, if your ground be true, you may do with more truth and charity) collect thus, they only err damnably, who oppose what they know god hath testified; but, protestants sure do not oppose what they know god hath testified, at least we cannot with charity say they do; therefore they either do not err damnably, or with charity we cannot say they do so. 13. ad. § 17. protestants (you say) according to their own grounds must hold, that of persons contrary in whatsoever point of belief one part only can be saved, therefore it is strangely done of them to charge papists with want of charity for holding the same. the consequence i acknowledge, but wonder much what it should be that lays upon protestants any necessity to do so! you tell us, it is their holding scripture the sole rule of faith: for this, you say, obligeth them to pronounce them damned, that oppose any least point delivered in scripture. this i grant, if they oppose it after sufficient declaration, so that either they know it to be contained in scripture, or have no just probable reason, and which may move an honest man to doubt, whether or no it be there contained. for to oppose in the first case, in a man that believes the scripture to be the word of god, is, to give god the lie. to oppose in the second, is, to be obstinate against reason; and therefore a sin, though not so great as the former. but then this is nothing to the purpose of the necessity of damning all those that are of contrary belief; and that for these reasons. first, because the contrary belief may be touching a point not at all mentioned in scripture; and such points, though indeed they be not matters of faith, yet by men in variance are often overvalued and esteemed to be so. so that, though it were damnable to oppose any point contained in scripture, yet persons of a contrary belief (as victor, and polycrates, s. cyprian, and stephen) might both be saved, because their contrary belief was not touching any point contained in scripture. secondly, because the contrary belief may be about the sense of some place of scripture which is ambiguous, and with probability capable of divers senses; and in such cases it is no marvel, and sure no sin, if several men go several ways. thirdly, because the contrary belief may be concerning points wherein scripture may, with so great probability, be alleged on both sides, (which is a sure note of a point not-necessary) that men of honest and upright hearts, true lovers of god and of truth, such as desire above all things, to know god's will and to do it, may, without any fault at all, some go one way, and some another, and some (and those as good men as either of the former) suspend their judgements, and expect some elias to solve doubts, and reconcile repugnancies. now in all such questions, one side or other (which soever it is) holds that which indeed is opposite to the sense of the scripture, which god intended; for it is impossible that god should intent contradictions. but then this intended sense is not so fully declared, but that they which oppose it, may verily believe that they indeed maintain it, and have great show of reason to induce them to believe so; and therefore are not to be damned, as men opposing that which they either know to be a truth delivered in scripture, or have no probable reason to believe the contrary; but rather, in charity to be acquitted and absolved, as men who endeavour to find the truth, but fail of it through humane frailty. this ground being laid, the answer to your ensuing interrogatories, which you conceive impossible, is very obvious and easy. 14. to the first, whether it be not in any man a grievous sin to deny any one truth contained in holy writ? i answer, yes, if he knew it to be so, or have no probable reason to doubt of it: otherwise, not. 15. to the second: whether there be in such denial any distinction between fundamental and not-fundamental sufficient to excuse from heresy? i answer, yes, there is such a distinction. but the reason is, because those points, either in themselves, or by accident, are fundamental, which are evidently contained in scripture, to him that knows them to be so: those not-fundamental, which are there-hence deducible, but probably only, not evidently. 16. to the third: whether it be not impertinent to allege the creed as containing all fundamental points of faith, as if believing it alone we were at liberty to deny all other points of scripture? i answer, it was never alleged to any such purpose; but only as a sufficient, or rather more than a sufficient summary of those points of faith, which were of necessity to be believed actually and explicitly; and that only of such which were merely and purely credenda, and not agenda. 17. to the fourth, drawn as a corollary from the former, whether this be not to say, that, of persons contrary in belief, one part only can be saved? i answer, by no means. for they may differ about points not contained in scripture: they may differ about the sense of some ambiguous texts of scripture: they may differ about some doctrines, for, and against which scriptures may be alleged with so great probability, as may justly excuse either part from heresy, and a self-condemning obstinacy. and therefore, though d. potter do not take it ill, that you believe yourselves may be saved in your religion; yet, notwithstanding all that hath yet been pretended to the contrary, he may justly condemn you, and that out of your own principles, of uncharitable presumption, for affirming as you do, that no man can be saved out of it. chap. ii. what is that means, whereby the revealed truths of god are conveyed to our understanding, and which must determine controversies in faith and religion. of our estimation, respect, and reverence to holy scripture, even protestans themselves do in fact give testimony, while they possess it from us, and take it upon the integrity of our custody, no cause imaginable could avert our will from giving the function of supreme and sole judge to holy writ, if both the thing were not impossible in itself, and if both reason and experience did not convince our understanding, that, by this assertion contentions are increased, and not ended. we acknowledge holy scrippture to be a most perfect rule, for as much as a writing can be a rule: we only deny that it excludes, either divine tradition, though it be unwritten, or an external judge to keep, to propose, to interpret in a true, orthodox, and catholic sense. every single book, every chapter, yea, every period of holy scripture is infallibly true, and wants no due perfection. but must we therefore infer, that all other books of scripture are to be excluded, lest, by addition of them, we may seem to derogate from the perfection of the former? when the first books of the old and new testament were written, they did not exclude unwritten traditions, nor the authority of the church to decide controversies; and who hath then so altered their nature, and filled them with such jealousies, as that now they cannot agree for fear of mutual disparagement? what greater wrong is it for the written word, to be compartner now with the unwritten, than for the unwritten, which was once alone, to be afterward joined, with the written? who ever heard, that, to commend the fidelity of a keeper, were to disauthorize the thing committed to his custody? or that, to extol the integrity and knowledge, and to avouch the necessity of a judge in suits of law, were to deny perfection in the law? are there not in commonwealths, besides the laws, written and unwritten customs, judges appointed to declare both the one, and the other, as several occasions may require? 2. that the scripture alone cannot be judge in controversies of faith, we gather it very clearly, from the quality of a writing in general: from the nature of holy writ in particular, which must be believed as true, and infallible: from the editions, and translations of it: from the difficulty to understand it without hazard of error: from the inconveniences that must follow upon the ascribing of sole judicature to it: and finally, from the confessions of our adversaries. and, on the other side, all these difficulties ceasing, and all other qualities requisite to a judge concurring in the visible church of christ our lord, we must conclude, that she it is, to whom, in doubts concerning faith and religion, all christians ought to have recourse. 3. the name, notion, nature, and properties of a judge cannot in common reason agree to any mere writing, which, be it otherwise in it its kind, never so highly qualified with sanctity and infallibility; yet it must ever be, as all writings are, deaf, dumb, and inanimate. by a judge, all wise men understand a person endued with life, and reason, able to hear, to examine, to declare his mind to the disagreeing parties, in such sort as that each one may know whether the sentence be in favour of his cause, or against his pretence; and he must be appliable, and able to do all this, as the diversity of controversies, persons, occasions, and circumstances may require. there is a great and plain distinction betwixt a judge and a rule. for, as in a kingdom, the judge hath his rule to follow, which are the received laws and customs; so are not they fit orable to declare, or be judges to themselves, but that office must belong to a living judge. the holy scripture may be, and is, a rule; but cannot be a judge, because, it being always the same, cannot declare itself any one time, or upon any one occasion, more particularly then upon any other; and let it be read over an hundred times, it will be still the same, and no more fit alone to terminate controversies in faith, than the law would be to end suits, if it were given over to the fancy, and gloss of every single man. 4. this difference betwixt a judge and a rule, d. potter perceived, when, more than once having styled the scripture a judge, by way of correcting that term, he adds, or rather a rule, because he knew that an inanimate writing could not be a judge. from hence also it was, that, though protestants in their beginning affirmed scripture alone to be the judge of controversies; yet, upon a more advised reflection, they changed the phrase, and said, that not scripture, but the holy ghost speaking in scripture, is judge in controversies. a difference without a disparity. the holy ghost speaking only in scripture, is no more intelligible to us, than the scripture in which he speaks: as a man speaking only latin, can be no better understood, than the tongue wherein he speaketh. and therefore to say, a judge is necessary for deciding controversies, about the meaning of scripture, is as much as to say, he is necessary to decide what the holy ghost speaks in scripture. and, it were a conceit, equally foolish and pernicious, if one should seek to take away all judges in the kingdom, upon this nicety, that, albeit laws cannot be judges, yet the lawmaker speaking in the law, may perform that office; as if the lawmaker speaking in the law, were with more perspicuity understood, than the law whereby he speaketh. 5. but, though some writing were granted to have a privilege, to declare itself upon supposition that it were maintained in being, and preserved entire from corruptions; yet it is manifest, that no writing can conserve itself, nor can complain, or denounce the falsifier of it; and therefore it stands in need of some watchful and not-erring eye, to guard it, by means of whose assured vigilancy, we may undoubtedly receive it sincere and pure. 6. and, suppose it could defend itself from corruption, how could it assure us that itself were canonical, and of infallible verity? by saying so? of this very affirmation, there will remain the same question still; how it can prove itself to be infallibly true? neither can there ever be an end of the like multiplied demands, till we rest in the external authority of some person or persons bearing witness to the world, that such, or such a book is scripture; and yet upon this point, according to protestants, all other controversies in faith depend. 7. that scripture cannot assure us, that itself is canonical scripture, is acknowledged by some protestants, in express words; and by all of them, in deeds. m. hooker, whom d. potter ranketh (a) pag. 131. among men of great learning and judgement, saith, of things (b) in his first book of eccles polity sect. 14. p. 68 necessary, the very chiefest is to know what books we are to esteem holy; which point is confessed impossible for the scripture itself to teach. and this he proveth by the same argument, which we lately used, saying thus, it is not (c) ibid. l. 2. sect. 4. p. 102. the word of god which doth, or possibly can assure us, that we do well to think it his word. for, if any one book of scripture did give testimony of all, yet still that scripture, which giveth testimony to the rest, would require another scripture to give credit unto it. neither could we come to any pause whereon to rest, unless, besides scripture, there were something which might assure us, etc. and this he acknowledges to be the (d) l. 3. sect. 8. pag. 1.146. & alibi. church. by the way, if, of things necessary the very chiefest cannot possibly be taught by scripture, as this man of great learning and judgement affirmeth, and demonstratively proveth; how can the protestant clergy of england subscribe to their sixth article? wherein it is said of the scripture, whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation: and concerning their belief and profession of this article, they are particularly examined when they be ordained priests and bishops. with hooker, his defendant covel doth punctually agree. whitaker likewise confesseth, that the question about canonical scriptures, is defined to us, not by testimony of the private spirit, which (saith he) being private and secret, is (e) adu. stap. l. 2. c. 6. p. 270. to p. 357. unfit to teach and refel others; but (as he acknowledgeth) by the (f) adu. stap. l. 2. c. 4. p. 300. ecclesiastical tradition: an argument (saith he) whereby may be argued, and convinced, what books be canonical, and what be not. luther saith, this (g) l. de cap. bab. to 2. witt. f. 88 indeed the church hath, that she can discern the word of god, from the word of men: as augustine confesseth, that he believed the gospel, being moved by the authority of the church, which did preach this to be the gospel. fulk teacheth, that the church (h) in his answer to a counterfeit catholic, p. 5. hath judgement to discern true writings from counterfeit, and the word of god from the writing of men; and that this judgement she hath not of herself, but of the holy ghost. and, to the end that you may not be ignorant, from what church you must receive scriptures, hear your first patriarch luther speaking against them, who (as he saith) brought in anabaptism, that so they might despite the pope. verily (saith he) these (i) ep. con. anab. ad duos parochs to. 2. ger. witt. men build upon a week foundation. for by this means, they ought to deny the whole scripture, and the office of preaching. for, all these we have from the pope: otherwise we must go make a new scripture. 8. but now in deeds, they all make good, that, without the church's authority, no certainty can be had what scripture is canonical, while they cannot agree in assigning the canon of holy scripture. of the epistle of s. james, luther hath these words: the (k) praef. in epist. jac. in ed. jenen. epist. of james is contentious, swelling, dry; strawy, and unworthy of an apostolical spirit. which censure of luther, illyricus acknowledgeth and maintaineth. kemnitius teacheth, that the second epistle (l) in enchirid. p. 63. of peter, the second and third of john, the epistle to the hebrews, the epistle of james, the epistle of judas, and the apocalypse of john are apocryphal, as not having sufficient testimony (m) in exam: conc. trid. part, 1. p. 55. of their authority, and therefore that nothing in controversy can be proved out of these (n) ibid. books. the same is taught by divers other lutherans: and, if some other amongst them, be of a contrary opinion since luther's time, i wonder what new infallible ground they can allege, why they leave their master, and so many of his prime scholars? i know no better ground, than because they may with as much freedom abandon him, as he was bold to alter that canon of scripture, which he found received in god's church. 9 what books of scripture the protestants of england, hold for canonical, is not easy to affirm. in their sixth article they say, in the name of the holy scripture, we do understand those canonical books of the old and new testament, of whose authority was never any doubt in the church. what mean they by these words? that by the church's consent they are assured what scriptures be canonical? this were to make the church judge, and not scriptures alone. do they only understand the agreement of the church to be a probable inducement? probability is no sufficient ground for an infallible assent of faith. by this rule (of whose authority was never any doubt in the church) the whole book of esther must quit the canon, because some in the church have excluded it from the canon, as (o) apud euseb. l. 4. hist. c. 26 melito asianus, (p) in synop. athanasius, and (q) in carm. de genuinis scrip. gregory nazianzen. and luther, (if protestants will be content that he be in the church) saith, the jews (r) li. de serv. arb. con. eras. tom. 2. wit. sol. 471. place the book of esther in the canon; which yet, if i might be judge, doth rather deserve to be put out of the canon. and of ecclesiastes he saith, this (s) in lat. serm. conviviali. us franc. in 8. imp. anno 1571. book is not full; there are in it many abrupt things: he wants boots and spurs, that is, he hath no perfect sentence, he rides upon a tongue reed like me when i was in the monastery. and much more is to be read in him: who (t) in ger. colloq. lutheri ab aurifabro ed. fran. tit. de lib. vet. & nov. test. fol. 379. saith further, that the said book was not written by solomon, but by syrach in the time of the macchabees, and that it is like to the talmud (the jews bible) out of many books heaped into one work, perhaps out of the library of king prolomaeus. and further he saith, that (u) ib. tit. edit. patriar. & proph. sol. 282. he doth not believe all to have been done as there is set down. and he teacheth the (w) tit. de li. vet. & nou. test. book of job to be as it were, an argument for a fable (or comedy) to set before us an example of patience. and he (x) fol. 380. delivers this general censure of the prophet's books, the sermons of no prophet were written whole and perfect, but their disciples, and auditors snatched, now one sentence, and then another, and so put them all into one book, and by this means the bible was conserved. if this were so, the books of the prophets, being not written by themselves, but promiscuously and casually, by their disciples, will soon be called in question. are not these errors of luther fundamental? and yet, if protestants deny the infallibility of the church, upon what certain ground can they disprove these lutherian, and luciferian blasphemies? o godly reformer of the roman church! but to return to our english canon of scripture. in the new testament by the rule (of whose authority was never any doubt in the church) divers books of the new testament must be dis-canonized, to wit, all those of which some ancients have doubted, and those which divers lutherans have of late denied. it is worth the observation, how the sixth article, doth specify by name all the books of the old testament which they hold for canonical; but those of the new testament, as they are commonly received, we do receive and account them canonical. the mystery is easily to be unfolded. if they had descended to particulars, they must have contradicted some of their chiefest brethren. as they are commonly received, etc. i ask, by whom? by the church of rome? then, by the same reason they must receive divers books of the old testament, which they reject. by lutherans? then with lutherans they may deny some books of the new testament. if it be the greater, or less number of voices, that must cry up or down, the canon of scripture, our roman canon will prevail: and among protestants the certainty of their faith must be reduced to an uncertain controversy of fact, whether the number of those who reject, or of those others who receive such and such scriptures, be greater. their faith must alter according to years and days. when luther first appeared, he, and his disciples were the greater number of that new church; and so this claim (of being commonly received) stood for them, till zuinglius or calvin grew to some equal, or greater number than that of the lutherans, and then this rule of (commonly received) will canonize their canon against the lutherans. i would gladly know, why, in the former part of their article, they say both of the old and new testament: in the name of the holy scripture, we do understand those canonical books of the old and new testament, of whose authority was never any doubt in the church; and in the latter part, speaking again of the new testament, they give a far different rule, saying, all the books of the new testament, as they are commonly received, we do receive, and account them canonical. this, i say, is a rule much different from the former (of whose authority was never any doubt in the church.) for some books might be said to be commonly received, although they were sometime doubted of by some. if to be commonly received, pass for a good rule to know the canon of the new testament, why not of the old? above all we desire to know, upon what infallible ground in some books they agree with us against luther, and divers principal lutherans, and in others jump with luther against us? but seeing they disagree among themselves, it is evident that they have no certain rule to know the canon of scripture, in assigning whereof some of them must of necessity err; because, of contradictory propositions both cannot be true. 10. moreover, the letters, syllables, words, phrase, or matter contained in holy scripture have no necessary, or natural connection with divine revelation or inspiration: and therefore by seeing, reading, or understanding them, we cannot infer that they proceed from god, or be confirmed by divine authority; as because creatures involve a necessary relation, connection, and dependence on their creator, philosophers may by the light of natural reason, demonstrate the existence of one prime cause of all things; in holy writ there are innumerable truths not surpassing the sphere of humane wit, which are, or may be delivered by pagan writers, in the self same words and phrase as they are in scripture. and as for some truths peculiar to christian's (for example, the mystery of the blessed trinity, etc.) the only setting them down in writing is not enough to be assured that such a writing is the undoubted word of god: otherwise some say of plato, trismegistus, sibyls, ovid, etc. must be esteemed canonical scripture, because they fall upon some truths proper to christian religion. the internal light, and inspiration, which directed and moved the authors of canonical scriptures, is a hidden quality infused into their understanding and will, and hath no such particular sensible influence into the external writing, that in it we can discover, or from it demonstrate any such secret light and inspiration; and therefore to be assured that such a writing is divine, we cannot know from itself alone, but by some other authority. 11. and here we appeal to any man of judgement, whether it be not a vain brag of some protestants to tell us, that they wots full well what is scripture, by the light of scripture itself, or (as d. potter words it) by (y) pag. 141. that glorious beam of divine light which shines therein; even as our eye distinguisheth light from darkness, without any other help than light itself; and as our ear knows a voice, by the voice itself alone. but this vanity is refuted, by what we said even now; that the external scripture hath no apparent or necessary connexion with divine inspiration or revelation. will d. potter hold all his brethren for blind men, for not seeing that glorious beam of divine light which shines in scripture, about which they cannot agree? corporal light may be discerned by itself alone, as being evident, proportionate, and connatural to our faculty of seeing. that scripture is divine, and inspired by god, is a truth exceeding the natural capacity and compass of man's understanding, to us obscure, and to be believed by divine faith, which, according to the apostle, is, argumentum (z) heb. v. 1. non-apparentium; an argument, or conviction, of things not-evident; and therefore no wonder if scripture do not manifest itself by itself alone, but must requ●re some other means for applying it to our understanding. nevertheless their own similitudes and instances make against themselves. for, suppose a man had never read, or heard of sun, moon, fire, candle, etc. and should be brought to behold a light, yet in such sort as that the agent, or 'cause efficient from which it proceeded, were kept hidden from him; could such a one, by only beholding the light, certainly know, whether it were produced by the sun, or moon, & c? or, if one hear a voice, and had never known the speaker, could he know from whom in particular that voice proceeded? they, who look upon scripture, may well see, that some one wrote it; but that it was written by divine inspiration, how shall they know? nay, they cannot so much as know who wrote it, unless they first know the writer, and what hand he writes: as likewise i cannot know whose voice it is which i hear, unless i first both know the person who speaks, and with what voice he useth to speak; and yet, even all this supposed, i may perhaps be deceived. for there may be voices so like, and hand so counterfeited, that men may be deceived by them, as birds were by the grapes of that skilful painter. now since protestants affirm, knowledge concerning god as our supernatural end, must be taken from scripture, they cannot in scripture alone discern that it is his voice, or writing, because they cannot know from whom a writing, or voice proceeds, unless first they know the person who speaketh, or writeth. nay, i say more, by scripture alone, they cannot so much as know, that any person doth in it, or by it, speak any thing at all: because one may write without intent to signify, or affirm any thing, but only to set down, or, as it were, paint, such characters, syllables, and words; as men are wont to set copies, not caring what the signification of the words imports: or as one transcribes a writing which himself understands not: or when one writes what another dictates, and in other such cases, wherein it is clear, that the writer speaks or signifies nothing in such his writing; and therefore by it we cannot hear, or understand his voice. with what certainty then can any man affirm, that by scripture itself they can see, that the writers did intent to signify any thing at all: that they were apostles, or other canonical authors: that they wrote their own sense, and not what was dictated by some other man: and finally and especially, that they wrote by the infallible direction of the holy ghost? 12. but let us be liberal, and for the present suppose (not grant) that scripture is, like to corporal light, by itself alone able to determine, and move our understanding to assent; yet the similitude proves against themselves. for light is not visible, except to such as have eyes, which are not made by the light, but must be presupposed as produced by some other cause. and therefore, to hold the similitude, scripture can be clear only to those who are endued with the eye of faith; or, as d. potter above cited saith, to all that have (a) pag. 141. eyes to discern the shining beams thereof; that is, to the believer, as immediately after he speaketh. faith than must not originally proceed from scripture, but is to be presupposed, before we can see the light thereof; and consequently there must be some other means precedent to scripture, to beget faith, which can be no other than the church. 13. others affirm, that they know canonical scriptures to be such, by the title of the books. but how shall we know such inscriptions, or titles, to be infallibly true? from this their answer our argument is strengthened, because divers apocryphal writings have appeared, under the titles, and names of sacred authors, as the gospel of thomas mentioned by (b) cont. adimantum c. 17. s. augustine, the gospel of peter, which the nazaraei did use, as (c) l. 2. heretic. fab. theodoret witnesseth, with which seraphion a catholic bishop, was for some time deceived, as may be read in (d) li. 6. c. 10. eusebius, who also speaketh of the apocalypse of (e) lib. 6. c. 11. peter. the like may be said of the gospels of barnabas, bartholomew, and other such writings specified by pope (f) dist. can. sancta romana. gelasius. protestants reject likewise some part of esther and daniel, which bear the same titles with the rest of those books, as also both we, and they hold for apocryphal, the third and fourth books which go under the name of esdras, and yet both of us receive his first and second book. wherefore titles are not sufficient assurances what books be canonical: which (h) in his defence, art. 4. pag. 31. d. covel acknowledgeth in these words, it is not the word of god, which doth, or possibly can assure us, that we do well to think it is the word of god: the first outward motion leading men so to esteem of the scripture, is the authority of god's church, which teacheth us to receive mark ' s gospel, who was not an apostle, and to refuse the gospel of thomas who was an apostle: and to retain luke ' s gospel who saw not christ, and to reject the gospel of nicodemus who saw him. 14. another answer, or rather objection they are wont to bring: that the scripture being a principle needs no proof among christians. so i pag. 234. d. potter. but this is either a plain begging of the question, or manifestly untrue, and is directly against their own doctrine, and practice. if they mean, that scripture is one of those principles, which being the first, and the most known in all sciences, cannot be demonstrated by other principles, they suppose that which is in question, whether there be not some principle, (for example, the church) whereby we may come to the knowledge of scripture. if they intent, that scripture is a principle, but not the first, and most known in christianity, than scripture may be proved. for principles, that are not the first, nor known of themselves, may, and aught to be proved, before we can yield assent, either to them, or to other verities depending on them. it is repugnant to their own doctrine, and practice, in as much as they are wont to affirm, that one part of scripture may be known to be canonical, and may be interpreted by another. and since every scripture is a principle sufficient, upon which to ground divine faith, they must grant, that one principle may, and sometime must, be proved by another. yea this their answer, upon due ponderation, falls out to prove, what we affirm. for since all principles cannot be proved, we must (that our labour may not be endless) come at length, to rest in some principle, which may not require any other proof. such is tradition, which involves an evidence of fact; and from hand to hand, and age to age, bringing us up to the times, and persons of the apostles, and our saviour himself, cometh to be confirmed by all those miracles, and other arguments, whereby they convinced their doctrine to be true. wherefore the ancient fathers avouch that we must receive the sacred canon upon the credit of god's church. k in synopsi. s. athanasius saith, that only four gospels are to be received, because the canons of the holy and catholic church have so determined. the third council of l can. 47. carthage having set down the books of holy scripture, gives the reason, because, we have received from our fathers that these are to be read in the church. s. augustine m cont. ep. fundam. c. 5. speaking of the acts of the apostles, saith, to which book i must give credit, if i give credit to the gospel, because the catholic church doth alike recommend to me both these books. and in the same place he hath also these words: i would not believe the gospel, unless the authority of the catholic church did move me. a saying so plain, that zuinglius is forced to cry out, here i n to. 1. fol. 135. implore your equity to speak freely, whether this saying of augustine seem not overbold, or else unadvisedly to have fallen from him. 15. but suppose they were assured what books were canonical, this will little avail them, unless they be likewise certain in what language they remain uncorrupted, or what translations be true. calvin o instit. c. 6. sect. 11. acknowledgeth corruption in the hebrew text; which if it be taken without points, is so ambiguous, that scarcely any one chapter, yea period, can be securely understood without the help of some translation. if with points, these were after s. hieroms time, invented by the perfidious jews, who either by ignorance might mistake, or upon malice force the text, to favour their impieties. and that the hebrew text still retains much ambiguity, is apparent by the disagreeing translation of novelists; which also proves the greek, for the new testament, not to be void of doubtfulness, as calvin p instit. c. 7● sect. 12. confesseth it to be corrupted. and although both the hebrew and greek were pure, what doth this help, if only scripture be the rule of faith, and so very few be able to examine the text in these languages. all then must be reduced to the certainty of translations into other tongues, wherein no private man having any promise, or assurance of infallibility, protestants who rely upon scripture alone, will find no certain ground for their faith: as accordingly whitaker q lib. de sancta scriptura p. 52. affirmeth: those who understand not the hebrew and greek, do err often, and unavoidably. 16. now concerning the translations of protestants, it will be sufficient to set down what the laborious, exact, and judicious author of the protestants apology, etc. dedicated to our late king james of famous memory; hath to this r taste. 1. sect. 10. subd. 4. joined with tract. 2 cap. 2. sect. 10 subd. 2. purpose. to omit (saith he) particulars, whose recital would be infinite, and to touch this point but generally only, the translation of the new testament by luther is condemned by andreas, osiander, keckermannus, and zuinglius, who saith hereof to luther, thou dost corrupt the word of god, thou art seen to be a manifest and common corrupter of the holy scriptures: how much are we ashamed of thee who have hitherto esteemed thee beyond all measure, and now prove thee to be such a man? and in like manner doth luther reject the translation of the zwinglians, terming them in matter of divinity, foo●s, asses, antichrists, deceivers, and of asslike understanding. in so much that when froschoverus the zuinglian printer of zurich sent him a bible translated by the divines there, luther would not receive the same, but sending it back rejected it, as the protestants writers hospinianus, and lavatherus, witness. the translation set forth by oecolampadius, and the divines of basil, is reproved by beza, who affirmeth that the basil translation is in many places wicked, and altogether differing from the mind of the holy ghost. the translation of castalio is condemned by beza, as being sacrilegious, wicked, and ethnical. as concerning calvin's translation, that learned protestant writer carolus molinaeus saith thereof, calvin in his harmony maketh the text of the gospel to leap up and down: he useth violence to the letter of the gospel; and, besides this, addeth to the text. as touching beza's translation, (to omit the dislike had thereof by selneccerus the german protestant of the university of jena) the foresaid molinaeus saith of him, de facto mutat textum; he actually changeth the text, and giveth farther sundry instances of his corruptions: as also castalio that learned calvinist, and most learned in the tongues, reprehendeth beza in a whole book, of this matter, and saith, that to note all his errors in translation, would require a great volume. and m. parkes saith, as for the geneva bibles, it is to be wished that either they may be purged from those manifold errors, which are both in the text, and in the margin; or else utterly prohibited. all which confirmeth your majesty's grave and learned censure, in your thinking the geneva translation to be warst of all; and that in the marginal notes annexed to the geneva translation, some are very partial, untrue, seditious, etc. lastly, concerning the english translation, the puritans say, our translation of the psalms, comprised in our book of common-prayer, doth in addition, substraction, and alteration, differ from the truth of the hebrew, in two hundred places at the least. in so much as they do therefore profess to rest doubtful, whether a man with a safe conscience may subscribe thereunto and m. carlisle saith of the english translators, that they have depraved the sense, obscured the truth, and deceived the ignorant, that in many places they do detort the scriptures from the right sense. and that, they show themselves to love darkness more than light, falsehood more than truth. and the ministers of lincoln-diocess, give their public testimony, terming the english translation, a translation that taketh away from the text; that addeth to the text; and that sometime to the changing, or obscuring, of the meaning of the holy ghost. not without cause therefore, did your majesty affirm, that you could never see a bible well translated into english. thus far the author of the protestants apology, etc. and i cannot forbear to mention, in particular, that famous corruption of luther, who in the text, where it is said (rom. 3. v. 28. we account a man to be justified by faith, without the works of the law) in favour of justification by faith alone, translateth (justified by faith alone.) as likewise the falsification of zuinglius is no less notorious, who in the gospels of s. matthew, mark, and luke, and in s. paul, in place of, this is my body, this is my blood, translates, this signifies my body, this signifies my blood. and here let protestants consider duly of these points. salvation cannot be hoped for, without true faith: faith, according to them, relies upon scripture alone: scripture must be delivered to most of them, by the translations: translations depend on the skill and honesty of men, in whom nothing is more certain than a most certain possibility to err, and no greater evidence of truth, than that it is evident some of them embrace falsehood, by reason of their contrary translations. what then remaineth, but that truth, faith, salvation, and all, must in them rely upon a fallible and uncertain ground? how many poor souls are lamentably seduced, while from preaching ministers, they admire a multitude of texts of divine scripture, but are indeed the false translations, and corruptions of erring men? let them therefore, if they will be assured of true scriptures, fly to the always visible catholic church, against which the gates of hell can never so far prevail, as that she shall be permitted to deceive the christian world with false scriptures. and luther himself, by unfortunate experience, was at length forced to confess thus much, saying, if the s li. count. zuing. de verit. corp. christ in eucha. world last longer, it will be again necessary to receive the decrees of counsels, and to have recourse to them, by reason of divers interpretations of scripture which now reign. on the contrary side, the translation approved by the roman-church, is commended even by our adversaries: and d. covell in particular saith, that it was used in the church, one thousand t in his answer unto m. joha burges, pag. 94. three hundred years ago, and doubteth not to prefer u ibid. that translation before oth●rs. in so much, that whereas the english-translations be many, and among themselves disagreeing, he concludeth, that of all those the approved translation authorized by the church of england, is that which cometh nearest to the vulgar, and is commonly called the bishop's bible. so that the truth of that translation which we use, must be the rule to judge of the goodness of their bibles: and therefore they are obliged to maintain our translation, if it were but for their own sake. 17. but doth indeed the source of their manifold uncertainties stop here? no, the chiefest difficulty remains, concerning the true meaning of scripture: for attaining whereof, if protestants had any certainty, they could not disagree so hugely as they do. hence mr. hooker saith, we are w in his preface to his books of eccl. polity, sect. 6.26. right sure of this, that nature, scripture, and experience have all taught the wo●ld to seek for the ending of contentions, by submitting itself unto some judicial, and definitive sentence, whereunto neither part that contendeth may, under any pretence, refuse to stand doctor fields words are remarkable to this purpose, seeing (saith he) the controversies x in his treatise of the church in his epistle dedicatory to the l. archbishop. of religion in our tim●s are grown in number so many, and in nature to intricate, that few have time and leisure, fewer strength of understanding, to examine them; what remaineth for men desirous of satisfaction in things of such consequence, but diligently to search out which among all the societies in the world, is that blessed company of holy ones, that household of faith, that spouse of christ, and church of the living god, which is the pillar and ground of truth, that so they may embrace her communion, follow her directions, and rest in her judgement? 18. and now that the true interpretation of scripture ought to be received from the church, it is also proved by what we have already demonstrated, that she it is, who must declare what books be true scripture; wherein if she be assisted by the holy ghost, why should we not believe her, to be infallibly directed concerning the true meaning of them? let protestants therefore either bring some proof out of scripture, that the church is guided by the holy ghost in discerning true scripture, and not in delivering the true sense thereof; or else give us leave to apply against them, the argument which s. augustine opposed to the manicheans, in these words, i would not y con. ep. fund. cap. 5. believe the gospel, unless the authority of the church did move me. them therefore whom i obeyed, saying, believe the gospel, why should i not obey saying to me, do not believe manicheus, (luther, calvin, etc.) choose what thou pleasest. if thou shalt say, believe the catholics; they warn me, not to give any credit to you. if therefore i believe them, i cannot believe thee. if thou say, do not believe the catholics, thou shalt not do well in forcing me to the faith of manicheus, because, by the preaching of catholics, i believed the gospel itself. if thou say, you did well to believe them (catholics) commending the gospel, bu● you did not well to believe them, discommending manicheus; dost thou think me so very foolish, that, without any reason at all, i should believe what thou wilt, and not believe what thou wilt not? and do not protestants perfectly resemble these men, to whom s. augustine spoke, when they will have men to believe the roman-church delivering scripture, but not to believe her condemning luther, and the rest? against whom, when they first opposed themselves to the roman church, s. augustine may seem to have spoken no less prophetically, than doctrinally, when he said, why should i not most z lib. de util. ere. cap. 14. diligently inquire what christ commanded of them before all others, by whose authority i was moved to believe, that christ commanded any good thing? canst thou better declare to me what he said, whom i would not have thought to have been, or to be, if the belief thereof had been recommended by thee to me? this therefore i believed by fame, strengthened with celebrity, consent, antiquity. but every one may see that you, so few, so turbulent, so new, can produce nothing deserving authority. what madness is this? believe them (catholics), that we ought to believe christ; but learn of us, what christ said. why, i beseech thee? surely if they (catholics) were not at all, and could not teach me any thing, i would more easily persuade myself, that i were not to believe christ, than that i should learn any thing concerning him from any other than them by whom i believed him. if therefore we receive the knowledge of christ, and scriptures from the church, from her also must we take his doctrine, and the interpretation thereof. 19 but besides all this, the scriptures cannot be judge of controversies; who ought to be such, as that to him not only the learned, or veterans, but also the unlearned, and novices, may have recourse: for these being capable of salvation, and endued with faith of the same nature with that of the learned, there must be some universal judge, which the ignorant may understand, and to whom the greatest clerks must submit. such is the church; and the scripture is not such. 20. now, the inconveniences which follow by referring all controversies to scripture alone, are very clear. for by this principle, all is finally in very deed and truth reduced to the internal private spirit, because there is really no middle way betwixt a public external, and a private internal voice; and whosoever refuseth the one, must of necessity adhere to the other. 21. this tenet also of protestants, by taking the office of judicature from the church, comes to confer it upon every particular man, who being driven from submission to the church, cannot be blamed if he trust himself as far as any other, his conscience dictating, that wittingly he means not to cousin himself, as others maliciously may do. which inference is so manifest, that it hath extorted from divers protestants the open confession of so vast an absurdity. hear luther, the governors of (a) churches, o to. 2. wittemb. fol. 375. and pastors of christ's sheep, have indeed power to teach, but the sheep ought to give judgement, whether they propound the voice of christ, or of aliens. lubertus saith, as we have b in lib de principiis christian. dogm li 6. c. 13. demonstrated that all public judges may be deceived in interpreting; so we affirm, that they may err in judging. all faithful men are private judges, and they also have power to judge of doctrines, and interpretations. whitaker, even of the unlearned, saith, they c de sacra scriptura pag. 529. ought to have recourse unto the more learned; but in the mean time we must be careful not to attribute to them overmuch, but so, that still we retain our own freedom. bilson also affirmeth, that, the people d in his true difference, part 2. must be discerners, and judges of that which is taught. the same pernicious doctrine is delivered by brentius, zanchius, cartwright, and others exactly cited by e tract. 2. cap. 1 sect. 1. breerely; and nothing is more common in every protestants mouth, than that he admits of fathers, councles, church, etc. as far as they agree with scripture; which upon the matter is himself. thus heresy ever falls upon extremes. it pretends to have scripture alone for judge of controversies, and in the mean time sets up as many judges, as there are men and women in the christian world. what good statesmen would they be, who should ideate, or fancy, such a commonwealth, as these men have framed to themselves a church? they verify what s. augustine objecteth against certain heretics. you see f lib. 32. cont. faust. that you go about to overthrow all authority of scripture, and that every man's mind may be to himself a rule, what he is to allow, or disallow in every scripture. 22. moreover, what confusion to the church, what danger to the commonwealth, this denial of the authority of the church, may bring, i leave to the consideration of any judicious, indifferent man. i will only set down some words of d. potter, who speaking of the proposition of revealed truths, sufficient to prove him that gainsayeth them, to be an heretic, saith thus: this proposition g pag. ●4▪ of revealed truths, is not by the infallible determination of pope, or church; (pope, and church being excluded, let us hear what more secure rule he will prescribe) but by whatsoever means a man may be convinced in conscience of divine revelation. if a preacher do clear any point of faith to his hearers; if a private christian do make it appear to his neighbour, that any conclusion, or point of faith is delivered by divine revelation of god's word; if a man himself (without any teacher) by reading the scriptures, or hearing them read, be convinced of the truth of any such conclusion; this is a sufficient proposition to prove him that gain sayeth any such proof, to be an heretic, and obstinate opposer of the faith. behold, what goodly safe propounders of faith arise in place of god's universal visible church, which must yield to a single preacher, a neighbour, a man himself if he can read, or at least have ears to hear scripture read. verily i do not see, but that every well-governed civil commonwealth, aught to concur towards the exterminating of this doctrine, whereby the interpretation of scripture is taken from the church, and conferred upon every man, who, whatsoever is pretended to the contrary, may be a passionate seditious creature. 23. moreover, there was no scripture, or written word for about two thousand years from adam to moses, whom all acknowledge to have been the first author of canonical scripture: and again, for about two thousand years more, from moses to christ our lord, holy scripture was only among the people of israel; and yet there were gentiles endued in those days with divine faith, as appeareth in job, and his friends. wherefore, during so many ages, the church alone was the decider of controversies, and instructor of the faithful. neither did the word written by moses, deprive the church of her former infallibility, or other qualities requisite for a judge: yea d. potter acknowledgeth, that besides the law, there was a living judge in the jewish church, endued with an absolutely infallible direction in case of moment; as all points belonging to divine faith are. now, the church of christ our lord, was before the scriptures of the new testament, which were not written instantly, nor all at one time, but successively upon several occasions; and some after the decease of most of the apostles: and after they were written, they were not presently known to all churches: and of some there was doubt in the church for some ages after our saviour. shall we then say, that according as the church by little and little received holy scripture, she was by the like degrees devested of her possessed infallibility, and power to decide controversies in religion? that sometime churches had one judge of controversies, and others another? that with months, or years, as new canonical scripture grew to be published, the church altered her whole rule of faith, or judge of controversies? after the apostles time, and after the writing of scriptures, heresies would be sure to rise, requiring in god's church, for their discovery and condemnation, infallibility, either to write new canonical scripture, as was done in the apostles time by occasion of emergent heresies; or infallibility to interpret scriptures, already written, or without scripture, by divine unwritten traditions, and assistance of the holy ghost to determine all controversies, as tertullian saith: the soul is h de test. ani● cap. 5. before the letter; and speech before books; and sense before style. certainly such addition of scripture, with derogation, or substraction from the former power and infallibility of the church, would have brought to the world division in matters of faith, and the church had rather lost, than gained by holy scripture, (which ought to be far from our tongues and thoughts) it being manifest, that, for decision of controversies, infallibility settled in a living judge, is incomparably more useful and fit, than if it were conceived, as inherent in some inanimate writing. is there such repugnance betwixt infallibility of the church, and existence of scripture, that the production of the one, must be the destruction of the other? must the church wax dry, by giving to her children the milk of sacred writ? no, no. her infallibility was, and is, derived from an inexhausted fountain. if protestants will have the scripture alone for their judge, let them first produce some scripture affirming, that by the entering thereof, infallibility went out of the church. d. potter may remember what himself teacheth; that the church is still endued with infallibility in points fundamental; and consequently, that infallibility in the church doth well agree with the truth, the sanctity, yea with the sufficiency, of scripture, for all matters necessary to salvation. i would therefore gladly know, out of what text he imagineth that the church by the coming of scripture, was deprived of infallibility in some points, and not in others? he affirmeth, that the jewish synagogue retained infallibility in herself, notwithstanding the writing of the old testament; and will he so unworthily and unjustly deprive the church of christ of infallibility by reason of the new testament? especially, if we consider, that, in the old testament, laws, ceremonies, rites, punishments, judgements, sacraments, sacrifices, etc. were more particularly, and minutely delivered to the jews, than in the new testament is done; our saviour leaving the determination or declaration, of particulars to his spouse the church, which therefore stands in need of infallibility more than the jewish synagogue. d. potter i pag. 24. against this argument, drawn from the power and infallibility of the synagogue, objects, that we might as well inserr, that christians must have one sovereign prince over all, because the jews had one chief judge. but the disparity is very clear. the synagogue was a type, and figure of the church of christ; not so their civil government, of christian commonwealths or kingdoms. the church succeeded to the synagogue, but not christian princes to jewish magistrates: and the church is compared to a house, or k heb. 13. family; to an l cant. 2. army, to a m 1 cor. 10. ephes. 4. body, to a n mat. 12. kingdom, etc. all which require one master, one general, one head, one magistrate, one spiritual king; as our blessed saviour with fict unum ovile, o joan. c. 10. joined unus pastor: one sheepsold, one pastor: but all distinct kingdoms, or commonwealths, are not one army, family, etc. and finally, it is necessary to salvation, that all have recourse to one church; but for temporal weal, there is no need that all submit, or depend upon one temporal prince, kingdom, or commonwealth: and therefore our saviour hath left to his whole church, as being one, one law, one scripture, the same sacraments, etc. whereas kingdoms have their several laws, different governments, diversity of powers, magistracy, etc. and so this objection returneth upon d. potter. for as in the one community of the jews, there was one power and judge, to end debates, and resolve difficulties; so in the church of christ, which is one, there must be some one authority to decide all controversies in religion. 24. this discourse is excellently proved by ancient s. irenaeus p lib. 5. c. 4. in these words; what if the apostles had not lest scriptures, ought we not to have followed the order of tradition which they delivered to those to whom they committed the churches? to which order many nations yield assent, who believe in christ, having salvation written in their hearts by the spirit of god, without letters or lake, and diligent keeping ancient tradition. it is easy to receive the truth from god's church, seeing the apostles have most fully deposited in her, as in a rich store-house, all things belonging to truth. for what? if there should arise any contention of some small question, ought we not to have recourse to the most ancient churches, and from them to receive what is certain and clear concerning the present question? 25. besides all this, the doctrine of protestants is destructive of itself. for either they have certain and infallible means, not to err in interpreting scripture; or they have not if not, than the scripture (to them) cannot be a sufficient ground for infallible faith, nor a meet judge of controversies. if they have certain infallible means, and so cannot err in their interpretations of scriptures; then they are able with infallibility to hear, examine, and determine all controversies of faith, and so they may be, and are judges of controversies, although they use the scripture as a rule. and thus, against their own doctrine, they constitute another judge of controversies, besides scripture alone. 26. lastly, i ask d. potter, whether ●his assertion (scripture alone is judge of all controversies in faith) be a fundamental point of faith, or no? he must be well advised, before he say, that it is a fundamental point. for he will have against him, as many protestants as teach that by scripture alone, it is impossible to know what books be scripture, which yet, to protestants, is the most necessary and chief point of all other. d. covell expressly saith, doubtless q in his defence of mr. hooker's books art 4. p. 31. it is a tolera le opinion in the church of rome, if they go no further, as some of them do not (he should have said, as none of them do) to affirm, that the scriptures are holy and divine in themselves, but so esteemed by us, for the authority of the church. he will likewise oppose himself to those his brethren, who grant that controversies cannot be ended, without some external living authority, as we noted before. besides, how can it be in us a fundamental error to say, the scripture alone is not judge of controversies, seeing (notwithstanding this our belief) we use for interpreting of scripture, all the means which they prescribe; as prayer, conferring of places, consulting the originals, etc. and to these add the instruction, and authority of god's church, which even by his confession cannot err damnably, and may afford us more help, than can be expected from the industry, learning, or wit of any private person: and finally, d. potter grants, that the church of rome doth not maintain any fundamental error against faith; and consequently, he cannot affirm that our doctrine, in this present controversy, is damnable. if he answer, that their tenet, about the scriptures being the only judge of controversies, is not a fundamental point of faith: then, as he teacheth, that the universal church may err in points fundamental; so, i hope, he will not deny, but particular churches, and private men, are much more obnoxious to error in such points; and in particular in this, that scripture alone is judge of controversies: and so, the very principle upon which their whole faith is grounded, remains to them uncertain: and on the other side, for the selfsame season, they are not certain, but that the church is judge of controversies; which if she be, than their case is lamentable, who in general deny her this authority, and in particular controversies oppose her definitions. besides, among public conclusions defended in oxford the year 1633. to the questions, whether the church have authority to determine controversies in faith; and, to interpret holy scripture? the answer to both is affirmative. 27. since then, the visible church of christ our lord, is that infallible means whereby the revealed truths of almighty god, are conveyed to our understanding; it followeth, that to oppose her definitions is to resist god himself; which blessed st. augustine plainly affirmeth, when, speaking of the controversy about rebaptisation of such as were baptised by heretics, he saith, this r de unit. eccles. c. 2●. is neither openly, nor evidently read; neither by you nor by me: yet if there were any wise man of whom our saviour had given testimony, and that he should be consulted in this question, we should make no doubt to perform what he should say, lest we might seem to gainsay not him so much as christ, by whose testimony he was recommended. now christ beareth witness to his church. and a little after, whosoever refuseth to follow the practice of the church, doth resist our saviour himself, who by his testimony recommends the church. i conclude therefore with this argument; whosoever resisteth that means which infallibly proposeth to us god's word or revelation, commits a sin, which, unrepented, excludes salvation: but whosoever resisteth christ's visible church, doth resist that means, which infallibly proposeth god's word or revelation to us. therefore, whosoever resisteth christ's visible church, commits a sin, which unrepented, excludes salvation. now, what visible church was extant, when luther began his pretended reformation, whether it were the roman, or protestant church; and whether he, and other protestants do not oppose that visible church, which was spread over the world, before, and in luther's time, is easy to be determined, and importeth every one most seriously to ponder, as a thing whereon eternal salvation dependeth. and because our adversaries do here most insist upon the distinction of points fundamental, and not-fundamental; and in particular teach, that the church may err in points not-fundamental, it will be necessary to examine the truth, and weight of this evasion, which shall be done in the next chapter. an answer to the second chapter. concerning the means, whereby the revealed truths of god are conveyed to our understanding; and which must determine controversies in faith and religion. ad §. 1. he that would usurp an absolute lordship and tyranny over any people, need not put himself to the trouble and difficulty of abrogating and disannulling the laws, made to maintain the common liberty; for he may frustrate their intent, and compass his own design as well, if he can get the power and authority to interpret them as he pleases, and add to them what he pleases, and to have his interpretations and additions stand for laws; if he can rule his people by his laws, and his laws by his lawyers. so the church of rome, to establish her tyranny over men's consciences, needed not either to abolish or corrupt the holy scriptures, the pillars and supporters of christian liberty (which in regard of the numerous multitude of copies dispersed through all places, translated into almost all languages, guarded with all solicitous care and industry, had been an impossible attempt;) but the more expedite way, and therefore more likely to be successful, was, to gain the opinion and esteem of the public and authorised interpreter of them, and the authority of adding to them what doctrine she pleased under the title of traditions or definitions. for by this means, she might both serve herself of all those clauses of scripture, which might be drawn to cast a favourable countenance upon her ambitious pretences, which in case the scripture had been abolished, she could not have done; and yet be secure enough of having either her power limited, or her corruptions and abuses reform by them; this being once settled in the minds of men, that unwritten doctrines, if proposed by her, were to be received with equal reverence to those that were written; and that the sense of scripture was not that which seemed to men's reason and understanding to be so, but that which the church of rome should declare to be so, seemed it never so unreasonable and incongruous. the matter being once thus ordered, and the holy scriptures being made in effect not your directors and judges (no farther than you please) but your servants and instruments, always pressed and in readiness to advance your designs, and disabled wholly with minds so qualified to prejudice or impeach them; it is safe for you to put a crown on their head, and a reed in their hands, and to bow before them, and cry, hail ring of the jews! to pretend a great deal of esteem, and respect, and reverence to them, as here you do. but to little purpose is verbal reverence without entire submission and sincere obedience; and, as our saviour said of some, so the scripture, could it speak, i believe would say to you, why call ye me lord, lord, and do not that which i command you? cast away the vain and arrogant pretence of infallibility, which makes your errors incurable. leave picturing god, and worshipping him by pictures. teach not for doctrine the commandments of men. debarr not the laity of the testament of christ's blood. let your public prayers, and psalms, and hymns be in such language as is for the edification of the assistants. take not from the clergy that liberty of marriage which christ hath left them. do not impose upon men that humility of worshipping angels which s. paul condemns. teach no more proper sacrifices of christ but one. acknowledge them that die in christ to be blessed, and to rest from their labours. acknowledge the sacrament after consecration, to be bread and wine, as well as christ's body and blood. acknowledge the gift of continency without marriage, not to be given to all. let not the weapons of your warfare be carnal, such as massacres, treasons, persecutions, and, in a word, all means either violent or fraudulent: these and other things, which the scripture commands you, do, and then we shall willingly give you such testimony as you deserve; but till you do so, to talk of estimation, respect, and reverence to the scripture, is nothing else but talk. 2. for neither is that true which you pretend, that we possess the scripture from you, or take it upon the integrity of your custody; but upon universal tradition, of which you are but a little part. neither, if it were true that protestants acknowledged, the integrity of it to have been guarded by your alone custody, were this any argument of your reverence towards them. for first, you might preserve them entire, not for want of will, but of power to corrupt them, as it is a hard thing to poison the sea. and then having prevailed so far with men, as either not to look at all into them, or but only through such spectacles as you should please to make for them, and to see nothing in them, though as clear as the sun, if it any way made against you, you might keep them entire, without any thought or care to conform your doctrine to them, or reform it by them (which were indeed to reverence the scriptures;) but, out of a persuasion, that you could qualify them well enough with your glosses and interpretations, and make them sufficiently conformable to your present doctrine, at least in their judgement, who were prepossessed with this persuasion, that your church was to judge of the sense of scripture, not to be judged by it. 3. for, whereas you say, no cause imaginable could avert your will, for giving the function of supreme and sole judge to holy writ; but that the thing is impossible, and that by this means controversies are increased and not ended: you mean perhaps,— that you can or will imagine no other cause but these. but sure there is little reason you should measure other men's imaginations by your own, who perhaps may be so clouded and vailed with prejudice, that you cannot, or will not, see that which is most manifest. for what indifferent and unprejudicate man may not easily conceive another cause which (i do not say does, but certainly) may pervert your wills, and avert your understandings from submitting your religion and church to a trial by scripture? i mean the great and apparent and unavoidable danger which by this means you would fall into, of losing the opinion which men have of your infallibility, and consequently your power and authority over men's consciences, and all that depends upon it. so that though diana of the ephesians be cried up, yet it may be feared that with a great many among you (though i censure or judge no man) the other cause which wrought upon demetrius and the craftsmen, may have with you also the more effectual, though more secret influence: and that is, that by this craft we have our living; by this craft, i mean, of keeping your proselytes from an indifferent trial of your religion by scripture, and making them yield up and captivate their judgement unto yours. yet had you only said de facto, that no other cause did avert your own will from this, but only these which you pretend; out of charity i should have believed you. but seeing you speak not of yourself, but of all of your side, whose hearts you cannot know; and profess not only, that there is no other cause, but that no other is imaginable, i could not let this pass without a censure. as for the impossibility of scriptures being the sole judge of controversies, that is, the sole rule for men to judge them by (for we mean nothing else) you only affirm it without proof, as if the thing were evident of itself. and therefore i, conceiving the contrary to be more evident, might well content myself to deny it without refutation. yet i cannot but desire you to tell me, if scripture cannot be the judge of any controversy, how shall that touching the church and the notes of it, be determined? and if it be the sole judge of this one, why may it not of others? why not of all? those only excepted wherein the scripture itself is the subject of the question, which cannot be determined but by natural reason, the only principle, beside scripture, which is common to christians. 4. then for the imputation of increasing contentions and not ending them, scripture is innocent of it; as also this opinion, that controversies are to be decided by scripture. for if men did really and sincerely submit their judgements to scripture, and that only, and would require no more of any man but to do so, it were impossible but that all controversies, touching things necessary and very profitable should be ended: and if others were continued or increased, it were no matter. 5. in the next words we have direct boyes-play; a thing given with one hand, and taken away with the other▪ an acknowledgement made in one line, and retracted in the next. we acknowledge (say you) scripture to be a perfect rule, for as much as a writing can be a rule; only we deny that it excludes unwritten tradition. as if you should have said, we acknowledge it to be as perfect a rule as a writing can be; only we deny it to be as perfect a rule as a writing may be. either therefore you must revoke your acknowledgement, or retract your retractation of it; for both cannot possibly stand together. for if you will stand to what you have granted, that scripture is as perfect a rule of faith as a writing can be: you must then grant it both so complete, that it needs no addition, and so evident, that it needs no interpretation: for both these properties are requisite to a perfect rule, and a writing is capable of both these properties. 6. that both these properties are requisite to a perfect rule, it is apparent: because that is not perfect in any kind which wants some parts belonging to its integrity; as, he is not a perfect man that wants any part appertaining to the integrity of a man; and therefore that which wants any accession to make it a perfect rule, of itself is not a perfect rule. and then, the end of a rule is to regulate and direct. now every instrument is more or less perfect in its kind, as it is more or less fit to attain the end for which it is ordained: but nothing obscure or unevident while it is so, is fit to regulate and direct them to whom it is so: therefore it is requisite also to a rule (so far as it is a rule) to be evident; otherwise indeed it is no rule, because it cannot serve for direction. i conclude therefore, that both these properties are required to a perfect rule: both to be so complete as to need no addition; and to be so evident as to need no interpretation. 7. now that a writing is capable of both these perfections, it is so plain, that i am even ashamed to prove it. for he that denies it, must say, that something may be spoken which cannot be written. for if such a complete and evident rule of faith may be delivered by word of mouth, as you pretend it may, and is; and whatsoever is delivered by word of mouth may also be written; then such a complete and evident rule of faith may also be written. if you will have more light added to the sun, answer me then to these questions. whether your church can set down in writing all these, which she pretends to be divine unwritten traditions, and add them to the verities already written? and, whether she can set us down such interpretations of all obscurities in the faith as shall need no farther interpretations? if she cannot, than she hath not that power which you pretend she hath, of being an infallible teacher of all divine verities, and an infallible interpreter of obscurities in the faith: for she cannot teach us all divine verities, if she cannot write them down; neither is that an interpretation which needs again to be interpreted. if she can; let her do it, and then we shall have a writing, not only capable of, but, actually endowed with, both these perfections, of being both so complete as to need no addition, and so evident as to need no interpretation. lastly, whatsoever your church can do or not do, no man can, without blasphemy, deny, that christ jesus, if he had pleased, could have writ us a rule of faith so plain and perfect, as that it should have wanted neither any part to make up its integrity, nor any cleverness to make it sufficiently intelligible. and if christ could have done this, than the thing might have been done; a writing there might have been, endowed with both these properties. thus therefore i conclude; a writing may be so perfect a rule, as to need neither addition nor interpretation; but the scripture you acknowledge a perfect rule for as much as a writing can be a rule, therefore it needs neither addition nor interpretation. 8. you will say, that though a writing be never so perfect a rule of faith, yet it must be beholding to tradition to give it this testimony, that it is a rule of faith, and the word of god. i answer: first, there is no absolute necessity of this. for god might, if he thought good, give it the attestation of perpetual miracles. secondly, that it is one thing to be a perfect rule of faith, another to be proved so unto us. and this though a writing could not be proved to us to be a perfect rule of faith, by its own saying so, for nothing is proved true by being said or written in a book, but only by tradition which is a thing credible of itself, yet it may be so in itself, and contain all the material objects, all the particular articles of our faith, without any dependence upon tradition; even this also not excepted, that this writing doth contain the rule of faith. now when protestants affirm against papists, that scripture is a perfect rule of faith, their meaning is not, that by scripture all things absolutely may be proved, which are to be believed: for it can never be proved by scripture to a gainsayer, that there is a god, or that the book called scripture is the word of god; for he that will deny these assertions when they are spoken, will believe them never a whit the more, because you can show them written: but their meaning is, that the scripture to them which presuppose it divine, and a rule of faith, as papists and protestants do, contains all the material objects of faith; is a complete and total, and not only an imperfect and a partial rule. 9 but every book, and chapter, and text of scripture is infallible and wants no due perfection, and yet excludes not the addition of other books of scripture; therefore the perfection of the whole scripture excludes not the addition of unwritten tradition. i answer; every text of scripture though it hath the perfection belonging to a text of scripture, yet it hath not the perfection requisite to a perfect rule of faith; and that only is the perfection which is the subject of our discourse. so that this is to abuse your reader with the ambiguity of the word perfect. in effect, as if you should say, a text of scripture may be a perfect text, though there be others beside it; therefore the whole scripture may be a perfect rule of faith, though there be other parts of this rule, besides the scripture, and though the scripture be but a part of it. 10. the next argument to the same purpose is, for sophistry, cosen-german to the former. when the first books of scripture were written, they did not exclude unwritten tradition: therefore now also, that all the books of scripture are written, traditions are not excluded. the sense of which argument (if it have any) must be this. when only a part of the scripture was written, than a part of the divine doctrine was unwritten; therefore now when all the scripture is written, yet some part of the divine doctrine is yet unwritten. if you say, your conclusion is not, that it is so, but, without disparagement to scripture, may be so: without disparagement to the truth of scripture, i grant it; but without disparagement to the scripture's being a perfect rule, i deny it. and now the question is not of the truth, but the perfection of it; which are very different things, though you would fain confound them. for scripture might very well be all true, though it contain not all necessary divine truth. but unless it do so, it cannot be a perfect rule of faith; for that which wants any thing is not perfect. for, i hope, you do not imagine, that we conceive any antipathy between god's word written and unwritten, but that both might very well stand together. all that we say is this, that we have reason to believe that god, de facto, hath ordered the matter so, that all the gospel of christ, the whole covenant between god and man, is now written. whereas, if he had pleased, he might so have disposed it, that, part might have been written, and part unwritten: but then he would have taken order, to whom we should have had recourse, for that part of it which was not written; which seeing he hath not done (as the progress shall demonstrate) it is evident he hath left no part of it unwritten. we know no man therefore that says, it were any injury to the written word to be joined with the unwritten, if there were any wherewith it might be joined: but that, we deny. the fidelity of a keeper may very well consist with the authority of the thing committed to his custody. but we know no one society of christians that is such a faithful keeper as you pretend. the scripture itself was not kept so faithfully by you, but that you suffered infinite variety of readins to creep into it; all which could not possibly be divine, and yet, in several parts of your church, all of them, until the last age, were so esteemed. the interpretations of obscure places of scripture, which without question the apostles taught the primitive christians, are wholly lost; there remains no certainty scarce of any one. those worlds of miracles, which our saviour did, which were not written, for want of writing are vanished out of the memory of men. and many profitable things which the apostles taught and writ not, as that which s. paul glanceth at in his second epistle to the thessaly. of the cause of the hindrance of the coming of antichrist, are wholly lost and extinguished. so unfaithful or negligent hath been this keeper of divine verities; whose eyes, like the keepers of israel (you say) have never slumbered nor slept. lastly, we deny not but a judge and a law might well stand together, but we deny that there is any such judge of god's appointment. had he intended any such judge, he would have named him, lest otherwise (as now it is) our judge of controversies should be our greatest controversy. 11. ad §. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. in your second paragraph, you sum up those arguments wherewith you intent to prove that scripture alone cannot be judge in controversies. wherein i profess unto you before hand, that you will fight without an adversary. for though protestants, being warranted by some of the fathers, have called scripture the judge of controversy; and you, in saying here, that scripture alone cannot be judge, imply that it may be called in some sense a judge, though not alone: yet, to speak properly (as men should speak when they writ of controversies in religion) the scripture is not a judge of controversies, but a rule only, and the only rule for christians to judge them by. every man is to judge for himself with the judgement of discretion, and to choose either his religion first, and then his church, as we say: or, as you, his church first, and then his religion. but, by the consent of both sides, every man is to judge and choose: and the rule whereby he is to guide his choice, if he be a natural man, is reason; if he be already a christian, scripture; which we say is the rule to judge controversies by. yet not all simply, but all the, controversies of christians, of those that are already agreed upon this first principle, that the scripture is the word of god. but that there is any man, or any company of men appointed to be judge for all man, that we deny; and that i believe, you will never prove. the very truth is, we say no more in this matter, than evidence of truth hath made you confess in plain terms in the beginning of this chapter, viz. that scripture is a perfect rule of faith, for as much as a writing can be a rule. so that all your reasons, whereby you labour to dethrone the scripture from this office of judging, we might let pass as impertinent to the conclusion which we maintain, and you have already granted; yet out of courtesy we will consider them. 12. your first is this; a judge must be a person fit to end controversies; but the scripture is not a person, nor fit to end controversies, no more than the law would be without the judges; therefore though it may be a rule, it cannot be a judge. which conclusion i have already granted. only my request is, that you will permit scripture to have the properties of a rule, that is, to be fit to direct every one that will make the best use of it, to that end for which it was ordained: and that is as much as we need desire. for, as if i were to go a journey, and had a guide which could not err, i needed not to know my way: so on the other side, if i know my way, or have a plain rule to know it by, i shall need no guide. grant therefore scripture to be such a rule, and it will quickly take away all necessity of having an infallible guide. but without a living judge it will be no fit (you say) to end controversies, than the law alone to end suits. i answer, if the law were plain and perfect, and men honest and desirous to understand aright, and obey it, he that says it were not fit to end controversies, must either want understanding himself, or think the world wants it. now the scripture, we pretend, in things necessary is plain and perfect; and men, we say, are obliged under pain of damnation, to seek the true sense of it, and not to wrest it to their preconceived fancies. such a law therefore to such men, cannot but be very fit to end all controversies necessary to be ended. for others that are not so, they will end when the world ends, and that is time enough. 13. your next encounter is with them, who acknowledging the scripture a rule only and not a judge, make the holy ghost, speaking in scripture, the judge of controversies. which you disprove by saying, that, the holy ghost speaking only in scripture is no more intelligible to us, than the scripture in which he speaks. but by this reason, neither the pope, nor a council can be a judge neither. for first, denying the scriptures, the writings of the holy ghost, to be judges; you will not, i hope, offer to pretend, that their decrees, the writings of men, are more capable of this function: the same exceptions at least, if not more, and greater lying against them as do against scripture. and than what you object against the holy ghost, speaking in scripture, to exclude him from this office, the same i return upon them and their decrees, to debar them from it; that they speaking unto us only in their decrees, are no more intelligible than the decrees in which they speak. and therefore if the holy ghost speaking in scripture may not be a judge for this reason; neither may they, speaking in their decrees, be judges for the same reason. if the pope's decrees (you will say) be obscure, he can explain himself; and so the scripture cannot. but the holy ghost, that speaks in scripture, can do so, if he please; and, when he is pleased, will do so. in the mean time, it will be fit for you to wait his leisure, and to be content, that those things of scripture which are plain should be so, and those which are obscure should remain obscure, until he please to declare them. besides, he can (which you cannot warrant me of the pope or a council) speak at first so plainly, that his words shall need no farther explanation; and so in things necessary we believe he hath done. and if you say, the decrees of counsels touching controversies, though they be not the judge, yet they are the judge's sentence: so, i say, the scripture, though not the judge, is the sentence of the judge. when therefore you conclude, that, to say a judge is necessary for deciding controversies about the meaning of scripture, is as much as to say, he is necessary to decide what the holy ghost speaks in scripture: this, i grant, is true; but i may not grant that a judge (such an one as we dispute of) is necessary either to do the one, or the other. for, if the scripture (as it is in things necessary) be plain, why should it be more necessary to have a judge to interpret them in plain places, than to have a judge to interpret the meaning of a council's decrees, and others to interpret their interpretations, & others to interpret theirs, and so on for ever? and where they are not plain, there if we, using diligence to find the truth, do yet miss of it and fall into error, there is no danger in it. they that err, and they that do not err, may both be saved. so that those places, which contain things necessary, and wherein error were dangerous, need no infallible interpreter, because they are plain: and those that are obscure need none, because they contain not things necessary, neither is error in them dangerous. 13. the lawmaker speaking in the law, i grant it, is no more easily understood than the law itself; for his speech is nothing else but the law: i grant it very necessary, that, besides the lawmaker speaking in the law, there should be other judges to determine civil and criminal controversies, and to give every man that justice which the law allows him. but your argument drawn from hence to show a necessity of a visible judge in controversies of religion, i say is sophistical: and that for many reasons. 14. first, because the variety of civil cases is infinite, and therefore there cannot be possibly laws enough provided for the determination of them: and therefore there must be a judge to supply out of the principles of reason the interpretation of the law where it is defective. but the scripture (we say) is a perfect rule of faith, and therefore needs no supply of the defects of it. 15. secondly, to execute the letter of the law, according to rigour, would be many times unjust, and therefore there is need of a judge to moderate it; whereof in religion there is no use at all. 16. thirdly, in civil and criminal causes the parties have for the most part so much interest, and very often so little honesty, that they will not submit to a law though never so plain, if it be against them; or will not see it to be against them, though it be so never so plainly: whereas if men were honest, and the law were plain and extended to all cases, there would be little need of judges. now in matters of religion, when the question is, whether every man be a fit judge and chooser for himself, we suppose men honest, and such as understand the difference between a moment and eternity. and such men we conceive, will think it highly concerns them to be of the true religion, but nothing at all that this or that religion should be the true. and then we suppose that all the necessary points of religion are plain and easy, and consequently every man in this cause to be a competent judge for himself; because it concerns himself to judge right as much as eternal happiness is worth. and if, through his own default he judge amiss, he alone shall suffer for it. 17. fourthly, in civil controversies we are obliged only to external passive obedience, and not to an internal and active. we are bound to obey the sentence of the judge, or not to resist it, but not always to believe it just. but, in matters of religion, such a judge is required whom we should be obliged to believe, to have judged right. so that in civil controversies every honest understanding man is fit to be a judge; but in religion none but he that is infallible. 18. fifthly, in civil causes there is means and power, when the judge hath decreed, to compel men to obey his sentence: otherwise, i believe, laws alone, would be to as much purpose for the ending of differences, as laws and judges both. but all the power in the world is neither fit to convince, nor able to compel a man's conscience to consent to any thing. worldly terror may prevail so far as to make men profess a religion which they believe not, (such men i mean, who know not that there is a heaven provided for martyrs, and a hell for those that dissemble such truths as are necessary to be professed): but to force, either any man to believe what he believes not, or any honest man to dissemble what he does believe (if god commands him to profess it,) or to profess what he does not believe, all the powers in the world are too weak, with all the powers of hell to assist them. 19 sixthly, in civil controversies the case cannot be so put, but there may be judge to end it, who is not a party: in controversies of religion, it is in a manner impossible to be avoided, but the judge must be a party. for this must be the first, whether he be a judge or no, and in that he must be a party. sure i am, the pope, in the controversies of our time, is a chief party; for it highly concerns him, even as much as his popedom is worth, not to yield any one point of his religion to be erroneous. and he is a man subject to like passions with other men. and therefore we may justly decline his sentence, for fear temporal respects should either blind his judgement, or make him pronounce against it. 20. seventhly, in civil controversies, it is impossible titius should hold the land in question and sempronius too: and therefore either the plaintiff must injure the defendant by disquieting his possession, or the defendant wrong the plaintiff by keeping his right from him. but in controversies of religion, the case is otherwise. i may hold my opinion and do you no wrong, and you yours and do me none. nay, we may both of us hold our opinion, and yet do ourselves no harm; provided, the difference be not touching any thing necessary to salvation, and that we love truth so well, as to be diligent to inform our conscience, & constant in following it. 21. eighthly, for the deciding of civil controversies, men may appoint themselves a judge. but, in matters of religion, this office may be given to none but whom god hath designed for it: who doth not always give us those things which we conceive most expedient for ourselves. 22. ninthly, and lastly, for the ending of civil controversies, who does not see, it is absolutely necessary, that not only judges should be appointed, but that it should be known and unquestioned who they are? thus all the judges of our land are known men, known to be judges, and no man can doubt or question, but these are the men. otherwise, if it were a disputable thing, who were these judges, and they had no certain warrant for their authority, but only some topical congruities; would not any man say, such judges, in all likelihood, would rather multiply controversies, than end them? so likewise, if our saviour, the king of heaven, had intended that all controversies in religion should be by some visible judge finally determined, who can doubt, but in plain terms he would have expressed himself about this matter? he would have said plainly, the bishop of rome i have appointed to decide all emergent controversies. for that our saviour designed the bishop of rome to this office, and yet would not say so, nor cause it to be written— ad rei memoriam— by any of the evangelists or apostles, so much as once; but leave it to be drawn out of uncertain principles, by thirteen or fourteen more uncertain consequences, he that can believe it, let him. 23. all these reasons, i hope, will convince you, that though we have, and have great necessity of, judges in civil and criminal causes: yet you may not conclude from thence, that there is any public authorized judge to determine controversies in religion, nor any necessity there should be any. 24. but the scripture stands in need of some watchful and unerring eye to guard it, by means of whose assured vigilancy, we may undoubtedly receive it sincere and pure. very true, but this is no other than the watchful eye of divine providence: the goodness whereof will never suffer, that the scripture should be depraved and corrupted, but that in them should be always extant a conspicuous and plain way to eternal happiness. neither can any thing be more palpably unconsistent with his goodness, than to suffer scripture to be undiscernably corrupted in any matter of moment, and yet to exact of men the belief of those verities, which, without their fault, or knowledge, or possibility of prevention, were defaced out of them. so that god requiring of men to believe scripture in its purity, engages himself to see it preserved in sufficient purity; and you need not fear but he will satisfy his engagement. you say, we can have no assurance of this, but your church's vigilancy. but if we had no other, we were in a hard case; for, who could then assure us that your church hath been so vigilant, as to guard scripture from any the least alteration? there being various lections in the ancient copies of your bibles, what security can your new raised office of assurance give us, that that reading is true which you now receive, and that false which you reject? certainly, they that anciently received and made use of those divers copies, were not all guarded by the church's vigilancy from having their scripture altered from the purity of the original in many places. for of different readings, it is not in nature impossible that all should be false, but more than one cannot possibly be true. yet the want of such a protection, was no hindrance to their salvation, and why then shall the having of it be necessary for ours? but then, this vigilancy of your church, what means have we to be ascertained of it? first, the thing is not evident of itself; which is evident, because many do not believe it. neither can any thing be pretended to give evidence to it, but only some places of scripture; of whose incorruption more than any other, what is it that can secure me? if you say the church's vigilancy, you are in a circle, proving the scriptures uncorrupted by the church's vigilancy, and the church's vigilancy by the incorruption of some places of scripture, and again the incorruption of those places by the church's vigilancy. if you name any other means; then, that means which secures me of the scripture's incorruption in those places, will also serve to assure me of the same in other places. for my part, abstracting from divine providence, which will never suffer the way to heaven to be blocked up, or made invisible, i know no other means (i mean, no other natural and rational means) to be assured hereof, than i have that any other book is uncorrupted. for, though i have a greater degree of rational and humane assurance of that than this, in regard of divers considerations which make it more credible, that the scripture hath been preserved from any material alteration; yet my assurance of both is of the same kind and condition; both moral assurances, and neither physical or mathematical. 25. to the next argument the reply is obvious; that, though we do not believe the books of scripture to be canonical, because they say so, (for other books that are not canonical may say they are, and those that are so, may say nothing of it): yet we believe not this upon the authority of your church, but upon the credibility of universal tradition, which is a thing credible of itself, and therefore fit to be rested on; whereas the authority of your church is not so. and therefore your rest thereon is not rational but merely voluntary. i might as well rest upon the judgement of the next man i meet, or upon the chance of a lottery for it. for by this means i only know i might err, but by replying on you i know i should err. but yet (to return you one suppose for another) suppose i should for this and all other things submit to her direction, how could she assure me that i should not be misled by doing so? she pretends indeed infallibility herein, but how can she assure us that she hath it? what, by scripture? that, you say, cannot assure us of its own infallibility, and therefore not of yours. what then, by reason? that, you say, may deceive in other things, and why not in this? how then will she assure us hereof, by saying so? of this very affirmation there will remain the same question still, how can it prove itself to be infallibly true? neither can there be an end of the life multiplied demands, till we rest in something evident of itself, which demonstrates to the world that this church is infallible. and seeing there is no such rock for the infallibility of this church to be settled on, it must of necessity, like the island of delos, float up and down for ever. and yet upon this point according to papists, all other controversies in saith depend. 26. to the 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14. §. the sum and substance of the ten next paragraphs, is this, that it appears, by the confession of some protestants, and the contentions of others, that the questions about the canon of scripture, what it is; and about the various reading and translations of it, which is true, and which not: are not to be determined by scripture, and therefore that all controversies of religion are not decidable by scripture. 27. to which i have already answered, saying, that, when scripture is affirmed to be the rule by which all controversies of religion are to be decided, those are to be excepted out of this generality, which are concerning the scripture itself. for, as that general saying of scripture, he hath put all things under his feet, is most true, though yet s. paul tell us, that when it is said, he hath put all things under him, it is manifest he is excepted who did put all things under him: so when we say that all controversies of religion are decidable by the scripture, it is manifest to all, but cavillers, that we do, and must, except from this generality, those which are touching the scripture itself. just as a merchant showing a ship of his own, may say, all my substance is in this ship; and yet never intent to deny, that his ship is part of his substance, nor yet to say that his ship is in itself. or, as a man may say, that a whole house is supported by the foundation, and yet never mean to exclude the foundation from being a part of the house, or to say; that it is supported by itself. or as you yourselves use to say, that the bishop of rome is head of the whole church, and yet would think us but captious sophisters, should we infer from hence, that either you made him no part of the whole, or else made him head of himself. your negative conclusion, therefore, that these questions touching scripture, are not decidable by scripture, you needed not have cited any authorities, nor urged any reason to prove it; it is evident of itself, and i grant it without more ado. but your corollary from it, which you would insinuate to your unwary reader, that therefore they are to be decided by your, or any, visible church, is a mere inconsequence, and very like his collection, who, because pamphilus was not to have glycerium for his wife, presently concluded that he must have her; as if there had been no more men in the world but pamphilus and himself. for so you, as if there were nothing in the world capable of this office, but the scripture, or the present church; having concluded against scripture, you conceive, but too hastily, that you have concluded for the church. but the truth is, neither the one nor the other have any thing to do with this matter. for first, the question whether such or such a book be canonical scripture, though it may be decided negatively out of scripture, by showing apparent and irreconcilable contradictions between it and some other book confessedly canonical; yet affirmatively it cannot but only by the testimonies of the ancient churches: any book being to be received as undoubtedly canonical, or to be doubted of as uncertain, or rejected as apocryphal, according as it was received, or doubted of, or rejected by them. then for the question, of various readings which is the true? it is in reason evident, and confessed by your own pope, that there is no possible determination of it, but only by comparison with ancient copies. and lastly, for controversies about different translations of scripture, the learned have the same means to satisfy themselves in it, as in the questions which happen about the translation of any other author; that is, skill in the language of the original, and comparing translations with it. in which way if there be no certainty, i would know that certainty you have, that your douai old, and rhemish new testament, are true translations? and then for the unlearned, those on your side are subject to as much, nay the very same uncertainty with those on ours. neither is there any reason imaginable, why an ignorant english protestant may not be as secure of of the translation of our church, that it is free from error, if not absolutely, yet in matters of moment, as an ignorant english papist can be of his rhemist testament, or douai bible. the best direction i can give them, is, to compare both together, and where there is no real difference (as in the translation of controverted places i believe there is very little) there to be confident, that they are right; where they differ, there to be prudent in the choice of the guides they follow. which way of proceeding if it be subject to some possible error, yet is it the best that either we, or you have; & it is not required that we use any better than the best we have. 28. you will say, dependence on your church's infallibility is a better. i answer, it would be so, if we could be infallibly certain, that your church is infallible, that is, if it were either evident of itself, and seen by its own light, or could be reduced unto, and settled upon, some principle that is so. but seeing you yourselves do not so much as pretend to enforce us to the belief hereof, by any proofs infallible and convincing; but only to induce us to it, by such as are, by your confession, only probable and prudential motives; certainly it will be to very little purpose, to put off your uncertainty for the first turn, and to fall upon it at the second: to please yourselves in building your house upon an imaginary rock when you yourselves see and confess, that this very rock stands itself at the best but upon a frame of timber. i answer secondly, that this cannot be a better way, because we are infallibly certain that your church is not infallible, and indeed hath not the real prescription of this privilege, but only pleaseth herself with a false imagination and vain presumption of it; as i shall hereafter demonstrate by many unanswerable arguments. 29. now seeing i make no scruple or difficulty to grant the conclusion of this discourse, that, these controversies about scripture, are not decidable by scripture; and have showed, that your deduction from it, that therefore they are to be determined by the authority of some present church, is irrational, and inconsequent; i might well forbear to tyre myself with an exact and punctual examination of your premises 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which whether they be true or false, is to the question disputed wholly impertinent. yet because you shall not complain of tergiversation, i will run over them, and let nothing, that is material and considerable, pass without some stricture or animadversion. 30. you pretend that m. hooker acknowledgeth, that, that whereon we must rest our assurance that the scripture is god's word, is the church: and for this acknowledgement you refer us to l. 3. §. 8. let the reader consult the place, and he shall find that he and m. hooker have been much abused, both by you here, and by m. breerly, and others before you; and that m. hooker hath not one syllable to your pretended purpose, but very much directly to the contrary. there he tells us indeed, that, ordinaly the first introduction and probable motive to the belief of the verity, is the authority of the church; but, that it is the last foundation whereon our belief hereof is rationally grounded, that in the same place he plainly denies. his words are, scripture teacheth us that saving truth which god hath discovered unto the world by revelation, and it presumeth us taught otherwise, that itself is divine and sacred. the question then being by what means we are taught this: * some answer so, but he doth not. some answer; that to learn it we have no other way than tradition. as, namely, that so we believe, because we from our predecessors, and they from theirs, have so received. but is this enough? that which all men's experience teacheth them, may not in any wise be denied: and by experience we all know, that (a) the first outward motive, not the last assurance whereon we rest. the first outward motive leading men to esteem of the scripture, is, the authority of god's church. for when we know (b) the whole church that he speaks of, seems to be that particular church, wherein a man is bred and brought up; and the authority of this he makes an argument which presseth a man's modesty more than his reason. and in saying, it seems impudent to be of a contrary mind, without cause, he implies; there may be a just cause to be of a contrary mind, and that then it were no impudence to be so. the whole church of god hath that opinion of the scripture, we judge it at the first an impudent thing for any man, bred and brought up in the church, to be of a contrary mind without cause. afterwards, the more we bestow our labour upon reading or hearing the mysteries thereof, (c) therefore the authority of the church is not the pause whereon we rest: we had need of more assurance, and the intrinsical arguments afford ●t. the more we find that the thing itself doth answer our received opinion concerning it: so that the former inducement, prevailing (d) somewhat, b●t not much, until it be backed and enforced by farther reason: itself therefore is not the farthest reason and the last resolution. somewhat with us before, doth now much more prevail, when the very thing hath ministered farther reason. if infidels or atheists chance at any time to call it in question, this giveth us occasion to sift what reason there is, whereby the testimony of the church, concerning scripture, and our own persuasion, which scripture itself hath settled, may be proved a truth infallible. (e) observe, i pray; our persuasion, and the testimony of the church concerning scripture, may be proved true; therefore neither or them was in his account the farthest proof. in which case the ancient fathers, being often constrained to show what warrant they had so much to rely upon the scriptures, endeavoured still to maintain the authority of the books of god, by arguments, such as the unbelievers themselves must needs think reasonable, if they judge thereof as they should. neither is it a thing impossible or greatly hard, even by such kind of proofs, so to manifest and clear that point, that no man living shall be able to deny it, without denying some apparent principle, such as all men acknowledge to be true (f) natural reason th●n built on principles common to all men, is the last resolution; unto which the church's authority is but the first inducement. by this time, i hope, the reader sees sufficient proof of what i said in my reply to your preface, that m. breerelie's great ostentation of exactness, is no very certain argument of his fidelity. 31. but, seeing the belief of scripture is a necessary thing, and cannot be proved by scripture, how can the church of england teach, as she doth, art. 6. that all things necessary are contained in scripture? 32. i have answered this already. and here again, i say, that all but cavillers will easily understand the meaning of the article to be, that all the divine verities, which christ revealed to his apostles, and the apostles taught the churches, are contained in scripture; that is, all the material objects of our faith; whereof the scripture is none, but only the means of conveying them unto us: which we believe not finally, and for itself, but for the matter contained in it. so that, if men did believe the doctrine contained in scripture, it should no way hinder their salvation, not to know whether there were any scripture or no. those barbarous nations irenaeus speaks of, were in this case, and yet no doubt but they might be saved. the end that god aims at, is the belief of the gospel, the covenant between god and man; the scripture he hath provided as a means for this end, and this also we are to believe, but not as the last object of our faith, but as the instrument of it. when therefore we subscribe to the 6 art. you must understand, that, by articles of faith, they mean the final and ultimate objects of it, and not the means and instrumental objects; and then there will be no repugnance between what they say, and that which hooker, and d. covel, and d. whitaker, and luther here say. 33. but protestants agree not in assigning the canon of holy scripture. luther and illyricus reject the epistle of s. james: kemnitius, and other lutherans, the second of peter, the second and third of john. the epistle to the hebrews, the epistle of james, of judas, and the apocalypse. therefore without the authority of the church, no certainty can be had what scripture is canonical. 34. so also the ancient fathers, and not only fathers, but whole churches, differed about the certainty of the authority of the very same books: and by their difference shown, they knew no necessity of conforming themselves herein to the judgement of your or any church. for had they done so, they must have agreed all with that church, and consequently among themselves. now, i pray, tell me plainly, had they sufficient certainty what scripture was canonical, or had they not? if they had not, it seems there is no great harm or danger in not having such a certainty whether some books be canonical or no, as you require: if they had, why may not protestants, notwithstanding their differences, have sufficient certainty hereof, as well as the ancient fathers and churches, notwithstanding theirs? 35. you proceed. and whereas the protestants of england in the 6. art. have these words, in the name of the holy scripture we do understand those books, of whose authority was never any doubt in the church; you demand, what they mean by them? whether that, by the church's consent they are assured what scriptures be canonical? i answer for them. yes, they are so. and whereas you infer from hence, this is to make the church judge: i have told you already, that, of this controversy we make the church the judge; but not the present church, much less the present roman church, but the consent and testimony of the ancient and primitive church, which, though it be but an highly probable inducement, and no demonstrative enforcement; yet methinks you should not deny but may be a sufficient ground of faith: whose faith, even of the foundation of all your faith, your church's authority is built lastly and wholly upon prudential motives. 36. but, by this rule the whole book of esther must quit the canon; because it was excluded by some in the church: by melito, athanasius, and gregory nazianzen. then, for aught i know, he that should think he had reason to exclude it now, might be still in the church as well as melito, athanasius, nazianzen were. and while you thus inveigh against luther, and charge him with luciferian heresies, for doing that which you in this very place confess, that saints in heaven before him have done, are you not partial, and a judge of evil thoughts? 37. luther's censures of ecclesiastes, job, and the prophets, though you make such tragedies with them, i see none of them but is capable of a tolerable construction, and far from having in them any fundamental heresy. he that condemns him for saying, the book of ecclesiastes is not full, that it hath many abrupt things, condemns him, for aught i can see, for speaking truth. and the rest of the censure is but a bold and blunt expression of the same thing. the book of job may be a true history, and yet, as many true stories are, and have been, and argument of a fable to set before us an example of patience. and though the books of the prophets were not written by themselves, but by their disciples, yet it does not follow that they were written casually: (though i hope, you will not damn all for heretics, that say, some books of scripture were written casually.) neither is there any reason they should the sooner be called in question for being written by their disciples, seeing being so written, they had attestation from themselves. was the prophecy of jeremy the less canonical, for being written by baruch? or, because s. peter the master, dictated the gospel, and s. mark the scholar writ it, is it the more likely to be called in question? 38. but leaving luther, you return to our english canon of scripture; and tell us, that, in the new testament, by the rule (of whose authority was never doubt in the church) divers books must be dis-canonized. not so. for i may believe even those questioned books to have been written by the apostles, and to be canonical: but i cannot in reason believe this of them so undoubtedly, as of those books which were never questioned. at least i have no warrant to damn any man that shall doubt of them or deny them now: having the example of saints in heaven, either to justify, or excuse such their doubting or denial. 39 you observe in the next place, that our sixth article, specifying by name all the books of the old testament, shuffles over those of the new with this generality— all the books of the new testament, as they are commonly received, we do receive, and account them canonical: and in this you fancy to yourself a mystery of iniquity. but if this be all the shuffling that the church of england is guilty of, i believe the church, as well as the king, may give for her motto, honi soit qui mal y pense. for all the bibles, which since the composing of the articles have been used and allowed by the church of england, do testify and even proclaim to the world, that by commonly-received, they meant, received by the church of rome, and other churches before the reformation. i pray, take the pains to look in them, and there you shall find the books, which the church of england counts apocryphal, marked out, and severed from the rest, with this title in the beginning, the books called apocrypha; and with this close or seal in the end, the end of the apocrypha. and having told you by name, and, in particular, what books only she esteems apocryphal, i hope you will not put her to the trouble of telling you, that the rest are in her judgement canonical. 40. but, if by commonly-received, she meant, by the church of rome; then by the same reason, must she receive divers books of the old testament which she rejects. 41. certainly, a very good consequence. the church of england receives the books of the new testament, which the church of rome receives; therefore she must receive the books of the old testament which she receives. as if you should say, if you will do as we, in one thing, you must in all things. if you will pray to god with us, ye must pray to saints with us. if you hold with us, when we have reason on our side, you must do so, when we have no reason. 42. the discourse following, is but a vain declamation. no man thinks that this controversy is to be tried by most voices, but by the judgement and testimony of the ancient fathers and churches. 43. but, with what coherence can we say in the former part of the article, that, by scripture we mean those books that were never doubted of; and in the latter say, we receive all the books of the new testament, as they are commonly received, whereas of them many were doubted? i answer, when they say, of whose authority there was never any doubt in the church, they mean not, those only of whose authority there was simply no doubt at all, by any man in the church; but such as were not at any time doubted of by the whole church, or by all churches; but had attestation, though not universal, yet, at least, sufficient to make considering men receive them for canonical. in which number they may well reckon those epistles which were sometimes doubted of by some, yet whose number and authority was not so great, as to prevail against the contrary suffrages. 44. but, if to be commonly received, pass for a good rule to know the canon of the new testament by, why not of the old? you conclude many times very well, but still when you do so, it is out of principles which no man grant: for, who ever told you, that to be commonly received is a good rule to know the canon of the new testament by? have you been trained up in schools of subtlety, and cannot you see a great difference between these two, we receive the books of the new testament as they are commonly received, and we receive those that are commonly received, because they are so? to say this, were indeed to make, being commonly received, a rule or reason to know the canon by. but to say the former, doth no more make it a rule than you should make the church of england the rule of your receiving them, if you should say, as you may, the books of the new testament we receive for canonical, as they are received by the church of england. 45. you demand, upon what infallible ground we agree with luther against you in some, and with you against luther in others? and i also demand, upon what infallible ground you hold your canon, and agree neither with us, nor luther? for sure your differing from us both, is of itself no more apparently reasonable, than our agreeing with you in part, and in part with luther. if you say, your church's infallibility is your ground: i demand again some infallible ground, both for the church's infallibility, and for this, that yours is the church; and shall never cease multiplying demands upon demands, until you settle me upon a rock; i mean, give such an answer, whose truth is so evident, that it needs no further evidence. if you say, this is universal tradition: i reply, your church's infallibility is not built upon it, and that the canon of scripture, as we receive it, is. for we do not profess ourselves so absolutely, and undoubtedly certain neither do we urge others to be so, of those books, which have been doubted, as of those that never have. 46. the conclusion of your tenth § is, that the divinity of a writing cannot be known from itself alone, but by some authority; which you need not prove, for no wise man denies it. but then, this authority is that of universal tradition, not of your church. for to me it is altogether as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that the gospel of s. matthew is the word of god, as that all which your church says, is true. that believers of the scripture, by considering the divine matter, the excellent precepts, the glorious promises contained in it, may be confirmed in their faith of the scriptures divine authority; and that among other inducements and enforcements hereunto, internal arguments have their place and force, certainly not man of understanding can deny. for my part i profess, if the doctrine of the scripture were not as good, and as fit to come from the fountain of goodness, as the miracles by which it was confirmed, were great, i should want one main pillar of my faith: and for want of it, i fear, should be much staggered in it. now this and nothing else, did the doctor mean in saying, the believer sees, by that glorious beam of divine light which shines in scripture, and by many internal arguments, that the scripture is of divine authority. by this (saith he) he sees it, that is, he is moved to, and strengthened in, his belief of it: and by this partly, not wholly; by this, not alone, but with the concurrence of other arguments. he that will quarrel with him for saying so, must find fault with the master of the sentences, and all his scholars, for they all say the same. the rest of this paragragh, i am as willing it should be true, as you are to have it: and so let it pass, as a discourse wherein we are wholly unconcerned. you might have met with an answerer, that would not have suffered you to have said so much truth together; but to me it is sufficient, that it is nothing to the purpose. 48. in the next division, out of your liberality, you will suppose, that scripture, like to a corporal light, is by itself alone able to determine and move our understanding to assent: yet notwithstanding this supposal, faith still (you say) must go before scripture, because as the light is visible only to those that have eyes: so the scripture, only to those that have the eye of faith. but to my understanding, if scripture do move and determine our understanding to assent, than the scripture, and its moving, must be before this assent, as the cause must be before its own effect; now this very assent is nothing else but faith, and faith nothing else than the understanding's assent. and therefore (upon this supposal) faith doth, and must, originally proceed from scripture, as the effect from its proper cause: and the influence and efficacy of scripture is to be presupposed before the assent of faith, unto which it moves and determines, and consequently if this supposition of yours were true, there should need no other means precedent to scripture to beget faith, scripture itself being able as here you suppose) to determine and move the understanding to assent, that is, to believe them, and the verities contained in them. neither is this to say, that the eyes with which we see, are made by the light by which we see. for you are mistaken much, if you conceive that in this comparison, faith answers to the eye. but if you will not pervert it, the analogy must stand thus; scripture must answer to light; the eye of the soul, that is, the understanding, or the faculty of assenting, to the bodily eye; and lastly, assenting or believing to the act of seeing. as therefore the light, determining the eye to see, though it presupposeth the eye which it determines, as every action doth the object on which it is employed, yet itself is presupposed and antecedent to the act of seeing, as the cause is always to its effect: so, if you will suppose that scripture, like light, moves the understanding to assent, the understanding (that is the eye and object on which it works) must be before this influence upon it; but the assent, that is, the belief whereto the scripture moves and the underis moved, which answers to the act of seeing, must come after. for if it did assent already, to what purpose should the scripture do that which was done before? nay indeed, how were it possible it should be so, any more than a father can beget a son that he hath already? or an architect built a house that is built already? or than this very world can be made again before it be unmade? transubstantion indeed is fruitful of such monsters. but they that have not sworn themselves to the defence of error, will easily perceive, that jam factum facere, and factum infectum facere, are equally impossible. but i digress. 49. the close of this paragraph, is a fit cover for such a dish. there you tell us, that if there must be some other means precedent to scripture to beget faith, this can be no other than the church. by the church, we know you do, and must understand the roman church: so that in effect you say, no man can have faith, but he must be moved to it by your church's authority. and that is to say, that the king and all other protestants, to whom you writ, though they verily think they are christians and believe the gospel, because they assent to the truth of it, and would willingly die for it, yet indeed are infidels and believe nothing. the scripture tells us, the heart of man knoweth no man, but the spirit of man which is in him. and who are you, to take upon you to make us believe, that we do not believe, what we know we do? but if i may think verily that i believe the scripture, and yet not believe it; how know you that you believe the roman church? i am as verily and as strongly persuaded that i believe the scripture, as you are that you believe the church. and if i may be deceived, why may not you? again, what more ridiculous, and against sense and experience, than to affirm, that there are not millions amongst you and us that believe, upon no other reason than their education, and the authority of their parents and teachers, and the opinion they have of them? the tenderness of the subject, and aptness to receive impressions, supplying the defect and imperfection of the agent! and will you proscribe from heaven all those believers of your own creed, who do indeed lay the foundation of their faith (for i cannot call it by any other name) no deeper than upon the authority of their father, or master, or parish-priest? certainly, if these have no true faith, your church is very full of infidels. suppose xaverius by the holiness of his life had converted some indians to christianity, who could (for so i will suppose) have no knowledge of your church but from him, and therefore must last of all build their faith of the church, upon their opinion of xaverius: do these remain as very pagans after their conversion, as they were before? are they brought to assent in their souls, and obey in their lives the gospel of christ, only to be tantalised and not saved, and not benefited, but deluded by it, because, forsooth, it is a man and not the church that begets faith in them? what if their motive to believe be not in reason sufficient? do they therefore not believe what they do believe, because they do it upon insufficient motives? they choose the faith imprudently perhaps, but yet they do choose it. unless you will have us believe, that that which is done, is not done, because it is not done upon good reason: which is to say, that never any man living ever did a foolish action. but yet i know not why the authority of one holy man, which apparently hath no ends upon me, joined with the goodness of the christian faith, might not be a far greater and more rational motive to me to embrace christianity, than any i can have to continue in paganism. and therefore, for shame, if not for love of truth, you must recant this fancy when you writ again: and suffer true faith to be many times, where your church's infallibility hath no hand in the begetting of it. and be content to tell us hereafter, that we believe not enough, and not go about to persuade us we believe nothing, for fear with telling us what we know to be manifestly false, you should gain only this, not to be believed when you speak truth. some pretty sophisms you may haply bring us, to make us believe, we believe nothing: but wise men know that reason against experience is always sophistical. and therefore as he that could not answer zeno's subtleties against the existence of motion, could yet confute them by doing that, which he pretended could not be done: so, if you should give me a hundred arguments to persuade me, because i do not believe transubstantiation, i do not believe in god, and the knots of them i could not untie, yet i should cut them in pieces with doing that, and knowing that i do so, which you pretend i cannot do. 50. in the thirteenth division, we have again much ado about nothing. a great deal of stir you keep in confuting some, that pretend to know canonical scripture to be such, by the titles of the books. but these men you do not name, which makes me suspect you cannot. yet it is possible there may be some such men in the world; for gusmen de alfarache hath taught us that, the fool's hospital is a large place. 51. in the fourteenth §. we have very artificial juggling. d. potter had said, that the scripture (he desires to be understood of those books wherein all christians agree) is a principle, and needs not be proved among christians. his reason was, because, that needs no farther proof which is believed already. now by this (you say) he means either, that the scripture is one of these first principles, and most known in all sciences, which cannot be proved: which is to suppose, it cannot be proved by the church; and that is to suppose the question: or, he means, that it is not the most known in christianity, and then it may be proved. where we see plainly, that two most different things, most known in all sciences, and, most known in christianity, are captiously confounded. as if the scripture might not be the first and most known principle in christianity, and yet not the most known in all sciences? or, as if to be a first principle in christianity, and in all sciences, were all one? that scripture is a principle among christians, that is, so received by all that it need not be proved in any emergent controversy to any christian, but may be taken for granted, i think few will deny. you yourselves are of this a sufficient testimony, for urging against us many texts of scripture, you offer no proof of the truth of them, presuming we will not question it. yet this is not to deny, that tradition is a principle more known than scripture; but to say, it is a principle not in christianity, but in reason, nor proper to christians, but common to all men. 52. but, it is repugnant to our practice to hold scripture a principle; because we are wont to affirm, that one part of scripture may be known to be canonical, and may be interpreted by another. where the former device is again put in practice. for to be known to be canonical, and to be interpreted, is not all one. that scripture may be interpreted by scripture, that protestants grant, and papists do not deny; neither does that any way hinder but that this assertion— scripture is the word of god, may be among christians a common principle. but the first,— that one part of scripture may prove another part canonical, and need no proof of its own being so; for that, you have produced divers protestants that deny it; but who they are that affirm it, nondum constat. 53. it is superfluous for you to prove out of s. athanasius, and s. austin, that we must receive the sacred canon, upon the credit of god's church. understanding by church, as here you explain yourself, the credit of tradition. and that not the tradition of the present church, which we pretend may deviate from the ancient, but such a tradition, which involves an ●●ndence of fact, and from hand to hand, from age to age, bringing us up to the times and persons of the apostles, and our saviour himself, cometh to be confirmed by all those miracles, and other arguments, whereby they convinced their doctrine to be true. thus you. now prove the canon of scripture which you receive by such tradition, and we will allow it. prove your whole doctrine, or the infallibility of your church by such a tradition, and we will yield to you in all things. take the alleged places of s. athanasius, and s. austin, in this sense, (which is your own,) and they will not press us any thing at all. we will say, with athanasius, that only four gospels are to be received, because the canons of the holy and catholic church (understand of all ages since the perfection of the canon) have so determined. 54. we will subscribe to s. austin, and say, that we also would not believe the gospel, unless the authority of the catholic church did move us, (meaning by the church, the church of all ages, and that succession of christians which takes in christ himself and his apostles.) neither would zwinglius have needed to cry out upon this saying, had he conceived as you now do, that by the catholic church, the church of all ages, since christ, was to be understood. as for the council of carthage, it may speak not of such books only, as were certainly canonical, and for the regulating of faith; but also of those which were only profitable, and lawful to be read in the church. which in england is a very slender argument that the book is canonical, where every body knows that apocryphal books are read as well as canonical. but howsoever, if you understand by fathers, not only their immediate fathers and predecessors in the gospel, but the succession of them from the apostles; they are right in the thesis, that whatsoever is received from these fathers, as canonical, is to be so esteemed; though in the application of it, to this or that particular book they may haply err, and think that book received as canoniel, which was only received as profitable to be read; and think that book received always, and by all, which was rejected by some, and doubted of by many. 55. but we cannot be certain, in what language the scriptures remain uncorrupted. not so certain, i grant, as of that which we can demonstrate: but certain enough, morally certain, as certain as the nature of the thing will bear: so certain we may be, and god requires no more. we may be as certain as s. austin was, who in his second book of baptism, against the donatists, c. 3. plainly implies, the scripture might possibly be corrupted. he means, sure, in matters of little moment, such as concern not the covenant between god and man. but thus he saith. the same s. austin in his 48. epist. clearly intimates, (a) neque enim sic poturt integrit as atque notitia literarum quamlibet illust is episcopi, castodiri, quemadmodum scritura canonica tet linguarum literis & ordine & successione celebrationis ecclesiasticae custoditur; contra quam non desuerunt tamin, qui sub nominibus aposiolorum multa consiagerent. frustra quidem; quia illa sic commendata, sic celebrata, sic nota est. verum quid possit adversus literas non canonica authoritate sundatas etiam hinc demonstrabit impiae conatus audaciae, quòd & adversus eos quae tanta notitiae mole firmatae sunt, sese erigere non praetermisit. aug. ep. 48. ad vincent. count. donat. & rogat. that in his judgement, the only preservative of the scriptures integrity, was the translating it into so many languages, and the general and perpetual use and reading of it in the church: for want whereof the works of particular doctors were more exposed to danger in this kind; but the canonical scripture being by this means guarded with universal care and diligence, was not obnoxious to such attempts. and this assurance of the scriptures incorruption, is common to us with him, we therefore are as certain hereof as s. austin was, and that, i hope, was certain enough. yet if this does not satisfy you, i say farther, we are as certain hereof as your own pope sixtus quintus was. he in his preface to his bible tells us, (b) in hac germani textus pe●vestigatione, satis perspicue inter omnes constat, nullum argumenum esse certius ac sirmius, quàm antiquorum probatorum codicum latinorum fidem, etc. sie s●xtus in praef. that in the pervestigation of the true and genuine text, it was perspicuously manifest to all men, that there was no argument more firm and certain to be relied upon, than the faith of ancient books. now this ground we have to build upon as well as he had: and therefore our certainty is as great, and stands upon as certain ground as his did. 56. this is not all i have to say in this matter. for i will add moreover, that we are as certain in what language the scripture is uncorrupted, as any man in your church was, until clement the eighth set forth your own approved edition of your vulgar translation. for you do not, nor cannot, without extreme impudence, deny, that until then, there was great variety of copes currant in divers parts of your church, and those very frequent in various lections: all which copies might possibly be false in some things, but more than one sort of them, could not possibly be true in all things. neither were it less impudence to pretend, that any man in your church, could until clement's time have any certainty what that one true copy and reading was, (if there were one perfectly true.) some indeed that had got sixtus his bible, might, after the edition of that, very likely think themselves cocksure of a perfect true uncorrupted translation, without being beholding to clement; but how foully they were abused and deceived that thought so, the edition of clemens, differing from that of sixtus in a great multitude of places, doth sufficiently demonstrate. 57 this certainty therefore, in what language the scripture remains uncorrupted, is it necessary to have it, or is it not? if it be not, i hope we may do well enough without it. if it be necessary, what became of your church for 1500 years together? all which time, you must confess she had no such certainty: no one man being able truly and upon good ground to say, this or that copy of the bible is pure, and perfect, and uncorrupted in all things. and now at this present, though some of you are grown to a higher degree of presumption in this point, yet are you as far as ever, from any true, real, and rational assurance of the absolute purity of your authentic translation: which i suppose myself to have proved unanswerably in divers places. 58. in the sixteenth division, it is objected to protestants in a long discourse transcribed out of the protestant's apology, that their translations of the scripture are very different, and by each other mutually condemned. luther 's translation by zwinglius, and others: that of the zwinglians, by luther. the translation of oecolampadius, by the divines of basil: that of castalio, by beza: that of beza, by castalio. that of calvin, by carolus molinaeus. that of geneva, by m. parks, and king james. and lastly, one of our translations by the puritans. 59 all which might have been as justly objected against that great variety of translations extant in the primitive church, and made use of by the fathers and doctors of it. for which, i desire not that my word, but s. austin's may be taken. they, which have translated the scriptures out of the hebrew into greek, may be numbered; but the latin interpreters are innumerable. for, whensoever any one, in the first times of christianity, met with a greek bible, and seemed to himself to have some ability in both languages, he presently ventured upon an interpretation. so he, in his second book of christian doctrine. cap. 11. of all these, that which was called the italian translation was esteemed best; so we may learn from the same s. austin in chap. 15. of the same book. amongst all these interpretations (saith he) let the italian be preferred: for it keeps closer to the letter, and is perspicuous in the sense. yet so far was the church of that time from presuming upon the absolute purity and perfection, even of this best translation, that s. hierom thought it necessary to make a new translation, of the old testament, out of the hebrew fountain, (which himself testifies in his book de viris illustribus); and to correct the vulgar version of the new testament, according to the truth of the original greek; amending many errors which had crept into it, whether by the mistake of the author, or the negligence of the transcribers; which work he undertook and performed at the request of damasus, bishop of rome. you constrain me (saith he) to make a new work of an old: that, after the copies of the scriptures have been dispersed through the whole world, i should sit, as it were, an arbitrator amongst them, and, because they vary among themselves, should determine what are those things (in them) which consent with the greek verity. and after: therefore this present preface promises the four gospels only, corrected by collation with greek copies. but, that they might not be very dissonant from the custom of the latin reading, i have so tempered with my stile, the translation of the ancients, that, those things amended which did seem to change the sense, other things i have suffered to remain as they were. so that in this matter protestant's must either stand or fall with the primitive church. 60. the corruption that you charge luther with, and the falsification that you impute to zwinglius, what have we to do with them? or why may not we as justly lay to your charge the errors, which lyranus, or paulus brugensis, or laurentius valla, or cajetan, or erasmus, or arias montanus, or augustus nebiensis, or pagnine, have committed in their translations? 61. which yet i say not, as if these translations of luther and zwinglius were absolutely indefensible; for what such great difference is there between faith without the works of the law, and faith alone without the works of the law? or why does not, without, alone, signify all one with, alone, without? consider the matter a little better, and observe the use of these phrases of speech in our ordinary talk, and perhaps you will begin to doubt whether you had sufficient ground for this invective. and then for zwinglius, if it be true (as they say it is) that the language our saviour spoke in, had no such word as tosignifie, but used always, to be, in stead of it, as it is certain the scripture does in an hundred places; then this translation, which you so declaim against, will prove no falsification in zwinglius, but a calumny in you. 62. but the faith of protestants relies upon scripture alone; scripture is delivered to most of them by translations; translations depend upon the skill and honesty of men, who certainly may err because they are men, and certainly do err, at least some of them, because their translations are contrary. it seems then the faith, and consequently the salvation of protestants, relies upon fallible and uncertain grounds. 63. this objection, though it may seem to do you great service for the present; yet i fear, you will repent the time that ever you urged it against us as a fault, that we make men's salvation depend upon uncertainties; for the objection returns upon you many ways, as first thus; the salvation of many millions of papists (as they suppose and teach) depends upon their having the sacrament of penance truly administered unto them. this again upon the minister's being a true priest. that such or such a man is priest; not himself, much less any other can have any possible certainty: for it depends upon a great many contingent and uncertain supposals. he that will pretend to be certain of it, must undertake to know for a certain all these things that follow. 64. first, that he was baptised with due matter. secondly, with the due form of words, (which he cannot know, unless he were both present and attentive.) thirdly, he must know that he was baptised with due intention, and that is, that the minister of his baptism was not a secret jew, nor a moor, nor an atheist, (of all which kinds, i fear, experience gives you just cause to fear, that italy and spain have priests not a few) but a christian in heart, as well as profession; (otherwise, believing the sacrament to be nothing, in giving it he could intent to give nothing,) nor a samosatenian, nor an arrian: but one that was capable of having due intention, from which they that believe not the doctrine of the trinity are excluded by you. and lastly, that he was neither drunk nor distracted at the administration of the sacrament, nor our of negligence or malice omitted his intention. 65. fourthly, he must undertake to know, that the bishop, which ordained him priest, ordained him completely with due matter, form, and intention: and consequently, that he again was neither jew, nor moor, nor atheist, nor liable to any such exception, as is unconsistent with due intention in giving the sacrament of orders. 66. fifthly, he must undertake to know, that the bishop, which made him priest, was a priest himself; for your rule is, nihil dat quod non habet: and consequently, that there was again none of the former nullities in his baptism, which might make him incapable of ordination; nor no invalidity in his ordination, but a true priest to ordain him again, the requisite matter, and form▪ and due intention, all concurring. 67. lastly, he must pretend to know the same of him that made him priest, and him that made him priest, even until he comes to the very fountain of priesthood. for, take any one in the whole train and succession of ordainers, and suppose him, by reason of any defect, only a supposed and not a true priest, then according to your doctrine he could not give a true, but only a supposed priesthood; and they that receive it of him, and again they that derive it from them, can give no better than they received; receiving nothing but a name and shadow, can give nothing but a name and shadow: and so from age to age, from generation to generation, seeing equivocal fathers beget only equivocal sons; no principle in geometry being more certain than this, that the unsuppliable defect of any necessary antecedent, must needs cause a nullity of all those consequences which depend upon it. in fine, to know this one thing you must first know ten thousand others, whereof not any one is a thing that can be known, there being no necessity that it should be true, which only can qualify any thing for an object of science, but only, at the best, a high degree of probability that it is so. but then, that of ten thousand probables, no one should be false; that of ten thousand requisites, whereof any one may fail, not one should be wanting, this to me is extremely improbable and even cousin-german to impossible. so that the assurance hereof is like a machine composed of an innumerable multitude of pieces, of which it is strangely unlikely but some will be out of order; and yet, if any one be so, the whole fabric of necessity falls to the ground. and he that shall put them together, and maturely consider all the possible ways of lapsing, and nullifying a priesthood in the church of rome, i believe, will be very inclinable to think, that it is an hundred to one, that, amongst an hundred seeming priests, there is not one true one. nay, that it is not a thing very improbable, that, amongst those many millions, which make up the romish hierarchy, there are not twenty true. but be the truth in this what it will be, once this is certain, that they, which make men's salvation (as you do) depend upon priestly absolution; and this again (as you do) upon the truth and reality of the priesthood that gives it; and this lastly upon a great multitude of apparent uncertainties, are not the fittest men in the world, to object to others, as a horrible crime, that they make men's salvation depend upon fallible and uncertain foundations. and let this be the first retortion of your argument. 68 but suppose, this difficulty assoiled, and that an angel from heaven should ascertain you (for other assurances you can have none) that the person you make use of, is a true priest, and a competent minister of the sacrament of penance; yet still the doubt will remain, whether he will do you that good which he can do, whether he will pronounce the absolving words with intent to absolve you! for perhaps, he may bear you some secret malice, and project to himself your damnation, for a complete italian revenge. perhaps (as the tale is of a priest that was lately burnt in france) he may upon some conditions have compacted with the devil to give no sacraments with intention. lastly, he may be (for aught you can possibly know) a secret jew, or moor, or antitrinitarian, or perhaps such a one as is so far from intending your forgiveness of sins and salvation by this sacrament, that in his heart he laughs at all these things, and thinks sin nothing, and salvation a word. all these doubts you must have clearly resolved (which can hardly be done but by another revelation,) before you can upon good grounds assure yourself, that your true priest gives you true and effectual absolution. so that when you have done as much as god requires for your salvation, yet can you by no means be secure, but that you may have the ill luck to be damned: which is to make salvation a matter of chance, and not of choice; and which a man may fail of, not only by an ill life, but by ill fortune. verily, a most comfortable doctrine for a considering man lying upon his deathbed, who, either feels or fears that his repentance is but attrition only, and not contrition, and consequently believes, that, if he be not absolved really by a true priest, he cannot possibly escape damnation. such a man for his comfort, you tell, first (you that will have men's salvation depend upon no uncertainties) that though he verily believe that his sorrow for sins is a true sorrow, and his purpose of amendment a true purpose; yet he may deceive himself, perhaps it is not; and, if it be not, he must be damned. yet you bid him hope well: but, spes est rei incertae nomen. you tell him secondly, that though the party he confesses to, seem to be a true priest, yet, for aught he knows, or, for aught himself knows, by reason of some secret undiscern●ble invalidity in his baptism or ordination, he may be none, and if he be none, he can do nothing. this is a hard saying, but this is not the worst. you tell him thirdly, that he may be in such a state that he cannot, or, if he can, that he will not give the sacrament with due intention: and, if he does not, all is in vain. put case, a man by these consideration should be cast into some agonies; what advice, what comfort would you give him? verily, i know not what you could say to him, but this; that, first for the qualification required on his part, he might know that he desired to have true sorrow, and that that is sufficient. but then, if he should ask you, why he might not know his sorrow to be a true sorrow, as well as his desire to be sorrowful, to be a true desire; i believe you would be put to silence. then secondly, to quiet his fears, concerning the priest and his intention you should tell him, by my advice, that god's goodness (which will not suffer him to damn men for not doing better than their best,) will supply all such defects, as to humane endeavours were unavoidable. and therefore though his priest were indeed no priest, yet to him he should be as if he were one: and if he gave absolution without intention, yet in doing so he should hurt himself only and not his penitent. this were some comfort indeed, and this were to settle men's salvation upon reasonable certain grounds. but this, i fear, you will never say; for this were to reverse many doctrines established by your church; and besides, to degrade your priesthood from a great part of their honour, by lessening the strict necessity of the laitie's dependence upon them. for it were to say, that the priest's intention is not necessary to the obtaining of absolution; which is to say, that it is not in the parson's power to damn whom he will in his parish, because, by this rule, god should supply the defect which his malice had caused. and besides, it were to say, that, infants dying without baptism might be saved, god supplying the want of baptism which to them is unavoidable. but beyond all this, it were to put into my mouth a full and satisfying answer to your argument, which i am now returning; so that in answering my objection you should answer your own. for than i should tell you, that it were altogether as abhorrent from the goodness of god, and as repugnant to it, to suffer an ignorant lay-man's soul to perish, merely for being misled by an undiscernible false translation, which yet was commended to him by the church, which (being of necessity to credit some in this matter) he had reason to rely upon, either above all other, or as much as any other, as it is to damn a penitent sinner for a secret defect in that desired absolution, which his ghostly father perhaps was an atheist, and could not give him, or was a villain and would not. this answer therefore, which alone would serve to comfort your penitent in his perplexities, and to assure him that he cannot fail of salvation if he will not, for fear of inconvenience you must forbear. and seeing you must, i hope you will, come down from the pulpit, and preach no more against others for making men's salvation depend upon fallible and uncertain grounds, lest by judging others, you make yourselves, and your own church inexcusable, who are strongly guilty of this fault, above all the men and churches of the world: whereof i have already given you two very pregnant demonstrations, drawn from your presumptuous tying god and salvation to your sacraments; and the efficacy of them to your priest's qualifications and intentions. 69. your making the salvation of infants depend on baptism a casual thing, and in the power of man to confer, or not confer, would yield me a third of the same nature. and your suspending the same on the baptizer's intention, a fourth. and lastly, your making the real presence of christ in the eucharist depend upon the casualties of the consecrator's true priesthood and intention, and yet commanding men to believe it for certain that he is present, and to adore the sacrament, which, according to your doctrine, for aught they can possibly know, may be nothing else but a piece of bread, so exposing them to the danger of idolatry, and consequently of damnation, doth offer me a fifth demonstration of the same conclusion, if i thought fit to insist upon them. but i have no mind to draw any more out of this fountain; neither do i think it charity to cloy the reader with uniformity, when the subject affords variety. 70. sixthly, therefore, i return it thus. the faith of papists relies alone upon their church's infallibility. that there is any church infallible, and, that theirs is it, they pretend not to believe, but only upon prudential motives. dependence upon prudential motives they confess to be obnoxious to a possibility of erring. what then remaineth, but truth, faith, salvation, and all, must in them rely upon a fallible and uncertain ground! 71. seventhly, the faith of papists relies upon the church alone. the doctrine of the church is delivered to most of them by their parish-priest, or ghostly father, or, at least, by a company of priests, who, for the most part, sure, are men and not angels, in whom nothing is more certain than a most certain possibility to err. what then remaineth, but that truth, faith, salvation, and all, must in them rely upon a fallible and uncertain ground. 72. eighthly thus. it is apparent and undeniable, that many thousands there are, who believe your religion upon no better grounds, than a man may have for the belief almost of any religion. as some believe it, because their forefathers did so, and they were good people. some, because they were christened, and brought up in it. some, because many learned and religious men are of it. some, because it is the religion of their country, where all other religions are persecuted and proscribed. some, because protestants cannot show a perpetual succession of professors of all their doctrines. some, because the service of your church is more stately, and pompous, and magnificent. some, because they find comfort in it. some, because your religion is farther spread, and hath more professors of it, than the religion of protestants. some, because your priest's compass sea and land to gain proselytes to it. lastly, an infinite number, by chance, and they know not why, but only because they are sure they are in the right. this which i say, is a most certain experimented truth, and, if you will deal ingenuously, you will not deny it. and, without question, he that builds his faith upon our english translation, goes upon a more prudent ground than any of these can, with reason, be pretended to be. what then can you allege but that with you, father than with us, truth, and faith, and salvation, and all, rely upon fallible and uncertain grounds? 73. ninthly. your rhemish and douai translations are delivered to your proselytes, (such, i mean, that are dispensed with, for the reading of them,) for the direction of their faith and lives. and the same may be said of your translations of the bible into other national languages, in respect of those that are licenced to read them. this, i presume, you will confess. and moreover, that these translations came not by inspiration, but were the productions of humane industry; and that, not angels, but men, were the authors of them. men, i say, mere men, subject to the same passions, and to the same possibility of erring with our translators. and then how does it not unavoidably follow, that in them which depend upon these translations for their direction, faith, and truth, and salvation, and all, relies upon fallible and uncertain grounds? 74. tenthly and lastly (to lay the axe to the root of the tree) the helena which you so fight for▪ your vulgar translation, though some of you believe, or pretend to believe it to be in every part and particle of it, the pure and uncorupted word of god; yet others among you, and those as good and zealous catholics as you, are not so confident hereof. 75. first, for all those who have made translations of the whole bible or any part of it different many times in sense from the vulgar, as lyranus, cajetan, pagnine, arias, erasmus, valla, steuchus, and others, it is apparent and even palpable, that they never dreamt of any absolute perfection and authentical infallibility of the vulgar translation. for, if they had, why did they in many places reject it and differ from it? 76. vega was present at the council of trent, when that decree was made, which made the vulgar edition (than not extant any any where in the world) authentical, and not to be rejected upon any pretence whatsoever. at the forming this decree, vega i say, was present, understood the mind of the council, as well as any man, and professes that he was instructed in it by the precedent of it, the cardinal s. cruse. and yet he hath written that the council in this decree meant to pronounce this translation free (not simply from all error) but only from such errors, out of which any opinion pernitions to faith and manners might be collected. this, and radius in his defence of that council reports of vega, and assents to it himself. driedo, in his book of the translation of holy scripture, hath these words very pregnant and pertinent to the same purpose; the see apostolic, hath approved or accepted hierom 's edition, not as so wholly consonant to the original, and so entire, and pure, and restored in all things, that it may not be lawful for any man, either by comparing it with the fountain to examine it, or, in some places to doubt, whether or no hierom did understand the true sense of the scripture; but only, as an edition to be preferred before all others then extant, and no where deviating from the truth in the rules of faith and good life. mariana, even where he is a most earnest advocate for the vulgar edition, yet acknowledges the imperfection of it in these words, ●●o e●●t. vulg. c. 21. p. 99 the faults of the vulgar edition are not approved by the decree of the council of trent, a multitude whereof we did collect from the variety of copy. and again, we maintain that the hebrew and greek, were by no means rejected by the trent-fathers': and that the latin edition is indeed approved; yet not so, as if they did deny that some places might be translated more plainly, some more properly; whereof it were easy to produce innumerable examples. and this he there professes to have learned of laines the then general of the society: who was a great part of that council, present at all the actions of it, and of very great authority in it. 77. to this so great authority he adds a reason of his opinion; which with all indifferent men will be of a far greater authority. if the council (saith he) had purposed to approve an edition in all respects, and to make it of equal authority and credit with the fountains, certainly they ought with exact care first to have corrected the errors of the interpreter: which certainly they did not. 78. lastly, bellarmine himself, though he will not acknowledge any imperfection in the vulgar edition, yet he acknowledges that the ●ase may, and does ofttimes, so fall out, b●ll de ver●e d●●d. 2. c. 12. p. 120. that it is impossible to discern which is the true reading of the vulgar edition, but only by recourse unto the originals, and dependence upon them. 79. from all which it may evidently be collected, that, though some of you flatter yourselves with a vain imagination of the certain absolute purity and perfection of your vulgar edition; yet the matter is not so certain, and so resolved, but that the best learned men amongst you are often at a stand, and very doubtful sometimes whether your vulgar translation be true, and sometimes whether this or that be your vulgar translation, and sometimes undoubtedly resolved that your vulgar translation is no true translation, nor consonant to the original, as it was at first delivered. and what then can be alleged, but that out of your own grounds it may be inferred and enforced upon you, that not only in your laymen, but your clergymen and scholars, faith, and truth, and salvation, and all, depends upon fallible and uncertain grounds? and thus, by ten several retortions of this one argument, i have endeavoured to show you, how ill you have complied with your own advice, which was to take heed of urging arguments that might be returned upon you. i should now, by a direct answer, show, that it presseth not us at all: but i have in passing, done it already in the end of the second retortion of this argument, and thither i refer the reader. 80. whereas therefore you exhort them that will have assurance of true scriptures, to fly to your church for it: i desire to know (if they should follow your advice) how they should be assured that your church can give them any such assurance; which hath been confessedly so negligent, as to suffer many whole books of scripture to be utterly lost. again, in those that remain, confessedly so negligent as to suffer the originals of these that remain to be corrupted. and lastly, so careless of preserving the integrity of the copies of her translation, as to suffer infinite variety of readins to come in to them, without keeping any one perfect copy, which might have been as the standard, and polycletus his canon, to correct the rest by. so that which was the true reading, and which the false, it was utterly undiscernible, but only by comparing them with the originals, which also she pretends to be corrupted. 81. but luther himself, by unfortunate experience, was at length enforced to confess thus much, saying, if the wordlast longer, it will be again necessary to receive the decrees of counsels, by reason of divers interpretations of scripture which now reign. 82. and what if luther, having a pope in his belly, (as he was wont to say that most men had,) and desiring perhaps to have his own interpretations pass without examining, spoke such words in heat of argument? do you think it reasonable that we should subscribe to luther's divinations and angry speeches? will you oblige yourself to answer for all the assertions of your private doctors? if not; why do you trouble us with what luther says, and what calvin says? yet this i say not, as if these words of luther made any thing at all for your present purpose. for what if he feared, or pretended to fear, that, the infallibility of counsels being rejected, some men would fall into greater errors than were imposed upon them be the counsels? is this to confess that there is any present visible church, upon whose bare authority we may infallibly receive the true scriptures and the true sense of them? let the reader judge. but, in my opinion, to fear a greater inconvenience may follow from the avoiding of the less, is not to confess that the less is none at all. 83. for d. covels commending your translation, what is it to the business in hand? or how proves it the perfection of it, which is here contested, any more than s. augustine's commending the italian translation, argues the perfection of that, or that there was no necessity that s. hierom should correct it? d. covel commends your translation and so does the bishop of chichester, and so does d. james, and so do i. but i commend it for a good translation, not for a perfect. good may be good, and deserve commendations; and yet better may be better. and though he says, that the then approved translation of the church of england, is that which cometh nearest the vulgar, yet he does not say, that it agrees exactly with it. so that whereas you infer, that the truth of your translation must be the rule to judge of the goodness of ours: this is but a vain flourish. for, to say of our translations, that is the best which comes nearest the vulgar, (and yet it is but one man that says so,) is not to say, it is therefore the best because it does so. for this may be true by accident, and yet the truth of our translation no way depend upon the truth of yours. for, had that been their direction, they would not only have made a translation that should come near to yours, but such a one which should exactly agree with it, and be a translation of your translation. 84. ad 17. § in this division you charge us, with great uncertainty, concerning the true meaning of scripture. which hath been answered already, by saying, that, if you speak of plain places, (and in such all things necessary are contained,) we are sufficiently certain of the meaning of them, neither need they any interpreter. if of obscure and difficult places, we confess we are uncertain of the sense of many of them. but then we say there is no necessity we should be certain. for, if god's will had been, we should have understood him more certainly, he would have spoken more plainly. and we say besides, that as we are uncertain, so are you too; which he that doubts of, let him read your commentators upon the bible, and observe their various and dissonant interpretations, and he shall in this point need no further satisfaction. 85. but seeing there are contentions among us, we are taught by nature and scripture, and experience (so you tell us out of m. hooker to seek for the ending of them, by submitting unto some judicial sentence, whereunto neither part may refuse to stand. this is very true. neither should you need to persuade us to seek such a means of ending all our controversies, if we could tell where to find it. but this we know, that none is fit to pronounce for all the world a judicial definitive obliging sentence in controversies of religion, but only such a man, or such a society of men, as is authorized thereto by god. and besides, we are able to demonstrate, that it hath not been the pleasure of god to give to any man, or society of men, any such authority. and therefore, though we wish hearty that all controversies were ended, as we do that all sin were abolished, yet we have little hope of the one, or the other, till the world be ended. and in the mean while, think it best to content ourselves with, and to persuade others unto, an unity of charity, and mutual toleration; seeing god hath authorized no man to force all men to unity of opinion. neither do we think it fit to argue thus, to us it seems convenient there should be one judge of all controversies for the whole world, therefore god hath appointed one: but more modest and more reasonable to collect thus, god hath appointed no such judge of controversies, therefore, though it seems to us convenient there should be one, yet it is not so: or though it were convenient for us to have one, yet it hath pleased god (for reasons best know to himself) not to allow us this convenience. 86. d. fields words which follow, i confess, are somewhat more pressing: and, if he had been infallible, and the words had not slipped unadvisedly from him, they were the best argument in your book. but yet it is evident out of his book, and so acknowledged by some of your own, that he never thought of any one company of christians invested with such authority from god, that all men were bound to receive their decrees without examination, though they seem contrary to scripture and reason, which the church of rome requires. and therefore, if he have in his preface strained too high in commendation of the subject he writes of, (as writers very often do in their prefaces and dedicatory epistles) what is that to us? besides, by all the societies of the world, it is not impossible, nor very improbable, he might mean, all that are, or have been in the world, and so include even the primitive church: and her communion we shall embrace, her direction we shall follow, her judgement we shall rest in; if we believe the scripture, endeavour to find the true sense of it, and live according to it. 87. ad §. 18. that the true interpretation of the scripture ought to be received from the church, you need not prove; for it is very easily granted by them, who profess themselves very ready to receive all truths, much more the true sense of scripture, not only from the church, but from any society of men, nay from any man whatsoever. 88 that the church's interpretation of scripture is always true, that is it which you would have said: and that in some sense may be also admitted, viz. if you speak of that church (which before you spoke of in the 14. §.) that is, of the church of all ages since the apostles. upon the tradition of which church you there told us, we were to receive the scripture, and to believe it to be the word of god. for there you teach us, that our faith of scripture depends on a principle, which requires no other proof; and that, such is tradition, which, from hand to hand, and age to age, bringing us up to the times and persons of the apostles and our saviour himself, cometh to be confirmed by all those miracles, and other arguments whereby they convinced their doctrine to be true. wherefore the ancient fathers avouch that we must receive the sacred scripture upon the tradition of this church. the tradition then of this church you say must teach us what is scripture: and we are willing to believe it. and now, if you make it good unto us, that the same tradition down from the apostles, hath delivered from age to age, and from hand to hand, any interpretation of any scripture, we are ready to embrace that also. but now, if you will argue thus: the church in one sense tells us what is scripture, and we believe it; therefore, if the church, taken in another sense, tell us, this or that is the meaning of the scripture, we are to believe that also; this is too transparent sophistry, to take any but those that are willing to be taken. 89. if there be any traditive interpretation of scripture, produce it, and prove it to be so; and we embrace it. but the tradition of all ages is one thing; and the authority of the present church, much more of the roman church, which is but a part, and a corrupted part, of the catholic church, is another. and therefore, though we are ready to receive both scripture, and the sense of scripture upon the authority of original tradition, yet we receive neither the one, nor the other, upon the authority of your church. 90. first for the scripture, how can we receive them upon the authority of your church, who hold now those books to be canonical, which formerly you rejected from the canon? i instance in the book of macchabees, and the epistle to the hebrews. the first of these you held not to be canonical in s. gregory's time, or else he was no member of your church; for it is apparent (a) see gr●g. ma●● 19 〈◊〉 13. he held otherwise. the second you rejected from the canon in s. hierom's time, as it is evident out of (b) 〈…〉 there 〈…〉 and again 〈◊〉 c. 8. in 〈…〉. many places of his works. 91. if you say (which is all you can say) that hierom spoke this of the particular roman church, not of the roman catholic church; i answer, there was none such in his time, none that was called so. secondly, what he spoke of the roman church, must be true of all other churches, if your doctrine of the necessity of the conformity of all other churches to that church, were then catholic doctrine. now then choose whether you will, either that the particular roman church was not then believed to be the mistress of all other churches (notwithstanding, ad hanc ecclesiam, necesse est omnem convenire ecclesiam, hoc est, omnes qui sunt undique fi●leles; which cardinal perron, and his translatress so often translates false: or, if you say she was, you will run into a greater inconvenience, and be forced to say, that all the churches of that time rejected from the canon, the epistle to the hebrews, together with the roman church. and consequently, that the catholic church may err in rejecting from the canon, scriptures truly canonical. 92. secondly, how can we receive the scripture upon the authority of the roman church, which hath delivered at several times scriptures in many places different and repugnant, for authentical and canonical? which is most evident out of the place of malachy, which is so quoted for the sacrifice of the mass, that either all the ancient fathers had false bibles, or yours is false. most evident likewise from the comparing of the story of jacob in genesis, with that which is cited out of it, in the epistle to the hebrews, according to the vulgar edition. but above all, to any one who shall compare the bibles of sixtus and clement, so evident, that the wit of man cannot disguise it. 93. and thus you see what reason we have to believe your antecedent, that your church it is which must declare, what books be true scripture. now, for the consequence, that certainly is as liable to exception as the antecedent. for, if it were true, that god had promised to assist you, for the delivering of true scripture, would this oblige him, or would it follow from hence that he had obliged himself, to teach you, not only sufficiently, but effectually and irresistibly the true sense of scripture? god is not defective in things necessary: neither will he leave himself without witness, nor the world without means of knowing his will and doing it. and therefore it was necessary that by his providence he should preserve the scripture from any undiscernible corruption, in those things which he would have known: otherwise it is apparent, it had not been his will, that these things should be known, the only means of continuing the knowledge of them being perished. but now neither is god lavish in superfluities, and therefore having given us means sufficient for our direction, and power sufficient to make use of these means, he will not constrain or necessitate us to make use of these means. for that were to cross the end of our creation, which was to be glorified by our free obedience: whereas necessity and freedom cannot stand together. that were to reverse the law which he hath prescribed to himself in his dealing with man; and that is, to set life and death before him, and to leave him in the hands of his own counsel. god gave the wisemen a star to lead them to christ, but he did not necessitate them to follow the guidance of this star: that was left to their liberty. god gave the children of israel a fire to lead them by night, and a pillar of cloud by day; but he constrained no man to follow them: that was left to their liberty. so he gives the church the scripture: which in those things which are to be believed or done, are plain and easy to be followed, like the wisemen's star. now that, which he desires of us on our part, is, the obedience of faith, and love of the truth, and desire to find the true sense of it, and industry in searching it, and humility in following, and constancy in professing it: all which, if he should work in us by an absolute irresistible necessity, he could no more require of us as our duty, than he can of the sun to shine, of the sea to ebb and flow, and of all other creatures to do those things which by mere necessity, they must do, and cannot choose. besides, what an impudence is it to pretend that your church is infallibly directed concerning the true meaning of the scripture, whereas there are thousands of places of scripture, which you do not pretend certainly to understand, and about the interpretation whereof, your own doctors differ among themselves? if your church be infallibly directed concerning the true meaning of scripture, why do not your doctors follow her infallible direction? and, if they do, how comes such difference among them in their interpretations? 94. again, why does your church thus put her candle under a bushel, and keep her talon of interpreting scripture infallibly, thus long wrapped up in napkins? why sets she not forth infallible commentaries or expositions upon all the bible? is it, because this would not be profitable for christians, that scripture should be interpreted? it is blasphemous to say so. the scripture itself tells us, all scripture is profitable. and the scripture is not so much the words as the sense. and, if it be not profitable, why does she employ particular doctors to interpret scriptures fallibly? unless we must think that fallible interpretations of scripture are profitable, and infallible interpretations would not be so? 95. if you say, the holy ghost, which assists the church in interpreting, will move the church to interpret when he shall think fit, and that the church will do it when the holy ghost shall move her to do it. i demand, whether the holy ghost's moving of the church to such works as these, be resistible by the church, or irresistible. if resistible, than the holy ghost may move, and the church may not be moved. as certainly the holy ghost doth always move to an action, when he shows us plainly, that it would be for the good of men, and honour of god: as he that hath any sense will acknowledge that an infallible exposition of scripture could not but be; and there is no conceivable reason, why such a work should be put off a day, but only because you are conscious to yourselves, you cannot do it, and therefore make excuses. but if the moving of the holy ghost be irresistible, and you are not yet so moved to go about this work; then i confess you are excused. but then i would know, whether those popes, which so long deferred the calling of a council for the reformation of your church, at length pretended to be effected by the council of trent, whether they may excuse themselves, for that they were not moved by the holy ghost to do it? i would know likewise, as this motion is irresistible when it comes, so whether it be so simply necessary to the moving of your church to any such public action, that it cannot possibly move without it? that is, whether the pope now could not, if he would, seat himself in cathedra, and fall to writing expositions upon the bible for the direction of christians to the true sense of it? if you say, he cannot, you will make yourself ridiculous. if he can, than i would know, whether he should be infallibly directed in these expositions, or no? if he should, then what need he to stay for irresisible motion? why does he not go about this noble work presently? if he should not, how shall we know that the calling of the council of trent was not upon his own voluntary motion, or upon humane importunity and suggestion, and not upon the motion of the holy ghost? and consequently, how shall we know whether he were assistant to it or no, seeing he assists none but what he himself moves to? and whether he did move the pope to call this council, is a secret thing, which we cannot possibly know, nor perhaps the pope himself. 96. if you say, your meaning is only, that the church shall be infallibly guarded from giving any false sense of any scripture, and not infallibly assisted positively to give the true sense of all scripture: i put to you your own question, why should we believe the holy ghost will stay there? or, why may we not as well think he will stay at the first thing, that is, in teaching the church what books be true scripture? for, if the holy ghost's assistance be promised to all things profitable, then will he be with them infallibly, not only to guard them from all errors, but to guide them to all profitable truths, such as the true senses of all scripture would be. neither could he stay there, but defend them irresistibly from all vices; nor there neither, but infuse into them irresistibly all virtues: for all these things would be much for the benefit of christians. if you say, he cannot do this without taking away their freewill in living; i say, neither can he necessitate men to believe aright, without taking away their freewill in believing, and in professing their belief. 97. to the place of s. austin; i answer, that, not the authority of the present church, much less of a part of it (as the roman church is) was that which alone moved s. austin to believe the gospel, but the perpetual tradition of the church of all ages. which you yourself have taught us to be the only principle by which the scripture is proved, and which itself needs no proof; and to which you have referred this very saying of saint austin, ego verò evangelio non crederem, nisi, etc. chap. 2. §. 14. and in the next place, which you cite out of his book de util. cred. c. 14. he shows, that his motives to believe, were fame, celebrity, consent, antiquity. and seeing this tradition, this consent, this antiquity did as fully and powerfully move him not to believe manichaeus, as to believe the gospel, (the christian tradition being as full against manichaeus as it was for the gospel) therefore he did well to conclude upon these grounds, that he had as much reason to manichaeus, as to believe the gospel. now, if you can truly say, that the same fame, celebrity, consent, antiquity, that the same universal and original tradition, lies against luther and calvin, as did against manichaeus, you may do well to apply the argument against them; otherwise it will be to little purpose to substitute their names instead of manichaeus, unless you can show the thing agrees to them as well as him. 98. if you say that s. austin speaks here of the authority of the present church, abstracted from consent with the ancient, and therefore you, seeing you have the present church on your side against luther and calvin, as s. austin against manichaeus, may urge the same words against them which s. austin did against him. 99 i answer, first, that it is a vain presumption of yours that the catholic church is of your side. secondly, that, if s. austin speak here of that present church, which moved him to believe the gospel, without consideration of the antiquity of it, and its both personal and doctrinal succession from the apostles; his argument will be like a buskin that will serve any leg. it will serve to keep an arrian, or a grecian, from being a roman catholic, as well as a catholic from being an arrian, or a grecian: in as much as the arrians and grecians did pretend to the title of catholics, and the church, as much as the papists now do. if then you should have come to an ancient goth or vandal, whom the arrians converted to christianity, and should have moved him to your religion; might he not say the very same words to you as s. austin to the manichaeans? i would not believe the gospel, unless the authority of the church did move me. them therefore whom i obeyed, saying, believe the gospel, why should i not obey saying to me, do not believe the homo-ousians? choose what thou pleasest: if thou shalt say, believe the arrians, they warn me not to give any credit to you. if therefore i believe them, i cannot believe thee. if thou say, do not believe the arrians, thou shalt not do well to force me to the faith of the homo-ousians, because by the preaching of the arrians i believed the gospel itself. if you say, you did well to believe them, commending the gospel, but, you did not well to believe them, discommending the homo-ousians: dost thou think me so very foolish, that, without any reason at all, i should believe what thou wilt, and not believe what thou wilt not? it were easy to put these words into the mouth of a grecian, abyssine, georgian, or any other of any religion. and i pray bethink yourselves, what you would say to such a one in such a case, and imagine that we say the very same to you. 100 whereas you ask, whether protestants do not perfectly resemble those men to whom s. austin spoke, when they will have men to believe the roman church delivering scripture, but not to believe her condemning luther? i demand again, whether you be well in your wits to say, that protestants would have men believe the roman church delivering scripture, whereas they accuse her to deliver many books for scripture which are not so? and do not bid men to receive any book which she delivers, for that reason, because she delivers it? and, if you meant only, protestants will have men to believe some books to be scripture which the roman church delivers for such, may not we then ask as you do, do not papists perfectly resemble these men, which will have men believe the church of england delivering scripture, but not to believe her condemning the church of rome? 101. and whereas you say, s. austin may seem to have spoken prophetically against protestants, when he said, why should i not most diligently inquire what christ commanded of them before all others, by whose authority i was moved to believe, that christ commanded any good thing? i answer. until you can show that protestants believe that christ commanded any good thing, that is, that they believe the truth of christian religion upon the authority of the church of rome, this place must be wholly impertinent to your purpose; which is to make protestants believe your church to be the infallible expounder of scriptures and judge of controversies: nay rather, is it not directly against your purpose? for why may not a member of the church of england, who received his baptism, education, and faith from the ministry of this church, say just so to you as s. austin here to the manichees? why should i not most diligently inquire, what christ commanded of them (the church of england) before all others, by whose authority i was moved to believe, that christ commanded any good thing? can you, f. or k. or whosoever you are, better declare to me what he said, whom i would not have thought to have been, or to be, if the belief thereof had been recommended by you to me? this therefore (that christ jesus did those miracles, and taught that doctrine which is contained evidently in the undoubted books of the new testament) i believed by fame, strengthened with celebrity and consent, (even of those which in other things are at infinite variance one with another,) and last by antiquity (which gives an universal and a constant attestation to them.) but every one may see that you, so few in comparison of all those upon whose consent we ground our belief of scripture,) so turbulent, (that you damn all to the fire, and to hell, that any way differ from you; that you profess it is lawful for you, to use violence and power whensoever you can have it, for the planting of your own doctrine, and the extirpation of the contrary;) last, so new in many of your doctrines, (as in the lawfulness and expedience of debarring the laity the sacramental cup; the lawfulness and expedience of your latin service, transubstantiation, indulgences, purgatory, the pope's infallibility, his authority over kings, etc. so new, i say, in comparison of the undoubted books of scripture, which evidently containeth, or rather is our religion, and the sole, and adequate object of our faith: i say, every one may see that you, so few, so turbulent, so new, can produce nothing deserving authority (with wise and considerate men.) what madness is this? believe then the consent of christians, which are now, and have been ever since christ in the world, that we ought to believe christ; but learn of us what christ said, which contradict and damn all other parts of christendom. why, i beseech you? surely, if they were not at all, and could not teach me any thing, i would more easily persuade myself, that i were not to believe in christ, than that i should learn any thing concerning him, from any other, than them by whom i believed him: at least, than that i should learn what his religion was from you, who have wronged so exceedingly his miracles and his doctrine, by forging so evidently so many false miracles for the confirmation of your new doctrine; which might give us just occasion, had we no other assurance of them but your authority, to suspect the true ones. who, with forging so many false stories, and fals● authors, have taken a fair way to make the faith of all stories questionable, if we had no other ground for our belief of them but your authority; who have brought in doctrines plainly and directly contrary to that which you confess to be the word of christ, and which, for the most part, make either for the honour or profit of the teachers of them: which (if there were no difference between the christian and the roman church) would be very apt to make suspicious men believe that christian religion was a humane invention, taught by some cunning impostors, only to make themselves rich and powerful; who make a profession of corrupting all sorts of authors: a ready course to make it justly questionable whether any remain uncorrupted. for, if you take this authority upon you, upon the six ages last passed; how shall we know, that the church of that time, did not usurp the same authority upon the authors of the six last ages before them, and so upwards, until we come to christ himself? whose questioned doctrines, none of them came from the fountain of apostolic tradition, but have insinuated themselves into the streams, by little and little; some in one age, and some in another; some more anciently, some more lately; and some yet are embrio's, yet hatching, and in the shell; as the pope's infallibility, the blessed virgin's immaculate conception, the pope's power over the temporalties of kings, the doctrine of predetermination, etc. all which yet are, or in time may be, imposed upon christians under the title of original and apostolic tradition; and that with that necessity, that they are told, they were as good believe nothing at all, as not believe these things to have come from the apostles, which they know to have been brought in but yesterday: which whether it be not a ready and likely way to make men conclude thus with themselves— i am told, that i were as good believe nothing at all, as believe some points which the church teacheth me, and not others: and some things which she teacheth to be ancient and certain, i plainly see to be new and false; therefore i will believe nothing at all. whether, i say, the foresaid grounds be not a ready and likely way to make men conclude thus; and whether this conclusion be not too often made in italy, and spain, and france, and in england too, i leave it to the judgement of those that have wisdom and experience. seeing therefore the roman church is so far from being a sufficient foundation for our belief in christ, that it is in sundry regards a dangerous temptation against it; why should i not much rather conclude, seeing we receive not the knowledge of christ and scriptures from the church of rom●; neither from her must we take his doctrine, or the interpretation of scripture. 102. ad §. 19 in this number, this argument is contained. the judge of controversies ought to be intelligible to learned and unlearned; the scripture is not so, and the church is so; therefore the church is the judge, and not the scripture. 103. to this i answer: as, to be understandible is a condition requisite to a judge, so is not that alone sufficient to make a judge; otherwise you might make yourself judge of controversies, by arguing, the scripture is not intelligible by all, but i am; therefore i am judge of controversies. if you say, your intent was to conclude against the scripture, and not for the church: i demand why then, but to delude the simple with sophistry, did you say in the close of this §, such is the church, and the scripture is not such? but that you would leave it to them, to infer in the ●nd, (which indeed was more than you undertook in the beginning) therefore the church is judge, and the scripture not. i say secondly, that you still run upon a false supposition: that god hath appointed some judge of all controversies that may happen among christians, about the sense of obscure texts of scripture: whereas he hath left every one to his liberty herein, in those words of s. paul, quisque abundet in sensu suo, etc. i say, thirdly, whereas some protestants make the scripture judge of controversies, that they have the authority of fathers to warrant their manner of speaking: as of * cont. parmen l. 5. in prin. optatus. 104. but speaking truly and properly, the scripture is not a judge, nor cannot be, but only a sufficient rule, for those to judge by, that believe it to be the word of god (as the church of england, and the church of rome both do,) what they are to believe, and what they are not to believe. i say sufficiently perfect, and sufficiently intelligible, in things necessary, to all that have understanding, whether they be learned or unlearned. and my reason hereof is convincing and demonstrative; because nothing is necessary to be believed, but what is plainly revealed. for to say, that when a place of scripture, by reason of ambiguous terms, lies indifferent between divers senses, whereof one is true, and the other is false, that god obliges men under pain of damnation, not to mistake through error and humane frailty, is to make god a tyrant; and to say that he requires us certainly to attain that end, for the attaining whereof we have no certain means: which is to say, that, like pharaoh, he gives no straw, and requires brick; that he reaps where he sows not; that he gathers where he strews not; that he will not be pleased with our utmost endeavours to please him, without full, and exact, and never failing performance; that his will is, we should do what he knows we cannot do; that he will not accept of us according to that which we have, but requireth of us what we have not. which, whether it can consist with his goodness, with his wisdom, and with his word, i leave it to honest men to judge. if i should send a servant to paris, or rome, or jerusalem, and he using his utmost diligence not to mistake his way, yet notwithstanding, meeting often with such places where the road is divided into several ways, whereof every one is as likely to be true, and as likely to be false as any other, should at length mistake and go out of the way; would not any man say that i were an impotent, foolish and unjust master, if i impute that to god, which we would take in foul scorn, if it were imputed to ourselves? certainly, i, for my part, fear, i should not love god, if i should think so strangely of him. 105. again, when you say, that unlearned and ignorant men cannot understand scripture, i would desire you to come out of the clouds, and tell us what you mean: whether, that they cannot understand all scripture, or that they cannot understand any scripture, or that they cannot understand so much as is sufficient for their direction to heaven. if the first, i believe the learned are in the same case. if the second, every man's experience will confute you: for, who is there that is not capable of a sufficient understanding of the story, the precepts, the promises, and the threats of the gospel? if the third, that they may understand something, but not enough for their salvations; i ask you, first, why then doth s. paul say to timothy, the scriptures are able to make him wise unto salvation? why doth saint austin say, ea quae manifestè posita sunt in sacris scriptures, omnia continent quae pertinent ad fidem, moresque vivendi? why does every one of the four evangelists entitle their book the gospel, if any necessary and essential part of the gospel were left out of it? can we imagine, that either they omitted something necessary, out of ignorance not knowing it to be necessary? or, knowing it to be so, maliciously concealed it? or, out of negligence, did the work they have undertaken by halfs? if none of these things can without blasphemy be imputed to them, considering they were assisted by the holy ghost in this work, then certainly it most evidently follows, that every one of them writ the whole gospel of christ; i mean, all the essential and necessary parts of it. so that, if we had no other book of scripture, but one of them alone, we should not want any thing necessary to salvation. and what one of them hath more than another, it is only profitable and not necessary. necessary indeed to be believed, because revealed; but not therefore revealed, because necessary to be believed. 106. neither did they write only for the learned, but for all men. this being one especial means of the preaching of the gospel, which was commanded to be preached, not only to learned men, but to all men. and therefore, unless we will imagine the holy ghost and them, to have been wilfully wanting to their own desire and purpose, we must conceive, that they intended to speak plain, even to the capacity of the simplest; at least, touching all things necessary to be published by them, and believed by us. 107. and whereas you pretend it is so easy, and obvious both for the learned and the ignorant, both to know, which is the church, and what are the decrees of the church, and what is the sense of those decrees: i say, this is a vain pretence. 108. for first, how shall an unlearned man whom you have supposed now ignorant of scripture, how shall he know which of all the societies of christians is indeed the church? you will say perhaps, he must examine them by the notes of the church, which are, perpetual visibility, succession, conformity with the ancient church, etc. but how shall he know, first, that these are the notes of the church, unless by scripture, which, you say, he understands not? you may say perhaps, he may be told so. but seeing men may deceive, and be deceived, and their words are no demonstrations, how shall he be assured that what they say is true? so that at the first he meets with an impregnable difficulty, and cannot know the church but by such notes, which whether they be the notes of the church he cannot possibly know. but let us suppose this isthmus digged through, and that he is assured, these are the notes of the true church: how can he possibly be a competent judge, which society of christians hath title to these notes, and which hath not? seeing this trial of necessity requires a great sufficiency of knowledge of the monuments of christian antiquity, which no unlearned man can have, because he that hath it cannot be unlearned. as for example, how shall he possibly be able to know whether the church of rome hath had a perpetual succession of visible professors, which held always the same doctrine which they now hold, without holding any thing to the contrary; unless he hath first examined, what was the doctrine of the church in the first age, what in the second, and so forth? and whether this be not a more difficult work, than to stay at the first age, and to examine the church by the conformity of her doctrine with the doctrine of the first age, every man of ordinary understanding may judge. 108. let us imagine him advanced a step farther, and to know which is the church: how shall he know what that church hath decreed, seeing the church hath not been so careful in keeping of her decrees, but that many are lost, and many corrupted? besides, when even the learned among you are not agreed concerning divers things, whether they be de fide, or not, how shall the unlearned do? then for the sense of the decrees, how can he be more capable of the understanding of them, than of plain texts of scripture, which you will not suffer him to understand? especially, seeing the decrees of divers popes and counsels are conceived so obscurely, that the learned cannot agree about the sense of them. and then they are written all in such languages which the ignorant understand not, and therefore must of necessity rely herein, upon the uncertain and fallible authority of some particular men, who inform them that there is such a decree. and if the decrees were translated into vulgar languages, why the translators should not be as infallible as you say the translators of scripture are, who can possibly imagine? 109. lastly, how shall an unlearned man, or indeed any man, be assured of the certainty of that decree, the certainty whereof depends upon suppositions which are impossible to be known whether they be true or no? for, it is not the decree of a council, unless it be confirmed by a true pope. now the pope cannot be a true pope, if he came in by simony: which whether he did or no, who can answer me? he cannot be a true pope unless he were baptised, and baptised he was not, unless the minister had due intention. so likewise he cannot be a true pope, unless he were rightly ordained priest, and that again depends upon the ordainer's secret intention, and also upon his having the episcopal character. all which things, as i have formerly proved, depend upon so many uncertain suppositions, that no humane judgement can possibly be resolved in them. i conclude therefore, that not the learnedst man amongst you all, no not the pope himself, can, according to the grounds you go upon, have any certainty, that any decree of any council is good and valid, and consequently, not any assurance that it is indeed the decree of a council. 110. ad §. 20. if by a private spirit, you mean, a particular persuasion that a doctrine is true, which some men pretend, but cannot prove to come from the spirit of god: i say, to refer controversies to scripture, is not to refer them to this kind of private spirit. for is there not a manifest difference between saying, the spirit of god tells me that this is the meaning of such a text (which no man can possibly know to be true, it being a secret thing) and between saying, these and these reasons i have to show, that this or that is true doctrine, or that this or that is the meaning of such a scripture? reason being a public and certain thing, and exposed to all men's trial and examination. but now, if by private spirit you understand every man's particular reason, than your first and second inconvenience will presently be reduced to one, and shortly to none at all. 111. ad §. 20. and does not also giving the office of judicature to the church, come to confert it upon every particular man? for, before any man believes the church infallible, must he not have reason to induce him to believe it to be so? and, must he not judge of those reasons, whether they be indeed good and firm, or captious and sophistical? or, would you have all men believe all your doctrine upon the church's infallibility, and the church's infallibility they know not why? 112. secondly, supposing they are to be guided by the church, they must use their own particular reason to find out which is the church. and to that purpose, you yourselves give a great many notes, which you pretend first to be certain notes of the church, and then to be peculiar to your church, and agreeable to none else; but you do not so much as pretend, that either of those pretences is evident of itself, and therefore you go about to prove them both by reasons; and those reasons, i hope, every particular man is to judge of, whether they do indeed conclude and convince that which they are alleged for: that is, that these marks are indeed certain notes of the church; and then, that your church hath them, and no other. 113. one of these notes, indeed the only note of a true and uncorrupted church, is conformity with antiquity; i mean, the most ancient church of all, that is the primitive and apostolic. now, how is it possible any man should examine your church by this note, but he must by his own particular judgement, find out what was the doctrine of the primitive church, and what is the doctrine of the present church, and be able to answer all these arguments which are brought to prove repugnance between them? otherwise, he shall but pretend to make use of this note for the finding the true church, but indeed make no use of it, but receive the church at a venture, as the most of you do; not one in a hundred being able to give any tolerable reason for it. so that in stead of reducing them to particular reasons, you reduce them to none at all, but to chance, and passion, and prejudice, and such other ways; which, if they lead one to the truth, they lead hundreds, nay thousands to falsehood. but it is a pretty thing to consider, how these men can blow hot and cold out of the same mouth to serve several purposes. is there hope of gaining a proselyte? then they will tell you, god hath given every man reason to follow; and if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch. that it is no good reason for a man's religion, that he was born and brought up in it: for then a turk should have as much reason to be a turk, as a christian to be a christian. that every man hath a judgement of discretion; which if they will make use of, they shall easily find, that the true church hath always such and such marks, and that their church hath them, and no other but theirs. but then if any of theirs be persuaded to a sincere and sufficient trial of their church, even by their own notes of it, and to try whether they be indeed so conformable to antiquity as they pretend, than their note is changed, you must not use your own reason, nor your judgement, but refer all to the church, and believe her to be conformable to antiquity, though they have no reason for it, nay though they have evident reason to the contrary. for my part, i am certain that god hath given us our reason, to discern between truth and falsehood, and he that makes not this use of it, but believes things he knows not why; i say, it is by chance that he believes the truth, and not by choice: and that i cannot but fear, that god will not accept of this sacrifice of fools. 114. but you that would not have men follow their reason, what would you have them to follow? their passion? or pluck out their eyes and go blindfold? no, you say, you would have them follow authority. on god's name let them; we also would have them follow authority; for it is upon the authority of universal tradition, that we would have them believe scripture. but then as for the authority which you would have them follow, you will let them see reason why they should follow it. and is not this to go a little about? to leave reason for a short turn, and then to come to it again; and to do that which you condemn in others? it being indeed a plain impossibility for any man to submit his reason but to reason: for he that doth it to authority, must of necessity think himself to have greater reason to believe that authority. therefore the confession cited by breerely you need not think to have been extorted from luther and the rest. it came very freely from them, and what they say, you practise as much as they. 115. and whereas you say that a protestant admits of fathers, counsels, church, as far as they agree with scripture, which upon the matter is himself: i say, you admit neither of them, nor the scripture itself, but only so far as it agrees with your church: and your church you admit, because you think you have reason to do so: so that by you as well as by protestants all is finally resolved into your own reason. 116 nor do heretics only, but romish catholics also, set up as many judges, as there are men and women in the christian world. for do not your men and women judge your religion to be true, before they believe it, as well as the men and women of other religions? oh but, you say, they receive it, not because they think it agreeable to scripture, but because the church tells them so. but then, i hope, they believe the church, because their own reason tells them they are to do so. so that the difference between a papist and a protestant is this, not that the one judges and the other does not judge, but that the one judges his guide to be infallible, the other his way to be manifest. this same pernicious doctrine is taught by brentius, zanchius, cartwright, and others. it is so, in very deed: but it is taught also by some others, whom you little think of. it is taught by s. paul, where he says, try all things, hold fast that which is good. it is taught by s. john, in these words, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they be of god or no. it is taught by s. peter, in these, be ye ready to render a reason of the hope that is in you. lastly, this very pernicious doctrine is taught by our saviour, in these words, if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch. and, why of yourselves judge you not what is right? all which speeches, if they do not advise men to make use of their reason for the choice of their religion, i must confess myself to understand nothing. lastly, not to be infinite, it is taught by m. knot himself, not in one page only, or chapter of his book, but all his book over; the very writing and publishing whereof, supposeth this for certain, that the readers are to be judges, whether his reasons which he brings, be strong and convincing, of which sort we have hitherto met with none: or else captious, or impertinences, as indifferent men shall (as i suppose) have cause to judge them. 117. but you demand, what good statesmen would they be, who should idaeate, or fancy such a commonwealth, as these men have framed to themselves a church? truly if this be all the fault they have, that they say, every man is to use his own judgement in the choice of his religion, and not to believe this or that sense of scripture, upon the bare authority of any learned man or men, when he conceives he hath reasons to the contrary, which are of more weight than their authority: i know no reason but, notwithstanding all this, they might be as good statesmen as any of the society. but what hath this to do with commonwealths, where men are bound only to external obedience unto the laws and judgement of courts, but not to an internal approbation of them, no nor to conceal their judgement of them, if they disapprove them? as if i conceived i had reason to mislike the law of punishing simple theft with death, as sr. thomas moor did, i might profess lawfully my judgement; and represent my reasons to the king or commonwealth in a parliament, as sr. thomas moor did, without committing any fault, or fearing any punishment. 118. to the place of s. austin, wherewith this paragraph is concluded, i shall need give no other reply, but only to desire you to speak like an honest man, and to say, whether it be all one for a man, to allow and disallow in every scripture what he pleases, which is, either to dash out of scripture such texts or such chapters, because they cross his opinion? or to say (which is worse,) though they be scripture, they are not true? whether, i say, for a man thus to allow and disallow in scripture what he pleases, be all one, and no greater fault, than to allow that sense of scripture which he conceives to be true and genuine, and deduced out of the words, and to disallow the contrary? for god's sake, sir, tell me plainly; in those texts of scripture, which you allege for the infallibility of your church, do you not allow what sense you think true, and disallow the contrary? and do not you this, by the direction of your private reason? if you do, why do you condemn it in others? if you do not, i pray you tell me what direction you follow? or whether you follow none at all? if none at all, this is like drawing lots, or throwing the dice for the choice of a religion. if any other, i beseech you tell me what it is. perhaps you will say, the church's authority; and that will be to dance finely in a round, thus, to believe the churches infallible authority, because the scriptures avouch it; and to believe that scriptures say and mean so, because they are so expounded by the church. is not this for a father to beget his son, and the son to beget his father? for a foundation to support the house, and the house to support the foundation? would not campian have cried out at it, ecce quos gyros, quos maeandros? and to what end was this going about, when you might as well at first have concluded the church infallible, because she says so; as thus to put in scripture for a mere stale, and to say the church is infallible because the scripture says so, and the scripture means so, because the church says so, which is infallible? is it not most evident therefore to every intelligent man, that you are enforced of necessity to do that yourself, which so tragically you declaim against in others? the church, you say, is infallible; i am very doubtful of it: how shall i know it? the scripture you say, affirms it, as in the 59 of esay, my spirit that is in thee, etc. well, i confess i find there these words: but i am still doubtful, whether they be spoken of the church of christ: and if they be, whether they mean as you pretend. you say, the church says so, which is infallible. yea, but that is the question; and therefore not to be begged, but proved. neither is it so evident as to need no proof: otherwise, why brought you this text to prove it? nor is it of such a strange quality, above all other propositions, as to be able to prove itself. what then remains but that you say, reasons drawn out of the circumstances of the text, will evince that this is the sense of it. perhaps they will. but reasons cannot convince me, unless i judge of them by my reason; and, for every man or woman to rely on that, in the choice of their religion, and in the interpreting of scripture, you say, is a horrible absurdity; and therefore must neither make use of your own in this matter, nor desire me to make use of it. 119. but, universal tradition (you say, and so do i too) is of itself credible: and that hath, in all ages, taught the church's infallibility with full consent. if it have, i am ready to believe it. but that it hath, i hope you would not have me take upon your word; for that were to build myself upon the church, and the church upon you. let then the tradition appear; for a secret tradition is somewhat like a silent thunder. you will perhaps produce, for the confirmation of it, some say of some fathers, who in every age taught this doctrine; (as gualterius in his chronologie undertakes to do, but with so ill success, that i heard an able man of your religion profess, that in the first three centuries, there was not one authority pertinent:) but how will you warrant that none of them teach the contrary? again, how shall i be assured that the places have indeed this sense in them? seeing there is not one father for 500 years after christ, that does say in plain terms, the church of rome is infallible. what, shall we believe your church that this is their meaning? but this will be again to go into the circle, which made us giddy before; to prove the church infallible, because tradition says so; tradition to say so, because the fathers say so; the fathers to say so, because the church says so, which is infallible. yea, but reason will show this to be the meaning of them. yes, if we may use our reason, and rely upon it. otherwise, as light shows nothing to the blind, or to him that uses not his eyes; so reason cannot prove any thing to him that either hath not, or useth not his reason to judge of them. 120. thus you have excluded yourself from all proof of your church's infallibility from scripture or tradition. and if you fly, lastly, to reason itself for succour, may not it justly say to you as jephte said to his brothers, ye have cast me out and banished me, and do you now come to me for succour? but if there be no certainty in reason, how shall i be assured of the certainty of those which you allege for this purpose? either i may judge of them, or not: if not, why do you propose them? if i may, why do you say i may not, and make it such a monstrous absurdity, that men in the choice of their religion should make use of their reason? which yet, without all question, none but unreasonable men can deny, to have been the chiefest end why reason was given them. 121. ad § 22. an heretic he is (saith d. potter) who opposeth any truth, which to be a divine revelation he is convinced in conscience by any means whatsoever: be it by a preacher or layman, be it by reading scripture, or hearing them read. and from hence you infer, that he makes all these safe propounders of faith. a most strange and illogical deduction! for, may not a private man by evident reason convince another man, that such or such a doctrine is divine revelation, and yet though he be a true propounder in this point, yet propound another thing falsely, and without proof, and consequently not be a safe propounder in every point? your preachers in their sermons, do they not propose to men divine revelations, and do they not sometimes convince men in conscience, by evident proof from scripture, that the things they speak are divine revelations? and whosoever, being thus convinced, should oppose this divine revelation, should he not be an heretic, according to your own grounds, for calling gods own truth into question? and would you think yourself well dealt with, if i should collect from hence, that you make every preacher a safe, that is, an infallible propounder of faith? be the means of proposal what it will, sufficient or insufficient, worthy of credit or not worthy; though it were, if it it were possible, the barking of a dog, or the chirping of a bird, or were it the discourse of the devil himself, yet if i be, i will not say convinced but persuaded, though falsely, that it is a divine revelation, and shall deny to believe it i shall be a formal though not a material heretic. for he that believes, though falsely, any thing to be a divine revelation, and yet will not believe it to be true, must of necessity believe god to be false, which, according to your own doctrine, is the formality of an heretic. 122. and how it can be any way advantageous to civil government, that men without warrant from god should usurp a tyranny over other men's consciences, and prescribe unto them, without reason, and sometime against reason, what they shall believe, you must show us plainer if you desire we should believe. for to say, verily i do not see but that it must be so, is no good demonstration. for whereas you say, that a man may be a passionate and seditious creature, from whence you would have us infer, that he may make use of his interpretation to satisfy his passion, and raise sedition: there were some colour in this consequence, if we (as you do) make private men infallible interpreters for others; for then indeed they might lead disciples after them, and use them as instruments for their vile purposes. but when we say, they can only interpret for themselves, what harm they can do by their passionate or seditious interpretations, but only endanger both their temporal and eternal happiness, i cannot imagine. for though we deny the pope or church of rome to be an infallible judge, yet we do not deny, but that there are judges which may proceed with certainty enough against all seditious persons, such as draw men to disobedience either against church or state, as well as against rebels, and traitors, and thiefs, and murderers. 123. ad §. 23. the next §. in the beginning argues thus: for many ages there was no scripture in the world: and for many more, there was none in many places of the world: yet men wanted not then and there some certain direction what to believe: therefore there was then an infallible judge. just as if i should say, york is not my way from oxford to london, therefore bristol is: or, a dog is not a horse, therefore he is a man. as if god had no other ways of revealing himself to men, but only by scripture and an infallible church. * see chrysost. hom. 1 in mat. isidor. pelus. l. 3. ep. 106. and also basil. in ps. 28. and then you shall confess, that by o her means besides these, god did communicate himself unto men, and made them receive and understand his laws: see also to the same purpose, heb. 1.1. s. chrysostom and isidorus pelusiota conceived, he might use other means. and saint paul telleth us that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 might be known by his works; and that they had the law written in their hearts. either of these ways might make some faithful men, without either necessity of scripture or church. 124. but d. potter says, you say, in the jewish church there was a living judge, endowed with an absolute infallible direction in cases of moment: as all points belonging to divine faith are. and where was that infallible direction in the jewish church when they should have received christ for their messiah, and refused him? or perhaps this was not a case of moment. d. potter indeed might say very well, not that the high priest was infallible, (for certainly he was not) but that his determination was to be of necessity obeyed, though for the justice of it there was no necessity that it should be believed. besides, it is one thing to say, that the living judge in the jewish church had an infallible direction: another, that he was necessitated to follow this direction. this is the privilege which you challenge. but it is that, not this, which the doctor attributes to the jews. as a man may truly say, the wisemen had an in fallible direction to christ, without saying or thinking that they were constrained to follow it, and could not do otherwise. 125. but either the church retains still her infallibility, or it was devested of it upon the receiving of holy scripture; which is absurd. an argument me thinks like this, either you have horns, or you have lost them: but you never lost them, therefore you have them still. if you say, you never had horns; so, say i, for aught appears by your reasons, the church never had infallibility. 126. but some scriptures were received in some places and not in others: therefore if scriptures were the judge of controversies, some churches had one judge and some another. and what great inconvenience is there in that, that one part of england should have one judge, and another another? especially seeing the books of scripture which were received by those that received fewest, had as much of the doctrine of christianity in them, as they all had which were received by any; all the necessary parts of the gospel being contained in every one of the four gospels, as i have proved: so that they which had all the books of the new testament, had nothing superfluous: for, it was not superfluous but profitable, that the same thing should be said divers times, and be testified by divers witnesses: and they that had but one of the four gospels wanted nothing necessary: and therefore it is vainly inferred by you, that with months and years, as new canonical scriptures grew to be published, the church altered her rule of faith and judge of controversies. 127. heresies, you say, would arise after the apostles time, and after the writing of scriptures: these cannot be discovered, condemned, and avoided, unless the church be infallible; therefore there must be a church infallible. but i pray tell me, why cannot heresies be sufficiently discovered, condemned and avoided, by them which believe scripture to be the rule of faith? if scripture be sufficient to inform us what is the faith, it must of necessity be also sufficient to teach us what is heresy: seeing heresy is nothing but a manifest deviation from, and an opposition to, the faith. that which is straight will plainly teach us what is crooked; and one contrary cannot but manifest the other. if any one should deny, that there is a god; that this god is omnipotent, omniscient, good, just, true, merciful, a rewarder of them that seek him, a punisher of them that obstinately offend him; that jesus christ is the son of god, and the saviour of the world; that it is he, by obedience to whom men must look to be saved: if any man should deny either his birth, or passion, or resurrection, or ascension, or sitting at the right hand of god: his having all power given him in heaven and earth: that it is he whom god hath appointed to be judge of the quick & the dead: that all men shall rise again at the last day: that they which believe and repent shall be saved: that they which do not believe or repent shall be damned: if a man should hold that either the keeping of the mosaical law is necessary to salvation: or that good works are not necessary to salvation: in a word, if any man should obstinately contradict the truth of any thing plainly delivered in scripture, who does not see, that every one which believes the scripture, hath a sufficient means to discover, and condemn, and avoid that heresy without any need of an infallible guide? if you say, that the obscure places of scripture contain matters of faith: i answer, that it is a matter of faith to believe that the sense of them, whatsoever it is, which was intended by god, is true; for he that doth not do so, calls god's truth into question. but to believe this or that to be the true sense of them, or, to believe the true sense of them, and to avoid the false, is not necessary either to faith or salvation. for if god would have had his meaning in these places certainly known, how could it stand with his wisdom, to be so wanting to his own will and end, as to speak obscurely? or how can it consist with his justice, to require of men to know certainly the meaning of those words, which he himself hath not revealed? suppose there were an absolute monarch, that in his own absence from one of his kingdoms, had written laws for the government of it, some very plainly, and some very ambiguously, and obscurely, and his subjects should keep those that were plainly written with all exactness, and for those that were obscure, use their best diligence to find his meaning in them, and obey them according to the sense of them which they conceived; should this king either with justice or wisdom be offended with these subjects, if, by reason of the obscurity of them, they mistook the sense of them; and failed of performance, by reason of their error? 128. but, it is more useful and fit, you say, for the deciding of controversies, to have, besides an infallible rule to go by, a living infallible judge to determine them: and from hence you conclude, that certainly there is such a judge. but why then may not another say, that it is yet more useful for many excellent purposes, that all the patriarches should be infallible, than that the pope only should? another, that it would be yet more useful, that all the archbishops, of every province should be so, than that the patriarches only should be so. another, that it would be yet more useful, if all the bishops of every diocese were so. another, that it would be yet more available, that all the parsons of every parish should be so. another, that it would be yet more excellent, if all the fathers of families were so. and lastly, another, that it were much more to be desired that every man and every woman were so: just as much as the prevention of controversies, is better than the decision of them; and the prevention of heresies better than the condemnation of them; and upon this ground conclude, by your own very consequence, that not only a general council, nor only the pope, but all the patriarches, archbishops, bishops, pastors, fathers, nay all the men in the world are infallible; if you say now, as i am sure you will, that this conclusion is most gross, and absurd, against sense and experience, then must also the ground be false, from which it evidently and undeniably follows, viz that that course of dealing with men seems always more fit to divine providence, which seems most fit to humane reason. 129. and so likewise, that there should men succeed the apostles, which could show themselves to be their successors, by doing of miracles, by speaking all kind of languages, by delivering men to satan, as s. paul did hymenaeus, and the incestuous corinthian; it is manifest in human reason, it were incomparably more fit and useful for the decision of controversies, than that the successor of the apostles should have none of these gifts, and for want of the signs of apostleship, be justly questionable, whether he be his successor or no: and will you now conclude, that the popes have the gift of doing miracles, as well as the apostles had? 130. it were in all reason very useful and requisite, that the pope should, by the assistance of god's spirit, be freed from the vices and passions of men, lest otherwise, the authority given him for the good of the church, he might employ (as divers popes you well know have done) to the disturbance, and oppression, and mischief of it. and will you conclude from hence, that popes are not subject to the sins and passions of other men? that there never have been ambitious, covetous, lustful, tyrannous popes? 131. who sees not that for men's direction it were much more beneficial for the church, that infallibility should be settled in the pope's person, than in a general council: that so the means of deciding controversies might be speedy, easy, and perpetual, whereas that of general counsels is not so. and will you hence infer, that not the church representative, but the pope is indeed the infallible judge of controversies? certainly, if you should, the sorbon doctors would not think this a good conclusion. 132. it had been very commodious (one would think) that seeing either god's pleasure was, the scripture should be translated, or else in his providence he knew it would be so, that he had appointed some men for this business, and by his spirit assisted them in it, that so we might have translations as authentical as the original: yet you see god did not think fit to do so. 133. it had been very commodious (one would think) that the scripture should have been, at least for all things necessary, a rule, plain and perfect: and yet you say, it is both imperfect and obscure, even in things necessary. 134. it had been most requisite (one would think) that the copies of the bibles, should have been preserved free from variety of readings, which makes men very uncertain in many places, which is the word of god, and which is the error or presumption of man: and yet we see god hath not thought fit so to provide for us. 135. who can conceive, but that an apostolic interpretation of all the difficult places of scripture, would have been strangely beneficial to the church, especially there being such danger in mistaking the sense of them, as is by you pretended, and god in his providence foreseeing that the greatest part of christians, would not accept of the pope for the judge of controversies? and yet we see god hath not so ordered the matter. 136. who doth not see, that, supposing the bishop of rome had been appointed head of the church, and judge of controversies, that it would have been infinitely beneficial to the church, perhaps as much as all the rest of the bible, that in some book of scripture which was to be undoubtedly received, this one proposition had been set down in terms, the bishops of rome shall be always monarches of the church, and they either alone, or with their adherents, the guides of faith, and the judges of controversies that shall arise amongst christians? this, if you will deal ingenuously, you cannot but acknowledge; for then all true christians would have submitted to him, as willingly as to christ himself, neither needed you and your fellows have troubled yourself to invent so many sophisms for the proof of it. there would have been no more doubt of it among christians, than there is of the nativity, passion, resurrection, or ascension of christ. you were best now rub your forehead hard, and conclude upon us, that because this would have been so useful to have been done, therefore it is done. or if you be (as i know you are) too ingenuous to say so, then must you acknowledge, that the ground of your argument, which is the very ground of all these absurdities, is most absurd; and that it is our duty to be humbly thankful for those sufficient, nay abundant means, of salvation, which god hath of his own goodness granted us: and not conclude he hath done that which he hath not done, because, forsooth, in our vain judgements, it seems convenient he should have done so. 137. but you demand, what repugnance there is betwixt infallibility in the church, and existence of scripture, that the production of the one must be the destruction of the other? out of which words i can frame no other argument for you than this; there is no repugnance between the scripture's existence, and the church's infallibility, therefore the church is infallible. which consequence will then be good, when you can show that nothing can be untrue, but that only which is impossible; that whatsoever may be done, that also is done. which, if it were true, would conclude both you and me to be infallible, as well as either your church, or pope: in as much as there is no more repugnance between the scripture's existence and our infallibility, than there is between theirs. 138. but, if protestants will have the scripture alone for their judge, let them first produce some scripture, affirming, that by the entering thereof, infallibility went out of the church. this argument put in form, runs thus. no scripture affirms, that by the entering thereof, infallibility went out of the church: therefore there is an infallible church, and therefore the scripture alone is not judge, that is, the rule to judge by. but as no scripture affirms, that by the entering of it, infallibility went out of the church, so neither do we, neither have we any need to do so. but we say, that it continued in the church even together with the scriptures, so long as christ and his apostles were living, and then departed: god in his providence having provided a plain and infallible rule, to supply the defect of living and infallible guides. certainly, if your cause were good, so great a wit as yours is, would devise better arguments to maintain it. we can show no scripture affirming infallibility to have gone out of the church, therefore it is infallible. somewhat like his discourse that said, it could not be proved out of scripture, that the king of sweden was dead, therefore he is still living. methinks in all reason, you that challenge privileges, and exemption from the condition of men, which is to be subject to error; you that by virtue of this privilege usurp authority over men's consciences, should produce your letters patents from the king of heaven, and show some express warrant for this authority you take upon you, otherwise you know the rule is, ubi contrarium non manifestè probatur, praesumitur pro libertate. 139. but d. potter may remember what himself teacheth, that the church is still endued with infallibility in points fundamental, and consequently that infallibility in the church doth well agree with the truth, the sanctity, yea with the sufficiency of scripture, for all matters necessary to salvation. still your discourse is so far from hitting the white, that it roves quite besides the butt. you conclude, that the infallibility of the church may well agree with the truth, the sanctity, the sufficiency of scripture. but what is this but to abuse your reader with the proof of that which no man denies? the question is not, whether an infallible church might agree with scripture, but whether there be an infallible church? jam dic, posthume, de tribus capellis. besides, you must know, there is a wide difference between being infallible in fundamentals, and being an infallible guide even in fundamentals. d. potter says, that the church is the former: that is, there shall be some men in the world, while the world lasts, which err not in fundamentals; for otherwise there should be no church: for to say, the church, while it is the church, may err in fundamentals, implies contradiction, and is all one as to say, the church while it is the church, may not be the church. so that to say, that the church is infallible in fundamentals, signifies no more but this, there shall be a church in the world for ever. but we utterly deny the church to be the latter; for to say so, were to oblige ourselves to find some certain society of men, of whom we might be certain, that they neither do, nor can, err in fundamentals, nor in declaring what is fundamental, what is not fundamental: and consequently, to make any church an infallible guide in fundamentals, would be to make it infallible in all things, which she proposes and requires to be believed. this therefore we deny both to your and all other churches of any one denomination, as the greek, the roman, the abyssine: that is indeed, we deny it simply to any church. for no church can possibly be fit to be a guide, but only a church of some certain denomination. for otherwise no man can possibly know which is the true church, but by a pre-examination of the doctrine controverted, and that were, not to be guided by the church to the true doctrine, but by the true doctrine to the church. hereafter therefore, when you hear protestants say, the church is infallible in fundamentals, you must not conceive them as if they meant, as you do, that some society of christians, which may be known by adhering to some one head, for example, the pope, or the bishop of constantinople, is infallible in these things: but only thus, that true religion shall never be so far driven out of the world, but that it shall have always, some where or other, some that believe and profess it, in all things necessary to salvation. 140. but, you would therefore gladly know out of what text he imagines that the church, by the coming of scripture, was deprived of infallibility in some points, and not in others? and i also would gladly know, why you do thus frame to yourself vain imaginations, and then father them upon others? we yield unto you, that there shall be a church which never erreth in some points, because (as we conceive) god hath promised so much; but not, there shall be such a church which doth or can err in no points, because we find not, that god hath promised such a church; and therefore we may not promise such a one to ourselves. but, for the churches being deprived by the scripture of infallibility, in some points, and not in others, that is a wild notion of your own, which we have nothing to do with. 141. but he affirmeth, that the jewish church retained infallibility in herself; and therefore it is unjustly, and unworthily done of him to deprive the church of christ of it. that the jews had sometimes an infallible miraculous direction from god in some cases of moment, he doth affirm, and had good warrant: but that the synagogue was absolutely infallible, he no no where affirms; and therefore it is unjustly and unworthily done of you to obtrude it upon him. and indeed how can the infallibility of the synagogue be conceived, but only by settling it in the highpriest, and the company adhering and subordinate unto him? and whether the highpriest was infallible, when he believed not christ to be the messiah, but condemned and excommunicated them that so professed, and caused him to be crucified for saying so, i leave it to christians to judge. but then suppose god had been so pleased to do as he did not, to appoint the synagogue an infallible guide: can you by your rules of logic constrain him to appoint such an one to christians also; or say unto him, that in wisdom he could not do otherwise? vain man, that will be thus alwaystying god to your imaginations! it is well for us that he leaves us not without directions to him; but if he will do this sometime by living guides, sometime by written rules, what is that to you? may not he do what he will with his own? 142. and whereas you say, for the further enforcing of this argument, that there is greater reason to think the church should be infallible, than the synagogue: because to the synaggove all laws and ceremonies, etc. were more particularly, and minutely delivered, than in the new testament is done; our saviour leaving particulars to the determination of the church. but i pray walk not thus in generality, but tell us, what particulars? if you mean particular rites and ceremonies, and orders for government, we grant it, and you know we do so. our saviour only hath left a general injunction by s. paul, let all things be done decently, and in order. but what order is fittest, i. e. what time, what place, what manner, etc. is fittest, that he hath left to the discretion of the governors of the church. but, if you mean, that he hath only concerning matters of faith, the subject in questistion, prescribed in general that we are to hear the church, and left it to the church to determine what particulars we are to believe, the church being nothing else but an aggregation of believers; this in effect is to say, he hath left it to all believers to determine what particulars they are to believe. besides, it is so apparently false, that i wonder you could content yourself, or think we should be contented with a bare saying, without any show or pretence of proof. 143. as for d. potter's objection against this argument, that as well you might infer, that christians must have all one king, because the jews had so. for aught i can perceive, notwithstanding any thing answered by you, it may stand still in force; though the truth is, it is urged by him not against the infallibility but the monarchy of the church. for whereas you say, the disparity is very clear: he that should urge this argument for one monarch over the whole world, would say that this is to deny the conclusion, and reply unto you, that there is disparity as matters are now ordered, but that there should not be so. for that there was no more reason to believe that the ecclesiastical government of the jews was a pattern for the ecclesiastical government of christians, than the civil of the jews, for the civil of the christians. he would tell you, that the church of christ, and all christian commonwealths, and kingdoms, are one and the same thing: and therefore he sees no reason why the synagogue should be a type and figure of the church, and not of the commonwealth. he would tell you, that as the church succeeded the jewish synagogue, so christian princes should succeed to jewish magistrates: that is, the temporal governors of the church should be christians. he would tell you, that as the church is compared to a house, a kingdom, an army, a body, so all distinct kingdoms might and should be one army, one family, etc. and that it is not so, is the thing he complains of. and therefore you ought not to think it enough to say, it is not so; but you should show, why it should not be so; and why this argument will not follow, the jews had one king, therefore all christians ought to have: as well as this, the jews had one highpriest over them all, therefore all christians also ought to have. he might tell you moreover, that the church may have one master, one general, one head, one king, and yet he not be the pope, but christ. he might tell you, that you beg the question, in saying without proof, that it is necessary to salvation, that all (whether christians or churches) have recourse to one church, if you mean by one church, one particular church which is to govern and direct all others: and, that unless you mean so, you say nothing to the purpose. and besides, he might tell you, and that very truly, that it may seem altogether as available for the temporal good of christians to be under one temporal prince, or commonwealth; as, for their salvation, to be subordinate to one visible head. i say, as necessary, both for the prevention of the effusion of the blood of christians by christians, and for the defence of christendom, from the hostile invasions of turks, and pagans. and from all this he might infer, that though now, by the fault of men, there were in several kingdoms, several laws, governments, and powers; yet that it were much more expedient, that there were but one. nay, not only expedient, but necessary; if once your ground be settled for a general rule, that what kind of government the jews had that the christians must have. and, if you limit the generality of this proposition, and frame the argument thus: what kind of ecclesiastical government the jews had, that the christians must have: but, they were governed by one highpriest, therefore, these must be so: he will say, that the first proposition of this syllogism, is altogether as doubtful as the conclusion; and therefore neither fit nor sufficient to prove it, until itself be proved. and then besides, that there is as great reason to believe this, that what kind of civil government the jews had, that the christians must have. and so d. potter's objection remains still unanswered: that there is as much reason to conclude a necessity of one king over all christian kingdoms, from the jews having one king; as one bishop over all churches, from their being under one highpriest. 144. ad. §. 24. nether is this discourse confirmed by irenaeus at all: whether by this discourse you mean that immediately foregoing, of the analogy between the church and the synagogue, to which this speech of irenaeus, alleged here by you, is utterly and plainly impertinent; or whether by this discourse, you mean (as i think you do) not your discourse, but your conclusion which you discourse on, that is, that your church is the infallible judge in controversies. for neither hath irenaeus one syllable to this purpose; neither can it be deduced out of what he says, with any colour of consequence. for, first in saying, what if the apostles had not left scripture, ought we not to have followed the order of tradition? and in saying, that to this order many nations yield assent, who believe in christ, having salvation written in their hearts by the spirit of god, without letters or ink, and diligently keeping ancient tradition: doth he not plainly show, that the tradition he speaks of is nothing else, but the very same that is written: nothing but to believe in christ? to which, whether scripture alone, to them that believe it, be not a sufficient guide, i leave it to you to judge. and are not his words just as if a man should say, if god had not given us the light of the sun, we must have made use of candles and torches: if we had no eyes, we must have felt out our way: if we had no legs, we must have used crutches. and doth not this in effect import, that while we have the sun we need no candles? while we have our eyes, we need not feel out our way? while we enjoy our legs, we need not crutches? and, by like reason, irenaeus in saying, if we had no scripture, we must have followed tradition; and they that have none, do well to do so; doth he not plainly import, that to them that have scripture and believe it, tradition is unnecessary? which could not be, if the scripture did not contain evidently the whole tradition. which, whether irenaeus believed or no, these words of his may inform you, non enim per alios, etc. we have received the disposition of our salvation from no others, but from them by whom the gospel came unto us. which gospel truly the apostles first preached, and afterwards by the will of god delivered in writing to us, to be the pillar and foundation of our faith. upon which place, bellarmine's two observations, and his acknowledgement ensuing upon them are very considerable; and, as i conceive, as home to my purpose as i would wish them. his first notandum is, that, in the christian doctrine, some things are simply necessary for the salvation of all men; as the knowledge of the articles of the apostle's creed; and besides, the knowledge of the ten commandments, and some of the sacraments. other things are not so necessary, but that a man may be saved without the explicit knowledge, and belief, and profession of them. his second note is, that those things, which were simply necessary, the apostles were wont to preach to all men; but of other things not all to all; but, some things to all, to wit, those things which were profitable for all, other things only, to prelates and priests. these things premised, he acknowledgeth, that all those things were written by the apostles which are necessary for all, and which they were wont openly to preach to all; but that other things were not all written: and therefore, when irenaeus says, that the apostles wrote what they preached in the world, it is true, saith he, and not against traditions, because they preached not to the people all things, but only those things which were necessary or profitable for them. 145. so that at the most you can infer from hence but only a suppositive necessity of having an infallible guide, and that grounded upon a false supposition, in case, we had no scripture: but, an absolute necessity hereof, and to them who have and believe the scripture, which is your assumption, cannot with any colour from hence be concluded, but rather the contrary. 146. neither because (as he says) it was then easy to receive the truth from god's church; then, in the age next after the apostles, then, when all the ancient and apostolic churches were at an agreement about the fundamentals of faith: will it therefore follow, that now, 1600 years after, when the ancient churches are divided almost into as many religions as they are churches, every one being the church to itself, and heretical to all other, that it is as easy, but extremely difficult or rather impossible, to find the church first independently of the true doctrine, and then to find the truth by the church? 147. as for the last clause of the sentence, it will not any whit advantage, but rather prejudice your assertion. neither will i seek to avoid the pressure of it, by saying that he speaks of small questions and therefore not of questions touching things necessary to salvation, which can hardly be called small questions; but i will favour you so far, as to suppose, that saying this of small questions, it is probable he would have said it much more of the great: but i will answer that which is most certain and evident, and which i am confident you yourself, were you as impudent as i believe you modest, would not deny, that the ancient apostolic churches are not now, as they were in irenaeus his time: then they were all at unity about matters of faith, which unity was a good assurance that what they so agreed in, came from some one common fountain, and that no other than of apostolic preaching. and this is the very ground of tertullian's so often mistaken prescription against heretics: variâsse debuerat errer ecclesiarum; quod autem apud multos unum est, non est erratum sed traditum: if the churches had erred, they could not but have varied; but that which is one among so many, came not by error but tradition. but now the case is altered, and the mischief is, that these ancient churches are divided among themselves; and if we have recourse to them, one of them will say, this is the way to heaven, another that. so that now, in place of receiving from them certain and clear truths, we must expect nothing but certain and clear contradictions. 148. neither will the apostle's depositing with the church all things belonging to truth, be any proof that the church shall certainly keep this depositum, entire and sincere, without adding to it, or taking from it; for this whole depositum was committed to every particular church, nay, to every particular man which the apostles converted. and yet no man, i think, will say that there was any certainty, that it should be kept whole and inviolate by every man, and every church. it is apparent out of scripture it was committed to timothy, and by him consigned to other faithful men: and yet s. paul thought it not superfluous, earnestly to exhort him to the careful keeping of it: which exhortation you must grant had been vain and superfluous, if the not keeping of it had been impossible. and therefore though irenaeus says, the apostles fully deposited in the church all truth, yet he says not, neither can we infer from what he says, that the church should always infallibly keep this depositum, entire, without the loss of any truth, and sincere without the mixture of any falsehood. 149. ad §. 25. but you proceed and tell us, that, beside all this, the doctrine of protestants is destructive of itself. for either they have certains and infallible means not to err in interpreting; or not. if not, scripture to them cannot be a sufficient ground for infallible faith: if they have, and so cannot err in interpreting scripture, than they are able with infallibility to hear and determine all controversies of faith; and so they may be, and are, judges of controversies, although they use the scripture as a rule. and thus against their own doctrine, they constitute another judge of controversies beside scripture alone. and may not we with as much reason substitute church and papists instead of scripture and protestants, and say unto you, besides all this, the doctrine of papists is destructive of itself? for either they have certain and infallible means not to err in the choice of the church, and interpreting her decrees, or they have not: if not, than the church to them cannot be a sufficient (but merely a fantastical) ground for infallible faith, nor a meet judge of controversies: (for unless i be infallibly sure that the church is infallible, how can i be upon her authority infallibly sure, that any thing she says is infallible?) if they have certain infallible means, and so cannot err in the choice of their church, and in interpreting her decrees, than they are able with infallibility to hear, examine, and determine all controversies of faith, although they pretend to make the church their guide. and thus against their own doctrine, they constitute another judge of controversies, besides the church alone. nay every one makes himself a chooser of his own religion, and of his own sense of the church's decree, which very thing in protestants they so highly condemn: and so, in judging others, condemn themselves. 150. neither in saying thus have i only cried quittance with you: but that you may see how much you are in my debt, i will show unto you that for your sophism against our way, i have given you a demonstration against yours. first, i say, your argument against us is a transparent fallacy. the first part of it lies thus: protestants have no means to interpret, without error, obscure and ambiguous places of scripture; therefore plain places of scripture cannot be to them a sufficient ground of faith. but though we pretend not to certain means of not erring in interpreting all scripture, particularly such places as are obscure and ambiguous, yet this methinks, should be no impediment but that we may have certain means of not erring in and about the sense of those places, which are so plain and clear that they need no interpreters; and in such we say our faith is contained. if you ask me, how i can be sure that i know the true meaning of these places? i ask you again, can you be sure, that you understand what i, or any man else says? they that heard our saviour and the apostles preach, could they have sufficient assurance, that they understood at any time what they would have them do? if not, to what end did they hear them? if they could, why may we not be as well assured that we understand sufficiently what we conceive plain in their writings? 151. again, i pray tell us, whether you do certainly know the sense of these scriptures, with which you pretend you are led to the knowledge of your church? if you do not, how know you that there is any church infallible, and that these are the notes of it, and that this is the church that hath these notes? if you do, then give us leave to have the same means, and the same abilities to know other plain places, which you have to know these. for, if all scripture be obscure, how come you to know the sense of these places? if some places of it be plain, why should we stay here? 152. and now to come to the other part of your dilemma; in saying, if they have certain means, and so cannot err, methinks you forget yourself very much, and seem to make no difference between having certain means to do a thing, and the actual doing of it. as if you should conclude, because all men have certain means of salvation, therefore all men certainly must be saved, and cannot do otherwise; as if, whosoever had a horse must presently get up and ride; whosoever had means to find out a way, could not neglect those means and so mistake it. god be thanked that we have sufficient means to be certain enough of the truth of our faith: but the privilege of not being in possibility of erring that we challenge not, because we have as little reason as you to do so: and you have none at all. if you ask, seeing we may possibly err, how can we be assured we do not? i ask you again, seeing your eyesight may deceive you, how can you be sure you see the sun, when you do see it? perhaps you may be in a dream, and perhaps you, and all the men in the world have been so, when they thought they were awake, and then only awake, when they thought they dreamt. but this i am sure of, as sure as that god is good, that he will require no impossibilities of us: not an infallible, nor a certainly-unerring belief, unless he hath given us certain means to avoid error; and, if we use those which we have, will never require of us, that we use that which we have not. 153. now from this mistaken ground, that it is all one to have means of avoiding error, and to be in no danger nor possibility of error; you infer upon us an absurd conclusion, that we make ourselves able to determine controversies of faith with infallibility, and judges of controversies. for the latter part of this inference, we acknowledge and embrace it. we do make ourselves judges of controversies, that is, we do make use of our own understanding in the choice of our religion. but this, if it be a crime, is common to us with you, (as i have proved above) and the difference is, not that we are choosers, and you not choosers, but that, we, as we conceive, choose wisely, but you, being wilfully blind, choose to follow those that are so too; not remembering what our saviour hath told you, when the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch. but then again i must tell you, you have done ill to confound together, judges, and infallible judges; unless you will say, either that we have no judges in our courts of civil judicature, or that they are all infallible. 154. thus have we cast off your dilemma, and broken both the horns of it. but now my retortion lies heavy upon you, and will not be turned off. for first you content not yourselves with a moral certainty of the things you believe, nor with such a degree of assurance of them, as is sufficient to produce obedience to the condition of the new covenant, which is all that we require. god's spirit, if he please, may work more, a certainty of adherence beyond a certainty of evidence: but neither god doth, nor man may, require of us as our duty, to give a greater assent to the conclusion, than the premises deserve; to build an infallible faith upon motives that are only highly credible, and not infallible, as it were a great and heavy building upon a foundation that hath not strength proportionable. but though god require not of us such unreasonable things, you do; and tell men, they cannot be saved, unless they believe your proposals with an infallible faith. to which end they must believe also your propounder, your church to be simply infallible. now how is it possible for them to give a rational assent to the church's infallibility, unless they have some infallible means to know that she is infallible? neither can they infallibly know the infallibility of this means, but by some other, and so on for ever: unless they can dig so deep as to come at length to the rock, that is, to settle all upon something evident of itself, which is not so much as pretended. but the last resolution of all is into motives, which indeed upon examination will scarce appear probable, but are not so much as avouched to be any more than very credible. for example, if i ask you, why you do believe transubstantiation? what can you answer, but because it is a revelation of the prime verity. i demand again, how can you assure yourself or me of that, being ready to embrace it if it may appear to be so? and what can you say, but that you know it to be so, because the church says so, which is infallible? if i ask, what mean you by your church? you can tell me nothing but the company of christians which adhere to the pope. i demand then further: why should i believe this company to be the infallible propounder of divine revelation? and then you tell me, that there are many motives to induce a man to this belief. but are these motives lastly infallible? no say you, but very credible. well, let them pass for such, because now we have not leisure to examine them. yet methinks seeing the motives to believe the church's infallibility are only very credible, it should also be but as credible that your church is infallible; and as credible, and no more, perhaps somewhat less, that her proposals, particularly transubstantiation, are divine revelations. and methinks you should require only a moral, and modest assent to them, and not a divine, as you call it, and infallible faith. but then of these motives to the church's infallibility, i hope you will give us leave to consider, and judge whether they be indeed motives, and sufficient; or whether they be not motives at all, or not sufficient; or whether these motives or inducements to your church be not impeached, and opposed with compulsives and enforcements from it; or lastly, whether these motives which you use, be not indeed only motives to christianity, and not to popery: give me leave for distinction-sake to call your religion so. if we may not judge of these things, how can my judgement be moved with that which comes not within its cognizance? if i may, then at least i am to be a judge of all these controversies. 1. whether every one of these motives be indeed a motive to any church? 2. if to some, whether to your? 3. if to yours, whether sufficient, or insufficient? 4. whether other societies have not as many, and as great motives to draw me to them? 5. whether i have not greater reason to believe you do err, than that you cannot? and now sir, i pray let me trouble you with a few more questions. am i a sufficient judge of these controversies, or no? if of these, why shall i stay here, why not of others? why not of all? nay, doth not the true examining of these few contain and lay upon me the examination of all? what other motives to your church have you, but your notes of it? bellarmine gives some 14. or 15. and one of these fifteen contains in it the examination of all controversies; and not only so, but of all uncontroverted doctrines. for how shall i, or can i, know the church of rome's conformity with the ancient church, unless i know first what the ancient church did hold, and then what the church of rome doth hold; and lastly, whether they be conformable, or, if in my judgement they seem not conformable, i am then to think the church of rome not to be the church, for want of the note which she pretends, is proper, and perpetual to it. so that, for aught i can see, judges we are, and must be of all sides; every one for himself, and god for us all. 155. ad §. 26. i answer; this assertion, that scripture alone is judge of all controversies in faith; if it be taken properly, is neither a fundamental nor unfundamental point of faith, nor no point of faith at all, but a plain falsehood. it is not a judge of controversies, but a rule to judge them by; and that not an absolutely perfect rule, but as perfect as a written rule can be; which must always need something else, which is either evidently true, or evidently credible, to give attestation to it, and that in this case is universal tradition. so that universal tradition is the rule to judge all controversies by. but then because nothing, besides scripture, comes to us with as full a stream of tradition as scripture, scripture alone, and no unwritten doctrine, nor no infallibility of any church, having attestation from tradition truly universal; for this reason we conceive, as the apostles persons while they were living were the only judges of controversies, so their writings, now they are dead, are the only rule for us to judge them by; there being nothing unwritten, which can go in upon half so fair cards, for the title of apostolic tradition, as these things, which by the confession of both sides are not so: i mean the doctrine of the millenaries, and of the necessity of the eucharist for infants. 156. yet when we say, the scripture is the only rule to judge all controversies by; methinks you should easily conceive, that we would be understood, of all those that are possible to be judged by scripture, and of those that arise among such as believe the scripture. for, if i had a controversy with an atheist whether there were a god or no, i would not say, that the scripture were a rule to judge this by; seeing that, doubting whether there be a god or no, he must needs doubt whether the scripture be the word of god: or, if he does not, he grants the question, and is not the man we speak of. so likewise, if i had a controversy about the truth of christ with a jew, it would be vainly done of me, should i press him with the authority of the new testament which he believes not, until out of some principles common to us both, i had persuaded him that it is the word of god. the new testament therefore, while he remains a jew, would not be a fit rule to decide this controversy; in as much as that which is doubted of itself, is not fit to determine other doubts. so likewise, if there were any that believed christian religion, and yet believed not the bible to be the word of god, though they believed the matter of it to be true, (which is no impossible supposition; for i may believe a book s. austin's to contain nothing but the truth of god, and yet not to have been inspired by god himself,) against such men therefore there were no disputing out of the bible; because nothing in question can be a proof to itself. when therefore we say, scripture is a sufficient means to determine all controversies, we say not this, either to atheists, jews, turks, or such christians (if there be any such) as believe not scripture to be the word of god. but among such men only, as are already agreed upon this, that the scripture is the word of god, we say, all controversies that arise about faith, are either not at all decidable, and consequently not necessary to be believed one way or other; or they may be determined by scripture. in a word, that all things necessary to be believed are evidently contained in scripture, and what is not there evidently contained, cannot be necessary to be believed. and our reason hereof is convincing, because nothing can challenge our belief, but what hath descended to us from christ by original and universal tradition: now nothing but scripture hath thus descended to us, therefore nothing but scripture can challenge our belief. now then to come up closer to you, and to answer to your question, not as you put it, but as you should have put it: i say, that this position, scripture alone is the rule whereby they which believe it to be god's word, are to judge all controversies in faith, is no fundamental point, though not for your reasons: for, your first and strongest reason, you see, is plainly voided and cut off by my stating of the question as i have done, and supposing in it, that the parties at variance, are agreed about this, that the scripture is the word of god; and consequently that this is none of their controversies. to your second, that controversies cannot be ended without some living authority, we have said already, that necessary controversies may be and are decided. and, if they be not ended, this is not through defect of the rule, but through the default of men. and, for these that cannot thus be ended, it is not necessary they should be ended. for, if god did require the ending of them, he would have provided some certain means for the ending of them. and, to your third, i say, that your pretence of using these means, is but hypocritical; for you use them with prejudice, and with a settled resolution not to believe any thing which these means happily may suggest into you, if it any way cross your preconceived persuasion of your church's infallibility. you give not yourselves liberty of judgement in the use of them, nor suffer yourselves to be led by them to the truth, to which they would lead you, would you but be as willing to believe this consequence, our church doth oppose scripture, therefore it doth err, therefore it is not infallible; as you are resolute to believe this, the church is infallible, therefore it doth not err, and therefore it doth not oppose scripture, though it seem to do so never so plainly. 157. you pray, but it is not that god would bring you to the true religion, but that he would confirm you in your own. youconferr places, but it is that you may confirm, or colour over with plausible disguises your erroneous doctrine not that you may judge of them▪ and forsake them, if there be reason for it. you consult the originals, but you regard them not when they make against your doctrine or translation. 158. you add not only the authority, but the infallibility, not of god's church, but of the roman, a very corrupt and degenerous part of it: whereof. d. potter never confessed, that it cannot err damnably. and which being a company made up of particular men, can afford you no help, but the industry, learning, and wit of private men: and, that these helps may not help you out of your error, tell you, that you must make use of none of all these to discover any error in the church, but only to maintain her impossibility of erring. and lastly, d. potter assures himself that your doctrine and practices are damnable enough in themselves; only he hopes (and spes est rei inceriae nomen) he hopes, i say, that the truths which you retain, especially the necessity of repentance and faith in christ, will be as an antidote to you against the errors which you maintain; and that your superstruction may burn, yet they amongst you, qui sequuntur absalonem in simplicitate cordis, may be saved, yet so as by fire. yet his thinking so, is no reason for you or me to think so, unless you suppose him infallible; and, if you do, why do you write against him? 159. notwithstanding, though not for these reasons, yet for others, i conceive this doctrine not fundamental: because, if a man should believe christian religion wholly, and entirely, and live according to it, such a man, though he should not know or not believe the scripture to be a rule of faith, no nor to be the word of god, my opinion is, he may be saved; and my reason is, because he performs the entire condition of the new covenant, which is, that we believe the matter of the gospel, and not that it is contained in these or these books. so that the books of scripture are not so much the objects of our faith, as the instruments of conveying it to our understanding; and not so much of the being of the christian doctrine, as requisite to the well-being of it, irenaeus tells us (as m. k. acknowledgeth) of some barbarous nations, that believed the doctrine of christ, and yet believed not the scripture to be the word of god; for they never heard of it, and faith comes by hearing: but these barbarous people might be saved: therefore men might be saved without believing the scripture to be the word of god; much more without believing it to be a rule, and a perfect rule of faith. neither doubt i, but if the books of scripture had been proposed to them by the other parts of the church, where they had been before received, and had been doubted of, or even rejected by those barbarous nations, but still by the bare belief and practice of christianity, they might be saved; god requiting of us under pain of damnation, only to believe the verities therein contained, and not the divine authority of the books wherein they are contained. not but that it were now very strange and unreasonable, if a man should believe the matter of these books, and not the authority of the books: and therefore, if a man should profess the not-believing of these, i should have reason to fear he did not believe that. but there is not always an equal necessity for the belief of those things, for the belief whereof there is an equal reason. we have, i believe, as great reason to believe there was such a man as henry the eighth king of england, as that jesus christ suffered under pontius pilate: yet this is necessary to be believed, and that is not so. so that, if any man should doubt of or disbelieve that, it were most unreasonably done of him, yet it were no mortal sin, nor no sin at all: god having no no where commanded men under pain of damnation to believe all which reason induceth them to believe. therefore as an executor, that should perform the whole will of the dead, should fully satisfy the law, though he did not believe that parchment to be his written will, which indeed is so: so i believe, that he, who believes all the particular doctrines which integrate christianity, and lives according to them, should be saved, though he neither believed nor knew that the gospels were written by the evangelists, or the epistles by the apostles. 160. this disourse, whether it be rational, and concluding or not, i submit to better judgement; but sure i am, that the corollary, which you draw from this position, that this point is not fundamental, is very inconsequent; that is, that we are uncertain of the truth of it, because we say, the whole church, much more particular churches and private men may err in points not fundamental. a pretty sophism, depending upon this principle, that whosoever possibly may err, he cannot be certain that he doth not err. and upon this ground, what shall hinder me from concluding, that seeing you also hold, that neither particular churches, nor private men are infallible even in fundamentals, that even the fundamentals of christianity, remain to you uncertain? a judge may possibly err in judgement, can he therefore never have assurance that he hath judged right? a traveller may possibly mistake his way, must i therefore be doubtful whether i am in the right way from my hall to my chamber? or can our london-carrier have no certainty, in the middle of the day, when he is sober and in his wits, that he is in the way to london? these, you see, are right worthy consequences, and yet they are as like your own, as an egg to an egg, or milk to milk. 161. and, for the self same reason (you say) we are not certain, that the church is not judge of controversies: but now this self same appears to be no reason; and therefore, for all this, we may be certain enough that the church is no judge of controversies. the ground of this sophism is very like the former, viz. that we can be certain of the falsehood of no propositions, but these only which are damnable errors. but, i pray good sir, give me your opinion of these: the snow is black, the fire is cold, that m. knot is archbishop of toledo, that the whole is not greater than a part of the whole, that twice two make not four: in your opinion, good sir, are these damnable heresies? or, because they are not so, have we no certainty of the falsehood of them? i beseech you sir, to consider seriously, with what strange captions you have gone about to delude your king and your country; and, if you be convinced they are so, give glory to god, and let the world know it by your deserting that religion, which stands upon such deceitful foundations. 162. besides (you say) among public conclusions defended in oxford, the year 1633. to the questions, whether the church have authority to determine controversies of f●ith? and to interpret holy scripture? the answer to both is affirmative. but what now if i should tell you, that, in the year 1632. among public conclusions defended in douai, one was, that god predeterminates men to all their actions, good, bad, and indifferent? will you think yourself obliged to be of this opinion? if you will, say so: if not, do as you would be done by. again, methinks, so subtle a man as you are, should easily apprehend a wide difference between authority to do a thing, and an absolute. the former, the doctor, together with the article of the church of england, attributeth to the church, nay to particular churches; and i subscribe to his opinion; that is, an authority of determining controversies of faith, according to plain and evident scripture and universal tradition; and infallibility while they proceed according to this rule. as if there should arise an heretic, that should call in question christ's passion and resurrection, the church had authority to decide this controversy, and infallible direction how to do it, and to excommunicate this man, if he should persist in error. i hope, you will not deny but that the judges have authority to determine criminal and civil controversies; and yet, i hope, you will not say, that they are absolutely infallible in their determination. infallible while they proceed according to law▪ and if they do so: but not infallibly certain that they shall ever do so. but that the church should be infallibly assisted by god's spirit to decide rightly all emergent controversies, even such as might be held diversely of divers men, salva compage fidei, and that we might be absolutely certain that the church should never fail to decree the truth, whether she used means or no, whether she proceed according to her rule or not; or lastly, that we might be absolutely certain that she would never fail to proceed according to her rule, this the defender of these conclusions said not: and therefore said no more to your purpose, than you have all this while, that is, just nothing. 163. ad §. 27. to the place of s. austin alleged in this paragraph, i answer, first, that in many things you will not be tried by s. augustin's judgement, nor submit to his authority; not concerning appeals to rome, not concerning transubstantiation, not touching the use and worshipping of images, not concerning the state of saints souls before the day of judgement, not touching the virgin mary's freedom from actual and original sin, not touching the necessity of the eucharist for infants, not touching the damning infants to hell that die without baptism, not touching the knowledge of saints departed, not touching purgatory, not touching the fallibility of counsels, even general counsels; not touching perfection and perspicuity of scripture in matters necessary to salvation, not touching auricular confession, not touching the half-communion, not touching prayers in an unknown tongue; in these things, i say, you will not stand to s. austin's judgement, and therefore can with no reason or equity require us to do so in this matter. 2. to s. augustine in heat of disputation against the donatists, and ransacking all places for arguments against them, we oppose s. austin out of this heat, delivering the doctrine of christianity calmly and moderately; where he says, in iis quae apretè posita sunt in sacris scriptures, omnia ea reperiuntur quae continent fidem, moresque vivendi. 3. we say, he speaks not of the roman but the catholic church, of far greater extent, and therefore of far greater credit and authority than the roman church. 4. he speaks of a point not expressed, but yet not contradicted by scripture; whereas the errors we charge you with, are contradicted by scripture. 5. he says not that christ hath recommended the church to us for an infallible definer of all emergent controversies▪ but for a credible witness of ancient tradition. whosoever therefore refuseth to follow the practice of the church (understand of all places and ages) though he be thought to resist our saviour, what is that to us, who cast off no practices of the church, but such as are evidently post-nate to the time of the apostles, and plainly contrary to the practice of former and purer times. lastly, it is evident, and even to impudence itself undeniable, that upon this ground, of believing all things taught by the present church as taught by christ, error was held; for example, the necessity of the eucharist for infants, and that in s. austin's time, and that by s. austin himself: and therefore without controversy this is no certain ground for truth, which may support falsehood as well as truth. 164. to the argument wherewith you conclude, i answer, that though the visible church shall always without fail propose so much of god's revelation, as is sufficient to bring men to heaven, for otherwise it will not be the visible church; yet it may sometimes add to this revelation things superfluous, nay, hurtful, nay in themselves damnable, though not unpardonable; and sometimes take from it things very expedient and profitable; and therefore it is possible, without sin, to resist in some things the visible church of christ. but you press us farther▪ and demand, what visible church was extant, when luther began, whether it were the roman or protestant church? as if, it must of necessity either be protestant or roman; or roman of necessity, if it were not protestant. yet this is the most usual fallacy of all your disputers, by some specious arguments to persuade weak men, that the church of protestants cannot be the true church; and thence to infer, that without doubt it must be the roman. but why may not the roman be content to be a part of it, and the grecian another? and if one must be the whole, why not the greek church, as well as the roman? there being not one note of your church which agrees not to her as well as to your own; unless it be; that she is poor, and oppressed by the turk, and you are in glory and splendour. 165. neither is it so easy to be determined as you pretend, that luther and other protestants opposed the whole visible church in matters of faith; neither is it so evident, that the visible church may not fall into such a state wherein she may be justly opposed. and lastly, for calling the distinction of points into fundamental and not fundamental, an evasion, i believe, you will find it easier to call it so, than to prove it so. but that shall be the issue of the controversy in the next chapter. chap. iii. that the distinction of points fundamental and not fundamental, is neither pertinent, nor true in our present controversy. and that the catholic visible church cannot err, in either kind of the said points. this distinction is abused by protestants to many purposes of theirs; and therefore if it be either untrue or impertinent (as they understand, and apply it) the whole edifice built thereon, must be ruinous and false. for, if you object their bitter and continued discords in matters of faith, without any means of agreement: they instantly tell you (as charity mistaken plainly shows) that they differ only in points not fundamental. if you convince them, even by their own confessions, that the ancient. fathers taught divers points held by the roman church against protestants: they reply, that those fathers may nevertheless be saved, because those errors were not fundamental. if you will them to remember, that christ must always have a visible church on earth, with administration of sacraments, and succession of pastors, and that when luther appeared there was no church distinct from the roman, whose communion and doctrine, luther then forsaken, and for that cause must be guilty of schism and heresy: they have an answer (such as it is) that the catholic church cannot perish, yet may err in points not fundamental, and therefore luther and other protestants were obliged to forsake her for such errors, under pain of damnation: as if (sorsooth) it were damnable, to hold an error notfundamental, nor damnable. if you wonder how they can teach, that both catholics and protestants may be saved in their several professions: they salve this contradiction, by saying, that we both agree in all fundamental points of faith, which is enough for salvation, and yet, which is prodigiously strange, they could never be induced to give a catalogue what points in particular be fundamental, but only by some general description, or by referring us to the apostles creed, without determining, what points therein be fundamental, or not fundamental for the matter: and in what sense they be, or be not, such: and yet concerning the meaning of divers points contained, or reduced to the creed, they differ both from us, and among themselves. and indeed, it being impossible for them to exhibit any such catalogue, the said distinction of points, although it were pertinent and true, cannot serve them to any purpose, but still they must remain uncertain, whether or not they disagree from one another, from the ancient fathers, and from the catholic church, in points fundamental: which is to say, they have no certainty whether they enjoy the substance of christian faith, without which they cannot hope to be saved. but of this more hereafter. 2. and to the end, that what shall be said concerning this distinction may be better understood, we are to observe, that there be two precepts which concern the virtue of faith, or our obligation to believe divine truths. the one is by divines called affirmative, whereby we are obliged to have a positive explicit belief of some chief articles of christian faith. the other is temed negative, which strictly binds us not to disbelieve, that is, not to believe the contrary of any one point sufficiently represented to our understandings, as revealed or spoken by almighty god. the said affirmative precept (according to the nature of such commands) enjoins some act to be performed but not at all times, nor doth it equally bind all sorts of persons, in respect of all objects to be believed. for objects; we grant that some are more necessary to be explicitly, and severally believed than other: either because they are in themselves more great, and weighty; or else in regard they instruct us in some necessary christian duty towards god, ourselves, or our neighbour. for persons; no doubt but some are obliged to know distinctly more than others, by reason of their office, vocation, capacity, or the like. for times; we are not obliged to be still in act of exercising acts of faith, but according as several occasions permit, or require. the second kind of precept called negative, doth (according to the nature of all such commands) oblige universally, all persons, in respect of all objects; and at all times; semper & pro semper, as divines speak, this general doctrine will be more clear by examples. i am not obliged to be always helping my neighbour, because the affirmative precept of charity bindeth only in some particular cases: but i am always bound by a negative precept, never to do him any hurt, or wrong. i am not always bound to utter what i know to be true: yet i am obliged, never to speak any one lest untruth, against my knowledge. and (to come to our present purpose) there is no affirmative precept, commanding us to be at all times actually believing any one, or all articles of faith. but we are obliged, never to exercise any act against any one truth, known to be revealed. all sorts of persons are not bound explicitly and distinctly to know all things testified by god either in scripture, or otherwise: but every one is obliged, not to believe the contrary of any one point, known to be testified by god. for that were in fact to affirm, that god could be deceived, or would deceive, which were to overthrow the whole certainty of our faith, wherein the thing most principal, is not the point which we believe, which divines call the material object, but the chiefest is the motive for which we believe, to wit, almighty god's infallible revelation, or authority, which they term the formal object of our faith. in two senses therefore, and with a double relation, points of faith may be called fundamental, and necessary to salvation: the one is taken with reference to the affirmative precept, when the points are of such quality that there is obligation to know and believe them explicitly and severally. in this sense we grant that there is difference betwixt points of faith, which d. potter (a) pag. 209. to no purpose laboureth to prove against his adversary, who in express words doth grant and explicate (b) charity mistaken, c. 8. pag. 75. it. but the doctor thought good to dissemble the matter, and not to say one pertinent word in defence of his distinction, as it was impugned by charity mistaken, and as it is wont to be applied by protestants. the other sense, according to which points of faith may be called fundamental, and necessary to salvation with reference to the negative precept of faith, is such, that we cannot without grievous sin, and forfeiture of salvation disbelieve any one point, sufficiently propounded, as revealed by almighty god. and in this sense we avouch, that there is no distinction in points of faith, as if to reject some must be damnable, and to reject others, equally proposed as god's word, might stand with salvation. yea, the obligation of the negative precept is far more strict, than is that of the affirmative, which god freely imposed, and may freely release. but it is impossible, that he can dispense, or give leave to disbelieve, or deny what he affirmeth; and in this sense sin and damnation are more inseparable from error in points not fundamental, than from ignorance in articles fundamental. all this i show by an example, which i wish to be particularly noted for the present, and for divers other occasions hereafter. the creed of the apostles contains divers fundamental points of faith, as the deity, trinity of persons, incarnation, passion, and resurrection of our saviour christ, etc. it contains also some points, for their matter, and nature in themselves not fundamental; as under what judge our saviour suffered, that he was buried, the circumstance of the time of his resurrection the third day, etc. but yet nevertheless, whosoever once knows that these points are contained in the apostles creed, the denial of them is damnable, and is in that sense a fundamental error: and this is the precise point of the present question. 3. and all that hitherto hath been said, is so manifestly true, that no protestant or christian, if he do but understand the terms, and state of the question, can possibly deny it: in so much as i am amazed, that men who otherwise are endued with excellent wits, should so enslave themselves to their predecessors in protestantism, as still to harp on this distinction, and never regard how impertinently, and untruly it was ●●plyed by them at first, to make all protestants seem to be of one faith, because forsooth they agree in fundamental points. for the difference among protestants, consists not in that some believe some points, of which others are ignorant, or not bound expressly to know (as the distinction ought to be applied;) but that some of them disbelieve, and directly, wittingly, and willingly oppose what others do believe to be testified by the word of god, wherein there is no difference between points fundamental, and not fundamental; because, till points fundamental be sufficiently proposed as revealed by god, it is not against faith to reject them, or rather without sufficient proposition it is not possible prudently to believe them; and the like is of points not-fundamental, which as soon as they come to be sufficiently propounded as divine truths, they can no more be denied, than points fundamental propounded after the same manner. neither will it avail them to their other end, that, for preservation of the church in being, it is sufficient that she do not err in points fundamental. for, if in the mean time she maintain any one error against god's revelation, be the thing in itself never so small, her error is damnable and destructive of salvation. 4. but d. potter forgetting to what purpose protestants make use of their distinction, doth finally overthrow it, and yields to as much as we can desire. for speaking of that measure (c) pag. 211. and quantity of faith without which none can be saved, he saith: it is enough to believe some things by a virtual faith, or by a general, and, as it were, a negative faith, whereby they are not denied or contradicted. now our question is in case that divine truths, although not fundamental, be denied and contradicted; and therefore, even according to him, all such denial excludes salvation. after, he speaks more plainly. it is true (saith he) whatsoever (d) pag. 212. is revealed in scripture, or propounded by the church out of scripture, is in some sense fundamental, in regard of the divine authority of god, and his word, by which it is recommended: that is, such as may not be denied, or contradicted without infidelity: such as every christian is bound, with humility, and reverence to believe, whensoever the knowledge thereof is offered to him. and further: where (e) pag. 250. the revealed will or word of god is sufficiently propounded; there he that opposeth, is convinced of error, and he, who is thus convinced, is an heretic, and heresy is a work of the flesh which excludeth from heaven, (gal. 5.20, 21.) and hence it followeth, that it is fundamental to a christian's faith, and necessary for his salvation, that he believe all revealed truths of god, whereof he may be convinced that they are from god. can any thing be spoken more clearly or directly for us, that it is a fundamental error to deny any one point, though never so small, if once it be sufficiently propounded as a divine truth, and that there is in this sense, no distinction betwixt points fundamental, and not fundamental? and if any should chance to imagine, that it is against the foundation of faith, not to believe points fundamental, although they be not sufficiently propounded, d. potter doth not admit of this (f) pag. 246. difference betwixt points fundamental, and not-fundamental. for he teacheth, that sufficient proposition of revealed truth is required before a man can be convinced, and for want of sufficient conviction he excuseth the disciples from heresy, although they believed not our saviour's resurrection, (g) pag 246. which is a very fundamental point of faith. thus then i argue out of d. potter's own confession: no error is damnable unless the contrary truth be suffficiently propounded as revealed by god: every error is damnable, if the contrary truth be sufficiently propounded as revealed by god: therefore all errors are alike for the general effect of damnation, if the difference arise not, from the manner of being propounded. and what now is become of their distinction? 5. i will therefore conclude with this argument. according to all philosophy and divinity, the unity, and distinction of every thing followeth the nature and essence thereof; and therefore, if the nature and being of faith, be not taken from the matter which a man believes, but from the motive for which he believes, (which is god's word or revelation) we must likewise affum that the unity and diversity of faith, must be measured by god's revelation (which is alike for all objects) and not by the smallness, or greatness of the matter which we believe. now, that the nature of faith is not taken from the greatness, or smallness of the things believed, is manifest; because otherwise one who believes only fundamental points, and another, who together with them, doth also believe points not fundamental, should have faith of different natures, yea there should be as many differences of faith, as there are different points which men believe, according to different capacities or instructions, etc. all which consequences are absurd, and therefore we must say, that unity in faith doth not depend upon points fundamental, or not fundamental, but upon god's revelation equally or unequally proposed: and protestants pretending an unity only by reason of their agreement in fundamental points, do indeed induce as great a multiplicity of faith as there is multitude of different objects which are believed by them, and since they disagree in things equally revealed by almighty god, it is evident that they forsake the very formal motive of faith, which is god's revelation, and consequently lose all faith, and unity therein. 6. the first part of the title of this chapter (that the distinction of points fundamental, and not fundamental in the sense of protestants, is both impertinent and untrue) being demonstrated; let us now come to the second: that the church is insallible in all her definitions, whether they concern points funmental, or not fundamental. and this i prove by these reasons. 7. it hath been showed in the precedent chapter, that the church is judge of controversies; which she could not be, if she could err in any one point; as d. potter would not deny, if he were once persuaded that she is judge. because, if she could err in some points, we could not rely upon her authority and judgement in any one thing. 8. this same is proved by the reason we alleged before, that seeing the church was infallible in all her definitions o'er scripture was written (unless we will take away all certainty of faith for that time) we cannot with any show of reason affirm, that she hath been deprived thereof by the adjoined comfort, and help of sacred writ. 9 moreover, to say that the catholic church may propose any false doctrine, maketh her liable to damnable sin and error; and yet d. potter teacheth that the church cannot err damnably. for if in that kind of oath, which divines call assertorium, wherein god is called to witness, every falsehood is a deadly sin in any private person whatsoever, although the thing be of itself neither material, nor prejudicial to any; because the quantity or greatness of that sin is not measured so much by the thing which is affirmed, as by the manner, and authority whereby it is avouched, and by the injury that is offered to almighty god in applying his testimony to a salshood: in which respect it is the unanimous consent of all divines, that in such k●nd of oaths, no levitas materiae, that is, smallness of matter, can excuse from a moral sacrilege, against the moral virtue of religion, which respects worship due to god: if, i say, every least falsehood be deadly sin in the foresaid kind of oath, much more pernicious a sin must it be in the public person of the catholic church to propound untrue articles of faith, thereby fastening god's prime verity to a falsehood, and inducing, and obliging the world to do the same. besides, according to the doctrine of all divines, it is not only injurious to god's eternal verity, to disbelieve things by him revealed, but also to propose as revealed truths, things not revealed: as in commonwealths it is a heinous offence to coin either by counterfeiting, the metal or the stamp, or to apply the king's seal to a writing counterfeit, although the contents were supposed to be true. and whereas to show the detestable sin of such pernicious fictions, the church doth most exemplarly punish all broachers-of feigned revelations, visions, miracles, prophecies, etc. as in particular appeareth in the council of (h) sub. leon. 10. sess. 11. lateran, excommunicating such persons; if the church herself could propose false revelations, she herself should have been the first, and chiefest deserver to have been censured, and, as it were, excommunicated by herself. for (as the holy ghost saith in (i) cap. 13. v. 5. job, doth god need your lie, that for him you may speak deceits? and that of the apocalypse is most truly verified in fictions revelations: if any (k) cap. ult. v. 18. shall add to these things, god will add unto him the plagues which are written in this book: and d. potter saith, to add (l) pag. 122. to it (speaking of the creed) is high presumption, almost as great as to detract from it. and therefore to say the church may add false revelations, is, to accuse her of high presumption, and of pernicious error excluding salvation. 10. perhaps some will here reply, that although the church may err, yet it is nor imputed to her for sin, by reason she doth not err upon malice or wittingly, but by ignorance, or mistake. 11. but it is easily demonstrated that this excuse cannot serve. for, if the church be assisted only for points fundamental, she cannot but know, that she may err in points not fundamental, at least she cannot be certain that she cannot err, and therefore cannot be excused from headlong and pernicious temerity, in proposing points not fundamental, to be believed by christians, as matters of faith, wherein she can have no certainty, yea which always imply a falsehood. for although the thing might chance to be true, and perhaps also revealed; yet, for the matter, she for her part, doth always expose herself to danger of falsehood and error; and in fact doth always err in the manner in which she doth propound any matter not fundamental; because she proposeth it as a point of faith certainly true, which yet is always uncertain, if she in such things may be deceived. 12. besides, if the church may err in points not fundamental, she may err in proposing some scripture for canonical, which is not such: or else err in nor keeping and conserving from corruptions such scriptures as are already believed to be canonical. for i will suppose, that in such apocryphal scripture as she delivers, there is no fundamental error against faith, or that there is no falsehood at all, but only want of divine testification: in which case d. potter must either grant that it is a fundamental error to apply divine revelation to any point not revealed, or else must yield, that the church may err in her proposition, or custody of the canon of scripture: and so we cannot be sure whether she hath not been deceived already, in books recommended by her, and accepted by christians. and thus we shall have no certainty of scripture, if the church want certainty in all her definitions. and it is worthy to be observed, that some books of scripture which were not always known to be canonical, have been afterward received for such; but never any on▪ book or syllable defined by the church to be canonical, was afterward questioned, or rejected for apocryphal. a sign, that god's church is infallibly assisted by the holy ghost, never to propose as divine truth, any thing not revealed by god: and that, omission to define points not sufficiently discussed is laudable, but commission in propounding things not revealed, inexcusable; into which precipitation our saviour christ never hath, nor never will, permit his church to fall. 13. nay, to limit the general promises of our saviour christ made to his church to points only fundamental, namely, that the gates (m) mat. 16.18. of hell shall not prevail against her: and that the holy ghost (n) joan. 16.13. shall lead her into all truth, etc. is to destroy all faith. for we may be that doctrine, and manner of interpreting the scripture, limit the infallibility of the apostles words, and preaching, only to points fundamental: and whatsoever general texts of scripture shall be alleged for their infallibility, they may be d. potter's example be explicated, and restrained to points fundamental. by the same reason it may be farther affirmed, that the apostles, and other writers of canonical scripture, were endued with infallibility, only in setting down points fundamental. for, if it be urged, that all scripture is divinely inspired; that it is the word of god, etc. d. potter hath afforded you a ready answer, to say, that scripture is inspired, etc. only in those parts, or parcels, wherein it delivereth fundamental points. in this manner d. fotherbie saith: the apostle (o) in his sermons. serm. 2. pag. 50. twice in one chapter professed, that this he speaketh, and not the lord; he is very well content that where he lacks the warrant of the express word of god, that part of his writings should be esteemed as the word of man. d. potter also speaks very dangerously towards this purpose, sect. 5. where he endeavoureth to prove, that the infallibility of the church is limited to points fundamental, because as nature, so god is neither defective in (p) pag. 150. necessaries, nor lavish in superfluities. which reason doth likewise prove that the infallibility of scripture, and of the apostles must be restrained to points necessary to salvation, that so god be not accused, as defective in (p) pag. 150. necessaries, or lavish insuperfluities. in the same place he hath a discourse much tending to this purpose, where speaking of these words: the spirit shall lead you into all truth, and shall abide with (q) joan. c. 16.13 etc. 14.16. you for ever, he saith: though that promise was (r) pag. 151, 152. directly, and primarily made to, the apostles (who had the spirit's guidance in a more high and absolute manner than any since them) yet it was made to them for the behoof of the church, and is verified in the church universal. but all truth is not simply all, but all of some kind. to be lead into all truths, is to know and believe them. and who is so simple, as to be ignorant, that there are many millions of truths (in nature, history, divinity) whereof the church is simply ignorant? how many truths lie unrevealed in the infinite treasury of god's wisdom, wherewith the church is not acquainted, & c? so then, the truth itself enforceth us to understand by (all truths) not simply all, not all which god can possibly reveal, but all pertaining to the substance of faith, all truth absolutely necessary to salvation. mark what he saith. that promise (the spirit shall lead you into all truth) was made directly to the apostles, and is verified in the universal church, but by all truth is not understood simply all, but all appertaining to the substance of faith, and absolutely necessary to salvation. doth it not hence follow, that the promise made to the apostles of being lead into all truth, is to be understood only of all truth absolutely necessary to salvation? and consequently their preaching, and writing were not infallible in points not fundamental? or, if the apostles were infallible in all things which they proposed as divine truth, the like must be affirmed of the church, because d. potter teacheth, the said promise to be verified in the church. and as he limits the aforesaid words to points fundamental; so may he restrain, what other text soever, that can be brought for the universal infallibility of the apostles or scriptures. so he may; and so he must, lest otherwise he receive this answer of his own from himself, how many truths lie unrevealed in the infinite treasury of god's wisdom; wherewith the church is not acquainted? and therefore to verify such general say, they must be understood of truths absolutely necessary to salvation. are not these fearful consequences? and yet d. potter will never be able to avoid them, till he come to acknowledge the infallibility of the church in all points by her proposed as divine truths; and thus it is universally true that she is lead into all truth, in regard that our saviour never permits her to define, or teach any falsehood. 14. all, that with any colour may be replied to this argument, is; that, if once we call any one book, or parcel of scripture in question; although for the matter it contain no fundamental error, yet it is of great importance and fundamental, by reason of the consequence; because, if once we doubt of one book received for canonical, the whole canon is made doubtful and uncertain, and therefore the infallibility of scripture must be universal, and not confined within compass of points fundamental. 15. i answer: for the thing itself it is very true, that if i doubt of any one parcel of scripture received for such, i may doubt of all▪ and thence by the same parity i infer, that, if we did doubt of the church's infallibility in some points, we could nor believe her in any one, and consequently not in propounding canonical books, or any other points fundamental, or not fundamental; which thing being most absurd, and withal most impious, we must take away the ground thereof, and believe that she cannot err in any point great or small: and so this reply doth much more strengthen what we intent to prove. yet i add, that protestants cannot make use of this reply with any good coherence to this their distinction, and some other doctrines which they defend. for, if d. potter can tell what points in particular be fundamental (as in his 7. sect. he pretendeth) than he might be sure, that whensoever he meets with such points in scripture, in them, it is infallibly true, although it may err in others: and not only true but clear, because protestants teach, that, in matters necessary to salvation, the scripture is so clear, that all such necessary truths are either manifestly contained therein, or may be clearly deduced from it. which doctrines being put together, to wit: that scriptures cannot err in points fundamental; that they clearly contain all such points; and that they can tell what points in particular be such, i mean fundamental; it is manifest, that it is sufficient for salvation, that scripture be infallible only in points fundamental. for supposing these doctrines of theirs to be true, they may be sure to find in scripture all points necessary to salvation, although it were fallible in other points of less moment. neither will they be able to avoid this impiety against holy scripture, till they renounce their other doctrines, and in particular, till they believe that christ's promises to his church, are not limited to points fundamental. 16, besides, from the fallibility of christ's catholic church in some points, it followeth, that no true protestant, learned or unlearned, doth or can with assurance believe the universal church in any one point of doctrine. not in points of lesser moment, which they call not-fundamental; because they believe that in such points she may err. not in fundamental; because they must know what points be fundamental, before they go to learn of her, lest otherwise they be rather deluded, than instructed; in regard that her certain, and infallible direction extends only to points fundamental. now, if before they address themselves to the church, they must know what points are fundamental, they learn not of her, but will be as sit to teach, as to be taught by her: how then are all christians so often, so seriously, upon so dreadful menaces, by fathers, scriptures, and our blessed saviour himself, counselled and commanded to seek, to hear, to obey the church? s. austin was of a very disterent mind from protestants: if (saith he) the (s) epist. 118. church through the whole world practise any of these things, to dispute whether that aught to be so done, is a most insolent madness. and in another place he saith, that which (t) lib. 4. de bapt. cap. 24. the whole church holds, and is not ordained by counsels, but hath always been kept, is most rightly believed to be delivered by apostolical authority. the s●me holy father teacheth, that the custom of baptising children cannot be proved by scripture alone, and yet that it is to be believed, as derived from the apostles. the custom of our mother the (u) lib. 10. de gea●si ad litter. cap. 23. church (saith he) in baptising infants is in no wise to be contemned, nor to be accounted superfluous, nor is it at all to be believed, unless it were an apostolical tradition. and elsewhere. christ (w) serm. 14. de verbis apost. cap. 18. is of profit to children baptised, is he therefore of profit to persons not believing? but, god forbidden, that i should say, infants do not believe, i have already said, he believes in another, who sinned in another. it is said, he believes, and it is of force, and he is reckoned among the faithful that are baptised. this the authority of our mother the church hath; against this strength, against this invincible wall whosoever rusheth shall be crushed in pieces. to this argument the protestants in the conference at ratisbon, gave this round answer: nos ab augustino (x) see protocol. monach. edit. 2. p 367. hac in parte liberè dissentimus. in this we plainly disagree from augustin. now, if this doctrine of baptising infants be not fundamental in d. potter's sense, then according to s. augustine, the infallibility of the church extends to points not fundamental. but if on the other side it be a fundamental point; then, according to the same holy doctor, we must rely on the authority of the church for some fundamental point not contained in scripture, but delivered by tradition. the like argument i frame out of the same father about the not rebaptising of those who were baptised by heretics; whereof he excellently to our present purpose speaketh in this manner. we follow (y) lib. 1. cont. crescon. cap. 32. & 34. indeed in this matter even the most certain authority of canonical scriptures. but how? consider his words: although verily there be brought no example for this point out of the canonical scriptures, yet even in this point the truth of the same scriptures is held by us, while we do that, which the authority of scriptures doth recommend, that so, because the holy scripture cannot deceive us, whosoever is afraid to be deceived by the obscurity of this question, must have recourse to the same church concerning it, which without any ambiguity the holy scripture doth demonstrate to us. among many other points in the aforesaid words, we are to observe, that according to this holy father, when we prove some points not particularly contained in scripture, by the authority of the church, even in that case we ought not to be said to believe such points without scripture, because scripture itself recommends the church; and therefore relying on her, we rely on scripture, without danger of being deceived by the obscurity of any question defined by the church. and elsewhere he saith, seeing this is (z) de unit. eccles. c. 19 written in no scripture, we must believe the testimony of the church, which christ declareth to speak the truth. but it seems d. potter is of opinion that this doctrine about not-rebaptizing such as were baptised by heretics, is no necessary point of faith, nor the contrary an heresy: wherein he contradicteth s. augustine, from whom we have now heard, that what the church teacheth, is truly said to be taught by scripture; and consequently to deny this particular point, delivered by the church, is to oppose scripture itself. yet it he will needs hold, that this point is not fundamental, we must conclude out of s. augustine, (as we did concerning the baptising of children) that the infallibility of the church reacheth to points not-fundamental. the same father in another place, concerning this very question of the validity of baptism conferred by heretics, saith: the (a) de bapt. cont. donat. l. 5. c. 23. apostles indeed have prescribed nothing of this, but this custom ought to be believed, to be originally taken from their tradition, as there are many things that the universal church observeth, which are therefore with good reason believed to have been commanded by the apostles, although they be not written. no less clear is s. chrysostom for the infallibility of the traditions of the church. for, treating these words (2 thes. 2. stand, and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by speech or by epistle) he saith: hence it is (b) hom. 4. manifest that they delivered not all things by letter, but many things also without writing, and these also are worthy of belief. let us therefore account the tradition of the church so be worthy of belief. it is a tradition: seek no more. which words are so plainly against protestants, that whitaker is as plain with s. chrysostom, saying: i answer (c) de sacra script. p. 678. that this is an inconsiderate speech, and unworthy so great a father. but let us conclude with s. augustine, that the church cannot approve any error against faith, or good manners. the church (saith he) being (d) ep. 119. placed between much chaff and cockle, doth tolerate many things; but yet she doth not approve, nor dissemble, nor do those things which are against faith, or good life. 17. and, as i have proved that protestants, according to their grounds, cannot yield infallible assent to the church in any one point: so by the same reason i prove, that they cannot rely upon scripture itself in any one point of faith. not in points of lesser moment (or not fundamental) because in such points the catholic church, (according to d. potter) and much more any protestant may err, and think it is contained in scripture, when it is not. not in points fundamental, because they must first know what points be fundamental, before they can be assured, that they cannot err in understanding the scripture; and consequently, independently of scripture, they must foreknow all fundamental points of faith: and therefore they do not indeed rely upon scripture either for fundamental, or not fundamental points. 18. besides, i mainly urge d. potter, and other protestants, that they tell us of certain points which they call fundamental, and we cannot wrest from them a list in particular of such points, without which no man can tell whether or no he err in points fundamental, and be capable of salvation. and which is most lamentable, instead of giving us such a catalogue, they fall to wrangle among themselves about the making of it. 19 calvin holds the (e) instit. l. 4. cap. 2. pope's primacy, invocation of saints, freewill, and such like, to be fundamental errors overthrowing the gospel. others are not of his mind, as melancthon, who saith, in (f) cent. ep. theol. ep. 74. the opinion of himself, and other his brethren, that the monarchy of the bishop of rome is of use, or profit, to this end, that consent of doctrine may be retained. an agreement therefore may easily be established in this article of the pope's primacy, if either articles could be agreed upon. if the pope's primacy be a means, that consent of doctrine may be retained, first submit to it, and other articles will be easily agreed upon. luther also saith of the pope's primacy, it may be born (g) in assertionib. art. 36. withal. and why then, o luther, did you not bear with it? and how can you, and your followers be excused from damnable schism, who chose rather to divide god's church, then to bear with that, which you confess may be born withal? but let us go forward. that the doctrine of freewill, prayer for the dead, worshipping of images, worship and invocation of saints, real presence, transubstantiation, receiving under one kind, satisfaction, and merit of works, and the mass be not fundamental errors, is taught (respectiuè) by divers protestants carefully alleged in the protestants (h) tract. 1. c. 2. sect. 14. after f. apology, etc. as namely by perkins, cartwright▪ frith, fulke, spark, goad, luther, reynolds, whitaker, tindal, francis johnson, with others. contrary to these, is the confession of the christian faith, so called by protestants, which i mentioned (i) cap. 1. v. 4. heretofore, wherein we are damned unto unquenchable fire, for the doctrine of mass, prayer to saints, and for the dead, freewill, presence at idol-service, man's merit, with such like. justification by faith alone is by some protestants affirmed to be the soul of the (k) chalk in the tower disputation, the 4. day's conference. church: the only principal origin of (l) fox act. & mon. p. 402. salvation; of all other points of (m) the confession of bohemia in the harmony of confessions. p. 253. doctrine the chiefest and weightiest. which yet, as we have seen is contrary to other protestants, who teach that merit of good works is not a fundamental error; yea, divers protestants defend merit of good works, as may be seen in (n) tract. 3. sect. 7. under m. n. 15. breereley. one would think that the king's supremacy, for which some blessed men lost their lives, was once amongst protestants held for a capital point; but now d. andrews late of winchester in his book against bellarmine tells us, that it is sufficient to reckon it among true doctrines. and wotton denies that protestants (o) in his answer to a popish pamphlet. p 68 hold the king's supremacy to be an essential point of faith o freedom of the new gospel! hold with catholics the pope; or with protestants, the king; or with puritans, neither pope, nor king, to be head of the church, all is one, you may be saved. some, as castalio, (p) vid. gul. reginald. calv. turcis. l. 2. c. 6. and the whole sect of the academical protestants, hold, that doctrines about the supper, baptism, the state, and office of christ, how he is one with his father, the trinity, predestination, and divers other such questions are not necessary to salvation. and (that you may observe how ungrounded, and partial their assertions be) perkins teacheth, that the real presence of our saviour's body in the sacrament, as it is believed by catholics, is a fundamental error; and yet affirmeth the consubstantiation of lutherans, not to be such, notwithstanding that divers chief lutherans, to their consubstantiation join the prodigious heresy of ubiquitation. d. usher in his sermon of the unity of the catholic faith. grants salvation to the aethiopians, who yet with christian baptism join circumcision. d. potter (q) pag. 113, 114. morton in his treatise of the kingdom of israel. p. 94. citys the doctrine of some, whom he termeth men of great learning and judgement: that, all who profess to love and honour jesus christ are in the visible christian church, and by catholics to be reputed brethren one of these men of great learning and judgement, is thomas morton, by d. potter cited in his margin, whose love and honour to jesus christ, you may perceive by this saying, that the churches of arians (who denied our saviour christ to be god) are to be accounted the church of god, because they do hold the foundation of the gospel, which is faith in jesus christ the son of god, and saviour of the world. and, which is more, it seemeth by these charitable men, that for being a member of the church it is not necessary to believe one only god. for d. potter (r) pag. 121. among the arguments to prove hooker's and morton's opinion, brings this: the people of the ten tribes after their defection, notwithstanding their gross corruption, and idolatry, remained still a true church. we may also, as it seemeth by these men's reasoning, deny the resurrection, and yet be members of the true church. for a learned man (saith d. potter (s) pag. 122. in behalf of hooker's and morton's opinion) was anciently made a bishop of the catholic church, though he did professedly doubt of the last resurrection of our bodies. dear saviour! what times do we behold? if one may be a member of the true church, and yet deny the trinity of the persons, the godhead of our saviour, the necessity of baptism, if we may use circumcision, and with the worship of god join idolatry, wherein do we differ from turks, and jews? or rather, are we not worse than either of them? if they who deny our saviour's divinity, might be accounted the church of god, how will they deny that savour to those ancient heretics, who denied our saviour's true humanity? and so the total denial of christ will not exclude one from being a member of the true church. s. hilary (t) comment. in mat. cap. 16. maketh it of equal necessity for salvation, that we believe our saviour to be true god, and true man, saying: this manner of confession we a●e to hold, that we remember him to be the son of god, and the son of man, because the one without the other, can give no hope of salvation. and yet d. potter saith of the aforesaid doctrine of hooker and morton: the (u) pag. 123. reader may be pleased to approve, or reject it, as he shall find cause. and in another place (w) pag. 253. he showeth so much good liking of this doctrine, that he explicateth and proveth the church's perpetual visibility by it. and in the second edition of his book, he is careful to declare, and illustrate it more at large than he had done before: howsoever, this sufficiently showeth, that they have no certainty what points be fundamental. as for the arians in particular, the author whom d. potter citys for a moderate catholic, but is indeed a plain heretic, or rather atheist, lucian-like jesting at all religion, (x) a moderate examination, etc. cap. 1. panlò post initium. placeth arianism among fundamental errors: bu● contrarily, an english protestant divine masked under the name of irenaeus philalethes, in a little book in latin, entitled, dissertatio de pace, & concordia ecclesiae, endeavoureth to prove, that even the denial of the blessed trinity may stand with salvation. divers protestants have taught, that the roman church, erreth in fundamental points. but d. potter, and others teach the contrary, which could not happen if they could agree what be fundamental points. you brand the donatists with the note of an error, in the matter (y) pag. 126. and the nature of it properly heretical; because they taught that the church remained only with them, in the part of donatus. and yet many protestants are so far from holding that doctrine to be a fundamental error, that themselves go further, and say; that for divers ages before luther there was no true visible church at all. it is then too too apparent, that you have no agreement in specifying, what be fundamental points; neither have you any means to determine what they be; for, if you have any such means, why do you not agree? you tell us, the creed contains all points fundamental: which, although it were true, yet you see it serves not to bring you to a particular knowledge, and agreement in such points. and no wonder. for (besides what i have said already in the beginning of this chapter, and am to deliver more at large in the next) after so much labour and paper spent to prove that the creed contains all fundamental points, you conclude: it remains (a) pag. 241. very probable, that the creed is the perfect summary of those fundamental truths, whereof consists the unity of faith, and of the catholic church. very probable? then, according to all good logic, the contrary may remain very probable, and so all remain as full of uncertainty, as before. the whole rule, say you, and the sole judge of your faith, must be scripture. scripture doth indeed deliver divine truths, but seldom doth qualify them, or declare whether they be, or be nor, absolutely necessary to salvation. you fall (b) pag. 215. heavy upon charity mistaken, because he demands a particular catalogue of fundamental points, which yet you are obliged in conscience to do, if you be able. for without such a catalogue, no man can be assured whether or no be have faith sufficient to salvation. and therefore take it not in all part, if we again and again demand such a catalogue. and that you may see we proceed fairly, i will perform, on our behalf, what we request of you, and do here deliver a catalogue, wherein are comprised all points by us taught to be necessary to salvation in these words; we are obliged under pain of damnation, to believe whatsoever the catholic visible church of christ proposeth, as revealed by almighty god. if any be of another mind, all catholics denounce him to be no catholic. but enough of this. and i go forward with the infallibility of the church in all points. 20. for, even out of your own doctrine, that the church cannot err in points necessary to salvation, any wise man will infer, that it behoves all who have care of their souls, not to forsake her in any one point. 1. because they are assured, that although her doctrine proved not to be true, in some point, yet, even according to d. potter, the error cannot be fundamental, nor destructive of faith, and salvation: neither can they be accused of any the least imprudence, in erring (if it were possible) with the universal church. secondly, since she is, under pain of eternal damnation, to be believed, and obeyed in some things, wherein confessedly she is endued with infallibility; i cannot in wisdom suspect her credit in matters of less moment. for who would trust another in matters of highest consequence, and be afraid to rely on him in things of less moment? thirdly, since (as i said) we are undoubtedly obliged not to forsake her in the chiefest, or fundamental points; and that there is no rule to know precisely what, and how many those fundamental points be; i cannot without hazard of my soul leave her in any one point, lest perhaps that point, or points, wherein i forsake her, prove indeed to be fundamental, and necessary to salvation. fourthly, that visible church, which cannot err in points fundamental, doth without distinction propound all her definitions concerning matters of faith to be believed under anathemas or curses, esteeming all those who resist, to be deservedly cast out of her communion, and holding it a point necessary to salvation, that we believe she cannot err: wherein if she speak true, then to deny any one point in particular, which she defineth, or to affirm in general, that she may err, puts a man into a state of damnation. whereas to believe her in such points as are not necessary to salvation, cannot endanger salvation; and likewise to remain in her communion, can bring no great harm, because she cannot maintain any damnable error, or practice: but to be divided from her (the being christ's catholic church) is most certainly damnable. fifthly, the true church, being in lawful and certain possession of superiority and power, to command and require obedience, from all christians in some things; i cannot without grievous sin withdraw my obedience in any one, unless i evidently know, that the thing commanded comes not within the compass of those things to which her power extendeth. and who can better inform me, how far god's church can proceed, than god's church herself? or to what doctor can the children and scholars, with greater reason, and more security fly for direction, than to the mother, and appointed teacher of all christians? in following her, i shall sooner be excused, than in cleaving to any particular sect, or person, teaching or applying scriptures against her doctrine, or interpretation. sixthly, the fearful examples of innumerable persons, who, forsaking the church upon pretence of her errors, have failed even in fundamental points, and suffered shipwreck of their salvation, aught to deter all christians from opposing her in any one doctrine, or practice: as (to omit other, both ancient and modern heresies) we see that divers chief protestants, pretending to reform the corruptions of the church, are come to affirm, that for many ages she erred to death, and wholly perished; which d. potter cannot deny to be a fundamental error against that article of our creed, i believe the catholic church, as he affirmeth it of the donatists, because they confined the universal church within africa, or some other small tract of soil. lest therefore i may fall into some fundamental error, it is most safe for me to believe all the decrees of that church which cannot err fundamentally: especially it we add, that, according to the doctrine of catholic divines, one error in faith, whether it be for the matter itself, great or small, destroys faith, as is showed in charity mistaken; and consequently to accuse the church of any one error, is to affirm, that she lost all faith, and erred damnably: which very saying is damnable, because it leaves christ no visible church on earth. 21. to all these arguments i add this demonstration: d. potter teacheth, that there neither was (c) pag. 75. nor can be any just cause to departed from the church of christ, no more than from christ himself. but if the church of christ can err in some points of faith, men not only may, but must forsake her in those, (unless d. potter will have them to believe one thing, and profess another:) and if such errors and corruptions should fall out to be about the church's liturgy, public service, administration of sacraments, & the like; they who perceive such errors, must of necessity leave her external communion. and therefore, if once we grant the church may err, it followeth that men may, and aught to forsake her (which is against d. potter's own words,) or else they are inexcusable who left the communion of the roman church, under pretence of errors, which they grant not to be fundamental. and, if d. potter think good to answer this argument, he must remember his own doctrine to be, that even the catholic church may err in points not fundamental. 22. another argument for the universal infallibility of the church, i take out of d. potter's own words. if (saith he) we (d) pag. 97. did not descent in some opinions from the present roman church, we could not agree with the church truly catholic. these words cannot be true, unless he presuppose that the church truly catholic, cannot err in points not fundamental. for if she may err in such points, the roman church which he affirmeth to err only in points not fundamental, may agree with the church truly catholic, if she likewise may err in points not fundamental. therefore either he must acknowledge a plain contradiction in his own words, or else must grant that the church truly catholic cannot err in points not fundamental, which is what we intended to prove. 23. if words cannot persuade you, that in all controversies you must rely upon the infallibility of the church; at least yield your assent to deeds. hitherto i have produced arguments drawn as it were, ex natura rei, from the wisdom and goodness of god, who cannot fail to have left some infallible means to determine controversies, which, as we have proved, can be no other, except a visible church, infallible in all her definitions. but because both catholics and protestants receive holy scripture, we may thence also prove the infallibility of the church in all matters which concern faith and religion. our saviour speaketh clearly: the gates of hell (e) mat. 16. shall not prevail against her. and, i will ask my (f) joan. 14. father and he will give you another paraclete, that he may abide with you for ever, the spirit of truth. and, but when he, the spirit of (g) joan. 16. truth cometh, he shall teach you all truth. the apostle saith, that the church is the pillar, and ground of (h) 1 tim. c. 3. truth. and, he gave some apostles, and some prophets, and othersome evangelists, and othersome pastors and doctors, to the consummation of the saints unto the work of the ministry, unto the edifying of the body of christ: until we meet all into the unity of faith, and knowledge of the son of god, into a perfect man, into the measure of the age of the fullness of christ: that now we be not children, wavering, and carried about with every wind of doctrine in the wickedness of men, in craftiness, to the circumvention (i) ephes. 4. of error. all which words seem clearly enough to prove, that the church is universally infallible, without which, unity of faith could not be conserved against every wind of doctrine. and yet d, potter (k) pag. 151, 153. limits these promises and privileges to fundamental points, in which he grants, the church cannot err. i urge the words of scripture which are universal, and do not mention any such restraint. i allege that most reasonable, and received rule, that scripture is to be understood literally, as it soundeth, unless some manifest absurdity force us to the contrary. but all will not serve, to accord our different interpretation. in the mean time divers of d. potter's brethren step in, and reject his limitation, as over-large, and somewhat tasting of papistry: and therefore they restrain the mentioned texts, either to the infallibility which the apostles, and other sacred writers had in penning of scripture: or else to the invisible church of the elect; and to them, not absolutely, but with a double restriction, that they shall not fall damnably, and finally; and other men have as much right as these, to interpose their opinion and interpretation. behold we are three at debate about the selfsame words of scripture: we confer divers places and texts: we consult the originals: we examine translations: we endeavour to pray hearty: we profess to speak sincerely: to seek nothing but truth, and salvation of our own souls, and that of our neighbours; and finally, we use all those means, which by protestants themselves are prescribed for finding out the true meaning of scripture: nevertheless we neither do, or have any possible means to agree, as long as we are left to ourselves; and when we should chance to be agreed, the doubt would still remain whether the thing itself be a fundamental point or no: and yet it were great impiety to imagine that god, the lover of souls, hath left no certain infallible means, to decide both this, and all other differences arising about the interpretation of scripture, or upon any other occasion. our remedy therefore in these contentions must be, to consult, and hear gods visible church, with submissive acknowledgement of her power, and infallibility in whatsoever the proposeth as a revealed truth: according to that divine advice of st. augustine in these words: if at length (l) de util. cred. cap. 8. thou seem to be sufficiently tossed, and hast a desire to put an end to thy pains, follow the way of the catholic discipline, which from christ himself, by the apostles, hath come down even to us, and from us shall descend to all posterity. and though i conceive that the distinction of points fundamental, and not fundamental, hath now been sufficiently confuted; yet that no shadow of difficulty may remain, i will particularly refel a common saying of protestants, that it is sufficient for salvation, to believe the apostles creed, which they hold to be a summary of all fundamental points of faith. the answer to the third chapter. wherein it is maintained, that the distinction of points fundamental and not fundamental, is in this present controversy good and pertinent: and that the catholic church may err in the latter kind of the said points. 1 this distinction is employed by protestants to many purposes, and therefore, if it be pertinent and good, (as they understand and apply it) the whole edifice built thereon, must be either firm and stable; or, if it be not, it cannot be for any default in this distinction. 2. if you object to them discords in matter of faith without any means of agreement, they will answer you, that they want not good and solid means of agreement in matters necessary to salvation, viz. their belief of all those things which are plainly and undoubtedly delivered in scripture, which who so believes, must of necessity believe all things necessary to salvation: and their mutual suffering one another to abound in their several sense, in matters not plainly and undoubtedly there delivered. and for their agreement in all controversies of religion, either they have means to agree about them, or not: if you say they have, why did you before deny it? if they have not means, why do you find fault with them, for not agreeing? 3. you will say, that their fault is, that by remaining protestants, they exclude themselves from the means of agreement, which you have, and which by submission to your church they might have also. but if you have means of agreement, the more shame for you that you still disagree. for who, i pray, is more inexcusably guilty, for the omission of any duty; they that either have no means to do it, or else know of none they have, which puts them in the same case, if as they had none: or they which profess to have an easy and expedite means to do it, and yet still leave it undone? if you had been blind (saith our saviour to the pharisees) you had had no sin; but now you say you see, therefore your sin remaineth. 4. if you say, you do agree in matters of faith, i say this is ridiculous, for you define matters of faith to be those wherein you agree. so that to say, you agree in matters of faith, is to say, you agree in those things wherein you do agree. and do not protestants do so likewise? do not they agree in those things, wherein they do agree? 5. but you are all agreed, that only those things wherein you do agree are matters of faith. and protestants, if they were wise, would do so too. sure i am they have reason enough to do so: seeing all of them agree with explicit faith in all those things, which are plainly and undoubtedly delivered in scripture, that is, in all which god hath plainly revealed: and with an implicit faith, in that sense of the whole scripture which god intended whatsoever was. secondly, that which you pretend is false; for else, why do some of you hold it against faith, to take or allow the oath of allegiance; others as learned and honest as they, that it is against faith and unlawful to refuse it, and allow the refusing of it? why do some of you hold, that it is de fide, that the pope is head of the church by divine law, others the contrary? some hold it de fide, that the blessed virgin was free from actual sin, others that it is not so. some, that the pope's indirect power over princes in temporalties is the fide, others the contrary. some, that it is universal tradition, and conséquently de fide, that the virgin mary was conceived in original sin, others the contrary. 6. but what shall we say now, if you be not agreed touching your pretended means of agreement, how then can you pretend to unity either actual or potential more than protestants may? some of you say, the pope alone without a council may determine all controversies: but others deny it. some, that a general council without a pope may do so: others deny this. some, both in conjunction are infallible determiners: others again deny this. lastly, some among you, hold the acceptation of the decrees of counsels by the universal church to be the only way to decide controversies: which others deny, by denying the church to be infallible. and indeed, what way of ending controversies can this be, when either part may pretend, that they are part of the church, and they receive not the decree, therefore the whole church hath not received it? 7. again, means of agreeing differences are either rational and well-grounded, and of god's appointment; or voluntary and taken up at the pleasure of men. means of the former nature, we say, you have as little as we. for where hath god appointed, that the pope, or a council, or a council confirmed by the pope, or that society of christians which adhere to him, shall be the infallible judge of controversies? i desire you to show any one of these assertions plainly set down in scripture, (as in all reason a thing of this nature should be) or at least delivered with a full consent of fathers, or at least taught in plain terms by any one father for four hundred years after christ. and if you cannot do this (as i am sure you cannot) and yet will still be obtruding yourselves upon us for our judges, who will not cry out, — perîsse frontem de rebus? 8. but then for means of the other kind, such as yours are, we have great abundance of them. for besides all the ways which you have devised, which we may make use of when we please, we have a great many more, which you yet have never thought of, for which we have as good colour out of scripture, as you have for yours. for first, we could, if we would, try it by lots, whose doctrine is true, and whose false. and you know it is written, (a) pro. 16 33 the lot is cast into the lap, but the whole disposition of it is from the lord. 2. we could refer them to the king, and you know it is written, (b) pro. 16.10. a divine sentence is in the lips of the king; his mouth transgresseth not in judgement. (c) prov. 21 1. the heart of the king is in the hand of the lord. we could refer the matter to any assembly of christians assemled in the name of christ, seeing it is written, (d) mat. 18.20. where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am i in the midst of them. we may refer it to any priest, because it is written, (e) mal. 2.7. the priest's lips shall preserve knowledge. (f) mat. 25.2. the scribes and pharises sit in moses chair, etc. to any preacher of the gospel, to any pastor, or doctor, for to every one of them christ hath promised, (g) mat. 28.20. he will be with them always even to the end of the world: and of every one of them it is said (h) luk. 10.16. he that heareth you, heareth me, etc. to any bishop, or prelate; for it is written, (i) heb. 13.17. obey your prelates, and again, (k) eph. 4.11. he hath given pastors, and doctors, &c lest we should be carried about with every wind of doctrine. to any particular church of christians, seeing it is a particular church which is called (l) 1 tim. 3.15. the house of god, the pillar and ground of truth: and seeing of any particular church it is written, (m) mat. 18.17. he that heareth not the church, let him be unto thee as a heathen or publican. we might refer it to any man that prays for god's spirit; for it is written, (n) mat. 7.8. every one that asketh, receiveth: and again, (o) jam. 1.5. if any man want wisdom, let him ask of god, who giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not. lastly, we might refer it to the jews, for without all doubt of them it is written, (p) isa. 59.21, my spirit that is in thee, etc. all these means of agreement, whereof not any one but hath as much probability from scripture, as that which you obtrude upon us, offer themselves upon a sudden to me: haply many more might be thought on, if we had time, but these are enough to show, that would we make use of voluntary and devised means to determine differences, we had them in great abundance. and if you say, these would fail us and contradict themselves: so, as we pretend, have yours. there have been popes against popes: counsels against counsels: counsels confirmed by popes against counsels confirmed by popes: lastly, the church of some ages against the church of other ages. 9 lastly, whereas you find fault, that protestants upbraided with their discords, answer, that they differ only in points not fundamental: i desire you tell me, whether they do so, or do not so; if they do so, i hope you will not find fault with the answer; if you say, they do not so, but in points fundamental also, than they are not members of the same church one with another, no more than with you: and therefore why should you object to any of them, their differences from each other, any more than to yourselves, their more and greater differences from you? 10. but they are convinced sometimes even by their own confessions, that the ancient fathers taught divers points of popery: and then they reply, those fathers may nevertheless be saved, because those errors were not fundamental. and may not you also be convinced by the confessions of your own men, that the fathers taught divers points held by protestants against the church of rome, and divers against protestants and the church of rome? do not your purging indices clip the tongues, and seal up the lips of a great many for such confessions? and is not the above-cited confession of your douai divines, plain and full to the same purpose? and do not you also, as freely as we, charge the fathers with errors, and yet say they were saved? now what else do we understand by an unfundamental error, but such a one with which a man may possibly be saved? so that still you proceed in condemning others for your own faults, and urging arguments against us, which return more strongly upon yourselves. 11. but your will is, we should remember that christ must always have a visible church. ans. your pleasure shall be obeyed, on condition you will not forget, that there is a difference between perpetual visibility, and perpetual purity. as for the answer which you make for us, true it is, we believe the catholic church cannot perish, yet that she may, and did, err in points not fundamental; and that protestants were obliged to forsake these errors of the church, as they did, though not the church for her errors, for that they did not, but continued still members of the church. for it is not all one (though you perpetually confound them) to forsake the errors of the church, and to forsake the church: or to forsake the church in her error, and simply to forsake the church: no more than it is for me to renounce my brothers or my friends vices or errors, and to renounce my brother or my friend. the former then was done by protestants, the latter was not done. nay not only, not from the catholic, but not so much as from the roman, did they separate peromnia; but only in those practices which they conceived superstitious or impious. if you would at this time propose a form of liturgy, which both sides hold lawful, and then they would not join with you in this liturgy, you might have some colour then to say, they renounce your communion absolutely. but as things are now ordered, they cannot join with you in prayers, but they must partake with with you in unlawful practices, and for this reason, they (not absolutely, but thus fare) separate from your communion. and this, i say, they were obliged to do under pain of damnation. not as if it were damnable to hold an error not damnable, but because it is damnable outwardly to profess and maintain it, and to join with others in the practice of it, when inwardly they did not hold it. now had they continued in your communion, that they must have done, viz. have professed to believe, and externally practised your errors, whereof they were convinced that they were errors: which, though the matters of the errors had been not necessary, but only profitable, whether it had not been damnable dissimulation and hypocrisy, i leave it to you to judge. you yourself tell us within two pages after this, that you are obliged, never to speak any one lest lie against your knowledge, §. 2. now what is this but to live in a perpetual lie? 12. as for that which in the next place you seem so to wonder at, that both catholics and protestants, according to the opinion of protestants, may be saved in their several professions, because, forsooth, we both agree in all fundamental points. i answer, this proposition so crudely set down, as you have here set it down, i know no protestant will justify. for you seem to make them teach, that it is an indifferent thing, for the attainment of salvation, whether a man believe the truth or the falsehood; and that they care not in whether of these religions a man live or die, so he die in either of them: whereas all that they say is this, that those amongst you which want means to find the truth, and so die in error; or use the best means they can with industry, and without partiality to find the truth, and yet die in error, these men, thus qualified, notwithstanding these errors may be saved. secondly, for those that have means to find the truth, and will not use them, they conceive, though their case be dangerous, yet if they die with a general repentance for all their sins, known and unknown, their salvation is not desperate. the truths which they hold of faith in christ, and repentance, being as it were an antidote against their errors, and their negligence in seeking the truth. especially, seeing by confession of both sides we agree in much more than is simply, and indispensably necessary to salvation. 13. but seeing we make such various use of this distinction, is it not prodigiously strange that we will never be induced to give in a particular catalogue what points be fundamental? and why, i pray, is it so predigiously strange, that we give no answer to an unreasonable demand? god himself hath told us, (a) luk 22.48. that where much is given, much shall be required; where little is given, little shall be required. to infants, deaf-men, madmen, nothing, for aught we know, is given; and if it be so, of them nothing shall be required. others perhaps may have means only given them to believe, (b) heb. 11.6. that god is, and that he is a rewarder of them that seek him; and to whom thus much only is given, to them it shall not be damnable, that they believe but only thus much. which me thinks is very manifest from the apostle, in the epistle to the hebrews, where having first said, that without faith it is impossible to please god, he subjoins as his reason, for whosoever cometh unto god, must believe that god is, and that he is a rewarder of them that seek him. where, in my opinion, this is plainly intimated, that this is the minimum quod sic, the lowest degree of faith, wherewith, in men capable of faith, god will be pleased: and that with this lowest degree he will be pleased, where means of rising higher are deficient. besides, if without this belief, that god is, and that he is a rewarder of them that seek him, god will not be pleased, than his will is, that we should believe it. now his will it cannot be, that we should believe a falsehood, it must be therefore true, that he is a rewarder of them that seek him. now it is possible, that they which never heard of christ, may seek god: therefore it is true, that even they shall please him, and be rewarded by him; i say, rewarded, not with bringing them immediately to salvation without christ, but with bringing them according to his good pleasure, first, to faith in christ, and so to salvation. to which belief the story of cornelius in the 10. chapter of the acts of the apostles, and s. peter's words to him, are to me a great inducement. for first it is evident he believed not in christ, but was a mere gentile, and one that knew not but men might be worshipped, and yet we are assured that his prayers and alms (even while he was in that state) came up for a memorial before god; that his prayer was heard, and his alms had in remembrance in the sight of god, ver. 4. that upon his then fearing god, and working righteousness, (such as it was) he was accepted with god. but how accepted? not to be brought immediately to salvation, but to be promoted to a higher degree of the knowledge of gods will: for so it is in the 4. and 5. v. call for simon whose surname is peter, he shall tell thee what thou oughtest to do: and at the 33. v. we are all here present before god, to hear all things that are commanded thee of god. so that though even in his gentilism, he was accepted in his present state, yet if he had continued in it, & refused to believe in christ after the sufficient revelation of the gospel to him, and god's will to have him believe it, he that was accepted before, would not have continued accepted still; for then that condemnation had come upon him, that light was come unto him, and he loved darkness more than light. so that (to proceed a step farther) to whom faith in christ is sufficiently propounded, as necessary to salvation, to them it is simply necessary and fundamental to believe in christ, that is, to expect remission of sins and salvation from him, upon the performance of the conditions he requires; among which conditions one is, that we believe what he hath revealed, when it is sufficiently declared, to have been revealed by him: for by doing so, we set to our seal, that god is true, and that christ was sent by him. now that may be sufficiently declared to one (all things considered,) which (all things considered) to another is not sufficiently declared: and consequently that may be fundamental and necessary to one, which to another is not so. which variety of circumstances, makes it impossible to set down an exact catalogue of fundamentals, and proves your request as reasonable, as if you should desire us (according to the fable) to make a coat to fit the moon in all her changes; or to give you a garment that will fit all statures; or to make you a dial to serve all meridian's; or to design particularly, what provision will serve an army for a year: whereas there may be an army of ten thousand, there may be of one hundred thousand. and therefore without setting down a catalogue of fundamentals in particular, (because none that can be given, can universally serve for all men, god requiring more of them to whom he gives more, and less of them to whom he gives less) we must content ourselves by a general description to tell you what is fundamental. and to warrant us in doing so, we have your own example §. 19 where being engaged to give us a catalogue of fundamentals, instead thereof you tell us only in general, that all is fundamental, and not to be disbelieved under pain of damnation, which the church hath defined. as you therefore think it enough to say in general, that all is fundamental which the church hath defined, without setting down in particular a complete catalogue of all things, which in any age the church hath defined (which, i believe, you will not undertake to do; and, if you do, it will be contradicted by your fellows:) so in reason you might think it enough for us also to say in general, that it is sufficient for any man's salvation to believe that the scripture is true, and contains all things necessary for salvation; and to do his best endeavour to find and believe the true sense of it: without delivering any particular catalogue of the fundamentals of faith. 14. neither doth the want of such a catalogue leave us in such a perplexed uncertainty as you pretend. for though perhaps we cannot exactly distinguish in the scripture, what is revealed because it is necessary, from what is necessary, consequently and accidentally, merely because it is revealed: yet we are sure enough, that all that is necessary any way, is there; and therefore in believing all that is there, we are sure to believe all that is necessary. and if we err from the true & intended sense of some, nay of many obscure and ambiguous texts of scripture, yet we may be sure enough, that we err not damnably: because, if we do indeed desire and endeavour to find the truth, we may be sure we do so, and as sure that it cannot consist with the revealed goodness of god, to damn him for error, that desires and endeavours to find the truth. 15. ad §. 2. the effect of this paragraph (for as much as concerns us) is this, that for any man to deny belief to any one thing, be it great or small, known by him, to be revealed by almighty god for a truth, is in effect to charge god with falsehood: for it is to say, that god affirms that to be truth, which he either knows to be not a truth, or which he doth not know to be a truth: and therefore without all controversy this is a damnable sin. to this i subscribe with hand and heart: adding withal, that not only he which knows, but he which believes (nay, though it be erroneously) any thing to be revealed by god, and yet will not believe it nor assent unto it, is in the same case, and commits the same sin of derogation from gods most perfect and pure veracity. 16. ad §. 3. i said purposely (known by himself, and believes himself) for as, without any disparagement of a man's honesty, i may believe something to be false, which he affirms, of his certain knowledge to be true; provided i neither know nor believe that he hath so affirmed: so without any the least dishonour to god's eternal never-failing veracity, i may doubt of, or deny some truth revealed by him, if i neither know nor believe it to be revealed by him. 17. seeing therefore the crime of calling god's veracity into question, and consequently (according to your grounds) of erring fundamentally, is chargeable upon those only, that believe the contrary of any one point known (not by others, but themselves) to be testified by god: i cannot but fear (though i hope otherwise) that your heart condemned you of a great calumny and egregious sophistry in imputing fundamental, and damnable errors to disagreeing protestants; because forsooth, some of them disbelieve, and directly, wittingly, and willingly oppose, what others do believe to be testified by the word of god: the sophistry of your discourse will be apparent, if it be contrived into a syllogism: thus therefore in effect you argue; whosoever disbelieves any thing known by himself to be revealed by god imputes falsehood to god, and therefore errs fundamentally: but some protestants disbelieve those things, which others believe to be testified by god; therefore they impute falsehood to god, and err fundamentally. neither can you with any colour pretend, that in these words known to be testified by god, you meant, not by himself, but by any other: seeing he only in fact affirms, that god doth deceive or is deceived, who denies some things which himself knows or believes to be revealed by god, as before i have demonstrated. for otherwise, if i should deny belief to some things which god had revealed secretly to such a man as i had never heard of, i should be guilty of calling god's veracity into question, which is evidently false. besides, how can it be avoided, but the jesuits and dominicans and franciscans must upon this ground differ fundamentally, and one of them err damnably, seeing the one of them disbelieves, and willingly opposes, what the others believe to be the word of god? 18. whereas you say, that the difference among protestants consists not in this, that some believe some points, of which others are ignorant, or not bound expressly to know: i would gladly know, whether you speak of protestants differing in profession only, or in opinion also. if the first, why do you say presently after, that some disbelieve, what others of them believe? if they differ in opinion, then sure they are ignorant of the truth of each others opinions: it being impossible and contradictious, that a man should know one thing to be true, and believe the contrary; or know it, and not believe it. and if they do not know the truth of each others opinions, then, i hope, you will grant they are ignorant of it. if your meaning were, they were not ignorant, that each other held these opinions, or of the sense of the opinions which they held; i answer, this is nothing to the convincing of their understandings of the truth of them; and these remaining unconvinced of the truth of them, they are excusable if they do not believe. 19 but, ignorance of what we are expressly bound to know, is itself a fault, and therefore cannot be an excuse: and therefore if you could show, that protestants differ in those points, the truth whereof (which can be but one) they were bound expressly to know, i should easily yield that one side must of necessity be in a mortal crime. but for want of proof of this, you content yourself only to say it; and therefore i also might be contented only to deny it, yet i will not, but give a reason for my denial. and my reason is, because our obligation expressly to know any divine truth, must arise from god's manifest revealing of it, and his revealing unto us that he hath revealed it, and that his will is, we should believe it: now in the points controverted among protestants, he hath not so dealt with us, therefore he hath not laid any such obligation upon us. the major of this syllogism is evident, and therefore i will not stand to prove it. the minor also will be evident to him that considers, that in all the controversies of protestants, there is a seeming conflict of scripture with scripture, reason with reason, authority with authority: which how it can consist with the manifest revealing of the truth of either side, i cannot well understand. besides, though we grant that scripture, reason, and authority, were all on one side, and the appearances of the other side all easily answerable: yet if we consider the strange power that education, and prejudices instilled by it, have over even excellent understandings, we may well imagine, that many truths which in themselves are revealed plainly enough, are yet to such or such a man, prepossessed with contrary opinions, not revealed plainly. neither doubt i but god, who knows whereof we are made, and what passions we are subject unto, will compassionate such infirmities, and not enter into judgement with us for those things, which, all things considered, were unavoidable. 20. but till fundamentals (say you) be sufficiently proposed (as revealed by god) is is not against faith to reject them; or rather, it is not possible, prudently to believe them: and points unfundamental being thus sufficiently proposed as diune truths, may not be denied: therefore you conclude, there is no difference between them. answ. a circumstantial point may by accident become fundamental, because it may be so proposed, that the denial of it, will draw after it the denial of this fundamental truth, that all which god says is true. notwithstanding in themselves there is a main difference between them: points fundamental being those only which are revealed by god, and commanded to be preached to all, and believed by all. points circumstantial, being such, as though god hath revealed them, yet the pastors of the church are not bound under pain of damnation particularly to teach them unto all men every where, and the people may be securely ignorant of them. 21. you say, not erring in points fundamental, is not sufficient for the preservation of the church; because any error maintained by it against god's revelation is destructive. i answer. if you mean against god's revelation known by the church to be so, it is true; but impossible that the church should should do so; for ipso facto in doing it, it were a church no longer. but, if you mean against some revelation, which the church by error thinks to be no revelation, it is false. the church may ignorantly such a revelation, and yet continue a church; which thus i prove: that the gospel was to be preached to all nations, was a truth revealed before our saviour's ascension, in these words, go and teach all nations, mat. 28.19. yet through prejudice or inadvertence, or some other cause, the church disbelieved it, as it is apparent out of the 11. and 12. chap. of the acts, until the conversion of cornelius; and yet was still a church. therefore to disbelieve some divine revelation, not knowing it to be so, is not destructive of salvation, or of the being of the church. again, it is a plain revelation of god, that (a) 1 cor. 11.28. the sacrament of the eucharist should be administered in both kinds: and (b) 1 cor. 14.15, 16, 26. that the public hymns and prayers of the church should be in such a language as is most for edification; yet these revelations the church of rome not seeing, by reason of the veil before their eye, their church's supposed infallibility; i hope, the denial of them shall not be laid to their charge, no otherwise than as building hay and stubble on the foundation, not overthrowing the foundation itself. 22. ad § 2. in the beginning of this paragraph, we have this argument against this distinction; it is enough (by d. potter 's confession) to believe some things negatively, i.e. not to deny them; therefore all denial of any divine truth excludes salvation. as if you should say, one horse is enough for a man to go a journey: therefore without a horse no man can go a journey. as if some divine truths, viz. those which are plainly revealed, might not be such, as of necessity were not to be denied: and others, for want of sufficient declaration, deniable without danger. indeed, if d. potter had said there had been no divine truth, declared sufficiently or not declared, but must upon pain of damnation be believed, or at least not denied; then might you justly have concluded as you do: but now, that some may not be denied, and that some may be denied without damnation, why they may not both stand together, i do not yet understand. 23. in the remainder you infer out of d. potter's wórds, that all errors are alike damnable, if the manner of propounding the contrary truths be not different: which, for aught i know, all protestants, and all that have sense must grant. yet i deny your illation from hence, that the distinction of points into fundamental and unfundamental, is vain and uneffectual for the purpose of protestants. for though being alike proposed as divine truths, they are by accident alike necessary, yet the real difference still remains between them, that they are not alike necessary to be proposed. 24. ad §. 5. the next paragraph, if it be brought out of the clouds, will, i believe, have in it these propositions. 1. things are distinguished by their different natures. 2. the nature of faith is taken, not from the matter believed, for than they that believed different matters should have different faiths, but from the motive to it. 3. this motive is god's revelation. 4. this revelation is alike for all objects. 5. protestants disagree in things equally revealed by god: therefore they forsake the formal motive of faith: and therefore have no faith nor unity therein. which is truly a very proper and convenient argument to close up a weak discourse, wherein both the propositions are false for matter, confused and disordered for the form, and the conclusion utterly inconsequent. first, for the second proposition; who knows not that the essence of all habits (and therefore of faith among the rest) is taken from their act, and their object? if the habit be general, from the act and object in general; if the habit be special, from the act and object in special. then for the motive to a thing; that it cannot be of the essence of the thing to which it moves, who can doubt that knows that a motive is an efficient cause, and that the efficient is always to the effect? for the fourth, that god's revelation is alike for all objects, it is ambiguous: and if the sense of it be, that his revelation is an equal motive to induce us to believe all objects revealed by him, it is true, but impertinent: if the sense of it be, that all objects revealed by god are alike (that is, alike plainly and undoubtedly) revealed by him, it is pertinent, but most untrue. witness the great diversity of texts of scripture, whereof some are so plain and evident, that no man of ordinary sense can mistake the sense of them. some are so obscure and ambiguous, that to say, this or this is the certain sense of them, were high presumption. for the fifth; protestants disagree in things equally revealed by god in themselves perhaps, but not equally to them, whose understandings by reason of their different educations are fashioned, and shaped for the entertainment of various opinions, and consequently some of them, more inclined to believe such a sense of scripture, others to believe another; which to say that god will not take into his consideration in judging men's opinions, is to disparage his goodness. but to what purpose is it, that these things are equally revealed to both, (as the light is equally revealed to all blind men) if they be not fully revealed to either? the sense of this scripture, why are they then baptised for the dead? and this, he shall be saved, yet so as by fire, and a thousand others, are equally revealed to you and to another interpreter, that is, certainly to neither. he now conceives one sense of them, and you another; and would it not be an excellent inference, if i should conclude now as you do; that you forsake the formal motive of faith, which is god's revelation, and consequently lose all faith and unity therein? so likewise the jesuits and dominicans, the franciscans and dominicans, disagree about things equally revealed by almighty god: and seeing they do so, i beseech you let me understand, why this reason will not exclude them as well as protestants from all faith and unity therein? thus you have failed of your undertaking in your first part of your title, and that is a very ill omen, especially in points of so straight mutual dependence, that we shall have but slender performance in your second assumpt. which is, that the church is infallible in all her definitions, whether concerning points fundamental, or not fundamental. 25. ad § 7. & 8. the reasons of these two paragraphs, as they were alleged before, so they were before answered, cap. 2. and thither i remit the reader. 26. ad §. 9, 10, 11. i grant that the church cannot without damnable sin, either deny any thing to be true, which she knows to be god's truth: or propose any thing as his truth, which she knows not to be so. but that she may not do this by ignorance or mistake, and so without damnable sin, that you should have proved, but have not. but, say you, this excuse cannot serve: for if the church be assisted only for points fundamental, she cannot but know that she may err in points not fundamental. answ. it does not follow, unless you suppose, that the church knows that she is assisted no farther. but if, being assisted only so far, she yet did conceive by error her assistance absolute and unlimited, or, if knowing her assistance restrained to fundamentals, she yet conceived by error, that she should be guarded, from proposing any thing but what was fundamental, than the consequence is apparently false. but at least she cannot be certain that she cannot err, and therefore cannot be excused from headlong and pernicious temerity in proposing points not fundamental, to be believed by christians as matters of faith. ans. neither is this deduction worth any thing, unless it be understood of such unfundamental points, as she is not warranted to propose by evident text of scripture. indeed, if she propose such, as matters of faith certainly true, she may well be questioned, quo warranto? she builds without a foundation, and says, thus saith the lord, when the lord doth not say so: which cannot be excused from rashness and high presumption; such a presumption, as an ambassador should commit, who should say in his master's name that for which he hath no commission; of the same nature, i say, but of a higher strain: as much as the king of heaven, is greater than any earthly king. but though she may err in some points not-fundamental, yet may she have certainty enough in proposing others; as for example, these, that abraham begat isaac, that s. paul had a cloak, that timothy was sick; because these, though not fundamental, i. e. no essential parts of christianity, yet are evidently, and undeniably set down in scripture, and consequently, may be without all rashness proposed by the church as certain divine revelations. neither is your argument, concluding, when you say, if in such things she may be deceived, she must be always uncertain of all such things. for, my sense may sometimes possibly deceive me, yet i am certain enough that i see what i see, and feel what i feel. our judges are not infallible in their judgements, yet are they certain enough, that they judge aright, and that they proceed according to the evidence that is given, when they condemn a thief, or a murderer to the gallows. a traveller is not always certain of his way, but often mistaken: and doth it therefore follow that he can have no assurance that charing-cross is his right way from the temple to white-hall? the ground of your error here is your not distinguishing between actual certainty and absolute infallibility. geometricians are not infallible in their own science: yet they are very certain of those things which they see demonstrated. and carpenters are not infallible, yet certain of the straightness of those things which agree with their rule and square. so though the church be not infallibly certain, that in all her definitions, whereof some are about disputable and ambiguous matters, she shall proceed according to her rule; yet being certain of the infallibility of her rule, and that in this or that thing she doth manifestly proceed according to it, she may be certain of the truth of some particular decrees, and yet not certain that she shall never decree but what is true. 27. ad § 12. but if the church may err in points not fundamental, she may err in proposing scripture, and so we cannot be assured whether she have not been deceived already. the church may err in her proposition or custody of the canon of scripture, if you understand by the church, any present church of one denomination; for example, the roman, the greek, or so. yet have we sufficient certainty of scripture, not from the bare testimony of any present church, but from universal tradition, of which the testimony of any present church is but a little part. so that here you fall into the fallacy, à dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter. for in effect this is the sense of your argument: unless the church be infallible, we can have no certainty of scripture from the authority of the church: therefore unless the church be infallible, we can have no certainty hereof at all. as if a man should say, if the vintage of france miscarry, we can have no wine from france: therefore, if that vintage miscarry, we can have no wine at all. and, for the incorruption of scripture; i know no other rational assurance we can have of it, than such as we have of the incorruption of other ancient books, that is, the consent of ancient copies: such, i mean for the kind, though it be far greater for the degree of it. and if the spirit of god give any man any other assurance hereof, this is not rational and discursive, but supernatural and infused. and assurance it may be to himself, but no argument to another. as for the infallibility of the church; it is so far from being a proof of scriptures incorruption, that no proof can be pretended for it, but incorrupted places of scripture: which yet are as subject to corruption as any other, and more likely to have been corrupted (if it had been possible) than any other, and made to speak as they do, for the advantage of those men, whose ambition it hath been a long time, to bring all under their authority. now then, if any man should prove the scriptures uncorrupted, because the church says so, which is infallible: i would demand again touching this very thing, that there is an infallible church, seeing it is not of itself evident, how shall i be assured of it? and what can he answer, but that the scripture says so, in these and these places? hereupon i would ask him, how shall i be assured, that the scriptures are incorrupted in these places? seeing it is possible, and not altogether improbable, that these men, which desire to be thought infallible, when they had the government of all things in their own hands, may have altered them for their purpose. if to this he answer again, that the church is infallible, and therefore cannot do so; i hope it would be apparent, that he runs round in a circle, and proves the scriptures incorruption, by the church's infallibility, and the church's infallibility, by the scriptures incorruption; and that is in effect the church's infallibility by the church's infallibility, and the scriptures incorruption by the scriptures incorruption. 28. now for your observation, that some books, which were not always known to be canonical, have been afterwards received for such. but never any book or syllable defined for canonical, was afterwards questioned or rejected for apocryphal: i demand, touching the first sort, whether they were commended to the church by the apostles as canonical, or not? if not, seeing the whole faith was preached by the apostles to the church, and seeing, after the apostles, the church pretends to no new revelations, how can it be an article of faith to believe them canonical? and how can you pretend, that your church, which makes this an article of faith, is so assisted as not to propose any thing as a divine truth which is not revealed by god? if they were, how then is the church an infallible keeper of the canon of scripture, which hath suffered some books of canonical scripture to be lost? and others to lose for a long time their being canonical, at least, the necessity of being so esteemed, and afterwards, as it were by the law of postliminium hath restored their authority and canonicalness unto them? if this was delivered by the apostles to the church, the point was sufficiently discussed, and therefore your church's omission to teach it for some ages, as an article of faith, nay degrading it from the number of articles of faith, and putting it among disputable problems, was surely not very laudable. if it were not revealed by god to the apostles, and by the apostles to the church, then can it be no revelation, and therefore her presumption in proposing it as such, is inexcusable. 19 and then for the other part of it, that never any book or syllable defined for canonical, was afterwards questioned or rejected for apocryphal: certainly it is a bold asseveration, but extremely false. for i demand; the book of ecclesiasticus and wisdom, the epistle of st. james, and to the hebrews, were they by the apostles approved for canonical, or no? if not, with what face dare you approve them, and yet pretend that all your doctrine is apostolical? especially, seeing it is evident that this point is not deducible by rational discourse from any other defined by them. if they were approved by them, this, i hope, was a sufficient definition: and therefore you were best rub your forehead hard, and say, that these books were never questioned. but if you do so, than i shall be bold to ask you, what books you meant in saying before, some books which were not always known to be canonical, have been afterwards received? then for the book of macchabees, i hope, you will say it was defined for canonical before s. gregory's time: and yet he, lib. 19 moral. c. 13. citing a testimony out of it, prefaceth to it after this manner, concerning which matter we do not amiss, if we produce a testimony out of books although not canonical, yet set forth for the edification of the church. for eleazar in the book of macchabees, etc. which, if it be not to reject it from being canonical, is, without question, at least to question it. moreover, because you are so punctual, as to talk of words and syllables, i would know whether before sixtus quintus his time, your church had a defined canon of scripture, or not? if not, then was your church surely a most vigilant keeper of scripture, that for 1500. years had not defined what was scripture, and what was not. if it had, than i demand, was it that, set forth by sixtus? or that, set forth by clement? or a third different from both? if it were that set forth by sixtus, then is it now condemned by clement: if that of clement, it was condemned i say, but sure you will say contradicted and questioned by sixtus; if different from both, then was it questioned and condemned by both, and still lies under the condemnation. but than lastly, suppose it had been true, that both some book not known to be canonical had been received, and that never any after receiving had been questioned: how had this been a sign that the church is infallibly assisted by the holy ghost? in what mood or figure would this conclusion follow out of these premises? certainly, your flying to such poor signs as these are, is to me a great sign, that you labour with penury of better arguments: and that thus to catch at shadows and bulrushes, is a shrewd sign of a sinking cause. 3. ad. §. 13. we are told here, that the general promises of infallibility to the church, must not be restrained only to points fundamental; because then the apostles words and writings may also be so restrained. the argument put in form, and made complete by supply of the concealed proposition, runs thus; the infallibility promised to the present church of any age, is as absolute and unlimited, as that promised to the apostles in their preaching and writings: but the apostles infallibility is not to be limited to fundamentals: therefore neither is the church's infallibility thus to be limited. or thus; the apostles infallibility in their preaching and writing may be limited to fundamentals, as well as the infallibility of the present church: but that is not to be done: therefore this also is not to be done. now to this argument, i answer, that, if by may be as well, in the major proposition, be understood, may be as possibly: it is true, but impertinent. if by it we understand, may be as justly and rightly, it is very pertinent, but very false. so that as d. potter limits the infallibility of the present church unto fundamentals, so another may limit the apostles unto them also. he may do it de facto, but de jure he cannot; that may be done and done lawfully: this also may be done, but not lawfully. that may be done, and, if it be done, cannot be confuted: this also may be done, but, if it be done, may easily be confuted. it is done to our hand in this very paragraph, by five words taken out of scripture, all scripture is divinely inspired. show but as much for the church: show where it is written, that all the decrees of the church are divinely inspired; and the controversy will be at end. besides, there is not the same reason for the church's absolute infallibility, as for the apostles and scripture's. for, if the church fall into error, it may be reform by comparing it with the rule of the apostles doctrine and scripture. but, if the apostles have erred in delivering the doctrine of christianity, to whom shall we have recourse, for the discovering and correcting their error? again, there is not so much strength required in the edifice as in the foundation: and, if but wise men have the ordering of the building, they will make it much a surer thing, that the foundation shall not fail the building, than that the building shall not fall from the foundation. and though the building be to be of brick, or stone, and perhaps of wood; yet, if it may be possibly, they will have a rock for their foundation, whose stability is a much more indubitable thing, than the adherence of the structure to it. now the apostles, and prophets, and canonical writers, are the foundation of the church, according to that of s. paul, built upon the foundation of apostles and prophets; therefore their stability in reason ought to be greater than the church's, which is built upon them. again, a dependant infallibility (especially if the dependence be voluntary) cannot be so certain as that on which it depends: but the infallibility of the church, depends upon the infallibility of the apostles, as the straitness of the thing regulated, upon the straitness of the rule: and besides, this dependence is voluntary; for it is in the power of the church to deviate from this rule; being nothing else but an aggregation of men, of which every one hath freewill, and is subject to passions and error: therefore the church's infallibility, is not so certain as that of the apostles. 31. lastly, quid verba audiam, cum facta videam? if you be so infallible as the apostles were, show it as the apostles did; they went forth (saith s. mark) and preached every where, the lord working with them, and confirming their words with signs following. it is impossible that god should lie, and that the eternal truth should set his hand and seal to the confirmation of a falsehood, or of such doctrine as is partly true, and partly false. the apostles doctrine was thus confirmed, therefore it was entirely true, and in no part either false or uncertain. i say, in no part of that which they delivered constantly, as a certain divine truth, and which had the attestation of divine miracles. for that the apostles themselves, even after the sending of the holy ghost, were, and, through inadvertence or prejudice, continued for a time in an error, repugnant to a revealed truth, it is, as i have already noted, unanswerably evident, from the story of the acts of the apostles. for notwithstanding our saviour's express warrant and injunction, to go and preach to all nations, yet until s. peter was better informed by a vision from heaven, and by the conversion of cornelius; both he and the rest of the church, held it unlawful for them, to go or preach the gospel to any but the jews. 32. and for those things which they profess to deliver as the dictates of humane reason and prudence, and not as divine revelations, why we should take them to be divine revelations, i see no reason; nor how we can do so, and not contradict the apostles▪ and god himself. therefore when s. paul says, in the 1. epist to the corinth. 7.12. to the rest speak i, not the lord; and again, concerning virgins i have no commandment of the lord, but i deliver my judgement: if we will pretend that the lord did certainly speak, what s. paul spoke, and that his judgement was god's commandment, shall we not plainly contradict s. paul, and that spirit by which he wrote? which moved him to write, as in other places, divine revelations, which he certainly knew to be such; so in this place, his own judgement, touching some things which god had not particularly revealed unto him. and, if d. potter did speak to this purpose (that the apostles were infallible only in these things which they spoke, of certain knowledge) i cannot see what danger there were in saying so. yet the truth is, you wrong. d. potter. it is not he, but d. stapleton in him, that speaks the words you cavil at. d. stapleton, saith he, p. 140. is full and punctual to this purpose: then sets down the effect of his discourse l. 8. princ. doct. 4. c. 15. and in that, the words you cavil at; and then p. 150. he shuts up this paragraph with these words, thus d. stapleton. so that, if either the doctrine, or the reason, be not good, d. stapleton not d. potter is to answer for it. 33. neither do d. potter's ensuing words limit the apostle's infallibility to truths absolutely necessary to salvation, if you read them with any candour: for it is evident, he grants the church infallible in truths absolutely necessary; and as evident, that he ascribes to the apostles, the spirit's guidance, and consequently infallibility in a more high and absolute manner than any since them. from whence, thus i argue: he that grants the church infallible in fundamentals, and ascribes to the apostles the infallible guidance of the spirit, in a more high and absolute manner than to any since them, limits not the apostles infallibility to fundamentals; but d. potter grants to the church such a limited infallibility, and ascribes to the apostles, the spirit's infallible guidance in a more high and absolute manner; therefore he limits not the apostles infallibility to fundamentals. i once knew a man out of courtesy help a lame dog over a stile, and he for requital bitten him by the fingers: just so you serve d. potter. he out of courtesy grants you, that those words, the spirit shall lead you into all truth, and shall abide with you ever, though in their high and most absolute sense they agree only to the apostles, yet in a conditional, limited, moderate, secundary sense, they may be understood of the church. but says, that if they be understood of the church, all, must not be simply all, no, nor so large an all, as the apostles all, but all necessary to salvation. and you, to requite his courtesy in granting you thus much, cavil at him, as if he had prescribed these bounds to the apostles also, as well as the present church. whereas, he hath explained himself to the contrary, both in the clause , the apostles, who had the spirit's guidance in a more high and absolute manner than any since them; and in these words ensuing, whereof the church is simply ignorant; and again, wherewith the church is not acquainted. but most clearly in those which being most incompatible to the apostles, you with an &c, i cannot but fear, craftily have concealed: how many obscure texts of scripture which she understands not? how many school-questions which she hath not, happily cannot determine? and for matters of fact, it is apparent that the church may err; and then concludes, that we must understand by all truths, not simply all, but (if you conceive the words as spoken of the church) all truth absolutely necessary to salvation. and yet, beyond all this, the negative part of his answer agrees very well to the apostles themselves; for that all which they were lead into, was not simply all, otherwise s. paul erred in saying, we know in part; but such an all as was requisite to make them the church's foundations. now such they could not be, without freedom from error in all those things which they delivered constantly, as certain revealed truths. for, if we once suppose they may have erred in some things of this nature, it will be utterly undiscernible what they have erred in, and what they have not. whereas though we suppose the church hath erred in some things, yet we have means to know, what she hath erred in, and what she hath not. i mean by comparing the doctrine of the present church, with the doctrine of the primitive church delivered in scripture. but then, last of all, suppose the doctor had said (which i know he never intended) that this promise in this place made to the apostles, was to be understood only of truths absolutely necessary to salvation; is it consequent that he makes their preaching and writing not infallible in points not fundamental? do you not blush for shame at this sophistry? the doctor says, no more was promised in this place; therefore he says no more was promised! are there not other places besides this? and may not that be promised in other places, which is not promised in this? 34. but, if the apostles were infallible in all things proposed by them as divine truths, the like must be affirmed of the church, because d. potter teacheth the said promise to be verified in the church. true, he doth so, but not in so absolute a manner. now what is opposed to absolute, but limited, or restrained? to the apostles than it was made, and to them only, yet the words are true of the church. and this very promise might have been made to it, though here it is not. they agree to the apostles in a higher, to the church in a lower sense: to the apostles in a more absolute, to the church in a more limited sense. to the apostles absolutely for the church's direction: to the church conditionally by adherence to that direction, and so far as she doth adhere to it. in a word, the apostles were lead into all truths by the spirit, efficaciter: the church is led also into all truth by the apostles writings, sufficienter. so that the apostles and the church, may be fitly compared to the star and the wisemen. the star was directed by the finger of god, and could not but go right to the place where christ was: but the wisemen were led by the star to christ; led by it, i say, not efficaciter or irresistibiliter, but sufficienter, so that if they would, they might follow it; if they would not, they might choose. so was it between the apostles writing scriptures, and the church. they in their writing were infallibly assisted to propose nothing as a divine truth, but what was so. the church is also led into all truth, but it is by the intervening of the apostles writings: but it is as the wisemen were led by the star, or as a traveller is directed by a mercurial statue, or as a pilot by his card and compass: led sufficiently, but not irresistibly: led as that she may follow, not so that she must. for, seeing the church is a society of men, whereof every one (according to the doctrine of the romish church) hath freewill in believing, it follows, that the whole aggregate hath freewill in believing. and if any man say that at least it is morally impossible, that of so many whereof all may believe aright, not any should do so: i answer, it is true, if they did all give themselves any liberty of judgement. but if all (as the case is here) captivate their understandings to one of them, all are as likely to err as that one. and he more likely to err than any other, because he may err and thinks he cannot, and because he conceives the spirit absolutely promised to that succession of bishops, of which many have been notoriously and confessedly wicked men, men of the world: whereas this spirit is the spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because he seethe him not, neither knoweth him. besides, let us suppose, that neither in this nor in any other place, god had promised any more unto them, but to lead them into all truth, necessary for their own and other men's salvatition: doth it therefore follow that they were, de facto, led no farther? god indeed is obliged by his veracity to do all that he hath promised, but is there any thing that binds him to do no more? may not he be better than his word, but you will quarrel at him? may not his bounty exceed his promise? and may not we have certainty enough that ofttimes it doth so? god at first did not promise to solomon, in his vision at gibeon, any more than what he asked, which was wisdom to govern his people, and that he gave him. but yet, i hope, you will not deny that we have certainty enough that he gave him something which neither god had promised, nor he had asked. if you do, you contradict god himself: for behold (saith god) because thou hast asked this thing, i have done according to thy word. lo, i have given thee a wise and an understanding heart, so that there was none like thee before thee, neither after thee shall any arise like unto thee. and i have also given thee that which thou hast not asked, both riches, and honour, so that there shall not be any among the kings like unto thee in all thy days. god, for aught appears, never obliged himself by promise, to show s. paul those unspeakable mysteries, which in the third heaven he shown unto him: and yet, i hope, we have certainty enough, that he did so. god promises to those that seek his kingdom, and the righteousness thereof, that all things necessary shall be added unto them, and in rigour by his promise he is obliged to do no more, and, if he give them necessaries he hath discharged his obligation: shall we therefore be so injurious to his bounty towards us, as to say it is determined by the narrow bounds of mere necessity? so, though god had obliged himself by promise to give his apostles infallibility only in things necessary to salvation; nevertheless it is utterly inconsequent, that he gave them no more, than by the rigour of his promise he was engaged to do; or that we can have no assurance of any farther assistance that he gave them: especially when he himself, both by his word, and by his works, hath assured us, that he did assist them farther. you see by this time that your chain of fearful consequences (as you call them) is turned to a rope of sand, and may easily be avoided without any flying to your imaginary infallibility of the church in all her proposals. 35. ad §. 14. & 15 doubting of a book received for canonical, may signify, either doubting whether it be canonical; or supposing it to be canonical, whether it be true. if the former sense were yours, i must then again distinguish of the term, received; for it may signify, either received by some particular church, or by the present church universal, or the church of all ages. if you meant the word in either of the former senses, that which you say is not true. a man may justly and reasonably doubt of some texts, or some book received by some particular church, or by the universal church of this present time, whether it be canonical or no: and yet have just reason to believe, and no reason to doubt, but that other books are canonical. as eusebius perhaps had reason to doubt of the epistle of s. james; the church rome, in hieromes time, of the epistle to the hebrews. and yet they did not doubt of all the books of the canon, nor had reason to do so. if by received, you mean received by the church of all ages, i grant, he that doubts of any one such book, hath as much reason to doubt of all. but yet here again i tell you, that it is possible a man may doubt of one such book, and yet not of all: because it is possible men may do not according to reason. if you meant your words in the latter sense; then i confess, he that believes such a book to be canonical, i. e. the word of god, and yet (to make an impossible supposition) believes it 〈◊〉 not to be true, if he will do according to reason, must doubt of all the rest, and believe none. for there being no greater reason to believe any thing true, than because god hath said it, nor no other reason to believe the scripture to be true, but only because it is god's word; he that doubts of the truth of any thing said by god, hath as much reason to believe nothing that he says: and therefore, if he will do according to reason, neither must nor can believe any thing he says. and upon this ground you conclude rightly, that the infallibility of true scripture must be universal, and not confined to points fundamental. 36. and this reason why we should not refuse to believe any part of scripture, upon pretence that the matter of it is not fundamental, you confess to be convincing. but the same reason you say is as convincing for the universal infallibility of the church. for (say you) unless she be infallible in all things, we cannot believe her in any one. but by this reason your proselytes, knowing you are not infallible in all things, must not, nor cannot believe you in any thing. nay you yourself must not believe yourself in any thing, because you know that you are not infallible in all things. indeed if you had said we could not rationally believe her for her own sake, and upon her own word and authority in any thing, i should willingly grant the consequence. for an authority subject to error can be no firm or stable foundation of my belief in any thing: and if it were in any thing, than this authority being one and the same in all proposals, i should have the same reason to believe all, that i have to believe one: and therefore must either do unreasonably in believing any one thing, upon the sole warrant of this authority; or unreasonably, in not believing all things equally warranted by it. let this therefore be granted; and what will come of it? why then, you say, we cannot believe her in propounding canonical books. if you mean still (as you must do unless you play the sophister) not upon her own authority, i grant it: for we believe canonical books not upon the authority of the present church, but upon universal tradition. if you mean, not at all, and that with reason we cannot believe these books to be canonical, which the church proposes, i deny it. there is no more consequence in the argument than in this, the devil is not infallible, therefore if he says there is one god, i cannot believe him. no geometrician is infallible in all things, therefore not in these things which he demonstrates. m. knot is not infallible in all things, therefore he may not believe that he wrote a book entitled, charity maintained. 37. but though the reply be good, protestants cannot make use of it, with any good coherence to this distinction, and some other doctrines of theirs: because they pretend to be able to tell what points are fundamental and what not; and therefore though they should believe scripture erroneous in others, yet they might be sure it erred not in these. to this i answer. that if without dependence on scripture, they did know what were fundamental, and what not, they might possibly believe the scripture true in fundamentals, and erroneous in other things. but seeing they ground their belief, that such and such things only are fundamentals, only upon scripture, and go about to prove their assertion true, only by scripture, then must they suppose the scripture true absolutely and in all things, or else the scripture could not be a sufficient warrant to them, to believe this thing, that these only points are fundamental. for who would not laugh at them if they should argue thus, the scripture is true in something; the scripture says that these points only are fundamental, therefore this is true, that these only are so! for every freshman in logic knows, that from mere particulars nothing can be certainly concluded. but on the other side, this reason is firm, and demonstrative, the scripture is true in all things; but the scripture says, that these only points are the fundamentals of christian religion; therefore it is true, that these only are so. so that the knowledge of fundamentals being itself drawn from scripture, is so far from warranting us to believe the scripture is, or may be, in part true, and in part false; that itself can have no foundation, but the universal truth of scripture. for, to be a fundamental truth, presupposes to be a truth; now i cannot know any doctrine to be a divine and supernatural truth, or a true part of christianity, but only because the scripture says so which is all true: therefore, much more can i not know it to be a fundamental truth. 38. ad. §. 16. to this paragraph i answer. though, the church being not infallible, i cannot believe her in every thing she says; yet i can and must believe her in every thing she proves, either by scripture, reason, or universal tradition, be it fundamental, or be it not fundamental. this you say, we cannot in points not fundamental, because in such we believe she may err. but this i know, we can: because though she may err in some things, yet she does not err in what she proves, though it be not fundamental. again you say, we cannot do it in fundamentals, because we must know what points be fundamental, before we go to learn of her. not so. but seeing faith comes by hearing, and by hearing those who give testimony to it which none doth but the church and the parts of it; i must learn of the church, or of some part of it, or i cannot know any thing fundamental or not fundamental. for how can i come to know, that there was such a man as christ, that he taught such doctrine, that he and his apostles did such miracles in confirmation of it, that the scripture of god's word, unless i be taught it? so then, the church is, though not a certain foundation and proof of my faith, yet a necessary introduction to it. 39 but the churches infallible direction, extending only to fundamentals, unless i know them before i go to learn of her, i may be rather deluded than instructed by her. the reason and connexion of this consequence, i fear neither i nor you do well understand. and besides, i must tell you, you are too bold in taking that which no man grants you, that the church is an infallible director in fundamentals. for if she were so, then must we not only learn fundamentals of her, but also learn of her what is fundamental, and take all for fundamental which she delivers to be such. in the performance whereof, if i knew any one church to be infallible, i would quickly be of that church. but, good sir, you must needs do us this favour, to be so acute, as to distinguish between being infallible in fundamentals, and being an infallible guide in fundamentals. that there shall be always a church infallible in fundamentals, we easily grant, for it comes to no more but this, that there shall be always a church. but that there shall be always such a church, which is an infallible guide in fundamentals, this we deny. for this cannot be without settling a known infallibility in some one known society of christians, (as the greek or the roman, or some other church) by adhering to which guide, men might be guided to believe aright in all fundamentals. a man that were destitute of all means of communicating his thoughts to others, might yet, in himself, and to himself, be infallible; but he could not be a guide to others. a man or a church that were invisible, so that none could know how to repair to it for direction, could not be an infallible guide, and yet he might be in himself infallible. you see then, there is a wide difference between these two, and therefore i must beseech you not to confound them, nor to take the one for the other. 40. but they that know what points are fundamental, otherwise than by the church's authority, learn not of the church: yes, they may learn of the church, that the scripture is the word of god, and from the scripture, that such points are fundamental, others are not so; and consequently learn, even of the church, even of your church, that all is not fundamental, nay all is not true, which the church teacheth to be so. neither do i see what hinders, but a man may learn of a church, how to confute the errors of that church which taught him: as well as of my master in physic, or the mathematics, i may learn those rules and principles, by which i may confute my master's erroneous conclusions. 41. but you ask, if the church be not an infallible teacher, why are we commanded to hear, to seek, to obey the church? i answer. for commands to seek the church, i have not yet met with any; and, i believe, you, if you were to show them, would be yourself to seek. but yet, if you could produce some such, we might seek the church to many good purposes, without supposing her a guide infallible. and then for hearing and obeying the church, i would fain know, whether none may be heard and obeyed, but those that are infallible? whether particular churches, governors, pastors, paretns be not to be heard and obeyed? or whether all these be infallible. i wonder you will thrust upon us so often, these worn-out objections, without taking notice of their answers. 42. your argument from s. austin's first place, is a fallacy, a dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter. if the whole church practise any of these things, (matters of order and decency, for such only there he speaks of,) to dispute whether that aught to be done, is insolent madness. and from hence you infer, if the whole church practise any thing, to dispute whether it ought to be done, is insolent madness. as if there were no difference between any thing, and any of these things? or, as if i might not esteem it pride and folly, to contradict and disturb the church for matter of order, pertaining to the time and place, and other circumstances, of god's worship; and yet account it neither pride nor folly, to go about to reform some errors, which the church hath suffered to come in, and to vitiate the very substance of god's worship. it was a practice of the whole church in s. austin's time, and esteemed an apostolic tradition, even by saint austin himself, that the eucharist should be administered to infants: tell me, sir, i beseech you; had it been insolent madness to dispute against this practice, or had it not? if it had, how insolent and mad are you, that have not only disputed against it, but utterly abolished it? if it had not, then, as i say, you must understand saint austin's words, not simply of all things; but (as indeed he himself restrained them) of these things, of matter of order, decency, and uniformity. 43. in the next place, you tell us out of him, that that which hath been always kept, is most rightly esteemed to come from the apostles: very right, and what then? therefore the church cannot err in defining of controversies. sir, i beseech you, when you writ again, do us the favour to write nothing but syllogisms: for i find it still an extreme trouble to find out the concealed propositions, which are to connect the parts of your enthymems. as now for example, i profess unto you, i am at my wit's end, and have done my best endeavour, to find some glue, or sodder, or cement, or chain, or thread, or any thing to tie this antecedent and this consequent together, and at length am enforced to give it over, and cannot do it. 44. but the doctrines; that infants are to be baptised, and, those that are baptised by heretics, are not to re● baptised, are neither of them to be proved by scripture: and yet according to s. austin they are true doctrines, and we may be certain of them upon the authority of the church, which we could not be, unless the church were infallible; therefore the church is infallible. i answer▪ that there is no repugnance but we may be certain enough, of the universal traditions of the ancient church; such, as in s. augustine's account, these were which here are spoken of, and yet not be certain enough, of the definitions of the present church. unless you can show (which i am sure you can never do) that the infallibility of the present church, was always a tradition of the ancient church. now your main business is to prove the present church infallible, not so much in consigning ancient tradition, as in defining emergent controversies▪ again, it follows not, because the church's authority is warrant enough for us to believe some doctrine, touching which the scripture is silent; therefore it is warrant enough to believe these, to which the scripture seems repugnant. now the doctrines, which s. austin received upon the church's authority, were of the first sort; the doctrines for which we deny your church's infallibility, are of the second. and therefore though the church's authority might be strong enough to bear the weight which s. austin laid upon it, yet haply it may not be strong enough, to bear that which you lay upon it. though it may support some doctrines without scripture, yet surely not against it. and last of all, to deal ingenuously with you and the world, i am not such an idolater of s. austin, as to think a thing proved sufficiently because he says it, not that all his sentences are oracles; and particularly in this thing, that, whatsoever was practised or held by the universal church of his time, must needs have come from the apostles. though, considering the nearness of his time to the apostles, i think it a good probable way, and therefore am apt enough to follow it, when i see no reason to the contrary. yet, i profess, i must have better satisfaction, before i can induce my myself to hold it certain and infallible. and this, not because popery would come in at this door, as some have vainly feared, but because by the church universal of some time, and the church universal of other times, i see plain contradictions held and practised. both which could not come from the apostles; for then the apostles had been teachers of falsehood. and therefore the belief or practice of the present universal church, can be no infallible proof, that the doctrine so believed, or the custom so practised, came from the apostles. i instance in the doctrine of the millenaries, and the eucharists necessity for infants: both which doctrines have been taught by the consent of the eminent fathers of some ages, without any opposition from any of their contemporaries: and were delivered by them, not as doctors, but as witnesses, not as their own opinions, but as apostolic traditions. and therefore measuring the doctrine of the church by all the rules which cardinal perron gives us for that purpose, both these doctrines must be acknowledged to have been the doctrines of the ancient church of some age or ages; and that the contrary doctrines were catholic at some other time, i believe you will not think it needful for me to prove. so that either i must say, the apostles were fountains of contradictious doctrines, or that being the universal doctrine of the present church, is no sufficient proof that it came originally from the apostles. besides, who can warrant us, that the universal traditions of the church were all apostolical? seeing in that famous place for traditions, in tertullian, (a) de corona militis. c. 3. & 4. where having recounted sundry unwritten traditions then observed by christians, many whereof, by the way, (notwithstanding the council of trents profession, to receive them and the written word with like affection of piety) are now rejected and neglected by the church of rome: for example, immersion in baptism, tasting a mixture of milk and honey presently after; abstaining from baths for a week after; accounting it an impiety to pray, kneeling on the lord's day, or between easter and pentecost: i say, having reckoned up these and other traditions in chap 3. he adds another in the 4. of the veiling of women; and then adds, since i find no law for this, it follows, that tradition must have given this observation to custom, which shall gain in time, apostolic authority by the interpretation of the reason of it. by these examples therefore it is declared, that the observing of unwritten tradition, being confirmed by custom, may be defended. the perseverance of the observation, being a good testimony of the goodness of the tradition. now custom even in civil affairs where a law is wanting, passeth for a law. neither is it material, on which it is grounded, scripture or reason; seeing reason is commendation enough for a law. moreover, if law be grounded on reason, all that must be law, which is so grounded— a quocunque productum— whosoever is the producer of it. do ye think it is not lawful, omni fideli, for every faithful man to conceive and constitute? provided he constitute only what is not repugnant to god's will, what is conducible for discipline, and available to salvation? seeing the lord says, why even of ourselves judge ye not what is right? and a little after, this reason now demand, saving the respect of the tradition— a quocunque traditore censetur, nec authorem respiciens sed authoritatem: from whatsoever tradition it comes, neither regard the author but the authority. quicunque traditor, any author whatsoever is founder good enough for them. and who can secure us that humane inventions, and such as came à quocunque traditore might not in a short time, gain the reputation of apostolic! seeing the direction, than was, (b) hier. pracepta majorum apostolicas traditiones quisque existimat. 45. no less, you say, is s. chrysostom, for the infallible traditions of the church. but you were to prove the church infallible, not in her traditions (which we willingly grant, if they be as universal as the tradition of the undoubted books of scripture is, to be as infallible as the scripture is; for neither doth being written make the word of god, the more infallible, nor being unwritten make it the less infallible:) not therefore in her universal traditions, were you to prove the church infallible, but in all her decrees and definitions of controversies. to this point when you speak, you shall have an answer; but hitherto you do but wander. 46. but let us see what s. chrysostom says, they (the apostles) delivered not all things in writing, (who denies it?) but many things also without writing (who doubts of it?) and these also are worthy of belief. yes, if we knew what they were. but many things are worthy of belief, which are not necessary to be believed: as, that julius caesar was emperor of rome is a thing worthy of belief, being so well testified as it is, but yet it is not necessary to be believed; a man may be saved without it. those many works which our saviour did (which s. john supposes, would not have been contained in a world of books) if they had been written, or if god by some other means had preserved the knowledge of them, had been as worthy to be believed, and as necessary, as those that are written. but to show you how much more a faithful keeper records are than report, those few that were written are preserved & believed; those infinitely more that were not written are all lost and vanished out of the memory of men. and seeing god in his providence hath not thought fit to preserve the memory of them, he hath freed us from the obligation of believing them: for every obligation ceaseth, when it becomes impossible. who can doubt but the primitive christians, to whom the epistles of the apostles were written, either of themselves understood, or were instructed by the apostles, touching the sense of the obscure places of them? these traditive interpretations, had they been written and dispersed, as the scriptures were, had without question been preserved, as the scriptures are. but to show how excellent a keeper of the tradition, the church of rome hath been, or even the catholic church, for want of writing they are all lost, nay were all lost, within a few ages after christ. so that if we consult the ancient interpreters, we shall hardly find any two of them agree about the sense of any one of them. cardinal perron, in his discourse of traditions, having alleged this place for them, hold the traditions, etc. tells us, we must not answer that s. paul speaks here, only of such traditions, which (though not in this epist. to the thess. yet) were afterwards written, and in other books of scripture: because it is upon occasion of tradition (touching the cause of the hindrance of the coming of antichrist) which was never written, that he lays this injunction upon them, to hold the traditions. well, let us grant this argument good, and concluding; and that the church of the thessalonians, or the catholic church (for what s. paul writ to one church, he writ to all) were to hold some unwritten traditions, and among the rest, what was the cause of the hindrance of the coming of antichrist. but what if they did not perform their duty in this point, but suffered this tradition to be lost out of the memory of the church? shall we not conclude, that seeing god would not suffer any thing necessary to salvation to be lost, and he hath suffered this tradition to be lost, therefore the knowledge or belief of it, though it were a profitable thing, yet it was not necessary? i hope you will not challenge such authority over us, as to oblige us to impossibilities, to do that which you cannot do yourselves. it is therefore requisite that you make this command possible to be obeyed, before you require obedience unto it. are you able then to instruct us so well, as to be fit to say unto us, now ye know what witholdeth? or, do you yourselves know that ye may instruct us? can ye, or dare you say, this or this was this hindrance which s. paul here meant, and all men under pain of damnation are to believe it? or if you cannot, (as i am certain you cannot) go then, and vaunt your church, for the only watchful, faithful, infallible keeper of the apostles traditions; when here this very tradition, which here in particular was deposited with the thessalonians and the primitive church, you have utterly lost it, so that there is no footstep or print of it remaining, which with divine faith we may rely upon. blessed therefore be the goodness of god, who, seeing that what was not written, was in such danger to be lost, took order, that what was necessary should be written! saint chrysostom's counsel therefore, of accounting the church's traditions worthy of belief, we are willing to obey: and, if you can of any thing make it appear, that it is tradition, we will seek no farther. but this we say withal, that we are persuaded you cannot make this appear in any thing, but only the canon of scripture; and that there is nothing now extant, and to be known by us, which can put in so good plea, to be the unwritten word of god, as the unquestioned books of canonical scripture, to be the written word of god. 47. you conclude this paragraph with a sentence of s. augustine's, who says, the church doth not approve, nor dissemble, nor do, these things which are against faith or good life: and from hence you conclude, that it never hath done so, nor ever can do so. but though the argument hold in logic à non posse, ad non esse, yet i never heard, that it would hold back, à non esse, ad non posse. the church cannot do this, therefore it does not, follows with good consequence: but the church doth not this, therefore it shall never do it, nor can never do it, this, i believe, will hardly follow. in the epistle next before to the same januarius, writing of the same matter, he hath these words, it remains, that the thing you inquire of, must be of that third kind of things, which are different in divers places. let every one therefore do, that which he finds done in the church to which he comes; for none of them is against faith or good manners. and why do you not infer from hence, that no particular church can bring up any custom that is against faith or good manners? certainly this consequence hath as good reason for it as the former. if a man say of the church of england, (what s. austin of the church) that she neither approves, nor dissembles, nor doth any thing against faith or good manners, would you collect presently, that this man did either make or think the church of england infallible? furthermore, it is observable out of this, and the former epistle, that this church, which did not (as s. austin, according to you, thought) approve or dissemble, or do any thing against faith or good life, did yet tolerate and dissemble vain superstitions, and humane presumptions, and suffer all places to be full of them, and to be exacted, as, nay more severely than, the commandments of god himself. this saint austin himself professeth in this very epistle. this (saith he) i do infinitely grieve at, that many most wholesome precepts of the divine scripture, are little regarded; and in the mean time all is so full of so many presumptions, that he is more grievously found fault with, who during his octaves, toucheth the earth with his naked fooot, than he that shall bury his soul in drunkenness. of these he says, that they were neither contained in scripture, decreed by counsels, nor corroborated by the custom of the universal church. and though not against faith, yet unprofitable burdens of christian liberty, which made the condition of the jews more tolerable than that of christians. and therefore he professeth of them, approbare non possum, i cannot approve them. and, ubi facultas tribuitur, resecanda existimo; i think they are to be cut off, wheresoever we have power. yet so deeply were they rooted, and spread so far, through the indiscreet devotion of the people, always more prone to superstition than true piety, and through the connivance of the governors, who should have strangled them at their birth, that himself, though he grieved at them, and could not allow them, yet for fear of offence he durst not speak against them, multa hujusmodi, propter nonnullarum vel sanctarum vel turbulentarum personarum scandala devitanda, liberius improbare non audeo. many of these things for fear of scandalising many holy persons, or provoking those that are turbulent, i dare not freely disallow. nay, the catholic church itself, did see and dissemble, and tolerate them; for these are the things of which he presently says after, the church of god (and you will have him speak of the true catholic church) placed between chaff and tares, tolerates many things. which was directly against the command of the holy spirit, given the church by s. paul, to stand fast in that liberty wherewith christ hath made her free, and not to suffer herself to be brought in bondage to these servile burdens. our saviour tells the scribes and pharisees, that in vain they worshipped god, teaching for doctrines men's commandments: for that laying aside the commandments of god, they held the traditions of men, as the washing of pots, and cups, and many other such like things. certainly, that which s. austin complains of, as the general fault of christians of his time, was parallel to this: multa (saith he) quae in divinis libris saluberrimè praecepta sunt, minus curantur; this, i suppose, i may very well render in our saviour's words, the commandments of god are laid aside; and then, tam multis praesumptionibus sic pleana sunt omnia, all things, or all places, are so full of so many presumptions, and those exacted with such severity, nay with tyranny, that he was more severely censured, who in the time of his octaves touched the earth with his naked feet, than he which drowned and buried his soul in drink. certainly, if this be not to teach for doctrines men's commandments, i know not what is. and therefore these superstitious christians might be said to worship god in vain, as well as the scribes and pharises. and yet great variety of superstitions of this kind, were then already spread over the church, being different in divers places. this is plain from these words of s. austin concerning them, diversorum locorum diversis moribus innumerabiliter variàntur; and apparent, because the stream of them was grown so violent, that he durst not oppose it, liberiùs improbare non audeo, i dare not freely speak against them. so that to say, the catholic church tolerated all this, and for fear of offence, durst not abrogate or condemn it, is to say (if we judge rightly of it) that the church with silence and connivance generally tolerated christians to worship god in vain. now how this tolerating of universal superstition in the church, can consist with the assistance and direction of god's omnipotent spirit to guard it from superstition, and with the accomplishment of that pretended prophecy of the church, i have set watchmen upon thy walls, o jerusalem, which shall never hold their peace day nor night; besides, how these superstitions being thus nourished, cherished, and strengthened by the practice of the most, and urged with great violence upon others as the commandments of god, and but fearfully opposed or contradicted by any, might in time take such deep root, and spread their branches so far, as to pass for universal customs of the church, he that does not see, sees nothing. especially, considering the catching and contagious nature of this sin, and how fast ill weeds spread, and how true and experimented that rule is of the historian, exempla non consistunt ubi incipiunt, sed quamlibet in tenuem recepta tramitem latissimè evagandi sibi faciunt potestatem. nay, that some such superstition had not already even in s. austin's time, prevailed so far, as to be consuetudine universae ecclesiae roboratum, who can doubt that considers, that the practice of communicating infants, had even then got the credit and authority, not only of an universal custom, but also of an apostolic tradition. 48. but (you will say) notwithstanding all this, s. austin here warrants us, that the church can never either approve, or dissemble, or practise any thing against faith or good life, and so long you may rest securely upon it. yea, but the same s. austin tells us in the same place, that the church may tolerate humane presumptions, and vain superstitions, and those urged more severely than the commandments of god: and whether superstition be a sin or no, i appeal to our saviour's words before cited, and to the consent of your schoolmen. besides, if we consider it rightly, we shall find, that the church is not truly said only to tolerate these things, but rather, that a part, and far the lesser, tolerated and dissembled them in silence, and a part and a far greater, publicly avowed and practised them, and urged them upon others with great violence, and yet continued still a part of the church. now why the whole church might not continue the church, and yet do so, as well as a part of the church might continue a part of it, and yet do so, i desire you to inform me. 49. but now after all this ado, what if s. austin says not this which is pretended of the church, viz. that she neither approves, nor dissembles, nor practices any thing against faith or good life, but only of good men in the church? certainly, though some copies read as you would have it, yet you should not have dissembled, that others read the place otherwise, viz. eccclesia multa tolerat; & tamen quae sunt contra fidem & bonam vitam, nec bonus approbat, etc. the church tolerates many things, and yet what is against faith or good life, a good man will neither approve, nor dissemble, nor practise. 50. ad §. 17. that abraham begat isaac, is a point very far from being fundamental; and yet, i hope, you will grant, that protestants believing scripture to be the word of god, may be certain enough of the truth and certainty of it. for what if they say that the catholic church, and much more themselves may possibly err in some unfundamental points, is it therefore consequent, they can be certain of none such? what if a wiser man than i may mistake the sense of some obscure place of aristotle, may i not therefore without any arrogance or inconsequence, conceive my certain that i understand him in some plain places, which carry their sense before them? and then for points fundamental, to what purpose do you say, that we must first know what they be, before we can be assured that we cannot err in understanding the scriptures; when we pretend not at all to any assurance that we cannot err, but only to a sufficient certainty, that we do not err, but rightly understand those things that are plain, whether fundamental or not fundamental: that god is, and is a rewarder of them that seek him: that there is no salvation but by faith in christ: that by repentance from dead works, and faith in christ, remission of sins may be obtained: that there shall be a resurrection of the body? these we conceive both true, because the scripture says so, and truth's fundamental, because they are necessary parts of the gospel, whereof our saviour says qui non crediderit, damnabitur. all which we either learn from scripture immediately, or learn of those that learn it of scripture; so that neither learned nor unlearned pretend to know these things independently of scripture. and therefore in imputing this to us, you cannot excuse yourself from having done us a palpable injury. 51. ad §. 18. and i urge you as mainly as you urge d. potter and other protestants, that you tell us that all the traditions, and all the definitions of the church are fundamental points, and we cannot wrest from you a list in particular of all such traditions and definitions, without which, no man can tell whether or no he err in points fundamental, and be capable of salvation; (for, i hope, erring in our fundamentals is no more exclusive of salvation than erring in yours.) and, which is most lamentable, instead of giving us such a catalogue, you also fall to wrangle among yourselves about the making of it; some of you, as i have said above, holding some things to be matters of faith, which others deny to be so. 52. ad §. 19 i answer, that these differences between protestants concerning errors damnable and not damnable, truth's fundamental and not-fundamental, may be easily reconciled. for either the error they speak of may be purely and simply involuntary, or it may be in respect of the cause of it voluntary. if the cause of it be some voluntary and avoidable fault, the error is itself sinful, and consequently in its own nature damnable; as, if by negligence in seeking the truth, by unwillingness to find it, by pride, by obstinacy, by desiring that religion should be true which suits best with my ends, by fear of men's ill opinion, or any other worldly fear, or any other worldly hope, i betray myself to any error contrary to any divine revealed truth, that error may be justly styled a sin, and consequently of itself to such a one damnable. but if i be guilty of none of these faults, but be desirous to know the truth, and diligent in seeking it, and advise not at all with flesh and blood about the choice of my opinions, but only with god, and that reason that he hath given me, if i be thus qualified, and yet through humane infirmity fall into error, that error cannot be damnable. again, the party erring may be conceived either to die with contrition for all his sins known and unknown, or without it; if he die without it, this error, in itself damnable, will be likewise so unto him: if he die with contrition (as his error can be no impediment but he may) his error though in itself damnable, to him, according to your doctrine, will not prove so. and therefore some of those authors whom you quote, speaking of errors whereunto men were betrayed, or wherein they were kept by their fault, or vice, or passion, (as for the most part men are:) others speaking of them, as errors simply and purely involuntary, and the effects of humane infirmity: some, as they were retracted by contrition (to use your own phrase); others, as they were not; no marvel though they have passed upon them, some a heavier, and some a milder, some an absolving, and some a condemning sentence. the least of all these errors, which here you mention, having malice enough too frequently mixed with it, to sink a man deep enough into hell: and the greatest of them all, being according to your principles, either no fault at all, or very venial, where there is no malice of the will conjoined with it. and if it be, yet, as the most malignant poison will not poison him that receives with it a more powerful antidote: so, i am confident, your own doctrine will force you to confess, that whosoever dies with faith in christ, and contrition for all sins known and unknown (in which heap all his sinful errors must be comprised) can no more be hurt by any the most malignant and pestilent error, than s. paul by the viper which he shook off into the fire. now touching the necessity of repentance from dead works, and faith in christ jesus the son of god, and saviour of the world, they all agree; and therefore you cannot deny, but they agree about all that is simply necessary. moreover, though, if they should go about to choose out of scripture all these propositions and doctrines which integrate and make up the body of christian religion, peradventure there would not be so an exact agreement amongst them, as some say there was between the 70. interpreters, in translating the old testament; yet thus far without controversy they do all agree, that in the bible all these things are contained, and therefore, that whosoever doth truly and sincerely believe the scripture, must of necessity, either in hypothesi, or at least in thesi, either formally, or at least virtually, either explicitly, or at least implicitly, either in act, or at least in preparation of mind, believe all things fundamental: it being not-fundamental, nor required of almighty god, to believe the true sense of scripture in all places, but only that we should endeavour to do so, and be prepared in mind to do so, whensoever it shall be sufficiently propounded to us. suppose a man in some disease were prescribed a medicine consisting of twenty ingredients, and he, advising with physicians should find them differing in opinion about it, some of them telling him, that all the ingredients were absolutely necessary; some, that only some of them were necessary, the rest only profitable, and requisite ad melius esse; last, some, that some only were necessary, some profitable, and the rest superfluous, yet not hurtful; yet all with one accord agreeing in this, that the whole receipt had in it all things necessary for the recovery of his health, and that, if he made use of it, he should infallibly find it successful: what wise man would not think they agreed sufficiently for his direction to the recovery of his health? just so, these protestant doctors, with whose discords you make such tragedies, agreeing in thesi thus far, that the scripture evidently contains all things necessary to salvation, both for matter of faith, and of practice, and that whosoever believes it, and endeavours to find the true sense of it, and to conform his life unto it, shall certainly perform all things necessary to salvation, and undoubtedly be saved; agreeing, i say thus far, what matters it for the direction of men to salvation, though they differ in opinion, touching what points are absolutely necessary, and what not? what errors absolutely repugnant to salvation, and what not? especially considering that although they differ about the question of the necessity of these truths, yet for the most part they agree in this, that truths they are, and profitable at least, though not simply necessary. and though they differ in the question, whether the contrary errors be destructive of salvation, or no: yet in this they consent, that errors they are, and hurtful to religion, though not destructive of salvation. now that which god requires of us, is this, that we should believe the doctrines of the gospel to be truths, not all necessary truths, for all are not so; and consequently; the repugnant errors to be falsehoods: yet not all such falsehoods, as unavoidably draw with them damnation upon all that hold them; for all do not so. 53. yea but you say, it is very requisite we should agree upon a particular catalogue of fundamental points; for without such a catalogue, no man can be assured whether or no, he hath faith sufficient to salvation. this i utterly deny as a thing evidently false, and i wonder you should content yourself magisterially to say so, without offering any proof of it. i might much more justly think it enough barely to deny it, without refutation, but i will not. thus therefore i argue against it. without being able to make a catalogue of fundamentals, i may be assured of the truth of this assertion, if it be true, that the scripture contains all necessary points of faith, and know that i believe explicitly all that is expressed in scripture, and implicitly all that is contained in them: now he that believes all this, must of necessity believe all things necessary; therefore without being able to make a catalogue of fundamentals, i may be assured that i believe all things necessary, and consequently that my faith is sufficient. i said, of the truth of this assertion, if it be true: because i will not here enter into the question of the truth of it, it being sufficient for my present purpose, that it may be true, and may be believed without any dependence upon a catalogue of fundamentals. and therefore, if this be all your reason, to demand a particular catalogue of fundamentals, we cannot but think your demand unreasonable. especially having yourself expressed the cause of the difficulty of it, and that is, because scripture doth deliver divine truths, but seldom qualifies them, or declares whether they be or be not absolutely necessary to salvation. yet not so seldom, but that out of it i could give you an abstract of the essential parts of christianity, if it were necessary, but i have showed it not so, by confuting your reason, pretended for the necessity of it, and at this time i have no leisure to do you courtesies that are so troublesome to myself. yet thus much i will promise, that when you deliver a particular catalogue of your church-proposals with one hand, you shall receive a particular catalogue of what i conceive fundamental, with the other. for as yet, i see no such fair proceeding as you talk of, nor any performance on your own part of that which so clamorously you require on ours. for, as for the catalogue which here you have given us, in saying, you are obliged under pain of damnation to believe whatsoever the catholic visible church of christ proposeth as revealed by almighty god, it is like a covey of one partridge, or a flock of one sheep, or a fleet composed of one ship, or an army of one man. the author of charity mistaken, demands a particular catalogue of fundamental points; and we (say you) again and again demand such a catalogue. and surely, if this one proposition, which here you think to stop our mouths with, be a catalogue, yet at least such a catalogue it is not, and therefore as yet you have not performed what you require. for, if to set down such a proposition, wherein are comprised all points taught by us to be necessary to salvation, will serve you instead of a catalogue, you shall have catalogues enough. as, we are obliged to believe all under pain of damnation which god commands us to believe. there's one catalogue. we are obliged under pain of damnation, to believe all, whereof we may be sufficiently assured, that christ taught it his apostles, his apostles the church. there's another. we are obliged under pain of damnation to believe god's word, and all contained in it to be true. there's a third. if these generalities will not satisfy you, but you will be importuning us to tell you in particular, what those doctrines are which christ taught his apostles, and his apostles the church, what points are contained in god's word; then i beseech you do us reason, and give us a particular and exact inventory of all your church-proposals, without leaving out, or adding any, such a one which all the doctors of your church will subscribe to, and if you receive not then a catalogue of fundamentals, i for my part will give you leave to proclaim us bankrupts. 54. besides this deceitful generality of your catalogue (as you call it) another main fault we find with it, that it is extremely ambiguous; and therefore to draw you out of the clouds, give me leave to propose some questions to you concerning it. i would know therefore, whether by believing, you mean explicitly or implicitly? if you mean implicitly, i would know, whether your church's infallibility be under pain of damnation to be believed explicitly, or no? whether any other point or points besides this, be under the same penalty, to be believed explicitly, or no? and if any, what they be? i would know what you esteem the proposals of the catholic visible church? in particular, whether the decree of the pope ex cathedra, that is, with an intent to oblige all christians by it, be a sufficient and an obliging proposal? whether men without danger of damnation may examine such a decree, and, if they think they have just cause, refuse to obey it? whether the decree of a council, without the pope's confirmation, be such an obliging proposal, or no? whether it be so in case there be no pope, or in case it be doubtful who is pope? whether the decree of a general council confirmed by the pope, be such a proposal, and whether he be an heretic that thinks otherwise? whether the decree of a particular council confirmed by the pope, be such a proposal? whether the general uncondemned practice of the church for some ages be such a sufficient proposition? whether the consent of the most eminent fathers of any age, agreeing in the affirmation of any doctrine, not contradicted by any of their contemporaries, be a sufficient proposition? whether the father's testifying such or such a doctrine, or practice to be tradition, or to be the doctrine or practice of the church, be a sufficient assurance that it is so? whether we be bound under pain of damnation, to believe every text of the vulgar bible, now authorized by the roman church, to be the true translation of the originals of the prophets, and evangelists, and apostles, without any the least alteration? whether they that lived when the bible of sixtus was set forth, were bound under pain of damnation to believe the same of that? and if not of that, of what bible they were bound to believe it? whether the catholic visible church be always that society of christians which adheres to the bishop of rome? whether every christian, that hath ability and opportunity, be not bound to endeavour to know explicitly the proposals of the church? whether implicit faith in the church's veracity, will not save him that actually and explicitly disbelieves some doctrine of the church, not knowing it to be so; and actually believes some damnable heresy, as that god hath the shape of a man? whether an ignorant man be bound to believe any point to be decreed by the church, when his priest or ghostly father assures him it is so? whether his ghostly father may not err in telling him so, and whether any man can be obliged under pain of damnation, to believe an error? whether he be bound to believe such a thing defined, when a number of priests, perhaps ten or twenty tell him it is so? and what assurance he can have, that they neither err, nor deceive him, in this matter? why implicit faith in christ or the scriptures should not suffice for a man's salvation as well as implicit faith in the church? whether when you say, whatsoever the church proposeth, you mean all that ever she proposed, or that only which she now proposeth; and whether she now proposeth all that ever she did propose? whether all the books of canonical scripture were sufficiently declared to the church to be so, and proposed as such by the apostles? and if not, from whom the church had this declaration afterward? if so, whether all men ever since the apostles time, were bound under pain of damnation to believe the epistle of s. james, and the epistle to the hebrews, to be canonical; at least, not to disbelieve it, and believe the contrary? lastly, why it is not sufficient for any man's salvation to use the best means he can to inform his conscience, and to follow the direction of it? to all these demands when you have given fair and ingenuous answers, you shall hear farther from me. 55. ad §. 20. at the first entrance into this paragraph, from our own doctrine, that the church cannot err in points necessary, it is concluded, if we are wise, we must forsake it in nothing, lest we should forsake it in something necessary. to which i answer, first, that the supposition, as you understand it, is falsely imposed upon us, and as we understand it will do you no service. for when we say, that there shall be a church always, some where or other, unerring in fundamentals, our meaning is but this, that there shall be always a church, to the very being whereof it is repugnant that it should err in fundamentals; for if it should do so, it would want the very essence of a church, and therefore cease to be a church. but we never annexed this privilege to any one church of any one denomination, as the greek or the roman church: which if we had done, and set up some settled certain society of christians, distinguishable from all others by adhering to such a bishop for our guide in fundamentals, than indeed, and then only, might you with some colour, though with no certainty, have concluded that we could not, in wisdom, forsake this church in any point, for fear of forsaking it in a necessary point. but now that we say not this of any one determinate church, which alone can perform the office of guide or director, but indefinitely of the church, meaning no more but this, that there shall be always in some place or other, some church that errs not in fundamentals; will you conclude from hence, that we cannot in wisdom forsake this or that, the roman or the greek church, for fear of erring in fundamentals? 56. yea, but you may say, (for i will make the best i can of all your arguments) that this church thus unerring in fundamentals, when luther arose, was by our confession the roman; and therefore we ought not in wisdom to have departed from it in any thing. i answer, first, that we confess no such thing, that the church of rome was then this church, but only a part of it, and that the most corrupted and most incorrigible. secondly, that if by adhering to that church, we could have been thus far secured, this argument had some show of reason. but seeing we are not warranted thus much by any privilege of that church, that she cannot err fundamentally, but only from scripture, which assures us that she doth err very heinous, we collect our hope, that the truths she retains and the practice of them, may prove an antidote to her against the errors which she maintains in such persons, as in simplicity of heart follow this absalon; we should then do against the light of our conscience, and so sin damnably if we should not abandon the profession of her errors though not fundamental. neither can we thus conclude, we may safely hold with the church of rome in all her points, for she cannot err damnably; for this is falls, she may, though perhaps she doth not: but rather thus; these points of christianity, which have in them the nature of antidotes against the poison of all sins and errors, the church of rome, though otherwise much corrupted, still retains; therefore we hope she errs not fundamentally, but still remains a part of the church. but this can be no warrant to us to think with her in all things: seeing the very same scripture which puts us in hope she errs not fundamentally, assures us that in many things, and those of great moment, she errs very grievously. and these errors though to them that believe them, we hope they will not be pernicious, yet the professing of them against conscience, could not but bring to us certain damnation. as for the fear of departing from some fundamental truths withal, while we depart from her errors, haply it might work upon us, if adhering to her might secure us from it, and if nothing else could: but both these are false. for first, adhering to her in all things cannot secure us from erring in fundamentals: because though de facto we hope she doth not err, yet we know no privileges she hath but she may err in them herself: and therefore we had need have better security hereof than her bare authority. then secondly, without dependence on her at all, we may be secured that we do not err fundamentally; i mean by believing all things plainly set down in scripture, wherein all necessary, and most things profitable, are plainly delivered. suppose i were travelling to london, and knew two ways thither, the one very safe and convenient, the other very inconvenient, and dangerous, but yet a way to london: and that i overtook a passenger on the way, who himself believed, and would fain persuade me, there was no other way but the worse, and would persuade me to accompany him in it, because i confessed his way, though very inconvenient, and very dangerous, yet a way; so that going that way we might come to our journey's end by the consent of both parties: but he believed my way to be none at all; and therefore i might justly fear, lest out of a desire of leaving the worst way, i left the true and the only way: if now i should not be more secure upon my own knowledge, than frighted by this fallacy, would you not beg me for a fool? just so might you think of us, if we would be frighted out of our own knowledge by this bugbear. for the only and the main reason why we believe you not to err in fundamentals, is your holding the doctrines of faith in christ and repentance: which knowing we hold as well as you, notwithstanding our departure from you, we must needs know that we do not err in fundamentals, as well as we know that you in some sort do not err in fundamentals, and therefore cannot possibly fear the contrary. yet let us be more liberal to you, and grant that which can never be proved, that god had said in plain terms, the church of rome shall never destroy the foundation, but withal had said, that it might and would lay much hay and stubble upon it; that you should never hold any error destructive of salvation, but yet many that were prejudicial to edification: i demand, might we have dispensed with ourselves in the believing and professing these errors in regard of the smallness of them? or, had it not been a damnable sin to do so, though the errors in themselves were not damnable? had we not had as plain direction to departed from you in some things profitable, as to adhere to you in things necessary? in the beginning of your book, when it was for your purpose to have it so, the greatness or smallness of the matter was not considerable, the evidence of the revelation was all in all. but here we must err with you in small things, for fear of losing your direction in greater: and for fear of departing too far from you, not go from you at all, even where we see plainly that you have departed from the truth. 57 beyond all this, i say, that this which you say in wisdom we are to do, is not only unlawful, but if we will proceed according to reason, impossible. i mean to adhere to you in all things, having no other ground for it, but because you are (as we will now suppose) infallible in some things, that is, in fundamentals. for whether by skill in architecture a large structure may be supported by a narrow foundation, i know not; but sure i am, in reason no conclusion can be larger than the principles on which it is founded. and therefore if i consider what i do, and be persuaded that your infallibility is but limited, and particular, and partial, my adherence upon this ground cannot possibly be absolute, and universal, and total. i am confident, that should i meet with such a man amongst you (as i am well assured there be many) that would grant your church infallible only in fundamentals, which what they are he knows not, and therefore upon this only reason adheres to you in all things; i say that i am confident, that it may be demonstrated, that such a man adheres to you, with a fiducial and certain assent in nothing. to make this clear (because at the first hearing it may seem strange) give me leave, good sir, to suppose you the man, and to propose to you a few questions, and to give for you such answers to them, as upon this ground you must of necessity give, were you present with me. first, supposing you hold your church infallible in fundamentals, obnoxious to error in other things, and that you know not what points are fundamental, i demand, c. why do you believe the doctrine of transubstantiation? k. because the church hath taught it, which is infallible. c. what? infallible in all things, or only in fundamentals? k. in fundamentals only. c. then in other pointsshe may err? k. she may. c. and do you know what points are fundamental, what not? k. no, and therefore i believe her in all things, lest i should disbelieve her in fundamentals. c. how know you then, whether this be a fundamental point or no? k. i know not. c. it may be then (for aught you know) an unfundamental point? k. yes, it may be so. c. and in these, you said, the church may err? k. yes, i did so. c. then possibly it may err in this? k. it may do so. c. then what certainty have you that it does not err in it? k. none at all, but upon this supposition, that this is a fundamental. c. and this supposition you are uncertain of? k. yes, i told you so before. c. and therefore you can have no certainty of that which depends upon this uncertainty, saving only a suppositive certainty, if it be a fundamental truth; which is in plain english to say, you are certain it is true, if it be both true and necessary. verily sir, if you have no better faith than this, you are no catholic. k. good words i pray! i am so, and god willing will be so. c. you mean in outward profession and practice, but in belief you are not, no more than a protestant is a catholic. for every protestant yields such a kind of assent to all the proposals of the church, for surely they believe them true, if they be fundamental truths. and therefore you must either believe the church infallible in all her proposals, be they foundations, or be they superstructions; or you must believe all fundamental which she proposes, or else you are no catholic. k. but i have been taught, that seeing i believed the church infallible in points necessary, in wisdom i was to believe her in every thing. c. that was a pretty plausible inducement, to bring you hither; but now you are here, you must go farther, and believe her infallible in all things, or else you were as good go back again, which will be a great disparagement to you, and draw upon you both the bitter and implacable hatred of our part, and even, with your own, the imputation of rashness and levity. you see, i hope by this time, that though a man did believe your church infallible in fundamentals, yet he hath no reason to do you the courtesy of believing all her proposals; nay, if he be ignorant what these fundamentals are, he hath no certain ground to believe her, upon her authority, in any thing. and whereas you say, it can be no imprudence, to err with the church; i say, it may be very great imprudence, if the question be, whether we should err with the present church, or hold true with god almighty. 58. but we are, under pain of damnation, to believe and obey h●● in greater things, and therefore cannot in wisdom suspect her credit in m●●●●rs of less moment. answ. i have told you already, that this is falsely to suppose, that we grant that in some certain points, some certain church is infallibly assisted, and under pain of damnation to be obeyed: whereas all that we say is this, that in some place or other, some church there shall be, which shall retain all necessary truths. yet if your supposition were true, i would not grant your conclusion, but with this exception, unless the matter were past suspicion, and apparently certain, that in these things i cannot believe god, ●nd believe the church. for than i hope you will grant, that be the thing of never so little moment, were it, for instance, but that s. paul left his cloak at troas, yet i were not to gratify the church so far, as for her sake to disbelieve what god himself hath revealed. 59 whereas you say, since we are undoubtedly obliged to believe her in fundamentals, and cannot know precisely, what those fundamentals be, we cannot without hazard of our souls leave her in any point; i answer, first, that this argument proceeds upon the same false ground with the former. and then, that i have told you formerly, that you fear where no fear is; and though we know not precisely, just how much is fundamental, yet we know, that the scripture contains all fundamentals, and more too; and therefore that in believing that, we believe all fundamentals and more too. and consequently, in departing from you, can be in no danger of departing from that which may prove a fundamental truth: for we are well assured that certain errors can never prove fundamental truths. 60. whereas you add, that that visible church which cannot err in fundamentals, propounds all her definitions without distinction to be believed under anathemas: answ. again you beg the question, supposing untruly, that there is any that visible church. i mean any visible church of one denomination, which cannot err in points fundamental. secondly, proposing definitions to be believed under anathemas, is no good argument, that the propounders conceive themselves infallible; but only that they conceive the doctrine they condemn is evidently damnable. a plain proof hereof is this, that particular councils, nay, particular men, have been very liberal of their anathemas, which yet were never conceived infallible, either by others or themselves. if any man should now deny christ to be the saviour of the world, or deny the resurrection, i should make no great scruple of anathematising his doctrine, and yet am very far from dreaming of infallibility. 61. and for the visible churches holding it a point necessary to salvation, that we believe she cannot err, i know no such tenet; unless by the church, you mean the roman church, which you have as much reason to do, as that petty king in afric hath, to think himself king of all the world. and therefore your telling us, if she speak true, what danger is it, not to believe her? and if false, that it is not dangerous to believe her, is somewhat like your pope's setting your lawyers to dispute whether constantine's donation were valid or no; whereas the matter of fact was the far greater question, whether there were any such donation, or rather when without question there was none such. that you may not seem to delude us in like manner, make it appear that the visible church doth hold so as you pretend: and then whether it be true or false, we will consider afterwards. but for the present, with this invisible tenet of the visible church, we will trouble ourselves no farther. 62. the effect of the next argument is this, i cannot without grievous sin disobey the church, unless i know she commands those things which are not in her power to command: and how far this power extends, none can better inform me then the church. therefore i am to obey, so far as the church requires my obedience. i answer: first, that neither hath the catholic church, but only a corrupt part of it, declared herself, nor required our obedience, in the points contested among us. this therefore is falsely, and vainly supposed here by you, being one of the greatest questions amongst us. then secondly, that god can better inform us, what are the limits of the church's power, than the church herself, that is, than the roman clergy, who being men subject to the same passions with other men, why they should be thought the best judges in their own cause, i do not well understand! but yet we oppose against them, no humane decisive judges, not any sect or person, but only god and his word. and therefore it is in vain to say, that in following her, you shall be sooner excused, than in following any sect or man applying scriptures against her doctrine: in as much as we never went about to arrogate to ourselves that infallibility or absolute authority, which we take away from you. but if you would have spoken to the purpose, you should have said, that in following her you should sooner have been excused, then in cleaving to the scripture, and to god himself. 63 whereas you say, the fearful examples of innumerable persons, who forsaking the church, upon pretence of her errors, have failed even in fundamental points, aught to deter all christians from opposing her in any one doctrine or practice; this is, just as if you should say, divers men have fallen into scylla, with going too far from charybdis; be sure therefore ye keep close to charybdis: divers leaving prodigality, have fallen into covertousness, therefore be you constant to prodigality: many have fallen from worshipping god perversely and foolishly, not to worship him at all; from worshipping many gods, to worship none; this therefore aught to deter men from leaving superstition or idolatry, for fear of falling into atheism and impiety. this is your counsel and sophistry: but god says clean contrary; take heed you swerve not, either to the right hand or to the left: you must not do evil that good may come thereon; therefore neither, that you may avoid a greater evil, you must not be obstinate in a certain error, for fear of an uncertain. what if some, forsaking the church of rome, have forsaken fundamental truths? was this because they forsook the church of rome? no sure, this is non causa pro causa: for else all that have forsaken that church should have done so, which we say they have not. but because they went too far from her, the golden mean, the narrow way, is hard to be found; and hard to be kept; hard, but not impossible: hard, but yet you must not please yourself out of it, though you err on the right hand, though you offend on the milder part, for this is the only way that leads to life, and few there be that find it. it is true, if we said there were no danger in being of the roman church, and there were danger in leaving it, it were madness to persuade any man to leave it. but we protest and proclaim the contrary, and that we have very little hope of their salvation, who either out of negligence in seeking the truth, or unwillingness to find it, live and die in the errors and impieties of that church: and therefore cannot but conceive those fears to be most foolish, and ridiculous, which persuade men to be constant in one way to hell, lest haply, if they leave it, they should fall into another. 64. but, not only others, but even protestants themselves, whese example ought most to move us, pretending to reform the church, are come to affirm that she perished for many ages: which d. potter cannot deny to be a fundamental error, against the article of the creed, i believe the catholic church, seeing be affirms, donatists erred fundamentally in confining it to africa. to this i answer, first, that the error of the donatists was not, that they held it possible that some, or many, or most, parts of christendom, might fall away from christianity, and that the church may lose much of her amplitude, and be contracted to a narrow compass in comparison of her former extent: which is proved not only possible, but certain, by irrefragable experience. for who knows not that gentilism, and mahumetism, man's wickedness deserving it, and god's providence permitting it, have prevailed, to the utter extirpation of christianity, upon far the greater part of the world? and s. austin when he was out of the heat of disputation, confesses the militant church to be like the moon, sometimes increasing, and sometimes decreasing. this therefore was no error in the donatists, that they held it possible, that the church, from a large extent, might be contracted to a lesser: nor that they held it possible to be reduced to africa; (for why not to afric then, as well as within these few ages, you pretend it was to europe?) but their error was, that they held the facto, this was done when they had no just ground or reason to do so: and so, upon a vain pretence which they could not justify, separated themselves from the communion of all other parts of the church: and that they required it as a necessary condition to make a man a member of the church, that he should be of their communion, and divide himself from all other communions from which they were divided: which was a condition both unnecessary and unlawful to be required, and therefore the exacting of it was directly opposite to the church's catholicism; in the very same nature with their errors who required circumcision, and the keeping of the law of moses, as necessary to salvation. for whosoever requires harder or heavyer conditions of men, than god requires of them, he it is that is properly an enemy of the church's universality, by hindering either men or countries from adjoining themselves to it; which, were it not for these unnecessary and therefore unlawful conditions, in probability would have made them members of it. and seeing the present church of rome persuades men they were as good (for any hope of salvation they have) not be christians, as not be roman catholics; believe nothing at all, as not believe all which she imposes upon them; be absolutely out of the church's communion, as be out of her communion, or be in any other, whether she be not guilty of the same crime, with the donatists and those zelots of the mosaical law, i leave it to the judgement of those that understand reason! this is sufficient to show the vanity of this argument. but i add moreover, that you neither have named those protestants who held the church to have perished for many ages, who perhaps held not the destruction but the corruption of the church; not that the true church, but that the pure church perished: or rather that the church perished not from its life and existence, but from its purity and integrity, or perhaps from its splendour and visibility: neither have you proved by any one reason, but only affirmed it, to be a fundamental error, to hold that the church militant may possibly be driven out of the world, and abolished for a time from the face of the earth. 65. but to accuse the church of any error in faith, is to say, she lost all faith: for this is the doctrine of catholic divines, that one error in faith destroys faith. to which i answer, that to accuse the church of some error in faith, is not to say, she lost all faith: for this is not the doctrine of all catholic divines; but that he which is an heretic in one article, may have true faith of other articles. and the contrary is only said and not showed in charity mistaken. 66. ad §. 21. d. potter says, we may not departed from the church absolutely, and in all things: and from hence you conclude, therefore we may not departed from it; in any thing. and this argument you call a demonstration. but, a fallacy à dicto simpliciter ad dictum secundum quid, was not used heretofore to be called a demonstration. d. potter says not, that you may not departed from any opinion or any practice of the church: for you tell us in this very place, that he says, even the catholic may err: and every man may lawfully departed from error. he only says, you may not cease to be of the church, nor departed from those things which make it so to be; and from hence you infer a necessity of forsaking it in nothing. just as if you should argue thus: you may not leave your friend or brother, therefore you may not leave the vice of your friend, or the error of your brother. what he says of the catholic church, p. 75. the same he extends presently after, to every true, though never so corrupted, part of it. and why do you not conclude from hence, that no particular church (according to his judgement) can fall into any error, and call this a demonstration too? for, as he says, p. 75. that there can be no just cause to departed from the whole church of christ, no more than from christ himself; so p. 76. he tells you, that whosoever forsakes any one true member of this body, forsakes the whole. so that what he says of the one, he says of the other; and tells you, that neither universal nor particular church, so long as they continue so, may be forsaken; he means, absolutely, no more than christ himself may be forsaken absolutely: for the church is the body of christ, and whosoever forsakes either the body, or his coherence to any one part of it, must forsake his subordination, and relation to the head. therefore whosoever forsakes the church, or any christian, must forsake christ himself. 67. but then he tells you plainly in the same place, that it may be lawful and necessary to departed from a particular church in some doctrines and practices: and this he would have said even of the catholic church, if there had been occasion, but there was none. for there he was to declare and justify our departure, not from the catholic church, but the roman; which we maintain to be a particular church. but in other places, you confess his doctrine to be, that even the catholic church may err in points not fundamental; which you do not pretend that he ever imputed to christ himself. and therefore you cannot with any candour interpret his words, as if he had said, we may not forsake the church in any thing, no more than christ himself: but only thus, we may not cease to be of the church, nor forsake it absolutely and totally, no more than christ himself. and thus we see sometimes, a mountain may travel, and the production may be a mouse. 68 ad §. 22. but d. potter either contradicts himself, or else must grant the church infallible; because, he says, if we did not differ from the roman, we could not agree with the catholic: which saying supposes, the catholic church cannot err. answer. this argument, to give it the right name, is an obscure and intricate nothing. and to make it appear so, let us suppose, in contradiction to your supposition, either that the catholic church may err, but doth not, but that the roman actually doth: or, that the catholic church doth err in some few things, but that the roman errs in many more. and is it not apparent in both these cases, (which yet both suppose the church's fallibility) a man may truly say, unless i descent in some opinions from the roman church, i cannot agree with the catholic? either therefore you must retract you imputation laid upon d. potter, or do that which you condemn in him, and be driven to say, that the same man may hold some errors with the church of rome, and at the same time with the catholic church not to hold but condemn them. for otherwise, in neither of these cases is it possible for the same man, at the same time, to agree both with the roman and the catholic. 69. in all these texts of scripture, which are here alleged in this last section of this chapter, or in any one of them, or in any other, doth god say clearly and plainly, the bishop of rome, and that society of christians which adheres to him, shall be ever the infallible guide of faith? you will confess, i presume, he doth not; and will pretend, it was not necessary. yet if the king should tell us, the lord keeper should judge such and such causes; but should either not tell us at all, or tell us but doubtfully, who should be lord-keeper, should we be any thing the nearer for him to an end of contentions? nay rather, would not the dissensions about the person who it is, increase contentions, rather than end them? just so it would have been, if god had appointed a church to be judge of controversies, and had not told us which was that church. seeing therefore god doth nothing in vain, and seeing it had been in vain, to appoint a judge of controversies, and not to tell us plainly who it is; and seeing lastly he hath not told us plainly, no not at all who it is; is it not evident he hath appointed none? obj. but (you will say perhaps) if it be granted once, that some church of one denomination, is the infallible guide of faith, it will be no difficult thing to prove, that yours is the church, seeing no other church pretends to be so. answ. yes, the primitive and the apostolic church pretends to be so. that assures us, that the spirit was promised, and given to them, to lead them into all saving truth, that they might lead others. obj. but that church is not now in the world, and how then can it pretend to be the guide of faith? answ. it is now in the world sufficiently to be our guide; not by the persons of those men that were members of it, but by their writings, which do plainly teach us, what truth they were led into, and so lead us into the same truth. object. but these writings, were the writings of some particular men; and not of the church of those times: how then doth that church guide us by these writings? now these places show that a church is to be our guide, therefore they cannot be so avoided. answ. if you regard the conception and production of these writings, they were the writings of particular men: but if you regard the reception and approbation of them, they may be well called the writings of the church, as having the attestation of the church, to have been written by those that were inspired and directed by god. as a statute, though penned by some one man, yet being ratified by the parliament, is called the act, not of that man, but of the parliament. object. but the words seem clearly enough to prove, that the church, the present church of every age, is universally infallible. ans. for my part, i know i am as willing and desirous, that the bishop or church of rome should be infallible, (provided i might know it) as they are to be so esteemed. but he that would not be deceived must take heed, that he take not his desire that a thing should be so, for a reason that it is so. for, if you look upon scripture, through such spectacles as these, they will appear to you, of what colour pleases your fancies best: and will seem to say, not what they do say, but what you would have them. as some say, the manna, wherewith the israelites were fed in the wilderness, had in every man's mouth, that very taste which was most agreeable to his palate. for my part i profess, i have considered them a thousand times, and have looked upon them (as they say) on both sides, and yet to me they seem to say no such matter. 70. not the first. for the church may err, and yet the gates of hell not prevail against her. it may err, and yet continue still a true church, and bring forth children unto god, and send souls to heaven. and therefore this can do you no service, without the plain begging of the point in question, viz. that every error is one of the gates of hell. which we absolutely deny, and therefore, you are not to suppose, but to prove it. neither is our denial without reason. for seeing you do, and must grant, that a particular church, may hold some error, and yet be still a true member of the church: why may not the universal church hold the same error, and yet remain the true universal? 71. not the second or third. for, the spirit of truth, may be with a man, or a church for ever, and teach him all truth: and yet he may fall into some error, if this all, be not simply all, but all of some kind: which you confess to be so unquestioned and certain, that you are offended with d. potter, for offering to prove it. secondly, he may fall into some error, even contrary to the truth which is taught him, if it be taught him only sufficiently, and not irresistibly, so that he may learn it if he will, not so that he must and shall whether he will or no. now, who can ascertain me, that spirit's teaching is not of this nature; or, how can you possibly reconcile it, with your doctrine of freewill in believing, if it be not of this nature? besides, the word in the original is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which signifies, to be a guide and director only, not to compel or necessitate. who knows not, that a guide may set you in the right way, and you may either negligently mistake, or willingly leave it? and to what purpose doth god complain so often, and so earnestly of some, that had eyes to see and would not see, that stopped their ears, and closed their eyes, lest they should hear and see? of others that would not understand, lest they should do good: that the light shined, and the darkness comprehended it not: that he came unto his own, and his own received him not: that light came into the world, and men loved darkness more than light? to what purpose should he wonder, so few believed his report, and that to so few his arm was revealed: and that when he comes, he should not find no faith upon earth, if his outward teaching were not of this nature, that it might be followed, and might be resisted. and if it be, than god may teach, and the church not learn: god may lead, and the church be refractory and not follow. and indeed, who can doubt, that hath not his eyes vailed with prejudice, that god hath taught the church of rome, plain enough in the epistle to the corinthians, that all things in the church are to be done for edification; and that in any public prayers, or thanks-givings, or hymns, or lessons of instruction, to use a language, which the assistants generally understand not, is not for edification? though the church of rome will not learn this, for fear of confessing an error, and so overthrowing her authority; yet the time will come, when it shall appear, that not only by scripture, they were taught this sufficiently, and commanded to believe it, but by reason and common sense. and so for the communion in both kinds, who can deny but they are taught it by our saviour, joh. 6. in these words, according to most of your own expositions, unless you eat the flesh of the son of man, and drink his blood, you have no life in you. (if our saviour speak there, of the sacrament, as to them he doth, because they conceive he doth so.) for though they may pretend, that receiving in one kind, they receive the blood together with the body, yet they can with no face pretend that they drink it: and so obey not our saviour's injunction according to the letter, which yet they profess, is literally always to be obeyed, unless some impiety, or some absurdity force us to the contrary: and they are not yet arrived to that impudence, to pretend, that either there is impiety or absurdity in receiving the communion in both kinds. this therefore, they, if not others, are plainly taught by our saviour in this place: but by s. paul all without exception, when he says; let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of this bread, and drink of this chalice. this (a man) that is to examine himself, is every man, that can do it: as is confessed on all hands. and therefore it is all one, as if he had said, let every man examine himself, and so let him eat of this bread and drink of this cup. they which acknowledge s. paul's epistles, and s. john's gospel, to be the word of god, one would think should not deny, but that they are taught these two doctrines plain enough. yet we see they neither do, nor will learn them. i conclude therefore, that the spirit may very well teach the church, and yet the church fall into and continue in error, by not regarding what she is taught by the spirit. 72. but all this i have spoken upon a supposition only, and shown unto you, that though these promises had been made unto the present church of every age (i might have said though they had been to the church of rome by name) yet no certainty of her universal infallibility could be built upon them. but the plain truth is, that these promises are vainly arrogated by you, and were never made to you, but to the apostles only. i pray deal ingenuously, and tell me, who were they of whom our saviour says, these things have i spoken unto you being present with you, c. 14.25. but the comforter shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever i have told you, v. 26? who are they to whom he says, i go away and come again unto you; and i have told you before it come to pass, v. 28, 29. you have been with me from the beginning, c. 15. v. 27? and again; these things i have told you, that when the time shall come you may remember that i told you of them: and these things i said not to you at the beginning, because i was with you, c. 16. v. 4. and, because i said these things unto you, sorrow hath filled your hearts, v. 6. lastly, who are they of whom he saith, v. 12. i have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now? do not all these circumstances appropriate this whole discourse of our saviour to his disciples, that were then with him, and, consequently, restrain the promises of the spirit of truth, which was to lead them into all truth, to their persons only? and seeing it is so, is it not an impertinent arrogance and presumption, for you to lay claim unto them, in the behalf of your church? had christ been present with your church? did the comforter bring these things to the remembrance of your church, which christ had before taught, and she had forgotten? was christ then departing from your church? and did he tell of his departure before it came to pass? was your church with him from the beginning? was your church filled with sorrow, upon the mentioning of christ's departure? or lastly, did he, or could he have said to your church, which then was not extant, i have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now? as he speaks in the 13 v. immediately before the words by you quoted. and then goes on, howbeit when the spirit of truth is come, he will guide you into all truth. is it not the same you he speaks to in the 13. v. and that he speaks to in the 14? and is it not apparent to any one that hath but half an eye, that in the 13▪ he speaks only to them that then were with him? besides, in the very text by you alleged, there are things promised, which your church cannot with any modesty pretend to. for there it is said, the spirit of truth not only will guide you into all truth, but also will show you things to come. now your church (for aught i could ever understand) doth not so much as pretend to the spirit of prophecy, and knowledge of future events: and therefore hath as little cause to pretend to the former promise of being led by the spirit into all truth. and this is the reason, why both you in this place, and generally, your writers of controversies, when they entreat of this argument, cite this text perpetually by halfs; there being in the latter part of it, a clear, and convincing demonstration, that you have nothing to do with the former. unless you will say, which is most ridiculous, that when our saviour said, he will teach you, etc. and he will show you, etc. he meant one you in the former clause, and another you in the latter. 73. object. but this is to confine god's spirit to the apostles only, or to the disciples, that then were present with him: which is directly contrary to many places of scripture. answ. i confess, that to confine the spirit of god to those that were then present with christ is against scripture. but, i hope, it is easy to conceive a difference, between confining the spirit of god to them, and confining the promises made in this place to them. god may do many things which he doth not promise at all; much more, which he doth not promise in such or such a place. 74. object. but it is promised in the 14. chap. that this spirit shall abide with them for ever: now they in their persons were not to abide for ever, and therefore the spirit could not abide with them, in their persons for ever, seeing the coexistence of two things, supposes of necessity, the existence of either. therefore the promise was not made to them only in their persons, but by them to the church, which was to abide for ever. answ. your conclusion is, not to them only, but your reason concludes, either nothing at all, or that this promise of abiding with them for ever, was not made to their persons at all; or, if it were, that it was not performed, or, if you will not say (as i hope you will not) that it was not performed, nor that it was not made to their persons at all; then must you grant, that the word for ever, is here used in a sense restrained, and accommodated to the subject here entreated of; and that it signifies, not eternally, without end of time, but perpetually, without interruption, for the time of their lives. so that the force, and sense of the words is, that they should never want the spirit's assistance, in the performance of their function: and that the spirit would not (as christ was to do) stay with them for a time, and afterwards leave them, but would abide with them, if they kept their station, unto the very end of their lives, which is man's for ever. neither is this use of the word, for ever, any thing strange, either in our ordinary speech, wherein we use to say, this is mine for ever, this shall be yours for ever, without ever dreaming of the eternity, either of the thing or persons. and then in scripture, it not only will bear, but requires, this sense very frequently, as exod. 21.6. deut. 15.17. his master shall boar his ear through with an awl, and he shall serve him for ever. psal. 52.9. i will praise thee for ever, psal. 61.4. i will abide in thy tabernacle for ever, psal. 119.111. thy testimonies have i taken as mine heritage for ever. and lastly, in the ep. to philemon, he therefore departed from thee for a time, that thou shouldst receive him for ever. 75. and thus, i presume, i have showed sufficiently, that this for ever, hinders not, but that the promise may be appropriated to the apostles, as by many other circumstances i have evinced it must be. but what now, if the place produced by you, as a main pillar of your church's infallibility, prove upon trial, an engine to batter and overthrow it, at least, (which is all one to my purpose) to take away all possibility of our assurance of it? this will seem strange news to you at first hearing, and not far from a prodigy. and i confess, as you here in this place, and generally all your writers of controversy, by whom this text is urged, order the matter, it is very much disabled, to do any service against you in this question. for with a bold sacrilege, and horrible impiety, somewhat like procrustes his cruelty, you perpetually cut off the head and foot, the beginning and end of it; and presenting to your confidents, (who usually read no more of the bible, than is alleged by you) only these words, i will ask my father, and he shall give you another paraclete, that he may abide with you for ever, even the spirit of truth, conceal in the mean time, the words before, and the words after; that so, the promise of god's spirit, may seem to be absolute, whereas it is indeed most clearly and expressly conditional: being doth in the words before, restrained to those only, that love god, and keep his commandments: and in the words after, flatly denied to all, whom the scriptures style by the name of the world, that is, as the very antithesis gives us plainly to understand, to all wicked and worldly men. behold the place entire, as it is set down in your own bible: if ye love me keep my commandments, and i will ask my father, and he shall give you another paraclete, that he may abide with you for ever, even the spirit of the truth, whom the world cannot receive. now from the place thus restored and vindicated from your mutilation, thus i argue against your pretence. we can have no certainty of the infallibility of your church, but upon this supposition, that your popes are infallible in confirming the decrees of general counsels: we can have no certainty hereof, but upon this supposition, that the spirit of truth is promised to them for their direction in this work: and of this again we can have no certainty, but upon supposal, that they perform the condition, whereunto the promise of the spirit of truth is expressly limited, viz. that they love god and keep his commandments: and of this finally, not knowing the pope's heart, we can have no certainty at all; therefore from the first to the last, we can have no certainty at all of your church's infallibility. this is my first argument. another follows, which will charge you as home as the former. if many of the roman see, were such men as could not receive the spirit of truth, even men of the world, that is, wordly, wicked, carnal, diabolical men; then the spirit of truth is not here promised, but flatly denied them: and consequently we can have no certainty, neither of the decrees of counsels, which these popes confirm, nor of the church's infallibility, which is guided by these decrees: but many of the roman see, even by the confession of the most zealous defenders of it, were such men: therefore the spirit of truth is not here promised, but denied them; and consequently we can have no certainty, neither of the decrees, which they confirm, nor of the church's infallibility, which guides herself by these decrees. 76. you may take as much time as you think fit, to answer these arguments. in the mean while i proceed to the consideration of the next text alleged for this purpose by you; out of s. paul, 1 ep. to timothy, where he saith, as you say, the church is the pillar and ground of truth. but the truth is, you are somewhat too bold with s. paul; for he says not in formal terms, what you make him say, the church is the pillar and ground of truth, neither is it certain that he means so: for it is neither impossible nor improbable, that these words, the pillar and ground of truth, may have reference not to the church, but to timothy, the sense of the place that thou mayst know how to behave thyself, as a pillar and ground of the truth, in the church of god, which is house of the living god, which exposition offers no violence at all to the words, but only supposes an ellipsis of the particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in the greek very ordinary. neither wants it some likelihood, that s. paul comparing the church to a house, should here exhort timothy, to carry himself, as a pillar in that house should do, according as he had given other principal men in the church, the name of pillars; rather then having called the church a house, to call it presently a pillar; which may seem somewhat heterogeneous. yet if you will needs have s. paul refer this not to timothy, but to the church, i will not contend about it any farther, then to say, possibly it may be otherwise. but than secondly, i am to put you in mind, that the church which s. paul here speaks of, was that in which timothy conversed, and that was a particular church, and not the roman; and such you will not have to be universally infallible. 77. thirdly, if we grant you out of courtesy (for nothing can enforce us to it) that he both speaks of the universal church, and says this of it; then i am to remember you, that many attributes in scripture, are not notes of performance, but of duty, and reach us not what the thing or person is of necessity, but what it should be. ye are the salt of the earth, said our saviour to his disciples: not that this quality was inseparable from their persons, but because it was their office to be so. for, if they must have been so of necessity, and could not have been otherwise, in vain had he put in them fear of that which follows, if the salt hath lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted? it is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast forth, and to be trodden under foot. so the church may be by duty, the pillar and ground, that is, the teacher of truth, of all truth, not only necessary, but profitable to salvation; and yet she may neglect and violate this duty, and be in fact the teacher of some error. 78. fourthly and lastly, if we deal most liberally with you, and grant that the apostle here speaks of the catholic church, calls it the pillar and ground of truth, and that not only because it should, but because it always shall and will be so, yet after all this, you have done nothing; your bridge is too short to bring you to the bank where you would be, unless you can show, that by truth here is certainly meant, not only all necessary to salvation, but all that is profitable, absolutely and simply all. for that the true church always shall be the maintainer and teacher of all necessary truth, you know we grant, and must grant; for it is of the essence of the church to be so, and any company of men were no more a church without it, than any thing can be a man, and not be reasonable. but as a man may be still a man, though he want a hand or an eye, which yet are profitable parts; so the church may be still a church, though it be defective in some profitable truth. and as a man may be a man that hath some biles and botches on his body; so the church may be the church, though it have many corruptions both in doctrine and practice. 79. and thus you see we are at liberty from the former places; having showed that the sense of them, either must or may be such as will do your cause no service. but the last you suppose will be a gordian knot, and tie us fast enough: the words are, he gave some apostles, and some prophets, etc. to the consummation of saints, to the work of the ministry, etc. until we all meet into the unity of faith, etc. that we be not hereafter children, wavering and carried up and down with every wind of doctrine. out of which words this is the only argument which you collect, or i can collect for you. there is no means to conserve unity of faith, against every wind of doctrine, unless it be a church universally infallible. but it is impious to say, there is no means to conserve unity of faith against every wind of doctrine: therefore there must be a church universally infallible. whereunto i answer, that your major is so far from being confirmed, that it is plainly confuted by the place alleged. for that tells us of another means for this purpose, to wit, the apostles, and prophets, and evangelists, and pastors, and doctors, which christ gave upon his ascension, and that their consummating the saints, doing the work of the ministry, and edifying the body of christ, was the means to bring those (which are there spoken of, be they who they will) to the unity of faith, and to perfection in christ, that they might not be wavering, and carried about with every wind of false doctrine. now the apostles, and prophets, and evangelists, and pastors, and doctors, are not the present church; therefore the church is not the only means for this end, nor that which is here spoken of. 80. peradventure by he gave, you conceive, is to be understood, he promised that he would give unto the world's end. but what reason have you for this conceit? can you show that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, hath this signification in other places, and that it must have it in this place? or, will not this interpretation drive you presently to this blasphemous absurdity, that god hath not performed his promise? unless you will say, which for shame i think you will not, that you have now, and in all ages since christ have had apostles, and prophets, and evangelists: for as for pastors, and doctors alone, they will not serve the turn. for if god promised to give all these, than you must say, he hath given all, or else that he hath broke his promise. neither may you pretend, that the pastors and doctors were the same with the apostles, and prophets, and evangelists, and therefore having pastors and doctors, you have all. for it is apparent, that by these names, are denoted several orders of men, clearly distinguished and diversified by the original text; but much more plainly by your own translations, for so you read it, some apostles, and some prophets, and other some evangelists, and other some pastors and doctors: and yet more plainly in the parallel place, 1 cor. 12. to which we are referred by your vulgar translation, god hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers; therefore this subterfuge is stopped against you. object. but how can they, which died in the first age, keep us in unity, and guard us from error, that live now, perhaps in the last? this seems to be all one, as if a man should say, that alexander, or julius caesar, should quiet a mutiny in the king of spain 's army. answ. i hope you will grant, that hypocrates, and galen, and euclid, and aristotle, and sallust, and caesar, and livy, were dead many ages since; and yet that we are now preserved from error by them, in a great part of physic, of geometry, of logic, of the roman story. but what if these men had writ by divine inspiration, and writ complete bodies of the sciences they professed, and writ them plainly and perspicuously? you would then have granted, i believe, that their works had been sufficient to keep us from error, and from dissension in these matters. and why then should it be incongruous to say, that the apostles, and prophets, and evangelists, and pastors, and doctors, which christ gave upon his ascension, by their writings, which some of them writ, but all approved, are even now sufficient means, to conserve us in unity of faith, and guard us from error? especially, seeing these writings are, by the confession of all parts, true and divine, and, as we pretend and are ready to prove, contain a plain and perfect rule of faith; and as the * perron. chiefest of you acknowledge, contain immediately, all the principal and fundamental points of christianity, referring us to the church and tradition only for some minute particularities. but tell me i pray, the bishops that composed the decrees of the council of trent and the pope that confirmed them, are they means to conserve you in unity, and keep you from error, or are they not? peradventure you will say, their decrees are, but not their persons: but you will not deny i hope, that you own your unity, and freedom from error, to the persons that made these decrees: neither will they deny, that the writings which they have left behind them, are sufficient for this purpose. and why may not then the apostles writings be as fit for such a purpose, as the decrees of your doctors? surely, their intent in writing was to conserve us in unity of faith, and to keep us from error, and we are sure god spoke in them: but your doctors from whence they are, we are not so certain. was the holy ghost then unwilling, or unable to direct them so, that their writings should be fit and sufficient to attain that end they aimed at in writing? for if he were both able and willing to do so, then certainly he did do so. and then their writings may be very sufficient means, if we would use them as we should do, to preserve us in unity, in all necessary points of faith, and to guard us from all pernicious error. 81. if yet you be not satisfied, but will still pretend, that all these words by you cited, seem clearly enough to prove, that the church is universally infallible, without which, unity of faith could not be conserved against every wind of doctrine: i answer, that to you which will not understand that there can be any means to conserve the unity of faith, but only that which conserveses your authority over the faithful, it is no marvel that these words seem to prove, that the church, nay that your church is universally infallible. but we that have no such end, no such desires, but are willing to leave all men to their liberty, provided they will not improve it to a tyranny over others, we find it no difficulty to discern between dedit and promisit, he gave at his ascension, and he promised to the world's end. besides, though you whom it concerns, may haply flatter yourselves, that you have not only pastors, and doctors, but prophets, and apostles, and evangelists, and those distinct from the former still in your church; yet we that are disinteressed persons, cannot but smile at these strange imaginations. lastly, though you are apt to think yourselves such necessary instruments for all good purposes, and that nothing can be well done unless you do it; that no unity or constancy in religion can be maintained, but inevitably christendom must fall to ruin, and confusion, unless you support it: yet we that are indifferent, and impartial, and well content, that god should give us his own favours, by means of his own appointment, not of our choosing, can easily collect out of these very words, that not the infallibility of your, or of any church, but the apostles, and prophets, and evangelists, etc. which christ gave upon his ascension, were designed by him, for the compassing all these excellent purposes, by their preaching while they lived, and by their writings for ever. and if they fail hereof, the reason is not any insufficiency or invalidity in the means, but the voluntary perverseness of the subjects they have to deal with: who, if they would be themselves, and be content that others should be, in the choice of their religion, the servants of god and not of men; if they would allow, that the way to heaven is no narrower now, then christ left it, his yoke no heavier than he made it; that the belief of no more difficulties, is required now to salvation, than was in the primitive church; that no error is in itself destructive, and exclusive from salvation now, which was not then; if, instead of being zealous papists, earnest calvinists, rigid lutherans, they would become themselves, and be content that others should be plain and honest christians; if all men would believe the scripture, and freeing themselves from prejudice and passion, would sincerely endeavour to find the true sense of it, and live according to it, and require no more of others, but to do so; nor denying their communion to any that do so, would so order their public service of god, that all which do so may without scruple, or hypocrisy, or protestation against any part of it, join with them in it: who doth not see that seeing (as we suppose here, and shall prove hereafter) all necessary truths, are plainly and evidently set down scripture, there would of necessity be among all men, in all things necessary, unity of opinion? and, notwithstanding any other differences that are or could he, unity of communion, and charity, and mutual toleration? by which means, all schism and heresy would be banished the world, and those wretched contentions which now read and tear in pieces, not the coat, but the members and bowels of christ, which mutual pride and tyranny, and cursing, and killing, and damning, would fain make immortal, should speedily receive a most blessed catastrophe. but of this hereafter, when we shall come to the question of schism, wherein i persuade myself, that i shall plainly show, that the most vehement accusers, are the greatest offenders, and that they are indeed at this time, the greatest schismatics, who make the way to heaven narrower, the yoke of christ heavier, the differences of faith greater, the conditions of ecclesiastical communion harder, and stricter, than they were made at the beginning by christ and his apostles: they who talk of unity, but aim at tyraunie, and will have peace with none, but with their slaves and vassals. in the mean while, though i have showed how unity of faith, and unity of charity too, may be preserved without your church's infallibility, yet seeing you modestly conclude from hence, not that your church is, but only seems to be universally infallible, meaning to yourself, of which you are a better judge than i: therefore i willingly grant your conclusion, and proceed. 83. whereas you say, that d. potter limits those promises and privileges to fundamental points; the truth is, with some of them he meddles not at all, neither doth his adversary give him occasion: not with those out of the epistle to timothy, and to the ephesians. to the rest he gives other answer besides this. 83. but the words of scripture by you alleged are universal, and mention no such restraint to fundamentals, as d. potter applies to them: i answer, that, of the five texts which you allege, four are indefinite, and only one universal, and that you confess is to be restrained, and are offended with d. potter for going about to prove it. and whereas you say, they mention no restraint, intimating that therefore they are not to be restrained, i tell you, this is no good consequence; for it may appear out of the matter and circumstances, that they are to be understood in a restrained sense, notwithstanding no restraint be mentioned. that place quoted by s. paul, and applied by him to our saviour, he hath put all things under his feet, mentions no exception; yet s. paul tells us, not only that it is true or certain, but it is manifest, that he is excepted which did put all things under him. 84. but your interpretation is better than d. potter's, because it is literal. i answer, his is literal as well as yours: and you are mistaken if you think a restrained sense may not be a literal sense; for to restrained, literal is not opposed, but unlimited or absolute; and to literal, is not opposed restrained, but figurative. 85. whereas you say, d. potter's brothers, rejecting his limitation, restrain the mentioned texts to the apostles, implying hereby a contrariety between them and him: i answer, so doth d. potter restrain all of them which he speaks of, in the pages by you quoted, to the apostles, in the direct and primary sense of the words: though he tells you there, the words in a more restrained sense are true, being understood of the church universal. 86. as for your pretence, that to find the meaning of those places, you confer divers texts, you consult originals, you examine translations, and use all the means by protestants appointed, i have told you before, that all this is vain and hypocritical, if (as your manner and your doctrine is) you give not yourselves liberty of judgement in the use of these means; if you make not yourselves judges of, but only advocates for, the doctrine of your church, refusing to see what these means show you, if it any way make against the doctrine of your church, though it be as clear as the light at noon. remove prejudice, even the balance, and hold it even, make it indifferent to you which way you go to heaven so you go the true, which religion be true so you be of it, then use the means, and pray for god's assistance, and as sure as god is true, you shall be lead into all necessary truth. 87. whereas you say, you neither do, nor have any possible means to agree, as long as you are left to yourselves: the first is very true, that while you differ, you do not agree. but for the second, that you have no possible means of agreement, as long as you are left to yourselves i. e. to your own reasons and judgement, this sure is very false, neither do you offer any proof of it, unless you intended this, that you do not agree, for a proof that you cannot; which sure is no good consequence, not half so good as this which i oppose against it: d. potter and i, by the use of these means by you mentioned, do agree concerning the sense of these places, therefore there is a possible means of agreement; and therefore you also, if you would use the same means, with the same minds, might agree so far as it is necessary, and it is not necessary that you should agree farther. or if there be no possible means to agree about the sense of these texts, whilst we are left to ourselves, then sure it is impossible that we should agree in your sense of them, which was, that the church is universally infallible. for if it were possible for us to agree in this sense of them, than it were possible for us to agree. and why then said you of the self same texts but in the page next before, these words seem clearly enough to prove that the church is universally infallible. a strange forgetfulness, that the same man, almost in the same breath, should say of the same words, they seem clearly enough to prove such a conclusion true, and yet that three indifferent men, all presumed to be lovers of truth, and industrious searchers of it, should have no possible means, while they follow their own reason to agree in the truth of this conclusion! 88 whereas you say, that, it were great impiety to imagine that god, the lover of souls, hath left no certain infallible means to decide both this and all other differences arising about the interpretation of scripture, or upon any other occasion: i desire you to take heed, you commit not an impiety in making more impieties than god's commandments make. certainly, god is no way obliged either by his promise or his love to give us all things, that we may imagine would be convenient for us, as formerly i have proved at large. it is sufficient that he denies us nothing necessary to salvation. deus non deficit in necessariis, nee redundat in superfluis: so d. stapleton. but that the ending of all controversies, or having a certain means of ending them, is necessary to salvation, that you have often said and supposed, but never proved, though it be the main pillar of your whole discourse. so little care you take how slight your foundations are, so your building make a fair show. and as little care, how you commit those faults yourself, which you condemn in others. for you here charge them with great impiety, who imagine that, god the lover of souls, hath left no infallible means to determine all differences arising about the interpretation of scripture, or upon any other occasion: and yet afterwards being demanded by d. potter, why the questions between the jesuits and dominicans remain undetermined? you return him this cross interrogatory, who hath assured you that the point wherein these learned men differ, is a revealed truth, or capable of definition; or is not rather by plain scripture indeterminable, or by any rule of faith? so then when you say, it were great impiety to imagine that god hath not left infallible means to decide all differences; i may answer, it seems you do not believe yourself. for in this controversy which is of as high consequence as any can be, you seem to be doubtful whether there be any means to determine it. on the other side, when you ask d. potter, who assured him that there is any means to determine this controversy? i answer for him, that you have; in calling it a great impiety to imagine that there is not some infallible means to decide this and all other differences arising about the interpretation of scripture, or upon any other occasion. for what trick you can devise to show that this difference between the dominicans and jesuits, which includes a difference about the sense of many texts of scripture and many other matters of moment, was not included under this and all other differences, i cannot imagine. yet if you can find out any, thus much at least we shall gain by it, that general speeches are not always to be understood generally, but sometimes with exceptions and limitations. 89. but if there be any infallible means to decide all differences, i beseech you name them. you say, it is to consult and hear gods visible church with submissive acknowledgement of her infallibility. but suppose the difference be (as here it is) whether your church be infallible, what shall decide that? if you would say (as you should do) scripture and reason, than you foresee that you should be forced to grant, that these are fit means to decide this controversy, and therefore may be as fit to decide others. therefore to avoid this, you run into a most ridiculous absurdity, and tell us that this difference also, whether the church be infallible, as well as others, must be agreed by a submissive acknowledgement of the church's infallibility. as if you should have said, my brothers, i perceive there is a great contention amongst you, whether the roman church be infallible? if you will follow my advice, i will show you a ready means to end it; you must first agree that the roman church is infallible, and then your contention whether the roman church be infallible, will quickly be at an end. verily, a most excellent advice, and most compendious way of ending all controversies, even without troubling the church to determine them! for why may not you say in all other differences, as you have done in this? agree that the pope is supreme head of the church: that the substance of the bread and wine in the sacrament, is turned into the body and blood of christ: that the communion is to be given to laymen but in one kind: that pictures may be worshipped: that saints are to be invocated: and so in the rest: and then your differences about the pope's supremacy, transubstantiation, and all the rest, will speedily be ended. if you say, the advice is good in this, but not in other cases, i must request you, not to expect always, to be believed upon your word, but to show us some reason, why any one thing, namely the church's infallibility, is fit to prove itself; and any other thing, by name the pope's supremacy, or transubstantiation, is not as fit? or if for shame you will at length confess, that the church's infallibility is not fit to decide this difference, whether the church be infallible, than you must confess it is not fit to decide all: unless you will say, it may be fit to decide all, and yet not fit to decide this, or pretend that this is not comprehended under all. besides, if you grant that your church's infallibility cannot possibly be well grounded upon, or decided by itself, then having professed before, that there is no possible means besides this, for us to agree hereupon, i hope you will give me leave to conclude, that it is impossible upon good ground for us to agree that the roman church is infallible. for certainly, light itself is not more clear than the evidence of this syllogism; if there be no other means to make men agree upon your church's infallibility, but only this, and this be no means; than it is simply impossible for men upon good grounds to agree that your church is infallible: but there is (as you have granted) no other possible means to make men agree hereupon, but only a submissive ackdowledgment of her infallibility, and this is apparently no means; therefore it is simply impossible for men upon good grounds to agree that your church is infallible. 90. lastly, to the place of s. austin, wherein we are advised to follow the way of catholic discipline, which from christ himself by the apostles hath come down even to us, and from us shall descend to all posterity; i answer, that the way which s. austin spoke of, and the way which you commend, being divers ways, and in many things clean contrary, we cannot possibly follow them both; and therefore for you to apply the same words to them is a vain equivocation. show us any way, and do not say, but prove it to have come from christ and his apostles down to us, and we are ready to follow it. neither do we expect demonstration hereof, but such reasons as may make this more probable than the contrary. but if you bring in things into your now catholic discipline, which christians in s. augustine's time held abominable, (as the picturing of god,) and which you must, and some of you do confess to have come into the church seven hundred years after christ: if you will bring in things, as you have done the half communion, with a non obstante, notwithstanding christ's institution, and the practice of the primitive church, were to the contrary: if you will do such things as these, and yet would have us believe, that your whole religion came from christ and his apostles, this we conceive a request too unreasonable for modest men to make, or for wise men to grant. chap. iv to say, that the creed contains all points necessarily to be believed, is neither pertinent to the question in hand, nor in itself true. i say, neither pertinent, nor true. not pertinent: because our question is nor, what points are necessary to be explicitly believed; but what points may be lawfully disbelieved, or rejected after sufficient proposition that they are divine truths. you say, the creed contains all points necessary to be believed: be it so. but doth it likewise contain all points not to be disbelieved? certainly it doth not. for how many truths are there in holy scripture not contained in the creed, which we are not obliged distinctly, and particularly to know and believe, but are bound under pain of damnation not to reject, as soon as we come to know that they are found in holy scripture? and we having already showed, that whatsoever is proposed by god's church as a point of faith, is infallibly a truth revealed by god; it followeth that whosoever denyeth any such point, opposeth god's sacred testimony, whether that point be contained in the creed, or no. in vain then, was your care employed to prove that all points of faith necessary to be explicitly believed, are contained in the creed. neither was that the catalogue which charity mistaken demanded. his demand was (and it was most reasonable) that you would once give us a list of all fundamentals, the denial whereof destroys salvation; whereas the denial of other points not fundamental may stand with salvation, although both these kinds of points be equally proposed as revealed by god. for if they be not equally proposed, the difference will arise from diversity of the proposal, and not of the matter fendamental, or not fundamental. this catalogue only, can show how fare protestants may disagree without breach of unity in faith; and upon this, may other matters depend according to the ground of protestants. but you will never adventure to publish such a catalogue, i say more: you can not assign any one point so great, o● fundamental, that the denial thereof will make a man an heretic, if it be not sufficiently propounded, as a divine truth: nor can you assign any one point so small, that it can without heresy be rejected, if once it be sufficiently represented as revealed by god. 2. nay, this your instance in the creed is not only impertinent, but directly against you. for all points in the creed are not of their own nature fundamental, as i shown (a) cap. 3. n. 3. before: and yet it is damnable to deny any one point contained in the creed. so that it is clear, that to make an error damnable, it is not necessary that the matter be of itself fundamental. 3. moreover, you cannot ground any certainty upon the creed itself, unless first you presuppose that the authority of the church is universally infallible, and consequently that it is damnable to oppose her declarations, whether they concern matters great, or small, contained, or not contained in the creed. this is clear. because we must receive the creed itself upon the credit of the church, without which we could not know that there was any such thing as that which we call the apostles creed: and yet the arguments whereby you endeavour to prove, that the creed contains all fundamental points, are grounded upon supposition, that the creed was made either by the apostles themselves, or by the (b) pag. 216. church of their times from them: which thing we could not certainly know, if the succeeding and still continued church, may err in her traditions: neither can we be assured, whether all fundamental articles which you say were out of the scriptures, summed, and contracted into the apostles creed, were faithfully summed, and contracted, and not one pretermitted, altered, or mistaken, unless we undoubtedly know that the apostles composed the creed; and that they intended to contract all fundamental points of faith into it; or at least that the church of their times (for it seemeth you doubt whether indeed it were composed by the apostles themselves) did understand the apostles aright; and that the church of their times, did intent that the creed should contain all fundamental points. for if the church may err in points not fundamental, may she not also err in the particulars which i have specified? can you show it to be a fundamental point of faith, that the apostles intended to comprise all points of faith necessary to salvation in the creed? yourself say no more than that it is very (c) pag. 241. probable; which is far from reaching to a fundamental point of faith. your probability is grounded upon the judgement of antiquity, and even of the roman doctors, as you say in the same place. but if the catholic church may err, what certainty can you expect from antiquity, or doctors? scripture is your total rule of faith. cite therefore some text of scripture, to prove that the apostles, or the church of their times, composed the creed, and composed it with a purpose that it should contain all fundamental points of faith. which being impossible to be done, you must for the creed itself rely upon the infallibility of the church. 4. moreover, the creed consisteth not so much in the words, as in their sense and meaning. all such as pretend to the name of christians, recite the creed, and yet many have erred fundamentally, as well against the articles of the creed, as other points of faith. it is then very frivolous to say, the creed contains all fundamental points, without specifying, both in what sense the articles of the creed be true, and also in what true sense, they be fundamental. for, both these tasks, you are to perform, who teach that all truth is not fundamental: and you do but delude the ignorant, when you say, that the creed, (d) pag. 216. taken in a catholic (e) sense, comprehendeth all points fundamental; because; with you, all catholic sense is not fundamental: for so it were necessary to salvation that all christians should know the whole scripture, wherein every least point hath a catholic sense. or if, by catholic sense, you understand that sense which is so universally to be known, and believed by all, that whosoever fails therein cannot be saved, you trifle, and say no more than this, all points of the creed in a sense necessary to salvation, are necessary to salvation. or, all points fundamental, are fundamental. after this manner it were an easy thing to make many true prognostications, by saying, it will certainly rain, when it raineth. you say the creed (f) pag. 216. was opened and explaind, in some parts in the creeds of nice, etc. but how shall we understand the other parts, not explained in those creeds? 5. for what article in the creed is more fundamental, or may seem more clear, than that, wherein we believe jesus christ to be the mediator, redeemer, and saviour of mankind, and the founder and foundation of a catholic church expressed in the creed? and yet about this article, how many different doctrines are there, not only of old heretics, as arius, nestorius, eutiches, etc. but also protestants, partly against catholics, and partly against one another? for the said main article of christ's being the only saviour of the world, etc. according to different senses of disagreeing sects, doth involve these, and many other such questions; that faith in jesus christ doth justify alone; that sacraments have no efficiency in justification; that baptism doth not avail infants for salvation, unless they have an act of faith; that there is no sacerdotal absolution from sins; that good works proceeding from god's grace are not meritorious; that there can be no satisfaction for the temporal punishment due to sin, after the guilt or offence is pardoned; no purgatory; no prayers for the dead; no sacrifice of the mass; no invocation; no mediation, or intercession of saints; no inherent justice; no supreme pastor, yea no bishop by divine ordinance; no real presence; no transubstantiation, with divers others. and why? because (forsooth) these doctrines derogate from the titles of mediator, redeemer, advocate, foundation, etc. yea, and are against the truth of our saviour's humane nature, if we believe divers protestants, writing against transubstantiation. let then any judicious man consider, whether d. potter, or others, do really satisfy, when they send men to the creed for a perfect catalogue, to distinguish points fundamental, from those which they say are not fundamental. if he will speak indeed to some purpose, let him say, this article is understood in this sense; and in this sense it is fundamental. that other is to be understood in such a meaning; yet according to that meaning, it is not so fundamental, but that men may disagree, and deny it without damnation. but it were no policy for any protestant to deal so plainly. 6. but to what end should we use many arguments? even yourself are forced to limit your own doctrine, and come to say, that the creed is a perfect catalogue of fundamental points, taken as it was further opened and explained in some parts (by occasion of emergent heresies) in the other catholic creeds of nice, constantinople, (g) pag. 216. ephesus, chalcedon, and athanasius. but this explication, or restriction overthroweth your assertion. for as the apostles creed was not to us a sufficient catalogue, till it was explained by the first council, nor then till it was declared by another, etc. so now also, as new heresies may arise, it will need particular explanation against such emergent errors; and so it is not yet, nor ever will be, of itself alone, a particular catalogue, sufficient to distinguish betwixt fundamental, and not fundamental points. 7. i come to the second part: that the creed doth not contain all main and principal points of faith. and to the end we may not strive about things either granted by us both, or nothing concerning the point in question. i must premise these observations. 8. first, that it cannot be denied, but that the creed is most full and complete, to that purpose for which the holy apostles, inspired by god, meant that it should serve, and in that manner as they did intent it, which was, not to comprehend all particular points of faith, but such general heads, as were most befitting, and requisite for preaching the faith of christ to jews and gentiles, and might be briefly and compendiously set down, and easily learned and remembered. and therefore, in respect of gentiles, the creed doth mention god as creator of all things; and for both jews and gentiles, the trinity, the messiah, and saviour, his birth, life, death, resurrection, and glory, from whom they were to hope remission of sins, and life everlasting, and by whose sacred name they were to be distinguished from all other professions, by being called christians. according to which purpose s. thomas of aquine (h) 2.2. q. 1. art. 8. doth distinguish all the articles of the creed into-these general heads: that some belong to the majesty of the godhead, others to the mystery of our saviour christ's humane nature: which two general objects of faith, the holy ghost doth express and conjoin, joan 17. haec est vita aete●ua, etc. this is life everlasting, that they know thee true god, and whom thou hast sent jesus christ. but it was not their meaning to give us as it were a course of divinity, or a catechism or a particular expression of all points of faith, leaving those things to be performed, as occasion should require, by their own word or writing, for their time, and afterwards for their successors in the catholic church. our question then is not, whether the creed be perfect, as fare as the end for which it was composed, did require; for we believe and are ready to give our lives for this; but only we deny, that the apostles did intent to comprise therein all particular points of belief, necessary to salvation, as even by d. potter's own (k) pag. 235.215. confession, it doth not comprehend agenda, or things belonging to practice, as sacraments, commandments, the acts of hope, and duties of charity, which we are obliged not only to practise, but also to believe be divine infallible faith. will he therefore inter that the creed is not perfect, because it contains not all those necessary and fundamental objects of faith? he will answer, no, because the apostles intended only to express credenda, things to be believed, not practised. let him therefore give us leave to say, that the creed is perfect, because it wanteth none of those objects of belief which were intended to be set down as we explicated before. 9 the second observation is, that to satisfy our question what points in particular be fundamental, it will not be sufficient to allege the creed, unless it contains all such points either expressly, and immediately; or else in such manner, that by evident and necessary consequence they may be deduced from articles both clearly, and particularly contained therein. for if the deduction be doubtful, we shall not be sure, that such conclusions be fundamental: or if the articles themselves which are said to be fundamental, be not distinctly, and particularly expressed, they will not serve us to know, and distinguish all points fundamental, from those which they call, not fundamental. we do not deny, but that all points of faith, both fundamental and not fundamental, may be said to be contained in the creed, in some sense; as for example, implicitly, generally, or in such involved manner. for when explicitly believe the catholic church, we do not implicitly believe whatsoever she proposeth as belonging to faith: or else by way reduction, that is when we are once instructed in the belief of particular points of faith, not expressed, nor by necessary consequence deducible from the creed; we may afterward, by some analogy, or proportion, and resemblance, reduce it to one or-moe of those articles which are explicitly contained in the symbol. thus s. thomas, the cherubin among divines, teacheth (l) 2.2. q. 1, art. 8. ad 6. that the miraculous existence of our blessed saviour's body in the eucharist, as likewise all his other miracles are reduced to god's omnipotency, expressed in the creed. and d. potter saith, the eucharist, (m) pag. 23●. being a seal of that holy union which we have with christour head, by his spirit and faith, and with the saints his members by charity, is evidently included in the communion of saints. but this reductive way, is far from being sufficient to infer out of the articles of god's omnipotency, or of the communion of saints, that our saviour's body is in the eucharist, and much less whether it be only in figure, or else in reality; by transubstantiation, or consubstantiation, etc. and least of all, whether or no these points be fundamental. and you hyperbolise, in saying, the eucharist is evidently included in the communion of saints, as if there could not have been, or was not, a communion of saints, before the blessed sacrament was instituted. yet it is true, that after we know, and believe, there is such a sacrament, we may refer it to some of those heads expressed in the creed, and yet so, as s. thomas refers it to one article, and d. potter to another; and in respect of different analogies or effects, it may be referred to several articles. the like i say of other points of faith, which may in some sort be reduced to the creed, but nothing to d. potter's purpose: but contrarily it showeth, that your affirming such and such points to be fundamental or not fundamental, is theerly arbitrary, to serve your turn, as necessity, and your occasions may require. which was an old custom amongst heretics, as we read in (n) de pectat-origai. 2. 5●●. s. austin; pelagius and coelestius, desiring fraudulently to avoid the hateful name of heresies, affirmed that the question of original sinew may be disputed without danger of faith. but this holy father affirms that it belongs to the foundation of faith. we may (saith he) endure a disputant who errs in other questions not yet diligently examined, not yet diligently established by the whale authority of the church, their error may be borne with: but it must not pass so fare as to attempt to shake the foundation of the church. we see s. augustine placeth the being of a point fundamental or not fundamental, in that it hath been examined, and established by the church, although the point of which he speaketh, namely, orginal sin, be not contained in the creed. 10. out of that which hath been said, i infer, that d. potter's pains in alleging catholic doctors, the ancient fathers, and the council of trent, to prove that the creed contains all points of faith, was needless; since we grant it in manner aforesaid. but d. potter cannot in his conscience believe, that catholic divines, or the council of trent, and the holy fathers did intent, that all points in particular which we are obliged to believe, are contained explicitly in the creed; he knowing well enough, that all catholics hold themselves obliged, to believe all those points which the said council define to be believed under an anathema, and that all christians believe the commandments, sacraments etc. which are not expressed in the creed. 11. neither must this seem strange. for who is ignorant, that summaries, epitomes, and the like brief abstracts, are not intended to specify all particulars of that science, or subject, to which they belong. for as the creed is said to contain all points of faith; so the decalogue comprehends all articles (as i may term them) which concern charity, and good life: and yet this cannot be so understood, as if we were disobliged from performance of any duty, or the eschewing of any vice, unless it be expressed in the ten commandments. for, (to omit the precepts of receiving sacraments, which belong to practice, or manners, and yet are not contained in the decalogue) there are many sins, even against the law of nature, and light of reason, which are not contained in the ten commandments, except only by similitude, analogy, reduction, or some such way. for example, 〈◊〉 we find not expressed in the decalogue, either divers sins, as gluttony, drunkenness, pride, sloth, covetuousness in desiring either things superfluous, or with too much greediness; or divers of our chief obligations, as obedience to princes, and all superiors, not only ecclesiastical, but also civil, whose laws luther, melancthon, calvin, and some other protestants do dangerously affirm not to oblige in conscience, and yet these men think they know the ten commandments: as likewise divers protestants defend usury, to be lawful; and the many treatises of civilians, canonists, and casuists are witnesses, that divers sins against the light of reason, and law of nature, are not distinctly expressed in the ten commandments; although when by others diligence they are found unlawful, they may be reduced to some of the commandments, and yet not so evidently, and particularly but that divers do it in divers manners. 12. my third observation is, that our present question being whether or no the creed contain so fully all fundamental points of faith, that whosoever do not agree in all, and every one of those fundamental articles, cannot have the same substance of faith, nor hope of salvation; if i can produce one, or more points, nor contained in the creed, in which if too do not agree, both of them cannot expect to be saved, i shall have performed as much as i intent; and d. potter must seek out some other catalogue for points fundamental, than the creed. neither is it material to the said purpose, whether such fundamental points rest only in knowledge, and speculation, or belief, or else be farther referred to work and practice. for the habit, o● virtue of faith, which inclineth, and enableth us to believe both speculative and practical verities, is of one and the self same nature, and essence. for example, by the same faith, whereby i speculatively believe there is a god, i likewise believe, that he is to be adored, served, and loved; which belong to practice. the reason is, because the formal object, or motive, for which i yield assent to those different sorts of material objects, is the same in both, to wit, the revelation, or word of god. where, by the way i note, that if the unity, or distinction, and nature of faith were to be taken from the diversity of things revealed, by one faith i should believe speculative verities and by another such as tend to practice, which i doubt whether d. potter himself will admit. 13. hence it followeth, that whosoever denyeth any one main practical revealed truth is no less an heretic, than if he should deny a point resting in belief alone. so that when d potter (to avoid our argument, that all fundamental points are not contained in the creed, because in it there is no mention of the sacraments, which yet are points of so main importance, that protestants make the due administration of them, to be necessary and essential to constiture a church) answereth, that the sacraments are to be (p) pag. 235. reckoned, rather among the agenda of the church, than the credenda; they are rather divine rites and ceremonies, than doctrines; he either grants what we affirm, or in effect says, of two kinds of revealed truths which are necessary to be believed, the creed contains one sort only, ergo, it contains all kind of revealed truths necessary to be believed. our question is not, de nomine, but re; not what be called points of faith, or of practice, but what points indeed be necessarily to be believed, whether they be termed agenda, or credenda: especially the chiefest part of christian perfection consisting more in action, than in barren speculation; in good works, than bare belief; in doing, than knowing. and there are no less contentions concerning practical, than speculative truths: as sacraments, obtaining remission of sin, invocation of saints, prayers for dead, adoration of christ in the sacrament, and many other: all which do so much the more import, as on them, beside right belief, doth also depend our practice, and the ordering of our life. though d. potter could therefore give us (as he will never be able to do) a minute, and exact catalogue of all truths to be believed; that would not make me able enough to know, whether or no i have faith sufficient for salvation; till he also did bring in a particular list, of all believed truths, which tend to practice, declaring which of them be fundamental, which not; that so every man might know, whether he be not in some damnable error, for some article of faith, which farther might give influence into damnable works. 14. these observations being premised, i come to prove, that the creed doth not contain all points of faith necessary to be known and believed. and, to omit, that in general it doth not tell us, what points be fundamental, or not fundamental, which in the way of protestants is most necessary to be known; in particular, there is no mention of the greatest evils, from which man's calamity proceeded, i mean, the sin of the angels, of adam, and of original sin in us: nor of the greatest good from which we expect all good, to wit, the necessity of grace for all works tending to piety. nay, there is no mention of angels good or bad. the meaning of that most general head (oportet accedentem, etc. it behoves (q) heb. 11.6. him that comes to god, to believe that he is, and is a remunerator,) is questioned, by the denial of merit, which makes god a giver, but not a rewarder. it is not expressed whether the article of remission of sins be understood by faith alone, or else may admit the efficiency of sacraments. there is no mention of ecclesiastical, apostolical, divine traditions, one way or other; or of holy scriptures in general, and much less of every book in particular; nor of the name, nature, number, effects, matter, form, minister, intention, necessity of sacraments; and yet the due administration of sacraments, is with protestants an essential note, of the church. there is nothing for baptism of children, nor against rebaptisation. there is no mention in favour, or against the sacrifice of the mass, or power in the church to institute rites, holy days, etc. and to inflict excommunication, or other censures: or priesthood, bishops, and the whole ecclesiastical hierarchy, which are very fundamental points; of s. peter's primacy, which to calvin seemeth a fundamental error; not of the possibility, or impossibility to keep god's commandments; of the procession of the holy ghost from the father and son; of purgatory, or prayer for the dead, in any sense: and yet d. potter doth not deny, but that aerius was esteemed an heretic, for denying (r) pag. 35. all sort of commemoration for the dead. nothing of the church's visibility or invisibility, fallibility, or infallibility; nor of other points controverted betwixt protestants themselves, and between protestants and catholics, which to d. potter seem so heinous corruptions, that they cannot without damnation join with us in profession thereof. there is no mention of the cessation of the old law, which yet is a very main point of faith. and many other might be also added. 15. but what need we labour to specify particulars? there are as many important points of faith not expressed in the creed, as, since the world's beginning, now, and for all future times there have been, are, and may be innumerable, gross, damnable heresies, whose contrary truths are not contained in the creed. for, every, fundamental error must have a contrary fundamental truth; because of two contradictory propositions in the same degree, if the one is false, the other must be true. as for example, if it be a damnable error to deny the blessed trinity, or the godhead of our saviour, the belief of them must be a truth necessary to salvation; or rather, if we will speak properly, the error is damnable, because the opposite truth is necessary, as death is frightful, because life is sweet; and according to philosophy, the privation is measured by the form to which it is repugnant. if therefore the creed contain in particular all fundamental points of faith, it must explicitly, or by clear consequence, comprehend all truth's opposite to innumerable heresies of all ages past, present, and to come, which no man in his wits will affirm it to do. 16 and here i cannot omit to signify how you (s) pag. 255. applaud the saying of d. usher, that in those propositions which without all controversy are universally received in the whole christian world, so much truth is contained, as being joined with holy obedience, may be sufficient to bring a man to everlasting salvation; neither have we cause to doubt, but that as many as walk according to this rule (neither overthrowing that which they have builded, by superinducing any damnable heresies thereupon, nor otherwise vitiating their holy faith, with a lewd and wicked conversation) peace shall be upon them, and upon the israel of god. now d. potter knows, that the mystery of the b. trinity is not universally received in the whole christian world, as appears by very many heretics, in polony, hungary, and transilvania, and therefore according to this rule of d. usher, approved by d. potter, the denial of the b. trinity, shall not exclude salvation. 17. let me note, by the way, that you might easily have espied a foul contradiction in the said words of d. usher, by you recited, and so much applauded. for he supposeth, that a man agrees with other churches in belief, which joined with holy obedience may bring him to everlasting salvation, and yet, that he may superinduce damnable heresies. for how can he superinduce damnable heresies, who is supposed to believe all truth's necessary to salvation? can there be any damnable heresy, unless it contradict some necessary truth, which cannot happen in one who is supposed to believe all necessary truths? besides, if one believing all fundamental articles in the creed may superinduce damnable heresies, it followeth, that the fundamental truth's contrary to those damnable heresies, are not contained in the creed. 18. according to this model of d. potter's foundation, consisting in the agreement of scarceone point of faith; what a strange church would he make of men concurring in some one or few articles of belief, who yet for the rest should be holding conceits plainly contradictory: so patching up a religion of men, who agree only in the article, that christ is our saviour, but for the rest, are like to the parts of a chimaera; having the head of a man, the neck of horse, the shoulder of an ox, the foot of a lion, etc. i wrong them not herein. for in good philosophy there is greater repugnancy between assent and descent, affirmation and negation, est, est, non, non, (especially when all these contradictories pretend to rely upon one and the self same motive, the infallible truth of almighty god) than between the integral parts, as head, neck, etc. of a man, horse, lion, etc. and thus protestants are far more bold to disagree even in matters of faith, than catholic divines in questions merely philosophical, or not determined by the church. and while thus they stand only upon fundamental articles, they do by their own confession destroy the church, which is the house of god. for the foundation alone of a house is not a house, nor can they in such an imaginary church any more expect salvation, than the foundation alone of a house is fit to afford a man habitation. 19 moreover, it is most evident that protestants by this chaos rather than church, do give unavoidable occasion of desperation to poor souls. let some one who is desirous to save his soul repair to d. potter, who maintains these grounds, to know upon whom he may rely, in a matter of so great consequence; i suppose the doctor's answer will be, upon the truly catholic church. she cannot err damnably. what understand you by the catholic church? cannot general counsels, which are the church representative, err? yes, they may weakly, or (t) pag. 167. wilfully misapply, or misunderstand, or neglect scripture, and so err damnably. to whom then shall i go for my particular instruction? i cannot confer with the united body of the whole church about my particular difficulties, as yourself affirms, that the catholic church cannot be told (u) pag. 27. of private injuries. must i then consult with every particular person of the catholic church? so it seems by what you writ in these wo●ds, the whole (w) pag. 150. militant church (that is, all the members of it) cannot possibly err, either in the whole faith, or any necessary article of it. you say m. doctor, i cannot for my instruction acquaint the universal church with my particular scruples. you say, the prelate's of god's church meeting in a lawful general council may err damnably: it remains then that for my necessary instruction, i must repair to every particular member of the universal church, spread over the face of the earth: and yet you teach that the promises (x) pag. 151. which our lord hath made unto his church for his assistance, are intended not to any particular persons or churches, but only to the church catholic, with which (as i said) it is impossible for me to confer. alas! o most uncomfortable ghostly father, you drive me to desperation! how shall i confer with every christian soul, man and woman, by sea and by land, close prisoner or at liberty? etc. yet, upon supposal of this miraculous pilgrimage for faith, before i have the faith of miracles, how shall i proceed at our meeting? or how shall i know the man on whom i may securely rely? procure (will you say) to know whether he believe all fundamental points of faith. for if he do, his faith, for point of belief, is sufficient for salvation, though he err in an hundred things of less moment. but how shall i know, whether he hold all fundamental points or no? for till you tell me this, i cannot know whether or no his belief be sound in all fundamental points. can you say the creed? yes and so can many damnable heretics. but why do you ask me this question? because the creed contains all fundamental points of faith. are you sure of that? not sure: i hold it very probable. (y) pag. 241. shall i hazard my soul on probabilities, or even wagers? this yields a new cause of despair. but what? doth the creed contain all points necessary to be believed, whether they rest in the understanding, or else do further extend to practice? no. it was composed to deliver credenda, not agenda to us; faith, not practice. how then shall i know what points of belief, which direct my practice, be necessary to salvation? still you chalk out new paths for desperation. well, are all articles of the creed, for their nature and matter, fundamental? i cannot say so. how then shall i know which in particular be and which be not fundamental? read my answer to a late popish pamphlet entitled charity mistaken, etc. there you shall find, that fundamental doctrines are such catholic verities, as principally and essentially pertain (z) pag. 211, 213, 214. to be faith, such as properly constitute a church, and are necessary (in ordinary course) to be distinctly believed by every christian that will be saved. they are those grand, and capital doctrines which make up our faith in christ; that is, that common faith which is alike precious in all, being one and the same in the highest apostle, and the meanest believer, which the apostle elsewhere calls the first principles of the oracles of god, and, the form of sound words. but how shall i apply these general definitions, or descriptions, or (to say the truth) these only varied words and phrases (for i understand the word fundamental, as well as the word principal, essential, grand, and capital doctrines, etc.) to the particular articles of the creed, in such sort, as that i may be able precisely, exactly, particularly, to distinguish fundamental articles from points of less moment? you labour to tell us what fundamental points be, but not which they be: and yet unless you do this, your doctrine serves only, either to make men despair, or else to have recourse to those whom you call papists, and which give one certain rule, that all points defined by christ's visible church belong to the foundation of faith, in such sense, as that to deny any one cannot stand with salvation. and seeing yourself acknowledges that these men do not err in points fundamental, i cannot but hold it most safe for me to join with them, for the securing of my soul, and the avoiding of desperation, into which this your doctrine must cast all them who understand, and believe it. for the whole discourse, and inferences which here i have made, are either your own direct assertions, or evident consequences clearly deduced from them. 20. but now let us answer some few objections of d. potter's, against that which we have said before, to avoid our argument, that the scripture is not so much as mentioned in the creed, he saith, the creed is an abstract of such (a) pag. 234. necessary doctrines as are delivered in scripture, or collected out of it; and therefore needs not express the authority of that which it supposes. 21. this answer makes for us. for by giving a reason why it was needless that scripture should be expressed in the creed you grant as much as we desire, namely, that the apostles judged it needless to express all necessary points of faith in their creed. neither doth the creed suppose, or depend on scripture, in such sort as that we can by any probable consequence, infer from the articles of the creed, that there is any canonical scripture at all; and much less that such books in particular be canonical. yea, the creed might have been the same, although holy scripture had never been written; and, which is more, the creed even in priority of time, was before all the scripture of the new testament; except the gospel of s. matthew. and so, according to this reason of his, the scripture should not mention articles contained in the creed. and i note in a word, how little connexion d. potter's arguments have, while he tells us, that the creed (b) pag. 234. is an abstract of such necessary doctrines as are delivered in scripture, or collected out of it, and therefore needs not express the authority of that which it supposes; it doth not follow: the articles of the creed are delivered in scripture: therefore the creed supposeth scripture. for two distinct writings may well deliver the same truths, and yet one of them not suppose the other, unless d. potter be of opinion that two doctors cannot, at one time, speak the same truth. 22. and notwithstanding, that d. potter hath now told us, it was needless that the creed should express scripture whose authority it supposes? he comes at length to say, that the nicene fathers in their creed confessing that the holy ghost spoke by the prophets, doth thereby sufficiently avow the divine authority of all canonical scripture. but i would ask him, whether the nicene creed be not also an abstract of doctrines delivered in scripture, as he said of the apostles creed, and thence did infer, that it was needless to express scripture, whose authority it supposes? besides, we do not only believe in general, that canonical scripture is of divine authority, but we are also bound under pain of damnation to believe, that such and such particular books not mentioned in the nicene creed, are canonical. and lastly d. potter in this answer grants as much as we desire, which is, that all points of faith are not contained in the apostles creed, even as it is explained by other creeds. for these words (who spoke by the prophets) are no ways contained in the apostles creed, and therefore contain an addition, not an explanation thereof. 23. but, how can it be necessary (saith d. potter) for any christian to have more in his creed than the (c) pag. 221. apostles had, and the church of their times? i answer, you trifle, not distinguishing between the apostles belief, and that abridgement of some articles of faith, which we call the apostles creed; and withal you beg the question, by supposing that the apostles believed no more, than is contained in their creed, which every unlearned person knows and believes: and i hope you will not deny but the apostles were endued with greater knowledge than ordinary persons. 24. your pretended proof out of the acts, that the apostles revealed to the church the whole counsel of god, keeping (d) act. 20 27. back nothing with your gloss (needful for our salvation) is no proof, unless you still beg the question, and co●suppose, that whatsoever the apostles revealed to the church, is contained in the creed. and i wonder you do not reflect that those words were by s. paul particularly directed to pastors, and governors of the church, as is clear by the other words, he called the ancients of the church. and afterward, take heed to yourselves, and to the whole stock wherein the holy ghost hath placed you bishops, to rule the church. and yourself say, that more knowledge is (e) pag. 244. necessary in bishops, and priests, to whom is committed the government of the church, and the care of souls, than in vulgar laics. do you think that the apostles taught christians nothing but their creed? said they nothing of the sacraments, commandments, duties of hope, charity, & c.? 25. upon the same affected ambiguity is grounded your other objection: to say, the whole faith of those times (f) pag. 225, 223. is not contained in the apostles creed, is all one, as if a man should say, this is not the apostles creed, but a part of it. for the faith of the apostles is not all one with that which we commonly call their creed. did not, i pray you, s, matthew, and s john believe their writings to be canonical scripture? and yet their writings are not mentioned in the creed. it is therefore more than clear that the faith of the apostles is of larger extent, than the apostles creed. 26 to your demand, why amongst many things of equal necessity to be believed, the apostles should (g) pag. 223. so distinctly set down some, and be altogether silent of others? i answer, that you must answer your own demand. for in the creed there be divers points, in their nature, not fundamental or necessary to be explicitly and distinctly believed, as above we shown; why are these points which are not fundamental expressed, rather than other of the same quality? why our saviour's descent to hell, and burial expressed, and not his circumcision, his manifestation to the three kings, working of miracles, & c.? why did they not express scriptures, sacraments, and all fundamental points of faith tending to practice, as well as those which rest in belief? their intention was, particularly to deliver such articles as were fittest for those times, concerning the deity, trinity, and messiah, (as heretofore i have declared) leaving many things to be taught by the catholic church, which in the creed we all profess to believe. neither doth it follow, as you infer, that as well, nay better, they might have given no article, but that (of the church) and sent us to the church for all the rest. for in setting down others besides that, and not all, they make us believe we have all, when (h) pag. 223. we have not all. for by this kind of arguing, what may not be deduced? one might, quite contrary to your inference, say, if the apostles creed contain all points necessary to salvation, what need we any church to teach us? and consequently what need of the article concerning the church? what need we the creeds of nice, constantinople, & c.? superfluous are you catechisms, wherein, besides the articles of the creed, you add divers others particulars. these would be poor consequences, and so is yours. but shall i tell you news; for so you are pleased to esteem it. we grant your inference thus far; that our saviour christ referred us to his church, by her to be taught, and by her alone. for she was before the creed, and scripture; and she, to discharge this imposed office of instructing us, hath delivered us the creed, but not it alone, as if nothing else were to be believed. we have, besides it, holy scripture; we have unwritten, divine, apostolical, ecclesiastical traditions. it were a childish argument, the creed contains not all things which are necessary to be believed: ergo, it is not profitable. or, the church alone, is sufficient to teach us by some convenient means: ergo, she must teach us without all means, without creeds, without. councils, without scripture, etc. if the apostles had expressed no article, but that of the catholic church, she must have taught us the other articles in particular, by creeds, or other means as in fact we have even the apostles creed from the tradition of the church. it you will believe you have all in the creed, when you have not all, it is not the apostles, or the church, that makes you so believe but it is your own error, whereby you will needs believe that the creed must contain all. for neither the apostles, nor the church, nor the creed itself tell you any such matter; and what necessity is there, that one means of instruction, must involve whatsoever is contained in all the rest? we are not to recite the creed with anticipated persuasions, that it must contain what we imagine it ought, for better maintaining some opinions of our own; but we ought to say, and believe, that it contains what we find in it; of which one article is, to believe the catholic church, surely to be taught by her, which presupposeth that we need other instruction beside the creed: and in particular we may learn of her, what points be contained in the creed, what otherwise; and so we shall not be deceived, by believing we have all in the creed, when we have not all: and you may in the same manner say, as well nay better, the apostles might have given us no articles at all, as have left out articles tending to practice. for in setting down one sort of articles, and not the other, they make us believe we have all, when we have not all. 27. to our argument, that baptism is not contained in the creed, d. potter, besides his answer, that sacraments belong rather to practise than faith, (which i have already confuted, and which indeed maketh against himself, and serveth only to show that the apostles intended not to comprise all points in the creed which we are bond to believe) adds, that the creed of (i) pag. 237. nice expressed baptism by name [confess one baptism for the remission of sins.] which answer is directly against himself, and manifestly proves that baptism is an article of faith, and yet is not contained in the apostles creed, neither explicitly, nor by any necessary consequence from other articles expressed therein. if, to make it an article of faith, be sufficient that it is contained in the nicene council; he will find that protestants maintain many errors against faith, as being repugnant to definitions of general councils: as, in particular, that the very council of nice, which (saith m. whitgift, (k) in his defence, pag. 330. is of all wise and learned men reverenced, esteemed, and embraced, next unto the scriptures themselves) decreed, that to those who were chosen to the ministry unmarried, it was not lawful to take any wife afterward, is affirmed by protestants. and your grand reformer luther (lib. de contiliis parte prima) saith, that he understands not the holy ghost in that council. for in one canon is saith that those who have gelded themselves are not fit to be made priests, in another it forbids them to have wives hath (saith he) the holy ghost nothing to do in counsels, but to bind and load his ministers with impossible, dangerous, and unnecessary laws? i forbear to show that this very article, i confess one baptism for the remission of sins, will be understood by protestants in a far different sense from catholics; yea, protestants among themselves do not agree, how baptism forgives sins, nor what grace it conferrs. only concerning the unity of baptism against rebaptisation of such as were once baptised (which i noted as a point not contained in the apostles creed) i cannot omit an excellent place of s. augustine, where, speaking of the donatists, he hath these words: they are so bold as (l) lib. de haeres. in 69. to re-baptize catholics, wherein they show themselves to be greater heretics, since it hath pleased the universal catholic church not to make baptism void, even in the very heretics themselves. in which few words, this holy father delivereth against the donatists these points which do also make against protestants: that to make an heresy, or an heretic, known for such, it is sufficient, to oppose the definition of god's church: that a proposition may be heretical, though it be not repugnant to any texts of scripture. for s. augustine teacheth that the doctrine of re●baptization is heretical, and yet acknowledgeth it cannot be convinced for such out of scripture. and that, neither the heresy of rebaptisation of those who were baptised by heretics, nor the contrary catholic truth being expressed in the apostles creed, it followeth that it doth not contain all points of faith necessary to salvation. and so we must conclude that to believe the creed, is not sufficient for unity of faith, and spirit, in the same church, unless there be also a total agreement both in belief of other points of faith, and in external profession, and communion also (whereof we are to speak in the next chapter) according to the saying of s augustine, (m) aug. ep. 48. with us in baptism, and in the creed; but in the spirit of unity, and b●nd of peace, and lastly in the catholic church, you are not with us. the answer to the fourth chapter. wherein is showed, that the creed contains all necessary points of mere belief. 1. ad §. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. concerning the creed's containing the fundamentals of christianity, this is d. potter's assertion, delivered in the 207. p. of his book. the creed of the apostles (as it is explained in the latter creeds of the catholic church) is esteemed a sufficient summary or catalogue of fundamentals, by the best learned romanists, and by antiquity. 2. by fundamentals he understands not the fundamental rules of good life and action, (though every one of these is to be believed to come from god, and therefore virtually includes an article of faith;) but the fundamental doctrines of faith, such, as though they have influence upon our lives, as every essential doctrine of christianity hath, yet we are commanded to believe them, and not to do them. the assent of our understandings is required to them, but no obedience from our wills. 3. but these speculative doctrines again he distinguisheth out of aquinas, occam, and canus, and others, into two kinds: of the first are those which are the objects of faith, in, and for themselves, which by their own nature and god's prime intention, are essential parts of the gospel: such as the teachers in the church, cannot without mortal sin omit to teach the learners: such as are intrinsecal to the covenant between god and man; and not only plainly revealed by god, and so certain truths, but also commanded to be preached to all men, and to be believed distinctly by all, and so necessary truths. of the second sort are accidental, circumstantial, occasional objects of faith; millions whereof there are in holy scripture; such as are to be believed, not for themselves, but because they are joined with others that are necessary to be believed, and delivered by the same authority which delivered these. such as we are not bound to know to be divine revelations, (for without any fault we may be ignorant hereof, nay believe the contrary;) such as we are not bound to examine, whether or no they be divine revelations: such as pastors are not bound to teach their flock, nor their flock bound to know and remember: no nor the pastors themselves to know them or believe them, or not to disbelieve them absolutely and always; but then only when they do see, and know them to be delivered in scripture, as divine revelations. 4. i say when they do so, and not only when they may do. for to lay an obligation upon us of believing, or not disbelieving any verity, sufficient revelation on god's part, is not sufficient: for then, seeing all the express verities of scripture are either to all men, or at least to all learned men sufficiently revealed by god, it should be a damnable sin, in any learned man actually to disbelieve any one particular historical verity contained in scripture, or to believe the contradiction of it, though he knew it not to be there contained. for though he did not, yet he might have known it; it being plainly revealed by god, and this revelation being extant in such a book, wherein he might have found it recorded, if with diligence he had perused it. to make therefore any points necessary to be believed, it is requisite, that either we actually know them to be divine revelations: and these though they be not articles of faith, nor necessary to be believed, in and for themselves, yet indirectly, and by accident, and by consequence, they are so: the necessity of believing them, being in forced upon us by a necessity of believing this essential, and fundamental article of faith, that all divine revelations are true, which to disbelieve, or not to believe, is for any christian not only impious, but impossible. or else it is requisite that they be, first actually, revealed by god: secondly, commanded under pain of damnation, to be particularly known (i mean known to be divine revelations,) and distinctly to be believed. and of this latter sort of speculative divine verities, d. potter affirmed, that the apostles creed was a sufficient summary: yet he affirmed it, not as his own opinion, but as the doctrine of the ancient fathers, and your own doctors. and besides, he affirmed it not as absolutely certain, but very probable. 5. in brief, all that he says is this: it is very probable, that according to the judgement of the roman doctors, and the ancient fathers, the apostles creed is to be èsteemed a sufficient summary of all those doctrines which being merely credenda, and not agenda, all men are ordinarily, under pain of damnation, bound particularly to believe. 6. now this assertion (you say) is neither pertinent to the question in hand, nor in itself true. your reasons to prove it impertinent, put into form and divested of impertinencies, are these. 1. because the question was not, what points were necessary to be explicitly believed, but what points were necessary not to be disbelieved after sufficient proposal. and therefore to give a catalogue of points necessary to be explicitly believed, is impertinent. 7. secondly, because errors may be damnable, though the contrary truths be not of themselves fundamental; as, that pontius pilate was our saviour's judge, is not in itself a fundamental truth, yet to believe the contrary were a damnable error. and therefore to give a catalogue of truths in themselves fundamental, is no pertinent satisfaction to this demand, what errors are damnable? 8. thirdly, because if the church be not universally infallible, we cannot ground any certainty upon the creed, which we must receive upon the credit of the church: and, if the church be universally infallible, it is damnable to oppose her declaration in any thing, though not contained in the creed. 9 fourthly, because not to believe the articles of the creed in the true sense is damnable, therefore it is frivolous to say, the creed contains all fundamentals, without specifying in what sense the articles of it are fundamental. 10. fifthly, because the apostles creed (as d. potter himself confesseth) was not a sufficient catalogue, till it was explained by the first council; nor then until it was declared in the second, etc. by occasion of emergent heresies: therefore now also, as new heresies may arise, it will need particular explanation; and so is not yet, nor ever will be, a complete catalogue of fundamentals. 11. now to the first of these objections i say, first, that your distinction between points necessary to be believed, and necessary not to be disbelieved, is more subtle than sound; a distinction without a difference: there being no point necessary to be believed; which is not necessary not to be disbelieved: nor no point to any man, at any time, in any circumstances, necessary not to be disbelieved, but it is to the same man, at the same time, in the same circumstances, necessary to be believed. yet that which (i believe) you would have said, i acknowledge true, that many points which are not necessary to be believed absolutely, are yet necessary to be believed upon a supposition, that they are known to be revealed by god: that is, become then necessary to be believed, when they are known to be divine revelations. but then i must needs say, you do very strangely, in saying, that the question was, what points might lawfully be disbelieved, after sufficient proposition that they are divine revelation. you affirm, that none may; and so doth d. potter, and with him all protestants, and all christians. and how then is this the question? who ever said or thought, that of divine revelations, known to be so, some might safely and lawfully be rejected, and disbelieved, under pretence that they are not fundamental? which of us ever taught, that it was not damnable, either to deny, or so much as doubt of the truth of any thing, whereof we either know, or believe that god hath revealed it? what protestant ever taught that it was not damnable, either to give god the lie, or to call his veracity into question? yet you say, the demand of charity mistaken was, and it was most reasonable, that a list of fundamentals should be given, the denial whereof destroys salvation, whereas the denial of other points may stand with salvation, although both kinds be equally proposed, as revealed by god. 12. let the reader peruse charity mistaken, and he shall find that this qualification, although both kinds of points be equally proposed as revealed by god, is your addition, and no part of the demand. and if it had, it had been most unreasonable, seeing he and you know well enough, that (though we do not presently without examination, fall down and worship all your church's proposals, as divine revelations) yet, we make no such distinction of known divine revelations, as if some only of them were necessary to be believed, and the rest might safely be rejected. so that to demand a particular minute catalogue of all points that may not be disbelieved after sufficient proposition, is indeed to demand a catalogue of all points that are or may be, in as much as none may be disbelieved, after sufficient proposition, that it is a divine revelation. at least it is to desire us, first, to transcribe into this catalogue, every text of the whole bible. secondly, to set down distinctly, those innumerous millions of negative and positive consequences, which may be evidently deduced from it: for these we say, god hath revealed. and indeed you are not ashamed in plain terms to require this of us. for having first told us, that the command was what points were necessary not to be disbelieved, after sufficient proposition that they are divine truths: you come to say, certainly the creed contains not all these. and this you prove by ask, how many truths are there in holy scripture, not contained in the creed, which we are not bound to know and believe, but are bound under pain of damnation not to reject, as soon as we come to know that they are found in holy scripture? so that in requiring a particular catalogue of all points not to be disbelieved, after sufficient proposal, you require us to set you down all points contained in scripture, or evidently deducible from it. and yet this you are pleased to call a reasonable, nay, a most reasonable demand: whereas having engaged yourself to give a catalogue of your fundamentals, you conceive your engagement very well satisfied by saying, all is fundamental which the church proposeth, without going about to give us an endless inventory of her proposals. and therefore from us, instead of a perfect particular of divine revelations of all sorts, (of which with a lest hyperbole than s. john useth, we might say, if they were to be written, the world would not hold the books that must be written;) methinks you should accept of this general, all divine revelations are true, and to be believed. which yet i say, not as if i thought the belief of this general sufficient to salvation; but because i conceive it as sufficient as the belief of your general: and therefore i said not, methinks all should accept of this general, but, methinks you should accept of it. 13. the very truth is, the main question in this business is not, what divine revelations are necessary to be believed, or not rejected when they are sufficiently proposed: for all without exception, all without question are so; but what revelations are simply and absolutely necessary to be proposed to the belief of christians, so that that society, which doth propose, and indeed believe them, hath for matter of faith, the essence of a true church; that which doth not, hath not. now to this question, though not to yours, d. potter's assertion (if it be true) is apparently very pertinent. and though not a full and total satisfaction to it, yet very effectual, and of great moment towards it. for the main question being, what points are necessary to salvation: and points necessary to salvation, being of two sorts, some of simple belief, some of practice and obedience, he that gives you a sufficient summary of the first sort of necessary points, hath brought you half way towards your journey's end. and therefore that which he doth, is no more to be slighted, as vain and impertinent▪ than an architect's work is to be thought impertinent towards the making of a house, because he doth it not all himself. sure i am, if his assertion be true, as i believe it is, a corollary may presently be deduced from it, which, if it were embraced cannot in all reason, but do infinite service, both to the truth of christ, and the peace of christendom. for seeing falsehood and error could not long stand against the power of truth, were they not supported by tyranny and worldly advantages, he that could assert christians to that liberty which christ and his apostles left them, must needs do truth a most heroical service. and seeing the overvaluing of the differences among christians, is one of the greatest maintainers of the schisms of christendom, he that could demonstrate, that only those points of belief are simply necessary to salvation, wherein christians generally agree, should he not lay a very fair and firm foundation of the peace of christendom? now the corollary, which, i conceive, would produce these good effects, and which flows naturally from d. potter's assertion, is this, that what man or church soever believes the creed, and all the evident consequences of it sincerely and hearty, cannot possibly (if also he believe the scripture) be in any error of simple belief which is offensive to god: nor therefore deserve for any such error to be deprived of his life, or to be cut off from the church's communion, and the hope of salvation. and the production of this again would be this (which highly concerns the church of rome to think of,) that whatsoever man or church doth for any error of simple belief, deprive any man so qualified as above, either of his temporal life, or livelihood, or liberty, or of the church's communion, and hope of salvation, is for the first, unjust, cruel, and tyrannous: schismatical, presumptuous, and uncharitable for the second. 13. neither yet is this (as you pretend) to take away the necessity of believing those verities of scripture, which are not contained in the creed, when once we come to know that they are written in scripture, but rather to lay a necessity upon men of believing all things written in scripture, when once they know them to be there written. for he that believes not all known divine revelations to be true, how doth he believe in god? unless you will say, that the same man, at the same time, may not believe god, and yet believe in him. the greater difficulty is, how it will not take away the necessity of believing scripture to be the word of god? but that it will not neither. for though the creed be granted a sufficient summary of articles of mere faith, yet no man pretends that it contains the rules of obedience; but for them, all men are referred to scripture. besides, he that pretends to believe in god, obligeth himself to believe it necessary to obey that which reason assures him to be the will of god. now reason will assure him that believes the creed, that it is the will of god he should believe the scripture: even the very same reason which moves him to believe the creed: universal, and never-failing tradition, having given this testimony both to creed and scripture, that they both by the works of god were sealed, and testified to be the words of god. and thus much be spoken in answer to your first argument; the length whereof will be the more excusable, if i oblige myself to say but little to the rest. 14. i come then to your second. and, in answer to it, deny flatly, as a thing destructive of itself, that any error can be damnable, unless it be repugnant immediately or mediately, directly or indirectly, of itself or by accident, to some truth for the matter of it fundamental. and to your example of pontius pilat's being judge of christ, i say, the denial of it in him that knows it to be revealed by god, is manifestly destructive of this fundamental truth, that all divine revelations are true. neither will you find any error so much as by accident damnable, but the rejecting of it will be necessarily laid upon us, by areal belief of all fundamentals, and simply necessary truths. and i desire you would reconcile with this, that which you have said §. 15. every fundamental error must have a contrary fundamental truth, because, of two contradictory propositions, in the same degree, the one is false, the other must be true, etc. 15. to the third i answer, that the certainty i have of the creed, that it was from the apostles, and contains the principles of faith, i ground it not upon scripture, and yet not upon the infallibility of any present, much less of your church, but upon the authority of the ancient church, and written tradition, which (as d. potter hath proved) gave this constant testimony unto it. besides, i tell you, it is guilty of the same fault which d. potter's assertion is here accused of: having perhaps some colour toward the proving it false, but none at all to show it impertinent. 16. to the fourth, i answer plainly thus, that you find fault with d. potter for his virtues: you are offended with him for not usurping the authority which he had not; in a word, for not playing the pope. certainly, if protestants be faulty in this matter, it's for doing it too much, and not too little. this presumptuous imposing of the senses of men upon the words of god, the special senses of men upon the general words of god, and laying them upon men's consciences together, under the equal penalty of death, and damnation; this vain conceit that we can speak of the things of god, better than in the words of god: this deifying our own interpretations, and tyrannous enforcing them upon others; this restraining of the word of god from that latitude and generality, and the understandings of men, from that liberty, wherein christ and the apostles left them, (a) this pe●●s●asion is no singularity of mine, but the doctrine which 〈◊〉 have learned ●●om divines of g●e●t learning and judgement. let the 〈◊〉 reader be pleased to peruse the seventh book of acont. de strat. satanae and zanch. his last oration delivered by him after the composing of the discord between him and amerbachius, and he shall confess as much. is, and hath been the only fountain of all the schisms of the church, and that which makes them immortal: the common incendiary of christendom, and that which (as i said before) tears into pieces, not the coat, but the bowels, and members of christ: ridente turcâ nec dolente judaeo. take away these walls of separation, and all will quickly be one. take away this persecuting, burning, cursing, damning of men for not subscribing to the words of men, as the words of god; require of christians only to believe christ, and to call no man master but him only: let those leave claiming infallibility, that have no title to it; and let them that in their words disclaim it, disclaim it likewise in their actions. in a word, take away tyranny, which is the devil's instrument to support errors, and superstitions, and impieties, in the several parts of the world, which could not otherwise long withstand the power of truth; i say, take away tyranny, and restore christians to their just and full liberty of captivating their understanding to scripture only, and as rivers when they have a free passage, run all to the ocean, so it may well be hoped by god's blessing, that universal liberty thus moderated, may quickly reduce christendom to truth and unity. these thoughts of peace (i am persuaded) may come from the god of peace, and to his blessing i commend them, and proceed. 18. your fifth and last objection stands upon a false and dangerous supposition: that new heresies may arise. for an heresy being in itself nothing else but a doctrine repugnant to some article of the christian faith, to say that new heresies may arise, is to say, that new articles of faith may arise: and so some great ones among you stick not to profess in plain terms, who yet at the same time are not ashamed to pretend that your whole doctrine is catholic and apostolic. so salmeron: non omnibus omnia dedit deus, ut quaelibet aetas suis gaudeat veritatibus, quas prior aetas ignoravit. god hath not given all things to ' all: so that every age hath its proper verities, which the former age was ignorant of: dis. 57 in epist. ad rom. and again in the margin, habet unumquodque saeculum peculiares revelationes divinas, every age hath its peculiar divine revelations. where that he speaks of such revelations, as are, or may by the church be made matters of faith, no man can doubt that reads him; an example whereof, he give us a little before in these words, unius augustini doctrina assumptionis b. deiparae cultum in ecclesiam introduxit. the doctrine of augustine only, hath brought into the church the worship of the assumption of the mother of god, etc. others again mince and palliate the matter with this pretence, that your church undertakes not to coin new articles of faith, but only to declare those that want sufficient declaration. but if sufficient declaration be necessary to make any doctrine an article of faith, than this doctrine, which before wanted it, was not before an article of faith; and your church by giving it the essential form, and last compliment of an article of faith, makes it, though not a truth, yet certainly an article of faith. but i would fain know, whether christ and his apostles knew this doctrine, which you pretend hath the matter, but wants the form of an article of faith, that is, sufficient declaration, whether they knew it to be a necessary article of the faith, or no. if they knew it not to be so, then either they taught what they knew not, which were very strange; or else they taught it not: and if not, i would gladly be informed, seeing you pretend to no new revelations, from whom you learned it? if they knew it, then either they concealed or declared it. to say, they concealed any necessary part of the gospel, is to charge them with far greater sacrilege, than what was punished in ananias and saphira. it is to charge these glorious stewards, and dispenser's of the mysteries of christ, with want of the great virtue requisite in a steward, which is fidelity. it is to charge them with presumption for denouncing anathemas, even to angels, in case they should teach any other doctrine, than what they had received from them, which sure could not merit an anathema, if they left any necessary part of the gospel untaught. it is in a word, in plain terms to give them the lie, seeing they profess plainly and frequently, that they taught christians the whole doctrine of christ. if they did know and declare it, than it was a full and formal article of faith; and the contrary a full and formal heresy, without any need of further declaration; and then their successors either continued the declaration of it, or discontinued it: if they did the latter, how are they such faithful depositaries of apostolic doctrine as you pretend? or, what assurance can you give us, that they might not bring in new and false articles, as well as suffer the oldand true ones to be lost? if they did continue the declaration of it, and deliver it to their successors, and they to theirs, and so on perpetually; then continued it still a full and formal article of faith, and the repugnant doctrine a full and formal heresy, without and before the definition or declaration of a council. so that counsels, as they cannot make that a truth or falsehood, which before was not so: so neither can they make or declare that to be an article of faith, or an heresy, which before was not so. the supposition therefore on which this argument stands, being false and ruinous, whatsoever ' is built upon it, must together with it fall to the ground. this explication therefore, and restriction of this doctrine, (whereof you make your advantage) was to my understanding unnecessary. the fathers of the church in aftertimes might have just cause to declare their judgement, touching the sense of some general articles of the creed: but to oblige others to receive their declarations under pain of damnation, what warrant they had, i know not. he that can show, either that the church of all ages was to have this authority, or that it continued in the church for some ages, and then expired: he that can show either of these things, let him: for my part, i cannot. yet i willingly confess the judgement of a council, though not infallible, is yet so far directive, and obliging, that without apparent reason to the contrary, it may be sin to reject it, at least not to afford it an outward submission for public peace sake. 19 ad §. 7, 8, 9 were i not peradventure more fearful than i need to be of the imputation of tergiversation, i might very easily rid my hands of the remainder of this chapter: for in the question there discussed, you grant (for aught i see) as much as d. potter desires; and d. potter grants as much as you desire: and therefore that i should disease myself, or my reader with a punctual examination of it, may seem superfluous. first, that which you would have, and which your arguments wholly drive at, is this, that the creed doth not contain all main and principal points of faith of all sorts, whether they be speculative, or practical, where they contain matter of simple belief, or whether they contain matter of practice and obedience. this d. potter grants, page 215.235. and you grant that he grants it, §. 8. where your words are, even by d. potter's own confession, it (the creed) doth not comprehend agenda, or things belonging to practice, as sacraments, commandments, the acts of hope, and duties of charity. and if you will infer from hence, that therefore c.m. hath no reason to rest in the apostles creed, as a perfect catalogue of fundamentals, and a full satisfaction to his demand, i have without any offence of d. potter, granted as much, if that would content you. but seeing you go on, and, because his assertion is not (as neither is it pretended to be) a total satisfaction to the demand, cashier it as impertinent, and nothing towards it, here i have been bold to stop your proceeding, as unjust and unreasonable. for, as if you should request a friend to lend you, or demand of a debtor to pay you, a hundred pounds, and he could or should let you have but fifty, this were not fully to satisfy your demand, yet sure it were not, to do nothing towards it: or, as this rejoinder of mine, though it be not an answer to all your book, but only to the first considerable part of it, and so much of the second as is material, and falls into the first, yet i hope you will not deal so unkindly with me● as for this reason, to condemn it of impertinence: so d. potter being demanded a catalogue of fundamentals of faith, and finding them of two kinds, and those of one kind summed up to his hand in the apostles creed, and this creed consigned unto him for such a summary by very great authority; if upon these considerations he hath entreated his demander to accept of thus much in part of payment, of the apostles creed, as a sufficient summary of these articles of faith, which are, merely credenda, methinks he hath little reason to complain, that he hath not been fairly, and squarely dealt with. especially, seeing, for full satisfaction, by d. potter and all protestants he is referred to scripture, which we affirm contains evidently all necessary points of faith, and rules of obedience: and seeing d. potter in this very place hath subjoined, though not a catalogue of fundamentals, which (because to some more is fundamental, to others less, to others nothing at all) had been impossible, yet such a comprehension of them, as may serve every one that will make a conscionable use of it, instead of a catalogue. for thus he says, it seems to be fundamental to the faith, and for the salvation of every member of the church, that he acknowledge and believe all such points of faith, whereof he may be sufficiently convinced that they belong to the doctrine of jesus christ. this general rule, if i should call a catalogue of fundamentals, i should have a precedent for it with you above exception, i mean yourself; for, chap. 3. §. 19 just such another proposition you have called by this name. yet because it were a strange figure of speech, i forbear it; only i will be bold to say, that this assertion is as good a catalogue of fundamentals, as any you will bring of your church proposals, though you take as much time to do it, as he that undertook to make an ass speak. 20. i come now to show that you also have requited d. potter with a mutual courteous acknowledgement of his assertion, that the creed is a sufficient summary of all the necessary articles of faith, which are merely credenda. 21. first then, §. 8. you have these words, it cannot be denied that the creed is most full and complete to that purpose, for which the holy apostles, inspired by god, meant that it should serve, and in that manner as they did intent it, which was, not to comprehend all particular. points of faith, but such general heads as were most befitting and requisite for preaching the faith of christ, to jews and gentiles, and might be briefly and compendiously set down, and easily learned and remembered. these words, i say, being fairly examined, without putting them on the rack, will amount to a full acknowledgement of d. potter's. assertion. but before i put them to the question, i must crave thus much right of you, to grant me this most reasonable postulate, that the doctrine of repentance from dead works, which s. paul saith, was one of the two only things which he preached, and the doctrine of charity, without which (the same s. paul assures us that) the knowledge of all mysteries, and all faith is nothing, were doctrines more necessary and requisite, and therefore more fit to be preached to jews and gentiles than these, under what judge our saviour suffered, that he was buried, and what time he risen again: which you have taught us, cap. 3. § 2. for their matter and nature in themselves not to be fundamental. 22. and upon this grant, i will ask no leave to conclude, that, whereas you say, the apostles creed was intended for a comprehension of such heads of faith, as were most befitting and requisite, for preaching the faith of christ, etc. you are now, for fear of too much debasing those high doctrines of repentance and charity, to restrain your assertion, as d. potter doth his, and (though you speak indefinitely) to say you meant it, only of those heads of faith, which are merely credenda. and then the meaning of it (if it have any) must be this, that the creed is full for the apostles intent, which was to comprehend all such general heads of faith, which being points of simple belief, were most fit and requisite to be preached to jews and gentiles, and might be briefly and compendiously set down, and easily learned and remembered. neither i nor you, i believe, can make any other sense of your words then this. and upon this ground thus i subsume. but all the points of belief, which were necessary, under pain of damnation, for the apostles to preach, and for those to whom the gospel was preached, particularly to know and believe, were most fit and requisite, nay more than so, necessary to be preached to all both jews and gentiles, and might be briefly and compendiously set down, and easily learned and remembered: therefore the apostle's intent by your confession was in this creed, to comprehend all such points. and you say, the creed is most full and complete, for the purpose which they intended. the major of this syllogism is your own. the minor, i should think, needs no proof, yet because all men may not be of my mind, i will prove it by its parts; and the first part thus, there is the same necessity, for the doing of these things; which are commanded to be done, by the same authority, under the same penalty. but the same authority, viz. divine, under the same penalty, to wit, of damnation, commanded the apostles to preach all these doctrines which we speak of, and those to whom they were preached, particularly to know and believe them: for we speak of those only, which were so commanded, to be preached and believed. therefore all these points were alike necessary to be preached to all both jews and gentiles. now that all these doctrines we speak of, may be briefly and compendiously set down, and easily learned and remembered, he that remembers, that we speak only of such doctrines as are necessary to be taught and learned, will require hereof no farther demonstration. for, (not to put you in mind of what the poet say, non sunt long a quibus nihil est quod demere possis,) who sees not, that seeing the greatest part of men are of very mean capacities, that it is necessary that that may be learned easily, which is to be learned of all? what then can hinder me from concluding thus, all the articles of simple belief, which are fit and requisite to be preached, and may easily be remembered, are by your confession comprised in the creed: but all the necessary articles of faith are requisite to be preached, and easy to be remembered; therefore they are all comprised in the creed: secondly, from grounds granted by you, i argue thus, points of belief in themselves fundamental, are more requisite to be preached than those which are not so, (this is evident.) but the apostles have put into their creed some points that are not in in themselves fundamental▪ so you confess, ubisupra. therefore if they have put in all, most requisite to be preached, they have put in all that in themselves are fundamental. thirdly and lastly, from your own words, §. 26, thus i conclude for my purpose. the apostles intention was, particularly to deliver in the creed such articles as were fittest for those times, concerning the deity, trinity, and messiah; (thus you: now i subsume,) but all points simply necessary, by virtue of god's command, to be preached and believed in particular, were as fit for those times as these here mentioned; therefore their intention was, to deliver in it particularly all the necessary points of belief. 23. and certainly, he that considers the matter advisedly, either must say that the apostles were not the authors of it, or that this was their design in composing it, or that they had none at all. for whereas you say, their intent was, to comprehend in it such general heads as were most befitting and requisite for preaching the faith; and elsewhere, particularly to deliver such articles as were fittest for those times; every wise man may easily see that your desire here was, to escape away in a cloud of indefinite terms. for otherwise, instead of such general heads, and such articles, why did not you say plainly, all such, or some such? this had been plain dealing, but i fear, cross to your design, which yet you have failed of. for that which you have spoken (though you are loath to speak out) either signifies nothing at all, or that which i and d. potter, affirm, viz. that the apostles creed contains all those points of belief, which were by god's command, of necessity to be preached to all, and believed by all. neither when i say so, would i be so mistaken, as if i said, that all points in the creed are thus necessary: for punies in logic, know that universal affirmatives, are not simply converted. and therefore it may be true, that all such necessary points, are in the creed; though it be not true, that all points in the creed are thus necessary: which i willingly grant, of the points by you mentioned. but this rather confirms, than any way invalidates my assertion. for how could it stand with the apostles wisdom, to put in any points circumstantial and not necessary, and, at the same time, to leave out any that were essential and necessary for that end, which you say, they proposed to themselves, in making the creed, that is, the preaching of the faith to jews and gentiles? 24. neither may you hope to avoid the pressure of these acknowledgements, by pretending as you do § that you do indeed acknowledge the creed to contain all the necessary articles of faith; but yet so, that they are not either there expressed in it, or deducible from it, by evident consequence, but only by way of implication or reduction. for first, not to tell you, that no proposition is employed in any other, which is not deducible from it; nor secondly, that the article of the catholic church, wherein you will have all employed, implies nothing to any purpose of yours, unless out of mere favour we will grant the sense of it to be, that the church is infallible, and that yours is the church: to pass by all this, and require no answer to it, this one thing i may not omit; that the apostles intent was (by your own confession) particularly to deliver in the creed such articles of belief as were fittest for those times (and all necessary articles i have proved were such:) now to deliver particularly, and to deliver only implicitly; to be delivered particularly in the creed, and only to be reducible to it; i suppose are repugnancies hardly reconcileable. and therefore, though we desire you, not to grant, that the creed contains all points of faith of all sorts, any other way than by implication or reduction, no, nor so neither; yet you have granted, and must grant, of the fundamental points of simple belief, those which the apostles were commanded in particular to teach all men, and all men in particular to know and believe, that these are delivered in the creed, after a more particular and punctual manner, than implication or reduction comes to. 25. ad §. 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15. it is vain for you to hope, that the testimonies of the ancient and modern doctors, alleged to this purpose by d. potter in great abundance, will be turned off, with this general deceitful answer, that the allegation of them was needless to prove, that the creed contains all points of faith, under pretence that you grant it in manner aforesaid. for what if you grant it in manner aforesaid, yet if you grant it not (as indeed you do but inconstantly) in the sense which their testimonies require, then for all this their testimonies may be alleged to very good purpose. now let any man read them, with any tolerable indifference, and he shall find they say plainly; that all points of faith, necessary to be particularly believed, are explicitly contained in the creed; and that your gloss of implication and reduction, had it been confronted with their sentences, would have been much out of countenance, as having no ground nor colour of ground in them. for example, if azorius had thought thus of it, how could he have called it, (a) azor. part. 1. c 5. a brief comprehension of the faith, and a sum of all things to be believed, and, as it were, a sign or cognizance whereby christians are to be differenced and distinguished, from the impious and misbelievers, who profess either no faith, or not the right? if huntly had been of this mind, how could he have said of it with any congruity, (b) cont. 2. c. 10. n. 10. that the rule of faith is expressly contained in it, and all the prime foundations of faith: and, that the apostles were not so forgetful as to omit any prime principal foundation of faith in that creed which they delivered to be believed by all christians. the words of filiucius are pregnant to the same purpose, (c) moral. quest. tr. 22. c. 2. n 34. there cannot be a fit rule, from whence christians may learn what they are explicitly to believe, than that which is contained in the creed. which words cannot be justified, if all points necessary to be believed explicitly, be not comprised in it. to this end (saith putean) (d) in 2.2. qu. 2. art. 3. dubuit. was the creed composed by the apostles, that christians might have a form whereby they might profess themselves catholics. but certainly, the apostles did this in vain, if a man might profess this, and yet for matter of faith be not a catholic. 26. the words of cardinal richelieu (e) instruction du christien lecon pr●miere. , exact this sense, and refuse your gloss as much as any of the former: the apostles creed is the summary and abridgement of that faith which is necessary for a christian; these holy persons being by the commandment of jesus christ to disperse themselves over the world, and in all parts by preaching the gospel to plant the faith, esteemed it very necessary to reduce into a short sum, all that which christians ought to know, to the end that being dispersed into divers parts of the world, they might preach the same thing in a short form, that it might be the easier remembered. for this effect, they called this abridgement a symbol, which signifies a mark, or sign, which might serve to distinguish true christians which embraced it, from infidels which rejected it. now i would fain know how the composition of the creed could serve for this end, and secure the preachers of it, that they should preach the same thing, if there were other necessary articles not comprised in it. or how could it be a sign to distinguish true christians from others, if a man might believe it all, and for want of believing something else, not be a true christian? 27. the words of the (f) ch. 3. confid. 1. sect 5. p. 119. author of the consideration of four heads propounded to king james, require the same sense, and utterly renounce your qualification. the symbol is a brief yet entire methodical sum of christian doctrine, including all points of faith, either to be preached by the apostles, or to be believed by their disciples: delivered both for a direction unto them, what they were to preach, and others to believe, as also to discern and put a difference betwixt all faithful christians and misbelieving infidels. 28. lastly, (g) 2.2. dis. 1. q. 2. p. 4. in fin. gregory of valence affirms our assertion even in terms: the articles of faith contained in the creed, are, as it were, the first principles of the christian faith, in which is contained the sum of evangelical doctrine, which all men are bound explicitly to believe. 29. to these testimonies of your own doctors, i should have added the concurrent suffrages of the ancient fathers, but the full and free acknowledgement of the same valentia in the place above quoted will make this labour unnecessary. so judge (saith he) the holy fathers affirming that this symbol of faith was composed by the apostles, that all might have a short sum of those things which are to be believed, and are dispersedly contained in scripture. 30. neither is there any discord between this assertion of your doctors, and their holding themselves obliged to believe all the points which the council of trent defines. for protestants and papists may both hold, that all points of belief necessary to be known and believed, are summed up in the creed: and yet both the one and the other think themselves bound to believe whatsoever other points they either know, or believe to be revealed by god. for the articles which are necessary to be known that they are revealed by god, may be very few; and yet those which are necessary to be believed, when they are revealed and known to be so, may be very many. 31. but summaries and abstracts are not intended to specify all the particulars of the science or subject to which they belong. yes, if they be intended for perfect summaries, they must not omit any necessary doctrine of that science whereof they are summaries; though the illustration and reasons of it they may omit. if this were not so, a man might set down forty or fifty of the principal definitions and divisions, and rules of logic, and call it a summary or abstract of logic. but sure, this were no more a summary, than that were the picture of a man in little, that wanted any of the parts of a man; or that a total sum, wherein all the particulars were not cast up. now the apostles creed, you here intimate that it was intended for a summary; otherwise why talk you here of summaries, and tell us that they need not contain all the particulars of their science? and of what i pray may it be a summary, but of the fundamentals of christian faith? now you have already told us, that it is most full and complete to that purpose for which it was intended. lay all this together, and i believe the product will be, that the apostles creed is a perfect summary of the fundamentals of the christian faith; and what the duty of a perfect summary is, i have already told you. 32. whereas therefore to disprove this assertion, in divers particles of this chapter, but especially the fourteenth, you muster up whole armies of doctrines, which you pretend are necessary, and not contained in the creed; i answer, very briefly thus: that the doctrines you mention, are either concerning matters of practice, and not simple belief; or else they are such doctrines wherein god hath not so plainly revealed himself, but that honest and good men, true lovers of god and of truth, those that desire above all things to know his will and do it, may err, and yet commit no sin at all, or only a sin of infirmity, and not destructive of salvation; or lastly, they are such doctrines which god hath plainly revealed, and so are necessary to be believed, when they are known to be divine, but not necessary to be known and believed; not necessary to be known for divine, that they may be believed. now all these sorts of doctrines are impertinent to the present question. for d. potter never affirmed either that the necessary duties of a christian, or that all truths piously credible, but not necessary to be believed, or that all truth's necessary to be believed upon the supposal of divine revelation, were specified in the creed. for this he affirms, only of such speculative divine verities, which god hath commanded particularly to be preached to all, and believed by all. now let the doctrines objected by you be well considered, and let all those that are reducible to the three former heads be discarded; and then of all these instances against d. potter's assertion, there will not remain so much as one. 33. first, the questions touching the conditions to be performed by us to obtain remission of sins; the sacraments; the commandments, and the possibility of keeping them: the necessity of imploring the assistance of god's grace and spirit for the keeping of them: how far obedience is due to the church: prayer for the dead: the cessation of the old law, are all about agenda, and so cut off upon the first consideration. 34. secondly the question touching fundamentals, is profitable, but not fundamental. he that believes all fundamentals, cannot be damned for any error in faith, though he believe more or less to be fundamental than is so. that also of the procession of the holy-ghost from the father and the son, of purgatory, of the church's visibility, of the books of the new-testament, which were doubted of by a considerable part of the primitive church: (until i see better reason for the contrary than the bare authority of men) i shall esteem of the same condition. 35. thirdly, these doctrines, that adam and the angels sinned: that there are angels good and bad: that those books of scripture which were never doubted of by any considerable part of the church, are the word of god: that s. peter had no such primacy as you pretend: that the scripture is a perfect rule of faith, and consequently that no necessary doctrine is unwritten: that there is no one society or succession of christians absolutely infallible: these to my understanding are truths plainly revealed by god, and necessary to be believed by them who know they are so. but not so necessary, that every man and woman is bound under pain of damnation particularly to know them to be divine revelations, and explicitly to believe them. and for this reason, these with innumerable other points, are to be referred to the third sort of doctrines , which were never pretended to have place in the creed. there remains one only point of all that army you mustered together, reducible to none of these heads, and that is, that god is, and is a remunerator, which you say is questioned by the denial of merit. but if there were such a necessary indissoluble coherence between this point and the doctrine of merit, methinks with as much reason, and more charity you might conclude, that we hold merit, because we hold this point; than that we deny this point, because we deny merit. besides, when protestants deny the doctrine of merits, you know rightwell, for so they have declared themselves a thousand times, that they mean nothing else, but with david, that their well-doing extendeth not is not truly beneficial, to god with our saviour when they have done all which they are commanded, they have done their duty only, and no courtesy: and lastly, with s. paul, that all which they can suffer for god (and yet suffering is more than doing) is not worthy to be compared to the glory which shall be revealed. so that you must either misunderstand their meaning in denying merit, or you must discharge their doctrine of this odious consequence, or you must charge it upon david, and paul, and christ himself. nay you must either grant their denial of true merit just and reasonable; or you must say, that our good actions are really profitable to god: that they are not debts already due to him, but voluntary and undeserved favours: and that they are equal unto and well worthy of eternal glory which is prepared for them. as for the inconvenience which you so much fear, that the denial of merit makes god a giver only, and not a rewarder; i tell you, good sir, you fear where no fear is: and that it is both most true on the one side, that you in holding good works meritorious of eternal glory make god a rewarder only and not a giver, contrary to plain scripture, affirming that the gift of god is eternal life; and that it is most false on the other side, that the doctrine of protestants makes god a giver only and not a rewarder; in as much as their doctrine is, that god gives not heaven but to those which do something for it, and so his gift is also a reward; but withal, that whatsoever they do is due unto god beforehand, and worth nothing to god, & worth nothing in respect of heaven, and so man's work is no merit, and god's reward is still a gift. 36. put the case the pope, for a reward of your service done him in writing this book, had given you the honour and means of a cardinal, would you not, not only in humility, but in sincerity have professed, that you had not merited such a reward? and yet the pope is neither your creator, nor redeemer, nor preserver, nor perhaps your very great benefactor; sure i am, not so great as god almighty, and therefore hath no such right and title to your service as god hath in respect of precedent obligations. besides, the work you have done him hath been really advantageous to him: and lastly not altogether unproportionable to the reward. and therefore if by the same work you will pretend that either you have or hope to have deserved immortal happiness, i beseech you consider well whether this be not to set a higher value upon a cardinal's cap, than a crown of immortal glory, and with that cardinal to prefer a part in paris, before a part in paradise. 37. in the next paragraph you beat the air again, and fight manfully with your own shadow. the point you should have spoken to, was this, that there are some points of simple belief necessary to be explicitly believed, which yet are not contained in the creed. instead hereof you trouble yourself in vain to demonstrate, that many important points of faith are not contained in it, which yet d. potter had freely granted, and you yourself take particular notice of his granting of it. all this pains therefore you have employed to no purpose; saving that to some negligent reader you may seem to have spoken to the very point, because that which you speak to, at the first hearing, sounds somewhat near it. but such a one i must entreat to remember, there be many more points of faith, than there be articles of simple belief, necessary to be explicitly believed: and that though all of the former sort are not contained in the creed, yet all of the latter sort may be. as for your distinction between heresies that have been, and heresies that are, and heresies that may be, i have already proved it vain; and that whatsoever may be an heresy, that is so; and whatsoever is so, that always hath been so, ever since the publication of the gospel of christ. the doctrine of your church may like a snowball increase with rolling, and again, if you please, melt away and decrease: but as christ jesus, so his gospel, is yesterday, and today, and the same for ever. 38. our saviour sending his apostles to preach, gave them no other commission than this, go teach all nations, baptising them in the name of the father, the son, and the holy-ghost, teaching them to observe all things, whatsoever i have commanded you. these were the bounds of their commission. if your church have any larger, or if she have a commission at large, to teach what she pleaseth, and call it the gospel of christ, let her produce her letters-patents from heaven for it. but if this be all you have, then must you give me leave to esteem it both great sacrilege in you to forbid any thing, be it never so small or ceremonious, which christ hath commanded; as the receiving of the communion in both kinds: and as high a degree of presumption, to enjoin men to believe, that there are or can be any other fundamental articles of the gospel of christ, than what christ himself commanded his apostles to teach all men; or any damnable heresies, but such as are plainly repugnant to these prime verities. 39 ad §. 16, 17. the saying of the most learned prelate, and excellent man, the archbishop of armach, is only related by d. potter, p. 155. and not applauded: though the truth is, both the man deserves as much applause as any man, and his saying as much as any saying; it being as great, and as good a truth, and as necessary for these miserable times, as possibly can be uttered. for this is most certain, and i believe you will easily grant it, that to reduce christians to unity of communion, there are but two ways that may be conceived probable: the one by taking away diversity of opinions touching matters of religion: the other, by showing that the diversity of opinions, which is among the several sects of christians, aught to be no hindrance to their unity in communion. 40. now the former of these is not to be hoped for without a miracle, unless that could be done, which is impossible to be performed, though it be often pretended; that is, unless it could be made evident to all men, that god hath appointed some visible judge of controversies, to whose judgement all men are to submit themselves. what then remains, but that the other way must be taken, & christians must be taught to set a higher value upon these high points of faith and obedience wherein they agree, than upon these matters of less moment wherein they differ; and understand, that agreement in those, aught to be more effectual to join them in one communion, than their difference in other things of less moment to divide them? when i say, in one communion, i mean, in a common profession of those articles of faith, wherein all consent: a joynt-worship of god, after such a way as all esteem lawful; and a mutual performance of all those works of charity, which christians own one to another. and to such a communion what better inducement could be thought of, than to demonstrate that what was universally believed of all christians, if it were joined with a love of truth, and with holy obedience, was sufficient to bring men to heaven? for why should men be more rigid than god? why should any error exclude any man from the church's communion, which will not deprive him of eternal salvation? now that christians do generally agree in all those points of doctrine, which are necessary to salvation, it is apparent, because they agree with one accord in believing all those books of the old & new testament, which in the church were never doubted of to be the undoubted word of god. and it is so certain that in all these books, all necessary doctrines are evidently contained, that of all the four evangelists this is very probable, but of s. luke most apparent, that in every one of their books they have comprehended the whole substance of the gospel of christ. for what reason can be imagined, that any of them should leave out any thing which he knew to be necessary, and yet (as apparently all of them have done) put in many things which they knew to be only profitable and not necessary? what wise and honest man that were now to write the gospel of christ, would do so great a work of god after such a negligent fashion? suppose xaverius had been to write the gospel of christ for the indians, think you he would have left out any fundamental doctrine of it? if not, i must beseech you to conceive as well of s. matthew, and s. mark, and s. luke, and s. john, as you do of xaverius. besides, if every one of them have not in them all necessary doctrines, how have they complied with their own design, which was, as the titles of their books show, to write the gospel of christ, and not a part of it? or how have they not deceived us, in giving them such titles? by the whole gospel of christ, i understand not the whole history of christ, but all that makes up the covenant between god and man. now if this be wholly contained in the gospel of s. mark, and s. john, i believe every considering man will be inclinable to believe that then without doubt, it is contained, with the advantage of many other profitable things, in the larger gospels of s. matthew, and s. luke. and that s. mark's gospel wants no necessary article of this covenant, i presume you will not deny, if you believe irenaeus, when he says, matthew to the hebrews in their tongue published the scripture of the gospel: when peter and paul did preach the gospel, and found the church, or a church at rome, or of rome, and after their departure mark the scholar of peter, delivered to us in writing those things which had been preached by peter; and luke, and the follower of paul, compiled in a book the gospel which was preached by him: and afterwards john, residing in asia, in the city of ephesus, did himself also set forth a gospel. 41. in which words of irenaeus, it is remarkable that they are spoken by him against some heretics, that pretended (as you know who do now adays) that some necessary doctrines of the gospel were unwritten, and that out of the scriptures, truth (he must mean sufficient truth,) cannot be found by those which know not tradition. against whom to say, that part of the gospel which was preached by peter, was written by s. mark, and some other necessary parts of it omitted, had been to speak impertinently, and rather to confirm than confute their error. it is plain therefore, that he must mean, as i pretend, that all the necessary doctrine of the gospel which was preached by s. peter, was written by s. mark. now you will not deny, i presume, that s. peter preached all, therefore you must not deny that s. mark wrote all. 42. our next inquiry let it be touching s. john's intent in writing his gospel, whether it were to deliver so much truth, as being believed and obeyed would certainly bring men to eternal life, or only part of it, and to leave part unwritten? a great man there is, but much less than the apostle, who saith, that writing last, he purposed to supply the defects of the other evangelists that had wrote before him: which (if it were true) would sufficiently justify what i have undertaken, that at least all the four evangelists have in them, all the necessary parts of the gospel of christ. neither will i deny, but s. john's secondary intent might be to supply the defects of the former three gospels, in some things very profitable. but he that pretends, that any necessary doctrine is in s. john, which is in none of the other evangelists, hath not so well considered them as he should do, before he pronounce sentence of so weighty a matter. and for his prime intent in writing his gospel, what that was, certainly not father in the world understood it better than himself. therefore let us hear him speak: many other signs (saith he) also did jesus in the sight of his disciples, which are not written in this book: but these are written, that you may believe that jesus is the christ the son of god, and that believing you may have life in his name. by (these are written) may be understood either these things are written, or these signs are written. take it which way you will, this conclusion will certainly follow, that either all that which s. john wrote in his gospel, or less than all, and therefore all much more was sufficient to make them believe that, which being believed with lively faith, would certainly bring them to eternal life. 43. this which hath been spoken (i hope) is enough to justify my undertaking to the full, that it is very probable that every one of the four evangelists hath in his book the whole substance, all the necessary parts of the gospel of christ. but for s. luke, that he hath written such a perfect gospel, in my judgement, it ought to be with them that believe him, no manner of question. consider first the introduction to his gospel, where he declares what he intends to write, in these words, for as much as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things, which are most surely believed amongst us, even as they delivered unto us, which from the beginning were eye-witnesses, and ministers of the word, it seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of things from the first, to write to thee in order, most excellent theophilus, that thou mightest know the certainty of those things wherein thou hast been instructed. add to this place, the entrance to his history of the acts of the apostles: the former treatise have i made, o theophilus, of all that jesus began both to do and teach, until the day in which he was taken up. weigh well these two places and then answer me freely and ingenuously to these demands. 1. whether s. luke doth not undertake the very same thing which he says, many had taken in hand? 2. whether this were not to set forth in order, a declaration of those things which are most surely believed amongst christians? 3. whether the whole gospel of christ, and every necessary doctrine of it, were not surely believed among christians? 4. whether they which were eye-witnesses and ministers of the word from the beginning, delivered not the whole gospel of christ? 5. whether he doth not undertake to write in order these things whereof he had perfect understanding from the first? 6. whether he had not perfect understanding of the whole gospel of christ? 7. whether he doth not undertake to write to theophilus of all those things wherein he had been instructed? 8. and whether he had not been instructed in all the necessary parts of the gospel of christ? 9 whether in the other text, all things which jesus began to do and teach, must not at least imply, all the principal and necessary things? 10. whether this be not the very interpretation of your rhemish doctors, in their annotation upon this place? 11. whether all these articles of the christian faith, without the belief whereof, no man can be saved, be not the princicipal and most necessary things which jesus taught? 12. and lastly, whether many things which s. luke hath wrote in his gospel, be not less principal, and less necessary, than all and every one of these? when you have well considered these proposals, i believe you will be very apt to think (if s. luke be of credit with you) that all things necessary to salvation, are certainly contained in his writings alone. and from hence you will not choose but conclude, that seeing all the christians in the world, agree in the belief of what s. luke hath written, and not only so, but in all other books of canonical scripture, which were never doubted of, in and by the church, the learned archbishop had very just and certain ground to say, that in these propositions, which without controversy are universally received in the whole christian world, so much truth is contained, as, being joined with holy obedience, may be sufficient to bring a man to everlasting salvation; and that we have no cause to doubt, but that, as many as walk according to this rule, neither overthrowing that which they have builded, by superinducing any damnable heresy thereupon, nor otherwise vitiating their holy faith, with a lewd and wicked conversation, peace shall be upon them, and upon the israel of god. 44. against this, you object two things. the one, that by this rule, seeing the doctrine of the trinity is not received universally among christians, the denial of it shall not exclude salvation. the other; that the bishop contradicts himself, in supposing a man may believe all necessary truths, and yet superinduce some damnable heresies. 45. to the first i answer, what i conceive he would, whose words i here justify, that he hath declared plainly in this very place, that he meant, not an absolute, but a limited universality, and speaks not of propositions universally believed by all professions of christianity that are, but only, by all those several professions of christianity that have any large spread in any part of the world. by which words be excludes from the universality here spoken of, the deniers of the doctrine of the trinity, as being but a handful of men, in respect of all, nay in respect of any of these professions which maintain it. and therefore it was a great fault in you, either willingly to conceal these words, which evacuate your objection, or else negligently to oversee them. especially seeing your friend, to whom you are so much beholding, paulus veridicus, in his scurrilous and sophistical pamphler, against b. usher's sermon, hath so kindly offered to lead you by the hand to the observation of them, in these words: to consider of your coinopista, or communiter credenda, articles, as you call them, universally believed of all these several professions of christianity, which have any large spread in the world: these articles for example, may be the unity of the godhead, the trinity of persons, the immortality of the soul, etc. where you see that your friend, whom you so much magnify, hath plainly confessed, that notwithstanding the bishop's words, the denial of the doctrine of the trinity may exclude salvation; and therefore in approving and applauding his answer to the bishop's sermon, you have unawares allowed this answer of mine to your own greatest objection. 46. now for the foul contradiction, which you say the doctor might easily have espied in the bishop's saying, he desires your pardon for his oversight, sight, for paulus veridicus his sake; who though he set himself to find faults with the bishop's sermon, yet it seems this he could not find, or else questionless we should have heard of it from him. and therefore, if d. potter, being the bishop's friend, have not been more sharp-sighted than his enemies, this, he hopes, to indifferent judges will seem no unpardonable offence. yet this i say, not as if there were any contradiction at all, much less any foul contradiction, in the bishop's words; but as antipheron's picture, which he thought he saw in the air before him, was not in the air but in his disturbed fancy: so all the contradiction which here you descant upon, is not indeed in the bishop's saying, but in your imagination. for wherein, i pray, lies this foul contradiction? in supposing (say you) a man may believe all truth's necessary to salvation, and yet superinduce a damnable heresy. i answer, it is not certain that his words do suppose this: neither, if they do, doth he contradict himself. i say, it is not certain that his words import any such matter. for ordinarily men use to speak and write so, as here he doth, when they intent not to limit or restrain, but only to repeat, and press, and illustrate what they have said before. and i wonder, why with your eagle's eyes you did not espy another foul contradiction in his words as well as this; and say, that he supposes a man may walk according to the rule of holy obedience, and yet vitiate his holy faith with a lewd and wicked conversation? certainly, a lewd conversation is altogether as contradictious to holy obedience, as a damnable heresy to necessary truth. what then was the reason that you espied not this foul contradiction in his words as well as that? was it because, according to the spirit and genius of your church, your zeal is greater to that which you conceive true doctrine, than holy obedience; and think simple error a more capital crime than sins committed against knowledge and conscience? or was it because your reason told you, that herein he meant only to repeat and not to limit what he said before? and why then had you not so much candour to conceive that he might have the same meaning in the former part of the disjunction; and intent no more but this, whosoever walks according to this rule of believing all necessary truths and holy obedience, (neither poisoning his faith of those truths which he holds, with the mixture of any damnable heresy, nor vitiating it with a wicked life) peace shall be upon him! in which words what man of any ingenuity will not presently perceive that the words within the parenthesis, are only a repetition of, and no exception from, those that are without? s. athanasius in his creed tells us, the catholic faith is this, that we worship one god in trinity, and trinity in unity, neither confounding the persons, nor dividing the substance; and why now do you not tell him that he contradicts himself, and supposes that we may worship a trinity of persons, and one god in substance, and yet confound the persons, or divide the substance: which yet is impossible, because three remaining three, cannot be confounded, and one remaining one cannot be divided? if a man should say unto you, he that keeps all the commandments of god, committing no sin either against the love of god, or the love of his neighbour, is a perfect man: or thus, he that will live in constant health had need be exact in his diet, neither eating too much, nor too little: or thus, he that will come to london, must go on strait forward in such a way, and neither turn to the right hand or to the left; i verily believe you would not find any contradiction in his words, but confess them as coherent and confonant as any in your book. and certainly, if you would look upon this saying of the bishop with any indifference, you would easily perceive it to be of the very same kind, and capable of the very same construction. and therefore one of the grounds of your accusation is uncertain. neither can you assure us, that the bishop supposes any such matter as you pretend. neither, if he did suppose this (as perhaps he did) were this to contradict himself. for though there can be no damnable heresy, unless it contradict some necessary truth, yet there is no contradiction but the same man may at once believe this heresy and this truth; because there is no contradiction that the same man, at the same time, should believe contradictions. for first, whatsoever a man believes true, that he may and must believe; but there have been some who have believed and taught that contradictions might be true, against whom aristotle disputes in the third of his metaphysics; therefore it is not impossible that a man may believe contradictions. secondly, they which believe there is no certainty in reason, must believe that contradictions may be true: for otherwise there will be certainty in this reason; this contradicts truth, therefore it is false. but there be now divers in the world, who believe there is no certainty in reason, (and whether you be of their mind or no, i desire to be informed;) therefore there be divers in the world who believe contradictions may be true. thirdly, they which do captivate their understandings to the belief of those things which to their understanding seem irreconcilable contradictions, may as well believe real contradictions: (for the difficulty of believing arises not from their being repugnant, but from their seeming to be so:) but you do captivate your understandings to the belief of those things which seem to your understandings irreconcilable contradictions; therefore it is as possible and easy for you to believe those that indeed are so. fourthly, some men may be confuted in their errors, and persuaded out of them; but no man's error can be confuted, who together with his error doth not believe and grant some true principle that contradicts his error: for nothing can be proved to him who grants nothing, neither can there be (as all men know) any rational discourse but out of grounds agreed upon by both parts. therefore it is not impossible but absolutely certain, that the same man at the same time may believe contradictions. fifthly, it is evident, neither can you without extreme madness and uncharitableness, deny that we believe the bible, those books, i mean, which we account canonical: otherwise why dispute you with us out of them, as out of a common principle? either therefore you must retract your opinion, and acknowledge that the same man at the same time may believe contradictions, or else you will run into a greater inconvenience, and be forced to confess, that no part of our doctrine contradicts the bible. sixthly, i desire you to vindicate from contradiction these following assertions: that there should be length and nothing long: breadth, and nothing broad: thickness, and nothing thick: whiteness, and nothing white: roundness, and nothing round: weight, and nothing heavy: sweetness, and nothing sweet: moisture, and nothing moist: fluidness, and nothing flowing▪ many actions, and no agent: many passions, and no patient: that is, that there should be a long, broad, thick, white, round, heavy, sweet moist, flowing, active, passive nothing! that bread should be turned into the substance of christ, and yet not any thing of the bread become any thing of christ; neither the matter, nor the form, nor the accidents of bread, be made either the matter, or the form, or the accidents of christ. that bread should be turned into nothing, and at the same time with the same action turned into christ, and yet christ should not be nothing. that the same thing at the same time should have its just dimensions, and just distance of its parts, one from another, and at the same time not have it, but all its parts together in one and the self same point. that the body of christ, which is much greater, should be contained wholly and in its full dimensions without any alteration, in that which is lesser, and that not once only, but as many times over as there are several points in the bread and wine. that the same thing at the same time should be wholly above itself, and wholly below itself, within itself, and without itself, on the right hand, and on the left hand, and round about itself. that the same thing at the same time should move to and from itself, and lie still: or that it should be carried from one place to another through the middle space, and yet not move. that it should be brought from heaven to earth, and yet not come out of heaven, nor be at all in any of the middle spaces between heaven and earth. that to be one, should be to be undivided from itself, and yet that one and the same thing should be divided from itself. that a thing may be, and yet be not where. that a finite thing may be in all places at once. that a body may be in a place, and have there its dimensions, and colour, and all other qualities, and yet that it is not in the power of god to make it visible, and tangible there, nor capable of doing or suffering any thing. that there should be no certainty in our senses, and yet that we should know something certainly, and yet know nothing but by our senses. that that which is, and was long ago, should now begin to be. that that is now to be made of nothing, which is not nothing but something. that the same thing should be before and after itself. that it should be truly and really in a place, and yet without locality. nay, that he which is, omnipotent, should not be able to give it locality in this place, where it is, as some of you hold: or, if he can, as others say he can, that it should be possible, that the same man, for example, you or i, may at the same time, be awake at london, and not awake but asleep at rome: there run or walk, here not run or walk, but stand still, sit, or lie along: there study or write; here, do neither, but dine or sup: there speak, here be silent. that he may in one place freeze for cold, in another place burn with heat. that he may be drunk in one place, and sober in another: valiant in one place, and a coward in another: a thief in one place, and honest in another. that he may be a papist, and go to mass in rome; a protestant and go to church in england. that he may die in rome, and live in england: or dying in both places may go to hell from rome, and to heaven from england. that the body and soul of christ should cease to be where it was, and yet not go to another place, nor be destroyed. all these, and many other of the like nature are the unavoidable, and most of them the acknowledged consequences of your doctrine of transubstantiation, as is explained one way or other by your schoolmen. now i beseech you, sir, to try your skill, and, if you can compose their repugnance. and make peace between them, certainly, none but you shall be catholic moderator. but if you cannot do it, and that after an intelligible manner, than you must give me leave to believe, that either you do not believe transubstantiation, or else, that it is no contradiction, that men should subjugate their understandings to the belief of contradictions. 47. lastly, i pray tell me whether you have not so much charity in store for the bishop of armach, and d. porter, as to think that they themselves believe this saying, which the one preached and printed, the other reprinted, and, as you say, applauded? if you think they do, then certainly, you have done unadvisedly, either in charging it with a foul contradiction, or, in saying, it is impossible, that any man should at once believe contradictions. indeed that men should not assent to contradictions, and that it is unreasonable to do so, i willingly grant: but to say, it is impossible to be done, is against every man's experience, and almost as unreasonable, as to do the thing which is said to be impossible. for though perhaps it may be very difficult for a man in his right wits to believe a contradiction expressed in terms; especially if he believe it to be a contradiction, yet for men being cowed and awed by superstition, to persuade themselves upon slight and trivial grounds, that these or these, though they seem contradictions, yet indeed are not so, and so to believe them: or if the plain repugnance of them, be veiled or disguised a little, with some empty unintelligible nonsense distinction; or if it be not expressed but employed, nor direct but by consequence, so that the parties, to whose faith the propositions are offered, are either innocently, or perhaps affectedly ignorant of the contrariety of them: for men in such cases, easily to swallow and digest contradictions, he that denies it possible, must be a mere stranger in the world. 48. ad §. 18. this paragraph consists of two immodest untruths, obtruded upon us without show, or shadow, of reason: and an evident sophism, grounded upon an affected mistake of the sense of the word fundamental. 49. the first untruth is, that d. potter makes a church, of men agreeing scarcely in one point of faith: of men concurring in some one or few articles of belief, and in the rest holding conceits plainly contradictory: agreeing only in this one article, that christ is our saviour; but for the rest, like to the parts of a chimaera, etc. which i say is a shameless calumny, not only because d. potter in this point delivers not his own judgement, but relates the opinion of others, m. hooker, and m. morton; but especially, because even these men (as they are related by d. potter) to the constituting of the very essence of a church, in the lowest degree, require not only faith in christ jesus the son of god and saviour of the world, but also submission to his doctrine in mind and will. now i beseech you sir, tell me ingenuously, whether the doctrine of christ may be called without blasphemy, scarcely one point of faith? or whether it consists only, of some one or few articles of belief? or whether there be nothing in it, but only this article, that christ is our saviour? is it not manifest to all the world, that christians of all professions do agree with one consent, in the belief of all those books of scripture, which were not doubted of in the ancient church without danger of damnation? nay, is it not apparent that no man at this time, can without hypocrisy, pretend to believe in christ, but of necessity he must do so? seeing he can have no reason to believe in christ, but he must have the same to believe the scripture. i pray then read over the scripture once more, or, if that be too much labour, the new testament only; and then say, whether there be nothing there, but scarcely one point of faith? but some one or two articles of belief? nothing but this article only, that christ is our saviour? say, whether there be not there an infinite number of divine verities, divine preecepts, divine promises, and those so plainly and undoubtedly delivered, that if any sees them not, it cannot be because he cannot, but because he will not! so plainly, that whosoever submits sincerely to the doctrine of christ, in mind and will, cannot possibly but submit to these in act and performance. and in the rest, which it hath pleased god, for reasons best known to himself, to deliver obscurely or ambiguously, yet thus far at least they agree, that the sense of them intended by god, is certainly true, and that they are without passion or prejudice to endeavour to find it out: the difference only is, which is that true sense which god intended. neither would this long continue, if the walls of separation, whereby the devil hopes to make their divisions eternal, were pulled down; and error were not supported against truth, by humane advantages? but for the present, god forbidden the matter should be so ill as you make it! for whereas you looking upon their points of difference and agreement, through i know not what strange glasses, have made the first innumerable, and the other scarce a number: the truth is clean contrary; that those divine verities speculative and practical, wherein they universally agree (which you will have to be but a few, or but one, or scarcely one) amount to many millions, (if an exact account were taken of them:) and on the other side, the points in variance, are in comparison but few, and those not of such a quality, but the error in them may well consist with the belief and obedience of the entire covenant, ratified by christ between god and man. yet i would not be so mistaken, as if i thought the errors even of some protestants unconsiderable things, and matters of no moment. for the truth is, i am very fearful, that some of their opinions, either as they are, or as they are apt to be mistaken, (though not of themselves so damnable, but that good and holy men may be saved with them, yet) are too frequent occasions of our remissness, and slackness, in running the race of christian profession, of our deferring repentance, and conversion to god, of our frequent relapses into sin, and not seldom of security in sinning; & consequently, though not certain causes, yet too frequent occasions of many men's damnation: and such i conceive all these doctrines, which either directly or obliquely, put men in hope of eternal happiness, by any other means saving only the narrow way of sincere and universal obedience, grounded upon a true and lively faith. these errors therefore, i do not elevate or extenuate: an●, on condition the ruptures made by them might be composed, do hearty wish, that the cement were made of my dearest blood, and only not to be an anathema from christ: only this i say, that neither are their points of agreement so few, nor their differences so many, as you make them; nor so great as to exclude the opposite parties from being members of one church militant, and joint-heirs of the glory of the church triumphant. 50. your other palpable untruth is, that protestants are far more bold to disagree even in matters of faith, than catholic divines (you mean your own) in questions merely philosophical, or not determined by the church. for neither do they differ at all, in matters of faith, if you take the word in the highest sense, and mean, by matters of faith, such doctrines as are absolutely necessary to salvation to be believed, or not to be dis-believed. and then in those wherein they do differ, with what colour or shadow of argument, can you make good, that they are more bold to disagree, than you are in questions merely philosophical, or not determined by the church? for is there not as great repugnancy between your assent and descent, your affirmation and negation, your est est, non non, as there is between theirs? you follow your reason, in those things which are not determined by your church; and they theirs, in things not plainly determined in scripture. and wherein then consists their greater, their far greater boldness? and what if they in their contradictory opinions, pretend both to rely upon the truth of god, doth this make their contradictions ever a whit the more repugnant? i had always thought, that all contradictions had been equally contradictions, and equally repugnant; because the least of them are as far asunder as est and non est can make them, and the greatest are no farther. but than you in your differences, (by name, about predetermination, the immaculate conception, the pope's infallibility) upon what other motive do you rely? do not you cite scripture, or tradition, or both, on both sides? and do you not pretend, that both these are the infallible truths of almighty god? 51. you close up this section with a fallacy, proving forsooth, that we destroy, by our confession, the church which is the house of god, because we stand only upon fundamental articles, which cannot make up the whole fabric of the faith, no more than the foundation of a house alone can be a house. 52. but i hope, sir, you will not be difficult in granting, that that is a house which hath all the necessary parts belonging to a house: now by fundamental articles, we mean all those which are necessary. and you yourself, in the very leaf after this, take notice that d. potter doth so. where to this question▪ how shall i know in particular which points be, and which be not fundamental? you scurrilously bring him in making this ridiculous answer, read my answer to a late pamphlet entitled charity mistaken, etc. there you shall find that fundamental doctrines are such catholic verities, as principally, and essentially pertain to the faith, such as properly constitute a church, and are necessary (in ordinary course) to be distinctly believed by every christian that will be saved. all which words he used, not to tell what points be fundamental, as you dishonestly impose upon him, but to explain what he meant by the word fundamental. may it please you therefore now at last, to take notice, that by fundamental, we mean all and only that which is necessary; and then i hope you will grant, that we may safely expect salvation in a church which hath all things fundamental to salvation! unless you will you say, that more is necessary, than that which is necessary. 53. ad § 19 this long discourse, so full of un-ingenuous dealing with your adversary, perhaps would have done reasonably in a farce or a comedy, and i doubt not but you have made yourself and your courteous readers good sport with it. but if d. potter, or i, had been by, when you wrote it, we should have stopped your career at the first starting, and have put you in mind of these old school-proverbs, ex falso supposito sequitur quodlibet, and uno absurdo dato, sequuntur mille. for whereas you suppose, first, that to a man desirous to save his soul, and requiring, whose direction he might rely upon? the doctor's answer would be, upon the truly catholic church, i suppose upon better reason, because i know his mind, that he would advise him to call no man master on earth, but, according to christ's command, to rely upon the direction of god himself. if he should inquire, where he should find this direction? he would answer him; in his word contained in scripture. if he should inquire what assurance he might have, that the scripture is the word of god? he would answer him, that the doctrine itself is very fit and worthy to be thought to come from god, nec vox hominem sonat, and that they which wrote and delivered it, confirmed it to be the word of god by doing such works as could not be done, but by power from god himself. for assurance of the truth hereof he would advise him to rely upon that, which all wise men in all matters of belief rely upon; and that is the consent of ancient records, and universal tradition. and that he might not instruct him as partial in this advice, he might farther tell him, that a gentleman that would be nameless, that has written a book against him, called charity maintained by catholics, though in many things he differ from him, yet agrees with him in this, that tradition is such a principle as may be rested in, and which requires no other proof. as indeed no wise man doubts but there was such a man as julius caesar, or cicero, that there are such cities as rome or constantinople, though he have no other assurance for the one or the other, but only the speech of people. this tradition therefore he would counsel him to rely upon, and to believe that the book which we call scripture, was confirmed abundantly by the works of god, to be the word of god. believing it the word of god, he must of necessity believe it true: and if he believe it true, he must believe it contains all necessary direction to eternal happiness, because it affirms itself to do so. nay, he might tell him that so far is the whole book, from wanting any necessary direction to his eternal salvation, that one only author, that hath writ but too little books of it, s. luke by name, in the beginning of his gospel, and in the beginning of his story, shows plainly that he alone hath written at least so much as is necessary. and what they wrote, they wrote by god's direction, for the direction of the world, not only for the learned, but for all that would do their true endeavour to know the will of god, and to do it; therefore you cannot but conceive, that writing to all and for all, they wrote so as that in things necessary they might be understood by all. besides that, here he should find, that god himself has engaged himself by promise, that if he would love him, and keep his commandments and pray earnestly for his spirit, and be willing to be directed by it, he should undoubtedly receive it, even the spirit of truth which shall lead him into all truth; that is certainly, at least into all necessary truths, and suffer him to fall into no pernicious error. the sum of his whole direction to him briefly would be this, believe the scripture to be the word of god, use your true endeavour to find the true sense of it, and to live according to it, and then you may rest securely that you are in the true way to eternal happiness. this is the substance of that answer which the doctor would make to any man in this case; and this is a way so plain, that fools, unless they will, cannot err from it. because, not knowing absolutely all truth, nay not all profitable truth, and being fee from err our; but endeavouring to know the truth and obey it, and endeavouring to be free from err our, is by this way made the only condition of salvation. as for your supposition that he would advise such a man to rely upon the catholic church for the finding out the doctrine of christ; he utterly disclaims it, and truly very justly: there being no certain way to know that any company is a true church, but only by their professing the true doctrine of christ. and therefore as it is impossible i should know that such a company of philosophers are peripatetics, or stoics; unless i first know what was the doctrine of the peripatetics, and stoics; so is it impossible that i should certainly know any company to be the church of christ, before i know what is the doctrine of christ, the profession whereof constitutes the visible church, the belief and obedience the invisible. and therefore whereas you would have him be directed by the catholic church to the doctrine of christ; the contrary rather is most certain and necessary, that by the foreknowledge of the doctrine of christ, he must be directed to a certain assurance, which is the catholic church, if he mean not to choose at a venture, but desire to have certain direction to it. this supposition therefore, being the hinge whereon your whole discourse turns, is the minerva of your own brain; and therefore, were it but for this, have we not great reason to accuse you of strange immodesty, in saying as you do, that the whole discourse and inferences which here you have made, are either d. potter's own direct assertions, or evident consequences clearly deduced from them? especially seeing your proceeding in it, is so consonant to this ill beginning, that it is in a manner wholly made made up, not of d. potter's assertions, but your own fictions obtruded on him. 54. to the next question, cannot general councils err? you pretend he answers, they may err damnably. let the reader see the place, and he shall find, damnably is your addition. to the third demand, must i consult, (about my difficulties) with every particular person of the catholic church? you answer for him, (that which is most false) that it seems so by his words; the whole militant church, that is, all the members of it cannot possibly err either in the whole faith, or any necessary article of it: which is very certain, for should it do so, it should be the church no longer. but what sense is there that you should collect out of these words, that every member of the militant church must be consulted with? by like reason, if he had said that all men in the world cannot err; if he said that god in his own person, or his angels could not err in these matters, you might have gathered from hence, that he laid a necessity upon men in doubt, to consult with angels, or with god in his own person, or with all men in the world. is it not evident to all sober men, that to make any man or men fit to be consulted with, besides the understanding of the matter, it is absolutely requisite that they may be spoken with? and is it not apparently impossible, that any man should speak with all the members of the militant church? or, if he had spoken with them all, know that he had done so? nay does not d. potter say as much in plain terms? nay more, do not you take notice that he does so in the very next words before these, where you say, he affirms that the catholic church cannot be told of private injuries: unless you will persuade us there is a difference between the catholic church, and the whole militant church. for whereas you make him deny this of the catholic church united, and affirm it of the militant church dispersed into particulars; the truth is, he speaks neither of united nor dispersed, but affirms simply (as appears to your shame by your own quotations) that the catholic church cannot be told of private injuries: and then, that the whole militant church cannot err. but then besides, that the united church cannot be consulted, and the dispersed may, what a wild imagination is it? and what a strange injustice was it in you to father it upon him? i beseech you sir, to consider seriously, how far blind zeal to your superstition hath transported you beyond all bounds of honesty and discretion, and made you careless of speaking either truth or sense, so you speak against d. potter! 55. again, you make him say, the prelates of god's church meeting in a lawful council may err damnably: and from this you collect, it remains then, for your necessary instruction you must repair to every particular member of the universal church spread over the face of the earth. and this is also pergula pictoris, veri nihil, omnia ficta. the antecedent false (not for the matter of it, but) that d. potter says it, and the consequence as far from it as gades from ganges; and as coherent as a rope of sand. a general council may err; therefore you must travel all the world over, and consult with every particular christian! as if there were nothing else to be consulted with: nay, as if according to the doctrine of protestants, (for so you must say,) there were nothing to be consulted with, but only, a general council, or all the world! have you never heard that protestants say, that men for their direction must consult with scripture? nay, doth not d. potter say it often in this very book which you are confuting? nay more, in this very page out of which you take this piece of your cento, a general council may err damnably? are there not these plain words, in searches of truth (he means divine truth) god ever directs us to the infallible rule of truth, the scripture? with what conscience then, or modesty, can you impose upon him this unreasonable consequence, and pretend that your whole discourse, is either his own direct assertions, or evident consequences, clearly deduced from them? you add, that yet he teaches (as if he contradicted himself) that the promises of god made to the church for his assistance, are not intended to particular persons, but only to the catholic church: which sure agrees very well with any thing said by d. potter. if it be repugnant to what you said for him falsely, what is that to him? 56. neither yet is this to drive any man to desperation: unless it be such a one, as hath such a strong affection to this word, church, that he will not go to heaven, unless he hath a church to lead him thither. for what though a council may err, and the whole church cannot be consulted with, yet this is not to send you on the fool's pilgrimage for faith, and bid you go and confer with every christian soul, man and woman, by sea and by land, close prisoner or at liberty, as you dilate the matter: but to tell you very briefly, that universal tradition directs you to the word of god, and the word of god directs you to heaven. and therefore here is no cause of desperation, no cause for you to be so vain, and tragical, as here you would seem. yet upon supposal (you say) of this miraculous pilgrimage for faith, before i have the faith of miracles, how shall i proceed at our meeting? or how shall i know the man, on whom i may securely rely? and hereunto you frame this answer for the doctor, procure to know whether he believe all fundamental points of faith: whereas in all the doctor's book, there is no such answer to any such question, or any like it. neither do you, as your custom is, note any page where it may be found; which makes me suspect, that sure you have some private licence to use heretics (as you call them) at your pleasure, and make them answer any thing to any thing. 57 wherein i am yet more confirmed, by the answer you put in his mouth to your next demand, how shall i know whether he hold all fundamental points or no? for, whereas hereunto d. potter having given one answer fully satisfactory to it, which is, if he truly believe the undoubted books of canonical scripture, he cannot but believe all fundamentals; and another, which is but something towards a full satisfaction of it, that the creed contains all the fundamentals of simple belief: you take no notice of the former, and pervert the latter, and make him say, the creed contains all fundamentals of faith. whereas you know, and, within six or seven lines after this, confess, that he never pretended it to contain all simply, but all of one sort, all necessary points of simple belief. which assertion because he modestly delivers as very probable (being willing to conclude rather less than more than his reasons require,) hereupon you take occasion to ask: shall i hazard my soul on probabilities, or even wagers! as if, whatsoever is but probable, though in the highest degree of probability, were as likely to be false as true! or because it is but morally, not mathematically, certain that there was such a woman as q. elizabeth, such a man as h. the 8. that is in the highest degree probable, therefore it were an even wager there were none such! by this reason, seeing the truth of your whole religion depends finally upon prudential motives, which you do but pretend to be very credible, it will be an even wager that your religion is false. and by the same reason, or rather infinitely greater, seeing it is impossible for any man (according to the grounds of your religion) to know himself, much less another to be a true pope, or a true priest; nay, to have a moral certainty of it; because these things are abnoxious to innumerable secret and undiscernible nullities, it will be an even wager, nay (if we proportion things indifferently,) a hundred to one, that every consecration and absolution of yours is void, and that whensoever you adore the host, you and your assistants commit idolatry: that there is a nullity in any decree that a pope shall make, or any decree of a council which he shall confirm: particularly, it will be, at least any even wager, that all the decrees of the council of trent are void, because it is at most but very probable that the pope which confirmed them was true pope. if you mislike these inferences, then confess you have injured d. potter in this also, that you have confounded and made all one, probabilities, and even wagers. whereas every ordinary gamester can inform you, that though it be a thousand to one that such a thing will happen, yet it is not sure, but very probable. 58. to make the measure of your injustice yet fuller, you demand, if the creed contains only points of simple belief, how shall you know what points of belief are necessary which direct our practice? d. potter would have answered you in our saviour's words, search the scriptures. but you have a great mind it seems to be despairing, and therefore, having proposed your question, will not suffer him to give you answer, but shut your ears and tell him, still he chalks out new paths for desperation. 59 in the rest of your interlude, i cannot but commend one thing in you, that you keep a decorum, and observe very well the rule given you by the great master of your art, — servetur ad imum qualis ab incepto processerat, & sibi constet: one vein of scurrility and dishonesty runs clean through it, from the beginning to the end. your next demand than is, are all the articles of the creed for their nature and matter fundamental? and the answer, i cannot say so. which answer (though it be true) d. potter no where gives it, neither hath he occasion, but you make it for him, to bring in another question: and that is, how then shall i know, which in particular be, and which be not fundamental? d. potter would have answered, it is a vain question: believe all, and you shall be sure to believe all that is fundamental. 60. but what says now his prevaricating proxy? what does he make him say? this which follows: read my answer to a late popish pamphlet, entitled, charity mistaken: there you shall find that fundamental doctrines, are such catholic verities, as principally and essentially pertain to the faith, such as properly constitute a church, and are necessary in ordinary course, to be distinctly believed by every christian that will be saved. they are those grand and captital doctrines which make up our faith, that is, the common faith, which is alike precious in all; being one and the same, in the highest apostle, and the meanest believer, which the apostle elsewhere calls, the first principles of the oracles of god, and, the form of sound words. 61. but in earnest, good sir, doth the doctor in these places by you quoted, make to this question this same sottish answer? or do you think that against an heretic nothing is unlawful? certainly, if he doth answer thus, i will make bold to say, he is a very fool. but if he does not, (as indeed he does not) then—: but i forbear you, and beseech the reader to consult the places of d. potter's book; and there he shall find, that, in the former half of these (as you call them) varied words and phrases, he declared only what he meant by the word fundamental, which was needful to prevent mistakes, and cavilling about the meaning of the word, which is metaphorical, and therefore ambiguous; and that the latter half of them, are several places of scripture employed by d. potter, to show that his distinction of fundamental and not fundamental hath express ground in it. now of these two places, very pertinent unto two very good purposes; you have exceeding fairly patched together a most ridiculous answer, to a question, that d. potter never dreamt of. but the words, you will say, are in d. potter's book, though in divers places, and to other purposes. very true: and so the words of ausonius his obscene fescennine, are taken out of virgil, yet virgil surely was not the author of this poem. besides in d. potter's book, there are these words, dre●d sovereign, amongst the many excellent virtues, which have made your majesty's person so dear unto god, etc. and why now may you not say as well, that in these he made answer to your former question, what points of the creed were, and what were not fundamentals? 62. but unless this question may be answered, his doctrine (you say) serves only either to make men despair, or else to have recourse to these whom we call rapists. it seems, a little thing will make you despair, if you be so sullen as to do so, because men will not trouble themselves to satisfy your curious questions. and i pray be not offended with me for so esteeming it, because, as before i told you, if you will believe all the points of the creed, you cannot choose but believe all the points of it that are fundamental, though you be ignorant which are so, and which are not so. now, i believe, your desire to know which are fundamentals, proceeds only from a desire to be assured that you do believe them; which seeing you may be assured of, without knowing which they be, what can it be but curiosity to desire to desire to know it? neither may you think to mend yourself herein one whit by having recourse to them whom we call papists; for they are as far to seek as we in this point, which of the articles of the creed are, for their nature, and matter, fundamental, and which are not. particularly, you will scarce meet with any amongst their doctors, so adventurous as to tell you for a certain, whether or no the conception of christ by the holy ghost, his being born of a virgin, his burial, his descent into hell, and the communion of saints, be points of their own nature and matter fundamental. such i mean, as without the distinct and explicit knowledge of them no man can be saved. 63. but you will say, at least they give this certain rule, that all points defined by christ's visible church, belong to the foundation of faith, in such sense, as, to deny any such, cannot stand with salvation. so also protestants give you this more certain rule, that whosoever believes hearty those books of scripture, which all the christian churches in the world acknowledge to be canonical, and submits himself indeed to this, as to the rule of his belief, must of necessity believe all things fundamental; and, if he live according to his faith, cannot fail of salvation. but besides, what certainty have you, that that rule of papists is so certain? by the visible church it is plain, they mean only their own: and why their own only should be the visible church, i do not understand: and as little, why all points defined by this church should belong to the foundation of faith. these things you had need see well and substantially proved, before you rely upon them, otherwise you expose yourself to danger of embracing damnable errors instead of fundamental truths. but you will say, d. potter himself acknowledges, that you do not err in fundamentals. if he did so, yet methinks you have no reason to rest upon his acknowledgement with any security, whom you condemn of error in many other matters. perhaps, excess of charity to your persons, may make him censure your errors more favourably than he should do. but the truth is, and so i have often told you, though the doctor hopes that your errors are not so unpardonably destructive, but that some men, who ignorantly hold them may be saved, yet in themselves he professes and proclaims them damnable, and such as, he fears, will be certainly destructive to such as you are, that is, to all those, who have eyes to see and will not see them. 64. ad §. 20, 21, 22, 〈◊〉. in the remainder of this chapter, you promise to answer d. potter's arguments against that which you said before. but presently forgetting yourself, instead of answering his arguments, you fall a confuting his answers to your own. the arguments objected by you which here you vindicate, were two. 1. the scripture is not so much as mentioned in the creed, therefore the creed contains not all things necessary to be believed. 2. baptism is not contained in the creed, therefore not all things necessary. to both which arguments my answer shortly is this, that they prove something, but it is that which no man here denies. for. d. potter (as you have also confessed) never said, nor undertook to show, that the apostles intended to comprise in the creed, all points absolutely, which we are bound to believe, or after sufficient proposal, not to disbelieve; which yet here and every where you are obtruding upon him: but only that they purposed to comprise in it, all such doctrines purely speculative, all such matters of simple belief, as are in ordinary course, necessary to be distinctly and explicitly believed by all men. now neither of these objections do any way infringe or impeach the truth of this assertion. not the first, because according to your own doctrine, all men are not bound to know explicitly what books of scripture are canonical. nor the second, because baptism is not a matter of faith, but practice: not so much to be believed, as to be given, and received. and against these answers, whether you have brought any considerable new matter, let the indifferent reader judge. as for the other things, which d. potter rather glanceth at than builds upon in answering these objections, as the creeds being collected out of scripture, and, supposing the authority of it, which gregery of valentia in the place above cited, seems to me to confess, to have been the judgement of the ancient fathers: and the nicene creeds intimating the authority of canonical scripture, and making mention of baptism: these things were said ex abundanti; and therefore i conceive it superfluous to examine your exceptions against them. prove that d. potter did affirm that the creed contains all things necessary to be believed of all sorts, and then these objections will be pertinent, and deserve an answer. or produce some point of simple belief, necessary to be explicitly believed, which is not contained either in terms, or by consequence in the creed, and then i will either answer your reasons, or confess i cannot. but all this while you do but trifle, and are so far from hitting the mark, that you rove quite beside the butt. 65. ad §. 23, 24, 25. d. potter demands, how it can be necessary for any christian to have more in his creed than the apostles had, and the church of their times? you answer, that he trifles, not distinguishing between the apostles belief, and that abridgement of some articles of faith, which we call the apostles creed. i reply, that it is you which trifle, affectedly confounding (what d. potter hath plainly distinguished) the apostles belief of the whole religion of christ, as it comprehends both what we are to do, and what we are to believe, with their belief of that part of it, which contains not duties of obedience, but only the necessary articles of simple faith. now though the apostles belief be, in the former sense, a larger thing than that which we call the apostles creed: yet in the latter sense of the word, the creed (i say) is a full comprehension of their belief, which you yourself have formerly confessed, though somewhat fearfully, and inconstantly: and here again unwillingness to speak the truth, makes you speak that which is hardly sense, and call it an abridgement of some articles of faith. for i demand, these some articles which you speak of, which are they? those that are out of the creed, or those that are in it? those that are in it, it comprehends at large, and therefore it is not an abridgement of them: those that are out of it, it comprehends not at all, and therefore it is not an abridgement of them. if you would call it now an abridgement of the faith, this would be sense, and signify thus much, that all the necessary articles of the christian faith are comprised in it. for this is the proper duty of abridgements, to leave out nothing necessary, and to take in nothing unnecessary. 66. moreover, in answer to this demand you tell us, that the doctor begs the question, supposing that the apostles believed no more than is contained in their creed, i answer, he supposes no such matter; but only that they knew no more necessary articles of simple belief, than what are contained in their creed. so that here you abuse d. potter and your reader, by taking sophistically without limitation, that which is delivered with limitation. 67. but this demand of d. potter's, was equivalent to a negation, and intended for one: how can it be necessary for any christian, to have more in his creed, than the apostles had? all one with this, it cannot be necessary, etc. and this negation of his, he enforces with many arguments which he proposes by way of interrogation, thus. may the church of after ages make the narrow way to heaven, narrower than our saviour left it? shall it be a fault to straiten and encumber the king's high way with public nuisances; and is it lawful by adding new articles to the faith, to retrench any thing from the latitude of the king of heavens high way to eternal happiness? the yoke of christ, which he said was easy, may it be justly made heavier by the governors of the church in after-ages? the apostles profess they revealed to the church the whole counsel of god, keeping back nothing needful for our salvation: what tyranny then, to impose any new unnecessary matters on the faith of christians, especially (as the late popes have done) under the high commanding form, qui non crediderit, damnabitur? if this may be done, why then did our saviour reprehend the pharises so sharply, for binding heavy burdens, and laying them on men's shoulders? and why did he teach them, that in vain they worshipped god, teaching for doctrines men's traditions? and why did the apostles call it tempting of god, to lay those things upon the necks of christians, that were not necessary? 68 all which interrogations seem to me to contain so many plain and convincing arguments of the premised assertion; to all which (one excepted,) according to the advice of the best masters of rhetoric in such cases, you have answered very discreetly, by saying o. but when you writ again, i pray take notice of them: and, if you can devise no fair, and satisfying answer to them, then be so ingenuous as to grant the conclusion, that no more can be necessary for christians to believe now, than was in the apostles time. a conclusion of great importance, for the decision of many controversies, and the disburdening of the faith of christ from many encumbrances. 69. as for that one, which you thought you could fasten upon, grounded on the 20. act. 27. let me tell you plainly, that by your answering this, you have showed plainly that it was wisely done of you to decline the rest. you tell d. potter, that needful for salvation is his gloss, which perhaps you intended for a piece of an answer. but, good sir, consult the place, and you shall find, that there s. paul himself says that he kept back 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, not any thing that was profitable: and, i hope, you will make no difficulty to grant, that whatsoever is needful for salvation, is very profitable. 70. but than you say, this is no proof unless he beg the question, and suppose, that whatsoever the apostles revealed to the church is contained in the creed. i answer, it is not d. potter that begs the question, but you that mistake it: which is not here in this particular place, whether all points of simple belief necessary for the salvation of the primitive christians, were contained in the apostles symbol? (for that and the proofs of it follow after, in the next §. p. 223. of d. potter's book): but, whether any thing can be necessary for christians to believe now, which was not so from the beginning? d. potter maintains the negative; and to make good his opinion, thus he argues s. paul declared to the ephesians the whole counsel of god touching their salvation; therefore that which s. paul did not declare, can be no part of the counsel of god, and therefore not necessary. and again: s. paul kept back nothing from the ephesians that was profitable; therefore he taught them all things necessary to salvation. consider this, i pray, a little better, and then, i hope, you will acknowledge, that here was not petitio principii, in d. potter; but rather ignoratio elenchi, in you. 71. neither is it material, that these words were particularly directed by s. paul, to the pastors of the church: for (to say nothing that the point here issuable, is not, whom he taught, whether priests or laymen? but how much he taught, and whether all things necessary?) it appears plainly out of the text, and i wonder you should read it so negligently as not to observe it, that though he speaks now to the pastors, yet he speaks of what he taught not only them, but also the laity as well as them. i have kept back nothing (says s. paul) that was profitable, but have showed, and have taught you publicly, and from house, to house; testifying (i pray observe) both to the jews, and also to the greeks, repentance towards god, and faith towards our lord jesus christ. and a little after, i know that ye all, among whom i have gone preaching the kingdom of god, shall see my face no more: wherefore i take you to record this day, that i am innocent from the blood of all men; for i have kept nothing back, but have showed you all the counsel of god. and again, remember that by the space of three years i ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears. certainly, though he did all these things to the pastors among the rest, nay above the rest, yet, without controversy, they whom he taught publicly, and from house to house: the jews and greeks to whom he testified, (1.) preached faith and repentance: those all, amongst whom he went preaching the kingdom of god: those every one, whom for three years together he warned, were not bishops and pastors only. 72. neither is this to say, that the apostles taught christians nothing but their creed, nothing of the sacraments, commandments, etc. for that is not here the point to be proved: but only, that they taught them all things necessary, so that nothing can be necessary which they did not teach them. but how much of this they put into their creed, whether all the necessary points of simple belief, as we pretend, or only as you say, i know not what, is another question and which comes now to be farther examined. d. potter in confirmation of it, besides the authorities which you formerly shifted off, with so egregious tergiversation, urges five several arguments. 73. the sense of the first is this, if all the necessary points of simple of belief be not comprised in the creed, it can no way deserve the name of the apostles creed, as not being their creed in any sense, but only a part of it. to this you answer §. 25. upon the same affected ambiguity, etc. answ. it is very true that their whole faith was of a larger extent, but that was not the question: but whether all the points of simple belief which they taught as necessary to be explicitly believed, be not contained in it? and if thus much at least of christian religion, be not comprised in it, i again desire you to inform me, how it could be called the apostles creed! 74. four other reasons d. potter urges to the same purpose, grounded upon the practice of the ancient church; the last whereof you answer in the second part of your book. but to the rest, drawn from the ancient churches appointing her infants to be instructed (for matters of simple belief,) only in the creed: from her admitting catechumen unto baptism: and of strangers to her communion upon their only profession of the creed, you have not, for aught i can perceive, thought fit to make any kind of answer. 75. the difficulties of the 27. and last §. of this chapter, have been satisfied. so that there remains unexamined only the 26. section, wherein you exceed yourself in sophistry: especially in that trick of cavillers, which is to answer objections by other objections; an excellent way to make controversies endless! d. potter desires to be resolved, why amongst many things of equal necessity to be believed, the apostles should distinctly set down some in the creed, and be altogether silent of others? instead of resolving him in this difficulty, you put another to him, and that it is, why are some points not fundamental expressed in it, rather than others of the same quality? which demand is so far from satisfying the former doubt, that it makes it more intricate. for upon this ground it may be demanded, how was it possible that the apostles should leave out any articles simply necessary, and put in others not necessary, especially if their intention were (as you say it was) to deliver it in such articles as were fittest for those times? unless (which were wondrous strange) unnecessary articles were fit for those times, than necessary. but now to your question, the answer is obvious: these unnecessary things might be put in because they were circumstances of the necessary; pontius pilate, of christ's passion; the third day, of the resurrection. neither doth the adding of them make the creed ever a whit the less portable, the less fit to be understood, and remembered. and for the contrary reasons, other unnecessary things might be left out. beside, who sees not, that the addition of some unnecessary circumstances is a thing that can hardly be avoided without affectation! and therefore not so great a fault, nor deserving such a censure, as the omission of any thing essential to the work undertaken, and necessary to the end proposed in it. 76. you demand again (as it is no hard matter to multiply demands) why our saviour's descent to hell, and burial was expressed, end not his circumcision, his manifestation to the three kings, and working of miracles? i answer: his resurrection, ascension, and sitting at the right hand of god are very great miracles, and they are expressed. besides, s. john assures us, that the miracles which christ did, were done and written not for themselves that they might be believed; but for a farther end, that we might believe that jesus was the christ, and believing have eternal life. he therefore that believe this may be saved, though he have no explicit and distinct faith of any miracle that our saviour did. his circumcision and manifestation to the wise men (for i know not upon what grounds you call them kings) are neither things simply necessary to be known, nor have any near relation to those that are so. as for his descent into hell, it may (for aught you know) be put in as a thing necessary of itself to be known. if you ask, why more than his circumcision? i refer you to the apostles for an answer, who put that in, and left this out of their creed: and yet sure, were not so forgetful after the receiving of the holy ghost, as to leave out any prime and principal foundation of the faith, which are the very words of your own gordonius huntlaeus, contr. 2. c. 10. num. likewise his burial was put in perhaps as necessary of itself to be known. but though it were not, yet hath it manifestly so near relation to these that are necessary, his passion, and resurrection; (being the consequent of the one, and the antecedent of the other,) that it is no marvel if for their sakes it was put in. for though i verily believe that there is no necessary point of this nature, but what is in the creed, yet i do not affirm, because i cannot prove it, that there is nothing in the creed but what is necessary. you demand thirdly, why did they not express scriptures, sacraments, and all fundamental points of faith tending to practice, as well as those which rest in belief? i answer; because their purpose was to comprise in it only those necessary points which rest in belief: which appears, because of practical points there is not in it so much as one. 77. d. potter subjoins to what is said above, that as well, nay better, they might have given no article but that of the church, and sent us to the church for all the rest: for in setting down others besides that, and not all, they make us believe we have all, when we have not all. this consequence you deny: and neither give reason against it, nor satisfy his reason for it, which yet in my judgement is good and concluding. the proposition to be proved is this: that, if your doctrine were true, this short creed, i believe the roman church to be infallible, would have been better, that is, more effectual to keep the believers of it from heresy, and in the true faith, than this creed which now we have. a proposition so evident, that i cannot see how either you, or any of your religion, or indeed any sensible man can from his heart deny it. yet because you make show of doing so, or else, which i rather hope, do not rightly apprehend the force of the reason, i will endeavour briefly to add some light and strength to it, by comparing the effects of these several supposed creeds. 78. the former creed therefore would certainly produce these effects in the believers of it: an impossibility of being in any formal heresy: a necessity of being prepared in mind to come out of all error in faith, or material heresy; which certainly you will not deny; or, if you do, you pull down the only pillar of your church and religion, and deny that which is in effect the only thing you labour to prove through your whole book. 79. the latter creed which now we have, is so uneffectual for these good purposes, that you yourself tell us of innumerable, gross, damnable heresies, that have been, are, and may be, whose contrary truths are neither explicitly, nor by consequence comprehended in this creed: so that no man by the belief of this creed without the former, can be possibly guarded from falling into them, and continuing obstinate in them. nay, so far is this creed from guarding them from these mischiefs, that it is more likely to ensnare them into them, by seeming and yet not being a full comprehension of all necessary points of faith: which is apt (as experience shows,) to misguide men into this (as you conceive it) pernicious error, that believing the creed, they believe all necessary points of faith, whereas indeed, according to you, they do not so. now upon these grounds i thus conclude: that creed, which hath great commodities and no danger, would certainly be better than that which hath great danger, and wants many of these great commodities. but the former short creed proposed by me, i believe the roman church to be infallible, (if your doctrine be true) is of the former condition, and the latter, that is, the apostles creed, is of the latter, therefore the former (if your doctrine be true) would without controversy be better than the latter. 80. but (say you) by this kind of arguing, one might infer quite contrary, if the apostles creed contain all points necessary to salvation, what need have we of any church to teach us? and consequently what need of the article of the church? to which i answer, that having compared your inference and d. potter's together, i cannot discover any shadow of resemblance between them, nor any show of reason, why the perfection of the apostles creed, should exclude a necessity of some body to deliver it. much less why the whole creed's containing all things necessary should make the belief of a part of it unnecessary. as well (for aught i understand) you might avouch this inference to be as good as d. potter's: the apostles creed contains all things necessary, therefore there is no need to believe in god. neither doth it follow so well as d. potter's argument follows, that if the apostles creed contains all things necessary, that all other creeds and catechisms, wherein are added divers other particulars, are superfluous. for these other particulars may be the duties of obedience, they may be profitable points of doctrine, they may be good expositions of the apostles creed, and so not superfluous; and yet for all this the creed may still contain all points of belief that are simply necessary. these therefore are poor consequences, but no more like d. potters than an apple is like an oyster. 81. but this consequence after you have sufficiently slighted and disgraced it, at length you promise us news, and pretend to grant it. but what is that which you mean to grant? that the apostles did put no article in their creed but only that of the church? or that, if they had done so, they had done better than now they have done? this is d. potter's inference out of your doctrine: and truly, if you should grant this, this were news indeed? yes, say you, i will grant it, but only thus far, that christ hath referred us only to his church. yea, but this is clean another thing, and no news at all, that you should grant that, which you would fain have granted to you. so that your dealing with us is just as if a man should proffer me a courtesy, and pretend that he would oblige himself by a note under his hand, to give me twenty pound; and instead of it writ, that i own him forty, and desire me to subsctibe to it and be thankful. of such favours as these it is very safe to be liberal. 82. you tell us afterward (but how it comes in i know not) that it were a childish argument, the creed contains not all things necessary; ergo, it is not profitable! or, the church alone is sufficient to teach us by some convenient means: ergo, she must teach us without means. these indeed are childish arguments; but, for aught i see, you alone are the father of them: for, in d. potter's book, i can neither meet with them, nor any like them. he indeed tells you, that if (by an impossible supposition) your doctrine were true, another and a far shorter creed would have been more expedient: even this alone, i believe the roman church to be infallible. but why you should conclude, he makes this creed which we have, unprofitable; because he says another that might be conceived upon this false supposition, would be more profitable: or, that he lays a necessity upon the church, of teaching without means: or, of not teaching this very creed which now is taught; these things are so subtle that i cannot apprehend them. to my understanding, by those words, and sent us to the church for all the rest, he does rather manifestly imply, that the rest might be very well, not only profitable but necessary, and that the church was to teach this by creeds, or catechisms, or counsels, or any other means which she should make choice of; for, being infallible, she could not choose amiss. 83. whereas therefore you say, if the apostles had expressed no article but that of the catholic church, she must have taught us the other articles in particular by creeds, or other means: this is very true, but no way repugnant to the truth of this which follows, that the apostles (if your doctrine be true) had done better service to the church, though they had never made this creed of theirs which now we have, if, in stead thereof, they had commanded in plain terms that for men's perpetual direction in the faith, this short creed should be taught all men, i believe the roman church shall be for ever infallible. yet you must not so mistake me, as if i meant, that they had done better, not to have taught the church the substance of christian religion; for then the church not having learned it of them, could not have taught it us, this therefore i do not say: but, supposing they had written these scriptures as they have written, wherein all the articles of their creed are plainly delivered, and preached that doctrine which they did preach, and done all other things as they have done, besides the composing their symbol: i say, if your doctrine were true, they had done a work infinitely more beneficial to the church of christ, if they had never composed their symbol, which is but an imperfect comprehension of the necessary points of simple belief, and no distinctive mark (as a symbol should be) between those that are good christians, and those that are not so; but instead thereof, had delivered this one proposition, which would have been certainly effectual for all the aforesaid good intents and purposes, the roman church shall be for ever infallible in all things, which she proposes as matters of faith. 84. whereas you say, if we will believe we have all in the creed when we have not all, it is not the apostles fault but our own: i tell you plainly, if it be a fault, i know not whose it should be but theirs. for sure it can be no fault in me to follow such guides whithersoever they lead me; now, i say, they have led me into this persuasion, because they have given me great reason to believe it, and none to the contrary. the reason they have given me to believe it, is, because it is apparent and confessed, they did propose to themselves in composing it, some good end or ends: as that christians might have a form, by which (for matter of faith) they might profess themselves catholics. so putean out of tho. aquinas: that the faithful might know, what the christian people is to believe explicitly. so vincent filiucius: that being separated into divers parts of the world, they might preach the same thing: and, that, that might serve as a mark to distinguish true christians from infidels, so card, riclieu. now for all these & for any other good intent, i say, it will be plainly uneffectual, unless it contain at least all points of simple belief, which are, in ordinary course, necessary to be explicitly known by all men. so that, if it be a fault in me to believe this, it must be my fault to believe the apostles, wise and good men: which i cannot do if i believe not this. and therefore, what richardus de sancto victore says of god himself, i make no scruple at all to apply to the apostles, and to say, si error est quod credo, à vobis deceptus sum: if it be an error which i believe, it is you, and my reverend esteem of you and your actions, that hath led me into it. for as for your suspicion, that we are led into this persuasion, out of a hope that we may the better maintain by it some opinions of our own, it is plainly uncharitable. i know no opinion i have, which i would not as willingly forsake as keep, if i could see sufficient reason to induce me to believe, that it is the will of god i should forsake it. neither do i know any opinion i hold against the church of rome, but i have more evident grounds than this whereupon to build it. for let but these truths be granted: that the authority of the scripture is independent on your church, and dependent only in respect of us upon universal tradition; that scripture is the only rule of faith: that all things necessary to salvation are plainly delivered in scripture: let, i say, these most certain and divine truths be laid for foundations, and let our superstructions be consequent and coherent to them; and, i am confident, peace would be restored, and truth maintained against you, though the apostles creed were not in the world. chap. v that luther, calvin, their associates, and all who began or continue the separation from the external communion of the roman church, are guilty of the proper, and formal sin of schism. the searcher of all hearts is witness with how unwilling minds, we catholics are drawn to fasten the denomination of schismatics, or heretics, on them, for whose souls, if they employed their best blood, they judge that it could not be better spent! if we rejoice, that they are contristated at such titles, our joy riseth not from their trouble or grief, but, as that of the apostles did, from the fountain of charity, because they are contristated to repentance; that so, after unpartial examination, they finding themselves to be what we say, may, by god's holy grace, begin to dislike, what themselves are. for our part, we must remember that our obligation is, to keep within the mean, betwixt uncharitable bitterness, and pernicious flattery, not yielding to worldly respects, nor offending christian modesty, but uttering the substance of truth in so charitable manner, that not so much we, as truth, and charity, may seem to speak; according to the wholesome advice of s. gregory nazianzen in these divine words: we do not affect peace with (a) orat. 32. prejudice of the true doctrine, that so we may get a name of being geatle, and mild, and yet we seek to conserve peace, fight in a lawful manner, and containing ourselves within our compass, and the rule of spirit. and of these things my judgement is, and, for my part, i prescribe the same law to all that deal with souls, and treat of true doctrine, that neither they exasperated men's minds by harshness, nor make them haughty or insolent, by submission; but that, in the cause of faith they behave themselves prudently, and advisedly, and do not in either of these things exceed the mean. with whom agreeth s. leo, saying: it behoveth us in such causes to be (b) epist. 8. most careful, that without noise of contentions, both charity be conserved, and truth maintained. 2. for better method, we will handle these points in order. first, we will set down the nature, and essence, or, as i may call it, the quality of schism. in the second place, the greatness, and grievousness, or (so to term it) the quantity thereof. for the nature, or quality, will tell us who may without injury be judged schismatics: and by the greatness, or quantity, such as find themselves guilty thereof, will remain acquainted with the true state of their soul, and whether they may conceive any hope of salvation or no. and because schism will be found to be a division from the church, which could not happen, unless there were always a visible church; we will, thirdly, prove or rather take it as a point to be granted by all christians, that in all ages, there hath been such a visible congregation of faithful people. fourthly, we will demonstrate, that luther, galvin, and the rest, did separate themselves from the communion of that always visible church of christ, and therefore were guilty of schism. and fifthly, we will make it evident, that the visible true church or christ, out of which luther and his followers departed, was no other but the roman church; and consequently, that both they, and all others who persist in the same divisions, are schismatics by reason of their separation from the church of rome. 1. point. the nature of schism. 3. for the first point touching the nature, or quality of schism: as the natural perfection of man consists in his being the image of god his creator, by the powers of his soul; so his supernatural perfection is placed in similitude with god, as his last end and felicity; and, by having the said spiritual faculties, his understanding and will is linked to him. his understanding is united to god by faith; his will, by charity. the former relies upon his infallible truth: the latter carrieth us to his infinite goodness. faith hath a deadly opposite, heresy. contrary to the union, or unity of charity, is separation and division. charity is twofold. as it respects god, his opposite vice is hatred against god: as it uniteth us to our neighbour, his contrary is separation or division of affections and will, from our neighbour. our neighbour may be considered, either as one private person hath a single relation to another, or as all concur to make one company or congregation, which we call the church; and this is the most principal reference and union of one man with another: because the chiefest unity is that of the whole, to which the particular unity of parts is subordinate. this unity, or oneness, (if so i may call it) is effected by charity, uniting all the members of the church in one mystical body; contrary to which, is schism, from the greek word signifying scissure, or division. wherefore upon the whole matter, we find that schism, as the angelical doctor, s. thomas, defines it, is; a voluntary separation (c) 2.2. q. 39 art. in corp. & add 3. from the unity of that charity, whereby all the members of the church are united. from hence he deduceth, that schism is a special and particular vice, distinct from heresy, because they are opposite to two different virtues: heresy, to faith: schism to charity. to which purpose he fitly allegeth s. hierom upon these words, (tit. 3.) a man that is an heretic after the first and second admonition avoid, saying: i conceive that there is this difference betwixt schism and heresy, that heresy involves some perverse assertion: schism for episcopal dissension doth separate men from the church. the same doctrine is delivered by s. austin in these words: heretics (d) lib. de fid. & symbol. cap. 10. and schismatics call their congregations, churches: but heretics corrupt the faith by believing of god false things: but schismatics by wicked divisions break from fraternal charity, although they believe what we believe. therefore the heretic belongs not to the church, because she loves god: nor the schismatic, because she loves her neighbour. and in another place he saith: it is wont to be demanded (e) qu. evang▪ ex mat. q. 11. how schismatics, be distinguished from heretics: and this difference is found, that not a divers faith, but the divided society of communion doth make schismatics. it is then evident that schism is different from heresy. nevertheless (saith s. thomas) (f) ubi supra, as he who is deprived of faith must needs want charity: so every heretic is a schismatic, but not conversively every schismatique is an heretic; though because want of charity disposes and makes way to the destruction of faith (according to those words of the apostle, which [a good conscience] some casting off, have suffered shipwreck in their faith) schism speedily degenerates to heresy, as s. hierom after the rehearsed words teacheth, saying: though schism in the beginning may in some sort be understood different from heresy; yet there is no schism which doth not feign some heresy to itself, that so it may seem to have departed from the church upon good reason. nevertheless when schism proceeds originally from heresy, heresy as being in that case the predominant quality in these two peccant humours, giveth the denomination of an heretic; as on the other side we are wont, especially in the beginning, or for a while, to call schismatics, those men who first began with only schism, though in process of time they fell into some heresy, and by that means are indeed both schismatics and heretics. 4. the reason why both heresy and schism are repugnant to the being of a good catholic, is: because the catholic, or universal church signifies one congregation, or company of faithful people, and therefore implies not only faith, to make them faithful believers, but also communion, or common union, to make them one in charity, which excludes separation, and division: and therefore in the apostles creed, communion of saints, is immediately joined to the catholic church. 5. from this definition of schism may be inferred, that the guilt thereof is contracted, not only by division from the universal church; but also, by a separation from a particular church or diocese which agrees with the universal. in this manner meletius was a schismatic, but not an heretic, because, as we read in s. epiphanius (h) haeres. 68 he was of the right faith: for his faith was not altered at any time from the holy catholic church, etc. he made a sect, but departed not from faith. yet because he made to himself a particular congregation against s. peter archbishop of alexandria his lawful superior, and by that means brought in a division in that particular church, he was a schismatique. and it is well worth the noting, that the meletians building new churches, put this title upon them, the church of martyrs: and upon the ancient churches of those who succeeded peter, was inscribed, the catholic church. for so it is. a new sect must have a new name, which though it be never so gay and specious, as the church of martyrs: the reformed church, etc. yet the novelty showeth that it is not the catholic, not a true church. and, that schism may be committed by division from a particular church, we read in optatus milevitanus (i) lib. 1. con●. parmen. these remarkable words, (which do well declare who be schismatics) brought by him to prove that not caecilianus but parmenianus was a schismatic: for caecilianus went not out from majorinus thy grand father (he means his next predecessor, but one, in the bishopric,) but majorinus from caecilianus: neither did caecilianus departed from the chair of peter, or of cyprian (who was but a particular bishop,) but majorinus, in whose chair thou fittest, which had no beginning before majorinus himself. seeing it is manifestly known that these things were so done, it evidently appearch, that you are heirs both of traditors (that is, of those who delivered up the holy bible to be burned) and of schismatics. and it seemeth that this kind of schism must principally be admitted by protestants, who acknowledge no one visible head of the whole church, but hold that every particular diocese, church, or country is governed by itself independently of any one person, or general council, to which all christians have obligation to submit their judgements, and wills. 6. as for the grievousness or quantity of schism (which was the second point proposed) s. thomas teacheth, 2. point. the grievousness of schism. that amongst sins against our neighbour, schism (l) supra art. 2. ad 3. is the most grievous; because it is against the spiritual good of the multitude, or community. and therefore as in a kingdom or commonwealth, there is as great difference between the crime of rebellion or sedition, and debates among private men, as there is inequality betwixt one man, and a whole kingdom; so in the church, schism is as much more grievous than sedition in a kingdom, as the spiritual good of souls surpasseth the civil and political weal. and s. thomas adds further, and they lose the spiritual power of jurisdiction; and if they go about to absolve from sin, or to excommunicate, their actions are invalid; which he proves out of the canon novitianus. causa 7 quaest. 1. which saith: he that keepeth neither the unity of spirit, nor the peace of agreement, and separates himself from the bond of the church, and the college of priests, can neither have the power, nor dignity of a bishop. the power also of order (for example, to consecrate the eucharist, to ordain priests, etc.) they cannot lawfully exercise. 7. in the judgement of the holy fathers, schism is a most grievous offence. s. chrysostom (m) hom. 11. in ep. ad eph. compares these schismatical dividers of christ's mystical body, to those who sacrilegiously pierced his natural body, saying: nothing doth so much incense god, as that the church should be divided. although we should do innumerable good works, if we divide the full ecclesiastical congregation, we shall be punished no less than they who tore his (natural) body. for that was done to the gain of the whole world, although not with that intention: but this hath no profit at all, but there ariseth from it most great harm. these things are spoken, not only to those who bear office, but also to those who are governed by them. behold how neither a moral good life (which conceit deceiveth many) nor authority of magistrates, nor any necessity of obeying superiors can excuse schism from being a most heinous offence. optatus milevitanus (o) lib. count. parmen. calls schism, ingens flagitium, a huge crime. and speaking to the donatists, saith, that schism is evil in the highest degree, even you are not able to deny. no less pathetical is s. augustine upon this subject. he reckons schismatics amongst pagans, heretics, and jews, saying: religion is to be sought, neither in the confusion of pagans, nor (p) lib. de vera relig. cap. 6. in the filth of heretics, nor in the languishing of schismatics, nor in the age of the jews; but amongst those alone who are called christian catholics, or orthodox, that is, lovers of unity in the whole body, and followers of truth. nay, he esteems them worse than infidels and idolaters, saying: those whom the donatists (q) cont. donatist. l. 1. cap. 8. heal from the wound of infidelity and idolatry, they hurt more grievously with the wound of schism. let here those men who are pleased untruly to call us idolaters, reflect upon themselves, and consider, that this holy father judgeth schismatics (as they are) to be worse than idolaters, which they absurdly call us. and this he proveth by the example of core, dathan, and abiram, and other rebellious schismatics of the old testament, who were conveyed alive down into hell, and punished more openly than idolaters. no doubt (saith this holy father) but (r) ibid. l. 2. c. 6. that was committed most wickedly, which was punished most severely. in another place he yoketh schism with heresy, saying upon the eighth beatitude: many (s) de serm. dom. in monte, cap. 5. heretics, under the name of christians, deceiving men's souls, do suffer many such things; but therefore they are excluded from this reward, because it is not only said, happy are they who suffer persecution, but there is added, for justice. but where there is not sound faith, there cannot be justice. neither can schismatics promise to themselves any part of this reward, because likewise where there is no charity, there cannot be justice. and in another place, yet more effectually he saith: being out of (t) epist. 204. the church, and divided from the heap of unity, and the bond of charity, thou shouldst be punished with eternal death, though thou shouldest be burned alive for the name of christ. and in another place, he hath these words: if he hear not the church, let him be to (u) cont. advers. leg. & prophet. l. 2. cap. 17. thee, as an heathen or publican; which is more grievous than if he were smitten with the sword, consumed with flames; or cast to wild beasts. and elsewhere: out of the catholic church (saith he) one (w) de gest. cum emerit. may have faith, sacraments, orders, and in sum all things except salvation. with s. augustine, his countryman and second self in sympathy of spirit, s. fulgentius agreeth, saying: believe this (x) de fide ad pet. steadfastly without doubting, that every heretic or schismatique, baptised in the name of the father, the son, and the holy ghost, if before the end of his life he be not reconciled to the catholic church, what alms soever he give, yea though he should shed his blood for the name of christ, he cannot obtain salvation. mark again, how no moral honesty of life, no good deeds, no martyrdom, can without repentance avail any schismatique for salvation. let us also add that d. potter saith: schism is no less (y) pag. 42. damnable than heresy. 8. but o you holy, learned, zealous fathers, and doctors of god's church; out of these premises, of the grievousness of schism, and of the certain damnation which it bringeth (if unrepented) what conclusion draw you for the instruction of christians? s. augustine maketh this wholesome inference. there is (z) cont. parm. l. 2. cap. 62. no just necessity to divide unity. s. irenaeus concludeth: they cannot (a) cont. haeres. l 4. cap. 62. make any so important reformation, as the evil of the schism is pernicious. s. denis of alexandria saith: certainly, (b) apud euseb. hist. eccles. lib. 6. all things should rather be endured, than to consent to the division of the church of god: those martyrs being no less glorious, that expose themselves to hinder the dismembering of the church, than those that suffer rather than they will offer sacrifice to idols. would to god all those who divided themselves from that visible church of christ, which was upon earth when luther appeared, would rightly consider of these things! and thus much of the second point. 3. point. perpetual visibility of the church. 9 we have just and necessary occasion, eternally to bless almighty god, who hath vouchsafed to make us members of the catholic roman church, from which while men fall, they precipitate themselves into so vast absurdities, or rather sacrilegious blasphemies, as is employed in the doctrine of the total deficiency of the visible church, which yet is maintained by divers chief protestants, as may at large be seen in breerely, and others; out of whom i will here name jewel, saying: the truth was unknown (c) apol. part. 4. c. 4. divis. 2. and in his defence printed ann. 1571. pag. 426. at that time, and unheard of, when martin luther, and ulderick zwinglius first came unto the knowledge and preaching of the gospel. perkins saith: we say, that (d) in his exposed on upon the creed, pag. 400. b●fore the days of luther for the space of many hund●ed years, an universal apostasy overspread the whole face of the earth, and that our (protestant) church was not then visible to the world. napper upon the revelations teacheth, that from the year of (e) propos. 37. pag▪ 68 christ three hundred and sixteen, the antichristian and papistical reign hath begun, reigning universally, and without any debatable contradiction, one thousand two hundred sixty years, (that is, till luther's time:) and that, from the year of (f) ibid. cap. 12. pag. 161. col. 3. christ three hundred and sixteen, god hath withdrawn his visible church from open assemblies, to the hearts of particular godly men, etc. during the space of one thousand two hundred threescore years. and that, the (g) ibid. in cap. 11. pag. 145. pope and clergy have possessed the outward visible church of christians, even one thousand two hundred threescore years. and that, the (h) ibid. pag. 191. true church abode latent, and invisible. and brocard (i) fol. 110. & 123. upon the revelations, professeth to join in opinion with napper. fulk affirmeth, that in the (k) answer to a counterfeit catholic. pag. 16. time of boniface the third, which was the year six hundred and seven, the church was invisible, and fled into the wilderness, there to remain a long season. luther saith: primò solus eram: at the first (l) in praef at. operum suorum. i was alone. jacob hailbronerus one of the disputants for the protestant patty, in the conference at ratisbon, affirmeth (m) in suo acatholico. vol. à. 15. cap. 9 p. 479 that the true church was interrupted by apostasy from the true faith. calvin saith: it is absurd in the very (n) epist. 141. beginning to break one from another, after we have been forced to make a separation from the whole world. it were overlong to allege the words of joannes regius, daniel chamierus, beza, ochimus, castalio, and others to the same purpose. the reason which cast them upon this wicked doctrine, was a desperate voluntary necessity: because they being resolved not to acknowledge the roman church to be christ's true church, and yet being convinced by all manner of evidence, that for divers ages before luther there was no other congregation of christians, which could be the church of christ; there was no remedy but to affirm, that upon earth christ had no visible church: which they would never have avouched, if they had known how to avoid the foresaid inconvenience (as they apprehended it) of submitting themselves to the roman church. 10. against these exterminating spirits, d. potter, and other more moderate protestants, profess, that christ always had, and always will have, upon earth a visible church: otherwise (saith he) our lord's (o) pag. 154. promise of her stable (p) mat. 16.18. edification should be of no value. and in another place, having affirmed that protestants have not left the church of rome, but her corruptions, and acknowledging her still to be a member of christ's body, he seeketh to clear himself and others from schism, because (saith he) the property (q) pag. 76. of schism is (witness the donatists and lucit●rians) to cut off from the body of christ, and the hope of salvation, the church from which it separates. and, if any zealots amongst us have proceeded to heavier censures, their zeal may be excused, but their charity and wisdom cannot be justified. and elsewhere he acknowledgeth, that the roman church hath those main and (r) pag. 83. essential truths, which give her the name and essence of a church. 11. it being therefore granted by d. potter, and the chiefest and best learned english protestants, that christ's visible church cannot perish, it will be needless for me in this occasion to prove it. s. augustine doubted not to say: the prophets (s) in psal. 30. com. 2. spoke more obscurely of christ, then of the church: because, as i think, they did foresee in spirit, that men were to make parties against the church, and that they were not to have so great strife concerning christ: therefore that was more plainly foretold, and more openly prophesied, about which greater contentions were to rise, that it might turn to the condemnation of them who have seen it, and yet gone forth. and in another place he saith: how do we confide (t) epist. 48. to have received manifestly christ himself from holy scriptures, if we have not also manifestly received the church from them? and indeed to what congregation shall a man have recourse for the affairs of his soul, if upon earth there be no visible church of christ? beside, to imagine a company of men believing one thing in their heart, and with their mouth professing the contrary, (as they must be supposed to do; for, if they had professed what they believed, they would have become visible) is to dream of a damned crew of dissembling sycophants, but not to conceive a right notion of the church of christ our lord. and therefore s. augustine saith: we cannot be saved, unless labouring also for the (u) s. aug. de fide & symbols c. 1. salvation of others, we profess with our mouths, the same faith which we bear in our hearts. and if any man hold it lawful to dissemble, and deny matters of faith, we cannot be assured, but that they actually dissemble, and hid anabaptism, arianism, yea turcism, and even atheism, or any other false belief, under the outward profession of calvinism. do not protestants teach that preaching of the world, and administration of sacraments (which cannot but make a church visible) are inseparable notes of the true church? and therefore they must either grant a visible church, or none at all. no wonder then, if s. austin account this heresy so gross, that he saith against those who in his time defended the like error: but this church which (w) in psal. 101. hath been of all nations is no more, she hath perished; so say they that are in not in her. o impudent speech and afterward; this voice so abominable, so detestable, so full of presumption and falsehood, which is sustained with no truth, enlightened with no wisdom, seasoned with no salt, vain, rash, heady, pernicious, the holy ghost foresaw, etc. and peradventure some (x) de ovib. c. ●. one may say, there are other sheep i know not where, with which i am not acquainted, yet god hath care of them. but he is too absurd in humane sense, that can imagine such things. and these men do not consider, that while then deny the perpetuity of a visible church, they destroy their own present church, according to the argument, which s. augustine urged against the donatists in these words (y) de bapt. cont. donat. if the church were lost in cyprian's (we may say in gregory's) time, from whence did donatus (luther) appear? from what earth did he spring? from what sea is he come? from what heaven did he drop? and in another place: how can they vaunt (z) lib. 3. count▪ parm. to have any church, if ●he have ceased ever since those times? and all divines by defining schism to be a division from the true church, suppose that there must be a known church, from which it is possible for men to departed. but enough of this in these few words. 4. point. luther and all that follow him are schismatics. 12. let us now come to the fourth, and chiefest point, which was, to examine whether luther, calvin, and the rest, did not departed from the external communion of christ's visible church, and by that separation became guilty of schism. and that they are properly schismatics clearly followeth from the grounds which we have laid, concerning the nature of schism, which consists in leaving the external communion of the visible church of christ our lord: and it is clear by evidence of fact, that luther and his followers forsook the communion of that ancient church. for they did not so much as pretend to join with any congregation, which had a being before their time; for they would needs conceive that no visible company was free from errors in doctrine, and corruption in practice: and therefore they opposed the doctrine; they withdrew their obedience from the prelates; they left participation in sacraments; they changed the liturgy of public service of whatsoever church then extant. and these things they pretended to do out of a persuasion, that they were bound (forsooth) in conscience so to do, unless they would participate with errors, corruptions, and superstitions. we dare not (saith d. potter) communicate (a) pag. 68 with rome, either in her public liturgy, which is manifestly polluted with gross superstition, etc. or in those corrupt and ungrounded opinions, which she hath added to the faith of catholics,. but now let d. potter tell me with what visible, church extant before luther, he would have adventured to communicate in her public liturgy and doctrine, since he durst not communicate with rome? he will not be able to assign any, even with any little colour of common sense. if then they departed from all visible communities professing christ, it followeth that they also left the communion of the true visible church, which soever it was, whether that of rome, or any other; of which point i do not for the present dispute. yea this the lutherans do not only acknowledge, but prove, and brag of. if (saith a learned lutheran) there had been right (b) georgius milius in aug. confess. art. 7. de eccles. pag. 137 believers which went before luther in his office, there had then been no need of a lutheran reformation. another affirmeth it to be ridiculous, to think that in the time (c) bened. morgenstern. tract. de eccles. pag. 145. before luther, any had the purity of doctrine; and that luther should receive it from them, and not they from luther▪ another speaketh roundly, and saith, it is impudence to say, that many learned men (d) conrade. schlusselb. in theol. calvin. lib. 2. fol. 130. in germany before luther, did hold the doctrine of the gospel. and i add: that far greater impudence, it were to affirm, that germany did not agree with the test of europe, and other christian catholic nations, and consequently, that it is the greatest impudence do deny, that he departed from the communion of the visible catholic church, spread over the whole world. we have heard calvin saying of protestants in general; we were, even, forced (e) epist. 141. to make a separation from the whole world. and, luther of himself in particular: in the beginning (f) in praefat. operum suorum. i was alone. ergo (say i, by your good leave) you were at least a schismatic, divided from the ancient church, and a member of no new church. for no sole man can constitute a church; and though he could, yet such a church could not be that glorious company, of whose number, greatness, and amplitude so much hath been spoken, both in the old testament, and in the new. 13. d. potter endeavours to avoid this evident argument by divers evasions; but by the confutation thereof i will (with god's holy assistance) take occasion, even out of his own answers and grounds, to bring unanswerable reasons to convince them of schism. 14. his chief answer is: that they have not left the church, but her corruption. 15. i reply. this answer may be given either by those furious people, who teach that those abuses, and corruptions in the church were so enormous, that they could not stand with the nature, or being of a true church of christ: or else by those other more calm protestants, who affirm, that those errors did not destroy the being, but only deform the beauty of the church. against both these sorts of men, i may fitly use that unanswerable dilemma, which s. augustine brings against the donatists in these concluding words: tell me whether the (g) lib. 2. cont. epist. gaudent. cap. 7. church at that time when you say she entertained those who were guilty of all crimes, by the contagion of those sinful persons, perished, or perished not? answer; whether the church perished, or perished not? make choice of what you think. if then she perished, what church brought forth donatus? (we may say luther.) but if she could not perish, because so many were incorporated into her, without baptism, (that is, without a second baptism, or rebaptisation, and i may say, without luther's reformation) answer me i pray you, what madness did more the sect of donatus to separate themselves from her upon pretence to avoid the communion of bad mea● i beseech the reader to ponder every one of s. augustine's words; and to consider, whether any thing could have been spoken more directly against luther, and his followers of what sort soever. 16. and now to answer more in particular; i say to those who teach that the visible church of christ perished for many ages, that i can easily afford them the courtesy, to free them from mere schism: but all men touched with any spark of zeal to vindicate the wisdom and goodness of our saviour from blasphemous injury, cannot choose but believe and proclaim them to be superlative arch-heretiques. nevertheless, if they will needs have the honour of singularity, and desire to be both formal heretics, and properly schismatics, i will tell them, that while they dream of an invisible church of men, which agreed with them in faith, they will upon due reflection find themselves to be schismatics, from those corporeal angels, or invisible men, because they held external communion with the visible church of those times, the outward communion of which visible church these modern hot-spurs forsaking, were thereby divided from the outward communion of their hidden brethren, and so are separatists from the external communion of them, with whom they agree in faith; which is schism in the most formal, and proper signification thereof. moreover, according to d. potter, those boisterous creatures are properly schismatics. for, the reason why he thinks himself, and such as he is, to be cleared from schism, notwithstanding their division from the roman church, is, because (according to his divinity) the property of (h) pag. 76. schism, is, (witness the donatists and luciferians) to cut off from the body of christ, and the hope of salvation, the church from which it separates: but those protestants of whom we now spoke, cut off from the body of christ. and the hope of salvation, the church from which they separated themselves; and they do it directly as the donatists (in whom you exemplify) did, by affirming that the true church had perished: and therefore they cannot be cleared from schism, if you may be their judge. consider, i pray you, how many prime protestants both domestical and foreign you have at one blow struck off from hope of salvation, and condemned to the lowest pit for the grievous sin of schism. and withal it imports you to consider, that you also involve yourself, and other moderate protestants in the selfsame crime, and punishment, while you communicate with those, who according to your own principles, are properly, and formally schismatics. for, if you held yourself obliged under pain of damnation to forsake the communion of the roman church, by reason of her errors and corruptions, which yet you confess were not fundamental; shall it not be much more damnable for you, to live in communion and confraternity, with those who defend an error of the failing of the church; which in the donatists you confess (i) pag. 126. to have been properly heretical against the article of our creed, i believe the church? and i desire the reader, here to apply an authority of s. cyprian (epist. 76.) which he shall find alleged in the next number. and this may suffice for confutation of the aforesaid answer, as it might have relation to the rigid calvinists. 17. for confutation of those protestants, who hold that the church of christ had always a being, and cannot err in points fundamental, and yet teach that she may err in matters of less moment, wherein, if they forsake her, they would be accounted not to leave the church, but only her corruptions; i must say that they change the state of our present question, not distinguishing between internal faith, and external communion, not between schism, and heresy. this i demonstrate out of d. potter himself, who in express words teacheth, that the promises which our lord hath made (k) pag. 151. unto his church for his assistance, are intended not to any particular persons or churches, but only to the church catholic: and they are to be extended not to every parcel, or particularity of truth, but only to points of faith, or fundamental. and afterwards speaking of the universal church, he saith: it is comfort (l) pag. 155. enough for the church, that the lord in mercy will secure her from all capital dangers, and conserve her on earth against all enemies; but she may not hope to triumph over all sin and error, till she be in heaven. out of which words i observe, that, according to d. potter, the selfsame church, which is the universal church, remaining the universal true church of christ, may fall into errors and corruptions: from whence it clearly followeth, that it is impossible to leave the external communion of the church so corrupted, and retain external communion with the catholic church; since the church catholic, and the church so corrupted is the selfsame one church, or company of men. and the contrary imagination talks in a dream, as if the errors and infections of the catholic church were not inherent in her, but were separate from her, like to accidents without any subject, or rather indeed, as if they were not accidents, but hypostases, or persons, subsisting by themselves; for men cannot be said to live, in, or out of, the communion of any dead creature, but with persons, endued with life and reason; and much less can men be said to live in the communion of accidents, as errors and corruptions are: and therefore it is an absurd thing to affirm, that protestants divided themselves from the corruptions of the church, but not from the church herself, seeing the corruptions of the church were inherent in the church. all this is made more clear, if we consider, that when luther appeared, there were not two distinct visible true catholic churches, holding contrary doctrines, and divided in external communion; one of the which two churches did triumph over all error, and corruption in doctrine and practice; but the other was stained with both. for to feign this diversity of two churches, cannot stand with record of histories, which are silent of any such matter. it is against d. potter's own grounds, that the church may err in points not fundamental, which were not true, if you will imagine a certain visible catholic church free from error even in points not fundamental. it contradicteth the words in which he said, the church may not hope to triumph over all error, till she be in heaven. it evacuateth the brag of protestants, that luther reform the whole church: and lastly, it maketh luther a schismatic, for leaving the communion of all visible churches, seeing (upon this supposition) there was a visible church of christ free from all corruption, which therefore could not be forsaken without just imputation of schism. we must therefore truly affirm, that since there was but one visible church of christ, which was truly catholic, and yet was (according to protestants) stained with corruption; when luther left the external communion of that corrupted church, he could not remain in the communion of the catholic church, no more than it is possible to keep company with d. christopher potter, and not keep company with the provost of queen's college in oxford, if d. potter and the provost be one and the selfsame man: for so one should be, and not be, with him at the same time. this very argument, drawn from the unity of god's church, s. cyprian urgeth to convince, that novatianus was cut from the church, in these words: the church is (m) epist. 76. ad mag. one, which being one cannot be both within and without. if she be with novatianus, she was not with cornelius; but if she were with cornelius, who succeeded fabianus, by lawful ordination, novati●nus is not in the church. i purposely here speak only of external communion with the catholic church. for in this point there is great difference between internal acts of our understanding, and will; and of external deeds. our understanding and will, are faculties (as philosophers speak) abstractive, and able to distinguish, and, as it were, to part things, though in themselves they be really conjoined. but real external deeds do take things in gross as they find them, not separating things which in reality are joined together. thus, one man may consider and love a sinner as he is a man, friend, benefactor, or the like; and at the same time not consider him, nor love him as he is a sinner; because these are acts of our understanding and will, which may respect their objects under some one formality, or consideration, without reference to other things contained in the selfsame objects. but if one should strike, or kill a sinful man, he will not be excused by alleging that he killed him, not as a man, but as a sinner; because the selfsame person being a man, and the sinner, the external act of murder fell jointly upon the man, and the sinner. and for the same reason one cannot avoid the company of a sinner, and at the same time be really present with that man who is a sinner. and this is our case: and in this our adversaries are egregiously, and many of them affectedly mistaken. for one may in some points believe as the church believeth, and disagree from her in other. one may love the truth which she holds, and detest her (pretended) corruptions. but it is impossible that a man should really separate himself from her external communion, as she is corrupted, and be really within the same external communion as she is sound; because she is the selfsame church which is supposed to be sound in some things, and to err in others. now, our question for the present doth concern only this point of external communion: because schism, as it is distinguished from heresy, is committed when one divides himself from the external communion of that church with which he agrees in faith; whereas heresy doth necessarily imply a difference in matter of faith, and belief: and therefore to say, that they left not the visible church; but her errors, can only excuse them from heresy (which shall be tried in the next chapter) but not from schism, as long as they are really divided from the external communion of the selfsame visible church; which, notwithstanding those errors wherein they do in judgement descent from her, doth still remain the true catholic church of christ; and therefore while they forsake the corrupted church, they forsake the catholic church. thus than it remaineth clear, that their chiefest answer changeth the very state of the question; confoundeth internal acts of the understanding with the external deeds; doth not distinguish between schism and heresy; and leaves this demonstrated against them, that they divided themselves from the communion of the visible catholic church, because they conceived that she needed reformation. but whether this pretence of reformation will acquit them of schism, i refer to the unpartial judges heretofore (n) numb. 8. alleged; as to s. irenaeus, who plainly saith: they cannot make any so important reformation, as the evil of the schism is pernicious. to s. denis of alexandria, saying: certainly all things should be endured rather than to consent to the division of the church of god: those martyrs being no less glorious that expose themselves to hinder the dismembering of the church, than those that suffer rather than they will offer sacrifice to idols. to s. augustine, who tells us: that not to hear the church, is a more grievous thing than if he were stricken with the sword, consumed with flames, exposed to wild beasts. and to conclude all in few words, he giveth this general prescription: there is no just necessity to divide unity; and d. potter may remember his own words: there neither was (s) pag. 75. nor can be any just cause to departed from the church of christ; no more than from christ himself. but i have showed that luther, and the rest departed from the church of christ (if christ had any church upon earth:) therefore there could be no just cause (of reformation, or what else soever) to do as they did; and therefore they must be contented to be held for schismatics. 18. moreover, i demand whether those corruptions which moved them to forsake the communion of the visible church, were in manners, or doctrine? corruption in manners yields no sufficient cause to leave the church, otherwise men must go not only out of the church, but out of the world, as the apostle (t) 1 cor. 5.10. saith. our blessed saviour foretold that there would be in the church tares with choice corn, and sinners with just men. if then protestants wax zealous, with the servants, to pluck up the weeds, let them first hearken to the wisdom of the master: let both grow up. and they ought to imitate them, who as s. augustine saith, tolerate for the good of (u) ep. 162. unity, that which they detest for the good of equity. and to whom the more frequent, and foul such scandals are, by so much the more is the merit of their perseverance in the communion of the church, and the martyrdom of their patience, as the same saint calls it. if they were offended with the life of some ecclesiastical persons, must they therefore deny obedience to their pastors, and finally break with god's church? the pastor of pastors teacheth us another lesson. upon the chair of moses (w) mat. 33. have sitten the scribes and pharisees. all things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe ye, and do ye: but according to their works, do you not. must people except against laws, and revolt from magistrates, because some are negligent, or corrupt in the execurion of the same laws, and performance of their office? if they intended reformation of manners, they used a strange means for the achieving of such an end, by denying the necessity of confession, laughing at austerity of penance, condemning the vows of chastity, poverty, obedience, breaking fasts, etc. and no less unfit were the men, than the means. i love not recrimination. but it is well known to how great crimes luther, calvin, zuinglius, beza, and others of the prime reformers were notoriously obnoxious; as might be easily demonstrated by the only transcribing of what others have delivered upon that subject: whereby it would appear, that they were very far from being any such apostolical men as god is wont to use in so great a work. and whereas they were wont, especially in the beginning of their revoult, maliciously to exaggerate of the faults some clergy men, erasmus said well, (ep. ad fratres inferior is germaniae,) let the riot, lust, ambition, avarice of priests, and whatsoever other crimes be gathered together, heresy alone doth exceed all this filthy lake of vices. besides nothing at all was omitted by the sacred council of trent, which might tend to reformation of manners. and finally, the vices of others are not hurtful to any but such as imitate, and consent to them; according to the saying of s. augustine: we conserve (y) ep. 116. innocency, not by knowing the ill deeds of men, but by not yielding consent to such as we know, and by not judging rashly of such faults as we know not. if you answer, that, not corruption in manners, but the approbation of them, doth yield sufficient cause to leave the church; i reply with s. augustine, that the church doth (as the pretended reformers ought to have done) tolerate or bear with scandals and corruptions, but neither doth, nor can approve them. the church (saith he) being placed (z) pag. 75. betwixt much chaff and cockle, doth bear with many things; but doch not approve, nor dissemble, nor act those things which are against faith, and good life. but because to approve corruption in manners as lawful, were an error against faith, it belongs to corruption in doctrine, which was the second part of my demand. 19 now then, that corruptions in doctrine (i still speak upon the untrue supposition of our adversaries) could not afford any sufficient cause, or colourable necessity to departed from that visible church, which was extant when luther risen, i demonstrate out of d. potter's own confession; that the catholic church neither hath, nor can err, in points fundamental, as we shown out of his own express words, which he also of set purpose delivereth in divers other places, and all they are obliged to maintain the same, who teach that christ had always a visible church upon earth: because any one fundamental error overthrows the being of a true church. now (as schoolmen speak) it is implicatio in terminis (a contradiction so plain, that one word destroyeth the other, as if one should say, a living dead man) to affirm, that the church doth not err in points necessary to salvation, or damnably; and yet that it is damnable to remain in her communion, because she teacheth errors which are confessed not to be damnable. for if the error be not damnable, nor against any fundamental article of faith, the belief thereof cannot be damnable. but d. potter teacheth, that the catholic church cannot, and that the roman church hath not erred against any fundamental article of faith: therefore it cannot be damnable to remain in her communion; and so the pretended corruptions in her doctrines could not induce any obligation to departed from her communion; nor could excuse them from schism, who, upon pretence of necessity in point of conscience, forsook her. and d. potter will never be able to salve a manifest contradiction in these his words: to departed from the church (a) of rome in some doctrines and practices, there might be necessary cause, though she wanted nothing necessary to salvation. for if, notwithstanding these doctrines and practices, she wanted nothing necessary to salvation; how could it be necessary to salvation to forsake her? and therefore we must still conclude, that to forsake her was properly an act of schism. 20. from the selfsame ground of the infallibility of the church in all fundamental points, i argue after this manner: the visible church cannot be forsaken without damnation, upon pretence that it is damnable to remain in her communion, by reason of corruption in doctrine; as long as, for the truth of her faith and belief, she performeth the duty, which she oweth to god, and her neighbour: as long as she performeth what our saviour exacts at her hands: as long as she doth, as much as lies in her power to do. but (even according to d. potter's assertions) the church performeth all these things, as long she erreth not in points fundamental, although she were supposed to err in other points not fundamental: therefore, the communion of the visible church cannot be forsaken without damnation, upon pretence that it is damnable to remain in her communion, by reason of corruption in doctrine. the major, or first proposition, of itself is evident. the minor, or second proposition, doth necessarily follow out of d. potter's own doctrine above-rehearsed, that the promises of our lord made to his church for his assistance, are to be (b) pag. 131. extended only to points of faith, or fundamental; (let me note here by the way that by his (or) he seems to exclude from faith all points which are not fundamental, and so we may deny innumerable texts of scripture:) that, it is (c) pag. 155. comfort enough for the church, that the lord in mercy will secure her from all capital dangers, etc. but she may not hope to triumph over all sin and error, till she be in heaven. for it is evident, that the church (for as much as concerns the truth of her doctrines and belief) owes no more duty to god and her neighbour; neither doth our saviour exact more at her hands, nor is it in her power to do, more than god doth assist her to do; which assistance is promised only for points fundamental; and consequently as long as she teacheth no fundamental error, her communion cannot without damnation be forsaken. and we may fitly apply against d. potter a concionatory declamation which he makes against us, where he saith: may the church of after-ages make the narrow way to heaven, (d) pag. 221. narrower than our saviour lest it, & c? since he himself obligeth men under pain of damnation to forsake the church, by reason of errors; against which our saviour thought it needless to promise his assistance, and for which he neither denyeth his grace in this life, or glory in the next. will d. potter oblige the church to do more than she may even hope for, or to perform on earth that which is proper to heaven alone? 21. and as from your own doctrine concerning the infallibility of the church in fundamental points, we have proved that it was a grievous sin to forsake her: so do we take a strong argument from the fallibility of any who dare pretend to reform the church, which any man in his wits will believe to be endued with at least as much infallibility as private men can challenge; and d. potter expressly affirmeth, that christ's promises of his assistance are not intended (e) pag. 151. to any particular persons or churches: and therefore to leave the church by reason of errors, was at best hand but to flit from one erring company to another, without any new hope of triumphing over errors, and, without necessity, or utility, to forsake that communion of which s. augustine saith, there is (f) ep. count. parmen. lib. 2. c. 1●. no just necessity to divide unity. which will appear to be much more evident, if we consider, that though the church had maintained some false doctrines, yet to leave her communion to remedy the old, were but to add a new increase of errors, arising from the innumerable disagreements of sectaries, which must needs bring with it a mighty mass of fallehoods, because the truth is but one, and indivisible. and this reason is yet stronger; if we still remember, that even according to d. potter, the visible church hath a blessing not to err in points fundamental, in which any private reformer may fail: and therefore they could not pretend any necessity to forsake that church, out of whose communion they were exposed to danger of falling into many more, and even into damnable errors. remember i pray you, what yourself affirms (pag. 69.) where speaking of our church and yours, you say: all the difference is from the weeds which remain there, and here are taken away; yet neither here perfectly, nor every where alike. behold a fair confession of corruptions, still remaining in your church, which you can only excuse by saying they are not fundamental, as likewise those in the roman church are confessed to be not fundamental. what man of judgement will be a protestant, since that church is confessedly a corrupt one? 22. i still proceed to impugn you expressly upon your own grounds. you say, that it is comfort enough for the church, that the lord in mercy will secure her from all capital dangers: but she may not hope to triumph over all sin, and error, till she be in heaven. now if it be comfort enough to be secured from all capital dangers, which can arise only from error in fundamental points: why were not your first reformers content with enough, but would needs dismember the church, out of a pernicious greediness of more than enough? for, this enough, which according to you is attained by not erring in points fundamental, was enjoyed before luther's reformation, unless you will now against yourself affirm, that long before luther there was no church free from error in fundamental points. moreover if (as you say) no church may hope to triumph over all error till she be in heaven; you must either grant, that errors not fundamental cannot yield sufficient cause to forsake the church, or else you must affirm that all community may, and aught to be forsaken, and so there will be no end of schisms: or rather indeed there can be no such thing as schism, because, according to you, all communities are subject to errors not fundamental, for which, if they may be lawfully forsaken, it followeth clearly that it is not schism to forsake them. lastly, since it is not lawful to leave the communion of the church for abuses in life and manners, because such miseries cannot be avoided, in this world of temptation: and since according to your assertion no church may hope to triumph over all sin and error: you must grant, that, as she ought not to be left by reason of sin; so neither by reason of errors not fundamental: because both sin, and error are (according to you) impossible to be avoided, till she be in heaven. 23. furthermore, i ask, whether it be the quantity and number, or quality and greatness of doctrinal errors that may yield sufficient cause to relinquish the church's communion? i prove that neither. not the quality, which is supposed to be beneath the degree of points fundamental, or necessary to salvation. not the quantity or number: for the foundation is strong enough to support all such unnecessary additions, as you term them. and if they once weighed so heavy as to overthrow the foundation, they should grow to fundamental errors, into which yourself teach the church cannot fall. hay and stubble (say you) and such (g) pag. 155. unprofitable stuff, laid on the roof, destroys not the house, whilst the main pillars are standing on the foundation. and, tell us, i pray you, the precise number of errors which cannot be tolerated? i know you cannot do it; and therefore being uncertain, whether or no you have cause to leave the church, you are certainly obliged not to forsake her. our blessed saviour hath declared his will, that we forgive a private offender seventy seven times, that is, without limitation of quantity of time, or quality of trespasses; and why then dare you allege his command, that you must not pardon his church for errors, acknowledged to be not fundamental? what excuse can you feign to yourselves, who for points not necessary to salvation, have been occasions, causes, and authors of so many mischiefs, as could not but unavoidably accompany so huge a breach, in kingdoms, in commonwealths, in private persons, in public magistrates, in body, in soul, in goods, in life, in church, in the state, by schisms, by rebellions, by war, by famine, by plague, by bloodshed, by all sorts of imaginable calamities upon the whole face of the earth, wherein as in a map of desolation, the heaviness of your crime appears, under which the world doth pant? 24. to say for your excuse, that you left not the church, but her errors, doth not extenuate, but aggravate your sin. for by this device, you sow seeds of endless schisms, and put into the mouth of a● separatists, a ready answer how to avoid the note of schism from your protestant church of england, or from any other church whatsoever. they will, i say, answer as you do prompt, that your church may be forsaken, if she fall into errors, though they be not fundamental: and further, that no church must hope to be free from such errors; which two grounds being once laid, it will not be hard to infer the consequence, that she may be forsaken. 25. from some other words of d. potter i likewise prove, that for errors not fundamental, the church ought not to be forsaken, there neither was (saith he) nor can be (h) pag. 75. any just cause to departed from the church of christ, no more than from christ himself. to departed from a particular church, and namely from the church of rome, in some doctrines and practices, there might be just and necessary cause, though the church of rome wanted nothing necessary to salvation. mark his doctrine, that there can be no just cause to departed from the church of christ: and yet he teacheth that the church of christ may err in points not fundamental; therefore (say i) we cannot forsake the roman church for points not fundamental, for than we might also forsake the church of christ, which yourself deny: and i pray you consider, whether you do not plainly contradict yourself, while in the words above recited, you say there can be no just cause to forsake the catholic church; and yet that there may be necessary cause to departed from the church of rome, since you grant that the church of christ may err in points not fundamental: and that the roman church hath erred only in such points; as by and by we shall see more in particular. and thus much be said to disprove their chiefest answer, that they left not the church, but her corruptions. 26. another evasion d. potter bringeth, to avoid the imputation of schism, and it is, because they still acknowledge the church of rome to be a member of the body of christ, and not cut off from the hope of salvation. and this (saith he) clears us from the (i) pag. 76. imputation of schism, whose property it is, to cut off from the body of christ, and the hope of salvation, the church from which it separates. 27. this is an answer which perhaps you may get some one to approve, if first you can put him out of his wits. for what prodigious doctrines are these? those protestants who believe that the church erred in points necessary to salvation, and for that cause left her, cannot be excused from damnable schism: but others who believed that she had no damnable errors, did very well, yea were obliged to forsake her: and (which is more miraculous, or rather monstrous) they did well to forsake her formally and precisely, because they judged, that she retained all means necessary to salvation. i say, because they so judged. for the very reason for which he acquitteth himself, and condemneth those others as schismatics, is, because he holdeth that the church which both of them forsook, is not cut off from the body of christ, and the hope of salvation; whereas those other zelors deny her to be a member of christ's body, or capable of salvation, wherein alone they disagree from d. potter: for in the effect of separation they agree, only they do it upon a different motive or reason. were it not a strange excuse, if a man would think ●o cloak his rebellion, by alleging that he held the person against whom he rebelleth to be his lawful sovereign? and yet d. potter thinks himself free from schism, because he forsook the church of rome; but yet so, as that still he held her to be the true church, and to have all necessary means to salvation. but i will no further urge this most solemn foppery; and do much more willingly put all catholics in mind what an unspeakable comfort it is, that our adversaries are forced to confess, that they cannot clear themselves from schism, otherwise than by acknowledging that they do not, nor cannot, cut off from the hope of salvation out church. which is as much as if they should in plain terms say: they must be damned, unless we may be saved. moreover, this evasion doth indeed condemn your zealous brethren of heresy, for denying the church's perpetuity, but doth not clear yourself from schism, which consists in being divided from that true church, with which a man agreeth in all points of faith, as you must profess yourself to agree with the church of rome in all fundamental articles. for otherwise, you should cut her off from the hope of salvation, and so condemn yourself of schism. and lastly, even according to this your own definition of schism, you cannot clear yourself from that crime, unless you be content to acknowledge a manifest contradiction in your own assertions. for if you do not cut us off from the body of christ, and the hope of salvation; how come you to say in another place, that you judge a reconciliation with us to be (k) pag. 20. damnable? that to departed from the church of rome, there might be just and necessary (l) pag. 77. cause? that they that have the understanding and means to discover their error, and neglect to use them (m) pag. 79. we dare not flatter them (say you) with so easy a censure, of hope of salvation? if then it be (as you say) a property of schism, to cut off from the hope of salvation, the church from which it separates: how will you clear yourself from schism, who dare not flatter us with so easy a censure? and who affirm that a reconciliation with us is damnable? but the truth is, there is no constancy in your assert●ons, by reason of difficulties which press you on all sides. for, you are loath to affirm clearly, that we may be saved, lest such a grant might be occasion (as in all reason it ought to be) of the conversion of protestants to the roman church: and on the other side, if you affirm that our church erred in points fundamental, or necessary to salvation, you know not how, nor where, nor among what company of men, to find a perpetual visible church of christ, before luther: and therefore your best shift is to say, and unsay, as your occasions command. i do not examine your assertion, that it is the property of schism, to cut off from the body of christ, and the hope of salvation, the church from which it separates: wherein you are mightily mistaken, as appears by your own exampie of the donatists, who were most formal and proper heretics, and not schismatics, as schism is a vice distinct from heresy. besides, although the donatists, and luciserians (whom you also allege) had been mere schismatics, yet it were against all good logic, from a particular, to infer a general rule, to determine what is the property of schism. 28. a third device i find in d. potter to clear his brethren from schism, there is (saith he) great difference between (n) pag. 75. a schism from them, and a reformation of ourselves. 29. this, i confess, is a acquaint subtlety, by which all schism and sin may be as well excused. for what devil incarnate could merely pretend a separation, and not rather some o●her motive, of virtue, truth, profit, or pleasure? but now since their pretended reformation consisted, as they gave out, in forsaking the corruptions of the church: the reformation of themselves, and their division from us, falls out to be one and the selfsame thing. nay we see, that although they infinitely disagree in the particulars of their reformation, yet they symbolise, and consent in the general point of forsaking our pretended corruptions: an evident sign that the thing, upon which their thoughts first pitched, was not any particular model, or idea of religion, but a settled resolution to forsake the church of rome. wherefore this metaphysical speculation, that they intended only to reform themselves, cannot possibly excuse them from schism, unless first they be able to prove that they were obliged to departed from us. yet for as much as concerns the fact itself; it is clear, that luther's revolt did not proceed from any zeal of reformation. the motive, which put him upon so wretched, and unfortunate a work, were, covetousness, ambition, lust, pride, envy, and grudging that the promulgation of indulgences, was not committed to himself, or such as he desired. he himself taketh god to witness, that he fell into these troubles casually, and (o) casu non voluntate in has turbaslincidi, deum ipsum testor. against his will, not upon any intention of reformation, not so much as dreaming or suspecting any change which might (p) act. et mon. pag. 404. happen. and he began to preach (against indulgences) when he knew not what (q) sleidan. l. 16, fol. 232. the matter meant. for (saith he) i scarcely understood (r) sleid. lib. 13. fol. 177. then what the name of indulgences meant. in so much as afterwards luther did much mislike of his own undertaken course, oftentimes (saith he) wishing (s) luth in colloq mensal. that i had never begun that business. and fox saith: it is apparent that (t) act. mon. pag pag. 404. luther promised cardinal cajeran to keep silence, provided also his adversaries would do the like. m. cowper reporteth further, that luther by his letter submitted (u) cowp. in his chronicle. himself to the pope, so that he might not be compelled to recant. with much more, which may be seen in (w) tract. 2. cap 2. sect. 11. subd. 2. brereley. but this is sufficient to show, that luther was far enough from intending any reformation. and if he judged a reformation to be necessary, what a huge wickedness was it in him, to promise silence, if his adversaries would do the like? or to submit himself to the pope, so that he might not be compelled to recant? or if the reformation were not indeed intended by him, nor judged to be necessary, how can he be excused from damnable schism? and this is the true manner of luther's revolt, taken from his own acknowledgements, and the words of the more ancient protestants themselves, whereby d. potter's faltering, and mincing the matter, is clearly discovered, and confuted. upon what motives our country was divided from the roman church by king henry the eighth, and how the schism was continued by queen elizabeth, i have no heart to rip up. the world knoweth, it was not upon any zeal of reformation. 30. but you will prove your former evasion by a couple of similitudes: if a monaestery (x) pag. 81, 82. should reform itself, and should reduce into practice, ancient good discipline, when others would not; in this case could it in reason be charged with schism from others, or with apostasy from its rule and order? or as in a society of men universally infected with some disease, they that should free themselves from the common disease could not be therefore said to separate from the society, so neither can the reformed churches be truly accused for making a schism from the church, seeing all they did, was to reform themselves. 31. i was very glad to find you in a monastery, but sorry when i perceived that you were inventing ways how to forsake your vocation, and to maintain the lawfulness of schism from the church, and put case; that a monastery did confessedly observe their substantial vows and all principal statutes, or constitutions of the order, though with some neglect of lesser monastical observances: and that a reformation were undertaken, not by authority of lawful superiors, but by some one, or very few in comparison of the rest: and those few known to be led, not with any spirit of reformation, but by some other sinister intention: and that the statutes of the house were even by those busy fellows confessed, to have been time out of mind understood, and practised as now they were: and further, that the pretended reformers acknowledge that themselves as soon as they were gone out of their monastery, must not hope to be free from those or the like errors and corruptions, for which they left their brothers: and (which is more) that they might fall into more enormous crimes than they did, or could do in their monastery, which we suppose to be secured from all substantial corruptions, for the avoiding of which they have an infallible assistance. put (i say) together all these my and's and than come with your if's, if a monastery should reform itself etc. and tell me if you could excuse such reformers from schism, sedition, rebellion, apostasy, & c? what would you say of such reformers in your college? or tumultuous persons in a kingdom? remember now your own tenants, and then reflect how fit a similitude you have picked out, to prove yourself a schismatique. you teach that the church may err in points not fundamental, but that for all fundamental points she is secured from error: you teach that no particular person, or church, hath any promise of assistance in points fundamental. you, and the whole world can witness that when luther began, he being but only one, opposed himself to all, as well subjects, as superiors; and that even then when he himself confessed that he had no intention of reformation: you cannot be ignorant but that many chief learned protestants are forced to confess the antiquity of our doctrine and practice, and to several and many controversies, acknowledge that the ancient fathers stood on our side: consider, i say, these points, and see whether your similitude do not condemn your progenitors of schism from god's visible church, yea and of apostasy also from their religious orders, if they were vowed regulars, as luther, and divers of them were. 32. from the monastery you are fled into an hospital of persons universally infected with some disease, where you find to be true what i supposed, that after your departure from your brothers you might fall into greater inconveniences, and more infectious diseases, than those for which you left them. but you are also upon the point to abandon these miserable needy persons, in whose behalf for charity's sake, let me set before you these considerations. if the disease neither were, nor could be mortal, because in that company of men god had placed a tree of life: if going thence, the sick man might by curious tasting the tree of knowledge eat poison under pretence of bettering his health: if he could not hope thereby to avoid other diseases like those for which he had quitted the company of the first infected men: if by his departure innumerable mischiefs were to ensue; could such a man without senselesseness be excused by saying, that he sought to free himself from the common disease, but not forsooth to separate from the society? now yourself compare the church to a man deformed with (y) pag. 154. superfluous fingers and toes, but yet who hath not lost any vital part: you acknowledge that out of her society no man is secured from damnable error, and the world can bear witness what unspeakable mischiefs and calamities ensued luther's revolt from the church. pronounce then concerning them, the same sentence which even now i have showed them to deserve, who in the manner aforesaid should separate from persons universally infected with some disease. 33. but alas, to what pass hath heresy brought men, who term themselves christians, and yet blush not to compare the beloved spouse of our lord, the one dove, the purchase of our saviour's most precious blood, the holy catholic church, i mean that visible church of christ which luther sound spread over the whole world; to a monastery, so disordered that it must be forsaken; to the giant in gath, much deformed with superfluous fingers and toes; to a society of men universally infected with some disease! and yet all these comparisons, and much worse, are neither in jurious, nor undeserved, if once it be granted, or can be proved, that the visible church of christ may err in any one point of faith, although not fundamental. 34. before i part from these similitudes, one thing i must observe against the evasion of d. potter, that they left not the church, but her corruptions. for as those reformers of the monastery, or those other who left the company of men universally infected with some disease, would deny themselves to be schismatics, or any way blame-worthy, but could not deny, but that they left the said communities: so luther and the rest cannot so much as pretend, not to have left the visible church, which according to them was infected with many diseases, but can only pretend that they did not sin in leaving her. and you speak very strangely when you say: in a society of men universally infected with some disease, they that should free themselves from the common disease, could not be therefore said to separate from the society, for if they do not separate themselves from the society of the infected persons; how do they free themselves and departed from the common disease? do they at the same time remain in the company, and yet departed from those infected creatures? we must then say, that they separate themselves from the persons, though it be by occasion of the disease: or if you say, they free their own p●rsons from the common disease, yet so, that they remain still in the company infected, subject to the superiors and governors thereof, eating and drinking, and keeping public assemblies with them; you cannot but know, that luther and your reformers, the first pretended free persons from the supposed common infection of the roman church, did not so: for they endeavoured to force the society whereof they were parts, to be healed and reform as they were; and if ●t refused, they did, when they had forces, drive them away, even their superiors both spiritual and temporal, as is notorious. or if they had not power to expel that supposed infected community, or church of that place, they departed from them corporally, whom mentally they had forsaken before. so that you cannot deny, but luther forsook the external communion, and commpany of the catholic church, for which, as yourself (z) pag. 75. confess, there neither was nor can be any just cause, no more than to departed from christ himself. we do therefore infer, that luther and the rest who forsook that visible church which they found upon earth, were truly, and properly schismatics. 25. moreover, it is evident that there was a division between luther and that church which was visible when he arose: but that church cannot be said to have divided herself from him, before whose time the was, and in comparison of whom she was a whole, and he but a part: therefore we must say, that he divided himself and went out of her; which is to be a schismatic, or heretic, or both. by this argument, optatus melivitanus proventh, that not caecilianus, but parmenianus was a schismatic, saying? for, caecilianus went (a) lib. 1. cont. parmen. not out of majorinus thy grandfather, but majorinus from cecilianus: neither did caecilianus departed from the chair of peter, or cyprian, but majorinus, in whose chair thou sittest, which had no beginning before majorinus. since it manifestly appeareth that these things were acted in this manner, it is clear, that you are heirs both of the deliverers up (of the holy bible to be burned) and also of schismatics. the whole argument of this holy father makes directly both against luther, and all those who continue the division which he begun; and proves, that going out, convinceth those who go our, to be schismatics; but not those from whom they depart: that to forsake the chair of peter is schism; yea, that it is schism to erect a chair which had no origin, or as it were predecessor, before itself: that to continue in a division begun by others, is to be heirs of schismatics; and lastly, that to departed from the communion of a particular church (as that of s. cyprian was) is sufficient to make a man incur the guilt of schism, and consequently, that although protestants, who deny the pope to be supreme head of the church, do think by that heresy to clear luther from schism, in disobeying the pope: yet that will not serve to free him from schism, as it importeth a division from the obedience, or communion of the particular bishop, diocese, church, and country where he lived. 36. but it is not the heresy of protestants, or any other sectaries, that can deprive s. peter, and his successors, of the authority which christ our lord conferred upon them over his whole militant church: which is a point confessed by learned protestants to be of great antiquity, and for which the judgement of divers most ancient holy fathers is reproved by them, as may be seen at large in brerely (b) tract. 1. sect. 3. subd. 10. exactly citing the places of such chief protestants. and we must say with s. cyprian: heresies (c) ep. 55. have sprung, and schisms been bred from no other cause then for that the priest of god is not obeyed, nor one priest and judge is considered to be for the time in the church of god. which words do plainly condemn luther, whether he will understand them as spoken of the universal, or of every particular church. for he withdrew himself both from the obedience of the pope, and of all particular bishops, and churches. and no less clear is the said optatus melivitanus, saying: thou canst not deny (d) lib. 2. cont. parmen. but that thou knowest, that in the city of rome, there was first an episcopal chair placed for peter, wherein peter the head of all the apostles sat, whereof also he was called cephas; in which one chair, unity was to be kept by all, lest the other apostles might attribute to themselves, each one his particular chair; and that he should be a schismatic and sinner, who against that one single chair should erect another. many other authorities of fathers might be alleged to this purpose, which ●omit; my intention being, not to handle particular controversies. 37. now, the arguments which hitherto i have brought, prove that luther, and his followers were schismatics, without examining (for as much as belongs to this point) whether or no the church can err in any one thing great or small, because it is universally true, that there can be no just cause to forsake the communion of the visible church of christ, according to s. augustin, saying: it is not possible (e) ep. 48. that any may have just cause to separate their communion, from the communion of the whole world, and call themselves the church of christ, as if they had separated themselves from the communion of all nations upon just cause. but since indeed the church cannot err in any one point of doctrine, nor can approve any corruption in manners; they cannot with any colour avoid the just imputation of eminent schism, according to the verdict of the same holy father in these words: the most manifest (f) de bapt. lib. 5. cap. 1. sacrilege of schism is eminent, when there was no cause of separation. 38. lastly, i prove that protestants cannot avoid the note of schism, at least by reason of their mutual separation from one another. for most certain it is that there is very great difference, for the outward face of a church, and profession of a different faith, between the lutherans, the rigid calvinists, and protestants of england. so that if luther were in the right, those other protestants who invented doctrines far different from his, and divided themselves from him, must be reputed schismatics: and the like argument may proportionably be aplyed to their further divisions, and subdivisions. which reason i yet urge more strongly out of d. potter, (g) pag. 20. who affirms, that to him and to such as are convicted in conscience of the errors of the roman church, a reconciliation is impossible, and damnable. and yet he teacheth, that their differnce from the roman church, is not in fundamental points. now, since among protestants there is such diversity of belief, that one denieth what the other affirmeth, they must be convicted in conscience that one part is in error (at least not fundamental,) and, if d. potter will speak consequently, that a reconciliation between them is impossible, and damnable: and what greater division, or schism can there be, than when one part must judge a reconciliation with the other to be impossible, and damnable. 39 out of all which premises, this conclusion follows: that luther and his followers were schismatics; from the universal visible church; from the pope christ's vicar on earth, and successor to s. peter; from the particular diocese in which they received baptism; from the country or nation to which they belonged; from the bishop under whom they lived; many of them from the religious o●der in which they were professed; from one another; and lastly, from a man's self (as much as is possible) because the selfsame protestant to day is convicted in conscience, that his yesterday opinion was an error (as d. potter knows a man in the world who from a puritan was turned to a moderate protestant) with whom therefore a reconciliation, according to d. potter's grounds, is both impossible, and damnable. 40. it seems d. potters last refuge to excuse himself and his brethren from schism, is, because they proceeded according to their conscience, dictating an obligation, under damnation, to forsake the errors maintained by the church of rome. his words are: although we confess the (h) pag. 81. church of rome to be (in some sense) a true church, and her errors to some men not damnable: yet for us who are convinced in conscience, that she errs in many things, a necessity lies upon us, even under pain of damnation, to forsake her in those errors. 41. i answer: it is very strange, that you judge us extremely uncharitable, in saying, protestants cannot be saved; while yourself avouch the same of all learned catholics, whom ignorance cannot excuse. if this your pretence of conscience may serve, what schi●matique in the church, what popular seditious brain in a kingdom, may not allege the dictamen of conscience to free themselves from schism, or sedition? no man wishes them to do any thing against their conscience; but we say, that they may, and aught to rectify, and depose such a conscience, which is easy for them to do, even according to your own affirmation, that we catholics want no means necessary to salvation. easy to do? nay not to do so, to any man in his right wits must seem impossible. for how can these two apprehensions stand together: in the roman church, i enjoy all means necessary to salvation, and yet i cannot hope to be saved in that church? or, who can enjoin in one, brain (not cracked) these assertions; after due examination i judge the roman errors not to be in themselves fundamental, or damnable; and yet, i judge that according to true reason, it is damnable to hold them? i say, according to true reason. for if you grant your conscience to be erroneous, in judging that you cannot be saved in the roman church, by reason of her errors; there is no other remedy, but that you must rectify your erring conscience, by your other judgement, that her errors are not fundamental, nor damnable. and this is no more charity, than you daily afford to such other protestants as you term brethren, whom you cannot deny to be in some errors, (unless you will hold, that of contradictory propositions both may be true) and yet you do not judge it damnable to live in their communion, because you hold their errors not to be fundamental. you ought to know, that according to the doctrine of all divines, there is great difference between a speculative persuasion, and a practical dictamen of conscience: and therefore although they had in speculation conceived the visible church to err in some doctrines, of themselves not damnable; yet with that speculative judgement they might, and aught to have entertained this practical dictamen, that for points nor substantial to faith, they neither were bound, nor lawfully could break the bond of charity, by breaking unity in god's church. you say that, hay and stubble (i) pag. 155. and such unprofitable stuff (as are corruptions in points not fundamental) laid on the roof, destroys not the house, whilst the main pillars are standing on the foundation. and you would think him a mad man who to be rid of such stuff, would set his house on fire, that so he might walk in the light, as you teach that luther was obliged to forsake the house of god, for an unnecessary light, not without a combustion formidable to the whole christian world; rather than bear with some errors which did not destroy the foundation of faith. and as for others who entered in at the breach first made by luther, they might, and aught to have guided their consciences by that most reasonable rule of vincentius lyrinensis, delivered in these words, indeed it is a matter of great (k) adu. haeres. c. 27. moment, and both most profitable to be learned, and necessary to be remembered, and which we ought again and again to illustrate, and inculcate with weighty heaps of examples, that almost all catholics may know, that they ought to receive the doctors with the church, and not forsake the faith of the church with the doctors: and much less should they forsake the faith of the church to follow luther, calvin, and such other novelists. moreover, though your first reformers had conceived their own opinions to be true, yet they might, and aught to have doubted, whether they were certain: because yourself affirm, that infallibility was not promised to any particular persons, or churches. and since in cases of uncertainties, we are not to leave our superior, nor cast off his obedience, or publicly oppose his decrees; your reformers might easily have found a safe way to satisfy their zealous conscience, without a public breach: especially if with this their uncertainty, we call to mind the peaceable possession, and prescription, which by the confession of your own brethren, the church, and pope of rome did for many ages enjoy. i wish you would examine the works of your brethren, by the words yourself set down to free s. cyprian from schism: every syllable of which words convinceth luther, and his copartners to be guilty of that crime, and showeth in what manner they might with great ease, and quietness have rectified their consciences about the pretended errors of the church. s. cyprian (say you) was a peaceable (l) pag. 124. and modest man, dissented from others in his judgement, but without any breach of charity, condemned no man (much less any church) for the contrary opinion. he believed his own opinion to be true; but believed not that it was necessary, and therefore did not proceed rashly and peremptorily to censure others, but lest them to their liberty. did your reformers imitate this manner of proceeding? did they censure no man, much less any church? s. cyprian believed his own opinion to be true, but believed not that it was necessary, and therefore did not proceed rashly and peremptorily to censure others. you believe the points wherein luther differs from us, not to be fundamental, or necessary; and why do you not thence infer the like therefore, he should not have proceeded to censure others? in a word, since their disagreement from us concerned only points which were not fundamental, they should have believed that they might have been deceived, as well as the whole visible church, which you say may err in such points; and therefore their doctrines being not certainly true, and certainly not necessary, they could not give sufficient cause to departed from the communion of the church. 42. in other places you writ so much, as may serve us to prove, that luther and his followers ought to have deposed, and rectified their consciences: as for example, when you say, when the church (m) pag. 105. hath declared herself in any matter of opinion, or of rites; her declaration obliges all her children to peace and external obedience. nor is it fit, or lawful for any private man to oppose his judgement to the public, (as luther and his fellows did) he may offer his opinion to be considered of, so he do it with evidence, or great probability of scripture, or reason, and very modestly, still containing himself within the dutiful respect which he oweth: but if he will factiously advance his own conceits (his own conceits? and yet grounded upon evidence of scripture) and despise the church so far as to cut off her communion; he may be justly branded and condemned for a schismatic, yea and an heretic also in some degree, and in foro exteriori, though his opinion were true, and much more if it be false. can any man, even for a fee, have spoken more home to condemn your predecessors of schism, or heresy? can they have stronger motives to oppose the doctrine of the church, and leave her communion, than evidence of scripture? and yet according to your own words, they should have answered, and rectified their conscience, by your doctrine, that though their opinion were true, and grounded upon evidence of scripture, or reason; yet it was not lawful for any private ma● to oppose his judgement to the public, which obligeth all christians to peace and external obedience: and if they cast off the communion of the church for maintaining their own conceits, they may be branded for schismatics and heretics in some degree, et in foro exteriori, that is, all other christians ought so to esteem of them, (and why then are we accounted uncharitable for judging so of you?) and they also are obliged to behave themselves in the face of all christian churches, as if indeed they were not reformers, but schismatics, and heretics, or as pagans and publicans. i thank you for your ingenuous confession: in recompense whereof, i will do a deed of charity, by putting you in mind, into what labyrinths you are brought, by teaching that the church may err in some points of faith, and yet that it is not lawful for any man to oppose his judgement, or leave her communion, though he have evidence of scripture against her. will you have such a man to dissemble against his conscience, or externally deny a truth, known to be contained in holy scripture? how much more coherently do catholics proceed, who believe the universal infallibility of the church, and from thence are assured, that there can be no evidence of scripture, or reason, against her definitions, nor any just cause to forsake her communion? m. hooker, esteemed by many protestants an incomparable man, yields as much as we have alleged out of you. the will of god is (saith he) to have (n) in his preface to his books of ecclesiastical policy. sect. 6. pag. 28. them do whatsoever the sentence of judicial and final decision shall determine, yea though it seem in their private opinion, to swarve utterly from that which is right. doth not this man tell luther, what the will of god was, which he transgressing, must of necessity be guilty of schism? and must not m. hooker either acknowledge the universal infallibility of the church, or else drive men into the perplexities and labyrinths of dissembling against their conscience, whereof now i speak? not unlike to this, is your doctrine delivered elsewhere, before the nicene council (say you) many (o) pag. 132. good catholic bishops, were of the same opinion with the donatists, that the baptism of heretics was ineffectual; and with the novatians, that the church ought not to absolve some grievous sinners. these errors therefore (if they had gone no further) were not in themselves heretical, especially in the proper, and most heavy, or bitter sense of that word; neither was it in the church's intention (or in her power) to make them such by her declaration. her intention was to silence all disputes, and to settle peace and unity in her government: to which all wise and peaceable men submitted, whatsoever their opinion was. and those factious people, for their unreasonable and uncharitable opposition, were very justly branded for schismatics. for us, the mistaker will never prove that we oppose any declaration of the catholic church, etc. and therefore he doth unjustly charge us either with schism, or heresy. these words manifestly condemn your reformers, who opposed the visible church in many of her declarations, doctrines, and commands imposed upon them, for silencing all disputes, and settling peace and unity in the government, and therefore they still remaining obstinately disobedient, are justly charged with schism, and heresy. and it is to be observed, that you grant the donatists to have been very justly branded for schismatics, although their opposition against the church, did concern (as you hold) a point not fundamental to the faith, and which according to s. augustin, cannot be proved out of scripture alone; and therefore either doth evidently convince that the church is universally infallible, even in points not fundamental; or else that it is schism, to oppose her declarations, in those very things wherein she may err; and consequently that luther, and his fellows were schismatics, by opposing the visible church of points not fundamental, though it were (untruly) supposed that she erred in such points. but, by the way, how come you on the sudden to hold the determination of a general council (of nice) to be the declaration of the catholic church, seeing you teach, that general counsels may err even fundamentally? and do you now say, with us, that to oppose the declaration of the church, is sufficient that one may be branded with heresy, which is a point so often impugned by you? 43. it is therefore most evident, that no pretended scruple of conscience could excuse luther; which he might, and aught to have rectified by means enough, if pride, ambition, obstinacy, etc. had given him leave. i grant he was touched with scruple of conscience, but it was because he had forsaken the visible church of christ; and i beseech all protestants for the love they bear to that sacred ransom of their souls, the blood of our blessed saviour, attentively to ponder, and unpartially to apply to their own conscience, what this man spoke concerning the feelings, and remorse of his. how often (saith he) did my trembling heart (p) tom. 2. germ. jen fol. 9 et tom. 2. witt. of anno 1562. de abrog. miss. private. fol. 244. beat within me, and, reprehending me, object against me that most strong argument; art thou only wise? do so many words err? were so many ages ignorant? what, if thou errest, and drawest so many into hell to be damned eternally with thee? and in another place he saith: dost thou who art but one, and of no (q) tom. 5. ano not. brevis. account, take upon thee so great matters? what, if thou, being but one, offendest? if god permit such, so many, and all to err; why may he not permit thee to err? to this belong those arguments, the church, the church, the fathers, the fathers, the counsels, the customs, the multitudes, and greatness of wise men: whom do not these mountains of arguments, these clouds, yea these seas of examples overthrow? and these thoughts wrought so deep in his soul that he often wished and desired that he had (r) colloq. mensal. fol. 158. never begun this business: wishing yet further that his writings were burned and buried (f) prefat. in tom. german, jen. in eternal oblivion. behold what remorse luther felt, and how he wanted no strength of malice to cross his own conscience: and therefore it was no scruple, or conceived obligation of conscience, but some other motives which induced him to oppose the church. and if yet you doubt of his courage to encounter, and strength to master all reluctations of conscience, hear an example or two for that purpose, of communion under both kinds, thus he saith: if the council (t) de formula missae. should in any case decree this, least of all would we then use both kinds; yea rather, in despite of the council, and the decree, we would use either but one kind only, or neither, or in no case both. was not luther persuaded in conscience, that to use neither kind was against our saviour's command? is this, only to offer his opinion to be considered of, as you said all men ought to do? and, that you may be sure that he spoke from his heart, and, if occasion had been offered, would have been as good as his word; mark what he saith of the elevation of the sacrament: i did know (u) in parva confess. the elevation of the sacrament to be idolatrical; yet nevertheless i did retain it in the church at wittenberg, to the end i might vex the devil carolostadius. was not this a conscience large and capacious enough, that could swallow idolatry? why would he not tolerate idolatry in the church of rome (as these men are wont to blaspheme) if he could retain it in his own church at wittenberg? if carolostadius, luther's offspring, was the devil, who but himself must be his dam? is almighty god wont to lend such furies to preach the gospel? and yet further (which makes most directly to the point in hand) luther in his book of abrogating the private mass, exhorts the augustine friars of wittenberg, who first abrogated the mass, that, even against their conscience accusing them, they should persist in what they had begun, vid. tan. tom. 2. disput. 1. q. 2. dub. 4. n. 108. acknowledging that in some things he himself had done the like. and joannes mathesius, a lutheran preacher saith: antonius musa, the parish priest (w) in orat. germ. 12. de luth. of rocklitz, recounted to me that on a time he hearty moaned himself to the doctor (he means luther) that he himself could not believe what he preached to others: and that d. luther answered; praise and thanks be to god, that this happens also to others, for i had thought it had happened only to me. are not these conscionable, and fit reformers? and can they be excused from schism, under pretence that they held themselves obliged to forsake the roman church? if then it be damnable to proceed against ones conscience, what will become of luther, who against his conscience, persisted in his division from the roman church? 44. some are said to flatter themselves with another pernicious conceit, that they (forsooth) are not guilty of sin; because they were not the first authors, but only are the continuers of the schism, which was already begun. 45. but it is hard to believe, that any man of judgement, can think this excuse will subsist, when he shall come to give up his final account. for according to this reason no schism will be damnable, but only to the beginners: whereas contrarily, the longer it continues the worse it grows to be, and at length degenerates to heresy; as wine by long keeping grows to be vinegar, but not by continuance returns again to his former nature of wine. thus s. augustine saith, that heresy is (x) lib. 2. cont. cresc. c. 7. schism inveterate. and in another place: we object to you only the (y) ep. 164. crime of schism, which you have also made to become heresy, by evil persevering therein. and s. hierom saith: though schism (z) upon these words ad tit. 3. haereticum hominem, etc. in the beginning may be in some sort understood to be different from heresy; yet there is no schism which doth not fain to itself some heresy, that it may seem to have departed from the church upon just cause. and so indeed it falleth out. for men may begin upon passion, but afterward by instinct of corrupt nature, seeking to maintain their schism as lawful, they fall into some heresy, without which their separation could not be justified with any colour: as in our present case the very affirming, that it is lawful to continue a schism unlawfully begun, is an error against the main principle of christianity, that it is not lawful for any christian, to live out of god's church, within which alone salvation can be had; or, that it is not damnable to disobey her decrees, according to the words of our saviour: if he shall not hear (a) mat. 18. the church, let him be to thee as a pagan, or publican. and, he (b) luk. 10.16. that despiseth you, despiseth me. we heard above optatus milevitanus saying to parmenianus, that both he, and all those other who continued in the schism begun by majorinus, did inherit their forefathers schism; and yet parmenianus, was the third bishop after majorinus in his sea, and did not begin, but only continue the schism. for (saith this holy father) caecilianus (c) lib. 1. cont. parm. went not out of majorinus thy grandfather, but majorinus from caecilianus: neither did caecilianus departed from the chair of peter, or cyprian, but majorinus, in whose chair thou fittest, which before majorinus (luther) had no beginning. seeing it is evident that these things passed in this manner, (that for example, luther departed from the church, and not the church from luther), it is clear that you be heirs both of the givers up of the bible to be burned, and of schismatics. and the regal power, or example of henry the eighth could not excuse his subjects from schism, according to what we have heard out of s. chrysostom, saying: nothing doth so much provoke (d) hom. 11. in ep. ad eph. the wrath of almighty god, as that the church should be divided. although we should do innumerable good deeds, if we divide the full ecclesiastical congregation, we shall be punished no less, than they who did rend his (natural) body; for that was done to the gain of the whole world, though not with that intention, but this hath no good in it at all, but that the greatest hurt riseth from it. these things are spoken not only to those who bear office, but to such also as are governed by them, behold therefore, how liable both subjects, and superiors, are to the sin of schism, if they break the unity of god's church. the words of s. paul can in no occasion be verified more than in this of which we speak. they who do such things (e) rom. 1.31. are worthy of death: and not only they that do them, but they also that consent with the doers. in things which are indifferent of their own nature, custom may be occasion, that some act, not well begun, may in time come to be lawfully continued. but no length of time, no quality of persons, no circumstance of necessity can legitimate actions which are of their own nature unlawful: and therefore division from christ's mystical body, being of the number of those actions, which divines teach to be intrinsecè malas, evil of their own nature and essence, no difference of persons or time can ever make it lawful. d. potter saith: there neither was, nor can be any cause to departed from the church of christ, no more than from christ himself. and who dates say, that it is not damnable to continue a separation from christ? prescription cannot in conscience run, when the first beginner, and his successors are conscious that the thing to be prescribed, for example, goods or lands, were unjustly possessed at the first. christians are not like strays, that after a certain time of wand'ring from their right home, fall from their owner to the lord of the soil; but as long as they retain the indelible character of baptism, and live upon earth, they are obliged to acknowledge subjection to god's church. humane laws may come to nothing by discontinuance of time, but the law of god, commanding us to conserve unity in his church, doth still remain. the continued disobedience of children cannot deprive parents of their parental right, nor can the grandchild be undutiful to his grandfather, because his father was unnatural to his own parent. the longer gods church is so disobeyed; the profession of her doctrine denied; her sacraments neglected; her liturgy condemned; her unity violated: the more grievous the fault grows to be: as the longer a man withholds a due debt, or retains his neighbour's goods, the greater injustice he commits. constancy in evil doth not extenuate, but aggravate the same, which by extension of time, receiveth increase of strength, and addition of greater malice. if these men's conceits were true, the church might come to be wholly divided by wicked schisms, and yet after some space of time, none could be accused of schism, nor be obliged to return to the visible church of christ: and so there should remain no one true visible church. let therefore these men who pretend to honour, reverence, and believe the doctrine, and practice of the visible church, and to condemn their forefathers who forsook her, and say, they would not have done so, if they had lived in the days of their fathers, and yet follow their example in remaining divided from her communion; consider how truly these words of our saviour fall upon them, woe be to you, because you build (f) mar. 23. ver. 29, etc. the prophet's sepulchers, and garnish the monuments of just men, and say: if we had been in our father's days, we had not been their fellows in the blood of the prophets. therefore you are a testimony to your own selves, that you are the sons of them that killed the prophets; and fill up the measure of your fathers. 46. and thus having demonstrated that luther, his associates, and all that continue in the schism by them begun, are guilty of schism, by departing from the visible true church of christ; it remaineth that we examine what in particular was that visible true church, from which they departed, that so they may know to what church in particular they ought to return: and then we shall have performed what was proposed to be handled in the fifth point. 47. that the roman church (i speak not for the present, of the particular diocese of rome, but of all visible churches dispersed throughout the whole world, agreeing in faith with the chair of peter, 5. point. luther and the rest departed from the roman church. whether that sea were supposed to be in the city of rome, or in any other place:) that (i say) the church of rome, in this sense, was the visible catholic church out of which luther departed, is proved by your own confession, who assign for notes of the church, the true preaching of god's words, and due administration of sacraments, both which for the substance you cannot deny to the roman church, since you confess, that she wanted nothing fundamental, or necessary to salvation, and for that very cause you think to clear yourself from schism, whose property, as you say, is to cut off from the (g) pag. 76. body of christ, and the hope of salvation, the church from which it separates. now that luther and his fellows were born and baptised in the roman church, and that she was the church out of which they departed, is notoriously known: and therefore you cannot cut her off from the body of christ, and hope of salvation, unless you will acknowledge yourself to deserve the just imputation of schism. neither can you deny her to be truly catholic by reason of (pretended) corruptions, not fundamental. for yourself avouch, and endeavour to prove, that the true catholic church may err in such points. moreover, i hope, you will not so much as go about to prove, that when luther risen, there was any other true visible church, disagreeeing from the roman, and agreeing with protestants in their particular doctrines: and you cannot deny, but that england in those days-agreed with rome, and other nations with england: and therefore either christ had no visible church upon earth, or else you must grant that it was the church of rome. a truth so manifest, that those protestants who affirm the roman church to have lost the nature and being of a true church, do by inevitable consequence grant, that for divers ages christ had no visible church on earth: from which error, because d. potter disclaimeth, he must of necessity maintain, that the roman church is free from fundamental, and damnable error, and that she is not cut off from the body of christ, and the hope of salvation: and if (saith he) any zelols amongst us have proceeded (h) ibid. to heavier censures, their zeal may be excused, but their charity and wisdom cannot be justified. 48. and to touch particulars, which perhaps some may object. no man is ignorant that the grecians, even the schismatical grecians, do in most points agree with roman catholics, and disagree from the protestant reformation. they teach transubstantiation, (which point d. potter also (i) pag. 225. confesseth;) invocation of saints and angels; veneration of relics, and images; auricular confession; enjoined satisfaction; confirmation with chrism; extreme unction; all the seven sacraments; prayer, sacrifice, alms for the dead; monachism; that priests may not marry after their ordination. in which points that the grecians agree with the roman church appeareth by a treatise published by the protestant divines of wittenberg, entitled, acta theologorum wittembergensium. & jeremiae patriarchae constantinop. de augustana consessione, etc. wittembergae anno 1584. by the protestant (k) de statu eccles. pag. 253. crispinus, and by sir edwin sands in the relation of the state of religion of the west. and i wonder with what colour of truth (to say no worse) d. potter could affirm, that the doctrines debated between the protestants (l) pag. 22●. , and rome, are only the partial and particular fancies of the roman church; unless happily the opinion of transubstantiation may be excepted, wherein the latter grecians seem to agree with the romanists. beside the protestant authors already cited, petrus arcudius a grecian, and a learned catholic writer, hath published a large volume, the argument and title whereof is: of the agreement of the roman, and greek church in the seven sacraments. as for the heresy of the grecians, that the holy-ghost proceeds not from the son, i suppose, that protestants disavow them in that error, as we do. 49. d. potter will not (i think) so much wrong his reputation, as to tell us, that the waldenses, wiecliffe, huss, or the like, were protestants, because in some things they disagreed from catholics. for he well knows that the example of such men is subject to these manifest exceptions, they were not of all agest, nor in all countries, but confined to certain places, and were interrupted in time, against the notion and nature of the word catholic. they had no ecclesiastical hierarchy, nor succession of bishops, priests, and pastors. they differed among themselves, and from protestants also. they agreed in divers things with us against protestants. they held doctrines manifestly abusurd, and damnable heresies. 50. the waldenses began not before the year 1218. so far were they from universality of all ages. for their doctrine: first, they denied all judgements which extended to the drawing of blood; and the sabbath, for which cause they were called in-sabbatists. secondly, they taught that laymen, and women might consecrate the sacrament, and preach (no doubt but by this means to make their master waldo, a mere layman, capable of such functions.) thirdly, that clergymen ought to have no possessions, or proprieties. fourthly, that there should be no division of parishes, not churches; for a walled church they reputed as a barn. fifthly, that men ought not to take an oath in any case. sixthly, that those persons sinned mortally, who accompanied without hope of issue. seventhly, they held all things done above the girdle, by kissing, touching, words, compression of the breasts, etc. to be done in charity, and not against continency. eightly, that neither priest, nor civil magistrate, being guilty of mortal sin, did enjoy their dignity, or were to be obeyed. ninthly, they condemned princes and judges. tenthly, they assinned singing in the church to be an hellish clamour. eleventhly, they taught that men might dissemble their religion, and so accordingly they went to catholic churches, dissembling their faith, and made offertories, confessions, and communions, after a dissembling manner. waldo was so unlearned, that (saith (m) act. mon., ●… pag. 628. fox) he gave rewards to certain learned men to translate the holy scripture for him, and being thus helped did (as the same fox there reporteth) confer the form of religion in his time, to the insallible word of god. a goodly example, for such as must needs have the scripture in english, to be read by every simple body, with such fruit of godly doctrine, as we have seen in the foresaid gross heresies of waldo. the followers of waldo, were like their master, so unlearned, that some of them (saith (n) ibid. fox) expounded the words, joan. 1. sui eum non receperunt: swine did not receive h●m. and to conclude, they agreed in divers things with catholics against protestants, as may be seen in (o) tract. 2. cap. 2. sect. s●●…d. 3. b●erely. 51. neither can it be pretended, that these are slanders forged by catholics. for, besides that the same things are testified by protestant writers, as illyricus, cowper, and others, our authors cannot be suspected of partiality in disfavour of protestants, unless you will say perhaps, that they were prophets, and some hundred years ago, did both foresee that there were to be protestants in the world, and that such protestants were to be like the waldenses. besides, from whence, but from our histories are protestants come to know, that there were any such men as the waldenses? and that in some points they agreed with the protestants, and disagreed from them in others? and upon what ground can they believe our author for that part wherein the waldenses were like to protestants, and imagine they lied the rest? 52. neither could wickliff continue a church never interrupted from the time of the waldenses, after whom he lived more than one hundred and fifty years; to wit, the year 1371. he agreed with catholics about the worshipping of relics and images: and, about the intercession of our blessed lady, the ever immaculate mother of god, he went so far as to say, it seems to me (p) in serm. de assump. mariae. impossible, that we should be rewarded without the intercession of the virgin mary. he held seven sacraments, purgatory, and other points. and against both catholics and protestants he maintained sundry damnable doctrines, as divers protestant writers relate. as first: if a bishop, or priest be in deadly sin, he doth not indeed either give orders, consecrate, or baptise. secondly, that ecclesiastical ministers ought not to have any temporal possessions, nor propriety in any thing, but should beg; and yet he himself broke into heresy, because he had been deprived by the archbishop of canterbury of a certain benefice, as all schisms, and heresies begin upon passion, which they seek to cover with the cloak of reformation. thirdly, he condemned lawful oaths, like the anabaptists. fourthly, he taught that all things came to pass by absolute necessity. fifthly, he defended humane merits as the wicked pelagians did, namely, as proceeding from natural forces, without the necessary help of god's grace. sixthly, that no man is a civil magistrate, while he is in mortal sin, and that the people may at their pleasure correct princes, when they offend: by which doctrine he proves himself both an heretic, and a traitor. 53. as for huss, his chiefest doctrines were: that lay people must receive in both kinds; and, that civil lords, prelates, and bishops lose all right, and authority, while they are in mortal sin. for other things he wholly agreed with catholics against protestants; and the bohemians his followers being demanded in what points they disagreed from the church of rome, propounded only these: the necessity of communion under both kinds; that all civil dominion was forbidden to the clergy; that preaching of the word, was free for all men, and in all places; that open crimes were in no wise to be permitted, for avoiding of greater evil. by these particulars, if is apparent that husse agreed with protestants against us, in one only point of both kinds, which according to luther is a thing indifferent; because he teacheth that christ in this matter (q) in epist. ad bohem●s. commanded nothing as necessary. and he saith further: if thou come to a place (r) de utraque specie sacram. where one only kind is administered, use one kind only, as others do. melancthon likewise holds it a a thing (s) in cent. epist. theol. pag. 225. indifferent: and the same is the opinion of some other protestants. all which considered, it is clear, that procestants cannot challenge the waldenses, wickliff, and hus for members of their church: and although they could, yet that would advantage them little towards the finding them out a perpetual visible church of theirs, for the reasons above (t) numb. 49. specified. 54. if d. potter would go so far off, as to fetch the muscovites, armenians, georgians, aethiopians, or abyssines into his church, they would prove over dear bought: for they ei●her hold the damnable heresy of eutyches, or use circumcision, or agree with the greek, or roman church: and it is most certain that they have nothing to do with the doctrine of the protestants. 55. it being therefore granted that christ had a visible church in all ages, and that there can be none assigned but the church of rome; it follows, that she is the true catholic church; and that those pretended corruptions for which they forsook her, are indeed divine truths, delivered by the visible catholic church of christ: and that luther and his followers departed from her, and consequently are guilty of schism, by dividing themselves from the communion of the roman church. which is clearly convinced out of d. potter himself, although the roman church were but a particular church. for he saith: whosoever professes (u) pag. 67. himself to forsake the communion of any one member of the body of christ; must confess himself consequently to forsake the whole. since therefore in the same place he expressly acknowledges the church of rome to be a member of the body of christ, and that it is clear they have forsaken her; it evidently follows, that they have forsaken the whole, and therefore are most properly schismatics. 56. and lastly, since the crime of schism is so grievous, that, according to the doctrine of holy fathers rehearsed above, no multitude of good works, no moral honesty of life, no cruel death endured even for the profession of some article of faith, can excuse any one who is guilty of that sin from damnation; i leave it to be considered, whether it be not true charity to speak as we believe, and to believe as all antiquity hath taught us, that whosoever either gins, or continues, a division from the roman church, which we have proved to be christ's true militant church on earth, cannot without effectual repentance hope to be a member of his triumphant church in heaven. and so i conclude with these words of blessed s. augustiae: it is common (w) cont. parm lib. 2. c. 3. to all heretics to be unable to see that thing which in the world is the most manifest, and placed in the light of all nations: out of whose unity whatsoever they work, though they seem to do it with great care and diligence, can no more avail them against the wrath of god, than the spider's web against the extremity of cold. but now it is high time that we treat of the other sort of division from the church, which is by heresy. the answer to the fifth chapter. the separation of protestants from the roman church, being upon just and necessary causes, is not any way guilty of schism. 1. ad §. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. in the seven first sections of this chapter, there be many things said, and many things supposed by you which are untrue, and deserve a censure. as, 2. first, that schism could not be a division from the church, or that a division from the church could not happen, unless there always had been and should be a visible church. which assertion is a manifest falsehood; for although there never had been any church visible or invisible before this age, nor should be ever after; yet this could not hinder, but that a schism might now be, and be a division from the present visible church. as though in france there never had been until now a lawful monarch, nor after him ever should be; yet this hinders not, but that now there might be a rebellion, and that rebellion might be an insurrection against sovereign authority. 3. that it is a point to be granted by all christians, that in all ages there hath been a visible congregation of faithful people. which proposition howsoever you understand it, is not absolutely certain. but if you mean by faithful, (as it is plain you do) free from all error in faith, than you know all protestants with one consent affirm it to be false; and therefore without proof to take it for granted is to beg the question. 4. that supposing luther and they which did first separate from the roman church were guilty of schism, it is certainly consequent, that all who persist in this division must be so likewise. which is not so certain as you pretend. for they, which altar without necessary cause the present government of any state, civil or ecclesiastical, do commit a great fault; whereof notwithstanding they may be innocent who continue this alteration, and to the utmost of their power oppose a change though to the former state, when continuance of time hath once settled the present. thus have i known some of your own church, condemn the low-countries men who first revolted from the king of spain, of the sin of rebellion; yet absolve them from it who now being of your religion there, are yet faithful maintainers of the common liberty against the pretences of the king of spain. 5. fourthly, that all those which a christian is to esteem neighbours do concur to make one company, which is the church. which is false: for a christian is to esteem those his neighbours, who are not members of the true church. 6. fifthly, that all the members of the visible church, are by charity united into one mystical body. which is manifestly untrue; for many of them have no charity. 7. sixthly, that the catholic church signifies one company of faithful people, which is repugnant to your own grounds. for you require, not true faith, but only the profession of it, to make men members of the visible church. 8. seventhly, that every heretic is a schismatique. which you must acknowledge false in those, who though they deny, or doubt of some point professed by your church, and so are heretics; yet continue still in the communion of the church. 9 eighthly, that all the members of the catholic church, must of necessity be united in external communion. which though it were much to be desired it were so, yet certainly cannot be perpetually true. for a man unjustly excommmunicated, is not in the church's communion, yet he is still a member of the church: and divers time it hath happened, as in the case of chrysostom and epiphanius, that particular men, and particular churches, have upon an overvalued difference, either renounced communion mutually, or one of them separated from the other, and yet both have continued members of the catholic church. these things are in those seven sections, either said or supposed by you untruly, without all show, or pretence of proof. the rest is impertinent common place, wherein protestants and the cause in hand, are absolutely unconcerned. and therefore i pass to the eighth section. 10. ad §. 8. wherein you obtrude upon us a double fallacy; one, in supposing and taking for granted, that whatsoever is affirmed by three fathers, must be true; whereas yourselves make no scruple of condemning many things of falsehood, which yet are maintained by more than thrice three fathers. another, in pretending their words to be spoken absolutely, which by them are limited and restrained to some particular cases. for whereas you say s. austin c. 62. l. 2. cont. parm. infers out of the former premises, that there is no necessity to divide unity: to let pass your want of diligence, in quoting the 62. chapter of that book, which hath but 23. in it: to pass by also, that these words which are indeed in the 11. chapter, are not inferred out of any such premises as you pretend; this, i say, is evident, that he says not absolutely, that there never is, or can be any necessity to divide unity (which only were for your purpose,) but only in such a special case, as he there sets down: that is, when good men tolerate bad men, which can do them no spiritual hurt, to the intent they may not be separated from these, who are spiritually good; then (saith he) there is no necessity to divide unity. which very words do clearly give us to understand, that it may fall out (as it doth in our case,) that we cannot keep unity with bad men, without spiritual hurt, i.e. without partaking with them in their impieties, and that then there is a necessity to divide unity from them: i mean, to break off conjunction with them in their impieties. which that it was s. austin's mind, it is most evident out of the 21. c. of the same book: where, to parmenian demanding, how can a man remain pure, being joined with those that are corrupted? he answers, very true, this is not possible, if he be joined with them, that is, if he commit any evil with them, or favour them which do commit it. but if he do neither of these, he is not joined with them. and presently after, these two things retained, will keep such men pure and uncorrupted; that is, neither doing ill, nor approving it. and therefore seeing you impose upon all men of your communion, a necessity of doing, or at least approving many things unlawful, certainly there lies upon us an unavoidable necessity of dividing unity, either with you, or with god; and whether of these is rather to be done, be ye judges. 11. irenaeus also says not simply (which only would do you service,) there cannot possibly be any so important reformation, as to justify a separation from them who will not reform: but only, they cannot make any corruption so great, as is the pernitiousness of a schism: now, they, here, is a relative, and hath an antecedent expressed in irenaeus, which, if you had been pleased to take notice of, you would easily have seen, that what iraeneus says, falls heavy upon the church of rome, but toucheth protestant's nothing at all. for the men he speaks of, are such as propter modicas & quaslibet causas, for trifling or small causes, divide the body of christ; such as speak of peace, and make war; such as strain at gnats and swallow camels. and these, saith he, can make no reformation of any such importance, as to countervail the danger of a division. now, seeing the causes of our separation from the church of rome, are (as we pretend, and are ready to justify,) because we will not be partakers with her in superstition, idolatry, impiety, and most cruel tyranny, both upon the bodies and souls of men, who can say, that the causes of our separation, may be justly esteemed modicae & quaelibet causae? on the other side, seeing the bishop of rome, who was contemporary to irenaeus, did (as much as in him lay) cut off from the church's unity, many great churches, for not conforming to him in an indifferent matter, upon a difference, non de catholico dogmate, sed de ritu, vel ritus potiùs tempore; not about any catholic doctrine, but only a ceremony, or rather about the time of observing it? so petavius values it: which was just all one, as if the church of france should excommunicate those of their own religion in england, for not keeping christmas upon the same day with them. and seeing he was reprehended sharply and bitterly for it, by most of the bishops of the world, as eusebius testifies, euseb. hist. l. 5. c. 24. perron replic. 3. l. 2. c. and (as cardinal perron though mincing the matter, yet confesseth) by this very irenaeus himself in particular admonished, that for so small a cause (propter tam modicam causam,) he should not have cut off so many provinces from the body of the church: and lastly, seeing the ecclesiastical story of those times, mentions not other notable example of any such schismatical presumption, but this of victor; certainly we have great inducement to imagine, that irenaeus in this place by you quoted, had a special aim at the bishop and church of rome. once, this i am sure of, that the place fits him, and many of his successors, as well as if it had been made purposely for them. and this also, that be which finds fault with them who separate upon small causes, implies clearly, that he conceived, there might be such causes as were great and sufficient: and that then a reformation was to be made, notwithstanding any danger of division that might ensue upon it. 12. lastly s. denis of alexandria, says indeed and very well, that all things should be rather endured, than we should consent to the division of the church: i would add rather than consent to the continuation of the division, if it might be remedied. but then, i am to tell you, that he says not, all things should rather be done, but only, all things should rather be endured or suffered: wherein he speaks not of the evil of sin, but of pain and misery: not of tolerating either error or sin in others (though that may be lawful,) much less of joining with others for quietness sake, (which only were to your purpose) in the profession of error, and practice of sin: but of suffering any affliction, nay even martyrdom in our own persons, rather than consent to the division of the church. omnia incommoda, so your own christo pherson, enforced by the circumstances of the place, translates dionysius his words, all miseries should rather be endured, than we should consent to the church's division. 13. ad §. 9 in the next paragraph you affirm two things, but prove neither, unless a vehement asseveration, may pass for a weak proof. you tell us first, that the doctrine of the total deficiency of the visible church, which is maintained by divers chief protestants, implies in it vast absurdity, or rather sacrilegious blasphemy. but neither do the protestants, alleged by you maintain the deficiency of the visible church, but only of the church's visibility; or of the church as it is visible, which so acute a man as you, now that you are minded of it, i hope, will easily distinguish: neither do they hold, that the visible church hath failed totally and from its essence, but only from its purity: and that it fell into many corruptions, but yet not to nothing. and yet if they had held, that there was not only no pure visible church, but none at all: surely they had said more than they could justify; but yet they do not show, neither can i discover, any such vast absurdity or sacrilegious blasphemy in this assertion. you say secondly, that the reason which cast them upon this wicked doctrine, was a desperate voluntary necessity, because they were resolved not to acknowledge the roman to be the true church, and were convinced by all manner of evidence, that for divers ages before luther there was no other. but this is not to dispute but to divine, and take upon you the property of god which is to know the hearts of men. for why, i pray, might not the reason hereof rather be, because they were convinced by all manner of evidence, as scripture, reason, antiquity, that all the visible churches in the world, but above all the roman, had degenerated from the purity of the gospel of christ, and thereupon did conclude there was no visible church, meaning by no church, none free from corruption, and conformable in all things to the doctrine of christ. 14 ad §. 10. neither is there anyr epugnance (but in words only) between these as you are pleased to style them, exterminating spirits, & those other, whom out of courtesy you entitle, in your 10. §. more moderate protestants. for these affirming the perpetual visibility of the church, yet neither deny, nor doubt of her being subject to manifold and grievous corruptions, and those, of such a nature, as, were they not mitigated by invincible, or at least a very probable ignorance, none subject to them could be saved. and they, on the other side, denying the church's visibility, yet plainly affirm, that they conceive very good hope of the salvation of many, of their ignorant and honest fore fathers. thus declaring plainly, though in words they denied the visibility of the true church, yet their meaning was not to deny the perpetuity, but the perpetual purity & incorruption of the visible church. 15. ad §. 11. let us proceed therefore to your 11. section, where though d. potter and other protestants granting the churches perpetual visibility, make it needless for you to prove it, yet you will needs be doing that which is needless. but you do it so coldly and negligently, that it is very happy for you, that d. potter did grant it. 16. for, what if the prophets spoke more obscurely of christ, than of the church? what if they had fore-seen, that greater contentions would arise about the church than christ? which yet, he that is not a mere stranger in the story of the church must needs know to be untrue, and therefore not to be fore-seen by the prophets. what if we have manifestly received the church from the scriptures? does it follow from any, or all these things, that the church of christ must be always visible? 17. besides, what protestant ever granted (that which you presume upon so confidently,) that every man for all the affairs of his soul must have recourse to some congregation? if some one christian lived alone among pagans in some country, remote from christendom, shall we conceive it impossible for this man to be saved, because he cannot have recourse to any congregation, for the affairs of his soul? will it not be sufficient, for such a ones salvation, to know the doctrine of christ, and live according to it? such fancies as these, you do very wisely to take for granted, because you know well, 'tis hard to prove them. 18. let it be as unlawful as you please, to deny and dissemble matters of faith. let them that do so, not be a church, but a damned crew of sycophants: what is this to the visibility of the church? may not the church be invisible, and yet these that are of it profess their faith? no, say you: their profession will make them visible. very true, visible in the places where, and in the times when they live, and to those persons, unto whom they have necessary occasion, to make their profession: but not visible to all, or any great, or considerable part of the world while they live, much less conspicuous to all ages after them. now it is a church thus illustriously and conspicuously visible that you require: by whose splendour all men may be directed and drawn to repair to her, for the affairs of their souls: neither is it the visibility of the church absolutely, but this degree of it, which the most rigid protestants deny: which is plain enough out of the places of napper, cited by you in your 9 ●h. part of this chapter. where his words are, god hath withdraw his visible church from open assemblies, to the hearts of particular godly men. and this church which had not open assemblies, he calls the latent and invisible church. now, i hope, papists in england will be very apt to grant, men may be so far latent and invisible, as not to profess their faith in open assemblies, nor to proclàim it to the world, and yet not deny, nor dissemble it; nor deserve to be esteemed a damned crew of dissembling sycophants. 19 but, preaching of the word, and administration of the sacraments, cannot but make a church visible: and these are inseparable notes of the church. i answer, they are so far inseparable, that wheresoever they are, there a church is: but not so, but that in some cases there may be a church, where these notes are not. again, these notes will make the church visible: but to whom? certainly not to all men, nor to most men: but to them only to whom the word is preached, and the sacraments are administered. they make the church visible, to whom themselves are visible, but not to others. as where your sacraments are administered, and your doctrine preached, it is visible, that there is a popish church. but this may perhaps be visible to them only, who are present at these performances, and to others as secret, as if they had never been performed. 20. but s. austin saith, it is an impudent, abominable, detestable speech, etc. to say, the church hath perished. i answer; 1. all that s. austin says, is not true. 2. though this were true, it were nothing to your purpose, unless you will conceive it all one, not to be, and not to be conspicuously visible. 3. this very speech that the church perished, might be false and impudent in the donatists, and yet not so in the protestants. for there is no incongruity, that what hath lived 500 years, may perish in 1600. but. s. austin denied not only the actual perishing, but the possibility of it: and not only of its falling to nothing, but of its falling into corruption. i answer: though no such thing appears out of those places, yet, i believe, heat of disputation against the donatists, and a desire to over-confute them, transported him so far, as to urge against them more than was necessary, and perhaps more than was true. but were he now revived, and did but confront the doctrine of after-ages, with that; his own experience would enforce him to change his opinion. as concerning the last speech of s. austin, i cannot but wonder very much, why he should think it absurd for any man to say, there are sheep which he knows not, but god knows: and no less at you, for obtruding this sentence upon us as pertinent proof of the church's visibility. 21. neither do i see, how the truth of any present church depends upon the perpetual visibility, nay nor upon the perpetuity of that which is past or future. for what sense is there, that it should not be in the power of god almighty, to restore to a flourishing estate, a church which oppression hath made invisible? to repair that which is ruined; to reform that which was corrupted, or to revive that which was dead? nay, what reason is there, but that by ordinary means this may be done, so long as the scriptures by divine providence are preserved in their integrity and authority? as a commonwealth though never so far collapsed and overrun with disorders, is yet in possibility of being reduced unto its original state, so long as the ancient laws, and fundamental constitutions are extant, and remain inviolate, from whence men may be directed how to make such a reformation. but s. austin urges this very argument against the donatists, and therefore it is good. i answer, that i doubt much of the consequence, and my reason is, because you yourselves acknowledge, that even general councils (and therefore much more particular doctors) though infallible in their determinations, are yet in their reasons and arguments, whereupon they ground them, subject to like passions and errors with other men. 22. lastly, whereas you say, that all divines define schism, a division from the true church, and from thence collect, that there must be a known church from which it is possible for men to departed: i might very justly question your antecedent, and desire you to consider, whether schism be not rather, or at least be not as well a division of the church, as from it? a separation not of a part from the whole, but of some parts from the other. and if you liked not this definition, i might desire you to inform me in those many schisms, which have happened in the church of rome, which of the parts was the church, and which was divided from it. but to let this pass, certainly your consequence is most unreasonable. for though whensoever there is a schism, it must necessarily suppose a church existent there, yet sure we may define a schism that is, declare what the word signifies (for defining is no more) though at this present there were neither schism nor church in the world. unless you will say, that we cannot tell what a rose is, or what the word rose signifies, but only in the summer when we have roses: or that in the world to come, when men shall not marry, it is impossible to know, what it is to marry: or that the plague is not a disease, but only when some body is infected: or that adultery is not a sin, unless there be adulterers: or that before adam had a child, he knew not, and god could not have told him, what it was to be a father. certainly sir, you have forgot your metaphysics, which you so much glory in, if you know not, that the connexion's of essential predicates with their subjects, are eternal, and depend not at all upon the actual existence of the thing defined. this definition therefore of schism, concludes not the existence of a church, even when it is defined: much less the perpetual continuance of it, and least of all the continuance of it in perpetual visibility and purity, which is the only thing that we deny, & you are to prove. by this time, you perceive i hope, that i had reason to say, that it was well for you, that d. potter granted the churches perpetual visibility: for, for aught i can perceive, this concession of his, is the best stake in your hedge, the best pillar upon which this conclusion stands; which yet is the only groundwork of your whole accusation. 23. ad § 12.47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55. the remainder of this chapter, to convince luther, and all that follow him to be schismatics, affords us arguments of two sorts: the first drawn from the nature of the thing: the second from d. potter's words and acknowledgements. so that the former if they be good, must be good against all protestants: the later only against d. potter. i will examine them all, and doubt not to make it appear even to yourself, if you have any indifference, that there is not any sound and concluding reason amongst them, but that they are all poor and miserable sophisms. 24 first then to prove us schismatics, you urge from the nature of schism this only argument. whosoever leave the external communion of the visible church, are schismatics: but luther and his followers left the external communion of the visible church of christ. therefore they are schismatics. the major of this syllogism you leave naked without proof; and conceive it, as it should seem, able enough to shift for itself. the minor or second proposition of this argument, you prove by two other. the first is this. they which forsook the external communion of all visible churches, must needs forsake the external communion of the true visible church of christ: but luther and his followers forsook the external communion of all visible churches: therefore they forsook the external communion of the true visible church. the major of this syllogism you take for granted (as you have reason:) the minor you prosecute with great pomp of words, and prove with plenty of reasons, built upon the confessions of d. potter, luther, calvin, and other protestants; and this you do in the 12 § of this chapter. the second argument to prove the assumption of your syllogism, stands thus. the roman church, when luther and his followers made the separation, was the true visible church of christ: but luther and his followers forsook the external communion of the roman church: therefore they forsook the external communion of the true visible church of christ. the assumption of this syllogism needs no proof: the proposition which needs it very much, you endeavour to confirm by these reasons. 1. the roman church had the notes of the church assigned by protestants. i.e. the true preaching of the word, and due administration of the sacraments: therefore she was the true church. the antecedent is proved: because d. potter confesses she wanted nothing fundamental or necessary to salvation: therefore for the substance of the matter she had these notes. 2. either the roman church was the true visible church, or protestants can name and prove some other, disagreeing from the roman, and agreeing with protestants, in their particular doctrines; or else they must say, there was no visible church: but they will not say, there was no church: they cannot name and prove any other disagreeing from the roman, and agreeing with protestants, in their particular doctrines: because this cannot be the greek church, nor that of the waldenses, wick ifites, hussites, nor that of the muscovites, armenians, georgians, aethiopians, which you confirm by several arguments: therefore they must grant, that the roman church was the true visible church. and this is the business of your 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, and 55. sections of this chapter. 25. now to all this, i answer very briefly thus: that you have played the unwise builder, and erected a stately structure upon a false foundation. for whereas you take for granted as an undoubted truth, that whosoever leave the external communion of the visible church, are schismatical, i tell you sir, you presume too much upon us, and would have us grant, that which is the main point in question. for either you suppose the external communion of the church corrupted, and that there was a necessity for them that would communicate with this church to communicate in her corruptions: or you suppose her communion uncorrupted. if the former, and yet will take for granted, that all schismatics, that leave her communion though it be corrupted, you beg the question in your proposition. if the later, you beg the question in your supposition; for protestants, you know, are peremptory and unanimous in the denial of both these things: both that the communion of the visible church was then uncorrupted; and that they are truly schismatics, who leave the communion of the visible church, if corrupted; especially, if the case be so (and luther's was so) that they must either leave her communion, or of necessity communicate with her in her corruptions. you will say perhaps, that you have already proved it impossible, that the church, or her communion should be corrupted. and therefore that they are schismatics, who leave the external communion of the visible church, because she cannot be corrupted. and that hereafter you will prove, that corruptions in the church's communion, though the belief & profession of them be made the condition of her communion, cannot justify a separation from it: & therefore that they are schismatics, who leave the church's communion though corrupted. i answer, that i have examined your proofs of the former, and found that a vein of sophistry runs clean through them: and for the later it is so plain and palpable a falsehood, that i cannot but be confident, whatsoever you bring in proof of it, will, like the apples of sodom, fall to ashes upon the first touch. and this is my first and main exception against your former discourse: that accusing protestants of a very great and horrible crime, you have proved your accusation only with a fallacy. 26. another is, that although it were granted schism, to leave the external communion of the visible church in what state or case so ever it be, and that luther and his followers were schismatics, for leaving the external communion of all visible churches: yet you fail exceedingly of clearing the other necessary point undertaken by you, that the roman church was then the visible church. for neither do protestants (as you mistake) make the true preaching of the word, and due administration of the sacraments, the notes of the visible church, but only of a visible church: now these you know are very different things, the former signifying the church catholic, or the whole church: the later a particular church, or a part of the catholic. and therefore, suppose out of courtesy, we should grant, what by argument you can never evince, that your church had these notes, yet would it by no means follow, that your church were the visible church, but only a visible church: not the whole catholic, but only a part of it. but then besides, where doth d. potter acknowledge any such matter as you pretend? where doth he say, that you had for the substance, the true preaching of the word, or due administration of the sacraments? or where does he say, that (from which you collect this) you wanted nothing fundamental, or necessary to salvation? he says indeed, that though your errors were in themselves damnable, and full of great impiety, yet he hopes, that those amongst you, who were invincibly ignorant of the truth, might by god's great mercy, have their errors pardoned, and their souls saved: and this is all he says, and this you confess to be all he says, in divers places of your book: which is no more than you yourself do, and must affirm of protestants: and yet i believe, you will not suffer us to infer from hence, that you grant protestants too have, for the substance, the true preaching of the word, and due administration of the sacraments, and want nothing fundamental or necessary to salvation. and if we should draw this consequence from your concession, certainly we should do you injury, in regard many things may in themselves, and in ordinary course be necessary to salvation, to those that have means to attain them, as your church generally hath: which yet, by accident, to these which were, by some impregnable impediment, debarred of these means, may by god's mercy be made unnecessary. 27. lastly, whereas you say, that protestants must either grant that your church then was the visible church, or name some other, disagreeing from yours and agreeing with protestants in their particular doctrine, or acknowledge there was no visible church. it is all one, as if (to use s. paul's similitude) the head should say to the foot, either you must grant that i am the whole body, or name some other member that is so, or confess that there is no body. to which the foot may answer; i acknowledge there is a body: and yet, that no member beside you is this body: nor yet that you are it, but only a part of it. and in like manner say we, we acknowledge a church there was, corrupted indeed universally; but yet such a one as we hope by god's gracious acceptance, was still a church. we pretend not to name any one society that was this church; and yet we see no reason, that can enforce us to confess that yours was the church, but only a part of it, and that one of the worst then extant in the world. in vain therefore have you troubled yourself in proving, that we cannot pretend, that either the greeks, waldenses, wickliffites, hussites, muscovites, armenians, georgians, abyssines, were then the visible church. for all this discourse proceeds upon a false and vain supposition, and begs another point in question between us, which is, that some church of one denomination and one communion (as the roman, the greek, etc.) must be always exclusively to all other communions, the whole visible church. and though, perhaps some weak protestant having this false principle settled in him, that there was to be always some visible church of one denomination, pure from all error in doctrine, might be wrought upon, & prevailed with by it, to forsake the church of protestants: yet why it should induce him to go to yours, rather than the greek church, or any other, which pretends to perpetual succession as well as yours, that i do not understand; unless it be for the reason which aeneus silvius gave, why more held the pope above a council, than a council above the pope: which was because popes did give bishoprics and archbishoprics, but councils gave none, and therefore suing in forma pauperis, were not like to have their cause very well maintained. for put the case, i should grant of mere favour, that there must be always some church of one denomination and communion, free from all errors in doctrine, and that protestants had not always such a church: it would follow indeed from thence, that i must not be a protestant: but that i must be a papist, certainly it would follow by no better consequence than this; if you will leave england, you must of necessity go to rome. and yet with this wretched fallacy, have i been sometimes abused myself, and known many other poor souls seduced, not only from their own church, and religion, but unto yours. i beseech god to open the eyes of all that love the truth, that they may not always be held captive, under such miserable delusions. 28. we see then, how unsuccessful you have been in making good your accusation, with reasons drawn from the nature of the thing, and which may be urged in common against all protestants. let us come now to the arguments of the other kind, which you build upon d. potter's own words, out of which you promise unanswerable reasons to convince protestants of schism. 29. but let the understanding reader, take with him but three or four short remembrances, and i dare say he shall find them upon examination, not only answerable, but already answered. the memorandums i would commend to him, are these, 30. 1. that not every separation, but only a causeless separation from the external communion of any church, is the sin of schism. 31. 2. that, imposing upon men under pain of excommunication a necessity of professing known errors, and practising known corruptions, is a sufficient and necessary cause of separation: and that this is the cause which protestants allege to justify their separation from the church of rome. 32. 3. that to leave the church, and to leave the external communion of a church, at least as d. potter understands the words, is not the same thing: that being done, by ceasing to be a member of it, by ceasing to have those requisites which constitute a man a member of it, as faith and obedience: this, by refusing to communicate with any church in her liturgies and public worship of god. this little armour if it be rightly placed, i am persuaded, will repel all those batteries which you threaten shall be so furious. 33. ad § 13, 14, 15. the first is a sentence of s. austin against donatus, applied to luther thus. if the church perished; what church brought forth donatus, (you say luther)? if she could not perish, what madness moved the sect of donatus to separate, upon pretence to avoid the communion of bad men? whereunto, one fair answer (to let pass many others) is obvious out of the second observation: that this sentence though it were gospel, as it is not, is impertinently applied to luther and lutherans, whose pretence of separation (be it true, or be it false,) was not (as that of the donatists) only to avoid the communion of bad men: but to free themselves from a necessity (which but by separating was unavoidable,) of joining with bad men in their impieties. and your not substituting luther instead of donatus in the later part of the dilemma as well as in the former, would make a suspicious man conjecture that you yourself took notice of this exception of disparity between donatus and luther. 34. ad § 16. your second onset drives only at those protestants, who hold the true church was invisible for many ages. which doctrine (if by the true church be understood, the pure church, as you do understand it) is a certain truth, and it is easier for you to declaim (as you do) than to dispute against it. but these men you say must be heretics, because they separated from the communion of the visible church: and therefore also from the communion of that which they say was invisible: in as much as the invisible church communicated with the visible. 35. answ. i might very justly desire some proof of that which so confidently you take for granted: that, there were no persecuted and oppressed maintainers of the truth in the days of our forefathers, but only such as dissembled their opinions, and lived in your communion. and truly if i should say, there were many of this condition, i suppose, i could make my affirmative much more probable, than you can make your negative. we read in scripture, that elias conceived there was none left beside himself in the whole kingdom of israel, who had not revolted from god: and yet god himself assures us that he was deceived. and if such a man, a prophet, and one of the greatest, erred in his judgement touching his own time, and his own country, why may not you, who are certainly but a man, and subject to the same passions as elias was, mistake in thinking, that in former ages, in some country or other, there were not always some good christians, which did not so much as externally bow their knees to your baal? but this answer i am content you shall take no notice of, and think it sufficient to tell you, that if it be true that this supposed invisible church did hypocritically communicate with the visible church, in her corruptions, than protestants had cause, nay, necessity, to forsake their communion also; for otherwise they must have joined with them in the practice of impieties: and seeing they had such cause to separate, they presume their separation cannot be schismatical. 36. yes, you reply, to forsake the external communion of them with whom they agree in faith, is the most formal and proper sin of schism. answ. very true, but i would fain know wherein. i would gladly be informed, whether i be bound, for fear of schism, to communicate with those that believe as i do, only in lawful things, or absolutely in every thing: whether i am to join with them in superstition and idolatry, and not only in a common profession of the faith wherein we agree, but in a common dissimulation or abjuration of it. this is that which you would have them do, or else, forsooth, they must be schismatics. but hereafter, i pray you remember, that there is no necessity of communicating even with true believers in wicked actions. nay, that there is a necessity herein to separate from them. and then i dare say, even you being their judge, the reasonableness of their cause to separate shall, according to my first observation, justify their separation from being schismatical. 37. arg. but the property of schism, according to d. potter, is to cut off from the hope of salvation, the church from which it separates: and these protestants have this property, therefore they are schismatics. 38. ans. i deny the syllogism, it is no better than this: one sympton of the plague is a fever, but such a man hath a fever, therefore he hath the plague. the true conclusion which issues out of these premises, should be this, therefore he hath one sympton of the plague. and so likewise in the former, therefore they have one property or one quality of schismatics. and as in the former instance, the man that hath one sign of the plague, may by reason of the absence of other requisites, not have the plague: so these protestants may have something of schismatics, and yet not be schismatics. a tyrant sentencing a man to death for his pleasure, and a just judge that condemns a malefactor, do both sentence a man to death, and so for the matter do both the same thing: yet the one does wickedly, the other justly. what's the reason? because the one hath cause, the other hath not. in like manner schismatics, either always or generally denounce damnation to them from whom they separate. the same do these protestants, and yet are not schismatics. the reason: because schismatics do it, and do it without cause, and protestants have cause for what they do. the impieties of your church, being, generally speaking, damnable; unless where they are excused by ignorance, and expiated at least by a general repentance. in fine, though perhaps it may be true, that all schismatics do so: yet universal affirmatives are not converted, and therefore it follows not by any good logic, that all that do so, when there is just cause for it, must be schismatics. the cause in this matter of separation is all in all, and that for aught i see, you never think of. but if these rigid protestants have just cause to cut off your church from the hope of salvation: how can the milder sort allow hope of salvation to the members of this church? ans. distinguish the quality of the persons censured, and this seeming repugnance of their censures will vanish into nothing. for your church may be considered either in regard of those, in whom, either negligence, or pride, or worldly fear, or hopes, or some other voluntary sin, is the cause of their ignorance, which i fear is the case of the generality of men amongst you: or in regard of those who own their errors from truth, to want of capacity, or default of instruction; either in respect of those that might know the truth and will not, or of those who would know the truth, but (all things considered) cannot: in respect of those that have eyes to see, and will not see; or those that would gladly see, but want eyes, or light. consider the former sort of men, (which your more rigid censures seem especially to reflect upon,) and the heaviest sentence will not be too heavy. consider the later, and the mildest will not be too mild. so that here is no difference but in words only, neither are you flattered by the one, nor uncharitably censured by the other. 39 your next blow is directed against the milder sort of protestants, who (you say) involve themselves in the sin of schism by communicating with those (as you call them) exterminating spirits, whom you conceive yourself to have proved schismatics: and now load them further with the crime of heresy. for, say you, if you held yourselves obliged under pain of damnation, to forsake the communion of the roman-church by reason of her errors, which yet you confess were not fundamental: shall it not be much more damnable, to live in confraternity with these, who defend an error of the failing of the church, which in the donatists you confess to have been properly heretical? 40. answ. you mistake, in thinking that protestants hold themselves obliged not to communicate with you, only or principally by reason of your errors and corruption. for the true reason according to my third observation, is not so much because you maintain errors and corruption, as because you impose them: and will allow your communion to none but to those that will hold them with you; and have so ordered your communion, that either we must communicate with you in these things, or nothing. and for this very reason, though it were granted, that these protestants held this doctrine which you impute to them; and though this error were as damnable, and as much against the creed as you pretend: yet, after all this, this-parity between you and them, might make it more lawful for us to communicate with them than you: because what they hold, they hold to themselves, and refuse not (as you do) to communicate with them that hold the contrary. 41. thus we may answer your argument, though both your former suppositions were granted. but then for a second answer, i am to tell you, that there is no necessity of granting either of them. for neither do these protestants hold the failing of the church from its being, but only from its visibility: which if you conceive all one, then must you conceive that the stars fail every day, and the sun every night. neither is it certain that the doctrine of the churches failing is repugnant to the creed. for as the truth of the article of the remission of sins, depends not upon the actual remission of any man's sins, but upon god's readiness and resolution to forgive the sins of all that believe and repent; so that although unbelief or impenitence should be universal, and the faithful should absolutely fail from the children of men, and the son of man should find no faith on the earth; yet should the article still continue true, that god would forgive the sins of all that repent: in like manner: it is not certain that the truth of the article of the catholic church, depends upon the actual existence of a catholic church; but rather upon the right, that the church of christ, or rather (to speak properly) the gospel of christ hath to be universally believed. and therefore the article may be true, though there were no church in the world. in regard, this notwithstanding, it remains still true, that there ought to be a church, and this church ought to be catholic. for as, of these two propositions, there is a church in america, and, there should be a church in america, the truth of the later depends not upon truth of the former, so neither does it in these two: there is a church diffused all the world over, and, there should be a church diffused all the world over. 42. thirdly, if you understand by errors not fundamental, such as are not damnable, it is not true, as i have often told you, that we confess your errors not fundamental. 43. lastly, for your desire that i should here apply an authority of st. cyprian alleged in your next number i would have done so very willingly, but indeed i know not how to do it: for in my apprehension it hath no more to do with your present business of proving it unlawful, to communicate with these men, who hold the church was not always visible, than in nova fert animus. besides, i am here again to remember you, that st. cyprians words, were they never so pertinent, yet are by neither of the parts litigant esteemed any rule of faith. and therefore the urging of them, and such like authorities, serves only to make books great, and controversies endless. 44. ad § 17. the next section in three long leaves, delivers us this short sense. that those protestants which say they have not left the churches external communion, but only her corruptions, pretend to do that which is impossible. because these corruptions were inherent in the churches external communion: and therefore he that forsakes them, cannot but forsake this. 45. ans. but, who are they that pretend, they forsook the church's corruptions, and not her external communion? some there be that say, they have not left the church, that is, not ceased to be members of the church, but only left her corruptions: some, that they have not left the communion, but the corruptions of it; meaning the internal communion of it, and conjunction with it, by faith and obedience: which disagree from the former only in the manner of speaking: for he that is in the church, is in this kind of communion with it: and he that is not in this internal communion, is not in the church. some perhaps, that they left not your external communion in all things; meaning, that they left it not voluntarily being not fugitivi but fugati, casau●um. in e● ad card. perron. as being willing to join with you in any act of piety; but were by you necessitated and constrained to do so, because you would not suffer them to do well with you, unless they would do ill with you. now to do ill that you may do well, is against the will of god, which to every good man is a high degree of necessity. but for such protestants, as pretend that, de facto, they forsaken your corruptions only and not your external communion, that is, such as pretend to communicate with you in your confessions and liturgies, and participation of sacraments; i cannot but doubt very much, that neither you, nor i, have ever met with any of this condition. and if perhaps you were led into error, by thinking that to leave the church, and to leave the external communion of it, was all one in sense and signification, i hope by this time you are disabused and begin to understand, that as a man may leave any fashion or custom of a college, and yet remain still a member of the college; so a man may possibly leave some opinion or practice of a church, formerly common to himself and others, and continue still a member of that church: provided that what he forsakes be not one of those things, wherein the essence of the church consists. whereas peradventure this practice may be so involved with the external communion of this church, that it may be simply impossible, for him to leave this practice, and not to leave the churches external communion. 46 you will reply perhaps, that the difficulty lies as well against those who pretend to forsake the church's corruptions and not the church, as against those who say, they forsook the church's corruptions and not her external communion. and that the reason is still the same: because these supposed corruptions, were inherent in the whole church, and therefore, by like reason with the former, could not be forsaken, but if the whole church were forsaken. 47. ans. a pretty sophism, and very fit to persuade men that it is impossible for them, to forsake any error they hold, or any vice they are subject to, either peculiar to themselves, or in common with others: because, forsooth, they cannot forsake themselves; and vices and errors are things inherent in themselves. the deceit lies, in not distinguishing between a local and a moral forsaking of any thing. for as it were an absurdity, fit for the maintainers of transubstantiation to defend, that a man may locally and properly departed from the accidents of a subject, and not from the subject itself: so is it also against reason to deny, that a man may (by an usualphrase phrase of speech) forsake any custom or quality, good or bad, either proper to himself, or common to himself with any company, and yet never truly or properly forsake either his company or himself. thus if all the jesuits in the society, were given to write sophistically, yet you might leave this ill custom, and yet not leave your society. if all the citizens of a city, were addicted to any vanity, they might, either all, or some of them, forsake it, and yet not forsake the city. if all the parts of a man's body were dirty or filthy, nothing hinders but that all or some of them might cleanse themselves, and yet continue parts of the body. and what reason then in the world is there, if the whole visible church were overrun with tares and weeds of superstitions, and corruptions, but that some members of it might reform themselves, and yet continue still true members of the body of the church, and not be made no members, but the better by their reformation? certainly it is so obvious and sensible a truth, that this thing is possible, that no man in his wits, will be persuaded out of it, with all the quirks & metaphysics in the world. neither is this to say, that a man may keep company with christopher potter, and not keep company with the provost of qu. college: nor that a man can avoid the company of a sinner, and at the same time be really present with the man who is the sinner: which we leave to those protestants of your invention, who are so foolish, as to pretend, that a man may really separate himself from the churches external communion as she is corrupted, and yet continue in that church's external communion, which in this external communion is corrupted. but we, that say only the whole church being corrupted, some parts of it might and did reform themselves, and yet might and did continue parts of the church, though separated from the external communion of the other parts, which would not reform, need not trouble ourselves to reconcile any such repugnance. for the case put by you, of keeping d. potter's company, and leaving the company of the provost of queen's college; and of leaving a sinner's company, and not the man's: are nothing at all like ours. but if you would speak to the point, you must show, that d. potter cannot leave being provost of q. college, without ceasing to be himself: or, that a sinner cannot leave his sin, without ceasing to be a man: or that he that is part of any society, cannot renounce any vice of that society, but he must relinquish the society. if you would show any of these things, than indeed (i dare promise) you shall find us apt enough to believe, that the particular parts of the visible church could not reform themselves, but they must of necessity become no parts of it. but until we see this done, you must pardon us, if we choose to believe sense rather than sophistry. 48. in this paragraph you bring in the sentence of s. cyprian, whereto you referred us in the former: but, why, in a controversy of faith, do you cite any thing, which is confessed on all hands, not to be a rule of faith? besides, in my apprehension, this sentence of s. cyprian, is, in this place, and to this purpose, merely impertinent. s. cyprians words are, the church (he speaks of the particular church, or diocese of rome) being one, cannot be within and without: if she be with novatianus, she was not with cornelius: but if she were with cornelius who succeeded fabianus by lawful ordination, novatianus is not in the church. and now, having related the words, i am only to remember the reader, that your business was to prove it impossible, for a man to forsake the church's corruptions and not the church, and to request him to tell me whether, as i said, in nova fert animus, had not been as much to the purpose? 49. toward the conclusion of this section, you number up your victories and tell us, that out of your discourse it remaineth clear, that this our chiefest answer changeth the very state of the question: confoundeth internal acts of the understanding, with external dieds: doth not distinguish between schism and heresy, and leaves this demonstrated against us, that they (protestants) divided themselves from the communion of the visible catholic church, because they conceived that she needed reformation. to which triumphs, if any reply be needful, then briefly thus: we do not change the state of the question, but you mistake it. for the question was not, whether they might forsake the corruptions of the church, and continue in her external communion, which we confess impossible, because these corruptions were in her communion: but the question was, whether they might forsake sake the corruptions of the church, and not the church, but continue still the members of it. and to this question, there is not in your whole discourse one pertinent syllable. 50. we do not confound internal acts of understanding with external deeds, but acknowledge (as you would have us) that we cannot (as matters now stand) separate from your corruptions, but we must departed from your external communion. for you have so ordered things, that whosoever will communicate with you at all, must communicate with you, in your corruptions. but it is you that will not perceive the difference, between, being a part of the church, and being in external communion with all the other parts of it: taking for granted, that which is certainly false, that no two men or churches, divided in external communion, can be both true parts of the catholic church. 51. we are not to learn the difference between schism and heresy, for heresy we conceive, an obstinate defence of any error against any necessary article of the christian faith: and schism, a causeless separation of one part of the church from another. but this we say, that if we convince you of errors, and corruptions, professed and practised in your communion, than we cannot be schismatics, for refusing to join with you in the profession of these errors, and the practice of these corruptions. and therefore you must free either us from schism, or yourselves from error: at least from requiring the profession of it as a condition of your communion. 52. lastly, whereas you say, that you have demonstrated against us, that protestants divided themselves from the external communion of the visible church, add, which external communion was corrupted, and we shall confess the accusation, and glory in it. but this is not that quod erat demonstrandum, but that we divided ourselves from the church, that is, made ourselves outlaws from it, and no members of it. and moreover, in the reason of our separation from the external communion of your church you are mistaken: for it was not so much because she, your church, as because your churches external communion, was corrupted, and needed reformation. 53. that a pretence of reformation will acquit no man from schism, we grant very willingly, and therefore say, that it concerns every man who separates from any church's communion, even as much as his salvation is worth, to look most carefully to it, that the cause of his separation be just and necessary: for unless it be necessary, it can very hardly be sufficient. but whether a true reformation of ourselves from errors, superstition, and impieties, will not justify our separation in these things; our separation, i say, from them who will not reform themselves, and, as much as in them lies, hinder others from doing so: this is the point you should have spoken to, but have not. as for the sentences of the fathers to which you refer us, for the determination of this question, i suppose by what i have said above, the reader understands, by alleging them you have gained little credit to your cause or person. and that, if they were competent judges of this controversy, their sentence is against you much rather than for you. 54. lastly, whereas you desire d. potter to remember his own words: there neither was nor can be any just cause to departed from the church of christ, no more than from christ himself, and pretend that you have showed that luther did so: the doctor remembers his words very well, and hath no reason to be ashamed of them. only he desires you to remember that hereafter you do not confound, as hitherto you have done, departing from the church (i.e. ceasing to be a member of it,) with departing from the churches external communion; and then he is persuaded it will appear to you, that against luther and his followers you have said many things, but shown nothing. 55. but the church universal, remaining the church universal, according to d. potter may fall into error: and from hence it clearly follows, that it is impossible to leave the external communion of the church so corrupted, and retain external communion with the catholic church. ans. the reason of this consequence which you say is so clear, truly i cannot possibly discern; but the conclusion inferred, methinks, is evident of itself, and therefore without proof i grant it. i mean, that it is impossible to leave the external communion of the catholic church corrupted, and to retain external communion with the catholic church. but what use you can make of it, i do not understand: unless you will pretend, that to say a man may forsake the church's corruptions, and not the church, is all one as to say, he may forsake the churches external communion and not forsake it. if you mean so, sure you mistake the meaning of protestants when they say, they forsook not the church but her corruptions. for in saying so, they neither affirm, nor deny that they forsook the external communion of the church, nor speak at all of it: but they mean only, that they ceased not to be still members of the church, though they ceased to believe and practise some things which the whole church formerly did believe and practise. and as for the external communion of the visible church, we have without scruple formerly granted, that protestants did forsake it, that is, renounce the practice of some observances, in which the whole visible church before them did communicate. but this we say they did without schism, because they had cause to do so, and no man can have cause to be a schismatic, 56. but your argument you conceive, will be more convincing, if we consider that when luther appeared, there were not two distinct visible true churches, one pure, the other corrupted, but one church only. ans. the ground say, histories are silent of any such matter; i answer, there is no necessity, that you or i should have read all histories, that may be extant of this matters; nor that all should be extant that were written, much less extant uncorrupted: especially, considering your church, which had lately all the power in her hands, hath been so perniciously industrious, in corrupting the monuments of antiquity that made against her; nor that all records should remain which were written; nor that all should be recorded which was done. neither secondly, to suppose a visible church before luther, which did not err, is it to contradict this ground of d. potter's, that the church may err. unless you will have us believe, that, may be, and must be is all one, and that all which may be true, is true: which rule if it were true, then sure all men would be honest, because all men may be so; and you would not make so bad arguments, unless you will pretend, you cannot make better. nor thirdly, is it to contradict these words, the church may not hope to triumph over all error, till she be in heaven: for to triumph over error is to be secure from it, to be out of danger of it, not to be obnoxious to it. now a church may be free from error, and yet not secure from it, and consequently in this protestants, that luther reform the whole church; perhaps (though i know not who they be that say so,) by a frequent synecdoche, they may mean by the whole the greatest, and most illustrious part of it, the lustre whereof did much obscure the other, though it were not wholly invisible. besides, if their brag be evacuated, (as you call it) let it be so, i see no harm will come of it. lastly whereas you say, that supposing a visible pure church, luther must be a schismatic who separated from all visible churches: i tell you, if you will suppose a visible church extant before and when luther arose, conformable to him in all points of doctrine, necessary and profitable, then luther separated not from this church, but adjoined himself to it: not indeed in place, which was not necessary, not in external communion which was impossible, but by the union of faith and charity. upon these grounds, i say, that the ground of this argument is no way made certain; yet because it is not manifestly false, i am content to let it pass. and, for aught i see, it is very safe for me to do so: for you build nothing upon it which i may not fairly grant. for what do you rupted, luther forsaking the external communion of the corrupted church, could not but forsake the external communion of the catholic church? well, let this also be granted, what will come of it? what, that luther must be a schismatic? by no means: for not every separation, but only a causeless separation from the communion of the church we maintain to be schismatical. hereunto may be added, that though the whole church were corrupted, yet properly speaking, it is not true, that luther and his followers forsook the whole corrupted church, or the external communion of it: but only that he forsook that part of it which was corrupted, and still would be so, and forsook not, but only reform another part, which part they themselves were, and i suppose you will not go about to persuade us, that they forsook themselves or their own communion. and if you urge, that they joined themselves to no other part, therefore they separated from the whole: i say, it follows not, in as much as themselves were a part of it, and still continued so: and therefore could no more separate from the whole than from themselves. thus though there were no part of the people of rome, to whom the plebeians joined themselves, when they made their secession into the aventine hill; yet they divided themselves from the patricians only and not from the whole people, because themselves were a part of this people, and they divided not from themselves. 57 ad §. 18. in the 18. §. you prove that which no man denies, that corruption in manners yields no sufficient cause to leave the church: yet sure, it yields sufficient cause to cast them out of the church, that are, after the churches public admonition, obstinate in notorious impieties. neither doth the cutting off such men from the church, lay any necessary upon us, either to go out of the world, or out of the church, but rather puts these men out of the church into the world, where we may converse with them freely, without scandal to the church. our blessed saviour foretold, you say, that there should be in the church tares with choice corn. look again, i pray, and you shall see, that the field he speaks of, is not the church, but the world: and therefore neither do you obey our saviour's command, let both grow up till the harvest, who teach it to be lawful to root these tares (such are heretics) out of the world: neither do protestants disobey it, if they eject manifest hreretiques and notorious sinners out of the church. 58. ad §. 19 in the 19 you are so courteous as to suppose corruptions in your doctrine: and yet undertake to prove that, neither could they afford us any sufficient cause, or colourable necessity to departed from them. your reason is, because damnable errors there were none in your church, by d. potter's confession, neither can it be damnable in respect oferror, to remain in any church's communion, whose errors are not damnable. for if the error be not damnable, the belief thereof cannot. ans. d. potter confesseth no such matter: but only that he hopes that your errors though in themselves sufficiently damnable, yet by accident did not damn all that held them: such he means and says, as were excusably ignorant of the truth, and amongst the number of their unknown sins, repent daily of their unknown errors. the truth is, he thinks as ill of your errors and their desert, as you do of ours: only he is not so peremptory and presumptuous in judging your persons, as you are in judging ours, but leaves them to stand or fall to their own masters, who is infinitely merciful, and therefore will not damn them for mere errors, who desire to find the truth and cannot: and withal infinitely just, and therefore (it is to be feared) will not pardon them, who might easily have come to the knowledge of the truth, and either through pride, or obstinacy, or negligence would not. 59 to your minor also, i answer almost in your own words, §. 42. of this chap. i thank you for your courteous supposal, that your church may err, and in recompense thereof, will do you a charity, by putting you in mind, into what labyrinths you cast yourself, by supposing that the church may err in some of her proposals, and yet denying it lawful for any man though he know this, which you suppose, to oppose her judgement, or leave her communion. will you have such a man dissemble against his conscience, or externally deny that which he knows true? no, that you will not for them that do so, you yourself have pronounced a damned crew of dissembling sycophants. or would you have him continue in your communion, and yet profess your church to err? this you yourselves have made to him impossible. or would you have him believe those things true, which together profess your church to err? this you yourselves have made to him impossible. or would you have him believe those things true, which together with him you have supposed to be errors? this is such a one, as is assured or persuaded of that, which you here suppose, that your church doth err, (and such only, we say, are obliged to forsake your communion,) is, as schoolmen speak, implicatio in terminis, a contradiction so plain, that one word destroyeth another; as if one should say, a living dead man. for it is to require that they which believe some part of your doctrine false, should withal believe it all true. seeing therefore, for any man to believe your church in error, and profess the contrary, is damnable hypocrisy; to believe it and not believe it, a manifest repugnancy; and thirdly, to profess it and to continue in your communion (as matters now stand) a plain impossibility; what remians, but that whosoever is supposed to have just reason to disbelieve any doctrine of your church, must of necessity forsake her communion? unless you would remit so far from your present rigour, as to allow them your church's communion, who publicly profess that they do not believe every article of her established doctrine. indeed, if you would do so, you might with some coherence suppose your church in error, and yet find fault with men for abandoning her communion, because they might continue in it, and suppose her in error. but to suppose your church in error, and to excommunicate all those that believe your own supposition, and then to complain that they continue not in your communion, is the most ridiculous incongruity that can be imagined. and therefore though your corruptions in doctrine, in themselves (which yet is false) did not, yet your obliging us to profess your doctrine uncorrupted against knowledge and conscience, may induce an obligation to departed from your communion. as, if there were any society of christians, that held there were no antipodes; notwithstanding this error, i might communicate with them. but if i could not do so, without professing myself of their belief in this matter, than i suppose i should be excused from schism, if i should forsake their communion, rather than profess myself to believe that which i do not believe. neither is there any contradiction or shadow of contradiction, that it may be necessary for my salvation to departed from this church's communion: and that this church (though erring in this matter) wants nothing necessary to salvation. and yet this is that manifest contradiction, which d. potter (you say) will never be able to salve; viz. that there might be necessary cause to departed from the church of rome in some doctrines and practices, though she wanted nothing necessary to salvation. 60. and your reason wherewith you prove, that there is in these words such a pl●in contradiction, is very notable. for (say you) if she wanted nothing necessary to salvation, how could it be necessary to salvation to forsake her? truly sir, if this be a good manner of proving, it is a very ready way to prove any thing; for what is there that may not be proved, if it be proof enough to ask, how it can be otherwise? me thinks if you would convince d. potter's words of manifest contradiction, you should show, that he affirms and denies the same of the same. from which fault me thinks he should be very innocent, who says only, that that may be damnable to one, which is not so to another; and that may be necessary for one, which is not necessary for another. and this is all that d. potter says here: viz. that the profession of a falsehood to him that believes it, may be not damnable: and yet damnable to him that believes the contrary. or that, not to profess a falsehood in him that knows it to be so, is necessary to salvation: and yet not so, in him that by error conceives it to be a truth. the words by you cited, and charged with unsalvable contradiction are in the 75. pag. but in the progress of the same particular discourse, in the next page but one he gives such evident reason of them, (which can hardly be done to prove implicancy true) that whereas you say, he will never be able to salve them from contradiction, i believe any indifferent reader, having considered the place, will be very apt to think, that you (whatsoever you pretend) were very able to have done this courtesy for him, if your will had been answerable to your ability. i will set down the words, and leave the reader to condemn or absolve them. to forsake the errors of that church, and not to join with her in those practices which we account erroneous, we are enforced by necessity. for though in the issue they are not damnable to them which believe as they profess, yet for us to profess a vow by oath (as the church of rome enjoins) what we believe not, were without question damnable. and they with their errors, by the grace of god might go to heaven, when we for our hypocrisy and dissimulation (he might have added, and perjury) should certainly be condemned to hell. 61. ad § 20. but a church not erring in fundamentals, though erring in other matters, doth what our saviour exacts at her hands, doth as much as lies in her power to do: therefore the communion of such a church is not upon pretence of error to be forsaken. the consequence is manifest. the antecedent is proved, because god, by d. potter's confession, hath promised his assistance no further, nor is it in her power to do more than god doth assist her to do. ans. the promise of divine assistance is twofold: absolute, or conditional. that there shall be by divine providence preserved in the world to the world's end, such a company of christians, who hold all things precisely and indispensably necessary to salvation, and nothing inevitably destructive of it: this and no more the doctor affirms that god hath promised absolutely. yet he neither doubts nor denies, but that a farther assistance is conditionally promised us, even such an assistance as shall lead us, if we be not wanting to it and ourselves, into all not only necessary, but very profitable truth, and guard us from all not only destructive, but also hurtful errors. this, i say, he neither denies nor questions. and should he have done so, he might have been confuted by evident and express text of scripture. when therefore you say, that a church not erring in fundamentals, doth as much as by god's assistance lies in her power to do, this is manifestly untrue. for god's assistance is always ready to promote her farther. it is ready, i say, but on condition the church does implore it: on condition, that when it is offered in the divine directions of scripture and reason, the church be not negligent to follow it. if therefore there be any church, which, retaining the foundation, builds hay and stubble upon it; which believing what is so precisely necessary, errs shamefully and dangerously in other things very profitable: this by no means argues defect of divine assistance in god, but neglect of this assistance in the church. neither is there any reason, why such a church should please herself too much for retaining fundamental truths, while she remains so regardless of others. for though the simple defect of some truths profitable only and not simply necessary, may consist with salvation; yet, who is there that can give her sufficient assurance, that the neglect of such truths is not damnable? besides, who is there that can put her in sufficient caution, that these errors about profitable matters may not, according to the usual fecundity of error, bring forth others of a higher quality, such as are pernicious and pestilent, and undermine by secret consequences the very foundations of religion and piety? lastly, who can say that she hath sufficiently discharged her duty to god & man by avoiding only fundamental heresies, if in the mean time she be negligent of others, which though they do not plainly destroy salvation, yet obscure and hinder, and only not block up the way to it? which though of themselves and immediately they damn no man, yet are causes and occasions that many men run the race of christian piety more remissly than they should, many defer their repentance, many go on securely in their sins, and so at length are damned by means and occasion of these errors, though not for them. such errors as these, (though those of the roman church be much worse, even in themselves damnable, and by accident only pardonable) yet, i say, such errors as these, if any church should tolerate, dissemble, and suffer them to reign, and neglect to reform them, and not permit them to be freely, yet peaceably, opposed and impugned; will any wise man say, that she hath sufficiently discharged her duty to god and man? that she hath with due fidelity dispensed the gospel of christ? that she hath done what she could, and w●at she ought? what shall we say then, if these errors be taught by her, and commanded to be taught? what if she thunder out her curses against those that will not believe them? what if she rave and rage's against them, and persecute them with fire & sword, & all kinds of most exquisite torments? truly i do much fear, that from such a church (though it hold no error absolutely unconsistent with salvation,) the candlestick of god, either is already removed, or will be very shortly; and because she is negligent of profitable truths, that she will lose those that are necessary; and because she will not be led into all truths, that in short time she shall be led into none. and although this should not happen, yet what mortal man can secure us, that not only a probable unaffected ignorance, not only a mere neglect of profitable truths, but also a retchless supine negligence, manifest contempt, dissimulation, opposition, oppression of them may consist with salvation? i truly for my part, though i hope very well of all such, as, seeking all truth, find that which is necessary; who endeavouring to free themselves from all errors, any way contrary to the purity of christianity, yet fail of performance and remain in some: yet if i did not find in myself a love and desire of all profitable truth; if i did not put away idleness, and prejudice, and worldly affections, and so examine to the bottom all my opinions of divine matters, being prepared in mind to follow god, and god only, which way soever he shall lead me; if i did not hope, that i either do, or endeavour to do these things, certainly i should have little hope of obtaining salvation. 62. but to oblige any man under pain of damnation to forsake a church by reason of such errors, against which christ thought it superfluous to promise his assistance, and for which he neither denies his grace here, nor his glory hereafter, what is it but to make the narrow way to heaven, narrower than christ left it? answ. it is not: for christ himself hath obliged us hereunto. he hath forbade us under pain of damnation to profess what we believe not, and consequently under the same penalty, to leave that communion, in which we cannot remain without this hypocritical profession of those things, which we are convinced to be erroneous. but then besides, it is here falsely supposed, (as hath been showed already) that christ hath not promised assistance to those that seek it, but only in matters simply necessary. neither is there any reason, why any church, even in this world, should despair of victory over all errors pernicious or noxious; provided she humbly and earnestly implore divine assistance, depend wholly upon it, and be not wanting to it. though a triumph over all sin and error, that is, security that she neither doth nor can err, be rather to be desired than hoped for on earth, being a felicity reserved for heaven. 63. ad §. 21. but at least the roman church is as infallible as protestants, and protestants as fallible as the roman church: therefore to forsake the roman church for errors, what is it but to flit from one erring society to another? ans. the inconsequence of this argument is too apparent: protestants may err as well as the church of rome, therefore they did so! boys in the schools know, that à posse ad esse, the argument follows not. he is equally fallible who believes twice two to be four, as he that believes them to be twenty: yet in this, he is not equally deceived, and he may be certain that he is not so. one architect is no more infallible than another, and yet he is more secure that his work is right and straight who hath made it by the level, than he which hath made it by guess and by chance. so he that forsakes the errors of the church of rome, and therefore renounceth her communion, that he may renounce the profession of her errors, though he knows himself fallible, as well as those whom he hath forsaken, yet he may be certain (as certain as the nature of the thing will bear) that he is not herein deceived: because he may see the doctrine forsaken by him repugnant to scripture, and the doctrine embraced by him consonant to it. at least, this he may know, that the doctrine which he hath chosen, to him seems true, and the contrary which he hath forsaken, seems false: and therefore without remorse of conscience, he may profess that, but this he cannot. 64. but we are to remember, that, according to d. potter, the visible church hath a blessing not to err in fundamentals, in which any private reformer may fail, therefore there was no necessity of forsaking the church, out of whose communion they were exposed to danger of falling into many more, and even into damnable errors. answ. the visible church is free indeed from all errors absolutely destructive and unpardonable, but not from all error which in it is self damnable: not from all which will actually bring damnation upon them, that keep themselves in them, by their own voluntary and avoidable fault. from such errors which are thus damnable, d. potter doth no no where say, that the visible church hath any privilege or exemption. nay, you yourself teach, that he plainly teacheth the contrary, and thereupon will allow him to be no more charitable to papists, than papists are to protestants: and yet upon this affected mistake your discourse is founded in almost forty places of your book. besides, any private man who truly believes the scripture, and seriously endeavours to know the will of god, and to do it, is as secure as the visible church, more secure than your church, from the danger of erring in fundamentals: for it is impossible, that any man so qualified should fall into any error which to him will prove damnable. for god requires no more of any man to his salvation, but his true endeavour to be saved. lastly, abiding in your church's communion is so far from securing me or any man from damnable error, that if i should abide in it, i am certain i could not be saved. for abide in it i cannot, without professing to believe your entire doctrine true: profess this i cannot, but i must lie perpetually, and exulcerate my conscience. and though your errors were not in themselves damnable, yet to resist the known truth, and to continue in the profession of known errors and falsehood, is certainly a capital sin, and of great affinity with the sin which shall never be forgiven. 65. but neither is the church of protestants perfectly free from errors and corruptions: so the doctor confesses p. 69. which he can only excuse, by saying, they are not fundamental, as likewise those in the roman church, are confessed not to be fundamental. and what man of judgement will be a protestant, since that church is confessedly a corrupted one? ans. and yet you yourself make large discourses in this very chapter, to persuade protestants to continue in the church of rome, though supposed to have some corruptions. and why, i pray, may not a man of judgement continue in this communion of a church confessedly corrupted, as well as a church supposed to be corrupted, requires the belief and profession of her supposed corruptions, as the condition of her communion: which this church, confessedly corrupted, doth not? what man of judgement will think it any disparagement to his judgement, to prefer the better, though not simply the best, before that which is stark naught? to prefer indifferent good health, before a diseased and corrupted state of body? to prefer a field not perfectly weeded, before a field that is quite overrun with weeds and thorns? and therefore though protestants have some errors, yet seeing they are neither so great as yours, nor imposed with such tyranny, nor maintained with such obstinacy; he that conceives it any disparagement to his judgement, to change your communion for theirs, though confessed to have some corruptions, it may well be presumed that he hath but little judgement. for as for your pretence that yours are confessed not to be fundamental, it is an affected mistake as already i have often told you. 66. ad §. 22. but d. potter says, it is comfort enough for the church, that the lord in mercy will secure her from all her capital dangers: but she may not hope to triumph over all sin and error, till she be in heaven. now if it be comfort enough, to be secured from all capital dangers, which can arise only from error in fundamental points, why were not our first reformers content with enough, but would needs dismember the church, out of a pernicious greediness of more than enough? answ. i have already shown sufficiently, how capital danger may arise from errors, though not fundamental. i add now, that what may be enough for men in ignorance, may be to knowing men not enough: according to that of the gospel, to whom much is given, of him much shall be required: that the same error may be not capital to those who want means of finding the truth, and capital to others who have means, and neglect to use them: that to continue in the profession of error discovered to be so, may be damnable, though the error be not so. these i presume are reasons enough, and enough why the first reformers might think, and justly, that not enough for themselves, which yet to some of their predecessors they hope might be enough. this, very argument was objected to (a) s. cyprian▪ ep. 63. in these words. siquis de antecessoribus nostris, vel ignoranter vel simpliciter non hoc observavit, & tenuit quod nos dominus sacere exemplo & magisterio suo docuit, potest simplicitati ejus, de indulgentia domini, venia concedi: no●is verò non potest ignosci, qui nunc à domino admoniti & instructi sumus. s. cyprian upon another occasion, and also by the (b) ●ilfridus, to abb●t colman alleging that he followeth the example of his predecessors famous for holiness, and famous for mitacles, in these words, de patre vestro columba & sequacibus ejus, quorum sanctitatem vos imitari & regu●am ac praecepta coelestibus signis confirmata sequi perhibetis, possum respondere; quia multis in judicio dicentibus domino quòd in nomine ejus prophetaverint & dae monia ejecerint, & virtutes multas seceriat, responsurus sit dominus, quia nunquam eos noverit. sed absit ut de patribus vestris hoc dicam, quia justius multo est de incognitis bonum credere quam malum. u●de & illos dei famulos & deo dilectos esse non nego, qui simplicitate rusticâ, sed intentione piâ deum dilexerum: neque illis multum obesse paschae talem reor observatiam, quam diù nullus advenerat qui eis instituti persectioris decreta quae sequerentur ostenderet. quos utique credo, siquis tunc ad eos catholicus circulator adveniret, sic ejus monita suisse secuturos, quomodo ea quae noverant ac didicerunt dei mandata, probantur suisse secuti. tu autem & socii tui si audita decreta sedis apostolicae, imo universalis ecclesiae, & haec literis sacris confirmata contemnitis, absque ulla dubietate peccatis. british quartodecimen, to the maintainers of the doctrine of your church; and (c) beda: lib 3. eccl. hist. c. 25. by both this very answer was returned; and therefore i cannot but hope that for their sakes you will approve it. 67. but if (as the doctor says) no church may hope to triumph over all error till she be in heaven, than we must either grant, that errors not fundamental cannot yield sufficient cause to forsake the church, or you must affirm, that all communities may and aught to be forsaken. answ. the doctor does not say, that no church may hope to be free from all error, either pernicious, or any way noxious: but that no church may hope to be secure from all error simply, for this were indeed truly to triumph over all. but then we say not, that the communion of any church is to be forsaken for errors unfundamental, unless it exact withal either a dissimulation of them being noxious; or a profession of them against the dictate of conscience, if they be mere errors. this, if the church does (as certainly yours doth,) than her communion is to be forsaken, rather than the sin of hypocrisy to be committed. whereas to forsake the churches of protestants for such errors, there is no necessity, because they err to themselves, and do not under pain of excommunication exact the profession of their errors. 68 but the church may not be left by reason of sin, therefore neither by reason of errors not fundamental: in as much as both sin and error are impossible to be avoided till she be in heaven. ans. the reason of the consequence does not appear to me: but i answer to the antecedent: neither for sin nor errors, ought a church to be forsaken, if she does not impose and enjoin them: but if she do, (as the roman does) than we must forsake men rather than god; leave the church's communion rather than commit sin, or profess known errors to be divine truths. for the prophet ezekiel hath assured us, that to say, the lord hath said so, when the lord hath not said so, is a great sin, and a high presumption, be the matter never so small. 69. ad §. 23. but neither the quality nor the number of your church's errors, could warrant our forsaking of it. not the quality, because we suppose them not fundamental. not the number, because the foundation is strong enough to support them. answ. here again you vainly suppose, that we conceive your errors in themselves not damnable: though, we hope, they are not absolutely unpardonable: but to say they are pardonable, is indeed to suppose them damnable. secondly, though the errors of your church did not warrant our departure, yet your tyrannous imposition of them, would be our sufficient justification. for this lays necessity on us, either to forsake your company, or to profess what we know to be false. 70. our blessed saviour hath declared his will, that we forgive a private offender seventy seven times, that is, without limitation of quantity of time, or quality of trespasses; and then, how dare we allege his command, that we must not pardon his church for errors acknowledged to be not fundamental? ans. he that commands us to pardon our brother sinning against us so often, will not allow us for his sake to sin with him, so much as once. he will have us do any thing but sin, rather than offend any man. but his will is also, that we offend all the world, rather than sin in the least matter. and therefore though his will were, and it were in our power (which yet is false) to pardon the errors of an erring church; yet certainly it is not his will, that we should err with the church, or if we do not, that we should against conscience profess the errors of it. 71. ad §. 24. but schismatics from the church of england, or any other church, with this very answer, that they forsake not the church, but the errors of it, may cast off from themselves the imputation of schism. ans. true, they may make the same answer, and the same defence as we do, as a murderer can cry not guilty, as well as an innocent person, but not so truly, nor so justly. the question is, not what may be pretended, but what can be proved by schismatics. they may object errors to other churches, as well as we do to yours; but that they prove their accusation so strongly as we can, that appears not. to the priests and elders of the jews, imposing that sacred silence mentioned in the acts of the apostles, saint peter, and st. john answered, they must obey god rather than men. the three children to the king of babylon, gave in effect the same answer. give me now any factious hypocrite, who makes religion the pretence and cloak of his rebellion, and, who sees not that such a one may answer for himself, in those very formal words, which the holy apostles and martyrs made use of? and yet, i presume, no christian will deny, but this answer was good, in the mouth of the apostles and martyrs, though it were obnoxious to be abused, by traitors, and rebels. certainly therefore it is no good consequence to say, schismatics may make use of this answer, therefore all that do make use of it are schismatics. but moreover, it is to be observed, that the chief part of our defence, that you deny your communion to all that deny or doubt of any part of your doctrine, cannot with any colour be employed against protestants: who grant their communion to all who hold with them, not all things, but things necessary, that is, such as are in scripture plainly delivered. 72. but the forsaking the roman church opens a way to innumerable sects and schisms, and therefore it must not be forsaken. ans. we must not do evil to avoid evil: neither are all courses presently lawful, by which inconveniences may be avoided. if all men would submit themselves to the chief mufty of the turks, it is apparent therewould be no divisions; yet unity is not to be purchased at so dear a rate. it were a thing much to be desired, that there were no divisions: yet difference of opinions touching points controverted, is rather to be chosen, than unanimous concord in damned errors: as it is better for men to go to heaven by divers ways, or rather by divers paths of the same way, than in the same path to go on peaceably to hell. amica pax, magis amica veritas! 73. but there can be no just cause to forsake the church, so the doctor grants: who notwithstanding teacheth that the church may err in points not fandamental; therefore neither is the roman church to be forsaken for such errors. ans. there can be no just cause to forsake the church absolutely and simply in all things, that is, to cease being a member of the church: this i grant, if it will do you any service. but that there can be no just cause to forsake the church in some things, or (to speak more properly) to forsake some opinions and practices, which some true church retains and defends; this i deny, and you mistake the doctor, if you think he affirms it. 74. ad §. 26, 27. what prodigious doctrines (say you) are these? those protestants who believe that your church erred in points necessary to salvation, and for that cause left her, cannot be excused from damnable schism: but others, etc. prodigious doctrines indeed! but who, i pray, are they that teach them? where does d. potter accuse those protestants of damnable schism, who left your church because they hold it erroneous in necessary points? what protestant is there that holds not that you taught things contrary to the plain precepts of christ; both ceremonial, in mutilating the communion; and moral, in points of superstition and idolatry, and most bloody tyranny? which is without question to err in necessary matters. neither does d. potter accuse any man of schism for holding so: if he should, he should call himself a schismatique. only he says, such (if there be any such) as affirm, that ignorant souls among you, who had no means to know the truth, cannot possibly be saved, that their wisdom and charity cannot be justified. now you yourself have plainly affirmed, that ignorant protestants dying with contrition may be saved; and yet would be unwilling to be thought to say, that protestants err in no points necessary to salvation. for that may be in itself, and in ordinary course, where there are means of knowledge, necessary, which to a man invincibly ignorant, will prove not necessary. again, where doth d. potter suppose (as you make him) that there were other protestants, who believed that your church had no errors? or, where does he say, they did well to forsake her, upon this ridiculous reason, because they judged that she retained all means necessary to salvation? do you think us so stupid, as that we cannot distinguish between that which d. potter says, and that which you make him say? he vindicates protestants from schism two ways: the one is, because they had just and great and necessary cause to separate, which schismatics never have; because they that have it, are no schismatics: for schism is always a causeless separation. the other is, because they did not join with their separation, an uncharitable damning of all those from whom they did divide themselves, as the manner of schismatics is. now that which he intends for a circumstance of our separation, you make him, make the cause of it, and the motive to it. and whereas he says, though we separate from you in some things, yet we acknowledge your church a member of the body of christ, and therefore are not schismatics: you make him say most absurdly, we did well to forsake you, because we judged you a member of the body of christ. just as if a brother should leave his brother's company in some ill courses, and should say to him, herein i forsake you, yet i leave you not absolutely, for i acknowledge you still to be my brother, and shall use you as a brother: and you perverting his speech should pretend that he had said, i leave your company in these i'll courses, and i do well to do so, because you are my brother: so making that the cause of leaving him, which indeed is the cause that he left him no farther. 75. but you say, the very reason for which he acquitteth himself from schism, is, because he holds that the church which they forsook, is not cut off from the body of christ. ans. this is true: but can you not perceive a difference between justifying his separation from schism by this reason, and making this the reason of his separation? if a man denying obedience in some unlawful matter to his lawful sovereign, should say to him, herein i disobey you, but yet i am no rebel, because i acknowledge you my sovereign lord, and am ready to obey you in all things lawful; should not he be an egregious sycophant, that should accuse him, as if he had said, i do well to disobey you, because i acknowledge you my lawful sovereign? certainly, he that joins this acknowledgement with his necessitated obedience, does well; but he that makes this consideration the reason of disobedience doth ill. urge therefore this (as you call it) most solemn foppery as far as you please: for every understanding reader will easily perceive that this is no foppery of d. potter's, but a calumny of yours; from which he is as far, as he is from holding yours to be the true church: whereas it is a sign of a great deal of charity in him, that he allows you to be a part of it. 76. and whereas you pretend to find such unspeakable comfort herein, that we cannot clear ourselves from schism, otherwise than by acknowledging that they do not, nor cannot, cut off your church from the hope of salvation: i beseech you to take care that this false comfort cost you not too dear. for why this good opinion of god almighty, that he will not damn men for error, who were without their own fault ignorant of the truth, should be any consolation to them, who, having the key of knowledge, will neither use it themselves, nor permit others to use it; who have eyes to see and will not see, who have ears to hear and will not hear! this, i assure you, passeth my capacity to apprehend. neither is this to make our salvation depend on yours, but only ours and yours not desperately inconsistent, nor to say, we must be damned, unless you may be saved; but that we assure ourselves, if our lives be answerable, we shall be saved by our knowledge. and that we hope, (and i tell you again, spes est rei incertae nomen) that some of you may possibly be saved by occasion of their unaffected ignorance. 77. for our brethren, whom you say, we condemn of heresy for denying the church's perpetuity, we know none that do so: unless you conceive a corrupted church to be none at all; and, if you do, then for aught i know, in your account we must be all heretics; for all of us acknowledge that the church might be corrupted even with errors in themselves damnable, and not only might, but hath been. 78. but schism consists in being divided from that true church, with which a man agreeth in all points of faith: now we must profess, you say, that we agree with the church of rome in all fundamental articles; therefore we are schismatics. ans. either in your major, by all points of faith, you mean all fundamental points only, or all simply and absolutely. if the former, i deny your major: for i may without all schism divide from that church which errs in any point of faith fundamental, or otherwise, if she require the profession of this error among the conditions of her communion. now this is our case. if the later, i deny the syllogism, as having manifestly four terms, and being cosen-german to this, he that obeys god in all things is innocent; titius obeys god in some things; therefore he is innocent. 79. but they who judge a reconciliation with the church of rome to be damnable, they that say, there might be just and necessary cause to departed from it, and that they of that church which have understanding and means to discover their error, and neglect to use them, are not to be slattered with hope of salvation; they do cut off that church from the body of christ, and the hope of salvation, and so are schismatics: but d. potter doth the former; therefore he is a schismatique. ans. no, he doth not: not cut off that whole church from the hope of salvation, not those members of it who were invincibly, or excusably ignorant of the truth; but those only who having understanding and means to discover their error, neglect to use them. now these are not the whole church; and therefore he that, supposing their impenitence, cuts these off from hope of salvation, cannot be justly said to cut off that whole church from the body of christ, and the hope of salvation. 80. ad §. 28, 29. whereas d. potter says, there is a great difference between a schism from them, and a reformation of ourselves: this, you say, is a acquaint subtlety, by which all schism and sin may be as well excused. it seems then in your judgement, that thiefs and adulterers, and murderers, and traitors may say with as much probability as protestants, that they did no hurt to others, but only reform themselves. but then methinks it is very strange, that all protestants should agree with one consent in this defence of themselves from the imputation of schism: & that to this day, never any thief or murderer should have been heard of, to make use of this apology! and then for schismatics i would know, whether victor bishop of rome, who excommunicated the churches of asia, for not consorming to his church in keeping easter; whether novatian that divided from cornelius, upon pretence that himself was elected bishop of rome, when indeed he was not; whether felicissimus and his crew, that went out of the church of carthage, and set up altar against altar, because having fallen in persecution, they might not be restored to the peace of the church presently, upon the intercession of the confessors; whether the donatists, who divided from, and damned all the world, because all the world would not excommunicate them who were accused only, and not convicted, to have been traditors of the sacred books; whether they which for the slips and infirmities of others, which they might and ought to tolerate, or upon some difference in matters of order and ceremony, or for some error in doctrine, neither pernicious nor hurtful to faith or piety, sepatate themselves from others, or others from themselves; or lastly, whether they that put themselves out of the church's unity and obedience, because their opinions are not approved there, but reprehended and confuted, or because being of impious conversation, they are impatient of their church's censure: i would know, i say, whether all, or any of these, may with any face, or without extreme impudence, put in this plea of protestants, and pretend with as much likelihood as they, that they did not separate from others, but only reform themselves? but suppose they were so impudent as to say so in their own defence falsely, doth it follow by any good logic, that therefore this apology is not to be employed by protestants, who may say so truly? we make say they) no schism from you, but only a reformation of ourselves: this, you reply, is no good justification, because it may be pretended by any schismatique. very true, any schismatique that can speak may say the same words, (as any rebel that makes conscience the cloak of his impious disobedience, may say with saint peter, and saint john, we must obey god rather than men:) but then the question is, whether any schismatic may say so truly? and to this question you say just nothing: but conclude, because this defence may be abused by some, it must be used by none. as if you should have said, s. peter, and s. john did ill to make such an answer as they made, because impious hypocrites might make use of the same to palliate their disobedience and rebellion against the lawful commands of lawful authority. 81. but seeing their pretended reformation consisted in forsaking the church's corruptions, their reformation of themselves, and their division from you, falls out to be one and the same thing. just as if two men having been a long while companions in drunkenness, one of them should turn sober; this reformation of himself, and desertion of his companion, in this ill custom, would be one and the same thing, and yet there is no necessity that he should leave his love to him at all, or his society in other things. so protestants forsaking their own former corruptions, which were common to them with you, could not choose but withal forsake you in the practice of these corruptions: yet this they might, and would have done without breach of charity towards you; and without a renunciation of your company in any act of piety and devotion, confessedly lawful. and therefore though both these were by accident joined together, yet this hinders not but that the end they aimed at, was not a separation from you, but a reformation of themselves. 82. neither doth their disagreement in the particulars of the reformation, (which yet when you measure it without partiality, you will find to be far short of infinite) nor their symbolising in the general of forsaking your corruptions, prove any thing to the contrary, or any way advantage your design or make for your purpose. for it is not any sign at all, much less an evident sign, that they had no settled design, but only to forsake the church of rome: for nothing but malice can deny, that their intent at least was, to reduce religion to that original purity from which it was fallen. the declination from which, some conceiving to have begun (though secretly) in the apostles times, (the mystery of iniquity being then in work;) and after their departure to have showed itself more openly: others again believing, that the church continued pure for some ages after the apostles, and then declined: and consequently some aiming at an exact conformity with the apostolic times: others thinking they should do god and men good service, could they reduce the church to the condition of the fourth and fifth ages: some taking their direction in this work of reformation, only from scripture; others, from the writings of fathers, and the decrees of counsels of the first five ages: certainly, it is no great marvel, that there was, as you say, disagreement between them, in the particulars of their reformation; nay morally speaking, it was impossible it should be otherwise. yet let me tell you, the difference between them (especially in comparison of your church and religion,) is not the difference between good and bad, but between good and better: and they did best that followed scripture interpreted by catholic written-tradition: which rule the reformers of the church of england, proposed to themselves to follow. 83. ad § 30, 31, 32. to this effect d. potter, p. 81, 82. of his book, speaks thus. if a monastery should reformat itself, and should reduce into practice ancient good discipline, when others would not: in this case could it be charged with schism from others, or with apostasy from its rule and order? so in a society of men universally infected with some disease, they that should free themselves from it, could they be therefore said to separate from the society? he presumes they could not, and from hence concludes, that neither can the reformed churches be truly accused for making a schism, (that is, separating from the church, and making themselves no members of it) if all they did was (as indeed it was) to reform themselves. which cases, i believe, any understanding man will plainly see to have in them an exact parity of reason, and that therefore the argument drawn from them is pressing and unanswerable. and it may well be suspected, that you were partly of this mind, otherwise you would not have so presumed upon the simplicity of your reader, as pretending to answer it, to put another of your own making in place of it, and then to answer that. 84. this you do § 31, 32. of this chapter, in these words, i was very glad to find you in a monastery, etc. where i beseech the reader to observe these things to detect the cunning of your tergiversation: first, that you have no reason to say, that you found d. potter in a monastery: and as little, that you find him inventing ways how to forsake his vocation, and to maintain the lawfulness of schism from the church, and apostasy from a religious order. certainly the innocent case put by the doctor, of a monastery reforming itself, hath not deserved such grievous accusations. unless reformation with you be all one with apostasy: and to forsake sin and disorder, be to forsake one's vocation. and surely, if it be so, your vocations are not very lawlful, & your religious orders not very religious. secondly, that you quite pervert and change d. potter's cases, and instead of the case, of a whole monastery reforming itself, when other monasteries of their order would not; and of some men freeing themselves from the common disease of their society, when others would not: you substitute two others, which you think you can better deal with; of some particular monks, upon pretence of the neglect of lesser monastical observances going out of their monastery, which monastery yet did confessedly observe their substantial vows, and all principal statutes: and of a diseased reason, quitting the company of those that were infected with the same disease: though in their company, there was no danger from his disease, it being impossible that should be mortal: and out of it, no hope of escaping others like that for which he forsook the first infected company. i appeal now to any indifferent judge, whether these cases be the same or near the same with d. potters? whether this be fair and ingenuous dealing, in stead of his two instances, which plainly shown it possible in other societies, and consequently in that of the church, to leave the faults of a society, and not leave being of it, to foist in two others clean cross to the doctor's purpose, of men under colour of faults, abandoning the society wherein they lived? i know not what others may think of this dealing, but, to me, this declining d. potter's cases and conveying others into their place, is a great assurance, that as they were put by him, you could say nothing to them, 85. but that no suspicion of tergiversation may be fastened upon me, i am content to deal with you a little, at your own weapons. put the case then, though not just as you would have it, yet with as much favour to you, as in reason you can expect, that a monastery did observe her substantial vows, and all principal statutes; but yet did generally practise, and also enjoin the violation of some lesser, yet obliging observances, and had done so time out of mind: and that some inferior monks more conscientious than the rest, discovering this abuse, should first with all earnestness solicit their superiors for a general and orderly reformation of these, though small and venial corruptions, yet corruptions: but finding they hoped and laboured in vain to effect this, should reform these faults in themselves, and refuse to join in the practice of them, with the rest of their confraternity, and persisting resolutely in such a refusal, should by their superiors be cast out of their monastery, and being not to be readmitted without a promise of remitting from their stiffeness in these things, and of condescending to others in the practice of these small faults, should choose rather to continue exiles, than to re-enter upon such conditions: i would know whether you would condemn such men of apostasy from the order? without doubt, if you should, you would find the stream of your casuists against you; and, besides, involve s. paul in the same condemnation, who plainly tells us, that we may not do the least evil, that we may do the greatest good. put case again, you should be part of a society universally infected with some disease, and discovering a certain remedy for this disease, should persuade the whole company to make use of it, but find the greatest part of them so far in love with their disease, that they were resolved to keep it; nay so fond of it, that they should make a decree, that whosoever would leave it, should leave their company. suppose now, that yourself and some few others, should notwithstanding their injunction to the contrary, free yourselves from this disease, and thereupon they should absolutely forsake and reject you: i would know in this case who deserves to be condemned, whether you of uncharitable desertion of your company, or they of a tyrannical peevishness? and if in these cases you will (as i verily believe you will,) acquit the inferiors and condemn the superiors, absolve the minor part and condemn the major, then can you with no reason condemn protestants, for choosing rather to be ejected from the communion of the roman church, than with her to persist (as of necessity they were to do, if they would continue in her communion) in the profession of errors, though not destructive of salvation▪ yet hindering edification; and in the practice, or at least approbation of many (suppose not mortal but venial) corruptions. 86. thirdly, the reader may be pleased to be advertised that you censure too partially the corrupt estate of your church in comparing it to a monastery, which did confessedly observe their substantial vows, and all principal statutes of their order, and moreover was secured by an infallible assistance, for the avoiding of all substantial corruptions: for of your church we confess no such matter, but say plainly, that she not only might fall into substantial corruptions, but did so; that she did not only generally violate, but of all the members of her communion, either in act or approbation, require and exact the violation of many substantial laws of christ, both ceremonial and moral, which though we hope it was pardonable in them, who had not means to know their error, yet, of its own nature, and to them who did or might have known their error, was certainly damnable. and that it was not the tithing of mint, and anise, and cummin, the neglect whereof we impute unto you, but the neglect of judgement, justice, and the weightier matters of the law. 87. fourthly, i am to represent unto you, that you use protestants very strangely, in comparing them to a company, who all were known to be led to their pretended reformation, not with an intent of reformation, but with some other sinister intention; which is impossible to be known of you, and therefore to judge so, is against christian charity, and common equity: and to such a company as acknowledge that themselves, as soon as they were gone out from the monastery that refused to reform, must not hope to be free from those or the like errors, and corruptions, for which they left their brethren: seeing this very hope and nothing else, moved them to leave your communion: and this speech of yours, so far as it concerns the same errors, plainly destroys itself. for how can they possibly fall into the same errors by forsaking your communion, which that they may forsake they do forsake your communion? and then for other errors of the like nature and quality, or more enormous than yours, though they deny it not possible, but by their negligence and wickedness they may fall into them, yet they are so far from acknowledging that they have no hope to avoid this mischief, that they proclaim to all the world, that it is most prone and easy to do so, to all those that fear god and love the truth; and hardly possible for them to do otherwise, without supine negligence and extreme impiety. 88 to fit the reddition of your perverted simile, to the proposition of it, you tell us that we teach, that for all fundamental points, the church is secured from error. i answer, fundamental errors may signify, either such as are repugnant to god's command, and so in their own nature damnable, though to those which out of invincible ignorance practise them, not unpardonable: or such as are not only meritoriously, but remedilessly pernicious and destructive of salvation. we hope that yours, and the greek, and other churches before the reformation, had not so far apostated from christ, as to be guilty of errors of the later sort. we say, that not only the catholic church, but every particular true church, so long as it continues a church, is secured from fundamental errors of this kind, but secured not absolutely by any promise of divine assistance, which being not ordinarily irresistible, but tempered to the nature of the receivers, may be neglected, and therefore withdrawn; but by the repugnance of any error in this sense fundamental to the essence and nature of a church. so that, to speak properly, not any set known company of men is secured, that, though they neglect the means of avoiding error, yet certainly, they shall not err in fundamentals, which were necessary for the constitution of an infallible guide of faith: but rather they which know what is meant by a church, are secured or rather certain that a church remaining a church cannot fall into fundamental errors; because, when it does so, it is no longer a church. as they are certain, that men cannot become unreasonable creatures, because when they do so, they are no longer men. but for fundamental errors of the former sort, which yet, i hope, will warrant our departure from any communion infected with them and requiring the profession of them; from such fundamental errors, we do not teach so much as that the church catholic, much less, (which only were for your purpose,) that your church hath any protection or security, but know for a certain, that many errors of this nature, had prevailed against you; and that a vain presumption of an absolute divine assistance (which yet is promised but upon conditions,) made both your present errors incurable and exposed you to the imminent danger of more and greater. this therefore is either to abuse what we say, or to impose falsely upon us what we say not. and to this you presently add another manifest falsehood, viz. that we say, that no particular person, or church, hath any promise of assistance in points fundamental. whereas, cross to this in diameter, there is no protestant but holds, and must hold, that there is no particular church; no, nor person; but hath promise of divine assistance to lead them into all necessary truth, if they seek it as they should, by the means which god hath appointed. and should we say otherwise, we should contrary plain scripture, which assures us plainly, that every one that seeketh findeth, and every one that as k receiveth: and that if we being evil, can give good gifts to our children, much more shall our heavenly father, give his spirit to them that ask it: and that, if any man want wisdom (especially spiritual wisdom) he is to ask of god, who giveth to all men, and upbraideth not. 89. you obtrude upon us thirdly, that when luther began, he being but one, opposed himself to all, as well subjects as superiors. ans. if he did so in the cause of god, it was heroically done of him. this had been without hyperbolising, mundus contra athanasium, and athanasius contra mundum: neither is it impossible, that the whole world should so far lie in wickedness, (as s. john speaks) that it may be lawful and noble for one man to oppose the world. but yet were we put to our oaths, we should surely not testify any such thing for you; for how can we say properly & without streining, that he opposed himself to all, unless we could say also, that all opposed themselves to him? and how can we say so, seeing the world can witness, that so many thousands, nay millions, followed his standard assoon as it was advanced? 90. but, none that lived immediately before him thought or spoke as he did. this is first nothing to the purpose. the church was then corrupted, and sure it was no dishonour to him to begin the reformation. in the christian warfare, every man ought to strive to be foremost. secondly, it is more than you can justify. for though no man before him lifted up his voice like a trumpet, as luther did; yet who can assure us, but that many before him, both thought, and spoke in the lower voice of petitions and remonstrances, in many points, as he did. 91. fourthly and lastly, whereas you say, that many chief learned protestants, are forced to confess the antiquity of your doctrine and practice: i answer: of many doctrines and practices of yours, this is not true, nor pretended to be true by those that have dealt in this argument. search your storehouse, m. brerely, who hath travailed as far in this northwest discovery, as it was possible for humane industry, and when you have done so, i pray inform me, what confessions of protestants have you, for the antiquity of the doctrine of the communion in one kind: the lawfulness and expedience of the latin-service: for the present use of indulgences: for the pope's power in temporalities over princes: for the picturing of the trinity: for the lawfulness of the worship of pictures: for your beads and rosary, and lady's psalter; and in a word, for your whole worship of the blessed virgin: for your oblations by way of consumption, and therefore in the quality of sacrifices to the virgin mary, and other saints: for your saying of pater-nosters, and creeds to the honour of saints, and of ave-maries' to the honour of other saints besides the blessed virgin: for the infallibility of the bishop or church of rome: for your prohibiting the scripture to be read publicly in the church, in such languages as all may understand: for your doctrine of the blessed virgin's immunity from actual sin; and for your doctrine and worship of her immaculate conception: for the necessity of auricular confession: for the necessity of the priest's intention to obtain benefit by any of your sacraments: and lastly, (not to trouble myself with finding out more) for this very doctrine of licentiousness, that though a man live and die without the practice of christian virtues, and with the habits of many damnable sins unmortified; yet if in the last moment of life, he have any sorrow for his sins, and join confession with it, certainly he shall be saved? secondly, they that confess some of your doctrines to have been the doctrine of the fathers, may be mistaken, being abused by many words and phrases of the fathers, which have the roman sound, when they are far from the sense. some of them i am sure are so, i will name goulartius, who in his commentaries on s. cyprian's 35. ep. grants that the sentence [heresies have sprung, etc.] quoted by you §. 36. of this chapter, was meant of cornelius: whereas it will be very plain to any attentive reader, that s. cyprian speaks there of himself. thirdly, though some protestants confess some of your doctrine to be ancient, yet this is nothing, so long as it is evident, even by the confession of all sides, that many errors, i instance in that of the millenaries, and the communicating of infants, were more ancient. not any antiquity therefore, unless it be absolute and primitive, is a certain sign of true doctrine. for if the church were obnoxious to corruption (as we pretend it was), who can possibly warrant us, that, part of this corruption might not get in and prevail in the 5. or 4. or 3. or 2. age? especially seeing the apostles assure us, that the mystery of iniquity was working, though more secretly even in their times. if any man ask, how could it become universal in so short a time? let him tell me how the error of the millenaries, and the communicating of infants, became so soon universal; and then he shall acknowledge, what was done in some, was possible in others. lastly, to cry quittance with you: as there are protestant's who confess the antiquity, but always post-nate to apostolic, of some points of your doctrine: so there want not papists who acknowledge as freely, the novelty of many of them, and the antiquity of ours. a collection of whose testimony, we have (without thanks to you) in your indices expurgatorii: the divine providence, blessedly abusing for the readier manifestation of the truth this engine intended by you for the subversion and suppression of it. here is no place to stand upon particulars: only one general ingenuous confession of that great erasmus, may not be passed over in silence. non desunt magni theologi, qui nonverentur affirmare, erasm. ep. lib. 15. ep ad god●schalcum ros. nihil esse in luthero, quin per probatos authores defendi possit: there want not great divines, which stick not to affirm, that there is nothing in luther, which may not be defended by good and allowed authors. whereas therefore you close up this simile with consider these points, and see whether your similitude do not condemn your progenitors of schism from god's visible church: i assure you, i have well considered them, and do plainly see that this is not d. potter's similitude, but your own; and besides, that it is wholly made up of mistakes and falsehoods, and is at no hand, a sufficient proof of this great accusation. 92. let us come now to the second similitude of your making: in the entrance whereunto you tell us, that from the monastery d. potter is fled to an hospital of persons universally infected with some disease, where he finds to be true, what you supposed, that, after his departure from his brethren, he might fall into greater inconveniences, and more infectious diseases than those for which he left them. thus you. but, to deal truly with you, i find nothing of all this, nor how it is consequent from any thing said by you, or done by d. potter. but this i find, that you have composed this your similitude as you did the former, of a heap of vain suspicions, pretended to be grounded on our confessions. as first, that your diseases which we forsook, neither were nor could be mortal: whereas we assure ourselves and are ready to justify, that they are and were mortal in themselves, and would have been so to us, if, when light came to us, we had loved darkness more than light. and d. potter, though he hope your church wanted no necessary vital part, that is, that some in your church by ignorance might be saved; yet he nothing doubts but that it is full of ulcers without, and diseases within, and is far from so extenuating your errors as to make them only like the superfluous fingers of the giant of gath. secondly, that we had no hope to avoid other diseases like those for which we forsook your company, nor to be secure out of it from damnable errors: whereas the hope hereof was the only motive of our departure; and we assure ourselves that the means to be secured from damnable error, is not to be secure as you are, but carefully to use those means of avoiding it, to which god hath promised, and will never fail to give a blessing. thirdly, that those innumerable mischiefs which followed upon the departure of protestants, were caused by it as by a proper cause: whereas their doctrine was not otherwise the occasion of them, than the gospel of christ of the division of the world. the only fountain of all these mischiefs, being indeed no other than your pouring out a flood of persecutions against protestants, only because they would not sin and be damned with you for company. unless we may add the impatience of some protestants, who not enduring to be torn in p●eces like sheep by a company of wolves without resistance, choose rather to die like soldiers than martyrs. 93. but you proceed; and falling into a fit of admiration, cry out and say thus, to what pass hath heresy brought men, who blush not to compare the beloved spouse of the lord, the only dove, etc. to a monastery that must be forsaken; to the giant in gath with superfluous fingers! but this spouse of christ, this only dove, this purchase of our saviour's blood, this catholic church, which you thus almost deify, what is it but a society of men, whereof every particular, and by consequence, the whole company is or may be guilty of many sins daily committed against knowledge and conscience? now i would fain understand why one error in faith, especially if not fundamental, should not consist with the holiness of this spouse, this dove, this church, as well as many and great sins committed against knowledge and conscience? if this be not to strain at gnats and swallow camels, i would fain understand what it is! and here, by the way, i desire you to consider whether as it were with one stroke of a sponge you do not wipe out all that you have said, to prove protestants schismatics for separating from your church, though supposed to be in some errors not fundamental! for if any such error may make her deserve to be compared to a monastery so disordered that it must be forsaken; then if you suppose (as here you do) your church in such errors, your church is so disordered that it must, and therefore without question may, be forsaken, i mean in those her disorders and corruptions, and no farther. 94. and yet you have not done with those similitudes, but must observe (you say) one thing, and that is, that as these reformers of the monastery, and others who left the diseased company, could not deny but that they left the said communities: so luther and the rest cannot pretend, not to have left the visible church. and that d. potter speaks very strangely when he says, in a society of men universally infected with some disease, they that should free themselves from the common disease, could not be therefore said to separate from the society. for if they do not separate themselves from the society of the infected persons, how do they free themselves from the common disease? to which i answer: that indeed, if you speak of the reformers of a monastery and of the desertors of the diseased company, as you put the cases, that is, of those which left these communities, then is it as true as gospel, that they cannot deny but that they left the said communities. but it appears not to me, how it will ensue hereupon, that luther and the rest cannot pretend not to have left the visible church. for, to my apprehension, this argument is very weak, they which left some communities cannot truly deny but that they left them; therefore luther and his followers cannot deny but that they left the visible church. where, me thinks, you prove little, but take for granted that which is one of the greatest questions amongst us, that is, that the company which luther left, was the whole visible church: whereas you know we say, it was but a part of it, and that corrupted, and obstinate in her corruptions. indeed, that luther and his followers left off the practice of those corruptions wherein the whole visible church did communicate formerly, (which i meant when i acknowledged above that they forsook the external communion of the visible church,) or that they left that part of the visible church in her corruptions which would not be reform: these things, if you desire, i shall be willing to grant; and that, by a synecdoche of the whole for the part, he might be said to forsake the visible church, that is, a part of it, and the greater part. but that, properly speaking, he forsook the whole visible church, i hope you will excuse me if i grant not this, until you bring better proof of it, than your former similitude. and my reason is this, because he and his followers were a part of this church, and ceased not to be so by the reformation. now he and his followers certainly forsook not themselves, therefore not every part of the church, therefore not the whole church. but then if you speak of d. potter's cases, according as he put them, and answer not your own arguments, when you make show of answering his: methinks, it should not be so unreasonable as you make it, for the persons he speaks of to deny that they left the communities whereof they were members. for example, that the monks of saint benet's order make one body, whereof their several monasteries are several members, i presume it will be easily granted. suppose now, that all these monasteries being quite out of order, some 20. or 30. of them should reform themselves, the rest persisting still in their irregular courses: were it such a monstrous impudence as you make it, for these monasteries, which we suppose reform, to deny that they forsook their order or the community whereof they were parts? in my opinion it is no such matter. let the world judge. again, whereas the doctor says, that in a society of men universally infected with some disease, they that should free themselves from the common disease, could not therefore be said to separate from the society: it is very strange to me that you should say, he speaks very strangely. truly, sir, i am extremely deceived if his words be not plain english, and plain sense, and contain such a manifest truth as cannot be denied with modesty, nor gone about to be proved without vanity. for whatsoever is proved, must be proved by something more evident: now what can be more evident than this; that if some whole family were taken with agues, if the father of this family should free himself from his, that he should not therefore deservedly be thought to abandon and disert his family? but (say you) if they dot no separate themselves from the society of the wicked persons, how do they free themselves from the common disease? do they at the same time remain in the company and yet departed from those infected creatures? me thinks, a writer of controversies should not be ignorant how this may be done without any such difficulty! but if you do not know, i'll tell you, there is no necessity they should leave the company of these infected persons at all: much less, that they should at once departed from it and remain with it, which i confess were very difficult. but if they will free themselves from their disease, let them stay were they are, and take physic. or if you would be better informed how this strange thing may be done, learn from yourself, they may free their own persons from the common disease, yet so that they remain still in the company infected, eating and drinking with them, etc. which are your own words within four or five lines after this: plainly showing that your mistaking d. potter's meaning, and your wondering at his words as at some strange monster's, was all this while affected, and that you are conscious to yourself of perverting his argument that you may seem to say something, when indeed you say nothing. whereas therefore you add, we must then say that they separate themselves from the persons, though it be by occasion of the disease; i assure you, good sir, you must not do so at any hand; for than you altar and spoil d. potter's case quite, and fight not with his reason but your own shadow. for the instanceof a man freeing himself from the disease of his company, and not leaving his company, is very fit to prove, by the parity of reason, that it is very possible, a man may leave the corruptions of a church, and not leave the church, that is, not cease to be a member of it: but yours of a man leaving his company by occasion of their disease, hath no analogy at all with this business. 95. but luther and his followers did not continue in the company of those from whose diseases they pretend to free themselves. very true, neither was it said they did so. there is no necessity that that which is compared to another thing should agree with it in all things: it is sufficient, if it agree in that wherein it is compared. a man freeing himself from the common disease of a society, and yet continuing a part of it, is here compared to luther and his followers, freeing themselves from the corruptions of the visible church, and continuing a part of the church. as for accompanying the other parts of it in all things, it was neither necessary, nor without destroying our supposition of their forsaking the corruptions of the church, possible. not necessary; for they may be parts of the church which do not join with other parts of it in all observances. nor possible, for had he accompanied them in all things, he had not freed himself from the common corruptions. 96. but they endeavoured to force the society whereof they were parts, to be healed and reform as they were; and, if it refused, they did, when they had power, drive them away, even their superiors both spiritual and temporal, as is notorious. the proofs hereof are wanting, and therefore i might defer my answer until they were produced; yet take this before hand: if they did so, then herein, in my opinion, they did amiss; for i have learned from the ancient fathers of the church, that nothing is more against religion than to force religion; and of s. paul, the weapons of the christian warfare are not carnal. and great reason: for, humane violence may make men counterfeit, but cannot make them believe, and is therefore fit for nothing but to breed form without, and atheism within. besides, if this means of bringing men to embrace any religion were generally used (as if it may be justly used in any place by those that have power, and think they have truth, certainly they cannot with reason deny but that it may be used in every place, by those that have power as well as they, and think they have truth as well as they,) what could follow but the maintenance perhaps of truth, but perhaps only of the profession of it in one place, and the oppression of it in a hundred? what will follow from it but the preservation peradventure of unity, but peradventure only of uniformity, in particular states and churches; but the immortalising the greater & more lamentable divisions of christendom and the world? and therefore what can follow from it, but perhaps in the judgement of carnal policy, the temporal benefit and tranquillity of temporal states and kingdoms, but the infinite prejudice, if not the desolation, of the kingdom of christ? and therefore it well becomes them who have have their portions in this life, who serve no higher state than that of england or spain, or france, nor this neither any further than they may serve themselves by it; who think of no other happiness but the preservation of their own fortunes and tranquillity in this world; who think of no other means to preserve states, but human power and machivilian policy, and believe no other creed but this, regi aut civitati imperium habenti nihil injustum, quod utile! such men as these it may become to maintain by worldly power and violence their state-instrument, religion. for if all be vain and false, (as in their judgement it is) the present whatsoever, is better than any, because it is already settled: an alteration of it may draw with it change of states, and the change of state the subversion of their fortune. but they that are indeed servants and lovers of christ, of truth, of the church, and of mankind, aught with all courage to oppose themselves against it, as a common enemy of all these. they that know there is a king of kings, and lord of lords, by whose will and pleasure kings and kingdoms stand and fall, they know, that to no king or state any thing can be profitable which is unjust; and that nothing can be more evidently unjust, than to force weak men by the profession of a religion which they believe not, to lose their own eternal happiness, out of a vain and needless fear, lest they may possibly disturb their temporal quietness. there being no danger to any state from any man's opinion; unless it be such an opinion by which disobedience to authority, or impiety, is taught or licenc'd: which sort, i confess, may justly be punished as well as other faults; or, unless this sanguinary doctrine be joined with it, that it is lawful for him by human violence to enforce others to it. therefore if protestants did offer violence to other men's consciences and compel them to embrace their reformation, i excuse them not: much less, if they did so to the sacred persons of kings, and those that were in authority over them, who ought to be so secured from violence, that even their unjust und tyrannous violence, though it may be avoided (according to that of our saviour, when they persecute you in one city fly into another,) yet may it not be resisted by opposing violence against it. protestants therefore that were guilty of this crime are not to be excused, and blessed had they been had they chosen rather to be martyrs than murderers, & to die for their religion rather than to fight for it. but of all the men in the world you are most unfit to accuse them hereof, against whom the souls of the martyrs from under the altar cry much louder than against all their other persecutors together: who for these many ages together have daily sacrificed hecatombs of innocent christians▪ under the name of heretics, to blind zeal and furious superstition. who teach plainly, that you may propagate your religion whensoever you have power, by deposing of kings and invasion of kingdoms, and think when you kill the adversaries of it, you do god good service. but for their departing corporally from them, whom mentally they had forsaken: for their forsaking the external communion and company of the unreformed part of the church, in their superstitions and impieties: thus much of your accusation we embrace and glory in it; and say, though some protestants might offend in the manner or degree of their separation, yet certainly their separation itself was not schismatical, but innocent; and not only so, but just and necessary. and as for your obtruding upon d. potter that he should say, there neither was nor could be just cause to do so, no more than to departed from christ himself. i have showed divers times already, that you deal very injuriously with him, confounding together, departing from the church, and departing from some general opinions and practices, which did not constitute but vitiate, not make the church but mar it. for though he says, that which is most true, that there can be no just cause to departed from the church, that is, to cease being a member of the church, no more than to departed from christ himself, in as much as these are not divers but the same thing; yet he nowhere denies, but there might be just and necessary cause to departed from some opinions and practices of your church, nay of the catholic church. and therefore you do vainly to infer, that, luther and his followers for so doing, were schismatics. 97. ad §. 35. i answer in a word, that neither are optatus his say rules of faith, and therefore not fit to determine controversies of faith: and then that majorinus might well be a schismatic for departing from caecilianus, and the chair of cyprian and peter without cause; and yet luther and his followers who departed from the communion of the bishop of rome, and the bishop of their own diocese be none, because they had just and necessary cause of their departure. for otherwise they must have continued in the profession of known errors and the practice of manifest corruptions. 98. ad §. 36 in the next section you tell us, that christ our lord gave s. peter and his successors authority over his whole militant church. and for proof hereof you first refer us to brerely, citing exactly the places of such chief protestants as have confessed the antiquity of this point. where first you fall into the fallacy which is called ignoratio elenchi, or mistaking the question; for being to prove this point true, you only prove it ancient. which, to what purpose is it, when both the parties litigant are agreed that many errors were held by many of the ancient doctors, much more ancient than any of those who are pretended to be confessed by protestants to have held with you in this matter: and when those whom you have to do with, and whom it is vain to dispute against but out of principles received by them, are all peremptory, that though novelty be a certain note of falsehood, yet no antiquity less than apostolical, is a certain note of truth? yet this i say, not as if i did acknowledge what you pretend, that protestants did confess the fathers against them in this point. for the point here issuable is not, whether s. peter were head of the church? nor, whether the bishop of rome had any priority in the church? nor, whether he had authority over it given him by the church? but whether by divine right, and by christ's appointment he were head of the catholic church? now having perused breely, i cannot find any one protestant confessing any one father to have concurred in opinion with you in this point. and the reader hath reason to suspect, that you also out of all the fathers could not find any one authority pertinent to this purpose: for otherwise you were much to blame, citing so few, to make choice of such as are impertinent. for let the understanding reader peruse the 55. epist. of s. cyprian, with any ordinary attention, out of which you take your first place, and i am confident he shall find that he means nothing else by the words quoted by you, but that in one particular church at one time there ought to be but one bishop, and that he should be obeyed in all things lawful: the non-performance whereof, was one of the most ordinary causes of heresies against the faith, and schism from the communion of the church universal. he shall find, secondly, and that by many convincing arguments, that though he writ to cornelius bishop of rome, yet he speaks not of him, but of himself then bishop of carthage, against whom a faction of schismatics had then set up another. and therefore here your ingenuity is to be commended above many of your side: for whereas they ordinarily abuse this place to prove, that in the whole church there ought to be but one priest & one judge; you seem somewhat diffident hereof, and thereupon say, that these words plainly condemn luther, whether he will understand them as spoken of the universal, or of every particular church. but whether they condemn luther, is another question. the question here is, whether they plainly prove the pope's supremacy over all other bishops? which certainly they are as far from proving, as from proving the supremacy of any other bishop: seeing it is evident they were intended not of one bishop over the whole catholic church, but of one bishop in one particular church. 99 and no less impertinent is your saying out of optatus, if it be well looked into, though at the first sight it may seem otherwise; because optatus his scene happened to be rome, whereas s. cyprians was carthage. the truth is, the donatists had set up at rome a bishop of their faction: not with intent to make him bishop of the whole church but of that church in particular. now optatus going upon s. cyprians ground of one bishop in one church, proves them schismatics for so doing, and he proves it by this argument: s. peter was first bishop of rome, neither did the apostles attribute to themselves each one his particular chair, (understand in that city; for in other places others, i hope, had chairs besides s. peter) and therefore he is a schismatic, who against that one single chair erects another (understand as before, in that place) making another bishop of that diocese besides him who was lawfully elected to it. 100 but yet by the way he styles s. peter head of the apostles, and says, that from thence he was called cephas. ans. perhaps he was abused into this opinion, by thinking cephas derived from the greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a head: whereas it is a syriack word and signifies a stone. besides, s. peter might be head of the apostles, that is, first in order and honour among them, and not have supreme authority over them. and indeed that s. peter should have authority over all the apostles, and yet exercise no one act of authority over any one of them, and that they should show to him no sign of subjection, methinks is as strange, as that a king of england for twenty five years together should do no act of regality, nor receive any one acknowledgement of it. as strange methinks it is, that you, so many ages after, should know this so certainly, as you pretend to do, and that the apostles (after that those words were spoken in their hearing, by virtue whereof s. peter is pretended to have been made their head,) should still be so ignorant of it, as to question which of them should be the greatest? yet more strange, that our saviour should not bring them out of their error, by telling them s. peter was the man, but rather confirm it by saying, the kings of the gentiles exercise authority over them, but it should not be so among them. no less a wonder was it that s. paul should so far forget s. peter and himself, as that, first mentioning of him often, he should do it without any title of honour. secondly, speaking of the several degrees of men in the church, he should not give s. peter the highest, but place him in equipage with the rest of the apostles, and say, god hath appointed (not first peter, than the rest of the apostles, but) first apostles, secondly prophets. certainly, if the apostles were all first, to me it is very probable, that no one of them was before the rest. for by first, all men understand either that which is before all, or that before which is nothing. now in the former sense, the apostles could not be all first, for then every one of them must have been before every one of the rest. and therefore they must be first in the other sense. and therefore no man, and therefore not s. peter, must be before any of them. thirdly and lastly, that speaking of himself in particular, and perhaps comparing himself with s. peter in particular, rather than any other, he should say in plain terms, i am in nothing inferior to the very chiefest apostles. but besides all this, though we should grant, against all these probabilities and many more, that optatus meant that s. peter was head of the apostles, not in our but in your sense, and that s. peter indeed was so; yet still you are very far from showing, that in the judgement of optatus, the bishop of rome, was to be at all, much less by divine right, successor to s. peter in this his headship and authority. for what incongruity is there, if we say, that he might succeed s. peter in that part of his care, the government of that particular church, (as sure he did even while s, peter was living,) and yet that neither he nor any man was to succeed him in his apostleship, nor in his government of the church universal? especially seeing s. peter and the rest of the apostles, by laying the foundations of the church, were to be the foundations of it, and accordingly are so called in scripture. and therefore as in a building it is incongruous that foundations should succeed foundations: so it may be in the church, that any other apostles should succeed the first. 101. ad §. 37. the next paragraph i might well pass over, as having no argument in it. for there is nothing in it but two say of s. austin, which i have great reason to esteem no argument, until you will promise me, to grant whatsoever i shall prove by two say of s. austin. but moreover, the second of these sentences seems to me, to imply the contradiction of the first. for to say, that the sacrilege of schism, is eminent, when there is no cause of separation, implies, to my understanding, that there may be a cause of separation. now in the first, he says plainly, that this is impossible. neither doth any reconciliation of his words occur to me, but only this, that in the former he speaks upon supposition, that the public service of god, wherein men are to communicate is unpolluted, and no unlawful thing practised in their communion, which was so true of their communion, that the donatists who separated did not deny it. and to make this answer no improbable evasion, it is observable out of s. austin and optatus, that though the donatists, at the beginning of their separation, pretended no cause of it, but only that the men from whom they separated, were defiled with the contagion of traditors; yet afterwards, to make the continuance of it more justifiable, they did invent and spread abroad this calumny against catholics, that they set pictures upon their altars: which when s. austin comes to answer, he does not deny the possibility of the thing, for that had been to deny the catholic church to be made up of men, all which had freewill to evil, and therefore might possibly agree in doing it, and, had he denied this, the action of after-ages had been his refutation; neither does he say, (as you would have done,) that it was true, they placed pictures there, and moreover worshipped them, but yet not for their own sakes, but for theirs who were represented by them: neither does he say, (as you do in this chapter) that though this were granted a corruption, yet were they not to separate for it. what then does he? certainly nothing else, but abhor the thing, and deny the imputation: which way of answering, does not, i confess, plainly show, but yet it somewhat intimates, that he had nothing else to answer; and that if he could not have denied this, he could not have denied the donatists' separation from them to have been just. if this answer to this little argument seem not sufficient, i add moreover, that if it be applied to luther's separation, it hath the common fault of all your allegations out of fathers, impertinence. for it is one thing to separate from the communion of the whole world, another to separate form all the communions in the world: one thing to divide from them who are united among themselves, another to divide from them who are divided among themselves. now the donatists separated from the whole world of christians, united in one communion, professing the same faith, serving god after the same manner, which was a very great argument, that they could not have just cause to leave them: according to that of tertullian, variâsse debuer at error ecclesiarum; quod autem apud multos unum est, non est erratum sed traditum. but luther and his followers did not so. the world, i mean of christians and catholics, was divided and subdivided long before he divided from it; and by their divisions had much weakened their own authority, and taken away from you this plea of s. austin, which stands upon no other foundation, but the unity of the whole world's communion. 102. ad §. 38. if luther were in the right, most certain those protestants that differed from him were in the wrong: but that either he or they were schismatics, it follows not. or if it does, then either the jesuits are schismatics from the dominicans, or they from the jesuits; the canonists from the jesuits, or the jesuits from the canonists: the scotists from the thomists, or they from the scotists: the franciscans from the dominicans, or the dominicans from the franciscans. for between all these the world knows that, in point of doctin, there is a plain and irreconcilable contradiction; and therefore one part must be in error, at least not fundamental. thus your argument returns upon yourself, and, if it be good, proves the roman church in a manner to be made up of schismatics. but the answer to it, is, that it begs this very false and vain supposition; that whosoever in any point of doctrine is a schismatique. 103. ad §. 39 in the next place you number up your victories, and tell us, that out of these premises, this conclusion follows, that luther and his followers were schismatics from the visible church, the pope, the diocese wherein they were baptised; from the bishop under whom they lived, from the country to which they belonged; from their religious order, wherein they were professed; from one another, and lastly, from a man's self: because the self same protestant is convicted to day, that his yesterday opinion was an error. to which i answer, that luther and his followers separated from many of these, in some opinions and practices: but that they did it without cause, which only can make them schismatics, that was the only thing you should have proved, and to that you have not urged one reason of any moment. all of them for weight and strength were cousin-germans to this pretty device, wherewith you will prove them schismatics from themselves, because the self same protestant to day is convicted in conscience, that his yesterday opinion was an error. it seems then, that they that hold errors, must hold them fast, and take special care of being convicted in conscience that they are in error, for fear of being schismatics! protestants must continue protestants, and puritans puritans, and papists papists; nay jews, and turks, and pagans, must remain jews, and turks, and pagans, and go on constantly to the devil, or else, forsooth, they must be schismatics and that from themselves. and this perhaps is the cause that makes papists so obstinate, not only in their common superstition, but also in adhering to the proper fancies of their several sects: so that it is a miracle to hear of any jesuit that hath forsaken the opinion of the jesuits, or any dominican that hath changed his for the jesuits. without question, this gentleman my adversary knows none such, or else methinks he should not have objected it to d. potter, that he knew a man in the world, who, from a puritan, was turned to a moderate protestant, which is likely to be true. but sure, if this be all his fault, he hath no reason to be ashamed of his acquaintance. for possibly it may be a fault to be in error, because many times it proceeds from a fault: but sure, the forsaking of error cannot be a sin, unless to be in error be a virtue. and therefore to do as you do, to damn men for false opinions, and to call them schismatics for leaving them; to make pertinacy in error, that is, an unwillingness to be convicted, or a resolution not to be convicted, the form of heresy, and to find fault with men, for being convicted in conscience that they are in error, is the most incoherent and contradictious injustice that ever was heard of. but sir, if this be a strange matter to you, that which i shall tell you will be much stranger. i know a man that of a moderate protestant turned a papist, and, the day that he did so, (as all things that are done are perfected some day or other,) and yet thinks he was no schismatique for doing so, and desires to be informed by you, whether or no he was mistaken? the same man afterwards, upon better consideration, became a doubting papist, and of a doubting papist a confirmed protestant. and yet this man thinks himself no more to blame for all these changes, than a traveller, who using all diligence to find the right way to some remote city, where he had never been, (as the party i speak of had never been in heaven,) did yet mistake it, and after find his error, and amend it. nay, he stands upon his justification so far as to maintain that his alterations, not only to you, but also from you by god's mercy, were the most satisfactory actions to himself, that ever he did, and the greatest victories that ever he obtained over himself, and his affections to those things which in this world are most precious; as wherein for god's sake, and (as he was verily persuaded,) out of love to the truth, he went upon a certain expectation of those inconveniences, which to ingenuous natures are of all most terrible. so that though there were much weakness in some of these alterations, yet certainly there was no wickedness. neither does he yield his weakness altogether without apology, seeing his deductions were rational, and out of some principles commonly received by protestants as well as papists, and which by his education had got possession of his understanding. ad §. 40, 41. d. potter p. 81. of his book, to prove our separation from you, not only lawful but necessary, hath these words, although we confess the church of rome, (in some sense) to be a true church, and her errors (to some men) not damnable; yet for us who are convinced in conscience, that she errs in many things, a necessity lies upon us, even under pain of damnation, to forsake her in those errors. he means not, in the belief of those errors; for that is presupposed to be done already: for whosoever is convinced in conscience that she errs, hath for matter of belief forsaken, that is, ceased to believe those errors. this therefore he meant not, nor could 〈◊〉 mean: but that, whosoever is convinced in conscience that the church of rome errs, cannot with a good conscience, but forsake her in the profession and practice of these errors: and the reason hereof is manifest; because otherwise, he must profess what he believes not, and practise what he approves not. which is no more than yourself in thesi have divers times affirmed. for in one place, you say, it is unlawful to speak any the least untruth: now he that professeth your religion, and believes it not, what else doth he but live in a perpetual lie? again in another, you have called them that profess one thing and believe another, a damned crew of dissembling sycophants: and therefore in inveighing against protestants for forsaking the profession of these errors, the belief whereof they had already forsaken, what do you but rail at them for not being a damned crew of dissembling sycophants? and lastly, §. 42. of this chapter, within three leaves after this, whereas d. potter grants but only a necessity of peaceable external obedience to the declaration of the church, though perhaps erroneous, (provided it be in matter not of faith, but of opinions or rites,) condemning those men, who by occasion of errors of this quality, disturb the church's peace, and cast off her communion: upon this occasion you come upon him with this bitter sarcasm, i thank you for your ingenuous confession, in recompense whereof i will do a deed of charity, by putting you in mind into what labyrinths you are brought, by teaching that the church may err in some points of faith, and yet that it is not lawful for any man to oppose his judgement, or leave her communion, though he have evidence of scripture against her! will you have such a man dissemble against his conscience, or externally deny truth known to be contained in holy scripture? i answer for him, no: it is not he, but you, that would have men do so: not he who says plainly, that whosoever is convinced in conscience that any church errs, is bound under pain of damnation to forsake her in her profession and practice of these errors: but you, who find fault with him, and make long discourses against him, for thus affirming: not he who can easily wind himself out of your imaginary labyrinth, by telling you, that he no no where denies it lawful for any man to oppose any church, erring in matter of faith, for that he speaks not of matters of faith at all, but only of rites and opinions. and in such matters, he says indeed at first, it is not lawful for any man to oppose his judgement to the public: but he presently explains himself by saying, not only that he may hold an opinion contrary to the public resolution, but besides that he may offer it to be considered of, (so far is he from requiring any sinful dissimulation); provided, he do it with great probability of reason, very modestly and respectfully, and without separation from the church's communion. it is not therefore in this case, opposing a man's private judgement to the public simply, which the doctor finds fault with: but the degree only and malice of this opposition, opposing it factiously. and not holding a man's own conceit, different from the church absolutely, which here he censures: but a factious advancing it, and despising the church, so far as to cast off her communion, because, forsooth, she errs in some opinion, or useth some inconvenient, though not impious rites and ceremonies. little reason therefore have you to accuse him there, as if he required. that men should dissemble against their conscience, or externally deny a truth known to be contained in holy scripture. but certainly a great deal less, to quarrel with him, for saying (which is all that here he says,) that men under pain of damnation, are not to dissemble, but if they be convinced in conscience, that your, or any other church (for the reason is alike for all) errs in many things, are of necessity to forsake that church, in the profession and practice of those errors. 105. but to consider your exception to this speech of the doctors, somewhat what more particularly: i say your whole discourse against it, is compounded of falsehoods and impertinencies. the first falsehood is, that he in these words avoucheth, that no learned catholics can be saved: unless you will suppose, that all learned catholics are convinced in conscience, that your church errs in many things. it may well be feared that many are so convinced, and yet profess what they believe not. many more have been, and have stifled their consciences, by thinking it an act of humility, to do so. many more would have been, had they with liberty and indifference of judgement, examined the grounds of the religion which they profess. but to think that all the learned of your side, are actually convinced of errors in your church, and yet will not forsake the profession of them, this is so great an uncharitableness, that i verily believe d. potter abhors it. your next falsehood is, that the doctor affirms, that you catholics want no means of salvation: and that he judges the roman errors not to be in themselves fundamental or damnable. which calumny i have very often confuted: and in this very place it is confuted by d. potter, and confessed by yourself. for in the beginning of this answer you tell us, that the doctor avouches of all catholics whom ignorance cannot excuse, that they cannot be saved. certainly then he must needs esteem them to want something necessary to salvation. and then in the doctor's saying, it is remarkable, that he confesses, your errors to some men not damnable: which clearly imports, that according to his judgement, they were damnable in themselves, though by accident to them who lived and died in invincible ignorance, and with repentance, they might prove not damnable. a third is, that these assertions, the roman errors are in themselves not damnable, and yet it is damnable for me (who know them to be errors,) to hold and confess them, are absolutely inconsistent; which is false; for, be the matter what it will, yet for a man to tell a lie, especially in matter of religion, cannot but be damnable. how much more then, to go on in a course of lying by professing to believe these things divine truths, which he verily believes to be falsehoods and fables? a fourth is, that if we erred in thinking that your church holds errors, this error or erroneous conscience might be rectified and deposed, by judging those errors not damnable. for, what repugnance is there between these two suppositions, that, you do hold some errors, and, that they are not damnable? and if there be no repugnance between them, how can the belief of the later remove or destroy, or it be erroneous, rectify the belief of the former? nay seeing there is a manifest consent between them, how can it be avoided, but the belief of the later will maintain and preserve the belief of the former? for who can conjoin in one brain not cracked, (pardon me, if i speak to you in your own words,) these assertions, in the roman church there are errors not damnable; and, in the roman church there are no errors at all? or what sober understanding would ever think this a good collection, i esteem the errors of the roman church not damnable, therefore i do amiss to think that she errs at all? if therefore you would have us alter our judgement, that your church is erroneous; your only way is to show, your doctrine consonant, at least not evidently repugnant, to scripture and reason. for as for this device, this short cut of persuading ourselves that you hold no errors, because we believe your errors are not damnable, assure yourself it will never hold. 106. a fifth falsehood is, that we daily do this favour for protestants you must mean (if you speak consequently) to judge they have no errors, because we judge they have none damnable. which the world knows to be most untrue. and for our continuing in their communion notwithstanding their errors, the justification hereof is not so much, that their errors are not damble: as that they require not the belief and profession of these errors among the conditions of their communion. which puts a main difference between them and you: because we may continue in their communion without professing to believe their opinions, but in yours we cannot. a fixed is, that, according to the doctrine of all divines, there is any difference between a speculative persuasion of conscience, of the unlawfulness of any thing, and a practical dictamen that the same thing is unlawful. for these are but divers words signifying the same thing; neither is such persuasion wholly speculative, but tending to practice: nor such a dictamen wholly practical, but grounded upon speculation. a seventh is, that protestants did only conceive in speculation that the church of rome erred in some doctrines, and had not also a practical dictamen, that it was damnable for them to continue in the profession of these errors. an eighth is, that it is not lawful to separate from any church's communion, for errors not appertaning to the substance of faith: which is not universally true, but with this exception, unless that church requires the belief and profession of them. the ninth is, that d. potter teacheth, that luther was bound to forsake the house of god, for an unnecessary light. confuted manifestly by d. potter in this very place, for by the house of god you mean the roman church, and of her the doctor says, that a necessity did lie upon him, even under pain of damnation, to forsake the church of rome in her errors. this sure is not to say, that he was obliged to forsake her, for an unnecessary light. the tenth is covertly vented in your intimation, that luther and his followers were the proper cause of the christian world's combustion: whereas indeed the true cause of this lamentable effect, was your violent persecution of them, for serving god according to their conscience, which if it be done to you, you condemn of horrible impiety, and therefore may not hope to be excused, if you do it to others. 107. the eleventh is, that our first reformers ought to have doubted whether their opinions were certain. which is to say, that they ought to have doubted of the certainty of scripture: which in formal and express terms, contains many of these opinions. and the reason of this assertion is very vain: for though they had not an absolute infallibility promised unto them, yet may they be of some things infallibly certain. as euclid sure was not infallible, yet was he certain enough, that twice two were four, and that every whole was greater than a part of that whole. and so though calvin and melancthon were not infallible in all things, yet they might and did know well enough, that your latin service was condemned by saint paul, and that the communion in both kinds was taught by our saviour. the twelfth and last is this, that your church was in peaceable possession (you must mean of her doctrine, and the professors of it,) and enjoyed prescription for many ages. for, besides that doctrine is not a thing that may be possessed: and the professors of it were the church itself, and in nature of possessors, (if we speak improperly,) rather than the thing possessed, with whom no man hath reason to be offended, if they think fit to quit their own possession: i say that the possession, which the governor's of your church held for some ages, of the party governed, was not peaceable, but got by fraud, and held by violence. 108. these are the falsehoods which in this answer offer themselves to any attentive reader, and that which remains is mere impertinence. as first, that a pretence of conscience will not serve to justify separation, from being schismatical. which is true, but little to the purpose, seeing it was not an erroneous persuasion, much less an hypocritical pretence, but a true and well grounded conviction of conscience, which d. potter alleged to justify protestants from being schismatical. and therefore though seditious men in church and state, may pretend conscience, for a cloak of their rebellion: yet this, i hope, hinders not, but that an honest man ought to obey his rightly informed conscience, rather than the unjust commands of his tyrannous superiors. otherwise, with what colour can you defend either your own refusing the oaths of allegiance and supremacy? or the ancient martyrs, and apostles, and prophets, who oftentimes disobeyed the commands of men in authority, and for their disobedience made no other but this apology, we must obey god rather than men? it is therefore most apparent that this answer must be merely impertinent: seeing it will serve against the martyrs and apostles and prophets, and even against yourselves, as well as against protestants. to as little purpose is your rule out of lyrinensis against them that followed luther, seeing they pretend and are ready to justify, that they forsook not, with the doctors, the faith, but only the corruption of the church. as vain altogether is that which follows: that in cases of uncertainty we are not to leave our superior, or cast off his obedience, nor publicly oppose his decrees. from whence it will follow very evidently, that seeing it is not a matter of faith, but disputed question amongst you, whether the oath of allegiance be lawful: that either you acknowledge not the king your superior, or do against conscience, in opposing his and the kingdom's decree, requiring the taking of this oath. this good use, i say, may very fairly be made of it, and is by men of your religion. but than it is so far from being a confutation, that it is rather a confirmation of d. potter's assertion. for he that useth these words, doth he not plainly import (and such was the case of protestants) that we are to leave our superiors, to cast off obedience to them, and publicly, to oppose their decrees, when we are certain (as protestants were,) that what they command, god doth countermand. lastly, s. cyprians example is against protestants impertinently, and even ridiculously, alleged. for, what if s. cyprian holding his opinion true but not necessary, condemned no man (much less any church) for holding the contrary? yet, me thinks, this should lay no obligation upon luther to do so likewise: seeing he held his own opinions not only true but also necessary, and the doctrine of the roman church not only false but damnable. and therefore seeing the condition and state of the parties censured by s. cyprian and luther was so different, no marvel though their censures also were different according to the supposed merit of the parties delinquent. for as for your obtruding again upon us, that we believe the points of difference not fundamental or necessary, you have been often told, that it is a calumny. we hold your errors as damnable in themselves as you do ours, only by accident through invincible ignorance, we hope they are not unpardonable: and you also profess to think the same of ours. 109. ad §. 42. the former part of this discourse, grounded on d. potter's words p. 105. i have already in passing examined and confuted: i add in this place, 1. that though the doctor say, it is not fit for any private man to oppose his judgement to the public; that is, his own judgement and bare authority: yet he denies not, but occasions may happen wherein it may be warrantable, to oppose his reason or the authority of scripture against it; and is not then to be esteemed to oppose his own judggment to the public, but the judgement of god to the judgement of men. which his following words seem to import, he may offer his opinion to be considered of, so he do it with evidence or great probability of scripture or reason. secondly, i am to tell you that you have no ground from him, to interline his words with that interrogatory (his own conceits, and yet grounded upon evidence of scripture?) for these things are in his words opposed, and not confounded; and the latter, not intended for a repetition (as you mistake it) but for an antithesis of the former. he may offer (saith he) his opinion to be considered of, so he do it with evidence of scripture. but if he will factiously advance his own conceits, (that is, say i, clean contrary to your gloss,) such as have not evident nor very probable ground in scripture, (for these conceits are properly his own) he may justly be branded, etc. now that this of the two is the better gloss, it is proved by your own interrogation. for that imputes absurdity to d. potter, for calling them a man's own conceits, which were grounded upon evidence of scripture. and therefore you have showed little candour or equity, in fastening upon them this absurd construction: they not only bearing, but even requiring another more fair and more sensible. every man ought to be presumed to speak sense, rather than nonsense; coherently, rather than contradictiously; if his words be fairly capable of a better construction, for m. hooker; if, writing against puritans, he had said something unawares that might give advantage to papists, it were not inexcusable: seeing it is a matter of such extreme difficulty, to hold such a temper in opposing one extreme opinion, as not to seem to favour the other. yet if his words be rightly considered, there is nothing in them that will do you any service. for though he says that men are bound to do whatsoever the sentence of final decision shall determine, as it is plain me are bound to yield such an obedience to all courts of civil judicature: yet he says not, they are bound to think that determination lawful, and that sentence just. nay it is plain he says, that they must do according to the judge's sentence, though in their private opinion it seem unjust. as if i be cast wrongfully in a suit at law, and sentenced to pay an hundred pound, i am bound to pay the money; yet i know no law of god or man, that binds me in conscience to acquit the judge of error in his sentence. the question therefore being only what men ought to think, it is vain for you to tell us what m. hooker says at all. for m. hooker, though an excellant man, was but a man. and much more vain, to tell us out of him, what men ought to do, for point of external obedience. when, in the very same place, he supposeth and alloweth, that in their private opinion they may think, this sentence to which they yield a passive obedience, to swarve utterly from that which is right. if you will draw his words to such a construction, as if he had said, they must think the sentence of judicial and final decision just and right, though it seem in their private opinion to swerve utterly from what is right; it is manifest, you make him contradict himself, and make him say in effect, they must think thus, though at the same time they think the contrary. neither is there any necessity, that he must either acknowledge the universal infallibility of the church, or drive men into dissembling against their conscience, seeing nothing hinders, but i may obey the sentence of a judge paying the money he awards me to pay, or foregoing the house or land which he hath judged from me, and yet withal plainly profess, that in my conscience i conceive his judgement erroneous. to which purpose, they have a saying in france, that whosoever is cast in any cause, hath liberty for ten days after, to rail at his judges. 110. this answer to this place, the words themselves offered me, even as they are alleged by you: but upon perusal of the place in the author himself, i find that here, as elsewhere, you and m. brerely wrong him extremely. for, mutilating his words, you make him say that absolutely, which he there expressly limits to some certain cases. in litigious and controverted causes of such a quality (saith he), the will of god is, to have them do whatsoever the sentence of judicial and final decision shall determine. observe, i pray, he says not absolutely and in all causes, this is the will of god: but only in litigious causes, of the quality of those whereof he there entreats. in such matters, as have plain scripture or reason, neither for them nor against them, and wherein men are persuaded this or that way, upon their own only probable collection; in such cases, this persuasion (saith he) ought to be fully settled in men's hearts, that the will of god is, that they should not disobey the certain commands of their lawful superiors, upon uncertain grounds: but do that which the sentence of judicial and final decision shall determine. for the purpose, a question there is, whether a surplice may be worn in divine service: the authority of superiors enjoins this ceremony, and neither scripture nor reason plainly forbids it. sempronius notwithstanding, is, by some inducements, which he confesses to be only probable, let to this persuasion, that the thing is unlawful. the quaere is, whether he ought for matter of practice to follow the injunction of authority, or his own private and only probable persuasion? m. hooker resolves for the former, upon this ground, that the certain commands of the church we live in, are to be obeyed in all things, not certainly unlawful. which rule is your own, and by you extended to the commands of all superiors, in the very next section before this, in these words, in cases of uncertainty we are not to leave our superior, nor cast off his obedience, or publicly oppose his decrees. and yet, if a man should conclude upon you, that either you make all superiors universally infallible, or else drive men into perplexities and labyrinths of doing against conscience, i presume you would not think yourself fairly dealt with; but allege, that your words are not extended to all cases, but limited to cases of uncertainty. as little therefore ought you to make this deduction from m. hooker's words which are apparently also restrained to cases of uncertainty. for as for requiring a blind and an unlimited obedience, to ecclesiastical decisions universally and in all cases, even when plain texts or reason seems to control them, m. hooker is as far from making such an idol of ecclesiastical authority, as the puritans whom he writes against: i grant (saith he) that proof derived from the authority of man's judgement, is not able to work that assurance which doth grow by a stronger proof. and therefore although ten thousand general councils would set down one and the same definitive sentence, concerning any point of religion whatsoever; yet one demonstrative reason alleged, or one manifest testimony cited from the word of god himself, to the contrary, could not choose, but over-weigh them all: in as much as for them to be deceived, it is not impossible; it is, that demonstrative reason, or divine testimony, should deceive. and again, where as it is thought, that, especially with the church, and those that are called, man's authority ought not to prevail: it must and doth prevail even with them, yea with them especially, as far as equity requireth, and farther we maintain it not. for men to be tied and led by authority, as it were with a kind of captivity of judgement; and, though there be reason to the contrary, not to listen to it, but follow like beasts, the first in the herd, this were brutish. again, that authority of men should prevail with men either against or above reason, is no part of our belief. companies of learned men, be they never so great and reverend, are to yield unto reason, the weight whereof, is no whit prejudiced by the simplicity of his person which doth allege it, but being found to be sound and good, the bare opinion of men to the contrary, must of necessity stoop & give place. thus m hooker in his 7. sect. book 2. which place because it is far distant from that which is alleged by you, the oversight of it might be excusable, did you not impute it to d. potter as a fault, that he citys some clauses of some books, without reading the whole. but besides, in that very sect. out of which you take this corrupted sentence, he hath very pregnant words to the same effect: as for the orders established, sigh equity & reason favour that which is in being, till orderly judgement of decision be given against it, it is but justice to exact of you, and perverseness in you it should be to deny thereunto your willing obedience. not that i judge it as a thing allowable, for men to observe those laws, which in their hearts they are steadfastly persuaded, to be against the law of god: but your persuasion in this case, ye are all bound for the time to suspend; and, in otherwise doing, ye offend against god, by troubling his church without just and necessary cause. be it that there are some reasons inducing you to think hardly of our laws: are those reason's demonstrative, are they necessary, or but mere probabilities only? an argument necessary and demonstrative is such, as, being proposed to any man and understood, the mind cannot choose but inwardly assent. any one such reason dischargeth, i grant, the conscience, and setteth it at full liberty. for the public approbation given by the body of this whole church, unto those things which are established, doth make it but probable that they are good. and therefore unto a necessary proof that they are not good, is must give place. this plain declaration of his judgement in this matter, this express limitation of his former resolution, he makes in the very same section, which affords your former quotation; and therefore what apology can be made for you, and your storehouse m. brerely, for dissembling of it, i cannot possibly imagine. 111. d. potter p. 131. says, that errors of the donatists and novatians, were not in themselves heresies, nor could be made so by the church's determination. but that the church's intention was only to silence disputes, and to settle peace and unity in her government: which because they factiously opposed, they were justly esteemed schismatics. from hence you conclude that the same condemnation must pass against the first reformers, seeing they also opposed the commands of the church, imposed on them, for silencing all disputes, and settling peace and unity in government. but this collection is deceitful, and the reason is: because, though the first reformers, as well as the donatists and novatians, opposed herein the commands of the visible church, that is, of a great part of it: yet the reformers had reason, nay necessity to do so, the church being then corrupted with damnable errors: which was not true of the church, when it was opposed by the novatians and donatists. and therefore though they, and the reformers, did the same action, yet doing it upon different grounds, it might in these merit applause, and in them condemnation. 112 ad §. 43. the next §. hath in it some objections against luther's person, and none against his cause, which alone i have undertaken to justify, and therefore i pass it over. yet this i promise, that when you, or any of your side, shall publish a good defence, of all that your popes have said and done, especially of them whom bellarmine believes, in such a long train to have gone to the devil: than you shall receive an ample apology for all the actions and words of luther. in the mean time, i hope, all reasonable and equitable judges, will esteem it not unpardonable in the great and heroical spirit of luther, if, being opposed, and perpetually baited with a world of furies, he were transported sometimes, and made somewhat furious. as for you, i desire you to be quiet, and to demand no more, whether god be wont to send such furies to preach the gospel? unless you desire to hear of your kill of kings: massacring of peoples; blowing up of parliaments: and have a mind to be asked, whether it be probable, that that should be god's cause, which needs to be maintained by such devilish means? 113 ad §. 44, 45. in the two next particles, which are all of this chapter, that remain unspoken to, you spend a great deal of reading, and wit, and reason, against some men, who pretending to honour and believe the doctrine and practice of the visible church, (you mean, your own,) and condemning their forefathers who forsook her, say, they would not have done so, yet remain divided from her communion. which men in my judgement cannot be defended. for if they believe the doctrine of your church, then must they believe this doctrine, that they are to return to your communion. and therefore if they do not so, it cannot be avoided but they must be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and so i leave them: only i am to remember you, that these men cannot pretend to be protestants, because they pretend to believe your doctrine, which is opposite in diameter unto the doctrine of protestants; and therefore in a work which you profess to have written merely against protestants, all this might have been spared. chap. vi that luther, and the rest of protestants have added heresy unto schism. because vice is best known by the contrary virtue, we cannot well determine what heresy is, nor who be heretics, but by the opposite virtue of faith, whose nature being once understood as far as belongs to our present purpose, we shall pass on, with ease, to the definition of heresy, and so be able to discern who be heretics. and this i intent to do, not by entering into such particular questions, as are controverted between catholics and protestants, but only by applying some general grounds, either already proved, or else yielded to, on all sides. 2 almighty god having ordained man to a supernatural end of beatitude by supernatural means, it was requisite that his understanding should be enabled to apprehend that end, and means, by a supernatural knowledge. and because if such a knowledge were no more than probable, it could not be able sufficiently to overbear our will, and encounter with human probabilities, being backed with the strength of flesh and blood; it was further necessary, that this supernatural knowledge should be most certain and infallible; and that faith should believe nothing more certainly than that itself is a most certain belief, and so be able to bear down all gay probabilities of humane opinion. and because the aforesaid means and end of beatifical vision, do fat exceed the reach of natural wit, the certainty of faith could not always be joined with such evidence of reason, as is wont to be found in the principles, or conclusions, of humane natural sciences, that so all flesh might not glory in the arm of flesh, but he, who glories, should glory (a) 2 cor. 1●. in our lord. moreover, it was expedient that our belief or assent to divine truths, should not only be unknown, or inevident by any humane discourse, but that absolutely also it should be obscure in itself, and (ordinarily speaking) be void even of supernatural evidence, that so we might have occasion to actuate, and testify the obedience which we owe to our god, not only by submitting our will to his will and commands, but by subjecting also our understanding to his wisdom and words, captivating (as the apostle speaks) the same understanding (b) 2 cor. 10.5. to the obedience of faith: which occasion had been wanting, if almighty god had made clear to us, the truths which now are certainly, but not evidently, presented to our minds. for where truth doth manifestly open itself, not obedience but necessity commands our assent. for this reason, divines teach, that the objects of faith, being not evident to humane reason, it is in man's power not only to abstain from believing, by suspending our judgements, or exercising no act one way or other; but also to disbelieve, that is, to believe the contrary of that which faith proposeth; as the example of innumerable arch-heretiques can bear witness. this obscurity of faith we learn from holy scripture, according to those words of the apostle. faith is the (c) heb. 11. substance of things to be hoped for, the argument of things not appearing. and, we see by a glass (d) 1 cor. 13. in a dark manner: but then face to face. and, accordingly, s. peter faith: which you do well attending unto, as to (e) 2 pet. 1.19. a candle shining in a dark place. 3 faith being then obscure (whereby it differeth from natural sciences) and yet being most certain and infallible (wherein it surpasseth humane opinion) it must rely upon some motive and ground, which may be able to give it certainly, and yet not release it from obscurity. for if this motive, ground, or formal object of faith, were any thing evidently presented to our understanding: and if also we did evidently know, that it had a necessary connection with the articles which we believe, our assent to such articles could not be obscure, but evident; which, as we said, is against the nature of our faith. if likewise the motive and ground of our faith were obscurely propounded to us, but were not in itself infallible, it would leave our assent in obscurity, but could not endue it with certainty. we must therefore for the ground of our faith, find out a motive obscure to us, but most certain in itself, that the act of faith may remain both obscure, and certain. such a motive as this, can be no other but the divine authority of almighty god, revealing, or speaking those truths which our faith believes. for it is manifest, that god's infallible testimony may transf●●● certainty to our faith, and yet not draw it out of obscurity; because no humane discourse, or demonstration can evince, that god revealeth any supernatural truth, since god hath been no less perfect than he is, although h●●●● never revealed any of those objects which we now believe. 4 nevertheless, because almighty god out of his infinite wisdom and sweetness doth conour with his creatures in such sort as may befit the temper, and exigence of their natures; and because man is a creature endued with reason, god doth not exact of his will or understanding any other then, as the apostle faith, rationabile (f) rom. 12.1. obsequium, an obedience, sweetened with good reason; which could not so appear, if our understanding were summoned to believe with certainty, things no way represented as infallible and certain. and therefore almighty god obliging us under pain of eternal camnation to believe with greatest certainty divers verities, not known by the light of natural reason, cannot fail to furnish our understanding, with such inducements, motives, and arguments as may sufficiently persuade any mind which is not partial or passionate, that the objects which we believe, proceed from an authority so wise, that it cannot be deceived, so good that it cannot deceive; according to the words of david: thy testimonies are made (g) psal. 92. credible exceedingly. these inducements are by divines, called argumenta credibilitatis, arguments of credibility, which though they cannot make us evidently see what we believe yet they evidently convince that, in one wisdom, and prudence, the objects of faith deserve credit, and aught to be accepted as things revealed by god. for without such reasons and inducements, our judgement of faith could not be conceived prudent, holy scripture telling us, that, be who soon (h) eccles. 19 ●. believes, is light of heart. by these arguments and inducements our understanding is both satisfied with evidence of credibility, and the objects of faith retain their obsenrity: because it is a different thing to be evidently credible, and evidently true; as those who were present at the miracles wrought by our blessed saviour, and his apostles, did not evidently see their doctrine to be true (for then it had not been faith but science, and all had been necessitated to believe, which we see fell out otherwise) but they were evidently convinced, that the things confirmed by such miracles, were most credible, and worthy to be embraced as truth revealed by god. 5 these evident arguments of credibility are in great abundance found in the visible church of christ, perpetually existing on earth. for, that there hath been a company of men professing such and such doctrines, we have from our next predecessors, and these from theirs upward, till we come to the apostles, and our blessed saviour; which gradation is known by evidence of sense, by reading books, or hearing what one man delivers to another. and it is evident that there was neither cause, nor possibility, that men so distant in place, so different in temper, so repugnant in private ends, did, or could agree to tell one and the self same thing, if it had been but a fiction invented by themselves, as ancient tertullian well saith: how is it likely that so many (i) prescript. c. 28. and so great churches should err in one saith? among many events there is not one issue, the error of the churches must needs have varied. but that which among many is sound to be one, is not mistaken, but delivered. dare then any body say, that they erred who delivered it? with this never-interrupted existence of the church are joined the many and great miracles wrought by m●n of that congregation or church; the sanctity of the persons; the renowned victories over so many persecutions, both of all sorts of men, and of the infernal spirits; and lastly, the perpetual existence of so holy a church, being brought up to the apostles themselves, she comes to partake of the same assurance of truth, which they by so many powerful ways, did communicate to their doctrine, & to the church of their times, together with the divine certainty which they received from our blessed saviour himself, revealing to mankind what he heard from his father; and so we conclude with tertullian: we receive it from the churches, the churches (k) praese. c. 21. & 37. from the apostles, the apostles from christ, christ from his father: and if we once interrupt this line of succession, most certainly made known by means of holy tradition, we cannot conjoin the present church, and doctrine, with the church, and doctrine of the apostles, bu● must invent some new means, and arguments sufficient of themselves to find out, and prove a true church, and faith independently of the preaching, and writing of the apostles; neither of which can be known but by tradition; as is truly observed by tertullian saying: i will prescribe, that (l) praesc. c. 22. there is no means to prove what the apostles preached, but by the same church which they sounded. 6 thus then we are to proceed: by evidence of manifest and incorrupt tradition, i know that there hath always been a never interrupted succession of men from the apostles time, believing, professing, and practising such and such doctrines: by evident arguments of credibility, as miracles, sanctity, unity, etc. and, by all those ways whereby the apostles, and our blessed saviour himself confirmed their doctrine, we are assured that what the said never-interrupted church proposeth, doth deserve to be accepted and acknowledged as a divine truth: by evidence of sense, we see that the same church proposeth such and such doctrines as divine truths, that is, as revealed and testified by almighty god. by this divine testimony we are infallibly assured of what we believe: and so the last period, ground, motive, and formal object of our faith, is, the infallible testimony of that supreme verity, which neither can deceive, nor be deceived. 7 by this orderly deduction our faith cometh to be endued with those qualities which we said were requisite thereto; namely certainty, obscurity, and prudence. certainty proceeds from the infallible testimony of god propounded and conveyed to our understanding by such a mean as is infallible in itself, and to us is evidently known that it proposeth this point or that, and which can manifestly declare in what sense it proposeth them; which means we have proved to be only the visible church of christ. obscurity, from the manner in which god speaks to mankind, which ordinarily is such, that it doth not manifeilly show the person who speaks, nor the truth of the thing spoken. prudence is not wanting, because our faith is accompanied with so many arguments of credibility, that every well disposed understanding, may and aught to judge, that the doctrines so confirmed deserve to be believed, as proceeding from divine authority. 8 and thus from what hath been said, we may easily gather the particular nature, or definition of faith. for, it is a voluntary, or free, infallible, obscure assent to some truth, because it is testified by god, and is sufficiently propounded to us for such: which proposal is ordinarily made by the visible church of christ. i say, sufficiently propused by the church; not that i purpose to dispute whether the proposal of the church enter into the formal object, or motive of faith: or whether any error be an heresy, formally and precisely, because it is against the proposition of the church, as if such proposal were the formal object of faith, which d. potter, to no purpose at all, labours so very hard to disprove: but i only affirm, that when the church propounds any truth, as revealed by god, we are assured that it is such indeed; and so it instantly grows, to be a fit object for christian faith, which inclines and enables us to believe whatsoever is duly presented, as a thing revealed by almighty god. and in the same manner we are sure, that whosoever opposeth any doctrine proposed by the church, doth thereby contradict a truth, which is testified by god: as when any lawful superior notifies his will, by the means, and, as it were, proposal of some faithful messenger, the subject of such a superior in performing, or neglecting what is delivered by the messenger, is said to obey, or disobey his own lawful superior. and therefore because the testimony of god is notified by the church, we may, and we do most truly say, that not to believe what the church proposeth, is, to deny god's holy word or testimony signified to us by the church, according to that saying of s. irenaeus, we need not go (m) lib. 3. come. haeres. cap. 4. to any other to sack the truth, which we may easily receive from the church. 9 from this definition of faith we may also know what heresy is, by taking the contrary terms, as heresy is contrary to faith, and saying: heresy is a voluntary error against that which god hath revealed, and the church hath proposed for such. neither doth it import, whether the error concern points in themselves great or small, fundamental or not fundamental. for more being required to an act of virtue, than of vice, if any truth though never so small may be believed by faith as scon as we know it to be testified by divine revelation; much more will it be a formal heresy to deny any least point sufficiently propounded as a thing witnessed by god. 10 this divine faith is divided into actual, and habitual. actual faith, or faith actuated, is when we are in act of consideration, and belief of some mystery of faith; for example, that our saviour christ, is true god, and man, etc. habitual faith, is that from which we are denominated faithful, or believers, as by actual faith they are styled believing. this habit of faith is a quality enabling us most firmly to believe objects above humane discourse, and it remaineth permanently in our soul, even when we are sleeping, or not thinking of any mystery of faith. this is the first among the three theological virtues. for charity unites us to god, as he is infinitely good in himself; hope ties us to him, as he is unspeakably good to us. faith joins us to him, as he is the supreme verity. charity relies on his goodness; hope on his power; faith on his divine wisdom. from hence it followeth, that faith being one of the virtues which divines term infused (that is, which cannot be acquired by humane wit, or industry, but are in their nature and essence supernatural,) it hath this property; that it is not destroyed by little and little, (contrarily to the habits, called acquisiti, that is, gotten by humane endeavour, which as they are successively produced, so also are they lost successively, or by little and little) but it must either be conserved entire, or wholly destroyed: and since it cannot stand entire with any one act which is directly contrary, it must be totally overthrown, and, as it were, demolished, and razed by every such act. wherefore, as charity, or the love of god, is expelled from our soul by any one act of hatred, or any other mortal sin against his divine majesty: and as hope is destroyed by any one act of voluntary desperation: so faith must perish by any one act of heresy, because every such act is directly, and formally opposite thereunto. i know that some sins which (as divines speak) are ex genere suo, in their kind, grievous and mortal, may be much lessened, and fall to be venial, ob levitatem materiae, because they may happen to be exercised in a matter of small consideration; as for example, to steal a penny is venial, although theft in his kind be a deadly sin. but it is likewise true, that this rule is not general for all sorts of sins; there being some so inexcusably wicked of their own nature, that no smallness of matter, nor paucity in number can defend them from being deadly sins. for, to give an instance, what blasphemy against god, or voluntary false oath is not a deadly sin? certainly none at all, although the salvation of the whole world should depend upon swearing such a falsehood. the like happeneth in our present case of heresy, the iniquity redounding to the injury of god's supreme wisdom and goodness, is always great, and enormous. they were no precious stones which david (n) 1. reg. 17. picked out of the water, to encounter goliath, & yet if a man take from the number but one, and say they were but four, against the scripture affirming them to have been five, he is instantly guilty of a damnable sin. why? because by this substraction of one, he doth deprive god's word and testimony of all credit and infallibility. for, if either he could deceive, or be deceived in any one thing, it were but wisdom to suspect him in all. and seeing every heresy opposeth some truth revealed by god: it is no wonder that no one can be excused from deadly, and damnable sin; for, if voluntary blasphemy, and perjury, which are opposed only to the infused moral virtue of religion, can never be excused from mortal sin: much less can heresy be excused, which opposeth the theological virtue of faith. 11 if any object, that schism may seem to be a greater sin than heresy: because the virtue of charity (to which schism is opposite) is greater than faith, according to the apostle, saying: now there remain (o) 1 cor. 13.13. faith, hope, charity; but the greater of these is charity. s. thomas answers in these words: charity hath two objects, one principal, to wit, the divine (p) 2.2. q. 39 ar. 2. in corp & add 3. goodness; and another secondary, namely the good of our neighbour; but schism and other sins which are committed against our neighbour, are opposite to charity in respect of this secondary good, which is less than the object of faith, which is god, as he is the prime verity, on which faith doth rely; and therefore these sins are less than infidelity. he takes infidelity after a general manner, as it comprehends heresy, and other vices against faith. 12 having therefore sufficiently declared, wherein heresy consists; let us come to prove that which we proposed in this chapter. where i desire, it be still remembered: that the visible catholic church cannot err damnably, as d. potter confesseth. and, that when luther appeared, there was no other visible true church of christ disagreeing from the roman, as we have demonstrated in the next precedent chapter. 13 now, that luther and his followers cannot be excused from formal heresy, i prove by these reasons. to oppose any truth propounded by the visible true church as revealed by god, is formal heresy, as we have showed out of the desinition of heresy: but luther, calvin, and the rest did oppose divers truths propounded by the visible church as revealed by god; yea they did therefore oppose her, because she propounded, as divine revealed truths, things which they judged either to be false, or humane inventions: therefore they committed formal heresy. 14 moreover, every error against any doctrine revealed by god, is a damnable heresy, whether the matter in itself be great or small, as i proved before: and therefore either the protestants or the roman church must be guilty of formal heresy, because one of them must err against the word and testimony of god: but you grant (perforce) that the roman church doth not err damnably, and i add that she cannot err damnably because she is the truly catholic church, which, you confess, cannot err damnably: therefore protestants must be guilty of formal heresy. 15 besides, we have showed that the visible church is judge of controversies, and therefore must be infallible in all her proposals; which being once supposed, it manifestly followeth, that to oppose what she delivereth as revealed by god, is not so much to oppose her, as god himself; and therefore cannot be excused from grievous heresy. 16 again, if luther were an heretic, for those points wherein he disagreed from the roman church; all they who agree with him in those very points, must likewise be heretics. now, that luther was a formal heretic i demonstrate in this manner. to say, that god's visible true church is not universal, but confined to one only place or corner of the world, is according to your own express words (q) pag. 126. properly heresy, against that article of the creed, wherein we profess to believe the holy catholic church: and you brand donatus with heresy, because he limited the universal church to africa. but it is manifest, and acknowledged by luther himself, and other chief protestants that luther's reformation when it first began (and much more for divers ages before) was not universal, nor spread over the world, but was confined to that compass of ground which did contain luther's body. therefore his reformation cannot be excused from formal heresy. if s. augustine in those times said to the donatists, there are innumerable testimonies (r) epist. 50. of holy scripture in which it appeareth that the church of christ is not only in africa, as these men with most impudent vanity do rave, but that she is spread over the whole earth: much more may it be said; it appeareth by innumerable testimonies of holy scripture that the church of christ cannot be confined to the city of wittenberg, or to the place where luther's feet stood, but must be spread over the whole world. it is therefore most impudent vanity, and dotage to limit her to luther's reformation. in another place also this holy father writes no less effectually against luther than against the donatists. for having out of those words, in thy seed all nations shall be blessed, proved that god's church must be universal, he saith: why (s) de unit. eccles. cap. 6. do you superadd, by saying that christ remains heir in no part of the earth, except where he may have donatus for his coheir. give me this (universal) church if it be among you: show yourselves to all nations, which we already show to be blessed in this seed: give us this (church) or else laying aside all fury, receive her from us. but it is evident, that luther could not, when he said, at the beginning i was alone, give us an universal church: therefore happy had he been, if he had then, and his followers would now, receive her from us. and therefore we must conclude with the same holy father, saying in another place of the universal church: she hath this (t) cont. lit. petil. lib. 1. cap. 104. most certain mark, that she cannot be hidden: she is then known to all nations. the sect of donatus is unknown to many nations; therefore that cannot be she. the sect of luther (at least when he began, and much more before his beginning) was unknown to many nations, therefore that cannot be she. 17 and that it may yet further appear how perfectly luther agreed with the donatists: it is to be noted, that they never taught, that the catholic church ought not to extend itself further than that part of africa, where their faction reigned, but only that in fact it was so confined, because all the rest of the church was profaned, by communicating with caecilianus, whom they falsely affirmed to have been ordained bishop by those who were traditors, or givers up of the bible to the persecutors to be burned: yea at that very time they had some of their sect residing in rome, and sent thither one victor, a bishop, under colour to take care of the brethren in that city, but indeed, as baronius (u) anno 321. nu. 2. spond. observeth, that the world might account them catholics by communicating with the bishop of rome, to communicate with whom was ever taken by the ancient fathers as an assured sign of being a true catholic. they had also, as s. augustin witnesseth, a pretended (w) de u●i. eccles. c 3. church in the house and territory of a spanish lady called lucilla, who went flying out of the catholic church, because she had been justly checked by caecilianus. and the same saint speaking of the conference he had with fortunius the donatist, saith: here did he first (x) ep. 163. attempt to affirm that his communion was spread over the whole earth, etc. but because the thing was evidently false, they got out of this discourse by confusion of language whereby nevertheless they sufficiently declared, that they did not hold that the true church ought necessarily to be confined to one place, but only by mere necessity were forced to yield that it was so in fact, because their sect which they held to be the only true church was not spread over the world: in which point fortunius, and the rest were more modest, than he who should affirm that luther's reformation in the very beginning was spread over the whole earth; being at that time by many degrees not so far diffused as the sect of the donatists. i have no desire to prosecute the similitude of protestanes with donatists, by remembering that the sect of these men was begun and promoted by the passion of lucilla; and, who is ignorant what influence two women, the mother, and daughter, ministered to protestancy in england? nor will i stand to observe their very likeness of phrase with the donatists, who called the chair of rome, the chair of pestilence, and the roman church an harlot, which is d. potter's own phrase, wherein he is less excusable than they, because he maintaineth her to be a true church of christ: and therefore let him duly ponder these words of s. augustin against the donatists, if i persecute him justly who detracts (y) conc. super gest. cum emerit. from his neighbour, why should i not persecute him who detracts from the church of christ, and saith, this is not she, but this is an harlot? and least of all, will i consider, whether you may not be well compared to one ticonius a dona is't, who wrote against parmenianus likewise a donatist, who blasphemed, that the church of christ had perished (as you do even in this your book write against some of your protestant brethren, or as you call them zelots among you, who hold the very same or rather a worse heresy) and yet remained among them, even after parmenianus had excommunicated him (as those your zealous brethren would proceed against you if it were in their power,) and yet, like ticonius, you remain in their communion, and come nor into that church which is, hath been, and shall ever be universal: for which very cause s. augustin complains of ticonius, that although he wrote against the donatists, yet he was of an heart (z) de doctr. christ. lib. 3. cap. 30. so extremely absurd, as not to forsake them altogether. and speaking of the same thing in another place he observes, that although ticonius did manifestly confute them who affirmed that the church had perished; yet he saw not (saith this holy father) that which in good consequence (a) cont. parm. l. 1. cap. 1. he should have seen, that those christians of africa belonged to the church spread over the whole world, who remained united, not with them who were divided from the communion and unity of the same world, but with such as did communicate with the whole world. but parmenianus, and the rest of the donatists saw that consequence, and resolved rather to settle their mind in obstinacy against the most manifest truth which ticonius maintained, than by yielding thereto, to be overcome by those churches in africa, which enjoyed the communion of that unity which ticonius defended, from which they had divided themselves. how firly these words agree to catholics in england in respect of the protestants, i desire the reader to consider. but these and the like resemblances of protestants to the donatists, i willingly let pass, and only urge the main point: that since luther's reformed church was not in being for divers centuries before luther, and yet was (because so forsooth they will needs have it) in the apostles time, they must of necessity affirm heretically with the donatists, that the true and unsported church of christ perished; and that she which remained on earth was (o blasphemy!) an harlot. moreover the same heresy follows out of the doctrine of d. potter, and other protestants, that the church may err in points not fundamental, because we have showed that every error against any one revealed truth, is heresy, and damnable, whether the matter be otherwise, of itself, great or small. and how can the church more truly be said to perish, than when she is permitted to maintain a damnable heresy? besides, we will hereafter prove, that by any act of heresy, all divine faith is lost; and to imagine a true church of faithful persons without any faith, is as much as to fancy a living man without life. it is therefore clear, that donatist-like they hold that the church of christ perished: yea they are worse than the donatists, who said, that the church remained at least in africa; whereas protestants must of necessity be forced to grant, that for a long space before luther, she was no no where at all. but let us go forward to other reasons. 18 the holy scripture, and ancient fathers do assign separation from the visible church as a mark of heresy; according to that of s. john: they went out (b) 2. joan. 19 from us. and, some who (c) act. 15.24. went out from us. and, out of you shall (d) act. 20.30 arise men speaking perverse things. and accordingly vincentius lyrinensis saith: who ever (e) lib. adversus haer. c. 34. began heresies, who did not first separate himself from the universality, antiquity, and consent of the catholic church? but it is manifest, that when luther appeared, there was no visible church distinct from the roman, out of which she could departed, as it is likewise well known that luther, and his followers departed out of her: therefore she is no way liable to this mark of heresy, but protestants cannot possibly avoid it. to this purpose s. prosper hath these pithy words: a christian communicating (f) dimid. temp. cap. 5. with the universal church is a catholic, and he who is divided from her, is an heretic, and antichrist. but luther in his first reformation could not communicate with the visible catholic church of those times, because he began his reformation by opposing the supposed errors of the then visible church: we must therefore say with s. prosper, that he was an heretic, etc. which likewise is no less clearly proved out of s. cyprian, saying: not we (g) ep. 57 add damas'. departed from them, but they from us, and since heresies and schisms are bred afterwards; while they make to themselves divers conventicles, they have forsaken the head and origin of truth. 19 and that we might not remain doubtful what separation it is, which is the mark of heresy, the ancient fathers tell us more in particular, that it is from the church of rome, as it is the sea of peter. and therefore d. potter need not to be so hot with us, because we say, and write, that the church of rome, in that sense as she is the mother-church of all others, and with which all the rest agree, is truly called the catholic church. s. hierome writing to pope damasus, saith: i am in the communion (h) lib. 1. apolog. of the chair of peter; i know that the church is built upon that rock. whosoever shall eat the lamb out of this house, he is profane. if any shall not be in the ark of no, he shall perish in the time of the deluge. whosoever doth not gather with thee, doth scatter, that is, he that is not of christ is of antichrist. and elsewhere, which doth he (i) ibid. lib. 3. call his faith? that of the roman church? or that which is contained in the books of origen? if he answer, the roman; then we are catholics, who have translated nothing of the error of origen. and yet farther: know thou, that the (k) roman faith commended by the voice of the apostle doth not receive these delusions, though an angel should denounce otherwise than it hath once been preached. s. ambrose recounting how his brother satyrus enquiring for a church wherein to give thanks for his delivery from shipwreck, saith, he called unto him (l) de obitu satyri fratris. the bishop, neither did he esteem any favour to be true, except that of the true faith, and he asked of him whether be agreed with the catholic bishops; that is, with the roman church? and having understood that he was a schismatic, that is, separated from the roman church, he abstained from communicating with him. where we see the priv●ledge of the roman church confirmed both by word and deed, by doctrine and practice. and the same saint saith of the roman church: from thence the rites (m) lib. 1. ep. 4. ad imperatores. of venerable communion do flow to all. saint cyprian saith: they are bold (n) epist. 55. ad cornel. to sail to the chair of peter, and to the principal church, from whence priestly unity hath sprung. neither do they consider, that they are romans, whose faith was commended by the preaching of the apostle, to whom falsehood cannot have access. where we see this holy father joins together the principal church, and the chair of peter; and affirmeth that falsehood not only hath not had, but cannot have, access to that sea: and elsewhere: thou wrotest that i should send (o) epist 52. a copy of the same letters to cornelius our colleague, that, laying aside all solicitude, he might now be assured that thou didst communicate with him, that is, with the catholic church. what think you m. doctor of these words? is it so strange a thing to take for one and the same thing, to communicate with the church and pope of rome, and to communicate with the catholic church! s. irenaeus saith: because it were long to number the succession of all church's, (p) lib. 3 cont. haer c. 3. we declaring the tradition (and faith preached to men, and coming to us by tradition,) of the most great, most ancient, and most known church, founded by the two most glorious apostles peter and paul, which tradition it hath from the apostles, coming to us by succession of bishops; we confound all those who any way either by evil complacence of themselves, or vain glory, or by blindness; or ill opinion, do gather otherwise than they ought. for to this church for a more powerful principality, it is necessary that all church's resort, that is, all faithful people of what place soever: in which (roman church) the tradition which is from the apostles hath always been conserved from those who are every where. saint augustine saith: it grieves us (q) in psal. co●t. patr●m donati. to see you so to lie cut off. number the priests even from the sea of peter; and consider in that order of fathers who succeeded to whom. she is the rock which the proud gates of hell do not overcome. and in another place, speaking of caecilianus, he saith: he might contemn the conspiring (r) ep. 162. multitude of his enemies, because he knew himself to be united, by communicatory letters both to the roman church in which the principality of the sea apostolic did always flourish; and to other count●ies from whence the gospel came first into africa. ancient tertullian saith: if thou be near italy, thou hast rome, whose (s) praescr. cap. 36. authority is n●er at hand to us: a happy church, into which the apostles have poured all doctrine, together with their blood. saint basil in a letter to the bishop of rome saith, in very deed that which was given (t) epist. ad pont. rom. by our lord to thy piety, is worthy of that must excellent voice which proclaimed thee blessed, to wit, that thou mayst discern betwixt that which is counterfeit, and that which is lawful and pure, and without any diminution mayest preach the faith of our ancestors. maxim●nianus bishop of constantinople about twelve hundred years ago, said: all the bounds of the earth who have si●ccrely acknowledged our lord, and catholics through the whole world professing the true faith look upon the power of the bishop of rome, as upon the sun, etc. for the creator of the world, amongst all men of the world elected him, (he speaks of s. peter) to whom he granted the chair of dectour to be principally possessed by a perpetual right of privilege; that whosoever is desirous to know any divine and profound thing, may have recourse to the oracle, and doctrine of this instruction. john patriarch of constantinople, more than eleven hundred years ago in an epistle to pope hormisda, writeth thus: because (u) epist ad hormis. p. p. the beginning of salvation is to conserve the rule of right faith, and in no wise to swarve from the tradition of our fore fathers; because the words of our lord cannot fail, saying: thou art peter, and upon this rock will i build my church; the proofs of deeds have made good those words, because in the sea apostolical the catholic religion is always conserved inviolable. and again: we promise hereafter not to recite in the sacred mysteries the names of them who are excluded from the communion of the catholic church, that is to say, who consent not fully with the sea apostolic. many other authorities of the ancient fathers might be produced to this purpose; but these may serve to show; that both the latin, and greek fathers held for a note of being a catholic, or an heretic, to have been united, or divided from the sea of rome. and i have purposely alleged only such authorities of fathers, as speak of the privileges of the sea of rome, as of things permanent, and depending on our saviour's promise to s. peter, from which a general rule, and ground ought to be taken for all ages, because heaven and earth shall (w) mat. 24.35. pass, but the word of our lord shall remain for ever. so that i here conclude, that seeing it is manifest that luther and his followers divided themselves from the sea of rome, they bear the inseparable mark of heresy. 20. and though my meaning be not to treat the point of ordination, or succession, in the protestants church; because the fathers alleged in the last reason, assign succession as one mark of the true church, i must not omit to say, that according to the grounds of protestants themselves, they can neither pretend personal succession of bishops, nor succession of doctrine. for whereas succession of bishops signifies a never-interrupted line of persons, endued with an indelible quality, which divines call a character, which cannot be taken away by deposition, degradation, or other means whatsoever; and endued also with jurisdiction and authority to teach, to preach, to govern the church by laws, precepts, censures, etc. protestants cannot pretend succession in either of these. for (besides that there was never protestant bishop before luther, and that there can be no continuance of succession, where there was no beginning to succeed,) they commonly acknowledge no character, and consequently must affirm that when their pretended bishops, or priests are deprived of jurisdiction, or degraded, they remain mere lay persons as before their ordination; fulfilling what tertullian objects as a mark of heresy: to day a priest, to morrow (x) praescr. cap. 41. a layman. for if here be no character, their power of order must consist only in jurisdiction, and authority, or in a kind of moral deputation to some function, which therefore may be taken away by the same power, by which it was given. neither can they pretend succession in authority, or jurisdiction. for all the authority, or jurisdiction, which they had, was conferred by the church of rome, that is, by the pope: because the whole church collectively doth not meet to ordain bishops or priests, or to give them authority. but, according to their own doctrine, they believe that the pope neither hath, or aught to have any jurisdiction, power, superiority, pre-eminence, or authority ecclesiastical, or spiritual within this realm, which they swear even when they are ordained bishops, priests, and deacons: how then can the pope give jurisdiction where they swear he neither hath, or ought to have, any? or, if yet he had, how could they without schism withdraw themselves from his obedience? besides, the roman church never gave them authority to oppose her, by whom it was given. but grant, their first bishops had such authority from the church of rome: after the decease of those men, who gave authority to their pretended successors? the primate of england? but from whom had he such authority? and after his decease, who shall confer authority upon his successors? the temporal magistrate? king henry, neither a catholic, nor a protestant? king edward, a child? queen elizabeth a woman? an infant of one hours' age, is true king in case of his predecessor's decease: but shall your church lie fallow till that infant-king and green head of the church come to years of discretion? do your bishops, your hierarchy, your succession, your sacraments, your being, or not being. heretics for want of succession, depend on this newfound supremacy-doctrin brought in by such a man merely upon base occasions, and for shameful ends; impugned by calvin, and his followers; derided by the christian world; and even by chief protestants, as d. andrews, wotton, etc. not held for any necessary point of faith? and from whom i pray you, had bishops their authority when there were no christian kings? must the greek patriarches receive spiritual jurisdiction from the great turk? did the pope by the baptism of princes, lose the spiritual power he formerly had of conferring spiritual jurisdiction upon bishops? hath the temporal magistrate authority to preach, to assoil from sins, to inflict excommunications, and other censures? why hath he not power to excommunicate, as well as to dispense in irregularity, as our late sovereign lord king james, either dispensed with the late archbishop of canterbury, or else gave commission to some bishops to do it? and since they were subject to their primate, and not he to them, it is clear, that they had no power to dispense with him, but that power must proceed from the prince, as superior to them all, and head of the protestants church in england. if he have no such authority, how can he give to others what himself hath not? your ordination, or consecration of bishops and priests imprinting no character, can only consist in giving a power. authority, jurisdiction, or (as i said before) some kind of depuration to exercise episcopal, or priestly functions: if then, the temporal magistrate conferrs this power, etc. he can, nay he cannot choose but, ordain and consecrate bishops, and priests, as often as he conferrs authority or jurisdiction: and your bishops assoon as they are designed and confirmed by the king, must ipso facto be ordained and consecrated by him without intervention of bishops, or matter and form of ordination: which absurdities you will be more unwilling to grant, than well able to avoid, if you will be true to your own doctrines. the pope from whom originally you must beg your succession of bishops, never received, nor will, nor can acknowledge to receive any spiritual jurisdiction from any temporal prince, and therefore if jurisdiction must be derived from princes, he hath none at all: and yet either you must acknowledge, that he hath true spiritual jurisdiction, or that yourselves can receive none from him. 21. moreover, this new reformation, or reformed church of protestants, will by them be pretended to be catholic or universal, and not confined to england alone, as the sect of the donatists was to africa: and therefore it must comprehend all the reformed churches in germany, holland, scotland, france, etc. in which number, they of germany, holland, and france are not governed by bishops, nor regard any personal succession, unless of such fat-beneficed bishops as nicholas amsfordius, who was consecrated by luther, (though luther himself was never bishop) as witnesseth (y) in millenario sexto pag. 187. dresserus. and though scotland hath of late admitted some bishops, i much doubt whether they hold them to be necessary, or of divine institution; and so their enforced admitting of them, doth not so much furnish that kingdom with personal succession of bishops, as it doth convince them to want succession of doctrine; since in this their neglect of bishops, they disagree both from the milder protestant's of england, and the true catholic church: and by this want of a continued personal succession of bishops, they retain the note of schism, and heresy. so that the church of protestants must either not be universal, as being confined to england; or if you will needs comprehend all those churches which want succession, you must confess, that your church doth not only communicate with schismatical and heretical churches, but is also compounded of such churches, and yourselves cannot avoid the note of schismatics, or heretics, if it were but for participating with such heretical churches. for it is impossible to retain communion with the true catholic church, and yet agree with them who are divided from her by schism, or heresy; because that were to affirm, that for the self same time, they could be within and without the catholic church, as proportionably i discoursed in the next precedent chapter, concerning the communicating of moderate protestants with those who maintain that heresy of the latency and invisibility of god's church, where i brought a place of s. cyprian to this purpose, which the reader may be pleased to review in the fifth chapter, and 17 number. 22 but besides this defect in the personal succession of protestant bishops, there is another of great moment; which is, that they want the right form of ordaining bishops, and priests, because the manner which they use is so much different from that of the roman church (at least according to the common opinion of divines) that it cannot be sufficient for the essence of ordination; as i could demonstrate if this were the proper place of such a treat●fe, and will not fa●l to do if d. potter give me occasion. in the mean time the reader may be pleased to read the author (z) see adam. tannerum tom. 4. disp. 7. quaest. 2. dub. 3. & 4. cited here in the margin, and the compare the form of our ordination with that of protestants; and to remember that if the form which they use either in consecrating bishops, or in ordaining priests be at least doubtful, they can neither have undoubted priests, nor bishops. for priests cannot be ordained but by true bishops, nor can any be a true bishop, unless he first be priest. i say, their ordination is at least doubtful; because that sufficeth for my present purpose. for bishops and priests, whose ordination is notoriously known to be but doubtful, are not to be esteemed bishops, or priests: and no man without sacrilege can receive sacraments from them; all which they administer unlawfully: and (if we except baptism, with manifest danger of invalidity, and with obligation to be at least conditionally repeated) so protestant's must remain doubtful of remission of sins, of their ecclesiastical hierarchy and may not pretend to be a true church; which cannot subsist without undoubted true bishops and priests, nor without due administration of sacraments, which (according to protestants) is an essential note of the true church. and it is a world to observe the proceeding of english protestants in this point of their ordinations. for first, an 3. edw. 6. cap. 2. when he was a child about 12. years of age, it was enacted, that such (a) dyer. fol. 234. term. mich. 6, & 7. eliz. form of making, and consecrating of bishops and priests, as by six prelates, and six other to be appointed by the king, should be divised (mark this word devised) and set forth under the great seal; should be used, and none other. but after this act was repealed 1. mar. sess 2. in so much as that when afterward an. 6. & 7. reg. eliz. bishop bonner being indicted upon a certificate made by d. horn a protestant bishop of winchester, for his refusal of the oath of supremacy; and he excepting against the indictment because d. horn was no bishop; all the judges resolved that his exception was good, if indeed d. horn was not bishop, and they were all at a stand, till an s. eliz. cap. 1. the act of edw 6. was renewed and confirmed, with a particular proviso, that no man should be impeached or molested by means of any certificate by any bishop or archbishop made before this last act. whereby it is clear, that they made some doubt of their own ordination, and that there is nothing but uncertainty in the whole business of their ordination, which (forsooth) must depend upon six prelates, the great seal, acts of parliament being contrary one to another, and the like. 23 but though they want personal succession, yet at least they have succession of doctrine as they say, and pretend to prove, because they believe as the apostles believed. this is to beg the question, and to take what, they may be sure, will never be granted. for if they want personal succession, and slight ecclesiastical tradition, how will they persuade any man, that they agree with the doctrine of the apostles? we have heard tertullian saying: i will prescribe (b) sup. c. 5. (against all heretics) that there is no means to prove what the apustles preached, but by the same churches which they founded. and s. irenaeus tells us that, we may (c) l. 3. c. 5. behold the tradition of the apostles in every church, if men be desirous to hear the truth, and we can number them who were made bishops by the apostles in churches, and their successors even to us. and the same father in another place saith: we ought to obey (d) l. 4. c. 43. those priests who are in the church, who have succession from the apostles, and who together with succession in their bishoprics have received the certain gift of truth. s. augustine saith: i am kept in the church (e) cont● epist. fundam. c. 4. by the succession of priests from the very sea of peter the apostle, to whom our saviour after his resurrection committed his sheep to be fed, even to the present bishop. origen to this purpose giveth us a good and wholesome rule (happy, if himself had followed the same) in these excellent words: since there be many who think (f) praef. ad lib. periarchon. they believe the things which are of christ, and some are of different opinion from those who went before them; let the preaching of the church be kept, which is delivered by the apostles by order of succession, and remains in the church to this very day; that only is to be believed for truth, which in nothing disagrees from the tradition of the church. in vain then do these men brag of the doctrine of the apostles, unless first they can demonstrate that they enjoyed a continued succession of bishops from the apostles, and can show us a church which, according to s. austin, is deduced by undoubted succession from the sea (g) cont. faust. cap. 2. of the apostles, even to the present bishops. 24 but yet nevertheless, suppose it were granted, that they agreed with the doctrine of the apostles this were not sufficient to prove a succession in doctrine. for succession, besides agreement or similitude, doth also require a never-interrupted conveying of such doctrine, from the time of the apostles, till the days of those persons, who challenge such a succession. and so s augustine saith: we are to believe that gospel which from the time of the apostles, the (h) lib. 28. cont. faust. cap. 2. church hath brought down to our days by a never-interrupted course of times and by undoubted succession of connection. now, that the reformation, begun by luther, was interrupted for divers ages before him, is manifest our of history, and by his endeavouring a reformation, which must presuppose abuses. he cannot therefore pretend a continued succession of that doctrine which he sought to revive, and reduce to the knowledge, and practise of men. and they ought not to prove that they have a succession of doctrine, because they agree with the doctrine of the apostles; but contrarily we must infer, that they agree not with the apostles, because they cannot pretend a never-interrupted succession of doctrine from the times of the apostles, till luther. and here it is not amiss to note, that although the waldeases, wickliff, etc. had agreed with protestants in all points of doctrine; yet they could not brag of succession from them, because their doctrine hath not been free from interruption, which necessarily crosseth succession. 25 and as want of succession of persons and doctrine, cannot stand with that universality of time, which is inseparable from the catholic church; so likewise the disagreeing sects which are dispersed throughout divers countries, and nations, cannot help towards that universality of place, wherewith the true church must be endued: but rather such local multiplication, doth more and more lay open their division, and want of succession in doctrine. for the excellent observation of s. augustine doth punctually agree with all modern heretics; wherein this holy father having cited these words our of the prophet ezechiel, (i) cap. 24. my flocks are dispersed upon the whole face of the earth; he adds this remarkable sentence: not all heretics (k) lib. de pastorib. c. 8. are spread over the face of the earth, and yet there are heretics spread over the whole face of the earth, some here, some there, yet they are wanting in no place, they know not one another. one sect for example in africa, another heresy in the east, another in egypt, another in mesopotania. in divers places there are divers: one mother, pride hath begot them all; as our own mother the catholic church hath brought forth all saithful people dispersed throughout the whole world. no wonder then, if pride breed dissension, and charity union. and in another place applying to heretics those words of the canticles: if thou know not (l) cant. 1. thyself, go forth, and follow after the steps of the flocks, and seed the kids; he saith: if thou know not thyself, go (m) ep. 48. thou forth, i do not cast thee out, but go thou out, that it may be said of thee; they went from us, but they were not of us. go thou out in the steps of the flocks; not in my steps, but in the steps of the flocks; nor of one flock, but of divers and wand'ring flocks; and feed thy kids, not as peter, to whom is said, feed thy sheep: but seed thy kids in the tabernacle of the pastors, not in the tabernacle of the pastor, where there is one flock, and one pastor. in which words this holy father doth set down the marks of heresy, to wit, going out from the church, and want of unity among themselves, which proceed from not acknowledging one supreme visible pastor and head under christ. and so it being proved, that protestants hav●● neither succession of persons, nor doctrine, nor universality of time, or place, cannot avoid the just note of heresy. 26 hitherto we have brought arguments to prove, that luther, and all protestants are guilty of heresy against the negative precept of saith, which obligeth 〈◊〉 under pain of damnation, not to embrace any one error, contrary to any truth sufficiently propounded, as testified or revealed by almighty god. which were enough to make good, that among persons who disagree in any one point of faith, one part only can be saved: yet we will now prove that whosoever erreth in any one point, doth also break the affirmative precept of faith, whereby we are obliged positively, to believe some revealed truth with an infallible, and supernatural faith, which is necessary to salvation, even necessitate sinis, or medii, as divines speak; that is, so necessary that not any, after he is come to the use of reason, was or can be saved without it, according to the words of the apostle: without saith (n) heb. 11.6. it is impossible to please god. 27 in the beginning of this chapter i shown, that to christian catholic faith are required certainty, obscurity, prudence, and supernaturality; all which conditions we will prove to be wanting in the belief of protestants even in those points which are true in themselves, and to which they yield assent, as happeneth in all those particulars, wherein they agree with us; from whence it will follow, that they wanting true divine saith, want means absolutely necessary to salvation. the faith of protestants wanteth certainty. 28 and first, that their belief wanteth certainty i prove, because they denying the universal infallibility of the church can have no certain ground to know what objects are revealed, or testified by god. holy scripture is in itself most true and infallible; but without the direction and declaration of the church, we can neither have certain means to know what scripture is canonical, nor what translations be faithful, nor what is the true meaning of scripture. every protestant, as i suppose, is persuaded that his own opinions be true, and that he hath used such means as are wont to be prescribed for understanding the scripture, as prayer, conferring of divers texts, etc. and yet their disagreements show that some of them are deceived: and therefore it is clear that they have no one certain ground whereon to rely for understanding of scripture. and seeing they hold all the articles of faith, even concerning fundamental points, upon the self same ground of scripture, interpreted, not by the church's authority, according to some other rules, which, as experience of their contradictions teach, do sometimes fail; it is clear that the ground of their faith is infallible in no point at all. and albeit sometime it chance to hit on the truth, yet it is likewise apt to lead them to error: as all arch-heretiques believing some truths, and withal divers errors upon the same ground and motive, have indeed no true divine infallible faith, but only a fallible humane opinion, and persuasion. for if the ground upon which they rely were certain, it could never produce any error. 29 another cause of uncertainty in the faith of protestants, must rise from their distinction of points fundamental, and not fundamental. for since they acknowledge, that every error in fundamental points destroyeth the substance of faith, and yet cannot determine what points be fundamental, it followeth that they must remain uncertain whether or no they be not in some fundamental error, and so want the substance of faith, without which there can be no hope of salvation. 30 and that he who erreth against any one revealed truth (as certainly some protestants must the, because contradictory propositions cannot both be true) doth lose all divine saith, is a very true doctrine delivered by catholic divines, with so general a consent, that the contrary is wont to be censured as temerarious. the angelical doctor s. thomas proposeth this question: whether (o) 23 q. ● a●● 3. in corp. he who denieth one article of saith, may retain saith in other articles? and resolveth that he cannot: which he proveth, (argumento, sed contra) because, as deadly sin is opposite to charity; so to deny one article of saith is opposite to saith. but charity doth not remain with any one deadly sin; therefore faith doth not remain after the denial of any one article of faith. whereof he gives this farther reason: because (saith he) the nature of every habit doth depend upon the formal motive and object thereof, which motive being taken away, the nature of the habit cannot remain. but the formal object of saith is the supreme truth as it is manifesied in scriptures, and in the doctrine of the church which proceed from the same supreme verity. whosoever therefore doth not rely upon the doctrine of the church (which proceeds from the supreme verity, manifested in scripture) as upon an infallible rule, he hath not the habit of faith, but believes those things which belong to faith, by some other means than by faith: as, if one should remember some conclusion, and not know the reason of that demonstration, it is clear that he hath not certain knowledge, but only opinion. now it is manifest, that he who relies on the doctrine of the church, as upon an infallible rule, will yield his assent to all, that the church teacheth. for, if among those things which she teacheth, he hold what he will, and doth not hold what he will not, he doth not rely upon the doctrine of the church, as upon an infallible rule, but only upon his own will. and so it is clear, that an heretic, who with pertinacity denieth one article of saith, is not ready to follow the doctrine of the church in all things: and therefore it is manifest, that whosoever is an heretic in any one article of faith, concerning other articles, hath not faith, but a kind of opinion, or his own will. thus far s. thomas. and afterward: a man doth believe (q) ad. 2. all the articles of faith for one and the self same reason, to wit, for the prime verity proposed to us in the scripture, understood aright according to the doctrine of the church: and therefore whosoever falls from this reason, or motive, is totally deprived of saith. from this true doctrine we are to infer, that to retain, or want the substance o● faith, doth not consist in the matter, or multitude of the articles, but in the opposition against god's divine testimony, which is involved in every least error against faith. and since some protestants must needs e●r, and that they have no certain rule to know, why rather one than another; it manifestly follows that none of them have any certainty for the substance of their faith in any one point. moreover d. potter, being forced to confess that the roman church wants not the substance of faith, it follows that she doth not err in any one point against faith, because, as we have seen out of s. thomas, every such error destroys the substance of faith. now, if the roman church did not err in any one point of faith, it is manifest that protestants err in all those points wherein they are contrary to her. and this may suffice to prove that the faith of protestants wants infallibility. they want the second condition of faith: obscurity. 31 and now for the second condition of faith, i say: if protestants have certainly, they want obscurity, and so have not that faith, which, as the apostle saith, is of things not appearing, or no● necessitating our understanding to an assent. for the whole edifice of the faith of protestants, is settled on these two principles; these particular books are canonical scripture: and the sense and meaning of these canonical scriptures, is clear and evident, at least in all points necessary to salvation. now th●se principles being once supposed, it clearly followeth that what protestants believe as necessary to salvation is evidently known by them to be true, by this argument: it is certain and evident, that whatsoever is contained in the word of god, is true. but it is certain and evident, that these books in particular are the word of god: therefore it is certain and evident, that whatsoever is contained in these books is true. which conclusion i take for a major in a second argument, and say thus: it is certain and evident, that whatsoever is contained in these books is true: but it is certain and evident, that such particular articles (for example, the trinity, incarnation, original sin, etc.) are contained in these books: therefore it is certain and evident, that these particular objects are true. neither will it avail you to say, that the said principles are not evident by natural discourse, but only to the eye of reason cleared by grace, as you speak. for supernatural evidence, no less (yea rather more) draws and excludes obscurity, than natural evidence doth: neither can the party so enlightened be said voluntarily to caprivate his understanding to that light, but rather his understanding is by a necessity made captive, and forced not to disbelieve, what is presented by so clear a light: and therefore your imaginary faith is not the true faith defined by the apostle, but an invention of your own. their faith wants prudence. 32 that the faith of protestants wanteth the third condition which was prudence, is deduced from all that hitherto h●th been said. what wisdom was it, to forsake a church confessedly very ancient, and besides which, there could be demonstrated no other visible church of christ upon earth? a church acknowledged to want nothing necessary to salvation; endued with succession of bishops, with visibility and universality of time and place; a church which if it be not the true church, her enemies cannot pretend to have any church, ordination, scriptures, succession, etc. and are forced for their own sake, to maintain her perpetual existence, and being. to leave, i say, such a church, and frame a community, without either unity, or means to procure it; a church which at luther's first re-revolt had no larger extent than where his body was; a church without universality of place or time; a church which can pretend no visibility or being, except only in that former church which it opposeth; a church void of succession of persons or doctrine? what wisdom was it to follow such men as luther, in an opposition against the visible church of christ, begun upon mere passion? what wisdom is it to receive from us, a church, ordination, scriptures, personal succession, and not succession of doctrine? is not this to verify the name of heresy, which signifieth election or choice? whereby they cannot avoid that note of imprudency, or (as s. augustine calls it) foolishness, set down by him against the manichees, and by me recited before. i would not (saith he) believe (r) cont. ep. fund. c. 5. the gospel, unless the authority of the church did move me. those therefore whom i obeyed, saying. believe the gospel, why should i not obey the same men saying to me, do not believe manichaeus, (luther, calvin, etc.). choose what thou pleasest: if thou say, believe the catholics; they warn me not to believe thee. wherefore if i believe them, i cannot believe thee. if thou say, do not believe the catholics, thou shall not do well, in forcing me to the saith of manichaeus, because by the preaching of catholics, i believed the gospel itself. if thou say; you did well to believe them (catholics) commending the gospel, but you did not well to believe them, discommending manichaeus; dost thou think me so very foolish, that, without any reason at all, i should believe what thou wilt, and not believe, what thou wilt not? nay, this holy father is not content to call it fool shness, but mere madness, in these words: why should i not most diligently inquire (f) lib de util. cred. c. 14. what christ commanded of those before all others, by whose authority i was moved to believe, that christ commanded any good thing? canst thou better declare to me, what he said, whom i would not have thought to have been, or to be, if the belief thereof had been recommended by thee to me? this therefore i believed by fame, strengthened with celebrity, consent, antiquity. but every one may see that you, so few, so turbulent, so new, can produce nothing which deserves authority. what madness is this? believe them (catholics) that we ought to believe christ; but learn of us what christ said, why i beseech thee? surely if they (catholics) were not at all, and could not teach me any thing, i would more easily persuade myself, that i were not to believe christ, than i should learn any thing concerning him from other than those, by whom i believed him. lastly, i ask, what wisdom it could be to leave all visible churches; and consequently the true catholic church of christ, which you confess cannot err in points necessary to salvation, and the roman church which you grant doth not err in fundamentals, and follow private men who may err even in points necessary to salvation? especially, if we add, that when luther risen, there was no visible true catholic church besides that of rome, and them who agreed with her; in which sense, she was, and is, the only true church of christ and not capable of any error in faith. nay, even luther, who first opposed the roman church, yet coming to dispute against other heretics, he is forced to give the lie both to his own words and deeds, in saying: we freely confess (t) in epist. count. anab. ad duos parochs to. 2. germ. wit. fol. 229 & 230. that in the papacy there are many good things, worthy the name of christian, which have come from them to us. namely, we confess that in the papacy there is true scripture, true baptism; the true sacrament of the altar, the true keys for the remission of sins, the true office of preaching, true catechism, as our lord's prayer, ten commandments, articles of faith, etc. and afterward: i avouch, that under the papacy is true christianity, yea the k●●n●land marrow of christianity, and many pious and great saints. and again he affirmeth, that the church of rome hath the true spirit, gospel, faith, baptism, sacraments, the keys, the office of preaching, prayer, holy scripture, and whatsoever christianity ought to have. and a little before: i hear and see that they bring in anabaptism only to this end, that they may spite the pope, as men that will receive nothing from antichrist; no otherwise than the sacramentaries do, who therefore believe only bread and wine to be in the sacrament, merely in hatred against the bishop of rome; and they think that by this means they shall overcome the papacy. verily these men rely upon a weak ground; for by this means they must deny the whole scripture, and the office of preaching. for we have all these things from the pope, otherwise we must go make a new scripture. o truth, more forcible (as s. austin says) to wring out (x) cont. donat. past collat. c 24. confession, then is any rack, or torment! and so we may truly say with moses: inimici nostri sunt judices: our very enemies give (y) deut. 32.31. their faith wants supernaturality. sentence for us. 33 lastly, since your faith wanteth certainty and prudence, it is easy to infer that it wants the fourth condition, supernaturality. for being but an humane persuasion, or opinion, it is not, in nature or essence supernatural. and being imprudent and rash, it cannot proceed from divine motion, and grace; and therefore it is neither supernatural in it self, not in the cause from which it proceedeth. 34 since therefore we have proved, that whosoever errs against any one point of faith, loseth all divine faith, even concerning those other articles wherein he doth not err; and that although he could still retain true faith for some points, yet any one error in whatsoever matter concerning faith, is a grievous sin; it clearly follows, that when two or more hold different doctrines concerning faith and religion, there can be but one part saved. for declaring of which truth, if catholics be charged with want of charity, and modesty, and be accused of rashness, ambition, and fury, as d. potter is very free in this kind: i desire every one to ponder the whole words of s. chrysostom, who teacheth, that every least error overthrows all faith, and whosoever is guilty thereof is in the church, like one, who in the common wealth forgeth false coin. let them hear (saith this holy father) what s. paul saith: namely, that they who brought in some small, error (z) gal. 1.7. had overthrown the gospel. for, to show how small a thing ill mingled doth corrupt the whole, he said, that the gospel was subverted. for as he who eclipse a little of the stamp from the king's money, makes the whole piece of no value: so whosoever takes away ●he least particle of sound faith, is wholly corrupted, always going from that beginning to worse things. where then are they, who condemn us as contentious persons, because we cannot agree with heretics: and do often say, that there is no difference betwixt us and them, but that our disagreement proceeds from ambition to domineer? and thus having showed that protestants want true faith, it remaineth that, according to my first design, i examine whether they do not also want charity, as it respects a man's self. the answer to the sixth chapter, that protestants are not heretics. he that will accuse any one man, much more any great multitude of men, of any great and horrible crime, should in all reason and justice take care that the greatness of his evidence do equal, if not exceed, the quality of the crime. and such an accusation you would here make show of, by pretending, first, ad. sect. 1. to lay such grounds of it, as are either already proved; or else yielded on all sides: and after to raise a firm and stable structure of convincing arguments upon them. but both these i find to be mere and vain pretences, and having considered this chapter also without prejudice or passion, as i did the former, i am enforced by the light of truth, to pronounce your whole discourse, a painted and ruinous building upon a weak and sandy foundation. 2 ad §. 2, 3. first for your grounds; a great part of them, is falsely said to be either proved or granted. it is true indeed, that man by his natural wit or industry could never have attained to the knowledge of gods will to give him a supernatural and eternal happiness; nor of the means, by which his pleasure was to bestow this happiness upon him. and therefore your first ground is good, that is was requisite his understanding should be enabled to apprehend that end and means, by a knowledge supernatural. i say this is good, if you mean by knowledge, an apprehension or belief. but, if you take the word properly and exactly, it is both false; for faith is not knowledge, no more than three is four, but eminently contained in it: so that he that knows, believes and something more; but he that believes, many times does not know; nay, if he doth barely and merely believe he doth never know: and besides, it is retracted by yourself presently, where you require, that the object of faith must be both naturally and supernaturally unknown. and again in the next page, where you say, faith differs from science in regard of the object's obscurity. for that science and knowledge properly taken are synonymous terms, and that a knowledge of a thing absolutely unknown is a plain implicancy; i think, are things so plain, that you will not require any proof of them. 3 but then whereas you add, that, if such a knowledge were no more than probable, it could not be able sufficiently to overbear our will, and encounter with humane probabilities, being backed with the strength of flesh and blood, and therefore conclude, that it was farther necessary, that this supernatural knowledge should be most certain and infallible: to this i answer, that i do hearty acknowledge and believe, the articles of our faith be in themselves truths, as certain and infallible as the very common principles of geometry and metaphysics. but that there is required of us a knowledge of them, and an adherence to them, as certain as that offence or science; that such a certainty is required of us under pain of damnation, so that no man can hope to be in the state of salvation, but he that finds in himself such a degree of faith, such a strength of adherence: this i have already demonstrated to be a great error, and of dangerous and pernicious consequence. and because i am more and more confirmed in my persuasion that the truth which i there delivered, is of great and singular use, i will here confirm it with more reasons. and to satisfy you that this is no singularity of my own, my margin presents you with a (a) m. hooker in his answer to travers his supplication; i have taught, that the assurance of things which we believe by the word, is not so certain as of that we perceive by sense. and is it as certain? yea i taught, that the things which god doth promise in his world are surer unto us than any thing we touch, handle, or see. but are we so sure and certain of them? if we be, why doth god so often prove his promises unto us, as he doth, by arguments taken from our sensible experience? we must be surer of the proof than the thing proved, otherwise it is no proof. how is it that if ten men do all look upon the moon, every one of them knows it as certainly to be the moon as another: but many believing one and the same promises, all have not one and the same fullness of persuasion? how falleth it our, that men being assured of any thing by sense can be no surer of it than they are? whereas the strongest in faith that liveth upon the earth, had always need to labour, and strive, and pray, that his assurance concerning heavenly and spiritual things may grow, increase, and be augmented. protestant divine of great authority, and no way singular in his opinions, who hath long since preached and justified the same doctrine. 4 i say, that every text of scripture which makes mention of any that were weak, or of any that were strong in faith: of any that were of little, or any that were of great faith: of any that abounded, or any that were rich in faith; of increasing, growing, rooting grounding, establishing, confirming in faith: every such text, is a demonstrative refutation of this vain fancy: proving that faith, even true and saving faith, is not a thing consisting in such an indivisible point of perfection as you make it, but capable of augmentation and diminution. every prayer you make to god to increase your faith, or (if you conceive such a prayer derogatory from the perfection of your faith,) the apostles praying to christ to increase their faith, is a convincing argument of the same conclusion. moreover, if this doctrine of yours were true, then, seeing not any the least doubting can consist with a most infallible certainty, it will follow that every least doubting in any matter of faith, though resisted and involuntary, is a damnable sin, absolutely destructive, so long as it lasts, of all true and saving faith: which you are so far from granting, that you make it no sin at all, but only an occasion of merit: and if you should esteem it a sin, then must you acknowledge, contrary to your own principles, that there are actual sins merely involuntary. the same is furthermore invincibly confirmed by every deliberate sin that any christian commits; by any progress in charity that he makes. for seeing, as s. john assures us, our faith is the victory which overcomes the world, certainly if the faith of all true believers were perfect, (and, if true faith be capable of no imperfection, if all faith be a knowledge most certain and infallible, all faith must be perfect; for the most imperfect that is, according to your doctrine, if it be true, must be most certain; and sure the most perfect that is cannot be more than most certain,) then certainly their victory over the world, and therefore over the flesh, and therefore over sin, must of necessity be perfect, and so it should be impossible for any true believer to commit any deliberate sin, and therefore he that commits any sin, must not think himself a true believer. besides, seeing faith worketh by charity, and charity is the effect of faith: certainly if the cause were perfect, the effect would be perfect, and consequently as you make no degrees in faith, so there would be none in charity, and so no man could possibly make any progress in it, but all crew believers should be equal in charity, as in faith you make them equal: and from thence it would follow avoidable, that whosoever finds in himself any true faith, must presently persuade himself that he is perfect in charity: and whosoever, on the other side, discovers in his charity any imperfection must not believe that he hath any true faith. these, you see, are strange and portentous consequences, and yet the deduction of them from your doctrine is clear and apparent; which shows this doctrine of yours, which you would fain have true, that there might be some necessity of your church's infallibility, to be indeed plainly repugnant not only to truth but even to all religion and piety, and fit for nothing but to make men negligent of making any progress in faith or charity. and therefore i must entreat and adjure you either to discover unto me (which i take god to witness i cannot perceive,) some fallacy in my reasons against it, or never hereafter to open your mouth in defence of it. 5 as for that one single reason which you produce to confirm it, it will appear upon examination to be resolved finally into a groundless. assertion of your own, contrary to all truth and experience, and that is, that no degree of faith, less than a most certain and infallible knowledge, can be able sufficiently to overbear our will, and encounter with humane probabilities, being backed with the strength of flesh and blood. for who sees not that many millions in the world forgo many times their present ease and pleasure, undergo great and toilsome labours, encounter great difficulties, adventure upon great dangers, and all this not upon any certain expectation, but upon a probable hope of some future gain and commodity, and that not infinite and eternal, but finite and temporal? who sees not that many men abstain from many things they exceedingly desire, not upon any certain assurance, but a probable fear of danger that may come after? what man ever was there so madly in love with a present penny, but that he would willingly spend it upon any little hope that by doing so he might gain an hundred thousand pound? and i would fain know, what gay probabilities you could devise to dissuade him from this resolution. and, if you can devise none, what reason then, or sense is there, but that a probable hope of infinite and eternal happiness, provided for all those that obey christ jesus, & much more a firm faith, though not so certain, in some sort, as sense or science, may be able to sway our will to obedience, and encounter with all those temptations which flesh and blood can suggest to avert us from it? men may talk their pleasure of an absolute and most infallible certainty, but did they general believe that obedience to christ were the only way to present and eternal felicity, but as firmly and undoubtedly as that there is such a city as constantinople, nay but as much as caesar's commentaries, or the history of sallust; i believe the lives of most men, both papists and protestants would be better than they are. thus therefore out of your own words i argue against you: he that requires to true faith, an absolute and infallible certainty, for this only reason because any less degree, could not be able to overbear our will, etc. imports, that if a less degree of faith were able to do this, than a less degree of faith may be true and divine and saving faith: but, experience shows, and reason confirms, that a firm faith, though not so certain as sense or science, may be able to encounter and overcome our will and affections: and therefore it follows from your own reason, that faith, which is not a most certain and infallible knowledge, may be true and divine and saving faith. 6 all these reasons i have employed to show that such a most certain and infallible faith as here you talk of, is not so necessary, but that without such a high degree of it, it is possible to please god. and therefore the doctrines delivered by you §. 26 are most presumptuous and uncharitable: viz. that such a most certain and infallible faith is necessary to salvation, necessitate finis, or medii; so necessary, that after a man is come to the use of reason, no man ever was or can be saved without it. wherein you boldly intrude into the judgment-feat of god, and damn men for breaking laws, not of god's but your own making. but withal, you clearly contradict yourself, not only where you affirm, that your faith depends finally upon the tradition of age to age, of father to son, which cannot be a fit ground, but only for a moral assurance; nor only, where you pretend, that not alone hearing and seeing, but also histories, letters, relations of many (which certainly are things not certain and infallible,) are yet foundations good enough to support your faith; which doctrine, if it were good and allowable, protestants might then hope that their histories, and letters, and relations might also pass for means sufficient of a sufficient certainty, & that they should not be excluded from salvation for want of such a certainty. but indeed the pressure of the present difficulty compelled you to speak here, what i believe you will not justify, & with a pretty tergiversation to show d. potter your means of moral certainty; whereas the objection was, that you had no means or possibility of infallible certainty, for which you are plainly at as great a loss, and as far to seek, as any of your adversaries. and therefore it concerns you highly not to damn others for want of it, lest you involve yourselves in the same condemnation; according to those terrible words of s. paul, thou art inexcusable, o man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for, wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest dost the same things, etc. in this therefore you plainly contradict yourself. and lastly most plainly, in saying as you do here, you contradict and retract your pretence of charity to protestants in the beginning of your book: for there you make profession, that you have no assurance but that protestants dying protestants, may possibly die with contrition, and be saved: and here you are very peremptory, that they cannot but want a means absolutely necessary to salvation, and wanting that cannot but be damned. the third condition you require to faith, is, that our assent to divine truths should not only be unknown and unevident by any humane discourse, but that absolutely also it should be obscure in itself, and, ordinarily speaking, be void even of supernatural evidence. which words must have a very favourable construction, or else they will not be sense. for who can make any thing of these words taken properly, that faith must be an unknown unevident assent or an assent absolutely obscure? i had always thought, that known and unknown, obscure and evident had been affections, not of our assent, but the object of it, not of our belief, but the thing believed. for well may we assent to a thing unknown, obscure, or unevident; but that our assent itself should be called therefore unknown or obscure, seems to me as great an impropriety, as if i should say, your sight were green or blue, because you see something that is so. in other places, therefore, i answer your words, but here i must answer your meaning: which i conceive to be, that it is necessary to faith that the objects of it, the points which we believe, should not be so evidently certain, as to necessitate our understanding to an assent, that so there might be some merit in faith, as you love to speak (who will not receive not not from god himself, but a pennyworth for a penny,) but, as we, some obedience in it, which can hardly have place where there is no possibility of disobedience; as there is not, where the understanding does all, and the will nothing. now seeing the religion of protestants, thought it be much more credible than yours, yet is not pretended to have the absolute evidence of sense or demonstration; therefore i might let this doctrine pass without exception, for any prejudice that can redound to us by it. but yet i must not forbear to tell you; that your discourse proves indeed this condition requisite to the merit, but yet not to the essence of faith: without it faith were not an act of obedience, but yet faith may be faith without it; and this you must confess, unless you will say either the apostles believed not the whole gospel which they preached, or that they were not cy-witnesses of a great part of it: unless you will question s. john for saying that which we have seen with our eyes, & which our hands have handled, &c declare we unto you: nay our saviour himself for saying, thomas because thou seest, thou believest, blessed are they which have not seen & yet have believed. yet, if you will say that in respect of the things which they saw, the apostles assent was not pure and proper and mere faith, but somewhat more; an assent containing faith but superadding to it, i will not contend with you; for it will be a contention about words. but then again i must crave leave to tell you, that the requiring this condition, is in my judgement a plain revocation of the former. for had you made the matter of faith either naturally or supernaturally evident, it might have been a fitly attempered and duly proportioned object for an absolute certainty natural or supernatural: but requiring as you do, that faith should be an absolute knowledge of a thing not absolutely known, an infallible certainty of a thing, which, though it be in itself, yet it is not made appear to us to be, infallibly certain, to my understanding you speak impossibilities. and truly for one of your religion to do so, is but a good decorum. for the matter and object of your faith being so full of contradictions, a contradictions faith may very well become a contradictious religion. your faith therefore, if you please to have it so, let it be a free necessitated, certain uncertain, evident obscure, prudent and foolish, natural and supernatural unnatural assent. but they which are unwilling to believe nonsense themselves, or to persuade others to do so, it is but reason they should make the faith wherewith they believe, an intelligible, compossible, consistent thing, & not define it by repugnancies. now nothing is more repugnant, than that a man should be required to give most certain credit unto that which cannot be made appear most certainly credible: and, if it appear to him to be so, then is it not obscure that it is so. for, if you speak of an acquired, rational, discursive faith, certainly these reasons which make the object seem credible, must be the cause of it, and consequently the strength and firmity of my assent must rise and fall, together with the apparent credibility of the object. if you speak of a supernatural infused faith, than you either suppose it infused by the former means, and then that which was said before must be said again: for whatsoever effect is wrought merely by means, must bear proportion to, and cannot exceed the virtue of the means, by which it is wrought: as nothing by water can be made more cold than water, nor by fire more hot than fire, nor by honey more sweet than honey, nor by gall more bitter than gall: or, if you will suppose it infused without means, than that power which infuseth into the understanding assent which bears analogy to sight in the eye, must also infuse evidence, that is, visibility into the object: and look what degree of assent is infused into the understanding, at least the same degree of evidence must be infused into the object. and for you to require a strength of credit beyond the appearance of the object's credibility, is all one as if you should require me to go ten miles an hour upon an horse that will go but five: to discern a man certainly through a mist or cloud that makes him not certainly discernible; to hear and sound more clearly than it is audible; to understand a thing more fully than it is intelligible: and he that doth so, i may well expect that his next injunction will be, that i must see something that is invisible, hear something inaudible, understand something that is wholly unintelligible. for he that demands ten of me, knowing i have but five, does in effect, as if he demanded five, knowing that i have none: and by like reason, you requiring that i should see things farther than they are visible, require i should see something invisible; and in requiring that i believe something more firmly than it is made to me evidently credible, you require in effect that i believe some thing which appears to me incredible, and while it does so. i deny not but that i am bound to believe the truth of many texts of scripture, the sense whereof is to me obscure; and the truth of many articles of faith, the manner whereof is obscure, and to humane understandings incomprehensible; but than it is to be observed, that not the sense of such texts, not the manner of these things is that which i am bound to believe, but the truth of them. but that i should believe the truth of any thing, the truth whereof cannot be made evident with an evidence proportionable to the degree of faith required of me, this i say for any man to be bound to, is unjust and unreasonable, because to do it is impossible. 8 ad §. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8.9, 10, 11, & 12. yet though i deny that it is required of us to be certain in the highest degree, infallibly certain of the truth of the things which we believe (for this were to know and not believe, neither is it possible unless our evidence of it, be it natural or supernatural, were of the highest degree;) yet i deny not, but we ought to be and may be infallibly certain that we are to believe the religion of christ. for first, this is most certain, that we are in all things to do according to wisdom and reason, rather than against it. secondly this is as certain, that wisdom and reason require, that we should believe those things which are by many degrees more credible and probable than the contrary. thirdly, this is as certain, that to every man who considers impartially what great things may be said for the truth of christianity, and what poor things they are which may be said against it, either for any other religion or for none at all, it cannot but appear by many degrees more credible, that christian religion is true, than the contrary. and from all these premises, this conclusion evidently follows that it is infallibly certain, that we are firmly to believe the truth of christian religion. 9 your discourse therefore touching the fourth requisite to faith which is prudence, i admit so far as to grant. 1. that if we were required to believe with certainty (i mean a moral certainty,) things no way represented as infallible and certain (i mean morally,) an unreasonable obedience were required of us. and so likewise were it, were we required to believe as absolutely certain, that which is no way represented to us as absolutely certain. 2. that whom god obligeth to believe any thing, he will not fail to furnish their understandings with such inducements, as are sufficient (if they be not negligent or perverse) to persuade them to believe. 3. that there is an abundance of arguments exceedingly credible, inducing men to believe the truth of christianity: i say so credible, that though they cannot make us evidently see what we believe, yet they evidently convince that in true wisdom and prudence, the articles of it deserve credit, and aught to be accepted as things revealed by god. 4. that without such reasons and inducements, our choice even of the true faith, is not to be commended as prudent, but to be condemned of rashness and levity. 10 but then for your making prudence, not only a commendation of a believer, and a justification of his faith, but also essential to it, and part of the definition of it, in that questionless you were mistaken, and have done as if being to say what a man is, you should define him, a reasonable creature that hath skill in astronomy. for as all astronomers are men, but all men are not astronomers, and therefore astronomy ought not to be put into the definition of men, where nothing should have place, but what agrees to all men: so though all that are truly wise (that is, wise for eternity,) will believe aright, yet many may believe aright which are not wise. i could wish with all my heart, as moses did, that all the lords people could prophesy: that all that believe the true religion were able (according to s. peter's injunction) to give a reason of the hope that is in them, a reason why they hope for eternal happiness by this way rather than any other! neither do i think it any great difficulty that men of ordinary capacities, if they would give their mind to it, might quickly be enabled to do so. but should i affirm that all true believers can do so, i suppose it would be as much against experience and modesty, as it is against truth and charity, to say as you do, that they which cannot do so, either are not at all, or to no purpose true believers. and thus we see that the foundations you build upon, are ruinous and deceitful, and so unfit to support your fabric that they destroy one another. i come now to show that your arguments to prove protestants heretics, are all of the same quality with your former grounds: which i will do, by opposing clear and satisfying answers in order to them. 11 ad §. 13. to the first then, delivered by you §. 13. that protestants must be heretics, because they opposed divers truths propounded for divine by the visible church: i answer, it is not heresy to oppose any truth propounded by the church, but only such a truth as is an essential part of the gospel of christ. 2. the doctrines which protestants opposed, were not truths, but plain and impious falsehoods: neither, thirdly, were they propounded as truths by the visible church, but only by a part of it, and that a corrupted part. 12 ad §. 14. the next argument, in the next particle tell us, that every error against any doctrine revealed by god is damnable heresy: now either protestants or the roman church must err against the word of god: but the roman church we grant (perforce) doth not err damnably, neither can she, because she is the catholic church, which we (you say) confesses cannot err damnably: therefore protestants must err against god's word, and consequently are guilty of formal heresy. whereunto i answer plainly, that there be in this argument almost as many falsehoods as assertions. for neither is every error against any doctrine revealed by god a damnable heresy, unless it be revealed publicly and plainly with a command that a i should believe it. 2. d. potter no where grants, that the errors of the roman church are not in themselves damnable, though he hopes by accident they may not actually damn some men amongst you: and this you yourself confess in divers places of your book, where you tell us, that he allows no hope of salvation to those amongst you, whom ignorance cannot exouse. 3. you beg the question twice in taking for granted, first, that the roman church is the truly catholic church, which without much favour can hardly pass for a part of it. and again, that the catholic church cannot fall into any error of itself damnable; for it may do so, and still be the catholic church, if it retain those truths which may be an antidote against the malignity of this error, to those that held it out of a simple un-affected ignorance. lastly, though the thing be true, yet i might well require some proof of it from you, that either protestants or the roman church must err against god's word. for, if their contradiction be your only reason, than also you or the dominicans must be heretics, because you contradict one another as much as protestants and papists. 13 ad §. 15. the third argument, pretends that you have showed already, that the visible church is judge of controversies, and therefore infallible, from whence you suppose that it follows, that to oppose her, is to oppose god. to which i answer, that you have said only, and not showed, that the, visible church is judge of controversies. and indeed how can she be judge of them if she cannot decide them? and how can she decide them, if it be a question whether she be judge of them? that which is questioned itself cannot with any sense be pretended to be fit to decide other questions; and much less this question, whether it have authority to judge and decide all questions? 2. if she were judge, it would not follow that she were infallible; for we have many judges in our courts of judicature, yet none infallible. nay, you cannot with any modesty deny, that every man in the world ought to judge for himself, what religion is truest; and yet you will not say that every man is infallible. 3. if the church were supposed infallible, yet it would not follow at all, much less manifestly, that to oppose her declaration, is to oppose god: unless you suppose also that as she is infallible, so by her opposers, she is known or believed to be so. lastly, if all this were true (as it is all most false) yet were it to little purpose, seeing you have omitted to prove that the visible church is the roman. 14 ad §. 16. instead of a fourth argument this is presented to us, that, if luther were an heretic, than they that agreed with him must be so. and that luther was a formal heretic, you endeavour to prove by this most formal syllogism; to say the visible church is not universal, is properly an heresy: but luther 's reformation was not universal: therefore it cannot be excused from formal heresy. whereunto i answer, first to the first part, that it is no way impossible that luther, had he been the inventor and first broacher of a false doctrine, (as he was not) might have been a formal heretic, and yet that those who follow him may be only so materially and improperly, and indeed no heretics. your own men out of st. austin distinguish between haeretici & haereticorum sequaces: and you yourself though you pronounce the leaders among the arrians formal heretics, yet confess that salvian was at least doubtful whether those arrians, who in simplicity followed their teachers, might not be excused by ignorance. and about this suspension of his you also seem suspended; for you neither approve nor condemn it. secondly, to the second part, i say, that, had you not presumed upon our ignorance in logic as well as metaphysics and school-divinity, you would never have obtruded upon us this rope of sand for a formal syllogism. it is even consen-german to this, to deny the resurrection is properly an heresy, but luther's reformation was not universal, therefore it cannot be excused from formal heresy! or to this, to say the visible church is not universal is properly an heresy: but the preaching of the gospel at the beginning was not universal: therefore it cannot be excused from formal heresy. for as he whose reformation is but particular, may yet not deny the resurrection, so many he also not deny the church's universality. and as the apostles who preached the gospel in the beginning, did believe the church universal, though their preaching at the beginning was not so: so luther also might and did believe the church universal, though his reformation were but particular. i say, he did believe it universal, even in your own sense, that is, universal de jure, though not de facto. and as for universality in fact, he believed the church much more universal than his reformation: for he did conceive (as appears by your own allegations out of him) that not only the part reform was the true church, but also that they were part of it who needed reformation. neither did he ever pretend to make a new church but to reform the old one. thirdly and lastly, to the first proposition of this unsyllogistical syllogism, i answer, that to say the true church is not always the facto universal, is so far from being an heresy, that it is a certain truth known to all those that know the world, and what religions possess far the greater part of it. donatus therefore was not to blame, for saying, that the church might possibly be confined to afric; but for saying without ground, that then it was so. and s. augustin, as he was in the right, in thinking that the church was then extended farther than afric; so was he in the wrong, if he thought that of necessity it always must be so; but most palpably mistaken in conceiving that it was then spread over the whole earth, and known to all nations; which, if passion did not trouble you, and make you forget how lately almost half the world was discovered, and in what estate it was then found, you would very easily see and confess. 15 ad §. 17. in the next section you pretend that you have no desire to prosecute the similitude of protestants with the donatists; and yet you do it with as much spite and malice as could well be devised, but in vain: for lucilla might do ill in promoting the sect of the donatists, and yet the mother and the daughter, whom you glance at, might do well in ministering influence (as you phrase it) to protestant's in england. unless you will conclude, because one woman did one thing ill, therefore no woman can do any thing well: or because it was ill done to promote one sect, therefore it must be ill done, to maintain any. 16 the donatists might do ill in calling the chair of rome the chair of pestilence, and the roman church an harlot; and yet, the state of the church being altered, protestants might do well to do so: and therefore though s. austin might perhaps have reason to persecute the donatists for detracting from the church, and calling her harlot, when she was not so; yet you may have none to threaten d. potter that you would persecute him (as the application of this place intimates you would,) if it were in your power: plainly showing that you are a cursed cow though your horns be short, seeing the roman church is not now what it was in s. austin's time. and hereof the conclusion of your own book affords us a very pregnant testimony: where you tell us out of saint austin, that one grand impediment, which among many kept the seduced followers of the faction of donatus from the church's communion, was, a calumny raised against the catholics, that they did set some strange thing upon their altar. to how many (saith s. austin) did the reports of ill tongues shut up the way to enter, who said, that we put i know not what upon the altar? out of detestation of the calumny, and just indignation against it, he would not so much as name the impiety wherewith they were charged, and therefore by a rhetorical figure calls it, i know not what. but compare with him optatus, writing of the same matter, and you shall plainly perceive that this (i know not what) pretended to be set upon the altar, was indeed a picture, which the donatists (knowing how detestable a thing it was to all christians at that time, to set up any pictures in a church to worship them, as your new fashion is) bruited abroad to be done in the churches of the catholic church. but what answer doth s. austin and optatus make to this accusation? do they confess and maintain it? do they say, as you would now, it is true we do set pictures upon our altar, and that not only for ornament or memory, but for worship also; but we do well to do so, and this ought not to trouble you, or affright you from our communion? what other answer your church, could now make to such an objection, is very hard to imagine: and therefore were your doctrine the same with the doctrine of the fathers in this point, they must have answered so likewise. but they to the contrary not only deny the crime, but abhor and detest it. to little purpose therefore do you hunt after these poor shadows of resemblances between us and the donatists: unless you could show an exact resemblance between the present church of rome and the ancient: which seeing by this, and many other particulars, it is demonstrated to be impossible; that church which was then a virgin may be now a harlot, and that which was detraction in the donatists, may be in protestants a just accusation. 17 as ill success have you in comparing d. potter with tyconius whom as s. austin finds fault with for continuing in the donatists' separation, having forsaken the ground of it, the doctrine of the churches perishing: so you condemn the doctor, for continuing in their communion, who hold (as you say) the very same heresy. but if this were indeed the doctrine of the donatists, how is it that you say presently after; that the protestants who hold the church of christ perished, were worse than donatists, who said that the church remained at least in africa? these things methinks hang not well together. but to let this pass; the truth is, this difference, for which you would fain raise such a horrible dissension between d. potter and his brethren, if it be well considered is only in words and the manner of expression: they affirming only, that the church perished from its integrity, and fell into many corruptions which he denies not: and the doctor denying only that it fell from its essence, and became no church at all, which they affirm not. 18 these therefore are but velitations, and you would seem to make but small account of them. but the main point you say is, that since luther 's reformed church was not in being for divers centuries before luther, and yet was in the apostles time, they must of necessity affirm heretically with the donatists, that the true unspotted church of christ perished, and that she which remained on earth, was (o blasphemy!) an harlot. by which words it seems you are resolute perpetually to confound true and unspotted; and to put no difference between a corrupted church and none at all. but what is this, but to make no difference between a diseased and a dead man? nay what is it but to contradict yourselves, who cannot deny but that sins are as great stains and spots and deformities in the sight of god, as errors; and confess your church to be a congregation of men, whereof every particular, not one excepted, (and consequently the generality which is nothing but a collection of them) is polluted and defiled with sin? you proceed. 19 but, say you, the same heresy follows out of d. potter and other protestants, that the church may err in points not fundamental; because we have showed that every error against any revealed truth is heresy and damnable, whether the matter be great or small: and how can the church more truly be said to perish, than when she is permitted to maintain damnable heresy? besides, we will hereafter prove that by every act of heresy all divine faith is lost, and to maintain a true church without any faith, is to fancy a living man without life. answ. what you have said before, hath been answered before; and what you shall say hereafter, shall be confuted hereafter. but if it be such a certain ground, that every error against any one revealed truth is a damnable heresy, then, i hope i shall have your leave to subsume, that the dominicans in your account must hold a damnable heresy, who hold an error against the immaculate conception: which you must needs esteem a revealed truth, or otherwise why are you so urgent and importunate to have it defined? seeing your rule is, nothing may be defined, unless it be first revealed. but, without your leave, i will make bold to conclude, that, if either that or the contrary assertion be a revealed truth, you or they, choose you whether, must without contradiction hold a damnable heresy: if this ground be true that every contradiction of a revealed truth is such. and now i dare say, for fear of inconvenience you will begin to temper the crudeness of your former assertion, and tell us, that neither of you are heretics, because the truth against which you err though revealed, is not sufficiently propounded. and so say i, neither is your doctrine which protestants contradict sufficiently propounded. for though it be plain enough, that your church proposeth it, yet still, methinks, it is as plain that your church's proposition is not sufficient; and i desire you would not say but prove the contrary. lastly, to your question, how can the church more truly be said to perish, than when she is permitted to maintain a damnable heresy? i answer, she may be more truly said to perish, when she is not only permitted to do so, but de facto doth maintain a damnable heresy. again, she may be more truly said to perish, when she falls into an heresy, which is not only damnable in itself, and ex natura rei, as you speak, but such an heresy, the belief of whose contrary truth is necessary, not only necessitate praecepti but medii, and therefore the heresy so absolutely and indispensably destructive of salvation, that no ignorance can excuse it, nor any general repentance, without a dereliction of it, can beg a pardon for it. such an heresy if the church should fall into, it might be more truly said to perish, then if it fell only into some heresy of its own nature damnable. for, in that state, all the members of it, without exception, all without mercy must needs perish for ever: in this, although those that might see the truth and would not, cannot upon any good ground hope for salvation, yet without question, it might send many souls to heaven, who would gladly have embraced the truth, but that they wanted means to discover it. thirdly and lastly, she may yet more truly be said to perish when she apostates from ●hrist absolutely, or rejects even those truths out of which her heresies may be reform; as if she should directly deny jesus to be the christ, or the scripture to be the word of god. towards which state of perdition it may well be feared that the church of rome doth somewhat incline, by her superinducing upon the rest of her errors the doctrine of her own infallibility, whereby her errors are made incurable; & by her pretending that the scripture is to be interpreted according to her doctrine; and not her doctrine to be judged of by scripture, whereby she makes the scripture uneffectual for her reformation. 20. ad §. 18. i was very glad when i heard you say the holy scripture and ancient fathers do assign separation from the visible church as a mark of heresy: for i was in good hope, that no christian would so belie the scripture, as to say so of it, unless he could have produced some one text at least, wherein this was plainly affirmed, or from whence it might be undoubtedly and undeniably collected. for assure yourself, good sir, it is a very heinous crime to say, thus saith the lord, when the lord doth not say so. i expected therefore some scripture should have been alleged, wherein it should have been said, whosoever separates from the roman church is an heretic: or the roman church is infallible, or the guide of faith: or, at least, there shall be always some visible church infallible in matters of faith. some such direction as this i hoped for: and, i pray consider, whether i had not reason! the evangelists and apostles who wrote the new testament, we all suppose were good men, and very desirous to direct us the surest and plainest way to heaven; we suppose them likewise very sufficiently instructed by the spirit of god in all the necessary points of the christian faith, and therefore certainly not ignorant of this unum necessarium, this most necessary point of all others, without which, as you pretend and teach, all faith is no faith, that is, that the church of rome was designed by god the guide of faith. we suppose them lastly wise men, especially being assisted by the spirit of wisdom, and such as knew that a doubtful and questionable guide was for men's direction as good as none at all. and after all these suppositions, which i presume no good christian will call into question, is it possible that any christian heart can believe, that not one amongst them all should ad rei memoriam writ this necessary doctrine, plainly so much as once? certainly in all reason they had provided much better for the good of christians, if they had wrote this, though they had writ nothing else. methinks, the evangelists, undertaking to write the gospel of christ, could not possibly have omitted, any one of them, this most necessary point of faith, had they known it necessary, (s. luke especially, who plainly professes that his intent was to write all things necessary.) methinks s. paul writing to the romans could not but have congratulated this their privilege to them! methinks, instead of saying, your faith is spoken of, all the world over (which you have no reason to be very proud of, for he says the very same thing to the thessalonians,) he could not have failed to have told them, once at least in plain terms, that their faith was the rule for all the world for ever. but then sure he would have forborn to put them in fear of an impossibility, as he doth in his eleventh chapter, that they also, nay the whole church of the gentiles, if they did not look to their standing, might fall away to infidelity, as the jews had done. methinks, in all his other epistles, at least in some, at least in one of them, he could not have failed to have given the world this direction, had he known it to be a true one, that all men were to be guided by the church of rome, and none to separate from it under pain of damnation. methinks writing so often of heretics and antichrist, he should have given the world this (as you pretend) only sure preservative from them. how was it possible that s. peter writing two catholic epistles, mentioning his own departure, writing to preserve christians in the faith, should in neither of them commend them to the guidance of his pretended successors, the bishops of rome? how was it possible that s. james, and s. judas in their catholic epistles should not give this catholic direction? methinks, s. john instead of saying, he that believeth that jesus is the christ, is born of god, (the force of which direction your glosses do quite enervate, and make unavailable to discern who are the sons of god,) should have said, he that adheres to the doctrine of the roman church, and lives according to it, he is a good christian, and by this mark ye shall know him! what man not quite out of his wits, if he consider as he should, the pretended necessity of this doctrine, that without the belief hereof no man ordinarily can be saved, can possibly force himself to conceive that all these good and holy men, so desirous of men's salvation, and so well assured of it (as it is pretended,) should be so deeply and affectedly silent in it, and not one of them say it plainly so much as once, but leave it to be collected from uncertain principles, by many more uncertain consequences? certainly, he that can judge so uncharitably of them, it is no marvel if he censure other inferior servants of christ as atheists, and hypocrites, and what he pleases. plain places therefore i did and had reason to look for, when i heard you say, the holy scripture assigns separation from the visible church as a mark of heresy. but instead hereof what have you brought us, but mere impertinencies? s. john saith of some who pretended to be christians and were not so, and therefore when it was for their advantage forsook their profession, they went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us of some, who before the decree of the council to the contrary, were persuaded and accordingly taught, that the convert gentiles were to keep the law of moses, it is said in the acts, some who went out from us. and again s. paul in the same book forwarns the ephesians that out of them should arise men speaking perverse things. and from these places, which it seems are the plainest you have, you collect, that separation from the visible church is assigned by scripture as a mark of heresy. which is certainly a strange and unheard-of strain of logic. unless you will say that every text wherein it is said, that some body goes out from some body, affords an argument for this purpose! for the first place, there is no certainty that it speaks of heretics; but, no christians, of antichrists, of such as denied jesus to be the christ: see the place and you shall confess as much. the second place, it is certain, you must not say it speaks of heretics; for it speaks only of some who believed and taught an error, while it was yet a question, and not evident, and therefore according to your doctrine no formal heresy. the third says indeed, that of the professors of christianity, some shall arise that shall teach heresy: but not one of them all that says or intimates, that whosoever separates from the visible church in what state soever is certainly an heretic. heretics, i confess, do always do so; but they that do so, are are not always heretics; for perhaps the state of the church may make it necessary for them to do so; as rebels always disobey the command of their king, yet they, which disobey a king's command (which perhaps may be unjust) are not presently rebels. 21 your allegations out of vincentius, prosper, and cyprian, are liable to these exceptions. 1. that they are the say of men not assisted by the spirit of god, and whose authority yourselves will not submit to in all things. 2. that the first and last are merely impertinent, neither of them affirming or intimating, that separation from the present visible church is a mark of heresy: and the former speaking plainly of separation from universality, consent, and antiquity, which, if you will presume without proof that we did and you did not, you beg the question. for you know we pretend that we separated only from that present church which had separated from the doctrine of the ancient, and because she had done so, and so far forth as she had done so & no farther. and lastly, the latter part of prospers words cannot be generally true, according to your own grounds; for you say a man may be divided from the church upon mere schism without any mixture of heresy: and a man may be justly excommunicated for many other sufficient causes besides heresy. lastly, a man may be divided by an unjust excommunication, and be both before and after a very good catholic; and therefore you cannot maintain it universally true, that he who is divided from the church, is an heretic, and antichrist. 22. in the 19 §. we have the authority of eight fathers urged to prove that the separation from the church of rome, as it is the see of s. peter, (i conceive you mean, as it is that particular church) is the mark of heresy. which kind of argument i might well refuse to answer, unless you would first promise me, that whensoever i should produce as plain sentences, of as great a number of fathers as ancient, for any doctrine whatsoever, that you will subscribe to it, though it fall out to be contrary to the doctrine of the roman church. for i conceive nothing in the world more unequal or unreasonable then that you should press us with such authorities as these, and think yourselves at liberty from them; and that you should account them fathers when they are for you, and children when they are against you. yet i would not you should interpret this as if i had not great assurance, that it is not possible for you ever to gain this cause at the tribunal of the fathers; nay, not of the fathers, whose sentences are here alleged. let us consider them in order, and i doubt not to make it appear that far the greater part of them; nay, all of them that are any way considerable, fall short of your purpose. 23. s. hierome (you say) writing to pope damasus, saith, i am in the communion of the chair of peter, etc. but then i pray consider he saith it to pope damasus: and this will much weaken the authority, with them who know how great over-truths men usually write to one another in letters. consider again, that he says only, that he was then in communion with the chair of peter, not that he always would, or of necessity must be so: for his resolution to the contrary is too evident out of that which he saith elsewhere which shall be produced hereafter. he says, that the church at that present was built upon that rock; but, not that only, nor that always. nay his judgement, as shall appear, is express to the contrary. and so likewise the rest of his expressions (if we mean to reconcile hierome with hierome) must be conceived as intended by him, of that bishop and sea of rome, at that present time, and in the present state, and in respect of that doctrine which he there entreats of. for otherwise, had he conceived it necessary for him and all men to conform their judgement in matters of faith, to the judgement of the bishop and church of rome, how came it to pass that he chose rather to believe the epistle to the hebrews canonical, upon the authority of the eastern church, than to reject it from the canon upon the authority of the roman? how comes it to pass that he dissented from the authority of that church, touching the canon of the old testament? for if you say, that the church then consented with s. hierome, i fear you will lose your fort by maintaining your outworks; and by avoiding this, run into a greater danger of being forced to confess the present roman church opposite herein to the ancient. how was it possible, that he should ever believe that liberius bishop of rome, either was or could have been brought over by the solicitation of fortunatianus bishop of aquileia, hierom. de scrip eccl. tit. fortunatianus. and brought after two years' banishment to subscribe heresy? which act of liberius, though some fond question, being so vain as to expect we should rather believe them that lived but yesterday. 1300 years almost after the thing is said to be done, and speaking for themselves in their own cause, rather than the disinteressed time-fellows, or immediate-successors of liberius himself: yet, i hope, they will not proceed to such a degree of immodesty, as once to question, whether s. hierome thought so. and if this cannot be denied, i demand then, if he had lived in liberius his time, could he, or would he, have written so to liberius, as he does to damasus? would he have said to him, i am in the communion of the chair of peter, i know that the church is built upon this rock, whosoever gathereth not with thee, scattereth. would he then have said, the roman faith and the catholic were the same: or, that the roman faith received no delusions, no not from an angel? i suppose, he could not have said so with any coherence to his own belief; and therefore conceive it undeniable that what he said then to damasus, he said it (though perhaps he strained too high) only of damasus, and never conceived that his words would have been extended to all his predecessors and all his successors. 24. the same answer i make to the first place of s. ambrose, viz. that no more can be certainly concluded from it, but that the catholic bishops and the roman church were then at unity; so that whosoever agreed with the later could not then but agree with the former. but that this rule was perpetual, and that no man could ever agree with the catholic bishops, but he must agree with the roman church, this he says not, nor gives you any ground to conclude from him. athanasius when he was excommunicated by liberius, agreed very ill with the roman church; and yet you will not gainsay, but he agreed well enough with the catholic bishops. the second, i am uncertain what the sense of it is, and what truth is in it; but most certain, that it makes nothing to your present purpose. for it neither affirms nor imports, that separation from the roman church is a certain mark of heresy. for the rights of communion (whatsoever it signifies,) might be said to flow from it, if that church were, by ecclesiastical law, the head of all other churches: but unless it were made so by divine authority, and that absolutely, separation from it could not be a mark of heresy. 25. for s. cyprian; all the world knows that he (b) it is confessed by baronius anno 238. n. 41. by bellar. l 4. de r pont. c. 7. sect. tertia ratio. resolutely opposed a decree of the roman bishop, and all that adhered to him in the point of rebaptising, which that church at that time delivered as a necessary tradition. so necessary, that by the bishop of rome, firmilianus and other bishops of cappadocia, cilicia and galatia, and generally all who persisted in the contrary opinion, (c) confessed by baronius. an 258. n. 14. & 15. by card. perron repl. l. 1. c. 25. were therefore deprived of the church's communion, (which excommunication could not but involve s. cyprian, who defended the same opinion as resolutely as firmilianus, though cardinal perron magisterially and without all colour of proof affirm the contrary) and cyprian in particular so far cast off, as for it to be pronounced by stephen, a false christ. (d) abide. again, so necessary, that the bishops which were sent by cyprian from afric to rome, were not admitted to the communion of ordinary conference: but all men who were subject to the bishop of rome's authority, were commanded by him not only to deny them the church's peace and communion, but even lodging and entertainment: manifestly declaring, that they reckoned them among those whom s. john forbids to receive to house, or to say god speed to them. all these terrors notwithstanding, s. cyprian holds still his former opinion. and though our of respect to the church's peace (d) vide conc. carth. apud. sur. to 1. he judged no man, nor cut off any man from the right of communion, for thinking otherwise then he held, yet he conceived stephen and his adherents, (e) bell l. 2. de con. c 5. aug. ep. 48. & l. 1. de bap. c. 18. to hold a pernicious error. and s. austin, (though disputing with the donatists he useth some tergiversation in the point;) yet confesseth elsewhere, that it is not found that cyprian did ever change his opinion. and so far was he from conceiving any necessity of doing so, by submitting to the judgement of the bishop and church of rome, that he plainly professeth that no other bishop, but our lord jesus only, had power to judge (with authority) of his judgement; and as plainly intimates that stephen, for usurping such a power, and making himself a judge over bishops, was little better than a tyrant: and as heavily almost he censures him, and peremptorily opposes him as obstinate in error, in that very place where he delivers that famous saying, how can he have god for his father, who hath not the church for his mo●her? little doubting, it seems, but a man might have the church for his mother, who stood in opposition to the church of rome, and being far from thinking what you fond obtrude upon him, that to be united to the roman church, and to the church was all one, and that separation from s. peter's chair was a mark (i mean, a certain mark) either of schism or heresy. if after all this, you will catch at a phrase or a compliment of s. cyprians, and, with that, hope to persuade protestants, who know this story as well as their own name, that s. cyprian did believe that falsehood could not have access to the roman church, and that opposition to it was the brand of an heretic: may we not well expect, that you will the next time you writ, vouch luther and calvin also for abettors of this fancy, and make us poor men believe not only (as you say) that we have no metaphysics, but that we have no sense? and when you have done so, it will be no great difficulty for you, to assure us that we read no such thing in bellarmine, bell. l. 2. de con. c. 5. sect. 1. can●sius. in initio gatech. e spt. die 14. as that cyprian was always accounted in the number of catholics; nor in canisius, that he was a most excellent doctor and a glorious martyr; nor in your calendar, that he is a saint and a martyr; but that all these are deceptions of our sight, and that you ever esteemed him a very schismatique and an heretic, as having on him the mark of the beast, opposition to the chair of peter. nay that he (what ever he pretended) knew & believed himself to be so; in as much as he knew (as you pretend,) and esteemed this opposition to be the mark of heresy, and knew himself to stand, and stand out, in such an opposition. 26. but we need not seek so far for matter to refute the vanity of this pretence. let the reader but peruse this very epistle out of which this sentence is alleged, and he shall need no farther satisfaction against it. for he shall find, first, that you have helped the dice a little with a false, or at least with a very bold and strained, translation: for s. cyprian saith not, to whom falsehood cannot have access, by which many of your favourable readers, i doubt, understood, that cyprian had exempted that church from a possibility of error, but to whom perfidiousness cannot have access, meaning by perfidiousness in the abstract, according to a common figure of speech, those perfidious schismatics whom he there complains of: and of these by a rhetorical insinuation, he says, that with such good christians as the romans were, it was not possible they should find favourable entertainment. not that he conceived it any way impossible they should do so (for the very writing this epistle, and many passages in it, plainly show the contrary;) but because he was confident, or at least would seem to be confident, they never would, and so by his good opinion and confidence in the romans, lay an obligation upon them, to do as he presumed they would do; as also in the end of his epistle, he says even of the people of the church of rome, that being defended by the providence of their bishop, nay, by their own vigilance sufficiently guarded, they could not be taken nor deceived with the poisons of heretics. not that indeed he thought either this or the former any way impossible: for to what purpose, but for prevention hereof, did he write this long and accurate and vehement epistle to cornelius? which sure had been most vainly done, to prevent that which he knew or believed impossible! or how can this consist with his taking notice in the beginning of it, that cornelius was somewhat moved and wrought upon by the attempts of his adversaries, with his reprehending him for being so, and with his vehement exhorting him to courage and constancy, or with his request to him, in the conclusion of his epistle, that it should be read publicly to the whole clergy and laity of rome, to the intent, that if any contagion of their poisoned speech and pestiferous semination, had crept in amongst them, it might be wholly taken away from the ears and the hearts of the brethren: and that the entire and sincere charity of good men might be purged from all dross of heretical detraction: or lastly, with his vehement persuasions to them to decline, for the time to come, and resolutely avoid their word and conference, because their speech crept as a canker, as the apostle saith; because evil communication would corrupt good manners, because wicked men carry perdition in their mouths, and hid fire in their lips? all which had been but vain and ridiculous pageantry, had he verily believed the romans such inaccessible forts, such rocks, as the former sentences would seem to import, if we will expound them rigidly and strictly, according to the exigence of the words, and not allow him who was a professed master of the art, to have used here a little rhetoric, and to say, that could not be, whereof he had no absolute certainty but that it might be, but only had, or would seem to have a great confidence that it never would be, ut fides habita fidem obligaret, that he professing to be confident of the romans, might lay an obligation upon them to do as he promised himself they would do. for as for joining the principal church and the chair of peter, how that will serve for your present purpose, of proving separation from the roman church a mark of heresy, i suppose it is hard to understand! nor indeed how it will advantage you in any other design against us, who do not altogether deny, but that the church of rome might be called the chair of peter, in regard he is said to have preached the gospel there; and the principal church, because the city was the principal and imperial city: which prerogative of the city, if we believe the fathers of the council of chalcedon, was the ground and occasion, why the fathers of former time (i pray observe,) conferred upon this church, this prerogative above other churches. 27. and as far am i from understanding, how you can collect from the other sentence, that to communicate with the church and pope of rome, and to communicate with the catholic church, is always (for that is your assumpt) one and the same thing. saint cyprian speaks not of the church of rome at all, but of the bishop only, who when he doth communicate with the catholic church, as cornelius at that time did, than whosoever communicates with him, cannot but communicate with the catholic church: and then by accident one might truly say, such a one communicates with you, that is, with the catholic church, and that to communicate with him is to communicate with the catholic church. as if titius and sempronius be together, he that is in company with titius, cannot but be at that time in company with sempronius. as if a general be marching to some place with an army, he that than is with the general must at that time be with the army: and a man may say without absurdity, such a time i was with the general, that is, with the army, and that to be with the general is to be with the army. or as if a man's hand be joined to his body, the finger which is joined to the hand is joined to the body, and a man may say truly of it, this finger is joined to the hand, that is, to the body, and, to be joined to the hand is to be joined to the body; because all these things are by accident true. and yet i hope you would not deny, but the finger might possibly be joined to the hand, and yet not to the body, the hand being cut off from the body; and a man might another time, be with his general and not with his army, he being absent from the army. and therefore by like reason your collection is sophistical, being in effect but this, to communicate with such a bishop of rome, who did communicate with the catholic church, was to communicate with the catholic church, therefore absolutely and always it must be true, that, to communicate with him, is by consequent to communicate with the catholic church, and to be divided from his communion, is to be an heretic. 28. in urging the place of irenaeus, you have showed much more ingenuity than many of your fellows. for whereas they usually begin at, declaring the tradition of the, &c and conceal what goes before; you have set it down, though not so completely as you should have done, yet sufficiently to show, that what authority in the matter he attributed to the roman church in particular, the same for the kind (though perhaps not in the same degree) he attributed to all other apostolic churches. either therefore you must say, that he conceived the testimony of other apostolic churches divine and infallible, (which certainly he did not, neither do you pretend he did, and if he had, the confessed errors and heresies which after they fell into would demonstrate plainly that he had erred) or else that he conceived the testimony of the roman church only humane and credible, though perhaps more credible than any one church beside, (as one man's testimony is more credible than another's;) but certainly much more credible, which was enough for his purpose, than that secret tradition, to which those heretics pretended, against whom he wrote over-bearing them with an argument of their own kind, far stronger than their own. now if irenaeus thought the testimony of the roman church in this point only humane and fallible, then surely he could never think, either adhering to it a certain mark of a catholic, or separation from it a certain mark of an heretic. 29. again, whereas your great achilles' cardinal perron in french; as also his noble translatress, misled by him, in english, knowing that men's resorting to rome would do his cause little service, hath made bold with the latin tongue, as he does very often with the greek, and rendered ad hanc ecclesiam necesse est omnem convenire ecclesiam, to this church it is necessary that every church should agree, you have translated it, as it should be; to this church it is necessary that all church's resort: wherein you have showed more sincerity, and have had more regard to make the author speak sense. for if he had said, by showing the tradition of the roman church we confound all heretics; for, to this church, all churches must agree, what had this been, but to give for a reason, that which was more questionable than the thing in question: as being neither evident in itself, and plainly denied by his adversaries, & not at all proved nor offered to be proved here or elsewhere by irenaeus. to speak thus therefore had been weak and ridiculous. but on the other side, if we conceive him to say thus, you heretics decline a trial of your doctrine by scripture, as being corrupted and imperfect, and not fit to determine controversies without recourse to tradition, and, instead hereof, you fly for a refuge to a secret tradition, which you pretend that you received from your ancestors, and they from the apostles; certainly, your calumnies against scripture are most unjust and unreasonable: but yet more-ever, assure yourselves, that if you will be tried by tradition, even by that also you will be overthrown. for our tradition is far more famous, more constant, and in all respects more credible, than that which you pretend to. it were easy for me, to muster up against you the uninterrupted successions of all the churches founded by the apostles, all conspiring in their testimonies against you: but because it were too long to number up the successions of all churches, i will content myself with the tradition of the most ancient and most glorious church of rome, which alone is sufficient for the confutation and confusion of your doctrine, as being in credit and authority, as far beyond the tradition you build upon, as the light of the sun is beyond the light of a gloworm. for to this church; by reason it is placed in the imperial city, whither all men's affairs do necessarily draw them, or by reason of the powerful principality it hath over all the adjacent churches, there is, and always hath been, a necessity of a perpetual recourse of all the faithful round about: who if there had been any alteration in the church of rome, could not in all probability but have observed it. but they to the contrary▪ have always observed in this church the very tradition which came from the apostles and no other. i say, if we conceive his meaning thus, his words will be intelligible and rational: which if instead of resort we put in agree will be quite lost. herein therefore we have been beholding to your honesty, which makes me think you did not wittingly falsify, but only twice in this sentence mistake undique for ubique, and translate it, every where, and of what place soever, in stead of round about. for that it was necessary for all the faithful of what place soever to resort to rome, is not true. that the apostolic tradition hath always been conserved there from those who are every where, is not sense. now instead of conservata read observata, as in all probability it should be, and translate undique truly round about, and then the sense will be both plain and good; for than it must be rendered thus, for to this church, by reason of a more powerful principality, there is a necessity that all the churches, that is, all the faithful round about, should resort, in which the apostolic tradition hath been always observed by those who were round about. if any man say, i have been too bold a critic in substituting observata instead of conservata, i desire him to know, that the conjecture is not mine, and therefore as i expect no praise for it, so, i hope, i shall be far from censure. but i would entreat him to consider, whether it be not likely that the same greek word signifying observo and conservo, the translater of irenaeus, who could hardly speak latin, might not easily mistake, and translate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, conservata est, instead of observata est; or, whether it be not likely, that those men which anciently wrote books, and understood them not, might not easily commit such an error; or, whether the sense of the place can be salved any other way; if it can, in god's name let it; if not, i hope, he is not to be condemned, who with such a little alteration hath made that sense which he found nonsense. 30. but whether you will have it observata or conservata, the new sumpsimus or the old mumpsimus, possibly it may be something to irenaeus, but to us, or our cause, it is no way material. for if the rest be rightly translated, neither will conservata afford you any argument against us, nor observata help us to any evasion. for though at the first hearing of the glorious attributes here given, (and that justly) to the church of rome, the confounding heretics with her tradition, and saying, it is necessary for all churches to resort to her, may sound like arguments for you; yet he that is attentive, i hope, will easily discover, that it might be good and rational in irenaeus, having to do with heretics, who, somewhat like those, who would be the only catholics, declined a trial by scripture, as not containing the truth of christ perfectly, and not fit to decide controversies, without recourse to tradition: i say, he will easily perceive that it might be rational in irenaeus to urge them, with any tradition of more credit than their own, especially a tradition consonant to scripture, and even contained in it; and yet that it may be irrational in you to urge us, who do not decline scripture, but appeal to it as a perfect rule of faith, with a tradition which we pretend is many ways repugnant to scripture; and repugnant to a tradition far more general than itself, which gives testimony to scripture; and lastly, repugnant to itself as giving attestation both to scripture, and to doctrines plainly contrary to scripture. secondly, that the authority of the roman church was then a far greater argument of the truth of her tradition when it was united with all other apostolic churches, than now when it is divided from them, according to that of tertullian, had the churches erred they would have varied, but that which is the same in all, cannot be error but tradition; and therefore irenaeus his argument may be very probable, yet yours may be worth nothing. thirdly, that fourteen hundred years may have made a great deal of alteration in the roman church: as rivers, though near the fountain they may retain their native and unmixed sincerity, yet in long progress cannot but take in much mixture that came not from the fountain. and therefore the roman tradition, though then pure, may now be corruptand impure: and so this argument (being one of those things which are the worse for wearing) might in irenaeus his time be strong and vigorous, and after declining and decaying may long since have fallen to nothing. especially, considering that irenaeus plays the historian only, and not the prophet, and says only, that the apostolic tradition had been always there as in other apostolic churches conserved or observed, choose you whether, but that it should be always so, he says not, neither had he any warrant. he knew well enough that there was foretold a great falling away of the churches of christ to anti-christ: that the roman church in particular was forewarned that she also, rom. 11. nay the whole church of the gentiles might fall if they looked not to their standing: and therefore to secure her that she should stand for ever, he had no reason, nor authority. fourthly, that it appears manifestly out of this book of irenaeus quoted by you, that the doctrine of the chiliasts was in his judgement apostolic tradition, as also it was esteemed (for aught appears to the contrary) by all the doctors, and saints, and martyrs of or about his time, for all that speak of it, or whose judgements in the point are any way recorded, are for it: and justin martyr professeth that all good and orthodox christians of his time believed it, and those that did not, in dial. cum tryphon. he reckons amongst heretics. now i demand, was this tradition one of those that was conserved, and observed in the church of rome, or was it not? if not, had irenaeus known so much, he must have retracted this commendation of that church. if it was, than the tradition of the present church of rome contradicts the ancient, and accounts it heretical, and then sure it can be no certain note of heresy to departed from them, who have departed from themselves, and prove themselves subject unto error by holding contradictions. fifthly and lastly, that out of the story of the church it is as manifest as the light at noon, that though irenaeus did esteem the roman tradition a great argument of the doctrine which he there delivers and defends against the heretics of his ●ime, viz. that there is one god, yet he was very far from thinking that church was, and ever should be a safe keeper, and an infallible witness of tradition in general: inasmuch as in his own life, his action proclaimed the contrary. for when victor bishop of rome obtruded the roman tradition touching the time of easter upon asian bishops under the pain of excommunication, and damnation; irenaeus, and all the other western bishops, though agreeing with him in his observation, yet sharply reprehended him for excommunicating the asian bishops for their disagreeing, plainly showing that they esteemed that not a necessary doctrine and a sufficient ground of excommunication, which the bishop of rome and his adherents did so account of: for otherwise how could they have reprehended him for excommunicating them, had they conceived the cause of this excommunication just and sufficient? and besides, evidently declaring that they esteemed not separation from the roman church a certain mark of heresy, seeing they esteemed not them heretics though separated and cut off from the roman church. cardinal perron to avoid the stroke of this convincing argument, raiseth a cloud of eloquent words, lib. 3. cap. 2. of his reply to king james. c. 2. sect. 32. which because you borrow them of him in your second part, i will here insert, and with short censures dispel; and let his idolaters see that truth is not afraid of giants: his words are these. the first instance then that calvin allegeth against the pope's censures, is taken from eusebius (a) an arrian author, and from ruffinus (b) enemy to the roman church his translator; who writ, (c) that s. irenaeus reprehended pope victor for having excommunicated the churches of asia for the question of the day of pasche, which they observed according to a particular tradition that s. john had introduced (d) for a time in their provinces, calv. ubi supra. because of the neighbourhood of the jews, and to bury the synagogue with honour and not according to the universal tradition of the apostles. irenaeus (saith calvin) reprehended pope victor bitterly, because for a light cause he had moved a great and perilous contention in the church. there is this in the text that calvin produceth, he reprehended him, that he had not done well, to cut off from the body of unity, so many and so great churches. but against whom maketh this, ruffin. in vers. hist. eccl eus. l. 5 c. 24. but (e) against those that object it? for who sees not, that s. irenaeus, doth not there reprehend the pope for the (f) want of power, but for the ill use of his power; and doth not reproach to the pope, that he could not excommunicate the asians, but admonisheth him, that for (g) so small a cause he should not have cut off so many provinces from the body of the church? euseb hist. eccl. l. 5. c. 24. irenaeus (saith eusebius) did fitly exhort pope victor, that he should not cut off all the churches of god which ●eld this ancient tradition. and ruffinus translating and envenoming eusebius saith; ruffin. ib. c. 24. iren l. 3. c. 3.1. book. ch. 25. he questioned victor, that he had not done well in cutting off from the body of unity so many and so great churches of god. and in truth, how could s. irenaeus have reprehended the pope for want of power; he that citys: to the roman church, because of a more powerful principality; (that is to say) as above appeareth, (h) because of a principality more powerful than the temporal: or (as we have expounded otherwhere) because of a more powerful original: (i) it is necessary that every church should agree? and (k) therefore also s. irenaeus allegeth not to pope victor, the example of him, and of the other bishops of the gauls assembled in a council holden expressly for this effect, who had not excommunicated the asians: euseb. hist. eccl. l. 5. c. 22. nor the example of narcissus bishop of jerusalem, and of the bishops of palestina assembled in another council, holden expressly for the same effect, who had not excommunicated them; nor the example of palmas, and of the other bishops of pontus assembled in the same manner, and for the same cause in the region of pontus, who had not excommunicated them; but only alleadges to him the example of the popes his predecessors: iren. apud euseb. hist. eccl. 5. c. 26. the prelates (saith he) who have presided before soter in the church where thou presidest, anisius, pius, hyginus, telesphorus, and sixtus, have not observed this custom, etc. and nevertheless. none of those that observed it, have been excommunicated. and yet, o admirable providence of god, the (l) success of the after-ages shown, that even in the use of his power, the pope's proceeding was just. for after the death of victor, the councils of nicaea, of constantinople, and of ephesus, conc. antioch. c. 1. conc. const. c. 7. conc. eph. p. 2. act. 6. excommunicated again those that held the same custom with the provinces, that the pope had excommunicated, and placed them in the catalogue of heretics, under the titles of heretics quarto-decumans. but to this instance calvin's sect do annex two new observations; the first, that the pope having threatened the bishops of asia to excommunicate them, polycrates the bishop of ephesus and metropolitan of asia, despised the pope's threats, as it appears by the answer of the same polycrates to pope victor, euseb. hist. eccl. l. 5. c. 24. hieron. in hieron. in script. eccl. in polyer. which is inserted in the writings of eusebius, and of saint jerom, and which jerom seemeth to approve, when he saith, he reports it to show the spirit and authority of the man. and the second, that when the pope pronounced anciently his excommunications, he did no other thing but separate himself from the communion of those that he excommunicated, and did not thereby separate them from the universal communion of the church. to the first than we say, that so far is this epistle of polycrates from abating and diminishing the pope's authority, that contrariwise it greatly magnifies and exalts it. for although polycrates blinded with the love of the custom of his nation, which he believed to be grounded upon the word of god, who had assigned the fourteenth of the month of march, for the observation of the pasche, and upon the example of s. john's tradition, maintains it obstinately; nevertheless, this that he answers, speaking in his own name, exod. 12. hieronym. ubi supra. and in the name of the council of the bishops of asia, to whom he presided; i fear not those that threeaten us; for my elders have said, it is better to obey god than man: doth it not show, that had it not been, that be believed the pope's threat, was against the express word of god, there had been cause to fear it, and he had been obliged to obey him; for (m) who knows not, that this answer, it is better to obey god than men, is not to be made but to those whom we were obliged to obey, if their commundements were not contrary to the commandments of god; and that he adds, that he had called the bishops of asia, euseb. hist. eccl l. 5. c. 23. to a national council, being (n) summoned to it by the pope; doth it not insinuate, that the other councils whereof eusebius speaks, that were holden about this matter, through all the provinces of the earth, and particularly that of palestina, b●da in frag. de aequinociio ve●●a●. which if you believe the act that beda said came to his hands, theophilus archbishop of caesarea had called by the authority of victor, were holden at the instance of the pope, and consequently, that the pope was the first mover of the universal church? and that the councils of nicaea, of constantinople, of ephesus, embraced the censure of victor, and excommunicated those that observed the custom of polycrates that was deceived, in believing that the pope's commandment, was against god's commandment? and that s. jerom himself celebrates the paschal homilies of theophilus patriarch of alexandria, which followed the order of nicaea concerning the pasche; doth it not justify, that when s. jerom saith, that he reports the epistle of polycrates, to show the spirit, and authority of the man, he intends by authority, not authority of right, but of fact; that is to say, the credit that polycrates had amongst the asians, and other quarto decimans? these are the cardinal's words, the most material and considerable passages whereof, to save the trouble of repetition, i have noted with letters of reference: whereunto my answers noted respectively with the same letters, follow now in order. (a) if eusebius were an arrian author, it is nothing to the purpose; what he writes there is no arrianism, nor any thing towards it. never any error was imputed to the arrians for denying the authority or the infallibility of the bishop or church of rome. besides, what eusebius says, he says out of irenaeus: neither doth, or can the cardinal deny the story to be true, and therefore he goes about by indirect arts to foil it, and cast a blurr upon it. lastly, whensoever eusebius says any thing, which the cardinal thinks for the advantage of his side, he citys him, and then he is no arrian: or at least he would not take that for an answer to the arguments he draws out of him. (b) that ruffinus was enemy to the roman church, is said, but not proved, neither can it be. (c) eusebius says the same also of caeteri omnes episcopi, all the other bishops, that they advised victor to keep those things, that belonged to peace and unity, and that they sharply reprehended victor, for having done otherwise. (d) this is said, but no offer made of any proof of it: the cardinal thinks we must take every thing upon his word. they to whom the tradition was delivered, polycrates and the asian bishops, knew no such matter, nay, professed the contrary. and who is more likely to know the truth, they which lived within two ages of the fountain of it, or the cardinal who lived sixteen ages after it? (e) how can it make against those that object it: seeing it is evident from irenaeus his reprehension, that he thought victor and the roman church, no infallible nor sufficient judge, of what was necessary to be believed and done, what not: what was universal tradition, what not: what was a sufficient ground of excommunication, and what not: and consequently, that there was no such necessity as is pretended, that all other churches should, in matters of faith, conform themselves to the church of rome? (f) this is to suppose, that excommunication is an act, or argument, or sign of power and authority in the party excommunicating, over the party excommunicated; whereas it is undeniably evident out of the church-story, that it was often used by equals upon equals, and by inferiors upon superiors, if the equals or inferiors, thought their equals or superiors did any thing which deserved it. (g) and what is this but to confess, that they thought that a small cause of excommunication and unsufficient, which victor and his adherents thought great and sufficient? and consequently, that victor and his part declared that to be a matter of faith and of necessity, which they thought not so; and where was then their conformity? (h) true, you have so expounded it, but not proved nor offered any proof of your exception. this also we must take upon your authority. irenaeus speaks not one word of any other power, to which he compares, or before which he prefers, the power of the roman-church. and it is evident out of the council of chalcedon; * cant. 28. that all the principality which it had, was given it (not by god, but) by the church, in regard it was seated in the imperial city. whereupon, when afterwards constantinople was the imperial city, they decreed that that church should have equal privileges and dignity and pre-eminence with the church of rome. all the fathers agreed in this decree, saving only the legates of the bishop of rome: showing plainly, that they never thought of any supremacy given the bishops of rome by god, or grounded upon scripture, but only by the church, and therefore alterable at the church's pleasure. (i) this is falsely translated. convenire ad romanam ecclesiam, every body knows, signifies no more but to resort or come to the roman church: which then there was a necessity that men should do, because that the affairs of the empire were transacted in that place. but yet irenaeus says not so of every church simply, which had not been true but only of the adjacent churches: for so he expounds himself in saying, to this church it is necessary that every church, that is, all the faithful, round about should resort. with much more reason therefore we return the argument thus. had irenaeus thought that all churches must of necessity agree with the roman, how could he and all other bishops have then pronounced, that to be no matter of faith, no sufficient ground of excommunication, which victor & his adherents thought to be so? and how then could they have reprehended victor so much, for the ill use of his power, as cardinal perron confesses they did▪ seeing, if that was true which is pretended, in this also as well as other things, it was necessary for them to agree with the church of rome? some there are that say but more wittily than truly, that all cardinal bellarmine's works, are so consonant to themselves, as if he had written them in two hours. had cardinal perron wrote his book in two hours, sure he would not have done that here in the middle of the book, which he condemns in the beginning of it. for here he urgeth a consequence, drawn from the mistaken words of irenaeus against his lively and actual practice: which proceeding, there he justly condemns of evident injustice. his words are * in his letter to casaubon, towards the end. for who knows not that it is too great an injustice to allege consequences from passages, and even those ill interpreted and misunderstood, and in whose illation there is always some paralogism hid against the express words, and the lively and actual practice of the same fathers from whom they are collected: and that it may be good, to take the fathers for adversaries, and to accuse them for want of sense or memory: but not to take them for judges, and to submit themselves to the observation of what they have believed and practised. (k) this is nothing to the purpose: he might choose these examples, not as of greater force and authority in themselves, but as fit to be employed against victor, as domestic examples are fit and more effectual than foreign: and for his omitting to press him with his own example and others, to what purpose had it been to use them, seeing their letters sent to victor from all parts, wherein they reprehend his presumption, shown him sufficiently, that their example was against him. but besides, he that reads irenaeus his letter, shall see, that in the matter of the lent-fast, and the great variety about the celebration of it, which he parallels with this of easter, he presseth victor with the example of himself and others, not bishops of rome; both they (saith he, speaking of other bishops), notwithstanding this difference, retained peace among themselves; and we also among ourselves retain it; inferring from his example, that victor also aught to do so. (l) if the pope's proceeding was just, than the churches of asia were indeed, and in the sight of god excommunicate, and out of the state of salvation: which irenaeus, and all the other ancient bishops never thought. and if they were so, why do you account them saints and martyrs? but the truth is, that these counsels did no way show the pope's proceed just, but rather the contrary. for though they settled an uniformity in this matter, yet they settled it as a matter formerly indifferent, and not as a matter of faith or necessity, as it is evident out of * in ep. ad episcopos in africa: where he clearly shows that this question was not a question was not a question of faith, by saying, the council of nice was celebrated, by occasion of the arrian heresy and the difference about easter. in so much as they in syria and cilicia and mesopotamia, did differ herein from us, and kept this feast on the same day with the jews: but thanks be to god, an agreement was made, as concerning the faith, so also concerning this holy feast. athanasius; and consequently, they rather declare victor's proceeding unjust, who excommunicated so many churches, for differing from him in an indifferent matter. (m) it seems then polycrates might be a saint and a martyr, and yet think the commands of the roman church, enjoined upon pain of damnation, contrary to the commandments of god. besides, s. peter himself, the head of the church, the vicar of christ (as you pretend), made this very answer to the high priest; yet i hope, you will not say, he was his inferior and obliged to obey him. lastly, who sees not, that when the pope commands us any thing unjust, as to communicate laymen in one kind, to use the latin service, etc. we may very fitly say to him, it is better to obey god than men, and yet never think of any authority he hath over us? (n) between requesting and summoning, methinks, there should be some difference; and polycrates says no more, but he was requested by the church of rome to call them, and did so. here then (as very often) the cardinal is fain to help the dice with a false translation; and, his pretence being false, every one must see that that which he pretends to be insinuated by it, is clearly inconsequent. (o) polycrates was deceived, if he believed it to be against god's commandment, and the pope deceived as much, in thinking it to be god's commandment, for it was neither one nor the other, but an indifferent matter, wherein god had not interposed his authority. neither did the council of nice embrace the censure of victor, by acknowledging his excommunication to be just and well grounded, for which the cardinal neither doth pretend, nor can produce any proof, any way comparable to the fore-alledged words of athanasius testifying the contrary; though perventure, having settled the observation, and reduced it to an uniformity, they might excommunicate those who afterward should trouble the church's peace for an indifferent matter▪ and thus much for irenaeus. 31 i come now to s. austin, and to the first place out of him, where he seems to say, that the succession in the sea of peter, was the rock which our saviour meant when he said, upon this rock, etc. i answer, first, we have no reason to be confident of the truth hereof, because s. austin himself was not, but retracts it as uncertain, and leaves to the reader whether he will think that, or another more probable. retr. l. 1. c. 26. secondly, what he says of the succession in the roman church in this place, he says it elsewhere, of all the successions in all other apostolic churches. thirdly, that as in this place he urgeth the donatists with separation from the roman church, an argument of their error: so, elsewhere he presseth them with their separation from other apostolic churches, nay more from these than from that, because in rome the donatists had a bishop though not a perpetual succession of them; but in other apostolic churches they wanted both. these scattered men (saith he of the donatists epist. 165.) read in the holy books the churches to which the apostles wrote, and have no bishop in them: but what is more perverse and mad, than to the lectors reading these epistles to say, peace with you, and to separate from the peace of these churches, to which these epistles were written? so optatus, having done you (as it might seem, great service) in upbraiding the donatists as schismatics, because they had not communion with the church of rome, overthrows and undoes it all again, and as it were with a sponge wipes out all that he hath said for you, by adding after, that they were schismatics, because they had not the fellowship of communion with the seven churches of asia, to which s. john writes: whereof he pronounces confidently, (though i know not upon what ground) extraseptem ecclesias quicquid foris est, alienum est. now, i pray tell me, do you esteem the authority of these fathers a sufficient assurance, that separation from these other apostolic churches, was a certain mark of heresy, or not? if so, than your church hath been for many ages heretical. if not, how is their authority, a greater argument for the roman, than for the other churches? if you say, they conceived separation from these churches a note of schism, only when they were united to the roman: so also they might conceive of the roman, only when it was united to them. if you say, they urged this only as a probable, and not as a certain argument, so also they might do that. in a word, whatsoever answer you can devise to show, that these fathers made not separation from these other churches a mark of heresy, apply that to your own argument, and it will be satisfied. 32 the other place is evidently impertinent to the present question, nor is there it in any thing but this, that caecilian might contemn the multitude of his adversaries, because those that were united with him were more, and of more account than those that were against him. had he preferred the roman church alone, before caecilians enemies, this had been little, but something; but when other countries from which the gospel came first into africa, are joined in this patent, with the church of rome, how she can build any singular privilege upon it i am yet to learn! neither do i see what can be concluded from it, but that in the roman church was the principality of an (a) you do ill to translate it the principality of the sea apostolic, as if there were but one; whereas saint austin presently after speaks of apostolical churches, in the plural number; and makes the bishops of them joynt-commissioners for the judging of ecclesiastical causes. apostolic sea, which no man doubts: or that the roman church, was not the mother church, because the gospel came first into africa, not from her, but from other churches. 33. thus you see his words make very little, or indeed nothing for you. but now his action, which according to cardinal perron's rule, is much more to be regarded than his words, as not being so obnoxious to misinterpretation, i mean his famous opposition of three bishops of rome in succession, touching the great question of appeals, wherein he and the rest of the african bishops proceeded so far in the first or second milevitan council, as to (b) the words of the decree (which also bellarm l. 1. de matrim. c. 17. assures us to be performed by s. austin) are these. si qui (africani) ab episcopis provocandum putaverint, non nisi ad africana provocent concilia, vel ad primates provinciarum suarum. ad transmarina autem qui putaverit apellandum, à nullo intra africam in communionem suscipiatur. this decree is by gratian most impudently corrupted. for whereas the fathers of that council intended it particularly against the church of rome, he tells us they forbade appeals to all, excepting only the church of rome. decree any african excommunicate, that should appeal to any man out of afric, and therein continued resolute unto death: i say this famous action of his, makes clearly, and evidently, and infinitely against you. for, had boniface, and the rest of the african bishops, a great part whereof were saints and martyrs, believed as an article of faith, that union and conformity with the doctrine of the roman church, in all things which she held necessary, was a certain note of a good catholic, and by god's command necessary to salvation, how was it possible they should have opposed it in this? unless you will say they were all so foolish as to believe at once direct contradictions, viz. that conformity to the roman church was necessary in all points, and not necessary in this: or so horribly impious, as believing this doctrine of the roman church true, and her power to receive appeals, derived from divine authority, notwithstanding to oppose and condemn it, and to anathematise all those africans, of what condition soever, that should appeal unto it. i say, of what condition soever: for it is evident, that they concluded in their determination, bishops as well as the inferior clergy and laity: and cardinal p●rron's pretence of the contrary, is a shameless falsehood, repugnant to the plain words of the (c) the words are these. praefato debito salutationis officio, impendiò deprecamur; ut deinceps ad aures vestras hinc venientes, non saciliùs admittat is; nec à nobis excommunicatos ultra in communionem velitis recipere, quia hoc etiam niceno concilio de finitum facile advertet venerabilitastus. nam si de inferioribus clericis vel laicis videtur id praecaveri, quanto magis hoc de episcopis voluit observari. remonstrance of the african bishops to celestine bishop of rome. 34 your allegation of tertullian is a manifest conviction of your want of sincerity: for you produce with great ostentation what he says of the church of rome: but you and your fellows always conceal and dissemble, that immediately before these words he artributes as much, for point of direction, to any other apostolic church, and that as he sends them to rome who lived near italy, so those near achaia he sends to corinth, those about macedonia to philippi and thessalonica, those of asia to ephesus. his words are, go to now, thou that wilt better employ thy curiosity in the business of thy salvation, run over the apostolical churches, wherein the chairs of the apostles are yet sat upon in their places, wherein the authentic epistles are recited, sounding out the voice, and representing the face of every one! is achaia near thee? there thou hast corinth: if thou art not far from macedonia, thou hast philippi, thou hast thessalonica: if thou canst go into asia, there thou hast ephesus: if thou be adjacent to italy, thou hast rome, whose authority is near at hand to us (in afric:) a happy church, into which the apostles poured forth all their doctrine together with their blood, etc. now i pray you sir tell me, if you can for blushing, why this place might not have been urged by a corinthian, or philippian, or thessalonian, or an ephesian, to show that in the judgement of tertullian, separation from any of their churches is a certain mark of heresy, as justly and rationally as you allege it to vindicate this privilege to the roman church only? certainly, if you will stand to tertullian's judgement, you must either grant the authority of the roman church (though at that time a good topical argument, and perhaps a better than any the heretics had, especially in conjunction with other apostolic churches:) yet, i say, you must grant it perforce but a fallible guide as well as that of ephesus, and thessalonica, and philippi, and corinth: or you must maintain the authority of every one of these infallible, as well as the roman. for though he make a panegyric of the roman church in particular, and of the rest only in general, yet, as i have said, for point of direction he makes them all equal, and therefore makes them (choose you whether) either all fallible, or all infallible: now you will and must acknowledge that he never intended to attribute infallibility to the churches of ephesus, or corinth: or, if he did, that (as experience shows) he erred in doing so; and what can hinder, but then we may say also that he never intended to attribute infallibility to the roman church, or, if he did, that he erred in doing so? 35 from the saying of s. basil, certainly nothing can be gathered; but only that the bishop of rome may discern between that which is counterfeit, and that which is lawful and pure, and without any diminution may preach the faith of our ancestors. which certainly he might do, if ambition and covetousness did not hinder him, or else i should never condemn him for doing otherwise. but is there no difference between may and must? between he may do so, and he cannot but do so? or doth it follow, because he may do so, therefore he always shall or will do so? in my opinion rather the contrary should follow! for he that saith, you may do thus, implies according to the ordinary sense of words, that if he will he may do otherwise. you certainly may, if you please, leave abusing the world with such sophistry as this; but whether you will or no, of that i have no assurance. 36 your next witness i would willingly have examined, but it seems you are unwilling he should be found, otherwise you would have given us your direction where we might have him. of that maximianus who succeeded nestorius, i can find no such thing in the counsels: neither can i believe that any patriarch of constantinople twelve hundred years ago was so base a parasite of the sea of rome. 37 your last witness john of constantinople, i confess, speaks home, and advanceth the roman sea, even to heaven: but i fear it is, that his own may go up with it, which he there professes to be all one sea with the sea of rome; and therefore his testimony, as speaking in his own case, is not much to be regarded. but besides, i have little reason to be confident that this epistle is not a forgery; for certainly, binius hath obtruded upon us many a hundred such. this though written by a grecian is not extant in greek but in latin only. lastly it comes out of a suspicious place, an old book of the vatican library: which library the world knows to have been the mint of very many impostures. 38 ad §. 20, 21, 22, 23. the sum of your discourse in the four next sections, if it be pertinent to the question in agitation, must be this: want of succession of bishops and pastors, holding always the same doctrine, and of the forms of ordaining bishops and priests which are in use in the roman church, is a certain mark of heresy: but protestants want all these things: therefore they are heretics. to which i answer, that nothing but want of truth and holding error can make or prove any man or church heretical. for if he be a true aristotelian, or platonist, or pyrrhonian, or epicurean, who holds the doctrine of aristotle, or plato, or pirrho, or epicurus, although he cannot assign any that held it before him for many ages together; why should i not be made a true and orthodox christian, by believing all the doctrine of christ, though i cannot derive my descent from a perpetual succession that believed it before me? by this reason you should say as well, that no man can be a good bishop or pastor, or king or magistrate, or father, that succeeds a bad one. for, if i may conform my will and actions to the commandments of god, why may i not embrace his doctrine with my understanding, although my predecessor do not so? you have above in this chapter defined faith, a free infallible, obscure, supernatural assent to divine truths, because they are revealed by god and sufficiently propounded: this definition is very phanrastical; but for the present i will let it pass, and desire you to give me some piece or shadow of reason, why i may not do all this without a perpetual succession of bishops and pastors that have done so before me? you may judge as uncharitably, and speak as maliciously of me, as your blind zeal to your superstition shall direct you, but certainly i know, (and with all your sophistry you cannot make me doubt of what i know,) that i do believe the gospel of christ (as it is delivered in the undoubted books of canonical scripture,) as verily as that it is now day, that i see the light, that i am now writing: and i believe it upon this motive, because i conceive it sufficiently, abundantly, superabundantly proved to be divine revelation: and yet in this, i do not depend upon any succession of men that have always believed it without any mixture of error; nay i am fully persuaded, there hath been no succession, and yet do not find myself any way weakened in my faith by the want of it, but so fully assured of the truth of it, that not only though your devils at lowden do tricks against it, but though an angel from heaven should gainsay it or any part of it, i persuade myself that i should not be moved. this i say, and this i am sure is true: and if you will be so hypersceptical as to persuade me, that i am not sure that i do believe all this, i desire you to tell me, how are you sure that you believe the church of rome? for, if a man may persuade himself he doth believe what he doth not believe, then may you think you believe the church of rome, and yet not believe it. but if no man can err concerning what he believes, than you must give me leave to assure myself that i do believe, and consequently, that any man may believe the foresaid truths upon the foresaid motives, without any dependence upon any succession that hath believed it always. and as from your definition of faith, so from your definition of heresy, this fancy may be refuted. for questionless no man can be an heretic but he that holds an heresy, and an heresy you say is a voluntary error; therefore no man can be necessitated to be an heretic whether he will or no, by want of such a thing that is not in his power to have: but that there should have been a perpetual succession of believers in all points orthodox, is not a thing which is in our own power, therefore our being or not being heretics depends not on it. besides, what is more certain, than that he may make a strait line who hath a rule to make it by, though never man in the world had made any before: and why then may not he that believes the scripture to be the word of god, and the rule of faith, regulate his faith by it, and consequently believe aright, without much regarding what other men will do or have done? it is true indeed there is a necessity that if god will have his word believed, he by his providence must take order, that, either by succession of men, or by some other means natural or supernatural, it be preserved and delivered, and sufficiently notified to be his word; but that this should be done by a succession of men that holds no error against it, certainly there is no more necessity, than that it should be done by a succession of men that commit no sin against it. for if men may preserve the records of a law, and yet transgress it, certainly they may also preserve directions for their faith, and yet not follow them. i doubt not but lawyers at the bar do find by frequent experience, that many men preserve and produce evidences, which being examined, of times make against themselves. this they do ignorantly, it being in their power to suppress, or perhaps to alter them. and why then should any man conceive it strange, that an erroncous and corrupted church should preserve and deliver the scriptures uncorrupted, when indeed for many reasons which i have formerly alleged, it was impossible for them to corrupt them? seeing therefore this is all the necessity that is pretended of a perpetual succession of men otthodox in all points, certainly there is no necessity at all of any such, neither can the want of it prove any man or any church heretical. 39 when therefore you have produced some proof of this, which was your major in your former syllogism, that want of succession is a certain mark of heresy, you shall then receive a full answer to your minor. we shall then consider whether your indelibe character be any reality, or whether it be a creature of your own making, a fancy of your own imagination? and if it be a thing, and not only a word, whether our bishops and priests have it not as well as yours; and whether some men's persuasion that there is no such thing, can hinder them from having it, or prove that they have it not if there be any such thing! (any more than a man's persuasion that he has not taken physic or poison, will make him not to have taken it if he has, or hinder the operation of it?) and whether tertullian in the place quoted by you, speak of a priest made a layman, by just deposition or degradation, and not by a voluntary desertion of his order? and whether in the same place he set not some mark upon heretics that will agree to your church? whether all the authority of our bishops in england before the reformation, was conferred on them by the pope? and if it were, whether it were the pope's right, or an usurpation? if it were his right, whether by divine law or ecclesiastical? and, if by ecclesiastical only, whether he might possibly so abuse his power, as to deserve to lose it? whether de facto he had done so? whether, supposing he had deserved to lose it, those that deprived him of it, had power to make it from him? or if not, whether they had power to suspend him from the use of it, until good caution were put in, and good assurance given, that, if he had it again, he would not abuse it as he had formerly done? whether in case, they had done unlawfully that took his power from him, it may not (things being now settled, and the present government established) be as unlawful to go about to restore it? whether it be not a fallacy to conclude, because we believe the pope hath no power in england, now when the king and state and church hath deprived him upon just grounds of it, therefore we cannot believe that he had any before his deprivation? whether, without schism, a man may not withdraw obedience from an usurped authority commanding unlawful things? whether the roman church might not give authority to bishops and priests to oppose her errors, as well as a king gives authority to a judge to judge against him, if his cause be bad; as well as trajan gave his sword to his praefect with this commission, that, if he governed well, he should use it for him; if ill, against him. whether the roman church gave not authority to her bishops and priests to preach against her corruptions in manners? and if so, why not against her errors in doctrine, if she had any? whether she gave them not authority to preach the whole gospel of christ, and consequently against her doctrine, if it should contradict any part of the gospel of christ? whether it be not acknowledged lawful in the church of rome, for any layman or woman, that has ability, to persuade others by word or by writing from error, and unto truth? and why this liberty may not be practised against their religion, if it be false; as well as for it, if it be true? whether any man need any other commission or vocation than that of a christian, to do a work of charity? and whether it be not one of the greatest works of charity (if it be done after a peaceable manner, and without any unnecessary disturbance of order) to persuade men out a false, unto a true way of eternal happiness? especially, the apostle having assured us, that he (whosoever he is) who converteth a sinner from the error of his way, shall save a soul from death, and shall hid a multitude of sins? whether the first reform bishops died all at once, so that there were not enough to ordain others in the places that were vacant? whether the bishops of england may not consecrate a metropolitan of england, as well as the cardinals do the pope? whether the king or queen of england, or they that have the government in their hands, in the minority of the prince, may not lawfully commend one to them to be consecrated, against whom there is no canonical exception? whether the doctrine, that the king is supreme head of the church of england, (as the kings of judah, and the first christian emperors were of the jewish and christian church) be any new found doctrine? whether it may not be true, that bishops being made bishops, have their authority immediately from christ, though this or that man be not made bishop without the king's authority; as well as you say, the pope being pope, has authority immediately from christ, and yet this or that man cannot be made pope without the authority of the cardinals? whether you do well to suppose, that christian kings have no more authority in ordering the affairs of the church, than the great turk, or the pagan emperors? whether the king may not give authority to a bishop to exercise his function in some part of his kingdom, and yet not be capable of doing it himself: as well as a bishop may give authority to a physician to practise physic in his diocese, which the bishop cannot do himself? whether, if nero the emperor would have commanded s. peter or s. paul to preach the gospel of christ, and to exercise the office of a bishop of rome, whether they would have questioned his authority to do so? whether there were any law of god or man; that prohibited king james to give commission to bishops, nay to lay his injunction upon them, to do any thing that is lawful? whether a casual irregularity may not be lawfully dispensed with? whether the pope's irregularities, if he should chance to incur any, be indispensable? and if not, who is he, or who are they, whom the pope is so subject unto, that they may dispense with him? whether that be certain which you take for granted; that your ordination imprints a character, and ours doth not? whether the power of consecrating and ordaining by imposition of hands, may not reside in the bishops, and be derived unto them, not from the king but god; and yet the king have authority to command them to apply this power to such a fit person, whom he shall commend unto them: as well as if some architects only had the faculty of architecture, and had it immediately by infusion from god himself, yet, if they were the king's subjects, he wants not authority to command them to build him a palace for his use, or a fortress for his service: or as the king of france pretends not to have power to make priests himself, yet, i hope, you will not deny him power to command any of his subjects that has this power, to ordain any fit person priest, whom he shall desire to be ordained? whether it do not follow, that whensoever the king commands an house to be built, a message to be delivered, or a murderer to be executed, that all these things are presently done without intervention of the archirect, messenger, or executioner: as well as, that they are ipso facto ordained and consecrated, who by the king's authority are commended to the bishops to be ordained and consecrated: especially, seeing the king will not deny, but that these bishops may refuse to do what he requires to be done, lawfully if the person be unworthy; if worthy, unlawfully indeed, but yet the facto they may refuse: and, in case they should do so, whether justly or unjustly; neither the king himself, nor any body else, would esteem the person bishop upon the king's designation? whether many popes, though they were not consecrated bishops by any temporal prince, yet might not, or did not receive authority from the emperor to exercise their episcopal function in this or that place? and whether the emperors had not authority, upon their desert, to deprive them of their jurisdiction, by imprisonment or banishment? whether protestants do indeed pretend that their reformation is universal? whether in saying, the donatists' sect was confined to africa, you do not forget yourself, and contradict what you said above, in §. 17. of this chapter where you tell us, they had some of their sect residing in rome? whether it be certain, that none can admit of bishops willingly, but those that hold them of divine institution? whether they may not be willing to have them, conceiving that way of government the best, though not absolutely necessary? whether all those protestants that conceive the distinction between priests and bishops not to be of divine institution, be schismatical and heretical for thinking so? whether your form of ordaining bishops and priests, be essential to the constitution of a true church? whether the forms of the church of england differ essentially from your forms? whether in saying, that the true church cannot subsist without undoubted true bishops and priests, you have not overthrown the truth of your own church: wherein i have proved it plainly impossible, that any man should be so much as morally certain, either of his own priesthood or any other man? lastly, whether any one kind of these external forms and orders, and government, be so necessary to the being of a church, but that they may be divers in divers places, and that a good and peaceable christian may and aught to submit himself to the government of the place where he lives, whatsoever it be? all these questions will be necessary to be discussed for the clearing of the truth of the minor proposition of your former syllogism, and your proofs of it: and i will promise to debate them fairly with you, if first you will bring some better proof of the major, that want of succession is a certain note of heresy, which for the present remains both unproved and unprobable. 40 ad §. 23. the fathers, you say, assign succession as one mark of the true church: i confess, they did urge tradition as an argument of the truth of their doctrine and of the falsehood of the contrary; and thus far they agree with you. but now see the difference: they urged it not against all heretics that ever should be, but against them who rejected a great part of the scripture, for no other reason but because it was repugnant to their doctrine, and corrupted other parts with their additions and detractions, and perverted the remainder with divers absurd interpretations: so tertullian not a leaf before the words by you cited. nay they urged it against them who when they were confuted out of scripture, fell to accuse the scriptures themselves as if they were not right, and came not from good authority, as if they were various one from another, and as if truth could not be found out of them, by those who know not tradition, for that it was not delivered in writing, (they did mean wholly,) but by word of mouth: and that thereupon paul also said, we speak wisdom amongst the perfect. so irenaeus in the very next chapter before that which you allege. against these men being thus necessitated to do so, they did urge tradition, but what or whose tradition was it? certainly no other, but the joint tradition of all the apostolic churches with one mouth and one voice teaching the same doctrine. or if, for brevity sake, they produced the tradition of any one church, yet is it apparent, that, that one was then in conjunction with all the rest; irenaeus, tertullian, origen, testify as much in the words cited, and s. austin, in the place before alleged by me. this tradition they did urge against these men, and in a time, in comparison of ours, almost contiguous to the apostles: so near, that one of them, irenaeus, was scholar to one who was scholar to s. john the apostle. tertullian and origen were not an age removed from him: and the last of them all, little more than an age from them. yet after all this they urged it not as a demonstration, but only as a very probable argument, far greater than any their adversaries could oppose against it. so tertullian in the place above quoted §. 5. how is it likely that so many and so great churches should err in one faith (it should be, should have erred into one faith.) and this was the condition of this argument as the fathers urged it. now if you having to deal with us, who question no book of scripture, which was not anciently questioned by some whom you yourselves esteem good catholics; nay who refuse not to be tried by your own canon, and your own translation, who in interpreting scriptures are content to allow of all those rules which you propose, only except that we will not allow you to be our judges; if you will come fifteen hundred years after the apostles, a fair time for the purest church to gather much dross and corruption, and for the mystery of iniquity to bring its work to some perfection, which in the apostles time began to work; if (i say) you will come thus long after, and urge us with the single tradition of one of these churches, being now catholic to itself alone, and heretical to all the rest: nay not only with her ancient and original traditions, but also with her post-nate introduced definitions, and these, as we pretend, repugnant to scripture, and ancient tradition, and all this to decline an indifferent trial by scripture, under pretence (wherein also you agree with the calumny of the old heretics) that all necessary truth cannot be found in them without recourse to tradition: if, i say, notwithstanding all these differences, you will still be urging us with this argument, as the very same and of the same force with that wherewith the fathers urged the old heretics: certainly this must needs proceed from a confidence you have, not only that we have no school-divinity, nor metaphysics, but no logic or common sense; that we are but pictures of men, and have the definition of rational creatures given us in vain. 41 but now suppose i should be liberal to you, and grant what you cannot prove, that the fathers make succession a certain and perpetual mark of the true church; i beseech you what will come of it? what, that want of succession is a certain sign of an heretical company? truly if you say so, either you want logic, which is a certain sign of an ill disputer: or are not pleased to use it, which is a worse. for speech is a certain sign of a living man, yet want of speech is no sure argument that he is dead: for he may be dumb and yet living still, and we may have other evident tokens that he is so, as eating, drinking, breathing, moving: so, though the constant and universal delivery of any doctrine by the apostolic churches, ever since the apostles, be a very great argument of the truth of it, yet there is no certainty, but that truth, even divine truth, may, through men's wickedness, be contracted from its universality, and interrupted in its perpetuity, and so lose this argument, and yet not want others to justify and support itself. for it may be one of those principles which god hath written in all men's hearts, or a conclusion evidently arising from them: it may be either contained in scripture in express terms, or deducible from it by appar●●● consequence. if therefore you intent to prove want of a perpetual succession of professors a certain note of heresy, you must not content yourself to show, that, having it, is one sign of truth; but you must show it to be the only sign of it and inseparable from it. but this, if you be well advised, you will never undertake; first, because it is an impossible attempt: and then because, if you do it, you will mar all: for by proving this an inseparable sign of catholic doctrine, you will prove your own, which apparently wants it in many points, not to be catholic. for whereas you say this succession requires two things, agreement with the apostles doctrine, and an uninterrupted conveyance of it down to them that challenge it: it will be proved against you, that you fail in both points; and that some things wherein you agree with the apostles have not been held always, as, your condemning the doctrine of the chiliasts, and holding the eucharist not necessary for infants; and that in many other things you agree not with them, nor with the church for many ages after. for example; in mutilation of the communion, in having your service in such a language as the assistants generally understand not, your offering to saints, your picturing of god, your worshipping of pictures. 42 ad §. 24. as for universality of place, the want whereof you object to protestants as a mark of heresy: you have not set down clearly and univocally what you mean by it, whether universality of fact, or of right: and if of fact, whether absolute or comparative: and if comparative, whether of the church in comparison of any other religion, or only of heretical christians: or, if in comparison of these, whether in comparison of all other sects conjoined, or in comparison only of any one of them. nor have you proved it by any good argument in any sense to be a certain mark of heresy: for those places of s. austin do not deserve the name. and truly in my judgement you have done advisedly in proving it no better. for as for universality of right, or a right to universality, all religions claim it, but only the true has it; and which has it, cannot be determined, unless it be first determined which is the true. an absolute universality and diffusion through all the world if you should pretend to, all the world would laugh at you. if you should contend for latitude with any one religion, mahumetism would carry the victory from you. if you should oppose yourselves against all other christians besides you, it is certain you would be cast in this suit also. if lastly, being hard driven you should please yourselves with being more than any one sect of christians, it would presently be replied, that it is uncertain whether now you are so, but most certain that the time has been when you have not been so. then when the (a) hier. cont. luciferian●s. whole world wondered that it was become arrian: then when athanasius opposed the world, and the world athanasius: then when (b) in th●od. hist. l. 16. c. 2. your liberius having the contemptible paucity of his adherents objected to him as a note of error, answered for himself, there was a time when there were but three opposed the decree of the king, and yet those three were in the right, and the rest in the wrong: then when the professors of error surpassed the number of the professors of truth in proportion, as the sands of the sea, do the stars of the heaven. (as (c) in ep. 43 ad vincentium. s. austin acknowledgeth:) then when (d) come. torii. lib. 1. c. 4. vincentius confesseth, that the poison of the arrians had contaminated, not now some certain portion, but almost the whole world: then when the author of nazianzen's life testifies, that (e) in ●●ta nazianz. the heresy of arrius, 〈◊〉 possessed in a manner the whole extent of the world; and when nazianzen found cause to cry out, (f) in oars. arian. & pro seipso. where are they who reproach us with our poverty, who define the church by the multitude, and despise the little flock? they have the people, but we the faith. and lastly, when athanasius was so overborne with shoals and floods of arrians, that he was enforced to write a treatise on purpose (g) to. 2. against those, who judge of the truth only by plurality of adherents. so that if you had proved want of universality, even thus restrained, to be an infallible note of heresy, there would have been no remedy but you must have confessed, that the time was when you were heretics. and besides, i see not how you would have avoided this great inconvenience, of laying grounds and storing up arguments for antichrist, against he comes, by which he may prove his company the true church. for it is evident out of scripture, and confessed by you, that though his time be not long, his dominion shall be very large; and that the true church shall be then, the woman driven into the wilderness. 43 ad §. 25. & 26. the remainder of this chapter if i would deal strictly with you, i might let pass as impertinent to the question now disputed. for whereas your argument promises that this whole chapter shall be employed in proving luther and the protestants guilty of heresy, here you desert this question, and strike out into another accusation of them, that their faith even of the truth they hold, is not indeed true faith. but put case it were not, does it follow, that the having of this faith makes them heretics, or that they are therefore heretics because they have this faith? aristotle believed there were intelligences which moved the spheres; he believed this with an humane persuasion, and not with a certain, obscure, prudent, supernatural faith: and will you make aristotle an heretic, because he believed so? you believe there was such a man as julius caesar, that there is such a city as constantinople, and your belief hereof has not these qualifications which you require to divine faith: and will you be content that this shall pass for a sufficient proof that you are an heretic? heresy you have defined above to be a voluntary error: but he that believes truth, though his belief be not qualified according to your mind, yet sure in believing truth he believes no error; and from hence according to ordinary logic methinks it should follow, that such a man for doing so, cannot be guilty of heresy. 44 but you will say, though he be not guilty of heresy for believing these truths, yet if his faith be not saving, to what purpose will it be? truly very little to the purpose of salvation, as little as it is to your proving protestant's guilty of heresy. but out of our wont indulgence, let us pardon this fault also, and do you the favour to hear what you can say, to beget this faith in us, that indeed we have no faith, or at least not such a faith, without which it is impossible to please god. your discourse upon this point, you have, i know not upon what policy, disjointed, and given us the grounds of it in the beginning of the chapter, and the superstructure here in the end. them i have already examined, and for a great part of them, proved them vain and deceitful. i have showed by many certain arguments, that though the subject matter of our faith be in itself most certain, yet that absolute certainly of adherence, is not required to the essence of faith, no nor to make it acceptable with god, but that to both these effects it is sufficient, if it be firm enough to produce obedience and charity. i have showed besides, that prudence is rather commendable in faith, than and essential to it. so that whatsoever is here said, to prove the faith of protestants no faith, for want of certainty or for want of prudence, is already answered before it is objected: for the foundation being destroyed, the building cannot stand. yet for the fuller refutation of all pretences, i will here make good, that to prove our faith destitute of these qualifications, you have produced but vain sophisms, and for the most part, such arguments as return most violently upon yourselves. thus than you say. 45 first, that their belief wanteth certainty, i prove, because they denying the universal infallibility of the church, can have no certain ground to know what objects are revealed or testified by god. but if there be no other ground of certainty but your church's infallibility, upon what certain ground do you know that your church is infallible? upon what certain ground do you know all those things which must be known before you can know that your church is infallible? as, that there is a god: that god hath promised his assistance to your church in all her decrees: that the scripture wherein this promise is extant, is the word of god: that those texts of scripture which you allege for your infallibility, are incorrupted: that that which you pretend is the true fence of them? when you have produced certain grounds for all these things, i doubt not but it will appear, that we also may have grounds certain enough to believe our whole religion, which is nothing else but the bible, without dependence on the church's infallibility. suppose you should meet with a man that, for the present, believes neither church, nor scripture, nor god, but is ready and willing to believe them all, if you can show some sufficient grounds to build his faith upon; will you tell such a man, there are no certain grounds, by which he may be converted; or there are? if you say the first, you make all religion an uncertain thing: if the second; then either you must ridiculously persuade, that your church is infallible because it is infallible, or else that there are other certain grounds besides your church's infallibility. 46. but you proceed and tell us, that holy scripture is in itself most true and infallible, but without the direction and declaration of the church, we can neither have certain means to know what scripture is canonical, nor what translations be faithful, nor what is the true meaning of scripture. answ. but all these things must be known, before we can know the direction of your church to be infallible, for no other proof of it can be pretended, but only some texts of canonical scripture, truly interpreted: therefore either you are mistaken, in thinking there is no other means to know these things, but your churches infallible direction; or we are excluded from all means of knowing her direction to be infallible. 47 but protestants, though, as you suppose, they are persuaded their own opinions are true, and that they have used such means as are wont to be prescribed for understanding the scripture, as prayer, conferring of texts, etc. yet by their disagreement show, that some of them are deceived. now they hold all the articles of their faith, upon this only ground of scripture, interpreted by these rules, and therefore it is clear, that the ground of their faith is infallible in no point at all. the first of these suppositions must needs be true, but the second is apparently false: i mean, that every protestant is persuaded that he hath used those means which are prescribed for understanding of scripture. but that which you collect from these suppositions is clearly inconsequent: and by as good logic you might conclude, that logic and geometry stand upon no certain grounds, that the rules of the one, and the principles of the other do sometimes fail, because the disagreement of logicians and geometricians show, that some of them are deceived. might not a jew conclude as well against all christians, that they have no certain ground whereon to rely in their understanding of scripture, because their disagreements show that some are deceived; because some deduce from it the infallibility of a church, and others no such matter. so likewise a turk might use the same argument against both jews and christians, and an atheist against all religions, and a sceptic against all reason▪ might not one say, men's disagreement in religion, shows that there is no certainty in any; and the other, that experience of their contradictions teacheth, that the rules of reason do sometimes fail? do not you see and feel how void of reason and how full of impiety your sophistry is? and how, transported with zeal against protestants, you urge arguments against them, which if they could not be answered, would overthrow not only your own, but all religion? but god be thanked, the answer is easy and obvious! for let men but remember not to impute the faults of men but only to men, and then it will easily appear, that there may be sufficient certainty in reason, in religion, in the rules of interpreting scripture, though men through their faults, take not care to make use of them, and so run into divers errors and dissensions. 48. but protestants cannot determine what points be fundamental, and therefore must remain uncertain, whether or no they be not in some fundamental error. answ. by like reason since you acknowledge, that every error in points defined and declared by your church destroys the substance of faith, and yet cannot determine what points be defined, it followeth that you must remain uncertain, whether or no you be not in some fundamental error, and so want the substance of faith, without which there can be no hope of salvation. now that you are uncertain what points are defined, appears from your own words, c. 4. §. 3. of your second part, where, say you, no less impertinent is your discourse concerning the difficulty to know what is heresy: for we grant that it is not always easy to determine in particular occasions, whether this or that doctrine be such, because it may be doubtful, whether it be against any scripture, or divine tradition, or definition of the church. neither were it difficult to extort from you this confession, by naming divers points, which some of you say are defined, others the contrary. and others hang in suspense, and know not what to determine. but this i have done elsewhere: as also i have showed plainly enough that though we cannot perhaps say in particular, thus much, and no more is fundamental, yet believing all the bible, we are certain enough that we believe all that is fundamental. as he that, in a receipt, takes twenty ingredients, whereof ten only are necessary, though he know not which those ten are, yet taking the whole twenty he is sure enough that he has taken all that are necessary. 49. ad §. 29. but that he who erreth against any one revealed truth loseth all divine faith, is a very true doctrine delivered by catholic divines, (you mean your own) with so general a consent, that the contrary is wont to be censured as temerarious: now certainly some protestants must do so, because they hold contradictions which cannot all be true: therefore some of them at least, have no divine faith. answ. i pass by your weakness, in urging protestants with the authority of your divines, which yet in you might very deservedly be censured. for when d. potter, to show the many actual dissensions between the romish doctors, notwithstanding their brags of potential unity, refers to pappus, who has collected out of bellar. their contradictions, and set them down in his own words to the number of 237. and to flacius, de sectis & controversiis religionis papisticae; you making the very same use of m. breerely against protestants, yet jeer and scorn d. potter, as if he offered you for a proof, the bare authority of pappus and flacius, and tell him, which is all the answer you vouchsafe him, it is pretty that he brings pappus and flacius, flat heretics, to prove your many contradictions: as if he had proved this with the bare authority, the bare judgement of these men, which sure he does not, but with the formal words of bellarmine faithfully collected by pappus. and why then might not we say to you, is it not pretty that you bring breerely as flat an heretic as pappus or flacius, to prove the contradictions of protestants? yet had he been so vain as to press you with the mere authority of protestant divines in any point, methinks, for your own sake, you should have pardoned him, who here and in many other places, urge us with the judgement of your divines as with weighty arguments. yet if the authority of your divines were even canonical, certainly nothing could be concluded from it in this matter, there being not one of them, who delivers for true doctrine this position of yours, thus nakedly set down, that any error against any one revealed truth destroys all divine faith. for they all require, (not yourself excepted) that this truth must not only be revealed, but revealed publicly, and (all things considered) sufficiently propounded to the erring party, to be one of those, which god under pain of damnation commands all men to believe. and therefore the contradiction of protestants, (though this vain doctrine of your divines were supposed true) is but a weak argument▪ that any of them have no divine faith seeing you neither have, nor ever can prove, (without begging the question of your church's infallibility,) that the truths about which they differ, are of this quality and condition. but though out of courtesy we may suppose this doctrine true, yet we have no reason to grant it, nor to think it any thing but a vain and groundless fancy: and that this very weak and inartificial argument, from the authority of your divines, is the strongest pillar which it hath to support it. two reasons you allege for it out of thomas aquinas, the first whereof vainly supposeth against reason and experience, that by the commission of any deadly sin, the habit of charity is quite exstirpated. and for the second, though you cry it up for an achilles, and think, like the gorgon's head, it will turn us all into stone, and in confidence of it, insult upon doctor potter as if he durst not come near it, yet in very truth having considered it well, i find it a serious, grave, prolix, and profound nothing. i could answer it in a word, by telling you, that it begs without all proof or colour of proof, the main question between us, that the infallibility of your church is either the formal motive, or rule, or a necessary condition of faith: which you know we flatly deny, and therefore all that is built upon it has nothing but wind for a foundation. but to this answer i will add a large consutation of this vain fancy, out of one of the most rational and profound doctors of your own church, i mean essius, who upon the third of the sent. the 23. dist. the 13. §. writes thus, it is disputed (saith he) whether in him who believes some of the articles of our faith, and disbelieves others, or perhaps some one, there be faith properly so called in respect of that which he does believe? in which question we must before all, carefully distinguish between those, who retaining a general readiness to believe whatsoever the church believes, yet err by ignorance in some doctrine of faith, because it is not as yet sufficiently declared to them that the church does so believe; and those who after sufficient manifestation of the church's doctrine, do yet choose to descent from it, either by doubting of it, or affirming the contrary. for of the former the answer is easy; but of these, that is, of heretics retaining some part of wholesome doctrine, the question is more difficult, and on both sides by the doctors probably disputed. for that there is in them true faith of the articles wherein they do not err, first experience seems to convince: for many at this day denying, for example sake, purgatory or invocation of saints, nevertheless firmly hold, as by divine revelation, that god is three and one, that the son of god was incarnate and suffered, and other like things. as anciently the novatians, excepting their peculiar error, of denying reconciliation to those that fell in persecution, held other things in common with catholics: so that they assisted them very much against the arrians, as socrates relates in his eccl. hist. moreover the same is proved by the example of the apostles, who in the time of christ's passion being scandalised, lost their faith in him: as also, christ after his resurrection upbraids them with their incredulity, and calls thomas incredulous, for denying the resurrection, john 20. whereupon s. austin also in his preface upon the 96 psalm saith, that after the resurrection of christ, the faith of those that fell was restored again. and yet we must not say, that the apostles then lost the faith of the trinity, of the creation of the world, of eternal life, and such like other articles. besides, the jews before christ's coming, held the faith of one god the creator of heaven and earth: who although they lost the true faith of the messiah by not receiving christ; yet we cannot say, that they lost the faith of one god, but still retained this article as firmly as they did before. add hereunto, that neither jews nor heretics seem to lie, in saying, they believe either the books of the prophets, or the four gospels: it being apparent enough, that they acknowledge in them divine authority, though they hold not the true sense of them, to which purpose is that in the acts, chap. 20. believest thou the propheiss? i know that thou believest. lastly, it is manifest, that many gifts of god, are found even in bad men, and such as are out of the church; therefore nothing hinders but that jews and heretics, though they err in many things, yet in other things may be so divinely illuminated as to believe aright. so s. austin seems to teach in his book de unico baptismo contra petilianum c. 3. in these words: when a jew comes to us to be made a christian, we destroy not in him god's good things, but his own ill. that he believes, one god is to be worshipped, that he hopes for eternal life, that he doubts not of the resurrection we approve and commend him: we acknowledge, that as he did believe these things, so he is still to believe them; and as he did hold, so he is still to hold them. thus he: subjoyning more to the same purpose in the next, and again in the 26 chapter, and in his third book, de bapt. contr. donat. cap. ult. and upon psal. 64. but now this reason seems to persuade the contrary: because the formal object of faith seems to be the first verity, as it is manifested by the church's doctrine as the divine and infallible rule; wherefore, whosoever adheres not to this rule, although he assent to some matters of faith, yet he embraces them not with faith, but with some other kind of assent: as if a man assent to a conclusion, not knowing the reason by which it is demonstrated, he hath not true knowledge, but an opinion only of the same conclusion. now that an heretic adheres not to the rule aforesaid, it is manifest: because if he did adhere to it, as divine and infallible, he would receive all without exception, which the church teacheth, and so would not be an heretic. after this manner discourseth saint thom. 2.2. q. 5. art. 3. from whom yet durand dissents upon this distinction, thinking there may be in an heretic true faith, in respect of the article in which he doth not err. others, as scotus and bonaventure, define not the matter plainly, but seem to choose a middle way. to the authority of s. austin and these schoolmen, this may be adjoined, that it is usual with good christians to say, that heretics have not the entire faith. whereby it seems to be intimated, that some part of it they do retain. whereof this may be another reason: that if the truths which a jew or a heretic holds, be should not hold 〈◊〉 by faith, but after some other manner, to wit, by his own proper will and judgement, it will follow, that all the excellent knowledge of god and divine things, which is found in them, is to be attributed not to the grace of god, but the strength of : which is against s. austin, both elsewhere, and especially in the end of his book de potentia. as for the reason alleged to the contrary, we answer: it is impertinent to faith, by what means we believe the prime verity, that is by what means god useth to confer upon men the gift of faith. for although now the ordinary means be the testimony and teaching of the church, yet it is certain that by other means, faith hath been given heretofore and is given still. for many of the ancients, as adam, abraham, melchisedeck, job, received faith by special revelation; the apostles by the miracles and preaching of christ; others again by the preaching and miracles of the apostles; and lastly others, by other means, when as yet they had heard nothing of the infallibility of the church. to little children by baptism, without any other help, faith is infused: and therefore it is possible, that a man not adhering to the church's doctrine as a rule infallible, yet may receive some things for the word of god, which do indeed truly belong to the faith, either because they are now, or heretofore have been confirmed by miracles; or because he manifestly sees that the ancient church taught so; or upon some other inducement. and yet nevertheless we must not say, that heretics and jews do hold the faith, but only some part of the faith. for the faith signifies an entire thing, and complete in all parts; whereupon an heretic is said to be simply an infidel, to have lost the faith, and, according to the apostle, 1 tim. 1. to have made shipwreck of it, although he holds some things, with the same strength of assent and readiness of will, wherewith by others are held all those points which appertain to the faith. and thus fare aestius. whose discourse i presume may pass for a sufficient refutation of your argument out of aquinas. and therefore your corollaries drawn from it, that every error aqainst faith, involves opposition against god's testimony, that protestants have no faith, no certainty, and that you have all faith, must together with it fall to the ground. 50. but, if protestants have certainty, they want obscurity, and so have not that faith, which as the apostle saith is of things not appearing. this argument you prosecute in the next paragraph; but i can find nothing in it, to convince or persuade me that protestants cannot have as much certainty as is required to faith, of an object not so evident as to beget science. if obscurity will not consist with certainty in the highest degree, than you are to blame for requiring to faith contradicting conditions. if certainty and obscurity will stand together, what reason can be imagined that a protestant may not entertain them both as well as a papist? your bodies and souls, your understandings and wills are, i think, of the same condition with ours: and why then may not we be certain of an obscure thing as well as you? and as you make this long discourse against protestants, why may not we putting church instead of scripture, send it back again to you? and say; if papists have certainty, they want obscurity, and so have not that faith, which, as the apostle saith, is of things not appearing, or not necessitating our understanding to an assent? for the whole edifice of the faith of papists is settled on these two principles, these particular propositions are the propositions of the church, and the sense and meaning of them is clear and evident, at least in all points necessary to salvation. now these principles being once supposed, it clearly followeth, that what papists believe as necessary to salvation is evidently known by them to be true, by this argument; it is certain and evident, that whatsoever is the word of god or divine revelation is true; but it is certain and evident that these propositions of the church in particular are the word of god and divine revelations; therefore it is certain and evident, that all propositions of the church are true; which conclusion i take for a major in a second argument, and say thus; it is certain and evident that all propositions of the church are true; but it is certain and evident, that such particulars, for example, the lawfulness of the half communion, the lawfulness and expedience of latin service, the doctrine of transubstantiation, indulgences, etc. are the propositions of the church; therefore it is certain and evident that these particular objects are true. neither will it avail you to say, that the said principles are not evident by natural discourse, but only by the eye of reason cleared by grace: for supernatural evidence, no less (yea rather more) drowns and excludes obscurity, than natural evidence doth. neither can the party so enlightened, be said voluntarily to captivate his understanding to that light, but rather his understanding is by necessity made captive and forced not to disbelieve what is presented by so clear a light. and therefore your imaginary faith is not the true faith defined by the apostle, but an invention of your own. and having thus cried quittance with you, i must entreat you to devise (for truly i cannot) some answer to this argument, which will not serve in proportion to your own. for i hope you will not pretend that i have done you injury, in settling your faith upon principles which you disclaim. and if you allege this disparity, that you are more certain of your principles than we of ours, and yet you do not pretend that your principles are so evident, as we do ●hat ours are: what is this to say, but that you are more confident than we, but confess you have less reason for it? for the evidence of the thing assented to, be it more or less, is the reason and cause of the assent in the understanding. but then besides, i am to tell you, that you are here, as every where extremely, if not affectedly, mistaken in the doctrine of protestants; who though they acknowledge, that the things which they believe are in themselves as certain as any demonstrable or sensible verities, yet pretend not that their certainty of adherence is most perfect and absolute, but such as may be perfected and increased as long as they walk by faith and not by sight. and consonant hereunto is their doctrine touching the evidence of the objects whereunto they adhere. for you abuse the world and them, if you pretend that they hold the first of your two principles, that these particular books are the word of god, (for so i think you mean) either to be in itself evidently certain, or of itself, and being devested of the motives of credibility, evidently credible: for they are not so fond as to conceive, nor so vain as to pretend, that all men do assent to it, which they would if it were evidently certain; nor so ridiculous as to imagine, that if an indian that never heard of christ or scripture, should by chance find a bible in his own language, and were able to read it, that upon the reading it, he would certainly without a miracle believe it to be the word of god: which he could not choose if it were evidently credible. what then do they affirm of it? certainly, no more than this, that whatsoever man that is not of a perverse mind, shall weigh with serious and mature deliberation, those great moments of reason which may incline him to believe the divine authority of scripture, and compare them with the leight objections, that in prudence can be made against it, he shall not choose but find sufficient, nay abundant inducements, to yield unto it firm faith and sincere obedience. let that learned man hugo grotius speak for all the rest, in his book of the truth of christian religion; which book whosoever attentively peruses, shall find that a man may have great reason to be a christian without dependence upon your church for any part of it: and that your religion is no foundation of, but rather a scandal and an objection against, christianity. he then in the last chapter of his second book hath these excellent words, if any be not satisfied with these arguments abovesaid, but desires more forcible reasons for confirmation of the excellency of christian religion, let such know that as there are variety of things which be true, so are there divers ways of proving or manifesting the truth. thus is there one way in mathematics, another in physics, a third in ethics, and lastly another kind when a matter of fact is in question: wherein verily we must rest content with such testimonies as are free from all suspicion of untruth; otherwise down goes all the frame and use of history, and a great part of the art of physic, together with all dutifulness that ought to be between parents and children: for matters of practice can no way else be known but by such testimonies. now it is the pleasure of almighty god that those things which he would have us to believe (so that the very belief thereof may be imputed to us for obedience) should not so evidently appear, as those things which are apprehended by sense and plain demonstration, but only be so fare forth revealed as may beget faith, and a persuasion thereof, in the hearts and minds of such as are not obstinate: that so the gospel may be as a touchstone for trial of men's judgements, whether they be sound or unsound. for, seeing these arguments whereof we have spoken, have induced so many honest, godly, and wise men to approve of this religion, it is thereby plain enough that the fault of other men's infidelity is not for want of sufficient testimony, but because they would not have that to be had and embraced for truth, which is contrary to their wilful desires; it being a hard matter for them to relinquish their honours, and set at naught other commodities; which thing they know they ought to do, if they admit of christ's doctrine and obey what he hath commanded. and this is the rather to be noted of them, for that many other historical narrations are approved by them to be true, which notwithstanding are only manifest by authority, and not by any such strong proofs, and persuasions, or tokens, as do declare the history of christ to be true. 52. and now you see, i hope, that protestants neither do need nor protend to any such evidence in the doctrine they believe, as cannot well consist both with the essence and the obedience of faith. let us come now to the last nullity which you impute to the faith of protestants, and that is, want of prudence. touching which point, as i have already demonstrated, that wisdom is not essential to faith, but that a man may truly believe truth, though upon insufficient motives; so i doubt not but i shall make good, that if prudence were necessary to faith, we have better title to it than you; and that if a wiser than solomon were here, he should have better reason to believe the religion of protestants than papists, the bible rather than the council of trent. but let us hear what you can say! 53. ad § 31. you demand then first of all, what wisdom was it to forsake a church confessedly very ancient, and besides which there could be demonstrated no other visible church of christ upon earth? i answer: against god and truth there lies no prescription, and therefore certainly it might be great wisdom to forsake ancient errors for more ancient truths. one god is rather to be followed then innumerable worlds of men: and therefore it might be great wisdom either for the whole visible church, nay for all the men in the world, having wandered from the way of truth, to return unto it; or for a part of it, nay for one man to do so, although all the world besides were madly resolute to do the contrary. it might be great wisdom to forsake the errors though of the only visible church, much more of the roman, which in conceiving herself the whole visible church, does somewhat like the frog in the fable, which thought the ditch he lived in, to be all the world. 54. you demand again what wisdom was it to forsake a church acknowledged to want nothing necessary to salvation, endued with succession of bishops, etc. usque ad election or choice? i answer: yet might it be great wisdom to forsake a church not acknowledged to want nothing necessary to salvation, but accused and convicted of many damnable errors: certainly damnable to them who were convicted of them, had they still persisted in them after their conviction; though perhaps pardonable (which is all that is acknowledged) to such as ignorantly continued in them. a church vainly arrogating, without possibility of proof, a perpetual succession of bishops, holding always the same doctrine; and with a ridiculous impudence pretending perpetual possession of all the world: whereas the world knows, that a little before luther's arising, your church was confined to a part of a part of it. lastly a church vainly glorying in the dependence of other churches upon her, which yet she supports no more than those crouching antics which seem in great buildings to labour under the weight they bear, do indeed support the fabric. for a corrupted and self church may give authority to preach the truth, and consequently against her own falsehoods and corruptions. besides, a false church may preserve the scripture trure, (as now the old testament is preserved by the jews,) either not being arrived to that height of impiety as to attempt the corruption of it, or not able to effect it, or not perceiving, or not regarding the opposition of it to her corruptions. and so we might receive from you lawful ordination and true scriptures, though you were a false church; and receiving the scriptures from you (though not from you alone,) i hope you cannot hinder us, neither need we ask your leave, to believe and obey them. and this, though you be a false church, is enough to make us a true one. as for a succession of men that held with us in all points of doctrine, it is a thing we need not, and you have as little as we. so that if we acknowledge that your church before luther was a true church, it is not for any ends, for any dependence that we have upon you; but because we conceive that in a charitable construction, you may pass for a true church. such a church (and no better) as you do sometimes acknowledge protestants to be, that is, a company of men, wherein some ignorant souls may be saved. so that in this balancing of religion against religion, and church against church, it seems you have nothing of weight and moment to put into your scale; nothing but smoke and wind, vain shadows and fantastical pretences. yet if protestants, on the other side, had nothing to put in their scale but those negative commendations which you are pleased to afford them; nothing but, no unity, nor means to procure it; no farther extent when luther arose than luther's body; no universality of time or place; no visibility or being, except only in your church; no succession of persons or doctrine; no leader but luther, in a quarrel begun upon no ground but passion; no church, no ordination, no scriptures but such as they received from you; if all this were true, and this were all that could be pleaded for protestants, possibly with an allowance of three grains of partiality your scale might seem to turn. but then, if it may appear that part of these objections are falsely made against them, the rest vainly; that whatsoever of truth is in these imputations, is impertinent to this trial, and whatsoever is pertinent is untrue; and besides, that plenty of good matter may be alleged for protestants which is here dissembled: then, i hope, our cause may be good, notwithstanding these pretences. 55. i say then that want of universality of time and place, the invisibility or not existence of the professors of protestant doctrine before luther, luther's being alone when he first opposed your church, our having our church, ordination, scriptures, personal and yet not doctrinal succession from you, are vain and impertinent allegations, against the truth of our doctrine and church. that the entire truth of christ without any mixture of error should be professed or believed in all places at any time, or in any place at all times, is not a thing evident in reason, neither have we any revelation for it. and therefore in relying so confidently on it, you build your house upon the sand. and what obligation we had either to be so peevish, as to take nothing of yours, or so foolish as to take all, i do not understand. for whereas you say that this is to be choosers and therefore heretics, i tell you that though all heretics are choosers, yet all choosers are not heretics; otherwise they also, which choose your religion must be heretics. as for our wanting unity and means of proving it, luther 's opposing your church upon mere passion, our following private men rather than the catholic church, the first and last are mere untruths, for we want not unity, nor means to procure it, in things necessary. plain places of scripture, and such as need no interpreter, are our means to obtain it. neither do we follow any private men, but only the scripture, the word of god as our rule; and reason, which is also the gift of god, given to direct us in all our actions, in the use of this rule. and then for luther's opposing your church upon mere passion, it is a thing i will not deny, because i know not his heart, and for the same reason you should not have affirmed it. sure i am, whether he opposed your church upon reason or no, he had reason enough to oppose it. and therefore if he did it upon passion, we will follow him only in his action and not in his passion; in his opposition, not in the manner of it; and then i presume you will have no reason to condemn us, unless you will say that a good action cannot be done with reason, because some body before us hath done it upon passion. you see then, how imprudent you have been in the choice of your arguments, to prove protestants unwise in the choice of their religion. 56. it remains now, that i should show that many reasons of moment may be alleged for the justification of protestants, which are dissembled by you, and not put into the balance. know then sir, that when i say, the religion of protestants, is in prudence to be preferred before yours: as, on the one side i do not understand by your religion, the doctrine of bellarmin or baronius, or any other private man amongst you, nor the doctrine of the sorbon, or of the jesuits, or of the dominicans, or of any other particular company among you, but that wherein you all agree, or profess to agree, the doctrine of the council of trent: so accordingly on the other side, by the religion of protestants, i do not understand the doctrine of luther, or calvin, or melancthon; nor the confession of augusta, or geneva, nor the catechism of heidelberg, nor the articles of the church of england, no nor the harmony of protestant confessions; but that wherein they all agree, and which they all subscribe with a greater harmony, as a perfect rule of their faith and actions, that is, the bible. the bible, i say, the bible only, is the religion of protestants! whatsoever else they believe, besides it, and the plain, irrefragable, indubitable consequences of of it, well may they hold it as a matter of opinion; but as matter of faith and religion, neither can they with coherence to their own grounds, believe it themselves, nor require the belief of it of others, without most high and most schismatical presumption. i for my part after a long and (as i verily believe and hope) impartial search of the true way to eternal happiness, do profess plainly that i cannot find any rest for the sole of my foot, but upon this rock only. i see plainly and with mine own eyes, that there are popes against popes, counsels against counsels, some fathers against others, the same fathers against themselves, a consent of fathers of one age against a consent of fathers of another age, the church of one age against the church of another age. traditive interpretations of scripture are pretended, but there are few or none to be found: no tradition but only of scripture, can derive itself from the fountain, but may be plainly proved, either to have been brought in, in such an age after christ; or that in such an age, it was not in. in a word, there is no sufficient certainty but of scripture only, for any considering man to build upon. this therefore, and this only i have reason to believe: this i will profess, according to this i will live, and for this, if there be occasion, i will not only willingly, but even gladly lose my life, though i should be sorry that christians should take it from me. propose me any thing out of this book, and require whether i believe or no, and, seem it never so incomprehensible to human reason, i will subscribe it with hand and heart, as knowing no demonstration can be stronger than this, god hath said so therefore it is true. in other things, i will take no man's liberty of judgement from him; neither shall any man take mine from me. i will think no man the worse man, nor the worse christian: i will love no man the less, for differing in opinion from me. and what measure i meet to others, i expect from them again. i am fully assured that god does not, and therefore that men ought not to require any more of any man than this, to believe the scripture to be god's word, to endeavour to find the true sense of it, and to live according to it. 57 this is the religion which i have chosen after a long deliberation, and i am verily persuaded that i have chosen wisely, much more wisely than if i had guided myself according to your church's authority. for the scripture being all true, i am secured by believing nothing else, that i shall believe no falsehood as matter of faith. and if i mistake the sense of scripture, and so fall into error, yet am i secure from any danger thereby, if but your grounds be true: because endeavouring to find the true sense of scripture, i cannot but hold my error without pertinacy, and be ready to forsake it when a more true and a more probable sense shall appear unto me. and then all necessary truth being, as i have proved, plainly set down in scripture, i am certain by believing scripture, to believe all necessary truth: and he that does so, if his life be answerable to his faith, how is it possible he should said of salvation? 58. besides, whatsoever may be pretended to gain to your church the credit of a guide, all that and much more may be said for the scripture. hath your church been ancient? the scripture is more ancient. is your church a means to keep men at unity? so is the scripture, to keep those that believe it and will obey it, in unity of belief, in matters necessary, or very profitable; and in unity of charity, in points unnecessary. is your church universal for time or place? certainly the scripture is more universal. for all the christians in the world (those i mean that in truth deserve this name,) do now, and always have believed the scripture to be the word of god, so much of it at least, as contains all things necessary; whereas only you say, that you only are the church of god, and all christians besides you deny it. 59 thirdly, following the scripture, i follow that whereby you prove your church's infallibility, (whereof were it not for scripture what pretence could you have, or what notion could we have?) and by so doing tacitly confess, that yourselves are surer of the truth of the scripture than of your church's authority. for we must be surer of the proof than of the thing proved, otherwise it is no proof. 60, fourthly, following the scripture, i follow that which must be true if your church be true: for your church gives attestation to it. whereas if i follow your church, i must follow that which, though scripture be true, may be false; nay which, if scripture be true, must be false, because the scripture testifies against it. 61. fifthly, to follow the scripture i have god's express warrant and command, and no colour of any prohibition: but to believe your church infallible, i have no command at all, much less an express command. nay i have reason to fear that i am prohibited to do so in these words: call no man master on earth: they fell by infidelity, thou standest by faith, be not high minded but fear: the spirit of truth the world cannot receive. 62. following your church i must hold many things not only above reason but against it; if any thing be against it: whereas following the scripture i shall believe many mysteries but no impossibilities; many things above reason, but nothing against it; many things which had they not been revealed, reason could never have discovered, but nothing which by true reason may be confuted: many things which reason cannot comprehend how they can be, but nothing which reason can comprehend that it cannot be. nay i shall believe nothing which reason will not convince that i ought to believe it: for reason will convince any man, unless he be of a perverse mind, that the scripture is the word of god: and then no reason can be greater than this; god says so, therefore it is true. 63. following your church i must hold many things which to any man's judgement, that will give himself the liberty of judgement, will seem much more plainly contradicted by scripture, than the infalliblity of your church appears to be confirmed by it: and consequently must be so foolish, as to believe your church exempted from error, upon less evidence, rather than subject to the common condition of mankind, upon greater evidence. now if i take the scripture only for my guide, i shall not need to do any thing so unreasonable. 64. if i will follow your church i must believe impossibilities, and that with an absolute certainty, upon motives which are confessed to be but only prudential and probable: that is with a weak foundation i must firmly support a heavy, a monstrous heavy building: now following the scripture i shall have no necessity to undergo any such difficulties. 65. following your church i must be servant of christ and a subject of the king, but only ad placitum papae. i must be prepared in mind to renounce my allegiance to the king, when the pope shall declare him an heretic and command me not to obey him: and i must be prepared in mind to esteem virtue vice, and vice virtue, if the pope shall so determine. indeed you say it is impossible he should do the later; but that you know is a great question, neither is it fit my obedience to god and the king should depend upon a questionable foundation. and howsoever, you must grant that if, by an impossible supposition, the pope's commands should be contrary to the law of christ, that they of your religion must resolve to obey, rather the commands of the pope, than the law of christ,. whereas if i follow the scripture, i may, nay i must, obey my sovereign in lawful things, though an heretic, though a tyrant; and though, i do not say the pope, but the apostles themselves, nay an angel from heaven, should teach any thing against the gospel of christ, i may, nay i must denounce anathema to him. 66. following the scripture i shall believe a religion, which being contrary to flesh and blood, without any assistance from worldly power, wit, or policy, nay against all the power and policy of the world, prevailed and enlarged itself in a very short time all the world over; whereas it is too too apparent, that your church hath got and still maintains her authority over men's conscience, by counterfeiting false miracles, forging false stories, by obtruding on the world supposititions writings, by corrupting the monuments of former times, and defacing out of them all which any way makes against you, by wars, by persecutions, by massacres, by treasons, by rebellions; in short, by all manner of carnal means whether violent or fraudulent. 67. following the scripture i shall believe a religion, the first preachers and professors whereof, it is most certain, they could have no worldly ends upon the world, that they should not project to themselves by it any of the profits or honours or pleasures of this world; but rather were to expect the contrary, even all the miseries which the world could lay upon them. on the other side, the head of your church, the pretended successor of the apostles, and guide of faith, it is even palpable, that he makes your religion the instrument of his ambition, and by it seeks to entitle himself directly or indirectly to the monarchy of the world. and besides, it is evident to any man that has but half an eye, that most of those doctrines which you add to the scripture do make one way or other, for the honour or temporal profit of the teachers of them. 68 following the scripture only, i shall embrace a religion of admirable simplicity consisting in a manner wholly in the worship of god in spirit and truth. whereas your church and doctrine is even loaded with an infinity of weak, childish, ridiculous, unsavoury superstitions and ceremonies, and full of that righteousness for which christ shall judge the world. 69. following the scriptures i shall believe that which universal, never-failing tradition assures me, that it was by the admittable supernatural works of god confirmed to be the word of god: whereas never any miracle was wrought, never so much as a lame horse cured in confirmation of your church's authority and infallibility. and if any strange things have been done, which may seem to give attestation to some parts of your doctrine, yet this proves nothing but the truth of the scripture, which foretold that (god's providence permitting it, and the wickedness of the world deserving it) strange signs and wonders should be wrought to confirm false doctrine, that they which love not the truth, may be given over to strong delusions. neither does it seem to me any strange thing, that god should permit some true wonders to be done, to delude them, who have forged so many to deceive the world. 70. if i follow the scripture, i must not promise myself salvation without effectual dereliction and mortification of all vices, and the effectual practice of all christian virtues: but your church opens an easier and a broader way to heaven, and though i continve all my life long in a course of sin, and without the practice of any virtue, yet gives me assurance that i may be into heaven at a postern gate, even by an act of attrition at the hour of death, if it be joined with confession, or by an act of contrition without confession. 71. admirable are the precepts of piety and humility, of innocence and patience, of liberality, frugality, temperance, sobriety, justice, meekness, fortitude, constancy and gravity, contempt of the world, love of god and the love of mankind; in a word, of all virtues, and against all vice, which the scriptures impose upon us, to be obeyed under pain of damnation: the sum whereof is in manner comprised in our saviour's sermon upon the mount, recorded in the 5.6. and 7. of s. matthew, which if they were generally obeyed, could not but make the world generally happy, and the goodness of them alone were sufficient to make any wise and good man believe that this religion rather than any other, came from god the fountain of all goodness. and that they may be generally obeyed our saviour hath ratified them all in the close of his sermon, with these universal sanctions, not every one that sayeth lord, lord, shall enter into the kingdom, but he that doth the will of my father which is in heaven: and again, whosoever heareth these say of mine and doth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man which built his house upon the sand, and the rain descended, and the flood came, and the winds blue, and it fell, and great was the fall thereof. now your church, notwithstanding all this, enervates and in a manner dissolves and abrogates many of these precepts, teaching men that they are not laws for all christians, but counsels of perfection and matters of supererogation: that a man shall do well if he do observe them, but he shall not sin if he observe them not; that they are for them who aim at high places in heaven, who aspire with the two sons of zebede, to the right hand or to the left hand of christ: but if a man will be content barely to go to heaven, and to be a doorkeeper in the house of god, especially if he will be content to taste of purgatory in the way, he may obtain it at an easier purchase. therefore the religion of your church is not so holy nor so good as the doctrine of christ delivered in scripture, and therefore not so likely to come from the fountain of holiness and goodness. 72. lastly, if i follow your church for my guide, i shall do all one, as if i should follow a company of blind men in a judgement of colours, or in the choice of a way. for every unconsidering man is blind in that which he does not consider. now what is your church but a company of unconsidering men, who comfort themselves, because they are a great company together; but all of them, either out of idleness, refuse the trouble of a fevere trial of their religion, (as if heaven were not worth it); or out of superstition, fear the event of such a trial, that they may be scrupled and staggered and disquieted by it; and therefore, for the most part do it not at all, or if they do it, they do it negligently, and hypocritically, and perfunctorily, rather for the satisfaction of others than themselves: but certainly without indifference, without liberty of judgement, without a resolution to doubt of it, if upon examination the grounds of it prove uncertain, or to leave it, if they prove apparently false. my own experience assures me, that in this imputation i do you no injury: but it is very apparent to all men from your ranking doubting of any part of your doctrine, among mortal sins. for from hence it follows, that seeing every man must resolve that he will never commit mortal sin, that he must never examine the grounds of it at all, for fear he should be moved to doubt: or if he do, he must resolve that no motives, be they never so strong, shall move him to doubt, but that with his will and resolution he will uphold himself in a firm belief of your religion, though his reason and his understanding fail him. and seeing this is the condition of all those whom you esteem good catholics; who can deny, but you are a company of men unwilling and afraid to understand, lest you should do good! that have eyes to see and will not see, that have not the love of truth (which is only to be known by an indifferent trial,) and therefore deserve to be given over to strong delusions; men that love darkness more than light: in a word, that you are the blind leading the blind; and what prudence, there can be, in following such guides, our saviour hath taught us in saying, if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch. 73. there remains unspoken to in this section, some places out of s. austin, and some say of luther wherein he confesses that in the papacy are many good things. but the former i have already considered, and returned the argument grounded on them. as for luther's speeches, i told you, not long since, that we follow no private men, and regard not much what he says either against the church of rome, or for it, but what he proves. he was a man of a vehement spirit, and very often what he took in hand, he did not do it but it. he that will justify all his speeches, especially such as he wrote in heat of opposition, i believe will have work enough. yet in these sentences, though he overreach in the particulars, yet what he says in general we confess true, and confess with him that in the papacy are many good things, which have come from them to us; but withal we say there are many bad, neither do we think ourselves bound in prudence either to reject the good with the bad, or to retain the bad with the good, but rather conceive it a high point of wisdom, to separate between the precious and the vile, to sever the good from the bad, and to put the good in vessels to be kept, and to cast the bad away; to try all things, and to hold that which is good. 74. ad §. 32. your next and last argument against the faith of protestants is, because wanting certainty and prudence, it must also want the fourth condition, supernaturality. for that being a humane persuasion, it is not in the essence of it supernatural: and being imprudent and rash, it cannot proceed from divine motion, and so is not supernatural in respect of the cause from which it proceedeth. ans. this little discourse stands wholly upon what went before, and therefore must fall together with it. i have proved the faith of protestants as certain, and as prudent as the faith of papists; and therefore if these be certain grounds of supernaturality, our faith may have it as well as yours. i would here furthermore be informed how you can assure us that your faith is not your persuasion or opinion (for you make them all one) that your church's doctrine is true? or if you grant it your persuasion, why is it not the persuasion of men, and, in respect of the subject of it, an humane persuasion? i desire also to know, what sense there is in pretending that your persuasion is, not in regard of the object only and cause of it, but in the nature or essence of it, supernatural? lastly, whereas you say, that being imprudent it cannot come from divine motion: certainly by this reason all they that believe your own religion, and cannot give a wise and sufficient reason for it, (as millions amongst you cannot) must be condemned to have no supernatural faith: or if not, then without question nothing can hinder, but that the imprudent faith of protestants may proceed from divine motion, as well as the imprudent faith of papists. 75. and thus having weighed your whole discourse, and found it altogether lighter than vanity, why should i not invert your conclusion, and say, seeing you have not proved that whosoever errs against any one point of faith loseth all divine faith: nor that any error whatsoever concerning that which by the parties litigant may be esteemed a matter of faith, is a grievous sin, it follows not at all, that when two men hold different doctrines concerning religion, that but one can be saved? not that i deny, but that the sentence of saint chrysostom with which you conclude this chapter may in a good sense, be true: for oftimes by the faith is meant only that doctrine which is necessary to salvation, and to say that salvation may be had without any the least thing which is necessary to salvation, implies a repugnance and destroys itself. besides, not to believe all necessary points, and to believe none at all, is for the purpose of salvation, all one; and therefore he that does so, may justly be said to destroy the gospel of christ, seeing he makes it uneffectual to the end for which it was intended, the salvation of men's souls. but why you should conceive that all differences about religion are concerning matters of faith, in this high notion of the word, for that i conceive no reason. chap. vii. in regard of the precept of charity towards ones self, protestants are in state of sin, as long as they remain separated from the roman-church. that, due order is to be observed in the theological virtue of charity, whereby we are directed to prefer some objects before others, is a truth taught by all divines, and declared in these words of holy scripture: he hath ordered (a) cant. 2, 4, charity in me. the reason whereof is, because the infinite goodness of god, which is the formal object, or motive of charity, and for which all other things are loved, is differently participated by different objects; and therefore the love we bear to them for god's sake, must accordingly be unequal. in the virtue of faith, the case is far otherwise; because all the objects, or points which we believe, do equally participate the divine testimony or revelation, for which we believe alike all things propounded for such. for it is as impossible for god, to speak an untruth in a small, as in a great matter. and this is the ground for which we have so often affirmed, that any least error against faith, is in jurious to god and destructive of salvation. 2. this order in charity may be considered; towards god; our own soul; the soul of our neighbour; our own life, or goods; and the life or goods of our nighbour. god is to be beloved above all things, both objectiuè (as the divines speak) that is, we must with or desire to god, a good more great, perfect and noble than to any, ●or all other things: namely, all that indeed he is, a nature infinite, independent, immense etc. and also appretiatiuè, that is, we must sooner lose what good soever, than leave, and abandon him. in the other objects of charity, of which i spoke, this order is to be kept. we may but are not bound, to prefer the life and goods of neighbour before our own: we are bound to prefer the soul of our neighbour before our own temporal goods or life, if he happen to be in extreme spiritual necessity, and that we by our assistance can secure him, according to the saying of saint john: in this we have known (b) 1. joan. 3. v. 16. the charity of god, because he hath yielded his life for us, and we ought to yield our life for our brothers. and s. augustine likewise saith: a christian will not doubt (c) de mendac. cap. 6. to lose his own temporal life, for the eternal life of his neighbour. lastly we are to prefer the spiritual good of our own soul, before both the spiritual and temporal good of our neighbour, because as charity doth of its own nature, chief incline the person in whom it resides, to love god, and to be united with him: so of itself it inclines him to procure those things whereby the said union with god is effected, rather to himself then to others. and from hence it follows, that in things necessary to salvation, no man ought in any case, or in any respect whatsoever, to prefer the spiritual good, either of any particular person, or of the whole world before his own soul; according to those words of our blessed saviour: what doth it (d) mat. 6, avail a man, if he gain the whole would, and sustain the damage of his own soul? and therefore (to come to our present purpose) it is directly against the order of charity, or against charity as it hath a reference to ourselves, which divines call charitas propria, to adventure either the omitting of any means necessary to salvation, or the committing of any thing repugnant to it, for whatsoever respect; and consequently, if by living out of the roman church w● put ourselves in hazard either to want something necessarily required to salvation, or else to perform some act against it, we commit a most grievous sin against the virtue of charity, as it respects ourselves, and so cannot hope for salvation without repentance. 3. now of things necessary to salvation, there are two sorts, according to the doctrine of all divines. somethings (say they) are necessary to salvation, necessitate praecepti, necessary only because they are commanded; for, if thou wilt (e) matth. 19.17. enter into life, keep the commandments. in which kind of things, as probable ignorance of the law, or of the commandment, doth excuse the party from all faulty breach thereof; so likewise doth it not exclude salvation in case of ignorance. some other things are said to be necessary to salvation necessitate medii, finis, or salutis; because they are means appointed by god to attain our end of eternal salvation, in so strict a manner, that it were presumption to hope for salvation without them. and as the former means are said to be necessary, because they are commanded; so the latter are commonly said to be commanded, because they are necessary, that is: although there were no other special precept concerning them; yet supposing they be once appointed as means absolutely necessary to salvation, there cannot but arise an obligation of procuring to have them, in virtue of that universal precept of charity, which obligeth every man to procure the salvation of his own soul. in this sort divine infallible faith is necessary to salvation; as likewise repentance of every deadly sin, and in the doctrine of catholics, baptism in re, that is, in act, to children, and for those who are come to the use of reason, in voto, or hearty desire, when they cannot have it in act. and as baptism is necessary for remission of original and actual sin committed before it; so the sacrament of confession, or penance is necessary in re or in voto, in act or desire, for the remission of mortal sins, committed after baptism. the minister of which sacrament of pennance being necessarily a true priest, true ordination is necessary in the church of god for remission of sins by this sacrament, as also for other ends not belonging to our present purpose. from hence it riseth, that no ignorance or impossibility can supply the want of those means which are absolutely necessary to salvation. as if, for example, a sinner departed this world without repenting himself of all deadly sins, although he die suddenly, or unexpectedly fall out of his wits, and so commit no new sin by omission of repentance; yet he shall be eternally punished for his former sins committed, and never repent of. if an infant die without baptism, he cannot be saved; not by reason of any actual sin committed by him in omitting baptism, but for original sin, not forgiven, by the means which god hath ordained to that purpose. which doctrine, all, or most protestant's will (for aught i know) grant to be true, in the children of infidels; yea not only lutherans, but also some other protestants, as m. bilson late of winchester (f) in his true difference etc. part. 4. pag 168. & 369. and others, hold it to be true, even in the children of the faithful. and if protestants in general disagree from catholics in this point, it cannot be denied but that our disagreement is in a point very fundamental. and the like i say of the sacrament of penance, which they deny to be necessary to salvation, either in act or in desire; which error is likewise fundamental, because it concerns (as i said) a thing necessary to salvation: and for the same reason, if their priesthood and ordination be doubtful, as certainly it is, they are in danger to want a means without which they cannot be saved. neither ought this rigour to seem strange, or unjust: for almighty god having, of his own goodness, without our merit, first ordained man to a supernatural end of eternal felicity; and then, after our fall in adam vouchsafed to reduce us to the attaining of that end, if his blessed will be pleased to limit the attaining of that end, to some means which in his infinite wisdom he thinks most fit; who can say, why dost thou so? or who can hope for that end, without such means? blessed be his divine majesty, for vouchsafing to ordain us, base creatures, to so sublime an end, by any means at all! 4 out of the foresaid difference followeth another, that (generally speaking) in things necessary only because they are commanded, it is sufficient for avoiding sin, that we proceed prudently, and by the conduct of some probable opinion, maturely weighed and approved by men of virtue, learning and wisdom. neither are we always obliged to follow the most strict, and severe, or secure part, as long as the doctrine which we embrace, proceeds upon such reasons, as may warrant it to be truly probable, and prudent, though the contrary part want not also probable grounds. for in humane affairs and discourse, evidence and certainty cannot be always expected. but when we treat not precisely of avoiding sin, but moreover of procuring some thing without which i cannot saved; i am obliged by the law and order of charity, to procure as great certainty as morally i am able, and am not to follow every probable opinion or dictamen, but tutiorem partem, the safer part, because, if my probability prove false, i shall not probably but certainly come short of salvation. nay in such case, i shall incur a new sin against the virtue of charity towards my self, which obligeth every one not to expose his soul to the hazard of eternal perdition, when it is in his power, with the assistance of god's grace, to make the matter sure. from this very ground it is, that although some divines be of opinion, that it is not a sin to use some. matter or form of sacraments, only probable, if we respect precisely the reverence or respect which is due to sacraments, as they belong to the moral infused virtue of religion; yet when they are such sacraments, as the invalidity thereof may endanger the salvation of souls, all do with one consent agree, that it is a grievous offence to use a doubtful, or only probable matter or form, when it is in our power to procure certainty. if therefore it may appear, that though it were not certain that protestancy unrepented destroys salvation (as we have proved to be very certain) yet at least that it is probable, and withal, that there is a way more safe; it will follow out of the grounds already laid, that they are obliged by the law of charity to embrace that safe way. 5. now that protestants have reason, at least to doubt in what case they stand, is deduced from what we have said, and proved about the universal infallibility of the church, and of her being judge of controversies, to whom all christians ought to submit their judgement (as even some protestants grant,) and whom to oppose in any one of her definitions, is a grievous sin: as also from what we have said of the unity, universality and visibility of the church, and of succession of persons, and doctrine; of the conditions of divine faith, certainty, obscurity, prudence, and supernaturality, which are wanting in the faith of protestants; of the frivolous distinction of points fundamental and not fundamental, (the confutation whereof proveth that heretics disagreeing among themselves in any least point, cannot have the same faith, nor be of the same church:) of schism; of heresy; of the persons who first revolted from rome, and of their motives; of the nature of faith, which is destroyed by any least error, and it is certain that some of them must be in error and want the substance of true faith; and since all pretend the like certainty, it is clear that none of them have any certainty at all, but that they want true faith which is a means most absolutely necessary to salvation. moreover, as i said heretofore, since it is granted that every error in fundamental points is damnable, and that they cannot tell in particular, what points be fundamental, it follows that none of them knows whether he, or his brethren, do not err damnably, it being certain that amongst so many disagreeing persons some must err. upon the same ground of not being able to assign what points be fundamental, i say they cannot be sure whether the difference among them be fundamental or no, and consequently whether they agree in the substance of faith and hope of salvation. i omit to add that you want the sacrament of penance, instituted for remission of sins, or at least you must confess that you hold it not necessary; and yet your own brothers, for example the century-writers do (g) cent. 3 cap. 6. col. 127. acknowledge that in times of cyprian, and tertullian, private confession even of thoughts was used; and that it was then commanded and thought necessary. the like, i say, concerning your ordination, which at least is very doubtful, and consequently all that depends thereon. 6. on the other side, that the roman church is the safer way to heaven (not to repeat what hath been already said upon divers occasions) i will again put you in mind, that unless the roman church was the true church there was no visible true church upon earth. a thing so manifest, that protestants themselves confess that more than one thousand years the roman church possessed the whole world, as we have showed heretofore, out of their own (h) chap. 5. num. 9 words: from whence it follows, that unless ours be the true church, you cannot pretend to any perpetual visible church of your own; but ours doth not depend on yours, before which it was. and here i wish you to consider with fear and trembling, how all roman catholics, not one excepted; that is, those very men whom you must hold not to err damnably in their belief, unless you will destroy your own church, and salvation; do with unanimous consent believe, and profess that protestancy unrepented destroys salvation; and then tell me, as you will answer at the last day, whether it be not more safe, to live and die in that church, which even yourselves are forced to acknowledge not to be cut off from hope of salvation, (which are your own words) than to live in a church, which the said confessedly true church doth firmly believe, and constantly profess not to be capable of salvation. and therefore i conclude that, by the most strict obligation of charity towards your own soul, you are bound to place it in safety, by returning to that church, from which your progenitors schismatically departed; lest too late you find that saying of the holy ghost verified in yourselves: he that loves (i) eccl. 3.27. the danger, shall perish therein. 7. against this last argumant of the greater security of the roman church drawn from your own confession, you bring an objection; which in the end will be found to make for us, against yourself. it is taken from the words of the donatists, speaking to catholics in this manner: yourselves confess (k) pag. 112. our baptism, sacraments, and faith (here you put an explication of your own, and say, for the most parts, as if any small error in faith did not destroy all faith) to be good and available. we deny yours to be so, and say, there is no church, no salvation amongst you; therefore it is safest for all to join with us. 8. by your leave our argument is not: (as you say) for simple people alone, but for all them who have care to save their souls. neither is it grounded upon your charitable judgement (as you (l) page. 81. speak) but upon an inevitable necessity for you, either to grant salvation to our church, or to entail certain damnation upon your own: because yours can have no being till luther, unless ours be supposed to have been the true church of christ. and since you term this argument a charm, take heed you be none of those, who, according to the prophet david, do not hear the vice of him (m) ps. 57.6. who charmeth wisely. but to come to the purpose: catholics never granted that the donatists had a true church, or might be saved: and therefore you having cited out of s. augustine, the words of the catholics, that the donatists had true baptism, when you come to the contrary words of the donatists, you add, no church, no salvation; making the argument to have quinq: terminos; without which addition you did see, it made nothing against us: for, as i said, the catholics never yielded, that among the donatists there was a true church, or hope of salvation. and yourself, a few leaves after, acknowledge that the donatists maintained an error, which was in the matter and nature of it properly heretical, against that article of the creed, wherein we profess to believe the holy (n) page. 126. catholic church: and consequently, you cannot allow salvationi to them, as you do, and must do to us. and therefore the donatists could not make the like argument agains catholics, as catholics make against you, who grant us salvation, which we deny to you. but at least (you will say) this argument for the certainty of their baptism, was like to ours touching the security and certainty of our salvation; and therefore that catholics should have esteemed the baptism of the donatists more certain than their own, and so have allowed rebaptisation of such as were baptised by heretics, or sinners, as the donatists esteemed all catholics to be. i answer, no. because it being a matter of faith, that baptism administered by heretics, observing due matter, form, etc. is valid: to rebaptize any so baptised, had been both a sacrilege in reiterating a sacrament not reiterable, and a profession also of a damnable heresy, and therefore had not been more safe, but certainly damnable. but you confess that in the doctrine or practice of the roman church, there is no belief, or profession of any damnable error, which if there were, even your church should certainly be no church. to believe therefore and profess as we do, cannot exclude salvation, as rebaptisation must have done. but if the donatists could have affirmed with truth, that, in the opinion both of catholics and themselves, their baptism was good, yea and good in such sort as that unless theirs was good, that of the catholics could not be such: but theirs might be good, though that of the catholics were not: and further, that it was no damnable error to believe, that baptism administered by the catholics was not good, nor that it was any sacrilege to reiterate the same baptism of catholics: if, i say, they could have truly affirmed these things, they had said somewhat, which at least had seemed to the purpose. but these things they could not say with any colour of truth, and therefore their argument was fond, and impious. but we with truth say to protestants: you cannot but confess that our doctrine contains no damnable error, and that our church is so certainly a true church, that unless ours be true, you cannot pretend any; yea you grant, that you should be guilty of schism, if you did cut off our church from the body of christ, and the hope of salvation: but we neither do, aor can grant that yours is a true church, or that within it there is hope of salvation: therefore it is safest for you to join with us. and now against whom hath your objection greatest force? 9 but i wonder nor 〈◊〉 little, and so i think will ever body else, what the reason may be, that you do not so much as go about to answer the argument of the donatists, which you say is all one with ours, but refer us to s. augustine there to read it; as if every one carried with him a library, or were able to examine the place in s. augustine: and yet you might be sure your reader would be greedy to see some solid answer to an argument so often urged by us, and which indeed, unless you can confute it, ought alone to move every one who hath care of his soul, to take the safest way, by incorporating himself in our church. but we may easily imagine the true reason of your silence: for the answer which s. augustin gives to the donatists, is directly against yourself, and the same which i have given, namely, that catholics (o) ad lit. petil. l. 2. cap. 108. approve the baptism of donatists, but abhor their heresy of rebaptization. and that as gold is good (which is the similitude used by (p) contra cresc. lib. 1. cap. 21. s. augustine) yet not to be sought in company of thiefs; so though baptism be good, yet it must not be sought for in the conventicles of donatists. but you free us from damnable heresy, and yield us salvation, which i hope is to be embraced in whatsoever company it is found; or rather, that company is to be embraced before all other, in which all sides agree, that salvation may be found. we therefore must infer, that it is safest for you to seek salvation among us. you had good reason to conceal s. augustine's answer to the donatists. 10. you frame another argument in our behalf, and make us speak thus: if protestants believe the (q) pag. 79. religion of catholics to be a safe way to heaven, why do they not follow it? which wise argument of your own, you answer at large, and confirm your answer by this instance; the jesuits and dominicans hold different opinions, touching predetermination, and the immaculate conception of the virgin: yet so, that the jesuit holds the dominicans way safe, that is, his error not damnable; and the dominicans hold the same of the jesuits; yet neither of them with good consequence can press the other to believe his opinion, because by his own confession it is no damnable error. 11. but what catholic maketh such a wise demand as you put into our mouths? if our religion be a safe way to heaven, that is, not damnable; why do you not follow it? as if every thing that is good, must be of necessity embraced by every body! but what think you of the argument framed thus? our religion is safe even by your confession, therefore you ought to grant that all may embrace it. and yet further, thus: among different religons and contrary ways to heaven, one only can be safe: but ours, by your own confession, is safe, whereas we hold that in yours there is no hope of salvation: therefore you may and aught to embrace ours. this is our arguments. and if the dominicans and jesuits did say one to another as we say you; then one of them might with good consequence press the other to believe his opinion. you have still the hard fortune to be beaten with your own weapon. 12. it remaineth then, that both in regard of faith, and charity, protestants are obliged to unite themselves with the church of rome. and i may add also, in regard of the theological virtue of hope, without which none can hope to be saved; and which you want, either by excess of confidence, or defect 〈◊〉 despair, not unlike to your faith, which i shown to be either deficient in certainty, or excessive in evidence; as likewise, according to the rigid calvinists, it is either so strong, that once had, it can never be lost: or so more than weak, and so much nothing; that it can never be gotten. for the true theological hope of christians, is a hope which keeps a mean between presumption, and desperation; which moves us to work our salvation with fear and trembling; which conducts us to make sure our salvation by good works, as holy scripture adviseth: but, contrarily, protestants do either exclude hope by despair, with the doctrine, that our saviour died not for all, and, that such want grace sufficient to salvation; or else by vain presumption, grounded upon a fantastical persuasion, that they are predestinate; which faith must exclude all fear, and trembling. neither can they make their calling certain by good works, who do certainly believe, that before any good works they are justified, and justified even by faith alone, and by that faith whereby they certainly believe they are justified. which point some protestants do expressly affirm to be the soul of the church, the principal origin of salvation, of all other points of doctrine the chiefest and weightiest; as already i have noted chap. 3. n. 19 and if some protestants do now relent from the rigour of the foresaid doctrine, we must affirm, that at least some of them want the theological virtue of hope; yea that none of them can have true hope, while they hope to be saved in the communion of those, who defend such doctrines, as do directly overthrow all true christian hope. and for as much as concerns faith, we must also infer, that they want unity therein (and consequently have none at all) by their disagreement about the soul of the church; the principal origin of salvation, of all other points of doctrine the chiefest and weightiest. and if you want true faith, you must by consequence want hope; or if you hold that this point is not to be so indivisible on either side, but that it hath latitude sufficient to embrace all parties, without prejudice to their salvation; notwithstanding that your brethren hold it to be the soul of the church, etc. i must repeat what i have said heretofore, that, even by this example, it is clear, you cannot agree what points be fundamental. and so (to whatsoever answer you fly) i press you in the same manner, and say, that you have no certainty, whether you agree in fundamental points; or unity and substance of faith, which cannot stand with difference in fundamentals. and so, upon the whole matter, i leave it to be considered, whether, want of charity can be justly charged on us, because we affirm, that they cannot (without repentance) be saved, who want, of all other, the most necessary means to salvation, which are the three theological virtues, faith, hope, and charity. 13. and now i end this first part, having, as i conceive, complied with my first design, (in that measure, which time, commodity, scarcity of books, and my own small abilities could afford) which was to show, that amongst men of different religions, one side only can be saved. for since there must be some infallible means to decide all controversies concerning religion, and to propound truth revealed by almighty god; and this means can be no other, but the visible church of christ, which at the time of luther's appearance was only the church of rome, and such as agreed with her: we must conclude, that whosoever opposeth himself to her definitions, or forsaketh her communion, doth resist god himself, whose spouse she is, and whose divine truth she propounds; and therefore becomes guilty of schism and heresy, which since luther, his associates, and protestants have done, and still continue to do; it is not want of charity, but abundance of evident cause, that forceth us to declare this necessary truth, protestancy unrepented destroys salvation. the answer to the seventh chapter. that protestants are not bound by the charity which they own to themselves, to reunite themselves to the roman-church. the first four paragraphs of this chapter, are wholly spent in an unnecessary introduction unto a truth, which i presume, never was, nor will be, by any man in his right wits, either denied or questioned; and that is, that every man in wisdom and charity to himself, is to take the safest way to his eternal salvation. 2. the sift and sixth are nothing in a manner, but references to discourses, already answered by me, and confuted in their proper places. 3. the seventh, eighth, ninth, tenth, and eleventh, have no other foundation but this false pretence, that we confess the roman church free from damnable error. 4. in the twelfth there is something that has some probability to persuade some protestants to forsake some of their opinions, or others to leave their communion; but to prove protestants in general, to be in the state of sin while they remain separate from the roman church, there is not one word or syllable: and besides, whatsoever argument there is in it for any purpose, it may be as forcibly returned upon papists, as it is urged against protestants; in as much as all papists, either hold the doctrine of predetermination, and absolute election, or communicate with those that do hold it. now from this doctrine, what is more prone and obvious, than for every natural man (without god's especial preventing grace) to make this practical collection, either i am elected or not elected; if i be, no impiety possible can ever damn me: if not, no possible industry can ever save me? now whether this disjunctive persuasion be not as likely (as any doctrine of any protestants) to extinguish christian hope, and filial fear, and to lead some men to despair, others to presumption, all to a wretchless and impious life, i desire you ingeniously to inform me! and if you deny it, assure yourself you shall be contradicted and confuted by men of your own religion and your own society, and taught at length this charitable doctrine, that though men's opinions may be charged with the absurd consequencs which naturally flow from them, yet the men themselves are not; i mean, if they perceive not the consequence of these absurdities, nor do not own and acknowledge, but disclaim and detest them. and this is all the answer which i should make to this discourse▪ if i should deal rigidly and strictly with you. yet that you may not think yourself contemned, nor have occasion to pretend, that your arguments are evaded, i will entreat leave of my reader to bring to the test every particle of it, and to censure what deserves a censure, and to answer what may any way seem to require an answer: and then i doubt not, but what i have affirmed in general will appear in particular. ad §. 1. to the first than i say. 1. it was needless to prove, that due order is to be observed in anything; much more in charity, which being one of the best things, may be spoiled by being disordered! yet if it stood in need of proof, i fear this place of the canticles, he hath ordered charity in me, would be no enforcing demonstration of it. 2. the reason alleged by you why we ought to love one object more than another, because one thing participates the divine goodness more than another, is fantastical, and repugnant to what you say presently after. for by this rule, no man should love himself more than all the world; which yet you require, unless he were first vainly persuaded that he doth more participate the divine goodness than all the world. but the true reason why one thing ought to be loved more than another, is, because one thing is better than another, or because it is better to us, or because god commands us to do so, or because god himself does so, and we are to conform our affections to the will of god. 3. it is not true, that all objects which we believe, do equally participate the divine testimony or revelations: for some are testified more evidently, and some more obscurely; and therefore whatsoever you have built upon this ground, must of necessity fall together with it. and thus much for the first number. 6. ad §. 2. in the second, many passages deserve a censure. for 1. it is not true that we are to wish or desire to god a nature infinite, independent, immense: for it is impossible i should desire to any person that which he hath already, if i know that he hath it; nor the perpetuity of it, if i know it impossible but he must have it for perpetuity. and therefore, rejoicing only and not well-wishing is here the proper work of love. 2. whereas you say, that in things necessary to salvation, no man ought in any case or in any respect whatsoever, to prefer the spiritual good of the whole world before his own soul: in saying this, you seem to me to condemn one of the greatest acts of charity, of one of the greatest saints that ever was, i mean s. paul, who for his brothers desired to be an anathema from christ. and as for the text alleged by you in confirmation of your saying, what doth it avail a man if he gain the whole world, and sustain the damage of his own soul! it is nothing to the purpose: for without all question, it is not profitable for a man to do so; but the question is, whether it be not lawful for a man to forgo and part with his own particular profit, to procure the universal, spiritual, and eternal benefit of others? 3. whereas you say, it is directly against charity to ourselves, to adventure the omitting of any means necessary to salvation, this is true: but so is this also, that it is directly against the same charity, to adventure the omitting any thing, that may any way help or conduce to my salvation, that may make the way to it more secure or less dangerous. and therefore if the errors of the roman church do but hinder me in this way, or any way endanger it, i am, in charity to myself, bound to forsake them, though they be not destructive of it. 4. whereas you conclude, that if by living out of the romanchurch we put ourselves in hazard to want something necessary to salvation, we commit a grievous sin against the virtue of charity as it respects ourselves: this consequence may be good in those which are thus persuaded of the roman church, and yet live out of it. but the supposition is certainly false. we may live and die out of the roman church, without putting ourselves in any such hazard: nay to live and die in it is as dangerous as to shoot a gulf, which though some good ignorant souls may do and escape, yet it may well be feared that not one in a hundred but miscarries. ad §. 3. i proceed now to the third section; and herein first i observe this acknowledgement of yours, that in things necessary only because commanded, a probable ignorance of the commandment excuses the party from all fault, and doth not exclude salvation. from which doctrine it seems to me to follow, that seeing obedience to the roman church cannot be pretended to be necessary, but only because it is commanded, therefore not only an invincible, but even a probable ignorance of this pretended command, must excuse us from all faulty breach of it, and cannot exclude salvation. now seeing this command is not pretended to be expressly delivered, but only to be deduced from the word of god, and that not by the most clear and evident consequences that may be; and seeing an infinity of great objections lies against it, which seem strongly to prove that that is no such command, with what charity can you suppose, that our ignorance of this command, is not at the least probable, if not, all things considered, plainly invincible? sure i am, for my part, that i have done my true endeavour to find it true, and am still willing to do so; but the more i seek, the farther i am from finding, and therefore if it be true, certainly my not finding it is very excusable, and you have reason to be very charitable in your censures of me. 2. whereas you say, that besides these things necessary because commanded, there are other things, which are commanded because necessary: of which number you make divine infallible faith, baptism in act for children, and in desire for those who are come to the use of reason, and the sacrament of confession for those who have committed mortal sin: in these words you seem to me to deliver a strange paradox, viz. that faith, and baptism, and confession, are not therefore necessary for us, because god appointed them, but are therefore appointed by god, because they were necessary for us, antecedently to his appointment. which if it were true, i wonder what it was beside god that made them necessary, and made it necessary for god to command them! besides, in making faith one of these necessary means, you seem to exclude infants from salvation: for, faith comes by hearing, and they have not heard. in requiring that this faith should be divine and infallible, you cast your credence into infinite perplexity, who cannot possibly by any sure mark discern whether their faith be divine or humane; or if you have any certain sign, whereby they may discern whether they believe your church's infallibility with divine or only with humane faith, i pray produce it, for perhaps it may serve us to show, that our faith is divine as well as yours. moreover, in affirming that baptism in act is necessary for infants, and for men only in desire, you seem to me in the later to destroy the foundation of the former. for if a desire of baptism will serve men in stead of baptism, than those words of our saviour▪ unless a man be born again of water, etc. are not to be understood literally and rigidly of external baptism; for a desire of baptism is not baptism, and so your foundation of the absolute necessity of baptism is destroyed. and if you may gloss the text so far, as that men may be saved by the desire, without baptism itself, because they cannot have, it, why should you not gloss it a little farther, that there may be some hope of the salvation of unbaptized infants: to whom it was more impossible to have a desire of baptism, than for the former to have the thing itself? lastly, for your sacrament of confession, we know none such, nor any such absolute necessity of it. they that confess their sins and forsake them shall find mercy, though they confess them to god only and not to men. they that confess them both to god and men, if they do not effectually and in time forsake them, shall not find mercy, 3. whereas you faith, that supposing these means once appointed as absolutely necessary to salvation, there cannot but arise an obligation of procuring to have them; you must suppose, i hope, that we know them to be so appointed, and that it is in our power to procure them: otherwise though it may be our ill fortune to fail of the end, for want of the means, certainly we cannot be obliged to procure them. for the rule of the law is also the dictate of common reason and equity, that no man can be obliged to what is impossible. we can be obliged to nothing but by virtue of some command: now it is impossible that god should command in earnest any thing which he knows to be impossible. for to command in earnest, is to command with an intent to be obeyed which is not possible he should do, when he knows the thing commanded to be impossible. lastly, whosoever is obliged to do any thing, and does it not, commits a fault; but infants commit no fault in not procuring to have baptism; therefore no obligation lies upon them to procure it. 4. whereas you say, that if protestants descent from you in the point of the necessity of baptism for infants, it cannot be denied but that our disagreement it in a point fundamental; if you mean a point esteemed so by you, this indeed cannot be denied: but if you mean a point that indeed is fundamental, this may certainly be denied: for i deny it, and say, that it doth not appear to me any way necessary to salvation to hold the truth, or not to hold an error, touching the condition of these infants. this is certain, and we must believe that god will not deal unjustly with them▪ but how in particular he will deal with them concerns not us, and therefore we need not much regard it. 5. whereas you say the like of your sacrament of penance, you only say so, but your proofs are wanting. lastly, whereas you say, this rigour ought not to seem strange or unjust in god, but that we are rather to bless him for ordaining us to salvation by any means: i answer, that it is true, we are not to question the known will of god, of injustice; yet whether that which you pretend to be gods will be so indeed, or only your presumption, this i hope may be questioned lawfully and without presumption; and if we have occasion we may safely put you in mind of ezechiel's commination, against all those who say, thus saith the lord, when they have no certain warrant or authority from him to do so. 8. ad §. 4. in the fourth paragraph, you deliver this false and wicked doctrine, that for the procuring our own salvation we are always boundunder pain of mortal sin, to take the safest way; but for avoiding sin we are not bound to do so, but may follow the opinion of any probable doctors, though the contrary way be certainly free from sin, and theirs be doubtful. which doctrine in the former part of it, is apparently false. for though wisdom and charity to ourselves would persuade us always to do so, yet many times, that way which to ourselves and our salvation is more full of hazard, is notwithstanding not only lawful but more charitable and more noble. for example, to fly from a persecution and so to avoid the temptation of it, may be the safer way for a man's own salvation; yet i presume no man ought to condemn him of impiety, who should resolve not to use his liberty in this matter, but for god's greater glory, the greater honour of truth, and the greater confirmation of his brothers in the faith, choose to stand out the storm and endure the fiery trial, rather than avoid it; rather to put his own soul to the hazard of a temptation, in hope of god's assistance to go through with it, than to balk the opportunity of doing god and his brothers so great a service. this part therefore of this doctrine is manifestly untrue. the other, not only false but impious; for therein you plainly give us to understand, that in your judgement, a resolution to avoid sin, to the uttermost of your power, is no necessary means of salvation; nay that a man may resolve not to do so, without any danger of damnation. therein you teach us that we are to do more for the love of ourselves, and our own happiness, than for the love of god; and in so doing contradict our saviour, who expressly commands us, to love the lord our god with all our heart, with all our soul, and with all our strength; and hath taught us, that the love of god consists in avoiding sin and keeping his commandments. therein you directly cross s. paul's doctrine, who though he were a very probable doctor, and had delivered his judgement for the lawfulness of eating meats offered to idols; yet he assures us that he which should make scruple of doing so, and forbear upon his scruple, should not sin, but only be a weak brother; whereas he, who should do it with a doubtful conscience, (though the action were by s. paul warranted lawful, yet) sheuld sin and be condemned for so doing. you pretend indeed to be rigid defenders and stout champions for the necessity of good works; but the truth is, you speak lies in hypocrisy, and, when the matter is well examined, will appear to make yourselves and your own functions necessary, but obedience to god unnecessary: which will appear to any man who considers what strict necessity the scripture imposes upon all men, of effectual mortification of the habits of all vices, and effectual conversion to newness of life, and universal obedience, and withal remembers that an act of attrition, which you say with priestly absolution is sufficient to salvation, is not mortification, which being a work of difficulty and time, cannot be performed in an instant. but for the present, it appears sufficiently our of this impious assertion, which makes it absolutely necessary for men, either in act, if it be possible, or if not, in desire, to be baptised and absolved by you, and that with intention: and in the mean time warrants them that for avoiding of sin, they may safely follow the uncertain guidance of vain man, who you cannot deny may either be deceived himself, or out of malice deceive them, and neglect the certain direction of god himself, and their own consciences. what wicked use is made of this doctrine, your own long experience can better inform you, than it is possible for me to do: yet my own little conversation with you affords one memorable example to this purpose. for upon this ground i knew a young scholar in douai, licenc'd by a great casuist to swear a thing as upon his certain knowledge, whereof he had yet no knowledge but only a great presumption, because (forsooth) it was the opinion of one doctor that he might do so. and upon the same ground, whensoever you shall come to have a prevailing party in this kingdom, and power sufficient to restore your religion, you may do it by deposing or killing the king, by blowing up of parliaments, and by rooting out all others of a different faith from you. nay this you may do, though in your own opinion it be unlawful, because * bellar. contr. barcl c. 7 in 7 c. refutare cona●ur barcl. verba illa romu●s. veteres illos imperatores coasta●●ium, va●entem, & caeteros n●n id●ò toleravit ecclesia quod legi●imè successissen, sed quod illos sine populi detrime●●o co●rcere ●on potera. et miratur hoc idem scripsisse bell ●minun. l 5 de po●tif c. 7. sed ut magis miretur, sciat hoc idem sensisse s. thomam 2.2. q 12. art. 2. ad 1. vbi dicit eccl●siam ●nlerasse ut fiddles obed●re●● juliano aposta●ae, quia sui novitate noadu●n habebant vires compescendi principes te●reaos. et postea, sanctus gregorius dicit, nullum adversus julianis pierce cutio●●m suiss● r●m●dium prae ter lacrimas, quo ●am ●oa b●bebat ecclesia vires, qu●bus ill us ty●a●●idi resistere posset. bellarmine, a man with you of approved virtue, learning, and judgement, hath declared his opinion for the lawfulness of it in saying, that want of power to maintain a rebellion, was the only reason that the primitive christians did not rebel against their persecuting emperors. by the same rule, seeing the priests and scribes and pharisees, men of greatest repute among the jews for virtue, learning and wisdom, held it a lawful and a pious work to persecute christ and his apostles, it was lawful for their people to follow their leaders: for herein, according to your doctrine, they proceeded prudently, and according to the conduct of opinion, maturely weighed and approved by men (as it seemed to them) of virtue, learning and wisdom; nay by such as sat in moses chair, and of whom it was said, whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do: which universal you pretend is to be understood universally, and without any restriction or limitation. and as lawful was it for the pagans to persecute the primitive christians, because trajan and pliny, men of great virtue and wisdom were of this opinion. lastly, that most impious and detestable doctrine, (which by a foul calumny you impute to me, who abhor and detest it,) that men may be saved in any religion, follows from this ground unavoidably. for certainly, religion is one of those things which is necessary only because it is commanded: for if none were commanded under pain of damnation, how could it be damnable to be of any or to be of none? neither can it be damnable to be of a false religion; unless it be a sin to be so. for neither are men saved by good luck, but only by obedience; neither are they damned for their ill fortune, but for sin and disobedience. death is the wages of nothing but sin: and s. james sure intended to deliver the adequate cause of sin and death in those words, lust when it hath conceived bringeth forth sin and sin, when it is finished bringeth forth death. seeing therefore in such things, according to your doctrine, it is sufficient for avoiding of sin that we proceed prudently, and by the conduct of some probable opinion, maturely weighed and approved by men of learning, virtue and wisdom: and seeing neither jews want their gamaliels, nor pagans their antoninus', nor any sect of christians such professors and maintainers of their several sects, as are esteemed by the people, which know no better (and that very reasonably) men of virtue, learning, and wisdom, it follows evidently that the embracing their religion proceeds upon such reason as may warrent their action to be prudent, and this (say you) is sufficient for avoiding of sin, and therefore certainly for avoiding damnation, for that in humane offairs and discourse, evidence and certainty cannot be always expected. i have stood the longer upon the refutation of this doctrine, not only because it is impious, and because bad use is made of it, and worse may be; but 〈◊〉 because the contrary position, that men are bound for avoiding sin always to take the safest way, is a fair and sure foundation, for a clear confutation of the main conclusion, which in this chapter you labour in vain to prove, and a certain proof that in regard of the precept of charity towards ones self, and of obedience to god, papists (unless ignorance excuse them) are in state of sin, as long as they remain in subjection to the roman church. 9 for if the safer way for avoiding sin, be also the safer way for avoiding damnation, then certainly it will not be hard to determine, that the way of protestants must be more secure, and the roman way more dangerous: take but into your consideration these ensuing controversies: whether it be lawful to worship pictures? to picture the trinity? to invocate saints and angels? to deny laymen the cup in the sacrament? to adore the sacrament? to prohibit certain orders of men and women to marry? to celebrate the public service of god in a language which the assistants generally understand not; and you will not choose but confess that in all these you are on the more dangerous side for the committing of sin, and we on that which is more secure. for in all these things, if we say true, you do that which is impious: on the other side, if you were in the right, yet we might be secure enough, for we should only not do something which you confess not necessary to be done. we pretend, and are ready to justify out of principles agreed upon between us, that in all these things, you violate the manifest commandments of god; and allege such texts of scripture against you, as, if you would weigh them with any indifference, would put the matter out of question, but certainly you cannot with any modest deny, but that at least they make it questionable. on the other side, you cannot with any face pretend, and, if you should, know not how to go about to prove, that there is any necessity of doing any of these things; that it is unlawful not to worship pictures, not to picture the trinity, not to invocate saints and angels, not to give all men the entire sacrament, not to adore the eucharist, not to prohibit marriage, not to celebrate divine service in an unknown tongue: i say, you neither do nor can pretend that there is any law of god which enjoins us, no nor so much as an evangelical counsel that advises us to do any of these things. now where no law is, there can be no sin, for sin is the transgression of the law; it remains therefore that if your church should forbear to do these things, she must undoubtedly herein be free from all danger and suspicion of sin; whereas your acting of them, must be, if not certainly impious, without all condradiction questionable and dangerous. i conclude therefore that which was to be concluded, that if the safer way for avoiding sin, be also (as most certainly it is) the safer way for avoiding damnation, then certainly the way of protestants must be more safe, and the roman way more dangerous. you will say, i know, that these things being by your church concluded lawful, we are obliged by god, though not to do, yet to approve them: at least in your judgement we are so, and therefore our condition is as questionable as yours. i answ. the authority of your church is no common principle agreed upon between us, and therefore from that you are not to dispute against us. we might press you with our judgement as well and as justly as you do us with yours. besides, this very thing that your church hath determined these things lawful, and commanded the approbation of them, is that whereof she is accused by us, and we maintain you have done wickedly, or at least very dangerously, in so determining; because in these very determinations, you have forsaken that way which was secure from sin, and have chosen that which you cannot but know to be very questionable and doubtful; and consequently have forsaken the safe way to heaven, and taken a way which is full of danger. and therefore, although if your obedience to your church were questioned, you might fly for shelter to your church's determinations, yet when these very determinations are accused, me thinks they should not be alleged in defence of themselves. but you will say, your church is infallible, and therefore her determinations not unlawful. answ. they that accuse your church of error, you may be sure do question her infallibility: show therefore where it is written, that your church is infallible, and the dispute will be ended. but till you do so, give me leave rather to conclude thus, your church in many of her determinations, chooses not that way which is most secure from sin, and therefore not the safest way to salvation; than vainly to imagine her infallible, and thereupon to believe, though she teach not the securest way to avoid sin, yet she teaches the certainest way to obtain salvation. 10. in the close of this number, you say as follows, if it may appear though not certain, yet at least probable, that protestancy unrepented destroys salvation, and withal that there is a safer way, it will follow that they are obliged by the law of charity to that safe way. ans. make this appear, and i will never persuade any man to continue a protestant; for if i should, i should persuade him to continue a fool. but after all these prolix discourses, still we see you are at, if it may appear: from whence without all ifs and ands, that appears sufficiently, which i said in the beginning of the chapter, that the four first paragraphs of this chapter are wholly spent in an unnecessary introduction, unto that which never by any man in his right wits was denied, that men in wisdom and charity to themselves are to take the safest way to eternal salvation. 11. ad §. 5. in the fift you begin to make some show of arguing, and tell us, that protestants have reason to doubt in what case they stand, from what you have said about the churches universal infallibility, and of her being judge of controversies, etc. ans. from all that which you have said, they have reason only to conclude that you have nothing to say. they have as much reason to doubt, whether there can be any motion, from what zeno says in aristotle's physics, as to doubt, from what you have said, whether the roman church may possibly err. for this i dare say, that not the weakest of zeno's arguments but is stronger than the strongest of yours, and that you would be more perplexed in answering any one of them, than i have been in answering all yours. you are pleased to repeat two or three of them in this section, and in all probability so wise a man as you are, if he would repeat any, would repeat the best; and therefore if i desire the reader by these to judge of the rest, i shall desire but ordinary justice. 12. the first of them being put into form stands thus, every least error in faith destroys the nature of faith; it is certain that some protestants do err, and therefore they want the substance of faith. the major of which syllogism i have formerly confuted by unanswerable arguments out of one of your own best authors, who shows plainly that he hath amongst you, as strange as you make it, many other abettors. besides, if it were true, it would conclude that either you or the dominicans have no faith, in as much as you oppose one another as much as arminians and calvinists. 13. the second argument stands thus, since all protestants pretend the like certainty, it is clear that none of them have any certainty at all? which argument if it were good, then what can hinder but this must also be so, since protestants and papists pretend the like certainty, it is clear that none of them have any certainty at all! and this too: since all christians pretend the like certainty, it is clear that none of them have any certainty, at all! and thirdly this: since men of all religions pretend a like certainty, it is clear that none of them have any at all! and lastly this: since ofttimes they which are abused with a specious paralogism, pretend the like certainty with them which demonstrate, it is clear that none of them have any certainty at all! certainly, sir, zeal and the devil did strangely blind you, if you did not see that these horrid impieties were the immediate consequences of your positions, if you did see it, and yet would set them down, you deserve a worse censure. yet such as these, are all the arguments wherewith you conceive yourself to have proved undoubtedly, that protestants have reason, at least to doubt in what case they stand. neither am i afraid to venture my life upon it, that yourself shall not choose so much as one out of all the pack, which i will not show before indifferent judges, either to be impertinent to the question, inconsequent in the deduction, or grounded upon some false, or at least uncertain foundation. 14. your third and fourth argument may be thus put into one; protestant's cannot tell what points in particular be fundamental; therefore they cannot tell, whether they or their brethren do not err fundamentally, and whether their difference be not fundamental. both which deductions i have formerly showed to be most inconsequent; for knowing the scripture to contain all fundamentals (though many more points besides, which makes it difficult to say precisely what is fundamental, and what not,) knowing this, i say, and believing it, what can hinder but that i may be well assured, that i believe all fundamentals, and that all who believe the scripture sincerely as well as i, do not differ from me in any thing fundamental? 15. in the close of this section, you say, that you omit to add that we want the sacrament of repentance, instituted for the remission of sins, or at least we must confess, that we hold it not necessary: and yet our own brethren the century-writers acknowledge that in the times of cyprian and tertullian, private confession even of thoughts was used, and that it was then commanded and thought necessary; and then our ordination, you say, is very doubtful, and all that depends upon it. ans. i also omit to answer, 1. that your brother rhenanus, acknowledges the contrary, and assures us, that the confession then required and in use, was public, and before the church, and that your auricular confession was not then in the world; for which his mouth is stopped by your index expurgatorious. 2. that your brother arcudius acknowledges, that the eucharist was in cyprians time given to infants, and esteemed necessary, or at least profitable for them, and the giving it shows no less; and now i would know, whether you will acknowledge your church bound to give it, and to esteem so of it? 3. that it might be then commanded, and being commanded, be thought necessary, and yet be but a church-constitution. neither will i deny, if the present church, could, and would so order it, that the abuses of it might be prevented, and conceiving it profitable, should enjoin the use of it, but that being commanded it would be necessary. 4. concerning our ordinations, besides that i have proved it impossible that they should be so doubtful as yours, according to your own principles; i answer, that experience shows them certainly sufficient to bring men to faith and repentance, and consequently to salvation; and that if there were any secret defect of any thing necessary, which we cannot help, god will certainly supply it. 16. ad §. 6. in the sixth, you say, you will not repeat, but only put us again in mind that unless the roman church were the true charch there was no visible church upon earth, a thing so manifest that protestants themselves confess, etc. answ. neither will i repeat, but only put you in mind that you have not proved that there is any necessity that there should be any true church in your sense visible; nor if there were, that there was no other besides the roman. for as for the confession of protestants which here you insist upon, it is evident out of their own words cited by yourself, that by the whole world, they meant only the greatest part of it, which is an usual figure of speech, and never intended to deny that besides the church then reigning and triumphing in this world, there was an other militant church, other christians visible enough though persecuted and oppressed. nor thirdly do you here make good so much as with one fallacy, that if the roman church were then the visible church, it must needs be now the only or the safer way to heaven; and yet the connexion of this consequence was very necessary to be shown. for, for aught i know, it was not impossible that it might then be the only visible church, and yet now a very dangerous way to heaven, or perhaps none at all. 17. afterwards you vainly pretend that all roman catholics, not one excepted, profess, that protestancy unrepented destroys salvation. from which generality we may except two at least to my knowledge, and those are, yourself, and franciscus de sancta clara, who assures us that ignorance and repentance may excuse a protestant from damnation though dying in his error. and this is all the charity, which by your own confession also, the most favourable protestans allow to papists; and therefore with strange repugnance to yourself you subjoin, that these are the men whom we must hold not to err dumnably, unless we will destroy our own church and salvation. whereas, as i have said before, though you were turks, and pagans, we might be good christians. neither is it necessary for perpetuating of a church before luther, that your errors even then should not be damnable, but only not actually damning to some ignorant souls among you. in vain therefore you do make such tragedies as here you do! in vain you conjure us with fear and trembling to consider these things! we have considered them again and again, and looked upon them on both sides, and find neither terror nor truth in them. let children and fools be terrified with bugbears, men of understanding will not regard them. 18. ad §. 7, 8, 9, 10, 11. your whole discourse in your fiv● next paragraphs, i have in the beginning of this chapter fully confuted, by saying, that it stands altogether upon the false foundation of this affected mistake, that we do and must confess the roman church free from damnable error; which will presently be apparent, to any one who considers, that the seventh and tenth are nothing but d. potter's words; and that in the other three, you obtrude upon us this cram no fewer than seven times. may you be pleased to look back to your own book, and you shall find it so as i have said: and that at least in a hundred other places you make your advantage of this false imputation: which when you have observed, and withal considered that yourself plainly intimate, that d. potter's discourses, which here you censure, would be good and concluding, if we did not (as we do not) free you from damnable error; i hope you will acknowledge that my vouchsafing these sections the honour of any farther answer, is a great supererogation in point of civility. nevertheless partly that i may the more ingratiate myself with you, but especially, that i may stop their mouths who will be apt to say, that every word of yours which i should omit to speak to, is an unanswerable argument, i will hold my purpose of answering them more punctally and particularly. 19 first then, to your little parenthesis, which you interline among d. potter's words, §. 7. that any small error in faith destroys all faith, (to omit what hath been said before,) i answer here what is proper for this place: that s. austin, whose authority is here stood upon, thought otherwise: he conceived the donatists to hold some error in faith, and yet not to have no faith. his words of them to this purpose are most pregnant and evident, you are with us (saith he to the donatists. ep. 48.) as baptism, in the creed, and the other sacraments: and again, super gestis cum emerit: thou hast proved to me that thou hast faith: prove to me likewise that thou hast charity. parallel to which words are these of optatus, amongst us and you is one ecclesiastical conversation, common lessons, the same faith, the same sacraments. where, by the way, we may observe, that in the judgement of these fathers, even donatists, though heretics and schismatic, gave true ordination, the true sacrament of matrimony, true sacramental absolution, confirmation, the true sacrament of the eucharist, true extreme unction; or else (choose you whether) some of these were not then esteemed sacraments. but for ordination, whether he held it a sacrament or no, certainly he held that it remained with them entire: for so he says in express terms, in his book against parmenianus his epistle. which doctrine if you can reconcile with the present doctrine of the roman church, eris mihi magnus apollo. 20. whereas, in the beginning of the 8. sect. you deny that your argument drawn from our confessing the possibility of your salvation, is for simple people alone, but for all men: i answer, certainly whosoever is moved with it, must be so simple as to think this a good and a concluding reason; some ignorant men in the roman church may be saved, by the confession of protestants, (which is indeed all that they confess,) therefore it is safe for me to be of the roman church; and he that does think so, what reason is there why he should not think this as good; ignorant protestants may be saved, by the confession of papists, (by name, mr. k.) therefore it is safe for me to be of the protestant church? whereas you say, that this your argument is grounded upon an inevitable necessity for us, either to grant salvation to your church, or to entail certain damnation upon our own, because ours can have no being till luther, unless yours be supposed to have been the true church. i answer, this cause is no cause: for first, as luther had no being before luther, and yet he was when he was, though he was not before; so there is no repugnance in the terms, but that there might be a true church after luther, though there were none for some ages before; as, since columbus his time, there have been christians in america, though before there were none for many ages. for neither do you show, neither does it appear, that the genetation of churches is univocal, that nothing but a church can possibly beget a church; nor that the present being of a true church, depends necessarily upon the perpetuity of a church in all ages; any more than the present being of peripatetics or stoics depends upon a perpetual pedigree of them. for though i at no hand deny the church's perpetuity, yet i see nothing in your book to make me understand, that the truth of the present depends upon it, nor any thing that can hinder, but that a false church, (god's providence overwatching and overruling it,) may preserve the means of confuting their own heresies, and reducing men to truth, and so raising a true church, i mean the integrity and the authority of the word of god with men. thus the jews preserve means to make men christians, and papists preserve means to make men protestants, and protestants (which you say are a false church) do, as you pretend, preserve means to make men papists; that is, their own bibles, out of which you pretend to be able to prove that they are to be papists. secondly, you show not, nor does it appear, that the perpetuity of the church depends on the truth of yours. for though you talk vainly, as if you were the only men in the world before luther, yet the world knows that this is but talk, and that there were other christians besides you, which might have perpetuated the church though you had not been. lastly, you show not, neither doth it appear, that your being acknowledged in some sense a true church, doth necessarily import, that we must grant salvation to it, unless, by it, you understand the ignorant members of it, which is a very unusual synecdoche. 21. whereas you say, that catholics never granted that the donatists had a true church or might be saved. i answ. s. austin himself granted that those among them, who sought the truth, being ready when they found it to correct their error, were not heretics, and therefore, notwithstanding their error, might be saved. and this is all the charity that protestants allow to papists. 22. whereas you say, that d. potter having cited out of s. austin the words of the catholics, that the donatists had true baptism, when he comes to the contrary words of the donatists, adds, no church, no salvation! ans. you wrong d. potter, who pretends not to cite s. augustine's formal words but only his sense, which in him is complete and full for that purpose, whereto it is alleged by d. potter. his words are, pertilianus dixit, venite ad ecclesiam populi & aufugi●e traditores, si perire non vultis: petilian saith, come to the church ye people, and fly from the traditours, if ye will not be damned: for, that ye may know that they being guilty, esteem very well of our faith, behold i baptise these whom they have infected, but they receive those whom we have baptised. where it is plain, that petilian by his words makes the donatists the church, and excludes the catholics from salvation absolutely. and therefore no church, no salvation was not d. potter's addition. and whereas you say, the catholics never yield that among the donatists there was a true church and hope of salvation: i say, it appears by what i have alleged out of s. austin, that they yielded both these were among the donatists, as much as we yield them to be among the papists. as for d. potter's acknowledgement, that they maintained an error in the matter and nature of it heretical: this proves them but material heretics, whom you do not exclude from possibility of salvation. so that, all things considered, this argument must be much more forcible from the donatists against the catholics, than from papists against protestants, in regard protestant's grant papists no more hope of salvation than papists grant protestants: whereas the donatists excluded absolutely all but their own part from hope of salvation, so fare as to acount them no christians that were not of it: the catholics mean while accounting them brethren, and freeing those among them, from the imputation of heresy, who being in error quaerebant cautâ sollicitudine veritatem, corrigi parati cùm invenerint, 23. whereas you say, that the argument for the certainty of their baptism (because it was confessed good by catholics, whereas the baptism of catholics was not confessed by them to be good,) is not so good as yours, touching the certainty of your salvation grounded on the confession of protestants, because we confess there is no damnable error in the doctrine or practice of the roman church: i ans. no: we confess no such matter, and though you say so a hundred times, no repetition will make it true. we profess plainly, that many damnable errors, plainly repugnant to the precepts of christ both ceremonial and moral, more plainly than this of rebaptisation, and therefore more damnable, are believed and professed by you. and therefore, seeing this is the only disparity you can devise, and this is vanished, it remains that as good an answer as the catholics made touching the certainty of their baptism, as good may we make, and with much more evidence of reason, touching the security and certainty of our salvation. 24. by the way, i desire to be informed, seeing you affirm that rebaptising those whom heretics had baptised was a sacrilege, and a profession of a damnable heresy, when it began to be so? if from the beginning it were so, then was cyprian a sacrilegious professor of a damnable heresy, and yet a saint and a martyr. if it were not so, then did your church excommunicate firmilian and others, and separate from them without sufficient ground of excommunication or separation, which is schismatical. you see what difficulties you run into, on both sides; choose whether you will, but certainly both can hardly be avoided. 25. whereas again in this §. you obtrude upon us, that we cannot but confess that your doctrine contains no damnable error, and that yours is so certainly a true church, that unless yours be true we cannot pretend any: i answer, there is in this neither truth nor modesty, to outface us that we cannot but confess what indeed we cannot but deny. for my part, if i were upon the rack, i persuade myself i should not confess the one nor the other. 26 whereas again presently you add, that d. potter grants we should be guilty of schism, if we did cut off your church from the body of christ & the hope of salvation: i have showed above, that he grants no such matter. he says indeed, that our not doing so frees us from the imputation of schism, and from hence you sophistically infer, that he must grant, if we did so, we were schismatics, and then make your reader believe, that this is d. potter's confession, it being indeed your own collection. for as every one that is not a papist, is not a jesuit: and yet not every one that is a papist is a jesuit: as, whosoever comes not into england, comes not to london, and yet many may come into england, and not come to london: as, whosoever is not a man, is not a king, and yet many are men that are not kings: so likewise it may be certain, that whosoever does not so is free from schism, and yet they that do so (if there be sufficient cause), may be not guilty of it. 27. whereas you pretend to wonder that the doctor did not answer the argument of the donatists, which he says is all one with yours, but refers you to saint austin there to read it, as if every one carried with him a library, or were able to examine the places in saint austin: i answer, the parity of the arguments was that which the doctor was to declare, whereto it was impertinent what the answer was: but sufficient it was to show that the donatists' argument which you would never grant good, was yet as good as yours, and therefore yours could not be good. now to this purpose as the concealing the answer was no way advantageous, so to produce it was not necessary; and therefore he did you more service than he was bound to, in referring you to st. austin for an answer to it. whereas you say, he had reason to conceal it, because it makes directly against himself: i say, it is so fare from doing so, that it will serve in proportion to the argument, as fitly as if it had been made for it: for, as saint austin says, that catholics approve the doctrine of donatists, but abhor their heresy of rebaptisation: so we say, that we approve those fundamental and simple necessary truths which you retain, by which some good souls among you may be saved, but abhor your many superstitions and heresies. and as he says that as gold is good, yet ought not to be sought for among a company of thiefs; and baptism good, but not to be sought for in the conventicles of donatists: so say we, that the truths you retain are good, and as we hope sufficient to bring good ignorant souls among you to salvation, yet are not to be sought for in the conventicles of papists, who hold with them a mixture of many vanities, and many impieties. for, as for our freeing you from damnable heresy, and yielding you salvation, (which stone here again you stumble at,) neither he nor any other protestant is guilty of it; and therefore you must confess that this very answer will serve protestants against this charm of papists, as well as saint austin against the donatists, and that indeed it was not doctor potter but you, that, without a sarcasm, had reason to conceal it. 28. the last piece of d. potter's book, which you are pleased to take notice of in this first part of yours, is an argument he makes in your behalf p. 79. of his book, where he makes you speak thus, if protestants believe the religion of papists to be a safe way to heaven, why do they not follow it? this argument you like not, because many things may be good and yet not necessary to be embraced by every body, and therefore scoff at it, and call it an argument of his own, a wife argument, a wise demand: and then ask of him, what he thinks of it being framed thus, our religion is safe even by your confession; and therefore you ought to grant that a● may embrace it. and yet farther thus, among different religions one only can be safe: but yours by our own confession is safe; whereas you hold that in ours there is no hope of salvation; therefore we ought to embrace yours. ans. i have advised with him, and am to tell you from him, that he thinks reasonable well of the arguments, but very ill of him that makes them, as affirming so often without shame and conscience, what he cannot but know to be plainly false: and his reason is, because he is so far from confessing, or giving you any ground to pretend he does confess, that your religion is safe for all that are of it, from whence only it will follow that all may safely embrace it, that in this very place, from which you take these words, he professeth plainly, that it is extremely dangerous if not certainly damnable to all such as profess it, when either they do, or, if their hearts were upright and not perversely obstinate, might believe the contrary, and that for us who are convinced in conscience that she (the roman church) errs in many things, it lies upon us, even under pain of damnation, to forsake her in those errors. and though here you take upon you a show of great rigour, and will seem to hold that in our way there is no hope of salvation; yet formerly you have been more liberal of your charity towards us, and will needs vie and contend with doctor potter, which of the two shall be more charitable, assuring us that you allow protestants as much charity as d. potter spares you, for whom he makes ignorance the best hope of salvation. and now i appeal to any indifferent reader, whether our disavowing to confess you free from damnable error, were not (as i pretend) a full confutation of all that you say in these five foregoing paragraphs: and as for you i wonder, what answer, what evasion, what shift you can devise to clear yourself from dishonesty, for imputing to him almost a hundred times, this acknowledgement which he never makes, but very often, and that so plainly that you take notice of it, professeth the contrary! 29. the best defence that possibly can be made for you, i conceive, is this, that you were led into this error, by mistaking a supposition of a confession, for a confession; a rhetorical concession of the doctors for a positive assertion. he says indeed of your errors, though of themselves they be not damnable to them which believe as they profess, yet for us to profess what we believe not, were without question damnable. but to say, though your errors be not damnable, we may not profess them, is not to say your errors are not damnable, but only though they be not. as if you should say, though the church err in points not fundamental, yet you may not separate from it: or, though we do err in believing christ really present, yet our error frees us from idolatry: or, as if a protestant should say, though you do not commit idolatry in adoring the host, yet being uncertain of the priest's intention to consecrate, at least you expose yourself to the danger of it: i presume you would not think it fairly done, if any man should interpret either this last speech as an acknowledgement, that you do not commit idolatry, or the former as confessions, that you do err in points not fundamental, that you do err in believing the real presence. and therefore you ought not so to have mistaken d. potter's words, as if he had confessed the errors of your church not damnable, when he says no more but this, though they be so, or, suppose, or put the case they be so, yet being errors, we that know them may not profess them to be divine truths. yet this mistake might have been pardonable, had not doctor potter in many places of his book, by declaring his judgement touching the quality and malignity of your errors, taken away from you all occasion of error. but now that he says plainly, that your church hath many ways played the harlot, and in that regard, deserved a bill of divorce from christ, and the detestation of christians, page 11. that for that mass of errors and abuses in judgement and practice which is proper to her, and wherein she differs from us, we judge a reconciliation impossible, and to us (who are convicted in conscience of her corruptions) damnable, page 20. that popery is the contagion or plague of the church, page 60. that we cannot, we dare not communicate with her in her public liturgy, which is manifestly polluted with gross superstition. page 68 that they who in former ages died in the church of rome, died in many sinful errors, page 78. that they that have understanding and means to discover their errors and neglect to use them, he dares not flatter them with so easy a censure, as to give them hope of salvation, page 79. that the way of the roman religion is not safe, but very dangerous, if not certainly damnable, to such as profess it, when they believe (or, if their hearts were upright and not perversely obstinate, might believe) the contrary, p. 79. that your church is but (in some sense) a true church: and your errors, only to some men not damnable, and that we who are convinced in conscience that she errs in many things are, under pain of damnation, to forsake her in those errors. seeing, i say, he s●●● all this so plainly and so frequently; certainly your charging him falsely with this acknowledgement, and building a great part not only of your discourse in this chapter, but of your whole book upon it, possibly it may be palliated with some excuse, but it can no way be defended with any lust apology. especially seeing you yourself more than once or twice, take notice of these his severer censures of your church, and the errors of it, and make your advantage of them. in the first number of your first chapter, you set down three of the former places; and from thence infer, that as you affirm protestancy unrepented destroys salvation, so d. potter pronounces the like heavy doom against roman catholics: and again §. 4. of the same chapter, we allow protestants as much charity as d. potter spares us, for whom he makes ignorance the best hope of salvation. and c. 5. §. 41. you have these words: it is very strange that you judge us extremely uncharitable in saying protestants cannot be saved, while yourself avouch the same of all learned catholics, whom ignorance cannot excuse! thus out of the same mouth you blow hot and cold; and one while, when it is for your purpose, you profess d. potter censures your errors as heavily as you do ours; which is very true, for he gives hope of salvation to none among you, but to those whose ignorance was the cause of their error, and no sin cause of their ignorance: and presently after, when another project comes in your head, you make his words softer than oil towards you: you pretend he does and must confess, that your doctrine contains no damnable error, that your church is certainly a true church, that your way to heaven is a safe way, and all these acknowledgements you set down simple and absolute, without any restriction or limitation; whereas in the doctor they are all so qualified, that no knowing papist can promise himself any security or comfort from them. we confess (saith he) the church of rome to be (in some sense) a true church, and her errors (to some men) not damnable: we believe her religion safe, that is, by god's great mercy not damnable, to some such as believe what they profess: but we believe it not safe, but very dangerous, if not certainly damnable to such as profess it, when they believe (or if their hearts were upright and not perversely obstinate might believe) the contrary. observe, i pray you, these restraining terms which formerly you have dissembled, a true church in some sense, not damnable to some men, a safe way, that is, by god's great mercy, not damnable to some: and then seeing you have pretended these confessions to be absolute, which are thus plainly limited, how can you avoid the imputation of an egregious sophister? you quarrel with the doctor, in the end of your preface, for using in his book such ambiguous terms as these, in some sort▪ in some sense, in some degree: and desire him, if he make any reply, either to forbear them, or to tell you roundly in what sort, in what sense, in what degree, he understands these and the like mincing phrases. but the truth is, he hath not left them so ambiguous and undetermined as you pretend; but told you plainly, in what sense your church may pass for a true church, viz. in regard we may hope that she retains those truths which are simply, absolutely, and indispensably necessary to salvation, which may suffice to bring those good souls to heaven, who wanted means of discovering their errors; this is the charitable construction in which you may pass for a church: and to what men your religion may be safe, and your errors not damnable, viz. to such whom ignorance may excuse; and therefore he hath more cause to complain of you, for quoting his words without those qualifications, than you to find fault with him for using of them. 30. that your discourse in the 12 §. presseth you as forcibly as protestants, i have showed above: i add here, 1. whereas you say, that faith, according to your rigid calvinists, is either so strong, that once had, it can never he lost; or so more than weak, and so much nothing, that it can never be gotten: that these are words without sense. never any calvinist affirmed that faith was so weak, and so much nothing, that it can never be got: but it seems you wanted matter to make up your antithesis, and therefore were resolved to speak empty words, rather than lose your figure, — crimina rasis librat in antithetis, doctas posuisse figuras laudatur.— 2. that there is no calvinist that will deny the truth of this proposition, christ died for all; nor to subscribe to that sense of it, which your dominicans put upon it; neither can you, with coherence to the received doctrine of your own society, deny that they as well as the calvinists, take away the distinction of sufficient and effectual grace, and indeed hold none to be sufficient, but only that which is effectual. 3. whereas you say, they cannot make their calling certain by good works, who do certainly believe that before any good works they are justified, and justified by faith alone, and by that faith whereby they certainly believe they are justified: i answ. there is no protestant but believes that faith, repentance, and universal obedience, are necessary to the obtaining of god's favour and eternal happiness. this being granted, the rest is but a speculative controversy, a question about words, which would quickly vanish, but that men affect not to understand one another. as if a company of physicians were in consultation, and should all agree, that three medicines and no more were necessary for the recovery of the patient's health, this were sufficient for his direction towards the recovery of his health; though concerning the proper and specifical effects of these three medicines, there should be amongst them as many differences as men: so likewise being generally at accord that these three things, faith, hope, and charity, are necessary to salvation, so that whosoever wants any of them, cannot obtain it, and he which hath them all cannot fail of it, is it not very evident that they are sufficiently agreed for men's directions to eternal salvation? and seeing charity is a full comprehension of all good works, they requiring charity as a necessary qualification in him that will be saved, what sense is there in saying, they cannot make their calling certain by good works? they know what salvation is as well as you, and have as much reason to desire it: they believe it as hearty as you, that there is no good work but shall have its proper reward, and that there is no possibility of obtaining the eternal reward without good works: and why then may not this doctrine be a sufficient incitement and provocation unto good works? 31. you say, that they certainly believe that before any good works they are justified: but this is a calumny. there is no protestant but requires to justification, remission of sins, and to remission of sins they all require repentance, and repentance i presume may not be denied the name of a good work; being indeed, if it be rightly understood, and according to the sense of the word in scripture, an effectual conversion from all sin to all holiness. but though it be taken for mere sorrow for sins past, and a bare purpose of amendment, yet even this is a good work; and therefore protestants requiring this to remission of sins, and remission of sins to justification, cannot with candour be pretended to believe, that they are justified before any good work. 32. you say, they believe themselves justified by faith alone, and that by that faith whereby they believe themselves justified: some peradventure do so, but withal they believe that that faith which is alone, and unaccompanied with sincere and universal obedience, is to be esteemed not faith but presumption, and is at no hand sufficient to justification: that though charity be not imputed unto justification, yet is it required as a necessary disposition in the person to be justified, and that though in regard of the imperfection of it, no man can be justified by it, yet that, on the other side, no man can be justified without it. so that upon the whole matter, a man may truly and safely say, that the doctrine of these protestants, taken altogether, is not a doctrine of liberty, not a doctrine that turns hope into presumption and carnal security: though it may justly be feared, that many licentious persons, taking it by halves have made this wicked use of it. for my part, i do hearty wish, that by public authority it were so ordered, that no man should ever preach or print this doctrine that faith alone justifies, unless he joins this together with it, that universal obedience is necessary to salvation and besides that those chapters of saint paul, which entreat of justification by faith, without the works of the law, were never read in the church, but when the 13. chapter of the 1. epistle to the corinth. concerning the absolute necessity of charity, should be, to prevent misprision, read together with them. 33. whereas you say, that some protestants do expressly affirm the former point to be the soul of the church, etc. and therefore they must want the theological virtue of hope, and that none can have true hope, while they hope to be saved in their communion. i answ. they have great reason to believe the doctrine of justification, by faith only, a point of great weight and importance, if it be rightly understood: that is, they have reason to esteem it a principal and necessary duty of a christian, to place his hope of justification and salvation, not in the perfection of his own righteousness (which if it be imperfect will not justify,) but only in the mercies of god through christ's satisfaction; and yet, notwithstanding this, nay the rather for this, may preserve themselves in the right temper of good christians, which is a happy mixture and sweet composition of confidence and fear. if this doctrine be otherwise expounded than i have here expounded, i will not undertake the justification of it: only i will say (that which i may do truly) that i never knew any protestant such a soli-sidian, but that he did believe these divine truths▪ that he must make his calling certain by good works: that he must work out his salvation with fear and trembling, and that while he does not so, he can have no well grounded hope of salvation: i say, i never met with any who did not believe these divine truths, and that with a more firm, and a more unshaken assent, than he does that himself is predestinate, and that he is justified by believing himself justified. i never met with any such, who if he saw there were a necessity to do either, would not rather forgo his belief of these doctrines, than the former: these which he sees disputed and contradicted and opposed with a great multitude of very potent arguments; than those, which being the express words of scripture whosoever should call into question, could not with any modesty pretend to the title of christian. and therefore, there is no reason but we may believe, that their full assurance of the former doctrine, doth very well qualify their persuasion of the later; and that the former (as also the lives of may of them do sufficiently testify) are more effectual to temper their hope, and to keep it at a stay of a filial and modest assurance of god's favour, built upon the conscience of his love and fear, than the later can be to swell and puff them up into vain confidence and ungrounded presumption this reason joined with our experience of the honest and religious conversation of many men of this opinion, is a sufficient ground for charity, to hope well of their hope: and to assure ourselves, that it cannot be offensive, but rather most acceptable to god, if, notwithstanding this diversity of opinion, we embrace each other with the strict embraces of love and communion. to you and your church we leave it, to separate christians from the church, and to proscribe them from heaven upon trivial and trifling causes: as for ourselves, we conceive a charitable judgement of our brothers and their errors, though untrue, much more pleasing to god than a true judgement, if it be uncharitable; and therefore shall always choose (if we do err) to err on the milder and more merciful part, and rather to retain those in our communion which deserve to be ejected, than eject those that deserve to be retained. 34. lastly, whereas you say, that seeing protestants differ about the point of justification, you must needs infer that they want unity in faith, and consequently all faith, and then that they cannot agree what points are fundamental; i answer, to the first of these inferences, that, as well might you infer it upon victor bishop of rome and polycrates; upon stephen bishop of rome and saint cyprian: in as much as it is undeniably evident that what one of those esteemed necessary to salvation the other esteemed not so. but points of doctrine (as all other things) are as they are, and not as they are esteemed: neither can a necessary point be made unnecessary by being so accounted, nor an unnecessary point be made necessary by being overvalued. but as the ancient philosophers, (whose different opinions about the soul of man you may read in aristotle de anima, and cicero's tusculan questions,) notwithstanding their divers opinions touching the nature of the soul, yet all of them had souls, and souls of the same nature: or as those physicians who dispute whether the brain or heart be the principal part of a man, yet all of them have brains and have hearts, and herein agree sufficiently: so likewise, though some protestants esteem that doctrine the soul of the church, which others do not so highly value, yet this hinders not but that which is indeed the soul of the church may be in both sorts of them: and though one account that a necessary truth which others account neither necessary nor perhaps true; yet, this notwithstanding, in those truths which are truly and really necessary they may all agree. for no argument can be more sophistical than this; they differ in some points which they esteem necessary; therefore they differ in some that indeed and in truth are so. 35. now as concerning the other inference, that they cannot agree what points are fundamental: i have said and proved formerly that there is no such necessity as you imagine or pretend, that men should certainly know what is, and what is not fundamental. they that believe all things plainly delivered in scripture, believe all things fundamental, and are at sufficient unity in matters of faith, though they cannot precisely and exactly distinguish between what is fundamental, and what is profitable: nay though by error they mistake some vain, or perhaps some hurtful, opinions for necessary and fundamental truths. c 3. sect. 54. & alibi. besides, i have showed above, that as protestants do not agree (for you overreach in saying, they cannot) touching what points are fundamental; so neither do you agree what points are defined and so to be accounted, and what are not: nay, nor concerning the subject in which god hath placed this pretended authority of defining: some of you settling it in the pope himself, though alone without a council, others in a council, though divided from the pope: others only in the conjunction of council and pope: others not in this neither, but in the acceptation of the present church universal: lastly, others not attributing it to this neither, but only to the perpetual succession of the church of all ages: of which divided company, it is very evident and undeniable, that every former may be and are obliged to hold many things defined and therefore necessary, which the latter, according to their own grounds, have no obligation to do, nay cannot do so upon any firm and sure and infallible foundation. the conclusion. and thus, by god's assistance, and the advantage of a good cause, i am at length, through a passage rather tiring than difficult, arrived at the end of my undertaken voyage; and have, as i suppose, made appear, to all disinteressed and unprejudicate readers, what in the beginning i undertook, that a vein of sophistry and calumny runs clean through this first part of your book: wherein though i never thought of the directions you have been pleased to give me in your pamphlet entitled a direction to n. n. yet upon consideration of my answer, i find that i have proceeded, as if i had had it always before my eyes, and steered my course by it as by a card and compass. for first, i have not proceeded by a mere destructive way (as you call it) nor objected such difficulties against your religion, as, upon examination, tend to the overthrow of all religion, but have showed that the truth of christianity is clearly independent upon the truth of popery: and that on the other side, the arguments you urge, and the courses you take, for the maintenance of your religion, do manifestly tend (if they be closely and consequently followed) to the destruction of all religion, and lead men by the hand to atheism and impiety; whereof i have given you ocular demonstrations in divers places of my book, but especially, in my answer to your direction to n. n. neither can i discover any repugnance between any one part of my answer and any other, though i have used many more judicious and more searching eyes than mine own, to make, if it were possible, such a discovery: and therefore am in good hope, that, though the music i have made be but dull and flat, and even downright plainsong, even your curious and critical ears shall discover no discord in it; but on the other side, i have charged you frequently, and very justly, with manifest contradiction and retractation of your own assertions, and not seldom of the main grounds you build upon, and the principal conclusions which you endeavour to maintain: which i conceive myself to have made apparent even to the eye, c. 2. §. 5. c. 3. §. 88 c. 4. §. 14. and 24. c. 5. §. 93. c. 6. §. 6, 7, 12, 17. c. 7. §. 29. and in many other parts of my answer. and though i did never pretend to defend d. potter absolutely and in all things, but only so fare as he defends truth; (neither did d. potter desire me, nor any law of god or man oblige me, to defend him any farther,) yet i do not find that i have cause to differ from him in any matter of moment: particularly, not concerning the infallibility of god's church, which i grant with him to be infallible in fundamentals, because if it should err in fundamentals, it were not the church: nor concerning the supernaturality of faith, which i know and believe as well as you, to be the gift of god, and that flesh and blood revealed it not unto us, but our father which is in heaven. but now if it were demanded, what defence you can make for deserting charity mistaken, in the main question disputed between him and dr. potter, whether protestancy, without a particular repentance and dereliction of it, destroy salvation, whereof i have convinced you? i believe your answer would be much like that which ulysses makes in the metamorphosis for his running away from his friend nestor, that is, none at all. for opposing the articles of the church of england, the approbation, i presume, clears my book from this imputation. and whereas you give me a caution, that my grounds destroy not the belief of divers doctrines which all good christians believe, yea and of all verities that cannot be proved by natural reason: i profess sincerely, that i do not know nor believe, that any ground laid by me in my whole book, is any way inconsistent with any one such doctrine, or with any verity revealed in the word of god, though never so improbable or incomprehensible to natural reason: and if i thought there were, i would deal with it, as those primitive converts dealt with their curious books in the acts of the apostles. for the epistle of st. james, and those other books which were anciently controverted, and are now received by the church of england as canonical; i am so far from relying upon any principles which must (to my apprehension) bring with them the denial of the authority of them, that i myself believe them all to be canonical. for the overthrowing the infallibility of all scripture, my book is so innocent of it, that the infallibility of scripture is the chiefest of all my grounds. and lastly, for arguments tending to prove an impossibility of all divine, supernatural, infallible faith and religion, i assure myself, that if you were ten times more a spider than you are, you could suck no such poison from them. my heart, i am sure, is innocent of any such intention: and the searcher of all hearts knows, that i had no other end in writing this book, but to confirm, to the uttermost of my ability, the truth of the divine and infallible religion of our dearest lord and saviour christ jesus, which i am ready to seal and confirm, not with my arguments only, but my blood! now these are the directions which you have been pleased to give me, whether out of a fear that i might otherwise deviate from them, or out of a desire to make others think so: but howsoever, i have not, to my understanding, swarved from them in any thing, which puts me in good hope, that my answer to this first part of your book will give even to you yourself indifferent good satisfaction. i have also provided, though this were more than i undertook, a just and punctual examination and refutation of your second part: but (if you will give your consent) i am resolved to suppress it, and that for divers sufficient and reasonable considerations. first, because the discussion of the controversies entreated of in the first part (if we shall think fit to proceed in it, as i for my part shall, so long as i have truth to reply,) will, i conceive, be sufficient employment for us, though we cast off the burden of those many lesser disputes which remain behind in the second. and perhaps we may do god and his church more service by exactly discussing and fully clearing the truth in these few, ●●an by handling many after a sleight and perfunctory manner. secondly, because the addition of the second part, whether for your purpose or mine, is clearly unnecessary: there being no understanding man, papist or protestant, but will confess, that (for as much as concerns the main question now in agitation, about the saveableness of protestants) if the first part of your book be answered, there needs no reply to the second: as on the other side, i shall willingly grant, if i have not answered the first, i cannot answer a great part of the second. thirdly, because the addition of the second not only is unnecessary, but in effect by yourself confessed to be so. for in your preamble to your second part you tell us, that the substance of the present controversy is handled in the first: and therein also you pretend to have answered the chief grounds of d. potter's book: so that in replying to your second part, i shall do little else but pursue shadows. fourthly, because your second part (setting aside repetitions and references) is in a manner made up of disputes about particular matters, which you are very importunate to have forborn, as suspecting, at least pretending to suspect, that they were brought in purposely by d. potter to dazzle the reader's eyes and distract his mind, that he might not see the clearness of the reasons brought in defence of the general doctrine delivered in charity mistaken. all which you are likely enough (if there be occasion) to say again to me; and therefore i am resolved for once even to humour you so fare as to keep my discourse within those very lists and limits which yourself have prescribed, and to deal with you upon no other arguments, but only those wherein you conceive your chief advantage and principal strength, and, as it were, your sampson's lock to lie: wherein if i gain the cause clearly from you (as i verily hope by gods help i shall do) it cannot but redound much to the honour of the truth maintained by me, which by so weak a champion can overcome such an achilles for error, even in his strongest holds. for these reasons, although i have made ready an answer to your second part, and therein have made it sufficiently evident: that for shifting evasions from d. potter's arguments: for impertinent cavils, and frivolous exceptions, and injurious calumnies against him for his misalleadging of authors: for proceeding upon false and ungrounded principles; for making inconsequent and sophistical deductions, and, in a word, for all the virtues of an ill answer your second part is no way second to the first. yet notwithstanding all this advantage, i am resolved, if you will give me leave, either wholly to suppress it, or at least to defer the publication of it until i see what exceptions, upon a twelvemonth's examination (for so long i am well assured you have had it in your hands) you can take at this which is now published, that so if my grounds be discovered false i may give over building on them: or (if it shall be thought fit) build on more securely when it shall appear that nothing material and of moment, is or can be objected against them. this i say, upon a supposition that yourself will allow these reasons for satisfying and sufficient, and not repent of the motion which yourself has made, of reducing the controversy between us to this short issue. but in case your mind be altered, upon the least intimation you shall give me, that you do but desire to have it out, your desire shall prevail with me above all other reasons, and you shall not fail to receive it with all convenient speed. only that my answer may be complete, and that i may have all my work together, and not be troubled myself, nor enforced to trouble you, with after-reckoning, i would first entreat you to make good your promise of not omitting to answer all the particles of d. potter's book, which may any way import, and now at least to take notice of some (as it seems to me) not unconsiderable passages of it, which between your first and second part, as it were between two stools, have been suffered hitherto to fall to the ground, and not been vouchsafed any answer at all. for after this neglectful fashion you have passed by in silence, first, his discourse, wherein he proves briefly, but very effectually, that protestants may be saved, and that the roman church, especially the jesuits are very uncharitable. s. 1. p. 6, 7, 8, 9 secondly, the authorities whereby he justifies, that the ancient fathers, by the roman understood always a particular, and never the catholic church: to which purpose he allegeth the words of ignatius, ambrose, innocentius, celestine, nicolaus, s. 1. p. 10. whereunto you say nothing, neither do you infringe his observation with any one instance to the contrary. thirdly, the greatest and most substantial part of his answers to the arguments of charity mistaken, built upon deut. 17. numb. 16. mat. 28.20. mat. 18.17. and in particular many pregnant and convincing texts of scripture, quoted in the margin of his book, p. 25. to prove that the judges of the synagogue (whose infallibility yet you make an argument of yours, and therefore must be more credible than yours) are vainly pretended to have been infallible: but as they were obliged to judge according to the law, so were obnoxious to deviations from it. s. 2. p. 23, 24, 25, 26, 27. fourthly, his discourse wherein he shows the difference between the prayers for the dead used by the ancients, and those now in use in the roman church. fifthly, the authority of three ancient, and above twenty modern doctors of your own church alleged by him, to show that in their opinion even pagans, and therefore much more erring christians (if their lives were morally honest) by god's extraordinary mercy and christ's merit may be saved. s. 2. p. 45. sixthly, a great part of his discourse whereby he declares that actual and external communion with the church is not of absolute necessity to salvation: nay that those might be saved whom the church utterly refused to admit to her communion. s. 2. p. 46, 47, 48, 49. seventhly, his discourse concerning the church's latitude, which hath in it a clear determination of the main controversy against you: for therein he proves plainly, that all appertain to the church, who believe that jesus is the christ the son of god and saviour of the world with submission to his doctrine in mind and will: which he irrefragably demonstrates by many evident texts of scripture, containing the substance of his assertion even in terms. s. 4. p. 114, 115, 116, 117. eighthly, that wherein he shows by many pertinent examples, that gross error and true faith, may be lodged together in the same mind: and that men are not chargeable with the damnable consequences of their erroneous opinions. s. 4 p. 112. ninthly a very great part of his chapter touching the dissensions of the roman-church, which he shows (against the pretences of charity mistaken) to be no less than ours, for the importance of the matter, and the pursuit of them to be exceedingly uncharitable. s. 6. p. 188, 189, 190, 191, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197. tenthly, his clear refutation and just reprehension of the doctrine of implicit faith, as it is delivered by the doctors of your church: which he proves very consonant to the doctrine of heretics and infidels, but evidently repugnant to the word of god. ibid. p. 201, 202, 203, 204, 205. lastly, his discourse wherein he shows that it is unlawful for the church of after ages to add any thing to the faith of the apostles: and many of his arguments whereby he proves that in the judgement of the ancient church the apostles creed was esteemed a sufficient summary of the necessary points of simple belief, and a great number of great authorities, to justify the doctrine of the church of england touching the canon of scripture, especially the old testament, s. 7. p. 221, 223, 228, 229. all these parts of doctor potter's book, for reason best known to yourself, you have dealt with, as the priest and levite in the gospel did with the wounded samaritan, that is, only looked upon them and passed by: but now at least when you are admonished of it, that my reply to your second part (if you desire it,) may be perfect, i would entreat you to take them into your consideration, and to make some show of saying something to them, lest otherwise the world should interpret your obstinate silence a plain confession that you can say nothing. finis. the apostolical institution of episcopacy demonstrated. by will. chillingworth master of arts of the university of oxford. nosce te ipsum ne quid nimis printer's or publisher's device london, printed by e. cotes dwelling in aldersgate-street. anno dom. m.dc.lxiv. the apostolical institution of episcopacy demonstrated. sect. i. if we abstract from episcopal government all accidentals, and consider only what is essential and necessary to it; we shall find in it no more but this: an appointment of one man of eminent sanctity and sufficiency to have the care of all the churches, within a certain precinct or diocese; and furnishing him with authority (not absolute or arbitrary, but regulated and bounded by laws, and moderated by joining to him a convenient number of assistants) to the intent that all the churches under him may be provided of good and able pastors: and that both of pastors and people, conformity to laws, and performance of their duties may be required, under penalties, not left to discretion, but by law appointed. sect. ii. to this kind of government, i am not by any particular interest so devoted, as to think it ought to be maintained, either in opposition to apostolic institution; or to the much desired reformation of men's lives, and restauration of primitive discipline; or to any law or precept of our lord and saviour jesus christ: for that were to maintain a means contrary to the end; for obedience to our saviour, is the end for which church-government is appointed. but if it may be demonstrated (or made much more probable than the contrary) as i verily think it may: i. that it is not repugnant to the government settled in and for the church by the apostles. ii. that it is as complyable with the reformation of any evil which we desire to reform either in church or state, or the introduction of any good which we desire to introduce as any other kind of government: and, iii. that there is no law, no record of our saviour against it: then, i hope, it will not be thought an unreasonable motion, if we humbly desire those that are in authority, especially the high court of parliament, that it may not be sacrificed to clamour, or overborn by violence: and though (which god forbidden) the greater part of the multitude should cry, crucify, crucify; yet our governors would be so full of justice and counage, as not to give it up, until they perfectly understand concerning episcopacy itself, quid mali fecit? sect. iii. i shall speak at this time only of the first of these three points: that episcopacy is not repugnant to the government settled in the church for perpetuity by the apostles. whereof i conceive this which follows is as clear a demonstration, as any thing of this nature is capable of. that this government was received universally in the church, either in the apostles time, or presently after, is so evident and unquestionable, that the most learned adversaries of this government do themselves confess it. sect. iv petrus molinaeus in his book de munere pastorali, purposely written in defence of the presbyterial-government, acknowledgeth: that presently after the apostles times, or even in their time (as ecclesiastical story witnesseth) it was ordained, that in every city one of the presbytery should be called a bishop, who should have pre-eminence over his colleagues; to avoid confusion which oft times ariseth out of equality. and truly, this form of government all churches every where received. sect. v theodorus beza in his tract, de triplici episcopatûs genere, confesseth in effect the same thing. for, having distinguished episcopacy into three kinds, divine, humane, and satanical; and attributing to the second (which he calls humane, but we maintain and conceive to be apostolical) not only a priority of order, but a superiority of power and authority over other presbyters, bounded yet by laws and canons provided against tyranny: he clearly professeth that of this kind of episcopacy, is to be understood whatsoever we read concerning the authority of bishops (or precedents, as justin martyr calls them) in ignatius, and other more ancient writers. sect. vi certainly, from * to whom two others also from geneva may be added: daniel chamierus (in panstratia, tom. 2. lib. 10. cap. 6. sect. 24.) and nicol. vedelius (exereitat. 3. in epist. ignatii ad philadelph. cap. 14. & exercit. 8. in epist. ad mariam, cap. 3.) which is fully also demonstrated in d. hammond's dissertations against blondel (which never were answered, and never will) by the testimonies of those who wrote in the very next age after the apostles. these two great defenders of the presbytery, we should never have had this free acknowledgement, (so prejudicial to their own pretence, and so advantageous to their adversaries purpose) had not the evidence of clear and undeniable truth enforced them to it. it will not therefore be necessary, to spend any time in confuting that uningenuous assertion of the anonymous author of the catalogue of testimonies, for the equality of bishops and presbyters, who affirms, that their disparity began long after the apostles times: but we may safely take for granted that which these two learned adversaries have confessed; and see, whether upon this foundation laid by them, we may not by unanswerable reason raise this superstructure; that seeing episcopal government is confessedly so ancient and so catholic, it cannot with reason be denied to be apostolic. sect. vii. for so great a change, as between presbyterial government and episcopal, could not possibly have prevailed all the world over in a little time. had episcopal government been an aberration from (or a corruption of) the government left in the churches by the apostles, it had been very strange, that it should have been received inany one church so suddenly, or that it should have prevailed in all for many ages after. variâsse debuerat error ecclesiarum: quod autem apud omnes unum est, non est erratum, sed traditum. had the churches erred, they would have varied: what therefore is one and the same amongst all, came not sure by error, but tradition. thus tertullian argues very probably, from the consent of the churches of his time, not long after the apostles, and that in matter of opinion much more subject to unobserved alteration. but that in the frame and substance of the necessary government of the church, a thing always in use and practice, there should be so sudden a change as presently after the apostles times; and so universal, as received in all the churches; this is clearly impossible. sect. viii. for, what universal cause can be assigned or feigned of this universal apostasy? you will not imagine that the apostles, all or any of them, made any decree for this change, when they were living; or left order for it in any will or testament, when they were dying. this were to grant the question; to wit, that the apostles, being to leave the government of the churches themselves, and either seeing by experience, or foreseeing by the spirit of god, the distractions and disorders, which would arise from a multitude of equals, substituted episcopal government instead of their own. general counsels to make a law for a general change, for many ages there was none. there was no christian emperor, no coercive power over the church to enforce it. or, if there had been any, we know no force was equal to the courage of the christians of those times. their lives were then at command (for they had not then learned to fight for christ) but their obedience to any thing against his law was not to be commanded (for they had perfectly learned to die for him.) therefore there was no power then to command this change; or if there had been any, it had been in vain. sect. ix. what device then shall we study, or to what fountain shall we reduce this strange pretended alteration? can it enter into our hearts to think, that all the presbyters and other christians then, being the apostles scholars, could be generally ignorant of the will of christ, touching the necessity of a presbyterial government? or, dare we adventure to think them so strangely wicked all the world over, as against knowledge and conscience to conspire against it? imagine the spirit of diotrephes had entered into some, or a great many of the presbyters, and possessed them with an ambitious desire of a forbidden superiority, was it possible they should attempt and achieve it once without any opposition or contradiction? and besides, that the contagion of this ambition, should spread itself and prevail without stop or control; nay, without any noise or notice taken of it, through all the churches in the world; all the watchmen in the mean time being so fast asleep, and all the dogs so dumb, that not so much as one should open his mouth against it? sect. x. but let us suppose (though it be a horrible untruth) that the presbyters and people then, were not so good christians as the presbyterians are now; that they were generally so negligent to retain the government of christ's church commanded by christ, which we now are so zealous to restore: yet certainly we must not forget nor deny, that they were men as we are. and if we look upon them but as mere natural men; yet, knowing by experience, how hard a thing it is, even for policy armed with power by many attempts and contrivances, and in along time, to gain upon the liberty of any one people; undoubtedly we shall never entertain so wild an imagination, as that, among all the christian presbyteries in the world, neither conscience of duty, nor love of liberty, nor averseness from pride and usurpation of others over them, should prevail so much with any one, as to oppose this pretended universal invasion of the kingdom of jesus christ, and the liberty of christians. sect. xi. when i shall-see therefore all the fables in the metamorphosis acted and prove stories; when i shall see all the democracies and aristocracies in the world lie down and sleep, and awake into monarchies: then will i begin to believe that presbyterial government, having continued in the church during the apostles times, should presently after (against the apostles doctrine and the will of christ) be whirled about like a scene in a mask, and transformed into episcopacy. in the mean time, while these things remain thus incredible, and, in humane reason, impossible, i hope i shall have leave to conclude thus: episcopal government is acknowledged to have been universally received in the church, presently after the apostles times. between the apostles times and this presently after, there was not time enough for, nor possibility of, so great an alteration. and therefore there was no such alteration as is pretended. and therefore episcopacy, being confessed to be so ancient and catholic, must be granted also to be apostolic, quod erat demonstrandum. finis. nine sermons: the first preached before his majesty king charles the first: the other eight upon special and eminent occasions. by will. chillingworth master of arts of the university of oxford. nosce te ipsum ne quid nimis printer's or publisher's device london, printed by e. cotes dwelling in aldersgate-street. anno dom. m.dc.lxiv. to the reader. christian reader, these sermons were, by the godly and learned author of them, fitted to the congregations to which he was to speak; and no doubt intended only for the benefit of hearers, not of readers. nevertheless, it was the desire of many that they might be published, upon the hope of good that might be done to the church of god by them. there is need of plain instructions to incite men to holiness of life, as well as accurate treatises in points controverted, to discern truth from error. for which end i dare promise these sermons will make much, where they find an honest and humble reader. it was the author's greatest care (as you may find in the reading of them) to handle the word of god by manifestation of the truth, commending himself to every man's conscience in the fight of god: as once st. paul pleaded for himself, 2 cor. 4.2. and if that be the property (which they say) of an eloquent and good speaker; non ex ore, sed ex pectore, to speak from his heart rather than his tongue; then surely this author was an excellent orator, one that spoke out of sound understanding with true affection. how great his parts were, and how well improved, as may appear by these his labours, so they were fully known, and the loss of them sufficiently bewailed by those among whom he lived and conversed. many excellencies there were in him, for which his memory remains; but this above all was his crown, that he unfeignedly sought god's glory, and the good of men's souls. it remains, that these sermons be read by thee with a care to profit, and thanks to god for the benefit thou hast by them, sigh they are such talents, as in the use of which he requires and expects to be glorified. farewell. the first sermon. 2 tim. iii. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. this know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. for men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, without natural affection, truce-breakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of god; having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof. to a discourse upon these words, i cannot think of any fit introduction, then that wherewith our saviour sometime began a sermon of his, this day is this scripture fulfilled. and i would to god, there were not great occasion to fear, that a great part of it may be fulfilled in this place. two things are contained in it. first, the real wickedness of the generality of the men of the latter-times, in the four first verses. for by men shall be lovers of themselves, covetous, boasters, proud, etc. i conceive is meant, men generally shall be so; otherwise this were nothing peculiar to the last, but common to all times: for in all times some, nay many, have been lovers of themselves, covetous, boasters, proud, etc. secondly, we have here the formal and hypocritical godliness of the same times, in the last verse, having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof; which latter, ordinarily and naturally accompanies the former. for, as the shadows are longest when the sun is lowest, and as vines and other fruit-trees bear the less fruit, when they are suffered to luxuriate and spend their sap upon superfluous suckers, and abundance of leaves: so commonly, we may observe both in civil conversation, where there is great store of formality, there is little sincerity: and in religion, where there is a decay of true and cordial piety, there men entertain and please themselves, and vainly hope to please god with external formalities, and performances, and great store of that righteousness for which christ shall judge the world. it were no difficult matter to show that the truth of st. paul's prediction is by experience justified in both parts of it; but my purpose is to restrain myself to the latter, and to endeavour to clear unto you, that that in our times is generally accomplished: that almost in all places the power of godliness is decayed and vanished; the form and profession of it only remaining: that the spirit, and soul, and life of religion, is for the most part gone; only the outward body or carcase, or rather the picture or shadow of it being left behind: this is the doctrine which at this time i shall deliver to you; and the use, which i desire most hearty you should make of it, is this, to take care that you confute so far as it concerns your particulars, what i fear i shall prove too true in the general. to come then to our business, without further compliment, let us examine our ways, and consider impartially, what the religion of most men is. we are baptised in our infancy, that is, as i conceive, dedicated and devoted to god's service, by our parents and the church, as young samuel was by his mother anna, and there we take a solemn vow, to forsake the devil and all his works, the vain pomp and glory of the world, with all the covetous desires of it; to forsake also all the carnal desires of the flesh, and not to follow nor be led by them. this vow we take when we be children and understand it not: and, how many are there, who know, and consider, and regard what they have vowed, when they are become men, almost as little as they did being children: consider the lives, and public actions of most men of all conditions, in court, city, and country, and then deny it, if you can, that those three things which we have renounced in our baptism; the profits, honours, and pleasures of the world, are not the very gods which divide the world amongst them, are not served more devoutly, confided in more hearty, loved more affectionately, than the father, son, and hol● ghost, in whose name we are baptised? deny, if you can, the daily and constant employment of all men, to be either a violent prosecution of the vain pomp and glory of the world, or of the power, riches, and contemptible profits of it, or of the momentary or unsatisfying pleasures of the flesh, or else of the more diabolical humours of pride, malice, revenge, and such like: and yet with this empty form we please and satisfy ourselves, as well as if we were lively born again by the spirit of god, not knowing or not regarding what st. peter hath taught us, that the baptism which must save us, is, not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, 1 pet. 3.21. but the answer of a good conscience unto god. when we are come to years capable of instruction, many, which is lamentable to consider, are so little regarded by themselves or others, that they continue little better than pagans in a commonwealth of christians, and know little more of god or of christ, then if they had been bred in the indies. a lamentable case, and which will one day lie heavy upon their account, which might have amended it and did not. but many, i confess, are taught to act over this play of religion, and learned to say, our father which art in heaven; and, i believe in god the father almighty: but, where are the men that live so, as if they did believe in earnest, that god is their almighty father? where are they that fear him, and trust him, and depend upon him only, for their whole happiness, and love him, and obey him, as in reason we ought to do to an almighty father? who, if he be our father, and we be indeed his children, will do for us all the good he can; and if he be almighty, can do for us all the good he will; and yet, how few are there, who love him with half that affection as children usually do their parents, or believe him with half that simplicity, or serve him with half that diligence? and then for the lords prayer, the plain truth is, we lie unto god for the most part clean through it, and for want of desiring indeed, what in word we pray for, tell him to his face as many false tales as we make petitions. for who shows by his endeavours, that he desires hearty that god's name should be hallowed; that is, holily and religiously worshipped and adored by all men? that his kingdom should be advanced and enlarged? that his blessed will should be universally obeyed? who shows by his forsaking sin, that he desires so much as he should do the forgiveness of it? nay who doth not revenge, upon all occasions, the affronts, contempts, and injuries put upon him, and so upon the matter curse himself, as oft as he says, forgive us our trespasses as we forgive them that trespass against us? how few depend upon god only for their daily bread, viz. the good things of this life, as upon the only giver of them, so as neither to get nor keep any of them, by any means which they know or fear to be offensive unto god? how few desire in earnest to avoid temptation? nay, who almost is there, that takes not the devil's office out of his hand, and is not himself a tempter both to himself and others? lastly, who almost is there that desires hearty and above all things so much as the thing deserves, to be delivered from the greatest evil, sin, i mean, and the anger of god? now, beloved, this is certain; he that employs not requisite industry, to obtain what he pretends to desire, does not desire indeed, but only pretends to do so: he that desires not what he prays for, prays with tongue only, and not with his heart, indeed does not pray to god, but play and dally with him. and yet this is all which men generally do, and therefore herein also accomplish this prophecy, having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof. and this were ill enough, were it in private, but we abuse god almighty also with our public and solemn formalities, we make the church a stage whereon to act our parts, and play our pageants; there we make a profession every day of confessing our sins with humble; lowly, and obedient hearts, and yet when we have talked after this manner, 20, 30, 40, years together, our hearts for the most part continue as proud, as impenitent, as disobedient, as they were in the beginning. we make great protestations, when we assemble and meet together to render thanks to god almighty, for the benefits received at his hands; and if this were to be performed with words, with hosannas, and hallelujahs, and gloria patri's and psalms and hymns, and such like outward matters, peradventure we should do it very sufficiently: but in the mean time with our lives and actions, we provoke the almighty, and that to his face, with all variety of grievous and bitter provocations; we do daily and hourly such things as we know, and he hath assured us, to be odious unto him, and contrary to his nature; as any thing in the world is to the nature of any man in the world; and all this upon poor, trifling, trivial, no temptations. if a man whom you had dealt well with, should deal so with you; one whom ye had redeemed from the turkish slavery, and instated in some indifferent good inheritance, should make you fine speeches, entertain you with panegyrics, and have your praises always in your mouth; but all this while do nothing that pleases you, but upon all occasions, put all affronts and indignities upon you, would you say, this were a thankful man? nay, would you not make heaven and earth ring of his unthankfulness, and detest him almost as much for his fair speeches, as his foul actions. beloved, such is our unthankfulness to our god and creator, to our lord and saviour; our tongues ingeminate, and cry aloud hosanna, hosanna, but the louder voice of our lives and actions is crucify him, crucify him: we court god almighty, and compliment with him, and profess to esteem his service perfect freedom; but if any thing be to be done, much more if any thing be to be suffered for him, here we leave him. we bow the knee before him, and put a reed in his hand, and a crown upon his head, and cry, hail king of the jews: but then with our customary sins, we give him gall to eat, and vinegar to drink, we thrust a spear in his side, nail him to the cross, and crucify to ourselves the lord of glory. this is not the office of a friend to bewail a dead friend with vain lamentation. sed quae voluerit meminisse, quae mandaverit exequi, to remember what he desires, and execute what he commands; so said a dying roman to his friend, and so say i to you, to be thankful to god is not to say, god be praised, or, god be thanked, but to remember what he desires, and execute what he commands. to be thankful to god, is certainly to love him, and to love him is to keep his commandments, so saith our saviour, joh. 19 if ye love me, keep my commandments: if we do so, we may justly pretend to thankfulness; which, believe me, is not a word, nor to be performed with words; but if we do not so, as general y we do not, our talk of thankfulness is nothing else but mere talk; and we accomplish saint paul's prophecy herein also: having a form of thankfulness, but not the reality, not the power of it. if i should reckon up unto you, how many direct lies every wicked man tells to god almighty, as often as he says amen, to this form of godliness, which our church hath prescribed; if i should present unto you all our acting of piety, and playing of humiliation, and personating of devotion in the psalms, the litanies, the collects, and generally in the whole service, i should be infinite: and therefore i have thought good to draw a vail over a great part of our hypocrisy, and to restrain the remainder of our discourse to the contrariety between our profession and performance, only in two things, i mean, faith and repentance. and first for faith: we profess, and indeed generally, because it is not safe to do otherwise, that we believe the scripture to be true, and that it contains the plain and only way to infinite and eternal happiness: but if we did generally believe what we do profess, if this were the language of our hearts as well as our tongues, how comes it to pass that the study of it is so generally neglected? let a book that treats of the philosopher's stone, promise never so many mountains of gold, and even the restoring of the golden age again, yet were it not marvel, if few should study it; and the reason is, because few would believe it. but if there were a book extant, and ordinary to be had, as the bible is, which men did generally believe to contain a plain and easy way for all men to become rich, and to live in health and pleasure, and this world's happiness, can any man imagine that this book would be unstudied by any man? and why then should i not believe, that if the scripture were firmly and hearty believed, the certain and only way to happiness, which is perfect and eternal, it would be studied by all men with all diligence? seeing therefore most christians are so cold and negligent in the study of it, prefer all other business, all other pleasures before it; is there not great reason to fear, that many who pretend to believe firmly, believe it not at all, or very weakly and faintly? if the general of an army, or an ambassador to some prince or state, were assured by the king his master, that the transgressing any point of his commission, should cost him his life; and the exact performance of it, be recompensed with as high a reward as were in the king's power to bestow upon him: can it be imagined that any man who believes this, and is in his right mind, can be so supinely and studiply negligent of this charge, which so much imports him, as to oversee, through want of care, any one necessary article, or part of his commission; especially if it be delivered to him in writing, and at his pleasure to peruse it every day? certainly this absurd negligence is a thing without example, and such as peradventure will never happen to any sober man to the world's end: and by the same reason, if we were firmly persuaded, that this book doth indeed contain that charge and commission, which infinitely more concerns us, it were not in reason possible, but that to such a persuasion, our care and diligence about it, should be in some measure answerable: seeing therefore most of us are so strangely careless, so grossly negligent of it, is there not great reason to fear, that though we have professors and protesters in abundance; yet the faithful, the truly and sincerely faithful, are, in a manner, failed from the children of men. what but this can be the cause that men are so commonly ignorant of so many articles, and particular mandates of it, which yet are as manifest in it, as if they were written with the beams of the sun? for example; how few of our ladies and gentlewomen, do or will understand, that a voluptuous life, is damnable and prohibited to them? yet st. paul saith so very plainly, she that liveth in pleasure is dead while she liveth. 1 tim. 5.6. i believe this case divinely regards not the sex, he would say, he as well as she, if there had been occasion. how few of the gallants of our time do or will understand, that it is not lawful for them to be as expensive and costly in apparel, as their means, or perhaps, their credit will extend unto? which is to sacrifice unto vanity, that, which by the law of christ, is due unto charity; and yet the same st. paul forbids plainly this excess even to women— also let women (he would have said it much rather to the men) array themselves in comely apparel, with shamefacedness and modesty, not with embroidered hair, 1 tim. 2.3. or gold, or pearls, or costly apparel; and to make our ignorance the more inexcusable, the very same rule is delivered by st. peter also, 1 epist. 3.3. how few rich men are or will be persuaded, that the law of christ permits them not to heap up riches for ever, nor perpetually to add house to house, and land to land, though by lawful means, but requires of them thus much charity at least, that ever while they are providing for their wives and children, they should, out of the increase wherewith god blesseth their industry, allot the poor a just and free proportion? and when they have provided for them in a convenient manner, (such as they themselves shall judge sufficient and convenient in others) that then they should give over making purchase after purchase, but, with the surplusage of their revenue beyond their expense, procure, as much as lies in them, that no christian remain miserably poor: few rich men, i fear, are or will be thus persuaded, and their daily actions show as much; yet undoubtedly, either our saviour's general command, of loving our neighbours as ourselves, which can hardly consist with our keeping vainly, or spending vainly, what he wants for his ordinary subsistence, lays upon us a necessity of this high liberality: or his special command concerning this matter, quod superest date pauperibus; that which remains give to the poor: or that which st. john saith, 1 epist. 3.17. reacheth home unto it, whosoever hath this world's good, and seethe his brother have need, and shutteth up the bowels of his compassion from him, how dwelleth the love of god in him? which is in effect, as if he had said, he that keepeth from any brother in christ, that which his brother wants, and he wants not, doth but vainly think that he loves god, and therefore vainly hope that god loves him. where almost are the men that are or will be persuaded the gospel of christ requires of men humility, like to that of little children, and that under the highest pain of damnation? that is, that we should no more over-value ourselves, or desire to be highly esteemed by others; no more undervalue, scorn, or despise others; no more affect preeminence over others, then little children do, before we have put that pride into them, which afterwards we charge wholly upon their natural corruption: and yet our blessed saviour requires nothing more rigidly, nor more plainly, than this high degree of humility; verily, saith he, i say unto you (he speaks to his disciples affecting high places, and demanding, which of them should be greatest) except ye be converted and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. would it not be strange news to a great many, that not only adultery and fornication, but even uncleanness and lasciviousness; not only idolatry and witchcraft, but hatred, variance, emulations, wrath and contentions; not only murders, but envying; not drunkenness only, but revelling, are things prohibited to christians, and such as if we forsake them not, we cannot inherit the kingdom of heaven? and yet these things, as strange as they may seem, are plainly written; some of them by st. peter, 1 ep. 4. ch. but all of them by st. paul, gal. 5.19. now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these, adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, etc. of the which i tell you before, as i have told you in times past, that they who do such things, shall not inherit the kingdom of god. if i should tell you, that all bitterness and evil speaking (nay such is the modesty and gravity which christianity requires of us) foolish talk and jesting, are things not allowed to christians, would not many cry out, these are hard and strange say, who can hear them? and yet, as strange as they may seem, they have been written well nigh 1600 years, and are yet extant in very legible characters, in the epist. to the eph. the end of the 4 and the beginning of the 5 chap. to come a little nearer to the business of our times, the chief actors in this bloody tragedy, which is now upon the stage, who have robbed our sovereign lord the king of his forts, towns, treasure, ammunition, houses, of the persons of many of his subjects, and (as much as lies in them) of the hearts of all of them: is it credible that they know, and remember, and consider the example of david recorded for their instruction? whose heart smote him when he had but cut off the hem of saul's garment. they that make no scruple at all of fight with his sacred majesty, and shooting muskets and ordnance at him (which sure have not the skill, to choose a subject from a king) to the extreme hazard of his sacred person, whom by all possible obligations they are bound to defend; do they know, think you, the general rule, without exception or limitation, left by the holy ghost for our direction in all such cases, 1 sam. 26.9. who can lift up his hand against the lords anointed, and be innocent? or, do they consider his command in the proverbs of solomon, my son fear god and the king, prov. 24.21. and meddle not with them that desire change. or, his counsel in the book of ecclesiastes, i counsel thee to keep the king's commandment, eccles. 8.2. and that in regard of the oath of god. or, because they possibly may pretend that they are exempted from, or unconcerned in, the commands of obedience delivered in the old testament, do they know and remember, the precept given to all christians by st. peter, submit yourselves to every ordinance of man, for the lords sake, whether it be to the king as supreme, or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him? or, that terrible sanction of the same command, they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation, left us by st. paul in his ep. to the romans, who then were the miserable subjects of the worst king, the worst man, nay, i think i may add truly, the worst beast in the world; that so all rebels mouths might be stopped for ever, and left without all colour or pretence whatsoever, to justify resistance of sovereign power. undoubtedly, if they did know and consider, and lay close to their hearts, these places of scripture; or the fearful judgement which befell corah, dathan, and abiram, for this very sin which now they commit, and with a high hand still proceed in, it would be impossible but their hearts would smite them, as david's did, upon an infinitely less occasion, and affright them out of those ways of present confusion, and eternal damnation. and then on the other side, they that maintain the king's righteous cause with the hazard of their lives and fortunes, but by their oaths and curses, by their drunkenness and debauchery, by their irreligion and profaneness, fight more powerfully against their party, then by all other means they do or can fight for it; are not, i fear, very well acquainted with any part of the bible: but, that strict caution which properly concerns themselves, in the book of leviticus, i much doubt they have scarce ever heard of it, when thou goest to war with thine enemies, then take heed there be no wicked thing in thee; not only no wickedness in the cause thou maintainest, nor no wickedness in the means by which thou maintainest it; but no personal impieties in the persons that maintain it. beloved, for the former two, we have reason to be full of comfort and confidence; for, what is our cause? what is that which you fight, and we pray for? but to deliver the king and all his good subjects out of the power of their enemies, who will have no peace but with their slaves and vassals: and for the means by which it is maintained, it is not by lying, it is not by calumnies, it is not by running first ourselves, and then forcing the people to universal perjury? but by a just war, because necessary; and by as fair and merciful a war, as if they were not rebels and traitors you fight against, but competitors in a doubtful title. but now for the third part of the caution, that, to deal ingenuously with you, and to deliver my own soul, if i cannot other men's, that i cannot think of with half so much comfort as the former; but seeing so many jonasses embarked in the same ship, the same cause with us, and so many achans entering into battle with us against the canaanites; seeing publicans and sinners on the one side, against scribes and pharisees on the other; on the one side hypocrisy, on the other profaneness; no honesty nor justice on the one side, and very little piety on the other: on the one side horrible oaths, curses, and blasphemies; on the other, pestilent lies, calumnies, and perjury: when i see amongst them the pretence of reformation, if not the desire, pursued by antichristian, mahometan, devilish means; and amongst us little or no zeal for reformation of what is indeed amiss, little or no care to remove the cause of god's anger towards us, by just, lawful, and christian means; i profess plainly, i cannot without trembling consider, what is likely to be the event of these distractions; i cannot but fear, that the goodness of our cause, may sink under the burden of our sins: and that god in his justice, because we will not suffer his judgements to achieve their prime scope and intention, which is our amendment and reformation, may either deliver us up to the blind zeal and fury of our enemies; or else, which i rather fear, make us instruments of his justice each against other, and of our own just and deserved confusion. this, i profess plainly, is my fear, and i would to god it were the fear of every soldier of his majesty's army: but that which increaseth my fear is, that i see very many of them have very little or none at all: i mean not, that they are fearless towards their enemies, (that's our joy and triumph) but that they show their courage even against god, and fear not him, whom it is madness not to fear. now from whence can their not fearing him proceed, but from their not knowing him, their not knowing his will and their own duty? not knowing how highly it concerns soldiers, above other professions, to be religious; and then, if ever, when they are engaged in dangerous adventures, and every moment have their lives in their hands. when they go to war with their enemies, then to take heed there be no wicked thing in them. you see, beloved, how many instances and examples i have given you of our gross ignorance of what is necessary and easy for us to know; and to these, it were no difficult matter to add more. now from whence can this ignorance proceed, but from supine negligence? and from whence this negligence, but from our not believing what we pretend to believe? for, did we believe firmly and hearty, that this book were given us by god for the rule of our actions, and that obedience to it were the certain and only way to eternal happiness, it were impossible we should be such enemies to ourselves, such traitors to our own souls, as not to search it, at least, with so much diligence, that no necessary point of our duty plainly taught in it, could possibly escape us. but it is certain, and apparent to all the world, that the greatest part of christians, through gross and wilful negligence, remain utterly ignorant of many necessary points of their duty to god and man: and therefore it is much to be feared, that this book, and the religion of christ contained in it, among an infinite of professors, labours with great penury of true believers. it were an easy matter (if the time would permit) to present unto you many other demonstrations of the same conclusion; but to this drawn from our willing ignorance of that which is easy and necessary for us to know, i will content myself to add only one more, taken from our voluntary and presumptuous neglect to do those things which we know and acknowledge to be necessary. if a man should say unto me, that it concerns him as much as his life is worth, to go presently to such a place, and that he knows but one way to it, and i should see him stand still or go some other way, had i any reason to believe that this man believes himself? quid verba audiam, cum facta videam? saith he in the comedy; protestatio contra factum non valet, saith the law; and why should i believe, that that man believes obedience to christ the only way to present and eternal happiness, whom i see wittingly, and willingly, and constantly, and customarily to disobey him? the time was, that we all knew that the king could reward those that did him service, and punish those that did him dis-service, and then all men were ready to obey his command, and he was a rare man that durst do any thing to his face that offended him. beloved, if we did but believe in god, so much as most subjects do in their king; did we as verily believe, that god could and would make us perfectly happy, if we serve him, though all the world conspire to make us miserable, and that he could and would make us miserable if we serve him not, though all the world should conspire to to make us happy, how were it possible that to such a faith our lives should not be conformable? who was there ever so madly in love with a present penny, as to run the least hazard of the loss of 10000 l. a year to gain it, or not readily to part with it upon any probable hope or light persuasion, much more a firm belief that by doing so he should gain 100000 l. now, beloved, the happiness which the servants of christ are promised in the scripture, we all pretend to believe, that it exceeds the conjunction of all the good things of the world, and much more such a portion as we may possibly enjoy, infinitely more than 10000 l. a year, or 100000 l. doth a penny; for, 100000 l. is but a penny so many times over, and 10000 l. a year is worth but a certain number of pence; but between heaven and earth, between finite and infinite, between eternity and a moment, there is utterly no proportion; and therefore seeing we are so apt, upon trifling occasions, to hazard this heaven for this earth, this infinite for this finite, this all for this nothing; is it not much to be feared, that though many of us pretend to much faith, we have indeed very little or none at all? the sum of all which hath been spoken concerning this point is this: were we firmly persuaded, that obedience to the gospel of christ, is the true and only way to present and eternal happiness, (without which faith, no man living can be justified) then the innate desire of our own happiness could not but make us studious inquirers of the will of christ, and conscionable performers of it; but there are (as experience shows) very few, who make it their care and business to know the will of christ; and of those few again, very many who make no conscience at all of doing what they know: therefore though they profess and protest they have faith, yet their protestations are not to be regarded against their actions, but we may safely and reasonably conclude what was to be concluded, that the doctrine of christ, amongst an infinite of professors, labours with great scarcity of true, and serious, and hearty believers; and that herein also we accomplish st. paul's prediction, having a form of godliness, but denying, etc. but perhaps the truth and reality of our repentance may make some kind of satisfaction to god almighty for our hypocritical dallying with him in all the rest; truly, i should be hearty glad it were so: but i am so far from being of this faith, that herein i fear we are most of all hypocritical, and that the generality of professors is so far from a real practice of true repentance, that scarce one in an hundred understands truly what it is. some satisfy themselves with a bare confession and acknowledgement either that they are sinners in general, or that they have committed such and such sins in particular; which acknowledgement comes not yet from the heart of a great many, but only from their lips and tongues: for how many are there that do rather complain and murmur that they are sinners, then acknowledge and confess it? and make it, upon the matter, rather their unhappiness and misfortune, than their true fault, that they are so? such are all they who impute all their commissions of evil to the unavoidable want of restraining grace, and all their omission of good to the like want of effectual exciting grace. all such as pretend that the commandments of god are impossible to be kept any better than they are kept; and that the world, the flesh, and the devil, are even omnipotent enemies; and that god neither doth, nor will, give sufficient strength to resist and overcome them. all such as lay all their faults upon adam, and say with those rebellious israelites (whom god assures, that they neither had nor should have just reason to say so) that their fathers had eaten sour grapes, and their teeth were set on edge. lastly, all such as lay all their sins upon divine prescience, and predestination, saying with their tongues, o what wretched sinners have we been; but in their hearts, how could we help it, we were predestinate to it, we could not do otherwise. all such as seriously so persuade themselves, and think to hid their nakedness with such fig-leaves as these, can no more be said to acknowledge themselves guilty of a fault, than a man that was born blind or lame, with the stone or gout, can accuse himself of any fault for being born so; well may such a one complain and bemoan himself, and say, o wretched man that i am, who shall deliver me from this unhappiness! but such a complaint is as far from being a true acknowledgement of any fault, as a bare acknowledgement of a fault is far from true repentance: for, to confess a fault, is, to acknowledge, that, freely and willingly, without any constraint, or unavoidable necessity, we have transgressed the law of god, it being in our power by god's grace, to have done otherwise. to aggravate this fault is to confess we have done so, when we might easily have avoided it, and had no great nor violent temptation to it; to pretend any great difficulty in the matter, is to excuse and extenuate it: but to say, that, all things considered, it was absolutely impossible for you to avoid it, is flatly to deny it. others there are that think they have done enough, if to confession of sin, they add some sorrow for it; if when the present fit of sin is past, and they are returned to themselves, the sting remaining, breed some remorse of conscience, some complaints against their wickedness and folly for having done so, and some intentions to forsake it, though vanishing and ineffectual: these heat-drops, this morning dew of sorrow, though it presently vanish, and they return to their sin again upon the next temptation as a dog to his vomit, when the pang is over; yet in the pauses between, while they are in their good mood, they conceive themselves to have very true, and very good repentance; so that if they should have the good fortune to be taken away in one of these intervalla, one of these sober moods, they should certainly be saved; which is just as if a man in a quartane ague, or the stone, or gout, should think himself rid of his disease as oft as he is out of his fit. but if repentance were no more but so; how could st. paul have truly said, that godly sorrow worketh repentance? 1 cor. 7.10. every man knows that nothing can work itself. the architect is not the house which he builds, the father is not the son which he begets, the tradesman is not the work which he makes; and therefore if sorrow, godly sorrow, worketh repentance, certainly sorrow is not repentance: the same st. paul tells us in the same place, that the sorrow of the world worketh death; and you will give me leave to conclude from hence, therefore it is not death; and what shall hinder me from concluding thus also, godly sorrow worketh repentance, therefore it is not repentance. to this purpose it is worth the observing, that when the scripture speaks of that kind of repentance, which is only sorrow for something done, and wishing it undone, it constantly useth the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to which forgiveness of sins is not where promised. so it is written of judas the son of perdition, matth. 27.5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, he repent and went and hanged himself, and so constantly in other places. but that repentance to which remission of sins and salvation is promised, is perpetually expressed by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which signifieth a through change of the heart and soul, of the life and actions, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, mat. 3.2. which is rendered in our last translation, repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand: but much better, because freer from ambiguity in the entrance to our common prayer book, amend your lives, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand. from whence, by the way, we may observe, that in the judgement of those holy and learned martyrs, repentance, and amendment of life are all one: and i would to god, the same men, out of the same care of avoiding mistakes, and to take away occasion of cavilling our liturgy from them that seek it, and out of fear of encouraging carnal men to security in sinning, had been so provident, as to set down in terms, the first sentence taken out of the 18 th'. of ezekiel, and not have put in the place of it an ambiguous, and (though not in itself, yet accidentally, by reason of the mistake to which it is subject,) i fear very often a pernicious paraphrase; for whereas thus they make it, at what time soever a sinner doth repent him of his sins from the bottom of his heart, i will put all his wickedness out of my remembrance, saith the lord; the plain truth, if you will hear it, is, the lord doth not say so, these are not the very words of god, but the paraphrase of men: the words of god are as followeth— if the wicked turn from all the sins which he hath committed, and keep all my statutes, and do that which is lawful and right, he shall surely live, he shall not die; where, i hope, you easily observe that there is no such word as, at what time soever a sinner doth repent, etc. and that there is a wide difference between this (as the word repent usually sounds in the ears of the people) and turning from all sins, and keeping all god's statutes: that indeed, having no more in it but sorrow and good purposes, may be done easily and certainly at the last gasp, and it is very strange that any christian, who dies in his right senses, and knows the difference between heaven and hell, should fail of the performing it: but this work of turning, keeping, and doing, is (though not impossible by extraordinary mercy to be performed at last) yet ordinarily a work of time, a long and laborious work (but yet heaven is very well worth it) and if you mean to go through with it, you had need go about it presently. yet seeing the composers of our liturgy thought fit to abreviate, turning from all sin, and keeping all god's statutes, and doing that which is lawful and right, into this one word, repenting, it is easy and obvious to collect from hence, as i did before, from the other place, that by repentance, they understood not only sorrow for sin, but conversion from it. the same word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, mat. 12.42. is used in speaking of the repentance of the ninivites: and, how real, hearty, and effectual a conversion that was, you may see ionas 3. from the 5 to the last verse. the people of niniveh believed god, and put on sackcloth from the greatest of them to the least of them; for word came to the king of niniveh, and he arose from his throne, and he cast his robe from him, and covered him with sackcloth, and sat in ashes; and he caused it to be proclaimed and published throughout niniveh, by the decree of the king and of his nobles, saying: let neither man nor beast, heard, nor flock, taste any thing, let them not feed, nor drink water; but let man and beast be covered with sackcloth, and cry mightily unto god; yea, let every one turn from his evil way, and from the violence which is in their hands, who can tell if god will turn and repent, and turn away his fierce anger that we perish not? which words contain an excellent and lively pattern for all true penitents to follow, and whereunto to conform themselves in their humiliation and repentance. and truly, though there be no ionas sent expressly from god to cry unto us, yet forty days and niniveh shall be destroyed; yet seeing the mouth of eternal truth hath taught us, that a kingdom divided is in such danger of ruin and destruction, that morally speaking, if it continue divided it cannot stand; and seeing the strange and miserable condition of our nation at this time, may give any considerable man just cause to fear, that as in rehoboam's case, so likewise in ours, the thing is of the lord, intending to bring his heavy judgement upon us, for our great sins, and our stupid, and stupendious security in sinning, and to make us instruments of his designed vengeance, one upon another; peradventure it would be a seasonable and necessary motion to be made to our king and his nobles— to revive this old proclamation of the king of nineveh, and to send it with authority through his majesty's dominions, and to try whether it will produce some good effect: who can tell if god will turn and repent, and turn away from his fierce anger, that we perish not? who can tell, whether he that hath the hearts of king and people in his hand, and turneth them whithersoever he thinketh best, may not upon our repentance take our extremity for his opportunity, and at last open our eyes that we may see those things that belong to our peace, and show us the way of peace, which hitherto we have not known: but this by the way; for my purpose, i observe, that this repentance, which, when the sword of god was drawn, and his arm advanced for a blow, stayed his hand, and sheathed his sword again, was not a mere sorrow for their sins, and a purpose to leave them; nay, it was not only laying aside their gallantry and bravery, and putting on sackcloth and sitting in ashes, and crying mightily unto god, of which yet we are come very short: but it was also, and that chief, their universal turning from their evil way, which above all the rest was prevalent and effectual with god almighty: for so it is written, and god saw their works that they turned from their evil way, and god repent him of the evil that he said he would do, and he did it not. in the gospel of s. luke, cap. 24. the condition of the new covenant, to which remission of sins is promised, is expressed by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.— thus it behoved christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead, and that (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name. which place, if ye compare with that in the gospel of s. matth. go teach all nations baptising them in the name of the father, and of the son, and of the holy-ghost, teaching them to observe all whatsoever i shall command you; it will be no difficulty to collect, that what out saviour calls in one place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, repentance, that he calls, in another, observing all that he hath commanded; which, if repentance were no more but sorrow for sin, and intending to leave it, certainly he never could, nor would, have done: and as little could s. paul, act. 20.21. profess, that the whole matter of his preaching was nothing else but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, repentance towards god, and faith in our lord jesus christ: it being manifest in his epistles, he preaches and presses every where, the necessity of mortification, regeneration, new, and sincere obedience, all which are evidently not contained under the head of faith; and therefore it is evident he comprised all these under the name of repentance. in which words moreover it is very considerable, as also in another place, heb. 6. where among the fundamentals of christianity the first place is given to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, i say, it is very considerable, that though the word may not very absolutely be rendered repentance; yet we shall do much right to the places, and make them much more clear and intelligible, if instead of repentance, we should put conversion, as it is in some of the best latin translations: so, for example, if instead of repentance to god, act. 20. and repentance from dead works, in the epistle to the heb. which our english tongue will hardly bear; we should read conversion to god, and conversion from dead works, every one sees, it would be more perspicuous and more natural; whereas, on the other side, if, instead of repentance, we should substitute sorrow (as every true genuine interpretation may with advantage to the clearness of the sense, be put in place of the word interpreted), and read the place sorrow towards god, and sorrow from dead works, it is apparent that this reading would be unnatural, and almost ridiculous: which is a great argument, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to which forgiveness of sins is promised in the gospel, is not only sorrow for sin, but conversion from sin. and yet if it be not so, but that heaven may be purchased at easier, and cheaper rates: how comes it to pass, that in the new-testament, we are so plainly, and so frequently assured, that without actual, and effectual amendment, and newness of life; without actual, and effectual mortification, regeneration, sanctification; there is no hope, no possibility of salvation. every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down and cast into the fire. so s. john baptist preaches repentance. matth. 3.9. it is not then the leaves of a fair profession, no nor the blossoms of good purposes and intentions, but the fruit, the fruit only, that can save us from the fire; neither is it enough not to bear ill fruit, unless we bring forth good. every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down and cast into the fire. not every one that sayeth unto me, lord, lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven, but he that doth the will of my father which is in heaven: so our saviour, matth. 7.21. and again, after he had delivered his most divine precepts in his sermon on the mount, (which sermon contains the substance of the gospel of christ:) he closeth up all with saying: he that heareth these say of mine, and doth them not, (and yet these were the hardest sayings that ever he said) i will liken him to a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand, (that is, his hope of salvation, upon a sandy and false ground) and when the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blue, and beat upon that house, it fell, and great was the fall of it. they that are christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts: so s. paul, gal. 5.24. they then that have not done so, nor crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts, let them be as sorrowful as they please, let them intent what they please they as yet are none of christ's, and, good lord! what a multitude of christians than are there in the world that do not belong to christ? the works of the flesh, gal. 5.19, 20, 21. saith the same s. paul, are manifest, which are these, adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings; of which i tell you before, as i have told you in times past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of god. he doth not say, they which have done such things shall not be saved, but manifestly to the contrary,— such were some of you, but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified; but he says; they which do such things, and without amendment of life shall continue doing them, shall not be excused, by any pretence of sorrow and good purposes. they shall not inherit the kingdom of heaven. and again in another epistle, know ye not, that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of god? be not deceived, neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thiefs, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, shall inherit the kingdom of god. in christ jesus (saith the same s. paul, in other places) nothing availeth but faith: nothing but a new creature: nothing but keeping the commandments of god; it is not then a wishing, but a working faith; not wishing you were a new creature, nor sorrowing you are not, but being a new creature; not wishing you had kept, nor sorrowing you have not kept, nor purposing vainly to keep, but keeping his commandments must, prevail with him. fellow peace with all men, and holiness, (saith the divine author of the epistle to the heb.) without which no man shall see the lord. saint peter in his second epistle, commends unto us a golden chain of christian perfections; consisting of these links, faith, virtue, knowledge, temperance, patience, godliness, brotherly kindness, charity: and then adds,— he that lacketh these things, is blind, and knoweth not that he was purged from his old sins. let his sorrow be never so great, and his desires never so good, yet if he lack these things, he is blind; and was purged from his old sins, but is not. lastly, st. john; he that hath this hope purifieth himself, even as he is pure, the meaning is not with the same degree of purity, for that is impossible, but with the same kind, the same truth of purity, he that doth not purify himself may, nay doth, flatter himself, and, without warrant, presume upon god's favour, but this hope he hath not; and again, little children, let no man deceive you, he that doth righteousness, is righteous, even as he is righteous; and thus you see all the divine writers of the new testament, with one consent, and with one mouth, proclaim the necessity of real holiness, and labour together to disenchant us, from this vain fancy, that men may be saved, by sorrowing for their sin and intending to leave it, without effectual conversion and reformation of life; which, it may well be feared, hath sent thousands of souls to hell, in a golden dream of heaven. but is not this to preach works as the papists do? no certainly, it is not; but to preach works as christ and his apostles do: it is to preach the necessity of them, which no good protestant, no good christian ever denied; but it is not to preach the merit of them, which is the error of the papists. but is it not to preach the law in time of the gospel? no certainly, it is not: for the law forgives no sins, but requires exact obedience, and curseth every one which from the beginning to the end of his life, continueth not in all things which are written in the law to do them; but the gospel says, and accordingly i have said unto you, that there is mercy always in store, for those who know the day of their visitation, and forsake their sins in time of mercy, and that god will pardon their imperfections in the progress of holiness, who miscall not presuptuous and deliberate sins by the name of imperfections; but seriously and truly endeavour to be perfect: only i forewarn you that you must never look to be admitted to the wedding feast of the king's son, either in the impure rags of any customary sin, or without the wedding garment of christian holiness; only i forewarn you, that whosoever looks to be made partaker of the joys of heaven, must make it the chief, if not the only, business of his life, to know the will of god, and to do it; that, great violence is required by our saviour for the taking of this kingdom, that the race we are to run is a long race, the building we are to erect is a great building, and will hardly, ●ery hardly be finished in a day; that the work we have to do of mortifying all vices, and acquiring all christian virtues, is a long work; we may easily defer it too long, we cannot possibly begin it too soon. only i would persuade you, and i hope i have done it, that that repentance which is not effectual to true and timely conversion, will never be available unto eternal salvation. and if i have proved unto you, that this is indeed the nature of true repentance, then certainly, i have proved withal, that that repentance wherewith the generality of christians content themselves, notwithstanding their great professions what they are, and their glorious protestations of what they intent to be, is not the power but the form; not the truth but the shadow of true repentance; and that herein also we accomplish st. paul's prediction, having a form of godliness, etc. and now what remains, but that (as i said in the beginning) i should humbly entreat, and earnestly exhort every man that hath heard me this day, to confute in his particular, what i have proved true in the general; to take care that the sin of formality, though it be the sin of our times, may yet not be the sin of our persons, that we satisfy not ourselves with the shadows of religion, without the substance of it, nor with the form of godliness without the power of it. to this purpose i shall beseech you to consider, that though sacrificing, burning incense, celebrating of set festivals, praying, fasting, and such like, were, under the law, the service of god commanded by himself; yet whensoever they proceed not from, nor were joined with, the sincerity of an honest heart; he professeth frequently almost in all the prophets, not only his scorn and contempt of them all, as fond, empty, and ridiculous; but also his hating, loathing, and detesting of them as abominable and impious. the sacrifice of the wicked is abomination to god, prov. 15.8. what have i to do with the multitude of your sacrifices? saith the lord, esay the first, i am full of the offerings of rams, and of the fat of fed beasts, when ye come to appear before me, who required this at your hands? bring no more vain oblations: incense is an abomination to me, i cannot suffer your new moons, nor sabbaths, nor solemn days, it is iniquity even your solemn assemblies: my soul hateth your new moons, and your appointed feasts, they are a burden to me, i am weary to bear them; and when you shall stretch out your hands, i will hid mine eyes from you, and though you make many prayers i will not hear, for your hands are full of blood. and again, isa. 66.3. he that kills an ox is as if he slew a man, be that sacrificeth a lamb as if he cut off a dog's neck, he that offereth an oblation as if he offered swines-flesh, he that burneth incense as if he blessed an idol; and what's the reason of this strange aversion of god from his own ordinances? it follows in the next words, they have chosen their own ways, and their soul delighteth in their abominations. terrible are the words which he speaketh to the same purpose in the prophecy of amos, chap. 5. v. 21, 22, 23. i hate, i despise your feast days, and i will not smell in your solemn assemblies, though you offer me burned offerings and meat offerings, i will not accept them, nor will i regard your peace offerings. now, beloved, if this hypocrisy, this resting in outward performances were so odious to god under the law, a religion full of shadows, and ceremonies; certainly it will be much more odious to do so under the gospel, a religion of much more simplicity, and exacting so much the greater sincerity of the heart, even because it disburdens the outward man of the performance of legal rites and observances. and therefore if we now under the gospel, shall think to delude god almighty, as michol did saul, with an idol handsomely dressed instead of the true david; if we shall content and please ourselves, with being of such or such a sect or profession; with going to church, saying, or hearing of prayers, receiving of sacraments, hearing, repeating or preaching of sermons, with zeal for ceremonies, or zeal against them; or, indeed, with any thing besides constant piety towards god, loyalty and obedience towards our sovereign, justice and charity towards all our neighbours, temperance, chastity, and sobriety towards ourselves, certainly we shall one day find, that we have not mocked god, but ourselves, and that our portion among hypocrites shall be greater than theirs. in the next place, let me entreat you to consider the fearful judgement which god hath particularly threatened to this very sin of drawing nigh unto him with our lips, when our hearts are far from him: it is the great judgement of being given over to the spirii of slumber and security, the usual forerunner of speedy desolation and destruction, as we may see in the 29 chap. of isaiah, from the 9 to the 14 vers. stay yourselves and wonder, cry ye out, and cry, they are drunken but not with wine, they stagger but not with strong drink: for the lord hath poured out upon you the spirit of deep sleep, and hath closed your eyes. the prophets, and your rulers, the seers hath he covered: and after, at the 14 verse, the wisdom of their wisemen shall perish, and the understanding of their prudent-men shall be hid. certainly, this judgement if ever it were upon any people, we have cause to fear it is now upon us. for, if the spirit of deep sleep were not upon us, how could we sleep so securely even upon the brink of the pit of perdition? how could we proceed on so confidently in our mirth and jollity, nay, in our crying sins and horrible impieties; now when the hand of god is upon us, and wrath is gone out and even ready to consume us? and if the wisdom of our wisemen were not perished, how were it possible they should so obstinately refuse the security offered of our laws, liberties, and religion, by the king's oath, by his execrations on himself, and his posterity, in case he should violate it; by the oaths of all his ministers not to consent to, or be instruments in, such a violation; by the so much desired triennial parliament, from which no transgressor can possibly be secure; and instead of all this security, seek for it by a civil war, the continuance whereof, must bring us to destruction and desolation, or else he hath deceived us by whom we are taught, that a kingdom divided against itself cannot stand. now what was the sin which provoked this fearful judgement? what but that which i have laboured to convince you of, and to dissuade you from, even the sin of hypocrisy; as we may see at the 12 verse, wherefore saith the lord, for as much as this people draw near me with their mouth, and with their lips do honour me, but have removed their heart far from me; and their fear toward me is taught by the precepts of men: therefore, behold, i will proceed to do a marvellous work amongst them; for the wisdom of their wisemen shall perish, etc. consider, thirdly, what woes, and woes, and woes our saviour thunders out against the scribes and pharisees for their hypocrisy, woe be unto you scribes, and pharisees, hypocrites; and again and again, woe be unto you scribes, and pharises, hypocrites: beloved, if we be hypocrites as they were, tithe mint and cumin, and neglect the weighty matters of the law, judgement, and justice, and mercy, as they did: make long prayers, and under a pretence devour widows houses, as they did: wash the outside of the dish and platter, while within we are full of ravening and wickedness; writ god's commandments very large and fair upon our phylacteries, but shut them quite out of our hearts: build the sepulchers of the old prophets, and kill their successors: in fine, if we be like painted sepulchers, as they were, outwardly garnished and beautiful, but within full of dead men's bones and rottenness; we are then to make account that all these woes belong to us, and will one day overtake us. consider, lastly, the terrible example of ananias and sapphira, and how they were snatched away in the very act of their sin, and that their fault was (as the text tells us) that they lied unto god. beloved, we have done so a thousand thousand times: our whole lives (if sincerely examined) would appear, i fear, little less but a perpetual lie; hitherto god hath been merciful to us, and given us time to repent; but let us not proceed still in imitating their fact, lest at length we be made partakers of their fall. god of his infinite mercy prevent this in every one of us, even for his son our saviour jesus christ's sake; by whom and with whom, in the unity of the holy spirit, be all honour and glory to the eternal father, world without end: amen. the second sermon. psalm xiv. 1. the fool hath said in his heart, there is no god. if you will turn over some few leaves, as far as the 53 psalms, you shall not only find my text, but this whole psalm; without any alteration, save only in the fift verse, and that not at all in the sense neither. what shall we say? took the holy spirit of god such especial particular notice of the say and deeds of a fool, that one expression of them would not serve the turn? or, does the babbling and madness of a fool so much concern us, as that we need to have them urged upon us once and again, and a third time in the 3 d. of the romans? surely not any one of us present here, is this fool: nay, if any one of us could but tell were to find such a fool as this, that would offer to say, though in his heart, there is no god; he should not rest in quiet, he should soon perceive we were not of his faction. 2. we! that are able to tell david an article or two of faith, more than ever he was acquainted with! nay more: can we, with any imaginable ground of reason be supposed liable to any suspicion of atheism, that are able to read to david a lecture out of his own psalms, and explain the meaning of his own prophecies, much clearer than himself, which held the pen to the holy spirit of god? though we cannot deny, but that in other things there may be found some spice of folly and imperfection in us: but it cannot be imagined, that we who are almost cloyed with the heavenly manna of god's word, that can instruct our teachers, and are able to maintain opinions and tenants, the scruples whereof not both the universities of this land, nor the whole clergy, are able to resolve; that it should be possible for us ever to come to that perfection and excellency of folly and madness, as to entertain a thought, that there is no god: nay, we are not so uncharitable as to charge a turk or an infidel with such an horrible imputation as this. 3. beloved christians, be not wise in your own conceits: if you will seriously examine the 3 d. of the romans (which i mentioned before) you shall find that st. paul, out of this psalm, and the like words of isaiah, doth conclude the whole posterity of adam (christ only excepted) under sin and the curse of god: which inference of his were weak and inconcluding, unless every man of his own nature, were such a one as the prophet here describes; and the same apostle in another place expresses, even altogether without god in the world; i. e. not maintaining it as an opinion which they would undertake by force of argument to confirm, that there is no god: for, we read not of above 3 or 4 among the heathens, that were of any fashion; which went thus far? but such as, though in their discourse and serious thoughts they do not question a deity, but would abhor any man that would not liberally allow unto god all his glorious attributes; yet in their hearts and affections they deny him; they live as if there was no god, having no respect at all to him in all their projects, and therefore indeed, and in god's esteem, become formally, and in strict propriety of speech, very atheists. 4. that this is most true, and that therefore many, who, because they are orthodox in opinion, have thereupon a great conceit of their faith towards god; yet, being strictly examined, shall be found to have built such glorious buildings in show upon sand; or, which is worse, to have made hay and stubble (matter fit only for the fire) foundations of many golden hopes, and glorious presumptions, must be showed at large hereafter. 5. the words now read, are a secret confession which the fool whispers to his own heart: he neither can nor dare profess this openly, and when he calls his reason to counsel about this business, the question is far otherwise stated. the words do not run thus, the fool being convinced by evidence of reason and demonstration, hath concluded, there is no god; no, this is no heathenish philosophical fool, he is quite of another temper: this is a worldly, proud, malicious, projecting wise fool, a fool that knows it is for his advantage to put god out of his thoughts; and therefore doth forcibly captivated, and wilfully hoodwink his understanding, and thinks he hath obtained a great victory, if he can contrive any course to bring himself to that pass, that no cold melancholy thoughts of god or hell, may interrupt or restrain him from freely wallowing in the lusts and uncleanness of his heart, without any remôrse, without any reluctance or gripping within him. it is for his heart's sake, the love that he bears to the lusts thereof, that makes him an atheist: if it could stand with that course and trade of life that he is resolved upon, to entertain contrary thoughts, he would as soon work his judgement and thoughts another way. and therefore in his open profession, it sometimes falls out, that even when he wishes there were no god, yet he is a very forward zealous acknowledger in general of god and his glorious attributes: so that the same desire of a quiet and uninterrupted enjoying the scope and freedom of the lusts and affections of his heart, makes him both a resolute secret atheist, and withal wise enough to keep his folly to himself, and to make none else acquainted with his curious art and method of such woeful self-deceiving, but his dearly beloved heart. the fool, etc. 6. the discussion of these words, does not engage me to a dividing or descanting upon the whole psam: let it suffice, that we may most probably conceive, that david in this psalm intends the description of the woeful estate of that kingdom, after god had taken away his good spirit from saul; wherein the secret enemies of god did greedily lay hold on that occasion to vex and despite, and, as much as was in their power, to lay waste the heritage of god. 7. the fool (who is the person that through the whole psalm works all the mischief), in the original is, nabal: which hath the signification of fading, dying, or falling away, as doth a leaf, or flower, isai. 40.8. and is a title given to the foolish man, as having lost the juice and sap of wisdom, reason, honesty, and godliness; being fallen from grace, ungrateful, and without the life of god: as a dead carcase (which of this word is called nebalah, levit. 11.40.) and therefore ignoble and of vile esteem, opposed to the nobleman, isa. 32.5. the apostle in the greek turneth it imprudent, or without understanding, rom. 10.19 from deut. 32.21. 8. hath said in his heart, there, etc. i. e. not so much persuadeth himself in secret, that there is no god; but rather expresseth so in his life, or in his affections, which are called the heart, in the phrase of god: proportionable to the same expression of david, psal. 10.4. psal. 10.4. the wicked through the pride of his countenance will not seek after god, god is not in all his crafty purposes. if you would have the full sense of my text more largely expressed, tit. 1.16. turn to tit. 1.16. where persons of the same mould that the prophet here complains of, are thus described, they profess that they know god, but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and to every good work void of judgement. 9 where are observable first, the cause of this practical atheism, in these last words of the verse, they were to every good work, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and that was ignorance, or rather imprudence, inconsiderance: implying not a bare want of knowledge; but an abusing thereof, in not reducing it to practise, in hiding the light which was in them under a bushel. secondly, then we have the manner of the expression of this atheism, viz. not in words, or opinion, to deny god; but, which is worse, in the carriage and course of our life; to allow him his attributes, and yet not to fear him, not to stand in awe of his power, which he acknowledgeth to be infinite, to distrust his providence, to slight his promises, neglect his threaten, which is in effect, as much as in him lieth, to tear and ravish from him all his glorious attributes, by living, as if god himself were less powerful, less wise than himself, improvident, not deserving so much fear of his power, or respect to his command, as he would perform to a wretched mortal man, that is a little richer, or in some place of authority above him. 10. i need travel no further for a division to my own text: here we may observe likewise, first, the cause of atheism, and by consequence, all the abominable impieties that follow in the psalm, and that is, ignorance, indiscretion, inconsiderance, expressed in the person of nabal, the fool: secondly, we have the expression of it, not by word of mouth, or writing; but per motum cordis, by the inclination of the heart, or affections. 11. in the prosecution of the former part (which may very well take up and spend this hourglass) i shall proceed thus: first, i will consider, wherein this folly consists, and that is not so much in an utter ignorance of god and his holy word, as a not making a good use of it when it is known, a suffering it to lie dead, to swim unprofitably in the brain, without any fruit thereof in the reformation of ones life and conversation; and there i will show you, the extreme folly for a man to seek to increase his knowledge of his master's will, without a desire and resolution to increase proportionably in a serious active performance thereof. secondly, i will propose to your consideration the extreme unavoidable danger, and increase of guilt, that knowledge without practice brings with it: to both which considerations i shall severally annex applications to the consciences of you my hearers, and so spend out my time. 12. now i take it for granted, that i have hit right in declaring wherein the folly of nabal in my text consists, namely, in an unfruitful knowledge, a knowledge that lies fallow, is not exercised: which if it were not allowed me, i would only refer myself for proof unto some of david's psalms, and almost all his sons proverbs: i should sin against the plenty of matter in my text more worth our consideration, if i should enlarge myself in this point: only one place of david shall suffice, and that is in psal. 111.10. where he repeats that old divine proverb made by god himself, psal. 111.10. the lord knows how long since, and by him delivered to man, as job telleth us, ch. 28. v. 28. the psalmists words are these, the fear of god is the beginning of wisdom, and a good understanding have all they that do thereafter. 13. i do not now exclude ignorance from making up some part of this fool; but because the other piece of extreme desperate folly is rather the sin of these days, namely, a barren uneffectual knowledge; therefore i shall rather insist upon it: yet, by the way, i shall not fail to discover to you the danger of the other too. 14. it is a pretty observation, that the author of the narration of the english seminary founded in rome, has concerning the method and order the devil has used in assailing and disturbing the peace and quiet of the church, with heresies and schisms,: he began (saith he) with the first article of our creed, concerning one god the father almighty, creator of heaven and earth, against which in the first 300. years he armed the simonians, menandrians, basilidians, valentinians, marcionites, manichees, and gnostics. after the 300th year he opposed the second article, concerning the divinity of our lord jesus christ, by his beloved servants the noetians, sabellians, paullians, photinians▪ and arrians: after the four hundreth year he sought to undermine the fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh articles of the incarnation, passion, resurrection, ascension, and the second coming to judgement, by the heresies of nestorius, theodorus, eutyches, dioscorus, cnapheus, sergius, etc. after the eight hundred and sixtieth, he assailed the eighth article concerning the holy-ghost, by the heresy and schism of the greek church: lastly, since the year one thousand, till these times, his business and craft has especially expressed itself in seeking to subvert the ninth and tenth concerning the holy catholic church, and forgiveness of sins, by the aid and ministry of the pontificians, anabaptists, familists, and the like; and with the deceits and snares of these his cunning ministers hath he entangled the greatest part of the now christian world. 15. but (our blessed and gracious god be praised for it) we, and some with us, have escaped as a bird out of the snare of the fowler, the net was broken and we were delivered. the whole doctrine of christian faith is restored to the primitive lustre and integrity: nay more, (which is a greater happiness than god ever created to those his chosen good servants which lived in the infancy of the church) the profession of a pure unspotted religion is so far from being dangerous, or infamous, that we have the sword of the civil magistrate, the power and enforcement of the laws and statutes, to maintain this our precious faith without stain and undefiled against all heretical and schismatical oppugners thereof. 16. if ever we forget the goodness and mercy of god in this our deliverance; then let our tongues cleave to the roof of our mouths; nay, if in our songs of joyfulness and melody we remember not our escape, wherewith the lord snatched us out of egypt, and our victorious passage through a red-sea of blood and ruin, thou o lord wilt not hear our prayers. 27. it was a seasonable admonition that the apostle saint paul gave to other gentiles after such a glorious victory and deliverance as this of ours, be not highminded, but fear. rom. 11.20. heresy is not the only engine that satan is furnished with to assault and infest the church of christ, neither is it the most dangerous: he has the cunning to destroy foundations, and make no use of heresy in the work neither. you would wonder how it should be possible for the devil to make an orthodox christian, one perfect and studied in all the points of the creed, and one that can for a need maintain the truth thereof against all gainsayers; i say, it would seem strange for the devil to make such a one to destroy and utterly demolish the very foundations of his faith, and yet not at all to alter his opinions neither: yet, that it is not only a possible contrivance, but too too ordinary and familiar in these times, woeful experience hath made it evident. 18. the art and cunning whereby this great work of the devil's is brought about, is clearly detected by our saviour in his exposition of the parable of the sour, in these words, when they have heard, then cometh the devil, and taketh away the word out of their hearts, luk. 7.12. i. e. the devil will give such people leave freely to hear the word of god preached, to study it, dispute it, to know and be acquainted with all the curious intricate subtleties of it, upon condition that they will promise to resolve not to be a jot the better disposed for it in their lives. he can well suffer it to swim in the brain, that the understanding should be enlightened, the fancy affected and pleased with it, so that he may have leave to stop the secret intercourse and passages thence to the heart: it troubles him not to have the precious seed of the word entertained by a man, so that it may be kept up safe in granaries: and not multiply: so that the heart be not ploughed up, and furrowed for the receiving of it; as long as there is no fruitful harvest there, all goes well. 19 he will be so far from hindering such from going to the church, so that their errand be to learn what they may be able to talk of, and maintain discourse with, that he could wish every day were a sunday for them, that they might be able by abundance of knowledge, fruitless, and void of practice, to hasten and aggravate their own damnation. 20. now whom the devil thus uses, whom he thus baits, nay, contents and satisfies with an empty, speculative, aerial knowledge, a knowledge only fruitful in increasing their guilt, and torment, who can deny to be sottish ignorant, easy fools, childishly affected with a knowledge, glorious only in show, without any substance, or depth at all. and yet this was a temptation strong enough for paradise; for just so did the devil entrap adam at the first; so that, in him, we have received one foil already, at this weapon: and he proceeds daily, in acting that over again: for what was it which destroyed adam, but the preferring of the tree of knowledge, before the tree of life? 21. st. james speaking of such persons so ensnared, seems to take much of the envy and guilt of so cruel a deceit and cozenage as this is, from off the devil, jam. 1.22. and to lay it upon themselves: be not hearers of the word only, but doers also, deceiving yourselves. he confesses such to be fools, cozened and deceived people; but themselves, saith he, are their own cheaters: wherein lies a strong emphasis, expressing the extreme unhappiness of such poor deceived wretches. if the cunning insinuation of one, that for his own ends pretends friendship to me, draw me into some inconvenience, or danger; the world will think me a fool for being so catched, and not being able to dive and pierce into his secret purposes; but this folly is not of so perfect a strain, but that it may deserve both excuse, and pity: but that man that spends his whole life in contriving and plotting, and laying snares for his own soul; if after all this ado he be indeed caught in the pit, that with so much pains he digged only for himself, would not any man forfeit his discretion, that should either excuse, or pity him? and in such, or worse a case, is he that contents himself with bare hearing and knowing the word. 22. who do you think would undertake to excuse a pharisee, if he should be condemned for want of spiritual wisdom: one whose profession it was, whose trade and course of life, to be conversant in the scriptures: who had spent his age in reading the holy writ, and teaching others out of it: one that was so curious in having the scripture always near him, that he wore it continually about him; it was a trimming and ornament to his apparel; it was always in his eyes; it was guarded about the wrists of his arms, and instead of alas or fringe at the bottom of his garment. if one after all this curiosity of dressing, sedulity in reading, industry in teaching, should at length, with so good parts, in such good clothes go down into hell, and, so die for want of true knowledge; who would adventure to excuse him, who would dare to pity him? 23. yet not one, or two, but the whole college, the whole faction of them, matth. 23. you shall find in matth. 23. very near their end. no less than eight woes denounced against them by our saviour himself, (who is not very forward to destroy, he came upon a far other business) and all those woes for their folly and blindness? in the denouncing of every woe, but one, he styles them hypocrites. (and an hypocrite, you know, is the veriest fool in the world, for he thinks to cousin and put a cheat upon god, whom yet himself confesses to be omniscient, and who knoweth all things.) in that single woe, he calls them blind guides, elsewhere fools, and blind. this was our saviour's judgement of them, and you may rest upon it, that it was upon sufficient grounds. 24. but their folly and ridiculous madness will yet more appear, if you take notice of the opinion and judgement that these very pharisees gave of themselves. it is in joh. 7.48, 49. the occasion of it, was this. the great council of the sanhedrin, seeing so many of the ignorant people, (as they thought) seduced by our saviour; to remedy any further spreading of so dangerous a contagion, they by common advice send officers to attach him, and to make him sure enough for preaching: the officers find him busy instructing the people, and, instead of laying hands on him, themselves are even caught, and almost bereft of their infidelity: when sermon was done, they return to their masters, the rulers and pharisees, without their prisoner, and give a good account why they did not fulfil their command, in telling them, they never heard a better preacher in their lives, never man, say they, spoke like this man. joh. 7.46. these wise magistrates pitying the simplicity and easiness of their sergeants, answer them thus; ver. 47, 48, 49. are ye also deceived? have any of the rulers, or of the pharisees believed on him? but this people who know not the law, are cursed. implying, that if the people had been as well read in the law of god, as their teachers were, they would have kept themselves safe enough from the ensnaring sermons of christ: but now they may see what difference there is between men utterly unacquainted with god's word, and themselves, how subject they are to destruction, and to be cursed of god. 25. how is it possible, for the wit of man, to imagine folly and madness of a more perfect strain? our saviour christ, who is truth itself, did not exact faith from his followers merely for his miracles sake, but sent them to search the scriptures, for they, saith he, testify of me: joh. 5.39. and yet these wise men, impute it to their knowledge of the law, that they were freed from this curse into which the poor ignorant people fell. how cunningly have these fooss laid a snare for their own lives? 26. alas, what could the poor people think, when they heard their doctors, and magistrates, (men that were gods to them, that sat in moses chair), condemned of such extreme folly and indiscretion? what will become of us, (might they say), if the pharisees (from whom all that we know, is but a thin thrifty gleaning) have so many woes denounced against them for want of spiritual knowledge? 27. certain it was, there were many poor souls, whom the pharisees kept out of heaven for company. our saviour tells them so much; ye neither go into heaven yourselves, nor suffer others to go in: but they were such as they had infected with their leaven: such as made those rotten superstructions, which those great doctors built upon the word, foundations of their faith and hope: and as certain it is, that many there were, upon whom god out of his gracious favour and mercy, had not bestowed such piercing brains, and enquiring heads, as to make them acquainted with their dangerous opinions and traditions. they were such as made better use of that little knowledge they had, than to vent it in discourse, or in maintaining opinions and tenants against the church. they heard the word with an humble honest heart, submitting themselves wholly to it, and restored their faith to its proper seat, the heart and affections, and it was fruitful in their lives and practice. the wisdom of solomon himself, as long as he gave himself to idolarty, and luxury, was folly and madness, to the discretion and prudence of these poor despised people. 28. thus you see, the fool, that in my text, is so mad, as to say, there is no god, may have wit enough to understand more; nay, in the opinion of the world, may make a silly fool of him, that has laid up in his heart unvaluable treasures of spiritual wisdom, and knowledge. and therefore the latin translation following st. paul, might more significantly have styled him imprudens, than insipiens. for the wisdom which is according to godliness, doth most exactly answer to that prudence which moral philosophers make a general overruling virtue, to give bounds and limits to all our actions, and to find out a temper and mean wherein we ought to walk: and therefore a most learned divine, of our church, yet alive, knew very well what he said, when he designed our faith to be a spiritual prudence; implying, that faith bears the same office and sway in the life and practice of a christian, as prudence of a moral honest man. 29. now, saith aristotle, there may be many intemperate, youthful, dissolute spirits, which may have an admirable, piercing, discerning judgement in speculative sciences, as the mathematics, metaphysics, and the like; because the dwelling upon such contemplations, does not at all cross, or trouble, those rude untamed passions and affections of theirs: yea they may be cunning in the speculative knowledge of virtues: but all this while they are notwithstanding utterly, invincibly, imprudent; because prudence requires not only a good discerning judgement and apprehension, but a serenity and calmness in the passions. 30. therefore the same philosopher does worthily reprehend some ancients, who called all virtues, sciences; and said, that each particular virtue was a several art: requiring only an enlightening or informing of the reason, and understanding, which any, for a little cost and small painstaking in frequenting the learned lectures of philosophers, need not doubt but easily to obtain. 31. this conceit, of so learned a man, does very well deserve our prosecution: and it will not be at all swerving from the business in hand: therefore i shall show you, how the moralist by the force of natural reason, hath framed to himself a divinity and religion, resembling, both in method and many substantial parts, the glorious learning of a christian. i told you the forenamed doctor did very well to call our faith, or assent to supernatural mysteries, a spiritual prudence. 32. now besides moral prudence, nay, before the moralist can make any use thereof, or exercise it in the work of any virtue, there is required another general virtue, which the philosopher calls universal justice, which is nothing else, but a sobriety and temper in the affections, whereby they are subdued and captived unto well informed reason. so that whatsoever it commands to be done, there is no rebellion, no unwillingness in the passions, but they proceed readily to execution, though it be never so distasteful to sense. 33. now how well does this express the nature of charity: for, what else is love, but a sweet breathing of the holy spirit upon our passions, whereby the holy ghost does, as it did in the beginning of genesis, incubare aquis, move by a cherishing, quieting virtue, upon the sea of our passions? did not the same spirit come to eliah in a soft whisper? he walks not in turbine, in a strong wind to raise a tempest in our affections. now when we have received this ipsissiman dei particulam, (as plato said of the soul) this shred or portion of the holy spirit, which is charity, how evenly and temperately do we behave ourselves to god, and all the world besides? how willingly and obediently do we submit ourselves to the performance of whatsoever faith, out of god's word, doth enjoin us? 34. but yet the analogy and proportion between these two is more evident and observable: that universal justice is no particular singular virtue, neither hath it any particular singular object. (as other virtues have; for example, temperance, or abstinence, which hath to do with sensual delights and pleasures, and none else.) but when it is determined to, and fastens on, the object of a particular virtue, it is converted into, and incorporates with that very virtue: for example, if i do exercise this general habit of observing a mean and temper, in things that concern diet, or sensual pleasures, it becomes abstinence; if upon objects of terror, it becomes fortitude, or magnanimity: just so is it with charity. for, 35. charity is a virtue which never goes alone, and is busied in solitary places, being reserved, and excluded, from the society and communion of other graces; but it is that which seasons, gives life and efficacy to all the rest; without which, if it were possible for me to enjoy all the graces that the bountiful hand of god ever showered upon reasonable creature; yet, if st. paul speak truth, i should be nothing worth: it is that which fulfils all the commandments: this is evident to all that shall but slightly and in haste read over 1 cor. 13. beginning with vers. 4. and so onwards: 1 cor. 13.4, etc. where we may behold almost all the virtues that can be named, enwrapped in one virtue of charity; and love, according to the several acts thereof, changed and transformed into so many several graces. it suffereth long, and so 'tis longanimity; it is kind, and so 'tis courtesy; it vaunteth not itself, and so 'tis modesty; it is not puffed up, and so 'tis humility; it is not easily provoked, and so 'tis lenity; it thinketh no evil, and so 'tis simplicity; it rejoiceth in the truth, and so 'tis verity; it beareth all things, and so 'tis fortitude; it believeth all things, and so 'tis faith; it hopeth all things, and so 'tis confidence: it endureth all things, and so 'tis patience; it never faileth, and so 'tis perseverance. 36. you see two glorious and divine virtues, namely, faith and charity, though not naturally expressed, yet pretty well counterfeited by the moralist. and to make up the analogy complete, we have the third royal virtue, which is hope, reasonably well shadowed out in that which they call inten●io finis: which is nothing else but a foretasting of the happiness which they propose to themselves as a sufficient reward for all their severe and melancholic endeavours. 37. what shall we say, (my beloved friends), shall the heathenish moralist, merely out of the strength of natural reason, conclude, that the knowledge of what is good and fit to be done, without a practice of it upon our affections, and outward actions, to be nothing worth, nay, ridiculous and contemptible? and shall we, who have the oracles of god; nay, the whole perfect will of god fully set down in the holy scriptures, in every page almost whereof, we find this urged and pressed upon us, that to know our masters will, without performing, it, is fruitless unto us; nay, will intent the heat, and add virtue and power to the lake of fire and brimstone; reserved for such empty unfruitful christians: and shall we, i say, content ourselves any longer with bare hearing and knowing of the word, and no more? god forbidden, rather let us utterly avoid this holy temple of god: let us rather cast his word behind our backs, and be as ignorant of his holy will as ever our forefathers were: let us contrive any course to cut off all commerce and intercourse, all communion and acquaintance with our god, rather than when we profess to know him, and willingly to allow him all those glorious titles and attributes by which he hath made himself known unto us in his word, in our hearts to deny him, in our lives and practices to dishonour him and use him despitefully. 38. it were no hard matter, i think, to persuade any, but resolved hardened minds, that fruit is necessary before any admission into heaven, only by proposing to your considerations the form and process of that judgement, to which you every man in his own person, must submit. the author's word may be taken for the truth of what i shall tell you: for the story we receive from his mouth that shall be judge of all, and therefore is likely to know what course and order himself will observe. 39 in the general resurrection, when sentence of absolution, or condemnation, shall be passed upon every one according to his deserts, knowledge is on no side mentioned: but one, because he hath clothed the naked, and fed the hungry, and done such like works of charity, he is taken; and the rest, that have not done so much, are refused: will it avail any one then to say, lord, we confess, we have not done these works, but we have spent many an hour in hearing and talking of thy word; nay, we have maintained to the utmost of our power, and to our own great prejudice, many opinions and tenants: alas! we little thought, that any spotted imperfect work of ours was requisite, we were resolved that for working thou hadst done enough for us to get us to heaven: will any such excuses as these serve the turn? far be it from us to think so. 40. if you will turn to matth. 7.22. you shall find stronger and better excuses then these to no purpose: mat. 7.22. many shall say unto me, (saith christ), lord, have not we prophesied in thy name? these were something more than hearers, they had spent their time in preaching and converting souls unto christ, (which is a work, if directed to a right end, of the most precious and admirable value, that it is possible for a creature to perform): and yet whiles they did not practise themselves what they taught others, they became castaways. others there were, that had cast out devils, and done many miracles; and yet so loved the unclean spirits, that themselves were possessed withal, that they could not endure to part company then, and now were never likely. 41. but have not i all this while mistaken my auditory? were not these instructions fit for the universities? had it not been more fit and seasonable for me to have instructed and catechised mine hearers, rather than to give them cautions and warnings, lest they should abuse their knowledge? no surely! instructions to make use of knowledge in our practice and conversation, and not to content ourselves with mere knowing, and hearing, and talking of the mysteries of our salvation, cannot in the most ignorant congregation be unseasonable. even the heathen which were utter strangers from the knowledge of god's ways, did notwithstanding render themselves inexcusable, for detaining some part of the truth▪ as it were, naturally engrafted in them, in unrighteousness. so, that there is no man in the world, but knows much more than he practices, every man hides some part, at least, of his talon in a napkin, wherefore let every man, even the most ignorant that hears me this day, search the most inward secret corners of his heart for this treasure of knowledge, and let him take it forth, and put it into the usurer's hands, and trade thriftily with it, that he may return his lord his own with increase, blessed is that servant whom his lord when he cometh shall find so doing: verily i say unto you, he shall make him ruler over all his household. 42. and thus i have gone through one member of my first general, namely, the consideration, wherein the imprudence of the fool in my text doth consist. in the prosecution whereof, i have discovered unto you, how severally satan plants his engines for the subversion of the church; in the primitive times, when religion was more stirring and active, and charity in fashion, he assayed to corrupt men's understandings with heresies; and there, by the way, was observed his order and method, how distinctly beginning in those first times with the first article he hath orderly succeeded to corrupt the next following, and now in these last days, he's got to even the last end of the creed. but since, by the mercy and goodness of god, we are delivered, and stand firm in the faith once delivered to the saints; he hath raised another engine against us that stand, and that is to work, that our orthodox opinions do us no good; which he performs by snatching the word out of our hearts, and making it unfruitful in our lives: now those that are thus enveagled and wrought upon, are merely befooled by the devil, or rather by themselves, for so i told you, that saint james says: and for an example, i proposed the learned pharisees, who for all their learning and knowledge in the scripture, yet our saviour denounceth eight several woes against them for being fools and blind guides. so that the fool in hand was not opposed to a learned man, but to a prudent man: and therefore a worthy doctor of our church did well define faith to be a spiritual prudence, that is, a knowledge sought out only for practise. and there i compared faith with moral prudence, and the fruit thereof charity with the virtue of universal justice. therefore lest the very heathen should rise up in judgement against us for not doing so much with the help and advantage of god's word as they could without it; i did, and do, beseech you not to content yourselves with mere knowing and hearing, with only a conceit of faith without works, for that was an ancient heresy in the nicolaitans, (whom god, by name, professeth an hatred to, as eusebius tells us.) and for an effectual motive, i told you, how at the last great trial, you shall not be catechised, how well you can say your creed, or how many catechisms without book, but, how fruitful in works of charity your faith hath been. and so i come to the second member of the first general, namely, the consideration how dangerous and grievous a burden knowledge will be, where it is fruitless and ineffectual: of which, briefly. 43. i will once again repeat that divine sentence of the psalmist in psal. 111.10. the fear of god is the beginning of wisdom, psal. 111.10. and a good understanding have all they that do thereafter. i.e. till a man put his knowledge in practice he is so far from being a good man, that he is scarce a man, hath not the understanding of a man till he do, till he fall a work; he was wiser a great deal before he gained his knowledge: knowledge alone is a goodly purchase in the mean time. it is so worthy a purchase, that, as it should seem by our saviour's account, till a man have obtained some competency in knowledge, he hath gotten no right to the kingdom of darkness and hell. 44. for certainly, no man can justly challenge damnation, but he that is burdened with sin: now he that hath no knowledge, but is utterly blind in his understanding, hath no sin, that is, in comparison; the words are (joh. 9.39, etc.) and jesus said, for judgement i am come into this world, joh. 9.39, etc. that they which see not might see, and that they which see might be made blind; not as if christ did imprint, or inflict, blindness upon any man, but only occasionally, that is, those which walk in darkness, and love it: when the light comes upon them, and discovers their wand'ring, they hate it, and turn their eyes from it, and become more perversely and obstinately blind. in the same sense that st. paul saith, (rom. 7.) sin taking occasion by the law becomes more sinful; whilst sin is not opposed, it goes on in its course quietly; but when the commandment comes and discovers and rebukes it, it becomes furious and abominable, and much more raging and violent. 45. there follows, vers. 40. and some of the pharisees which were with him, heard these words, and said unto him, are we blind also? there is nothing in the world, that a pharisee can with less patience endure than to hear any intimation given, that he may be suspected of folly: and therefore they were not so sensible, or conceited of some wrong received, when our saviour called them generation of vipers, as they are when their wisdom and discretion are called in question. witness this answer; when no man spoke to them, they suspiciously demand, whether christ in his last words meant them or no. but what answers our saviour? 46. jesus said unto them: vers. 41. if ye were blind, ye should have no sin; but now ye say, we see, therefore your sin remaineth. as if he had said, so little shall this supposed knowledge and wisdom, that ye have, profit you, that you shall curse the time that ever you saw the holy word of god, and wish that all the sermons that ever you heard, all the gracious invitations and sweet promises which god by the ministry of his servants the prophets, hath sent unto you, had been sentences of some horrible death and torments, from the mouth of a severe judg. for, your sins, which otherwise had not been so insupportable, now by your abusing the knowledge which god hath given you, by your wilful contempt of those many invitations, which have continually sounded in your ears, are become as a mountain upon you to crush you into powder: you have hanged a millstone about your own necks, which shall irrecoverably sink you into the bottomless comfortless pit, whereas otherwise there might have been some hope of escape. 47. and yet for all this, let not any one favour and cherish himself in this conceit, that, he thanks god, he is ignorant enough, that a very little practice will serve his turn, his knowledge is not so much that it should put him to too great a labour in expressing it in the course of his life: for whosoever he be that dares entertain, or give way to such a thought as this is, let him be sure that if he do not know so much as god requires at his hands, (especially now that god hath sealed up the scripture-canon, now that the whole will of god is revealed) this very ignorance alone will be a thousand weights, to fasten him on the earth, to make him sure for ever ascending to god, in whom there is no darkness at all. 48. for it is not so with an ignorant man, as it is with one that is blind, who, if he will be sure not to tempt god by venturing and rushing forward in paths unknown unto him, may live as long and as safe as he that is most quicksighted: no, ignorance alone, though it be not active and fruitful in works of darkness, is crime enough. for with what colour of reason will such a one expect the reward of the just? such a one will not doubt, but that the gates of heaven are barred against the sottish blind ignorant heathen, to whom god never revealed any part of his will; yet himself may far well enough. is not this a degree beyond madness itself? what? does such a one think, that because he lives among religious people, and such as are well acquainted with the way to heaven, that himself shall be sure to go for company? does he make no doubt of his part in the resurrection of the just, because he was born in england, or in such a year of our lord when the gospel flourished? nay, shall it not be much more tolerable for the worst of the heathen than for a such a man? 49. for if the heathen were left without excuse, because they knew not god, or, if they knew him, they did not honour him as god, whereas they were only instructed by the book of nature: the very main principle of all religion, namely, that there is a god, was a business of great labour, and required a good understanding to find out, being a conclusion to be collected and deduced from many experiments of his power, providence, and the like. shall those hope to escape, that pretend ignorance, after they may, if they refuse it not, have use of all that ever reason found out; nay, have before their eyes the sum and effect of all the sermons and instructions, that ever any prophet or apostle made since the world began: if after all this, there be any safety to be hoped for from ignorance, then have the apostles travelled, christ preached, nay died, in vain. 50. but to return to our business in hand. knowledge, at least, in some measure there must necessarily be, else no hope of salvation: and with knowledge, there must of necessity be joined some proportionable measure of practice, else a greater and more insupportable burden of woe and destruction. and the reason is evident out of those words of our saviour, to whom much is given of him shall much be required. we must know, that there is not any good thing in the world wherein we have any propriety; we are only stewards, and have such things committed to our trust, and one day there will certainly be exacted a strict account. as of our riches, health, education, but much more our knowledge, and especially that knowledge, which is perfected only in practice, such is the wisdom of a christian. 51. what reason can be imagined why god should take such pains, give such royal and precious graces to his servants the prophets and apostles to enable them to make known his good will and pleasure, and what he commands us, and expects at our hands, was all this performed, think we, to afford us only matter of table-talk? does he exhort and persuade us to hear and discourse? no surely, he gave it us to profit withal, both ourselves and others. and therefore where there is a more abundant plenty of knowledge lent us, the bill of account must arise proportionably, or for what is wanting in the sum, we remain debtors; and when once the creditor catches us by the throat and casts us into prison, there is no coming out, till all, even the uttermost farthing, be discharged: he might as well have said never, for it comes all to one end. 52. it will be worth our consideration, and very material, to press this so necessary a point, to take notice of the nature and fashion of the judgement, which shall befall the fool in my text, and such companions of his, as are content to enjoy a fruitless in-effectual knowledge, how fit and suitable it is to their offence. you shall find it expressed in luk. 13.25, etc. in these terms. luk. 13.25. many in that day shall begin to say, we have eaten and drunk in thy presence, and thou hast taught in our streets: this is something more than hearing sermons, or learning catechisms by heart. these had heard him preach, nay, were familiarly acquainted with him, and yet in that day will get but a comfortless answer from him in the following verse, vers. 26. but he shall say, i tell you, i know not whence you are; depart from me ye workers of iniquity. st. matthew hath it more sharply, i never knew you. they might else have imputed his not knowing them to the weakness of his memory: but he stops that conceit, and professes▪ he never knew them: i.e. he denies not, but he had often seen them at sermon when he preached, and, it may be, he had eaten and drunk with them, yet for all this, he never knew them; they were strangers to him, he never acknowledged them to be his flock, and therefore was not bound to take notice of them: but there is one will own them, even satan, whom before they acknowledged for their lord; and to his kingdom they may, nay they must, go. 53. are not these men right served? are not they justly and righteously dealt withal? they had eaten and drunk in his presence, it is true; nay, peradventure, they had eaten him and drunk him in his sacrament: they had oft heard him preach in their streets, and could for a need repeat a good deal of the substance of his sermons: but, in very deed, they never knew him, nor one word that ever he spoke: that is, they took no especial notice of him, they did not acknowledge him for their lord, neither cared they to perform any thing that he commanded. and now he is quit with them, he remembers well enough what kind of people they were, even his very enemies and deriders; and as he never did acknowledge them for his sheep, so neither now will he admit them into his sold. a most righteous, yet withal, a most heavy doom. 54. and here i will briefly end my other member of the first general, namely, how dangerous and heavy a burden knowledge will be, where it is fruitless and ineffectual. where you have heard how poor and worthless a purchase knowledge alone is; nay, how without it, a man has scarce any title at all unto hell, there is no guilt without it; alone it is a good qualification, a fair towardly disposition towards our ruin. our saviour professes that the pharisees themselves, (a nation, the very proverb of perverseness and infidelity) if they had been blind, i.e. without knowledge, they had had no sin. yet for all this, though knowledge be so dangerous a ware (it is something like gunpowder; a man when he has it must take heed how he uses it): yet this is by no means a sufficient excuse for any one utterly to neglect the purchase of it, at least, in some measure: for it is true, knowledge not used, or ill used, will aggravate our torment, and adds even fire unto hell: yet withal, it is true, that an utter neglect of all knowledge, especially, in these times of light, when it is to be had at so cheap a rate, will make damnation as sure to a man as the former. now the reason, why knowledge, where it is fruitless in practice, will be abundantly fruitful in torment, is taken from that maxim of our saviour, to whom much is given, of him shall much be required. i e. we being only stewards of god's blessings, no proprietaries in them, must expect one day to give account of them all, but especially knowledge, which is a ware of the chiefest trade. now where there are great receipts, and no disbursements, the debt must needs be exceeding great; and when once the sergeant hath arrested us for it, the lord knows when we shall pay it. the last thing that i proposed to your thoughts, was the suitableness of the punishment that will attend such an offence: for the fool, in my text, when he would give himself leave to think, knew well enough that there was a god, and that all his love and service was due to him: but these were melancholic thoughts, and such as would hinder him in the prosecution of his designed projects, and therefore he put them far from him: so that, in effect, and in god's account, he was utterly ignorant of him, did not, at all know him. just so shall they be served: christ knows all the world better than any man knows his own heart: yet in that great day he shall prove to be a very stranger, utterly ignorant of the greatest part of the world, though many of them had been his acquaintance here; nay, though through faith, in his power, they had unawares by wonders and miracles, brought many to heaven, and had been good helpers to destroy the infernal kingdom, whereof before they were in affection, and now for ever must, indeed, be inhabitants. 55. there remains the other main general, which is, indeed, the substance of the whole text, namely, the fruit of this folly, and that is, atheism, not in opinion, but practice: in the prosecution whereof, i shall mainly insist upon this, to demonstrate, by infallible deductions out of god's word, that men who profess religion, and a perfect knowledge of god, yet whiles they allow him only the brain, and not (what he only desires) the heart and affections, may prove, in god's account, very atheists. or, to bring it nearer home, i will show how that many, the ordinary courses, and the most incontrouled practices, of men of this age do utterly contradict, and formally destroy the very foundations and principles of the glorious religion which they profess. but this will require a much longer time than your patience can allow me: therefore i will only add some few words of application, of what hath been spoken, and so conclude. 56. that jewel which our saviour so magnifies, (matth. 13.) and so commends the wisdom of the merchant for selling all, even utterly undoing himself to purchase it, is the gospel of the kingdom of heaven. which though it be of most precious and inestimable value, worthy the selling of the whole world to buy it, yet is every man's money, every man has riches enough to adventure upon it, so he will but sell all that he has, so he will be content to turn bankrupt for it, and upon no other terms can he have it. 57 that advice which christ gave the rich young man, that had a good mind to follow him, viz. that he should sell all that he had, and take up his cross, was not any extraordinary unusual trial, but we have all accepted the same offer upon the very same conditions: we must of necessity sell all, deny and renounce the keeping and possessing of any thing besides this pearl; we must even sell ourselves, deny and renounce our own souls, they are both become gods own, and we are but borrowers of them: now if we be not masters of our goods, nor of ourselves, neither then may we do our own actions, we must not think our own thoughts. they were such fools as this great notorious one in my text, who in psal. 12. say, our tongues are our own, we may say what we list. we are all bought with a price; yea all that we have, is bought. 58. yet though we must sell all, and deny our own selves, yet we need not part with our goods, or riches, we need not make away ourselves. for example: when our saviour says, he that hateth not father and mother, and brethren, and sisters, and all the world besides, for my names sake, and the gospels, is not worthy of me: this speech does not bind me to hate, persecute, and destroy all the kindred i have; no, but rather to love and honour them, to spend, and be spent for them: yet if those persons, or if it be possible for aught else, to be more dear and precious than they, stand in my way to hinder me from coming to christ; than it is time for me to hate them, than i must trample them under my feet. so that a man is no more bound to sell his goods, that is, to throw them away, than he is to hate his parents; only neither of them may by any means offend us, or annoy us, in our journey to christ. 59 now to bring this home to our purpose. can any face be so impudent, as to profess he hath already sold all, himself to boot, and is ready to part with them when god shall call for them, who contents himself only with knowing and hearing stories of him, and reserves his heart to his own use, which is all that god requires? can he with any reason in the world be said to sell all for the gospel of christ, that sees christ himself every day almost hungry, and does not feed him; naked, and does not cloth him; in prison, and does not visit him? for in as much as they do not these offices of charity to his beloved little ones, they deny them to him. will he be found to be worthy of christ, that for his sake will not renounce one delightful sin, which a heathen would easily have done, only for the empty reward of fame? that for his sake will not forgive his brother some small injury received; nay, perhaps some great kindness offered as a seasonable reproof, or loving dissuasion, from sinning? that for his sake will not undergo the least trouble in furthering his own salvation? 60. far from us (beloved christians) be so barren a profession, a profession having only the vizard and form of godliness, but denying the power thereof. no let us with thankful hearts, and tongues, recount and consider, what god hath done for our souls, how he hath given us his word, abundantly sufficient to instruct us. how he hath spoke the word, and great is the multitude of preachers. yet withal, let us consider, that it is in our power to turn these unvaluable treasures of god's favours into horrible curses. let us consider how god hath sent out his word, & it will not return unto him empty, it will be effectual one way or other, it will perform some great work in us. god doth but expect what entertainment it finds upon earth, and will proportion a reward accordingly on them which detain the truth; in unrighteousness he will rain snares, fire, and brimstone: but to such as with meek hearts, & due reverence receive it into good ground, and express the power thereof in their lives, there remaineth an exceeding eternal weight of joy and glory. let us therefore walk as children of the light; and not content ourselves with a bare empty profession of religion: let him that but nameth the name of the lord, depart from iniquity. brethren, consider what i say, and the lord give you understanding in all things. to god, etc. the third sermon. psalm xiv. 1. the fool hath said in his heart, there is no god. i will not be ashamed to be so far my own plagiary, as, for your sakes, that you may be the better able to go along with me in what remains of this text, briefly to discover unto you, how far i have already, in another auditory, proceeded in it. 2. first therefore, i conceived (by attending to the course and series of the psalm, and by comparing this place with many others in holy scripture in different language, expressing the same sense) that this fool, in my text, was not a man utterly ignorant and devoid of the knowledge of god, and his word; for he is supposed by the psalmist, to be a man living within the pale of the church, and outwardly professing the true religion and worship of god: and thereupon, secondly, that his atheism was not he athenish, philosophical atheism, no problematical maintaining an opinion, that there is no god, for even among the very heathens, we read not of above three or four, of any account, which have proceeded to this excelling degree and height of impiety. 3. but this person (whether doeg the edomite, or whosoever he were), is such a one, as though, in his profession, and even serious thoughts, he do not question a deity, but would be a mortal enemy to any one, who should dare to deprive and rob almighty god of any of his glorious attributes: notwithstanding in his heart, (that is, in the phrase of the scripture) in the propension and inclination of his affections, and by consequence, in the course and practise of his life, he denies and renounces god: he accounts the spending a little time in thinking and meditating on the providence, or mercy, or severity of god, to be an employment very ungainful and disadvantageous to him, a business likely to trouble and spoil many of his ungodly projects, and to hinder him in his fortunes: and for this reason, he will put god far away from him; he will not suffer him to be (as the psalmist saith, psal. 10.4. psal. 10.4.) in all his crafty purposes. 4. i yet willingly confess, that this, saying in the heart, there is no god, may reasonably be interpreted to be a secret whispering-suggestion, an inward persuasion, by fits, which a wretched worldling may have, that, since he has thrived so well by his carelessness in observing god's word, and obstinate opposing himself to his will, it may be possible there is indeed no god at all; or, if there be, that he will not vouchsafe to descend so low, as to take notice what is done here on earth, or to observe how each particular person, behaves himself in this life. now, because i will not set up one of these expositions against the other▪ i will hereafter, as occasion shall offer itself, make use of them both. 5. having therefore conceived the sense of the text to be such as i have now told you; in the words i observed two general parts. first, the cause of atheism, and, by consequence, all the abominations following through the whole psalm, intimated in the person nabal, i. e. the fool, which is, folly; i. e. ignorance, or rather, incogitancy, inconsideration. secondly, the effect of this folly, which, is atheism, and that seated not in the brain, but in the heart or affections. i have already gone through the former part, namely, the cause of atheism, which is folly: in the prosecution whereof, i endeavoured to discover, wherein this folly doth consist. and that is not so much in an utter ignorance of god, and his. holy word, as a not making a good use of it, when it is known, a suffering it to lie dead, to swim unprofitably in the brain, without any fruit thereof in the reformation of a man's life and conversation. and there i showed, first, what extreme folly it was for a man to seek to increase the knowledge of his masters will, without a resolution to increase proportionably in a serious active performance thereof. and secondly, the extreme unavoidable danger and increase of guilt, which knowledge, without practice, brings with it. to both which considerations, i severally annexed applications to the consciences of them that heard me, and should have proceeded to— 6. the second general part: which is the effect and fruit of the folly, or inconsideration of nabal, (the fool) in my text, which is atheism practical, not of the understanding, but the will and affections. but, the time being spent in the prosecution of the former general part, i was forced to reserve this second general, to be the employment of another hour. 7. only thus much, i then made promise of; (which debt i purpose now to discharge to you) namely, to demonstrate by infallible deductions out of god's word, that many, who profess religion, and a perfect knowledge of god's word, yet whiles they allow him only the brain, and not (what he almost only requires) the heart, and affections, may prove in gods account very atheists. or to bring it nearer home, i promised to show, how that many the ordinary courses, and most incontrouled practices of men of this age, do utterly contradict, and formally destroy the very foundations and principles of that glorious religion which they profess. of these, etc. 8. at the first sight, indeed, a man would think, that of all the places in holy scripture, and of all the ages which have been since the world began, that this text, and these times, should suit worst together: for first, if a man would strive with all the carnestness, and even spite, he could, in all the abominable odious colours to describe the worst of all humane creatures, even the idolatrous, self-devouring indians, what more horrible expression could he imagine to himself, then to call them fools, and such fools, who say in their heart, there is no god. again, if we shall inquire and ask the former ages, if ever the world was so stored, and even oppressed with knowledge: they will tell us, that the light was never a burden, nor knowledge a vice before now: never till now did all sorts and conditions of men pretend to be able to state the most intricate profound questions of our religion. never till now was moses his wish fulfilled, i would to god, that all the people of the lord were prophets: though in a sense which would scarce have pleased him. 9 these things considered, were it not fit (think you), that i should renounce my text, or travel to find out a nation whom it may concern, and who have need to hear atheists condemned? i would to god, (my beloved brethren), that whatsoever i shall speak against that fearful sin of atheism, may prove vain unprofitable words, words which may return empty, having found none to fasten upon: i would to god, that i might strive now, as one that beateth the air, so that you, (even you, who know so much) were innocent. but david found this a doctrine fit to be pressed in his days, which were none of the worst neither: yea, he hath a second time, (in psal. 51.) almost in terminis terminantibus, repeated whatsoever he here speaks of the atheist: we find not such an example through the whole scripture, (except it be in a history, or where the quotation is mentioned.) therefore surely it may be pertinent, and sometimes useful even in the church to have atheism discovered, to have this doctrine preached and re-preached: it was so in david's times: and it shall go hard, but we shall show, that we ourselves, (though never so wise and learned and knowing in our own opinion): yet that we also ought not to take it to heart, if sometimes we be suspected and challenged of atheism: 10. that temptation which the devil found hard enough for himself, even when he was an angel of light, namely, ero similis altissimo; i shall be like the most highest: now that it is his office, and employment, to become a tempter, he has since scarce ever varied: at the first exercise of his trade, with his first customers, adam and eve, he begun with it, ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil. and if we shall unpartially examine our own thoughts, we shall find almost in every suggestion, at least, some degree and tincture of atheism: either we do exalt and deify our own selves, or else we do dishonour, and, in a manner, degrade almighty god, deposing him from that sovereignty and sway which he ought to exercise in our hearts and consciences. 11. this, i say, is true in some measure, in all temptations, in all sins whatsoever, there is some quantity of atheism, though the sins be but of an ordinary size and rank: but this is not that which i would now stand upon: it concerns me, to show, that though men be never so orthodox in their opinions, though they pretend to never so much zeal of the truth, which they profess, yet unless that divine truth be powerful and persuasive enough to the performance and practice of such duties, as bear a natural resemblance and proportion unto it: they that make such a profession of god's truth, do but flatter themselves, they only think they believe, but indeed, and in truth, there is no such thing as faith in them. for, we must know, that there is no divine truth so utterly speculative, but that there naturally and infallibly flows and results from it (as necessarily as warmth from light) a duty to be practised and put in execution: insomuch, that it is impossible for a man to be truly persuaded of the one, but he shall infallibly be persuaded to the other: 1 joh 2 4. so that he which saith, he knoweth god, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. and this i shall endeavour to confirm by induction, examining the truth and reality of our assent to the chief fundamental. points of our religion, by our practices answerable thereto, and concluding, that where the latter is not to be found, it is but a vain persuasion and fantastical illusion for a man to think he hath the former. 12. but in the first place, that we may be the better able, and without interruption proceed in this designed course, i will first remove an objection, which may seem to prevail against that which hath been spoken: to this effect: object. jam. 11.19. the devils (as saint james saith), believe and tremble: they do indeed assent unto the truth of all the mysteries of our salvation: in the place of st. james, they acknowledge one god: in matth. 8.28. they acknowledge the second article of our faith, allowing christ to be son of god. and the like may be said of the others following; and yet if we examine their practice: how absolutely contradicting and warring is it with their profession? therefore, it may seem, that where there is a firm assent to divine truths, there may consist with it a contrary repugnant practice. 13. for answer therefore we must know, sol. that the assent which the devil gives to the revelations of god, is extremely different from that belief which is exacted of us christians, and which every one of us, (though never so vicious and irreligious) would gladly persuade ourselves that we allow unto god's word: for though, for example, the devils acknowledge the precepts and commandments of god to be holy, and just, and good, and most fit to be observed; as likewise that to those who sincerely, and without hypocrisy, shall perform these commandments of god, heb. 11.1. the promises of god shall be yea and amen, they shall infallibly attain those joys which exceed man's understanding to comprehend: yet, these things to them are only as a tale which is told; or rather they are to them occasion of horror and gnashing of teeth, that there should be such glorious comfortable things, which do nothing concern them, and of malice and hatred to those who have an interest in them, and are in a fair possibility of attaining unto them: and therefore no marvel if such a faith as this be barren and unfruitful of good works. whereas our faith (saith st. paul) is the substance of things hoped for, of things which concern us, we do not only acknowledge, that the precepts of god are good, but also necessarily to be performed by us: and that the promises of god are not only in themselves, but also that being such, they were revealed for our sakes, and are infallibly destined unto us, when we shall have performed such conditions as may by the assistance of god be executed by us, even with ease and pleasure: now wheresoever such persuasions as these are, it is impossible (even if the devils themselves could be supposed capable of them) but that there should accompany them earnest and serious endeavours not to come short of the glory of god. this difficulty therefore being dissolved, i shall pursue the examination of our belief of the foundations of our religion, by the fruits and issues of it in the practices of our lives. 14. we will begin with some of god's attributes: whosoever thou art, that professest thyself a christian, thou believest, that god whom thou servest is present every where, both in heaven and earth, insomuch, that it is altogether impossible for thee to exclude him from thy company; wheresoever thou goest, he will pursue thee: though thou shouldst thyself with darkness, as it were with a garment, the darkness would be to him as the noonday: and though it were possible for thee to deceive the eyes and observation of men and angels, yea, even of thine own conscience, yet to him thou wouldst be open and transparent; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as it were, dissected, and having thy very entrails exposed to his sight. 15. thou canst hid therefore nothing which thou dost from his eyes, he taketh notice of every word which thou speakest, he hears even the very whispering of thy thoughts: and all this, thou sayest, thou acknowledgest. out of thy own mouth shalt thou be condemned, thou wicked servant: darest thou then make thy master a witness of thy rebellion and disobedience? when thou art about the fulfilling of any of thine ungodly lusts, thou retirest thyself from company, and art afraid of the faces of men; thou abhorrest the light: and yet darest outface him whose eyes are ten thousand times brighter than the sun. thou wouldst not have the confidence to commit filthiness, if thy friend were in company: and yet, what injury is done to him by it? what commandment of his dost thou transgress in it? or if thou didst, what power, or authority, has he over thee to punish thee? thou wouldst be ashamed to commit such a sin, if thy servant were by, one whom thou art so far from being afraid of, that himself, his words, almost his very thoughts, are in thy power: nay, if a child were in company, thou wouldst not have the face to do it. 16. thou canst not deny, but respect to a friend, to a servant, even to a child, will withhold thee from such practices, and yet withal confessest, that almighty god, whom thou professest, to serve, to fear, and to love, that he all the while looks upon thee, and observes thee; his eyes are never removed from thee, and which is worse, though thou mayest endeavour to forget, and blot, such actions out of thy remembrance, yet it is impossible he should ever forget them: he keeps a register of all thy sins, which no time shall ever be able to deface: and what will it then profit thee to live a close concealed sinner from the world, or to gain amongst men the reputation of a devout religious christian, when in the mean time thine own heart and conscience shall condemn thee; nay, when almighty god who is greater than thy heart, and knoweth all things, when he shall be able to object unto thee all thy close ungodly projects, all thy bosom private lusts; yea, when that conceit (wherein thou didst so much please thyself) of being able to delude and blind the observation of the world shall nothing avail thee, but whatsoever mischiefs thou hast contrived in thy closet; whatsoever abominations thou hast practised in thy. bed; all these, with each aggravating circumstance, shall be discovered in the presence of all men, and angels, and devils: when satan, whom before thou madest an instrument and bawd unto thy lusts, to whose counsels and suggestions thou before wouldst only hearken, shall be the most forward and eager to appeach thee. 17. when thou art brought to such an exigent as this (which, without a timely unfeigned repentance, as sure as there is a god in heaven, thou shalt at last be brought to) what will then they orthodox opinions do thee good? what will it then profit thee, to say, thou never didst maintain any impious dishonourable tenants concerning god, or any of his glorious attributes? yea, how happy hadst thou been, if worse than the most ignorant heathenish atheist, no thought or consideration of god had entered into thy heart? for this professing thyself a christian rightly instructed in the knowledge of god, will prove heavier to thee than a thousand millstones hanged about thy neck, to sink thee into the bottom of that comfortless lake of fire and brimstone? for, for example: what a strange plea would it be, for a murderer to say, i confess i have committed such or such a murder; but all the excuse which i can allege for myself, is, that i was well studied in the laws which forbade murder, and i knew that my judge who tied me to the observance of this law, upon pain of death, was present, and observed me when i committed the fact: surely it would be more tolerable for him to say, i never heard of any such law or judge; or if i have been told of such things, i gave but little heed to the report, i did not at all believe it. for though this plea will be very insufficient to acquit the malefactor; yet it will be much more advantageous than the former: for what were that, but to flour the judge to his face, and to pretend a respectful worthy opinion of him, for this end, that his contempt and negligence in performing his commandments, may be more extreme and inexcusable; and by consequence, without all hope or expectation of pardon. i need make no application of the example, the similitude doth sufficiently apply itself. 18. therefore it i were to advise any man who is resolved by his practice to contradict that opinion which he saith he hath of god; or, that is not resolved to live with that reverence and awfulness due to the majesty of almighty god, in whose presence he always is; i would counsel him not to believe himself, when he professes the omnipresence, or omniscience of god: for without all contradiction, though by living in a nation where every one with whom he converses, professeth so much, he may have learned to say, there is a god, and that this god is every where present; and takes particular notice of whatsoever is done in heaven and earth: yet if this notion were firmly rooted in his soul, as a matter of religion, as a business upon which depends the everlasting welfare of his soul and body; it is altogether impossible for him to continue in an habitual practice of such things as are evidently repugnant and destructive to such a conceit. for tell me, would any man in his right senses, when he shall see another drink down a poison which he knows will suddenly prove mortal unto him; i say, will any man be so mad as to believe such a one, though he should, with all the most earnest protestations that can be imagined, profess that he is not weary of his life, but intends to prolong it as long as god and nature will give him leave? 19 the case is altogether in each point and circumstance the same: for he which saith, he believeth or assenteth to any doctrine, as a fundamental point of his religion, intends thus much by it, that he has bound himself in certain bonds unto almighty god (for so the very name of religion doth import) to expect no benefit at all from him, but upon condition of believing such divine truths as it shall please him to reveal unto him, namely, as means and helps of a devout religious life and worship of him: for god reveals nothing of himself to any man for this end, to satisfy his curiosity, or to afford him matter of discourse or news; but to instruct him how he may behave himself here in this life, that he may attain those promises which shall be fulfilled to those who sincerely and devoutly serve and obey him. 20. therefore he that shall say, i believe such a truth revealed by god, and yet lives as if he had never heard of such a thing; yea, as if he had been persuaded of the contrary; is as much to be believed, as if he should say, i will drink a deadly poison to quench my thirst, or will stab myself to the heart, for physic, to let out superfluous blood: so that that man who is not resolved to break off his wicked courses by repentance, and conversion unto god; that lives as if the devil only were every where, and he resolved to please and delight him with his ungodly life; let not such a one use himself to say, i believe that god is always present with me, and a spectator of my actions; for thereby, he shall only add a lie to the rest of his sins, and fuel to the lake of fire and brimstone: he shall never persuade god to believe him, that he was of such an opinion; but that whatsoever his tongue said, and his fancy now and then apprehended, yet in his conscience he was always a constant resolved atheist, and in his heart he said, there is no god. 21. in the second place, thou acknowledgest, that god whom thou professest obedience to, is infinitely righteous; insomuch that it is impossible that he should not hate and abhor unrighteousness in whomsoever he finds it: yea, so natural and essential is his justice unto him, that he should deny himself, if he should accept any man's person, if he should not be avenged on sin, if he should not most severely punish it. thou canst not be ignorant how many vows and protestations he hath made almost every where through the holy scripture, of his hatred and indignation against sin, insomuch, that heaven and earth may pass away, but not one jot or tittle of those curses and plagues shall fall to the ground, which he hath denounced against impenitent sinners. 22. and shall not thy own mouth here once again condemn thee, o thou wicked servant? darest thou then every hour wilfully, and even contentedly do such things, as must certainly procure his anger and indignation against thee for ever? wilt thou, for the sinful pleasure of a few minutes, put thyself in such a condition, that god must of necessity be angry with thee; that he must cease to be god, unless he hate and abhor thee? certainly, if thou wouldst descend into thine own heart, if thou wouldst give thyself leave carefully and unpartially to examine thy thoughts, thou wouldst find that thy tongue has given thy soul the lie, when it hath told thee, that god is immutably just and righteous; and yet for all that, that thou art resolved to run on in such courses, as must of necessity pull down his heavy displeasure against thee. 23. at least, thou wilt find in thy heart earnest desires and wishes, that god were not so righteous as preachers tell thee he is! oh, thinkest thou in thy heart, that god were such an unrighteous person as i am! oh, that he could be content to wink at me, when i am about the fulfilling of my ungodly desires! alas, what harm is it to him, what inconvenience accrues to him by it, if i enjoy the sinful pleasures of this life? or if he will needs be angry, oh that it were not in his power to revenge himself upon me! oh that his power were not so unlimited as (they say) it is! 24. i know men will be apt to flatter themselves, though they be never so vicious, and to think that they are extremely wronged, to have such imputations laid upon them. they will be ready to answer me, in the words of hazael to the prophet elisha, when he told him what horrible massacres he should commit among the israelites, when he should have the crown of syria set on his head: what dost thou think us dogs, that we should do such things as these? we are so far from robbing god of his justice, that we would be mortal enemies to any that dare proceed to that height of impiety: nay, we would be content to sacrifice our own lives, rather than be brought to deny that, or any other of his glorious attributes. 25. truly, i am so charitably minded, as to think that there is none so wicked, but would confidently make this defence for himself; yea, and believes he is in earnest when he speaks so. but this will not serve the turn: for, god seethe not as man sees, he judgeth not as man judgeth, but he judgeth righteous judgement. for instance, in that great example which our saviour gives of the fashion and course of judgement, according to which he purposes to proceed in the last day; he accuses the wicked, and condemns them for neglect of visiting, and feeding, and clothing, him. the apology which they make for themselves, as having never seen him in that exigence, would not be taken: for, though i am persuaded they there spoke nothing but what they verily thought, namely, that if ever they had seen christ himself in such want and necessity, they would not have been so hard-hearted to him, as they were to his poor servants: yet christ will not allow of that excuse, but accounts of their uncharitableness to afflicted christians, as directed to himself. 26. so likewise in the case in hand. though i believe it would be hard to persuade even the most licentious professed sinner, that he believes not indeed the justice and righteousness of god; yet he shall find at last, and that miserably to his cost, that god who knows his heart much better than himself, for all his professions, will yet esteem him an atheist; and will prove evidently and convincingly unto him, that since that knowledge which he pretended to have of god's righteousness, had been so fruitless and superficial, that notwithstanding such a conceit, he proceeded still on in his ungodly courses; that therefore he did but delude himself all the while with fantastical ungrounded illusions; so that whatsoever imagination swim in his brain, yet in the language of his heart, that is, in the propension and sway of his affections, he said, there is no god— now what hath been said of the omnipresence, infinite knowledge, and justice of god, may by the same reason and proportion, be spoken of the rest of his glorious attributes. but the straitness of time will force me to leave the rest untouched: i will proceed therefore to make the like collections from one or two articles more of the creed. 27. thou believest that after this life (which cannot last very long, it will, and that shortly, have an end) there remain but two ways for all men of what stare and condition soever that ever were, to be disposed of, either into life and glory everlasting, or else into pains and torments infinite and insupportable. and by consequence, that thy soul is an immortal substance, which shall for ever continue somewhere: and according to thy behaviour here, during that short measure of time which thou livest upon the earth, it must expect a reward proportionable thereto. if thou canst persuade thyself to walk worthy of that calling whereunto thou art called in jesus christ: if thou wilt not forswear and renounce that glorious profession which thou madest in thy baptism: if thou canst be content to submit thyself to the easy yoke of christ, propose to thyself what reward thou canst imagine, give thy thoughts scope and licence to be excessive and overflowing in their desires; if thou art not satisfied to the uttermost, infinitely above what thou art now able to comprehend, tell god he is a liar, and has deceived thee. oh what unspeakable joys shall hereafter expect thee? oh with what a burden and weight of glory shalt thou even be oppressed? 28. but on the other side; if notwithstanding such inestimable blessings as are now set before thine eyes, thou art yet resolved to content thyself with such vain trifling pleasures as thou canst meet with in this life, which yet thou canst not attain to, but with as much pains, and anxiety, and care; as, if rightly applied, would have been sufficient to have procured heaven for thee! what shall i say unto thee? only this, thou hast thy reward: remember that thou hast already received thy good things. what a terrible affrighting speech is this? it may be thou hast fed and glutted thy lusts with some pleasures of this life; it may be thou hast satisfied in some small measure thy ambition with honour and preferment; and yet it may be, for all thy cares and travels, thou hast not been able to attain to any of those things as thou didst desire; whether thou hast or hast not, it is all one, there is little to choose, but howsoever, remember that thou hast received thy good things; remember, thou hast thy reward. do not hereafter presume to offer to pretend to any the least good from god. it may be hereafter thou mayest come to such want, as to stand in need of a cup of cold water; any, it may be thou wouldst think thyself happy, if any body would afford thee but one drop of water to refresh thy tongue. but in vain: for, son, remember thou hast already received thy good things. thou never sawest beggar so utterly wretched and destitute, but he might almost every where have filled himself with water, and have thanked no body for it: and yet though thou shouldest even consume thyself with entreating, and crying for it, yet none shall be found to give it thee, even thy liberal good father abraham will deny it to thee. 29. surely there cannot be found so impudent, so unreasonable a sinner, as to profess he is fully persuaded of these things, and that he hath a desire, and even some hope, that god will be so merciful to him, as to perserve him, that none of those things happen unto him, and yet resolve to follow the devices of his own heart: to say, he acknowledgeth that the joys which are reserved for penitent believers, are so excessively glorious, that the afflictions of this life are not worthy of them, much less the vain pleasures thereof; and yet withal, rather than not enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season, to make himself uncapable of those great blessings. such a generation of men i find in holy scripture, and god himself takes notice of them, who say, we shall have peace, though we walk in the imaginations of our heart: but withal, i can scarce meet with god so impatient through the whole bible, as he is with people of such a temper as this, surely the lord will be avenged on such a nation as this, and will make his fierce wrath to smoke against them. 30. therefore, whomsoever thou art that hast taken up thy resolution, to walk in the imagination of thine own heart; at least, take so much pity of thyself, do not thou thyself add violence and heart to the wrath of god, which shall smoak against thee, by pretending to a belief of heaven or hell, or by seeming to profess, that all the while that thou art busy in the prosecution of thine ungodly lusts, notwithstanding that, all that time, this opinion hath never left thee, that god will bring thee to judgement; that even that every body of thine, which thou mad'st a mansion for the devil, an instrument for any wickedness that he would suggest unto thee, yet that that body should be raised up; that to thy extreme horror and astonishment, god would take such particular care of that very body of thine, that wheresoever it were lost, he would recover it, though dispersed to the four winds of heaven, and build it up again (thou sayest thou knowest for what use) even to be a mark against which he will empty his quivers, and shoot out all darts of his fiery indignation, in the punishing of whom he will express his almighty power. 31. but i cannot allow myself any longer time to prosecute the former part of my proposition, viz. to show how much men deceive themselves, who think they indeed believe the fundamental points of their faith, when by their practice and course of life, they live in an habitual exercise of such sins, as are utter repugnant and destructive to such a belief: and this, i think, i have performed; but yet only in general terms, not descending to a view of some more eminent and particular sins and enormities: for that, therefore, which remains of the time that your patience will allow me, i will spend it in acquitting myself of the other part of my promise, namely, in instancing in some extraordinary incontrouled practices of these times; and, discovering how utterly they do destroy the very grounds and foundations of our religion, and how impossible it is they should consist with a true sincere profession of christianity. 32. as first, for example; how ordinarily do we meet with this practice, for men which are above others in wealth and power, to employ both these to their utmost abilities, for the maintaining of an unjust cause against a poor inferior adversary: i am sure, this is no news to you, you do not startle at the hearing of such a crime as this: and yet, if it be well considered, what can be imagined more monstrous and abominable? for, give me leave to suppose, or put the case, that some one of this company were guilty of this sin. 33. if i should ask him, whence and from whom he had his riches or power? whom he would acknowledge for his benefactor? i make no question, but he would give me a good religious answer, and say, that he would not sacrifice to his net, nor burn incense to his drag; but that god, who gave a blessing to his cares and endeavours, had advanced him to such a place and fortunes in the world. again, if i should ask him, in what esteem and value (he thought that) god holds his faithful servants? or, whether he would take it well, to have them oppressed and trampled on on by others more potent than themselves? he must needs answer again, that god is no accepter of persons, neither riches nor poverty are a means to procure his favour, but that in all conditions of men, he that loveth righteousness, and hateth iniquity, shall be accepted by him. 34. if these be his answers (as, without all contradiction, unless he will profess himself an atheist, such must be the effect of them;) then, let him consider, in what a woeful condition he has concluded himself to be in, and, what reason he has to thank god for his honour or riches? does he think, that god has furnished him with strength and weapons for this end, that thereby he might be able to make war with himself, that he might have the power to overrun and lay waste those whom god loveth as the apple of his own eye? can he imagine, that god has been so beneficial and liberal to him, in preferring him to a rank and degree above others not inferior to him in the riches and treasures of god's grace, and therefore as dear unto him as himself; for this end, that thereby he may prove a more able, and fit instrument for the devil to wreak his malice and hatred upon those whom god loves? 35. therefore, if there be ere such a person in this auditory (yet i hope there is not); but and if there be! what shall i say unto him? let him consider, what a hard task he has undertaken to war against god? let him consider, what a strange reckoning he is likely to make unto god, when he shall at last (as undoubtedly he will) require of him an account of his stewardship? behold, lord, thou hast given me five talents, and what have i done with them? why, lo, i have made them ten talents. but how, by what courses? why, i have unjustly and injuriously rob and wrung from my fellow servants, those few talents which thou gavest them: i have gained thus much by my violent maintaining of a cause which thou hatedst, and which myself could not deny but to be most unjust: this is surely a sore evil under the sun. but, since, i hope, it little concerns any one here, to have such a crime as this dissected curiously and purposely insisted upon, it shall suffice me to say, that they who are guilty of it, are far from knowing of what spirit they are, when they say, they are christians, since even a very heathen would abhor to countenance or entertain such a vice as this. 36. in the second place, how can ye believe (saith christ) who seek honour one of another, and not that honour which is of god? if these words of christ be true, that they who too earnestly desire applause and reputation among men, neglecting, in the mean time, seriously to endeavour the attaining to the honour which is of god; that is, obedience and submission to his commands, which is that wherein a christian ought especially to place his honour and reputation: if such men as these, do in vain, and without all ground of reason, reckon themselves in the number of true believers: again, if the chief badge and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, whereby christ would have his servants to be distinguished from the world, be a willingness to suffer injuries, a desire rather to have the other cheek strucken, and to have the cloak go the same way with the coat, than to revenge one blow with another, or to go to law for a matter of no great moment, for recovering of that which a man might well enough lose, without endangering his estate. 37. if these things, i say, be true; suppose christ (according to the vision of ezekiel) should command his angels utterly to slay through all jerusalem, ezek. 9.5, 6. that is, the church, old and young, maids, and little children, and women, excepting only those upon whom his mark and badge were to be found; what destruction and desolation would there be? how would the sanctuary of god be defiled, and his courts be filled with the slain? how would many (who now pass, both in their own and other men's opinions, for good christians enough) be taken for mahomet's servants whose religion it is, by fury and murder, to gain proselytes to their abominable profession: suppose our garments should be presented to god with the same question that jacob's sons sent their brother joseph's, num haec est tunica filii tui? is this thy sons coat? would they not rather be taken for the skins of savage beasts, so unlike are they to that garment of humility and patience which our saviour wore, and which he bequeathed us in his legacy. 38. we are so far from seeking that honour which is of god, from endeavouring to attain unto, or so much as countenancing such virtues, which god hath often professed, that he will exalt and glorify; such is humility and patiently bearing of injuries, that we place our honour and reputation in the contrary; that is counted noble and generous in the world's opinion, which is odious and abominable in the sight of god: if thy brother offend or injure thee, forgive him, saith christ; if he proceed, forgive him; what? until seven times? i, until seventy times seven-times. but how is this doctrine received now in the world? what counsel would men, and those none of the worst sort, give thee in such a case? how would the soberest, discreetest, well-bred christians advise thee? why thus: if thy brother or thy neighbour have offered thee an injury or an affront! forgive him? by no means, of all things in the world take heed of that, thou art utterly undone in thy reputation then, if thou dost forgive him: what is to be done then? why, let not thy heart rest, let all other business rest, let all other business and employment be laid aside, till thou hast his blood: what, a man's blood for an injurious passionate speech, for a disdainful look? nay, this is not all. that thou may'st gain amongst men the reputation of a discreet well-tempered murderer, be sure thou killest him not in passion, when thy blood is hot and boiling with the provocation; but proceed with as much temper and setledness of reason, with as much discretion and preparedness as thou wouldst to the communion: after some several day's meditation, invite him mildly, and affably, into some retired place, and there let it be put to the trial, whether thy life or his must answer the injury. 39 oh most horrible christianity! that it should be a most sure settled way for a man to run into danger and disgrace with the world, if he shall dare to perform a commandment of christ's, which is as necessarily to be observed by him, if he have any hope of attaining heaven, as meat and drink is for the sustaining of his life? that ever it should enter into the heart of a christian to walk so exactly and curiously contrary to the ways of god; that whereas he every day and hour, sees himself contemned and despised by thee who art his servant, his creature, upon whom he might (without any possible imputation of unrighteousness) pour down the vials of his fierce wrath and indignation; yet he, notwithstanding, is patiented and long-suffering towards thee, hoping that his long suffering may lead thee to repentance, and earnestly desiring and soliciting thee by his ministers to be reconciled unto him: yet, that thou, for all this, for a blow in anger; it may be, for a word or less, shouldest take upon thee to send his soul, or thine, or, it may be, both, clogged and pressed with all your sins unrepented of (for thou canst not be so wild as to think, thou canst repent of thy sins, and yet resolve upon such a business) to expect your sentence before the judgement feat of god: wilfully and irrecoverably to deprive yourselves of all those blessed means which god had contrived for your salvation, the power of his word, the efficacy and virtue of his sacraments; all which you shall utterly exclude yourselves from, and leave yourselves in such a state, that it shall not be in god's power to do you any good. oh consider this all ye that fight against god, lest he tear you in pieces, and there be none to deliver you. 40. in the third place: there is another great evil under the sun, and that is, when men are not content to dishonour almighty god, and their glorious religion, by unworthy scandalous practices; but, to make themselves innocent, they will entitle god to their abominations: of this nature are those, who are curious and inquisitive into scripture, great students in it for this end, that they may furnish them with some places, which being violently wrested, and injuriously handled, may serve, at least in their opinion, to patronise and warrant their ungodly irreligious courses. the time will come, saith christ to his disciples, when they who hate and persecute you, shall think they do god good service. and the time is come, when men think they can give no greater, nor more approved testimony of their religion, and zeal of god's truth, then by hating and abhorring, by reviling and traducing their brethren, if they differ from them in any, though the most ordinary, innocent opinions: if men accord not altogether with them, if they run not on furiously with them in all their tenets, they are enemies unto god and his truth, and they can find scripture enough to warrant them to disgrace and revile such, to raise any scandalous dishonourable reports of them, and to poison utterly their reputation with the world. an application to the communion. i have hitherto, as carefully as so short a time would permit (and yet, it may be, with greater earnestness than you could have been content i should) searched into the retired corners of our hearts, and there discovered a vice, which, it may be, you little expected, namely, atheism: a strange vice, i confess, to be found in christian hearts. i have, likewise, exemplified in some particular practices of these times, most exactly contrary to our profession of christian religion: if i should endeavour to discover all that might be observed of this nature, not my hour only, but the day itself would fail me. notwithstanding, i am resolved to make one instance more about the business for which we are met together, namely, the receiving of the blessed body and blood of our lord jesus christ: i suppose you will all acknowledge with me, that that is a business of the greatest consequence that a christian is capable of performing: i hope i need not to instruct you, how inexcusably guilty those men render themselves who come with an unprepared heart, with an unsanctified mouth, to the partaking of these heavenly mysteries: what art thou (saith god by the psalmist) that takest my word into thy mouth, when thou hatest to be reform? and if that be so great a crime for a man only to talk of god, to make mention of his name, when the heart is unclean and unreformed; with how much greater reason may christ say, what art thou that takest me into thy mouth? what art thou that darest devour my flesh, and suck my blood, that darest incorporate my flesh and blood into thyself, to make my spotless body an instrument of thy lusts, a temple for the devil to inhabit and reign in? to crucify christ once more, and put him to open shame? to crucify him so that no good shall follow upon it, to make the blood of the new covenant a profane thing? and thus far, if not deeper, is that man guilty, that shall dare to come to this heavenly feast with spotted and unclean affections. the fourth sermon. luk. ix. 23. — let him deny himself. good reason there is, that, according to that excess of value and weight, wherewith heavenly and spiritual things do surmount and preponderate earthly and transitory; so likewise the desire and prosecution of them should be much more contentiously active and earnest, than that of the other: yet, if men were but in any proportion so circumspect, and careful in businesses that concern their eternal welfare, as even the most foolish worldlings are about riches, honour, and such trifles, as are not worthy to take up the mind even of a natural man; we should not have the glorious profession of christianity, so carelessly and sleepily undertaken, so irresolutely and fearfully, nay, cowardly maintained; i might add, so treacherously pretended and betrayed to the encompassing of base and unworthy ends, as now it is. 2. to what may we more justly impute this negligent wretchless behaviour of christians, than to an extreme incogitancy, and want of consideration in us, upon what terms it is, that we have entered into league with god, and to what considerable strict conditions we have in our first initiation at our baptism, so solemnly submitted and engaged ourselves; without a serious resolute performance whereof, we have promised by no means to expect any reward at all from god, but to remain strangers, utterly excluded from the least hope of enjoying any fruit of those many glorious promises which it hath pleased our gracious god, so liberally to offer and reach out unto us in our blessed saviour jesus christ. 3. it was no good sign, when the precious seed of the word was received into the stony ground with such a sudden joy. hearers resembled by that ground, give good heed to the glorious and comfortable promises, which attend religion, without having respect to many troublesome and melancholic conditions, which much necessarily go along too▪ and therefore, when persecution gins, either within them, when they are commanded to strangle a lust as dear unto them, and as necessary for their employments, as an eye, or right-hand; or, without them, when that profession which they have undertaken becomes offensive or scanda lous to great men: then, (as if they had been mistaken in the purchase, or deceived by the preacher,) the joy so suddenly kindled, assoon vanishes, and they retire themselves home, expecting a more commodious and gainful bargain. 4. hereupon it is, that our saviour in this chapter spends two parables, one of a king preparing for war, the other of a builder for a house; whereby to instruct his hearers, what they should do before they did offer to undertake his service: the sum whereof is this; that if they had any ends and projects of their own, if they thought to serve themselves upon him, they were much deceived; that they should deeply, and thoughtfully consider of what weight and consequence the business was that they were about. 5. there is a kingdom to be obtained, and a glorious palace, wherein are to be erected many fair mansions to reign in: but it is a kingdom that suffers violence, and the violent must take it by force; and it is a building that will exact perchance all the means they have, and their whole lives labour to boot: wherefore it is good for them to sit down, to send for their friends to counsel, to question their hearts, whether they have courage and resolution, and to examine their incomes, whether they will bear the charges to muster soldiers for the conquest, and labourers for the building. 6. if they like these large offers, and have means enough for the employment, and are not unwilling to spare for cost, let them go on in god's name: there is no doubt to be made of an end, that shall fully recompense their losses, and satisfy their utmost boldest desires, and fill the whole capacity of their thoughts. but on the other side, unless all these conditions concur, he has so much care of their credit that he would wish them, not to set one foot further in the employment, but to betake themselves home, lest, if they should fail in the business, they should make themselves ridiculous to the world of scorners: to whom it would be meat and drink to see some glorious fresh ruins of a building left to the fouls and beasts to inhabit; or to see a fierce invading army forced to retire them themselves ho me, cooled and content with their former want and poverty. object. 7. but might not some poor, low-minded, sinful hearer reply upon our saviour, and inquire, whence these sums must be raised, and these forces mustered. alas, what is a wretched mortal man, that he should think of taking heaven by composition, much more of forcing and invading it: what is there on earth to lay in balance against heaven? has not the spirit of god told us, that all is vanity, nay lighter than vanity, through all eccl-siastes? and again, that men of low condition are vanity, and men of high condition (to wit, such, as because they abound with wealth, think that therefore they are in much better esteem and favour with god then their brethrens) they are worse than vanity, for as it is psal. 62.9. they are a lie, psal. 62.9. that is, they are no such things as they take themselves for, they are quite contrary to what they seem. 8. the answer hereto is not very difficult: for 'tis true, if we consider our own abilities such, i mean, as our forefathers have left us, as it is impossible for us by any worth in our power, to offer at the purchase of heaven, as to make a new one: yet, such is the mercy of god in jesus christ, that so glorious a bargain is already made to our hands, the gain whereof will redound unto us upon very reasonable conditions; namely, if we can be brought to acknowledge our own beggarly starved estate, and thereby evacuating ourselves of all manner of worth and desert in ourselves, and relying only upon his mercy which is infinite, submitting likewise ourselves to be absolutely at his disposition without any reservation at all. 9 so that the same unvaluable precious jewel, which cost the rich merchant in the parable, all his estate, and had like to have made a young gentleman in the gospel turn bankrupt, may becomes ours, even the poorest and most despised persons amongst us; if we will be content to part with our totum nihil, all whatsoever we are, or have: if we can persuade ourselves, to esteem pleasure and profit as dross and dung, when they come in competition with this pearl? if we can readily and affectionately hate our dearest friends and kindred, even tread our parents under our feet, when they lie in our way unto christ: if we can perfectly detest even the most dearest closest lusts and affectionate sins; finally, if our own souls become contemptible and vile in our own eyes, in respect of that glorious inheritance so dearly purchased for us: then are we rich to purchase this pearl, then are we able and sufficient to go through with this building, and strong enough to conquer this kingdom. 10. now all this (as must be showed in many more particulars) is properly to deny ourselves, which is a condition that our saviour makes so necessary and inseparable in every one, that purposes to be any thing the better for him, that desires to be found in the number of those that have given up their names unto him, for saith the text, jesus said unto them all, if any man will come after me, let him deny himself.— let him— 11. these few words are not conveniently capable of a division; but taking them in gross, as a precept or law delivered by christ, and which concerns every man, of what state or condtion soever, that resolves to accept of him for a lord and saviour: we will proceed according to the ordinary method of expounding a law: namely, first, we will in general, consider the nature, meaning, and extent, of this law; how far the action here enjoined (which is a denying or renouncing) doth reach; and how much is comprehended in the object thereof, ourselves: secondly, i will restrain this general duty into several special cases, which may conveniently be reduced to three, as namely, that by virtue thereof we are bound to evacuate ourselves, and utterly deny, 1. our own wisdom or understanding. 2. our will and affections. and lastly, our own desert and righteousness. 12. out of this commandment, then, considered in general terms only, (for so i shall only handle it in this hours discourse,) as it is contained in these two words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but two such words, so full and swelling with expression, that our language can scarce at all, or but faintly, express and render the force and vigour of them in twenty; i shall observe unto you this doctrinal position; doctr. namely, that it is absolutely, and indispensably required of every man that professes christianity; not only utterly to renounce all manner of things that thwart and oppose gods will and command, but also resolutely, and without all manner of reservation, to purpose and resolve upon the denial of whatsoever is in ourselves, or any thing else, how full of pleasure, profit, or necessity soever, though in themselves indifferent, lawful, or convenient; when they come in competition with what christ hath enjoined us. which after i have explained and confirmed by comparing this law with many other precepts of the same nature in the holy scripture, i shall apply unto your consciences by two useful enforcements. one, taken from the extreme undeniable reasonableness of the thing here commanded. the other, from the wonderful love and kindness in the lawgiver, that requires not so much at our hands as himself hath already voluntarily performed, and that for our sakes: for thus, or to this purpose, run the words: if any man will come after me, let him do as i have done, even deny himself, take up his, indeed my cross daily, and so follow me. 13. i told you, i remember, my text was a law, and i repent not of the expression, though, i know not how, since our divinity has been imprisoned and fettered in theses and distinctions, we have lost this word, law; and men will by no means endure to hear, that christ came to command us any thing, or that he requires any thing at our hands, he is all taken up in promise: all those precepts which are found in the gospel, are nothing, in these men's opinions, but mere promises of what god will work in us, i know not how, sine nobis, though indeed they be delivered in fashion, like precepts. 14. these, and many other such dangerous consequences do and must necessarily arise from that new invented fatal necessity; a doctrine, that fourteen centuries of christianity never heard of: if we will inquire after the old and good ways, we shall find the gospel itself by its own author called a law: for thus saith the psalmist in the person of christ: psal. 2.7. i will preach the law, whereof the lord hath said unto me, thou art my son, this day have i begotten thee. and how familiar are such speeches as those, in our saviour's mouth: this is my command; a new commandment i give unto you; ye shall be my disciples, if ye do those things which i command you. among the ancient fathers, we find not only that christ is a lawgiver, but that he hath published laws which were never heard of before: that he hath enlarged the ancient precepts, and enjoined new; and yet now 'tis socinianism to say but half so much. clemens alexandr. (3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in fine) saith, that christ is more than a lawgiver, he is both 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and quotes s. peter for it. 15. well then, my text is a law, and a preparatory law; it is the voice of one crying, prepare the ways of the lord; let all hills be depressed, and all valleys exalted. it bears indeed the same office in our conversion, or new birth, that aristotle assigns to his privation in respect of natural generation. it hath no positive active influence upon the work, but it is principium occasionale, a condition or state necessarily supposed or prerequired in the subject before the business be accomplished. for, as in physical generation there can be no superinduction of forms, but the subject which expects a soul must necessarily prepare a room or mansion for it, which cannot be, unless the soul that did before inhabit there, be dispossessed. so it likewise comes to pass in our regeneration; there is no receiving of christ, to dwell and live with us, unless we turn all our other guests out of doors. the devil, you know, would not take possession of a house, till it was swept and garnished: and, dares any man imagine, that a heart defiled, full of all uncleanness, a decayed ruinous soul, an earthly sensual mind, is a tabernacle fit to entertain the son of god? were it reasonable to invite christ to sup in such a mansion, much more to rest and inhabit there? 16. in the ordinary sacrifices of the old law, god was content to share part of them with his servants the priests, and challenged only the inwards as his own due. and proportionably in the spiritual sacrifices, his claim was, my son, give me thy heart: he was tender then in exacting all his due. it was only a temptation, we know, when god required of abraham, that his only son isaac should be offered in holocaustum, for a whole burnt-sacrifice, to be utterly consumed, so that no part nor relics should remain of so beloved a sacrifice. yet even in those old times, there were whole burnt-offerings; whereby (besides that one oblation of christ) was prefigured likewise our giving up our whole selves, souls and bodies, as a living reasonable sacrifice unto god. and therefore our saviour christ (who came to fulfil the law, not only by his obedience thereto, but also by his perfect and complete expression of its force and meaning) doth in plain terms resolutely and peremptorily exact from all them that purpose to follow him, a full perfect resignation of themselves to his disposing, without all manner of condition or reservation. 17. this was a doctrine never heard of in the, world before completely delivered. never did any prophet or scribe, urge or enforce so much upon god's people, as is herein contained. yet in the evangelical law, we have it precisely, and accurately pressed; insomuch, that the holy spirit of god has taken up almost all the metaphors that can possibly be imagined, the more forcibly to urge this so necessary a doctrine. 18. we are commanded so perfectly, and wholly, to devote ourselves to god's service; so earnestly, and resolutely, to undertake his commands, that we must determine to undervalue, and despise all earthly and transitory things besides; nay, from the bottom of our hearts, we must hate and detest all things (how gainful, or delightful, or necessary soever they seem) if they do in any measure hinder, or oppugn us in our journey to christ. 19 we must not so much as look upon christ, or glance our eyes upon his glorious mercy, expressed in suffering and satisfying for us (for s. luke calls this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) but we must resolve to keep them there fixed, and not deign to think any creature to be a spectacle worthy our looking on; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, heb. 12.11. (saith s. paul) we have no english term that can fully express the force of this word; for it is not only as we have it translated, looking unto christ, but taking off our speculations from other objects, and fastening them upon christ, the author and finisher of our faith. 20. when we have been once acquainted, though but imperfectly, with this saving knowledge, we must straight bring our understandings into captivity, unto the obedience thereof; and whatsoever other speculations we have, how delightful soever they be unto us, yet rather than they should over-leaven us, and (as knowledge without charity is apt to do) puff us up, we must with much greater care and industry, study to forget them, and resolve with s. paul, to know nothing, save jesus christ and him crucified. 21. when we have had notice of that inestimable jewel, the kingdom of heaven (so called by our saviour in the parable) exposed to sale, though our estate be never so great, our wares never so rich and glorious, yet we must resolvedly part with all we have; utterly undo ourselves, and turn bankrupts, for the purchasing of it. hence are those commands, sell all thou hast. and, lest a man should think, that when the land is sold, he may keep the money in his purse, there follows, and give to the poor. and such care is taken by the holy ghost in those expressions, lest any evasions should be admitted; lest it should happen that such a merchant should find no chapman to buy his wates, nor (which is scarce possible) hands to receive his money, when he would bestow it; it is further said, forsake all, leave all: by all means quit thyself of thy own riches, run away from thy possessions. and if there be any thing yet more dear unto thee than thy possessions, as necessary as thy , despolia teipsum, put off the old man, with his lusts and affections; and though he stick never so close, tear it from thee, shake off the sin that hangeth so fast on. 22. and yet the holy ghost proceeds further in a more forcible expression: for many heathens have been found, that could persuade themselves to prefer fame obtained by a philosophical austere life, before riches, or honours, but every man loveth and cherisheth his flesh: therefore, if there be a lust so incorporated into thee, that it becomes as useful and necessary as thy right hand, or eye, yet thou must resolve to be thine own executioner, to deform, and maim thyself; for what will it profit thee, to go a proper personable man into hell. nay, if thy whole body begin to tyrannize over thee, thou must fight and war with it, and never leave, till thou hast brought it into captivity. then must thou use it like a slave, with short and corpse dyet, and store of correction, as s. paul did, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. nay more, saith he, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. such hatred he bore to that body of sin, which did always accompany him, that not content to overmaster it, he did ignominiously stigmatize and brand it with the marks of slavery. 23. yet this is not all: if it be rebellious and incorrigible, thou must even dispatch it, put it to death, and that no ordinary one, it must be a servile slavish, cruel death; crucify the flesh, with the lusts and affections thereof. a man would think that this were ●●fficient, and that we might here rest from further tyrannising over ourselves: but there is no such matter; if any man hate not father, and mother, and brethren, and sisters▪ and all the world besides, even his own soul, for my name sake and the gospels▪ saith christ, he cannot be my disciple. and now we are at the height, never till now, did i tell you the full meaning of my text; how far every man is engaged by virtue of this precept, let him deny himself. 24. the strength and vigour of this phrase (which expresses as much indeed, as all the former laid together) we shall the better understand, saith s. chrysostom, if we consider what it is to deny another: if a father, in extreme displeasure, do so cast off his son, that he denies him to be his son, he becomes worse than a stranger; for he will not so much as admit him to enjoy the benefit that common humanity teacheth every man to show to another; he will not endure him in his sight, less will he vouchsafe to expostulate with him; nay, he will rejoice when he hears of some misfortune that hath befallen him, and be beholding to any man that will revenge his injuries upon him. 25. thus must every one do, who enters into league or friendship with god; he must work himself out of his own acquaintance; he must be a stranger, (or, if god will have him) an enemy to all the world, and especially to himself; though he flow with wealth, yet he must live as being poor, as having nothing, (saith s. paul.) if affliction, or persecution, come upon him in god's behalf, he must with all joy entertain them. whatsoever god enjoins him, though otherwise never so distasteful to him, it must be his meat and drink, to perform it. there is nothing must lay a necessity upon him, but only god; and, to serve him, he must account the only unum necessarium. 26. will you see an example of such obedience, and that in the old law. an extraordinary one you shall find in exod. 32.29. which depends upon a story which went before, the sum whereof was this: exod. 32.29. moses, in revenge of that horrible idolatry which was committed during his absence upon the mount, commands the sons of levi to consecrate every man himself unto the lord, upon his son, and upon his brother, and upon his neighbour, by destroying any man, who ever he were, that came in their way: which they resolutely performed. and this obedience of theirs, was so acceptable to god, that at moses death they obtain the blessing of urim and thummim above all the tribes, with this elegy: he said unto his father, and to his mother, i have not seen them, neither did he acknowledge his brethren, nor knew his own children, for they have observed thy word, and kept thy covenant. by which obedience, the children wiped out, as it were, the fact of their father levi, who had before abused his sword unto injustice, for which he lost the blessing, that else he should have had, g●n. 49. 27. but will not here be room for that earnest objection, which the disciples, in great anxiety of mind, made to our saviour, when he was pressing a doctrine of the same nature with this we have in hand, who then can be saved? if there be required at our hands, so absolute and peremptory a resignation of ourselves to god's disposal, that we must root out of our hearts, all manner of love of ourselves, or any other creature, than christ hath destroyed the whole second table of the law. for, at the best, we are but to love our neighbours as ourselves: if therefore our first lesson must be to learn to contemn and despise, nay, even hate our own souls; why do we not with the levites, so commended even now, consecrate every man himself to the lord upon our kindred and neighbours, destroying all about us? besides, how dare we presume to be rich, or retain those possessions, which, as it seems, god hath bought from us? if our goods be not our own, if our souls be not our own, men and brethren, what shall we do? into what a straight are we fallen? we are commanded to love our brethren as our own souls, and we are commanded to hate our own souls, we are enjoined to give god thanks for those blessings which here we are enjoined to cast away. we are counselled, even by our saviour, to be perfect as our heavenly father is perfect, and yet we must deny ourselves; whereas the spirit of god hath told us, that it is impossible that god should deny himself. 28. for answer: this law must be read and understood, (as the schools say,) cum grano salis: for, though it be most true, that by virtue of this precept, we are obliged to an utter evacuation of the love and desire of any thing, and of all manner of confidence in ourselves, or any other creature: yet this must be understood, not absolutely, but when such things come in competition with our love or obedience to god: for otherwise, we are most necessarily bound, to love ourselves and others, to study and care for our own good, and the welfare of our brethren, even to lay down our lives for them, so, that we are not bound to destroy the love of ourselves, but only when it is a hindrance to our fulfilling of what god commands us. 29. we therefore, who have given up our names unto christ, must expect to enjoy the fruits of his obedience, by treading in the same steps which he hath left unto us. as shall be showed hereafter more plentifully. 30. and yet it is not necessary, that we should exactly and curiously apply ourselves to the rule of his obedience: for, whereas he voluntarily undertook the form and fashion of a servant, and being lord of heaven and earth, despised and neglected the riches and glory of this world: we notwithstanding are not tied to such hard conditions, but may flow and abound with wealth and honour; neither need we to deny to our souls any pleasure under the sun, but liberally enjoy it as the gift of god, as long as thereby we withdraw not our obedience and allegiance from god. 31. peccatum non est appetitus malarum rerum sed desertio meliorum, (saith st. augustine quoted by lombard, 2 sent. 42. dist.) i. e. sin does not consist in desiring ' or lusting after things which in their own natures are evil and inconvenient, but in preferring a low inconstant changeable good, before another more worthy and of greater excellency and perfection: whilst therefore, god has that estimation and value in our thoughts that he deserves, whilst there is nothing in ourselves, or any other creature, which we prefer before him, whilst we conspire not with our lusts to depose him from bearing a sovereign sway in our heats. and consciences, whilst we have no other god before him, not committing idolatry to wealth, honour, learning, and the like. it shall be lawful, in the second place, to love ourselves: so that we fulfil this commandment, when we do not deify ourselves, whilst we sacrifice not to our own wisdom, nor burn incense to the pride of our hearts, etc. 32. conceive then the meaning of this law to be such, as if it had been more fully enlarged on this wise: let every one that but hears any mention of christ this day, take into deep consideration, and spend his most serious morning thoughts, in pondering and weighing, whether those benefits, which christ hath promised to communicate to every one that shall be joined and married to him by a lively faith, be worthy his acceptation: let him oppose to them all the pleasures and profits which he can promise, or but fancy, to himself under the sun. 33. if after a due comparing of these things together, he have so much wisdom as to acknowledge, that an eternal weight of joy and glory, an everlasting serenity and calmness be to be preferred before a transitory, unquiet, restless, unsatisfying pleasure: and seeing both these are offered, and set before him; or rather seeing such is the extreme mercy of our god, that whereas the goods of this life, are not allowed, nor so much as offered equally and universally to all, (for not many have ground to hope for much wealth, not many wise, not many learned, saith st. paul.) yet to every man, whom god hath called to the acknowledgement of the gospel; these inestimable benefits are offered and presented bona fide, without any impossible condition, so that (let the disputers of this age, say what they will) it shall be found, that those who have failed and come short of these glories offered, may thank themselves for it, and impute it to an actual voluntary misprision and undervaluing of these riches of god's mercies which they might have procured, and not to any fatal overruling power, that did enforce and necessitate and drive them to their destruction. 34. these things considered, if you are indeed convinced, that light is to be preferred before darkness; it is impossible, but that you should likewise acknowledge, that it were mere madness for a man to imagine to himself any the most vanishing faint expectation of those glorious promises, whilst he is busy and careful, by all means, to avoid those, indeed, thorny and unpleasant paths that lead unto them, whilst he promiseth to himself rest and impunity, though he walk in the imagination of his own heart; surely the lord will be avenged on such a person, and will make his fierce wrath to smoke against him. 35. therefore resolve upon something, if the lord be god follow him, serve him, conform yourselves to the form of new obedience, which he hath prescribed: but if baal be god, if mammon be god, if yourselves be gods, follow the devices of your own hearts; but by no means expect any reward at all from god for dishonouring him, or preferring a base unworthy lust before his commands. lo 'tis the lord of glory who is salvation and the way too, it is he that hath professed, that there is no possible way of attaining unto him, but by treading in the same steps which he hath left us. a way which he found full of thorns, full of difficulties, but hath left it to us, even strewed with roses in comparison. 36. the greatest and most terrible enemies which we can fashion to ourselves, are those three, which st. paul, hath mustered together, and ordered them just roman-wise, the strongest in the rear, 1. death, and 2. the sting of that, sin; and 3. the poison of that sting, the law. but over all these, we are more than conquerors; for it follows, thanks be unto god, which bath (mark, hath already) given us the victory through our lord jesus christ. at the first, indeed, till the paths was worn, and made smooth, there were some difficulties; for, what could the primitive christians expect, having all the world their enemies, but reproaches, exiles, deportations, even horrible torments and death. 37. but we (blessed be our gracious god) are so far from being annoyed with such difficulties and pressures in the way, that all those are to be feared and expected by them, that dare deny the profession of our glorious religion. what therefore, if the lord had commanded some great thing of us, even as much as he did of his beloved servants, the apostles, and primitive christians, would we not have done it? how much more, when he says only; be not ashamed of me; now, when you dare not be ashamed of me; now, that it almost death to be ashamed of me: deny not me before this generation, who would hate and persecute you to the death, if you should deny me. crucify unto you the unclean affections, the incendiary lusts of your hearts, which the heathens have performed for the poor empty reward of fame: prefer not riches nor honours, before me, which is no more than many philosophers have done for those vulgar changeable gods which themselves have contemned. 38. having therefore (beloved christians) such promises to encourage us, such as the poor heathens never dreamt of, and yet, for all that, traveled more earnestly after an airy fantastical happiness of their own then we (to our extreme shame be it spoken) do after the true one: having such advantages, even above the blessed apostles and ancient martyrs, let us walk as becometh the children of god, having our eyes fastened upon the lord our salvation, and conforming ourselves freely and unconstrainedly to whatsoever it shall please him to prescribe unto us: not admitting our own carnal reason and worldly wisdom into counsel about his worship, nor believing any thing which he has proposed unto us in his word, but for the authority of him that spoke it, not accepting the persons of men, nor persuading ourselves to the belief of horrible and unworthy opinions of god, because men, affected by us, have so delivered. it was a grievous complaint, that god made by the prophet isaiah, cap. 29. v. 13. their fear towards me is taught by the commandments of men. isaith 29.13. 39 again, we must subdue our affections to be ruled and squared according to the good will of god, rejoicing to see our most beloved sins discovered and rebuked, and even crucified by the powerful word and spirit of god. lastly, we must be ready for christ his sake, to root out of our hearts, that extravagant immoderate love of our own selves, that private affection, as basil calleth it; resolving rather to undergo a shameful horrible death, then to maintain any inordinate base desire, or to take part with our filthy lusts against our saviour, who hath so dearly redeemed us. 40. thus have you heard in general terms largely, and, i fear, tediously, delivered the sum and effect of this doctrine of self-denial, (for the restraining of it to particular cases, i have reserved to another hour): now i will, according to my promise, as earnestly as i can, enforce this necessary duty upon you, from the two circumstances , viz. 1. from the greater reasonableness in the thing commanded; and 2. extreme love and kindness of the lawgiver, that hath in his own person, given us a perfect example directing us how we should fulfil his command. 41. for the first, namely, the reasonableness of the thing commanded: to omit, how all creatures, in acknowledgement of that duty which they own to god their creator, do willingly submit themselves to his disposition, denying their own specifical private natures for the general good of the world. for example; the elements are subject to alterations and deportations, to be destroyed and revived, to be instruments of god's favour, and again, of his wrath: surely, man above all the world beside, (not excepting that glorious heavenly host of angels,) is by a more indissoluble adamantine chain obliged and bound to his maker; for, to which of the angels said he at any time, thou art my son, this day have i begotten thee? 42. again, when a great portion of those glorious spirits had mutinously rebelled against god, and man following the example of their prevarication, had with them plunged himself irrecoverably into extreme unavoidable destruction; in that necessity, god had no respect to those heavenly spirits, which were by nature much more admirable and perfect than we; for he did in no wise saith the apostle) take upon him the nature of angels, but he took on him the seed of abraham, and therein performed the glorious work of our redemption. 43. surely, after this great love, than which (i dare not say, god cannot, but) i may well say, he will never show a greater, we, his unworthy creatures, are bound to express some greater measure of thankful obedience than we were for our creation. and, yet even then, the least that could be expected from us, was a full perfect resignation of ourselves, to the disposition of that god that gave us our being. therefore now, after a work that has cost god all that pains and study in inventing and contriving, and so much sorrow and labour in performing; certainly, after all this, it is no great thing, if the lord should require our whole selves, souls and bodies, for a whole burnt-offering a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving: if he should require from us our whole substance, whole rivers of oil, and all the feeding on a thousand hills. 44. yet now he is content, that less thanks shall satisfy, than was due before ever he performed that glorious work: nay, he hath after all this taken off and subducted from that debt which we owed him for our creation. for whereas then one actual offence against this law, did necessarily draw along with it inevitable destruction; yet now, our gracious god perceiving that we are but dust, accepts of our imperfect sinful obedience; nay sometimes of the inward desire and willingness to perform, where there is not power to put it in execution. nothing then can be more reasonable, then that a christian should be commanded, not to prefer the fulfilling of his own will before god's will nor to suffer that his carnal desires, should have greater power and sway with him, than the command of such a god; or, lastly, not to withdraw his allegiance and obedience due to his redeemer, and place them upon a creature, but equal, or may be, inferior to himself. 45. secondly, consider the wonderful love and kindness of the lawgiver, that hath already tasted unto us; tasted, nay, hath drunk the dregs of this unpleasant bitter potion. he by whom all things were made, even the eternal almighty word: he which thought it no robbery to be equal with god, became his own creature, and submitted himself to be trod upon, reviled, hated, despised by the worst of all creatures, cruel, ungodly, and perverse sinners: he of whose fullness we have all received, did utterly evacuate and empty himself of his glory and majesty, denying to himself such things, which he would not, even to the most despised creatures. for, saith he, the foxes have holes, and the birds of the air have nests, but the son of man hath not whereon to lay his head. 2 cor. 8.9. ye know (saith st. paul, 2 cor. 8.9.) the grace of our lord jesus christ, that though he was rich, he became poor, that ye through his poverty might be made rich. so poor he was, that he was forced to borrow tribute money of a fish, and was fain to strain himself to a miracle to get the fish to bring it. so poor, that he was forced to borrow a young colt of strangers, never known to him; say, (saith he) the lord hath need of him. a strange unheard of speech! the lord that created the world, and can as easily annihilate it, yet he hath need, and hath need of a colt, the foal of an ass. time would fail me, for i suppose the world itself would not contain the books that might be written of his dangers, his temptations, his fastings, his travels, his disgraces, torments, and death; all performed, without any end proposed to himself besides our good and happiness. 46. it behoved him (saith st. paul) to be made like his brethren in all things, heb. 2.17, 18. that he might be a merciful and faithful highpriest in things pertaining to god, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people; for in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to secure them which are tempted. which of you (my beloved friends), when he does seriously meditate on this place, will not be forced to sit down, even ravished and astonished at the excessive & superabundant mercy of our lord jesus christ: that he which was the god that created us, in whom we live, move, and have our being; and, being more intrinsecal to us then our own natures (as the schools do boldly express) doth know our most hidden thoughts, long before they are, that he, notwithstanding, should descend to submit himself to the same infirmities and temptations with us, to this end, that by bettering and adding to that knowledge which he had before of our wants and miseries, to wit, by perfecting and increasing-his former speculative knowledge by a new acquired experimental knowledge, he might be better acquainted with what we want, and thereby more inclined to mercy and commiseration, and more powerful to secure us being tempted. 47. see, behold (beloved christians) how for our sakes, he hath enlarged, as it were, three of his glorious incomprehensible attributes, 1. his omniscience, by knowing that personally and experimentally, which he did before only know contemplatively. 2. his mercy, in that this his knowledge, doth more incite his goodness. and 3. his omnipotent power, for (saith the text) in that he himself hath suffered, being tempted, he is (thereby) able to secure them which are tempted. there seems likewise to be an access to his glory by this his great humility; for saith the text in heb. 5.5. christ glorified not himself to be an high priest. heb. 5.5. 48. woe unto us, my beloved friends, if such mercies as these be neglected and sleightned by us: woe unto us, if a commandment proceeding from such a lawgiver have not greater force upon us, than any obligation whatsoever. 49. and if these things be so, use 1 then (in the first place), how miserably are those deceived, that think they have sufficiently (observed this commandment when they deny to themselves some one delightful insinuating affection, some one enormous crying sin, to which they see others wilfully and scandalously devoted; yet in the mean time, reserve to themselves many a bosom, private, beloved lust. 50. you that know the story of ananias and saphira, may remember with what a fearful name the holy spirit hath branded their sin; it is called no less than lying to the holy ghost: it comes near both in name and condition to that fearful sin for which christ did not die, and for which god could yet never find mercy enough to forgive. 51. yet, consider what this sin was: they voluntarily sold all the means they had, that the money, being equally divided, might supply the necessity of those that wanted. notwithstanding, to make sure work for some certain estate whereupon they might rely, they subducted some part of the money, and laid the rest at the apostles feet. 52. s. peter told them, that their land was in their own power; neither did any constraint lie upon them, to enforce them to sell all: but since they had professed themselves among the number of them, which were willing to clothe, and cherish, and feed christ, in the persons of their new-converted brethren: it was horrible theft, and desperate sying against god, to diminish one penny of the sum. 53. now, that you may know how much this concerns you: which of you (beloved christians) hath not solemnly, and publicly, sworn and vowed to almighty god at your baptism, not to prefer the vain pomp and vanities of this world, much less, the abominable crimes thereof, above your saviour, into whose name you were baptised? 54. are not you then most shamefully perjured, when you are so far from renouncing the vanities of this world for christ his sake, that you will not be withdrawn from the crimes of it? when the base lust of an harlot, or the furious excess of wine, or that untempting, undelightful, and therefore more unpardonable sin of swearing, and blasphemy, shall be of sufficient force with you every hour, not only to withdraw all manner of respect, and obedience from christ, but even to make you crucify him again, and to put him to open shame. 55. and do not please yourselves in this conceit, that because god does not exact of you now the forfeiture of your vow and promise, as he did of ananias and his wife, that therefore your case is much better than theirs: for, let me tell you, as our saviour on such an occasion told the jews: think you that you are less sinners than they whose blood pilate mingled with the sacrifices, or those upon whom the tower of siloe fell? so let me say unto you: think you, that because god shown so terrible an example upon ananias and saphira, for their lying to the holy ghost, by taking them away suddenly, by a fearful death; and hath not yet shown the like upon you, that your sin comes much short of theirs, and that you may notwithstanding escape? i tell you nay, but except ye repent, ye shall likewise perish. alas, what a trifle was that judgement which befell them, to those plagues which are reserved for wilful obstinate sinners? 56. i beseech you therefore, brethren, even by the bowels of jesus christ, that you would consider what it is you do, when you allow yourselves in the practice of any one habitual sin; it is no less than a wilful wiping off the water wherewith you were baptised; it is no less than an abjuring of christ: nay, it is no less than a devoting and sacrificing yourselves to devils. 57 in the second place, use 2 where will those appear, that are so far from denying all for christ, that, for his sake they will not leave one delightful profitable sin; they will rather deny christ himself, than the least troublesome pleasure, running into all excess of riot: nay, they will sell christ cheaper than judas did; they will sell him, and take no money for him. what else do those that spend their time in idle vain lying, in fruitless oaths, in unnecessary blasphemy? they can be content to see christ himself almost every day naked, and do not clothe him; hungry, and do not feed him; in prison, and do not visit him; for in as much as they perform not these works of charity to his beloved little ones, they deny them to him. will they be found worthy of christ, that for his sake will not do so much as a heathen hath done in an humour, or for the unprofitable reward of fame? that, for his sake, will not forgive their brother some small injury received; nay, perhaps some great kindness offered, as a seasonable correction, or loving dissuasion from sin; that, for his sake, will not take the least pains in furthering their own salvation? 58. lastly, use 3 what will become of me, and you, (beloved fathers and brethren of the clergy)? we to whom god hath entrusted the exercise and managing of three or four of his glorious attributes: for to us is committed the gospel of christ, which is the wisdom of god hidden from the world. and to us is committed the gospel of christ, which is the power of god to salvation, and which worketh mightily in them which believe, even according to the mighty working whereby he raised christ from the dead. and to us is committed the gospel of christ, even the dispensation of the riches of his glorious mercy, and compassions. 59 what then will become of us, if we, notwithstanding these great engagements, these inestimable prerogatives, shall turn this wisdom of god into foolishness, by exalting, and deifying our own carnal wisdom; if we shall weaken and make void this almighty power, by the violent opposition of our sinful lusts and affections; finally, if we shall be too sparing and niggardly in the dispensing of these his mercies; if we shall render his goodness suspected to our hearers, as if those frequent and plentiful offers of pity and compassion, were only empty histrionical expressions, and not professions of a mind, hearty and sincerely inclined unto us. 60. i will tell you what will become of us; and i shall the better do it, by telling you first, what an excessive weight of glory, we especially, shall lose by it: they that be wise (saith daniel) shall shine as the brightness of the firmament; and they that turn many to righteousness, as the stars for ever and ever. not as those vulgar ordinary stars, that have light enough only to make them visible; but like those more noble lights, which are able to cast a shadow through the whole creation, even like the sun in his full strength. and the preferment we are likely to gain, is very answerable to our loss, we shall be glorious shining firebrands, of the first magnitude, in whose fearful horrible destruction, god will show what he is able to do. the fifth sermon. rom. viii. 34. who is he that condemneth? it is christ that died, yea rather that is risen again.— ifi durst appear in this place with any ends and projects of mine own; if whilst i preach unto you jesus christ, i could think it worth my labour to lose a thought about the purchasing of a vain, fruitless reputation, and opinion amongst my hearers; surely, i should by no means omit so commodious and tempting an opportunity, as this argument of christ's resurrection may suggest unto me. it being a business, in the effecting whereof, above all the works which god ever made since he began to work, he most especially glorified almost all his divine attributes: it being a deliverance, even of god himself, from destruction and rottenness. 2. it is an argument so pleasing to s. paul, that in many places, he seems to magnify it even to the undervaluing, and disparagement of whatsoever christ before either did or suffered. act. 13. in a sermon of his (act. 13.) preached at antioch, he makes it the compliment and fulfilling of whatsoever god before had promised to the fathers, and of all the prophecies which, since the beginning of the world, had been delivered by god's messengers. to make which good, the apostle himself in that place (whereas he needed not to strain so far; there were then extant prophecies enough purposely and precisely decaring the glory and power of christ's resurrection) he notwithstanding, as it would seem, mistakes that famous prophecy of christ's birth in those words of the 2d psalm: psal. 2. thou art my son, this day have i begotten thee; and seemingly misapplies them to his resurrection. why, was he then indeed the carpenter's son? was it a confession, and not humility, that he called himself the son of man? were the torments of his passion and death (as himself seems to intimate, joh. 16.21.) only the pangs and throws of his new birth? 3. by no means: he was even in the extremest degree, and lowest point of his humiliation: yea, when himself in that last terrible agony, did seem to call it in question; yet then also he was indeed the only begotten eternal son of god: or, if he had not, most miserable and desperate had been our case. but by his resurrection, he did declare, unquestionably, and without all contradiction, unto the world, his glory and majesty: or, to speak in s. paul's words, rom. 1. he was mightily declared to be the son of god, by his resurrection from the dead. 4. but we now celebrate a feast, a season of joy and exultation, which we use not to do upon the memory of gods most wonderful acts and exploits, though never so much expressing the glory of his majesty and power; unless they have been beneficial unto us, unless they have very nearly concerned our safety and happiness. 5. and surely this great deliverance of christ from the dominion and power of hell and the grave; when god called his son the third time out of egypt: this victory of his, did in a high degree import us, and advance our welfare; it had some more than ordinary influence upon our salvation; otherwise, this season dedicated to the memory thereof, would not have been so acceptable to the primitive christians, to make them (as it were in revenge and faction against the late melancholy time of fasting and repentance) for its sake, to set up an anti-lent, and to appoint other forty days of feasting and triumph, which was more (as tertullian boasteth) than all the solemn holidays of the heathen joined together. yea, so scrupulous were they in the celebration of this feast, (quite opposite to the solemn peevishness of some christians of our times) that for the whole space between easter and pentecost, as it is thought, they quite intermitted the works and exercise of their vocations: they would not suffer one fastingday to appear; they left off their severity and discipline, their vigilia, and stationes; nay, they would not, all that time, so much as de geniculis adorare (in the witty barbarous expression of the same father, in his book de corona militis) they would not show so much faint heartedness and dejection, as to kneel at prayers. 6. therefore, in stead of saying fine things of the fashion and contrivance of this business of christ's resurrection; in stead of raising matter of wonder and astonishment out of the glory and power of it; i will endeavour (being to conclude the solemn celebration of this feast) by way of use and application, to discover the issue and fruit thereof in respect of us; not only the convenience, but the extreme necessity, and the strict cohaerence, which our salvation has, not only upon the satisfaction and death, but upon the resurrection and life of our blessed saviour. 7. now we find many things ascribed to christ's life and death in holy scripture, only as to patterns and exemplary causes, being duties which the consideration of christ's death and resurrection, ought proportionably to exact from us: as, if christ be dead, then count yourselves also dead unto sin; if risen again, then count yourselves alive unto righteousness. for how it should come to pass, that so much of our holiness as makes up mortification and no more, should be ascribed to christ's death, as a proper effect and fruit thereof; and the rest, which is newness of life and obedience, should be imputed to his resurrection, i shall never be able to comprehend. 8. the benefits therefore which accrue unto us by christ, i suppose may be divided either into those which flow from the m●rit of his death, or from the power and influence of his life. in the former, are comprehended all whatsoever christ hath done for us; in the latter, whatsoever he doth or will work in us. and both being extremely necessary, it shall be this hours employment, to show with what good reason we celebrate a feast at this time, that we should not terminate our contemplation only on the great love and bowels of compassions on good-friday expressed unto us; but also, and with better reason, on the joy and comfort, which with great reason we may collect from this business of easter; even that lively hope whereunto we are regenerated by the resurrection of christ: and to join with s. paul in his wonder and amazement, at the consideration of the infinite mercy and power of god; and thereupon his boasting and challenging, securely, all manner of adversaries: who is be that shall lay any thing to the charge of gods elect? it is god that justifieth: who is he that condemneth? it is christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again. 9 in which words are comprehended the great dependence and combination, which our non-condemnation or salvation has; not only with the death and satisfaction of christ, but also rather, even with advantage on his resurrection. now, because they are so few they cannot conveniently be divided, i will out of them raise this doctrinal proposition, doctr. namely, that christ's resurrection and exaltation, is fully as necessary and effectual to procure and perfect our salvation, if not more, than even the all-sufficient sacrifice upon the cross. 10. which, that i may more fully and distinctly confirm unto you, i will divide into two propositions, which if sufficiently maintained, doth necessarily infer the doctrine. the first whereof is this: prop. 1. that the purpose of christ, who satisfied for our sins, and the covenant which he made with god, who accepted of this satisfaction, was not, that remission of sins should immediately ensue upon his death, but only upon performance of the conditions of the new covenant made in christ's blood; which are, unfeigned repentance for sin, and a serious conversion unto god by faith. the second: that by the dominion and power of christ, prop. 2. which at his resurrection, and not before, he received, as a reward of his great humility; we are not only enabled to the performance of the conditions of this new covenant, and, by consequence, made capable of an actual application of his satisfaction; but also, by the same power, we shall hereafter be raised up, and exalted to everlasting happiness. of these two propositions therefore in the order proposed, very briefly, and even too too plainly. and first of the first, namely, that the purpose of christ, who, prop. i. etc. 11. i confess, it would be no hard matter for a disputant, meeting with an adversary that would be content to be swayed and governed by reason alone; to molest, and even fright him from the truth of this doctrine. for, if we shall consider not only the excessive unspeakable torments which christ suffered for us, but especially the infinite majesty and glory of the person, who willingly submitted himself to that curse: what less reward can be expected, than the present deliverance and salvation, not only of a few selected men, but even of many worlds of men and angels. 12. but it is not for us; beloved christians, to set our price and value upon christ's precious blood, to say, thus much it is worth, and no more. as there have not wanted men on the other side, who have dared to affirm, that christ's blood, according to exact estimation, did amount to a certain value, by the worth and cost whereof, such a set number as shall be saved, were redeemed and purchased. and if one besides should be delivered, it were more than the price of the blood came to. what a fearful dangerous curiosity is this? is it not a piece of judas his sin, to set our own estimation and value, to make a bargain, and sale of christ's death; to set up a kind of shambles to sell his flesh and blood in? 13. but leaving these vain fantastical calculations to their chief professors, the schoolmen, who are so unreasonably addicted to this dreaming learning, that nothing can escape their compass and ballance. for, to omit their curious descriptions and maps of the dimensions, and situation of heaven and hell; the figure, borders, islands of both; they have undertaken to discover the exact proportionable increase of the graces of the saints, especially of the blessed virgin; whose good actions they have found to increase just in octupla ratione: so that, for example, her twentieth good action, did exceed the first in virtue and intention of grace, as much as the whole earth doth exceed a grain of mustardseed. 14. is not this (beloved friends) a learning and wisdom to be pitied? is not this that disease which s. paul discovers (1 tim. 6.) the effect whereof, is to make men sick about vain questions, and oppositions of science, falsely so called? therefore leaving these vain speculations, as likewise others about the business in hand, no less curious, and much more dangerous, yet securely stated in these days, almost in every pamphlet and synopsis. as namely, whether god could have contrived any course for man's salvation, beside that which he prosecuted? whether, without accepting any satisfaction to his justice, he could freely and absolutely have remitted our sins? 15. for, what use or profit can be made of these questions, though with never so great subtlety and curiosity stated? besides, we find that god had professed unto adam, that his death, together with the destruction of all mankind, should be the reward of the breach of his covenant. by which means god's justice being interested in the business, the very grounds and foundation of this latter question are destroyed, the doubt and screw whereof must needs have been blasphemous: namely, whether god could have been unjust? nay more, it makes the sending of christ into the world, together with his obedience to the death, even that accursed death of the cross, to be a matter of no necessary importance; to be only a great compliment, whereby god shows unto mankind, that, though he could easily have remitted their sins without any satisfaction (for whatsoever is possible to god is easy) notwithstanding, that they should see, he would strain himself even farther for them, was very requisite; and withal, to show his abomination of sin, he was content, that all this ado, all these pompous tragical businesses should be performed. 16. but what saith the scripture? if there had been a law which could have given life, christ should have died without cause. and thereupon our apostle (in rom. 3.25.) saith, rom. 3.25. that god hath set forth his son to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins, that are passed through the forbearance of god. to declare, i say, at this time his righteousness, that he might be just— that is, lest by the forbearance of god, who since the foundation of the world had showed no sufficient example of his hatred and indignation unto sin; as also to show there was a reason sufficient to move him to remit the sins of many his chosen servants before christ: he hath now at last evidently expressed unto the world his righteousness; to wit, his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, by condemning sin, and revenging himself upon it, in the person of his beloved innocent son. 17. and lest all this stir should seem to have been kept only to give us satisfaction, and to create in us a great opinion and conceit of his righteousness; the apostle clearly saith, he did all this to declare at this time his righteousness, that he might be just. which otherwise it seems he could not have been. but i am resolved to quit myself abruptly, and even sullenly, of those questions, and betake myself more closely to the matter in hand. 18. what therefore is the effect and fruit which accrues even to the elect of god, by virtue of christ's satisfaction, humiliation, and death, precisely considered, and excluding the power and virtue of his resurrection and glorious life? why, reconciliation to god, justification or remission of sins, and finally, salvation both of body and soul. but is there any remission of sins without faith? shall we not only exclude works from justification, but faith also? god forbidden. for so we should not only contradict the grounds of gods holy word, but also raze and destroy the very foundations of the second covenant. 19 for answer; we must consider our reconciliation under a twofold state (according to the distinction of the reverend and learned dr davenant bishop of salisbury). 1. either as it is applicabilis, not yet actually conferred: or, 2. as applicata, particularly sealed and confirmed to us by a lively faith. for the understanding of which, we must know, that in christ's death, there was not only an abolishing of the old covenant of works; the handwriting which was against us, which christ nailed unto his cross (as s. paul saith, col. 1.) delivering us from the curse and obligation thereof: but also, there was a new gracious covenant, or (which is a word expressing greater comfort to us) a new will or testament made, wherein christ hath bequeathed unto us many glorious legacies, which we shall undoubtedly receive, when we shall have performed the conditions, when we shall be found qualified so as he requires of us. 20. till which conditions be performed by the power of god's spirit assisting us; all that we obtain by the death of christ is this: that, first, whereas god, by reason of sin, was implacably angry with us, would by no means accept of any reconciliation with us, would hearken to no conditions: now by virtue of christ's death and satisfaction, he is graciously pleased to admit of composition; the former aversation, and inexorableness is taken away; or, to speak more significantly in s. paul's language (eph. 2.16.) enmity is slain. secondly, that whereas before we were liable to be tried before the throne of his exact severe rigorous justice, and bound to the performance of conditions, by reason of our own contracted weakness become intolerable, nay impossible, unto us: we are released of that obligation, and though not utterly freed from all manner of conditions, yet tied to such as are not only possible, but, by the help of his spirit which inwardly disposeth and co-operateth with us, with ease and pleasure to be performed. besides which, we have a throne of equity and grace to appear before. mercy is exalted above, even against justice; it rejoiceth against judgement; it is become the higher court, and hath the privileges of a superior court, that appeals may be made from the inferior court of justice; to that of mercy and favour. nay more, whereas before we were justly delivered into the power of satan, now being reconciled to god by the blood of christ, we are (as it is in col. 1.13.) delivered from the power of darkness, and translated into the kingdom of his dear son. 21 all this, and more (if it were the business of this time to be punctual in discovering all) hath christ wrought for us, being aliens and strangers, yea enemies, afar off, without god in the world. yet for all this, that christ hath merited thus much for us, and more; notwithstanding, take away the power of christ's resurrection, and life; take away the influence of his holy spirit, whereby we are regenerated and made new creatures; and we are yet in the gall of bitterness, and bond of iniquity. for though (as it is heb. 10.19.) we have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, i. liberty, and free leave, to enter into the holiest by the blood of jesus, though there be a way made open; yet walk we cannot, we are not able to set forwards into it, as long as we are bound and fettered with our sins: though there be an access to the throne of grace, yet it is only for them which are sanctified. 22. and therefore what dangerous consequences do attend that doctrine which teacheth, that immediately upon the death of christ, all our sins are actually forgiven us, and we effectually reconciled. but because another employment is required by this time, i will, out of many, make use of two reasons only to destroy that doctrine; whereof the one is taken from the nature of the second covenant: the other, from the necessity of christ's resurrection. 23. for the first: if we, that is, the elect of god (for i am resolved to have to do with none else at this time) be effectually reconciled to god, by virtue of christ's death, having obtained a full perfect remission of all our sins, why are we frighted; or to say truly, injured with new covenants? why are we, seeing our debts are paid to the utmost farthing, the creditor's demands exactly satisfied, the obligation cancelled; why then are we made believe that we are not quite out of danger; nay, that unless we ourselves out of our own stock pay some charges and duties extraordinarily, and by the buy enforced upon us, all the former payments, how valuable soever, shall become fruitless, and we to remain accountable for the whole debt? 24. but it may be (and that seems most likely) there is no such thing indeed as a new covenant: promises, and threaten, are only a pretty kind of rhetorical device, which god is pleased to use, sometimes to allure us, and win our hearts to do that which shall please him; other times to startle, and affright us, when we are about something contrary to his command. and to say the truth, this must of necessity be the issue of the former doctrine: for how is it possible to make these things hold together; we are already perfectly reconciled to god by the death of his son, without any consideration had to our personal faith and repentance; and yet, unless we do earnestly repent us of our sins, and with a lively faith adhere to god's promises, we shall never be reconciled unto god or these, all our sins are already remitted, and that only for the virtue of christ's satisfaction: and yet unless we believe, our sins shall never be forgiven us! 25. so that by this reckoning, we must be forced to purge the gospel of those troublesome dangerous terms of covenants, and conditions, of those fruitless affrighting conjunctions, si credideris, si non poenitentiam egeris. or (which is all one) soften them into a sense utterly repugnant and warring against the natural force and signification of the words; on this wise: where the scripture saith, if thou repentest not, thy sins shall not be forgiven thee; thou art not to conceive, that forgiveness of thy sins is a work yet to be done, or that it has any dependence upon any thing in thee: but this great blessing shall be hid from thine eyes, thou shalt never come to the knowledge of it, and thereby shalt live here a discontented pensive, suspicious life: again, if thou believest, thou shalt be saved, that is, thou shalt obtain a comfortable assurance of hope, nay, an infallible faith of thy future salvation: though that was intended thee, without any consideration of thy faith. 26. so that the gospel of christ, is not the power of god unto salvation: for, how can the word be an instrument of that, which was long ago absolutely performed and purchased? and therefore christ his preaching, his miracles, and tears, the apostles travels and persecutions, the sending of the holy spirit, baptism, eucharist, imposition of hands, absolution, and many more blessed means of our salvation, were not instituted for this end, to make us capable of remission of our sins (for that (it seems) was already not only meritoriously, but effectually procured, and without all manner of conditions infallibly destined to god's elect); but only for this end, that whilst they live here, to their thinking, in danger and hazard, (but they are fools for thinking so) they may now and then be a little cheered and comforted with apprehending what christ hath done for them, and to what a comfortable state and inheritance he hath destined them. thus the covenant which god hath sworn shall be everlasting, is by the improvidence and ignorance of some men rendered unprofitable, yea utterly abrogated: but (ne quid inclementius dicam) we have not so learned christ. 27. the second reason destroying the former doctrine, i told you should be taken from the necessity of christ's resurrection. for, if the immediate effect of christ's death, be the purchasing of a perfect reconciliation with god, and full remission of sins for us the elect of god; then (i will not say, what benefit), but, what necessity is there of christ's resurrection in respect of us? for by this account, after the consummatum est, upon the cross, when the satisfaction was perfected, and our debts paid: though christ had afterwards miscarried, though he had been detained by death, though his soul had been left in hell, and he had seen corruption; notwithstanding we should stand upon good terms with god, unless we shall conceive of him worse than of the most oppressing usurer, that when a debt is discharged, and the bond cancelled, will notwithstanding not release the prisoner, unless the undertaker come in person, or by main force deliver him. 28. i confess, that to see a friend that had ventured so far for us, as our saviour did, that to do us good had put himself in such extreme danger. i say, to see such a one to be utterly cast away, without all hopes and possibility of being able to pay him our thanks, would be a spectacle, which would grieve and pierce our very souls, it would be a renting to our bowels. but this is only charity and gratitude, or good nature in us, which would procure this grief; not that it stands upon our safety, his preservation being a matter only of convenience, not extreme necessity to us. 29. we all do worthily condemn and detest, that blasphemous heresy of the socinians, who exclude the meritorious death and sufferings of christ, from having any necessary influence into our justification, or salvation, making it of no greater virtue than the sufferings of the blessed martyrs, who by their death, set their seal and testimony to the truth of the gospel, which freely offers forgiveness of sins to all penitent believers. now the same injury which these heretics do to the merit of christ's death, in proportion the former doctrine fastens upon his resurrection, and new life, by taking from it the chief and proper effect thereof, which is an actual vindication of us from the power of sin, into the glorious liberty of the sons of god, by the power of christ's spirit plentifully by him diffused and shed abroad in our hearts, and making the chief virtue thereof to consist in affording us only matter of comfort and hope, that god will deal no otherwise with us, than he hath dealt with christ, and after a life full of disturbance and misery, revive us to glory and immortality with his son for evermore: whereas st. paul hath another kind of conceit of christ's resurrection: for, saith he, in heb. 5.9. christ being made perfect, (i. e. glorified, c. 2.10.) becomes author of eternal salvation to all that obey him: and if christ be not risen, your faith is vain, you are yet in your sins; and if christ be not risen, neither shall we ever be raised, but be utterly irrecoverably condemned to everlasting rottenness. 30. and thus i am unawares fallen upon my second proposition, prop. ii. namely, that by the dominion and power of christ, which at his resurrection, and not before, he received as a reward of his great humility, we are not only enabled to the performance of the conditions of this new covenant, and, by consequence, made capable of an actual application of his satisfaction; but also by the same power, we shall hereafter be raised up, and exalted unto everlasting happiness. 31. though by the virtue of the incarnation of our saviour, the humane nature was raised to a state and condition of unspeakable glory: notwithstanding, if in this place, as well as before, we shall be content to submit our reason to scripture, we shall find, that according to a covenant made between christ and his father, he was content not to challenge to himself any right of dominion and rule over us, till he had perfectly deserved and earned it by a former voluntary submission and humiliation of himself. 32. the conditions on christ's part we find most exactly performed by him, wholly resigning and prostrating his own will to the will & disposition of his father. at his private passion, which immediately went before his attachment, when he was sacrificed, and even crucified, alone in the garden, without the assistance and malice of a traitorous disciple, of the chief priests or romans: though he retained that innocent fear of death and shame which is natural to man, which forced him to cry out, father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: notwithstanding, though he could not hate his own life: yet, to show he preferred the fulfilling of his father's will before it, he adds, nevertheless, not my will, but thy will be done: luk. 22.42. by which words he resigns the whole power and faculty of his will into his father's hands. in the words of another evangelist, he saith, not what i will, mark. 14.36. but what thou wilt: where he resigns and submits the act and exercise of his will. and lastly, to make all complete in the expression of a third evangelist, he saith, not as i will, but as thou wilt: matth. 26 39 where he subjects not only the faculty and the exercise of his will to the performance of what god shall command him, but is willing and desirous to do it after what manner and fashion soever god shall be pleased. it is not possible for the understanding of man to add or conceive a degree beyond this. 33. in the next place we shall see, how god the father is as good as his word to his son: but, first, give me leave to complain to you of that tyranny, which custom, partiality, or something worse, has laid upon our understandings: and that is this, that wheresoever any former protestant writer have suspected a doctrine as not beneficial, but rather dangerous, to some conclusion, which he is resolved to maintain against the papists, we their scholars are obliged to make good their jealousies and (may be) groundless suspicions. 34. to omit many examples, i will produce only these few: it lies upon us to maintain, that st. john's baptism, was one and the same sacrament with that of christ's, contrary to express words of scripture, and something else: that christ is a mediator secundum divinam naturam: which borders, i fear, upon an old dangerous heresy. as likewise, (which especially concerns this place,) that christ merited nothing to himself by his passion, neither was the exaltation of his humane nature to the dominion and rule over all creatures a reward of his humility, but a preferment due to his person, though by special dispensation the exercise thereof was deferred for a time, but should have been conferred upon him as fully as he now enjoys it, though he had never suffered. 35. but scripture reacheth us, that christ was to be made perfect by sufferings: that, because he had drunk of the brook by the way, therefore he should lift up his head: that, for the joy which was set before him, (that is, having an eye to the glorious reward and fruit of his suffering) he endured the cross, and despised the shame, and therefore is set up at the right hand of glory. because being found in fashion as a man, phil. 2.8, 9 he humbled himself, and became obedient to the death, even the death of the cross, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, therefore, for this reason, god hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name, etc. nay, st. paul makes the obtaining a rule and dominion over mankind, a main end of his death, (for in rom. 14.9. he saith, rom. 14.9. ) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for this end, christ both died and risen again, that he might be lord both of the dead and of the living. by his death, meriting this dominion; by his resurrection, receiving it. but i will forbear controversy, because i desire to seek out no adversary, especially in my preaching, but only the devil and sin. 36. this therefore i think, we shall agree upon, that it was the purpose and immutable decree of god, that after the fall and misery of man, whatsoever good should befall us toward our restitution and repairing to our lost happiness, should be conveyed unto us by our own nature, that the seed of the woman should break the serpent's head; that is, not only in st. john's phrase, destroy the works of the devil, but also in st. paul's, destroy his kingdom and power, which is death. so that, as by man came sin and error, so by man also should come grace and truth: as by man came death, so by man also should come the resurrection from the dead; by man also, life and immortality should be brought to light. 37. now that these great projects and entendments might be brought about, and that the humane nature might be furnished with ability to discharge this province, and to go through with this great undertaking: god the father, for the merit of christ's great humility, by his resurrection, hath highly exalted him far above all principality and power, eph. 1.20. and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come: phil. 2.9, 10, 11. and hath given him a name above all names, that at the name of jesus every knee should bow of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth, and that every tongue should confess, that jesus is the lord to the glory of god the father. 38. and thus much christ himself confesseth, and acknowledgeth presently upon his resurrection for then he saith, all power is given unto me in heaven and earth. it was then only he received the dominion, whereof his father david's kingdom was but a type and shadow: and as his father david was anointed and deputed by god to the kingdom, but received not actual possession of it till after many persecutions and afflictions at the hands of his master saul: in like manner, though our saviour even in the days of his humility, teacheth us, that the father judgeth no man, but resigneth all judgement to the son: notwithstanding these words are to be understood only by way of anticipation, or prophecy of what should befall him, after he should have performed the work of our redemption: for while he lived here among men, he professed he was so far from being a king, that he had no sufficient authority given him to be a petty judge in a case of inheritance: and that wicked pilas himself had power given him from heaven to become his judge: so that, though in the days of his flesh, he was heir of all things, yet he was only a conditional heir, and therefore till the conditions were performed, and himself seized of the inheritance, even the heir himself differed nothing from a servant. 39 but within three days after his passion, the case was much altered. for, whereas before he was allowed no authority, no, not in israel; at his resurrection, he obtains the heathen for his inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for his possession. now it would be a hard undertaking taking to describe the limits and borders of christ's kingdom; as also to define the polity, whereby it is administered. therefore, leaving the most glorious part of it, which is in heaven, undiscovered; we find in holy scripture, that according to the several dispositions and qualifications of men here on earth, he hath both a sceptre of righteousness to govern and protect his faithful subjects and servants; and a rod of iron, to break the wicked in pieces like a potter's vessel. and though the greatest part of the world will acknowledge no subjection to christ's kingdom; notwithstanding, this does not take away his authority over them, no more than the murmuting, and rebellion of the israelites did depose moses their governor. but there will come a time, when that prophetical parable of his, shall be resolved, and interpreted to their confusion; when he shall indeed say, where are those my enemies, which would not have me to reign over them? bring them hither, and slay them before me. 40. but the most eminent and notorious exercise of christ's dominion, is seen in the rule over his church, which he purchased with his own blood: now the first business he took in hand, presently upon his resurrection, when all power and dominion was given him, was, to give commission and authority to his ambassadors the apostles and disciples, to make known to the world, that so great salvation which he had wrought at his passion. now though the apostles were sufficiently authorised, by virtue of that commission which christ gave them in those words; as my father sent me, so send i you— notwithstanding they were not to put this authority presently in practice, but to wait for the sending of the holy ghost, which christ before had promised them: that by his virtue and influence they might be furnished with abilities to go through with that great employment of reconciling the world unto god, by subduing men's understandings to the truth and obedience of the gospel. 41. we read in the gospel▪ of s. john, that, during the life which christ lived in the flesh, the holy ghost was not sent: and the reason is added, because the son of man was not yet glorified. the strength and vigour of which reason, doth excellently illustrate the point in hand. for the sending of the holy ghost, was one of the most glorious acts of christ's kingly office, and the most powerful means of advancing his kingdom. therefore, in the days of his humiliation, whilst he lived in the form of a servant, before he had purchased to himself a church by his own blood, his humane nature obtained no right of dominion and power over mankind. for till we were redeemed from the power and subjection of the devil, and sin, by the merit of christ's death, we were none of christ's subjects, but servants and slaves, sold under sin and satan. 42. so that it being necessary, that the son of man should not only pay a price and ransom for our redemption by his death, but also, that the same son of man, and none else, should actually and powerfully vindicate his elect from the bondage they were in, and effectually apply his merits and satisfaction to their souls and consciences; till he was in s. paul's words, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, heb. 11.9. for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; he, according to his humane nature (and that was the only instrument whereby our salvation was to be wrought) had no power of sending the holy ghost. 43. and indeed till reconciliation was made by his death, to what purpose should the holy ghost be sent? what business or employment could we find for him on earth? you will say, to work grace and new obedience in us. i confess, that is a work worthy the majesty and goodness of god's holy spirit. but yet, suppose all this had been wrought in us; put case, our hearts were sprinkled from an evil conscience, and that we were renewed in the spirits of our minds. perhaps, all this might procure us a more tolerable cool place and climate in hell: but without christ, it would be far from advantaging us toward our salvation: for, alas, though we should turn never so holy, never so virtuous and reformed: what satisfaction or recompense could we make for our former sins and iniquities? god knows, it must cost more to redeem a soul, therefore we must let that alone for ever; we must take heed of ever meddling in that office, we must let it alone to him (even jesus christ) who alone is able to be at that cost. 44. but i might have spared all these suppositions: for, as, excluding christ, there is no satisfaction, no hope of redemption for us; so, excluding christ's satisfaction, he hath no power or authority, as man, of sending the holy ghost, thereby to work in us an ability of performing the conditions of the second covenant; and, by consequence, of making us capable of the fruit and benefit of his satisfaction. therefore, blessed be god the father, for the great glory which he gave unto christ; and blessed be our lord jesus christ, for meriting and purchasing that glory at so dear a rate; and blessed be the holy spirit, who, when christ (who is flesh of our flesh, and bone of our bone) did send him, would be content to come down and dwell among us. 45. we find in holy scripture, that our salvation is ascribed to all the three persons of the blessed trinity, though in several respects: to the father, who accepts of christ's satisfaction, and offereth pardon of all our sins: to the son, who merited and procured reconciliation for his elect faithful servants; and to the holy ghost the comforter, who, being sent by the son, worketh in us power to perform the conditions of the new covenant, thereby qualifying us for receiving actual remission of our sins, and a right to that glorious inheritance purchased for us. 46. and from hence may appear, how full of danger the former doctrine, which teacheth, that actual remission of sins is procured to gods elect immediately by christ's death; and how dishonourable it is to the spirit of grace, excluding him from having any concurrence or efficacy in our salvation. for, if this should be true, the powerful working of the holy spirit, can in no sense, concern either our justification, or everlasting happiness. for, how can it be said, that the holy spirit doth cooperate to our salvation, since all our good and happiness was procured by christ's death; not only before, but without all manner of respect had to our regeneration and sanctification, by the power of the blessed spirit. therefore by this doctrine, if we be any thing at all beholding to the holy spirit, it is only for this, that he is pleased, now and then, by fits; to be a messenger, or intelligencer, to discover unto us what christ alone hath purchased for us. 47. but i forbear to enlarge myself further in this point; and indeed i have already done too much wrong to the honour and dignity of this feast, not only in mixing the business of good-friday with it, as i did in my former part; but also (as i now have done) in taking in the matter and employment of whitsuntide too. suffice it therefore, that the sending of the holy ghost, was an especial exercise of that power, which was given christ at his resurrection; by the influence and virtue whereof, we do restrain and appropriate the merit of his death to our own good and benefit. 48. now i would not be mistaken, as if i said, that the resurrection of christ precisely taken for that individual action whereby he was restored to life and glory, was then effectual and powerful to produce those admirable effects: for, that being a transient action, past and finished many hundred years since, can very improperly be termed capable of having such effects ascribed to it as have since, and shall to the end of the world be wrought in gods elect. therefore s. paul shall be mine interpreter, in rom. 5.10. saying, if when we were enemies, rom. 5.10. we were reconciled to god by the death of his son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life; that is, by that glorious life which began at his resurrection. 49. for, as in the matter of satisfaction, we ascribe our reconciliation to his death especially, yet not excluding his former obedience and humiliation; but naming that, as being the compliment and perfection, terminating whatsoever went before: so likewise in christ's exaltation, though there were divers degrees, and ascents, and stages of it; yet we especially take notice of his resurrection, because in that christ took his rise as it were, and was then a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, psal. 19 rejoicing as a giant to run his race. his go out indeed were from the grave, but his circuit is to the ends of heaven, and nothing is hid from his heat and virtue. he illuminates every man that cometh into the world: he was made, saith s. paul, a quickening spirit, cherishing, actuating, and informing us with life and motion. by the influence and power of his life, he undergoes, as it were, a second incarnation, living and dwelling in our hearts by his grace, and reigning powerfully in our souls by faith. 50. and hereby he even shares his kingdom, his power, and his victory with us: for, saith s. john, this is the victory whereby ye overcome the world, even your faith. christ is not content only to destroy in us, the works of darkness; to dispel the clouds of ignorance and error, or to rectify the crookedness and perverseness of our wills: neither yet to implant in us a heavy, unactive, sleepy harmlesness, a dull lethargic innocence; but withal, endues us, justitiâ germinante, with a fruitful budding righteousness, and works in us, in the expression of s. paul, both 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a patiented unwearied hope, 1 thess. 1.3. not hasty nor discontented with expecting; and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a painful, laborious love, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a working, sprightful victorious faith, whereby we violently lay hold on the promises. and, in this sense, the same apostle saith, that as christ died for our sins, rom. 4.24. so he risen again for our justification: that is, one chief end of christ's resurrection, in respect of us, was to work in us a lively faith, whereby we might be justified, and acquitted from our sins. 51. and yet the power of christ's life, leaves us not here neither: nay, all this is performed only to make us capable of greater blessings yet. tertul. de res. carnis. for, by our sanctification and new-birth, we are (saith tertullian) restitutioni inaugurati, destined and consecrated to a glorious resurrection. hereupon s. john calls holiness, the first resurrection whereby sin is destroyed: and it is a pawn of the second, whereby death also shall be swallowed up in victory. by the first, the sting of the serpent is taken away, which is sin, (as s. paul saith, the sting of death is sin). and when the sting is gone, the serpent cannot long out live it; for by the second resurrection, that also is destroyed. 52. but you will say, how is death destroyed? do not all men die? do not all men see corruption? you may as well ask, how is sin destroyed? for, have not all men sinned, and come short of the glory of god? nay, do not all men sin, how righteous soever? and, if they were rewarded according to their own demerits, would they not all come short of the glory of god? most certainly true: therefore to say the truth, as yet, neither sin nor death are destroyed, but only the dominion of sin, and the victory of the grave. and thereupon the apostle contemplating the conquering power of christ at his resurrection, saith not, oh death, or, oh grave, where are you? for a little travel would serve the turn to assoil that question: 1. cor. 15.55. but, oh death, where is thy sting? how comes it to pass, that thy poison is not so keen and mortal, as it hath been; that it is so easily, though not expelled, yet tempered and corrected by the healing bezoartical virtue of grace. and thou, oh grave, where is thy victory? though thou hast given thine adversary the foil, though thou hast gotten him under thee yet thou shalt never be able to detain him long: for, behold, a little while, and he that shall come, will come, and will not tarry: he will ransack the most private reserved corners of thy treasury; and though thou mayest consume and devour our bodies, yet he will force thee to vomit and disgorge them again; he will not leave one portion, one morsel of them in thy stomach and entrails. 53. i know, the ingenuous and learned pareus, because he would not suffer any portion of the merit of christ's death to be extended and meant to the ungodly; or, that he, by the fruit of his passion, should obtain any power over them, will therefore, consequently, exclude them from the efficacy and power of his resurrection and life: he will not allow them to be raised by the power of christ, but only by the justice of god to their own condemnation: so that, by his reckoning, the great business and work of the last day, shall not wholly lie upon christ's hands to perform, but shall be parted, and shared between the power of christ, and the justice of god. 54. i am confidently persuaded, s. paul in this point was not of his mind, when he saith, as in adam all have died, so by christ shall all (all, without exception) be made alive again. and, as by man came death, so by man also cometh the resurrection of the dead. indeed, i wonder pareus would not likewise find some shift to exclude christ, as well from being a judge to condemn the wicked: for with as much reason, and as great ease, he might have given him a writ of ease, a discharge from that office, as well as the other. 55. and now i could wish i had said nothing all this while: (and likely enough so could you): but it grieves me, that the portion of time allowed me, will not suffer me in any reasonable proportion to contemplate the wonderful mercy and goodness of god; who, to do us good, has given such power to our nature in christ, to make a new heaven, and a new earth, to restore a new generation of creatures, ten times more glorious and perfect than the first. only, now tell me, did not s. paul, with good reason, speaking of the resurrection of christ, give it an advantage and pre-eminence, even above his death? is not the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in my text, the, yea rather, verbum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a word of great moment and weight? since the resurrection of christ, actuates and ripens the fruit of christ's death, which, without it, would have withered, and been of no help to us. is not the doctrine of christ's resurrection and exaltation, with as good reason made an article of our creed; and as necessarily, if not rather, to be leaned upon, as any of the rest? nay, hath not s. paul epitomised the whole creed into that one article, saying (in rom. 10.9.) if thou shalt believe in thine heart, rom. 10.9. that god raised the lord jesus from the dead, thou shalt be saved. 56. and now 'tis time to consider, who are the persons whom the death, yea rather, the resurrection of christ, will protect and warrant from condemnation. in my text, as we find none to condemn, so likewise, we cannot light upon any to be condemned. in the verse immediately before these words, the elect of god, are those which are justified, and therefore must not be condemned. and, to say the truth, though we dispute till the world's end, the event will show, that the elect of god, and only they, shall reap the harvest of christ's sufferings, and bring their sheaves with them. as for the wicked and reprobates, it shall not be so with them: but why it shall not be so with them, whether, because they have wilfully excluded themselves, or, because god had no mind they should be any thing the better for these things, i will not tell you. 57 in the verses on both sides of my text, we find, that, we are those that must not be condemned: we? which we? why paul and the romans, jews and gentiles. what all jews, and all gentiles? i told you i will not tell: only thus much let me tell you, we may boldly maintain s. paul's phrase: nay, it is unsafe, and dangerous to alter it. why, it is all the comfort we have to live by, it is our glory and crown of rejoicing, that we are those whose salvation christ did so earnestly and unfeignedly desire, and thirst after; that, to obtain power and authority to bestow it on us, he suffered such torments and blasphemies, that, never sorrow was like unto his sorrow, which was done unto him, wherewith the lord afflicted him in the day of his fierce wrath. 58. wherefore, i beseech you (beloved brethren) even by the bowels of this jesus christ, that you would give me leave to advise you, if there be any here fit to be advised by me, if there be any in this company as weak and ignorant as myself: (and though my heart be deceitful above all things, yet as far as i understand mine own heart, if i speak these words out of partiality or faction, let me be excluded from having my part in those merits.) i say, let me desire you: or rather, let our holy mother the church, persuade you (in the 17. article) to receive god's promises in such wise, as they are generally set forth unto us in holy scriptures? 59 for, consider impartially with yourselves, what an unreasonable horrible thing is it, seeing there are so many several frequent expressions of gods general love and gracious favour unto mankind, enforced and strengthened with such protestations and solemn oaths, that the cunningest linguist of you all, cannot with your whole lives, study, conceive, or frame expressions more full and satisfactory. i say then, is it not desperate madness, for a man to show such hatred and abomination at these comfortable and gracious professions of god, that he can be content to spend almost his whole age in contriving and hunting after interpretations, utterly contradicting and destroying the plain apparent sense of those scriptures: and will be glad and hearty comforted to hear tidings of a new-found-out gloss to pervert, and rack, and torment, god's holy word. 60. on the other side; far be it from us to think, that it is in our power, when we list or have a mind to it, to put ourselves in the number of gods elect faithful servants. or, to imagine, that we have god so sure chained and fettered to us by his promises, that we may dispense now then for the commission of a delightful, gainful crime: or, that when we have business for a sin to advantage us in our fortunes, we need not be too scrupulous about it, seeing god is bound, upon our sorrow and contrition, to receive us again into favour. thou wretched fool! darest thou make an advantage of god's goodness, to assist and patronise thy security? 'tis true, god has promised remission of sins to a repentant contrite sinner: but has he assured thee that he will give thee repentance, whensoever thou pleasest to allow thyself leisure to seek it? no: know, that there is a time (and presuming security, like sleep, doth hasten and add wings to that time) when there will be found no way for repentance, though thou seekest it with tears. and thus more than i meant for the persons. 61. and now what remains, but that we try an experiment: that we may know in what a comfortable state christ hath set us; let us consider, and look about us, to see if we can find any enemies that are likely to do us any harm: for which purpose, we shall not meet with a more accurate spy and intelligencer than s. paul: who in the remainder of his chapter, after my text, hath mustered them together in one roll. but first, there is one, if he were our adversary, he would be in stead of a thousand enemies unto us, and that is god. but him we are sure of in the verse before my text: for it is he that justifies, therefore surely he will not condemn: therefore what say you to tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or the sword? why these are not worthy the naming, for over all these we are more than conquerors. more than conquerors; what is that? why they are not only overcome and disarmed, but they are brought over to our faction; they war on our side. 62. well, in the next file, there follow adversaries of better fashion; there is life, and death, and angels, and principalities, and powers, (who are those? in truth i know not; but be they who they will, they can do us no harm:) no, nor things present, nor things to come, nor height, nor depth; (these are adversaries we should scarce have dreamed of). and to make all sure, in a word, there is no other creature shall ever be able to separate us from the love of god, which is in christ jesus our lord. 63. yet for all s. paul's exactness, there remains one enemy behind, and that is a sore one, of prime note; and truly i wonder how the apostle could miss him. and that is sin. i would to god s. paul had taken notice of him: for this one enemy is able to do us more harm than all the rest put together: nay, but for sin, all the rest almost were our very good friends. had we best supply s. paul's incogitancy and even adventure to put him in the catalogue too? well, let them that have a mind to it, do it; truly, i dare not. and, but that i know martin luther was a bold-spirited man, i should wonder how he durst so confidently have adventured upon it: in his book entitled captivitatis babylonicae (cap. de baptismo, near the beginning) he hath these words: vides quam dives sit homo christianus sive baptizatus, qui etiam volens non potest perdere suam salutem quantiscunque peccatis, nisi nolit credere. i will not translate them to you: and i would they had never been englished; for by that means, it may be, some of our loudest preachers would have wanted one point of comfortable false doctrine, wherewith they are wont to pleasure their friends and benefactors. only, let us do thus much for s. paul's credit, to believe it was not merely inconsideration in him to leave out sin in this catalogue; that there was some ground of reason for it: for though it may come to pass, by the mercy and goodness of god, that even sin itself shall not pluck us out of his hand; yet it would be something a strange preposterous doctrine, for a preacher of the new covenant, to proclaim, that we shall undoubtedly obtain the promises of the covenant, though we never so much break the conditions. 64. i do confess myself very guilty, and am sorry that i have thus long exercised and wearied your patience: and yet, for all that, have not performed that task which i fully resolved upon, when i adventured upon this subject; and that was, to spend this time in raising your devotions to the contemplation of the glorious mercies of god, expressed to us in christ's resurrection and exaltation. but because other thoughts have carried me away (even against my will) almost all this while, i shall further take leave to wrong and injure your patience, with proposing one consideration more, which ought by no means to be omitted. 65. and that is, to take notice of the person, to whom we have been beholding for these unspeakable mercies; and that is christ, christ alone, none else mentioned or thought upon. if bellarmine had been to advise s. paul, if he had been privy to the writing of this epistle, it is likely he would not have taken it ill, to have had christ's name in the matter of our salvation: but he would not have endured the apostles utter silence of all helps and aids besides: yea, though himself acknowledgeth it to be the safest course, to put our whole confidence, only in the mercy of god; yet, quia magis honorificum est habere aliquid ex merito, because it concerns our credit, to put in a little for merit and desert on our side. he would not have us so to disparage ourselves, as to make salvation a mere alms, proceeding merely out of courtesy 66. nay but, oh thou man, what art thou that answerest against god? what art thou that justifiest thyself before him? nay, what art thou that condemnest god, making him a liar all the scripture over? the whole project whereof is this, to let us know, how unable, how sick, how dead we are of ourselves, and therefore ought most necessarily to have recourse to him for our salvation. as for us (beloved christians) if we must needs rejoice, let us rejoice in our infirmities, let our glory be our shame, and let us lift up our eyes and behold; is. 63 1, 2. who is this that cometh from edom, with died garments from bozrah; this that is glorious in his apparel, travelling in the greatness of his strength? and christ will say, it is i that speak in righteousness, mighty to save: but, wherefore, lord, art thou red in thine apparel, and thy garments like him that treadeth in the wire-fatt? he will answer, i have trodden the wine-press alone, and of the people there was none with me: for which reason i am now crowned with glory, and honour, and immortality: i alone am mighty to save, and besides me there is none other. 67. and good luck have thou with thine honour, ps. 45. oh lord: ride on, because of thy word of truth, of meekness, and of righteousness: and thy right hand shall teach thee terrible things: terrible things for the king's enemies, for them which would not have thee to rule over them. and good luck have we with thine honour. o lord: ride on, because of thy word of truth, of meekness, and of righteousness, and thy right hand shall teach thee gracious and comfortable things for us thy servants, and sheep of thy pasture; who dare not exalt a weak arm of flesh against thee. thy right hand shall mightily defend us in the midst of all our enemies. thy right hand shall find us out, and gather us up, though lost and consumed in the grave; though scattered before the four winds of heaven: and, thy right hand shall exalt us to glory and immortality for ever with thee in thy heavenly kingdom: where all the days of our life, yea all the days of thy glorious endless life, we shall, with angels and archangels, say, glory, and honour, and power, and immortality, be unto him which sitteth on the throne; and to the lamb, and to the holy spirit; for ever, and for ever. amen, amen. the sixth sermon. luke xvi. 9 make to yourselves friends of the mammon of unrighteousness, that when ye fail, they may receive you into everlasting habitations. the children of this world (saith christ) are wiser in their generation then the children of light. to make which good, our saviour, in somuch of the chapter as goes before my text, brings in a story, or, as they call it, a parable of a cunning fellow, yet no great projector neither, no very subtle politician; notwithstanding, one who being in an extremity, turned out of his office for mispending his master's goods, had found out a shift, and that by mere cozenage, to procure so much as would serve to keep him, indeed not according to the port and fashion after which before he had lived; but only to maintain him in meat and drink, out of danger of starving, or, which was more fearful, because more full of trouble or dishonour, hard labour or begging. 2. surely it had been no hard matter for our saviour, who knew all whatsoever was in man, to have discovered more subtle projects, plots of a finer and more curious contrivance than this fellow's: but this, it seems, would serve his turn well enough for the purpose, for which he made use of it! and to say the truth, there cannot be imagined an example more exactly suiting, more closely applicable to his intent, which was not to discredit and dishearten his followers, by comparing, i, and preferring the cunning of an ordinary fellow, a mere bailiff, or steward, before that spiritual heavenly wisdom to which they pretend: nor, secondly, to instruct them by indirect and unwarrantable courses to provide for themselves hereafter. but chief this, 3. to teach us, by objecting to our view, a man who by his own negligence, and carelessness, being brought to an extremity (for there was no necessity he should be brought to these plunges; a little timely care and providence, even ordinary honesty, would easily have warranted and preserved him) had upon the sudden found out a trick of his office, namely, by proceeding in his old courses of wasting his master's substance to the enriching of his fellow-servants, thereby gained their good wills, that for the time following they might preserve him from perishing. 4. our saviour, i say, by this example, would teach us, that since god has placed us here in this world as his stewards, has put into our hands, his goods, his riches, to be dispensed for his use and advantage: and such stewards (we are) who have advantages infinitely more urgent and pressing us to an honest faithful discharge of our office, than this man in the parable ever had; as first, we must of necessity fail, and be cashiered of our office. all the power of heaven and earth cannot procure us a perpetuity in it: the case did not stand so with this man, for it was merely his own fault to deserve discarding; and besides, having deserved that censure, it was his misfortune too, that his lord should come to the knowledge of it, (for it is no impossible thing, that a steward should thrive by his lord's loss, and yet ne'er be called to an account for it.) and secondly, upon our behaviour in this our office, depends the everlasting welfare of our souls and bodies; we shall for ever be disposed of, according to the honest, or unfaithful discharge of our place: if ill, lord what shall become of us? where shall we appear in that great day of account? i dare not almost tell you the issue of it: but if we have carried ourselves as faithful servants; propose to yourselves your own conditions, give your thoughts licence and scope to be excessive and overflowing in their desires, if the whole extension and capacity of your thoughts be not satisfied and filled to the brim with measure pressed down and running over, god himself (which is impossible to imagine) will prove a deceiving unfaithful master. 5. these things therefore considered, without question, it doth infinitely concern us to consult, and project, what we mean to do with our riches, to what employment we intent to put those honours, and that power which god hath conferred on us in this life: whether to receive them as our good things, to go away contented with them as our rewards, our final rewards, expecting no other good things from god after them: or, which is our saviour's advice, use them as means, & helps of attaining blessings above all conceivable proportion exceeding them; so dispensing & providently scattering them abroad, that against our time of need, (which sooner or later will undoubtedly come) we may oblige to ourselves such friends, so gracious, and prevailing with our master, who, either by their prayers and intercession, or some other way which we know not, may procure for us admission into our master's joys, to be no longer stewards and servants, but friends and sons: thus by the help and benefit of this mammon of unrighteousness in my text, these little things, even the least blessings that god has to bestow upon us, so called in the verse following, and in the next but one to that, these things of other men, as if they were trifles, not worthy the owning if compared with what rewards may be had in exchange for them, purchasing to ourselves everlasting and glorious rewards; by the assistance of our riches (in the expression of st. paul), laying up for ourselves a foundation of good works against the time to come, that we may lay hold on eternal life. 6. and this i suppose to be the force and meaning of this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or moral of the parable, which christ hath closely contrived and pressed into these few words, make to yourselves friends of the, etc. in which words, i shall observe unto you these three general parts. 1. what we must expect at last, notwithstanding all the riches and pomps of this world, i. e. to fail. christ you see makes no question at all of it, he takes it for granted, where he says, that when ye fail, as implying, that certainly fail we must. 2. this being supposed, that fail we must, the counsel of christ comes in very seasonably, namely, to provide for the main, to take order, that though we ourselves sink, yet we may procure us friends to support us in our necessities, and that is by making to ourselves friends of the mammon, etc. 3. the comfortable issue and convenience which shall accrue unto us by those friends thus purchased, i.e. by them to be received into everlasting, etc. of these, in the order proposed. 7. you do not expect, i am sure, part. i. that i should go about seriously to persuade you, that you shall not live here for ever; for, whom should i seek to persuade? god forbidden, i should be so uncharitable, as to think, or, but suspect, that ever i should find occasion to make use of any persuasions for such a purpose. indeed a very good man (it was the prophet david) once said in his prosperity, i shall never be removed, psal. 30.6. thou lord of thy goodness hast made my hill so strong: but was this well said of him, think you? it seems not: for presently to confute this his confidence, vers. 7. the lord did but turn his face away from him, and he was troubled. yet surely such a speech as this could never be spoken upon better grounds; for this his assurance, it seems, proceeded not out of any presumptuous confidence of his own strength or policy: but only out of consideration of god's especial providence showed in his wonderful preservation from many great and imminent dangers, and in preferring him from a low contemptible fortune to the rule and dominion over his people. 8. there is another fellow in a parable, luk. 12. who though he came short of david, in this his unwarrantable confidence and presumption upon that foundation of riches and wealth, which with unwearied anxiety and care he had laid up, notwithstanding was more suddenly and unanswerably confuted: for, he did not promise to himself a perpetuity, only he imagined to himself (as he thought, reasonably,) that since he had at last obtained that which he had aimed at, and which had cost him so many years travel, it were fit for him now to enjoy the fruit which he had so dearly bought. and in a joyful contemplation of this his happiness he enters into dialogue with his soul, soul, saith he, now take thy rest. no more shalt thou be vexed, and even consumed with the painful and violent thirst after riches, thou hast that laid up for thee which shall abundantly satisfy all thy desires. all my business hereafter, shall be to find out ways how to repay unto my soul all those pleasures which heretofore i have denied unto myself; i have store sufficient for many years' expenses safely laid up in my barns: yet for all this man's thus pleasing himself with assured promises of many years' happiness; if you will but vouchsafe to inquire after him the very next day after he spoke thus, his garners it is likely you may yet find standing, thronged and oppressed with the abundance of corn. but for his soul (for whose sake all this ado had been kept) the lord knows what became of that, it was hurried away, no man can tell, whither. 9 now the thing that it becomes me to desire at your hands from the consideration of these two examples, is this, not to require of you to believe that you must once fail (for that i suppose were needless) nor yet to dissuade you from allowing to yourselves a reasonable use & moderate lawful pleasures from that abundance of blessings wherewith god hath enriched you beyond all other men. but to beseech you, that this meditation, that certainly you must fail, may be no unwelcome thought to you, that when the time shall come that you must leave these riches and pleasures which god has given you here to enjoy, it may not come upon you as an unexpected misfortune, as a thing you were afraid of, and would willingly be content to avoid. 10. i confess, this were a meditation sufficient to discourage and quite dishearten a man that were resolved to take up his rest in the pleasures and preferments of this world, that were content to sit down satisfied with such a sleight happiness, as this life is able to afford him; for one who would make riches his strong city, a place of refuge and security, a fortress whereto he would have recourse in all his extremities, and from whence he would expect safety in all dangers and troubles which may assail him: for, what were that, but to withdraw him from his strong holds, & leave him unfortified and exposed to any injury and misfortune! how could i be more injurious to such a man, then to vex and affright him with such sad melancholic thoughts as these, that the time will come, when that strong castle of his, his riches, shall be undermined and demolished, when he shall be left naked and defenceless. at which time, if it were possible for him to retain his riches, which before he made his bulwark and place of security, yet he will find them then but paper-wals, unable to stand the weakest battery. 11. but i hope better things of you, (beloved christians) even things which accompany salvation: and indeed, why should i not? who can forbid me to hope so? for alas, i know you not. i have no reason to assure myself of the contrary. and then i should be most inexcusably uncharitable, if i should not even rejoice in this my hope: i see god hath plentifully showered down upon you, almost overwhelmed you with all the blessings of this life. he has moreover given you peaceable times to enjoy them, (blessed be his holy name for it, and a thousand blessings be returned into the bosom of his anointed for his most pious christianlike care to confirm this peace, and to preserve it from interruption.) god, i say, has given you leisure and opportunity to enjoy and improve these your riches for your everlasting happiness: a comfort which he has denied almost to all other nations; nothing abroad but wars, and rumours of wars, no joy nor comfort but only in the effusion of precious christian blood, nothing but sacking of towns and invasions of countries', god only knows upon how just pretensions. but, which is above all other blessings, (indeed without which all the rest will prove very curses) god has given you an abundant plentiful use of his blessed word and sacraments, every week, several times (till now) a worthy and able clergy to put you in mind, how great an account you are to make to almighty god of these his blessings, and what extraordinary interest is expected at your hards. 12. let me not therefore, i beseech you, be your enemy, if i prove troublesome to any slumbering lethargic spirit, if i put him in mind, that the time will come, when sleep shall for ever departed from his eyes, and that if his slumber last till a trumpet awake him, darkness he may find, most palpable aegyptian-darkness, but not darkness commodious to call on and procure sleep, not very convenient to take one's rest in. forgive, i beseech you, my importunity, if i earnestly desire you frequently to represent to your minds a time of failing, and presently after that a severe inexorable judge, requiring a strict exact account of your behaviour in your stewardship; if i beseech you, from the consideration of the foolish virgins, not to put far from you the coming of the bridegroom, not to frame to yourselves reasons and probabilities, why he is not likely to come yet a good while, (for he himself has told you, he will come as a thief in the night, and therefore when you are thus secure and slumbering, yourselves create a night, a fit season for him to come unawares upon you.) for, if you be unprovided of oil in your lamps, of good works which may shine before men, and the door be once shut, talk not of any new devised faith, and i know not what assurance; there is no possibility of ever having it opened, but you shall be forced to remain exposed to all dangers, to all manner of misfortunes, not one shall be found to befriend you, and to receive you into everlasting habitations. 13. and, i pray you, consider, that if the apprehension of these things conceived not as present, but as to be expected, it may be, many years hence, be so distasteful and ominous to flesh and blood, who will be able to abide the time, when it shall, indeed, overtake him? if now in these days of leisure and forbearance (a season which god out of his glorious mercy hath allowed us on purpose to spend in such thoughts as these, in projecting against the evil day) the meditation thereof bring such anguish and torment along with it; what terrible insupportable effects will it work in us, when we shall find ourselves surprised by it, and caught as in a snare? if a man can no sooner hear such things related, or but seriously think upon them, though in the height of his jollity, but strait, as if some ill news had been told him; as if he had heard some sad tragical story of his own misfortunes, he will presently recoil from his mirth, pleasure will become troublesome and distasteful to him; oh with what anguish and vexation of spirit, with what agony of soul shall they be entertained, when they come in earnest? 14. observe therefore, i beseech you, that our saviour does not bid you, when you fail make to yourselves friends; no alas, that is not the time to make friends in; then is the season when you are to expect comfort and assistance from those friends which you have gained before, in the time when you were furnished with such good things as were likely to oblige men unto you. what title then can be found out equal to express the folly and madness of such people; who, as if god had created them on purpose for the pleasures and vanities of this world, make that the whole business of their lives; and, as if the care of their souls everlasting disposal were but an employment of an hours dispatch, will not vouchsafe so fruitlessly to cast away any part of the time, when their souls are vigorous and healthful, about such a trifling design, but destiny their last few hours, when they are unable for any business else, to settle for themselves an estate of eternity. 15. but because i have not the leisure now to prosecute this argument as fully, as it may deserve; give me leave, i pray you, in brief, to present to your view, a man brought to such an extremity as this; one fastened and chained unto the bed of sickness, one that has already received within himself the messages of death, death beginning (in the language of the psalmist) to gnaw upon him. take the pains, i beseech you, to imagine to yourselves (and it will require some courage but to consider it) what unquiet busy thoughts shall then possess him, what terrible affrighting meditations shall then be suggested to him, when he shall be forced to apprehend, that now he has but a very small portion of time left him; and yet for all that, all the business for the disparching of which he came into the world, is left undone; the counsel and good intention of god, out of which he gave him his riches, being utterly defeated, scarce one friend made, that will vouchsafe to look upon him now in his necessity: but on the contrary, many sore enemies procured, that will be ready to cry for vengeance against him: no account to be found of the dispensation of those goods which god has given him, but such a one as will serve to feed and nourish the distemper and sickness of his thoughts: so much (may be) spent in the prosecution and fulfilling of his ungodly lusts, so much in gorgeous raiment and delicious feeding, yet all this while scarce one poor lazarus obliged. now all the remedy that is to be had in such an exigence as this, is to have the next preacher sent for, who must instill a little comfortable divinity into him, to make him sleep, and so his soul departs the lord knows whither. and yet these are but the beginnings of sorrows, but what the end and perfection of them will be, i confess i have not the courage to tell you. 16. but yet for all this, obj. 1 i know men are apt so much to favour themselves in their security, they will be ready to produce that famous example of the thief on the cross to confute me, and to testify, that even he that shall at the last push, as it were, have recourse unto god's mercy, is not altogether hopeless. besides, did not he which came the last hour of the day to labour in the vineyard, receive the same wages with them who had suffered the toil and heat of the whole day? sol. 1 for the thief on the cross, there can lie no exception against the example. but yet consider, i pray you, that from the beginning of the world, till the time that the scripture-canon was sealed up, there is not to be found one example more to equal it besides, it was done at the time of christ's. suffering; a season wherein god in that one act of the redemption of the world, by the death of his son, expressed the very utmost of his mercy, and discovered unto the world, as it were, in one entire sum, all the riches and treasures of his goodness. if therefore at such a time, he was pleased to work a miracle of mercy upon one, who probably having spent his whole life in ungodly forbidden courses, had not, till then, light upon any extraordinary opportunities and means, able to break in pieces, and melt his flinty obdurate heart; can this example then be any advantage to you, who every day, almost, have more than sufficient means and offers of grace, and are continually threatened with the danger of deferring your repentance, and of prolonging the time of making up your accounts; since you neither do, nor must, know the day nor hour, when god will expect them at your hands? 17. as concerning the man which was called the last hour of the day to labour in the vineyard: i pray you take notice, that this man was a labourer, and though he took pains but for a short time, yet labour he did: whereas, he that shall defer his repentance and amendment of life, till his last hour, if he indeed prove sorry for his sins, yet labour he cannot; the best that he can do, is to make offers and resolutions to work the good work of god, if it shall please him to spare him life: but that those resolutions of his shall be accepted with god, in stead of real very labour indeed, i find no commission to assure you. but i confess, it is something unseasonably done of me, to stand, so long at least, upon such sullen melancholic meditations, as those are; especially now in the midst of this solemn glorious feast: therefore i am resolved even abruptly to break through them, and to hasten to my second general, which is the counsel which our saviour gives us upon this consideration, that necessarily we must fail, namely, to provide, and seriously project against that time, by all the means we can make, to oblige to ourselves friends in that extremity; expressed in these words, make to yourselves friends of the mammon of unrighteousness. 18. mammon of unrighteousness? part. ii. what is that? shall i deal freely and honestly with you? indeed i will: (for, woe unto me, if i should dare to come into this place to flatter you: and woe unto me, if i should dare to come into this place to vent my spleen against any). then all this, for which there is such a do kept, not only here, but all the world over; such making of friends, nay, such undermining of friends; so many dangers sought out and despised: this is the mammon of unrightenousness. an untoward name, i confess, for a thing so much set by, so carefully and ambitiously courted, so insatiably thirsted after. but yet a name of christ's devising, he has afforded this idol, riches, no better a title; and therefore i must, and dare call them so, any any where. 19 but may it not be lawful to inquire after; or, give some guesses, at least, at the reasons which might move our saviour to put so disgraceful a name upon riches? without question, it is not only lawful to be so curious, but also very useful and expedient. a main reason (i have heard) is, because ordinarily, riches leave a tincture and infection in the persons who have any thing to do with them. it is a hard thing, almost impossible, for a man any ways to meddle with them without sin: ordinarily, they are got with sin, they are possessed with sin, they are spent with sin. a man (saith siracides) cannot hasten to be rich without sin: and when he has once got them, how unwilling will he be to let a lust pass unsatisfied, seeing he is furnished with that, to which (in his opinion at least) nothing can be denied! how unwilling will he be to be worsted, though in the most unjust cause, seeing he is furnished with that which will blind the eyes of the prudent, and pervert the understanding of the wise! for (saith the same wise man) as a man's riches, so his anger increaseth. and upon the same grounds, it may be said, that, as a man's riches increase, so likewise his desires and lusts increase. i will undertake to give you one reason more, why riches are called mammon of unrighteousness; and it is, because they are mammon, riches indeed, only to unrighteous men; none beside such, will rest contented with them, and suffer god to departed from him without a greater blessing than they can be. 20. but what need i trouble myself about enquiring after reasons, why this so universally-adored idol. mammon, is so dishonourably branded and stigmatised by our saviour, since himself in another place has said enough of it, which may suffice, not only to warrant the reasonableness of this title; but also to make them, who are apt to glory so much in riches, if they well consider it, even to envy the happiness and security of those who are not trusted with so dangerous wares. the words were spoken upon occasion of a sudden great sorrow, and melancholy which appeared in a young man's countenance, and procured by the temptations of riches, which made him refuse the most advantageous bargain that ever was offered to man. whereupon, saith christ to his disciples (as his words are recorded by s. matthew) verily, mat. 19.23, 24. i say unto you, that a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven. and again i say unto you, that it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for arich man to enter into the kingdom of heaven. indeed s. mark reports this speech something more largely than it is there, mark 10.24. and instead of a rich man, putteth in, one that trusteth in his riches: which he does not so much to explain the phrase of the speech, as to give a reason of the impossibility. 21. for, if our saviour (in saying, it is impossible for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of heaven) by a rich man, had meant one that trusteth in his riches, there had been no sufficient ground for so great an amazement as seized upon the disciples at the hearing of it; for that was a thing which they knew well enough before; not the most ignorant of his hearers, but could have told him as much. therefore s. matthew's and s. mark's words joined together, will make up this sense (which i make no question at all, but that it was christ's meaning) namely, that it is even almost impossible for a rich man to be saved, because he cannot choose but trust in his riches. 22. and this is more clearly evinced by that satisfaction which our saviour gave to his disciples to recover them from their astonishment; where he says, with men it is impossible, but not with god; for with god all things are possible: intimating thus much; that considering the great, almost , temptations which riches carry along with them, and man's extreme weakness and natural impotency; his willing propension, and to all ordinary natural means, most incurable inclination to make them his place of rest, his strong city wherein he trusts: it is impossible, that these things meeting together, he should not put his confidence in them, and so make himself incapable of heaven, between which and riches thus used, there is a large, as unpassable a gulf as between heaven and hell: with men therefore these things are impossible, but not with god; for with him all things are possible. it is in his power, by the help and assistance of that grace which he showers upon every one of us in baptism, to cure this hereditary weakness and sickness of our natures; and to render us healthful and vigorous, powerful enough to free ourselves from that bondage and slavery, wherein these outward worldly blessings are apt to captive us, and whereunto by nature we do willingly submit ourselves. it is in his power to make those pernicious pleasures, which riches may promise unto us, to become unwelcome and distasteful unto us: nay, which is more, it is in his power to make even this mammon of unrighteousness against its own nature, to become an help and instrument to procure for us the true riches, even those unvaluable treasures which god hath laid up in heaven for us. take it not ill therefore, i beseech you, if that, for which you are so much envied and reverenced above other men, be so undervalved by our saviour in comparison with the riches; be not angry with our saviour for it: but rather endeavour, by trading providently with them, for your own and others benefit, to render christ's language in this place improper and abusive. 23. but now if riches deserve no better a title at our saviour's hands, how can it be likely that they can prove fit instruments to procure friends, and such friends as we stand in need of? for, do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? indeed the argument held well on s. paul's side, when he says, if we have sowed to you spiritual things, is it much if we reap your temporal things? but will the argument hold also on christ's part; if ye have not been faithful in the mammon of unrighteousness, who will trust you with the true riches? certainly, if it does not, not only this, but divers chapters besides, might, without any loss, have been left out of the gospel. 24. and therefore it was a sullen ill-natured fellow (he in the parable, i mean, which received the one talon) and without all question, a shameless liar (though i fear, there be many, who are not very averse from his opinion) who with an impudent face durst tell god, he was austere, reaping where he had not sown, and gathering where he had not scattered. and though he spoke this with the same confidence that his proselytes do in these our days, not as a probable opinion, but as a thing that he is assured of; (for, says he, i know thee, that thou art austere, etc.) yet i beseech you believe him not: no, no, our god is a gracious god, and requires of us no more than we are able to do. he does not expect faith, and repentance, and good works, where he has given no abilities to perform them: nay, doth not god by his prophet tell us, and christ repeats it in his parable, that he is so far from that, that after several years labour bestowed on his vineyard, and yet no fruit issuing; yet he was content to expect one year longer, even till he had done so much, that no more could be done; he is at a stay, and asks, what he could have done more? 25. it were therefore very fit and convenient, that we should, at least in our own hearts, silence and stifle such opinions concerning god as these are. and believe, that he is a wellwisher to us, when he bestows any means upon us, whereby we may do good. otherwise, we shall without any comfort or courage, heartlesly, and even sleepily go about the performing of what christ here counsels us to. if you will not believe me upon my word, take the man's own confession: says he, when i had once entertained this persuasion, that god would expect a more yielding plentiful harvest, fruitful beyond that proportion of seed which he gave me to sow, i was afraid: horror and uncomfortable thoughts seized upon me, and i went and hid my talon in a napkin, i even sat still, resolved to put all to an adventure, and to expect what god would do with me; for, alas, how bootless, and to no purpose, would my weak endeavours be to procure the favour of such a god, that would not be content but with a great deal more than lay in my power to perform. 26. 'tis true indeed, christ told him, that though he had had such an unworthy prejudicial conceit of him, yet that even from thence he might have been moved to have made the best and most advantageous use of that talon, which god had bestowed on him; for says christ, if thou knewest i was austere, why didst thou not therefore put my money into the exchangers hands, and trade with it, that i might have received mine own with increase: why didst thou not at the least do thy best, to give satisfaction to thy hard austere master? god forbidden, that i should doubt but that there are thousands, who, though, it may be, have entertained this man's opinion and conceit of god; yet make better use of it than he did. but yet the man's own confession, shows what ordinarily and naturally is the fruit and issue of it. 27. that therefore, which god sows among you, is riches; but yet, riches, most improperly so called; that which he scatters and strews abroad, is the mammon of unrighteousness: now, he which soweth (saith the apostle) soweth in hope, and he which scattereth, scattereth in hope. but what gain or interest, what a kind of harvest does god hope for after this his seeds time? why just such another as the same apostle speaks of (1 cor. 15.) where he discourses upon the resurrection and glorious change of these our bodies; 1 cor. 15.42, 43, 44. they are sown, saith he, in corruption, but are raised in incorruption; they are sown in dishonour, but are raised in glory; they are sown in weakness, but are raised in power; they are sown natural bodies, but are raised spiritual heavenly bodies. in like manner, god sows among you those riches, which himself, most disgracefully calls the mammon of unrighteousness, in hope that he may reap the true riches: he scatters among you such small trifles, that many even heathen-men have been content to want, for the empty acrial reward of fame: nay, that some of them have been content to cast away in an humour; and these small things he scatters abroad, in hope that he may gather (what, think you?) the everlasting salvation of your souls and bodies. and is this that harsh austere master? 28. indeed, if god were such a person as some men have given him out for; if he should scatter abroad his riches as snares, on purpose to fetter and entangle men with them. if he should bestow upon any this mammon of unrighteousness, with an intent, and resolution, that it should become unto them the mammon of unrighteousness indeed, that it should make them indisposed and uncapable of attaining unto the true riches; there might be some plea for them to fasten so injurious an accusation upon god. but can the judge of all the earth deal so with his servants? can he which is goodness and mercy itself, he who rejoices to style himself, the preserver of men; can he be so cruelly bountiful to his creatures, as by heaping upon them, the vanishing, unsatisfying, blessings of this life, thereby to fat and cherish them against the day of slaughter and destruction? god forbidden! 29. i confess, notwithstanding that, such persons there may be upon whom god may in his wrath shower down blessings, and riches in his fierce displeasure: but they are only such, as by living in a continual habitual practice of undervaluing and contemning the daily offers of grace and favour, have already condemned themselves, and sealed themselves unto the day of destruction; and such an one was pharaoh: concerning whom, god himself testifies saying▪ for this reason i have raised thee up, exod. 9.16. that i might show my power in thee, and that my name might he declared throughout all the earth, that is, since by thy continual rebellions thou hast judged thyself unworthy of life, for this reason i have raised thee up, i have kept thee alive, and preserved thee that none of my former plagues should sweep thee away, that at last, by an utter destruction of thee, together with the whole strength and flower of thy kingdom, i may be glorified throughout the whole world. but i will leave discoursing and come nearer unto you, in the serious application of christ's counsel here. 30. it is the property of riches (saith the wiseman) to gather many friends: prou. 19.4. those who are above others in wealth and power shall presently be furnished with friends more than they can well know what to do withal; but such friends are not concerned at all in our saviour's advice in my text; the friends here intended are such, who are not here to restore again unto you in the same coin that they received: give not to the rich (saith our saviour) for fear they repay you. of all things in the world, take heed of being paid back again in this life, beware how you carry your reward along with you to your grave. but leave it to be paid in exchange in another country, where for using five talents well, you shall have ten cities given you. where for the bounty of a cup of cold water, you shall receive a prophet's reward. such a friend was offered once to the richman in the gospel, god sent him one to his doors, even to crave his friendship: but the richman was so busied with the care of his wardrobe and his table, that he was not at leisure to hearken to so gainless an offer: notwithstanding the time came afterwards, when he miserably, to his cost, perceived what a blessed opportunity he had most negligently omitted, and even in hell attempted to purchase his favour, and to obtain from his hand a poor. alms (god knows), but one drop of water; but all too late, the time of making friends was past, and a great unfordeable gulf had divided them from all possible society and communion for ever. 31. now consider (i beseech you) that it had been a very easy matter, for god so to have provided for all his creatures, that each particular, should have had enough of his own without being beholding to another for supply: but then two heavenly and divine virtues had been quite lost; for, where had been the poor man's patience, and the rich man's charity? the poor man, therefore wants that you may have occasion to exercise your liberality, and that by losing and diminishing your wealth upon them, ye may become more full of riches hereafter. so that, it is gods great bounty to you, not only to give you plenty and abundance, but also to suffer others to languish in penury and want: it may be, god has suffered himself so long to be robbed of his own possessions his tithes, that you might have the glory and comfort of restoring them: it may be, god has suffered the ancient superstitious histrionical adorning of his temples to be converted into the late slovenly profaneness (commonly called worshipping in spirit, but intended to be worship without cost,) that you may find a happy occasion to restore those sacred places dedicated to his honour, to that majesty and reverence as may become houses wherein god delights that his name should dwell. 32. now, if it be not in my power to persuade you, neither to make god nor man your debtors by your riches: yet i beseech you, make neither of them your enemies by them: do not make your riches instruments of war to fight against god himself; for example, as maintaining an unjust cause by power, a cause which god abhors: do not so requite god for his extraordinary libegality to you, as to make his riches instruments for the devil to wreak his malice upon those whom god loveth: if i had not a care not to injure your patience too far, what might not be said upon this subject? but, i perceive, it is fit for me to hasten to your release. 33. but before i quit myself, and ease you of further prosecution of this point, i shall desire you all to suffer one word of exhortation, and if there be any here whom it may more nearly concern, i beseech them even by the bowels of jesus christ, that they will suffer too a word of most necessary reproof: and though what i shall say, doth not naturally flow from the words in hand, yet they bear a reasonable resemblance and proportion with them: so pertinent, i am sure, they are to the auditory to whom i speak, that i would choose rather quite to lose my text, than here to leave them unsaid. 34. it is about making friends too: indeed, not with the mammon of unrighteousness: no, that is a trifle to it. it is about making friends with not revenging of injuries, with patiented bearing and willing forgiving of offences: a duty so seriously, so incessantly, sometimes in plain words, sometimes in parables, all manner of ways, upon all occasions, urged by our saviour, that we cannot so much as pray, but we must be forced to acknowledge, obedience to this law, forgive us,— as we forgive: yea, so boundlessly, and without all restrictions or reservations, is it enjoined, that when as peter thought it fair to have it limited to a certain number, and proposed seven, as, in his opinion, reasonable and convenient; no, faith our saviour, forgive not until seven times, but until four hundred fourscore and ten times: and if he could have imagined, that it were possible, for a man to have exceeded even this number also in injuries, without question, he would not have left there neither. 35. but, how is this doctrine received in the world? what counsel would men, and those none of the worst sort give thee in such a case? how would the soberest, discreetest, well-bred christian advise thee? why thus, if thy brother, or thy neighbour, have offered thee an injury or an affront, forgive him? by no means: thou art utterly undone, and lost in thy reputation with the world if thou dost forgive him: what is to be done then? why, let not thy heart take rest, let all other business and employment be laid aside till thou hast his blood: how? a man's blood for an injurious passionate speech, for a disdainful look? nay, that is not all: that thou may'st gain amongst men the reputation of a discreet well-tempered murderer be sure thou killest him not in passion, whey thy blood is hot and boiling with the provocation; but proceed with as great temper and settledness of reason, with as much discretion and preparedness as thou wouldst to the communion: after some several days respite, that it may appear it is thy reason guides thee, and not thy passion: invite him mildly and courteously into some retired place, and there let it be determined; whether his blood or thine shall satisfy the injury. 36. oh thou holy christian religion! whence is it that thy children have sucked this inhuman poisonous blood, these raging fiery spirits? for if we shall inquire of the heathen, they will say, they have not learned this from us; or the mahometan, they will answer, we are not guilty of it: blessed god that it should become a most sure settled course for a man to run into danger and disgrace with the world, if he shall dare to perform a commandment of christ, (which is as necessary for him to do, if he have any hopes of attaining heaven, as meat and drink is for the maintaining of life!) that ever it should enter into christian hearts to walk so curiously and exactly contrary unto the ways of god that whereas he sees himself every day and hour almost contemned and despised by thee who art his servant, his creature, upon whom he might without all possible imputation of unrighteousness pour down all the vials of his wrath and indignation, yet he notwithstanding is patiented and long-suffering toward thee, hoping that his long-suffering may lead thee to repentance, and beseeching thee daily by his ministers to be reconciled unto him: and yet thou on the other-side for a distempered passionate speech, or less, shouldst take upon thee to send thy neighbour's soul, or thine own, or likely both, clogged and oppressed with all your sins unrepented of, (for how can repentance possibly consist with such a resolution?) before the tribunal seat of god to expect your final sentence: utterly depriving thyself of all the blessed means which god has contrived for thy salvation, and putting thyself in such an estate, that it shall not be in god's power almost to do thee any good. pardon, i beseech you, my earnestness, almost intemperateness, seeing it hath proceeded from so just, so warrantable a ground; and since it is in your power to give rules of honour and reputation to the whole kingdom, do not you teach others to be ashamed of this inseparable badge of your religion, charity and forgiving of offences; give men leave to be christians without danger or dishonour; or, if religion will not work with you, yet let the laws of that state wherein you live, the earnest desires and care of your righteous prince, prevail with you: but i have done, and proceed to my last part, which is the convenience and gain which shall accrue unto us by friends obliged with this mammon of unrighteousness, namely, by them to be received into everlasting habitations. 37. i must here again propose another question, part. iii. but when i have done that, i must be forced to leave it without an answer, unless you will be content to take a conjecture, a probability, for an answer: it is, how, or after what manner those to whom we have done good here, shall hereafter receive us into everlasting habitations? whether this is performed only by their prayers and intercession with god in the behalf of their benefactors; or, whether they are used as instruments and conductors, as it were, as our saviour may probably seem to intimate in the parable where the lord speaks to his servants, that they should take away the one talon from him which had no more, and bestow it on him which had ten talents. so uncertain it is, whether this task shall be performed by them one of these ways, or by some other unknown course, that st. auguistine ingenuously confesses, he knows not what to make of it: yet cardinal bellarmine says, he can easily assoil it, and can in these words find out purgatory, and satisfaction for sin after death, and a great deal more than i can understand: but truly, if he be able to spy purgatory in this text, especially such a one as he fancies to himself in his books of that argument, he has made use of better glasses than ever galileo found out. and i would to god, those of his party would consider how much the weakness of their cause is argued even from hence, that they are forced to ground most of the points controverted between us upon such difficult places as these, of so ambiguous and uncertain meanings, and therefore equally obnoxious to any man's interpretation. there may yet be found out a convenient sense of this place, especially, if we will allow an hebraism in those words (which is frequent enough in the evangelical writings) of putting the third person plural to express a passive sense, and then the meaning will be, that when, etc. they may receive you, i. e. that ye may be received into everlasting habitations: parallel to a like phrase in luk. 12.12. thou fool, this night shall they take away thy soul from thee, i. e. thy soul shall be taken from thee. and, if this sense be true, as it is very likely, many of our romish adversaries have spent much pains about this text to no purpose. 38. but to leave quarrelling: it is no very considerable matter: whether we have light upon the true sense of those words, or no, or whether those, to whom we have done good, have a share in purchasing for us an admission into these everlasting habitations, as long as we may infallibly hence conclude, that though it should fall out, that abraham should forget us, and israel become ignorant of us; yet certainly, god, (who alone, is instead of ten thousand such friends) he will keep a register of all our good actions, and will take particular care of us, to give us a just proportion of reward and harvest of glory according to our sparingness, or liberality in sowing. 39 but, obj. would almighty god have us such mercenary servants, so careful and projecting for our own advantage, that we should not obey him without a compact and bargain? is not he worthy the serving, unless we first make our condition with him, to be sure to gain and thrive by him? is this a consideration worthy and befitting the ingenuity and nobleness of a christian mind, to have an eye unto the recompense of reward? is christ also become a schoolmaster unto us, as well as the law was to the jews, that we should have need of thunder and blackness of smoke, and voices to affright us, or promises to win and allure us? nay, have not your ears oftentimes heard, from such places as this, an obedience of this nature disgraced and branded for a servile slavish obedience; an obedience ordinarily made the mark and badge even of a formal hypocrite, the worst kind of reprobates? 40. i confess, sol. i could show you a more excellent way then this, if men were ordinarily fitted and qualified for the receiving of it: and that is st. paul's more excellent way of charity: the keeping of god's commandments merely out of the love of his goodness and consideration of his infinite inconceivable holiness: and he that can receive this, let him receive it, and thrice happy and blessed shall he be of the lord: but in the mean time, let him not be forward to judge his fellow-servants, if they acknowledge themselves so far guilty of weakness and imperfections, that they have need to receive strength and encouragement in this their painful and laborious race, by looking forward unto the glorious prize of their high calling in jesus christ. 41. surely god is wise enough to contrive the surest course, and to set down the best and likeliest means for persuading us to his service, and the obedience of his commandments: he is able to inquire and search into the most retired corners of our wicked, deceitful hearts, and thereby knowing our temper and disposition, he is able best to prescribe us a method and diet suitable to our constitutions. therefore, if he out of his infinite wisdom, and the consideration of what encouragements we stand in need of, hath thought it fit to annex to every precept almost, a promise of happiness, or a threatening of unavoidable danger to the transgressors; what art thou, o man, that thou darest take upon thee to calumniate his proceed, and to prescribe better directions than he has thought fit! 42. i beseech you therefore, (my beloved brethren,) by all means make use of any advantages, which may serve to render you more earnest, more eager and resolute in your obedience to those holy and perfect commandments which he hath enjoined you: if you cannot find yourselves arrived as yet to that height of perfection, as that love and charity cannot wrest from you sufficient carefulness to obey him; let fear have its operation with you, fear and horror of that terrible issue which shall attend the wilful and habitual transgressors of his laws: and you need not suspect this course as unwarrantable, for you shall have st. paul for your example, even that paul for whose miraculous conversion, christ was pleased himself in person to descend from his throne of majesty: that paul who laboured in the gospe more than all the rest of the apostles: that paul, whose joy and hearts comfort it was to be afflicted for the name of christ: lastly, that paul, who for a time, was ravished from the earth to the third heaven after a most inexpressable manner, and there heard things that cannot be uttered; this paul, i say, shall be your example, who after all these things, found it yet a convenient motive, and received great encouragement and eagerness to proceed in his most blessed conversation, even from this fear, lest, whilst he preached to others, himself should become a castaway. 43. and when fear has done its part, let hope come in; hope of that happy communion; which you shall once again have with those friends which may be purchased in this life at so easy a rate; hope of that eternal weight and burden of joy and glory, which is reserved in heaven for you if you hold fast the rejoicing of the hope steadfast unto the end: heb. 3.6. let a comfortable meditation of these things encourage and hearten you to proceed from one degree of holiness to another, till we all come in the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the son of god to a perfect man, to the measure of the fullness of the stature of christ: and for an example in this, take that whole cloud of witnesses mustered together (in heb. 11.) or, if they will not serve the turn, take an example above all examples, an example, beyond all imaginable exceptions, even our blessed saviour jesus christ himself, concerning whom the author of the same epistle (it was st. paul, sure,) saith chap. 12. that for the joy which was set before him, despised the shame, and endured the cross, etc. 44. god knows, we have need of all manner of encouragements, and all little enough for us, so sluggish and , so perverse and obstinate are we: therefore for god's sake, upon any terms, continue in the service of christ, make use of all manner of advantages, and though ye find hope, or fear, predominate in you, (these servile affections, as they are commonly called) yet for all that, faint not, despair not, but rather give thanks to almighty god: and god who sees such good effect of his promises and threaten in you, (of which all the scripture is full from one end to the other) will in his good time fill your hearts full of his love, even that perfect love which casteth out fear, and of that perfect love which shall have no need of hope, he will perfect that his good work in you unto the end. 45. to conclude all: whether ye shall perform this commandment of christ, or whether ye shall not perform it, it cannot be avoided, everlasting habitations shall be your reward: only the difference is, whether ye will have them of your enemies providing, whether ye will be beholding to the devil and his angels, your ancient mortal enemies to prepare everlasting dwellings for you; and who can dwell in everlasting fire, (saith the prophet), who can dwell in continual burn? or, whether ye will expect them from the assistance of those just persons, whom you have by your good works eternally obliged to you, even those blessed and glorious habitations, which god the father almighty hath from the beginning of the world provided and furnished for you; which god the son by his meritorious death and passion hath purchased for you; and for the admission whereunto, god the holy ghost hath sanctified, and adorned you, that in thankfulness and gratitude you yourselves may become everlasting habitations, pure and undefiled temples for him to dwell in for ever and ever. now unto these glorious and everlasting habitations, god of his infinite mercy bring us, even for jesus christ his sake: to whom, with the father, etc. the seventh sermon. luke xix. 8. — and if i have defrauded any man by forged cavillation, i restore unto him four fold. the son of man (saith our saviour of himself in the end of this story) is come to seek and to save that which was lost. vers. 10. and how careful and solicitous he was in the discharge of this employment and business about which his father sent him; this story of zacchaeus (out of which my text is taken) will evidently and lively discover. for here we have a man, that among ten thousand one would think were the most unlikely to become a disciple of christ's, so indisposed he was for such a change, so unqualified in all respects. for first, he was rich, as the third verse tells us; and if that were all his fault, yet in our saviour's judgement, which was never uncharitable, being so clogged and burdened with these impedimenta (as even the heathens could call riches) it would be as hard for him to press through and enter in at the straight gate, without uneasing and freeing himself from them, as for a camel to go through the eye of a needle. 2. but secondly, these his riches, as it would seem, were scarce well and honestly gotten. for his trade and course of life, was a dangerous trade, obnoxious to great, almost irresistible, temptations: a great measure of grace, would be requisite to preserve a man incorrupt and undefiled in that course: and so ill a name he had gotten himself, that all that afterwards saw christ's familiarity with him, were much offended, and scandalised at it; for we read in the 7. verse, vers. 7. that when they all saw it, they murmured, saying, that he was gone in to lodge with a sinful man; with one famous and notorious for a great oppressor. 3. yet notwithstanding all this, such was the unspeakable mercy and goodness of christ, that even of this stone, so scorned and rejected of all the people, he raised a son unto abraham, as we find in the 9 verse. vers. 9 and to bring this to pass, he took occasion even from a vain curiosity of this zacchaeus, an humour of his, it may be such a one as afterward possessed herod (though god knows he had not the same success) namely, to see some strange work performed by christ, of whom he had heard so much talk. this opportunity, i say, our saviour took to perform an admirable miracle, even upon the man himself; and that he brought about by as unlikely a course, only with inviting himself to his house: by which unexpected affability and courtesy of our saviour, this so notorious and famous publican and sinner, was so surprised with joy and comfort, that presently he gives over all thought and consideration of his trade, as a thing of no moment; and being to receive christ into his house, and knowing how ill agreeing companions christ and mammon would prove in the same lodging; he resolves to sweep it and make it clean, for the entertaining of him; he empties it of that dross and dung wherewith before it was defiled; half of his estate goes away at a clap upon the poor, and the remainder, in all likelihood, is in great danger to be consumed by that noble and generous offer which he makes in the words of my text: whomsoever i have defrauded by forged cavillation, i restore, etc. 4. in which words i shall observe unto you these two general parts: division. first, a discovery, and, it may be, confession of his beloved bosom sin, the sin of his trade, in these words: if i have defrauded any man, or whomsoever i have defrauded. secondly, satisfaction tendered in the words following: i restore unto him four fold. in the former general, we may take notice of two particulars: 1. zacchaeus his willingness and readiness of his own accord to discover and confess his sin, when he said, whomsoever i have defrauded. and, 2. the nature and heinousness of the crime discovered, which is called a defrauding by forged cavillation; or, as some translations read, with false accusation. in the second general likewise (which is the satisfaction tendered by zacchaeus) there offer themselves two particulars more, namely, 1. so much of the satisfaction as was necessary to be performed, by virtue of an indispensable precept, and that is restitution in these words, i restore unto him. 2. that which was voluntary and extraordinary namely, the measure and excess of this restitution, which he professeth should be four fold. of these two parts therefore, with their several particulars in the same order as they have been proposed, briefly, and with all the plainness and perspicuity i can imagine: and, 1. of the former general, and therein of the first particular, namely, zacchaeus his readiness to confess his sin, in these words: if i, etc. 5. i said even now only, general. i. it may be this was a confession of his crime; but now i will be more resolute, partic. 1. and tell you peremptorily, this was a confession: for without all question, zacchaeus, as the case stood now with him, was in no humour of justifying himself, he had no mind to boast his integrity in his office: or, if he had, he might be sure that common fame (if that were all, yet that alone) might be a sufficient argument, at least too great a presumption against him, to confute him. but to put it out of question: our saviour himself, by applying the 10. verse of this chapter to him, acknowledgeth him for a sinful undone man; one that had so far lost himself in the wand'ring mazes of this wicked world, that unless christ himself had taken the pains to search and inquire after him, and having found him, by the power and might of his grace to rescue and recover him from the error of his ways, by restoring him his eyes, whereby he might take notice towards what a dangerous precipice he was hastening, there had been no possibility but at last he must have needs fallen headlong into the gulf of destruction. 6. now it being, i suppose, evident, that zacchaeus was guilty, and that in a high degree, and openly and scandalously guilty of the crime here discovered: there is no doubt to be made, but that he who was so willing to unlock and disperse his ill gotten treasures, would not begin to divert his covetousness upon his sins, he would not hoard them up, but would place his glory even in his shame; and whereas he had been the servant and slave of sins, he would wear his shackles and fetters, as signs of the glorious victory, which through christ he had won, and emblems of that blessed change which he found in himself, being rescued from the basest slavery that possibly can be imagined, into the glorious liberty of the sons of god. 7. but it may be, you will say, suppose zacchaeus did freely and voluntarily confess his sin to christ, who had authority to forgive him his sins, though he had never discovered them: what collection shall be made from hence? zacchaeus might be as bold as he would with himself; but as for us, his example shall be no rule to us; we thank god this is popery in these days, and since we have freed ourselves from this burden, we will not be brought into bondage to any man; we will confess our sins, i warrant you, only to god, who is only able to forgive us them; as for the minister, it may be, we will sometimes be beholding to him to speak some comfortable words now and then to us, when we are troubled in conscience, and we have not been taught to go any further. 8. i confess i find no great inclination in myself, especially being in the pulpit, to undertake a controversy, even where it may seem to offer itself, much less to press and strain a text for it, for i desire to have no adversaries in my preaching, but only the devil and sin. only having now mentioned confession, and considering how much the doctrine of our holy mother the church hath been traduced, not only by the malice and detraction of our professed enemies of the church of rome, but also by the suspicious ignorance and partiality of her own children; who out of a liking of the zeal, or rather fury, of some former protestant writers, have laid this for a ground of stating controversies of our religion: that that is to be acknowledged for the doctrine of these reformed churches, which is most opposite and contradicting to the church of rome. so that, as the case goes now, controversies of religion are turned into private quarrels, and it is not so much the truth that is sought after, as the salving and curing the reputation of particular men. 9 these things therefore considered, truly for my part, i dare not take upon me so much to gratify the papists, as to think myself obliged to maintain many incommodious speeches of some of our divines in this point. hoc ithacus velit & magno mercentur atridae— they will never be unfurnished of matter to write books to the world's end, if this shall be the method of stating controversies. oh what an impregnable cause should we have against the church of rome, if we ourselves did not help to weaken and betray it, by mixing therewith the interests and conceits of particular men. 10. give me therefore leave, i pray you, to give you the state of the question, and the doctrine of our church, in the words of one who both now is, and for ever will worthily be accounted, the glory of this kingdom. bishop usher's ans. to the jesuit. cap. of confession. p. 84. be it known (saith he) to our adversaries of rome, (i add also, to our adversaries even of great britain, who sell their private fancies for the doctrine of our church) that no kind of confession, either public or private, is disallowed by our church, that is any way requisite for the due execution of that ancient power of the keys, which christ bestowed upon his church." the thing which we reject, is that new picklock of sacramental confession obtruded upon men's consciences, as a matter necessary to salvation, by the canons of the late conventicle of trent in the 14. session. 11. and this truth being so evident in scripture, and in the writings of the ancient best times of the primitive church, the safest interpreters of scripture, i make no question, but there will not be found one person amongst you, who when he shall be in a calm unpartial disposition, that will offer to deny: for, i beseech you, give yourselves leave unpartially to examine your own thoughts. can any man be so unreasonable as once to imagine with himself, that when our saviour after his resurrection, having received (as himself saith) all power in heaven and earth, having led captivity captive, came then to bestow gifts upon men: when he, i say, in so solemn a manner (having first breathed upon his disciples, thereby conveying and insinuating the holy, ghost into their hearts) renewed unto them, or rather confirmed and sealed unto them that glorious commission, which before he had given to peter, sustaining, as it were the person of the whole church; whereby he delegated to them an authority of binding and losing sins upon earth, with a promise, that the proceed in the court of heaven, should be directed and regulated by theirs on earth: can any man, i say, think so unworthily of our saviour, as to esteem these words of his for no better than compliment; for nothing but court-holy-water? 12. yet so impudent have our adversaries of rome been in their deal with us, that they have dared to lay to our charge; as if we had so mean a conceit of our saviour's gift of the keys, taking advantage indeed from the unwary expressions of some particular divines, who out of too forward a zeal against the church of rome, have bended the staff too much the contrary way; and in stead of taking away that intolerable burden of a sacramental, necessary, universal confession, have seemed to void and frustrate all use and exercise of the keys. 13. now, that i may apply something of that, which hath now been spoken, to your hearts and consciences. matters standing as you see they do; since christ, for your benefit and comfort, hath given such authority to his ministers upon your unfeigned repentance and contrition, to absolve and release you from your sins: why should i doubt, or be unwilling to exhort and persuade you, to make your advantage of thi● gracious promise of our saviour's? why should i envy you the participation of so heavenly a blessing? truly, if i should deal thus with you, i should prove myself a malicious, unchristianlike, malignant preacher; i should wickedly and unjustly, against my own conscience, seek to defraud you of those glorious blessings, which our saviour hath intended for you. 14. therefore, in obedience to his gracious will, and as i am warranted, and even enjoined, by my holy mother the church of england expressly, in the book of common-prayer, in the rubric of visiting the sick (which doctrine this church hath likewise embraced so far) i beseech you, that by your practice and use, you will not suffer that commission, which christ hath given to his ministers, to be a vain form of words, without any sense under them, not to be an antiquated, exspired commission, of no use nor validity in these days: but whensoever you find yourselves charged and oppressed, especially with such crimes as they call peccata vastantia conscientiam, such as do lay waste and depopulate the conscience, that you would have recourse to your spiritual physician, and freely disclose the nature and malignancy of your disease, that he may be able, as the cause shall require, to proportion a remedy either to search it with corrosives, or comfort and temper it with oil. and come not to him, only with such a mind as you would go to a learned man experienced in the scriptures, as one that can speak comfortable quieting words to you, but as to one that hath authority delegated to him from god himself, to absolve and acquit you of your sins. if you shall do this, assure your souls, that the understanding of man, is not able to conceive that transport and excess of joy and comfort which shall accrue to that man's heart, that is persuaded, that he hath been made partaker of this blessing, orderly and legally, according as out saviour christ hath prescribed. 15. you see, i have dealt honestly and freely with you; it may be more freely than i shall be thanked for: but i should have sinned against my own soul, if i had done otherwise; i should have conspired with our adversaries of rome against our own church, in affording them such an advantage to blaspheme our most holy and undefiled religion. it becomes you now, though you will not be persuaded to like of the practice of what, out of an honest heart, i have exhorted you to; yet for your own sakes, not to make any uncharitable construction of what hath been spoken. and here i will acquit you of this unwelcome subject, and from zacchaeus his confession of his sin, i proceed to my second particular, namely, the nature and heinousness of the crime confessed, which is here called a defrauding another by forged cavillation. 16. the crime here confessed, is called in greek, sycophancy; partic. ii. for the words are, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. for the understanding of which word in this place, we shall not need so much to be beholden to the classical greek authors, as to the septuagint, who are the best interpreters of the idiom of the greek language in the evangelical writings. two reasons of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are given, the one by ister in atticis, the other by philomnestus de smynthiis rhodiis, both recorded by athenaeus in that treasury of ancient learning, his deipnosophists, in the third book: which because they are of no great use for the interpretation of s. luke, i willingly omit. 17. now there are four several words in the hebrew, which the seventy interpreters have rendered in the old testament by the word, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and the verbal thereof 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. one whereof signifies to abalienate or wrest any thing from another by fraud and sophistry, opposed to another word in the same language, which imports to rob by plain open force and violence, job 25.9. psal. 119.121. prov. 28.3. eccles. 4.1. psal. 71.4 prov. 14.33. levit. 29.11. job. 25.9. psal. 119.121. prov. 28.3. eccles. 4.1. as likewise in psal. 71.4. prov. 14.33. a second word signifies to deal captiously and fallaciously with another, levit. 29.11. a third implies, a punishment or mulct, which (as the latin word mulcta will bear it) is either inflicted on the body or the purse. and the last signifies, to circumvent, or rather indeed to roll himself upon another, gen. 43.18. gen. 43.18. 18. out of all which expressions in the hebrew compounded together, we may extract a full sense of the crime here confessed by zacchaeus, and rendered in the greek original by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, (especially if we have respect to zacchaeus his office and trade of life, which was to be a master of the publicans in that part of the country where he lived, i one who had chief authority in receiving the rents and customs due from thence to the empire): zacchaeus his crime therefore (as may likewise be collected from that counsel which s. john the baptist gave to the publicans who came to his baptism; which was, that they should exact no more than was their due): his crime, i say, was to wring and extort from his poor countrymen, either by fraud and false suggestions, or by violence, more than was due from them to the empire: to enrich his private coffers by the spoils of the miserable inhabitants; to roll himself upon them and overwhelm them, by exactions for his private benefit: for that end, pretending the rights and necessities of state, and thereto tentering and streining to the uttermost, that power and authority wherewith he was invested from rome. 19 these kind of officers, though they were of good reputation with the romans, as we may collect out of several orations of cicero, for by their place they had the privilege to be reckoned amongst the equites romani; yet in the countries wherein they lived, especially in jewry, a tenacious covetous nation, they were the most odious persons upon the earth: insomuch as the very name of a publican was grown into a proverb, expressing a person that deserved at all men's hands infamy and hatred. this therefore was zacchaeus his crime, this is that which he calls by as odious a name, of sycophancy. but to leave this general discourse of the name (for in your behalves, i am weary of an argument so useless to you). i will now try, what advantage every one of us may make from zacchaeus his behaviour this place. 20. you see here zacchaeus (though he was a man exalted above the ordinary rank of men, use 1 yet he) deals something plainly and homely with himself, when he can afford himself no better a name than sycophant: a title of so odious and hateful a signification, that the devil himself has not got so disgraceful a name as that: for he is called but satan, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, as the holy ghost himself interprets it an accuser of the brethren. and though even that be a sufficient crime; yet it is counted a more plausible generous sin, out of hatred, and rancour, and ill-nature by false accusations, to endeavour the subversion of ones enemy, than by base delating and informing, only for the hope of a little gain to himself, to procure the overthrow of his neighbour's estate and reputation; which is the condition of a sycophant. 21. from hence then we may be taught how differently we ought to behave ourselves in the discovery of our own, and other men's sins. if our brother hath offended, we are to soften and qualify his sin, to think charitably of him notwithstanding; and to frame to ourselves excuses, that the matter may not be so bad as is generally supposed; as likewise hope, that hereafter, by a reformed life, he may redeem and cancel his forepast transgressions. and so we see even john baptist himself (though a man of no plausible courtlike behaviour yet) giving his advice to these publicans, he would only call that an exacting more than was due, which zacchaeus here in himself most boisterously terms sycophancy. whereas towards ourselves, we must be tetrical and almost uncharitable; we must not break our own heads with precious balm, as the psalmist speaketh, that is, by softened oilily excuses aggravate and assist our own disease. 22. secondly consider, that zacchaeus his sin, use 2 which he deals so roughly and discourteously with all here, was his beloved bosom sin, the sin of his trade and course of life; a sin, in whose company and society, he had always been brought up; his peccatum, heb. 12.1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (as s. paul most elegantly calls it) the sin that doth so easily b●set him, or rather, that doth so well and fitly encompass him, that doth so exactly suit with him. for ordinarily, every man hath some one particular sin, that sits his humour better, and sits closer to him, like a well made garment, than any other. (and i think this expression renders s. paul's peccatum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, reasonably well.) other sins are either too straight for him, and do continually vex and gird him, so that he can take but little comfort in them: and such are sins against a man's constitution and temper: as for example, one act of adultery, though for the time pleasant, would yet afterwards more torment and afflict a covetous man's conscience, than the devouring, it may be, of a whole country. or else they hang lose about him, so that though they be easy and delightful sometimes, yet to wear them continually, would prove tedious and irksome. but his dearly respected sin, is good company at all times for him; and, so he may have leave to enjoy but that, he cares not much what becomes of all the rest. 23. as for instance, that i may press a little nearer to your consciences. put the case there were any one in this company, a covetous oppressing person, such a one as zacchaeus, i'll warrant, he would have been content, that i should rather have taken any text in the bible than this: he would have been pleased, nay, even rejoiced, to hear me inveigh bitterly against any other sin besides: yea, he would willingly, in his own thoughts have joined with me against any man living; for thereby he would be apt to justify himself in his own eyes, and to say in his thoughts, the preacher indeed is very earnest in god's behalf against some body, but i thank god i am righteous all this while, i am not at all concerned in it: nay, it may be, he would have been content to have taken my part even against himself too, in any other sin besides this. 24. but now, that i begin to set myself against his darling, only favourite sin, the delight of his soul, and, as it were, the breath of his nostrils, he will by no means endure it. what? (thinks he) is there not room enough in all the old and new testament for this preacher to exspatiate in; are there not a thousand precepts, and almost as many stories in the bible, and must he needs single out this? am i the only person that he must aim at? or, if he would needs be meddling with me, could he not spare me, at least, in this one small sin? let him do his worst to the rest of my sins; let him draw blood from me in any other place besides this: but this is a very sucking of my heart's blood; it is a renting to my bowels. the lord surely will be merciful to me in this sin only; lo, is it not a little one, and my soul shall live in pleasure and happiness. and such thoughts as these would the lascivious person have entertained, if i had light upon his text; and so the rest. 25. but as for our new convert zacchaeus, (and i beseech you let him be herein your example) he deals not so mercifully, no not with his dearly loved sin of oppression: no, he is so far from that, that as if, in all other respects, he had been the most innocent holy man alive; he cannot remember, that his conscience is troubled with any sin besides: all his aim and spite is directed against this only sin, which having rooted out of his heart, he supposes he shall then be worthy to entertain his new invited blessed guest. 26. and to say the truth, if a heart once enlightened by grace, find so much courage, as to be able to prevail against his peccatum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, it will be an easy secure skirmish and resistance that all the rest will afford him: hereupon, saith our saviour to the pharisees who were covetous, if you give your riches to the poor, all things shall become pure unto you: as if he should say, this sin of covetousness, is the main chain whereby the devil holds you captive at his pleasure; strain and force yourselves only to break this chain, and then you shall be free indeed in perfect liberty; all your other sins will be only to you as the green with'hs were to samson, even as threads of t●w that have smelled the fire. 27. pertinent to this may that saying of our saviour's be in the 13. of s. john's gospel; where giving his disciples a blessed example of humility, in vouchsafing to wash their feet; when it came to s. peter's turn, he would by no means endure it. but after our saviour had somewhat sharply rebuked him; well, says he, since thou wilt descend so far, as to wash me, joh. 13.9. lord, not my feet only, but my hands and my head: leave not the work unperfect, since thou wilt begin to cleanse and sanctify me; perfect this thy good work unto the end. our saviour replies, he that is washed, vers. 10. needeth not, save to wash his feet, but is clean every whit. as if he should say, if thou wilt take so much care, as to cleanse and purify such parts as by continual exercise and travel, are most subject to be defiled, it will be an easy matter to preserve thyself pure through all the rest. thus zacchaeus having searched out the head and fountain, whence all those noisome lusts which appeared in his life, did flow, he supposes he shall sufficiently purify the streams thence issuing; if he can once cleanse the spring. which he proceeds to perform, in my second general; which is the satisfaction by him tendered in lieu of his former oppressions, in these words, i restore unto him four fold. in the handling of which, i will according to my promise begin with the first particular thereof, namely, so much of this satisfaction, as is necessary to be performed by virtue of an indispensable precept, which is of restitution, in these words; i restore unto him. 28. there is a doctrine blown about and dispersed by a sort of preachers in the reformed churches, general ii. partic. i. and greedily embraced by their followers and proselytes, because they are persuaded, that themselves are the most interested in it; which teacheth, that, no man has any right or propriety in the goods and riches which he possesseth, unless he be one of gods elect faithful servants. so that those who are resolved to account themselves in this number, and to exclude from this society, all others who suit not with their humours; such, i say, are apt too forwardly to think all others no better than usurpers of their patrimony and inheritance. the dangerous effects and consequences of which doctrine, (especially where power has not been wanting to make the best use and advantage of it) was woefully discovered in those tumults, which not very long since were raised in germany, especially in westphalia, about the city of munster. 29. this doctrine i suppose was borrowed especially from the jesuits, who, upon the same grounds, have entitled their catholic king to almost all the western parts of the world; whereby many millions of poor souls have been most unhumanely and barbarously massacred, to make way for the supposed right owners the spaniards, as we find testified with horror and detestation, even by many ingenuous honest-hearted writers of their own nation. 30. neither the time nor my text will allow me leisure to stand long upon the confuting of this pernicious doctrine, i will only oppose to it that saying of the psalmist, the earth is the lords, but he hath given it to the children of men: no man alive, hath any right in the goods of this world, but only by a gift from god: and by his gift, all the children of men, without exception, are instated in it; so that no pretence of religion or election can be sufficient for any one to disseise another man, of what condition or quality soever he be, that is once legally possessed of them. 31. therefore, whosoever he be, that whether by fraud, or violence, or any other title, shall invade, or usurp upon the rights of another, he does, as much as in him lies, without any warrant, nullify the gift of god, and takes upon him to oppose and thwart his most wise providence; setting up himself as it were in god's seat, and dethroning him, establishing a new order of providence of his own. and thinkest thou that dost these things, that thou shalt escape the judgement of god? canst thou imagine, that he will patiently endure to see his judgements reversed, or his mercies evacuated by thee? that whereas he hath said, i will bless this man, and enlarge his bounds upon the earth; thou shouldest take upon thee to say on the other side, let god deal as mercifully as he pleaseth to this man; but i know what i am resolved of, i am determined to crush and grind him to powder; i am resolved that his children shall beg at my gates, and not be satisfied; they shall bow unto me, and not be regarded. what a wretched unworthy opinion must such a one, of necessity, entertain of god? 32. and i beseech you, do not think that this is only a rhetorical forced streining of a point. the holy ghost will tell you as much in express terms, prov. 14.31. & 17 5. prov 14.31. and again, prov. 17.5. he that oppresseth the poor, reproacheth his maker. he sets his mark and brand of infamy almost upon all gods glorious attributes; as if god had not power enough to maintain the poor-man against his adversary; as if he had not wisely enough dispensed his blessings; as if he would not suffer god to extend his mercies but upon whom himself shall please; and so of the rest. 33. but i will now, for your sakes, transgress something the limits of my text, and whereas i should only meddle with the unlawfulness of detaining goods gotten by oppression and sycophancy, i will make the subject more general in this proposition, which i beseech you heedfully to attend, and hereafter seriously to consider of: this therefore i say and testify, doct. that whosoever he be, whose conscience shall convince him, that he hath gained any thing by an unlawful course, if he resolve not to restore it, and die in that resolution, it is impossible he should be saved. for the confirming of which proposition, instead of many, almost infinite, unanswerable reasons, i will only make use of two, each of them drawn from the impossibility in such a man of performing two duties, most necessarily required at every man's hands that professeth christianity; the one whereof is, prayer; the second, repentance. 34. concerning prayer, i will demonstrate, that he can neither seriously give god thanks for bestowing upon him those riches which he calls blessings; nor secondly, desire god's blessing upon those riches. for the first, without question, if such a one shall dare to open his mouth to give god thanks for his riches, it will prove to him a greater sin than the unjust unlawful gathering of them, as the psalmist saith, his very prayers shall be turned into sin; for thereby he will entitle the just righteous god unto his abominable sin. dares such a man, with any confidence, give thanks to almighty god for suffering him to be his enemy in oppressing and persecuting, it may be, god's faithful beloved servants; for suffering him to be an instrument of the devils? therefore, if there be any such that hear me this day, (yet i hope, nay, i am almost confident, there is not) but, and if there be, let me beseech him, that of all things in the world, he will take heed of giving thanks, let him rather proceed on blindly in his sin, and put out of his mind all thought and consideration of god; for never any heathen could offer him such an indignity as this, no not epicurus nor diagoras himself. 35. in the second place: how can such a one desire god to bless unto him, and increase those riches so unjustly gotten? will he say, lord make it appear unto the world, by blessing me in these my ungodly courses that thou likest well of them, and that thou hast been of conspiracy with me in all mine ungracious projects; so shall the godly quickly be rooted out of the earth, for every one will take advantage to wrong another; if thou wilt bless me, every one will be ready to tread in my steps. we see a man in such a state cannot seriously pray no kind of prayer, unless he purpose to mock god to his face, so that he has defrauded himself of one necessary means of salvation: but that which follows is of greater importance yet. 36. there is nothing wherein a man (that is resolved not to part with goods unlawfully gathered) can dead with more despiteful petulancy and uncivility with god, then by offering to pretend to an unfeigned repentance. it is much like the behaviour of charles the fifth unto god, who caused public prayers and processions to be made unto god for the delivery of the pope in spain, whom himself at the same time detained prisoner in his own castle st. angelo, with a resolution that howsoever those prayers wrought with god to pity his vicar, yet till he had concluded conditions for his own advantage with him, he should never be released: just such another interlude, and fantastical pageant must this man's repentance be. 37. he will say, perhaps: lord, i confess, i cannot justify those ways and courses whereby i procured my wealth; it may be, to make way for my excess and superfluity many a poor soul (yet richer in thy grace and favour than myself) has been forced almost to starve for penury and want, it may be, there are store of orphans and widows that are importunate upon thee for vengeance against my unchristian profession; and i acknowledge, that for my demerits i am liable to be forced to drink the very dregs of thy fierce wrath and indignation for ever. i will therefore rely and cast myself upon thy mercy and pity, which yet, if i cannot purchase without the loss and restitution of my ill gotten wealth, i will rather adventure upon thy fury; and though i know it to be a fearful thing and insupportable misery to fall into thy hands, as into the hands of an enemy and pursuer; yet upon no manner of conditions will i part with my riches; no, not though i were now upon my deathbed, being out of all hopes of ever enjoying any comfort and pleasure myself from them, and within few hours expecting to be conveyed into my everlasting prison: yet rather than my son, or my kinsman (who even after restitution made of what is unlawfully got, might perhaps have remaining to him sufficient to maintain him plentifully in this world) yet rather than he shall abate any thing of that vanity and superfluity which my excess of wealth will be able to bear, i will endanger the forfeiture of my inheritance in the land of the living. 38. but it may be, you will say, that it is an impossible thing for any man that pretends to christianity, to have such thoughts in him as these. object. 1 i confess, it is a hard thing for a man to make such a formal distinct discourse with himself as this was: but consider, sol. whether such a man's thoughts (which at an exigence, like this, are confused and tumultuous) yet if they were reduced into order and method, consider, i say, whether they would not be digested into a sense and meaning equivalent unto that which before i expressed; so that god who knows the bent and inclination of his heart (much better than himself) he will display and discover them distinctly and legibly before his eyes, and will proceed against him, as if he had behaved himself towards him after such an unworthy, more than atheistical, fashion. 39 but again, it is possible, i may be replied upon, object. 2 and have the case put, that a man who hath unrighteously oppressed or defrauded his neighbour, has not means enough left to make satisfaction by restoring. and that is no extraordinary example, that goods ill got should have by the justice of god wings given them to fly away, and escape out of the hands of the purchasers: shall such men, because they are not able to restore, be concluded in such a desperate estate as before i have mentioned? no, god forbidden! if in such circumstances a man shall be unfeignedly sorry for his misdeeds, and withal resolve, if god shall hereafter bless him with abilities, sol. to make restitution, our merciful god will accept of that good inclination of his heart, as if he had perfectly satisfied and restored to each man his due: for without all question, god will never condemn any man because he is not rich. 40. if it shall be again questioned, and the supposition made, that a man (for example, object. 3 a tradesman) cannot possibly call to remembrance each particular man's name whom he hath wronged, (as indeed, it is almost impossible he should) what advice shall he take in such a case? i answer, that he must in this case consider, sol. that by this sin, he hath not only wronged his neighbour, but god also; therefore since he cannot find out the one, let him repay it to the other: let him be so charitable, and do that kindness to god, as to bestow it in alms upon his poor servants: or, since god himself is grown so poor and needy, (especially in this kingdom) that he hath not means enough to repair his own houses, nor scarce to make them habitable, he may do well to rescue god's churches from being habitations of beasts, and stables for : or lastly, which more concerns you, since god is here grown so much out of purse, that he has not means enough to pay his own servants wages equal to the meanest of your household servants, let not them any longer be the mocking-stocks of those canaanites, your enemies, that so swarm in your land; here is a subject fit indeed for your charity: and a miserable case it is, god knows, that they should be the persons, who of all conditions of men should stand in greatest need of your mercy and charity. 41. oh! but will some man say: we have found now at what the preacher aimeth: all this ado about restitution is only to enrich the clergy. if such thoughts and jealousies as these arise in your hearts, (as i know, by experience, it is no unlikely thing they should) oh then, i beseech you, for the mercies of god, consider in what a miserable state the church must needs be, when the most likely course to keep the ministers of god from starving must be your sins: when those to whom you have committed your souls in trust, as they that must give god an account for them, shall through want and penury be rendered so heartless and low-spirited, that for fear of your anger, and danger of starving, they shall not dare to interrupt or hinder you, when you run headlong in the paths that lead you to destruction: when out of faint-heartedness they shall not dare to take notice, no, not of the most scandalous sins of their patrons, but, which is worst, be the most forward officious parasites to soothe them in their crimes, and cry peace unto them, when god and their own consciences tell them that they are utter strangers from it, and neither do, nor are ever likely to know the ways of peace: lastly, when these messengers of god shall be the most ready to tell you, that those possessions and tithes which have been wrested out of god's hands are none of god's due, that they are none of the church's patrimony; that their right is nothing but your voluntary alms and charitable benevolence, and that they shall think themselves sufficiently and liberally dealt withal, if you shall account them worthy to be the companions of the basest & meanest of your servants. i could almost be silent in this cause, did not our enemies in gath know of it, and if it were not published in the streets of askalon, insomuch, that you have given cause to the enemies of god to blaspheme our glorious and undefiled religion. 42. i will conclude this doctrine of restitution most necessary certainly to be prosecuted in these times, only with proposing to your considerations two motives, which in all reason ought to persuade you to the practice of it: the one shall be, that you would do it for your own sakes; the other, for your children's sake. for the former; though i could never be scanted of arguments sufficient to enforce it, though i should make it the subject of my sermons to my lives end, yet because, i perceive, it is time for me to hasten to your release, i will only desire you to remember how much i have told you already, that this doctrine concerns you, since it is impossible for any man while he is guilty of the breach of this duty, to put in practice even the most necessary and indispensable precepts of christian religion. 43. but concerning the second motive, which i desire should induce to the practice of restitution, namely, that you should be persuaded to it even for your children's sake, i beseech you, take this seriously into your consideration. that whereas, it may be, you may think that by heaping wealth, howsoever purchased, upon your heirs, you shall sufficiently provide for them against all casualties, yet, that god also hath his treasures in store to countervail yours, and to provide so, that your heirs shall take but little content, god knows, in all their abundance: for, as it is in job. 20.8. god will lay up the iniquity of sinners for their children, i.e. he will not satisfy himself with wreaking vengeance of other men's wrongs upon your heads that have done them, but will take care also, that your children shall be no gainers by the bargain: therefore, as you desire the welfare of those for whose sake especially, you dare adventure to hazard even your own souls, bequeath not to them for a legacy a canker and moth, that will assuredly consume and devour all your riches: take pity of those poor souls who are nothing interessed in their own persons in those crimes wherewith their wealth was purchased, and leave not unto them a curse from god upon their inheritance. but, i see, i must be forced even abruptly to break from this argument of restitution; i come therefore, briefly, to my last particular, namely, the excess and extraordinary measure of zacchaeus his restitution, which he professeth shall be , to be dispatched in one word. 44. however i found it something a hard task to clear my first particular of confession, from the danger and neighbourhood of popery, yet, partic. 2 i fear, that in most men's opinions, it will prove more difficult to do as much for this: for here is an action performed by zacchaeus, (namely, object. fourfold restitution) without all question, good and acceptable to god, and yet not enjoined by virtue of any commandment, and, what is that, but plain popish super-erogation? for, the judicial law of restoring fourfold, is only in strictness and propriety applicable to plain direct stealing. 45. i confess, that some particular men, for fear of this consequence, sol. have thought themselves obliged to descent not only from st. paul's distinction of counsels from precepts in the gospel, but also from the general uniform consent of all antiquity: whereas, if we shall well consider it, they have feared where no fear was: for, our churches never condemned that distinction, as if there were danger from thence of making way for popery: but this is that abomination of a more than pharisaical self-justifying pride in the church of rome, that upon so weak a foundation they have most inartificially erected their babel of super-erogation, whereby they teach that they cannot only through the whole course of their lives exactly perform all the commandments of god, without offending in any one mortal sin; by this means challenging at god's hands remission of their sins, and everlasting salvation for themselves; but also by their voluntary unrequired obedience unto evangelical counsels, leave god in arrearages unto them, and make an extraordinary stock of merits, which shall be left unto the pope's care and providence to manage, and dispense to any man's use for ready money. this is that doctrine which the church of england, in express words, most worthily professeth a detestation unto, in their 14th article, which hath been transcribed into the 45th of this church. and yet for all this, neither of these churches have any quarrel to that distinction of st. paul, (when speaking of voluntary chastity, he saith, i have received no such commandment from the lord, 1 cor. 7.25. yet i give my advice or counsel,) as hath been excellently discovered by the late incomparable bishop of winchester in his resp. ad apologiam. 46. and now though i have gone through and quite absolved my text, yet i can scarce think my sermon finished, till i have endeavoured to make it beneficial unto you by applying it to your consciences and practise: but when i should come to that, i confess, i find these times wherein we live so indisposed for such an application, that i know not which way to begin with you: for, shall i seriously enjoin you, as by a precept from god, that where you have unjustly oppressed, or cunningly and closely defrauded your neighbour, that you should, as zacchaeus did here, restore unto him ? no, i dare not adventure so far, i have received no such commandment from the lord: and then, i should be guilty of that which was an unjust accusation laid upon moses and aaron, ye take too much upon you ye sons of levi. 47. shall i then endeavour to persuade you to conform yourselves to this pattern of zacchaeus, as to a counsel? alas the times are such, that well were we if as some have turned all counsels into precepts, that the same men would not at least in their practice convert all precepts into counsel: if they would not think that the moral legal precepts were antiquated and dissolved by bringing in the new covenant of grace! or, if not quite abrogated, yet left so arbitrary, that they should become matters of no necessary importance and consequence, duties, which if we shall perform, we shall thereby approve our gratitude and thankfulness unto god our saviour; and yet, if by chance they be left undone, since they are esteemed no necessary conditions of the new-covenant, there is no great danger as long as we can keep a spark of faith alive, as long as we can persuade ourselves that we have a firm persuasion of god's mercy in christ to ourselves in particular (which kind of newly invented faith, an adversary of our church pleasantly, and i fear too truly defines, when he says, dr. carrier in his epistle to k. james. it is nothing but a strong fancy. 48. these things therefore considered, i will leave the application of zacchaeus his extraordinary restitution to your own consciences, according as god and your own souls shall agree together: only i beseech you, not to make a counsel of restitution in general, but to free yourselves from the burden and weight of other men's riches, lest they over-leaven and swell you so unmeasurably, that you shall not be able to press in at that strait gate, which would lead you unto those blessed and glorious habitations which christ hath purchased for you, not with these corruptible things of silver and gold, but with his own precious blood: unto which habitations god of his infinite mercy bring us all, for the same our lord jesus christ his sake, to whom with the father, etc. the eighth sermon. gal. v 5. for we through the spirit, wait for the hope of righteousness by faith. this day the wisdom of the ancient primitive, and, i think, apostolic church hath dedicated to the memory of an epiphany, or apparition of a miraculous star, which was sent to guide the magis, or wisemen of the east, to the place where our saviour was born. but suppose there were such a star seen, and three men of the east conducted by it; must all the christian world presently fall a rejoicing for it? there was reason indeed, that they should be exceeding glad, but shall we therefore lose a whole day's labour by it. to say the truth, there is no reason for it: therefore either better grounds must be found out for our rejoicing, or it were well done to make christmas a day shorter hereafter. 2. but for all this, if we well consider it, we gentiles might better spare any holiday in the year than this; for there is none besides this, properly our own, but the jews will challenge an equal interest in it. the appearing of the star, then, is the least part of the solemnity of this day: for a greater and more glorious light than the star this day arose unto us, even that so long expected light which was to lighten the gentiles, which was to give light to them which sat in darkness, and in the shadow of death, and to guide our feet in the way of peace. this day, as s. paul saith, tit. 11.12. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, there was an epiphany likewise of the grace of god, to wit, the gospel; which now, as on this day, began to bring salvation, not to the jews only, but to all men, even to us sinners of the gentiles, of whom those three wise men were the first fruits. and, to say the truth, the appearing of christ himself, unless he had brought with him this light to lighten the gentiles in his hand, had not been sufficient to make a solemn day for us. the star then was not that light, but it was sent to bear witness of that light, namely, the gospel, the glory whereof fills my text fuller than the majesty of god ever filled the temple. for here we have the whole nature of the gospel comprehended and straitened within the narrow compass of my text, yet no part of it left out; yea, we have not only the gospel discovered by its own light as it is in itself, but in comparison with those twinkling cloudy stars of jewish ordinances, and that once glorious, but now eclipsed light, the law of works: since then, this is the day which the lord hath made for us, we will rejoice and be glad in it, and we will be ready to hearken, especially to any thing that shall be spoken concerning our epiphany; concerning that blessed light, for many ages removed out of our sight, and as on this day beginning to appear in our horizon. 3. the words of my text, i find so full and swelling with expression, so fruitful and abounding in rich sense, that i am almost sorry i have said so much of them to fit them to this day: but, in recompense, i will spare the labour of showing their dependence and connexion with the preceding part of the epistle, and consider them as a lose severed thesis. in which is contained, not only the sum and extract of this epistle, but likewise of christian religion in general, in opposition both to the mosaical law given to the jews; and the law of works, called also the moral natural law, which from the beginning of the world hath been assented to, and written in the hearts of all mankind. the sense of which words, if they were enlarged, may be this. we christians, by the tenor and prescript of our religion, expect the hope of righteousness, i. the reward which we hope for by righteousness; not as those, vain teachers newly sprung up among you galatians, would have us, by obedience unto the carnal ceremonial law of moses; but through the spirit, i. by a spiritual worship; neither by performing the old covenant of works, which we are not able to fulfil, but by faith, by such an obedience as is prescribed unto us in the gospel. we through the spirit wait, etc. 4. in these words then, which comprehend the complete essence of the covenant of grace, we may consider, first, the conditions on man's part required, in these words, through the spirit, and by faith. secondly, upon the performance of our duty, there follows god's promise, or the condition which god will make good unto us, and that is, the hope of righteousness, or justification. in the former part, namely, the obedience which is required from us christians, we may consider it, first, in opposition to the mosaical law, by these words, through the spirit; which import, that it is not such an outward carnal obedience, as moses his law required; but an internal spiritual worship of the heart and soul. secondly, the opposition of this new covenant, to the old covenant of works, in these words, by faith; which signify, that we do not hope for salvation by the works of the law, but by the righteousness of faith or the gospel. in the second general, we may likewise observe, first, the nature of justification, which comprehends the promises which god has been pleased to propose to us as the reward of our obedience. secondly, the interest which we christians in this life after we have performed our duties, may have in these promises, which is hope, expressed in these words, we wait for the hope, etc. of these— 5. first then of the covenant of grace, as it is distinguished from the mosaical law by these words: through the spirit. where we will consider the nature of the jewish law, and wherein it is distinguished from the christian. when almighty god, with a high hand and a stretched out arm, had rescued the people of israel from the egyptian slavery, and brought them in safety into the wilderness, intending then to settle and reduce them into good order and government himself, and, by common voluntary consent, they all agree to submit themselves to whatsoever laws he shall prescribe unto them, as we find exod. 19 from 3d to the 9th verse. exod. 19.3, etc. judg. 8. so that afterwards, judg. 8. when the people, after an unexpected glorious victory obtained by gideon, would have made him a king, and have settled the government in his house: no, v 23. saith gideon, (v. 23.) i will not rule over you, neither shall my son, rule over you, the lord shall rule over you. and likewise afterward when samuel complained to god of the perverseness of the people, who were weary of his government, and would have a king, as the nations round about them had: thou art deceived, saith god, it is my government that they are weary of; they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, and now are risen up in rebellion against me, to depose me from that dominion which with their free consents i assumed: for which intolerable base ingratitude of that nation, in his wrath he gives them a king, he appoints his successor, which revenged those injuries and indignities offered to almighty god, to the uttermost upon them. 6. now during the time of god's reign over them, never any king was so careful to provide wholesome laws both for church and commonwealth, as he was: insomuch, as he bids them look about, and consider the nations round about them, if ever any people was furnished with laws and ordinances, of such equity and righteousness, as theirs were: which laws, because they were ordained by angels, in the hand of a mediator, namely moses, are commonly called by the name of the mosaical law, and are penned down at large by him in his last four books. 7. the precepts and prohibitions of this law, are of several natures: for some duties therein enjoined, are such as in their own natures have an essential goodness and righteousness in them, and the contrary to them, are in themselves evil, and would have been so, though they had never been expressly prohibited: such are especially the 10. words or precepts written by gods own finger in the two tables of stone: other precepts concern matters of their own nature indifferent, and are only to be termed good, because they were commanded by a positive divine law; such are the ceremonial washings, purifications, sacrifices, etc. a third sort are of a mixed nature, the objects of which, are for the most part, things in their own nature, good or evil; but yet the circumstances annexed unto them, are merely arbitrary and alterable, as namely, those things which are commanded or forbidden by that which is commonly called the judicial law: for example: the law of fourfold restitution of things stolen. theft of its own nature is evil, and deserves punishment: but that the punishment thereof should be such a kind of restitution, is not in itself necessary, but may be changed either into a corporal punishment, or, it may be, into a civil death, according as those who have the government of kingdoms and states shall think fit and convenient for the dispositions of the times wherein they live, as we see by experience in the practice of our own kingdoms. for the due execution of which laws, and punishment of transgressors, god appointed judges and rulers; and where they failed through want of care or partiality, himself many times would immediately and personally inflict the punishment. 8. now the general sanction of this whole law is expressed deut. 27. v. 26 in these words, deut. 27.26. cursed is every one that continueth not in all the words of this law to do them: which curse, as we find it afterwards at large interpreted, imported a sudden violent untimely death, together with all kind of misfortune, that could make this life miserable: so that he was liable to this curse that swerved in any one point or circumstance, from what was contained in that law. notwithstanding, in some cases, god was pleased to remit the rigour of this curse, and to except of certain gifts and offerings, and the expiatory sacrifices of beasts, as it were, in exchange for the lives of the delinquents. i should but fruitlessly trifle away the time in insisting any longer upon the nature and quality of the mosaical law. i will now, as i am required by my text, show you the extreme difference, and incomparable excellency of the covenant of grace, or the gospel beyond this, in several respects. 9 as first: the moral duties of the two tables, as they are part of the mosaical jewish law required only an external obedience and conformity to the affirmative precepts thereof, and an abstaining from an outward practice of the negative. they did not reach unto the conscience, no more than the national laws of other kingdoms do: so that for example, where the law of moses forbids. adultery upon pain of death, he that should in his heart lust with any woman, could not be accounted a transgressor of moses his law, neither was he liable to the punishment therein specified: whereas the gospel requires not only an outward, and, as i may say, corporal obedience to god's commandments, but also an inward sanctification of the soul and conscience upon the same penalty of everlasting damnation with the former. and what is now said of the moral precepts (as they art part of moses his law) by the same proportion likewise, is to be understood of the judicial. 10. notwithstanding what hath now been said: yet we must know, that these very jews, to whom this law was given, being the children of abraham, were heirs likewise of the promises which were made unto him and his seed; and the way or means whereby they were to attain unto these promises, were the very same by which himself obtained them, namely, faith. so that this mosaical law (whatsoever glorious opinion the jews had of it) was not that covenant whereby they were to seek for justification in the sight of god. till christ's coming, there was no law given, which could have given life, that is, which could promise everlasting life unto man; not the law of works by reason of man's imperfection and weakness; not the law of moses, by reason of its own weakness, as s. paul clearly demonstrates, especially in the epistle to the hebrews. 11. for what end then was the law of moses given? s. paul shall answer the question, gal. 3.19. gal. 3.19. it was added (saith he) because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promises were made. it was added, as if he should say, after the promises made unto abraham and his seed, this law was moreover annexed, not as any new condition whereby they were to attain unto the promises, but that, in the mean time, till the promises were fulfilled, they should be restrained, as it were, and kept under a strict outward discipline, from running into any excess of disobedience: for those, whom perhaps the goodness and mercy of god, in affording them those promises, would not by the hope of them be able to bridle, they notwithstanding, when they saw punishment even unto death without mercy inflicted upon the transgressors, they would be more careful of their ways. it follows, till the seed should come to whom the promises were made; or as himself in heb. 9 altars the phrase, heb. 9.10. till the time of reformation: that is, when christ, who was that blessed seed, promised to abraham, should come, he would so clearly and convincingly show unto the world the way of salvation, that they should no longer need to be kept under their old schoolmaster, the law; and therefore at his coming, the date of the whole mosaical law should expire. and that may be one reason why s. paul is in this chapter so violent against those that would urge the observation of the mosaical law; forasmuch as by enforcing it now when the seed was already come, to whom the promises were made, they did seem to evacuate the coming and gospel of christ. 12. now, that the mosaical law was not given to the jews for this end, that by the fulfilling thereof, they should promise to themselves the reward of righteousness, everlasting life; is evidently demonstrated, both by our saviour in the 5. of matthew, and by s. paul through all his epistles, but especially in that to the hebrews. the force and virtue of whose arguments, may in general be reduced to that issue which before i mentioned, viz. that the law, by the performance whereof we may expect life, requires not only an external conformity to the outward works, but an inward spiritual sanctification also of the soul and heart. 13. but what saith the law of meses? it was said, saith our saviour, by them of old, mat. 5.21. i. in the law of moses, thou shalt not kill; not, thou shalt not be angry, thou shalt not bear malice in thy heart: so that if thou abstainest from murder, thou fulfilest moses his law; and if thou dost kill, thou shalt be in danger of judgement, i. the only punishment which the law of moses inflicted upon the transgressors thereof, was the danger to be condemned to death by the judgement, or bench of judges appointed for the execution of this law. but i say unto you; i, who clearly show unto you that way wherein you must walk, before you can promise to yourselves any hope of eternal life; i say unto you, not only, whosoever shall kill his neighbour, but whosoever out of malice or rancour, v 22. shall say unto his brother, thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire. v 27. so likewise, not only he which commits adultery in the outward act, is culpable by my gospel before god, but also he which looks upon a woman to lust after her in his heart. v 33. and so instead of forswearing and breaking of oaths, and vows, which moses his law forbade; christ condemns fruitless and unnecessary, v 38. though true, oaths. instead of the law of retaliation of injuries, christ commands rather to suffer a second injury, than to revenge the first. 14. but in the last place, the last example which our saviour gives, may seem to destroy this collection which hath been drawn out of this chapter: for, saith he vers. 43. you have heard, v 43. that it hath been said of old, thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. what! did moses his law then permit a man to bear hatred and malice unto another? did i say, permit them? nay, it commanded them so perfectly to hate their enemies, to wit, the seven nations who possessed that land, which was theirs by promise, exod. 34.2. deut. 7.1. exod. 27.19. deut. 30.19. mentioned exod. 34.2. deut. 7.1. to which were added the amalekites, exod. 27.19. deut. 30.19. that they were enjoined to destroy them utterly, old and young, men, women, and children, even to the very , without all pity and consideration. insomuch, that saul, for his unseasonable pity but of one person, and that a king of the amalekites, and reserving the best of the for sacrifice to god, had the kingdom utterly rend from him and his posterity. whereas, by our saviour, in the words of s. paul, enmity is slain: no enemies now in christianity, but all neighbours, and friends, and brethren; nay more, if any one will needs be your enemy, love him notwithstanding, saith christ, if he curse you, bless him; if he hate you, do good unto him; if he use you despitefully, and persecute you, pray for him. to conclude this argument from our saviour's authority; christ adds, as a corollary to his discourse, speaking to his disciples and followers, except your righteousness exceed the righteousness of the scribes and pharises, v 20. i. whereas they content themselves with an outward carnal obedience to the law, unless you, besides this, add a spiritual sanctification of the mind, ye shall in no wise enter into the kingdom of heaven. i deny not now, but that there may be a mystical spiritual sense even of this law, and an application thereof almost as perfect, as is expressed in the gospel, which those who were guided extraordinarily by the spirit of god, and with help of tradition, might collect out of it; as the prophet david, psal. 19 where he saith, psal. 19.7. the law of the lord is perfect, converting the soul; the commandment of the lord is pure, enlightening the eyes, etc. and in this sense, the succeeding prophets endeavoured to persuade the people to apprehend it. but this was a forced sense of moses his law, not primarily intended by the author; it was no proper natural meaning of it. 15. proportionably to this doctrine of our saviour, s. paul, speaking of moses his law, considered in its proper natural and direct sense, and as extremely unsufficient to justify a man in the sight of god, calls it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, weak and beggarly elements, gal. 4.9. and, gal. 4.9. heb. 7.16. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a law of a carnal commandment, heb. 7.16. i. a law which a carnal man, one not guided by the spirit of god, might perform. and, a law which made no man perfect, heb. 7.19. nay more, ibid. v. 19 heb. 8.7. saith he, it is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, not without fault, heb. 8.7. i. a man might perform the law of moses, and yet not be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, he may be a wicked man still in god's sight; for all his legal righteousness, he may remain dead in trespasses and sins. insomuch, as the same paul, speaking of himself, before he was converted to christianity, says he, concerning the righteousness which is of the law, i was blameless; phil. 3.6. i did so exactly fulfil that measure of righteousness, which moses his law required of me; that, in respect of that law, i was a guiltless innocent person; i could justify myself; i durst with confidence oppose myself in judgement, to the censure of our most severe strict judges. 16. but what then? durst paul with this his legal righteousness appear before god, as expecting to be justified in his sight, as claiming any interest in the promises of eternal life, by virtue of this his innocency? by no means: no, saith he, though i were blameless, as concerning this righteousness which is of the law, though i had all the privileges that any jew could be capable of, phil. 3.6. circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of israel, of the tribe of benjamin, an hebrew of the hebrews, according to the law a pharisee, (i. e. of that sect which had preserved the law in the greatest integrity) though i were so zealous thereof, v 6. that i persecuted the churches of christ, which sought to abrogate it: and lastly, though concerning the righteousness of the law, i was blameless, yet, notwithstanding all these, i will have no better an opinion of these privileges than they deserve; i will account them only outward carnal privileges; if i at all rejoice in them, yet this i will account only a rejoicing in the flesh. far be it from me, to think to appear before christ with such a righteousness as this is. god forbidden i should expect to be accepted of by him, for these carnal outward privileges: nay, so far am i from that, that, whatsoever i thought, before i knew him, to be again and a prerogative unto me, now that i have attained to the excellency of the knowledge of jesus christ, i account as loss, as things likely to be rather a hindrance unto me; v 9 yea, as dross and dung, and desire to be found in him, not having mine own righteousness which is of the law: for, alas, how mean, and unworthy will that appear in his eyes? but the righteousness which is of faith, the righteousness which is of god by faith. the former righteousness was mine own, and therefore could not stand in his sight; but that righteousness to which faith or the gospel directs me, proceeds not from my own strength, but only from god, who will crow his own graces in me. 17. i have thus far showed you, both from our saviour's authority, and s. paul's likewise; that the performing of the moral duties as far as they were enforced, by virtue of moses his law, could not make a man capable of attaining to the promises of the new covenant. and (that i may add one confirmation of this more out of the old testament) hereupon it is, that god by the prophet ezekiel manifestly showeth, that god gave not the law of moses to the israelites, for this end, that they should think that the performance of that law, was all the duty which they owed unto god; or that that obedience could make them accepted of him unto eternal life: no, saith he, if you have any such conceit of those ordinances, ezek. 20.25. the statutes which i gave them, were not good, and the judgements such, as they should not live by them. i will now proceed to show you the weakness and unprofitableness of the ceremonial part of moses his law likewise, for such a purpose; and that by arguments taken from s. paul, especially out of that his most divine epistle to the hebrews. 18. the first argument shall be drawn out of the 9th chapter of that epistle, the sum whereof is this: the first covenant, which had ordinances of divine service, and a worldly sanctuary, heb. 10.10. which consisted in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances imposed on them till the time of reformation, in which also were offered gifts and sacrifices; yet with all these ceremonies and formalities, they could enter no deeper than the flesh, v 9 they could not make him which did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience: that is, for example; those expiatory sacrifices which were to be offered for him which had transgressed, they absolved him indeed from a civil carnal punishment, but they could not reach to the conscience; that remained still as guilty and defiled before god, as ever it was. and can it be imagined, that a man so qualified, with such an accusing condemning conscience, could with any hope or confidence appear before god, as expecting to be freed from the danger of hell, for the cost or ceremony of a sacrifice? those sacrifices therefore and ceremonies, v 13. the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer, sprinkling the unclean, might sanctify a man to the purifying of the flesh, and that is all they could do; and so fa● they could sanctify even the most profane person, or the veriest hypocrite in the world: but it must be only the blood of christ, v 14. who through the eternal spirit, offered himself without spot unto god, that is able to purge our consciences from dead works to serve the living god. 19 but it may be objected, obj. the baptising and washing of us christians, and our commemoration of the true sacrifice, are powerful and effectual, even to the sanctification of the soul and spirit: and why should not the water of jordan have as much virtue in it, during moses his law, as it has had since, or as ours has now? why should not their pre-figuration of the true sacrifice by typical sacrifices, be as much worth as our post-commemoration thereof? for christ was the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever. i answer, that baptism and the eucharist, sol. are proper instruments whereby the sacrifice of christ is applied, and made beneficial unto us, and were instituted for that and no other end: whereas, the proper and direct end of moses his leiturgy and ceremonies, were only civil carnal immunities; and though it be true, that the legal sacrifices were very apt and commodious, to shadow forth the oblation and satisfaction of christ; yet this use of them was so mystical and reserved, so impossible to be collected out of the letter of the law, that without a special revelation from god, the eyes of the israelites were too weak to serve them to pierce through those dark clouds and shadows, and to carry their observation to the substance: so that i conceive those sacrifices of the law, in this respect, are a great deal more beneficial to us christians; for there is a great difference between sacraments and types; types are only useful after the antitype is discovered, for the confirmation of their faith that follow. as for example, abraham's offering of isaac by faith, did lively represent the real oblation of christ, but in that respect, was of little or no use till christ was indeed crucified; it being impossible to make that history a groundwork of their faith in christ. the like may be said of the legal sacrifices. 20. my second argument shall be taken out of those words of s. paul, act. 13.38. where, speaking of christ, he saith, act. 13.38. by him all that believe, are justified from all things, from which they could not be justified by the law of moses: from which i infer, that since there were many sins for which the law of moses allowed no sacrifice, no redemption, no satisfaction, no commutation, in what a fearful desperate case would a person that should commit fuch sins be, if he were to expect justification before god by the law of moses, for that must needs lead him to despair? it could show him no refuge, no sanctuary to fly unto; nothing would remain unto such a person but a certain fearful looking for of judgement and fiery indignation to consume god's adversary: and therefore no marvel if the same apostle (heb. 7.17, 18.) saith, heb. 7.17, 18. that the former law for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof (i. e. to justification) was to be disannulled, since it could make nothing perfect. 21. the last argument shall be inferred from that saying of the apostle, heb. 8.6. heb. 8.6. where speaking of the new-covenant of grace, he saith, it was established on better promises, namely, than the jewish covenant was: for all the happiness which was to be expected from moses his law, was only an exemption from the inconveniences and curses of this life, long days and peaceable, enriched with worldly content and prosperity: whereas the blessings which attend the performance of the new-covenant or the gospel are unspeakable and glorious, such as eye hath not seen, nor indeed, as long as it is mortal, can see, neither can the heart of man conceive them, being eternal in the heavens. neither will the ordinary evasion serve the turn, as if these temporal blessings, or plagues and curses mentioned in moses his writings, should purposely signify the blessed estate of glorified saints, or woes of the damned, for then st. paul's argument would fall to the ground; and indeed, that whole epistle to the hebrews, would be rendered inconcluding, as might easily be demonstrated, if the time, and throng of matter, which follows would permit. 22. i would not now have you so conceive me, as if i would exclude the jews of the old-testament from being partakers of the promises of the gospel: no, god forbidden: but, that which i have said, is this, that they attained not unto them by performing moses his law, but by the very same means by which we hope to be partakers of them, namely, by performing the substance of those duties which are clearly delivered unto us in the gospel, and may be found sprinkled in several places, even in moses his writings, and no question but were more fully and completely delivered unto them by tradition from their fathers. and hereupon, i suppose, it is, that when any were converted to the knowledge and worship of the true god in those times, they who made them proselytes, were not curious to enforce upon them the observation of moses his ordinances and ceremonies, as we find in the behaviour of elisha to naaman the assyrian, of jonah to the ninevites, of daniel to nabuchadnezzar, and of the rest of the prophets to the tyrians, moabites, egyptians, to whom they writ, and whose conversion they sought: none of which urged upon them the observation of the mosaical liturgy as a thing necessary or needful to be observed by them: indeed those who were content to live amongst the jews, and enjoy their privileges and immunities, were bound to undergo the burden and costliness of the offerings and sacrifices, which, as st. paul saith, was so great, that they were both to themselves and their forefather's intolerable. 23. i will conclude this whole point of the difference between moses his law, and the law of faith, or the gospel, in gods own words by the prophet, jer. 31.31. jer. 31.31. twice quoted by st. paul in heb. ch. 8. & ch. 10. where god saith, behold the days come saith the lord, that i will make a new-covenant with the house of israel, and with the house of judah: not according to the covenant which i made with their fathers in the day that i took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of egypt, which my covenant they broke, although i was an husband unto them, saith the lord: but this shall be the covenant that i will make with them, after those days, saith the lord, i will put my laws in their hearts, and write them in their inward parts, etc. as if he should say, the former covenant which i made with them by moses, was only written in two tables of stone, as the roman laws were in 12. tables, and required only an outward conformity and obedience, for the which they did not need an inward sanctifying spiritual grace to enable them, as the new covenant of grace doth. and therefore for the performing of that, i will abundantly afford and supply them with all the grace's o● my holy spirit. 24. but a little to interrupt this text: you will say, what, had not the jews god's law written in their hearts also? did not they worship him in spirit as well as we? no question: but this they did not as commanded by moses his law, but by that covenant made with abraham, and by him traduced unto them. it follows, and i will be their god, and they shall be my people, i. e. i will be their god after a more especial manner than i was unto them in the wilderness; i will not only be their king to govern them in peace and tranquillity, out of the danger and fear of their enemies the nations about them, and preserve them safe in the promised land; but i will keep them from the fury and malice of their spiritual enemies that would seek to destroy their souls, and i will bring them to a land infinitely exceeding theirs, and whereof the land of canaan was but a most unproportionable type and shadow, even mine own blessed and glorious kingdom, reserved in the highest heavens, for them who sincerely perform the conditions of my new covenant. thus far as largely as so small a measure of time would permit me, i have told you the difference betwixt the covenant of grace and moses his law, employed in these words of my text, through the spirit: i come now to my second particular, namely, the distinction of the same covenant of grace from the law of works, wherein i shall proceed by the same method, i. e. showing you first absolutely the nature of those laws, and then the several differences betwixt them. 25. the law of works is the same with that, to the obedience whereof adam was obliged in paradise with this exception, that besides the moral natural law written in his heart, (the substance whereof is to this day reserved in the minds of all the sons of adam) adam had a second positive law enjoined him by god, namely, the forbidding him to eat of the tree of good and evil: which one precept cannot properly be called a part of the law of works, or nature, since the action thereby forbidden was not of its own nature evil, but only made unlawful by virtue of god's prohibition: excepting therefore this one particular precept, the law which was given to adam, (called the law of works), comprehended in it all kind of moral duties referred either to god, his neighbour, or himself, which have in them a natural essential goodness, or righteousness; and, by consequence, the prohibition, of all manner of actions, words, or thoughts, which are in themselves contrary to justice, and reason. all these precepts are generally supposed to be contained in the ten words written by gods own finger in two tables of stone; though, with submission, i think, that those two tables contain only directly the moral duties of man to god and his neighbour: for it will require much forcing and straining to bring in the duties and sins of a man against his own person within that compass, as temperance, sobriety, and their opposites, gluttony, drunkenness, self-incontinency, etc. 26. the obligation to this law is so strict, severe and peremptory, that it required not only an universal obedience to whatsoever is contained in that law, in the full extent, latitude, and perfection thereof, but that continual without interruption through the whole cou●●● of a man's life: insomuch, that he that should but once transgress it 〈◊〉 lest point or circumstance, should without redemption, or dispensation, be rendered culpable as of the breach of the whole law, and remain liable to the malediction thereof. and to this law in this strictness mentioned are all men living obliged, who are out of christ, and who either know not of him, or are not willing to submit themselves to his new covenant. 27. the justification which was due to the performance of this law by justice, and as the wages thereof, that is, the condition wherein god obliged himself to such as fulfilled it, was the promises of this life, and that which is to come; long, happy and peaceable days in this world, and in their due time a translation to the joys and glory of heaven: this justification did not comprehend remission of sins, as ours does, for the law excluded all hope of pardon after sin, no promise made to repentance, repentance would do no good: the court wherein they were to be judged was a court of mere rigorous justice, justice rejoiced over and against mercy, grace, lovingkindness, and all those blessed and glorious attributes, whereby god for our saviour jesus christ his sake is pleased and delighted to be known unto the world. 28. this law in the rigour thereof might easily have been performed by adam; he had that perfection of grace and holiness given him, which was exactly equal and commensurable to whatsoever duties were enjoined him: but by his wilful voluntary (god forbidden, we should say enforced, or absolutely decreed) prevarication he utterly undid both himself and his posterity, leaving them engaged for his debts, and as much of their own, without almost any money to pay them: without christ, we are all obliged to the same strictness and severity of the law, which by reason of our poverty and want of grace, is become impossible to be performed by us: as the blessed apostle st. paul hath evidently proved by induction, in the beginning of his epistle to the romans: in the first chapter, declaring that the gentiles neither did, nor could perform the law; in the second, saying as much for the jews; and in the third, joining them both together in the same miserable desperate estate. the conclusion of his whole discourse is, all have sinned and come short of the glory of god. thus much, for the law of works. 29. the state of mankind without christ, being so deplored, so out of all hope, as i told you: almighty god out of his infinite mercy and goodness, by his unspeakable wisdom found out an atonement, accepting of the voluntary exinanition and humiliation of his dearly beloved son, who submitted himself, to be made flesh, to all our natural infirmities (sin only excepted) and at last to die that ignominious accursed death of the cross for the redemption of mankind; who in his death made a covenant with his father, that those, and only those, who would be willing to submit themselves to the obedience of a new law, which he would prescribe unto mankind, should for the merits of his obedience and death be justified in the sight of god, have their sins forgiven them, and be made heirs of everlasting glory: now, that christ's death was in order of nature, before the giving of the gospel, is (i think) evident by those words of st. paul. heb. 9.16, 17. where comparing the old covenant of the jews with that of christ, he saith, where a testament is, heb. 9.16.16. there must of necessity be the death of the testator: for a testament is of force after men are dead, otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth; whereupon neither the first covenant was dedicated without blood. it was necessary therefore (saith he, ver. 23.) that the patterns of things in heaven should be purified with these, i. e. with the blood of beasts, but the heavenly things themselves with better things than those, namely, with the blood of christ. 30. which covenant of christ (called in scripture the new-covenant, the covenant of grace, the grace of god, the law of faith) according to the nature of all covenants being made between two parties (at the least), requires conditions on both sides, to be performed, and being a covenant of promise, the conditions on man's part must necessarily go before, otherwise they are no conditions at all: now man's duty is comprehended by st. paul in this word faith, and god's promise in the word justification: and thus far we have proceeded upon sure grounds, for we have plain express words of scripture for that which hath been said: but the main difficulty remains behind, and that is the true sense and meaning of these two words, faith and justification, and what respect and dependence they have one of the other. which difficulty by god's assistance, and with your christian charitable patience, i will now endeavour to dissolve. 31. for the first therefore, which is faith; we may consider it in several respects, to wit, first as referring us to and denoting the principal object of evangelical faith, which is christ: now, if faith be meant in this sense, (as by many good writers of our reformed churches, it is understood) then the meaning of that so often repeated saying of st. paul, we are justified by faith without the works of the law, must be, we are justified only for the obedience of christ, and not for our righteousness of the law, which is certainly a most catholic orthodox sense, and not to be denied by any christian, though, i doubt, it does not express all that st. paul intended in that proposition. secondly, faith signifies the act or exercise or duty of faith, as it comprehends all evangelical obedience, called by st. paul, the obedience of faith, rom. 16.26. rom. 16.26. & 4.13. & 9.13. & 10.6. the righteousness of faith, rom. 4, 13. & 9.13. & 10.6. and it is an inherent grace or virtue, wrought in us by the powerful operation of god's spirit: or thirdly, rom. 10.9. it may be taken for the doctrine of faith, called also by him, the word of faith, act. 20.32. gal. 3.2. rom. 3.27. rom. 10.8. and the word of god's grace, act. 20.32. and the hearing of faith, gal. 3.2. in which sense, as if he meant, the word, st. paul may seem to resolve us, rom. 3.27. where he saith, that boasting is excluded by the law of faith, which words are extant in the very heat of the controversy of justification. now these senses of faith if they be applied to that conclusion of st. paul, we are justified by faith, come all to one pass, for in effect it is all one, to say, we are justified by our obedience, or righteousness of faith, and to say, we are justified by the gospel, which prescribes that obedience: as on the contrary, to say, we are justified by the law, or by works prescribed by the law, is all one. there is a fourth acception of faith, taken for the single habit or grace of faith, and applied to this proposition (only of all christians that i have heard of) by the belgic remonstrants: which being a new invented fancy, and therefore unwarrantable, yet i shall hereafter have occasion it may be to say something of it. 31. st. paul's proposition, i am persuaded, excludes none of these senses; it is capeble of them all: but, before i show you how they may consist together, i will, in the first place, declare of what nature that righteousness is, which god by virtue of his new covenant requires at our hands before he will make good his promise unto us. first, then, god requires at our hands a sincere obedience unto the substance of all moral duties of the old covenant, and that by the gospel: and this obedience is so necessary, that it is impossible any man should be saved without it. the pressing of this doctrine takes up by much the greatest part of the evangelical writings. now, that these duties are not enforced upon us, as conditions of the old covenant of works, is evident, because, by christ we are freed from the obligation of the old covenant: god forbids, that we should have a thought of expecting the hope of righteousness upon those terms: for, that covenant will not admit of any imperfection in our works, and then, in what a miserable case are we! there is no hope for us, unless some course be taken, that not only our imperfections, but our sins, and those of a high nature, be passed by, and overlooked by almighty god, as if he had lost his eyes to see them, or his memory to remember them. 32. the substance then of the moral law is enjoined us by the new-covenant, but with what difference i shall show you presently. and hereupon it is that our saviour saith to the pharisees, who were willing to make any misconstruction of his doctrine, think you that i am come to destroy the law? i, by all means, say we, god forbidden else, for unless the old law be destroyed, we are undone; as long as that is alive, we are dead: if the law of works have its natural force still, woe be to us. therefore, that must not be christ's meaning: his intent is, as if he should say, think you that i am come to destroy the righteousness of the law? to disoblige men from the necessity of being good, holy, and virtuous? no, by no means; i am not come to destroy the law, but to fulfil it: the righteousness of the law, according to the substance thereof, shallbe as necessarily required by virtue of that new covenant which i preach unto you, and to which i exhort you all to submit yourselves, as ever it was by the old covenant; only because of your weakness and infirmity, i will abate the rigour of it: those who notwithstanding my offer of grace and pardon upon such easy conditions as i prescribe, will yet continue in an habitual state of profaneness and irreligion shall be as culpable, nay, ten times more miserable than if they never had heard of me, for their wilful neglecting so great salvation. it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away, than for one tittle of the law to fail: for god would be no loser by the annihilation of the world, whereas if any part of the moral law should expire, the very beams and rays of gods essential goodness should be darkened and destroyed. 33. in like manner saith st. paul, rom. 11. ult. rom. 3. ult. do we make void the law through faith? god forbidden: yea, we establish the law. now, if a succeeding covenant establisheth any part of a precedent, especially, if there be any alteration made in the conditions established, all obligation whatsoever is taken from the old covenant, and those conditions are in force only by virtue of the new. when the norman conqueror was pleased to establish and confirm to the english some of the ancient saxons laws, are those laws then become in force as they are saxon? no, for the authority of the saxons, the authors of those laws, is supposed to be extinguished, and therefore no power remains in them to look to the execution of them: but by the confirmation of the norman they are become indeed norman laws, and are now in force, not because they were first made by the saxons, but only by virtue of the succeeding power of the norman line. so likewise, when the gospel enjoins the substance of the same duties which the old covenant of works required; are we christians enforced to the obedience of them, because they are duties of the law? by no means! but only because our saviour and only lawmaker jesus christ commands the same in the law of faith. 34. thus far the new covenant is in some terms of agreement with the old, inasmuch as the same moral duties are enjoined in them both, as parts of the conditions of both. but the difference herein is, that the law commands a precise exact fulfilling of these precepts, (as i told you before) which the gospel descending to our infirmities, remits and qualifies much: for in the gospel, he is accounted to fulfil the moral precepts, that obeys them according to that measure of grace which god is pleased to allow him; that obeys god, though not with a perfect, yet with a sincere upright heart; that when he is overcome with a temptation to sin, continues not in it, but recovers himself to his former righteousness by repentance and new obedience: thus much then for the moral precepts and with what difference they are commanded in the old and new covenant. 35. in the second place, there is another part of evangelical obedience, which is purely evangelical, and which has no commerce nor reference at all to the law, and that is the grace of repentance: for saith st. paul, act. 17 30. act. 17.30. but now (that is by the gospel) god commands all men every where to repent. now repentance implies a serious consideration and acknowledgement of that miserable estate whereunto our sins have brought us, and hereupon an hearty unfeigned sorrow for them, a perfect hatred and detestation of them, inferring a full peremptory resolution to break them off, and interrupt the course of them by new obedience. this, i say, is an obedience purely evangelical, the law of works did not at all meddle with it, neither indeed could it: the law condemns a man assoon as ever he is guilty of the breach thereof, and makes no promise at all of remission of sins upon repentance; but rather quite excludes it. yet from the grace of repentance, we may gather a forcible argument to make good that which before we spoke concerning the renewing of the moral precepts in the new covenant. for no reasonable man can deny, that repentance is absolutely necessary before a man can be justified. now what is that for which (for example) a new converted heathen reputes, but the breach of the moral law? therefore by this necessity of repentance, he acknowledgeth, (and so do we) that by such sins, he was excluded from all hope of being justified. now it were absurd, for a man to say that any thing excludes a man from being capable of receiving the promises of a covenant, but only the breaking of the conditions thereof. 36. the third part of evangelical righteousness is, faith, not moral, but christian; which is, a relying upon christ, as the only meritorious cause of whatsoever benefit we obtain by the new covenant; it being for his sake, both that god bestows upon us grace, whereby we are enabled to perform his will; and after we have done our duty, that he will freely, and not as wages, bestow upon us the reward thereof. there is another virtue evangelical, which is hope, but of that i must speak in my last point. and thus i have gone through the conditions required on man's part in the new covenant, all which i suppose are employed in this word faith: which being taken in so general a sense, may, i conceive, be thus not improperly defined, viz. to be a receiving and embracing of the promises made unto us in christ, upon the terms and conditions proposed in the gospel. 37. now follow the conditions on god's part, comprehended in these words: the hope of righteousness, which are equivalent to the term of justification: the nature whereof, i shall now endeavour to discover. justification, i suppose, imports the whole treasure of blessings and favours, which god, who is rich in mercy, will freely bestow on those whom he accepts as righteous for his beloved son our blessed saviour jesus christ his sake; which are first, remission of sins, and an interest unto the joys of heaven in this life, and a full consummation both of grace and glory in the life to come. some, i know, think that s. paul when he discourses of justification, thereby intends only remission of sins: and the ground of this opinion is taken from s. paul quoting those words of david, rom. 4.6, 7, 8. when he states the doctrine of justification, rom. 4.6, 7, 8. where he saith that david describeth the blessedness of the man unto whom god imputeth righteousness without works, saying, blessed are they whose unrighteousness is forgiven, and whose sins are covered; blessed is the man unto whom the lord will not impute sin. but if this argument out of the epistle to the romans be of sufficient force for their sense of justification; then certainly an argument from as express words in the epistle to the galatians, will be as concluding for mine (in which epistle he also purposely states the same questions). gal. 3.11. the words are gal. 3.11. that no man is justified by the law in the sight of god, it is evident, for the just shall live by faith. now, to live, i hope, does not signify, to have one's sins forgiven him, but to be saved: therefore, unless s. paul include a right unto salvation within the compass of justification, that text might have been spared, as nothing at all serving for his purpose. besides, is not salvation, as free, as gracious, as undeserved an act of god, as remission of sins? is it not as much for christ's sake that we are saved, as that our sins are forgiven us? thus much for what i suppose is meant by justification. i will now as briefly and as perspicuously as i can (without using allegories and metaphorical expressions, with which this point is ordinarily much obscured) show you the combination of these two words, in what sense i suppose s. paul may use this proposition; we are justified by faith, without the works of the law. 38. in the first place therefore i will lay down this conclusion as an infallible safe foundation, that if we have respect to the proper meritorious cause of our justification, we must not take faith, in that proposition, for any virtue or grace inherent in us, but only for the proper and principal object thereof. jesus christ and his merits. and the meaning of that proposition must be, that we are not justified for the merits of any righteousness in ourselves, whether legal or evangelical, but only for the obedience and death of our blessed saviour jesus christ. though this be most true, yet i suppose that s. paul in that proposition, had not a respect to the meritorious cause of our justification; but to that formal condition required in us before we be justified: as i think may appear by that which follows. 39 i told you even now, that i would in this point purposely abstain from using metaphors, and figurative allusions; and the reason is, because, i suppose, and not without reasonable grounds, that the stating of this point of justification by metaphors, has made this doctrine, which is set down with greater light and perspicuity in holy scripture, than almost any other, to be a doctrine of the most scholastical subtlety, the fullest of shadows and clouds of all the rest. for example: in that fashion and dress of divinity, as it is now worn, sliced and mangled into theses and distinctions, we find this point of our justification thus expressed: that faith is therefore said to justify us, because it is that which makes christ's righteousness ours: it is as it were an instrument or hand, whereby we receive, lay hold on, and apply christ unto ourselves. here's nought but flowers of rhetoric, figures, and metaphors; which though they are capable of a good sense, yet are very improper to state a controversy withal. 40. but let us examine them a little: we must not say, they conceive of faith, as if it were a virtue or grace, or any part of righteousness inherent in us: for faith as a grace has no influence at all into our justification. mark the coherence of these things: faith is considered as an hand or an instrument in our justification, and yet, for all it is a hand, it is nothing in, or of, us; for it seems, hands are not parts of men's bodies. again, faith puts on christ, receives him, lays hold upon him, makes his righteousness ours, and yet it does nothing for all that. besides, how can faith be properly called an instrument of justification? an instrument is that which the principal cause the efficient makes use of in his operation. now justification in this sense, is an immanent internal action of god, in which there is no co-operation of any other agent, nor any real alteration wrought in man, the object thereof. does god then use faith as an instrument, in producing the act of justification? no, but it is instrumentum passivum, saith one; that is a thing never heard of in nature before, and the meaning is sure, faith, certainly, is something, but what a kind of thing, we know not. by these means it comes to pass, that the doctrine of our justification, as some men have handled it, is become as deep, as unsearchable a mystery, as that of the trinity. 41. without question, there is nothing can be more evident to a man, that shall unpartially consider s. paul's method in his discourse of justification, then that by faith he intends some operative working grace in us: for instance, the apostle proves that we christians are to seek for justification the same way that abraham attained unto it, namely by faith; for, saith the scripture in his quotation, abraham believed god, and it was accounted to him for righteousness. what was that which was accounted to him? his believing; that is, say some, christ who was the object of his belief: this is a forced interpretation certainly, and which a jew would never have been persuaded to. but that christ was not at all intended in that place, it is evident; for abraham's belief there, had respect to gods promise made to him of giving him a son in his old age, and by that son, a seed as innumerable as the stars in heaven, as appears gen. 15.4, 5, 6. whereas the promise of christ, gen. 15.4, 5, 6. gen. 18.18. follows three chapters after, to wit, gen. 18.18. again, the apostle in many places, useth these words, we are justified by faith in christ, and by the faith of jesus christ; which speeches of his, will admit of no tolerable sense, unless by faith he intends some work or obedience performed by us. this therefore being taken for granted, that by faith, is meant some condition required at our hands, (and yet my former conclusion of our justification only for the merits of christ remaining firm): we will in the next place consider what kind of obedience that of faith is, and in what sense it may be said to justify us. 42. what satisfaction i conceive may be given to this quaery, i will set down in this assertion: assertion. that since justification, even as it includes remission of sins, is that promise, to perform which unto us, god has obliged himself in the new covenant; it must necessarily presuppose in the person to be so justified, such an obedience as the gospel requires; namely first, repentance from dead works, a conversion to a new obedience of those holy moral commands which are ratified in the gospel, and a relying upon christ as the only meritorious cause of our justification and salvation, by a particular evangelical faith. all this, i say, is pre-required in the person who is made capable of justification, either in the exercise, or at least in praeparatione cordis, in a full resolution of the heart, and entire disposition of the mind: so that, though god be the sole proper efficient cause; and christ, as mediator, the sole proper meritorious cause of our justification: yet these inherent dispositions, are exacted on our part, as causae sine quibus non, as necessary conditions to be found in us, before god will perform this great work, freely, and graciously towards us, and only for the merits of christ. 43. this assertion may, reas. 1 i suppose, be demonstrated first from the nature of a covenant: for, unless there be pre-required conditions on man's part to be performed, before god will proportion his reward; the very nature of a covenant is destroyed. and it will not boot to answer, that though there be no qualifications required in a man, before he obtain remission of sins, yet they are to be found in us before we be made capable of salvation. for, as i have showed before, sol. 1 salvation is as properly a gracious act of mercy, as free and undeserved a gift, as truly bestowed on us only for the merits of christ, as remission of sins; and therefore may as well consist without any change in us as the former. and secondly, if that proposition of s. paul, we are justified by faith, sol. 2 without the works of the law, exclude all conditions to be performed by man; if it exclude not only the righteousness of the law (which indeed it doth) but the obedience of faith, or the gospel likewise, from being necessary dispositions in us before we receive remission of sins; then another saying of his, parallel to this, will exclude as well the necessity of an evangelical obedience to our salvation: for, saith s. paul, eph. 2.8. eph. 2.8. by grace are ye saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of god: not of works, lest any man should boast. put i hope no man will be so unchristianlike, as to exclude the necessity of our good works to salvation, for all this saying of s. paul; therefore, they may as well be pre-required to remission of sins, notwithstanding the former place. 44. secondly, reas. 2 if there be no necessity of any pre-disposition in us before remission of sins; then a man may have his sins forgiven him, and so become a person accepted of god, whilst he is a person unregenerate, unsanctified, whilst he is dead in trespasses and sins, eph. 2.1, etc. whilst he walks according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that worketh in the children of disobedience; whilst he has his conversation in the lusts of the flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh, and of the mind, being, notwithstanding his justification, a child of wrath, as much as the profanest heathen, though the veriest reprobate in the world; lastly, though he be no child of abraham according to faith, that is, not having in him that faith which was imputed to abraham for righteousness. now whether this divinity be consonant to god's word, let your own consciences be judges. 45. a third argument to prove the truth of the former assertion, reas. 3 shall be taken from several texts of scripture; where justification, even as it is taken for remission of sins, is ascribed to other virtues besides faith, (whether it be taken for a particular virtue, or for the object thereof). for example, our saviour saith expressly, mat. 12.37. by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned: where we see, justification is taken in that proper sense, in which we maintain it against the papists. again, if you forgive men their trespasses, mat. 6.14, 45. your heavenly father will also forgive you; but if you forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your father forgive your trespasses. again, our saviour speaking concerning mary, saith, her sins are forgiven her, because she loved much. luk. 7.47. if the time, or your patience, could suffer me, reas. 4 i might add a fourth reason to prove my former assertion, which is the clearness and evidence of agreement and reconciliation between s. paul, and s. james in this point upon these grounds, without any new invented justification before men, which is a conceit taken up by some men, only to shift off an adversary's argument, which otherwise would press them too hard, they think: for, s. paul's faith, taken for the obedience of the gospel, would easily accord with s. james his holy and undefiled religion before god, jam. 1.27. or works which is all one; and s. james would be s. paul's expositor without any injury or detraction at all from the merits of christ, or gods free and undeserved mercy to us in him. but i must hasten. 46. the full meaning, then, of s. paul's proposition, we are justified by faith, and not by the works of the law: and by consequence, the state of the whole controversy of justification, in brief, may be this; that if we consider the efficient cause of our justification, it is only god which justifies: if that for which we are justified, that is, the meritorious cause thereof, it is not for any thing in ourselves, but only for the obedience and satisfaction of our blessed saviour, that god will justify us: but if we have respect to what kind of conditions are to be found in us, before christ will suffer us to be made partakers of the benefit of his merits, than we must say, that we are not justified by such a righteousness, so perfect, absolute, and complete, as the law of works does require; but by the righteousness of the gospel, by a righteousness proportionable to that grace which god is pleased to bestow on us; not by the perfection, but sincerity of our obedience to the new covenant. and the apostle's main argument will serve to prove this to any understanding, most undeniably. s. paul has demonstrated, that if we consider the rigour of the law, all men, both jews and gentiles are concluded under sin, and most necessarily obnoxious to god's wrath. which reason of his, would not be at all prevailing, unless by works of the law, he intended only such a perfect obedience as the law requires; which by reason of man's weakness, is become impossible unto him. for it might easily be replied upon him thus: we confess, no man can fulfil the law; but the conditions of the gospel are not only possible, but, by the assistance of god's spirit, easy to be performed; so that though, for this reason, the former righteousness be excluded from our justification, not only quoad meritum, but also, quoad praesentiam; yet the later evangelical righteousness is excluded from our justification, only quoad meritum. 47. but i perceive an objection ready to assault me; and i will impartially assist the force and strength thereof against myself, with all the advantage i can. it is to this purpose: when men are disputing in the schools, or discoursing in the pulpit, they may state this question as they please: but the fittest time to decide this point, is, when, in a serious contemplation, we present before our eyes almighty god, the righteous impartial judge of heaven and earth, sitting in his throne, ready to execute judgement, and ourselves arraigned at the bar before him, expecting a final irreversible sentence. in these circumstances, i would fain see the stoutest-hearted man alive, that should dare to say unto almighty god, thou hast given me a law, which my conscience witnesseth unto me, that i have performed. therefore i now challenge thee upon thy truth and faithfulness, that thou perform thy conditions also with me, and give me remission of my former sins, as a reward of my obedience. 48. for answer to this objection: this is confessed by all christians of all religions, that a profane person, or an hypocrite dying in such an estate, shall neither in the last day be acquitted of his sins, nor saved: therefore unless a man's heart can witness unto him, that he hath unfeignedly kept gods commandments, god, 1 joh. 3. c. 20. who is greater than his heart, and knoweth all things, will assuredly condemn him: but then we must know, that it is not a christians plea, to rely upon his own, though sincere unhypocritical righteousness, and therefore to challenge heaven. but as our saviour adviseth us, luke 17.10. we when we have done all we can, must say, we are unprofitable servants: and not say so in a compliment only, but in the truth and sincerity of our hearts. it is the perfection of evangelical righteousness, to deny our own righteousness, to disclaim all meritorious efficacy thereof, either in remission of sins, or salvation. therefore, he that after he hath performed god's commandments, shall think to challenge the reward as of debt, or as promised only to his own holiness, wants the proper peculiar righteousness of a christian: he must say in holy job's words, though i were righteous, yet would i not answer god, job 9.15. but i will make supplication to my judge: i would say unto him, lord look not upon that holiness which is in me, which yet is not mine neither, for thou wroughtst it in me; but look on him in whom only thou art well pleased; accept of me in him, and for his sake only, who hath fulfilled all righteousness for me, who through the eternal spirit, hath offered himself without spot unto thee, being made sin and a curse for me, that i might be made the righteousness of god in him. to him only be glory for ever and ever. the sum of all which i have said, is contained tit. 2.11, 14. the grace of god which bringeth, etc. and so i come to the 2d general, namely, the promise which god will make good unto us who sincerely obey him, contained in these words, we wait for the hope, etc. 49. which general i divided into two particulars: 1. the nature of the reward promised, which i told you was, justification containing remission of sins, and everlasting life. 2. the interest, which, during this life, we ordinarily have in that reward, namely hope, expressed in these words, we wait for the hope of righteousness: that is, by hope we expect the reward of righteousness. i cannot now enlarge myself in the former particular, something i have already been forced to say of it, which must suffice: i will in few words consider the second particular, namely the interest which we have in the promises, which is hope: we wait for, etc. 50. i know nothing more effectual to persuade me to search for and embrace divine truth with singleness of heart and without respect of persons, then to consider, that there are no opinions so unreasonable, so directly contradictory to one another, but the spirit of contradiction and partiality will make a man easily to swallow and digest them. as for example, whereas the papists most presumptuously maintain, that it is in a man's power, by the ordinary assistance of grace, so exactly to perform all god's commandments, that he shall have no need to say, lord forgive us our trespasses; some of their adversaries strive so much to avoid this assertion on the contrary extreme, that they will not allow, even the best and most holy actions of the most regenerate man, to be such as god requires at our hands; they will not only have them to be imperfect, but sinful, i, if strictly examined, sins. and yet for all this, those who put it in a man's power to fulfil all god's commandments, will not suffer any man to have any certainty of their salvation: on the contrary, the others, though they make a man's best actions to be sins, yet require at his hands an infallible divine faith of his salvation, not only as an attendant, but as the very nature and essence of that faith, whereby he shall be justified. 51. it may be possible, that one of these parties might light upon the truth, if either of them would be willing to change one of his opinions with his adversary: but, as they have been pleased to yoke such jarring positions together, i am confidently persuaded, that both of them have missed of the truth, and left it in the middle to any third person that will be willing to stand neuter in a mean betwixt them both. i will not now examine how far each side have outrun the truth contrary ways: only as i am required by that part of my text which remains, i will lay down two assertions participating, in some measure, of both opinions; the first whereof is this (which i have already touched) that no man can justly and reasonably expect or hope for the reward of righteousness, but he whose heart and conscience can unfeignedly witness unto him, that he hath, though not exactly, yet sincerely, and without hypocrisy, performed the conditions of the new covenant. the second, that the interest which such a person ordinarily hath in the promises, is only hope. 52. now concerning the 1. assertion, assert. 1. namely, that no man can justly, etc. i would not now be mistaken, as if i said, that before a man can hope for salvation, he must perform god's commandments exactly, but only according to the equity of the gospel; according to that famous saying of s. augustine, retractat. l. 1. c. 19 omnia mandata facta deputantur, quando quicquid non fit ignoscitur. now, that a man may keep god's commandments, as far as the equity of the gospel expects from him, may, i think, be thus demonstrated: there is no man that hears me this day, i am persuaded, but he does often seriously desire of god, that he would give him the grace to do his will: now, all prayer, if it be right, is to be performed in faith, i. e. with a full persuasion, not only that it is lawful, and warrantable, for him to desire that which he prays for, but also with as full a persuasion, that almighty god is not only able, but ready and willing also to grant him his petitions; otherwise, it is not only a vain, but a sinful prayer; it is a tempting of god, as if he should desire him to do that, which he knows is impossible. besides, can we think that god would command us (and withal add a promise of hearing and granting our petitions) would he, i say, command us to pray for that which we are assured of before hand, cannot, and must not, be granted? therefore certainly, some christians have been heard in these petitions; some men have been found, who have fulfilled the righteousness of the gospel. 53. now till thou hast done this, which thou seest by the assistance of god's spirit, (which will never be wanting to them which desire it) it is possible for thee to do; nay, i will add further, is easy for thee to do: doth not christ say as much? my yoke is easy, and my burden is light. i say, till thou hast done this, thou canst have no reason in the world to hope for god's mercy. for tell me! why dost thou hope, thou that continuest still in an unrepentant estate, in an habitual opposition to god's holy commandments? art thou resolved to hope, because thou hast a mind to it, upon no ground? when thou oughtest rather to fear, almost to despair? or rather, canst thou persuade thyself in earnest, that this is indeed a hope? is it not a fancy of thine own brain, or rather a temptation of the devil? hope, rom. 5.5. which is hope indeed, which is not a fancy and chimaera, makes not ashamed, saith s. paul: a man may with confidence, without confusion of face, profess and maintain it. but such a hope as this is, which is not a hope in earnest, how will it disgrace a man, and put him out of countenance, when god shall ask him why he did offer to hope? 54. let thy conscience now answer me, whosoever thou art, in such a state. thou that knowest how often god hath said, nay, sworn in his wrath, that none of those which continue disobedient, shall enter into his rest! that none shall be partakers of the second resurrection unto glory, but those that have been partakers of the first unto grace! canst thou for all this, imagine, that god has such a peculiar particular affection and respect to thee, who art yet a slave of the devils; that he will be content to strain his truth and veracity, to break his oath for thy company? shall the whole scripture, which promises glory to none but those who perform the conditions prescribed, for thy sake be turned into a romance, into a melancholy tale to fright children withal? no, no, assure thyself, it is not a conceit of election which will save thee: thou must work, and work hard, in fear and trembling, before god will raise in thee the good spirit of christian hope. 55. for to say the truth of all divine graces, hope is incomparably the hardest to attain unto: and the reason is evident, because it pre-supposes the possession of all other graces before it. and yet for all this, nothing counted so easy, now a days, as hope, though men both are and resolve to be never so wicked: nay, and it is well if hope will serve their turn, they must have an infallible assurance, a divine faith of everlasting glory; and no manner of sins, though never so heinous, never so oft committed, shall be able to weaken this their assurance, that they are resolved of. this they think is a spell strong enough for the devil in all assails; when god knows, the devil is more joyed and comforted, to see them so vainly delude themselves, than they themselves possibly can be. this for my first assertion; now follows the second. 56. when i say, assert. 2. that the interest which a christian ordinarily has in the promises of god, is hope; i mean, it is not absolute and irrespective, but depending upon conditions, namely, grace, and perseverance therein. and this i took for granted, for i never heard of any yet, that denied perseverance to be necessary to salvation. if then his interest be by hope, than it is not yet by faith, properly so called; for it is not possible, that the same object (considered with the same circumstances at the same time) should be the object both of faith and hope. for example: i believe by a divine faith, i. e. a faith grounded upon god's word, that there shall be a resurrection of the flesh, even of this flesh of mine; and i believe it firmly, because god hath said that he will bring it to pass; neither is there any condition of mine pre-required to the performance of this promise of god; for howsoever i behave myself here in this world, whether well or ill, it matters not, my behaviour cannot make god alter his resolution. now, if i assuredly believe this, it would be improper and absurd, for me to say, i hope there will be a resurrection of my body; for when i say, i hope any thing, i imply a possibility, in nature, that such a thing may not be, which in this case i cannot do without infidelity. 57 but, on the other side, i hope that god will raise this flesh of mine unto glory, and i hope this upon safe grounds: therefore, if it be true that i hope it, i cannot properly be said to believe it, because my salvation yet depends upon conditions; namely, perseverance. therefore let me propose this one question to any man's conscience: hast thou such an assurance of salvation given thee of god, that hope is quite evacuated in thee: is there no such virtue left in thee as hope? surely god hath dealt extraordinarily mercifully with thee; thou art many degrees gone beyond the state of those believers which s. paul speaks of, and includes himself in the number, when he saith, we live by hope: for thou dost not live by hope, thou art exalted above it. notwithstanding, i beseech you, consider well upon the matter, (for it concerns you very much) be not too hasty to credit fancies, when conceits of assurance or impeccability shall be suggested to your minds. there may be great danger of a confidence ungrounded; a confidence only taken upon trust, from other men's words or opinions. 58. do i go about (now think you) to bereave you, or cousin you of any spiritual comfort in this life? do i envy any of you your assurance? alas, why should i deal so with you? for i was never injured by you; or, if i were, surely, of all places, i would not make choice of this to execute my revenge in. or if i thought that such an assurance were ordinarily to be had, at least necessary, to the making up of a justifying faith, (and have you never heard it said so?) would i not (think you) strive and endeavour to obtain it at any rate, even with the loss of all worldly comforts? yes certainly, i would count them all but as dross and dung in comparison of it: but i confess unto you i am yet contented with enjoying heaven by hope: and i bless almighty god, that he has dealt so graciously with me, that i should dare to hope for it, and not be shamed and confounded by my hope. and if there be any amongst you, that will vouchsafe to content himself with such a neglected degree of comfort, with only hope, and no more, i will not enter into comparison with those that are perfect; but i dare promise him, that all those troublesome pleasures, which do so ravish the men of this world, shall be as nothing; yea, as afflictions and torments, in comparison of those spiritual heavenly joys, which hope, well and legally achieved, will be able to afford us: no dangers will there be of terrors or jealousies, as if god would happen to grow weary, or repent himself of any grace or blessing which he hath bestowed upon us. 59 for, tell me; do you think that adam, while he continued in his innocency, had any grudge of suspicions or fears? was he not, during that time, in as great a quiet and serenity of mind, as any of us dare hope for? and yet the most that he could do then, was to hope that he might continue in that state even to the end: the event shows, he could not have an infallible faith of his perseverance. if then such a contented settled mind could accompany adam in paradise, even when he knew it was in his power, with but reaching out his hand, and tasting an apple; yea, with a sudden wicked word, or an unsanctified thought, utterly, and irrecoverably to degrade himself from that happy estate; surely, we christians have much more reason to rejoice in our hope, since we know assuredly, that as god has been so gracious to begin this good work in us, so he will not be wanting to perfect it even to the end, if we will but perform our parts, which he has already given us more than sufficient grace to do, and will never fail to supply us with more, for the ask: nay, more, which are surer grounds to build upon than ever adam had; since we know, that not one, nor ten, nor a hundred sins, shall be able so irreparably to cast us out of god's favour, but that he will be willing upon our repentance, especially calling to mind his old mercies, to restore us again to our lost happiness. 60. neither are we utterly excluded from all assurance; for there is a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a full assurance of hope, saith s. paul, heb. 6.11. ibid. 9 heb. 6.11. this hope we have as a sure anchor of the soul fastened on a rock: the rock cannot fail us, the anchor will not; all the danger is in the cable or chain of spiritual graces, whereby we are fastened to this rock: if this chain but hold, no tempest, no winds, no floods can endanger us. and part of our hope respects this chain; for god has promised his willingness and readiness to strengthen it every day more and more, till our state shall be so changed, that there shall be no such things as tempests known, no toss of waves, no tumults of winds, nor fear of leaking or decay in the vessel, but all calmness and security. and for the attaining to this happy unchangeable estate, where is it that we place our hope? truly our hope is even in thee, o god; who, if thou shalt think it convenient or necessary for us, wilt enlarge this our hope into confidence, and add, unto that, assurance, and swallow up all in possession: and that not for any merits of ours, but only for thy free undeserved mercies in our blessed saviour jesus christ, in whom alone thou art well pleased; to whom, with thee o father, and the blessed spirit, be ascribed by us, and thy whole church, the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever and ever, amen. the ninth sermon. 1 cor. x. 13. — god is faithful who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able.— whatever punishments befell the disobedient israelites, who murmured and tempted god in the wilderness, vers. 6. vers. 11. they all happened unto them (saith st. paul) for ensamples to us, and are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come. this privilege we may have beyond our forefathers, that we may present before our eyes a larger series and history of god's providence, even since the foundation of the world: we may take a view and prospect of his constant unaltered course of revenging himself upon sin, in whatsoever persons he finds it; and we ought from thence to collect, that whatsoever immunities and privileges we may conceive to ourselves, whatsoever comfortable errors we may take up upon trust, yet that god will (not for our sakes) begin a new frame of policy in the administration of the world; but that we also, unless we break off our sins by repentance, and conversion unto god, we, i say, after the example of these murmuring israelites, as those upon whom the tower of siloe fell, as those fourteen, whose blood pilate mingled with the sacrifices, that we also unless we repent, shall all likewise perish. nay certainly, we (upon whom the ends of the world are come) shall be much more culpable, our punishment and stripes shall be more in number and weightier, if we (notwithstanding that larger experience which we may have of god's unpartial dealing with sinners) shall yet promise to ourselves impunity, if we shall say, we shall have peace, though we walk in the imaginations of our hearts. 2. the same collection we may proportionably make to our own benefit and advantage, from god's gracious dealing and behaviour to any of his beloved faithful servants, we may appropriate to ourselves, all those blessings and promises which have been afforded unto them, if our consciences can assure us, that we do obey god's commandments in the truth and sincerity of our hearts. now for warrant to this kind of collection, instead of several examples in holy scripture, i will only make use of one taken out of (i think) this our apostle, heb. 13.5. where he saith, let your conversation be without covetousness, and be content with such things as you have; for god hath said, i will never leave thee, nor forsake thee. which words by him quoted, as the margins of our bible's will direct us, are to be found josh. 1.5. which, josh. 1.5. though they be a particular promise which god immediately made to joshua, thereby to encourage him after the death of moses, to take upon him the conducting of the jews into the land of promise, assuring unto him a continuation of his extraordinary assistance in the enterprise: yet notwithstanding, st. paul, we see (as if god had proclaimed this promise to the whole world) applies these words to all the faithful among the hebrews, and by the same proportion to all christians likewise. 3. upon which grounds i may as reasonably direct the words of this verse, out of which my text is taken, to you that now hear me, as the apostle does to the corinthians, and say, there hath no temptation taken you, but such as is common to man: for certainly, we will not imagine, that the church or city of corinth had any such extraordinary immunity or charter granted them, whereby they should be exempted from the danger of temptations above all the christian world besides. therefore let your memories recollect and examine the time passed of your lives, and tell me, did there ever any temptation take hold of you, or assault you so powerful and , that there was no way left for you but to be overcome by it? (take temptation now in what sense you please, either for a misfortune and affliction, or else for a suggestion to sin.) was there ever any calamity, any loss, any pain, any sickness, so violent and impetuous, but that still you might perceive yourselves notwithstanding (though perhaps in your outward man unequally matched by it) yet in your spirits and minds strong enough to conquer the malice thereof, and to convert it into wholesome physic? again, was there ever any sinful temptation so strongly urged upon you, but that you might by the assistance of that grace which god had already given you, or at the least, for the ask, would have superadded, you might easily have dulled and diverted the force thereof? did not your consciences, even after you were overcome by such a temptation, tell you, that it was mere voluntary cowardice in you, to suffer yourselves to be overcome by it, that you willingly surrendered and betrayed those forces which already god had given you? 4. now, though i am persuaded this be so evidently true, that there is scarce any one here but his conscience will assure him as much; yet, for all this, we must not begin hereupon to fancy in our minds any extraordinary worth or dignity in ourselves, as though by our own power or holiness we could work such wonders. no alas, nothing less: for take away the assistance and guard of our auxiliary forces, god's free and undeserved graces within us, and his divine assistance, together with the guard of his blessed angels without us, and there is no temptation so weak and despicable, which we should not suddenly yield unto; nay, we should need no outward tempter's to help us to sin, our own wicked hearts would save the devil that labour; for nothing is there so vile and abominable, whereunto without god's restraining grace we should not readily and impetuously hasten unto. 5. therefore let us neither defraud god nor ourselves of their deuce: but as we have spoken of the time past, so likewise of that which follows, if hereafter we shall overcome any temptation (as certainly, by god's help, if we have but a mind to it, we may) let us bless almighty god for assisting us so far, let us give the glory and trophies of the conquest to him: but on the contrary side, if we shall neglect to make use and advantage of those many helps against sin, which almighty god is ready to supply unto us: if notwithstanding those many promises of assistance so frequently set down in holy scripture; if notwithstanding those many secret whisper and inspirations of his holy spirit in our souls: if notwithstanding god's voice, which (as every day's experience can witness unto us) continually calls upon us, saying, this is the right way, walk in it, and ye shall find rest to your souls; we will yet continue to extinguish those good motions, to deafen and drown god's voice, and be ready to hearken unto, and obey our own filthy lusts and vile affections: let us lay the fault where it is due, even upon our own deceitful wicked hearts; or otherwise, the time will come when in hell we shall be evidently convinced thereof, when the worm of conscience which never dyeth shall continually torment and gnaw us. let god be true and faithful in his promises, and every man a lyar. for, as hitherto god has been so merciful to you to preserve you, that no temptation should take you, but such as is common to man; so likewise for the time following, though perhaps greater trials may befall you, than hitherto you have had experience of, yet of this you may be confident, that howsoever they may seem grievous; yet the same god continues faithful and righteous to fulfil his promises, he will never suffer you to be tempted above that you are able. 6. temptation is 〈◊〉 thing of its own nature indifferent, and is rendered good or evil, from the end and intention of the tempter especially: it is nothing else but making a trial or experiment. if good; and assay, whether that good which seems to be in a subject be true and firmly grounded, or no: so god may be said to tempt, as he did abraham, etc. and this he performs not to satisfy his curiosity, but merely out of a good inclination to the party; both thereby to confirm his graces in him, and to reward them with a greater measure of glory. if evil; temptation is an assay, whether that good which seems to be in a man, may not by some means or other be extinguished, and so the person destroyed, so the devil is most properly called the tempter: and of this nature are the temptations of my text: now these we find in holy scripture to be twofold: for either they are apt to draw us from good by way of discouragement; so all manner of afflictions, misfortunes, persecutions, etc. are called temptations, because by these a man is inclinable to be frighted from, or at last discountenanced in a holy conversation: or else they allure us by way of invitation or solicitation to evil; so wicked pleasing suggestions are said to be temptations, because these are fit to palliate the unloveliness and deformity of sin, and thereby to make it desirable unto us. it would be but loss of time to heap together examples of holy scripture to make good this distinction; since it is an argument which you daily meet withal discoursed of in sermons. 7. but, i confess, i find it something difficult to determine, whether of these two senses, with exclusion of the other be intended by st. paul, in my text, whether, when he says, god will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able, his meaning should be, god by his wisdom and providence, will so contrive businesses for you, that, though you are not likely to live in a contival uninterrupted course of happiness and security, but that sometimes you shall dash your foot against a stone, you shall be disquieted and molested with afflictions of several natures; notwithstanding, this you may be confident of, that let what misfortue will, come, how grievous and even insupportable soever it may seem unto you, it shall never be so violent and outrageous, but that god will provide a way for you to escape from it, there will be a door left open for you to avoid the furiousness and impetuousness of it; either god will arm you with patience to bear it, and then the comfort which your souls may feel, in the consideration of what glorious rewards are promised unto your patience, shall make your afflictions even matters of rejoicing unto you; in which respect, (as st. james saith) you ought to count it all joy, when you fall into divers temptations, or, if those temptations and afflictions reach so far as to the destroying of your lives, yet notwithstanding all this, they are so unable to make you miserable, unless you will take part with them against your own souls, by repining and murmuring under the mighty hand of god, that when you shall consider that blessed change which death shall bring unto you, when all tears shall be wiped from your eyes, all fear and expectation of misery removed, nothing but inexpressable and everlasting joys to be expected, you shall bless the time that ever you were afflicted, and with st. paul confess, that the afflictions of this life are worthy of that joy which shall be revealed. this, i say, is a good catholic, orthodox sense, and which it is very probable, that st. paul might more directly intent in these words of my text. 8. notwithstanding i cannot exclude the other sense of the word temptation from this text; for according to the analogy of faith, and without any wrong done to the dependence and connexion of these words (god will not suffer you to be tempted, etc.) st. paul's intent in them might be such; as if it had been thus spread out more at large, though considering the many disadvantages we have in the way of godliness, in respect both of our powerful, malitions, industrious, and subtle enemy the devil, who continually waits upon us to entrap us; in respect of our seeming flattering friend, the world and vanities thereof alluring us; but especially in respect of our own wicked and deceitful hearts, forward and desirous enough to embrace the wicked suggestions and temptations of both, nay, sufficient to destroy us without the assistance of either: i say, that though (these things considered) we may seem to be set (in the expression of the holy ghost) upon slippery places, where it is almost impossible for us to keep our footing, and to preserve ourselves from falling dangerously, and dashing ourselves in pieces. 9 notwithstanding, if our eyes were opened, as were the eyes of the prophet elisha's servant, we should find as well as he, that they that be with us, are more than they that be against us: for god and his holy angels, who are on our side, are both wiser and stronger than the devil, and more willing to do us good, than the other can be to hurt us: besides, the expectation of those gloriousrewards, which are laid up in heaven for us, are sufficient, even to any reasonable man, to dis-relish unto him the vain unsatisfying pleasures of this world: and though our own hearts naturally be never so traitorous and unfaithful, yet by the power of that grace which is plentifully showered down upon every one of us in our baptism, and which is daily increased and supplied unto us, they may easily be corrected and renewed. so, that if the suggestion of any wicked temptation get the mastery over us, let us not impute too much to the valour and strength of our enemies; let us not accuse god of any unwillingness to secure us; for never any temptation hath or ever shall happen unto us, but such as is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, suitable unto the nature of man, such as a reasonable, considerate, and a circumspect man, by the ordinary assistance of god's grace, and careful application of those means wherewith we are abundantly furnished out of holy scripture, as prayer, watchfulness, fasting, and the like, may easily conquer and subdue. 10. this sense of these words may with as good reason and probability be supposed to be intended by st. paul in this place as the former: and indeed, unless we enlarge st. paul's words to this meaning also, we shall receive no extraordinary comfort and encouragement from them: for, though indeed, it is true, that it is more than we can deserve at god's hands to obtain a promise from him, to secure us, that no temptations, no outward afflictions of this world, shall be so violent and furious upon us, as to exceed the strength of reason and grace to withstand them; yet, since sin is that only enemy which is able to withdraw god's favour from us, and make him our enemy, unless we can be put in some hope, that there is a possible course for us to prevail against sin also, and all the dangerous temptations and suggestions thereof, we should live but an uncomfortable discontented life, we should be continually affrighted with sad melancholic thoughts, with disquieting jealousies and fears, that however we may now and then please ourselves with conceits of god's favour for the present, yet, since he has passed no promise of securing us for the future, it may happen, that such a sinful temptation may come upon us, which may be able, do what we can, to over-whelm us irrecoverably. therefore since this latter sense (which i mentioned of these words) is more profitable and advantageous to us, i will especially at this time insist upon it, and labour to demonstrate undeniably to every one of us, that god is faithful, and will assuredly make good that promise which he hath made unto us all, namely, not to suffer us to be tempted, that is, by any sinful temptation, above that we are able. 11. now, he is said to be tempted above that he is able, who, do what he can, though he strain his natural endowments to the uttermost, and though he endeavour hearty, to make use of all the outward helps and assistances which he finds prescribed unto him out of god's word, though he extend that measure of grace wherewith he is furnished to the extremest activity thereof to resist such a temptation; yet, in the end is forced to yield to the power of it, utterly fainting and languishing in the combat. so, on the contrary, that man who being completely furnished with all requisite weapons both for his own defence, and encountering his adversary, and besides, having in him both ability of body, and courage enough, and yet out of a sleepy negligence, or obstinate sullenness, will not take the pains to lift up his arm, or otherways bestir himself to oppose his enemy, such a man, if overcome, can in no reason be said to be overmatched, but is a mere traitor to his own safety and reputation. 12. and indeed, before i can proceed any further, i must either take this for granted, that some men though (de facto) they have been overcome by a temptation, yet might have resisted it by the assistance of that grace wherewith they were enabled, or truly, i know not what to say: for, if this be a good inference, a man is overcome by a temptation, therefore he could not possibly have resisted, adam, for all he was seduced by the devil, is not so culpable as i took him to be. how can i charge such a man for not doing his duty? how can i convince his conscience, that it was his own fault and negligence, that he did not that which he ought and might have done? is there no man then to be found, that could possibly have done no more good than actually he has done? does every man improve that talon of grace which god has given him to the uttermost of his power and skill? or will any of you, when you confess your sins unto almighty god, tell him to this purpose, lord, i confess, i do daily fall into many and grievous sins. but, since they are gone and passed, i perceive there was no remedy for it, it could not be avoided, those sins must needs have been practised by me, i did whatsoever i was enabled to do; if i had had more strength, i had done better; when thou bestowest on me more talents of grace, i shall be a more profitable servant, and yield thee a greater interest and advantage by them. if any of you entertain such conceits as these, i confess, you are a great deal more righteous than i thought you had been. 13. for mine own part, i confess with grief and shame, and self-condemnation, that i have offended almighty god in many respects, when i might have done otherwise. i have not only hid my talon in a napkin, i have not only not improved that stock of grace which god gave me; but, on the contrary, notwithstanding that, i have been very laborious and abounding in the unfruitful works of darkness. i have wilfully grieved the holy spirit of god, and many times quenched his good motions in me. yea, so voluntarily and resolvedly have i done all these sins, that i am persuaded i could easily have chosen, whether i would have committed them or no; no necessity at all lay upon me to compel me thereunto, god was faithful and righteous in his promises and deal with me, and my own wicked heart deceived me. and, i think, all of you have been guilty in some measure of betraying and surrendering the abilities which god has bestowed on you, though i dare not charge you so deeply as myself. 14. now that we have heard, who may be said to be able to resist a temptation or not: for my more distinct proceeding in the confirmation of st. paul's proposition in my text, i will take our saviour's counsel, i will sit down and examine, whether he that hath but ten thousand, be able to meet with him which cometh against him with twenty thousand. here are two enemy's camps, and no doubt great forces on both sides: but without question, disproportionable: it concerns me therefore now, by taking a survey and muster of each, to demonstrate, that in all respects the advantage lies on our side. i mentioned before, briefly, that we had three especial enemies to deal with, the devil, the world, and the flesh: we will proceed in this order against them, in the first place examining the devil's power, and the forces we have to oppose against him. 15. there are many terrible names, i confess, by which the devil is described in holy writ, he is called abaddon, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the destroyer, as one whose employment it were to counter-work against god; who calls himself the saviour and preserver of all men; he is called a ramping and a roaring lion, that runs about seeking whom he may devour; he is called the great dragon, the old serpent, the devil, and satan, apocal. 12.9. which deceiveth the whole world. (all this in one verse.) he is called the red fiery dragon. there are extant a great many more hideous pictures of him in god's word: but these will serve our turn sufficiently, to show how dangerous an enemy we have, and therefore how great aught to be our resolution and wisdom in encountering with him: and lest we should think, that since he is named in the forecited places in the singular number, that therefore there is but one lion, and but one fiery dragon to deal with all mankind, and thereupon begin to be a little more secure; since we should have hard fortune, if it should light upon us to be singled out by him, out of so infinite a crowd as the world is. no, god knows, it is so far from that, that there is an unutterable number of them, such an infinite vast army, that one whole legion (which are near about 4000) were at leisure to possess one man; and st. paul tells us, we wrestle not against flesh and blood, as if he should say; ephes. 6.12. these worldly enemies are so weak and despicable, in comparison of those we are to meet withal, that they are not to be reckoned of: but, says he, we wrestle against principalities and powers, (there are, it seems, many principalities and powers) against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickednesses in high places, (the word is) in heavenly places. 16. now, what have we to oppose against such an innumerable multitude of spirits, whereof each particular for his excessive strength is called a lion; for his fierceness, a dragon; for his poisonous malice, a red dragon; for the extreme intenseness of that poisonous malice, a red fiery dragon; and for his wisdom and cunning to make use of this strength, fierceness, and malice, he is called the old serpent; one that has been a serpent continually spitting out his poison against us, within very few days since any creature was; and therefore, if at the first, by his own natural wit, he was able, upon even terms, to overcome adam, then innocent, and therefore not apt to betray himself, as we are, what may we conceive of him now after above 5000 years' experience: i say, what shall we who are ready to fall into a sound, if we see but an apparition of one of them, though he do us no harm, how are we likely, think you, to behave ourselves in combat against so many thousands of them? 17. why truly, god be thanked, notwithstanding all this, we may do well enough. for we have spiritual armies on our side too, that are able to contend with all these, and overcome them in all these advantages which they have against us. are they many? michael and his angels are more certainly; which to me is evident by that saying in daniel, dan. 7.10. where it is made an expression of god's glory and majesty; his innumerable multitude of attendants, the words are, thousand thousands minister unto him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stand before him; which surely, god would not have made choice of as fit language to express his power and glory, if the devil had been able to contend with god, i, and outvie him too in this article: again, are they strong? these sure are stronger: for we read of one that slew an hundred fourscore and five thousand soldiers in one night: we never heard of such an exploit of the devils. are they malicious against us? these are more loving and careful to do us good. and certainly, as god is stronger than the devil, so likewise excessive goodness in the angels will easily prevail against extreme malice in the devil. now, it is the nature of love, to be willing to take any pains for the good of the person beloved: whereupon st. paul, in that most divine description of the three cardinal christian virtues, 1 thess. 1.3. thus expresseth them: remembering your work of faith, and labour of love, and patience of hope in our lord jesus christ. i confess, it is the nature of malice too to be very laborious and observant of all advantages against the subject hated: but this must needs be granted, that love will conquer malice in the same degree. 18. thus, you see, we are reasonably well befriended and backed by these our auxiliary forces of our guardian angels, so, that we need not be disheartened, if we had no more: but beyond all these, we have almighty god to our friend, whose power is so unlimited, that without any straining of himself, without the bending of his bow, and drawing his sword, only with unclasping his hand, substractione manutenentiae, with mere letting hold go, all creatures in heaven and earth, would return to nothing. psal. 84.11. he is in the language of the psalmist, a sun and a shield, that is, in the phrase of another psalm, a light and defence; a sun to discover unto us the secret ambushes and practices of our enemies, and a shield to protect us from their open force and violence. 19 i (will some man say) there is no man can make any question of god's power; obj. but the difficulty is, how we should be sure of his good will; if that were but once procured, the battle were as good as at an end: why, sol. for that we must have recourse to god's word, there it is that we must find upon what terms businesses stand between him and us. and there certainly, we shall find words, which at the first sight to any ordinary reasonable man would seem to make much for us: there are invitations to a league with him: desires and requests as passionate as (i think) ever poet strained for: there are promises which look as if they were serious and unfeigned, they are confirmed with vows and solemn oaths of sincerity, and all these seemingly directed to every one of us. what can we desire any more, especially from almighty god, who stands in no need of our favour, and therefore is not likely to bespeak our good opinions of him with dissembling and lies. 20. oh, obj. but it is the easiest matter in the world for a man with a school-subtilty, by an almighty distinction to cut off any man's right of entail to those promises; to appropriate them only to our own friends, to some two or three that he is pleased to favour: sol. i would to god, that men would but consider what end, what project, almighty god should have in making his poor creatures believe he means well to them, when there is no such matter: would any of you, saith our saviour, when his son shall ask him bread, give him a stone; or instead of a fish to nourish him, a serpent to destroy him? if then you (which are evil) know how to give good gifts,; if you would not have the heart to mock poor children after this manner; how much rather would not god? for god's sake therefore let there be but as much sincerity, as much good nature in almighty god (i will not say as in yourselves, for it may be that would be too much for you to grant, but) as our saviour confesseth, that there were in the jews that crucified him; and then we all of us have right enough to his promises; we shall have no reason to doubt of his good intention to help and assist us so far, that unless we delight in destruction, unless we will turn sugitives, unless we will fight on our enemy's side; all the devils in hell shall not be able to prevail against us. and thus much of the first squadrons, michael and his angels opposed to the devil and his angels. 21. the second enemy which we professed hostility against in our baptism, was the vain temptations of this world: and so forcible and prevailing are the temptations thereof; that the devil (who for his powerful managing of this weapon is called the god of this world) in his encounter with our saviour, set up his rest upon it, as supposing if this would not serve his turn, there were no more fight for him; all this will i give thee, said he. and such a value he set upon this stake, that no less than the extremest degree of horrible idolatry could serve his turn to oppose against it; all this will i give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me. and when he saw that this proffer would not be accepted, he presently quits the field, despairing utterly of any success. the more dangerous indeed is this enemy, i may say, more dangerous to us than the devil himself; because we all acknowledge the devil in person to be our enemy; and therefore not one of us will be beholding to him for any thing, if he bring us the gift himself; a sick man would not be healed by him, nor a poor man made rich, but scarce one among a thousand has that opinion of the vain pomps and sinful pleasures of the world. our enemy! no certainly, it is the best and most comforting friend we have in this life; all our thoughts are taken up with it, it possesseth us at all times, we dream of it sleeping, and pursue it waking; and yet our saviour saith, ye cannot serve god and mammon. and again, how can ye believe, who seek honour one of another: and again, if any man love the world, the love of the father is not in him. what strength then have we to oppose this enemy? 22. why, surely that which would suffice but an ordinary, reasonable man, and might serve any of us, but that we will needs be unreasonable only in things which concern our everlasting welfare: and that is the consideration of those unspeakable joys which shall attend those who can despise the unsatisfying vain pleasures of this life. a philosopher, which but reading plato's poetical description of the serenity of that life, which a virtuous soul (delivered from the prison of the body) lives, was so far transported with the conceit of it, though for aught he knew, there was no such thing indeed; or if there were, perhaps never intended for him, that he becomes presently weary of this prison, and by a violent death frees himself from it; and god only knows what a change he found. whereas we have god's word for the certainty of that glorious life which his servants shall live; yea, a great deal of pains he hath taken, to make it desirable and amiable unto us, by ransacking all the treasures of this world, the most costly jewels, the most precious metals, to embellish the description thereof with all. we have besides the experience of several men, who have seen and tasted as much of that glory, as a mortal creature is capable of; s. paul, and s. john the divine. surely, the consideration hereof might serve our turn, if not quite to disrelish unto us, and even to make us hate the vain pleasures of this world, yet, at least, not to prefer them when they come in competition with the other: and i would to god we would suffer them but so far to prevail upon us. but i cannot stay. 23. i have ranked the three armies of our enemies just after the roman fashion, reserving the triaries, the old experienced soldiers to the last. for though in show, the first rank of the devils appear most terrible; yet in very deed, all their power is nothing, unless the lusts of our hearts take part with them, and give them advantage against us. the lusts of the flesh, are those traitors which continually keep us company, we cannot be quit of them; without the devil's assistance, they are able to captive us; what, think you, then are they able to do, being managed by so powerful, so wise an enemy? without them, all the power of hell and darkness are insufficient to withdraw us from our obedience, and, by consequence, from the love and favour of god. for, suppose the devil (for example) present a lustful object to our fancy, as it were holding a lascivious picture before our eyes; if we consent not in our minds, to any base delight in such a spectacle; if we settle not our thoughts upon it, as upon a pleasing sight; it will be so far from doing us any harm, that it will rather prove a means to root us more deeply in the favour of god, as persons unwilling to take pay of his and our enemies. 24. but alas, as we are ordinarily so far from this nobleness of mind, from this bravery of a christianlike spirit; that, as if the devil were too slow to object such temptations to us, we will not await his leisure; but on all occasions be ready and desirous to raise up, and then settle such unworthy thoughts in our minds; we will be content to spend many hours sometimes in the acting of this inward contemplative adultery. s. paul, speaking of those lusts of our flesh, calls them our members, when he saith, col. 3.5. mortify your members which are on earth; fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, etc. and indeed we, by our practice, make good the apostles expression; for we account ourselves as same unperfect creatures without them; we know not what to do with ourselves, especially when we are alone, unless we set ourselves on work this way, by acting to ourselves such filthy sins, which perhaps natural bashfulness, want of money or opportunity, will not suffer us to put in practice. what strength have we now to oppose to these most pernicious enemies, which are so closely cemented, and even incorporated within us, that they are become as it were flesh of our flesh, and bones of our bones? 25. why surely, as naturally we have received this root of bitterness in our hearts, which is apt to give an infection's tincture to all the thoughts and actions issuing from thence. so likewise it hath pleased almighty god to imprint a new principle in our minds, to plant as it were a new spirit in our souls; i mean, that active powerful grace, which without any co-operation of our own, he infuses into us especially, in our baptism; and which is afterward, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, strengthened and enlivened daily, by a constant frequent exercising ourselves in the use of those manifold blessed means of our salvation, the hearing, reading, and meditating on his holy word, and participation of his heavenly mysteries. for surely, if reason alone (by the help of those worthy grave precepts which are extant in the treatises of moral philosophy) hath been able to change many men from the habitual practice of several vices to a virtuous (i had like to have said also a religious) life; why should any man think so meanly of god's holy word and sacraments, as to doubt, but that much rather they should be able to make us new creatures, to make us wise unto salvation, especially considering that continual assistance of god's holy spirit which infallibly attends the use and exercise of those his blessed means. do you think god is so favourable to the devil or his instruments, (our lusts) that he is unwilling to have them subdued and mortified in us? and, if he be not unwilling, surely much less is he unable to perform this great work in us, even to the end. 26. therefore, as before, speaking of those outward forces, god and his holy angels, which are ready to take our parts, and fight on our sides against the devil, and his angels, we applied that saying of elisha to his servant, if thine eyes were opened, thou shouldest perceive, that they which are with us, are more than they which are against us. so likewise in the case in hand, we may make use of that saying of s. john, greater is he which is in you, than he which is in the world: implying, 1 joh. 4.4. that god is not only in himself stronger than the devil, but also as considered in us, i e. as working in our hearts by his grace; this way, i say, he is stronger than the devil; his spirit co-operating with the means of our salvation, is more vigorous and powerfuul to revew us unto the image of his holiness; if we will but do that which lies in our own power, than the devil (though taking his advantage of that concupiscence, which in some measure is continually resident in us) is or can be to corrupt, and so to destroy us. for his power is not considerable, unless we be willing to join with him. thus you see, though our enemies be allowed all the advantages, they can challenge, yet in exact esteem, without any flattering of ourselves, we may conclude, that they who are ready, and desirous to join forces with us, are greater, in all respects, than they which are against us. 27. but yet for all this, since the conducting and managing of those forces, is left to our discretion; for god will not fight single against the devil in our behalf, unless we lend him our aid and assistance: and therefore, curse ye meroz, saith the angel of the lord (in the victorious song of deborah) curse bitterly the inhabitants thereof. and why must poor meroz be so bitterly cursed? because they came not to the help of the lord, to the help of the lord against the mighty. hereupon it may seem, that almighty god will not put to his strength in our defence, unless we join with him; he will not be our champion to fight, whilst we sit still, only spectators of the combat. and therefore this consideration alone may be sufficient to abate that confidence, which the foregoing discourse, might be apt to raise in us, especially if we be not utter strangers to ourselves, if we be not ignorant of our own weakness. 28. for satisfaction therefore to this discouragement, i will now endeavour to demonstrate by proofs drawn from undeniable reason, and experience, that there is no sinful temptation so strong, but that an ordinary christian may (by the assistance before mentioned) easily conquer it. and lest my proceeding herein may lie open to any manner of exception; let me choose from among you the weakest, most unexperienced christian, i dare oppose this man against the sharpest and most furious temptation; and will make him confess, that though he be (de facto) subdued by it, yet that that came to pass merely by his own voluntary and affected unwatchfulness and cowardice, and that it was truly in very deed, in his power to have resisted it. i will make choice to instance in the sin of uncleanness and fornication; a sin, that generally finds such excuse and patronage in the world; because it is supposed to be so naturally born and bred up with us, that there is no shaking it off; it is a sin so resolved upon to be unconquerable, that few men go about to restrain it. the ancient antidotes against this sin, watching and fasting, are grown out of use with us, we conclude they will do us little good against this hereditary evil, and therefore the best is to give them clean over. 29. yet i say, let me suppose an ordinary christian, environed with all the strongest temptations to this so natural, and therefore concluded so excusable a sin; let him have the most charming beauty, that has the most artificial ways of solicitation, together with opportunity, and all circumstances which are not fit to be supposed here; yet for all this, if that man should say he is not able to resist such a tempration, he lies against his own soul: for if at that instant, a sudden message should interrupt him, a threatening of death, if he did not free himself from the danger of her filthy embraces, would he not do it? i desire only that each one of you in his heart would answer for him. then it is clear, he is able to resist this pretended temptation: and why should not the consideration of the danger of eternal torments be as persuasive against any sin, as the fear of a momentany death? but i will not make my advantage of so frightful an enemy to his pleasure, as death. suppose in all those circumstances before mentioned, a good sum of money were but offered him, upon condition he would abstain but that time from the execution of his filthy lust: i doubt not at all, but that upon these terms he would find strength enough to conquer this temptation. shall satan then be able to cast out satan, and shall not god much more do it? shall one sin be able to destroy the exercise of another, and shall not grace much rather? 30. besides, if we believe that generally it is not in our power to resist, any of these temptations; how dare you who are fathers, suffer your daughters after they are come to years, to live unmarried▪ how dare you expose their souls to such dangers, unless you think, that ordinarily any man or woman is able to resist the temptations of the flesh? how dare you who are menchants, for the hope of a llittle gain, live in foreign countries' as if you were divorced from your wives; if you religiously think, that were it not for the benefit of marriage, they could not ordinarily be honest? 31. lastly, you may remember that our saviour (in his descriptions of hell) seldom leaves out this phrase, where the worm dieth not: which worm is general by interpreters moralised into the sting of conscience, i.e. a continual vexation of soul in the reprobates, caused by the consideration, how it was merely their own fault, their wilful folly, which brought them to that misery. now this worm would die, and be quite extinguished in them, if they were of some men's opinions; that the reason why they sinned, was not because they would sin, but because they could not choose but do it, because they wanted power to resist all the temptations which were objected to them. such a conceit may serve indeed to vex them, but it is in 〈◊〉 possible it should trouble their conscience; for by this reason, corah, dathan, and abiram, might with as good reason be tormented in conscience for falling into hell, when the earth opened under them, as for their sin of rebellion against moses; if the reason why they committed that sin, was the subtraction of divine grace and assistance, without which it was impossible for them not to be rebels. but indeed, why should almighty god withdraw his grace from any man? because (say some) by falling, obj. they may experimentally learn their own weakness without his assistance; and so be discouraged from trusting or relying upon themselves. a strange reason no doubt: sol. for as long as they have the grace of god, they will not rely upon themselves; and when they are destitute of his grace, they cannot rely upon him: so that it seems, god takes away his grace from a man for this end, that wanting it, he may sin; and by that means, when he has got that grace again, he may perceive, that when he is destitute of god's grace, he cannot choose but sin; which was a thing which he knew at the first without all this ado. but there may be a better reason given, obj. why god should take away his grace from a man; and that is, because he negligently omits to make his best use of it, and so deserves that punishment. sol. but this reason will satisfy as little as the former: for suppose (for example) a man at this instant in the state of grace, and so in the favour of god. upon these grounds, it is impossible that this man should ever sin; for surely god will not undeservedly take away his grace from him, till he merit that punishment by his sin; and till god take away his grace from him, he cannot sin; therefore he must never sin. but this discourse, though it merely concern practice, looks so like a controversy, that i am weary of it. 32. we are apt enough to slander god with too much mercy sometimes, as if he bore us so particular an affection, that notwithstanding our never so many sins, yet he will still be merciful unto us. oh that we could conceive of his mercy and goodness aright! as rather willing to prevent our sins by giving us sufficient preservatives against the commiting them. i would to god, that in stead of making subtil-scholastical disputes of the power and efficacy of god's grace, we would magnify the force thereof, by suffering it to exercise its sway in our lives and conversation; we should then easily find, that we are able do all things through christ that strengtheneth us. erratas in the sermons pag. 4. lin. 3. for your mouth, read his mouth: p. 5. l. 15. f. studiply, r. stupidly: p. 19 l. 14. f. were, r. where: p. 2●. l. 12. f. you, every, r. you, and every: p. 43. l. 42. f. any, r. nay: p. 45. l. 43. f. counnance, r. countenance: l. 45, 46. f. words christ, r. words of christ: p. 49. l. 49. f. much, r. must: p. 58. l. 8. f. it almost, r. it is almost: p. 102. l. 41. f. behaviour this, r. behaviour in this: p. 103. l. 33. f. tha●, r. that. a table of the texts of the foregoing sermons. sermon l. on 2 tim. iii. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. this know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. for men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, without natural affection, truce-breakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of god; having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof. pag. 1. sermon iii. on psal. xiv. 1. the fool hath said in his heart, there is no god. p. 19, & 35 sermon iv on luke ix. 23.— let him deny himself. p. 49 sermon v on rom. viii. 34. who is he that condemneth? it is christ that died, yea rather that is risen again— p. 63 sermon vi on luke xvi. 9 make to yourselves friends of the mammon of unrighteousness, that when you fail, they may receive you into everlasting habitations. p. 81 sermon vii. on luke xix. 8.— and if i have defrauded any man by forged cavillation, i restore unto him four fold. p. 97 sermon viii. gal. v 5. for we through the spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by faith. p. 112 sermon ix. on 1 cor. x. 13.— god is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able— p. 137 finis.